Impressionism – Modernism Takes Hold

Some notes taken from Waldemar Januszczak’s documentary series The Impressionists: Painting & Revolution.

What was it about? What were the goals?

Impressionism was an art movement based on several ideas:

·         It was an act of artistic rebellion, in which artists who had been rejected by the Paris Salon formed their own club, and held their own independent art exhibitions––what art historian Waldemar Januszczak called “eight art shows that changed the world.”

·         Impressionist painting was cheerful and optimistic, celebrating the new modern world: the transformation of Paris, new technology such as railroads, and the rising, liberated middle class. It studied modernity in detail, inspired by realists like Courbet and Manet.

·         Stylistically, Impressionists cared very much for the nature of light and colour and how it was affected by time of day, weather, reflections, and atmospheric conditions. They believed in painting outdoors, ignoring little details and eschewing precise drawing. Instead, they cared about working quickly, capturing the essence of a subject, getting the colours and shapes right with big bold, expressive brushstrokes.

·         They painted on a white background––we take it for granted today, but before the Impressionists, artists preferred working on dark-ground under paintings.

·         They also avoided black paint, instead mixing complimentary colours for darks and greys.

·         Since they tried to finish most works in one sitting, there was no use of transparent glazing, so the works are all opaque.

·         Impressionism also worked with optical mixing, placing colours side-by-side without blending, an idea that would be explored further with Pointillism.

·         Impressionism began to end as the optimism of modern life gave way to anger over growing poverty, lack of worker’s rights, and class struggle. It gave way to the pessimism of expressionist art.

A bit of historical context, and what made it modern?

To understand how Impressionists were revolutionary, you have to understand the salon system and how it worked. A salon was a juried exhibition, and the jurors were the professors of the Academie des Beaux-Arts. They only accepted artwork that fit their taste and sensibilities. Likewise, they only admitted students they liked into the Academie, and only suggested their best students to paint commissions for the state, and then to join their ranks as new professors. Getting a place in the Academie assured one of success and fame, but meant you had to paint exactly what they wanted. It stifled freedom and creativity. As noted earlier, many artists and movements struggled to gain acceptance under this system. The Impressionists failed too, but then they decided to undermine the whole system by holding their own revolutionary shows, helped by the great art dealer Durand-Ruel.

Impressionism couldn’t have existed without new technology:

1.      Paint tubes, that allowed artists to leave the studio, painting outdoors.

2.      New synthetic colours in these tubes, such as: cobalt blue, ultramarine blue, cerulean blue, viridian, and cadmium yellow.

3.      Folding easels, that folded up into a light, convenient box, easy for travel.

4.      Brushes with tin ferrules, for flat brushes and clean, thin lines.

5.      Brushes made from coarse pig’s hair, for scratching around thick globs of paint.

6.      New pastels, made of pigment and chalk, allowed for drawing quickly in colour.

7.      Railways, to transport artists to many different towns and places.

8.      Photography, showed artists how people and animals look when moving, and influenced compositions. Before them, most artists chose a main subject as the focal point, and everything else was secondary. The Impressionists challenged this, at times placing several focal points, putting into question if a work was about the sitter or the background, creating an effect like a camera snapshot, as if you were really there. The Impressionists’ loose, painterly style was also a reaction to photography, which devalued the notion of precise, realistic rendering. Impressionists instead focused on the aspects of picture making that photography lacked – colour and subjectivity.

In addition to new technology, Impressionism was also influenced by the asymmetrical compositions and colours of Japanese printmaking which was very popular in the 19^th century.

The underlying philosophy of the period:

There are several core concepts to great Impressionist painting. They shared the Realist belief you should only paint what you see right in front of you. They felt, like the Barbizon School, you should go out and find your subjects around you. They also felt an artist is like a record keeper of history, and should record real life, whatever’s happening now, so that future generations may gain a greater understanding of the times. Since this was of fundamental importance, little details were insignificant clutter. Impressionists believed in creating beauty, but found it in the basic forms and colours of light.

How was it represented in other arts – music, architecture, and literature?

Impressionism was popular in a number of other arts. Impressionist cinema came into fashion from 1919-1929 with Abel Gance, Epstein, Dulac, Delluc, and others. In music, Debussy and Ravel are considered the greatest Impressionist composers. Their music favoured shorter works with bigger chords (5 and 6 part harmonies, not just 3), major 7^th chords, and whole tone scales.

In literature, Impressionism refers to works that describe, rather than interpret, the little things going around the characters and the thoughts in their heads, much like stream-of-consciousness. Writers include Baudelaire, Rimbaud, Virginia Woolf, D.H. Lawrence, and Joseph Conrad.

What made it great?

Any art teacher will agree that colour is the most evocative element in painting. It might not be the most important to the structure of a composition, but we have all kinds of mental associations with different colours, and we react automatically with joy to certain colour combinations. The Impressionists knew this and studied these effects in detail. As a result, they became some of the most popular artists who ever lived, their works being some of the most expensive, memorable, and well-loved in history. There’s a reason why so many pens, napkins, calendars, and coffee mugs use Impressionist art as decoration. Impressionists are favourites among crowds of people with no art training, from all over the globe. This also explains why it’s still in demand and there are so many Impressionist artists still working today.

Critics of Impressionism come in two forms. There were the 19^th century academics who complained of the lack of finish, precision, skill that made it inferior, to their eyes. Then, there are the Modernist critics of today who look back at this time and see quaint, traditional family scenes, and idealized cityscapes, creating false narratives of nostalgia and even promoting male oppression of women, etc. All of these critics attack Impressionism on an intellectual level; they tell you to ignore your lying eyes, and listen to their theories. Luckily, most people would rather look and enjoy the relaxing, beautiful pictures than listen to some half-baked theories about art.

What ruined it?

Some people will tell you that Impressionism ended as other experiments in art became fashionable – the constructivist approach of Cezanne, the vivid, expressive colours of Gauguin and Van Gogh, the wild lines of Toulouse Lautrec. It’s true that Impressionism fell out of fashion, and a wave of pessimism at modernity, as art historian Januszczak described it, may have turned audiences against it, for a time. But, impressionism keeps coming back, again and again. It’s the default way to paint and to teach painting all over the world. It’s considered the best practice for training as an artist.

What’s with the haystacks?

Monet is credited with painting haystacks as a popular subject for impressionist study. It was one of his favourite subjects at Giverny, and he would set up several easels in a row, painting the same haystacks over time as the light changed. The farmers, however didn’t like his work, and would actually remove the haystacks early just to spite him. Monet wasn’t the first to paint haystacks, either. Millet painted them fifteen years earlier, granted they were the backdrop for his gleaners and farmhands.

Some leading figures:

Camille Pisarro (1830-1903)

Edouard Manet (1832-1883)

Edgar Degas (1834-1917)

Alfred Sisley (1839-1899)

Auguste Rodin (1840-1917) (sculptor)

Oscar-Claude Monet (1840-1926)

Frederic Bazille (1841-1870)

Berthe Morisot (1841-1895)

Pierre-Auguste Renoir (1841-1919)

Gustave Caillebotte (1848-1894)

Leading American Impressionists:

Winslow Homer (1836-1910)

Mary Cassatt (1844-1926)

William Merritt Chase (1849-1916)

John Singer Sargent (1856-1925)

Childe Hassam (1859-1935)

Frederic Remington (1861-1909)

Other Famous Impressionists:

Giovanni Boldini (Italian, 1842-1931)

Anders Zorn (Swedish, 1860-1920)

Joaquin Sorolla y Bastida (Spanish, 1863-1923)

Nicolai Fechin (Russian-American, 1881-1955)

Some of the most famous artworks of the time:

Realism – Modernism’s First Big Step

Notes taken from Beth Gersh-Nesic, Ben Politt, and Dr.’s Beth Harris and Steven Zucker of Khan Academy.

What was it about? What were the goals?

A simple way to think of the Realists is to see it as another step towards Modernism. Realists, mostly French painters who worked at the same time as Pre-Raphaelites, still used academic training, styles and techniques, while shifting interests away from the classics, and toward modern life and society. This was a time of rapid transformation as the industrial revolution changed technology, cities, and previous ways of life. Realist artists wanted to examine and critique these changes in their art. Gustave Courbet, the de-facto leader of this group, wanted to make “history paintings” about real life––what was happening now. He felt, if he couldn’t see it, he shouldn’t paint it.

A word about modernism:

“In the Stone Age, artists expressed themselves with crude pictures on the walls of their caves. Then there was a period of transition that lasted roughly 10,000 years. Then came Modern Art. Now we can express ourselves again. If you want to know the details, you can go to art school and spend thousands of dollars, but this is basically what they'll teach you. I've boiled it down.” – Brad Holland

A bit of historical context

So, what changed during the industrial revolution? Basically, everything. This was one of the first times in history when population and wealth grew consistently, year to year, at unprecedented levels. One of the earliest and largest businesses to industrialize was textile manufacturing. Gas was used for heating homes and for street lights, starting around 1812 in London, and lasting until around 1890 when electric lights began to replace them. Lights at night allowed factories to run longer and created a new nightlife in cities. Modern sanitation made cities cleaner. New railways, roads, and canals made travelling faster, safer, and cheaper. People began taking weekend trips out into the country, just for fun.

Paris, a centre of artistic development, had transformed as well, with ambitious new projects that tore down old buildings to create broad new boulevards. The city reinvented itself in a modern style with multi-class buildings, where the rich lived on the first floors, and the poor up at the top. This allowed for more social mixing and mobility.

The underlying philosophy of the period:

If you can’t see it, you shouldn’t paint it. Don’t dwell on the distant past because you weren’t there, so you can’t possibly know what really happened. Focus on the present and what’s happening now. You’re living in important, exciting times. You need to record it so others can understand what life was like when your present becomes the past––and painting is the best way to do it, because so many of the changes are visual. Also, don’t be fooled into only presenting “important people”. Every life matters equally, so everyone is important, not just the rich and famous. Use your art to draw attention to people who need it, not simply those who want it. Art critic Baudelaire also recommended that artists be a flâneur, or stroller, joining the city crowds, but quietly observing, so he could better understand and paint them.

How was it represented in the other arts – music, architecture, and literature?

Realism is a major movement in literature, philosophy, the theatre, and cinema. Realist writers include Balzac, Flaubert, Tolstoy, Chekhov, Henrik Ibsen, and Emile Zola. English writers include George Eliot, Henry Fielding, and American realists include Mark Twain, Jack London, Stephen Crane, and John Steinbeck.

What made it great?

Far and away, the clearest star of the Realists was Edouard Manet, for his ability to get into the heads of his subjects and present complex, conflicting emotions with longing and pain that you can only guess at, no matter how long you look. Manet painted people who speak to you with their eyes. His revolutionary subjects and style have led some critics to call him the first modern artist. Beyond this, many realist painters learned and imitated the Romantics in landscape, using the light of the sun to evoke feelings and add drama. Having said that, some of the work these artists produced is a bit mediocre, just like with any art movement.

Why was it so short-lived?

Much of what one might consider “realist” art of this movement is limited to 1845-1870. It’s a short amount of time. I would say the biggest factors in this were the small number of artists who fit the criteria, few students of note to continue the style and aesthetic onto a second generation, and a rising tide of new, fashionable styles that swept away interest for a time. Of course, there are many artists today who create highly realistic art that could be considered “realist” in treatment of subject. But, they don’t get much recognition, and it’s hard to draw a connection from the contemporary art world to a tradition that died over 100 years ago.

Was it really more realistic than other periods?

Yes and no, so it’s not the best name for the movement. The two main facets of realism were in the brushwork itself and the realist, objective construction of compositions, showing things as they would look in real life, with no attempt at idealization. If you look back you can find precursors to realism, for example many golden-age Dutch masters, as well as the anti-Rococo painter Chardin, who seems to have been a major influence on Millet and others. If you look back at the Pre-Raphaelites, their colours and subjects may have been otherworldly, but their attention to detail, perspective, and proportions were highly realistic. Waterhouse even subdued his colours to increase the realism of his works. What’s more, as many so-called “realists” got older, their works became less and less photorealistic as the influence and appreciation for impressionism grew. Many “realist” paintings feel unfinished and rough, and not what one might consider realistic.

Some leading figures:

Jean-Baptiste-Camille Corot (1796-1875)

Honoré-Victorin Daumier (1808-1879)

Jean-François Millet (1814-1875) (Barbizon School)

Gustave Courbet (1819-1877)

Charles Baudelaire (1821-1867) (poet & art critic)

Rosa Bonheur (1822-1899)

Édouard Manet (1832-1883)
Jules Bastien-Lepage (1848-1884)
Ivana Kobilca (Slovenian, 1861-1926)

Philip Alexius de Laszlo (Hungarian, 1869-1937)

American Realists (Ashcan School):

Robert Henri (1865-1929)

George Benjamin Luks (1866-1933)

William Glackens (1870-1938)

John Sloan (1871-1951)

Everitt Shin (1876-1953)

George Bellows (1882-1925)

Edward Hopper (1882-1967)

Peredvizhniki (Russian Realists):

Ivan Shishkin (1832-1898)

Vasily Perov (1833-1882)

Ilja Repin (1844-1930)

Vladimir Makovsky (1846-1920)

Some of the most famous artworks of the time:

The Stone Breakers, by Gustave Courbet, 1848

In this painting, two men break rocks to clear a path for a road. Nothing here is idealized. One worker looks too old for the job, while the other is only a boy. Their clothing is torn and ragged. The low-angle perspective shows only the men working in the foreground, with just a touch of sky and landscape high off to the right, making the men feel isolated and trapped. Their poses suggest exhaustion and pain. There’s nothing heroic about them. The brushwork is rough and uneven, like the stones themselves. Where most painters would focus on the faces and hands of the figures, Courbet treats them the same as everything else. They lack the monumentality of Ford Maddox Brown’s Work, but feel more “real”.

A Burial at Ornans, by Gustave Courbet, 1849-50

This painting shows a funeral of an ordinary man in Ornans––Courbet’s great uncle, although he didn’t add the name in the title. Courbet painted it large-scale and listed it as a history painting––something unheard of at the time. Most people would have considered it a genre painting since it depicted everyday life, but Courbet wanted to present this as an important part in history.

Other than the immense size, three other facts stand out that add to its realism. First of all, the man in front in the middle is a common grave digger, and Courbet paints him with a level of importance and dignity, signifying the importance of labourers. Second, there’s no real focal point in this work. Your eyes wander along like you would in real life. You see a variety of faces and expressions, some mourning, but some simply distracted or pensive––people who might not have known the deceased, or cared. There’s even a dog that seems to have wandered its way into the foreground, oblivious to what’s going on, and symbolizing nothing. Three groups of figures are treated equally here, the clergy on the left, the town officials and leaders in the middle, and a group of women on the right. There’s little interaction among them. Each figure seems alone in his or her thoughts.

Finally, there are no angels above or mystical lights from heaven. There’s nothing to suggest heaven actually exists. Courbet painted only what he saw, nothing more.

Ploughing in the Nivernais, by Rosa Bonhuer, 1849

This work may seem a bit boring until you learn some of the history surrounding it. In 1848, France went through yet another revolution, with yet another king being deposed in favour of yet another Napoleon. Politically, France was not doing well, but this painting seeks to show a different story. This simple picture of a farmer ploughing a field with his cows shows the strength of the French spirit along with its rich, fertile land. It calls for courage and calm in hard times.

The Gleaners, by Jean-François Millet, 1857

This painting depicts three poor beggar women who are gleaning, or picking through the field, looking for bits of corn to take home and cook for their families. They carry what little they can find in their skirts, which are tied up to serve as sacks for the grain. In the distant background, one can see the main crop, with large piles of grain and many workers engaged in similar activity, gathering it. But they have plenty of food while these three women have little. While the scene is harsh, Millet’s treatment is kind and gentle. He paints the women with soft round shapes, muted colours, all in similar pose to unify them. They are treated here with respect and solemnity, as Millet addresses this issue of poverty. At the same time, he hides their faces, emphasizing their anonymity – ignored by everyone in society.

L’Angelus, by Jean-François Millet, 1857-59

This work shows a farming couple stop their work as they hear the church bell ringing in the distance, so they stop to say a prayer, the Angelus, in honour of the annunciation of Mary. The work is sentimental, showing an example of moral life. The couple works hard every day, even to sundown, but they stop to pray. They know their place in the universe, and so on. The couple looks iconic and monumental. They’re back-lit so you can’t really see their faces, making them represent every man and woman who lives this simple, honest farming life.

Music in the Tuileries Gardens, by Edouard Manet, 1862

This painting shows a concert in a garden near the Louvre, which was held twice weekly, and attracted the rich and wealthy of Napoleon III’s Second Empire. Manet included several famous people here, the artists Bazille and Fantin-Latour, the writer Champfleury, and the composer Offenbach. Manet also included himself as a flâneur, standing on the far left, in the grey slacks. We, the viewers, are where the musicians should be, which is why so many of the sitters are gazing at us.

The work was mocked when shown, partly for Manet’s loose brushwork, that looked unfinished. Manet deliberately left some places unfinished to represent the way our eyes focus on one thing and disregard others. But, mostly people were shocked at the idea of such a large, monumental painting devoted to such an unimportant scene of modern life. This work was shown the same year Whistler exhibited the portrait of his mother, so the idea of devoting large works to ordinary people and things was still new. And, while the Pre-Raphaelites and Romantics had painted ordinary scenes before, it was rarely at this size, and they were always filled with symbolism. But, there’s no symbolism present here. It’s just a concert in the woods, nothing more.

The Railway, Gare Saint-Lazare, by Edouard Manet, 1872-3

This simple, straightforward painting is actually quite mysterious. We see a young woman sitting by an iron railing, a young girl standing next to her, her back turned to us as she watches a train go by. All we see is its steam. We have no idea who the two people are, but the woman has paused in her reading, and looks up at us, with a mix of curiosity and possible annoyance. Critics have debated what the point was to this picture, which shows Manet’s own studio off in the background to the left. Are the two figures trapped in a modern cage, or are they happily enjoying the new modern life? What do you think?

A Bar at the Folies-Bergère, by Edouard Manet, 1882

This painting shows a barmaid at her counter, in a large, boisterous theatre. There are acrobats above in the background, and couples flirting everywhere. You see them reflected in a large mirror placed behind her. The mirror is tilted so that you can see her back reflected to the right, and you even see your own reflection, as a young Parisian man, speaking to her. Like with The Railway, this work presents a mystery as we don’t know what the young woman is thinking. Her eyes look sad and thoughtful. She looks hesitant, knowing that her job will attract many men looking to flirt with her. While the counter top pushes her farther from us, we see in the reflection that we’re actually quite near her. This painting illustrates the kind of tension that people felt when in these situations – does the man just want a drink or something more? Will he make promises and is he telling the truth? She looks like she’s been hurt before and nervous about starting again.