AUTHOR'S NOTE
It
should be stated here that, with the exception of one reproduction
after the Neo-Impressionist Van Rysselberghe, the other forty-nine
engravings illustrating this volume I owe to the courtesy of M.
Durand-Ruel, from the first the friend of the Impressionist painters,
and later the most important collector of their works, a friend who
has been good enough to place at our disposal the photographs from
which our illustrations have been reproduced. Chosen from a
considerable collection which has been formed for thirty years past,
these photographs, none of which are for sale, form a veritable and
unique museum of documents on Impressionist art, which is made even
more valuable through the dispersal of the principal masterpieces of
this art among the private collections of Europe and America. We
render our thanks to M. Durand-Ruel no less in the name of the public
interested in art, than in our own.The
illustrations contained in this volume have been taken from different
epochs of the Impressionist movement. They will give but a feeble
idea of the extreme abundance of its production.Banished
from the salons, exhibited in private galleries and sold direct to
art lovers, the Impressionist works have been but little seen. The
series left by Caillebotte to the Luxembourg Gallery is very badly
shown and is composed of interesting works which, however, date back
to the early period, and are very inferior to the beautiful
productions which followed later. Renoir is best represented. The
private galleries in Paris, where the best Impressionist works are to
be found, are those of MM. Durand-Ruel, Rouart, de Bellis, de
Camondo, and Manzi, to which must be added the one sold by MM.
Théodore Duret and Faure, and the one of Mme. Ernest Rouart,
daughter of Mme. Morisot, the sister-in-law of Manet. The public
galleries of M. Durand-Ruel's show-rooms are the place where it is
easiest to find numerous Impressionist pictures.In
spite of the firm opposition of the official juries, a place of
honour was reserved at the Exposition of 1889 for Manet, and at that
of 1900 a fine collection of Impressionists occupied two rooms and
caused a considerable stir.Amongst
the critics who have most faithfully assisted this group of artists,
I must mention, besides the early friends previously referred to,
Castagnary, Burty, Edouard de Goncourt, Roger Marx, Geffroy, Arsène
Alexandre, Octave Mirbeau, L. de Fourcaud, Clemenceau, Mallarmé,
Huysmans, Jules Laforgue, and nearly all the critics of the Symbolist
reviews. A book on "Impressionist Art" by M. Georges
Lecomte has been published by the firm of Durand-Ruel as an
edition-de-luxe.
But the bibliography of this art consists as yet almost exclusively
of articles in journals and reviews and of some isolated biographical
pamphlets. Manet is, amongst many, the one who has excited most
criticism of all kinds; the articles, caricatures and pamphlets
relating to his work would form a considerable collection. It should
be added that, with the exception of Manet two years before his
death, and Renoir last year at the age of sixty-eight, no
Impressionist has been decorated by the French government. In England
such a distinction has even less importance in itself than elsewhere.
But if I insist upon it, it is only to draw attention to the fact
that, through the sheer force of their talent, men like Degas, Monet
and Pissarro have achieved great fame and fortune, without gaining
access to the Salons, without official encouragement, decoration,
subvention or purchases for the national museums. This is a very
significant instance and serves well to complete the physiognomy of
this group of independents.
I
THE PRECURSORS OF
IMPRESSIONISM—THE BEGINNING OF THIS MOVEMENT AND THE ORIGIN OF ITS
NAMEIt will be beyond the scope of this volume to give a complete
history of French Impressionism, and to include all the attractive
details to which it might lead, as regards the movement itself and
the very curious epoch during which its evolution has taken place.
The proportions of this book confine its aim to the clearest
possible summing up for the British reader of the ideas, the
personalities and the works of a considerable group of artists who,
for various reasons, have remained but little known and who have
only too frequently been gravely misjudged. These reasons are very
obvious: first, the Impressionists have been unable to make a show
at the Salons, partly because the jury refused them admission,
partly because they held aloof of their own free will. They have,
with very rare exceptions, exhibited at special minor galleries,
where they become known to a very restricted public. Ever attacked,
and poor until the last few years, they enjoyed none of the
benefits of publicity and sham glory. It is only quite recently
that the admission of the incomplete and badly arranged Caillebotte
collection to the Luxembourg Gallery has enabled the public to form
a summary idea of Impressionism. To conclude the enumeration of the
obstacles, it must be added that there are hardly any photographs
of Impressionist works in the market. As it is, photography is but
a poor translation of these canvases devoted to the study of the
play of light; but even this very feeble means of distribution has
been withheld from them! Exhibited at some galleries, gathered
principally by Durand-Ruel, sold directly to art-lovers—foreigners
mostly—these large series of works have practically remained
unknown to the French public. All the public heard was the
reproaches and sarcastic comments of the opponents, and they never
became aware that in the midst of modern life the greatest, the
richest movement was in progress, which the French school had known
since the days of Romanticism. Impressionism has been made known to
them principally by the controversies and by the fruitful
consequences of this movement for the illustration and study of
contemporary life.MANETRESTI do not profess to give here a detailed and complete history
of Impressionism, for which several volumes like the present one
would be required. I shall only try to compile anensembleof concise and very precise
notions and statements bearing upon this vast subject. It will be
my special object to try and prove that Impressionism is neither an
isolated manifestation, nor a violent denial of the French
traditions, but nothing more or less than a logical return to the
very spirit of these traditions, contrary to the theories upheld by
its detractors. It is for this reason that I have made use of the
first chapter to say a few words on the precursors of this
movement.No art manifestation is really isolated. However new it may
seem, it is always based upon the previous epochs. The true masters
do not give lessons, because art cannot be taught, but they set the
example. To admire them does not mean to imitate them: it means the
recognition in them of the principles of originality and the
comprehension of their source, so that this eternal source may be
called to life in oneself, this source which springs from a sincere
and sympathetic vision of the aspects of life. The Impressionists
have not escaped this beautiful law. I shall speak of them
impartially, without excessive enthusiasm; and it will be my
special endeavour to demonstrate in each of them the cult of a
predecessor, for there have been few artistic movements where the
love for, and one might say the hereditary link with, the preceding
masters has been more tenacious.The Academy has struggled violently against Impressionism,
accusing it of madness, of systematic negation of the "laws of
beauty," which it pretended to defend and of which it claimed to be
the official priest. The Academy has shown itself hostile to a
degree in this quarrel. It has excluded the Impressionists from the
Salons, from awards, from official purchases. Only quite recently
the acceptance of the Caillebotte bequest to the Luxembourg Gallery
gave rise to a storm of indignation among the official painters. I
shall, in the course of this book, enter upon the value of these
attacks. Meanwhile I can only say how regrettable this obstinacy
appears to me and will appear to every free spirit. It is unworthy
even of an ardent conviction to condemn a whole group of
artistsen blocas fools,
enemies of beauty, or as tricksters anxious to degrade the art of
their nation, when these artists worked during forty years towards
the same goal, without getting any reward for their effort, but
poverty and derision. It is now about ten years since Impressionism
has taken root, since its followers can sell their canvases, and
since they are admired and praised by a solid and ever-growing
section of the public. The hour has therefore arrived, calmly to
consider a movement which has imposed itself upon the history of
French art from 1860 to 1900 with extreme energy, to leave
dithyrambics as well as polemics, and to speak of it with a view to
exactness. The Academy, in continuing the propagation of an ideal
of beauty fixed by canons derived from Greek, Latin and Renaissance
art, and neglecting the Gothic, the Primitives and the Realists,
looks upon itself as the guardian of the national tradition,
because it exercises an hierarchic authority over theEcole de Rome, theSalons, and theEcole
des Beaux Arts. All the same, its ideals are of
very mixed origin and very little French. Its principles are the
same by which the academic art of nearly all the official schools
of Europe is governed. This mythological and allegorical art,
guided by dogmas and formulas which are imposed upon all pupils
regardless of their temperament, is far more international than
national. To an impartial critic this statement will show in an
even more curious light the excommunication jealously issued by the
academic painters against French artists, who, far from revolting
in an absurd spirit ofparti-prisagainst the genius of their race, are perhaps more sincerely
attached to it than their persecutors. Why should a group of men
deliberately choose to paint mad, illogical, bad pictures, and reap
a harvest of public derision, poverty and sterility? It would be
uncritical to believe merely in a general mystification which makes
its authors the worst sufferers. Simple common sense will find in
these men a conviction, a sincerity, a sustained effort, and this
alone should, in the name of the sacred solidarity of those who by
various means try to express their love of the beautiful, suppress
the annoying accusations hurled too light-heartedly against Manet
and his friends.MANETIN THE SQUAREI shall define later on the ideas of the Impressionists on
technique, composition and style in painting. Meanwhile it will be
necessary to indicate their principal precursors.Their movement may be styled thus: a reaction against the
Greco-Latin spirit and the scholastic organisation of painting
after the second Renaissance and the Italo-French school of
Fontainebleau, by the century of Louis XIV., the school of Rome,
and the consular and imperial taste. In this sense Impressionism is
a protest analogous to that of Romanticism, exclaiming, to quote
the old verse: "Qui nous délivrera des Grecs et
des Romains?"1From this point of view
Impressionism has also great affinities with the ideas of the
English Pre-Raphaelites, who stepped across the second and even the
first Renaissance back to the Primitives.This reaction is superimposed by another: the reaction of
Impressionism, not only against classic subjects, but against the
black painting of the degenerate Romanticists. And these two
reactions are counterbalanced by a return to the French ideal, to
the realistic and characteristic tradition which commences with
Jean Foucquet and Clouet, and is continued by Chardin, Claude
Lorrain, Poussin, Watteau, La Tour, Fragonard, and the admirable
engravers of the eighteenth century down to the final triumph of
the allegorical taste of the Roman revolution. Here can be found a
whole chain of truly national artists who have either been
misjudged, like Chardin, or considered as "small masters" and
excluded from the first rank for the benefit of the pompous
Allegorists descended from the Italian school.Impressionism being beyond all a technical reaction, its
predecessors should first be looked for from this material point of
view. Watteau is the most striking of all.L'Embarquement pour Cythèreis, in its
technique, an Impressionist canvas. It embodies the most
significant of all the principles exposed by Claude Monet: the
division of tones by juxtaposed touches of colour which, at a
certain distance, produce upon the eye of the beholder the effect
of the actual colouring of the things painted, with a variety, a
freshness and a delicacy of analysis unobtainable by a single tone
prepared and mixed upon the palette.MANETYOUNG MAN IN COSTUME OF MAJOClaude Lorrain, and after him Carle Vernet, are claimed by
the Impressionists as precursors from the point of view of
decorative landscape arrangement, and particularly of the
predominance of light in which all objects are bathed. Ruysdael and
Poussin are, in their eyes, for the same reasons precursors,
especially Ruysdael, who observed so frankly the blue colouring of
the horizon and the influence of blue upon the landscape. It is
known that Turner worshipped Claude for the very same reasons. The
Impressionists in their turn, consider Turner as one of their
masters; they have the greatest admiration for this mighty genius,
this sumptuous visionary. They have it equally for Bonington, whose
technique is inspired by the same observations as their own. They
find, finally, in Delacroix the frequent and very apparent
application of their ideas. Notably in the famousEntry of the Crusaders into Constantinople, the fair woman kneeling in the foreground is painted in
accordance with the principles of the division of tones: the nude
back is furrowed with blue, green and yellow touches, the
juxtaposition of which produces, at a certain distance, an
admirable flesh-tone.And now I must speak at some length of a painter who,
together with the luminous and sparkling landscapist Félix Ziem,
was the most direct initiator of Impressionist technique.
Monticelli is one of those singular men of genius who are not
connected with any school, and whose work is an inexhaustible
source of applications. He lived at Marseilles, where he was born,
made a short appearance at the Salons, and then returned to his
native town, where he died poor, ignored, paralysed and mad. In
order to live he sold his small pictures at the cafés, where they
fetched ten or twenty francs at the most. To-day they sell for
considerable prices, although the government has not yet acquired
any work by Monticelli for the public galleries. The mysterious
power alone of these paintings secures him a fame which is, alas!
posthumous. Many Monticellis have been sold by dealers as Diaz's;
now they are more eagerly looked for than Diaz, and collectors have
made fortunes with these small canvases bought formerly, to use a
colloquial expression which is here only too literally true, "for a
piece of bread."Monticelli painted landscapes, romantic scenes, "fêtes
galantes" in the spirit of Watteau, and still-life pictures: one
could not imagine a more inspired sense of colour than shown by
these works which seem to be painted with crushed jewels, with
powerful harmony, and beyond all with an unheard-of delicacy in the
perception of fine shades. There are tones which nobody had ever
invented yet, a richness, a profusion, a subtlety which almost vie
with the resources of music. The fairyland atmosphere of these
works surrounds a very firm design of charming style, but, to use
the words of the artist himself, "in these canvases the objects are
the decoration, the touches are the scales, and the light is the
tenor." Monticelli has created for himself an entirely personal
technique which can only be compared with that of Turner; he
painted with a brush so full, fat and rich, that some of the
details are often truly modelled in relief, in a substance as
precious as enamels, jewels, ceramics—a substance which is a
delight in itself. Every picture by Monticelli provokes
astonishment; constructed upon one colour as upon a musical theme,
it rises to intensities which one would have thought impossible.
His pictures are magnificent bouquets, bursts of joy and colour,
where nothing is ever crude, and where everything is ruled by a
supreme sense of harmony.MANETTHE READERClaude Lorrain, Watteau, Turner and Monticelli constitute
really the descent of a landscapist like Claude Monet. In all
matters concerning technique, they form the direct chain of
Impressionism. As regards design, subject, realism, the study of
modern life, the conception of beauty and the portrait, the Impres
[...]