Charles-Joseph Natoire

Commisionned with its pendant for the salle à manger des petits appartements de Louis XV in the castle of Fontainebleau, 1737 ;
Left in the castle until 1793; 
Collection baron Dominique Vivan Denon (1747 - 1825) ; 
Sale Vivan Denon, Paris, 1er - 19 May 1826, lot 173
Perhaps sale Castellan, Paris, 23-24 March 1840, Lot 92 [The Fishing] ;
Galerie Franco di Castro, Rome

Perhaps, Académie royale de peinture et sculpture, July 1737 on the occasion of the election of new officiers de l'Académie

"Procès-verbaux de la Commission des Monuments, 1er septembre 1793-16 mars 1794", N.A.A.F., 1902-19036, p. pp. 181-183 ; 
F. Boyer, "Catalogue raisonné de l'oeuvre de Charles Natoire", A.A.F., 1949, n°296 ; 
Y. Bottineau, L'Art d'Ange-Jacques Gabriel à Fontainebleau, Paris, 1962, p. 38 ; 
J-P. Marandel, "Natoire aux appartements de Louis XV à Fontainebleau", Antologia di Belle Arti. Il Neoclassicismo III, 1991-1992, p. 129 et 131, ill. 4 ; 
Cat. Exp. Hanover, Toledo, Houston, 1997-1998, Intimate Encounters : Love and Domesticity in Eighteenth century France, Princeton, 1997, p. 120, ill. 46 ; 
F. Joulie, "Autour d'un tableau retrouvé pour les petits appartements de Louis XV à Fontainebleau, les premières pastorales de François Boucher", B.S.H.A.F. 2007, p. 179-180 ;
S. Caviglia-Brunel, Charles-Joseph Natoire, Paris, 2012, p. 272, P. 83, ill. p. 273, P. 85, ill.;
Cat. exp. Fontaineableau, Louis XV à Fontainebleau. La demeure des Rois au temps des Lumières, 2016, p. 146, p. 161, p. 163

Pour ces tableaux, le rapport de condition a été réalisé par une restauratrice extérieure, Madame Laurence Baron-Callegari. Nous pourrons vous transmettre son rapport comportant des photographies de détails complémentaires illustrant ses propos, sur simple demande. 1: Personnages se reposant auprès d’une fontaine. 2: La pêche Huiles sur toile rentoilées SUPPORT Les tableaux sont rentoilés. Leurs dimensions, 116cm x 89,5 cm sont originales. Sur les tranches, on observe les bords rabattus des toiles originales. La toile sur les bords n’est pas peinte et Les arcs de tension confirment la tension originale des toiles dans ce format. La vue a été totalement respectée lors du rentoilage. La tension des toiles est bonne. L’adhérence est dans son ensemble, et sur les deux tableaux, satisfaisante. Le réseau de craquelure du tableau 2, la pêche, est légèrement plus saillant. Dans l’ensemble la couche picturale semble légèrement aplanie par le repassage. COUCHE PICTURALE Les vernis sont réguliers légèrement oxydés et grisonnants. Dans certaines zones l’aspect pommelé de la couche picturale (partie centrale du tableau n°2, ciel des deux tableaux.) est dû aux usures superficielles de la couche picturale et non à des irrégularités de vernis. On observe quelques petites lacunes profondes essentiellement situées en bordure. Sur les deux tableaux, on observe de nombreuses usures superficielles. Le tableau de la pêche est nettement plus usé surtout dans la partie centrale. Les ombres dans l’ensemble sont affaiblies. Les usures de la deuxième couche pourraient nous faire confondre les restes de peinture originale avec des repeints anciens. Par exemple dans le paysage en arrière-plan du tableau numéro 2 et dans les ciels. Les tableaux ont été peints en deux étapes. La première couche est effectuée avec des tonalités plus lumineuses et claires. Par-dessus le peintre a repris sa composition avec des couches et des glacis plus sombres, brunâtre parfois. Nous estimons que ces deux interventions ont été effectuées assez rapidement l’une après l’autre. Il nous est difficile de savoir précisément si ces deux interventions sont liées dans le processus créatif ou si dans un deuxième temps l’artiste a décidé de modifier l’aspect général de ses compositions. Il nous semble que la première intervention est une mise en place de la composition que l’artiste a ensuite détaillée, homogénéisée modulée par des glacis. Construisant à cette étape les frondaisons vibrantes. Une observation plus longue et détaillée permettrait d’affiner et de confirmer, ou d’infirmer, ces dires. Certains bruns présentent un réseau de craquelures prématuré. (Angle bas droit du tableau 1). L’intervenant (restaurateur ?) n’a manifestement pas compris la construction de ces tableaux et a cherché à faire apparaitre la sous couche plus lumineuse, confondant glacis ancien avec des vieux vernis. L’usure partielle de la couche finale instaure une hétérogénéité dans l’atmosphère générale. Certaines zones superficiellement usées apparaissent plus lumineuses et vives, (les rouges, certaines carnations) alors que les zones adjacentes plus adoucies possèdent encore leurs glacis de finition. PROBLEME DES ANGLES Les 4 angles sont peints dès l’origine mais sont très neutres dans la composition. Dans le tableau 1 la frondaison sur la fontaine semble ne pas être terminée dans la partie haute. La zone était sans doute destinée à être cachée dans une boiserie SIGNATURES Les signatures ont été effectuées sur les glacis de finition. Elles sont antérieures au vieillissement (formation de craquelures) de la couche picturale. LES TABLEAUX SOUFFRENT D’UNE IMPORTANTE USURE SUPERFICIELLE. LA GRANDE QUALITE DE CES TABLEAUX POURRAIT ETRE RESTITUEE PAR UNE RESTAURATION APPROPRIEE QUI NE NECESSITERA PAS D’INTERPRETATION FORMELLE For these paintings, the condition report has been realized by an external restorer, Mrs Laurence Baron-Callegari. Her complete report with extra details photographs can be provided on request. 1: Figures Resting near a Fountain. 2: Fishing Oil on canvas, re-lined SUPPORT The canvases of the paintings are re-lined. Their dimensions, 116 cm x 89.5 (45 2/3 x 35 1/4 in.) are the original ones. On the edges, we note the folded borders of the original canvases. The canvas on the borders is not painted and the stretcher garlands confirm the original tension of the canvases in this format. The appearance was fully respected during the re-lining. The tension of the canvases is good. The overall adhesion is satisfactory on both paintings. The network of crackling on painting no. 2, Fishing, is slightly more prominent. Overall, the pictorial layer seems slightly flattened by ironing. PICTORIAL LAYER The varnishes are even, slightly oxidized and greying. In some areas the speckled appearance of the pictorial layer (the central part of painting no. 2, the skyline of both paintings) is due to the surface wear of the pictorial layer and not to the varnish’s unevenness. We note some small deep losses, mainly along the border. On both paintings, we note numerous surface wear. The Fishing painting is clearly more worn especially in the central part. Overall, the shadows are weakened. Wear on the second layer could be confused the remains of the original paint with older repaints. For example, in the landscape of the background of painting no. 2 and in the skies. The paintings were executed in two phases. The first layer was realized with brighter and lighter tones. On top, the painter had resumed its composition with darker layers and glazes, sometimes brownish. We believe that these two interventions were done fairly quickly, one after the other. It is difficult to know precisely whether these two interventions were connected to the creative process, or whether during the second phase the artist had decided to modify the general aspect of his compositions. It seems that the first intervention was a preparation of the composition that the artist then detailed, homogenized, and modulated by glazes. Creating the bright foliage at this phase. A longer and detailed examination would make it possible to precise and confirm, or to invalidate, these statements. Some browns have a network of premature craquelures. (Lower right angle of painting no. 1). The refinisher (restorer?) obviously did not understand the structure of these paintings and sought to make appear the under-layer more luminous, confusing the older glaze with the old varnish. The partial wear of the final layer creates heterogeneity in the general atmosphere. Some superficially worn areas appear brighter and livelier (reds, some flesh tones) while the adjacent areas are softer, still having their finishing glazes. PROBLEM OF ANGLES The 4 angles are painted from the origin but are very neutral in the composition. In painting no. 1 the foliage on the fountain seems to not be finished in the upper part. The area, without a doubt, was intended to be hidden under a woodwork. SIGNATURES The signatures were executed onto the finishing glazes. They are prior to the aging (forming of crackling) of the pictorial layer. THE PAINTINGS ARE SUBJECT TO MAJOR SUPERFICIAL WEAR. THE GREAT QUALITY OF THESE PAINTINGS CAN BE RESTORED BY AN APPROPRIATE RESTORATION THAT WILL NOT REQUIRE FORMAL INTERVENTION
"In response to your inquiry, we are pleased to provide you with a general report of the condition of the property described above. Since we are not professional conservators or restorers, we urge you to consult with a restorer or conservator of your choice who will be better able to provide a detailed, professional report. Prospective buyers should inspect each lot to satisfy themselves as to condition and must understand that any statement made by Sotheby's is merely a subjective, qualified opinion. Prospective buyers should also refer to any Important Notices regarding this sale, which are printed in the Sale Catalogue.
NOTWITHSTANDING THIS REPORT OR ANY DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING A LOT, ALL LOTS ARE OFFERED AND SOLD AS IS" IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS OF BUSINESS PRINTED IN THE SALE CATALOGUE."

Filled with an elegance inherited from Watteau - of which Natoire here stages one of the motifs being the gallant figure supporting the cavalier[1] - the characters from our compositions meander in a dreamy vegetation, the result of a sensitive observation by an artist still mesmerized by Italy which he had recently left.
With this series of canvases directly painted for the King of France at Fontainebleau, Charles-Joseph Natoire (1700 - 1777) indeed presents one of the masterpieces in his full maturity as an artist, as well as a true segment of flourishing painting during the 18th century.

Nattoire arrived in Paris at Francois Lemoyne’s studio around 1720 [2] and quickly distinguished himself through his brilliant ability to assimilate different techniques. From his master, he inherited this beautiful grand style of painting which he had exhibited only faint echoes of in his distant Languedoc. His town of Nimes and his religious rifts were not conducive to the development of a young artist. His first successes were thus collaborative works with Lemoyne and unveiled artworks full of a generous and ample palette and a Baroque finishing [3], while already leaving suggestions here and there of a more fleshy voluptuousness expected from a contemporary of Boucher. His paintings then progressed and naturally continued to be nourished by various influences that spanned his life as an enlightened, open-minded, and curious painter of his time. Victor of the Grand Prix de Rome in 1721, he nevertheless won his trip to Italy perhaps more for his promising personality, than for his sole and previous honourable distinction in the competition. During the Regency, the award did not guarantee the journey, and the Duke d’Antin, then Superintendent of the King’s Buildings, decided on what qualities in the winner merited the trip to Rome. The Duke wrote of our young painter, aged twenty-three, that he represented “what was best and most hopeful in our Academies”. His intuition was good because the young artist transformed his stay into constant sources of renewed inspiration.

In Rome, he was an assiduous sketcher, deceiving the preconceived idea that Natoire would above all be a colourist and not a talented craftsman with the pencil. He studied and copied Antiquity and the Renaissance masters, but primarily, ahead of Robert Hubert, he devoted great care to landscape depictions of the Italian countryside. He was also a fervent admirer of the work of the Italian painter Pier Leone Ghezzi (1674-1755), who also represented daily Italian life in magnificent landscapes, following the example of Thomas Gainsborough who, a contemporary.

On his return to France, the young Natoire’s reputation,  still exuding all the best of Italy, paved the way for a fine career at the Academy and with Royal patronage. It was Natoire who was appointed to enhance the atmosphere of the building of Fontainebleau, deemed too vast. For his hunting trips, Louis XV set aside for himself a small and a large dining room overlooking the garden of Diana and entrusted the best artists to produce the decor. With his previous commissions for the Soubise townhouse, Natoire had beforehand become accustomed, in his own words, “to creep on doors” [5]. Alongside Boucher and Lancret he decorated the small dining room in 1737, and along with van Loo and Jean-Francois de Troy worked on the large dining room. Originally integrated into the arched woodwork, curved on the top and with sidings on the lower part (Figure 1), Natoire’s paintings were later moved during the rearrangements made by the King in 1749, transforming the rooms into a guest’s study (fig 2). According to the art historian Susana Caviglia- Brunel, during that time signatures and dates  were added, although by someone other than the artist, in order to unify the set.

Inventoried by the Revolutionaries and later dispersed, Natoire’s paintings left the Royal domain to find themselves in prestigious collections, such as that of the great historian and curator at the Louvre, Vivan-Denon, himself a great admirer of Italy which he knew well, having served as ambassador to the country. Today, in an Italian collection of refined aesthetes, Natoire’s works continue to recall this diversified creation, converging Italian views and French gallant scenes.

[1] The same type of scene can be found in Watteau’s painting, Rendez-vous de chasse, London, Wallace collection, inv. P 416.2
[2] The exact date of his arrival at Lemoyne’s studio in unknown, but was shortly before he received the Prix de Rome in 1721, consult S. Caviglia-Brunel, Charles-Joseph Natoire 1700 – 1777, Paris, 2012, p. 18.
[3] Also note the work currently housed inside the town hall of Arles, The Healing of the Blind, finished by Natoire, shortly after his master, Leymone’s suicide, as a final tribute.
[4] Letter from Duke d’Antin to the King’s first painter, Louis de Boullogne the younger, 12 October 1723.