Royal Academy of Painting Sculpture and Engraving was key to eighteenth century artists success discuss in
In discussing the statement that ‘The Royal Academy of Painting, Sculpture and Engraving was to key to eighteenth-century artists’ success’, it is necessary to examine the two main elements stated – both the institution of the ‘Royal Academy’ and notion of ‘success’. Neither the Academy nor success can clearly be defined during this period. In considering the role of the Academy, though the theory remained constant during the century with the emphasis of teaching placed upon drawing the male nude and producing history painters, in practise this was not the case, especially during the middle of the century, when highly trained academic painters rejected the history painting and opted instead for producing erotic interior pastorals, much to the annoyance of critics such as Diderot. The notion of success proves even more difficult to define. Intrinsic to the Academy was the notion of academic success, the rising through the ranks to assume the role of Premier Peintre, achieving the greatest success that an artist could by painting for the King. ... Can the success of an artist be defined in terms of the number of commissions that he receives or the prices that patrons will pay for his work? Does economic success equate to the success of an artist and is economic success more important than academic success? Another role of the artist within the Academy was to exhibit works within the regular public salons after 1737 which brings in the discussion the issue of public success, in that, is it possible for an artist to be publicly successful and still satisfy the demands of a patron? The idea of success is open to many interpretations, both in an artist defining his own success and patrons or public viewing an artist as successful. ... The role of students studying as the protégés of established artists cannot be underestimated. Within the Academy, it is frequently seen that artists follow lines of succession with respect to pupils; for example, Galloche trained Lemoyne, Lemoyne trained Boucher, Boucher trained David, and in turn, David trained Ingres. ... With the state investing money in the artist, it is clear that there were expectations upon the winners to develop into great artists and the Academy provided this opportunity to the winner of the Prix de Rome. However, as Lemoyne was to discover, while in principle the Academy would send the winner to elevate himself further as an artist, in practise there were factors outside of the institution which affected the Prix de Rome. ... This then poses the question of whether or not Lemoyne would have been an even better artist had he studied in Italy when he won the Prix de Rome and leads on to whether ‘success’ as an artist is dependent upon the training of the Academy, or rather upon France not being at war. At a time before the regular Salon exhibitions of the Academy, the Place Dauphin was an available display space for artists during the festival of Corpus Christi. Regarded as an event in it’s own right outside, ‘distinct from the other embellishments of the feast day’ it drew large crowds and the works of both amateur painters and, of the ‘‘outstanding masters’ of the Academy’ . ... In 1723, this paid dividends when Francois Berger, a wealthy tax-farmer, purchased ‘Perseus and Andromeda’, a history painting which according to Bordeaux, had been greatly praised by the Mercure de France in the pubic commentary of the exhibition. ... This course of events again serves to illustrate the influences outside of the Academy which may affect the success of an artist. Though the Academy provided training for the artist, few were able to receive patronage through the hierarchy and Royal commissions were being awarded to a small select group, with, prior to 1737, no regular official showcase for work. As a result of this, a newly received artist must promote himself both within the Academy and outside in order to establish forms of patronage. ‘Perseus and Andromeda’ realises the changing tastes of the art buying public, taking a new direction which moves away from the pyramid formation and austere colouring of Le Brun’s promoted Poussin-esque doctrine of history painting taught in the Academy.