
This painting, The School of Plato, by Jean Delville, hangs at the D’Orsay. The first time I saw it I was going through the rooms on the second floor, just browsing, and there it was. There was a bench in front of it, and I waited for a turn to sit. A German couple wandered by. Schrecklich. Then a French couple. Terríble. If you sit there long enough, you’ll hear the word for dreadful in practically every language.
There is something in this picture to offend almost everyone. Christians? Plato looks like Christ, and the “apostles” aren’t interested in what he is saying. Philosophy majors? Plato wasn’t anything like Christ. People who despise LBGT stereotypes? Duh. People who love pastels? Sure: no one is that color. People with an amateur’s understanding of anatomy? Sure: no one could stand, sit or slouch like that. These guys give new meaning to the word “controposto”, or hipslung. I bet they’re really good at yoga. Botanists? Just look at the trees and bushes. Osias Beert would have burst a gullet laughing.
The last time I saw this, it was hanging next to The Vision by Alphonse Osbert. As astonishing as it may seem, both these works were well-received at the time. Take a look at this discussion of Delville. The ideas are strange, but no more foreign that the inspiration for the Pre-Raphelites. In the same room there is an Edward Bourne-Jones and a couple of other paintings of similar thematic weirdness. Somehow they aren’t as foreign to my eye as the Delville, or as kitschy as the Osbert. Maybe one plausible reason to hang these is as an introduction to a side show in the history of ideas. But as works of art, for my money, these are schrecklich.
There is a lot of bad art in the world. Most of it gets weeded out over time by the discerning eyes of experts and patrons. Sure, some paintings go through ups and downs, some are discovered late, some have qualities or sources that made them invisible to the experts of the day. The paintings of Artemesia Gentileschi came late to fame, women artists were invisible for centuries. A lot of art is collected in second and third rate museums, or held by people who love it, and as people begin to appreciate it, it moves up in the world, and in price. The Delville went straight to a museum, as a gift of the artist.
At least these paintings accomplished one thing: they taught me that it is perfectly all right to reject the taste of the curators even of world-class museums. Delville’s work may have been loved in its day, but it doesn’t stand the test of time, at least for my small sample of museum-goers. And me.



14 Comments







Oh my word — it gets even worse. Apparently the figures (Plato excepted) are supposed to be hermaphrodites. Throw in some pastels and golds, make the figures more soft, and it could be something by Maxfield Parrish.
If people are looking for actual theosophical-inspired art, they’re better off checking out the Crowley-Harris Thoth Deck or Salvador Dali’s tarot.
Heh. Might be funnier if you decked them all out in Erte gowns! You wouldn’t even have to TOUCH that peacock a bit!
There was some discussion in my family about whether to feature the Delville or the Osbert. The Delville won. I’m not sure, though.
If I had gone with the Osbert, I would have referred people to this painting by Yves Klein at the Centre Pompidou in Paris.
Ai yi yi.
What colors!
Hard not to think of it as an entry in a Jeopardy! category: “Least Copied Paintings.”
You mean this isn’t a scene from Avatar?
I get the feeling the artist was more interested in his model’s body than in the nominal subject of the painting. Lots of nude (or nearly so) muscular male bodies being displayed all around that fully-covered (and really not all that visible, beyond the bright white robe) central figure.
Actually, it’s a lot like other paintings that were popular at the time, but make us go eewww. Think of all those paintings that were reproduced and hung in churches and printed in bibles ….
I’m sure I saw that on the side of a bus advertising some kind of deodorant.
I always wondered what Weekend at Jesus’ would look like. After Weekend at Bernies I can’t say I’m disappointed.
All I know is thank god I’m a Philistine and a heathen.
Well….its assets are that it is horribly weird and its big. Big always gets the attention of museums. And those people actually did sit there staring at the painting. It is very disturbing, and the artist was a symbolist and into the occult. Evidently he is still ‘revered’ by Theosophists. There is something about truly horrible symbolism mixed with a disturbing palette and competent painting…..then when the painting is trying to get some message thru to the viewer it gets even more disturbing. Avatar-ish? Yup! Its like a fun-ride thru this guy’s head.
Besides what would the museum do with it?
You are right about the size. The Delville is 20 feet wide and 8 feet high. and French museums love the big paintings. There is a hall in the Louvre devoted to giant works, including The Coronation of Napoleon, which is 30 feet wide and 20 feet high, 9.8m x 6.2m.
The D’Orsay isn’t as big as the Louvre, but this work, Cain Flying Before the Curse of Jehovah, is 4 meters high and 7 meters long, about 22 x 13.
Do you know what Delvilles intended allegory is in the Plato painting? Or the back story?
The gender of Plato’s followers is creepy (in the painting, of course). Blake had genderless people representing evil. I suppose the figure on the right with the blue cloth is a sort of Judas figure, looks like “The Thinker” tho. Its hard to even try to approach this work or what the artist wanted to convey since it pushes lots of my negative buttons.
And large work conveys confidence and a “look at what I have to say” attitude. It has a shock value too, tho not in a 20-1st century sort of way, which is to our eyes predictable and so sort of comforting. This kind of shock is very unsettling simply because the shock is not intentional, but the desire to draw attention is intentional. I have the feeling the artist did not intend to shock but he himself was so out-there that he was really not on the same page as most viewers. Interesting that Blake also was out-there and his work did not really appeal to his contemporaries, but does to moderns.
I keep thinking it must be some kind of hidden interpretation of the symbology. Of course, the sexuality and the palette are shocking. I wonder if he used fugitive pigments. If I had to guess at his palette from this reproduction I would say viridian, the new (at that time) ultramarineblue, raw sienna (or an ochre), some black and a white and some kind of lake. I bet the pinks and reds of the hypothetical lake have faded impacting all the colors. Just speculating.
And, I hope you do do an exploration of a minimalist work sometime. There’s always a back story for those. Every painting has a story and if it is not visual it is the theory, or the antics of the artist or –something.
This link gives some idea about intent. I’m not sure how much of that comes across. The fact that it was well-received suggests that people in 1898 weren’t offended by the painting. For me, the painting is more laughable than offensive.
I think it this is an interesting subject. You said this piece is offensive, but now it is laughable. Honestly, looking at work that one really does NOT like is very instructive. Is the symboloby offensive or laughable? Hieronymus bosch has offensive and laughable symbology, and so does William Blake. And their palettes and imagery is also strange. What makes this different? – to YOU. The criticisms you leveled at this piece could be said about any Bosch piece. Like this (which I love).