Reversing the Trend
With the popularity of artists like Tiepolo, Fragonard and Boucher, it’s salutary to remember that once this kind of painting full of fantasy and colour, and produced for a rich elite, was attacked by art historians just after the Second World War. Leading the charge was the veteran Italian scholar, Roberto Longhi, who during the age of Italian neo-realism, defended 18th century genre artists like the other Longhi, whilst dismissing Tiepolo and his rhetorical style. The trend has been reversed due to publications by Francis Haskell, Michael Levey and others who have worked hard to put Tiepolo and Canaletto in context and offer a less biased summary. Today, Longhi’s criticisms are virtually forgotten, and Tiepolo, the “presiding genius” of the 18th century (Levey) is celebrated in publications, high profile exhibitions that give the lie to the idea of the 18th century as a frivolous interval between the main acts of the 17th and 19th centuries. The story of 18th European art is also one of collecting by foreigners residing in Venice, though Tiepolo himself does not figure much in that story. Two of greatest foreign patrons in Venice, Consul John Smith and Marshall Schulenberg, did not own one Tiepolo. Their taste was completely at variance too: Smith preferred landscape and views; Schulenberg opted for history, portraits and genre.
Comments