Hubert Robert's View of the Port of Ripetta in Rome

French painter Hubert Robert was born in 1733 and spent most of his life in Paris, however he was enrolled at the French Academy in Rome.  Robert spent a total of eleven years in Rome; it was there that he befriended Giovanni Battista Piranesi, whose workshop was located near the Academy.  The two artists would often go outside to sketch together; both men shared a love of ancient Rome and were drawn to the ruins.  During the years that Robert was in Rome he made hundreds of sketches filling several notebooks,

 Architectural Capriccio with Figure among Roman Ruins, Pannini, c-1630

He also befriended Giovanni Paolo Pannini while studying at the French Academy; Pannini was the professor of perspective .  Robert ended up working in his studio and Pannini became the biggest influence on his artistic style.  Pannini took on the role of a mentor for Robert and the younger artist proclaimed him to be the greatest painter of ruins in the world.  Pannini frequently painted fictitious cityscapes of Rome or “capriccios” which showed a variety of famous ruins grouped together in one spot, these paintings became popular with patrons on The Grand Tour of Italy.

Robert applied to be a member of the French Royal Academy in Paris and was accepted based on his 1766 painting View of the Port of Ripetta in Rome, which was exhibited in the Salon of 1767.  Robert’s painting is a unique style of capriccio, he is “redesigning Rome” by creating a scene pieced together from actual monuments both ancient and modern.  Rather than grouping together buildings to make a tourist capriccio in the style of Pannini, he dramatically changes the urban landscape.  The influence of both Piranesi and Pannini is evident, but with this painting Robert created a style all his own.  

View of the Port of Ripetta in Rome, Hubert Robert, 1766

The Port of Ripetta did exist in another fashion during the time that Robert lived in Rome.  The port was built in 1703 under the rule of Pope Clement XI and was designed by the architect Alessandro Specchi.  An accurate view of the port can be seen in an engraving by Piranesi which was done in 1753 (not shown here).  The port was built on top of a steep muddy bank (the very word Ripetta means little bank) which was already being used for the unloading of small commercial ships traveling to Rome down the Tiber River.  At its height the Port of Ripetta was quite busy but did not last very long; its usage and popularity had already waned by the later part of the eighteenth century.  By the time of the unification of Italy, river trade had declined and Rome’s population was growing, therefore there was a greater need for additional bridges to span the Tiber.  The port was completely dismantled in 1889, less than 200 years after it was built, today one end of the Ponte Cavour sits in its place and a piazza bearing its name is located nearby.  

In visually analyzing the work the viewer will notice that Robert has combined the architectural styles of several time periods in his view including ancient (the Pantheon), Renaissance (the Palazzo dei Conservatori from the Campidoglio to our left) and modern (the Port of Ripetta created only fifty years prior).  The city of Rome of course has combinations of architectural styles everywhere, but in Robert’s work the way they complement each other makes them appear to all have been planned at the same time.

Also notice that Robert has turned the port itself into a ruin with crumbling steps and the marble wearing off of the high harbor wall to reveal the bricks underneath much like the current condition of the Pantheon.  In this detail he seems to suggest that they were built at the same time.  The two architectural spaces seem to fit together nicely, the rounded wall complementing the cylindrical shape of the Pantheon.  Robert may also have done this to comment on the materials used to build the steps.  While most of the stone used for the steps was newly quarried, parts of it were quarried from both the Forum ruins and from the Coliseum and this fact was well known.  The Pantheon sits on flat ground and is today hidden from sight from a distance by other buildings, unlike the Coliseum.  Robert seeks to give the Pantheon a more prominent spot in the city which is fit for its majestic appearance.  By putting the viewpoint near the bottom of the picture we get an increased sense of the grandeur of this monument.

 The Pantheon in Rome, built in 126 AD

What is interesting is that in this work his main architectural feature is a monument which combines pagan and Christian meaning.  The Pantheon was a Roman temple for all the gods currently used as a church.  This unique work nearly gave Robert an opportunity to act as an architect, this redesign of an urban space hints at his later interest in architectural work such as in assisting with the design of the Grand Gallery of the Louvre.  This interest can be seen throughout Robert’s career and his studies at the Academy.  In his sketchbook from 1760 he has already created several small pen and ink wash capricci.  His interest in reviving ancient architectural proportions and in combining Christian and ancient symbolism are evident even then.   

Who did Robert have in mind as a viewer for his Roman capricci?  Possibly he imagined the viewer as someone who preferred to look back on a view that symbolized Rome rather than one that documented it.  There were also political associations with the symbolism of ruins which may have contributed to patronage.  In the eighteenth century Rome and ruins were tied in with the idea of Neoclassical art which became popular after the excavations at Pompeii.  Neoclassicism in later eighteenth century French painting represented the ending of the Bourbon monarchy, using classical imagery to symbolize the pre-imperial Roman republic in calling for France to reject the monarchy and form its own republic.  

Robert’s work can be viewed with multiple significances.  His architectural spaces combine the sense of proportion from both the ancient world and the late Baroque time in which he lives.  His use of architecture both adds to a romantic view of a classical world and can also be seen as a link between the knowledge of the past and the ties to the papal and possibly Bourbon rule of the present.

Imaginary View of the Grand Gallery of the Louvre in Ruins, Hubert Robert, 1796, Louvre

The use of ruins in Robert’s work can be seen to represent the constancy of man rather than to be used as symbols of destruction and decay.  The use of multiple figures at work or at play in his ruin paintings illustrate how mankind continues to participate with one another throughout the centuries.  That same concept led him to paint one of his more well known works while he was redesigning the Louvre to be a public art museum after the French Revolution, Imaginary View of the Grand Gallery of the Louvre in Ruins.  In this work he imagines this building in the future, and the cycle of tourists and ruins continuing indefinitely. 

The Still-Lives of Meléndez and Goya

In an earlier post I discussed how world history could be seen through the Dutch still-lives of the 17th century.  That post as well as this were excerpted from my paper Objects and Their Meanings: 400 Years of History as Seen Through the Still-Life.  I spoke on this last year at the NWHA conference where the topic was "Teaching World History Through Art."  I thought this was an excellent conference theme and learned a great deal.  I personally have learned so much of world history by studying art history and wanted to give another illustrating how the viewer can directly see world events affect still-life paintings.  Still-lives can be seen as primary source documents like letters and diaries.  Larger events in history and going to affect what and how everyday objects are shown.
 

Due to the difference in the reigns between King Charles III and King Charles IV we can see a duality in the style of still-life painting in late 18th  and early 19th century Spain.   As my example I will compare and contrast one each of the still-lives of Meléndez and Goya.

Still Life with Watermelons and Apples, Luis Egidio Meléndez, c-1770, Museo del Prado

The reign of Spain’s King Charles III (1716-1788) brought in a new era of prosperity with the conquest of Naples and Sicily.  Charles III was also working on urban planning and turning Madrid into a capitol city, in 1770 he chose a National anthem and flag for the country.  He had several court painters, one being Luis Egidio Meléndez, who painted a series of 40 still-lives for the Royal Palace.  He wanted to depict every type of fruit and vegetable grown in Spain, therefore those paintings can be seen as symbols of Spanish pride.  The following year Melendez painted his Afternoon Meal which reflected the leisure of the aristocracy who were able to picnic in the country on a variety of delicious types of produce and gave some insight into courtly life.

Still-Life with Sheep’s Head, Francisco Goya, 1808-12, Louvre

However after the King’s rule ended in 1788 Spain began to decline politically under the rule of the ineffectual king Charles IV.  Francisco Goya was the royal court painter but he was disillusioned by royalty, often portraying the royal family as buffoonish.  Goya lived through the particularly brutal Napoleonic siege on Madrid in 1808.  As he painted his well-known work, The 3^rd of May, which showed the horrors of war on a human scale, he concurrently painted several still-lives such as his Still-Life with Sheep’s Head.  This still-life was one of several where the subject was cut up meat or fish.  The butchered meat still-life wasn’t new but was now painted with a sense of disturbing accuracy and brutality due to the severed head.  The sheep can be seen as an innocent led to slaughter the way the Spanish people were during that terrible time.

The Third of May 1808, Francisco Goya, 1814, Museo del Prado

The Imaginary Prisons of Piranesi

In painting, a capriccio is a work where part or all of the subject matter is invented and typically focuses on architecture.  The word itself is derived from the Italian term used for the impulsive jumping of a baby goat.  The capriccio style was developed as an art form in early eighteenth century Venice, influenced by Italian theater.  The genre grew in Italy throughout the eighteenth century, especially in Venice and Rome as a result of the Grand Tour when capricci were created as an alternative to the veduta, also known as a view painting.  The capriccio was not meant to represent reality, but rather to provide the viewer with an interesting image based on reality. 

The Drawbridge, Etching from the series: The Imaginary Prisons

Compositions of capricci ranged in subject, type and style and often included the monuments or ruins in Italy that travelers came to see.  Painters such as Canaletto in Venice, and Pannini in Rome, created paintings based on altered views of their respective cities.  Some were slightly altered to make for a more enjoyable visual composition while other views completely rearranged well known monuments to make them fit into the same scene.  The typical patron of these capricci were British travelers on the Grand Tour who wanted to bring home paintings which captured several specific monuments or created interesting imaginary views. 

 The Gothic Arch, Etching from the series: The Imaginary Prisons

Giovanni Battista Piranesi (1720-1778) was an Italian artist best known for his hundreds of etchings including views of Rome, Pompeii and his series on "Le Carceri d'Invenzione" or "The Imaginary Prisons.  Piranesi was born and raised in the Veneto region and spent most of his life in Rome which gave him the inspiration for most of his work.

The Saw Horse, Etching from the series: The Imaginary Prisons

While in the Veneto Piranesi was trained in both architecture and stage design for theater and opera.  He was also heavily influenced by the Classical Renaissance style of architecture introduced by Palladio, which can be seen in the symmetry of pillars and arches.  Piranesi created a variation on capricci which were based entirely on his imagination; he created a wide variety of etchings showing scenes ranging from views of an imagined Ancient Rome to a series of imaginary prisons.   

The Imaginary Prisons (Le Carceri d'Invenzione) were one series of his etchings that he published in 1750, he reworked and republished them about a decade later.  Unlike a typical capriccio, these weren't created to appeal to the Grand Tourist and fully expressed the imagination of the artist rather than being based on well known monuments.

 The Pier with Chains, Etching from the series: The Imaginary Prisons

These scenes have always been found unsettling and were inspired by an opera set that he had worked on in the past.  They are referred to as prisons, but there are nearly no people in these scenes.  Instead Piranesi uses the same sense of scale as the monumental, ancient architecture of Rome as well as a Gothic sense of atmosphere.  While he was creating drawings for these etchings, he also seems to derive his strong lights and darks from the Caravagisti painters (this term was described in my earlier blog post on Caravaggio) which further adds to the tension.

 Arch with a Shell Ornament, Etching from the series: The Imaginary Prisons

They are both fascinating and menacing, perfectly ordered yet confusing and chaotic, realistic and dreamlike.  They drew on his imagination, his theatrical set experience and his knowledge of architecture.  Considering this work was created in the mid-eighteenth century, this is a far cry from the lighthearted and decorative Rococo style which was now in favor.

The Smoking Fire, Etching from the series: The Imaginary Prisons

Look closely at each print, each can make the viewer feel lost or trapped, trying to figure the way out.  But for the titles there is little to identify most scenes as prisons, if they were referred to in another sense (the theater, the castle, etc.) perhaps they wouldn't be so intimidating.

This series of etchings went on to influence many other artists such as the Romanticism movement, the Surrealists and M.C. Escher to name a few.  Piranesi's other works of art are among my favorites, but it is this series that sets him apart from other artists of his time.