Alex Furuya

Reitz

Introduction to European Art History

11/19/14

The Paradox of Chardin

“It is the paradox of Chardin which puzzles us in attempting to estimate the importance

of his achievement,” wrote Duncan Phillips in his analysis of Jean­Simeon­Baptiste Chardin’s

still life paintings. Chardin’s still lifes belongs to a genre of art called “genre painting”; paintings

that depict the daily life. His subjects from the 1720s to the 1740s composed mostly of food,

dishware, cooking utensils, dead animals, and the likes. During those times, he was considered

esteemed amongst other painters and his paintings “sold well” (Prigent). However, his

contemporaries painted epic historical paintings and beautiful portraits that were regarded as

having high artistic value. How did Chardin’s work become so successful and revered? A glance

at Chardin’s low­key and dense paintings reveals a striking contrast against Watteau’s bright and

colorful fêtes galantes paintings, and yet, there is something attractive in his paintings. What

makes Chardin notable is the candidness he puts into his paintings as well as is his choice of

subject. One painting in particular, The White Tablecloth, epitomizes the essence of Chardin’s

austere and captivating style. The subject, the white tablecloth, though simple in iconography,

has a sundry of colors that reveal Chardin’s heavy dedication to the subject, which also seems to

reflect something more that reveals the social condition of his time. In a way, this painting

empowers the ordinary people by bringing what was once considered something part of the

background into the foreground and giving it devotion.

Chardin’s contemporaries were focused on the embellished Rococo movement as well as

the emerging fêtes galantes style. The emergence of the Rococo movement began when King

Louis XIV died in 1715 after seventy­two years in power. Louis XIV had an appetite for the

“grand baroque style” and decorated his home lavishly (Trapasso). The court that succeeded

looked for “a new style in art, one that was intimate, decorative, and often erotic” to mirror the

relaxation of the political life (18th Century France). The new art style was Rococo, a more

natural and lighter style of art known for its curves and floral ornamentation. Jean Antoine

Watteau took the Rococo style into his own hands and created the fêtes galantes style. Fêtes

galantes depicted scenes of outdoor courtship parties often with mystical and natural beauties.

These paintings were known for their frivolity, imagination, and lightness. Because the court

initiated and accepted the Rococo movement, it was the accepted type of art at the time. This

type of art also empowered the upper class, which was notably carefree.

Chardin was not part of this movement, and in fact disliked the court society. In his

perspective, “The patricians were enslaving the artists, compelling them to refine upon their

refinements, to celebrate their celebrity, to idealize their amours” (Phillips). The imagination that

is apparent in fêtes galantes was the essence of what Chardin disliked. He “associated

imagination in art with the prevailing snobbery and artificiality of court life, against the

standards of which, in his own unassuming way, he rebelled” (Phillips). Instead, he appreciated

the ordinary people, as reflected in his paintings, including The White Tablecloth. He was a man

who enjoyed honesty and hard work, traits he found in the ordinary people (Prigent).

The White Tablecloth, painted from 1731 to 1732, is one of Chardin’s still life work and

is almost in opposition of the Rococo style of his contemporaries. The size of the painting is 38

1/8 x 48 5/16 in. and is slightly bigger than his other paintings such as the The Ray and The

Silver Tureen; the reason for this is that the painting was intended to be hanged upon a fireplace

(Prigent). Chardin’s paintings are notable for how dense and heavy they are. Referencing The

Copper Cistern Chardin painted in 1735, Winkfield states Chardin “was painting a copper cistern

with such tactile density we could almost believe that, if the paint were scraped from the canvas,

its weight would equal the weight of the cistern it depicts”. The heavy brushwork Chardin

incorporates reflects the artist's devotion to his subjects, in other words, “Chardin was a total

obsessive” (Winkfield). According to John Berger, “He did not apply [the paint] mechanically or

uniformly; he worked on it and in it with much patience”. Looking at the White Tablecloth, one

can clearly see the devotion Chardin put into his everyday objects. The White Tablecloth is

unadorned unless you consider the saveloy and bread upon the subject a decoration. The painting

is as simple as the title.

The way Chardin’s painting, the white tablecloth, is painted reflects his appreciation of

the ordinary. Chardin’s paintings are stocked full of rich detail that is easy to ignore due to the

insignificance of the object. Looking closely at the tablecloth (Fig. 2), we can see the multitudes

of colors and the various hues in the cloth. There are traces of cool blue as well as warm peach

that enriches the tablecloth. There are also “grays and yellowish tints” that allows the tablecloth

to appear “sparkling” (Sweet). There is something beautiful in how these colors interact with

each other, as Duncan Phillips puts it, there is a “wonderful way the colors play together,

catching each other’s influence, all in the harmony of daylight so diffused as to mingle the

various subtleties of tone”. It is not that Chardin is trying to show off in a virtuoso manner, rather

he is showing how daylight and the objects reflect against the tablecloth. It is the rich detail that

Chardin puts in his simple subjects that shows his reverence of the everyday life. In addition, the

creases and the folds are dutifully highlighted by Chardin, which emphasizes the imperfection of

the tablecloth. One can clearly see the rigid creases that age has imprinted on the tablecloth.

Chardin’s use of color thus creates a sense of irritation and erosion that embodies the tablecloth.

Chardin paints simply what is there in an honest and modest manner. As Duncan Phillips said

about Chardin’s still life, “Quite frankly there was all the beauty he needed–right there”. In an

almost Rembrandt style, Chardin also incorporates chiaroscuro in this painting. The white

tablecloth illuminates, producing a light of its on, while the background seems to sink into a dark

fog. The background in these “aural masterpieces the walls appear composed of solidified fog

apparently on the verge of gobbling up the comestibles, clamoring to be part of the action”

(Winkfield). There is a similar drama between the subject and the background seen in Baroque

art. While the tablecloth tries to live and be the prima donna of the painting, the background,

with equally rich detail, tries to compensate and overpower the tablecloth. In a way, the dark

background pushes the white tablecloth into the foreground into the audience’s space. The

tablecloth is in the spotlight.

But what makes The White Tablecloth so interesting isn’t simply how Chardin painted

his subject, it is why he chose to paint his subject. The tablecloth is not particularly special nor

beautiful. It is something that is found in most homes and is often seen in the background, whcih

is exactly why Chardin painted it. The white tablecloth represents homeliness, a basic luxury that

most people can enjoy. His subjects “[become] a symbol of the meals at home” (Phillips). The

still life genre in general is “a sedentary art, connected with the activity of keeping house. A

home may be tidy or informal but there is always a certain welcoming order to it” (Berger). The

imperfections of the painting, the tipped over glass and the knife that is precariously placed on

the table, gives a sense of life to the empty scene. Chardin brought “out the essence of things, not

their outward appearance but the secret life within them that is revealed in silence and

contemplation” (Prigent). The essence of the tablecloth is warmth and simple luxury enjoyed by

the common person. It is interesting to compare Chardin’s work with Dutch 17th century painter

Willem Claeszoon Heda. Like Chardin, Heda was a still life painter and often incorporated food

in his still lifes. Both painted with heavy realism, depicting the array of texture seen on a dining

table. However, the difference starts with how each conceive their work. Heda created large

pieces of exquisite food and objects that hinted “at the transience of worldly existence,” such as

his 1635 painting Banquet Piece with Mince Pie (Banquet Piece with Mince Pie). His purpose of

the still life was to show off the lavishness and power of the upper class (Fig. 3). Chardin on the

other hand reverses this and instead shows a simple scene depicting ordinary or uninviting

subjects, such as a white tablecloth. Chardin in a way satirizes the upper class by using the still

life genre that was once a genre of pride and dignity. By depicting something that is often seen a

background as the subject, Chardin puts power and boldness to the everyday people. The white

tablecloth seems to symbolize the ordinary people that he so loved. In a sense, he is bringing the

ordinary people from the background and into the foreground as his subjects.

By making his paintings as realistic and beautifully interesting, Chardin was able to gain

success in the French art salons; ultimately, this allowed him to empower the everyday people

for he made them the subjects of his paintings. The White Tablecloth, simple in subject yet

painted as if it was a portrait of a King, shows the love Chardin had for the ordinary people. He

chose the often disregarded genre of still life and gave it life. He chose the often overlooked

subject of home and gave it the spotlight. He chose the overshadowed audience of the ordinary

people and gave it power. His painting, The White Tablecloth, also has a sense of feeling.

Chardin arguably once said, “One uses colors, but one paints with feeling”. Whether or not he

actually said this, “Chardin’s ‘feeling’ is above all the warmth and tenderness with which he

observes his subjects” (Prigent).

Work Cited

Berger, John. "The Infinity of Desire." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media Ltd, 13 July

2000. Web. 10 Nov. 2014.

Sweet, Frederick A. "The White Tablecloth by Chardin." Bulletin of the Art Institute of Chicago

(1907­1951) 39.4 (1945): 49­53. JSTOR. Web. 24 Nov. 2014.

Phillips, Duncan. "Chardin." The American Magazine of Art 7 (1916): 200­03. JSTOR. Web.

21 Nov. 2014.

Pioch, Nicolas. "Chardin, Jean­Baptiste­Siméon." WebMuseum: Paris. BMW Foundation, 14

July 2002. Web. 10 Nov. 2014.

Prigent, Hélène, and Pierre Rosenberg. Chardin: An Intimate Art. London: Thames and Hudson,

2000. Print.

"Banquet Piece with Mince Pie." National Gallery of Art. National Gallery of Art, 2014. Web.

23

Nov. 2014.

Trapasso, Erica. "A Brief History of Rococo Art." Artnet News. Artnet Worldwide Corporation,

15 July 2013. Web. 24 Nov. 2014.

Winkfield, Trevor. ""Dear Chardin"" Georges Braque and Others: The Selected Art Writings of

Trevor Winkfield (1990­2009). Brooklyn: Song Cave, 2014. 31­40. Print.

"18th­Century France: The Rococo and Watteau." The National Gallery of Art. The National

Gallery of Art, 2014. Web. 23 Nov. 2014.

Index

Figure 1. The White Tablecloth by Jean­Simeon­Baptiste Chardin, 1731­1732

Figure 2. The White Tablecloth (Detail)

Figure 3. Banquet Piece with Mince Pie by Willem Claesz Heda, 1635