Blog

The Salon d’Automne (French: [salɔ̃ dotɔn]; English: Autumn Salon), or Société du Salon d’automne, is an art exhibition held annually in Paris. Since 2011, it is held on the Champs-Élysées, between the Grand Palais and the Petit Palais, in mid-October. The first Salon d’Automne was created in 1903 by Frantz Jourdain, with Hector Guimard, George Desvallières, Eugène Carrière, Félix Vallotton, Édouard Vuillard, Eugène Chigot and Maison Jansen.^[1]

Perceived as a reaction against the conservative policies of the official Paris Salon, this massive exhibition almost immediately became the showpiece of developments and innovations in 20th-century painting, drawing, sculpture, engraving, architecture and decorative arts. During the Salon’s early years, established artists such as Pierre-Auguste Renoir threw their support behind the new exhibition and even Auguste Rodin displayed several works. Since its inception, works by artists such as Paul Cézanne, Henri Matisse, Paul Gauguin, Georges Rouault, André Derain, Albert Marquet, Jean Metzinger, Albert Gleizes and Marcel Duchamp have been shown. In addition to the 1903 inaugural exhibition, three other dates remain historically significant for the Salon d’Automne: 1905 bore witness to the birth of Fauvism; 1910 witnessed the launch of Cubism; and 1912 resulted in a xenophobic and anti-modernist quarrel in the National Assembly (France).

History

[edit]

The aim of the salon was to encourage the development of the fine arts, to serve as an outlet for young artists (of all nationalities), and a platform to broaden the dissemination of Impressionism and its extensions to a popular audience.^[1] Choosing the autumn season for the exhibition was strategic in several ways: it not only allowed artists to exhibit canvases painted outside (en plein air) during the summer, it stood out from the other two large salons (the Société Nationale des Beaux-Arts and Salon des artistes français) which took place in the spring. The Salon d’Automne is distinguished by its multidisciplinary approach, open to paintings, sculptures, photographs (from 1904), drawings, engravings, applied arts, and the clarity of its layout, more or less per school. Foreign artists are particularly well represented. The Salon d’Automne also boasts the presence of a politician and patron of the arts, Olivier Sainsère as a member of the honorary committee.^[1]

For Frantz Jourdain, public exhibitions served an important social function by providing a forum for unknown, innovative, emerging (éminents) artists, and for providing a basis for the general public’s understanding of the new art. This was the idea behind Jourdain’s dream of opening a new “Salon des Refusés” in the late 1890s, and realized in the opening the Salon d’Automne in 1903. Providing a venue where unknown artists could be recognized, while ‘wrestling’ the public out of its complacency were, to Jourdain, the greatest contributions to society the critic could make.^[2]

The platform of the Salon d’Automne was based on an open admission, welcoming artists in all areas of the arts. Jurors were members of society itself, not members of the Academy, the state, or official art establishments.^[2]

Refused exhibition space in the Grand Palais, the first Salon d’Automne was held in the poorly lit, humid basement of the Petit Palais. It was backed financially by Jansen. While Rodin applauded the endeavor, and submitted drawings, he refused to join doubting it would succeed.^[2]

Notwithstanding, the first Salon d’Automne, which included works by Matisse, Bonnard and other progressive artists, was unexpectedly successful, and was met with wide critical acclaim. Jourdain, familiar with the multifaceted world of art, predicted accurately the triumph would arouse animosity: from artist who resented the accent on Gauguin and Cézanne (both perceived as retrogressive), from academics who resisted attention given to the decorative arts, and soon, from the Cubists, who suspected the jurors favoring of Fauvism at their expense.^[2] Even Paul Signac, president of the Salon des Indépendants, never forgave Jourdain for having founded a rival salon.

What he had not predicted was a retaliation that threatened the future of the new salon. Carolus-Duran (president of the Société Nationale des Beaux-Arts) threatened to ban from his Société established artists who might consider exhibiting at the Salon d’Automne. Retaliating in defense of Jourdain, Eugène Carrière (a respected artistic figure) issued a statement that if forced to choose, he would join the Salon d’Automne and resign from the Société Nationale des Beaux-Arts. The valuable publicity generated by the press articles on the controversy worked in favor of the Salon d’Automne. Thus, Eugène Carrière saved the burgeoning salon.^[2]

Henri Marcel, sympathetic to the Salon d’Automne, became director of the Beaux-Arts, and assured it would take place at the prestigious Grand Palais the following year.^[2]

The success of the Salon d’Automne was not, however, due to such controversy. Success was due to the tremendous impact of its exhibitions on both the art world and the general public, extending from 1903 to the outset of the First World War. Each successive exhibition denoted a significant phase in the development of modern art: Beginning with retrospectives of Gauguin, Cézanne and others; the influence such would have on the art that would follow; the Fauves (André Derain, Henri Matisse); followed by the proto-Cubists (Georges Braque, Jean Metzinger, Albert Gleizes, Henri Le Fauconnier, Fernand Léger and Robert Delaunay); the Cubists, the Orphists, and Futurists.^[2]

In his defense of artistic liberty, Jourdain attacked not individuals, but institutions, such as the Société Nationale des Beaux-Arts, the Société des Artistes Français, and the École des Beaux-Arts (Paris), recognized as the foremost school of art.^[2]

In addition to his role as an influential art critic prior to the creation of the Salon d’Automne, Jourdain was a member of the Decorative Arts jury at the Chicago World’s Fair (1893), the Brussels International (1897) and the Paris Exposition Universelle (1900). Jourdain clearly outlined the dangers of following the academic path in his review of the 1889 Exposition, while pointing out the potentials in the art of engineers, aesthetics, the fusion with decorative arts and the need for social reform. He soon became well known as a staunch critic of traditionalism and a fervent proponent of Modernism, yet even for him, the Cubists had gone too far.^[2]

1903, the outset

[edit]

The first Salon d’Autumne exhibition opened 31 October 1903 at the Palais des Beaux-Arts de la Ville de Paris (Petit Palais des Champs-Élysées) in Paris.^[3] Included in the show were the works of Pierre Bonnard, Coup de vent, Le magasin de nouveautés, Étude de jeune femme (no. 62, 63 and 64); Albert Gleizes, A l’ombre (l’Ile fleurie), Le soir aux environs de Paris (no. 252, 253); Henri Matisse, Dévideuse picarde (intérieur), Tulipes (386, 387), along with paintings by Francis Picabia, Jacques Villon, Édouard Vuillard, Félix Vallotton, Maxime Maufra, Henri Manguin, Armand Guillaumin, Henri Lebasque, Gustave Loiseau, Albert Marquet, Eugene Chigot^[4] with an homage to Paul Gauguin who died May 8, 1903.^[1]

1904

[edit]

At the 1904 Salon d’Automne, held at the Grand Palais 15 October to 15 November, Jean Metzinger, exhibited three paintings entitled Marine (Le Croisic), Marine (Arromanches), Marine (Houlgate) (no. 907-909); Robert Delaunay, 19 years of age, exhibited his Panneau décoratif (l’été) (no. 352 of the catalogue). Albert Gleizes exhibited two paintings, Vieux moulin à Montons-Villiers (Picardie 1902) and Le matin à Courbevoie (1904), (no. 536, 537). Henri Matisse presented fourteen works (607-620).^[5]

Kees van Dongen presented two works, Jacques Villon, three paintings, Francis Picabia three, Othon Friesz four, Albert Marquet seven, Jean Puy five, Georges Rouault eight paintings, Maufra ten, Manguin five, Vallotton three, and Valtat three.^[5]

A room at the 1904 Salon d’Automne was dedicated to Paul Cézanne, with thirty-one works, including various portraits, self-portraits, still lifes, flowers, landscapes and bathers (many from the collection of Ambroise Vollard, including photographs taken by the artist, exhibited in the photography section).^[5]

Another room presented works of Puvis de Chavannes, with 44 works. And another was dedicated to Odilon Redon with 64 works, including paintings, drawings and lithographs. Auguste Renoir and Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec too were represented in separate rooms with 35 and 28 works respectively.^[5]

1905, Fauvism

[edit]

After viewing the boldly colored canvases of Henri Matisse, André Derain, Albert Marquet, Maurice de Vlaminck, Kees van Dongen, Charles Camoin, and Jean Puy at the Salon d’Automne of 1905, the critic Louis Vauxcelles disparaged the painters as “fauves” (wild beasts), thus giving their movement the name by which it became known, Fauvism.^[6]

Vauxcelles described their work with the phrase “Donatello chez les fauves” (“Donatello among the wild beasts”), contrasting the “orgy of pure tones” with a Renaissance-style sculpture that shared the room with them.^[6][7] Henri Rousseau was not a Fauve, but his large jungle scene The Hungry Lion Throws Itself on the Antelope was exhibited near Matisse’s work and may have had an influence on the pejorative used.^[8] Vauxcelles’ comment was printed on 17 October 1905 in Gil Blas, a daily newspaper, and passed into popular usage.^[7][9] The pictures gained considerable condemnation—”A pot of paint has been flung in the face of the public”, wrote the critic Camille Mauclair (1872–1945)—but also some favorable attention.^[7] One of the paintings singled out for attack was Matisse’s Woman with a Hat. This work’s purchase by Gertrude and Leo Stein had a very positive effect on Matisse, who had been demoralized from the bad reception of his work.^[7] Matisse’s Neo-Impressionist landscape, Luxe, Calme et Volupté, had already been exhibited at the Salon des Indépendants in the spring of 1905.^[10]

Two large retrospectives occupied adjacent rooms at the 1905 Salon d’Automne: one of Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres and the other Édouard Manet.^[10]

Despite the reputation for the contrary, the Salon d’Automne in 1905 was rather well received by the press, including critical praise for the Ingres and Manet retrospectives. The artists exhibiting were for the most part known, even the most innovative who a few months before exhibited at the Berthe Weill Gallery. However, a few critics reacted violently, both in the daily press aimed at a wide audience; and in the specialized press, some of whom were active advocates of symbolism, and vehemently detested the rise of the new generation.^[11]

1906

[edit]

The exhibition of 1906 was held from 6 October to 15 November. Jean Metzinger exhibited his Fauvist/Divisionist Portrait of M. Robert Delaunay (no. 1191) and Robert Delaunay exhibited his painting L’homme à la tulipe (Portrait of M. Jean Metzinger) (no. 420 of the catalogue).^[12] Matisse exhibited his Liseuse, two still lifes (Tapis rouge and à la statuette), flowers and a landscape (no. 1171-1175)^[12] Robert Antoine Pinchon showed his Prairies inondées (Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray, près de Rouen) (no. 1367), now at the Musée de Louviers.^[12] Pinchon’s paintings of this period are closely related to the Post-Impressionist and Fauvist styles, with golden yellows, incandescent blues, a thick impasto and larger brushstrokes.^[13]

At the same exhibition Paul Cézanne was represented by ten works. He wouldn’t live long enough to see the end of the show. Cézanne died 22 October 1906 (aged 67). His works included Maison dans les arbres (no. 323), Portrait de Femme (no. 235) and Le Chemin tournant (no. 326). Constantin Brâncuși entered three plaster busts: Portrait de M. S. Lupesco, L’Enfant and Orgueil (no. 218 – 220). Raymond Duchamp-Villon exhibited Dans le Silence (bronze) and a plaster bust, Œsope (no. 498 and 499). His brother Jacques Villon exhibited six works. Kees van Dongen showed three works, Montmartre (492), Mademoiselle Léda (493) and Parisienne (494). André Derain exhibited Westminster-Londres (438), Arbres dans un chemin creux (444) and several other works painted at l’Estaque.^[12]

Retrospective exhibitions at the 1906 Salon d’Automne included Gustave Courbet, Eugène Carrière (49 works) and Paul Gauguin (227 works).

1907–1909

[edit]

At the exhibition of 1907, held from 1 to 22 October, hung a painting by Georges Braque entitled Rochers rouges (no. 195 of the catalogue). Though this painting remains difficult to identify, it may be La Ciotat (The Cove).^[14] Jean Metzinger exhibited two landscapes (no. 1270 and 1271), also difficult to identify.^[15]

At this 1907 salon the drawings of Auguste Rodin were featured. There were also retrospectives of the works of Berthe Morisot (174 works) and Jean-Baptiste Carpeaux (149 works), and a Paul Cézanne retrospective exhibition which included 56 works as a tribute to the painter who died in 1906.^[16] Apollinaire referred to Matisse as the “fauve of fauves”. Works by both Derain and Matisse are criticized for the ugliness of their models. Braque and Le Fauconnier are considered as Fauves by the critic Michel Puy (brother of Jean Puy).^[11] Robert Delaunay showed one work, Bela Czobel showed one work André Lhote showed three, Patrick Henry Bruce three, Jean Crotti one, Fernand Léger five, Duchamp-Villon two, Raoul Dufy three, André Derain exhibited three paintings and Matisse seven works.^[16]

For the exhibition of 1908 at the Grand Palais des Champs-Élysées Matisse exhibited 30 works.

At the 1909 exhibition (1 October through 8 November), Henri le Fauconnier exhibited a proto-Cubist portrait of the French writer, novelist and poet Pierre Jean Jouve, drawing the attention of Albert Gleizes who had been working in a similar geometric style.^[17] Constantin Brâncuși exhibited alongside Metzinger, Le Fauconnier and Fernand Léger.^[11]

1910, the launch of Cubism

[edit]

At the exhibition of 1910, held from 1 October to 8 November at the Grand Palais des Champs-Élysées, Paris, Jean Metzinger introduced an extreme form of what would soon be labeled ‘Cubism’, not just to the general public for the first time, but to other artists that had no contact with Picasso or Braque. Though others were already working in a proto-Cubist vein with complex Cézannian geometries and unconventional perspectives, Metzinger’s Nu à la cheminée (Nude) represented a radical departure further still.^[18]

I have in front of me a small cutting from an evening newspaper, The Press, on the subject of the 1910 Salon d’Automne. It gives a good idea of the situation in which the new pictorial tendency, still barely perceptible, found itself: The geometrical fallacies of Messrs. Metzinger, Le Fauconnier, and Gleizes. No sign of any compromise there. Braque and Picasso only showed in Kahnweiler’s gallery and we were unaware of them. Robert Delaunay, Metzinger and Le Fauconnier had been noticed at the Salon des Indépendants of that same year, 1910, without a label being fixed on them. Consequently, although much effort has been put into proving the opposite, the word Cubism was not at that time current. (Albert Gleizes, 1925)^[19]

In a review of the Salon, the poet Roger Allard (1885-1961) announces the appearance of a new school of French painters concentrating their attention on form rather than on color. A group forms that includes Gleizes, Metzinger, Delaunay (a friend and associate of Metzinger), and Fernand Léger. They meet regularly at Henri le Fauconnier’s studio near the Bld de Montparnasse, where he is working on his ambitious allegorical painting entitled L’Abondance. “In this painting” writes Brooke, “the simplification of the representational form gives way to a new complexity in which foreground and background are united and the subject of the painting obscured by a network of interlocking geometrical elements”.^[20]

This exhibition preceded the 1911 Salon des Indépendants which officially introduced “Cubism” to the public as an organized group movement. Metzinger had been close to Picasso and Braque, working at this time along similar lines.^[15]

Metzinger, Henri Le Fauconnier and Fernand Léger exhibited coincidentally in Room VIII. This was the moment in which the Montparnasse group quickly grew to include Roger de La Fresnaye, Alexander Archipenko and Joseph Csaky. The three Duchamp brothers, Marcel Duchamp, Jacques Villon and Raymond Duchamp-Villon, and another artist known as Picabia took part in the exhibition. Following this salon Metzinger wrote the article Notes sur la peinture,^[21] in which he compares the similarities in the works Picasso, Braque, Delaunay, Gleizes and Le Fauconnier. In doing so he enunciated for the first time what would become known as the characteristics of Cubism: notably the notions of simultaneity, mobile perspective. In this seminal text Metzinger stressed the distance between their works and traditional perspective. These artists, he wrote, granted themselves ‘the liberty of moving around objects’, and combining many different views in one image, each recording varying experiences over the course of time.^[17][22]

Once launched at the 1910 Salon d’Automne, the new movement would rapidly spread throughout Paris.

Convinced that exposure to the work of German designers would prompt healthy competition in the decorative arts, Frantz Jourdain invited artists, architects, designers, and industrialists from the Munich-based Deutscher Werkbund to exhibit at the 1910 salon. “Our art menaced by Bavarian decorators” read the headline of the journal Le Radical (12 May 1910). This scandal, in addition to the non-French status of the authors in a time of growing nationalism, aroused the old polemic of exhibiting low-cost production objects, mass-produced items, simply designed furniture and interior decoration, in the context of a salon dedicated to art. Industrial art had never before been so controversial. The exhibition was reviewed in all the major journals. Louis Vauxcelles added to the crisis in a Gil Blas article.^[2]

The exhibition was an enormous success in that it served to catalyze anew designers, decorators, artists and architects in France, who prior to the 1910 Salon d’Automne had been lagging behind in the design sector. It also catalyzed public opinion, formerly interested solely in paintings. The fact that the viewers saw first hand, and many for the first time, what had been done abroad, opened up a potential of what could be done in the field of decorative arts at home. Jourdain had successfully staged the German show to provoke French designers into improving the quality of their own work. The effects would be felt in Paris, first with the 1912 exhibition of French decorative arts at the Pavillon de Marsan, then again at the Salon d’Automne of 1912, with La Maison Cubiste,^[2][23] the collaborative effort of the designer André Mare, Raymond Duchamp-Villon and other artists associated with the Section d’Or.

Henri Matisse exhibited La Danse at the Salon d’Automne of 1910.^[24]

1911, the rise of Cubism

[edit]

In Room 7 and 8 of the 1911 Salon d’Automne, held 1 October through November 8, at the Grand Palais in Paris, hung works by Metzinger (Le goûter (Tea Time)), Henri Le Fauconnier, Fernand Léger, Albert Gleizes, Roger de La Fresnaye, André Lhote, Jacques Villon, Marcel Duchamp, František Kupka, Alexander Archipenko, Joseph Csaky and Francis Picabia. The result was a public scandal which brought Cubism to the attention of the general public for the second time. The first was the organized group showing by Cubists in Salle 41 of the 1911 Salon des Indépendants. In room 41 hung the work of Gleizes, Metzinger, Léger, Delaunay, Le Fauconnier and Archipenko. Articles in the press could be found in Gil Blas, Comoedia, Excelsior, Action, L’Œuvre, Cri de Paris. Apollinaire wrote a long review in the April 20, 1911, issue of L’Intransigeant.^[17] Thus Cubism spread into the literary world of writers, poets, critics, and art historians.^[25]

Apollinaire took Picasso to the opening of the Salon d’Automne in 1911 to see the cubist works in Room 7 and 8.^[26]

Albert Gleizes writes of the Salon d’Automne of 1911: “With the Salon d’Automne of that same year, 1911, the fury broke out again, just as violent as it had been at the Indépendants.” He writes: “The painters were the first to be surprised by the storms they had let loose without intending to, merely because they had hung on the wooden bars that run along the walls of the Cours-la-Reine, certain paintings that had been made with great care, with passionate conviction, but also in a state of great anxiety.”^[19]

It was from that moment on that the word Cubism began to be widely used. […]

Never had the critics been so violent as they were at that time. From which it became clear that these paintings – and I specify the names of the painters who were, alone, the reluctant causes of all this frenzy: Jean Metzinger, Le Fauconnier, Fernand Léger, Robert Delaunay and myself – appeared as a threat to an order that everyone thought had been established forever.

In nearly all the papers, all composure was lost. The critics would begin by saying: there is no need to devote much space to the Cubists, who are utterly without importance and then they furiously gave them seven columns out of the ten that were taken up, at that time, by the Salon. (Gleizes, 1925)^[19]

Reviewing the Salon d’Automne of 1911, Huntly Carter in The New Age writes that “art is not an accessory to life; it is life itself carried to the greatest heights of personal expression.” Carter continues:

It was at the Salon d’Automne, amid the Rhythmists, I found the desired sensation. The exuberant eagerness and vitality of their region, consisting of two rooms remotely situated, was a complete contrast to the morgue I was compelled to pass through in order to reach it. Though marked by extremes, it was clearly the starting point of a new movement in painting, perhaps the most remarkable in modern times, It revealed not only that artists are beginning to recognise the unity of art and life, but that some of them have discovered life is based on rhythmic vitality, and underlying all things is the perfect rhythm that continues and unites them. Consciously, or unconsciously, many are seeking for the perfect rhythm, and in so doing are attaining a liberty or wideness of expression unattained through several centuries of painting. (Huntly Carter, 1911)^[27][28]

1912, political ramifications

[edit]

The Salon d’Automne of 1912 was held in Paris at the Grand Palais from 1 October to 8 November. The Cubists (a group of artists now recognized as such) were regrouped into the same room, XI.

The 1912 polemic leveled against both the French and non-French avant-garde artists originated in Salle XI of the Salon d’Automne where the Cubists, among whom were several non-French citizens, exhibited their works. The resistance to both foreigners and avant-garde art was part of a more profound crisis: that of defining modern French art in the wake of Impressionism centered in Paris. Placed into question was the modern ideology elaborated upon since the late 19th century. What had begun as a question of aesthetics quickly turned political during the Cubist exhibition, and as in the 1905 Salon d’Automne, the critic Louis Vauxcelles (in Les Arts…, 1912) was most implicated in the deliberations. It was also Vauxcelles who, on the occasion of the 1910 Salon des Indépendants, wrote disparagingly of ‘pallid cubes’ with reference to the paintings of Metzinger, Gleizes, Le Fauconnier, Léger and Delaunay.^[29] On 3 December 1912 the polemic reached the Chambre des députés (and was debated at the Assemblée Nationale in Paris).^[30][31]

In his 1921 essay on the Salon d’Automne, published in Les Echos (p. 23), founder Frantz Jourdain denouncing aesthetic snobbery, writes that the saber-rattling revolutionaries dubbed the Cubists, Futurists and Dadaists were actually crusty reactionaries who scorned modern progress and revealed contempt for democracy, science, industry and commerce.^[2]

For Jourdain, the ‘modern spirit’ signified more than a preference for Cézanne over Gérome. Needed was a clear understanding of one’s epoch, its needs, its beauty, its ambience, its essence.^[2]

1 October through 8 November 1912, in excess of 1,770 works were displayed at the 10th Salon d’Automne. Paul Gallimard organized the exhibition of 52 books. The poster for the 1912 show was made by Pierre Bonnard. Sessions of chamber music took place every Friday. Morning literary sessions were held every Wednesday. The cost of the catalogue was 1 French Franc. The decoration of the Salon d’Automne had been entrusted to the department store Printemps.^[32]

Jourdain again came under vicious attack in 1912—as the French nation drew closer to war in a conservative and fiercely nationalistic political climate—now by the dean of the Conseil Municipal and member of the city’s Commission des Beaux-Arts, Jean Pierre Philippe Lampué. Lampué argued, unsuccessfully, that the Salon d’Automne be refused use of the Grand Palais on the grounds that the organizers were unpatriotic and were undermining—with their foreign “Cubo-Futurist” exhibitions—the artistic heritage of France. He did however manage to raise public opinion against the Salon d’Automne, the Cubists and Jourdain specifically. The huge scandal prompted the critic Roger Allard to defend Jourdain and the Cubists in the journal La Côte, pointing out that it wasn’t the first time the Salon d’Automne—as a venue to promote modern art—came under attack by city officials, the Institute, and members of the Conseil. And it would not be the last either.^[2]

The Salon d’Automne from its very inception was one of the most significant avant-garde venues, exhibiting not just painting, drawing and sculpture, but industrial design, urbanism, photography, new developments in music and cinema.^[2]

According to Albert Gleizes, Frantz Jourdain (in second place after Vauxcelles) was the sworn enemy of the Cubists, so much so that in his later writing on the Salon d’Automne Jourdain makes no mention of the 1911 or 1912 exhibitions, yet the publicity generated by the Cubist polemic brought a supplement of 50,000 French Francs, due to influx of visitors that came to see Les monstres.^[33]

To appease the French, Jourdain invited the pontiffs des Artistes Français, writes Gleizes, to an “exposition de portraits” specially organized at the salon.^[33] 220 portraits painted during the 19th century were displayed.^[32] A reversal of the situation arose, unfortunately for Jourdain, when the guests had to pass through the Cubist room in order to access the portraits. Speculation has it that the itinerary had been judiciously chosen by the hanging committee, since everyone at the Automne seems to have understood.^[33]

The Cubist room was packed full with spectators, and others waited in line to get in, explains Gleizes, while no one paid any attention to the portrait room. The consequences, were ‘disastrous’ for Jourdain, who, as president of the salon, was ultimately held responsible for the debacle.^[33]

Jules-Louis Breton, the French socialist militant politician (nephew of the academic painter Jules Breton), launched a poignant attack against the Cubists exhibiting at the Salon d’Automne. Breton, with the support of Charles Benoist, accused the French government of sponsoring the excesses of the Cubists by virtue of providing an exhibition space at the Grand Palais. Against the attacks of his colleagues, Marcel Sembat, the French socialist politician, defended the principles of freedom of expression, while refusing the idea of a state-sponsored art. Sembat, closely linked to the arts, with friends including Marquet, Signac, Redon and Matisse (about whom he would write a book^[34]). His wife, Georgette Agutte, an artist associated with the Fauves, had exhibited from 1904 at the Salon des Indépendants and participated in the founding of the Salon d’Automne (her art collection included works by Derain, Matisse, Marquet, Rouault, Vlaminck, Van Dongen, and Signac). Charles Beauquier, the politician and self-proclaimed free-thinker (“libre-penseur”) sided with Breton and Benoist: “We do not encourage garbage! There is garbage in the arts and elsewhere”.^[35][36][37]

Ultimately, Marcel Sembat won the debate on several fronts: the Salon d’Automne remained at the Grand Palais des Champs Elysées for years to come; the press coverage following the Assemblée nationale’s discussions was as intense as it was widespread, publicizing Cubism still further; the reverberations caused by the Cubist scandal echoed across Europe, and elsewhere, extending far beyond what would have been predicted without such publicity. Marcel Sembat would soon become Minister of Public Works; from 1914 to 1916, under Prime Ministers René Viviani and Aristide Briand.^[38][39]

Works exhibited at the 1912 Salon d’Automne

[edit]

• Jean Metzinger entered four works: Dancer in a café, titled Danseuse (Albright-Knox Art Gallery), La Plume Jaune (The Yellow Feather), Paysage (Landscape), and Femme à l’Éventail (Woman with a Fan) (Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, New York), hung in the decorative arts section inside La Maison Cubiste (the Cubist House).
• Francis Picabia, 1912, La Source (The Spring) (Museum of Modern Art, New York)
• Fernand Léger exhibited La Femme en Bleu (Woman in Blue), 1912 (Kunstmuseum, Basel) and Le passage à niveau (The Level Crossing), 1912 (Fondation Beyeler, Riehen, Switzerland)
• Roger de La Fresnaye, Les Baigneuses (The bathers) 1912 (The National Gallery, Washington) and Les joueurs de cartes (Card Players)
• Henri Le Fauconnier, The Huntsman (Haags Gemeentemuseum, The Hague, Netherlands) and Les Montagnards attaqués par des ours (Mountaineers Attacked by Bears) 1912 (Museum of Art, Rhode Island School of Design).
• Albert Gleizes, L’Homme au Balcon, Man on a Balcony (Portrait of Dr. Théo Morinaud), 1912 (Philadelphia Museum of Art), also exhibited at the Armory show, New York, Chicago, Boston, 1913.
• André Lhote, Le jugement de Pâris, 1912 (Private collection)
• František Kupka, Amorpha, Fugue à deux couleurs (Fugue in Two Colors), 1912 (Narodni Galerie, Prague), and Amorpha Chromatique Chaude.
• Alexander Archipenko, Family Life, 1912, sculpture (destroyed)
• Amedeo Modigliani, exhibited four sculptures of elongated and highly stylized heads
• Joseph Csaky exhibited the sculptures Groupe de femmes, 1911-12 (location unknown), Portrait de M.S.H., no. 91 (location unknown), and Danseuse (Femme à l’éventail, Femme à la cruche), no. 405 (location unknown)

La Maison Cubiste (Cubist House)

[edit]

Main article: La Maison Cubiste

This Salon d’Automne also featured La Maison Cubiste. Raymond Duchamp-Villon designed façade of a 10 meter by 3 meter house, which included a hall, a living room and a bedroom. This installation was placed in the Art Décoratif section of the Salon d’Automne. The major contributors were André Mare, a decorative designer, Roger de La Fresnaye, Jacques Villon and Marie Laurencin. In the house were hung cubist paintings by Marcel Duchamp, Albert Gleizes, Fernand Léger, Roger de La Fresnaye, and Jean Metzinger (Woman with a Fan, 1912).

While the geometric decoration of the plaster façade and the paintings were inspired by cubism, the furnishings, carpets, cushions, and wallpapers by André Mare were the beginning of a distinct new style, Art Deco. They were extremely colorful, and consisted of floral designs, particularly stylized roses, in geometric patterns. Thsee themes were to reappear in decoration after the First War through the firm founded by Mare.

Metzinger and Gleizes in Du “Cubisme”, written during the assemblage of the “Maison Cubiste”, wrote about the autonomous nature of art, stressing the point that decorative considerations should not govern the spirit of art. Decorative work, to them, was the “antithesis of the picture”. “The true picture” wrote Metzinger and Gleizes, “bears its raison d’être within itself. It can be moved from a church to a drawing-room, from a museum to a study. Essentially independent, necessarily complete, it need not immediately satisfy the mind: on the contrary, it should lead it, little by little, towards the fictitious depths in which the coordinative light resides. It does not harmonize with this or that ensemble; it harmonizes with things in general, with the universe: it is an organism…”.^[40] “Mare’s ensembles were accepted as frames for Cubist works because they allowed paintings and sculptures their independence”, wrote Christopher Green, “creating a play of contrasts, hence the involvement not only of Gleizes and Metzinger themselves, but of Marie Laurencin, the Duchamp brothers (Raymond Duchamp-Villon designed the façade) and Mare’s old friends Léger and Roger La Fresnaye”.^[41] La Maison Cubiste was a fully furnished house, with a staircase, wrought iron banisters, a living room—the Salon Bourgeois, where paintings by Marcel Duchamp, Metzinger (Woman with a Fan), Gleizes, Laurencin and Léger were hung—and a bedroom. It was an example of L’art décoratif, a home within which Cubist art could be displayed in the comfort and style of modern, bourgeois life. Spectators at the Salon d’Automne passed through the full-scale 10-by-3-meter plaster model of the ground floor of the façade, designed by Duchamp-Villon.^[42] This architectural installation was subsequently exhibited at the 1913 Armory Show, New York, Chicago and Boston,^[43] listed in the catalogue of the New York exhibit as Raymond Duchamp-Villon, number 609, and entitled “Façade architectural, plaster” (Façade architecturale).^[44][45]

For the occasion, an article entitled Au Salon d’Automne “Les Indépendants” was published in the French newspaper Excelsior, 2 Octobre 1912.^[46] Excelsior was the first publication to privilege photographic illustrations in the treatment of news media; shooting photographs and publishing images in order to tell news stories. As such L’Excelsior was a pioneer of photojournalism.

1913–1914

[edit]

By 1913 the predominant tendency in modern art visible at the Salon d’Automne consisted of Cubism with a clear tendency towards abstraction. The trend to use brighter colors that had already begun in 1911 continued through 1912 and 1913. This exhibition, held from 15 November to 8 January 1914, was dominated by de La Fresnaye, Gleizes and Picabia. Works by Delaunay, Duchamp and Léger were not exhibited.^[17]

The preface of the catalog was written by the French Socialist politician Marcel Sembat who a year earlier—against the outcry of Jules-Louis Breton regarding the use of public funds to provide the venue (at the Salon d’Automne) to exhibit ‘barbaric’ art—had defended the Cubists, and freedom of artistic expression in general, in the National Assembly of France.^{[20][30][47][48]}

“I do not in the least wish… to offer a defense of the principles of the cubist movement! In whose name would I present such a defense? I am not a painter… What I do defend is the principle of the freedom of artistic experimentation… My dear friend, when a picture seems bad to you, you have the incontestable right not to look at it, to go and look at others. But one doesn’t call the police!” (Marcel Sembat)^[47]

This exhibition too made its flashing appearance in the news, when a nude by Kees van Dongen entitled The Spanish Shawl (Woman with Pigeons or The Beggar of Love) was ordered by the police to be removed from the Salon d’Automne. The same would happen in Rotterdam at the Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen in 1949. The painting is now on display at the Centre Georges Pompidou, Paris.^[17][49]

After 1918

[edit]

During World War I (1914 through 1918) no Salon d’Automne exhibition was held. It wasn’t until the autumn of 1919 that the Salon d’Automne once again took place, from 1 November to 10 December, at the Grand Palais in Paris. Special attention, that is, a retrospective, was given to Raymond Duchamp-Villon who died on 9 October 1918. On display were 19 works by the French sculptor dated between 1906 and 1918.^[17]

After the war, the Salon d’Automne was dominated by the works of the Montparnasse painters such as Marc Chagall, Amedeo Modigliani, Georges Braque and Georges Gimel. The Polish expressionist painter Henryk Gotlib and Scottish expressionist painter David Atherton-Smith also exhibited. Constantin Brâncuși, Aristide Maillol, Charles Despiau, René Iché, Ossip Zadkine, and Mateo Hernandez emerged as new forces in sculpture.

In addition to painting and sculpture, the Salon included works in the decorative arts such as the glassworks of René Lalique, Julia Bathory as well as architectural designs by Le Corbusier. Still an exhibition of world importance, the Salon d’Automne is now into its 2nd century.

The Avant-Garde in Paris

[edit]

In an exhibition entitled Picasso and the Avant-Garde in Paris (February 24, 2010 – May 2, 2010),^[50] the Philadelphia Museum of Art showcased a partial reconstruction of the 1912 Salon d’Automne. Many of the works exhibited, however, had not been on display at the 1912 salon, while others exhibited in 1912 were conspicuously absent. The exhibition served to highlight the importance of the Salon Cubism—usually pitted against Gallery Cubism as two opposing camps—in developments and innovations of 20th-century painting and sculpture.

1922, Braque

[edit]

Fourteen years after the rejection of Georges Braque‘s L’Estaque paintings by the jury of the Salon d’Automne of 1908 (composed of Matisse, Rouault, Marquet, and Charles-François-Prosper Guérin), Braque was given the accolade of the Salle d’Honneur in 1922, without incident.^[51]

1944, Picasso at the Salon d’Automne

[edit]

In a dramatic case of situational irony, a room at the Salon d’Automne was dedicated to Picasso in 1944. During the crucial years of Cubism, between 1909 and 1914, the dealer Daniel-Henry Kahnweiler forbade Braque and Picasso from exhibiting at both the Salon d’Automne and the Salon des Indépendants. He thought the salons were places of humor and ribaldry, of jokes, laughter and ridicule. Fearing that Cubism would not be taken seriously in such public exhibitions where thousands of spectators would assemble to see new creations, he signed exclusivity contracts with his artists, ensuring that their works could only be shown (and sold) in the privacy of his own gallery.^[52]

After the Liberation of Paris, the first post-World War II Salon d’Automne was to be held in the fall of 1944 in the newly freed capital. Picasso was given a room of his own that he filled with examples of his wartime production. It was a triumphant return for Picasso who had remained aloof from the art scene during the war. The exhibition however, was “marred by disturbances that have remained unattributed” according to Michèle C. Cone (New York-based critic and historian, author of French Modernisms: Perspectives on Art before, during and after Vichy, Cambridge 2001). On Nov. 16, 1944, Matisse wrote a letter to Camoin: “Have you seen the Picasso room? It is much talked about. There were demonstrations in the street against it. What success! If there is applause, whistle.” One can guess who the demonstrators might have been, writes Cone, “cronies of the Fauves, still ranting against the Judeo-Marxist decadent Picasso”.^[53][54]

A salon is a gathering of people held by a host. These gatherings often consciously followed Horace‘s definition of the aims of poetry, “either to please or to educate” (Latin: aut delectare aut prodesse). Salons in the tradition of the French literary and philosophical movements of the 17th and 18th centuries are still being conducted.^[1]

Historical background

[edit]

The salon first appeared in Italy in the 16th century, then flourished in France throughout the 17th and 18th centuries. It continued to flourish in Italy throughout the 19th century. In 16th-century Italy, some brilliant circles formed in the smaller courts which resembled salons, often galvanized by the presence of a beautiful and educated patroness such as Isabella d’Este or Elisabetta Gonzaga.

Salons were an important place for the exchange of ideas. The word salon first appeared in France in 1664 (from the Italian salone, the large reception hall of Italian mansions; salone is actually the augmentative form of sala, room). Literary gatherings before this were often referred to by using the name of the room in which they occurred, like cabinet, réduit, ruelle, and alcôve.^[2] Before the end of the 17th century, these gatherings were frequently held in the bedroom (treated as a more private form of drawing room):^[3] a lady, reclining on her bed, would receive close friends who would sit on chairs or stools drawn around.

This practice may be contrasted with the greater formalities of Louis XIV‘s petit lever, where all stood. Ruelle, literally meaning “narrow street” or “lane“, designates the space between a bed and the wall in a bedroom; it was used commonly to designate the gatherings of the “précieuses“, the intellectual and literary circles that formed around women in the first half of the 17th century. The first renowned salon in France was the Hôtel de Rambouillet not far from the Palais du Louvre in Paris, which its hostess, Roman-born Catherine de Vivonne, marquise de Rambouillet (1588–1665), ran from 1607 until her death.^[4][5] She established the rules of etiquette of the salon which resembled the earlier codes of Italian chivalry.

In Britain, mathematician and inventor Charles Babbage is credited with introducing the scientific soirée, a form of salon, from France.^[6] Babbage began hosting Saturday evening soirées in 1828.^[7]

Studying the salon

[edit]

The history of the salon is far from straightforward. The salon has been studied in depth by a mixture of feminist, Marxist, cultural, social, and intellectual historians. Each of these methodologies focuses on different aspects of the salon, and thus have varying analyses of its importance in terms of French history and the Enlightenment as a whole.

Major historiographical debates focus on the relationship between the salons and the public sphere, as well as the role played by women within the salons.

Breaking down the salons into historical periods is complicated due to the various historiographical debates that surround them. Most studies stretch from the early 16th century up until around the end of the 18th century. Goodman is typical in ending her study at the French Revolution where, she writes: ‘the literary public sphere was transformed into the political public’.^[8] Steven Kale is relatively alone in his recent attempts to extend the period of the salon up until Revolution of 1848:^[9]

A whole world of social arrangements and attitude supported the existence of French salons: an idle aristocracy, an ambitious middle class, an active intellectual life, the social density of a major urban center, sociable traditions, and a certain aristocratic feminism. This world did not disappear in 1789.^[10]

In the 1920s, Gertrude Stein‘s Saturday evening salons (described in Ernest Hemingway‘s A Moveable Feast and depicted fictionally in Woody Allen‘s Midnight in Paris) gained notoriety for including Pablo Picasso and other twentieth-century luminaries like Alice B. Toklas.

Her contemporary Natalie Clifford Barney‘s handmade dinner place setting is on display at The Brooklyn Museum. Like Stein, she was also an author and American ex-pat living in Paris at the time, hosting literary salons that were attended by Ernest Hemingway and F. Scott Fitzgerald as well. She bought a home with an old Masonic temple in the backyard which she dubbed Temple d’Amitié, the Temple of Friendship, for private meetings with attendees of her salons.

In 2018, Barnard College professor Caroline Weber‘s book “Proust’s Duchess: How Three Celebrated Women Captured the Imagination of Fin-de-Siècle Paris” was shortlisted for the Pulitzer Prize and was the first in-depth study of the three Parisian salon hostesses Proust used to create his supreme fictional character, the Duchesse de Guermantes.^[11]

Conversation, content and the form of the salon

[edit]

This article is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor’s personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (November 2019) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Contemporary literature about the salons is dominated by idealistic notions of politeness, civility and honesty, though whether they lived up to these standards is a matter of debate. These older texts tend to portray reasoned debates and egalitarian polite conversation.^[12] Dena Goodman contends that, rather than being leisure-based or “schools of civilité”, salons were at “the very heart of the philosophic community” and thus integral to the process of Enlightenment.^[13] In short, Goodman argues, the 17th and 18th century saw the emergence of the academic, Enlightenment salons, which came out of the aristocratic “schools of civilité”. Politeness, argues Goodman, took second place to academic discussion.^[14]

The period in which salons were dominant has been labeled the “age of conversation”.^[15] The topics of conversation within the salons – that is, what was and was not “polite” to talk about – are thus vital when trying to determine the form of the salons. The salonnières were expected, ideally, to run and moderate the conversation (See Women in the salon). There is, however, no universal agreement among historians as to what was and was not appropriate conversation. Marcel Proust “insisted that politics was scrupulously avoided”.^[16] Others suggested that little other than government was ever discussed.^[17] The disagreements that surround the content of discussion partly explain why the salon’s relationship with the public sphere is so heavily contested. Individuals and collections of individuals that have been of cultural significance overwhelmingly cite some form of engaged, explorative conversation regularly held with an esteemed group of acquaintances as the source of inspiration for their contributions to culture, art, literature and politics, leading some scholars to posit the salon’s influence on the public sphere as being more widespread than previously appreciated.^[18][19]

The salon and the “public sphere”

[edit]

Recent historiography of the salons has been dominated by Jürgen Habermas‘ work, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (triggered largely by its translation into French in 1978, and then English in 1989), which argued that the salons were of great historical importance.^[19] Theaters of conversation and exchange – such as the salons and the coffeehouses in England – played a critical role in the emergence of what Habermas termed the public sphere, which emerged in cultural-political contrast to court society.^[20] Thus, while women retained a dominant role in the historiography of the salons, the salons received increasing amounts of study, much of it in direct response to or heavily influenced by Habermas’ theory.^[21]

The most prominent defense of salons as part of the public sphere comes from Dena Goodman’s The Republic of Letters, which claims that the “public sphere was structured by the salon, the press and other institutions of sociability”.^[18] Goodman’s work is also credited with further emphasizing the importance of the salon in terms of French history, the Republic of Letters and the Enlightenment as a whole, and has dominated the historiography of the salons since its publication in 1994.^[22]

Habermas’ dominance in salon historiography has come under criticism from some quarters, with Pekacz singling out Goodman’s Republic of Letters for particular criticism because it was written with “the explicit intention of supporting [Habermas’] thesis”, rather than verifying it.^[23] The theory itself, meanwhile, has been criticized for a fatal misunderstanding of the nature of salons.^[24] The main criticism of Habermas’ interpretation of the salons, however, is that the salons of most influence were not part of an oppositional public sphere, and were instead an extension of court society.

This criticism stems largely from Norbert Elias‘ The History of Manners, in which Elias contends that the dominant concepts of the salons – politesse, civilité and honnêteté^[25] – were “used almost as synonyms, by which the courtly people wished to designate, in a broad or narrow sense, the quality of their own behavior’.^[26] Joan Landes agrees, stating that, “to some extent, the salon was merely an extension of the institutionalized court” and that rather than being part of the public sphere, salons were in fact in conflict with it.^[27] Erica Harth concurs, pointing to the fact that the state “appropriated the informal academy and not the salon” due to the academies’ “tradition of dissent” – something that lacked in the salon.^[28] But Landes’ view of the salons as a whole is independent of both Elias’ and Habermas’ school of thought, insofar that she views the salons as a “unique institution” that cannot be adequately described as part of the public sphere or court society.^[29] Others, such as Steven Kale, compromise by declaring that the public and private spheres overlapped in the salons.^[30] Antoine Lilti ascribes to a similar viewpoint, describing the salons as simply “institutions within Parisian high society”.^[31]

Debates surrounding women and the salon

[edit]

When dealing with the salons, historians have traditionally focused upon the role of women within them.^[32] Works in the 19th and much of the 20th centuries often focused on the scandals and “petty intrigues” of the salons.^[33] Other works from this period focused on the more positive aspects of women in the salon.^[34] Indeed, according to Jolanta T. Pekacz, the fact women dominated history of the salons meant that study of the salons was often left to amateurs, while men concentrated on “more important” (and masculine) areas of the Enlightenment.^[35]

Historians tended to focus on individual salonnières, creating almost a “great woman” version of history that ran parallel to the Whiggish, male-dominated history identified by Herbert Butterfield. Even in 1970, works were still being produced that concentrated only on individual stories without analysing the effects of the salonnières’ unique position.^[36] The integral role that women played within salons as salonnières began to receive greater – and more serious – study in latter parts of the 20th century, with the emergence of a distinctly feminist historiography.^[37] The salons, according to Carolyn Lougee, were distinguished by “the very visible identification of women with salons” and the fact that they played a positive public role in French society.^[38] General texts on the Enlightenment, such as Daniel Roche’s France in the Enlightenment, tend to agree that women were dominant within the salons, but that their influence did not extend far outside of such venues.^[39]

It was, however, Goodman’s The Republic of Letters that ignited a real debate surrounding the role of women within the salons and the Enlightenment as a whole.^[40] According to Goodman: “The salonnières were not social climbers but intelligent, self-educated, and educating women who adopted and implemented the values of the Enlightenment Republic of Letters and used them to reshape the salon to their own social intellectual, and educational needs”.^[41]

Wealthy members of the aristocracy have always drawn to their court poets, writers and artists, usually with the lure of patronage, an aspect that sets the court apart from the salon. Another feature that distinguished the salon from the court was its absence of social hierarchy and its mixing of different social ranks and orders.^[42] In the 17th and 18th centuries, “salon[s] encouraged socializing between the sexes [and] brought nobles and bourgeois together”.^[43] Salons helped facilitate the breaking down of social barriers which made the development of the enlightenment salon possible. In the 18th century, under the guidance of Madame Geoffrin, Mlle de Lespinasse, and Madame Necker, the salon was transformed into an institution of Enlightenment.^[44] The enlightenment salon brought together Parisian society, the progressive philosophes who were producing the Encyclopédie, the Bluestockings and other intellectuals to discuss a variety of topics.

Salonnières and their salons: the role of women

[edit]

At that time women had powerful influence over the salon. Women were the center of life in the salon and carried very important roles as regulators. They could select their guests and decide the subjects of their meetings. These subjects could be social, literary, or political topics of the time. They also served as mediators by directing the discussion.

The salon was an informal education for women, where they were able to exchange ideas, receive and give criticism, read their own works and hear the works and ideas of other intellectuals. Many ambitious women used the salon to pursue a form of higher education.^[45]

Two of the most famous 17th-century literary salons in Paris were the Hôtel de Rambouillet, established in 1607 near the Palais du Louvre by the marquise de Rambouillet, where gathered the original précieuses, and, in 1652 in Le Marais, the rival salon of Madeleine de Scudéry, a long time habituée of the Hôtel de Rambouillet. Les bas-bleus ^[fr], borrowed from England’s “blue-stockings,” soon found itself in use upon the attending ladies, a nickname continuing to mean “intellectual woman” for the next three hundred years.

Paris salons of the 18th century hosted by women include the following:

• Adèle and Aurore de Bellegarde
• Madame Geoffrin
• Madame de Tencin
• Jeanne Quinault, hostess of the Bout-du-Banc
• Madame Dupin
• Constance Pipelet, later Constance de Salm following her divorce
• Françoise de Graffigny, author of Lettres d’une Péruvienne
• Julie de Lespinasse: her chief draw was d’Alembert, but “though the name of M. d’Alembert may have drawn them thither, it was she alone who kept them there.”
• the marquise du Deffand, the friend of Horace Walpole
• the marquise de Lambert
• the duchesse du Maine
• Madame d’Épinay
• Madame Necker, the wife of the financier Jacques Necker
• Madame de Staël, daughter of the Neckers, took over from her mother and in exile hosted the international Coppet group^[46]
• Madame Helvétius, the wife of Helvétius
• Sophie de Condorcet, wife of the mathematician and philosopher Condorcet, visited by foreign notables and French thinkers alike
• Juliette Récamier, socialite and friend of Germaine de Staël
• Madame Roland, the political salon that was the resort of the Girondists at the first stages of the Revolution
• Madame Swetchine, wife of General Swetchine
• Julie Talma, a friend of Benjamin Constant

Some 19th-century salons were more inclusive, verging on the raffish, and centered around painters and “literary lions” such as Madame Récamier. After the shock of the 1870 Franco-Prussian War, French aristocrats withdrew from the public eye. However, Princess Mathilde still held a salon in her mansion, rue de Courcelles, later rue de Berri. From the middle of the 19th century until the 1930s, a lady of society had to hold her “day”, which meant that her salon was opened for visitors in the afternoon once a week, or twice a month. Days were announced in Le Bottin Mondain. The visitor gave his visit cards to the lackey or the maître d’hôtel, and he was accepted or not. Only people who had been introduced previously could enter the salon.

Marcel Proust called up his own turn-of-the-century experience to recreate the rival salons of the fictional duchesse de Guermantes and Madame Verdurin. He experienced himself his first social life in salons such as Mme Arman de Caillavet‘s one, which mixed artists and political men around Anatole France or Paul Bourget; Mme Straus‘ one, where the cream of the aristocracy mingled with artists and writers; or more aristocratic salons like Comtesse de Chevigné‘s, Comtesse Greffulhe‘s, Comtesse Jean de Castellane’s, Comtesse Aimery de La Rochefoucauld’s, etc. Some late 19th- and early 20th-century Paris salons were major centres for contemporary music, including those of Winnaretta Singer (the princesse de Polignac), and Élisabeth, comtesse Greffulhe. They were responsible for commissioning some of the greatest songs and chamber music works of Fauré, Debussy, Ravel and Poulenc.

Until the 1950s, some salons were held by ladies mixing political men and intellectuals during the IVth Republic, like Mme Abrami, or Mme Dujarric de La Rivière. The last salons in Paris were those of Marie-Laure de Noailles, with Jean Cocteau, Igor Markevitch, Salvador Dalí, etc., Marie-Blanche de Polignac (Jeanne Lanvin‘s daughter) and Madeleine and Robert Perrier, with Josephine Baker, Le Corbusier, Django Reinhardt, etc.^[47]

Salons outside France

[edit]

Salon sociability quickly spread through Europe. In the 18th and 19th centuries, many large cities in Europe held salons along the lines of the Parisian models.

Belgium

[edit]

Prior to the formation of Belgium, Béatrix de Cusance hosted a salon in Brussels in what was then the Spanish Netherlands in the mid-17th century. In the late 18th century, the political salon of Anne d’Yves played a role in the Brabant Revolution of 1789.

In Belgium, the 19th-century salon hosted by Constance Trotti attracted cultural figures, the Belgian aristocracy and members of the French exiled colony.^[48]

Denmark

[edit]

In Denmark, the salon culture was adopted during the 18th century. Christine Sophie Holstein and Charlotte Schimmelman were the most notable hostesses, in the beginning and in the end of the 18th century respectively, both of whom were credited with political influence.^[49] During the Danish Golden Age in the late 18th century and early 19th century, the literary salon played a significant part in Danish culture life, notably the literary salons arranged by Friederike Brun at Sophienholm and that of Kamma Rahbek at Bakkehuset.^[49]

Jewish culture in Central Europe

[edit]

In the German-speaking palatinates and kingdoms, the most famous were held by Jewish ladies, such as Henriette Herz, Sara Grotthuis, and Rahel Varnhagen, and in Austria in the late 18th and early 19th centuries by two prominent Jewish Patrons of the Arts: Adele Bloch-Bauer^[50] and Berta Zuckerkandl. Increasingly emancipated German-speaking Jews wanted to immerse themselves in the rich cultural life. However, individual Jews were faced with a dilemma: they faced new opportunities, but without the comfort of a secure community. For Jewish women, there was an additional issue. German society imposed the usual gender role restrictions and antisemitism, so cultivated Jewish women tapped into the cultural salon. But from 1800 on, salons performed a political and social miracle.^[51] The salon allowed Jewish women to establish a venue in their homes in which Jews and non-Jews could meet in relative equality. Like-minded people could study art, literature, philosophy or music together. This handful of educated, acculturated Jewish women could escape the restrictions of their social ghetto. Naturally the women had to be in well-connected families, either to money or to culture. In these mixed gatherings of nobles, high civil servants, writers, philosophers and artists, Jewish salonnières created a vehicle for Jewish integration, providing a context in which patrons and artists freely exchanged ideas. Henriette Lemos Herz, Fanny Mendelssohn Hensel, Dorothea Mendelssohn Schlegel, Amalie Wolf Beer and at least twelve other salonnières achieved fame and admiration.

In Spain, by María del Pilar Teresa Cayetana de Silva y Álvarez de Toledo, 13th Duchess of Alba at the end of the 18th century; and in Greece by Alexandra Mavrokordatou in the 17th century.

Italy

[edit]

Italy had had an early tradition of the salon; Giovanna Dandolo became known as a patron and gatherer of artists as wife of Pasquale Malipiero, the doge in Venice in 1457–1462, and the courtesan Tullia d’Aragona held a salon already in the 16th century, and in the 17th century Rome, the abdicated Queen Christina of Sweden and the princess Colonna, Marie Mancini, rivaled as salon hostesses. In the 18th century, Aurora Sanseverino provided a forum for thinkers, poets, artists, and musicians in Naples, making her a central figure in baroque Italy.^[52]

The tradition of the literary salon continued to flourish in Italy throughout the 19th century. Naturally there were many salons with some of the most prominent being hosted by Clara Maffei in Milan, Emilia Peruzzi in Florence and Olimpia Savio in Turin. The salons attracted countless outstanding 19th-century figures including the romantic painter Francesco Hayez, composer Giuseppe Verdi and naturalist writers Giovanni Verga, Bruno Sperani and Matilde Serao. The salons served a very important function in 19th-century Italy, as they allowed young attendees to come into contact with more established figures. They also served as a method of avoiding government censorship, as a public discussion could be held in private. The golden age of the salon in Italy could be said to coincide with the pre-unification period, after which the rise of the newspaper replaced the salon as the main place for the Italian public to engage in the room of sex.^[53]

Latin America

[edit]

Argentina‘s most active female figure in the revolutionary process, Mariquita Sánchez, was Buenos Aires‘ leading salonnière.^[54] She fervently embraced the cause of revolution, and her tertulia gathered all the leading personalities of her time. The most sensitive issues were discussed there, as well as literary topics. Mariquita Sánchez is widely remembered in the Argentine historical tradition because the Argentine National Anthem was sung for the first time in her house, on 14 May 1813.^[55] Other notable salonnières in colonial Buenos Aires were Mercedes de Lasalde Riglos and Flora Azcuénaga. Along with Mariquita Sánchez, the discussions at her houses led up to the May Revolution, the first stage in the struggle for Argentine independence from Spain.^[56]

Poland-Lithuania

[edit]

In the vast Commonwealth of Poland-Lithuania, Duchess Elżbieta Sieniawska held a salon at the end of the 17th century. They became very popular there throughout the 18th century. Most renowned were the Thursday Lunches of King Stanisław II Augustus at the end of the 18th century, and among the most notable salonnières were Barbara Sanguszko, Zofia Lubomirska, Anna Jabłonowska, a noted early scientist and collector of scientific objects and books, Izabela Czartoryska, and her later namesake, Princess Izabela Czartoryska founder of Poland’s first museum and a patron of the Polish composer Frederic Chopin.^{[57][58][59][60]}

Russia

[edit]

The salon culture was introduced to Imperial Russia during the Westernization Francophile culture of the Russian aristocracy in the 18th century. During the 19th century, several famous salon functioned hosted by the nobility in Saint Petersburg and Moscow, among the most famed being the literary salon of Zinaida Volkonskaya in 1820s Moscow.

Sweden

[edit]

In Sweden, the salon developed during the late 17th century and flourished until the late 19th century. During the 1680s and 1690s, the salon of countess Magdalena Stenbock became a meeting where foreign ambassadors in Stockholm came to make contacts, and her gambling table was described as a center of Swedish foreign policy.^[61]

During the Swedish Age of Liberty (1718–1772), women participated in political debate and promoted their favorites in the struggle between the Caps (party) and the Hats (party) through political salons.^[61] These forums were regarded influential enough for foreign powers to engage some of these women as agents to benefit their interests in Swedish politics.^[61] The arguably most noted political salonnière of the Swedish age of liberty was countess Hedvig Catharina De la Gardie (1695–1745), whose salon has some time been referred to as the first in Sweden, and whose influence on state affairs exposed her to libelous pamphlets and made her a target of Olof von Dahlin‘s libelous caricature of the political salon hostess in 1733.^[61] Magdalena Elisabeth Rahm was attributed to have contributed to the realization of the Russo-Swedish War (1741–1743) through the campaign for the war she launched in her salon.^[62] Outside of politics, Hedvig Charlotta Nordenflycht acted as the hostess of the literary academy Tankebyggarorden and Anna Maria Lenngren did the same for the Royal Swedish Academy.

During the reign of Gustavian age, the home of Anna Charlotta Schröderheim came to be known as a center of opposition. Salon hostesses were still attributed influence in politic affairs in the first half of the 19th century, which was said of both Aurora Wilhelmina Koskull^[63] in the 1820s as well as Ulla De Geer in the 1840s.^[64]

In the 19th century, however, the leading salon hostesses in Sweden became more noted as the benefactors of the arts and charity than with politics. From 1820 and two decades onward, Malla Silfverstolpe became famous for her Friday nights salon in Uppsala, which became a center of the Romantic era in Sweden and, arguably the most famed literary salon in Sweden.^[65] During the 1860s and 1870s, the Limnell Salon of the rich benefactor Fredrika Limnell in Stockholm came to be a famous center of the Swedish cultural elite, were especially writers gathered to make contact with wealthy benefactors,^[66] a role which was eventually taken over by the Curman Receptions of Calla Curman in the 1880s and 1890s.^[67]

Spain

[edit]

In Iberia or Latin America, a tertulia is a social gathering with literary or artistic overtones. The word is originally Spanish and has only moderate currency in English, in describing Latin cultural contexts. Since the 20th century, a typical tertulia has moved out from the private drawing-room to become a regularly scheduled event in a public place such as a bar, although some tertulias are still held in more private spaces. Participants may share their recent creations (poetry, short stories, other writings, even artwork or songs).^[68]

Switzerland

[edit]

In Switzerland, the salon culture was extant in the mid-18th century, represented by Julie Bondeli in Bern and Barbara Schulthess in Zürich, and the salon of Anna Maria Rüttimann-Meyer von Schauensee reached in influential role in the early 19th century.

In Coppet Castle close to Lake Geneva, the exiled Parisian salonnière and author, Madame de Staël, hosted a salon which played a key role in the aftermath of the French Revolution and especially under Napoleon Bonaparte‘s Regime. It has become known as the Coppet group. De Staël is author of around thirty publications, from which On Germany (1813) was the most well known in its time. She has been painted by such famous painters as François Gérard and Elisabeth Vigée-Lebrun.

United Kingdom

[edit]

In 18th-century England, salons were held by Elizabeth Montagu, in whose salon the expression bluestocking originated, and who created the Blue Stockings Society, and by Hester Thrale. In the 19th century, the Russian Baroness Méry von Bruiningk hosted a salon in St. John’s Wood, London, for refugees (mostly German) of the revolutions of 1848 (the Forty-Eighters). Clementia Taylor, an early feminist and radical held a salon at Aubrey House in Campden Hill in the 1860s. Her salon was attended by Moncure D. Conway,^[69] Louisa May Alcott,^[70] Arthur Munby, feminists Barbara Bodichon, Lydia Becker, Elizabeth Blackwell, and Elizabeth Malleson.^[71] Holland House in Kensington under the Fox family in the late 18th and early 19th centuries was akin to a French salon, largely for adherents to the Whig Party.^[72] Charles Babbage’s Saturday night soirées from 1828 and into the 1840s were a related phenomenon attracting men and women, scientists and writers.^[6]

United States

[edit]

Martha Washington, the first American First Lady, performed a function similar to the host or hostess of the European salon. She held weekly public receptions throughout her husband’s eight-year presidency (1789–1797). At these gatherings, members of Congress, visiting foreign dignitaries, and ordinary citizens alike were received at the executive mansion.^[73] More recently, “society hostesses” such as Perle Mesta have done so as well. The Stettheimer sisters, including the artist Florine Stettheimer, hosted gatherings at their New York City home in the 1920s and ’30s. During the Harlem Renaissance, Ruth Logan Roberts, Georgia Douglas Johnson and Zora Neale Hurston hosted salons that brought together leading figures in African-American literature, and in the culture and politics of Harlem at the time.^[74][75]

Arab world

[edit]

Main article: Women’s literary salons and societies in the Arab world

Modern-day salons

[edit]

Modern-day versions of the traditional salon (some with a literary focus, and others exploring other disciplines in the arts and sciences) are held throughout the world, in private homes and public venues.^[1]

Sally Quinn and her husband Ben Bradlee hosted influential salons in Washington DC from the 1970s until the 2000s. “An invitation to the couple’s historic Georgetown home was one of the most coveted status symbols in the nation’s capital, an entry to an elite salon of the powerful, talented and witty.”^[76] In the 1980s, former nun and musician Theodora di Marco and her sister Norma hosted musical and debating soirées in their home in Notting Hill, London.^[77]

In 2014, in response to the isolation of the digital life, in-person events and salons grew in popularity.^[78] In 2021 response to the isolation of the pandemic, Susan MacTavish Best, who was part of the movement, launched an educational resource for those who wish to host salons in their community called The Salon Host.^[79][80] In late 2024 Peyton Kullander/Ophelie started a movement to bring salons back into the public consciousness, called The Temptations Artist Salon and Zine, aiming to encourage the discussion and banter of the past.^[81]

Other uses of the word

[edit]

Main article: Paris Salon

The word salon also refers to art exhibitions. The Paris Salon was originally an officially sanctioned exhibit of recent works of painting and sculpture by members of the Académie royale de peinture et de sculpture, starting in 1673 and soon moving from the Salon Carré of the Palace of the Louvre.

The name salon remained, even when other quarters were found and the exhibits’ irregular intervals became biennial. A jury system of selection was introduced in 1748, and the salon remained a major annual event even after the government withdrew official sponsorship in 1881.

The related terms salon-style exhibition or salon-style hang describe the practice of displaying large numbers of paintings, thus requiring placing them close together at multiple heights, often on a high wall.^[82][83][84]