N. 128 - Agosto 2018
(CLIX)
AN OVERVIEW ABOUT RAPHAEL’S AND INGRES’ CONTEXTS
How
These
Artists
Were
Simultaneously
Similar
and
Different
by
Angelo
Viglioglia
The basic differences between the Renaissance and Romanticism are noticeable through history. While the Renaissance art was popular in Italy, the Flanders, and the Nether Lands, Romantic art was instead popular in England, France, and Germany.
15th
century
artists
were
engaged
by
aristocrats,
traders,
bankers,
and
Popes,
but
19th
century
artists
became
more
and
more
independent
of
patronage.
On
the
one
hand,
15th
century
artists
formed
at
artisans’
workshops.
On
the
other
hand,
19th
century
artists
instead
formed
at
academies
and
their
own
ateliers.
While
15th
century
artists
only
depicted
reality
as a
scientific
and
unitary
imitation
of
nature
based
on
the
harmonic
relationship
of
its
elements,
19th
century
artists
also
depicted
the
hostile
aspects
of
nature
and
human
problems.
Renaissance
artists
imitated
Greco-Roman
art
in
order
to
recover,
match,
and
overtake
the
artistic
manifestations
of
Ancient
Rome.
Unlike
Renaissance
artists,
Neoclassic
artists
imitated
Classical
art
as a
metaphor
of
the
simplicity
and
rationalism
promoted
by
bourgeoisie.
On
the
one
hand,
Italian
Renaissance
artists
knew
about
Classical
art
by
exploring
Ancient
Roman
buildings,
such
as
Domus
Aurea.
On
the
other
hand,
Neoclassic
artists
knew
about
Classical
art
after
Napoleon’s
battle
in
Abukir
and
Winckelmann’s
discovery
of
the
ashes
of
Pompeii
and
Herculaneum.
19th
century
artists
competed
at
great
expositions.
Until
1789,
only
the
members
of
the
Academy
could
take
part
in
the
Salon
of
Louvre.
The
French
Revolution
put
an
end
to
such
prohibitions.
After
the
failure
of
the
Academy,
private
schools
and
evening
courses
started
to
teach
drawing.
In
France,
drawing
was
included
in
the
curricula
of
high
schools.
In
1792,
The
Musée
du
Louvre
was
inaugurated.
It
allowed
artists
to
explore
all
aspects
of
more
ancient
art.
In
museums,
the
artistic
heritage
of
all
cultures
lived
together
“as
sisters.”
By
the
way,
the
lives
and
luck
of
Raphael
and
Ingres
were
very
different
from
one
another.
At
the
age
of
20,
Raphael
was
already
recognized
as
“master.”
Many
churches
and
oratories
strongly
desired
his
altarpieces.
Instead,
Ingres
played
a
long
internship
at
David’s
academy
in
order
to
be
recognized
as
an
artist.
While
Raphael
had
embellished
Italy,
Ingres
instead
saw
Italy
as a
coveted
paradise
related
to
Renaissance
artists,
the
symbols
of a
more
ancient
age.
Raphael’s
work
was
unanimously
appreciated
by
both
critics
and
audience,
but
Ingres’
work
has
often
been
undervalued.
According
to
Le
Brun,
Neoclassic
artists
were
inspired
by
Raphael
because
of
the
purity
of
his
lines.
Ingres
admired
Raphael
for
this
reason.
According
to
Rosenberg,
painters’
admiration
for
Raphael
was
due
to
the
epochal
shifts
of
attitudes
and
values
that
characterized
the
change
from
Neoclassicism
to
Romanticism.
Ingres
tried
to
assert
himself
as a
historical
painter.
This
aim
was
quite
popular
among
the
painters
of
the
Napoleonic
Age.
He
tried
to
overtake
David
as a
historical
painter.
Actually,
Ingres
even
became
a
better
portraitist
than
his
master.
From
their
viewpoints,
Raphael
and
Ingres
painted
nature,
women,
and
love.
They
also
investigated
Beauty
and
God.
Raphael
saw
nature
as a
paradigm
of
divine
Revelation
and
humanity
itself
as a
part
of
nature.
In
Madonna
del
Cardellino,
Madonna
del
Prato,
and
La
Belle
Jardinière,
Raphael
depicts
the
Virgin
Mary
as
one
with
nature.
He
sees
both
humanity
and
nature
as
manifestations
of
God’s
creations
and
emanations.
According
to
Raphael,
human
rationality
was
capable
of
discovering
divine
within
natural
and
eternal
forms
within
transforming
substances.
Like
Raphael,
Ingres
saw
creations
as
manifestations
of
divine.
Therefore,
the
pretension
to
refine
it
by
art
would
be a
presumptuous
deed.
In
spite
of
his
Neoclassic
training,
Ingres
agreed
with
Romantic
artists
that
art
should
faithfully
reproduce
reality.
Beauty
is
within
Nature,
a
coincidence
of
essence
and
existence.
Both
Raphael
and
Ingres
saw
human
physicality
as a
manifestation
of
beauty,
identified
with
the
naturalness
of
expressions.
Both
painters
appreciated
the
reality
they
experienced
and
saw
it
as a
divine
gift.
Both
Raphael
and
Ingres
carefully
preserved
the
balance
between
real
and
ideal.
For
instance,
Ingres
was
blamed
to
paint
too
sensual
Madonnas.
Lenoir
argues
that
Madonna
della
Seggiola
seduces
viewers
by
its
glance.
Studying
nature
was
fundamental
to
both
artists
in
order
to
create
absolute
beauty
in
art.
Beauty
is
placed
within
not
only
artists’
souls,
but
also
reality.
As a
result,
artists
must
not
overestimate
themselves,
but
observe
the
world.
Raphael
agreed
with
Neo-Platonism.
The
Platonic
conception
of
beauty
and
ideas
was
different.
Marsilius
Ficinus,
a
Renaissance
Platonic
thinker,
asserts
that
both
ideas
and
forms
are
metaphysical.
Whatever
is
related
to
the
idea
of
beauty
is
beautiful.
The
idea
of
beauty
exists
as a
“real
substance,”
and
material
things
are
just
imagines.
Platonism
mistreated
art
as a
mere
copy
of
reality.
Instead,
Neo-Platonic
thinkers
believed
beauty
had
its
own
worthiness
and
existence
within
material
reality.
As
an
aesthetical
manifestation
of
the
idea
of
Good
emanated
within
nature,
beauty
justified
its
material
existence.
Unlike
Platonism,
Raphael
believed
in
another
role
of
nature.
As a
moral
heir
of
Neo-Platonism,
he
believed
nature
revealed
divine
beauty.
This
beauty
could
also
be
inferred
by
human
beauty.
In
his
paintings,
matter
lets
forms
transpire.
According
to
aesthetical
theories,
just
art
can
depict
visions
in
which
soul
and
nature
neither
conflict,
nor
counteract.
In
the
visions
cited,
ideas,
drawn
from
experiences,
agree
with
them
and
fall
into
nature
improving
it.
Actually,
Raphael’s
genius
consisted
of
turning
reality
into
ideal
beauty
and
seizing
the
latter
within
natural
phenomenal
reality,
mutually.
From
the
Aristotelian
viewpoint,
natural
reality
can
be
depicted
as a
formed
matter.
According
to
Argan,
actuated
perfection
is
Raphael’s
main
peculiarity.
Raphael’s
art
demonstrates
that
ideal
is
within
real.
“Thanks
to
transparency,
all
occasional
appearances
discover
ideal
forms”.
As a
result,
the
dualism
between
matter
and
soul
is
unified.
While
Raphael
solved
the
issue
of
imperfection
by
art,
Romantics
instead
did
not
know
how
to
completely
face
it.
Ingres
defended
from
imperfection
by
looking
for
perfection
within
art,
too.
The
principle
cited
related
Ingres
to
Raphael,
but
the
former’s
more
emphasized
tension
makes
him
less
moderate
and
elegant
than
the
latter.
Stendhal
observes
that
the
relativism
of
the
idea
of
beauty
has
always
been
related
to
historical
changes.
According
to
Stendhal,
the
Romantic
concept
of
beauty
necessarily
differed
from
the
ancient
and
Renaissance
one
for
the
reasons
cited.
Although
Stendhal
valuated
Renaissance
ideals,
he
believed
they
were
anachronistic.
Stendhal
argues
that
Renaissance
painters
were
“quality
standards”
to
later
artists.
Renaissance
artists
must
not
be
slavishly
imitated.
Romantics
believed
finite
could
not
depict
infinite,
and
ideal
forms
could
not
be
contained
by
the
imperfection
and
relativity
of
material
and
human
condition.
Hegel
talked
about
the
reasons
why
the
Classical
balance
between
forms
and
matters
disappeared
in
Romantic
art.
In
Romantic
art,
balance
transformed
into
unbalance
because
of
the
excess
of
contents.
The
concept
of
nature
changed
in
the
19th
century.
Immanuel
Kant
was
one
of
the
first
thinkers
to
distinguish
“pictorial”
from
“sublime”
beauty.
One
century
earlier,
Illuminist
optimism
had
thought
about
controlling
nature.
The
balance
between
humanity
and
nature
would
have
allowed
people
to
feel
integrated
in a
natural
hospitable
benevolent
world.
The
nature
of
“social”
moods
does
not
belong
to
the
poetics
of
“sublime.”
In
spite
of
his
Classical
readings,
Giacomo
Leopardi
has
never
seen
nature
as
balance
and
harmony,
and
“infinite”
is
the
paradigm
of
his
sufferance.
According
to
Leopardi,
whatever
can
be
perceived
by
humanity
is
just
a
tiny
part
of
time
and
space.
Nature
hides
uncontrollable
the
menacing
forces
it
sometimes
shows.
“Whatever
is
visible
to
people
does
not
coincide
with
total
existing.
Whatever
is
not
visible,
supposedly
existing,
imposes
and
frightens
people
because
of
its
infinity.
The
infinity
of
invisible
reality
evokes
the
anguish
of
human
limits.
This
transcendental
reality
is
‘sublime’”.
Romantic
aesthetics
enriched
and
became
more
complex
than
Renaissance
aesthetics
with
regard
to
the
relationship
of
humanity
to
nature
and
artists
to
the
depiction
of
beauty.
Human
limits,
imperfection,
anguish,
and
death
started
to
be
depicted
by
art.
Ingres’
viewpoint
about
these
issues
was
very
contradictory
and
complex,
almost
undecipherable.
Ingres
initially
believed
in
the
coincidence
between
natural
and
ideal
beauty
like
Raphael.
Ingres
gradually
modified
the
images
of
nature
in
order
to
make
them
more
real
and
expressive.
The
shift
cited
made
Ingres’
art
more
restless
and
characterized
his
artistic
evolution.
Ingres
was
similar
to
Mannerists
rather
than
cold
rational
Neoclassic
artists.
Like
the
former,
Ingres
looked
for
the
coincidence
between
“making
art”
and
his
“inner
drawing.”
According
to
Argan,
Ingres
tried
to
free
from
the
irreconcilability
of
extremely
opposing
viewpoints
of
his
age
by
art.
All
these
positions
made
19th
century
aesthetics
as
more
variegate
as
possible.
Ingres
refused
siding
with
respect
to
his
topics.
Instead
of
adhering
to
an
official
artistic
movement,
he
tried
to
know
about
the
figures
around
him.
The
figures
cited
were
linked
to
the
reality
to
depict.
Ingres
saw
them
as
“well
seen
by
absolute
clarity.”
Thanks
to
his
numerous
paintings,
he
demonstrated
that
art
creates
aesthetics.
Ingres
observes
that
art
reveals
the
meanings
of
forms,
not
the
explication
of
contents.
Argan
recognizes
Ingres’
centrality
and
interest
in
art
rather
than
its
subjects.
Ingres
himself
liked
beauty
as
the
extreme
synthesis
of
the
signs
he
depicted.
According
to
Argan,
The
Valpinçon
Bather
is
the
symbol
of
the
painting
way
cited,
which
does
not
have
formal
predetermined
ideals.
This
painting
way
manifests
itself
during
the
creation
of
paintings,
which
can
synthesize
disparate
contrasting
elements.
The
flighty
broken
lines
on
the
turban
of
The
Valpinçon
Bather
contrast
with
the
continuous
regular
shape
of
her
body.
Ingres
sees
art
as a
contrast
of
shapes,
colours,
tones,
lines,
elegance,
and
refinement
to
synthesize.
Beauty
and
forms
are
not
within
single
elements.
They
are
instead
in
the
relationship
of
elements.
Classicism
was
just
Ingres’
starting
base.
“Making”
art
was
his
main
aim.
From
this
viewpoint,
his
centrality
as
an
artist
recalls
Mannerist
subjectivism.
According
to
both
Ingres
and
Mannerists,
art
testifies
artists’
particular
way
to
perceive
reality.
Argan
sees
Ingres
as a
very
modern
painter.
The
modernity
of
the
latter
allowed
him
to
reduce
the
issue
of
art
to
that
of
vision.
As a
result,
both
Impressionists
and
Post-Impressionists
were
inspired
by
Ingres.
Beyond
Ingres’
painting
style,
Palma
Bucarelli
sees
his
“making
art”
as
an
ethical
task
and
a
moral
need.
According
to
Ingres,
only
artistic
beauty
survives
history,
nature,
and
life.
Bibliography:
Ettore
Camesasca,
L’Opera
Completa
di
Ingres
(Milan:
Rizzoli
Editore,
1968),
10,
14.
Charles
Baudelaire,
Selected
Writings
on
Art
&
Artists
(Cambridge:
Cambridge
University
Press,
1972),
32,
127.
Martin
Rosenberg,
Raphael
and
France:
The
Artist
as a
Paradigm
and
Symbol
(University
Park:
The
Pennsylvania
State
University,
1995),
163-182.
Giulio
Carlo
Argan,
Il
Rinascimento:
Storia
dell’Arte
Italiana
(Florence:
Sansoni,
2000),
13,
48,
283.
Erwin
Panofsky,
IDEA:
Contributo
alla
Storia
dell’Estetica
(Turin:
Universale
Bollati
Borlinghieri,
2006),
xxviii-xxix,
42.
Gary
Tinterow
and
Philip
Conisbee,
Portraits
of
Ingres:
Image
of
an
Epoch
(New
York:
The
Metropolitan
Museum
of
Art,
2000),
22.
