John S. D. Glaus - On art and artists : an anthology of Diderots aesthetic thought

Denis Diderot and Jean S. D. Glaus 1

(1)

Abstract

The publics opinion of Diderot as an art critic has always been exaggerated. Because he led the cause for Greuze and painting standards, and that tears welled in his eyes as with the rest of his century in front of le Paralytique and the Accorde de Village , he was judged: a unrepentant writer; to him a painting was just an excuse to carry on talking.

The publics opinion of Diderot as an art critic has always been exaggerated. Because he led the cause for Greuze and painting standards, and that tears welled in his eyes as with the rest of his century in front of le Paralytique and the Accorde de Village , he was judged: a unrepentant writer; to him a painting was just an excuse to carry on talking.

His case is being revisited. To start with, we have passed judgement concerning the efforts of his methods which the philosopher revealed early on when he attempted to introduce himself to the problems in art. He taught himself through de Vinci, Jean Cousin, Roger de Piles, Frart de Chambray and Le Brun. At the same time he provided for his visual education by visiting the royal and private galleries, the Luxembourg, the Palais-Royal, the connoisseurs exhibits, Gaignat, Watelet, Choiseul. However, his first esthetical writings, Letter concerning the deaf and mute and his Philosophical Research on the origin and the nature of beauty (1751) which became the article Beauty of the Encyclopdie , he still challenges the problems at the summit and through speculative discussions. There he contradicts Batteux; here, Hutcheson and Shaftsbury and he appear to reduce the impression of beauty to an intellectual exercise the perception of relationships. However, in 1759, his friend Grimm entrusts him with a project that will force him to acquire thoughtful notions concerning painting and sculpture and to refine art terms, so familiar in his words yet so vague in his mind.

It was a matter of providing an expository account in the Correspondence littrair e of the exhibits which occurred every 2 years at the Louvre and where the pieces sent from the artist members of the Royal academy appeared. These are the beginnings of the Salons where Diderot, by infusing his vitality into a genre so ineffectually, treated by Lafont de Saint Yenne, lAbbe Leblanc, Caylus, Frron (amongst others) and by Grimm himself and will go on to create art criticism in France.

He fulfilled this task of salonnier on nine occasions, with interruptions until 1781, notwithstanding certain significant dips in his enthusiasm and self-confidence. The first Salon in 1759 is but an outline; those of 1765 and 1767, which inflate proportionately as the volumes are edited with certain lightness by an author who is thoroughly possessed of his abilities. From 1771 onwards Diderot is tired and must mine through contemporary pamphlets or with anonymous collaborators so as to supplement the vein which is collapsing. Marginal to the Salons , so as to provide something in their stead or more likely as a crowning achievement, he composed two treatises on beauty in the arts. The first, the Essays on Painting was completed in 1766 and is the fruit of his experience as a professional art critic; the second, les Penses dtaches sur la peinture, remains unfinished and is the outcome of his visits to the Dutch, German and Russian (17731774) galleries and from Hagedorns lecture.

These treatises do not possess any systematic characteristic, but it is at this moment that he begins to worry as he says to produce their titles since what right does a writer have to pronounce anything on a statue or a painting? This objection had prevented him from undertaking his first Salon . In 1758 he wrote concerning Cochins Voyage to Italy as follows:

Diderot saw the danger but thought that he could confront it. It is that art is not all contained in the technique (as he says) It contains an ideal or moral element the subject, the passions, the characters for which the admirer is as good a judge and often better than the artist himself, since the verdict in this case, belongs to all men of taste. That the artist should display any irony and raise his nose to me for involving myself in his techniques in good cause; but if he should contradict me when it is the ideal of his art, then will he be able to get his revenge. Thus the writer who becomes the art critic does not have to learn everything, since the ideal is not learned and he who knows how to judge a poet can also judge a painter. What he is missing is knowledge of the trade, a very trying knowledge no doubt, but one nonetheless that can be acquired and that Diderot does not despair to acquire. The ways are not lacking, neither are the masters. Do you wish to make sure progress of knowledge as difficult as in art technique? Walk through a gallery with an artist and have him explain and show you examples of technical terms; without this you will never have any else but confused ideas. That this same artist, talented and truthful should accompany us to the Salon: He should allow us to see and say everything at our leisure. And then he should from time to time shove our nose into beautiful things that we might have snubbed and on the ugly that might have made us ecstatic. Thus one will acquire after categorization the ability to discern. Finally after visiting the workplaces and by watching the artist work and by listening to him, the writer will be exposed to the problems and the secrets of its ways.

Here is Diderot the apprentice, the same Diderot who runs about the factories to have the plates drawn of the Encyclopdie and who has had himself taught by the artisans themselves concerning their tools and processes. His apprenticeship into the profession of art, he did under the greatest artists who guide him through the Salon. It is Chardin, the tapissier of the exhibits, that is to say the person in charge of hanging the canvases; who takes the moment to point with his finger the beautiful spots and the weak ones. It is Falconet before his departure for Russia. Diderot saw La Tour paint, he questioned Pigalle, and he visited Boucher, Cochin, Le Moyne, Vernet, and Lagrene. To his artist friends, he not only borrowed a vocabulary, but according to his expression even their eyes He received the light from these art people, amongst who many who find him valuable and who tell him the truth. He took great advantage of their lessons to the point of being able to return the favor against his masters. If it should happen that I insult the artist, he writes in 1765, it is often with the weapon that he himself had sharpened: I asked him a question.

The Proceedings were destined, as we have seen to the Correspondence littraire , from there appeared a singularly difficult situation for their author, because this bi-monthly handwritten page, was exclusively reserved for the foreign subscriptions, that is to say for a far away public which had not seen the exhibited works. It was necessary to describe each one of these works before making any commentary. However from this necessity, Diderot established his virtuosity. To illicit images, he summoned all the resources to his pen. With authority, and a majestic rapidity, he began by exposing the subject of the canvas, establish the dcor, places the people; from there, he goes on to the expressions, to the characters, to the draperies, to color, to the distribution of shadows and lights. However it was necessary to enliven this first concern and how to hide his boredom? By constantly changing.