voi Cesnot without reasons; it was grounded in a careful analysis of the value of the naturalistic
tradition in art. nor did Constable defer to imagination and inspiration as means to the
synthesis of art and poetry that he sought. For example, leslie observes,
Constable then spoke of the probable manner in which Titian proceeded
with the composition of the picture, and whether in every respect he guessed
rightly or not, he accomplished his principal object, which was to show that
the greatest works of genius are not thrown off as if by inspiration, but on the
contrary, are the result of patient labour, and often undergo many changes of
plan during their progress.instead, as we have seen, Constable advocated and practised a scientifically
informed observational rigour, as recorded in his letters, lectures and his notebooks,
sketchbooks, drawings and oil sketches, etc. This was coupled with an equally rigorous
application of observational understanding to poetic expression. although Constable
was not revolutionary in outlook – he was not opposed to the past – nevertheless, his
artistic project was directed toward the collective recognition of a new understanding
and appreciation of landscape painting.
as we have seen, Constable’s project was not appreciated by his British contemporaries
and there are grounds for suggesting that the French, whilst applauding his work, failed
to see his work as a synthesis of poetry and science. Furthermore, it is debatable as to
whether Constable would have endorsed subsequent realist interpretation of his art
or the onward trajectory of modern art. hence, Constable eventually feels the need
to provide his peers (and perhaps even posterity) with the grounds for interpreting his
art on his terms. in effect, Constable is forced to become the advocate of his own art
and to engage in a process that reveals a new visibility for his art. Thus, his lectures
function in the manner of the texts of the goncourts and aurier. Through his lectures,
Constable provides not an explanation, not a critique, not an assessment of his work,
but a conceptual scaffold for its reception and appreciation. in so doing, he makes
the connection between its material innovation and a new conception of the poetic
potential of painting that makes interpretation possible on his terms. in effect, they
work toward defusing surprise by preparing viewers to accommodate both the poetic
and the scientific, and by adjusting the appreciative system to demote some evaluative
criteria and promote others. in this manner, he prepares his listeners and posterity for
a proper appreciation of his art and its ambition, and interpretations of his art can
be found that are consistent with the tenor of his lectures and letters. For example,
Wilson, acknowledging the two traditions of landscape painting in Britain in the first
half of the eighteenth century, namely classical and topographical, credits Constable
with, ‘finally elevating topographical, purely naturalistic landscape to the very highest
realms of art ...’ (Wilson 1979: 69), arguing that Constable’s fame justly rests on his
six- foot canvases as, ‘in them he has finally fully assimilated the classical tradition
into his own simple vision of nature, discarding the form but retaining the essential
qualities: order, harmony, grandeur, monumentality’ (Wilson 1979: 86).
in the event, however, the lectures came too late, because Constable’s art had already
enacted effects, both condemnatory and laudatory, in the latter case stimulating, as
argued above, material novelty and de- configured conceptual spaces not entirely