DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.870#0023
13
the liberty of departing from nature, and creates for himself, where are the bounds to the caprice
and extravagance of his imagination? These aberrations from nature are, however, considered by
certain cognoscenti as justifiable on the principle of their constituting what is termed the beau ideal,
but this beau ideal, although a very fashionable term in modern art, is not easily to be comprehended.
It is to be presumed that, in its literal acceptation, it is intended to signify ideal beauty, and that
it originated in the notion of improving nature. That one man may possess more exalted ideas of
what is beautiful than another cannot be denied, and that a man so endowed will make a better
selection from the works of nature than another not so qualified, is also very probable; but, the
advocates of the beau ideal, not content to stop there, maintain that something superior to nature
may be conceived in the mind of the artist and from thence transmitted to the canvass or the
marble. That such an opinion has long prevailed is sufficiently evident in the composition of many
of the ancient as well as modern productions. The celebrated Apollo Belvidere may be selected as a
fair illustration. This figure exhibits great dignity in the attitude, and a fine and exalted expression
in the countenance, but, independently of those circumstances, it has but little to recommend it.
The rigid and stony character of the body and of the thighs, arising from a want of those delicate
undulations and inflexions of the surface which are necessary to give the appearance of life and
motion, renders the detail of that interesting figure greatly deficient in truth and nature. This
departure from the principles of nature has been attempted to be justified on the plea that, as the
figure was intended to represent a God, it was not only unnecessary but also inconsistent to adhere
strictly to the particularities of humanity. But if the artist thought proper to imbody his Deity with
the form and attributes of man, where is the pretence for neglecting to preserve the semblance in all
the liberty of departing from nature, and creates for himself, where are the bounds to the caprice
and extravagance of his imagination? These aberrations from nature are, however, considered by
certain cognoscenti as justifiable on the principle of their constituting what is termed the beau ideal,
but this beau ideal, although a very fashionable term in modern art, is not easily to be comprehended.
It is to be presumed that, in its literal acceptation, it is intended to signify ideal beauty, and that
it originated in the notion of improving nature. That one man may possess more exalted ideas of
what is beautiful than another cannot be denied, and that a man so endowed will make a better
selection from the works of nature than another not so qualified, is also very probable; but, the
advocates of the beau ideal, not content to stop there, maintain that something superior to nature
may be conceived in the mind of the artist and from thence transmitted to the canvass or the
marble. That such an opinion has long prevailed is sufficiently evident in the composition of many
of the ancient as well as modern productions. The celebrated Apollo Belvidere may be selected as a
fair illustration. This figure exhibits great dignity in the attitude, and a fine and exalted expression
in the countenance, but, independently of those circumstances, it has but little to recommend it.
The rigid and stony character of the body and of the thighs, arising from a want of those delicate
undulations and inflexions of the surface which are necessary to give the appearance of life and
motion, renders the detail of that interesting figure greatly deficient in truth and nature. This
departure from the principles of nature has been attempted to be justified on the plea that, as the
figure was intended to represent a God, it was not only unnecessary but also inconsistent to adhere
strictly to the particularities of humanity. But if the artist thought proper to imbody his Deity with
the form and attributes of man, where is the pretence for neglecting to preserve the semblance in all