Art Bulletin of Nationalmuseum Stockholm Volumes...

Art Bulletin of Nationalmuseum Stockholm Volumes 24 – 25

Per Krafft the Younger and Belisarius – One of the Foremost Swedish Examples of Neoclassical Painting in the French Style

Daniel PrytzCurator, 18th-Century Painting, Drawings and Prints

Art Bulletin of Nationalmuseum Stockholm Volumes 24 – 25

Foreword

Dr. Susanna PetterssonDirector General

Associate Professor

Art Bulletin of Nationalmuseum Volumes 24 –25, 2017 – 2018

(An Unpublished Drawing on Panel by Salvator Rosa Depicting a Landscape with a Philosopher and Astrological Symbols, Fig. 6, p. 22).© The Capitoline Museums, Rome. Archivio Fotografico dei Musei Capitolini, Roma, Sovrinten-denza Capitolina ai Beni Culturali.(A Drawing for Pietro da Cortona’s Rape of the Sabine Women, Fig. 2, p. 28).© Bibliothèque Nationale France, Paris.(The Entry of Queen Christina into Paris in 1656, by François Chauveau, Fig. 2, p. 32).© Finnish National Gallery/ Sinebrychoff Art Museum, Helsinki. Photo: Jaakko Lukumaa(Self-Portraits and Artists’ Portraits as Portraits of Friends – A Selection of Paintings and Drawings, Fig. 2, p. 72).© IKEA.(Spika and Tajt – Alternative Furniture for a Young Generation, Fig. 5, p. 88).© Moderna museet, Stockholm(Henry B. Goodwin – A Visual Artist with the Camera as His Tool, Fig. 2, p. 90).© The J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles. Digital image courtesy of the Getty’s Open Content Program.(Per Krafft the Younger and Belisarius – One of the Foremost Swedish Examples of Neoclassical Painting in the French Style, Figs. 3–4, pp. 113–114).© Albert Bonniers Förlag, Stockholm(Nils Kreuger’s Drafts for the Covers of Bland Franska Bönder (1889) by August Strindberg and Ord och Bild (1897), Fig. 2, p. 137). © Bukowskis auktioner, Stockholm(Nils Kreuger’s Drafts for the Covers of Bland Franska Bönder (1889) by August Strindberg and Ord och Bild (1897), Fig. 3, p. 138; Acquisitions 2017: Exposé, Fig, 3, p. 178).© Pia Ulin.(The Nationalmuseum’s New Restaurant – An Artistic Collaboration, Figs. 1, 2, 4, and 5, pp. 149, 150, 152 and 153).© Wikimedia Commons/ Public Domain(Per Krafft the Younger and Belisarius – One of the Foremost Swedish Examples of Neoclassical Painting in the French Style, Fig 3, p. 112 and In the Breach of Decorum: Painting between Altar and Gallery, Figs. 1–8, 10–12, and 14–18, pp. 155–172).© Wikimedia Commons/ CC BY 3.0

Art Bulletin of Nationalmuseum, Stockholm, is published with generous support from the Friends of the Nationalmuseum.

Nationalmuseum collaborates with Svenska Dagbladet, Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Grand Hôtel Stockholm, The Wineagency and Nationalmusei Vänner.

Cover IllustrationEtienne Bouhot (1780–1862), View of the Pavillon de Bellechasse on rue Saint-Dominique in Paris, 1823. Oil on canvas, 55.5 x 47 cm. Purchase: the Hedda and N. D. Qvist Fund. Nationalmuseum, NM 7434.

PublisherSusanna Pettersson, Director General.

EditorsLudvig Florén, Magnus Olausson and Martin Olin.

Editorial CommitteeLudvig Florén, Carina Fryklund, Eva Lena Karlsson, Audrey Lebioda, Ingrid Lindell, Magnus Olausson, Martin Olin, Cilla Robach and Lidia Westerberg Olofsson.

PhotographersNationalmuseum Photographic Studio/Linn Ahlgren, Erik Cornelius, Anna Danielsson, Cecilia Heisser, Per-Åke Persson and Hans Thorwid.

Picture EditorsLudvig Florén and Rikard Nordström.

Photo Credits© Le Gallerie degli Uffizi, Palazzo Pitti, Florence. Gabinetto Fotografico delle Gallerie degli Uffizi.(An Unpublished Drawing on Panel by Salvator Rosa Depicting a Landscape with a Philosopher and Astrological Symbols, Fig. 3, p. 19).© Teylers Museum, Haarlem. (An Unpublished Drawing on Panel by Salvator Rosa Depicting a Landscape with a Philosopher and Astrological Symbols, Fig. 5, p. 21).© The State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg. Photo by Pavel Demidov.

(In the Breach of Decorum: Painting between Altar and Gallery, Fig. 9, p. 163).© Wikimedia Commons/ CC BY 2.0(In the Breach of Decorum: Painting between Altar and Gallery, Fig. 13, p. 167).© The John & Mable Ringling Museum of Art, Sarasota. Bequest of John Ringling, 1936. (In the Breach of Decorum: Painting between Altar and Gallery, Fig. 19, p. 173).© Uppsala auktionskammare, Uppsala (Acquisitions 2017: Exposé, Fig 4, p. 178).

Graphic DesignBIGG

LayoutAgneta Bervokk

Translation and Language EditingClare Barnes, Gabriella Berggren, and Martin Naylor.

PublishingLudvig Florén, Magnus Olausson, and Martin Olin (Editors) and Ingrid Lindell (Publications Manager).

Art Bulletin of Nationalmuseum is publishedannually and contains articles on the history and theory of art relating to the collections of theNationalmuseum.

NationalmuseumBox 16176SE–103 24 Stockholm, Swedenwww.nationalmuseum.se

© Nationalmuseum, the authors and the owners of the reproduced works.

ISSN 2001-9238

111 Art Bulletin of Nationalmuseum Volumes 24 –25, 2017 – 2018

ACQUISITIONS/PER KRAFFT THE YOUNGER AND BELISARIUS

In 1796, at the age of 19, Per Krafft the Younger (1777–1863) received a travel stipend from the Royal Swedish Academy of Fine Arts. This was partly due to the unexpected death of Jonas Åkerström (1759–1795), aged just 36, whilst in Rome on a stipend the previous year. Krafft left for Paris, where he spent several years as the only Swede studying under Jacques-Louis David (1748–1825).1 David had a great number of students and his teaching, which was conducted in the Louvre at this period, emphasised painting and drawing techniques, modelling and nature studies, always with Antiquity as the ideal.2 Belisarius was a successful Byzantine general (c. 505–565), whose achievementsincluded defeating the Ostrogoths in Italy. Falsely accused of conspiring against Emperor Justinian I (c. 482–565), Belisarius was punished by being blinded, after which he had to survive by begging at the gates of Constantinople.3 Depictions of the loyal soldier’s fall into undeserved disfavour with an ungrateful leader became popular during the second half of the 18th century, partly thanks to Jean-François Marmontel’s (1723–1799) novel, Bélisaire from 1767.4 Marmontel was one of Denis Diderot’s (1713–1784) encyclopaedists and one of the leaders among that era’s enlightened French intelligentsia. In 1772, he succeeded Charles Pinot Duclos (1704–1772) as the historiographe du Roi, “the king’s historio-grapher”, a position previously held by Voltaire. Marmontel often wrote moral

Per Krafft the Younger and Belisarius – One of the Foremost Swedish Examples of Neoclassical Painting in the French Style

Daniel PrytzCurator, 18th-Century Painting, Drawings and Prints

Fig. 1 Per Krafft the Younger (1777–1863), Belisarius, 1799. Oil on canvas, 125 x 94 cm. Purchase: the Hedda and N. D. Qvist Fund. Nationalmuseum, NM 7468.

112Art Bulletin of Nationalmuseum Volumes 24 –25, 2017 – 2018

(1770–1837) and paintings by Nicolas-René Jollain (1732–1804), Louis-Jean-Jacques Durameau (1733–1796), François-André Vincent (1746–1817) and Jean-François-Pierre Peyron (1744–1814), as well as busts by Jean-Antoine Houdon (1741–1828) and Jean-Baptiste Stouf (1742–1826).10

The influence of David is obvious in Krafft’s Belisarius (Fig. 1), which should be counted among the foremost Swedish works in the style of French Neoclas-sicism. It was painted in 1799 and sent to Stockholm, along with the compositions Phrygian Lyre Player in Meditation, Paris, Love and a few portraits, to be exhibited at the Royal Academy of Fine Arts in 1801.11

Recently extensive overpaint has been removed from the work. In all certainty this was added when the painting was relined, possibly in the early 1920’s. The reason for the overpaint is unknown, but perhaps it reflects the taste for an even more pared down neoclassicism. The later additions of the ”classical” buildings in the background have, for example, a somewhat 1920’s feel and their removal reveals a beautifully lit, almost arcadian, landscape which adds depth to the composition. Belisarius’ cape is also now revealed to be of a pinkish and lilac hue, rather than reddish brown. The focus falls firmly on the finely executed figures which almost appear to stand in relief against the background. All this put the present work in close affinity to works executed during the same period by Gérard. This becomes even more apparent when one takes into account other specific details such as the very close similarities between Krafft’s depiction of Belisarius’ companion and Psyche in Gérard’s famous painting Psyche Receiving Cupid’s First Kiss, exhibited at the Salon in Paris in 1798 and today in the Louvre (inv no. 4739).

Krafft emphasises the pathos of Belisarius through a tangible and all-pervasive atmosphere of gravitas. An especially important detail, also common in other depicitions of the


close to liberals, such as Marmontel, but was soon to become a declared republican and revolutionary, chose this subject in his reception piece for the Académie Royale de Peinture et de Sculpture, exhibited at the Salon in 1781 (Fig. 2).8 It depicts how one of the soldiers previously under Belisarius’ command discovers, to his distress, the destitute former general. Compositionally, the soldier, functions as the viewer’s “guide” to the painting’s theme.9 Other renowned examples of works using the same subject at this period include a painting by another of David’s students, François-Pascal-Simon Gérard

works, but Bélisaire also has a political dimension.5 The author manipulated the story in relation to the classical sources he based it upon, specifically to use it as criticism of a regime characterised by a weak monarch who was under the influ-ence of a disingenuous aristocracy.6 The subject also provided the opportunity to allegorically target more general criticism at tyrannical princes, even if it was used by varying political factions – “liberals, moderate conservatives and conservatives masquerading as moderates” – and could thus have a range of content.7 It is not surprising that David, who at this time was

Fig. 2 Jacques Louis David (1748–1825), Belisarius Begging for Alms, 1781. Oil on canvas, 288 x 312 cm. Palais Beaux-Arts, Lille, 436.



subject, is the boy guide’s use of the old general’s helmet to collect the alms he receives which serves to remind the viewer of his former glory and how far he had fallen from grace. Here, the artist’s inter-pretation is close to that of Marmontel who, in his vivid descriptions, emphasised the pitiful but soberly imposing figure of Belisarius using the perspectives of dif-ferent observers, in particular how this affected the soldiers who had been under the general’s command.12 However, Krafft differs from several of his predecessors in that he removes the soldier and entirely focuses on the two central figures. He locates them very close in the foreground, in what is reminiscent of a half-length portrait in three-quarter view; no longer is there a specific figure that provides a com-pass, pointing out the moral and political implications of the subject. Instead, this meeting is directly between the viewer and the unfortunate general. In terms of form, this depiction of the subject is close to that of a work by Benjamin West (1738–1820)from 1802 and a lesser known Belisarius by David, painted in Rome just before the artist left the city for Paris in 1780.13 However, the spirit of Krafft’s painting is most reminiscent of two other works: Gérard’s painting of the subject (Fig. 3) and Stouf’s bust (Fig. 4). Gerard’s atmospheric work also focuses solely on the general and the guide, depicted full-length and walking, against a precisely reproduced sunset in the background. Here, the former is carrying the latter who, by the artist’s invention, has been bitten by a snake. As in Krafft’s painting, the helmet also functions as a symbol of the general’s unjust fall into disrepute. As Tony Halliday and Jennifer Marie Langworthy have stated, Gerard’s interpretation of the subject can be said to represent a step in a different direction to that of David; it has a more generally contemplative and emotional dimension, a desire to arouse a deeper sense of com-passion in the viewer, which was probably also influential for Krafft. This universal feeling could still be applied to specific

Fig. 3 François Gérard (1770–1837), Belisarius, 1797. Oil on canvas, 91.8 x 72.5 cm. The J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles, 2005.10.


inspiration from Gérard’s work, while the sense of a realistic portrait that radiates from Belisarius’ face is strongly reminis-cent of Stouf’s bust; it has the same sunken cheeks, profile and furrowed brow. In 1799, when Krafft painted his Belisarius, the subject had had a firmly cemented position in French art for three decades, both before and after the Revolution. At this time, few other choices of subject could have been more typical of French Neo-classicism.17 However, as in the case of Gérard, when considering the form and content of Krafft’s work it is importantto remember the turbulent years that followed the Revolution. David was close to Robespierre and, after the latter’s exe-cution in 1794, the artist was imprisoned for having de facto responsibility for what could be described as the visual pro-paganda of the reign of terror. Naturally, the experience of these varying political and artistic successes and setbacks left an impression on David’s art, which was gradually modified. Krafft enrolled as a student at David’s studio in 1796, not long after David had been released from prison and had restarted his teaching activities.18 Of course, the artistic role models and teachings that Krafft now absorbed were in some ways different to those that were fashionable just a few years before, even though they basically sprang from the same subjects and the same artist’s [or artists’] Neoclassicism.19 As a subject, Belisarius no longer necessarily entailed the same specific political allusions as those of Marmontel or, as in David’s painting from 1781, politically righteous and disconcerted, possibly dissident, indignation. Instead, what appears is a pared-down form and meditative content as in the works of Gérard and Krafft.20 To some extent, there was a recurrence of the subject’s more depoliticised use, including as an exemplum virtutis, an example of virtue for “courage, steadfast-ness, and magnanimity”.21

The then curator of the Swedish Royal Museum and member of the

There are two versions of Gérard’s work, one that was exhibited at the Salon in 1795 and one from 1797, which was pos-sibly created for use when transferring the painting to an engraving.15 The latter painting probably remained in Gérard’s studio until 1807 and it is possible that Krafft saw the work there. Incidentally, Gérard’s studio was located in the Louvre, just like David’s.16 In terms of colour and light, Krafft also appears to have taken his


phenomena in Gerard’s era, but in this case – perhaps paradoxically – the vulne-rable émigrés who were forced to flee the country during the revolution.14 Gerard’s picture of Belisarius’ troubled wandering and the injured youth he is forced to carry not only emphasises suffering, but also rootlessness. This interpretation shows how versatile and useful this subject was in art and may also explain its prolonged popularity.

Fig. 4 Jean-Baptiste Stouf (1742–1826), Belisarius, c. 1785–1791. Marble, 60 x 55 x 30 cm. The J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles, 2005.19.


Royal Swedish Academy of Fine Arts, Carl Fredrik Fredenheim (1748–1803), lamented that there was neither “light nor shadow” in Krafft’s painting when he saw it in 1801, which could perhaps reveal some unfamiliarity with the direction taken by Neoclassical painting in Paris in the late 1790s.22 Despite this, according to Fredenheim’s notes, out of the works that Krafft exhibited, it was Belisarius that the young king, Gustav IV Adolf (1778–1837) wished to “keep”.23 If we consider Krafft’s painting in the light of the subject’s adap-table and varied use, so well exemplified by the interpretations of Marmontel, David and Gérard, it is perhaps not surprising that the king fell for it. After all, he was the son of a king who had staged a coup d’état and then been assassinated. Gustav IV Adolf was surrounded by advisers whose loyalty was open to question for multiple reasons. He sympathised strongly with the émigrés of the French Revolution; that he was later deposed in a coup d’état and forced to live his life as a suffering émigré can both be seen as a coincidence and a case of premonition. However, it could just as well have been the more funda-mentally virtuous aspects of the subject that appealed. It is an open question as to whether this variety of potential inter-pretations was why the king subsequently changed his mind and did not acquire the work.24

With great inspiration, Krafft’s work captures qualities that are both transient and eternal, and undoubtedly has traces of the changeable and sometimes complex content that the subject of Belisarius offers and which, in various ways, was taken up in the visual arts in the years following the publication of Marmontel’s novel. However, his work is principally a shining example of the more universal weight that the subject [re]gains in the years around 1800 and which, in turn, allows more opportunities for personal interpretation by its beholder.


Fig. 5 Per Krafft the Younger (1777–1863), Belisarius, 1799. Oil on canvas, 125 x 94 cm. Purchase: the Hedda and N. D. Qvist Fund. Nationalmuseum, NM 7468. Before the removal of extensive overpaint.


of Revolutionary France. Hong Kong 2006 (1995), “The Return of the Exile”, pp. 189–217, 343, note 58. 16. http://www.getty.edu/art/collection/objects/225120/baron-francois-pascal-simon-gerard-belisarius-french-1797/ E:son Uggla assumes that Gérard, Krafft, as well as David, probably used the same model for Belisarius in their paintings. E:son Uggla 1928, p. 39, 204, note 61.17. Fried 1980, pp. 145–160. Boime 1980, pp. 81–101.18. Dorothy Johnson, “Jacques-Louis David: Artist and Teacher. An Introduction”, included in Johnson, Dorothy (ed.), Jacques-Louis David: New Perspectives. Cranbury, NJ, 2006, pp. 35–44. Philippe Bordes, “Jacques-Louis David et ses élèves: les stratégies de l’atelier”, in Perspective, no. 1, 2014, p. 113. http://journals.openedition.org/perspective/4387 19. Ibid.20. Halliday 2000, pp. 54–55. Langworthy 2012, p. 196. Crow 2006 (1995), pp. 189–217.21. Fried 1980, pp. 147, 150. 22. E:son Uggla 1928, p. 204, note 63: “Krafft’s little portrait of himself is more satisfying than his three large paintings with neither light nor shadow”, quote from Carl Fredrik Fredenheim’s journal, 14 August 1800.23. E:son Uggla 1928, pp. 38–40, 204, note 64: “Of Kraft’s [sic] three paintings, the king keeps that which depicts Belisaire”, quote from Carl Fredrik Fredenheim’s journal, 25 August 1800.24. Ibid.

Belisarius as Beggar & NMH 8/1981, Johan Tobias Sergel (1740–1814), Belisarius as Beggar. Writing on an old label glued to the upper right corner of the stretcher bar of Krafft’s painting says “Per Krafft [the Younger] Copy 1800 of (probably) Gerard’s painting ‘The Blind Belisarius’”. Later writing on the label states: “According to Nationalmuseum original by P.K. the Y.”11. Evald E:son Uggla, Minnesutställning över Per Krafft d.y. 1777–1863, Nationalmusei exhibition catalogue no. 25 Stockholm 1927, pp. 5–8, 13–14, cat. no. 10 (entitled The Begging Belisarius). E:son Uggla preferred Krafft’s portraiture, writing: “The portraits from this time are considerably superior to the Antique compositions, of which Belisarius is one example”.12. Fried 1980, pp. 151–152. Boime 1980, pp. 83–84. Marmontel 1994 (1767).13. West’s painting is now at the Detroit Institute of Arts, accession number 13.11. Masterworks from the Musée des Beaux-Arts, Lille 1992, pp. 139–140, note 5.14. E:son Uggla 1928, pp. 29–30, 40, 204, note 61, 257, cat. no. 4. One of Krafft’s earliest, and best, portraits actually depicts a famous French émigré, François-Emmanuel Guignard, comte de Saint-Priest (1735–1821). It was painted in Stockholm in 1795, when the artist was just 18 years old. Nationalmuseum, Stockholm, inv. no. 2179. The Belisarius by Gerard that was exhibited at the Salon in 1795 later became part of the Leuchtenberg Collection in St Petersburg. Its owner and location are now unknown. See, among others: Tony Halliday, Facing the Public: Portraiture in the Aftermath of the French Revolution, Manchester 2000, pp. 54–55 & Jenifer-Marie Langworthy, On Shifting Ground: The Revolutioary Career of François Gérard, diss, Grauate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana Campaign, 2012, p. 10 & particularly chap-ter 4: “Retellings: ‘Gérard’s Marius and Belisarius’”, pp. 176 (187)–210. François-Pascal-Simon Gérard, Belisarius (1797) & Jean-Baptiste Stouf, Belisarius (1785–1791), J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles, inv. no. 2005.10 & inv. no. 2005.19. During the period that Krafft was in Paris, Stouf’s work was owned by art collector Auguste-Louis-César-Hippolyte-Théodore de Lespinasse de Langeac, comte d’Arlet. http://www.getty.edu/art/collection/objects/225120/baron-francois-pascal-simon-gerard-belisarius-french-1797/ &http://www.getty.edu/art/collection/objects/225277/jean-baptiste-stouf-belisarus-french-about-1785-1791/#8fb947da1d5e84c9e4f28e4fd82237a3f-31db0c15. Léonore Merimée (1757–1836) was previously believed to be the creator of this smaller version, a belief still presented in Langworthy 2012, pp. 188–189, 409, note 33, fig. 74. Crow, Thomas, Emulation: David, Drouais and Girodet in the Art

Notes:1. Evald E:son Uggla, Per Krafft d. y. och samtida svenskt porträttmåleri, Sveriges Allmänna Konstförenings publikation 36, thesis, Uppsala University, Stockholm 1928, pp. 17–18, 34–36, 38–40, 321, cat. no. 409, fig. 18. 2. Ibid. 3. Ibid. The 1801 catalogue of the Royal Swedish Academy of Fine Arts describes Krafft’s painting in the following manner: “Finally, this brave, Oriental Emperor Justinian, General and defender of the Realm, was through jealous men’s and enemies’ plotters, by the same Emperor sentenced to lose both his eyes, and sent to the begging staff.”4. Michael Fried, Absorption and Theatricality: Painting and Beholder in the Age of Diderot, University of California Press, 1980, pp. 145–151. Albert Boime, Marmontel’s Belisaire and the Pre-Revolutionary Progressivism of David, included in Art History, vol. 3, no. 1, March 1980, pp. 81–101. Jean-François Marmontel, Bélisaire, Société des Textes Français Modernes, édition eta-blié, présentée et annotée par Robert Granderoute, Paris 1994 (1767), pp. XXV–XLI.5. Marmontel 1994 (1767), pp. I–V, XXV–XLI. Fried 1980, p. 147. Boime 1980, pp. 82–84. 6. Fried 1980, p. 147. Boime 1980, p. 83.7. Boime 1980, p. 82.8. Fried 1980, pp. 154–160. Boime 1980, pp. 81–102. The work is now at the Musée des Beaux-Arts, Lille. Masterworks from the Musée des Beaux-Arts, Lille, exh. cat., Musée des Beaux-Arts, Lille and Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York 1992, inv. no. 436, cat. no. 28., pp. 139–140. There is also a smaller replica of the painting in the Louvre, inv. no. 3694. It was painted in 1784 for the comte d’Angiviller (1730–1810), Director General of the Royal Palces, and partly executed by David’s students François-Xavier Fabre (1766–1837) and Anne-Louis Girodet (1767–1824). See: Ulf Cederlöf, Pontus Grate, & Birgitta Sandström, På klassisk mark: Målare i Rom på 1780-talet, Nationalmuseum, Stockholm, exh. cat. no. 204, Udevalla 1982, pp. 30–32, cat. no. 9. 9. Fried 1980, pp. 154–160.10. Fried 1980, pp. 152–154. Boime 1980, pp. 85–87. Masterworks from the Musée des Beaux-Arts, Lille 1992, pp. 139–140, note 9. There are two versions of Gérard’s painting (1795 & 1797). The latter, like Stouf’s bust (ca. 1785–1791), is now at the J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles. Jollain’s painting (1767) has long been lost, but we know of it through Diderot’s description. Durameau’s painting (1775) is now at the Musée Ingres, Montauban; Vincent’s painting (1776) in the Musée Fabre, Montpel-lier; Peyron’s paining (1779) and Houdon’s bust in Musée des Augustins, Tolouse. Other relevant works with the same subject in the collection of the Nationalmuseum are the drawings NMH 12/2006, Antoine-François Callet (1741–1823), The Blind


Art Bulletin of Nationalmuseum Stockholm Volumes...

Documents

Transcript of Art Bulletin of Nationalmuseum Stockholm Volumes...