frag01

7/27/2019 frag01

1/12

Invention, Resemblance, and Fragonard's Portraits de FantaisieAuthor(s): Mary D. SheriffSource: The Art Bulletin, Vol. 69, No. 1 (Mar., 1987), pp. 77-87Published by: College Art Association

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3051084 .Accessed: 21/08/2013 10:13

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

College Art Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Art

Bulletin.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=caahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3051084?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3051084?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=caa

7/27/2019 frag01

2/12

Invention, Resemblance,and Fragonard'sPortraitsde FantaisieMary D. Sheriff

In this essay, Fragonard's portraits de fantaisie are examined against the contem-poraneous definitions of the portrait, the conventions that governed its making ineighteenth-century France, and the assumptions of the various audiences that com-missioned and/or looked at works in that genre. The portraits de fantaisie emergeas paintings that subvert the primaryfunction of the portrait; instead of adequatelydepicting the appearance, rank, and/or character of a sitter, these "portraits"areprimarily self-representations of the artist. They are marked by a confounding ofthe real and the imagined, a deliberate play with portrait conventions, and a con-scious display of those qualities which, for Fragonard's contemporaries, made apainting a work of genius.The fourteen works by Fragonardknown as the portraitsde fantaisie cannot be characterizedas face paintings.' Notonly are they raised above ordinary fare by superb inven-tion and technique, but, more significantly, they aremarkedby a display of creative prowess so insistent that the artist'sself-presentation virtually eclipses his depiction of the sit-ters. Far rom being face paintings, the portraitsde fantaisieseem to deviate from even the fundamental charge of por-traiture, that of imitating the appearance and personalityof a particularindividual. But to what extent did Fragonardexpect his contemporaries to accept these remarkablepaint-ings as portraits, and how far should our consideration ofthem be governed by the conventions of that genre?The first question presumes that there was an accepteddefinition of portraiture in eighteenth-century Frenchthe-ory. By mid-century, portrait painting was a widely prac-ticed specialty, one that had been analyzed by academi-cians and critics for more than fifty years. Roger de Piles,for example, discussed the genre at some length in his Coursde peinture of 1708, and in 1750 Louis Tocque delivered adiscourse on the portrait to the Academy. Although theconventions of the genre were well established, portraitpainting was also a topic current enough to provoke spir-ited debate. An evaluation of Fragonard'sportraits de fan-taisie, then, requiresa consideration of the portrait, its def-inition, and the theoretical questions it posed. Only withinsuch a framework can Fragonard's achievement beinterpreted.

Genre conventions determine how paintings are per-ceived because, once established, they act as laws govern-ing the categories (e.g., landscape, still life, portraiture) ntowhich paintings are sorted. An artist can work with oragainst the conventions of a genre, but he presupposes theirexistence in either case. Thus, an understanding of eigh-teenth-century portrait conventions is preliminary to ananalysis of Fragonard's portraits de fantaisie; only byknowing the rules ourselves can we determine if they havebeen respected or transgressed. A consideration of thesesingular portraits in relation to the laws of their genre willdemonstrate that Fragonard disrupted the balance of re-semblance and invention that traditionally held the view-er's attention divided between sitter and artist.2 This dis-placement of the sitter was neither an accidental effect ofspontaneous creation (as the sketchlike execution suggests),nor an unconscious manifestation of Fragonard'sparticulartemperament.3 Rather, it resulted from a deliberate playwith the conventions of portraiture, a purposeful con-founding of the imagined and the copied, and a demon-stration of wit that consciously displayed itself at everyturn.Resemblance, Invention, and ImaginationA narrowly conceived idea of the portrait almost iden-tical to our own was indeed present throughout eighteenth-century theory. In the Encyclopedie a painted portrait wascategorized as a work wherein the artist depicted from life

1 Fourteenpaintings by Fragonardare now designated as portraits de fan-taisie; the group is marked by a consistency of canvas size as well as asimilarity of handling. All probably date between 1767 and 1772. As faras is known, not a single contemporary writer mentioned the portraits;they were never exhibited, and Fragonard left no record of them otherthan the canvases themselves. The following paintings in the Louvre formpart of the group: The Young Artist, Inspiration, Diderot (Fig. 1), Lamusique (Fig. 3, dated 1769), Fantasy Figure in Blue (Fig. 5), Portrait ofthe Duc de Beuvron, La Guimard (Fig. 6), and Study. The others are: TheWarrior(Williamstown, Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute), Don

Quixote (Chicago, Art Institute), Lady with the Dog (New York, Met-ropolitan Museum of Art), Portrait of the Duc d'Harcourt (private col-lection), The Actor (private collection), and The Singer (private collec-tion). None of the titles dates from the 18th century.2 For an essay that considers the problem of resemblance in the 19th cen-tury, see Steven Z. Levine, "The Crisis of Resemblance: Portraits andPaintings During the Second Empire,"Arts Magazine, LIII,1978, 90-93.3Mary D. Sheriff, "For Love or Money? Rethinking Fragonard,"Eigh-teenth-Century Studies, xIx, 1986, 333-54.

This content downloaded from 143.107.252.173 on Wed, 21 Aug 2013 10:13:12 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

7/27/2019 frag01

3/12

78 THE ART BULLETIN MARCH 1987 VOLUME LXIX NUMBER 1

the external appearance of an individual, and accuratelyrecordedhis physiognomy and natural expression.4The En-cyclopedie mrthodique contained a similar statement; inmaking a portrait the artist imitated a specific sitter andfaithfully rendered "the characteristic resemblance so thatit [thepainted image] can be easily recognized as the personwhose features one has intended to reproduce."5And An-toine-Joseph Pernety stressed the same qualities in his Dic-tionnaire portatif: "Portrait, a representation in paintingor drawing of a man or woman made so that one can rec-ognize at first glance a person one already knows."6/Resemblance was the principal quality of the portrait,and later writers paraphrased de Piles's definition of it,stressingfirst that resemblance requireda good rapportbe-tween the painted features and those of nature, and thenthat the person portrayed should be readily recognizableto his familiars.7Because resemblance was its first perfec-tion, de Piles argued that the portrait failed when it lookedlike someone other than the intended sitter.sResemblance,moreover, distinguishedtheportraitfrom both the life study(in which the model was regardedas anonymous) and theimagined figure. It also limited those who could evaluatethe portrait; relative to the eye (or mind) of the beholderwho recognized, resemblance allowed only those who ac-tually knew the sitter to be called as judges. Thus the por-trait's essence remained imperceptible to most who would,over time, view the painting.If resemblance were the defining feature of the portrait,it was also its principal vice. Viewed from within the hi-erarchy of subjects, making a resemblance required littleimagination and tied the genre to a mechanical copying ofthe particularsgiven in the external appearance of nature.Although eighteenth-century theorists agreedthat all paint-ing imitated nature, in the highest genre (i.e., history paint-ing) the object of imitation was nature generalized, natureas it might be - a concept formed from phenomenal ex-perience, but located in the artist's imagination.9The por-traitist, on the other hand, ignored la belle nature and con-cerned himself with particulars. In the prefatory essay tohis Salon of 1767, Diderot made the portraitist his model

for the simple imitator (or direct copyist),10who "portraysnaturefaithfully, as it is."Giving this enterprisea decidedlynegative (and Platonic) cast, Diderot argued that the por-traitistestablishedhimself in the thirdrankbecause he madecopies of copies - things twice removed from any generalidea."But what if the portraitist attempted more than approx-imating external appearancesin a good likeness, what if herepresentedcharacter?A good depiction of charactermightraise a portrait above the norm, but it could not elevatethe genre's status because temperamentwas discerned andrepresented through its physical manifestations. Inmeetingthe criterion of likeness, the artist was no more free to de-viate from the natural signs of temperament than he wasto alter the basic patterns of physiognomy.12The expectation of resemblance not only determined thestatus of portraiture, but also guided how portraits wereviewed by leading the observer to concentrate on the re-lationship between the painted image and its referent innature. This second consequence of resemblance proveddisturbing to the public eclair&,who believed that only theignorant viewer judged a painting according to resem-blance.13The connoisseur had other criteria. Looking be-hind the illusion, he prized the artist's ability to conceivea beautiful configuration of color and line, and to executehis composition with a facile and suggestive handling ofpaint. He looked for an imaginative reconstitution of typesand conventions in order to read, as it were, the historyof painting in the painting. Simply put, the enlightened au-dience judged a work of art according to the strength ofits invention.Becauseeighteenth-century theory distinguished the pro-cess of imagining the subject from that of inventing it, theportrait could be evaluated by a criterion other than re-semblance. Only in history painting did the artist imaginethe subject by envisioning an event never witnessed andconceptualizing the characters according to the dictates ofla belle nature. Portrait painting never required the artistto imagine his sitter; in fact, it specifically forbade him todo so. Both portraiture and history painting, however,

4 "Portrait,"Encyclopedie ou Dictionnaire raisonne des sciences, des artset des metiers, 35 vols., Paris, 1751-80, xiii, 153.5 ,,. .. La ressemblancecaracteristiqueen sorte qu'elle puisse ^treaisementreconnue pour celle de la personne dont on s'est propose de rendre lestraits . . ."; C.H. Watelet, "Portrait," Encyclopedie methodique ou parordre des matieres, 5 vols., Paris, 1788, v, 145.6 "Portrait, representation en Peinture ou en dessin seulement, ou d'unhomme ou d'une femme faite de maniereapouvoir, au premier coup d'oeil,y reconnoitre la personne, quand on l'a connue auparavant"; Antoine-Joseph Pernety, Dictionnaire portatif de peinture, sculpture et gravure, 2vols., Paris, 1781, II, 205.7 Roger de Piles, Cours de peinture par principes (Paris, 1708) repr., Ge-neva, 1969, 269. Although 18th-century writers seemed untroubled by themore complex problems raised by the notion of resemblance, modernaesthetics has addressed itself to these issues. See, for example, NelsonGoodman, Languages of Art, Indianapolis, 1968, 1-5.8 De Piles (as in n. 7), 260.9 For a recent discussion of the notion of imitation in the 18th century,

see Tzvetan Todorov, Theories of the Symbol, transl. Catherine Porter,Ithaca, NY, 1982, 111-28.10The distinction between imitation and copying in Frenchaesthetic the-ory has been analyzed by RichardShiff, "TheOriginal, the Imitation, theCopy, and the Spontaneous Classic: Theory and Painting in Nineteenth-Century France,"Yale French Studies, LXVI, 984, 27-54.11Denis Diderot, "Salon de 1767," in Salons, ed. Jean Seznec and JeanAdh6mar, 4 vols., Paris, 1963, III, 59.12De Piles, for example, mentioned that the notion of resemblance ex-tended to the depiction of temperament (as in n. 7, 269). A similar ideawas presented in the Encyclopedie entry in which the author noted that,if the person were naturally sad, the artist must not give him a gay ap-pearance foreign to his visage (as in n. 4, 153).13For example, in his discourse on portraiture delivered to the Academyin 1750, Tocque called resemblance the part of the portrait that most im-pressed those who were "peu connoisseurs" (Louis Tocque, "Rfflexionssur la peinture et particulierementsur le genre du portrait,"in Bulletin dela Societe de l'Histoire de lArt Francais, Paris, 1929, 263).


7/27/2019 frag01

4/12

FRAGONARD'S PORTRAITS DE FANTAISIE 79

could requirea vivid imagination (taken as the mental fac-ulty that visualized and synthesized) in the process of in-vention. In eighteenth-century parlance, invention was theability to choose the best artistic means to produce the de-sired pictorial effects, and included all aspects of picturemaking: composition, chiaroscuro, color, brushwork, thedrawing of attitudes and gestures, etc.14Even the creativeborrowing of motifs, poses, and expressions from earliermasters was included under the rubric of invention.15In judging a portrait according to the strength of its in-vention, the viewer shifted his attention from sitter to artistand considered the work as a representation of its maker'stalent. Roger de Piles proposed the model for such a trans-ference when he wrote that every painting was a portraitof the artist who made it.16 Thus, while maintaining its po-sition as the paradigm of servile copying, the portrait couldalso be considered as a particular case of the artist's self-presentation in his works. According to this view, the mostaccomplished artists would be the best portrait painters.Invention became a central concern of academic por-traitists anxious to increase the prestige of their genre. Thepainter Tocque, for example, devoted most of his discourseon portraiture to repeating the rules for making art - forinventing the composition, color, and drawing. He praisedportraits by Le Brun and Largillierenot because they weregood likenesses, but because they were beautiful paint-ings.17 The amateur Watelet lamented that portraits wereoften executed by specialists who knew little about artisticeffects rather than by history painterswho would treat themas they did their monumental subjects. He believed that ifinvention could be returned to the portrait, the portraitistcould raise the esteem (if not the status) of his genre.18A concern with reconciling the demands of invention andresemblance dictated the choices made by academic por-trait painters when executing a reception piece, where itwas necessary to demonstrate mastery of both art andgenre. In almost every case they elected to depict anotheracademician. The sitter may have been chosen to flatterthat particular colleague, but the general practice devel-oped for another reason. The viewer could judge resem-blance only in relation to a specific model; presumably allthe academicians knew the sitter in question and that per-son would probably be present when the work was eval-uated. Thus, both resemblance and artistic invention couldbe assessed. Tocqub's portrait of Galloche (1734, Louvre),La Tour's portrait of Restout (1746, Louvre), and Labille-Guiard's portrait of Amed&van Loo (1783, Paris, Ecoledes Beaux-Arts) are among those which fit this schema.Each has its particular display of invention, and this display

was not lost on the critics. In the case of La Tour, for ex-ample, salonniers repeatedly claimed that his portrait waschiefly concerned with artistic effects because it had beenmade to please the gens d'art.19The academicpainter did not limit the depiction of artiststo the official reception piece; other situations could war-rant a similar display of proficiency. For example, to pre-pare the way for her acceptance, Labille-Guiardsent to theAcademy a series of pastel portraits depicting various ofits members. Among these, her portrait of Pajou (1783,Louvre) is particularly interesting because it shows thesculptor at work on the bust of his teacher Lemoyne. Thepainting thus embodies, represents, and comments on thetradition of academician depicting academician; it alsodemonstrates Labille-Guiard'sability to make a likeness ofPajou, to imitate the look of his work, and to combine allinto a pleasing and harmonious composition. It is a paint-ing that deserves more than the cursory attention it hasreceived here.If the portrait as reception piece sacrificed neither resem-blance nor invention, in other works the essential characterof the genrewas violated. Sometimes the best painterscouldnot limit their imaginative activity to the process of in-vention; they began to treat the sitter as an idealization.Such a process might produce a beautiful work of art, butit made for an unsuccessful portrait. The problematic na-ture of a genre that constrained the artist's imagination hadlong been recognizedby critics and theorists. Writingaboutportraiture in 1586, Armenini observed that at ". .. mosttimes portraits made by excellent artists are found to bepainted with better style and more perfection than thoseof others, but most often they are less of a likeness."20 Theeighteenth-century criticism of portraits is riddled with thesame paradox; for example, consider Jacques La Combe'scomments on a Self-Portrait by Carle van Loo shown in1753. Praising the work, but calling it an imperfect resem-blance, La Combe repeated that the better painters seemedalways to err in that direction.21 It is evident that his com-ments rely on a narrowly defined conception of the por-trait. As well as considering deviation from resemblancean error, he also assumes that likeness can be judged bythe viewer who knows the model. Although the critic seemspresumptuous in judging the resemblance of a self-portrait,he is aware of inherited wisdom - that the "betterpaint-ers" both imagine and invent their sitters. He does not,however, realize the irony of his remarks;although he sug-gested that Van Loo's work failed as one type of self-por-trait - one that closely resembled external appearances -he judged that it succeeded as another - one that ade-

14These qualities were specifically part of what the 18th-century theoristscalled "invention pittoresque." See C.H. Watelet, L'artde peindre, Paris,1760, 36-49, and also Michel Dandr6-Bardon, Traith de peinture (Paris,1765), repr., Geneva, 1972, 106-26.15Jean-Baptistedu Bos, Rbflexionscritiquessur la pobsieet sur la peinture,3 vols., Paris, 1740, II, 72.16Roger de Piles, Diverses conversations sur la peinture (Paris, 1697),repr., Geneva, 1970, 74.

17Tocque (as in n. 13), 267.18Watelet (as in n. 5), II, 206-07.19 Lettre sur la peinture, sculpture, et architecture 'hM.xxx par une Societedes Amateurs, Paris, 1748, 92.20 Giovanni Battista Armenini, On the TruePrecepts of the Art of Paint-ing, ed. and transl. E.J. Olszewski, New York, 1971, 257-61.21JacquesLa Combe, Le Salon, Paris, 1753, 32.


7/27/2019 frag01

5/12


quately externalized its maker's talent.Diderot on PortraitureIf the artist could tip the balance toward invention andimagination in a self-portrait, would he be forced to em-phasize resemblance when therewas a richpatron to please,a patron whose idea of a perfect portrait might be vastlydifferent from that of an educated art viewer? Diderot de-scribed such a dilemma in his Salon of 1763, identifying asadversariespainters and gens du monde. The latter praisedlikeness as the greatest merit of the portrait, a work madeto please them by calling to mind someone who was absent(andhere they mean the sitter,not the artist!). The painters,on the other hand, wanted the portrait to please becauseit was beautifully handled. What does it matter, they asked,if a VanDyck resembles or does not resemble its sitter: "Themerits of resemblance are passing, it is those of the brushwhich astonish in their time and make the work immor-tal."22 Diderot concluded from this dispute that perhaps itwas necessary for the portrait to be resembling in its time,but well painted for posterity.Diderot's final remarks, however, left no doubt as towhich he believed the greatermerit to be: "What is certainis that nothing is rarer than a fine brush, nor more commonthan a dauber who makes a resemblance, and when thesitter is no more, we take resemblance for granted."23Thebrush becomes a metonymy for the great painter whosepresence in the work far outlives that of the sitter, and whois set against the dauber who can only copy appearances.Diderot also considered the value of resemblance after thesitter and those who knew him ceased to be, an issue thathe took up again in the Salon of 1767, where he argued,"The resembling portrait of the dauber dies with the per-son, that of the skilled man lasts forever."24 Posterity, then,can only assume resemblance; although it cannot know ifa work looks like the sitter, it will be convinced by the forceof a beautiful painting.25If posterity cannot judge resemblance in a portrait of

someone it has never seen, the contemporary who does notknow the living sitter is in a similarposition. Diderot raisedthis issue in the Salon of 1767, and his conception of thequestion illuminates the whole problematic nature of in-terpreting the portrait. He observed that both the unin-formed viewer and the connoisseur admired portraits thathad the semblance of life even if they had never known theportrayed sitter. But, he wondered, why do they judge thatthe works are portraits? "What difference is there betweena fantasy portrait and a real portrait?"26When resemblancecannot be determined, and Diderot clearly suggests thatthis is usually the case, the sitter assumes the status of animagined figure.27Although in considering individual portraits Diderot didnot refrain from commenting on the degree of likeness(which he called truth),28 in discussing the genre of por-traiture he presented himself as an enemy of resemblance,as one who expected that the artist would emphasize hisinvention in the work, and that the spectator would judgeit as an artistic conception. Moreover, he converted theAristotelian distinction between historian and poet into aseparation of portrait maker (whom he characterized as adauber)and artistwho makes a portrait. Likethe historian,the portrait maker is concerned with the accurate descrip-tion of an external object; the artist who makes a portrait,on the other hand, fabricates an internally consistent workof art, an illusion of truth. To make a good portrait theartist must imagine and invent the sitter in much the sameway that a history painter (who is not a historian but apoet) forms his characters, by showing nature not as it is,but as it might be. Thus the philosophe calls up Aristotle'scategories of the true (vrai) and the seemingly true (vrai-semblable) and differentiates the portrait as history fromthe portrait as poetry. Here he diverged from his prior dis-cussion of the portrait as acopy of a copy, and shifted froma Platonic to an Aristotelian conception of art. He arguedthat the skilled paintermade a portrait in the way Voltaire,as a poet, wrote history: "Heaggrandizes, he exaggerates,

22"Lem&ritede ressembler est passager; c'est celui du pinceau qui emer-veille dans le moment et qui 6ternisel'ouvrage"(Diderot, "Salon de 1763,"in Salons, as in n. 11, I, 204).23 "Cequ'ily a de certain, c'est que rienn'estplus rarequ'unbeau pinceau,plus commun qu'unbarbouilleurqui fait ressembler et que quand l'hommen'est plus, nous supposons la ressemblance"(Diderot, "Salon de 1763,"in Salons, as in n. 11, I, 204). Grimmdisagreedwith Diderot on this point.He argued that the attraction of the truth was invincible, and contendedthat the price of a Van Dyck would fall if people knew that the portraitdid not resemble its sitter. "C'estque le premier m&rited'un portrait estde ressembler, quiqu'on dise, et un grand peintre n'a qu'a faire des totesde fantaisie, s'il n'a pas le talent de donner de la ressemblance"(ibid.).24"Leportrait ressemblant du barbouilleur meurt avec la personne, celuide l'habile homme reste a jamais" (Diderot, "Salon de 1767," in Salons,as in n. 11, III, 170).25One is reminded of Picasso's comment to GertrudeStein when she ob-jected that his portraitdid not resembleher. In retorting, "Itwill," Picassorecognized what Diderot had already stated.26 "Quelle difference y a-t-il entre une tete de fantaisie et une tete rhelle?"(Diderot, "Salon de 1767," in Salons, as in n. 11, III, 168).27Diderot's comments on the portrait reverberatedinto the 19th century

when the proliferation of resemblances angered many. For example, in1846 Champfleury expressed similar sentiments in his tirade against thewealthy, arrogant men who commissioned portraits in order to have pos-terity remember their names. Have they never been to the Louvre, heasked. There they would see the portraits of (portraits de) Rembrandt,Van Dyck, Rubens. Playing on the double meaning of portraitde as either"theportrait whose sitter is" or "theportrait made by," Champfleury re-minded his audience that it was the artist who was remembered in a bril-liant portrait. He went on to say that a portrait is only a portrait for aspecific audience; for others it has the status of any representation. "Unportrait ne peut resterqu'a la condition d'etre l'image d'un grand hommeou d'un parent, d'un ami, d'un serviteur de ce grand homme. Autrement,il perd son nom, ses qualites et ses titres, il devient I'homme au gant, lafemme au singe, le bourgmestre" (Champfleury, Oeuvres posthumes deChampfleury, Salons 1846-1851, Paris, 1894, 48).28The most conspicuous example of this tendency is Diderot's commen-tary on his own portraitexecutedby Michel van Loo and discussed below.He began that piece by stating, "J'aimeMichel, mais j'aimemieux la verite"("Salon de 1767," in Salons, as in n. 11, III, 66). Other examples includehis discussion of Roslin's Comtesse d'Egmontin the Salon of 1763 and hiscomments on Greuze's portrait of M. le Dauphin in the Salon of 1761.


7/27/2019 frag01

6/12


he corrects the forms. Is he right or is he wrong? He iswrong for the pedant, he is right for the man of taste."29The continuing discussion of the portrait opens an ap-propriate viewing space for perhaps the most remarkablegroup of paintings executed during the eighteenth century:Fragonard's portraits de fantaisie. And remembering Di-derot's question, "What difference is there between a fan-tasy portrait and a real portrait?"we must approach theseworks and choose to be either pedants or people of taste.Fantasy PortraitsDiderot's question is evoked even by the name that wasgiven to these fourteen paintings by Georges Wildenstein,who first isolated them as a group in 1960. However, whenmodern writers have called Fragonard's inventions por-traits de fantaisie, they have violated the eighteenth-cen-tury meaning of the term. An Enlightenment critic usedeither tate de fantaisie or portrait de fantaisie to signify animagined figure not made from a specific model, as is ev-ident from Diderot's opposition of the fantasy portrait (tetede fantaisie) to the real portrait (tete reele).30 This oppo-sition implies that the fantasy portrait is no portrait at all.When Wildenstein used the term, however, he defined por-traits de fantaisie as "works in which the expression of theface is not stressed," and contradicted its eighteenth-cen-tury meaning by contending that Fragonard's paintingsportrayed his friends and patrons.31All subsequent com-mentators have followed suit. It is curiously appropriate,however, that a misuse of the critical vocabulary shouldlead us again to Diderot's question.Surely these portraits de fantaisie speak to those prob-lems eloquently summarizedby the philosophe who is saidto be depicted on one of the canvases (Fig. 1). Fragonard'sassertions are hardly subtle as they proclaim the artist'sprivileged position in the portrait and defy posterity toidentify the sitters. Although the particular nature of Fra-gonard's achievement will be discussed below, the obviousneeds to be stated at this point: the dazzling brushworkalone makes it evident that the portraits de fantaisie stressthe artist's fabrication, and the costumed figures with ex-aggerated poses, gestures, and expressions make no pre-tense of being exact resemblances.It seems almost misguided, then, that much scholarly in-vestigation has been focused on naming these sitters, and

that museum labels record the various possible identifi-cations for a public eagerly asking whom the portraits rep-resent.32But in the total absence of written documentation,how are we and posterity to be certain whom the portraitresembles? At best we can say that the portrait resemblesother portraits or literary descriptions, but these are notreliable guides to exact likeness. For, even if eighteenth-century theorists believed that a precise transcription waspossible, every portrait deviates from its model. Withoutthe confirmation of contemporary records, could anyonebe sure, for example, that Boucher's portrait of Mme. dePompadour now in the Wallace Collection represents thesame woman as Drouais' painting in the National Gallery,London, or that Nattier's depiction of Mme. Henriette(Florence, Uffizi) and his portrait of Manon Belletti (Lon-don, National Gallery) are not depictions of the same in-dividual? Although useful facts are unearthed in research-ing the identity of Fragonard'ssitters, the paintings beg tobe read generally as works of art and specifically as por-traits that comment on the genre of portraiture.What difference is there between a fantasy portrait anda real portrait? Fragonard posed this problem as surely asDiderot asked the question. Anyone who has attempted toname individual sitters (and Iput myself into this category)must decide if these are portraits at all. Although it is com-monplace to assume that at least some of these works rep-resent Fragonard's riends and patrons, only the two d'Har-court portraits and that said to be Diderot have beenidentified with any reasonable degree of probability.33Thed'Harcourt paintings were owned by the family continu-ously from the eighteenth to the twentieth century, but thetwo works never hung in their portrait gallery during thattime.34Even if these were recognizedas depicting two mem-bers of that illustrious lineage, they were treateddifferentlyfrom the ordinary face paintings. Do these paintings depict"real" itters or do they renderimagined visages? The ques-tion is problematic only if we try to answer it rather thanseeing it as the answer. In Fragonard'sportraitsde fantaisie,the distinction between the true and the true-seeming is soobviously blurredthat the blurringitself becomes a distinctfeature of these portraits. This principle of indeterminacyis established by the primary referents, which, as works ofart, are themselves illusions.Some of the portraitsde fantaisie arereinventions of well-

29 "I1aggrandit, il exagbre, il corrige les formes. A-t-il raison? a-t-il tort?Il a tort pour le pedant, il a raison pour l'homme de goit. Tort ou raison,c'est la figure qu'il a peinte qui restera dans la m6moire des hommes avenir" (Diderot, "Salon de 1767," in Salons, as in n. 11, I1I, 170).30 In the Encyclopedieunder the entry for fantaisie, the usage was defined,"Un peintre fait un portrait de fantaisie, qui n'est d'apres moddle." (Apainter makes a fantasy portrait that is after no model whatsoever.) SeeVoltaire, "Fantaisie,"Encyclopedie (as in n. 4), Iv, 403.31 Georges Wildenstein, The Paintings of Fragonard,New York, 1960, 14.32The best attempt to identify the sitters is that of Pierre Rosenberg andIsabelle Compin, "Quatre nouveaux Fragonard au Louvre," Revue duLouvre, xxxiv, 1974, 183-92. Obviously, in the case of sitters where theattributes clearly define the individuals (i.e., the kings of Franceor othermen and women of historical import), the identification does not have to

be based on the criterion of resemblance. This is also true whenever aspecific sign can be associated with a specific individual.33Rosenbergand Compin make a convincing case for the d'Harcourtpor-traits and a slightly less convincing one for the Diderot. Comparing Fra-gonard's work to other known portraits of the philosophe, they try toassess the agreement in depiction of physiognomy. Although in this con-text they mention the portrait of Diderot exhibited by Michel van Loo in1767, they only note the difference between the color of the eyes, whichare blue in Fragonard'spainting and brown in Van Loo's portrait. Theydo not mention, however, the striking similarities between the two com-positions. Rosenberg and Compin also try to identify a fourth work withthe dancer La Guimard: however, this case is not so convincing as theothers; see n. 42 below.34This information came from the d'Harcourtfamily.


7/27/2019 frag01

7/12


1 J.H.Fragonard, ortraitof Diderot.Paris,Museedu Louvre(photo:ReuniondesMushesNationaux)

known portraits, most play on standard types within thegenre, and all refer to other works of art. The piece calledDiderot (Fig. 1; ca. 1769, Louvre), for example, is a rein-vention of the portrait by Michel van Loo (Fig. 2; 1767,Louvre), which the philosophe criticized for faulty resem-blance. He chastised Van Loo for depicting him as tooyoung, too affected, too pretty. The sumptuous dress, heprotested, was not appropriate for a philosopher, and theexpression was altogether wrong. Evocatively describinghow he imagined himself, Diderot wanted to be shown ina moment of reverie, his eyes looking afar, his mouthslightly open.35If the philosophe displayed the suggestiveforce of his literary portrait against the precisely detailed,but uninspired, depiction by Van Loo, Fragonard rein-vented his predecessor's work and demonstrated his ownsuperior achievement. To emphasize the intellectual ca-pabilities, Fragonardincreased the size of the forehead, ex-aggerating the philosopher type. He adjusted the inspired

2 Michelvan Loo, Portraitof Diderot,1767.Paris,Mus&e uLouvre photo:Reuniondes MushesNationaux)

writer pose used in the earlier work to form a more con-tinuous spiral movement that directs the energies inwardand suggests the self-absorption of philosophical reflec-tion.36The expression is indeed one of reverie, with eyeslooking afar and mouth slightly open; and the eliminationof costly objects and rich materials focuses attention on theindividual. But to what extent can Fragonard'spainting becalled a portrait of Diderot? It is more precisely a portraitof Van Loo's portrait of Diderot, and clearly an inventiveone at that. The obvious reference is to another work ofart, especially since there is no evidence that Fragonardsketched Diderot from life.37A similar problem is presented by the piece called Lamusique (Fig. 3; 1769, Louvre). On the lining of its canvasan inscription identifies the figure as M. de la Breteche, thebrother of Fragonard'spatron Saint-Non. Although the in-scription is a later addition, scholars have searched in vainfor a known portrait of LaBret&chehat could be compared

35Diderot, "Salon de 1767," in Salons (as in n. 11), iii, 66-70.36For an iconographic study of this pose in the 18th century, see JamesRubin, "Lepokte inspire: Leportrait du Lebrun-Pindarepar Jean-BernardRestout," Revue du Louvre, XL,1980, 77-79.37Consider the implication, however, of treating Fragonard's painting asa real portrait. To the 18th-century mind, making a portrait from a por-trait might have lessened the prestige of the second work, for the distance

between it and any general ideal was necessarily increased.Although fromour 20th-century vantage we cannot say how much these portraits re-semble their sitter, we have formed our image of the great man after thegreat work. Of the two Diderots that now hang in the Louvre, it wasFragonard'sportrait that publicly represented the philosopher in the re-cent exhibition dedicated to his art criticism. Not only did it appear inthe gallery, but it could also be seen in the streets as the poster advertisingthe exhibition.


7/27/2019 frag01

8/12


3 J.H. Fragonard,Lamusique,1769.Paris,Mus&e u Louvre(photo:Reuniondes MushesNationaux)

to it. In pursuing the presumed sitter, a more obviousmodel, Greuze's portrait of La Live de Jully (Fig. 4; 1769,Washington, National Gallery of Art) has been over-looked. When the two paintings are placed side by side,the resemblance is striking. I would not venture to say,however, that Fragonard'sportrait is intended to representthe famous amateur, but rather would argue that he rein-vents a well-known model in order to display his own vir-tuosity. If Greuze's lively portrait of La Live de Jully en-gages the viewer directly, Fragonardmakes his figure seemeven more immediate by increasing the torsion of the pose,intensifying the light effects, and exaggerating the appar-ently spontaneous brushwork. Theorists such as Dandr&-Bardon, professor at the Ecole Royale, suggested to youngartists the practice of competing with recognized works.By surpassing them, the challengerdemonstrated his imag-inative powers and proclaimed his own prodigious genius.38If Diderot and La musique are Fragonard's most con-spicuous reinventions of specific models, other portraits de

4 J.B.Greuze,Portraitof M. La Livede Jully,1759.Washing-ton, D.C., NationalGalleryof Art (photo:NationalGalleryofArt Photographic ervices)

fantaisie quote poses frequently used in portrait-making.Some refer to the typical seventeenth-century formula fordepicting men of rank or talent, where the figure is posi-tioned so that its form presents marked diagonal opposi-tions, often with the head turned in strong contrast to thebody. Examples of this type include the Fantasy Figure inBlue (Fig. 5; 1769, Louvre) and The Actor (private collec-tion). Others, such as The YoungArtist (Louvre), use thepose reserved for inspired writers and creative geniuses.But perhapsmost important, seven of the figures areplacedat a ledge, a traditional trompe-l'oeil motif used to suggestthat the sitter is physically present.39Indeed, one of thebest-known stories of mistaking image for reality that cir-culated in the eighteenth century referred to such a half-length portrait by Rembrandt that, when hung in a win-dow, fooled passers-by with its illusionism.40 To play with

38The idea of competing with, rather than copying, a model has its rootsin the ancient concept of aemulatio. See Quintilian, The Institutes of Or-atory, transl. J. Selby Wilson, 2 vols., London, 1903, i, 279.39For an interesting discussion of this motif, see Sixten Ringb6m, Icon toNarrative. The Rise of the Dramatic Close-up in Fifteenth-Century De-votional Painting, Abo, 1965, esp. 4-5.40The story was recorded by Roger de Piles in his Abrege de la vie despeintres. He claimed to have owed the very painting, La Crasseuse (now

believed to be a copy of Rembrandt'sYoungGirlLeaningon a Windowsill,1645, London, Dulwich College Gallery), which inspired such notableconfusion. For a discussion of this and other aspects of Rembrandt'srep-utation in 18th-centuryFrance,see Jean Cailleux, "Lesartistes franCaisdudix-huitieme siecle et Rembrandt," in Etudes d'art frangais offertes a'Charles Sterling, Paris, 1975, 287ff. Fragonardcopied a half-length por-trait like La Crasseuse, Rembrandt's The Girl with a Broom (Leningrad,Hermitage), when it was in the collection of Crozat de Thiers (Wilden-stein, as in n. 31, 191).


7/27/2019 frag01

9/12


5 J.H.Fragonard, antasyFiguren Blue.Paris,Mus&e u Lou-vre (photo:ReuniondesMushesNationaux)such a convention was to underscore the conflation of realportrait and fantasy portrait. For, if Rembrandt's lessonwas that art could effect a confusion between the thing andits image, Fragonarddemonstrated the difficulty of distin-guishing what had been copied from what had beenimagined.Through the consistent use of other portraits or portraitconventions, Fragonardplayed on the expectations that anaudience would bring to a work in that genre. The presenceof attributes that signaled an occupation or rank for eachfigure further encouraged the viewer to see these paintingsas portrayals of real and identifiable individuals. But otherclues signify make-believe: all the figures are costumed andtheir garb does not copy contemporary, theatrical, or his-toricaldress, but is composed of picturesqueelementsculledfrom other paintings and imaginatively synthesized. Arethese real sitters in fantasy dress, or imagined charactersdressed in the conventions of real portraits? Or are bothpossibilities contained within the same group? While pon-dering this masquerade, however, we recognize the artistas the real hero of these portraits. This realization clarifiesthe persistent questions because we understand that theirposing is part of Fragonard'sinvention, his ability to play

cleverly with traditions, conventions, and definitions ofgenre. It is only by seeing the series in this light that wecan appreciatehow the almost grotesquely comic Ladywitha Dog (New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art) belongsto the same species as the brilliantly executed Fantasy Fig-ure in Blue (Fig. 5). By varying the variations, that is, byreinventing contemporary portraits, revitalizing standardtypes, mixing real sitters with fictive ones, Fragonardre-fuses to confine his imaginative play to a predictablepattern.Read as portraits that question the nature of portraiture,Fragonard'sworks invite a rethinking of the genre. Whilerefusing to distinguish the copied from the imagined, theyengage other paintings in a perpetual dialogue and trans-form the portrait into a display piece of the artist's inven-tion. Consummate invention was a sign of artistic geniusfor an eighteenth-century audience, and in the portraits defantaisie the obvious display of invention inverts the por-trait'sprimary function: that of representinga sitter. Con-siderations of these works as demonstrations of Frago-nard's art, however, have focused exclusively on his han-dling of paint, which is read as a natural sign for sponta-neous creation. In privileging this "natural"sign, inter-preters have overlooked other aspects of invention thatshow the portraits de fantaisie to be highly calculated andartificed productions.41

Although it is true that an eighteenth-century artist wasable to express his genius through virtuoso handling, hecould do so only because a certain kind of brushwork hadbecome a sign that the artist could willfully make and thatthe viewer could easily recognize. An unfinished executionwith visible touches made any work seem spontaneouslyinvented and executed, thrown off in the heat of inspirationwhen genius was at its hottest point. Facility, or the ap-pearanceof speed and ease of execution, was admired, and,as Watelet noted, "The artist to whom heaven has given agenius for painting applies his colors with the lightness ofa facile brush and the traits that he forms are animated andfull of fire."42A viewer who sees only brushwork, however, sees onlyone aspect of the artist's achievement; he blinds himselfboth to the carefully calculated references and to the con-sciously planned designs that invoke traditional academicrules of pictorial invention. According to these rules, a fig-ure should reveal a balance and variety in its parts, and afluid enchaniement of its contours. Although artists wereinstructedto observe the principle of contrast (i.e., the con-scious juxtaposition of features, lights, touches), they werecautioned to make the oppositions seem natural, as if ef-fected by chance. The notion of convenance demanded cor-rect drawing suited to the object depicted and accurateren-deringof a distinctive personality or spirit. In the principles

41Such is the case, for example, in the essay by Charles Sterling, Portraitof a Man (The Warrior)by Jean-HonorkFragonard,Williamstown, MA,1964.42"L'artisteque le ciel a doue du genie de la peinturedistribue ses couleurs

avec la legerete d'un pinceau facile: les traits qu'il forme sont animus etpleins de feu" (Watelet, "Facilit&," s in n. 5, I, 284). This argument isfully developed in my article, "On Fragonard'sEnthusiasm," The Eigh-teenth-Century: Theory and Interpretation, xxvIII, 1987.


7/27/2019 frag01

10/12


of color, convenance again assumed great importance, andthe true genius did not simply devise a pleasing color har-mony and handling of paint, but invented them accordingto the nature of his subjects.43Consider the figure called La Guimard (Fig. 6; ca. 1769,Louvre), which reinvents the central pelerine of Watteau'sL'embarquementpour Cythere (1717, Louvre). By applyingthe principles of invention, Fragonard not only made abeautiful composition but also transformed a figure imag-ined by Watteau into a distinctly individual characterwhomay or may not portray a specific woman.44As conceivedby Fragonard, the composition has a basic stability, withthe figure's hands and head marking the three points of atriangle. Within this frame, the torso is articulated by aserpentineaxis; because its contours flow easily, neither thewoman's attitude nor her gesture seem overly mannered.Fragonardfollowed the principle of contrast scrupulously,however, by adding varied effects to the figurewithout dis-rupting the compositional balance. He juxtaposed the long,straight line that marks one side of her neck to the activeruff composed of small curvilinear strokes. As the upswepthair opposes the downcast gaze,the fully rounded left cheekbalances the sharp profile of the right. In varying the han-dling of paint, Fragonard rendered the face with delicatetouches that are distinct from the bold, loose brushworkdefining the costume.The principle of convenance also operates in this work.Both the undulating S-curve of the torso and the soft, plianthands are appropriatefor this slenderyoung woman. If thecurvilinear contours of La Guimardsuggest her femininity,the opposing lines, jagged profile, and clenched fist of theFantasyFigurein Blue (Fig.5) reveal a masculine character.Here Fragonardopposed the red-orange of the cape to thedominant blue of the costume and used touches of yellowto enliven the whole. The intense color contrast coupledwith the decisive brushwork reinforces the vigor expressedin the direct diagonal opposition of the lines. The un-blended facial tones describe a firm and ruddy complexion,where touches of pure red emphasize the coursing blood.LaGuimard, on the other hand, is based on a more subduedred/green contrast in order to convey the less aggressivecharacter, which also is carried in her downcast gaze, re-strainedpose, and tentative gesture. Whereas the limbs anddrapery of the FantasyFigurein Blue move out to dominatethe surrounding space, in La Guimard the gesture is con-tained so that only one finger protrudes, ever so slightly,over the ledge.

6 J.H.Fragonard,La Guimard.Paris,Mus6edu Louvre(photo:Reuniondes MushesNationaux)

Taste and GeniusIf the portraits de fantaisie can be considered portraitsthat both question the nature of the genre and proclaim theartist's genius through a display of invention and brush-work, for what audience were they intended? Clearly, theywere not designed for the gens du monde who wanted tobe admired in a good likeness. We might say that they werepainted with an eye to that most demanding of judges, pos-terity, but this answer does not acknowledge that theseworks are best read as part of a discourse about the portraitthat emerged within a specific cultural context. Althoughwe do not know the exact patrons who owned Fragonard'sportraits de fantaisie, we do know that he usually workedfor a specific kind of clientele - the amateurs. Like theAbbe de Saint-Non, they were men well versed in the his-tory of art, well read in aesthetic theory, and thoroughlyfamiliar with the academic conventions of picture-making.

43Dandr6-Bardon (as in n. 14), 172-215.44 La Guimard was a famous dancer for whom Fragonardworked, andRosenberg and Compin (as in n. 32) argue that this portrait de fantaisiedepicts her. There are problems, however, with this identification becauseit is totally based on "resemblance" o selected aspects of the woman pres-ent in literary portraits (some by 19th-century authors) and a portraitbust. Other characteristics of the woman Fragonard depicts do not cor-

respond to what we know of LaGuimard. Forexample, Fragonard's igurehas the attributes of a miniaturist, and expresses a shyness perhaps in-appropriate for a woman who (history has it) consistently treatedhim inan imperious manner.Also underminingthis identification is the tendencyfor commentators to attach the names of Fragonard'spatrons indiscrim-inately to his portraits. At least two other depictions of young womenhave been identified as portraits of Mlle. Guimard, even though the pre-sumed Guimards differ notably from one another in physiognomic type.


7/27/2019 frag01

11/12


7 J.H.Fragonard,TheSwing,1767.London,WallaceCollec-tion (by permission he Trustees f theWallaceCollection)They formed a sophisticated audience interested in thefashionable issues of art and fully capable of appreciatingthe cleverness of a painting that commented upon itself.Above all else, they were men of taste.If the amateur looked at a portrait to see the artist whoinvented it, he did so because taste enabled him to appre-ciate the workings of imagination in the finished painting.45As defined in the eighteenth century, taste was based insensibilit&,a sixth sense that was guided by judgment andhad for its object the work of art. Although taste itself wasa gift of nature, it had to be developed by studying art andtheory. Perfect taste allowed the viewer to sense the dif-ference between the excellent and the mediocre distinctly,without confounding them or mistaking one for the other.46As the genius for recognizing genius, the amateur's tastesharedsome basic characteristics with its counterpartin theartist. Both were gifts of nature cultivated through mas-tering the principles of art, both operated best with judg-ment as a guide, and both worked with rapidity and force

in an inspired moment. This dual emphasis on genius andtaste placed a particular importance on both the creativeprocess and the aesthetic experience, for the interaction be-tween the imagination of the artist and the sensibilite ofthe observer was predicated upon these two concepts. Thetaste of the viewer instinctively responded to the presenceof genius, and the painting was the physical mediumthrough which this presence was transmitted. For the manof taste, interest in the object representedwas supersededby a fascination with the conceiving mind.The Duc d'Harcourt, who was probably a patron - ifnot a sitter - of the portraits de fantaisie, fits the profileof the amateur and man of taste. He had a substantial rep-utation as a writer, published a treatise on gardening, andwas elected to the Academie Fran;aise in 1789. He is saidto have drawn and carved, and to have amused himself byacting in and writing plays for the thebatre 'Harcourt.47Afamily tradition holds that Fragonardpainted six of his por-traits de fantaisie after disguised guests who attended a feteheld in the pavilion de fantaisie that decorated the gardensof the d'Harcourt chateau. Although there is no reason toaccept this explanation for Fragonard'sseries, an appre-ciation for a costumed portrait that blurs the distinctionsbetween fantasy and reality seems consistent with the in-terests of an amateur who performed in his own theaterand regularly gave masquerade balls. And indeed the tra-dition might well have begun when one of his descendantsnoted that the portrait and the costumed fetes representedsimilar interests. It does not seem totally improbable thata "real,"but costumed portrait executed for the Duc d'Har-court stimulated the whole series of works, but it is equallylikely that d'Harcourt, knowing Fragonard's portraits defantaisie, sought an example for his own collection.

Fragonard'sapproach to the portraits de fantaisie is en-tirely consistent with his treatment of the portrait else-where, for example, in The Swing (Fig. 7; London, WallaceCollection) executed for the amateur, the Baron Saint-Ju-lien in 1767.48Like the portraits defantaisie, this work dem-onstrates the painter's genius in its witty play with the con-ventions of art as well as in its brilliant brushwork andimaginative invention. TheSwing also stretches the bound-aries of the portrait by transforming it into a scene whosenarrative components conceal its identification with thatgenre. Indeed, even though we know that Saint-Juliencom-missioned thework as a depiction of his mistress, TheSwingis never investigated as a portrait.49 n discussing the paint-ing, commentators have not interested themselves in iden-tifying Saint-Julien'smistress or discussing the degree ofresemblance that marks the portrait of the baron placed in

4sMarc-Antoine Laugier,Manibrede bien juger des ouvrages de peinture(Paris, 1771), repr., Geneva, 1972, 47-49.46 CharlesBatteux, Les beaux-arts rbduit' un meme principe, Paris, 1746,53-59.47For more information about the duke's life, see the introduction to theedition of 1919of his treatisewrittenfrom recordsof the d'Harcourtfamily(Mgr. le Duc d'Harcourt, Traits de la decoration des dehors, des jardins,

et des parcs, intro. Ernest de Ganay, Paris, 1919).48This work dates from the same time as the portraits de fantaisie, andits dimensions match those of the painting in that group.49For the cirumstances of the commission, see Charles Coll&,Journal etmemoirs, 3 vols., Paris, 1868, III, 165. Donald Posner has recently in-terpretedthe painting in "The Swinging Women of Watteau and Fragon-ard," Art Bulletin, LXIV,1982, 75-88.


7/27/2019 frag01

12/12


the grass below. It is the total absence of portrait conven-tions that deters us from applying the standard methods:The Swing simply does not look like a portrait, and thattakes precedence, it would seem, over the documentaryevidence that places it within the genre. But in the case ofthe portrait de fantaisie where their status as real portraitsis in doubt, the obvious use of portrait conventions has ledmany viewers to assume the duties appropriate for thatgenre: identifying the sitter and judging the resemblance.In The Swing, on the other hand, Fragonardhas obviouslyintended another role for the audience. The viewer imag-inatively participates in the depicted event by helping todupe the naive cleric who does not see that, by pushing theswing, he is exposing the young lady to her lover's gaze.A representation of Falconet'sMenacing Cupid is includedin the garden setting to insure the viewer's compliance.

Placing finger to lips, this cupid asks the onlooker not toalert the intended victim, who here should fear the barb ofridicule rather than the gold-tipped arrow. If in The SwingCupid makes the observer an accomplice to the ruse, in theportraits de fantaisie, no cupid, menacing or otherwise,alerts the unsuspecting to Fragonard'strickery. The joke isat the expense of the naive viewer who, in pursuing theelusive sitter, allows the artist to escape him.Mary Sheriff wrote her doctoral dissertation on Fragonard(University of Delaware, 1981), on whom she has publishedother articles and now is preparing a book. Her researchis supported by a Getty Postdoctoral Fellowship. [The De-partment of Art, University of North Carolina, Hanes ArtCenter 079A, Chapel Hill, NC 27514]

Documents

frag01