No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
The knowledge of art is revealed, in the modern world, by a variety of mechanical and economic means, for which history had provided no parallel; the techniques of photography and of reproduction, working in concert with the opening of new markets for “cultural goods” lavish on an ever-increasing public reproductions of works of art. This revolution resembles that previously accomplished for the broadcasting of words and ideas, by the invention of printing; we do not yet know if it can be of the same importance in its field.
1 One doesn't claim here to be the only one or the first, and one doesn't forget, in particular, the remarkable reflections of J. F. Revel which appeared in L'Express of March 19th, 1964.
2 For convenience—and although a painting can appear to some as an "image"—, one reserves this term here for reproductions of works of art.
3 It has been noticed that the passage of the works of art from places of culture to private houses—princely acts, but also above all bourgeois—takes them away from the people.
4 And even the Demi-Dieux a fact that gives one cause to reflect.
5 The cinema in effect provokes the same transference of roles, since it replaces our mobile investigation of the world by the movements of the camera; when it takes painting for a subject, as in the Van Gogh of Alain Resnais, it works as we do, but in our place, to form a moving and ambiguous vision, since one doesn't know if the displacements of the objective are a figuration of our own possible attitudes or a silent commentary, deliberately conceived by the director with his own ends in mind.
6 It is true that certain painters, like Delacroix, have often noted on their sketches the names of the colours of such and such element of the future work; but this notation evidently had only sense for the painter himself.
7 Or in Benedetto Croce, or even in Elie Faure.
8 For a long time the drawing has revealed more intensely than the painting the direct connection between thought, gesture and the work of art.
9 It goes without saying that this recognition is less sure than that of the voice; it seems to me, however, to be of the same nature.
10 Certainly, the photograph furnishes conveniently the demonstration or rather the illustration—once the similarities have been observed in the works themselves.
11 Or that which is recognised as such by a certain consensus of criticism and of opinion, sanctioned by the price.
12 "Attributed to…", "Studio of…", "School of…", etc., signifies that the work is not by the artist named.
13 Here the question is not, as goes without saying, of vulgarization. But historical work is not a means of diffusion.
You have
Access