I ended my last blog by stating that I didn’t want to know
the story behind the Chinese painting entitled, Three Hermits Laughing at Tiger
Stream. It has set me thinking about how great visual artworks have to survive
the meanings, describable in language, that may have been vital to their
creation. I remember wondering a long time ago why there was the decapitated
head of an ass in the foreground of Titian’s Bacchus and Ariadne. Eventually, I
came across the explanation, which I have since forgotten. But it makes no
difference whatsoever to my love and appreciation of the work.
I am old enough to remember Edgar Wind’s Reith Lectures Art
and Anarchy. In the fourth lecture, entitled The Fear of Knowledge,
he claimed that we get a profounder understanding of a work of visual art if we
know the background ideas. ‘The
eye,’ he states, ‘focuses differently when it is intellectually guided. At the
time, I wanted to believe him. In
the expanded, published version of the lectures, I see I have underlined his
sentence ‘Masterpieces are not so secure in their immorality as Croce
imagined.’ I would argue now, at least where visual art is concerned, that it
is almost the definition of a masterpiece that it is not dependant on its
original message. My favourite
work on the Virgin and Child theme is the one by Mantegna in the Ehemals
Staatliche Museum, Berlin. It is very obviously a young mother with her baby. I
do not need to believe any nonsense about virgin births to appreciate it. The
best art on religious themes will survive in a secular age. Two works that I admire greatly, illustrate the lives of two Christian saints, but I have no
particular interest in these historical figures. Masaccio’s St. Peter Distributing Alms, I regard as one of the best Social Realist paintings ever,
Raphael’s tapestry cartoon of St Paul Preaching, as a supreme example of figures
composed in an architectural setting. Those works that require allowance for
religious belief, counter-reformation propaganda for example (see my blog
Theology versus Art) or are there to force us to our knees, do not interest me
and indeed bore me. Which is not to say that I cannot ignore a halo or two or
some other convention or stipulation of the day in a work of real merit.
What holds for religious work is also true of that other
great literary source for Renaissance artists, the Greek myths. Mantegna’s
complex composition Pallas Expelling the Vices from the Garden of Virtue, is a
great favourite of mine. It is self-evident that the figures fleeing in terror
from the armoured goddess are meant to be evil but I don’t read them like that.
I prefer to think of them as unfortunates, perhaps underclass figures, and only
need to think of any narrative vaguely. What draws me to this painting is the
complexity of the imagery, controlled in a composition of complete clarity,
which can lend itself to multiple explanations.
No painting can be rescued by iconographic interpretation,
if it does not please in the first place. I have a great love of the work of
Poussin and enjoyed Panofsky’s essay where he points out that the master’s
title Et in Arcadio Ego, is usually mistranslated: it doesn’t mean ‘I too lived
in Arcadia.’ He illustrates by reference to other paintings with the same title
(one of them by Poussin himself) showing a death head on the tomb, that it is
death who speaks, saying, ‘Even in Arcadia, I am present.’ Not being expert in
Latin grammar, and accepting the mis-translation, I admit that the work was a
bit of a puzzle. Yet, despite
enlightenment, the painting remains, for me, one of Poussin’s dullest works,
with none of his usual compositional inspiration.