The Revival of Trompe l’Oeil Painting in the United States and France, 1800–2000 I
The nineteenth century saw the rise of the movement known as realism (in reaction to the emotionalism of the Romantics) and the establishment of academies of fine arts in many cities across Europe. The popularity of the trompe l’oeil, however, continued unabated among the wealthy bourgeoisie and entrepreneurs, perhaps because of its accessibility in terms of subject matter and style. Nevertheless, art critics were beginning to question its nature and its validity as a form of artistic expression. Reflecting on the concept of imitation, John Ruskin (1819–1900) launched a stinging attack on the genre in his book Modern Painters. In his opinion, the trompe l’oeil artist was guilty of inveigling the viewer into admiring the skillful artifice of the painting and the technical prowess of the artist rather than seeking to present “the truth.” He observed, “The mind derives its pleasure, not from the contemplation of a truth, but from the discovery of the falsehood.”27 Meanwhile, in France at the beginning of the century, the neoclassical painter and art critic Philippe Chéry (1759–1838) dismissed this type of picture as a sleight of hand designed to exploit the credulity of the nouveaux riches. From the late nineteenth to the early twentieth century, the typology of the still life underwent a process of transformation and renewal, first at the hands of the impressionists and then by artists involved in subsequent avant-garde movements. In a rush to modernity, the trompe l’oeil was left behind; often considered to be an “optical trick” rather than “real art,” it was left to professional and amateur painters who engaged in respectable exercises in style, producing endless variations on a limited range of themes. One that was extremely popular with the public, for example, was the trompe l’oeil panel of wood to which
were attached many different kinds of objects—from creased sheets of paper, handwritten letters, newspaper cuttings, printed notices, and engravings to cameos, paintbrushes, and other workaday objects—all depicted in realistic detail. Another form of the trompe l’oeil that experienced a revival in this period was the Renaissance practice of decorating walls and ceilings with illusionistic frescoes opening onto spacious landscapes or vast horizons. While in Europe the once-popular trompe l’oeil was replaced by the revolutionary novelty of avant-garde movements, in the United States it would enjoy ever-increasing success as artists revitalized the genre and produced arresting illusionistic effects,28 reinterpreting the traditional Dutch still life in a wholly original manner. A family of artists—Charles Willson Peale (1741–1827) and his sons and daughters—played a central role in this renewal,29 as may be seen in the many still lifes of Raphaelle Peale (1774–1825). One of his most original works was Venus Rising from the Sea—A Deception (After the Bath); 30 perhaps recalling the story of Parrhasius, who managed to deceive his rival Zeuxis with his painting of a curtain, Peale’s canvas is almost completely taken up by an ample white towel modestly concealing Venus, who has just stepped out of her bath. Indeed, in the title to his work the artist alludes explicitly to his “deception,” using the expedient of the optical illusion conceived and realized with exceptional mastery. In Poor Artist’s Cupboard (ca. 1815), Charles Bird King (1785–1862) applied his skill as a still life painter to convey a moral message in a work of great emotional intensity.31 He himself earned a certain degree of success by dint of hard work and many sacrifices, but the objects arranged in the niche of this trompe l’oeil speak eloquently of the
Charles Bird King, Poor Artist’s Cupboard, detail, ca. 1815, oil on wood, National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, Corcoran Collection (Museum Purchase, Gallery Fund and exchange).
19
