ordered and well-balanced composition, rational self-control and discipline, and, last of all, an elevated, didactic tone in addressing the viewer.
Heinrich Wolflin, who was the first to systematically apply typological principles to the study of style, drew a clear and sharp dividing line between the Renaissance and the Baroque. But a similar demarcation between styles can obviously be effected within the Baroque era itself.
Stone Pines with Two Figures
c. 1638–1641
Brush drawing in brown wash, over pen and brown ink and graphite, 18 × 25.1 cm
Teylers Museum, Haarlem
Whereas the Baroque style arose largely in opposition to the preceding artistic system, 17th-century Classicism was a sort of a “negation of the negation”, reasserting much of what the Baroque denied. But the role of 17th-century Classicism is not confined to this sort of positive conservatism. The rise of the Baroque style was associated with the process of the destruction of the old picture of the world; it was a generalised expression of the dynamic spirit of the time.
An Artist Studying Nature
1639
Oil on canvas, 78.1 × 101 cm
Gift of Mary Hanna, Cincinnati Art Museum, Cincinnati
By contrast, Classicism contributed to the creation, on the ruins of the old foundations, of a new building, no less strong and stable than the demolished one. Just as Newtonian mechanics produced an absolute space and time framework of reference, so did French Classicism elaborate a strict logical system of artistic representation, totally opposed to the relativism of the Baroque. Nor could this system have ever emerged otherwise than in opposition to the Baroque. Thus the two leading, and rival, 17th-century styles owed a fair amount to one another.
Two Ships in a Storm
1638–1640
Brush drawing in grey wash, over pen and brown ink and graphite, on beige paper, 31.9 × 22.4 cm
Musée du Louvre, Paris
Having outlined the historical, cultural, and artistic problems facing the student of 17th-century art, we will now turn our attention to the more specific theme of this book.
Claude Lorrain occupies a leading position among the great artists of the 17th century. But the question arises of how far, if at all, we may be justified in assessing his art as a cultural phenomenon. We would feel no scruples on this score, were we to deal with Galileo or Bernini, Leibniz or Rubens, Rembrandt or Spinoza, Poussin or Descartes, for the scale of their activities is obvious and speaks for itself.
The Draughtsman
1639
Etching, 12.4 × 17.3 cm
State Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg
By comparison, the art of Claude Lorrain might seem to be a local phenomenon, fully confined within the realm of the visual arts, and even within the limits of a single genre. Such a view would seem to be corroborated by the popular legend of the artist as a simple soul, safely removed from the temptations of a sophisticated intellect, hardly able to sign his own name, and creating art as naturally as a bird sings.
Pastoral Landscape with Lake Albano and Castel Gandolfo
1639
Oil on copper, 30.5 × 37.5 cm
Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge
We intend to show that this stereotype is at least superficial, if not totally incorrect. Claude Lorrain’s descent held no great promise of a brilliant future. Claude Gellée, later nicknamed Lorrain after his native province, was born into a peasant family, and received hardly any education as such. Nor did local artistic tradition leave any imprint on his mind. It was only later that Claude’s artistic instinct was awakened during a trip to Rome where he journeyed for reasons presumably having nothing to do with art.
Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.
Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».
Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на ЛитРес.
Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.
