Writer vs Painter: Denis Diderot’s “Salons”
EDN: OGXFWS
Abstract
Diderot devoted more than twenty years (1759–1781) to his work as an art critic, he wrote not only nine reviews of exhibitions, but also a number of important aesthetic treatises. The philosopher himself considered the “Salons” to be the best of everything he wrote. The article is devoted to the specifics of verbal representation of the visual in the “Salons”, where the author uses a variety of stylistic, dramatic, narrative techniques. It is the artistic features that make the “Salons” an outstanding work not only in the field of art criticism, but also in literature: Diderot creatively uses all the possibilities of verbal communication, inventing new forms of poetic interpretation of painting. Based on three essays devoted to the paintings of J.-B. Greuze, “The Young Girl Grieving Over Her Dead Bird” (1765), J. O. Fragonard, “Coresus Sacrificing Himself to Save Callirhoe” (1765), and C.-J. Vernet’s “Walking” (1767), the article analyzes various forms of demonstratio ad oculos: dialogue, metalepsis, fantasy, parergon and hypotyposis, all of which allowed Diderot to create “living pictures” that he sought to embody in his innovative dramatic system simultaneously with the “Salons”. He turns to a variety of genres: dialogue, tragedy (Fragonard), erotic libertine novel and bourgeois drama (Greuze), promenade (Vernet). Analysis of the dramatic and philosophical treatises of the French enlightener allows us to see the integrity and systematicity of his thoughts on art and show the connection with the ideas of the era presented in the works of Kant and Lessing. Diderot’s “Salons” combine painting, literature and philosophy into a single whole.
About the Author
V. D. Altashina
Saint Petersburg State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Veronika Dmitrievna Altashina, Dr. Sci. (Philology) Professor, Foreign Literature Department
199034, Saint Petersburg, Universitetskaya Emb., 7–9
References
1. Altashina, V. D. (2018). Metalepsis kak avtobiograficheskii priem vo frantsuzskoi literature XVIII veka [Metalepse as an autobiographical practice in the French literature of the XVIIIth century]. Mezhdunarodnyi zhurnal issledovanii kul’tury, 2018(1, no. 30), 74–80. (In Russian).
2. Calame, C. (2012). Vraisemblance référentielle, nécessité narrative, poétique de la vue. L’historiographie grecque classique entre factuel et fictif. Annales: Histoire, Sciences Sociales, 67(1), 81–101.
3. Dällenbach, L. (1977). Le récit spéculaire: Essai sur la mise en abyme. Seuil.
4. Delon, M. (2008). Préface. In D. Diderot. Salons (E-ed.). Gallimard.
5. Derrida, J. (1978). La Vérité en peinture. Flammarion, coll. Champs.
6. Fokin, S. L. (2006). Metalepsis, ili Novye prikliucheniia neulovimykh figur narratologii (Zametki po noveishei istorii teorii povestvovaniia) [Metalepse, or new adventures of narratology’ elusive figures]. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta, Ser. 9: Filologiia. Vostokovedenie. Zhurnalistika, 2006(2), 32–38. (In Russian).
7. Genette, G. (1966). Figures I. Seuil.
8. Genette, G. (2004). Métalepse. De la figure à la fiction. Seuil.
9. Genette, G. (2005). Métalepses. Entorses au pacte de la représentation. Éd. de l’École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales.
10. Mokul’skii, S. (1957). Frantsuzskaia dramaturgiia epokhi Prosveshcheniia [French drama of the Enlightenment]. In Frantsuzskii teatr epokhi Prosveshcheniia (Vol. 1, pp. 5–68). Iskusstvo. (In Russian).
11. Muravieva, L. E. (2016). Reduplikatsiia (mise en abyme) i “tekst v tekste” [Mise en abyme and Text-within-a-text]. Novyi filologicheskii vestnik, 2016(2, no. 37), 42–51. (In Russian).
12. Muravieva, L. (2023). Mise en abyme: variatsii znacheniia [Mise en abyme: variations on the concept]. Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 179, 133–149. https://doi.org/10.53953/08696365_2023_179_1_133. (In Russian).
13. Plekhanov, G. V. (1922). Frantsuzskaia dramaticheskaia literatura i frantsuzskaia zhivopis’ XVIII veka s tochki zreniia sotsiologii [French dramatic literature and French painting of the 18th century from the point of view of sociology]. In G. V. Plekhanov. Iskusstvo i literatura (pp. 101–127). Novaia Moskva. (In Russian).
14. Reingardt, L. Ia. (1989). Salony Didro i estetika frantsuzskogo Prosveshcheniia. [Diderot’s salons and the aesthetics of the French Enlightenment]. In D. Didro [= D. Diderot]. Salony (L. Ia. Reingardt, Ed., Vol. 1, pp. 5–22). Iskusstvo. (In Russian).
15. Starobinski, J. (2012). Diderot, un diable de ramage. Gallimard.
16. Sugino, S. (2020). Diderot avec Derrida: une esthétique sur la bordure. In F. Manzari, & S. Lojkine (Eds.). Derrida 2020: frontières, bords, limites. https://cielam.univ-amu.fr/malice/articles/diderot-derrida-esthetique-bordure.
17. Sulimova, A. (2023a). Deni Didro i vystavki sovremennogo iskusstva v Kvadratnom salone Luvra [Denis Diderot and contemporary art exhibitions in the Square Salon of the Louvre]. In S. Karp (Ed.). “Salony” Didro: Vystavki sovremennogo iskusstva v Parizhe XVIII veka (pp. 118–127). Izdatel’skaia gruppa ABCdesign. (In Russian).
18. Sulimova, A. (2023b). Deni Didro i Zhan-Batist Grez: po stranitsam “Salonov” [Denis Diderot and Jean-Baptiste Greuze: through the pages of the Salons]. In S. Karp (Ed.). “Salony” Didro: Vystavki sovremennogo iskusstva v Parizhe XVIII veka (pp. 136–143). Izdatel’skaia gruppa ABCdesign. (In Russian).
Review
For citations:
Altashina V.D. Writer vs Painter: Denis Diderot’s “Salons”. Shagi / Steps. 2025;11(3):204-224. (In Russ.) EDN: OGXFWS
Views:
13
Email this article 