The stiff, rather scholastic hand seen in the architecture, together with the wooden support (in truth, rarely used by either of the Guardis), suggest comparisons with the work of Francesco’s son, Giacomo, who specialised in reworking and miniaturising the views produced by his father. 

Antonio Morassi has already observed how the small landscapes by the Guardi father and son were built upon arrangements borrowed from models by Canaletto. However, the small format and lively brushstrokes take us to a completely different dimension from that of their illustrious predecessor: a miniaturised, pocket-sized Venice that incorporates elements of the pretty souvenir, sentimental memories and, necessarily, regret and dreams. A city that is not simply described, but modelled and shaped by the imagination, within the coordinates typical of the Guardis’ world. 

Although Morassi considered the two works in question to be autograph pieces by Francesco, particularly the painting of the Quay with Palazzo Ducale, which he described as a “very beautiful work from his mature period, to be dated around 1760-70”, a certain coldness and rigidity in the interpretation of the scene has led us to reconsider the authorship of the two panels. The stiff, rather scholastic hand seen in the architecture, together with the wooden support (in truth, rarely used by either of the Guardis), suggest comparisons with the work of Francesco’s son, Giacomo, who specialised in reworking and miniaturising the views produced by his father. 

Giacomo, who was underestimated for many years, compared unfavourably to his father and has only been placed in the spotlight over recent decades as regards his graphic production (to which regard, see particularly the drawings conserved at the Museo Correr in Venice¹) and, to a more limited extent, his paintings. Regarding the nature of his art, which sometimes slides into able but somewhat scholastic craftsmanship, the specifications made by Succi relating to his reuses and manipulations of various models developed by his father apply in terms of his extensive production of “capricci”,² partly conducted under Francesco’s supervision, but many of which were also developed several years after his father’s death. 

Giacomo’s language is translated into figures that are almost caricatures compared to the delicate, intangible creatures of his father, highlighted with excessively showy touches of the brush. The clear and crisp, yet stiff and slightly uncertain lighting is incompatible with the blurred, animated lighting of the model. His paper architectures, designed to create a “pretty” overall effect, are lacking in Francesco’s poetry. For all these reasons, it seems likely that we should remove these small landscapes, which are not entirely lacking in charm, from the catalogue of the more important artist in the family in order to assign them to Giacomo. They can be dated to a period after his father’s death, when Giacomo possessed greater formal control and a more consistent style. It seems likely he painted them in an attempt to imitate as far as possible an interpretation of the landscape genre that was still highly successful and appreciated by the public. 

Denis Ton

¹ See Pignatti 1983, vol. III, pp. 207-286.

² D. Succi, “Francesco Guardi 1712-1793”, in Gorizia 1988, pp. 325-383.