Juries, Protests, and Counter-Exhibitions before 1850 Author(s): William Hauptman Source: The Art Bulletin, Vol. 67, No. 1 (Mar., 1985), pp. 95-109 Published by: College Art Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3050889 Accessed: 09/01/2010 15:50 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=caa. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. College Art Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Art Bulletin. http://www.jstor.org Bucher, F., 1968, "Design in Gothic Architecture: A Preliminary Milanesi, G., Documenti per la storia dell'arte senese, 3 vols., Siena, Assessment," Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, xxvII, 1854-56. 49-71. Mortet, V., and P. Deschamps, Recueil de textes relatifs a l'histoire de ,1979, Architector: The Lodge Books and Sketchbooks of Medieval l'architecture et a la condition des architectes en France au moyen age: Architects, i, New York. XIe-XIIe siecles, Paris, 1911; XIIe-XIIIesiecles, Paris, 1929. Colombier, P. du, Les chantiers des cathedrales, Paris, 2nd rev. ed., 1973. Pevsner, N., "The Term 'Architect' in the Middle Ages," Speculum, xvii, 1942, 549-562. Frankl, P., "The Secret of the Mediaeval Masons," with E. Panofsky, "An Explanation of Stornaloco's Formula," Art Bulletin, xxvii, 1945, 46-64. Saalman, H., "Early Renaissance Architectural Theory and Practice in Antonio Filarete's Trattato di Architettura," Art Bulletin, XLI, 1959, 89- The Cathedral Builders, New York, 1983. Gimpel, J., 106. Goldthwaite, R., The Building of Renaissance Florence, Baltimore, 1980. Salzman, L.F., Building in England down to 1540: A Documentary History, Guasti, C., Santa Maria del Fiore, Florence, 1887. Oxford, 1952. Harvey, J., The Mediaeval Architect, London, 1972. Shelby, L. R., Gothic Design Techniques: The Fifteenth-Century Design Booklets Mathes Roriczer and Hanns Carbondale, IL The Architect: in the the New of Schmuttermayer, Kostof, S., Chapters History of Profession, 1977. York, 1976. White, J., Art and Architecture in Italy 1250 to 1400, Baltimore, 1966. Juries,Protests, and Counter-ExhibitionsBefore 1850 William Hauptman Tout jury, electif ou non doit etre attaque . .. un jury, quel in depth. Although the prime importance of the Salon des soit le mode adopte pour sa formation, fonctionnera mal. Refuses of 1863 cannot be contested, it must also not be - Ingres1 seen as a single protest against the jury, unique in its pur- pose, but rather as the end result of the conflict between It is agreed by art-historical consensus that the justly cel- the artist's assumed right of exhibition and the jury's as- ebrated Salon des Refuses of 1863 represented one of the sumed right of judging what may and may not be exhibited. most decisive moments in the development of modern art.2 The following essay brings to light some neglected docu- Fundamentally, this landmark exhibition brought into fo- mentation concerning the jury system, the problem of the cus the very question of jury decisions, criteria for public spiraling number of artists'works refused, and, finally, how exhibitions, and whether the State art establishment had these artists expressed their indignation in the form of pro- the right to prohibit works from being shown if they were tests and counter-exhibitions. The facts themselves provide not fully in accord with its own changing aesthetic ideals. insights into a largely hidden aspect of the Salon system in In much of the literature devoted to the Salon des Refuses, the period discussed. there are brief indications that other similar expressions of As is well known, the nineteenth-century Salon3 was the publicly manifested artistic discontent had occurred earlier; only viable avenue for public exhibition en masse. During yet none of these significant precedents has been examined the period of the July Monarchy, more than one million 1 Ingres' comments were made in connection with a commission organized 3 Despite the prime importance of the Salons in the history of 19th-century on October 29, 1848 to discuss the problems of the Salon system after the art, there is relatively little literature that discusses the structure, orga- Revolution. Delaroche, Delacroix, Duban, and Nieuwerkerke also par- nization, or actual history of these exhibitions or how they were juried. ticipated, while David D'Angers refused and had to be replaced by Charles Useful but sometimes awkwardly organized information is contained in Blanc. See J.-L. Fouche, "L'opinion d'Ingres sur le salon," La chronique Tabarant and Letheve for certain important Salons, as in Lafenestre, des arts, March 14, 1908, 98-99, and April 4, 1908, 129-130. On Ingres' 104f. For the period of the July Monarchy, Rosenthal, 227f, is essential. ideas in general on the Salon jury system, see Amaury-Duval, L'atelier For political and administrative information on the Salon system, see M. d'Ingres, Paris, 1924, 167-174 and 205f. Vachon, "Etudesadministratives: Le Salon," Gazette des beaux-arts, xxIIi, and E. "Variations dans le des 2 On the Salon des Refuses of 1863, see the important background material 1881, 104-135, Duranty, regime salons," La des 235-37. With to the in J. Rewald, Histoire de l'Impressionisme, Paris, 1955, 70f. On the ex- chronique arts, July 14, 1877, regard problems the of conservativism within the Salon hibition itself, see G. Wildenstein, "LeSalon des Refuses de 1863," Gazette of rejected artists and concept see 52-94. Also essential for a list of reviews and articles des beaux-arts, LXVI, 1965, 125-130, with a reprint of the catalogue. Im- system, Ivens, the Salon exhibitions is M. Salons et portant information is also contained in Boime, 411-426, and G. La- concerning Tourneux, expositions d'art a Paris essai 1919. cambre, "Les institutions du Second Empire et le Salon des Refuses," in (1801-1870), bibliographique, Paris, Haskell, 163-176. 96 THE ART BULLETIN MARCH 1985 VOLUME LXVII NUMBER 1 visitors were recorded annually for each Salon, thus pro- doors, there was always the danger of cancellation because viding the exhibiting artist an unparalleled public exposure. of bad weather.6 In 1791, in the esprit d'egalite that abol- For a large majority of that public, the acceptance of a work ished the Academy, the Louvre Salons were made available of art by an established and reputable jury signified a tacit to all artists "francais et etrangers" by decree of the As- measure of quality. Refusal by the jury, on the other hand, semblee Nationale, a decree in which the State also guar- was often equated with critical denunciation, the results of anteed each artist's inalienable right to exhibit his works which might severely limit the artist's means of earning his freely as long as they were not offensive to public stan- livelihood.4 In the most extreme cases, the constant elim- dards.7This procedure likewise obviated the need of a jury, ination of works by the jury was said to be the cause of but with the natural increase in number of works exhibited suicide: the often cited example of Jules Holtzappfel, who - more than twice the number of the previous Salon - a killed himself in 1866 after repeated refusal by the juries, comite des arts was established to direct the placement of appears to be only one of many.5 It is no exaggeration to the works and to decide the important recompenses after- say that the decisions of the jury, whose procedures were wards. The commission, however, had the power to elim- by and large unknown to most artists, became for the nine- inate works it deemed unsuitable, although in the early de- teenth-century artist a fundamental upon which his basic liberations it practiced this task only rarely: the engraver public and private stature depended. Wille, a member of the commission of 1791, noted that all To be sure, the choice of works had always been a matter of the works submitted that year were exhibited except of debate that frequently divided the critics and the public. "deux petits tableaux faits par un sculpteur."8By 1795, this Even a cursory examination of the Salon reviews under the commission began to act as a de facto jury, in that it ex- July Monarchy reveals that almost all of them, by conser- ercised its right of censorship more explicitly. The result vative and progressive critics alike, began by a discussion was that in a supposedly open Salon the commission re- of the selection; frequently, what the jury decided not to fused sixty-five works by twenty-seven artists.9 exhibit was as controversial as what it had selected to show. The idea of a jury to select or refuse on the basis of its In the evitable battles between artists and juries, there were own tastes and system of evaluation was much debated attempts to bypass the official Salon process by appealing during this period, since it was felt that, with the free Sa- directly to public taste through counter-exhibitions.