Academic literature on the topic 'Paris. Salon, 1859'

AbstractAry Scheffer (1795-1858) is so generally included in the French School (Note 2)- unsurprisingly, since his career was confined almost entirely to Paris - that the fact that he was born and partly trained in the Netherlands is often overlooked. Yet throughout his life he kept in touch with Dutch colleagues and drew part of his inspiration from Dutch traditions. These Dutch aspects are the subject of this article. The Amsterdam City Academy, 1806-9 Ary Scheffer was enrolled at the Amsterdam Academy on 25 October 1806, his parents falsifying his date of birth in order to get him admitted at the age of eleven (fifteen was the oficial age) . He started in the third class and in order to qualify for the second he had to be one of the winners in the prize drawing contest. Candidates in this were required to submit six drawings made during the months January to March. Although no-one was supposed to enter until he had been at the Academy for four years, Ary Scheffer competed in both 1808 and 1809. Some of his signed drawings are preserved in Dordrecht. (Figs. 1-5 and 7), along with others not made for the contest. These last in particular are interesting not only because they reveal his first prowess, but also because they give some idea of the Academy practice of his day. Although the training at the Academy broadly followed the same lines as that customary in France, Italy and elsewhere (Note 4), our knowledge of its precise content is very patchy, since there was no set curriculum and no separate teachers for each subject. Two of Scheffer's drawings (Figs. 2 and 3) contain extensive notes, which amount to a more or less complete doctrine of proportion. It is not known who his teacher was or what sources were used, but the proportions do not agree with those in Van der Passe's handbook, which came into vogue in the 18th century, or with those of the canon of a Leonardo, Dürer or Lebrun. One gets the impression that what are given here are the exact measurements of a concrete example. Scheffer's drawings show him gradually mastering the rudiments of art. In earlier examples the hatching is sometimes too hasty (Fig. 4) or too rigidly parallel (Fig.5), while his knowledge of anatomy is still inadequate and his observation not careful enough. But right from the start he shows flair and as early as 1807 he made a clever drawing of a relatively complex group (Fig. 6) , while the difficult figure of Marsyas was already well captured in 1808 and clearly evinces his growing knowledge o f anatomy, proportion , foreshortening and the effects of light (Fig. 7). The same development can be observed in his portrait drawings. That of Gerardus Vrolik (1775-1859, Fig.8), a professor at the Atheneum Illustre (the future university) and Scheffer' s teacher, with whom he always kept in touch (Note 6), is still not entirely convincing, but a portrait of 1809, thought to be of his mother (Fig.9, Note 7), shows him working much more systematically. It is not known when he left the Academy, but from the summer of 1809 we find him in France, where he was to live with only a few breaks from 1811 to his death. The first paintings and the Amsterdam exhibitions of 1808 and 1810 Ary Scheffer's earliest known history painting, Hannibal Swearing to Avenge his Brother Hasdrubal's Death (Fig. 10) Notes 8-10) was shown at the first exhibition of living masters in Amsterdam in 1808. Although there was every reason for giving this subject a Neo-Classical treatment, the chiaroscuro, earthy colours and free brushwork show Scheffer opting for the old Dutch tradition rather than the modern French style. This was doubtless on the prompting of his parents,for a comment in a letter from his mother in 1810 (Note 12) indicates that she shared the reservations of the Dutch in general about French Neo-Classicism. (Note 11). As the work of a twelve to thirteen year old, the painting naturally leaves something to be desired: the composition is too crowded and unbalanced and the anatomy of the secondary figures rudimentary. In a watercolour Scheffer made of the same subject, probably in the 1820's, he introduced much more space between the figures (Fig. 11, Note 13). Two portraits are known from this early period. The first, of Johanna Maria Verbeek (Fig. 12, Note 14), was done when the two youngsters were aged twelve. It again shows all the characteristics of an early work, being schematic in its simplicity, with some rather awkward details and inadequate plasticity. On the other hand the hair and earrings are fluently rendered, the colours harmonious and the picture has an undeniable charm. At the second exhibition of works by living masters in 1810, Ary Scheffer showed a 'portrait of a painter' (Fig. 13), who was undoubtedly his uncle Arnoldus Lamme, who also had work in the exhibition as did Scheffer's recently deceased father Johan-Bernard and his mother Cornelia Scheffer-Lamme, an indication of the stimulating surroundings in which he grew up. The work attracted general attention (Note 16) and it does, indeed, show a remarkable amount of progress, the plasticity, effects of light, brushwork and colour all revealing skill and care in their execution. The simple, bourgeois character of the portrait not only fits in with the Dutch tradition which Scheffer had learned from both his parents in Amsterdam, but also has points in common with the recent developments in France, which he could have got to know during his spell in Lille from autumn 1809 onwards. A Dutchman in Paris Empire and Restoration, 1811-30 In Amsterdam Scheffer had also been laught by his mother, a miniature painter, and his father, a portrait and history painter (Note 17). After his father's death in June 1809, his mother, who not only had a great influence on his artistic career, but also gave his Calvinism and a great love of literature (Note 18), wanted him to finish his training in Paris. After getting the promise of a royal grant from Louis Napoleon for this (Note 19) and while waiting for it to materialize, she sent the boy to Lille to perfect his French as well as further his artistic training. In 1811 Scheffer settled in Paris without a royal grant or any hope of one. He may possibly have studied for a short time under Prudhon (Note 20) , but in the autumn of 1811 he was officially contracted as a pupil of Guérin, one of the leading artists of the school of David, under whom he mastered the formulas of NeD-Classicism, witness his Orpheus and Eurydice (Fïg.14), shown in the Salon of 1814. During his first ten years in Paris Scheffer also painted many genre pieces in order, so he said, to earn a living for himself and his mother. Guérin's prophecy that he would make a great career as a history painter (Note 21) soon came true, but not in the way Guérin thought it would, Scheffer participating in the revolution initiated by his friends and fellow-pupils, Géricault and Delacroix, which resulted in the rise of the Romantic Movement. It was not very difficult for him to break with Neo-Classicism, for with his Dutch background he felt no great affinity with it (Note 22). This development is ilustrated by his Gaston de Foix Dying on the Battlefield After his Victory at Ravenna, shown at the Salon of 1824, and The Women of Souli Throwing Themselves into the Abyss (Fig.15), shown at that of 1827-8. The last years of the Restoration and the July Monarchy. Influence of Rembrandt and the Dutch masters In 1829, when he seemed to have become completely assimilated in France and had won wide renown, Scheffer took the remarkable step of returning to the Netherlands to study the methods of Rembrandt and other Dutch old masters (Note 23) . A new orientation in his work is already apparent in the Women of Souli, which is more harmonious and considered in colour than the Gaston dc Foix (Note 24). This is linked on the one hand to developments in France, where numbers of young painters had abandoned extreme Romanticism to find the 'juste milieu', and on the other to Scheffer's Dutch background. Dutch critics were just as wary of French Romanticism as they had been of Neo-Classicism, urging their own painters to revive the traditions of the Golden Age and praising the French painters of the 'juste milieu'. It is notable how many critics commented on the influence of Rembrandt on Scheffer's works, e.g. his Faust, Marguérite, Tempête and portrait of Talleyrand at the Salon of 1851 (Note 26). The last two of these date from 1828 and show that the reorientation and the interest in Rembrandt predate and were the reasons for the return to the Netherlands in 1829. In 1834 Gustave Planche called Le Larmoyeur (Fig. 16) a pastiche of Rembrandt and A. Barbier made a comparable comment on Le Roi de Thule in 1839 (Note 27). However, as Paul Mantz already noted in 1850 (Note 28), Scheffer certainly did not fully adopt Rembrandt's relief and mystic light. His approach was rather an eclectic one and he also often imbued his work with a characteristically 19th-century melancholy. He himself wrote after another visit to the Netherlands in 1849 that he felt he had touched a chord which others had not attempted (Note 29) . Contacts with Dutch artists and writers Scheffer's links with the Netherlands come out equally or even more strongly in the many contacts he maintained there. As early as 1811-12 Sminck-Pitloo visited him on his way to Rome (Note 30), to be followed in the 1820's by J.C. Schotel (Note 31), while after 1830 as his fame increased, so the contacts also became more numerous. He was sought after by and corresponded with various art dealers (Note 33) and also a large number of Dutch painters, who visited him in Paris or came to study under him (Note 32) Numerous poems were published on paintings by him from 1838 onwards, while Jan Wap and Alexander Ver Huell wrote at length about their visits to him (Note 34) and a 'Scheffer Album' was compiled in 1859. Thus he clearly played a significant role in the artistic life of the Netherlands. International orientation As the son of a Dutch mother and a German father, Scheffer had an international orientation right from the start. Contemporary critics and later writers have pointed out the influences from English portrait painting and German religious painting detectable in his work (Note 35). Extracts from various unpublished letters quoted here reveal how acutely aware he was of what was likely to go down well not only in the Netherlands, but also in a country like England, where he enjoyed great fame (Notes 36-9) . July Monarchy and Second Empire. The last decades While most French artists of his generation seemed to have found their definitive style under the July Monarchy, Scheffer continued to search for new forms of expression. In the 1830's, at the same time as he painted his Rembrandtesque works, he also produced his famous Francesca da Rimini (Fig. 17), which is closer to the 'juste milieu' in its dark colours and linear accents. In the 1840's he used a simple and mainly bright palette without any picturesque effects, e.g. in his SS. Augustine and Monica and The Sorrows of the Earth (Note 41), but even this was not his last word. In an incident that must have occurred around 1857 he cried out on coming across some of his earlier works that he had made a mistake since then and wasted his time (Note 42) and in his Calvin of 1858 (Fig. 18) he resumed his former soft chiaroscuro and warm tones. It is characteristic of him that in that same year he painted a last version of The Sorrows of the Earth in the light palette of the 1840's. Despite the difficulty involved in the precise assessment of influences on a painter with such a complex background, it is clear that even in his later period, when his work scored its greatest successes in France, England and Germany, Scheffer always had a strong bond with the Netherlands and that he not only contributed to the artistic life there, but always retained a feeling for the traditions of his first fatherland. Appendix An appendix is devoted to a study of the head of an old man in Dordrecht, which is catalogued as a copy of a 17th-century painting in the style of Rembrandt done by Ary Scheffer at the age of twelve (Fig.19, Note 43). This cannot be correct, as it is much better than the other works by the twelve-year-old painter. Moreover, no mention is made of it in the catalogue of the retrospective exhibition held in Paris in 1859, where the Hannibal is given as his earliest work (Note 44). It was clearly unknown then, as it is not mentioned in any of the obituaries of 1858 and 1859 either. The earliest reference to it occurs in the list made bv Scheffer's daughter in 1897 of the works she was to bequeath to the Dordrecht museum. A clue to its identification may be a closely similar drawing by Cornelia Scheffer-Lamme (Fig. 20, Note 46), which is probably a copy after the head of the old man. She is known to have made copies after contemporary and 17th-century masters. The portrait might thus be attributable to Johan-Bernard Scheffer, for his wife often made copies of his works and he is known from sale catalogues to have painted various portraits of old men (Note 47, cf. Fig.21). Ary Scheffer also knew this. In 1839 his uncle Arnoldus Lamme wrote to him that he would look out for such a work at a sale (Note 48). It may be that he succeeded in finding one and that this portrait came into the possession of the Scheffer family in that way, but Johan-Bernard's work is too little known for us to be certain about this.

Marie-Louise Berner: The Flower Painter on His Travels. I.L. Jensen’s Letter from Paris, 1823On 15 March 1823, the flower painter Johan Laurentz Jensen (1800–1856) wrote a letter from Paris to his friend the sculptor H.V. Bissen. In it, he describes his journey from Copenhagen across the Netherlands to Paris, and he relates his impressions and experiences, especially during the eight months spent in that city. He describes in detail the salon and the exhibition of contemporary art at the Musée du Luxembourg that year. He also makes a number of observations about his daily life, friends and activities, and lastly states that he is on his way to Sèvres, to paint on porcelain.In addition to publishing the letter in its entirety, this article provides an account of the painter’s background, and an analysis of the experiences related and observations made in the letter. It further provides background on the salon: its format and organizational principles, its location, opening hours, visitors, contents and catalogue. Additionally, detailed commentary is provided on Jensen’s observations on the art at the salon and at the Musée du Luxembourg, as well as on Jensen’s life in the city. The article concludes with an appraisal of the importance of the journey to Jensen and his art.

Marie-Louise Berner: The Flower Painter on His Travels. I.L. Jensen’s Letter from Paris, 1823 On 15 March 1823, the flower painter Johan Laurentz Jensen (1800–1856) wrote a letter from Paris to his friend the sculptor H.V. Bissen. In it, he describes his journey from Copenhagen across the Netherlands to Paris, and he relates his impressions and experiences, especially during the eight months spent in that city. He describes in detail the salon and the exhibition of contemporary art at the Musée du Luxembourg that year. He also makes a number of observations about his daily life, friends and activities, and lastly states that he is on his way to Sèvres, to paint on porcelain.In addition to publishing the letter in its entirety, this article provides an account of the painter’s background, and an analysis of the experiences related and observations made in the letter. It further provides background on the salon: its format and organizational principles, its location, opening hours, visitors, contents and catalogue. Additionally, detailed commentary is provided on Jensen’s observations on the art at the salon and at the Musée du Luxembourg, as well as on Jensen’s life in the city. The article concludes with an appraisal of the importance of the journey to Jensen and his art.

Abstract Ingres’s portrait of Louis-François Bertin (1832) has been universally accepted as a visual “apotheosis” of the newly powerful early 19th-century bourgeoisie in France. Here, we study the inconsistencies and contestation which contributed to this identification. Beginning with the moment of its first public exhibition in the 1833 Paris Salon, this article traces Bertin’s evolving reputation as an image of its epoch, focusing on its reappearance in public first at the Bazar Bonne-Nouvelle in 1846, and then in the display of Ingres’s works at the Exposition Universelle of 1855. This leads to a critical assessment of how the picture’s role as a political emblem has been related to later assertions that it also exemplified the artist’s incipient modernism. The exhibition of works by Ingres at the Paris Salon d’Automne in 1905 allows us to take stock of claims made about the picture’s status in the early 20th century. However, in contrast to the habitual desire to modernise Ingres (and thereby to detach him from a lingering taint of academicism), this article argues that a key element in the reception of Ingres’s portrait in the second half of the 19th century is a recognition of its rootedness in values emanating from the Revolution of 1789, embodied both in the person of LouisFrançois Bertin and Ingres’s representation of him.

Background. А history of the development of the human community is at the same time a history of the relationship between men and women, their role in society, in formation of mindset, development of science, technology and art. A woman’s path to the recognition of her merits is a struggle for equality and inclusion in all sectors of public life. Originated with particular urgency in the twentieth century, this set of problems gave impetus to the study of the female phenomenon in the sociocultural space. In this context, the disclosure of the direct contribution of talented women to art and their influence on its development has become of special relevance. The purpose of the article is to summarize segmental of information that highlights the contribution of women to the treasury of world art, their creative and inspiring power. Analytical, historical-biographical and comparative studying methods were applied to reveal the gender relationships in art and the role of woman in them as well as in the sociocultural space in general. The results from this study present a panorama of gifted women from the world of art and music who paved the way for future generations. Among them are: A. Gentileschi (1593–1653), who was the first woman admitted to The Florence Academy of Art; M. Vigee Le Brun (1755–1842), who painted portraits of the French aristocracy and later became a confidant of Marie-Antoinette; B. Morisot (1841–1895), who was accepted by the impressionists in their circle and repeatedly exhibited her works in the Paris Salon; F. Caccini (1587–1640), who went down in history as an Italian composer, teacher, harpsichordist, author of ballets and music for court theater performances; J. Kinkel (1810–1858) – the first female choral director in Germany, who published books about musical education, composed songs on poems of famous poets, as well as on her own texts; F. Mendelssohn (1805–1847) – German singer, pianist and composer, author of cantatas, vocal miniatures of organ preludes, piano pieces; R. Clark (1886–1979) – British viola player and composer who created trio, quartets, compositions for solo instruments, songs on poems of English poets; L. Boulanger (1893–1918) became the first woman to receive Grand Prix de Rome; R. Tsekhlin (1926–2007) – German harpsichordist, composer and teacher who successfully combined the composition of symphonies, concerts, choral and vocal opuses, operas, ballets, music for theatrical productions and cinema with active performing and teaching activities, and many others. The article emphasise the contribution of women-composers, writers, poetesses to the treasury of world literature and art. Among the composers in this row is S. Gubaidulina (1931), who has about 30 prizes and awards. She wrote music for 17 films and her works are being performed by famous musicians around the world. The glory of Ukrainian music is L. Dychko (1939) – the author of operas, oratorios, cantatas, symphonies, choral concertos, ballets, piano works, romances, film music. The broad famous are the French writers: S.-G. Colette (1873–1954), to which the films were devoted, the performances based on her novels are going all over the world, her lyrics are being studied in the literature departments. She was the President of the Goncourt Academy, Chevalier of the Legion of Honour, a square in the center of Paris is named after her. Also, creativity by her compatriot, L. de Vilmorin (1902–1969), on whose poems С. Arrieu, G. Auric, F. Poulenc wrote vocal miniatures, is beloved and recognized as in France as and widely abroad. The article denotes a circle of women who combined the position of a selfsufficient creator and a muse for their companion. M. Verevkina (1860–1938) – a Russian artist, a representative of expressionism in painting, not only helped shape the aesthetic views of her husband A. Yavlensky, contributing to his art education, but for a long time “left the stage” for to not compete with him and help him develop his talent fully. Furthermore, she managed to anticipate many of the discoveries as for the use of light that are associated with the names of H. Matisse, A. Derain and other French fauvist. F. Kahlo (1907–1954), a Mexican artist, was a strict critic and supporter for her husband D. Rivera, led his business, was frequently depicted in his frescoes. C. Schumann (1819–1896) was a committed promoter of R. Schumann’s creativity. She performed his music even when he was not yet recognized by public. She included his compositions in the repertoire of her students after the composer lost his ability to play due to the illness of the hands. She herself performed his works, making R. Schumann famous across Europe. In addition, Clara took care of the welfare of the family – the main source of finance was income from her concerts. The article indicates the growing interest of the twentieth century composers to the poems of female poets. Among them M. Debord-Valmore (1786–1859) – a French poetess, about whom S. Zweig, P. Verlaine and L. Aragon wrote their essays, and her poems were set to music by C. Franck, G. Bizet and R. Ahn; R. Auslender (1901–1988) is a German poetess, a native of Ukraine (Chernovtsy city), author of more than 20 collections, her lyrics were used by an American woman-composer E. Alexander to write “Three Songs” and by German composer G. Grosse-Schware who wrote four pieces for the choir; I. Bachmann (1926–1973) – the winner of three major Austrian awards, author of the libretto for the ballet “Idiot” and opera “The Prince of Hombur”. The composer H. W. Henze, in turn, created music for the play “Cicadas” by I. Bachmann. On this basis, we conclude that women not only successfully engaged in painting, wrote poems and novels, composed music, opened «locked doors», destroyed established stereotypes but were a powerful source of inspiration. Combining the roles of the creator and muse, they helped men reach the greatest heights. Toward the twentieth century, the role of the fair sex representatives in the world of art increased and strengthened significantly, which led Western European culture to a new round of its evolution.

In German speaking countries Haydn’s oratorios, and particularly TheCreation , have played an important role in the repertoire of choral societies and music festivals since the 1810s. However, in France, and also in Paris — “the capital of the 19th century” —, Haydn’s oratorios were performed only on rare occasions, and then they were given mostly in parts. The reasons for these circumstances can be seen in the institutional and esthetical context of the Parisian concert life. With respect to professional concert societies, like the Société des Concerts du Conservatoire , rigid obstacles were on the one hand the enormous financial risk of a complete oratorio performance. On the other hand the established type of concert programmes with its varied mixture of vocal and instrumental pieces functioned as a barrier. Most important was a lack of mixed amateur choral societies, which developed in Paris quite late, primary in the 1840s, and then only little by little. Since oratorio performances lasted to be mostly a private affaire in the first half of the 19th century, it is not surprising, that Haydn’s oratorios were studied in aristocratic salons of Princesse de Belgiojoso and Baron Delmar with the intention of both education and entertainment.

AbstractOnly a few weeks after seeing the Frans Hals portrait of Jaspar Schade in the 1962 exhibition in Haarlem, the author came upon it again in the home of Mr. and Mrs. Waller in Utrecht (Figs. 1 and 2, Note I). He learnt that this particular painting had been in Mr. Waller's family for nearly a century and that it was a copy of the one now in Prague. The story was that the latter had been sold by Mr. Waller's grandfather Beukerfrom his country-house 'Zandbergen', which he had bought in 1865, to his friend P.E.H. Praetorius, on condition that the latter had a copy painted as a replacement. According to a written statement of 1934 by Mr. Waller's mother, the original by Frans Hals had always been at 'Zandbergen' and there was even a legend that the house would fall down, if it were removed. Her father, who was not interested in paintings according to the statement, had sold it to Praetorius at his request. The family had understood, erroneously as it turns out, that Praetorius had sold it on to Cologne and that it had later gone to America. In testing the truth of all this the author discovered first that the house is marked with the name of 'Den Heer Schade' on a map of the Utrecht area by Bernard de Roij published by Nicolaas Visscher in Amsterdam in 1696 (Fig.3, Note 4). The road on which it stands had been projected in 1652, Schade being one of those who acquired a parcel of land along it in return for laying that portion out, planting it and maintaining it and also building a side road on either side of his plot. Part of the agreement also was that he was exempted from paying taxes for 25 years. Schade (1623-,92), a member of a family of considerable standing, held various high offices in the church and province of Utrecht and was a delegate to the States-General in 1672. He was extremely rich and noted for his extravagant lifestyle, particularly as regards clothes (Notes 12-14). His house passed to his eldest son, who in 1701 left it to his brother-in-law Jacob Noirot. Between the latter, who sold it in 1740, and the Beuker family 'Zandbergen' (Fig. 4) had nine different owners. The museum in Prague acquired the portrait of Jaspar Schade in 1890 from Prince Liechtenstein, who had bought it in Paris on 14 March 1881 at the sale of the collection of John W. Wilson, an Englishman then living in Brussels. A. J. van de Ven tried without success to trace its history before that time (Note 18) and this was also unknown to Seymour Slive, although in his catalogue raisonné of Hals' work he mentions that it was shown at an exhibition of Wilson's collection in Brussels in 1873 (Note 20). In an article of the same year on Wilson's collection in the Gazette des Beaux-Arts Charles Tardieu remarked that Wilson had lived in Holland for thirty years and that his residence was obviously in Haarlem, from where the best pictures in his collection came. In his article on the portrait Van de Ven enlarged on the coals of arms on the frame, which were Schade's eight quarterings, but in an arbitrary order. The director of the Prague museum had told him that the frame was a 19th-century one and that the confusion had arisen during its making. A description of the frame in 1875 reveals that the arms were in their correct place then (Note 25), while the frame of the copy has the same arms in the right order, except that the left and right sides are transposed. Thus the present Prague frame must have been made after 1875, while the copy was presumably made and framed at the time the painting left 'Zandbergen'. John W. Wilson (1815-83) was born in Brussels of Thomas Wilsorz, who moved to Haarlem in 1833 and started a cotton factory there. John lived at Hillegom from 1856 to 1868, but after that moved back to Haarlem for a short time up to, but no later than 1870. He must have been very wealthy, as he also bought a lot of land in the area. How he acquired his collection of paintings is not known, as he appears to have kept it quiet until the exhibition of 1873. The catalogue of this covered 164 pictures; 76 of them, painted by 57 different artists, were of the Dutch School. Five pictures, all authentic, were by Frans Hals (Note 29). P.E.H. Praetorius (1791-1876, Fig.5) was a cousin of Beuker's. He moved from Haarlem to Amsterdam in or before 1829 and spent the rest of his life there. He was a broker and banker, an amateur painter and a great connoisseur of paintings, who played a prominent part in art societies in Amsterdam. He was also a member of the Supervisory Committee of the Rijksmuseum from 1844 and Chairman of its Board of Management from 1852 to 1875 (Note 33). His earliest paintings were copies of 17th-century works and he says in an appendix to his memoirs of 1869 that his last five works, done in 1865 and I 866, included a copy of Frans Hals' portrait of Willem van Heythuyzen. While it is clear that Jaspar Schade was the builder of 'Zandbergen', it is odd that the painting is never mentioned in any of the deeds of sale, detailed though these are. This suggests that it was so firmly fixed in its place - in the downstairs corridor over the door to the salon - as to be regarded as part of the fabric of the house. The price paid by Praetorius for the painting is not known, but he bought it at a period when Frans Hals' reputation had shot upwards again, after a long period of decline. This return to favour emerges clearly from Tardieu's comments, from the records of copyists in the Rijksmuseum (Note 37) and, of course, from Wilson's predilection. No evidence can be found of the painting's passing from Praetorius to Wilson, but the two must have known each other. The identity of the painter of the copy is also unknown. Mrs. Waller's statement mentions J. W. Pieneman, but he can be ruled out, as he died in 1853 and his son Nicolaas in 1860. The most likely candidate at the moment would seem to be Praetorius himself.

Cette thèse est un travail d'enquête et de synthèse sur les conditions socioculturelles qui ont sous-tendu l'activité artistique des femmes peintres exposantes du salon, à Paris, entre 1863 et 1889. Y est particulièrement mis en évidence le dilemme dilettantisme / professionnalisme avec lequel les femmes artistes auront constamment à composer, et qui parait avoir notamment pèse sur leurs choix stylistiques. Cette thèse consiste en trois volumes. Dans le premier tome, un "liminaire" explicite tout d'abord la problématique d'un point de vue historique et théorique. Sont ensuite successivement étudiés les divers aspects d'une vie artistique au féminin : la formation dans les ateliers ; la vie privée et ses choix, et surtout les potentialités offertes par les réseaux amicaux et associatifs ; les aléas de la carrière, soumise a la pression de la production, rythmée par les succès et les échecs, parfois entravée par des activités annexes, mais toujours orientée vers l'insertion professionnelle et l'acquisition d'une plus large autonomie ; les oeuvres du salon et leur réception par la critique. Cette recherche s'appuie sur des documents d'archives et de nombreux témoignages d'artistes françaises et étrangères, puises dans leurs journaux intimes, leurs mémoires et leurs correspondances. Le deuxième tome correspond à un dossier iconographique de 264 planches. Ces reproductions - souvent inédites - émanent notamment des catalogues illustres des salons, des albums de la maison goupil et du fonds photographique "Adolphe Braun". Enfin, dans le troisième tome, se trouve la liste, par ordre alphabétique d'artistes, des oeuvres exposées par des femmes dans la section peinture du salon entre 1863 et 1889. Y sont mentionnés, outre les titres des tableaux, le lieu de naissance des artistes, leur adresse et le nom de leurs professeurs
This doctoral dissertation, combining investigation and synthesis, attaches itself to the socio-cultural conditions underlying the artistic activity of the women painters exhibiting at the salon, in Paris, between 1863 and 1889. It gives special emphasis on the amateur / professional dilemma with which the women artists will constantly be composing, and that may have influenced their artistic choices. This dissertation consists of 3 volumes. The first introductory part describes the problematic from a historical and theoretical side. This is followed by a study of artistic life in the feminine : training in studios ; private life and its choices, in particular the possibilities offered by networks of friends and associations ; the hazards of a career, with the pressure resulting from the need of production, with its successes and its failures, sometimes hampered by other activities, yet always turned towards professional integration and acquiring more autonomy ; the works of the salon and how the critics responded. The research work is based on archives, and on numerous testimonies of french and foreign women artists, gathered from personal diaries, memoirs and correspondence. The second part is a file of 264 plates. These reproductions often unpublished, come from the illustrated catalogues of the salon, from goupil albums, and from the photographic archives "Adolphe Braun". In final, the third part lists in alphabetic order of the artists the works by women, put on exhibition in the "peinture" section of the salon between 1863 and 1889. You will find there, besides the title of the works, the place of birth of the artists, their address, and the name of their professors

This thesis provides the first detailed study of the jury of the Paris Fine Art Salon under the July Monarchy and Second Republic. In 1831, Louis-Philippe delegated the role of jury to the members of the first four sections of the Académie des Beaux-Arts. This thesis analyses the diverse composition of the July Monarchy jury and offers the first account of its procedures and decisions based on a rigorous examination of archival sources. It also examines the nature and extent of the growing opposition to the jury, its eventual abolition in 1848 and the decisions taken in forming a new jury under the Second Republic. In so doing it reveals the failure of the king and his arts administration to respond to the aspirations and expectations of the artistic community under the post-revolution constitutional monarchy. It also shows how the jury’s diverse membership sparked conflict, notably between a conservative group of architects and certain more open-minded members of the painting section, as it sought to adjust its academic values and expectations in response to the artistic developments of the period. My examination of the opposition to the jury among artists and art journalists during this period brings to light the key issues surrounding admission to the Salon at the time. Finally, the analysis of the Second Republic reveals the ways in which this opposition was temporarily satisfied by reforms to the jury, examining the significance of changes not only to its composition, but also to its procedures. At each stage the thesis challenges the simplistic misrepresentations of the Salon jury’s procedures and decisions prevalent during the July Monarchy itself and subsequently in the history of the emergence of modern art in France during the nineteenth century.

Depuis l'apparition des expositions universelles jusqu'à la création des sécessions européennes, le Salon parisien a joué un rôle plus ou moins déterminant dans la carrière de centaines de peintres étrangers. Sans partis-pris esthétique, le corpus d'œuvres, d'artistes et de textes étudiés retrace la présence et la réception de la peinture étrangère au Salon de 1852 à 1900. L'histoire politique et administrative de l'institution révèle un statut de l'exposant étranger presque inexistant au début du Second Empire, qui devint une question majeure à la fin du siècle, liée à la création de la Société nationale des beaux-arts. Hasardeuse et compétitive, l'expérience du Salon constituait pour l'ensemble des artistes un enjeu considérable, tant symbolique que commercial. Les carrières parisiennes des peintres étrangers, depuis le séjour de formation jusqu'à l'impact de l'exposition au Salon, se prêtent moins que celles de leurs homologues français à une opposition entre sphère officielle et sphère indépendante; elles décrivent un système des beaux-arts largement ouvert sur le monde et sur l'ensemble du champ artistique. La réalité internationale des expositions parisiennes eut un profond impact sur l'évolution et la définition d'un art français qui en fit rapidement un motif d'hégémonie. Contrairement au cloisonnement nationaliste des expositions universelles, le brassage du Salon décrit l'unité et la diversité des forces créatrices européennes. L'expression nationale participe d'une communauté de démarches et de formes, et l'Europe des arts ne peut se réduire ni aux catégories d'écoles nationales, ni aux catégories de style de la tradition moderniste
From the origin of World Fairs until the creation of the European secessions, the Paris Salon played a fairly significant role in the careers of hundreds of foreign painters. Avoiding aesthetic biases, the corpus of works, artists and texts studied traces the presence and the reception of foreign painting in the Paris Salon, from 1852 to 1900. The political and administrative history of the institution reveals the evolution of foreign painter status: from almost nonexistent at the beginning of the Second Empire, to a major issue at the end of the century, linked to the creation of the Société Nationale des beaux-arts. Risky and competitive, the Salon experience was a considerable challenge for all artists, both symbolic and commercial. Parisian careers of foreign painters, from their training studio to their exposition in the Salon, are less interpretable than for their French counterparts as an opposition between official and independent sphere; Fine Art system appears as wide open to the world and to the whole artistic field. The international dimension of Paris exhibitions had a profound impact on the evolution and the definition of French art who quickly built a hegemonic pattern on it. Unlike the nationalist partitioning of world fairs, the melting of the Salon is an image of the unity and diversity of European creative forces. The national expression is part of a community of approaches and expressions, and Arts of Europe cannot be categorized into national schools nor the style categories of the modernist tradition

Ce travail examine la diversité des peintres espagnols à Paris, leur participation aux salons des Champs-Elysées (1872-1880), de la société des artistes français (1881-1899), des indépendants (1884-1899) et de la société nationale des beaux-arts (1890-1899) et leur présence sur le marché de l'art. Cette étude permet donc de déterminer quels furent les peintres espagnols qui furent célébres à Paris de 1872 à 1899, de mesurer leur succès et de préciser la démarche adoptée en vue de la réussite à obtenir. Le succès est envisagé en tant que reconnaissance officielle au moyen des récompenses (salons des Champs-Elysées et de la société des artistes français) et de la qualité d'associé et de sociétaire de la société nationale des beaux-arts. La publication des œuvres exposées au catalogue illustré des salons des Champs-Elysées, des salons de la société des artistes français et des salons de la société nationale des beaux-arts est un indicateur du succès critique obtenu à Paris par les peintres espagnols. La reconnaissance officielle et le succès critique permettent ainsi d'examiner le choix des œuvres exposées par les peintres afin d'obtenir la célébrité. Enfin, la diffusion des œuvres espagnoles et la vente de leurs reproductions par la maison Goupil renseignent aussi bien sur les peintres espagnols célèbres que sur le rôle des salons et sur les techniques commerciales de la maison Goupil afin de "lancer" un artiste et de confirmer sa réussite. Ces différentes analyses permettent de mettre en lumière les mutations qui survinrent sur la scène artistique (perte d'autorité des salons et de la hiérarchie des arts, importance grandissante du marché, distinction entre la carrière officielle et la carrière commerciale), qui annoncèrent la vie artistique actuelle et qui furent à l'origine de différentes polémiques telles que l'existence d'un art national et la liberté de l'artiste.

Créé par l’amateur d’art Frédo Sidès en juillet 1946, le Salon des Réalités Nouvelles est animé à ses débuts par Auguste Herbin et Félix Del Marle. S’inscrivant dans la filiation d’Abstraction-Création, il a pour objectif l’organisation en France d’expositions annuelles d’ « art concret, art non figuratif ou art abstrait ». De 1946 à 1948, le salon qui se tient au Palais des beaux-arts de Paris, donne une visibilité inédite à l’art abstrait par sa politique de large ouverture et sa volonté d’internationalisation (le salon de 1948 compte plus de 350 exposants et regroupe 17 nations). La consultation des archives du Salon des Réalités Nouvelles, jusqu’alors méconnues, a permis d’en connaître le fonctionnement et la politique de diffusion et de reconnaissance. Elle a aussi démontré que le salon constituait le point d’aboutissement d’une longue gestation qui nous ramène aux années trente, en particulier à l’analyse de ses liens avec l’exposition « Réalités Nouvelles » organisée galerie Charpentier par Frédo Sidès et Yvanohé Rambosson en 1939
Created by the art lover Frédo Sidès in july 1946, the « Salon des Réalités Nouvelles » was first directed by Auguste Herbin and Félix Del Marle. In the line from Abstraction-Creation, it was meant to set up annual « concrete art, non figurative or abstract art » exhibitions. From 1946 to 1948, the Salon, which was held in the Palais des Beaux Arts in Paris, offered a unique visibility for abstract art, with a very open policy and a will for international participation (the 1948 Salon was attended by more than 350 exhibitors representing 17 nations). Consulting the archives of the SRN, quite forgotten until now, offers the opportunity to understand how the Salon worked, and learn about its diffusion and recognition policy. This consultation also proves that the Salon was the conclusion of a long gestation which started in the 1930’s, an dis directly coneected to the exposition « Réalités Nouvelles » held in the Charpentier gallery by Frédo Sidès and Yvanohé Rambosson in 1939