Jean-Honoré Fragonard, The Armoire (1778) Met Museum NYC Elegant curving lines, light whimsical color palettes, and motifs of young lovers surrounded by fantastical, storybook settings characterize the Rococo - an artistic movement that consumed the majority of 18th century France. The distinct Rococo painting style spread rapidly through the country, influencing all mediums from interiors and furnishings to clothing and prints. Printmaking is a unique practice excluded from the hierarchy of genres established by the Academy of Painting and Sculpture, and was considered to be among the lowest forms of art.[1] Printmakers were not allowed to compete for the esteemed Prix de Rome, and their prints were rarely shown outside of a social context.[2] Most prints were made not to be sold, but rather to be exchanged with friends and spread thusly throughout the public.[3] Therefore, many artists like Francois Boucher (1703-1770) did not fully devote their careers to printmaking but continue to engage in the process to gain exposure and fame. The Armoire is an etching by one of the most beloved and influential Rococo artists, Jean-Honoré Fragonard (1732-1806), who studied under Boucher in the beginning of his artistic career and incorporated many of Boucher’s techniques into his work.[4] The technical process and repetitive nature of printmaking granted established artists a unique teaching tool. Printmakers were able to take a design drawn by their instructors and copy the image onto the plate to be printed.[5] Fragonard, for example, taught his sister-in-law Marguerite Gérard the process of etching by copying the paintings of old masters onto the plates.[6] Gerard was highly influenced by the works of artists from earlier in the 18th century, and frequently incorporated elements of form and dimension characteristic of Boucher and Antoine Watteau (1684-1721). Etchings are the result of a process by which the image is created in relief and treated with acid before it can be inked and pressed.[11] First, the printmaker preps the plate with a layer of varnish, or ground, that protects the surface from acid. The plate is then ready to be incised with the design. Etching is an intaglio process, meaning that the design to be printed is engraved into the plate rather than relief prints that uses the raised surface to produce the image. After scratching out the metal beneath the treated plate, the plate is submerged in acid to expose the design. After wiping down the ground, the plate is ready to be inked and put through an etching press that will transfer the incised image onto the paper. The process of creating an etching in the 18th century was simple for artists like Fragonard to learn, because the process relies heavily on drawings to create the design. Printmaking was not recognized by the Academy, placing printmaking on the bottom of the hierarchy of genres and limiting the amount of engravers admitted into the Academy. [12] Printmakers like Fragonard were free from the boundaries of the Academy, able to create prints that would have been considered unfit subject matter for oil paintings. Fragonard rejected the traditional path of a history painter to pursue less prestigious media like etching and drawing for private commissions. Producing etchings for public consumption like the Armoire led to the production of many of the satirical political etchings produced leading up to the Revolution, like Mlle des Faveurs a la Promenade a Londres (1780).[13] The image pokes fun at the towering hair popularized by Marie Antoinette, a man shooting a bird that flew out of her ridiculous locks. Etchings are a medium of artistic freedom to be fun, to make work that does not fit neatly within the confines of the Royal Academy during the 18th century. Watteau was the first artist to paint a fête galante scene, which combined elements of contemporary Parisian fashion with mythological settings and situations. Influential patrons in Versailles, like official court mistress to Louis XV Madame Pompadour, were enamored with all things Rococo, prompting the appearance of stylistic elements such as gilded vegetal forms and swirling lines in myriad media. Aspiring artists of the era were classically trained at the Royal Academy of Painting and Sculpture by the most respected and established artists including Boucher, who was the favorite painter of Madame Pompadour.[7] Academic training and exhibiting at the Salon, juried exhibitions curated by the Academy, in the beginning of the 18th century was necessary to achieving success and royal patronage. As Rococo reached its height in the middle of the century, however, artists such as Fragonard began to seek public recognition and artistic freedom over the praise of the Academy. Vital to achieving public recognition was the medium of etching, the printmaking technique most suited for draftsman that allowed for multiple copies to be produced and circulated throughout the city. Fragonard’s the Armoire exemplifies the potential possibilities of etchings; its subject matter and style are thematically characteristic of a Rococo print. Fragonard’s career highlights the crucial shift that occurred in 18th century France when artists begin to engage more intimately with the public and less exclusively with the elite through the medium of printmaking. Fragonard began his career in the studio of Boucher, copying after his paintings until he was skilled enough for Boucher to sponsor him in the Prix de Rome, which he won despite not being a member of the Academy. While in Rome, Fragonard excelled in his studies and attended the École Royale des Elèves Protégés upon his return, as was the path to becoming a successful history painter.[8] After exhibiting his Reception piece, the first step in entering the Academy, Coresus and Callirhoë at the Salon in 1765 and Group of Infants in the Sky in 1767, Fragonard abandoned the traditional path of becoming a history painter. He continued his career as an artist, but he never again exhibited at the Salon or submitted an admission piece, leaving him an incomplete member of the Academy. Instead, Fragonard began spending all his time painting, drawing, and producing prints for private commissions.[9] Fragonard is unique among other 18th century contemporaries due to his diverse media and apparent disregard for Academic success.Fragonard’s interest in exploring various mediums like brown wash drawing and printmaking rather than conforming to the structure of the Academy peaked during the 1770s, during which he produced the Armoire (1778). [10] The print depicts two lovers who have been caught in an embarrassing situation by the young women’s parents, who enter the room to find a bashful suitor hiding in the armoire, his hat hung suspiciously over his groin. His lover partially obstructs her face with her dress, turned away from her furious parents who lean in angrily. The bed in the background is left disheveled, other members of the family peer in at the spectacle. Such a risqué narrative perfectly exemplifies the core values of the Rococo: love and mischief. The humorous placement of the hat is a farce only suited for printmaking. Fragonard’s interests in genre scenes and young romance are the intimate, entertaining narratives the public looked to in etchings. Fragonard’s talents in drawing are highlighted in his etching, carving fluid curving lines and patches of shadow to define forms like the hefted up skirt of the mother or the unkempt bed. The dramatic, over-expressive facial features of the main figures in the print are emphasized by the shadow cast upon the face of the father and the exaggerated brow of the mother. The placement of meticulous details beside flat color and curling lines in the etching could only result from the technical process of printmaking. [1] Perrin Stein, “Introduction,” Artists and Amateurs: Etching in Eighteenth-Century France, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2013.4-9.
[2] Ibid. [3] Ibid. [4] Stein, Perrin. “Jean Honoré Fragonard (1732–1806).” In Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000–. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/frag/hd_frag.htm (October 2004) [5] Stein, “Introduction,” Artists and Amateurs: Etching in Eighteenth-Century France, 9. [6] Richard Rand, in French Paintings of the Fifteenth through the Eighteenth Century, The Collections of the National Gallery of Art Systematic Catalogue, Washington, D.C., 2009: 149-150. [7] Ibid. [8] Stein, “Jean Honoré Fragonard (1732–1806).” In Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/frag/hd_frag.htm (October 2004) [9] Ibid. [10]"Jean Honoré Fragonard | The Armoire | The Met." The Metropolitan Museum of Art, i.e. The Met Museum. http://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/360051. [11]Thompson, Author: Wendy. "The Printed Image in the West: Etching | Essay | Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History | The Metropolitan Museum of Art." The Met's Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/etch/hd_etch.htm. [12] Stein, “Introduction,” Artists and Amateurs: Etching in Eighteenth-Century France, 9. [13]"Mlle des Faveurs a la Promenade a Londres." British Museum. http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=1335361&partId=1.
2 Comments
This silver ewer, made by Marc Bazille in around 1745-1746, can be regarded as one of the finest French silver object of 18th century in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Though few silver objects of eighteenth century or earlier survive, people of today could utilize it to delve into the fashion, culture and history at that time. In this essay, I would argue that this vessel and more similar objects are greatly influenced by Chinese style. Starting with the formal analysis of the ewer and basin, I attempt to examine the emergence of its style, Rococo, from the historical context, as well as how oriental elements are chosen. I would also select several examples to show how Chinese style prevailed in Europe in seventeenth and eighteenth century. Formal features of this set reveals strong sense of Rococo style, which is the latest fashion in the eighteenth-century Europe. The overall outline of the ewer is sinuous, especially the flowing handle, creating a sense of movement. Exquisite decorations are applied here, and most of them are aquatic motifs like bullrushes and dolphin, which may be intended to correspond with the function of containing water and portable sink of this set.[1] Beneath the lid of the ewer register a circle of bulrushes, which is a kind of water plant, and it converge beneath the sprout with a dolphin motif. Bulrushes can also be seen at the inner side of the basin. Finial of the hinged lid is also decorated with the dolphin design and its tail cleverly functions as the thumbpiece. To delve into the formal features of this set, the history of the communication between Europe and China cannot be ignored, and this history creates the fashion of Rococo. With the development of navigation, an increasing number of explorers and religious missionaries come from Europe to China in hundreds of years. While they exporting western techniques and cultures to China, Chinese specialties, handicrafts and art works also attract a lot of followers in Europe and it even boosts the international trade. Chinese porcelains are introduced to Europe in the fourteenth century, and then it mounts as a rare and luxury collection among noble families within very short time. As a symbol of wealth and social status, porcelains undoubtedly lead the fashion at that time. In France, as early as the end of seventeenth century when the Baroque style is still regarded as the main stream, exoticism brought by Chinese objects gradually influences French court, art field and even the common. After the death of Louis XIV, which means the vanishing of rigorous regulations, Chinese fashions are well integrated with European traditions and the new Rococo style is generated and replaces Baroque.[2] Bullrushes here is worthy to be noted, since it is more than a pretty typical decoration design in a fashion, but also a result of the cross-cultural interaction between China and Europe. Porcelains, since the end of the seventeenth century in Europe, are the most fascinating type of artwork. Louis XIV has ever built a “Porcelains Palace” especially for ceramic in Versailles. Since porcelains well display the taste of Chinese literati with its spiral shape and natural-themed decoration like landscape and vegetations (Fig. 1), traits of it can be found in numerous French designs of rococo period like costumes, architecture, and daily necessities. Vegetation is a very common subject of matter in Chinese porcelains in order to express different moral and spiritual qualities, and its curly design can well exhibit the important principle of ch’i 气 (vitality) and yun韵 (rhythm) in Chinese art. Bullrushes motif in this set serves as the main motif, as it takes the most part of decoration in the prominent position. They wind along the rim and the mouth of the object in a two-dimensional way, and this is customary in Chinese porcelains.(Fig.2) I would argue that vegetation design noticed in this set of ewer and basin is greatly influenced by the Chinese porcelain popular in seventeenth and eighteenth century, and it is the alleged Rococo-Chinois style.[3] This set made by Marc Bazille is not the single example of Chinese representation in French object, and numerous cases demonstrate the common utilizing of oriental element in French objects. Another collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, a silver coffeepot of 1757 bears also the vegetations design.(Fig. 3) As we can see from the picture, the body of the pot is covered with spiraling channels, which creates strong dynamic senses like the set of Bazille, and the image of coffee leaves and berries give inspirations to the maker in sprout and handle base. Also, in order to meet the increasing demand for Chinese porcelains in Europe, factories emerge in the early eighteenth century. The ewer and basin set (Fig. 4) collected in the J. Paul Getty Museum is a good example. It is produced in the first factory to imitate genuine Chinese ceramics, Saint-Cloud Porcelain Manufactory in France. With the silver base and rim, the main ceramic body is decorated with well depicted pattern of blue lambrequins, which is totally European style. This integration makes a genuine Rococo-Chinois work, focusing on the Chinese material. Avoidance of shipment decreases the price deeply, allowing the common to enjoy such fashionable style and material, and this further encourages development of Chinese style in France and even Europe. To summarize, this object made by Marc Bazille captures the important features of Rococo style that flourishes from the end of seventeenth century. This fashion comes into being under the impact of Chinese art in Europe, and Chinese influence can also be found in not only this object, and a lot of other works of the same age. During 18th and early 19th century France, many women painters reached imposing peaks of artistic achievement and professional success. Women ranked among the most sought-after artists in Paris in the 1780’s despite the fact that there was a cap on the amount of women admitted to France’s Académie Royale de Peinture et de Sculpture, and that there were restrictions that made it so women couldn’t attend the life drawing classes that were attended by young men. One out of the few female members that were a part of the académie was Élisabeth Louise Vigée Le Brun. She regularly exhibited her work at Salons. (1) For many women artists during this time, royal women were the most important patrons. Marie Antoinette played a huge role in the admission of Vigée Le Brun on May 31, 1783, who was one of Marie’s favorite portraitists. The onset of the French Revolution made difficult situations for Le Brun. Because of Le Brun’s association with the queen, she was required to leave France in 1789. In 1783, Vigée Le Brun created the painting Marie Antoinette en Chemise, which she later re-created to Marie Antoinette with a Rose within the same year following some controversy. In the painting of Marie Antoinette en Chemise, Marie is painted in a loose garment, with a sash wrapped around her waist fastened into a bow; she wears a hat with ribbon and feather for decoration, which covers her undone hair. She holds a rose in her left hand, while her right is delicately holding a ribbon. Fig. 1. Marie Antoinette en Chemise, Vigée Le Brun, 1783, Oil on canvas To understand the controversy of Marie Antoinette en Chemise, one must understand what exactly a chemise is. Marie Antoinette introduced a chemise a la reine, or gaulle, and it is an incredibly light and simple “blouse dress” compared to the highly structured garments worn by the French court and the society. It consisted of layers of thin muslin that loosely draped around the body. It was belted with a sash around the waist. Vigée Le Brun’s portrait of the queen in her new clothes started a scandal. This helped solidify the people’s hatred for Marie Antoinette. Before this painting emerged to the public, Marie Antoinette was already committing a few rebellious acts. These included abolishing the morning toilette, allowing a commoner into her inner circle, and escaping to the Petit Trianon. All of these acts caused anger and suspicion with the aristocracy. The portrait that Marie-Antoinette had Vigée Le Brun paint of herself was another one of her rebellious acts. The portrait removed all aspects of the king and portrayed Marie Antoinette as her own person, an individual from her role as wife to the reigning monarch. The simple and unstructured nature of the chemise a la reine symbolizes Marie Antoinette’s hatred for the structure and ritual of court life at Versailles. (2) The people viewed this portrait of their queen were shocked and outraged that the queen was being portrayed in a chemise, a basic undergarment that all women wore, and thought she was painted, essentially, in her underwear; she was not dressed befitted to her rank. The chemise garment also represented an economical threat; it was made from muslin that was imported from England. The French silk industry reported substantial financial loss when the chemise a la reine caught on. According to the public, the chemise a la reine also represented the Queen’s rebellion against traditional political and gender roles. Marie Antoinette took power in herself, which represented a political threat and was an insult to the power of the monarchy. (3) Vigée Le Brun quickly withdrew the painting of Marie Antoinette and re-created a second portrait to take its place. She repeated the pose of the first painting, however, this time she appropriately dressed the Queen in a classic blue-grey silk dress. Fig. 2. Marie Antoinette with a Rose, Vigée Le Brun, 1783, Oil on canvas The portrait of Marie Antoinette en Chemise brought to mind another controversial painting made by Diego Velázquez. This painting is titled Rokeby Venus (also known as the toilet of Venus) and is Velázquez’s only surviving nude painting. This work depicts the goddess Venus in a sensual pose. She is lying on a bed with her back to the viewer and looking into a mirror held by her son Cupid. When this work was first inventoried, it was described as a nude woman, probably owning to its controversial nature. (4) Through Venus’ reflection in the mirror, she looks out at the viewer. Her reflection, however, is blurry, revealing only an unclear reflection of her characteristics. Fig. 3. Rokeby Venus, Diego Velázquez, c. 1647-51, National Gallery, London In 1914 the painting was attacked by a woman by the name of Mary Richardson. She left seven slashes on the painting with a meat cleaver. Most of the damage was in the area between Venus’ shoulders. The initial thought to her provoked attack was by the arrest of a fellow companion. Later in 1952 when she was interviewed, she admitted to destroying the picture because she didn’t like the way male visitors stared at it all day long. (5) This act was seen to represent the feminist perception towards female nudes and showed a stereotypical image of feminism. Fig. 4. Damage sustained in the attack by Mary Richardson I related these two paintings because they both sparked controversy about what the women in the painting were wearing, whether that was a chemise or nothing at all. The public responded negatively to both of these paintings, Le Brun’s right off and Velázquez’s a few hundred years later. 1. Auricchio, Author: Laura. "Eighteenth-Century Women Painters in France | Essay | Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History | The Metropolitan Museum of Art." The Met's Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 May 2017. <http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/18wa/hd_18wa.htm>. 2. Hall, Kelly. "Impropriety, Informality and Intimacy in Vigée Le Brun’s Marie Antoinette En Chemise." N.p., n.d. Web. May 2017. <http://digitalcommons.providence.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1047&context=art_journal>. 3. "THE CHEMISE A LA REINE." Http://www.thefashionhistorian.com/2012/03/chemise-la-reine.html. N.p., n.d. Web. May 2017. <http://www.thefashionhistorian.com/2012/03/chemise-la-reine.html>. 4. "Rokeby Venus." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 13 Apr. 2017. Web. 09 May 2017. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rokeby_Venus>. 5. Agrawal, Sonal. "Top 10 Controversial Paintings in Art History." Top 10 Outstanding List. N.p., 25 Sept. 2013. Web. 09 May 2017. <http://www.elist10.com/top-10-controversial-paintings-art-history/>. Jacques Louis David, Marie Antoinette on the Way to the Guillotine, 1793, Pen drawing, 6 x 4.5 in, Louvre, Paris Jacque Louis David was one of the most influential painters of his time for a couple reasons. His political activity was far beyond anyone else in the Academy at the time, at least as far as political activity not linked to the crown, like the Academy itself. He also was the founder of neoclassical art in France, as he brought back the style after winning the Prix de Rome, and bringing back the style he had learned there. He sided with the Jacobin Club, who were the group that followed Robespierre, and led the Terror in France. While the revolution was coming to fruition, and the monarchy was about to fall, David made a sketch of Marie Antoinette as she was brought to the guillotine. This sketch is David’s triumphant depiction of the antithesis of all that he had detested in the French Monarchy and art at the time. David didn’t have the best relationship with the Crown over the years, mostly through his work with the Academy, which was an extension of the monarchy. Early in his time as a painter, he tried for 4 years to win the Prix de Rome. His first 3 years trying, different issues arose, which David attributed to the judges. He became so fed up with the system he was trying to work within that he attempted to kill himself through starving at one point. Finally, he won on his fourth year, and was able to visit Rome and study the craft. (1) This is where many of his ideals came from, not only in art, but possibly politics as well. He fell in love with the classical style, which he had previously not paid much mind too. The style that he ended up adopting changed how French art was made. He developed the neoclassical style as a rejection of the popular rococo style. He focused on the masculine, where the rococo was seen as the feminine. Instead of flirtatious elites inhabiting mystical lands, he focused on depicting stories with a purpose through art, and was very aware of the impact of his work. Jacques Louis David, The Death of Marat, 1793, Oil on Canvas, 65” x 50 3/8”, Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts at Brussels This knowledge of how to create scenes with a message is what made him perfect for his role in France as a propagandist. As the scholar Henrik Bering said, “For the Revolution, David painted… Jean-Paul Marat, the venomous pamphleteer whose thirst for blood was insatiable and who was killed in his bath by Charlotte Corday. But in David’s version, Marat is transformed into a Christ-like figure.” (2) This piece of propaganda was so well made Marat became a martyr, as “The painting was carried in a solemn procession through the streets.” (3) David knew how to draw people’s attention and make links between the past and the present to give meaning to his works. When he made the sketch “Marie Antoinette on the Way to the Guillotine”, it was his moment of triumph. He had been part of the Jacobin movement, and a year previously he was elected to the National Convention. With that power he had voted for the death of King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette. In one sketch, he was able to depict this triumph for him in a brilliant and unique way. It is the simplicity of this sketch is what truly makes it a statement. He uses just as many lines as he needs to to create the image, essentially stripping it of all frivolity that was seen during the rococo, the style that was popular under the monarchy. The depiction shows one of the largest pop-culture icons at the time, but stripped of all that made her so recognizable and influential. The depiction shows her in basic garments with her hands bound and hair cut. Her power had come through her appearance in this society, as she was an outsider who was consistently judged on how she presented herself. Marie Antoinette had only one way of achieving power in the position she was forced into, and that was through her appearance. She surrounded herself with elaborate decorations in the palaces she lived in, as well as focusing on setting the trends in fashion, always having to be ahead of all other citizens lest she look un-queenly. This led to a few notable styles that she became associated with. Firstly, she popularized the pouf hairstyle, where women would use a mixture of wig and actual hair to create elaborate designs in their hair that would extend upwards. This was a defining symbol of who she was, which made her cut hair stand out even more in David’s sketch. As far as her clothing fashion was concerned, she was also known for popularizing such styles as the panniers. These large ostentatious ovals were used to widen a dress at the hips, and was a great example of what David saw as the frivolity of this class of elites who were aided by the monarchy. Marie Antoinette’s appearance was such a part of popular culture that when she came out with the painting “Marie Antoinette en Chemise”, a depiction of her in the equivalent of a nightgown, it created such an uproar that she had to have the painting redone. Marie Antoinette's fashion and examples of the Rococo style She was also surrounded by rococo interior decorating, which was one of the most lavish styles, where almost all space is filled with some form of design that was made to look royal. Much of this style includes gilding, and was packed with details. It was lavish, and it was reminiscent of the rococo style of painting, with a kind of out-of-this-world feeling. It, like the style of painting, was designed for elites, and was not subtle about it. When David sketched Marie Antoinette, he made sure to depict the antithesis of all that he had seen the monarchy as. His use of minimalism to create this sketch shows his inherent ability for propaganda. Elizabeth Wilson once described his work as a propagandist, saying, “But for a few remarkable years he was also the propaganda minister of the French Revolution--the man who could turn an unruly mob, ready to kill for a loaf of bread, into tearful patriots willing to die for the cause. On demand he produced state funerals and martyr portraits, multimedia pageants for casts of thousands--all designed to keep the revolutionary faith alive, even when the bodies were piling up ten deep beside la guillotine.” (3) He knew exactly what to depict, and when, to stir up social political unrest within the masses. After the revolution he had even said that he would try to no longer attach himself to man, but to principle, yet he ended up going back on that as soon as Napoleon enters the political arena, as David said, “Finally here is a man to whom altars would have been erected in ancient times. Yes, my dear friend, Napoleon is my hero.” (2) Most of what he did in his life seemed to be politically motivated. He was against the monarchy not because it was the best for his career, but because that is what he believed in. He would have probably done fine if the Academy was still in place, as even though he was not always respected, people quickly had seen his genius. He instead was drawn towards a republican regime, possibly because of his classical influence from Rome. He also was an idealist, and his detest for the monarchy through the years as the Academy treated him poorly might have been a motivating factor for him to change the entire landscape of art in France, as he quickly shut down the Academy. This shutdown was him showing his thoughts on how the academy had been consistently putting out art in the rococo style, which was all that David stood against with his neoclassical style. This mirrors the sketch of Marie Antoinette, which was David’s statement against the monarchy and everything it stood for, from the frivolity of the elites, to the Academy Royal and its obsession with the rococo. David was a man of his beliefs, and with this sketch of the last moments of the monarchy, he was able to provide something with so few lines that told so much. Footnotes: (1) Jaques Louis David Biography. Accessed May 09, 2017. http://www.jacqueslouisdavid.org/biography.html. (2) Bering, Henrik. "The master propagandist." New Criterion 34, no. 10 (June 206): 30-32. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed May 9, 2017) (3) Wilson, Elizabeth Barkley. "Jacques-Louis David." Smithsonian 29, 5, p. 80, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 9 May 2017 Jean-Antoine Watteau Gersaint's Signboard 1721 Oil on canvas Schloss Charlottenburg, Berlin Gersaint’s Signboard was painted by Jean-Antoine Watteau in 1721. Watteau was born the fall of 1684 in Valenciennes, France and in 1702, at the age of 18, he left his hometown to travel to Paris. Within the next few years he secured a job working for artist Claude Gillot through which he was exposed to the commedia dell'arte, a type of theatrical comedy show, that perhaps served as inspiration for the distinctive light hearted and whimsical genre of the fête galante that he developed and popularized through his career (1). In the years to follow Watteau would enter the Prix de Rome, an academic painters competition, and eventually gain acceptance into the Royal Academy. Five years later in 1717 he delivered his iconic fête galante reception piece, Pilgrimage to Cythera, to the Academy. Four years later in 1721, the same year of his death, Watteau painted Gersaint’s Signboard for his art dealer friend Edme Francǫis Gersaint. While Gersaint’s Signboard is often first and foremost viewed as a beautiful piece of art, and as one of Watteau’s masterpieces, its primary conception and function was to serve as a shop advertisement. Despite this it took only two weeks for the sign to be taken down from its original location and transferred into a private art collection. However, the circumstances surrounding its removal are quite unique and it seems questionable that this would have been done without Watteau’s academic prestige playing a role. When considering why this painting has become as well known as it is there are two main aspects to be aware of. The first of these is the painting as a purely artistic piece of work, and second is the context in which it was produced, both societal and and physical (2). Gersaint’s Signboard achieves success in both by being an effective advertisement and a beautiful piece of art. Imbued with an inviting golden aura, Gersaint’s Signboard depicts a larger than life interior representative of Gersaint’s small art boutique located on the Pont Notre-Dame in Paris. As a viewer we look past the intentionally invisible facade to clearly see the inner workings of the busy shop. Several potential clients are positioned inside and can be identified as the aristocratic elite through both their elegant posture and their beautiful flowing dress. On the left, three working men who stand out from the clientele appear to be in the process of packing a collection of paintings for transit. Next to them a couple enters from the street as indicated by the woman's foot still planted on the ground outside. To the right, a larger group of people by the counter scrupulously inspect the merchandise while the dealer, presumably Gersaint, looks on. Behind all of the figures the walls seem to almost overflow with paintings, a sight reminiscent of the salon, something that any prospective customer would have been familiar with. In the center of the back wall is an ajar entrance to what can only be an imaginary extension that serves to further exaggerate and project an air of grandeur upon the space of Gersaint’s shop.
Shop signs in the eighteenth century sought to inform their viewer of an establishment through the use of exaggerated visual representations and iconography. This allowed would-be customers to easily see the shop as they passed by and quickly discern what they would find inside. Watteau employed all of these techniques to advertise Gersaint’s shop. By showing aristocratic clients within the shop, Watteau is able to make the connection in the viewer's mind between the elite luxurious lifestyle they lived and the very paintings that Gersaint himself was selling (3). When considering an artist as talented and reputable as Watteau, it may seem strange to see his focus shift from academic work to that of a shop sign. Granted his friendship with Gersaint explains this to a degree, he could have just as easily made another painting for him to show on the inside of his shop; and indeed Gersaint even suggested this (3). However if you take into account Watteau’s failing health it seems entirely plausible that he may not have wanted to take on a more artistically prominent, and a more stressful, commission from an aristocratic patron. By instead painting a shop sign for his friend, Watteau allowed himself more creative freedom without fear of academic critique. This may explain why he painted the sign with relative speed and without thorough attention to detail (4). Sometime in the years following the paintings quick removal from the shop it was markedly altered. The area that it was originally designed for had an arching top, similar to the space under a bridge, and to fill it entirely Watteau joined two pieces of fabric down the middle. Once removed the painting was cut to a more rectangular size, and the space above the arch was filled in by another artist. Even later the painting was split down the middle and made into two separate pieces (4). This sort of artistic appropriation calls to mind the modern artist Banksy, an anonymous political graffiti artist who paints his pieces on public places like sidewalks and buildings. Much in the same way Watteau’s reputation influenced the reception of Gersaint’s Signboard, and probably contributed to its quick movement into private collection, Banksy’s reputation transforms his graffiti into priceless pieces of art that are frequently removed from their original location and sold into the art market. In many aspects the way in which Gersaint’s Signboard was originally intended to function, the tools it uses to entice its viewer, is still used in modern advertising. The portrayed themes of a luxurious lifestyle are equally present in many car advertisements. Take for example the two magazine ads pictured below. Car advertisements are a perfect example of how advertisements use imagery to depict a lifestyle and experience in order to drive desire in a consumer. The Stingray advertisement boldly claims that “the car you drive reflects who you are to the world,” just as many eighteenth century parisian elites used their material wealth to construct their social image. And the Pontiac offers an opulent appeal as “you travel first-class,” that recalls the rich and beautiful clients of Gersaint. While society and culture have indeed changed, the iconography of advertising has remained much the same; human nature is often drawn to depictions of luxury and status. Gersaint’s Signboard inhabits a unique position in the history of art. It succeeds both exclusively as advertisement and as a beautiful piece of art, something few other artworks are able to do. 1. Eidelberg, Martin. “Watteau and Gillot: A Point of Contact.” The Burlington Magazine, vol. 115, no. 841, 1973, pp. 232–239., www.jstor.org/stable/877333. 2. Wrigley, Richard. “Between the Street and the Salon: Parisian Shop Signs and the Spaces of Professionalism in the Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries.” Oxford Art Journal, vol. 21, no. 1, 1998, pp. 45–67., www.jstor.org/stable/1360696. 3. McClellan, Andrew. “Watteau's Dealer: Gersaint and the Marketing of Art in Eighteenth-Century Paris.” The Art Bulletin, vol. 78, no. 3, 1996, pp. 439–453., www.jstor.org/stable/3046194. 4. Vogtherr, Christoph Martin, and Eva Wenders De Calisse. “Watteau's 'Shopsign': The Long Creation of a Masterpiece.” The Burlington Magazine, vol. 149, no. 1250, 2007, pp. 296–304., www.jstor.org/stable/20074823. 3d Animation of the Game Table in Action |
Archives
May 2017
Categories |