Louis XIV’s Art Patronage: beyond art, into the realms of politics, culture and history.

Louis XIV, in his capacity as an art patron, created an influential artistic programme in the palace and grounds of Versailles. The significance of his patronage extends beyond art, into the realms of politics, culture and history, thus creating a body of work that is fascinating to study. In contrast to other rulers at the time, such as Rudolf II who viewed art purely for decoration and aesthetics, Louis XIV employed art as a royalist propaganda channel. The artist programme was developed to create a persuasive universal representation of Louis XIV and his court as the divine sovereignty in France, and was delivered by a single chief artist, Charles Le Brun, to ensure the consistency and validity of the work. The influence of his art patronage during his reign was extensive; cementing Versailles as the new home of French court, establishing his position as divine ruler, and controlling the narrative of his reign to his subjects. Furthermore, the implications of his patronage extend beyond his time in power, through the use of symbolic motifs, the most prominent being his representation as Apollo the “Roi Soleil” (Sun King) - a symbol that is now embedded in his personal history. This essay explores the potency of Louis XIV as an art patron in relation to his time and place in history, the operation and influence of the artist programme narrative during the time of his rule and the lasting impact of symbolism in the representation of his reign throughout history. 

Historical context of Louis XIV’s art patronage

Firstly, it is imperative to understand the significance of Versailles as the place in which Louis XIV chose to house his court and commission his patronage. At the commencement of Louis XIV’s reign in 1661, it was decided to move the court from the Louvre, at the centre of Paris, to the small hunting lodge of Versailles. The purpose of this manoeuvre was to distance his subjects from their “power bases” and assert his own supremacy[1]. As a result, Louis XIV sought to ensure his power penetrated every aspect of court life in the palace and cemented his influence in the new court by transforming Versailles into a spectacle.[2]  Interestingly, William Beik, professor of French history who is well versed Louis XIV and his reign,  describes the court of Louis XIV as “a ‘gilded cage’ to entrap and bedazzle the nobility”[3]. One key tactic in this strategy was to use art as a vessel for “royalist self-promotion”[4]. This is evidenced by the recurring motifs and themes featured throughout the artistic programme that appear to emphasise the unity of Louis XIV reign, the strength of military leadership and the grandeur and authority of his reign[5]. It was from this vision, in the context of the new court, that the artistic programme within the chateau and gardens was commissioned.

Political motivation for Louis XIV’s art patronage

Once Louis XIV had relocated the court from Paris to Versailles, the king needed to establish himself as an “omnipotent absolute monarch”[6] in his court. Despite Louis XIV often being regarded as a ruler with ultimate power, sociologist Norbert Elias suggests that the power of the king depended on many structures to rule.[7] To maintain his position, Elias explains the king had to put in place “calculated strategy governed by the peculiar structure of court society”[8] to remind his society of his positioning and power as the sole ruler of France. Therefore, King Louis XIV had a unique motivation as an art patron to commission works that delivered a specific purpose in political and societal spheres. The artworks were more than mere decorations; instead, they played an active role in Louis XIV ruling strategy to establish his reign.

In delivering this strategy, the arts became centralised to ensure a unified image of the king and his authority.[9] Herbert suggests that “The king can be compared only to himself, represented only by himself; no historical or mythological hero can serve as an exemplary figure to represent his image.”[10] The minister in charge of creating his image was French artist and later director of the Gobelins factory, Charles Le Brun. In contrast to other rulers (such as Rudolf II or Catherine Medici) who typically commissioned a variety of artists to produce works, Louis XIV trusted one person to deliver the programme. This was highly successful because it created a singular narrative of Louis XIV’s magnificence and splendour. Burchard writes that by having one individual in charge of the arts in France that the depictions “gain credibility when seen as visually translated by one artist.”[11] One reason for this may be, that Le Brun understood the greater purpose of the works and could plan the works in advance to create a cohesive depiction of the king and his reign.

Louis XIV’s authoritative role in the arts not only enabled him to control the representations of himself, it also allowed him to position himself as a supporter of French industries. The extent of his authority is demonstrated in The Viste du roy Aux Gobelins Tapestry,1673 currently on display at the Palace of Versailles and is a part of the Histoire du roi series initiated by Charles Le Brun. The tapestry depicts the visual narrative Louis XIV visiting the Gobelins factory in Paris where the majority of his tapestries were produced. The artwork depicts the king, surrounded by his ministers, including Charles Le Brun who was director at the factory, and workers busy in the factory. The work is significant because tapestry production is a slow process (some works taking many years to produce), the materials used to create these works such as silk and golden thread were very expensive and, at times, were also hard procure.[12] Wolf Burchard suggests that these tapestries represented “the rhetoric of Louis XIV’s sovereignty [that] certainly perpetuated the idea that the power invested in the king derived from a divine source – that is, an external source which therefore could not be called into question.” [13] Thus, the tapestries as an “external source” [14]  emphasise the king’s divine power and ability to control. Furthermore, during his reign, tapestries became a prevalent art form to spread royalist propaganda and the medium became a symbol of royal authority.    

The Viste du roy Aux Gobelins Tapestry, 1673, 3.70m x 5.76m

Another intriguing occurrence during the patronage of Louis XIV was the authority of Charles Le Brun in the representation of the king in art. Le Brun became the principal minister for the king’s artistic programme and, as one of Louis XIV most trusted advisors, he had a great deal of influence over the artistic agenda of Versailles. No other French artists managed to exercise as much control as Le Brun.[15] The artistic authority and control that Le Brun maintained is reflected in The Viste du roy Aux Gobelins. In the work, the king stands on higher ground compared to the other figures and it appears that Le Brun is imitating the king’s stance.[16] Some have inferred that by having Le Brun stand in a similar way to the king Le Brun symbolised his own artistic authority and control.[17] It is suggested that the work portrays the king’s role as a patron and initiator of the programme and flaunts the authority of Le Brun in shaping the works.[18]

 Influence of Louis XIV’s art patronage on court society and culture

Perhaps the most influential aspect of Louis XIV’s artistic programme is the representation of the king as Apollo, the sun god. Consistently, throughout the halls of the palace and outside amongst the gardens, representations of Louis XIV as Apollo occur. The king was first depicted as the divine Apollo early on in his reign and in 1663 this symbolic representation became solely reserved for him.[19] Interestingly, before this time, the symbolic representation of Apollo was employed when celebrating deeds of men in honorific speeches.[20] So, why would the king commission works depicting himself as the ancient god Apollo? It could be suggested that he would want his audience to associate him with the morality and values of the ancient gods.[21] For example Apollo, the son of Zeus, was associated with the sun and light. Nathan Whitman, art historian, believes that the use of Apollo imagery was “emblematic of beneficent power and reason.”[22] The repetitive reference to Louis XIV as Apollo intended strengthen the associations of solar iconography. Even if not represented as a deity, Louis XIV was repeatedly portrayed with ancient symbolic gods or goddesses to represent his higher role in society, and power within the court.

The influence of the symbolism presented within the works of art, coupled with their placement in space within the chateau and the “architectural allegory”[23] featured throughout the gardens, allowed Louis XIV to be ever-present without being physically present in court life.[24] It is interesting to see how the palace could become a representation of Louis XIV. Peter Burke suggests that the symbolic representations of Louis XIV throughout the gardens and chateau of Versailles were “a symbol of its owner.” [25] This is because the symbolic representations constantly reminded the audience, the court society, of Louis XIV.  The large scale, cohesive and propagandist program emphasised the power of the king. In essence, Versailles became an “extension”[26] of the king himself.

A prime example of this intention is demonstrated in the two works The Apollo Fountain and The Grotto of Thetis. The Apollo Fountain was commissioned and installed in 1671 and designed by Le Brun and Jean-Baptiste Tuby. The fountain depicts Apollo surging out of the water, led by four horses and accompanied by tritons to signify the beginning of a new day. [27]  The fountain in its pyramidal balanced structure is strategically positioned at the end of the Allée Royale axis and closest to the palace.[28] Apollo and the figures surrounding him, which come surging out of the water, look towards the palace and face east to west. In turn, the sun rises behind the sculpture to then reflect light on to the palace and it has been suggested that Versailles often referenced as “the palace of the sun.”[29] Pincas agrees and suggests the placement and orientation of the great axis [in which the sculpture is placed] … runs from east to west.”[30] Moreover, The Apollo Fountain is one of the first sculptures to be seen from the palace and it could be suggested that it would have been the first sculpture viewed by the people of the court at the beginning of each day, a significant reminder that Apollo “announce[d] the beginning of the day.”[31] The placement of the Apollo fountain reminded the court of Louis XIV eternal power as divine ruler and functioned as a ‘stand-in’ for Louis XIV. [32] Additionally, the ability to control water further emphasised his control and the ability as king to lead the spectacle of court function. The structural reference to the day commencing on his command further asserts the centrality of the Louis XIV in French political life, and the use of symbolism emphasises his position as divine ruler and God’s representative on earth.

The Apollo Fountain, Versailles

Furthermore, The Grotto of Thetis was one of the first works commissioned as a part of the apollonian themed narrative weaved through the gardens. The sculpture is a water pavilion that is adorned with sea shells and objects and again draws on apollonian iconography to represent the ‘sun king’. Apollo is depicted as resting amid nymphs with the figure leaning back on one elbow and reaching out to be washed. The nymphs are placed on differing levels surrounding and attending to Apollo’s needs. In contrast to The Apollo Fountain, the Apollo figure in this work is not surging forward into the day but instead is resting after, it could be suggested, a taxing day ruling the nation of France. This work emphasises and gently reminds the court audience that Louis XIV can take pleasure and rest after ruling the nation. [33] The two works weave the apollonian narrative throughout the grounds of Versailles and further assert his omnipresent power over the court as, very much like the performative ritual of the court, the day could not begin or end without the king. Thus, as suggested by Walton, the sculptural architecture which was evident throughout the gardens of Versailles, “began to spell out the propaganda of the glory of the reign.”[34] If one looks at the sculptures more deeply, it becomes apparent that the works are more complex because they become an adaption of the “political investments and projects”[35] that Louis XIV was undertaking. It may appear that the commissioning of works, such as those above, was for pure aesthetics purposes, yet further investigation reveals the greater strategic purpose of the artistic programme woven throughout Versailles.[36] Additionally, art historian Claire Goldstein explains that this sculptural work “furnishes a model of artistic production consonant with the transformation of royal authority,”[37] that is to say as the artist programme at Versailles grew, so did his power.

The Grotto of Thetis, Versailles

Influence and limitations of Louis XIV’s art patronage

In order to understand the depth of influence the artist programme had on the court of Louis XIV and the people of France, it is important however to consider several questions in regards to how the audience interpreted the symbolism presented. Did they interpret them as the King and Le Brun had intended? It could be suggested the repetitive allegories of the king formed a consistent narrative to facilitate indoctrination. Did the society recognise the images, and understand their function? It could be suggested that the majority courtiers could understand because they were “familiar”[38] metaphors in society at the time. Louis XIV reigned in a time where society held a “pansemiotic world view,”[39] meaning the educated population found several layers of meaning in every object and occurrence they encountered. In fact, emblems with symbolic meaning were a feature in daily life,[40] often used to remind individuals of their morality.[41] However, it has been implied that only the educated and court society could understand the representations presented because of their reference to classical history and mythology. One had to be a “suitable spectator” to interpret these complex representations[42]; well educated, informed and prompted in the narrative symbolism of the king.[43] What happens however, when there is more than one interpretation to the meaning represented in the works commissioned by Louis XIV? As philosopher, Richard Wollheim writes on representation, there can be more than one experience or interpretation of a symbolic work.[44] Conversely, he explains “the experience of seeing-in that determines what it represents, or the appropriate experience, is the experience that tallies with the artists intention.”[45] Since, the artist (Le Brun) ensured the continuity of the representation of Louis XIV throughout the gardens and halls of Versailles it is fair to say that each artwork commissioned added to the experience of viewing the glory of the king. [46] Yet it is important to note that these metaphorical images were not there to simply feature the likeness of king. Instead, they were to remind the audience, in this case, the courtiers, of his divinity and power. The images were to remind or even “persuade”[47] the spectators of the greatness of the king. Louis Marin, French philosopher who’s seminal work Portrait of the King explores the exhibited image of the king proposes that “To ‘represent,’ then, is to show, to intensify, to duplicate a presence.”[48] One cannot look at Versailles it’s scale without congratulating Louis XIV on the immensity that was achieved. As the majority of the courtiers were well educated in the metaphorical representations of Louis XIV, they were “suitable spectator[s]”[49] to understand the message and be affected by the royalistic promotion. Courtiers even came to be expected to identify the king with figures such as Alexander the great and Apollo the Greek god.[50]  

Finally, to understand the wider impact in culture of the art patronage of Louis XIV, it is imperative to look beyond the palace gates, as the influence of the Apollo image was not limited to the court at Versailles. Once this imagery became exclusive, as mentioned above, the king began to distribute this image throughout France through the commissioning of paintings, print, and medals.[51] By creating a strong and unified artistic programme which was consistent in depicting the king in a certain light, Le Brun ensured that the narrative of the king’s reign was cohesive and consistent. One reason for this may be, that it emphasised the king as one sole ruler. France was ruled as one religion and state all united by one king.[52] Art historian Betsy Rosasco implies the kings arts minister Charles Le Brun sought to portray to France Louis XIV and his achievements through “indirect terms.”[53] by presenting the promotion of the reign in “indirect terms”[54] it allowed the minister to promote the interests of the king subtly. If the promotion were to be more blatant, and the audience be inundated with one representation of Louis XIV, it would have been less successful because the audience would become exasperated. Thus, these images of the king would be ignored. Therefore, by commissioning works that added to the symbolic representation of Louis XIV as the sun king and Apollo it allowed the king to control his image to promote his reign consistently. Louis XIV was not only successful in managing his image throughout his reign, but the symbolism of Apollo followed his history after his death, as evidenced by Beik, who writes that these symbolic representations illuminate “The overpowering elegance of the chateau and park at Versailles, where every statue and fountain was part of a symbolic program glorifying the king, add weight, even today, to the legend.”[55] It is evident that, his representation as sun king is still relevant today. For example, LVMH owned company, Louis Vuitton recently revamped their flagship store Louis Vuitton Maison Vendôme in Paris. To celebrate the renovation, the building and its windows were designed to be reminiscent of Versailles and its sun king.[56] The exterior depicts rays of sun reminiscent of the imagery at Versailles and inside the store there is a statue of Louis XIV inspired by the drawing of Louis XIV in the Costume of the Sun King in the Ballet "La Nuit," 1653.

Louis Vuitton Maison Vendôme , Paris.

Sculpture of Louis XIV inside Louis Vuitton Maison Vendôme, Paris.

Drawing of Louis XIV in the Costume of the Sun King in the Ballet "La Nuit," 1653.

In his capacity as an art patron, Louis XIV was highly successful in commissioning an artistic programme in the palace and grounds of Versailles whose sphere of influence extended beyond art, into the realms of politics, culture and history. The significance of his patronage is evident in his use as of art as a royalist propaganda channel, using the calculated symbol of Apollo to represent himself and his reign in his time of power and throughout history. The depth of the symbolic narrative strengthened by the use of space throughout the palace, demonstrate the strategic nature of his patronage. Laurence Bradford Packard explains how Louis XIV used his art patronage to be “embodied in brick and mortar,”[57] an idea clearly illustrated in the self-representation woven throughout the palace and gardens of Versailles. The uniqueness of his patronage is evidenced in the immense influence over the court at the time, and the lasting impact on his personal, political and cultural history.

References

[1] William Beik, A Social and Cultural History of Early Modern France. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 325.

[2] Guy Walton, Louis XIV's Versailles (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986.) 60.

[3] Beik, A Social and Cultural History of Early Modern France, 326.

[4] Ibid.,

[5] Claire Goldstein, Vaux and Versailles: the appropriations, erasures, and accidents that made 
modern France (Philadelphia, Pa.: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008.) 194.

[6] Norbert Elias, The Court Society. Translated by Edmund Jephcott. (Oxford: Blackwell, 1983), 3.

[7] Elias, The Court Society, 3.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Claire Goldstein, Vaux and Versailles, 85.

[10] James Herbert, "Louis XIV’s Versailles." In Our Distance from God: Studies of the Divine and the Mundane in Western Art and Music, (California: University of California Press, 2008) 26.

[11] Wolf Burchard, The Sovereign Artist: Charles Le Brun and the image of Louis XIV, (London: Paul Holberton Publishing, 2016), 27.

[12] Aurora Von Goeth and Jules Harper, Louis XIV: the real sun king. (Barnsley, South Yorkshire: Pen & Sword Military, 2018,) 71.

[13] Burchard, The Sovereign Artist: Charles Le Brun and the image of Louis XIV, 113.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Burchard, The Sovereign Artist: Charles Le Brun and the image of Louis XIV, 15.

[16] Ibid., 116.

[17] Ibid., 119.

[18] Ibid., 153.

[19] Nathan Whitman, “Myth and Politics: Versailles and the Fountain of Latona” in Louis XIV and the craft of kingship, edited by John Rule. (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1970), 294.

[20] Whitman, Myth and Politics: Versailles and the Fountain of Latona,” 294.

[21] Peter Burke, The fabrication of Louis XIV (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992.) 26.

[22] Whitman, “Myth and Politics: Versailles and the Fountain of Latona,” 294.

[23] Burke, The fabrication of Louis XIV, 26.

[24] Ibid., 18. 

[25] Ibid., 18. 

[26] Ibid., 18. 

[27] Robert W. Berger, A Royal Passion: Louis XIV as Patron of Architecture. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 55.

[28] Stéphane Pincas, Versailles: the history of the gardens and their sculpture. (New York: Thames and Hudson, 1996), 152.

[29] Pincas, Versailles: the history of the gardens and their sculpture, 119.

[30] Pincas, Versailles: the history of the gardens and their sculpture, 119.

[31] Herbert,"Louis XIV’s Versailles," 25.

[32] Thomas Hedin, “The petite commande of 1664: Burlesque in the Gardens of Versailles” 
The Art Bulletin 83, (2001): 659.

[33] Goldstein, Vaux and Versailles, 179.

[34] Ibid., 60.

[35] Goldstein, Vaux and Versailles, 178.

[36] Goldstein, Vaux and Versailles, 178.

[37] Goldstein, Vaux and Versailles, 194.

[38] Burke, The fabrication of Louis XIV, 19.

[39] Jan Westerhoff, “A World of Signs: Baroque Pansemioticism, the Polyhistor and the Early Modern Wunderkammer,” Journal of the History of Ideas, vol. 62, No. 4 (Oct, 2001): 636.

[40] Westerhoff, “A World of Signs: Baroque Pansemioticism, the Polyhistor and the Early Modern Wunderkammer,” 636.

[41] Ibid., 638.

[42] Richard Wollheim, “On Pictorial Representation” in Richard Wollheim on the art of painting: art as representation and expression, edited by Rob van Gerwen. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001,) 13.

[43] Westerhoff, “A World of Signs: Baroque Pansemioticism, the Polyhistor and the Early Modern Wunderkammer,” 638.

[44] Wollheim, “On Pictorial Representation,” 26.

[45] Wollheim, “On Pictorial Representation,” 26.

[46] Louis Marin, Portrait of the King. Translated by Martha M. Houle. (United Kingdom: Macmillan Press, 1998.) 5.

[47] Burke, The fabrication of Louis XIV, 19.

[48] Marin, Portrait of the King, 5.

[49] Wollheim, “On Pictorial Representation,” 13.

[50] Burke, The fabrication of Louis XIV, 28.

[51] Whitman, “Myth and Politics: Versailles and the Fountain of Latona,” 294.

[52] Burchard, The Sovereign Artist: Charles Le Brun and the image of Louis XIV, 27.

[53] Betsy Rosasco, "Masquerade and Enigma at the Court of Louis XIV." Art Journal 48, (1989): 157.

[54] Betsy Rosasco, "Masquerade and Enigma at the Court of Louis XIV." Art Journal 48, (1989): 157.

[55] Beik, A Social and Cultural History of Early Modern France, 326.

[56] Orla Pentelow, “Louis Vuitton returns home: Inside the new Place Vendôme store,” The Telegraph, October 4, 2018.  https://www.telegraph.co.uk/luxury/womens-style/inside-louis-vuitton-place-vendome-store/

[57] Laurence Bradford Packard, The Age Of Louis XIV (Hinsdale, IL: Dryden Press, 1962.) 23.

© Amelia Elsmore, 2022. Unauthorised use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Amelia Elsmore and ameliaelsmore.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.