La Gloire du peintre et les errements de l’Académie : des pistes pour l’étude des marines de Claude-Joseph Vernet au Salon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thomas Crow (1985) has established that the Academy’s Salon was the theatre of an art crisis in the France of Louis XV. This has inspired a comparison between the tempests and shipwrecks of Claude-Joseph Vernet (1714–1789) and his series Les Ports de France (1754–1765), commissioned on behalf of the King by Marigny. In the first part of the article, we examine the popularity of the former paintings. After analysing the enthusiastic response of Diderot in his Salons, directly inspired by Burke's treatise on the sublime, we show that the success of these paintings was in their power to produce strong emotions in the spectator’s mind. We then describe the perception of the sea in the eighteenth century in order to anchor Diderot’s critique in a body of non-artistic representations. The popularity of Vernet’s tempests and shipwrecks rests on a lack of social symbolism. This gives them a universal character with which, unlike the more aristocratie history painting, spectators of ail origins can identify. The last section deals with Les Ports de France. We begin by discussing the choice of landscape for such a prestigious work, which can be explained by the necessity to renew the image of the state. The choice of the seaport motif answered both the need of propaganda by imposing a unitary vision of France and the wish to recall Colbert’s heritage. Finally we analyse how the King and the Salon received the series by concluding that it was ultimately a failure for political and aesthetic reasons.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".