From Face to Vision: Good Likeness
Abstract
One of the most important art-theoretical texts of the eighteenth century is Joshua Reynolds&s;s Discourses on Art , written to build the reputation and authority of the Royal Academy as an institution. The trend in the eighteenth century was, according to Nadia Tscherny, that &s;expression&s; came gradually preferred to &s;depiction&s; in portraiture and the debate about good likeness was steered from within the newly founded Royal Academy, with its president exploring the changing nature of good likeness. Both Reynolds and Johann Caspar Lavater believe that good likeness evokes a positive and physical response in the observer, but while Reynolds wants to teach his students to look beyond the minute and the particular, Lavater privileges detail. In addition, while it is important to examine faces, character can only be determined by means of a physiognomical drawing, but these drawings often fail to embody what Lavater believes he sees in a face.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
- Authors
- Erle, S.
- Corresponding author
- Erle, Sibylle
- ORCID
- Erle, Sibylle
- Venue
- Blake, Lavater and Physiognomy
- Publisher
- Routledge
- Published
- 2017-12-02
- Pages
- 35-53
- OpenAlex
- W2907491374
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Routledge eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Visual Arts and Performing Arts › Visual Culture and Art Theory
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Museology › Historical Art and Culture Studies
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Visual Arts and Performing Arts › Art, Aesthetics, and Perception
- Keywords
- Joshua Reynolds, Johann Caspar Lavater, Royal Academy, portraiture, physiognomy, face, eighteenth-century art theory, detail
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review