On the relationship between the artist and the Royal Academy of Painting and Sculpture in France of the XVIII century. Jean-Honore Fragonard (1732-1806).

Agratina Elena Evgen'evna ORCID: 0000-0001-9842-0967 PhD in Art History Associate Professor, Department of Choreography and Ballet Studies, Moscow State Academy of Choreography 119146, Russia, Moscow, 2nd frunzenskaya str., 5 agratina_elena@mail.ru Other publications by this author

            IntroductionCultural-anthropological and sociological approaches to the study of art are becoming increasingly popular in modern science.

This is quite natural, since culture is becoming more and more clearly recognized as a phenomenon that arises at the junction of life circumstances that have developed at a certain moment and a person's personal aspirations and inclinations. The greater the gap between the needs of the individual and the realities formed at the time of her life, the more hope there is that significant changes will occur in the culture.

            People of art, artists, are especially interesting to study in this regard, since they are often the least conformal members of society. Even without striving to purposefully rebel against the order of things that has developed in their era, they are nevertheless able to pose questions to themselves and society that require rethinking many familiar "truths".

            The purpose of this small study is to study the interaction of the artist – J.O. Fragonard - and an influential official institution – the Royal Academy of Painting and Sculpture.

         Fragonard's biography has repeatedly attracted the attention of researchers, mainly foreign ones. Several books dedicated to the master were published at the beginning of the XX century ^{[16, 17]}. Two fundamental monographs about the artist appeared almost simultaneously, in the late 1980s ^{[8, 20]}, and many smaller-scale works, such as articles and essays, were also published. However, one question, as it seems to us, has remained aside from the attention of researchers: why in the era when the Academy of Painting and Sculpture was the main institution in the field of art, there were masters who voluntarily moved away from it? There are quite a few such artists, however, among them are those who now make up the glory of their era: J.-O. Fragonard, J.-B. Grez, M.-K. de Latour, engraver G.-J. de Saint-Aubin. It is known that Grez broke off relations with the Academy after it refused to recognize him as an academician in the class of historical painting. Saint-Aubin also became disillusioned with his academic career, failing to win the Rome Prize even on the third attempt. He preferred cooperation with the Academy of St. Luke. Latour stopped exhibiting in academic salons, because by the end of his life he became interested in science and, according to Diderot, almost left art. The case of Fragonard seems to us the most mysterious. Therefore, it would be very interesting to recreate the biography of the painter in the light of his relationship with the Academy and try to understand what life circumstances and internal attitudes of the master could lead to his separation from an influential institution, and what significance such precedents had for the formation of the artist's self-consciousness of Modern times.

The Academy and the beginning of the creative path of J.-O. FragonardSince its foundation in 1648, the Royal Academy of Painting and Sculpture has been dealing with all issues related to the artistic life of France.

The Academy combined the functions of an educational institution and a trade union. Thanks to her, a regular educational process in the field of art was established, artists were able to join the achievements of various sciences, and also had the opportunity to defend their rights not at the level of a craft workshop, but from the positions of a solid institution under the direct patronage of the king. In fact, she acted as a guarantor of the legitimacy of the new identity of the artist, who, since the Renaissance, increasingly wanted to separate himself from the craft environment and establish himself in the status of the creator.

            This did not mean, however, that the masters were given complete freedom. The first "Statute and Rules of the Royal Academy of Painting and Sculpture", approved in the year of its foundation, established the rules for admission to the Academy, the conditions for obtaining academic ranks, and also fixed the hierarchy among academics. The Academy has the honor of organizing the first public exhibitions and Salons, which is why access to art was provided to the broad masses of the population, and art criticism was developed. Only artists admitted to the Academy could become participants of the Salons. This institution emphasized the special status of its members and their privileged position.

            In the XVIII century, most of the Parisian masters were somehow connected with this institution, received academic education, participated in competitions, sought membership in the Academy. However, a competitive environment is gradually beginning to form around it. As an alternative to the Royal Academy, for a long time there was the Academy of St. Luke, which in some way continued the medieval guild traditions, and those who did not have the right to exhibit their works in the academic Salon were given the opportunity to participate in the annual exhibition on Dauphin Square, as well as in private exhibitions. There were other forces capable of supporting the artist. We are talking about patrons, lovers of fine arts and, in fact, customers whose tastes did not always coincide with academic ones. Patrons and experts could be honorary members of the Academy, but they retained autonomy due to the fact that not only they themselves needed the Academy, but they could also provide significant services to it. Often they are noble and rich people, such as Finance Minister Pierre Crozat and Count de Quelus. They owned their own valuable art collections, patronized artists, gave them shelter in their mansions. They could also be enthusiasts passionately passionate about art, great organizers, such as Paen de La Blancherie, who, having no own capital, organized exhibitions that competed with academic ones for ten years.

It happened that from time to time the artists themselves tried to bypass the Academy, which extremely irritated academic officials. The Marquis d'anjivillet, director of the royal buildings, wrote to the director of the Academy of J.B.M. To Pierre in 1777: "I am not at all surprised that artists who do not belong to either the Academy or the Department of Royal Buildings resort to others [...] to present to His Majesty and the royal family works that they would like to dedicate to them" [4. p. 21].

Artists through the press invited a noble audience to their workshops. So, J.-B. In one of the issues of the Gallant Mercury for 1728, Masset invites the public to come to his studio in order to see the "Cariolan" he finished, and J.-M. Vienne in the second half of the century notifies the public through the press that in his studio you can see "in addition to many small cabinet works, also a ceiling on canvas depicting Marshmallows and Flora" [4. p. 29].

Thus, the Academy, being the driving force of the artistic life of France in the XVIII century, was still not the only one. She felt the pressure of competitors and tried to fight them. In 1777, the Academy of St. Luke was virtually destroyed. Exhibitions in the entertainment palace "Colosseum" were banned. Blanchery's undertaking caused dissatisfaction with the Academy and constant complaints on her part. However, the prerequisites for the emancipation of the artist from the Academy began to arise. The fear of the Academy to lose credibility already testifies to the presence of corresponding trends in the artistic life of Paris at that time.

As for Fragonard, his relationship with the Academy started late. Fragonard's family came from Grasse and was forced to move to Paris when the future painter was from six to twelve years old. At the age of fourteen or fifteen, young Fragonard got a job at a notary office and only then realized that he would like to study painting.

F. Boucher (1703-1770), who was then in great fashion, rejected the overgrown student. Fragonard was taken in by J.B.S. Chardin (1699-1779). A couple of years later, Fragonard returned to Boucher, who this time imbued with faith in the young man's abilities. In 1752, the most important event in Fragonard's life took place – Boucher encouraged him to participate in the competition for the Rome Prize. As a person with no official status in the Academy, Fragonard could not qualify for this prestigious award. The awarded masters received a scholarship and the opportunity to continue their studies in Italy for several years, where they were accepted by the French Academy in Rome – a kind of Italian branch of the Royal Academy of Painting and Sculpture, which was at the same time the highest level of academic education.

Initially, Fragonard did not even think about participating in the competition, which he considered inaccessible to himself. Nevertheless, Boucher used his considerable authority to allow Fragonard to participate as his student. This was a blatant violation of the rules laid down in article twenty of the Statute and Rules of the Royal Academy of Painting and Sculpture, which states: "Only students of the Academy, duly enrolled in it, who are currently making their sketches at the Academy and who have won at least one of the small prizes, will be allowed to participate in the competition, distributed by the Academy every three months. The mentioned students, in order to be admitted to the competition, will have to bring a certificate issued by a professor of geometry and perspective, and another issued by a professor of anatomy, about their diligence in the classes of one and the other or their abilities in the sciences that make up the corresponding subject" [18. p. 256].

Not having any of the small prizes, not having any certificates from the relevant professors, Fragonard, through the patronage of Boucher, was nevertheless admitted to the competition. Here the young artist presented his first historical painting "Jeroboam sacrificing to idols" (1752, School of Fine Arts, Paris). Unexpectedly, the canvas was awarded the first prize.

The twenty-year-old painter, who started art training so late and had never been a student of the Academy, managed to convince the commission of his undoubted talent and received the right to a pensioner trip to Rome. For Fragonard, the victory in the competition for the Rome Prize was a great triumph, which, however, did not turn the young artist's head. He was well aware of how much he still had to learn in order to turn from a promising beginner into a mature master. Fortunately, the opportunity to improve in painting was given to him. The trip was postponed, as it was necessary to wait until the French Academy in Rome would free up places for new students – the number of such places was limited. In order to make the waiting not so much painful as useful, the Academy organized a School of patronized Students (Ecole des ?l?ves prot?g?s). Organized by order of King Louis XV, the school opened in 1749, just four years before Fragonard entered it. Sh.-A. Kuapel (1694-1752) was appointed the first director. Jacques Dumont (1701-1781) was put in charge of the work of young people, who was very quickly replaced by Carl Vanloo (1705-1765). The school was created only for the winners of the Rome Prize. Staying there was beneficial in every way. In addition to the opportunity to advance far in skill, students received the necessary general education. Here, "they fought in every way with their ignorance in the field of literature, gave them the rudiments of history and geography ..." [7. p. 13]. Young people were also provided with shelter, food, firewood and an annual stipend of three hundred livres. A building was allocated for the school next to the Louvre – between the Old Louvre Square and Fromanto Street.

It is interesting to note that this educational institution, despite its official status, had the character of a home school. Karl Vanloo himself lived here, and all the household chores related to the maintenance of students fell on the shoulders of his wife. P. de Nolak writes that the Vanloo spouses spent their own funds on students, since payments from the king were insufficient [17. p. 24]. Students were initially supposed to be quite a few – only six people, four of them painters and two sculptors. Then there were a few more students – up to eight or nine people. Fragonard, who entered the school on May 20, 1753, found himself in a rather motley company. Charles Monnet (1732-1808), a pupil of Jean II Retou (1692-1768), a future engraver and illustrator of books, a certain Guyard, a pupil of Bouchardon, the Brenet brothers, of whom one was a sculptor, the other a painter, the Delarue brothers, who also shared painting and sculpture, the now almost unknown Duez d'Arras, and also the son of J.B.S. Chardin, Sebastian Chardin.

In 1754, a place was vacated at the French Academy in Rome. Marquis de Marigny, then director (directeur g?neral) The Royal Academy sent a request to the School of patronized students, which of her pets would be more appropriate to send beyond the Alps. B. Lepissier, the king's first artist negotiating with the school, replied to the Marquis de Marigny with the following letter: "The choice could only fall on three students-painters [...]: Mr. Fragonard, who has been studying at the school for a year, Mr. Monnet, who spent nine months here and Mr. Brenet, whose classes last four months. However, my dear Sir, these three students feel so vividly the need for Mr. Vanloo's lessons in terms of color and composition that they humbly ask to be allowed to finish their classes under the guidance of such an excellent teacher. [...] They have no other goal but to become more worthy of your patronage and take advantage of the trip to Italy more fully" [6. pp. 37-38]. Fragonard spent the next two years on intense studies.

The students of the school had an important privilege – the right to exhibit their works in Versailles every year in January. Fragonard, however, managed to exhibit only once, since this privilege was abolished already in 1755 – it was considered too honorable for young masters, especially since they had to personally present their works to the king. Fragonard, the only time honored to enjoy the highest society, exhibited a painting entitled "Psyche shows her sisters gifts received from Cupid" (1753, National Gallery, London).

The year 1756 has come – the year of great changes in the life of the young master. He had to cross the Alps and go to Rome. The artist spent more than five years in Italy. Here he experienced a long period of confusion – for the first six months of his stay in Rome, Fragonard could neither draw nor write, feeling helpless in the face of the works of the greatest geniuses of the Renaissance. This led to a misunderstanding between Fragonard and the head of the French Academy in Rome, S.J. Natuar (1700-1777). Apparently, Natoire was dissatisfied with the general level of training of new students, as in letters to the Marquis de Marigny he constantly calls them "weak" and complains about the "inability" to achieve more. The Goncourt brothers tell the story that Natoir, "amazed by the helplessness that Fragonard demonstrated in the face of Nature, accused the young man of having deceived the academics and was not in fact the author of the canvas he sent to Rome. Natoire threatened Fragonard to write to Paris, and the young man only with great difficulty received a three-month reprieve from him. He used these three months to work day and night, drawing with a model and with an ecorche. Natuar, soon convinced of his mistake, gave Fragonard his friendship" [11. p. 299]. We should go a little deeper into the problem raised by Natuar. What did it mean to "cheat the Academy" and was it possible for its students? The Statute of the Academy pays a lot of attention to the conditions of the competition and the production of competitive works: "The mentioned competition opens at the beginning of April each year. The Academy evaluates the level and abilities of those who want to be admitted to it, according to sketches, graphic or pictorial, or according to a model made of clay, which must be made within the walls of the Academy and in the presence of a professor on duty. The persons who were admitted to the competition will have to produce a painting or a bas-relief in the classrooms prepared at the Academy specifically for this purpose, and will be excluded if they receive assistance fraudulently" [18. p. 256].

Thus, the production of the canvas within the walls of the Academy should have practically eliminated the possibility of deception. It is obvious, however, that such cases have happened, which led to increased attention to this problem.  

Gradually, persistent studies began to bear fruit, Fragonard's successes were recognized as more than satisfactory. If we look at the reports sent from the French Academy in Rome to Paris, we will see that Fragonard was the subject of his new teacher's concerns and received quite constructive criticism. So in the corresponding report for 1758 we read: "About the picturesque male figure of Mr. Fragonard. We are less satisfied with this figure than we might have been if we hadn't known about the brilliant abilities he demonstrated in Paris. We are not talking about any negligence at all, but there are fears that the imitation of some masters would not harm him and make him fall into the mannerism of color, as happened in this work, where there are many blue and little plausible golden-pink shades. One might think that he imitated Barocci, a master in many ways excellent, but whose color is dangerous to imitate" [6. p. 217].

It is quite clear that the young artist has already managed to win the favor of his new teacher, who is thinking about how best to educate a student and direct his talent to the heights of art. In the future, Fragonard's relationship with the director of the French Academy in Rome was quite successful, and it was to Natuar that the young master owed the extension of his stay in Italy. Fragonard took advantage of this time to travel around most of the Renaissance country in the company of friends, such as Hubert Robert and the Abbot de Saint-Non, and replenish his knowledge of art and pleasant memories.

The beginning and the end of the academic career of J.-O. FragonardUpon his return to Paris, Fragonard began long-term work on the canvas for the title of appointed.

The painter executed this work in a new studio at the Louvre, which he would not have been provided without the sanction of the Academy. Initially, Fragonard shared an atelier with another master of the household genre – Pierre-Antoine Baudouin, a student and son-in-law of Boucher, that is, obviously, an old acquaintance. They were allocated a workshop shortly before that of the deceased Jean-Battiste Desai (1729-1765). Obviously, after Baudouin's death in 1769, Fragonard remained the sole owner of the workshop. French researcher S. Gabillot writes: "To have an apartment in the Louvre was the object of desire of all artists of that time. It was a privilege and, especially, a recognition of talent" [10. p. 229].

Here Fragonard executed the canvas "Korez and Kalliroya" (1765, Louvre) – a work that not only provided the young artist with the title of appointed, but also earned many favorable reviews from contemporaries. The plot was borrowed from Pausanias, which describes the love story of the priest Korez to the girl Kalliroi and his tragic death.

The painting was presented at the Salon of 1765 under No. 176 and attracted favorable responses from most critics. In the official brochure dedicated to the Salon, it was noted that this work belongs to the king and reproductions will be made from it at the tapestry manufactory [9. p. 30]. D. Diderot dedicates a rather long essay to the painting in the form of a dialogue with his publisher F.-M. Grimm. The philosopher describes an alleged dream he had, which completely coincides with the scene presented by Fragonard. Pointing out several shortcomings during an exciting conversation, such as the inexpressiveness of the main character, painted in too faded colors, the interlocutors draw a conclusion quite favorable for the artist: "Fragonard painted a beautiful picture. It contains all the magic, all the subtle tricks that the palette is capable of. The plans of this artist could not be more majestic; he lacks only the verisimilitude of colors and technical perfection, which he will eventually have when he gains experience" [2. Vol. 1, p. 182].

Sh.-Zh. Maton de Lacour (1738-1793) left notes describing each of the exhibitors in sufficient detail. About Fragonard , he writes the following: "Mr. Fragonard presented a big picture… She portrays the great priest Korez, who sacrifices himself to save Kalliroi. The lighting is transmitted very successfully. The heads are well matched. The one that belongs to Korez perfectly combines pride and inspiration. The audience seems surprised. This work does a lot of honor to its creator and is one of the most beautiful in the Salon" [15. p. 21]. Judging by these reviews, the work was a complete success. Fragonard, whose name was hitherto practically unknown to the French public, found himself in the center of everyone's attention.

It would seem that everything contributed to the fact that Fragonard will be able to make an excellent academic career. This was expected by all the critics who noted the attention of "Koreza and Kalliroya". However, further events showed that the paths of the master and the Academy began to diverge.

In the next Salon, which came in 1767, Fragonard exhibited "The Cupid's Dance in the Sky" (Louvre), "The Old Man's Head" (location unknown) and numerous drawings. This time, criticism did not show the master the same favor. Diderot simply scolds the first of these works: "Here is a beautiful huge fried egg made of cupid figures; there are hundreds of these cupids here, they are intertwined with each other, everything is mixed: heads, hips, bodies, hands, and moreover with undoubtedly perfect art; but all this is devoid of power, colors, depth, differences of plans. [...] I expected some kind of sharp lighting effect from this artist, but this is not there either. Everything is flat, in yellowish and monotonous tones and written somehow flabby" [2. Vol. 2. p. 166]. About the exhibited drawings, Diderot says only that these are "pathetic things." Official criticism greeted the new canvases of the master with friendly silence.

Not a single large-scale historical canvas has come out from under the master's brush anymore. Fragonard's name is not mentioned in any subsequent Salon. Apparently, he no longer cared about sending any of his works to academic exhibitions. He did not bother to get the title of academician, although he had an official assignment from the Academy. The Academy waited for this work until 1788, but it never came. Initially, as a competitive work, Fragonard was asked to paint a ceiling for the Apollo Gallery in Versailles. However, on September 20, 1776, the artist was released from this obligation. "A letter was read from Mr. Fragonard, who was appointed, to Mr. Director, in which he (the artist. – E.A.) begs the Academy to release him from writing the ceiling in the Apollo Gallery, which he was ordered to do as a competitive work, because he is afraid not to cope with the task so quickly as to satisfy the Academy. The Academy complied with his request, and he will make another picture according to the usual academic rules" [19. p. 242]. Fragonard's name is no longer found in the protocols of the Academy until 1788, when it was reported that the ill-fated ceiling lamp in the Apollo hall was transferred as a competitive work to Mr. Gibal. The Academy, of course, also did not wait for the "other picture" from Fragonard. What was the reason for this turn of events?

Perhaps the cheerful master did not want to be bored, creating huge historical "machines". We have to admit that Fragonard did not have a penchant for this genre, which did not respond well to the lightness of the picturesque manner and the subtle humor characteristic of the master. He had time to try himself in various genres and understand his preferences and peculiarities. But why, then, having abandoned the historical genre, Fragonard did not bother to get the title of academician, say, in the class of household painting, landscape or portrait, because during the years of study he successfully tried himself in all these genres? Such an enterprise would almost certainly be crowned with success.

It can be assumed that the Academy could not add anything to the well-being of the artist. Perhaps the master was so loved by customers and patrons that his prestige and financial viability did not suffer any damage even without academic ranks? Fragonard's biography is well known enough to answer this question. Of course, our painter occupied a certain niche in the artistic environment of his time, producing elegant works on frivolous subjects. The story associated with the creation of the canvas "Happy Swing Opportunities" (Wallace Collection, London) is well known. One academic artist, full of consciousness of his significance, refused an "unworthy" plot, while Fragonard took it up without the slightest doubt and not only fully met the expectations of the customer, but also created a real masterpiece of rock art.

However, there were also many misunderstandings of a very unpleasant nature in relations with customers. So, between him and Marie-Madeleine Guimard, who ordered him the decoration of her mansion, there was a quarrel, as a result of which the order passed to the young J.L. David. Even more annoying was the episode with the order of Madame Du Barry, an influential favorite of King Louis XV. From this lady Fragonard received an order for four panels intended for the pavilion she built in Louvenciennes. The series is called "Stages of Love" and originally included four canvases: "Surprise", "Pursuit", "Crowned Lover" and "Love-Friendship" (Frick Collection, New York). Ordered in 1771, the panels were completed in 1773 and immediately rejected by the customer, who commissioned the production of new canvases by J.M. Vienne.

Fragonard also found patrons among patrons, although they were not always the most educated or the richest people. Undoubtedly, the acquaintance with the Abbot de Saint-Non, which took place during the master's youth, was successful. Thanks to this enthusiastic person, Fragonard was able to travel around Italy and get acquainted with many significant monuments.

Relations with the initiator of Fragonard's second trip to Italy, Pierre-Jacques-Onesimus Bergeret de Grandcourt (1715-1785), were much more complicated. Grandcourt's acquaintance with Fragonard was most likely through Saint-Non, who took every opportunity to praise his old friend and recommend him to influential people. Saint-Non always, moreover, spoke of Fragonard as a man who knows Italy very well and can be a great guide for anyone who wants to visit this country and get to know it.  This prompted Grandcourt, who planned the trip, to use the services of Fragonard.

Bergeret de Grandcourt is a representative of a very noble and venerable family, had ambitions of a patron of the arts and patron of the arts. The diary that the nobleman kept while traveling in Italy shows how little these claims were justified. In one place, Grandcourt writes that travelers "saw paintings everywhere, good and bad, as in Flanders; obviously, in all of Italy, as well as in Flanders, there were significant schools of skilled artists" [3. p. 118]. Elsewhere, Bergeret declares that "music is far from good in all of Italy" [3. p. 119]. These funny and upsetting quotes clearly show how little such a company suited an educated and sophisticated artist.

The most serious conflict between the patron and the artist broke out upon his return to Paris. The grandson of the master Theophile Fragonard writes: "Upon arrival, my grandfather demanded his belongings, but only his clothes were returned to him. I had to file a complaint and the judges ordered [Grandcourt] to pay for the drawings or return them. He preferred to pay 30,000 livres, then it was a substantial sum" [20. p. 370]. A very curious testimony showing that Fragonard was not one of those who are ready to give up their interests. It is also significant that Grandcourt agrees to pay for the drawings rather than part with them, despite a quarrel with the artist, about whom he speaks very unflatteringly in his diary.

These several stories show that the success of the master in interacting with the customer was variable. The artist did not have such a brilliant financial situation, as evidenced, for example, by the fact that he was not able to pay for his trip to Italy on his own. Nevertheless, he was not afraid to quarrel with customers and patrons, although there were no guarantees that in the event of a trial, he would be compensated, as happened in the dispute with Grandcourt. Fragonard shows himself to be a proud person. He has an extremely independent self-consciousness, and this is a remarkable symptom characteristic of the French culture of that era.

If not patrons and customers, then perhaps some institution other than the Royal Academy guaranteed the master "rootedness in being"? The answer to this question is also not difficult to find. Not a single document testifies that Fragonard had any relations with the Academy of St. Luke, which was also abolished in 1777 with the direct participation of the director of the Royal Academy, J.B.M. Pierre.

However, we know that Fragonard took some part in the famous Salon de la Correspondence, which owes its existence to Paean de La Blancherie (1752-1811). For ten years, this man organized large-scale private exhibitions, in which both little-known and outstanding masters of that time took part. The initiative of the young enthusiast, for obvious reasons, did not meet with the approval of the Royal Academy of Painting and Sculpture. Support came from the French Academy of Sciences. At a meeting on May 20, 1778, de La Blancherie's ideas were approved ^[12]. From the following year, a society called the Correspondence Salon received an official status.

Among the enlightened public, opinions about de La Blancherie's activities were divided. The author of the "Secret Memoirs" (in those years it was B.-F.-J. Mouffle d'angerville) claimed that Correspondence Salons resemble an empty conversation in a cafe, but in much more uncomfortable conditions [5. p. 21]. Antoine Rivarol, in his essay "A Little Collection about Great People" ("Petit almanach de nos grands hommes, 1788), on the contrary, praises de La Blancherie's project very much and regrets that he was given little support. "A great man was left alone with his plans and his genius on the Rue Saint-Andre Desar" [5. p. 22]. Indeed, in 1788, Blanchery's undertaking was in decline.

Nevertheless, for several years the Salon de La Blancherie was popular. It was not only students and unknown provincial artists who exhibited there. Often the exhibitors were renowned masters recognized by the Royal Academy and regularly exhibited at the Academic Salon, such as J.-B. Grez, J.-A. Houdon, J.-B. Lemoine, O. Pagu, A. Valaye-Koster. The most famous artist of her time, M.-L.-E. Viger-Lebrun, exhibited at Blanchery in 1783, that is, directly in the year of her admission to the Royal Academy. A. Labille-Guillard also arrived.

Fragonard participated in exhibitions in 1779, 1781, 1782 and 1785. Information about the works presented by him has been preserved, which, contrary to expectations, turn out to be very few. In 1779, he shows only one drawing called "A child holding a swaddled cat in his hands, while another is amused by the animal's predicament." Unfortunately, the author does not indicate in what technique the work is executed [5. pp. 84-85].

In 1781, as many as three works by Fragonard were exhibited, two in watercolor technique and one drawing by bistrom: "A young mother of a family busy caring for her children", "The Virgin Mary sitting next to St. Joseph and petted by the infant Jesus, while a group of angels looks at them", "The interior of the stable, in which a sleeping woman is seen hugging a dog, and an ox, who seems surprised and confused by this sight." In 1782, Fragonard showed a landscape "A young man on a hill playing on a flageolet next to a young girl who is tending sheep." In 1785, "Cupids Frolicking in the Clouds" were exhibited. We do not know exactly what kind of work it was, perhaps the same "omelet" that Diderot spoke so unfavorably about.

We see that Fragonard turns out to be far from the most active exhibitor of the Correspondence Salon. Most of the few works exhibited by him are drawings. Not about any monographic exhibition, like the one that J.M. was awarded. Vienne in 1783, the speech did not come. By participating in the Correspondence Salon, Fragonard did not secure either a resounding success or wealth. And, of course, this participation in no way replaced membership in the Academy of Painting and Sculpture.

The answer to Fragonard's indifference to an academic career lies in the artist's personality. We know some circumstances of his life that shed light on the peculiarities of his perception of the world. In 1769, the master married his compatriot, a native of Grasse, Marie-Anne Gerard, the daughter of a bankrupt perfumer. She came to Paris to work in the shop of a distant relative. In her spare time, Marie-Anne painted miniatures and painted fans. The shopkeeper, noticing his young subordinate's penchant for art, attached her as a pupil to the studio of Fragonard, with whom he was also connected by some distant kinship. Thus, Fragonard chooses a poor and insignificant woman for his wife, but endowed with a taste for art. He does not try to improve his financial situation or raise his social status through marriage.

One more important fact can be mentioned. Fragonard is that rare master who spent time writing "for himself" – a very uncharacteristic practice for the XVIII century. Most researchers agree that the series of "Fantasy Portraits" was not created for any particular customer. Strictly speaking, we are talking about a series of portraits of very real people, but the obvious costuming, theatricality of these portrait images, coupled with an unusual freedom of execution, forced us to perceive these works as some kind of "fantasy". The series includes fifteen canvases of the same size and similar composition: the figures shown approximately to the waist are separated from the viewer by a stone parapet. Dressed in magnificent clothes, they, as a rule, do not look at the viewer and are immersed in thoughts or engaged in any creative activity.

These canvases were painted in a free, "sketchy" manner, which was so ahead of its time that some researchers, in particular K. Mockler, decided to talk about Fragonard as an artist who anticipated the emancipation of painting from nature characteristic of modern art ^[16]. To realize his creative ideas, Fragonard does not need complex plots and large-scale canvases. Note that some of the "Fantasy Portraits" had an old label on the back with an inscription in French that this work was "written by Fragonard / in 1769 in one hour of time." Unprecedented speed for that era. Created a la prima, these works are completely innovative for their time.

Hundreds of drawings and oil paintings indicate that laziness did not look into his workshop. It was not carelessness or lack of self-esteem that prevented him from building an academic career. His ambitions lay in a different plane, having nothing to do with obtaining academic ranks. Throughout his career, an artistic experiment in itself remained valuable for him, allowing him to achieve one effect or another: special lighting, unusual coloristic structure or compositional construction. From the Academy Fragonard took what he needed most – education. The fact that education was the main value for him is evidenced by the fact of his biography that we have already mentioned: having the opportunity to leave for Italy early and thus accelerate his progress on the academic ladder, Fragonard refuses this for the sake of further apprenticeship with K. Vanloo.

The famous art connoisseur P.-J. Mariette, condemning the young master, wrote: "Modesty, which dominates the character of this artist, holds his hand and, always dissatisfied with his works, he denies himself and returns to himself, and this is a method that harms talent and which can lead this young artist off the right path. It would make me angry; the efforts he makes deserve more success" [14. p. 263]. For the modern reader, such reproaches sound like recognition of the master's originality and his dedication to the artistic process itself without regard to success.

ConclusionFragonard represents a new format of a creative personality that originated in the Parisian artistic environment long before the Barbizonians and Impressionists.

As already mentioned, the artists of the second half of the XVII century saw their main task in putting a barrier between themselves and the craft community. The most important thing for them was belonging to the creative elite. According to K. Mengon, since the era of Francis I, Italian painters occupied a privileged place in the French artistic environment, while the French were given a secondary role of students and imitators [13. pp. 11-12]. This could not but have an irritating effect on young French artists. The very foundation of the Royal Academy was intended to raise the prestige of the French art school. Therefore, at the time of the foundation of this institution, belonging to it was recognized by the majority of French masters as the only way to rise above the craft environment, to compare with Italian neighbors and to interact with rich and influential customers. The Academy, on the other hand, saw the only bulwark of its existence in royal patronage, and, therefore, it itself became for the court "an instrument for glorifying power and implementing state artistic plans and programs", writes V.P. Golovin [1. P. 215].

It should be noted that throughout the XVIII century, most artists sought to occupy a certain place in the academic hierarchy. However, gradually the established ties begin to disintegrate. Preferring academic education, which is still the best in France, individual masters no longer find support for creative self-awareness in one Academy. So, Fragonard no longer feels the need to constantly confirm his affiliation to an institution, even such a significant one as the Academy of Painting and Sculpture. He is primarily engaged in creative searches, doing what fascinates him at the moment. It is not for nothing that it is well known that Fragonard tried his hand at everything: portraits, various variations of everyday and historical painting, landscape, animalistic genre, created drawings and engravings, including book illustrations.

Note that the Academy, with all its adherence to the artistic doctrine developed by the founders and the rules enshrined in the charter, did not remain completely unchanged. People like Fragonard had a chance to influence the Academy and, ultimately, the entire artistic environment close to them. For their sake, the Academy made significant concessions, violated its own rules. She allowed Fragonard to compete for the Rome Prize, bypassing the charter and agreed to wait for his work for the title of academician for many years. All his life, until the time of the Napoleonic Empire, Fragonard remained the owner of the atelier provided by the Academy in the Louvre. Under the influence of such strong personalities, the Academy became more flexible, tried to evaluate talent not from official, but from human positions.

Naturally, Fragonard is not completely alone in his defense of creative freedom. In this regard, he is one with M.-K. de Latour, who spoke disrespectfully to the king when His Majesty prevented a session of work on a portrait of Madame de Pompadour; as well as with J.-B. Grez, who broke off relations with the Academy, which refused to give him a title in the class of historical painting. All these masters relied primarily on their talent, were confident in it and believed that it guaranteed them universal respect, even without the sanction of the authorities. It was thanks to such masters that professional art classes began to be perceived as an end, not a means. This was the last step that finally led the painter away from the craft and workshop medieval consciousness and opened the way for new generations to the extreme and uncompromising individualism of Van Gogh and Cezanne.