Ingres (draft)
John Haber
current show. The master of those decades after Napoleon wanted the
recognition that came with grandeur - in subject and in style. Jean
Auguste Dominique Ingres wanted one to remember his history paintings,
just as he wanted all his life to settle in Paris amid the acclaim of
the academies.
The story omits the dazzling visual display now at the Met. It also
misses Ingres's pivotal role in the turn of art inward across an
entire century. With pleasure every step of the way, one can see it
proceed first from Classicism to the bourgeois portrait, then from
Romanticism to the modern era. Baudelaire and Degas were to praise
him to the sky, and one can at last see why.
Start with his reaction to his teacher, Jacques Louis David, the
artistic mind of the revolution. At first one sees the same traits:
real poses, matte finish, and earth tones, modeling through shadow and
scumbled textures, near-frontal poses with strong foreheads and
prominent noses. Before I knew it, I could see prominent poses and an
exquisite finish. Ingres kept the dark tones, but he turned them into
the palette of the richest colorist of his time.
In a typical portrait, two arcs interlace. Set concave toward each
other, they could be arms or the outlines of a torso, the vibrancy of
hands or the drama of folds in clothing. A human bulk creates a third
arc in the third dimension. He loves to interpenetrate yet more arcs,
like the arm of a chair in a vibrant portrait in the Met. Together,
they leave one with an intense realism combined with a wiry, polished,
decorative surface.
The new technique, with its modeling through white highlights, has
many roots. But then David himself outlives his revolutionary ideals.
Start with plain old technique. Ingres loved his work in graphite
drawing, and the thin layering often suggests a pastel or watercolor.
Consider, too, his reaction against his age, to the startling line and
points of light in Watteau. Forget revolutions: Ingres knew the
portrait traditional cold, as evidenced by a pose copied from
Bronzino, the Mannerist.
Yet another source is the age's view of woman. While women still
stood for something foreign, something decorative, in Ingres's hands
they also were just starting to demand a portraiture and presence of
their own. He balanced their unidealized features with a softened
rendering, angelic smiles and eyeballs that another artist would have
had to trace with a compass. Even when he does "face painting" (as
David never would), he sees not bony features but penetrating eyes and
soft skin, both ready to be reinforced by delicate, decorative curves
below.
When I say their own presence, I mean without any trace of macho
history. Early in his career, Ingres pulled off some two egregious
puffery of Napoleon, first as consul, then as emperor. Yet even
there, one finds scarcely a hint of narrative. Perhaps he could not
have fixed upon a good story anyhow. One finds no evidence that
Napoleon granted him an audience before the painting.
Despite those early triumphs, and despite his pivotal role as arbiter
of taste for generations to come, Ingres got plain lousy reviews at
first. Critics called his art "gothic and barbarous," but it in fact
helped to launch the Gothic revival. He helped create not a dead
past, but the Middle Ages as Romantic theater. He even lived on into
the age of photos, which supplied the template for his final
self-portrait.
After the bad reviews, Ingres headed off to Italy, under protection
from Napoleon's rein there. It was decades before he could return to
Paris in triumph. Meanwhile, he worked strictly business
propositions, the portrait paid by the piece, less for faces, more for
full length. He found time to mix patrons with friends - artists and
musicians like himself, a passionate violinist. Along the way, he
transferred that idolatry for Napoleon to an effusive praise for the
rich and a love of the fineness of painting itself.
Ingres worked slowly and well into his seventies. If the Vicomtesse
d'Haussonville has an arm growing out of her stomach, it was not for
lack of trying - for want of attention to reality. Studies note
folds, rings, rarely backgrounds. Perhaps other painters sketched the
rare landscape. Did the jewelry signal his fascination with hands and
decoration - or excuses to obscure precise anatomy?
Either way, they showed the new-found sensuality of his work. It was
to influence not only art for the upper classes, but the future as
well. The sphinx-like mirror image of Mme. Moitessier in London looks
forward to the Pre-Raphaelites.
The show also gives one the Met at its best, as both public and
scholarly institution. It manages a comprehensive display that
scholars will consult for decades, more than 160 works. They include
every medium, from oil and polished drawings for sale to the first
graphite sketches in search of a pose.
For once, the Met makes good use of the ever-present test. Next to
each work, it blocks traffic, but it often adds something for once.
The subject matter helps. After all, portraiture requires a reference
to the sitter, someone dead centuries ago. But the curators also
weave stylistic notes and other insights. They light the paintings a
bit much, but the drawings look particularly good, even hung far too
high.
Ingres can get lost in platitudes and history. The first make him out
to be flawless, above the carping over the Academy. The second make
him transitional, between David and Delacroix, classics and Romantics.
This show outlines the difficult path along the way.
John
Alison A Raimes
I know you are going to be devastated Mani, but John never bothers to
read your posts.
Alison
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
mdeli
saying something about:
- historical facts
-I like it
- technique
-comparison
Most everything else is usaully long winded baloney.
Invalid criticism concists of :
-long lectures for the blind
-compulsive theorizing
- Artspeak which sounds like it express something until it is analyzed
(John Haber) wrote:
>Critics of Ingres portraits like to stress how he would have hated his
>current show. The master of those decades after Napoleon wanted the
>recognition that came with grandeur - in subject and in style. Jean
>Auguste Dominique Ingres wanted one to remember his history paintings,
>just as he wanted all his life to settle in Paris amid the acclaim of
>the academies.
>
>The story omits the dazzling visual display now at the Met. It also
>misses Ingres's pivotal role in the turn of art inward across an
>entire century. With pleasure every step of the way, one can see it
>proceed first from Classicism to the bourgeois portrait, then from
>Romanticism to the modern era. Baudelaire and Degas were to praise
>him to the sky, and one can at last see why.
>
>Start with his reaction to his teacher, Jacques Louis David, the
>artistic mind of the revolution.
_history
>At first one sees the same traits:
>real poses, matte finish, and earth tones, modeling through shadow and
>scumbled textures, near-frontal poses with strong foreheads and
>prominent noses. Before I knew it, I could see prominent poses and an
>exquisite finish. Ingres kept the dark tones, but he turned them into
>the palette of the richest colorist of his time.
...Technical
>In a typical portrait, two arcs interlace. Set concave toward each
>other, they could be arms or the outlines of a torso, the vibrancy of
>hands or the drama of folds in clothing. A human bulk creates a third
>arc in the third dimension.
... A little technical with some Artspeak terms.
> He loves to interpenetrate yet more arcs,
>like the arm of a chair in a vibrant portrait in the Met. Together,
>they leave one with an intense realism combined with a wiry, polished,
>decorative surface.
...Technical with a coating of Artspeak
>
>The new technique, with its modeling through white highlights, has
>many roots. But then David himself outlives his revolutionary ideals.
>
>Start with plain old technique. Ingres loved his work in graphite
>drawing, and the thin layering often suggests a pastel or watercolor.
>Consider, too, his reaction against his age, to the startling line and
>points of light in Watteau. Forget revolutions: Ingres knew the
>portrait traditional cold, as evidenced by a pose copied from
>Bronzino, the Mannerist.
Technique and comparison
>
>Yet another source is the age's view of woman. While women still
>stood for something foreign, something decorative, in Ingres's hands
>they also were just starting to demand a portraiture and presence of
>their own. He balanced their unidealized features with a softened
>rendering, angelic smiles and eyeballs that another artist would have
>had to trace with a compass. Even when he does "face painting" (as
>David never would), he sees not bony features but penetrating eyes and
>soft skin, both ready to be reinforced by delicate, decorative curves
>below.
Haber likes Ingres so he has to say something.
>When I say their own presence, I mean without any trace of macho
>history. Early in his career, Ingres pulled off some two egregious
>puffery of Napoleon, first as consul, then as emperor. Yet even
>there, one finds scarcely a hint of narrative. Perhaps he could not
>have fixed upon a good story anyhow. One finds no evidence that
>Napoleon granted him an audience before the painting.
>
>Despite those early triumphs, and despite his pivotal role as arbiter
>of taste for generations to come, Ingres got plain lousy reviews at
>first. Critics called his art "gothic and barbarous," but it in fact
>helped to launch the Gothic revival. He helped create not a dead
>past, but the Middle Ages as Romantic theater. He even lived on into
>the age of photos, which supplied the template for his final
>self-portrait.
No Ingres would be mistaken for a photo
>After the bad reviews, Ingres headed off to Italy, under protection
>from Napoleon's rein there. It was decades before he could return to
>Paris in triumph. Meanwhile, he worked strictly business
>propositions, the portrait paid by the piece, less for faces, more for
>full length. He found time to mix patrons with friends - artists and
>musicians like himself, a passionate violinist. Along the way, he
>transferred that idolatry for Napoleon to an effusive praise for the
>rich and a love of the fineness of painting itself.
History
>Ingres worked slowly and well into his seventies. If the Vicomtesse
>d'Haussonville has an arm growing out of her stomach, it was not for
>lack of trying - for want of attention to reality. Studies note
>folds, rings, rarely backgrounds. Perhaps other painters sketched the
>rare landscape. Did the jewelry signal his fascination with hands and
>decoration - or excuses to obscure precise anatomy?
More technical
>Either way, they showed the new-found sensuality of his work. It was
>to influence not only art for the upper classes, but the future as
>well. The sphinx-like mirror image of Mme. Moitessier in London looks
>forward to the Pre-Raphaelites.
Theoretical and comparison
etc
snip
Even Haber is forced to write rather clearly, when confronted with an
artist whose rank needs no explanation and is obvious to the viewer.
Compare this to his convolutions about Modern Academic Art.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Check out my web page, A Skeptical View of Modern Art and
my book, comments, work at:.
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
Alison A Raimes
writes
>
>I couldn't care less. There are lots of people here who read both our
>messages. If anyone writes here they are open expect criticism.
>
>It is easy to understand why fragile, pretentious, vane egos like
>Haber's can't bare criticism. May his mommy protect him from being
>devistated.
>
>Mani DeLi
>...no skill no art
Would that be a personal attack on John that a few weeks ago you
declared to this group you NEVER make unless in counter-attack ? Or is
it your ego that is battered because you know that John is way too
intelligent to care less what you write about him ?
--
Alison A Raimes
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
mdeli
>
>I know you are going to be devastated Mani, but John never bothers to
>read your posts.
>Alison
I couldn't care less. There are lots of people here who read both our
messages. If anyone writes here they are open expect criticism.
It is easy to understand why fragile, pretentious, vane egos like
Haber's can't bare criticism. May his mommy protect him from being
devistated.
Mani DeLi