|
In 1671 an argument broke out in the French Royal Academy of Painting and Sculpture in Paris about whether drawing or colour was more important in painting. On one side stood the Poussinists (Fr. ''Poussiniste'') who were a group of French artists, named after the painter Nicolas Poussin, who believed that drawing was the most important thing.〔(Poussinist ) ''Encyclopædia Britannica'', 2014. Retrieved 27 March 2014.〕 On the other side were the Rubenists (Fr. ''Rubéniste''), named after Peter Paul Rubens, who prioritised colour.〔(Rubenist ) ''Encyclopædia Britannica'', 2014. Retrieved 27 March 2014.〕 There was a strong nationalistic flavour to the debate as Poussin was French but Rubens was Flemish, though neither was alive at the time. After over forty years the final resolution of the matter in favour of the Rubenists was signalled when Antoine Watteau's ''The Embarkation for Cythera'' was accepted as his reception piece by the French Academy in 1717.〔 By that time the French Rococo was in full swing. ==The argument== The Poussinists believed in the Platonic idea of the existence in the mind of ideal objects that could be reconstructed in concrete form by the selection, using reason, of elements from nature. For the Poussinists, therefore, colour was a purely decorative addition to form and drawing (design or ''disegno''), the use of line to depict form, was the essential skill of painting. Their leader was Charles Lebrun〔Honour, H. and J. Fleming, (2009) ''A World History of Art''. 7th edn. London: Laurence King Publishing, p. 609. ISBN 9781856695848〕 (died 1690), Director of the Academy, and their heroes were Raphael, the Carracci, and Poussin himself〔 whose severe and stoical works exemplified their philosophy. Their touchstones were the forms of classical art. They were opposed by the Rubenists who believed that colour, not drawing, was superior as it was more true to nature.〔 Their models were the works of Rubens who had prioritised the accurate depiction of nature over the imitation of classical art. The Rubenists argued that the aim of painting was to deceive the eye by creating an imitation of nature.〔 Drawing, according to the Rubenists, although based on reason, appealed only to a few experts whereas colour could be enjoyed by everyone. The ideas of the Rubenists therefore had revolutionary political connotations as they elevated the position of the lay person and challenged the idea that had held sway since the Renaissance that painting, as a liberal art, could only be appreciated by the educated mind.〔Janson, H.W. (1995) ''History of Art''. 5th edn. Revised and expanded by Anthony F. Janson. London: Thames & Hudson, p. 604. ISBN 0500237018〕 In 1672, Charles Le Brun, Chancellor of the French Academy, attempted to halt the argument by stating officially that "the function of colour is to satisfy the eyes, whereas drawing satisfies the mind."〔 He failed, and the debate was continued in the pamphlets of Roger de Piles, who favoured the colourists and set out the arguments in his 1673 ''Dialogue sur le Coloris'' (Dialogue on Colour), and his 1677 ''Conversations sur la Peinture'' (Conversations on Painting). The argument was similar to the argument over the merits of ''disegno'' and ''colore'' in Italy in the fifteenth century but with a particularly French character as the importance of drawing was one of the key tenets of the French Academy and any attack on it was effectively an attack on everything the Academy stood for, including its political functions in support of the King. To a certain extent, the debate was simply about whether it was acceptable to paint purely in order to give pleasure to the viewer without the nobler purposes typical of a "history" painting.〔Levey, Michael. (1993) ''Painting and sculpture in France 1700-1789''. New Haven: Yale University Press, p. 1. ISBN 0300064942〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Poussinists and Rubenists」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|