Camille Pissarro & Paul Durand-Ruel: Rewards and Pitfalls of an Artist
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Camille Pissarro & Paul Durand-Ruel: Rewards and Pitfalls of an Artist-Dealer Relationship Kira Lapinsky Art History, Senior Paper 2015 1 In the mid-19th century, the art market in Paris began to shift from a traditional academic Salon system to a commercial market, the system still in use today. The state-supported Academy for French art had long been the only institution through which artists could make a living in the art world, through its chief exhibition site, the juried Salon. Large history paintings were valued above all else at the Salon due to their state-serving messages (Figure 1). As the number of artists began to increase in Paris beginning around 1850, and as the buyers of art became more diverse in their tastes, the Salon system became increasingly ineffective as a place for most artists to show their work. Too many artists were now trying to get their work into the Salon, with the result that many more artists than before had their work rejected. At the same time, middle-class art buyers wanted paintings, such as small landscape and genre paintings, that were at odds with the tastes of the government-sponsored jurors. Because the Salon was no longer a place for most artists to make a living, private galleries and dealers grew up to provide alternative locations for marketing art. Eventually, they took control of the art market. These dealers helped artists advertise and sell their work, and got art critics to write about exhibitions held in their galleries. They also convinced collectors to buy the work shown in these spaces. The Impressionists were one such group of artists often rejected by the Salon and supported by the new art dealers. It was through Charles Daubigny, a Barbizon painter, that the Impressionists came to know and work with a dealer named Paul Durand-Ruel. Daubigny introduced Claude Monet to Durand-Ruel in 1871, who then introduced Durand-Ruel to Camille Pissarro and, later in 1871, to the rest of his Impressionist colleagues.1 Paul Durand-Ruel championed the group at a time when no other dealer in Paris would do so. Using the 1 Marci Regan, Paul Durand-Ruel and the Market for Early Modernism (Masters Thesis, Louisiana State University, 2004), 17. 2 relationship between Paul Durand-Ruel (Figure 2) and the perpetually struggling Impressionist painter Camille Pissarro (Figure 3) as a case study, I will examine how the dealer system in Paris at this time both helped and hurt artists. Pissarro, though he appreciated Durand-Ruel for his support when it was given, felt ignored or taken advantage of by him throughout most of his career. Yet without Durand-Ruel, Pissarro would not have acquired the reputation he did in his own era, and continues to have today. Durand-Ruel went into the family business of selling art supplies and artworks and took it over in 1865. Eventually, he transitioned the business away from selling art supplies and towards dealing art exclusively.2 His first major success was with artists of the School of 1830, also known as the Barbizon school, a group for which he was the primary dealer. Through his unique dealing practices, Durand-Ruel created commercial success for many of its artists, such as Jean- François Millet (Figure 4) who later became one of Pissarro’s favorite painters. It was a natural transition for Durand-Ruel to take on the Impressionists after the Barbizon school, because each movement’s artists worked with the same themes, primarily landscapes with pronounced atmospheric effects, and secondarily, images of figures from urban and rural life (Figures 5 and 6). Impressionism also focused on the sensation of a scene rather than the reality of it and portrayed these ideas by using loose brushwork and emphasizing how light plays in the scene (Figure 7). By the early 1870s, Durand-Ruel was providing financial backing for some members of the Impressionist group, by giving them a monthly stipend and buying some or all of their work, even if there were not immediate buyers for it.3 He truly wanted these artists to feel secure and to keep working. While the stipend did allow some of them to make art without the pressure of 2 Ibid., Paul Durand-Ruel and the Market for Early Modernism, 17. 3 Ibid., Paul Durand-Ruel and the Market for Early Modernism, 33. 3 earning money, when Durand-Ruel was unable to provide that financial support to his artists, such as Pissarro, their insecurity was even more acute. Durand-Ruel considered his purchases as investments. He typically offered to pay artists more than they expected. Oftentimes artists requested that Durand-Ruel set the price for any given work since they expected more from his offer than they would have asked for themselves.4 It is unclear whether artists got a percentage of the profit when Durand-Ruel sold their work after having purchased their work outright. Though he never offered the Impressionists formal contracts, at times he became the exclusive dealer for some of them, sometimes through an oral agreement, such as he had with Renoir,5 or simply by purchasing the vast majority of an artist’s work. By purchasing an artist’s entire stock of paintings, Durand-Ruel’s intent often was to keep that artist’s prices at a certain level so he would be able to continue generating value for the work.6 At this time, artworks rose in value rather slowly but often fell in value quickly. Durand-Ruel tried to avoid the uphill battle of waiting for a painting to attain its original value by not allowing the prices he charged for an artist’s work to drop below the level he had first established. Marketing strategies that complimented bourgeois, or middle-class, taste were essential to Durand-Ruel’s success as a dealer. For example, the bourgeoisie was expected not to care about the French art academy’s standards. They were inclined to appreciate Impressionist art even when it was rejected by the academy if it was presented to them under the right conditions, namely in exclusive private galleries, including that of Durand-Ruel. Durand-Ruel’s gallery consisted of four small rooms in his own apartment in Paris. He wanted to create a sense of 4 Paul Durand-Ruel, Paul Durand-Ruel: Memoirs of the First Impressionist Art Dealer, trans. by Deke Dusinberre (Paris: Flammarion, 2014), xiii. 5 Pierre Assouline. Discovering Impressionism: The Life of Paul Durand-Ruel (New York, NY: Magowan Publishing LLC, 2004), 22. 6 Sylvie Patry, ed, Inventing Impressionism: Paul Durand-Ruel and the Modern Art Market (London, Great Britain: National Gallery Company Limited, 2015), 82. 4 intimacy and have the gallery feel more home-like7 (Figure 8). He also likely wanted potential buyers to be able to visualize what this work would look like in their own homes. He showed art in a carefully-selected way, and displayed it more attractively than the “bazaar-like” Salon.8 Durand-Ruel felt such exhibitions would attract a more elite audience.9 At the same time, he was careful to vary the works shown in his gallery to appeal to as many people as possible. Durand-Ruel also felt it was important to stress to the press and the public that the exhibitions he staged worked in the favor of the artists. One way he did this was to arrange exhibitions made up entirely of works that were borrowed from the big collectors of Impressionist art. This made it appear to the press that the shows were organized by an artist’s admirers rather than simply by him,10 to avoid the assumption that he was acting out of self- interest or for his own personal gain rather than to benefit the artists. Borrowing works from collectors was also a way to “name-drop” on the walls of his galleries. He wanted to make it clear that people had been buying Impressionist works in the past and that the Impressionists were worthy of other collectors’ attention and, most importantly, their money. Durand-Ruel also held “loan exhibitions” for which he borrowed already-sold Impressionist work from various collectors and hung them with Impressionist works that were for sale. Not only did this allow visitors to see a larger collection of an artist’s work but it hinted at a kind of exclusive club that one could be a part of if they purchased a piece.11 The idea was that a potential buyer could become a collector and therefore might have the work he or she 7 Martha Ward, Pissarro, Neo-impressionism, and the spaces of the avant-garde (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1996), 22. 8 Regan, Paul Durand-Ruel and the Market for Early Modernism, 15. 9 Robert Jensen, Marketing Modernism in Fin-de-Siècle Europe (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994), 42. 10 Patry, Inventing Impressionism: Paul Durand-Ruel and the Modern Art Market, 105. 11 Regan, Paul Durand-Ruel and the Market for Early Modernism, 17. 5 purchased be part of another loan exhibition, which in turn might influence the tastes of other art buyers. Durand-Ruel pioneered two types of shows: the one-man and the retrospective. One-man shows were key to guaranteeing the originality and importance of an artist’s work because they put the artist on a pedestal and stressed his or her individuality, even when he or she was part of a larger group of artists. It also validated an artist and placed him or her in a historical context by suggesting that he or she might be important enough to shape the future of French art.12 Retrospectives did much the same thing.