THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ART 1 1 | 1 r 1 0620 00658339 6 ™ The Metropolitan Museum of Art December 12,1974-February 10,1975 INTRODUCTION The Impressionist Epoch treats the development of Impressionism as a phenomenon within a larger whole. We have presented Impressionism as a constantly changing, extremely diverse "umbrella" for nearly all avant-garde tendencies in the eighteen sixties and seven­ ties, rather than attempt to formulate a strict definition. For example, Manet is included, even though he never exhibited with the group, for he participated in the dis­ cussions at the Cafe Guerbois and was the acknowledged leader of the avant-garde in the early years. To have ignored him would have been as inconceivable as exclud­ ing Degas, who contributed to seven of the eight exhibi­ tions, while insisting throughout that he was a realist. The name Impressionists resulted from the title of a satirical review by the critic Louis Leroy that was pub­ lished ten days after the opening o{ the first Impressionist exhibition in April 1874. Leroy singled out two paintings from Monet, Impression (Gallery 37) and Boulevard des Capucines (Gallery 36) as especially offensive to his aesthetic sensibilities. Monet's style, expecially as exem­ plified by Impression, was equated by Leroy to "impres­ sion" and subsequently Impressionism. Leroy s epithet soon became synonymous with the entire group (Monet, Renoir, Sisley, Degas, Morisot, Pissarro, Cezanne, etc.) that exhibited in the photographer Nadar's studios on the Boulevard des Capucines in 1874. The first "Impressionist" exhibition was in fact held under the name "Societe Anonyme!' The artists had banded together because they all represented "advanced" styles, and had agreed no longer to show at the official Salon. The group's exhibitions had actually been en­ visioned as early as 1866, when Bazille wrote to his par­ ents: "... the annoyance I experienced this year won't happen again... a dozen talented young people think the same way as I do (about no longer exhibiting in the Salon). We have therefore resolved to rent a big studio each year where we will show as many of our works as we want... It is nothing at all like a revolt of schoolboys!' When Bazille wrote to his parents in 1866 the "dozen talented young people" probably had more in common stylistically than when the exhibitions finally began in 1874- They were titled "Impressionist" for only two (1876, 1877) of the eight "Impressionist" shows between 1874 and 1886. By 1879 they adopted a new title: "A Group of Independents" They had turned down Degas' proposal that they call themselves "A Group of Independents, Realists, and Impressionists'.' The decision reflects the multi-faceted nature of this supposedly close-knit group, which by that date was plagued by factionalism. Ultimately, Impressionism is as insufficient a word as most art-historical labels. In this exhibition we have chosen to emphasize the diversity, perhaps even the lack of cohesion within the group —a historical truth that we have forgotten over the years in an attempt to define Impressionism as strictly as Leroy did in 1874, when the label was first mistakenly affixed to the group as a whole. By surrounding the core exhibition with related ex­ hibitions (French painting and photography of 1850-1870, official painting of the French Salon contemporary with the Impressionists, X-rays showing meaningful composi­ tional changes in key Impressionist works, the aftermath of Impressionism, and American Impressionism) the visitor will have an unprecedented opportunity to dis­ cover the sources, social history and art historical ramifi­ cations of this major turning point in Art History. Thomas Hoving Director, the Metropolitan Museum of Art Cover Detail: Renoir, Dancing at the Moulin de la Galette. Montmartre. 1876, Musee du Louvre. Pans Text by Carl R Baldwin. Associate Professor of Art Herbert H. Lehman College of the City of New York Design by Herb Schmidt/Joseph del Gaudio The Metropolitan Museum of Art This brochure was made possible by a grant from The National Endowment for the Humanities, Washington DC. The Museum also wishes to thank The National Endowment for the Humanities and The New York State Council on the Arts for their support for the exhibition, The Impressionist Epoch Copyright © 1974 The Metropolitan Museum of Art MAP OF THE GALLERIES 39 Before Impressionism 1840's-1870's 38 The Impressionists 1858-1868 37 The Impressionists 1868-1874 36 The Impressionists 1874-1876 35 The Impressionists 1876-1886 34 Some technical aspects and working methods 34a Slide presentation 33 Beyond Impressionism 1880-1914 32 Post Impressionism 1882-1938 31 Salon Painting 1877-1912 29 American Impressionism 28 American Impressionism n I 38 36 39 37 o Gallery 22 The H.O. Havemeyers: Collectors of Impressionist A £ IMPRESSIONISM Carl R. Baldwin Moner, La Grenouillere. 18(^ The Metropolitan Museum ot Art. New York The Impressionists gazed at one another, took angled views of new Paris boulevards and old bridges, went to the race track, discoursed in cafes, and passed their sum­ mer Sundays at boating or swimming spots outside Paris — saving up for a good lunch with friends at some restau­ rant perched on the banks of the Seine. In enjoying all this, they shared the values of most middle class French, whether haut or petit bourgeois, and of the more prosperous members of the working class. In deciding to paint it all, however, they set themselves apart from the guardians of the Academic faith on the one hand, sworn to uphold the ideals of the Greeks as under­ stood by Raphael and explained by Ingres, and also from the squadrons of more diversified and permissive "offi­ cial" painters, who savored contemporary life and prided themselves on being "modern" but for whom "modern life" was peopled by victorious or martyred soldiers, de­ vout or laborious villagers, be whiskered members of the Legislature, and other actors in patriotic and edifying tableaux. In selecting other aspects of modern life to pursue, the Impressionists were making choices and expressing preferences which had the ingredients of a social and even political critique. In opposition to the Academic and IMPRESSIONISM Carl R. Baldwin "official" artists whose values were closely geared to the governments and art institutions of their day, the Impres­ sionists were saying, in effect: "Your ritualistic ceremoni­ als—whether first nights at the Opera, official artists' banquets, reviews of the troops, or the Emperor's annual address to the Legislature — are unworthy of our attention as modern artists. In place of formal and hierarchical pageantry, we prefer the irregular, the accidental, the spontaneous—and we find these qualities outside o( official channels, not in them!' This rough paraphrase may help us to understand why this art, which looks so delectable and altogether charming to us now—indeed, which seems to be the quintessence of French sensibility and taste—was re­ garded at its inception with disdain and hostility by critics and public alike. But the Impressionists' choice of "banal" and "insignificant" subjects can only partly explain the reason for their initial rebuff: after all, who but the most inveterate aristocrat would not have enjoyed, and wished to have commemorated in a picture, such incidents as a cafe visit, a sailboat race on the Seine, a walk on a pebbly Normandy beach—not to mention the canonical Sunday lunch in the country? It was, more specifically, the infor­ mality and seeming casualness of the style by which these scenes and events were conveyed in paint that unstrung critics and public, who demanded in art some demon­ strable proof of "seriousness of purpose',' technical facil­ ity, and plain old fashioned patience and hard work. The off-hand dexterity of the Impressionists—Degas' sug­ gestive touches of pastel, the comma-like strokes of Monet (called "tongue-lickings" by an irate critic), Ren­ oir's fleecy and vaporous surfaces—ran counter to the qualities in art that the French of the Second Empire (1852-1870) and the Third Republic (established 1871) had been trained, almost from birth, to esteem. One must remember, in this connection, that the French believed that "correct drawing" was a sign, not merely of "honesty and integrity in art',' as Ingres put it, but of innate intelligence. This novel and, in some ways, admirable conviction was reflected in French educational practice, which stipulated that youths perfectly capable in math, science, and history could fail entrance examina­ tions to military academies and institutes of technology it they could not manage an accurate pencil rendering of a plaster cast sculpture or a living model (sometimes with correct shading, to boot!). It should also be recalled that the Salons in Paris (biennial until 1863, annual there­ after), which were international in scope and contained entries from various trade competitors, often coincided with or followed hard on the heels of international in­ dustrial fairs. On such occasions, foreign diplomats, tour­ ists, and businessmen would be barraged by intimidating demonstrations of French genius and ingenuity in indus­ try and art — ranging from the latest steam locomotives (a key factor in Second Empire and Third Republic pros­ perity) to giant historical paintings or laboriously wrought genre scenes. Whether presented by a real "Imperial Train" such as the one designed by the architect Viollet le Due and donated to the Sovereign by the Orleans railroad company, or by a minuscule depiction of dueling