EPPH - Every Painter Paints Himself

Painting vs. Poetry

In the Renaissance there was a long-running debate over whether painting was as intellectual a medium as poetry. Poetry, whom no-one doubted was a “liberal” art, usually won the day as I believe it still would do in our contemporary world. Even art scholars too often think that painting merely imitates nature and little more. Leonardo, though, gave an excellent defense of painting, arguing that the deck was stacked in poetry’s favor:

“Certainly if painters were capable of praising their works in writing, as poets have done, I do not believe that painting would have been given such a bad name. Painting does not speak, but is self-evident through its finished product, while poetry ends in words, with which it vigorously praises itself.”¹

Walk through any museum today and you will find explanations for the masses summarized in short blurbs next to the work. They almost always focus on the craft involved or, on some occasions, what the image meant to the patron. The artist’s viewpoint remains hidden and silent and our job, if we want to experience true aesthetic satisfaction, is to unearth the artist’s meaning hidden beneath the illusion. And, it is every bit as meaningful as poetry.

 

1. Thomas Puttfarken, Titian and Tragic Painting: Aristotle's Poetics and the Rise of the Modern Artist (New Haven: Yale University Press) 2005, p. 37, citing Martin Kemp (ed.) Leonardo on Painting (New Haven: Yale University Press) 1989, p. 46