Account for the rise of impressionism as an Art movement in the period 1860 - 1890
Since the first time man saw a buffalo run, to the most thought provoking pieces of modern times, art has always been around, and always will be. It forms the basis of life. There have been many points where it could be argued there was a radical change of ideas in art, the Egyptians, Renaissancem, and Impressionism. But what was Impressionism, and how did it come about?
Impressionism was a revolution in the visual arts, it saw a change from the traditional to a new and spontaneous art form, style was radically altered, and from there on art has never been the same. Impressionism was essentially a French movement that was at it's most significant in the years between 1870 and 1880, although it was around before, and for many years after. Some argue that it came about purely by the chance meeting of a group of like minded artists in Paris, although I see it as being much more complex. They were from different backgrounds, with different ideas, often the only thing they had in common was their views on art, and sometimes not even that. Their basic ideas though were the depiction of a fleeting moment in time, as opposed to the traditional view of capturing 'forever'. They concentrated on the effects of light in nature, with the use of bright shimmering colours.
"I wished to do the impossible, I wanted to paint pure light."
Edouard Manet1
In the time before impressionism, art was relatively basic in ideas, it was often commissioned for a a special occasion, (e.g. The Raft of Medusa, 1819, Gericault) this picture was commissioned by the church to portray the teriible tale of the ship 'Medusa' who was wrecked in a storm. Only a few members of the crew survived, and eventually made it home on a raft. It was designed to show people the horrors of the world, in the hope they may repent and come to Christ.2 Pictures were generally very dark, (e.g. the painters gallery, 1855, Courbet) and either portraits of wealthy people, or scenes that were relevant to daily life. Ancient Greek mythology was very prominent, as was the symbol of good over evil, seen in Delaroches The Young Martyr, 1855. However the impressionists wanted something new, they wanted to paint scenes from everyday life, they wanted to paint en plein air (in the open air). This inevitably led to them using more colour. The canvases required areas of blues and greens, rather than the blacks and browns from the old pictures. In Manet's picture the Escape of Rochefort, 1881, there are still the classical themes, but the canvas is awash with shimmering blues, the highlights on the water. It is a new step up from the old paintings. It also has very typical use of strokes of colour that was basic to impressionism.
Another factor of Impressionism that made it new was the subject matter, the impressionists were concerned with pictures of everyday life, people going about their business, street scenes. There is a very famous picture by Monet of La Gare St. Lazare, a railway station. No one would ever have dared paint such a mundane scene before, yet Monet's handling of It is superb. He also painted a series of pictures of haystacks, looking at them in different weathers, at different times of the day. Again a very mundane scene of everyday life, but that was what impressionism was all about. In the picture the Haystacks, 1891, Monet used dots and ,strokes of pure colour to create a wonderfully colourful picture. Edgar Degas took everyday life to another dimension with his pictures of ballerinas, the picture Blue Dancers, 1890 starts to capture the movement that was later to be so important to the Futurists, the colours are bright bold, and the touches of complimentary orange in the background make the blues all the stronger. The final picture, London Parliament With the Setting Sun and the Fog, 1904, is perhaps one of the best examples of impressionism. The strokes of colour that fuse together to show the brilliance of the setting sun, the careful use of green to tint the shadows in front of the red sun, and the building up of layers of colour, applied in delicate, yet positioned brush strokes that hint at the movement of the water, under the glare of the setting sun, the rippling of the water, is all apparent.
But who were the impressionists? The main ones were Pissaro, Renoir, Sisley, Monet, Bazille, Manet, and Degas. They were born in France, (except Pissaro), and all except Renoir and Bazille, were born in Paris. However Pissaro and Renoir moved to Paris at an early age, and so were educated there. Sisley went to London at the age of 18 to do a business degree, Monet moved to Le Havre, and was educated there, Bazille, Manet, and Degas, were all well educated, the latter two in Paris. There is already quite a diverse range. However it was only when they began to take an interest in art professionally did they come together. Renoir, Monet, Sisley, and Bazille all attended the Atelier Gleyre, in Paris, where the group was formed, others joined later on.
"It begins in 1869, with the closer friendship of Monet and Renoir, one of those conjunctions, like that of Coleridge and Wordsworth, from which new movements in the history of art are born." (Clarke 1949: pg 91)
The group met at the Cafe Guerbois in Paris, they met here and had many discussions, probably controlled by the likes of Manet and Degas, who being the elder members thought they knew best, and assumed that they were better than the others. But what did they talk about, and how influential was this to their style?
Something they would certainly have discussed was science. Science like all other subjects plays a very large part in Art, at the time there was a growing fascination in science, especially in colour theory, and optics. There was a lot of work going on by such scientists as Eugene Chevreul, Arago and De-Fresnel, Bunsen and Kirchoff, producing important works on colour theory, the polariscope,3 and the spectrum respectively. Eugene Chevreul was an extremely important influence on impressionist art, Phoebe Poole says,
"It was Chevreuls theory of optical mixture which eventually led to the Impressionist use of complementary colours to tint their shadows." (Poole 1967: pg 15)
She also mentions ways in which his theory led to a revolutionary new style. Evidence for this is presented in an extract from a letter by Pissaro
"Surely it is clear that we could not pursue our studies of light with much assurance if we did not have as a guide the discoveries of Chevreul and other scientists. I would not have distinguished between local colour and light If science had not given us the hint; the same holds true for complementary colours, contrasting colours, etc." (Poole 1967: pg. 243)
The development of the polariscope and spectroscope, along with other scientific advances led to changes in scientific and art theory, and to the development of the camera.
The camera was originally invented in 1839, but was of little use until it became more fully developed towards the 1870's. It allowed people to see something in a very exact way. Previously paintings had been as exact as possible, but they failed to take into account that 'pile of dust in the corner.' There was now a way for people to create pictures in a highly exact way. A photograph was also in many ways similar to the impressionist ideas, it captured a fleeting moment, but with the accuracy that no painter could ever match. The one thing that early photographers could not get though was a personal feeling to their work, photographs were very exact, many would say too exact, there was no individuallsm, the only differences being in the type of camera or process used, (e.g. Daguerreotype or calotype)4 There was many classical ideas involved such as the cropping of figures to suggest space, but this had been in use since the time of Donatello, and were later to be employed by Degas.5 There is evidence to suggest that many paintings at this time were in fact based upon photographs,6 where the artist used them to capture a scene and then return to it later, these photographs were then later destroyed because of the implications for the artist of using them. "Some does it hopenly, and some on the sly."7 This which is a process widely used by artist's today, was nethertheless an outlawed practice then, many artists suffering both physical and professional abuse because of it. It is seen that the new ideas used by the impressionists in their work such as the use of highly personal brush strokes, and strokes of pure colour were in effect an attempt to distance themselves from the highly accurate, black and white photographs. The feeling that photography was a minor influence on the impressionists is part of the argument by Kenneth Clark in his book, Landscape into Art, he claims that the impressionists would not have seen enough of, or heard enough about photography to have been influenced by it,
"It was uncertain how much the impressionists had seen, perhaps enough to strengthen their belief in an impartial eye, but certainly not enough to create their style." (Clarke 1949: pg. 89)
Phoebe Poole also shares this opinion, in her book she admits there are similarities between some impressionist works, and photographs, but it was however never enough to influence the style of the impressionists.
"But photography could never rival the outstanding and orIginal quality of impressionist painting, which was the use of high toned primary colours." (Poole 1967: pg 104)
Both Phoebe Poole and Kenneth Clarke agree on this, however Dr. Aaron Scharf holds a different view. He wrote a book that looked at the relationship between art and photography, there is a whole chapter dedicated to the impressionists, and he is very rnuch in the belief that the impressionists were very heavily influenced by photography. He claims that "it is hardly possible that they were not affected by it. (Scharf 1968: pg. 125). He realises that there is little evidence to support the theory, almost certainly due to the fact that any photographs that were used would have been destroyed. There is also the views of critics at the time who claimed that Monet and to a degree Corot, were using photographs in that their pictures contained images that appeared to be borrowed from photography, such as slightly blurred trees as they moved, as opposed to the traditional view of a solid tree, with many Individual leaves.
By 1863 there were new developments that allowed photographers to experiment with colour. Before hand photographers had been able to paint over photographs in colour, but now they were actually able to produce colour photographs, however they were very temporary, only existing for half an hour or so, as the technique hadn't been completely developed. It seems difficult to believe that the impressionists wouldn't have been influenced by this new technology, and the evidence in their style would certainly point to the use of photography. However it seems reasonable to believe that they may have been affected in their style, to the point of how they perceived things, but I feel that they would very definitely not have been affected in their technique or subject matter. But no amount of scientific invention could cause a revolution of this sort, without a firm traditional grounding to work from. As artists they would certalnly have been influenced by other art, and artists.
As said, all artists have their influences, people whose work they admire, get ideas from, try to improve on, amongst the group there was a strong influence by the likes of such past masters as Corot, Courbet, and Japanese art. (Poole 1967: pg. 90) Nearly all the impressionists had at some time in their life studied the works of these masters. Most were influenced to a high degree by these masters. For this reason they held similar views on art. One of the major influences that has appeared common to nearly all impressionists is that of Courbet, a 19th century master. Even Manet who due to his social status, (upper middle class) held great contempt for the art of social realism, which centred around Courbet and his sattelites, (Poole 1967: pg. 124) had at one time gained inspiration from him, seen in his preparations for Dejeuner Sur L'herbe. So it was quite understandable that they should have some ideas in common. However there were other influences from abroad, which didn't really come into being until the outbreak of war with Prussia in 1870. Artists, butchers, bankers and the like were all drafted into the army along with everyone else. Those that were more well off were able to choose where they went, or buy themselves out of the army. Bazille chose to go to Algeria because of his fascination with the art of this area, unfortunately he was to die on active service here, but was nethertheless an influential impressionist who was inspired by foreign art. Monet spent some time in North Africa, where he was much inspired by the native works he saw here. However the one stage of impressionism which has been argued is the English influence, how much were Pissaro and Monet influenced by the work they saw in England during the Franco Pruissian war? Kenneth Clarke believes the English influence was zero, that they saw the work, copied it but were not influenced by it.,
"I'hey do not seem to have been interested in Constable whose work was then disregarded. When Pissaro returned to Paris In 1871 his pallete became more brilliant, but so did that of Renoir." (Clarke 1949: pg. 92)
He believes that their trip to England was not influential as the other impressionists also grew in the same way. Phoebe Poole though holds a differing opinion, she believes that Pissaro and Monet were influenced by the work they saw in England, she believes that Pissaro's style developed more rapidiy, and even Monet whose style was very individual became looser and more flexible during his time in England.
"It seems likely that In the main Monet and Pissaro were cheered and encouraged along the path that they had already chosen, by the example of the English painters who preceeded them." (Poole 1967: pg 104)
Personally I don't feel the impressionists would have been influenced to any great extent by what they saw in England. There is of course another side to be looked at, and that Is the political side of things, how did events in the political world around this time influence the emergence of, or even how the impressionists were accepted? I have already mentioned the Franco Prussian war of 1870, but the political situation in France following the defeat was also influential.
In the book by John Rewald, The History of Impressionism, he states examples from such important peoples as Emile Zola, who believed that the state of the country following the bloody suppression of the commune was looking for reality. He believed the time was ripe for the impressionists.
"The false basis on which one has lived has crumbled, and one looks for firmer ground to build upon more solidly. All great artistic and literary blossomings have taken place In times of complete maturity, or following violent upheavals." (Rewald 1973: pg. 260)
But why was the time ripe for the impressionists? The Paris exhibition of 1867 attracted visitors from many countries, they were impressed with the costumes, the people, and the life that appeared to be so apparent in the country.
But behind the facade was a reality that was far removed from the picture presented by the upper classes. France was a divided nation, with a marginally industrialised north, and an impoverished south, and even in Paris there was still great poverty, massive unemployment, despite the industrialisation. France was a divided nation, and the capital was no exception, it was alive with ideas, with people from everywhere, attracted by the ideas presented by such exhibitions as the Paris exhibition and the world fair. It would have seen many views appear, some political, some artistic, some revolutionary, all sorts
The end of the war came with the fall of Sedan on 2 september 1870, in the capital the Government dissolved in a turmoil of war fever and insurrection. (Chapman 1962: pg.1). At the hotel de ville the opposition set up a Govemment, and the republic was proclaimed. The Government was headed by General Trochu, military governor of Paris. Some attempts at settlement were attempted, but the French refused to allow the Germans any territory, and so on the 18 September, the Germans reached Paris. In Paris there were a few revolutionary attempts to end the government, in other places starvation took a hold, and following various other mistakes, the Government was forced to accept the Germans terms, which included capitulation of the capital, considerable disarmament of the garrison, and a cease fire for 21 days to allow a national assembly to be elected, to meet at Bordeax. But in Bordeaux things began to get tense, Gambetta was trying to run things, and becoming more popular by the day, Jules Simon was hurried off to Bordeaux by the Paris government to take control of the situation, but by the time he got there Gambetta had given up. The election at Bordeaux was a shambles, the electorate as yet still inexperienced were bewildered by the task presented them, many of the newly elected members were either illegal, not in the country, or simply not informed they had been voted for. In the words of J.J. Weiss, he says there was "Nothing doing my friends, not one single thing for us to do." That described Bordeaux pretty well. In the process of work many members resigned, some before they had even started, and so the assembly remained quite a few members short. After many discussions, and a lot of arguing and disagreement the terms of peace were presented to the assembly, by modern standards they would be considered harsh, to France they appeared crippling, but they were passed by 546 : 107. On 3 March when German troops entered Paris, it was deserted
The country was in turmoil. Industry was at a standstill, unemployrnent was high, in fact the only people earning money were those employed by the national guard. Also when Paris discovered that the national assembly wasn't going to sit in Paris, but at Versailles there was massive public outcry. Louis Blanc declared that it would "bring on civil war." This saw what was to be known as the commune appear, (it was named after the period 1792-94 when Parisians, led by Hebert dictated to the Government). It began with a failed military operation to remove guns from Paris, the soldiers fraternised with the populace, and two generals were shot. It was not so much a revolutionary outburst, trying to change history, as much as it was a revolt against the "blundering bumpkins" in authority. It was essentially based on a socialist movement, but it's content and aims were too diverse for it to really be called socialist. Thiers however saw that It was a dangerous mob, whom he had suppressed with terrible ferocity, following this many other large towns and cities saw similar action, but only really at Marseille did it get out of hand, and take a week to put down. The final treaty between France and Prussia was eventually signed on May 6.
This time of unrest in Paris would undoubtedly have left it's mark on the impressionists who remained in Paris. I believe that they would have been supporters of the government as they were all from relatively upper class backgrounds, and so the actions of the commune would have seemed outrageous to them, and only helped to emphasise such views as those held by Manet and Degas that the lower classes were not capable of rational thought, and therefore shouldn't be presented with readily available art. However this unsettled period may have made the art establishment represented by the salon more receptive to new ideas. The impressionists would however have been against the war, even those that remained behind in Paris, as there is evidence, mainly in the private journals of impressionists such as Renoir, Monet, and Degas, who confided their preference of solitude for the country. During the war Degas and Manet remained in Paris, conscripted into the artillery regiment when Paris was surrounded by German troops. At this time the works they produced were very restricted.
Following the war the situation did improve for them as Zola had predicted, to the extent that Durand Ruel (the impressionists dealer) had a catalogue drawn up of their works, but it was never published, as in 1873 there was a financial crash, followed by a six year depression. The number of private buyers dwindled dramatically. Also the financial crash meant that the Salon became even more hostile to novelty, that many artists were disappointed. A salon des refuses was again set up.9
This led to the revival of an idea that had been around since 1867, of a group exhibition, separate from the salon, the idea was revised, and after much discussion as to who, where, and how much it was set up. Thirty nine artists contributed, with over 165 pictures presented.(Poole 1967: pg.113)10 One picture by Monet was titled Impression: Sunrise, as he was fed up of the humdrum titles proposed by so many artists, one critic later took this title and it became the title of the group. The exhibition was a dismal failure, it was practically laughed to destruction. However it held universal significance in that it gave the group cohesion, and gave them the confidence found in each other to continue, this is the impression given by Phoebe Poole, who sees that,
"It is a fate common to inovators in the arts, and only with the passage of time does the public come to actively criticise the truly new." (Poole 1967: pg 116)
The period of 1860 to 1890 was a turning point not only for France, but for the world. The group of artists, later to be known as the impressionists met, developed, but only years later did they become recognised for the important role they played in art. But why was there a revolution now? Was it a revolution? Chambers twentieth century dictionary defines revolution as being "a radical change" and the impressionists certainly caused a radical change in art. At it's most basic level it could be put down to chance, that a group of artists who had similar ideas should meet, and encourage each other. It is sometimes seen that the revolution proper started with Corot and Courbet. But they were only an influence, a factor that created ideas, not realised, or changed them. One area that has appeared to be important and a little controversial was the influence of science and the camera. It is generally accepted that science plays a large part in our lives, and is often at the basis of change, from the wheel to the warp drive, but without other factors, in this case artists, to use them, it is next to useless. The work of Eugene Chevreul was fundamental to the rise of Impressionism. It was his theories on colour that were adopted by the impressionists, without him impressionism wouldn't have been what it was. It is because of the importance of science that the camera reqiured looking at, to see how much of an influence it had on the rise of impressionism. It could be argued that the camera caused the revolution in the art world, but as said earlier, it was not responsible for impressionism as a style. In a wider context though It could be seen as a reason for the rise of impressionism. There is a little evidence to suggest that some impressionists used photography, but In general the evidence is too sketchy and weak to be of any use, and it certainly can't be concluded that photography played a major part in the rise of impressionism.
There is also then the ideas of the foreign influence, the theory that Monet and Pissaro gained a major part of impressionism from England. The works by Constable, Turner and the like do admitedly share similarities, but many of the more famous works, and certainly the ones with most impressionist similarities weren't put on show until long after impressionism. The fact that in style and content the works were very dissimilar from impressionism is also a major factor. In general I feel that the English influence was irrelevant when discussing impressionism in general, the progress made at this time can be seen in the works by most of the impressionists, and isn't just refined to Monet and Pissaro.
There is of course then the important factor of the war, to what extent did events of the Franco Prussian war Influence the rise of impressionism. I believe that the events of the war had an impact upon the impressionists, it opened their eyes to what Parisian life was really like. The events of the commune certainly would have repulsed most of them, especially the likes of Degas. They would have become even more concerned with themselves, and getting their ideas and works into the public mind. However this idea of promoting themselves is a generally recognised act by most artists, and so there was nothing revolutionary here. Although the war did lead to the first impressionist exhibition, and the first impressionist catalogue, and had there not been a financial crash, then it is not unlikely that the Impressionists would have gained greater success earlier on.
In conclusion though impressionism essentially rose out of the ashes of the war, It was a movement that had been growing for some time. It had been affected by scientific developments, social ideas and actions, the political instability of both the Government an the Salon.
Notes
1-Visitors guide to the musee' du Louvre - revised 1995
2-Polariscope - an instrument for showing the phenomenon of polarised light. Spectroscope - an instrument for obtaining and observing the spectrum.
3-Dauguerreotype - a method of photography by mercury vapour development of silver iodide exposed on a copper plate. Calotype - an early kind of photography (invented 1840 by W.H. Fox Talbot) by means of silver iodide and silver nitrate.
4-see picture blue dancers, Degas 1890. The figure on the right has been cropped, so that only part of her can be seen, this was a process used a lot by Deagas to show space and depth in the picture, allowing the viewers gaze to wander beyond the picture frame and imagine the rest of the picture.
5-According to Aaron Scharf many of the impressionist pictures contain elements borrowed from photography, Monet, Bazille, and Cezanne are all believed to have used photographs, although there is often little solid evidence of this, his judgements are made on the style of the pictures, and not from actual photographic evidence.
6-The exhibition ran from 15 April to 15 May 1874. It was held in an old photographic studio at the Boulevard des capucines. There were 39 participating artists, with over 165 works between them. Degas submitted the most with ten pictures.
7-Salon des refuses - An exhibition of all works rejected by the salon, some were rightly so, and thus made the better works appear in a worse light.
Bibliography
Guy Chapman - The third republic of France - Macmillan and company ltd. 1962
Kenneth Clarke - Landscape into art - R. & R. Clarke ltd. 1966
Alfred Cobban - A History of Modern France - Penguin books 1961
Marshall B Davidson - A concise History of France - 1971
Robert Gildea - The third republic 1870-1914- Longman group ltd. 1988
E.H. Gombrich - The story of art - Phaidon 1950
Michael Levey - From Giotto to Cezanne - Thames and Hudson 1962
Phoebe Poole- Impressionism - Thames and Hudson 1967
John Rewald - The history of impressionism - Martin Secker and Walbergltd. 1973
Aaron Scharf - Art and photography - Penguin press 1968
|
