Edmund Richardson

University of Durham, United Kingdom

Fragmented, lost, damaged, forged or misread: classical art, in 19th century Britain and America, was a deeply uncertain space. The ancient world played a key role at the heart of literature and culture during this period – it was fundamental to the ways in which societies and elites defined and celebrated themselves. However, recalling it remained a problematic act. The pursuit of classical art was defined by error and misdirection as often as it was by certainty and insight. Rather than dismissing the fragility of the 19th-century’s pursuit of antiquity, this paper asks if misdirection may at times be productive. Is it possible that, under certain circumstances, errors about the past, sometimes parasitical on errors in the past, can be an engine of knowledge? Through a number of case-studies – from iconic works of ancient art to unconvincing forgeries created in haste – this paper explores the role of classical art in shaping attitudes to the past, in 19th century Britain and America. When history collides with pseudo-history – as it did in discourses of classical art throughout the 19th century – how is our knowledge of the past re-shaped?

Elena Goikhman

Lomonosov Moscow State University, Russia

One of the notable aspects of Eugène Delacroix as an artistic person is his deep respect for the art of the Classical Antiquity, an active, lively applying to its images and forms that is untypical for the Romanticism. At the same time the attitude of Delacroix towards the classical ancient art contains some innovative tendencies lying in his desire to perceive more deeply the essence of its fundamental difference from European art, to present its more authentic interpretation, to create a new way of synthesis of the ancient and modern styles. To some extent it corresponds with the overall context of the radical revision of traditional views of Classical Antiquity which takes place in the European culture at the turn of the 18th – 19th centuries, becomes apparent in Neoclassicism. For Delacroix Classical Antiquity was not only the source and the model of the perfect, sublime, eternal form and content, as it was for the past centuries, but, quite the reverse, the model of the most objectively realistic, precisely visual representation of nature. Accordingly, the modern European art is not considered by him a direct continuation and development of the Classical antique art improving the field of realistic imitative methods but, on the contrary, he reveals in it manifestations of the revolutionary rupture with the antiquity, the subjective, expressive and picturesque deformations of nature having a view to convey some new, especially personal meanings and impressions. In the works of Delacroix, in the depiction of human figures, the bold, inventive effects of spatial overlaps, dynamic modelling, rich surroundings, borrowed from the works of the old masters, which were for him the main source of inspiration, are exaggerated and transformed into real “errors” and obvious distortions of natural forms which destination is to strike the viewer’s imagination. At the same time, another evident purpose of this phenomenon is seeking for the simple and clear devices to construct a general form of separate plastic elements that is, sure enough, can be considered as an exaggerated rationalist analogue of the classical antique artistic canon, with his such special features as, in accordance with the observations of Delacroix, an intact corporeality of forms and a tectonic distinctness of their conjunctions. As a result, the originality of the combination of the Classical antique and European styles in the works of Delacroix consists in the persistent emphasizing of certain “incomplete”, “unfinished”, “fragmented”, briefly sketched treatment of figures, which corresponds with the artist’ s interest in ruined, damaged monuments, his practice of working with casts, partial equivalents of statues. Thus, contrary to the principle of the “revival” of the Antique, the actualization of the classical ideal that guided the old European masters, Delacroix, on the contrary, seeks to preserve in his figures the features of some “museum” aloofness, inaccessibility, integrity, and maintains the ideal through its grotesque denial that indicates his adoption of the new Neoclassical method and his peculiar realization of the fundamental Romantic principle.

Ефимова Елена Анатольевна

МГУ имени М.В. Ломоносова, РФ

Доклад посвящен исследованию проблемы восприятия античных архитектурных памятников в художественной культуре Ренессанса. Он рассматривает любопытный феномен – достаточно широкое распространение в архитектурном рисунке и гравюре этой эпохи изображений мнимых «римских» памятников и «псевдоантичных» фантазий, запечатленных в группе произведений, условно называемой «Roma antica». Констатируется их последовательная эволюция на протяжении столетия с конца XV до конца XVI вв., как в Италии, так и за ее пределами, а также их воздействие на различные виды изобразительного искусства: живопись, скульптуру, декоративно прикладное искусство. Анализируются различные версии происхождения этих фантазий, их связь как с гуманистической литературно-философской традицией, так и с профессиональной ремесленной практикой. Автор рассматривает вероятность отражения в них мотивов подлинной древнеримской живописи I в. н.э. и реального археологического опыта ренессансных художников, оценивает влияние, которое они оказали на архитектурный пейзаж с руинами, гротескный декор, архитектуру малых форм в садово-парковом искусстве, а также на развитие теоретических взглядов и конкретных проектов ренессансных архитекторов. В результате напрашивается вывод о том, что сосуществование в представлении Ренессанса двух пластов восприятия античности: с одной стороны, — точной фиксации подлинных археологических памятников, а, с другой, — их вымышленных произвольных реконструкций, основанных на творческом перевоплощении исторического и художественного опыта, — раскрывает важную специфическую особенность мышления эпохи. Античность составляла для нее не отдаленный абстрактный идеал и не объект научных исследований, а живую актуальную материю, находящуюся в постоянном диалоге с современным художественным процессом. Осознание исторической дистанции между разными эпохами не означало разрыва между ними – античность продолжала «воссоздаваться» и домысливаться в соответствии с собственными творческими задачами.
В этом творческом отношении к античности – отличие Ренессанса от всех последующих культур.

The report is devoted to investigation of the problem of perception of ancient architectural monuments in the artistic culture of the Renaissance. It considers a curious phenomenon — the long-term existence and wide diffusion in architectural drawings and engravings of this era, along with figures of the authentic Roman antiquities, imaginary monuments and «pseudo-antique» fantasies embodied in a group of drawings called "Roma antica". The author establishes their longterm expansion and consistent evolution over the centuries from the late 15th to the end of the 16th century, both in Italy and abroad, and also the large influence on the visual arts: painting, sculpture, decorative arts. She analyses the various versions of the origin of these fantasies, their relationship with the humanistic literary-philosophical tradition and the professional craft practice.
The author considers the possibility of the reflection in these fantasies of the motives of authentic ancient Roman painting of 1st century AD and of real archaeological experience of Renaissance artists, estimates the impact they have had on the architectural landscape with ruins, grotesque decoration, architecture of small forms in landscape art, as well as on the development of theory and projects Renaissance architects. As a result, it can be concluded that the coexistence of the two layers of antiquity perception in the view of the Renaissance: on the one hand, accurately capture the true archaeological sites, and, on the other hand, their fictional arbitrary reconstructions based on the creative transformation of historic and artistic experience — reveals an important specific feature of the thinking of the era. Rather than being far distant, abstract ideal construct and an object of scientific research, the antiquity was live and relevant material, which used to be in a constant dialogue with the contemporary art process. The awareness of the historical distance between different eras did not presuppose the gap between them – the antiquity continued the "recreation" in accordance with their own creative goals. The difference between the Renaissance and all subsequent cultures refers to this creative attitude towards antiquity.

Форти Барбара

Римский Университет Ла Сапиенца, Италия

The continuity with classical tradition in the Middle Ages is shown by heterogeneous artistic occurrences (as the reuse of spolia or the inspiration to antiquity, conceived as a model), which express different purposes, variable technical skills and levels of awareness (not always easy to identify, indeed) from time to time.
The case here debated belongs to the category of artworks which ‘recover’ antiquity, and it highlights the transformation of the model, proposed again with a new significance and renewed forms. In the church of the convent of St. Charles Borromeo in Cave (Rome), two twisted columns, dating back to the late 11th or early 12th century (on a comparative basis), are kept.
The two columns, similar to another couple in the church of Trinità dei Monti in Rome, represent a particularly fortunate case, since the model is recognizable and still surviving: in fact, they look as reduced size replicas of the monumental columnae vitineae, likely produced in the Eastern part of the Empire no later than the 3rd century A.D. and reused in the now dismembered Constantinian pergula in the ancient Vatican basilica.
Identification of the model permits to ascribe the two columns to a context particularly favourable to the reproduction of Early Christian artworks, possibly Rome under the papacy of Gregory VII (1073-1085) and his successors.
The origin and function of the columns in Cave are unknown. Anyway, both their propensity for figurative art and the relief style, can be useful elements to relate with other contemporary artworks, such as the haghiasma of Grottaferrata Abbey (Rome). This group of artifacts allows to redefine the varied scenery of Roman art between the 11th and the 12th century, where, besides the most famous ‘non-iconic’ tendency – systematically practiced since the early 12th century by the marmorari conventionally defined as ‘Cosmati’ – the presence of a ‘figurative’ current should be noticed. Antiquity, which is once again an instrument of creativity for artists of all times, acts on both tendencies as the unifying background.