" (Harrison/Wood, 144). .
Such a strong perspective on the acknowledgement of this medium in a painter's foundation. Not only does he feel it is necessary to understand the form via sculpture, but to understand it so fluently that it may naturally be expressed in one's painting style! However every coin has two sides: "the imitation of the antique statues has been extremely useful, and to others pernicious, even to the ruin of their art." (144) What could be the case here? What could cause the painter to be so led astray? ".the finest statues are extremely beneficial, so the bad are not only useless, but even pernicious. For the beginners learn from them I know not what, that is crude, liny, stiff, and harsh of anatomy." (145). He goes on to criticize bad sculpture, claiming it will tear a novice painter's foundation to shreds, thereon setting their career on an unsavory axis.
It is clear that a bad sculpture is capable of poisoning one's future in painting to an irrecoverable state. But as Rubens has said, a good one can be highly beneficial. Francesco Scannelli (1616-1663) also writes on the matter, while speaking of how the microcosm of painting is comparable and relatable to the human anatomy in allegory. When discussing the "liver" of the microcosm of painting, he likens its functions and effects to the expertise and methods of Raphael in that he in some ways filters clean the intake of reference from bronze and marble sculptures. "Just as the liver absorbs from the nutritious blood the finest and most fitting elements, Raphael extracts from the hard stones and bronzes of the statues subtle and delicate artifice, transmuting it into. good painting." (147) .
In another account, Paul Fréart de Chantelou (1609-1694) writes in his diary while speaking to a certain man named Cavaliere Bernini is lectured on the intricacies and difficulties within sculpting itself.
