roque writingdrawingcolour

8/14/2019 Roque WritingDrawingColour

1/21

Writing/Drawing/Color

Author(s): Georges Roque and Caroline WeberSource: Yale French Studies, No. 84, Boundaries: Writing & Drawing (1994), pp. 43-62Published by: Yale University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2930179.

Accessed: 27/10/2011 09:51

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Yale University Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Yale French

Studies.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=yalehttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2930179?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2930179?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=yale


2/21

GEORGES ROQUEWriting/Drawing/olor

I wantyoung eople tartingut n painting oday o observewhat sbeing onebyhandwritingnstructors;hesemen tart ut byteaching heformf etters hich heAncients alled "elements,"andthen hey each he yllablesndfinally hecompositionfwords.Mayourownpainting tudents ollow hisrule n order olearnhow to paint .. -Alberti, Treatise nPaintingWhen write heword wine" n nk, he nkdoesnotplay hemainrole;rather,t allowsfor hedurable nscriptionf he dea ofwine.Thus nkfunctionsoguarantee s of permanentupply fwine.-Paul Klee,TheoryfModernArt

Insteadofadopting head-on pproach o the relationship etweenwriting nd drawing-an approachwhich wouldinevitablyncludethe all too commonplace tymologicalonsiderationfgraphein-Iwill ntroduce third erm, olor,n an effortoanalyze he ntersect-ing,triangularelations fwriting, rawing,nd color.Suchan ap-proach eemsparticularlyppropriateincethedrawing/colorela-tionship s also a well-known airing, ith historical ignificancellits own. By introducing third erm nto these dualisticrelations(colorwith respect o drawing/writingndwritingwithrespect odrawing/color),hopeto exposeandperhaps hallenge hearbitrari-nessandartificialityf uchbinary ivisions ndregroupingstext ndimage, ainting nd ... ).Let'sstartwitha first onfiguration-a anal one which nitiallymight eema bit obvious.Generally peaking, rawingndwritingalikeappear o nvolve heexclusion fcolor.When ne thinks boutdrawing,ne thinks bout blackpencil, harcoal, tump, raphite-notcolors.' Coloredpencilsalways trike neas somewhat hildish

1. The caseofwatercolornd pastel s doubtlessomewhatnusual; f rthisto-rians end o associate hemwith he rt fdrawing,hefact emains hat hey carcelylook likedrawing;nmany ases, thecommon rounds muchmore hesupportingmaterial-paper-thanthedrawingtself.YFS 84,Boundaries:Writing Drawing,d.M.Reid, 1994byYaleUniversity.

43


3/21

44 Yale French tudies(butwhy?),ust as a box ofwater olors lways eems omewhat uer-ile, and both ack the seriousness, nd obviously he blackness, fdrawing.And so drawing s done, preferably,n black, n black onwhite-just likewriting.Whencethe commonground etween hetwomedia: the exclusion fcolor.Likedrawing, riting-at eastprinted riting-favorslack ndseems to exclude color. But whatofwriting onebyhand? Don'tpeoplewritenblue, t east softenstheywriten black?When wasa student, he ball-point en was forbidden-itwas said to corruptyoungsters'mpressionable andwriting-and he ink pen was re-quired, luemore ften hanblack.Asfor he olor ed,twas reservedsolelyfor heteacher's orrections. neunderlinesnred, ne"high-lights"nyellow, utonewritesnblueor nblack.The latter wo renot,however,nterchangeable.or ll official orrespondence,renchetiquetterequires hat one writeby hand-the typewriternd thecomputer eing oo"impersonal"-and n such nstances, lack nk samust. am notcertainwhyt simpolite owritenblue,but myselfhave nternalizedhis ule, ndfeel ompelled ouseblack or consid-erableportion fmy correspondence).Am losingmyselfnspeciousconsiderations?donotknow, ry-ing as I amtounderstandhiscolorlesskinship etweenwritingnddrawing. fter ll, one does nottend o writewith olored encils nduse a varietyf olors, nlessone s tryingo venturentothedomainofart nd togivewriting plasticdimension hat tdoesnotusuallyhave.As for rawingwith olored encils, tmustbeunderstoodhatsuchactivity oesnot evenqualify s drawing. ather,t is an enter-prisethat lmostnegatesdrawings such: "I know t'sdrawing,utcome on "Onewrites,ike onedraws,n blackonwhite. C'est 'critnoir urblanc -Robert [It'sall there n black andwhite], s theexpressiongoes,designatingomethinghat s clearly isible, ndeniable. hereis thus certain isibilityrclarityfthewritten ord, nddrawingshares hesequalities. ndeed,nterms fclarity,hecontrast reatedbyblack etters n a whitepageorbackgrounds optimal.Chevreulstudies his ssue n his famous reatise: e la loi ducontrasteimul-tanedescouleurs 1839),nwhichheevaluates ifferentossible om-binations fcoloredprinter'snkandpaper.As onemight xpect, econcludes hat he tandard ombination fblack nkonwhite apersthe mostsatisfyingne, n terms fbothreadabilitynd ease on theeyes and ndetermininghese hings emakes distinction etween


4/21

GEORGES ROQUE 45reading or hort eriods f ime ndreading orongperiods f ime).2The preferenceorblack on whiteestablished yChevreul inds ur-ther ustificationn a property hichheattributeso color, ndwhichisthemost nterestingfhisfindings:a propertyossessednvariabledegreesby colours,-viz.: hat of eavingupon theorganwhich hasperceived hem uring certain ime he mpressionf heir espectivecomplementaries." uch an impression, owever, an only confusethings nd make reading ncomfortable:It is clear thatthemoredurable his mpressions, [all]other hings eing qual, the ess theorganwill be disposed o receive istinctly ew mpressions,or heremustnecessarily e superpositionsfdifferentmages, s in themixedcontrast, hich,not being oincident, ill tendto render he actualeffectess marked han t might therwise e," Chevreul,519,126).Thus, Chevreulpresents s harmful o printedwriting heveryproperty hichplays central ole nanyworknvolvingolor-and itis with this observationnmindthat wholegenerationfpainterswill nvokeChevreul'saw.Aswe haveseen, hedemand or larityrimmediate egibility, hich color contradicts r compromises,s atraitwhichdrawingndwriting ave ncommon.Claritymust,how-ever, eunderstoodn two senses:theclarity fdrawingndwritingwhich rereadily istinguishablerom heir ackground,ndtheclar-ityof lucidly xpressed hought.Now f here s oneaspect fdrawing ponwhich ritics ndartistsareconstantlynsisting,t s thatdrawingllowsfor heclear xpres-sion ofthought. his conception s, moreover,haredbythosewhodefend olor gainstdrawing: oger e Piles,fornstance, tates hatl'on appelledessin a penseed'untableau"3 drawing s thethoughtofa painting"],ndexplains hat [le dessin] epresentea penseedetout 'ouvrage vec es lumieres t es ombres, tquelquefois vec escouleursmemes, tpour ors l n'estpas regardeommeune despar-

2. "Contrast f tone s the mostfavourableondition ordistinct ision, f weconsiderWhite nd Black s thetwoextremes f scalecomprehendinghegradationfrom ormalGrey: n fact, lack etters pon White round resent hemaximum fcontrast f one, ndthereadings done n a perfectlyistinctmanner, ithout atigue,bydiffusedaylight,ffordingheprooffwhat advance."M.-E.Chevreul,hePrinci-ples ofHarmony nd Contrast fColors nd TheirApplications o theArts, d. FaberBirren, ewly evised dition Westchester,A:Schifferublishing,987), 6, 125. n ourcontemporaryerminology,hevreul'scontrast f one"would ctually e "contrastflightness"contrastse clarteJ.3. Roger e Piles,Cours depeinture ar principes1708) Nimes:EditionsJac-quelineChambon, 990), 50.


5/21

46 Yale French tudiesties de la peinture,mais comme l'idee du tableau que le peintreme-dite," (de Piles, 79) [drawing represents he thoughtupon which thework as a whole is based,with ts ight nd itsshadows,and sometimeswith tsvery olors. Forthatreason, drawing s not held to be one ofthepainting's components, but ratherthe idea of the painting that theartisthas in his mind."] Obviously,thisstatement ssumes that draw-ing providesnot only the sketchof a painting,but also thepainting'svery ssence; that drawing-not color-gives painting tsgreat, orce-ful,over-archingines. One mightevengo so far s tosaythatdrawing,according to this definition, encompasses all aspects of a painting,including its color.A drawingdone in black, with its clear vision of the "idea of apainting" also relies on thecomplicitybetweentheidea and the handand betweenthehand and its tracings. uch a notionalso reinforces roverdeterminesthe relationshipbetween drawingand writing, s iftherewere some kind of correspondencebetween the hand and themind, or, as de Piles writes, between "le caractere de la main" [thehand's character] nd "le caracterede l'esprit" [themind's character]:

On connailtequi est un Tableaucommevous connaissezdequi estuneLettre ue vous recevez 'unepersonne uivousa d6ja6critplusieurs ois.Et l y a deux chosesquifont onnaitre es sortes elettres,e caractere e la main, t celuidel'esprit.-Il estvrai,interrompitamon, que sansouvrir nelettre,'on ugesouvent equi elle est par e dessus.-C'est justementommevous ugezdesTableaux, itPamphilie.4You knowwho has done Paintingustas youknowwho haswritten Letter ou receive rom omeonewhohasalreadywrittentoyou several imes.And there re twothingshat nableyoutoknowortorecognizeuch etters: hecharacterfthehand, ndthatofthemind.-It is true, nterruptedamon,thatwithout peningletter, neoften etermines ho sent tbytheoutside.-Thatisexactly owone udgesPaintings,aidPamphile.

And de Piles adds thatthehand's character n'est autre chose qu'unehabitude toute singuliere que chacunprendde former es lettres, t lecaracterede l'espritest le styledu discours,et le tourque l'on donneases pensees" [is simplya unique and individualized habitthat dictateshow people form heir etters, nd the mind's character s the discur-4. Roger ePiles,Premiere onversation1676), ited yBernardeyssedre,ogerde Pileset es debats ur e colorsau sieclede LouisXIV Paris: ibliotheque esArts,1957), .3, 250.


6/21

GEORGES ROQUE 47sive style, the turn of a phrase that people use in expressing theirthoughts.]There is thus a sortof truth fthe hand, which never ies and whichreveals the state of mind of the person who is writingor tracing5-atruthof the hand which drawingand writinghave in common. Thisprivilegedrelationship between drawing nd the handhelps toexplainthe frequency with which the medium is compared to writing.Matisse, for xample, speaks oftheexhaustingworkhe does in order olet himself be penetrated by his model's essence or character, y themodel's human expressivenessand by "all that can onlybe expressedby drawing." Only aftermaking such an efforts he able to takeup thepen with some measure of confidence: "J'ai alors le sentiment evi-dent" [I now get thedistinct feeling], he continues."

quemon6motion 'exprime ar emoyen e l'6criturelastique.Aussitot ue mon trait mu a model6 a lumiere emafeuilleblanche, ans en enlever a qualit6de blancheurttendrissante,e nepuis plusrien uiajouter, i rien nreprendre.a pageest6crite;aucune correction 'estpossible.6thatmyemotion xpressestself ymeansof plasticwriting. ssoon as thezealous stroke fmypenhasshaped he ight fmywhitepage,without aking way he atter's enderwhiteness, hereis nothingmore can add or takeaway. hepagehas beenwritten;nofurtherorrectionspossible.And so we have a toned downanalogywithwriting,fwe take intoconsideration, as Matisse invites us to do, thewhiteness of the back-ground which has become [a] common place), andtheunwillingnesstorepent ("the page has been written"). There thus emerges a sort of

ethics ofdrawing,which forbids he use of an eraser,and which re-5. This dea resurfacesnthewritingsfJean ubuffet,'Hommedu communl'ouvrage (Paris:Gallimard, 973), 6-37: "Respecteres impulsions,es spontaneitesancestrales e la main humaine uand elle trace es signes. arexemple ne certaineverticalitegerement enchee uiestde 1'ecrituret de tout race umain erpetrevecapplication, n tirant n peu de langue .. Plus la main de l'artiste era dans toutl'ouvragepparente t plusemouvante, lus humain, lusparlantl sera.Fuir ous esmodesmecaniques t impersonnels. es typographiest calligraphieses plus appli-quees ontmoinsd'attrait uequelquesmotsmanuscrits aistraces ans ntentionsarune main oyale.On doit entir'homme t es faiblesses t esmaladresses e 'hommedans tous es detailsdu tableau .. Ainsidans 'ecrituremanuscritea barre 'un , lepointd'un , se trouventeportes,e troisiemeambaged'unmporte a marqued'unmouvement'impatienceude assitude."6. Henri Matisse, Ecrits tpropos urPart,ed. D. FourcadeParis:Hermann,1972), 60.


7/21

48 Yale French tudiesquires drawing to show everythingwithout dissimulation, withoutcheating, without trickery. his notion recalls Ingres's famous, oft-quoted assertion that "le dessin est la probitede Part" [drawing s theprobity f art].This ethical dimension places drawing nd writingnopposition tocolor, which is conceived of as unstable, immoral,and deceptive.Forinstance, t seems significant hat when the authorofan artanthologyintroduces the subject of color,he defines t in contrast to its age-oldrival: "'Le dessin est la probitede l'art.' La couleuren est e charme et aseduction-une personne sage doit s'en mefier, omme d'une sirene"7[Drawing s theprobity f rt. Color is art'scharm and its seduction-asiren of whom the prudentpersonshouldbeware]. n the faceofcolor'sseductiveness,a concept towhichwe will return, heprobity fdraw-ing is affirmed, s is the probityofwritingand of all that theybothreveal.8Thus, a certaintruth fthepenstrokewould stand toreinforcethe analogy between writing nd drawing.The truth fthe pen strokethatmanifests tself ndrawinghas longbeen construedas fidelity o the dea whichdrawing ims toexpress-as iftherewere a perfect quivalence between drawingand the idea,establishedby the intermediary f the hand. In addition to itsfidelity,obediance, and honesty,good drawingmustpossess one other charac-teristic,common to all good servants: discretion. t is in reference othis characteristic, n fact,that Rodin proposes yet anotheranalogybetween drawing and writing, nd particularly iterary tyle:

Il enest du dessin nart ommedustyle nlittdrature.e style uisemaniere, ui se guinde our e faire emarquer,st mauvais. l n'ya debon style ue celui qui se fait ublier our oncentrerur esujettrait6,ur '6motion endue oute 'attention ulecteur.L'artiste ui fait aradedesondessin, '6crivainuiveut ttireralouange ursonstyle essemblent dessoldats ui sepavaneraientsousleuruniforme, aisrefuseraient'aller la bataille, u bienadescultivateursuifourbiraientonstammente socdeleur harruepour e faire riller,u lieu de l'enfoncerans a terre. e dessin,estyle raiment eauxsontceuxqu'onnepensememepasa louer,tant n estprispar 'int6rete ce qu'ils expriment.97. HenriGuerlin, 'Art nseign6ar es maitres: a couleur Paris:Henri aurens,n.d.),1.8. Cf. everal f hecontributionsothevolume:TheHand and theTrace: omeIssues nHandwriting,isible anguage ,vol.19 Spring990).9. AugusteRodin,L'Art.Entretiens eunispar Paul Gsell (Paris:Gallimard,1967), 8.


8/21

GEORGES ROQUE 49The same principle olds true or rawingnart nd for tyle nliterature.tyle hatbears hemarks f ffectation,hat utson airsin order o call attention o tself,s bad. Style an onlybe goodinsofar s it allows tself o be forgotteno that hereaderwill focusonthework's ubjectmatternd emotional ontent. he artistwhoshowsoffwithhis drawingnd thewriter ho seekspraise or isstyle, re ike soldierswho wouldparade roundntheir niform,but refuse o go intobattle; hey re ikefarmers ho constantlypolishtheir low to make tshinebrilliantly,nstead fdiggingtintotheground. ruly eautiful rawing nd style re thosewhichonedoes not even hink opraise, o taken s one bywhat heyexpress.It would be banal to repeat the sayingthat style s above all a "poin-

qon servant ecrire an engraver'spointforwriting]-and therefore ninstrument ommon to drawingand writing-were it not forRodin'sagricultural metaphor that absolutely insists on such a comparison,with his emphasis on theplow's shinybrilliance dowe not speak ofawriter's brilliant"style?).As for hemilitarymetaphor,tsays exactlywhat itmeans: drawingand stylealike are soldierswho should servetheirarmy rather han "parade around." In clear contradistinction odrawing,however, olor s a bad soldier that does parade around, how-ingoffnstead ofbeingcontentto serve, eekingto show its own bril-liance. Color, in other words, tends to express tself.10Perhaps now we arebeginning o sense the reason for he ongtimecomplicity between drawing and writing:both efface hemselvesforthesake ofthat which they eek toexpress,whereas color resistsbeingreduced to such a function. n this light,the artists' and critics' fre-quent analogies between drawingand writingcan be seen to derivefrom desire to emphasize drawing's nstrumentalfunction:drawingas an instrumentof thehand whose tracings re governedbythe dic-tates ofthe dea, drawing s a faithful nd trustworthyntermediary.tis as ifdrawing, ikewriting, as to be as discreet s possible, norder oconvey meaning effectively. he signifier hould be transparent, othat t in no way detractfrom he signified.This notion finds confirmation in the theories developed byCharles Blanc in the second thirdof the nineteenthcentury, artic-ularly in his eloquently titledbook, Grammaire des arts du dessin(1867). The analogy with alphabetical writing, and its attendant

10. Such snot,however,odin's osition-which s infact rare nefor istime,sinceheplacescoloronthe ame evel s drawing. tthe ndof he bove-citedtate-ment, e adds:"de mrmepour a couleur"the ameholds rue or olor].


9/21

50 Yale French tudies"grammatical" rules, becomes even more explicit n the introductionto Blanc's subsequent work, the Grammaire des arts decoratifs."Blanc's position is important and symptomatic because it figureswhole classical tradition at the verymoment when this tradition,which subordinated color to drawing,was being challenged by theRomantics, the Orientalists, nd then the mpressionists, ll ofwhomassign a central role to color. Charles Blanc's workthus constitutesaturning oint of orts, nd it s for hisreasonthathis conceptionoftherelationship between color and drawing deserves examination (suchexamination appears all the more important,n fact,when we realizethat his thought influenced a considerable number of painters).'2"Tout dessin," Blanc explains

est 'expression 'unepens6eou d'unsentiment,tparcelameme lest charge e nous faire oir uelque chose de superieur la verit6apparente,orsque elle-ciner6vele ucunsentiment,ucunepens6e.Mais quelle est cettev6rit6uperieure?lle esttantotecaractere e l'objetdessine, antote caractereudessinateur,t,dans e grand rt, lleest ustement e qu'on appelle e style.3Alldrawings the expression f thought r a feeling,ndas such,its role s to showus somethinguperior o the pparent ruth,whichoften eveals o thoughtnd nofeeling. utwhat s thissuperior ruth? ometimes t s thecharacter fthedrawn bjet,sometimes he character ftheperson rawing.ngreat rt,moreover,his uperior ruths whatwecall style.AccordingtoBlanc, thisdefinition fdrawinggivesus a clear indi-cation of ts origins:"Le dessin estun projetde l'esprit, omme l'indi-

que si bien l'orthographede nos peres qui ecrivaient dessein" (Blanc,ibid.) [Drawing s a design,plan or project of the mind, as we can see inthespellingofour forefathers ho wrotedessein]This goesback to theRenaissance conceptionofdrawing s idea (thefamousdesigno)whichwe find n thewritingsof Vasari: "This design s nothingbuta visual11. CharlesBlanc,Grammaire es artsdecoratifs,2nd edition Paris:1992), II."Just s the twenty-fiveetters f the alphabethave been,andwill continue o be,sufficientor he ormationfwords ecessaryoexpress ll human hought,o too fewelements usceptible o multiple ombinations ave been, nd will continue o be,sufficientor hecreation f n infinite umberfornaments."12. Ihave lready iscussed ther spects fCharles lanc's iews n color. f.,my"Portraite a couleurn femmeatale,Art& Fact Universit6eLiege)10: 1991), ff.;and"Couleur t sacrifice,"thanor (1991),Arte sacrificio,5ff.13. CharlesBlanc,Grammaire es arts du dessin,1stedition1867 Paris:HenriLaurens, .d.), 531.


10/21

GEORGES ROQUE 51expressionnd clarificationf hat onceptwhich ne has n the ntel-lect,and thatwhich one imagines n the mindandbuildsup in theidea."'4In The dea inPainting, culpture,ndArchitecture,uccarimakes thisdefinition fdrawing venmoreprecise yelaborating nthenotion f n "inner esign" designo nterno), hichhe too denti-fieswiththe dea.15IfCharlesBlanc's conception fdrawing husremainsmarked yRenaissance nd classical hought,16we might everthelesshink hatsuch a view has had its day, nd that t is no longer onsidered alid.However, his s not the case.We canfind hisvery ame notion, orinstance, n Matisse'swritings: Dessiner, 'estpreciser ne idee. Ledessinest la precisionde la pensee. Par e dessin es sentiments tl'ame du peintre assent ans difficulteans l'esprit u spectateur"(Matisse,n. 8, 162). To draw s togive precise enderingf n idea.Drawing s theprecision fthought. rawing ransmitshepainter'sfeelingsnd soul directlyntotheviewer'smind]. venmore ecently,conceptual rthas once again ttempted o radicalize his onceptionofdrawing s the expression f an idea-a conceptwhich has pro-foundlynfluencedontemporaryrawing nd which onstitutes woof tsgreat rends.17Butone point s strikingn this formulation f therelationshipbetween rawing nd writing. or n the bove-citedext"Drawingsa design, lanorproject f hemind, swe can see nthe pelling f urforefathersho wrotedessein"),CharlesBlanc egitimateshiscon-ception fdrawing yreferringotto theRenaissance, uttoetymol-

14. GiorgioVasari,roemio f he econdeditionf eVite . ., 1568, itedbyErwinPanofsky,dea: A Concept n ArtTheoryNewYork/London:arper Row, 968), 2.15. As Panofsky otes, On Zuccari's erminologyt shouldbe remarkedhat, l-though . . he heavily eproachedasari or sing he ermidea' n the enseof imag-inative bility' nstead f n the enseof imaginativeontent,' e himself sesthe ermdesigno= idea) n exactly he same double ignificance;e designatedheprocess swell as theobject f he ct of designing's designo," p. cit.,n. 30, 227.16. In Blanc's view,drawing ncompasses rchitecture,culpture,ndpainting(whereas olor s onlynecessaryopainting):drawings so essential o each ofthesethree rts hat hey reproperlyermed he rts fdrawing,op.cit., 1. Blanc hus taysfaithfuloVasari, orwhomdrawings "thefatherf ur hreerts,"n dea taken p byLe Brunwho annexes rchitectureo theAcademy,ndwho commissionshis nscrip-tionfor he nstitute's ediment:Ecole de dessin."OnBlanc's lassical astes, f.,M.F.

Zimmermann,es MondesdeSeurat: on ueuvre t es debats rtistiques e son temps(Anvers/Paris:ondsMercator/Albinichel,1991), 8ff.17. Cf.,Daniel Dezeuze,"Elements e reponse la question: ourquoi e dessin?"in Le Dessinpourquoi?, ctesducolloquede 'Ecole d'artde Marseille, ublished y heEcole d'art e Marseille-Luminy,991, 9-40.


11/21

52 Yale French Studiesogy. It is difficultnot to see in this reference collusion betweendrawing and writing, specially since the author makes a similar at-tempt at etymological legitimation in the introduction to his book:

Le mot dessina deuxsignifications.essinerun objet, 'est ereprdsentervec des traits, es clairs t des ombres. essineruntableau, n6difice,ngroupe, 'esty exprimera pens6e.Voilapourquoinosperes6crivaientessein t cette rthographeintelligente isait lairement ue toutdessin st un projet el'esprit.8Theworddrawing as twomeanings. odraw nobject s torepresentt withpen-strokes,atches f ight nd shadow. o drawscene, building, groups toexpress ne'sthought hroughheseobjects.That swhyourforefathersrote essein, ndthisintelligentpellingmade t clearthat ll drawings a design, lan,orproject fthe mind.

More interestingly till, Zuccari too invokes this "intelligentspell-ing" in order to justifythe Italian designo (a term which lies at theorigin of the Frenchdesseinldessin): forhim, etymology ustifiestheproposition that drawing s a signofdivine ressemblance: "designo =segno di dio in noi" (citedby Panofsky, 8) [designo - thesignofGodin us]. Without getting nto the etymological ustification for linkbetween drawing nd the dea, letus simply acceptthat thisargumentcan help us to understandwhycolor is excluded from uch a project;ideas, thoughts, rconcepts would seem to be more "naturally" inkedto drawing than to color.And this characteristicwould seem to bringwriting nd drawingevencloser together, othof thembeingchargedwith the expressionofthought.To return o Charles Blanc,we findneat formulationof the problemin these terms: "Je suppose que lepeintreetende sur sa toile le ton juste de la chair humaine: ce ton nenous donnera point 'idee de l'homme,tandisqu'il nous suffira esplusgrossierscontourspour nous rappelercette idee" (Blanc, op. cit., 22)[Supposethattheartistpaintshis canvasusingthevery olor ofhumanflesh:this color will notgive us the idea ofa man,unless we have thecrudestof contours to remindus ofthis dea]. Color,unlikedrawing, s

18. CharlesBlanc,Grammaire es arts du dessin,op. cit.,22-23. According oBloch ndvonWartburg'sictionnaire tymologiquee a langue ran Paise,he ermsdessin drawing]nd dessein design, lan,project],asedon the modelofthe taliandesigno, aveonlyhad theirmodemmeanings incethe ndof he ighteenthentury.Before hen, esseinwas more ommonly sed thandessinfor othmeanings.


12/21

GEORGES ROQUE 53patently ncapable ofexpressingan idea. To develop this hypothesisfurther, lanc proceedstogivetheexampleofthe blackman,whomhepresents n black andwhite: "Tous les negres ontnoirs,comment esdistinguer utrementque par la proportionde leurmembres, a haut-eur de leur taille ou les lignesde leursdemarche? (ibid.) Allblackmenareblack: how can you tell themapart fnotbytheproportion ftheirlimbs, by theirheight,bythelines of their tride?].From this he con-cludes that"la nature s'estdonc serviedudessinpourdefinires objets,de la couleur pour les nuancer" [naturerelies on drawingto defineobjects,and on color to nuance them].And so we keep coming back to drawing's power to express anidea-a powerwhich color does notpossess. It is hardly urprising,nthiscontext, hat Charles Blanc condemns color fornot submitting oan instrumental role, and that he exhorts it to remain a slave todrawing.

Le coloriste assionn6,vons-nous it, nvente a forme our acouleur: ienn'estplus vrai.Tout, hez ui, estsubordonn6 l'eclatdela teinte.Non seulement e dessinflechit, oitflechir, ais acompositionstcommandee, enee, iolentee, ar a couleur. ouramenagerci uneteinte iolette ui surexciteraelledraperieaune,il faudramenager cette einte nespace, nventernaccessoire,peut-etrenutile. Blanc, p.cit., 73]Theenthusiastic olorist, ehave said, nvents orms or is colors:nothing ould bemore rue.The colorist ubordinatesverythingotheradiance ftints ndhues.Colornot only equires rawing'ssubmission; t also commands, ompromises,nddoes violence ocompositiontself. norder oaccommodate violethue whichwilloffsetomeyellowdrape- orother,t s often ecessary ocreatespacefor hishue,or nvent nunnecessaryccessory or t.The odd tone adoptedby Blanc in thispassage can be explained, atleast in part,by his historical context: theageofOrientalism and of anever-increasing mphasis on the importance of color. According toBlanc, color is a forcewhich must be reined in, for "en poursuivantavec passion le triomphe de la couleur, le peintre court le risque desacrifier 'action au spectacle" [ifthe painterpassionately strivesforthetriumph fcolor,he runsthe risk of acrificingction tospectacle.]And here,ofcourse,we are back to theparade evokedbyRodin.Based on thesearguments,wemightproposethefollowinghypoth-esis for the second half ofthe nineteenthcentury,fnot earlier: the


13/21

54 Yale French tudiesinstrumental unctionofdrawing, nd its potential autonomy,must besafeguarded gainst the threatposed bycolor.Furthermore,t is in aneffort o reinforce his instrumentality,o which both drawingandwriting ostensibly can be reduced,that the analogybetween the twomedia develops.Whence Blanc's recourseto literature, histime in analmost pathetic peroration:

De memeque les litt6raturesnclinent leurdecadence uand esimages 'emportentur es idees,dememe 'art e mat6rialise tdecline nfailliblementorsque 'esprit ui dessine st vaincupar asensation ui colore; orsqu'en nmot 'orchestre,u lieud'accompagnere chant, evient lui seul le poeme. Blanc, 73]Just s literature oves oward ecadencewhen mages akeprecedencever deas, o must rt nevitably egin o decline ncethemind hatdraws s conquered ythe ensation hat olors; ncetheorchestra,nstead f ccompanyinghesong, tself ecomes hepoem.Such considerationsundoubtedlyshed some lighton the exact na-tureofcolor's "immorality,"whichconsists both na refusal osubmit

todisciplineand to drawing, ndina willful ttempt o be seductive onits own terms. For color is faulted with becoming a sign ofnothingotherthanitself,whereas drawingremainsthesignofsomething else(be it an object, a thought,or anythingelse that moves the artist).Whence the ubiquitous allusions to and analogies with writing,whichis held to be another nstrumentalmode of thought,obediently sub-mittingto that which it expresses.This provisional conclusion mightrightly e deemed a bit flatanduninspired, f ts only thrustwere to affirmhat drawing and writingare both signs. It mighteven be accused ofneglectingDamisch's fa-mous advice that thequestion ofwriting nd ofthesignbe dissociatedin any studyofthe relations between paintingand writing.'9To nu-ance things omewhat,however, he mportant ointto be madehere sthat a certain conception of painting which prevailed n the West eversince the Renaissance, depended,if not on the exclusion ofcolor,atleast on its vassalization orenslavement. n otherwords, twas neces-saryto reducecolor's potential autonomy, ts refusal o become a sign,a vehicle or an intermediary or thermeanings,from he moment that

19. Hubert amisch, ecture iven t theround ableon "La Peinturet 'dcrituredessignes,reprintedn La Sociologie e1'art t a vocation nterdisciplinaire:'ceuvreet 1'influence e Pierre rancastelParis: enoel/Gonthier,976), 98.


14/21

GEORGES ROQUE 55itbreaks ree fdrawing nd s no onger adding,llumination.t s ofcourse n thesegrounds,ndonthesegrounds lone, hat he nalogywithwritings putintoplace-it functions o reinforceherole ofdrawing.Suchwouldhavebeenthe otof olor:not o beunique ndrare, utto be subordinater ubject odrawing. o setthings traightnceandfor ll, CharlesBlanc puts tbluntly,umming panentire radition:"Non, a couleurn'estpas plusrare ue le dessin,mais elle ouedansl'art erolefeminin,eroledusentiment;oumise udessin omme esentiment oitetresoumisa la raison, lle y ajoutedu charme, el'expression t dela grace" Blanc, 3) [No,color s nomoreuniqueorrare handrawing, ut heformerlays hefeminine ole nart, he oleof eeling; ubject odrawingust sfeelinghould esubject oreason,colorbrings o themarriagets shareofcharm, xpressiveness,ndgrace].Inkeepingwith n age-old ivisionwhich s still widely cceptedandofwhichwe are not evenentirely onscious, olor s relegatedotherealmofemotion, entiment-a positionwhichmakes t all themore ncapable f xpressingn dea.Accordingothe radition hichBlancboth ummarizesndexacerbates,olor s feminine.20he im-moralityf olor s thus lso the mmoralityttributedowoman, ndthe same gender oding appliesto its wiles, ts persuasiveness,tsdeceptiveness.n its relation o drawing,olor s a mereornament-superfluous,ut alsonecessary,ddedtodrawings a type f upple-ment.All ofthesetraits, owever,re also thosewhich, s DerridahasshownntheGrammatologynd ubsequentworks,haracterize rit-ing nits relation ospeech la parole).Sucha realization ecessarilybringsbout shiftingf lliances, f t s indeed rue hat olor harescommongroundwithwriting ow is itpossible, romhismomenton,to nsist pona "complicity" etween rawingndwriting,imedatkeeping olor n line?Perhaps t thispoint t isnecessaryo ntro-ducea fourtherm, peech la parole),norderoobtain nequivalencewhichwould ook ike this: olor s todrawingswritingstospeech.Let'ssee ifthisnewformulatandsuptoanalysis.Indeed,t sbyno meansdifficultoshow hat olor,n tsrelation-shiptodrawing,ctsas a supplement,nornament,omething hichis added,and which plays the contradictoryole of beingsimul-

20. Cf.my"Portraite a couleur n femme atale," n oc.cit.


15/21

56 YaleFrench tudiestaneouslysuperfluous ndnecessary.The idea of coloras make-up,forexample, dovetails quite nicely with Derridean analyses ofwriting.2'Besides, make-up, like color, is one of the definitions of the phar-makon.22 n most cases, then,colorfunctionsto appearalongside andin opposition to drawing, ike a supplement-it servesrather o colorin theoutlines tracedbydrawing, relse to enhance them.Obviouslyenough, this last term s of tremendous nterestto us here. Drawingdoes not exclude color, but demands its subjection or subjugation;color is forced o remain, n keeping with Ingres'sorders, he lady-in-waiting, the one in chargeof costumes and makeup. In the formofwash orwatercolor, or xample,color s clearlypresent, ut as a typeofembellishmentor enhancement. To enhance is to bringout, to bringup, to sublate [relever], fardqui rehausse l'6clat du teint," Robert[make-upthatenhances one's skin-tone]. t s ofcourse n a similarwaythatwritingconstitutes the sublation [la releve]ofspeech.Furthermore, he privilegewhich speech enjoys as presence-to-itself, and compared to which writingappears secondaryor supple-mentary, ecalls theprivilege ccorded todrawing s an apt expressionoftheidea, as the truth f theidea. This parallel is particularly ittinggiven the factthatthe voice has always enjoyeda special relationshipwith the idea. All one has to do is thinkofCharles Le Brun,presidingover theAcademy as itsmaster,orrather s its "dictator, (L.Venturi).When called upon to pronounce his verdict on the relationshipbe-tween drawing and color,he plays skillfullyon the polysemyof theword "design" (dessein), insisting upon that "intelligent spelling"which Charles Blanc will later invoke once again:

On doitsavoir u'ilya deuxsortes edesseins,'unqui estintellectuel u theorique,t l'autre ratique.Que le premierependpuremente l'imagination,u'il s'exprimeardesparoles tserepand anstoutes esproductionse l'Esprit. ue le desseinpratique stproduit ar 'intellectuel td6pend arconsequent el'imaginationtde la main, l peut ussis'exprimerardesparoles.C'est ce demier ui avec uncrayon onne a forme t a proportiontqui imite outes es chosesvisibles,usqu'a exprimerespassionsdel'ame,sansqu'il ait besoinpour ela dela Couleur, i ce n'estpourrepresentera rougeurt a paleur.2321. Formoreon thistopic,cf. the study fmake-up roposed yJean-ClaudeLebensztejn,A Beauty arlour," raverses#7,Le Maquillage February977):74ff.22. Cf.Jacques errida, La Pharmacie ePlaton," a Diss6minationParis: di-tionsdeMinuit, 972).23. CharlesLe Brun, ddress o theAcademy, 672,citedby Bernard eyssedre,Roger e Piles et es d6bats ur e coloris u sicle de LouisXIV, p.cit.,n. 1,178.


16/21

GEORGES ROQUE 57It s importanto realize hat here re twotypes fdesign, newhich s intellectual rtheoretical,nd onewhich s practical. hatthefirst ne depends urely n the magination,hat t s expressedin speech nd that t smanifestn all productions ftheMind.Thatthepractical esign sproduced ythe ntellectual ne andconsequently epends n the magination ndon thehand.That thelatter ype fdesign oocan be expressednspeech. t is this econdtypewhich,with hehelpof pencil, roduces orm nd proportion,andwhich mitates ll visible hings, o thepoint fexpressinghevery assionsofthesoul,without eeding olor o doanyofthis,except or herepresentationfredness ndpallor.

This defense of drawing contains a good number of the ideas we havealready encountered. Firstof all, the semantic play on the word "de-sign" establishes a connection betweendrawing nd design while en-dowing t, by means of theory/practice pposition,withconsiderablebreadth and legitimacy. Given Le Brun's intellectualization ofdraw-ing, t s clear that themedium indeed depends on the hand, butalso ontheimagination-just like design.Fromthis t is possible to concludethatdrawingand design alike are prone to being expressed n speech,with the latterfunctioning s the transparentnstrumentofthe ex-pression ofthought.But itis clearly ssuredbythe egitimationwhichstates thatdrawing can take pride in its abilityto imitate all visiblethings,without recourse to color; the latter, n ornamentor supple-ment, added to drawingwithoutnecessity, s nevertheless ndispens-able for herepresentation f redness.24Thus, Le Brun'stextsums upmuch ofthethoughtwe have alreadyexamined,but witha twist-thedifferenceeing ts introductionofspeech as theprivileged xpressionofdesign and, consequently,ofdrawing.Whence thenew parallelwehave proposed in the formof an equivalence: color is to drawingaswriting s to speech.As a startinghypothesis, hen,we might aythatspeech and draw-ing alike hold certainprivileges:thatoftheexpressionofthought, fclarity, f black on white. And, just as writing s considered, n itsrelationto speech, the"instrument fan instrument,25 so color, n itssubordination to drawing, s also conceived of as the nstrument faninstrument.

24. This concessiono colorhas enjoyed remendousavorver incePhilostrates;mostnotably,t appearsn thewritings fDiderot nd Charles lanc. havediscussedthis ssue n my"Portrait e a couleur n femme atale," n oc. cit.25. RolandBarthes, Semiographie 'AndrdMasson," L'Obvie et 1'obtus: ssaiscritiques II (Paris: ditions u Seuil,1982), 44.


17/21

58 Yale French tudiesAssoon as it sformulated,owever,his ttractiveymmetryallsforth n objection, or t is not certain hat peech s an instrument,sincemetaphysiciansave-to go quickly ere-thought f peech sthe"natural" xpression f hought. rawing, n theother and,maybe constantly efined s theexpression fthought,s the accurateexpression f he dea,but talsoremainsn nstrumentalxpression,a trace. e Brun's practical esign, even f tcan beexpressedloud nspeech,neverthelessssentially epends n thehand.Thus, mboldened y hisdevelopment,nd eaving he uestion fspeech aside,we can nowapproachwriting/drawing/colorelationsfrom differentngle.Upuntilnow, ndeed,we have nsisted n draw-

ing'scomplicity ithwriting,imed at keeping olor nline, ubser-vient.But having aken nto account ll thetraitswhichunite colorandwriting-supplement,rnament,eduction-inoppositiono theprobity fdrawing, efind urselves bliged o reexamine ur nitialoutline, r at least to nuance it. The analogybetweendrawingndwriting,nallthe xampleswe havegiven, asalways elied nthe inkbetween rawing nd mitation, etween rawingnd theexpressionofthe dea,andsohas sought oestablishts egitimacy ymeansofcertain onception f"instrumental" riting.t s notwithout nter-est,however,onote hathistorically,t sontheveryamemetaphysi-cal basis that rawing asbeenpromoted,s a supposedlylear xpres-sion oftheidea,whereascolor like writing) as beenconsistentlyreduced o theambiguous tatus fthesupplement.Drawing's lleged uperiorityocolor s not,however, ecessarilybased onimitation,or fonewere o take ntoaccount hiscriterionalone,one couldreverseheentire rgument,s Roger ePiles does nthisunequivocal tatement:Lepeintre ui estunparfaitmitateur ela nature, ourvu el'habitude 'un excellent essin, ommenous esupposons, oitdoncconsiderera couleur omme onobjetprincipal,puisqu'ilne regardeettememenature ue comme mitable, u'ellene lui est mitable ue parcequ'elle est visible, tqu'elle n'estvisibleque parce qu'elle estcoloriee" de Piles, 145) [Thepainter, hoimi-tatesnature erfectlynd s,weassume, ndowedwith xcellent raw-ing skills,must thereforeake coloras hisprincipal bject, inceheonly ooks at nature s something e can imitate, ince he can onlyimitate t nsofar s it s visible, nd since t sonlyvisiblensofar s itis colored].What, hen, s thebasisfor rawing's rivilegedtatus,f t s truethatcolor mitatesbetter handrawing? erhaps littledetour nto


18/21

GEORGES ROQUE 59semiotics will provehelpfulhere. n order o transpose he color/drawing ebate,we might ay hat rawings signifierirectlyefersrcorrespondso thesignifiedidea, oncept), hereas olor'splasticitytakes precedence ver ts iconic dimension. ut when we formulatethings n this way, he source of the dissymmetryecomes mme-diately pparent: heplasticdimension fdrawings erased or he olebenefit f ts conicdimension.26or rawing,ikecolor, lso possessesa plan of expression.n the classical drawing/colorebate,however,thetwoelements renoton equal footing: rawings notthe lemen-tary troke r traitwhichconstitutests "plan ofexpression,"s thesemioticianswould ay, ut s almost lways onceived f s represen-tationaldrawing, hereas olor s rightlyonceived f nterms f ts"planofexpression" lone. From his pointon, t is not difficultoshow thatcolor, eprived f ts "planofcontent,"s incapable fex-pressing signified-a taskwhichdrawing ccomplishesll themoreeasily ince t has already een posited s a vehiclefor ontent.The fact that drawing s made up ofstrokes traits]7 suggestsanother elation o writing, relationwhichwould lso include olor,since color too is composedofelementarytrokes r traits.And sothere merges, eyond he tired ld opposition etween rawingndcolor, nother elationship hich onnectwritingobothdrawingndcolor.Inthis ense, he grammarfdrawing"s a deceptive otion, or ssoonas it positsdrawing s themere xpressionf n dea,confiningttothe evelof ontent lone, ndthusneglectinghemedium's onsti-tutive raits rstrokes. t snotwithout mportanceonote,however,that round 880other rammarsome ntobeingwhich ctas kind fa cruciblefor abstraction," s do certaingrammarsfthe trait rstroke,whichdo not deal withdrawing,swellas grammarsfcolor.Bourgoin'sGrammaire lementaire e 1'ornement,or nstance, e-fines he elementary raits rstrokes f the"graphic lphabet," ndthenproceeds o study ts "rulesofconjugation," yconsideringlesfigures e l'alphabet graphique> non plus commedessignes u desfigurationsraphiques estinees ecrirees formes omme es lettresecriventes mots,maisbiencommedesfiguresudesobjects istincts

26. For urtherlaborationf hisdistinction,f.GroupeM,TraitWusigne isuel:pourunerh6toriquee1image Paris: ditions uSeuil,1992), 13ff.27. The author s playing n thedoublemeaning f heFrench ord trait," hichmeansboth stroke"as in penstroke)nd "trait"as in characterrait).-Translator'snote.


19/21

60 Yale French tudiesexistant n propre t par eux-memes"28thefiguresfthe graphic'alphabetno longer s signsof graphic igurations,esigned o writeforms s letterswritewords,but rather s distinct igures, bjectswhich exist n and ofthemselves]. nd what s true or rawinglsoholds truefor olor.A grammarfcolor s thereforeossible, f t isbased on the modelofdrawing'slementaryraits: Asbythedeflec-tionof point nspace maybegeneratedllthe lementaryiguresndforms fgeometrical nd constructivecience, o from like deflec-tionofa spot nplace maybegeneratedll theelementaryndcom-poundhues ofcolors;the sciencewhich s calledChromatics."29Thus, f t s true hat olor s notdrawing's ther, elegatedotherealmofemotion, eyond anguage, r, s we might ay today,ssoci-atedwith libidinal] rives,rewenot ustifiednthinkinghat olorhas won ts "autonomy" nlywith hehelpof "scienceofpainting,"a chromatics,rrather grammar, hichbreaks olordown ntoal-phabet, yntax ndconjugations,norder oestablish herulesof tsharmony?30Andso themediation fwriting astaught s,atthevery east, orelativize heopposition etween rawingndcolor, oemphasize hefactthat they re bothsusceptible o "grammatical" nalysis, o abreak-downntoelementaryraits rstrokes,whichhavea notableimpacton thedevelopmentfnonfiguration,oth n the decorativearts nd nchromatics.We canfind onfirmationfthis fwe take a lookat thecurrentsituation f the arts.The "eternal onflict," s Matisse called t,be-tweendrawingndcolorappears o bewaning-althoughnotdisap-pearing ltogether3in that oloron the onehand, nddrawingntheother,have both iberated hemselves rom heonce-dominantinstrumental-representationalunction,norder ostand ntheir wnand assert heir ndependentalue.Henceforth,nyexamination f

28. JulesBourgoin,Grammaire6l6mentaire e 1'ornementParis: Delgrave,1880),33.29. George ield,A Grammarfcoloring pplied o Decorative ainting nd theArts, ew editionLondon: ockwood& Co., 1875), .30. InFrance,f. lso E.Guichard, a Grammaire e a couleurParis:H. Cagnon,1882).31. Thereneverthelessemains, eyond he ge-oldonflict,lasting raitwhich ssurely ne of the mainreasons or he conflict,nd that s that olor ends oparadearound,noppositionodrawing. sTitus-Carmeloted: Temperer'clat de a cou-leurpar e travail e a minedeplomb, a laisser eulement iltrertraverses maillesdecefilet ehachuresrises uien dteintesfeux," aken rom is"Notesd'ateliers1973-74)," nLe Dessinpourquoi?, p.cit.,15.


20/21

GEORGES ROQUE 61drawing ndwritingmustno longer ositeach medium s an instru-ment, utrather s a trace or, o put t another ay, o onger s a planofcontent, utrather s a plan ofexpression).tis significant,nthiscontext, hatBartheswas only ble to address hequestion fdrawingbyresortingothe dea that he ssence fwritings unreadability.32tthus eemsnecessary o abandon he dea ofwriting'snstrumentality,so thatwriting an appear s a trace ndso that nother onnectionbetweenwritingnddrawinganemerge.Whence hedifferenttakesthat urface eyond he nstrumentalfunction.Whence lso therediscoveryf hevalue andvirtue fdraw-ing as stroke.As Daniel Dezeuze notes, fter eferringo thework fDerrida ndBarthes: II y a doncune sortede procesen defense el'ecriture ui estaussi la defense u dessin" Dezeuze, 42) [There sthus a sort oftrial, defense fwritingwhich s also a defense fdrawing].Theimportancehat s henceforthttached o the troke rtrait ndrawing,nd ikewise o the potorpatch ncolor,eadsus, nconclu-sion,toreconsider he element hat erved s ourpointofdeparture:the black/white ppositionwhich we identified s the commonground etweenwriting nd drawing,ndwhich eemed o nvolve nexclusion fcolor.On thispoint, oo,wemustnow be moreprudent,more subtle. For this constructs based on the idea of black asnoncolor-an idea whichwe must all ntoquestion.Justs theblacktrace cquires certain egitimacyits ettres enoblesse]when tisfreed rom purelynstrumentalrrepresentationalunction,o blackas a colorcan affirmtself nd triumph.t does so in theworkofMatisse,for xample-Matissewhosetalent,sRenoir ncetoldhim,resides olely n hisuse ofthe colorblack Matisse, crits tpropos,202). Soulages also rehabilitates lack,evenmorebrilliantlyhanMatisse.Evenfor painterikeAlbertAyme,who does notuseblack,butsticksto differentombinations fthethree rimary olors, heworkofcolor anditsdynamism,reclearly onceived fas movingfromwhiteto black-like writing, hich s an important art fhisart.33 rom hiswe mightmove off n another irection, urningur

32. Cf.for xample ne ofhis remarkst theround able LaPeinturet 'dcrituredessignes,"nLa Sociologie ePartet sa vocation nterdisciplinaire,p. cit.,191, ndL'Obvie et 'obtus, p. cit.,144.33. Cf. thecatalogue, lbertAyme:R6trospective960-1992 Paris: colenatio-nale supdrieurees Beaux-Arts,992). raised his ssue nmy ontributionothe ata-logue, Notes sur a partitionescouleurs," 2-54.


21/21

62 Yale French tudiesattention o the importance f writing or color' painters ike VanGoghorDelacroix, n whose work olor ndeed eemstogohand nhandwithwriting.34n thefinal nalysis, hen, he ntimony etweencolor and drawing o longer eems so pronounced, hanks o theircommon inks to writing.Henceforth ther onfigurations ay beemerging ..

Translated y CarolineWeber

34. Jean-Pierreuillerm ives synthetic iew of the inksbetween he work fcolor nd thework fwritingn Delacroix's rt,n hisessay Blanc/Noir,"es Motsetdes couleurs/2,d. J.-P. uillermLille: PressesUniversitairese Lille,1986), ff. f.,also his book: Couleurs e noir. e Journale Delacroix Lille:Presses niversitaireseLille,1990).

roque writingdrawingcolour

Documents