As I’m going to be in Paris any day now - and will be when I publish this post - it’s worthwhile for me to reflect, or restate some of the sayings that stood out to me, so far, as I’m re-reading his Journal.

“….It has occurred to me that artists who have a succiently vigorous style are most to be excused from exact imitation, Michelangelo, for example.  When they reached certain point, they more than make up in independence and audacity for what the lose in literal truth”    Paris, Friday, 25th of January 1850   Page 113

I’m thinking Van Gogh, actually.  Or Manet, or pretty much any of the painters that came after Delacroix - doubt any of them were all that concerned that much with the literal appearance of the subject, motif, etc.  

And yet…

“…When one is beginning to work out the scale of a picture it would be a good idea to settle on some light object in which the tones and value where exactly taken from nature, a handkerchief, for instance, or a piece of material.”  Ciceri advised me to this some years ago.” Friday, February 8th, 1850, page 114.

Art is a paradox - don’t copy nature literally - but then again, copy some part of it literally so as to base the rest, which will be, mostly from inspiration and imagination.

“..I went with Meissonier to his studio to see his drawing of the Barricade.  It is horribly realistic, but although you cannot deny its accuracy, it does perhaps lack that indefinable quality which makes a work of art out of an odious subject.  The same thing applies to his studies from nature, which are even colder than his compositions, yet he draws with a pencil that Watteau might have used for his coquettes and his delightful figures of shepherds.  But in spite of this, immense ability!  It is consoling and edifying to me to notice more and more the truth of what Cogniet said last year, when he saw my Man devoured by the Lion hanging beside some of Mlle Bonheur’s cows; namely that there is more in painting than accuracy and an exact representation of the model.”  March 5th, 1849, page 94.

It’s kinda hard to even take that excerpt from Delacroix’s journal in terms of today - we’re so far away, overall, from anything directly representational, as a requirement.   But the other parts make a lot of sense today - the thing that makes an object into Art is indefinable - but yet felt, by those that have eyes to see it.

And it’s also interesting that a painting by Meissonier is here, at the Brooklyn Museum of Art - as exact and lifeless today, as it was in 1849, or whenever it was painted.  I don’t think artists go out of their way to study Meissonier - why would they?  There’s nothing in it for them - nothing that speaks to a person today, unless your looking just for a representation of a battle - and then a photograph or online video will do as well.

“The craft of the painter is the most difficult of all and it takes the longest to learn.  Like composing, painting requires erudition, but it also requires execution, like playing the violin.”

It’s hard to relate to that kind of statement today - since almost all painters are self taught, in a way.  However, then next entry in his Journal clarifies the meaning in a way that does relate today:

“…I can distinguish poets and prose writers among painters.  the rhyme, the restraints imposed by the metre, the form that is indispensable to poetry and gives it so much vigour, are like the inner symmetry in a picture, the studies, yet inspired rhythm that governs the junction or separation of lines and spaces, the echoing notes of colour, etc.  It would be easy to demonstrate this thesis, were it not that more active faculties and keener sensibilities are needed to distinguish errors, discords and misstatements among lines and colours, than to discover that a rhyme is faulty, or a hemstitch clumsily or wrongly put together.  But the beauty of poetry does not depend on the exact obedience to laws, whose neglect is obvious to the most ignorant.  It lies in a thousand harmonies and subtle arrangements of words and sounds which give to poetry it’s power and appeal directly to the imagination, just as in painting, the imagination is affected by a happy selection of forms and a proper understanding of their relationship one to another. ” September 19th 1849, page 85

I think the craft of the painter lies in the ability to sense what can not be verbalized and make of it images that express, directly to the soul, though a technique the artist evolves for themselves - no one can teach it - not really.  Technique, yes, the ability to communicate to the soul - no- it can’t be taught - at least, not by conventional methods, at any rate.

And that’s it for posts that I’ve done before the Paris Trip - hopefully I’ll have enough time and opportunity to post a great deal while I’m traveling.