Talk:French Baroque architecture

---

Name

Very strange to have this page named « French Baroque » rather than « French classicism ». None of the books of the bibliography can support this bizarre claim.

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 03:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Requested move 3 August 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. CMD (talk) 05:21, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

---

French Baroque architecture → French Classicism in architecture – Solely to align the title with the article summary : French Classicism is the primary term, as well as the most precise one (WP:PRECISE), by which this style is known (as shown here). As explained in the corresponding section, the "Baroque style" when applied to France (to be distinguished from the Baroque historical period to which French Classicism belongs, in the same way Jugendstil belongs to Art Nouveau without however falling under the same designation and losing its more precise name) goes beyond 17th-century absolutist grandeur and has a more specific meaning, associated with irregularity, a taste for the singular and the unusual, superabundance of ornaments, and illusion. While initially influenced by the Italian Baroque, French architectural style in the 17th century quickly sought to avoid exuberance in favour of regularity — to the extent that even buildings from the Baroque era featuring trompe-l'œil ceilings and twisted columns, such as the Val-de-Grâce church, are classified as "Baroque classicisant" ("Classicizing Baroque") due to their overall regular layout. Besides, the photograph of the Palace of Versailles at the top of the article represents the quintessential example of French Classical architecture (as the page dedicated to it indicates, as well as Ayers 2004 here). CosasonFacio (talk) 09:31, 31 July 2026 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). CosasonFacio (talk) 08:49, 3 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 21:15, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose French Baroque architecture is the more encompassing term in modern English-language books. Examples include surveys of the Baroque (1600–1750), Baroque and Rococo Art and Architecture by Robert Neuman (2013, see Chapter 10 "Baroque Architecture in France and England"); The Triumph of the Baroque: Architecture in Europe 1600–1750, edited by Henry A. Millon (1999); and Baroque Architecture 1600–1750 by Frédérique Lemerle and Yves Pauwels, translated from French into English by David Rabinowicz (2008). These books include most of the important buildings described in this article, including churches. Gone are the days when Bannister Fletcher defined "Baroque" as "a term applied to Renaissance architecture beginning in Italy in the early seventeenth century with characteristic non-Roman expression". --Robert.Allen (talk) 03:46, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Among the works cited in the article's bibliography, almost all go against the use of the term "Baroque" for 17th-century French architecture when they deal with it in detail, preferring to associate it with the more precise term "Classicism" once the historical generalities have been addressed:

• In The Architecture of Paris (2004) by Andrew Ayers, we clearly read: “Nonetheless, the combined forces of the crown, the church and the aristocracy managed to build an entirely new, Classical Paris in the 17C […]. Although the era has subsequently been given the label »Baroque«, even the Paris region's grandest architectural achievements, such as Versailles or the Invalides, retained a Classical coolness and majesty that had nothing to do with the formal convolutions of Rome, France having evolved a grand manner all of its own.” — (p.12). Besides, this work does not use any other term than "classical" (which is above all linked to monumental regularity even more than to ancient inspiration) to designate the church of Saint-Roch or the Louvre Colonnade, which both appear in this article.
• Six of the eleven works in the bibliography are in French or translated from French, but the use of the term "Classicism" is systematic in French to designate this style (see the corresponding article on the French Wikipedia). It is also curious to choose Lemerle and Pauwels's work, translated from French, as an example to support the thesis that the term "Baroque" is the most appropriate "in modern English-language books": not only does this work use the term "classical" to designate a good part of 17th-century architecture, but when it does contest it, it is within a purely French lexical debate (where the term "classical architecture" is once again hegemonic), translated verbatim into English. Moreover, this work does not hesitate to adopt positions that are bold — to say the least — and unconventional (as is its absolute right) regarding the use of the terms “Classical” and “Baroque,” ​​favoring the latter; this is particularly evident in its assertion that Bossuet and La Fontaine cannot be considered as belonging to Classicism, whereas they are widely regarded elsewhere as key figures of that movement.

Most importantly, among the works you cite, Henry Millon's The Triumph of the Baroque distinguishes the French case, and repeatedly uses the term "French classicism" or "French classical architecture" to designate this style and to clearly distinguish Classicism from Baroque (no one has mentioned reviving this strange definition of Baroque by Banister Fletcher, but rather highlighting the following one):

“The encounters between Baroquism and Classicism, out of a search for unity and for an economy of means that is present even in cases of outrageously conspicuous consumption, can be documented through a series of oppositions. […] Starting always with a classical feature followed by a Baroque feature one may observe oppositions between unification and multiplication, effort at structuring and at decorating, intellectual and sensorial appreciation, realistic representation and imaginary metamorphosis, concentration and inflation, expression of universality and of particularity, careful sorting of categories and deliberate aggregation.” — (p.280)

-

This same work also attributes to French Classical architecture an influence in Europe that stands in stark contrast with that of the Baroque:

“In this great facade and staircase for the Palazzo Madama in Turin (1718-21), Juvarra defines the exterior in terms of representative monumentality approaching the character of French classical architecture. In the interior however, the forms become plastically alive and accompany the festive movement of the splendid staris. The public dignity of the facade, thus, is transformed into a more intimate, albeit grandiose, Baroque interior full of surprises and expressive details.” — (p.121)

“For the first time now secular structures were ereted that were oriented toward the Western tradition, although one could not attribute these structures to a single seventeenth-century European architectural style. There was as yet in place here no system of artistic principles connected with the Baroque or Classicism. […] Le Blond's work was important in principle. He was the first to introduce features of French Classicism in the manner of François Blondel the elder into the architecture of eighteenth century Russia.” — (p.144-152)

-

Finally, The Triumph of the Baroque emphasizes that the classical characteristic specific to the French style strongly distinguishes it from the style prevalent in other countries:

“Pieter de Swart's French training was thus indirectly responsible for introducing classicism on the French model into Dutch ceremonial architecture.” — (p.528)

“In sending the initial plans prepared by a local architect to Paris for evaluation in 1727, the prince [von Thurn und Taxis] joined the ranks of numerous European sovereigns and aristocrats who, recognizing the ascendency of French design in the early eighteenth century, sought the assistance of Robert de Cotte. […] As was frequently the case, de Cotte rejected the local architect's design: […] de Cotte utilized the standard form of the Parisian hôtel-entre-cour-et jardin, so that the street facade would project a dignified if sober appearance to the passer-by, while princely richness was relegated to the garden front and to the interiors, elements hidden from the public view, […] with its classical portico, […], the concave street entry wing, the arcaded lateral wings, and the classical frontispiece […] In any case, the building, while traditional in French point of view, stood in stark contrast to contemporary German town houses in massing and details.” — (p.504)

CosasonFacio (talk) 22:57, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I think the point of these examples is that in modern English usage the term Baroque architecture includes French classicism as a national style that is a subtype, not that they are opposed. Also, Baroque no longer carries the pejorative connotations that it apparently still does in French, as you have added to the lead. Thus, Le Vau's more "classical" designs and his so-called "Baroque" designs really fall under the same rubric and are just variant 17th-century adaptations of classical designs. --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:57, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

It is not my intention to pit the Baroque and Classicism directly against each other (indeed, the article notes that French Classicism emerged from the Baroque and was profoundly shaped by its influence); the term "Classicism" simply serves to designate the distinctive nature of the French style of the seventeenth century, and this semantic distinction is standard practice when discussing the subject. Moreover, the various examples cited above demonstrate that this distinction is consistently invoked, even in works dealing with the Baroque era, to describe the specific aesthetic that developed in France during that period. The term “French Baroque architecture” is therefore not totally incorrect (like calling Romanticism “Realism”, for example), but is simply a non-standard and imprecise label that fails to account for the specific nature of the French style (akin to titling an article on Gothic architecture “Medieval architecture” — indeed, one would expect surveys of medieval architecture to include chapters on Gothic architecture in various countries, yet that would hardly justify such an imprecise title in an encyclopedia; the same applies to the surveys by Henry Millon and Robert Neuman that you cited).

I would add that the term "Baroque" carries no pejorative connotation in French (irregularity and surprise represent an artistic choice of great potential interest): writers such as Saint-Amant, Agrippa d’Aubigné, and Tristan l’Hermite are today recognized as major figures in French literature, described as "Baroque" without any value judgment, just as La Fontaine, Boileau, Racine, and Bossuet are described as "Classical."

CosasonFacio (talk) 09:45, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

In his introduction, Robert Neuman states: "Here the words Baroque and Rococo do not signify stylistic designations, because attempts to define Baroque style or Rococo style usually falter—with the exception, as just mentioned of the Rococo label for decorative arts during the eighteenth century. Rather, following a trend that has persisted in some scholarship for over a half century, I employ the words Baroque and Rococo sparingly but broadly as a convenient way to designate two closely related periods, 1585 to 1700 and 1700 to 1785 respectively." In the introductory section of his chapter "Baroque Architecture in France and England", he writes about the close relationship of Baroque architecture in France and Britain and its overlap with that of Italy, mentioning how often Northern architects studied in Rome. Also he states: "Northern Baroque architecture was by definition classical, employing the grammar of ancient architecture and proportion." None of this really conflicts with what you have written. Perhaps it is key to resolving the issue here. I was checking the history of this Wikipedia page and see it was split from Baroque architecture by User:Ghirlandajo in 2006. I found it useful to look at these early versions. It seems the title "French Baroque architecture" was being used in the historical sense. You have changed the lead into a discussion where it is used in a stylistic sense. The lead is supposed to reflect the content of the article and does not necessarily require any references (see the guidance at MOS:LEAD). The guidance has a note that states: "Do not violate the neutral point of view by giving undue attention to less important controversies in the lead section." I suggest moving some of the discussion you have added from the lead to the introductory section. Some of your changes should probably not be made unless it is decided to change the title of the article. --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:45, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Your point regarding the lead section is entirely valid (I therefore removed the stylistic discussion from it). As for the article title, the passage you cite from the introduction to Robert Neuman’s work merely serves to situate French Classicism within the broad definition of the term "Baroque" (which can therefore rightly also designate this style). However, this does not preclude adopting a more precise designation that aligns with established usage (as shown above) and better reflects the specific characteristics of 17th-century French architecture: in a very similar way, the fact that the article on Art Nouveau (rightly) mentions the German, British, Italian, and Catalan variations of the style does not mean that the articles for Jugendstil, Modern Style, Liberty style, and Modernisme must be subsumed under that same overarching historical label — which would result in titles like "Art Nouveau in Germany", "Art Nouveau in the United Kingdom," and so on.

Also, the use of the term "Classicism" to describe this architecture is linked to stylistic characteristics of regularity and clarity (classical symmetry and sober, monumental exterior structures), even more so than to the inspiration of ancient proportions (which also heavily influenced Renaissance and Baroque architecture via Vitruvius). -- CosasonFacio (talk) 23:01, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. Clear common term in English. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:11, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

I think it’s hard to form an opinion on the "common" usage of one term or the other about such a thorny issue in just 1 minute (according to your contribution log) between 13:10 and 13:11, unless you managed to read all the previous contributions to this discussion in record time. --CosasonFacio (talk) 13:51, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References