Historical accounts of academic art theory often stress the dogmatic and conservative character of this theoretical tradition. But the classical norms as appear there need not be regarded as orthodox rules. As far back as the earliest theoretical texts, such as Vasari's Lives, we find flexibility within frames that remain intact. There is one particular structure that perhaps provides the best illustration of this combination between a fairly strict normative theory and relative openness to diverging values, namely what is generally referred to as the hierarchy of the genres. This structure was something more than just a hierarchy: it also defined relative measures of perfection for every type of painting included in its rankings. The hierarchy thus allowed painting in the lower genres to be singled out for praise on the grounds that they fulfilled important quality requirements in their own class. Still, this did not mean that the measure of highest perfection was being questioned. The classicist ideals represented by history painting, the highest genre of them all, remained intact. Joshua Reynolds' 1788 Discourseon his recently deceased colleague Gainsborough provides an interesting example of this classicist flexibility. This text might perhaps appear inconsistent. Reynolds spends many appreciative words on Gainsborough's painting, but the Discoursecloses by referring to the other artist as a warning example to the Academy's young students of art. Those whose ambition it is to create something of real value in their art must choose another way, says Reynolds. But the ambivalence in this text disappears, when we see how it reflects the same kind of logic as the hierarchy of the genres. Identifying a noble goal for art does not mean excluding the relative appreciation of lower-ranking qualities. Gainsborough receives a generous amount of attention and acknowledgement, but the encomium is conditional. The reader is reminded that the merits discussed are being evaluated according to the relative measure. Reynolds makes it quite clear that the qualities he has praised should not be confused with those constituting the supreme aim of the art of painting. In purely rhetorical terms a noticeable break thus appears in the text, but the twist does not raise any theoretical problem as regards the logic. This practice of relativizing the value hierarchy without questioning the value scale itself, was an established theoretical strategy.