Decorative Art. Albert JacquemartЧитать онлайн книгу.
tortoise shell and metal
Of all sovereigns, Louis XIV is certainly the monarch who best knew how to surround the royal majesty with the most dazzling splendour. He required sumptuous buildings for his habitation, and if Versailles as a palace realised his dreams, he still required that the furniture destined to fill those galleries with glittering mirrors, gildings, paintings and sculptures, should be worthy of such companionship and should exhibit a magnificence unknown until that day. Logical in his conceptions, the king understood that he must entrust the manufacture of the carpets, furniture and silverware to real artists. In order to gather the most talented, he initially granted apartments in the Louvre to each of those who had distinguished themselves by works of uncommon merit. In 1662, to create a necessary harmony amongst the different works and create a common thought throughout, he centralised the various workshops at the Gobelins, placing them in 1667 under the direction of Le Brun, his first painter. Le Brun was succeeded by Pierre Mignard after his death in 1690.
Amongst those whose conceptions of furniture were such as Louis XIV and Le Brun desired, we must mention above all André-Charles Boulle. Had he previously tried his skill in styles already known, as he would afterwards try those which were to become the fashion after him? This is probable; however, he did not find the splendour he aimed to attain. Instead, he conceived the idea of constructing furniture in ebony and covering the large surfaces with inlaid tortoise shell, cut out and coated with arabesques, branches of foliage, and ornaments in thin brass and white metal, and sometimes enriched by elaborate chisel engraving. This brilliant mosaic work was also accompanied by ormolu bas-reliefs, masks, scrolls, mouldings, entablatures and encoignures, forming a framework for the whole and distributing luminous points of attraction to prevent the eye from being disorientated by a dangerous glare.
To give the inlay the desired exactness, the artist imagined the plan of superimposing two plates of equal size and thickness, one of metal, the other of tortoise shell, and after tracing his design, cutting them out with the same stroke of the saw. Thus, he obtained four proofs of the composition, two at the base where the design appeared in hollow spaces, and two ornamental which, when placed in the spaces of the opposite ground piece, inserted themselves exactly without any perceptible joining. The result of this practice was seen in two different and simultaneous pieces of furniture. One, designated as the first part, was the tortoise shell bottom with metal applications; the other, called the second part, was appliqué metal with tortoise shell arabesques. The counterpart, therefore, being still richer than the prototype, the pieces were arranged with crossed effects. Boulle did more and found in his great compositions means to add to the splendour of the effect by simultaneously employing the first and second parts in suitably balanced masses.
While acknowledging the overall positive effect of the two styles invented by André-Charles Boulle, we must insist on the point that the first part should be more highly valued because it is more complete. Let us take for example one of the beautiful types issued from the hands of the artist, and we will see how smartly the elaborate engraving corrects the coldness of certain outlines. The shells trace their paths of light, the draperies of the canopies fall in cleverly disordered folds, the grotesque masks grimace, the branches of foliage are lightened by the strongly marked veins of the leaves according to the importance of the masses; everything lives and has a language. Observe the counterpart; it is but the reflection of the idea, the faded shadow of the original.
Chest of François d’Estaing, Bishop of Rodez, 1501–1529. Carved and painted limewood, 43 × 78.2 × 42.6 cm. Diocese of Rodez.
Boulle furniture was best adapted for the huge saloons and state apartments required in the reign of Louis XIV. Those large inlaid console tables admirably filled the spaces between the windows and were laden with silver and gold vases, gold-rimmed jasper and porphyry, and chased garlands reflected by innumerable mirrors. As for real furniture which would be useful in one’s private life, it was most rare. We encounter tables, desks and even coin boxes in small number; a commode exists in Sir Richard Wallace’s collection, but it is so far from meriting its name, its details are so heavy that we feel the desire to display it revealed beneath this concession made to ordinary furniture. A few caskets, writing desks, the necessary accompaniments of the bureau, armoires, bookcases, and angle cupboards; this was all.
Boulle, however, created a school; André-Charles, designated in old catalogues as Father Boulle, had four sons, nephews perhaps and in any case many pupils. The style and perfection alone of his works would cause them to be recognised and distinguished from imitations. The greatest choice lies in the innumerable religious clocks, either docked or placed on hanging brackets; they are always topped with figures or ensembles of marvellous execution. Also, the bas-reliefs which appear underneath the dial, are no less remarkable and in complete harmony with the inlaid decorations.
To acquire the skill of recognising the hand of a learned inventor of this style, it will suffice to attentively examine the pieces which fill the Galerie d’Apollon, and others distributed throughout Parisian museums. Amongst others, a magnificent armoire will be noted; its monochrome marquetry occupies a considerable space. The two upper panels display vases of flowers framed by metal inlays of the finest execution. The shades are so well combined that the brass and tortoise shell do not spoil the effect of the wood marquetry, and the wood does not distract the eye at the expense of the ornamental designs.
We feel pleasure in attributing this judicious taste to the eminent man from whom Louis XIV acquired his royal furniture. We place to the account of the sons and successors of Boulle the extravagant articles in which the tortoise shell parts are replaced by tinted blue or vermilion horn; this unseasonable polychromy takes away both its severe majesty and its rich and serious harmony from the compositions. Most of these deviations can be attributed to Philippe Poitou, an imitator of the master who became the king’s marquetry worker in 1683. It is rare, as we said before, for a follower not to aim for greater perfection by exaggerating his role model. It is certain that the style prevailed during the greater part of the 18th century; it wasn’t until the middle of this century that Jean-François Oeben, a marquetry worker who became celebrated more for his magnificently carved frames than for his furniture, also styled himself as a pupil of Boulle; he likely wanted to appoint a son.
Through time, connoisseurs have continued to be on their guard against various imitations; many of the old pieces of furniture in the Boulle style have had their panels destroyed and replaced by pieces of lacquer, sometimes they have even been imitated through the preservation and restoration of the framework of inlaid ebony. There have been some Boulle pieces with oriental lacquer, but they are very rare and the foreign pieces in them were selected with great care amongst those of the first quality.
As for complete imitations, it seems superfluous to dwell on them; there is so little affinity either in style or workmanship between these pieces and the originals that only a novice would be deceived.
“Cavalrymen” cupboard, c. 1615–1620. Carved wood, 126 cm. Castle of Écouen, Musée national de la Renaissance.
Dagobert’s throne, 9th and 12th centuries (backrest). Gilt bronze. Cabinet des Médailles, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris.
Furniture in marquetry of various woods
How was it that in the 15th century the Italian intarsiatori conceived the idea of depicting ornaments and even landscapes in coloured woods? It was because they had seen the elders paint with fragments of stone; tiles containing in essence the idea of marquetry. How was it that centuries later the cabinet makers resumed a process abandoned for so long? The broad limits of their productions are now carried even further; they wished, like their predecessors, to encroach on the domain of a neighbouring art. Some thought this was to rival mosaic work, while others believed they could become painters. There is certainly one true fixed principle, which is that furniture should be in harmony with the objects that surround it. However, the results of this principle must not be forced so as to depart from the limits assigned by good sense and good taste to each branch of industry. The panelling with their pastoral scenes and the tapestries sufficed to represent the fashion of the 18th century without the participation of marquetry