N. 127 - Luglio 2018
(CLVIII)
The Modernity of Ingres
From
the
Cult
of
Classicism
to
the
Discovery
of
Anti-Naturalism
by
Angelo
Viglioglia
During
his
life,
jean
Auguste
Dominique Ingres
has
often
been
criticized.
In
the
1920s,
Agnes
Mongan
may
have
been
one
of
the
first
critics
to
properly
focus
on
Ingres’
complexity.
She
recognized
the
rigour
of
his
formation.
His
study
of
Classical
art
was
intensive,
patient,
and
accurate.
According
to
Mongan,
Ingres
studied,
highlighted,
and
copied
ancient
books
in
order
to
learn,
as
well
as
possible.
Ingres
attentively
reproduced
many
details
from
Classical
Greek
statues
he
had
never
seen,
live.
He
drew
their
images
from
painted
illustrations
and
used
their
details
on
the
friezes,
decorations,
and
bases
in
his
paintings.
Ingres
did
so
mixing
real
with
fictitious
elements.
Mongan
observes
that
Ingres
was
not
just
a
good
disciple
or
“professor.”
As a
matter
of
fact,
he
was
also
capable
of
“doing”
art.
Ingres’
“capability
of
reasoning
was
sensible
and
refined.
[Ingres]
was
capable
of
fixing
and
creating
shapes.”
He
tirelessly
searched
for
precise
contours
and
expressive
gestures.
Furthermore,
Ingres
was
extremely
careful
with
the
technical
stages
of
painting.
Camesasca
orderly
lists
these
stages:
perspective
guidelines,
the
delineation
of
space,
nude
figure
drawing,
the
placement
of
figures
in
space,
monochrome
painting
on
the
characters’
complexions,
and
painting
accessories.
Ingres’
usage
of
colours
has
usually
been
prudent
and
cautious.
All
Ingres’
paintings
were
varnished.
As a
result,
their
preservation
has
always
been
good.
Romantic
art
has
usually
been
characterized
by
undefined
shapes
and
an
apparent
lack
of
balance,
which
did
not
characterize
Ingres’
art.
Therefore,
Ingres
appeared
as a
stubborn
cantor
of
the
past
during
his
age.
The
judgement
of
Ingres’
accusers
is
varied.
Emphasizing
Ingres’
uncommon
longevity,
G.
Briganti
argues
that
this
painter
lived
through
several
historical
stages.
Although
he
had
been
educated
by
David,
he
died
after
Eugene
Delacroix,
his
main
rival.
When
Ingres
died,
both
Courbet’s
Realism
and
Monet’s
Impressionism
were
already
developing.
Actually,
Ingres
has
never
introduced
himself
as
an
anachronistic
man.
Only
his
contemporaries,
excited
by
Romanticism,
thought
so
about
him.
Ingres
was
a
very
restless
man
and
worried
about
his
successes
and
failures.
Because
of
his
contradictions,
Ingres
was
also
a
very
modern
man.
The
more
Ingres
defended
Classical
rules,
the
more
he
emphasized
their
anachronism.
As a
result,
he
anticipated
new
artistic
trends.
Focusing
on
the
objects
and
problems
of
viewpoints,
modern
painters
saw
Ingres
as
an
interesting
inspirer.
A.
Pieyre
de
Mandiargues
talks
about
Ingres’
capability
of
analysing
reality.
“[Ingres]
was
very
attentive,
so
that
he
can
even
seem
a
maniac.”
Ingres’
glance
seized
all
of
his
contours
and
details.
It
also
reduced
all
of
the
elements
depicted
to
objects
by
reinterpreting
reality.
Moreover,
he
manifested
his
distance
from
reality
and
power
over
it.
Occupying
Ingres’
canvases,
the
women
he
portrayed
were
analysed
and
“reduced”
by
Ingres’
pictorial
power
to
objects.
Nevertheless,
the
painter’s
intentions
were
neither
almighty,
nor
sadistic.
Instead,
Ingres
felt
devotion
and
admiration
toward
them.
Although
Baudelaire
criticized
Ingres,
he
emphasized
his
love
for
women
and
listed
his
virtues.
Baudelaire
himself
argues
that
Ingres
was
“Flemish
in
drawing
up,
individualist
and
naturalist
in
drawing,
turned
to
antiquity,
congenial,
and
idealist
in
reasoning”.
According
to
the
same
writer,
understanding
Ingres’
artwork
requires
as
much
care
as
Ingres
had
as a
painter.
Baudelaire
wrote
about
Ingres
in
1846.
Clearly,
Ingres’
rapprochement
was
not
superficial.
It
was
instead
the
result
of
many
analyses
and
reflections,
as
evidenced
by
the
sentences
of
critics.
All
denigrators
were
instead
annoyed
by
Ingres’
precision,
so
that
they
interpreted
it
as
pedantry.
The
other
critics
recognized
his
not
only
technical
skills,
but
also
spiritual
beauty.
According
to
Jamot,
all
of
the
people
portrayed
by
Ingres
could
achieve
“the
immortal
authority
of
archetypes”.
Academics
accused
Ingres
of
painting
“Gothic”
paintings.
Academics
ignored
Ingres’
capability
of
respecting
the
rules
of
Classical
art.
Romantics
instead
accused
him
of
Academism.
Actually,
both
Academics
and
Romantics
saw
Ingres
as
an
“incorruptible
magistrate”.
In
his
essay
about
Ingres’
artwork,
edited
by
Camesasca,
Emilio
Radius
talks
about
eternity
in
Ingres’
masterpieces.
Radius
argues
that
“[Ingres’]
portraits
are
eternal,
and
so
are
the
dignified
features
and
haughty
gestures
of
his
characters”.
Ingres’
nudes
cannot
be
censured
because
they
have
sacred
dignity.
According
to
Radius,
Ingres
tried
to
consecrate
the
profane.
All
these
attitudes
make
the
difference
between
Raphael
and
him.
Divine
Raphael
was
capable
of
mixing
ideas,
seen
as
the
depictions
of
superior
beauty,
with
nature
and
human
appearances.
In
Raphael’s
artwork,
soul
and
nature
mix,
and
ideas
are
realized.
He
just
added
gracefulness
and
was
mainly
animated
by
faith.
Unlike
Raphael’s
world,
Ingres’
missed
its
faith.
In
the
19th
century,
human
centrality,
which
had
characterized
the
Renaissance,
did
not
exist
anymore.
At
that
time,
material
values
became
central.
After
Napoleon’s
rise
to
power,
self-celebration,
due
to
industrialization,
became
a
more
popular
attitude,
and
the
relationship
of
people
to
nature
changed.
19th
century
capitalist
bourgeoisie
tried
to
control
nature.
Human
bodies
became
less
and
less
capable
of
revealing
gracefulness.
In
Romantic
portraits,
characters’
passions
became
more
and
more
important.
These
passions
replaced
Raphael’s
calmness
and
imperturbability.
Beyond
what
linked
Ingres
to
golden
Rules,
his
portraits,
historical
subjects,
and
mythological
characters
reflect
the
tastes
of
his
age.
As
symbols
of
Romantic
tastes,
the
subjects
of
Ingres’
paintings
cannot
be
confused
with
calm
Renaissance
images.
19th
century
society
was
more
complex
and
held
different
values.
During
the
Romantic
period,
all
myths
changed
their
meanings,
and
so
did
faith,
love,
courage,
and
power.
All
of
the
subjects
painted
by
Ingres
should
be
recognized
as
typical
productions
of
their
own
age.
Panofsky
notices
a
very
complex
meanings
web
in
all
works
of
art.
Of
course,
Ingres’
signifiers
and
meanings
were
different
from
Raphael’s.
Thanks
to
formalist
analyses,
the
works
of
art
of
both
painters
can
approach
each
other.
The
two
artists
were
animated
by
the
needs
of
their
very
different
contexts.
As
Wollheim
said,
Ingres
added
pathos
to
Raphael’s
art.
The
former’s
artwork
was
characterized
by
many
contradictions.
Raphael’s
wish
for
calm
“Homeric”
art
opposed
the
disillusions
of
19th
century
people,
to
whom
Enlightenment
had
explained
the
virtues
and
limits
of
human
rationality.
Capitalist
ideology
had
showed
a
vague
uncertain
contradictory
concept
of
humanity
to
19th
century
people.
Absolute
calmness,
naturally
owned
by
Raphael,
was
hardly
looked
for
by
Ingres
within
the
art
of
the
past.
Therefore,
Classical
golden
Rules
became
less
and
less
important.
Ingres
also
felt
free
of
deforming,
exaggerating,
and
convey
his
truth.
His
sincerity
toward
nature
put
an
end
to
his
theory
about
“ideal
beauty”
because
he
painted
and
loved
all
aspects
of
reality.
According
to
Ingres,
beauty
was
omnipresent.
David’s
Neoclassicism
could
not
be
completely
emulated
by
manifold
artists,
such
as
Ingres.
Although
Ingres
was
just
an
apprentice
of
David,
his
internship
nonetheless
cast
his
soul.
Moreover,
this
internship
has
never
limited
the
elaboration
of
Ingres’
viewpoint.
Achieving
a
univocal
viewpoint
was
a
very
important
issue
to
Ingres,
aware
of
his
contradictions.
At
private
exhibitions,
he
laughed
at
them
and
deluded
viewers’
expectations
about
uniqueness
and
homogeneity.
Ingres
did
so
by
displaying
contrasting
works
of
art
close
to
each
other,
such
as
The
Source
and
Madame
Moitessier.
The
simplicity
of
the
former
contrasts
with
the
colourful
garment
of
the
woman
portrayed
in
the
latter.
Bright
colours
contrast
with
the
Golden
Rules
Ingres
himself
obeyed.
Introducing
such
a
union
to
his
viewers,
he
seemed
to
escape
himself.
However,
he
introduced
artistic
creation
as
freedom.
Artistic
creation
has
always
made
artists
free
to
use
several
styles
and
topics
together.
Actually,
Ingres’
arbitrariness
was
just
apparent.
The
sinuous
serpentine
figure,
whose
design
opposes
regularity
and
proportions,
had
already
been
thought
about
by
Giovanni
Paolo
Lomazzo
in
the
16th
century.
The
serpentine
line
had
also
been
seen
as a
new
standard
rule.
Mannerists
were
the
first
artists
to
rebel
against
traditional
rules
and
create
new
ones.
Artistic
creation
became
a
new
ideal,
and
Ingres
fully
identified
with
it.
He
was
less
interested
in
his
topics
than
his
fellows
and
Raphael.
Ingres
himself
argues
that
topics
are
transitory.
He
has
always
been
indifferent
toward
transitory.
According
to
him,
art
was
the
only
universal
eternal
value.
Talking
about
Ingres,
Argan
argues
that
“the
aims
of
works
of
art
are
neither
cognitive,
nor
moral.
Neither
countries,
nor
the
Church,
nor
revolutions,
nor
reactions
need
them.
Instead,
art
contains
its
own
rules
and
intellectual
reasons.
As a
matter
of
fact,
it
reveals
the
meanings
of
forms
as
such,
not
explications
of
topics”.
Works
of
art
do
not
depend
on
aesthetic
given
ideals.
Actually,
art
creates
aesthetics.
According
to
Argan,
the
beauty
Ingres
looked
for
is
realized
in
the
synthesis
of
elements.
As a
matter
of
fact,
he
looked
for
beauty
within
wholeness.
Ingres
opposed
the
accurate
analysis
of
details
he
liked.
Doing
so,
he
argued
that
“details
are
presumptuous
‘babies,’
which
must
be
quiet”.
The
following
words
were
said
by
Ingres,
too.
“Examine
wholeness!
Forms
must
always
be
large!
Forms
are
the
bases
and
conditions
of
everything!”.
These
citations
confirm
what
Argan
thinks.
Raphael’s
teachings
were
not
forgotten
by
Ingres.
He
masterfully
coordinated
his
composition
elements
depending
on
the
triangulations
in
Raphael’s
artwork.
Although
Raphael’s
art
was
Ingres’
main
Renaissance
inspiration,
Ingres’
extreme
accuracy
was
nonetheless
inspired
by
Bronzino’s
painting.
According
to
Camesasca,
Ingres
was
inspired
by
Bronzino’s
art
when
he
painted
his
nudes
as
“absolutely
perfect
objects”.
Although
Ingres
was
inspired
by
many
artists’
artworks,
he
has
always
remained
true
to
himself.
During
his
long
life,
Ingres
defended
Classical
traditions.
He
accepted
all
of
the
suggestions
he
received.
However,
his
art
revealed
“heresies.”
When
Ingres’
art
was
defined,
he
started
to
be
recognized
as a
great
artist.
As
such,
he
was
capable
of
synthesizing
all
real
elements
in
order
to
create
beauty.
Both
Ingres’
emulations
of
Raphael
and
lack
of
genius
are
currently
secondary
issues,
which
manifest
the
viewpoints
of
surly
denigrators.
They
tried
to
place
Ingres
in
an
artistic
movement.
Nevertheless,
their
research
failed
because
Ingres
was
a
sui
generis
painter.
In
conclusion,
Classicism
was
just
Ingres’
starting
point.
“Doing”
art
was
instead
his
main
capability.
Bibliography
