‘It makes me sick!’ How the likes of the French impressionists went from ‘lunatics’ to luminaries

TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:

"Exploring the Rise of French Impressionism from Criticism to Celebration"

View Raw Article Source (External Link)
Raw Article Publish Date:
AI Analysis Average Score: 7.9
These scores (0-10 scale) are generated by Truthlens AI's analysis, assessing the article's objectivity, accuracy, and transparency. Higher scores indicate better alignment with journalistic standards. Hover over chart points for metric details.

TruthLens AI Summary

In 1876, a group of emerging artists including Claude Monet, Pierre-Auguste Renoir, and Berthe Morisot were ridiculed by critics, with one notably calling them 'lunatics' for their unconventional approach to art. This derogatory label stemmed from their rejection of traditional themes in favor of everyday life, capturing scenes such as picnics and laundry days. Albert Wolff, a French critic, expressed his disdain for their work, stating that it made him 'sick at heart.' Despite the initial backlash, the Impressionists would go on to redefine the art world, transforming their once-controversial pieces into celebrated masterpieces that now adorn calendars and merchandise worldwide. Their exhibitions from 1874 to 1886 drew public gasps and ridicule, but ultimately laid the groundwork for a new artistic movement that embraced beauty in the mundane, challenging the established norms of their time.

The National Gallery of Victoria in Melbourne is currently showcasing a significant collection of French Impressionism, primarily on loan from the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. This exhibition highlights the connections among the artists, their mentors, and the supportive community that fostered their development. Curator Katie Hanson notes that the Impressionists' focus on everyday reality was groundbreaking, requiring courage from both the artists and their supporters. The exhibition includes notable figures like Eugène Boudin, who encouraged Monet, and also explores the friendships and rivalries that characterized their relationships. The show has evolved since its initial presentation in 2021, now offering a more expansive view of the Impressionist movement within a setting reminiscent of a Bostonian mansion. It invites visitors to appreciate the vibrant works of artists like Monet and Renoir while reflecting on the historical context of their once-derided creations, emphasizing how far Impressionism has come from its origins in the laughter of critics.

TruthLens AI Analysis

The article presents a historical overview of the evolution of Impressionist art, highlighting the initial scorn faced by artists like Claude Monet and Berthe Morisot, who were once dismissed as "lunatics." It emphasizes how the perception of their work has drastically changed over time, transforming from ridicule to reverence.

Cultural Shifts in Artistic Expression

The narrative indicates a significant cultural shift, showcasing how art that was once considered avant-garde has become mainstream. This transformation reflects broader societal changes in the acceptance of diverse artistic expressions. The article subtly encourages readers to appreciate the value of unconventional perspectives in art and society, suggesting that what may initially be viewed as absurd can eventually gain widespread acceptance and admiration.

Perception of Artistic Value

The piece illustrates the struggle for acceptance among Impressionist artists, portraying their determination to find beauty in everyday life. By comparing their work to traditional subjects like biblical or historical figures, the article underscores a broader discussion on the criteria that define artistic value. This perspective invites readers to reconsider their own views on art and beauty, potentially fostering a more inclusive appreciation of diverse artistic expressions.

Manipulative Elements

While the article seems to celebrate the Impressionists' journey, it can be interpreted as subtly manipulating the audience's emotions, invoking nostalgia for the past. The choice of language—describing critics as "sniffily" dismissive—could evoke a sense of solidarity with the artists and encourage readers to reject traditional norms in favor of more progressive views. This could lead to a sense of elitism among those who embrace contemporary art trends.

Historical Context and Current Relevance

The historical context of the Impressionist movement serves as a parallel to contemporary discussions about artistic legitimacy and societal values. By linking past and present, the article implies that current unconventional artists may be undergoing similar struggles for recognition. This relevance resonates with modern audiences who may feel marginalized in their creative pursuits.

Implications for Society and Economy

The celebration of Impressionism could influence cultural institutions, potentially leading to increased interest in exhibitions and discussions surrounding impressionist works. This can impact the economy through art sales and tourism related to cultural events. Additionally, as conversations about art and societal acceptance evolve, they may influence broader conversations in politics and social movements, encouraging more inclusive policies.

Audience Engagement and Community Response

Art enthusiasts, particularly those who appreciate historical narratives and cultural discussions, are likely to resonate with this article. It appeals to communities that value artistic innovation and diversity, inviting dialogue about the evolution of art over time. The article may also engage younger audiences who are navigating their own paths in creative fields, encouraging them to embrace their unique perspectives.

Impact on Markets and Business

While the article primarily focuses on cultural aspects, there is potential for implications in art-related markets. Increased interest in Impressionism could boost art auction houses, galleries, and art supply businesses. For investors, this could signal opportunities in companies involved in art reproduction or exhibitions.

Given the emphasis on the historical journey of Impressionism, the reliability of the article appears strong, as it draws upon documented critiques and well-known artists. The analysis of societal perceptions and shifts in artistic value is well-supported by historical context.

Unanalyzed Article Content

“Five or six lunatics deranged by ambition – one of them a woman – have chosen to exhibit their works,” French critic Albert Wolff wrote in a review of an art exhibition in Paris in 1876. The lunatics in question were a group of up-and-coming artists:Claude Monet, Alfred Sisley, Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Berthe Morisot, Camille Pissarro and Edgar Degas.

Almost 150 years later, we know now that those lunatics took over the asylum. The impressionists, who rebelled against the old masters by painting lighter, brighter, ephemeral scenes, are today’s old masters; what was so shocking then is now all over our calendars, coffee cups and phone cases. But back in 1876, those looking at their works “are content to laugh at such things,” Wolff wrote sniffily. “But it makes me sick at heart.”

There were eight impressionist exhibitions between 1874 and 1886. From the first, much fuss was made of these paintings that captured quotidian moments like picnics, laundry day and music lessons, rather than the few subjects deemed acceptable by the establishment (the big three: biblical, mythological or historical). The impressionists – a derogatory label they would later adopt with pride – saw worth and beauty everywhere: a garlic seller or a ballet dancer or a baby nephew deserved immortalising as much as Jesus or Napoleon.

Sign up for the fun stuff with our rundown of must-reads, pop culture and tips for the weekend, every Saturday morning

But newspapers recorded the public gasping, hooting and even fainting over such art. There was a shared suspicion that these sloppy rebels weren’t bothered to paint properly, or perhaps simply couldn’t. After the very first show in 1874, one critic accused Monet of having “declared war on beauty”, while Morisot’s own tutor wrote to her mother with his damning verdict of her new gang: “All of these people are more or less touched in the head.”

A huge collection of French impressionism has arrived at the National Gallery of Victoria inMelbourne, which is mostly on loan from the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston – a gallery founded in 1870, just four years before the first impressionists were shocking France. “Making everyday reality the subject of art – it seems so obvious today, but it’s a wonderful thing to remember that it wasn’t inevitable,” says Katie Hanson, a curator at MFA Boston. “It took courage, and a village, to make impressionism a reality.”

French Impressionism opens on a room for a literal village: Barbizon, a small town located about 50km from Paris, to which many artists flocked due to its proximity to the very paintable Forest of Fontainebleau – and for being conveniently on a train line. The School of Barbizon inspired many of the impressionists who followed 30 years later. There are even direct links to be found – take Narcisse Virgile Diaz de la Peña, who followed Theodore Rousseau around the forest watching him paint; 30 years later, Diaz was in the forest when heran into a young Renoir at work and gave him the career-changing advice to lighten up his palette.

“When you start peeling back the onion you find all these points of connection and mutual support underneath,” says Hanson.

MFABostonis home to more than 500,000 works, which means it can send off this many masterpieces without a second thought. It can even do it twice: French Impressionism was first staged at the NGV in 2021, before it was closed prematurely due to Covid lockdowns. It is what Julian Barnes once called a “masterpieces-on-a-washing-line approach”; you may find you struggle to appreciate every single painting on display.

But you can navigate French Impressionism by playing who-knows-who. There are the mentors like Eugène Boudin who, despite not being an impressionist, gets a whole room to himself for having spotted teenage Monet’s talent and encouraged him to work “en plein air”, as he did; and a few works by Diaz, who supported Renoir and even bought him paint when he couldn’t make ends meet. Then there are the friends who didn’t quite make it into the gang – like Norwegian impressionist Frits Thaulow, French realist Henri Fantin-Latour and, of course, Édouard Manet, who was so close to the impressionists that he was widely regarded as their leader, despite his choice to never exhibit with them.

Sign up toSaved for Later

Catch up on the fun stuff with Guardian Australia's culture and lifestyle rundown of pop culture, trends and tips

after newsletter promotion

There are also the admirers, like Vincent Van Gogh, who was painting in France at the same time but noted he was not “one of the club”, and even a spot for theadmired: Victorine Meurent, who was Manet’s favourite model and also a painter, whose fabulously haughty self-portrait was found in a Parisian flea market in 2010 and acquired by MFA Boston in 2021. The four-year delay in this exhibition returning to Melbourne means Meurent now gets to share the spotlight with Manet’s flirtier view of her – though the exhibition remains an undeniable sausage fest; in the four years since the first attempt to stage it, the number of Morisot paintings has gone from one to two.

Pleasure lies in discovering the impressionists’ relationships with one another. Misanthropic Paul Cézanne and argumentative Degas; the social butterflies Monet and Renoir; Morisot, the rare woman among men and a dab hand at dealing with their moods and egos; and Pissarro, the cheerful link between everyone, affectionately dubbed “Papa”. They painted each other’s wives, brothers, children, servants, crushes. Not that they always got along – “they were artists, after all,” Hanson says.

So why Boston? Why did a US city take such a shine to the impressionists when Paris was falling over itself to laugh at them? French gallerist Paul Durand-Ruel, the impressionists’ greatest cheerleader, was already selling Barbizon landscapes to eager Americans when impressionism arrived. When he first exhibited the impressionists in Manhattan in 1886, both the public and press were more curious and impressed than the French had been a decade before. Durand-Ruel opened a permanent gallery in New York in 1888, selling impressionist masterpieces to wealthy east coast collectors, including Bostonians.

“Boston was prepared to like impressionism because they already liked French painters and unidealised landscapes,” says Hanson. “Bostonians had a real love of nature and naturalism – think of Whitman or Thoreau. People in the Boston area were really focusing on nature’s many splendours, so impressionism wasn’t a step too far for them.”

If you saw the aborted version of French Impressionism in 2021, it is much more maximalist this time around, with the NGV styling the interiors to look like an opulent Bostonian mansion. The plush lounges scattered around don’t make for good vantage points on busy days – but there are enough instantly pleasing sights on any horizon to keep up morale if you get frustrated by the crowds: the fizzy pastels of Monet’s view of Venice, an unexpected Van Gogh, Renoir’s instantly recognisableDance at Bougival. So while you’re dodging prams or queueing for a look, think back to those first exhibitions in Paris – at least you are not peering past angry Parisians in top hats. Probably.

French Impressionism from the Museum of Fine Arts, Bostonis open at the NGV until 5 October.

Back to Home
Source: The Guardian