For centuries, painting landscapes was considered a minor art. Imagine: you are a talented painter in the 17th century, but because you prefer to depict natural landscapes and forests rather than ancient heroes, you find yourself relegated to the sidelines. This story reveals how artistic criteria always reflect the values of an era and how an aesthetic revolution can radically transform the perception of an artistic genre.
When the Academy dictated the rules of beauty
In 1667, André Félibien laid down the foundations of a system that would reign for two centuries. In his preface to the Conferences of the Royal Academy, he established a hierarchy of genres as strict as a social hierarchy. At the top: historical painting. At the bottom: still life. And landscape painting? Stuck in the middle, considered a minor art.
This academic classification is nothing innocent. The Royal Academy of Painting and Sculpture, founded in 1648, structures all artistic life in France according to immutable rules. Only historical painters can teach and direct the institution. Specialized landscape artists, even brilliant ones, remain second-class citizens in this very codified little world.
Think of Claude Lorrain, an undisputed genius of classical landscape. Even he had to slip mythological figures into his canvases to be taken seriously by his contemporaries. This shows how much the minor art of landscape struggles to exist autonomously in this hierarchical society.
Why was landscape so poorly regarded?
The theorists of the time had their reasons, debatable but consistent with their worldview. The first major reproach: no human beings in these natural representations. For Félibien, man represents "the most perfect work of God on Earth." Without a human figure, there is no artistic salvation possible.
The second fundamental grievance: the supposed simplicity of the genre. A historical painter must master everything: anatomy, composition, perspective, and incidentally the landscape. The specialized landscape artist demonstrates only part of these universal skills. An implacable logic of an era that values academic universality.
Here are the main criticisms addressed to landscapes according to official doctrine:
- Lack of invention: reproducing nature seems easier than creating a visual epic
- Absence of moral message: no edifying lesson to be drawn, unlike historical scenes
- Purely decorative dimension: these works would only embellish interiors, without elevating the soul
- Presumed ease of execution: painting a tree seems less arduous than composing an epic battle
These criteria reveal a very intellectualized conception of art, typical of the classical era. Pure emotion in the face of natural beauty is not enough. There must be meaning, morality, heroism to legitimize a work of art.
The gap between major and minor genres
The difference in treatment between landscape painting and history painting perfectly illustrates these social and artistic issues. History painters monopolize the most prestigious royal and ecclesiastical commissions. Poussin and Le Brun live like princes thanks to their grandiose frescoes commissioned by power.
The landscape artists must settle for the crumbs of the art market. Even the most talented ones resort to trickery to legitimize their art with institutions. Claude Lorrain sprinkles his wonderful landscapes with small mythological scenes, a compulsory pretext for academic respectability.
The figures speak for themselves: out of 150 members of the Royal Academy in the 17th century, less than 15% specialize in landscape painting (Source: Académie des Beaux-Arts de France). This institutional marginalization paradoxically contrasts with the growing enthusiasm of the cultivated public for natural representations.
The training itself faithfully reflects this social hierarchy of genres. Students spend entire years drawing from antiquity before even superficially touching on landscape. Subliminal message: it is secondary, accessory, almost negligible. Minor art must patiently wait its turn.
The revenge of the landscape
Everything spectacularly shifts in the 19th century. The Barbizon School revolutionizes practice by boldly setting up their easels directly in the Fontainebleau forest. No more studio cut off from the real world: place for direct observation, raw emotion facing the authentic natural motif.
In 1817, a first symbolic but decisive victory: creation of a Grand Prize specifically dedicated to Historical Landscape. Late but official recognition of a genre long scorned by the artistic establishment. Corot, Daubigny and their innovative companions continue this progressive emancipation of modern landscape.
The rampant industrialization also profoundly changes collective mentalities. Factory chimneys that blacken the horizon give a new nostalgic value to preserved landscapes. The former minor art suddenly becomes a valuable witness to a world inexorably disappearing.
The Impressionists definitively complete this aesthetic revolution. Monet transforms his repetitive series of haystacks or cathedrals into veritable laboratories of pictorial modernity. Yesterday's minor art now carries the most daring technical innovations. Irony of history: Impressionist landscapes are now worth colossal fortunes, while dusty historical paintings struggle to find buyers.
This complete metamorphosis proves a simple artistic truth: no subject is inherently noble or vulgar. Only the aesthetic gaze of the time determines its cultural value. Landscape, long a scorned minor art, has earned its letters of nobility by revealing that pure beauty is worth more than all moralizing discourses.
FAQ: Understanding the status of landscape painting
Why was landscape painting considered a minor art?
According to the hierarchy established by André Félibien in 1667, landscape painting lacked human figures (considered "the most perfect work of God") and did not convey a moral or heroic message, unlike history painting which dominated the hierarchy of genres.
How did landscapists circumvent this unfavorable classification?
The most skilled landscapists, such as Claude Lorrain, discreetly integrated mythological characters or narrative scenes into their natural compositions. This strategy allowed them to legitimize their works in the eyes of the Academy while preserving the essence of their art.
When did landscape cease to be a minor art?
The transformation began in the 19th century with the Barbizon School (1830-1870) and ended with Impressionism. In 1817, the creation of a Landscape Grand Prix marked the first official recognition, but it was truly Monet and his contemporaries who definitively elevated the genre to the status of major art.
