sign in sign up
<<
Home , Antoine Watteau, Claude Gillot, Johann Michael Fischer, Nicolas Lancret, Pierrot (painting), Rocaille

Journey Through a Thousand Years

“In the Very Temple of Delight

Week Eight:

Rococo - Bernard II van Risenburgh, Writing Table – The Tiepolo Family - How to Look Great: Rococo Women Beauty Guide - Jean- – The Shop-Sign of Gersaint - Jean- Honoré Fragonard, The Progress of Love: The Meeting - Jean-Baptiste Greuze, The Village Bride - Sir Joshua Reynolds: 10 Things To Know About The English Artist -

Encyclopaedia Britannica & Adam Augustyn: “Rococo” From The Encyclopaedia Brittanica Online (2019)

Rococo, style in interior design, the decorative arts, , architecture, and sculpture that originated in Paris in the early 18th century but was soon adopted throughout and later in other countries, principally and Austria. It is characterized by lightness, elegance, and an exuberant use of curving natural forms in ornamentation. The word Rococo is derived from the French word rocaille, which denoted the shell-covered rock work that was used to decorate artificial grottoes.

Nicolas Lancret: “Mademoiselle Carmargo Dancing,” Oil on Canvas, Early 18th Century, Collection of Prince Heinrich of Prussia

At the outset the Rococo style represented a reaction against the ponderous design of Louis XIV’s and the official art of his reign. Several interior designers, painters, and engravers, among them Pierre Le Pautre, J.-A. Meissonier, Jean Berain, and Nicolas Pineau, developed a lighter and more intimate style of decoration for the new residences of nobles in Paris. In the Rococo style, walls, ceilings, and moldings were decorated with delicate interlacings of curves and countercurves based on the fundamental shapes of the “C” and the “S,” as well as with shell forms and other natural shapes. Asymmetrical design was the rule. Light pastels, ivory white, and gold were the predominant colours, and Rococo decorators frequently used mirrors to enhance the sense of open space. Excellent examples of French Rococo are the Salon de Monsieur le Prince (completed 1722) in the Petit Château at Chantilly, decorated by Jean Aubert, and the salons (begun 1732) of the Hôtel de Soubise, Paris, by . The Rococo style was also manifested in the decorative arts. Its asymmetrical forms and rocaille ornament were quickly adapted to silver and porcelain, and French of the period also displayed curving forms, naturalistic shell and floral ornament, and a more elaborate, playful use of gilt-bronze and porcelain ornamentation.

French Rococo chairs by Louis Delanois (1731–92); in the Bibliothèque de l'Arsenal, Paris. Courtesy of the Bibliothèque de l'Arsenal, Paris; photograph by Eddy van der Veen

Rococo painting in France began with the graceful, gently melancholic of Antoine Watteau, culminated in the playful and sensuous nudes of François Boucher, and ended with the freely painted genre scenes of Jean-Honoré Fragonard. Rococo portraiture had its finest practitioners in Jean-Marc Nattier and Jean-Baptiste Perroneau. French Rococo painting in general was characterized by easygoing, lighthearted treatments of mythological and courtship themes, rich and delicate brushwork, a relatively light tonal key, and sensuous colouring. Rococo sculpture was notable for its intimate scale, its naturalism, and its varied surface effects.

Antoine Watteau: “Mezzetin”, oil on canvas by Antoine Watteau, 1718–20; in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York City.

From France the Rococo style spread in the 1730s to the Catholic German-speaking lands, where it was adapted to a brilliant style of religious architecture that combined French elegance with south German fantasy as well as with a lingering Baroque interest in dramatic spatial and plastic effects. Some of the most beautiful of all Rococo buildings outside France are to be seen in —for example, the refined and delicate Amalienburg (1734–39), in the park of Nymphenburg, and the Residenztheater (1750–53; rebuilt after World War II), both by François de Cuvilliés. Among the finest German Rococo pilgrimage churches are the Vierzehnheiligen (1743–72), near Lichtenfels, in , designed by Balthasar Neumann, and the Wieskirche (begun 1745–54), near Munich, built by Dominikus Zimmermann and decorated by his elder brother Johann Baptist Zimmermann. G.W. von Knobelsdorff and Johann Michael Fischer also created notable buildings in the style, which utilized a profusion of stuccowork and other decoration.

Cuvilliés, François de, the Elder: Amalienburg Amalienburg, hunting lodge of Nymphenburg, near Munich; designed by François de Cuvilliés the Elder. Photo: Rufus46

In Italy the Rococo style was concentrated primarily in Venice, where it was epitomized by the large-scale decorative paintings of Giovanni Battista Tiepolo. The urban vistas of Francesco Guardi and Canaletto were also influenced by the Rococo. Meanwhile, in France the style had already begun to decline by the 1750s when it came under attack from critics for its triviality and ornamental excesses, and by the 1760s the new, more austere movement of began to supplant the Rococo in France. The term Rococo is sometimes used to denote the light, elegant, and highly ornamental composed at the end of the Baroque period—i.e., from the until the 1770s. The earlier music of Joseph Haydn and of the young Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart can thus be termed Rococo, although the work of these composers more properly belongs to the emerging Classical style.

Dianne Pierce: “Bernard II van Risenburgh, Writing Table” From smARThistory (2016)

Bernard II van Risenburgh, Writing table (Table à écrire), c. 1755, oak veneered with tulipwood, kingwood, amaranth, mahogany, ebony, mother-of-pearl, stained horn; gilt-bronze mounts and modern velvet, 78.1 x 96.5 x 57.5 cm (The Metropolitan Museum of Art) The style of the French nobility Encased in the curving frame and delicate decorative scheme of this writing table are clever innovations, technological and artistic brilliance, and a representation of completely new ways of living in the period beginning c. 1755. After the formality and grandeur of Louis XIV’s Versailles, French aristocrats, including the king himself, were ready for spaces, furniture, clothing, and etiquette that allowed them to turn to matters other than the glorification of France. Beginning before the turn of the eighteenth century, but accelerated by the opportunity opened by the death of the Sun King in 1715, nobles set up their own homes after decades of living under the king’s enormous roof at Versailles, and created a radically different domestic life. Although it was only seven years until Louis XIV’s great-grandson was old enough to take the throne to reign as Louis XV, by 1722 new ideas of privacy, comfort, and intimate home life led to a new design language, the Rococo. All of the elements that are the basis for domesticity as we know it today were developed in this period. A move away from Baroque grandeur and

Louis XIV, during his long reign, had established France as a major European economic and political power, not least by the use of design as a strategic propaganda tool. Where the grandeur, drama, and theatricality of the Baroque, as Louis imported it from , had been the perfect tool for portraying the King and his country as supremely powerful, by the early eighteenth century, the Baroque was starting to seem exhaustingly sumptuous. Baroque design was based on the classical language, which the earlier artists had delighted in rediscovering, augmenting, and modifying. But by the early decades of the eighteenth century, designers were increasingly turning away from bombastic classicism to other sources, notably the natural world. They began playing with un-classical ideas like asymmetry, movement, linearity, sinuous curves, and realistic natural ornament. The Rococo, as it developed in design, was a sharp turn away from everything the Baroque had become.

Jean François de Troy, Reading from Molière, around 1728, oil on canvas, 72.4 x 90.8 cm (Collection of late Marchioness of Cholmondeley, Houghton) Elegance, intimacy, delicacy and curves Where Baroque spaces had been opulent, Rococo rooms were elegant. Grandeur became intimate delicacy. No less carefully designed or meticulously crafted, Rococo was light, fresh, and whimsical, to replace the heavy, fleshy Baroque. The lines of this writing table, as well as its applied ornament and its iconography, all express perfectly the Rococo sensibility. The piece is all curves, more vital and organic than architectural, with cabriole legs (with two curves) that seem to dance, and marquetry of ribbons, leaves and flowers. There’s no message here, no story told or idea conveyed, only pleasure and delight in an object for its own sake. Louis XV’s reign, like the man himself, was a time of lighthearted pursuit of beauty and sensual joie de vivre. The artist This table was designed by Bernard II van Risenburgh, one of a group of furniture makers working for Louis XV and his nobles. They produced new types of objects for new lifestyles, in the new Rococo design language, and using new technologies. Everything about this table is a fresh approach. Van Risenburgh was part of a relatively new guild of furniture specialists called ébénistes, who were responsible for the veneered skin of the piece only; the frame was built by a menusier. While many of the finest craftsmen of the eighteenth century worked only in the royal workshops, Van Risenburgh was unusual in having his own enterprise and selling primarily through retail middle-men known as marchand-merciers, a new-fangled concept. Furthermore, he signed his pieces (BVRB). In keeping with Enlightenment ideas of the eighteenth century which celebrated individuality and personal achievement, increasingly craftsmen were identifying themselves with their work. Van Risenburgh also designed his own gilt-bronze mounts, which created a distinct personal style and help to identify his work.

Tables were “in” (especially for women) Tables were the delight of the new Rococo interior. Tiny moveable tables for ladies’ sewing, tables for playing cards, exquisite tables (bonheurs du jour) with porcelain plaques from the royal Sevres factory: an explosion of types and expressions. Writing, playing cards, correspondence were all fashionable amusements for the new world of the eighteenth century. Furthermore, small, highly detailed tables served as props for a particular kind of intimate domestic theater. Women especially used these objects in their expressions of themselves as cultured and sophisticated, skilled in the arts of polite society and seduction. A slender lace-clad wrist, lightly touching a hidden spring in a table, could reveal a drawer or a secret compartment, a book-rest, or in some pieces, all of these—in a series of carefully orchestrated steps. In the intimate aristocratic world of the early eighteenth century, women were the gatekeepers to the rooms where important men gathered, and thereby exercised great social and political power. For the first time, women chose and controlled their interiors, had their own objects, and interacted with them in a most self-conscious but seemingly insouciant way. How it was used This writing table gives the user some clues about how to employ it: first, there is an opening in the gilt-bronze (or ormolu) gallery (the little fence around the edge of the top) that tells where to sit. In accord with this positioning, one finds a pull-out flat writing surface with a leather inset, just below the table top. A drawer for storage slides out of one short end, and another flat surface pulls out of the other to create a place to put accessories such as ink and paper. Not merely a piece of furniture, this writing table from the golden era of French design, is an indicator of great social changes, including changing women’s roles, stylistic shifts, and a personal relationship with objects that presaged the modern world as we know it today.

Jeremy Miller: “The Tiepolo Family” From smARThistory (2016) Eighteenth-century Venice was dominated by the Tiepolo family of artists. Venice had lost influence as an artistic center since the sixteenth-century, the era of Titian and Veronese. Exciting new artists such as Caravaggio and the Carracci brothers were working primarily in central Italy, Rome in particular. By adopting the tradition of grand, allegorical ceiling painting for the aristocratic elite, the father-son team of Giambattista and Domenico Tiepolo brought Venice once again into the center of artistic life. The Tiepolo family also helped define many of the qualities we think of as Rococo.

Apollo (detail), Giambattista and Domenico Tiepolo, Apollo and the Continents, 1752, oil on canvas, 73 x 54 7/8 inches / 185.4 x 139.4 cm (The Metropolitan Museum of Art) What most people notice first about Tiepolo paintings are the colors. Pastels in complimentary schemes lend a soft, often romantic quality to otherwise active scenes. The use of dramatic poses and simultaneous narrative are reinforced by the tension inherent in the color schemes, keeping the pictures lively and engaging. This combination of precision, apparent ease, and liveliness was referred to as sprezzatura, and the Tiepolo family came to define it as an artistic trait. The Residenz Between 1750 and 1753 Domenico and his father lived and worked in Würzburg, Germany. Giambattista Tiepolo had been commissioned to decorate certain areas of the Residenz, or royal residence, and he brought Domenico along to assist him with this work. The frescoes they produced are generally considered to be the greatest masterpieces of the Tiepolo family workshop. The two artists worked so well together that it is in fact impossible to differentiate exactly which passages were painted by which artist.

Ceiling (detail), Giambattista and Domenico Tiepolo, Apollo and the Continents, Residenz Staircase, completed in 1744 (Residenz Palace, Würzburg, Germany) (photo: Maria, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

Johann Balthasar Neumann (designer), a view of Apollo and the Continents by the Giambattista and Domenico Tiepolo, Residenz Staircase, completed in 1744 (Residenz Palace, Würzburg, Germany) (photo: paula soler-moya, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) The ceiling above the grand staircase of the Residenz contains an allegorical depiction of Apollo presiding over the planets and continents. At each edge of the curved ceiling, just above each wall, are symbolic representations of Europe, Asia, Africa and America. Giambattista and Domenico designed each section to be viewed from specific “stopping points” specified by the patron. Here visitors climbing the staircase could pause to admire the work, and appreciate how the perspective of the fresco seemed to adjust to their position in the room. This imaginative use of perspective helps the allegorical image come alive for viewers, but can make this three-dimensional painting look awkward in two-dimensional photographs. Etchings

Domenico Tiepolo, Departure from Jerusalem from the series Picturesque Ideas on the Flight Into Egypt, 1753, etching The Tiepolo family also explored new media and artistic subjects, particularly Domenico. In 1753 he published a series of twenty-four etchings titled Picturesque Ideas on the Flight into Egypt which were executed during the breaks in activity at the Residenz. These sheets were produced in a cinematic way, much like modern storyboards. The story unfolds page by page, and the viewer is brought into the scenes through the way the images are composed. In the fourth image, we see the backs of the onlookers at the right side of the composition as the holy family departs on their journey. The architectural framing of the image encourages the viewer to imagine being one of the citizens of Jerusalem, witnessing the departure of Mary, Joseph, and their newly born son. The strong diagonals that make up most of the image enhance the sense of movement, and help to place the viewer in relation to the image’s protagonists. Despite Domenico’s attempts to bring his family’s artistic practice into the age of Enlightenment, the Tiepolo style was viewed as passé before 1800. After Austrian troops annexed Venice under direction from Napoleon in 1796, Domenico retired to his country villa, and the tradition, like the republic itself, came to an end. Kateryna Martynova: “How to Look Great: Rococo Women Beauty Guide” From “Daily Art” (2020)

How to look great? That is the question! Let’s refer to the most splendid and opulent period of history: the 18th century. The Enlightenment era was likely the first feminist wave because of the powerful women who came up to the political stage and turned it into theatrical performance. Let us present […] archetypes of 18th century female rulers: […] Minerva, Venus, Madonna, and Amazon. R[…]ead our Rococo Women Beauty Guide!

Rococo Women Beauty Guide Step by Step: Choose Your Archetype![…]

Minerva Minerva is the Roman goddess of wisdom and a patron of art. In the Russian Empire portrait painting was not only amusement, but also a means of political propaganda. There are lots of allegorical paintings of Catherine the Great made by both Russian and foreign artists. It was really desirable for her when diplomats called her the “Northern Minerva”. All the depictions of Catherine’s reign aimed to show the empress as a wise and fair ruler.

Stefano Torelli, Catherine the Great as Minerva, 1770, The State Russian Museum, St. Petersburg, Russia. Photo via https://ar.culture.ru.

Venus Russian empress Elisabeth I of Russia had the fame of a “Government Venus” of the Romanov dynasty. Nobody denied the perfection of her features and her figure. Her beauty charmed young men who loved her tenderly and faithfully. A love story of the Russian empress Elisabeth Romanova and a Ukrainian peasant, Alexei Rozumovskiy, reminds us of the Greek myth about the goddess, Aphrodite, and a mortal, Adonis. In this legend, gorgeous Aphrodite left Olympus to spend time with her lover. Just like Elisabeth who neglected her royal pride and got down on her knees in front of a peasant, Natalia Rozumovskaya, Alexei’s mother.

George Prenner, Portrait of Elisabeth I of Russia, 1754, Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, Russia. Photo via https://the-morning-spb.livejournal.com

Madonna We know Marie Antoinette as a fashion icon of the 18th century but there are a number of paintings in which she is depicted as a mother. The role of the mother was sacred in society of that time, and for royals in particular. A queen had to give an heir to the kingdom and for Marie Antoinette this mission wasn’t completed for a long time. She gave a birth to her first child, Marie Therese (“Madame Royale”), seven years after her wedding. Revolution took away the Bourbon family except for “Madame Royale”.

Elisabeth Vigee Lebrun, Portrait of Marie Antoinette with children, 1787, Palace of Versaille, France. Photo via https://artchive.ru

Amazon Maria Theresa of Austria learned of her unique destiny from the very beginning of her life. The only successor to the Austrian throne, she turned the prejudices about women in politics upside down. Even her the greatest rival, German King , said after her death:

The death of Queen-Empress is regrettable for me. She honored the trone and her gender. I never was her enemy From the letter to D’Alembert, 1780

Unknown artist, Portrait of Maria Theresia as Queen of Hungary on the hill of Pressburg, circa 1741, from a private collection. Photo via https://www.wienerzeitung.at

Choose Your Fashion Style! Simple but Charming In the Nattier painting, Madame de Pompadour (Diana) wears a simple white dress. Her fair, white skin is luminous, most of her body is visible to spectators. It is unclear why, but her ordinary appearance charms us at the first sight. So simple and so magnetic! Diane is belted with cheetah fur.

Catherine the Great (Minerva) is clothed in more smart Greek dress than Diana. Generally, the Russian empress preferred simple dress unlike other female royals of 18th century. By the way, white was her favorite color. In her memoirs she mentioned a white dress with less diamonds and pearls. Through the simplicity of its design, Catherine became the prettiest star that evening. Such a person was Catherine, she kept restraint while young. In her advanced age later on she decided to decorate herself with innumerable diamonds.

Dmitriy Leviskiy, Portrait of Catherine the Great as a Law-giver in temle of Themis, 1783 The State Russian Museum, St. Petersburg, Russia. Photo via https://ru.wikipedia.org

Opulence and Luxury Elisabeth I of Russia (Venus) had a huge wardrobe. Historians calculated that 15, 000 dresses belonged to the empress. Each dress deserved to be called a masterpiece. This is because they were made of the best fabrics, hundreds of pearls, and diamonds. She never wore the same attire twice and banned aristocrats to visit balls in worn dress. For instance, Elisabeth ordered to mark visitors’ attire before a ball. The dress should been fancy but not more so than the empress’. And God help that poor woman who dared to wear the same dress or accessories as the empress. Once at a ball Elisabeth saw a woman, the beautiful Natalia Lopukhina, wearing the same rose as empress had in her hair. The furious sovereign took scissors and cut the rose off her rival’s hair!

Heirich Buhgolz, Portrait of Elisabeth I of Russia in pearls, circa 1768, Tropinin museum, Moscow, Russia. Photo via https://art.biblioclub.ru

The style of Marie Antoinette became a common noun that reflects the French aesthetic. The adjective “rebellious” fits Marie Antoinette’s attitude towards fashion perfectly. At the beginning of her life in Versailles, she had an obsession with opulent dresses decorated diamond, pearls, and feathers. Later the queen changed her style in favor of more simple dresses. Just remember this muslin dress!

Jean-Baptiste-Andre Gautier d’Agoty, Marie Antoinette,1775, Palace of Versailles

Official Dress Code Maria Theresia (Amazon) fascinated her contemporaries with her grace and the greatness of her figure. She wasn’t really into fashion but her costumes were opulent and met the requirements of government fashion. For example, in the painting of Maria Theresia as queen of Hungary, she wears St. Stephan’s crown and holds a scepter in her right arm. Actually, the Hungarian crown is the only crown with the status of being “sacred”! On her left you can see the globus cruciger and a sword – both symbols of Hungarian royal power. The empress is clothed in Hungarian-style dress, lavishly decorated with numerous pearls and diamonds. Interestingly she wears the same robe in all of the paintings in which she is depicted as the queen of Hungary!

Daniel Schmiddeli, Portrait of Maria Theresia as queen of Hungary and Bohemia, 1740’s, Royal Palace of Gödöllő, Gödöllő, Hungary. Photo via https://www.gogmsite.net

[…] Language of Jewels Pearls are the symbol of elegance and wealth. In the 18th century they gained a lot of popularity and then were later replaced by diamonds. Anyway, pearls symbolize female innocence and purity. So it isn’t surprising that Maria Theresia’s waist is decorated with rows of pearls as she was a strict presenter of loyalty and godliness. Also medieval artists used pearls to decorate icons of St. Maria. That’s why pearls mean “innocent but fertile” just like Maria Theresia who became a mother of 16 children! In Greek mythology pearls are related to Aphrodite (Venus) who wore pearls in her hair. Our Venus, Elisabeth of Russia, also was fond of these jewels! In Russia, pearls show the wealth of a bride. Therefore the more pearls that are on a girl’s dress the more desirable she is.

Martin van Meytens the Younger, Maria Theresia as Queen of Hungary, details, 1743, Muzeum Miejskie Suchej Beskidzkiej, Sucha Beskidzka, Poland. Photo via https://www.gogmsite.net/.

Language of Body Portrait of Marie Antoinette with Children by Elisabeth Vigee Lebrun is rather informal. There is only one reference to the royal origins of family on the canvas – the French crown in the right upper corner. The most memorable portraits of Marie Antoinette depict her as a mother (Madonna). It is hard to name other queens and empresses who posed with all their children as frequently as the last queen of France. Maybe, the reason is the absence of children in her royal family during the first seven years of her marriage. The eldest daughter, Marie Therese (“Madame Royale”), clings to her mother looking at her with dumb adoration. The baby, Louis Charles, is sitting on his mother’s lap. Louis Joseph points to the empty bassinet signifying the recent death of Sophie Beatrice, the youngest child. Both princes have the ribbon of the Order of the Holy Spirit on their chests. Despite the plot, the painting does not seem to be idyllic, but rather melancholic. Maybe this is because of the dramatic contrast between the unlit background and illuminated figures of mother and kids. But also pay attention to their faces – all of them are sad and too serious. Learning their tragic fate, Elisabeth Vigee Lebrun made a confession: I rarely made mistakes in my predictions, looking at the visage of my vis-à-vis

Elisabeth Vigee Lebrun, Portrait of Marie Antoinette with children, 1787, detail, Palace of Versaille, France. Photo via https://artchive.ru

“Jean-Antoine Watteau” From “The Jean-Antoine Watteau Website” (2017)

Watteau in the last year of his life, by , 1721, pastel on paper, Museo Civico Luigi Bailo, Treviso

EARLY LIFE AND TRAINING Jean-Antoine Watteau was born in the Flemish town of , which had just been annexed by the French king Louis XIV. His father was a master tiler of Flemish descent. Showing an early interest in painting, he was apprenticed to Jacques-Albert Gérin, a local painter. Having little to learn from Gérin, Watteau left for Paris in about 1702. There he found employment in a workshop at Pont Notre-Dame, making copies of popular genre paintings in the Flemish and Dutch tradition; it was in that period that he developed his characteristic sketchlike technique. In 1703 he was employed as an assistant by the painter , whose work represented a reaction against the turgid official art of Louis XIV's reign. In Gillot's studio Watteau became acquainted with the characters of the commedia dell'arte (its actors had been expelled from France several years before), a favorite subject of Gillot's that would become one of Watteau's lifelong passions. Afterward he moved to the workshop of Claude Audran III, an interior decorator, under whose influence he began to make admired for their consummate elegance. Audran was the curator of the Palais du Luxembourg, where Watteau was able to see the magnificent series of canvases painted by for Queen Marie de Medici. The Flemish painter would become one of his major influences, together with the Venetian masters he would later study in the collection of his patron and friend, the banker . MATURE WORKS In 1709 Watteau tried to obtain the Prix de Rome and was rejected by the Academy. In 1712 he tried again and was considered so good that, rather than receiving the one-year stay in Rome for which he had applied, he was accepted as a full member of the Academy. He took five years to deliver the required "reception piece," but it was one of his masterpieces: the Pilgrimage to Cythera, also called the Embarkation for Cythera.

The Embarkation for Cythera ( version): Many commentators note that it depicts a departure from the island of Cythera, the birthplace of Venus, thus symbolizing the temporary nature of human happiness. Interestingly, while Watteau's paintings seem to epitomize the aristocratic elegance of the Régence (though he actually lived most of his short life under the oppressive climate of Louis XIV's later reign), he never had aristocratic patrons. His buyers were bourgeois such as bankers and dealers. Although his mature paintings seem to be so many depictions of frivolous fêtes galantes, they in fact display a sober melancholy, a sense of the ultimate futility of life, that makes him, among 18th century painters, one of the closest to modern sensibilities. His many imitators, such as and Jean-Baptiste Pater, borrowed his themes but could not capture his spirit.

Jean-Antoine Watteau: The Italian Comedians, c. 1719–1721, of Art, Washington, D.C. Among his most famous paintings, beside the two versions of the Pilgrimage to Cythera (one in the Louvre, the other in the , ), are (long identified as "Gilles"), Fêtes venitiennes, Love in the Italian Theater, Love in the French Theater, "Voulez-vous triompher des belles?" and Mezzetin. The subject of his hallmark painting, Pierrot or Gilles, with his slowly fading smile, seems a confused actor who appears to have forgotten his lines; he has materialized into the fearful reality of existence, sporting as his only armor the pathetic clown costume. The painting may be read as Watteau's wry comment on his mortal illness.

Watteau, “Pierrot” (formerly known as “Gilles”,) 1718-20, Oil on canvas, 184,5 x 149,5 cm, Musée du Louvre, Paris [The late pictures shows Watteau moving beyond the enchanted mythology of Cythera - not into deeper dreams but closer to disenchanted reality. After a few quite small pictures it was on a large scale that he summed up the sense of isolation and odd man out, in the Gilles. Though this is no self-portrait, the sense of self identification is very strong and adds to the poignant effect. The group of laughing actors in the background, with a clown tugged along Silenus-like on a donkey, is probably inspired by an engraving of Gillot's; but what had been his main subject is deliberately reduced by Watteau to a frieze of busts that do not interfere with the tall white figure of Gilles, perfectly still, posed frontally against the empty sky. Once again, a figure seems to assume clothes for a part. Just as in the Fête vénitienne Watteau's own sensitive features and beautifully articulated hands contrasted with his humble costume, so Gilles seems too dignified for the clown's white floppy tunic and abbreviated trousers. The moon-shaped hat encircles a vividly painted but solemn face, its lack of animation the more marked when compared with the boisterous lively faces behind. There is a complete separation between the group and the individual; they are active while he is idle, having fun while he remains unsmiling, welded into a self contained group while he gazes out directly at the spectator. It is difficult not to feel that Watteau intends his to be the real awareness. He stands there a little dumbly, himself with a smack of the berger but dependent, like all entertainers, on his audience. The picture's mood is complex and inexplicably moving; it seems to record not a prologue but an epilogue (as so often in Watteau), a silencing of laughter and the sort of hush that pricks the eyes with unshed tears. [-The Web Gallery of Art, “Pierrot”, accessed October 28, 2020, https://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/html/w/watteau/antoine/2/17gilles.html] ] Watteau's final masterpiece, the Shop-sign of Gersaint, exits the pastoral forest locale for a mundane urban set of encounters. Painted at Watteau's own insistence, "to take the chill off his fingers", this sign for an art shop in Paris is effectively the final curtain of Watteau's theatre. It has been described as Watteau's , in that the theme appears to be the promotion of art. The scene is an art gallery where the façade has magically vanished. The gallery and street in the canvas are fused into one contiguous drama.

L'Enseigne de Gersaint, 1720, Oil on canvas, 163 x 306 cm, Schloss Charlottenburg, Berlin

Please follow this link to a short article analyzing this painting – you may, if you wish, skip over the section describing the rest of the Rococo movement at the end. Link to the article: https://www.artble.com/artists/antoine_watteau/paintings/l%27enseigne_de_gersaint Watteau alarmed his friends by a carelessness about his future and financial security, as if foreseeing he would not live for long. In fact he had been sickly and physically fragile since childhood. In 1720, he travelled to London, England to consult Dr , one of the most fashionable physicians of his time and a fan of Watteau's work. However London's damp and smoky air offset any benefits of Dr. Mead's wholesome food and medicines. Watteau returned to France and spent his last few months on the estate of his patron, Abbé Haranger, where he died in 1721 perhaps from tuberculous laryngitis at the age of 36. The Abbé said Watteau was semi conscious and mute during his final days, clutching a paint brush and painting imaginary paintings in the air. CRITICAL ASSESSMENT AND LEGACY Little known during his lifetime beyond a small circle of his devotees, Watteau "was mentioned but seldom in criticism and then usually reprovingly". Sir once noted that Watteau "created, unwittingly, the concept of the individualistic artist loyal to himself, and himself alone". If his immediate followers (Lancret and Pater) would depict the unabashed frillery of aristocratic romantic pursuits, Watteau in a few masterpieces anticipates an art about art, the world of art as seen through the eyes of an artist. In contrast to the Rococo whimsicality and licentiousness cultivated by Boucher and Fragonard in the later part of Louis XV's reign, Watteau's theatrical panache is usually tinged with a note of sympathy, wistfulness, and sadness at the transience of love and other earthly delights. Watteau's influence on the arts (not only painting, but the decorative arts, costume, film, poetry, music) was more extensive than that of almost any other 18th-century artist. According to the 1911 Britannica, "in his treatment of the landscape background and of the atmospheric surroundings of the figures can be found the germs of ". The Watteau dress, a long, sacklike dress with loose pleats hanging from the shoulder at the back, similar to those worn by many of the women in his paintings, is named after him. A revived vogue for Watteau began in Europe during the Victorian era and was later encapsulated by the Goncourt brothers and the World of Art. In 1984 Watteau societies were created in Paris and London. Since 2000 a Watteau centre has been established at Valenciennes.[…]

Jean François de Troy: The Triumph of Mordecai : 1736, oil on canvas, Metropolitan Museum of Art

Dr. Steven Zucker & Dr. Beth Harris: “Jean-Honoré Fragonard, The Progress of Love: The Meeting” From smARThistory (2015)

Please follow the link to this video about a scene of young love in the Rococo Era in France painted by the well-known Fragonard.

Video Link: https://smarthistory.org/jean-honore-fragonard-the-progress-of-love-the-meeting/

Hugh Belsey: “, A Titan of the Eighteenth Century” From “Art UK” (2019)

You may have seen Gainsborough’s Boy and Pink Lady, but he is famous for so many more great works! Follow this link to read about him and see some sample of his art!

Link to the article: https://www.artuk.org/discover/stories/thomas-gainsborough-a-titan-of-the-eighteenth- century

Dana Martin: “Jean-Baptiste Greuze, The Village Bride” From smARThistory (2016)

Jean-Baptiste Greuze, The Village Bride (slightly cropped), 1761, oil on canvas, 36 x 46 1/2 inches / 91.4 x 118.1 cm (Musée du Louvre, Paris) A story of love It is a simple story of love. We are transported to a rural country village to attend a wedding. The happy couple is in the center, their arms entwined in an obvious symbol of their love. The bride’s father, seated on the right, extends his arms in congratulations— he has just handed his new son-in-law his dowry. The bride’s mother and younger sister caress her arm, sad to see her leave the family but very happy that she has found love. On the other hand, the older sister leans over her father’s shoulder to look on enviously and perhaps somewhat judgmentally, at her sister who has beaten her to the altar. The rest of the younger family members play nearby, accompanied by a few barnyard guests. With only a notary in attendance to make the marriage official, the ceremony can only be described as spare, and the French bourgeois public (or middle class) enthusiastically accepted Jean-Baptiste Greuze’s composition of humble simplicity.

A “natural” art

The Enlightenment is arguably one of the most radical moments in Western philosophical history, and while The Village Bride—a painting of a rural wedding—does not initially seem philosophical in subject, the age of the Enlightenment provides an important context for understanding the painting. Scholars questioned the traditions of Western culture, including the authority of the church and the arbitrary rule of the monarchy. Figures such as Denis Diderot attempted to compile all human knowledge into the first Encyclopédie. François Marie Arouet, who went by the name , advocated for the advancement of science and technology. Yet none of these thinkers were as widely read as Jean-Jacques Rousseau (even the Queen Marie Antoinette was a fan). The famous introduction to his 1762 work The Social Contract, “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains,” clearly states his philosophical concern. According to Rousseau, the customs of modern society—even its arts, sciences, and laws—have corrupted the inherent virtue and moral character of “natural” man. If we could throw off these self-imposed chains and return to a more natural state where emotion was respected, then compassion would replace tyranny and the alienation of the individual. This idea of “natural” man led to a focus on an idealized view of rural, peasant life. Peasants, according to this line of reasoning, lived more simply, were closer to the earth and had not been corrupted by the forces of elite society. Further “natural” man was not ruled entirely by reason and logic—important signifiers of the modern world. Rousseau wrote, “To exist is to feel; our feeling is undoubtedly earlier than our intelligence, and we had feelings before we had ideas.”¹ With its depiction of a simple rural interior and the emotions of love, sadness, and joy, Greuze’s Village Bride encapsulates Enlightenment ideas of man—natural and uncorrupted. Not a fête galante Interest in the natural world had been central to the Rococo style since its inception earlier in the eighteenth century. We can see it, for example in the popular Rococo subject, the fête galante (typically a depicted the outdoor amusements of French upper-class society). Artists like Antoine Watteau created dreamy, romantic depictions like those of the young couples who have journeyed to the mythical island of love, Cythera[…] Other Rococo artists like François Boucher and Jean-Honoré Fragonard were favorites of King Louis XV’s mistresses Madame de Pompadour and Madame du Barry, respectively. Each commissioned scenes of voluptuous, rosy-bottomed cupids and young lovers. These paintings were about pleasure and indulgence, and when compared to Greuze’s composition, The Village Bride becomes a commentary on aristocratic life. These fête galante love affairs are frivolous and lustful, while the actual marriages between various aristocrats was typically understood as a match made for political power, money, or convenience. In contrast, the couple that Greuze has given us is clearly the result of love. Here is a hard-working family with no power and little money, nevertheless rewarded for their virtuous love with happiness. Professional success Jean-Baptiste Greuze first achieved professional success in the Salon of 1755. His sentimental scenes found admirers among the upper middle-class public. At this time the art market had expanded beyond the wealthiest aristocracy, and a painting such a The Village Bride would have been a delight to the upper middle-class. It is easy to imagine the French public crowding around this painting, and discussing each pose and facial expression in detail. Greuze even found a fan in the philosopher, Denis Diderot, who remarked how difficult it was to even get close to the canvas because of the crowds. Greuze’s art would eventually fall out of style with the advent of Neoclassicism, but his paintings will always stand as a testament to the movement of natural man and moral philosophy. Mia Forbes: “Sir Joshua Reynolds: 10 Things To Know About The English Artist” From “The Collector” (2020)

The Ladies Waldegrave, painting by Sir Joshua Reynolds

Sir Joshua Reynolds was the first president of London’s Royal Academy of Arts Reynolds is one of the stand-out figures in the history of British art. Primarily known for his portraits, he preserved the identities of England’s most important figures, founded the Royal Academy of Arts, and influenced painters for years to come. The following ten facts tell you all you need to know about his biography, body of work, and legacy.

10. The Distinguished Reynolds Family Tree The Eliot Family, by Sir Joshua Reynolds

Born into an affluent family in Plymouth, England, Joshua Reynolds was brought up in a rich intellectual environment. The men on his father’s side had historically been educated at either Oxford or Cambridge University, before continuing with careers in the church or academia. It is even said that one of his ancestors, Dr John Reynolds, had suggested to King James I the need for a new translation of the Bible.

Of his siblings, his brother also went on to be a painter while two of his sisters became known for their writings. One of them, Mary Palmer, supported Joshua throughout his early career, providing the funds for him to receive his artistic education under the portraitist Thomas Hudson.

9. Sir Joshua Reynolds Himself Was Highly Educated Three Ladies Adorning A Term of Hymen, by Sir Joshua Reynolds

The young Joshua soon gained a reputation as an avid reader and a curious mind. During his youth he was particularly influenced by a master at his school, Zachariah Mudge, who introduced him to philosophy. Reynolds subsequently filled whole scrapbooks with extracts from the works of artists, poets, and thinkers from all eras of history. Even as a boy, he would inscribe his name in the front of his books as ‘J. Reynolds Pictor’.

Later in life, Reynolds himself would write several books on art theory, no doubt inspired by the works of Leonardo da Vinci that he had studied so earnestly. The most important of these was Discourses on Art, which was considered necessary reading for any art historian and helped to cement Reynolds’ status as a true polymath.

8. A Life Changing Trip Admiral Viscount Keppel, by Sir Joshua Reynolds

At the age of 26, Joshua Reynolds was invited by naval captain Augustus Keppel to join him on a voyage to the Mediterranean. Over the subsequent months, Reynolds had the opportunity to visit the centers of European culture. In Cadiz and Rome he could observe the relics of the ancient empires, while Florence, Venice and Paris offered the chance to examine the continent’s finest artwork first-hand.

While abroad, Reynolds contracted a nasty virus that left him partially deaf for life. On the brighter side, however, he also made a lifelong friend. The painter and engraver Giuseppe Marchi, ten years Reynolds’ junior, accompanied him throughout his travels and went on to work as his assistant for the rest of his career.

7. Reynold’s Talents Soon Attracted Attention The Age of Innocence, by Sir Joshua Reynolds

Back in England after his grand tour, Reynolds established a home for him and his sister in London. His artistic talents immediately came to the attention of the capital’s elite, and a long succession of lords and ladies, dukes and duchesses, socialites and statesmen sat for him to paint their portraits. Despite the power and dignity he could create with his brush, Reynolds was also able to capture the playful innocence of children. One of his best-known paintings is the Age of Innocence, which shows a young member of the prestigious Spencer family, whose other offspring included Sir Winston Churchill and Princess Diana. Age of Innocence was later used by Edith Wharton as the title for her 1920 novel; another of her books, The House of Mirth, also features a painting by Sir Joshua Reynolds as a key plot device, demonstrating just how wide-ranging his influence would be.

6. Reynolds Worked Tirelessly, And His Efforts Paid Well Lady Rockburn and Her Three Eldest Sons, by Sir Joshua Reynolds

Reynolds was famed among his acquaintances for his tireless work ethic. Spending hour upon hour in front of his canvas, neglecting sleep and almost never taking a holiday, he produced a huge number of paintings. It is said that at the peak of his career, he would receive six people a day into his studio to sit for their portraits. Reynolds was handsomely rewarded for his sleepless nights. During the 1760s, he charged between 80 to 100 guineas for a full-length painting, the equivalent of roughly $20,000 today! Nor did he face a shortage of requests: a portrait by Sir Joshua Reynolds became something of a status symbol among England’s elite. Wealthy women, in particular, competed to commission society’s most admired painting.

5. Reynolds Worked In Unconventional Ways Self Portrait as a Deaf Man, by Sir Joshua Reynolds

For Reynolds, the face was the essence of a portrait. His subjects with a wide range of expressions, portraying the entire spectrum of emotions and evoking the viewer’s curiosity, connection and empathy. With his efforts focused on this aspect of the painting, Reynolds often improvised on the body. Clothing, too, was less of a priority and he would often leave it to his pupils or assistants to finish off a portrait once he had completed the face, head and hair.

Predictably, Reynolds faced criticism from his contemporaries for this cavalier attitude, especially after he was discovered to have copied poses from earlier works. Needless to say, however, his admirers far outnumbered his critics and Reynolds continued to receive countless commissions.

4. He Was A Member Of London’s Most Elite Circles Portrait of Doctor Johnson, by Sir Joshua Reynolds, via the Tate

Equipped with his artistic talents and sharp mind, Joshua Reynolds soon found himself a place in London’s elite circles. He came to count the likes of Samuel Johnson and Edmund Burke among his friends. His famous portrait embodies the character of Doctor Johnson entirely, with its scrutinizing and condescending stare. Reynolds formalized his relationships with the city’s most wealthy, influential and intelligent inhabitants by forming ‘The Club’. From 1764, he would invite a select crowd of men and women to meet in a pub every week. They would discuss all manner of subjects, from politics to philosophy, literature to fashion, and their sessions would inevitably end with the drunken group pouring out onto the street in the early hours of the morning.

3. He Helped Found The Royal Academy of Arts

Mrs Simmons as the Tragic Muse, by Sir Joshua Reynolds

Another more prestigious group that Reynolds helped to establish was the Royal Academy of Arts. He had already played a key role in setting up the Royal Society of Arts and the Society of Artists of Great Britain. Then, in 1768, he was made the first president of the Royal Academy, a position he held until his death. Many of the legendary lectures he gave during this time were later transformed into books, including his Discourses on Art. The Royal Academy continues to this day as one of the world’s most prestigious schools of art.

2. Reynolds Held A Prestigious Royal Office

Master Crewe as Henry VIII, circa 1775, via Tate

As a further honor, Joshua Reynolds was knighted in 1769 by King George III. He was only the second artist in England’s history to be given the title Sir. But he was still hungry for more.

In 1784 the official role of Principal Painter to George III became available following the death of the former artist. Reynolds threatened to resign from the Academy if he was not appointed to the office, believing that his contributions to British art entitled him to such a position.

Reynolds received his wish, but it was not what he expected. Only a few weeks into his new job, Reynolds wrote to a friend complaining about his ‘miserable office’ and grumbling that the king paid a tiny fraction of the fee charged for private commissions!

1. Reynolds Was Remembered As A Good Man And Outstanding Artist

Portrait of Lady Frances Marsham, by Sir Joshua Reynolds

Sir Joshua Reynolds’ life began to decline as he gradually lost his eyesight, and at the age of 68 he died from what is suspected to have been alcohol-related liver damage. Despite this sad and early end, Reynolds received the honor of a burial at St Paul’s Cathedral in the heart of London.

He was remembered by his friends as not only an outstanding artist, but also as a good man. Anecdotes were passed around about Reynolds’ charm, about how he used to entertain the children he painted with tricks and stories to put them at ease. One of his companions wrote a poem in his memory, in which he vowed to emulate his character and career: “Thy temper mild, thy genius fine I’ll copy till I make them mine”

His legacy is also bolstered by the incredible value of his paintings today. In 2014, his Portrait of Lady Frances Marsham sold at Christie’s for £4,786,500, and in the same year a Portrait of Mrs Baldwin fetched £3,365,000 at Sotheby’s.

Sir Joshua Reynolds: “Imitation and Genius” From Sir Joshua Reynolds’ Discourses

The subject of this discourse will be IMITATION, as far as a painter is concerned in it. By imitation, I do not mean imitation in its largest sense, but simply the following of other masters, and the advantage to be drawn from the study of their works. Those who have undertaken to write on our art, and have represented it as a kind of inspiration, as a gift bestowed upon peculiar favourites at their birth, seem to insure a much more favourable disposition from their readers, and have a much more captivating and liberal air, than he who attempts to examine, coldly, whether there are any means by which this art may be acquired; how the mind may be strengthened and expanded, and what guides will show the way to eminence. It is very natural for those who are unacquainted with the cause of anything extraordinary to be astonished at the effect, and to consider it as a kind of magic. They, who have never observed the gradation by which art is acquired; who see only what is the full result of long labour and application of an infinite number and infinite variety of acts, are apt to conclude, from their entire inability to do the same at once, that it is not only inaccessible to themselves, but can be done by those only who have some gift of the nature of inspiration bestowed upon them. The travellers into the East tell us, that when the ignorant inhabitants of those countries are asked concerning the ruins of stately edifices yet remaining amongst them, the melancholy monuments of their former grandeur [Pg 76]and long-lost science, they always answer that they were built by magicians. The untaught mind finds a vast gulf between its own powers and those works of complicated art, which it is utterly unable to fathom; and it supposes that such a void can be passed only by supernatural powers. And, as for artists themselves, it is by no means their interest to undeceive such judges, however conscious they may be of the very natural means by which their extraordinary powers were acquired; though our art, being intrinsically imitative, rejects this idea of inspiration, more perhaps than any other. It is to avoid this plain confession of the truth, as it should seem, that this imitation of masters, indeed almost all imitation, which implies a more regular and progressive method of attaining the ends of painting, has ever been particularly inveighed against with great keenness, both by ancient and modern writers. To derive all from native power, to owe nothing to another, is the praise which men who do not much think on what they are saying, bestow sometimes upon others, and sometimes on themselves; and their imaginary dignity is naturally heightened by a supercilious censure of the low, the barren, the groveling, the servile imitator. It would be no wonder if a student, frightened by these terrific and disgraceful epithets, with which the poor imitators are so often loaded, should let fall his pencil in mere despair (conscious as he must be, how much he has been indebted to the labours of others), how little, how very little of his art was born with him; and consider it as hopeless, to set about acquiring by the imitation of any human master, what he is taught to suppose is matter of inspiration from heaven. [Pg 77]Some allowance must be made for what is said in the gaiety of rhetoric. We cannot suppose that any one can really mean to exclude all imitation of others. A position so wild would scarce deserve a serious answer; for it is apparent, if we were forbid to make use of the advantages which our predecessors afford us, the art would be always to begin, and consequently remain always in its infant state; and it is a common observation, that no art was ever invented and carried to perfection at the same time. But to bring us entirely to reason and sobriety, let it be observed, that a painter must not only be of necessity an imitator of the works of nature, which alone is sufficient to dispel this phantom of inspiration, but he must be as necessarily an imitator of the works of other painters; this appears more humiliating, but is equally true; and no man can be an artist, whatever he may suppose, upon any other terms. However, those who appear more moderate and reasonable, allow, that our study is to begin by imitation; but maintain that we should no longer use the thoughts of our predecessors, when we are become able to think for ourselves. They hold that imitation is as hurtful to the more advanced student, as it was advantageous to the beginner. For my own part, I confess, I am not only very much disposed to maintain the absolute necessity of imitation in the first stages of the art; but am of opinion that the study of other masters, which I here call imitation, may be extended throughout our whole lives, without any danger of the inconveniences with which it is charged, of enfeebling the mind, or preventing us from giving that original air which every work undoubtedly ought always to have. I am on the contrary persuaded that by imitation only, variety, and even originality of invention, is produced. I [Pg 78]will go further; even genius, at least what generally is so called, is the child of imitation. But as this appears to be contrary to the general opinion, I must explain my position before I enforce it. Genius is supposed to be a power of producing excellencies which are out of the reach of the rules of art; a power which no precepts can teach, and which no industry can acquire. This opinion of the impossibility of acquiring those beauties, which stamp the work with the character of genius, supposes that it is something more fixed than in reality it is; and that we always do, and ever did agree in opinion, with respect to what should be considered as the characteristic of genius. But the truth is, that the degree of excellence which proclaims Genius is different, in different times and different places; and what shows it to be so is, that mankind have often changed their opinion upon this matter. When the Arts were in their infancy the power of merely the likeness of any object was considered as one of its greatest efforts. The common people, ignorant of the principles of art, talk the same language even to this day. But when it was found that every man could be taught to do this, and a great deal more, merely by the observance of certain precepts; the name of Genius then shifted its application, and was given only to him who added the peculiar character of the object he represented; to him who had invention, expression, grace, or dignity; in short, those qualities, or excellencies, the power of producing which could not then be taught by any known and promulgated rules. We are very sure that the beauty of form, the expression of the passions, the art of composition, even the power of [Pg 79]giving a general air of grandeur to a work, is at present very much under the dominion of rules. These excellencies were, heretofore, considered merely as the effect of genius; and justly, if genius is not taken for inspiration, but as the effect of close observation and experience. He who first made any of these observations, and digested them, so as to form an invariable principle for himself to work by, had that merit, but probably no one went very far at once; and generally, the first who gave the hint, did not know how to pursue it steadily and methodically; at least not in the beginning. He himself worked on it, and improved it; others worked more, and improved further; until the secret was discovered, and the practice made as general as refined practice can be made. How many more principles may be fixed and ascertained we cannot tell; but as criticism is likely to go hand in hand with the art which is its subject, we may venture to say, that as that art shall advance, its powers will be still more and more fixed by rules. But by whatever strides criticism may gain ground, we need be under no apprehension that invention will ever be annihilated or subdued; or intellectual energy be brought entirely within the restraint of written law. Genius will still have room enough to expatiate, and keep always at the same distance from narrow comprehension and mechanical performance. What we now call Genius begins, not where rules abstractedly taken end, but where known vulgar and trite rules have no longer any place. It must of necessity be, that even works of Genius, like every other effect, as they must have their cause, must likewise have their rules; it cannot be by chance that excellencies are produced with [Pg 80]any constancy or any certainty, for this is not the nature of chance; but the rules by which men of extraordinary parts, and such as are called men of Genius, work, are either such as they discover by their own peculiar observations, or of such a nice texture as not easily to admit being expressed in words; especially as artists are not very frequently skilful in that mode of communicating ideas. Unsubstantial, however, as these rules may seem, and difficult as it may be to convey them in writing, they are still seen and felt in the mind of the artist; and he works from them with as much certainty, as if they were embodied, as I may say, upon paper. It is true, these refined principles cannot be always made palpable, like the more gross rules of art; yet it does not follow, but that the mind may be put in such a train, that it shall perceive, by a kind of scientific sense, that propriety, which words, particularly words of unpractised writers, such as we are, can but very feebly suggest. Invention is one of the great marks of genius; but if we consult experience, we shall find that it is by being conversant with the inventions of others, that we learn to invent; as by reading the thoughts of others we learn to think. Whoever has so far formed his taste, as to be able to relish and feel the beauties of the great masters, has gone a great way in his study; for, merely from a consciousness of this relish of the right, the mind swells with an inward pride, and is almost as powerfully affected as if it had itself produced what it admires. Our hearts, frequently warmed in this manner by the contact of those whom we wish to resemble, will undoubtedly catch something of their way of thinking; and we shall receive in our own bosoms some radiation at least of their fire and splendour. [Pg 81]That disposition, which is so strong in children, still continues with us, of catching involuntarily the general air and manner of those with whom we are most conversant; with this difference only, that a young mind is naturally pliable and imitative; but in a more advanced state it grows rigid, and must be warmed and softened before it will receive a deep impression. From these considerations, which a little of your own reflection will carry a great way further, it appears, of what great consequence it is, that our minds should be habituated to the contemplation of excellence; and that, far from being contented to make such habits the discipline of our youth only, we should, to the last moment of our lives, continue a settled intercourse with all the true examples of grandeur. Their inventions are not only the food of our infancy, but the substance which supplies the fullest maturity of our vigour. The mind is but a barren soil—a soil which is soon exhausted, and will produce no crop, or only one, unless it be continually fertilised and enriched with foreign matter. When we have had continually before us the great works of Art to impregnate our minds with kindred ideas, we are then, and not till then, fit to produce something of the same species. We behold all about us with the eyes of those penetrating observers whose works we contemplate; and our minds, accustomed to think the thoughts of the noblest and brightest intellects, are prepared for the discovery and selection of all that is great and noble in nature. The greatest natural genius cannot subsist on its own stock: he who resolves never to ransack any mind but his own, will be soon reduced, from mere barrenness, to the poorest of all imitations; he will be obliged to imitate himself, and to repeat what he has before often repeated. [Pg 82]When we know the subject designed by such men, it will never be difficult to guess what kind of work is to be produced. It is vain for painters or poets to endeavour to invent without materials on which the mind may work, and from which invention must originate. Nothing can come of nothing. Homer is supposed to be possessed of all the learning of his time; and we are certain that Michel Angelo and Raffaelle were equally possessed of all the knowledge in the art which had been discovered in the works of their predecessors. A mind enriched by an assemblage of all the treasures of ancient and will be more elevated and fruitful in resources, in proportion to the number of ideas which have been carefully collected and thoroughly digested. There can be no doubt but that he who has the most materials has the greatest means of invention; and if he has not the power of using them, it must proceed from a feebleness of intellect; or from the confused manner in which those collections have been laid up in his mind. The addition of other men's judgment is so far from weakening our own, as is the opinion of many, that it will fashion and consolidate those ideas of excellence which lay in embryo— feeble, ill-shaped, and confused—but which are finished and put in order by the authority and practice of those whose works may be said to have been consecrated by having stood the test of ages. The mind, or genius, has been compared to a spark of fire, which is smothered by a heap of fuel, and prevented from blazing into a flame. This simile, which is made use of by the younger Pliny, may be easily mistaken for argument or proof. But there is no danger of the mind being [Pg 83]overburthened with knowledge, or the genius extinguished by any addition of images; on the contrary, these acquisitions may as well, perhaps better, be compared, if comparisons signified anything in reasoning, to the supply of living embers, which will contribute to strengthen the spark, that without the association of more fuel would have died away. The truth is, he whose feebleness is such, as to make other men's thoughts an incumbrance to him, can have no very great strength of mind or genius of his own to be destroyed; so that not much harm will be done at worst.[…] When I speak of the habitual imitation and continued study of masters, it is not to be understood that I advise any endeavour to copy the exact peculiar colour and complexion of another man's mind; the success of such an attempt must always be like his, who imitates exactly the air, manner, and gestures of him whom he admires. His model may be excellent, but the copy will be ridiculous; this ridicule does not arise from his having imitated, but from his not having chosen the right mode of imitation. It is a necessary and warrantable pride to disdain to walk servilely behind any individual, however elevated his rank. The true and liberal ground of imitation is an open field; where, though he who precedes has had the advantage of starting before you, you may always propose to overtake him; it is enough, however, to pursue his course; you need not tread in his footsteps, and you certainly have a right to outstrip him if you can. [Pg 84]Nor whilst I recommend studying the art from artists, can I be supposed to mean that nature is to be neglected; I take this study in aid, and not in exclusion of the other. Nature is and must be the fountain which alone is inexhaustible, and from which all excellencies must originally flow. The great use of studying our predecessors is, to open the mind, to shorten our labour, and to give us the result of the selection made by those great minds of what is grand or beautiful in nature; her rich stores are all spread out before us; but it is an art, and no easy art, to know how or what to choose, and how to attain and secure the object of our choice. Thus, the highest beauty of form must be taken from nature; but it is an art of long deduction and great experience to know how to find it. We must not content ourselves with merely admiring and relishing; we must enter into the principles on which the work is wrought: these do not swim on the superficies, and consequently are not open to superficial observers. Art in its perfection is not ostentatious; it lies hid and works its effect, itself unseen. It is the proper study and labour of an artist to uncover and find out the latent cause of conspicuous beauties, and from thence form principles of his own conduct: such an examination is a continual exertion of the mind; as great, perhaps, as that of the artist whose works he is thus studying. The sagacious imitator does not content himself with merely remarking what distinguishes the different manner or genius of each master; he enters into the contrivance in the composition, how the masses of lights are disposed, the means by which the effect is produced, how artfully some parts are lost in the ground, others boldly relieved, and how all these are mutually altered and interchanged [Pg 85]according to the reason and scheme of the work. He admires not the harmony of colouring alone, but examines by what artifice one colour is a foil to its neighbour. He looks close into the tints, examines of what colours they are composed, till he has formed clear and distinct ideas, and has learnt to see in what harmony and good colouring consists. What is learnt in this manner from the works of others becomes really our own, sinks deep, and is never forgotten; nay, it is by seizing on this clue that we proceed forward, and get further and further in enlarging the principles and improving the practice of our art. There can be no doubt but the art is better learnt from the works themselves, than from the precepts which are formed upon those works; but if it is difficult to choose proper models for imitation, it requires no less circumspection to separate and distinguish what in those models we ought to imitate. I cannot avoid mentioning here, though it is not my intention at present to enter into the art and method of study, an error which students are too apt to fall into. He that is forming himself must look with great caution and wariness on those peculiarities, or prominent parts, which at first force themselves upon view; and are the marks, or what is commonly called the manner, by which that individual artist is distinguished. Peculiar marks I hold to be, generally, if not always, defects; however difficult it may be wholly to escape them. Peculiarities in the works of art are like those in the human figure; it is by them that we are cognisable, and distinguished one from another, but they are always so many blemishes; which, however, both in real life and in painting, cease to appear deformities to those who have [Pg 86]them continually before their eyes. In the works of art, even the most enlightened mind, when warmed by beauties of the highest kind, will by degrees find a repugnance within him to acknowledge any defects; nay, his enthusiasm will carry him so far, as to transform them into beauties and objects of imitation. It must be acknowledged that a peculiarity of style, either from its novelty or by seeming to proceed from a peculiar turn of mind, often escapes blame; on the contrary, it is sometimes striking and pleasing; but this it is a vain labour to endeavour to imitate, because novelty and peculiarity being its only merit, when it ceases to be new it ceases to have value. A manner, therefore, being a defect, and every painter, however excellent, having a manner, it seems to follow that all kinds of faults, as well as beauties, may be learned under the sanction of the greatest authorities. Even the great name of Michel Angelo may be used, to keep in countenance a deficiency, or rather neglect, of colouring, and every other ornamental part of the art. If the young student is dry and hard, Poussin is the same. If his work has a careless and unfinished air, he has most of the Venetian school to support him. If he makes no selection of objects, but takes individual nature just as he finds it, he is like Rembrandt. If he is incorrect in the proportions of his figures, Correggio was likewise incorrect. If his colours are not blended and united, Rubens was equally crude. In short, there is no defect that may not be excused, if it is a sufficient excuse that it can be imputed to considerable artists; but it must be remembered, that it was not by these defects they acquired their reputation; they have a right to our pardon, but not to our admiration. However, to imitate peculiarities, or mistake defects for [Pg 87]beauties, that man will be most liable who confines his imitation to one favourite master; and even though he chooses the best, and is capable of distinguishing the real excellencies of his model, it is not by such narrow practice that a genius or mastery in the art is acquired. A man is as little likely to form a true idea of the perfection of the art by studying a single artist, as he would be to produce a perfectly beautiful figure, by an exact imitation of any individual living model. And as the painter, by bringing together in one piece those beauties which are dispersed among a great variety of individuals, produces a figure more beautiful than can be found in nature, so that artist who can unite in himself the excellencies of the various great painters, will approach nearer to perfection than any one of his masters. He who confines himself to the imitation of an individual, as he never proposes to surpass, so he is not likely to equal, the object of his imitation. He professes only to follow; and he that follows must necessarily be behind…

Nicolas Pineau - Wood - 610 x 213 cm - 1738 - (Liechtenstein Museum (Vienna, Austria)) Photo credit: Wahooart.com

ATTRIBUTIONS p. 1, The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica Adam Augustyn and the Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica , “Rococo,” Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, April 2, 2019, Accessed October 28, 2020, https://www.britannica.com/art/Rococo. p. 5, Dianne Pierce, "Bernard II van Risenburgh, Writing table," in Smarthistory, January 7, 2016, accessed October 28, 2020, https://smarthistory.org/bernard-ii-van-risenburgh-writing-table/. p. 10, Jeremy Miller, "The Tiepolo Family," in Smarthistory, January 7, 2016, accessed October 28, 2020, https://smarthistory.org/the-tiepolo-family/. p. 15, Kateryna Martynova, “How to Look Great: Rococo Women Beauty Guide,” “Daily Art,” March 28, 2020, Accessed October 28, 2020, https://www.dailyartmagazine.com/how-to-look-great- rococo-women-beauty-guide/. p. 25, “Biography of Jean-Antoine Watteau” From “The Jean-Antoine Watteau Website,” 2017, Accessed October 28, 2020, https://www.jean-antoine-watteau.org/biography.html p. 33, Dana Martin, "Jean-Baptiste Greuze, The Village Bride," in Smarthistory, January 7, 2016, accessed October 28, 2020, https://smarthistory.org/jean-baptiste-greuze-the-village-bride/. p. 37, Mia Forbes, “Sir Joshua Reynolds: 10 Things To Know About The English Artist,” “The Collector,” April 11, 2020, Accessed October 28, 2020, https://www.thecollector.com/sir-joshua-reynolds/

All Smarthistory sources licensed under Non-Commercial- ShareAlike 4.0 International License