Creating a Scene to Make an Impression How Gustave Caillebotte and His Street Scenes of Haussmannian Modernity Support Impressionism Without Subscription

An honors thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Bachelor of Arts in Art History at the University of Notre Dame

Isabel Josephine Cabezas Class of 2017

Advisor ______Dennis Doordan, Professor of Art History and Architecture

May 8, 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction | 1 Transformation and Conversion | 3 Beginning Impressionism...Or Growing Out of Realism | 6 Flâneurs Admiring Paris, or New Architecture Featuring Flâneurs? | 11 Le Pont de l’Europe and Sur le Pont de l’Europe | 12 ​ ​ ​ Paris Street, Rainy Day | 17 ​ Of or For Impressionism? | 20 Techniques and Style | 21 Financial Support | 26 Conclusion | 29

Figures | 33 Bibliography | 41

With thanks to the University of Notre Dame and its Department of Art, Art History, and Design,

especially Professor Dennis Doordan, Professor Nicole Woods, and the Hesburgh Libraries;

Holton-Arms School; National Gallery of Art; and my friends and family, especially my mother.

Cabezas 1

Creating a Scene to Make an Impression How Gustave Caillebotte and His Street Scenes of Haussmannian Modernity Support Impressionism Without Subscription

Introduction

19th-century Paris witnessed a redesign of its urban fabric and a revolution in styles of painting. Under Napoleon III’s Second Empire (1852-70), Baron Georges Haussmann transformed medieval Paris into a modern metropolis in an attempt to improve municipal sanitation and transportation, enhance urban beauty, and to facilitate governmental control over the city. The impact of this extensive redesign of Paris’ urban fabric extended to quotidian activities, as well as to the fine arts. French painting, for example, became less calculated and predictable. French artists responded to Haussmann’s transformation of Paris by straying from accepted norms and the Salon jury’s approval of genre and technique.1 Impressionist painters took scenes of ordinary, contemporary life as their subject matter, to provide viewers with an impression, or sense, of the encounter, and innovatively extended the frame and plane of the narrative to include the viewer. Gustave Courbet’s mid-19th-century Realism movement — in which he depicted scenes of labor and ordinary life instead of allegories or historical scenes meant to advance political agendas, and also showed in his own gallery after Salon rejection — sowed the seeds of the Impressionism.2 This generation of French painters could not survive without its own member, Gustave Caillebotte.

1 Burstein, Jessica. "Visual Art." In The Cambridge Companion to Modernist Culture, edited by Celia Marshik, 145-7. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. “The Paris Salon was the juried biennial exhibition run by the Academy of Fine Arts, an outgrowth of the Royal Academy of Painting and Sculpture (founded 1684). The Salon constituted national aesthetic standards...there was no charge for entry, and the public could absorb what was deemed fine art." 2 When the Salon rejected some of his paintings in 1855, Courbet persisted to display his works and set up his own gallery, The Pavilion of Realism, just outside the Exposition Universelle. ​ ​ ​ ​

Cabezas 2

Emerging just after Haussmannization, Impressionism recorded fleeting moments of an updated Paris. Citizens had an unfamiliar streetscape to learn and explore, one of wide boulevards, sewers, gas lights, parks, and uniform six-story buildings; such was the physical environment of Haussmannian modernity. Responding to the upgraded infrastructure of

Haussmannization, the Impressionists used novel techniques, such as loose brushwork and a participatory point of view, to produce an avant-garde conception of the city. Paintings now depicted Parisians’ movement and exploration of new spaces, as if the viewer had participated in the moment. This method broke with the style and traditional hierarchy of subjects that the Salon favored: scenes of antiquity or historical narratives, followed by portraits, landscapes, genre scenes, and still lifes, all in the classical style. As a group of Salon-rejected artists who sought to create a cultural space for this unconventional style of art and had no obligation to a dictated taste, the Impressionists broke from the norm as they recorded Parisian interactions, views, and relationships that anyone could access and observe in the street.

In this paper I will examine how Gustave Caillebotte depicted Haussmanian modernity in his paintings of Parisian streetscapes. Having begun his artistic career as an Academically trained painter, Caillebotte’s life provide a series of contradictions that both place him within and set him apart from the Impressionist movement. How his life straddled belonging and disengagement can account for the sub-scenes present in his street scenes that focus equally on architecture and human experience. These sub-scenes form the foundations of my case for why

Caillebotte does not align with the typical Impressionist in belonging, style, and technique.

Cabezas 3

Transformation and Conversion

Paris underwent a major redesign during the Second Empire of Napoleon III to relieve the city from its dark, dangerous, and dirty state. Sewage systems aided in improving sanitation, and green spaces and widened boulevards allowed for better traffic flow and made walking an enjoyable activity. The intervalled installation of street lamps, due to the advent of electricity, meant that people could safely stroll during the night; artificial light made for an entirely new experience of the city.

Uninterrupted, straight streets had not existed before 1852, with the exception of

“ceremonial rarities like the rue de Rivoli. But under the boulevard program of Baron

Haussmann, the look of this street — incredibly broad, bullet-straight, and seemingly stretching to infinity — became the pervasive hallmark of the new city.”3 By 1870, the streets of Paris were unrecognizable to anyone who lived in the city before Haussmannization (Figs. 1-3).

In addition to redesigning the layout of Paris, Baron Haussmann introduced a new architectural style to unify the urban landscape. The consistent nature of these structures, that are so identifiably Parisian today, erased and replaced the charm and mystery of Medieval Paris.

Commenting on how one building indistinguishably became the next, Caillebotte’s close friend and fellow Impressionist Auguste Renoir complained that they appeared “cold and lined up like soldiers at a review.”4 As uniformity replaced variety, Haussmann’s expensive apartments became a bourgeois commodity.

3 Varnedoe, Kirk. Gustave Caillebotte. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987. 84-5. ​ ​ 4 Rubin, James H. “Renovation and Modern Viewpoints: Roads, Bridges, and City Spaces.” In Impressionism and ​ the Modern Landscape: Productivity, Technology, and Urbanization from Manet to Van Gogh, 17-37. Berkeley: ​ University of California Press, 2008. 34.

Cabezas 4

Gustave Caillebotte enjoyed the comforts of a well-to-do Parisian family throughout his life. Born on August 19, 1848 to Martial Caillebotte, the head of a military textile company, and

Céleste Daufresne, he spent his first 18 years in the upper-class 10th arrondissement on the rue du Faubourg-Saint-Denis, just outside of Paris’ city walls. The family also had an extensive garden property in Yerres, a southeastern suburb of Paris, that provided the opportunity for boating on a river of the same name. In 1866, the family moved to their newly built home at the corner of 77 rue de Miromesnil and 13 rue de Lisbonne, in the 8th arrondissement that

Haussmann had just refurbished.

Having studied classics at Lycée Louis Le Grand, Gustave Caillebotte later graduated ​ ​ with a master’s law degree in 1868 and received his law license in 1870.5 He briefly served in the

Garde Nationale Mobile during the Franco-Prussian War (1870-1); two small paintings reveal this time as the start of his artistic career.6 “He joined Léon Bonnat's studio in 1872 and passed ​ ​ ​ the entrance examination for the École des Beaux-Arts on 18 March 1873, though the École’s ​ ​ records make no mention of his work there, and his attendance seems to have been short-lived.”7

The reputable guidance of Bonnat, a naturalist painter, elevated Caillebotte’s hobby to a serious undertaking, which his father supported through his willingness to construct a painting studio adjacent to the family house around 1874-5.8 The Floor Scrapers (Fig. 4), painted in 1875, ​ probably represents this fact, as “it has long been recognized that the finishing performed in The ​

5 Berhaut, Marie. "Caillebotte, Gustave." In The Grove Dictionary of Art, edited by Jane Turner, 53-7. New York: ​ ​ St. Martin's, 2000. 54. 6 Chardeau, Gilles. “Caillebotte: A Biographical Chronology.” In Gustave Caillebotte: The Painter’s Eye, edited by ​ ​ Mary Morton and George T. M. Shackelford, 233-49. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015. 234. 7 Berhaut, Caillebotte, 54. ​ ​ 8 Guegan, Stephan. “Ecce Homo.” In Gustave Caillebotte: The Painter’s Eye, edited by Mary Morton and George T. ​ ​ M. Shackelford, 99-107. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015. 100.

Cabezas 5

Floor Scrapers is appropriate to the installation of a new parquet, not the reconditioning on an ​ existing surface.”9

The Floor Scrapers was Caillebotte’s first serious painting, indicated by its 6’ 4” x 4’ 9” size and its submission to the Salon of 1875. Caillebotte takes a Marvillian approach10 by

“chronicling the changing landscape of his own urban experience,” but through his familiar method of Realist painting.11 A vacant room, the arduous handiwork of laborers, and rough shavings comprehensively signify the flux of creating an original space. The middle worker’s outstretched arms simultaneously carve the space for a new material and draw viewers into the scene that then fixes one’s eye upon the empty, shiny floorboards of the upper left. The stark reflection of the deep brown wood, in conjunction with the shining skin of the straining, shirtless workers unmistakably relates the scene as a hot and humid site of sweaty labor. This painting inspired 19th century critic Maurice Chaumelin to remark that “Caillebotte shows himself a realist just as raw, but much more witty, than Courbet, just as violent, but altogether more precise, than Manet.”12 Described as more extreme than Courbet and Manet, both of whom the jury had denied, it should not alarm that the same fate came for Caillebotte.

The Salon jury’s refusal deeply bothered Caillebotte, who shared his disappointment in letters to his friends. Hearing how distraught the 27 year old painter felt, Giuseppe de Nittis, an

9 Marrinan, Michael. “Caillebotte’s Deep Focus.” In Gustave Caillebotte: The Painter’s Eye, edited by Mary Morton and George T. M. Shackelford, 23-37. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015. 26. 10 National Gallery of Art. “Charles Marville: Photographer of Paris.” National Gallery of Art. Accessed April 2017. http://www.nga.gov/content/ngaweb/exhibitions/2013/marville.html. Charles Marville served as the official ​ photographer of Paris, starting in 1862 and continuing through the 1870s. He documented Old Paris before and during its destruction, and captured Haussmannization. By photographing the demolition and rebuilding of Paris, Marville preserved the memory of Old Paris and its transformation into New Paris. 11 Garb, Tamar. “Masculinity, Muscularity and Modernity in Caillebotte’s Male Figures.” In In Visible Touch: ​ Modernism and Masculinity, edited by Terry Smith, 53-74. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997. 70. ​ 12 Chaumelin, Maurice. "Actualités: L'Exposition des Impressionistes." In Gustave Caillebotte, compiled by Kirk ​ Varnedoe, 185. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987. Previously published in La Gazette (des Etrangers), April ​ 8, 1876.

Cabezas 6

Italian painter whose style fluctuates among Salon, Realist, and Impressionist, had his wife invite

Caillebotte to dinner so he could “learn well a lesson from the situation: that he should make art without giving a damn, because the future is ours.”13 Caillebotte had visited the First

Impressionist Exhibition14 and had received invitations to join the group of artists before, but the jury’s rejection finally pushed him to band with them in February 1876.15

Beginning Impressionism...Or Growing Out of Realism

The Impressionists grew out of a group of artists who rejected the Salon jury’s criteria of acceptance. Taking a cue from Gustave Courbet, who, after denial of inclusion in the 1855

Exposition Universelle, established his own pavilion to ensure a display of his work, Napoleon

III ordered a separate pavilion to display works that the jury of the official Salon had rejected in

1863, so that the general public could discern the paintings for themselves; we now recognize this event as the Salon des Refusés.16 A decade later, in the spring of April, 1873, French journalist Paul Alexis published an “appeal to artists in the republican newspaper L’Avenir ​ National,” in which he posited that “old distinctions between workers and artists are no longer ​ valid, since modern industrial societies treat both as producers regardless of their product. He proposes that artists take a cue from factory workers, band together to form associations,” and

13 Marrinan, Deep Focus, 27. ​ ​ 14 Shackelford, George T. M. “Man in the Middle.” In Gustave Caillebotte: The Painter’s Eye, edited by Mary ​ ​ Morton and George T. M. Shackelford, 39-55. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015. 42. 15 Berhaut, Caillebotte, 54. “In 1874 Edgar Degas, whom Caillebotte had met at the house of their mutual friend ​ ​ ​ Giuseppe de Nittis, asked [Caillebotte] to take part in the First Impressionist Exhibition at the Nadar Gallery in the Boulevard des Capucines in Paris. However, it was only at the time of their second exhibition in April 1876 that, at Auguste Renoir's invitation, Caillebotte joined the Impressionist group.” 16 "Salon des Refusés." Britannica Academic. Last modified 2017. ​ ​ ​ http://academic.eb.com.proxy.library.nd.edu/levels/collegiate/article/Salon-des-Refus%C3%A9s/65121. Napoleon ​ ​ III favored the classical style of the Salon, but, sensitive to the public’s anger about these refused paintings, he allowed the rejected artists, such as Cézanne, Manet, and Pissarro, to display. ​ ​

Cabezas 7 display their art in their own type of Salon des Refusés.17 One week later, Alexis published a letter from Claude Monet, explaining that he and some friends had already begun to do just that.

La Société anonyme coopérative des Artists — Peintres, Sculpteurs, Graveurs, etc. formed in ​ December, 1873;18 this group would later identify as the Impressionists.

The Impressionists embraced Charles Baudelaire’s idea of modernité, as described in his

Le Peintre de la Vie Moderne, which he published in Le Figaro (1863) and L’Art Romantique ​ ​ ​ (1869). Baudelaire, a mid-19th century poet and critic, declared, “La modernité, c’est le transitoire, le fugitif, le contingent, la moitié de l’art, dont l’autre moitié est l’éternel et l’immuable.”19 Indeed, the movement takes its name from embracing Louis Leroy’s harsh critique of the paintings in the First Impressionist Exhibition in 1874, which occurred at the

“recently vacated galleries” of the pioneering French photographer Nadar, on the Boulevard des

Capucines.20 Leroy reacted with frustration and distaste to the paintings that only gave an impression or idea — through “the vibration of tone...the sloppiness of tone” — rather than a true depiction of the artist’s subject.21 As a result, Monet’s Le Havre, which primarily inspired ​ ​ ​ this comment, has been famously rechristened as Impression, Sunrise (Fig. 5). This work aligns ​ ​ with Baudelaire’s criteria of recording the essence of recognizable scene, through Monet’s wistful brushstrokes and arrestment of nature’s fleeting effects. Baudelaire also advocated for modern men to spend their days strolling around their immediate environments, as flâneurs did,

17 Marrinan, Deep Focus, 28. ​ ​ 18 Burstein, Visual Art, 147. ​ ​ ​ 19 Modernity is the transitory, the fleeting, the contingent, the half of which is art, whose other half is the eternal and the unchanging. 20 Isaacson, Joel. "Monet, (Oscar-)Claude." In The Grove Dictionary of Art, edited by Jane Turner, 305-13. New ​ York: St. Martin's, 2000. 308. 21 Leroy, Louis. "Exhibition of the Impressionists." In The History of Impressionism, edited by John Rewald, 318-24. ​ 4th. ed. New York: The Museum of of Modern Art, 1973. Previously published in Le Charivari, April 25, 1874. ​ 320.

Cabezas 8 so they could experience all of the new possibilities that Haussmann’s new boulevards afforded

Paris.

Caillebotte may have found it hard to commit to this group in its early years because of his own social status. As the son of a wealthy and established man, Caillebotte would not want an association with a renegade group to taint his family’s societal relations. How his hobby of painting became a serious career had already presented a twist for his traditional family;

Martial’s son had studied to become a respectable lawyer. Only when his father died on

Christmas, 1874, did Caillebotte have the freedom to associate with the Impressionists “without worrying about injury to the reputation or sensibilities of his father.”22 Joining this group transformed him, according to his friend Gustave Geoffroy, from a dilettante into an artist.23

In 1876, Caillebotte exhibited The Floor Scrapers at the Second Impressionist ​ ​ Exhibition. The critic Emile Blémont marvels at the “strikingly modern” image whose figures

“astound by their truth, their life, their simple and fresh intimacy;” for these reasons, Blémont ​ ​ gives “a very bad mark for the official jurors” who originally rejected this painting.24 Salon ​ critics felt uncomfortable with Realism because “the celebration of the urban worker was taken as a debasement of art,” but Caillebotte embraced Baudelaire’s charge for the modern painter to observe his true, everyday surroundings.25 Garb claims that Caillebotte did not paint “as a reliable chronicler of contemporary life,” but the aforementioned history of this scene implies the converse.26 While Impressionists took up this Baudelairean idea, it was “in the context of realist

22 Marrinan, Deep Focus, 28. ​ ​ 23 Ibid., 23. 24 Blémont, Emile. "Les Impressionistes." In Gustave Caillebotte, compiled by Kirk Varnedoe, 185-6. New Haven: ​ ​ Yale University Press, 1987. Previously published in Le Rappel, April 9, 1876. ​ ​ 25 Varnedoe, Gustave Caillebotte, 54. ​ ​ 26 Garb, Masculinity, 65. ​ ​

Cabezas 9 and naturalist debates about the figure that [Caillebotte’s] decision to paint heroic images of urban artisans makes sense.”27

An imbalance arises in this painting because of Caillebotte’s relationship to the workers:

“the overstated perspective not only strains to describe the new room objectively but also asserts his ownership of the studio and authority over the laborers working there.”28 The commandeering viewpoint positions the painter physically above the floor scrapers who perform back-bending labor in order to give him a new studio. Caillebotte even has authority in rendering the laborers at all; they only exist on the canvas, and thus to us, through his own labor of painting. In light of these variances, Caillebotte resolves their social distances by equating their creative skills to his own: “their work with the tools of their trade and his work with brush and paint coexist to blur the distinctions of class implied by the real-life situation.”29

Caillebotte again likens his work to that of the lowly laborer in his 1877 The House ​ Painters (Fig. 6). That he and these workers share “decorative ambitions, the careful measuring ​ and planning of the design, the physical agility...the back-breaking attention to detail, the mixing of pigments, [and] the manual nature of the task,” temporarily overcomes the incongruities of their social status, but the end results — a painted facade and a display painting — ultimately signal their diverged class status.30

House painters, through Caillebotte’s hand, vivify the dull background. Though

Caillebotte leaves the reason for the fresh coat of paint ambiguous, this scene nevertheless

27 Ibid., 65. 28 Marrinan, Deep Focus, 27. ​ ​ 29 Ibid. 30 Garb, Masculinity, 66. ​ ​

Cabezas 10 provides another clear documentation of urban change.31 The freshly painted teal and deep, rusted peach storefront contrast with the bland cream and chalk buildings in the background that, without the harsh line of the sidewalk, would blend into the nearly vacant street. The storefront’s facelift signals a coming revitalization to this dreary street. However, the unchoreographed display of wine bottles in the window suggests anything but; the arrangement would not attract the attention of the observant flâneur who would purposely stroll about and marvel at the spectacles of the street.

The scene is neither a monumental event, nor a quotidien moment. The mundane activity of refreshing the storefront with a new coat of paint captures the height of activity in this scene.

Its position in the foreground simultaneously works with the diminishing of the parallel lines to lead the viewer’s eye to the street’s vanishing point, where the standing painter’s head disrupts our arrival to this spot. The painter’s upturned head and the tapering ladders force the viewer to revisit to the storefront, thus reiterating themes of a painter’s contribution and the changing streetscapes. After a second consideration, the viewer’s eye resumes its trail to the vanishing point and notices a flâneur’s top hat continuing away from the colorful scene, receding into the nearly empty street.

In oscillating his audience’s eyes from the foreground storefront to the broad depth of the street, Caillebotte provides a subtle discourse on consumer culture, or lack thereof. The viewer’s second-glance at the storefront prioritizes the work of the painter over the storefront’s role in attracting a flâneur consumer. Caillebotte thus comments that the streets have failed to capture

31 Iskin, Ruth E. “Inconspicuous Subversion: Parisian Consumer Culture in 1870s City Views.” In Modern Women ​ and Parisian Consumer Culture in Impressionist Painting, 114-47. New York: Cambridge University, 2007. 127. ​ “The storefront and perhaps the building are undergoing renovation, but it is not clear what exactly the painters are doing. They may be painting the facade of the building as required by an 1852 decree according to which proprietors had to clean or repaint the facades of their buildings every ten years, or renovating the shop front.

Cabezas 11 the flâneur’s attention; because this event lacks activity, he concentrates instead on a changing Paris.

The sub-scene of a sparsely populated Haussmannian boulevard, one where people do not stroll and shop, guides viewers to concentrate on the effort of transforming Paris. By neglecting to create an elaborate arrangement of the wine bottles, and by focusing attention on the repainting of architecture, Caillebotte avoids celebrating the vivacity of Paris’ new, wide boulevards in favor of realist labor.

Flâneurs Admiring Paris, or New Architecture Featuring Flâneurs?

Flâneurs embraced modernity. Enjoying the monetary success of an urban job that did not demand long hours of physical labor, flâneurs could explore the wide landscape of Haussmann’s boulevards through daytime strolls. New streetlamps extended the hours that they could walk along and observe the streets. Baudelaire encouraged artists to observe with a flâneurian eye in order to capture “an aesthetic of modernity that reflected the fleeting encounters on the new boulevards of Haussmann's Paris, an exhilaration and alienation of the crowd….in the contemporary fashions that express the ethos of the moment.”32

Caillebotte’s 1878 lifesize Portrait of Paul Hugot (Fig. 7), a friend and a collector of his ​ ​ work, captures each detail of his flâneur uniform with verisimilitude.33 A black top hat, a dark

32 Wettlaufer, Alexandra K. “Paintings of Modern Life: Representing Modernity in Baudelaire, Balzac, Zola, and Caillebotte.” In Gustave Caillebotte: The Painter’s Eye, edited by Mary Morton and George T. M. Shackelford, ​ ​ 71-83. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015. 72. 33 Morton, Mary, Camille Mathieu, Galina Olmstead, and George T. M. Shackelford. "Viewing Others: Portraits." In Gustave Caillebotte: The Painter's Eye, edited by Mary Morton and George T. M. Shackelford, 162-65. Chicago: ​ University of Chicago Press, 2015. 163. “Hugot is portrayed as a person of importance, and for the artist he was very significant indeed, for he would own the largest nineteenth-century collection of Caillebotte’s paintings outside the family, with a total of eleven at the time of the artist’s death including landscapes, portraits, and still lifes.”

Cabezas 12 coat and trousers, shiny shoes, and a walking stick equip him for strolls about Haussmann’s

Paris; these fashionable features of “la mode” locate him “in a particular milieu – unmistakably ​ ​ Parisian, unmistakably contemporary, unmistakably modern.”34 However, divorced from a distinct background and starting rather than actively looking, Hugot loses the curious spirit of a flâneur discovering Paris’ new boulevards.35 Le Pont de l’Europe (1876), Sur le Pont de ​ ​ ​ l’Europe (1876-7), and Paris Street, Rainy Day (1877) show flâneurs in action. ​ ​ ​ ​

Le Pont de l’Europe and Sur le Pont de l’Europe ​ ​ Caillebotte crossed over the railways at the Gare Saint-Lazare as he traveled from his home in the wealthy 8th arrondissement to cafés where his circle of artists met in the bohemian ​ ​ 17th, 9th, and 10th arrondissements.36 Having opened as Paris’ first rail station, the Gare Rouen saw a daily frenzy of over 40,000 passengers from seven different routes by 1837; this volume of activity would overwhelm someone from the early 1800s, when this area of Paris was still countryside.37 The Gare Rouen changed its name in 1842 to become the Gare Saint-Lazare, and in 1858 its managers, Compagnie de l’Ouest, and Haussmann rebuilt the train station to accommodate more rails, and improved traffic flow by building a new bridge over these tracks.

34 Wettlaufer, Paintings of Modern Life, 73. ​ ​ 35 Varnedoe, Gustave Caillebotte, 118. In this work, the “tightly handled portrait owes more to the example of ​ ​ Caillebotte’s academic master Léon Bonnat,” further separating this piece from an Impressionist style. However, its ​ ​ ​ compositional techniques retain a sense of modernity, as “the size of the drawing corresponds to the known photographic formats of the day.” The “casual pose, and informal accessories (the packet stuck in the vest), also bring to mind the repertoire of poses made familiar in the carte-de-visite photographs that became popular in the ​ ​ Second Empire. 36 Marrinan, Deep Focus, 28. “What did he feel when making the journey from the hushed interiors and domestic ​ ​ rituals of life with his mother to the raucous energy of the gatherings of painters, art critics, and literary luminaries he first met at the Café Guerbois? And later, when the preferred rendezvous moved to the Café de la ​ ​ Nouvelle-Athenes on place Pigalle? Both venues obliged him to cross the tracks of the Gare Saint-Lazare.” 37 Ramos, Cecilia E. “Caillebotte’s ‘On the Pont de l’Europe’: A Transversal Vista of Modernity.” Thresholds 31 ​ (2006): 32-39. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43876269. 33-4. ​ ​

Cabezas 13

This project resulted in the Place de l’Europe, named so because the streets that converge in this bridge all take their names from major European capitals.

Again following Baudelaire’s cue, Caillebotte recorded scenes from his own life. When

Haussmann completed this bridge that doubly functioned as a Haussmannian place,38 he started to build luxury apartments, transforming the area into the active Quartier de l’Europe neighborhood that touched on Caillebotte’s own (Fig. 8). Two paintings of the Pont de l’Europe capture familiar, quotidien moments of Caillebotte’s life as he crossed the bridge.

Not only does Caillebotte record part of his route, but he also inserts himself into the scene with the modern technique of photography. It seems likely that Caillebotte used a photo from 1876 that his brother Martial took of him, dressed in the typical flâneur costume and with his accompanying dog, as a study for the flâneur in Le Pont de l’Europe (Figs. 9-10).39 Though ​ ​ Caillebotte, in the photograph, faces the opposite direction than the painted figure does, a sketch that unmistakably became the flâneur of this painting faces the same direction as Caillebotte does in the photograph (Fig. 11). By including his own likeness, Caillebotte personalizes a moment he commonly encountered, thus further inviting us into his real world.

The strong diagonals of the bridge immediately plunge our eye to the painting’s middle ground, where they rest upon Caillebotte’s own image. Caillebotte only exposes his face, as he gazes to his left, past the woman behind him, and settles on the bridge; this line of vision brings our own eyes to the working class man in the foreground. Seeing this painting at the 1877 Salon,

38 Ibid., 34, 37. Ramos describes how the Place de l’Europe, though technically a bridge, could compete with the typical Haussmannian place “where the unobstructed geometrical plan facilitated a wide spectrum of public activities.” Sidewalks lined this expansive street, which even had two traffic islands, so that members of all social classes could comfortably experience the rush of the street. 39 Lightstone, Rosanne H. “Gustave Caillebotte’s Oblique Perspective: A New Source for ‘Le Pont de l’Europe.’” The Burlington Magazine 136, no. 1100 (November 1994): 759-62. http://www.jstor.org/stable/886274. 762. ​ ​

Cabezas 14 the critic Jacques agreed that the presence of this working man “is audacious; it cuts the action.

However it is a necessity.”40 I recognize this necessity as setting up a compositional technique that Caillebotte uses to create sub-scenes, a technique present in many of his street scenes.41 This technique allows Caillebotte to oscillate, by means of a decisive glance, between two scenes. In this work, he emphasizes the scene of physical action to bring attention to the one of meditation, consequentially commenting on humans and architecture in Haussmannian modernity.

Le Pont de l’Europe features a flâneur, passing a well dressed woman, who glances across the sidewalk to the railway below. This glance draws the viewer’s attention to a working man observing his industrial and mechanical city.42 The dog subtly seams the two unrelated moments together, helping to lead the flâneur’s gaze to the worker. Nearly centered in the foreground, the dog divides the painting into two scenes: one dominated by engineering and technology, while the left side focuses on human interactions, or lack thereof.43

This flâneur does not possess the Baudelairian behavior expected of his kind, but instead

“appears devoid of any desire for contact” with other humans in the scene.44 This is especially odd since the Pont de l’Europe, “as a lieu de recontre or a place of promenade, made it an ideal ​ ​ site for a Baudelairian flâneur: ‘voir le monde, etre au centre de monde, et rester cacher de

40 Jacques. "Menu Propos." In Gustave Caillebotte, compiled by Kirk Varnedoe, 189. New Haven: Yale University ​ ​ Press, 1987. Previously published in L'Homme Libre, April 12, 1877. ​ ​ 41 One can also find evidence of this in his paintings of interiors and balconies that look out to the street, such as Young Man at His Window (1876), Interior (1880), The Man on the Balcony (1880), A Balcony (1880), and The ​ ​ ​ ​ Man on the Balconcy (1880), and even strictly interior settings such as In a Cafe (1880). ​ ​ ​ 42 The contrasting social rank of these men could reflect Caillebotte’s own social navigation at this point in his life. This contrast could also embody the split life that Caillebotte feels as a well-established member of the bourgeois class who has, just recently, begun to associate with rugged and rejected painters. 43 Caillebotte further separates these two realms by contrasting the delicate and fancy clothes of the civilized bourgeois, coach driver, and soldier with the dirty bridge, feral and ownerless dog, and the steam-burning train. 44 Iskin, Inconspicuous Subversion, 123. ​ ​

Cabezas 15 monde.”45 While both figures watch the world, the flâneur openly walks through the center of it, but the bridge continues to hide the working man from whatever scene he watches.

The Pont de l’Europe is “a grand monument, an object of architectural and industrial importance, literally making way for new paths and modes of transportation.”46 I propose that these modes of transportation include a time travel of sorts. “Hovering above the tracks of the

Gare Saint-Lazare, [the men] could gaze out at this mottled picture of the evolving city scape of

Haussmann’s Paris and of the novelties of industrialization.”47 Both figures could witness

Haussmannization and observe the modern technology of the train slowly start to replace the horse and carriage, two of which appear at the extreme left of the painting.

The bridge offers another duality, one of “access and spectacle – perhaps the two most important characteristics of the city” – since one could see both the Gare Saint-Lazare and the

Garnier Opera House from the Pont de l’Europe.48 Extending this duality, the latticework of the

Pont de l’Europe, simultaneously frames and denies this vision. Ramos comments that the bridge does not follow Haussmann’s “desire to generate singular correct perspectives,” but in contrast,

“through each X of the trellis, a different vista can be framed.”49 ​ ​ Caillebotte hides the scene of the train station, that both the flâneur and the worker observe, below the bridge. That these two prominent figures fix their attention on an excluded event invites it into our own imagination;

This acknowledgement and refusal of the trains...render them an absent presence in Caillebotte’s two images of the Pont de l’Europe in ways that allow viewers to experience the radical disconnection between human subjectivities in

45 Ramos, On the Pont de l’Europe, 37. To watch the world, to be at the center of the world, and to remain hidden ​ ​ from the world. 46 Ibid., 35. 47 Ibid., 36. 48 Ibid., 37. 49 Ibid., 37-8.

Cabezas 16

the urban landscapes first explored in Baudelaire’s writings and his poetics of modernity.50

Caillebotte explicitly references this idea in Sur le Pont de l’Europe (Fig. 12). Here again ​ ​ does Caillebotte subtly disguise how he divides the canvas in half to juxtapose the human flâneur and technological modernity. The crux of the trellis makes the painting a diptych that displays these two ideas.

To the left, Caillebotte features a flâneur as his subject, but the inclusion of a working man validates that social classes could encounter each other on Haussmann’s wide boulevards,

The cropped flâneur reminds viewers that Caillebotte has arrested this moment in action; the scene represents a remembered instant during his walks across Paris. The beams to the very right of the painting build up a canopy under which passengers can wait for their train, but the station is void of any riders. Only the bright, white puff of steam, which Caillebotte renders with visibly harsh and textured brushstrokes, indicates any commotion in this otherwise stagnant half of the painting. His use of white also indicates vivacity on the left side, where the flâneur’s collar and cuffs pop out from the contrastingly dreary and muted blue-gray tones. While the flâneur stands and actively absorbs the ongoings of his surrounding environment, the unseen motion of the train enlivens the scene. Caillebotte vivifies the lifeless and thus prioritizes the man-made over the man, an effect that critics would admonish in Paris Street, Rainy Day. ​ ​

50 Wettlaufer, Paintings of Modern Life, 76. ​ ​

Cabezas 17

Paris Street, Rainy Day

The flâneurs in Paris Street, Rainy Day (Fig. 13) stroll along the Carrefour de Moscou, ​ an eight street intersection just east of Gare Saint-Lazare in the 8th arrondissement; the eight streets intersect as a star, a clear sign of Haussmann’s touch.51 In contrast to this modern urban design, the immediately noticeable, green lamppost “is an old-fashioned model that was no longer installed in Paris in the 1870s.”52 Caillebotte’s decision to include it in the painting could serve “an emblematic purpose — a relic of time past in an image that otherwise strives to be up-to-date in both fashion and setting.”53 It greatly bothered the critic Paul Sebillot, who remarked at the Third Impressionist Exhibition in 1877, “But why this street lamp that displays its disagreeable perpendicular just in the center of the picture?...With this disdain for composition and the placement on the canvas, this painting, despite incontestable qualities, astounds but does not stir us.”54 I propose that this compositional prop subtly enables

Caillebotte’s to record two juxtapositions in one scene.

First, the lamppost distinguishes observant flâneurs from pedestrians escaping the rain.

The flâneurs on the right look ahead of them, to the side, noticing some event that each viewer can imagine for themselves. Caillebotte urges the viewer to participate in the painting by angling the sidewalk toward the viewer, who stands beyond the plane, and by crowding the sidewalk in the foreground; this brings our attention to the couple rather than to this imaginary scene.55 In planning how to avoid colliding with the couple, we notice that the plane of their eyes lead us to

51 Rubin, Renovation and Modern Viewpoints, 34. ​ ​ 52 Marrinan, Deep Focus, 34. ​ ​ 53 Ibid. 54 Sebillot, Paul. "Exposition des Impressionistes." In Gustave Caillebotte, compiled by Kirk Varnedoe, 187. New ​ ​ Haven: Yale University Press, 1987. Previously published in Le Bien Public, April 7, 1877. ​ ​ 55 While our attention immediately goes to the umbrella-covered couple, critics incessantly reacted to Caillebotte’s rendering of built environment. My observations are grounded in the immediate confrontation of this couple.

Cabezas 18 notice the non-flâneurs, much in the same way that Caillebotte uses figures’ gazes to direct the viewer to and reiterate a sub-scene in The House Painters and Le Pont de l’Europe. All of the ​ ​ ​ ​ figures to the left of the lamppost have their faces pointed down and do not observe their surroundings. One could excuse this, on the basis of the rainy weather, but the figures on the right of the post still manage to engage their vision with their surroundings, under the safety of their umbrella. “These isolated passersby have little in common with Baudelaire’s flâneur who longs to mingle with the crowd and feels himself ‘everywhere at home.’”56

The lamppost also divides the painting so that each half features its own, dominant subject: the flâneur or Haussmannian architecture. The perspective gives viewers the sense of rushing into the scene as a flâneur themselves, making the painting experiential. The maze of foot traffic that confronts the viewer also subsumes the right half of the painting. With the sidewalk plunging toward us, we closely follow the cropped figure and anxiously anticipate bumping into the couple approaching us.57 We must quickly solve this navigational puzzle in order to pass by both the umbrella-protected couple and the cropped figure without collision.

“The urban choreography of chance encounters, near run-ins, and spatial adjustments...introduces a moment of imminent discomfort caused by the hazards of distraction and the forced proximity of strangers” and fiercely contrasts with the permeable crowd on the cobblestone street to our left.58

56 Iskin, Inconspicuous Subversion, 121. This author posits that none of the figures in this painting represent flâneurs ​ ​ “because in bad weather flâneurs escaped to covered arcades and museums.” All other sources refer to these figures as flâneurs.. 57 That one umbrella protects both the man and woman further complicates the scene and introduces a conflict of private and public space. 58 Iskin, Inconspicuous Subversion, 122. ​ ​

Cabezas 19

Caillebotte spares no details in his exacting account of the built environment. He favored

Realism over Impressionism so much that he left critics unsatisfied — reasonably so, since they expected Impressionist art to be on display at the Impressionist exhibition.59 As critic Edmond

Lepelletier wrote upon viewing this work at the 1877 Salon, “Each paving stone stands out with an unheard-of precision. You can count them, measure them, study them as a geologist, as a chemist, as a geometer and as a paver…I have difficulty in recognizing my old and always dirty

Parisian pavement.”60 Lepelletier indubitably had difficulty recognizing his familiar Parisian architecture as well, since Haussmannian facades monopolize the urban streetscape. Precision extends to these facades, where Caillebotte legibly includes the faint gold letters that indicate a

PHARMACIE. That Caillebotte painted the cropped figure on the right edge “on top of the already ​ completed architecture of the building — confirming that his insertion was decided on in media res” could have resulted from a need to balance this comprehensive architectural domination.61 ​ However, the effective rush of this cropped figure submits to art critic Edmond Duranty’s advice for painters to recreate “the sensation of the street,” as he suggested in his 1876 essay La ​ nouvelle peinture.62 Caillebotte further accomplishes this by recording various activities: the ​ background includes a worker, just like the one in The House Painters, right behind the main ​ ​ figure’s umbrella; two coach drivers with their carriages, and even a horse, show the necessity of a quick mode of transportation; and the scaffolding to the left of the lamppost provides a reminder of Haussmann’s recent construction.

59 Anon. "L'Exposition des Impressionistes." In Gustave Caillebotte, compiled by Kirk Varnedoe, 187. New Haven: ​ ​ Yale University Press, 1987. Previously published in Le Temps, April 7, 1877. “Very well drawn….Only, Monsieur ​ ​ Caillebotte forgot to represent the rain. Apparently on that day it made no impression on him.” 60 Lepelletier, Edmond. "Les Impressionistes." In Gustave Caillebotte, compiled by Kirk Varnedoe, 187-88. New ​ ​ Haven: Yale University Press, 1987. Previously published in Le Radical, April 8, 1877. ​ ​ 61 Shackelford, Man in the Middle, 47. ​ ​ 62 Iskin, Inconspicuous Subversion, 121. ​ ​

Cabezas 20

Though the post stands in nearly the exact center of the painting, some critics had trouble focusing on the work as a whole because Caillebotte either did not plan his composition well, or because he chose to focus on details that they did not think should demand intense accuracy.

Lepelletier noted at the Salon of 1877,

At once the failing of Impressionism leaps to our eyes. It is the exaggeration of detail, the enlargement of that which is accessory, it is the care, the touch, the light, the talent of the artist concentrated on secondary objects, it is the eye of the spectator pulled in all directions by things of secondary importance and of the tertiary plane treated and brought forward like the principal masses and the pain items of the composition. The talent of the artist and the attention of the spectator are equally scattered about in this diffusion.63

The deep focus on architecture, rather than on the sense of the moment, helps us to decide if

Caillebotte truly belongs to the Impressionists.

Of or For Impressionism?

Caillebotte’s precise recording and embrace of Haussmannian architecture contrast with the attitudes of his fellow painters who, like Renoir, insulted the architecture that replaced their familiar Paris, and thus chose to loosely render its structures rather than to celebrate them.64

Having exhibited with the Impressionists, we now remember Caillebotte as “one of them.” I have already affirmed that his subject matter aligns with the Baudelairian spirit of capturing everyday encounters on the street, though his contemporary critics picked up on how he favors secondary details over a human emphasis. That he used photography to record these exact details as a study for his work made his paintings all the more modern, but all the less

63 Lepelletier, Les Impressionistes, 188. ​ ​ 64 Caillebotte was only four when Haussmannization began, which could contribute to why he does not reject Haussmannian architecture in his paintings. He features them with exacting details, whereas other, older Impressionists such as Renoir and Monet gloss over the buildings and prefer to focus on rushing humans or leafy vegetation.

Cabezas 21 impressionistic.65 Also, while he did exhibit with the group, one could argue that their Salons ​ could not have existed without his organizing leadership, and that the painters could not have continued without his financial support. Again, Caillebotte straddled two spheres, not fully belonging to either one.

Techniques and Style

As a student of Léon Bonnat, Caillebotte learned formal and traditional techniques to ​ ​ ​ paint in the Academic style. Indeed, one could deem Caillebotte’s style, which did not quite fit into the canon of Impressionism, as “derivative Impressionism,” based on his

supposed errors – scrupulously tight brushwork, frozen sense of time and motion, bizarre spaces – that are in fact not failings at all. These 'un-Impressionist' elements, which have traditionally been seen as the marks of incapacity or timidity, are in fact the intended components of a different vision.66

His paintings seem “strange or anomalous within Impressionism unless one considers urban landscape to be at the heart of the modern landscape vision and the shock of the new to be among its sought-after effects enhanced by innovative viewpoints adopted from photography.”67

In sum, Caillebotte deviates from the typical Impressionist in inspiration, technique, and style.

Caillebotte drew inspiration from the spatial representation of contemporary Japanese prints. One could say that looking to another culture misses the point of Baudelaire’s charge, but we know the popular influence of this of this genre in contemporary France, as Manet included a

65 Galassi, Peter, and Kirk Varnedoe. “Caillebotte’s Space.” In Gustave Caillebotte, by Kirk Varnedoe, 20-26. New ​ ​ Haven: Yale University Press, 1987. 20. Caillebotte’s use of photography in his Impressionist works distorts “the world in a personal fashion that looks simultaneously to the past and the future of painting.” 66 Varnedoe, Kirk. “Caillebotte: An Evolving Perspective.” In Gustave Caillebotte, 12-19. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987. 12. 67 Rubin, Renovation and Modern Viewpoints, 32. ​ ​

Cabezas 22

Japanese print as a wall decoration in Emile Zola (1868, Fig. 14).68 Caillebotte copies the flat ​ dimensionality of Japanese prints in his street scenes through sharp convergence, “lack of concern for rapid diminution of figure scale,” and the priority he gives to surface pattern.69

Lightstone finds a direct parallel between Le Pont de l’Europe and Cotton-goods Lane, ​ ​ Odenma-cho, a color woodcut of 1858 by Hiroshige from the series One hundred famous views ​ ​ of Edo (Fig. 15).70 Beyond the subject matter — a duo of nicely dressed pedestrians “strolling ​ across a structure representing the latest achievements in engineering and urban planning” — the angles of the bridge in Cotton-goods Lane exactly matches those of the Pont de l’Europe on ​ tracing paper for a preparatory sketch (Fig. 16).71

Caillebotte certainly relied on photography to produce snapshot moments with exact details. Photography itself was a novel technique, and early daguerreotype photography had only been in commercial use since 1839. I have already discussed how Caillebotte used his brother’s photograph of himself as a study for Le Pont de l’Europe. Another study for this painting also ​ ​ “shows a rectangle superimposed on a sketch that extends beyond it, in the manner of a moveable frame...several of Caillebotte’s preparatory drawings on tracing paper correspond to photographic plate sizes used by his brother...or to other common photographic formats.”72

68 It is noteworthy that Manet, who refused to be called and Impressionist and did not exhibit with them, uses Japanese prints. That Caillebotte would take inspiration from the same genre that Manet appreciated, and that both of these artists’ paintings have a flat perspective, provide another example of how Caillebotte diverged from the core group of Impressionists. 69 Galassi, Caillebotte’s Space, 24. ​ ​ 70 Lightstone, Oblique Perspective, 759. ​ ​ 71 Ibid., 761. While the lines on the tracing paper follow the same angles, I did not find definitive evidence that Caillebotte physically handled the prints. 72 Rubin, James H. “Art and Technology: Impressionism and Photography.” In Impressionism and the Modern ​ Landscape: Productivity, Technology, and Urbanization from Manet to Van Gogh. 39-56. Berkeley: University of ​ California Press, 2008. 49.

Cabezas 23

With the advent of photography, Caillebotte created a new painterly viewing experience.

That photography could produce an exact image of reality appealed to Caillebotte, who “believed that the basis of artistic creativity should be intellectual reflection rather than naive spontaneity, of which Degas accused the Impressionists.”73 From photographs, Caillebotte drafted his initial guidelines with precision. His accurate lines opposed the Impressionists’ quick, rough strokes and enabled him up to record the details of Haussmannian architecture that his contemporaries avidly ignored. He also capitalized on how photography focuses on the entire scene, in contrast to how eyesight narrows in on one, main image at a time. Caillebotte depends upon this feature of photography to clearly construct and present his sub-scenes to us. It is precisely because one scene does not triumph over another that viewers can easily oscillate between the two.74

Caillebotte’s use of wide-angle lenses to capture street vistas allows these sub-scenes to succeed. Photographers had commonly used wide-angle lenses since the 1860s, but this perspective did not realize the same success in paintings.75 Caillebotte’s manipulation of traditional perspective elicited various responses. Reviewing The Floor Scrapers at the Second ​ Impressionist Exhibition in 1876, the critic Bertall ambiguously noted that Caillebotte “knows

[perspective] is how he will make a name for himself.”76 Critic Charles Ephrussi, in 1880, unfavorably responded to Caillebotte’s perspective, commenting that Caillebotte

wilfully forgets that Vitruvius, Piero della Francesca, Leonardo, Albrecht Durer and others fixed the laws of perspective; successive planes do not exist for him;

73 Ibid., 48. 74 The converging angles of linear perspective bring our focus to one scene before the sub-scene, but Caillebotte’s brushstrokes do not induce a hierarchy of the scenes. 75 Galassi, Caillebotte’s Space, 21-2. ​ ​ 76 Bertall. "Exposition des Impressionistes, Rue Lepeletier." In Gustave Caillebotte, compiled by Kirk Varnedoe, ​ ​ 187. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987. Previously published in Le Soir, April 1876. ​ ​

Cabezas 24

distances are suppressed. And it is a great pity, because Monsieur Caillebotte has certain of the qualities of a painter.77

Caillebotte knew of these artists, as he had traveled to Italy in 1872 and produced copies of

Renaissance art, which masters perspective, and Mannerist art, which lacks authentic perspective and dimensionality.78 Though harsh, the critique certainly signals that Caillebotte deviation from the traditional, by using wide angles, produces a “compression of space onto a singular plane of vision [that] is truly modern, as no other painting...had yet rendered this effect.”79Caillebotte continued to use “spatial dynamism rather than sketchy brushstrokes” to capture “the rush and movement of modern life” in Le Pont de l’Europe.80 ​ ​ Observing his distinct painting style, an anonymous critic at the Second Impressionist

Exhibition declared that “Monsieur Caillebotte is an Impressionist in name only. He knows how to draw and paints more seriously than his colleagues.”81 In considering the effect of photography on Caillebotte’s paintings, Galassi and Varnedoe label his works as “no more simply freaks of mechanical systems than they are naive realist documents” that look

“simultaneously to the past and the future of painting.”82

Photography arrests the moment and therefore produces the truest account of the

moment, so it would ​seem ​that ​Baudelaire would support Caillebotte’s ​use of the camera as the basis of his paintings. However, he elaborated on his dissatisfaction with this new technology in his Salon of 1859: ​ ​

77 Ephrussi, Charles. "Exposition des Artistes Indépendants." In Gustave Caillebotte, compiled by Kirk Varnedoe, ​ ​ 194. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987. Previously published in Gazette des Beaux-Arts, May 1, 1880. ​ ​ 78 Galassi, Caillebotte’s Space, 24. ​ ​ 79 Ramos, On the Pont de l’Europe, 39. ​ ​ 80 Rubin, Renovation and Modern Viewpoints, 34. ​ ​ 81 Anon. "Exposition des Impressionistes." In Gustave Caillebotte, compiled by Kirk Varnedoe, 188. New Haven: ​ ​ Yale University Press, 1987. Previously published in La Petite Républic Française, April 10, 1877. ​ ​ 82 Galassi, Caillebotte’s Space, 20, 24. ​ ​

Cabezas 25

I am convinced that the ill-applied developments of photography, like all other purely material developments of progress, have contributed much to the impoverishment of the French artistic genius….The invasion of photography and the great industrial madness of our time [has cheapened] the products of the beautiful…[and] diminished [human] faculties of judgement and of feeling what are among the most ethereal and immaterial aspects of creation.83

Baudelaire had wished for painters to imagine the essence of the scene, rather than to record it with versimilitude. Even 20 years later, frozen scenes still reminded “critics of the pervasiveness of that much-feared process of reproduction spawned by modern technology.”84 Critics directly commented on this in Caillebotte’s works, with Louis Enault writing, “I only regret that the artist...once he accepted what reality offered him, that he did not give himself the right, which I can assure him no one would have denied him, to interpret them more freely.”85

The notable novelist, journalist, and critic Emile Zola noted The Floor Scrapers’ ​ ​ extraordinary three-dimensionality. However, it is anti-artistic painting, painting as neat as glass, bourgeois painting, because of the exactitude of the copying. Photography of reality which is not stamped with the original seal of the painter’s talent — that’s a pitiful thing.86

Despite his criticism, Zola considered Caillebotte as a leader of the Impressionists.87 Indeed,

Caillebotte did lead the Impressionists, but I see his influence as carrying more weight through his financial support, rather than by exemplifying the spirit of Impressionism with his art.

83 Rubin, Art and Technology, 43. ​ ​ 84 Ibid., 55. 85 Enault, Louis. "Mouvement Artistique — L'Exposition des Intransigeants dans la Galerie de Durand-Ruel." In Gustave Caillebotte, compiled by Kirk Varnedoe, 186. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987. Previously ​ published in Le Constitutionnel, April 10, 1876. ​ ​ 86 Zola, Emile. "Deux Expositions d'Art en Mai." In Gustave Caillebotte, compiled by Kirk Varnedoe, 186. New ​ ​ Haven: Yale University Press, 1987. Previously published in Le Messager de l'Europe, June 1876. ​ ​ 87 Wettlaufer, Paintings of Modern Life, 79. “Zola, who famously attacked those whose work he felt too closely ​ ​ resembled his own, nonetheless shared Caillebotte’s desire to capture modern subjects and to frame city views from above, as seen both in Zola’s novels and photography.” In declaring Caillebotte as a leader of the Impressionists, based on techniques that Zola himself uses, Zola also heavily compliments his own work and influence.

Cabezas 26

Financial Support

Caillebotte’s financial contributions to Impressionism outweighed his stylistic association with the group. His financial support began before he even displayed with the Impressionists.

The first recorded transaction of his buying impressionist paintings occurred on March 24, 1875 at an auction at the Hôtel Drouot in the 9th arrondissement.88 A year later, at the invitation of

Henri Rouart and Auguste Renoir to show his own work in the Second Impressionist Exposition,

Caillebotte joined the group on March 30, 1876 and showed eight of his own works. He also expanded his collection of his colleagues’ work; “by the end of the month he had become the owner of three paintings by Monet.”89 On November 5, 1876, two days after his younger brother

René died in his mid-twenties, Caillebotte began to think of his own mortality and legacy. He penned the first iteration of his will, which entrusted his collection of impressionist paintings to the French state and provided funds for an 1878 exhibit that would feature Degas, Monet,

Pissarro, Renoir, Cézanne, Sisley, and Morisot.90 ​ ​ Caillebotte continued to collect his friends’ paintings throughout the years of the

Impressionist Exhibits, many of which he coordinated. As I have mentioned, many

Impressionists — Degas, De Nittis, Rouart, and Renoir — heavily recruited Caillebotte to join their new movement because of his ambition to stray from Salon criteria; his fortune fueled his daring techniques, since he painted for leisure, instead of to make a living.91

88 Chardeau, Biographical Chronology, 235. ​ ​ 89 Shackelford, Man in the Middle, 42. ​ ​ 90 Ibid. Gustave and his brother Martial also joined the Cercle de la Voile de Paris, the Paris Sailing Club. 91 Montjoyeux, Jules Poignard. "Chroniques Parisiennes: Les indépendants." In Gustave Caillebotte, compiled by ​ ​ Kirk Varnedoe, 192-3. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987. Previously published in Le Gaulois, April 18, ​ ​ 1879. “The Impressionists welcomed him with warmth as a precious recruit. He brought to them the bonus of unyielding youth. The kind of youth, in soul and body, that's headstrong to the point of error, rebellious against disappointments, and victorious over submissive reality. He entered the fray like a spoiled child. Assured against misery, strong with a double strength: will served by fortune. He had that other courage, which isn't the most common, of hard-working wealthy fold. ”

Cabezas 27

It did not hurt that, in addition to his untraditional art, Caillebotte contributed much of his funds and organizational leadership to the group. Already leading a comfortable lifestyle,

Caillebotte received his full inheritance in October 1878 when his mother passed; he and his brother Martial sold all of the family’s properties — their Parisian house, an estate in Yerres, and a farm in Normandy — and Gustave dedicated his money to fully support the Impressionists.92

Critics recognized this fact, with Bertall noting in 1879, at the Fourth Impressionist Exhibition:

Caillebotte, a charming young man, among the best brought-up, is sitting on an income of about a hundred thousand francs: that is something to assure independence forever. If Monsieur Caillebotte is devoted enough to the cause to give of his money in princely fashion for the publicity accorded the school whose venerated chief he has become, he also gives of his person.93

Caillebotte served as the chief patron of the group, contributing to the market for impressionist paintings by purchasing his friends’ works, funding their later exhibits, and even directly providing funds for other Impressionists. He “regularly len[t], advance[d], or g[a]ve Monet money” through 1878, having paid his rent for two apartments,94 and even solicited de Nittis to buy some of Monet’s works as well.95 Caillebotte’s financial support helped his fellow painters to continue living and producing art.96

92 Marrinan, Deep Focus, 36. ​ ​ 93 Bertall. "Exposition des Indépendants, Ex-Impressionistes, Demain Intentionists." In Gustave Caillebotte, ​ ​ compiled by Kirk Varnedoe, 193-94. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987. Previously published in L'Artiste, ​ ​ June 1879. 94 Chardeau, Biographical Chronology, 235-6, 237. “On September 14, 1891, Monet asks Caillebotte to lend him a ​ ​ steady and safe boat to use as a floating studio.” Caillebotte’s interest in sailing, and his membership in the Paris Sailing Club, gave him access to such boats, many of which he painted in the late 1870s. Monet’s floating studio resulted in many waterscapes painted en plein air; he had previously worked in a floating studio, as Manet recorded ​ ​ in Monet in his Studio Boat (1874). ​ ​ 95 Rewald, John, ed. The History of Impressionism. 4th. ed. New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 1973. 364. ​ ​ 96 Ibid., 349-50. The Impressionists’ radical ways of painting did not appeal to the mass market, and without income, they could not afford living expenses without financial assistance.

Cabezas 28

Caillebotte also used his funds to execute their exhibitions. Having enjoyed his inclusion in the Second Impressionist Exhibition, Caillebotte spearheaded the logistics of the Third

Impressionist Exhibition in 1877:

He does everything he can to ensure its success, choosing the painters, finding and renting the venue, selecting the wall hangings, designing the catalog, sending the invitations, helping Renoir hang the pictures, and paying for advertisements in the press.97

Additionally, Caillebotte lent paintings from his own collection: three Degas pastels, one Monet, four Pissarro canvases, and Renoir’s 1876 Dance at Le moulin de la Galette (Fig. 17), which he ​ ​ included in the background of his 1879-80 Self-Portrait at the Easel (Fig. 18). To the Fourth ​ ​ ​ Impressionist Exhibition in 1879, Caillebotte showed 25 of his own works and lent one Degas, two Monets, and seven Pissarros from his personal collection.98 Caillebotte showed eleven of his paintings at the Fifth Impressionist Exhibition in 1880, though Monet and Renoir instead showed in the Salon that year. Caillebotte and Degas disagreed over logistics for the Fifth Impressionist

Exhibition; Rewald goes so far as to say that it “was indeed no longer an impressionist show.”99

The rift between these two artists continued into 1881 when Caillebotte refrained from the Sixth Impressionist Exhibition, to protest Degas’ wish to include new artists in the group.100

97 Ibid., 235. “It is now widely considered to be the most successful and most representative of the group’s exhibitions.” 98 Ibid. 99 Ibid., 439. Degas thought to announce this show as “an exhibition of ‘Independent Painters,’” but Caillebotte’s ​ financial weight gave him the final say, and they continued on as the Impressionists. Degas grew angry, writing “There was a great fight with Caillebotte about whether or not to publish names. I had to give in to him and allow them to appear. When will there be an end of this star billing? Mlle Cassatt and Mme Morisot were definitely against being on the posters….All good reason and good taste are powerless against the others’ inertia and Caillebotte’s stubbornness….Next year I shall surely arrange it so that this doesn’t continue. I am upset, humiliated.” 100 Chardeau, Biographical Chronology, 236. In the same year, 1880, that Monet and Renoir show in the Salon ​ ​ rather than with the Impressionists, Degas wishes to admit new members, notably his protégé Jean-François Raffaëlli, and “demands the exclusion of those who show at the Salon. Caillebotte disagrees, little inclined to open the group to painters of mediocre talent, while Degas wants to bring together a maximum number of painters in a show of defiance to the Salon.”

Cabezas 29

At this point, none of the Impressionists who remained — Morisot, Degas, Caillebotte,

Guillaumin, Pissarro, and Rouart — depended on sales, except for “Pissarro, who, in renouncing possible success at the Salon, chose indefinite poverty.”101 Caillebotte’s wealth allowed him to excite a market demand for impressionist paintings; by collecting of his friends’ works — and even his own102 — Caillebotte kept an interest stirring about the group. Without Caillebotte’s philanthropy, the Impressionists could not have enjoyed the successes that their Exhibits realized.

Because Caillebotte’s inspiration, technique, and style deviated from the radical contemporaries with which he showed, I posit that his paintings do not fulfill the criteria to be impressionist, but rather, “derivative impressionist.”103 Caillebotte contributed to Impressionism mainly through his organization and finances, and not necessarily through his own artistic involvement; he was for Impressionism, rather than stylistically of it. ​ ​ ​ ​

Conclusion

Even after the Impressionists started to disintegrate, Caillebotte maintained his support of his friends. He showed seventeen paintings at the Seventh Impressionist Exhibition in 1882, bought two Manets at auction in 1884, and became the godfather to Renoir’s first son in 1885.104

He, like Renoir, Monet, Cézanne, and Sisley, forewent participating in the Eighth Impressionist ​ ​ Exhibition in 1886, the final installment of the group, preferring to show a dozen paintings with the art dealer Durand-Ruel in a group exhibition at the American Art Galleries in New York.

101 Rewald, History of Impressionism, 434. ​ ​ 102 Ibid., 236. “On May 28, 1877, there is an auction of the group’s pictures at the Hôtel Drouot, including four by Caillebotte, two of which are sold then later bought back by him.” 103 See note 66. 104 Chardeau, Biographical Chronology, 236-7. ​ ​

Cabezas 30

The last exhibition in which Caillebotte participated was the 1888 show Impressionist ​ and Post-Impressionist Painters at the Durand-Ruel Gallery in Paris.105 Pissarro had pushed for this show since December 1885, when he wrote to Monet that “all of us, Degas, Caillebotte,

Guillaumin, Berthe Morisot, Miss Cassatt and two or three others would make an excellent nucleus for a show;” Pissarro also wished to introduce his new friends, Georges Seurat and Paul

Signac to the group.106 Thus, Caillebotte again participated in the frontlines of modern art.

While his street scenes capture an exacting verisimilitude that provide commentary on the experience of Haussmannian modernity, through both architecture and socialization, critics did not see this mastery of details as successful within the realm of Impressionism. In 1877, Zola bluntly commented that “when his talent loosens up a little more, Monsieur Caillebotte will certainly be one of the boldest of the group.”107 Caillebotte soon applied this critique and produced looser paintings, like Rue Halevy, Seen from the Sixth Floor (1878, Fig. 19), Place ​ ​ ​ Saint Augustin Misty Weather (1878, Fig. 20), and Boulevard des Italiens (1880, Fig. 21). Free ​ ​ brushstrokes provide the unfocused impression that Leroy noted at the First Impressionist

Exhibit; the figures in Rue Halevy resemble Monet’s indistinct “tongue-lickings” in his ​ Boulevard des Capucines (1873, Fig. 22).108 Caillebotte first employs random dabs of paint in

Place Saint Augustin, a stark contrast to his precise handling of paint in his realist street scenes, ​ and abandons “not only the monumental scale of [his earlier paintings], but also the strict geometric linearity.”109 Wisps of heavily and quickly applied paint forego any detailed

105 Ibid., 238. 106 Rewald, History of Impressionism, 518. ​ ​ 107 Zola, Emile. "Une Exposition: Les Peintres Impressionistes." In Gustave Caillebotte, compiled by Kirk ​ ​ Varnedoe, 190. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987. Previously published in Le Semaphore de Marseille, April ​ ​ 19, 1877. 108 See note 21. 109 Varnedoe, Gustave Caillebotte, 110. ​ ​

Cabezas 31 composition and simply suggest a true impression of Haussmannian modernity in Boulevard des ​ Italiens, the painting that most resembles Monet’s Paris, as rendered in Boulevard des Capucines ​ ​ or Rue Montorgueil in Paris, Celebration of 30 June 1878 (fig. 23). After 1882, Caillebotte ​ ​ “frequently dabbled in an impossible heavy-handed mpressionism, and almost never returned to his tighter mode.”110

Only when Caillebotte embraced the fluid strokes and gestures of impressionist paintings did he cease to negotiate how to depict narratives of two, distinct subjects in one work. Also at this point in his life, Caillebotte stopped balancing his bourgeois and avant-garde lives, instead settling down in Gennevilliers, serving as the town’s councillor in 1888, fully enjoying his love of boating at the Paris Sailing Club.111

In 1889, Caillebotte signed the final iteration of his will, affirming his previous wishes:

I give to the state the pictures I own...accepted in such a way that the pictures go neither into an attic nor to a provincial museum but right to the Luxembourg and later to the Louvre, it is necessary that a certain time go by before the execution of this clause, until the public may, I don’t say understand, but accept this painting. This time could be twenty years or more.112

Suffering from a stroke, Gustave Caillebotte died on February 21, 1894. Renoir and Martial, as executors of his will, informed the École des Beaux-Arts of his bequest, which included nearly ​ seventy paintings.

The Government received his gift with the greatest embarrassment. The prospect of seeing impressionist pictures in a museum aroused a uproar of protest from politicians, academicians, and critics, equaling and surpassing even the insults heaped upon the painters at the occasion of their first group exhibitions.113

110 Varnedoe, Evolving Perspective, 16-7. ​ ​ 111 Chardeau, Biographical Chronology, 238. Sailboats dominate his paintings in these years. ​ ​ 112 Caillebotte, Gustave. Letter, "Will," November 5, 1889. In Gustave Caillebotte, by Kirk Varnedoe, 197-204. New ​ ​ Haven: Yale University Press, 1987. 197. 113 Rewald, History of Impressionism, 570. ​ ​

Cabezas 32

The state rejected the entire bequest, but Renoir fought for them to accept part of the collection:

Of sixteen canvases by Monet, only eight were admitted; of nine by Sisley, six; of four by Manet, two; of five by Cézanne, two; only Degas saw all seven of his ​ ​ works accepted.114

Two years later, in 1896, the French state installed forty of Caillebotte’s collection in the Musée du Luxembourg. These paintings relocated to the Louvre in 1929, and many now form the basis of the impressionist collection at the Musée d'Orsay.

In June, 1894, the Durand-Ruel Gallery showed a 122-piece retrospective of Caillebotte’s paintings. Because Caillebotte did not need to sell his paintings on the market to sustain himself, many of his paintings belonged to his family or close friends. Thus, they “were not included in the great private and public collections built in the first half of the twentieth century.”115

In 2015, the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C. assembled an exhibition of 57

Caillebotte paintings, many of which belong to private collections. As current viewers, removed from the paintings’ historical context by over 150 years, are desensitized to the avant-garde nature of Impressionism and take photography for granted — as evidenced by security guards frequently reminding visitors not to take photos of the exhibit — Caillebotte’s paintings do not shock in the way they would have in his own day. However, his methods create a painterly experience that still surprises when compared to the works of his popularly familiar colleagues.

Because Caillebotte was not a typical Impressionist, his paintings provide a style and subject matter that neither Salon painters nor Impressionists captured: a finely tuned painting that simultaneously celebrates and critiques the modern effects of Haussmannization.

114 Ibid., 573. 115 Shields, Caroline. “Caillebotte’s Posthumous Reputation, 1894 - 1994.” In Gustave Caillebotte: The Painter’s ​ Eye, edited by Mary Morton and George T. M. Shackelford, 39-55. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015. ​ 241.

Cabezas 33

FIGURES

(Fig. 1) Charles Marville, Rue Tirechape (de la rue St Honoré), c. 1850s-60s ​ ​

(Fig. 2) Charles Marville, Rue de Constantine (4th arrondissement), 1866 ​ ​

(Fig. 3) Charles Marville, Boulevard Haussmann, c. 1877 ​ ​

Cabezas 34

(Fig. 4) Gustave Caillebotte, The Floor Scrapers, 1875, oil on canvas, 102 X 147 cm., Musée d’Orsay, Paris ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

(Fig. 5) Claude Monet, Impression, Sunrise, 1872, oil on canvas ​ ​

(Fig. 6) Gustave Caillebotte, The House Painters, 1877, oil on canvas, 87 X 116 cm., Private Collection ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Cabezas 35

(Fig. 7) Gustave Caillebotte, Portrait of Paul Hugot, 1878, ​ ​ oil on canvas, 74.5 X 92.5 cm., The Lewis Collection ​ ​ ​

(Fig. 8) “Map of Paris, 1878 (detail), in Alexandre Aimé Vuillemin, Nouveau plan de Paris divisé en vingt ​ arrondissements (1878). Bibliothèque nationale de France, département Cartes et plans, GE C-7157. Annotations ​ show (1) Caillebotte’s home at 77, rue de Miromesnil; (2) Café Guerbois at 11, grande rue des Batignolles (later ​ ​ ​ ​ called avenue de Clichy); (3) Café de la Nouvelle-Athènes at the place Pigalle. The star indicates the intersection ​ ​ ​ ​ that is depicted in Paris Street; Rainy Day.” (Art Institute of Chicago). ​ ​ I superimposed Caillebotte’s paintings onto the map to reiterate how he painted his everyday environment.

Cabezas 36

(Fig. 9) Gustave Caillebotte, Le Pont de l’Europe, 1876, ​ ​ oil on canvas, 124.8 X 180 cm., Association des Amis du Petit Palais, Geneva ​ ​ ​

(Fig. 10, left) Martial Caillebotte, Gustave Caillebotte and Bergère at the place du Carrousel, February 1876. ​ ​ (Fig. 11, right) Gustave Caillebotte, Striding Man in a Top Hat, c. 1876. ​ ​

Cabezas 37

(Fig. 12) Gustave Caillebotte, On the Pont de l’Europe, 1876-7, ​ ​ oil on canvas, 105.7 X 130.8 cm., Kimbell Art Museum, Fort Worth ​ ​ ​

(Fig. 13) Gustave Caillebotte, Paris Street, Rainy Day, 1877, oil on canvas, 212.2 X 276.2 cm., ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ The Art Institute of Chicago, Charles H. and Mary F. S. Worcester Collection

Cabezas 38

(Fig. 14) Edouard Manet, Emile Zola, 1868, oil on canvas ​ ​

(Fig. 15, left) Hiroshige, Cotton-goods Lane, Odenma-cho from series One hundred famous views of Edo, 1858 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ (Fig. 16, right) Gustave Caillebotte, Architectural and perspective study for Le Pont de l’Europe, c. 1876 ​ ​

Cabezas 39

(Fig. 17) Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Dance at Le moulin de la Galette, 1876 ​ ​

(Fig. 18) Gustave Caillebotte, Self-Portrait at the Easel, 1879-80, ​ ​ oil on canvas, 90 X 115 cm., Private Collection ​ ​ ​

Cabezas 40

(Fig. 19, left) Gustave Caillebotte, The Rue Halévy, Seen from the Sixth Floor, 1878, oil on canvas, 73.7 X 60.3 cm., ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Private Collection, Dallas (Fig. 20, right) Gustave Caillebotte, Place Saint Augustin, Misty Weather, 1878, oil on canvas, Private Collection ​ ​

(Fig. 21) Gustave Caillebotte, Boulevard des Italiens, 1880, oil on canvas, 54 X 64 cm., Private Collection ​ ​ ​

(Fig. 22, left) Claude Monet, Boulevard des Capucines, 1873 ​ ​ (Fig. 23, right) Claude Monet, Rue Montorgueil in Paris, Celebration of 30 June 1878, 1878 ​ ​

Cabezas 41

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anon. “Exposition des Impressionistes.” In Gustave Caillebotte, compiled by Kirk Varnedoe, 188. New ​ ​ Haven: Yale University Press, 1987. Previously published in La Petite Républic Française, April ​ ​ 10, 1877.

———“L’Exposition des Impressionistes.” In Gustave Caillebotte, compiled by Kirk Varnedoe, 187. ​ ​ New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987. Previously published in Le Temps, April 7, 1877. ​ ​

Bazin, André. “The Ontology of Photographic Image (1945).” In Caillebotte’s Deep Focus, by Michael ​ ​ Marrinan, 27. N.p.: University of Chicago Press, 2015. Excerpt from What is Cinema? N.p.: ​ ​ Berkeley, 2005. 16.

Berhaut, Marie. “Caillebotte, Gustave.” In The Grove Dictionary of Art, edited by Jane Turner, 53-57. ​ ​ New York: St. Martin’s, 2000.

Bertall. “Exposition des Impressionistes, Rue Lepeletier.” In Gustave Caillebotte, compiled by Kirk ​ ​ Varnedoe, 187. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987. Previously published in Le Soir, April ​ ​ 1876.

———“Exposition des Indépendants, Ex-Impressionistes, Demain Intentionists.” In Gustave Caillebotte, ​ ​ compiled by Kirk Varnedoe, 193-94. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987. Previously published in L’Artiste, June 1879. ​ ​

Blau, Eve. “Patterns of Fact: Photography and the Transformation of the Early Industrial City.” In Architecture and Its Image: Four Centuries of Architectural Representation: Works from the Collection of the Canadian Centre for Architecture, edited by Eve Blau and Edward Kaufman, ​ 36-57. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1989.

Blémont, Emile. “Les Impressionistes.” In Gustave Caillebotte, compiled by Kirk Varnedoe, 185-6. New ​ ​ Haven: Yale University Press, 1987. Previously published in Le Rappel, April 9, 1876. ​ ​

Burstein, Jessica. “Visual Art.” In The Cambridge Companion to Modernist Culture, edited by Celia ​ ​ Marshik, 145-65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014.

Caillebotte, Gustave. Letter, “Will,” November 5, 1889. In Gustave Caillebotte, by Kirk Varnedoe, ​ ​ 197-204. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987.

Carmona, Michael. Haussmann: His Life and Times, and the Making of Modern Paris. Chicago: I. R. ​ ​ Dee, 2002.

Chardeau, Gilles. “Caillebotte: A Biographical Chronology.” In Gustave Caillebotte: The Painter’s Eye, ​ ​ edited by Mary Morton and George T. M. Shackelford, 233-49. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015.

Chaumelin, Maurice. “Actualités: L’Exposition des Impressionistes.” In Gustave Caillebotte, compiled by ​ ​ Kirk Varnedoe, 185. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987. Previously published in La ​ Gazette (des Etrangers), April 8, 1876. ​

Cabezas 42

Clark, T. J. The Painting of Modern Life: Paris in the Art of Manet and His Followers. Rev. ed. ​ ​ Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, n.d.

Enault, Louis. “Mouvement Artistique — L’Exposition des Intransigeants dans la Galerie de Durand-Ruel.” In Gustave Caillebotte, compiled by Kirk Varnedoe, 186. New Haven: Yale ​ ​ University Press, 1987. Previously published in Le Constitutionnel, April 10, 1876. ​ ​

Ephrussi, Charles. “Exposition des Artistes Indépendants.” In Gustave Caillebotte, compiled by Kirk ​ ​ Varnedoe, 194. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987. Previously published in Gazette des ​ Beaux-Arts, May 1, 1880. ​

Galassi, Peter, and Kirk Varnedoe. “Caillebotte’s Space.” In Gustave Caillebotte, by Kirk Varnedoe, ​ ​ 20-26. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987.

Garb, Tamar. “Masculinity, Muscularity and Modernity in Caillebotte’s Male Figures.” In In Visible ​ Touch: Modernism and Masculinity, edited by Terry Smith, 53-74. Chicago: University of ​ Chicago Press, 1997.

Guegan, Stephan. “Ecce Homo.” In Gustave Caillebotte: The Painter’s Eye, edited by Mary Morton and ​ ​ George T. M. Shackelford, 99-107. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015.

Higonnet, Patrice L. R. Paris: Capital of the World. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2002. ​ ​

Isaacson, Joel. “Monet, (Oscar-)Claude.” In The Grove Dictionary of Art, edited by Jane Turner, 305-13. ​ ​ New York: St. Martin’s, 2000.

Iskin, Ruth E. “Inconspicuous Subversion: Parisian Consumer Culture in 1870s City Views.” In Modern ​ Women and Parisian Consumer Culture in Impressionist Painting, 114-47. New York: ​ Cambridge University, 2007.

Jacques. “Menu Propos.” In Gustave Caillebotte, compiled by Kirk Varnedoe, 189. New Haven: Yale ​ ​ University Press, 1987. Previously published in L’Homme Libre, April 12, 1877. ​ ​

Jones, Colin. Paris: Biography of a City. New York: Viking, 2005. ​ ​

Kaplan, Julius. “Bonnat, Leon (-Joseph-Florentin).” In The Grove Dictionary of Art, edited by Jane ​ ​ Turner, 32-34. New York: St. Martin’s, 2000.

Kennel, Sarah. “Photography and the Painter’s Eye.” In Gustave Caillebotte: The Painter’s Eye, edited by ​ ​ Mary Morton and George T. M. Shackelford, 109-21. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015.

Laurent, Jeanne, Pierre Vaisse, and Jacques Chardeau. “The New Caillebotte Affair.” October 31 (Winter ​ ​ 1984): 69-90. doi:10.2307/778357.

Lepelletier, Edmond. “Les Impressionistes.” In Gustave Caillebotte, compiled by Kirk Varnedoe, 187-88. ​ ​ New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987. Previously published in Le Radical, April 8, 1877. ​ ​

Cabezas 43

Leroy, Louis. “Exhibition of the Impressionists.” In The History of Impressionism, edited by John ​ ​ Rewald, 318-24. 4th. ed. New York: The Museum of of Modern Art, 1973. Previously published in Le Charivari, April 25, 1874. ​ ​

Lightstone, Rosanne H. “Gustave Caillebotte’s Oblique Perspective: A New Source for ‘Le Pont de l’Europe.’” The Burlington Magazine 136, no. 1100 (November 1994): 759-62. ​ ​ http://www.jstor.org/stable/886274.

Marrinan, Michael. “Caillebotte’s Deep Focus.” In Gustave Caillebotte: The Painter’s Eye, edited by ​ ​ Mary Morton and George T. M. Shackelford, 23-37. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015.

Montjoyeux, Jules Poignard. “Chroniques Parisiennes: Les indépendants.” In Gustave Caillebotte, ​ ​ compiled by Kirk Varnedoe, 192-93. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987. Previously published in Le Gaulois, April 18, 1879. ​ ​

Morton, Mary. “Caillebotte in Contemporary Criticism.” In Gustave Caillebotte: The Painter’s Eye, ​ ​ edited by Mary Morton and George T. M. Shackelford, 57-69. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015.

Morton, Mary, Camille Mathieu, Galina Olmstead, and George T. M. Schakelford. “Viewing Others: Portraits.” In Gustave Caillebotte: The Painter’s Eye, edited by Mary Morton and George T. M. ​ ​ Shackelford, 162-65. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015.

National Gallery of Art. “Charles Marville: Photographer of Paris.” National Gallery of Art. Accessed April 2017. http://www.nga.gov/content/ngaweb/exhibitions/2013/marville.html.

Park, Malcolm. “Three street drawings by Gustave Caillebotte.” The Burlington Magazine 152, no. 1289 ​ ​ (August 2010): 536-39. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25769712.

Ramos, Cecilia E. “Caillebotte’s ‘On the Pont de l’Europe’: A Transversal Vista of Modernity.” Thresholds 31 (2006): 32-39. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43876269. ​ Ramos argues that Caillebotte’s techniques for painting this modern bridge were as new as the bridge itself.

Rewald, John, ed. The History of Impressionism. 4th. ed. New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 1973. ​ ​

Rubin, James H. “Art and Technology: Impressionism and Photography.” In Impressionism and the ​ Modern Landscape: Productivity, Technology, and Urbanization from Manet to Van Gogh, ​ 39-56. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008. Great discourse on the debate of photography in the role of painting in mid-late 1800s Paris, p 46.

———“Renovation and Modern Viewpoints: Roads, Bridges, and City Spaces.” In Impressionism and ​ the Modern Landscape: Productivity, Technology, and Urbanization from Manet to Van Gogh, ​ 17-37. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008.

Cabezas 44

“Salon des Refusés.” Britannica Academic. Last modified 2017. ​ ​ http://academic.eb.com.proxy.library.nd.edu/levels/collegiate/article/Salon-des-Refus%C3%A9s/ 65121.

Sebillot, Paul. “Exposition des Impressionistes.” In Gustave Caillebotte, compiled by Kirk Varnedoe, ​ ​ 187. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987. Previously published in Le Bien Public, April 7, ​ ​ 1877.

Shackelford, George T. M. “Man in the Middle.” In Gustave Caillebotte: The Painter’s Eye, edited by ​ ​ Mary Morton and George T. M. Shackelford, 39-55. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015.

Varnedoe, Kirk. “Caillebotte: An Evolving Perspective.” In Gustave Caillebotte, 12-19. New Haven: Yale ​ ​ University Press, 1987. Outlines the development of Caillebotte’s style. Great discourse on theme of near/far on page 16.

———Gustave Caillebotte. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987. ​ ​ Criticism

Wettlaufer, Alexandra K. “Paintings of Modern Life: Representing Modernity in Baudelaire, Balzac, Zola, and Caillebotte.” In Gustave Caillebotte: The Painter’s Eye, edited by Mary Morton and ​ ​ George T. M. Shackelford, 71-83. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015.

Zola, Emile. “Deux Expositions d’Art en Mai.” In Gustave Caillebotte, compiled by Kirk Varnedoe, 186. ​ ​ New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987. Previously published in Le Messager de l’Europe, June ​ ​ 1876.

———“Une Exposition: Les Peintres Impressionistes.” In Gustave Caillebotte, compiled by Kirk ​ ​ Varnedoe, 190. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987. Previously published in Le Semaphore ​ de Marseille, April 19, 1877. ​