Lot Essay
This painting, for which Vollon earned a first-class medal, is presumed to have been purchased at the Salon of 1869 by Mr. Wilstach of Philadelphia or his agent. An article published in the July issue of an unidentified American journal and written by an anonymous author "E.S." (cf. Frick Art Reference Library) documents the painting as belonging to the Wilstach family in 1872. Furthermore, Strahan listed in his publication of 1882 a painting entitled Accessories of the Ball-Room which belonged to Mr. Wilstach (p. 40), whom he described as buying at the Salons of the late 1860s (p. 30).
Objects depicted in Après le bal fit descriptions provided by Salon reviewers in 1869. The golden ewer and platter, the bouquet of white camellias and violets, the oak table, the bright blue fan, and the blue-green velvet curtain which dominates the righthand portion of the composition are all mentioned. Reviews were mixed. According to supporters, this still life proved that Vollon could paint wordly elegance as well as kitchen cauldrons (Gautier), that he was maintaining his lineage with Chardin (Hache), that he had produced a work painted with truth and much art (Auvray), and that he had mastered an incomparable breadth of touch and surety of brush, although he still needed to demonstrate that he could paint the figure as masterfully as he could paint still life (Dolent). The comments from detractors are more penetrating. Mantz disliked what he called its willy-nilly composition and haphazard play of light and shadow. Saint-Victor attacked its ungainly composition, thrown pellmell at the canvas, and questioned the scale of the overly assertive curtain at right, which extinguished the splendors of the other objects. Perrier condemned Vollon for his too overt need to "grab the attention of the public". He preferred the artist's more intimate and personal works, which could be seen at dealers' shops. He found in Vollon's composition an "abundance of skill but absence of reality" and criticized the colossal bouquet for being planiform.
The large vertical format seen here had also been utilized by Vollon for his Salon entry of 1868, Les Curiosités. Less usual within the practice of still life than the horizontally orientated tabletop composition, it produced the effect of top-heaviness and spatial incongruity that puzzled the critics. Perhaps Vollon was delibertely endeavoring to distinguish himself from contemporary still-life painters in a more traditional vein, for example Blaise Desgoffe (1830-1901). Despite such unorthoox qualities, or perhaps because of its uniqueness, the work deemed worthy of a first-class medal. This award was probably the result of political timeliness since it was the only award Vollon had not yet received after six years of consitent achievement at the Salon. The light-hearted allusion to haute-bourgeois femininity after a night of social revelry would have appealed directly to the wealthy private collector. Vollon recognized in his new subject matter for Salon still life a further means of pursuing his ambition to broaden public image and expand the market for his works.
We are grateful to Dr. Carol Tabler for her assistance in preparing this catalogue entry.
Objects depicted in Après le bal fit descriptions provided by Salon reviewers in 1869. The golden ewer and platter, the bouquet of white camellias and violets, the oak table, the bright blue fan, and the blue-green velvet curtain which dominates the righthand portion of the composition are all mentioned. Reviews were mixed. According to supporters, this still life proved that Vollon could paint wordly elegance as well as kitchen cauldrons (Gautier), that he was maintaining his lineage with Chardin (Hache), that he had produced a work painted with truth and much art (Auvray), and that he had mastered an incomparable breadth of touch and surety of brush, although he still needed to demonstrate that he could paint the figure as masterfully as he could paint still life (Dolent). The comments from detractors are more penetrating. Mantz disliked what he called its willy-nilly composition and haphazard play of light and shadow. Saint-Victor attacked its ungainly composition, thrown pellmell at the canvas, and questioned the scale of the overly assertive curtain at right, which extinguished the splendors of the other objects. Perrier condemned Vollon for his too overt need to "grab the attention of the public". He preferred the artist's more intimate and personal works, which could be seen at dealers' shops. He found in Vollon's composition an "abundance of skill but absence of reality" and criticized the colossal bouquet for being planiform.
The large vertical format seen here had also been utilized by Vollon for his Salon entry of 1868, Les Curiosités. Less usual within the practice of still life than the horizontally orientated tabletop composition, it produced the effect of top-heaviness and spatial incongruity that puzzled the critics. Perhaps Vollon was delibertely endeavoring to distinguish himself from contemporary still-life painters in a more traditional vein, for example Blaise Desgoffe (1830-1901). Despite such unorthoox qualities, or perhaps because of its uniqueness, the work deemed worthy of a first-class medal. This award was probably the result of political timeliness since it was the only award Vollon had not yet received after six years of consitent achievement at the Salon. The light-hearted allusion to haute-bourgeois femininity after a night of social revelry would have appealed directly to the wealthy private collector. Vollon recognized in his new subject matter for Salon still life a further means of pursuing his ambition to broaden public image and expand the market for his works.
We are grateful to Dr. Carol Tabler for her assistance in preparing this catalogue entry.