I’ve continued reading Delacroix’s journal - it’s not the first time for me as I read it about 20 years ago, English translation, of course.  I have some overall observations (I’m up to 1856, or about 2/3 done with the abridged version).

Idea 1: The inevitable decline of the Arts - on page 333 of the abridged edition (April 9, 1856) there’s an idea floated that I’ve seen running though the Journal that:

“..in periods like ours the public develops a love for details because modern works of art make people accustomed to look for subtleties everywhere……before long we shall have learned to imitate the sound of the sea, the wind and a waterfall …. objects that offered to the ear and hidden out of sight now belong to the realm of art.”

“…we have to eloborate everything to satisfy the senses ….before long we shall perform symphonies and show fine paintings at the same time in order to complete the impression.”

“…and thus, from a love of illusion they have reached the point of destroying it entirely.”  “…We are told that Shakespeare’s plays were generally performed in barns and that no great trouble was taken over the production.  The constant changes of scene which, incidentally, seem the sign of a decadent art rather than one which is progressing, were shown by placards with the inscription: “”A Forest’, ‘a Prison’, and so on.  Within this conventional setting the onlooker’s imagination was free to follow the actions of the various characters who were animated by passions drawn from nature, and that was enough for him.”

How does that relate to today?  We have the same problem now - we have to get more and more super hi-fi effects in our movies, with less and less impression (since anyone can produce them with enough time and money and the right equipment) and we use our imaginations less and less.

In Delacroix’s mind, I think, he saw the attempt to realism in French life of the 1850’s as a decline, just as authors like George Sand, Alexander Dumas (Dumas colorful love life is detailed in the Journal during 1854-1855 entries) as a decline and inevitable - sorta like a spiral.  

Artists like Gustave Corbet and even Ingres, are first disliked, but then at times, in a better mood, the artist was able to appreciate Corbet, even if he did not like him that much.

The second theme I have seen in Delacroix’s Journal is the belief that Great Artists have the power of unity in their compositions - and that in a work of Art the details of a work should be sublimated to the overall composition.  For example, Delacroix looked at his former mentor, Gericault’s compositions on December 11th, 1856 and noted:

“…I have been struck by the invariable lack of unity.  Unity absent form the composition in general, absent from each separate figure and from every horse.  The horses are never modeled in the mass; each detail is added to the rest, and altogether they make an incoherent whole.  Just the opposite of what I notice in my entombment (belonging to Count de Geloes), which I have in front of me at this moment.  Here the details are, generally speaking, mediocre and scarcely bear close inspection, but on the other hand, the general effect inspires an emotion that astonishes even myself.  You can not tear yourself away from it, and no single detail seems to call for special admiration or distract your attention from the whole.  The perfection of this kind of art lies in creating a simultaneous effect.  If effects in painting were produced as they are in literature (which is simply a series of pictures following one after another) there might  be some justification for allowing details to stand out in relief”.

There are many examples in the Journal of the sublimation of details to achieve an overall effect (in the imagination of the viewer) and this often required “sacrifices” in details to effect a unity of the work of Art.

I get this kind of feeling with Cezanne’s work - where he tried to do that literally…by making a painting that was “whole”; in earlier times it would manifest itself in an artist making sure the parts of an image that needed attention were focused on (IE: the face and maybe the hands) while other parts of the the painting would be less detailed.  But not everyone worked this way as the genius of artists varies depending on their temperament and gifts.

I think the same thing holds true today - except the context is entirely different.  Yes, if it’s a movie - you want the “idea” of the movie to be more powerful than any single scene …,and what movies can you think of that achieve that today?  In a painting, or whatever we call painting today, you want to make sure each part of the canvas is “activated”, according to Hans Hoffman’s ideas ..but you have to go further than that … you have to have an “idea” that hovers over the work …. and the viewer (hopefully, your audience of viewers) can see, before any of the details.

I don’t think Delacroix would have liked much of the art that came after him… but then…most people can only appreciate, only stretch so much…it’s not fair to expect anyone to appreciate Art that’s 50 or a 100  years ahead of their time…that’s simply too much for any normal mind to stretch…

In fact, it’s clear, in re-reading the Journal, how much Delacroix’s ideas are colored by literary conventions that had become almost obsolete in his own time (even), near the end of his life.  For example, I went to see the Murals at St. Sulpice two weeks ago (again, not the first time I’ve viewed them) and they’re entirely lost on me…and they were lost on many of the people of his own time..already… because the idea of a religious mural no longer fit in - with common taste anymore…and yet there was still a market for it …or else they’d be no commisisions  for it. 

Still, much of the paintings in Churches I saw in France was pretty insipid, and seemed mostly an attempt to feed French Art with church commissions for Art no one really wanted or cared about anymore…and the murals at St. Sulpice showed that…and looked better in my digital camcorder than they did on the wall.

So my take on this …that what’s important that modern artists (after Delacroix) took from him and built Impressionism was so simple, the painter overlooked it - it had to do with color mixing theory …which was popular subject for painters in the 1860’s -1890’s.

The Journal, for me, is an intersting document that reads like a who’s who of famous people who lived between 1800 - 1900, many who Delacroix met or knew well (including Turner, Rossini, Chopin) and others not so well known. 

It’s also true I’m reading the abridged version, which has a lot of the smaller details left out.