La Critique d’art à Paris en 1874
The year 1874 was designated by contemporaries as an “artistic year,” most especially because of the number of exhibitions that were held in Paris during that time. In retrospect it is even more so with the first exhibition of Impressionist painters taking place. The role of art critics was decisive...
保存先:
| 第一著者: | |
|---|---|
| フォーマット: | Article ou chapitre numérique |
| 言語: | Français |
| 出版事項: |
2024
|
| オンライン･アクセス: | Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM |
| 要約: | The year 1874 was designated by contemporaries as an “artistic year,” most especially because of the number of exhibitions that were held in Paris during that time. In retrospect it is even more so with the first exhibition of Impressionist painters taking place. The role of art critics was decisive at the time, as well as today, since they are a source both about the exhibitions themselves, as well as for the study of their reception. Using the most complete corpus, augmenting and completing previous repertories, in particular for the Salon, this article focuses on the critical reception of the two most historically significant exhibitions in Paris in 1874, the Salon and the exhibition of Impressionists in Nadar’s studio. It renews traditional approaches using the new tools of “digital humanities.” Thus appears the domination of painting in the reviews, especially for the Salon, if we take the frequency of the artists the most mentioned. Moreover, it would seem, taking the Salon and the connotations of the language used as a basis, that the critics were not as negative as is generally thought concerning the Impressionist painters. The long chronicle between Louis Leroy “inventor” of Impressionism and Claude Monet is equally examined. In conclusion the article underlines the importance of landscape in the reviews of the two exhibitions. |
|---|