Monday, May 16, 2011

BOUCHER AND FRAGONARD (EXPANDED)



Francois Boucher was one of the great painters of 18th Century France, but he seems to have fallen out of favor in recent years.  If I had to guess about the reason I'd say that he's considered by critics to be shallow. Look at the picture above. The dress is exquisite but the artist doesn't seem to have anything  to say about the woman wearing it. Lots of his pictures are like that. Truth to tell, some of Boucher's work is a bit cold, there's no denying it. So why, you ask, am I writing about him?

The reason is that Boucher made a massive contribution to art in spite of his flaws. The critics were only half right.



Boucher's early heroes were Tiepolo and Rubens, except he didn't have their depth and insight. What we see in Boucher's first pictures is skill merely. They are kind of funny though. You can see the eroticism that characterized his later work (above) slowly creeping in, even though it seems out of place.


Boucher didn't really find his own voice til he got into soft core porn.  He became a favorite of the licentious French court, maybe because he somehow managed to connect eroticism with something deep and profound. The man who had difficulty drawing faces managed to articulate something important about sex and life that no other painter had before. He gave his subjects a light-hearted, delicate charm that came to exemplify the new French style.

Boucher's contemporary Chardin had that charm and so did his pupil Fragonard, but I think they got it from Boucher.

I digress to air this parody (above) of Boucher's picture.


Boucher also did some pictures (above) that were pretty extreme. They're well done, and even funny on some level, but they strike me as decadent and beneath Boucher's talent.


Poor Boucher got typecast and found himself stuck with doing endless paintings of nudes and cupids (above). His overtly sexual charm diminished over time, but never disappeared.  He just sublimated it into sumptuous lines and shapes and colors.

His pictures from this period are often juicy and erotic, even when the subjects aren't. The man who figured out how to put charm and delicacy into a nude, now figured out how to put it into abstract shapes. Pretty good for a guy who publishers deem unworthy of a book. 


To keep from going crazy all those years, he amused himself by simplifying his humans and letting the cupids steal the show. They became more and more vivid and grotesque. Look at them (above)!  One of these days I should do a whole blog about the man's surly cupids!


Boucher's star pupil was Fragonard (sample above), who took up a lot of Boucher's themes and pushed them farther in the direction of what we would call illustration. You can see a large part of the future of art in pictures like this. In this one I see Mary Blair and Freddy Moore as well as fine artists like Renoir, Lautrec and DeKooning.

BTW, many art critics consider Fragonard to be as shallow as Boucher, but the public likes him so he grudgingly gets the occasional book. 


Fragonard (example above) had his teacher's knack for lightness and grace. Sadly it all came to an end with The French Revolution. According to a comment by Thomas, David helped Fragonard get a job at the Louvre, which at least kept him safe for a while. In a sense you could say that Fragonard prevailed, because a hundred years later his techniques, along with those of Boucher and Chardin, had a big influence on the Impressionists. 

Interesting, huh?



12 comments:

romans said...

Good job on blowing the dust off of Boucher, one of those painters residing in the niches of one's art history class decades ago. Very interesting, your analysis of his compensation (infusing his figures with energy notwithstanding difficulty with the face.) The illustration of the grotesque cherubim vs cherubic humans is inspiring.
Your blog is so varied and interesting. Do you know The Saturday Book? This anthology, running from the 40s-60s, had a quirky but erudite quality, which your blog shares.

Steven M. said...

The Man Cupid, now thats scary sounding.

thomas said...

Isn't Fragonard looser and less illustrational than Boucher? And his color is more experimental? another example...
Frag
He was David's favorite painter and helped him get a job at the Louvre, which kept him out of harms way during the Revolution.

Alberto said...

I love that first Fragonard example, I like the pose and the more energetic brush strokes. There's a lot of charm in that one. Good post!

pappy d said...

Fragonard had a greater sense of humor & story-telling. Boucher seems voyeuristic by comparison.

The lap dog is a common feature of portrait painting, symbolising devotion. Fragonard's subject is teasing her lover. She touches him only with the soles of her feet & holds a hole tantalisingly out of his reach.

Eddie Fitzgerald said...

Romans: The Saturday Book? I'll look it up. Thanks for the tip!

Pappy: Haw! Have you tried writing romance novels? You might have a knack for it!

Eddie Fitzgerald said...

Thomas: THAT was by Fragonard!? Sheesh! He must have hit some hard times when he painted that. I still like it, though.

Also, do you mean David helped to keep Fragonard out of the revolution's hands? If so, good for David!

thomas said...

>>The young Jacques-Louis David took a great deal of interest in Fragonard; his early works were clearly influenced by the compositions and techniques of the Rococo master. During the 1790s, when revolutionary events all but prevented Fragonard from continuing to paint, David helped to secure positions for him as a curator and administrator. While commissions and sales were essentially nonexistent in these turbulent years, Fragonard was not excluded from working within the existing institutions of art. He played an essential role in founding what is now the Louvre. Between 1792 and 1797, he was one of six members of the Commission du Muséum Central, a body that oversaw every aspect of the new museum.<<<

Looked it up, just to get my facts straight. I guess its just my conjecture that David actually protected him. David ended up in the pokey at some point. He did a great painting from the cell window.

I'm not so sure that Fragonard painted the painting while in poverty. It certainly is "out there".
Its a little like he accidentally painted a portrait on his palette.

Eddie Fitzgerald said...

Thomas: I accidently routed your comment to a spam folder. Sorry about that! It is here re-instated.

Thanks for the info about David helping Fragonard! I incorporated it into the post!

thomas said...

Thank you.

Fragonard fell out of favor because he didn't go the career route of the academy. He preferred freelance, but he had some large commissions that he never finished, so he stopped getting them. He changed his style a bit to fit in with Neo- Classicism, but it wasn't all that successful and other painters had surpassed him by that point.

I guess what's certain is that David helped him get a job at the Louvre, as it was being created. Whether he was in any real danger from the Revolution I don't really know.

I don't know if you've spotted it, but there's been some funny combinations of images with the Boucher and Frag, and the sidebar

Severin said...

There are some lovely Fragonard and Boucher pieces at the Getty museum, which is free to visit after 5 on Saturday. I think they also have a Chardin painting, who is my favorite Rococo painter. He had immense skill, but chose to only paint still lifes, a field of painting that didn't bring the artist much acclaim at the time.

FriedMilk said...

I like the juxtaposition of Daisy Duck, the gynecologist swan, and the dove being manhandled by the naked little boy. Who said pigeons were the dirtiest bird? Is that swan even a doctor?