Musée du Louvre: Painted Shoes

Chaussures peintes | Painted shoes | Calzados pintados | Gemalte Schuhe 1

MUSÉE DU LOUVRE CHAUSSURES PEINTES | PAINTED SHOES | CALZADOS PINTADOS | GEMALTE SCHUHE

MARGO GLANTZCATHERINE BELANGER

LOIS LAMMERHUBER

Louvre_shoes_box_Layout 1 17.05.11 14:35 Seite 1

Louvre_shoes_box_bild_Layout 1 17.05.11 16:56 Seite 2

2 Chaussures peintes | Painted shoes | Calzados pintados | Gemalte Schuhe





Chaussures peintes | Painted shoes | Calzados pintados | Gemalte Schuhe 13Jan MaSSYS, C. 1509-1575, daVid et BethSaBée, 1562


Chaussures peintes | Painted shoes | Calzados pintados | Gemalte Schuhe 13Jan MaSSYS, C. 1509-1575, daVid et BethSaBée, 1562


Chaussures peintes | Painted shoes | Calzados pintados | Gemalte Schuhe 19hyaCinthe RIGaUd, 1659-1743, louiS XiV, 1701


Chaussures peintes | Painted shoes | Calzados pintados | Gemalte Schuhe 19hyaCinthe RIGaUd, 1659-1743, louiS XiV, 1701







i the French writer Georges Bataille regarded the foot – or rather the big

toe – as ‘the most human part of the human body’. this remarkable

phrase is reaffirmed when we look at the pictures taken at the louvre by

lois lammerhuber to glorify not only the foot, this ‘limb of all limbs’ – again

according to Bataille – but also external covering used to envelope the foot:

the shoe. used since time immemorial, man is supposed to have invented

the shoe to protect himself from bad weather (since nature provided him

with neither claws, nor hooves nor fur), and subsequently, perhaps, to

satisfy his vanity and mark his social position in the world. in fact, these

photographs focus on the foot – or rather on the well-shod foot – despite

the fact that it frequently coexists with the naked foot in its primal perfection.

So why focus on the foot, or rather the well-shod foot? Why is it neces-

sary to cut away not only the human body, but also the rest of the painting

itself? looking at the pictures reproduced here, we immediately notice an

important fact: we never see a complete painting, but are only offered

the lower part of each, making it impossible – with some exceptions, and

depending on the angle of the camera– to view entire scenes or bodies.

this somewhat paradoxical, yet nevertheless productive approach yields

up specific details, performing a kind of dissection of each painting. our

eyes rest on individual elements that become the most visible elements

in each painting. as explained by Catherine Bédard with reference to the

art critic daniel arasse, ‘…the possibility to approach the work of art in this

way arouses great excitement, an excitement produced by the proximity of

the work, the pleasure of admiring it unreservedly thanks to photography,

even if it is only a reproduction.’

this manner of “dissecting” a painting forces us to see the unusual,

that which 19th-century Mexicans referred to as ‘porabajos’, or ‘lowers’,

whether they be the lower parts of the painting, or of the human body.

after all, the foot does support the body, does it not?

the foot is man’s support. in architecture, it is indispensable as the base

of pilasters and columns, and it enables us to stand upright. to many, this

essential part of us also represents the soul. to Sigmund Freud, the foot

is remarkable and has a phallic significance. the upright carriage which

man acquired compared to the ape when he descended from the lofty

branches to which early history had confined him made him become a

tree himself (again according to Bataille), perfectly erect. the foot also

the mark of death, since we all are walking towards it at a hurried pace,

just like Christ when he walked the path to Calvary, a scene frequently

depicted in the pictures painted between the 13th and the 16th centuries,

sheer paths walked barefoot.

a widespread and varied symbol, the foot also represents slavery in

Greek culture, and free men shod it in much the same way as women

covered their heads. Whilst liberating man, shoes enslaved his feet. Shoes

conceal his primal nudity, the nudity of the support that keeps us upright

on the triple and relentless symbolisation of the foot. it can represent the

soul, or rather the link between heaven and earth. We find confirmation

of this when we remember that the column is one of the most common

and traditional symbols of Christ: Columna est Christus.

ii the foot also represents the embryonic erection, eroticism in dis-

guise. the picture which Giovanni da Milano painted between 1360

and 1365 – presumably for a Pisa church, and showing St. Francis on

the panel of a polyptych – is a flagrant example of this, is it not? take a

look at the lower part of the painting. the saint is dressed in a grey tunic,

f r a G m e n t a t i o n a s a n a r t : t h e a e s t h e t i C s o f s h o e s



i the French writer Georges Bataille regarded the foot – or rather the big

toe – as ‘the most human part of the human body’. this remarkable

phrase is reaffirmed when we look at the pictures taken at the louvre by

lois lammerhuber to glorify not only the foot, this ‘limb of all limbs’ – again

according to Bataille – but also external covering used to envelope the foot:

the shoe. used since time immemorial, man is supposed to have invented

the shoe to protect himself from bad weather (since nature provided him

with neither claws, nor hooves nor fur), and subsequently, perhaps, to

satisfy his vanity and mark his social position in the world. in fact, these

photographs focus on the foot – or rather on the well-shod foot – despite

the fact that it frequently coexists with the naked foot in its primal perfection.

So why focus on the foot, or rather the well-shod foot? Why is it neces-

sary to cut away not only the human body, but also the rest of the painting

itself? looking at the pictures reproduced here, we immediately notice an

important fact: we never see a complete painting, but are only offered

the lower part of each, making it impossible – with some exceptions, and

depending on the angle of the camera– to view entire scenes or bodies.

this somewhat paradoxical, yet nevertheless productive approach yields

up specific details, performing a kind of dissection of each painting. our

eyes rest on individual elements that become the most visible elements

in each painting. as explained by Catherine Bédard with reference to the

art critic daniel arasse, ‘…the possibility to approach the work of art in this

way arouses great excitement, an excitement produced by the proximity of

the work, the pleasure of admiring it unreservedly thanks to photography,

even if it is only a reproduction.’

this manner of “dissecting” a painting forces us to see the unusual,

that which 19th-century Mexicans referred to as ‘porabajos’, or ‘lowers’,

whether they be the lower parts of the painting, or of the human body.

after all, the foot does support the body, does it not?

the foot is man’s support. in architecture, it is indispensable as the base

of pilasters and columns, and it enables us to stand upright. to many, this

essential part of us also represents the soul. to Sigmund Freud, the foot

is remarkable and has a phallic significance. the upright carriage which

man acquired compared to the ape when he descended from the lofty

branches to which early history had confined him made him become a

tree himself (again according to Bataille), perfectly erect. the foot also

the mark of death, since we all are walking towards it at a hurried pace,

just like Christ when he walked the path to Calvary, a scene frequently

depicted in the pictures painted between the 13th and the 16th centuries,

sheer paths walked barefoot.

a widespread and varied symbol, the foot also represents slavery in

Greek culture, and free men shod it in much the same way as women

covered their heads. Whilst liberating man, shoes enslaved his feet. Shoes

conceal his primal nudity, the nudity of the support that keeps us upright

on the triple and relentless symbolisation of the foot. it can represent the

soul, or rather the link between heaven and earth. We find confirmation

of this when we remember that the column is one of the most common

and traditional symbols of Christ: Columna est Christus.

ii the foot also represents the embryonic erection, eroticism in dis-

guise. the picture which Giovanni da Milano painted between 1360

and 1365 – presumably for a Pisa church, and showing St. Francis on

the panel of a polyptych – is a flagrant example of this, is it not? take a

look at the lower part of the painting. the saint is dressed in a grey tunic,

f r a G m e n t a t i o n a s a n a r t : t h e a e s t h e t i C s o f s h o e s







MaîTRE dE La SaINTE PaRENTÉ, C. 1470-1515, l’adoration deS MaGeS, la PréSentation au teMPle, l’aPParition du ChriSt à la VierGe, C. 1480attriBué à Pietro di CriStoForo VannuCCi, PÉRUGIN, C. 1450-1523, la VierGe et l’enFant entouréS de deuX anGeS, Sainte roSe et Sainte Catherine d’aleXandrie, 1490-1495



MaîTRE dE La SaINTE PaRENTÉ, C. 1470-1515, l’adoration deS MaGeS, la PréSentation au teMPle, l’aPParition du ChriSt à la VierGe, C. 1480attriBué à Pietro di CriStoForo VannuCCi, PÉRUGIN, C. 1450-1523, la VierGe et l’enFant entouréS de deuX anGeS, Sainte roSe et Sainte Catherine d’aleXandrie, 1490-1495



PhiliPPe dE CHaMPaIGNE,

1602-1674,

louiS Xiii Couronné Par la

ViCtoire (SièGe de la roChelle),

1635



PhiliPPe dE CHaMPaIGNE,

1602-1674,

louiS Xiii Couronné Par la

ViCtoire (SièGe de la roChelle),

1635



louiS davId, 1748-1825, SaCre de l’eMPereur naPoléon ier et CouronneMent de l’iMPératriCe JoSéPhine danS la Cathédrale notre-daMe de PariS, le 2 déCeMBre 1804,1806-1807louiS davId, 1748-1825, SaCre de l’eMPereur naPoléon ier et CouronneMent de l’iMPératriCe JoSéPhine danS la Cathédrale notre-daMe de PariS, le 2 déCeMBre 1804,1806-1807



louiS davId, 1748-1825, SaCre de l’eMPereur naPoléon ier et CouronneMent de l’iMPératriCe JoSéPhine danS la Cathédrale notre-daMe de PariS, le 2 déCeMBre 1804,1806-1807louiS davId, 1748-1825, SaCre de l’eMPereur naPoléon ier et CouronneMent de l’iMPératriCe JoSéPhine danS la Cathédrale notre-daMe de PariS, le 2 déCeMBre 1804,1806-1807



Sir thoMaS LaWRENCE, 1769-1830, leS enFantS d’aSCoyGhe BouCherettSir thoMaS LaWRENCE, 1769-1830, leS enFantS d’aSCoyGhe BouCherett



Sir thoMaS LaWRENCE, 1769-1830, leS enFantS d’aSCoyGhe BouCherettSir thoMaS LaWRENCE, 1769-1830, leS enFantS d’aSCoyGhe BouCherett



niColaS dE LaRGILLIERRE,

1656-1746,

Portrait de CharleS le Brun,

1683-1686

172, ENdPaPERS

Pierre MIGNaRd,

1612-1695,

Portrait de l’artiSte,

1690

2-3, 173, ENdPaPERS

Claude GILLOT,

1673-1722,

le toMBeau de Maître andré,

1716-1717

174

JoSePh PaRROCEL,

1646-1704,

PaSSaGe du rhin Par l’arMée

de louiS XiV à tolhuiS,

1699

175

hyaCinthe RIGaUd,

1659-1743,

louiS XiV,

1701

18-19, 176, 177

Jean-antoine WaTTEaU,

1684-1721,

Pierrot, GilleS,

1718-1719

178, 179

Carl vaN LOO,

1705-1765,

halte de ChaSSe,

1737

182, 183

louiS TOCQUÉ,

1696-1772,

Marie leçZinSKa,

1740

180-181

MauriCe-Quentin dELaTOUR,

1704-1788,

la MarQuiSe de PoMPadour,

1749-1755

184

Jean-BaPtiSte OUdRY,

1686-1755,

leS diVertiSSeMentS ChaMPêtreS,

1720-1723

186, 187, 188, 189

GiandoMeniCo TIEPOLO,

1727-1804,

SCène de CarnaVal, dit le Menuet,

1754-1755

185

thoMaS GaINSBOROUGH,

1727-1788,

lady alSton

20-21, 190

FranCiSCo dE GOYa Y LUCIENTES,

1746-1828,

Mariana WaldStein, neuVièMe

MarQuiSe de Santa CruZ

191

louiS-MiChel vaN LOO,

1707-1771,

Portrait du MarQuiS

de MariGny et de Son éPouSe,

1769

192, 193

Jan STEEN,

1626-1679,

la MauVaiSe CoMPaGnie,

1665-1670

162

CharleS LE BRUN,

1619-1690,

aleXandre et PoruS,

1665

164, 165

Pieter CorneliSZ

vaN SLINGELaNdT,

C. 1625/1630-1691,

FranS MeerMan, GreFFier

de la Ville de leyde et

Sa FaMille,1668

168,169

Pierre MIGNaRd,

1612-1695,

l a déliVranCe d’androMède,

1679

170-171



niColaS dE LaRGILLIERRE,

1656-1746,

Portrait de CharleS le Brun,

1683-1686

172, ENdPaPERS

Pierre MIGNaRd,

1612-1695,

Portrait de l’artiSte,

1690

2-3, 173, ENdPaPERS

Claude GILLOT,

1673-1722,

le toMBeau de Maître andré,

1716-1717

174

JoSePh PaRROCEL,

1646-1704,

PaSSaGe du rhin Par l’arMée

de louiS XiV à tolhuiS,

1699

175

hyaCinthe RIGaUd,

1659-1743,

louiS XiV,

1701

18-19, 176, 177

Jean-antoine WaTTEaU,

1684-1721,

Pierrot, GilleS,

1718-1719

178, 179

Carl vaN LOO,

1705-1765,

halte de ChaSSe,

1737

182, 183

louiS TOCQUÉ,

1696-1772,

Marie leçZinSKa,

1740

180-181

MauriCe-Quentin dELaTOUR,

1704-1788,

la MarQuiSe de PoMPadour,

1749-1755

184

Jean-BaPtiSte OUdRY,

1686-1755,

leS diVertiSSeMentS ChaMPêtreS,

1720-1723

186, 187, 188, 189

GiandoMeniCo TIEPOLO,

1727-1804,

SCène de CarnaVal, dit le Menuet,

1754-1755

185

thoMaS GaINSBOROUGH,

1727-1788,

lady alSton

20-21, 190

FranCiSCo dE GOYa Y LUCIENTES,

1746-1828,

Mariana WaldStein, neuVièMe

MarQuiSe de Santa CruZ

191

louiS-MiChel vaN LOO,

1707-1771,

Portrait du MarQuiS

de MariGny et de Son éPouSe,

1769

192, 193

Jan STEEN,

1626-1679,

la MauVaiSe CoMPaGnie,

1665-1670

162

CharleS LE BRUN,

1619-1690,

aleXandre et PoruS,

1665

164, 165

Pieter CorneliSZ

vaN SLINGELaNdT,

C. 1625/1630-1691,

FranS MeerMan, GreFFier

de la Ville de leyde et

Sa FaMille,1668

168,169

Pierre MIGNaRd,

1612-1695,

l a déliVranCe d’androMède,

1679

170-171

Documents

Musée du Louvre: Painted Shoes