DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.61022#0199
ROMAN MADONNAS
possession of Mr. Newton Robinson (Plate cxxxi.), in which the
arrangement of Madonna and Child is obviously derived from
the same drawing. The picture shows, apart from inferiorities in
execution which are caused or hidden by restoration, a certain
cleverness of arrangement and an interest in the painting of
metal work and artificial light which is no novelty in Raphael’s
work, but its chief feature is the introduction of meaningless
details which follow necessarily upon the merely mechanical
process of its origin. As the Madonna is brought from left to right
and the motive of her action is dispensed with, her arm becomes
entirely supererogatory. It rests without purpose, with violence
even to Nature, upon the Infant, instead of being, as in the original
picture, the essential feature of her action. Similarly one of the
Infant’s hands becomes otiose and has to be hidden away. Nothing
could show better than this contrast, the difference between signifi-
cant composition and meaningless disposition, and the existence of
these two variants upon one theme illustrates better than much
analysis of the handling of different pictures the methods of picture
production which ruled in Raphael’s shop. A precisely similar
variation from an original picture exists in the ‘ Madonna della
Tenda’ of Munich (Plate cxxxvn.), in which the elements of the
‘ Madonna della Sedia ’ are freely adapted and, through hasty mis-
understanding of the position of the Child upon the Mother’s lap,
the right arm becomes more than purposeless, even monstrous.
The ‘ Madonna of the Fish,’ with its memories of Quattro-
centist combinations, was an unfruitful experiment, and stands
alone in Raphael’s work. The only possible result of the effort to
give full naturalistic accompaniment to arrangements which were
impossible in Nature was a divorce between the two. Where the
whole scheme was artificial, as in earlier art, the two tendencies
could exist side by side, without, in our eyes at any rate, creating
any effect of inconsistency or contradiction. But when naturalism
had ceased to consist in the faithful representation of a few details,
and had become a complete method of vision and imagination,
R.—12 177
possession of Mr. Newton Robinson (Plate cxxxi.), in which the
arrangement of Madonna and Child is obviously derived from
the same drawing. The picture shows, apart from inferiorities in
execution which are caused or hidden by restoration, a certain
cleverness of arrangement and an interest in the painting of
metal work and artificial light which is no novelty in Raphael’s
work, but its chief feature is the introduction of meaningless
details which follow necessarily upon the merely mechanical
process of its origin. As the Madonna is brought from left to right
and the motive of her action is dispensed with, her arm becomes
entirely supererogatory. It rests without purpose, with violence
even to Nature, upon the Infant, instead of being, as in the original
picture, the essential feature of her action. Similarly one of the
Infant’s hands becomes otiose and has to be hidden away. Nothing
could show better than this contrast, the difference between signifi-
cant composition and meaningless disposition, and the existence of
these two variants upon one theme illustrates better than much
analysis of the handling of different pictures the methods of picture
production which ruled in Raphael’s shop. A precisely similar
variation from an original picture exists in the ‘ Madonna della
Tenda’ of Munich (Plate cxxxvn.), in which the elements of the
‘ Madonna della Sedia ’ are freely adapted and, through hasty mis-
understanding of the position of the Child upon the Mother’s lap,
the right arm becomes more than purposeless, even monstrous.
The ‘ Madonna of the Fish,’ with its memories of Quattro-
centist combinations, was an unfruitful experiment, and stands
alone in Raphael’s work. The only possible result of the effort to
give full naturalistic accompaniment to arrangements which were
impossible in Nature was a divorce between the two. Where the
whole scheme was artificial, as in earlier art, the two tendencies
could exist side by side, without, in our eyes at any rate, creating
any effect of inconsistency or contradiction. But when naturalism
had ceased to consist in the faithful representation of a few details,
and had become a complete method of vision and imagination,
R.—12 177