Roger de Piles
Cours de peinture par principes
Gallimard, 1999
 |
Cours de peinture par principes by Roger de Piles
|
N.B. On Rogier de Piles see in this blog also: Roger de Piles, Dialogue on Colouring. Edited by Giovanna Perini Folesani and Sandra Costa. Italian Translation by Monique Gabellini. Part one and part two.
[1] Text of the back cover:
“Roger de Piles est né en 1635 à Clamecy. Peintre, écrivain d’art et
diplomate, il a soutenu l’école de Rubens dans la grande querelle qui a opposé
les tenants de la couleur aux «poussinistes», partisans du dessin.
Le Cours de peinture par principes (1708) a été publié par Roger de
Piles un an avant sa mort. Il constitue un résumé de la doctrine artistique du
XVII siècle et a modifié la façon de regarder la peinture, en privilégiant le
plaisir du connaisseur.
Ce texte
fondamental est indispensable à la compréhension des théories qui se sont
succédées jusqu'à la naissance de l'art moderne." "
 |
Peter Paul Rubens, The Holy Family, 1630. Madrid, Prado Museum
|
[2] One of the most well-known aspects of his work is the ‘infamous’ Balance
des Peintres (pp. 236-241), which enjoyed great celebrity among scholars
at that time. The Balance is nothing else but an attempt
to establish a ranking, between artists of different schools, according to
"objective" criteria (composition, design, colour, expression). Schlosser
delivered an articulated judgment in this respect, and was careful not to express
a rude verdict on the propositions by Roger de Piles, "The attention and
the celebrity which surrounded it certainly prevents us from seeing in it
nothing else but an idle play ... " ( La letteratura artistica, p. 699). "By itself,
the choice of those artists, who are reviewed and those who are censored intus
and in cute, merits attention. Mostly, they are representatives
of three or four great Italian schools of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth
centuries; the Fifteenth century is included therein only with Giambellino (he
comes out with a black eye) and Perugino. Among Flemish painters only Rubens,
Van Dyck, Jordaens, O. Venius, Pourbus and Teniers are admitted. Among the
Dutch only Rembrandt, as well as Lucas van Leyden. Germans are represented only
by Dürer and Holbein. France has four ‘classics’ Poussin, Le Brun, Le Sueur and
Bordon. Also the Spaniards are here clearly rejected "(ibid., p.
699-700).
 |
Nicolas Poussin, Martyrdom of St. Erasmus, Rome, Vatican Gallery
|
[3] The resulting ranking has Raphael and Rubens on the top (65 p.), followed
by the Carracci brothers (58), Le Brun and Domenichino (56), Poussin (53),
Titian (51), Rembrandt (50) etc. ... "We should not be surprised by
the weight of arbitrary and unequal judgment; the whole remains an expression
of its time and its value is proportionated to these specific features"
(ibid., p. 702).
 |
Charles Le Brun, The Fall of the Rebel Angels. Dijion, Museum of the Fine Arts
|
[4] Here is the ranking. De Piles operated very simply: he assigned
a rating between 0 (minimum) to 20 (perfection) to each artist as regards
composition, drawing, colour and expression. In the list you will find the
name of each artist, the total score and (among brackets) the four marks
assigned to composition, drawing, colour and expression, respectively.
1) Raphael 65 (17, 18, 12, 18)
1 Rubens 65 (18, 13, 17, 17),
3) The Carracci brothers (all together) 58 (15, 17, 13, 13),
3) Domenichino 58 (15, 17, 9, 17);
5) Charles Le Brun 56 (16, 16, 8, 16),
6) Dick Van 55 (15, 10, 17, 13);
6) Vanius 55 (15, 15, 12, 13);
8) Correggio 53 (13, 13; 15, 12);
8) 53 Poussin (15, 17, 6, 15);
1 Rubens 65 (18, 13, 17, 17),
3) The Carracci brothers (all together) 58 (15, 17, 13, 13),
3) Domenichino 58 (15, 17, 9, 17);
5) Charles Le Brun 56 (16, 16, 8, 16),
6) Dick Van 55 (15, 10, 17, 13);
6) Vanius 55 (15, 15, 12, 13);
8) Correggio 53 (13, 13; 15, 12);
8) 53 Poussin (15, 17, 6, 15);
10) Titian 51 (12, 15, 18, 6);
11) Rembrandt 50 (15, 6, 17,
12);
12) Giulio Romano 49 (15, 16,
4, 14);
12) Leonardo 49 (15, 16, 4,
14);
12) Le Sueur 49 (15, 15, 4, 15);
12) Tintoretto 49 (15, 14, 16,
4);
16) Pietro da Cortona 48 (16,
14, 12, 6);
17) Otto van Veen 47 (13, 14,
10, 10);
18) Primaticcio 46 (15, 14, 7,
10);
18) David Teniers 46 (15, 12,
13, 6);
18) Taddeo Zuccari 46 (13, 14,
10, 9);
21) Andrea del Sarto 45 (12,
16, 9, 8);
21) Barocci 45 (14, 15, 6, 10);
23) Albani 44 (14, 14, 10, 6);
23) Sebastiano del Piombo 44
(8, 13, 16, 7);
23) Paolo Veronese 44 (15, 10,
16, 3);
23) Perin del Vaga 44 (15, 16,
7, 6);
23) Pordenone 44 (8, 14, 17,
5);
23) Francesco Salviati 44 (13,
15, 8, 8);
29) Lanfranco 42 (14, 13: 10,
5);
31) Polidoro da Caravaggio 42
(10, 17, sv; 15);
32) van Diepenbeck 41 (11, 10,
14, 6);
32) Palma il Giovane 41 (12, 9,
14, 6);
34) Daniele da Volterra 40 (12,
15, 5, 8);
34) Jacob Jordaens 40 (10, 8,
16, 6);
34) Lucas Jordaens 40 (13, 12,
9, 6);
37) Giorgione 39 (8, 9, 18, 4);
39) Holbein 38 (9, 10, 16, 3);
40) Giovanni da Udine 37 (10,
8, 16, 3);
40) Parmigianino 37 (10, 15, 6,
6);
42) Dürer 36 (8, 10, 10, 8);
43) Guido Reni 34 (sv, 13, 9,
12);
44) Murillo 33 (6, 8, 15, 4)
45) Peter Head 32 (11, 15, 0,
6);
46) Jacopo Bassano 31 (6, 8,
17, 0);
46) Pourbus 31 (4, 15, 6, 6);
48) Bourdon 30 (10, 8, 8, 4);
48) Perugino 30 (4, 12, 10, 4);
50) Michelangelo 29 (8, 17, 4,
0)
51) Caravaggio 28 (6, 6, 16,
0);
52) Cavalier d'Arpino 27 (10,
10, 6, 1)
52) Palma the Elder, 27 (5, 6,
16, 0)
54) Giovanni Bellini 24 (4, 6,
14, 0);
54) Lucas van Leyden 24 (8, 6,
6, 4);
56) Francesco Penni 23 (0, 15,
8, 0).
[5] What were the immediate consequences of the Balance ? First
of all, it sparked a new fashion, namely to argue about the exclusion of (or the
scores attributed to) this or that artist. Obviously, the positions of de Piles
did not directly aim at provoking. If Michelangelo and Caravaggio appear at
the 50th and 51st place only is because this corresponded to the taste
of that age. At that time, in fact, the discussion was between those preferring
the schools of Rubens or Poussin (but I do not want to comment on this any
further). Seen with modern eyes, however, the Balance had two major
effects:
a) it expressed and directed the taste of the time;
b) it influenced public collecting.
It is obvious that the collector (usually noble, but not always adequately
cultivated) often referred to de Piles’ ranking before deciding whether to make or
not any investment. Schlosser, in another passage of his Letteratura artistica (p.
633) wrote about De Piles : "With him a new type appears, which will
have the greatest importance in the future: the amateur playing the connoisseur
and critic, whose judgment is made more secure by the activity as a collectionist...
".
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento