Du Plessis Donotella 2017.Pdf (2.074Mb)
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TECHNIQUE AND IDEAL IN DIDEROT’S SALONS (1759-1767) LE DÉVELOPPEMENT DU RAPPORT ENTRE TECHNIQUE ET IDÉAL DANS LA CRITIQUE D’ART DE DIDEROT DANS LES SALONS (1759-1767) Donatella du Plessis Dissertation submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in the College of Humanities University of KwaZulu-Natal Supervisor : Prof. F.E. Balladon July 2017 I hereby declare that this dissertation, unless otherwise indicated in the text, is my own original work. This research has also not previously been submitted to any other institution for degree purposes: Signature : Student number : ___________________ Date : ___________________ ABSTRACT The art criticism of Denis Diderot (1713-1784) shows the development of a complex theory of beauty in which he worked towards a proper understanding of those factors that contribute to the beauty of a work of art, both in terms of its composition and of the way it engages the viewer. This art criticism would prove to be significant to posterity in that it represents the first true example of what is now called modern art criticism. As a man of letters who took an exceptional and unprecedented amount of trouble to educate himself in both the history and the rules of art, both through independent study and through constant interaction with the foremost artists of the day, he learned to evaluate art in terms of its technical excellence (what he called “la partie technique”, or technique of painting) and in terms of its ability to stir the emotions through the originality, imagination and almost undefinable magnetism of its content (what he called “la partie idéale” or content). It was through his constantly- developing understanding of this dynamic that Diderot became the first writer to formulate a detailed methodology for a criticism and appreciation of art. It is in our view important to establish how and why Diderot’s understanding of this dynamic developed and to make this the object of a single study. The dissertation was conducted through the textual analysis of five Salons (1759-1767) and employed theories by Bourdieu and Barthes as theoretical frameworks. The study found that while Diderot perceives technique and ideal to be two separate and warring entities in the early Salons of 1759, 1761, 1763, they have, by the end of the Salon de 1767, become two parties in a symbiotic relationship, with the mastery of technique being the gateway to the mastery of ideal. i SOMMAIRE Pour mieux comprendre les éléments qui contribuent à la beauté d’une œuvre d’art, c’est-à- dire, la composition d’une œuvre et la manière dont elle inspire le spectateur, Diderot (1713- 1784) a développé une complexe théorie de beauté dans sa critique d’art. Cette critique est importante pour la postérité, car elle représente le premier exemple de ce que l’on appellera la critique d’art moderne. Homme de lettres, Diderot a pris des mesures exceptionnelles et sans précédents pour s’instruire au sujet de l’histoire et des règles de l’art. Grâce à ses études, effectuées indépendamment et en compagnie des grands artistes du jour, il a appris à évaluer l’arten fonction de sa supériorité technique (appelée “la partie technique”), et des émotions que l’originalité, l’imagination, et le magnétisme indéfinissable de son contenu pouvaient provoquer chez le spectateur (appelée “la partie idéale”). Sa compréhension de l’interaction entre le technique et l’idéal était toujours en évolution, et a mené le philosophe à établir une méthodologie détaillée pour la critique et l’appréciation de l’art. Dans le cadre d’une étude dédiée seulement à cet aspect de l’œuvre critique de Diderot, nous nous sommes proposés d’établir comment et pourquoi ce rapport entre technique et idéal a développé du point de vue du philosophe. Pour atteindre ce but, nous avons effectué une analyse textuelle de cinq Salons (1759-1767) en employant comme cadre théorique des théories de Bourdieu et de Barthes. Notre étude a démontré que dans les Salons dit “formatifs” (1759 ; 1761 ; 1763), Diderot perçoit que le technique et l’idéal sont deux éléments autonomes. Cependant, dans les Salons de 1765 et 1767, nous avons démontré que le technique et l’idéal doivent se lier d’une manière interdépendante pour créer une belle œuvre d’art : un beau technique est nécessaire pour avoir un bel idéal. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS À MON AMIE LE PROFESSEUR BALLADON1 Bénie soit à jamais la mémoire de celle qui, en offrant toujours son soutien, sa patience, son savoir et son encouragement, excita chez ce candidat un exercice utile et une recréation douce, recula chez elle la fatigue, l’entêtement et la désinvolture, et la rendit plus instruite et plus humble dans l’expression de ses opinions. I would also like to extend a special thanks to my family, especially my mother. Thank you for all your love, support and unfailing tolerance of my outbursts conducted at strange hours on the other side of the country. Thank you, too, for your considerate acceptance of the constant presence, in my life, of a garrulous, three-hundred-year-old man with a cheeky smile. I’ll try to leave him behind the next time I come home. 1 This acknowledgement is an adaptation of the opening lines of the Salon de 1763 (Assézat X : 165). iii DEDICATION For my father. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Diderot and the Encyclopédie : an introduction to the socio-intellectual 1 climate of eighteenth-century France 1.2 A brief history of the Salon in France 10 1.3 Introduction to Diderot’s Salons 14 1.4 The dialectic between technique and ideal 23 1.5 Structure of the dissertation 24 CHAPTER 2 : THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND LITERATURE 27 REVIEW 2.1 Introduction 27 2.2 Theoretical framework and theory 29 2.2.1 Bourdieu 29 2.2.2 Barthes 34 2.3 Literature review 38 2.3.1 General studies on Diderot’s aesthetic and studies of specific aspects of 38 Diderot’s aesthetic 2.3.2 Conclusion 62 CHAPTER 3 : THE SALONS DE 1759, 1761, 1763 63 3.1 Introduction 63 3.2 Salon de 1759 64 3.2.1 Jeaurat : Chartreux en méditation 69 v 3.2.2 Bachelier : Résurrection 70 3.2.3 La Grenée : Vénus aux forges de Lemnos demandant à Vulcain des armes 72 pour son fils 3.2.4 Carle Van Loo : Jason et Médée 74 3.3 Salon de 1761 78 3.3.1 Diderot’s dramatic theories 79 3.3.2 Greuze : L’Accordée du Village 82 3.4 Salon de 1763 94 3.4.1 Carle Van Loo : Les Grâces enchaînées par l’amour 96 3.5 Conclusion 102 CHAPTER 4 : THE SALON DE 1765 104 4.1 Introduction 104 4.2 Bachelier : Tableaux peints avec de nouveaux pastels préparés à l’huile 105 4.3 Bachelier : La Charité Romaine 108 4.4 Fragonard : Le Grand Prêtre Corésus s’immole pour sauver Callirhoé 111 4.4.1 Fragonard and Ideal 116 4.4.2 Fragonard and Technique 121 4.5 Conclusion 126 vi CHAPTER 5 : THE SALON DE 1767 128 5.1 Introduction 128 5.2 Vien : Saint-Denis prêchant la foi en France 130 5.2.1 Technique and ideal in the Saint Denis 132 5.3 Doyen : Le Miracle des Ardents 144 5.3.1 Technique and ideal in Les Ardents 146 5.4 Comparison of Vien and Doyen 160 CHAPTER 6 : CONCLUSION 167 6.1 Findings 167 6.2 Contribution to existing scholarship 175 6.3 Suggestions for further research 178 6.4 Art criticism today 181 6.4 Closing comment 182 REFERENCES 184 APPENDICES 193 APPENDIX 1 : SALON DE 1759 194 APPENDIX 2 : SALON DE 1761 198 APPENDIX 3 : SALON DE 1763 201 APPENDIX 4 : SALON DE 1765 203 APPENDIX 5 : SALON DE 1767 214 vii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Diderot and the Encyclopédie : an introduction to the socio-intellectual climate of eighteenth-century France On the eighth of March 1759, Chrétien Guillaume de Lamoignon de Malesherbes, directeur de la Librairie, and censor of the written word in France, sent a warning to Denis Diderot that his papers were about to be seized. For the second time, the Parlement de Paris had banned the Encyclopédie, the great compendium of knowledge that had consumed Diderot’s life for more than a decade (Beaurepaire 2011 : 399). “L’avantage qu’on peut tirer d’un ouvrage de ce genre, pour le progrès des sciences et des arts”, the Parlement’s proclamation read, “ne peut jamais balancer le tort irréparable qui en résulte pour les mœurs et la religion”2. The royal privilege under which the Encyclopédie was published was revoked, the immediate seizing of Diderot’s papers was ordered, and Pope Clement XII called upon all Catholics to burn their copies on pain of excommunication (Beaurepaire 2011 : 399). Diderot, angry, frustrated and panicked, responded to the secret warning Malesherbes had taken such risk in sending him by storming into the latter’s home and demanding to know how the directeur proposed to evacuate so large an enterprise as the Encyclopédie in twenty-four hours. The reply was that Diderot should hide all documentation relating to the Encyclopédie in Malesherbes’ house. The residence of the censor was the last place that anybody would think to look. This is the kind of ironical episode that is typical of eighteenth-century France (Beaurepaire 2011 : 400). It is testimony to the mad contrariness of an era in which the king sat at Versailles alternating between the issuing of lettres de cachet and attempts to dissolve parliament, while in Paris, men and women of intelligence gathered in the apartments of society hostesses to speak and dream of a new world in which knowledge and tolerance would triumph over religious fundamentalism and absolutism, and where the serenity of reason and civilised debate would exercise a calming influence on destructive passions and the clouding of judgement that often accompanies them.