Balsa Wood Look Alike

Fuseli's Nightmare at the Louvre, a semantic tangle

It made me wince

long to see those huge posters with Fuseli's Nightmare for a Louvre exhibition entitled Ancient dream ... I am not yet gone to see, it should delay, but this video made by Telerama nevertheless convinced me of two or three things.

Fuseli, The Nightmare , 1782, Detroit Institute of Arts

Faroult William, Commissioner of the scientific exhibition, we said at first he " There is no key in the literature, folklore and mythology that can help us to understand immediately the identity of characters. " Gasp. In literature and mythology, still happening, but the nightmare figure of folklore, what do we do? Allow me here to refer to my three tickets about this table. The nightmare is still a folk figure relatively unknown at the time, and although this is not a subject of the most popular, do not forget that Fuseli is primarily addressed to a select audience, able to understand his allusions Shakespeare (which itself reuses folklore in his plays, but brief) or even the medical test John Bond on the subject (but of that, Mr. Faroult not mentioned, probably did he not had the time). But oddly, a little later, Mr. Faroult adds that the devil had been interpreted as an incubus, demonic figure of Western folklore ("North", he adds, while the main author of the treatise known incubus, Ludovico Sinstrari, an inquisitor is Italian, but nevermind). We need to know, not folklore or folklore? Interpretability or not?
Do not be unfair to Mr. Faroult, I think we can agree on the fact that the key table Fuseli is no easy access and request a certain erudition. To say that there is not, is going a bit far, and return to the table that is incomprehensible ... it is not: it is all more mysterious because several key borrowed from a number of areas (literature, folklore, medicine ...) to provide access without actually contradicting himself. What is the brand that it is not simply an allegorical picture, but may well be "symbolic" in the sense hear later Symbolists: Fuseli handling of "symbols" open, not mandated by the senses pre-established conventions, which the move (unlike, for example Justice and Divine Vengeance pursuing Crime Prud'hon, a little later, but still in the neoclassical era) would leave a relatively open interpretation. The debate is long and exciting, but I think we can almost agree on many things regarding this item.

Prud'hon Justice and Divine Vengeance Pursuing Crime , 1808, oil on canvas 2.44 x 2.94 m, Paris, Musée du Louvre.

Where I'm afraid there is absolutely disagree, however, is the fact, however, of central importance to the exhibition, the painting of Fuseli would be a very good example of a "reaction" to the anticomanie of the late 18th century. That is to say? I know that it is precisely the purpose of the exhibition to show that this reaction to neoclassicism (which is the true subject of the exhibition from the Louvre, but the word remains strangely absent from the official descriptions ...), and I have not seen the show and am therefore in no position to judge. Either.
But if we are told that of Fuseli's Nightmare is the best example, then I really do not understand. There is absolutely no report of meaning between this work and antiquity, which made me wince when he saw the poster. We just explain to me then that it is precisely because it is a work in reaction against the ancient model. I will, but do not take people for idiots: this is not because a work has no semantic relation with a domain that is necessarily against it. It can also simply register elsewhere, here in another imaginary than the ancient, the medieval folklore and Shakespeare. If it were registered against the ancient, perhaps we would see at least an allusion to Ancient somewhere, but this is not the case. Unless we assume that the irrationality of the nightmare goes directly against the idea of an ancient rationality? ... I do not mind, it is discussed, but deserves at least that one speaks of the role of imagination in the Romanticism, a term that is avoided as that of neoclassicism in the speech of Mr. Faroult as in synopsis of the show played on the Louvre website . Rather than speaking of romance, one prefers to speak of the "current known Gothic sublime." The current Gothic happening yet, but the "current sublime," I do not know what it is apart from a syntactic impropriety (unless one wants to talk about a great river ?...) that has no place when the term "romance" would include Gothic taste and sense the sublime.

Another much more plausible theory comes to mind. The Louvre wanting to do an exhibition with pieces takes a sensational topic tote, the interpretation of ancient times by artists of the 18th century, and in addition allows himself to add some beautiful pieces that have absolutely nothing to do with a vast subject yet. Why? Because the goal, as in too many big exhibitions, is to have parts sensational, not to exhibitions taking place intellectually consistent from one end to another of the hanging.
Why not wanting a coherent narrative? Because (marketing principle # 1): "In any case people are not going to understand anything." And then it's art is meant to be admired, not to be understood. Then why use for the poster, a work conflict with the theme of the exhibition? Marketing Principle No. 2: "Culture is not sexy, it should make sexy", so for once we have a table with a woman swooning and a kobold, we will place it costs the cost, rather than imitating the ancient old thing in a rather austere. Finally, why not call a spade a spade, and not talk 1 / of neoclassicism, 2 / romantic reaction? Hay a reworking of historiographical concepts, the answer is quite different (marketing principle # 3): "Do not scare people with big words or repulsive."
If my theory is true, thank you The Louvre ®, you play really good role model, national, and visibly give really the way to the entire museum French. When there is a little less marketing and a little more history art exhibitions in the large national museums, the works, I think, will never look better.

are my prejudices, the exhibition now showing me that they are unfounded. But in terms of communication, already a fine intellectual muddle. Who said that culture and communication were a good mix?