http://www.jstor.org

The Double Exhibition in Nineteenth-Century FranceAuthor(s): Patricia MainardiSource: Art Journal, Vol. 48, No. 1, Nineteenth-Century French Art Institutions (Spring,1989), pp. 23-28Published by: College Art AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/776915Accessed: 25/08/2008 07:29

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=caa.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the

scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that

promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Double Exhibition in

Nineteenth-Century France

By Patricia Mainardi

Among the myriad proposals to change the exhibition structure of

nineteenth-century France, the most interesting were those calling for a dou- ble rhythm of official exhibitions, one show to be annual or even permanent, the other to be held at longer intervals, of three, five, or, most usually, ten years. Although such proposals have often been mentioned in art-historical litera- ture, they have never been studied as a unique phenomenon with a distinct his- tory that developed through the century, across aesthetic movements and across political regimes.1 The mere fact that such a program was at the top of the conservative agenda for almost a cen- tury, proposed repeatedly, decreed of- ten, and yet held only twice, in 1810 and 1883, makes it a worthy topic for study. Its neglect can be attributed to a long period when the focus of nineteenth- century studies on the "avant-garde" was complemented by a corresponding lack of interest in official and-especial- ly-aesthetically conservative institu- tions. Compare, for example, the vast quantity of literature on the 1874 Impressionist exhibition with the total lack of commentary on its conservative counterpart, the 1883 Exposition Na- tionale Triennale. And yet it was official institutions and exhibitions such as this that defined the larger world of art in nineteenth-century France. Counterin- stitutions, such as artist-sponsored shows and the various secession move- ments, have long been understood as the dialectical response to official institu- tions, but, apart from the 1863 Salon des refuses, little attention has been given to the ways in which official institutions reflected the challenge launched by independent artists.

I should like to sketch out briefly the beginnings of such a study, focusing on the phenomenon of the double-exhibi-

tion proposal. In my view, the double exhibition was an attempt to strike a compromise between the demands of the various constituencies of artists and their opposed conceptions of the purpose of and market for art. The notion for a double-exhibition program arose with the liberation of the Salon from Aca- demic control, flourished during periods of greatest stress between the Academy and the demands of independent artists, and died away along with the Academic system of art. It could have no meaning outside the disaffection of growing num- bers of artists, the development of the "lower genres," and the rise of the mid- dle classes, whose taste was ideologically counterposed to that of earlier genera- tions. Such an exhibition structure had not been necessary in the eighteenth century; only a serious threat to Aca- demic hegemony could result in the proposal for a double exhibition.

The history of the double exhibition has its antecedents in that of the

Salon itself, the government-sponsored annual, sometimes biennial, exhibition of contemporary art. Until the 1789 Revolution the Salon operated as a monopoly, controlling French artistic life and careers; only members of the Academy could participate, and alter- native exhibitions, such as the Salons de Saint-Luc or the Exposition du Colisee, were suppressed. The Academy had been founded and was maintained as a government agency, its members re- ceived salaries and studios, and state commissions were originally reserved for them. Exhibitions themselves were at first an unwelcome obligation forced on Academicians by the state in the seventeenth century as an extension of Colbert's attempts to centralize and control cultural and intellectual life. Academicians had, however, elevated

their status from that of artisans by rejecting all hints of commerce, and so in the Academic Salon artists did not exhibit works for sale, but "consented to show to a limited public some pictures commissioned in advance for a specific destination."2 Although in reality Aca- demicians worked in a variety of modes, history painting continued to be re- garded as the most elevated category of painting throughout most of the nineteenth century.

When, after the 1789 Revolution, the Government permanently stripped the Academy of its monopoly over the Salon by opening it to independent artists, the assumed identity of art production with the Academy was broken; out of this came the bifurcation of interests that resulted in a century of proposals for a double exhibition. True conservatives, both political and aesthetic, often cited 1789 as the beginning of the decadence of art, which they identified with democracy in the sense of the extension of rights and privileges previously reserved for the aristocracy; more mod- erate conservatives chose 1830, the end of the Restoration.3 There existed a con- stellation of language around the con- cept of the longer-interval exhibition that was metaphor in the service of conservative politics. This language identified the decennial (or triennial or quinquinnial) exhibition with enduring and elevated values-that is, the soul of France unchanged since the ancien regime-and the annual Salon with democracy, the market economy, and whatever deterioration of ideals and standards it was feared that might lead to. For conservatives, the true purpose of the longer-interval exhibition was to superimpose over the widening range of aesthetic principles characteristic of the nineteenth century the Academic vision of one sole legitimate arena for art,

Spring 1989 23

which would be its exclusive domain, insulated from the growing influence of the market place.

The first decennial exhibition-the Decennale-proposed by Napoleon in 1804 to glorify his own regime, came less than twenty years after the Revolu- tion and the liberation of the Salon from academic control. The Prix decennaux he instituted were to be awarded every ten years beginning in 1810 for the purpose of encouraging science, litera- ture, and art, and "preserving the supe- riority of France in the new century."4 The jury was to be the Institut de France, reinstated as the supreme arbi- ter of French cultural life after having been briefly suppressed during the Revolutionary period. The prizes in art were to be awarded for the best history paintings, considered the highest cate- gory of art and synonymous with the French School. Implicit here was the conviction that the superiority of France could be maintained only through his- tory painting, and judged only by the Academy. This first Decennale took place at the same time and place as the annual Salon but, unlike that event, contained works only by Academicians, selected by the Academy and discussed in its own Jury report. This, then, the first double exhibition, openly reinstated the Academy as the elite of the reformed, more democratic, Salon, and reinstated history painting as the most elevated category of art.

The sociologist Pierre Bourdieu has identified this process, often repeated in French culture, as the abandonment of any institution by the elite if, through democratization, it can no longer serve to signal the distinction of that privi- leged class;5 in this case the Salon, once it was open to all artists, lost its function for Academicians. The institution of a more prestigious, infrequent, govern- ment-sponsored exhibition limited to Academicians, such as the Decennale, could then serve the double purpose of reestablishing an elite in art while at the same time devaluing the more open annual Salon and the artists who exhibited there.

After the fall of Napoleon the pro- gram of the double exhibition was

abandoned, and in the fifteen years of the Restoration only five Salons were held. Academicians, having lost their monopoly over the Salon, now desired to hold it as infrequently as possible. They continued to maintain that it was degrading to make a direct appeal to the public to sell pictures and that true artists did not produce easel paintings but worked on commission for church and state. Throughout the nineteenth

century one can see in the periodicity of Salons an indication of the influence of the Academy. Whenever the Academy held power there were few and small Salons; when it was out of favor and the community of independent artists was more powerful, Salons were frequent and large.

At the beginning of the July Monar- chy, massive petitions from artists caused the Salon to be returned to its annual status despite conservative oppo- sition. With the increasing fear of rulers of alienating large constituencies, the rule of government by consensus began. Louis-Philippe did what his successors would continue to do, that is, to seek a compromise between the Academy- still the official government agency in charge of aesthetics-and the increas- ing number of artists who were not members and thus fell outside its con- trol. His solution was to make the Salon annual but its jury the Academy, which, ever mindful of the challenge to its authority, began rejecting large num- bers of works by artists as prominent as Delacroix. Criticism that the Salon had become a bazaar or a picture shop became widespread in conservative cir- cles from this time and continued throughout the century as an infallible indicator of conservative politics.6 It was an economic system-capitalism-and a political system-democracy-that were the true targets of such attacks. Until his death in 1863, the prime spokesman for this position was Ingres, whose own work was identified with Throne and Altar; these institutions were thereby contrasted with the new market economy. Mediocrity would be the result of democracy, in art as well as in politics, conservatives avowed, for art was by its nature aristocratic and elitist. Cultural legitimacy was (and still is) considered in France to be a function of political legitimacy, and the charge that art and art institutions have become decadent is always a veiled attack on the current regime.7 I am proposing that this politico-aesthetic language-of ba- zaars and picture shops, of mediocrity and aristocracy-was inseparably linked to the question of the Salon and Decennale, each of which encompassed a different political stance. The classical purpose of art espoused by the Academy and implicit in history painting was to educate: its habitus was the church, the public monument, the museum, or aris- tocratic private gallery. Contrasted to this was the bourgeois penchant for art as decoration or as commodity: its hab- itus would be-according to conserva- tives-the bazaar, the market place, the boutique, the boudoir; in reality it was the bourgeois living room and, as capi-

talism developed, the commercial art gallery.

"Collections and expositions date from the decadence," Ingres himself stated; he often compared the Salon to a bazaar or picture shop:

In order to remedy this overflow of mediocrities, which has resulted in there no longer being a French School, this banality that is a pub- lic misfortune, that afflicts taste, and that crushes the administra- tion whose resources it absorbs without advantage, it would be necessary to give up expositions, it would be necessary to declare courageously that monumental painting alone will be encouraged. The decoration of great national monuments, of churches whose walls are thirsty for paintings would be decreed.8

This remained the conservative view throughout the century but, in view of the growing numbers of artists whose productions served the interests of the dominant middle classes, it was increas- ingly unrealistic. One might criticize bourgeois taste, but from 1830 onward one could not deny the growing political and economic power of that class.

he conflicts that existed during the July Monarchy between the Aca-

demic Salon jury and the community of independent artists resulted in the sec- ond proposal for a Decennale. Written by the sculptor David d'Angers in 1838, it identified the freedom to exhibit with the freedom of the press guaranteed by Louis-Philippe's constitutional monar- chy.9 David proposed a system of two exhibitions: one would be permanent, renewed every six months; there would be no jury and each artist would be able to show two pictures. "To exhibit would no longer be a privilege, but a right," he wrote. There would also be, he proposed, a solemn exposition every ten years, a Decennale to include the best works produced during that period as well as those purchased by the state; he did not assume that the two categories would be identical.

David d'Angers and the circle of art- ists around him-Barye, Delacroix, Daumier, Rousseau-were all popularly identified with the political left and the opposition to the Academy (although David himself was a member). That he spoke for independent artists is apparent in his suggestion that all government commissions, traditionally for elevated subjects by Academicians, should be excluded from the permanent exhibi- tion. "Those works would be better seen and appreciated in the installations for

24 Art Journal

which they were intended," he wrote, adding, almost parenthetically, "there would be the additional benefit of not having them occupying the best and largest places in the show." Beneath the grandiose language of his proposal, he was laying claim to the Salon for the masses of artists while throwing to Aca- demicians a sop in the nature of an "elevated" show once every ten years. For there could be no doubt that his description of the Decennale in the lan- guage of solemnity, of purity, of se- verity, and of choice works implied a show by and for Academicians. This was, after all, their rhetoric.

Nothing came of this proposal, but it resurfaced during the Second Republic (1848-52). By this time a new factor had entered, namely the bourgeois state. Not sharing the cultural ideals of the monarchy, it wished to minimize gov- ernment expenditures on art. The Com- mission du budget, it seems, repeatedly tried to cancel the annual Salon. In 1849: "The Commission proposes the idea of suppressing the annual exposi- tion. A triennial exposition would be preferable. To serve the interests of art- ists, the Salon is being turned into a permanent bazaar."'? In 1850: "In examining the general budget, the Com- mission expressed the opinion that the exposition ought to be biennial; that expositions held more often were too burdensome, more damaging than use- ful to the interests of art.""l Artists responded, however, by electing a Com- mission des beaux-arts, which included David d'Angers; not surprisingly it pro- posed a variant of his double exhibition system; one show would be permanent and commercial, the other biennial, "and by that token more solemn and more worthy of the dignity of art."12 The Budget Commission, however, deliber- ately misinterpreted the artists' inten- tion as a desire to suppress the Salon; it rephrased the report of the Commission des beaux-arts: "In the interest of art, the commission expresses the wish to see an end to annual expositions; it finds preferable the former custom of exposi- tions of painting and sculpture at longer intervals."'3 In the uproar that followed the exposure of this deception both pro- posals were abandoned and, temporari- ly, the Salon maintained its annual status.

David d'Angers's proposal was soon taken up by that most aristocratic of art administrators, Philippe de Chenne- vieres, then still a minor functionary in the Louvre. In his Lettres sur l'art francais en 1850, he also proposed the double system, in his case a biennial Salon restricted to bemedaled and deco- rated artists and an annual Salon for

everybody else.'4 Chennevieres's focus, however, was on the "aristocratic" not the "common" Salon, and his attempt was to rescue and encourage an elevated art from what he saw as the deleterious effects of democracy.

D uring the liberal Empire of the 1860s there were numerous pam-

phlets outlining some variant of the dou- ble exhibition, the most influential of which were written by the painter Alex- is-Joseph Perignon, friend of Delacroix and Director of the Museum at Dijon.15 The annual Salon can't satisfy everyone, he wrote, because it has two contra- dictory purposes: "to be an exposition of choice works" and "to serve the material interests of artists by providing them with the means of making their talent known by showing their works and sell- ing them." This is why there have always been two camps, he explained; one wants the jury to be more severe, the other wants to suppress it altogether. The only solution would be to have two exhibitions. One would be permanent with no jury; all artists who wanted to exhibit could bring their work and pay a fee. The public would not pay an admis- sion fee because the works would be for sale and one cannot charge admission to a marketplace. The other, which he called the "Imperial Exposition," would take place less often, perhaps every five years. It would have a severe jury, which would choose only distinguished work. As nothing would be for sale, the public would pay an admission fee. Perignon did not articulate what seems even more obvious, that the contradictory purposes of the Salon were in fact a function of the different constituencies of artists and their markets. The Academy still espoused Throne and Altar as the proper patrons for an art that, ideally, was commissioned in advance and shown to the public at the Salon only as a gesture of noblesse oblige; the Independents turned out small easel pictures for the new bourgeoisie, who wanted to see in advance, preferably at the Salon, what was available for purchase.

The critic and government adminis- trator Charles Blanc was in the conser- vative camp and thus stated of exhibi- tions in general: "The more frequent they are, the weaker they are."'6 He also was interested in Perignon's plan, but co-opted its liberal defense of "liberty" for conservative purposes: only liberty, he wrote, could resolve the contradic- tions in exhibition policy. Artists must have the liberty to organize their own exhibitions, either small group shows based on shared aesthetic principles or a general exhibition with paid admission. The state, on the other hand, must also

have the liberty to organize, at longer intervals, a Salon without admission fees where everything would be done for the greater glory of French art. The first he called an exhibition of "pictures to sell" (the English word in French still retained its pejorative connotation of "exhibitionism"); the second he called an exposition of "pictures to see" (the word "exposition" in both languages still has a didactic significance). Blanc has rearranged Perignon's ideas to con- form to a conservative agenda; within months of publishing his proposal, he- and not Perignon-was elected to the Academy.

For Blanc, artists' exhibitions were a form of (low) entertainment and thus should charge admission, as did theaters and other amusements. Government expositions, on the other hand, were a form of education and therefore must be free, as were churches, libraries, and universities. The suggestion that inde- pendent artists had the "liberty" to exhibit outside official circles and should, therefore, abandon state exhibi- tions to aesthetic conservatives was made repeatedly from midcentury on- ward and shows the conservative array of independent artists and commerce on the one side, Academicians, education, and the state on the other. It should also be noted that by the 1860s the commu- nity of independent artists was strong enough so that aesthetic conservatives like Blanc, while continuing to criticize the Salon as a bazaar, abandoned their earlier attempts to suppress it altogeth- er; instead, they began to suggest that the state turn it over to the artists them- selves and relinquish responsibility for its organization and control.

The 1860s actually saw an attempt to carry out at least part of the theoretical program of the double exhibition. In the wake of the 1863 Salon des refuses, the long overdue reforms of both the Salon and the Ecole des beaux-arts caused unprecedented Academic consternation. To smooth things over as well as to identify himself with the traditions of Napoleon I, in 1864 Napoleon III decreed a quinquennial Grand Prix de l'Empereur, to be granted in 1869 for the best work of the preceding five-year period. The prize, awarded by a thirty- member commission including ten Aca- demicians, was given to the architect Joseph-Louis Duc, also an Acade- mician, designer of the Palais de Justice. "In the liveliness of the struggle, in the number of competitors, his Majesty has found proof that great art in France will not degenerate," stated Marechal Vail- lant, Minister of Fine Arts.17 Like his predecessors, what Napoleon III had really found was that only the Academy

Spring 1989 25

and its traditions could provide proof against charges of decadence.

It was not until the Third Republic, however, that the program was actu-

ally put into effect. Among the many failings attributed to the Second Empire was the collapse of grand-style history painting-still equated with the Ecole francaise-and its replacement by the more popular category of genre paint- ing.18 This had been the natural result of the progressive liberalization of the Salon jury, which finally reflected the real tastes and markets of the majority of artists. In reaction to what was widely seen as the general decadence of the Second Empire, in the 1870s even republicans supported the idea of a return to order and tradition. Soon after the establishment of the Third Republic, Charles Blanc was named its first Direc- teur des beaux-arts. One of his first official acts was to put forth the same proposal he had made during the Second Empire calling for a double system of exhibitions: the annual Salon, which he saw as inescapably commercial in intent, "a bazaar," he wished to turn over to artists' control, leaving them to organize it periodically or permanently, while the state would sponsor, at longer intervals, an "exposition de choix," which would display the most elevated examples of contemporary art.'9 Eugene Guillaume, Academician and Director of the Ecole des beaux-arts, was named Directeur des beaux-arts in 1878 (fol- lowing Blanc and his successor Chenne- vieres); he lost no time in proposing the double exhibition that they too had envi- sioned.20 In December 1878 the Com- mission superieur des beaux-arts, many of whose members (including Guil- laume) were Academicians, decided henceforth to organize two kinds of exhibitions, an annual Salon and a trien- nial or quinquennial exhibition that would be held in 1881 (later postponed to 1883). Its report stated: "Annual expositions, in the intention of the sub- committee, ought to be very broad, organized in such a way that the greatest number of artists might partici- pate. The Exposition Triennale, on the other hand, ought to be organized in such a way that exceptional works only would be admitted."2'

These two exhibitions became, in the words of Gustave Ollendorff, the Chef du bureau des musees, "an exposition of art" and an "exposition of artists," terms first used by Prince Napoleon to describe a similar conflict at the 1855 Universal Exposition. He, Ingres, and the Academy supported the "exposition of art," in his mind synonymous with classical history painting, but they were

defeated by Delacroix and Morny, Pres- ident of the Awards Jury, who favored the "exposition of artists," an eclectic choice. 22Blanc's terms "pictures to see" and "pictures to sell" expressed the same dichotomy.

In 1880 the Conseil superieur des beaux-arts unanimously approved the abandonment of the annual Salon to artists' control, but only on the condition that the state would carry out the pro- gram of longer interval exhibitions, triennial or quinquennial shows that would then become "state exposi- tions."23 The first such exhibition, to be held in 1883, would have a jury consist- ing of the Academy plus an equal num- ber of government appointees. Artists soon realized, however, that an attempt was being made to devalue their own exhibitions by reinstating the infrequent aesthetically conservative Salon as the elite showplace of art. At the 1882 meet- ing of the Societe libre des artistes francais, the group now sponsoring the annual Salon, the artists unanimously passed a resolution stating: "The Societe libre des artistes declares that triennial expositions are incompatible with the interests of artists and expresses the desire that they be formally con- demned."24 And yet, despite continuing objections from artists, the government committee went ahead with its plans, meanwhile having demonstrated its con- servatism by giving out its own awards at the annual Salon, all to history paintings.25

Even with the support of Gambetta, Jules Ferry, the Academy, and the Con- seil superieur, there was little interest in this exhibition. Jules Ferry, Ministre de l'instruction publique et des beaux-arts, opened its first jury session with a speech praising the jury for its "elevated feeling for the dignity of art," its "wor- ship of the ideal," and urging them to make "a rigorous choice, a severe selec- tion" in order to present to the world "the most elevated and striking works of our glorious French School."2 By 1883, however, such rhetoric had few parti- sans; the decision to limit the show to only 800 paintings was rendered irrele- vant by the submission of only 676; even with the admission deadline postponed several weeks to encourage more entries, the show opened with only 717 paint- ings.27 Attendance was low and even the Conseil superieur pronounced the show "very brilliant but not very lucrative."28 The "very brilliant" no doubt referred both to the preponderance of history painting-Cabanel's having the largest representation-and to the purity and homogeneity of the effort, purged of the radical styles of the preceding half cen- tury, which were, nonetheless, well rep-

resented by the juste-milieu.29 The Conseil, encouraged by its success in mounting this exhibition, moved to carry out the rest of what had been the program of aesthetic conservatives since the beginning of the century: it decreed that there would be even fewer works in the 1886 Triennale and that it would take place at the same time as the annual Salon.30 Artists had even more cause for anxiety, since Ollendorff, Sec- retary of the Triennale Jury, had recently published an article in the Revue des deux-mondes calling on the state to evict the artists' Salon from the Palais de l'Industrie in order to turn it over to the new Exposition Nationale Triennale.31

The program collapsed the next year, defeated by the overwhelming opposi- tion of artists, led by Edmond Turquet, recently reappointed Sous-secretaire d'Etat, and-probably most important of all-the Commission du budget, whose enthusiasm for a "not very lucra- tive" show was, as in the Second Repub- lic, extremely limited.32 To the applause of artists at the awards ceremony of the 1885 Salon, Turquet announced its demise.33 And yet the unsuccessful experiment of the Exposition Nationale Triennale has its place in history, for it represents the other pole of the dialectic that produced the first Impressionist exhibition of 1874 and the first Salon des Independants of 1884.

The 1883 show is important because, even given the short-term ability of the Academic party to marshal the re- sources of government to its support, aesthetic conservatives could not sustain the effort necessary to redefine the major institution of art distribution, namely the Salon; their isolation was thus delineated all the more keenly. Art- historical investigations have tended to follow shifts in art production by focus- ing on individual artists' careers; an investigation of art institutions, how- ever, shows that concurrently they were no longer able or willing to sustain the values of the art enterprise as defined by Academic practitioners. While this in no way indicates a shift in allegiance to the "avant-garde," by the mid 1880s no one-not the critics, not the public, not the government administration, not the masses of artists-supported a restitu- tion of academic values. The social, political, and economic structures rein- forcing Academic hegemony had, over the century, slowly crumbled, resulting in the systemic collapse apparent in the debacle of the 1883 Exposition Nation- ale Triennale, attacked by artists, un- visited by the public, ignored by the critics, and abandoned by the government.

26Art Journal

The most interesting thing about the proposals for a double exhibition is

that, although repeatedly presented by both aesthetic conservatives and pro- gressives throughout the nineteenth cen- tury, they proved virtually impossible to carry out. Because they represented a detente solution, always attractive to the weaker party, the armistice they offered was unappealing to the opposition, which, sensing itself in the ascendency, always preferred to hold out for total victory.

The Universal Expositions, occurring in 1855, 1867, 1878, 1889, and 1900, came closest to the Academic ideal of the regularly scheduled Decennale, but, in an international context and subject to the political exigencies of the moment, the governments of neither the Second Empire nor the Third Republic ever fully backed the conservative pro- gram and proved unwilling to entrust these events to an Academic caucus. Juries ended up representing virtually all constituencies within the world of art (albeit with an emphasis on the juste milieu), and the shows themselves proved to be mixtures of the elevated and the popular, to the disappointment of true conservatives. In this context, the Decennales failed to achieve the princi- pal aim envisioned by aesthetic conser- vatives; namely, Academic restitution and the elimination of marketplace art as the dominant vehicle of French culture.

The double exhibition was a transi- tional institution attempting, unsuccess- fully, to resolve the contradictory cur- rents of nineteenth-century French aesthetic life. Compromise proved im- possible and, in the end, the easel pic- ture, the gallery, and the auction room prevailed over the fresco, official exhibi- tions, and church and state patronage. History, as written by the victors, has since taken no notice of this rearguard skirmish of modernism.

Notes This research was supported in part by a grant from the City University of New York PSC- CUNY Research Award Program. This article is part of a larger study in progress on exhibitions and the state in nineteenth-century France; an earlier version was read at the 1985 American Historical Association Annual Conference and included in American Historical Association Pro- ceedings 1985, Ann Arbor, MI, 1986.

1 Individual recurrences of the double exhibition have been discussed, for example, by F. Boyer, "Napole6on et l'attribution des grands prix d6cannaux (1810-1811)," Bulletin de la Societe de l'histoire de l'artfrancais, 1947-48, pp. 66-72; Leon Rosenthal, Du Romantisme au realisme, Paris, 1914, pp 44-47; Pierre Vaisse, "La Troisieme R6publique et ses

peintres: Recherches sur les rapports des pou- voirs publics et de la peinture en France de 1870 a 1914" (These, Doctorat d'Etat, Univer- sit6 de Paris IV, 1980), pp. 351ff; idem, "Sa- lons, expositions, et soci6t6s d'artistes en France, 1871-1914," in Saloni, gallerie, musei e loro influenza sullo sviluppo dell'arte dei secoli XIX e XX. Atti del XXIV Congresso Internazionale di Storia dell'Arte, ed. Francis Haskell, Bologna, 1981, pp 141-55.

2 This classic defense of the Salon of the ancien regime was formulated by Leon de Laborde in his L'Application des arts a l'industrie, Vol. 8 of the Commission francaise sur l'industrie des nations, Londres 1851, Travaux de la Commis- sion francaise sur l'industrie des nations, 8 vols., Paris, 1856, pp. 224-25.

3 See, for example: Rosenthal (cited n. 1), pp 3ff; and Charles Beul, "Du Principe des exposi- tions," Causeries sur l'art, Paris, 1867, pp. 1-39; Beule was Secr6taire perp6tuel of the Academy, 1862-74.

4 All official documents are included in Institut de France, Rapports et discussions de toutes les classes de l'Institut de France sur les ouvrages admis au concours pour les Prix decennaux, Paris, 1910; see also: Boyer (cited n. 1).

5 This is one of the main theses of Pierre Bour- dieu, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste, trans. Richard Nice, Cam- bridge, Mass., 1984.

6 See: Rosenthal (cited n. 1), pp 3f, 37ff, 60; also see: Beul6 (cited n. 3). Another Academician who shared these sentiments was Georges Lafenestre; see: "Le Salon et ses vicissitudes," Revue des deux-mondes, 45 (May 1, 1881), pp. 104-35.

7 This is one of the main theses of Koenraad Swart, The Sense of Decadence in Nineteenth- Century France, The Hague, 1964.

8 All studies of Ingres mention his outspoken distaste for the Salons. For the quoted state- ment, see: Jean-Louis Fouch6, "L'Opinion d'Ingres sur le Salon: Proces-verbaux de la Commission permanente des beaux-arts," La Chronique des arts et de la curiosite (hereafter Chronique), March 14, 1908, pp. 98-99; Fouch6's article continues on April 4, 1908, pp. 129-30; see also: Henri Delaborde, Ingres, sa vie, ses travaux, sa doctrine, Paris, 1870, pp. 372-73, n. 1.

9 David d'Angers, "Quelques id6es sur les expo- sitions," Journal des artistes (March 25, 1838), pp. 156-58. Rosenthal (cited n. 1), pp 37-50, quotes various opinions for and against the annual Salon.

10 Archives Nationales, Paris (hereafter AN), C981. Assemble6e nationale. Proces-verbaux de la Commission du budget: Exercise 1850, November 24, 1849, p. 410; see also: October 27, 1849, p. 291; February 25, 1850, p. 687; AN, C982. Budget de 1850, September 9, 1849, dossier 213, no. 281.

11 AN, C981. February 25, 1850, p. 687.

12"Mouvement des arts," L'Artiste, March 15, 1850, pp. 156-57. According to the same col- umn, October 15, 1851, p. 92, the report was

published, but I have been unable to locate a copy. The same idea was proposed by Fernand Boissard, "De la condition des artistes et des

moyens de l'armeliorier," L'Artiste, February 1,1850,pp.100-2.

13"Mouvement des arts," L'Artiste, March 15, 1850, pp. 156-57; see also; the same column, April 15, 1850, pp. 190-91.

14 Philippe de Chennevieres, Lettres sur l'art francais en 1850, Argenton, 1851, pp. 14-16. I am grateful to Jane Mayo Roos for providing me with this reference; see her article on Chen- nevieres in this issue of Art Journal.

15 Alexis-Joseph P6rignon, Deux Expositions des beaux-arts, Paris, 1866; Lettre de M. Perignon sur la necessite de transformer l'organisation de l'exposition des beaux-arts, Paris, July 1866; this and a number of similar proposals are contained in the Archives du Louvre X: Salon de 1866.

16 Charles Blanc, "Salon de 1868," Le Temps, May 12, 1868. Blanc's proposal for a double exhibition is set forth in the cited article.

17 The competition was announced at the Awards Ceremony following the 1864 Salon and pub- lished in both Le Moniteur de soir, July 7, 1864, and the 1865 Salon catalogue, pp. vii-xii. The award was made at the Awards Ceremony following the 1869 Salon, published in Journal

officiel, August 14, 1869, and the 1870 Salon catalogue, pp. vii-xv.

18 "Notice sommaire," in Exposition Universelle Internationale de 1878 a Paris, Catalogue offi- ciel, 4th ed., 8 vols., Paris, 1878, vol. 1, pp. 5-6. See also: Patricial Mainardi, "The Death of History Painting in France, 1867," Gazette des beaux-arts, December 1983, pp. 215-22.

19 "Rapport au Ministre de l'instruction publique, des cultes, et des beaux-arts, sur l'Exposition nationale de 1872," Chronique, December 24, 1871, pp. 27-29.

20 Guillaume was appointed May 27, 1878, replacing Chennevieres, who resigned; "La Direction des beaux-arts," Chronique, June 1, 1878, p. 170. Guillaume resigned February 8, 1879; Ibid., "Actes officiels," February 15, 1879, p. 50. The attempts to mount a double exhibition in the Third Republic are discussed by P. Dupr6 and G. Ollendorff, Traite de l'administration des beaux-arts, 2 vols., Paris, 1885, vol 2, pp. 171-81; and Vaisse, "Troisieme Republique" (cited n. 1), pp. 351ff.

21 See: "Commission sup6rieur des beaux-arts," Chronique, December 7, 1878, pp. 299-300; see also: "Documents officiels," January 4, 1879, and January 11, 1879, pp. 9-11; Journal officiel, December 21, 1878.

22 Gustave Ollendorff, "L'Exposition nationale de 1883," Revue des deux-mondes 60 (November 15, 1883), pp. 436-53. Also see: Exposition Universelle de 1855, Commissicn Imp6riale, Rapport sur l'Exposition Universelle de 1855 presente a l'Empereur par S.A.I. le prince Napoleon, Paris, 1857, p. 401.

Spring 1989 27

23 "Conseil sup6rieur des beaux-arts," Chro- nique, December 19, 1880, pp. 319-20.

24 "Les artistes et le Salon triennal," Chronique, March 18, 1882, pp. 81-82.

25 "Concours et expositions," Chronique, August 19, 1882, pp. 205-6; June 24, 1882, p. 170; December 23, 1882, pp. 305-6. On the prizes, see: "Concours et expositions," ibid., June 25, 1881, pp. 190-91.

26 Minist6re de l'instruction publique et des beaux-arts, Direction des beaux-arts, Exposi- tion National de 1883. Catalogue officiel, Par- is, 1883, pp. xvi-xix.

27 "Concours et expositions," Chronique, April 28, 1883, pp. 134-35; see also: June 23, 1883, p. 182; September 15, 1883, p. 233.

28 "Nouvelles," Chronique, December 8, 1883, p. 306; "Concours et expositions," ibid., Decem- ber 15, 1883, p. 313. Even Ollendorff (cited n. 22), pp. 452-53, admitted there were prob- lems.

29 All official speeches and documents are con- tained in the 1883 catalogue (cited n. 26). Unpublished documents and reports are in AN, Patricia Mainardi is Guest Editor of F21 4087/4088. Among the "stars" of the this issue of Art Journal. show were Baudry, Bastien-Lepage, Bonnat, Bouguereau, Breton, Cabanel, H6bert, Heim, Meissonier, and Puvis de Chavannes. I am preparing an article on this exhibition.

30 "Concours et Expositions," Chronique, Jan- uary 5, 1884, p. 1; January 18, 1884, p. 9; "Reglement de l'Exposition nationale des ar- tistes vivantes en 1886," ibid., January 19, 1884, pp. 19-20.

31 Ollendorff (cited n. 22), p. 453.

32 "Concours et expositions," Chronique, May 16, 1885, p. 155. Turquet presented a report to Ren6 Goblet, explaining the "uselessness" of the Triennal; see: "Rapport adress6 au Min- istre de l'instruction publique, des beaux-arts et des cultes," Journal officiel, 132 (May 14, 1885), p. 2508. The attached decree suppress- ing it was signed by Jules Gr6vy, President of the Republic.

33 "Distribution des r6compenses du Salon," Chronique, July 11, 1885, p. 195.

Erratum: Daniel Robbins's article,"'Ab- breviated Historiography of Cubism," in the Winter 1988 Art Journal, note 7: Alvin Martin's Ph.D. dissertation was

23 "Conseil sup6rieur des beaux-arts," Chro- nique, December 19, 1880, pp. 319-20.

24 "Les artistes et le Salon triennal," Chronique, March 18, 1882, pp. 81-82.

25 "Concours et expositions," Chronique, August 19, 1882, pp. 205-6; June 24, 1882, p. 170; December 23, 1882, pp. 305-6. On the prizes, see: "Concours et expositions," ibid., June 25, 1881, pp. 190-91.

26 Minist6re de l'instruction publique et des beaux-arts, Direction des beaux-arts, Exposi- tion National de 1883. Catalogue officiel, Par- is, 1883, pp. xvi-xix.

27 "Concours et expositions," Chronique, April 28, 1883, pp. 134-35; see also: June 23, 1883, p. 182; September 15, 1883, p. 233.

28 "Nouvelles," Chronique, December 8, 1883, p. 306; "Concours et expositions," ibid., Decem- ber 15, 1883, p. 313. Even Ollendorff (cited n. 22), pp. 452-53, admitted there were prob- lems.

29 All official speeches and documents are con- tained in the 1883 catalogue (cited n. 26). Unpublished documents and reports are in AN, Patricia Mainardi is Guest Editor of F21 4087/4088. Among the "stars" of the this issue of Art Journal. show were Baudry, Bastien-Lepage, Bonnat, Bouguereau, Breton, Cabanel, H6bert, Heim, Meissonier, and Puvis de Chavannes. I am preparing an article on this exhibition.

30 "Concours et Expositions," Chronique, Jan- uary 5, 1884, p. 1; January 18, 1884, p. 9; "Reglement de l'Exposition nationale des ar- tistes vivantes en 1886," ibid., January 19, 1884, pp. 19-20.

31 Ollendorff (cited n. 22), p. 453.

32 "Concours et expositions," Chronique, May 16, 1885, p. 155. Turquet presented a report to Ren6 Goblet, explaining the "uselessness" of the Triennal; see: "Rapport adress6 au Min- istre de l'instruction publique, des beaux-arts et des cultes," Journal officiel, 132 (May 14, 1885), p. 2508. The attached decree suppress- ing it was signed by Jules Gr6vy, President of the Republic.

33 "Distribution des r6compenses du Salon," Chronique, July 11, 1885, p. 195.

Erratum: Daniel Robbins's article,"'Ab- breviated Historiography of Cubism," in the Winter 1988 Art Journal, note 7: Alvin Martin's Ph.D. dissertation was completed in 1979. completed in 1979.

Art Journal Art Journal 28 28