Abstract

The theory of paintings argued by Roger de Piles laid more emphasis on visual pleasure of paintings than its function of instruction. Therefore, while many contemporaries considered judgement on paintings to be inseparable with such criteria as historical facts, theological validity, geometric correctness of perspective, and verisimilitude borrowed from poesy, de Piles insisted that such criteria were not the essential parts of painting. For de Piles, the fundamental principle of paintings consists in its visual effect and the ability to imitate things. . If so, however, one critical problem remains unsolved : how could de Piles describe paintings without these criteria ? In this paper, I will show following points as to this problem. First, his description was not exclusively aimed to reconstruct a narattive from which the subject matter of a painting was taken: rather, it aimed to cover experience of viewing paintings. Secondly, de Piles inserted into his descriptions views of his own which was warranted by not some universal criteria but his taste or imagination. Finally, while explanation of paintings by many contemporaries intended to determine absolutely valid views of paintings,what he attempted in his descriptions was to persuade his readers by means of his words