Rococo Art Movement

 1720 – 1760

How to identify Rococo art?

1. Light-hearted depiction of domestic life in the upper class home (e.g. Le Dejeuner, or The Breakfast, by Francois Boucher)

2. Elegantly dressed aristocrats at play, usually in pastoral landscapes (e.g. The Lesson of Love by Jean-Antoine Watteau)

3. Look for courting, beauty, romance, fun, playfulness and sexual symbols ( e.g. The Stolen Kiss by Jean-Honore Fragonard)

4. Mythological themes (e.g. Diana after the Hunt by François Boucher)

5. Pastel colours, i.e. soft and light shades, are characteristic of the period (e.g. A Lady in a Garden taking Coffee with some Children by Nicolas Lancret)

6. Look for cherubs hovering around the painting – chubby, nude male babies with wings (e.g. The Toilette of Venus by François Boucher)

 

How Rococo art got its name?

Rococo is a portmanteau word combining both “rocaille” (French for “shell”) and “barocco”, Italian for Baroque, the art style preceding the Rococo period. Rococo art extensively feature shell-shaped curves and wave-like motifs, particularly in its sumptuous furniture design and interior décor.

What gave rise to Rococo art movement? and where?

The absolute monarch King Louis XIV died in 1715 and although he had been ruling France with unchallenged autocracy, as a micromanaging control freak for several decades, he also left behind France as the predominant superpower in Europe, an economic and military powerhouse. Louis XIV led his country victoriously through numerous wars and by the end of his reign France had long replaced Spain as the continental power, following Spain’s tragic defeat in the Franko-Spanish war as well as the Thirty Years’ War. Economically thriving, even the French peasant class had more privileges than peasants in other European countries, a case in point: forty percent of the farmland was owned by them.

Being a superpower, culturally France had an international status similar to USA in recent times. French culture had been heavily influencing other countries around the globe. It’s not surprising, since Louis XIV turned France into a beacon of art, fashion and culture. French trends and fads were commonly followed and emulated around the world. Just like America introduced to the rest of the world Italian pizza, Japanese sushi, Cuban salsa dancing and Chinese kung fu martial art, France, as a cultural superpower, imported little known ideas then exported them to the rest of Europe during the 18th century. For example, they popularized the Panniers, a “side hoops” trend that originally appeared in Spain, which expanded out women’s skirts at the sides but leaving the front and back flat. Similarly, they started the necktie (la cravat) craze, after they saw it adorning the Croatian solider uniform. You might have noticed that the word “cravat” originates from the word Croat (French for Croatian). (350 years later, business men in mid-summer meetings are still choking on their ties, thanks to the French!) Now that you feel amazed and in awe at France’s enviable global position, as you should, it’s time to learn that the following King’s utter fiascos brought an end to the French political and military domination. As if history is playing a cruel joke on France, after Louis XIV’s seventy-two prosperous years, being the longest reigning monarch of any French or European ruler of all time and one of the greatest French kings, ironically he was directly succeeded by the notorious Louis XV, considered one of the worst French kings ever, who had the second longest reign in French history after the great Louis XIV. Read on to see how Louis XV’s legacy contrasted with his predecessor’s but also gave us the Rococo art.

 

Politics and Economy

In the early 1700s, New France (Nouvelle-France) was a very large part of French North America. In modern USA, it included French Louisiana (La Louisiane française), which was an extensive colony that included Alabama, Mississippi as well as Louisiana. Also, the French controlled the most developed colony in what later became Canada, making up most of today’s eastern Canada and they aspired to drive the British enemy out, so all of Canada would be French. However Louis XV viewed Canada as an insignificant colony, so the military and financial support he dispatched was always limited, and easily swallowed by a corrupt colonial government. He favoured concentrating his reinforcements on battling the British army in Germany and India. While Louis XV didn’t find Canada important enough, the British were increasing their military might to take over the French territories.

Eventually, France was involved in a brutal war, the Seven Years’ War, that ended in a humiliating defeat and in its aftermath, Louis XV finalized the Treaty of Paris (1763), signing over to other governments almost all French North American territories and in the process, they lost Canada, French Louisiana, and also most of India. The treaty’s cession of Quebec meant permanently losing all of Canada, and other territories around the globe, to the old adversary, Britain. Having lost New France in 1763′s treaty, the French had no territories in North America except a group of tiny islands (Saint Pierre and Miquelon) off the eastern coast of Canada that they still control today. Ceding French territories to the British cemented Britain’s rise as a great superpower in the following century and similarly other cessions aided the emergence of Prussia (the former kingdom of Germany) as a major power. His failed policy in Europe and elsewhere cost France her political clout in international affairs.

Meanwhile, in the separate and secretive Treaty of Fontainebleau (signed in 1762, revealed in 1764), Louis XV ceded Louisiana to Spain. He gave up Louisiana to his cousin, King Charles III of Spain, as a hush-hush “thank you” gift to reduce the pain after the Spanish defeat following their late entry into the Seven Years’ War, in support of France, through which, they lost Florida to Great Britain. Probably, this arrangement wouldn’t have made his predecessor Louis XIV royally joyful, in whose honour Louisiana was named, in 1682. Besides losing territories like those in Canada and Louisiana, which highlighted his weak diplomacy, also his extravagant spending brought the country near bankruptcy, with huge sums of money spent on wars and unnecessary extravaganza.

On the home front, France had the highest population of any country in Europe, more than 20 million people at the beginning of the 18th century. Population was rapidly increasing every year due to diminishing epidemics and lower than ever mortality rates. The constant growth of French population added pressure on the available food supplies. It was not a Feudalistic society anymore, long replaced by Capitalism. However much of the Feudalist legacy lived on through the social structure of three classes (estates). The First Estate was the Clergy (100,000 people). They represented 0.5% of the French population and owned 10 percent of the land. They paid minimal taxes or no taxes at all. The clergy themselves raised taxes on the land they owned and they led more than comfortable lifestyles, most of whom were originally from noble families (particularly the high clergy like Bishops and those in abbots), another distressing fact of life for the common folk. The Second Estate was the aristocracy (400,000 people). They made about 2% of the French population and owned 30 percent of the land. The monarchy always gave the aristocracy special favours and exempted them from taxes. Meanwhile, they could tax peasants in addition to collecting rent from those of them who lived on their farmland. The nobility had exclusive rights to hunting and fishing that others, such as the peasants, were never granted. They had many other special privileges passed down over the centuries that made them very unpopular people in France. The Third Estate was everybody else, i.e. the common folk who were mainly the peasants but also included the labourers, merchants and artisans (manual workers). They are the working class who paid most of the taxes in France. While just under 3% of the French were clergy and nobility, the commoners represented 97% of the population. 90% of whom were peasants who lived at or below subsistence levels, earning only enough to feed their families. Even though they were not serfs as they were in the Feudalist age, as a matter of fact up to 40% of the land was owned by them, they were still burdened by many types of taxes. In spite of bread being the main staple of the French diet, they couldn’t even own bread ovens which belonged only to members of the noble class. If you don’t belong to the aristocracy or clergy, you lived in very harsh conditions.

Taxes frustratingly kept rising through the mid 1700s, an issue considered among the principal reasons in bringing about the French Revolution. The monarch collected unbearable and oppressive taxes from the common folk while reluctant to tax the noble families. France was sliding into poverty while the monarchy was engaged in extremely excessive spending and the aristocrats were content with the absolutist rule that favoured them. Aristocracy as an elite social class, an exclusive club you had to be born into, was prevalent in most of Europe, but aristocrats of France, in particular, were reputed to be the snobs of the snobs, they offensively asserted their superiority over the common people. Their hard daily lives included dancing, hunting, drinking, gambling and a whole lot of gossip. The king was aware of the crises brewing in his nation and the growing anti-monarchy sentiment but his terrible reputation hastened the decline of the prestige of the monarchy and inflamed the opposition. He earned the reputation of being lazy, indecisive and selfish, a ladies’ man who abandoned himself to pleasure and debauchery. Just like many of today’s politicians who ignore the suffering of the working class, till they rise up against the government, he was more interested in his own pleasures than running the affairs of his nation. The apathy of the unpopular King caused a series of political and economic failures, and none of the misfortunes moved him as France was losing her global position. A combination of wrong decisions, bad luck, difficult crises and mismanagement ruined his reputation during his lifetime as well as his legacy forever. His reign is widely considered a failure, in addition to the financial problems at home and failed policies abroad, he damaged the reputation of the French monarchy beyond repair and ultimately instigated the anger of the people, that eventually led to the French revolution.

France moved fast on the path towards financial decline and it was accelerated with another decadent period during the reign of the following King Louis XVI and his wife Marie Antoinette, a decadent era for the French upper class that came to a close when the merciless blade of the proverbial guillotine came down in the revolution, ending the lives of many aristocrats, besides King Louis XVI and his wife. Three decades after the Rococo period receded, the French Revolution shook France and shattered its class system. It became the great European revolution of the 18th century that shaped our modern political world. The French Revolution heralded a new era, with no monarchy, no aristocracy and it closed the final chapter of the ancient regime (ancien régime) that lasted more than a thousand years. It caused a major cultural shift, not only in visual art but also in fashion and hairstyles. Even shoes changed radically. If anyone out there is sceptical about the benefits of the revolution, they should remember that at least it eradicated all traces of French men in wigs and four-inch high-heeled shoes, studded with glittery buckles.

To understand how things went so wrong, let’s apply the old sexist French wisdom: cherchez la femme (“look for the woman”). Behind this not-exactly-great man, there is a mistress. For hundreds of years, in the European monarchy, being a mistress was a career opportunity; find a wealthy man, an aristocrat, or even better, try to seduce the King himself, that’s if you’re lucky enough to attend events like royal balls. If you so decide on this career, in exchange for keeping the rich man sensually satisfied at all times in an exclusive relationship on your part, your living expenses and accommodation will all be provided. If you’re a royal mistress, your accommodation could be a mansion with servants. In the case of Kings, you’ll be competing with other mistresses, but your hard work can lead you to become the official and favourite mistress, “maîtresse en titre.” (That job has largely vanished because most women today prefer to get educated and earn their own money rather than be domestically kept as mistresses.) The practice of royalty keeping mistresses was an open secret and sometimes the influence of a mistress crossed the boundaries of the bedroom. For any French king, it had been a centuries-old tradition to have a bunch of mistresses, it was one way to show their potency and virility, proving their manhood by the number of mistresses they kept. But Louis XV did not just keep old traditions, he was a notorious womanizer which was an obsession that occupied most of his time and left him too busy for his political responsibilities. Historically, Louis XV is not remembered by any achievements but by his many mistresses, one of whom is Madame de Pompadour.

Madame de Pompadour met Louis XV at a masked ball celebrating a wedding in 1745, then she became his latest royal mistress. After enduring many sleepless nights of arduous work, she was promoted to become his “chief mistress,” earning the official title “maîtresse-en-titre.” Over the years, she turned into more than a mistress, becoming his advisor and confidante, in a role similar to a prime minister without the title. She engaged in a physical relationship with him for 5 years but during those few years, she developed full domination over the king, and although their relationship turned platonic, from 1750 till she died in 1764, they were still very close. Later she would even personally select and provide the young women for his own pleasure. In spite of her non-noble birth, she arrived at the top rank in the palace next to the married King, much to the chagrin of other jealous mistresses. The weak monarch let his mistress take control over him and she subsequently and indirectly reigned over the whole kingdom. His interests were not in politics, he enjoyed hunting, feasting, watching concerts and theatrical performances, attending opulent balls in regal costumes and above all his utmost passion was women. He spent his time between mistresses and courtesans (exclusive upper class prostitutes for the nobility). The French were in need of a monarch who could be a victorious warmonger but all they got was a chronic whoremonger. He led a profligate, unrestrained life with extravagant spending, while the nation is close to bankruptcy.

Tucked away in a corner of Versailles was a high-class private bordello, called Le Parc aux Cerfs (“stag park” or “deer park”), that was full of young available women just to serve the King’s carnal desires. Their young age meant they are likely inexperienced and therefore disease-free. That harem was always full and the women were procured by his favourite mistress. Morals aside, can you imagine the taxpayers’ cost of maintaining a whole brothel encapsulated in a lavish mansion just for the King’s personal use and enjoyment?! In the meantime, the French government was in a dire financial situation. Louis XV was having as many problems as sexual partners, and rumours of his lecherous behaviour were spreading. Louis XV became a historical character best recognized by his dalliance with mistresses, among whom is Madame de Pompadour and Madame du Barry. The public was aware that the King had been failing to take his responsibilities seriously and that Madame de Pompadour was taking charge of the government affairs. Madame de Pompadour was widely blamed for her intervention that resulted in diplomatic disasters and major colonial losses, nevertheless, it is the failed politician, Louis XV himself, who deserves most of the blame.

The empowered mistress took unprecedented authority by meddling into France’s foreign policy and advised on taking disastrous decisions. Acting as a behind-the-scenes politician, her advice resulted in political failures, first of which was the ill-fated alliance that led to France’s defeat in the Seven Years’ War (1756-1763). The Seven Year’s War involved many nations, making it one of the largest pre-20th century worldwide wars, considered by many historians, and also by Winston Churchill, as the first world war. Through the territorial gains following that war, Britain became the leading colonial power. It is rather interesting to note the unintentional role of a French mistress in securing Britain’s path on becoming a superpower.

She became so powerful that she removed from office those who she disliked or those who criticized her actions. She sponsored many Rococo artists and nourished in Louis XV the passion for art. Despite the political disasters and her fatal influence on French diplomacy, she maintained the fun and entertainment in the monarchy and around the palace with planned events like royal parties and theatrical plays. She was also well known in the fashionable world of Paris. Her sponsorship of art made Louis XV’s name associated with French art around the world, and France retained her predominance in art and culture. It is remarkable that the self-empowered mistress gained such significant political and cultural influence. Similarly to Louis XIV of the Baroque period who had commissioned many portraits of himself and embraced French art and fashion, she took a similar role and commissioned several portraits by one of her favourite Rococo artists, Francois Boucher. Like a Hollywood actress’ final say over her portrayal on a magazine cover, she had total control of how artists depicted her. Occasionally, the commissioned artist would start anew her portrait if she was not pleased by her half-painted image. She poses in her portraits not as a ferocious femme fatale but as an accomplished woman with great experience and undeniable importance.

Louis XIV’s great legacy is forever associated with French predominance, while Louis XV’s name, for most people, is mainly associated with furniture. Even the elegant and charming Louis XV furniture (aka Rococo furniture), was not directly impacted by him. It was just a style that emerged during his reign producing some of the most sought-after furniture styles of all time.

The prophetic quote “Après nous, le déluge” – “After us, the deluge (the flood)” – was attributed to King Louis XV and sometimes Madame Pompadour. The deluge premonition became true and there was no aversion of the impending political, financial and social collapse. Chaos engulfed the country only 15 years after Louis XV’s death in the French revolution against the monarchy and aristocracy.

Art and Culture

After the death of Louis XIV (1715) and with a new king, Louis XV, there was a new zeitgeist and a fresh taste of art. The French had been setting the trends, and while Baroque art originated in Rome, Rococo art originated in France in the 1720s, then spread across Europe where they was a fascination with French art and culture. The French set the standards for what’s en vogue and in a total monopoly made France the centre of fashion in the 18th century. But it went out of control in this very fashion-conscious society where they braved discomfort and sometimes pain pursuing absurdly flamboyant fashion. Déjà vu? Yes, because you still see painful fashion every day when you walk the streets of any major city. Consumption of luxury was booming and the nobility sought status symbols in their ludicrous and laughable styles. Despite all the efforts of critics and caricaturists of the Rococo era, ridiculous fashions prevailed. Rococo art had an aristocratic artistic taste, hence it was embraced by citizens of other countries who had been imitating French aristocrats. The growing upper middle-class (the rich of non-noble ancestry known as the bourgeoisie) also started imitating the French aristocracy (noble by birth) in fashion and lifestyle, whose appeal and influence was equivalent to today’s celebrities. Perhaps Rococo paintings were that era’s tabloid photographs meant to leave an impression on the gawkers, so they’d mutter to themselves, “aha, that’s how the rich live!”

People’s relationship with extreme fashion has not changed, but in our modern time-starved society you do not have as much time available, as was the case for French aristocrats in the 1700s. If you are a modern wealthy woman, you can very quickly adorn yourself with high-end branded apparel like Louis Vuitton, Givenchy or Christian Dior; you effortlessly slap on a dress or jeans and slip into casual yet expensive shoes – a little makeup, a few accessories and call it an outfit. Even if today’s women are not comfortable, they can easily pretend to be comfortable in their own styles of choice. Back in the 1700s, fashion was a much more complicated process. French aristocrats did not work, men and women equally took part in the absurd fashion of the time that reflected their shallowness. Fashion was not for everybody, but for the wealthy. For those living in opulence and luxury, plenty of time and money could be spent, so they’d stay “à la mode”. Women would happily dedicate many hours every day to their appearance, some went as far as changing their dresses four or five times a day. Dresses were getting ridiculously wide and hairstyles were growing outrageously tall. A typical woman could look up to 3 times larger than a man. Some added to their elaborate hairstyles pearls, feathers and even tiny model ships and some wore horse-hair wigs. In the department of fashion, like everything else, being competitive is only human nature, even if it meant taking on a comical look, that’s why French women’s skirts kept on getting wider. Panniers caused inconvenience for most women in public places, so much so that armless chairs had to be around for those women in giant bell-shaped dresses. Can you imagine a trip to the toilet while trapped in such a massive dress?!

Rococo art is associated with Louis XV and Madame de Pompadour, as they became purveyors of style. She turned herself into an arbiter of fashion, a connoisseur, and a patron of the arts. Never before, a royal mistress patronized the arts in such a manner. The royal mistress’s well-known patronage of Rococo art made her synonymous with that art style. Her commissioning of numerous portraits of herself harkens back to Louis XIV’s patronage of the preceding art period decades earlier, Baroque art. At the French Revolution, Madame de Pompadour was seen as an icon of Rococo frivolity and a symbol of the degenerate culture, spending money that’s not hers, the taxpayers’ money on her ravenous shopping appetite for clothes, furniture, and art. However, it’s unfair to single out only Madame de Pompadour, because all of the privileged elite, those portrayed in Rococo paintings, led lives mainly funded by the backbreaking taxes collected from downtrodden peasants. That was the ugly reality you never see in the beautiful Rococo paintings, the tragic dark side behind the light-hearted leisurely outings.

Rococo art did not reflect the political and economic reality of the times, even though you could read it between the lines, as explained above. You only see the pre-French Revolution days when life was grand and time was aplenty. It was an art movement that was not preoccupied with the working class, and you are not likely to find them represented in Rococo paintings.

Rococo art was far from political, as it never carried any serious message; heck, it doesn’t even have a message. Just like critics of cheesy bubblegum pop music feel nostalgic towards older music, most probably, Rococo art critics reminisced about the good old days of great art, such as the Baroque art of Louis XIV’s era or Renaissance art. Ironically, the frivolity of the Rococo style is symptomatic of the indifference of the royalty and aristocracy who were largely silent as their nation slid downwards. It’s also ironic that while the French political dominance was vanishing before their eyes, their dominance became confined mostly in the sphere of art and culture. Although, Rococo art has never been characterized as revolutionary or great art, some of the criticism was aimed at the subject matter and how it disregarded the domestic and international circumstances, be it the fiscal fiascos and the suffering of the peasants, or the overseas political failures. Leading their luxurious lives, they wouldn’t let those “minor” issues ruin the general mood. Wrath against the aristocracy boiled under the surface and by the time the party was over (i.e. the French Revolution), special privileges were withdrawn from all nobility, and equality was preached among all citizens. There is no question that Rococo is a true art, nevertheless it’s ostensible that it’s a style created to be mere eye candy, to simply please the spectators.

This art style perfectly exemplifies the French high society’s taste at the time, summed up in the words of Emilie du Châtelet, 1706-1749, aristocratic French scientist, mathematician and mistress of the famous writer Voltaire: “We must begin by saying to ourselves that we have nothing else to do in the world but seek pleasant sensations and feelings.”

The taste of aristocrats dictated the artistic style of Rococo. As the way of life in France evolved, more elegant homes were built. A demand arose to decorate the walls and interiors of spacious mansions and châteaux. Serious Baroque art of days past is not fit to decorate the intimate and casual homes. House owners, as always, competed in decorating their houses, and that included commissioning paintings representing themselves flaunting their wealth, for example, garments are painted in a manner to emphasize their affluence. Hence, the pre-revolutionary art of Rococo, with its shallow subject matter, offers a unique glimpse at life of the French upper class. Because trouble had been brewing, these are the last decades of the grand life for French aristocracy. Rococo, mainly for interior decor, became a fad with the French aristocracy and the market expanded for paintings featuring pastoral fairylands and courtship scenes.

Rococo art had no place for patriotism or piety. No place for morality, saints or heroes, paintings were neither didactic nor devotional. Instead here is what you’ll find in Rococo paintings: outdoor scenes, picnics and pastoral settings, graceful lovers and game-playing, naughty behaviour with a sense of humour, a sensuous mood and veiled eroticism. You’ll find graceful lovers in amorous encounters and provocative poses, but you won’t find much that’s thought-provoking or intellectually stimulating. You won’t find paintings that will challenge you, only those that are meant to delight you, beautiful people surrounded by beautiful scenery. Often described as frivolous because it served no purpose beyond pleasing the eyes and its main raison d’être (“reason for existence”) was only decoration.

When you view Rococo paintings and judge the wealthy by their arrogant, lush and indulgent lifestyles in their own age of decadence, be sure to also see the innocence of happy parents and children and the grace of elegant lovers.

In Rococo art, some culture critics saw very early “disturbing” signs of women’s sexuality spiralling out of control, particularly among some rebellious women in the aristocracy. Bear in mind that women’s slightly erotic portrayal was probably exacerbated by male painters catering to the pleasure of male aristocracy, hence women were depicted as lust objects, tempting sirens and libidinous goddesses.

During an era where France was the epitome of flamboyance, and when everything was elaborate from furniture to hairstyles, those paintings captured the ideal embodiment of the Rococo spirit where the upper classes were preoccupied with their own amusement and luxuries while the common folk lived in misery and the nation kept on losing territories in places like Europe and North America. The Rococo movement illustrates all of the problems in France as they edged closer towards a historic revolution. That art style never came back to life and the artists who were well-known Rococo painters couldn’t make it in post-Revolutionary France, as Rococo was forever a symbol of decadence. The everlasting distaste for Rococo art never faded. You can visualize the revolutionary peasants in the violent riots of the French Revolution ransacking castles and châteaux, destroying any decorative items they come across including, and especially, Rococo furniture and paintings.

Rebels of a New Generation

Rococo art reflecting lack of depth and its portrayal of an upper class pursuing personal amusement was in itself a reaction against the formality of the Baroque style. While Baroque art was serious, Rococo was playful. Baroque art depicted heroism, martyrs and biblical stories, but Rococo painters showed lovey-dovey themes and aristocracy at play. Larger-than-life religious or political themes were replaced with light-hearted themes revolving around fun, lovers and naughty behaviour. Baroque used dark colours, Rococo used soft and bright colours in a very optimistic “life is beautiful” ambiance. Also, unlike Baroque, Rococo art was not intellectually deep, provocative or challenging. Even the size of paintings went through a drastic change, Baroque paintings with propaganda aims (for the Church or the State) had to be large and easily visible from afar, but Rococo paintings were much smaller in order to make them ideal for decoration. Purely decorative Rococo art is the reason why it did not earn much respect from art scholars.

Neither the Church nor governments played any role in the rise of this art movement. It was a sign that French society was less devoted to religion. While some churches were built in and decorated in the Rococo style, generally the religious element was nonexistent in Rococo paintings.

Critics called Rococo art modish as a fad that emerged then disappeared, they condemned the art style for being frivolous and tasteless. Some critics went as far to label it licentious art and hence the backlash grew against it. With strong criticism from intellectuals like Voltaire, around 1760s, the movement started to decline in France and slowly throughout Europe.