John Vanderlyn’s view of Versailles: Spectacle, landscape, and the visual demands of panorama painting.

One of the rare surviving early nineteenth-century panoramas, John Vanderlyn’s 1818–19Panoramic View of the Palace and Gardens of Versaillesis a visual anomaly: panoramic in form, but not in experience. It was, famously, a financial failure. This may be because the subject-matter did not resonate with early nineteenth-century American audiences, for whom Versailles symbolized monarchic excess; or perhaps because of Vanderlyn’s lack of commitment to showmanship. He seemingly felt more comfortable in the role of artist, and perhaps looked to Versailles as a subject that might work as both art and spectacle. Seventeenth-century French gardens were designed as comprehensible units, to be seen and understood rather than felt and explored. Seen from one of the many vantage-points built into the garden, the landscape at Versailles coalesced into a symmetrical, harmonious vision. Effectively, this splits the circular painting into two ideal views – of the palace and of the garden – that are each complete in themselves. A viewer has little need to scan the painting’s surface. A panorama asks of viewers to engage with their bodies, to add motion and hence a form of narrative duration to the scene. This panorama of Versailles instead arrests a viewer’s eyes, denying the panoramic effect. Visitors to Vanderlyn’s panorama imagined emotional responses, but foundered on the painting’s self-sufficiency. Thus Vanderlyn’s compromise puts into relief the role of the subject in the panoramic experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]