Camille Pissarro & Paul Durand-Ruel: Rewards and Pitfalls of an Artist

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. In the past, they had been reserved for deceased artists.

But Durand-Ruel saw the retrospective as the perfect arena for legitimizing living artists, especially the Impressionists. Though he was intimately involved in their retrospectives, he also gave them a great deal of say in regard to the pieces they wanted to show and how they were shown. In this way he was able to remove himself somewhat from the exhibition process and give more credit and responsibility to the artists.13 He used retrospectives to legitimize and

historicize, or represent in an historical manner, his artists, which was another key to their, and

his, commercial success.

Durand-Ruel’s marketing of the Impressionists was aimed at increasing their legitimacy at a time when they were seen as ‘outliers’ in the Paris art world. Other ways in which he did this

was by showing their work with works by the Old Masters, or by “slipping” Impressionist works

into exhibitions of artists who already had a following,14 such as Millet, an artist from the School of 1830 whose success was largely the result of Durand-Ruel’s efforts. This allowed viewers to

12 Robert Jensen, “The Avant-Garde and the Trade in Art.” Art Journal (Winter, 1988): 361. 13 Patry, Inventing Impressionism: Paul Durand-Ruel and the Modern Art Market, 106. 14 Regan, Paul Durand-Ruel and the Market for Early Modernism, 17.

6 connect the Old Masters or already-successful artists with the Impressionists, helping to validate

the latter’s newer work.

Durand-Ruel was also diligent about documenting the Impressionists’ work. This was

unusual for the time and was immensely important for marketing Impressionism later. He did this by photographing work that passed through his shop and kept detailed, accurate accounts of his stock and his correspondence with artists. He also worked to develop a discourse around

Impressionism by publishing books and writings on the Impressionists.15 Rather than relying

exclusively on the independent press to promote them as most dealers did for their artists,

Durand-Ruel published his own art reviews on two separate occasions in order to promote the work of his artists, most importantly the Impressionists. In January of 1869, he launched La

Revue internationale de l’art et de la curiosité. This was followed by L’Art dans les deux

mondes in November, 1890 with articles on the Impressionists by renowned art critics including

Gustave Geffroy, George Lacomte, and Octave Mirbeau.16 Durand-Ruel also published

catalogues of Impressionist works accompanied by short writings by respected art critics or art historians,17 further validating their work.

Durand-Ruel used all of these practices in his dealings with Camille Pissarro. I chose

Pissarro as the case study for this paper because he was a full-time artist who had to make money

by selling his art, refusing to take on menial work except when absolutely necessary. He had a

large family who depended on his work to support them, which was an extreme burden for him

at times. His production was massive, numbering hundreds of works over the course of his life.

Despite the fact that Durand-Ruel and Pissarro did not always have an easy, amicable, or

15 Jensen, Marketing Modernism in Fin-de-Siècle Europe, 123. 16 Durand-Ruel, Paul Durand-Ruel: Memoirs of the First Impressionist Art Dealer, xvi. 17 Regan, Paul Durand-Ruel and the Market for Early Modernism, 19.

7 consistent relationship, Durand-Ruel remained Pissarro’s primary dealer for most of the latter’s

artistic career, and influenced the artist and helped determine his place in history through his

unique dealing practices.

Durand-Ruel and Pissarro met in London in January 1871, during the Franco-Prussian

War. At this time, Durand-Ruel bought two of Pissarro’s pieces for 200 francs each, a huge

increase from the 20 to 40 francs that Pissarro typically got from his then-primary dealer, Père

Martin.18 Only one of Pissarro’s first two paintings bought by Durand-Ruel has been identified

(Figure 9). He probably paid Pissarro as much as he did because he wanted Pissarro to see that he was someone who could support him better than anyone else, including Père Martin. It would not be surprising if this initial transaction gave Pissarro the idea that Durand-Ruel could be a consistent source of substantial income for him and his family. It might also have created in him a sense of loyalty towards Durand-Ruel if he felt that this type of support would be regular and provide career stability. Durand-Ruel and Pissarro began doing more regular business together soon after this first meeting.19

Between 1872 and 1882, while he lived primarily in Pontoise, Pissarro worked to develop his style and strengthen the Impressionist group by further defining the group’s purpose and defending the group’s function as an alternative to the Salons,20 though some members of the

group still tried to show at them. Though Pissarro’s work was accepted into the Salon

occasionally between the years of 1859 and 1870, after 1870 Pissarro refused to submit work to

18 Ralph Shikes and Paula Harper, Pissarro, His Life and Work (New York: Horizon Press, 1980), 102. 19 Christopher Lloyd, ed., Studies on Camille Pissarro (London, England: Routledge & Kegan Paul Inc., 1986), 67. 20 Joachim Pissarro, Camille Pissarro (New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1993), 90.

8 it.21 This was likely a combination of no longer creating work that would have a chance of being accepted and of trying to promote the alternative commercial art system that the Impressionist group was fostering. Durand-Ruel was one of the top dealers in this new system and was one of the only dealers willing to purchase Impressionist works at this time.

Throughout the decade Pissarro spent in Pontoise, he was still occasionally represented by Père Martin and Gaston Latouche.22 Durand-Ruel however was his primary dealer until 1874 when he encountered financial problems. By the end of 1872, Pissarro had been paid 5,900 francs by Durand-Ruel, a huge sum in comparison to what he had ever received from Père

Martin.23 He continued to receive steady payments from Durand-Ruel in 187324 but in 1874 and

1875 Durand-Ruel began to experience the first financial crisis of his career. As a result, he stopped payments to most of the Impressionists, including Pissarro, for five years.25 This put

Pissarro in a tough financial position, since by this time he had come to rely on Durand-Ruel’s income. Pissarro likely understood that Durand-Ruel, like all dealers, was beholden to the economy at large and could not always purchase works from the artists he supported most, even if he wanted to. Even still, Pissarro may not have been entirely sympathetic to Durand-Ruel’s struggles, because he was enduring his own hardships in those times as well. Losing income from Durand-Ruel dealt a blow to Pissarro as he desperately searched for buyers for his work.

This period of time was very difficult for Pissarro and he felt that his studies were “made without method, without gaiety, without spirit because of [his] feeling that [he] must abandon art” in

21 Shikes and Harper, Pissarro, His Life and Work, 50 and 85. 22 Pissarro, Camille Pissarro, 138. 23 Shikes and Harper, Pissarro, His Life and Work, 102. 24 Ibid., Pissarro, His Life and Work, 107. 25 Ibid., Pissarro, His Life and Work, 113-114.

9 order to make a living for his family.26 He therefore continued to exhibit with other dealers until

1880, when Durand-Ruel was able to begin buying his work again. That December, Pissarro

received 1,750 francs from Durand-Ruel - enough to afford to hire models. He wrote to his niece

that this payment meant “tranquillity for some time, and the means of doing some important

works…”27 (Figures 10 and 11). Pissarro received steady payments from Durand-Ruel through

1881. In 1882 Pissarro received 12,000 francs for his work from Durand-Ruel and in 1883,

14,000 francs.28

Durand-Ruel gave Pissarro 2 one-man shows in 1883 and 1902, as well as a retrospective

after his death in 1904. Though these exhibits were not always financially successful, it would be

fair to say that they likely increased the visibility and status of Pissarro over time. A one-man

show of Monet’s work had taken place a few months before Pissarro’s in 1883, and was not a financial success, so Pissarro was pessimistic about the chances of success for his own.29

Durand-Ruel encouraged him to show a variety of his works, beginning with pieces from the

1870s, as well as works in different subjects and styles. This emphasis by Durand-Ruel on diversification was due to art critics’ responses to the shows that the Impressionists staged themselves which were often called repetitive in its effect and depiction of a particular milieu.

The achievement of sincerity and specificity of experience was key to artists’ successes in the eyes of critics such as Philippe Burty and Gustave Geffroy. If the paintings were able to “awaken

precise, accentuated memories” then the repetition of effects would not matter to the overall

success of the show, according to Burty.30

26 Ibid., Pissarro, His Life and Work, 143. 27 Ibid., Pissarro, His Life and Work, 154-155. 28 Ibid., Pissarro, His Life and Work, 181. 29 John Rewald, Camille Pissarro: Letters to His Son Lucien (New York: Da Capo Press, 1995), 23-25. 30 Ward, Pissarro, Neo-impressionism, and the spaces of the avant-garde, 23.

10 Pissarro felt that, by and large, the exhibition of 1883 was under his complete control, but

also ended up feeling that it was weak.31 Unfortunately, many critics tended to agree, writing that

his work lacked verve and was monotonous in execution.32 In addition, neither of the two critics

who had been most supportive of the previous one-man Impressionist exhibitions, Burty and

Geffroy, commented on the show.33 This lack of supportive criticism was, of course, not helpful

to Pissarro. In his letters to his son Lucien, he does not mention this exhibition after it opened

and nothing is said about the critical response. Yet I expect that Pissarro was especially hard on

himself for the way his show fell flat. He was often quick to blame his own weaknesses when art

ventures were not successful, so he probably did not fault Durand-Ruel for the unexciting show

any more than he did himself.

Between 1874 and 1879,34 Durand-Ruel faced acute financial difficulties and was only

able to provide minimal financial support for nearly every Impressionist, which caused Pissarro

to rely on second-rate dealers to sell his work. Though Durand-Ruel made it clear that he could

no longer support Pissarro, he was still upset by Pissarro’s decision to sell to other dealers whom

he believed did not care for the Impressionists or their work, and he told Pissarro as much.35

Pissarro, meanwhile, discovered that no dealer would support him as well as Durand-Ruel had and would not allow him to keep his prices high, so he decided that he should continue to use

Durand-Ruel as his primary dealer.36

31 Rewald, Camille Pissarro: Letters to His Son Lucien, 23-32. 32 Frédéric Henriet and Paul Labarrière were among those who wrote critical articles on Pissarro’s 1883 show. (Ward, Pissarro, Neo-impressionism, and the spaces of the avant-garde, 24) 33 Ibid., Pissarro, Neo-impressionism, and the spaces of the avant-garde, 24. 34 Durand-Ruel, Paul Durand-Ruel: Memoirs of the First Impressionist Art Dealer, 112 and 149. 35 Durand-Ruel reproached Pissarro for selling to second-rate dealers and said “one of these dealers, [Hippolyte] Heymann, showed his pictures without frames in dirty shops just to render them ridiculous.” (quoted in Rewald, Camille Pissarro: Letters to His Son Lucien, 59-60) 36 Ibid., Camille Pissarro: Letters to His Son Lucien, 78-79.

11 But Durand-Ruel’s support of Pissarro dropped precipitously in the 1880s, especially once Pissarro began experimenting with the Neo-Impressionist style around 188637 (Figure 12).

Neo-Impressionism was more rigid in its methods of paint application, small dots of juxtaposing complementary colors and a focus on order rather than spontaneity (Figure 13).

He began experimenting with the new style because he felt that the original

Impressionists - or “romantic” Impressionists, as he called them - had no forward momentum stylistically. He likely felt that Neo-Impressionism was the next step forward in French art and that the group was going to make a historical impact with their work, whereas he worried that the original Impressionists were a fleeting phase. But it wasn’t only the new the new ways in which the Neo-Impressionists were employing scientific and color theories that Pissarro admired. He also appreciated their position outside of the traditional Salon and the dealer-dominated art market. The Neo-Impressionists worked consistently on collective endeavors to market their work, and regularly exhibited at the open and unjuried Society of Independent artists.38

All of this appealed to Pissarro because he was growing tired at this time of how commercialized the private dealer system had become. He felt that Impressionist art was increasingly “determined by the games of buyers and sellers,”39 by which he meant the open marketplace for art. It was at this time that he began to question if the capitalist art market was really a good thing. As an avid anarchist (a political position he shared with the other Neo-

Impressionists), he believed that art should function outside the traditional capitalist marketplace

and should not be tightly controlled by art dealers like Durand-Ruel who represented that

37 Martha Ward notes that Monet and Degas, however, each received about the same amount of support in Durand-Ruel’s lean years as his prosperous years. (Pissarro, Neo-impressionism, and the spaces of the avant-garde, 28) The lesser support that Pissarro received is likely due to his foray into the Neo- Impressionist style. 38 Ward, Neo-impressionism, and the spaces of the avant-garde, 108. 39 Ibid., Neo-impressionism, and the spaces of the avant-garde, 56.

12 marketplace. He frequently mentioned at this time in his letters to his son Lucien that he felt that

he needed to get out from under the control of Durand-Ruel.

Durand-Ruel made it clear that he did not appreciate Pissarro’s stylistic move to Neo-

Impressionism. He maintained “that an artist should only have one style”40 to make it easier for

the public to understand the artist’s work and for the dealer to sell it. He used this as an excuse

for not taking more of Pissarro’s work.41 He even mentioned to Pissarro a couple of times that

the reason why the Impressionist painter Monet was so successful was because he did not shock

his collectors with an inconsistent style. 42 But Pissarro refused to give up Neo-Impressionism in order to please Durand-Ruel,43 even when Durand-Ruel decided to stop showing any Neo-

Impressionist work in his gallery in 1886.44 When this happened, Pissarro turned for support to

Theo van Gogh.

Theo van Gogh was one of the only dealers in Paris to support Pissarro during his foray

into Neo-Impressionism, and seemed to be his most consistent champion during that period.

They met in the summer of 1887, and two of Pissarro’s paintings were hung in van Gogh’s

gallery in September that year.45 Though van Gogh’s interest in contemporary art was only

modest,46 he and Pissarro got on well and corresponded with each other regularly. Between 1887 and 1890, van Gogh was Pissarro’s best alternative to Durand-Ruel, who continued to refuse

Pissarro’s work. Van Gogh even gave Pissarro a one-man show in 1890, accompanied by a

40 Rewald, Camille Pissarro: Letters to His Son Lucien, 144. 41 Ibid., Camille Pissarro: Letters to His Son Lucien, 145. 42 Ibid., Camille Pissarro: Letters to His Son Lucien, 159. 43 Ibid., Camille Pissarro: Letters to His Son Lucien, 80. 44 Ward, Neo-impressionism, and the spaces of the avant-garde, 53. 45 Lili Jampoller and Theo van Gogh, “Theo van Gogh and Camille Pissarro: Correspondence and an Exhibition,” Simiolus: Netherlands Quarterly for the History of Art 16, 1 (1986): 50. 46 Ibid., “Theo van Gogh and Camille Pissarro: Correspondence and an Exhibition,” 50.

13 catalog. Although the show was not economically successful,47 Pissarro did get noticed

positively by art critics, including the prominent critic Gustave Geffroy in the catalog’s essay.48

Pissarro was incredibly pleased with the exhibition and was grateful to van Gogh for all his

efforts on his behalf.49

Durand-Ruel was not happy with Pissarro for selling his work to van Gogh, but Pissarro

felt the need to hold his ground. In doing so, he hoped that Durand-Ruel would begin to keep his

promises in regard to monetary assistance, rather than ignoring him or promising money and then never following through.50 For example, Pissarro described in a letter to his son an instance

in which Durand-Ruel refused to take Pissarro’s gouaches, which led Pissarro to tell Durand-

Ruel that if he wanted to keep his relationship with the Impressionists then he had better begin to

take all of their work. Otherwise, they would be forced to turn to other dealers such as van

Gogh51 or Georges Petit, one of Durand-Ruel’s rivals.52

Durand-Ruel, however, never bought Pissarro’s entire stock of work or became his

exclusive dealer. At the same time, he did not appreciate it when Pissarro went to other dealers

during his Neo-Impressionist phase. Yet he did take a greater interest in Pissarro after learning about his dealings with van Gogh.53 Perhaps this was because Pissarro was beginning to paint

again in a style that leaned toward traditional Impressionism by, in the words of Camille

47 Five of the twenty-six works shown were sold. (Ibid., “Theo van Gogh and Camille Pissarro: Correspondence and an Exhibition”, 53) 48 Ward, Neo-impressionism, and the spaces of the avant-garde, 161-163. 49 Jampoller, “Theo van Gogh and Camille Pissarro: Correspondence and an Exhibition”, 53. 50 Rewald, Camille Pissarro: Letters to His Son Lucien, 128. 51 Ibid., Camille Pissarro: Letters to His Son Lucien, 131. 52 In Pissarro’s Letters, he explained how he had to turn to George Petit’s International Exhibition in 1887 because of Durand-Ruel’s lack of support. But his works were generally ignored at the Exhibition because they were scattered about, giving them less prominence. Pissarro also complained that Petit put his energy into promoting Monet and Sisley. (Ibid., 102 and 109) 53 Ward, Neo-impressionism, and the spaces of the avant-garde, 86-87.

14 Pissarro, combining “the purity and simplicity of the [Neo-Impressionist] dot with the fullness, suppleness, liberty, spontaneity and freshness of sensation” achieved by Impressionism.54

Pissarro made this stylistic move because he was growing tired of how long it took him to complete a painting using the Neo-Impressionist dot technique, and he felt that the technique was harsh in its visual effect.55 He felt that the dot lacked “true simplicity” and he worked to get

back to a “more intuitive and quicker” process of painting that was impossible with the dot.56 By

abandoning the dot and elongating his brushstrokes while continuing to use juxtaposed complementary colors in the manner of the Neo-Impressionists, Pissarro married Impressionism and Neo-Impressionism in a way that pleased him even if Durand-Ruel was still hesitant to buy it. Pure Neo-Impressionism was also not profitable for Pissarro, and with his large family to support he could not continue with the genre at its current state of acceptance.

By 1890, Pissarro had withdrawn from the Neo-Impressionist group for the most part and allied himself with the Impressionists and Durand-Ruel again. Unfortunately, Durand-Ruel purchased Pissarro’s work at a much lower price than he had previously. Durand-Ruel was also hesitant to exhibit Pissarro’s work in Paris because even his modified Impressionist style was more avant-garde than Durand-Ruel felt Paris could appreciate.57

Unfortunately, soon after taking Pissarro back into his fold, Durand-Ruel stopped

purchasing his works again.58 Pissarro wrote in a letter to his son that he did not think Durand-

Ruel believed in his work and criticized the dealer by calling him the “enemy” and “hyena-

54 Rewald, Camille Pissarro: Letters to His Son Lucien, 132. 55 Ibid., Camille Pissarro: Letters to His Son Lucien, 132. 56 Ward, Neo-impressionism, and the spaces of the avant-garde, 117. 57 Ibid., Neo-impressionism, and the spaces of the avant-garde, 87. 58 Rewald, Camille Pissarro: Letters to His Son Lucien, 157-160.

15 like”.59 Later in 1891, however, Durand-Ruel commissioned an article about Pissarro by the

influential critic Octave Mirbeau and published it in a periodical entitled L’Art dans les deux

mondes. While Mirbeau did not mention any specific works in his article, he situated Pissarro’s

work within the larger context of humanity, referring to Pissarro’s figures as “images of mankind” (Figures 14, 15, 16, 17), and saying that his work reflected “universal harmony” and was able to “express the universe”.60 Mirbeau was referring to Pissarro’s Neo-Impressionist

depictions of peasants, primarily the ones in which the peasants are engaged in outdoor work.

Though Pissarro had depicted peasants in his work for much of his career, Mirbeau was

specifically referring to Pissarro’s later Neo-Impressionist work and how Pissarro celebrated

peasant life and agricultural work while also creating an aesthetically pleasing image through his

use of color and brushwork.61 These peasant paintings were very much the result of Pissarro’s anarchist beliefs about the healthiness of rural labor and small-scale rural life. Though Durand-

Ruel was no anarchist, he, along with his collectors and others of his day, liked paintings of peasants if they made peasant life look unburdened and noble. It could be argued that not only did Pissarro create peasant paintings because the subject matter aligned with his radical political beliefs, but also because it may have allowed for slightly more leeway in his stylistic choices as long as the subject matter was acceptable to his conservative dealer. However, Neo-

Impressionism, no matter the painting's subject was much too avant-garde for Durand-Ruel.

When Pissarro received a retrospective in 1892 from Durand-Ruel, Mirbeau revised this

article for the popular conservative paper, Le Figaro. While Durand-Ruel had not wanted

Mirbeau to praise Pissarro’s Neo-Impressionist work, Mirbeau’s article made Pissarro’s work

59 Even Mary Cassatt and Degas are angry with Durand-Ruel’s continuous dismissal of their work and his unfulfilled promises. (Ibid., Camille Pissarro: Letters to His Son Lucien, 164-165) 60 Ward, Neo-impressionism, and the spaces of the avant-garde, 181. 61 Ibid., Neo-impressionism, and the spaces of the avant-garde, 181.

16 sound worthy of purchase and also made Pissarro sound like an admirable artist for his treatment of the peasant in his work. This was the article that cemented Pissarro’s relationship with

Durand-Ruel.62

In 1892, Durand-Ruel held another retrospective of Pissarro’s work, which Pissarro

agreed to because Durand-Ruel had the largest rooms in which to exhibit compared to the other

dealers who had invited him to exhibit at their galleries. Pissarro also mentioned to his son that

he wanted to “humor” Durand-Ruel, possibly to try to win his favor for the future.63 This retrospective laid the foundation for the way in which Pissarro’s work would be interpreted

thereafter because there was not a single Neo-Impressionist painting in the exhibition. A catalog

of the show was published with a forward by the renowned art critic Georges Lecomte.64

Lecomte emphasized “the continuity and ascension of Pissarro’s career”.65 Interestingly, the

body of works shown at this exhibit were not truly comprehensive, since they did not include

work from his Neo-Impressionist period. However, Lecomte wanted to highlight the consistency

of Pissarro’s traditional Impressionist work because it portrayed “the progressive and natural

development of his personality”.66 The “ascension” referred to in Lecomte’s forward was meant

to suggest that Pissarro, after so many years working in the Impressionist style, had transcended,

or risen beyond it. He stated that Pissarro’s work was “the art of the day after tomorrow”.67 This

would have certainly appealed to art collectors who wanted work that would continue to be important and noteworthy for many years rather than be just a passing trend.

62 Ibid., Neo-impressionism, and the spaces of the avant-garde, 184. 63 Rewald, Camille Pissarro: Letters to His Son Lucien, 189-190. 64 Ibid., Camille Pissarro: Letters to His Son Lucien, 194. 65 Ward, Neo-impressionism, and the spaces of the avant-garde, 243. 66 Ibid., Neo-impressionism, and the spaces of the avant-garde, 243. 67 Ibid., Neo-impressionism, and the spaces of the avant-garde, 243.

17 While the show was only a moderate success, Pissarro felt hesitantly hopeful that

Durand-Ruel would begin to support him regularly again, even though he had let Pissarro down

in the past.68 After his 1892 retrospective, Durand-Ruel bought up all of the unsold canvases

which contributed to the enormous sum Pissarro received from Durand-Ruel in 1892 equaling

23,042 francs, the most Pissarro ever received in his lifetime.69

Yet after 1892, Pissarro still felt taken advantage of by Durand-Ruel and not entirely

confident about their relationship. Durand-Ruel continually argued that Pissarro’s works would

not sell at the prices Pissarro set, leading Durand-Ruel to buy them at lower prices.70 In his

letters, Pissarro was often critical of this practice, writing in one instance that “Durand could do

me a lot of harm, Durand is a man who has to be handled.”71 Pissarro felt like he was no longer

in complete control when Durand-Ruel was his primary dealer, yet also he did not want to be

dropped again by Durand-Ruel because he needed that income. Pissarro likely felt that he had to

tread carefully and do what he could to both please Durand-Ruel and still produce art according

to his own standards. Even though he often felt that he lost a lot in the relationship, he was still

glad to have Durand-Ruel’s support.72 Durand-Ruel did sell Pissarro’s work at a higher price

than what he paid for them, so at the very least Pissarro appreciated that the value of his work

was still increasing.73

In 1896, Pissarro received another solo-exhibition with Durand-Ruel. At this time, he was

working in series of cityscapes (Figures 18 and 19). This likely allowed Durand-Ruel to more

68 Rewald, Camille Pissarro: Letters to His Son Lucien, 193. 69 Shikes and Harper, Pissarro, His Life and Work, 261-262. 70 Rewald, Camille Pissarro: Letters to His Son Lucien, 247-248. 71 Ibid., Camille Pissarro: Letters to His Son Lucien, 249. 72 Ibid., Camille Pissarro: Letters to His Son Lucien, 267. 73 Another dealer that Pissarro had gone through, Portier, would lower Pissarro’s prices for the market which resulted in gaining Pissarro very little. (Ibid., Camille Pissarro: Letters to His Son Lucien, 284)

18 readily sell his works because series paintings were popular at the time. Monet’s Cathedral

series, for example, had sold very well74 so both Pissarro and Durand-Ruel suspected Pissarro’s

series also could be very successful with the public. For his 1896 exhibition, Pissarro chose to

sell all of his pictures to Durand-Ruel immediately for 14,000 francs on the condition that

Durand-Ruel would buy Pissarro’s next series. With this deal made, Pissarro would not have to

“wait on the caprice of the collectors” as he had done in his previous exhibitions and

retrospective.75

What Pissarro may have received after the initial 14,000 francs from Durand-Ruel is unknown, but it is possible that he received a portion of the profit from the sale of those works.

In any case, the exhibition was a great success and Pissarro noted a positive change in Durand-

Ruel’s attitude towards him.76 Yet Pissarro never felt entirely secure being in Durand-Ruel’s

fold. In a letter of 1898 he writes: “[Durand] takes all my work, but on the other hand, he has too

much power over me.”77 In an attempt to change this situation, he repeatedly pursued other

collectors and dealers in France, Munich, and Berlin in the early 1900s, using them as leverage

against Durand-Ruel to see if he would increase the prices paid for his work.78

In the late 1890s, Pissarro’s work began to be sold at higher prices at auction. He was very happy with this development and he hoped that collectors would begin coming directly to

him for more works.79 Unfortunately, he never saw truly consistent success in his lifetime, which

concluded with his death in 1903. In April 1904, Durand-Ruel held a retrospective of his work

74 Ibid., Camille Pissarro: Letters to His Son Lucien, 283. 75 Ibid., Camille Pissarro: Letters to His Son Lucien, 286. 76 Ibid., Camille Pissarro: Letters to His Son Lucien, 289. 77 Ibid., Camille Pissarro: Letters to His Son Lucien, 330. 78 At one point, Pissarro wrote in January of 1903 that he had found “an opportunity to escape” Durand- Ruel when new dealers come into town. (Ibid., Camille Pissarro: Letters to His Son Lucien, 354) 79 Ibid., Camille Pissarro: Letters to His Son Lucien, 343.

19 consisting of works spanning his entire career. The prices for each work ranged from 10,000 to

20,000 francs, thousands more than he had ever received for a work in his lifetime.80

Though Durand-Ruel and Pissarro at times had an inconsistent and contentious artist-

dealer relationship, Durand-Ruel was Pissarro’s primary dealer for the majority of his career.

Without Durand-Ruel, Pissarro undoubtedly would not have realized the level of success that he did. At the same time, Durand-Ruel’s practices sometimes hurt Pissarro. Pissarro suffered a great deal during the times when Durand-Ruel did not come through with his promised financial support. Moreover, though encouraging artists not to sell to other dealers was a good business

tactic from the perspective of the dealer, this practice often made Durand-Ruel’s artists overly dependent on him. Certainly it created anxiety for Pissarro and likely upset other Impressionists as well.

Overall, it is fair to say that Durand-Ruel was a shrewd dealer who did what was good for his business. Pissarro, when his work was in accordance with Durand-Ruel’s taste, benefitted greatly from his dealer’s support. Pissarro clearly had mixed feelings about Durand-Ruel and his practices, but he remained with him because no other dealer at the time was as willing as he was to champion the cause of the Impressionists. Though other dealers eventually began dealing in

Impressionist works, Durand-Ruel was the most consistent for those of the group, like Monet, who followed salable trends. At times, Pissarro had to “play the game” of buyers and sellers that he disliked so much, but at the same time he followed his passions as much as possible, the best example of which was his foray into Neo-Impressionism. For a short period of time, Pissarro’s anarchist leanings and the Neo-Impressionist style that he felt best expressed those leanings in paint trumped his desire for representation at Durand-Ruel’s galleries. And it certainly could be

80 Ibid., Camille Pissarro: Letters to His Son Lucien, 360.

20 argued that if Pissarro had tried to remain close to Durand-Ruel while he was associating himself with the Neo-Impressionists, the latter may have had a difficult time accepting him. Once

Pissarro readopted Impressionism, however, it was easy for his to return to Durand-Ruel’s fold and benefit again from the dealer’s positive impact. That move proved crucial to Pissarro’s legacy and the reputation he still enjoys today in the art marketplace.

21 Bibliography

Assouline, Pierre. Discovering Impressionism: The Life of Paul Durand-Ruel. New York: Magowan Publishing LLC, 2004.

Durand-Ruel, Paul. Paul Durand-Ruel: Memoirs of the First Impressionist Art Dealer. Translated by Deke Dusinberre. Paris: Flammarion, 2014.

Jampoller, Lili and Theo van Gogh. “Theo van Gogh and Camille Pissarro: Correspondence and an Exhibition.” Simiolus: Netherlands Quarterly for the History of Art 16, 1 (1986): 50-61.

Jensen, Robert. “The Avant-Garde and the Trade in Art.” Art Journal (Winter, 1988): 360-367.

Jensen, Robert. Marketing Modernism in Fin-de-Siècle Europe. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994.

Lloyd, Christopher, ed. Studies on Camille Pissarro. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Inc., 1986.

Patry, Sylvie, ed. Inventing Impressionism: Paul Durand-Ruel and the Modern Art Market. London: National Gallery Company Limited, 2015.

Pissarro, Joachim. Camille Pissarro. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1993.

Regan, Marci. Paul Durand-Ruel and the Market for Early Modernism. Masters Thesis, Louisiana State University, 2004.

Rewald, John. Camille Pissarro: Letters to His Son Lucien. New York: Da Capo Press, 1995.

Shikes, Ralph and Paula Harper. Pissarro, His Life and Work. New York: Horizon Press, 1980.

Ward, Martha. Pissarro, Neo-impressionism, and the spaces of the avant-garde. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1996.

22