“L’ADMIRATION DE LA FOULE EST TOUJOURS EN RAISON
INDIRECTE DU GÉNIE INDIVIDUEL. VOUS ÊTES D’AUTANT
PLUS ADMIRÉ ET COMPRIS, QUE VOUS ÊTES PLUS
ORDINAIRE”
_ZOLA_
THE outbreak of the Franco-German War in 1870 scattered far and wide the
little group that congregated at the Café Guerbois, and had a curious
effect upon the evolution of their methods of painting. Several of the
leading members of the circle crossed to England, and the studies they
pursued in London formed the basis for the unconventional departures
which have produced the masterpieces of Modern Impressionism.
Practically all the later developments of their art date from the
above-named year, and if a place of genesis be sought for it will be
found in the London National Gallery.
As related in a previous chapter, Edouard Manet, the acknowledged head
at the Café Guerbois gatherings, became a captain in the Garde
Nationale, with Meissonier as his colonel. Boudin and Jongkind fled to
Belgium, and became labourers. Monet, Pissarro, Bonvin, Daubigny, and
some friends, braved the horrors of “La Manche” and settled in London.
They arrived almost penniless, thoroughly disheartened by the terrible
events which were threatening their motherland with disaster. The
journey, momentous to the unhappy passengers, was the opening of a new
epoch in art.
The following letter from Pissarro, to the author, written in November
1902, gives an interesting account of their doings in London. He says:
“In 1870 I found myself in London with Monet, and we met Daubigny and
Bonvin. Monet and I were very enthusiastic over the London landscapes.
Monet worked in the parks, whilst I, living at Lower Norwood, at that
time a charming suburb, studied the effects of fog, snow, and
springtime. We worked from Nature, and later on Monet painted in London
some superb studies of mist. We also visited the museums. The
water-colours and paintings of Turner and of Constable, the canvases of
Old Crome, have certainly had influence upon us. We admired
Gainsborough, Lawrence, Reynolds, &c., but we were struck chiefly by the
landscape-painters, who shared more in our aim with regard to “plein
air,” light, and fugitive effects. Watts, Rossetti, strongly interested
us amongst the modern men. About this time we had the idea of sending
our studies to the exhibition of the Royal Academy. Naturally we were
rejected.”
“Naturally we were rejected!” These poor exiles were offering to the
conservative Academy canvases painted in a method that Constable could
not get accepted forty years before.
Their admiration of Turner and Constable was a repetition of the
experiences of another great Frenchman nearly fifty years earlier. In
his published journal, Delacroix has written: “Constable and Turner are
true reformers.” At the Salon of 1824 the pictures of Constable so
profoundly impressed him that he completely repainted his large canvas,
the _Massacre of Scio_, then hanging in the same exhibition. The next
year he visited London in order that he might more closely study
Constable’s work. He returned to Paris marvelling at the hitherto
unsuspected splendour of Turner, Wilkie, Lawrence, and Constable.
Immediately he began to profit by their examples. Delacroix chronicles
that he noticed that Constable, instead of painting in the usual flat
tones, composed his picture of innumerable touches of different colours
juxtaposed, and, at a certain distance, recomposing in a more powerful
and more atmospheric natural effect. He adds that he considers this new
method far superior to the old-fashioned one.
The group of 1870 made this discovery afresh. It is pleasant to imagine
that these artistic explorations somewhat dulled the misery of their
exile. They worked and copied in the public and private galleries, they
painted by the riverside, and in the streets and parks. With enthusiasm
they absorbed the technique of Turner and Constable, perhaps of Watts,
and the result is to be seen in Claude Monet’s _Haystacks_, in
Pissarro’s street scenes, in Sisley’s landscapes, in the luminous work
of Guillaumin and d’Espagnat, in the canvases of Vuillard, Maufra, and
many followers. Their style was revolutionised, their ideals changed.
The dull greys and the russet browns which reigned supreme before 1870
were banished for ever.
[Illustration:
THE WHITE RABBITS · GEORGES D’ESPAGNAT
]
They returned to France the preachers of a new crusade. The “Café de la
Nouvelle Athénée” became the centre of the group. Reunited under Manet,
whose style commenced to show signs of much influence from Claude Monet,
the reformers gathered many recruits, and gained more enemies. They were
not without friends on the press: Emile Zola, who had written so
eloquently in “Mes Haines,” Théodore Duret, friend and literary executor
of Manet, Gustave Geffroy of “La Vie Artistique,” in Monet’s opinion the
most slashing of the lot, Arsène Alexandre of “Le Figaro,” Gustave
Cahen, Roger Marx, and many others.
[Illustration:
A SUMMER AFTERNOON · GEORGES D’ESPAGNAT
]
But the financial position of the whole group was exceedingly
precarious. They could not sell their pictures. It was admitted that the
canvases of such men as Monet and Pissarro were the works of men of
genius, but the buying public (and they are numerous in France) did not
understand the new movement, and so failed to support it adequately. As
a whole, it may be said that the art public were in open hostility to
Impressionism. With a few exceptions, the critics of the established art
journals condemned the movement. Even comic singers ridiculed the
painters in the music-halls of Paris. The Salon was closed against them,
and the dealers refused to look at their canvases.
Meanwhile the artists starved. These were the evil days of evictions, of
visits from the sheriff, of the forced sale of household furniture to
pay insignificant debts. It is a sordid story of a struggle to obtain
the barest necessities of existence. These wretched years proved a
bitter chastening of the spirit to proud and refined natures. Tragedy
and comedy were intermixed. Glimpses of hope and comfort appeared from
time to time as some fresh buyer appeared on the scene. But these
welcome callers were not frequent, and the rifts of sunshine through the
grey clouds were, as a rule, transitory.
The artists did not over-value their works. They were able to live in
tranquillity if their pictures fetched prices ranging from £2 to £4. To
sell a canvas at £8 was an event, and £20 was a figure absolutely
unheard of. A letter from Manet, a comparatively rich man with an
independent income, to Théodore Duret, the critic, gives a vivid insight
into the situation in 1875. Manet had recently visited Claude Monet at
Argenteuil. “Dear Duret,” he writes, “I went to see Monet yesterday. I
found him altogether ‘hard up.’ He asked me if I knew of a purchaser for
ten or twenty of his pictures at £4 each. Shall we take it on? I thought
of a dealer, or of an amateur, but there I foresee the possibility of
refusals. It is unfortunate that it is only connoisseurs, like
ourselves, who can at the same time—in spite of all the repugnance we
may feel over it—make an excellent bargain and help a man of such
talent. Answer as quickly as possible or make an appointment with me.
Amitiés, Edouard Manet.”
This is good proof, if proof were needed, of the straits to which one of
the leaders of the group was reduced. It is also odd to note that Manet
was afraid of a refusal, from both dealers and collectors, to the offer
of such a bargain as a score of works by Claude Monet at £4 apiece. The
letter also proves that those professional dealers who had hitherto
supported the Impressionists were at the end of their resources, notably
M. Durand-Ruel.
This celebrated dealer and collector had brought himself to the verge of
bankruptcy through a too generous investment in Impressionist work. He
was gradually ostracised by brother dealers, buyers, and art critics. He
was regarded in much the same light as the artists themselves,
considered to have lost his mental balance and also his acumen as a man
of business. Certainly he speculated upon a large scale. In January
1872, having previously bought two studies, M. Durand-Ruel called upon
Manet at his studio and bought on the spot twenty-eight canvases for the
sum of 38,600 francs (£1544). The whole Impressionist camp went wild
with joy under the mistaken idea that their millennium had arrived. They
had many years to wait. Both the pictures and the capital were locked up
for a considerable time. The public had yet to be educated, and the few
amateurs who bought Impressionist work could select examples in
abundance from the artists’ easels.
It is to the credit of the group that they followed their ideals and
refused many temptations. Several of them, Monet in particular, were
admirable portraitists, and could easily have gained a very respectable
living from that branch of art. A writer in one of the French art
reviews asserts that Claude Monet’s _Femme à la Robe Verte_ was the
finest painting in the Salon of 1866. Only men who have passed through
such experiences can appreciate at its true value the heroic courage,
faith, and self-confidence required during such a trial.
[Illustration:
FAIR ANGLERS · GEORGES D’ESPAGNAT
]
The ordeal was long and severe. It included public disdain and private
poverty. The movement did not, however, remain stationary. In 1874 a
small exhibition was organised, and held, from April 15 to May 15, at
the galleries of M. Nadar, 35 Boulevard des Capucines. This little
salon, entitled “L’Exposition des Impressionistes,” has become historic.
The list of exhibitors included the following: Astruc, Attendu, Béliard,
Boudin, Bracquemond, Brandon, Bureau, Cals, Cézanne, Gustave Colin,
Debras, Degas, Guillaumin, Latouche, Lepic, Lépine, Levert, Meyer, de
Molins, Monet, Berthe Morisot, Mulot-Durivage, de Nittis, Auguste Ottin,
Léon Ottin, Pissarro, Renoir, Rouart, Robert, Sisley. From every point
of view, except that of art, the exhibition was a failure. The press
attacked it with exceptional virulence, the public kept away. The
artists were lampooned in idiotic cartoons, and branded as traitors who
were disloyal to the artistic traditions of their country. The public
sales at the Hôtel Drouot were disastrous. In March 1875, excellent
examples of Claude Monet were sold at prices varying between £6 and £13.
Pictures by Mlle. Berthe Morisot fetched from £3 to £19, and by Sisley
from £2 to £12. Renoir was the most unfortunate. Out of twenty
paintings, ten did not reach £4 each. Not one sold for more than £12.
[Illustration:
FISHING NEAR PARIS · LEPINE
]
The particulars of the following exhibitions and sales are fully
detailed by M. Gustave Geffroy in his “Vie Artistique.” The second
exhibition was held at the house of M. Durand-Ruel in April 1876. The
participators were Béliard, Legros, Pissarro, Bureau, Lepic, Renoir,
Caillebotte, Levert, Rouart, Cals, J.-B. Millet, Sisley, Degas, Claude
Monet, Tillot, Desboutin, Berthe Morisot, Jacques François, and the
younger Ottin.
In 1877 a sale was held, but prices showed little improvement. An
exhibition had been held a month previously, the exhibitors being
Caillebotte, Cals, Cézanne, Cordey, Degas, Guillaumin, François, Lamy,
Levert, Maureau, Monet, Berthe Morisot, Piette, Pissarro, Renoir,
Rouart, Sisley, and Tillot.
These lists are exceedingly interesting, as they show year by year the
composition of the group. In succeeding years fresh names appeared. In
1879, at the Spring Exhibition in the Avenue de l’Opéra, the catalogue
included Bracquemond, Marie Bracquemond, Caillebotte, Cals, Mary
Cassatt, Degas, Forain, Lebourg, Monet, Pissarro, Rouart, Somm, Tillot,
and Zandomeneghi. In 1880, at the gallery in the Rue des Pyramides, the
same names appeared, together with J. F. Raffaëlli, J. M. Raffaëlli,
Vidal, and Vignon. Claude Monet does not appear to have sent any works,
probably because of his “one-man show” at “La Vie Moderne” gallery. In
April 1881, the annual collection began to decline in numbers, canvases
being sent by Mary Cassatt, Berthe Morisot, Degas, Forain, Gauguin,
Guillaumin, Pissarro, Raffaëlli, Rouart, Tillot, Vidal, Vignon, and
Zandomeneghi. In the following year (at the Rue Saint-Honoré) the number
was still less, Caillebotte, Gauguin, Guillaumin, Monet, Berthe Morisot,
Pissarro, Renoir, Sisley, and Vignon. Practically the last collective
exhibition was held in 1886, the catalogue consisting of works by Degas,
Berthe Morisot, Gauguin, Guillaumin, Zandomeneghi, Forain, Mary Cassatt,
Odilon Redon, Camille Pissarro, Seurat, Signac, and Lucien Pissarro.
M. Geffroy refers to these exhibitions as battle-fields. Campaigns
cannot last for ever, and victory had at last crowned the
Impressionists. To-day these artists are honoured and decorated, their
works hang in public galleries over the whole world. It may be said that
we are all Impressionists now. Certainly of the students it is true, for
ninety per cent. of those who take up landscape painting follow with
admiration the paths of the Impressionists. A glance through the annual
salons, either in Europe or America, fully proves the assertion. Before
many years have elapsed, even in England, one will find this the case.
The difficulty of Hanging Committees will be, not to hide away
Impressionist work to the least damage of its surroundings, but to hang
the anecdotal, moral, and all canvases of like _genre_, in such obscure
corners as will give the least offence to their moribund and
conservative creators.
[Illustration]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration:
THE PICNIC · CLAUDE MONET
]