Making artists for revolutionary France essay.
Readings and Reading Responses:
Each week, I ask that you come prepared by having read the assigned reading before the section. As part of your participation grade (15%), I ask that you write a reading response for each section each week. These responses should consist of a minimum of three bullet points but at least one bullet point per reading (3-5 sentences per bullet point not including quotes). For example, for weeks with only one assigned reading, I ask that you prepare three bullet points for said reading.
How you can approach the reading responses:
– You can highlight important points of the readings.
– You can share whether you agree or disagree with the author’s arguments, and why.
– You can pose questions.
– You can draw out an author’s visual description and comment on whether you found them successful or not, and why.
Readings to be addressed in this week’s responses:
Crow, Emulation, Coda, pp. 279-299.
Grigsby, CREOLE, Ch 2 and CODA, pp. 33-70, 311-318.
- The influence on the artwork of the authority vacuum and ideological ambiguity of the Directorial era is charted in Girodet’s, which is committed mainly to keep afloat in the 1790s while Francois Gerard’s popularity soared (Crow, 1995). The half-decade gap between Robespierre and Napoleon in design resulted in a restructuring of architecture goals, which ramifications design standards in the eighteenth century. Designers adapted old regime structures, reorganizing their layouts per the revised functional objectives established by the government because they lacked the resources to create new designs but were required to house a slew of newly designated organizations.
- There are a variety of approaches to paintings from the period discussed in this publication and artists and pieces of art that may have been chosen and placed (Crow, 1995). However, because of the narrator’s convincing tone, the accuracy of its evidence, the breadth of its ideas, and the sensitivity with which they are articulated, it will become a landmark work. As a result, historical evidence for this unusual behavior has a high burden of evidence.
Grigsby, CREOLE, Ch 2
- Napoleon visited his soldiers infected with the Bubonic Plague on March 21, 1799, in an improvised infirmary in Jaffa. Napoleon is seen by Gros stroking the wounds of some of the plague sufferers, hoping to ease the mounting dread of infection. To dispel rumors that he infected French soldiers ailing from the disease during the Syrian war, he created this masterwork, a predecessor to Romanticism. Grigsby pays homage to historical antiquity by showing Napoleon in a similar pose as the Apollo Belvedere, an antique Greek statue.
- Gros mixes Christian imagery with a modern theme, in this instance, Christ curing the wounded (Grigsby, 2002). He enriches Napoleon with divine attributes while also portraying him as a battlefield leader in this manner. Crow’s theoretical analyses are supported by a wealth of illustrations, including color images and close-up features. Figures are always tied to the content and displayed near to where they are discussed in the text (Grigsby, 2002). These characteristics, combined with the excellent language style, create an extremely readable work. Crow’s sparse argumentation necessitates thorough scrutiny, but he rewards it with highly complex and unique insights.
Crow, T. E. (1995). Emulation: Making artists for revolutionary France (p. 310n47). New Haven: Yale University Press.
Grigsby, D. G. (2002). Extremities: Painting empire in post-revolutionary France. Yale University Press.