 François Boucher Leda and the Swan 1742 Oil on canvas LACMA Wings beat, feathers fly, beak clamps shut only to open again releasing a sharp screech. Leda, mortal queen of Sparta, struggles to get away, fearing for her life. Helpless and vulnerable against strong and powerful, Zeus disguised as a swan has his way with her. This is the image that W.B. Yeats’ poem Leda and the Swan, published in 1924, instills in the reader. The image is accompanied by feelings of “the helplessness, the terror, the horror of closeness imposed” (1), similar to the girl. Yeats moves from the rape of Leda by Zeus, to the fall of the city of Troy and the murder of Agamemnon, King of Mycenae. The myth of Leda and the Swan, originating in from Greek mythology, has been a popular one since the Renaissance, revisited over and over again and represented in many different artistic forms, from paintings to sculpture to poetry. Some artists prefer to depict the act as what it really is: the violent rape of an innocent woman by a God, taking advantage of his powers to get exactly what he desires. However, the French painter François Boucher (1703-1770) chose to use his artistic creativity and social notoriety to display Leda and the Swan in a very different way. In Boucher’s 1742 rendition of Leda and the Swan, one can observe characteristic colors, figures, and landscapes as he alters the event of Leda’s rape into an erotic fantasy scene between women for the viewing pleasure of the 18th century French public. François Boucher is a well-known figure, representative of the Rococo period of art, one characterized by “soft colors and curvy lines, and [depicting] scenes of love, nature, amorous encounters, light-hearted entertainment, and youth” (2). The Father of Rococo is often considered to be Jean-Antoine Watteau (1682-1721), who went as far as to create his own genre of painting: the fêtes galantes. These scenes depicted light-hearted gatherings of aristocrats in contemporary dress, settled in fantastical and pastoral scenes (fig. 1). His color palette was determined by pastel greens, blues, pinks, and purples, as scenes were often depicted with hazy backgrounds, and people each with similarly small, pinched faces. While Watteau may be the Father of Rococo, Boucher took this early style of genre painting and developed it into the mature, recognizable style of flowing and dreamy mid-eighteenth century France, just before the Revolution and the evolution of sharp-edged Neoclassicism.  Fig. 1: Jean-Antoine Watteau, "Pilgrimage to Cythera", 1717 As Boucher’s painting career was established in France, he initially focused on large-scale mythological paintings, as displayed by his reception piece for admission to the Royal Academy in 1734, Rinaldo and Armida (fig. 2). In this image, one can discern many Watteau-like qualities: small, pinched faces with rosy cheeks, an unspecified and fantastical setting, and a bright color palette. However, Boucher adds his own elements in the exposed breasts of the woman, and an abundant collection of lavish garments and fabrics, complete with a small putti holding up a mirror. These additions suggest Boucher’s interest in the human body, specifically that of a woman, as well as his attentiveness to the vanity and lavishness of upper-class French culture at this time. Being born a son of a member of the Académie de Saint-Luc, as well as winning the Prix de Rome at the early age of 20, Boucher’s interest in art is understandable. It can be proposed that Boucher was very interested in painting for the purpose of pleasing other people as his career progressed. Especially as he obtained the premier title of First Painter to the King in 1765, as well as becoming the director of the French Royal Academy in the same year, he painted to please his French viewers and critics.  Fig. 2: François Boucher, "Rinaldo and Armida", 1734 As Boucher began mostly interested in large-scale allegorical paintings, he arguably used this platform to display semi-erotic scenes, commonly displaying topless women. To avoid additional criticism, Boucher embedded these themes of eroticism in adaptations of mythological stories, from that of Rinaldo and Armida in 1734 (fig. 2), to the triumph of Venus in 1740 (fig. 3), and even continuing to the period of his Pompadour commissions in 1751, that display Venus, Goddess of love and beauty (fig. 4-5). The bodies of his nude women usually seem to be unsuspecting of the viewer, relaxed in their poses, with young, delicate features, soft skin, round breasts, and rosy cheeks (on the face and other). The setting may range from lavishly decorated castles, to tumbling ocean waves, or to a picturesque pastoral landscape.  Fig. 3: François Boucher, "Triumph of Venus", 1740
The specific portrait of Leda and the Swan that is the subject of this analysis falls in the middle of his career, around 1742. As previously discussed, the story of Leda and the Swan is one that has survived from Greek mythology and, while less well-known in contemporary times than those of Hercules, the divine hero, or Atlas, who holds the world on his back, it was a common subject for artists of the 18th century. Boucher’s rendition displays his, and the Rococo’s, characteristic pastel colors and gentle curved lines; no sharp edges visible. The swan’s feathers look as if they would be soft to the touch, fluffy and innocent white. The bodies of Leda and the additional woman look just as other women do in Boucher paintings: young and vibrant, comfortable in their positions, with perfectly clear skin, rosy cheeks of all kinds, and delicate facial features. The shed garments look as if they might belong to upper-class women, this hypothesis further supported by the visible pearls on the wrist and in the hair of the woman on the left. They seem to be in a picturesque natural setting, almost as if they are hidden from the rest of the world, complete with clear and flowing stream. It is not easy to determine which of these women may be Leda, the subject of the myth. This is because no other woman is discussed in that story. Boucher simply added another woman in order to display another nude female body. The fact that both women are nude adds a slight homosexual air. As this painting was displayed in the Salon of 1742, Boucher probably viewed this mythological scene as one he could get away with adding another nude figure. Her appearance was not necessarily needed, as the only thing she really brings to the scene is an additional erotic presence. Her pose is purely sensual, and one that he goes back to time and again, as seen in one of his later portraits, Reclining Girl (1751) (fig. 6). Boucher had been both praised and criticized by his treatment of women’s bodies. He was praised for his excellent depiction of their curves and flesh, while being criticized for his objectification of their gender. This portrait of Leda and the Swan embodies both sides of this spectrum: the bodies are incredibly portrayed, but the addition of the second body is purely for viewing pleasure: objectified as an image for the singular purpose of examination and perception. The original mythology, as well as Yeates’ poem, describe a horrific scene of Zeus the Swan taking advantage of a young woman, while Boucher completely alters the perception of the story. Therefore, in Boucher’s 1742 rendition of Leda and the Swan, one can observe beautifully characteristic colors, figures, and landscapes, while he turns the event of Leda’s rape into an erotic event between women simply for the viewing pleasure of the 18th century French public.  Fig. 6: François Boucher, "Reclining Girl", 1751 (1) Leo Spitzer , "On Yeats's Poem "Leda and the Swan"," Modern Philology 51, no. 4 (May, 1954): 271-276. (2) Trapasso, Erica. "A Brief History of Rococo Art." Artnet News. Artnet News, 10 Mar. 2015. Anatolia, Antalya, Turkey is the modern location of the ancient city of Troy, site of the Trojan War, that Yeates' discusses in his 1924 poem. This is a rather long, but interesting and informational documentary of French art from the beginning of the Rococo era, up to the Revolution, and including development of the Neoclassical genre.
0 Comments
 Jacques-Louis David (1748-1825), The Death of Marat (1793), Oil on canvas, 165 x 128 cm, Royal Museums of Fina Arts of Belgium, Brussels, Belgium. Jacques-Louis David’s work was the epitome of neoclassicist painting from France. The most iconic and riveting of his work is The Death of Marat (1793). David had a very deep, personal connection to the subject of this particular piece, as both men were involved in the Jacobin party of the French Revolution. This particular work really holds a unifying momentum for French revolutionaries in this era. With the utilization of his particular neoclassical style, David paints The Death of Marat into a galvanizing image to fuel revolutionary support against the monarchy. This development is evident through the historic significance surrounding the events of the assassination of Marat and David’s personal involvement in the revolution, David’s selective detailing of the painting’s imagery and iconography, and David’s trends with historic depictions. Jean-Paul Marat was a political journalist during the French Revolution. Marat was known for radical views (at the time) surrounding the defense and fair treatment of the sans-culottes, or better known as the masses of the lower class, becoming the heralding voice to unite them with the Jacobin party. The Jacobins were known for being radical anti-monarchists in support of a republic. Now, all of these ideas were considered radical at the time because, for centuries upon centuries, the French monarchy went uncontested and without a form of checks and balances that most modern democracies are instituted with. These views were also seen as controversial due to the fact that, for the longest time, if citizens weren’t of elite standing, they did not have any social or political grounds for what is seen in modern times as civil rights and that was the norm. By pushing against the status quo, this was a definitive move against the power of the monarchy and a push for a new form of government. The Jacobins are attributed their most of their notoriety from leading the Reign of Terror, which started in the same year as Marat’s death, 1793. One of the great oppositions to this movement was the Girondists, as the group was not very enthusiastic to send every person who opposed the revolution to their death; however, the group was still anti-monarchy. The Girondists were actually part of the Assembly, just like the Jacobins; however the Jacobins were more like a political club and was created by the highest officials in the Assembly, which in turn made it semi-elitist. For comparative purposes, on a political map, Girondists would be more moderate right-wing, possibly verging on conservatism or traditionalism, thus Jacobins would be radical left-wing, nearing on totalitarianism. Neither group even got close to nearing any type of libertarianism, as both groups still wanted majority control over the proletariat.  Color-coded political compass. Up is more authoritarian, and bottom is more libertarian. Left is more economically liberal and right is more economically conservative. The differences in the parties/groups play a key role in the death of Marat. Charlotte Corday, who was a Girondist, assassinated Marat, who worked for and identified as a Jacobin, on July 13, 1793[1]. At that point, Girondists had been accused of being sympathizers to the crown. Corday was executed by guillotine a few days after the assassination. David was also a notable member of the Jacobins, temporarily holding a high position in the club in 1973[2]. David is documented to have been close with Marat personally and professionally through their political ties. When news of Marat’s death reached the public, David was immediately asked to make a final image of the journalist. The painting was then displayed for a few years until it was taken down and hidden[3], which could be due the tumultuous state of political affairs and the rapidly changing regimes. In a Khan Academy video, Dr. Beth Harris and Dr. Steven Zucker discuss the formal similarity David’s painting has to the Pietà in subject positioning and subject theme, which can be seen at (2:52) of the video. The doctors hypothesize that with the onslaught of the era of Enlightenment, and, subsequently, reason, that painters such as David were replacing standard religious iconography with modern martyrs as a way to push out the Monarchy[4] and the divine right of kings. By depicting Marat as a modern martyr, David made a visual push for the people to denounce the monarchy and embrace the Jacobin revolution, regardless of radical it may have been. In David’s selection of Marat’s positioning being allegorical to paintings of Christ, he made a selective choice of detail within his work. As well as the subject positioning, David makes three other key choices in his creation of the painting: depiction of the condition of Marat’s body, eliminating any secondary figures, and drawing Corday’s letter used for entry in Marat’s hand. When David arrived at Marat’s apartment a few days later, where the assassination took place, Marat’s body was already deepening into primary stages of decomposition as the summer heat was exacerbating the speed that which decomposition occurred. Marat’s remains were turning green[5] and still had visible signs of his skin ailment. Knowing that Marat was stabbed while soaking in a bath to treat his skin ailment, signs of that ailment would have been visible. In David’s painting, Marat has a ghostly pale and luminous complexion on the exposed parts of his body. David completely eliminated any sign of discoloration or imperfection in the painting, almost like using a self-curated form of Photoshop airbrushing. Also, once someone dies, his or her muscles immediately start to decompose and lose form. In David’s painting, Marat retains a taut, firm musculature that is nearly impossible after multiple days of decomposition. David’s depiction of Marat’s dead form gives Marat a perfect physique, which could lead viewers into believing that his death was untimely.  J. L. Delignon, Marat struck dead (Late 1790s), Engraving, 11.1x6.6 cm, current location unknown. In other depictions of Marat’s assassination, Corday is included, usually shown in the process of stabbing Marat in his bath. J. L. Delignon’s Marat struck dead (late 1790s) depicts a much more gruesome scene than that of David’s The Death of Marat, showing Corday having already stabbed Marat and preparing to strike again whilst Marat hangs over the side of the bath seeming to plead with her to spare him. David refraining from including the figure of Corday and only including her name on the letter clutched in Marat’s dead hand removes any possibility of Corday being portrayed as a heroine or a martyr herself. This could be seen as quite manipulative on David’s part, fueling the backing for the Jacobins. This also has interesting feminist implications, removing all autonomy from Corday as a political being[6], and just placing her as a murderer. Placing the letter Corday used in Marat’s hand created this implicit association that the Girondists were manipulative and against the welfare of the people, quite possibly becoming a leading attribute to the Girondist downfall and rise of support around the Jacobins, thus eliminating all preventative stops that the Girondists would have put in around the monarchy and the subsequent Reign of Terror. These galvanizing and vilifying images were nothing new for David. David established a pattern of making powerful images of patriotic historic and mythical events. One of David’s most notable examples would be Oath of the Horatii (1784), which predates his painting of Marat. In this painting, three Horatii brothers (Romans) vow to their father to die for their country in patriotic duty against the Curatii (Albans). Later in the legend, one of the Horatii sisters is morning the loss of her Curatii betrothed, and her Horatii brother executes her for her lack of patriotic commitment to her country. David’s painting, in short, shows three young men holding their duty to their country above all else. David also painted The Tennis Court Oath (1791) depicting one of the early major moments of the French Revolution. Both Oath of the Horatii and The Tennis Court Oath display neoclassicist hyper realistic figures and architecture, which allow for the paintings to achieve a level of relatability for the common person unattainable prior to this era. Because of David’s talent in depicting figures so realistically, he was immediately asked by the Jacobins to create the painting depicting Marat in his final moments or in death. Vaughan and Weston cite that a member of the Jacobins, Audouin, stated at the news of Marat’s death, “Return Marat to us whole again”[7]. Vaughan and Weston also note Audouin’s statement “reveals an interesting faith in the power of the image to create a likeness so believable that the subject’s actual presence might be felt.”[8] This observation really gives modern audiences an understanding of what might have been felt by an audience in that era and how it might have pushed them to rally around the Jacobins, and thus the Revolution. [1] “Introduction.” David’s The Death of Marat. Eds. William Vaughan & Helen Weston. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2000. 3. Print.
[2] Ibid. [3] “Introduction.” David’s The Death of Marat. Eds. William Vaughan & Helen Weston. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2000. 2. Print. [4] Dr. Beth Harris and Dr. Steven Zucker, Jacques-Louis David. The Death of Marat. YouTube Video, 6:22. Nov. 3, 2014. https://youtu.be/Hw2_hv439Fg [5] “Introduction.” David’s The Death of Marat. Eds. William Vaughan & Helen Weston. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2000. 6. Print. [6] Weston, Helen. “The Corday-Marat Affair: No Place for a Woman.” David’s The Death of Marat. Edited by William Vaughan & Helen Weston. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2000. 128. Print. [7] “Introduction.” David’s The Death of Marat. Eds. William Vaughan & Helen Weston. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2000. 6. Print. [8] Ibid. The Child Through the Eyes of the Mother: Vigée Le Brun and Sally Mann’s Exploration of Motherhood5/10/2017 “Come, Sir, and admire Madame Lebrun… I walked over; I caught a glimpse of a charming head. Maternal Tenderness animated it, but love shone in her eyes. My soul, gently moved, caused a smile of admiration and pleasure to appear on my lips. Never had a more delicious feeling touched me or offered me a more agreeable sensation” (1)
During one of her visits in 1792 to the home of her friend and Italian engraver, Carlo Antonio Porporati, Le Brun created Julie as a Bather. The artist was heavily attached to her only child, and a combination of her possessiveness and Julie’s stubbornness led to their strained relationship. It is telling to view Julie in the way she is seen through her protective mother’s eyes in Julie as a Bather, in which the young girl is rendered vulnerable and defenseless against an unforeseen intruder. Le Brun based her painting on the iconography and composition of Porporati’s 1773 Acadèmie royal reception piece, an engraving after Jean Baptiste Santerre’s Susannah (1704, Louvre) (4). In the 18th century, the story of Susannah being spied upon by the Elders while bathing was secularized, and served as a basis from which Le Brun painted her daughter’s portrait. Le Brun’s interpretation of the story of Susannah differs from Porporati’s engraving in several important ways, which reveal Le Brun’s maternal bias toward the subject. From Porporati’s engraving, Le Brun chose to leave out the voyeuristic Elders as well as any architectural indicators of setting. Le Brun’s image of Julie as Susannah features Julie alone in a void of dense foliage, thrust forth into illumination by the startling approach of an unseen intruder. Le Brun’s depiction of Julie is slightly sexualized by Julie’s defensive clutch of fabric to her skin. The subtraction of all other figures and environmental elements elevates the urgency of the scene. Viewers see only the wary look in Julie’s eyes, and are denied a solution to this mystery. Due to this, a strong sense of the artist’s empathy for the subject pervades the painting.  Élisabeth Louise Vigée Le Brun Julie as a Bather 1792 Oil on canvas Private collection Julie as a Bather exemplifies Le Brun’s evolution as an artist. Up until the early 1780’s, Le Brun often worked with pastel, the medium which she first mastered. These early works are characterized by an opaque, chalky, pale coloring. In 1781, Le Brun’s experience touring the collections of Rubens in Flanders led her to modify her working methods (5). Le Brun expanded her technique by building up the pictorial surface with even layers of paint, lending an enamel-like quality to the canvas. Minute details in color tones were carefully added in superimposed layers of colored glazes. Due to her interaction with the work of Rubens in Flanders, Le Brun’s paintings began to reflect a bolder, brighter color palette, while retaining the softness of her earlier pastel work. In Julie as a Bather, Le Brun enlivens the scene by painting Julie’s lips a healthy, natural red with a hair ribbon to match. Julie’s skin glows with a luminescence achieved by the artist’s new technique of layering colored glazes for modeling flesh tone subtleties (6). This gives the visual effect of light truly emanating from the girl, suggesting her innocence and purity. The lines forming Julie’s figure blur slightly against the background, surrounding her in a haze of curious ethereality. Le Brun’s use of light is instrumental in the illumination of Julie’s angelic features. Julie is bathed in bold white light, setting her in opposition to the dark background. Her scantily covered figure is exposed in the direct (and seemingly unexpected) light, while the background remains mysterious and unrevealing. Le Brun’s use of lighting, bold color, and blurred lines effectively portray Julie as how a mother sees her child: pure, vulnerable, and miraculously beautiful. Sally Mann has been working as a professional photographer since the early 1970s. Immediate Family, Mann’s series of photographs of her children in their home in Virginia, brought her widespread recognition after its publication in 1992 (7). This body of work explores youth and innocence, motherhood, childhood, and the intimacies of family life at home. The spontaneity and innocence of childhood are consistently portrayed as Mann routinely photographed her children completely nude, as seen in Immediate Family as well as he 1984-1981 series Family Pictures. Mann broke taboo by photographing her children in an exposed, even sexualized style. However, Mann simply documented what every mother is used to seeing on a daily basis, and elevated these familiar images into meaningful commentaries on childhood. Through the camera lens, Mann captured her children doing what children do: running around naked and carefree, jumping into water, playing dress-up, etc. Her candid shots transform familiar scenes of childhood into keen observations of her own maternal sentimentality. Selected photographs from Sally Mann's series Immediate Family and Family Pictures, 1984-1991 The works of Vigée Le Brun and Sally Mann reflect a shared artistic sensitivity towards themes of motherhood and childhood. Most notable is the likeness of Mann’s Modest Child #1 (1990) to Le Brun’s Julie as a Bather. The compositions of these two portraits of the artists’ daughters are remarkably similar. Modest Child #1 features Mann’s youngest daughter, Virginia, naked and covering her chest with her hands. In both works, the subject’s expression warns of an unwelcome intrusion into their space. Virginia’s eyes are focused on an unseen source, with her brows furrowed in what could almost be annoyance. Mann isolates her subject from the background in a similar but more extreme way than Le Brun’s treatment of Julie in Julie as a Bather. A soft, diffused light illuminates Virginia’s form, intentionally contrasting her against a dark, empty background. Mann captures her daughter completely exposed and susceptible to harm, despite her insufficient attempt to cover herself; however, the staged quality of the photo eases fears for the child’s safety, since we know her mother was present behind the camera lens.
When viewing Mann’s portraits of her children in the nude, such as Modest Child #1, one is able to sense the observant and intensely sentimental maternal force behind the camera. Sally Mann and Vigée Le Brun have chosen to elevate their children to the status of high art, angelic beings worthy of being portrayed in their most natural states. The portraits done of their daughters, Julie as a Bather and Modest Child #1 boast the young girls’ innocent beauty with their enormous and clearly expressive eyes. These portraits reveal the profound, invested tenderness with which Le Brun and Mann envision their daughters and draw deeply personal inspiration from.
References
Bad girl Bacchante  She’s the follower of the Roman God Bacchus (Dionysus in Greek mythology): the God of grape harvesting, winemaking, fertility, ritual madness, and religious ecstasy. Ladies and gentleman, I’m proud to introduce Vigée Le Brun’s Bacchante.
Le Brun was a female painter in 18th century France who was one of the few women to achieve success in the predominantly male centric field. Her style is soft, and sumptuous in a way that seems to surpass the materiality of paint itself and into the realm of reality. Executed in a style bonded through a marriage of Rococo color sensibilities and a likeness for the emerging Neoclassical style (1), Le Brun’s paintings intertwine an affinity for the airy, ethereal beauty of her preceding Rococo masters while keeping up with the contemporary artists paving new paths ahead of her. As a woman, generally as a person living in the 18th century, Vigée Le Brun was restricted to a limited range of subject matter she could paint without controversy. The practice of painting had been thoroughly standardized by the time Le Brun was being taught by her own portraitist father. If she wanted to keep her impressive stake in the art world, it was necessary Le Brun followed all of the rules. Especially as the portrait painter of Marie Antoinette, Le Brun was held to a greater responsibility, since the Queen’s image was essentially at the tip of Le Brun’s brush. Can you imagine walking through the Palace of Versailles? And not as a tourist, but as a twenty-four old invited by the Queen? Le Brun hit an unfortunate bump in 1783 with her submission of Marie Antoinette in a Chemise Dress to the Académie royale de peinture de sculpture. The painting, which shows Antoinette in the 18th century equivalent of lingerie, was condemned for its “inappropriate portrayal of royalty”(2). Despite a decent amount of admiration for the portrait, Le Brun was forced to remove it from the exhibition and repaint a dress suitable by the standards of the Académie. No way would Le Brun be able to get away with exploring eroticism in the Queen’s portraits, but Bacchante on the other hand, she was the perfect fit. It was only two years later that Le Brun made this Bacchante, and in the interim, produced a number of other paintings of the subject. In addition to Marie Antoinette, she spent a great deal of time painting Emma Hart who, according to the artist’s diary, Le Brun found to be “vulgar” and “exceedingly mocking and denigrating, to the point that her faults were her only means of conversation” (3). Although this might sounds more like an eloquent insult, Le Brun was nonetheless captivated by Hart’s “attitude” and began associating the 18th century personality with Dionysus’s companion creature. Thus, Bacchante resembled something far beyond a fantasy or myth for Le Brun, but an opportunity to tap into the untamed spirit of contemporary figures she could associate with the “wild woman” (4). In the main Bacchante featured here from 1785, Le Brun’s subject is in the midst of a moment of leisure and relaxation. Maybe she’d just drunkenly froliced through the forest and needed a rest. What better way to relax than to recline on your best red silk and fantasize about the next escapade? Is it so far as to say Le Brun was possibly painting a kind of her own fantasy? I can only imagine the kind of world she was living and working in, a world where artistic freedoms were numbered, particularly for female artists, and thus extremely valuable. There’s a sense of otherness created by Bacchante’s gaze, as if she’s taking notice of an animal beyond the viewer or lost forever in a pleasant daydream. If this painting came to life, I imagine Bacchante meeting her eyes to ours and saying something along the lines of, ”Ah, this is the life! Now pour me another glass, please.” If anything, Le Brun’s continuous representation of Bacchante speaks to her admiration of the subject’s many playful elements and the various directions she could take them in. The seemingly casual pose Le Brun sets Bacchante in is split somewhere between restful and sexual. With right arm raised and bent across her head, we are given nearly a full frontal view excluding her lower extremities, which are covered by the leopard skin (one of her key accessories) draped lazily over her lap. Thus, in such a position it seems fair to think that Le Brun’s Bacchante was giving her audience an intentionally erotic view, in other words, the lady knew what she was doing (and acting all coy). Not only does this grant the viewer a sense of permission to shamelessly stare at her body, but it also stands as a testament to the strength and power of the female body as something to be marveled. The mythological party girl can be likened to current and past depictions of popular celebrities. Walk down the aisle of a nearby convenience store and count how many magazine covers feature a famous female minimally dressed and/or using her hands (or some contorted posture) to cover her genitals or breasts. But in this point, I want to emphasize the body as a tool for one to use versus the body being used like a tool. It’s important to distinguish these into opposite categories since the latter scenario could potentially suggest a degree of coercion. But when we talk about the body as a tool of power and strength, we can look to our reclining Bacchante and compare her alongside, let’s say for instance, 1950’s pin-up girl Betty Brosmer (5). No we’re dealing with a representation of empowerment in the feminine flesh. Le Brun wasn’t the only artist who found a muse in Bacchantes. Fellow Parisian René Lalique, who was a glass designer in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, also used Bacchantes as a motif around his most famous piece the Lalique “Bacchantes” Vase (1927). Lalique was highly esteemed as one of the leaders of the Art Nouveau and Art Deco movement (6). His recreation of the mythological subject isn’t depicted just once, but repeatedly around the cup in high relief. The vase has stayed in continuous production throughout the remainder of the twentieth and into today. Interestingly enough though, we might notice that the languid marble limbs of Lalique’s multiple Bacchantes share a sense of relaxation similar to Le Brun’s Bacchante. Throughout an array of media, Bacchante’s flirtatious nature and intoxicated ecstasy pulses through whatever art she inhabits. Le Brun used the techniques she learned as a classically trained painter, imbued with her preference for Rococo palettes and that wispy effect of artists like Watteau and Fragonard. As a both a woman and an 18th century French citizen, there were little avenues to escape the multitude of confines Le Brun lived within. Bacchante is more than just the mythological priestess to Bacchus. As Le Brun sees it, she’s the epitome of seduction, casually taking a break in the middle of a forest, and completely oblivious to the curious viewer. In this, she carries a strong aura of confidence and self-assuredness despite her lack of clothing, which is of little to no concern to her. Le Brun imbues her Bacchante with the utmost confidence and suave- if confidence really is key consider all the doors open to Bacchante. I'll officially conclude by sharing a poem that Madame Le Brun wrote regarding the bias she felt towards her and other women's works. This merely being because of the fact they were women, Le Brun composed a very beautiful piece just as magnificent as her canvases. (untitled) Who more than you has been so unjustly plagued? A manly brush adorns your paintings Thou art not praised for thy womanhood Yet their just envy Its unrelenting cries And the serpents unleashed against you, Proclaim better than our tongues, How great a man you are -Vigee Le Brun Footnotes (1) "Elisabeth Vigée Le Brun." Biography.com. A&E Networks Television, 02 Apr. 2014. Web. 6 May 2017. http://www.biography.com/people/elisabeth-vig%C3%A9e-le-brun-37280 (2) "Collection." The Metropolitan Museum of Art, I.e. The Met Museum. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 May 2017. http://www.metmuseum.org/exhibitions/view?exhibitionId=%7B31a1bee1-137f-4d0d-bf0c-751b9354bb6c%7D&oid=656930 (3) "Artwork Details." Artwork Details, Liverpool Museums. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 May 2017. http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/picture-of-month/displaypicture.aspx?id=119 (4) Mythography | Maenads (Bacchantes) in Myth and Art. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 May 2017. http://www.loggia.com/myth/maenad.html (5 Betty Brosmer the First Supermodel On over 300 Covers, With a Perfect Hourglass Figure. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 May 2017 http://www.bettybrosmer.com/ (6) "MUSEE LALIQUE." Musée Lalique. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 May 2017. http://www.musee-lalique.com/vase-bacchantes   Porcelain was a relatively unknown in Europe during the 18th century. The Chinese were dominating the porcelain business and only people from royalty would have true porcelain products imported. The first porcelains produced in Europe were made at faience factories. “Faience” was a form of fake porcelain that attempted to mimic the hard, durable shiny hard paste porcelain the Chinese were successfully constructing, and selling. In 1740, the Royal Manufactory was established in Vincennes in one of the towers of the old royal Chateau (2). After years of trial and error, patent granted for a bright white soft-paste – a mix of powdered glass and marl with lead oxide and chalk. It wasn’t until 1768 when hard-paste porcelain was produced.
These soft-paste dainty wine coolers were designed in by Jean-Claude Duplessis; the director of the modeling workshop at the Vincennes Manufactory who was responsible for the success of designing the shape and size of the pieces. The sky blue glaze is known as blue céleste – one of the most expensive glazes to produce, but also the most popular throughout the 18th century. This set was made when artists were just beginning to utilize the brilliant blue céleste glaze, and it took some difficulty to figure out how to get the color just right. These wine coolers were two out of the eight produced for the dinner and dessert service ordered by Louis XV in 1751 to be delivered as a gift to Mr. and Mrs. Charles Wrightsman (1). The set was delivered between 1753 and 1755 because of the extensive amount of pieces involved. The service included many new and expensive forms of porcelain. It was to be expected to produce a new set for every order made by the king. Beverage services such as tea, coffee, and chocolate were a new and exotic practice that European Royals took very seriously. These two baby blue wine coolers are quite unique, and at the same time, quite typical of the elite decorative assumptions of the time – reflective of “oriental” themes, natural/floral motifs and gilt detail. The coolers are beautiful and delicate, suggesting they were meant as much for decoration as they were for dining room utility. The gold detailing throughout the blue celeste really brings out the vibrant colors throughout the body as well as the two small handles on each side made so that servants could more easily bring the coolers tableside. At first glance, the coolers appear to be identical, but after a closer look you can see that the intricate flower assemblage between the two is slightly different, and the texture and patterning of the gold leafing differs as well. The flower detailing inside the thin gold foliage is exceptionally well done, reflecting the high level of skill at the time where porcelain was just beginning to be produced (1). Unfortunately the painter of this set from factory at Sèvres is unknown. The purples, blues and greens throughout the flower vignettes balance out the bright glaze of the blue céleste and one can imagine how visually pleasing the set would’ve looked like all together. Comparing these objects to the sources of their inspiration, several similarities and departures from the source form are apparent. This pair of Qianlong period, (circa 1750) coolers, are also intricately decorated in blue (the elusive, original Chinese blue under glaze, that European potters sought tirelessly to copy) and similarly suggest an interest in natural, floral and avian themes. While the French pieces are round, the Qianlong pieces are oval, but both sport “ears” for lifting and similarly flared bases. The Chinese porcelain from this period tended to be decorated simply, in blue and white, while the more ornate French version, with its multi-color detail and gold trim represent a departure from Chinese simplicity to garishness we more commonly associate with the European royalty. After the death of Louis XIV in 1715 is when the craze of sparkling wine (or champagne) began to grow, and soon became the most popular alcoholic beverage to consume day to day. When the King would drink at dinner, there was a specific process his servants would have to complete to retrieve him a glass of wine, which was expected to be chilled to the proper temperature (3). The 18th century was a period of enlightenment with technology advancements and an emphasis on political ideals. Decorative culture emulated societal changes in France and with revolution, royal pompousness fell into some disfavor For elites, wine was commonly imported from South Africa, and sparkling champagne was out of reach for common people, who indulged in rougher, locally produced beverages. For all classes, alcoholic beverages played a huge role in society, and were used more as a medicine than a comforting beverage after a long day. Cultural traditions around drinking and drink-ware, has evolved and cross-pollinated in the centuries since these beautiful objects were created. Wine coolers are a rarity in most American homes today, and when they do appear, they tend to be made of a simple utilitarian thermo design, engineered to maximize function. These “antique” objects are more popular than ever among collectors, however, whose fascination with their beauty and history has driven up their value far beyond their usefulness. For most “common” people today, decent wine can be had at any corner liquor store and a large bag of wine can be had for under $15 and easily chilled in the fridge. Knock-off coolers like these beauties can still be found, but these days, they are more commonly used to hold houseplants than to house wine. (1) Jeffery H. Munger, "Wine-bottle coller (sea à bouteille)." Timeline of Art History. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, i.e. The Met Museum. 2010. Accessed May 8, 2017. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/1970.230.4/ (2) Jeffrey Munger, "French Porcelain in the Eighteenth Century." Timeline of Art History. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, i.e. The Met Museum. 2003. Accessed May 8, 2017. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/porf/hd_porf.htm (3) "A Drink For the King." This is Versailles. 2014. Accessed May 7, 2017. http://thisisversaillesmadame.blogspot.com/search?q=wine (4) Michele Fricke, "French Porcelain in the 18th Century." Melanie Sherman Ceramics. Accessed May 8 2017. http://www.melaniesherman.com/french-porcelain-in-the-18th-century/ (5) "A Pair of Wine Coolers." The Chinese Porcelain Company. Accessed May 7, 2017. http://chineseporcelaincompany.com/pieces/a-pair-of-wine-coolers/  François Boucher, The Triumph of Venus, 1740
 Figure 1. Jeanne-Antoinette Poisson, Marquise de Pompadour, François Boucher, 1750, Harvard Art Museum The 18th century in France was a time where artists explored with the different forms and styles of art. These included: Rococo style, portraitures, sculptures, furniture, clothing, and many more. In order to create these artworks, many artists worked closely with pubic figures of France to help better represent them. Artists such as François Boucher worked on portraitures of Madame de Pompadour, while artist Élisabeth Louise Vigée Le Brun worked on portraits depicting images of Marie Antoinette. Madame Pompadour and Marie Antoinette were huge female royalty public figures of France, and as public figures they had to hold beauty standards and expectations. Symbiotic relationship came to exist between women and artists, as both sought social preferment based on artificially perfected images of beauty (5). This meant that the artists would have to emphasize the beauty features of both Pompadour and Marie Antoinette. As we’ll see, besides working alongside public French female figures, another thing that these artists had in common was that they were criticized for the works that were published of these figures. The beauty standards and expectations of France were mainly held for female figures, for some men also, of the 18th century. With females being the subject of the artist, they are to be presented as aesthetically pleasing to the viewer (5). One way that was used to enhance aesthetic beauty was through the use of cosmetics by women and use of face-paint by the artist. Since Madame Pompadour and Marie Antoinette were public figures, they were expected to conform to cosmetic expectations The use of both would help fix the flaws, such as rough skin, freckles, pimples, warts, or scars, that women felt they had in order to enhance their reputation (5). Certain aspects, such as different colors, of cosmetics and face-paint had symbolic meanings. For example, white powder or face-paint symbolized things like purity, innocence, and modesty. Different shades of pink and red, such as creamy blends of pinks and seductive reds, were used as a way for the artist and figure to attract and arouse the attention of the public. One of the famous female figures that was popularly known in France was Madame de Pompadour. But, who was she and why was she considered an 18th century public figure in France? Madame Pompadour was born in Paris in 1721. It wasn’t until the year 1745 that she met one of the biggest public figure at that time in France at a masked ball at Versailles, Louis XV. From their first encounter at Versailles, Louis XV had asked and made Madame Pompadour his official chief mistress, now giving her the title of a “marquise.” This title gave Madame Pompadour a key role in the 18th century French arts, in which she focused on and was influenced by Rococo artistic praxis, Rococo aesthetics, and cosmetics (1). As a new figure of France, Madame de Pompadour began working closely with artist François Boucher. Boucher was an artist whose works used the Rococo style, hence why Madame de Pompadour wanted him to paint her in one of his famous works “Jeanne-Antoinette Poisson, Marquise de Pompadour" (Figure 1). The oil on canvas painting by Boucher is currently located in Harvard’s Fogg Museum in Cambridge. According to the Harvard Art Museum, the original painting was painted in 1750 for Pompadour’s brother, Abel-François Poisson, but after being damaged the portrait was touched up again by Boucher until 1758, which is the last date stamped in the painting. The Boucher painting depicts Madame de Pompadour seated in front of her toilette and here we see her practicing the application of cosmetics. Madame Pompadour has her body shifted towards the artist and faces forward, looking directly towards the viewers (3). In one hand we see her holding a small brush that seems to have some rouge already on it from the rouge palette that she is holding with her other hand, this giving the impression that she has just applied it to her rosy pink cheeks. Her rosy cheeks were also a symbol Madame Pompadour wore proudly as a mark of her social success (5). As mentioned before, female figures were depicted to have very white powdered skin as a representation of purity, which on the table of her toilette there is a big puffy white brush sitting in the powder box behind her mirror that may have been used to apply the white powder (1). The vibrant color of her rosy cheeks, contrast the “whiteness” of her skin. Louis XV also happens to make an appearance in the portrait in Pompadours bracelet displaying the side profile of him. Her gown seems to be this puffy white and pink dress and a white drape going over her shoulders, like a superhero cape, being held by a big pink ribbon (3). Her hair is done up, powdered, and decorated with small blue flowers. Her face shows no flaws whatsoever due to the cosmetics applied by her and the face-paint later added by the artist. Boucher represented Madame Pompadour as a youthful beauty at her toilette. But, because of this youthful depiction, there were many who criticized the artwork. The use of cosmetics and face-paint in portraiture wasn’t always accepted before and during the 18th century. Besides cosmetic products containing toxic ingredients such as lead, mercury, and arsenic, the more important reason as to why cosmetics were disapproved in portraits by critics was because they felt it masked the truth. Critics would’ve preferred seeing the natural beauty of public figures instead of feeling unease knowing that cosmetics could be used to misrepresent age, class, gender, and even race (5). Portrait painters were heavily criticized and called deceivers of beauty. Boucher’s painting of Madame Pompadour received a lot of criticism because it deceived the realities of Pompadour. She was 37 when the painting was done and suffered from seizures, fevers, heart problems, and other illnesses (1). Her skin was not white and powdery like in the painting but wrinkly and dry. But, in paintings, such as this one, viewers wouldn’t be able to tell that her health wasn’t well and critics from the Salon of 1757 believe that Boucher tried to divert the attention away from her flaws in order to capture the attention of viewers. Despite the use of face-paint in paintings deceiving the viewer, it was still an artificial form of beautifying the female figure because she had an expected image to save.  Figure 2. Marie Antoinette in a Chemise Dress, 1783, Élisabeth Louise Vigée Le Brun, Oil on Canvas, 35 3/8 × 28 3/8 in. (89.8 × 72 cm), Hessische Hausstiftung, Kronberg. One artist and female French figure who in a way revolted against the beauty standards of the 18th century was Marie Antoinette’s portrait painted by Élisabeth Louise Vigée Le Brun. The oil on canvas “Marie Antoinette in a Chemise Dress” was finished in 1783. Unfortunately, like Boucher, Vigee Le Brun received criticism for the way he depicted Marie Antoinette. Her image as a Queen was as important as, if not more than, Madame Pompadour and as part of the royal family she had to fulfill the expectation of beauty to present to the public. Cosmetics and face-paint was one way that artificial beauty enhanced in portraiture works, but another was through hair. There were many different types of extraordinary hairstyles and wigs that were worn by both men and women in the 18th century in France. Special guilds (Figure 4) were created and built to construct all kinds of wigs of hairstyles that varied in height, design, and decoration. For Marie Antoinette, her hairstyle functions as an element of her French identity and this tradition was established long before her reign (2). In another painting also done by Vigée Le Brun in 1983 depicting Marie, Marie-Antoinette ("a la rose") (Figure 3), we can see Marie Antoinette’s hair done in one of the more extraordinary hairstyles, her dress is much puffier, a bit more revealing in the breast area, and more vibrant in color, like a turquoise blue. In contrast, in the paiting, Marie Antoinette in a Chemise Dress, Vigée Le-Brun and Marie Antoinette were criticized because of the completely different depiction of Marie Antoinette. In this painting her hair is down and lacks the extravagant height, she instead goes with a flappy brown hair with a gray ribbon tied around it and a fluffy gray feather coming out from the side. Her dress is also a much simpler muslin dress (4), less revealing, white, and with a kind of dark gold colored ribbon around her waist. One comparison that both Vigée Le Brun have in common is that in both Marie Antoinette is holding and displaying a flower. Marie Antoinette also disregards the beauty standards she was expected to hold by having less makeup and face paint. Like Madame Pompadour, Marie Antoinette does have the rosy cheeks, but it seems as though she is lacking white powder in her face and hair, which is why her cheeks aren’t as vibrant as Pompadour’s. Being that Marie Antoinette was a Queen, viewers and the public did not appreciate her being presented as in casual attire rather than in a formal one. As we see, the 18th century French viewers and public held beauty standards and expectations for female public figure, Madame Pompadour and Marie Antoinette. Beauty in paintings were depicted in the form of cosmetics, face-paint, hair, and even clothing. Unfortunately, for both female figures, critics did not approve of the beauty being depicted in neither Jeanne-Antoinette Poisson, Marquise de Pompadour done by Boucher nor Marie Antoinette in a Chemise Dress done by Vigée Le Brun. Madame Pompadour was criticized for having too much face paint and cosmetics in her painting, yet when Marie Antoinette goes more natural in her painting by Vigée Le Brun, critics still don’t approve. These unrealistic beauty standards makes it impossible to please everyone. References:
|
 Figure 1: Boucher, "Hercules and Omphale" François Boucher’s Hercules and Omphale [Fig. 1] is a sensational masterpiece that leaves the viewer entranced and mesmerized by lust. Truly every element in the frame is flirtatious: the passionate embrace, draping sheets, the eager groping, yet softened by the utterly gentle and tender love that can almost be literally felt when looking at the painting. The figures are equally engrossed in one another; neither is simply demanding or receiving[1]. Boucher’s color palette is warm, rich, and vibrant, and the objects seem to actually “glow” with color rather than being simply filled in. Light emanates from the skin of the figures and the satin textures of the fabric that envelops them. Boucher’s brushstrokes are soft, and outlines are blurred, creating a dreamy scene that seems to almost sway or breathe with movement and energy from within. Despite the obviously heated sexuality that exists at the center of this work, there is an element about it that undoubtedly softens profanity and accentuates emotion. Boucher, an icon of the 18th century rococo tradition, made calculated decisions in creating his works that he knew would appeal to the taste of his of his time [2]. A great contribution to his success, Boucher had mastered the art of creating erotic works that were just shy of the line of obscenity. Ridding of the somewhat darker message within the original myth on which the painting is based, that “love makes fools of even the strongest men,” Boucher instead expresses the notion of love as a totally beautiful, shameless, and raw experience[3]. This warping of the original narrative to allow room for the unwritten, daring and racy love encounter between Hercules and Omphale that he chose to depict is precisely what made Boucher a genius. Basically, he found a way to get in touch with the natural, human desire and pleasure of viewing love, without violating the norms of what was considered appropriate in 18th century France, all by placing the element of sexuality under the guise of mythological context[4]. It is fascinating how the line between pornography and nudity has been drawn, and where its boundaries have moved throughout history. Why is it that when looking at Hercules and Omphale, an explicitly sexual image, we do not feel shocked by the content? What is it that makes an image become intrinsically sexual and considered to be “crossing the line”? Indeed, in comparison with the 1700s, the complexity of pornography vs. art has become more nuanced. Today we are exposed to both sexual and nude images at levels of accessibility and publicity that are unprecedented. Nonetheless, when we examine what it is inside of us that creates one of these categories as deviant, and the other as acceptable, much has remained the same. While both pornography and art employ the nude human body, there seems to be some unarticulated aspect which separates the two. For many critics, this aspect has been matched to two things: intention and reaction. Jerrold Levinson, a philosopher of art, explained this point clearly: “The aims of true pornography and the aims of art, erotic art included, are not compatible, but war against one another (…). One induces you, in the name of arousal and release, to ignore the representation so as to get at the represented, the other induces you, in the name of aesthetic delight, to dwell on the representation.” [5] Levinson highlights precisely how pornography is intended to sexually stimulate, and art is intended only to aesthetically stimulate. While this line may seem more clearly distinct when examining the painted works of Boucher, it has become more difficult to determine where exactly this line exists today, particularly considering the modern technology of photography. With photographic images, the verisimilitude of the subject matter can make nudity seem more profane than can possibly be executed by the medium of painting. Lula Hyers, a young professional photographer from New York City, has been toying with these concepts throughout her work, particularly in her series called “Ivy and Gabriel”. The series concentrates on two young lovers, intertwined and twisted around each other, naked [Fig. 2] In one remarkable image, the male leans over the female, reclined, and spits into her mouth [Fig. 3]. In another, the couple kisses, mouths wide open and tongues exposed, exchanging a passionate glance from underneath low eyelids [Fig. 4]. Though Hyers has indeed received some criticism for her work’s shock-value, the series is an artistic representation of intimacy. The viewer is captured by the love of the subjects themselves. How is it that Hyers, using the camera as her tool, managed to take photos of such sexual scenes without having them be categorized as pornographic? Despite the different mediums, both Boucher and Hyers actually employ similar techniques to de-eroticize their works, and place greater stress on feeling. “Ivy and Gabriel” is a series of dim-lit, slightly blurred images, with fleshy tones from a limited, warm, palette (many similar artistic choices to Boucher). The photographs actually look like paintings—the skin of the subjects seems baby-soft; where their bodies meet are gorgeously blurred lines; the dark background creates a surreal space. Hyers uses light, color, and composition to accentuate the vibes of love and lust between the two subjects—but returning to Levinson’s ideas—the viewer is inspired precisely by their interactions, not the idea of being involved in the activities personally. Hyers moves away from realism, into the technique of abstraction, in order to make these images works of art, not pornography. The ways in which Boucher appealed to the public with his use of nudity, while still remaining in the category of what we call “art”, are much the same ways artists today do so. The works abstain from emphasis on physicality and sex, and highlight emotional elements. [1] Donald Posner, “Boucher’s Beauties” in The Loves of the Gods. Page 63. [2] Donald Posner, “Boucher’s Beauties” in The Loves of the Gods. Page 62. [3] Donald Posner, “Boucher’s Beauties” in The Loves of the Gods. Page 62. [4] Donald Posner, “Boucher’s Beauties” in The Loves of the Gods. Page 64. [5] Hans Maes, “Erotic Art”. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/erotic-art/ |  Figure 2: Lula Hyers, "Ivy and Gabriel" Series  Figure 3: Lula Hyers, "Ivy and Gabriel" Series  Lula Hyers, "Ivy and Gabriel" Series |
“Here you are again, you great magician, with your silent composition. How eloquently they speak to the artist! Everything they say to him about the imitation of nature, the science of color and harmony.” [i]
Said, Diderot. Even though Chardin was focusing on still life and scenes of daily life, which is low rank in Academy, however, his artworks were popular during that time in France.
Soap Bubble by Jean–Siméon Chardin in 1733/1744 is one of the most famous genre masterpiece during the 18th century also it should be count as the first genre painting by Chardin. There were four versions of this work, the first version exhibited at Paris Salon in 1739 was lost and known only from Pierre Filloeul’s print. The other versions are at the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C., the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NewYork, and the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Because the two versions in NY and LA are both reverses, thus they probably mad after Filloeul’s print.[ii]
Chardin established a solid reputation of his still life during 1720s-1730s. He was acquired to become a still life painter. He would repeat his work frequently, that is why makes public assume that he spent himself dearly on his work. After that, he started to painted figures, always child in a play or kitchen maids and other servant.[iii] Soap Bubble was probably one of Chardin’s early experimental genre paintings. Chardin was using the Dutch motif, dou, as the element was very popular in the 17th century French.[iv] In this composition, a youth in a brown coat with white lose suit inside leans on a window stone sill and blows up a soap bubble. His front hair is dropping by sides naturally. The long hair bands low back. Besides his lefts elbow a glass of soap water with a stick. The location of the glass, which is not really beside but little in front of his elbow created a space relationship instead of the only surface.
A younger boy stands beside him in the shadow with a half face covered by the stone sill. His eyes are very concentrated on the quivering expanding bubble, which seems like it is going to slip from youth’s straw. The audience might be curious about the expression of the little boy's covered half face, and try to image it might be worried about the bubble is going to explode or feel fabulous about the big bubble.
On the other hand, the window just likes a frame and the leaves and branched like decorations on our left side created a “scene” for us. The light illuminated the front- on youth’s face and hands, glass and stone sill. The back painted in shadow, created a fore, back perspective, depth of field and also created an incredible atmosphere, but also peace and quiet.
He loved above all to render the surface of things, but he gave them depth of space and of feeling- by his artful disposition of light and shadow, which gives his works and air of mystery.[v]
It is very interesting to see that the symbolism of subject matters and the transience of human life.[vi] The bubble，which from butch and Flemish painting symbolized life’s fragility and the vanity of worldly pursuit.[vii] However, the soap bubble and these two young boys also aroused people’s childhood memories and naivety. One comment in French periodical The Artist in 1845:
Nothing could be more natural, more graceful, or more harmonious than this charming composition. It is nature caught in the act, without dazzling color or the least affectation. You have seen this young boy twenty times, a hundred times…he reminds you nostalgically of the simple games of your own childhood.[viii]
Drawing closer, the brush marks Chardin made and the harmonic balance of color mix lead our eyes going back and forth. The various dark colors, for example, the reddish dark gray of the window. The bluish and the reddish back color gradient in the back, showed us light transmit and space relation in the scene. His beige waistcoat and the reddish blurry line around his back and across over his arm, perfectly separated from the back, also gave the audience a dim structure of his body. [ix]Lose touches and the light and dark contrasts also made drapes tortuous. Leaves decorated left side, even though they were painted loosely with light green on the top with warm dark green on the bottom, and the red environment color reflected on the leaves on the bottom corner. However it illustrated the thickness and light and shadow, also the reflection of the environment combined with free brush marks also expressed a yearning, leisurely, tranquil, calm and peaceful emotions in the work.
Compare to another work by Chardin, The Laundress in 1733. The tone and theme are quite similar to Soap Bubble. This composition was painted to accompany Woman at the Urn[x]. A maid is washing the clothes on our middle left side. She doesn’t face to the front directly, to the side for instead, which gave us an imagination space to assume the story in this scene, naturally but dramatic. A boy is sitting on a small wood chair beside the tub and blowing his little bubble. His expression and body gesture demonstrated that he was fully concentrated on his bubble gingerly. A cat crawled on the ground. On the back, there is another maid is hanging clothes back to back outside of the door. Those subjects all created a triangle relationship in the work. The contrast of light and shadow just like Soap Bubble, made our eyes moving around. This painting also based on Dutch motif, the child at the laundress’s feet is very typical; the cat crouching in the corner is also an example. The bubble, which represented time’s evanescence, is also Dutch inspiration too.[xi] The door, which is the idea of duo, created an image in the image.
Two of these works are all about blows bubble. They are all inspired based on everyday life. Their actions and emotions are very concentrate and similar to each other, even though they are in different age. The senses of pictures are also close to each other—dynamic but also transience and motionless, naivety air and atmosphere of mystery. [xii] Graceful, peaceful, calm and quite.
All in all. Jean- Simeon Chardin as a great magician painter left big influences from 18 century France until nowadays. He used his incredible senses of color balance and harmony, brought tons of fabulous work to the public. His magic wakes up our memories and tranquil in our de
[i] Rosenberg, Pierre. Chardin, Jean-Baptiste-Siméon. S.l.: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1974. Print. Chapter One.
[ii] Artalicious, It's. "Soap bubbles – Jean-Baptiste-Siméon Chardin." It's Artalicious! July 20, 2015. Accessed May 09, 2017. https://itsartalicious.wordpress.com/2015/05/04/soap-bubbles-by-jean-baptiste-simeon-chardin/.
[iii] Conisbee, Philip, and Joseph Fronek. Soap bubbles by Jean-Siméon Chardin: Los Angeles County Museum of Art (18.10.1990 - 20.1.1991). Los Angeles, 1990.
Page.7.
[iv] Chardin, Jean-Baptiste-Siméon, and Gabriel Naughton. Chardin. Oxford: Phaidon Press, 1996.
Page.60.
[v] Conisbee, Philip, and Joseph Fronek. Soap bubbles by Jean-Siméon Chardin: Los Angeles County Museum of Art (18.10.1990 - 20.1.1991). Los Angeles, 1990.
Page.5.
[vi] Chardin, Jean-Baptiste-Siméon, and Gabriel Naughton. Chardin. Oxford: Phaidon Press, 1996.
Page.60.
[vii] Chardin, Jean-Baptiste-Siméon, and Gabriel Naughton. Chardin. Oxford: Phaidon Press, 1996.
Page.60.
[viii] Chardin, Jean-Baptiste-Siméon, and Gabriel Naughton. Chardin. Oxford: Phaidon Press, 1996.
Page.60.
[ix] Conisbee, Philip, and Joseph Fronek. Soap bubbles by Jean-Siméon Chardin: Los Angeles County Museum of Art (18.10.1990 - 20.1.1991). Los Angeles, 1990.
Page.6.
[x] Chardin, Jean-Baptiste-Siméon, and Gabriel Naughton. Chardin. Oxford: Phaidon Press, 1996.
Page.58.
[xi] Chardin, Jean-Baptiste-Siméon, and Gabriel Naughton. Chardin. Oxford: Phaidon Press, 1996.
Page60.
[xii] Conisbee, Philip, and Joseph Fronek. Soap bubbles by Jean-Siméon Chardin: Los Angeles County Museum of Art (18.10.1990 - 20.1.1991). Los Angeles, 1990.
Page.9.
Said, Diderot. Even though Chardin was focusing on still life and scenes of daily life, which is low rank in Academy, however, his artworks were popular during that time in France.
Soap Bubble by Jean–Siméon Chardin in 1733/1744 is one of the most famous genre masterpiece during the 18th century also it should be count as the first genre painting by Chardin. There were four versions of this work, the first version exhibited at Paris Salon in 1739 was lost and known only from Pierre Filloeul’s print. The other versions are at the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C., the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NewYork, and the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Because the two versions in NY and LA are both reverses, thus they probably mad after Filloeul’s print.[ii]
Chardin established a solid reputation of his still life during 1720s-1730s. He was acquired to become a still life painter. He would repeat his work frequently, that is why makes public assume that he spent himself dearly on his work. After that, he started to painted figures, always child in a play or kitchen maids and other servant.[iii] Soap Bubble was probably one of Chardin’s early experimental genre paintings. Chardin was using the Dutch motif, dou, as the element was very popular in the 17th century French.[iv] In this composition, a youth in a brown coat with white lose suit inside leans on a window stone sill and blows up a soap bubble. His front hair is dropping by sides naturally. The long hair bands low back. Besides his lefts elbow a glass of soap water with a stick. The location of the glass, which is not really beside but little in front of his elbow created a space relationship instead of the only surface.
A younger boy stands beside him in the shadow with a half face covered by the stone sill. His eyes are very concentrated on the quivering expanding bubble, which seems like it is going to slip from youth’s straw. The audience might be curious about the expression of the little boy's covered half face, and try to image it might be worried about the bubble is going to explode or feel fabulous about the big bubble.
On the other hand, the window just likes a frame and the leaves and branched like decorations on our left side created a “scene” for us. The light illuminated the front- on youth’s face and hands, glass and stone sill. The back painted in shadow, created a fore, back perspective, depth of field and also created an incredible atmosphere, but also peace and quiet.
He loved above all to render the surface of things, but he gave them depth of space and of feeling- by his artful disposition of light and shadow, which gives his works and air of mystery.[v]
It is very interesting to see that the symbolism of subject matters and the transience of human life.[vi] The bubble，which from butch and Flemish painting symbolized life’s fragility and the vanity of worldly pursuit.[vii] However, the soap bubble and these two young boys also aroused people’s childhood memories and naivety. One comment in French periodical The Artist in 1845:
Nothing could be more natural, more graceful, or more harmonious than this charming composition. It is nature caught in the act, without dazzling color or the least affectation. You have seen this young boy twenty times, a hundred times…he reminds you nostalgically of the simple games of your own childhood.[viii]
Drawing closer, the brush marks Chardin made and the harmonic balance of color mix lead our eyes going back and forth. The various dark colors, for example, the reddish dark gray of the window. The bluish and the reddish back color gradient in the back, showed us light transmit and space relation in the scene. His beige waistcoat and the reddish blurry line around his back and across over his arm, perfectly separated from the back, also gave the audience a dim structure of his body. [ix]Lose touches and the light and dark contrasts also made drapes tortuous. Leaves decorated left side, even though they were painted loosely with light green on the top with warm dark green on the bottom, and the red environment color reflected on the leaves on the bottom corner. However it illustrated the thickness and light and shadow, also the reflection of the environment combined with free brush marks also expressed a yearning, leisurely, tranquil, calm and peaceful emotions in the work.
Compare to another work by Chardin, The Laundress in 1733. The tone and theme are quite similar to Soap Bubble. This composition was painted to accompany Woman at the Urn[x]. A maid is washing the clothes on our middle left side. She doesn’t face to the front directly, to the side for instead, which gave us an imagination space to assume the story in this scene, naturally but dramatic. A boy is sitting on a small wood chair beside the tub and blowing his little bubble. His expression and body gesture demonstrated that he was fully concentrated on his bubble gingerly. A cat crawled on the ground. On the back, there is another maid is hanging clothes back to back outside of the door. Those subjects all created a triangle relationship in the work. The contrast of light and shadow just like Soap Bubble, made our eyes moving around. This painting also based on Dutch motif, the child at the laundress’s feet is very typical; the cat crouching in the corner is also an example. The bubble, which represented time’s evanescence, is also Dutch inspiration too.[xi] The door, which is the idea of duo, created an image in the image.
Two of these works are all about blows bubble. They are all inspired based on everyday life. Their actions and emotions are very concentrate and similar to each other, even though they are in different age. The senses of pictures are also close to each other—dynamic but also transience and motionless, naivety air and atmosphere of mystery. [xii] Graceful, peaceful, calm and quite.
All in all. Jean- Simeon Chardin as a great magician painter left big influences from 18 century France until nowadays. He used his incredible senses of color balance and harmony, brought tons of fabulous work to the public. His magic wakes up our memories and tranquil in our de
[i] Rosenberg, Pierre. Chardin, Jean-Baptiste-Siméon. S.l.: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1974. Print. Chapter One.
[ii] Artalicious, It's. "Soap bubbles – Jean-Baptiste-Siméon Chardin." It's Artalicious! July 20, 2015. Accessed May 09, 2017. https://itsartalicious.wordpress.com/2015/05/04/soap-bubbles-by-jean-baptiste-simeon-chardin/.
[iii] Conisbee, Philip, and Joseph Fronek. Soap bubbles by Jean-Siméon Chardin: Los Angeles County Museum of Art (18.10.1990 - 20.1.1991). Los Angeles, 1990.
Page.7.
[iv] Chardin, Jean-Baptiste-Siméon, and Gabriel Naughton. Chardin. Oxford: Phaidon Press, 1996.
Page.60.
[v] Conisbee, Philip, and Joseph Fronek. Soap bubbles by Jean-Siméon Chardin: Los Angeles County Museum of Art (18.10.1990 - 20.1.1991). Los Angeles, 1990.
Page.5.
[vi] Chardin, Jean-Baptiste-Siméon, and Gabriel Naughton. Chardin. Oxford: Phaidon Press, 1996.
Page.60.
[vii] Chardin, Jean-Baptiste-Siméon, and Gabriel Naughton. Chardin. Oxford: Phaidon Press, 1996.
Page.60.
[viii] Chardin, Jean-Baptiste-Siméon, and Gabriel Naughton. Chardin. Oxford: Phaidon Press, 1996.
Page.60.
[ix] Conisbee, Philip, and Joseph Fronek. Soap bubbles by Jean-Siméon Chardin: Los Angeles County Museum of Art (18.10.1990 - 20.1.1991). Los Angeles, 1990.
Page.6.
[x] Chardin, Jean-Baptiste-Siméon, and Gabriel Naughton. Chardin. Oxford: Phaidon Press, 1996.
Page.58.
[xi] Chardin, Jean-Baptiste-Siméon, and Gabriel Naughton. Chardin. Oxford: Phaidon Press, 1996.
Page60.
[xii] Conisbee, Philip, and Joseph Fronek. Soap bubbles by Jean-Siméon Chardin: Los Angeles County Museum of Art (18.10.1990 - 20.1.1991). Los Angeles, 1990.
Page.9.
Archives
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
RSS Feed
