Art History / Lancret's A Cup of Chocolate 1742 / Part IV

Nicolas Lancret, The four times of day: Morning, 1739-41, oil on copper, series of four paintings dimensions variable, National Gallery (London).

Placing it all together

In light of the element of theatricality embodied in the garden and identity construction of the individuals depicted as well as their uncertain social position, it is clear that this seemingly unproblematic and charmingly decorative domestic scene is fundamentally about display, allusion and as a part of this, the fashioning of one’s own identity for its display to others. It is thus possible to see this painting as more closely aligned than previously thought to images of mothers and their daughters at their toilette in which they appear to be dressing the daughter and readying her for when she will take over her identity fashioning: of indoctrinating her into the complex schema of eighteenth society and politeness politics as such paintings as Nattier’s Madame Marsollier and her Daughter (Figure 12.) and also in addition to Largillierre’s The marquise de Castelnau and her son (Figure 13.), Drouais Family portrait (Figure 14.) and even Chardin’s The morning toilette (1741, Stockholm National Museum): the last being completed only a year before Lancret’s.[1]

At this point it is necessary to reflect on some of the issues having been raised and consider whether examining Lancret’s painting via these means aids our understanding of the work as well as asking whether this line of argument an appropriate way to examine artistic works, particularly of this period and origin.  What is meant by this is that in eighteenth century France it has been noted that ascribing artistic autonomy to artisanal objects was unthinkable as such objects were seen as the products of mechanical learnt behaviour rather than products of originality and creative genius, as Mimi Hellman notes.[2] Consequently this raises the question would have original audiences have engaged with this work as a material attempts to engagement with it, thus assuming that this is the way it should be read?  Certainly details of the objects and their production may not have been noted then or even by the passing beholder now but it is true that for the contemporaneous beholder details and meaning of the toilette that the lady has engaged in as well as herself fashioning through her interaction with objects of leisure labour would have been noted as an important aspect of the painting.

Any theory, school of thought or art object must be judged on the basis of what it attempts to do.  The aim of a material culture reading of an art object is to use the art object to open up a broader discussion of social history surrounding the object.  It is in this way extremely indebted to a social history of art perspective. From this perspective, readings such as Eaton’s and Hamann’s certainly achieve their aim.

Nicolas Lancret, The four times of day: Midday, 1739-41, oil on copper, series of four paintings dimensions variable, National gallery (London). 

It is also indeed a valuable aim. Any valuable reading of an art object is ultimately an endeavour to better understand the art objects social context, representation and reception.  This is essentially the aim of a social history of art reading.  What a material studies reading achieves consequently is taking this same aim to its logical conclusion.

Another questions that may arise at this point is whether or not this opening up of the discussion to focus down on the details of the material objects lead to a fragmentation of interpretation. This is no doubt a risk but it must be taken. After all artist works are always in some sense of the word material and do always live in the material world.  therefore for any comprehensive reading a consideration of the material aspect must be considered.

A material culture studies reading of the art object is extremely valuable as it allows us to, to use Darnton’s phrase, burrow down further into the substrata of societies.[3] It is not an unproblematic approach and questions of whether it is achieving the central task of art history – and can therefore been considered art history – will continue to be asked. But it is certainly not to be dispensed with as it allows the art historian to tap further into the task that has already been established by social historians of art and allows them to make use of other valuable perspectives from other disciplines, specifically anthropology.

---

[1] Hellman names the highly wrought and complex system of self-fashioning and social interaction and convention ‘a conspiracy of pleasing’.  Hellman, Mimi, Furniture, ‘Sociability, and the work of leisure in eighteenth century France’, Eighteenth century studies, Vol.32, No.4 (summer), 1999, 415-445.

[2] Mimi Hellman, Furniture, ‘Sociability, and the work of leisure in eighteenth century France’, Eighteenth century studies, Vol.32, No.4 (summer), 1999, 418.

[3] Robert Darnton, “In search of the 18^th century: recent attempts to Create a Social History of Ideas”, Journal of Modern History 43, no. 1 (March 1971) p. 113.