Editing Academic art (section)

===Standardization: French academicism and visual arts===
[[File:Charles Le Brun 001.jpg|thumb|upright=0.9|[[Charles Le Brun]], ''Apotheosis of Louis XIV'', 1677. An example of art at the service of the State.]]

If Italy was to be credited with founding this new type of institution, France was responsible for taking the model to a first stage of great order and stability. The country's first attempts to establish academies like the Italian ones also took place in the 16th century, during the reign of King [[Henry III of France|Henry III]], especially through the work of the poet [[Jean-Antoine de Baïf]], who founded an academy linked to the [[List of French monarchs|French Crown]]. Like its Italian counterparts, it was primarily [[Philology|philological]]-[[Philosophy|philosophical]] in nature, but it also worked on concepts relating to the arts and sciences. Although it developed intense activity with regular debates and theoretical production, defending classical principles, it lacked an educational structure and had a brief existence.<ref>Yates, Frances Amelia. ''The French academies of the sixteenth century''. Taylor & Francis, 1988. {{p.|140–140, 275–279}}</ref>

The Accademia di San Luca later served as the model for the French [[Académie royale de peinture et de sculpture]] (Royal Academy of Painting and Sculpture), founded in 1648 by a group of artists led by [[Charles Le Brun]], and which later became the {{Lang|fr|[[Académie des Beaux-Arts]]|italic=no}} (Academy of Fine Arts). Its objective was similar to the Italian one, to honor artists "who were gentlemen practicing a liberal art" from craftsmen, who were engaged in manual labor. This emphasis on the intellectual component of artmaking had a considerable impact on the subjects and styles of academic art.{{sfn|Testelin|1853|p=22–36}}{{sfn|Montaiglon|Cornu|1875|p=7–10}}{{sfn|Dussieux|Soulié|Mantz|Montaiglon|1854|p=216}}

After an ineffective start, the Académie royale was reorganized in 1661 by King [[Louis XIV]], whose aim was to control all the country's artistic activity,<ref>[[Janson, H.W.]] (1995). ''History of Art'', 5th edition, revised and expanded by Anthony F. Janson. London: Thames & Hudson. {{ISBN|0500237018}}</ref> and in 1671, it came under the control of [[Chief minister of France|First Minister of State]] [[Jean-Baptiste Colbert]], who confirmed Le Brun as director. Together, they made it the main executive arm of a program to glorify the king's [[Absolute monarchy|absolutist monarchy]], definitively establishing the school's association with the State and thereby vesting it with enormous directive power over the entire national art system, which contributed to making France the new European cultural center, displacing the hitherto Italian supremacy. But while for the Italian Renaissance, art was also a survey of the natural world, for Le Brun it was above all the product of an acquired culture, inherited forms and an established tradition.<ref name="Barasch">Barasch, Moshe. [https://books.google.com/books?id=n07eWPU1RnAC&dq=%22academic+art%22&pg=PA316 ''Theories of Art: From Plato to Winckelmann'']. Routledge, 2000. {{p.|330–333}}</ref><ref>Schwarcz, Lilia Moritz. ''O Sol do Brasil: Nicolas-Antoine Taunay e as desventuras dos artistas franceses na corte de d. João'' {{in lang|pt}}. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 2008. {{p.|65–66}}</ref>

During this period, academic doctrine reached the peak of its rigor, comprehensiveness, uniformity, formalism and explicitness, and according to art historian Moshe Barasch, at no other time in the history of [[Theory of art|art theory]] has the idea of perfection been more intensely cultivated as the artist's highest goal, with the production of the Italian [[High Renaissance]] as the ultimate model. Thus, Italy continued to be an invaluable reference, so much so that a branch was established in Rome in 1666, the [[French Academy in Rome|French Academy]], with [[Charles Errard]] as its first director.<ref name="Barasch" />

At the same time, a controversy occurred among the members of the Académie, which would come to dominate artistic attitudes for the rest of the century. This "battle of styles" was a conflict over whether [[Peter Paul Rubens]] or [[Nicolas Poussin]] was a suitable model to follow. Followers of Poussin, called "poussinistes", argued that line (disegno) should dominate art, because of its appeal to the intellect, while followers of Rubens, called "rubenistes", argued that color (colore) should be the dominant feature, because of its appeal to emotion.<ref>Driskel, Michael Paul. [https://books.google.com/books?id=8-Y-U7gjhxsC&dq=%22academic+art%22&pg=PA41 ''Representing belief: religion, art, and society in nineteenth-century France, Volume 1991'']. Pennsylvania State University Press, 1992. {{p.|47–49}}</ref> The debate was revived in the early 19th century, under the movements of [[Neoclassicism]] typified by the art of [[Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres]], and [[Romanticism]] typified by the artwork of [[Eugène Delacroix]]. Debates also occurred over whether it was better to learn art by looking at nature, or at the artistic masters of the past.<ref name="Tanner, Jeremy 2003">Tanner, Jeremy. ''The sociology of art: a reader''. Routledge, 2003. {{p.|5}}</ref>