The Nuances Of Artistic Self-Aggrandisement
By Chani Balmer. Art History 224: Power and Piety – The Baroque, Semester Two, 2018. Grade: A+
Compare and contrast the artistic patronage of two Baroque rulers. How did art enable them to articulate, justify and enhance their power?
Art was an invaluable tool of persuasion and self-presentation in the repertoire of a ruler, and was used as such to extraordinary effect again and again. Two rulers who wielded artistic representation in such a masterful way were Pope Urban VIII and King Louis XIV of France; both took full advantage of the Baroque style’s characteristic drama and monumentality, and its evocative, sensory nature to captivate an audience.
As the pontificate of the Catholic Church, Urban VIII was naturally concerned with the emphatic promotion of the Papal Office. However, the link between ecclesiastic and secular powers was indistinguishable and inextricable and as such Urban was also focused on a glorification of his own secular power, and the prestige of his family lineage. Gian Lorenzo Bernini’s, Bust of Urban VIII (fig. 1) and Pietro da Cortona’s, Triumph of Divine Providence (fig. 2) are demonstrative of these three interconnected interests. While Louis XIV was similarly preoccupied with the extension of his power through art, he also placed emphasis on asserting his absolute authority and legitimacy of rule. As he was only a third generation Bourbon ruler his power, while not directly in question, was bolstered by Louis’ prudent reaffirmation and vindication of his position as absolute monarch. This focus is expressed in Bernini’s Bust of King Louis XIV (fig. 3) and Charles Le Brun’s The King Governs by Himself, 1661 (fig. 4) (part of a larger narrative cycle).
Figure One. Bernini, Bust of Urban VIII, c.1632-33, (marble, H 83cm), Rome, Galleria Nazionale d’Arte Antica, Palazzo Barberini.
An affection of distance – a sense of separation from the viewer – is skilfully cultivated in both of Bernini’s busts here. In his bust (fig. 1) Urban possesses an astonishing sense of gravitas; his look of interiorised mental acuity – illustrated through the delicate wrinkles beside his eyes and the subtle furrow between his brows – is indicative of his intellect and intense self-possession. Bernini’s busts of Urban VIII illustrate the way in which he saw himself, a man confident in his authority and position; Urban orchestrated his own image as a powerful, self-contained ruler.[1] Haskell intimates that, “[this is an image] of hieratic dignity designed to portray a man who does not need to stress his right to be a ruler.”[2] I agree with this summation, as this bust is without the more persuasive and emotive elements of Baroque style. This work appears more like a statement of authority than a persuasive ploy. This internalisation, created within the Bust of Urban VIII, fosters a sense of detachment; there is no direct engagement between Urban and the viewer. This aloofness, in concert with the staid stoicism Bernini has so skilfully rendered, serves to impart the impression of a distinct level of prestige and superiority.
Figure Three. Bernini, Bust of Louis XIV, 1665, (marble, H: 105cm), Versailles, Musée du domaine et du château, Salon de Diane.
In contrast, Louis (fig. 3) has been depicted much more elaborately – even flamboyantly – as befitting his position. Art was wielded as a tool in service of propagating the King’s image; one of aggrandisement and resplendent power, suitable for the Sun King. Louis held an extremely high opinion of himself and art therefore had to adhere to this.[3] As such, his elevated gaze exudes a sense of dignified, self-assured composure reflecting a deliberate vindication and materialisation of his power. Like in the Bust of Urban VIII this denial of a direct gaze – in extension a connection to the viewer – servers to separate and elevate the figures themselves, placing Urban and Louis in a sphere of their own. As Bacchi, Hess, and Montagu suggest, the rather ostentatious cloud of drapery surrounding Louis serves this goal. It indicates a regal detachment and serves to elevate him (heightening the effect of the raised viewpoint), removing him from our space.[4] Additionally, it acts as an outlet for movement and an expression of Bernini’s bravura; the almost tumultuous sweep of it encasing Louis, while he remains composed within, perhaps symbolic of a political issue he weathered with calm. As in the Bust of Urban VIII, drapery serves to balance both the composition and tone of the work.
While Urban VIII and Louis XIV cultivated the relatively restrained sense of dignity inherent in marble portrait busts to best articulate their political personas and support their expressions of power, both also employed the use of monumental ceiling cycles. This medium presents different aspects of visual expression which are emphasised to their greatest effect by Cortona (fig. 2) and Le Brun (fig. 4 ), enabling the creation of highly illusionistic, emotive, and persuasive works in the service of immense articulations of power.
Figure Two. Cortona, Triumph of Divine Providence, 1633-39, (fresco, 1400 x 2400cm), Rome, Galleria Nazionale d’Arte Antica, Palazzo Barberini.
Urban’s expression of power in Triumph of Divine Providence (fig. 2) is ostensibly diametrically different to that presented in the Bust of Urban VIII. However, they both serve the function of the aggrandisement of the Barberini family and, most importantly, Urban himself. While Triumph of Divine Providence is elaborately, opulently, even defiantly self-aggrandising, its location in their palace, and the use of allegorical (rather than representational) figures allows for this rather shameless championing. However, a bust of Urban would not be able to achieve anything close to this level of ostentation without violating decorum. Self-promotion that overt would be unacceptable for the Pope. However, Louis XIV, the absolute monarch of a grand and opulent court, could.
Triumph of Divine Providence indicates the Baroque theme of artificially contrived naturalism: the solid, highly modelled and plastic forms of the figures and the use of dramatic, directional lighting (emanating from Divine Providence herself). This informs Haskell’s view of the involvement of the viewer in Urban’s battle against Vice and Sin.[5] The figures seem more vital, engendering a connection with the viewer, while the staged atmosphere lends itself to the invocation of some pitched, grand battle, in turn heightening the drama of the work. This incites a general tone of immediacy and persuasion – it feels visceral and real. The use of the figure Divine Providence as a compositional device serves a dual purpose: providing the work with a visual interlude and indicating the presence of divine order. The space surrounding Divine Providence provides a much needed respite in the otherwise riotous composition. Her golden rays of light reaching outward as she raises her arm in a gesture reminiscent of benediction. This warm, golden light she exudes dispels the encroaching evil (in the form of Saturn and the giants), along with the very chaos of the composition; providing order and expelling Vice and Sin.
At the time of this commission the Barberini family were at the zenith of their wealth and power, this work intending to reflect this unequivocally and unabashedly.[6] However, contemporaneously to this, the Papacy was beginning to lose power and prestige.[7] Therefore, this work seems like a deliberate flouting or opposition to this idea. Urban is promoting the primacy of the Barberini over that of the Papacy itself. By championing the excellence and pre-eminence of the Barberini family he is, in turn, extolling his own virtues and referencing his own power; he is the patriarch of the family and their success is his.[8] This work presents a perfect visual summation of the assertion of his vain and ambitious nature;[9] he places a focus on his family lineage and reflects a consuming desire to be remembered in history. This desire to affect history is likely a reaction to the relative transience of the Papal power systems; by cementing his family lineage in the fabric of Rome, Urban VIII will outlast his pontificate.
An inference can then be drawn between Urban’s unrelenting, vociferous, and prolific self-aggrandisement of the Barberini family – championing himself and his position as the head – and that as a mode of transfiguration, placing him as the head of the Papal States. A variant of Schmitter’s view on the manifold nature of Louis’ visual image could extend here.[10] Urban creates a parallel between his position within his family and his position within the papacy; images of the Barberini family might serve as allegories for the power and prestige of the papacy, while Rome’s power becomes Urban’s power. These representations serve to deliberately position Urban VIII within a dynasty of popes; a dynasty of secular leaders; and his own personal, familial dynasty. Each association interwoven within the fabric of a singular work, such as the Triumph of Divine Providence.
Figure Four. Le Brun, The King Governs by Himself 1661, c.1681-84, (oil on canvas, 400 x 500cm), Versailles, Galerie des Glaces.
While Cortona’s Triumph of Divine Providence is indubitably Baroque – dramatic, textural, and full of a whirlwind of almost riotous movement – Le Brun’s works for the Galerie des Glaces illustrate a clear synthesis of the French Classical bent and Italian Baroque (Le Brun unable to emulate the style directly).[11] The influence of The Triumph of Divine Providence is evident in the supple modelling of forms and high plasticity of the figures, particularly. The central work, The King Governs by Himself, is not only reflective of Louis’ role as an absolute monarch, but serves to highlight his position as a self-governing entity and firmly establish himself as a capable and self-sufficient ruler. Although this work was produced twenty years after Louis made the decision to rule without the aid of an advisor, the continual depiction of his authority and power servers to reinforce and solidify his right to rule. The figures of Minerva and Mars symbolise the two essential aspects of his successful rule: wisdom and military skill. He is the central figure – the locus around which the action propagates. The greater position of the work itself within the Galerie des Glaces is similarly central in the cycle of works, further cementing the utter centrality of Louis; he is the sun around which everything orbits.
Yet, while he is impressive and resplendent in the guise of a Roman Emperor wearing a gold and silver cuirass,[12] he is not domineering as the three figures of Empire, Spain, and the Dutch Republic in Le Brun’s The Pomp of the Neighbouring Powers of France (c. 1681-84, Versailles, Galerie des Glaces) are. They present a counterpoint, serving as a narrative foil of the king – his opposition in both political and symbolic terms. Rather, Louis is depicted commanding attention through charm, beauty, and creativity (as suggested by the presence of the Three Graces at his left shoulder). He does not need to achieve and maintain a strangle-hold on power through brutal and unjust means as the Empire, Spain, and the Dutch Republic do opposite (Le Brun, The Pomp of the Neighbouring Powers of France); he is willingly and joyfully followed, and as a result his kingdom is opulent and magnificent and fosters the arts. This is suggested by the putti which fill the bottom of the picture plane, engaged in musical, artistic, and intellectual pursuits, such as drama or literature, and the personification of Tranquillity, who sits to the left of Louis’ feet gazing upwards in adoration. This work serves as a perfect visual metaphor of absolute monarchy and Louis XIV’s idealised view of his reign.
The period of the Baroque, with its focus on emotion and persuasion, expressive movement, drama, and tactility, produced prolific art rife with political, ecclesiastical, and secular prescience. Urban and Louis are viewed symbolically (as suns or bees), allegorically (as Augustus or Divine Providence), or idealised in directly representational images. However we find them, their representations presented in these works (and others like them) are indicative of the incredible efforts of self-aggrandisement achieved during this period.
[1] Haskell, “Pope Urban VIII and his Entourage,” 40.
[2] Haskell, 40.
[3] Beresford and Blunt, “Louis XIV and Colbert 1660-1685,” 215-16.
[4] Bacchi, Hess, and Montagu, “Part 6: Absolute Art for Absolute Powers,” 239.
[5] Haskell, “Pope Urban VIII and his Entourage,” 52-3.
[6] Haskell, 51.
[7] Haskell, 62.
[8] Haskell, “Pope Urban VIII and his Entourage,” 40.
[9] Haskell, 40.
[10] Schmitter, “Representation and the Body of Power in French Academic Painting,” 399-400, 411, 415.
[11] Beresford and Blunt, “Louis XIV and Colbert 1660-1685,” 217.
[12] Burke, “Persuasion,” 35.
Bibliography:
Bacchi, Andrea, and Catherine Hess. “Creating a New Likeness: Bernini’s Transformation of the Portrait Bust.” In Bernini and the Birth of Baroque Portrait Sculpture, edited by Andrea Bacchi, Catherine Hess, and Jennifer Montagu, 1-43. Los Angeles: Getty Publications, 2008.
Bacchi, Andrea, Catherine Hess, and Jennifer Montagu. “Part 2: Rome of the Barberini.” In Bernini and the Birth of Baroque Portrait Sculpture, edited by Andrea Bacchi, Catherine Hess, and Jennifer Montagu, 119-155. Los Angeles: Getty Publications, 2008.
–––. “Part 4: “Speaking Likeness”: Intimacy and Immediacy in Bernini’s Portraiture.” In Bernini and the Birth of Baroque Portrait Sculpture, edited by Andrea Bacchi, Catherine Hess, and Jennifer Montagu, 185-198. Los Angeles: Getty Publications, 2008.
–––. “Part 6: Absolute Art for Absolute Powers.” In Bernini and the Birth of Baroque Portrait Sculpture, edited by Andrea Bacchi, Catherine Hess, and Jennifer Montagu, 239-281. Los Angeles: Getty Publications, 2008.
Berger, Robert W. “Mansart’s Colonnade at Versailles: Further Observations.” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 50, no. 2 (1991): 189-191.
Beresford, Richard, and Blunt, Anthony. “Louis XIV and Colbert 1660-1685.” In Art and Architecture in France, 1500-1700, 215-240. 2nd revised ed. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999.
Burke, Peter. “Persuasion.” In The Fabrication of Louis XIV, 15-37. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992.
Haskell, Francis. “Pope Urban VIII and his Entourage.” In Patrons and Painters, 24-62. Revised and enlarged ed. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980.
Lucie-Smith, Edward. The Thames and Hudson Dictionary of Art Terms. London: Thames and Hudson Ltd, 1984.
Montagu, Jennifer. “The Early Ceiling Decorations of Charles LeBrun.” The Burlington Magazine 105, no. 726 (1963): 395-408.
Montagu, Jennifer. The Expression of the Passions. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994.
Schmitter, Amy M. “Representation and the Body of Power in French Academic Painting.” Journal of the History of Ideas 63, no. 3 (2002): 399-424.
About the Author:
Chani Balmer is a current third year Bachelor of Arts student majoring in Art History. Some of her favourite movements are the Baroque, Pre-Raphaelite, and Post-Impressionist.
