ARSORIENTALIS

39

ars orientalis volume 39

editorial boardLee Glazer and Jane Lusaka, co-editorsMartin J. PowersDebra DiamondMassumeh FarhadNancy Micklewright

editorial committeeKevin CarrLouise CortJulian RabyMargaret Cool RootJames T. UlakJ. Keith WilsonAnn Yonemura

designerEdna Jamandre

publications assistantJenna Vaccaro

editorial officesArs Orientalis

Freer Gallery of Art

Smithsonian Institution

P.O. Box 37012, MRC 707

Washington, D.C. 20013–7012

For deliveries

(DHL, FedEx, UPS, courier):

1050 Independence Ave., S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20560

Inquiries concerning journal submissions and editorial matters: arsorientedit@si.edu

issn 0571-1371Printed in the United States of America© 2010 Smithsonian Institution,Washington, D.C.

Cosponsored by the Department of the History of Art, University of Michigan, and the Freer Gallery of Art, Smithsonian Institution, Ars Orientalis solicits scholarly manuscripts on the art and archaeology of Asia, including the ancient Near East and the Islamic world. Fostering a broad range of themes and approaches, articles of interest to scholars in diverse fields or disciplines are particularly sought, as are suggestions for occasional thematic issues and reviews of important books in Western or Asian languages. Brief research notes and responses to articles in previous issues of Ars Orientalis will also be considered. Submissions must be in English, with all non-English quotations normally provided in translation. Authors are asked to follow The Chicago Manual of Style, 15th ed. A style sheet is available from the editorial office.

Ars Orientalis subscriptions are handled by Turpin Distribution. (For contact information, go to www.asia.si.edu/research/ArsOrientalis.asp.)

Current subscription rates (including shipping):U.S. individual: $40U.S. institution: $50International individual: $42International institution: $52

Subscription-related inquires (invoice, payment, and change of address):turpinna@turpin-distribution.com (Canada, Mexico, USA)custserv@turpin-distribution.com (all other countries)

Special subscription rates are currently available as a membership option through the American Oriental Society. For more information, please contact the American Oriental Society, Hatcher Graduate Library, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109–1205, or access the society’s home page at www.umich.edu/~aos.

The full text of Ars Orientalis is also available in the electronic versions of Art Index and online through JSTOR (www.jstor.org).

ars or ientalis 39

ars orientalis volume 39globalizing cultures: art and mobility in the eighteenth centurynebahat avcıoğlu and finbarr barry flood, guest editors

contents

7 introductionGlobalizing Cultures: Art and Mobility in the Eighteenth Century Nebahat Avcıoğlu and Finbarr Barry Flood

39 a roomful of mirrorsThe Artful Embrace of Mughals and Franks, 1550–1700 Sanjay Subrahmanyam

84 looking eastJean-Etienne Liotard, the Turkish Painter Kristel Smentek

113 eighteenth-century ottoman princesses as collectorsFrom Chinese to European Porcelain Tülay Artan

148 translating visionsA Japanese Lacquer Plaque of the Haram of Mecca in the L. A. Mayer Memorial Museum, Jerusalem Anton Schweizer and Avinoam Shalem

175 the “palais indiens” collection of 1774Representing Mughal Architecture in Late Eighteenth-Century India Chanchal Dadlani

198 “dressing turks in the french manner”Mouradgea d’Ohsson’s Panorama of the Ottoman Empire Elisabeth A. Fraser

231 history or theory?French Antiquarianism, Cairene Architecture, and Enlightenment Thinking Mercedes Volait

85

kristelsmentek

lookingeastJean-Étienne Liotard, the Turkish Painter

AbstractFrom1738to1743,theGenevanartistJean-ÉtienneLiotardlivedandworkedintheOttomanEmpire,firstinConstantinopleandlaterinJassyinMoldavia.WhilethereheadoptedtheTurkishattirethathecontinuedtowearfortherestofhislifeandthatearnedhimthesobriquetthe“TurkishPainter”uponhisreturntoEurope.ThispaperexaminestheimpactofLiotard’sOttomansojournonhisart.Itarguesthatjustastheartist’slivedexperienceofculturaldislocationandoftheethnicandreligiousdiversityoftheOttomanEmpireinspiredhisquestioningofEuropeanmannersanddress,sotoodidhisencounterswithTurkish,Persian,andChineseartleadhimtoreevaluatetheartistictraditionsinwhichhewasinitiallytrainedandto forgeavaguely“Turkish”style thatsubtlycounteredprevailingWesternEuropeanartisticconventions.

In1738,theGenevanartistJean-ÉtienneLiotard(1702–89)traveledtotheOtto-manEmpire.Thisvoyagewasthedefiningmomentofhiscareer.Duringhisfive-yearsojourn,primarilyinConstantinopleandlaterintheOttomanvassalstateofMoldavia,Liotardestablishedhimselfasaportraitistandgenrepaintertothelocalandexpatriatecommunities,forgingconnectionsthatwouldservehimthrough-outhiscareer.ItwasalsointheLevantthatLiotardadoptedtheTurkishrobesandthelongbeardthatcausedasensationonhisreturntoEuropein1743.Hewasnevertosetfootintheempireagain,butheretainedhisTurkishcostumeandcon-tinuedtostylehimselfas“lepeintreturc”(theTurkishPainter)untilhisdeathin1789atage86(Fig.1).Lookingandbehavingunlikeanyoneelse,from1743LiotardroamedthecourtsandcapitalsofEurope,travelingfromViennatoParistoLon-dontoAmsterdamandbackagain,capturingpublicattentionwithhisintriguingstrangeness,andensuringhimselfahighlysuccessfulcareerdespitehislackofthetraditionalacademiccredentials.

If Liotard’s appearance was unusual, so too was his art. Eighteenth-centuryviewers perceived in his paintings and pastels a curious planarity and a willfulrejectionof theconventionsofcontemporaryEuropeanpainting—features thatwerebothintriguingandunsettling.Tohisadmirers,Liotardwasthe“painteroftruth,” anunparalleledportraitistwithanuncannyability to capturea likenessandrenderitwithstartlingdirectness.1Unlikehiscontemporaries,Liotardrefusedtoflatterhissitters,recordinginstead,withminuteprecision,theirruddycom-plexions, inelegant hands, or pinching bodices. He also eschewed the painterlyflourishescharacteristicoftheworkofsuchrivalsastheFrenchpastellistMauriceQuentindeLaTour,producinginsteadseamless,smoothsurfacesdevoidofanyauthorial trace.Liotard’sscrupulousrealismandmeticulousfinish foundmuch

1 (facing)Jean-ÉtienneLiotard,Self-portrait,1744.Pastelonpaper.GalleriadegliUffizi,Florence,1890,no.1936.PhotographScala/ArtResource,nY

86 kristelsmentek

favoramongtheEuropeanart-buyingpublic,butamongmembersoftheartisticestablishment,particularly inFranceandEngland,hisworkarousedanintenseantipathy.DevoteesregularlypraisedLiotard’sexcellenceasapastellist,hispow-ersofmimesis,and“theastonishing forceandbeauty”ofhiscolor(whilecon-sistentlyalsoremarkingonhisequallyastonishingprices).2Tohisacademicallymindedcritics,however,Liotard’spainstakingobservationandfastidiousatten-tiontofinishrecalledcraftratherthanart;hisworkrepresentedtheantithesisoftheeffortlessnessand“genius”thatcharacterizedtheliberalartist.Charles-nicolasCochin,secrétaire perpétuelof theRoyalAcademyofPaintingandSculpture inParis, complained thatLiotard’sdrawingsandpastelswere “sansesprit”andsoheavilyworkedthatonenolongersawthegrainofthepaper.Heimplicitlychar-acterizedLiotard’sartasnaivebycomparingittodevotionalimagesexecutedbynuns.3TheFrenchconnoisseurPierre-JeanMariettesimilarlydismissedLiotard’sartasdry,labored,andlackingininventiveness.4AcommentattributedtoJoshuaReynolds,firstpresidentoftheRoyalAcademyinLondon,wasmorepointed:“TheonlymeritinLiotard’spicturesisneatness,which,asageneralrule,isthecharac-teristicofalowgenius,orrathernogeniusatall.”5

Thecommentsofothercontemporaries,however,suggestthatunderlyingthehostilityto(butperhapsalsotheappreciationof)Liotard’snaiveor“lowbrow”artwasaperceptionthatitwasvaguelynon-European.Severalwriters,includingMar-iette,commentedontheflatnessofLiotard’sfigures,aflatnessresultingfromtheartist’sdisavowalofconventionalmodeling.Atmid-centurytheconnoisseurandtheoristFrancescoAlgarottifavorablycomparedLiotard’sevenlighting,aprimarysourceofthesenseofplanarityinhiswork,toChinesepainting.6Foracademicians,Chineseartwasnotamodeltobeemulated.Inthe1740stheFrenchpainterFran-çoisBoucherwaspubliclytakentotaskforhisstudyofChinesework;onecriticfeared that Boucher’s close attention to Chinese representational modes wouldcompromisetheeleganceandrefinement ofhisart.7IfAsianartheldparticularattractionsforBoucher,itdidforLiotardaswell,whoextolledthevisualqualitiesofChinesepaintinginhisTraité des principes et des règles de la peinture(TreatiseonthePrinciplesandRulesofPainting)publishedin1781.

ReferencestoChineseartinrelationtoLiotard’sworkpromptfurtherspecu-lationastothesourcesofhisunusualartisticstyle.IfhewasfamiliarwithEastAsianart,hadhealsoencounteredPersianorOttomanpainting?Thisisnotanewquestion,andtheanswerremainscontested.Inthe1940s,writerssuchasLouisHautecoeurandArnoldneuweilerproposedthatthelighteningofLiotard’spal-etteandthemeticulousexecutionthatmarkshisOttomanworksresultedfromhisexposuretoPersianminiaturesinConstantinople.8Recentscholarshipisgenerallymorehesitantoropenlyskeptical.InherindispensablecatalogueofLiotard’sdraw-

87 lookingeast

ings,AnnedeHerdtoccasionallyimpliesarelationshipbetweenTurkishminia-tures(afieldofstudylargelyneglectedbyHautecoeurandneuweiler’sgeneration)andLiotard’sOttomanwork.9InoneentryshedirectlycomparesadrawingofadancerbyLiotardtoaminiatureofaPersiandancerbytheTurkishartistAbdül-celilÇelebi,betterknownasLevni(d.1732).However,shethendeniesanyrelationbetweenthetwobyarguingthatLiotardlikelyhadnoaccesstotheTurkishartist’swork.10TheauthoritativecatalogueraisonnéofLiotard’soeuvrepublishedin2008iscategorical:Liotard“wasnotinspiredbyTurkishart,justasheinturnleftnotraceonTurkishart.”11

This paper revisits the debate over the role of Turkish art in Liotard’s prac-tice,andarguesthattheartist’sexperiencesintheLevantandthearthemayhaveencounteredtheredidshapehisworkandhisthinkingaboutthegoalsofart.ItstartsfromtheobservationsmadebyHautecoeurandothersthatthebrilliantcol-oring,unifiedsurfacesandevenlightingthatarecharacteristicofLiotard’soeuvrefirstemergeasdistinctivestylisticfeaturesintheworksheexecutedintheOttomanEmpire,anditpursuesthelinesofinquirysuggestedbydeHerdt.AlthoughfewofLiotard’searlyworksareextant,thoseminiatures,paintings,andpastelsfromhispre-Ottomanperiodthatdosurvivearemarkedbyarelianceonpronouncedchiaroscuroand,inthepastelsandcanvases,aforegroundingoffacture(Fig.2).ThesequalitiesexemplifypictorialpracticeintheParisianmilieuwhereLiotardcompletedhistraininginthe1720s,andbotharepreceptshewouldlaterrejectinhispublishedpronouncementsandinhisart.Incontrasttomostofhisearlypro-duction,inmanyofLiotard’sOttomanworksthecharacteristictraitsofhislater

2Jean-ÉtienneLiotard,Self-portrait,1727.Oiloncanvas.Privatecollection.AfterRoethlisbergerandLoche,Liotard: catalogue, sources,2:fig.20

2

88 kristelsmentek

oeuvre emerge: representations are rigorously descriptive, individual strokes ofthecrayonorbrushareoftenbarelydistinguishable,colorsaremorevibrantandsaturated,andstrongcontrastsoflightandshadearelargelyavoided.SeveralofLiotard’sOttomanworks,particularlyhisgenrescenes,alsoexhibitaflatteningofspaceandasenseofexperimentwithperspectivalconventions.ThesefeaturesofLiotard’sOttomanoeuvresuggestthathestudiednon-EuropeanartwhileintheLevant,andthathedeliberatelyintegratedsomeofthedistinctivefeaturesoftheworkheencounteredthereintohisownpractice.

ItismycontentionthatLiotard’sexperiencesintheLevantpromptedhiscriticalengagementwithFrenchrocococonventionsofpicturemakingandwiththePari-sianartisticestablishmentinwhichhehadinitiallyhopedtomakehiscareer.Thisengagementwasprompted,Ipropose,bytheculturaldislocationoftravelandbyhisconsequentappreciationofartworksfromoutsidetheFrenchacademiccanon(Ottoman,Chinese,andseventeenth-centuryDutchpainting,forexample),andthevisualtruthsheperceivedinthem.12Inthisview,justasLiotard’slivedexperi-enceofthereligiousandethnicdiversityoftheOttomanEmpireseemstohaveinspiredhisquestioningofEuropeanmoresandsartorialnorms,sotoodidhisencounterswithTurkish,Persian,andChineseartleadhimtoreevaluatetheEuro-peanartistictraditionsinwhichhewasschooled,andtocraftastylethatsubtlycounteredcontemporaryacademicartisticconventions.

TheEuropean–Ottomanencounterwassustainedovertheentireearlymodernperiod,butEuropeaninterestintheTurksseemstohavesharpenedintofascina-tionintheeighteenthcentury.Fromthecoffeehouse,animportfromtheOtto-manEmpire,tomasquerades,theatricalperformances,andvisualrepresentationsof sultanas and seraglios, the figure of the Turk was ubiquitous in eighteenth-centuryEuropeanculture.ThislevelofengagementwithTurkishdifferencewasmadepossible,intheconventionalview,bytheebbingofthemilitarythreatthattheOttomanspresentedtoEuropeaftertheTreatyofKarlowitzin1699,andbythemuch-publicizedTurkishembassiestoParisin1721and1742.This,however,cannotbeafullexplanationforthefascinationexertedbyTurkishsocietyontheEuropeanimagination.DespitetheOttomanEmpire’smilitarydecline,itremainedapowerwithwhichEuropeangovernmentshadtoreckon.Ithasrecentlybeensug-gestedthatthemonarchyofLouisXVworkeddeliberatelytoimprovetheimageoftheTurkinEuropeinordertolegitimateanddeepenFrance’sclosediplomatictieswithConstantinople.13Beyonddiplomacy,however,itseemsthataspacebegantoopeninEuropeanelitecultureinthemid-eighteenthcenturymakingitpossibleforEuropeanstorecognizeandvalueculturaldifferencewithoutassimilatingiteithertothecategoryofnature(thenoblesavage)ortouniversalcivilizationalstandards(asinEnlightenmentconjecturalhistory).14InassessingLiotard’swork,Isharethe

89 lookingeast

viewofscholarswhointerprettheeighteenthcenturyasaperioddefinedlessbytheOrientalistbinariesofEastandWest/EuropeandOtherthanbyareciprocalculturalcuriositybetweenOttomansandEuropeans,orbetweentheChineseandtheirEuropeancounterparts.15Liotardrepresentsanotableinstanceofthismutualculturalinterest:inhisreceptionbybothlocalsandexpatriatesintheempire,inhissubsequentcareerasa“Turkish”painterinEurope,andinhisart.

In the Ottoman EmpireAccording to Liotard, his voyage to the Levant was the result of a chance

encounter.AfterfailingtoforgeasuccessfulcareerforhimselfinParis,heacceptedtheinvitationoftheFrenchambassadortotheneapolitancourttoaccompanyhimtoItaly.ItwastherethatLiotardmetWilliamPonsonby,thefutureLordBessbor-ough,andJohnMontagu,LordSandwich,thetwograndtouristsinwhoseemployhewastotraveltotheOttomanEmpirein1738.16AccordingtoSandwich,Liotard’sbriefonthisvoyagewas“todrawthedressesofeverycountrytheyshouldgointo;totakeprospectsofalltheremarkableplaceswhichhadmadeafigureinhistory;andtopreserveintheirmemories,bythehelpofpainting,thosenobleremainsofantiquitywhichtheywentinquestof.”17WhetherLiotardeverdrewanyantiquitiesorancientsitesisunknown—noneareextant—butseveralannotatedanddatedcostumestudiesremainthataresurelyassociatedwithhisworkforthetwomen.ThesearepreciselydetaileddrawingsexecutedintheredandblackchalktechniquethatLiotardadapted fromtheexampleofAntoineWatteau,whosestudiesLio-tardhadseeninParisandwhoseworkheactivelycollected.18ThelastofLiotard’scostumesheets isdatedSeptember1738,around the time that theEnglishmenreturnedtoItaly.(SandwichtraveledtoEgyptthefollowingyear.)Liotard,however,remainedintheempireforfiveyears,havingbeenreleasedfromhisemployers’servicethroughtheinterventionofEverardFawkener,theBritishambassadortothePorte.19

LiotardappearedinConstantinopleatapropitiousmoment.In1737,theyearpriortohisarrival,theFlemishartistJean-BaptisteVanmour,whohadbeentheresident Western painter to the diplomatic community for nearly thirty-eightyears,haddied.20Inhisplace,LiotardbecamethepainterofchoicetoEuropeanexpatriates(includingmembersoftheAustrian,Dutch,English,French,Swedish,andVenetianembassies)andanactiveparticipantintheirsociallife.21Asrepre-sentativesoftheirmonarchs,Europeanambassadorsgenerallydidnotadoptlocaldress.OtherresidentFranks(Europeans)andtravelers,however,likeSandwich,Ponsonby,orthearchaeologistRichardPocockedid,oftencommissioningLiotardtorecordforposteritytheirembraceoflocalsartorialcodes.Thesecommissionsresultedinsuchstunning,highlyfinishedworksasLiotard’s life-sizeportraitof

90 kristelsmentek

PocockeinhisTurkishtravelingrobesandturbanfrom1740(Fig.3),andamuchsmallerpainting fromthe sameperiodpainted for theFrenchambassador, themarquisdeVilleneuve,representingMlleGlavani,daughteroftheformerFrenchconsul in the Crimea, and Mr. Levett, an English merchant in Constantinople,attiredinlocaldress(Fig.4).22Inthelatterespecially,aworkmeasuringonly24.7by36.4centimeters,allofLiotard’sgiftsasaminiaturistarebroughttobearonhisdescriptionofembroideryandinlay,metal,andfur.Bothpaintingsarerepletewithcarefullyrenderedidentifiersofplace—acompositeviewoftheGoldenHornintheformerandpreciselydelineatedTurkishfurnishingsandinstrumentsinthelatter—andbothexhibitthephysiognomicexactitudethatwouldcometocharac-terizeLiotard’sportraitpractice.Morethanmerelikenesses,however,suchimagesof cultural cross-dressingvisualize the travelerorexpatriate imagining identityinrelation,ratherthaninopposition,toanother.23Intheeighteenthcentury,onecouldbe,asLiotardemphasizedinhisself-representation,bothaGenevanandaTurk,a“peintreturcdeGenève”(seeFig.1).

Liotard’sOttomanoeuvreshowsthatsuchcuriositywasbi-directional.Intheempire,TurksandMoldavianssattoLiotardforportraitsexecutedaccordedtoEuropeanconventions.HisextantworksshowthathisOttomansittersincludedthegrandvizier,oneofthemostpowerfulmenintheempire,aswellasseveralotherofficialsandmembersofthesultan’shouseholdincludingone“SadigAga,”identifiedbyLiotardas“treasurerofthemosques,”andIbrahim,oneofthesultan’sdwarves.24TheartistwascalledtoMoldaviabythereigningprincetoserveasthe

3

3Jean-ÉtienneLiotard,Richard Pococke,1740.Oiloncanvas.Muséed’artetd’histoire,Geneva,1948-22.Photograph©Muséed’artetd’histoire,Geneva

91 lookingeast

court’sartist.WhileinJassy,thecapital,heexecutedportraitsofhispatronandvar-iousothermembersofthecourt.Itwasthere,inemulationofthelocalnobility,thatLiotardgrewhisbeard.25Liotardrecountedthatadefterdar(amemberoftheOtto-manfinancialadministration)requestedtheartistdemonstratehisworkingmeth-odsforhim,whichapparentlyrequiredanunfortunatemodeltoremainmotionlessfortwohours.26ThereisalsoevidencethatlocalartistsmayhaveusedLiotard’sworksasmodelsfortheirown.AcopyofLiotard’sstudyofaGreekwoman,SignoraMaroudia,includedinanalbumofminiaturesnowintheTopkapıPalaceLibraryinIstanbul,suggeststhatartistsworkinginConstantinopleappreciatedLiotard’scostumestudies.Theminiaturehasbeendatedtocirca1770,adatethatsuggestsLiotard’sdrawingswereincirculationinthecitylongaftertheartistleft.27

IflocalshadaccesstoLiotard’swork,theartisthimselfwouldhavehadoccasiontoseeillustratedPersianandOttomanmanuscriptsaswellassingle-pageminia-turesproducedinConstantinopleforlocalandexpatriateconsumption.WhiledeHerdt isprobablycorrect inassuming thatLiotardcouldnothaveseenLevni’sPersian Dancer—theworkwaspartofanalbumcreatedforthesultanandwouldalmostcertainlyhavebeeninaccessibletotheGenevan—Levnididproduceindi-vidualcostumeplatesforotherpatrons.AsGülİrepoğluhasargued,thesepatronsmayhaveincludedEuropeanslivinginConstantinople.28LiotardcouldalsohaveseenworkbyLevni,hisschool,orbyotherearlierorcontemporaryOttomanandPersianartistsinthemurakkas(albumsofboundmaterialsincludingindividualminiaturesfromdifferentregionsandperiods)ofcourtofficials.Thecopyafter

4

4Jean-ÉtienneLiotard,M. Levett and Mlle Glavani in Turkish Costume,ca.1740.Oiloncard.MuséeduLouvre,Paris,RF1995-14.PhotographRéuniondesMuséesnationaux/ArtResource,nY

92 kristelsmentek

Liotard’sdrawingofSignoraMaroudiaisincludedinjustsuchanalbum,along-sideminiaturesbyLevniandAbdullahBuhari,apainteractiveinConstantinoplefromcirca1735to1745(thuscontemporaneouswithLiotard),whoseemstohavespecializedinindividualcostumeplatesofwomen.29Weknowfromthemanu-scriptaccountofthescholarMarcoAntonioCazzaitithatheandLiotardvisitedatleastonelibraryinConstantinopleinthecompanyofnicolaErizzo,theVenetianbailo.ThelibraryhasbeenidentifiedasthatfoundedbytheGrandVizierDamadIbrahimPaşa in1720;Cazzaitidescribed itasconsistingofrichlyboundArab,Persian,andTurkishmanuscripts.30RecentresearchonIbrahimPaşa’spersonalcollectionandthoseofothercourtofficialsindicatesthattheyownednumerousillustratedmanuscriptsandalbumsofimages.31Liotardcouldalsohaveencoun-tered miniatures in the ateliers of local artists. Later in the century, the ItalianJesuitGiambattistaToderini sawTurkishpaintings in thepossessionofacourtpainter,theOttomanArmenianMenasi.Toderinialsorecountedviewingnumer-ousbooksfilledwithfiguresinthepossessionofhisTurkishfriends,andrecalledencounteringpaintingsbyaPersiandervishincafésandbarbershops.32PersianandOttomanworkswerealsoavailableforpurchaseinConstantinople.Inthelateseventeenth and eighteenth centuries, successive French envoys bought manu-scripts,includingillustratedones,fortheRoyalLibraryinParis.DuringLiotard’ssojourn, themarquisdeVilleneuveandhis successor, thecomtedeCastellane,werechargedwithsuchacquisitions,andanypurchases theymadewouldhavepassedthoughtheFrenchembassywhereLiotardcouldhaveseenthem.33JudgingfromthemanuscriptsandminiaturesacquiredbyHeinrichFriedrichvonDiez,thePrussianchargé d’affairesattheSublimePortefrom1786to1790,awidevarietyofvisualmaterialwasavailableinthecity.nowinBerlin,Diez’salbumsshowthatheacquiredOttoman,Qajar,andChineseworksinConstantinople,aswellasillus-tratedmanuscriptsandmaterialsextractedfromalbumsintheTopkapıPalace.34

5

5Jean-ÉtienneLiotard,Woman Taking Tea,1738–42.Redandblackchalkonpaper.OskarReinhartFoundation,Winterthur.

93 lookingeast

Finally,theexistenceinEuropeancollectionstodayofnumerouscostumebooksandindividualplatesbyOttoman“bazaarartists”testifiestothecontinuingcon-sumptionofdepictionsofOttomantypesbyexpatriates,particularlyamongthediplomaticcommunitieswithwhichLiotardwasintimatelyassociated.35

GiventheinaccessibilityofMuslimwomenintheempire,representationsoftheminTurkishcostumeplatesandminiaturesmusthavebeenespeciallyappeal-ing to foreigners.FrankishmencouldencounterMuslimwomenonly throughimages,andbothOttomanandEuropeanartists,Liotardincluded,werehappytosupplythem.Liotard’smanyrepresentationsofwomenwerenecessarilystagedfic-tionsusingGreekorFrankishwomenashismodelsandillustrationsassourcesfortheirposesandclothes.Asscholarshavenoted,someofhissourceswereEuropean.Drawingssuchashisdetailedstudyoftwowomenplayingagameofmangalaorofaservantofferingteatoaseatedwoman(Fig.5)arevisualquotationsfromthemostpopularbookofLevantinecostumepublishedintheeighteenthcentury:Recueil de cent estampes représentant différentes nations du Levant,commonlyreferedtoastheRecueil Ferriol. ThiswasabookofonehundredprintsofLevantinedressetchedafterpaintingsbyVanmour.ItwasfirstpublishedinParisin1714–15ontheinitiativeofthemarquisdeFerriol,aformerFrenchambassadortotheOttomancourt,whohadcommissionedthepaintingswhileinConstantinople.36TheRecueilwasuseful,butonecanwellimaginetheattractionsofseeminglymoreauthenticsources,suchasminiaturesbyTurkishartistslikeLevni,Buhari,orthebazaarartists.

Liotard’sencounterswithPersianandTurkishpaintingmighthelptoexplainthevibrantcolorismandthespatialambiguitiesofhisownOttomanproduction.neithertherichcolornortheplanarity,northeblankbackgroundsthatcharac-terizemuchofLiotard’sworkintheempire,couldhavebeenderivedfrombooksliketheRecueil.Allofthesefeatures,however,arecharacteristicofOttomanminia-tures,especiallycostumeplates.Twoparticularlyfinecostumebooks,nowinParis,exemplifyqualitiesofOttomanartthat,Isuggest,areechoedinLiotard’sproduc-tion.BothhavebeenattributedtotheOttomanpainterMusavvirHüseyin,whoiscreditedasaformativeexampleforLevniandotherlesser-knownminiaturistsofthelateseventeenthandearlyeighteenthcenturies.37Liotardcouldnothaveseen

6 7

8MusavvirHüseyin,Embroiderer.MiniaturefromCostumes turcs de la Cour et de la ville de Constantinople en 1720,ca.1720.BibliothèquenationaledeFrance,Paris,Estampes,Od.6,plate30.

6MusavvirHüseyin,Haseki Sultan with Attendant.MiniaturefromFigures naturelles de Turquie par Raynal,1688.BibliothèquenationaledeFrance,Paris,Estampes,Od.7,plate20.

7MusavvirHüseyin,Musicians.MiniaturefromCostumes turcs de la Cour et de la ville de Constantinople en 1720,ca.1720.BibliothèquenationaledeFrance,Paris,Estampes,Od.6,plate3.

94 kristelsmentek

eitherbookasbothwereexportedtoParisbeforehisarrival,butHüseyin’splatesareindicativebothofthekindsofsubjectsLiotardcouldhaveencounteredinOtto-manpaintingandoftheformalqualitiestowhichheseemstohaveresponded.BothbooksfeaturebrilliantlycoloredplatesofmembersoftheimperialhouseholdaswellasseveralofTurkishwomenplayingmusicalinstruments,drinkingcoffee,visitingthehammam,andworkingattheirembroideryframes(Figs.6,7,8).ThesearestandardsubjectsofOttomancostumebooksandofLiotard’srepresentationsofTurkishwomen.ButinHüseyin’sworks,asinLevni’sandBuhari’s,wealsoencoun-tersophisticatedjuxtapositionsofunmodulatedplanesofcolor—ofbrightoranges,reds,pinks,andblues,forexample—setagainsttheblankexpanseofthewhitesup-port.Liotard’sworkdoesnotdirectlyimitatesuchminiatures,buthispastelsofOttomanthemessuggesthisreceptivitytotheirparticularbeauties.WorkssuchastheFrankish Woman and her Servant(Fig.9)suggestheadaptedminiaturistpro-ceduresofEastandWesttothelargerformatsandtechniqueofthepastelmedium,fusingthebrilliantcolorismandblankbackgroundsofOttomancostumeplateswith thehighfinishandgreaterrelianceonshadingcharacteristicofEuropeanenamels,themediuminwhichLiotardwasfirsttrained.

OneofthemoststrikingfeaturesofLiotard’sOttomanoeuvreishisrepresenta-tionofspace.FloutingWesternperspectivalconventions,Liotardfrequentlyflat-tensthesettingsofhisdrawings,pastels,andpaintingsofthisperiod.Liotardwas

9

9Jean-ÉtienneLiotard,Frankish Woman and her Servant,1742–3.Pastelonparchment.Muséed’artetd’histoire,Geneva,1936-17.Photograph©Muséed’artetd’histoire,Geneva

95 lookingeast

quitecapableofconvincinglyrenderingrecessionintodepth;oneneedonlylookathisdrawingofaTurkishvillage,forexample,orofthree-dimensionalobjectssuchaschairsandembroideryframes.38YetinmanyofhisOttomanworks,spaceisoftenindeterminateanddifficulttodecipher.Thus, inLiotard’sstudyofhisbedroominConstantinople,itisdifficulttothereadthewallsasmeetingatall(Fig.10).39Indeed,itistemptingtoreadtheworkingandreworkingofthe“corner”oftheroomasanattempttoflattenit,toundoorunlearnawayofseeingconditionedbyWesternperspectivalism.ManyofhisOttomandrawingsexhibitasimilarrefusaltoclearlydelineatetheboundariesofpictorialspace.Liotard’slargeexpansesofblankness,forinstance,confoundtheexpectationamongEuropeanviewersofanillusionofrecessionintodepth.Cornersofrooms,whentheyareindicatedatall,arerepresentedbyastraightlineorperfunctoryshading(seeFig.5),andthepre-sumedmeetingpointsoffloorsandwallsarebarelynoted,ifatall.Inoneparticu-larlydetailedsmallportraitrepresentingCountUlfeld,theHolyRomanEmperor’sambassadortothePorte,theviewerisledtoreadthebox-likeobject,perhapsawrit-ingdesk,atbottomrightaslocatedagainstawall(Fig.11).Followingtheobject’sorthogonallines,however,leadstheeyetoawallrunningparalleltothepictureplane.Whereonewouldexpectthesideandbackwallstomeet,whereonewouldexpectacorner,thereisnone.40AsimilarambiguitycharacterizesLiotard’sTurkishbathsceneofawomanandherservant(seeFig.9).Therethelightlydrawn,reced-inggridofthetiledfloorsoondissolvesintoflatness.Theflooristiltedupwardandthereislittlesenseofitmeetingawall.Evenmoresurprisingly,theverticalwallsagainstwhichthebasinseemstostand(ifonefollowsthelinesoftheflooring)havedisappearedentirely.

Comparisons with specific Ottoman miniatures highlight Liotard’s experi-mentationwiththethemesandformalinnovationsoftheimagesheencountedinConstantinople.AlthoughlargelyEuropeaninmediumandexecution,Liotard’s

1110

10Jean-ÉtienneLiotard,The Divan. Liotard’s Bedroom in Constantinople,ca.1742.Redchalkandgraphitepencilonpaper.Muséed’artetd’histoire,Geneva,1934-33.Photograph©Muséed’artetd’histoire,Geneva

11Jean-ÉtienneLiotard,Corfiz Anton, Count Ulfeld, Austrian Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire,1740–41.Gouacheandwatercoloronparchment.Privatecollection.PhotographcourtesySotheby’sPictureLibrary,London

96 kristelsmentek

Turkish bath scene exhibits the same planar background, unified lighting, anddeploymentofmultipleshadesofwhitefoundinBuhari’swell-knownWoman in the Hammam(Fig.12).Italsoexhibitsarepresentationofspacesimilar,butnotidenticalto,thatinBuhari’simage.ThereareresonancesinLiotard’spastelofthetiltedperspectiveofBuhari’sfloorandplatform,andthemoreempirical(ratherthanmathematical)representationofthewallfountain.(Forasimilaruseofmul-tiplewhitesandtiltedperspective,seeLiotard’sWoman in a Turkish Interior,Fig.

16.)InLiotard’shammamsceneatensioniscreatedbythejuxtapositionofvaguespacewithfullymodeledfigures.InsomeofLiotard’sOttomandrawings,thisoscil-lationbetweenplanarityandillusionismisparticularlyacute.InWoman Taking Tea,theplanaremphasisoftheblankwallandthestrictprofileviewoftheser-vantareintensionwiththerecedingvolumeofthesofa(seeFig.5).41Inoneofhisstudiesofanembroiderer,thewomanisconventionallymodeled,buttheframeonwhichsheworksisskewedandflattened(Fig.13).Thisstrikingdisregardforcon-ventionalperspectivehasbeendescribedasproto-modernist,42butTurkishimagesprovideacloserpointofcomparison.Liotard’sdepictionisanalogous,forexample,tothepointofviewadoptedinMusavvirHüseyin’spaintingofanembroiderer(seeFig.8).43ToanaudienceversedinEuropeanperspectivalconventions,Liotard’sobliquelyrenderedframesurelyconnoteddifferenceasmuchasdidthedressandposeoftheembroidererintheOttomanminiature.

12 13

12 AbdullahBuhari,Woman in the Hamman,1741–2.Watercoloronpaper,heightenedwithgold.TopkapıPalaceMuseumLibrary,Istanbul,YY1043.PhotographRéuniondesMuséesnationaux/ArtResource,nY

13Jean-ÉtienneLiotard,Embroiderer,1738.Blackandredchalkonpaper.MuséeduLouvre,Paris,RF1370.PhotographRéuniondesMuséesnationaux/ArtResource,nY

97 lookingeast

The “Turkish Painter”Uponhisarrival inViennain1743,Liotardastutelyparlayedhis“Turkishness”intoastunningandalmostimmediatecommercialsuccess.By1744,hewascom-missionedbyFranzStefan,GrandDukeofTuscanyandthefutureHolyRomanEmperor,toexecutealikenessofhimselfforthegalleryofcelebratedartists’self-portraitsintheUffiziinFlorence(seeFig.1).44By1751,whenLiotardwasinParis,hewasinapositiontoinvestsubstantialsumsinannuities,sumsthatbythestan-dardsofmid-eighteenth-centuryincomesinFranceattesttotheextraordinaryfeeshedemandedforhisworkandthewillingnessofhispatronstopaythem.45Thevehemenceofhisacademicdetractors,whomusthavefoundLiotard’scommandofthemarketgalling,isinstarkcontrasttotheappreciationofhisworkbythepicture-buyingpublic.

ThatLiotardachievedsuchprominenceineighteenth-centuryEuropeistes-tamenttotheperiod’sintenseinterestintheOttomanTurksandtheircustoms.TheOttomanEmpirewasbothalocusofEuropeanfantasyprojection(asexempli-fiedbythefascinationwiththeharem)and,asageographicallyproximateexampleoftheglobaldiversityofmanners,asiteofEuropeanrecognitionthatitwasbutonesocietyamongmany.46LiotardwaswellplacedtocatertoEuropeancuriosityabouttheempirebothinhispersonandhisart.HeexhibitedhisOttomandraw-ingsthroughouthiscareer,showingtheminpublicvenuesinParisandLondonandmakingthemavailabletovisitorstohisstudio.HefurthercapitalizedonhisOttomanstudiesbycirculatingprintsafterthem,describingtheetchingsintheaccompanyingtextsas“dessinéd’aprèsnature”(drawnfromlife),orinthecaseofaprintafterhisportraitofthesultan’sdwarf“dessinédansleserail”(drawnintheseraglio).47HealsobroughtcostumesbackwithhimfromTurkey,andnumerousEuropeansitterswhoneverventuredEastdonnedthemfortheirportraits,thusmemorializingtheirbriefengagementofanother.

Liotardalsobroughthimself.ItishardtooverestimatewhatastrangefigurehemusthavecutinthestreetsofVienna,Paris,London,andtheotherEuropeancitieshevisited.WhererefinedWesternEuropeanmenwereclean-shavenandworekneebreeches,stockings,elegantcoats,cuffs,andpowderedwigs,Liotardwentwiglessandworelongbaggypants,aflowingcaftan,outlandishhatsand,mostunusualofall,anincreasinglylongbeard.Inanerainwhichaclean-shavenfacewasconsid-eredasignofcivilityinWesternEurope,Liotard’sbeard,hangingdowntohiswaist,wasshocking.48Asthenumerousimagesofhimwithitattest,thebeardfascinatedhisEuropeanpatrons.(Heshavedoffhisbeardin1756,aneventthatmadetheLon-donnewspapers;hislaterself-portraitsshowhimsmooth-cheekedbutinTurk-ishdress.)Hismanyself-portraitminiaturesandpastelssuggesthehadnoqualmsaboutturninghimselfintoacuriosityforthecollector’scabinet.Artists,too,were

98 kristelsmentek

takenwithhim;thereisprobablynoothereighteenth-centurypainterwhowasasfrequentlydepictedbyothers.49

LiotardperformedhisTurkishnessinmanyways,andhedidsountiltheendofhislife.Inadditiontohisclothing,heusedasealwhoseArabiccharactersspellhisname.Itisunclearwhenhebeganusingit,buttheearliestextantexampleisonaletterdated1777,whenLiotardwasinhisseventies.50HealsobehavedinwaysthatdeliberatelycounteredEuropeanideasofdecorum.AsketchbyanunknownEnglishartist,dated1755,showsLiotardasleep,seatedcross-leggedonacushionoronthefloor,aposeinwhichnopoliteEuropeanmalewouldhavesat.51Thiswasasclearamarkerofassumedothernessashisclothing;inthe1770swhilelivinginItaly,theArabistandconverttoIslam,EdwardWortleyMontagu(sonofthemorewell-knowntravelerLadyMaryWortleyMontagu),alsodressedlikeaTurkandreportedlyreceivedvisitorssittingonthefloor.52InLiotard’scase,hisTurk-ishnesswasanastuteformofmarketing;itwaswellsuited,asonecommentatorwrote,tosucceedamongtheFrenchwhowereeasilytakeninbyappearances.53Butitmayalsohavebeensomethingmore.ItistemptingtoseeinLiotard’sTurk-ishpersona,andhisfloutingofsocialconvention,adeliberateself-constructionasanoutsideobserverwhoseverypresence,likethemanyPersianandChinesevisitorstoEuropefamiliarfromeighteenth-centuryfiction,heldupamirrortothearbitrarinessofEuropeanmores.HiscommunicationwithJean-JacquesRousseauissuggestiveinthisregard.Liotard’sclaimstothephilosopherthathesoughtto“thinkpurely,naturallyandwithoutanypreconceptions,”and“tothinklikeani-malsdo,withoutbadhabitsandpreconceptions,”suggestthatheadmiredRous-seau’scritiqueofEuropeancivilization.54

Asimilarresistancetoeighteenth-centuryWesternEuropean,andparticularlyFrench,artisticconventionssubtlyrevealsitselfinthestyleofLiotard’spost-Otto-manworks.Wheneighteenth-centuryviewerslookedatpictureslikeLiotard’sso-calledChocolate Girl,theysawqualitiesthatmaynotbeevidenttousnow(Fig.14).ExecutedinViennain1744,shortlyafterhisreturntoEurope,thispictureofaVienneseservantcarryingacupofchocolateandaglassofwaterisamasterfuldemonstrationoftheartist’sfastidiouspasteltechniqueandhispowersofobserva-tion.Itcanalsobereadasexemplifyingthe“Turkish’sPainter’s”“Turkish”art.TheconnoisseurFrancescoAlgarottisuggestedthattheChocolate Girlwouldappealtonon-Westerneyes,andasmanyscholarshavenoted,LiotardadaptedtheViennesemodel’sposefromacounterproofoftheOttomanservantinhisWoman Taking Tea(seeFig.5).Algarotti,whoboughtthepastelfortheSaxonroyalcollectionin1745,describedhispurchaseinalettertoPierre-JeanMarietteintermsthatcapturetheunusualqualitiesheperceivedinthework:“Thispictureisalmostwithoutshadowsonalightbackground…thewholeisworkedinhalf-tonesandinimperceptible

99 lookingeast

gradationsoflightandinadmirablerelief.Itexpressesanabsolutelyunmannerednature,andalthoughcompletelyEuropean,itwouldgreatlypleaseeventheChi-nese,confirmedenemies,asyouknow,ofshading.Asforitsextremelyhighfinish…itisaHolbeininpastel.”55

Thecomparisontothesixteenth-centuryartistHansHolbeinwouldundoubt-edlyhavepleasedLiotardforwhomintensepictorialrealismandsmoothfinish(bothdefiningcharacteristicsofHolbein’swork)representedanantidote to theextravagancesandartificialityheperceivedincontemporaryFrenchart;hewouldlaterpraiseseventeenth-centuryDutchpaintingforthesamereason.Liotardbegantoattackrococoartinprintinthe1760s.Thetoucheorvisiblestroke,avisualflour-ishcharacteristicofmucheighteenth-centuryartandthemodeinwhichLiotardinitiallyworked,was,inhislaterview,profoundlyunnatural.HefirstpublishedhisthoughtsontheproperprocessesandfunctionsofpaintinginthejournaltheMercure de Francein1762.HethendevelopedhiscritiqueatlengthinhisTraité des principes et des règles de la peinturepublishedin1781.“naturehasnotouches,”hewrote,andthereforethereshouldbenoneinpainting.56Topaintaportraitwiththemwasakintorepresentingasitterwiththemarksofsmallpoxwhentheyinfacthadnone.Topaintwithtoucheswasfasterandthusmorelucrative,buttheresultwasantithetictohowhumansactuallysee.Violentcontrastsoflightanddark

14

14Jean-ÉtienneLiotard,The Chocolate Girl,1744–5.Pastelonparchment.Gemäldegalerie,StaatlicheKunstsammlungen,Dresden,P161.PhotographBildarchivPreussischerKulturbesitz/ArtResource,nY

100 kristelsmentek

wereequallycontrarytonature,aswasalackoffinish;excessiveuseofhalf-tonesonlymadeapaintinglookdirty.Paintingdemandedtruthtovision,apainstakinglydescriptiveapproachtonaturethatwascharacteristicofnorthernEuropeanpaint-ingandbestexemplified,inLiotard’sview,bytheDutchpaintersoftheseventeenthcentury.57

Liotard’schampioningofDutchartisnotunrelatedtohisLevantinesojourn;itwasintheOttomanEmpirethatLiotardadoptedthecarefullydescriptivemodethatcametodefinehisartandthathelaterequatedwithDutchpainting.Inhisdrawingsofthelate1730sandearly1740s,forexample,onecantraceaturnawayfromthemoreconventionalcross-hatchingofhisearlyworktowardstherefined,pointillisttechnique,adaptedfromhistrainingasaminiaturist,thatgiveshisdraw-ingsofOttomansubjects theiruncannyrealismandpresence.58This increasingemphasisondescriptionandthecorrespondingsuppressionoftheartistictraceinhisgraphicworkcanbecreditedtothechangesinperception(andself-perception)thataccompanythetraveler’sacceptanceofdislocation.Asimilarturntotherepro-ductionofopticalexperiencemarkstheproseofoneofthemorefamouseigh-teenth-centurytravelerstotheLevant,LadyMaryWortleyMontagu(1689–1762),who accompanied her husband, the English ambassador, to Constantinople in1717–18,andwhoseaccountoftheseyearswaspublishedposthumouslyin1763.AsMaryJoKietzmanhasargued,Montagu’swayofseeing,asexpressedinthenar-rativestyleofherletters,changedasshetraveledeastwardandbegantoacknowl-edge,andthenaccept,herpositionasadislocatedsubject.Assheattemptedtoabandonherethnocentricbiaseshertextbecameincreasinglydescriptive.Thesedescriptionswaveredbetweenrenderingmeaningandrenderingsurface,asshedistancedherself,struggledtostopassimilatingwhatshesawtoherowncatego-riesandforegroundedthe“objects”ofhergaze.59Itseemsplausibletointerprettheemphasisonsurfaceandtheseeminglyunmediatedreproductionofopticalexperi-encethatemergesinLiotard’sOttomanworkasasimilarproductoftheforeigner’sacceptanceofhisculturaldislocation,ofhispositiononthemarginsofaculturehedoesnotfullyunderstand.ForLiotard,asforMontagubeforehim,thiswasaposi-tionthatledhimtointerrogatehisownculturalandartisticcodes.Hisyearsintheempirecanbereadashavingalteredthewayhesawtheworld,andtransformedthewayheviewedEuropeanart.

TheChocolate Girl suggests theextent towhichLiotard’sexperiences in theLevantpromptedhimtoreassessrococopictorialmodesandtolookatEuropeanartistictraditionsinanewway.ForAlgarotti,Liotard’sexceptionallysubtlemodel-ingintheChocolate Girlwasadmirableandunusual.ThepicturewasEuropean,butatthesametime,itseemedvaguelynottobe,astheconnoisseur’sreferencetoChinesepaintingindicates.Algarotti’scommentcapturesthesubtleplayofillusion

101 lookingeast

andplanarity(ofthetiltedfloorandlight,blankbackground)that,combinedwiththemeticulousdescriptionofdetailslikethecreasesoftheservant’sapron,thedis-tortedreflectionofherhandthroughthewaterglass,andtherecognizablepatternoftheporcelain,givestheworkitsimpressivepresenceandexceptionalillusion-ism.Thereisreliefinthefigure,butitisachievedthroughaconsciousdisavowalofstrongchiaroscuroandaminimaluseofshadingthatgivesthepastelaqualityakin(butnotequivalent)totheshadowlessstylesequatedbyLiotard’scontempo-rarieswithnon-Europeanart.Inthissense,onecaninterprettheuncommissionedChocolate GirlasaprogrammaticstatementofLiotard’s“Turkishness,”representedthistimenotbytheartist’scostumeorhissubjectbuthispictorialstyle.

WhileAlgarottienthusedovertheChocolate Girl,otherswerelesscharitabletowardsthetwo-dimensionalitytheyperceivedinLiotard’sworks.TheabbéJean-BernardLeBlanc,acontemporarywriteronthearts,splutteredwithragewhenhesawLiotard’sself-portraitintheUffiziin1751(seeFig.1).InalettertoQuentindeLaTour,hebelittledLiotardasachianlit,aderogatoryreferencetoLiotard’s“carni-valesque”masqueradingbothasaTurkandasanimportantartist.60TheabbéwentontoforcefullydisparageLiotard’spastel:“Iwasveryscandalizedtoseethepor-traitofthechianlit,whocallshimselftheTurkishpainter.Itistheworsthehasevermade;itisplat,plat,plat,threetimesplatandofeverythingthathaseverexistedthemostplat.”61Readfiguratively,platcanbeinterpretedas“dull,”andcomparedwiththecoloristic,virtuosoflourishesofLaTour,thepastelnodoubtappearedtoLeBlancaspainstakinglycraftsmanlike,andhencedull,initsexecutionandinitsmutedcolor.62(Liotard’spalettehereisexceptionallyrestrictedincomparisonwithhisotherpost-Ottomanworks,includinghisotherself-portraits.Onewon-dersifhedeemedsuchsubduedcolorasmoreappropriatefortheUffizigallery.)CommentsbyLiotard’scontemporaries,however,alsoauthorizeareadingofplatinitsmoreliteralsenseofflat.Afterremarkingonthe“gingerbreadcoloring”ofLiotard’sworks,Marietteobservedthathisheadsseemed“withoutroundness.”63Aseeminglackofvolumeisperceptibleinseveraloftheartist’sfigures.Astrikingexampleishispastelportraitfrom1760ofIsaac-LouisdeThellusson,aprominentGenevan(Fig.15).HereLiotard’sevenlightingflattensthesitter’sfacewhileatthesametimeithighlightsthemagnificentblueofhissilkattire.Athinedgeofshadingalongthesideofthesitter’sfacedifferentiateshisheadfromthelightbackground.Thisquasi-outlineheightenstheeffectofplanarityinthework,andtheresultisaheadthatcanappearlackinginmasswhencomparedwiththeportraitureofLio-tard’sFrenchandEnglishcontemporaries.HisUffiziself-portrait,bycontrast,isamongthemoreconventionallymodeledofhisportraitheads.nevertheless,asintheChocolate Girl,thereisanoscillationbetweenreliefandplanarity,betweentheflatnessofthepictureplaneemphasizedbytheartist’sprominentsignatureandthe

102 kristelsmentek

comingintoillusionofhiscarefullymodeledfaceandfurhatandthefadingbackintotwo-dimensionalityofhiscomparativelyincorporealbody.64

TheplanaritysomeofLiotard’scontemporariesperceivedinhisworkwastheresultofthesubtle,carefulmodelingtechniquestheartistdescribedatlengthinhisTraité.Apassageinthesametextsuggeststhathisapproachtoillusionism,andthelightandcolorfromwhichitwasconjured,wasstimulatedbyhisappreciationoftheartofothercultures.WhileLiotardderidedthe“pockmarked”portraitsbyRembrandt,aseventeenth-centuryDutchartistwhodidnotworkinanortherndescriptivemode,hepraisedthevisualpleasuresofChinesepaintings.65(BytheseLiotardpresumablymeantthoseonporcelainandinChinesewoodcutsandexportwatercolors.) Chinese paintings are admirable, Liotard wrote, because they are“smooth,clean,neat,”andthis“makesusfindthemagreeableeventhough,”ashewentontoclaim,“theyaremadebypeopleswithoutasmatteringofart.”66Thepas-sagefollowsimmediatelyafterLiotard’sinvocationoftheworkofJanvanHuysum,theseventeenth-centuryDutchstill-lifepainterwhoseworkheheldupasamodelofperfection.WhileapparentlyunwillingtograntChinesepaintersparitywiththeirEuropeanconfreres,heextolledtheirart,likeVanHuysum’s,asexemplifyingqualitiesinstinctivelyappreciatedbytheignorart,Liotard’sidiosyncratictermforuntrainedviewers.UncorruptedbyablindadherencetoEuropeanartisticconven-

15

15Jean-ÉtienneLiotard,Isaac-Louis de Thellusson,1760.Pastelonparchment.OskarReinhartFoundation,Winterthur.

103 lookingeast

tions,theignorart’sresponsetoanartworkwasspontaneousandnatural;inthecon-textofLiotard’spointedrejectionofartisticauthority,theuntutoredviewerratherthantheacademicianorconnoisseurwasamorehonestguidetowhatwastruthfulinart.InthissensethelackofartinChinesepaintingwasthepoint,foritwasitsartlessness,itslackofvisiblebrushstrokes,itsevenlighting,andbrilliantcolors,towhichtheignorart instinctivelyresponded.67ThepositiveresponseoftheignorarttoChineseartsuggeststhattruthinpainting—tothenatureofvisionandtheout-wardappearanceofthings—althoughabandonedbyLiotard’sEuropeancontem-poraries,couldbefoundintheworksofnon-Europeanartists.Intheirart,then,layapotentialcorrectivetotheproblemsofcontemporaryEuropeanpainting.

AnequivalencebetweenChineseandTurkishartformswasagivenforsomeeighteenth-centuryEuropeanwriters.ChinaandTurkeywereoftenconflatedintraveler’saccountsofTurkisharchitectureastheywereindescriptionsofChinesebuildings.68 Although suggestive of an exoticist melding of different societies,suchremarkssuggestthateighteenth-centuryviewersperceivedastylisticaffin-itybetweenthetwocultures,andasenseofthepossibilityofamovementbetweenthem,thatislosttousnowbutmayhavebeenoperativeinLiotard’sevocationofChineseart.69AsimilarconflationoccursinLiotard’sart.Apastelofhiswife,MarieFargues,inTurkishcostume,executedcirca1756–8,featurestheobliqueview,theblankbackground,andtherobes,cushions,andcarpetsthatareastapleofLiotard’sTurkish-themedportraits(Fig.16).70ButitalsoincludesaChineseporcelainvasewithbrilliantlycoloredfiguresintherightforeground,aninclusionthatcontrib-utesanadditionalsignifierofothernesstothepastelwhilealsoalludingtothemul-tiplepotentialsourcesofLiotard’sart.

IfTurkishimagesprovidedrichsubjectmatter,likeChineseart,theirboldcol-oringandrelativeplanaritymightalsohaveofferedadifferentmodelforpaint-ing,onethattheartistincorporatedintothediversemixofpictorialtraditionsthatinformedhisart.Liotard’ssmoothlyexecutedexpansesofvibrantcolor,thefluctua-tionbetweentwo-andthree-dimensionalityinsomeofhisworks,andthefrequentdelineationofform,asinthefacesofhissitters,throughdarkcontourssetagainstalightbackground(seeFig.15)mightwellhavestrucksomeviewers,asAlgar-otti’scommentsattest,aswhollyEuropeanandyetvaguelyother.Suchapercep-tioncouldhavebeenreinforcedbyLiotard’spreferenceforprofileorthree-quarterviews.Alongwithinconsistentperspective,EuropeancommentatorssingledouttheprevalenceoftheseposesinTurkishandPersianminiaturesasadefiningfea-tureoftheirauthors’inabilitytomodelordraw“correctly”;atthesametime,suchwritersmarveledatthebrillianceanddurabilityofthecolorsinPersianandOtto-manpaintings.71ViewersmayhaveperceivedsomeofthesamefeaturesinLiotard’swork,arecognitionencouragedbythe“Turkishness”oftheartisthimself.

104 kristelsmentek

Liotard’sengagementwiththeartofothersocietieswasmoresubtlethanhisengagementwithEuropeantraditionsofpicturemaking,andIamfarfromclaim-ingthatthearthemayhaveseenintheLevantwastheonlydeterminingelementinhismaturestyleandthinking.ThestrikingdiversityofLiotard’soeuvreresultedas much from his lifelong experimentation with media and technique and hisadaptationofrepresentationalconventionstosuittheexigenciesofspecificcom-missionsandsittersasitdidfromhisencounterwithnon-Europeanart.72How-ever,itmaywellhavebeenthevisualpleasuresofOttomanorPersianorChineseart thatfirstpromptedhimto transpose someof thequalitiesof theminiaturetechniqueinwhichhewasinitiallytrained—vibrantcolor,unifiedsurfaces,anddetailedobservation—tolarge-scaleworks,anduponhisreturnfromtheempire,tolooktonorthernEuropeandescriptivepictorialtraditionsratherthanacademi-callysanctionedmodelsforinspirationandforthejustificationofhisownart.Inthissense,wecanreadthedislocationsoftravelashavingledLiotardtoaspiretosee“purely,naturallyandwithoutpreconceptions,”ashewrote toRousseau. In1752,theFrencharchitectandacademician,PierredeVigny,whohadtraveledtoConstantinopleintheearly1720s,articulatedasimilarsenseofbeautyasrelative.73Inhisremarkable“Dissertationsurl’architecture,”VignyextolledthequalitiesofOttoman,Chinese,andGothicarchitecture,arguingthatitwastheservitudeofFrencharchitectstotheauthorityoftheantiqueandtheacademiccanon—aservi-tudeheexplicitlyrelatedtotheirfailuretotravel—thatpreventedtheFrenchfromappreciatingthesplendorsofbuildingsfromotherculturesandtimeperiodsandlearningfromtheirexamples.Vigny’sfurtherclaimthattheparterre(thepublicstandinginthepitsoftheatresandthustheholdersofthecheapesttickets)wasabetterjudgeofarchitecturethantheexpertsisanalogoustoLiotard’sinvocationoftheignorart.74

Perhaps,too,thereceptivityofsomeofLiotard’smanyEuropeanpatronstohisartextendedbeyondthepleasuresofmasqueradeorthecapturingofalikenesstohisverystyleofpainting.Itispossiblethat,alliedtothefrissonofbeingpaintedbya“Turk”wasthepleasureofbeingrepresentedinavaguely“Turkish”idiom,whetheronewasincostumeornot.Likehisdesiredconstructionofahybridsubjectivity,Liotard’sworkatteststothepotentialheterogeneityofeighteenth-centuryartisticforms;itspeakstothepossibilityofmultilateralprocessesofartisticexchange.TheclaimthatEuropeanartistsdrewuponAsian,Indian,andOttomanmodelstocreatehybrid,ortranscultural,worksisunproblematictohistoriansofeighteenth-centuryEuropeantextilesanddecorativearts.Porcelain,forexample,wasanutterlytrans-culturalform.75AmonghistoriansofEuropeanpaintingthereismoreresistancetosuchaview,andindeeditwouldbedifficulttonameanotherartistquitelikeLio-tard.Paintingwasthemostheavilypolicedoftheeighteenth-centuryvisualarts.Its

105 lookingeast

normswereshapedbypowerfulacademicstructures,anditwasprobablyLiotard’sexclusionfromsuchinstitutionalsettingsthatpermittedhimtopreservetheopen-nessthatgiveshisartitstransculturaldimension.Releasedfromthesestricturesandalteredbytheexperienceoftravel,Liotardwasfreetodowhatartistsworkinginotherbranchesofthevisualartsdidasamatterofcourse,andhisenormouscom-mercialsuccessspeakstotheenthusiasticresponseofaEuropeanpublic.

Kristel Smentek, Ph.D.(2008),UniversityofDelaware, isClassof1958CareerDevelopmentAssistantProfessorofArtHistoryintheDepartmentofArchitec-tureatMIT.Herrecentpublications include“TheCollector’sCut:WhyPierre-JeanMarietteToreUpHisDrawingsandPutThemBackTogetherAgain,”Master Drawings 46, no. 1 (2008) and Rococo Exotic: French Mounted Porcelains and the Allure of the East (2007). She co-curated the exhibition “Jean-Étienne Lio-tard(1702–1789),SwissMaster,”heldattheFrickCollection,newYork,in2006.E-mail:smentek@MIT.EDU

16Jean-ÉtienneLiotard,Woman in a Turkish Interior,1756–8.Pastelonvellum.Rijksmuseum,Amsterdam,SK-A-240.

16

106 kristelsmentek

MythankstonebahatAvcıoğlu,EdhemEldem,FinbarrBarryFlood,EwaLajer-Burcharth,JohnShovlin,themembersoftheBostonFrenchHistoryGroup,andthejour-nal’sanonymousreviewersfortheirconstruc-tivecommentsonthisproject.DenizTurkerandYavuzSezergenerouslyhelpedmewithTurkishsources,andMarianneKoosofferedtimelyhelponmorethanoneoccasion.Ear-lierversionsofthisprojectwerepresentedatTheFrickCollectionin2006andtheCollegeArtAssociationannualconferencein2007.Unlessotherwisenoted,alltranslationsaremyown.

1 “LevirtuosissimeLiotard…estlePeintredelavérité.”Theauthorwentontoclaim,nodoubtonLiotard’sauthority,thatthelatter’stalentsweresuchthat“àVeniseetàMilanlaplûpartdesfemmesdemoyennebeautétrembloientdeselaisserpeindreparlui.”PierrePaulClément,letterCVII,Paris,1Sept.1752,in Les cinq années littéraires ou lettres de M. Clément sur les ouvrages de littérature qui ont paru dans les années 1748–1752(Berlin,1756;reprint,Geneva:Slatkine,1967),339and339,noteb.

2 MatthewPilkington,The Gentleman’s and Connoisseur’s Dictionary of Painters(London,1798),367.Pilkington’sbookwasfirstpublishedin1770.

3 CochinalsochauvinisticallyaccountedforLiotard’sfameinEnglandandGermany(hissuccessesinFrancewereconvenientlyoverlooked)astheconse-quenceoftheunrefinedtastethatreignedinthoseregions.“Peut-êtrecesmanièresàlaglace,pesantes&sansesprit,trouveroi-ent-ellesdesapprobateursenAllemagne&enAngleterre,oùl’onnedonneunprixconsidérabledesdesseinsqu’autantqu’ilssontfiniscommedesouvragesdeReligieuses,qu’àforcedetravailleronn’yapperçoitpluslegraindupapier,&qu’ilssontsurchargésd’uneinfinitédepetites

hachuresdanslessenspossibles.n’a-t-onpasvuenAllemagnelesdesseins&lespastelsdeLiotardavoirdusuccès?Etnevoyons-nouspasenAngleterreadmirerdesDessinateursdecetteespèce?”Charles-nicolasCochin,Lettres à un jeune artiste peintre(Paris,1774),75–6.

4 Pierre-JeanMariette,Abecedario de Pierre-Jean Mariette et autres notes inédites de cet amateur sur les arts et les artistes,ed.P.deChennevièresandA.deMontaiglon(Paris:J.-B.Dumoulin,1851–60),3:206.

5 ReynoldswentontodescribeLiotard’sworkas“justwhatladiesdowhentheypaintfortheiramusement.”Jamesnorthcote,Life of Sir Joshua Reynolds(London:HenryColbourn,1819),60–61.Reynolds’scommentwasapparentlymadein1753whileLiotardwasinLondon.

6 FrancescoAlgarotti,Opere(Cremona,1781),7:28.

7 “Craignentdoncquel’étudehabituelledugoûtChinois,quiparoîtêtrelapassionfavoritedeM.Boucher,n’altèreenfinlegracedesescontours.Ilsn’auroientpluslamêmedouceur,s’ilcontinuoitàdessinerdesfiguresdecegenre.”CharlesLéoffreydeSaint-Yves,Observations sur les Arts, et sur quelques morceaux de Peinture & de Sculpture, exposées au Louvre en 1748(Leiden[1748]),28.OnBoucher’sstudiesafterChineseprints,seePerrinStein,“Boucher’sChinoiseries:SomenewSources,”Burlington Magazine138(1996):598–604.

8 Arnoldneuweiler,La peinture à Genève de 1700 à 1900(Geneva:A.Jullien,1945),16–17;LouisHautecoeur,“Jean-ÉtienneLiotard(1702–1789):PortraitdeRichardPococke,”Bericht der Gottfried Keller Stiftung(1948–9):35.SeealsoAugusteBoppe,Les peintres du Bosphore au XVIIIe siècle(Paris:ACR,1989),56.Writingin1956,FrançoisFoscanotedsimilar

notes

107 lookingeast

transformationsinLiotard’sstylebutwasunwillingtoaccountforthem:“[Liotard]changeradicalementdemanière.Plusdecestouchesquifontvibrerleton,plusriendecemétierlibre:undessinserré,précis,desteintesunies,fondues,unrenduinfinimentplusrigoreuxdelalumière.Ques’est-ilpassédanssonesprit?…Ilmeparaîtimpossiblequeleproblèmepuisseêtrerésolu,etilfautserésigneràneriensavoirdesraisonsdecettemétamorpho-se.”FrançoisFosca,La vie, les voyages et les oeuvres de Jean-Étienne Liotard, Citoyen de Genève, dit Le Peintre Turc(LausanneandParis:Bibliothèquedesarts,1956),14.

9 AsimilarrelationshipissuggestedbyEwaLajer-Burcharth,“Jean-ÉtienneLiotard’sEnvelopesofSelf,”inCultures of Forgery: Making Nations, Making Selves,ed.JudithRyanandAlfredThomas(newYorkandLondon:Routledge,2003),137.

10 AnnedeHerdt,Dessins de Liotard,suivi du catalogue de l’oeuvre dessiné(Geneva:Muséed’artetd’histoire;Paris:Réuniondesmuséesnationaux,1992),cat.no.40.

11 MarcelRoethlisbergerandRenéeLochewithBodoHofstetterandHansBoeckh,Liotard: catalogue, sources, et correspon-dance(Doornspijk:Davaco,2008),1:22.SeealsoRenéeLocheandMarcelRoethlisberger,L’opera completa di Liotard(Milan:Rizzoli,1978),6;andAndreasHolleczek,Jean-Étienne Liotard: Erkenntnisvermögen und künstlerischer Anspruch(FrankfurtamMain:PeterLang,2002),200n.177.

12 MyuseoftheconceptofculturaldislocationisindebtedtoMaryD.Sheriff,“TheDislocationsofJean-ÉtienneLiotard,CalledtheTurkishPainter,”inCultural Contact and the Making of European Art,ed.MarySheriff(ChapelHill:UniversityofnorthCarolinaPress,forthcoming),andMaryJoKietzman,“Montagu’s Turkish Embassy Lettersand

CulturalDislocation,”Studies in English Literature, 1500–190038(1998):537–51.MythankstoSheriffforsharingherarticlewithmebeforeitspublication.

13 ThomasKaiser,“TheEvilEmpire?TheDebateonTurkishDespotisminEighteenth-CenturyFrenchPoliticalCulture,”Journal of Modern History72,no.1(March2000):6–34.

14 SeeSankarMuthu,Enlightenment Against Empire(Princeton,n.J.,andOxford:PrincetonUniversityPress,2003).

15 See,amongothers,FatmaMügeGöçek,East Encounters West: France and the Ottoman Empire in the Eighteenth Century(newYorkandOxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1987);Lajer-Burcharth,“Jean-ÉtienneLiotard,”127–43;nebahatAvcıoğlu,“APalaceofOne’sOwn:StanislasI’sKiosksandtheIdeaofSelf-Representation,”Art Bulletin85(2003):662–84;andShirineHamadeh,The City’s Pleasures: Istanbul in the Eighteenth Century(SeattleandLondon:UniversityofWashingtonPress,2007).SeealsoEricR.Dursteler’saccountofOttoman–Venetianrelationsinthesixteenthandseventeenthcenturies,Venetians in Constantinople: Nation, Identity and Coexistence in the Early Modern Mediterranean(Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,2006).

16 Thesourceisanautobiographydictatedbytheartisttohisson:LouisGielly,“LabiographiedeJean-ÉtienneLiotardécriteparsonfils,”Genava13(1935):191–200(forthispassagesee195).OntheOttomangrandtourintheeighteenthcentury,seePhilipMansel,“TheGrandTourintheOttomanEmpire,1699–1826,”inUnfolding the Orient: Travellers in Egypt and the Near East,ed.PaulStarkeyandJanetStarkey(Reading,UK:Ithaca,2001),41–64.

17 JohnMontagu,4thEarlofSandwich,A voyage performed by the late Earl of

Sandwich round the Mediterranean in the years 1738 and 1739. Written by himself ... To which are prefixed, memoirs of the noble author’s life,ed.JohnCooke(London,1799),iii.

18 LiotardalsoetchedoneofWatteau’sworksin1731.SeeRoethlisbergerandLoche,Liotard: catalogue, sources,1:239,and1:154fordrawingsandpaintingsbyWatteauinLiotard’scollection.

19 Gielly,“Labiographie,”195.OthermembersofthepartyincludedJamesnelthorpe,JohnMackye,andaMr.Fröhlich,governortoLordSandwich.Allofthetravellers,includingPonsonbyandSandwich,werefoundersoftheshort-livedDivanclub(1744–6)inLondon.MembershipwasrestrictedtothosewhohadtraveledtotheLevant.AVizierandReisEffendi(secretary)presidedovereachmeeting;the“Al-Koran”wasthegroup’sminutebook,anditsofficialtoastwas“theHarem,”suggestingtheclubwasasmuch(ormore)ludicinpurposeasitwasscholarly.ThearchaeologistRichardPocockewhometLiotardinConstanti-noplewasalsoafounder.EverardFawkenerbecameamemberwhenhereturnedtoLondon.SeeRachelFinnegan,“TheDivanClub,1744–46,”Electronic Journal of Oriental Studies9(2006):1–86.

20 OnVanmourseeEvelineSintnicolaasetal.,Jean-Baptiste Vanmour: An Eyewitness of the Tulip Era (Istanbul:Koçbank,2003),withfurtherbibliography.

21 See,forinstance,hisdrawingsofpicnicsandTurkishmusiciansinconcert,indeHerdt,Dessins de Liotard,cat.nos.51,52.ThelatterisverylikelytodepictaneventinaEuropeanembassy.ForavividaccountofsociallifeintheambitoftheEuropeanembassies,seenigelWebbandCarolineWebb,The Earl and his Butler in Constantinople: Introducing the Diary of Mr. Samuel Medley, Butler, 1733–1736(Oakham,UK:Legini,2006).Seealso

108 kristelsmentek

JamesCaulfeildCharlemont,The Travels of Lord Charlemont in Greece & Turkey, 1749,ed.W.B.StanfordandE.J.Finopoulos(London:Trigraph,1984),esp.204–5.

22 MichaelMcCarthy,“‘TheDullestManthateverTravelled’?:ARe-AssessmentofRichardPocockeandofhisPortraitbyJ.-E.Liotard,”Apollo143(May1996):25–9;Marie-CatherineSahut,“M.LevettetMelleHélèneGlavanyencostumeturc,”inMusée du Louvre, Nouvelles acquisitions du départment des peintures 1991–1995(Paris:Réuniondesmuséesnationaux,1996),240–45.

23 Lajer-Burcharth,“Jean-ÉtienneLiotard,”130,132.SeealsoIngeE.Boer,“ThisisnottheOrient:TheoryandPostcolonialPractice,”inThe Point of Theory: Practices of Cultural Analysis,ed.MiekeBalandIngeE.Boer(Amsterdam:AmsterdamUniversityPress,1994),214–15.ForPococke’svividaccountofhisexperienceofwearingTurkishrobesandespeciallyofgrowingabeard,seeMcCarthy,“TheDullestMan.”OnthestreetFrankishmenadoptedMuslimdressbutworewigsandtricornhatstodistinguishthemfromOttomansubjects.LiotardworethishybridcostumeinConstantinople,aspresum-ablydidmanyofhismaleFrankishsitters.noneofthem,however,chosetobeimmortalizedinit.Gielly,“Labiographie,”196.AFrankishmerchantisdepictedinhybridTurkish-FrankishdressinRecueil de cent estampes représentant différentes nations du Levant(Paris,1714–15),plate61.

24 Gielly,“Labiographie,”196.ThepastelportraitofagrandvizierisinthenationalGallery,London.Seealsothedrawingofasecondgrandvizier(thereweretwosuccessiveholdersofthisofficeduringLiotard’sstayinConstantinople)indeHerdt,Dessins de Liotard,cat.no.61,with

furtherdiscussionoftheLondonpastel.ForLiotard’sstudyof“SadigAga,”seedeHerdt,Dessins de Liotard,280,no.55,forIbrahim,seecat.no.62,andforotherextantdrawingsofOttomanofficialsseecat.nos.36,53,and60.

25 Gielly,“Labiographie,”196;Remusniculescu,“Jean-ÉtienneLiotardàJassy,1742–1743,”Genava30(1982):127–66.

26 Gielly,“Labiographie,”196.27 AlbumH.2143.SeeIvanStchoukine,La

peinture turque d’après les manuscrits illustrés(Paris:Geuthner,1966–71),2:136andplateXCVI.ForLiotard’sdrawingseedeHerdt,Dessins de Liotard,cat.no.10.Itisequallypossible,however,thattheminiatureinIstanbulisbyLiotardhimself.Ifso,itspresenceinthealbumisfurthertestamenttolocalinterestinhiswork.

28 Gülİrepoğlu,Levni: Painting, Poetry, Colour(Istanbul:SocietyofFriendsofTopkapıPalaceMuseum,1999),144,171.AlsopublishedasLevni, Nakis, Siir, Renk (Ankara:KültürveTurizmBakanlığıYayınları,1999).

29 AlbumH.2143.Levni’sminiatureinthisalbumisillustratedinİrepoğlu,Levni,144;forBuhari’splatesinthisalbumseeDenizErudman-Çalis,ed., Tulips, Kaftans and Levnî: Imperial Ottoman Costumes and Miniature Albums from Topkapı Palace in Istanbul(Frankfurt:MuseumfürAngewandteKunst;Munich:Hirmer,2008),116–19.ForfurtherillustrationsofBuhari’sminiaturesseeBanuMahir,“AbdullanBuharî’ninminyatürlerinde18.YüzyılıOsmanlıKadınModası,”P: Sanat, kültür, antika12(1998–9),70–82.SeealsonancyMicklewright,“‘MusiciansandDancingGirls’:ImagesofWomeninOttomanMiniaturePainting,”inWomen in the Ottoman Empire: Middle Eastern Women in the Early Modern Era,ed.MadelineC.Zilfi(Leiden:Brill,1997),153–68.

30 niculescu,“Jean-ÉtienneLiotard,”128,156,n.26.OnlibrariesandcollectionsofbooksandillustratedmanuscriptsownedbymembersoftheOttomancourt,seeTülayArtan,“ProblemsRelatingtotheSocialHistoryContextoftheAcquisitionandPossessionofBooksasPartofCollectionsofObjetsd’Artinthe18thCentury,”inArt turc/Turkish Art: 10th International Congress of Turkish Art, Geneva, 17–23 September 1995(Geneva:FondationMaxVanBerchem,1999),87–92.

31 Artan,“Problems,”90.32 GiambattistaToderini,De la littérature

des Turcs(Paris,1789),3:51–2n.2,54,58.AccordingtoToderini,MenasiwasthesonofthepainterRefail.

33 TheOrientalistAntoineGallandmadenumerouspurchasesofmanuscripts,includingillustratedones,inConstanti-nopleinthe1670s,asdidsuchsuccessorsasFrançoisSevinin1729–30.Aftertheconclusionofthelattermission,Frenchambassadorswerechargedwithmakingacquisitions.SeeAntoineGalland,Voyage à Constantinople(1672–3),ed.CharlesSchefer(Paris:MaisonneuveetLarosse,2002);FrancisRichard,Catalogue des manuscrits persans.Vol.1,Ancien fonds(Paris:Bibliothèquenationale,1989);andHenriOmont,Missions archéologiques françaises en Orient aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles(Paris:Imprimerienationale,1902).SeealsoTülayArtan,“ArtsandArchitecture,”inThe Cambridge History of Turkey.Vol.3, The Later Ottoman Empire, 1603–1839,ed.Suraiyan.Faroqhi(Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress,2006),433–5.

34 DavidJ.Roxburgh,“HeinrichFriedrichvonDiezandhisEponymousAlbums:Mss.DiezA.Fols.70–74,”Muqarnas12(1995):112–36.

35 MetinAndcoinedtheterm“bazaarartists”in1985.ForanaccountinEnglish,

109 lookingeast

seeAnd,“BazaarPainters,”Istanbul(Jan.1993):75–81.ForlistsofextantcostumebooksseenurhanAtasoy,“TheBirthofCostumeBooksandtheFenerciMehmedAlbum,”inOsmanlı kıyafetleri: Fenerci Mehmed Albümü,ed.İlhamiTuran(Istanbul:VehbiKoçVakfı,1986),15–30;andHans-AlbrechtKoch,ed., Das Kostümbuch des Lambert de Vos, Kommentarband(Graz:AkademischeDruck-undVerlagsanstalt,1991),48–54.SeealsoTadeuszMajda,“TheRålambAlbumofTurkishCostume,”inKarinAdahletal.,The Sultan’s Procession: The Swedish Embassy to Sultan Mehmed IV in 1657–1658(Istanbul:SwedishResearchInstituteinIstanbul,2006),196–265;BronwenWilson,“Foggie diverse di vestire de’ Turchi:TurkishCostumeIllustrationandCulturalTranslation,”Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies37(Winter2007):97–139;andLeslieMeralSchick,“OttomanCostumeBooksinaCross-CulturalContext,”inArt turc/Turk-ish Art,625–8.AsmallpaintingintheBibliothèquenationaledeFrance(hereafterBnF),Estampes,Od1,fol.,vol.1,issuggestiveofotherworksproducedbylocalartistsforforeigners.AFrenchinscriptionidentifiesitasarepresentationofacelebrationgivenforthesultan’smotherinthepresenceofMmedeGirardin,thewifeoftheFrenchambas-sadortoConstantinoplefrom1686to1689,whoalsocommissionedthework.

36 DeHerdt,Dessins de Liotard,cat.no.41haspointedouttheaffinitybetweenLiotard’sdrawingofwomenplayingmangalaandthecorrespondingplateintheRecueil Ferriol.Thedrawingoftheser-vantofferingcoffeeissimilarlyreminis-centofplate48inthesamepublication.ForLiotard’sdrawing,seedeHerdt,Dessins de Liotard,cat.no.44.TheresemblancebetweenVanmour’simagesandthoseinTurkishcostumebooks

suggesthe,too,consultedthem.PerrinStein,“AmédéeVanLoo’sCostume turc:TheFrenchSultana,”Art Bulletin78(1996):427n.52.LiotardmayalsohaveencounteredVanmour’sworkinthecollectionofCornelisCalkoen,apatronoftheGenevanandDutchambassadortothePorteduringLiotard’sstayintheempire.OnCalkoenandhiscollection,seeSintnicolaasetal,Jean-Baptiste Vanmour.

37 Figures naturelles de Turquie par Raynal,BnF,Estampes,Od.7(4o);Costumes turcs de la Cour et de la ville de Constantinople, peints en Turquie, par un artiste turc,BnF,Estampes,Od.6(4o).Theformerisinscribedwiththedate1688andthelatterwiththedate1720.BothinscriptionsareinEuropeanhands.HansGeorgMajer,“Gold,SilberundFarbe:MussavirHüseyin,einMeisterderosmanischenMiniaturmalereidesspäten17.Jahrhun-derts,”inStudies in Ottoman Social and Economic Life/Studien zu Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft im osmanischen Reich,ed.RaoulMotika(Heidelberg:HeidelbergerOrientverlag,1999),9–42,esp.26–9.OntheuseoftheCostumes turcsbytheFrenchartistCarleVanLoo,seePerrinStein,“MadamedePompadourandtheHaremImageryatBellevue,”Gazette des Beaux-Arts123(Jan.1994):30–44.

38 DeHerdt,Dessins de Liotard,cat.nos.35,25,27.

39 DeHerdt,Dessins de Liotard,cat.no.66.40 DeHerdt,Dessins de Liotard,cat.no.59;

RoethlisbergerandLoche,Liotard: catalogue, sources,1:283–5.Theattribu-tionofthisworktoLiotardhasbeencontestedinthepast;itsspatialambigui-tiesareanargumentinfavorofhisauthorship.

41 The“resolutelyplanaremphasis”ofthisdrawinghasbeendescribedbyLajer-Burcharth,“Jean-ÉtienneLiotard,”134.

42 DeHerdt,Dessins de Liotard,cat.no.26.

43 AlthoughIamfocusingonOttomancostumeplates,Liotardcouldhaveencounteredsimilarrepresentationsofspaceandofthree-dimensionalobjectsinillustratedliterarymanuscriptsoftheperiod.See,forinstance,theplatesinacopyofAtayi’sHamse,dated1721andnowintheWaltersArtMuseum,Baltimore.SeeGünselRenda,“AnIllustratedEighteenth-CenturyHamseintheWaltersArtGallery,”Journal of the Walters Art Gallery39(1981):15–32andfig.14,foranexampleofaninteriorviewthatresonateswithLiotard’srepresenta-tionsofwallsandcornersinhisOttomandrawings.

44 Forfurtherdiscussionofthisportrait,seeSheriff,“Dislocations,”forthcoming,andMarianneKoos,“Lajouissancedudétail:LiotardsBartlocke,”Kritische Berichte36(2008):19–27.

45 Liotard’shighpriceswereaconstantincommentsabouthim.Clémentdescribedthemasextravagant,andHoraceWalpolecharacterizedLiotardas“avariciousbeyondimagination.”Clément,letterXXI,Paris,30nov.1748,inLes cinq années,118;HoraceWalpoletoHoraceMann,4March1753,inThe Correspon-dence and Journals of Horace Walpole,ed.W.S.Lewis(newHaven:YaleUniversityPress,1937–83),20:362.Liotard’sParisianfinancialcontractsarediscussedinFrançoisMarandet,“TheFormativeYearsofJean-ÉtienneLiotard,”Burlington Magazine145(2003):299.

46 TheempirethusprovidedwhatG.S.RousseauandRoyPorterhavepositedofEnlightenmentexoticismingeneral:“anequallypotentfocusforvicariousidentity—aswellasvicariousentertain-ment.”SeeG.S.RousseauandRoyPorter,“Introduction:ApproachingEnlighten-mentExoticism,”inExoticism in the Enlightenment,ed.G.S.RousseauandRoyPorter(ManchesterandnewYork:

110 kristelsmentek

ManchesterUniversityPress,1990),12–13.

47 TheseprintsarecataloguedinE.Humbert,A.RevilliodandJ.W.R.Tilanus,La vie et les œuvres de Jean Étienne Liotard (1702–1789): étude biographique et iconographique(Amster-dam:C.M.vanGogh,1897),196–200.

48 OnLiotard’sbeard,seeKoos,“Jouis-sance”;andViktoriaSchmidt-Linsenhoff,“Liotard’sBart:TranskulturelleMas-keradenderMännlichkeit,”inMännlich-keit im Blick. Visuelle Inszenierungen in der Kunst der Frühen Neuzeit,ed.MechthildFendandMarianneKoos(Cologne:Böhlau,2004),161–80.

49 Tomyknowledge,LiotardwastheonlyEuropeanvisualartisttobethesubjectofaneighteenth-centuryporcelainfigurine.Suchimmortalizationisasuremeasureofhiscelebrity.SeeWalterStaehelin,“J.E.Liotard‘PeintreTurc’alsZürcherPorzellanfigur,”Keramik-Freunde der Schweiz Mitteilungsblatt,no.46(April1959):26–27;andRoethlisbergerandLoche,Liotard: catalogue, sources,2:703.

50 AndreasHolleczek,“‘Ilfaut,coûtequecoûte,êtreunpeucharlatan’:Jean-ÉtienneLiotardetsonpublic,”inL’ art et les normes sociales au XVIIIe siècle,ed.ThomasW.Gaehtgensetal.(Paris:Maisondessciencesdel’homme,2001):276n.4;andFosca,La vie, les voyages, 186n.29.

51 ThedrawingisintheFondationCustodia,Institutnéerlandais,Paris.SeeRoethlis-bergerandLoche,Liotard: catalogue, sources,2:701,repr.IfnopoliteEuropeanwouldhavesatcross-leggedonthefloorinWesternEurope,thiswasnotthecasewhentheywerein,oratleastrepresentedin,theempire.See,forinstance,Liotard’sdrawingoftheFrenchconsulinSmyrna(Izmir),GasparddePéleran,recliningoncushions(discussedinLajer-Burcharth,“Jean-ÉtienneLiotard,”132),andAntoine

deFavray’sportraitsoftheFrenchambassadortothePortefrom1754to1768,CharlesGravierdeVergennesandhiswife.Paintedin1766,theportraitofVergennesisararerepresentationofadiplomatinTurkishcostume.Heisalsoseatedcross-leggedoncushionsandhiswifeissimilarlyattiredandposed.SeeBoppe,Les peintres du Bosphore,102–3;andStephenDegiorgio,Antoine Favray (1706–1798): A French Artist in Rome, Malta and Constantinople(Valletta:FondazzjoniPatrimonjuMalti,2004),109.

52 JohnRodenbeck,“Dressingnative,”inUnfolding the Orient,71.

53 AccordingtotheCorrespondance littéraire,whichdiscussedtheartistin1747:“Lelongséjourqu’ilafaitàConstantinopleetlacommoditéqu’ilatrouvéedansl’habillementturcleluiontfaitconserveràParis,aussibienqueleurlonguebarbe;peut-êtrea-t-ildesseindes’attirerdelaconsidérationparcettesingularitéautantqueparsontalent,etcetteidéen’estpassidépourvuedesenspourenimposeràunenationquis’attachebeaucoupàl’extérieur,”citedinRoethlis-bergerandLoche,Liotard: catalogue, sources,1:92.

54 “Leplusgranddemesplaisirsestdechercheràpenserpurement,naturelle-mentetsansaucunpréjugé…jechercheàpensercommelesanimauxquin’ontnimauvaiseshabitudes,nipréjugés.”Jean-ÉtienneLiotardtoJean-JacquesRousseau,Geneva,2September1765,inCorrespondance complète de Jean-Jacques Rousseau,ed.R.A.Leigh(Geneva:InstitutetmuséeVoltaire,1965–95),26:283–4.

55 “E’questapitturaquasisenz’ombreinuncampochiaro…tuttalavoratadimezzetinte,ediperdimentidilumeinsensibili,ediunammirabilerilievo.Ellaesprimeunenaturaperniuncontomanierata;etutto

chepitturaEuropea,piacerebbesomma-mentea’Cinesimedesiminimicigiuraticomeellasa,dell’ombrare.Quantoall’estremafinitezzadellavoro…ellaèunOlbenioinpastello.”FrancescoAlgarottitoPierre-JeanMariette,13Feb.1751,inAlgarotti,Opere7:28.

56 “Lanaturen’apointdetouches”:J-E.L[iotard],“Explicationdesdifférensjugemenssurlapeinture,”Mercure de France(nov.1762):172–90(179forthisquote).ChristianMichel,Charles-Nicolas Cochin et l’art des lumières(Rome:ÉcolefrançaisedeRome,1993),277,wasthefirsttorecognizeLiotard’sauthorshipofthisarticle.

57 Jean-ÉtienneLiotard,Traité des principes et des règles de la peinture(Geneva,1781;reprint,Geneva:P.Cailler,1945),especially81–101.

58 Lajer-Burcharth,“Jean-EtienneLiotard,”136–7.

59 Kietzman,“Montagu’sTurkish Embassy Letters,”541–3.SeealsoSrinivasAravamudam,“LadyMaryintheHammam,”inAravamudam,Tropicopoli-tans: Colonialism and Agency, 1688–1804(DurhamandLondon:DukeUniversityPress,1999),159–89.Foradifferent,butcomplementary,interpretationofLiotard’sOttomandrawingsseeHollec-zek,Jean-Étienne Liotard,68–90,whoarguesthattheyaretheproductoftheartist’ssubscriptiontoaBritishempiricistidealofthetravelerasanunbiasedwitnessanddocumenter,anidealthatLiotardthencarriedintohispost-Ottomanwork.

60 Sheriff,“Dislocations,”forthcoming.61 “J’aiététrèsscandalisédetrouverle

portraitduChianlit,quis’yestditlui-mêmesurnommélepeintreTurc.Encoreest-celeplusmauvaisqu’ilaitfait;ilestplat,plat,plat,troisfoisplatetdetoutcequiajamaisexistédeplusplat.”AbbéLeBlanctoMauriceQuentindeLaTour,Florence,8April1751,reprintedin

111 lookingeast

HélèneMonod-Cassidy,Un voyageur-philosophe au XVIIIe siècle: L’abbé Jean-Bernard Le Blanc(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1941),401.

62 AlistairLainghastranslatedplatasdull;seeLaing,“GenevaandParis:Liotard,”Burlington Magazine134(1992):749.

63 “Lacouleurtiroitpresquetoujourssurcelledupaind’épice…sestêtesparurentplatesetsansrondeur”:Mariette,Abecedario,3:206.Theterm“ginger-bread”isacuriousone.MariettemaysimplybereferringtoodditiesheperceivedinLiotard’ssimulationoffleshtones,butthetermwasalsousedbyJean-JacquesRousseau,forinstance,todescribetheface,“cevisagedepaind’épice,”ofamanvariouslyidentifiedasaMoorandanAfrican.Jean-JacquesRousseau,Confessions,quotedanddiscussedinBartMoore-Gilbert,“WesternAutobiographyandColonialDiscourse:TheCaseofRousseau’s‘Orientalism,’”Social Identities11(July2005):305and313n.2.

64 AlthoughnotasprominentashissignatureinhisUffiziself-portrait,theplacementofLiotard’ssignatureanddateintheupperleftofThellusson’sportraithasasimilareffect;itdrawsattentiontotheplanarityofthepicturesurfaceandinsodoing,createsatensionbetweenillusionismandtheflatsurfaceonwhichitappears.

65 ForadiscussionofLiotard’sresponsetoRembrandtseeMarianneKoos,“‘MalerieohnePockenspuren.’OberflächeimWerkvonJean-ÉtienneLiotard,”Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte70(2007):545–72.

66 “Cequidonneauxpeintureschinoisesl’agrémentquenousleurtrouvons,c’estd’êtreunies,propres,nettes,quoiquefaitespardespeuplesquin’ontaucuneteinturedel’art.”Liotard,Traité,112–13.SeealsoLouiseLippincott,“Liotard’sChina

Painting,”J. Paul Getty Museum Journal13(1985):128.

67 Liotard,Traité,97.Althoughthetermignorartfirstappearedinhis1781treatise,Liotardhadbeenpublicizingthevalueoftheignorantoruntutoredviewerinjournalarticlessincethelate1740s.(Onewondersifhisevocativetermwasthehappyresultofatypographicalerror.)TheignorantisinvokedasapositiveforceinClément’slettersonLiotard(whichalmostcertainlywerebasedonLiotard’sowncomments),andinLiotard’sarticleintheMercure de Francein1762.Forthismoregenteeljournal,thewordparticulierwassubstitutedforignorant.SeeClément,letterXXI,Paris,30nov.1748,andletterLXXXIII,London,1Sept.1751,inLes cinq années,119–20and130;andL[iotard],“Explication.”Liotard’sinvocationoftheignorartdrawsonearliertheorizationsofthetruthfulnessoftheunbiased(becauseuntutored)viewer,notablybyJean-BaptisteDuBosinhisRéflexions critiques sur la poésie et sur la peinture(1719),butalsofromwithintheFrenchacademyitself.ForthedeploymentofthefigureoftheignorantinFrenchartcriticismoftheperiod,seeBernadetteFort,“VoiceofthePublic:TheCarnivalizationofSalonArtinPre-RevolutionaryPamphlets,”Eigh-teenth-Century Studies22(1989):368–94,esp.390–93.

68 Foreighteenth-centuryaccountsofTurkisharchitectureinrelationtoChinesebuildings,seeAvcıoğlu,“APalaceofOne’sOwn,”670.Foraneighteenth-centuryexampleofChinesearchitecturedescribedusingTurkishterms,seetheJesuitmissionaryLouisLecomte’sdescriptionofareceptionroominaChinesehouseasadivan.LouisLecomte,Un Jésuite à Pékin: Nouveaux mémoires sur l’état présent de la Chine, 1687–1692,

ed.FrédériqueTouboul-Bouyeure(Paris:Phébus,1990),198.

69 Avcıoğlu,“APalaceofOne’sOwn,”670.MarcelRoethlisbergersuggeststhatLiotardmayhaveseenChinesepaintinginConstantinople,andthattheartistsuppliedAlgarottiwiththeideaofcomparingtheChocolate GirltoChineseart:MarcelRoethlisberger,“LaChoco-latièredeJean-EtienneLiotard,”Genava50(2002):321;andRoethlisbergerandLoche,Liotard: catalogue, sources,1:324.

70 FortheidentificationofthesitterasLiotard’swifeseeDuncanBull,“Princess,Countess,LoverorWife?Liotard’s‘LadyonaSofa,’”Burlington Magazine150(Sept.2008):592–602.

71 “Leursportraitsnesontquedeprofiloudetroisquarts,n’entendantpointladistributiondesombres,pourformerunvisageenplein…leurpinceauestdélicat,leurscouleursvives&long-temséclatantes…laperspectiveyseroitmoinsignorées’ilsétudioientceuxd’entr’euxquienontécrit”:Bourguignond’Anville,“MémoiresoùilestquestiondelapeinturedesTurcs&desPersans,delafaçondontlesTurcsmeublentleursapartemens,&principalementdelarichessedesapartemensduSéraildugrand-seigneur,”Mercure de France(April1721):27–8.

72 See,forexample,thediscussionofLiotard’sadoptionoftheconventionsofcourtportraitureforhisrepresentationsofroyalsittersinRoethlisbergerandLoche,Liotard: catalogue, sources, 1:301.

73 WolfgangHerrmann,Laugier and Eighteenth-Century French Theory(London:A.Zwemmer,1962),87.

74 PierredeVigny,“Dissertationsurl’architecture,”Journal oeconomique(March1752):68–107,esp.79–80,98–9,100–101(ontheparterre,see100).OnVigny,seeMichelGallet,“L’architectePierredeVigny,1690–1772:sesconstruc-

112 kristelsmentek

tions,sonesthètique,”Gazette des Beaux-Arts82(1973):263–86,andHerrmann, Laugier,64–5,84–7.

75 See,forexample,RobertFinlay,“ThePilgrimArt:TheCultureofPorcelaininWorldHistory,”Journal of World History9,no.2(1998):141–87.Architecturalhistorians,too,haveaddressedthepresenceoftheforeignineighteenth-centuryEuropeanarchitecturaldebatesanddesigns.See,amongothers,Avcıoğlu,“APalaceofOne’sOwn,”RobinMiddle-ton,“BoulléeandtheExotic,”AA Files19(Spring1990):35–49;andJosephRykwert,The First Moderns: The Architects of the Eighteenth Century(Cambridge,Mass.:MIT,1980),54–79.