Impressionism turns 150 years old
[ad_1]
The world began to celebrate the 150th anniversary of impressionism. The Orsay Museum was the first to shoot, opening the exhibition “Paris, 1874. The Invention of Impressionism,” followed by scientific conferences, sightseeing tours, and other exhibitions. The celebration will move across the ocean, in particular to the National Gallery in Washington. The Old and New Worlds pay tribute to the direction of fine art, in love for which they are united more than any other. An art columnist for Kommersant talks about what we have learned about impressionism over these 150 years. Kira Dolinina.
The date of origin of the word “impressionism” is well known: on April 15, 1874, an exhibition of a certain Anonymous Society of Artists, Sculptors, Engravers, etc. opened at 35 Boulevard Capucines. Ten days later, in a review of it, the witty critic of Le Charivari magazine Louis Leroy threw in the word impressionnistes ( literally – “impressed”). The reason for this naming was Claude Monet’s painting “Impression. Sunrise” (1872): “”Impression”, of course. I knew it. No wonder I’m so impressed! Couldn’t help but be impressed here! But what freedom, what lightness of texture! The wallpaper paper is in the sketching stage and it will look more detailed than this painting!” This story is well known, let us only add that the word impression appeared on the label by accident: Auguste Renoir’s brother Edmond was making a catalog for a future exhibition and was completely exhausted with the boring and rather monotonous titles of Monet’s paintings (“Entrance to the Village”, “Exit of the Village”, “Morning” in the village” and the like); when Edmond Renoir rebelled, Monet calmly told him: “Put on Impression.” The word flew out, it was picked up by everyone and everything. The “Impressionists” themselves resisted this name for quite a long time, but already in 1877, another independent exhibition of the same circle of artists was displayed with a poster “The Third Exhibition of the Impressionists.” They will perform under this name only this time, but the word “Impressionists” will become firmly established in the history of art, drawing into its orbit those who would never subscribe to this name.
Difficulties in understanding the term celebrating the anniversary (the name of the direction) begin immediately. Who were those “impressed” whom Leroy scolded? 31 artists, about 200 works selected by the authors themselves, without a jury or representation of marchants. Of the three dozen names, only seven entered the history of art: Monet, Renoir, Degas, Morisot, Pissarro, Sisley, and the young Cezanne, who was greatly doubted by the organizers. It was his name that became the last straw that confirmed Manet that he should not join this company: when Degas once again invited his friend to participate in the exhibition, he declared: “I will never exhibit with Mr. Cezanne.” In imagining this exhibition, we focus on these names, but the bulk of the works hung on the red-brown walls of the former studio of the photographer Nadar were by other authors, and, what is extremely important, they were quite far stylistically from Monet and company: the difference in age ( almost 40 years separate Adolphe-Felix Cals from the youngest Leo-Paul Robert), in origin (the rich bourgeois families of Degas or Berthe Morisot were in no way in contact with the social environment of the anarchist Pissarro or the communard Auguste Otten), in political views (the anti-Semitism of Renoir and Degas does not fit well with Pissarro’s Jewishness), in aesthetic ideas (many of the members of the Anonymous Society had exhibited at the official Salon more than once before and saw it and its traditions as an influential force). If there was anything that united the participants of this exhibition, it was financial interest and the desire to present themselves to the public: to freely exhibit and sell works under the monopoly of the Salon seemed like a gamble (“Pavilion of Realism” by Courbet in 1855 and by that time numerous “Salons of the Rejected” refuseniks of the Salon were this is only a sad confirmation), and this is what the organizers of the 1874 exhibition were going to argue with.
It worked out with fame – about 3.5 thousand spectators visited the exhibition, a lot of reviews, albeit mostly negative, but they started talking about them. With finances – alas. Even despite the excitement and remarkable innovation – the exhibition was open in the dark, from eight to ten in the evening, under gas lighting – the entrance fee and the price of the catalog were low, and the expenses of the society members were not recouped. In December of the same year, the Anonymous Society was dissolved.
And in a couple of decades, the world will be swept by an impressionistic fever, and the works of these and some other artists of the circle will be sold out like hot cakes. It is clear that most of the money was overseas, and almost everything that was on the large market ended up in American collections. It’s good that the French state, which supports the Salon, did not hesitate to buy high-profile paintings by “this gang” (as Corot called them) for the future. The Orsay Museum largely grew out of these purchases. Moreover, Russian merchants worked a lot in this field – the selections of impressionists from Shchukin and Morozov were excellent. It turns out that Degas was right when he invited his friends to the first exhibition: “Our idea is a good thing, correctly, simply and, in essence, courageously conceived. We may, as they say, do menial work, but the future is ours.”
They began to study the history of impressionism quite quickly. The critical analyzes were followed by fundamental works, which, firstly, affirmed impressionism as the beginning of modernism as a whole (Pierre Francastel, 1937), and secondly, wrote the history of the movement as such, based on documents, memoirs and other sources (John Rewald, 1947 ). Over the first half century, the main features of impressionistic painting were formulated, many of which were later rejected. Yes, light and the state of nature (as opposed to nature as a subject) are the main interest of these artists. Hence, for example, the significantly lighter tone of the paintings than was previously customary, even among the Barbizons. Yes, the subjects of “modern life” (according to Baudelaire), not so much historical events as everyday life, greatly distinguished the new artists from their predecessors. But no, the obligatory work from nature, in the open air, is greatly exaggerated: almost all impressionists finalized their paintings in workshops, using photographs and sketches. And no, it’s better not to call Degas and Manet impressionists: they themselves were categorically against it, and their painting was clearly outside the framework into which art historians tried to force this movement. But the friendly circle, with its hesitations, quarrels, reconciliations, is a concept that works much better to describe the impressionists.
In the 1970s it became fashionable to study the art of the Salon. It turned out that without him it is impossible to understand what the Impressionists were starting from and what they were arguing with (by the way, today’s exhibition at the Orsay Museum talks about this in detail). In the 1980s and 1990s, the social aspect of 19th-century art came to the fore, and Marxist art criticism came in handy. In the 2000s we experienced different fashions, from feminist art criticism to decolonial discourse. You won’t believe it, but now they are seriously discussing whether the art of the impressionists is the first environmental movement in painting or is it still a product of the era of the industrial revolution. Gender, race, literary or musical impressionism, politics in the art of the impressionists… There is a lot to talk about and think about in the anniversary year. But most of all, no matter how hard art critics try, we must look. It is not for nothing that back in 1874, in one of the devastating reviews, the main thing was formulated: what is interesting is not “what they see, <...> and how they see it.” After the Impressionists, this became the law.
[ad_2]
Source link