Art Journal

ISSN: 0004-3249 (Print) 2325-5307 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcaj20

Martin Davies, Rogier van der Weyden, an Essay

with a Critical Catalogue of Paintings Assigned to
him and to Robert Campin

James Douglas Farquhar

To cite this article: James Douglas Farquhar (1975) Martin Davies, Rogier van der Weyden, an
Essay with a Critical Catalogue of Paintings Assigned to him and to Robert Campin, Art Journal,
35:2, 180-182, DOI: 10.1080/00043249.1976.10793275

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00043249.1976.10793275

Published online: 16 Oct 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rcaj20

Download by: [Nanyang Technological University] Date: 15 June 2016, At: 16:17
 ones. For this reason, the future of the arts
appears to be intimately linked with the fu-
ture of the sciences.
To a certain degree, such dependency has
always characterized the relationship be-
tween the arts and the sciences. With the
notable exception of Renaissance man, how-
ever, the scientist and the artist have carried
on a rather independent if not questioning,
disdainful, or hostile relationship with one
another. While attempting to maintain a sep-
arate-but-equal social posture, the artist
nonetheless has often used materials newly
created by technology and at times has even
fashioned new materials himself.
The rejection of representation and the rise
of abstraction, coupled with a greater depend-
ency of society on science, have in recent
times left the arts in a more than usually
compromised position vis-a-vis the sciences.
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 16:17 15 June 2016
And as Douglas Davis recounts inArt and the
Future, this dependency of art on science is
growing. The important question for the arts
is: What can be accomplished through a full
collaboration with the sciences? After all, can-
not the Renaissance period of synthesis be
best characterized by a notable acceleration
in both arts and sciences? A balance was
maintained then and can perhaps be main-
tained in the future-so long as the arts and
the sciences remain separable. The implica-
tion of Davis's historical account, however, is
that in recent years the arts have literally
lost their distinctiveness and can no longer be
separated from the sciences.
Davis's book is formally and logically divi-
ded into three sections: a history of the role of
the sciences in 20th-century art; a selection of
thumbnail sketches and interviews related to
modern scientific arts; and a short essay on
the future developments in the arts-cum-sci-
ences. Read straight through, the book goes
continuously downhill. Davis's historiogra-
phy, although admittedly selective, is enter-
taining, pertinent, and thought-provoking.
His biographies are less well put together,
though they do offer-for good and for ill-
artists' own statements on several issues. His
prophecy, not unexpectedly, is problematic,
inspecific, and insubstantial. On this score,
the book is grossly mistitled.
In the biographical, or "Process" section,
Davis reprints conversations, manifestoes,
and statements from some leading artists of
our time, concerned with the symbiosis of art
and technology. The names of Kepes, Takis,
Rauschenberg, and Kluver are sufficient to
give an idea of his selection. Since everything
Davis includes was confirmed by the original
sources, some of the more insightful or not-so-
insightful comments that appear in his study
may be accepted as authentic, such as "the
idea that technical elements have to work
puts a foreign constraint on the use of techno1-
ogy in art," or "music had never been married
with sex, and they should because they are
both nice things, music and sex, like franks
and beans,"or "human perceptions are won-
180
derfully complex and subtle themselves and
seem to invite engagement on an equally so-
phisticated level." Insofar as it provides origi-
nal source material, this section is quite valu-
able, but for curious reasons (Has anyone yet
been able to talk coherently about creativ-
ity?), it inevitably falls short of Davis's own
art-historical analyses.
The section on "Prophecy" is quite differ-
ent. Davis's attempt to predict the future of
the arts is based on his choice of ten key
images (art works) to represent the present
moving into the future; they include a ma-
chine that destroys itself, a wall that re-
sponds to clapping, a project with no tangible
results, and a machine that produces neither
predictable nor understandable images. This
is not meant to imply that we are not a part of
a tangible, readable, or interpretable trend.
The uses of technology in art are growing; for
example, cybernetic styles, wherein the work
of art is reactive to the audience, are becom-
ing more common. Accompanying this inter-
actionist genre is a concentration on the "sen-
sory" and the "evanescent" as distinguished
from the "iconic" and the "static" that have
characterized past styles. However, the abso-
lute direction of art is anyone's guess, and
after reading Davis's coda (much influenced
by Fuller, McLuhan, and Bernal), the direc-
tion of art remains as great a mystery as the
direction of science. It may only be reckoned
that these two are for the foreseeable future
tightly interdependent.
The most significant part of Davis's work
traces the relationship between art and sci-
ence since the beginning of the 20th century.
Delightfully, this essay speaks simultane-
ously to several issues-technological, art his-
torical, and critical. It is erudite, if compen-
dious, and, like other parts of the book, it is
lavishly illustrated. Davis's thesis is that
contemporary artists' association with tech-
nology and science has surpassed the degree
of involvement characteristic of past artists.
Since the time of the Futurists (who held
science "victorious") and the champions of
Dada, the imbalance between science and art
has grown so great that now pure science can
stand as art (e.g., argon and helium-neon
laser beams penetrating the dark), and art
works are left without any inherent qualities
independent of their quasi-scientific fascina-
tion (e.g., textual collages with paradoxically
smooth surfaces "created" by copier ma-
chines).
Two separate post-Industrial Revolution pe-
riods emerge as turning points in the course
of the seduction of the arts by the sciences.
First, at the turn of this century, artists could
have ignored, opposed, or exploited the com-
ing industrial tide. Not among the obvious
choices and not to be foretold was the fourth
(unthinkable) alternative, the exploitation of
art by technology. By 1952, however, Munari
proclaimed in his Manifesto del Machinismo:
"No more oil colors, but jet flames, chemical
reactions, rust, thermal changes." The second
turning point came in the 1960s, when artists,
particularly in America, began to devote
their art self-consciously to technology.
From this history, the logical roots of any
artistic futurology are exposed. The hope for a
"single spirit" (Davis's term) wherein art
might fuse with technology but somehow
maintain its own integrity derives from a pro-
jection that art will continue to involve itself
deeply with technology and from the wish
that art might derive a new elan and direc-
tion from the symbiosis. Recent indications,
as they are enumerated in Art and the Future,
do not bode well for this outcome. As art and
science continue to fuse, it becomes clearer
that the result is closer to science, because
science requires expertise, and because it has
greater social necessity and import. Thus, if
one asks: Since art grows closer to pure sci-
ence, what will be left for art? One can only
answer that very little will be left for it, un-
less pure science could be called art. This is
either a cop-out for art or a recognition of
what scientists have known all along, namely
their own work is beautiful and artistic. An
example may help here. Takis is reported to
have recently suspended a nail in the air,
using magnetic forces. This act, he claimed,
brought "energy and life to dead materials"
and was, hence, his art. In the history of
western plastic arts, technology has always
been a means to an end; in the foregoing'
example, technology is, by itself, the artistic
end. The question for art is: Will this suffice?
Even if progression in the plastic arts were
not so dependent upon advanced technologies,
other hard questions would still arise. How
does technological assistance invade or,
change artistic conceptions? Must artists be-
come pure technicians themselves? How
much of art will become motorization or elec-
trification of ideas otherwise suited to conven-
tional media? As art approximates fusion
with technology, who should make art, artists
or technologists? It is a shortcoming of Mr.
Davis's otherwise worthy book that many
questions like these are not considered, al-
though it is abundantly clear that they will
have to be considered in the near future.
MARC BORNSTEIN
Princeton University
Martin Davies, Rogier van der Weyden, an
essay with a critical catalogue of paintings.
assigned to him and to Robert Campin, New
York, Phaidon Press, 1972. 272 pp., 200 ills.
$38.50.
Martin Davies' monograph is intended W
serve as an introduction to the art of Rogier
van der Weyden and Robert Campin; the au·'
thor writes that he considers this book to be
"primarily a collection of plates." Conse
quently one should not expect to find a com
prehensive study of Rogier van der Weyden
and Robert Campin here. The text, however,:
is richer than Davies' appraisal would suggest'
ART JOURNAL, XXXVI2!
 The book is divided into three parts: an
introductory essay; plates; and a catalogue of
works associated with Robert Campin and
Rogier van der Weyden. Included in the cata-
logue section are useful synopses of biographi-
cal data for Rogier van der Weyden, Robert
Campin, and Jacques Daret, as well as a con-
cordance of the plates to the 1967 edition of
Max J. Friedlander's Early Netherlandish
Painting and to Micheline Sonkes' Dessins du
XVe siecle: groupe van der Weyden. Indices of
persons, iconography and locations conclude
the volume.
Almost every work of Jacques Daret, Rob-
ert Campin, and Rogier van der Weyden is
illustrated in the plates, and those omitted
can usually be found in the 1967 edition of
Friedlander. Excellent details and previously
unavailable enlargements of some paintings
will be useful guides when the original is not
accessible. In addition, a hitherto unpub-
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 16:17 15 June 2016
lished photograph of the damaged reverse
side of the Frankfort Thief is included. The
quality of photographic reproduction is good,
with resolution and exposure permitting ex-
amination of brushwork in some details.
Apart from a list of frequently cited works,
there is no separate bibliography for the book,
and bibliographical references must be
gleaned from the catalogue entries. This is
often inconvenient and increases the likeli-
hood that some sources will be overlooked.
Moreover, many additions should be made to
the sources cited by Davies.
Davies' essay treats aspects of Rogier van
der Weyden's art rather than the entire pano-
rama of his activity. The author succinctly
points out the paucity of documents that serve
as the basis of Rogierian studies. According to
his analysis, the Prado Deposition, the Escor-
ial Crucifixion, and the Granada-Miraflores
Altarpieces provide the most secure means for
identifying and defining Rogier van der Wey-
den's style. Davies treats the fundamental
question of how we associate this painting
style with what we know of Rogier van der
Weyden's biography with a sophisticated mix
of documents, stylistic analysis, and logic.
Auxiliary evidence relating to Jacques Daret
allows Davies to work convincingly with the
intricate problems and apparent contradic-
tions of the evidence. Finally, he discusses
Rogier van der Weyden's style as found in the
major attributed works. A brief analysis of
Robert Carnpin's painting style follows in or-
der to distinguish the style of the master from
that of his talented pupil.
Considering the care Davies takes to select
the most secure works for defining Rogierian
style, it is somewhat surprising that he does
not use similar critical standards for recogniz-
ing and defining the art of Robert Campin.
Since no documents provide even secondhand
evidence for linking extant paintings in satis-
factory condition to Robert Campin or the
Master of Flernalle, our idea of the style of
this master depends on the paintings for
which the Master of F'lemalle or Merode was
named-the Merode Altarpiece and the
182
Frankfort panels. Other paintings have been
attributed to Campin on the similarity of
their painting style to that of the originally
recognized works. Davies does not use the
Merode Altarpiece, which he has not seen, as
the basis for defining Campin's style, but be-
gins instead with the Betrothal of the Virgin
in the Prado. Given its combination of Eyck-
ian elements and awkwardness, this painting
is not the most representative work of the
Flemalle style. Indeed, its authenticity, ac-
knowledged as sometimes controversial by
Davies, has been questioned by Lilli Fischel.
Whether one accepts Lilli Fischel's conclu-
sions or not, it would have been more logical
for Davies to begin his analysis with the
Frankfort panels from the reputed abbey of
Flemalle.
Some of Davies' ideas depart from the main-
stream of Rogierian scholarship, and they
should stimulate renewed inquiry into Rogier
van der Weyden's career. For example, his
reattribution of the enigmatic Werl Altarpiece
(see also Charles Cuttler's Northern Painting
from Pucelle to Bruegel) deserves considera-
tion, because the place of this work in the
Rogierian circle of paintings is far from being
decided. The controversy surrounding this
painting typifies the changed perspective con-
cerning Robert Campin and Rogier van der
Weyden since publication of Panofsky's Early
Netherlandish Painting and brings into focus
the question of the workshop and imitators.
Davies also proposes that parts of the Frank-
fort Trinity suggest that Rogier van der Wey-
den contributed to this painting. Possibly this
work should be included within Rogier van
der Weyden's juvenalia. In addition, Davies
properly questions whether Panofsky's inter-
pretation of St. John the Baptist's gesture in
the Werl Altarpiece should serve as a basis for
dating the Granada-Miraflores Altarpieces.
Although he does not pursue the inquiry,
what remains unsaid is that any attempt to
provide a terminus ante quem for the
Granada-Miraflores Altarpieces on the basis
of a similar gesture in the 1438 Werl Altar-
piece should also explain the appearance of
the gesture in the Frankfort panel represent-
ing St. Veronica and generally thought to
predate both the Werl and the Granada-
Miraflores Altarpieces.
In many ways Martin Davies' work will be
a useful contribution to our understanding of
Rogier van der Weyden and Robert Campin;
specialists and students of the field will be
indebted to him for his research into the art of
these two masters. Moreover, his succinct for-
mulation of unanswered questions associated
with the two artists will provide a framework
for further investigation.
On the other hand, Davies' book does not
preclude a comprehensive study dealing with
either artist in the future. Perspectives on
problems associated with Robert Campin and
Rogier van der Weyden have changed since
Panofsky's and Beenken's studies. It has be-
come increasingly difficult to accept the idea
that we are speaking of one, or even two
artists when studying the paintings grouped
under the name of Robert Campin; it is also
clear that all the paintings have to be recon-
sidered within the context of the workshop
and of imitators and followers of both Robert
Campin and Rogier van der Weyden.
The Bladelin Nativity is one of the most
striking examples of the need to reexamine
many assumptions stemming from the 19th
century. Given the importance of this paint-
ing, the traditional identification of the donor
as Pierre Bladelin should be reviewed. The
tenuous evidence linking this triptych with
Pierre Bladelin is provided by a late copy of
the painting, not the original, found in Mid-
delberg and a seventeenth-century engrav-
ing, purporting to be Bladelin's castle, but
which was based on the Berlin painting. Evi-
dence usually accepted in support of a defini-
tive identification, such as Bladelin's coat of
arms, his PB monogram, his patron saint, or
an inscription, any of which could have been
added by a man of his stature, is absent here.
Consequently we cannot accept the identifica-
tion of Bladelin with assurance, and we must
realize that debates concerning Middelberg,
its construction and significance for dating the
painting, are ultimately based on a presumed
identification with Bladelin. It is to be hoped
that a future study will resolve this and
similar questions.
Chronology, not attribution or meaning, is
the major area in which studies of Rogier van
der Weyden remain truly problematical. Al-
though no painting of Rogier van der Weyden
is dated, areas of this chronology have been
filled in, and important recent attempts to
solve some of these problems have been made.
Not withstanding the value of these contribu-
tions, present evidence is insufficient to gain
a consensus of opinion for the chronological
order similar to that which exists regarding
the authorship of the works. New evidence is
needed; new approaches must be systemati-
cally applied in order to supply additional
parameters for the dates of these works. FOI
example, studies of French-Flemish manu-
scripts, particularly those from around
Tournai, Lille, and Brussels, between 1420-
60, in which compositions borrowed from
Robert Campin and Rogier van der Wey·
den were used, will be useful in resolving the
critical questions of Rogier van der Weyden's
chronology. Copies found in these manu-
scripts will provide precious termini for dat-
ing Rogier van der Weyden's paintings.
JAMES DOUGLAS FARQUHAR
University of Maryland
Giorgio E. Ferrari, Mario Salmi, and Gian
Lorenzo Mellini, The Grimani Breviary,
London, Thames and Hudson, 1972. 276
pps., 110 colorplates, 29 ills. $60.00.
The Grimani Breviary is not a manuscript.
facsimile, nor was it designed to be one. It is,:
instead, a collection of high-quality COIOI-
plates, with commentaries, of all 110 signifi-
cant illustrations from the single most impor-
ART JOURNAL, XXXVI2