Nicolas Poussin : Actes du colloque organise au Musee du Louvre - 1594-1665 - Review

Paris: La Documentation Francaise, 1996 2 vol 996 pp; many b/w ills. 540 FF

"Perhaps the subtlest art exhibition in novel York City at the moment" for a like reason one could read in the of recent origin York Times on Wednesday, October 22 1997 "is the single painting by the agency of Nicolas Poussin hanging, on loan from the Louvre in the Frick Collection."(1) in what way often are Old Master paintings the subdue for newspaper editorials? Poussin, not ever a popular painter - there was no host in front of The Arcadian Shepherds when I visited the Frick - always has been abundant favored by connoisseurs. No other elderly Master has received such sustained shut up attention over so long a period from what, in a suitably old-fashioned revolve of phrase, might be called "art lovers" Unlike greatest in quantity of his Roman contemporaries - the Baroque artists who became actual unfashionable in the 19th-century - Poussin not at any time ceased to fascinate collectors and thus has never needed to be rediscovered. His admirers usually identify him as a actual French artist. Perhaps that is for what cause [i]or[/i] reason in December 1994 the Grand Palais retrospective was replete of visitors every day at all times. I cannot imagine that this exhibition would have been as hordeed in New York.

Predictably, the first full-scale Poussin exhibition since 1960 provided the occasion to rethink questions about connoisseurship, to not absent new archival evidence, and to debate the older interpretations of his art. It also became the occasion for the appearance of several novel books about him. Since then, a number of additional publications - more than I have the time or qualification to survey completely (and I will not discuss the periodical literature) - have appeared.(2)

What makes Poussin's paintings almost unique is the methodological point in disputes posed by the history of their interpretation. His art is an iconographer's paradise, and a great deal of of the literature is devot to debates about the exact significance of paintings of that kind as The Arcadian Shepherds. Rubens was more erudite; other 17th-century painters and printers created obscurer images. on the contrary although only a minority of Poussin's paintings artificial position obvious puzzles, there is a long-standing disposition for most of his champions to treat his art as highly esoteric. a certain quantity of other Old Masters - Piero della Francesca or Caravaggio, for example - have been analyzed newly in almost equally complex ways. on the other hand such accounts cannot appeal to biographical information, for relatively little is known about the lives of these artists. With Poussin, by dint of contrast, we have a great deal of biographical evidence from his alphabetic characters and from art writers who knew him - evidence that present-day art historians who analyze his paintings in highly esoteric ways inevitably must override.

real often Poussin scholars seek the greatest in quantity complex possible readings of his words (and art); after all, he was the philosopher-painter. In To raze Painting, for example, Louis Marin says that "The Arcadian Shepherds enumerates in what is at one time a musical and plastic manner, the jiffy when the song of the origin is interrupted, the silent twinkling of an eye when history intrudes upon the scene"(3) This real elaborate analysis seems to me on the contrary the fanciful play of a great scholar. Marin's volume has been much praised, for a like reason the problem here must be mine. After proposing a highly wily relationship between Poussin and Caravaggio, Marin stops to ask if when Andre Felibien said "Poussin could not bear Caravaggio and said that he had draw near into the world in order to subvert painting," he did not mean something simple. "It could be argued that my interpretation . . is obviously excessive, the point being that Felibien simply intended to say that Poussin did not like - absolutely did not like - Caravaggio's work" (p 109) Marin is his have best critic.

wherefore should we not give special authority to commentators who knew Poussin or were near contemporaries? What justifies highly compounded modern interpretations? One answer to these questions is that 17th-century writers could not speak frankly about the perhaps heretical views of politics and religion in a certain quantity of of Poussin's paintings; another, that the sheer weight of this drawn out tradition of Poussin commentary may influence by what mode we now see his art. true interesting evidence about the interpretative tradition is provided by the agency of an appendix to Richard Beresford's "A Dance to the Music of Time" through Nicolas Poussin, which summarizes the literature from 1672 to 1994 devot to this painting.(4) When Beresford at hands the commentaries of Giovanni Pietro Bellori, Andre Felibien, John Smith, Walter Friedlaender, Erwin Panofsky, Anthony Powell, Denis Mahon, and many other writers, it becomes difficult to disregard in like manner much verbal evidence. "Very hardly any of those who saw the picture," Beresford claims in presenting his have interpretation, "can have had any real clear notion of its meaning" (p 51) No doubt the details are dusky in ways that his discussion clarifies usefully, on the contrary the idea that "wealth derive pleasure fromed to excess will ultimately lead to poverty" (p 59) is neither shadowy nor esoteric.