Roger de Piles, [Dialogue on Colouring]. Edited by Giovanna Perini Folesani and Sandra Costa. Part One

Translation by Francesco Mazzaferro
CLICK HERE FOR ITALIAN VERSION

Roger de Piles
Dialogue on Colouring [Dialogo sul colorito]
Edited by Giovanna Perini Folesani and Sandra Costa
Italian Translation by Monique Gabellini

Florence, Leo S. Olschki, 2016 (ma 2017)

Review by Giovanni Mazzaferro. Part One

ABOUT GIOVANNA PERINI FOLESANI SEE IN THIS BLOG: Giovanna Perini Folesani, Luigi Crespi as an Historiographer, Art Dealer and Artist Through his Correspondence (Part One and Two); Sandra Costa, Giovanna Perini Folesani, The Wise and the Ignorant - The Dialogue of the Public with Art (16th-18th Century); Giovanna Perini, The Writings of the Carraccis. Ludovico, Annibale, Agostino, Antonio, Giovanni Antonio; Roger de Piles, Dialogue on Colouring, Edited by Giovanna Perini Folesani and Sandra Costa (Part One and Two); Giovanna Perini Folesani, Sir Joshua Reynolds in Italy (1750-1752). Passage to Tuscany. The 201 a 10 Notebook of the British Museum

Since the Dialogue sur le coloris was released to the public anonymously in 1673 (actually written by Roger de Piles), it was never translated into Italian. It has happened now, in a beautiful edition curated by Giovanna Perini Folesani and Sandra Costa, and it was a pleasant surprise. The biggest surprise is that de Piles’s treatise in dialogue form (thanks also to the valuable translation by Monique Gabellini) retained in full all its freshness and clarity, i.e. the two components explaining the great success that the text met first in France, then abroad (if I may give the reader an advice, first read the original, and only afterwards the commentary, not to lose this freshness). Despite the 'pleasantness' with which you can browse the pages (or perhaps because of it), the Dialogue on Colouring is a very important text. It allowed the curatoresses to face at least three aspects of great interest: (i) the figure of Roger de Piles as author of treatises and populariser of artistic ideas (of Italian origin) in France and Europe; (ii) the debate on the supremacy between colour (or, better colouring) and design, which took place in France over the last three decades of the XVII century and (iii) the emergence of a world of amateurs and / or collectors who joined and often superseded the artist in the critical judgment. As it is easy to imagine - and as we shall see - none of these three aspects was totally French and native, but it had to be brought back to previous Italian experiences (Giovanna Perini Folesani wrote: "My first aim is to find the nodes of de Piles’ relationship with the Italian texts , thus counteracting the French prejudices (and objective gaps) with ours" (p. 45 n. 122).

Before proceeding, however, I would like however to state clearly that, while I do not know personally Giovanna Perini Folesani, I have great esteem of her work. Actually, it is at times difficult to explain why it is so, since she may display all the characteristics suitable to be detested; surely she did nothing to be loved by her public, starting with the lay-out of her commentary: 135 dense pages, without a single paragraph break, with the only use in just three occasions of asterisks to permit the reader to breathe again, and without a reference list. Mind you, this is not the first time it occurred. She simply writes like this. Moreover, she used from time to time extreme rare and old-fashioned terms, such as when she wrote that Roger de Piles can certainly not be considered the abavo [1] of the impressionists). Indeed, on many occasions, I would not agree with what she wrote (I'll talk about it later). But she should be given recognition of two things: first of all, her immense erudition (in the noblest sense of the word, which - who knows why - is often given a negative connotation), and then the ability to stimulate reflections and create interest on what she says. Despite the difficulties (and some softly murmured imprecation), if Ms Folesani Perini has a devoted reader, that's me.

Titian, Noli me tangere, 1511, London, National Gallery
Source: Google Art Project via Wikimedia Commons

The writings of de Piles

The literary production of Roger de Piles (1635-1709) covered the span of thirty years. It started first of all in 1668 with the French translation from the Latin of De arte graphica by his friend Charles Alphonse du Fresnoy (1611-1668), published under the title L'Art de Peinture. It was a didactic poem at which - according to what de Piles asserted - du Fresnoy had been working for thirty years; it had been written in Latin (549 hexameters) to reach an audience as international as possible. De Piles performed its translation in French and added a number of annotations that enriched it considerably. We were in the years when France (or, rather, the entourage of the Sun King) was aspiring to replace Italy as the pulsating centre of European culture: in 1648 it was founded the Royal Academy of Painting and Sculpture, in 1651 it was published the first edition (in Italian and in French) of Leonardo’s Treatise on painting, the artist who had become the symbol of the transfer of great art from Italy to France. The policy of the Academy, led from 1648 to 1680 by Charles Le Brun, was based on a rigorous classicism which considered Poussin as Europe’s new Raphael.

De Piles, in fact, did not belong to the Academy (he eventually became his Honorary Advisor only in 1699, after the death of Le Brun) and did not align with the teachings about it. The fact became evident in a second work, also appeared in 1668 and written with his friend Tortebat. It was the Abregé d’Anatomie accomodé aux arts de Peinture et de Sculpture (Summary of anatomy, adjusted to the arts of painting and sculpture), which advocated the need to carry the teaching of the human body design not only through the study of the model (the classic school of the nude) and statues, but through the establishment of a university course of anatomy that would allow students to directly face the study of the human body. That battle was won, given that in 1672 the Academy inserted between its courses also the one of anatomy. 

Titian, Man with a Glove, about 1523, Paris, Louvre Museum
Source: Wikimedia Commons

Titian, Madonna of the Rabbit, about 1525-1530, Paris, Louvre Museum
Source: Wikimedia Commons

When in 1673 de Piles published the Dialogue sur le coloris (Dialogue upon colouring), the controversy about the supremacy of design and colour had broken out within the Academy for almost two years. I will speak further on this below. De Piles was a staunch supporter of colouring, and a champion of Venetian painters and Dutch ones, including Rubens. His positions were taken with even greater force in the Conversations sur la connoissance de la peinture et sur le jugement qu’on doit faire des Tableaux (Conversations on the Knowledge of Painting and on the Judgment to be Made of Pictures), which he published in 1677. In fact, de Piles’ positions represented by far a minority within the Academy (of which – it is worth stressing again – he was not part). Within the Academy, Le Brun was instead dictating the leading view, which referred to the most orthodox classicism, considering drawing as dominating on colour.

Apart from writings of lesser success, one will have to wait until 1699 to find two key titles. 1699 was the year in which de Piles was also appointed Honorary Advisor in the Academy, where the power block created by Le Brun (died 1690) was ousted and now the ideas of our French author were acquiring a new status. The two writings were, respectively, (i) l’Abregé de la vie des Peintres, avec des Reflexions sur leurs ouvrages, et un Traité du Peintre Parfait, de la Connoissance des Desseins et de l’Utilité des Estampes (Summary of the Life of the Painters, with Reflections on their Works, and a Treatise on the Perfect Painter, the Knowledge of Designs and the Use of Prints) and (ii) L’idée du peintre parfait (The Idea of a Perfect Painter). The latter title was nothing else but the second part of the Summary of the Life of the Painters, which became autonomous and experienced great success as standing alone text.

Finally, in 1708, it was edited, as de Piles’ ideal will, the Cours de peinture par principes (translated in English as ‘The principles of painting’). The Cours became famous for containing the so-called Balance des peintres, a table quantifying the merits of the artists by material, design, colour and expression; it would have great impact also on the commercial prices of the works of the ancient masters.

If you take a look at the highly useful appendix presenting a summary of subsequent editions and translations of de Piles’ works (pp. 211-217), you will understand rapidly the role that the French scholar played in the art literature in the late seventeenth and at least in the first half of the eighteenth century. Reprints and new editions were frequent; almost all titles were translated into English (and it is no doubt, for example, that the works of Richardson father and son were deeply influenced by him); many translations were published also in Dutch and German. The Italian response, instead, was less important, consisting only of a 1713 translation of Dufresnoy’s Art of Painting and of a 1771 version of the Idea of the perfect painter. It should not be forgotten, however, that Malvasia - who knew de Piles personally - quoted the book of du Fresnoy in his Felsina Pittrice, calling it the "Parisian Horace" and dedicating a small woodcut to it.

Drawing vs. colour in the Academy

Titian, The Presentation of the Virgin at the Temple, 1534-1538, Venice, Gallerie dell'Accademia
Source: José Luiz via Wikimedia Commons

I already said that, conventionally, the beginning of the controversy between drawing and colour supporters (or, as it is often said, and among supporters of Poussin and Rubens) was the speech at the Academy by Philippe de Champaigne in 1671. The occasion hereof was the description of a Virgin and Child with Saint John by Titian, belonging to the royal collections. In itself, the debate within the Academy had a very short life; it consisted of a few other speeches in the same location by the 'colourist' Louis-Gabriel Blanchard (1672) and ended with the Sentiments sur le discours de Blanchard (Feelings on the speech by Blanchard - again in 1672) by Charles Le Brun, in which the President of the Academy decided to put an end to the controversy, expressing himself (and then deploying the Academy as a whole) in favour of the supremacy of drawing. On the other hand, it was evident that the Academy's stance could not favour drawing; it was, in particular, clear, when de Piles wrote in the Dialogue that colouring was governed by rules, which were not yet known and therefore not accurate. To accept such a perspective meant to undermine academic teaching, based on the transmissibility of art through a series of very specific steps, all starting with the teaching of elementary drawing. 

Drawing vs. colour outside the Accademy

Titian, Bacchus and Ariadne, about 1520-23, London, National Gallery
Source: Google Art Project via Wikimedia Commons

De Piles´ great merit was indeed to bring the debate from the rooms of the Academy into the salons of Paris, i.e. in the salons of a class of amateurs and collectors who were more and more accustomed to discuss of art (obviously, for an absolutist regime, the fact that the subjects spent time in debates on art was not very dangerous and distracted them from far more cumbersome arguments). To do this, the author used a simple expedient: he offered one of these salon conversations to the public, in the form of a dialogue between Panfil and Damon (two fantasy names of clear Greek inspiration). Coming out of the Academy of Painting, after witnessing the third conference on colouring, the two reached the house of the narrating person, officially to see some new pictures just received from Rome; in front of a copy of one of the Bacchanals by Titian (probably the one now in the National Gallery), they began to discuss again precisely on colouring. On the one hand, therefore, the dialogue by de Piles was topical, because it was released in 1673, a few months only after the real events, but on the other hand it was also totally redundant in order to direct the outcome of the controversy in the Academy, given that Le Brun had already officially deployed it in favour of drawing. Both Ms Perini Folesani and Ms Costa noted that the choice of the form of a dialogue was a clear recovery of the tradition of Italian art literature of the sixteenth century (here, the main reference was the Dialogo della pittura detto l’Aretino - Dialogue of painting said Aretino -  by Dolce); Ms Perini Folesani cited a number of instances (also including - as an example of European cultural koine - the Dialoghi romani (Roman Dialogues) also of Francisco de Hollanda - at p. 34 n. 91). On my part, I would like to add, in the Spanish context - but with an equally clear Italian inspiration - the Diálogos de la Pintura (Dialogues on painting) by Vicente Carducho (1633).

Who were Panfil and Damon? In the literary fiction, Panfil (which clearly stood on close positions to de Piles) was an old and wise man, an 'expert', while Damon appeared to be a young and inexperienced supporter of drawing, just returned from a Rome trip. They were not two artists, then, or an artist and one of his disciples; as it is obvious to happen in these cases, their thought was therefore not systematic, but rather the conversation of two people trying to get the upper hand on each other dialectically. Leading the talk was always Damon-de Piles. 

Titian, Equestrian Portrait of Charles V, 1548, Madrid, Prado Museum
Source: Wikimedia Commons

The lexicon of painting

The entire dialogue was characterised by an (Aristotelian) intent of classification, which aims at bringing order also in the lexicon used by professionals. This corresponded, first of all, with the differentiation between colouring (or to colour) and colour. A distinction - mind you - of a purely Italian origin (Perini Folesani quoted, about it, Lomazzo on p. 51; I'd like to add Cennino Cennino and his 'colorire' in the Book of the Art)), where the colour "is what makes objects sensitive to the eye" and colouring is "one of the components of painting, through which the painter can imitate the colour of all natural objects and distribute to the artificial entities that colour which is best suited to deceive the view" (p. 190). I believe that the observations of Ms Perini Folesani in this respect are particularly acute: "Although the rule is now firmly established to simply contrast, in Italian, disegno (drawing) and colore (colour), in the sixteenth critical lexicon and in particular within the Venetian anti-Florentine debate, there was a crucial distinction between colore and colorito, which has resulted in an alignment in major European languages in line with the semantic distinction just enunciated: this was not only the case in French but also in German (where Sandrart distinguished for example between Farbe and Colorit) and in English (where the contrast between colour and colouring occurred in the eighteenth-century, after the translations of de Piles - and was therefore presumably inspired by them) "(pp. 52-53). De Piles’ intention was anyway to create a counterbalance to the distinction between dessein (understood in the sense of project design) and dessin (understood in a material sense). The design of which de Piles speaks in his dialogue was - of course - the dessein, but also here (see. p. 193), the authoress felt the need to make further specifications.

End of Part One

Go to Part Two 

NOTES

[1] The Italian rarity 'abavo' is a term meaning ‘antenato' (ancestor). I would like to quote the exact page, but I did not put a mark with a pencil at the time of reading and so now I cannot find it any more.