Salon de... | wmcallisterjohnson

Georges Olmer et Saint-Juirs. Salon de 1886. Ed. Ludovic Baschet. Paris: Librairie d'Art, 1886.

Written by Georges Olmer et Saint-Juirs, the catalogue features one hundred photogravure plates alongside criticisms of the art on view at the Palais d'Industrie during the Salon of 1886. This volume was divided into three main categories: peinture; dessin, pastel, aquarelle, gravures; sculpture. The preface of the Salon de 1886 provides an overview of the authors' points of view on the state of French art in the nineteenth century—which was a common feature of the Baschet Salon catalogues. The authors question what the Academy is at this time: is it the Academy of Jacques-Louis David any longer? Is the art uniform? No, it is is varied and represents "...la vie intense et diverse de notre époque, ses tendances contradictoires, les grands courants philosophiques et critiquent qui la traversent, qui l'entrainent, qui l'agitent et qui l'éclairent..." (2). According to Olmer and Saint-Juirs, the art of the nineteenth century is varied and individual.

The preface also includes a discussion of the hundreds of artists that are excluded from the Salon each year. This discussion also gives us an idea of what is considered to be "good art" in 1886. The authors describe how some artists think they have attained a high level of skill when they have gained a degree of public attention; however this is not the case. What makes art good and worthy of public attention is art that unites the following

"…la science des lignes et des plans, la revélation mysterieuses de cette insaisissable divinité qui s'appelle la lumière, l'originalité dans la composition, la puissance préstigieuse du coloris et la force de l'idée, nous crierons bien haute leurs noms, connus ou inconnus, et nous dirons leurs oeuvres, et nous les supplierons de conserver pieusement, pour la gloire de notre école et pour l'honneur de notre pays, le culte pur et desintéressé du grand art." (7)

The preface of the Salon catalogue is a way for the Salon critic to instruct the audience on what kind of art is worth admiring, which prepares them for the commentaries and criticisms contained within the catalogue. The critics note the changes in art, the decline of history painting and the rise of individualism in painting, yet in some cases, they still cling to the academic considerations of what is "good" art.

The French Academy

Salon Criticism

The Baschet Salon Catalogues

Reference

Exposition des Beaux-Arts (Salon de 1880)

Frontispiece, Salon de 1886	Title Page, Salon de 1886	l'Art du XIXe Siècle (Preface)
La Peinture Notice how different the first pages of the Salon catalogue sections have become. In this catalogue, we have the addition of colour to the plates and illustrations, which did not occur in the volume that Baschet and the Société des artistes français published in 1880.	Puvis de Chavannes, Vision Antique "Regrettez-vous le temps où le ciel sur la terre / Vivait et respirait dans un peuple de dieux?" (unknown poet) Olmers and Saint-Juirs comment that Puvis de Chavannes shares the regret of the poet who wrote the above lines. The artist shows us the splendours of an ancient Greek païen, a pagan celebration that was perhaps linked to a god. "Dans le tableau qu'il nous trace de ces temps héroïques, le maître nous montre la vie heureuse dans la nature." (12)	Puvis de Chavannes Inspiration Chrètienne. The impression of this painting is much different than the other one that Puvis de Chavannes exhibited in the Salon of 1886. The critics interpret this painting in a way that suggests that humanity has sacrificed nature, we no know or understand the world anymore: ○ "M. Puvis de Chavannes, en executant ces belles pages, a justifie cette parole de Millet: "On peut partir de tous les points pour arriver au sublime." (18)
Although Puvis de Chavannes did not win the Medal of Honour in 1886 (he won in 1882), the critics would awarded him this prize another time for the work that he submitted to the Salon.	Rochegrosse "La folie du roi Nabuchodonosor." "Quelle odieuse querelle et combien elle serait indigne d'une critique consciencieuse si, à travers des similitudes regrettables de cadre, l'artiste avait su renouveler la forme de son talent. Mais non. Nous conaissions déjà ces figures, et nous avous déjà vu sourire dans une rue de Rome ces gens que nous voyons sourire encore, revêtus du même costume, devant le palais du roi des rois." (24)	M. Gervex, This is an example of another painting that was highly criticized for not adhering to the traditional academic notions of the nude. This woman is not nude, she is naked. It does not glorify the human figure like the painting by Henner in the 1880 Salon. The critics note, "Est-ce un signe des temps? Est-ce un effet de l'abaissement du niveau général? Le nu tend à disparaïtre... Il y a une chose plus grave encore... c'est d'exécuter des personnes nues qui on l'air d'être déshabillées." (27)