sign in sign up
<<
Home , Albert Marquet, Alfred Werner Maurer, Art in Paris, Autumn (Manet), Berthe Weill, Charles Angrand

INFORMATION TO USERS

This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted.

The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction.

1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity.

2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete, copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame.

3. When a map, or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo­ graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.

4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer Services Department.

5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy.

University Microfilms International 300 N. ZEEB ROAD, ANN ARBOR. Ml 48106 18 BEDFORD ROW. WC1 R 4EJ, ENGLAND 8100180

KIM, YOUNGNA

THE EARLY WORKS OF , AND : THE GROUP OF FAUVIST PAINTERS

The Ohio State University PH.D. 1980

University Microfilms International 300 N.Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106

Copyright 1980 by Kim, Youngna All Rights Reserved PLEASE NOTE: In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark v"' .

1. Glossy photographs 2. Colored illustrations 3. Photographs with dark background v^ "4. Illustrations are poor copy ^ 5. Drint shows through as there is text on both sides of page 6. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages

7. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine 8. Computer printout pages with indistinct print

9. Page(s) _n^____ lacking when material received, and not available from school or author 10. Page(s) seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows 11. Poor carbon copy 12. Not original copy, several pages with blurred type 13. Appendix pages are poor copy 14. Original copy with light type 15. Curling and wrinkled pages 16. Other

University MicroTiims International 300 N Z=== RD. ANN APSOR Ml .18106'313! 761-4700 THE EARLY WORKS OF GEORGES BRAQUE, RAOUL DUFY AND OTHON FRIESZ: THE LE HAVRE GROUP OF FAUVIST PAINTERS

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

By Youngna Kim, B.A., M.A.

* * A * *

The Ohio State University 1980

Reading Committee: Approved by Dr. Mathew Herban,III Dr. Francis Richardson Adviser Dr. Howard Crane Dept. of History of ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

There are many people I am thankful to for having helped me, in one way or another, to complete this disser­ tation. But most of all, I am grateful to two professors who have guided me throughout my schooling at the Ohio State University. Dr. Frank Richardson, whose support and encouragement have been precious to me, read the manuscript thoroughly and gave me many valuable suggestions in a most gracious manner. I am enormously indebted to Dr. Mathew Herban, III, for his immeasurable care, personally as well as professionally. Many of the important ideas of this dissertation were brought forward with his encouragement and it was my great fortune for having him as an adviser. My final gratitude goes to my parents in Korea whose love and belief in me have been the basic confidence which enabled me to finish this dissertation.

ii •

VITA

April 7, 1951 Born - Pusan, Korea 1973 B.A., Muhlenberg College Allentown, Pennsylvania 1973-1976 Teaching Associate, Department of , The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1976 M.A., The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1976-1979 Research Associate, College of the , The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1980 Teaching Associate, Department of History of Art, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: History of Art Studies in Modern European Art. Professor Mathew Herban III Studies in Seventeenth Century Art. Professor Francis Richardson Studies in Italian Art. Professor Francis Richardson

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii VITA iii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS vi INTRODUCTION 1 PART ONE: THE EARLY FORMATIVE YEARS IN . . 9 Chapter I. Traditions of Norman Landscape ... 10 II. Early Biography of Dufy and Friesz 32 III. Their Meeting with Braque and the Student Years in Le Havre 51 PART TWO: ARTISTIC STUDIES IN : 1900-1906 . . , 64 IV. Dufy and Friesz Settle in Paris; 1900-1904 . . 65 V. The Salon d'Automne of 1905 with Its Initial Influence on Dufy and Friesz. Braque's Development during 1900-1905 95 PART THREE: THE FAUVIST YEARS OF THE LE HAVRE GROUP 118 VI. From the Salon des Independants of 1906 to Salon d'Automne of 1906 Highlighting the Experience 119 VII. From the Salon d'Automne of 1906 to the Salon des Independants of 1907 and the Culmination of the Fauvist Style 149 PART FOUR: THE BEGINNING OF CEZANNISM AND . . 168 VIII. Cezanne's Influence on Braque, Dufy and Friesz, and the Formation of Cubistic Vocabulary 169 IX. Early Cubism and the Emergence of Personal Experience 217

iv Page POSTSCRIPT 23.2 BIBLIOGRAPHY 236 ILLUSTRATIONS 253

v LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Francia, Transports Returning from , Feb., 1809, Beating into St. Helen's Roads (nd)~ , London. Bonington, Coast Scene, Normandy (1823-24). Source: The Hon. Andrew Shirley, Bonington (London, 1940), pi. 35. Bonington, Shipping: Choppy Sea (1827). Source: The Hon. Andrew Shirley, Bonington (London, 1940), pi. 76. Constable, Haywain (1824). , London. Corot, Honfleur, le Vieux Bassin (1822-25). Source: Alfred Robaut, L'oeuvre de Corot, catalogue raisonne et illustre "(Paris, 1905), no. 35. Huet, The Jetty at Honfleur in Rough Weather (1826). Source: London, Heim Gallery, by and Some Contemporary French (1969), pi. 22. Isabey, Village in Normandy (1861). . Jongkind, Frigates, Port of Harfleur (1849-1853). Ster­ ling and Francine Clark Art Institute, Williams- town, Mass. Jongkind, Dutch Fishing Boats (1870). The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; Mr. § Mrs. Isaac D. Fletcher Collection. Boudin, Scene de Plage au Soleil Couchant (1869), Pri­ vate Collection, . Boudin, Falaise et Barque jaunes a Etretat (1895). Musee des Beaux-Arts, Le Havre. Corot, Toutain Farm at Honfleur (1845). Bridgestone Museum of Art, Tokyo. Corot, The Beach, Etretat (1872). The St. Louis Art Museui.;, St. Louis, Mo. vi Courbet, Les Falaises d'Etretat apres I'Orage (1870). Mus£e du , Paris. Lebourg, Entrance to the Port of Honfleur, Low Tide (18827! Wildenstein § Co., New York. Lepine, Bateau sur le Fleuve. clair de lune (nd). Musee des Beaux-Arts, . Dubourg, The Jetty at Honfleur (1865). Musee Eugene Boudin, Honfleur. Cals, Portrait of Monsieur Martin (1878). Musee Eugene Boudin, Honfleur. Lhullier, Portrait of the Artist's Wife (nd). Musee des Beaux-Arts, Le Havre. Degas, of a Young Woman (1868-70). Musge du Louvre, Paris. Friesz, Study of a (1897). Source: Maximilien Gauthier, Othon Friesz (Paris, 1949), pi. 2. Dufy, Self-Portrait (1898). Centre National d'Art et de Culture Georges Pompidou, Musee National d'Art Moderne, Paris. Lhullier, Self-Portrait (nd). Musee des Beaux-Arts, Le Havre. Friesz, Portrait of Lhullier (1896). Mus6e des Beaux- Arts, Le Havre. Dufy, Gaston Dufy at the Piano (1897). Mme. Van Leer Coll., Bruxelles. Renoir, Lady at the Piano (1875). The , Chicago, 111. Tissot, Lady at the Piano (1881). The Museum of Art, Rhode Island School of Design, Providence, R.I. Toulouse-Lautrec, Mademoiselle Dihau at the Piano (1890). Musee d'Albi, Albi. , Miss Gachet at the Piano (1890). Kunst- museum, Basel. Munch, Maiden at the Piano (1886). Source: Munchen, Haus der Kunst, (Oct. 6-Dec. 16,1973).

vii Friesz, Woman at the Piano (1897?). Photograph, courtesy of Schweitzer Gallery, New York. Friesz, Maison a la Falaise (1895). Source: Gauthier, pi. 14. Dufy, Landscape in Normandy (1895). Source: Maurice Laf faille, Catalogue Raisonne" de I'Oeuvre de Dufy, vol. 1 (Geneva, 1972), pi. 18. Braque, Study of a Man (1899-1900). Source: J. Warnod, Washboat Days (New York, 1972), 133. Braque, Grandmother of the Artist (c. 1900). M. Claude Laurens Coll., Paris. Braque, Grandmother of a Friend (c. 1900). Private Coll. , An Old Woman in an Armchair (1654). The , Leningrad. Friesz, Portrait of the Artist's Mother (1897). Source: Gauthier, pi. 1. Friesz, Portrait of the Artist's Mother (1898). Musee Eugene Boudin, Honfleur. Couchaux, The Seamstress (nd). Source: Paris, Galerie Marie Jane Garoche, L'Ecole de Rouen (1976). Gericault, Portrait of a Woman (nd). Musee des Beaux- Arts, Le Havre. Braque, Portrait of Cousin Johanet (1900). Mr. § Mrs. Josef Rosensaft, New York. Corot, Girl Reading (1845-50). Burhle Coll-., Zurich. Dufy, Le Quai de l'isle du Havre (1898). Musee des Beaux-Arts, Le Havre. Dufy, Les Docks au Havre (1898). Musee des Beaux-Arts, Le Havre. Friesz, Village en Bretagne (1899). Source: Gauthier, pi. 4. Friesz, Berges de la (1899). Photograph, Courtesy of Schweitzer Gallery, New York. Braque, Paysage d'Harfleur (c. 1900). Private Coll., Paris. viii Lebourg, Route au bord de la Seine, a Neuilly, en hiver (nd). Mus6e du Louvre, Paris. Pinchon, Ships at (nd.). ^Source: Paris, Gal- erie Marie Jane Garoche, L'Ecole de Rouen (1976). Bonnat, John Taylor Johnston (1880). The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Friesz, Portrait of the Artist's Mother (1901). Source: Gauthier, pi. 22. Van Gogh, Portrait of Pere Tanguy (1886-1888). Musee Rodin, Paris. Van Gogh, Madame Roulin (1889). Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Toulouse-Lautrec, Justine Dieuhl (1891). Musee du Jeu de Paume, Paris. Gauguin, La Belle Angele (1889). Musee du Jeu de Paume, Paris. Friesz, Valley of the Creuse (1901). Photograph, courtesy of Schweitzer Gallery, New York. Friesz, The Chateau at Crozant (1901). Photograph, courtesy of Schweitzer Gallery, New York. Guillaume, Boigneville-les-Carneaux (1901). Oscar Ghez CollT, Foundation, Geneva. Friesz, The Market at Falaise (1902). Photograph, courtesy of Schweitzer Gallery, New York. Friesz, Tour Eiffel (1902). Source: Gauthier, pi. 30. Friesz, Le Marche aux Chevaux a Falaise (1903). Source: Gauthier, p. 6. Friesz, The Pont Neuf (1903). Source: Gauthier, pi. 5 Friesz, Le Pont au Change (1902-03). Musee de Menton, Menton. Friesz, Le Havre, Le Bassin du Roy (1903). Jacques Hammon Galerie, Le Havre. Dufy, Falaise, la Place de l'eglise (1901). Musee d'Art Moderne de la ville de Paris, Paris.

ix Sisley, Le Village de Veneux-Nadon (1881). Carlos Pedro Blaquier Coll., Buenos Aires. Dufy, Jardin a Falaise (1902). Source: Laffaille, pi. 36. Vuillard, Under the Trees (1894). , Cleveland. Dufy, The (1902). Lee A. Ault Coll., New York. Degas, Musicians of the Orchestra (1868-1869). Musee du Louvre, Paris. Dufy, Jeune Femme au Canape Rose (1902). Source: Laffaille, pi. 45"! Dufy, The Horsemarket (1901). Centre National d'Art et de Culture Georges Pompidou, Musee National d'Art Moderne, Paris. Steinlen, The Market (nd). Source: Lausanne, Galerie des Arts Decoratifs, Steinlen (Dec. 3, 1973 - Feb. 2, 1974), pi. 60. Dufy, The Market at (1904). Oscar Ghez Coll., Modern Art Foundation, Geneva. Boudin, The Fishmarket, Rotterdam (1874-76). Private Coll. Pissarro, The Market at Gisors (1895). Source: Ludovic R. Pissarro and Lionello Venturi, , Son Art Son Oeuvre, vol. II (Paris, 1939), 932. Manet, Luncheon on the Grass (1863). Musee du Jeu de Paume, Paris. Monet, Luncheon on the Grass (1865). Musee Pouchkine, Moscow. Dufy, Le Dgjeuner sous la Tonnelle au Havre (1901). Source: Laffaille, pi. 22^ Dufy, The Terrace of the Cafe (c. 1904). Centre Nation­ al d'Art et de Culture Georges Pompidou, Musie National d'Art Moderne, Paris. Dufy, La Plage (1901). Source: Laffaille, pi. 52. Boudin, Trouville, Beach Scene (1886). Philadelphia Museum of Art, Philadelphia. x Dufy, La Plage de Sainte-Adresse (1902). Private Coll. Dufy, Plage de Sainte-Adresse (1902). Musee de Reims, Reims. Dufy, Les Bains Marie-Christine a Sainte-Adresse (1903). Dr~. Boulard Coll. , Creteil. Dufy, Sur la Plage a Sainte-Adresse (1904). Musee des Beaux-Arts, Rouen. Dufy, La Plage a Sainte-Adresse (1904). Centre Nation- al d'Art et de Pompidou, Musee National d'Art Moderne, Paris. Seurat, Sunday Afternoon on the Island of Grand Jatte, (1886). The Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago. Dufy, The Carnival at the Grand Boulevard (1903). Source: Laffaille, pi. 74"! Monet, Le Boulevard des Capucines (1873). Musee Pouch- kine, Moscow. Dufy, Le Yacht Pavoisee au Havre (1904). Musde des Beaux-Arts, Le Havre. Friesz, Portrait of Rene1 de Saint Delis (1904). Musee des Beaux-Arts, Le Havre. Munch, Self-Portrait with Cigarette (1895). Munch Museet, Oslo. Friesz, Landscape (1905). Source: Gauthier, pi. 38. Munch, Beach with Group of Trees (1903-04). Private Collection. Friesz, La Foire a Rouen (1905). Musee Fabre, Mont- pellxer. Friesz, La Fete Forain a Rouen (1905). Source: Gauthier, pi. 8. Friesz, Bassin Avec Barques de Peche (1905). Musee des • Beaux-Arts, Le Havre. Dufy, Neige a Falaise (1905). Musee d'Art Moderne de la Ville de Paris, Paris. Dufy, Apres le Dejeuner (1905). Source: Lafaille, pi. 189. xi 102. Monet, La Liseuse (1872). Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore. 103. Dufy, Le Paysage de (1905). Musee d'Art Moderne de la Ville de Paris, Paris. 104. Dufy, The Gymnastes (1905). Musge des Beaux-Arts, Le Havre. 105. Dufy, Wagon (1905). Private Coll., Great Britain. 106. Braque, Portrait of a Woman (1900). Photo: Courtesy of Schweitzer Gallery, New York. 107. Braque, Portrait of a Woman (1902). Source: Stanislas Fumet, Georges Braque (Paris, 1965), 13. 108. Carriere, Portrait of Woman (1901). Source: Jean-Paul Dubry, L'Art et , Eugene Carriere (Paris, 1931), 30. 109. Braque, Artist's Mother (1904). Source: Life, vol. 26, no. 18 (May 2, 1949), 18. 110. Toulouse-Lautrec, Portrait of M. Paul Leclercq (1897). Musee du Jeu de Paume, Paris. 111. Braque, The Young Breton Girl (1904). Mr. § Mrs. Josef Rosensaft, New York. 112. Braque, Ships Moored at the Quay (1900-1903). Photo: Courtesy of Schweitzer Gallery, New York. 113. Braque, Ships on the Seine River (1900-1903). Claude Laurens Coll., Paris. 114. Jongkind, The Quay at Orsay (1853). Private Coll., Paris. 115. Braque, Marina (1902). Marie-Louis Jeanneret Coll., Geneva. 116. Boudin, Berck, Maree Basse (1875-78). Private Coll. 117. Braque, Le Havre (1903-05). Private Coll. 118. Braque, The Ship at Le Havre (1905). Burhle Coll., Zurich.

xii 119. Monet, Three Fishing Boats (1885). Magyar Nemzeti Museum, Budapest. 120. Van Gogh, Boats at Sainte-Maries (1888). Source: De la Faille, The Works of^ Van Gogh, his paintings and , Catalogue Raisonne (Amsterdam, 1970), pi. 413. 121. Dufy, The Old Harbour of Marseille (1903). Source: Laffaille pi. 91. 122. Braque, La Cote de Grace, Honfleur (1905). Musee des Beaux-Arts, Le Havre. 123. Matisse, Joy of Life (1906). , Merion, Pa. 124. Matisse, Luxe, Calme et Volupte (1905). Private Coll., Paris. 125. Marquet, Sergeant of the Colonial Regiment (1904). The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Lehman Coll., New York. 126. Marquet, Colonial Sergeant (1904). Musee des Beaux- Arts , . 127. Dufy, The Flutist (1902). Source: Laffaille, pi. 15. 128. Dufy, The Boardwalk of the Casino Marie-Christine at Sainte-Adresse (i906T! Mrs. H.L. Bradley Coll., Milwaukee. 129. Marquet, Beach at Sainte-Adresse (1906). Boris Fize Coll., Paris. 130. Marquet, The Passerelle at Sainte-Adresse (1906). Private Coll. 131. Marquet, The Beach at Sainte-Adresse (1906). Source: Francois Daulte, "Marquet et Dufy devant les Memes Sujets," Connaissance des Arts, 69 (Nov.,1957), 88. 132. Bonnard, Walk on the Jetty (1906). Source: Claude Roger-Marx, "Le Nu et La Mer," Les Jardin des Arts, 1-14 (1954-55), 662. 133. Dufy, The Street Decked with Flags at Le Havre (1906). Private Coll., Neuilly. 134. Dufy, The Street Decked with Flags (1906). Centre Na­ tional d'Art et de Culture Georges Pompidou, Musee National d'Art Moderne, Paris. xiii 135. Manguin, The 14th of July at Saint-Tropez (1905). Galerie de Paris, Paris. 136. Manet, Rue Mosnier Decked with Flags (1878). Source: Denis Rouart and Daniel Wildenstein, Edouard Manet, Catalogue Raisonne, I (Lausanne-Paris, 1975), pi. 270. 137. Monet, Rue Montorgueil, Festival of June 50 (1878). Source: Daniel Wildenstein, Claude MoHet: Biog- raphie et catalogue raisonn6, I (Lausanne-Paris, 1974), pi. 469. 138. Van Gogh, The 14th of July (1887). Musee des Beaux- Arts, Rouen. 139. Marquet, The 14th of July at Le Havre (1906). Musee de Bagnols-sur-Ceze, Bagnols-sur-Ceze. 140. Dufy, The 14th of July at Le Havre (1906). Private Coll., Paris. 141. Marquet, The 14th of July at Le Havre (1906). Private Coll., Winterthur. 142. Dufy, Posters at Trouville (1906). Private Coll., Paris. 143. Marquet, Posters at Trouville (1906). John Hay Whit­ ney Coll., New York. 144. Dufy, Posters at Trouville (1906). Centre National d'Art et de Culture Georges Pompidou Musge Na­ tional d'Art Moderrie, Paris. 145. Dufy, Sortie de Regates au Havre (1906). Muse*e des Beaux-Arts, Le Havre. 146. Dufy, The Basin at Honfleur (1906). Private Coll., Switzerland. 147. Dufy, The Umbrella (1906). John A. and Audrey Jones Beck Coll., Houston. 148. Munch, Girls on a Bridge (1900). National Gallery, Oslo. 149. Munch, Girls on the Bridge (1903). Source: Gustav Schiefler, Edvard Munchs Graphische Kunst (Dres­ den, 1923), n. 200.

xiv 150. Derain, Hyde Park (1906). Pierre Levy Coll., Troyes. 151. Friesz, The Port of Antwerp (1906). Private Coll., Paris. 152. Friesz, The Port of Antwerp (1906). Robert Lebel Coll., Paris. 153. Braque, The Port of Antwerp (1906). National Gallery of Canada, Ottawa. 154. Friesz, The Port of Antwerp (1906). Oscar Ghez Coll., Modern Art Foundation, Geneva. 155. Braque, The Port of Antwerp (1906). Von der Heydt Museum, Wuppertal. 156. Braque, The Port of Antwerp (1906). Kunstmuseum, Basel. 157. Dufy, The Port of Le Havre (1906). Mr. § Mrs. Freder­ ick W. Ziv, Cincinnati. 158. Matisse, Open Window (1905). , New York. 159. Braque, The Window on the Escaut (1906). Photo: Courtesy of Galerie Leiris, Paris. 160. Braque, The Escaut at Antwerp (1906). Photo: Courtesy of Galerie Leiris, Paris. 161. Braque, The Escaut at Antwerp (1906). Photo: Courtesy of Galerie Leiris, Paris. 162. Marquet, Les toits de Paris (1906). Source: London, Wildenstein, (Jan. 12 - Feb. 8, 1972), pi. 8. 163. Braque, Landscape near Antwerp (1906). Private Coll., Paris. 164. Dufy, Le Loire a Durtal (1906). Source: Laffaille, pi. 228. 165. Friesz, La Cote de Grace at Honfleur (1906). Private Coll. 166. Friesz, Trees at Honfleur (1906). Centre National d'Art et de Culture Georges Pompidou, Musee National d'Art Moderne, Paris. xv 167. Friesz, Autumn at Honfleur (1906). Musee d'Art Moderne de la Ville de Paris, Paris. 168. Braque, Canal St. Martin (1906). Nobert Schimmel Coll., New York. 169. Marquet, Fecamp Beach (1906). Centre National d'Art et de Culture Georges Pompidou, Musee National d'Art Moderne, Paris. 170. Braque, Houses behind Trees (1906). The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Lehman Coll., New York. 171. Matisse, Promenade among the Olive Trees (1906). The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Lehman Coll., New York. 172. Braque, The Port at I'Estaque (1906). Private Coll., Paris. 173. Vlaminck, Tugboat at Chatou (1906). John Hay Whitney Coll., New YoW. 174. Braque, Landscape at I'Estaque (1906). Aime Maeght Coll., Paris. 175. Derain, The Turning Road, I'Estaque (1906). The Museum of Fine Arts, Houston. 176. Braque, Landscape at I'Estaque (1906). Private Coll., Paris. 177. Braque, Landscape at I'Estaque (1906). Jean Salomon Coll., Geneva. 178. Cezanne, Bend in Road at Montgeroult (1898). Private Coll. 179. Braque, with Pitchers (1906). Private Coll., Switzerland. 180. Braque, The Seated Nude (1907). Private Coll., Paris. 181. Matisse, Gypsy (1906). Musee 1'Annonciade, Saint- Tropez. 182. , (1906). The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. 183. Friesz, Portrait of Fernand Fleuret (1907). Centre National d'Art et de Culture Georges Pompidou, Musee National d'Art Moderne, Paris. xvi 184. Marquet, Andrg Rouveyre (1904). Centre National d'Art et de Culture Georges Pompidou, Musee National d'Art Moderne, Paris. 185. Munch, The Frenchman, Monsieur Archimard (1901). National Gallery, Oslo. 186. Braque, Little Bay at La Ciotat (1907). Centre Na- tional d'Art et de Culture Georges Pompidou, Musee National d'Art Moderne, Paris. 187. Derain, View of (1905). , Essen. 188. Friesz, Bord de Mer a La Ciotat (1907). Photo: Courtesy of Schweitzer Gallery, New York. 189. Friesz, Fauve (1907). Private Coll., Switzerland. 190. Matisse, Olive Trees, Collioure (1905). Source: Alfred H. Barr, Jr., Matisse: His Art and His Public (New York, 1951), 318. 191. Braque, Landscape at La Ciotat (1907). The , New York. 192. Friesz, Landscape at La Ciotat (1907). Pierre Levy Coll., Troyes. 193. Friesz, Landscape at La Ciotat (1907). Centre Nation­ al d'Art et de Culture Georges Pompidou, Musee National d'Art Moderne, Paris. 194. Braque, Landscape at La Ciotat (1907). Private Coll., Paris. 195. Matisse, By the Sea [Golfe de Saint-Tropez] (1904). Contigny Trust, Wheaton, 111. 196. Derain, Composition [L'Age d'Or] (1905). The Museum of Modern Art, Tehran. 197. Matisse, Blue Nude (1907). The Baltimore Museum of Art, Cone Coll., Baltimore. 198. Derain, (1907). Centre National d'Art et de Culture Georges Pompidou, Musee National d'Art Moderne, Paris. 199. Derain, Standing Figure (1907). Estate of Mme. Andre Derain. xvii 200. Friesz, Bathers at La Ciotat (1907). Oscar Ghez Coll., Modern Art Foundation, Geneva. 201. Cezanne, devant la tente (1885). Musee de Stuttgart, Stuttgart. 202. Friesz, Creek at La Ciotat (1907). Source: Gauthier, pi. 26. 203. Munch, Girls Bathing (1892). Source: J.P. Hodin, Edvard Munch (Stockholm, 1948), pi. 80. 204. Derain, Bathers (1906). Private Coll. 205. Braque, View of Hotel Mistral (1907). Werner E. Josten Coll., New York, now on loan to Princeton University. 206. Cezanne, Pines and Rocks (3°04). The Museum of Modern Art, New York. 207. Derain, Mountain Road, Cassis (1907). The Hermitage Museum, Leningrad. 208. Friesz, The Terrace of Hotel Mistral (1907). Source: Gauthier, pi. 21. 209. Braque, The Bridge in the Landscape (1907). Photo: Courtesy of Galerie Leiris, Paris. 210. Cezanne, Chateau Noir (1904). , Washington. 211. Braque, Landscape with Houses (1907). Private Coll., . 212. Picasso, Les Demoiselles d'Avignon (1907). The Museum of Modern Art, New York. 213. Braque, Grand Nu (1907-08). Galerie Alex Maguy, Paris. 214. Van Gogh, (1887). , Amster­ dam. 215. Braque, Three Nudes (1908). Whereabouts unknown. 216. Braque, Standing Nude (1907). Private Coll. 217. Braque, Balustrade, Hotel Mistral (1908). Private Coll. xviii 218. Braque, Landscape at I'Estaque (1908). Musee Nation­ al d'Art Moderne, Paris. 219. Braque, The Trees at I'Estaque (1908). Private Coll., France. 220. Braque, Houses at I'Estaque (1908). Hermann § Magrit Rupf Coll., Kunstmuseum, Berne. 221. Braque, Viaduct (1908). Claude Laurens Coll., Paris. 222. Braque, Trees and Viaduct (1908). Private Coll., London. 223. Dufy, The Terrace from the Beach (1907). Musee d'Art Moderne de la Ville de Paris, Paris. 224. Dufy, Jeanne in the Flowers (1907). Musee des Beaux- Arts, Le Havre. 225. Matisse, Vase of Flowers (1907). Private Coll. 226. Dufy, The Winter Garden (1907). Source: Laffaille, pi. 206. 227. Matisse, River Bank (1907). Kunstsammulung, Basel. 2 28. Dufy, The Bathers at Marie-Christine at Le Havre (1906). Source: Laffaille, pi. 142. 229. Dufy, Les Pecheurs a la ligne (1907). Source: Laffaille, pi. 158. 230. Dufy, Coup de Vent (1907). The Museum of Modern Art, New York. 231. Dufy, Les Pecheurs a. la ligne (1908). Source: Laffaille, pi. 161. 232. Dufy, The Woman in Rose (1908). Centre National d'Art et de Culture Georges Pompidou, Musee National d'Art Moderne, Paris. 233. Van Gogh, Self-Portrait (1887). Source: Robert Wal­ lace and the Editors of Time-Life Books, The World of Van Gogh (New York, 1969), 179. 234. Dufy, L'Aperitif (1908). Musee d'Art Moderne de la Ville de Paris, Paris.

xix 235. Dufy, The Cafe at l'Estaque (1908). Centre National d'Art et de Culture Georges Pompidou, Musee National d'Art Moderne,'Paris. 236. Dufy, The Woman in Rose (1912). Source: Laffaille, pi. 370. 237. Dufy, Fete Nautique (1906). Bourdon Coll., Paris. 238. Dufy, Trees at l'Estaque (1908). Musee Cantini, Marseille. 239. Braque, The Forest (1908). Statens Museum for Kunst, Rumps Coll., . 240. Dufy, Boats at Quay at (1908). Centre National d'Art et de Culture Georges Pompidou, Musee National d'Art Moderne, Paris. 241. Dufy, Factory, Marseille (1908). Musee Cantini, Marseille. 242. Picasso, Peasant Woman (1908). The Hermitage Museum, Leningrad. 243. Picasso, Landscape (1908). Andre Meyer Coll., New York. 244. Picasso, Landscape (1908). Zervos, : Oeuvres, vol. 2 (1942), pi. 72. 245. Braque, Still Life with Musical Instruments (1908). Claude Laurens Coll., Paris. 246. Friesz, Travail a I'Automne (1908). National Gallery, Oslo. 247. Friesz, Study for Travail a I'Automne (1907). Musee d'Art Moderne de la Ville de Paris, Paris. 248. Friesz, Study for Travail a I'Automne (1907-08). Institute o± Art, Detroit. 249. Delacroix,Massacre of Chios (1824). MusSe du Louvre, Paris. 250. Friesz, The Cathedral at Rouen (1908). Musee de Peinture et de Sculpture, Grenoble. 251. Friesz, (1908). Musee d'Art Moderne de la Ville de Paris, Paris. xx 252. Friesz, Jardin d'Eden (1907). Pierre Maurs Coll., Paris. 253. Matisse, [sketch] (1907). The Museum of Modern Art, New York. 254. Friesz, The Fisherman (1909). Source: Gauthier, pi. 53. 255. Friesz, Paresse (1909). Source: Gauthier, pi. 36. 256. Dufy, The Standing Nude (1909). Private Coll., France. 257. Dufy, The Studio (1909). Private Coll., Milan. 258. Dufy, L1Avenue du Bois (1909). Musee Massena, . 259. Braque, The Port in Normandy (1909). The Art Insti­ tute of Chicago, Chicago. 260. Braque, Landscape at La Roche-Guyon (1909). , Stockholm. 261. Picasso, Houses on a Hillside (1909). The Museum of Modern Art, New York, Nelson A. Rockefeller Coll. 262. Picasso, Le Compotier (1909). Source: Zervos, Pablo Picas..so, vol. 2, pi. 121. 263. Braque, Guitar and Fruit Dish (1909). Kunstmuseum, Berne. 264. Braque, The Portuguese (1911). Kunstmuseum, Basel. 265. Picasso, The Mandolinist (1911). Galerie Beyeler, Basel.

xxi INTRODUCTION

Fauvism, the first major of the twentieth century, has been the least seriously studied by art histor­ ians. Most books, journal articles, and exhibition catalogues repeatedly present the usual information: the legend detail­ ing the events of the Salon d'Automne in 1905 and how the term "" was coined, a general survey of 's (1869-1954) initiative as a leader of the group and the roles he, Andre Derain (1880-1954) and Maurice Vlaminck (1876-1958) played in the formation of the movement, and finally, the gradual disintegration of the style and its replacement by Cubism in 1907.

Two authors have attempted to escape this stilted treat­ ment of the subject: Ellen C. Oppler in her Ph.D. disserta­ tion at Columbia University in 1969 and John Elderfield in his catalogue published on the occasion of an exhibition of Fauvist art at the Museum of Modern Art in 1976. In her fine, well documented and extremely detailed research, Oppler argues that the Fauvist painters are not really revolution­ aries but rather continue previous developments, basing their expressions on the synthesis of nineteenth century traditions found in Post- and a continuing interest in

1 2 Impressionism. John Elderfield, on the other.hand, incorpo­ rates in his essay a summarization of what had been written on Fauvism previously and concentrates on the stylistic evolution on each member of the group, often providing useful sets of comparisons. These two books again tend to focus on the roles of Matisse, Derain and Vlaminck (of the Chatou group) in their effort to survey the Fauvist movement in general, with the section on the Le Havre group (Braque, Friesz and Dufy) being weak, although treated in the correct perspective for a survey based on current understanding. The lack of research to date on the Le Havre group results from the fact that they are latecomers to the move­ ment and basically in the position of receiving influences rather than innovating. The Le Havre group never was com­ mitted to Fauvism in the way Vlaminck and Derain were and their most personal expression is subsequent to and divergent from Fauvism. However, they produced some of the most brilliant Fauve paintings of the period and without a thor­ ough discussion of them, neither the understanding of Fauvism nor the comprehension of their later works would be complete. One of the difficulties in dealing with the Le Havre group is the scant treatment of their contribution in the present literature as well as a lack of documentation of the surviving works from the earlier phases of the group's de­ velopment. In the case of Georges Braque (1882-1963), he .3 destroyed most of his earlier efforts, thus there are only a few works that date before 1906; yet even these works have not been brought together and studied thoroughly. Most scholars do not use even the evidence that does remain of his style before 1906 to understand his development. Nicole Manguin's catalogue raisonne in six volumes starts with the year 1924. Georges Isarlov's tentative catalogue in 1932 attempted to deal with works after 1906, but in many instances is incomplete even for these. Several monographs on Braque have appeared since 1950, including ones by Maurice Gieure (1956), John Russell (1950), Jean Leymarie (1961), John Richardson (1961), Stanislas Fumet (1965), and Edwin Mullins (1968). John Richardson's volume is entirely stylistic in approach, concentrating mostly on Braque's late works. The other books are informative only in terms of biographical facts and again offer only a general discussion of stylistic evolution. A recent publication, Georges Braque (1971), by Francis Ponge, Pierre Descargues and Andre Malraux, Nadine Pouillon (1970), and Raymond Cogniat's (1976) recent monographs on Braque cover the different phases of Braque's career, and do briefly discuss his early works. However, the real value of these books is in the number of color reproductions rather than in the scholarly writing. Several exhibition catalogues supplement the visual material available by reproducing works loaned from private 4 collections that are largely unknown to the public. These catalogues are often perceptive in their notes, although none of them goes into lengthy detail or attempts to pull the material together. These catalogues are by Henry Hope (the Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1949), Douglas Cooper (Haus der Kunst, , 1963) and Jean Leymarie (Accademia di Francia, Villa Medici, 1974-1975). It seems that, in addition to the early works, neither the Fauvist nor early Cubist phase of Braque's work has been properly investigated. Although some scholars, such as in his article, "Cezannisme and the Beginning of Cubism," in Cezanne; the Late Works (1977), raise the question of the role of Braque in the initiation of Cubism, their discussions serve only to point out that Braque's con­ tribution to Cubism has to be reexamined and reevaluated. The writing available on Raoul Dufy (1877-1953) is even poorer in quality and quantity than that on Braque. Dufy's seemingly decorative and effortlessly executed later works often misled critics who took Dufy to be a less serious artist than he was. M. Berr Turique's monograph on Dufy, published in 1930, is too impressionistic in her evaluation of Dufy and the dating and the sequence of the illustrations and discussion is often confused by interspersing early, middle and late works randomly. Pierre Courthion's volume on Dufy (1951) is important in that he includes an actual conversation between the artist and himself that gives some 5 indication of the artist's attitude towards the old masters, some details on his personal life and his philosophy. Yet because he was a close friend of Dufy, Courthion's evaluation is lacking in objectivity. Jacques Lassaigne's monograph in 1954 provides a biographical and stylistic evolution of Dufy in a more gen­ eral way. Alfred Werner's Raoul Dufy, published both in English and French in 1970 (although only the French edition includes the essay by Christian and Nadine Pouillon), is perhaps the standard book to begin with, consisting of a general art historical essay in the first part and specific discussion on major art works in the second. Possibly the most significant achievement in the study of Dufy comes in the Catalogue Raisonne de l'Oeuvre de Dufy by Maurice Laffaille in 1972-1976. Published in 3 volumes, the book presents a complete photographic collection of Dufy's paint­ ings.

This brief survey of the literature indicates that an accurate stylistic evaluation of Dufy's work during his early career is necessary. Dufy was never fully Fauvist nor Cubist and what he learned from his artistic associates and what characterizes Dufy's own personal style during this period remains to be investigated. A third member of the Le Havre group is Othon Friesz (1879-1949). He is the least known and studied artist of the Fauves, partly because his works after the Fauve period 6 have been accorded no particular significance by the critics. Most studies on Friesz are made by French scholars and he remains only slightly known to English-speaking audiences and scholars. Fernand Fleuret's monograph on Friesz (1928) and Andre Salmon's (1920) are general surveys of the artist's biography and works, bringing nothing of significance to light. Marcel Giry's doctoral dissertation on Friesz in 1951 is an attempt to bring biography and art historical discus­ sion together. However, being written almost thirty years ago, it is now outdated in its discussion of Fauvism in general and the discussion on Friesz's works in particular.lt tends to treat them from outside the context of the Fauvist group. The foremost monograph was written by Maximilien Gauthier (1957). The author set forth an extremely detailed biography of the artist, his life in Le Havre as well as in Paris, and provides a selection of many illustrations together with proper documentation. He did not, however, accomplish an art historical evaluation of Friesz equal in quality to the biography and documentation of paintings. The reasons for Friesz's changes of style are not specified; yet, Gauthier's is the basic study. What I propose to do is provide a complete and thorough study of the works of the Le Havre group: their relations with each other, with the development of modern painting and with Matisse and Picasso in particular, up to 1909, when each 7 began to seek independently his own personal expression, thus bringing the interrelationship between them to a close. Further, I will try to provide a new appreciation and under­ standing of their individual creativity and contribution to modern art and prepare the way for a much fuller and more complete understanding and discussion of their relationships and role in the wider development of Fauvism and of modern art. The study consists of four main parts. The first part, divided into three chapters, deals with the tradition of Norman and Pre-Impressionists' activities on the coast (Chapter I), the early biography of Dufy and Friesz and their meeting at the Charles Marie Lhullier (1824- 1898) studio (Chapter II), and the coming of Braque, who completes the group; it then examines their works in rela­ tionship with each other before they come to Paris around 1900 (Chapter III). The second part concerns various influences on the group when they settle in Paris (Chapter IV), the Salon d'Automne of 1905 and the beginnings of their use of arbi­ trary color and loosening of composition, accomplishments which are achieved by the end of 1905 (Chapter V). The third part is devoted to their activities during 1906-07 with an investigation of their Fauve paintings in comparison with those of Henri Matisse, Andre Derain, Albert Marquet (1876-1947) and Maurice Vlaminck (Chapters VI and VII). 8 The fourth section, which is the last, is a study of the disintegration of Fauvism, the development of "Cezannisme" and the early formation of Cubism with its im­ pact on the group; here the primary focus will be given to the role of Braque and his contribution to Cubistic land­ scape painting in 1908 (Chapter VIII), followed by a dis­ cussion of the three artists' works from the early Cubist period and emergence of their personal expression which brought about the final disintegration of the group (Chapter IX), a group which was largely based on youthful friendship and a love of nature rather than any common artistic tempera­ ment. PART ONE

THE EARLY FORMATIVE YEARS IN NORMANDY CHAPTER I

Traditions of Norman Landscape Painting

Le Havre, where Raoul Dufy, Othon Friesz and Georges Braque grew up, was, in the nineteenth century, a relatively new harbor located at the mouth of the Seine, in Normandy. Although it had a provincial outlook, the town rapidly developed because it became the chief port for the trade in American coffee. By the late nineteenth century, it had become the largest port in Normandy with a population approaching one hundred thousand.

Le Havre had not been associated with any artistic movement nor any tourist attraction until the precursors to Impressionism came to it and conceived the importance of outdoor painting. Le Havre was also where was born, in 1840. His first painting was done in 1858 under the guidance of Eugene Boudin (1824-1898), another Norman native from Honfleur. The coast near Le Havre has a scenic quality which provided numerous interesting places to sketch. The pictur­ esque ancient ports, such as Fecamp, Honfleur and Granville, had been stopping places for sailors and navigators since Medieval times. These towns still conserve their old 10 11 monasteries, Gothic cathedrals, stone domestic architecture and thatched cottages; and the various sized fields and farms have apple trees and varieties of cattle. These quaint towns contrast to the newer prospering ports and fashionable water­ ing places, Trouville, Sainte-Adresse, Deauville, etc. The most important feature of the region, of course, is the sea, along with magnificent clouds and sunlight and their reflec­ tion on the water. The first group of artists who were attracted to this region of France in the early nineteenth century were English. One of the many English artists who depicted various spots of France was (1782-1842). He came to Normandy in 1818 and his topographical renderings of Normandy were published as engravings both in London and Paris. In addition, two volumes on Normandy as a part of the series, Voyage Pittoresques et Romantiques dans l'Ancienne France, by Baron Taylor were published in 1824 with litho­ graphs by (1802-1828) and Fielding brothers, Thales (1793-1837) and Newton (1799-1856).1 At this time, English landscape painting was far more advanced than French. In France, Neo- still dominated, following the academic methodology of Jacques- Louis David and drawing upon antique sculpture and classical reliefs for inspiration; landscape painting was still con- sidered a lesser form of painting. In England, the painters of the eighteenth century had already begun appreciating 12 Dutch landscape paintings, a more natural landscape as opposed to idealized Italian landscape; the Dutch artists most appreciated were (1628-1682) and Meindert Hobbema (1638-1709). Richard Wilson (1714-1782) and Thomas Gainsborough (1727-1788) had already established the pastoral landscape tradition in England and a new aesthetic based on direct observation of nature and a search for sentiment--sublime, beautiful or picturesque. Hand-in-hand with this was the establishment of by such artists as Paul Sandby (1725-1809), Alexander Cozens (1717-1786) and (1775-1802); the medium became widely used in direct contact with the nature as a spontaneous means for recording the appearance of nature. From 1815 on, there were frequent visits of English artists to France and several English landscapists took up residence in Paris during the 1820s and '30s, among them Bonington, the Fieldings, and Samuel Prout (1822-1911). Their presence in Paris and their frequent association with French artists exposed the French to the freer and direct approach to nature that the English had, transmitting at the same time the English appreciation for Dutch and Flemish landscape painting and the watercolor technique. It was Bonington who played the most significant role in transmitting the nature of English landscape painting to French artists. Bonington came to with his parents 13 in 1818, having first taken lessons from Louis Thomas Francia (1772-1839), who was a student of Girtin-and was a member of Girtin's Sketching Club. It was from Francia that Bonington had learned watercolor painting (cf. Francia, Transports Returning from Spain, Feb. 1809, beating into St. Helen's Roads (Fig- 1)- Bonington then came to Paris from Calais and attended Antoine-Jean Gros's studio briefly, 1819-1820, but mainly preoccupied himself with copying Flemish landscapes at the Louvre. While in Paris, he became friends with Eugene Delacroix (1798-1863), Paul Huet (1803-1969) and Eugene Isabey (1803-1886). From 1821 on, he began traveling along the coasts of Normandy, Brittany, England and, later, , sometimes with Delacroix, Huet or Isabey, until he died of consumption in 1828, at the age of twenty six.

Bonington particularly liked the scenic qualities of Normandy and the ease of his translation of vivid impressions of nature into watercolors won him the admiration of French artists. Bonington's works reflect both topographical accuracy and atmospheric qualities; he, thus, synthesizes the two coexistent traditions of English watercolor landscape painting. He favored river and coastal views under different moods and weather conditions, sometimes including several figures, boats and/or cliffs; mostly he painted peaceful scenes with a sense of vast space rather than the more roman­ tic and emotional aspects of nature often found in the works of Huet and Isabey. (As examples, see his Coast Scene, 14 Normandy, 1823-24 (Fig. 2), an oil, and Shipping: Choppy Sea, 1827 (Fig. 3), a watercolor. Although Bonington produced many oil paintings which reveal his preoccupation with compositional concerns, his importance to the development of French landscape painting came through his introduction of watercolor as a means of studying and capturing spontaneous impressions of the nature as quickly as possible. Unlike , Bonington's approach was not based on scientific observation, but was more directed toward the subtle and brilliant aspects of nature, using colors that are clear to capture the sense of light and atmosphere. Bonington's watercolors and oils were collected both by artists and collectors after his death; some of them were published as engravings or lithographs after 1828, thus examples of his work were readily available to the later generations of artists.

Another English artist, a contemporary of Bonington's, also exercised a profound influence on the course of French landscape painting, John Constable (1776-1837). In the Salon of 1824, almost thirty works by English artists, including three by Constable, were exhibited. It was Constable's Haywalfn (Fig. 4) which won a gold medal and fostered a new enthusiasm among young French artists for landscape paint­ ings. Huet observed that "The admiration of the young school was without limit. It would be necessary to go back to Rembrandt to find such audacity of execution, such an 15 . immense command of colour; to go back to Cuyp for such sensitivity (timidite). That which one dreamt of the night before, there it was before one's very eyes and most per­ fectly realized. . . . This was the first time perhaps that one felt such warmth, such a luxuriant nature, such greens, no blackness, no crudeness, not mannered." For young art students who had been academically in­ structed, Constable's approach offered the example of compositional structure combined with freedom of brushstroke and vibrant surface manipulation. Most importantly, it aroused a new interest in study after nature. Besides naturalism and technique, Constable exerts considerable in­ fluence on Theodore Rousseau and Charles Daubigny, serving as an exemplar of the grandeur and monumentality that can be found in actual landscapes. Constable himself, however, followed a step-by-step procedure in achieving the seeming spontaneity of his works. First, he made studies in pencil of details in nature; then, watercolor and washdrawings, proceeding to oil sketches until he came to a final full-scale sketch which was then perfected, gaining a better compositional balance and a greater range of color. His scientific approach in dealing with nature, implemented through a magnificent surface quality, was a means of imbuing his landscapes with a sense of air, light and atmosphere, of actuality. These revelations were what was new to French artists and they began to turn to painting 16 sketches outdoors, letting their sketches more directly influence their canvases, which they, like Constable, painted in the studio. Delacroix, who became the leader of coloristic Romanti­ cism, was deeply influenced by Constable's juxtaposition of several strokes of color side-by-side and began using juxta­ position of analogous and complementary colors, creating expressive and dramatic effects; this emphasis on brushstroke manipulation and color rather than on linear definition, modeling and polished surface played an important role in the new landscape schools. However, Delacroix was not pri­ marily a landscape painter. For most of the landscapists, Constable's work encouraged the practice of en plein air painting, recording the actual site and/or atmosphere. However, the works done on the spot must still be character- 7 ized as studies after nature, a kind of aides-memoires, not o meant to be exhibited. The use of watercolor or rough oil sketches was considered important by Neo-Classicists as a preliminary step in completing finished works. However, the freedom of presenting a canvas with visible brushstroke manipulation to the Salon had to wait for some time and although some landscapes done in this manner were submitted to the Salon, they were labeled as study pieces, in order not g to offend more conservative jurors and critics. The firm tradition of French plein-air painting was set by the Barbizon group. Among the first were Jean-Bapriste- 17 Camille Corot (1796-1875) and Theodore Rousseau (1812-1867) who frequented the forest of Fontainbleau in the 18 30s. At the village of Barbizon, they were soon joined by Narcisse-Virgile Diaz (1807-1876), Constant Troyon (1810- 1865), Charles Jacques (1813-1894) and Francois Millet (1814- 1875) in the 1840s; the school formed there reached its climax in the 1850s. They wandered around the Fontainbleau choosing picturesque views in which they sought to capture the mood and intensity of light. While these Barbizon artists explored this more pristine and domesticated nature, another group of artists was to take up the practice of plein-air sketching in more rustic Normandy. These artists were Corot, Huet and Isabey. Like their English predecessors, they roamed the Norman coast doing study series.

Corot was in Normandy during the years 1822-1825, 1845, 1857 and 1873. Although Corot"s early landscape sketches were done on the spot, he made modifications in transferring the subject onto canvas, yet, like Constable, without losing the sense of intense light. Honfleur, le Vieux Bassin 1822-25 (Fig. 5), is one example; it is a classically com­ posed architectural view of with ships in the distance. A break with the practice of including architecture and/or figures in the landscape comes with Paul Huet, a friend of Bonington's and Delacroix's. Huet had as a base, Rouen, where his mother's family lived. He first visited 18

Normandy in 1818 and, being a prolific draughtsman and water- colorist, made numerous landscape sketches at different hours and under different aspects. He was especially fond of beaches and waves, and produced his oil compositions back in the studio. His dramatic and violent renderings of nature and the luminous quality of light contributed greatly to the tradition of Romantic landscape painting (Fig. 6, The Jetty at Honfleur in Rough Weather, 1826). For sheer vividness of expression, Huet used several different colors juxtaposed, a practice which he derived from Constable; he, like Boning- ton, avoided the use of body color, an opaque white mixed with the color. Huet also painted at Barbizon and worked with Rousseau in Normandy at this time, although the two did not get along well in later years.

Another artist from this first generation of French plein-air landscapists who had an intimate knowledge of English landscape painting arid was probably more important than Huet in sensitively transmitting its lessons to the next generation of French artists was Eugene Isabey. His first trip to Le Havre was in 1824. He then trav­ eled with Bonington and Delacroix to England in 1825 and probably painted with Bonington in Normandy on their return that same year. It was Isabey who taught Johan Barthold Jongkind (1819-1891) who, even as late as 1872, entered works in the Salon as a student of Eugene Isabey; Isabey also gave advice to Eugene Boudin. 19 Isabey's specialty was marine painting in a freely executed, watercolor-influenced style, revealing the direct influence of Bonington, and village scenes which reflect the influence of Van Goyen or Ruisdael. Isabey's paintings are usually larger in size than Bonington's and tend to depict stormy seascapes or seawrecks, reflecting the sublime aspect of Romantic tradition. Isabey loved to use loaded brush­ strokes, sometimes even small touches of pure color, a prac­ tice later picked up by Boudin. Isabey always unified his compositions with strong, atmospheric light and tended to play with the broad masses of shape and retain the spatial depth of the scene, as in his Village in Normandy, 1861 (Fig. 7). By mid-nineteenth century, plein-air painting had become more frequently practiced, and landscape paintings had gained in popularity with an increasing number of landscapes being shown at the Salons. Dealers such as Durand-Ruel and Pierre- Firmin Martin began buying landscape paintings. Rousseau's works which had been rejected for thirteen years finally were accepted for the Salon of 1849. The second generation of landscapists to paint along the Normandy coast followed the example of Isabey, Huet and Corot giving rise to a Norman landscape school which is, along with the , a precursor of Impressionism. Of this Norman school, Jongkind contributed greatly to setting the attitude toward marine painting practiced by 20 this school. He came to Paris in 1846 and accompanied Isabey on his sketching trips to Normandy in 1847, 1850 and 1851. Jongkind often painted ports filled with boats embark­ ing, or scenic views of the beach with magnificant cliffs, vast skies and the movement of the sea, emphasizing reflec­ tions in the water and capturing different moods and atmos­ pheres. An excellent example of his work from this era is Frigates, Port of Harfleur, 1849-1853 (Fig- 8). Jongkind still followed the practice of using a gener­ ally subdued tonality for the entire painting and did not divide his light effects into minute segments of heightened colors as the Impressionists were to do; but, his freely executed watercolors caught quick and spontaneous impressions of scenes and directly recorded effects of light and atmos­ phere foretelling directly this same aspect which will be found later in Impressionism. It seems that it was only in his late career that he made an directly after nature, for watercolor was his chief medium for rendering fresh impressions, while in transferring such scenes to canvas, he made compositional changes; his sketch qualities can be seen in Dutch Fishing Boats, 1870, a watercolor and black chalk drawing (Fig. 9). Jongkind greatly influenced the younger generation in his appreciation and continuation of Dutch tradition, com­ bined with a fresh vision of the landscape. Monet considered 21 him as his true teacher. "Jongkind made me show him my sketches, invited me to come and work with him, explained to me the why and wherefore of his style, and completed the teaching that I had already received from Boudin. He was from that moment my true master and it is to him that I owe the definitive education of my eye." The now firm tradition of plein air landscape painting was also fostered by Eugene Boudin who was born in 1824 at Honfleur and moved to Le Havre when he was eleven years old. Later, Boudin ran a stationery and framing shop where he met Isabey, Troyon, Couture and Millet whose works were often displayed in his shop window, the shop where these artists often came to buy art supplies when in Le Havre. By 1847, he had decided to become a painter himself and left for Paris. He traveled to Belgium to study art and in the Louvre copied seventeenth century Dutch landscapes. In 1851, he received a grant from the city of Le Havre which enabled him to study in Paris for three years. However, Boudin did not seriously study at £cole des Beaux-Arts, pre­ ferring to study and paint directly from nature. When he came back to Le Havre, he felt, "Everything that is painted directly on the spot has always a strength, a power, a vivid- ness of touch that one doesn't find again in the studio." 12 During the 1850s, he stayed mostly in Le Havre and, in 1858, he met the young Monet. Boudin recognized this young man's talent and advised him to paint outdoors, advice Monet 22 resisted at first. Monet recalled, "He was earnest, sincere, I felt it; yet I could not digest his paintings, and when he offered to take me with him to sketch in the fields, I always found a pretext to decline politely. Summer came--my time was my own--I could make no valid excuse; weary of resisting, I gave in at last, and Boudin, with untiring kindness, under­ took my education. My eyes were finally opened and I really understood nature; I learned at the same time to love it." 13 Boudin felt that his own enlightenment was owed in part to Isabey. It was Isabey who, in 1862, had advised him to paint beach scenes flocked with fashionably dressed figures (Scene de plage au Soleil Couchant, 1869 , Fig. 10) which brought him considerable income and became a genre taken up by the Impressionists. Boudin had met Jongkind in 1862 in Normandy and considered him also as one of his teachers. Boudin's seascapes with sailboats set against vast skies were ultimately derived from Jongkind's example, although he, unlike Jongkind, always made oil sketches outdoors. As we see in Falaise et Barques jaunes a Etretat, 1895 (Fig. 11), he usually set the sea or sky as the dominant, composition- ally, and expressed the changing climate and light with rough, sketch-like brushstrokes. The general tone of his paintings was based on a grey priming of the canvas which varies either to a greyish white or to bluish grey depending on the overall effect desired; this differs from the Impressionist's white- priming of the canvas, a practice derived from Manet, which 23 gives an overall lightness to pictures. was among the first to appreciate Boudin. In his review of the Salon of 1859, he called the studies of the sea and sky the "prodigious enchantments of air and water." "On the margin of each of these studies, so rapidly and so faithfully sketched from the waves and the clouds (which are of all things the most inconstant and difficult to grasp, both in form and in colour), he has inscribed the date, the time and the wind: thus for example, 8th October, midday, North-West wind," just as Constable did so often with his sketches. During the 1860s, Boudin traveled all over France and Holland and participated in the first Impressionist's exhi­ bition of 1874. He had his one-man exhibitions at Durand- Ruel in 1881 and 1891; Durand-Ruel became his exclusive dealer. By the end of the 1850s, Normandy had become increasing­ ly crowded with the artists in pursuit of landscape views. Often they came with friends and stayed several days or weeks. Some of these artists, musicians, writers, collectors or fishermen came to Normandy to lodge at the Saint-Simeon farm, which was situated at La Cote de Grace, a mile from Honfleur, a site set so as to provide a panoramic view of the basins of Seine. The Saint-Simeon farm originally was an almshouse dating back to the fifteenth century; it was transformed into an inn 24 at the end of the eighteenth century. During the 1840s, the inn was managed by a widow, Mere Toutain, with the help of her granddaughter and a maid. She created a modest, cozy atmosphere for the inn which had ten guestrooms, and an orchard, barns, and cattle in the backyard (Corot, Toutain Farm at Honfleur, 1845, Fig. 12).

Saint-Simeon emerged as a popular gathering place for a diverse group of artists from 1855 to 1875, the group being called variously the "Ecole de Saint-Simeon," "Ecole Barbizon du Nord," or "Ecole d'Honfleur". The members did not represent any uniform style or expression, but reflected a renewed interest in plein-air landscape painting during a time which has now come to be considered the years of 's maturity and Pre-Impressionist. The central figures of this loosely-knit group were Boudin, Jongkind and Monet. At , Boudin entertained Courbet and his friend Alexandre-Louis Schanne in 1859, who had by chance seen Boudin's seascapes in a local shop window and come to see him. They also met Baudelaire, by chance, who then invited them for dinner at his mother's house. Frederic Bazille, who came with Monet, wrote to his parents, "As soon as we arrived in Honfleur, we looked for landscape motifs. They were easy to find, because the country is Heaven. One could not see richer meadows and more beautiful trees, everywhere there are cows and horses at pasture. The sea, or rather the Seine broadening out, 25 gives a delightful horizon to the masses of green. We are staying in Honfleur itself, at a baker's, who has rented us two small rooms; we eat at the Saint-Simeon farm, situated on the cliff a little above Honfleur; it's there that we work and spend our days. The port of Honfleur and the costumes of the Normans with their cotton caps interest me greatly ..." Besides Bazille, Corot came and painted several land­ scapes; The Beach, Etretat, 1872 (Fig. 13) is an example. Courbet, whose conversation with Monet at the farm was so important to this young artist's artistic growth, painted Les Falaises d'Etretat apres I'Orage in 1870 (Fig. 14). Also Troyon, Diaz, Sisley, Daubigny and Harpignies were frequent visitors. Boudin's letter to Jehan Soudan de Pierrefitte gives us an insight into the interaction of the artists. One could make a beautiful legend out of the inn at Saint-Simeon. So many famous people went there after I had discovered it. I took Francais there one day with Gustave Mathieu, my old friend, the poet, who afterwards spent a long time there with his friend [Amedee] Achard. The master of the masters: Harpignies. Old Achard couldn't paint the sky, so claimed it did not exist. On another occasion I took Troyon and Van Marcke there to drink cider. They are both dead now: Troyon tragically early, and then Van Marcke, his pupil, though he had time to benefit from Troyon's devel­ opment. I nearly forgot to mention Claude Monet, my pupil. Diaz and I played many a game of skittles there. He's still going strong, and aimed with an energy that made short work of the skittles and 26. usually won him the game. There's another great man for you. Many other less famous painters visited Saint- Simeon: Armand Gautier, Menard, Remy and Mathon, not to mention the most recent like Andre Gill and dear [Adolphe-Felix] Cals.17 As Boudin mentioned, many local artists often came to the farm and exchanged artistic information. This played an important role in spreading Pre-Impressionist practices throughout Normandy. Albert-Charles Lebourg (1849-1928), although he had spent most of his career in , came to Rouen during the 1880s. Entrance to the Port of Honfleur, Low Tide is dated 1882 (Fig. 15) and reveals the use of a heightened palette and a sensitiveness to light effects. Stanislas-Victor- Edouard Lepine (1835-1892), born in Caen, lived in Paris most of his life, but came to the farm several times. His Bateau sur le Fleuve, clair de lune (Fig. 16) suggests the study of the particular time of the day. Louis-Alexandre Dubourg (1825-1891), a native Honfleur, was a friend of Boudin and was the curator of the Municipal Museum there. In 1891, he donated fifty canvases and twenty drawings to the museum. His The Jetty at Honfleur, 1865 (Fig. 17) is most likely in­ fluenced by Boudin; he was also a good figure painter, leav­ ing many portraits. Adolphe-Felix Cals (1810-1880) was originally from Paris but settled in Honfleur in 1871. He was an important guest at the farm; being close to Jongkind and Boudin, he participated in the Impressionist exhibition 27 of 1874. He also painted still-lifes and portraits. Por­ trait of Monsieur Martin, 1878 (Fig* 18) is strongly reminis­ cent of Rembrandt whom he admired and after whom he made numerous copies in the Louvre. By the early twentieth century, the farm no longer re­ tained its charming ambience. When Camille Pissarro visited it in 1903, he wrote "Honfleur is a pretty little town, completely flooded by villas, which are everywhere along the coast, alas! ... We slept at the famous hotel Saint-Simeon at which all the painters since 1830 have stayed. Formerly it was a farmhouse, with apple trees in the green fields and a view of the sea; Boudin, Corot, Daubigny, Monet, Jongkind stayed there, but nothing remains of those glorious days. These idiotic new proprietors have put the place in 'good 18 order'. It is horribly painted up and polished . . ." When the three artists who are the focus of this work, Dufy, Friesz and Braque, started their artistic education in the 1890s, the Ecole Saint-Simeon was no longer extant. But its former presence in this region was still vitally felt for it was considered an "informal academy from which has come quite simply the modern school of the Impressionists." 19 This rich heritage of the Pre-Impressionists paved the way for the younger generation as they evidently worked to assimilate its lessons and develop from that point on. Georges Duthuit summarizes the circumstances in his The Fauvist Painters: "Our natives of Le Havre were born with 28 palette-knives in their mouths. Monet, son of a local grocer, had already made famous this tidy port, in which he was later to take pleasure in meetings with Jongkind and Boudin. In the museums of Le Havre and Honfleur [are] the bright paintings and the sketches of these charming masters, the animals, promenaders, boats and beaches of state com­ missions. Matisse had to go to Lille to seek the advice of Chardin amid deserts of bitumen; Dufy could stay home and admire Lebourg." 20 Footnotes for Chapter I

Besides this attraction to Channel coast, scenes from Paris and its environs and the areas along the Seine were printed by the English artists. They were Thomas Girtin in 1803, Cotman in 1821, Harding and Burnet by 1835 and Turner in 1837. Robert Herbert, Barbizon Revisited, (Boston, 1962), 16-17. 2 In the early nineteenth century, there are such artists as Georges Michel, who can be considered as the forerunner of Romantic landscape painting. Yet, his isolation from the rest of the artistic circles left him with almost no influ­ ence on later generations. 3 > On the part of French artists, Gericault visited England in 1820-22, followed by Delacroix in 1825. In the 1830s, many of Barbizon painters went to England: Dupre" in 1834, Jacques in 1836-38, Troyon and Rousseau in 1853, Daubigny in 1866 and 1870-71, and Corot in 1862. Delacroix admired Bonington's watercolors, saying "No­ body in the modern school, and perhaps previously, possessed that lightness of execution which, particularly in watercolor, makes his works seem like diamond by which the eye is charmed and delighted independently of all subject and all imitation." "As a colorist, he ranks with the finest and the most sensi­ tive, and it is remarkable to observe, when once he has adopted a scheme of lighting, how consistently he keeps to it and how unerring is his knowledge of what must be sacri­ ficed and of what must be brought into prominence by means of the sparkling and vibrating accents which he knew so well how to obtain from his palette." Quoted by A. Dubuisson, Richard Parkes Bonington; His Life and Work, trans. C.E. Hughes, CLondon, 1924), 92, 111-112. Haywain was first exhibited in May, 1821, at the Royal Academy in London, under the title Landscape-Noon. Although it was received favorably, it did not cause any stir. Geri­ cault, who was in London at this time, admired it and , French critic, also complimented. Reg. Gadney, Constable and his world (London, 1976), 61. Also French dealers such as John Arrowsmith, Madam Hulin and Susse sold paintings of Constable in their shops in the early 1830s. 29 30 London, Heim Gallery, Paintings by Paul Huet and Some Contemporary , introduction by Marion Spencer, catalogue by Pierre Miquel [1969), 5. 7 Chapel Hill, North Carolina, University of North Car­ olina, W.H. Ackland Memorial Art Center, French Nineteenth Century Oil Sketches: David to Degas, catalogue and intro­ duction by John Minor Wisdom et al. [1978), 4. Wisdom dis­ cusses the definition of esquisse, etude and ebauche. point­ ing out that in landscape paintings, etude usually refers to a study of nature out-of-doors: trees, clouds, plants etc., not made for any particular composition, 2-4. o Studies done directly from nature had already been done by Claude Lorrain in the seventeenth century, although it is difficult to determine which particular pieces were done in such a way. Ibid., 6. q Corot's teacher, Michallon, submitted his work Study after Nature at Aunay to the Salon od 1812 and was accepted without any problem. Wisdom points out that Daubigny was the first artist to paint a Salon piece entirely out of doors in 1859, about which it was commented upon that he was only painting "impressions," French Nineteenth Century Oil Sketches: David to Degas, 1. 10The Hon. Andrew Shirley, Bonington (London, 1940), 29. 11 John Rewald, The History of Impressionism (New York, 1946), 60. 12Ibid., 36. 13Ibid. Charles Baudelaire, Art in Paris (1845-1962): Salons and Other Exhibitions, trans, and ed. by Jonathan Mayne (London, New York, 1965), 199. Baudelaire had just met Boudin before writing this review, cf. 23. of this chapter. 15 •* - For a detailed study of the Ecole Saint-Simeon, see the exhibition catalogue: Williamstown, Mass., Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute, Jongkind and the Pre-Impres­ sionists: painters of the Ecole Saint-Simeon (1977), by Charles Cunningham. Jack Lindsay, , His Life and Art (Somerset, 1973), 164-165. 31

Solange Lemaire, "Don au Musee Eugene Boudin de la lettre Autographe d'Eugene Boudin contant la 'Legendc de Saint-Simeon," Societe des Amis du Musee de Honfleur, Bulle­ tin (1975-77), 13-14. This letter by Boudin is dated from October 25, 1896 and was translated and quoted by Charles Cunningham, Jongkind and the Pre-Impressionists: painters of the £cole Saint-Simeon, 18. 18 Camille Pissarro, Lettres to His Son Lucien, with John Rewald (New York, 1972), 357. 19 Jehan Soudan de Pierrefitte, Le Petit Normand (July 8, 1900) as quoted by Charles Cunningham in Jongkind and the Pre-Impressionists: painters of the £cole Saint-Simgori"^ 137. 20 Georges Duthuit, The Fauvist Painters, trans. Ralph Manheim (New York, 1950), 25. CHAPTER II

Early Biography of Dufy and Friesz

Of the three members of the Le Havre group, Dufy and Friesz were born in the city, the former in 1877 and the latter in 1879. Braque's family originally lived in Argen- teuil where Braque was born in 1882. They moved to Le Havre when he was eight years old. Ever since that date he con­ sidered Le Havre his adopted home town, and himself Norman. Dufy and Friesz met each other at the £cole Municipal des Beaux-Arts, Le Havre, sometime in 1893. They became close friends, spending much time together in the studio or outside on sketching trips. In this chapter, I will portray their activities up until the time Braque joined them at the Ecole Municipal des Beaux-Arts in 1897. Raoul-Ernest-Joseph Dufy was the eldest son in a large family consisting of four boys and five girls. The family, English or Scots in origin, lived in a house with a small garden on Rue de l'Esperance, outside of the center of the city. Dufy's father, Leon-Marius Dufy, managed a metal firm, drawing a moderate income, while his mother, Marie-Eug^nie- Ida Lennonnier, who had a warm personality, was obviously always busy with the nine children. 32 33 The whole family loved music. Dufy's father was a choirmaster and organist; Raoul and L6on learned to play the organ, while Gaston played the piano and flute; later Gaston became a music critic for the magazines, Courrier Musical and Images Musicales in Paris. The family often had con­ certs or performed plays, usually staged by Raoul, for relatives and intimate friends in their garden. Dufy's talent as an artist was already apparent when he was seven years old. While recuperating from an illness, he spent his time drawing the pigeons which his mother raised in their garden or made sketches in the margins or on the back of the illustrations in a book illustrated by Gustave Dore. Due to financial difficulties the family was encounter­ ing, Dufy had to quit his schooling at St. Joseph's college, a grammar school, when he was fourteen years old. He began working for Luthy § Hauser, a Swiss firm specializing in importing and exporting coffee. His job was to administer the office, booking as well as receiving and distributing the commodity which usually came from Brazil. Sometimes he was required to work on the wharves, where he watched all kinds of foreign ships coming and going. He became capable of telling their point of origin just by their smell. This experience of spending his childhood in a seaport city enriched young Dufy's imagination and left a profound impact on him. He collected such items as flags, maps and 34 timetables. He used to stroll along the quais, observing • the tides and the constantly changing color and rhythm of things. The unpredictable weather, the sky, the vehemence of the ebb and flow of the sea, the bustling life at the dock, the sailors, the merchants and the bistros--all became un­ forgettable memories for Dufy and the chief repertoire of his paintings throughout his career. At this time in his life, he already wanted to become a painter. He used to say that if he could not be a painter, he would earn money and collect paintings. Dufy's first awards came when he was fifteen, winning the first prize in a poster contest, which was sponsored by the city of Le Havre. From 1892, he attended art classes in the evening at the Ecole Municipal des Beaux-Arts under professor Charles Lhullier. He would work at the office until eight o'clock in the evening, then go to the studio where he could stay until ten o'clock. It was in this class that he met another young artist, Othon Friesz. Henri-Achille-Emile-Othon Friesz was two years younger than Dufy. The family name Friesz has led to speculation as to his origin. Possibly the family descends from Scandina­ vian, Dutch, or Alsatian immigrants. Friesz's father was a well-to-do ship owner and his male forebears had been see captains for generations. His grand­ father, Henri-Auguste was a captain as well as the owner of three sailing ships. It is believed that he drew the first 35 accurate map of Guadeloupe; he was a hydrographer and became a Chevalier of the Legion of Honor. Othon's father, Anthime, noted for his temperamental nature, was a seaman, travelled all over the world, and, when he returned from his journeys, brought back exotic birds and fruit as souvenirs. For young Othon, his father was an embodiment of his own fantasy and desire for freedom.

Friesz's mother, Eucharis, was a gentle woman who filled the vacancy left by a father who was often away from home. She had once been a piano student of , and from the time he was five, she tried to teach her son how to play the piano. Othon's three uncles were also in the ship-building business at Marseille and he sometimes spent the summer with them. He remembered his discovery of a small box in his uncle's attic when he was twelve years old. "My uncle had left a paintbox in our attic. This object, which I had been forbidden to touch, fascinated me. One day I forced the lid and squeezed the tubes; blues, reds and greens squirted forth. I took a sheet of cardboard on which the vestiges of a land­ scape were still visible, and added a roof and trees. I was astounded. Was this painting? It was so easy! A few days later I went to look for a subject in the surrounding coun­ tryside." Yet, naturally, being surrounded by marine life, young Friesz wanted to become a sailor and go to the sea. One day 36 he sneaked into the cargo of a Danish ship, but was soon discovered and sent home. His father discouraged his son, telling him that a sailor's life was no longer the same, that the steamship would not provide the same excitement as the old sailing ship. Friesz's mother tried to divert her son's attention to painting and it was she who brought him to Lhullier at the Ecole Municipal des Beaux-Arts. Friesz remembered his first meeting with Charles-Marie Lhullier (1824-1898): Lhullier was in his dining room with his wife and two nieces. The room was small and modestly but tastefully furnished: the walls were decorated with ceramics, "objets d'art," and sketches by himself and Jongkind. In the dim light he seemed to me very tall and very old--he was then sixty- seven--and his broad square shoulders gave him an air of strength. His flowing moustache, once red, was now white, and a little skull cap hid his bald head. He was smoking a fruit-wood pipe. He looked rough and kind. My mother explained why she had come and told him of the talent she was sure I possessed. Calmly he turned to me and said, "First you will work from reliefs and plaster casts of heads. When you can manage the head, you will go on and do the com­ plete body. Then, in two years, you can draw from the life. After that, we'll talk about painting. I was disappointed. I thought that the minute I entered the school I should be allowed to go to work with paint and canvas. Instead, Lhullier was calmly proposing a long and arduous journey to my impatient spirit.7 For a while, Friesz went to the drawing classes from six-thirty to eight o'clock in the morning and then on to regular school at eight o'clock. Since he wanted to fully concentrate on painting, he asked Lhullier and his mother if 37 he could quit regular school. They didn't approve, insisting that he finish his education first. One day Othon just did not go to school. When his father saw him at home, he asked why he had stayed home. Othon answered courageously that he only wanted to paint; his father became enraged. Othon went outside and stayed on the wharf all day long. When he came back for his supper, his mother said, "Drink your soup and don't say anything." From that day, he did not go back to Q school and attended art classes regularly. Most of the literature on Charles Lhullier is fragmen- 9 tary. Yet, he is pictured as a warm, good-natured teacher who never insisted on rigid rules and always encouraged his pupils to develop their own talents, in a manner comparable to who was the director of the Ecole des Beaux-Arts in Paris at the time and the teacher of Matisse, Rouault, and Marquet. Charles Lhullier was born at Granville in 1824 into a sailor's family, and came to Le Havre when he was a child. Very little is known of his life up to the time he competed for a grant from the Municipal Council, a grant designed to help young promising painters study for three years in Paris. Despite his teacher M. Orchard's efforts, the grant went to Eugene Boudin, offering the probable explanation for Lhul­ lier' s personal dislike of Boudin. In spite of his failure to get the Municipal grant, Lhullier made a trip to Paris soon thereafter. He resided 38 on the rue des Martyrs. There are conflicting theories as to who Lhullier's teacher was. Esdras-Gosse mentions that he was a pupil of Isidore Pils, but Berr de Turique states he was a student of Alexandre Cabanel and a collaborator of Isidore Pils; Crespelle names Cabanel and Francois Picot, and Maximilien Gauthier says the Lhullier was already in Paris in the 1840s as a student of Picot and a collaborator of Isi­ dore Pils. There is no doubt that Lhullier, because of his finan­ cial difficulties, worked with Isidore Pils (1813-1875) for fifteen years. Pils was a well established painter, and his Rouget de Lisle singing the Marseille for the first time (1849) made him famous. Pils received many commissions and Lhullier worked on the costumes or other details of these grand historical, religious and genre paintings, which were signed by Pils. Lhullier later regretted this work so much that he advised his pupils, "Do not follow my example. Do not work for others, work for yourself. As for me? I have wasted my life. What remains of my life is nothing, only the memories of a few pencil drawings on a cafe table, which the waiter wiped away with the rest of the rubbish ,,12

In 1865, after a trip to Algeria, he came back to Le Havre. In 1870, he served as an officer in the Mobile Guard; one year later, he was appointed as the conservator of the Municipal Museum and later became the director of the 39

Ecole Municipal des Beaux-Arts. Lhullier was a modest man, never fully confident of his talent. Even at the end of his career, he said, "I am an old student."1 3 However, Maximilien Gauthier points out that even though he might not be considered a good artist, he was a good painter (in the sense of craftsman), as so many pro­ vincial masters were during this era. His paintings ranged from historical and picturesque eighteenth-century genre subjects to landscapes and portraits, most of them done with fine craftsmanship in a correct aca­ demic style. He was particularly good at portraits and received many commissions from high officials of the town. Lhullier usually demanded a hundred sittings for each person, starting from a rough sketch, then proceeding to detailed drawings and the final oil painting, which can be character­ ized as being meticulous in detail and faithful to material texture.

In his Portrait of the Artist's Wife (Fig. 19), one sees a presentation that can be aptly described as a solid and tangible projection of volume, accurate in drawing and pos­ sessing a certain sense of control over composition. There is a slight idealization of the sitter which carries with it reference to the tradition of Ingres, possibly through Degas. With his use of the three-quarter view, his emphasis on linear precision and acute observation of the sitter, the portrait reminds one of the Head of the Young Woman (Fig- 20) 40 done by Degas in 1868-70, an artist Lhullier might possibly have known, even though there is no evidence of direct con­ tact between them. Degas was in Paris when Lhullier was, during the 1850s and 1860s, and Degas stayed at Le Havre in 1885. Lhullier's heroes were Delacroix, Gericault, Corot and Chardin. He had his own collection of works by Delacroix, Gericault, Jongkind and Pils; engravings by Jacques Callot, lithographs by Chariot de Councy, and forty-five engravings by Sebastian Leclerc as well as many other collectible items u , . 16 such as arms and ceramics. Most students held him in great respect. Friesz de­ scribed him as a "big and strong man with no air of the official despite his position." 17 Dufy recalled him, "We looked up to him with great respect and admiration, for he was a true artist, a great draftsman in the classical " style."18 Lhullier usually opened his studio at six o'clock in the morning so that his students could start their work early, before going on to school or work. In the class he emphasized four principles following an academic methodology based on Davidian teaching: drawing after the antique with pencil, modeling without charcoal, study of master works at the museum, and life drawing only after many years of prac- tice from plaster casts (Fig. 21).1 9 Such principles were particularly helpful to Dufy who was born with a talent for 41 drawing but needed to expand his skill through exposure to a variety of methods, and gain facility. Lhullier believed that talent was something with which one was born, whereas drawing could only be learned through practice. His fundamental motto was "Draw, that is to say your prayer." 20 Friesz remembers "Lhullier avait horreur de dessin bade, au modele mou. Quand il dessinait, il usait d'un tortillon, comme un peintre de son pinceau. II nous apprenait a ecarter le detail inutile, a. rechercher les traits essentials, ceux qui forment la synthese de l'objet a. re- produire. II cherchait sans treve a faire se degager la personalite de ses eleves, seul moyen, estimait-il d'apprendre 71 la peinture." When students were tired of working in the studio, Lhullier took them to the museum and let them copy master paintings, including Perugino, Breugel, Ribera and Couture. He emphasized the rendering of what he termed the essence, not the details. It is under such guidance that young Friesz and Dufy increased their appreciation of tradition. Lhullier believed that in order to be a great painter, one must be able to treat any kind of subject—history, genre, still-life and landscape. He was aware of the new practice of painting outdoors along the Normandy coast. He was a good friend of Jongkind with whom he was often seen smoking or drinking. Friesz recalled a conversation he had with his teacher while they 42 were looking at Jongkind's Dawn in the museum. Lhullier asked whether Friesz liked the painting. When he said he did, Lhullier said, "Why? Is is not finished. ..." Friesz remembers responding, "That is true. But in the morning, while I walk on the edge of the canal Honfleur, I see colors just like this." "Good, you are a fine judge of painting," 22 was his teacher's response. Yet, Lhullier must have felt that he was outdated, for he said, "Impressionism is too late for me,"2 3 when one of his students showed him a painting done outside; he did not object but shook his head without saying anything. After working on linear harmonies and proportion through drawings after the antique and copying master paintings under Lhullier*s guidance, Dufy and Friesz would go out to sketch, often in watercolor, along the beach, on the wharves or in the ervirons of Le Havre at Falaise, Sainte-Adresse, Trou- ville, Honfleur or Cote-de-Grace. In 1896, they visited the museum in Rouen, which had works by Poussin, Gericault, Corot and Delacroix. It was The Justice of Trajan by Delacroix which impressed Dufy and Friesz. Friesz was to have a life­ long admiration for Delacroix and as early as his student years, he enjoyed the movement and composition of Delacroix, which later Friesz adapted to his own work. Dufy recalled that seeing the Delacroix at Rouen was a revelation to him, "certainly one of the deepest impressions of my life." Dufy must have responded to the emotional tone of 43

Delacroix, which is conveyed through coloristic structure. The Municipal Museum at Le Havre had a relatively rich collection, including works by Correggio, Luca Giordano, Murillo and Ribera; Dutch and Flemish genre and portraits; paintings by Valentin, Hubert Robert, Fragonard, etc. Most important of all, the museum housed ninety-two nineteenth century French paintings. The catalogue, written by Lhullier in 1887, lists Portrait of a Woman by Gericault, The Deer Park by Courbet, many paintings and sketches by Boudin, Jongkind's Dawn, and landscapes by Dubourg. There are only few works by Dufy and Friesz left from this earliest period, mostly portraits and landscapes. As young artists often seem to be, Dufy and Friesz were primar­ ily interested in painting self-portraits or portraits of relatives. Dufy did a series of self-portraits during this time, continuing to do so after he come to Paris in 1901; they are either in oil or watercolor. These portraits seem to confirm the accuracy of descriptions of Dufy at this time by M. Berr de Turique who wrote that Dufy looked like a cherub, with blond curly hair, blue eyes and a small round head, but one always filled with energy underneath a carefree manner. 25 The Self-Portrait (Fig. 22) dated 1898 is handsomely done. Dufy employs a traditional format, a bust portrait posed at an oblique angle, and unfailingly reflects the teaching of his professor. Lhullier1s Self-Portrait 44 (Fig. 23) serves as a good example for comparison, as it shows a similar compositional presentation but with a greater concern for a realistic description of the figure and a more natural, less haughty pose. Dufy's cautious drawing and careful brown, ochre and white tonal variation creates a sense of distance and somberness, revealing nothing of his later light and free manner. Interestingly enough, Portrait of Lhullier by Friesz, 1896 (Fig- 24), appears to be a copy of Lhullier's work. Friesz adopts the same composition exactly but approaches the subject differently, stylistically. He does not follow the meticulous and polished manner of his teacher and tends to use rough brush strokes so that a vibrancy is created on the surface and the viewer is aware of the brush's activity without losing the sense of volume beneath.

Besides portraits, Dufy paints figures set in interiors, as he successfully does in Gaston Dufy at the Piano, 1897 (Fig. 25). Again, the restrained tonality of green, brown and ochre is very traditional, and as Alfred Werner points out, is similar to the palette used by Corot and Degas in their early works. The immediate reaction of the viewer comes on seeing the unusual compositional device Dufy has employed in the paint­ ing: the pianist is seen from the back. However, the depiction of a figure playing a piano and set in a bourgeois interior, has been dealt by August Renoir (1841-1919) in 45

Lady at the Piano in 1875 (Fig. 26), James Tissot (1836-1902) in Lady at the Piano in 1881 (Fig. 27), Henri de Toulouse- Lautrec (1864-1901) in Mademoiselle Dihau at the Piano of 1890 (Fig. 28), (1853-1890) in Miss Gachet at the Piano of 1890 (Fig. 29), and Edvard Munch (1863-1944) in Maiden at the Piano of 1886 (Fig. 30).27 Of these, the relationship of the piano figure and the interior setting reveals the most similarities with the Toulouse-Lautrec work, exhibited at the Salon des Independant of 1890. The others concentrate more on the figure while Toulouse-Lautrec and Dufy have a more genre-like emphasis, giving as much importance to the surroundings as to the figure. Toulouse-Lautrec treated the same theme in several other paintings in the 1890s 28 and yet it is most unlikely that Dufy knew about Toulouse-Lautrec's paintings at this time. Dufy had not yet made a trip to Paris, although Toulouse-Lautrec's posters were much circulated in Le Havre. Friesz's version of the theme, Woman at the Piano (Fig. 31) employs almost the same format, although Friesz presents his figure completely in profile. There is no doubt that Friesz knew Dufy's work since they fixed a servant's room up into a studio which they shared together. In the draughtsmanship, Dufy is simply better. Cres- pelle notes that Dufy is technically superior to Friesz in drawing at this time and perhaps the dominant influence on him. Dufy even developed the ability to draw with his left 46 hand which later enabled him to use both hands to paint different subjects at the same time. 29 In Dufy's work, there is a sense of Chardin-like gravity and refined tonality. Dufy tends to experiment in the treat­ ment of the lamp and the picture hanging above, where the reflection of the light is executed almost in Impressionist style. In Friesz's work, the compositional balance is some­ what heavy on the right-hand side, creating a snapshot-like quality. In painting the moment when the pianist is playing on the keyboard, he further enhances this sense of immediacy captured, whereas there is sense of permanence in Dufy's work. There is a handful of landscapes that survive from this period. These provide an important insight since it is the landscape genre that the Le Havre group will primarily continue to develop before and during their Fauve period. These works reflect their Pre-Impressionistic origins. Maison a la Falaise (Fig. 32), 1895, is the earliest extant painting by Friesz, so far as we know. The restrained tonality, juxtaposition of different planes, thick applica- • tion of the pigment, and contrast of light and dark masses place him solidly in the realistic tradition of Courbet. There is a sense of visual delight in observation and in handling the ochre and creamy-white pigment applied in the repeated shapes of the buildings. This row of buildings creates a diagonal movement, starting from the lower right- hand corner and moving continuously to the left middle-ground. 47 About half-way it is joined, disjointedly, by a diagonally- placed shape (a house) moving from the left-hand corner. Above this the continuing diagonal of buildings begins a mounting backward and upward movement which is continued by a row of buildings above. This construction reflects the formal landscapes of Corot, which Friesz might have known in part through Lhullier as intermediary, Lhullier having been an admirer of Corot.

Compared to this tactile landscape of Friesz, Dufy's Landscape in Normandy (Fig. 33) of the same year seems very soft and airy. Dufy is concerned with light effects on the trees, hut and ground. Although Dufy does not accomplish an Impressionistic recording of light in this painting, to the spirit of such preoccupations, he is closer to the accomp­ lishment found in the works of Barbizon artists such as Corot's Toutain Farm at Honfleur (Fig. 12). Footnotes for Chapter II

M. Berr de Turique states that the name Dufy came from Mac-Duff, Scotland. Raoul Dufy (Paris, 1930), 181. 2 Of the four sons, Raoul, Leon^and Jean became painters. worked with Raoul in Fee Electricite of 1937, mural at the Universal exhibition. His paintings reflect a close similarity with his brother Raoul. Gaston Dufy gave flute lessons to Braque and piano lessons to , another native of Normandy. In fact, it is through^Gaston that Braque knew Dufy's family before attending Ecole des Beaux- Arts. However, when Dufy had enough money to collect paint­ ings, he would only hang his own paintings in his studio. Jean-Paul Crespelle. The Fauves, trans. Anita Brookner (Greenwich, Conn., 1962), 157. Marcel Oury, et al. Lettres a Mon Peintre--Raoul Dufy. (Paris, 1965), 31. The biographer of Friesz, Maximilien Gauthier, points out that the name Friesz misled people to think of La Fries, meaning people of Holland, but Friesz actually originates from Alsace (Othon Friesz, Geneva, 1957, 9-10), although in his book in 1949, he suggests that Friesz's male ancestors came from Scandinavia (Othon Friesz, Paris, 1949). Jean-Paul Crespelle's brief biography on Friesz seems to be based on Gauthier's 1957 version (The Fauves, 161), whereas Florent Fels (Propos d'Artistes, Paris, 1925, 2) and Marcel Giry (La Jeunesse de Othon Friesz: 1879-1914, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Lyon, 1951, 63) agrees on Scandinavian origin. 6Crespelle, The Fauves, 160-161. 7Crespelle, The Fauves, 161-162. g Gauthier, Othon Friesz, 16-17. Q Most literatures on Charles Lhullier discuss him not as an artist important in his own right, but as a teacher of three artists: Dufy, Friesz, and Braque. (See p. 53 for con­ nection with Braque.) His name is also spelled as Lhuillier. 48 49 For detailed accounts of the competition, see Bernard Esdras-Gosse, "De Raoul Dufy a Jean Dubuffet: ou la Descen­ du 'Pere Lhullier'", Etudes Normandes, no. 59, Rouen, n.d. (c. 1955), 18-42. Esdras-Gosse, Etudes Normandes, no. 59, 22. Berr de Turique, Raoul Dufy, 62, Crespelle, The Fauves, 156, Gauthier, Othon Friesz, 18. Alexandre Cabanel is an admirer of Ingres and his work, Birth of Venus, was bought by Napoleon III at the Salon of 1863. Picot was a decorator of Louis Philippe's Galerie des Batailles at Versailles. 12 Gauthier, Othon Friesz, 19. 13 " Esdras-Gosse, Etudes Normandes, no. 59, 22. 14Gauthier, Othon Friesz, 19. 15 •* For Lhullier's works, see B. Esdras-Gosse, Etudes Normandes no. 59, 23; Les Nouvelles de 1'absent, from Salon de Paris of 1877, 24; Portrait de sa Mere, 26; Noce Villa- geoise. Esdras-Gosse, Etudes Normandes, no. 59, 23. 1 7 Gauthier, Othon Friesz, 19. 18Quoted by Alfred Werner, Raoul Dufy (Paris, 1970), 10. Lhullier's teaching method was well described by Jules Ausset, a pupil of Lhullier who attended Ecole Municipal des Beaux-Arts at this period and his statement is quoted by Esdras-Gosse, Etudes Normandes, no. 159, 27. 20 Fels, Propos d'Artistes, 64. 21 Gauthier, Othon Friesz, 21. 22 Gauthier, Othon Friesz, 21, translated by the author. 23 Esdras-Gosse, Etudes Normandes, 28. 24 Jacques Lassaigne, Dufy, trans, by James Emmons (Geneva, 1954), 16. 25 Berr de Turique, Raoul Dufy, 62. 26Werber, Raoul Dufy, pi. 1. 50 Charles F. Stuckey, et al., Toulouse-Lautrec Paint­ ings (Chicago, 1979), 156-159. Stuckey points out the origin of this genre motif came from the seventeenth century and Manet, Whistler and Degas often used the motif. 28 Toulouse-Lautrec treated the motif four more times in 1895, 1896, 1897 and 1898. Madame Misia Natanson, 1897, is one of these paintings, expressing that Toulouse-Lautrec uses the composition of Manet's The Artist's Wife at the Piano, dating from 1867-1868. Crespelle, The Fauves, 157. CHAPTER III

Their Meeting with Braque and the Student Years in Le Havre

Georges Braque, who died in 1963, was born in May, 1882, in the town of , rue de 1'Hotel-Dieu. His parents, Charles and Augustine, were to have two other children, girls. Argenteuil is a pleasant town, about 13 kilometers from Paris. It was made famous during the mid-1870s as one of the favorite painting spots of the Impressionists. Claude Monet and Auguste Renoir, painting side-by-side, recorded the regattas, parties and river views of the town. Braque's family had lived in this town for three genera­ tions, running a house-painting business. Braque recollected his father telling about the many painters from Paris who came to Argenteuil to paint; however, being a conservative Sunday painter himself he did not approve of Impressionism. Rather, his father painted in a style similar to that found in the early works of Corot. He was proud that he had shown several of his paintings at the Salon des Artistes Francais, one of the more well established independent salons of the time. Braque treasured, all his life, a landscape by his father done in the 1880s, a view of the Seine with a bridge 51 52 and boats, done with fine draughtsmanship in silver-grey • 3 tonalities. With this family background, Braque was attracted to painting. His father, like his grandfather, often took him outside on sketching and painting trips and Braque watched him paint. Another of Braque's Argenteuil memories is con­ nected with a particular house, a house he was fond of pointing out, the home of , whose collec­ tion of Impressionists' works Braque was later to see in the Musee du in Paris. In 1890, when Braque was eight years old, the family, desirous of better commercial opportunity, moved to Le Havre. In 1893 Braque began attending a lyc£e. But he wasn't very attentive to his schoolwork, enjoying sports, boxing, bicycling and sailing more. He especially loved sailing in the small boat that his father had bought for him. With all these outdoor activities, he developed the build of an athlete. Yet, he was not outgoing, being a rather reserved and thoughtful young man, prone to going for walks in the country­ side or along the beach alone. He often watched the sea, being attracted to the constantly changing aspects of its nature. At this time, he began taking flute lessons from Gaston Dufy, one of Raoul Dufy's brothers. Through him, he was to meet Raoul and Othon Friesz, although at this time they were merely acquaintances. 53 From 1897 on, Braque attended evening classes at the . Ecole Municipal des Beaux-Arts, in Le Havre, learning to draw from antique plaster casts and later graduating to work from a live (Fig. 34). Several authors cite Braque as the pupil of Charles Lhullier. However, this is probably incorrect. Braque started his evening classes in 1897, a year before Lhullier died, and it was not then Lhullier's practice to teach be­ ginning classes in his studio. Braque himself denied any association: "I frequented the Ecole des Beaux-Arts but I didn't know Lhullier. I was younger than Dufy and Friesz." However, the Ecole's teaching methods had been set by Lhullier and seem to have prevailed beyond Lhullier's tenure. We can assume then that Braque underwent the same kind of training that Dufy and Friesz received several years earlier, and which, in fact, was pretty generally the established approach in every Ecole.

Braque was one of twenty-five students of a local painter named Courchet. Nothing is known about him, except that he allowed his pupils some liberty and did not impose academic rules severely. Braque was apparently a very ordinary student, revealing nothing of the great talent that later became 7 apparent in his work. In his free time, Braque copied the illustrations of ThSophile-Alexandre Steinlen (1859-1923) in Quartiers de Paris from the Sunday edition of the newspaper Gil Bias 54 Illustre to which his father subscribed. It is interesting that Braque was attracted to Steinlen's journalistic illus­ trations whose characteristic style was an essentialization of the subject and a vigorous draughtsmanship, a style far different from the Academic style that Braque was learning in his art classes. Another of his favorite artists was Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec. Braque often went out at night to peel off the Toulouse-Lautrec posters posted on the bill­ boards. The simplification of the form, bright colors and expressive use of line employed by Lautrec won Braque's admiration; he later said, "Never did I learn so much as then."8 When he was seventeen years old, in 1899, he decided to withdraw from the lyc£e, just before having to take the difficult examination for the baccalaureate. At that time, he went into the family business and apprenticed as a painter- decorator at Roney's shop; meanwhile, he continued attending the Ecole at night. Having walls decorated with an imitation of wood grain and marbled texture was in fashion during the late nineteenth century. Since it was an inexpensive manner for decorating rooms, house painters were much in demand. This artisan practice demanded scrupulous attention to detail and subtle tonal variation. It was a very important tech­ nique for Braque to master, and it affected the development of his taste for the intimate. Later, it was crucial to his Cubist papier colle period, and had an even more far reaching 55 effect on his frequent interior and studio scenes and on his still-lifes of the post-Cubist era. The works Braque executed from 1897, when he entered the Ecole Municipal des Beaux-Arts, until all three artists settled in Paris (Friesz in 1898, Dufy and Braque in 1900) reveal that Braque, being several years younger than Friesz and Dufy, was influenced primarily by their styles and cer­ tain of their compositional devices. Unfortunately, Braque himself destroyed most of his works done prior to 1906. Even the few surviving works are largely in the hands of private collectors who wish to remain anonymous. No sketches survive, though we know he used loose sheets of paper for them. He did not use sketch-books until 1918. The portraits which survive are known to us simply because Braque gave them away to his sitters. His Grandmother of the Artist (Fig. 35) and Grandmother of a Friend (Fig. 36) are two portraits from this time. Both are undated, but Gieure dates them both 1900-1901, while Leymarie dates the former 1900-02 and Descargues dates the latter c. 1900. Since the portraits are of people whom Braque knew well in Le Havre, they were most likely done while he was in Le Havre and before 1900. However, since Braque was stationed in Le Havre during 1901-02 with a military regiment, Gieure and Leymarie chose to date them as late as 1902. But, this does not seem supportable on comparative stylistic grounds. 56 In both paintings, the colors are dark and somber in the background from which the high-lighted faces and hands emerge. The feeling of the works on the whole is that of an austerity and heaviness reminiscent of the dark palette used by Vincent Van Gogh in his early works. Braque once called Van Gogh a great night painter, although it is questionable that at this early stage of his development and of the public's awareness of Van Goghls art in general that Braque could have known of the dark paintings of Van Gogh. However, the sense of graveness in the brushwork, the thick application of the pigment, the inward nature of the facial expression reveal the influence which Braque shared in common with Van Gogh, that of the Dutch master Rembrandt Van Rijn (1606-1669) (Fig. 37). The Rembrandt portrait tradition was conveyed to Braque through Adolphe-Felix Cals, an artist who lived in Honfleur until 1880 (see Fig. 18, p. 27 ).

In the portrait of his grandmother (Fig. 35), Braque ambiguously paints her hands for it is not clear whether the sitter is knitting or just meditating. The depiction of the sitter with face turned down, the positioning of her hands, and the coarseness of the brush strokes also point to a close reliance on Friesz at this time, especially his Portrait of the Artist's Mother (Fig. 38), painted in 1897, and another work of the same title at the Musee Boudin, Honfleur, done in 1898 (Fig. 39). However, aside from these characteristics and the choice of subject, the treatment of the background 57 is different. Friesz creates a somewhat more complex setting with much attention given to the sitter's dress and the sewing stand, in the 1897 work, and to the surrounding inter­ ior, in the 1898 work. A depiction of a sitter involved in domestic tasks, es­ pecially a woman sewing, is not an unusual presentation. We see many examples of it in the works of (1867- 1947) and Edouard Vuillard (1868-1940) from this same time. Braque's motif seems to be even more directly comparable to Marcel Couchaux's The Seamstress (Fig. 40), not dated, but painted in Rouen. Rouen, at this time, was more progressive in its artistic attitudes than Le Havre. The Academie Libre was organized there under the leadership of and Albert-Charles Lebourg who maintained a connection with such artists as Camille Pissarro (1830-1903), Alfred Sisley (1839-1899) and Claude Monet, who did his series of cathe­ drals there in the 1890s. Yet, Couchaux, in his stylistic treatment, used more delicate tonalities and a more minute touch to gain an Impressionistic recording of light, whereas Braque's coloration and handling is much more conventional.

Analyzing the painting of his friend's grandmother (Fig. 36), one can successfully compare its introspective mood to that found in Theodore Gericault's (1791-1824) Portrait of a Woman (Fig. 41) which had been at the Le Havre museum since 1871, and may well be the influence on not only this work by Braque but on several other portraits by him. 58 There is a shared sensitivity in portraying old age by con­ centrating on facial expression. Braque's Portrait of Cousin Johanet (Fig. 42) is a third portrait dating from this time. Again, Braque concen­ trates solely on the figure without depicting an interior, or other accessories. A possible prototype for the oval- faced girl, reading with her head turned downward, seems to be Corot's Girl Reading (Fig. 43), although this particular Corot was not in Le Havre at the time. More likely, due to the density of the brushstroke in the treatment of the face and the contrasting roughtly applied strokes used for depict­ ing the clothes, a direct influence came from Friesz's Portrait of Artist's Mother (Fig. 38), 1897; Friesz likewise was an admirer of Corot at this time. The landscapes by Dufy, Friesz and Braque during this period can firmly be placed as derivations from both Pre- Impressionistic and Impressionistic styles. A watercolor by Dufy, Le Quai de l'isle du Havre (Fig. 44), painted in 1898, reveals a harborscape in which the lower half of the compo­ sition is a view of the sea and the upper half of the port. The choice of such a presentation is Pre-Impressionist, notably taken from Boudin and Jongkind. (See Fig. 9.) Yet, the portrayal of the reflections of light on the river and sea with their rapidly changing colors over a period of time and in a changing atmosphere is closer to Monet's Impression, Sunrise, Le Havre. Since Dufy did not know Monet's work, he 59 arrived at his depiction independently from Jongkind's tradition. Les Docks au Havre (Fig. 45), of the same year, is again reminiscent of Jongkind, essentially in the use of the motif of boats approaching the harbor. Coloristically, Dufy has technical difficulty in handling the watercolor medium. The vibrancy of reflections is not well rendered, and he allows the medium to muddy in the depiction of architectural ele­ ments. The color is dark and grey, closer to Pre-Impression- ist color than to the heightened palette of the Impression­ ists. Friesz's Village en Bretagne (Fig. 46) and Berges de la Seine (Fig. 47), both from 1899, thematically belong to this same Pre-Impressionist and Impressionist time. There is compositional originality in Village en Bretagne where Friesz sets up a vertical division of river, earth and architectural element across the top. Although none of Braque's earliest landscapes has been published, Henry Hope wrote that Braque painted a series of seascapes and landscapes before 1899. Of these small marine paintings, only one is presently known, in the collection of Jean Paulhan.1 2 Paysage d'Harfleur (Fig. 48) by Braque dates from around 1900.1 3 Harfleur was where he and his family rented a cottage and spent the summer. The painting is more advanced in the Impressionistic sense than either Dufy's or Friesz's work. This is seen in Braque's desire to sharply 60 differentiate the variously lighted and shaded areas and in the carefree setting of the composition, which allows the viewer to look through the foreground bush toward a distant building. The painting certainly suggests that the artist's knowledge of Impressionistic style is quite advanced. If the work was done before his removal to Paris, it would indicate that he had knowledge of Impressionism while he was in Nor­ mandy, yet there seems to be no evidence that Impressionist works were shown in Le Havre and there are no works by Impressionists at the museum in Le Havre. However, Braque told Dora Vallier in the interview in 1954 that he had visited Paris during his vacations and on one of these saw the paintings in the Musee du Luxembourg for the first time. Since Impressionist works were on display from 1897 on at the Musee du Luxembourg, he could well have known about Impres­ sionism before moving to Paris. It seems more likely, though, that the work was done after he went to Paris in 1900, prob­ ably on one of his frequent vacations in Normandy.

Another possible link to Impressionism would be through the Ecole de Rouen, whose members were the most progressive followers of the Impressionistic lead. Route au bord de la Seine, a Neuilly, en hiver by Lebourg (Fig- 49) and Ships at Dieppe (Fig. 50) by Pinchon are works which reveal a combina­ tion of Norman tradition with Impressionistic style. But precise details concerning contact between artists in Rouen and Le Havre are not clear. Yet, these two towns are in 61 close proximity, Rouen being on the Seine between Paris and Le Havre. Artists such as Lebourg were active and fairly well known, and Lebourg had had several exhibitions in Paris during the 1890s; from this, one would assume that the Le Havre group knew works by the painters of the Ecole de Rouen. The Le Havre artists grew up in the same seaport city and shared common childhood memories of the port, seascape and marine life. These experiences left a deep impression on them, attracting them to seascapes throughout their careers. As we have seen, they also grew up to adopt the techniques and attitudes of other Norman painters who had gone before them, whose works, done out-of-doors, became a primary influence on them as they had been on Impressionist painters three, four and five decades earlier. A desire for an intimate contact with nature and a style for recording it was fostered by Boudin, Jongkind and Monet. It was this attitude that was inherited by Le Havre painters, enabling them to readily adopt objectivity as a fundamental basis for their work. It is from this heritage that Braque, Dufy and Friesz move toward the more subjective and personal expres­ sive intimacy of Fauvism which they will develop after their meeting in Paris. Footnotes for Chapter III

Claude Monet lived in Argenteuil from 1872 to 1878. In fact, he frequently came to Moulin d'Or, which was owned by Braque's grandmother. 2 Janet Flanner, Men and Monuments (New York, 1957), 119. The description of the painting is given by Henry Hope, Georges Braque (New York, 1949), 11. Gustave Caillebotte (1848-1894), a rich naval architect and painter from Paris, came to Argenteuil and worked with the Impressionist painters, such as Monet, Renoir and Pissar- ro. During his friendship with these painters, he collected a total of sixty-five works which he donated to the State, specifying his collection be hung in the Musee du Luxembourg and then moved to the Louvre after the painters died. After much debate, the State accepted only forty works. These were shown publicly from 1897 at the Musee du Luxembourg, and be­ came the major part of the present Jeu de Paume collection. Duthuit (The Fauvist Painters, 25) and Jean Leymarie (Fauvism, Geneva^ 1959, 18) list Braque as the pupil of Lhullier whereas Maurice Gieure (Georges Braque, Paris, New York, 1956, 11), Henry Hope (Georges Braque, 12) and Jean Leymarie, changing his opinion (in Georges Braque, Paris, 1961, 5), and cite M. Courchet, a local painter, as the teacher of Braque at the £cole Municipal des Beaux-Arts. Esdras-Gosse, Etudes Normandes, no. 59, 18. 7 Jean Leymarie (Braque, 14) described as "an indifferent pupil at the Lycee, undistinguished even in the drawing class ..." Henry Hope also states that Braque paid little attention to the class instruction and was not a distinguished student (Georges Braque, 12). g Flanner, Men and Monument, 124. 9 Braque considered that his creative work starts with the Fauve works from Antwerp period of summer of 1906.

62 63 Gieure, Georges Braque, pi. 1, Rome, Accademia di Francia, Villa Medici, Georges Braque, exhibition catalogue by Jean Leymarie, 1974-75, pi. 1, Descargues, et al., Georges Braque, 80. To John Richardson, The Observer, dec, 1957, and is quoted by Edwin Mullins, Braque (London, 1968), 14. 12 Hope, Georges Braque, 158. 13 Paris, Orangerie des Tuileries. Georges Braque. 1973-- 74. Text by Jean Leymarie, pi. 1, 56. Dora Vallier, "Braque--La Peinture et Nous." Cahiers d'Art, 29, Oct. 1954, p. 13. PART TWO

ARTISTIC STUDIES IN PARIS: 1900-1906

64 CHAPTER IV

Dufy and Friesz Settle in Paris; 1900-1904

In 1897, recommended by Lhullier, Othon Friesz obtained a municipal scholarship; it gave him 1,200 francs a year to pursue training at the Ecole National Superieure des Beaux- Arts in Paris. Friesz had an older cousin in Paris, Georges Perrot, who was a well-known archeologist and the author of Histoire de 1'Art dans l'Antiquite. His family arranged for him to watch after their son, whom they considered still a young provincial boy. In October, 1898, Friesz was on his way to Paris. Lhullier and his father went with him to the station. Lhullier gave him some final advice, look for "Fundamental truths," saying "Sois serieux, surtout. Va au Louvre, va voir les maitres, et mefie-toi des gens de I'Ecole des Beaux- Arts, qui n'ont que de l'habilite; mefie-toi des procedes 2 d'ecole." Admonishingly, his father warned, "Ne mouille pas 3 dans de mauvais fonds." First, he lodged in a garret on the quai Saint-Michel and often went to Perrot's for a decent supper. In turn, Georges Perrot arranged an appointment for him with Adolphe William Bouguereau, the celebrated academic painter and

65 66 honored president of the Societes des Artistes Francais. Having brought several of his works with him to Paris, Friesz took them to Bouguereau's studio on the rue Notre-Dame de Champs; he was greeted with the attitude that if he had come for any serious reason, he should "quickly [come] into the lobby and hurry up. Each minute costs me 100 francs." After examining Friesz's paintings for about five minutes, Bouguereau said to him, "Go to the School. There, I'll correct you."., 4 Instead, Friesz tried L6on Bonnat's (1834-1920) studio and stayed with him as a student until 1903. Bonnat was con­ sidered a great master and an official painter. He drew upon the austere aspects of Spanish seventeenth century painting, especially of Velasquez and Ribera. His paintings ranged from religious compositions and historical scenes to portraits for which he charged 50,000 gold francs apiece (Fig. 51). His style emphasized light to dark values and photographic detail. It was one which had often been ridi­ culed as tedious by progressive young artists, but he was a good man at heart and often helped his students through their financial difficulties. It was in Bonnat's studio that Friesz was later joined by Dufy in 1900 and made friends with Louis Chariot, , Jean-Julien Remordant, Ricardo Flores and others. At the Louvre, Friesz matured through an appreciation of the past, admiring Delacroix, Rubens, Veronese, Claude, Gros, 67 Corot, Carpaccio and Bellini. We know that he made copies, after Veronese's Descent from the Cross and, in part, Rubens' Kermesse, plus numerous copies after Delacroix. Friesz especially made detailed notes on Delacroix's works and admired his use of brushwork, complementary color, directness of emotional expression and opacity of surface. It is in Delacroix's work that Friesz found what was lacking in the lessons taught him by Bonnat,

Friesz also saw Impressionist paintings in the Caille- botte Bequest, Cezanne and Van Gogh at Vollard's gallery, and works by Vuillard, Bonnard, the Nabis, and the Neo- Impressionists at the Salon des Independants. In 1900, Friesz joined the military which was required of any young Frenchman at this time. Fortunately, he was stationed in Paris, so that he was able to continue his visits to the Louvre and shops along the rue Laffitte where the Impressionists' paintings were displayed. Dufy had been in the military earlier, in Le Havre, in 1898. However, the law forbade the enlistment of two sons from the same family. When Gaston Dufy volunteered for the flutist's position in the regimental band, Dufy was released after less than a year of service. Lhullier arranged for Dufy to get a municipal scholarship like the one which Friesz had obtained; doing so, in 1900, he left for Paris. Following the example of his friend, Dufy also enrolled in the Bonnat studio. Bonnat, who was trying to correct what 68 he called the "vice de personalite" in Friesz and colors which were "un peu extraordinaire," commented to Dufy, "I think you will eventually draw well," but implied that he had certain reservations concerning his light and airy colors. Jean-Paul Laurens, who was a substitute teacher when Bonnat was absent, on the other hand was enthusiastic for Dufy's work and encouraged him to prepare for the Prix- de-Rome competition. Dufy seldom went to the Louvre and confessed that the grandeur of the masterworks there made him uncomfortable, though he liked the Concert Champetre by Giorgione and the landscapes by Claude . He preferred, however, to walk across to the rue Laffite where Vollard, Durand-Ruel and Bernheim-Jeune displayed works by the Impressionists and Post- Impressionists . Dufy first lived with Friesz in rue Cortot at the center o of . Montmartre at this time offered young artists relatively cheap accommodations and many poor artists, including Pablo Picasso, lived there. It soon became the center of a Bohemian way of life for these youngsters. Many q artists gathered around bars, such as the Lapin Agile or the Franc Buveur. Friesz was a regular party-goer and was wel­ comed at any party in Montmartre. Dufy, according to , looked like a shop assistant at this time and maintained the opposite habit-- not going to the bars and parties, despite the fact that his 69 apartment was located near the Lapin Agile. Instead, he preferred to go to Sunday afternoon concerts. Dorgeles re­ ports, "Even in those days and even at Montmartre, one hundred francs a month didn't go far. Nevertheless, Raoul Dufy brought off the miracle of living decently. No one had ever seen him in slovenly dress, without a collar or loafing about in sandals like most of his companions. He would have none of their Bohemian ways. Invariably spic and span, his shoes well shined, he bore his poverty with carefree airs, but with dignity."10

Despite this, Dufy's name was on the black list of the police, on account of a friend of his, Maurice Delcourt. Delcourt was a painter and lived on the awards he received from the small competitions nobody else wanted to participate in. He was against any system, army, government, religion... When he was asked to leave his apartment, he came to Dufy's where he began holding anarchist meetings. Tipped off by the concierge, the police raided the pla;e and put Dufy's name on the list. 11 By 1900, Paris had already become the mecca of artists. Young artists from all over came to Paris. There, they found a vast diversity resulting from the various art movements that had been built up during the nineteenth century. Impression­ ism, which in retrospect was already finished as a movement in the 1880s, was still regarded as radical by conservatives, and after the twenty-five years since the first Impressionist 70 exhibition was now beginning to gain its popular triumph. . The Universal Exposition held a centennial exhibition of nineteenth century art in which works by Monet and Renoir were included. The Caillebotte collection was put on public display at the Musee Luxembourg. Another important access to these works, especially for the young artists, were the al­ ready mentioned progressive dealers on the rue Laffitte.

Neo-Impressionism became influential too, partly because , Henri Cross and Alfred Sisley continued to develop Seurat's scientific method of . Signac's "D'Eugene Delacroix au Ngo-Impressionnisme" was published in La Revue Blanche in 1898, contributing to the popularity of the movement. Neo-Impressionism particularly dominated the Salon des Independants for Signac was the president and its exhibitions were to prove important to Matisse's develop­ ment. Through the example of Impressionism and Neo-Impres­ sionism, young artists opened their eyes to heightened color and began to realize the potential expressive power of color. There were the Nabis as well, among them (1870-1943), Paul Serusier (1863-1927), Pierre Bonnard (1867- 1947), and Edouard Vuillard (1868-1940). The artists sought to bring symbolic content to their canvases, return to pure color descriptively and expressively, and heighten the decor­ ative aspect of painting. The stylized movements and gestures of Toulouse- Lautrec's theatrical performers provided an analogy with 71 another popular movement, . Both already had become known through well-circulated lithographs. Although had died in 1889 and Sisley in 1887, Pissarro, Degas, Gauguin, Rodin, Monet, and Renoir were still alive and the rich artistic heritage they were continuing to create was being assimilated by young artists. They were to seek out the memorial retrospective exhi­ bitions of Van Gogh's at Bernheim-Jeune in 1901, Toulouse- Lautrec's art at the Salon des Independants and Durand-Ruel's in 1902, Gauguin at the Salon d'Automne in 1903, and Seurat and Van Gogh at the Salon des Independants in 1904. Cezanne's first large exhibition occurred at the Salon d'Automne in 1904. However, this does not mean that these revolutionary artists won over the younger artists immediately. It was still those who painted in the Academic style, such as Bouguereau and Bonnat, for example, who exercised their in­ fluence on the official public salons and thus could provide access to official success and high sale prices. Neverthe­ less, the official salons were weakening as young artists' had more opportunity to show their paintings. Anyone could submit to the Salon des Independants, which had been founded in 1884, and the Salon d'Automne, which was especially open to pro­ gressive artists and was founded by the architect, Frantz Jourdain, in 1903. 72 In summary, artists at the beginning of the twentieth century were exposed to a rich artistic heritage, both academic and avant-garde. They could, if they didn't become overwhelmed, choose, assimilate and synthesize according to their own temperaments, for it was personal temperament that was becoming primary. Out of this young generation were to come the modern masters, who were to lead and shape twentieth century art.

Foremost among these young men was Henri Matisse, who was thirty-one in 1900; he was the first to emerge as a leader of a group of young artists. 'Matisse had first attended Bouguereau's classes in 1891 at the Acadlmie Julian, but after a year, he moved to Gustave Moreau's studio where he met (1871-1958), Albert Marquet (1876-1947), (1874-1949), and (1879-1965). These young men formed the basis of the group later to become known as Les Fauves. Much has been said about the encourage­ ment Moreau provided his pupils. Matisse also benefited from the liberal outlook of his teacher, who warmly guided his students towards their own independence. Moreau died in 1898 and his successor, , shocked by Matisse's painting, asked him to leave his 1 9 studio. Matisse then sought Eugene Carriere's studio on the rue de Rennes, where he could draw from a live model and receive lessons once a week from Carriere, who was in no way an Academician. In this studio, Matisse associated with 73 young artists who sought inspiration from his works. Partic­ ularly important, he met (1876-1960) and Andre Derain, and through Derain, who had already made an acquaint­ ance with Maurice Vlaminck at Chatou, he met Vlaminck in 1901. Matisse recalled this meeting at the Van Gogh exhibi­ tion at Bernheim's. Matisse saw Vlaminck talking to Derain: "You see, you've got to paint with pure cobalts, pure ver­ milions, pure Veronese." Matisse was delighted and said later, "The painting of Derain, Vlaminck did not surprise me, for it was close to the researches I myself was pursuing. But I was moved to see that these very young men had certain convictions similar to my own." 13 By 1901, all of the Fauves-to-be knew each other. How­ ever, at this time they did not have any cohesiveness as a group, nor did they share any common artistic characteristics. Among the group, Matisse and Marquet were the most advanced in their search for pure color and more expressive means. Marquet said that as early as 1898, he and Matisse "were working in what was later called the Fauve manner. The first showing of the Independants, in which, I believe, we were the only painters to express ourselves in pure tones, took place in 1901."14 Matisse worked in essentially two distinct manners. From 1898 to 1901 he employed a Neo-Impressionistic pointillist-like application of pigment. Some of his can­ vases also reveal large flat areas of color based on the 74 example of Gauguin and the intense color application of Van Gogh. During the period 1901-04, he painted with broad color patches tending to construct the painting, in a manner obviously reflecting lessons learned from Cezanne's work.

With Matisse as their leader, the Fauves-to-be made trips together or shared the same model and painted together in the same studio. However, in 1901, Derain left for mili­ tary service and did not return until 1904, and Vlaminck went back to Chatou. Until 1904, the rest of the members of the loosely bound group exhibited together at the Indepen­ dents: Matisse, Puy, and Marquet from 1901, Manguin from 1902, Camoin from 1903. In February 1902, Matisse, Marquet and a group of Moreau's students exhibited at the gallery, on the recommendation of them to the owner by the , Roger Marx. From 1903, Matisse and Marquet exhibited at the Salon d'Automne. In 1904, the group (except Derain and Vlaminck) participated in the Ind^pendants in March-April, Berthe Weill in April, and the Salon d'Automne in October. Besides these group shows, Matisse had his first one-man exhibition at Vollard in June, followed by (1877-1968) in November.

Matisse's dark-colored manner of 1901-04 had fully dis­ appeared by 1904, for as he spent the summer at Signac's house at Saint-Tropez, he turned to pure color based on his compre­ hension of Neo-Impressionism. From this time on, the Fauves- to-be began to emerge as a group movement, combining 75

influences from Gauguin, Van Gogh, Neo-Impressionism and Cezanne. Now what they needed to do was to develop a new expressive mode. For this, they drew upon the Post- Impressionist concept of synthesis, which was being written about by Maurice Denis at this time. The members of the Le Havre group were younger, in gen­ eral, than the students of Moreau and the Chatou group, and they came to Paris much later than the other Fauves-to-be. Even in Paris, there was no immediate contact between them. When Dufy and Friesz were attending the Ecole des Beaux-Arts, Matisse had already left. 17 However, Dufy and Friesz must have heard about Matisse, whose name was quite well known 18 among the younger artists' circle. For a while, both ex­ hibited at Societe des Artistes Francais (Friesz from 1901 to 1903 and Dufy in 1901) until they switched to the Salon des Independants in 1903. It was mainly at the Salon des -> 19 Independants, the Berthe Weill Gallery and the Salon d'Automne that the Le Havre artists could see the paintings of the future Fauves. Like other young artists, Dufy, Friesz, and Braque were susceptible to the diverse influences they found in Paris. Having grown up in Normandy they were already familiar with the Pre-Impressionistic tradition and were, at first, attracted to Impressionistic landscape painting. For the next several years, they concentrated on learning Impression­ ism and painted landscapes rather than figures. 76 Friesz, as a Norman who was previously accustomed to the work of Boudin and Jongkind, was ready for Impressionism. He said, "lis peuvent faire des paysages infiniment plus lumineux--meme la Normandie--que les scenes orientales de Delacroix ... la lumiere circule, enveloppe, caresse, ir- radie les formes, mSme dans les ombres qu'elle illumine. . . . L'Impressionnisme caracterise une des £poques de l'Art, non seulement joie, mouvement, soleil, mais influence renovatrice sur la peinture contemporaine. . . . Delacroix s'efforcait de creer dela lumiere avec des couleurs eteintes, Les Im- pressionnistes, qui par droit de conquete ont la lumiere sur leur palette, l'eteignent volontairement." 20 In 1900, his first efforts were devoted to assimilating the Impressionist's lesson--how to render the sunlight in landscape. Meanwhile, he submitted academic paintings to the Salon des Artistes Francais. Friesz was also commissioned to do a decoration for the Salle de Fete of the Universal Exposition which earned him three francs a day. This was the same year he and Gustave Charpentier, a friend from the Ecole, visited the museums in Bruselles and Antwerp, seeing Rubens whose baroque dynamism impressed Friesz. Portrait of the Artist's Mother (Fig. 52) was done in 1901, probably during one of his short visits home. Although the format of the portrait does not differ significantly from the previous portraits, the hatches of the parallel strokes on the robes which render the highlight and the free strokes 77

on the background become more adventurous. One finds the prototype of the portrait with its frontal view and the same kind of treatment of the robes in Portrait of Pere Tanguy (1886-88) by Van Gogh (Fig- 53), which was included in the Van Gogh exhibition at the Bernheim-Jeune in 1901. Van Gogh again used the format in Madame Roulin, 1889 (Fig* 54), a for­ mat which was picked up by Toulouse-Lautrec in Justine Dieuhl, 1891 (Fig- 55), and by Gauguin in La Belle Angele, 1889 (Fig. 56). Friesz frequently went back to Le Havre and made paint­ ing trips to Crozant in the valley of the Creuse, to Falaise and to Cote de Grace. The painting Valley of the Creuse, 1901 (Fig. 57), reveals that Friesz was absorbed in under­ standing Impressionistic techniques. The contrast of sunlit and shaded areas is handled almost like early Monet, in terms of trying to bring out the highlights. Nevertheless, there is a tendency to see the landscape as broad masses, rather than as an accumulation of many irregular brushstrokes. Al­ ready, a desire to construct the landscape is evident; this will become one of his distinctively personal characteristics. The Chateau at Crozant, dated in the same year (Fig. 58), reveals pigments which are broken down into more minute brush­ strokes than in the earlier work, Valley of the Creuse (Fig. 57). This is clearly a study to record sunlight in the Impressionist manner and Friesz tries to convey this light in each stroke. The nervousness of the strokes is strangely 78 reminiscent of Delacroix, or among the Impressionists, Armand Guillaumin (1841-1927). In fact, Friesz's choice of Crozant village might have been inspired by Guillaumin who had been coming to Crozant since 1893. One day in 1901 on his way to Creuse, Friesz even met Guillaumin who encouraged him to pursue Impressionism fully.

Guillaumin, at this period, was himself pursuing a rather personal version of Impressionism, with yellow, orange, crimson and blue color harmonies. Boigneville-les- Carneaux, 1901 (Fig- 59), reflects interests similar to Friesz's in the structure of the landscape, the rugged forms of the rocks and the use of long, thin brushstrokes. The work, like Valley of the Creuse (Fig. 57) and The Chateau at Crozant (Fig. 58), shows an upward movement to the composi­ tion and a love for masses, and one senses Guillaumin's baroque temperament in the building up of the diagonals.

The Market at Falaise, 1902 (Fig. 60), continues the tradition of the realists in its portrayal of ordinary laborers, but perhaps even more directly the earliest works of Seurat. Marcel Giry notes that Friesz portrays personality in each person in the crowd, thus revealing his ability as a caricaturist. 21 In Tour Eiffel, the same year (Fig. 61), Friesz is completely absorbed in Impressionism, although the subject is a Neo-Impressionist one. He tries to catch the particular effect and atmosphere of light at the particular moment. The work is executed with thick pigmentation and his 79 paint tends to be laid down in divisionist-like strokes. In 1903, Friesz could no longer tolerate Bonnatfs criticism. One day Bonnat pointed out what Friesz considered an awful painting by a student who sat next to him, telling Friesz, "That is the way it is to be done." Friesz, who had been patiently attending Bonnat's studio in order to keep his scholarship, stood up and left! He had broken with the aca- demic style. 22 At the same time, he moved to the place Dauphine, where he began associating with literary figures: Fernand Fleuret, Andre Salmon and . These friends often gathered at Friesz's apartment, who had begun to cultivate the appearance and manner of Delacroix at this time. 23 Together, they chipped in money and bought wine, cheese and fruit. They dined together, surrounded by the landscape paintings of Friesz which hung on the walls. They discussed literature, listened to music. When talking about painting, the subject of Van Gogh and Cezanne often came up. Fernand Fleuret was full of charm and knowledge; Apollinaire, the epitome of the intellectual, introduced them to the Bib- liotheque National. Andre Salmon, who wrote a book on Friesz in 1921, became his intimate friend. Their friendship lasted throughout their lives. Friesz, in early 1903, still did paintings employing a somewhat dark palette and in Le Marche aux Chevaux a Falaise (Fig. 62) achieved a greyed effect. Yet, The Pont Neuf, also of 1903 (Fig. 63) is probably one of the best Impressionistic 80 works by him, revealing a balanced composition and an even execution. The choice of subject recalls Renoir who painted a series on the Pont Neuf, or Pissarro who often painted Parisian street scenes. Friesz met Pissarro when he was painting his series of Pont Neuf paintings. Pissarro compli­ mented the work, yet remarked that a subject where a public urinal conspicuously occupies the center was not likely to be sold. Friesz paid this old master his respects but asserted that the most important thing in his painting was its pic­ torial structure. It is an ambitious painting, for the canvas size is 129 cm x 151 cm. One senses the bright sunshine in which the architecture, trees and passers-by are bathed. To capture this effect, Friesz used the minute strokes derived from Monet, Renoir or Pissarro, yet he defines objects with em­ phatic lines which give the whole picture a sense of solidity. He continues to employ the creamy white pigment he used for the street in Pont Neuf in Le Pont au Change (Fig- 64), 1902-3, and Le Havre, le Bassin du Roy, 1903, (Fig; 65), indicating that the choice of this color is not primarily realistic or Impressionistic in these latter two instances, but more subjectively based. Again, these two works reveal that the characteristic of his work at this time is the com­ bination of a thick application of minute brushstrokes with a solidity of pictorial structure. 81 While Friesz was essentially following the Impressionist path, Dufy learned from more varied sources: Impressionists (Pissarro and Monet, in particular); Pre-Impressionists (Boudin); and Degas, Toulouse-Lautrec, and Steinlen. At the time of his adjustment to a new environment and new friends, Dufy first took up the practice of the Impressionists and went out onto the streets sketching everyday scenes. Dufy also made his debut by participating at the Salon des Artistes Francais in 1901 with Fin de Journge au Havre (catalogue no. 706). In 1903, he would switch to the Salon des Independants where one of his paintings would be bought by Maurice Denis. 25 He continued to exhibit at Berthe Weill's in 1903 and 1904. Dufy's Falaise, la Place de 1'eglise (Fig. 66) is a work from 1901, done right after his first contact with Parisian art circles. The overall tonality of blue is definitely derived from Boudin. Although Dufy tried to use long and smoothed-out brushstrokes here, Impressionism began to in­ fluence him. Like Friesz at this time, Dufy tended to draw out architectural forms mainly with line. The sense of desertedness and the placement of architecture in the middle ground is similar to Sisley in such a painting as Le Village de Veneux-Nadon, 1881 (Fig. 67), which was at Durand-Ruel's from 1882 to 1936. Jardin a Falaise, 1902 (Fig. 68), on the other hand, reveals the influence of the Nabis. The tendency of 82 patterning the leaves of the tree and the verticality of the trees and shadows is close to Vuillard's Under the Trees, 1894 CFig. 69). Then, for a brief period, Dufy was under the influence of Degas and Toulouse-Lautrec. It was perhaps his predilec­ tion for draughtsmanship and design that drew him to their work. In this characteristic of his art, he is fundamentally different from the Impressionists, for unlike them, he did many drawings and "dessins" before starting to paint and, when painting, always concerned himself with composition. The Concert, 1902 (Fig. 70), is directly taken from Degas' Musicians of the Orchestra, 1868-1869 CFig- 71), which was in the Louvre at this time. In this ambitious composi­ tion, Dufy used his brother Gaston as the third person from the left in the orchestra, following Degas' lead of including portraits of friends rather than actual musicians. Again following Degas' lead, Dufy depicts the whole orchestra below the stage, the dancers above on the stage, as well as some of the audience in . Degas' painting has the appear­ ance of the immediacy of a snapshot, yet the work reveals him to be the master of subtle composition as he divides his composition into three zones. Jeune Femme au canape Rose, 1902 CFig. 72), is again very reminiscent of the key-hole effect found in paintings by Degas and Toulouse-Lautrec's Cthe latter had just had exhibi­ tions at the Salon des Independants and at Durand-Ruel in 83 1902). Like his predecessors, Dufy's keen eye regards the nude in an unusual, unselfconscious position heightening the relationship between the living shape of her body and the inanimate one of the sofa, creating shapes which are aesthet­ ically analogous.

Soon Dufy discarded indoor figure compositions and concentrated on a series of outdoor themes: street scenes, market places, harborscapes and social gatherings at the sea­ shore or in a park, usually a picnic. This practice of painting thematic series over and over with different approaches each time, originates in the Pre-Impressionist artists Boudin and Jongkind, and continues with the Impres­ sionists. Also, like them, Dufy's paintings always emphasized the visual appearance of figures rather than their tactile substance, usually placing them within a landscape setting. However, Dufy was not as much concerned with the subtle atmos­ phere of the sunlight which dissolves figures and objects as they were, but with contemporary life to which he responded subjectively, thus heightening the figures' importance in his works. The Horsemarket, 1901 (Fig. 73), is from this series of market scenes he painted when he was in Le Havre on vacation. The painting probably was a precedent for Friesz's The Horse- market at Falaise, dated two years later (Fig. 62). Dufy is still using the dark palette seen in his earlier Le Havre works. The brown and grey tonality is ultimately derived 84 from Jongkind. Dufy reveals some difficulty in relating the horse and the figure in the background and long, coarse brushstrokes are repeatedly applied over and over. The market place theme was popular with several artists of this period. Steinlen, whose illustrations were familiar to the public and, no doubt, to Dufy, often treated the theme with anecdotal incidents. His drawing, The Market (Fig. 74) reveals a close analogy with Dufy's figure types. However, Steinlen's main purpose was to capture the activities of the people in the market and the atmosphere of the place, while Dufy tends to give a precise characterization to each form and subtly balance the composition. In his The Market at Marseille (Fig. 75), done several years later in 1904, Dufy develops his figure types into much heavier forms. The crowd in the 1901 market scene finds its source in The Fishmarket, Rotterdam, 1874-1876, by Eugene Boudin (Fig. 76). But again, Dufy's figures are given more importance in size and the role they play in the overall composition, whereas Boudin harmonizes the figures with the landscape. Dufy's figures are more rounded, robust and active, and one can almost feel the heat and hear the shouts of the market. For this achievement, Pissarro is a possible influence as Pissarro painted such scenes and influenced other early paintings by Dufy, e.g., The Market at Gisors, 1895 (Fig. 77). 85 Stylistically, the heavy pigmentation and a greatly heightened palette represent an attempt to assimilate Impressionist technique. The rough execution of the Horse- market is replaced here by minute brushstrokes, which are carefully applied over the canvas. There is a clear sense of how the light plays on the figures, buildings and objects. Nevertheless, the colors in the paintings reveal that Dufy is not recording the light on the objects but responding in his color choices, subjectively. He is not faithful to local color; he employs arbitrary colors--pink, green and white pro­ vide the dominant key, while blue, vermillion, orange and yellow serve as minor tones. Another favorite genre for Dufy is the depiction of social gatherings on a beach, or in a park. The source of outdoor gatherings and having a good time are ultimately to be traced back to Giorgione, and within the French tradition, to Watteau's Fete Galantes. The immediate source, however, can be found in the work of Edouard Manet (1832-1883), his Luncheon on the Grass, 1863 (Fig. 78). Monet employed the same theme in his Luncheon on the Grass, 1865 (Fig. 79), one of many examples of his use of this theme of fashionably dressed women in an outdoor setting. For Monet, it offered a good pretext for examining light filtering through the trees and how it changed as it touches upon various fabrics, figures and the still-life objects. In Monet's works, the groupings become much more informal than Manet's more formally posed 86 grouping. Renoir also depicted informal gatherings and the happy pleasures of bourgeois life in Luncheon of the Boat Party (1881) and Moulin de la Galette (1876). Dufy's Le Dejeuner sous la Tonnelle au Havre, 1901 (Fig. 80) should be viewed as a continuation of this tradition. 27 He uses large patches of color and the work reflects spontaneity by means of quick execution. The ultimate direction in which Dufy moves this subject type is seen in The Terrace of the Cafe (Fig. 81). It is an important piece, marking a sudden liberation of color and re­ markable also for the originality of the composition. There is a juiciness to the pigmentation and a coarseness to the execution. Dufy has escaped the dark palette of his previous works. The yellows, oranges and greens with the reddish flag are used in their utmost brilliance. This work is dated be­ tween 1902-1904 by the , where the work presently resides. Since such audacity in color is rare in Dufy's work, it is unlikely to have been conceived in 1902 when Dufy was still painting in his timid Impressionist style. Therefore, it should most probably be dated closer to 1904, when Dufy was more conscious of color experimentation and expression. Compositionally, Dufy set two figures with their backs to the viewer, an effect which tends to flatten out the pic­ ture because he employs the same color in the background as he does for them. This is not simply a genre painting like 87 Renoir's, but a search for pictorial innovation, a search comparable only to Matisse's at this time. Social gatherings along the beach were mostly painted when Dufy was back in Normandy, in the environs he had been used to. The beach at Sainte-Adresse, a seaside resort a few miles from Le Havre, was particularly his favorite place and there is a series of the paintings of this subject, ranging in date from 1901 to 1904. La Plage (Fig. 82) is one of the earliest of the series. Again, as with other early works by him, there is a strong influence from Boudin, who painted a series on the same subject.28 In Trouville, Beach Scene, 1886 (Fig. 83), Boudin shows anonymous people looking out to the sea. Characteris­ tically, Boudin's figures are caught up into the sky, sea and wind as he incorporates them into the overall totality and activity of the composition, in the same blues and greys. Dufy conceived the painting in almost the same way, maintain­ ing an anonymity for the figures by employing back views. The difference is that, in Dufy's work, the background is given a secondary importance. La Plage de Sainte-Adresse (Fig. 84) reveals a develop­ ment in his use of Impressionistic strokes and careful execu­ tion. Primary importance is given to recording the sensation he received. His delicate and soft touch and the pale tonal­ ity is counterbalanced by the architectonic solidity of the boardwalk placed at mid-horizon. Another painting with the 88 same title (Fig. 85), also from 1902, shows only a few people on the shore and seems to be done under less direct sunlight. In both paintings, Dufy does not allow the figures and objects to be dissolved in light. There is a sense of strength and balance because of the careful distribution of the forms compositionally. The same subject is taken up in 1903 in Les Bains Marie- Christine a Sainte-Adresse (Fig. 86), revealing no striking stylistic differences from the previous works, but done under a different light and atmosphere. Sur la Plage a Sainte- Adresse, 1904 (Fig. 87), is done in an overall pale-green tonality, revealing again Dufy's love of this color in combi­ nation with pink and white. His most ambitious work in this subject is La Plage a. Sainte-Adresse of 1904 (Fig. 88). Here he established a color harmony in subtle blues, pinks and whites executed with an almost powdery delicacy. If it were not for the subtle color harmonies, the empirical recording of the figures, and the impressionistic random application of strokes, the work would almost remind us of Seurat's Sunday Afternoon on the Island of Grand Jatte, 1886 (Fig. 89), in terms of its hori­ zontal and vertical placements and the mysterious silence of the figures on the beach. Photographers and the Impressionists came out into the streets and photographed and painted street scenes, popular­ izing such subjects. Perhaps it was Pissarro who most 89 contributed to this vogue in painting as he painted numerous series of views of the grand boulevards in Paris. Constan- tine Guys, Forain, Steinlen and Raffaelli, through magazines and newspaper, made street activity themes even more popular, with their facile drawing and easily recognizeable activities.

Dufy became interested in street scenes. Many of his works indicate that he went beyond what the Impressionists did in capturing the rapid movement of the people in differ­ ent atmospheres. He, too, put in contemporary elements; for example, locomotives are in his urban scenes at this time and later in his Fauvist works he utilized colorful disarrays of flags and posters. The Carnival at the Grand Boulevard (Fig. 90) is close in composition to Monet's Le Boulevard des Capucines, 1873 (Fig. 91), which was at Durand-Ruel's in 1903 when Dufy painted his painting. Monet sets the architecture diagonally 'in the background and sought sunlight effects on it, the figures and the trees, being indifferent to the objects them­ selves which were, to Monet, only objects from which, just as the setting, the light is reflected. Dufy, however, presents the rhythm of masses, the energy of individuals and the movement of the whole which enhances an overall rhythmic composition. Harborscapes also were a constant in Dufy's landscape painting. One of Dufy's most important harborscapes came in 1904, Le Yacht Pavoisee au Havre (Fig- 92). This is a 90 significant work because in it Dufy first fully asserted himself in the use of arbitrary color choice and juxtaposi­ tion. Its light-green tonality is similar to the earlier Sainte-Adresse painting of the same year, but the flat areas of color and the juxtapositioning of various shapes becomes much more emphatic. He especially uses pure colors--red, orange, and green for the flags--foretelling his Fauvist style. One sees other examples of this emphasis in the patches of lavender near the two passers-by, an emphatic choice which stems not from an Impressionist eye, or even from strict local color, but from the artist's subjective, expressive selection.

The period between 1900-1904 in Paris can be, then, most accurately characterized as one of learning for Dufy and Friesz. Friesz seemed to respond more exclusively to Impres­ sionist style and subject matter, whereas Dufy's work reveals a greater variety of influences: Impressionist as well as Degas, Toulouse-Lautrec, the Nabis and Steinlen. It should be understood that, at the time, critics paid hardly any attention to Dufy and Friesz and subsequently their artistic development has not been properly treated by scholars. For Friesz, this is partly due to the lack of paintings available for study. In the case of Dufy who was quite industrious during this period, producing much that became quite useful to him later, scholars usually discuss only briefly his Sainte-Adresse series or the work Le Yacht Pavoisee au Havre 91 as representative of this period before beginning a discus­ sion of his works which are now called Fauvist. In the next chapter, I will detail how Dufy and Friesz began exploring independent color harmony as they come in^ touch with the leaders of the group now called the Fauves, and how the newcomer, Georges Braque, fares during his first years in Paris. Footnotes for Chapter IV

In giving a grant to a student to study in Paris, the Municipal Council of Le Havre asked each recipient to send back a report card from the school, informing them of their progress. Therefore, Friesz and Dufy had to attend the school in order to keep their scholarships. Gauthier, Othon Friesz, 27. 2 Ibid., 25. 3 Ibid., 25. 4 Gauthier, Othon Friesz, pp. 27-28. Translated by the author. Leon Bonnat studied in Spain with Federico Madrazo, then came to Paris and was a pupil of Leon Cogniat. Bonnat had a collection of drawings of old masters (from Michelangelo to Degas) and donated to his home town of Bayonne, now known as the Mus£e Bonnat. Interestingly, he made it specific in his will that none of his works should be included in the collection. Marcel Giry, in his dissertation, points out that Friesz made particularly keen observation of Femmes d'Algier by Delacroix, noted down the orange-red vs. green-blue com­ plementary colors, hatches of brushstrokes and the use of arbitrary colors as well as the warm/cool color characters, in La Jeunesse de Othon Friesz: 1879-1914 (Lyon, 1951), 15. Dufy later said, "Nobody at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts could teach drawing" (Crespelle, The Fauves, 158). Dufy believed that the system of Ecole could not bring up the talent of the young artists (Lassaigne, Raoul Dufy, 17). Matisse, however, believed thac practice at the Ecole was necessary to become a painter. Flam, Matisse on Art (New York, 1973), 19. o This old studio was called the Maison de Rosignond, after Rosignond, a comedy playwright who originally occupied the house; later it was also inhabited by Renoir, , Leon Bloy, Emil Bernard, and her son, (Crespelle, The Fauves, 157). 92 93 9 The Lapin Agile, run by Pere Frede, became a meeting place for radicals and Bohemian artists; among them are in­ cluded Guillaume Apollinaire and Pablo Picasso. For the latter, the cafe became the subject of several of his paint­ ings done at this time. 10 Lassaigne, Raoul Dufy, 22. Several other Fauves, Vlaminck, Derain and Van Dongen, sympathized with the anarchist movement, cf. Oppler, Fauvism Reexamined, 189-190, for more detail. 12 Cormon asked Matisse to leave, for the reason of his being over thirty years old. Alfred H. Barr, Matisse: His Art and His Public (New York, The Museum of Modern Art, 1951, 37-38). 13Duthuit, The Fauvist Painters, 28. 14Ibid., 23. 15 Berthe Weill, a German woman, first opened her gallery on the rue Victor Mass€, Montmartre, in December of 1901. And from 1902, she showed the works by Matisse, Marquet and held the shows of the Fauves, usually twice a year. Dufy was her favorite artist, yet when Dufy introduced her to Friesz, she did not quite like his paintings. 16Theories, 1890-1940. 17 Maximilien Gauthier (Othon Friesz, 1949, 11) mentions that the of Moreau and Bonnat were located across the floor, so that students of both studios knew each other well. However, Friesz started to attend Bonnat's studio from the end of 1898; Matisse had already left for Corsica in August of 1898 and came back in February of 1899, but soon left again sometime in 1900. Therefore, if Friesz in fact had the opportunity to know Matisse at this time, it was only possible during this brief period of Matisse's attending Cor­ mon1 s studio, 1899-1900. Dufy, who came to Paris in 1900, could not have met Matisse in person. 18 Barr, "Matisse, Picasso and the Crisis of 1907," Maga­ zine of Art, 44 (1951), 163. 19Dufy sold one of his in 1902 to Berthe Weill and from that time he became Weill's favorite artist. ?n Giry, La Jeunesse de Othon Friesz: 1879-1914, 19. 21Ibid., 23. 94

22Ibid., 13. 23 Gauthier, Othon Friesz, 36. 24Giry, La»-Jeunesse de Othon Friesz: 1879-1914, 30-31. 25 Dufy was always grateful to Maurice Denis for this gesture, cf. Lassaigne, Raoul Dufy, 21. Alfred Werner points out the weakness of Dufy's compo­ sition which, unlike Degas', does not successfully interweave the lower and upper part of the painting. Also he argues that the figures and objects are "cut off" by the frame, cf. Raoul Dufy, 74. 27 From left to right, we can identify the figures as Mme. Germaine Dufy, Mme. Madeleine Dufy, Mme, Suzanne Dufy, Mme. Marius Dufy and M. Marius Dufy, the father of Dufy, cf. Laffaille, Catalogue Raisonne de l'Oeuvre de Dufy, Geneva, Motte, 1972, vol. 1, 27. 28 In 1900, Louis Boudin, the brother of Eugene Boudin, donated 226 paintings and 70 drawings of Boudin to Musee des Beaux-Arts, Le Havre, which Dufy, Braque and Friesz must have seen. CHAPTER V

The Salon d'Automne of 1905 with Its Initial Influence on Dufy and Friesz. Braque's Development during 1900-1905.

In 1904, Othon Friesz was still under the influence of Impressionism. Many of his entries in the Salon des Indepen- dants of that year--Soir de Juin, La Vieille Ville (Soleil du matin) and Le Marche (Etude de foule, Normandy)--indicate that he was still examining the effects of light at a partic­ ular time of day, a continuation of his practice of previous years. However, one also notes the presence of a new influence. Portrait de Rene de Saint Delis (Fig. 93), signed and dated 1904, marks a return to portraiture. The manner in which the figure looks at us (with a certain detachment), the sombre blue and green colors which are thinly applied, and especially the face itself which resembles self-portraits by Edvard Munch, a Norwegian symbolist (see Fig. 94, Self-Portrait with Cigarette, 1895), indicate new influences, artistically. Friesz1 Landscape (Fig. 95), which is dated 1905 by Gauthier, is also similar to Munch's work, in particular a landscape, Beach with Group of Trees, 1903-1904 (Fig. 96).

95 96 Strikingly, it is the color this time, a combination of pinkish white and bluish white, and a loose execution that reveal Munch's influence, an influence that cannot have occurred without his actually having seen Munch's works. This direct connection between the two artists has not been commented upon previously. So far, scholars have explored the French influences on Munch in the late 1880s and although Munch continued his connections with France in the early , little attention has been given to the influence he might have had on French artists. Munch was active primarily in during the 1890s, preoccupied with his series, Frieze of Life. The French began noticing Munch, and his lithograph, The Scream, was published in La Revue Blanche in 1895. The Swedish author August Strindberg wrote on Munch's exhibition at Bing's gallery and on Art Nouveau in La Revue Blanche in 1896 and the contemporary critic Edouard Gerard said of his exhibition that it ". . . captivates us and sets free our imagination" in La Presse. Munch lived in Paris during 1896-1897 and participated in Salon des Independants both years, showing works from his Frieze of Life which drew some understanding 2 from the critics. But he also complained in the letter that his paintings were hung badly, and it seems that French critics were chauvinistic in their treatment, or rather lack of treatment generally, of foreign artists. There are few French documents on these works and, therefore, the response 97 of French critics is little known. It is primarily through his prints that Munch's art became well known in the artistic circles of Paris. The Parisian office of the German magazine Pan had etchings by Munch for sale, and there were prints by Munch in Vollard's Album for Printers and Prints, along with those by Bonnard, Renoir, and Vuillard. German artists, who came to study in Paris, certainly must have talked about Munch's success in Germany. By 1905, Munch was internationally known not only through his successful exhibitions at various cities in Germany and Austria and at Prague, but also through his prints which appeared in many magazines. However, in France, at the beginning of the new century, Munch's art with its themes and of the late nine­ teenth century was less attractive to French painters, who were now more concerned with coloristic problems. They looked to Signac, Cross and Matisse for inspiration. Munch traveled back and forth between Paris and Germany and he participated at the Salon des Independants regularly from 1903 through 1906. According to the catalogue of the Independants, Munch submitted eight works in 1903 (among them Portrait, Une Foret, La Mere and Une Femme), six works in 1904 (Une Folle, Nuit, Deux Portraits, Garcons Baignants, Paysage, Village Norvegien), eight works in 1905 (Vampire, Strindberg, Mater Dolorosa, Claire de Lune, Le Soir, Mallarmg, L'onde and Le Baisser) and six works again in 1906 (Les 98 Buveurs, Paysage au Thuringhwald, Paysage du Thuringhwald, Monsieur K (litho), M. Henry Van de Velde (litho), and Nietsche). The titles indicate that there were many land­ scapes and portraits and that Munch, surprisingly, did not include many of the symbolist works for which he is now more famous. However, with no Catalogue Raisonne of Munch's works, it is difficult to determine exactly which landscapes or portraits were exhibited, as Munch repeated titles or those cited in the exhibition notices are too general. We know that before 1902 Munch's landscapes are made with flat areas of color having strong contours and that he changed in 1903 to a freer manner, one in which shapes are created by colors applied in varied brushstrokes involving a number of tones. His colors become brighter and it is usually stated by scholars that this is a sign of his coming under the influence of the Fauves or the Neo-Impressionists. Yet, Munch, along with the students of Moreau, the Fauves and Neo-Impressionists, was likewise having an effect on Friesz, in the Landscape and the Portrait of Rene de Saint Delis. Meanwhile in April, 1904, Matisse and his friends had their first group show at Berthe Weill's. Derain and Vla- minck had not yet joined the group but they too were already revealing a desire for a new means of expression which the critic Roger Marx commented on as a "common desire for sig­ nificance, which they strive to achieve through plastic means carried to the highest point of power and seductiveness." 99 Matisse was to need still more stimulation before he became fully assertive in his expressiveness, an expressive­ ness he was to attain that summer. Paul Signac had a house at Saint-Tropez to which Matisse was invited. There Signac, and Cross who lived nearby at Le Lavandou, led Matisse to a full appreciation of the high intensity that Neo-Impressionist- inspired colors could attain. For the Salon d'Automne exhi­ bition of 1904, Matisse submitted several canvases done in a pointillistic technique which were the result of his summer production.

Friesz, who also participated in the Salon d'Automne, must have been impressed by them, for it was most likely about this experience that he said, "It was about 1904 that I felt what I then formulated as a desire to escape from the mediocrity of direct emotion, that is, to find a means of attuning painting to nature." He recognized that "Impres­ sionism, the only living expression of the late nineteenth century, had led us in the right direction, we were indebted to it; however, it seemed to me that its pictures were not constructed, but amounted only to an active documentation of nature; they were arrangement and not composition." Later he recalled, "We weren't opposed to Impressionism then, far from it, but we wanted to get away from the mediocrity of direct emotion, and get back to color. There was only one way to convey the equivalent of sunlight, and that was to do orchestrations of color. We began with the emotional 100 response to nature to arrive at a passionate transposition. We did not achieve this all at once. Various truths and theories were established in the course of some intense and enthusiastic discussions." At the Salon des Independants in 1905, the now almost complete Fauves group, consisting of Matisse, Manguin, Puy, Van Dongen and Vlaminck, exhibited for the first time to­ gether. Then with Derain's return from the army, they were in full force, although they were not yet recognized as a group. Matisse exhibited his Luxe, Calme etVolupte which was a summation of what he had experimented with that summer and a synthesis of influences on his art up to that time. It is an ambitious composition, a landscape with nudes in an idyllic pastoral setting, pointillistic in its style and symbolist in its content.

In 1905, Matisse completely turned away from his dark palette of 1901-1904 and for the whole year of 1905, as Jean 7 Puy witnessed, he was a thoroughgoing pointillist. The other Fauves at the Independants also revealed a use of the pointillist touch and a freedom to their forms, although they never attained the color sense Matisse did. , an art critic, sensed the arrival of a new aesthetic and he wrote about Matisse, "This young painter . . . assumes, whether or not he wishes to, the position of head of the school; his friends Manguin, Camoin . . . Puy, impressed by 101

his vigor, sometimes give a brutal turn to their senior's Q direct energy." It was perhaps Derain who almost equaled Matisse's color expression and mixing of approaches in The Bridge at Le Pecq, exhibited at the Independents. Derain combined Nabis-like flat areas of color, pointillistic broken color patches in the trees, and Impressionistic strokes in the background, revealing himself as one of the most advanced in what would become known as the Fauve manner. Following the example of Matisse, Manguin, Camoin and Marquet went to Saint-Tropez in the spring of 1905 and worked with Signac and Cross. Derain and Vlaminck, on the other hand, painted together at Chatou that spring and summer; Derain and Matisse worked at Collioure. Matisse's works which had been dominantly in a Neo- Impressionist-based style now employed a mixed technique, combining broken strokes and long bold lines with patches of color. The shows him leaving white areas of canvas unpainted, as Cezanne did, but less for compositional reasons and more for purposes of heightening the luminosity of the color and assuring maintenance of saturation in the arbitrary juxtaposition of color. The result was a complete rejection of volume and space for the achievement of a decor­ ative unity. Derain also became more decorative and surface-emphatic. He favored orange, pink and violet, using a brick-shaped 102 brushstroke. Sometimes he used long outlines and flat areas of color. A partial explanation for this change can be explained by the revelation he gained from Gauguin's work in the collection of Daniel de Montfreid, who lived nearby at Collioure and whom Matisse and Derain went to visit. At the Salon d'Automne of 1905, the Fauves, returning from St. Tropez, Collioure and Chatou, presented their works in room VII, which was to be called the "cage of the beasts." Again that year the Fauves had exhibitions in October at the Berthe Weill gallery and the Prath § Magnier gallery. Othon Friesz now became more attentive to the stylistic characteristics of Fauve color expression; he tried to heighten his palette. In La Foire a. Rouen (Fig. 97), Friesz renounced a traditional illusionistic representation and used an exaggerated perspective with a high viewpoint. This treatment of space and his use of pure colors, red and yellow, seems to derive from Fauve works, such as The Bridge at Le Pecq by Derain, but again curiously it also reminds of Munch, who often used this kind of perspective for expressive pur­ poses. Friesz's use of flat areas of color with strong out­ lines likewise recalls Munch. In La Fete Forain a Rouen (Fig. 98), Friesz is fully within the Fauve idiom. The work was seemingly done about the same time as La Foire a Rouen, but La Foire a. Rouen must have been done first. While La Foire tends to show more flat areas and enclosing lines, this painting reveals a mixed 103 technique, more comparable to those done by Matisse at Collioure. There is an increased use of cadmium yellow and red, and emerald green. The spaces are flattened out and the whole surface manifests the ample rhythm of Friesz's baroque temperament. Yet, the works Friesz exhibited at the Salon d'Automne in 1905 are essentially still Impressionistic as titles of the entrees indicated: L'Arbre (Soleil), La Petite Ville a travers les Arbres (Soleil et Nuages), La Petite Ville a. travers les Arbres (Plein Soleil) and Maisons a travers les Arbres (Soleil). Louis Vauxcelles speaks of them as "one of his landscapes bathed in fluid light." Friesz was very active in 1905. Besides the Salon des Independants and Salon d'Automne, he exhibited at Berthe Weill (May-June), Prath et Magnier (July), SociSte" des Peintres du Paris Moderne and Chaine et Simonnson (November). During the winter of 1905-06, he will make a trip to Antwerp for the first time. Bassin avec Barques de Peche (Fig. 99) is a work which was done during this trip. It is still in his Impressionistic manner, although one notes a greater use of white pigment with its resultant brightening of the canvas.

We have already seen that Dufy was pursuing independent­ ly his own color harmonies, as in Le Yacht Pavoisee au Havre, 1904 (Fig. 92). He was very interested in the use of flat, pure color and subtle color juxtaposition. By 1904, he too was familiar with the Fauves, especially as he was 104 close to Marquet and Van Dongen whose paintings were hanging at Berthe Weill's shop where Dufy exhibited twice in 1904. Dufy was not particularly attracted to Matisse, who was then still painting with a dark palette. It was mainly with Marquet that he maintained a close tie, making trips to Fecamp in 1904 and 1905. Marquet was to become the impor­ tant bridge by which Dufy was to introduce Fauve ideas into his art. But, as yet, Dufy did not take much from Marquet who used pointillist strokes, a kind of stroke that charac­ terized the Fauve1s works of 1905. A definite stylistic change in Dufy's work came early in 1905 when he participated at the Independants. There he saw Luxe, Calmeet Volupte by Matisse and was profoundly impressed by it. He said, "At the sight of this picture, I understood all the new reasons for painting and Impres­ sionist realism lost its charm for me as I contemplated the miracle of the imagination introduced into design and color. I immediately understood the new pictorial mechanics." However, Dufy remained hesitant. One recognizes this in his response to the enquete on August 15, 1905. He said that the influence of Manet, Monet, Sisley, Pissarro and Seurat was so heavy that he could not detect a truly new direction and, he thought, Impressionism was not really 12 finished yet. A confirming statement was made when he was inter­ viewed by Pierre Courthion, he recalled: 105 About 1905-06, I was painting on the beach at Sainte-Adresse. Until then, I had painted beach scenes in the manner of the Impressionists and had reached a point of no return, because I finally understood that if I continued to track nature down in this way, she would lead me on endlessly, into her smallest, most detailed and most insub­ stantial directions, and that I should always remain outside the picture itself. One day, unable to stand it any longer, I went out with a paint box and a simple sheet of paper. I came to some likely subject on the beach, settled down, and considered my tubes and brushes. How could I use these means to express not what I saw, but what is, what exists for me, my reality? This was the whole problem. I began to draw, choosing from the scene before me exactly what suited me. Then, using black mixed with white, I gave each object the relief of its outlines, leaving on each occasion the white of the paper in the centre, which I then proceeded to colour with one single and rather intense color. I only had blue, green and yellow with me. Still, the result surprised me. I immediately understood that I had discovered what I had been looking for. From that day forward, it was impossible for me to return to the fruitless struggles with the elements before my eyes. There was no longer any question of representing the outward forms of such elements. I went back to Paris and continued to paint according to my new convictions. Blot, the dealer who had bought my Impressionist canvases, asked for more of the same kind, but he would have nothing to do with my new style. I sold no more pictures. Once--to get money in order to paint the way I wanted to--I painted a few pictures in my old man­ ner, but my heart was not in it. I couldn't do it. Later, when I went back to Le Havre and looked again at the pictures painted in the new way, I saw the point of them all over again. Having got through this difficult moment, I produced my Fauve pic­ tures. 13 Dufy found that Fauvist expression was essentially the end result of the same direction that he, as yet, was still pursuing. His Neige a. Falaise (Fig. 100) reflects a 106 continuation of the manner of Le Yacht pavoisee au Havre (Fig. 92). Therefore, the painting must have been done during the winter of 1904-1905, before his conversion. Yet Dufy had completely abandoned Impressionism for the whole surface is made up of flattened patches of color, akin to those of the Nabis or Gauguin. A comparison of Apres le Dejeuner (Fig. 101) done by Dufy in 1905 and La Liseuse (Fig. 102) done in 1872 by Monet reveals how Dufy, taking up a motif from the Impressionist Monet, handled the style according to his new mode of expression, large patches of broadly treated shapes and outlines.

Le Paysage de Provence (Fig. 103) must have been done after the Independants, for it reflects lessons learned from Derain and Vlaminck in the use of a bird's-eye view, reced­ ing perspective which rushes back, and especially in the use of brushstrokes to enhance the work with a quick tempo. Dufy is still faithful to nature, but with much more freedom; he infuses it with his subjective response. The use of a Fauvist palette is only evident in the upper part, where the violet and lavender of the mountain combined with an ara­ besque line appears. With The Gymnastes (Fig. 104) and The Railway Wagon (Fig. 105), Dufy definitely becomes Fauve. The pure colors --blue, pink, green and yellow--are used in high saturation. The execution is also free, daring and quickly done. The whiteness of the canvas is fully employed to gain luminosity. 107 The composition of The Gymnastes has a snap-shot quality, making it unlike the careful balance found in most of Dufy's works. The whole surface is laid in rather quickly with sketch-like brushstrokes. The title identifies the figures as gymnasts, but the two figures have musical instruments reminding one of Matisse's thematic concern with music dur­ ing 1906-1908. Despite his conversion to Fauvism, Matisse didn't approve of his being a part of the group. When Dufy wanted to participate in the group show at Berte Weill in October, Matisse refused and said, "Ah! Non.' Ce petit jeune homme qui veut se faufiler parmi nous, nous n'en voulons pas! Mettez- le dans 1'autre salle si vous voulez." Thus Weill arranged a special exhibition for Dufy in another room con­ currently. Now, two of the members, Friesz and Dufy, of the Le Havre group were ready to be Fauves. Their products in the year 1905 were not consistent; some were in the Fauvistic spirit, others were still Impressionistic. One can safely say then that both were aware of the Fauvistic activities and tried to assimilate without firm conviction. Only one member was missing, Georges Braque; it was he who would take his friends fully into the movement. 108 Braque, 1900-1905 Braque had come to Paris in 1900 and settled in an apartment on the rue des Trois-Freres. He supported him­ self by working for a house painter, Laberthe, who once had been an employee of his family. He attended evening courses in painting and drawing under instruction of Quignolot at the Cours Municipal de Batignolles. When he obtained his diploma as a decorative painter, he was able to reduce his military obligation from three years to one, being stationed with the army's 129th regiment at Le Havre from October, 1901, to October of the following year. There he could often visit his home and see his family. Just before his discharge from military service, he sent one portrait to the exhibition of the Societe des Arts du Havre which was held from August 2 to October 5, 1902. It had generally been thought that Braque's first public debut came in 1906 when he submitted paintings at the Salon des Independants until Donald Gordon discovered this infor­ mation and brought it to notice in his Modern Art Exhibi­ tions, 1900-1916. We do not know precisely which portrait was shown, but it was most likely one of the portraits executed during the Le Havre period before 1900. Returning to Paris in the fall of 1902, he decided to devote his time exclusively to painting; he easily won per­ mission from his parents to do this. They not only encour­ aged their son but gave him financial support. His mother 109 said, "If you get fed up with it, you can always come into the business." Braque stayed on the rue Lepic in Montmartre. He would meet Friesz and Dufy at Vernin's bistro at rue Cavalotti. He enrolled at Academie Humbert on the Boulevard Roche- chouart where he associated with (1879-1953) and (1883-1956), although the interaction with these young artists didn't seem to affect his artistic style significantly. In the fall of 1903, he briefly transferred to the Ecole des Beaux-Arts, entering Bonnat's studio with the hope of working with Dufy and Friesz, but after two months of training, he decided to return to the Academie Humbert, staying there until 1904. He visited the Louvre frequently, admiring Poussin and Corot. Such an admiration reveals his taste for the logic and precision of the French tradition. He generally thought of the Italian Renaissance as decadent and said of it: "a period of dispersion and grandiloquences," a mere "mise en scene" of decoration. 17 Despite this dislike of Italian art, he loved Raphael and made copies from his painting. Besides copying Raphael, he copied works by Corot and Van Gogh. Flanner tells us that Braque's copies revealed a process of deformation as he progressed, which discouraged him from copying, especially old masters' paintings.1 8 This, however, does not seem odd for a painter who was trained to 110 decoratively copy textures and materials for walls. He really was making decorative transcriptions. Copying indi­ cated to Braque that he must develop a style of his own, but not by copying paintings in the Louvre. To see the Impressionists' works, he visited the gal­ leries of Vollard and Durand-Ruel. He also saw their paintings at the Musee du Luxembourg, the bequest of Caillebotte. Braque liked Monet, Renoir, Sisley, Pissarro and Van Gogh, but he did not like Degas and Gauguin. His later passion for Cezanne was not evident at this time, although he must have seen paintings by Cezanne at Vollard's and in the Caillebotte collection, which included one land­ scape from the l'Estaque series. In the fall of 1904, after four years in Paris, he quit the Academie Humbert, deciding to become an independent painter and have his own studio on the rue d'Orsel. Flanner portrays Braque at this time as a strongly built young man with a body of a Greek statue, stating that he was the handsomest among his friends.1 9 Braque continued to prac- tice boxing and loved to ride a bicycle. 20 His artistic subjects of this period had changed little since his Le Havre period, as he was still primarily exe­ cuting portraits and seascapes. The Portrait of a Woman (Fig. 106) reveals a stoutly built figure in the foreground and arabesque pattern for decoration on the background. There is a sense of organization and stability as the Ill painting is composed symmetrically with horizontal and vertical axes which cross each other in the center. The treatment of the background makes the painting comparable with the third Portrait of Artist's Mother (Fig. 52) by Friesz done in 1901 and a series of relatable portraits by Van Gogh, Toulouse-Lautrec, and Gauguin (Figs. 53, 54, 55, and 56). Unlike the strong sense of presence in his Portrait of a Woman, a second Portrait of a Woman (Fig. 107), dated as Fumet in 1902, is marked by an insubstantiality. The figure seems to emerge out of the dark green tonality almost like the vaporous female imagery of Eugene Carriere, as in his Portrait of Woman, 1901 (Fig. 108). The family portraits continue in 1904, as in the draw­ ing of Artist's Mother (Fig. 109). Braque shows a full figure sitting in an armchair, which occupies the center of the composition, a device often favored by . However, several stylistic elements indicate that there is a more immediate influence coming from Toulouse-Lautrec. Such a painting as Lautrec's Portrait of M. Paul Leclercq (Fig. 110) offers a good example as the two works resemble each other in the relationship between the figure and the interior background setting, the eye contact with the viewer, and the use of line as a means of defining form as well as shading by means of the thickness and emphatic nature of the lines in the foreground and the weakness of the lines in the 112 background. Interestingly, Toulouse-Lautrec places a canvas behind his male figure, perhaps either as a cue to the person's identity or as a complex spatial device, where­ as Braque includes a maid in the background and by adding this almost caricatural image, he achieves a tension between the two figures in a painting which is otherwise a formal portrait. The Young Breton Girl (Fig. Ill), Summer, 1904, was executed during Braque's stay in Brittany. There are strong affinities with Corot in this half-length figure, her full oval face and lowered eyes; Braque, in working more with the light and dark contrast, achieves solidity for the form. Two early seascapes, Ships Moored at the Quay (Fig. 112) and Ships on the Seine River (Fig. 113), neither dated, reveal nothing innovative in style or structure. In the former, he is particularly dependent on the tradition of Jongkind (The Quay at Orsay, Fig. 114) and in the latter, he generally follows the Impressionist's lead in choice of scene. Braque's works at this stage seem to express no individual stylistic consistency, but they all reveal an interest in tactility and have an underlying solidity of form, with the exception only of Portrait of Woman (Fig. 107). Marina (Fig. 115), dated 1902, is an interesting work for it depicts his fascination with the structural pattern of the boats which have been placed in the middle foreground 113 of the painting. The treatment of the motif again confirms his predilection for emphasizing form and structure. The coarseness of handling to be seen in the brushstrokes carries on a characteristic seen in„h:Ls jearliest portrait, done in Le Havre (Fig. 35), and recalls the treatment found in Boudin's Berck, Maree Basse, 1875-78 (Fig. 116). A color washdrawing, entitled Le Havre (Fig. 117), shows an unusual mixture of pre-Impressionism and Neo- Impressionism--pre-Impressionism in the sense of Jongkind and Boudin and Neo-Impressionism in its Signac brick-like strokes. Descargues notes that Braque, for the first time, uses a dotted line, and points to Braque's familiarity with Signac's book, D'Eugene Delacroix au Ne"o-Impress ionnisme.2 1 The Ship at Le Havre CFig. 118) reveals Braque's con­ tinuing interest in a ship's bone-like structure, masts and poles that we have already seen in Marina. He appears to be responding to the traditions of Monet in Three Fishing Boats, 1885 (Fig. 119), and Van Gogh's Boats at Sainte-Maries, 1888 (Fig. 120). Interestingly, Dufy painted a similar motif in 1903, The Old Harbour of Marseille (Fig. 121), a painting which indicates that he may have been aware of Braque's Marina, executed the year before. However, Dufy's primary concern is with decorative pattern and its repetition, even though the patterns are derived from a fascination with the same forms that Braque is interested in, namely the ships' shape and structure. 114 ft On the other hand., .Braque is now more aware of the effect of light and he juxtaposes sunlit shapes with shaded ones, thus enabling him to simplify his forms. By opening up the composition on the right to reveal a distant view, he achieves a better balance. His technique has also im­ proved. His broad application of color, simplified form and characterization of the fluidity of water and air are well handled, although he is faithful still to local color. In 1905, Braque spent the summer at Honfleur and Le Havre. As a result, his colors became more vibrant, his drawing more assured. La Cote de Grace, Honfleur (Fig. 122) was painted at Honfleur and documents the fact that he was now working in the Impressionistic manner, although the whole effect is closer to Manet or early Monet, than to high Impressionistic style. His colors have become livelier and brighter and an irregular and minute accumulation of strokes similar to Monet's have begun to appear. Neverthe­ less, his sense of form and response to the tangibility of objects keep the house, figures, trees and bench from dis­ solving into an atmosphere of flickering light; they remain tactile. The artistic production of Georges Braque before 1905 cannot be characterized as brilliant; his work, unlike that of Picasso who could paint a stunning figure when he was barely ten years old, is still that of a student. Yet, Braque learned well from the sources available, and persisted 115 without being particularly recognized. The major change in his style came when he confronted the works in the Fauves exhibition, the Salon d'Automne, 1905. It was the Matisses and Derains done at Collioure which opened the way for him. The period between this event in 1905 and the summer of 1906 is a transitional one for Braque; yet, it is important for it is during this time that he absorbs and masters the lessons which caused him to become a Fauve. The lack of extant paintings from this crucial period make real knowl­ edge of his work at this time difficult to achieve. Henry Hope suggests that Braque must have begun to use bright colors in the spring of 1906, during or just after the Salon des Independants' exhibition of 1906.2 2 The seven paintings which he showed at this exhibition, including two still- lifes, four landscapes and one figure painting, however, have all disappeared. Thus, the first real steps Braque made towards a Fauvist style cannot be discussed. Footnotes for Chapter V

Quoted by John Boulton Smith in "Edvard Munch, Euro­ pean and Norwegian," Apollo, 99 (Jan., 1974), 48. 2Ibid. •z Quoted by John Boulton Smith in "Portrait of a friend­ ship, Edvard Munch and Frederick Delius," Apollo, 83 (Jan., 1966), 42. 4Quoted by Gaston Diehl in The Fauves (New York, 1975), 21. Duthuit, The Fauvist Painters, 25. 6Diehl, The Fauves, 120. Quoted by Leymarie in Fauvism, transl. James Emmons (Geneva, 1959), 61. 8Gil Bias (March 23, 1905), quoted by Diehl in The Fauves, 22. 9Gil Bias (Oct. 17, 1905), as quoted by Diehl, The Fauves, 120. Friesz, who was not yet part of the Fauve group who exhibited in room VII, snowed his work in room VI. 10Duthuit, The Fauvist Painters, 26. In 1905, Charles Morice, the art critic, sent a ques­ tionnaire to the number of artists of the de France to investigate the new directions of art of the time. See more about this "Enquete sur les tendances actuelles des arts plastiques," Oppler. Fauvism Reexamined, 35-36. 12 Mercure de France (Aug. 15, 1905), as quoted by Oppler in Fauvism Reexamined, 53. 13Pierre Courthion, Raoul Dufy (Geneva, 1951), 66; translated by Anita Brookner in Jean-Paul Crespelle, The Fauves, 160-161.

116 117 Berthe Weill, Pan! dans l'oeil . . . ou Trente ans dans les coulisses de la peinture contemporaine, 1900-1930 CParis, 1933J, 119. 15Donald E. Gordon, Modern Art Exhibitions, 1900-1906 (Munich, 1974) II, 52. Crespelle, The Fauves, 166. Unlike Dufy and Friesz who depended on scholarships, Braque was secure in his finances and a friend remembered that "He always had a beef­ steak in his stomach and some money in his pocket." Flanner, Men and Monuments, 126. 17 Flanner, Men and Monuments, 127. 18Ibid. 19Ibid., 118. 20 Ibid., 132. Braque was a good boxer and took lessons from a professional English boxer, which enabled him later to beat "heavyweight" Vlaminck and Derain one after the other, as the legend of the Montmartre tells us. 21 Descargues et al., Georges Braque, 82. 22 Hope, Georges Braque, 22. PART THREE

THE FAUVIST YEARS OF THE LE HAVRE GROUP

118 CHAPTER VI

From the Salon des Independants of 1906 to Salon d'Automne of 1906 High­ lighting the Antwerp Experience

The Fauves, now being re-enforced with new members, Friesz, Dufy and Van Dongen, again expressed the full force of their movement at the Salon des Independants in 1906. The mixed techniques of 1905, which reflect the combined influ­ ences of Van Gogh and Seurat, were now replaced by more em­ phasis on flat areas and on arabesque patterns for rhythmic organization--tendencies which anticipated an intensified in­ fluence of Gauguin. Of the entrees, it was Matisse's Joy of Life (Fig. 123) which became the focal point of the exhibition. Joy of Life outraged painters, critics and the public, including Paul Signac who was the vice president of the Salon. Signac, who had complimented Luxe, Calme et Volupte (Fig. 124) the previous year, now wrote to that Matisse "seems to me to have gone to the dogs. Upon a canvas of two and a half meters he has surrounded some strange characters with a line as thick as your thumb. Then he has covered the whole thing with flat well-defined tints, which--however pure-seem disgusting. ... It evokes the worst Ranson, the most detestable 'cloisonnisme'. ..."

119 120 Joy of Life is different from many other Fauvist paintings since Matisse places nude figures in a landscape setting. But what really enraged Signac was that Matisse departed stylistically from the Neo-Impressionistic stroke, turning his concerns to sinuous lines and dense flat areas, thus signaling the beginning of a new decorative, organic style. Matisse also became preoccupied with the Golden Age theme which was foreign to Fauve thematic concerns and 2 further reflected his turning to a new direction. By the end of 1906, Matisse was to be the first to abandon Fauvism and seek a new expression based on a conden­ sation of his previous approach. However, the latecomers to the movement, Dufy, Braque and Friesz, continued to paint in the Fauvist style through 1906 and, although they had learned their Fauvist approaches from the main protagonists of the group, their initial contact with Marquet, a less radical Fauve, became important to Dufy's development. They also assimilated influences from each other as they ex­ changed ideas to produce the brilliant Fauve paintings so important to an understanding of Fauve activities in the year 1906.

Dufy in 1906 Dufy had been pursuing a style that employed arbitrary color in several works during 1905 which are essentially Fauve in spirit. His Fauvism reached its climax during the 121 summer he spent with Marquet in Le Havre, Trouville and Sainte-Adresse, for there he produced his most well-known Fauve paintings. Dufy and Marquet had been friends since they were students at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts in Paris. Marquet, who was a pupil of Gustave Moreau, stayed on with Cormon, who had succeeded Moreau after his death. Already their friendship and knowledge of each other's works is evident in the paintings of Sergeant of the Colonial Regiment (Fig. 125) and Colonial Sergeant (Fig. 126) by Marquet in 1904. In both works, the sitter is depicted in a three- quarter view of the head, with the half-length portrait showing the torso frontally, while the seated full-length figure glances at the viewer. The soldier's dark uniform is set against a light background, while pure yellow and red colors and lines create a play of accents. There is a definite relationship between these portraits and Dufy's Flutist, 1902 (Fig. 127), where Dufy depicts his brother, Gaston, in the military band uniform. Strong similarities are apparent in the use of the uniform, the positioning of the sitter, the hand gestures and the motif of the chair and the rug. The only difference is that Marquet is already using a broad shape of color and broken accents on the rug,' while Dufy uses smaller Impressionistic brushstrokes. Marquet and Dufy made trips together to Fecamp in 1904 and Normandy in 1905. But the trip in 1906 was 122 particularly significant because Dufy, having been con­ verted to Fauvist color, after the revelation of Luxe, Calme et Volupte, was looking for further guidance from Marquet. Marquet had been an original member of the Fauves but was the least advanced. A statement reveals his more somber temperament, "I often began my canvas in a brilliant tonal- 3 ity and, pushing it farther, ended on a gray note." Like Dufy, Marquet liked to paint street and beach scenes, portraying the movement of people in these open surroundings. When they painted side-by-side, confronting the same subject matter, they tended to choose open-air subjects for their compositions, revealing their shared personal predilections which were still essentially Impres­ sionist, although their color structure belongs more fully to Fauvism. We have already seen several paintings by Dufy done at Sainte-Adresse, which had been a favorite site for him since 1901. This time, with Marquet, Dufy painted The Boardwalk of the Casino Marie-Christine at Sainte-Adresse (Fig. 128), a scene which again reveals his attraction to crowds and their movement, which he portrays in the fore­ ground. Dufy uses a mixed technique based on Matisse's 1905 manner, short, broken strokes on the lower part and the flat shapes in the upper part of the canvas. Marquet's Beach at Sainte-Adresse (Fig. 129) has a more rigid 123 construction than Dufy's. Marquet builds this structure on several diagonals which move from the upper left to the right, either upward or downward. For example, the struc- ure of the boardwalk creates an upward moving diagonal, which is echoed in the rows of red-striped tents in the background, while the sunlit area divided by a green line creates another diagonal axis. Interestingly, Marquet had already treated the same motif twice before in 1905, in The Passerelle at Sainte- Adresse (Fig. 130) and The Beach at Sainte-Adresse (Fig. 131). In both he seems to have been indebted to Dufy's works of 1904 (Fig. 88), especially in the use of a hori­ zontal axis, the boardwalk, for the structural strength of the composition. Marquet also sets a passers-by as a small vertical accent against the longer horizontal boardwalk. This is similar to Bonnard's Walk on the Jetty, 1906 (Fig. 132), done a year later than Marquet. We also find a Van Gogh-like sun, which is depicted with several broken strokes. Marquet's stress on a constructional emphasis, making figures and objects up out of several brushstrokes without losing the essentials of the movement, his disloca­ tion of perspective projection and the sense of quietude due to only a few isolated figures in the background--all are elements which Dufy came to know in his work at this time. 124 Dufy's learning from Marquet is evident in his figure types. He observed the movement of the crowds and, in the foreground of his Boardwalk painting, the figures are out­ lined with several strokes. Marquet must also have been his guide for coloration at the beginning of their stay, as Dufy retains the purity of spots of red, green, orange and blue in the painting although he never uses them to gain emotional pitch as other Fauves like Vlaminck or Derain do. His small figures, who sometimes wear round hats, with their light-dark combination of clothes again appear in July 14th celebration scenes. The pure colors of the French tricolor on the street are a perfect motif, providing the pretext for vivid coloration without being detached from natural appearance (Figs. 133 and 134). However, using flags as means to fully exploit pure color was not new with Dufy. He had already painted flags decorating the boats in Le Yacht Pavoisee au Havre (Fig- 92), 1904. Among the Fauves, Manguin treated the theme in The 14th of July at Saint-Tropez, 1905 (Fig. 135). Oppler argues that searching for naturally intense colors in flags, posters, costumes, fruits, flowers and other visual pleasures of reality is essentially the heritage of the Impressionists. In fact, Manet painted Rue Mosnier Decked with Flags (Fig* 136) from his window in 1878 and Monet captured the festivity of the commemoration of the end of Franco-Prussian war, in Rue Montorgueil, Festival of June 30 (Fig. 137) in the same 125 year, 1878. Van Gogh painted fervently The 14th of July (Fig. 138) in 1887 with thick pigmentation almost like an abstract expressionist. Oppler's argument that the subject of a street scene decked with flags is an extension of Impressionism despite the Fauvist use of pure color applica­ tion is quite acceptable as we see examples in The Street Decked with Flags at Le Havre (Fig. 133) by Dufy and The 14th of July at Le Havre (Fig. 139) by Marquet. These works carry on the tradition begun by Manet, Monet and Manguin in their effort to convey a festival atmosphere.

However, two paintings, The Street Decked with Flags (Fig. 134) and The 14th of July at Le Havre (Fig. 140) are different. In The Street Decked with Flags, Dufy is still attentive to visual reality, but the four flags which appear immediately in the foreground, parallel to the picture plane, are deliberately exaggerated in comparison with the small figures on the ground who share the same plane. This action is called Dufy's "epic quality" by Elderfield, as compared to the "merely celebratory" nature of Marquet. The placement of the flags tends to deny the spatial per­ spective which is subtly suggested by the rows of the build­ ing facades on the right-hand side.

Coloristically, Dufy employs a major key of the blue, red and white for the flags and a minor key of pasteled green, white and pink for the facade. He smoothes out the surfaces and clearly defines each, avoiding any atmospheric 126 coloring. Thus The Street Decked with Flags reveals an unusual compactness of shapes and denies the usual Fauvist characteristic of a rough textural quality. Werner notes that the colors result in an unfestive air due to the fact that in this painting Dufy exercised a geometric control over the design. The most peculiar element in the painting is the depiction of the two figures seen through the flags on the lower right side, for it is their forms which set up the suggestion of the fluttering of the flag in the wind. In The 14th of July at Le Havre (Fig. 140), Dufy re­ turned to his tactile emphasis, yet the work has a loose structure and the surface is now covered with various shapes and pure patches of color that effectively flatten the space. Dufy has also adopted Marquet's device of outlining shapes with a dark contour. A comparison with Marquet's The 14th of July at Le Havre (Fig. 141) shows Marquet's color muted and composition restrained. The major color harmony is based on light-yellow, grey and blue, far removed from the Fauvist palette. The juxtaposition of the masses, delicate balance between neutral, black and primary color and the play of light, atmosphere, space and water found here will become the hallmarks of his personal expression. Due to this, he carries on a tradition of the poetic sea­ scape first started in French painting by Claude Lorrain in the seventeenth century. 127 Posters at Trouville by Dufy (Fig- 142) and Marquet (Fig. 143) were again painted side-by-side. Thus, the two paintings have several identical elements: the large posterboard which provides the backdrop for the passers-by; the sequence, color and shapes of the posters, the lettering of the board; the flags; the red-striped tents; and the shadows which are cast in the same direction by the passers- by. Marquet represented fewer people in the middle-ground and each of them is isolated, while Dufy, a painter who responds to a crowd with joy, included more figures and they are bigger in size. Dufy tends to be more attentive to detail, in this case, the lettering.

Both painters juxtapose warm and cool colors, yellow and blue, and the red and blue on the posters. The posters, a symbol of modern life, had already been used by Friesz in his The Pont Neuf (Fig. 63), 1903. A. Werner goes so far as to relate the choice of posters as a motif to Pop artists in America in the 1960s in which bright, multi-colored, commercially painted letters became an important factor in 7 their art. Closer at hand, however, might be Braque's inclusion of words in his Cubist works, something he was the first to do. Dufy is especially successful in transfer­ ring a slice of modern life by means of exploitation of color to convey the vividness he senses in modern life. This idea is later taken over by (1885-1941) who expanded on the contemporary element of modern 128 activities and settings in a series of works, building on the dynamic of both, optically and sequentially. Fernand Leger (1881-1955) was also to adopt the contemporary setting and its activities as a thematic concern, but portrayed them without coloristic vividness, as he was more dominantly intellectual in his embracing of modern life. Posters at Trouville (Fig. 144) by Dufy has a somewhat different composition, and Bernard Dorival dates this after o the above mentioned Posters at Trouville (Fig. 142). Dufy opens the space up more as the figure and the background posters are diminished according to the requisites of per­ spective on the right side of the painting. Dark cast shadows have disappeared, and each figure casts yellow red and green shadows which have the same brilliance as the bright colors found on the billboard. The figures are silhouetted in dark colors, outlined in violet or green, or dressed in white. Elderfield rightly states that while most of the other Fauves pursued of Gauguin's flat colored surfaces in 1906, Dufy sought a landscape of an open, atmospheric kind, moving directly from Impressionism to Fauvism without the intermediary step of a Neo-Impressionistic pointillist phase. While emphatic contour lines, patches of color, and simplification of form characterize Dufy's work during the early summer spent with Marquet, he was to pursue this line 129 further during the rest of the summer. A discussion of several of these later works is necessary to more fully understand his progress during 1906. Sortie de Regates au Havre is dated 1906 (Fig. 145). The subject of boats and ports found so prevalent in 1906 has been one of Dufy's favorites since his early Le Havre period, but at this time it also reflects the influence of Marquet, who loved to paint the same motif. In this painting, there is a complete flattening of the perspective as Dufy schematically divides the composition into three zones--sky, water and ground. This conception of space indicates that Dufy is moving ahead towards true Fauvist spatial rendering, the spirit of which he found in Marquet. Dufy treats the scene with the utmost simplicity. The form and shape of the boats and platform are merely suggested and the edge of the painting is left unpainted, adding a momentary quality to the work. The colors are arbitrary, ranging from blue, green, pink, violet and yellow, and they are subtly juxtaposed. The abstract use of brick­ like patches on the water approaches abstract painting. This painting must have been done at the end of the summer, probably at almost the same time he executed The Basin at Honfleur (Fig. 146) in which he flattened out the perspec­ tive and returned to a very pronounced structuring of color shapes. 130 Another painting from this period is important in that it suggests a possible link with Edvard Munch. The Umbrella (Fig. 147) has three girls with umbrellas standing together in a manner strongly reminiscent of Munch's Girls on a Bridge, 1900 (Fig. 148). This motif had appeared in Munch's work during the 1890s and was repeated at least twelve times until 1930. What exactly this motif means in Munch's art is not clear. Frederick Deknatel contends that the ges­ tures and poses of the girls do not convey any specific meaning, that they should be viewed only as part of the landscape, as accents in a color harmony based on white, red and green in balance with lavender, blue, pink and green. Arne Eggum suggests that the trees and their reflections on the water are analogous to a phallic symbol and that these paintings express in another manner the recurrent theme of "Puberty" found in Munch's art concerning adoles­ cent girls caught up in a reverie of self. These are the two extremes in the interpretation of these works. Whoever is correct, the mood is one of melancholy and mystery.

The actual site can be identified in Munch's painting as he painted on the pier along the dock of Aasagaardstrand in Norway. Although we do not know the specific site at which Dufy painted , he must have painted it, like Munch, at an actual site, as painting imaginary scenes had never been his practice. What is intriguing is that despite the fact that he painted from a different site, he 131 used a composition which calls to mind Munch's layout--the. diagonal of the bridge which carries the viewer's eye from one side of the painting to the middle-ground and turns it to the left horizontally. Dufy has updated his composi­ tional reference to one more contemporary in this instance. Earlier he had painted real scenes but set himself up in relationship to the site in a manner similar to Boudin or Jongkind. Dufy's painting is not pervaded by the melan­ choly found in Munch's. Dufy's is joyful. He uses flags and the umbrellas as colorful patches repeated and echoed all over the canvas, while Munch's moonlight and reflections on the water enhance a mood of mystery.

Dufy could have not seen Munch's painting since it was only exhibited in Berlin in 1902 and was sold to the Russian collector Morozov in 1903. But Munch executed variations of the motif several times between 1902 and 1905; for exam- pie, the drypoint-aquatint version in 1903 (Fig- 149), 12 which Dufy might have known, although such a conclusion is a highly speculative one at this point. It was quite possible for Dufy to see works by Munch which he sent to the Salon des Ind£pendants in 1906. They were shown in room VI with the Fauves.1 3 Again, scholarly research on the connection between the Fauves and Munch is still in a tentative stage and of the literature dealing with this issue of Munch's influence on the Fauves, Michel Hoog is most cognizant. He points out that it is probably due to a chauvinistic 132 attitude on the part of contemporary French critics that such an issue was not taken up. Further, he cites Hyde Park by Derain, 1906 (Fig. 150), as a possible example of Munch's influence, in the use of the woman, frontally posed.

Friesz and Braque at Antwerp, Summer of 1906 Friesz sent several landscapes to the Independants in 1906. They were characterized by Vauxcelles as "broadly treated landscapes of Honfleur and Falaise." When he came back to Le Havre in 1906, he organized a local art association, Cercle de l'Art Moderne, to stimulate local art under the presidency of Jean-Paul Laurens.1 7 In the early summer, Friesz made a trip to Antwerp for the second time, this time with Braque, who had realized what effect pure and bright colors could have for painting when he wit­ nessed the Salon des Independants of the same year. In Antwerp, they produced more than a dozen paintings each of views of Scheldt river (in French, the Escaut river) from the balcony of the pension which they rented. Concurrently Dufy and Marquet were in Normandy creating the most color­ ful of their paintings; they were already Fauves. Braque considered that his first truly creative works were painted at Antwerp. Art historians agree, and have pointed out that this decisive moment for Braque was ini­ tiated and guided by Friesz, who had already joined the 133 Fauvist group. 18 However, examination of Friesz's works done at this time reveals that he was not quite a Fauve at the beginning of this sojourn with Braque in Antwerp, de­ spite his early association with the group. The Port of Antwerp (Fig. 151) by Friesz reflects his preoccupation with the design unity of his canvas, one achieved mainly by means of line and the resultant rhythmic form, with color secondary in importance. The interplay of vertical and horizontal lines is characteristic of his style at this time. The colors are still close in appear­ ance to local color and his reliance on a traditional visual response to nature is still evident. Thus, he is as yet only tentatively a Fauve. The results of a comparison between two paintings, Friesz's The Port of Antwerp (Fig. 152) and Braque's work of the same title (Fig. 153), executed side-by-side, sug­ gests some interesting conclusions not perceived previously by art historians, critics, and connoisseurs. The subject matter of these outdoor landscapes and the artists' direct contact with nature exemplify the tradition of Impression­ ism. Braque's painting is still illusionistic as he es­ tablishes a definite recession from the foreground balcony to the middle-ground sailboat and the architectural back­ ground. Neo-Impressionistic rectangular, block-like yellow strokes had first appeared in a sketch as early as 1903 (Fig. 117), but this time, they may appear as a result of 134 an attempt to assimilate the lessons of the Collioure paintings by Matisse and Derain where pointillist-inspired strokes dominate. In comparison with Friesz, Braque is more Fauve in boldness of color choice and the interrelation between color and line. Friesz's painting is still Impressionistic, more tentatively Fauvist, for he is still trying to capture light. Oppler goes so far as to point out that the mixture of Impressionistic and expressionistic qualities in Friesz's work makes them similar to the harbors and cityscapes which Oskar Kokoschka (1886- ) painted after 1920; she refers to the painting as a "heightened form of Impressionism," "a slice of nature seen by a strongly assertive tempera­ ment." There is a sense of sureness of structure in Braque's version. In comparison, Friesz's work is built on a com­ plexity of color which results in a fluctuating surface, built up of Impressionistic strokes but ones that are freely brushed, more activated, more elongated. This stylistic comparison leads to the conclusion that Braque's painting is more Fauvist while Friesz's more Impressionistic. In other words, Friesz may have been a guide for Braque at the initial period of Braque's being attracted to Fauvism, but Braque's Fauvism does not come from Friesz stylistically as Friesz is not as advanced as Braque in these works done side-by-side in Antwerp. 135 A comparison of Friesz's The Port of Antwerp (Fig. 154) with Braque's The Port of Antwerp (Fig. 155) further con­ firms this. Compositionally, both artists divide their canvases into three different zones: the upper part con­ tains the architectural background, the middle part the water, and the lower part the embankment. Again, Braque is more advanced in arbitrarily applying color, such as violet, light-red and pinkish-purple to gold and yellow-green. Friesz's color scheme is irridescent all over the canvas, with a hesitant application of arbitrary color, a practice which indicates that he is still •"•-eoccupied with the im­ portance of color as Impressionistic light. If he had used arbitrary color the space would have flattened as the sustained intensity of the colors, whether placed on the bottom of the canvas or at the top, could have been main­ tained as in the Braque painting. However, his work is still tied to atmospheric perspective.

Since Braque became fully Fauve in the summer of 1906 and his color is so similar to Dufy's early Fauvist color, it is most likely that it was Dufy who was the primary influence on Braque's Fauvist color harmony. Dufy's The Railway Wagon (Fig. 105) of 1905 reflects a use of pink, white and green for the building and gold, violet and green for the foliage and tree trunk, with occasional accents of red-orange. He loved a subtlety of color transition based on either a dark to light movement or a warm to cool one. 136 In Braque's The Port of Antwerp (Fig. 156), there are colors ranging from pink to light-green and white in a pastel effect, a color harmony which may have been inspired by Dufy. However, Dufy's method of putting the pigment on the canvas is different. He laid one color on top of another, for he first established a large color shape and then added another color to make it either darker or lighter. Braque, however, in The Port of Antwerp (Fig. 155), juxtaposes pig­ ments maintaining a sense of separateness for each stroke placing them directly and decisively with each one carrying a particular color to a particular place. Dufy's practice seems similar to Manet's in the seated male figures in his Luncheon on the Grass (Fig. 78), whereas Braque's practice relates to Manet's practice found in the still-life of the same work by Manet. The second difference between Dufy and Braque lies in the fact that Dufy also uses patches of color or flat shapes, and never brings his linearity into equilibrium with color as Braque does. Even in Dufy's The Port of Le Havre, 1906 (Fig. 157), where line is an important struc­ tural factor, brought in to reinforce the color structure, he is more conscious of the decorativeness of line and more preoccupied with subtle color transitions based on a valu- istic system. 137 It is difficult to pinpoint a definite point of con­ tact between Dufy and Braque either before or during the summer of 1906 when this harmonic color preference might have been transmitted. Braque couldn't have seen the Fauve works produced by Dufy, for he was working in Normandy about the same time Braque was in Antwerp, so that Braque could not have realized that Dufy's style was changing and noticed his Fauve coloring. 20 In Antwerp, Braque's paintings already reveal his strength, gained by achieving equilibrium between the color and line, wherein each retains its integrity and neither is subordinate to the other in any way, yet both are fundamen­ tal to the unity of the work. Braque is also able to construct the structure of his work as well as retain a quality of painterliness. The only other Fauve artist to achieve this equilibrium was Henri Matisse in his Open Window (Fig- 158), shown at the Salon d'Automne in 1905. Braque's response to this work is realized, in his The Window on the Escaut (Fig. 159), executed in Antwerp. Braque chose to depict the river from the open window, a compositional device similar to Matisse's. In both paintings, complex and simple areas are contrasted both inside and outside of the window. Both have a boldness and a certain decisiveness in terms of juxtaposing color and line. Coloristically, Matisse, in contrast to Braque's color scheme, used basically primary colors, red and blue, with 138 green and orange as secondary in Open Window. Or, in another painting shown at the same Salon, Woman with a Hat, Matisse worked primarily with a secondary color structure-- violet, green and gold--using primary colors as a secondary emphasis. It seems that Dufy and Braque responded to Matisse's secondary harmonic color structure in establish­ ing their palette as they moved in Fauvism. Braque must have gotten his color harmonic system both from Dufy and Matisse and brought to it a spirit of equilibrium, derived, again, in part from Matisse, in arranging the relationship of both the primary and secondary colors he used as a basis for the structure of his work.

Another landscape The Escaut at Antwerp (Fig. 160) points to a third influence on his work, besides Dufy and Matisse. The constructional element of his composition and his outlining of the contours of his shapes are very similar to Marquet's practice; even his use of a dark silhouetted figure resembles Marquet. The use of outline, juxtaposi- tioning of shapes, and repetition of pattern and line which is seen in Braque's The Escaut at Antwerp (Fig. 161) also reveal a close analogy to Marquet's Les Toits de Paris (Fig. 162) from the same year. Braque's style during the Antwerp period is varied; in another landscape done at this time, quite a different mood from the previous more classically spirited, architectur­ ally constructed landscapes is revealed. Landscape near 139 Antwerp (private collection, Paris, Fig. 163) depicts a natural, non-architectural, outdoor landscape with a cor- respondingly more painterly organization. 21 The curving and undulating brushstrokes and their zigzag direction create a sense of romantic vigor. This type of open land­ scape, the use of bright and arbitrary colors and the curving line of the configurations is similar to Le Loire a Durtal (Fig* 164) which Dufy executed in 1906. In fact, Dufy, after achieving his brilliant Fauve paintings while painting with Marquet, went to Durtal, outside of Paris, with Braque at the end of the summer; they had been invited 22 there by the painter Alexis Axilette. These two land­ scapes are so close in spirit and execution, and so differ­ ent from the rest of Braque's Antwerp landscapes that one might suspect that Braque executed the painting at Durtal with Dufy if it were not for the title. In Braque's work, space is less flattened out than in the Port of Antwerp (Fig. 156). The color in the distant background fades away as Braque employs aerial perspective. Yet at the top of the painting, in the sky, a plane is established that corresponds to the foreground plane at the bottom of the painting. These two areas are made equal in planar terms by the vigor, size and thickness of the brushstrokes. His color selection has changed little from the pre­ vious works, the basic colors being orange, green and 140 violet. From orange, he either went towards yellow or red-dark brown, from green either to yellow and yellow- green or veronese-green to dark green, and from violet to pink and dark purple. Besides the major key of orange, green and violet and the variations out of them, he also uses a minor key of choral, light blue and gray.

Choral Red Dark Purples. violet Orange <7 Yellow Pink Red/Dark Brown

Minor chord Blue Light Blue-Grey

Veronese Yellow Green Green or Terra Verde

Technically, Braque employs three different kinds of color application. First, he uses strokes of pure and un­ mixed color, a practice which comes ultimately from Dela­ croix. Secondly, he juxtaposes compliments such as red- green or orange-blue; this also comes from Delacroix. This dependence on Delacroix is also especially true in terms of the faceting which he used in both of these technical pro­ cedures. Thirdly, the use of white space between colors is a procedure meant to keep the colors from optically mixing, 141 and therefore more vibrant. Such a practice is typically apparent in Fauvist paintings and will appear in Braque's painting along with another technique used to achieve the same effect--black outlining. Braque uses this latter element only in some cases. Both seem to come from the Signac and Cross watercolor tradition, which was also ex­ ploited by Matisse during 1904-1905.

Period after Antwerp stay to Salon d'Automne 1906 Aside from Antwerp productions, Friesz executed several landscapes at Honfleur this year, La Cote de Grace at Hon- fleur (Fig. 165) which was sent to Salon des Independants in March of 1907, Trees at Honfleur (Fig. 166) and Autumn at Honfleur (Fig. 167). It seems that it was in Honfleur that Friesz became fully a Fauve, using a brilliant red-pink and its compli­ mentary green. The application of the pigment is rapid, creating a very excited texture on the surface. These Hon­ fleur landscapes, in their stylistic characteristics — rapid application of the brush and the use of primary colors--are quite advanced Fauve paintings and depart strikingly from the rather balanced and ordered structure of his Antwerp paintings. Marcel Giry suggests that the trip to Honfleur preceded the trip to Antwerp, thus designating these Honfleur land- scapes as Friesz's first Fauve works. 23 Apparently his 142 argument is not based on the perception of the stylistic advance made by Friesz in the works, but on the fact that Friesz, chronologically, exhibited with the Fauves first in Independants of 1906 and therefore should be considered a Fauve before Braque. Yet, we have seen that his Antwerp paintings are only tentatively Fauve with the brilliant achievement of Fauvism coming in his Honfleur works. Friesz had to have come to Honfleur after his trip to Antwerp, for he builds his mastery on what he observed in Braque's work there. We know that Friesz was joined by Dufy at Falaise, after spending the earlier part of the summer with Marquet.2 4 It seems that Friesz was at Falaise before making a trip to Honfleur and this contact with Dufy in Falaise along with his experience at Antwerp explains Friesz's sudden change in style in Honfleur. At this time, Dufy produced most advanced Fauve paintings, Sortie de Regates au Havre (Fig. 145) and The Basin at Honfleur (Fig. 146), and it is very likely that the two exchanged insights and may even have made a trip to Honfleur together. Back in Paris, Braque painted a series on the Canal St. Martin which was once a favorite motif of Sisley's in the 1870s and 1880s. These cityscapes with their reflec­ tions of architectural elements on the water are definitely Impressionist in subject, but Braque is concerned more with the abstract patterns of colors and shapes than with the 143 picturesque aspect of the city. The Basin at Honfleur (Fig. 146) by Dufy is a good work to compare with Braque's Canal St. Martin (Fig. 168) in terms of using architectural motifs along a river. Elder- field states that the tectonic structure apparent in these works, which is rare among Fauvist works, demands a "revision of the viewpoint that Fauvism held no lesson at all for the Cubism that eventually supplanted it."2 5 This statement is more applicable to Dufy as the facades of the buildings and their reflections on the water are completely flattened out as colored shapes, enhancing the decorative effect on the surface of the canvas. Braque, on the other hand, sets out a diagonal sweep. The diagonal sweep of the road on the left side of the painting is enhanced by the sequence of buildings which are outlined in silhouette in the middle ground. Such a treat­ ment must have come from Marquet, who painted similar motifs and used similar compositions throughout 1905-1906. In Marquet*s works, however, the diagonal element dominates as he usually sets the horizon up high whereas Braque juxtaposes horizontal, vertical and diagonal so that no one movement dominates another. Marquet's linear outlining followed by a broad filling-in of planes of color, as in Fecamp Beach (Fig. 169) and exhibited at the Salon d'Automne of 1906 is of the type drawn upon compositionally by Braque in his St. Martin Canal series. Braque's practice of setting bright 144 colors against a neutral tone is also similar to Marquet's style although Braque tends to use a warmer palette than Marquet's, indicating again that Braque is highly selective and wide-ranging in his sources, synthesizing them into his own personal style.

Braque's pointillism, which is mosaic-like in its touches, is again treated in equilibrium with linear defini­ tion. The treatment of the sky, where the columns of cloud spread upward, is outlined with dots in a manner very sim­ ilar to that of his earlier Landscape near Antwerp. The color choice of gold, orange, yellow, green and blue is also drawn from his Antwerp palette. It is interesting to see that when Braque comes in touch with someone else's style, he does things in a fashion after them, compositionally and/or stylistically, then moves on to a new phase of understanding, a sequence that is going to characterize both his work and that of Picasso during Cubism. He basically grasps a style by means of his own sensibility as he comes in contact with it and organically absorbs it into his own progress, still maintaining his own maturity and self-confidence. He never goes decorative in these works as Dufy and Marquet did and he never really repeats a style making it into a formula the way Dufy and Marquet also did. This seems to have been prevented in his work by the fact that he constantly moved on to a new stage, an evolution that 145 was to draw him to Picasso later, when Picasso was under­ going a similar evolution himself. Footnotes for Chapter VI

Signac's letter of Jan. 14, 1906, to Angrand, a painter of the Neo-Impressionist style. Quoted by Alfred H. Barr, Jr., Matisse: His Art and His Public, 82. 2 Joy of Life is developed from the previous Luxe, Calme et Volupte in terms of dealing with the Golden Age Theme. L'Age d'Or by Derain in 1905 also deals with Symbolist ideas. For a more detailed discussion of this, see Chapter VIII, pp. 169-172. 3Duthuit, The Fauvist Painters, 23. Oppler, The Fauvism Reexamined, 69.

Elderfield, The Wild Beasts: Fauvism and Its Affinities (New York, Toronto, 1976), 78. Werner, Raoul Dufy (English version), 84. 7Ibid., 82. o Bernard Dorival, "Les Affiches a Trouville," Revue des Arts (Sept.-Oct., 1957), 225-228. Dorival points out that the first Posters at Trouville (Fig. 138) was painted side- by-side with Marquet, whose painting (Fig. 139) sets the posterboard parallel to the picture plane and Dufy follows this. Soon, Dufy painted a second version and sought a more advanced composition independently. Q Elderfield, The Wild Beasts: Fauvism and Its Affinities, 130. Deknatel, et al., Edvard Munch (New York and Boston, 1950), 39. 11 Washington, D.C., National Gallery of Art, Exhibition Catalogue (1978-79), Munch: Symbols and Images, 62. 12 Munch depicted five women on the bridge, including his friend, the woman painter Ase Norregard, against the same landscape setting in 1902. Again in 1903, he further devel­ oped the theme and depicted five women in the center of the composition; they are contrasted to dark-silhouetted, smaller- sized men who are turning their backs to the women and look­ ing down the bridge. 146 147 1 *^ Vauxcelles calls room VI the "Salon Carre of the young school," which included Marquet, Manguin, Puy, Via- • minck, Van Dongen and Munch. Quoted in Diehl, The Fauves, 25. Most literature on Munch focuses on the French influ­ ence on Munch during his formative years, the influence of Impressionism and Post-Impressionism. 15Hoog, Fauves: Collection Piere Levy (Paris, 1972), 7. 16Gil Bias, as quoted in Diehl, The Fauves, 120. 17 Braque, Dufy and Friesz were also on the committee of exhibition and painting. It aimed at promoting not only art activities but also music and literature. The members of the Fauves sent their paintings to the exhibition in 1908 for which Guillaume Apollinaire wrote the catalog introduc­ tion. 18 Hope, in Georges Braque, states, "Friesz, who was then twenty-seven, had been employing the bright colors of Fauvism long enough to set Braque a convincing example," 23. Joseph-Emille Miiller said Friesz "was already working in the new manner; it was natural that Braque should be in­ fluenced by him," in Fauvism (New York and Washington, 1967), 131. 19 Oppler, Fauvism Reexamined, 51-52. 20 Hope recognized the similarities between Braque's Antwerp paintings and Dufy's landscapes of 1905-06 "in the tonalities of dark blue, violet, rose and crimson," in his Georges Braque, 25. 21 There is a similar version of the Landscape near Antwerp in the Guggenheim Museum, Justin K. Thannhauser collection. It has the same title, and postdates the Land­ scape near Antwerp in a private collection in Paris, accord­ ing to Vivian Barnett. For a detailed discussion, see The Guggenheim Museum: Justin K. Thannhauser Collection (New York, 1978), 22-24. 22 This trip has only been mentioned by Jacques Lassaigne, Raoul Dufy, 25. Axilette painted figure paint­ ings, landscapes and portraits. He was a student of Gerome, and won the Prix-de-Rome in 1885; he was born in Durtal. 2 ^ Giry, "A Propos d'un tableau d'Othon Friesz au Mus6e d'Art Moderne," Revue du Louvre, 20 (1970), 168-170. The article attempts to correct the misidentification and 148 misdating by the Musee d'Art Moderne of "Trees at Honfleur" as "L'Estaque" from 1905. Giry stated that Friesz did not make a trip to the south of France before 1907 and did not specify why Honfleur landscapes preceded the Antwerp Land­ scapes. This meeting of the two artists at Falaise has not been frequently cited by scholars, but is clearly mentioned as being after Dufy's trip to Normandy during the summer, by B. Dorival, which is an important fact in establishing the contact between Dufy and Friesz, cf. The Twentieth Century Painters, trans. W.J. Strachan, vol. 1 (New York, 1958), 54. 25Elderfield, The Wild Beasts: Fauvism and Its Affini­ ties, 78. CHAPTER VII

From the Salon d'Automne of 1906 to the Salon des Independants of 190 7 and the Culmination of the Fauvist Style

In October, 1906, the Fauves again gathered at the Salon d'Automne which included a retrospective of Paul Gau­ guin's works. The exhibition had 227 items in all. Most members of the group had returned from painting trips. Matisse came from Biskra and Collioure, and presented one figure painting, a landscape and several still-lifes. Derain, who had made a trip to London in the spring and to I'Estaque in the summer, brought back paintings in which the emphasis was on flattened form, emphatic outlining, and an increased use of the combination of blue-green, violet and pink. Each color and line had become an independent unit, creating an overall abstract decorative effect. Vlaminck's entrees in the Salon were a series of land­ scapes from Chatou. His emotionally charged colors, previously applied in pointillistic touches, were now laid on as contour lines and patches, which formed the overall structure of the work. Manguin returned from St. Tropez, and Camoin from Marseilles.

149 .150 Braque did not participate in the Salon, although Friesz sent several of his Antwerp paintings which were reviewed by Vauxcelles: "II elargit sa maniere, et illume sa toile de tons ardents; qu'il conserve ses qualites de dessin nerveux et de constructeur, et nous nous rejouirons de ce nouvel avatar d'un jeune artiste qui cherche, et qui se classera." Dufy's paintings from Normandy, on the other hand, were commented on by Paul Jamot as being lively, al- though Jamot found the posters and banners trivial. Later that year, in October, Dufy had his first one-man show at Berthe Weill's and moved to the Quai Conti near Marquet, however, he soon went beck to Le Havre due to financial difficulties.

By the end of 1906, the decorative exuberance attained by means of broken strokes and patches of pure colors seen collectively in the Fauvists' work began to show signs of disintegration. But there was one unrecognized artist whose most brilliant Fauvist achievement was to come in the several months following the Salon d'Automne. He was Georges Braque. His absence from the show, mistakes on the part of critics concerning his relationships with members of the Fauvist group and these brilliant later accomplishments are all fac­ tors in the misrepresentation and misunderstanding of his creativity as a Fauve, an achievement which stylistically he had already significantly attained prior to the exhibition. 151 After seeing the Salon d'Automne, Braque went to I'Estaque in late October, perhaps on the recommendation of Derain who had just returned from there. Braque rented a room at the Hotel Maurin and stayed there from October until February of the following year. As Impressionist predecessors of the Fauves had heightened their palettes under the influence of the bright sunlight of southern France, so the Fauves had discovered the direct intensity of sunlight. Braque's palette also became liberated from his still limited color range; he began to explore a brighter, more varied range of colors. He said, "For me Fauvism was a momentary adventure in which I became involved because I was young. You see, willynilly, one belongs to one's time. There's no question of originality. I was freed from the studios, only twenty-four, and full of enthusiasm. I moved toward what for me represented novelty and joy, toward Fauvism. It was in the south of France that I first felt truly elated. Just think, I had only recently left the dark, dismal Paris studios where they still painted with pitch! 3 What a joyful revelation I had there!" John Richardson and Jean Leymarie characterize his I'Estaque period as Braque's assimilation of the pointillist technique that had been worked out by his predecessors at 4 St. Tropez and Collioure. However, Braque had already absorbed the lessons of Matisse, Derain and Vlaminck, had synthesized what he had learned from Dufy and Marquet and 152 was now to further develop his Fauvist style towards a succinct brilliance. Braque executed some twenty landscapes, most of them truly Fauvist in the spirit. He no longer depended primar­ ily on a horizontal and vertical compositional structure, a structure which had predominated in his art previously; he now used deliberately swirling diagonals to create an undulating motion, capturing with them the joy of his re­ sponse and reaction. Houses behind Trees (Fig- 170) in the Lehman collec­ tion, reveals his exuberance through color and flattening of space; in spirit it is almost like Matisse's Promenade among the Olive Trees (Fig. 171), to be seen in the same collection. The two works share an almost identical color scheme: red/green, yellow/violet and orange/blue with white set in between each color to give pause and by giving each color area "breathing space" to enhance their intensity. White pigment is more emphatically used in Braque's work, with none of the colors really touching each other, thus the work sparkles. Matisse, who had used white pigment to main­ tain and enhance intensity more often in 1905, had now changed his manner and became attentive to linearity within the context of color structure. Technically, they use both short broken mixed with long more continuous strokes. With these Matisse animates the whole surface, causing it to undulate. In certain ways, 153 however, Braque's surface textures are handled more adven­ turously. The outlines of his trees and houses are dis­ continuous and become the compositional element for filling and emphasizing the two-dimensional surface. Braque's paintings perfectly fit the definition which Matisse gave of his own paintings in his "Notes of Painter," published in La Grande Revue in December, 1908. "The whole arrangement of my picture is expressive. The place occupied by figures or objects, the empty spaces around them, the proportions, everything plays a part. Composition is the art of arrang­ ing in a decorative manner the various elements at the painter's disposal for the expression of his feelings."

In Braque's The Port of l'Estaque (Fig. 172), there is a sense of vigor which matches Vlaminck's harbor painting, Tugboat at Chatou (Fig. 173); the two works are especially similar in the use of cool blue and red, a favorite combi­ nation with Vlaminck, who constructs the painting with a succession of thick, pointillist strokes or, in certain areas, with long lines. Braque, on the other hand, uses this stroke with much more rhythm gained by pauses of white which express luminosity and aid in his attainment of a lyrical quality. In his Landscape at l'Estaque (Fig. 174), there is a recollection of Dufy's palette and Marquet's plasticity. Yet, Braque's painting is richer as the color ranges from crimson, purple, violet, vermilion and pink to gold and 154 orange caught up with lavender-blue, Veronese greens, emerald green and blue-grey. The shapes of the trees and the changing color patterns of the branch are similar to Derain's The Turning Road, I'Estaque (Fig- 175). The germ­ like patterns and color shapes remind us of whose retrospective must have been still vivid in Braque's mind. The thick application of the pigment as well as the two tiny figures seen from the back are from Van Gogh, who often used two passers-by in many of his landscapes. There is also an analogy with Courbet in the enjoyment of the tac­ tile quality of surface texture which, however, is used equivalently with the linear element of the work. This sense of insistence on sculpted construction has been pointed out as Cezannesque by Rosenblum who states that already in 1906, Braque was experimenting with Cezannesque line.

One should remember that it was Cezanne who had first painted landscapes in I'Estaque and although Braque chose to come to I'Estaque because of the low cost of living there, along with the sunlight and the sea, his concern for pic­ torial structure based on form already at this stage points out that he may well have been thinking of Cezanne during his stay in I'Estaque. Two Landscape at I'Estaque paintings (Fig. 176 and Fig. 177), signed and dated 1906, are the first examples to suggest significantly the coming influence of Cezanne on 155 his work, as the tactility of the earth and volume become major concerns. In Landscape at l'Estaque (Fig. 176), the foreground trees, done in green, are handled with hatches almost like those of Cezanne's Mont Sainte-Victoire series. The stretched-out and then upward-moving composition of the mountain and the cubical houses between the mountain and the trees re-enforce the comparability with Cezanne's work. The Landscape at l'Estaque (Fig- 177) in the Salomon collec­ tion lies half-way between Braque's Fauvism and the begin­ nings of his CSzannism, as Braque still retains a mosaic-like Fauvist technique on the leaf in the upper left corner but uses a Cezanne-like cool blue and subtle geometricity in the house and hills. The foreground hill and the tension between the actual distance and the rendering of it on the two-dimensional plane of the canvas reflects the same pic­ torial problem confronted by Cezanne in Bend in Road at Montgeroult, in 1898 CFig. 178).

Braque's increasing attention to tactility and volume continued in Still Life with Pitchers (Fig. 179) which he painted in Paris during the winter of 1906-1907. The down­ ward viewpoint, the motif of a pipe, the positioning of the table and especially the use of small, flat brushstrokes which tend to build up volume and the simplification of the form by accumulating a mosaic-like structure of small planes indicate that Braque is looking directly to Cezanne for inspiration. 156

The Salon des Independants and the Summer of 1907 In the Salon des Independants of 1907, one notes that several figure paintings by Fauves were shown. Although the Fauves painted each other's portraits and there are Fauve paintings of nudes or portraits from before 1905, the Fauves had been best known for their landscapes in which they could put their subjective expression into play most instantan­ eously. Blue Nude by Matisse, painted during his trip to y North Africa in 1906, reveals a new structural discipline in which he achieves three-dimensional volume and space by means of two-dimensional rhythmic line and color patterns. In addition to Blue Nude, Bathers by Derain was also exhib­ ited, which reveals that Derain was moving away from the loose composition and color spontaneity of his 1905-1906 7 works. All three members of the Le Havre group exhibited at the Salon and Vauxcelles, who had now become accustomed to the Fauves, entitled them "M. Matisse, Fauve-in-chief; M. Derain, Fauve-deputy; MM. Othon Friesz and Dufy, fauves- in-attendance; M. Girieud, irresolute, eminent, Italianate fauve ..." Friesz was successful in this Salon des Independants for several of his paintings were sold to Eugene Druet, who then organized a one-man exhibition with thirty-nine works for Friesz at his gallery. Braque, who for the first time exhibited with the Fauvist group, was not mentioned by 157

Vauxcelles. But he had sent six paintings and all of them were sold, five to , the German collector. Braque became confident of his. future as a painter. He said, "Je n'ai jamais eu I'idee de devenir peintre pas plus que de respirer. De ma vie je n'ai pas le souvenir d'un acte volontaire. . . . Cela me plaisait de peindre et je travaillais beaucoup. J'ai expose pour la premiere fois au Salon des Independants en 1906. Quelle belle chose ce Salon! . . . je n'ai rien connu de mieux. Tous ceux qui y exposaient ne pouvaient reellement etre admis a aucun Salon. C'est son succes precisement qui lui a valu sa perte, comme il arrive toujours en toute chose. On commenca a. parler des Independants, tout le monde voulut y exposer et ce fut la fin. . . . Quant a moi je n'ai jamais eu un but en tete. 'Le but est une servitude,' a ecrit Nietsche, je crois, et c'est vrai. C'est tres mauvais quand on s'apercoit qu'on est peintre. ... Si j'ai eu une intention, elle a ete de m'accomplir au jour le jour. En m'accomplissant il se trouve que ce que je fais ressemble a. un tableau. Chemin faisant je continue, voila. . . . Mais puisque'on ne vit jamais en dehors des circonstances, lorsque, en 1907, les dix toiles que j'avais exposees au Salon des Independants eurent ete vendues, je me suis dit que je pouvais ne pas 9 faire autre chose." In 1907, we see that Braque and Friesz were also interested in painting figures. The Seated Nude (Fig. 180) 158 by Braque is interesting as he had not done a'figure paint­ ing as far as we know since 1904. A comparison with Gypsy (Fig. 181), painted by Matisse in 1906, reveals a close stylistic similarity in the use of bright color juxta­ position to build the structure. Matisse is more emphatic and hot as he primarily used heightened color to convey a sense of the passionate, one earthy in its sensuousness as well as attractive at the same time. Braque is more re­ strained, using a warm and cool color combination and there is an equilibrium between line and color. An elegant hand­ ling of the background and in the upper part of the figure is in contrast to the coarseness of the modeling on the back of the figure. In Matisse, we confront a female nude who has a psychological impact on the viewer while Braque expresses a certain detachment. Both Matisse and Braque continue the tradition of Degas' key-hole painting and the courtesan-posing tradition of both Degas and Toulouse- Lautrec.

The arc-shaped line in the background of The Seated Nude is very much reminiscent of Gertrude Stein by Picasso (Fig. 182) also executed in 1906. This seems to be a pure coincidence since there was no artistic communication between the two until the end of 1907. Picasso was at this time virtually unaffected by Fauvism and primarily inter­ ested in form. In the portrait, the colors are monochro- matically rich and he creates a subtle relief which projects 159 toward the viewer. Matisse and Braque respond directly and emotionally to the subject and paint what they feel, where­ as Picasso did not allow his own emotional expressive sense to dominate, creating instead a work which carries the im­ pact of the sitter's own personality. Yet there is a sense of confrontation in the mask-like face, a factor Picasso has in common with Matisse. Portrait of Fernand Fleuret (Fig- 183) by Friesz is unique among his Fauve productions. Matisse or Derain seem primarily to paint a portrait as if it were a vehicle for their expression as revealed through color structure and they search for color construction in the subject, whereas Friesz is concerned with revealing the inner state of the poet who is confronting us but sees beyond us. For a comparable full-length portrait format, one should look at the portrait of Andre Rouveyre (Fig. 184) done by Marquet which has a similar dark silhouette of the figure set against a light background and a certain sense of thinness in the figure. However, Marquet's portrait is gen­ erally closer to Manet in spirit. On the other hand, Friesz's downward angle of the view, the psychological pene­ tration and the pose of the sitter are reminiscent of Degas' portraits. The kind of intensity and the concentration found in Friesz's portrait is rare in other Fauve portraits and finds its analogy in the portraits by Edvard Munch. 160 Friesz's choice of a literary figure as his sitter, the setting up of the sitter so that he has direct eye- contact with the viewer and the high viewpoint suggest similar characteristics found in Munch's portraits such as The Frenchman, Monsieur Archimard, 1901 (Fig- 185). Munch often treated the model against the light background so that the dark clothing of the figure created an elegant silhouette, yet coloristically Friesz is Fauvist as he is in the application of pigment. Munch limited his color range and concerned himself with the mood and the tone of the painting.

Friesz is in full mastery of the application of patches of color. The violet, dark-green and white are spontan­ eously applied, achieving a rich texture. This spontaneity belies the otherwise carefully calculated composition. In May, Braque went to La Ciotat where Friesz soon joined him. The paintings during this period are the last ones done in his Fauve style. The La Ciotat products mani­ fest little that distinguishes them stylistically from the l'Estaque paintings although Braque tends now to use more white, giving them more airiness. He also tends to stress an arabesque line and pattern which creates a heightened decorativeness. 12 Little Bay at La Ciotat (Fig. 186) shows this dom­ inance of white pigment, creating a watercolor-like lumin­ osity. Since there is a greater amount of space between 161 each stroke of color, the white canvas or white pigment which remains in the space between the colors increases the sense of light reflectivity. The brushstrokes are much equalized as, for the most part, the color strokes are the same size all over the canvas. This again increases the luminosity because it makes the effect more optical than tactile. The interspers­ ing of complementary or near complementary colors heightens the visual sparkle. Coloristically, the palette has not been changed much from the l'Estaque period except the tonality has become warmer with yellow and pink dominant. It is the brushstrokes and the broadening of the space be- tween the strokes that differentiates this work from the previous ones. One of the interesting devices Braque employs is the framing of the painting with darker tones, which emphasize the lightness in the water and the sky. Also the darker strokes are more linear, denoting the shorelines and the tree which are confined to the edge of the scene. The pic­ ture, then, is very reminiscent of Matisse's Luxe, Calme et Volupte (Fig. 124) in terms of the strokes and the site itself. The shimmering dots derive from Derain's seascape paintings of 1905 (Fig- 187, View of Collioure) which was, as Braque's work is, a simplification of Matisse's earlier painting. 162 The optical lightness of the painting's center, however, in contrast to the shoreline is painted in solid textured pigment with a blending of pigments over and into one another. The tactility and solidity of the shoreline in the foreground has a sense of weight relatable to Courbet. Little Bay at La Ciotat has its twin in Bord de Mer a. La Ciotat by Friesz (Fig. 188), who must have painted it side-by-side with Braque. The composition is identical except for the small island on the left. In Braque's, there is a sense of structure and orderliness in the midst of a calm, silvery landscape while Friesz's work tends to emphasize the curving lines which float over the surface and do not penetrate into space. Fauve Landscape with Trees (Fig.. 189) is interesting as it assimilates the manner of Matisse's pointillism from his Collioure period. Although there are plenty of sources from which Friesz could assimilate the pointillistic tech­ nique at this time, the format and the surface decorative qualities are strikingly similar to Matisse's Olive Trees, Collioure (Fig. 190). Thus, the painting serves as a good example of how closely Friesz was working under Matisse's influence. Landscape at La Ciotat (Museum of Modern Art, New York, Fig. 191) by Braque points out a return to his Cezannesque interest that he briefly pursued during his first stay at l'Estaque. Thematically, Braque is responding to earth, in 163 terms of mass and color, rather than the optical luminosity of water, sky and space seen in Little Bay at La Ciotat. The patternization of the forms which tend to be round and their undulation may have come from Gauguin whose works had now become an important influence on most of the Fauvist artists. Compositionally, the painting focuses on building height. The hills mount up to the top of the canvas, push­ ing the sky up and back to a high horizon, like landscapes seen in style paintings. Braque's moving in this Ce*zannesque direction becomes much more evident here and will continue to be his preoccupation in the following year. An interesting comparison with Braque's work can be found with Landscape at La Ciotat (Fig. 192) by Friesz from the Pierre Levy collection. 13 Friesz uses bright colors and the trees and hills seem to be rendered in one flaming movement. Cool colors are virtually eliminated and each form has a calligraphic handling like that of writing. The whole surface is covered by spots of color and line work, having nothing in common with the underlying structure of Braque's work. Yet, both are becoming remote from the visual appearance of the nature. Likewise, Friesz's compo­ sition also rises vertically, similar to Braque's, but there is a two-dimensional, curvilinear movement which is as light as flame, whereas Braque is more restrained, solid, 164 yet remains hot as does Friesz. The small landscape at Mus€e national d'Art Moderne called Landscape at La Ciotat (Fig. 193) has always been represented as the example of Friesz's Fauve years and usually dated 1905. The painting, however, expresses unusually simplified form and a brilliance in color which cannot be dated 1905 as Friesz was then still painting in an Impressionistic manner. The extreme freedom in suggest­ ing the form of the mountain and complete negation of the shadow are also characteristic of this period, 1907, as is the diverse use of brushwork, pointillistic or long, and the use of white pigment or bare canvas between warm colors. Marcel Giry was the first to point out the simpli­ fied form and free manner and suggest this dating. Furthermore, one finds a similar treatment of the mountain in Braque's Landscape at La Ciotat (Fig. 194), dating from 1907. The configuration of the form is simplified and curved, the long or pointillistic strokes in pure tone are spontaneously applied in a manner similar to Friesz's, thus suggesting that Friesz's and Braque's works were executed at the same time. By the end of the summer, Friesz realized that his Fauvist period was coming to an end. His works were re­ flective of a personalized vision with new attention to drawing and construction. He noted that "C'est brusquement, a la Ciotat, sur le motif, que je m'apercus qu'un cerne 1$ laque etait ne, inscrivant la colline dans une ligne. J'etais revenu au dessin instintivement, par necessite picturale. J'avais rappris le dessin par moi-m6me, senti le dessin, ce que n'avaient pu m'enseigner ni les maitres ni les antiques. Un art plus grave me ramenait au style, fait de cadence et de rhythme." Footnotes for Chapter VII

Gil Bias (Oct. 5, 1906), as quoted by Oppler, Fauvism Reexamined, 52. 2Gazett e des Beaux-Arts (Dec, 1906), 480, as quoted by Oppler in Fauvism Reexamined, 68-69. 3 Quoted by Gaston Diehl in The Fauves, 132. John Richardson, Georges Braque (London,1959; Milano, 1961; Paris, 1961), 5, and Leymarie, Fauvism, 107. Reprinted in English translation by Herschel B. Chipp in his Theories of Modern Art: A Source Book by Artists and Critics (Berkeley and London, 1968), 132. Robert Rosenblum, Cubism and Twentieth Century Art, (New York, 1961), 32. 7 For a detailed discussion, see Chapter VIII, 172-175. 8Gil Bias (Mar. 20, 1907) as quoted by J. Elderfield, The Wild Beasts: Fauvism and Its Affinities, 110. Pierre Girieud (1875-1940) briefly joined the Fauve movement, and later became active with the German Expressionists. q Dora Vallier, "Braque--La Peinture et Nous," Cahiers d'Art, 29 (Oct., 1954), 14-15. Braque seems to make a mis­ statement as he actually sent six works, instead of ten. There are two versions of The Seated Nude, one in the Harry Lynde Bradley collection and one formerly in the D.H. Kahnweiler collection; the latter is the one discussed in this paper. The Seated Nude in the Bradley collection seems to have been executed earlier, as it uses brick-like strokes on the left side of the figure and the composition is not as rigid or constructed as the one in the Kahnweiler collection in which the arc-shape line is more conspicuous in setting the whole structure. Although Braque was invited to Gertrude Stein's apart­ ment once and saw some Japanese prints owned by Stein, he did not have any close relationship with Gertrude Stein, 166 16 unlike Matisse and Picasso. Gertrude Stein had two paint­ ings by Braque before the first World War, which she traded later. Cf. Flanner, Men and Monuments, 132. 12 Braque must have been quite attached to Little Bay at La Ciotat, for he sold the painting, later regretted doing so and bought it back. Little Bay at La Ciotat, which is now in the collection of the Musee National d'Art Moderne in Paris, was included in the donation made by Braque to the Musge National d'Art Moderne. Braque told Verdet, "C'est une toile contenue qui ne rugit pas. La Violence des couleurs est contenue dans des harmonies precieuses ..." Andre Verdet, Entretiens Notes et Merits sur la Peinture: Braque, Leger, Matisse, Picasso (Paris, 1978), 18. 13 Two other landscapes, La Ciotat in the Kunstmuseum, Berne, and Landscape in the Musee d'Art Moderne de la Ville de Paris are in the same stylistic spirit as Landscape at La Ciotat (Fig. 189) and must have been done at the same time, La Ciotat, 1907. The Musee National d'Art Moderne dates it as 1905 and a recent exhibition catalogue (Le Havre, Musee des Beaux-Arts, E. Othon Friesz, July 7-Aug. 26, 1979), also dates it 1905. Marcel Giry, "A Propos d'un tableau d'Othon Friesz au Musee d'Art Modern," Revue du Louvre, 20 (1970), 170. 16Fels, Propos d'Artists, 69-70. PART FOUR

THE BEGINNING OF CEZANNISM AND CUBISM

168 CHAPTER VIII

Cezanne's Influence on Braque, Dufy and Friesz, and the Formation of Cubistic Vocabulary

The disintegration of the Fauvist style became evident about 190 7 when Fauvism as a movement had begun to gain recognition from the public. However, signs that artists were moving away from a preoccupation with brilliant color and spontaneity of composition were already visible as early as 1906 in Matisse's Joy of Life (Fig. 123). Joy of Life contradicts Fauvism in many ways and a discussion of the disintegration of Fauvism must start with this work. It is an imaginary subject with variously posed female nudes in a landscape. With it, Matisse renews his interest in the subject of the bathers, a theme whose most immediate origins were to be found in Cezanne's bathers, and a theme which was then taken up after Matisse by Derain and Friesz first, followed by Picasso, Braque and Vlaminck. This thematic choice denotes an arbitrary decision on the part of artists to construct paintings with figures; it is essen­ tially an act different from one having direct contact with nature and which resulted in the fairly loose compositions based on subjective emotions that characterized Fauvism.

169 170 Joy of Life was not the first bather painting by Matisse, for the painting finds its precedent in Luxe, Calme et Volupte, 1904-05 (Fig. 124). The title Luxe, Calme et Volupte is taken from Charles Baudelaire's poem L'Invitation au Voyage, an imaginary land where light, calm and voluptuousness characterize the order and beauty of life. Joy of Life is an extension of this sense of idyllic innocence built on the principle of enjoyment and pleasure to that of an idea. Luxe, Calme et Volupte is set in a landscape which reflects a sense of outdoor light and the surroundings are very much based on those seen in the By the Sea (Golfe de Saint-Tropez), 1904 (Fig. 195), done at Saint- Tropez where Matisse was working. Joy of Life, on the other hand, was begun during the summer of 1905 at Collioure and several studies for it were executed during this stay. In the final painting, the sense of intense luminosity found in Luxe, Calme et Volupte is lacking; also, its calculated composition denies the spontaneity of the earlier work's Fauve style for shimmering colorstrokes are replaced by a dominant linearity. Further, a distortion of the figures' contour lines is undertaken for the sake of a unity which is not color-based. This intention to re-adjust or manipulate sinuous contour lines plays a significant role in the new direction Matisse's art is to take.

The work is just as complex as compositional layout. In putting the dancing figures in the background, Matisse 171 uses an effect reminiscent of Manet's placement of the wading figure behind those in the foreground of his Luncheon on the Grass, 1863. This, together with the enclosing com­ position, enhances the sense of contrivance and timelessness which characterizes the tradition of the Age of Gold theme. Thus, the work's artistic references are as conscious, con­ trived, and complex as the composition.

Matisse was familiar with the long tradition of the Golden Age theme as found in Giorgione's Fete Champetre, 1505-1510, 's Bacchanal of the Andrians, 1518-1519, and Poussin's Et in Arcadia Ego, 1630 and 1655. John Elder- field suggests that Luxe, Calme et Volupte looks to the Embarkation from the Island of Cythera by , 1717, possibly because of the shimmering colors and a cer­ tain contemporary connotation whereas Joy of Life is closer to Ingres* Age of Gold, 1862, where an eternal Arcadian mood is dominant. There were more contemporary artists than Ingres who longed for the Golden Age as seen in Pierre Puvis de Chavannes' (1824-1898) Pleasant Land of 1882 and Maurice Denis' Danse d'Alceste (Paysage de Tivoli), 1904. Signac attempted the subject in Au Temps d'Harmonie, 1893-1895, with Symbolist overtones, and Gauguin, who claimed to be a savage in comparison to the Academic Puvis de Chavannes, sought in the primitive an idyllic state. It was Gauguin who influenced Matisse thematically as well as stylistically 172 in the decorative aspect of Joy of Life, a work which essentially follows Gauguin's manner. Of Matisse's contemporaries, Derain treated the Golden Age theme (Fig. 196), being inspired by the Gauguins which he saw in the Daniel de Montfreid collection in Collioure in 1905. As well, Derain's work, with its pointillist technique, was certainly not unaffected by Matisse's Luxe, Calme et Volupte. On the other hand, Matisse's Joy of Life, in its turn, assimilated some elements from Derain, partic­ ularly the dancing figures in the background. These traditions and influences, however, are primar­ ily thematic concerns, and an investigation of the purely stylistic aspects of this renewed interest in figure paint­ ing must start with two large paintings which were shown at the Independants in 1907: Blue Nude by Matisse (Fig- 197) and Bathers (Fig- 198) by Derain. These two works seem to be, no doubt, pieces done in competition with each other. Both paintings shocked the critics who were not prepared for these monumental images of bathers. Louis Vauxcelles commented on Matisse's Blue Nude as "Une femme nue, laide, etendue dans l'herbe d'un bleu opaque, sous des palmiers . . ., . . .le dessin ici m'apparait rudimentaire et le coloris cruel; le bras droit de la nymphe hommasse est plat et pesant: le hauchement de corps deforme determine une arabesque du feuillage a moins que ce ne soit 1'incurvation du feuillage qui motive la 173 courbe de la femme." As for the Bathers, Vauxcelles said, "Les simplifications barbares de M. Derain ne me heurtent pas moins; des marbrures Cezanniennes verdoient sur les torses des baigneurs enfonces dans une eau terriblement 4 indigo." Both paintings have similarities in the limitation of colors to basically blue and ochre tones and the use of thick contour lines. Both create a primitive image which seems to come from their discovery of and interest in prim­ itive sculpture at this time. Matisse and Derain are among the first of the young artists to appreciate the formal qualities and the emotional connotations of African sculp­ ture; they began to collect it. Matisse's work, although he was enthusiastic for such sculpture, reveals its influ­ ence less explicitly than Derain's, who in fact played a significant role in introducing to his artistic circle. However, Matisse was working with ceramics and sculpture under the influence of primitive sculpture and Cezannism, but in a more personal way by investigating volumes and rhythmic arabesques. Derain's interest in primitive sculpture and assimilating its lessons into his work is shown in his sculpture of 1907, Standing Nude (Fig. 199) and we find its source in Crouching Man, one of the items in his African collection.

Stylistically, Matisse and Derain approach the figure very differently. Matisse is mainly concerned with 174 rhythmic patterns of line which are two-dimensional and yet in their activity assert the volume of the figure and its space which is three-dimensional. Derain, on the other hand, more singularly examines the human body and its struc­ ture. In so doing, he tends to be geometric in planar structure and the contour lines are simplified and angular which is, stylistically, the same direction that Cubism will take. By his introduction of geometricity into the basic structural parts of the body, he is considered by John Gold- 7 ing to be the forerunner of Cubism. In fact, in 1913, Guillaume Apollinaire claimed in the German publication, Per Sturm, February, 1913, that the Cubism of Picasso was born of a movement originating with Andre Derain. He fur­ ther stated in his Les Peintres Cubistes of the same year that this aesthetic was first formulated in the mind of Andre Derain. 8 Both Blue Nude and Bathers express a great debt to Cezanne in the monumental construction of their figurative compositions. Cezanne was known by Fauve artists even before the twentieth century. Matisse selected one of Cezanne's Bathers over the Arlesienne by Van Gogh at Vollard's sale 9 in 1899. He made numerous studies of male nudes during 1901-1904, again reflecting his interest in Cezanne's bathers. Derain was interested in Cezanne as early as 1901, for he wrote to Vlaminck of the importance of Cezanne. His Still Life from 1904 reveals Cezannesque qualities in a 175 superficial way. But Matisse and Derain didn't immediately pursue Cezanne further, as they soon became involved with the glorification of bright colors and spontaneity found in their Fauve paintings. Among the other Fauves, Camoin kept contact with the Master of Aix and visited him in Provence, in 1901 and 1904. There had been Cezanne's paintings at the Salon des IndS- pendants since 1904 and Vauxcelles reviewed them stating, "The influence of Cezanne is on the wane," for "certain earlier Salons, in particular those of 1904 and 1905, could have borne as a banner . . . 'hommage to Cezanne'." The apotheosis of Cezanne came, after the showing of Blue Nude and Bathers, in 1907 at the Salon d'Automne where fifty-six of Cezanne's paintings were exhibited and at Bern- heim-Jeune's where seventy-nine watercolors were shown in June. The popularization of Cezanne was enhanced in October when a letter of Cezanne's was published in the Mercure de France; in it appeared the famous passage, "treat nature by the cylinder, the sphere, the cone, everything in proper perspective so that each side of an object or a plane is directed towards a central point. Lines parallel to the horizon give breadth, . . . Lines perpendicular to this horizon give depth. But nature for us men is more depth than surface. ..." After seeing Matisse's and Derain's Cezanne-inspired bathers at the Independants in the spring of 1907, Friesz 176

attempted to deal with the same subject. He was in La Ciotat in the summer of 1907, and while he was producing his last series of Fauve landscapes there, he painted Bathers at La Ciotat (Fig. 200), the work which signaled his break with Fauve painting. It is an ambitious composi- tion with five female bathers in a landscape setting. 12 The colors are limited with delicate contrasts of . Oppler notes an overpainting and scraped patches on the upper center of the canvas and suspects that Friesz took pains in filling this space. 13 He used the linear element with the utmost precision and smoothness in order to achieve a unity and purity, thus the impression of the painting is that of elegance, sensuous as well as natural. As stated before, there were several immediate sources which apparently influenced Friesz in this work: Matisse, Derain and Cezanne. Friesz, since late 1905, had had a studio in Rue Sevres at the secularized Couvent des Oiseaux. Matisse also had a studio there and had been working on Joy of Life since the winter of 1905-1906. Friesz certainly must have watched the progress of this work before its pub­ lic display. One should also keep in mind that while Friesz was at La Ciotat, Derain was nearby in Cassis, where Friesz visited. He recalled, "De conversations tres precises echang£es sur nos travaux naissaient des concepts nou- veaux." Derain, who had already produced a series of 177 bathers under the influence of Gauguinesque primitivism, might have been an inspiration for Friesz to take up the theme of bathers. But the foremost influence came directly from Cezanne. The triangular composition with the right figure reaching her hand up and inward is especially reminiscent of Cezan- nesque structure (Fig. 201). However, Friesz didn't really understand how Cezanne achieved volume and structure in the relationship between figure and landscape setting, or at least did not try to emulate Cezanne's achievement. In Friesz's work, the figures are set almost in the same plane in a shallow depth. There is another painting of the same subject, Creek at La Ciotat (Fig. 202) which Giry dates before Bathers at La Ciotat, thus suggesting it as the first step of a bathers series by Friesz. Here the landscape motif is more im­ portant than in the Bathers at La Ciotat for the small figures are literally bathing or entering into the water. A similar motif was used by Munch in Girl Bathing, 1892 (Fig. 203), and Derain in Bathers, 1906 (Fig. 204), although no concrete connection between these can be documented. When Friesz had his first one-man show in October of 1907, Fernand Fleuret wrote the introduction to the cata­ logue in which he notes the changes. He said, "Le desir d'un art plus grave devait mener M. Othon Friesz a la recherche d'un style fait de cadence et de rhythm, du souci 178 de la forme dominante et synthetique," and "C'est a. ce moment que 1'artiste subit Cezanne, ou mieux qu'il est amene" par des travaux preparatoires a des combinaisons analogues." Braque's tendency to construct has already been noted. It has been felt since 1906, but became stronger at La Ciotat, where he was with Friesz during the month of May 17 after seeing the Independants. As has already been dis­ cussed (Chapter VII), the strong indication of Cezannesque influence appeared in Landscape at La Ciotat (Fig. 191) in which Braque uses a Cezannesque constructive stroke. The yellow earth, green foliage, and configuration of the mountain at the top done in blue outline, particularly along with the spreading of the composition upward, reveal an increasing concern for mass and structure and the com­ bined effect of height and depth, all tendencies which Cezanne's example encourages. Retrospectively, the work demonstrates that Braque is about to move away from Fauvism at the end of the summer in 1907. 18 In September, Braque and Friesz went to L'Estaque, staying until October before coming back to Paris for the Salon d'Automne. Their visit this time must have been motivated by a growing interest in Cezanne, who spent his last years in this area. Braque painted a few landscapes there, most of them having been finished back in Paris. View of Hotel Mistral (Fig. 205) is the most frequently 179 cited work from this period. The influence of Cezanne, from such an example as Pines and Rocks, 1904 (Fig. 206), is unmistakable in the color choices based on blue, green and ochre harmonies. Braque has now eliminated short brushstrokes as a means of building forms and has begun to carefully outline the form, in a manner similar to what Derain was doing in his Cassis landscapes (Mountain Road, Cassis, 1907, Fig. 207). Compositionally Braque ties the bottom and the top of the work together by connecting the foreground wall and screen of trees, flattening space into a very narrow relief. Behind the screen more round and curved foliage patterns lock into the foreground screen as the 'lines of the foliage actually touch the foreground architecture. The foliage actually surrounds as well as overlaps the trees and houses in the center which form a volumetric hole creating a ten­ sion between it and the flatness of its surroundings. This tension is further enhanced by the brown color of the wall in the foreground and the tree trunk and building in the background, which causes them to press visually forward. There is still a Fauve element in the highly decorative patternization of the foliage. Yet, on the whole, the painting more fully anticipates Cubism in the angular treatment and shifting planes seen in the upper left. The painterliness in the sky with colors laid over one another roughly and semi-transparently will become more pronounced 180

in later paintings, those of l'Estaque in 1908 where such . handling is used as a means to create volume. The Terrace of Hotel Mistral (Fig- 208) by Friesz is a good comparison piece. Friesz's work doesn't have the pronounced clarity in horizontal, vertical or angular placement of motifs that Braque's work does. The outlines of the tree shapes and the houses are simplified to an organic roundness, following the pattern treatment found in his earlier La Ciotat landscape. The Bridge in the Landscape, 1907 (Fig. 209), finds Braque more fully employing devices found in Cezanne's paintings done at Aix, for example Chateau Noir, 1904 (Fig. 210), in which the trees on either side act as an enframe- ment of the picture's spatial and volumetric center while both leading the viewer's eye into the distance and out away from it to the side peripheries of the canvas. Braque is responding to Cezanne's work and tends to create an illu­ sion of depth moving back from the foreground plane rather than in addition visually building forward of it as he will do in later Cubist works, but which Cezanne does not do. One of the most significant changes in Braque's prac­ tice is that these landscapes were finished in Paris and not in the presence of the motif. This dismissal of direct visual reference is a step toward a more and marks his decisive break with Fauvist works which were de­ pendent on actual data. Braque said, "Mon education 181 naturellement avait ete faite 'avec modele'. J'avais appr.is a peindre d'apres nature et lorsque je fus persuade qu'il fallait se liberer du modele, ce ne fut pas du tout facile . . . Mais je m'y suis mis, et le detachement s'est fait par des poussees intuitives qui me separaient de plus en plus du modele. A des moments comme ca on ob£it a un im- peratif presque inconscient, on ne sait pas ce que cela peut donner. C'est l'aventure. La conscience n'intervient pas. Et puis il y avait aussi a combattre 1'habitude au modele--ce qui rendait le detachement encore plus difficile-- et puisque 1'habitude commande la pensee, il fallait a tout prix que je m'en detache."

Landscape with Houses (Fig. 211) is from the same series as The Bridge in the Landscape but less panoramic in view. William Rubin points to this work as indicating the most significant progress Braque had made at l'Estaque since his paintings first indicated his use of Cezanne- inspired treatments (passage), and states that this work should be considered proto-Cubist, without influence from Picasso. 20 The forms are greatly simplified and geometri- cized by eliminating detail, the sky has become almost as abstract in treatment as the trees and the colors are in a blue and ochre tonal harmony. When Braque returned to Paris in September, he sold a group of paintings, including The Terrace of Hotel Mistral and The Bridge in the Landscape to D. H. Kahnweiler who was 182 to become an important.apologist of the Cubist movement. Kahnweiler was responsible for introducting Braque to Guillaume Apollinaire (1880-1918), who then brought Braque to Picasso's studio at the end of 1907, when Picasso was working on Les Demoiselles d'Avignon (Fig. 212). Braque was reportedly bewildered by this figure piece2 1 and started to work on a series of nudes in order to assimilate it and continue his own insights which he had gained working on the l'Estaque landscapes. Pablo Ruiz Picasso (1881-1973) was born in 1881 at Malaga, Spain, six months before Braque's birth. He came to Paris in 1900 and after staying for three years he traveled back and forth between Barcelona and Paris until he settled more permanently in Paris in 1904, living on the Rue Ravignan, Montmartre, in a wooden house usually called the Bateau Lavoir. Unlike Matisse, he did not exhibit pub­ licly and associated with other Spanish artists and French literary figures such as Guillaume Apollinaire, Andre Salmon, etc. Picasso was familiar with the activities of the Fauves, when he began working on Les Demoiselles d'Avignon (Fig. 212) during the winter of 1906. His choice of subject matter must have been motivated out of a desire to rival Matisse's Joy of Life and Blue Nude, and Derain's Bathers. Like Matisse and Derain, he was much drawn to Cezanne's female bathers. The distortion of human anatomy, tilted planes, shallow depth, centralized composition and 183 its grouping reflect a formal influence of Cezanne. How­ ever, Les Demoiselles d'Avignon reveals other diverse sources drawn from the long tradition of Western as well as Greek, Egyptian and Iberian art. The most immediately shocking element is the inclusion of two primitive images on the right side, which reveal the influence of African sculpture. The dislocation of western perspective as the postures of the figures reveal and the use of diagonal hatching in order to establish the volumes in the faces of the African figures suggest that Les Demoiselles d'Avignon is a summation of Picasso's previous experiments as well as a fundamental point of departure for his future paintings and the direction of twentieth century painting.

Braque's Grand Nu (Fig. 213), sometimes called the Bather,22 dates from the winter of 1907 to June of 190823 and has been considered by commentators as Braque's reaction to Picasso's Les Demoiselles d'Avignon. Golding states that the large canvas, the scale and distortion within the figure, the limited color choice and the treatment of the background in large angular planes reflect Braque's indebtedness to Picasso. Leymarie also adopts the Picasso indebtedness point-of-view pointing out the color hatching, projecting angular planes and figural distortion caused by multiple viewpoints. 25 Cooper states that "Braque's indebtedness to Picasso is explicit, notably in the mask-like face, in the color scheme of pink, blue and ochre and in the faceted 184

7 ft handling of background." However, recently there have been attempts at a fresh interpretation, notably by William Rubin, who holds the view that Les Demoiselles d'Avignon accelerated what Braque had already been pursuing along lines suggested by Cezanne rather than really beginning an entirely new direction. 27 Rubin disagrees with Golding and Cooper, saying that the choice of a blue, red, and ochre color harmony and the use of black outlines are different from that of Demoiselles and are already to be seen in Braque's View of Hotel Mistral (Fig. 205) which was executed prior to Braque's meeting with Picasso. 28 Rubin further suggests that both Picasso and Cezanne influence Braque's Grand Nu, arguing that his turn­ ing to figure painting is certainly a result of his reac- tion to Picasso 29 whereas the passage of the planes and the faceted brushstroke come out of Cezanne. 30 Rubin thus agrees with Cooper's contention of the Cezanne connection "in the accented rhythm of the curving outline and broad parallel brush strokes which create the modeling." 31 This corresponds to Rubin's belief that Grand Nu was completed in l'Estaque during the summer of 1908, after Braque had been working on landscapes in the Cezannesque idiom and could now turn his knowledge to figural painting. 32 The relevance of Matisse's Blue Nude for Braque has also gen­ erally been agreed upon by scholars. Oppler, Rubin and Cooper see this in terms of the sweeping, curving outline, 185 the schematic figuration and the blue modeling. 33 It seems that Braque's Grand Nu, like so many of his earlier works, reflects compound influences, in this in­ stance those of Cezanne, Picasso and Matisse, although one must acknowledge that the treatment of the figure in re­ lationship with the background drapery must be most direct­ ly credited to Picasso. The positioning and proportions of the figure's body curiously resemble oriental prints and works based on them as for example The Actor by Van Gogh, 1887 (Fig- 214). Likewise, the nude appears to be Japanese in body and facial type. This factor has never been com­ mented upon by scholars. On the whole, the work seems a conflation not yet synthesized. It is, in my view, not a successful work, as it has an awkwardness which is not characteristic of Braque's work. Yet, the historical im­ portance of this work should not be overlooked or subordi­ nated to Picasso's achievement, as it is, along with Braque's landscapes, equally a starting point for the stylistic progress of Cubism with its materialization of space and construction of form in reference to the two- dimensional surface of the work of art. Stylistically, Grand Nu presents an interesting insight into Braque's painting procedure, a procedure which scholars have not taken into consideration, and yet it is a procedure which is absolutely relevant to the composition of his later works. It appears that the linear positions of the figure 186 were sketched in first on the blank canvas, the flesh-toned areas blocked in, and then segments of greenish paint. Finally, the relationship between the flesh-toned and green areas were redefined, the artist working on the contours and adjusting relationships. The figure serves as the core of the work and the dark cool green color is used to set it off. There is a painter­ ly hatching procedure which provokes a sculpturesque char­ acter to the figure. The volumetric treatment of the green area seems to develop after he worked on the figure and reflects this later involvement a volumetric sensation. It is then that the black lines come into play both in the figural and in the green drapery and shadow areas. These function to separate figure from drapery but also to relate one to the other, and make the sculpturesque quality of the figure more emphatic, the drapery less so, and the ground even less so in sequence. By this means, the darker red peripheral area is brought into play. This area began to be articulated by modulating the tonality so as to imply a volumetric sensation. A few black lines give a greater sense of volume on the right-hand side, but this area is even more diffused and ambiguous than the green-shadowed drapery-area around the figure. The red moves away from the green, whereas the green wraps around the figure and expands out from the figure, reasserting, compositionally, that the figure, the most sculpturesque aspect of work, is the 187 painting's focal and dynamic core. Braque then works out to the outer periphery of the canvas and by touches back to the nude. This process of working out and back to re- exert the solidity of the core is a very classical manner of working, and is different from Picasso's more painterly means of composing Les Demoiselles d'Avignon; we shall see it again and again in Braque's Cubist paintings. The final result is that there is a strong linear basis to his initial definition of the figure, then a building to a sculpturesque definition with the addition of green a more painterly means is introduced, and then an even more painterly one in the treatment of the red ground. This insight is gained by examining the overlays of pigment on the canvas. The sculpturesque form of the figure is studied as being multiply lit, one light sequence coming from the upper right down the right arm and cheek, the second light sequence moving at a counter angle from the back, lighting the back of the figure and the left buttocks, with the lower part of the figure treated in a third manner. As there are three ways of working with the figure and ground--figure, drapery and ground--so there are three ways of handling the light patterns on the figure. In terms of linear configuration he creates a large, massive drawing and his paint application is rough with a brutal positioning of the form, yet there are some passages, 188 such as the lower shoulder and the leg, where the applica­ tion of paint is treated very decoratively. A third manner of paint application is that of a Cezannesque modulation. A discussion of Grand Nu would not be complete without mentioning relatable nudes which were executed at this time. When the American author-painter visited Braque in the autumn or winter of 1908, he stated, after climbing up many stairs at Rue d'Orsel, that he saw "the monster on his easel, a female with a balloon-shaped stomach," obviously the Grand Nu. 35 Braque gave a sketch to Burgess, for the painting entitled Woman at the Salon des Independants (Fig. 215). Since the entries in the catalogue of the Independants list only four works (Calanque, Le Vallon, Dessin and Paysage) by Braque, Burgess' testimony leads one to suspect that the Grand Nu was in fact exhibited at the Salon des Independants but was omitted from or sub- mitted too late for inclusion in the catalogue. Further­ more, anonymous critics refer to the "Nudities" of Braque at the Salon and Apollinaire refers to a large "tableau" by Braque. 37 Thus, it is probably safe to assume, along with Fry, that the Grand Nu was exhibited. Further, Braque ex­ plained the drawing with three figures to Burgess, "To portray every physical aspect of such a subject, he [Braque] said, required three figures, much as the representation of a house requires a plan, an elevation and a section." 38 And Braque continued, "I couldn't portray a woman in all her 189 natural loveliness ... I haven't the skill. No one has. I must, therefore, create a new sort of beauty, the beauty that appears to me in terms of volume, of line, of mass, or weight, and through that beauty interpret my subjective impression. Nature is a mere pretext for a decorative composition, plus sentiment. It suggests emotion, and I translate that emoition into art. I want to expose the Absolute, and not merely the factitious woman." 39 Fry argues that the drawing was Braque's first reaction to Picasso's Les Demoiselles d'Avignon and the central and right figures came from Picasso's painting. Thus, Fry dates the drawing as having been done during the late Fall of 1907, before Braque's attempts to paint Grand Nu. 40 Douglas Cooper agrees that Grand Nu was derived from the drawing, especially the left figure who has a posture similar to the Grand Nu. 41 Besides the drawing, we have one etching of a Standing Nude (Fig. 216) which is dated 1908 by Jean Vallery-Radot, Hoffmann and Mullins, but dated 1907 in the Maeght catalogue of Braque's prints.4 2 Rubin believes the Standing Nude is an immediate reaction to Picasso's painting and therefore marks his return to the figure and is thus the first work in a series of figural works. As for the etching's relationship to the drawing, he states that it is "more likely associated with work done on the Nude [Grand Nu] during February and March, if not later." In his 190 footnotes, he goes on to say that due to "the confused pose of Nude [Grand Nu] as compared with the logic of the related figure in Three Nudes, one is tempted to conclude that the drawing postdates the painting. This would be even more likely if, as was suggested above, the original conception of the large Nude [Grand Nu] was that of a prone figure. In that case, Three Nudes might relate not to the Demoiselles, but to another Picasso whjch was being elab­ orated in the spring of 1908, namely the Three Women in

Leningrad, the first version of which Picasso probably com- pleted in early summer." 45 Rubin seems to be correct in regarding the Standing Nude as a study done after seeing Demoiselles since there are affinities in the figure's long and angular limbs and the figure's silhouette to Picasso's work. This is espe­ cially true in the sharp linearity of the breasts and the interior division of the body as well. However, I cannot agree with Rubins' dating of the multi-figural composition Three Nudes after Grand Nu. In his reasons, he said, "Three Nudes is more confidently and naturally executed than the oil painting with greater clarity and consistency in the planar structure of light and dark patterning." Nevertheless, Grand Nu is more advanced in faceting and use of the multi-viewpoint, essential char­ acteristics of Cubism. The drawing is a more eclectic work as it shows direct quotations from Demoiselles in its central 191 figure and from Bathers by Derain in its right figure, whereas the Grand Nu is a more complex and independent search by Braque for a means to attain the new kind of beauty he remarked on to Burgess. This again confirms the statement by Burgess that Three Nudes was a sketch for the Woman, which nobody seems to doubt refers to the Grand Nu. The major development in Braque's early Cubism took place during his stay in l'Estaque during the summer of 1908. The postcard which Braque sent to Kahnweiler in the last days of May states that he is "well begun with his work," which places him as having arrived at l'Estaque some- 48 time in May. His series of landscapes is vitally impor­ tant to the'formation of Cubism, as Braque consciously follows the formal and spatial investigations which had been indicated by and partially explored by Cezanne. Critics including Golding and Cooper call these landscapes the first group of true Cubist paintings. 49 Braque himself admitted that the Fauve paintings were the physical paintings of his youth. He said, "J'ai compris que le paroxysme qu'il y avait en elle ne pouvait pas durer. Comment? Quand je suis retourne pour la troisieme fois dans le Midi, je me suis apercu que 1*exaltation qui m'avait rempli lors de mon premier sejour et que j'avats transmise a mes tableaux, n'etait pas la meme. J'ai vu qu'il y avait autre chose." "II fallait trouver d'autres moyens a ma nature . . . J'avais ete impressionne par Cezanne, par ses tableaux que j'avais 192 vus chez Vollard, je sentais qu'il y avait quelque chose de plus secret dans cette peinture ..." A dozen landscapes resulted from his stay which lasted until September. The stylistic transformation within these works well illustrates the steps Braque took to realize completely a new way of transforming reality. Balustrade, Hotel Mistral (Fig. 217), which is dated as the earliest in this series of l'Estaque paintings by William Rubin, is a fine piece to compare to the painting View from the Hotel Mistral (Fig- 205) from the previous year. In both works, the balustrade parallels the picture plane, although in the later work, it moves upward on a gradual diagonal from the left to right rather than being placed horizontally. The trees and houses are more abstracted in an attempt to unify them with the sharp-angled geometry of the buildings. Landscape at l'Estaque (Musee National d'Art Moderne, Paris, Fig. 218) seems to be from this earliest phase, too, probably a little later than Balustrade, Hotel Mistral since the shaded areas and the sequence of elements are structured in a more orderly fashion. There is still a Fauve element in that certain shapes retain their visual context as having been taken from nature. Certainly, one can see a certain analogy between his handling of the trees and Matisse's Blue Nude in which the rough paralleling brushstrokes and the arc-shape of the branches in the background landscape are similar to Braque's. Nevertheless the certain •193 continuity in shapes and the discontinuity in blending one with another as well as the establishing angular edges reveals a non-natural Cubist element.

The composition works from the left back toward the right, a kind of predilection on the part of Braque to close with the foreground on the left and move away from it on the right. This forms an angular, circular framing which tunnels back into the distance, with the brushstrokes on the leaves placed across the top right of the painting, alternating in the direction of the pigment application and its texture and serving as a counterpoint moving forward. This interior shape handling enhances the painting's painterliness. Braque now establishes equilibrium between this coloristic painterliness and the linearity of the work, its volumetric and flat nature, the warm and cool colors, the rough and smooth handling, and the solidity and sketchi- ness. Very much like Cezanne, there is a sense of lightness, partly a result of the looseness of the brushstrokes and partly by means of the white areas which show through be­ tween the strokes, and solidity. The Trees at l'Estaque (Fig* 219) reveals the next step Braque took after Landscape at l'Estaque. There is a more pronounced geometric rendering of form, especially evident in the trees, and a more emphatic order, especially evident in the architectural and landscape motifs. However, there are still elements relevant to the Fauves, especially 194 Vlaminck, as one can see in the green, black and red color harmonies and the organic, tubular nature of the trees working forward and back. Also the dynamic of Fauvism can be detected in the forceful rendering of the trees which create a certain sense of growth in the soaring of the foreground verticality. In Houses at l'Estaque (Rupf collection, Fig. 220), we see the same motif of the trees in the foreground and the houses in the middle distance. The work seems, however, to have been most likely executed during the late phase of the l'Estaque period. It is tighter in brushstroke and more compact in form. It is still naturalistic in the houses' geometric form, and roofs and walls and foliage are not fused into an indivisible unity. The sky is virtually elim­ inated which makes the pictorial space more manageable. Color is, however, disengaged from natural light and shade, and the form is freed from an obligation to strictly logical visual perspective, 52 a development which is very significant in the evolution of Cubism. There is also a sense of revolving around the center as one's eye moves from the closest part of the picture plane which is in the lower left to the furthest in the upper right, and counter to this from the lower right to back behind the upper left. A geometric solidity for the compositional core has already been seen in Grand Nu as a major principle of his develop­ ment and will become a chief characteristic of his Cubism. 195 The outward projection of the picture from the picture plane is pronounced, which became an essential aspect of the Cubist style. This can be seen in the simultaneous outward and backward swelling effect of the outer core of the work which results from the movement around and rela­ tionship to the central geometric house form. Stylistically, form is very linear in its primary defi­ nition. Unlike the rough painterliness of Landscape at l'Estaque (Musee National d'Art Moderne, Fig. 218), it is drier, crisper, thinner, finer, more delicate, subtly con­ trolled and elegant. The stylistic progress indicated here is that Braque is moving away from visual appearance differ­ ently and perhaps more radically than Cezanne did. The form is much more assertively geometric and angular which is based upon the artist's own subjective interpretation of nature in contrast to the more perceptual nature of Cezanne in his creation of a sensation of volume. Besides the motives of trees and houses, there are several landscapes with a viaduct, a choice of a motif which is very C6zannesque as Cezanne treated it in many of his landscapes in l'Estaque. In Viaduct (Fig- 221), the rough sketchiness of the strokes is limited to the trees and the sky and the architectural area is rather carefully modeled or outlined, which makes it appear to be still faithful to visual reality. This kind of composition which spreads downward toward the viewer with a small area of sky at the 196 top is familiar to us as we have already seen it in Land­ scape at La Ciotat, 1907 (Fig. 191) in the Museum of Modern Art, New York. There is still a sense of distance between the foreground foliage and the houses which hump up and back as Braque has not abandoned traditional space. This element and the lesser degree of abstraction indicate that the work was done earlier than Trees at l'Estaque and Houses at l'Estaque. In Trees and Viaduct (Fig- 222), the foreground trees and the background houses and viaduct are brought up to the same picture plane, thus becoming an unified whole in a planar sense rather than in one resulting from a stylistic and compositional dynamic action as in the earlier works. The painting reveals a further development from Houses at l'Estaque which was characterized as a rudimentary sequence of reducing houses into geometric forms. Now there is a more subtle transition from one form to another. This painting is truly in the Cubist vein as it escapes a dependence on space visually relatable to reality and yet becomes an abstract unity without losing reference to visual reality. The whole composition is done with a symmetry to its geometricity, the trees of the work's outer edges form­ ing a circular frame for the central architecture; the circular arches of the viaduct carrying the outer circular form into the center of the work. This compositional han­ dling is comparable to the orderly composition found in 19 53 Cezanne's Bathers, as Rubin points out correctly. The sky is essentially eliminated, yet the "passages" have become transparent. A parallel movement away from Fauvism towards a more distinctively personal art began to appear in the art of Raoul Dufy during 1907. The year 1907 is a transitional one for him as his works reflect diverse stylistic trends. Such a work as The Terrace from the Beach (Fig. 223) done in 1907 continues his interest in outdoor gatherings seen in earlier paintings. Stylistically, the painting is close to the 1906 London paintings of Derain in its use of the large areas of color and insistence on line. The general tonality is somewhat reduced from the heightened palette of 1906 and there is more concern with the subtle balance of yellow and green. However, Jeanne in the Flowers, 1907 (Fig. 224), al­ ready has anti-Fauvist characteristics and foretells the beginning of his Cubism. Dufy still retains the vividness of the primary colors while analyzing the color relation­ ships of the flowers and the background. The subject and format seem to be influenced by Matisse's Vase of Flowers, 1907 (Fig. 225), in which Matisse successfully combined the decorative aspect into a carefully constructed work. In Dufy's, the lyricism and spontaneity of Fauvism gives way to regularity of pattern and rigid structure. 198 Several works by Dufy in the year 1907 indicate that Dufy's style is closer to Matisse's at this time than is any of the other members of the Fauves'; he is seeking color structure as a basis for decorative unity. The Winter Garden, 1907 (Fig- 226), is very similar to River Bank, 1907 (Fig. 227) by Matisse. Choosing an Impressionistic subject, both tried to capture mood and sensation by a decorative combination of color, shape, line and brushstroke. It is the color choices which are very close as both avoid primary and intense colors, and use green, violet, blue and, occasionally, red and yellow. In Matisse's work, he divides the upper and lower part of the canvas by emphasizing the reflection of the landscape onto the water which is in the lower part of the canvas. Matisse tends to utilize the spots of white canvas which show up on the surface between the colors to attain a sense of air and breadth whereas Dufy fills up the surface with dense pigmentation. However, the fundamental aesthetic properties of these two works are strikingly similar and mark them as worthy successors of Gauguin as regards a respect for surface decoration and a feeling for organic form.

From 1907 to 1908, Dufy dealt continuously with out-of- door themes while, like Braque, adventuring into figure composition, a subject which had not appeared very fre­ quently during his Fauvist period. Stylistically he worked mainly in two different manners. One reveals a concern with 199 abstract, organic form and curving lines, very much like Matisse's vocabulary at this time; the other manner reveals that he was also assimilating Cezannism through Braque in works marked by a severity of structure and a limited coloring which is especially apparent after his stay with Braque at l'Estaque during the summer of 1908. An examination of the stylistic changes which take place in a series of beach scenes from this era indicates that Dufy moved from a decorative Impressionistic rendering of the details and movement of figures to a simplified and abstract construction under the influence of his new acquaintance with Cezannisme and Braque's work. The Bathers at Marie-Christine at Le Havre, 1906 (Fig. 228) reflects the loosely dispersed compositional approach and thinly painted rendering of movement of people and atmosphere which marks the beginning phase in the transformation of his style. Les Pecheurs a la ligne, 1907 (Fig- 229), shows that he moves to construct the composition in three bands divided by diagonal lines, thus formalizing the land, sea and sky found in the 1906 work. Further, he reduces the more painterly means of color to a simpler harmony of yellow, blue and green. Then, the rather peaceful and calm atmosphere of these two scenes is replaced by a sense of agitation in Coup de Vent (Fig. 230). The agitation causes him to use larger figures, and he captures the multi- directions of their movements and angular contours. 200 Likewise, the colors become saturated, dominantly green and red which reinforces the gustiness of the expression. The rough texture and handling of the brush enhance the menacing mood which carries the work into an expressive realm which might almost be characterized as more appropriately German Expressionist than French Fauvist. The German Expressionist artists, especially those of Die Briicke which was formed in 1905, show parallel stylistic traits in many ways similar to those of the Fauves. This has often been the subject of scholarly investigation in order to determine possible connections between the two 54 movements. Die Briicke artists, however, deny any link with the Fauves at the earliest period of their art, an attitude which may be related to the nationalistic attitude of the artists. Nevertheless, several links have been established by means of German artists who studied in Paris and served as intermediaries by whom Fauvist accomplishments were transmitted. For instance, Paula Modersohn-Becker whose style reflects influences from the Nabis, Gauguin and Van Gogh, made trips to Paris three times between 1903 and 1907; although she didn't have personal contact with the Die Briicke group. It is especially in 1907 that more specific connections can be established. At the Berlin in the spring, the works of (1869- 1955) and Jean Puy (1876-1960) were admitted to the Briicke exhibition. French artists' awareness of the developments 201 in German art came more fully in 1908. Max Pechstein came, to Paris and saw the Independants that year. He may have met Van Dongen through the introduction of Hans Purrman, a young German artist who came to Paris in 1905 and was studying at L'Academie Matisse at this time. Van Dongen's figure paintings especially show a similarity to the stylistic of the Die Briicke artists; he par­ ticipated with two paintings at the Berlin Secession in the spring of 1908 and again at the Die Briicke exhibition at the Richter Gallery, where he exhibited together with Vla- minck, Camoin, Puy, Marquet and Friesz. Matisse was a success in Germany with exhibitions at Speyer, Nuremberg and Munich during the summer and at Berlin in December; he was accompanied by his student Hans Purrman. All this makes certain that Fauvist knowledge of German Expressionism was quite concrete in 1908. Since Dufy's Coup de Vent was not dated by the artist and the several other works in a similar stylistic manner are not securely dated, one is led to the conclusion that these works were done in 1908. Michel Hoog dates Coup de Vent in 1908 whereas Maurice Laffaille dates it 1907. If it was executed in 1907 as Laffaille suspects, it would be a re­ markable example by an artist who had ventured into an independent experiment. The fishing theme continues in 1908, although Dufy never again is as aggressively charged in his style as Coup 202 de Vent. Another Les P6cheurs a la ligne, 1908 (Fig. 231)., is firmly constructed with three broad horizontal bands, made more stable and decorative by having the top and bottom bands of equal height. The fisning poles and the rhythmic rendition of each figure counterbalance vertically with the horizontality of the division. The figures are precisely laid in and there is a sense of rhythmic charm, even caricature-like wit, and an overall pleasant atmosphere prevails in this highly original work.

Dufy also produced a portrait at this time, a rarity in his work. It is probably a portrait of his wife, al­ though Werner suggests that there is a Japanese style to the figure's hair, yellow skin and femininity making it possible 57 that the model was in fact an oriental. The Woman in Rose (Fig. 232) combines the angularity of Cubism with the abstract linearity and the organic form of Matisse, as seen in the latter's Young Sailor of 1906 or Luxe II of 1908. The choice of a single figure composition and the ambiguity of the pose is similar to Young Sailor, whereas the angularity of the line in certain areas, the spatial construction and the elegance of the whole effect with its rhythmic exchange between positive and negative space show stylistic affinities to Luxe II. Sam Hunter points to the pronounced angularity as an influence from CO Cubism. Others suggest Gauguin's influence on the decora­ tive flatness and delicate color harmony as well as Van Gogh 203 in the brushstrokes in the upper background which direct attention towards the face as in Van Gogh's Self-Portrait, 1887 (Fig- 233).59 The precise moment of The Woman in Rose is problematic, although it was certainly executed in 1908 as Dufy himself made clear when it was exhibited at Les Maitres de l'Art Independant at in 1937. We have two sketches of the head of The Woman in Rose in the collection of Musee n National d'Art Moderne f\ which indicate the painting was executed either during or after his stay in I'Estaque. It was probably done during his stay at I'Estaque as we have two works from I'Estaque, L'Aperitif (Fig. 234) and The Cafe at I'Estaque (Fig. 235) which show a similar style in the use of curved and angular lines. Dufy later took the motif again and painted another version of The Woman in Rose (Fig. 236) in 1912, which reveals a greater styliza- tion in use of line, color and shape. L'Aperitif (Fig. 234) demonstrates his continuing in­ volvement with the subject of a social gathering in an outdoor setting. The female figure seated at the table on the right has a pose similar to that of The Woman in Rose. In fact, many figures echo her with similar poses as they are depicted by means of arcs and curves or counter curves. Since 1906, Dufy had tended to stress curves and flowing lines; for example, Fete Nautique, 1906 (Fig. 237), in which he pushed what would later be known as Synchromist 204 qualities to the extent that he almost creates a Delaunay- like color band. Delaunay was cited as a Fauve in 1907 by Vauxcelles when Delaunay was close to Dufy and it is from Dufy that Delaunay takes certain hallmarks which become, under Cubist influence, characteristic of Synchromy. The intersecting curves and arcs which create circular facets and rhythms with emphasis toward the center of the composition reveal that Dufy was being affected by Braque's Cubism, for Braque was working with Dufy at this time. However, Dufy's subtle interest in distinctive pink, green and white color harmonies is still present and expresses a personalized vision which is neither that of Braque nor Delaunay. The Cafe at l'Estaque (Fig- 235) is a study piece for L'Aperitif. The colors are more saturated in certain areas and one can still make out the configuration of trees and people. Like L'Aperitif, the emphasis is on the central part of the composition with the outer edges left almost unpainted. Michel Hoog suggests that it was done at the beginning of his stay at l'Estaque and thus was not subjected to the influence of Braque. However, the hatched brushstroke treatment of the trees reflects Cezanne's influence, which comes through Braque who produced such strokes in landscapes such as Landscape at l'Estaque (Fig. 218) in the Musee National d'Art Moderne, Paris. Elderfield states that Braque 205 and Cezanne both influenced Dufy, and he directly connects the handling of the landscape in The Cafe at l'Estaque to Matisse's Blue Nude. On the whole, Elderfield character­ izes L'Aperitif as a brilliant eclectic work, which shows yet another alternative developing during the complex art 66 trends of 1907-1908. Dufy's Cubistic vocabulary--a geometric depiction of form and the abandonment of perspective--is more apparent in a landscape he painted, Trees at l'Estaque (Fig. 238). The color is reduced to basically two tonalities, green and ochre. A comparison with The Forest (Fig. 239) by Braque reveals a similar approach to composition and in faceting process. However, Braque is more analytical and severe in his search for basic structural relationships whereas Dufy is more concerned with the subtle balance of line, volume and brushstrokes on the canvas, and with faceting so that the "passages" have a decorative aspect on the surface. Dufy, like Braque, constructs the landscape two dimension- ally but in a more superficial way. Dufy's products from l'Estaque differ from each other stylistically. He attempts to assimilate Cezanne in his Trees at l'Estaque through the guidance of Braque. In Boats at Quay at Marseille (Fig. 240), he is much more him­ self. Eschewing Braque's austerity, Dufy sticks to the visual facts and reveals his delight at arranging trees and ships in repetitions or juxtapositions of color, line and 206 form. Capturing objective reality is not important to him, but he still works from reality, adopting a reductive process in attaining the form and in the construction of the motif; his artistic sensitivity is at full maturity in the decorative sense. Factory, Marseille (Fig. 241) reflects another aspect of Dufy's painting at this time, with the lyricism of Boats at the Quay at Marseille being replaced by quite a different temper. The former work's transparency is gone and a dark, stuffy series of colors fills the canvas. There are thick emphatic outlines for the buildings and the chimneys are menacing in their effect. The surface is executed in a rough hatching of brushstrokes and the rushing brushstrokes of the river enhance the industrial buildings' violence within the landscape and deny natural perspective. While Braque and Dufy were accomplishing these signif­ icant steps in their artistic evolution in I'Estaque, Picasso spent most of August at La Rue des Bois, outside of Paris, working his way to a fuller understanding of Cezanne. He produced a series of figure paintings and landscapes. Peasant Woman (Fig. 242) reveals that he moved away from his earlier Negroid period with its works containing a violent handling of paint (hatching), color (juxtaposition), line (emphatic) and shapes (sharp edged). At Rue des Bois, he became more involved with the projection of volume and the relation of plane to that volume. His new interest in landscape indicate 207 that he was learning from Cezanne, especially from his landscapes. Since Picasso's landscapes were executed before the public display of Braque's landscapes in November at the Kahnweiler Gallery, Picasso probably did not know the l'Estaque paintings of Braque. Yet, the direction that Braque and Picasso were experimenting with was the same and has led to speculation that Picasso knew about Braque. This was further fostered by Wilhelm Uhde when he heard talking to Picasso, "Have you noticed that for some time now ft 7 Braque has been introducing cubes into his painting?" Picasso's Landscape, Andre Meyer collection (Fig. 243), contains sharp-edged tree trunks and simplified toy-like shape reduction which is somewhat reminiscent of the primi­ tive paintings of . However, the trees, foliage and sky begin to be interwoven. A more advanced piece, Landscape (Fig- 244), shows that Picasso began to build up a construction by breaking up the form and volume into smaller facets. Like Braque he raised the horizon high and used shaded brushstrokes which deny any consistency in lighting. As compared with Braque, Picasso responds still more intensely to the plasticity of Cezanne and enhances the plasticity of his own work through heaviness of pigmentation and a compact sculpturesque blocking of the' shapes. Picasso's landscape expresses an austerity, rigor and bold­ ness and above all a sculpturesqueness whereas Braque 208 responded to the transparency of Cezanne's late work with fluidity and painterliness. The initial formation of Braque's Cubism is mainly achieved through the series of landscapes done at I'Estaque, but Braque also produced his first Cubistic still-life while there. In Still Life with Musical Instruments (Fig. 245), Braque tilts the tabletop, as Cezanne did, so as to limit the space. Braque, then, brings out the geometric form of the mandolin, clarinet, accordion and musical scores which are depicted in such a way that we are conscious of inter­ play and alternation of curves, masses, planes and lines. Some of the objects are viewed from different angles, for instance, the bent neck of the mandolin. On the whole, the work is not as successfully unified as Trees and Viaduct (Fig. 222) since there is still a separation between the foreground musical instruments and the background space. However, it is this still-life genre which Braque will develop further and which will, along with figure paintings, form the main repertoire in his Hermetic and Synthetic Cubist phases. Braque himself realized that he began work­ ing on still-life because ". . . dans la nature il y a un espace tactile, je dirais presque manuel. Je l'ai ecrit du reste: 'Quand une n'est plus a la portee de la main, elle cesse d'etre une nature morte.' . . . Cela re- pondait pour moi au desir que j'ai toujours eu de toucher la chose et non seulement de la voir. C'est cet espace qui 209 m'attirait beaucoup, car c'etait cela la premiere peinture- cubiste, la recherche de l'espace. La couleur n'avait qu'un petit role. De la couleur il n'y avait que le cote lumiere qui nous preoccupait. La lumiere et l'espace sont deux choses qui se touchent, n'est-ce pas? et nous les menions ensemble ... On nous appelait abstraits!" In October, Braque came back from l'Estaque and sub­ mitted his landscapes to the Salon d'Automne, a salon which he had not participated in before. Among those on the jury were Matisse, Rouault and Marquet. His paintings were ini­ tially rejected, although Albert Marquet and Charles Guerin saved them for the exhibition as it was customary for each juror to choose from among the rejected paintings. Braque, however, withdrew all six paintings from the Salon. Daniel H. Kahnweiler, a German dealer, arranged a one-man exhibi­ tion for Braque at his gallery, 28, rue Vignon, which opened November 9th, 1908. In retrospect, it was an important exhibition for it was on the occasion of this exhibition that the term Cubism was coined by Matisse, who, in commenting on Braque's land­ scapes said they were made of small cubes. Louis Vauxcelles, in Gil Bias, states, "Monsieur Braque is a very daring young man. The bewildering example of Picasso and Derain has em­ boldened him. Perhaps, too, the style of Cezanne and reminiscences of the static art of the Egyptians have ob­ sessed him disproportionately. He constructs deformed 210 metallic men, terribly simplified. He despises form, reduces everything, places and figures and houses, to geometrical schemes, to cubes. Let us not make fun of him, 69 since he is honest. And let us wait." Charles Morice said, "M. Braque has shaken free. Visibly, he proceeds from an a priori geometry of nature by the combinations of 70 a small number of absolute forms." The great supporter of Cubism, the poet Apollinaire, wrote the introduction for the exhibition catalogue and we find his statement somewhat vague yet complimentary. This is Georges Braque. He leads an admirable life. He strives with passion toward beauty--and he attains it, apparently, without effort. His compositions have the harmony and fullness we have waited for. His decorative touches show a taste and culture which issue from a sure in­ stinct. By taking from within himself the elements of the synthesized motifs which he paints, he has become a creator. He no longer owes anything to his surroundings. His spirit has deliberately challenged the twi­ light of reality, and here, working itself out in plastic terms, within him and outside him, is a universal rebirth . . ."^l Footnotes for Chapter VIII

John Elderfield, The Wild Beasts: Fauvism and Its Affinities, 97-98. 7 Ibid., Elderfield suggests that Derain executed Golden Age after he saw Matisse's Luxe, Calme et Volupte, whereas the dominant Neo-Impressionistic style led Marcel Giry to think it was done at the end of 1904, cf. 102-105, 156, and notes 34 and 35. 5Gil Bias (March 20, 1907) as quoted by Ellen C. Oppler, Fauvism Reexamined, 291-292. 4Ibid., 288. There have been many articles written on who first discovered African sculpture. For a summary of these, read Edward Fry, Cubism (New York, Toronto, 1966), 13, 47-48. Interestingly, Braque who doesn't seem to be influenced by African sculpture had a Congolese mask by 1905 and said that African sculpture opened him up to a new contact with in­ stinctive things with direct manifestations. Dora Vallier, "Braque, La Peinture et Nous," Cahiers d'Art, 29 (Oct., 1954), 14. Ellen Oppler suggests that Derain, who was close to Picasso in the year 1906, might have seen preparatory draw­ ings for Les Demoiselles d'Avignon before he completed Bathers, in Fauvism Reexamined, 2lT9. Elderfield argues that it was Picasso who probably saw Bathers by Derain and was convinced of his direction, in The Wild Beasts: Fauvism and Its Affinities, 118. John Golding, Cubism: A History and an Analysis (Lon­ don, Icon edition, 1969), 139. 8Der Sturm (Feb. 1913). Quoted by Douglas Cooper, The Cubist Epoch (New York, 1971), 65. Guillaume Apollinaire, Les Peintres Cubistes (Paris, 1913), translated and reprinted by Herschel B. Chipp in Theories of Modern Art, 226. Also Chroniques d'Art (1902-1918), ed. L.C. Breunig (Paris, Gallimard, 1960), 265. 211 212

9 «• Matisse donated by Cezanne to the Museum of the City of Paris at the Petit Palais in 1936. A letter to Raymond Escholier, Director of the Museum, re­ flects how much Matisse had been attached to this painting. In his letter, he wrote, "In the thirty-seven years I have owned this canvas, I have come to know it quite well, I hope, though not entirely; it has sustained me morally in the critical moments of my venture as an artist; I have drawn from it my faith and my perseverance; for this reason, allow me to request that it be placed so that it may be seen to its best advantage. For this it needs both light and perspective. It is rich in colour and surface, and seen at a distance it is possible to appreciate the sweep of its lines and the exceptional sobriety of its relationships. . . ." Translated and reprinted by Jack D. Flam, Matisse on Art (New York, 1973), 75. 10Gil Bias (March 30, 1907) as quoted by Elderfield, The Wild Beasts: Fauvism and Its Affinities, 118. Mercure de France, "Souvenir sur Paul Cezanne et Lettres ihedites," 69, no. 247 (Oct. 1, 1907), 400. Trans­ lated and reprinted by Herschel B. Chipp in Theories of Modern Art, 19. 12 For a detailed study, read Marcel Giry, "Le Paysage a figures chez Othon Friesz (1907-1912)," Gazette des Beaux- Arts, 69 (Jan., 1967), 45-57. 13 Oppler, Fauvism Reexamined, 293, note 1. Fels, Propos d'Artistes, 66. Marcel Giry, "Le Paysage a figures chez Othon Friesz (1907-1912)," Gazette des Beaux-Arts, 45. Quoted by Oppler, Fauvism Reexamined, 53. 17 When Braque was at La Ciotat with Friesz, both visited Derain who was nearby at Cassis concentrating on landscape painting. Derain, who had just exhibited Bathers at the Salon, was in the transitional stage and unsure of his direction; he wrote to Vlaminck that Braque and Friesz, "sont tres heureux. Leur id£e est jeune et leur semble neuve. lis en reviendront; il y a autre chose a. faire que cele;" . . . "Je traverse une crise;" and "... Impossible de faire quelque chose de propre." Lettres a. Vlaminck (Paris, 1955), 152. 18 The frequent visits to I'Estaque with Friesz were pos­ sible since Friesz had an uncle in Marseille, near I'Estaque. 213 19 Dora Vallier, "Braque, la peinture et nous," Cahiers d'Art, 29 (Oct., 1.954), 14. 20 Rubin, "CSzannisme and the Beginning of Cubism," Cezanne: The Late Works (New York, 1977), 165. 2101ivier, Picasso et Ses Amis (Paris, 1933), 120. She reported that Braque said, ". . . malgre tes explications, ta peinture, c'est comme si tu voulais nous faire manger de l'etoupe ou boire du petrole." 22 It is referred to as "Baigneuse" in the third Kahn- weiler sale catalogue of July 4, 1922. 23 Rubin states that there is an inscription "June 1908" on the back of the canvas, which indicates that Grand Nu was completed in l'Estaque, 1908, Cezenne: The Late Works, 198, note 89. Golding, Cubism: A History and an Analysis, 62. 25 Leymarie, Braque. Trans. James Emmons (Geneva, 1961), 29. 26Cooper, The Cubist Epoch, 27. Rubin, Cezanne: The Late Works, 15 5. 28Ibid., 172. 29Ibid., 166. 30Ibid., 155. 31Cooper, The Cubist Epoch, 28. 32Rubin, Cezanne: The Late Works, 173-174. 33 Oppler, Fauvism Reexamined, 293; Rubin, Cezanne: The Late Works, 172; Cooper, The Cubist Epoch, 28. 34 Braque told Dora Vallier that "Dans ma peinture je reviens toujours vers le centre. Je suis le contraire, en somme, de ce que j'appellerais un.'symphoniste.' Comme dans une symphonie, le theme deborde a I'infini, de meme il y a des peintres — Bonnard en est un exemple--qui developpent leur theme a I'infini. II y a dans leur tableaux quelque chose comme de la lumiere diffusee, alors que moi, au con­ traire, je cherche a avoir un foyer d'intensite, je con­ centre . . .," Cahiers d'Art, 29 (Oct., 1954), 24. 214 35Gelett Burgess, "The Wild Men of Paris," Architec­ tural Record (May, 1910), 405. 36Edward F. Fry, "Cubism 1907-1908: An Early Eyewitness Account," Art Bulletin (March, 1966), 70. 37 Anonymous, L'intransigeant (March 20, 1908) as quoted by Fry in Art Bulletin (March, 1966), 70. Guillaume Apol- linaire, Chroniques d'Art (1902-1918), 51. 38 Burgess, , 405. 39Ibid. 40Fry, Art Bulletin (March, 1966), 70. 41Cooper, The Cubist Epoch, 27-28. Jean Vallery-Radot, G. Braque: Oeuvre Graphique (Paris, Bibliotheque National, 1960), plate 1; Werner Hoffmann, Georges Braque: His Graphic Work (New York, 1961), no. 1; "Edwin Mullins, Braque (London, T968), 33; and Maeght cata­ logue, Braque - Graveur (Paris, Nov.-Dec, 1953), no. 1. 43Rubin, Cezenne: The Late Works, 170. 44Ibid., 171. 45Ibid., 199, note 96. 46Ibid., 170-171. This assumes that Braque exhibited Grand Nu at the Salon des Independants from March to May 2~, and took it with him to I'Estaque and worked on it and finished in June, 1908. 48Rubin, Cezanne: The Late Works, 172. 49 Golding, Cubism: A History and an Analysis, 66; Cooper, The Cubist Epoch, 29. 50Vallier, Cahiers d'Art (Oct., 1954), 14. 51Rubin, Cezanne: The Late Works, 173-174. 52 Braque said, "La perspective traditionnelle ne me satisfaisait pas. M^canise'e comme elle est, cette perspec­ tive ne donne jamais la pleine possession des choses. Elle part d'un point de vue et n'en sort pas. Or, le point de vue est une toute petite chose. C'est comme celui qui toute sa vie dessinerait des profils en faisant croire que 215 l'homme n'a qu'un seul oeil . . . Quand on en arriva a penser ainsi, toute changea, vous n'avez pas idee a quel point! . . . Ce qui m'a beaucoup attire*-et qui fut la direc­ tion maitresse du cubisme-c'etait la materialisation de cet espace nouveau que je sentais," cf. Dora Vallier, Cahiers d'Art, 29 (1954), 14-15. 53Rubin, Cezanne: The Late Works, 177. For recent articles on this subject, see Gabrielle Linnebach, "La Briicke et le Fauvisme," exhibition catalogue Paris-Berlin, 1900-1933 (Paris, Centre National d'Art et de Culture Georges Pompidou, 1978), 70-72; Donald Gordon, "Kirchner in Dresden," Art Bulletin, 48 (Sept.-Dec, 1966), 335-366; and Bernard Dorival, "L'Art de la Briicke et le Fauvisme," Art de France, no. 1 (1961), 381-385. Maurice Laffaille, Catalogue Raisonne" de l'Oeuvre de Dufy (Geneva, 1972-73), pis. 156 and 157. Michel Hoog, Le Fauvisme Francais et le debuts de l'Expressionisme Allemand, exhibition catalogue, Mus£e national d'Art Moderne. Laffaille, Catalogue Raisonne de l'Oeuvre de Dufy, I, pi. 156, also. 57Alfred Werner, Raoul Dufy (New York, 1970), 90. 58Sam Hunter, Raoul Dufy (New York, 1954), 4. 59 Oppler, Fauvism Reexamined, p. 137; Bernard Dorival, "Le legs de Mme. Raoul Dufy au Musee National d'Art Moderne," Revue du Louvre, 13, no. 4-5 (1963), 211; Colmar, Mus6e d'Unterlinden, Chambery, Mus6e des Beaux-Arts, Raoul Dufy, exhibition catalogue (1964), catalogue by Germain Viatte. 60Dorival, Revue du Louvre, 13, no. 4-5 (1963), 211. Ibid., 211. Dorival sees The Woman in Rose being executed after Dufy's l'Estaque stay, whereas John Elder- field remains undecided as to the sequence of The Woman in Rose and L'Aperitif, but states that both were done in l'Estaque^ cf. The~Wild Beasts: Fauvism and Its Affinities, 130-131. This relationship has been first suggested by Elder- field, The Wild Beasts: Fauvism and Its Affinities, 131. Yet, the statement was made on August 15, 1905, for the enquete in Mercure de France (p. 548), Dufy said Cezanne appears to be preoccupied with technique. 216

Hoog, Le Fauvisme Francais et le debuts de l'Expres- sionisme Allemand, 78. 65Elderfield, The Wild Beasts: Fauvism and Its Affin­ ities, 131. 66TIbid, . ., f\ 7 Originally published in Wilhelra Uhde, Picasso et la Tradition Francaise (Paris, 1925), 39, as quoted by Golding, Cubism: A History and an Analysis, 69. 68Vallier, Cahiers d'Art, 29 (Oct., 1954), 15. 69Gil Bias (Nov. 14, 1908), translated and reprinted by Fry, Cubism, 50. 70Mercure de France (Dec. 16, 1908), 736-7, and Fry, Cubism, 52. 71 Braque exhibition catalogue, Galerie Kahnweiler, (Nov. 9-28, 1908), and Fry, Cubism, 49.

* CHAPTER IX

Early Cubism and the Emergence of Personal Expression

The beginning of his break away from Fauvism appeared in Othon Friesz' Bathers at La Ciotat (Fig. 200), done in mid-1907; the completion of this act was accomplished by him by the end of 1907 in a series of ambitious figure com­ positions, where the figure was set within a landscape setting. These paintings, developed out of the earlier Bathers became Friesz's mature approach to Cezanne but soon set a basis for his personal style which was to remain char­ acteristic throughout the remainder of his career. Travail a l'Automne (Fig. 246) is a work depicting a group of female and male figures working and harvesting in the fruitful season of Autumn. The volumetric depiction of human bodies and their rigorous movements conveys the sense of hearty abundance appropriate to the theme. In the study piece (Fig. 247), which was executed in 1907, Friesz placed each figure in a certain position so as to construct the pyramidal shape of the composition in relationship with the landscape which surrounds them. In the second study piece (Fig. 248), there is a sureness to each gesture and

217 218 to the relationships between each figure. In the final version, however, the drawing became emphatic and as a result there is much more depth to the landscape. This type of composition with figures obviously drawn from Cezanne indicates how closely Friesz was studying Cezanne at this time. He had collected huge portfolios of 3 reproductions of the Aix master's works. Yet, the reclin­ ing mother with a baby at her bosom is strongly reminiscent of the dead mother with the baby trying to nurse at her breast in Eugene Delacroix's Massacre of Chios, 1824, (Fig. 249), both in the pose and profile view, although Friesz endows the image with a far different meaning. And the central figure, who bends to gather the sheaf of grain, is derived from Van Gogh, having appeared in previous works by Friesz. Besides this influence of motifs from the immediate past, thematically there is a strong indication of the classical tradition. The reclining mother on the left is, traditionally, an allegorical figure of Mother Earth, sym­ bolizing the growth, while the central bending figure, perhaps, suggests regeneration. The rhythmic interlocking of each figure creates a sense of organic vigor comparable to the Baroque. Friesz believed that "Un paysage se construit comme une figure. Dans une composition tout se tient; aucun element lignes, couleurs, volume, n'est etranger l'un a 1'autre. Le paysage Spouse les courbes, 21 les renflement de la figure humaine." This is quite a different direction from that taken by Braque, and it is especially apparent when one compares the landscapes that Braque produced in l'Estaque with this work by Friesz. Yet, both are rooted in the same source-- Cezanne. Unlike Dufy who was affected by treatments, Friesz is curiously unaffected by geometric reduction. Although such a painting as The Cathedral at Rouen, 1908 (Fig- 250), which was shown at Salon d'Automne of the same year, attempts to deal with the problem of volume while relegating color to secondary importance and achieving a density of composition, Friesz does not employ the interlinking of "passages" and the painterly and vigor­ ous treatment of the sky makes the effect of the whole far different from the Cubist landscapes that Braque is working on. Friesz expresses his sympathy and said, "J'ai regarde" le Cubisme avec sympathie, comme un effort parallele. Mon evolution etait faite; notre discipline, la canalisation de nos dons etablie. Le jeune Braque, arrive tard dans la bataille, etait destine a n'y point rester longtemps et pouvait se diriger vers de nouveaux concepts, devenir l'un des chefs de la nouvelle generation qui etait la sienne. Derain, Vlaminck, Matisse et moi avions constate la fin des orchestrations colorees." It is the sensuous nature of Friesz' personality that responds, a sensuousness expressed in the vigor of the 220 drawing, in gaining linear harmonies without losing masses and volumes; he is an artist who attains stability as well as balance, who synthesizes the classical and Baroque tra­ ditions rather than transforming his works through a more radical Cubism. His is a decorative, expressive extension of his Symbolist heritage. Travail a l'Automne was sent to the Independants of 1908 and received favorable reviews. Vauxcelles compli­ mented the simplicity of the contours and novel colors, stating that "Friesz is now in the true French tradition, n that of Le Nain, Millet and Cezanne." Apollinaire stated that "Le Grand tableau de M. Friesz-Othon, a remporte le 8 plus grand succes au Salon de cette Annee." Another work with a strong synthetist flavor is Spring (Fig. 251) which was shown at the Salon d'Automne of the same year and was hung with the title L'Age d'Or. The painting is actually a second version of an earlier work Jardin d'Eden, 1907 (Fig- 252). If we compare the two paintings, we note that there are definite changes in the figure type. The female figure who seems to be picking flowers in the first version is changed into a coy reclining nude in Spring, while the male nude, who looks like the Adam in the Michelangelo's Creation of the Sistine Ceiling is changed into a figure picking flowers. The reclining female nude in the foreground is very much like Matisse's Blue Nude and relates to Matisse's series of reclining nudes with 221 which he was experimenting at this time. Also the two embracing figures behind the trees seem to be motivated by Music, 1907,(Fig. 253) by Matisse. The transition from an unsettled and hesitant first version to the sureness of the second version is based on Matisse's working method as seen in his Luxe I and Luxe II. In fact, Matisse can be cited as the immediate source of the Golden Age theme itself, his Joy of Life, although as we have seen the theme itself is traditional.

In Spring, Friesz is quite securely traditional, empha­ sizing the drawing and crisp execution of his trees, land­ scape and figures. He himself sums up his adherence to tradition, "It is a Neo-Classic movement, tending towards the architectural style of Egyptian art, or paralleling it, rather, in development. Modern French impressionism is decadent. In its reaction against the frigidity and insipid arrangements of the Renaissance, it has gone itself to an extreme as bad, and contents itself with fugitive impressions and premature expressions. This newer movement is an attempt to return to simplicity, but not necessarily a return to any q primitive art. It is the beginning of a new art." The same year, Friesz painted a figure piece, The Fisher­ man (Fig. 254). The figure stands in the center of the painting dominating the background setting, the sea and boats. What makes the painting unique in this time is his monumentalization of the man giving the effect that he 222 dominates nature, which is classical and characteristically Renaissance. Friesz deliberately exaggerated the size of the fisherman, however, portraying him as a symbol of strength. In this he recalls the hierarchical scale found in Ancient Near Eastern and Egyptian Art. There is a strong interest in rendering volume and muscle, which is manneris- tic rather than faithful to actual anatomy. It is Millet who, under the influence of Michelangelo, portrayed Norman sowers and farmers in this manner, a manner which causes them to arise like giants against the earth and sky, ex­ pressing the dignity of humanity and of working with the soil. Friesz, born from a sailor's family, is making a similar statement about fishermen in this painting.

Friesz himself stated that Fauvism as a movement ended in 1908. "We who created Fauvism were the first to destroy it." "Colour ceased to dominate the canvas; composition regained its importance, and color became simply a pleasant addition." The works he produced during 1909 reflect his new sense that composition was of primary importance. A ser­ ies of landscapes done at Cassis shows that the figures are now better integrated into the landscape and the composition is accomplished with much more density. In Paresse (Fig. 255), there is a definitely established foreground, middle ground and background and each division is linked by diagonal zig­ zags. This method of construction is derived from Poussin and Friesz states, in allusion to Cezanne, that the landscape 223 of the Cassis area is "Poussin made over by nature." The figures themselves are formed in triangularly composed arrangements which is classical, while the power­ fully rendered trees and twisting figures express an energy and vigor close to the Baroque in spirit. The hills, trees, and figures are then a whole unified by an undulation which is segmented into angular or short curved sequences reflect­ ing reverberations of Cubist influence. Friesz is now very conscious of the synthetist tradi­ tion in art. "We think we originate; we merely vivify. Tradition has nothing to do with corporative routine, a given number of skillful methods belonging to some school in vogue, some official instruction. It is a logical econ­ omy by the use of materials strictly necessary to the fullest expression of an art; that is to say, the use of that which is original, invariable, concrete. The picture is to be the tradition of painting what Adam is to the tradition of man. In so understanding tradition its point of departure becomes absolute, its end recognizable, all the manifestations of the painter become essentially the research of this end." 12 Friesz's painting henceforth will reveal roots in this tradition with subjects ranging mostly to landscapes and marines with figures, but he never will sur­ pass what he had achieved during his Fauvist period. While Friesz had taken a different direction by 1909 and found his own personal expression very soon, Dufy worked 224 under Cubist influence only to find his final personal direction after the first World War when he became a highly decorative painter creating fantasies with a sense of delight through his own particular combination of drafts­ manship with bright color. For Dufy, the high point of his Cubist period came in 1909, but it was a high point without the individualism of Braque and Friesz. The Standing Nude (Fig. 256) is a painting that owes a great debt to Grand Nu by Braque. The examination of the planar structures of the body and the creation of the primitive image indicates that Dufy is assimilating the basic example of Braque. However, the general austerity and severity of the discipline con­ tradicts his personal temperament and one would never have guessed this work to be that of Dufy if one had had only Dufy's better known paintings of the Fauvist or the post-war period on which to base one's judgment. Perhaps temperament was the reason Dufy never yielded to Cubism completely and why it was only a temporary adventure, like Fauvism, for him.

A series of studio pieces with nudes also comes from 1909. In The Studio (Fig. 257), the planes of the wall, floor, desk and canvas are brought up to become segmented compositional shapes which are dominantly diagonal, enhanc­ ing the mood of the painting by activating the scene. The small nude surrounded by these sharp edged planes and straight lines seem insecure in her surroundings. The colors are not bright but do not lose intensity, making them 225 markedly different from those in the works by Braque and Picasso. Despite these austere paintings, Dufy also produced a landscape series of the Bois du Boulogne which reveals a taste for calligraphic line, curves and naivete. In them, he depicts animals, paddocks and people passing by. L1Avenue du Bois, 1909 (Fig. 258), has Dufy still setting the geometric shapes of architecture in the background, yet there is an illusionistic depth because of the return of traditional perspective. It was scenes of life such as this which had fascinated him most and he did them throughout his life. The scene invokes his fantasy, providing a lightness which points out his future creative direction. Dufy, who emerged as a fully developed artist after the World War, underwent many diverse influences prior to the attainment of his own style which were, as I have shown, as important to his growth as was their eventual abandonment. "I don't follow any system. All the laws you can lay down are only so many props to be cast aside when the hour of creation arrives."„1 2 In the spring of 1909, Braque painted The Port in Normandy (Fig- 259) from memory. It reveals a much more advanced style than the l'Estaque landscapes. This advance­ ment is to be seen in the unity, in the linkage of distant sky, boats and wharf into an indivisible whole. The frag­ mentation becomes much more coherent occurring all over the 226 canvas, a development which foreshadows the beginning of analytical Cubism. 13 Braque sent The Port in Normandy and a still-life, which has since been destroyed, to the Salon des Independ- ants in 1909, where they were called by Louis Vauxcelles "bizarreries cubiques." After this exhibition, Braque did not exhibit publicly until 1922. During the summer of 1909, he painted eight landscapes from La Roche-Guyon near Paris. Landscape at La Roche-Guyon (Fig. 260) reveals his new conception of the interrelation­ ship between form and space. The view is one of looking down and then up into, a manner which again derives from Cezanne. Compositionally Braque maintains his customary central core, as he moves in and out, expanding and con­ tracting forms and space in relationship to it. There is an equilibrium between the painterliness of the foliage and the linearism of the architecture. The passages between the sequences of triangles, roundness of trees and the subtly and delicately treated geometric houses are masterfully executed. This same summer, Picasso was working at La Horta in Spain. Houses on a Hillside (Fig. 261) was executed during this period and reflects a marked similarity to Braque's work. In Picasso's work, the selection of the motif and the mounting up effect, linear definition of edge and the transparency and modulation of planes are very different from 227 the sense of heaviness and compact blocking of his Rue des Bois landscapes of 1908. There is a more subtle delicacy of tonality and the transition from one to another plane has become more transparent. Picasso seems to achieve his insight into late Cezanne by looking at Braque's paintings. It was most likely Braque's Kahnweiler exhibition which stimulated Picasso and he absorbed and developed Braque's influence in his paintings just as Braque was developing his La Roche-Guyon landscapes independently. However, as before, Picasso particularly responded to sculpturesque aspects as he chooses a scene in which the architectural element is dominant. He is more interested in geometrical cadences of space and volume. There are more geometric closures in certain areas in contrast to the much more paint­ erly fluidity of Braque. Picasso is bolder and more abrupt in juxtapositioning brown and blue and the transition between colors than the subtle varied tones of Braque. Despite these individual differences, both artists are now sharing the same spirit, searching for a new concept of art and objective realism.

The sculpturesque tactility that is found in the land­ scape by Picasso is continued in his still-life Le Compotier (Fig. 262). He is interested in rhythm--the triangular folds of the napkin, the angularity of the table, and the convex and concave movement of curving shapes. 228 In comparison with Guitar and Fruit Dish (Fig. 263) by Braque, a work of the same period, Picasso's is more de­ pendent upon sculpturesque modeling patterns and retains the sharpness of the African dancers series and the pointed quality of Les Demoiselles d'Avignon. Braque, painting in a medium ranged tonality (brown, yellow, grey and blue), on the other hand maintains fluidity, a transparency which is created by a structural interchanging and melting of planes, simultaneously. Compositionally, Picasso sets up an overall activity all over the surface of the canvas. Braque forms a sculp­ turesque unity in the center and moves to a more painterly one in outer edges of the painting so that the viewer's eye moves back and forth between the two, rather than continu­ ally shifting as with Picasso's work. In Picasso, there is a violent transition from one area to another in contrast to the gentler, organic and smooth flow of Braque. This fluidity and pictorial unity of Braque almost achieves the most advanced stage of Analytical Cubism. In short, Braque is more traditionally classical in composition, working around a central focus, the center, and more traditionally painterly in style; compositionally, Picasso is painterly, more equally involving the whole surface, but more tra­ ditionally classical in style, emphasizing line and line fragments as well as modeling patterns. 229 From this time in 1909, they began to see each other daily and watch each other's development and discuss their works. Braque later described, "A cette e*poque j'gtais tres lie" avec Picasso. Malgre nos temperaments tres dif- ferents, nous etions guides par une id£e commune. On l'a bien vu par la suite, Picasso est Espagnol, moi je suis Francais; on sait toutes les differences que cela comporte, mais pendant ces annees-la les differences ne comptaient pas . . . Nous habitions Montmartre, nous nous voyions tous les jours, nous parlions. ... On s'est dit avec Picasso pendant ces annees-la des choses que personne ne se dira plus, des choses que personne ne saurait plus se dire, que personne ne saurait plus comprendre . . . des choses qui seraient incomprehensibles et qui nous ont donne tant de joie . . . et cela sera fini avec nous." "C'etait un peu comme la cordee en montagne. . . . Nous travaillions beau- coup tous les deux. . . . Les musees ne nous intSressaient plus. Nous allions voir des expositions, mais pas tellement qu'on le croit. Nous etions surtout tres concentres." Footnotes for Chapter IX

Friesz stated that the new ideas were first formulated on his stay at La Ciotat in the summer of 1907 and the re­ sult was exhibited at the Independants of 1908. This seems to refer to Travail a I'Automne, which could not have been finished by the end of 1907, cf. Fels, Propos d'Artistes, 69-70. Oppler suggests that this subject of human labor was inspired from Abbaye de Creteil, whom Friesz knew through Fleuret and Apollinaire. Abbaye de Creteil and his group advocated the Utopian dream of an artistic phalanstery, cf. Fauvism Reexamined, 197. 3Burgess, Architectural Record, 17 (May, 1910), 410-411: He reported Friesz seems to be the closest to Cezanne. 4Gauthier, Othon Friesz (Geneva, 1957), pi. 20, Sous- Bois, 1907. Marcel Giry, "Le Paysage a Figures chez Othon Friesz (1907-1912)," Gazette des Beaux-Arts, 69 (Jan., 1967), 46. . Fels, Propos d'Artistes, 70. 7Gil Bias (Mar. 20, 1908) as quoted by Oppler, Fauvism Reexamined, 295. 8Apollinaire, Chroniques d'Art (1902-1908), 52. Q Burgess, Architectural Record, 17 (May, 1910), 410. Crespelle, The Fauves, 164. 1:LLouis Gebhard Cann, "Othon Friesz," The Arts (July, 1926), 282. 1ZQuoted by Werner in Raoul Dufy, 28. 13 Braque said, "Quand les objets fragmented sont apparus dans ma peinture vers 1909, c'etait une maniere de m'approcher le plus de l'objet, dans la mesure ou la peinture me l'a permis. La fragmentation me servait a etablir l'espace et le mouvement dans l'espace et je n'ai pu 230 231 introduire l'objet qu'apres avoir cree I'espace . . .,", Dora Vallier, Cahiers d'Art, 29 (Oct., 1954), 15. 14 Hope, Georges Braque, 37. 15Vallier, Cahiers d'Art, 29 (Oct., 1954), 14. POSTSCRIPT

Fauvism as a movement lasted only two or three years if we consider the Salon d'Automne in 1905 as its official beginning. For Braque, the Fauvist period lasted only a year, from the summer of 1906 to the summer of 1907. He stated that, "It was impossible to make any further progress forever in a state of paroxysm. And besides, there is no point in adopting an attitude and freezing in it." He, however, acknowledged that Fauvism was important for him because "They liberated me, permitted me to try other forms 2 of expression ..." The Fauvist experience offered him freedom from a reliance on the traditional attitude towards the visual perception and rendering of,and provided him with a familiarity of abstract conception and the components of style. Like Dufy and Friesz, he was never a leader of the group, but he assimilated as he felt it necessary while maintaining his particular independence. By 1907-1908, most members of the Fauves had undergone changes in style to a more austere discipline based on Cezanne, and Picasso emerged as the leader of the avant- garde artists. The collaboration with Braque in the evolu­ tion of Cubism is something unprecedented in modern , for they are much closer than Monet and Renoir 232 233 during the La Grenouilliere and Argenteuil periods. The Cubist works from the Analytical and Synthetic phase by Picasso and Braque are so close that they are almost in­ distinguishable. Yet, through close examination we have found that each personality is reflected on the canvas, ex­ pressing its artistic independence. Braque, who retains a sense of underlying strength, never letting emotion dominate in his Fauvist works even while he attains an openness and fluidity of the composition and sensuous tonality, con­ tinued these qualities into his Cubism. Even such close works as Braque's The Portuguese (Fig. 264) and Picasso's The Mandolinist (Fig. 265), both dated 1911, reveal that Braque tends to emphasize the fluidity of the shapes, more textural in color tonalities of brown, yellow and violet, working around the core, the volume is established by op­ tical blending and is more responsive to natural reference. Picasso, on the other hand, creates sculpturesque projection by working from fragment edges to greater extensions; he is more abrupt in interlinking of the passage, more broken in line and shape and more abstract in fragmentation and does not refer back to nature as fundamentally. ~

On the whole, Braque is a classicist in the sense of Chardin, Corot and Cezanne. Braque was not a facile painter like Dufy, not as violent in temperament as Picasso. He seems to be a painter whose creative production required more contemplation and aesthetic understanding rather than 234

ideas and emotions. Prior to this achievement, most of the discussion of the Le Havre group tends to be divided according to the trips they made together, by Salons they participated in together because these resulted from the work done on their sojourns. They are not just convenient breaking points but elemental to their stylistic evolution as individuals and as a group. As is generally true with the Fauvists, the Le Havre group made numerous trips together. Friesz made more trips with Braque than anybody else, to Antwerp in 1906 and to La Ciotat and l'Estaque in 1907. The first two trips were especially valuable for both artists as they discovered Fauvism on the first and explored the possibilities of bright colors as they come in touch with the sunlight of southern France on the second. We fii.d that both often painted in front of the same motif, yet were able to maintain inde­ pendence: Friesz' marked by a predilection for nervous, curvilinear lines and movement, Braque's by a sureness of structure and silvery tonality. However, Friesz' development after 1908, guided by his personal appreciation of Cezannism and tradition, is a disappointing one as he seemed to regress and was not able to embody the new modern spirit, which Dufy and Braque were able to do. Dufy was subjected to a great variety of influences, more so than Braque and Friesz. The period up to 1906 re­ flects a sense of pastiche, learning from many sources and 235 developing his attachment to visual contact with nature. Dufy's later works maintain a certain tie with Fauvism as he was constantly delighted by the things he found in life. He selects motifs from nature and does it in a series: music, seascapes, flowers, social gatherings, etc. 'In these highly decorative paintings, he combined his particular understanding of colors which he obtains from his Fauvist experience, with a facile decorative draftsmanship. Here, Dufy carried on another tradition of French painting, the Rococo of Watteau and Fragonard. The Le Havre group, from the beginning, was bonded by friendships formed when they were in their teens, not by an intrinsic common artistic inclination, and for this reason the group tie could no longer exist after 1909 when Braque, Dufy and Friesz became involved with their different artistic allegiances and personal styles. Yet, each artist returned to seascapes, from time to time, and their attachment to the Norman region; the memories of the sea always formed a part of their lives, together with memories of their Fauvist activities. As Fauvists, they were best when they were together. BIBLIOGRAPHY

The bibliography is divided into four sections; the first three sections are devoted to the monographic studies, articles and exhibition catalogues on Braque, Dufy and Friesz; the fourth section is devoted to general sources and exhibition catalogues that have been consulted.

1. Georges Braque Apollinaire, Umbro, and Martin, Robert. Georges Braque (Collezione Chefs-d'Oeuvres des l'Art Grands Peintres). Paris, 1966. Bissiere, Robert. "Georges Braque," L'Art d'Aujourd'hui, 11 (1925), 21-25. Bonjean, J. "L'Epoque Fauve de Braque," Les Beaux-Arts, (Feb. 18, 1938), 4. Braque, Georges. "Pensees et Reflexions sur la Peinture," Nord-Sud (Dec. 1917), 3-5. Cassou, Jean. "Georges Braque," Cahiers d'Art, no. 1 (1928), 5-8. . Georges Braque (Collezione Le Grand Art en Livre d"e Poche, 28). Paris, 1956. Chevalier, Denys. "Georges Braque," Aujourd'hui, no. 34 (Dec. 1961), 4-11. Cogniat, Raymond. Georges Braque, transl. Eileen B. Hennessy. New York, 1970. . Georges Braque. Paris, 1976. Cohen, J. "Art of Georges Braque." Art and Artists, 3 (March, 1969), 65. 236 237 Cooper, Douglas. "Georges Braque," L'Oeil, no. 107 (Nov. 1963), 26-33. Damase, Jacques. Georges Braque. Deventer, Paris, London, 1963. Descargues, Pierre. "Braque a l'Orangerie," L'Oeil, no. 219 (Oct. 1973), 32-41. Dorival, Bernard. "La Donation Andre Lefebvre au Musee National d'Art Moderne," Revue du Louvre, no. 1, 14 (1964), 38-40. Einstein, Carl. Die Kunst des 20 Jahr Hunderts. Berlin, 1926. . Georges Braque. Paris, 1934. Elgar, Frank. Braque: 1906-1920 (Collezione Petite Encyclo­ pedic de l'Art). Paris, 1958. Frankfurter, A.M. "Georges Braque," Art News (Feb. 1949), 26-55. Fumet, Stanislas. Georges Braque (Collection des Maitres). Paris, 1945. . Georges Braque. Paris, 1965. Gall, Michel. "En Mourant Braque Venge Van Gogh," Paris Match, no. 753 (Sept. 14, 1963), 30-39. Gieure, Maurice. Georges Braque. Paris and New York, 1956. Golding, John. "Braque," The Masters, no. 62 (London, 1966). Heron, Patrick. Braque. London, 1958. Hoffmann, Werner. Georges Braque: His Graphic Work. New York, 1961. Hope, Henry R. Georges Braque. New York, 1949. Isarlov, Georges. Catalogue des Oeuvres de G. Braque (1906- 1929). Paris, 1932. Laufer, Fritz. Georges Braque. Bern, 1954. Lejard, Andre. Braque. Paris, 1949. Leymarie, Jean. Braque, trans1. James Emmons (The Taste of Our Time series). Geneva, 1961. 238 Limbour, G. "Georges Braque, Decouvertes et Traditions," L'Oeil, no. 33 (Sept. 1957), 26-35. Mullins, Edwin. Braque. London, 1968. Paulhan, Jean. Braque le Patron, Fourth Edition. Paris, 1952. Ponge, Francis; Descargues, Pierre; and Malraux Andre\ Georges Braque. Paris, 1971. [English version, transl. Richard Howard and Lane Dunlop (New York, 1971).] Pouillon, Nadine. Braque. Paris, 1970. Revol, Jean. Braque et Villon: Message Vivant du Cubisme. Paris, 1961. Richardson, John. "Braque discusses his art," Realites, no. 93 (Aug. 1958), 26-31. . Georges Braque. London, 1959; Milan, 1961; Paris, 1961. . Braque. London; Greenwich, Conn., 1961. . "Braque: Retrospective Exhibition to be shown at the Royal Scottish Academy and at the Tate Gallery," Studio, 152 (Sept. 1956), 82-87. Rubin, William, et al. Cezanne: The Late Works. New York, 1977. . "Pablo and Georges and Leo and Bill," Art in America, no. 2, 67 (1979), 128-147. Russell, John. Georges Braque. London, 1959. Steinberg, Leo. "Resisting Cezanne: Picasso's 'Three Women'," Art in America, no. 6, 66 (1978), 114-133. . "The Polemical Part," Art in America, no. 2, 67 0-979), 114-127. Vallier, Dora. "Braque—La Peinture et Nous," Cahiers d'Art, 29 (Oct. 1954), 13-24. Valsecchi, Marco. L'Opera Completa di Braque, 1908-1929. Documentation by Massimo Carra, Milan, 1971. [French version, Tout l'Oeuvre Peint de Braque 1908-1929, intro. Pierre Descargues, Paris, 1973.] 239 Verdet, Andr6. Georges Braque. Geneva, 1956. . Entretiens Notes et Ecrits sur la Peinture; Braque, Leger, Matisse, Picasso. Paris, 1978.

Exhibition Catalogues (chronological order) Berne, Kunsthalle. Braque (April 25-May 31, 1953). Preface by Arnold Riidlinger. Edinburgh, The Royal Scottish Academy. Georges Braque (Aug. 18-Sept. 15, 1956). Text by Douglas Cooper. Paris, Bibliotheque National. Georges Braque, Oeuvres Graphique (1960). Preface by Julian Cain and text by Jean Vallery Radot. Basel, Kunsthalle. Georges Braque (April 9-May 29, 1960). Text by Arnold Riidlinger, Pierre Volboudt and Carl Einstein. Munich, Haus der Kunst. Georges Braque (Oct. 18-Dec. 15, 1963). Catalogue by Douglas Cooper. Paris, Musee du Louvre. Presentation de la Donation Braque. (1965). Catalogue by Jean Leymarie. Chicago, The Art Institute of Chicago. Braque. The Great Years (Oct. 7-Dec. 3, 1972). Text by Douglas Cooper. Paris, Orangerie des Tuileries. Georges Braque (Oct. 16, 1973-Jan. 14, 1974). Text by Jean Leymarie. Rome, Accademia di Francia-Villa Medici. Braque (Nov. 15, 1974-Jan. 20, 1975). Text by Jean Leymarie. Tokyo, Shinchosha. Braque (1975). Text by Magochi Kushida. Marcq-en-Barcoeul, Fondation Anne et Albert Prouvost. Georges Braque (Oct. 7, 1978-Jan. 21, 1979). Text by Martine Mathias; preface by Jacques Lassaigne.

2. Raoul Dufy Abdul Hal, Andree, et al. Oeuvres de Raoul Dufy; peintures, aquarelles,""cTessins (Collections de la Ville de Paris) . Paris, Muse'e d'Art Moderne de la Ville de Paris, n.d. 240 Allard, R. Raoul Dufy. Paris, n.d. Berr de Turique, Marcel. Raoul Dufy. Paris, 1930. Besson, George. Raoul Dufy. Paris, 1953. Brion, Marcel. Raoul Dufy: Paintings § Watercolors. New York, 1958. Cogniat, Raymond. Raoul Dufy (Collection des Maitres Ser. 1). Paris, 1939. . Raoul Dufy. Paris, 1950. . Raoul Dufy. Geneva, 1951. . Raoul Dufy. Paris, 1962. Courthion, Pierre. Raoul Dufy. Geneva, 1951. Daulte, Francois. "Marquet et Dufy devant les Memes Sujets," Connaissance des Arts, no. 69 (Nov. 1957), 86-93. Dorival, Bernard. "Les Affiches a Trouville," Revue des Arts (Sept.-Oct. 1957), 225-228. . "Le legs de Mme. Raoul Dufy au Musge National cT'Art Moderne," Revue du Louvre, 13, no. 4-5 (1963), 209-236. . "Un An d'Activite au MusSe d'Art Moderne II-Les Achats des Musees Nationaux," Musees de France (Dec. 1948), 296-297. Fornier, Jean, et. al. Raoul Dufy a Nice: Collection de Musee des Beaux-Arts Jules Cheret. Nice, Musee J. Cheret, 1977. Gauthier, Maximilien. Raoul Dufy. Paris, 1949. Guth, Paul. "La Vie de Raoul Dufy," Connaissance des Arts, no. 16 (1953), 48-53. Hunter, Sam. Raoul Dufy (Art Treasures of the World). New York, 1954. Laffaille, Maurice. Catalogue Raisonne de I'Oeuvre de Dufy, I. Geneve, 197T. Lassaigne, Jacques. Dufy, Biographical S Critical Studies, trans1. James Emmons. Geneva, 1954. 241 Lievre, P. "Raoul Dufy," L'Amour de l'Art (Mai.1921), 146- 151. Martin-Mery, G. "Bordeaux, Galerie des Beaux-Arts: Hommage a Raoul Dufy," (Review of the Dufy exhibition at Bor­ deaux in 1970), Revue du Louvre, 20. no. 4-5 (1970), 305-308. Oury, Marcelle, et^ al. Lettres a Mon Peintre—Raoul Dufy. Paris, 1965. Perocco, G. Raoul Dufy (Chefs-d'Oeuvres de l'Art Grands PeintreTn Paris, 1979. Radulescu, Venera. Raoul Dufy, transl. Leon Levitki. London, 1973. Rene-Jean, Raoul Dufy. Paris, 1931. Roger-Marx, Claude. "Le Nu et La Mer," Les Jardin des Arts, no. 11 (Nov. 1954-Dec. 1955), 658-664. . Raoul Dufy. Paris, 1950. . "Raoul Dufy," L'Amour de l'Art, 14 (1933), 113- 116. Werner, Alfred. Raoul Dufy, with by Christian and Nadine Pouillon. Paris, 1970. [English version with­ out essays by Christian and Nadine Pouillon, New York, 1970.] . "Raoul Dufy," Art 5 Artists, 5 (May, 1970), 20-23. Zervos, Christian. "Raoul Dufy," Cahiers d'Art, 1928.

Exhibition Catalogues (chronological order) Paris, Musee National d'Art Moderne. Raoul Dufy (June-Oct., 1953). Catalogue by Bernard Dorival; preface by . London, The Tate Gallery. Raoul Dufy (Jan. 9-Feb. 7, 1954). Introduction by Raymond Cogniat. San Francisco, Museum of Art. Raoul Dufy (May 12-July 4, 1954). Text by Grace L. McCann Morley, et al. Lyon, Musee de Lyon. Raoul Dufy (1957). Text by Rene Jul- lian and catalogue by Madeleine Rocher-Jauneau. 242 Lille, Palais des Beaux-Arts. Raoul Dufy (1964). Catalogue by Germaine Viatte. Essen, Museum Folkwang. Raoul Dufy (Feb - April, 1968). Text by Andre Robert, M~ Berr de Turique, Hans Platte and Paul Vogt. Bordeaux, Galerie des Beaux-Arts. Raoul Dufy (May 2-Sept. 1, 1970). Texts by Raymond Cogniat, Jacques Lassaigne and G. Martin-Mery. Munich, Haus der Kunst. Raoul Dufy (June 30-Sept. 30, 1973). Forward by Bernard Dorival. Johannesburg, Wildenstein. Raoul Dufy; 1877-195 3. (Nov. 1975). Introduction by Henri Graffie. Marc-en-Baroeul, Fondation Anne et Albert Prouvost, Septen- trion. Raoul Dufy (March-May, 1976). Preface by Jacques Lassaigne. Paris, Musee National d'Art Moderne. Raoul Dufy au Musee National d'Art Moderne (Sept. 29-Nov. 14, 1977).

3. Othon Friesz Bataille, Philippe. "Le Havre; Othon Friesz, Fauve de la Premiere Heure," Journal de 1'Amateur d'Art, no. 648 (June-Aug. 1979), 21-22. Bell, Olive. "Othon Friesz," Burlington Magazine, 38 (June, 1921), 278-282. Brielle, Roger. Othon Friesz. Paris, 1930. Buss, Jacques. "Othon Friesz (1879-1949): Notices Diverses Etablies," Art-Documents, no. 82 (1958), 20. Cann, Louise Gebhard. "Othon Friesz," The Arts (July, 1926), 278-284. Champigneulle, B. "L'Oeuvre d'Othon Friesz," France Illus­ tration, 6 (Dec. 30, 1950), 743. Dorival, Bernard. "Friesz (Emile-Othon)," Larousse Mensuel, Paris (April, 1949), 245-246. . "Trois Tableux d'Othon Friesz au Musee d'Art Moderne," Musees de France, no. 10 (Dec, 1950), 235-238. 243 Du Colombier, Pierre. "Othon Friesz," Journal de 1'Amateur d'Art, no. 59 (Nov., 1950), 1,5. Fels, Florent. "Othon Friesz," Propos d'Artistes, Paris (1925), 63-71. Fleuret, Fernand, e^t al. Friesz: Oeuvres (1901-1927). Paris, 1928. Gauthier, Maximilien. Othon Friesz. Paris, 1949. . Othon Friesz. Geneva, 1957. Geneux, Paul. "L'Oeuvre Fougueuse d'Othon Friesz," Les Beaux-Arts, no. 425 (Aug. 21, 1953), 6. Georges, Waldemar. "Othon Friesz," L'Amour de l'Art (Oct., 1920), 200-204. Giry, Marcel. La Jeunesse de Othon Friesz: 1879-1914. Un- published doctoral thesis presented to La Faculte des Lettres de Lyon, 1951. . "A Propos d'un Tableau d'Othon Friesz au Musee cT'Art Modern," Revue du Louvre, 20 (1970), 168-170. . "Le Paysage a Figures chez Othon Friesz (1907- 1912)," Gazette des Beaux-Arts, 69 (Jan., 1967), 45-57. Neugass, Fritz. "Othon Friesz," L'Amour de l'Art, 14 (1933), 165-169. Salmon, Andre\ Emile-Othon Friesz. Paris, 1920. Vanderpyl, Fritz. Peintres de Mon Epoque. Paris, 1931.

Exhibition Catalogues (chronological order) Geneva, Galerie Motte. Catalogue de la Retrospective Friesz (Oct. 12, 1950). Text by Waldemar George and Ch. De Richter. Paris, Galerie Charpentier. Catalogue de 1'Exposition Retro­ spective de la Galerie Charpentier (1950). Text by Charles Vildrac, Bersier, and Maximilien Gauthier. Lyon, Musee de Lyon. E. Othon Friesz, 1879-1949 (Oct.-Dec. 1953). "Freisz et le Fauvisme," by Marcel Giry, and "Friesz et la Tradition," by Rene Jullian. 244 Paris, Musee Galliera. Othon Friesz (Oct.-Nov., 1959). Preface by Rene Heron de Villefosse. Le Havre, Musee des Beaux-Arts. E. Othon Friesz (July 7- Aug. 26, 1979). Preface by Francis Ribemont.

4. General Sources Abdul Hak, Andree. La Donation Germaine Henry/Robert Thomas. Paris, MusSe d'Art Moderne de la Ville de Paris, 1976. Acevedo, Cristobal de. Dibutade. Paris, 1951. Apollinaire, Guillaume. Chroniques d'Art (1902-1918), edited by L.C. Breunig. Paris, 1960. Barr, Alfred H., Jr. Matisse: His Art and His Public. New York, 1951. . "Matisse, Picasso and the Crisis of 1907," Maga­ zine of Art, 44 (1951), 163-170. Basel, Galerie Beyeler. Les Fauves. Exhibition Catalogue (June-Aug., 1959). Baudelaire, Charles. Art in Paris (1845-1862), Reviews of Salons and Other Exhibitions, trans1. | ed. by Jonathan Mayne. London, New York, 1965. Benezit, E. Dictionnaire des Peintres Sculptuers Dessina- teurs et Graveurs. Paris, 1976. Berne, Kunsthalle. Les Fauves. Exhibition Catalogue (April 29-May 29, 1950) . Forward by Arnold Riidlinger. Bordeaux, Galerie des Beaux-Arts. Albert Marquet, 1875-1947. Exhibition Catalogue (May 9-Sept. 7, 1975). Text by Helene Adhemar, Gilbert Martin-Mery and Michel Hoog. . Galerie des Beaux-Arts. Les Cubistes. Exhibition Catalogue (1973). Text by Jacques Lassaigne and Gilbert Martin-Mery. J. Lassaigne's conversation with Braque in 1961 is included. Bouret, Jean. The Barbizon School and French Landscape Painting. Greenwich, Conn., English trans- lation, 1973. Brion, Marcel. "Le Fauvisme," Art d'Aujourd'hui, no. 7-8 (March, 1950), 8-10. 245 Burgess, Gelett. "The Wild Men of Paris," The Architectural Record, 17 (May, 1910), 401-414. Cabanne, Pierre. L'Epopee du Cubisme. Paris, 1963. Cambridge, Mass., Fogg . Eugene Isabey: Paintings Watercolors, Drawings, Lithographs. Exhibition Cata­ logue (Nov. 22-Dec. 29, 1967). Catalogue by Peter H. Schabacker and Kate H. Spencer. Cartier, Jean-Albert. "La Provence et les Peintres," Les Jardin des Arts, 51-62 (1959), 316-325. Chapel Hill, N. Carolina, W,H. Ackland Memorial Art Center, University of N. Carolina. French Nineteenth Century Oil Sketches: David to Degas (March 5-April 6, 1978). Catalogue by John Minor Wisdom, e_t al. ; Introduction by John Minor Wisdom. Chasse, Charles. "L'Histoire du Fauvisme Revue et Corrig^e," Connaissance des Arts, 125 (Oct. 1962), 54-59. . Les Fauves et Leur Temps. Lausanne-Paris, 1963. Cherbourg, Musee de Cherbourg, Bonington. Exhibition cata­ logue, (June-Oct., 1966)" Introduction by Lucien Lepoittevin; text by Pierre Miquel. Chipp, Herschel B. Theories of Modern Art: A Source Book by Artists and Critics. Berkeley, London, 1968. Combe, Jacques. "L'Influence de Cezanne," Renaissance (May- June, 1936), 23-32. Cooper, Douglas. The Cubist Epoch. New York, 1971. Crespelle, Jean P. The Fauves, transl. to English by Anita Brockner. London, Greenwich, Conn., 1962. Daix, Pierre. La Vie de Peintre de Pablo Picasso. Paris, 1977. Deauville, Association Deauville-Culture. Le Fauvisme en Normandie. Exhibition Catalogue (July 6-Aug. 17, 1976). Deknatel, Frederick B. Edvard Munch, with introduction by Johan H. Langaard" New York, Boston, 1950. Derain, Andr6. Lettres a Vlaminck, with introduction by Vlaminck." Paris, 1955. 246 Diehl, Gaston. Les Fauves. Paris, 1971. English transla­ tion: The Fauves (New York, 1975). Di San Lazzaro, G. Painting in France, 1895-1949, transl. B. Gilliat-Smith and B. Wall. New York, 1949. Dorival, Bernard. "L'Art de la Brucke et le Fauvisme," Art de France, no. 1 (1961), 381-385. . "Fauves: The Wild Beasts Tamed," Art News Annual. p.952-1953), 98-129; 174-176. . Les Etapes de la Peinture Francaise Contemporaine, 3 vols. Paris, 1943-1946. . "Le Fauvisme au Musee d'Art Moderne," Bulletin des Musees de France, no. 4 (1947), 17-24. . The Twentieth Century Painters, transl. W.J. Stra- chan, vol. 1. New York, 1958. Dorra, Henri. "The Wild Beasts-Fauvism and Affinities at the Museum of Modern Art," Art Journal, no. 1, 36 (Fall, 1976), 50-54. Dries, Jean. "Musee Eugene Boudin a. Honfleur. Le Centenaire de sa Fondation (1868-1968); Les Dernieres acquisi­ tions," Revue du Louvre, 18 (1968), 379-384. Drucker, G.M. Michel. "Avant 1'Impressionisme; Notes sur Bonington et Boudin," Societe des Amis du Musee de Honfleur. Bulletin (1966-1967). Honfleur, Musee Eugene Boudin et Clocher Sainte-Catherine. Dubuisson, A. Richard Parkes Bonington: His Life and Work, transl. C.E. Hughes. London, 1924. Duthuit, Georges. Les Fauves. Geneva, 1949, English trans­ lation, by Ralph Manheim, The Fauvist Painters (New York, 1950). Encyclopedie de la Pleiade, Histoire de l'Art. Paris, 1969. Esdras-Gosse, Bernard. "De Raoul Dufy a Jean Dubuffet: Ou la descendance du 'Pere Lhullier'," Etudes Normandes, no. 59 (Rouen, n.d. [c. 1955]), 18-42. Elderfield, John. The Wild Beast: Fauvism and Its Affinities. New York, Toronto, 1976. Escholier, Raymond. La Peinture Francaise XX siecle. Paris, 1937. 247 Fels, Florent. L'Art Vivant de 1900 a Nos Jours. Geneva, 1950. Flam, Jack D. Matisse on Art. New York, 1973. Flanner, Janet. Men and Monuments. New York, 1957. Fry, Edward. Cubism. New York, Toronto, 1966. . "Cubism 1907-1908: An Early Eyewitness Account," Art Bulletin, 48 (March, 1966), 70-73. Gadney, Reg. Constable and His World. London, 1976. Giry, Marcel. "Le Salon d'Automne 1905," L'Information d'Histoire de 1'Art, 13 (Jan.-Feb. 1968), 16-25. . "Le Salon des Inde"pendants de 1905," L' Information (I'Histoire de l'Art, 15 (May-June, 1970), 110-114. . "Matisse et la Naissance du Fauvisme," Gazette cTes Beaux-Arts (May, 1970), 331-344. Goldin, Amy. "Forever Wild: A Pride of Fauves," Art in America, 64 (May-June, 1976), 90-95. Golding, John. Cubism: A History and an Analysis (Icon Edi­ tions) . New York, Evanston, San Francisco, London, 1968. Gordon, Donald E. "Kirchner in Dresden," Art Bulletin, 48 (Sept.-Dec. 1966), 335-366. . Modern , 1900-1916. Munchen, 1974. Gray, Christopher. Armand Guillaumin. Chester, Conn., 1972. Habasque, G. Cubism: A Biographical and Critical Study. Paris, New York, 1959. Hamburg, Kunstverein. Matisse und Seine Freunde-Les Fauves (May 25-July 10, 1966). Introduction by Hans Platte. Hefting,. Victorine. Jongkind: Sa Vie. Son Oeuvre. Son Epoque. Paris, 1975. . Barbizon Revisited. Boston, 1962. Hobhouse, Janet. "The Fauve Years: A Case of Derailments," Art News, 75 (Summer, 1976), 46-50. 248

Hodin, J.P. "Edvard Munch, Founder of Expressionism," Studio, 166 (Nov. 1963), 180-183. Hoog, Michel. "La Direction des Beaux-Arts et les Fauves," Art de France, no. 3 (1963), 363-366. . Fauves: Collection Pierre Levy. Paris, 1972. Houston, Sarah Campbell Blatter Gallery, The University of Houston. Edyard Munch. Exhibition Catalogue (April 9- May 23, 1976), by Peter W. Guenther. Humbert, Agnes. "Les Fauves et le Fauvism," Jardin des Arts no. 12 (Oct. 1955), 713-720. Huyghe, Rene, e_t al. Histoire de l'Art Contemporain: La Peinture. Paris, 1935. . "Le Fauvisme: Les Coloristes," L1Amour de l'Art 14 D-933), 97-102. , and Rudel, Jean. L'Art et le Monde Moderne. Paris, 1969. Jean-Aubry, G., and Schmit, R. Eugene Boudin, La Vie et L'Oeuyre d'apres les Lettres et les Documents medits, transl. by C. Tisdall. Greenwich, 1969. Jedlicka, Gotthard. Per Fauvismus. Zurich, 1961. Judkins, Winthrop. "Toward a Reinterpretation of 'Cubisme'," Art Bulletin, 30 (1948), 270-278. Kahnweiler, Daniel H. The Rise of Cubism, transl. by Henry Aronson. New York, 1949. . Mes Galeries et mes Peintres, Entretiens avec Francis Cremieux. Paris, Gallimard, 1961. English translation by Helen Weaver. (London, New York, 1971). Lampert, C. "Wild Beasts: The Museum of Modern Art, New York Exhibit," Studio, 192 (July, 1976), 78-79. Lassaigne, J. Matisse, Biographical and Critical Study, transl. Stuart Gilbert. Geneva, 1959. Lemaire, Solange. "Don au Musee Eugene Boudin de la Lettre autographe d'Eugene Boudin contant la 'Legende de Saint-Simeon'," Societe des Amis du Musee de Honfleur. Bulletin (1975-77), 8-18. 249 Levy, Pierre. Pes Artistes et un Collectionneur. Paris, 1976. Leymarie, Jean. Fauvism, transl. by James Emmons. Geneva, 1959. London, Heim Gallery. Paintings by Paul Huet and Some Con­ temporary French Sculpture (Winter, 1969). Introduc­ tion by Marion Spencer; catalogue by Pierre Miquel. Melas-Kyriazi, Jean. Van Dongen et le Fauvisme. Lausanne- Paris, 1971. Mullaly, Terence. "The Fauves," Apollo, 64 (1956), 184-189. Muller, Joseph-Emille. Fauvism, New York, Washington, 1967. New Haven, Yale Center for British Art, Yale University. English Landscape 1630-1850; Drawings, Prints § Books from the Paul Mellon Coll. (April 19-July 17, 1977). Catalogue by Christopher White. New York, The Museum of Modern Art. Les Fauves. Exhibition Catalogue (1953). Introduction by John Rewald. New York, Leonard Hutton Gallery. Fauves and Expressionists (April 18-June 12; 1968). Introduction by Leonard Hutton Hutschnecker; text by B. Dorival and Leopold Reidemeister. Oppler, Ellen C. Fauvism Reexamined. Ph.D. dissertation for Columbia University, 1969. New York, 1976. Osaka, Seibu Takatsuki Gallery. Exposition Les Fauves (Nov. 15-Dec. 8, 1974). Introduction and catalogue by Francois Daulte. Paris, Galerie Bing. Les Fauves 1904 a 1908. Exhibition Catalogue (April 15-30, 1927). Preface by Waldemar George. Paris, Galerie Marie Jane Garoche. L'Ecole de Rouen. Exhi­ bition Catalogue (1976). Paris, Galerie de Paris. La Cage aux Fauves du Salon d'Automne 1905. Exhibition Catalogue (Oct. 12-Nov. 6, 1965). Preface by J. Cassou; text by P. Cabanne. Paris, Musee des Arts Decoratifs. Edvard Munch. Exhibition Catalogue (Mars-Avril, 1969)" Text by Ragna Stang. 250

Paris, Musee National d'Art Moderne. Le Fauvisme. Exhibi­ tion Catalogue (June-Sept., 1951). Preface by Jean Cassou. . Le Cubisme (1907-1914). Exhibition Catalogue [Jan. 30-April 9, 1953). Text by B. Dorival. . Le Fauvisme Francais et les debuts de l'Expression- isme Allemandl Exhibition Catalogue (Jan. 15-Mar. 6, 1966). Forward by B. Dorival; catalogue by Michel Hoog and Leopold Reidemeister. . L'Expressionnisme Europeen. Exhibition Catalogue, (May 26-July 27, 1970). Text by Jean Leymarie; catalogue by Paul Vogt, Ingrid Krause and Michel Hoog. Paris, Centre National d'Art et de Culture Georges Pompidou. Paris-Berlin, 1900-1933. Exhibition Catalogue (July- Nov., 1978). Introduction by Werner Spies; preface by Pontus Hulten: catalogue by Marie- Besnard- Bernadac and Gunter Metken. Paris, Societe des Artistes Independants. Catalogues, 1901- 1910. Paris, Societe du Salon d'Automne. Catalogues, 1903-1910. Peacock, Carlos. John Constable: The Man and His Work. Greenwich, Conn., 1965. Pissarro, Camille. Lettres to his son Lucien, ed. John Rewald. New York, 1972. Raynal, Maurice, et al. L'Art et le Monde Moderne. Paris, 1969. . Modern Painting, transl. Stuart Gilbert. Geneva, 1956. Rennes, Musee de Rennes. Le Fauvisme. Exhibition Catalogue (April 28-May 25, 1952). Text by B. Dorival. Rosenblum, Robert. Cubism and 20th Century Art. New York, 1960. Saint-Jorre, Jean de. Fernand Fleuret et Ses Amis. Con­ stance, n.d. [late 1940s]. St. Tropez, Musee de l'Annonciade. Le Drapeau, 1792-1977. Exhibition Catalogue (July-Sept., 1977). Text by Alain Mousseigne. 251 Salmon, Andre. Le Fauvisme. Paris, 1956. Schijefler, Gustav. Edvard Munch's Graphische Kunst. Dresden, 1923.

Schmit, Robert% Eugene Boudin, 1824-1898, catalogue raisonne. Paris, 1973.

Selz, Jean. Edvard Munch. Paris, 1974. Selz, Peter. German Expressionist Painting. Berkeley, London, 1957. Shirley, The Hon. Andrew. Bonington. London, 1940. Smith, John Boulton. "Portrait of Friendship. Edvard Munch and Frederick Delius," Apollo. 83 (Jan. 1966), 38-47. . "Edvard Munch, European and Norwegian," Apollo, 99. (Jan. 1974), 45-49. Sotriffer, Kristian. Expressionism and Fauvism. New York, Toronto, 1972. Stuckey, Charles F. with Naomi E. Maurer. Toulouse-Lautrec Paintings. Chicago, 1979. Sutton, D. "The Fauves," Burlington Magazine, 92 (Sept.1950), 263-264. Testaniere, Genevieve. "Le Musee des Beaux-Arts du Havre," La Revue Francaise, supplement to no. 233 (July, 1970). Tokyo, Galerie Seibu Takatsuki. Les Fauves. Exhibition Catalogue (Nov. 15-Dec. 8, 1974). Catalogue by Francois Daulte. Toronto, . The Fauves. Exhibition Catalogue (April 11-May 11, 1975). Text by Richard J. Wattenmaker. Vauxcelles, Louis. "Les Fauves," Gazette des Beaux-Arts, (Dec. 1934), 273-282. . Le Fauvisme. Geneva, 1958. Warnod, Andre. Ceux de la Butte. Paris, 1947. Warnod, Jeanine. Washboat Days, transl. by Carol Green. New York, 1972. 252

Washington, D.C., National Gallery of Art. Edvard Munch; Symbols and Images. Exhibition Catalogue (Nov. 11, 1978-Feb. 19, 1979). Intro, by Robert Rosenblum, essays by Arne Eggum, ejt al. Weill, Berthe. Pan! dans l'oeil . . . ou Trente ans dans les coulisses de la peinture contemporaine, 1900-1930" Paris, 1933. Willett, John. Expressionism. New York, Toronto, 1970. Williams, lolo A. Early English Watercolours. Introduction by Edward Croft-Murray and Malcolm Cormack. Reprinted, Bath, 1970. Williamstown, Mass., Sterling and Francine Clark Art Insti­ tute. Jonekind and the Pre-Impressionists: Painters of the Ecole Saint-Simeon. Exhibition Catalogue (1977). Introduction and Catalogue by Charles C. Cunningham. Zervos, Christian. Histoire de l'Art Contemporain. Paris, Cahiers d'Art, 1938. . Pablo Picasso: Oeuvres. Vol. 1 (1885-1906), Paris, 1932; vol. 2 (1906-1912) Paris, 1942; vol 6, supplement to vols. 1-5, Paris, 1954. 253

.X ... >•»

Fig. 1. Francia. Transports Returning from Spain, Feb., 1809, Beating into St. Helen's Roads, nd 254 TOP* --'^'Mf'W i&L

Fig. 2. Bonington. Coast Scene, Normandy. 1823-24

*^jp..j-

Fig. 3. Bonington. Shipping: Choppy Sea. 1827 255

^-"^

Fig. 4. Constable. Haywain. 1824 256

Fig. 5. Coro t. Hnn-flfiur. le Vieux Bassin. 1822-25 257

Fig. 6. Huet. The Jetty at Honfleur in Rough Weather. 1826

Fig. 7. Isabey. Village in Normandy. 1861 258

* #'

Fig. 8. Jongkind. Frigates, Port of Harfleur. 1849-1853

A-,kU.L /i?

Fig. 9. Jongkind. Dutch Fishing Boats. 1870 259

Fig. 10. Boudin. Scene de Plage au Soleil Couchant. 1869

i Fig. 11. Boudin. Falaise et Barque jaunes a Etretat.1895 260

,# ^kif,' .- 4;.'.»»/

Fig. 12. Corot. Toutain Farm at Honfleur. 1845 261

Fig. 13. Corot. The Beach, Etretat. 1872

Fig. 14. Courbet. Les Falaises .d'Etretat apres I'Orage. 1870 262

Fig. 15. Lebourg. Entrance to the Port of Honfleur, Low Tide. 1882

Fig. 16. Lepine. Bateau sur le Fleuve, clair de lune. nd 263

Fig. 17. Dubourg. The Jetty at Honfleur. 1865

Fig. 18. Cals. Portrait of Monsieur Martin. 1878 264

Fig. 19. Lhullier. Portrait of the Artist's Wife, nd

Fig. 20. Degas. Head of a Young Woman. 1868- 70 265

'#£•'"••i: sa^:- -.>. ^•»g§««>^

Fig. 21. Friesz. Study of a Nude. 1897 266

Fig. 22. Dufy. Self-Portrait. Fig. 23. Lhullier. 1898 Self-Portrait. nd

Fig. 24. Friesz. Portrait of Lhullier. 1896 267

Fig. 25. Dufy. Gaston Dufy at the Piano. T897 "

26. Renoir. Lady at the Piano. 18 75 268

Fig. 27. Tissot. Lady at the Piano. 1881

Fig. 28. Toulouse-Lautrec. Mademoiselle Dihau at the" Piano. 1890 269

Fig. 29. Van Gogh. Miss Gachet at the Piano. 1890

Fig. 30. Munch. Maiden at Fig. 31. Friesz. Woman the Piano. 1886 at the Piano. T8~9T? 270

Fig. 32. Friesz. Maison a la Falaise. 1895

Fig. 33. Dufy. Landscape in Normandy. 1895 271

Fig. 34. Braque. Study of a Man. 1899-1900 272

Fig. 35. Braque. Grandmother Fig. 36 Braque. Grandmother of the Artist, c.1900 of a Friend, c.1900

Fig. 37. Rembrandt. An Old Woman in an Arm­ chair. 1654 273

Fig. 38. the Artist's Mother. 1897 Fig.39. Friesz. Portrait of the Artist's Mother, 1898 K * -.,f

>>.«} .-«

Gericault. Portrait of a Fig. 40. Couchaux. The Seam- Woman. ncl stress. nd 274

Fig. 42. Braque. Portrait of Cousin Johanet. 1900

ijz&wm^

Fig. 43. Corot. Girl Read- ing. 18T5" 515 275

Fig. 44. Dufy. Le Quai de I'isle du Havre. 1898

Fig. 45. Dufy. Les Docks au Havre. 1898 276 •fVTW •' "PTT'X'?*

Fig. 46. Friesz. Village en Bretagne. 1899

I-?,'? Tjj?3**^>5?W **•.;•„,.

Fig. 47. Friesz. Berges de la Seine. 1899 277

Fig. 48. Braque. Paysage d'Harfleur. c.1900 278

••J. t-9?i

Fig. 49. Lebourg. Route au bord de la Seine, a. Neuilly, en hiver. nd

Fig. 50. Pinchon. Ships at Dieppe, nd 279

Fig. 51. Bonnat. John Taylor Johnston. 1880 280

Fig. 52. Friesz. Portrait of the Artist's Mother. 1901 281

53. Van Gogh. Portrait ofPere Tanguy. 1886-1888

Fig. 54. Van Gogh. Madame Roulin. 1889 282 ?TCl -

55. Toulouse-Lautrec. Justine Dieuhl. 1891

Fig. 56. Gauguin. La Belle Angele. 1889 283

Fig. 57. Friesz. Valley of the Creuse. 1901

T-^BTr.'. ',7- •;T-^r^:. •- <«••• ".•. V.... • , ...'... . .•*•.!

Fig. 5C. Friesz. The Chateau Fip. 59. Guillaume. at Crozant. 1901 Boigneville-les- Carneaux. 1901 284

Fig. 60. Friesz. The Market at Falaise. 1902

&&«&*$

Fig. 61. Friesz. Tour Eiffel. 1902 285

xSbSr •*'

Fig. 62. Friesz. Le Marche aux Chevaux a Falaise. 1903

Fig. 63. Friesz. The Pont Neuf. 1903 286

Fig. 64. Friesz. Le Pont au Change, T9IT2"- 1903

Fig. 65. Friesz. Le Havre, Le Bassin du Roy. 1903 287

.. --7 • ,. .. \ -

Fig. 66. Dufy. Falaise, la Place de I'eglise. 19U1

- . -• *.. -j^i-."*-.'' -^£^r; - -•-..,.•<»

Fig. 67. Sisley. Le Village de Veneux- Nadon. 1881 283

Fig. 68. Dufy. Jardin a Falaise, Fig. 69. Vuillard. 1902 Under the Trees. 1894 289

Fig. 70. Dufy. The Concert. 1902

Fig. 71. Degas. Musicians of the Orchestra. 1868-1869 290

Fig. 72. Dufy. Jeurte Femme au Canape" Rose. 1902 291

Fig. 73. Dufy. The Horsemarket. 1901 292

Fig. 74. Steinlen. The Market, nd 5 »

Fig. 75. Dufy. The Market at Marseille. 1904 293

Fig. 76. Boudin. The Fishmarket, Rotterdam. 1874-76

Fig. 77. Pissarro. The Market at Gisors, 1895 294

; ;4 K.. ('

^

^ftJSs ••**$*••.# Sfc'

Fig. 78. Manet. Luncheon on the Grass. 1863

Fig. 79. Monet. Luncheon on the Grass. 1865 295

Fig. 80. Dufy. Le Dejeuner sous la Tonnelle au Havre. 1901 296

Fig. 81. Dufy. The Terrace of the Cafe, c.1904 297

T'-'-'T^f,

jZi^*&»0*6

Fig. 82. Dufy. La Plage. 1901

Fig. 83. Boudin. Trouville, Beach Scene. 1886 298

•;c|p»,v*- .«^«w

«;;•.£* >^S 2ar*

Fig. 84. Dufy. La Plage de Sainte-Adresse. 1902

Fig. 85. Dufy. Plage de Sainte-Adresse. 1902 !99

Fig. 86. Dufy. Les Bains Marie- Christine a Sainte- Adresse. 1903

Fig. 87. Dufy. Sur la Plage a Sainte-Adresse. 1904

88. Dufy. La Plage a Sainte- Adresse. 1904 500

WDM)- )Cr- rft -^ T US**.! >i»S

t?

Fig. 89. Seurat. Sunday Afternoon on the Island of Grand Jatte. 1886 301

Fig. 90. Dufy. The Carnival at the Grand Boulevard. 1903

Fig. 91. Monet. Le Boulevard des Capucines 1873 302

Fig. 92. Dufy. Le Yacht Pavoisee au Havre. 1904 303

Fig. 93. Friesz. Portrait of Rene de Saint Delis. 1904

Fig. 94. Munch. Self- Portrait with Cigarette. 1895 304

f^i^'''[W7*i-W

'JzjQsQtmj? ? *mw?-

M*

Fig. 95. Friesz. Landscape. 1905

Fig. 96. Munch. Beach with Group of Trees, 1903-04 305

Fig. 97. Friesz. La Foire a Rouen. 1905

Fig. 98. Friesz. La Fete Forain a Rouen. 1905 306

Fig. 99. Friesz. Bassin Avec Barques de Peche. 1905 307

.TB'

P o«ly

Fig. 100. Dufy. Neige a Falaise. 1905 308

Fig. 101. Dufy. Apres le Dejeuner. 1905

Fig. 102. Monet. La Liseuse. 1872 309

Fig. 103. Dufy. Le Paysage de Provence. 1905 310

Fig. 104. Dufy. The Gymnastes. 1905

Fig. 105. Dufy. The Railway Wagon. 1905 311

Fig. 106. Braque. Portrait of a Woman. 1900 312

Fig. 107. Braque. Por­ trait of a Woman. 1902

Fig. 108. Carriere. Por­ trait of Woman. 1901 513

Fig. 109. Braque. Artist's Mother. 1904

Fig. 110. Toulouse-Lautrec. Portrait of M. Paul Leclercq. 1897 314

Fig. 111. Braque. The Young Breton Girl. 1904 315

Fig. 112. Braque. Ships Moored at the Quay. 1900-1903

Fig. 113. Braque. Ships on the Seine River. 1900-1903 316

Fig. 114. Jongkind. The Quay at Orsay. 1853 317

V

Fig. 115. Braque. Marina. 1902

*.«*»,>.§f^

Fig. 116. Boudin. Berck, Maree Basse. 1875-78 .313

Fig. 117. Braque. Le Havre. 1903-05 319

X.^J r&rA, < k >*«i.«&0--J x . I £*&£&$&&&&

Fig. 118. Braque. The Ship at Le Havre. 1905

Fig. 119. Monet. Three Fishing Boats. 1885 320

Fig. 120. Van Gogh. Boats at Sainte-Maries. 1888

Li*. •

Fig. 121. Dufy. The Old Harbour of Marseille. 1903 321

Fig. 122. Braque. La Cote de Grace, Honfleur. 1905 322

Fig. 123. Matisse. Joy of Life. 1906

Fig. 124. Matisse. Luxe, Calme et Volupte. 1905 323

i

Fig. 125. Marquet. Ser­ 4 geant of the Colonial Regi k ment. 1904

Fig. 126. Marquet. Colon­ ial Sergeant. 1904 324

Fig. 127. Dufy. The Flutist. 1902 325

Fig. 128'. Dufy. The Boardwalk of the Casino Marie- Christine at Sainte-Adresse. 1906

Fig. 129. Marquet. Beach at Sainte-Adresse. 1906 326

Fig. 130. Marquet. The Passerelle at Sainte-Adresse. 1906

Fig. 131. Marquet. The Beach at Sainte-Adresse. 1906 327

Fig. 132. Bonnard. Walk on the Jetty. 1906 328

Fig. 133. Dufy. The Street Decked with Flags at Le Havre. 1906

Fig. 134. Dufy. The Street Decked with Flags. 1906 329

5Sg-*»V

Fig. 135. Manguin. The 14th of July at Saint-Tropez. 1905

Fig. 136. Manet. Rue Mosnier Decked with Flags. 1878 330

Fig. 137, Monet. Rue Montor- gueil, Festival of June 30. 1878

Fig. 138, Van Gogh. The 14th of July. 188 7 331

139. Marquet. The 14th of July at Le Havre. 1906

Fig. 140, Dufy. The 14th of July at Le Havre! . 1906 332

J.^iW^.^^/»T•)5?5«ly,Jg(^»M'>SJ«5tS•

Fig. 141. Marquet. The 14th of July at Le Havre. 1906 333

•&< n^uttioub*?g;#|

jr ,<*-' •«*

ViBTyTgF ~

(>•;

h3A

Fig. 142. Dufy. Posters at Trouville. 1906

Fig. 143. Marquet. Posters at Trouville. 1906 334

Fig. 144. Dufy. Posters at Trouville. 1906 335

fwrr—t

Fig. 145. Dufy. Sortie de Regates au Havre. 1906

Fig. 146. Dufy. The Basin at Honfleur. 1906 336

Fig. 147. Dufy. The Umbrella. 1906

Fig. 148. Munch. Girls on a Bridge. 1900 337

•^.77Tyryyg^^rag»3TypcT5y;y;yij¥^«^ t^v-qr. r)

5p?. fe>. 3KM& '*•*V-: T

Fig. 149. Munch. Girls on the Bridge. 1903

Fig. 150. Derain. Hyde Park. 1906 338

B W^ ~ i*i£' •*£*Mfi,.

;*>'••<• *£%

Fig. 151. Friesz. The Port of Antwerp. 1906 339

"j?-¥^r:-"5PTrf

Fig. 152. Friesz. The Port of Antwerp. 1906

Fig. 153. Braque. The Port of Antwerp. 1906 340

Fig. 154. Friesz. The Port of Antwerp. 1906

Fig. 155. Braque. The Port of Antwerp. 1906 341

Fig. 156. Braque. The Port of Antwerp. 1906

Fig. 157. Dufy. The Port of Le Havre. 1906 342

Fig. 158. Matisse. Open Window. 1905 343

tf *-

\%^Pv*i^K%&i

Fig. 159. Braque. The Window on the F.scaut. l'.)06 344

Fig. 160. Braque. The Escaut at Antwerp. 1906 Fig. 161. Braque. The Escaut at Antwerp. 1906 •Cfc in 9 346

*«SK8£«y^, 1

' /

\

Fig. 162. Marquet. Les toits de Paris. 1906 347

Fig. 16,3. Braque. Landscape near Antwerp. 1906

Fig. 164. Dufy. Le Loire a Durtal. 1906 348

Fig. 165. Friesz. La Cote de Grace at Honfleur. 1906 349

Fig. 166. Friesz. Trees at Honfleur. 1906

Fig. 167. Friesz. Autumn at Honfleur. 1906 350

Fig. 168. Braque. Canal St. Martin. 1906

_ •—^--a^j. .

Fig. 169. Marquet. Fecamp Beach. 1906 351

2^

Fig. 170. Braque. Houses behind Trees. 1906

£.»£. • j* A 5*i ?St

Fig. 171. Matisse. Promenade among the Olive Trees. 1906 352

Fig. 172. Braque. The Port at I'Estaque. 1906

Fig. 173. Vlaminck. Tugboat at Chatou. 1906 353

Fig. 174. Braque. Landscape at I'Estaque. 1906

Fig. 175. Derain. The Turning Road, I'Estaque. 1906 354

Fig. 176. Braque. Landscape at I'Estaque. 1906 355

Fig. 177. Braque. Land­ scape at 1'Estaque. 1906

Fig. 178. Cezanne. Bend in Road at Montgeroult. 1898 356

Fig. 179. Braque. Still Life with Pitchers. 1906 357

Fig. 180. Braque. The Seated Nude. 1907

Fig. 181. Matisse. Gypsy. 1906 -**-*- 358

Fig. 182. Picasso. Gertrude Stein. 1906 359

'» Iff.1- NKy^i

Fig. 183. Friesz. Portrait of Fernand Fleuret. 1907 360

Fig. 184. Marquet. Andre Rouveyre. Fig. 185. Munch. 1904 The Frenchman, Monsieur Archi- mard. 1901 361

/*•

Fig. 186. Braque. Little Bay at La Ciotat. 1907

frrfc

Fig. 187. Derain. View o£ Collioure. 1905 362

i^fiyfrTamPF1

£^«a

Fig. 188. Friesz. Bord de Mer a La Ciotat. 1907 363

Fig. 189. Friesz. Fauve Landscape with Trees. 1907

ft*

Fig, 190. Matisse, Olive Trees, Collioure. 1905 364

Fig. 191. Braque. Landscape at La Ciotat. 1907

Fig. 192. Friesz. Landscape at La Ciotat. 1907 365

Fig. 193. Friesz. Landscape at La Ciotat. 1907

Fig. 194. Braque. Landscape at La Ciotat. 1907 366

t%**\

-atf

1^4? S^*"-V VA <. »^8/^.>

f ^«w^- ^Sx5w '

.V»* **£&Sl£d# '^•*;

Fig. 195. Matisse. By the Sea (Golfe de Saint-Tropez). 1904 367

Fig. 196. Derain. Composition fL'Age d'Or). 1905 368

Fig. 197. Matisse. Blue Nude. 1907

Fig. 198. Derain. The Bathers. 1907 369

Fig. 199. Derain. Standing Figure. 1907 370

Fig. 200. Friesz. Bathers at La Ciotat. 1907

Fig. 201. Cezanne. Baigneuses devant la tente. 1885 371

Fig. 202. Friesz. Creek at La Ciotat. 1907

Fig. 203. Munch. Girls Bathing. 1892 372

Fig. 204. Derain. Bathers. 1906 373

Fig. 205. Braque. View of Hotel Mistral. 1907

Fig. 206. Cezanne. Pines and Rocks. 1904 374

Fig. 207. Derain. Mountain Road, Cassis. 1907 375

Fig. 208. Friesz. The Terrace of Hotel Mistral. 1907

< • Fig. 209. Braque. The Bridge in the Landscape. 1907 377

Fig. 210. Cezanne. Chateau Noir. 1904 378

Fig. 211. Braque. Landscape with Houses. 1907 379

Fig. 212. Picasso. Les Demoiselles d'Avignon. 1907

Fig. 213. Braque. Grand Nu. 1907-08 380

iVj I m

Fig. 214. Van Gogh. The Actor. 1887 381

Fig. 215. Braque. Three Nudes. 1908

Fig. 216. Braque. Standing Nude. 1907 382

\>S < •'

k'1

r ^spf itfe***"

Fig. 217. Braque. Balustrade, Hotel Mistral. 1908 383

Fig. 218. Braque. Land­ scape at 1'Estaque. 1908

Fig. 219. Braque. The Trees at 1'Estaque. 1908 384

Fig. 220. Braque. Houses at I'Estaque. 1908

Fig. 221. Braque. Viaduct 1908 385

i&J

.-^•^i;^

Fig. 222. Braque. Trees and Viaduct. 1908 386

Fig. 223. Dufy. The Terrace from the Beach. 1907 387

Fig. 224. Dufy. Jeanne in the Flowers. 1907

Fig. 225. Matisse. Vase of Flowers. 1907 388

Fig. 226. Dufy. The Winter Garden, 1907

Fig. 227. Matisse. River Bank. 1907 389

: *£LJ$ ffo* 'js*i£ '^i ^% -\

"Ajfcst-.'

Fig. 228. Dufy. The Bathers at Marie-Christine at Le Havre. 1906

Fig. 229. Dufy. Les Pecheurs a la ligne. 1907 390

•>— .. / _._ - '-• '/ £.*«&.

• \ \ • •*

Fig. 230. Dufy. Coup de Vent. 1907

-~ -> w-vigsii •} j idfensfr-

Fig. 231. Dufy. Les Pecheurs a la ligne. 1908 391

232, Dufy. The Woman m Rose. 1908

Fig. 233. Van Gogh. Self-Portrait, 1887 392

Fig. 234. Dufy. L'Aperitif. 1908

Fig. 235. Dufy. The Cafe at I'Estaque. 1908 393

Fig. 236. Dufy. The Woman in Rose. 1912 394

Fig. 237. Dufy. Fete Nautique. 1906 395

¥k\i ?/' «<

.T>3

Fig. 238. Dufy. Trees at I'Estaque. 1908 396

Fig. 239. Braque. The Forest. 1908 \

397

Fig. 240. Dufy. Boats at Quay at Marseilles. 1908

Fig. 241. Dufy. Factory, Marseille. 1908 398

\

Fig. 242. Picasso. Peasant Woman. 1908 399

Fig. 243. Picasso. Landscape. 1908

Fig. 244. Picasso. Land­ scape. 1908 400

Fig. 245. Braque. Still Life with Musical Instruments. 1908 401

Fig. 246. Friesz. Travail a I'Automne. 1908 S

Fig. 247. Friesz. Study for Travail a I'Automne. 1907 402

Fig. 248. Friesz. Study for Travail a I'Automne. 1907-08 403

?^&

Fig. 249. Delacroix. Massacre of Chios. 1824 404

Fig. 250. Friesz. The Cathedral at Rouen. 1908 405

m$**-

Fig. 251. Friesz. Spring. 1908

>«i >\*&$ft3- *im

Fig. 252. Friesz. Jardin d'Eden. 1907 406

Fig. 253. Matisse. Music (sketch). 1907 407

Fig. 254. Friesz. The Fisherman. 1909

Fig. 255. Friesz. Paresse. 1909 408

Fig. 256. Dufy. The Standing Nude. 1909

Fig. 257. Dufy. The Studio. 1909 409

Fig. 258. Dufy. L'Avenue du Bois. 1909 410

Fig. 259. Braque. The Port in Normandy. 1909 411

Fig. 260. Braque. Landscape at La Roche-Guyon. 1909

Fig. 261. Picasso. Houses on a Hillside. 1909 412

Fig. 262. Picasso. Le~ Compotier.1909

Fig. 263. Braque. Guitar and Fruit Dish. 1909 4i:

Fig. 264. Braque. The Portuguese. 1911

Fig. 265. Picasso. The MandolinfsT". 1911

*&• *