Painters and Public Life in Eighteenth-Century Paris

Rating:
Summary: questionable and lack of prespective
Review: I have a number of problems with this book. The author navigates with extraordinary articulation over a large and sophisticated variety of historical documents, the so-called 'primary sources'. His capability to research is noteworthy. I derive my criticism from the interpretations he proposes. The thesis of the book is that there has to be a relatively sophisticated public for a style to emerge, develop and mature. This is illustrated with the formation of a social-cultural-artistic oligarchy - a self-sufficient social system in itself, during the mid 1600s with the 'Academie Royal de peinture et sculpture' (Paris, 1648). To propose that the 'fetes galantes' of Wateau are the ideological refuge of the 'noblesse d'eppe' is a very far-fetched idea. To affirm that the 'fetes de dieu' were sufficient conditions to form a public simply because the festivals included the exhibition of old masters graciously lent by the curieux and the connoisseurs is also another very far-fetched idea.

I have many great reservations when 'historians' dig up new facts and propose interpretations without asserting their ideological commitments. Devoid of philosophical direction, any such interpretations are worthless.

All over Spain, Portugal, Italy and France, the Corpus Christi festivals, which in France were called 'fetes de dieu', involved the exhibition of paintings with historical content, both secular and religious. These traditions go back to the 12th century in some cases. Were these the forerunners of the gallery or of the museum? Not really! Either Crow's research is incomplete, or his thesis is denied. Because if it was confirmed, then the formation of a relatively sophisticated public would have started in the 12th century, in the absence of the Academie Royale and its discourses ...