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: [email protected]
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):[email protected] (Canada, Mexico, USA)[email protected] (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 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:[email protected]
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.