An Academician in the Underground: Charles-Nicolas Cochin and Art Criticism in Eighteenth-Century France

AnAcademicianintheUnderground: Charles-NicolasCochinandArt CriticisminEighteenth-CenturyFrance BERNADETTEFORT Inthelasttwenty-fiveyears,RobertDarnton'sresearchontheliterary undergroundoftheOldRegimehasradicallychangedthewaywethink ofthetransitionbetweentheEnlightenmentandtheFrenchRevolution. DarntoncontendsthatthephilosophicalwritingsofVoltaireandRous- seauprobablycontributedlesstobringingabouttherevolutionary upheavalthandidtheundergroundworkofawholebreedofovereduca- tedandunderemployed"GrubStreet"writerslikeBrissotandGorsas wholaterbecamerevolutionaries.Embitteredanddisenfranchisedfrom anEnlightenmentthathadbecomeestablished,thesemarginalizedintellectualsturnedtheirstifledambitionstorecklessandsubversivepam - phleteeringandthusunderminedthesocialandpoliticalstructureofthe ancienrégime.1 Veryrecently,thisappealinginterpretivescenariohastendedtobe questioned,oratleastmodified,byanequallyinterestingtheorywhich claimsthattheprestigeofthemonarchywasasmuchunderminedby officialsorelitesclosetothecenterofpowerasitwasbyitslow-life, avowedadversaries.Itiswellknown,forinstance,thatthehigh-ranking officialChrétien-GuillaumedeLamoignondeMalesherbes,Directeurde laLibrairieandthepersoninchargeoftheall-powerfulofficeofcensor- shipunderLouisXV,actedatcrucialtimesinwaysthatcompromised theofficewhichheserved.WhenheconcealedthevolumesofDiderot's 4/FORT andd'Alembert'sEncyclopédiewhichhadbeenbannedbytheParlement andtheSorbonne,andlaterquietlyallowedthepublicationtocontinue despitecourtorders;whenin1762hegrantedhispersonalsupportand protectiontoJean-JacquesRousseauafterEmileandTheSocialCon- tracthadbeencondemnedtoburning,heputhimselfandmonarchichal authorityinadangerouspositionofself-contradiction.2Historiansnow offerpositiveevidencethatinpre-revolutionarydecadestheauthorityof thekingwasincreasinglycompromisedinprintbyhisclosestassociates. Politicalpamphletsdiscreditingthekingandvilifyingthequeenwere issuedfromtheveryheartofthecourt.3Throughoutthe1770sand 1780s,theDukeofOrleanswaslendingbothmoneyandthepremisesof hisParisianresidence,thePalaisRoyal,toprintingpressesthatchurned outsubversivetractsagainstLouisXVI.RecentlyJeremyD.Popkinhas shownthatthewaveofpamphletsdirectedin1785againstNeckerand Calonne,twohighlycontroversialministersofLouisXVI,wassup- portedby"well-placedindividualsrepresentingpowerfulinterestsator nearthetopofFrenchsociety."AccordingtoPopkin,the"collusionof importantmembersoftheCourt,theministerialeliteorwealthyfinan- cierswasnecessaryforthepublicationandcirculationofalmostallthe controversialpamphletliteratureoftheperioduptothecrisisof1788."4 Todefenditselfagainstthisassaultofvirulentpublicopinion,themon- archybecamecomplicitwiththemethodsandrhetoricoftheverypam- phletsproducedtodiscreditit.Itenteredthepamphletarenaandhired itsownhacks,suchastheformerpornographerThévenauddeMorande. Masqueradingassubversivewritersandborrowingtheirrhetoricfrom criticsoftheregime,thesepamphleteersinthepayofthegovernment implicatedthemonarchyinadeeperanddeepervortexofcompromise anddeceitthatleftitbereftofanysecuremoorings.Inthewordsof KeithM.Baker,"[b]yacceptingthelogicofapoliticsofcontestationin thisway,theroyalgovernmentunwittinglyconspiredwithitsopposition tofosterthetransferofultimateauthorityfromthepublicpersonofthe sovereigntothesovereignpersonofthepublic."5 Itisagainstthisbackgroundoftheunderminingofthemonarchyby itsownagentsandsupportersthatIwouldliketoinvestigatetheperplex- ingcareerofCharles-NicolasCochinwhowasatonceapowerfulmemberoftheRoyalAcademyofPaintingandSculptureandapivotal memberoftheartcriticismunderground.6Theimagethatwehaveinher- itedfromCochin'sbiographersgivesusonlyhalfthepicture.Itisthatof anexemplaryofficialofthemonarchyandaloyalservantofhisimmedi- atemasterandprotector,theDirecteur-généraldesBâtiments,theMar- quisdeMarigny.7Cochininthisviewappearsasaperfectproductand unconditionalsupporterofancienrégimeprivilege.Trainedasa Charles-NicolasCochinandArtCriticism / 5 draughtsmanandengraverinafamilyofgraphicartiststhathadconnec- tionstothecourt,hewastheepitomeoftheartistwhorosequicklyto honorsonthestrengthofhistalentandprotectioninhighplaces. EntrustedatanearlyagewiththepostofhistoriographeroftheCourt's Entertainments(Menus-Plaisirs),hewaschosenbytheking'sfavorite, MadamedePompadour,toaccompanyherbrother,thefutureMarquis deMarigny,inaformativetourofItalybeforethelattertookoverthe directorshipoftheartsadministration.UponhisreturnfromItaly, CochinwasgrantedadmissiontotheRoyalAcademybyacclamation andnot,asthenormalprocedurerequired,bypresentingamorceaude réception.Soonafter,in1755,MarignynamedhimPerpetualSecretary oftheRoyalAcademyandpromotedhimtochargédudétaildesarts,a positionoftrustwhichwasnormallyheldbytheFirstPainterofthe King.Inthatcapacity,ashisextensivecorrespondencewithMarigny demonstrates,Cochincontrolledanumberofvitaldecisionsinthearts. ItwasCochinwhoproposedthethemesandnominatedtheartistsforthe granddecorativeprojectsofLouisXVsreign,suchasthepaintingsof thethreeroyalresidencesatChoisy,Bellevue,andthePetitTrianon.It wasCochinwhosuggestedwhichmemberoftheAcademyshouldreceive abetterlodgingorworkshopandwhoshouldberewardedwithacom- missionorapension.Actingbehindthescenes,Cochinplayedacrucial roleinthemanagementoftheartsunderLouisXV.8 Inthismodeladministrativecareer,therewas,itseems,nocrack whereinsubordination,subversiveness,orduplicitycouldseepin.If anything,Cochinhasbeenaccusedofservilelypromotingtheartistic politicsofhisprotectorandtheclanofintereststhatstoodbehindthe powerfulMarquisedePompadour.9Andyet,thismonolithicpictureof Cochinasapillarofthemonarchymustbemodifiedifwepayattention toanareaofhiscareerwhichhasreceivedverylittlenotice,hissustained polemicswiththeartcriticsofhistime.From1753onwards,Cochin authoredanimpressivenumberofwritingsonart,includingimportant theoreticallectures,Salonreviews,andpolemicalcountercriticism. Becausemanyofthesetextsaredifficulttoaccess(anumberarescatteredincontemporaryperiodicalsandloosebrochures ),theyhavenot beeninvestigatedcritically.10Theyare,however,inmyview,notonly centraltoanunderstandingofthepolemicsandpoliticssurroundingart criticisminthecrucialyearsofitsemancipation;theyalsoofferimpor- tantinsightintothetortuouswaysinwhichthepowerandprestigeofthe monarchycouldbeunwittinglyputatriskbyoneofitsservants. Tounderstandthisparadox,wemustfirstrecalltheculturalimpor- tanceoftheartsundertheBourbonmonarchyandreflectuponthe 6/FORT degreetowhichartcriticism,adiscoursenewlycreatedinthe1740sand 1750s,wasbecominganeffectivebranchofdissidentopinion. FromitsfoundationunderLouisXIVthroughoutthereignsofLouis XVandXVI,theRoyalAcademyofPaintingandSculpturefunctioned asoneoftherealm'sforemostsymbolicculturalinstitutions.Thepres- tigethatartiststrainedandnurturedbytheAcademyacquiredalongthe difficultstagesoftheircareersanddisplayedintheirworkatthebiennial publicSalonsaccruedinfacttothemonarchy.Theexcellenceofthe paintingstheyexhibitedinPariswasatangiblesignofthepowerofthe monarchthatsupportedandcommissionedthem,andofhishegemony ontheinternationalscene.Tolevelcriticismofanykind,whetheraes- theticorother,attheseartistsorattheirworkthushadimmediate politicalimplications.Thecriticismofartorofartpolicyandadminis- trationalsooffered,asThomasCrowhasdemonstrated,anexcellent vehicleformoreexplicitlysubversiveagendasemanatingfromParlementaireandJansenistopposition ."Furthermore,inthoseyearsinwhich historianssituatetheemergenceofpublicopinionasacontestatory force,theongoingfightofartcriticswhoinvokedtheauthorityofan alreadyconstituted"public"whichtheywereinfactattemptingtocreate providedaprivilegedterrainonwhichtheveryconcept,aswellasthe claims,ofpublicopinioncouldbehotlydebated. SincetheSalonoftheAcademyhadbeenregularizedin1737,agrow- ingnumberofself-proclaimedartcritics,quiteoftenlittérateurswithout anyspecialtraininginthearts,hadstartedproducinganonymousbrochurescriticizingtheartists 'exhibitedworksandtakingtheAcademy itselftotask.Theindignationofartistsattheproliferationofthisunso- licitedandunwelcomenewcriticalopinionwassuchthatin1749they decidedtoevadecensurebycancellingtheSalonaltogether.Butthis couldnotberepeated,sincethepublicexhibitionoftheirworkswasone ofthecommitmentstheymadeinexchangeforthemonarchy'ssupport andprotection.In1747,LaFontdeSaint-Yenne,acriticwhomCochin waslatertoaccuseofhavinglaunchedthesubversivegenreoflibellous artcriticism,publishedanunprecedented155-pageSalonreviewthat madesweepingindictments.12Underthecoverofanonymity,LaFont accusedartistsofself-complacency,illiteracy,andplagiarism,ofabandoningthenoblegenreofhistorypaintingandcateringtoafeminized publictasteforgenreandportraiture.Hedenouncedthepettyjealousies andrivalriesthatragedamongartistsandobscuredtheirjudgment.Nor didhemincewordsinhisattacksonspecificSalonpicturesbytop academicians.Thushedaredprintthekindsofhostilejudgmentsthat normallywereonlywhisperedattheSalon,suchasthataChristfigure byCarleVanloowas"drawnsloppilyandpaintedwithadryandcareless Charles-NicolasCochinandArtCriticism / 1 brush,"thatthemalefiguresinJean-BaptistePierre'smythological paintingswere"barbaricanddisgusting"andhisBacchants"worthyof theslutsfoundinFlemishpaintings."AndheexcoriatedFrançoisBou- cher,thenMadamedePompadour'sfavoritepainter,fordisplayingfig- uresoftheVirginthatlackedboth"dignity"and"decency."13 Cochin,withremarkablelucidity,immediatelyidentifiedthenatureof thedamagewhichLaFont'sRéflexionscoulddototheartsatlarge.La Font'sassaultthreatenedtheartists'professionalreputationandstatus, and,sincetheydependedonpublicacclaimforcommissions,itthreat- enedtheireconomicandfinancialpositionaswell.14Moreimportantly, byclaimingcriticallegitimacyforthelaymanendowedwithtaste,La FontchallengedthemonopolyoftheAcademyinthefieldofaesthetic judgment.Hissuggestionthatapaintingplacedonpublicdisplaysolic- itedandauthorizedcriticalevaluation,justasdidabroadlycirculated bookoraperformedplay("chacunaIedroitd'enportersonjugement" [everyonehasarighttopassjudgmentonit]),carriedvastimplications. LaFont'sprinciplesoughttoeliminatetheprerogativeofthecorpsof academicianswhoovertheprevioushundredyearshaddevelopedtheir owninternalcriteriaandproceduresforevaluatingandrankingworksof artwithinestablishedcategoriesandgenres.Butitsoughtalsotocarve outaspaceofjurisdictionforanundeterminedpublicinadomainwhere sofarthewillofthekinghadbeenthesoleandunchallengedauthority. BecausehewashimselfacreatureofOldRegimeprivilege,Cochin understoodthedepthsoftheinroadsthatartcriticism,indirectly,could makeintotheabsolutistsystem.Thewholestructureofprivilege,rank, andsecrecyonwhichroyalpowerrestedwasputinjeopardybymanifes- tationsofacriticalopinionthatpresenteditselfasgroundingitsjudg- mentsonmeritalone,asdeterminedbythesentimentofthegreatest numberofspectators,andasexpressedinprintbyself-appointedrepre- sentativeswho,thoughpretendingtospeakasindividuals,wereinfact claimingtospeakforthenation. WhatCochinwasupagainst,then,wasnosmallthing.Itwasnothing lessthantheemergenceofthatpolymorphousphenomenonwhichrecent historiographyhasanalysedas"publicopinion."15Inhisinfluential study,TheStructuralTransformationofthePublicSphere,Jürgen Habermasidentifiedartcriticismasoneofthediscoursesinwhicha claimtocriticalandrationallegitimacywasputforthbyprivatepersons addressingthemselvesdirectlytothenationthroughthemediumof print—oneofthefundamentalconditions,inhisview,fortheemergence ofapublicsphereofauthoritydifferentandseparatefrom,andeventu- allyopposedto,thatoftheking.16DrawingonHabermas,historians havesinceshownthattheinvocationofpublicopinionasatranscendent 8/FORT instanceofjurisdictionbecameinthe1770sand1780samajorstrategy forprotestmovementsofallsorts.17Thewholethrustofrecentresearch inthisdomainhasbeentoseeintheriseofpublicopinion(bothasa conceptandassocialreality)oneofthemostpowerfulfactorsofchange inthepoliticalcultureoftheprerevolutionaryera.Whatinsightsabout thiscomplexprocesscanwegetfromlookingatthedividedcareerofan administratorofthearts?WhatplacedidCochinholdinthatpolitical cultureandwhatroledidheplayintheculturalpoliticsofhistimesin stimulatingthegrowinginfluenceofpublicopiniononthearts? AsanAcademician,Cochin'sinstinctivereflextowardwhatheconsid- eredasanoutbreakoflawless,anarchic,outsidercriticismwastoinvoke thecharacteristicresponseofanabsolutistregime,suppressionthrough censorship.ContrarytoMalesherbes,whothoughtthatcuttingoffone oftheheadsofthehydrawouldonlymakealltheothersgrowfaster, Cochinbelievedintherepressivepowerofcensorship.Consequently,he tookavarietyofmeasurestopreventartcriticsfromprintingtheir judgments.Heappliedpressureoncriticswhoweresusceptibletointimi- dation.OneofthemosteloquentcriticsoftheSalonsof1763and1765, MathondelaCour,wasfirmlydissuadedfromcontinuingSaloncriti- cismbytheintimationthathewouldthusseriouslycompromisehis candidacytotheAcadémiedesInscriptions.18Stoppingtheproliferation ofanonymousbrochuresandunsanctionedart-criticalmaterialinthe presswasamoredifficultmatter,butonethatCochinaddressedwith considerablezeal.In1759henippedinthebudaprojectlaunchedbythe littérateurMarc-AntoineLaugierforajournalentirelydevotedtoart andartreviews.19In1767CochinappealedtotheLieutenantdepolice SartinestoprohibittheprintingofunsignedbrochuresontheSalon.His stratagemworked,for,unwillingeithertotonedowntheircriticismorto riskpolicereprisals,criticsabstainedaltogether,andCochincouldboast ofhavingstifledallsuchcritiquesforthatyear.20 Cochin,however,wasnoSartines.Thougharoyalcensorforthe Beaux-arts,hehadnopowertosilenceSaloncriticismpermanently.And atnopointwasheabletoenlisttheendorsementoftheDirecteurdes Bâtimentsforabsoluterepression.Thepolicyofoneofthefirstdirec- tors,LenormanddeTournehem,hadbeenthattheartistsshouldlearnto disregard"suchnonsense"pennedby"suchimpertinentwriters."21 Marignyhadcontinuedthisattitudeofdistantlaisserfaire,regardingthe onslaughtofcriticismasamatterinternaltotheartists'professional organizationandonethatdidnotwarranttheinterferenceofthegovern- ment. WhatCochincouldnoteffectbyforce,hestrovetoachievebyindirect means.Inanattempttodiscreditwhathecouldnoteliminate,heven- Charles-NicolasCochinandArtCriticism / 9 turedonarisky,slipperypath:hesetaboutcombattingartcriticismon itsownground,thatoftheprintedword.Unaware,asitseems,ofthe deepcontradictionbetweenhisprinciplesandhisactions,heallowed himselftowagehiswaragainstartcriticismontheveryterritoryofhis enemy,theanonymousprintedarticleorreview.Subsequentevents showedthistohavebeenastrategicmistake.Inhismany-sidedand relentlesscampaignagainstartcritics,Cochinatsomepointoverreached himself,losingsightofhisgoal,andthushelpedtosetinmotionthevery processhewastryingtosuppress,theopeningofthefloodgatesofart criticism. Cochinfirstenteredtheliststhroughanunexpectedavenue,artthe- ory.Oneofthemostattractive,and,asitwouldhaveappeared,oneof theleastpoliticizeddiscourses,arttheoryoffereditselfreadilyasanideal forumforaverballygiftedAcademician.Seekingafirmgroundon whichtomounthisattackoflaycriticism,Cochinturnedarttheoryinto anarenaofdebateabouttheagencyandcriteriaofaestheticjudgment. From1752to1779,hedeliveredanumberoflecturestotheAcademies ofParisandRouenonsuchsubjectsas"TheEffectofLight,""The DegreeofFreedomWhichArtistsMustPreserveintheObservationof Costume,"or"TheDisadvantagesofManner."22Thetraditionofthe academicconférence,whichhadlapsedforacertainnumberofyears, hadbeenrevivedbyprominentmembersandfriendsoftheAcademyin anefforttoelevatethequalityofFrenchpainting.LecturestotheAcad- emy,givenbysenioracademiciansorlearnedamateurssuchasthe ComtedeCaylus,weredesignedtoimprovetheartists'commandofthe elementsoftheirart,aswellastogivethemthehistoricalandliterary baggagethatwasthoughttobelackingfromtheireducationandneces- sarytotherenewalofhistorypainting.23Cochin'slectures,however, departedfromthistraditionmarkedlyinthattheirprimeobjectseemed tobelesstheeducationoftheartistthantheexclusionofthelaycritic. Forexample,inhisdiscourse"OntheUnderstandingoftheArtsBased onDrawing,andParticularly,ofPainting,"CochinopposedCaylus's conference"DeL'Amateur,"whichdefendedtheclaimstoaestheticjudgmentofthenon -specialistspectatorendowedwithgoût.1*Incontrastto Caylus,Cochinrequiredthecritictobeamirrorimageofthepainter, nottoelevatehim,but,onthecontrary,toimpressuponhimtheneces- sityofprofessionalexpertise.Examiningthelayman'sclaimtojurisdic- tionintheassessmentofeachofthe"parts"ofapainting—drawing, composition,expression,lightandclair-obscur—Cochincontendedthat eachofthemrequirednotonlyapractitioner'seye,butaninsider's knowledgeofthespecificconventionsthatpertainedtotheseparts:"one musthaveexperiencedthedifficultiesoftalentinordertojudgethe 10 / FORT meritthereisinovercomingthem"(188).Thisstringentcorporatistposi- tionpermittedCochintheoreticallytolimitauthorityonaestheticjudgmenttotheexpertandthustostemtheproliferationofunchecked , untutored,"wild,"publicopinion:"onemaywithoutshameignorewhat onehasneverlearned,butinthiscaseonemustjudgeonlyforoneself, andrefrainfromgivingone'sopinionforanauthority"(194).Promoting professionaljudgmentasasupremecriterionofaestheticarbitrationwas Cochin'salternativetorepressionthroughcensorship. InhisattempttosafeguardboththeprerogativesoftheAcademyand theautonomyoftheartists,Cochinfocusedspecificallyonpointsof contentionorstresszonesbetweenartistsandlittérateur-cútics.For example,inhisconferenceonIecostume,hevehementlyopposedthe viewoferuditecriticslikeCayluswhomadetherequirementofhistorical veracitythesupremeruleofhistorypainting.Cochin,onthecontrary, defiantlyarguedthatIecostumewas"onlyanaccessorythatdoesnot belongtoart,andthatartcanbecarriedtoitshighestdegreeofperfec- tiondespitetheneglectoreventheignoranceofthoselawsofcostume thatareacknowledgedmostuniversally."25Againstthediscursive,moral- istic,orciviccriteriaproposedbycriticssuchasLaFontandDiderotfor thereformationofFrenchpainting,Cochin,anheirofRogerdePiles, staunchlypromotedthesupremacyofvisualvaluesandpainterlynorms, whichreturnedagencytotheartistandexcludedthelayperson.Inhisart theory,Cochinconsistentlyextolledtechnicalmasteryoverattentionto semanticornarrativecontent.Ifhepraisedexecution,lefaire,as"the meritthatcrownsall"("OntheUnderstanding,"189),itwas,nodoubt, becausehispracticeasdraughtsmanandengravertaughthimthevital importanceoftheworkofthehandintherealizationofthebeautiful idea...