2 sources
2 quotations


Moreover it is said, that it [ndr : la peinture] representeth the Figure upon a Plaine, and hereby it is distinguished from Carving (though not Essentially, but onely Accidentally (as it is said in the Proem) by reason of the diversity of the matter, wherein both of them represent natural things which imitateth Nature likewise, though it express the perfect roundness of the Bodies as they are created of God, whereas the Painter representeth them upon a Flat Superficies : Which is one of the chiefest reasons, why Painting hath ever been preferred before Carving.
Because by meer
Art upon a Flat, where it findeth only length, and breadth, it representeth to the Eye the Third Dimension, which is roundness and thickness ; and so maketh the Body to appear upon a Flat ; where naturally it is not.

Conceptual field(s)

PEINTURE, TABLEAU, IMAGE → définition de la gravure
PEINTURE, TABLEAU, IMAGE → comparaison entre les arts


There hath been a continual Altercation between Painters and Carvers for Superiority in the Excellency of Art : but that Carvers may not pretend to excel Painters in the Essential part we will lay down how far they agree and then wherein the Carvers are Excel’d.
            And as there is no
Essential difference between two particular Men, both being Rational Creatures, so there is not between Painting and Carving, for both tend to the same End, by Representing Individual Substances ; and both must observe the same Geometrical Quantity in what they Represent.
            Suppose a
Painter and Carver were to Counterfeit the same Person, doubtless both would conceive the same Idea of him, proceeding in their Minds with the same discourse of Reason and Art, and (as before) observe the same Geometrical Quantity, endeavouring to make it as like the Person they Represent as they could : and so the Draught expressing the Idea’s of both the Workmen, would agree in expressing the true Resemblance, which is the Essence of this Art.
            ’Tis true one
Painteth and the other Carveth ; but this is a Material Difference only, which argues no Specifical Difference in Art or Science, and it is the Essential Difference alone that maketh a Distinction of Species and Diversity of Science.
If it be Objected that the
Carver maketh more of the Figure then the Painter, it is answer’d, more or less makes no Specifical or Proper Difference ; therefore it is the Defect of Matter, and not of Art, thus far the Arts are Analogical.
Now that this
Art far Excels Carving is easily Demonstrated, since on a Flat, it Represents Roundness and Thickness, exceeding therein the Power of Nature it self, expressing Life and Spirit far beyond Carving, as in these Instances.
Apelles Painted Alexander the Great so to the Life, that his Horse Bucephalus brought into the Room, immediately kneeld down supposing it his Master : His Horse he likewise Painted with such Spirit that other Horses began to Neigh, when they saw him.
Andreas Mantegna represented a Servant in Porta Vercellina, so Natural, that the Horses left not Kicking at it till there was no shape of a Man left.
Venus cannot be made with that Allectation in Carving, since the Complection of the skin, with Colour of Eyes, Hair, &c. are requisite to the Perfection of a Beauty.
            Nor can
History be Carvd without great Defects, since all Distances require a Faintness of Colouring, as well as Diminution of Body : with many more Observations in Nature, onely Obvious to Colouring, of absolute Necessity for the Animating of Figures.

Conceptual field(s)

PEINTURE, TABLEAU, IMAGE → comparaison entre les arts