# École des Beaux-Arts



## trismegistus (Sep 14, 2020)

This topic has been deserving of its own thread for a long time.

When one starts diving into research on some of the incredible works that have come out of this school, and cross referencing it against the historical inconsistencies pointed out in this forum, it certainly raises some questions.  For example, here is a list of comments I have made that have connected back to this school.

_Theodore Robinson, Painter_
_George Cary, Architect, Buffalo Pan-Am_
_James Renwick Jr, Architect, Smithsonian_

In particular James Renwick was the smoking gun to look more into this school, as I think I have shown in that thread that there is a strong possibility that James Renwick Jr. may have been a fake person, or at least not accurately represented in modern day research.

My working hypothesis is as follows:  This architecture was not created by these architects, they were merely tasked with restoring these great works after their respective elite families had finished erasing the history of the civilization that existed previous to them.  This previous civilization was concurrently responsible for what we consider "ancient" Greek and Roman architecture, as well as this "modern" revival of the style.  Perhaps some were purposefully left un-restored in order to create a more manageable timeline - - one where we can clearly divide "Ancient" greeks/romans into the annals of history, versus the possibility that that civilization lived until a lot more recently than we think, possibly 2-300 years ago, and in _a lot _more places than we are told.  The phantom time theory of Antony Fomenko is the glue that holds this theory together.

But I digress, let's start with the mainstream information we have on the school.

*École des Beaux-Arts*







​From Wiki:



> An *École des Beaux-Arts* is one of a number of influential art schools in France. The most famous is the École nationale supérieure des Beaux-Arts, now located on the left bank in Paris, across the Seine from the Louvre, at 14 rue Bonaparte (in the 6th arrondissement). The school has a history spanning more than 350 years, training many of the great artists in Europe. Beaux Arts style was modeled on classical "antiquities", preserving these idealized forms and passing the style on to future generations.





> The origins of the school go back to 1648 when the Académie des Beaux-Arts was founded by Cardinal Mazarin to educate the most talented students in drawing, painting, sculpture, engraving, architecture and other media. Louis XIV was known to select graduates from the school to decorate the royal apartments at Versailles, and in 1863 Napoleon III granted the school independence from the government, changing the name to "L'École des Beaux-Arts". Women were admitted beginning in 1897.


We will get back to a key point in that summary later, but first I think it is important to help define the "style" of Beaux-Arts.

​
Fun fact, almost all of these structures are in North/South America, not Europe like one would assume.  

From architecturalstyles.org:


> *PERIOD OF POPULARITY: * 1893 – 1929  (Between the Chicago Columbian Exposition and the Great Depression)
> 
> *INTRODUCTION TO REVIVAL STYLES: *Each revival style identifies specifically with an architecture of an earlier time and place, especially those related to early American or European precedents. Several popular revival styles are included on this blog, though other, less popular revival styles also appeared. *To classify this grouping of architectural styles presents a challenge*, as one could argue that many earlier Victorian styles were similarly revivalist. In fact, one publication includes several revival styles within the larger category of Victorian architecture (Cunliffe, et. al. 2010). The concept of “period styles” has also been adopted by some writers (including this one), though it was an early 20th century term used by non-professionals to romanticize the past. On the flip side are the architectural historians who prefer the more academic “Age of eclecticism” or “Eclectic Era,” which is an important concept to provide historical context here. The Eclectic Era, however, includes both revival and early modern styles that competed ideologically and *appeared nearly simultaneously *before the Great Depression. For purposes here, then, “revival styles” seems most appropriate, adapted widely across America for use in middle-class homes, wealthy country houses, commercial buildings, early skyscrapers, and civic buildings. Though overlapping with the more picturesque Victorian era, these styles largely gained popularity during the first two decades of the 20th century and heavily influenced our residential and commercial landscapes.
> 
> During this time (mostly between 1900 and 1929), accuracy of styles became important once again, unlike Queen Anne style, which borrowed from a variety of sources. Most Important, revival styles look to the past for inspiration. The trend toward revivalist architecture gained momentum from the *1893 Chicago World’s Fair, the *_*Columbian Exposition*_, where historical interpretations of European styles were encouraged. Simultaneous to the rise of revivalist architecture, the modern era saw its beginnings with architects who were instead looking to the future, not to the past, with more progressive, modernist styles. Thus defines the Eclectic Movement of the early 20th century, which consisted of a simultaneous and perhaps competing interest in both modern and historic architectural traditions. This variety, or eclecticism, provided for one of the most diverse and colorful periods for architecture and urban design in American history, when almost anyone with at least a middle-class income could choose from one of a dozen or more styles for their home.


I feel as if there is a bit of cognitive dissonance here.  Architects are challenged to lump all of this revival into one overall style which they seem to want to call "Eclectic" which is a nice cop-out in my opinion.  Moreover, the fact that they somehow all cropped up simultaneously is curious.  Apparently this school was around for hundreds of years, but they didn't start doing buildings until the 1900s?  

*Cardinal Mazarin*




​


> Cardinal *Jules Mazarin*  (14 July 1602  – 9 March 1661), born *Giulio Raimondo Mazzarino* [ˈdʒuːljo raiˈmondo madːzaˈriːno] or *Mazarini*, was an Italian-born cardinal, diplomat, and politician, who served as the Chief Minister to the kings of France Louis XIII and Louis XIV from 1642 until his death. In 1654 he acquired the title Duke of Mayenne, and in 1659, 1st Duke of Rethel and Nevers.
> 
> After serving as a papal diplomat for Pope Urban VIII, Mazarin offered his diplomatic services to Cardinal Richelieu  and moved to Paris.  Following the death of Richelieu and then of Louis XIII, Mazarin became the head of the government for Anne of Austria, the Regent of the young Louis XIV,  and was also made responsible for the King's education until he came of age.





> Mazarin, as the actual (_de facto_) ruler of France, played a crucial role in establishing the Westphalian principles that would guide European states' foreign policy and the prevailing world order. Some of these principles, such as the nation state's sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs and the legal equality among states, remain the basis of international law to this day.
> 
> In addition to his diplomacy, Mazarin was an important patron of the arts. He introduced Italian opera on a grand scale to Paris, and assembled a remarkable art collection, much of which today can be seen in the Louvre.  He also founded the Bibliothèque Mazarine, the first true public library in France, which is now found in the Institut de France, across the Seine from the Louvre.


Busy man, this Cardinal.  Not only was he the de facto ruler of France (!) for some time, but he also was also a grand patron of the arts.  Perhaps someone with a better ability to internet sleuth could determine this, but I have a feeling that this guy must be related to some secret faction, Jesuits/Rosicrucians/etc.  

Oh, and look at his family crest.  You SH-ers will immediately get the reference.



I see you there, facses.  You sure have a clever way of showing up in these rabbit holes of ours...

I think the fact that you can trace a lot of strange history back to a handful of schools, individuals, and families is suspect in and of itself.  On top of that, once you start getting _symbols_ that match up you really start cooking with gas.

What do you say?  Are we looking at the ultimate gatekeepers of history?  


> Note: This OP was recovered from the KeeperOfTheKnowledge archive.





> Note: Archived SH.org replies to this OP: École des Beaux-Arts


----------



## trismegistus (Dec 21, 2020)

Second verse, same as the first - a little bit louder and a little bit worse!



Though less veiled in history rewriting, this is merely a repeat of this “movement” in the past.


----------



## JWW427 (Dec 21, 2020)

Its all fishy at best.
Thanks for bringing this OP to the fore again.

Architecture is a language that has much to say.
I studied architecture and its history during college; hell's-bells, it was the only "B" I ever got!
All those terms that Trump lists above are vaguely the same in style and ethos. There are minor differences, yes, but come on. They all represent the styles of the ancient world...but yes, I do like a nice antique Georgian mansion like George Washington's Mount Vernon. Or was that a "Post-Georgian Federalist Revisionist Revival"?




One thing I've noticed in my 59 years is that academia loves to parse everything "safe" to death, even when a topic is well-explained from their point of view. It's a distraction in my view. They bang it to death with a masher and make up new names and sub-classifications to bore you into mind control numbness. _Yawn..._

Why is it that ultra-modern architecture (or art) always gets slammed by preppy conservative people, at least at first? It's because it's a threat to their safe, cozy status quo sensibility, their small hive mind mentality. "Where are your Greco-Roman columns, JWW?" they ask nervously. "Why aren't you wearing a tie?"

Beaux Arts is particularly fishy. "Eclectic style"? That's convenient. So what's going on here?
Let us not forget a lot of these buildings and mansions (with gods and goddesses on the pediments!) are designed to belittle the average person with an impression of pure power for the PTB that inhabit them. (All those royal apartments and such). The buildings look down upon us all like battleships parked in a small harbor.

If anyone wishes to visit whacky neoclassical Freemasonic Wash. DC, Ill be your tour guide. Here is a pic of one of the many railroad and coal baron mansions of the 19th century along Massachusettes Ave in DC. (The barons wanted access to Capitol Hill politicians in their back pockets). They are all currently embassies. Get the idea? POWER.
in the black & white photo, is it Federalist French with a Mansard roof? Beaux Arts revival? Victorian? I've read it's all three.
The red brick one? You tell me.



Trump Hotel (The old Post Office HQ).



How about Albert Speer's vision of a spartan, all-powerful neoclassical "New Berlin" for Hitler?
Now that's what I call vision. (?)


----------



## trismegistus (Dec 21, 2020)

JWW427 said:


> How about Albert Speer's vision of a spartan neoclassical "New Berlin" for Hitler?
> Now that's what I call vision. (?)



Stalin had similar ideas (allegedly)




​


----------



## JWW427 (Dec 21, 2020)

Case in point!


----------

