462. Chapter 4 + Judgment and Evaluation poss nere are criteria specie no universal itera its possible argue that th pce a ee cscs’ categorie, of work. As nev sorts of art emerse, wor agent potenially effective ester aoe enchants sk of reducing the role of the Course, such a approce! ete anative one, which he or she merely borrows standard set ihe an ote art. Spur acknowledged tis in 1967, koogh re cly ated tat any sera which ae not rooted inthe worn the «Spurr sk of beng simpy beside te point. Adoing a sila ow ven re have sce seen ti work ava dance between a senskvity mars and tet own, presen convictions Ths the acitectrl ei Tak Cotdberger ste 2009 tat The challenge (nding Duligs Toe ences owl principe anda the sae ine 0 ia a ton, employ vome sont of ertera as part of thei at a ‘or to explain their case more ste that even the most ex- vr ats age cue a er cate Steg he meee fe, Teel ree te ey a sg pag ee a ei ea Praag Po ye ake Fildes) that "if at the end of these talks any one of you still feels that ‘The Doctor 5 When it ee te en moore aac ora rand ty wt ro wpe ee ag Se ny oe cmb Cathe Sony es cn nea carly Examples of Common Criteria : Ina few very cay cases, the ciria used y writers in evaluating work the emaaly cer De Mes, ane, developed yt fu me design, coloring, and expression—in Whi Srtegories composition, design, cl son eh sinters giving them between 0 and 18 poi 3 rete te highs score ws 2, bur de Pls gud tn no st say ins allowed de Pls, in tm, to compare artists accor saa dad of quay, which was largely based i academic errr “porn: shove ether cer peered the Pes ay be Fit core cen pn te a fh ern for etis ‘The Place of Judgment in Citicism — 163 lassicizing principles. And the results are sometimes surprising: while Raphael and Rubens eamed 65 total points, Michelangelo was given only 37, as de Piles found his use of color wanting. Admittedly, de Piles seems to have viewed his system as primarily a source of entertainment, but sub- Sequent writers picked up on the idea and refined his criteria. In 1717, for instance, Jonathan Richardson the Eider offered a system of evaluation that rested on seven primary categories, and that also considered a work's degree of sublimity.® Although interesting, however, the systems of de Piles and Richardson ‘were perhaps never as influential as the Salon system, which led to the per- ppetuation of certain values in the work of artists tained in the system, and to their evocation by the critics who responded to that work, Eighteenth-century artists and critics tended to focus on subject matter in shaping descriptions and forming interpretations; it makes sense, then, that the values with which they judged art were largely narrative in nature, Art, to academicians, could ennoble through the subjects that it depicted, and so the chcice and the treatment of those subjects were of intense interest and were subject to judg- ‘ment, The best paintings, moreover, were widely thought to be coherent and easily legible, and to avoid superfluous or unnecessary figures. At the same time, however, the form and execution of a work remained important, and critics often expected a classicizing combination of idealism and realism, a high degree of finish, and a certain grace in the work that they saw. Critics often praised works that seemed to conceal the hard work and effort that had gone into their creation, and criticized those in which the execution drew attention to itself Diderot’ criticism offers a window into the sorts of criteria that were applied to the art shown in the Salons, Diderot recognized that nis expecta- tions were largely those of the Academy; in fact, he noted at cne point in his Salon of 1765 that “I've just judged Falconet according to the strictest standards of the temple, with the harshest severity.” And yet, he was far from a mouthpiece for the work done in the Academy. Dissatisfied (ike ‘many of his contemporaries) with the playful, inconsequential Rococo work that was popular in his time, Diderot returned to a notion once advanced by Aristotle in arguing that the best paintings and sculptures were those that involved noble and supposedly moral subjects. These were usually drawn from antiquity or the Bible but could also refer to contemporary life. In order to be effective, however, Diderot insisted that even noble or moral subjects had to be rendered with a certain degree of naturalism. French painters often idealized their subjects, and Diderot was willing to accept that, but at the end of the day a subject had to seem at least plausible, or its impact could diminish considerably. As a result, Carle Van Loo’s oil sketches of Saint Gregory struck him as particulaely effective, for they represented pov- ey in a believable way. “This is the way to paint mendacity,” announced “Foe summary ofthese systems, and forthe valuable reminder that in fat such systems had ancien precedents, see Gibson Wood, Jonathan Richardson, 14,164 Chapter 4 + Judgment and Evaluation (Diderot, “to make it interesting withoutynaking it hideous, to find a permissible compromise between overtly opulent and tattered clothing, But nobility, morality, and plausibility alone did not make a successful ‘work for Diderot. Instead, he also judged art according to criteria that were predominantly formal of technical in nature. At times, his ideas regarding the ‘elements of design were phrased very explicitly. In his Notes on Painting, for instance, Diderot announced that a successful composition “should be simple and clear, Consequently, no pointless figures, no superfluous acces- sories.” In other cases, he was less exact but clearly brought specific expec tations regarding lighting and inventiveness to the works that he saw. Here he is on a series of marine scenes painted by Claude Joseph Vernet: “What What water! What compo- though, Diderot was also attentive to technique, and again imposed particu- lar expectations, In 1765, for instance, he wrote that “if you closely examine fan engraving that’s skillfully executed, you'll note that the strokes of the initial work predominate over those added in the final, finishing stage.” For the most part, the criteria that Diderot used were shared by other early Salon crities and turned up as well in late-cighteenth-century British criticism, For instance, in 1781 the Gazetteer ran a lengthy, anonymous anal- ysis of John Singleton Copley's The Death of the Bar! of Chatham that chas- tised the painter for a series of details that did not correspond to reality. ‘The complaint was later republished by W. T. Whitley, in a study of British antistic social circles ‘The scene is represented to the spectator as if below the bar, and T do contend that there is no one spot below the bar . .. which could con- vey to me the place or places of any group, party, or single individual agreeable to truth or nature. .. . The Lords are drawn in their robes. It is enough to observe that their Lordships were not robed. ‘But if eightcenth-century crities largely agreed that a combination of plau- sibility, moral content, and idealism were important aspects of a successful painting, they were also sometimes tempted to advance other indicators of artistic quality, as well. In 1798, an anonymous reviewer in the Whitehall Evening Post extolled J. M. W. Tumer’s Norham Castle by focusing particu: larly upon a sort of inexhaustibility as a criterion. “This is a work,” wrote the reviewer, “upon which we could rivet our eyes for hours and not experience satiety, It is one of those very few pictures which charm the more oftener they are inspected." And, lastly, many eighteenth-century critics referred to public opinion as an indicator of artistic quality. As the art historian Richard ‘Wrigley has observed, “In practical terms it was a common assumption that 4 work's popularity at the Salon was, grosso modo, a gauge of quality; that ‘crowds tended to form in front of good pictures.” To be sure, there were also critics who saw public taste as irredeemably vulgar. But such references point to a growing interest in alternatives to the criteria traditionally con- doned by the academies. ‘The Place of Judgment in Criticism — 165 Changing Criteria in the Nineteenth Century Albexh a cite fal ofthe 18sec vce eter hat were the crc revue poli foes acon on ihany cits relied upon utterly taltional standards, This was largely due 0 coated intense of te yal Ace a ‘Servative institutions ir esau ve Instant played pains a ee, SSpecaton, the Academics pond the neahoen a ablated decade reen cones ott Comequenty atte a work nin ees on ployee sme eset sundae ea id 1 view pings an cena tesa ee sama, Ty con iat and they sl udged ev cng th Seale oe sibs. ust and ely were sl gay aed Che sa told aman I ere sed ali Care ‘ant the people at repreatt ood ss ney ba gee Persons nd objects mist sways be tee ore oe nee eS - Ho ished fs fen neritic pling For sane a an 1847 notice in the Mlustrated London News (and sut juently rey nublishe By Chrsipher Forbes sci ped Tamas Webann eeee Gloseatenion to dai “One cannot commen oe ih ee Cosh opon ie een ce th wich ar at jut with the rise of Romanticism, 8 of _ ° pe eciee et oleae at the broad social changes that accompanied industrialization stad ibaa many crs inthe 180s began wo seek new anne ea Cetin aera wee mid el slighty, Fores eae ns fede 03 common cla tha Lona Los Se a once Figure 13 Portrait of Stendhal (Marie Henti-Bey eure 13 Font. (Marie Henti-Beyle) by Johan Olaf Sodermark, 1840, ‘Source: The Ar Gallery Collction/Alamy466 Chapter 4 + Judgment and Evaluation Politics and Criteria for tudor nthe Early 16008 SE Se ey ese eea ony coan ee eardcaeeae ea ae aero nate caer ee oe ape els ae Se et en ee ee eee eel eee eae ae eae een es eree cat tent ban aes pine int porta fap Th eh rine moh Lg rear epee nero aaa on are ey Saag ee Sie Was rane cise earned eB ee ree rine emer ve a cee epee Crna es ru an psy an mage atone Oe ie ence anaes far parang’ rs oalcaer lange oe astomme felipe Le eeecereer maa tpn eee meee eters eee ae Ign cs aca wat cor heh condenses 1 ce ean te ne cpr toe pe ens Shaper cre ee re tore ee ee eae Sa ramet Sena ease en aod ere ae oat eee a Ce aes peepee a ante Pe er daa beat eerie tales ong Sup oa ‘Ehsan trae bam vege “Soret pelle eer : 4 ‘Twenty-five years later, Napoleon was only 4 memory, but political develop- sen our nasa Ps WS Paces in be Ras sae See ae See ee sae as Sateen eae e Pend nn vores thea ean inch ays mins Eide terete greta ae ees tim oan ln tn he ta wo ee Be eae ee eee usa eatiaces of oc Se eae Sateen eae Se eae ee ia ne aa sour nar “inh ed ch nen fe hf car ht ey ee ean eon aes Scan ete implausible in that it showed the apostles eating at a table, rather than on ‘couches, by suggesting that strict historical plausibility was not always a virtue. As Stendhal noted, historical correctness can sometimes distance, rather than involve, the viewer: “If you take from history eustoms which are unfamiliar to the ordinary playgoer he will stop in surprise.” Such a point may seem ‘The Place of Judgment in Criticism 167 trivia, but it actually formed a part of a larger shift in Stendhals thinking, as he stressed the power to move a viewer as a primary criterion in judging the ‘works that he saw. Standing before pictures, Stendhal was not content to feel the rational morality of work that had impressed Diderot: instead, he wanted to feel passion. And he did, before works like Pierre Paul Prud'hon's The Poverty-stricken Family: “I had scarcely looked at it for two minutes before | felt overwhelmed with emotion ... this is the electrifying effect of truth” In his criticism, Stendhal also complained about what he saw as tired imitations of the Neoclassical work of David. Instead, he desired work that ‘was original and innovative and that reflected the artis’s own personality and goals. This didn’t mean a complete abandonment of Academic prin. ciples, but it did represent a new sort of emphasis, which in turn became increasingly common over the course of several decades. In his Salon of 1846, for instance, Baudelaire applauded works that he saw as embody. {ng a combination of originality and an individualistic quality that he called naiveté and technical perfection. Emile Zola, too, valtied expression; he once claimed that “in art 1 am a curious person who has no great rules, who leans willingly toward works of art provided they are the strong expression of an individual; 1 admire and 1 love only unique creations which, in a fine man. ner, affirm a human aptitude or feeling.” And originality was a central crite- tion, too, in Théodore Durer's argument that “the superior painter is yet one who, at the same time in which he succeeds in fixing a personal emotion ‘on the canvas, finds that he has an original style with which to express it?” Originality and Expressiveness Become Common Criteri ‘The strengthening interest in depicting the modem experience among paint- ‘ers in the 1850s and 1860s only complicated things further, as the work of young artists intentionally challenged or resisted traditional standards, Centainly, conservative critics continued to apply traditional criteria. Théophile Gautier, for instance, still saw plausibility, or faithfulness to lived experience he called it eratsemblance), as a common goal by which art could be judged. But as painters such as Edouard Manet began to move away from Academic Principles, the value of traditional criteria soon became debatable, and even traditionalists began to disagree about the degree to which modemn works fulfilled established expectations. Gautier, for example, applauded what he ‘saw as the plausibility of Manet’s 1864 Incident in the Bull Ring, he wrote that “the pose of the torero, flung across the canvas on the sand of the are ‘most convincingly suggests collapse and death.” Jules-Antoine Castagnary, however, saw Manet's narratives as far from convincing, as a passage of his translated by the art historian George Heard Hamilton indicates Just as Manet assembles, for the mere pleasure of astonishing, objects which should be mutually incompatible, in the same fashion he “Quoted in Slane, French Painting Btn the Past and the Present, 98.