Abraham Bosse : painting and theory in the French Academy of Painting and Sculpture, 1648-1683 / Carl Goldstein.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Online Access: Online Access
Main Author: Goldstein, Carl
Format: Thesis eBook
Language:English
French
Italian
Published: ©1969.
Subjects:
Description
Abstract:"The purpose of this dissertation is to trace the development of French art theory in the seventeenth century and to lend precision to our understanding of the relationship between this theory and painting of the period. Its central figure is Abraham Bosse (1602-1676), who is well known as an engraver but whose theoretical writings have been little heeded. Bosse was the first art theorist in France to develop a systematic doctrine of the kind that has come to be called "classic"; his thought is well documented from 1649, when the Sentimens appeared. Bosse taught in the academy from 1648 to 1660 and was, during these years, its most articulate member; his is the only detailed account of theory and instruction in the academy before 1667. French classic theory in the form of statements made in the academy in and after 1667 has long been familiar to scholars; it is shown that Bosse anticipated this theory by almost two decades and that he -- and not, as has been implied, G.P. Bellori -- was the forerunner of those theorists who spoke during the course of the famous Conférences in 1667. Bosse's role in the academy has been misunderstood because he was expelled from it; it is shown that "academic" art theory in France was far more varied and complex than has been realized. The theoretical program of the academy after 1667 agrees substantially with that of Bosse. Bosse's difficulties with several academicians, which led to his expulsion, are shown to have resulted from disagreement concerning the role of perspective in art and theory, with Bosse's position giving rise to fierce polemics directly involving Fréart de Chambray, André Félibien, and Charles Le Brun. It has been well known that the powerful French Academy of Painting and Sculpture accepted theory in the late l660's and it frequently has been maintained that this theory led to the development of an artistic style. A relatively coherent style was practiced in Paris from the late 1640's to at least the l680's, however; this style was, in terms of seventeenth century stylistic alternatives, classic. Bosse's early classic doctrine helps to eliminate the chronological problem in relating French classic theory to classic painting. But from a reading of the literature one realizes that, apart from the chronological problem that was not admitted, it has been shown only that there existed a well defined artistic culture in France from the late l660's; it has never been demonstrated that theory directly influenced practice at any time in the Royal Academy. It is shown here how guiding principles furnished for artists in the academy did influence practice. In two chapters, Bosse's "classicism" and theory are analysed and related to French and Italian ideas. Chapter Three contains a discussion of the early history of the academy, of Bosse's role in it, and of "academic" theory from 1648 to about 1660. After considering the state of French painting before the foundation of the academy in 1648, works by Le Sueur, La Hyre, N. Loir, and Ch. Le Brun are examined for indications of the influence of theory on practice. In the fourth chapter painting and theory in the academy from the l660's are discussed. The Conférences of 1667 are analysed and the presentation pieces of Antoine Bouzonnet-Stella and Louis Licherie are introduced to show how theory was put into practice during the l660's and l670's. The text is followed by transcriptions and analyses of unpublished or hard-to-find documents relating to theory in France before 1648 and to Bosse and the academy."
Item Description:Images of illustrations (leaves 179 and following) are of very poor quality.
"69-15,550"--Cover page.
Physical Description:1 online resource (v, 194 leaves) : illustrations.
Bibliography:Includes bibliographical references (leaves 168-177)
Language:Portions of the text and footnotes are in French or Italian.
Source of Description, Etc. Note:Description based on manuscript version record.