| LEONARDO MAKES distinctions
between the arts of poetry and painting which prefigure Lessing. Painting
as a more noble art than poetry because: 1) A poet’s tongue would "be parched
with thirst and [his] body overcome by sleep and hunger" before he could
achieve what a good painter could present in a single instant to the same
audience (50). 2) It is easier for the painter to conform simultaneously
to (Artistotle's) three unities of action, time and place. 3) Painting
is superior in inspiring men to acts of worship and of love: before a picture
of the Deity mankind kneels down in adoration; and a painter can create
women as lovely as any born. 4) The Painter can teach moral lessons most
convincingly. "Poetry puts down its subjects in imaginary written characters,
while painting puts down the identical reflections that the eyes receive
as if they were real" (49). 5) The poet can only describe outward appearance
piecemeal, as if a face were to be revealed bit by bit with the part previously
shown covered up. The Poet is unable to render harmonious proportions,
which can only be gauged when seen together as a unity. The simultaneity
of harmonious concord which reaches the eyes simultaneously is without
parallel and superior to all other sensations. 6) "The work of the painter
is immediately understood by its beholders," whereas "the works of poets
are read at long intervals; they are often not understood, and require
many explanations, and commentators very rarely know what was in the poet's
mind" (60). 7) The beauty of the natural world compels men to leave their
homes and to wander. And likewise, a picture of summer in winter gives
more pleasure than a poem about summer. 8) Painting serves a better and
nobler sense (sight is valued three times greater than the other senses).
The eye embraces the beauty of the whole world. So argues Leonardo. (Jean
Jacobson.) |