ARCHIVES & RESEARCH COLLECTIONS, CARLETON UNIVERSITY
CATALOGUING SALON CRITICISM, 1773-1886
SELECTIONS FROM THE W. MCALLISTER JOHNSON COLLECTION
In 1738, the French Academy began regularly publishing the livret or Salon catalogue—the only form of publication which was allowed to be sold in the Salon. The "unofficial" critical brochures and pamphlets were sold at the entrance and in the bookshops of the Louvre. The livret was meant to assist the patron to identify the works of art, which were not labeled. These publications were very similar to the catalogues for art auctions, which also started to be used in the eighteenth century; they included the tombstone information of each artwork, such as the artist’s name and the title of the work, and a brief résumé of the subject depicted. Such catalogues became a general feature of the exhibition but were not explanatory and did not help the visitor beyond identifying the works exhibited.
"The most curious and delightful ephemera of the period are surely the Salon critiques in the form of vaudevilles set to traditional airs and hawked at the doors and on the staircase of the Louvre.”
~ W. McAllister Johnson
Another type of livret were in the form of theatrical dialogues. These often followed a respected visitor's experience walking through the Salon and their thoughts on the paintings. These commentaries of the Salon were often guided by a number assigned to each painting, and by the artist and the artwork's title.
Livrets
Éloge des Tableaux Exposés au Louvre, le 26 Août 1773, Suivi de l'Entretien d'un Lord, avec M. l'Abbé A***. Paris, 1773.
Call No. 1773 N7485. F8 D38 1773
Here we have an example of salon criticism that takes the form of a theatrical dialogue. This shows an important familiarity with theatre as an influencing factor in critical attitudes.
By the mid-eighteenth century, in the world of the Parisian theatre, parodies of the Comedie-Française's new productions by boulevard vaudevilles had become established practice. In this way, it was not difficult to apply this dialogical mimicry to the Salon. The late-eighteenth century saw exhibition reviews take the form of vaudevilles.
In this case, the plot surrounds a visit to the Salon by a Lord and an Abbé; however one of the most common conventions was the `tableau parlant' whereby the pictures came to life.
The theatre was a constant in Parisian leisure, so critics could depend on their readers to be familiar with theatrical devices. This influence of theatre on the Salon was justified on the grounds that both art forms were founded in Nature and in rational principles. This would carry on into the nineteenth century.
Lesuire. Coup d'Oeil sur le Sallon de 1775 par un aveugle. Paris: L'imprimerie de Didot, 1775.
Call No. 1775 N5066. C68 1775
In this text, Lesuire pretends to be "un aveugle" or a blind person, and he explores the Salon through the comments of other patrons. Some critics inserted the crowds' presence into their critical texts to reflect Parisian society's response to the Salon. For example, Diderot claimed that he derived many of his criticisms from selective attention to the audience. In Coup d'Oeil sur le Sallon de 1775 par un Aveugle, Lesuire characterizes the superficiality of the language employed by the fashionable Parisian society. This language made no attempt to adapt to particular works of art, but constituted vacuous opinions of their social milieu; for example, Lesuire says, "j'etendis une multitude de voix confusées qui prodigieux, détestable, pitoyable, etc. Parmi toutes ces épithètes qu'on répetoit les uns après les autres, je remarquai que celle de joli, dominoit toujours" (5).
Observations sur les Ouvrages Éposés au Salon du Louvre, ou Lettre A M. Le Comtede***, 1775.
Call No. 1775 N5066. O28 1775
This text is written in the form of a letter to a patron or a well-respected member of society. The author positions criticism as a delicate task. The critic should not dole out judgements on the artworks of the Salon, but offer criticisms with justifications. The author also makes the distinction that he is not simply repeating public opinion, but offering his own evaluations of the artworks on display.