the repeating image:

the repeating image: multiples in french painting from david to matisse

the repeating image: multiples in french painting from david to matisse

Edited by Eik Kahng

With contributions by

Stephen Bann

Simon Kelly

Richard Shiff

Charles Stuckey

Jeffrey Weiss

The Walters Art Museum

Baltimore

Distributed by
Yale University Press
New Haven and London
 Contents
Presenting Sponsor
PNC Foundation

Lead Sponsors
Mr. and Mrs. John H. Laporte 6 Foreword Gary Vikan
Anonymous (2)
9 Lenders to the Exhibition

Contributing Sponsors 11 Repetition as Symbolic Form Eik Kahng

Canusa Corporation
Stanley Mazaroff & Nancy Dorman 27 Reassessing Repetition in Nineteenth-Century Academic Painting:
Sotheby’s Delaroche, Gérôme, Ingres Stephen Bann

53 Strategies of Repetition: Millet /Corot Simon Kelly

This publication accompanies the exhibition Déjà Vu? Published by the Walters Art Museum, Baltimore 83 The Predications and Implications of Monet’s Series Charles Stuckey
Revealing Repetition in French Masterpieces, organized by Copyright © 2007 The Trustees of the Walters Art Gallery,
the Walters Art Museum, Baltimore, in association with Baltimore. All rights reserved. 127 Risible Cézanne Richard Shiff
the Phoenix Art Museum.
The Walters Art Museum
Exhibition dates: 600 North Charles Street 173 The Matisse Grid Jeffrey Weiss
7 October 2007– 1 January 2008 Baltimore, Maryland 21201
The Walters Art Museum, Baltimore, Maryland www.thewalters.org 194 Checklist of the Exhibition

20 January–4 May 2008 Hardcover edition distributed by

Phoenix Art Museum, Phoenix, Arizona Yale University Press
197 Index
302 Temple Street
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data P.O. Box 209040 200 Photography Credits
The repeating image : multiples in French painting from David New Haven, Connecticut 06520-9040
to Matisse / edited by Eik Kahng ; with contributions by www.yalebooks.com
Stephen Bann . . . [et al.].
p. cm. Dimensions are given in centimeters; height precedes width.
Catalog of an exhibition entitled “Déjà Vu? Revealing
Repetition in French Masterpieces,” at the Walters Art The Walters Art Museum, Baltimore
Museum, Oct. 7, 2007–Jan. 1, 2008 and at the Phoenix Manager of Curatorial Publications: Charles Dibble
Art Museum, Jan. 20–May 4, 2008.
Includes index. Designed by Jeff Wincapaw
isbn 978-0-300-12669-3 (cloth) Proofread by Sharon Rose Vonasch
isbn 978-0-911886-68-9 (pbk.) Typeset in ScalaPro and Berthold Akzidenz Grotesk by
1. Painting, French—19th century—Exhibitions. Marissa Meyer
2. Painting, French—20th century—Exhibitions. Color separations by iocolor, Seattle
3. Repetition (Aesthetics)—Exhibitions. I. Kahng, Eik. Produced by Marquand Books, Inc., Seattle
II. Bann, Stephen. III. Walters Art Museum (Baltimore,  www.marquand.com
Md.). IV. Phoenix Art Museum. Printed on 157 gsm Gold East matte art
nd547.r38 2007 Printed and bound in China by C&C Offset Printing Co., Ltd.
759.4—dc22 2007015023
Foreword
thereby complicating received wisdom about such popular favorites
as Claude Monet or Paul Cézanne, while refocusing attention on
neglected academic painters such as Paul Delaroche. Third, the
project has adhered to a principle of collaboration rarely maintained
throughout the genesis of an exhibition and its accompanying
catalogue. The team assembled by Dr. Kahng, which included con-
servators, academic art historians, and curators, enjoyed a two-day
brainstorming session, generously funded and hosted by the Sterling
and Francine Clark Institute in the summer of 2005. The themes
of this book, like the exhibition, reflect the rich conversational flavor
of the ongoing dialogue between team members, initiated at the
Clark and continued throughout the project’s development. In addi-
tion, Dr. Kahng was privileged to enjoy the resources offered by a
two-month fellowship in the early summer of 2006 at the Center
for Advanced Study of the Visual Arts at the National Gallery, Wash-
ington, where she was afforded time to read and further reflect in
Over the years, the Walters Art Museum has earned a reputation as preparation for her essay. As a wide-ranging overview of the complex
that rare mid-size museum, willing to throw its institutional weight theme of repetition in painting, the essays collected here promise
behind ambitious exhibitions committed to the advancement of to retain their relevance for students of the nineteenth and twentieth
academic scholarship. From Pandora’s Box: The Roles of Women in centuries, as well as those who seek an historically informed point
Ancient Greece (1995) to Masters of Light: Dutch Painters in Utrecht of view on the persistence of repetition in contemporary art.
During the Golden Age (1997) to The Book of Kings: Art, War, and As always, a project of this scope and ambition could not have
the Morgan Library’s Medieval Picture Bible (2002), the Walters has happened without the contributions of each and every member of
sought to originate shows that have both a clear scholarly value the Walters’ dedicated staff. We wish to acknowledge for their instru-
and popular appeal. However, in a fiscal climate in which most art mental roles: development director Toni Condon; chief registrar
museums are increasingly pressured to keep the turnstile spinning, Joan Elisabeth Reid; former traveling exhibitions manager Betsy
this ideal has become more and more difficult to uphold. When Gordon; traveling exhibitions manager Annie Lundsten; former
organizing curator Eik Kahng first proposed an exhibition on the exhibition designer Paula Millet; associate exhibition designer
theme of repetition in French painting I immediately recognized Danielle Jones; educators Amanda Kodeck and Kathy Nussbaum;
its potential as a show that might attract both our traditional mem- head of paintings conservation Eric Gordon; senior paintings con-
bership and entice new audiences. At once an exhibition born of servator Karen French; assistant paintings conservator Gillian
the latest in cutting-edge scholarship, new conservation research, Cook; senior books and paper conservator Elissa O’Loughlin; visit-
and ambitious educational programming, it is just the type of show ing conservation researcher Brian Baade; and head of photography
the Walters aspires to produce in this latest phase of its evolution. Susan Tobin. Walters manager of curatorial publications Charles
Déja Vu? Revealing Repetition in French Masterpieces capitalizes on the Dibble produced this handsome volume with the collaboration of
intellectual rigor of the museum’s unusually deep pool of curatorial designer Jeff Wincapaw of Marquand Books. Our thanks as well to
and conservation talent, while encouraging innovations in installa- Ed Marquand for his originality, expertise, and enthusiasm.
tion design and in interpretive tools. It also tackles issues of art and Dr. Kahng enjoyed the particular collaboration of Susan Ross and
its interpretation that are of deep consequence in art historical and Gülru Çakmak, who held the position of Bates fellow at the Walters
museological terms. for 2003–2004 and 2006–2007, respectively. On Dr. Kahng’s behalf,
The merits of this exhibition project, like the theme it treats, we also acknowledge the generous contributions of her colleagues,
are multiple. First, the exhibition explores a seminal issue of early Stephen Bann, Claire Barry, Thomas Crow, Michael Fried, Marc
­modernism—repetition in painting—in an attempt to articulate Gotlieb, Ann Hoenigswald, Michael Ann Holly, Simon Kelly, Richard
the multivalent significance of this ubiquitous attribute of visual Kendall, Mark Ledbury, Thomas Loughman, Keith Moxey, Peter
culture of the last two centuries, which, as Dr. Kahng argues, cannot Parshall, Richard Shiff, Charles Stuckey, and Jeffrey Weiss. She would
be merely incidental. Second, the show explores this broad theme also like to thank Joan Freedman, director of the Media Center of the
through a selection of painters, both familiar and not-so-familiar, Johns Hopkins University. Her staff and students produced some of

6 7
 Lenders to the Exhibition
the innovative interactive components distinguishing the exhibition
installation. Our thanks, as well, to Michel Draguet, director of the
Musées royaux de Belgique and its chief curator, Frederik Leen,
for their cooperation in the production of the Marat video project.
For their invaluable support of the exhibition and the publication,
we would also like to thank: Alexander Babin, Philip Brookman,
Alain Daguerre de Hureaux, Patrick Deron, Charlotte Eyerman, Jay
Fisher, David Franklin, Aprile Gallant, James Ganz, Gloria Groom,
Sarah Hall, Axel Hémery, Kelly Holbert, Colta Ives, Sophie Jugie,
Isabelle Julia, Ian Kennedy, Michelle Komie, Susan Higman Larsen,
Sylvain Lavaissière, Terry Lignelli, David Liot, Louise Lippincott,
Georges Matisse, Mary Morton, Alexandra Murphy, Lynne Federle
Orr, Peter Parshall, Nicholas Penny, Joachim Pissarro, Rebecca Rabi-
now, Richard Rand, Pierre-Lin Renié, Christopher Riopelle, Joseph
Rishel, Betsy Rosasco, Katy Rothkopf, Marie-­Catherine Sahut, Xavier
Salmon, Polly Sartori, Scott Schaefer, George Shackelford, Cheryl
Snay, Gary Tinterow, Andrew Walker, John Weber, Jeffrey Weiss, Austin, Blanton Museum of Art, The University of Texas at Austin
Jean Woodward, John Zarobell, and Henry Zimet. Baltimore, The Baltimore Museum of Art
In closing, I would like to thank our partner and exclusive south- Baltimore, The Walters Art Museum
western venue for this traveling exhibition, the Phoenix Art Museum. Bordeaux, Musée Goupil
My colleague, James Ballinger, and Dr. Kahng’s counterpart, Thomas Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston
Loughman, have remained steadfast supporters of this challenging Cardiff, Amgueddfa Cymru–National Museum Wales
project from its earliest incarnation. They shared my conviction in Chicago, The Art Institute of Chicago
the merits of this groundbreaking show and we hope this book will Dijon, Musée des Beaux-Arts de Dijon
be enduring proof of their wisdom. Kansas City, The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art
London, The National Gallery
Gary Vikan Los Angeles, The J. Paul Getty Museum
Director New York, French & Company LLC
The Walters Art Museum New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art
Northampton, Massachusetts, Smith College Museum of Art
Ottawa, National Gallery of Canada
Paris, Musée du Louvre
Philadelphia Museum of Art
Pittsburgh, Carnegie Museum of Art
Pittsburgh, The Frick Art & Historical Center
Portland, Oregon, Portland Art Museum
Princeton, Princeton University Art Museum
Private collections
Reims, Musée des Beaux-Arts de la ville de Reims
Saint Louis Art Museum
Saint Petersburg, Russia, The State Hermitage Museum
San Francisco, Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco
Toulouse, Musée des Augustins
Versailles, Musée national des châteaux de Versailles et de Trianon
Washington, The Corcoran Gallery of Art
Washington, National Gallery of Art
Williamstown, Massachusetts, Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute

8 9
 Repetition as Symbolic Form

Eik Kahng Repetition and Art History

In his classic text published in 1962, George Kubler attempted to
describe what he grandly referred to as “The Shape of Time.” In
one of the few expansive discussions of the topic, Kubler posited
repetition as a fundamental mechanism by which to measure the
uneven rhythms of history. In reprint, the book retains its modish
cover in bright yellow and red, decorated with schematic illustrations
of a series of fragments of ancient pottery faces from what is now
Mexico, arranged in fairly regular rows (fig. 1). The purpose of Kubler’s
ambitious essay was to counter what he saw as an overreliance on
the vagaries of the history of style.1 In Kubler’s opinion, the concept
of period “style” introduced a type of art history that suffered from
an uncomfortably wide margin of subjective error.2 Using his own
long experience as a historian of non-Western antiquity, Kubler sought
to resurrect the merits of form as a legitimate and more “objective”
means of finding the shape of time, which, as he argued, is made
visible only through reiteration and rupture: a material syncopation
or prolonged rubato still graspable in “The History of Things” (a
phrase that he used to qualify the title of his book). For Kubler, repe-
tition is the art historian’s primary means of investigation. It is what
persists as a tangible history of things, if only in fragmentary form,
even when the civilization that produced that history may have left
no other trace. An archaeologist accustomed to resurrecting cultures
long extinct, Kubler takes a very long, backward-looking view of art
history, but his willingness to meditate on the methodological impli-
cations for the historian of the repetitiveness of things provides a
succinct entrance into the subject this essay is meant to introduce.
At this distance of some forty-five years, one of the more endearing
aspects of Kubler’s essay is his probing use of metaphors by which to
delineate the proper domain and method of the art historian. There
is the electro-dynamic imagery of the repeated “signal” the pulse of

11
12 of good design begins to have a wider market and reconstitution, no matter how much time 13 the moving image has imposed. The nine-
more intense competition, the manufacturers and space might separate their members. teenth and twentieth centuries also saw the

Repetition as Symbolic Form

simplify its design to get the price down until the To posit repetition in painting as a topic establishment of the modern conditions for
product is reduced to the fewest possible parts in may seem to be historically tenuous, since the production, diffusion, and consumption
a construction no more durable than necessary.3 the reasons for it are usually presumed to of the fine arts. Gallery culture, the catalogue
be self-evident. For example, artists repeat raisonné, and a mass-market cultivation of
Summarized here, then, are types of repeti- themselves when attempting to work out or an ever-growing demand for images are all
tion in the visual arts, especially the “fine perfect an initial idea. The several versions in place by the middle of the nineteenth cen-
arts,” that one readily recognizes. An obvi- of Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres’s (1780– tury. The consequent expansion and diver-
ous example of a prime object might be the 1867) Oedipus and the Sphinx are a case in sification of the audience for the fine arts
no-longer-extant Athena Parthenos carved point, although it remains unclear what continues today. The early modern period,
by Phidias.4 The many renditions in less function the smaller version now in the collec- then, offers a perfect environment in which
precious materials inspired by the original tion of the National Gallery, London, might to profile this radical shift in the significance
ivory and gold statue would be considered have served.6 Thus, preparatory drawings, of repetition in painting and to speculate on
part of the “replica mass” to which the prime sketches, and the like are routinely used as its implications.
object gave rise. A straightforward version clues by art historians to guide our under- To be sure, this is not the first attempt to
of quality degrading through repetition standing of an artist’s intentions. Artists also explore the question of repetition in painting,7
might be, as Kubler says, the consequence repeat themselves for purely practical rea- but the question has more often been dis-
of economic necessity (that is, shortchang- sons. An important commissioned portrait cussed from the point of view of making and
ing quality in the interests of profit) or, in of a religious official, for example, exists in meaning in the Western tradition, specifically
our context of Western painting, the infe- multiple studio replicas, whether autograph with respect to the changing status of copying
which may dim over time or may even be rior product of a workshop, which can never or not. When we move into the modern era, in the history of painting. There is no ques-
interrupted, only to be resumed centuries quite approach the perfection of the master’s however, the transparency of repetition in tion that copying (a term whose modern-day
after its initial generation. Kubler warned original. This is manifestly true of the mul- painting quickly becomes murky. Even today potential for pejorative connotation instantly
against the limitations of the biological tiple studio copies, which vary widely in the ubiquity of repetition as a mode of deco- vanishes when returned to the context of aca-
metaphors that had so often colored art- quality, of Jacques-Louis David’s (1748–1825) ration, a condition of technological produc- demic emulation)8 was the lifeblood of the
historical generalizations of stylistic evolu- stupefying martyr portrait, Marat at His Last tion and consumption, an advertising tactic, Western tradition, at least since the Renais-
tion, but he liked the descriptive efficacy Breath, discussed at the end of this essay. not to mention a storied habit of minimalism sance. There is also general agreement that
of the word “mutant,” as a means of fur- What is not covered in Kubler’s lucid and its aftermath, makes it nearly impossible the status of copying undergoes a crippling
ther nuancing the mathematically infused description of repetition is the instance to see at a comfortable historical distance. fall from grace in early modernism. Emula-
concept of a “prime object” (for example, when it is the most conceptually elusive; To gird the breadth of the topic, I have tion as a positive and nurturing aspect of the
the Parthenon marbles). Successful prime the type of repetition that might be sche- chosen to focus on one medium: painting. academic tradition is displaced by a modern
objects give rise to “replica masses.” To matically illustrated by a flat, horizontal This decision was not arbitrary. A consider- anxiety over issues of authenticity and its
further qualify the types of replica masses, line, neither ascending or descending.5 ation of painting in early modernism imme- closely related cousin, originality.9 The spatial
Kubler called upon a metaphor of motion: Significantly, this is the kind of repetition diately raises some of the trenchant issues metaphor implicit in the Platonic definition of
practiced in the painted series of Claude attached to the concept of repetition in the the mimetic copy as increasingly distant from
Replication obeys two contrasting kinds of motion. Monet (1840–1926), as well as in modern visual arts. The period from the rendering of its original essence abruptly loses its footing
They can be described as motions towards and away industrial production and, more frighten- the ur-Marat at His Last Breath and its studio in this context. In what follows, I differenti-
from quality. Augmented quality is likely when the ingly, in the domain of genetic engineering. copies, to Henri Matisse’s (1869–1954) metic- ate between the old aesthetic framework of
maker of a replica enriches upon his model by In other words, it is the kind of repetition ulous recording of compositional changes in the original (and by implication, its copy)
adding to its excellences, as when a talented pupil that has come to dominate contemporary his ­paintings—roughly 1800 through 1940— from what might be described as an aesthet-
improves upon his mediocre teacher’s exercises. . . . everyday experience, just as it has the art ­includes the invention of photography and ics of repetition. In so doing, I hope to illu-
Diminished quality becomes apparent when the Fig. 1. Cover of George world of the last century and a half. One its perfection as a reproductive medium, as minate the expressive necessity of repetition
maker reduces the excellence of the replica, either Kubler, The Shape of wonders if Monet himself recognized that well as its emergence as an art form in its as a fully naturalized symptom of modernity;
Time: Remarks on the
because of economic pressures or because of his photographic illustration, whether in the own right. It includes the invention and one that is as much rooted in the philosophi-
History of Things (New
inability to comprehend the full scope or import Haven and London: Yale form of the catalogue raisonné or in a ascendancy of film and the consequent sea cal bind of secular skepticism, as it is in the
of the model. . . . When a mass-produced article University Press, 1962) wall calendar, would allow for his series’ change in habits of making and viewing that reproductive technologies of late capitalism.
14 I have chosen to use the word “repetition” of time and space, which is the type show- based on a numerical or otherwise predeter- 15 for the younger serialists. The migration of
because of its relative neutrality within the cased by Kubler. This kind of notable repe- mined derivation from one or more of the the art world’s center of gravity to America

Repetition as Symbolic Form

broader discipline of art history. There are a tition is also implied by a social-historical preceding terms in that piece.” He began was completed through the rapid unfolding
host of terms commonly used by art histori- approach to visual culture, in which society’s his discussion by quoting Edmund Husserl of the rest of the family tree with Morris
ans to describe the recognizable reappear- perspective takes on the locationless yet (“Go to the things themselves”) and David Louis (1912–1962), Ellsworth Kelly (b. 1923),
ance of an iconological formula (to use Erwin pervasive character of an “Age” or an “Era,” Hume (“No object implies the existence of Kenneth Noland (b. 1924), Warhol, and Frank
Panofsky’s terminology) or schemata (to use or in Marxist terms, an ideology. any other”) and ended his brief pronounce- Stella (b. 1936). The only sculptor included
Ernest Gombrich’s) in the history of Western While repetition may appear to be too ment with the assertion of the “autonomous was the American Larry Bell (b. 1939), whose
art. The verbs used from these methodologi- neutral a term to refer to all of these versions and indifferent” nature of things. work in light and glass had a distinctly picto-
cal standpoints are active and distinctly posi- of visual recapitulation in Western painting, Just one year later, curator John Coplans’s rial character. The story narrated by Coplans
tive in connotation: to cite, to allude, to refer, its noncommittal status also highlights, by traveling exhibition Serial Imagery opened at in the accompanying exhibition catalogue
to recollect, to emulate. The presumption contrast, the value-laden quality of these the Pasadena Art Museum (fig. 2). Coplans’s was careful to distinguish the authentically
here is that the artist has intentionally mobi- other synonyms used to describe repeating selection of artists and objects breached the serial from what Coplans called the merely
lized a repeating form that he hopes the forms in painting. Indeed, when it comes boundaries set up by Bochner’s listing.11 The “modular,” by which he meant “such sculp-
viewer/critic/historian will recognize, as it to the specific history of painting in early thirteen artists represented in Serial Imagery, tors as Donald Judd” (1928–1994). Coplans
is intertwined with the broader meaning of ­nineteenth-century France, the term répé- beginning with Monet and ending with Andy asserted, “This is incorrect. Judd, for example,
his work of art. No absolute identity is pos- tition, as explored by Stephen Bann,10 con- Warhol (1928–1987), constituted a kind of replicates parts by having identical units
sible between the source or referent (an ear- tained within it a certain neutrality. It did canonical genealogy that traced the persis- manufactured; they are then positioned to
lier work of art) and the new embodiment not necessarily signify a subsequent ver- tence of the serial mode, largely in painting. form one sculpture, one unit. Judd’s images
of it. Such repetitions are, thus, variations sion of lesser quality than the original, but Bochner’s list had been composed mostly have a modular structure, and his range of
and not exact repetitions. But in this sce- simply the existence of an additional version of sculptors; Coplans’s included not only similar sculptures relate more to sculptors’
nario, the artist invites his viewers—indeed, or versions that may or may not exceed or Monet’s familiar Wheatstacks and Rouen traditional use of editions than to true Serial
re-petitions them to attend to the decision vary from the first. forms.”12 If Bochner and Coplans parted
to repeat or to recapitulate an earlier form. company in their qualifications of what con-
However, there is also a sense in which the Repetition Retro: Series in the 1960s Fig. 2. Cover of John stituted true series, they shared the tactic
repetition of a visual form can be deeply nega- Kubler was not alone in his preoccupation Coplans, Serial Imagery of employing the language of rhetoric, logic,
(Pasadena Art Museum,
tive in connotation. Plagiarism is the most with repetition. In the late 1960s, repeti- 1968)
and mathematics in their attempts to define
obvious instance, as it implies a willful deceit tion in the guise of the related topic of series. Words such as “syntax” and “struc-
in its repetition of a prior visual formation, series, cropped up everywhere. Serial art, ture” (Coplans) or “system” and “method”
which has been “stolen” or deceptively pre- as explained with deadpan conviction by (Bochner) reflect a preoccupation with
sented as “original” to the artist. Recently, the artist Mel Bochner (b. 1940), was where conceptual processes rather than working
charge of plagiarism has been increasingly it was at. His essay “Serial Art, Systems, medium or end product as the definition
complicated by the defense of an unwitting Solipsism,” reprinted as part of Gregory of true seriality. The more art-historically
duplication of another’s material, especially Battcock’s critical anthology of minimal- minded Coplans even attempted a few con-
in the realm of prose, whether fictional or ism, first appeared in Arts Magazine in cluding paragraphs that speculated upon the
nonfictional. In an era of “sampling,” plagia- 1967. Bochner was among a group of art- peculiar “Americanness” of the ascendancy
rism has flourished in an increasingly liti- ists, including Sol LeWitt (1928–2007), Dan of series in the most ambitious art:
gious society, especially one that can claim Flavin (1933–1996), and Carl Andre (b. 1935),
the proverbial “onslaught of information” as who were featured in American Sculpture of Cathedrals, but also Piet Mondrian’s (1872– There are sufficient indications in the emergence
the culprit. There is, as well, the version of the Sixties, an exhibition at the Los Angeles 1944) less familiar landscapes as well as of Serial Imagery over the past decade in the United
visual repetition most commonly encoun- County Museum that year. Even his manner his better-known gridded Compositions. States that the rhythms attendant upon the Serial
tered in post-structuralist critiques of visual of writing, reflecting the solipsism that was Mondrian’s abstraction provided a conve- style ritually celebrate, if only obliquely or sublimi-
culture in hegemonic society, in which visual his subject, was repetitive. Taking the famil- nient segue to Josef Albers’s (1888–1976) nally, overtones of American life. In various ways
forms are “appropriated” (as in the colonial iar tactic of emphasizing the thingness of series, including the seemingly endless Serial Imagery reveals local color that identifies the
sense of wrongful assumption of property). things (“the thing itself ”), Bochner defined Homage to the Square. Expatriate Marcel ambience of its origin. Serial Imagery is particu-
Last, there is the macrocosmic version of serial art as one in which “the succession Duchamp’s (1887–1968) Three Standard larly fitted to reflect its contemporary environment,
repetition, as observed from a great distance of terms (divisions) within a single work is Stoppages provided the conceptual ancestry because of the open and unplanned nature of its
16 internal dialogue, its highly systematic yet flexible lay at the heart of the Americanness of Amer- the Frenchness of the French School. Simi- 17 critical crisis could be said to have emerged
process of production, its high degree of speciali- ican art. larly, only Fried sounded the alarm by argu- in the 1960s. In a sense, Americanness and

Repetition as Symbolic Form

zation, and its narrow, deep focus upon a single In this discursive climate, is it merely coin- ing vehemently against literalist artists such “true” series constituted the recurrent, if
issue. Its redundancy is a positive act that contin- cidental that Michael Fried’s essay “Manet’s as Judd. By endorsing his “Three American only vaguely intuited pressure point in the
uously affirms the power and continuity of the Sources” should have appeared in the March Painters”16—Jules Olitski (b. 1922), Noland, art world of the 1960s, just as—at least
creative process. Taken together, the approaches of 1969 issue of Artforum, two years after the and Stella—whose approach to series he according to Fried’s account—Frenchness
the artists mentioned above in no small measure American Sculpture of the Sixties show and rooted firmly in the modernist dialectic that and the authentic French school constituted
evoke the underlying control-systems central to an less than a year after Serial Imagery? Remark- had dominated the greatest art of the previ- the leitmotiv for Manet and his critics in
advanced, “free enterprise, technological society.”13 ably, this long text on a nineteenth-century ous two centuries, Fried clearly opted for the 1860s. Repetition, whether with respect
French painter by the precocious young the painterly trajectory of series explored to form, subject matter, or even, ambitious
The optimism of this reading is remarkable scholar and critic even appeared as a special by Coplans in his show three years later claims about the ontological status of the
in itself. But what I want to attend to more issue of Artforum, an unlikely venue given (with the notable exception of Warhol) and art object itself, is the key to correct critical
specifically is Coplans’s effort to interpret the periodical’s overt emphasis on contempo- not the “one-after-the-other” route of the interpretation in this scenario. But the right
seriality as an apt reflection of the late 1960s rary art. On the face of it, Fried’s stated objec- minimalists. As Fried explained with his recognition of such repetitiveness (such
and as a natural consequence of the “over- tive (to correct the art-historical exaggeration usual conviction: effective re-petitioning of the problematics
tones of American life.” Serial imagery some- of formalism alone as the constitutive ele- of the most important art of the past with
how mirrored a “technological society” whose ment of Édouard Manet’s (1832–1883) mod- The most important of these questions can be its implied canon projection extending into
“rhythms attendant upon the Serial style ernism through an exhaustive resurrection of formulated roughly as follows: Which painters, the late twentieth century) and its historical
ritually celebrate.” the artist’s use of the art of the past) would ancient and modern, are authentically French motivations continues to be debated.
Likewise, David Lee’s Bochner-like expla- seem to have no relation to the topic at hand. and which are not? More generally, in what does
nation of an exhibition in which he was And yet, there is something naggingly paral- the essence or natural genius of French painting Repetition as Resistance
included at Finch College Museum of Art, lel in Fried’s assessment of Manet’s critics consist? Does in fact a body of painting exist in Coplans’s show and essay of the same name,
New York, in December 1967 made the same and their apparent blindness to the artist’s which that essence or genius is completely real- “Serial Imagery,” received modest critical
intuitive connection between a scientistic overt citation of a whole host of canonical old ized? Has painting in France ever been truly attention in the local press. In a piece written
context (Lee, echoing Kubler, talks of the masters and Fried’s own stalwart rejection national, or has it always fallen short of that for the 29 September 1968 issue of the Los
“electric era”) and, as the show was titled, of the literalist sculpture with which series ideal, however the ideal itself is understood? Angeles Times, art critic William Wilson had
Art in Series. Lee, a painter, was featured were so frequently tied in the 1960s. A brief These questions are not wholly separable from this to say about the show:
alongside sculptors Judd, Andre, and Eva quote captures the vehemence of his criti- one another. The judgment that certain painters
Hesse (1936–1970), as well as Warhol, Kelly, cism of so-called minimalist or ABC art. but not others constitute the authentic French Any adult will walk into the gallery severely condi-
and Jasper Johns (b. 1930), among others. Fried insisted on the inherent theatricality school implies a particular view of the nature of tioned to react negatively to repetition. He comes
As Lee commented, the artists who prac- of the literalist sensibility in his analysis of French painting, and probably of Frenchness as from a world that teaches him to value change,
tice series cut across the usual distinctions the positions held by Tony Smith (1912–1980) such, just as any characterization of the essence climax, aggression, victory, progress and goals, a
of medium and style, with the common and Robert Morris (b. 1931). As he summed of French art implies a particular canon of painters world that teaches that repetition is the same as
denominator being that “the organization it up, “the imperative that modernist paint- and paintings. As a result contemporary discus- boredom. . . . Some people find a crisis existence
is essentially serial and the content involves ing defeat or suspend its objecthood is at sions of these issues may strike the modern reader very stimulating. Other people dig a contemplative,
repetition.”14 bottom the imperative that it defeat or suspend as at least somewhat circular or arbitrary. More- ruminative life. The first is represented by the kind
Despite a shared compulsion to define theatre. And this means that there is a war over, the questions themselves are far from rigor- of art that works up to “Masterpieces,” the second
series, no consensus as to the correct defini- going on between theatre and modernist ously historical by modern standards. The fact by the present exhibition. If I have reason to praise
tion emerged. The Finch College show, fol- painting, between the theatrical and the remains, however, that almost every important “Serial Imagery,” it is on account of its affirmation
lowing Bochner’s assertions, deemed the pictorial—a war that, despite the literalists’ French scholar of the French painting of the past of the second, currently unfashionable mode of
multiples of Monet and Willem de Kooning explicit rejection of modernist painting and addressed himself to them, not only at the time calm life. If I have reason to criticize “Serial Imag-
(1904–1997) to be variations and not true ser- sculpture, is not basically a matter of pro- but for decades after: one might say that the dis- ery” it is because Coplans’s essay seems to take the
ies, while Coplans’s show argued for a direct gram and ideology but of experience, convic- cipline of art history arose in France largely in position that there is something wrong with the
line of descent from Monet’s Wheatstacks to tion, sensibility.”15 response to them. 17
“Masterpiece” mode.
Warhol’s Soup Cans. But it seemed clear that Among his critics, only Théophile Thoré
the repetitiveness of series pointed to some- recognized how Manet provided a compelling If one were to substitute “Americanness” for Wilson then goes on to say somewhat pee-
thing fundamental at stake—­something that response to the question of what constituted “Frenchness” in this paragraph, a resembling vishly, “It seems to me obvious that Noland
18 has the right to paint masterpieces if he art object through its diffusion in reproduc- provided the conceptual point of departure 19 can only be built up by interpreting individual
chooses. The validity of the serial mode does tive form.22 Indeed, it might be argued that for its dismantling. Klein relates the juicy works, may look like a vicious circle. It is, indeed,

Repetition as Symbolic Form

not exclude the validity of its opposite. I don’t the greater the art object’s susceptibility to anecdote of the origin of Roy Lichtenstein’s a circle, though not a vicious, but a methodical
know why the human mind is so drearily replication, the greater its currency. Certainly, (1923–1997) riff on Monet’s Cathedrals. It was one. Whether we deal with historical or natural
invidious.”18 the profit earned through the reproductive in looking at the photographic reproductions phenomena, the individual observation assumes
Whether or not he realized it, Wilson progeny of a given art object, whether in the of Monet’s series while visiting John Coplans, the character of a “fact” only when it can be related
had put his finger on the heart of the mat- form of limited-edition casts, prints, or photo- who was in the middle of organizing the to other, analogous observations in such a way
ter. If there was something unsettling about graphs, has become a desideratum for many aforementioned exhibition, Serial Imagery, that the whole series “makes sense.” This “sense”
Coplans’s show, it must have been in part aspiring artists. Auguste Rodin’s (1840–1917) that Lichtenstein got the idea of producing is, therefore, fully capable of being applied as a
because of its visual undoing of the very factory-inspired approach was a precedent for his silk-screened series of “manufactured control, to the interpretation of a new individual
idea of the singular masterpiece. Wilson the likes of Henry Moore (1898–1986), just Monets.” In so doing, Lichtenstein wielded observation within the same range of phenomena.
mentioned some of the negative response as the Henry Moore Foundation has provided repetition as resistance, critiquing the habits If, however, this new individual observation defi-
to the show expressed by both those in the a precedent for the so-called studios of such of consumption that ambitious art now had nitely refuses to be interpreted according to the
know and the lay public, who were “bored, artists as Louise Bourgeois (b. 1911). The to keep at arm’s length, even while mimick- “sense” of the series, and if an error proves to be
angry or indignant” over Serial Imagery. currency relevant here is not Kubler’s electro- ing its methods. impossible, the “sense” of the series will have to be
Alfred Frankenstein, another critic, com- dynamic signal, but the equally intangible But repetition as resistance is also a phrase re-formulated to include the new individual obser-
mented on feeling “uneasy” about this ser- one of money. In this scenario, Benjamin’s that takes us immediately in the direction vation. This circulus methodicus applies, of course,
ial “trend,” which was amply in evidence supposition is entirely turned on its head. of intimate individual experience, and not not only to the relationship between the interpreta-
at the Venice Biennale that same year.19 The art object burnishes all its progeny with sweeping epochal generalizations, when it is tion of motifs and the history of style, but also to the
It was in the following year, 1969, that the gold dust of its aura, causing its own allowed to regain its enduring resonance in relationship between the interpretation of images,
Walter Benjamin’s famous essay “The Work aura to burn all the more brightly. the context of classical psychoanalysis. In this stories and allegories and the history of types, and
of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduc- This is not to suggest, however, that the account, repetition is symptom but uncon- to the relationship between the interpretation of
tion” appeared in translation in the selection market alone suffices as an explanation for sciously so. It is not the savvy manipulations intrinsic meanings and the history of cultural symp-
of essays published under the title Illumina- the prevalence of repetition in modern art, of the fully conscious artist as pragmatic toms in general.26
tions.20 Interestingly, Benjamin’s discussion nor for the evident ascendancy of the serial self-promoter, but the recurrent eruption
of art and its aura, with the presumption of mode in the 1960s. Progressive art’s simul- of ­neurosis—of repressed psychical material If repetition is a cultural symptom of
its decay through the undermining effects taneous embrace of and recoil from the that can find no other outlet. The temptation modernity, it follows that its emergence as
of mechanical reproduction (the mechanical onslaught of commodification is a compli- to see art as neurosis has a long history. Suf- the dominating feature of the art of our age
variety of repetition in its most pernicious cated tale indeed, and one that I will not fice it to say that a reading of repetition in ought to be retrospectively meaningful and
form), seems to echo Frankenstein’s anxiety. attempt to summarize here.23 As John Klein painting as obsessive compulsion all too not merely incidental. It is difficult not to
As Stephen Bann has amply demonstrated, has suggested, painting in series cannot easily takes on the flat-footed feel of a well- suspect that the ascendancy of repetition is
Benjamin’s oft-cited commentary on the be entirely extricated from the conditions worn modernist cliché—one that does not directly connected to philosophical nihilism
demise of aura has little bearing on the his- of gallery culture that nurtured it in the adequately account for the ascendancy of in general as the normative worldview of
tory of static media such as painting. Bann’s first place.24 Even Monet cannot have been repetition as a preferred artistic means of a secularist Western hegemony; a godless
nuanced historical account of the highly gen- immune to the encouragement of his vora- expression in the modern era. worldview based on the impossibility of
erative interaction between painting and its cious art dealer, Paul Durand-Ruel, who What if one were to consider repetition not meaning unless defined relatively; the impos-
reproductive relatives in nineteenth-­century surely recognized the genius of Monet’s merely as a technique or conceptual process, sibility even, of repetition itself. As Gilles
France, whether in the form of prints or of series from a purely marketing point of but as a symbolic structure, akin to the way Deleuze commented in Difference and Repeti-
photographs, exposes the limitations of view. As Klein points out, painting in series perspective, according to Erwin Panofsky, tion, which was also published in the late
Benjamin’s concept when it comes to paint- quickly became the preferred mode of pro- became the symbolic form of the Italian 1960s: “With respect to this power, repetition
ing (as opposed to film), which is in itself a duction for younger artists such as André Renaissance? One would need to apply Pan- interiorizes and thereby reverses itself: as
frequent deformation of Benjamin’s original Derain (1880–1954), who was encouraged to ofsky’s circulus methodicus, as he explained Péguy says, it is not Federation Day which
text.21 As twentieth-century art has clearly do so by his dealer, Ambroise Vollard. But if in a dense footnote of his canonical opus, commemorates or represents the fall of the
proven, reproductive technologies have not the “auratic status” of the “embodiment of Studies in Iconology, first published in 1939: Bastille, but the fall of the Bastille which
made much of a dent in the putative author- personality in a series”25 accounted for the celebrates and repeats in advance all the
ity of the singular masterpiece. Bann has even demand for ­Monet’s series paintings, as To control the interpretation of an individual Federation Days; or Monet’s first water lily
argued for the greater empowerment of the Klein suggests, it also, somewhat ironically, work of art by a “history of style” which in turn which repeats all the others.”27
20 It is not necessary to wander much farther Briony Fer’s 2004 account, for example, treats from the French title given by the artist to 21 achieved through the act of its painted
into Deleuze’s deliriously repetitive prose to “the strategies of remaking art through repe- his masterpiece,32 certainly qualifies as a re-creation. Repetition, even in the hand-

Repetition as Symbolic Form

glean a suspicion of its apposite relation to tition in the wake of the exhaustion of a modern- prime object.33 Its specter would inspire made capacity of the student copyist, rein-
repetition, series, and what was at stake in ist aesthetic.”30 While it is an open question and compete with the most ambitious art- scribes rather than diminishes the aura of
contemporary art of the 1960s. It may be as to how to demarcate the beginning and ists of the next several generations. Com- the prime object, at least in the case of the
sufficient to simply rely on the helpful expli- end of modernism proper, I contend that the missioned by the Convention as a potent two accomplished versions now preserved
cation de texte supplied by Briankle Chang in cultural symptoms, in Panofsky’s sense, of form of visual propaganda, the painting at Versailles (thought by some specialists
an essay titled “Deleuze, Monet, and Being what I started out by describing as an aesthet- purports to be a record of actuality, no mat- to be largely by the hand of Gérard) and at
Repetitive”:28 ics of repetition are already in full display by ter how eloquently summarized by David’s the Musée du Louvre.
the middle of the nineteenth century. poetic license. The literature on this single The brilliance of David’s harnessing of
the claim that “Monet’s first water lily . . . repeats It may seem odd that I should have painting34 has continued to search out the the very structure of empathetic transmis-
all the others” also takes on a more precise mean- expended my word allotment in this vol- many iconological and formal precedents sion through the portrait replica as testi-
ing: it no longer suggests the eristic, counterintui- ume on the art history, art, and criticism of embedded so suavely by the artist, and its monial is well captured by Laura Mulvey’s
tive proposition that an earlier act repeats later the 1960s, given the time frame of the art fund of heretofore unrecognized precedents, perceptive analysis of the tension between
ones; far more radically, it states an architectural included in this exhibition. But the persis- disguised by its powerful realism, may still movement and stillness in the early cinema.
rule of timing: the so-called first impression, the tent recurrence of repetition as a leitmotiv not be exhausted. At once a history painting, At the end of her essay, she notes of the
first scene seen, the first stroke, in short the very in all three areas has needed decompound- a portrait, a humble snapshot of the every- Soviet filmmaker Dziga Vertov’s 1929 film,
constitution of firstness as such, is already a ing, so that the historical foundation of my day, and literally a stilled life,35 the paint- The Man with the Movie Camera:
repeated occurrence. As the Lacanian-Deleuzian initial intuition—that is, repetition as sym- ing is also an allegorical personification
refrains suggest, an event always take place twice bolic form—might be uncovered. I have left of virtuous self-sacrifice. Not surprisingly, Among the many beautiful and interesting devices
before it really happens, or, as I dare to rephrase it, the much more pleasurable task of actually David directed its replication through stu- in this documentary record of filming everyday life
an event must take place virtually before it occurs treating the question of repetition and paint- dent copies, utilizing a process that differs in Moscow, one stands out in the context of this
effectively. It is this twice-over of an event that ing in the art of our artists to the essayists little from portraiture replication in the argument. The man with the movie camera is film-
consolidates the event’s phenomenal integrity, that follow. Their discussions, which range service of monarchy or papacy. And yet, ing a white horse as it draws a carriage of new
and it is its virtual occurrence before the fact that broadly from academic to avant-garde pro- what does distinguish this otherwise typi- arrivals from the station to their hotel. The horse is
restores to the event its truth as retroactive hap- duction, and from the long view of institu- cal case of a prime version and its replica moving briskly, at a canter. Suddenly, at a moment
pening, the aftermath of a “somber precursor,” tional practice to the close view of artistic mass is the conceit of the painting as testi- when the horse fills the frame and its movement
that delivers what comes henceforth always in process, exemplify the flexibility of inter- mony. In that David supposedly saw the is, in a sense, the subject of the image, the film
the form of déjà pas encore.29 pretation and analysis enabled by the prem- deceased Marat, witnessed his cooling flesh comes to a halt. The horse seems to shift in time
ise of repetition as symbolic form in the as life departed, the painting’s rhetoric con- into the “there-and-then-ness” of the still photo-
Repetition in this sense is not a choice: in early modern era. I will allow myself only tains within it a Judeo-Christian element graph. This frozen image is more magical, it
modernity, it has become a necessity for this brief, closing meditation on repetition of empirical verification. As conjured by suddenly seems, than the illusion of movement
the activation of meaning and value. It pro- and painting in the case of David and his David, Marat’s body provides access to the itself. The spectators’ look, one moment casually
vides the possibility of evaluation and thus, students as a way of distinguishing its tran- transcendent message of Republican virtue following the horse’s movement, is, the next
a means of validation, not in terms of dis- sitional status in the shift from a premod- through action, through self-sacrifice; it was moment, arrested. The bustle of the city, its conti-
tance from a prior original, but in terms of ern aesthetic of the singular masterpiece in the witnessing of it that the viewer was/is nuity and presence, falls away.36
its very perception. Now we have returned to an aesthetics of repetition, which I have induced to Republican fervor. In the stroke-
to our starting point as my argument dove- tasked the four copies of The Death of Marat by-stroke re-creation of Marat at His Last David’s recognition of the pretense of
tails with that of Kubler. The shape of time to embody. Breath, David’s students, whether the gifted movement in any lifelike portrait, captured
can be seen through the repetition of the François Gérard (1770–1837) or the lesser at the moment that its possibility is stolen by
material artifact in both form and expression. Apprenticeship always gives rise to images of talents, Gioacchino Giuseppe Serangeli death, not unlike the “there-and-then-ness”
In modernism, the art object’s currency in death, on the edges of the space it creates and (1768–1852) and Jérome Langlois (1779– of the still photograph, makes the same claim
terms of perceived hipness and monetary with the help of the heterogeneity it engenders. 1838), reenacted their master’s very act of through the copyist/viewer’s reenactment,
value is established by its susceptibility to —gilles deleuze 31 testimony (figs. 4–7). Thus, the painting’s repetition of vision as testimonial. In this
repetition and its consequent repetitiveness. replication is itself imbued with the aura of sense, as Deleuze/Péguy commented of
This conclusion is nothing new in the realm David’s Death of Marat (fig. 3) or more pre- its original c­ reation—a quasi-­religious merg- Monet’s Wheatstacks, it is David’s portrait
of recent studies in twentieth-century art. cisely, Marat at His Last Breath, as translated ing of student, master, and martyr that is that repeats all its replicas.
 4, 5

6, 7

Opposite: Fig. 4. Studio of Jacques- Fig. 5. François Gérard Fig. 6. Jacques-Louis Fig. 7. Studio of Jacques-
Fig. 3. Jacques-Louis Louis David, The Death or Jérome Langlois, after David and Studio, The Louis David, The Death of
David, The Death of of Marat, ca. 1793. Oil Jacques-Louis David, Death of Marat, ca. 1794. Marat, 1793–94. Oil on
Marat, 1793. Oil on on canvas, 92 × 73 cm. The Death of Marat, Oil on canvas. 111.3 × canvas, 162.5 × 130 cm.
canvas, 165 × 128 cm. Musée des Beaux-Arts 1793–94. Oil on canvas, 85.6 cm. Musée des Paris, Musée du Louvre;
Brussels, Musée d’art de Dijon (2306) 157.5 × 136 cm. Musée Beaux-Arts de la Ville legs du Baron Jeanin,
ancien, Musées royaux national des châteaux de de Reims; don Paul descendant de l’artiste,
des Beaux-Arts Versailles et de Trianon David, 1879 (879.8) 1945 (RF 1945-2)
(MV 5608)
24 Notes Copies, and Reproductions, Studies in the History of 14.  David Lee, “Serial Rights,” ARTnews 66, no. 8 25 25.  Ibid., 130.
I would like to thank Michael Fried and Peter Parshall Art 20/casva Symposium Papers 7 (Washington: (December 1967), 42–45, 68. 26.  Erwin Panofsky, Studies in Iconology: Humanistic

Repetition as Symbolic Form

for their inspiration and encouragement during the National Gallery of Art, 1989); Copier créer: De Turner 15.  Michael Fried, Art and Objecthood: Essays and Themes in the Art of the Renaissance (New York: Oxford
evolution of this essay. I am grateful to Professor à Picasso. 300 oeuvres inspirées par les maîtres du Louvre, Reviews (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998), University Press, 1939), 11 n.3.
Fried for affording me the intellectual stimulation exh. cat., Paris, Musée du Louvre (Paris: Réunion des 135, first published as “Art and Objecthood,” Artforum, 27.  Gilles Deleuze, Difference and Repetition (1968),
of teaching a graduate seminar on this topic at the musées nationaux, 1993); Cornelia Homburg, The January 1967, 12–23. trans. Paul Patton (New York: Columbia University
Johns Hopkins University, during which these ideas Copy Turns Original: Vincent Van Gogh and a New
16.  This was the title of the show organized by Fried Press, 1994), 1, citing Charles Péguy, Clio, 3d ed.
were further honed through discussion with Gülru Approach to Traditional Art Practice (Amsterdam and
and exhibited at the Fogg Art Museum at Harvard (Paris: NRF, 1917), 45, 114.
Çakmak, Jamie Magruder, Kate Markoski, and Joyce Philadelphia: Benjamins, 1996); Patricia Mainardi,
University from 21 April through 30 May 1965. The 28.  Briankle G. Chang, “Deleuze, Monet, and Being
Tsai. I would also like to thank Stephen Bann, Claire “The Nineteenth-Century Art Trade: Copies, Varia-
catalogue includes an essay by Fried of the same title. Repetitive,” Cultural Critique, no. 41 (Winter 1999),
Barry, Thomas Crow, Ann Hoenigswald, Michael tions, Replicas,” Van Gogh Museum Journal 2000,
17.  Michael Fried, “Manet’s Sources, 1859–1869,” in 184–217.
Ann Holly, Simon Kelly, Mark Ledbury, Keith Moxey, 62–73; Richard Spear, “Di Sua Mano,” in Elaine K.
Manet’s Modernism, or, The Face of Painting in the 1860s 29.  Ibid., 209.
Richard Shiff, and Charles Stuckey, who participated Gazda, ed., The Ancient Art of Emulation: Studies in
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), 75, first
in a two-day colloquium on the themes of this project Artistic Originality and Tradition from the Present to 30.  Briony Fer, The Infinite Line: Re-Making Art after
published as “Manet’s Sources,” Artforum, March
at the Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute in the Classical Antiquity (Ann Arbor: University of Michi- Modernism (New Haven and London: Yale University
1969, 29–82.
summer of 2005. gan Press, 2002), 79–98. Press, 2004), 2.
18.  William Wilson, “Repetition without Boredom in
8.  For an absorbing exploration of this term as mani- 31. Deleuze, Difference and Repetition, 23.
Pasadena,” Los Angeles Times, 29 September 1968.
1.  The example cited is the usual one of the “Baroque,” fested in the vexed if highly generative relationship 32.  The title in French given to the painting by David
between master and pupils, see Thomas E. Crow, 19.  Alfred Frankenstein, “Variations on a Thing,”
which, according to Kubler, had been applied so is Marat à son dernier soupir. See Daniel Wildenstein
Emulation: Making Artists for Revolutionary France San Francisco Examiner-Chronicle, 6 October 1968.
broadly to all European art made between 1600 and and Guy Wildenstein, Documents complémentaires au
1800 that it had lost any real meaning. See George (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1995). 20.  I am grateful to Peter Parshall, curator and head catalogue de l’oeuvre de Louis David (Paris: Fondation
Kubler, The Shape of Time: Remarks on the History 9.  The classic texts on this topic are Rosalind E. of the department of old master prints at the National Wildenstein, 1973), no. 601.
of Things (New Haven and London: Yale University Krauss, The Originality of the Avant-Garde and Other Gallery of Art, Washington, for reminding me of this
33.  T. J. Clark makes this very point in the opening
Press, 1962), 126. Modernist Myths (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1985); fact.
paragraphs of his essay on the painting, “Painting in
2.  Kubler’s cautioning against the overemphasis on and Richard Shiff, Cézanne and the End of Impression- 21.  The popular oversimplification of Benjamin’s the Year Two,” Representations, no. 47 (Summer 1994),
textual meaning fostered by iconology, which in the ism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984). Both essay as a lament of art’s loss of aura in the “age of 13–63.
1960s had become the dominant brand of art history authors have published further meditations on this mechanical reproduction” is noted by Stephen Bann
34.  I will not replicate the exhaustive bibliography
in the United States, is still instructive today. Kubler topic, including Rosalind E. Krauss, “The Originality in Parallel Lines, 16.
on this painting, which has received the attention of
argued for an equivalence of form and expression, of the Avant-Garde: A Post-Modernist Repetition,” 22.  Of the many narratives that Bann follows in many art historians, conservators, and cultural histori-
recommending a better balance between meaning- October 18 (Autumn 1981), 47–66; and Richard Shiff, Parallel Lines, his analysis of the long genesis of Luigi ans. For a partial overview of the literature on the
obsessed iconology and form-obsessed morphology. “The Original, the Imitation, the Copy, and the Spon- Calamatta’s (1801–1869) mythical reproductive engrav- painting, see Antoine Schnapper and Arlette Sérullaz,
See ibid., 126–28. taneous Classic: Theory and Painting in Nineteenth- ing of Leonardo’s Mona Lisa is most compelling in eds., Jacques-Louis David, 1724–1825, exh. cat., Paris,
Century France,” Yale French Studies 66 (1984), 27–54. this regard. As Bann comments regarding the admira- Musée du Louvre, and Versailles, Musée national du
3.  Ibid., 76.
More recently, Marc Gotlieb has written compellingly tion given to Calamatta’s drawing after Leonardo’s Château (Paris: Réunion des musées nationaux, 1989),
4.  Ibid., 42.
on the artistic anxiety over originality as lived by masterpiece, “Here is the copy drawing as a middle 282–85 (no. 188). For an array of more recent essays
5.  I would like to acknowledge Thomas Crow as the Ernest Meissonier (1815–1891), in his insightful treat- term, neither the painting itself nor yet (and not for devoted to this single painting, see Masterpieces
source of this useful metaphor, which he provided ment of nineteenth-century academic painting in many years) the model for the completed reproduc- of Western Painting: David’s “The Death of Marat,”
in his typically clearheaded discussion of repetition France, The Plight of Emulation: Ernest Meissonier and tion. For the visitors to the studio, ‘aura’ was thus ed. William Vaughan and Helen Weston (London:
and painting in our two-day colloquium, sponsored French Salon Painting (Princeton: Princeton University temporarily invested in an object that epitomized Cambridge University Press, 2000). See also Crow,
by the Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute during Press, 1996). one of the specific stages of the reproductive process, Emulation, 162–69.
the summer of 2005. I must also thank Dr. Crow for
10.  See Stephen Bann, Parallel Lines: Printmakers, rather than its input or its outcome.” Ibid., 17.
pointing me in the direction of Kubler’s Shape of Time, 35.  I have commented elsewhere on David’s canny
Painters and Photographers in Nineteenth-Century France 23.  Useful discussions of this topic include but are assimilation of the conventions of still life in this
which has proven to be an extremely useful point of
(New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2001), not limited to Nicholas Green, “Dealing in Tempera- martyr portrait, especially those in which dead game
departure for an otherwise unwieldy theme.
18–30. ments: Economic Transformation of the Artistic Field are positioned with their heads dangling at a like
6.  See the discussion of Ingres’s three versions of
11.  “Edward [sic] Muybridge, Jasper Johns, Larry in France during the Second Half of the Nineteenth angle against a stone ledge, as though their bodies
the Oedipus in Stephen Bann’s essay in this volume,
Poons, Sol LeWitt, Don Judd, Jo Baer, Robert Smith- Century,” Art History 10 (March 1987), 59–78; idem, are still pliable with life, and so at their “last breath.”
pp. 46–47.
son, Hanne Darbroven [sic], Dorothea Rockburne, “Circuits of Production, Circuits of Consumption: The See E. Kahng, “The Sublimity of the Critic: Pictorial
7.  I mention here just a few of the many publications Ed Ruscha, Eva Hesse, Paul Mogensen, Dan Graham, Case of Mid-Nineteenth-Century French Art Dealing,” Realism and the Hierarchy of Genres in Eighteenth-
that have covered related topics: Paul Duro, “The Copy Alfred Jensen, William Kolakoski, and myself have Art Journal 48 (Spring 1989), 29–34; and Martha Century French Painting,” Ph.D. diss., University of
in French Nineteenth Century Painting,” Ph.D. diss., used serial methodology.” Bochner, in Gregory Ward, Pissarro, Neo-Impressionism, and the Spaces of the California, Berkeley, 1996.
University of Essex, 1983; Richard Shiff, “Represen- Battcock, Minimal Art: A Critical Anthology (New Avant-Garde (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
36.  Laura Mulvey, “Death 24 Times a Second; The
tation, Copying, and the Technique of Originality,” York: E. P. Dutton, 1968), 100. 1996).
Tension between Movement and Stillness in the
New Literary History 15 (Winter 1984), 331–63; idem,
12.  John Coplans, Serial Imagery, exh. cat., Pasadena 24.  See John Klein’s provocative essay “The Dispersal Cinema,” Coil, no. 9/10 (2000).
“Copyists in the Louvre in the Middle Decades of the
Art Museum (1968), 9. of the Modernist Series,” Oxford Art Journal 21, no. 1
Nineteenth Century,” Gazette des Beaux-Arts (1988),
13.  Ibid., 18. (1998), 123–35.
249–52; Retaining the Original: Multiple Originals,
 Reassessing Repetition in Nineteenth-Century
Academic Painting: Delaroche, Gérôme, Ingres

Stephen Bann During the course of the nineteenth century, the conditions for pro-
ducing and disseminating visual works of art in the West changed
profoundly. This change was not simply a matter of marketing,
although the rise of a new type of art dealer with broad international
reach was a major factor in stimulating the new developments. New
techniques of reproduction, which diffused the fame of living artists,
grew at a truly exponential rate, as did the use of existing techniques
such as burin engraving and lithography. There was also a boom in
new institutions that featured contemporary art as well as the great
works of the past. The collection of William T. Walters, composed
initially of works acquired in Paris from the most prestigious French
artists and dealers of the day, but destined for the transatlantic city of
Baltimore, is emblematic of this turn of events. Paul Delaroche (1797–
1856) and his pupil Jean-Léon Gérôme (1824–1904) were undoubt-
edly prime movers in galvanizing this novel artistic economy and
fully recognized as such at the time.1 Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres
(1780–1867), whose stock has risen while that of the other two has
fallen in relative terms, presents a different scenario. Nonetheless,
his defiantly individual practice throws the general picture into relief.
This momentous transformation has, however, received little close
attention until recently. The extensive circulation of images in repro-
duction that reached hitherto untouched sectors of the population
during the nineteenth century underpinned the creation of new
collections and the new public institutions that housed them. Yet in
the course of the following century such institutions began to operate
a kind of unofficial censorship over the so-called academic art of the
period. This led also to the obfuscation of the issue of the “repeating
image” in academic painting, and consequently to the neglect of the
medium of the reproductive print that had been so crucial in spread-
ing visual awareness. The concept of “repetition” in academic art has
indeed been a red flag to a bull, since it challenges the stable value

27
28 inherent in the “original” work. Still quite the same painter” and the “copy if painted artist’s hand],” but by studio assistants, 29 images that is now foreign to us—one in
exceptional is a display like that presented by another.”3 Such a publication might be or even copyists with no direct connection which the multiple practices of repetition

Academic Painting: Delaroche, Gérôme, Ingres

Reassessing Repetition in Nineteenth-Century
at the J. Paul Getty Museum in spring 2006, regarded as a preliminary course in the prac- to the master. What status had they? are taken for granted. In this respect, the fact
with three “repeating” works by William- tice of “connoisseurship” as it developed over The Athenaeum had already raised this that a print after Cromwell is mentioned by
Adolphe Bouguereau (1825–1905), shown the century. Its concluding table of artistic problem in 1850 with regard to a painting the Athenaeum columnist is significant. He
side by side and clearly differentiated. The monograms was a valuable aid to the collec- by Delaroche included in the annual exhibi- notes that the “original picture [by Delaroche]
Virgin of the Angels, a major painting from tor who aspired to identify signs of individual tion of the Royal Academy. Delaroche was has been so long familiar to the public by the
the 1881 Paris Salon, later offered for sale in authorship. But here it was largely a matter then at the height of his international fame, means of engraving.” The implication is that
New York, was flanked on the left by a small of identifying paintings by the Italian old having recently been elected to honorary “familiarity” does not depend exclusively on
oil sketch for the composition, and on the masters. Over the next half-century, the task membership of the Academy, and was sup- the viewing of the original painting but also
right by a small-scale repetition, or “reduc- would extend to contemporary work, and posed to be showing one of his most famous emerges through acquaintanceship with
tion,” of the work painted in 1884–85. The such identification would become intensely works, Cromwell and Charles I (1831). But Louis-Pierre Henriquel-Dupont’s (1797–1892)
latter had been authenticated by Bouguereau’s problematic, not least because of the wide- the Athenaeum critic commented acidly that widely diffused engraving. Of course it can-
note to the dealer Adolphe Goupil: “the reduc- spread replication practiced by the painters the painting in question, “said to be by Paul not be denied that the painting has features
tion of the Virgin of the Angels was done who were marketed internationally by the Delaroche, was but a repetition, some say that cannot be revealed by the black-and-
entirely by my hand.” Maison Goupil. a copy executed for him by a pupil from his white engraving—yet it still counts as a “trans-
Here Bouguereau was following a protocol The problem was as much geographical original picture at Nice which has been so lation,” thus conveying the essential features
used by academic artists from the beginning as ideological. Even today, curators and col- long familiar to the public by the means of of the painting and offering a legitimate basis
of the century. The relative price of such a lectors occasionally compete to establish that engraving.”5 On this matter, the writer was for criticism.
“reduction” could be carefully calibrated. where two versions of the same work exist accurately informed, and the young Dante This view of the copy as integral, rather
Still displayed beneath Jacques-Louis David’s in different locations, their version is the Gabriel Rossetti took note when writing than accessory, to the original applies a for-
(1748–1825) portrait of Zénaïde and Char- “original.” So did their equivalents in the in 1851 of a second showing of “the Nicean tiori, to the painted repetition. Rossetti judges
lotte Bonaparte in the Museo Napoleonico, mid-nineteenth century, seeking reassurance duplicate.”6 Yet Rossetti’s comments show “the Nicean duplicate” to be “admirable . . .
Rome, is the artist’s written receipt from 1821 where the situation was unclear; this indeed that such a revelation by no means entailed in every respect”—except that of the artist’s
acknowledging that he was paid 4,000 francs was often the case. The fact that “repetitions” a unilateral downgrading of the work in psychological characterization of Cromwell,
for the original (now in the J. Paul Getty were not necessarily recognized as such— question. He wrote of the “duplicate”: “Admi- where he would profit from reading the
Museum) and 2,000 francs for each of two especially when the work had traveled some rable it is in every respect, always taken for historical writings of Thomas Carlyle. The
répétitions by his own hand, one of which is distance from its origin—was also a difficulty granted the artist’s view of the subject and London correspondent for the Art-Union
the Rome version.2 Moreover David’s clear for the art press. A London columnist for personage.” Similarly, a London correspon- corroborates that this is the level on which
itemization of these three “autograph” ver- the Athenaeum complained in 1854 about an dent for the Bulletin of the American Art- the work deserves criticism, querying whether
sions shows his awareness of a practice of exhibition of paintings by Ary Scheffer (1795– Union, writing on 19 June 1850 and so surely Delaroche has adequately portrayed Crom-
repetition consecrated in Western art from 1858), “The pictures now in Pall Mall, exhib- aware of the Athenaeum’s revelation, had well’s “fertile imagination.”8 But in neither
the Baroque period onward—that is, from ited as the original works, are copies made remarked in his searching review of the Royal case is there any question of pointing to a
the stage when issues of authorship became by the artist himself of reduced size, and sold Academy exhibition: “I confess that, on first deficiency in the repetition as such, as far
inseparably associated with estimates of by him as copies.” This clarification, however, seeing the picture, I thought it the finest as the artist’s conception is concerned.
artistic value. However, by the early nine- prompted the suspicion of “whether there work of the exhibition; and, as regards its These points might be interpreted as yet
teenth century, there appears to have been a has been an unfair reservation of this fact.”4 technical pictorial qualities, I still think so.”7 another manifestation of the literary ten-
need to clarify such questions for the benefit The writer was reluctant to believe that the We might well be baffled by the sentiment dency of English-speaking critics. “Every
of a wider but less well-informed public. The illustrious British patrons who had pur- expressed in this last judgment. How can a picture tells a story” is a slogan traditionally
year after David wrote this receipt, a study chased the works had been hoodwinked. He work be considered supreme for its “techni- associated with Victorian taste, and the fact
was published in Florence indicating how conceded the interesting point that Scheffer cal pictorial qualities” if the very issue of its that Delaroche rather than Delacroix was the
“to distinguish original pictures from cop- was prone to claim his autograph copies authorship is open to doubt? But the anom- French painter whom the English lionized
ies.” The basic point was to understand the as being superior to their originals. But he aly arises perhaps from our own, rather sche- throughout the mid-century indeed attests to
tripartite distinction between the “original . . . suspected—no doubt rightly—that the gen- matic, notion of “originality.” To put the other their predilection for literary and psychologi-
a picture that a painter makes from his own eral public would be unable to grasp such argument, the various judgments quoted cal over purely plastic values. But the issue
invention or after nature,” and two different fine distinctions. There was also the nagging here are not inconsistent. It is simply that cannot be dismissed so easily. This essay
varieties of repetition: the “replica if done by question of repetitions not “entirely by [the they reflect a way of thinking about repeating emphasizes the Anglo-American reception
30 of Delaroche and Gérôme, since they pro- pride its connection to the “print well known intermediacy of the Maison Goupil. However, 31 the Liverpool banker James Naylor. The
vide the first and most dramatic examples to art lovers,” and also stressing its promi- the detailed account books, which will be reason for Langdon’s disenchantment is

Academic Painting: Delaroche, Gérôme, Ingres

Reassessing Repetition in Nineteenth-Century
of the new, worldwide currency of French nence among the works on show: “Our pic- used here for the history of the Hémicycle instructive, since it illustrates the misconcep-
art, fueled by the diffusion of high-quality ture is of the most exquisite finish, its deeply reduction, begin only in 1846, and the rec- tions aroused by the protocols of replication,
reproductive engravings. But it relates this saturated tone giving so strong an effect that, ords from this early period are unhelpful in which involved a vexatious dispute in this
development to the phenomenon of the forming the central focus of a wall, it domi- this case, being confined to entries for works case. The Bulletin of the American Art-Union
repeating image in the European context, nates the larger pictures hanging around at unspecified dates and indications that they explored both sides of the argument in
looking at the singular case of Delaroche’s it.”10 In sum, neither its origin as a prepara- were sold in subsequent decades. What can December 1850, as a footnote to a report
Hémicycle reduction and finally at Ingres’s tion for the print nor its reduced size damp- be safely stated is the initial role played by from Paris that celebrated Delaroche’s recent
three versions of Oedipus and the Sphinx, ened the excitement of the German critic. such reductions in transforming Goupil from sale of another version of the Bonaparte.
which span more than half a century of that Indeed, both features were elevated into posi- being solely a print editor into an editor and Evidently the New York purchaser was scan-
artist’s existence. The overwhelming prestige tive virtues, with special stress being laid on picture dealer with an international network dalized to discover that this new version had
of Impressionism as a harbinger of Modern- the painting’s plastic quality. Hamburg sus- of galleries. Where Goupil had financed the been sold in London for £1,200 and that a
ism has masked for too long the historical tained its admiration for Delaroche, allow- production of a print, the reduction habitu- reproductive engraving was in the process
role of such paintings—dismissed as “aca- ing him the privilege of a life-size statue on ally reverted to the gallery’s possession, and of being made! Responding to a locally pub-
demic” in the trivial sense—and so obscured the façade of the new Kunsthalle, while his so a stream of saleable works entered the lished defense of Langdon’s rights as “first
their progressive role in the global extension French colleagues Horace Vernet (1789–1863) gallery stock.11 This process of diversification purchaser,” the editors of the Art-Union
of Western art and its institutions. and Ingres were awarded medallions. and expansion was much accelerated by the entered a firm statement of their own opin-
An illuminating case to launch the argu- It is possible that the sale of Delaroche’s political situation of France in the late 1840s. ion on the matter: “We understand the rule
ment is the history of the “reduction” of Crom- Cromwell reduction took place through the The prolonged crisis of government follow- to be that artists have the right of duplicat-
well used in the preparation of ­Henriquel- ing the revolution of 1848 gave a strong ing their pictures unless the contrary is
Dupont’s previously mentioned print. A impulse to Goupil’s search for new markets. expressly stipulated.”14
necessary stage in the process of creating By this stage, Delaroche was already estab- This might well be the example of the
a reproductive engraving was the provi- lished as one of Goupil’s most popular house repeating image in French painting that
sion of a reduced replica close in size to artists with regard to the sale of reproduc- has led to the most disputation from 1850
the intended print. It was the artist’s respon- tive prints. It was only to be expected that he until the recent past. Both versions now
sibility to ensure the quality of the copy, would carry the torch in their most ambitious reside in major European collections, the
though the painting could be delegated to venture to date, which was the opening of Langdon version in the Musée du Louvre
an approved substitute. In the case of the their New York gallery under the name of (fig. 2), and the version purchased in Lon-
Cromwell reduction (fig. 1), the quality strongly Knoedler. As early as 1850, Delaroche’s Bona- don in 1850 by the Earl of Onslow (fig. 3)
suggests Delaroche’s own hand, and as the parte Crossing the Alps was hanging in the in the National Galleries of Merseyside.
ensuing aquatint print was shown at the 1833 drawing room of Mr. Woodbury Langdon, no Indeed, in the course of their respective
Salon, it may be inferred that he painted it doubt the scion of a well-known New Hamp- histories, the wires became crossed, and the
in 1831/32. We cannot say when it left Dela- shire family then resident in New York City.12 Langdon/Naylor painting was understood to
roche’s possession, but by 1846 it was a val- This sale of a major painting to a trans- have ended up in Liverpool, until Elisabeth
ued item in the collection of the Hamburg atlantic client surely marked a decisive step ­Foucart-Walter established the contrary in
merchant Friedrich Stammann, who gifted it in the extra-European reach of the Maison a definitive a­ rticle.15 It would be difficult to
to the city’s nascent picture collection in that Goupil and indeed in the American reception summarize her examination of the relation-
year.9 Stammann had joined with a number of contemporary European art. Previously, ship between the two works, which also
of like-minded citizens to create the first the cultivated American patrons of the arts originated two contemporary reproductive
Kunstverein (art union) in Hamburg, which had focused their energies on accumulating engravings. If the article were to be revised
Fig. 1. Paul Delaroche,
led in due course to the building of the origi- remarkable collections of reproductive prints, today, additional factors might still be taken
Cromwell and Charles I,
nal part of the present Kunsthalle. When ca. 1832. Oil on canvas, in the belief that the “best pictures” of the into account, such as Delaroche’s reduction
the Deutsches Kunstblatt reviewed the first 38 × 45.8 cm. Hamburger old world would never traverse the ocean.13 of 1853 in the Royal Collection, which is illus-
Kunsthalle
public exhibition of the civic collection in Yet Langdon’s purchase was ill-fated, since trated in a recent article of my own.16 But the
March 1850, it did not stint in its praise for the picture was almost immediately sold context of the present essay prompts a differ-
the Delaroche reduction, mentioning with back, passing to another of Goupil’s clients, ent question, which was largely avoided in
32 the previous debate, from Langdon’s disillu- one could possibly claim that the Bonaparte and under the fixedness of the gaze which sounds 33
sionment onward. Are these two large paint- Crossing the Alps that Onslow bought in 1850 the possibilities of the future, a sort of restrained

Academic Painting: Delaroche, Gérôme, Ingres

Reassessing Repetition in Nineteenth-Century
ings genuinely “duplicates”? Or, to put it involved compositional changes of this mag- joy at the dazzling light as it were of his glorious
differently, how should we interpret the nitude. This makes it all the more revelatory destiny appears through the immoveableness of
slight, but significant, variations between that one contemporary French critic under- his silent and meditative features. This secret strife
the two versions? stood the Onslow work to embody an entirely of self-betraying thoughts, this complex expres-
Here indeed a practical issue has displaced different psychological content. Quoted on sion is one of the most difficult things which
the more fundamental question. Rarely are the page of the Bulletin of the American Art- painting can attempt and M. Delaroche should
there any circumstances in which such works Union that also mentioned Langdon’s dispute be applauded for not having feared to cope with
may be directly compared. They invariably is this extraordinary interpretation of the it in his compositions.17
end up in different collections, and even a difference:
major retrospective of the painter in question What makes this interpretation so surpris-
is unlikely to waste space on two works that The new [painting] is a modified reproduction of ing is the fact that there appears to be hardly
are taken to be nearly identical. Responding [the previous one] in many details, but different any difference in the rendering of Bonaparte’s
to apparently minor differences between the as regards the principal conception. In both the features in the two pictures, though the sec-
two Bonapartes—different nuances in the First Consul is represented as mounted upon a ond suggests a livelier cast to the eyes. The
treatment of the Alpine landscape, a tricolor mule, the direction of which he abandons entirely present opportunity to compare them is admit-
cockade making an appearance—it would to a guide. He appears insensible to the desola- tedly based on the evidence of color repro-
be easy to credit them to a strategy of “varia- tion which surrounds him in the midst of those ductions. Yet the French critic who saw the
tion.” The artist has slipped in a few minor Alpine solitudes of snows and rocks through which Onslow work in Delaroche’s studio would
touches, either from sheer boredom at the his soldiers toil painfully onwards. His thought never have seen the two completed pictures
process of repetition, or (more cynically) is elsewhere—it dwells in the future and in the together, though he might have had access
to offer the new client something, however dreams of his ambition. It is differently translated to its predecessor before it left for America.
slight, to customize his acquisition. in the two pictures. In the first, his features have a There is a possibility that he is simply stating
This interpretation may be justified in the serene gravity indicating the strong pre-occupation Delaroche’s intentions with regard to the two
case of some artists—though I shall suggest of the thoughts turned back on themselves. In the works. But this seems unlikely, in view of the
later that it is almost the antithesis of the last, on the contrary, the head has a younger air phenomenological precision of the descrip-
logic followed in the working procedures tion. It is not just a question of scrutinizing
of Ingres. Nor indeed does it really apply to Bonaparte’s features to understand his frame
Delaroche. We can pass over examples like of mind. The rosier tinge of the Alpine peaks
the reduction of Cromwell made to assist the and the brightening of the soldier’s cockade
reproductive engraver, since in this case exact are integral to the message of “glorious des-
replication was clearly required. In several tiny” in the second painting.
other cases, such as his Napoleon at Fontaine- This could well be the only composition
bleau, Delaroche initiated both large-scale by Delaroche for which there is a drawing
repetitions and small-scale reductions. But in relating directly to the process of repetition.
none of these would it appear that any minor The exact drawing of The Guide (fig. 4) must
additions or adjustments were made. Dela- have been used in the process of duplication.
roche did admittedly paint for the accommo- It carries penciled cross marks on the left-
dating James Naylor what was entered in hand side that would have aligned it with Fig. 3. Paul Delaroche, Fig. 4. Paul Delaroche,
Goupil’s accounts as a “second painting” other sheets reproducing the composition. Bonaparte Crossing the Bonaparte Crossing
Alps, 1850. Oil on canvas, the Alps: The Guide,
(2ème tableau). This picked up on one of his Yet the fact that landscape and background 279 × 214 cm. Walker ca. 1848. Black chalk
earlier successes at the 1831 Salon, Les enfants Fig. 2. Paul Delaroche, elements vary considerably in the two paint- Art Gallery, National with white heightening
d’Édouard (Princes in the Tower). Probably Bonaparte Crossing ings suggests that only the central figures Museums Liverpool on paper, 42.8 × 58 cm.
the Alps, 1848. Oil on (acc. 2990) Williamstown, Mass.,
Naylor had requested a repetition of that well- would have been recorded in this scrupulous
canvas, 289 × 222 cm. Sterling and Francine
known work but was willing to accept what Paris, Musée du Louvre way. Delaroche was known to have taken Clark Art Institute
amounts to a total revision of the scene. No (RF 1982-75) special pains in working up the figure of (1990.10)
34 Fig. 5. “Hémicycle de Henriquel Dupont—who spent on his large 35 The problem posed by the reduced version of
la salle des distributions Paul Delaroche’s Hémicycle des Beaux-Arts in
plate about one hundred months.” So far, so
the Walters collection can be simply stated. How

Academic Painting: Delaroche, Gérôme, Ingres

Reassessing Repetition in Nineteenth-Century
de l’École des Beaux-
Arts.” Wood engraving
good. Strahan has appreciated that the Wal- far can we trust the contemporary testimony that
after a drawing by ters reduction was originally destined (like Delaroche substantially repainted a copy that had
Auguste Marc published Hamburg’s Cromwell) to aid the printmaker. originally been prepared by a student to aid the
in L’Illustration, 1841, printmaker Henriquel-Dupont in his large three-
Reducing the vast painting in scale, and pro- part engraving? The new findings of the Walters
248–49. Paris, Biblio-
thèque nationale de jecting the semicircular plane onto a flat sur- conservation department suggest strongly that this
France, Département face, was the first stage in the preparation of was in fact the case. Delaroche’s repainting turns
des Estampes et de la out to have involved several distinct but comple-
the great engraving project—actually involv-
photographie mentary operations, which are illustrated here with
ing three plates, not one—that H ­ enriquel- the aid of ultraviolet photography and raking light
Dupont brought to fruition in 1853 (fig. 9). details. Looking first of all at the central figures, it
is possible to pick up the darker areas on the torsos
Perhaps Strahan provided his detailed
of Apelles and Phidias, where much overpainting
explanation in view of the fact that the Wal- has taken place (figs. 6a and 6b). It is apparent that
ters Hémicycle was already being misidenti- Delaroche overpainted with quite a free hand, also
fied. In a handbook of nineteenth-century covering the background to a large extent, though
a few passages without overpainting still betray the
artists published in Boston in 1884, it was more careful approach of the student. This conclusion
erroneously described as “his finished study, relates in a significant way to the comment made
from which he and his scholars painted the around 1880 about the Walters painting by the Ameri-
can critic Edward Strahan. He attested that he had
‘Hemicycle.’” 20 Strahan well understood that
never seen “one of Delaroche’s small-scale pictures
the Walters work came after and not before so loosely brushed.”
the Alpine guide through life drawings, mid-century makes such a discussion spe- the wall painting. But even he was puzzled Perhaps the insistence of Eugène de Mirecourt that
Delaroche repainted the copy in the presence of the
and this ensured that his final effort could cially pertinent to the present exhibition. by the evidence of his eyes, when set against
original at the École des Beaux-Arts provides a clue
be duplicated.18 About the preeminence of the Hémicycle the history of its production. He confessed: as to what he was intending to achieve by paying it so
Admittedly, there is a possibility that in the Walters collection after its acquisition “I have never happened to see one of Dela- much attention. The student copy was commissioned
this unsigned drawing might not be by in 1871 there can be no doubt. Writing in roche’s small-scale pictures so loosely to facilitate what would be an essentially graphic
treatment by the engraver, and so foregrounded line
Delaroche’s hand. Over the same period, his authoritative study, The Art Treasures brushed as the present specimen.”21 This rather than the chiaroscuro effects (the light and
his former pupil Charles-François Jalabert of America, around 1880, the critic Edward led to mention that the work was attributed dark scale) of the original. Delaroche has succeeded
(1819–1901) was in the Nice studio assisting Strahan (himself a former student of Gérôme) “in part to the pupils of Delaroche” in spite in reinforcing the shadows in many areas through
his overpainting. As can be observed in striking fea-
with the creation of “the Nicean duplicate” asserted: “Among the many paintings of of being signed and dated by the master.
tures like the head of Raphael (fig. 6c), he has also
of Cromwell. It is conceivable that he also extreme importance decorating the walls He resolved the apparent discrepancy in surrounded some of the artists’ profiles with a “halo
assisted with the two versions of Bonaparte. of the [Walters] gallery, the palm must be the light of information gleaned from a Figs. 6a–c. Ultraviolet- effect,” to make them stand out all the more. Evidently
light photographs, he wished the new version not to remain a mere
The workings of the studio system make it yielded to the ‘Hemicycle’, by Paul Delaroche. popular biography of Delaroche by the jour-
2005, of the Walters record of the transition from the painting to the
unlikely that this, as well as other such ques- I have seen nothing in America which seems nalist Eugène de Mirecourt, according to Hémicycle des Beaux- engraving, but to be a vivid re-creation, on a small
tions pertaining to Delaroche and his aca- so perfectly to bridge the civilization of the which “the pupils of Delaroche made a copy, Arts (37.3) scale, of his original work.
demic contemporaries, could be definitively two continents, and place the connoisseur-
resolved. Nevertheless, through a rare com- ship of the new world in connection with
bination of circumstances, it has proved that of the old.”19 Strahan’s lengthy sequel
possible to resolve a similar issue in respect to this promising opening begins by com-
of another of Delaroche’s major works. menting on the unusual derivation of the
Since his signed reduction of the Hémicycle work. Delaroche’s “original picture” takes
des Beaux-Arts (fig. 8) was one of the most its title from the fact that it is a large wall
expensive and prestigious works to enter painting, completed in 1841, and “bent
the original Walters collection, it is parti- around the semicircular or theatre-shaped
cularly appropriate to discuss the history lecture-room of the Beaux-Arts School, in
of this painting at some length. The fact Paris [figs. 5 and 7]. . . . The Baltimore pic-
that this history involves so many of the ture [fig. 8] is the smaller replica, prepared
issues relating to repeating images in the by Delaroche for the use of the engraver—
Fig. 7. Planar projection Fig. 8. Paul Delaroche, Fig. 9. Louis-Pierre
photograph of Paul with Charles Béranger, Henriquel-Dupont after
Delaroche, Hémicycle Hémicycle des Beaux- Paul Delaroche, Hémi-
des Beaux-Arts, 1841. Arts, ca. 1841; repainted cycle des Beaux-Arts,
Oil and wax on wall, and signed 1853. Oil on 1853. Steel engraving
390 × 2470 cm. Paris, canvas, 41.6 × 257.3 cm. in three parts. Left panel:
École nationale supé- Baltimore, The Walters 53 × 112.5 cm; center
rieure des Beaux-Arts Art Museum. Bequest panel: 53 × 65.5 cm; right
of Henry Walters, 1931 panel: 53 × 112.5 cm.
(37.83) Baltimore, The Walters
Art Museum. Gift of
C. Morgan Marshall, 1944
(93.113a–c)

9
38 which the master insisted on retouching and had to be wrapped in wool by the porter studied with Delaroche in the mid-1830s and 39 in 1856, however, the anomalous situation of
himself.”22 This account, in Strahan’s con- because of the extreme winter ­temperatures in 1837 (the year of his first Salon exhibit) the work that had originally entered Goupil’s

Academic Painting: Delaroche, Gérôme, Ingres

Reassessing Repetition in Nineteenth-Century
sidered view, “[went] to establish the authen- —may appear fanciful but perhaps is not far was living in the same Bohemian lodgings stock as a Béranger replica needed to be
ticity of the smaller replica as a work really from the truth.24 This check on the creden- in Saint-Germain-des-Prés that his master resolved. At the posthumous sale of Dela-
by Delaroche.” tials of the painting also provides the incen- had occupied fifteen years previously. In roche’s estate in 1857, it was sold—a second
For our purposes, such a judgment involv- tive to investigate its original state and to 1839, he showed a small painting at the Salon time—to Goupil for the very large sum of
ing the metaphysics of authorship must take follow its fortunes up to the period when that derived directly from a drawing by Dela- 43,900 francs, not far short of the figure
second place to the examination of the vari- William Walters acquired it. This essay is roche.25 There is no difficulty in concluding it achieved on being purchased by Eugène
ous stages involved in the production of this the first occasion for telling the story in full. that in 1841—once Henriquel-Dupont had Gaillard in 1860. The sale catalogue, which
complex work. The Walters Hémicycle was The anchor for the whole investigation accepted the mammoth task of engraving the indicates that no other work by Delaroche
recently examined with unprecedented thor- is entry 99 in the first volume of the Goupil Hémicycle des Beaux-Arts—this young painter included in the sale fetched as high a price,
oughness, leading to the conclusion that account books, which lists a painting of was entrusted with the task of preparing the omits Béranger’s name but otherwise pro-
Delaroche did indeed devote considerable “l’Hémicycle des Beaux-Arts” by “Beranger reduced replica. Moreover, the circumstances vides a broadly accurate description: “This
attention to its repainting before he signed d’après Paul Delaroche” (fig. 10). Evidence of Béranger’s life explain an apparent anom- reduction, done in 1841 for the execution
it in 1853.23 There is evidence of a compre- that this is the Walters picture will accumu- aly in the Goupil entry and may clarify the of the engraving, was entirely repainted
hensive revision of the color values, which Fig. 10. Entries from late in the course of my argument. For the gesture of Delaroche in reassuming respon- in 1853 by M. Paul Delaroche, with notable
must have been carried out in situ. Mire- Goupil & Cie account moment, it is worth underlining that this is sibility for the work. The anomaly is the vast modifications.”26
ledger, book 1:1846–62.
court’s vivid detail that he spent three weeks an attribution not to “the pupils of Delaroche” discrepancy between the cost price (5,000 The decade between 1860 and 1870 during
Los Angeles, Getty
engaged in the process in the presence of Research Institute, in general, but to one pupil in particular, and francs) and the sale price (50,000 francs). which the work subsequently was in the pos-
the original at the École des Beaux-Arts— 900239 a favored one. Charles Béranger (1816–1853) This can be explained by the hypothesis that session of the Gaillard family is significant
Béranger sold the reduced replica to Goupil since it points to a possible alternative destiny.
in 1850 (a date that correlates with other It opens up the possibility that Delaroche’s
entries on the same page). It was then in reduction could have been the crown of
1853, which was the year of Béranger’s death, another great collection in the process of for-
that Delaroche undertook the task of fully mation, not to be housed in a transatlantic
repainting the unsold work, thus achieving gallery but in a major civic museum in pro-
a substantial premium over the original cost vincial France. This alternative also indicates
price. Both the likelihood that the replica the general kinship between the new genera-
reverted to its author after Henriquel-Dupont tion of collectors who bought Delaroche’s
had finished with it, and the fact that Dela- later work: these men were not the great
roche adopted (so to speak) the work of a aristocrats and royalty who competed for
cherished former pupil, are consistent with his earlier history paintings but wealthy and
the sense that there were strong personal public-spirited bourgeois figures such as
ties involved in these arrangements. Stammann in Hamburg, Naylor in Liverpool,
It can also be inferred that the commercial and indeed WilliamWalters in Baltimore.
status of the work became problematic after Eugène Gaillard had been born in 1793 to a
1853. The account books record its final sale peasant family in the Dauphiné. In his career
in 1860, to “M. Gaillard à Grenoble” (and this as a banker at Grenoble, he accumulated a
previously uncharted episode in the history considerable fortune, which was estimated
of the work will be clarified here). In all prob- at the massive figure of 17 million francs after
ability, Delaroche initially held onto the paint- his death in 1866.27 But his latter years were
ing that he had reworked, being unwilling to largely devoted to public service. From 1858
relinquish its poignant associations. This to 1865, when he retired because of ill health,
would be consistent with his marked reluc- he served as mayor of Grenoble, and took
tance to sell several of the major works that a special interest in the city’s art collection,
occupied him throughout a period of increas- which was then being rehoused in more com-
ingly serious illness in the 1850s. At his death modious premises. In 1859, he presented his
40 fellow citizens with a fine Renaissance paint- 19 October 1866 that Lucas records in his price, attributing his success to the political 41 since they were rooted in the traditions of the
ing, attributed to the Florentine Fra Barto- usual busy daily agenda: “to Gaillards to see crisis brought about by the Paris Commune French Academy—was still the mainstream

Academic Painting: Delaroche, Gérôme, Ingres

Reassessing Repetition in Nineteenth-Century
lommeo (1472–1517).28 In 1865, on the eve of Delaroche reduction of the Hemicycle—.”31 of 1870, “when the hardest-headed dealers of Western art. The increasing global reach
his retirement, he successfully petitioned This being barely six weeks after the death lost their calculating powers, and all confi- of an art with its focus in Paris had neither
the comte de Nieuwerkerke, Napoleon III’s of Gaillard père, it seems as though Émile dence in values, even the firmest, was gone.” sapped its traditions nor diluted its richness.
director of museums, for a modern painting Gaillard, a Parisian banker, had moved fast “In ordinary times” he claimed, “every On the contrary, the timely innovations
from the recent Paris Salon to be purchased in alerting the trade to the fact that one of museum in every large French town would in the technology of reproduction and the
for Grenoble by the state.29 his father’s assets might be on the market. be ready to ruin itself rather than let such a wider commercial diffusion of artworks had
May we conclude that the Hémicycle reduc- Lucas, however, was willing to play a waiting masterpiece leave their shores.”36 This state- enabled academic art to achieve new heights.
tion, consigned on 15 April 1860 to “M. Gail- game. It was 1871 before he located the pic- ment is probably overconfident, given that In the burgeoning private collections and
lard à Grenoble” in the Goupil accounts, was ture again, having sounded out the indis- the work seems to have been offered for sale nascent public galleries of the United States,
destined for this civic collection? This seems pensable Goupil on two works by Delaroche, before 1870 and found no buyer. But there this was, at least up to the last decade of the
very likely, as the acquisition of the painting “the picture of Marie-Antoinette and the is no doubting the enthusiasm with which nineteenth century, the creed to be adopted.
would have endowed Grenoble with a presti- Hemicycle.” Goupil volunteered the fact Strahan applauded Walters’s coup from In this context, it fell to the painter Jean-
gious modern work that was also emblematic that it had been offered for sale at 80,000 the perspective of the 1880s. He concluded: Léon Gérôme to embody, more than any
of the entire history of Western art, and espe- francs by a rival gallery, Georges Petit’s, but “All things considered, the ‘Hemicycle’ [was] other artist, the continuing vitality of the
cially the period following the Renaissance. the price had risen to 100,000 francs plus probably the highest effort of the nineteenth French academic tradition. By the time that
Gaillard could not have failed to notice that 10 percent commission.32 On 8 July 1871, century in academic painting.”37 This judg- the Hémicycle reduction was bought for the
the black-gowned figure of Fra Bartolommeo Lucas negotiated with Petit, arriving at a ment must presumably refer to the wall Walters collection, Delaroche had been dead
was prominent among the illustrious Italian possible price of 90,000 with commission painting at the École des Beaux-Arts, but the for several years, and the majority of his
Renaissance artists in Delaroche’s Hémicycle, of 5 percent, but “thought if offer was made Baltimore reduction appeared to Strahan to important paintings were already in private
standing midway between Leonardo da Vinci of 80,000 it might be accepted.” Three days be fully invested with the aura of its original. and public collections. The knowledge of
and Raphael. He would obviously have been later, he wrote to Walters, proposing the My reasons for giving detailed attention his work was thus largely diffused through
aware of the original wall painting at the final figure of 90,000 francs, which proved to the Hémicycle reduction are, first of all, its the prints and photographs published by
École des Beaux-Arts, and might have calcu- acceptable to all parties.33 It remained simply perceived centrality within the Walters collec- Goupil, which were distributed by galler-
lated that this repetition, dignified by the to commission a splendid frame from the tion, and second, the exemplary way in which ies such as Knoedler (fig. 11). By contrast,
master’s own signature, would fulfill various Parisian framemaker Dutocq and to pack it demonstrates the integral role of repetition Gérôme, who lived until 1904, caught the
functions at the same time, being pedagogi- the treasure off to Baltimore. in academic art. That Strahan, a former pupil full tide of the expanding market for aca-
cally useful as well as aesthetically fine—in It is worth pausing on the high value that of Gérôme, assessed its achievement in the demic art. He sold a high proportion of
a word, specially suited to the new collection was placed on this singular work, which was context of “academic painting” is, of course, his major paintings overseas, while simul-
that was taking shape in Grenoble. Maybe undeniably both a repetition and a reduction, hardly accidental. Yet so devalued has the taneously exploiting the huge demand for
it was only Gaillard’s retirement from the even if questions about its divided authorship concept of academic painting become over reproductive prints and photographs. In
mayoralty through ill health—a departure were dismissed. Comparing the price paid by a century of modernist hegemony that it is two respects, he can be viewed as the lineal
accelerated by the parlous political situation Walters with the valuations being set on the hard to overcome the derogatory connota- Fig. 11. Robert Jefferson successor of Delaroche. First of all, he was
in the country—that frustrated such a plan. rising Impressionist school, it is worth recall- tions. For Strahan, we must assume, such Bingham, albumen print, regarded (with some justice) as Delaroche’s
1858, of Delaroche/
On Gaillard’s death in 1866, the valuable ing that Édouard Manet’s 1872 inventory esti- a prejudice would have been incomprehen- loyal pupil. C. H. Stranahan’s synoptic
Béranger, Hémicycle des
work would have passed to his heirs, a son mated a value of 10,000 francs for a major sible. For him, the complex of principles and Beaux-Arts, 9 × 58 cm. account of French painting, published in
and a daughter, both resident in Paris. recent painting like Le déjeuner (à l’atelier) practices correctly described as “academic”— Private collection New York in 1917, put the matter concisely.
Here the journal of the American art agent (1868); the painting in question in fact sold
George Lucas takes over in covering the final for 4,000 francs in 1873.34 This was also the
stages of the Hémicycle’s existence in France. price that Lucas negotiated in July 1871 for a
The first indication that Walters might be painting by the already fashionable William-
interested in purchasing works by Delaroche Adolphe Bouguereau.35 In other words,
is in the entry for 2 November 1861, when Walters was paying an extraordinarily high
Lucas notes: “With W[alters] & Goupil to price for his hybrid Delaroche. Yet the well-
see De La Roche’s Christian Martyr & to informed Edward Strahan later insisted that
see Gerome and Brion.”30 But it is not till he was lucky to have secured it at such a
42 From his entry into Delaroche’s studio, he Fig. 12. Installation Gérôme as “unquestionably one of the best art- that must have adorned many a salon or 43 translated in Hering’s study, he argued this
“always cherished an affectionate loyalty photograph, Gérôme et ists of the day,” while the Duel “still attract[ed] drawing room.45 However, it shows a dis- point with conviction:

Academic Painting: Delaroche, Gérôme, Ingres

Reassessing Repetition in Nineteenth-Century
Goupil: Art et entreprise,
[for him], seeing a value in his teachings Bordeaux, Musée Goupil,
more than any of his works.”41 Fanny Field tinct loss of quality when compared with
which Millet never found there.”38 This 12 October 2000– Hering, writing in 1892 in her study of the an initial proof taken from the lithographic I learn with the greatest pleasure that you have
general statement was backed up with the 14 January 2001 artist, claimed that there was “an epitome stone around 1859. The print was commis- sold the reproduction of the Duel that I have done
well-known anecdote that Delaroche had of a hundred passionate novels in this paint- sioned from Sirouy by the dealer Ernest for you, and I am all the more pleased since I hear
wisely overridden his pupil’s scruples about ing, which is worthy of M. Delaroche’s best Gambart, who originally published it in that that it has been bought by a distinguished ama-
sending an early work to the Salon, and so pupil.”42 Despite Gérôme’s immense produc- year, after he had succeeded in selling the teur; one is always glad to know one’s offspring is
could claim part of the responsibility for his tivity in subsequent years, the work would Baltimore version of the Duel to Walters. At well located. The alterations that I have made from
first major success in 1847 with The Cock still be recalled after his death in 1904 as this point, Gérôme had not negotiated his the original picture have singularly improved this
Fight.39 However Delaroche could take no “deserving all of its brilliant reputation.” exclusive contract with Goupil. After he had composition, especially in its general aspect; some
credit for the second major respect in which This accolade was then linked directly to its done so, in 1867, Goupil bought the stone sacrifices made in the background have left to the
Gérôme followed in his footsteps. It was in exceptional record in reproduction, which from Gambart and republished the litho- premier plan, that is to say, to the important figures,
1863, after Delaroche’s death, that Gerôme comprised “not only lithography and engrav- graph. The new edition, however, shows all their effect, and I regret not to have thought of it
married the daughter of his dealer, Adolphe ing, but, moreover, being transplanted to the up some slight marks on the stone, and at first when I executed the original. This improve-
Goupil, thus becoming a house artist who theatre [in 1881].”43 there is a general deterioration of the sur- ment has been most valuable, and you would have
benefited from a special contract comparable Such a reference to the different reproduc- face, which affects the rendering of the for- been struck with it had you been able to see one
to that of his teacher. tions of the Duel verges on understatement. est landscape. The applied hand-coloring with the other. I have modified the head of the
This affiliation is again relevant in the In the exhibition of 2000–2001 at the Musée perhaps compensates for these blemishes savage; it was not well understood at first who was
context of the Walters collection. Gérôme’s Goupil (Gérôme et Goupil: Art et entreprise), an to some extent. the adversary; now it is plain to every one and con-
entire wall was devoted to them (fig. 12). The What emerges from this constellation fusion is no longer possible. In short, I am happy
exemplary catalogue lists no less than nine of new forms of reproduction is the virtual that it has fallen into the hands of Mr Walters of
separate modes of reproduction, all of which disappearance not just of the traditional Baltimore, since I am told he can appreciate things
were still being advertised in sale catalogues process of burin engraving, but of the seriously conceived and seriously executed.47
into the twentieth century. No burin engrav- whole philosophy that underpinned this
ing of the work was produced—such as had labor-intensive procedure. The reproduc- To turn from Delaroche and Gérôme to
occupied Henriquel-Dupont for “a hundred tive print, now pitted against photography Ingres is to discover a direction in academic
months” in reproducing the Hémicycle. But and the hybrid process of photogravure, art that runs parallel to that of his academic
the full gamut of less time-consuming tech- is no longer envisaged as a form of transla- colleagues, but along entirely different lines.
niques was represented, including lithogra- tion, which would imply that the medium Ingres was, indeed, no less persuaded of the
phy, etching, photogravure, and photography. possesses its own graphic language and its desirability of repeating images in the form
In the case of photography alone, three own artistic integrity.46 The addition of hand- of reproductive engravings. During his early
different sizes and prices were offered to coloring, which was despised by traditional years in Rome, he himself made drawings
the consumer: the tiny carte de visite format reproductive engravers, achieves a welcome after classical sculpture, which were then
(9 × 6 cm), the carte-album (12 × 9 cm), and dividend precisely because it allows the engraved in the traditional manner. He set
Duel after the Masquerade (figs. 13–15) rapidly the galerie photographique print (32 × 22 cm) print to compete with the mimetic values great store by burin engravings of his major
acquired a unique position among the artist’s which, initially priced at 12 francs, cost the of the photograph. Yet Gérôme himself can paintings, at least in the first part of his
works. The prime version shown at the Salon same as the basic, uncolored version of hardly be blamed for the far-reaching devel- career, and so forged a close link with the
of 1857 (fig. 13) was bought for the collection Achille Sirouy’s (1834–1904) lithograph.44 opments in the technology of reproduction outstanding young Italian engraver Luigi
of the duc d’Aumale, thus underlining a If these multiple reproductions of that empowered the widespread diffusion of Calamatta (1801–1869), whose reproduction
compositional and conceptual kinship with Gérôme’s Duel represent a ne plus ultra of his images. In fact, he viewed his own repro- of his Voeu de Louis XIII (1824) was displayed
Delaroche’s Assassination of the Duc de Guise the “repeating image” in French nineteenth- ductive work in a very different spirit. In the at the 1837 Paris Salon.48 Yet Ingres never
(1834), which had also been commissioned century academic painting, they also reveal case of the Walters Duel (fig. 15), he reiterated established the kind of close contractual link
by a royal duke for the Château de Chantilly.40 its pitfalls as far as quality of the reproduced that he had improved on the Chantilly origi- with a print publisher that Delaroche and
Already at the time of the painting’s appear- image is concerned. The hand-colored version nal, both clarifying the narrative, and adjust- Gérôme secured from Goupil. Even his rela-
ance at the Paris Exposition Universelle of Sirouy’s 1867 lithograph (fig. 16), based ing the foreground figures to the landscape tionship with Calamatta, which remained
of 1867, the Fortnightly Review was hailing on the Chantilly original, is a striking image background. In a letter to Gambart that was close on a personal level, failed to ensure
 15

13

16

Fig. 13. Jean-Léon Fig. 15. Jean-Léon Fig. 16. Achille Sirouy,
Gérôme, The Duel Gérôme, The Duel after Jean-Léon Gérôme,
after the Masquerade, after the Masquerade, The Duel after the
1857. Oil on canvas, 1857–59. Oil on canvas, Masquerade, 1859
50 × 72 cm. Chantilly, 39.1 × 56.3 cm. Balti- (1867 print). Lithograph,
Musée Condé (PE 533) more, The Walters Art impression on a tint-
Museum. Bequest of stone background, hand-
Fig. 14. Jean-Léon Henry Walters, 1931 colored with watercolor
Gérôme, The Duel (37.51) and gouache, with gum
after the Masquerade, arabic highlights, 37.7 ×
1857. Oil on canvas, 54.5 cm. Bordeaux,
68 × 99 cm. St. Peters- Musée Goupil: Direction
burg, Russia, The State des Établissements
Hermitage Museum culturels de Bordeaux
(GE 3872) (98.I.1.5)

14
46 that a majority of his important works were Fig. 17. Ferdinand Gaillard, Ingres’s death in a burin engraving by Ferdi- 47 note in Ingres’s hand alludes to the content
made available to a wider public in this way. after Jean-Auguste- nand Gaillard (1834–1887) for the Gazette des of the Sphinx’s riddle, which involves Oedi-

Academic Painting: Delaroche, Gérôme, Ingres

Reassessing Repetition in Nineteenth-Century
Dominique Ingres,
A notorious example for comparison here Oedipus and the Sphinx,
Beaux-Arts (fig. 17).50 pus in recalling the different ages of man
is his Apotheosis of Homer (1827), the large 1867. Burin engraving. What, then, did Ingres’s commentators from childhood to old age.53 We might well
painting displaying a pantheon of the classi- Private collection make of the three versions of his Oedipus, conclude that an element of personal alle-
cal tradition that was originally commis- and what are we to make of them now? The gory played some role in the elaboration
sioned for the Louvre. Delaroche certainly catalogue entries follow a simple protocol: over nearly half a century of the composition
bore this precedent in mind when he began both the undated (National Gallery, London) whose last version he was to sign: “J.Ingres
his more eclectic and historicist wall paint- version (fig. 19) and the Baltimore version p[inge]bat Aetatis LXXXIII, 1864.”54
ing of “Artists of all the ages” in the Hémicycle (fig. 20) are classed as “reduced repetitions,” One of Ingres’s contemporaries certainly
of the École des Beaux-Arts a decade later. the latter with the indication that “some believed that this fine performance of Ingres’s
By means of Henriquel-Dupont’s engraving, changes” have been made. Not much more old age represented a special triumph over
he was able to spread the knowledge of his can be said about the small undated version mortality. The painter Jean Gigoux (1806–
most ambitious work on a scale that needs than the hypothetical view of the recent 1894) records: “A few days before his death,
no further comment here. Ingres, who was catalogue: that Ingres reworked the original [Ingres] showed me in his studio a new
soon dissatisfied with the limited member- (Louvre) version around 1826/27 and this interpretation of his Oedipus, roughly smaller
ship of his Homeric company, worked for work “may be a study made in about 1826 by half than the picture in the Louvre. He
many years on a drawing that was more inclu- in connection with the changes.”51 We can had worked at it con amore and he had wished
sive, which he invited Calamatta to engrave. at any rate be fairly sure that it was painted to surpass the first one. It was really superb.”55
But he was not sufficiently satisfied with the There could be no more satisfying example for Ingres’s personal reference and not (as We might indeed sympathize with the judg-
new version to release it, and in consequence of this outcome than that of the versions with other reductions discussed here) for ment that Ingres’s work acquires a distinc-
the print was never forthcoming. of Oedipus and the Sphinx (figs. 18–20). the use of a reproductive engraver. Ingres’s tive character through the force of this heroic
The paradox is that this very failure to take After the artist’s death in 1856, Delaroche’s collaboration with Calamatta shows that he ambition. Even for the nineteenth-century
advantage of the commercial possibilities of achievement was celebrated in a retrospective required the engraver himself to prepare academic artist, the repeating image could
repetition worked in some ways to Ingres’s exhibition of his work—the first of its kind— detailed reproductive drawings. assume an existential rather than a purely
advantage. Both Delaroche and Gérôme con- at the École des Beaux-Arts. But in no case About the Baltimore version, there is commercial significance.
trived to utilize to the full, in their turn, the did the organizers choose to juxtapose two more to be said. It was probably begun as
new opportunities of patronage arising in near-identical paintings, such as the two early as 1835, but completed only in 1864
an increasingly internationalized market. versions of Bonaparte Crossing the Alps dis- at Ingres’s studio in Meung-sur-Loire, after
By contrast, Ingres was prone to retain in cussed here. In 1867, a similar posthumous which it entered the collection of Émile
his own possession unsold major works or exhibition was dedicated to Ingres in which Pereire. Among the “changes” introduced,
indeed, when a commissioned work had the three versions of Oedipus were shown the most important are the right-left rever-
been delivered to a client, to buy it back together, and this conjunction became the sal of the composition, the omission of the
for further reworking. His portraits apart, norm for critical documentation of the art- distant Poussinesque figure, and the fact
he was intent on developing his chosen ist’s work, as with Henri Delaborde’s cata- that the Sphinx no longer looks Oedipus
thematic material, often revising in late logue of 1870.49 By this stage, of course, all in the face, but turns sharply away. Certain
career subjects that he had first tackled in three versions were in private collections, of the drawings relating to the composition
his early years. While the ostensible records but Delaborde took care, in his catalogue also anticipate this averted gaze, which
of this process (as measured by his corre- entry, to allude to the lengthy period between seems to signify the Sphinx’s acknowledg-
spondence) sometimes transmit a feeling 1808 and 1839, when the initial version had ment of defeat in the game of riddles. It is
of deep dissatisfaction with his own work— remained on Ingres’s hands, pointing out also, very obviously, a feature of the plaster
and indeed of compulsive reworkings that that it had been acclaimed so tardily at the relief by one of Ingres’s students, Oedipe
border on the obsessional—their long-term Paris Exposition Universelle of 1855. He also expliquant l’énigme au Sphinx, which dates
dividend was certainly positive. These very noted that the work—reproduced in a litho- from 1831.52 But a final piece of evidence
repetitions and variations have become inte- graph by Jean-Pierre Sudre (1783–1866) from suggests that Ingres’s long engagement
gral to our perception of Ingres’s distinctive- 1853 that was not released commercially— with the subject was not just a matter of
ness as an artist. was finally given appropriate exposure after successive readjustments: a manuscript
Fig. 18. Jean-Auguste- Fig. 19. Jean-Auguste- Fig. 20. Jean-Auguste- Opposite:
Dominique Ingres, Dominique Ingres, Dominique Ingres, Detail of fig. 20
Oedipus and the Sphinx, Oedipus and the Sphinx, Oedipus and the Sphinx,
1808. Oil on canvas, ca. 1826. Oil on canvas, 1864. Oil on canvas,
189 × 144 cm. Paris, 17.5 × 13.7 cm. London, 105.5 × 87 cm. Baltimore,
Musée du Louvre, legs The National Gallery, The Walters Art Museum.
de la comtesse Duchâtel, bought 1918 (NG 3290) Bequest of Henry Walters,
1878 (RF 218) 1931 (37.9)
50 Notes 13.  See Helena E. Wright, Prints at the Smithsonian: library of the École des Beaux-Arts. As a comparison, 51 40.  See Bann, Delaroche, 196.
1.  For a judicious view of the changes taking place, The Origins of a National Collection (Washington: it can be noted that one of Delaroche’s best-known 41.  Henry O’Neil, “The Picture-Gatherings of Paris,”

Academic Painting: Delaroche, Gérôme, Ingres

Reassessing Repetition in Nineteenth-Century
see the unsigned article “The Present State of Com- National Museum of American History, 1996), 20. paintings, The Assassination of the Duc de Guise (1834), Fortnightly Review, n.s., no. 5, 1 May 1867, 523.
merce in Art” (Art Journal, 1 October 1854), where it 14.  Bulletin of the American Art-Union, December had reached the price of 52,500 francs when sold from
42.  Fanny Field Hering, The Life and Works of Jean
is noted that Delaroche’s “pictures are always offered 1850, 150. The alternative viewpoint had been aired the collection of the duchesse d’Orléans in 1853. The rec-
Léon Gérôme (New York: Cassell, 1892), 74.
to [M. Goupil] this extensive picture and print mer- in another periodical, the Literary World. ord price for any of his works, obtained after his death
43. See Les peintres illustres: Gérôme (Paris: Pierre
chant.” Delaroche was one of only three French and one year before the sale of the Hémicycle reduction
15.  See Elisabeth Foucart-Walter, “Paul Delaroche et Lafitte, n.d. [ca. 1910]), 65. The theater production in
painters to benefit at the time from this arrangement, to William Walters, was 110,000 francs, raised at the
le thème du Passage du Saint-Bernard par Bonaparte,” question was a play by Mme Fould, performed at the
the others being Ary Scheffer (1795–1858) and Horace sale of the San Donato collection for what probably
Revue du Louvre 5/6 (1984): 367–84. The occasion for Gymnase in 1881.
Vernet (1789–1863). It would later apply to Gérôme remains his most famous work, The Execution of
this piece of sustained research was the arrival of the
when he became Adolphe Goupil’s son-in-law. The Lady Jane Grey (1833). See H. Mireur, Dictionnaire des 44.  Gérôme et Goupil: Art et Entreprise, exh. cat.,
Langdon original in the Louvre in 1982, as a gift from
influence of the Maison Goupil in canalizing the new ventes d’art faites en France et à l’étranger, 7 vols. (Saint- Bordeaux, Musée Goupil (Paris: Réunion des musées
its most recent American owners.
opportunities for the benefit of a small number of Romain-au-Mont-d’Or: Artprice, [1911] 2001), vol. 2. nationaux, 2000), 156.
16.  See Stephen Bann, “Delaroche, Napoleon and
“house” artists can only be peripherally acknowledged 27.  For biographical details, see the short entry in 45.  Pierre-Lin Renié’s fascinating exhibition Une
English Collectors,” Apollo, October 2005, 24–31.
here. For an excellent account of its pioneering activi- Dictionnaire français de biographie and the obituaries image sur le mur (Bordeaux: Musée Goupil, 2005)
ties, see Hélène Lafont-Couturier, “La maison Goupil, 17.  Bulletin of the American Art-Union, December 1850, featured a Goupil photograph after Jules-Émile Sain-
in local newspapers: Le Dauphiné, 9 September 1866,
ou la notion d’oeuvre originale remise en question,” 150. tin’s (1829–1894) painting L’Indécision (ca. 1871), in
247, and Courrier de l’Isère, 6 September 1866, 2. See
Revue de l’art, no. 112 (1996-2): 56–69. 18.  See Foucart-Walter, “Paul Delaroche,” 374–75, for also A. Albertin, Histoire contemporaine de Grenoble which a print after the Duel can be identified on the
2.  See Museo Napoleonico, Palazzo Primoli, Rome, a series of studies for the figure of the guide that are et de la région dauphinoise, 3 vols. (Grenoble: Gratien, wall of a bourgeois apartment.
inv. 923, letter dated Brussels, 25 June 1821. In this in the Louvre, Cabinet des dessins. None of these is a 1900–1902), 3:121–22. 46.  For the background to this fundamental change,
case, all three paintings were destined for members full-size drawing duplicating the figure as it appears see Stephen Bann, Parallel Lines: Printmakers, Painters
28.  See Grenoble, Archives municipales, R2/46,
of the Bonaparte family, one of the repetitions being in the two paintings. and Photographers in Nineteenth-Century France (New
for the manuscript of the announcement relating to
customized with a different motif on the upholstery. 19.  Edward Strahan [pseud. Earl Shinn], The Art this gift. The painting, Descente du Saint-Esprit sur Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2001),
3.  Michelangelo Prunetti, Avvertimenti . . . per dis- Treasures of America (Philadelphia: G. Barrie, n.d. les Apôtres, is now conjecturally attributed to the Nea- esp. 169–211.
tinguere quadri originali dalle copie (Florence: Conti, [ca. 1880]), 82. politan painter Giovan Filippo Criscuolo (ca. 1495– 47. Hering, Gérôme, 75.
1822), ix. 20.  Clara Erskine Clement and Laurence Hatton, Art- ca. 1584); one of the most telling comparisons is with 48.  For a detailed discussion of Ingres’s connection
4.  Athenaeum, no. 1386, 20 May 1854, 628. ists of the Nineteenth Century and Their Works, 2 vols. a work by Criscuolo in the collection of the Walters with engravers, see Stephen Bann, “Ingres in Repro-
(Boston and New York: Houghton, Mifflin, 1884; repr. Art Museum, Three Fathers of the Church (37.1147). See duction,” Art History 23, no. 5 (December 2000):
5.  Athenaeum, no. 1176, 11 May 1850, 509. The present
St. Louis, Mo.: North Point, 1969), 1:197. Marco Chiarini, Tableaux italiens: Catalogue raisonné 706–25; and Bann, Parallel Lines, 141–68.
view is that Delaroche’s pupil Charles-François Jala-
21. Strahan, Art Treasures, 82. de la collection de peinture italienne XIVe–XIXe siècles: 49. See Catalogue des tableaux, études peintes, dessins
bert (1819–1901) was indeed responsible for this répé-
22.  Ibid. See Eugène de Mirecourt, Delaroche Decamps Grenoble, Musée de peinture et de sculpture (1988), 137. et croquis de J.-A.-D. Ingres exposés dans les galeries
tition, completed at Nice under the artist’s supervision.
(Paris: Librairie des contemporains, 1871), 33. 29.  The work bought by the state and despatched to de l’École impériale des Beaux-Arts (Paris: Lainé and
6.  Dante Gabriel Rossetti, Collected Works, 2 vols.
23.  After cleaning in 2005, Delaroche’s additions Grenoble was a Normandy landscape by the Belgian Havard, 1867), 7; and Henri Delaborde, Ingres: Sa
(London: Ellis and Elvey, 1890), 2:480.
became clearly evident. In normal light under the painter César de Cock (1823–1904). vie, ses travaux, sa doctrine (Paris: Plon, 1870).
7.  Bulletin of the American Art-Union, August 1850, 80.
microscope, Delaroche’s paint has a more full-bodied 30.  The Diary of George A. Lucas: An American Art Agent 50.  Catalogue des tableaux, 211–12. Delaborde also
8. Ibid.
consistency, and his retouching can be distinguished in Paris, 1857–1909, ed. Lilian M. C. Randall, 2 vols. quotes a letter from Ingres to Nicolas-Marie Gatteaux
9.  See Alfred Lichtwart, Herrmann Kauffmann und (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979), 2:124.
over and around Béranger’s original outlines. When of 29 August 1839, in which he expresses his joy at
die Kunst in Hamburg von 1800–1850 (Munich: Verlag-
exposed to ultraviolet light, Delaroche’s repaint fluo- 31. Lucas, Diary, 2: 279. It should be noted that the the sale of the 1808 work to the duc d’Orléans.
anstalt für Kunst und Wissenschaft, 1893), 14–15.
resces a different color. I am grateful to head of name “Gaillard” is mistakenly indexed here under 51.  Christopher Baker and Tom Henry, comp., The
10.  Deutsches Kunstblatt: Organ der deutschen Kunstver- paintings conservation Eric Gordon and assistant “Claude-Ferdinand Gaillard,” who was a young National Gallery—Complete Illustrated Catalogue
eine, March 1850, 102. paintings conservator Gillian Cook at the Walters reproductive engraver working for the Gazette des (London: National Gallery Publications, 1995), 324.
11.  See Lafont-Couturier, “La maison Goupil,” 60–61. Art Museum for these observations. Beaux-Arts. 52. See Ingres et l’antique, exh. cat., Montauban, Musée
12.  The information is provided in Bulletin of the 24. Mirecourt, Delaroche Decamps, 33. Mirecourt was 32. Lucas, Diary, 2:337. Ingres (Arles: Actes Sud, 2006), 292; and George
American Art-Union, April 1850, 15, where it is proph- known for his habit of picking up savory anecdotes 33. Lucas, Diary, 2:343. Vigne, Dessins d’Ingres: Catalogue raisonné des dessins du
esied (falsely, as it happened) that “this interesting from domestic servants, and this one fits the pattern. musée de Montauban (Paris: Gallimard, 1995), 18–19.
34. See Manet 1832–1883, exh. cat., Paris, Galeries
work of art is to remain permanently in this city.” 25.  The address given by both artists on respective nationales du Grand Palais (Paris: Réunion des 53. Vigne, Dessins d’Ingres, 18. Georges Vigne men-
Woodbury Langdon’s family origins may be inferred occasions was 9, rue Childebert. The painting shown musées nationaux, 1983), 294. tions that Ingres’s friend and curator Armand Cam-
from the fact that the same name was borne by a in 1839 represented a scene from the life of Henrietta
35. Lucas, Diary, 2:343. bon related this note specifically to the Baltimore
merchant and judge of New Hampshire (1739–1805). Maria, queen of Charles I, and is now in a private col- version but does not explain his disagreement with
John Langdon (1741–1819) served as governor of the 36. Strahan, Art Treasures, 82.
lection in Germany. The Delaroche drawing is illus- Cambon’s opinion.
state (1805–12). It is possible that the collector of 1850 trated in Stephen Bann, Paul Delaroche: History Painted 37. Ibid.
54.  “J. Ingres painted at the age of 83, 1864.” The
is the same “Mr Langdon” resident in the rue de (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997), 158. 38.  C. H. Stranahan, A History of French Painting from
Louvre version has simply: “I. Ingres painted 1808,”
Berry, Paris, in 1866, whose purchase is recorded in Its Earliest to Its Latest Practice (New York: Scribner’s,
26.  Catalogue des tableaux, esquisses, dessins et croquis and the National Gallery version “Ingres.”
the Goupil account books (Getty Research Institute, 1917), 309.
de M. Paul Delaroche, sale of 12–13 June 1857 at the
900239, box 2, p. 30 [entry 951]). 55.  Jean Gigoux, Causeries sur les artistes de mon temps
Hôtel des Commissaires-priseurs, rue Drouot, Paris, 39.  Ibid., 309–10.
(Paris: Lévy, 1885), 92.
p. 3. The sale prices are inserted in the copy in the
 Strategies of Repetition: Millet / Corot

Simon Kelly Shortly after the deaths of Jean-François Millet (b. 1814) and Jean-
­Baptiste-Camille Corot (b. 1796) within a five-week period in early
1875, the critic Henri Dumesnil offered one of the earliest compari-
sons of the two artists. He noted the differences in their paint han-
dling but observed that “fundamentally, they both shared the same
love and respect for nature; each saw it through his own tempera-
ment, in a different way, but each shared the same passion in search
of truth.”1 Dumesnil’s words underscored the intensity of the two
artists’ engagement with nature. Other early biographers also empha-
sized Millet’s and Corot’s exceptional desire to understand the com-
plexity of nature’s moods, developing a biographical discourse around
artistic “temperament.”2 Some highlighted Corot’s intimate, plein-air
study, reflected in his extensive travels throughout his career.3 Others
noted Millet’s intensely felt and personal renditions of the peasantry
and nature of “la belle France.”4 Such views are at the root of modern-
ist notions of mid-nineteenth-century landscape painting that stress
close engagement with nature as a sign of the artist’s “originality.”5
Yet such a focus has marginalized a fundamental aspect of the out-
put of both artists. Both Millet and Corot drew inspiration not only
from nature but also from art—specifically their own art. This essay
explores the importance of repetition and of the repeating image in
the studio practice of these two artists.
The involvement of nineteenth-century painters with the theme of
repetition has begun to attract increasing scholarly attention in recent
years, prompted by an environment in which the idea of repetition is
celebrated rather than denied.6 Previously, the modernist emphasis
on “originality”—the idea of the unique work in the unique hand of
the artist—had ensured that the full complexity of the practice of repe-
tition was overlooked. An overview of a nineteenth-century academic
dictionary, however, reveals a careful differentiation between different
kinds of repeating image or copie—from the autograph repetition to

53
54 the assistant’s replica, to the translation of Repetition as “Rehearsal” Uniquely among all the Sower compositions, 55 outstretched right arm here highlights
an image into another medium, such as an The trope of repetition as rehearsal can be the right arm is represented here with a sky- Millet’s especial concern for this area of

Strategies of Repetition: Millet / Corot

etching or lithograph.7 An autograph copie used to describe the careers of a number blue sleeve. The sower’s body seems awk- his composition.24 The upper contour of the
was described more precisely in the Diction- of nineteenth-century artists.10 It is also a wardly crouched, as large, threatening crows, arm is rendered in a dynamic, broken line,
naire as a répétition, or “rehearsal.” The model that particularly helps us to under- applied in single, spontaneous strokes, swoop with angles almost like a mountain ridge,
theatrical analogy is instructive since an stand the practice of Millet. Over the course low over the horizon. Two cows are silhou- suggesting the powerful musculature of the
initial performance is generally seen as less of his career, Millet repeatedly sought to etted on the horizon, while a third has been sower’s arm beneath his sleeve. This effect
accomplished than subsequent versions, develop chosen motifs, often giving his rep- painted out to the right with a still clearly is reproduced in the painting.
which benefit from increased experience etitions an ever-increasing sense of monu- visible pentimento.17 It is uncertain whether Despite the new sense of heroism in this
and knowledge of the material. In this sense, mentality and producing these out of a desire Millet considered this work “­finished”—the work, Millet was apparently concerned that
an artist’s later version can also be seen as to “improve” on his imagery rather than as paint in the earth is applied very thinly, leav- his canvas was too small to accommodate the
an effort to “improve” on an earlier composi- necessarily the result of a collector commis- ing the pale off-white ground clearly visible— figure of the sower. Étienne Moreau-Nélaton
tion. While the artist’s autograph repetition sion. Over three decades, for example, he but he never exhibited the painting, and it noted more specifically that Millet was con-
or variant was thus often distinguished by gradually developed his treatment of milk- remained in the private space of his studio cerned that the right hand and foot were too
significant changes from the “original,” the maids from the neo-rococo works of the early until his death.18 close to the left edge of the composition.25 He
term copie was also used to indicate an exact 1840s to the heroic figures in contre-jour of By the fall of 1850, Millet was working thus began another painting (fig. 4), probably
replica—a kind of painting often produced the 1870s.11 An examination of other seminal on the well-known version of the Sower late in October or in November 1850. Accord-
by students rather than by the artist him- themes for Millet, such as sheep-shearing or now in Boston (fig. 3).19 This painting has ing to Moreau-Nélaton, he used a tracing to
self. Another kind of copie in the academic butter-churning, also attests to his evolving been described as “Millet’s first great mas- transfer his composition.26 In this version,
dictionary—and one that occupied the low- fascination with a particular subject, often in terpiece.”20 The figure here strides with a the sower is placed lower on the horizon
est place in the hierarchy of repetitions— the private space of the studio and often in a powerful momentum not present in the and moved toward the center of the painting,
was the translation of an image into another variety of media, before culminating in large- earlier painted version. This sower, ren- ensuring that he is more contained by the
medium such as engraving or lithography. scale works intended for public consumption dered in vigorously applied brushstrokes, surrounding field.27 His head is now turned
An artist like Millet might, however, com- in the spaces of the Paris Salon—the exhibi- has a heroic, Michelangelesque presence, into his shoulder, while his sowing arm is
plicate this relationship by developing his tion space that Millet considered the most while the angle of his face creates a dynamic brought down toward his body and his back
images in prints some time before he had important for the display of his work.12 flat plane. The sower’s arm is rendered in leg slightly advanced. The cumulative effect
painted them.8 Millet’s practice is well demonstrated powerfully angular brushstrokes; the seed of these subtle changes reduces the thrust-
An exploration of the careers of both in his many versions of the subject of the visibly falls from his hand. His outstretched ing monumentality of the Boston image but
Millet and Corot, as we shall see, highlights sower (figs. 2–5)—a work that has subse- arm echoes the line of his left calf, while
their interaction with the diverse range of quently been seen as a modernist icon, con- both counterbalance the diagonals of left
practices that entailed repetition in the mid- flating a message of political radicalism and arm and right thigh. The sense of rustic
nineteenth century. In examining the role artistic innovation.13 The sowing of winter “authenticity” is heightened by the deci-
of repetition in their careers, this essay navi- wheat took place generally in November sion to wrap his legs in straw for warmth,
gates between two competing and at times and in a solemn, ritualistic fashion, with the rather than the leggings of the previous
overlapping motivations. First, repetition sower making the sign of the cross with the paintings. His cap is also now pulled down
informed by principally aesthetic reasons, seed before proceeding to scatter it across more dramatically over his ears. The time
by the (often obsessive) need to refine and the land. Millet’s fascination with the subject is twilight, and on the horizon, a sticklike
improve a composition in what has been probably traces its beginnings to his youth farmer rides a harrow attached to two oxen
termed a “pursuit of perfection.”9 Second, in Normandy, but it also may have originated as it breaks up the soil in preparation for
repetition informed by more purely eco- in the biblical parable.14 His earliest version the sowing.21 The new sense of dynamism
nomic or market considerations and driven of the subject dates to his “manière fleurie” and energy in this rapidly painted work
by a historical context that arguably wit- period of the early 1840s.15 He then produced fully translates the nervous energy of the
Fig. 1. Jean-François
nessed the emergence of the first truly mod- a larger painting (fig. 2) with the sower out- artist’s drawings onto this much larger Millet, study for The
ern art market in mid-nineteenth-century lined against the bleak hillsides of his native scale.22 The lean, striding form of the sower Sower, ca. 1850. Pencil
and red chalk on paper,
Paris. We can turn initially to the former Normandy.16 A length of cloth is tied across is particularly close to a red chalk prepara-
36 × 27 cm. Yamanashi
motivation and what might be described the figure’s chest and gathered up in his tory drawing that has been squared up for Prefectural Museum
as repetition as “rehearsal.” left hand to form a bag for the seed grain. transfer (fig. 1).23 The detail of the sower’s of Art
Fig. 2. Jean-François Fig. 3. Jean-François Fig. 4. Jean-François Fig. 5. Jean-François
Millet, The Sower, Millet, The Sower, 1850. Millet, The Sower, Millet, The Sower,
1847–48. Oil on canvas, Oil on canvas, 101.6 × ca. 1850. Oil on canvas, ca. 1872. Oil on canvas,
95.2 × 61.3 cm. Cardiff, 82.6 cm. Museum of 99.7 × 80 cm. Yama- 105.4 × 85.7 cm. Pitts-
Amgueddfa Cymru– Fine Arts, Boston, Gift nashi Prefectural burgh, Carnegie Museum
National Museum Wales of Quincy Adams Shaw Museum of Art of Art. Purchase: gift of
(NMW A 2474) through Quincy Adams Mr. and Mrs. Samuel B.
Shaw, Jr. and Mrs. Marian Casey and Mr. and Mrs.
Shaw Haughton George L. Craig, Jr. (63.7)
(17.1485)
58 Fig. 6. Photogravure by also creates a greater sense of naturalism charge—such as The Gleaners (Musée 59 an ébauche, it probably dates from the early
Braun Clement & Cie., that seems to mimic more closely the actual d’Orsay) and Man with a Hoe (J. Paul Getty 1870s and was perhaps intended as a per-

Strategies of Repetition: Millet / Corot

Paris, of Yamanashi
Sower, ca. 1896. Plate
labor of sowing. This painting has suffered Museum)—in his avowed aim of “disturbing sonal record of a major painting that had
from Julia Cartwright, from over-zealous restoration as well as the fortunate in their rest.”37 recently been sold.41 It is also possible that
Jean-François Millet: His later retouchings (in areas such as the straw The Yamanashi work—the culminating the work was made by Millet’s eldest son—
Life and Letters (London:
around the calves).28 An early reproductive work in the series—also inspired a number the painter François Millet fils (1851–1919).42
S. Sonnenschein, 1902).
The Walters Art Museum print (fig. 6) demonstrates that the form of of later repetitions that did not conform so François is known to have made copies of his
Research Library the sower was once more clearly defined. closely to the model of repetition as rehearsal. father’s paintings as a student exercise in the
The paint in this work is still thickly—almost In addition to Millet’s three well-documented 1870s,43 as well as ébauches for his father.44
Fig. 7. Paul-Edmé Le
Rat, etching after Jean- brutally—applied, with the rugged surfaces Sower paintings, there is also a fourth painted The Yamanashi Sower was also reproduced
François Millet, The suggesting the rugged textures of the earth version that is much less well known and in a widely disseminated etching by Paul-
Sower, 1873. Plate 108 itself.29 Millet also changed other aspects of whose authenticity has been contested (see Edmé Le Rat (1849–1892) in 1873 (fig. 7).45
in Galerie Durand-Ruel:
Recueil d’estampes
the composition, making the sower’s off- fig. 5), largely because of its flat surface.38 This print, in turn, inspired several painted
gravées à l’eau-forte white collarless shirt more prominent and This slightly larger work, painted in trans- and drawn copies by Vincent van Gogh in
(Paris: Galerie Durand- bathing the harrower and his oxen (whose parent oil washes thinned with turpentine, the 1880s.46 In one highly interpretative copy
Ruel, 1873), vol. 2.
legs are now visible) in a blonder light, per- is not referenced by any of Millet’s early (fig. 8), Van Gogh situated Millet’s figure
The Walters Art Museum
Research Library haps suggestive of dawn.30 biographers, while its early provenance is within the more expansive setting of a blue-
In these three painted versions, we can see unclear.39 As Robert Herbert first noted, violet field against an incandescent yellow sun
how Millet sought to evolve his composition. this is probably the work described by Mil- and sky, thus allowing for the resonant play
At the 1850 Salon he exhibited a work titled let’s friend Sensier, in a letter of late 1872, of complementary colors.
Un semeur that was probably the Yamanashi as a large canvas for a “Semeur à venir.”40
version.31 His restless experiment in this The painting may be an unfinished repeti- Repetition and the Market
work inspired a range of controversial com- tion after the Yamanashi work (in its origi- The mid-nineteenth century saw the massive
mentaries with the painting, inviting two nal form, see fig. 6). Still in the state of expansion of the art market in France and
different interpretations. On the one hand,
his paint surfaces disturbed many critics.
Théophile Gautier, for example, described
Millet’s technique as “trowel scrapings.”32
At the same time, the work also encouraged
more politicized readings from both legiti-
mist and republican commentators.33 For
François Sabatier-Ungher, a Fourierist critic,
Millet’s sower was the “modern demos,” the
iconic symbol of the modern proletariat.34
The conservative Auguste Desplaces, writing
in the legitimist newspaper L’Union, accused
Millet of exaggerating the harshness of rural
life.35 As Alfred Sensier noted, he was accused
of creating an art that was “too socialist.”
Millet himself did not deny such an interpre-
tation, although he did also emphasize his
generalizing approach to his subject: “I must
confess, at the risk of being taken for a social- Fig. 8. Vincent van Gogh,
ist, that it is the treatment of the human after Jean-François Millet,
The Sower, 1888. Oil on
condition that touches me the most in art.”36
canvas, 64 × 80.5 cm.
He would continue to develop provocative Otterlo, Rijksmuseum
Salon statements with an undeniable political Kröller-Müller
60 the emergence of a new middle-class audi- the 1860s, Corot also produced a number first in brown with the date “1864” and then 61 changes, such as the configuration of the
ence of urban consumers. At a time of grow- of variants of a view of Lake Riva that he first in red.60 An examination of the early exhibi- shoots and branches of the central tree,

Strategies of Repetition: Millet / Corot

ing urbanization, landscapes were especially treated in a plein-air sketch in 1834 (Saint tion history of this work may help to estab- while the rocky escarpment to the right is
popular among collectors.47 An examination Gall, Kunstmuseum). In these works (such lish the chronology of Corot’s production. It much darker and covered with far more
of the careers of Millet and Corot reveals the as Souvenir of Riva, Cincinnati Museum of has not previously been noted that in Febru- shrubs. The reduction is a more monochro-
extent to which they produced repetitions Art), he transforms the naturalistic, morning ary 1864, Corot exhibited L’étoile du soir (pay- matic picture without the red color accents
to satisfy this rapidly growing market. These view of his early sketch into evocative “souve- sage) at the Société nationale des Beaux-Arts of the woman’s headband and the shepherd’s
works were principally commissions by deal- nirs,” showing the same location but now on the boulevard des Italiens—an exhibition hat.67 Corot does, however, replicate the free
ers or collectors, often after popular Salon at sunset and with a more generalized and organized by this artists’ society as an alterna- brushwork of the “original,” complicating
compositions. In examining the relationship abstract effect that suggests the artist’s nos- tive to the official Salon.61 This undoubtedly modernist preconceptions of such gestural
of these two artists to the market, we can talgia for a site imagined through the trans- was the Toulouse painting, and it was prob- paintmarks as exclusively a sign of the artist’s
turn first to the example of Corot. forming veil of memory.53 ably for this show that Corot first signed (and unique, “original” work.
Accounts of Corot have tended to mini- Corot’s practice of producing reductions dated) the work. Recent conservation analysis Corot may have painted the reduction
mize his engagement with the market, per- is evident in his work surrounding The Eve- has suggested that the three trees were still from the “original” work when it was still in
petuating a notion of artistic naïveté already ning Star (figs. 9–12), a composition inspired visible at this stage, when the first signature his studio in the early summer of 1864. It is,
evident in the artist’s earliest biographies.48 by lines from Alfred de Musset’s poem was added.62 The painting did not sell, and however, equally possible, given the differ-
Yet an overview of Corot’s production sug- “Le saule” (1830), praising the mysteries of Corot next exhibited the picture at a provin- ences in the composition, that he produced
gests a greater degree of commercial acu- Venus.54 Corot developed his “original” com- cial exhibition at Toulouse in June 1864, it from memory at a later stage in the year.
men. Perhaps the most notable aspect of position (fig. 9) in the early 1860s, and it was where it enjoyed critical success and sold Corot told his earliest biographer, Théophile
Corot’s practice of repetition is his output later praised by Dumesnil as one of his most for 3,000 francs.63 It is probable that Corot Silvestre, in the early 1850s: “When a collec-
of numerous reductions (or reduced-size successful works.55 The artist here created a reworked his composition in the period tor wants a répétition of one of my landscapes,
repetitions) of his major exhibition works, work of mysterious poetry as a young woman between these two shows, painting out the it is easy for me to give it to him without
particularly in the 1850s and 1860s. In the addresses the evening star in the distance, three aforementioned trees. The removal of seeing the original; I keep a copy of all my
early 1860s, for example, he produced four while close by a shepherd leads his flock the largest was particularly crucial, since this works in my heart and in my eyes.”68 Corot’s
reductions after Une matinée, that idyllic home in the twilight.56 In the sky, Corot has provided the opportunity to include the lumi- words should be treated with some caution,
Claudean scene that had signaled a new applied thick impasto in dynamic diagonal nous color accent of the orange sunset.64 but they nonetheless probably contain some
direction in his work when exhibited at the lines, while flecks of pink in the foreground Corot subsequently signed the work again truth. Corot often produced repetitions after
1850 Salon (see fig. 25).49 Generally his reduc- suggest the presence of flowers. The out- in red, surely as a marketing strategy to “original” works that he had long since sold.69
tions replicated this type of work, reflecting stretched arm of the woman echoes the form heighten the visibility of his name.65 Such an approach ensured inevitable license
the late vogue for his “silvery” pictures rather of the tree branches above. This woman wears On 8 February 1864, a reduction of Eve- in the artist’s repetitions. In the early 1870s,
than his more naturalistic scenes or grand an antique-style costume with a loose-fitting ning Star (fig. 10) was commissioned directly for example, Corot produced a repetition
history paintings.50 Many of Corot’s reduc- yellow dress and red headband; she may have from Corot for 1,000 francs by the American (private collection) after Solitude, Souvenir of
tions were commissioned by the expanding been based on one of the great opera singers expatriate dealer George Lucas (“mon petit Vigen (Museo Thyssen-Bornemisza, Madrid),
number of dealers in Napoleon III’s Paris. of the day.57 Her pose, with dramatically hamericain,” as Corot called him) on behalf a work that was no longer in his possession,
Repetitions were commissioned by major upraised arm, also suggests the influence of the Baltimore collector William T. Walters.66 having been sold to Emperor Napoleon III
dealers, including Hector Brame and Adolphe of antique sculpture and particularly the The following day, Walters himself visited some years previously. Corot’s repetition has
Goupil, as well as lesser-known dealers like Wounded Amazon (Musée du ­Louvre).58 Corot’s studio, when he apparently requested significant differences in the configuration
Tedesco and Cleophas.51 Although such pro- Corot seems to have struggled with this that Corot eliminate the flock of sheep in the of trees and staffage.70 In contrast to several
duction was motivated principally by eco- composition and, as was frequently his prac- reduction, probably because he thought them other Barbizon school painters, there is also
nomic motives, Corot also sought to explore tice, painted out areas to “purify” his compo- too “unfinished” in the original. Walters’s no evidence that Corot ever used tracings
different light effects as well as making sition. Conservation analysis has shown that daughter, Jennie, is also said to have asked for his repetitions.71
minor, although noticeable, changes to the work was painted in two phases.59 Infra- Corot to make the distant star brighter. The In addition to these two fully documented
his staffage. An examination of the “réduc- red spectometry has revealed that he origi- work was delivered eleven months later with paintings, there are also two other less well
tions” after Une matinée has highlighted the nally included three slender trees to the right little evidence that Corot took any notice of known versions. The first is a rapidly painted
subtle differences in the treatment of dawn of the central tree (see fig. 13). Their ghostlike these requests. The silhouette of the woman small-scale work, similar to the Toulouse
and early morning light effects as well as the pentimenti can still be made out. The work is in fact notably less defined than in the painting in its touches of red on the figures
variation in the treatment of figures.52 During was also signed on two separate occasions, original painting. There are other subtle as well as the less dense cover of shrubbery
Opposite:
Fig. 9. Jean-Baptiste-
Camille Corot, The
Evening Star, signed
1864. Oil on canvas,
129 × 160 cm. Toulouse,
Musée des Augustins
(Ro 60)

This page:
Fig. 10. Jean-Baptiste-
Camille Corot, The
Evening Star, 1864. Oil
on canvas, 71 × 90 cm.
Baltimore, Walters Art
Museum. Bequest of
Henry Walters, 1931
(37.154)

Fig. 11. Jean-Baptiste-

Camille Corot, The
Evening Star. Oil on
canvas, 36 × 48 cm.
Present location
unknown. Reproduced
from Catalogue des
tableaux anciens et
des tableaux modernes
composant la collec-
tion de feu M. Henri
Rouart, Sale, Galerie
Manzi-Joyant, Paris,
9–11 décembre 1912,
80, no. 146. Spencer Art
Reference Library of The
Nelson-Atkins Museum
of Art, Kansas City

Fig. 12. Jean-Baptiste-

Camille Corot, The
Evening Star, signed 1863
[1864?]. Oil on canvas,
112.4 × 145.4 cm. Private
collection, on deposit
at the Saint Louis Art
Museum
64 Fig. 13. Digital infrared Museum, is more mysterious and has Millet also produced a significant number 65 Burrell Collection) that reproduced paint-
photograph, August attracted little attention in the literature.77 The of repetitions in response to market demand. ings but on a larger and more ambitious

Strategies of Repetition: Millet / Corot

2006, of the central tree
in the Toulouse Evening
early provenance of this work is unknown, This is particularly evident in his pastel out- scale.90 Among Millet’s pastel reductions
Star and, according to the owner, it can be first put, which became increasingly important was Shepherdess and Her Flock (fig. 14), repro-
traced to an exhibition of Corot’s work in for him during the 1860s, as he began to ducing the painting that had enjoyed a great
Paris in 1907.78 The picture has been identi- attract growing commercial success. Millet critical success at the 1864 Salon (fig. 15).91 In
fied by Martin Dieterle as a genuine Corot; had produced pastels early in his career, this pastel—one of four pastel reductions—
certainly the feathery touch is characteristic while in the 1850s he often added pastel Millet made several changes to the configura-
of Corot.79 The paint surface is considerably to his charcoal drawings. During the early tion of the flock and placement of the sheep
thinner than that of the Toulouse version, as 1860s, he began to emphasize the color in in comparison with the Salon work. Perhaps
is the lighter overall atmosphere. This ver- these pastels. Millet modestly described his most notably, he advanced the vigilant sheep-
sion is virtually identical in compositional pastels as “dessins” (drawings), and they do dog to make this a more important aspect of
elements to the Toulouse work, although not seem to have had as much importance the composition. In translating his Shepherd-
slightly smaller in scale. Both have the care- for him as his paintings; indeed, he rarely ess and Her Flock into the medium of pastel,
fully outlined form of the woman, the same exhibited them during his lifetime.86 None- he gave his light effect a new dynamism
red color accents and configuration of tree theless, Millet’s production of such works with rapidly applied lines of white chalk that
branches, and even the same foreground ensured that he played a principal role in radiate from the clouds. Millet always sought
flecks of pink paint. The similarity of compo- the renaissance of the pastel medium dur- to take advantage of the graphic qualities of
sition and facture suggest that it was painted ing the 1860s. His pastels have in fact come the pastel medium in contrast to oil paint.
directly from the “original” painting, per- to be seen as among the most innovative He experimented here not only with pastel
for the rocks to the right (fig. 11). This was haps when this was still in Corot’s studio.80 areas of his production, and they were later and charcoal but also with pen and ink, to
once identified as a study for the Toulouse Although this work is dated 1863, it seems admired by the Impressionists, including, build up a dense surface texture on the thick,
painting.72 It has more recently been identi- probable that is another repetition, perhaps notably, Edgar Degas (1834–1917) and Camille rough paper that he favored since it helped
fied by Martin Dieterle and Claire Lebeau— also commissioned from Corot by one of Pissarro (1830–1903). Yet, his replication of the adherence of the pastel.92 He also worked
who have devoted many years to ongoing his dealers.81 As with the previous work, it certain motifs has also led to criticism of his here with pastel and water (particularly in
suppléments to the original Alfred Robaut is possible that this picture was painted in complicity with the market.87 As with Corot, the clouds), either wetting the stick or work-
1905 catalogue raisonné—as a repetition of collaboration with Achille Oudinot.82 he often, however, made changes to the ing powdery pigment with brush and water
the Toulouse picture.73 They have dated the The existence of these four versions of lighting and composition, producing works to create fluid passages of color.93
work to a period between 1864 and 1870—a The Evening Star highlights the need for that were variants on his “original” composi- Millet’s production of pastels for the mar-
date that suggests it was painted from mem- continued discussion of the working prac- tion. He also experimented with a wide range ket is further highlighted by an examination
ory in the years after the Toulouse picture tices of Corot and the extent to which he of paper colors—from buff to beige to lilac of his four pastel versions of the Sower in
had left Corot’s studio. They also suggest may have used assistants to meet the grow- to gray—to suggest a variety of light effects. the mid-1860s (figs. 16–19). Rather than
that it was produced by Corot in collaboration ing demand for work in his later career.83 Millet produced pastel repetitions for a producing exact replicas, Millet experimented
with his favorite pupil, the talented Achille- Corot’s extensive output of reductions sug- range of dealers and collectors during the with variants that are often very different in
François Oudinot (1820–91), in response to a gests that marketing strategies played a role early to mid-1860s. He modestly used the terms of format, light effect, and facture. He
dealer commission.74 Such collaborative prac- in his artistic production to a degree that has term “reproduction” in his correspondence explored light at different times of day as well
tice seems to have been commonplace in not previously been recognized. Collectors, to describe pastels that were in fact complex as different atmospheric effects, reflecting
Corot’s late production as he sought to meet for their part, do not seem to have been variants.88 His shift toward pastel production the increasing importance that he ascribed
commercial demand. Oudinot prepared a especially concerned that their works were was motivated above all by the patronage to landscape in his later work. Millet’s first
large number of “authentic” works by Corot.75 repetitions. Those repetitions that appeared of the Parisian architect Émile Gavet (1830– pastel version of the Sower was produced for
He produced, for example, much of a reduc- in Corot’s 1875 atelier sale sold for among the 1904), who began to commission pastels his dealer Moureaux in early 1865 (fig. 16).94
tion of Corot’s 1859 Salon painting Dante highest prices of the auction.84 A couple of regularly from him beginning in September In contrast to the earlier paintings, Millet
and Virgil (Museum of Fine Arts, Boston), years previously, a reduction of Une matinée 1865, acquiring some ninety-five such pas- placed his sower in a more contemporary
after the “original” picture (which remained (1850) sold at auction for the considerable tels within five years.89 Around a third of costume of a loose blue overshirt with full
in Corot’s studio until the early 1870s).76 sum of 14,000 francs, an amount far in excess these were repetitions rather than “original” sleeves and heavy brown trousers. The set-
The second less well-known version (fig. 12), of the 1,500 francs that Corot had been paid compositions. These included several major ting also now shifted, from the Normandy
currently on loan to the Saint Louis Art by the state for the “original” work.85 pastels such as Sheepfold, Moonlight (Glasgow, hills to the plain of Chailly outside Barbizon
66 with the landmark of a ruined telegraph 19 May and 23 May 1865.99 He created here 67 cent of dawn as a complement to the dusk
tower on the horizon.95 The oxen in the dis- a dynamically animated sky, particularly in the Walters version.

Strategies of Repetition: Millet / Corot

tance were now replaced by horses pulling in the curving, swirling lines to the right. For all his similarities of touch, Millet’s
the harrow. Millet’s interest shifted from It was probably around this time that four pastel versions of the Sower highlight
the figure to a complex exploration of the Millet completed another version of the his variations in terms of technique and
textures of the soil as well as the light effects Sower: a smaller pastel probably intended lighting effect. Collectors do not seem to have
in his luminous sky. Étienne Moreau-Nélaton as a gift for his friend Alfred Sensier, who privileged the “original” work over the repeti-
later wrote of Millet’s inventive use of “trou- was the work’s first owner (fig. 18).100 This tions. Millet himself was often able to charge
vailles” (finds), and here he includes, for the vertical pastel is on tan brown paper that more for his repetitions than for his “origi-
first time, a large rock to the left, providing a has darkened over time but was nonetheless nal” pastels.107 This was also reflected in the
further point of interest in the composition.96 always intended to evoke an autumnal eve- prices at the sale of Gavet’s collection in the
In the representation of the land, Millet ning light. In this crepuscular scene, Millet summer of 1875. The repetition of Sheepfold,
defined his composition with a web of black suggests the warmth of evening by the use Moonlight (Burrell Collection), for example,
chalk lines, then worked in colored pastels of a line of orange on the horizon echoed sold for 12,100 francs, the second-highest sale
in green, yellow, and brown, and then once by flecks of the same color across the earth.101 price and considerably more than “original”
again added black chalk on top. Such a pro- A few rays of light break through the clouds, pastels of the same size.108 This sale was
cess effectively fused line and color. In the pointing toward the head of the sower. This recorded by Vincent van Gogh, who noted
sky, he applied pastel rapidly in highly ges- work is much less worked up than the Clark his sense of reverence before Millet’s pastels:
tural fashion, animating his clouds with lines version, and it has been suggested that it “When I entered the hall of the Hôtel Drouot,
of pink and yellow, and allowing the cream- was a “pastel experiment” and the earlier where they were exhibited, I felt like saying,
beige paper support to show through clearly of the two works.102 It may equally have ‘Take off your shoes, for the place where you
on the horizon, perhaps suggestive of a dusk been a rapidly worked repetition; Millet’s are standing is Holy Ground.’” 109
effect. He also used a stump (or perhaps his signature indicates that he considered it a
fingers) to create a faint silhouette around “finished” work.103 Print Repetitions
the sower, thus emphasizing the figure’s Probably sometime in 1866, Millet pro- A further important aspect of Millet’s and
presence in the landscape. duced another pastel version of the Sower Corot’s interest in repetition was their rela-
Millet’s extensive surviving correspon- and now again returned to the horizontal tionship to the burgeoning print market
dence helps us to trace the sequence of the format (fig. 19). This was commissioned by of the nineteenth century. The century saw
repetitions of his Sower pastel. By May 1865, Gavet for 350 francs, nearly twice as much the proliferation of imagery as a result of
Millet had received a commission from the as he had received for his previous variant.104 the rise of new reproduction processes such
collector De Thomas to produce another Alexandra Murphy has suggested that this is as lithography as well as the continuing
version of the Sower for 200 francs (fig. 17).97 the final version of the theme.105 Millet here resonance of older processes like etching.110
Millet produced the work in a very different maintained the gestural touch of his earlier The age also witnessed the emergence of
vertical format, although it seems to have horizontal work while giving this new pastel large numbers of illustrated magazines
been his patron who requested this.98 This Top: Above: a lighter, more luminous quality—achieved that offered new opportunities for artists to
work is more colorful than the first pastel Fig. 14. Jean-François Fig. 15. Jean-François in part by the use of a brownish-gray paper communicate their works to a wide public.
Millet, The Shepherdess, Millet, Shepherdess
version, with black crayon commingling ca. 1865. Pastel and Guarding Her Flock of
support. Millet closely referenced the compo- Millet and Corot interacted with this new
with a range of yellows, reds, greens, and crayon, 39.4 × 50.8 cm. Sheep, 1863–64. Oil on sition of the Walters pastel, situating his market situation, although in rather differ-
browns across the furrowed soil. Lines of Baltimore, The Walters canvas, 81 × 101 cm. sower in the same position in the landscape, ent manners.
Art Museum. Bequest of Paris, Musée d’Orsay
mauve in the soil are echoed by mauves in doing the same with the harrower and team Many mid-century artists chose to pro-
Henry Walters, 1931 (RF 1879)
the clouds, while, in a visual pun, flecks of (37.906) and the clouds. He even replicated his seem- duce prints, replicating their paintings,
black crayon representing the crows are ingly spontaneous black crayon diagonal in order to disseminate their imagery to
repeated in the falling seed. This version is hatch marks in his treatment of the texture wider audiences. Millet produced many
also far more extensively worked up, with of the soil.106 The wheeling flock of crows is, such prints, first reproducing his work in
less of the tan paper support visible. Millet’s however, given more prominence. The light a lithograph (fig. 20) after his Sower paint-
correspondence reveals that he produced effect is also different and perhaps reminis- ing. The lithograph can be seen, as was
this pastel over a five-day period between often the case in Millet’s reproductive prints,
Fig. 16. Jean-François Fig. 17. Jean-François Fig. 18. Jean-François Fig. 19. Jean-François
Millet, The Sower, 1865. Millet, The Sower, 1865. Millet, The Sower, 1865. Millet, The Sower,
Pastel and crayon or Pastel on paper, 47 × Pastel on tan paper, ca. 1866. Pastel on
pastel on cream buff 37.5 cm. Williamstown, 29.8 × 24.1 cm. Pitts- black crayon and
paper, 43.5 × 53.5 cm. Massachusetts, Sterling burgh, The Frick Art & pale brown paper,
Baltimore, The Walters and Francine Clark Art Historical Center (1984.9) 36 × 43 cm. French
Art Museum. Bequest Institute. Gift of Mr. and & Company LLC,
of Henry Walters, 1931 Mrs. Norman Hirschl New York
(37.905) (1982.8)
70 as a free interpretation rather than an exact translated his painting into the medium of 71 sensitive to Corot’s nuanced light effects
copy, fusing elements from both the Boston etching, Millet favored a distinctive short- and succeeded in suggesting the trembling,

Strategies of Repetition: Millet / Corot

and Yamanashi versions.111 Translating a hand, using much hatching as well as curved golden light of early morning in Corot’s
painting into the print medium of black and marks of the etching needle to suggest a painting. Français received privileged access
white was a complex matter, particularly as sense of volume. He employed an irregular, to Corot’s studio and reproduced the work
Millet had to invert his composition on the broken line to represent the silhouettes of in a stage before its final completion. There
lithographic stone (fig. 21). As he worked on the woman and the baby, particularly evident are thus differences to the staffage in the
the stone (now inscribed “cancelled”), Millet in the legs of the young child. He also added final work. In the painting, two girls emerge
densely rendered his figure while leaving the two drops of pure acid to the etched plate in from the foliage at right, while, in the inverted
area of sky to the left untouched in order to order to create strong highlights on the heads lithograph, a young man, with outstretched
suggest a luminous distance. Millet created of the woman and child.117 The critic Philippe arm, leads a girl toward the clearing. A shrub
a powerful silhouette with a strong outline, Burty described Millet’s etching as “the free to the left of the oncoming couple in the
counterbalanced by the more faintly drawn and slightly relaxed reproduction” of his lithograph was subsequently painted out in
harrower and oxen in the distance. The rapid, Salon painting and continued, “it is greatly the picture. Français’s work appeared in the
diagonally hatched strokes of the lithographic to be desired that M. J-F. Millet himself might prestigious arts album Les artistes anciens et
crayon also successfully suggested the fur- reproduce all his compositions in this way. modernes and helped publicize Corot’s image
rows of the field. As a novice to the medium His talent is too personal not to lose some- to a wide audience.123 The accompanying
of lithography, Millet may, however, have thing in a reproduction by someone else.”118 Latin verses from Horace’s “Ode to Sestius”
worried about the difficulty of clearly defin- In contrast to Millet, Corot produced no (on the arrival of spring) in the album—
ing the backlit form of the sower. In January prints after his own work,119 but he collabo- probably supplied by Corot ­himself—
1852, a proof was pulled for publication in rated closely with those who reproduced his provided a classical gloss for the composition
the arts magazine L’Artiste but suppressed by work. Perhaps most notably, he worked in not evident from the Salon livret (where the
Millet and Sensier, who apparently found it close association with his pupil, the painter- painting was listed simply as “Une matinée”).
mediocre, perhaps concerned by the lack of lithographer François-Louis Français (1814– These ran: “. . . Junctaeque nymphis Gratiae
tonal difference.112 The figure is indeed very 1897).120 From 1840, Français produced decentes alterno terram quatiunt pede . . .”
dark, while the complex configuration of the several lithographs after Corot’s paintings,121 (. . . joined with many a nymph, the comely
tunic and seed bag is barely discernible. The including a print on lightly tinted blue paper graces beat the reviving earth with rhythmic
print was never published in Millet’s lifetime, (fig. 24) after Une matinée (fig. 25).122 An tread . . .).124 The influential arts administra-
and all known proofs are posthumous, often accomplished painter, Français was highly tor Philippe de Chennevières emphasized
on various colored papers.113
Thereafter Millet focused his printmaking
on etchings and, from the early 1850s to the Fig. 22. Jean-François
late 1860s, developed an experimental lan- Millet, Woman Feeding
Her Child. 1861. Etching,
guage in order to translate the effects of his 15.4 × 12.8 cm. The New
paintings.114 Many of these etchings were pro- York Public Library
Fig. 20. Jean-François
Millet, The Sower, n.d. duced in limited editions for a small circle of
Fig. 23. Jean-François
Lithograph on cream- admirers, but occasionally his prints reached
Millet, Woman Feeding
colored paper, plate: a wider public. In 1861, Millet published an Her Child, 1861. Oil
19.1 × 15.6 cm. Pitts-
burgh, Carnegie Museum
etching (fig. 22), after his Salon painting of on canvas, 114 × 99 cm.
Marseille, Musée des
of Art. Gift of Andrew the same year (fig. 23), in the prestigious art
Beaux-Arts (inv. 299)
Carnegie (16.18.1) magazine the Gazette des Beaux-Arts.115 In
transposing his composition from the large
Fig. 21. Jean-François
Millet, The Sower. Original painting to the tiny etching, Millet used a
lithographic stone, mediating preparatory drawing (Museum
canceled, 27.6 × 21.8 cm.
of Fine Arts, Boston) of exactly the same size
London, The British
Museum, Department as the etching. As was his practice, he then
of Prints and Drawings traced this onto his etching plate.116 As he
72 the importance of Français’s lithograph Notes 73 des vaches (The Hague, Museum Mesdag) that was
in noting that it was the print that was Thanks are due to Thomas Crow, Eik Kahng, and notoriously refused at the Salons of 1836 and 1838.

Strategies of Repetition: Millet / Corot

Alexandra Murphy for their encouragement in the 11.  See Robert Herbert, “La laitière normande à
largely responsible for Corot’s Salon prize
development of this essay. Gréville de J.-F. Millet,” Revue du Louvre 30, no. 1
as well as for the sale of the painting to
1.  “Corot tenait en grande estime le talent de Millet, (February 1980): 14–20. An example of the former
the state.125 Corot himself paid indirect hom-
qui, d’une certaine manière, se rapprochait du sien,— (private collection) dates to ca. 1840 and is reproduced
age to Français’s work by producing three non certes par la facture,—mais par la sincérité. Au in Maura Coughlin, “Millet’s Milkmaids,” Nineteenth-
repetitions, with varied light effects, after fond ils avaient tous les deux le même amour et le Century Art Worldwide, Winter 2003. An example
Français’s reversed lithograph rather than même respect de la nature; chacun la voyait selon son of the latter is in the Los Angeles County Museum
his original composition.126 temperament, d’une façon différente, mais c’était la of Art.
même ardeur dans la recherche de la vérité.” Henri 12.  Millet also repeated the theme of the butter-
The wide range of repetitions produced by
Dumesnil, Corot: Souvenirs intimes (Paris: Rapilly, churner over some three decades, culminating in an
Millet and Corot navigated a course between 1875), 91. ambitious painting shown at the 1870 Salon to wide-
aesthetic and market-driven motivations for 2.  See Nicholas Green, “Dealing in Temperaments: spread praise (Yamagata Museum of Art, Japan). The
repetition. In general, the practice of repeti- Economic Transformation of the Artistic Field in critic Théodore Duret wrote of this work and a land-
tion was more important as a creative force France in the Second Half of the Nineteenth Century,” scape, Novembre (destroyed in 1945), at this Salon,
for Millet, while for Corot repetition was Art History, March 1987, 59–78. “il nous semble que . . . dans toute l’école moderne,
3.  See Alfred Robaut, Corot (Paris: Éditions Floury, il n’y a rien de plus grand que ces deux Millet.” See
motivated principally, although not exclu-
1884). T. Duret, “Salon de 1870,” reprinted in Critique d’avant-
sively, by commercial factors. There are also
garde: Théodore Duret (Paris: École nationale supéri-
4.  See Alfred Sensier, La vie et l’oeuvre de Jean-François
other differences in artistic approach, such eure des Beaux-Arts, 1998), 47.
Millet (Paris: A. Quantin, 1881).
as Millet’s preference for repetition in multi- 13.  For the extensive literature on the Sower, see in
5.  This is reflected perhaps most notably in the evi-
media in contrast to Corot’s focus on painted particular Alexandra R. Murphy’s excellent Jean-
dent fascination with Corot’s plein-air oil sketches.
repetitions. Nonetheless, an overview of the See, for example, Peter Galassi’s seminal Corot in Italy
François Millet (Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1984),
production of both men indicates that both 31–34, reprinted in Jean-François Millet: Sessanta
(New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1992).
capolavori dal Museum of Fine Arts di Boston, ed.
considered their autograph repetitions—or 6.  See Patricia Mainardi, “The Nineteenth-Century
George T. M. Shackelford and Marco Goldin, Brescia,
variants—as “originals” in their own right Art Trade: Copies, Variations, Replicas,” Van Gogh
Museo di Santa Guilia (Conegliano: Linea d’ombra
and thus sought to create works that varied Museum Journal 2000, 63–73; Roger Benjamin,
libri, 2005). See also Griselda Pollock, Millet (London:
“Recovering Authors: The Modern Copy, Copy Exhibi-
from their first treatment or “performance” Oresko Books, 1977), 40–42; and T. J. Clark, The
tions and Matisse,” Art History 2, no. 2 (June 1989):
of their selected theme. Rarely, if ever, did Absolute Bourgeois: Artists and Politics in France, 1848–
176–201; Stephen Bann, “Ingres in Reproduction,”
1851 (London: Thames & Hudson, 1973; repr. Prince-
they produce exact replicas of their own in Susan Siegfried and Adrian Rifkin, eds. Fingering
ton: Princeton University Press, 1982, and Berkeley
works. Although neither Millet nor Corot Ingres: Essays in the Historiography of a Nineteenth-
and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1999),
intended their works to be exhibited in Century Artist (Oxford: Blackwell, 2001).
79, 82, 93–96. For a recent article on the Sower, see
“series” in the same way as the later Impres- 7.  See Institut de France, Dictionnaire de l’académie Pierre Rousseau, “‘Le Semeur’ de Jean-François
des beaux-arts, 6 vols. (Paris, 1858–96), 4:262–65,
sionists,127 they used their repetitions as a Millet,” in Le Viquet: Parlers et traditions populaires
s.v. “copie.” Extracts from the Dictionnaire are quoted de Normandie (2004): 86–101, no. 143.
means to explore various kinds of invention,
in Mainardi, “The Nineteenth-Century Art Trade.”
whether in terms of compositional and fig- 14.  Millet may also have been inspired by the figure of
8.  See, for example, The Gleaners. a sower in Autumn by Jacopo Bassano (ca. 1510–1592)
Top: Above: ural refinement or changes in atmosphere
9.  The phrase has been used to describe the career in the Musée Thomas Henry collection in Cherbourg,
Fig. 24. François-Louis Fig. 25. Jean-Baptiste- and light effects. The prominence of mod- of Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres (1780–1867). See founded in 1835.
Français, after Jean- Camille Corot, Dance
Baptiste-Camille Corot, of the Nymphs (Une
ernist rhetoric has emphasized the “origi- Patricia Condon, Marjorie B. Cohn, and Agnes Mon- 15.  This small painting shows a figure sowing seed
Dance of the Nymphs matinée), 1850. Oil on nal” compositions of both artists. It is now gan, “Ingres,” in Pursuit of Perfection: The Art of J-A.-D. above a shoreline that resembles the view from the
(Une matinée), 1850. canvas, 94 × 131 cm. time to highlight the resonance of repetition Ingres, exh. cat., Louisville, J. B. Speed Art Museum heights of Gruchy toward Cherbourg. See Lucien
Lithograph. London, Paris, Musée d’Orsay (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1983). Lepoittevin, Jean-François Millet, 2: L’ambiguité de
within their artistic practice as well as in the
The British Museum, (RF 73) 10.  For an interesting comparison, see the recent l’image (Paris: Laget, 1973), fig. 66. The present loca-
Department of Prints wider context of repetition in nineteenth-
exhibition of John Constable’s “six-footer” land- tion of this work is unknown.
and Drawings century France. scapes with their full-scale preparatory oil sketches. 16.  This is probably the work that Sensier remem-
Constable’s Great Landscapes: The Six-Foot Paintings bered seeing as an unfinished ébauche in Millet’s
(Washington: National Gallery of Art, 2006). Millet’s studio in 1847. See Sensier, La vie et l’oeuvre de J-F.
close friend and colleague Théodore Rousseau (1812– Millet, 100.
1867) also produced a full-scale sketch (Amiens,
17.  Rachel Turnbull, paintings conservator at the
Musée des Beaux-Arts) for his enormous La descente
National Museum and Gallery, Cardiff, has noted:
74 “In infra-red, the upper outline of the outstretched rhythm, until the homely theme became a grand himself, insisted that his work was shown at the 75 drawing exactly replicates the Carnegie work (Col-
arm and the head of the figure is blurred, suggest- and sublime poem.” Salon. See Murphy, Jean-François Millet, 33. lection Bernheim, Charpentier, 7 June 1935, no. 11,

Strategies of Repetition: Millet / Corot

ing Millet’s problems in fixing its final position.” 23.  The work has been squared up, but the drawing 32.  See Théophile Gautier, “Salon de 1850–1,” repr.). Another drawing closely resembles the picture
I am grateful to Ms. Turnbull for her valuable tech- itself seems insufficiently detailed for actual use. La Presse, 15 March 1851. (Sotheby’s New York, 27 October 1998).
nical analysis of this work. On the back of this drawing is a sketch for the 1847 39.  The name of Millet’s dealer and framemaker,
33.  In a letter to Millet of 29 January 1851, Sensier
18.  The work is, however, signed in red at bottom Quarriers (Toledo Museum of Art). This does not recorded the critical response to the work: “Les jour- Paul Détrimont, was originally on the back of the
right (although it is unclear whether this is a later necessarily support a similar date for the Sower naux parlent beaucoup de vos peintures. Taxile Delort Pittsburgh canvas (before relining). The Pittsburgh
signature). Following Millet’s death, the work was drawing, which Millet could have done at a later date. [sic] les a beaucoup louées. Hier, dans le Vote Univer- work may be the painting that appeared at the sale
inherited by the artist’s widow before being sold in the 24.  Another sketch of the extended arm appears sel, on en faisait un bel éloge. L’Union . . . quant au of the “Collection of Mr. B***” on 8 March 1883 and
mid-1880s. It was exhibited in the 1889 Antoine-Louis on the back of a drawing in the Musée du Louvre. Semeur, . . . trouve que vous calomniez ce type cam- sold for the relatively low sum of 1,000 francs, per-
Barye retrospective exhibition in New York (American pagnard (c’est son expression): en résumé, que vous haps being purchased by the sale expert, Détrimont.
25.  The sequence of the Sower paintings, from the
Art Association, 15 November 1889–15 January 1890, faites de la peinture trop socialiste?” Quoted in Valen- It was described here as an esquisse of the Sower. There
Cardiff to the Boston to the Yamanashi work, follows
no. 620), where it was noted in a review (accompanied tine de Chillaz, Inventaire général des autographes: were, however, no catalogue measurements, which
Moreau-Nélaton’s chronology, which in turn followed
by a crude line cut) that it had been purchased from Musée du Louvre (Paris: Réunion des musées nation- makes it difficult to identify the work with certainty. It
that of Alfred Sensier, who had access to Millet’s
the artist’s widow “two or three years ago.” See New aux, 1997). is also doubtful that the Pittsburgh work can be called
studio around 1850 and whose account of the chronol-
York Sun, 19 November 1889. an esquisse (rather than an ébauche). Another smaller
ogy was thus presumably correct. This has been the 34.  See François Sabatier-Ungher, “Salon de 1851,”
19.  Millet’s fellow painter Charles Émile Jacque (1813– painted version of the Sower (46 × 38 cm, location
chronology followed by Millet scholars, including La démocratie pacifique 13 (Paris, 1851): 39–40.
1894) apparently saw this version in Millet’s studio unknown) appeared in the sale of the Walter Rich-
Robert Herbert, Alexandra Murphy, T. J. Clark, and 35.  “Pourquoi cette rudesse d’aspect, pourquoi ces
in the fall of 1850 and told his Parisian friends that it mond Collection in 1899. This could have been the
Griselda Pollock. teintes noirâtres et monochromes? Où M. Millet a-t-il
would certainly be a triumph. See Étienne Moreau- work in the 1883 sale.
26.  See E. Moreau-Nélaton, Millet raconté par lui- rencontré un laboureur de mine si rebarbative, un
Nélaton, Millet raconté par lui-même, 2 vols. (Paris: 40.  See Herbert, Jean-François Millet, 90. On 4 Octo-
même, 86. There is, however, no evidence of under- ciel si somber, un paysage si désolé au temps de
H. Laurens, 1921), 1:85. ber 1872, Sensier wrote to Millet, “Débarrassez-vous
drawing in the Yamanashi painting. semaille?” See Auguste Desplaces, “Lettres sur le
20. Murphy, Jean-François Millet, 31. de la grande toile pour un Semeur à venir [Sensier’s
27.  This painting was originally 105 × 84 cm but has Salon,” L’Union, 29 January 1851.
emphasis] en la faisant remiser dans ma maison.”
21.  No underdrawing is visible in infrared reflectog- been cut down at left and bottom. This work has been 36.  See Millet to Sensier, February 1851 (Aut. 1716):
Quoted in Chillaz, Inventaire général (Aut. 3054). Millet
raphy, and an x-radiograph reveals no evidence of seen as a compromise, largely because the figure does “C’est le côté humain . . . qui me touche le plus
had previously produced a repetition of his Winnower
significant compositional change. Thanks are due to not seem to stride with the same powerful momen- en art.”
in the late 1860s.
Jean Woodward, conservator at the Museum of Fine tum. See Clark, The Absolute Bourgeois, 93–94. 37.  “[C]’est un peu troubler les heureux dans leur
Arts, Boston, for her assistance in the examination 41.  The painting was acquired by Sensier after the
28.  See in particular the restorations in 1950 and repos.” See Millet to Sensier, undated but generally
of this painting. 1851 Salon and hung in the bedroom of his Barbizon
1965. The work was recently more sensitively cleaned ascribed to 1863, quoted in Moreau-Nélaton, Millet
home until the early 1870s. The painting was sold by
22.  Often Millet’s ideas first emerged in tiny, rapid (between December 2003 and March 2004), during raconté par lui-même, 2:138–39.
Sensier to the dealer Paul Durand-Ruel on 15 April
jottings; the sense of energy in this figure probably which discoloring varnish was removed. See “Restora- 38.  The facial expression is also rather different from 1872. Thanks are due to Caroline Durand-Ruel God-
traces its origins to a tiny pencil sketch (Paris, Musée tion and Technical Research of Jean-François Millet’s the more anguished expression on the earlier two froy for her assistance in providing information in
du Louvre). In another drawing, Millet placed the Oil Paintings,” Bulletin of Yamanashi Prefectural Sowers, while the use of continuous line is unusual in the Durand-Ruel Archives about the Sower.
sower in a horizontal composition with a harrower Museum of Art, no. 19 (2004). the context of Millet’s more characteristic penchant
in the distance (private collection). See Tableaux 42. Millet fils was an accomplished artist in his own
29.  Moreau-Nélaton (Millet raconté par lui-même, 86) for a broken line. In a 1942 auction sale, the work was
provenant de la collection d’un amateur, Paris, Hôtel right who exhibited work at the Paris Salon in 1870
noted of this work: “le pinceau febrile jette la pâte avec described as “after Millet.” See Harry P. Whitney Sale,
Drouot, 28 February 1936, no. 92. Two more “fin- when he was only 19. Subsequently, he exhibited
un emportement furieux.” Parke Bernet, New York, sale of 29–30 April 1942,
ished” drawings, in horizontal format (Oxford, Ash- landscapes and peasant scenes at the Salon in 1879,
30.  An x-radiograph has shown that Millet, as was lot 351. In 1962, Robert L. Herbert (Barbizon Revisited
molean Museum, and Musée de Dijon [donation 1880, and 1881.
occasionally his practice, painted over an earlier image. [Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1962]) considered the
Granville]), show the sower in an expansive plain. 43.  In 1872, he also made copies after three of his
Here, a figure turning a wheel (a stonecutter from work autograph, suggesting that it was a preparatory
Two study drawings for the Sower are listed in Millet’s father’s paintings—perhaps as student exercises and
Montmartre?) was originally at the top left of the study for the Yamanashi picture. Later, Herbert main-
studio sale (“119. Le Semeur. Croquis au crayon noir. perhaps including the Sower. Sensier’s correspon-
canvas. Cross sections also reveal a number of paint tained this view of its authenticity, dating the work to
1851” and “120. Le Semeur. Croquis pour le tableau. dence to Millet in the spring and summer of 1872
layers, suggesting that Millet worked on this painting the 1850s, although noting that Millet continued to
Crayon noir. 1851”). See Vente J-F. Millet, Paris, Hôtel documents François fils’s evolving practice of copying
over a longer period than on the Boston work. See work on the picture subsequently. He also referenced
Drouot, 10–11 May 1875. Millet’s early biographer, Julia his father’s works (we know that previously he had
“Restoration Report on Jean-François Millet’s The doubts expressed “because of its flat surface.” Herbert,
Cartwright ( Jean-François Millet: His Life and Letters also copied the work of Théodore Rousseau in the late
Sower in the Collection of Yamanashi Prefectural Jean-François Millet (Paris: Réunion des musées
[London: S. Sonnenschein & Co., 1896], 110–12), noted: 1860s). On 11 May 1872, Sensier noted, “Je suppose
Museum of Art,” Bulletin of Yamanashi Prefectural nationaux, 1975; London: Arts Council of Britain,
“From this slight sketch [pen-and-ink work in Sensier] que . . . François ne souffre plus du tout. S’il ne dis-
Museum of Art, no. 19 (2004): 54. 1976), 90. Alexandra Murphy also considers the work
the artist, after his wont, slowly and painfully evolved pose à travailler, priez-le de mettre en train les copies,
to be autograph and has dated it to the 1850s. See
his noble work. He has left us several drawings which 31.  It has not been conclusively established which afin de mettre le plus tôt possible les originaux à la
Murphy, Jean-François Millet, 34. The paint surface in
enable us, step by step, to follow the development of work was exhibited. Sensier and Moreau-Nélaton both disposition de Durand” (Chillaz, Inventaire général,
the work is generally flat and thin but not inconsistent
his idea through its successive stages. We see how stated that the Yamanashi work was shown at the 1850 Aut. 3044). The letter suggests that François was
with Millet’s similar unfinished esquisses. See, for
the figure gradually gained in breadth and vigour, Salon. However, the first owner of the Boston paint- copying paintings recently purchased by Durand-Ruel
example, Men Digging (Les becheurs), Duluth, Tweed
and by degrees acquired that solemn majesty and ing, William Morris Hunt, who acquired his picture from Sensier’s collection. In April 1872, Durand-Ruel
Museum of Art, University of Minnesota). A full-scale
from Millet’s colorman and was a friend of the artist
76 had bought thirty-four Millet paintings and nineteen 51.  A repetition of Bathers of the Borromean Isles favorite operas. Hélène Toussaint has also suggested 77 64.  Such practice of removing compositional ele-
pastels from Sensier for 116,450 francs. Of these, the (Williamstown, Mass., Sterling and Francine Clark Art that Corot conflated his souvenir of Musset with his ments is also evident, for example, in his work on

Strategies of Repetition: Millet / Corot

most well known was the Yamanashi Sower. On 12 July Institute) was commissioned from Corot by Maison memory of the famous singer Maria Malibran (1808– Orphée (Houston, Museum of Fine Arts), exhibited
1872, Sensier referenced Durand-Ruel’s concerns Goupil around 1872. It remained unfinished at Corot’s 1836), to whom Musset had dedicated some verses at the 1861 Salon.
about these copies: “M. Durand vous prie expressé- death and was sold at his studio sale (lot 187) for (and whom Corot himself had recorded on stage in 65.  Technical analysis has demonstrated this second
ment, de ne laisser voir à personne et surtout à Brame 4,100 francs to a M. Lolley. A repetition of Les Gaulois some early sketches). signature to be autograph. The pink color of the
les trois copies que fait François; recommendation (location unknown) “preparée par un des auxilaires 58.  Thanks to Eik Kahng and Sabine Albersmeier, signature fluoresces in gray under ultraviolet light
importante” (ibid., Aut. 3050). On 16 October 1872, de Corot, a été légèrement retouchée par lui, puis respectively, curator of eighteenth- and nineteenth- with an identical tint to the flowers scattered across
Sensier noted, “Voulez-vous dire à François de donner livrée à M. Cleophas.” See Robaut, L’oeuvre de Corot, century art and associate curator of ancient art at the the foreground, which were probably added at the
le dernier coup à une ou deux de ses copies, car il 3:356 (no. 2310). Walters Art Museum, for this suggestion. Corot was same moment. Mottin, Compte-rendu d’étude.
est probable que je remporterai au moins l’un des 52.  See Renate Woudhuysen-Keller, “Observations making sketchbook studies of antique statues in the 66.  The entries in Lucas’s diary regarding this pic-
modèles” (ibid., Aut. 3055). This last letter makes it Concerning Corot’s Late Technique” in Barbizon. Louvre from his early days as a student. See Peter ture read as follows: 8 February 1864: “at Corot’s
more probable that the Sower was one of the models, Malerei der Natur—Natur der Malerei (Munich: Galassi, Corot in Italy (New Haven and London: Yale & ordered repetition of evening star for 1000 fs for
since this work would soon be on display at the Klinkhardt & Biermann, 1999), 192–200. University Press, 1991), 63. Ws. . . .”/9 February 1864: “In morning early to Corot
dealer’s London show in December 1872.
53.  There are at least three later variants of the more 59.  See the recent valuable technical analysis of the with Ws & gave him an order for 2 pictures at 400 fs
44.  Personal communication to author from naturalistic 1835 Salon painting, Vue prise à Riva Toulouse Evening Star (including x-radiographs and each & the repetition of the Evening star for 1000 fs &
Alexandra Murphy, 8 January 2007. (Munich, Neue Pinakothek), which was itself based infrared reflectograms) by Bruno Mottin, Compte- panel for myself for 300 fs—Asked if he could not put
45.  The Pittsburgh work is remarkably close to Le on the earlier plein-air sketch Soleil couchant, site rendu d’étude: L’étoile du matin (Centre de recherche the whole at 2000 fs, replied in an indefinite manner
Rat’s 1873 Sower etching (fig. 7). According to Caroline du Tyrol italien, shown at the 1850 Salon (Marseille, et de restauration des musées de France, 15 September that it was too little, but did not positively say that he
Durand-Ruel Godfroy, there is no evidence that the Musée des Beaux-Arts); Souvenir de Riva, 1865–70 2006). would not.”/5 March 1864: “Corot is to write me 3 days
Pittsburgh work was ever owned by Paul Durand-Ruel, (Cincinnati, Taft Art Museum) and Vue prise à Riva, 60.  This date of 1864 was made with the same pig- ahead of the completion of ‘The evening Star.’/22 June
dispelling the possibility that it might in fact have ca. 1860 (private collection), bought from Corot by ments as the signature in brown underneath and thus 1864: “At Corot’s & paid 1000 fs for Ws picture of
been this work that was the model for Le Rat’s the dealer Adolphe Beugniet. Several of these works was not added at a later stage. Ibid. ‘L’étoile du Soir.’/17 January 1865: “At Corot’s & took
etching. were brought together in the 1996 Corot exhibition Ws picture of L’etoile du soir—Carried home to Ottoz
61.  See Société nationale des Beaux-Arts, 26, boule-
46.  Van Gogh found Millet’s image highly compel- at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. to be varnished.” Lilian M. C. Randall, ed., The Diary
vard des Italiens, Catalogue (Paris: Imprimerie Jules
ling. In September 1880, he told his brother, Theo, 54.  Musset, the French Romantic poet, had been an of George A. Lucas: An American Agent in Paris, 1857–
Claye, 1864), Bibliothèque nationale, Cabinet des
“I have already drawn ‘The Sower’ five times . . . and early supporter of Corot at the Paris Salon. The lines 1909, 2 vols. (Princeton: Princeton University Press,
Estampes. The catalogue indicates that Corot showed
I am so completely absorbed in that figure that I will from Le saule ran: 1979), 2:171–91.
four paintings, including no. 65—“L’étoile du soir
take it up again.” The Complete Letters of Vincent van Pâle étoile du soir, messagère lointaine (paysage).” The work was briefly reviewed by Philippe 67.  Thanks to Eric Gordon, head of paintings conser-
Gogh, 3 vols., 3d ed. (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., Dont le front sort brilliant des voiles du couchant, Burty: “Il nous resterait à parler surtout de l’Étoile vation at the Walters Art Museum, whose valuable
2000), 1:203, no. 135. He also made a drawing copy De ton palais d’azur au sein du firmament, du soir, de M. Corot, une des compositions les plus technical analysis of this painting has shown that the
in 1881 (Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum). Que regardes-tu dans la plaine? sereines et les plus réussies que nous connaissons Walters Evening Star had no underdrawing.
47.  Artists thus responded to this increased demand, (Pale evening star, distant messenger / whose face de ce maître toujours jeune; mais l’espace nous fait 68.  “Lorsqu’un amateur désire la répétition d’un de
with Gustave Courbet creating a studio, while Charles emerges blazing from the veils of the setting sun / défaut.” See P. Burty, “L’Exposition du Cercle de la rue mes paysages, il m’est facile de la lui donner sans
Daubigny’s stockbooks also reveal the degree to which On what object in the plain are you gazing / From de Choiseul et de la Société nationale des Beaux-Arts,” revoir l’original; je garde dans le coeur et dans les yeux
he produced répétitions. your azure palace at heaven’s breast?) Gazette des Beaux-Arts, 1 April 1864, 371. As has previ- la copie de tous mes ouvrages.” Quoted in Silvestre,
48.  See, for example, Théophile Silvestre, L’histoire ously been noted (see Gary Tinterow, Michael Pan- L’histoire des artistes vivants, 95.
55.  Dumesnil (Corot, 36) described the work as “une
des artistes vivants (Paris: E. Blanchard, 1856). tazzim, and Vincent Pomarède, eds., Corot [New York: 69.  It is also, of course, possible that Corot used
de ses compositions les plus délicieuses, pleine de
Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1996], 299), Dumesnil sketches still in his possession to assist him.
49.  See A. Robaut, L’oeuvre de Corot: Catalogue rai- rêverie, peut-être la meilleure de son oeuvre à cette
(Corot, 36) wrote of this painting that “il était à
sonné et illustré, 5 vols. (Paris: H. Floury, 1905), 3: nos. époque.” 70.  Corot, for example, added two cows in the
l’exposition du boulevard des Italiens en février 1860.”
1627, 1628, and 1629. For the fourth version, see Jean 56.  Corot’s work was in fact based on a study (now distance.
Dumesnil’s memories were, however, often unreliable,
Dieterle, Corot: Troisième supplément à L’oeuvre de lost) made on a visit to Limousin in central France in 71.  Millet, Honoré Daumier (1808–1879), and
and he seems to have confused the dates of these two
Corot par Alfred Robaut et Étienne Moreau-Nélaton [. . .] 1851. The time of day represented has been the subject Antoine-Louis Barye (1795–1875) all used tracings.
exhibitions, both of which took place in the same
(Paris: Quatre chemins-Éditart, 1974), no. 26. of some confusion. The painting was known by 1908 Lorenz Eitner suggests that Corot may have used a
space on the boulevard des Italiens. Corot showed
50.  In contrast, Corot had great difficulty selling in Toulouse as L’étoile du matin and retains this title. tracing to create the National Gallery version of The
four works at this 1860 exhibition, all of which were
his more austere, large-scale early history paintings. Yet, as we shall see, when first exhibited in 1864, it Artist’s Studio, which is virtually identical to the Louvre
of a small scale (certainly considerably smaller than
Hagar and the Angel (New York, Metropolitan Museum was titled L’étoile du soir (paysage)—the title also given version (RF 1974). See his French Paintings of the
the L’étoile du soir). One of these was titled Crépuscule
of Art), for example, remained unsold in Corot’s to the work by George Lucas, which he presumably Nineteenth Century, 1: Before Impressionism (Washing-
(no. 122) but measured only 32 × 52 cm. See Robaut,
studio until his death. In a letter of 15 January 1873, had heard from Corot himself. ton: National Gallery of Art, 2000), 72. Fronia
L’oeuvre de Corot, 4:170.
he noted of this work, “Je n’ai absolument rien de 57.  Corot probably represents the opera singer Pauline Wissman has pointed out to me, however, that the
62.  See Mottin, Compte-rendu d’étude.
disponible pour l’exposition (de Bordeaux). Je n’aurais Viardot (1821–1910), whose performances continued technical notes in the National Gallery of Art catalogue
qu’un ancient Agar dans le desert; ce n’est pas le 63.  See Jules Buisson, “Salon de 1864,” Union indicate there was no scoring in the Washington
into the early 1860s. Viardot made 150 appearances as
chique [sic] aujourd’hui.” Quoted in Robaut, L’oeuvre artistique de Toulouse, 25 June 1864. image (which would result from tracing), nor was
Orpheus in Gluck’s Orphée et Euridice—one of Corot’s
de Corot, 3:345.
78 there any underdrawing. This suggests that tracing 79.  See Martin Dieterle’s 8 March 1998 authentica- 88.  “J’ai envoyé hier à Feydeau pour M. Delaporte 79 estate sale. La Tour du Moulin à Vent. Esquisse. Ruines
did not, in fact, take place. tion document on the picture in the file at the Saint un dessin, reproduction de la composition en grand d’un vieux Moulin dans la plaine de Chailly (The Hague,

Strategies of Repetition: Millet / Corot

72.  The work first appeared on the art market at the Louis Art Museum. The work does not appear in de l’hiver.” Millet to Sensier, 24 March 1865, Chillaz, Museum Mesdag), 1873.
Henri Rouart sale in December 1912, when it was the 2002 fifth supplement to the Corot catalogue Inventaire général, Aut. 2089. This large-scale pastel 96.  Moreau-Nélaton wrote of Millet’s pastel repeti-
identified as a “première pensée” for the Toulouse raisonné. is now in the Burrell Collection, Glasgow. tions: “La veine de Millet a beau se cantonner dans
painting (Vente Rouart, Paris, 9–11 December 1912, 80.  The picture left Corot’s studio in the summer of 89.  Gavet was a major collector of Italian Renaissance son cycle familier, elle se renouvelle sans cesse et
no. 146). 1864. If the Saint Louis work had not been painted art as well as contemporary painting. Not only did excelle aux trouvailles ingénieuses pour éviter les
73.  See Pierre Dieterle, Martin Dieterle, and Claire earlier, it might have been painted at Toulouse. he commission pastels regularly beginning in 1865, redites banales.” See Moreau-Nélaton, Millet raconté
Lebeau, Corot: Cinquième supplément à L’oeuvre de 81.  The signature (or perhaps only the date?) may providing Millet with a monthly stipend, but he also par lui-même, 2:176–77.
Corot par Alfred Robaut et Etienne Moreau-Nélaton have been added at a later stage and (as was often the exercised creative input, providing the artist with 97.  De Thomas is first mentioned in a letter to Millet
(Paris: Librairie Léone Laget, 2002), 126, no. 126. case with Corot) by another hand. If the work were a different kinds of colored paper support. from Sensier on 3 February 1865: “J’ai une commande
74.  Dieterle and Lebeau suggest that Corot painted preparatory study, one would expect the inclusion of 90.  This was commissioned by Gavet in the spring de Monsieur De Thomas le fils, [ frère de la dame qui
the central figure and tree and sunset, while Oudinot the trees that have been painted out in the “original” of 1868 for 1,000 francs, after the painting that Millet vous a acheté votre Bêcheur 200 francs]. Il désire un
produced the remainder of the picture (as well as the Toulouse version. It was also not Corot’s practice to had exhibited in the early 1860s to critical acclaim pastel, dessin en hauteur; nous en causerons” (Chillaz,
underpainting). They also suggest that the work was produce works of this scale as preparatory studies. (Walters Art Museum). Other large-scale repetitions Inventaire général, Aut. 2742). On 13 February, Sensier
commissioned by the dealer Tedesco or perhaps the 82.  This is perhaps suggested by the degree to which for Gavet for 1,000 francs each included Man Standing again wrote to Millet, “M. Dethomas fils m’a remis la
partnership of Alfred Cadart and Jules Luquet, who this painting replicates the Toulouse “original.” Corot’s after Work (Rochester), Winter (Glasgow, Burrell Art mesure du dessin qu’il désire de vous. Il voudrait de
played a particularly central role among dealers in wholly autograph repetitions, as we have seen, often Collection) and Men Digging (Boston, Museum of Fine sujet des Glaneuses . . . ou bien le Semeur, pareil à
commissioning repetitions from Corot. See Dieterle, have significant differences from the “original.” Arts). celui qui est dans ma chambre à Barbizon [Yamanashi
Dieterle, and Lebeau, Corot: Cinquième supplément, 91.  Millet’s biographer, Étienne Moreau-Nélaton, Museum of Art Sower]. Je lui ai dit que vous choisiriez
83.  For other late collaborative reductions, see the
126, no. 126. The reduction recently acquired by the praised the artist’s ability to make subtle changes to plutôt le premier, parce que vous n’aviez pas encore
Saint Sebastian (Washington, National Gallery of Art),
Dallas Museum of Art after the 1855 Salon work Effet these pastel repetitions in order to keep the images jugé d’une reduction definitive sur ce sujet que vous
prepared by Alfred Robaut and Louis Desmarest, and
de matin (or Bath of Diana) was also (according to fresh. Of a group of pastels completed for Gavet in n’aviez traité qu’en grand. C’est du reste à votre choix”
another version of the Dante and Virgil (private collec-
Martin Dieterle) commissioned by Cadart and Luquet. April 1866 he noted, “la plupart de ces petits poèmes (ibid., Aut. 2744). Millet, however, seems to have put
tion), prepared by Georges Rodrigues. His late produc-
Thanks to Heather MacDonald, Lillian and James H. ne sont que des redites de sujets traits déjà à l’huile, this project aside for three months and, in the mean-
tion for the market might, indeed, be compared to that
Clark Assistant Curator of Painting and Sculpture, au crayon, ou même au pastel. Mais Millet, on le sait, time, to have produced his first Sower reduction—the
of Gustave Courbet, who favored the extensive use of
Dallas Museum of Art, for this information. possède le talent de se répéter deux, trois, quatre fois pastel for Moureaux (Walters Art Museum—in hori-
studio assistants.
ou davantage, en variant son theme de telle façon zontal, rather than vertical format).
75.  According to Gerard de Wallens, Oudinot, an 84. See Vente Corot, Paris, 1875, 187: Paysage composé
early teacher of Berthe (1841–1895) and Edma (1839– qu’il a l’air, sans cesse, de créer l’inédit.” 98.  On 12 May 1865, Millet wrote to Sensier asking
et Baigneuses, Variante du tableau lithog. Par Em.
1921) Morisot was “capable, at his best, of equaling 92.  Other reductions are in the Museum of Fine Arts, again for details of the De Thomas commission:
Vernier, 4,100 francs. 194: La Solitude, Variante du
his master.” G. de Wallens, Diana Bathing, in Cour- Boston, and the J. Paul Getty Museum. The work in “envoyez-moi je vous prie aussi promptement que
tableau exposé à Paris, 1866, 2,830 francs. 205: Les
bet, Corot y los pintores de Barbizon, Museo Thyssen- the former also has pen-and-ink added. vous le pourrez la dimension du dessin pour Mr De
Nautoniers; soleil couchant, Répétition du tableau
Bornemisza Museum, Madrid (www.museothyssen Thomas, car l’heure vient de m’occuper de ma fin
gravé par Marvy, 3,505 francs. 93.  Thanks to Elissa O’Loughlin, senior objects and
.org). Oudinot’s autograph production is very close de mois qui est très lourde. Le sujet doit être des
85. See Vente Laurent-Richard, Paris, Hôtel Drouot, paper conservator at the Walters Art Museum, for her
in subject and style to that of Corot, and his exhibition Glaneuses? Quel en est le prix, afin que je connaisse
7 April 1873. observation of the “fibrous clumping” in the clouds,
titles suggest his own penchant for poetic scenes au juste mes resources?” (Chillaz, Inventaire général,
indicative of the presence of water.
86.  Millet did not exhibit his pastels at the Salon but Aut. 2098). On 17 May 1865, Sensier wrote to Millet,
such as The Evening Star. Like Corot, Oudinot exhib-
may have displayed them at the private arts club of the 94.  At the beginning of January 1865, Millet received
ited more naturalistic views alongside more “poetic” “Le dessin de M[r] Dethomas sera payé 200 francs,
Cercle des Arts on the rue de Choiseul. In early 1865, a commission from Moureaux, who asked him “de
scenes at the Salon. In 1863, he showed a Méditation il desire ou des glaneuses ou un semeur en hauteur
for example, he exhibited a group of drawings. Sensier lui faire pour 1,000 francs de dessins.” See Chillaz,
(location unknown) and, in 1864, Solitude (location [Sensier’s emphasis]. Je lui ai écrit de vous envoyer
wrote on 12 March 1865: “J’ai longuement causé avec Inventaire général, Aut. 2074). On 12 May 1865, Millet
unknown) together with Bords de l’Oise (location la dimension” (ibid., Aut. 2762).
Petit de votre exposition rue de Choiseul. Il constate noted that he had sent two drawings to Moureaux:
unknown). 99.  On 20 May, Millet wrote to Sensier, “J’ai reçu hier
que vous y avez un grand succès. Vos dessins ont Le semeur and Deux jeunes filles (see ibid., Aut. 2098).
76.  This work was also commissioned by Cadart and seulement les mesures du dessin pour Mr. Dethomas.
triomphé de tous. Tout le monde m’en parle. . . . Je Moureaux had played a prominent role in the print
Luquet. Corot himself may just have added the finish- Mon papier était tout tendu, j’ai commencé tout de
vous ai dit que vos dessins devaient de vendre aussi society, the Société des Dix, in the early 1860s, and
ing touches, as well as (perhaps) the animals and suite. . . . Comme vous me disiez pour le dessin de
cher que ceux de Bida”. . . . (Chillaz, Inventaire général, previously acquired a number of Millet’s paintings
figures. See Dieterle, Dieterle, and Lebeau, Corot: Mr. Dethomas, des Glaneuses ou un Semeur, je fais
Aut. 2751). These “dessins” (Millet’s own word for his and drawings. The pastel was acquired by William
Cinquième supplément, no. 124. un Semeur revenant à peu près à celui que j’ai fait
pastels) may well have included pastels. Walters (through his agent George Lucas) in July
pour Mr. Moureaux mais arrangé en hauteur” (ibid.,
77.  It is not mentioned, for example, in the catalogue 1884 for 10,000 francs. On 2 July 1884, Lucas wrote,
87.  “Their [Gavet and the dealer Hector Brame] Aut. 2099). On 23 May, he again wrote to Sensier, “Je
entry on The Evening Star for the 1996 Corot exhibi- “Paid Montagnac cash 10,000 fs for Pastel Millet
demands were insatiable and although they undoubt- termine le dessin de Mr. Dethomas” (ibid., Aut. 2102).
tion (Gary Tinterow, Michael Pantazzi, Vincent ‘Le Semeur.’” See Randall, Diary of George A. Lucas,
edly relieved Millet’s financial difficulties they were
Pomarède, Corot [New York: Metropolitan Museum 2:590. 100.  The paper has again discolored, although exami-
perhaps responsible for a certain monotony in his
of Art, 1996]). nation of unaffected sections on the edge indicates
later more finished drawings, particularly those in 95.  This building has been identified as a telegraph
that it was originally fairly dark.
78.  The painting was apparently discovered in a house which color is introduced.” See Kenneth Clark, Draw- tower (see Jean-François Millet, Drawn into the Light
in New Jersey with no accompanying documentation. [New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1999], 101. See Jean-François Millet, Drawn into the Light, 50.
ings by Jean-François Millet (London: The Arts Council
I am grateful to Fronia Wissman for this information. of Great Britain, 1956). 50) but was identified as a ruined windmill in Millet’s
80 102.  In producing the figure of the sower in this and collector Adolphe Mame had paid for an earlier 115.  This accompanied a catalogue of his prints by the 81 123.  Two reproductive prints by Français after Corot’s
the other, smaller pastel (fig. 18, the Gavet work), version. critic, Philippe Burty. See Philippe Burty, “Les eaux- work appeared in the album Les artistes anciens et

Strategies of Repetition: Millet / Corot

Millet may have used a chalk drawing of exactly the 108. See 95 Dessins de J-F. Millet composant la collection fortes de M. J-F. Millet,” Gazette des Beaux-Arts, modernes, no. 29; Corot, Une matinée and no. 118;
same size (Museum of Fine Arts, Boston) as a tem- de M. Gavet, Paris, Hôtel Drouot, 11 and 12 June 1875, 1st series, 11 (September 1861), 262–66. Corot, Soleil couchant. One print after Millet appeared
plate. The figure in this drawing has heavy, reworked copy annotated with prices, Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty 116.  On 16 November 1863, for example, Millet noted in this album, no. 100, by Adolphe Mouilleron after
lines, indicating its use for transfer. This is confirmed Museum. of his progress on his etching, Going to Work: “Je the Couturières de village (then belonging to Sensier).
by the black chalk rubbing on the back of the drawing. commence aujourd’hui même à décalquer ma com- Français’s first lithograph after Corot appeared in
109.  See Vincent van Gogh to Theo van Gogh,
This drawing has been dated to ca. 1858 (see Murphy, position pour l’eau-forte, sur ma planche” (Chillaz, L’Artiste after Le petit berger, shown at the 1840 Salon.
29 June 1875, in Letters of Vincent van Gogh, 1:28,
Jean-François Millet, 113) but it seems more probable Inventaire général, Aut. 2020). There are around forty He also produced a lithograph of Corot’s 1841 Salon
no. 29.
that it in fact dates to the mid-1860s. There is a related known tracings by the artist. Seven appeared in his painting Democritus that appeared in the “Illustration
110.  For a valuable overview of the variety and impor-
drawing in the National Gallery of Art, Washington. posthumous sale. See Vente Millet, Paris, 1875: Les des arts de la littérature.”
tance of reproductive methods in mid-nineteenth-
Another drawing in the Louvre shows the same figure Glaneuses. Calque. 1857, 163. Départ pour les champs. 124.  See the gloss at the beginning of Les artistes
century France, see Stephen Bann, Parallel Lines:
cut at the knees. Calque. 1857, 164. La Cardeuse. Calque. 1857, 170. anciens et modernes: “Il semble qu’en introduisant
Printmakers, Painters and Photographers in Nineteenth-
103.  This may have been among the group of seven La Fin de la journée. Calque. 1858, 185. La Baratteuse. dans son paysage ce groupe de figures antiques, le
Century France (New Haven and London: Yale Univer-
pastels that Gavet acquired in mid-April 1866. On Calque. 1860, 206. Départ pour le travail. Calque. 1865, peintre se soit souvenu de ces deux vers d’Horace. . . .”
sity Press, 2001).
17 April 1866, Millet wrote, “Mr. Gavet est venu 258. Le Berger et la Mer. Calque. 1872. The verses are from Ad Sextium, IV, book 1.
111.  The physique of the sower and particularly the
Dimanche dernier. Il a remporté 7 dessins dont il 117.  See Burty’s account of his visit to Bracquemond’s 125.  See Philippe de Chennevières, Lettres sur l’art
contour of his prominent striding leg and the angle
paraissait très-content” (Chillaz, Inventaire général, studio, quoted in Loys Delteil, Le Peintre-graveur illustré français en 1850 (Paris: J. B. Dumoulin, 1851), 75.
of his legs (with the back leg thrust back) are closest
Aut. 2125). (XIX et XX siècles), 1: J.-F. Millet, et al. (Paris, 1906),
to the Boston version, as is the treatment of the straw 126.  See, for example, the repetition in the Musée
104.  See Alexandra Murphy, “Jean-François Millet: no. 17. d’Orsay.
around his legs. The horizon line also meets his arm
The Sower,” Nineteenth-Century European Paintings, 118.  Burty, “Les eaux-fortes de M. J-F. Millet,” 265,
in the same place as the Boston work. The config- 127.  Nonetheless, it is noteworthy that posthumous
Drawings, Watercolors and Sculpture, Christie’s, New quoted with translation in Murphy, Jean-François
uration of the oxen and harrow in the distance are, exhibitions of their work—notably Millet’s enormous
York, 15 February 1995, 69, lot 84. Millet, 132 n.13.
however, closest to the Yamanashi work. The horizon retrospective at the École des Beaux-Arts in 1887—
105.  Since he knew Moureaux well, he could quite line to the right also meets the seed bag in the same 119.  An exception is his cliché-verre of Le petit berger offered an opportunity for the display of various
easily have copied the “original” work. That Millet’s place as the latter painting. (Musée de Metz) from the 1840 Salon. repetitions in ways that had never occurred in the
approach here was premeditated rather than spon- artists’ lifetimes. Such exhibitions served to highlight
112.  On 16 January 1852, the collector and newspaper 120.  Dumesnil wrote of the friendship between Corot
taneous is further indicated by the record of the the range of Millet’s and Corot’s practice of repetition
editor Ernest Feydeau wrote to Sensier that he had and Français: “Aussitôt qu’ils se sont rencontrés, une
American painter Edward Wheelwright (1824–1900), and may conceivably have affected the practice of
managed to cancel the printing only a few days before sympathie réciproque les attira promptement l’un vers
who spent several months close to Millet in the the Impressionists. Pissarro, for example, visited the
the print was due to appear: “je suis parvenu à faire l’autre et ils ses sont liés d’une amitié aussi profonde
mid-1850s and was a frequent visitor to the artist’s Millet retrospective and recorded his admiration for
supprimer la planche du Semeur. Mais comme on que durable; ils ont travaillé ensemble, et on connait
studio. Wheelwright commissioned a repetition the artist’s drawings and pastels. His overall attitude
en avait déjà tiré un assez grand nombre (elle devait les belles lithographies faites par Français d’après
(New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art) after the was more ambiguous. He noted “Les gens ne voient
paraître Dimanche) il faut que Millet refasse gratis la Corot; parfois il complétait quelques details, tout en
Shepherdess (Cincinnati Museum of Art). He later que le petit côté en art; ils ne voient pas que les des-
même lithographie” (see Chillaz, Inventaire général, conservant le sentiment très-juste de l’oeuvre de son
recorded the artist’s progress on both works: “Millet sins, certains dessins de Millet sont cent fois mieux
Aut. 2375). In a letter to Millet of the following day, ami, lequel voyant ces libertés de traduction ne s’en
. . . worked upon the two pictures alternately, carry- que sa peinture, qui a bien vieilli.” Letter to Lucien,
Sensier continued to discuss the possibility of the plaignait pas et a dit souvent: ‘Voilà qui est bon, je
ing first one and then the other a little in advance of 16 May 1887, in Correspondence, 2:169.
printing of a lithograph: “Je vous envoie la lettre de me servirai de ça.’ Et en effet, dans plusieurs de ses
its competitor, and in this way making both, as he
Feydeau au sujet de la publication de votre Semeur. ouvrages il a mis à profit ce qu’il avait trouvé bon
himself thought, better than either would have been
Le résultat n’est pas excellent comme produit: mais, dans les interpretations de Français.” See Dumesnil,
without this rivalry, as it were, between them. . . .
si vous voulez faire la lithographie en tirant une Corot, 60.
In several instances a touch, that might at first look like
cinquantaine d’épreuves pour vous, vous en tirerez 121.  Robaut recorded an interesting opinion, from
an accident, a slip of the brush, would be found to be
une centaine de francs” (ibid., Aut. 2376). Millet never Corot’s father, about Français’s first lithograph after
identically the same in both, showing it to be the result,
seems to have produced these “50 or so proofs.” Corot (Le petit berger after Corot’s 1840 Salon work).
not of carelessness, but of deliberate intention.” Edward
113.  Twenty-five prints appeared in 1889, numbered Corot’s father apparently considered Français’s litho-
Wheelwright, “Personal Recollections of Jean-François
and signed by Millet’s son-in-law, Heymann. The graph to be more important than his son’s “original”
Millet,” Atlantic Monthly, September 1876, 257–76
original lithographic stone (fig. 21) survives, now in painting. See A. Robaut, Camille Corot (repr. La
(emphasis supplied).
the British Museum, with indication of the cancella- Rochelle: Rumeur des âges, 1996), 27–28.
106.  See the curatorial file at the Frick Art & Histori-
tion of the stone (at an unknown date after 1889). The 122.  Jean Gigoux later highlighted Français’s images
cal Center, Pittsburgh, indicating a provenance of
fact that the stone was inscribed “cancelled” indicates after Corot as masterpieces of reproductive lithogra-
Sensier and then Lebrun before the work was acquired
that this was not done in France. The initials CF (or phy. For discussion of Une matinée and the repro-
through M. Knoedler and Co. by Henry C. Frick on
FC), however, are unexplained. ductive lithograph, see Renate Woodhuysen-Keller,
8 March 1899.
114.  The importance that Millet ascribed to prints is, “Observations Concerning Corot’s Late Painting
107.  See, for example, the repetition of Shepherdesses
indeed, further suggested by the fact that many of his Technique,” in Barbizon: Malerei der Natur—Natur
Watching a Flight of Geese, sold to Gavet for 350 francs
compositions (such as The Gleaners, Two Men Digging, der Malerei, 197–98.
in 1866, in comparison to the 200 francs that the
or Woman Carding) were produced first as etchings.
 The Predications and Implications of Monet’s Series

Charles Stuckey Claude Monet’s 4–16 May 1891 exhibition at the Galerie Durand-
Ruel in Paris, featuring fifteen closely related paintings of wheat-
stacks (meules), all but one painted within the past year and all sold
within days of the opening, was a turning point in the artist’s career.
Henceforth Monet’s near-exclusive concerns as a modern painter were
the production and exhibition of multiple variations on a few compo-
sitions featuring a single subject: Poplars (exhibited 1892); Rouen
Cathedral, Floe Ice on the Seine, View of the Seine at Port-Villez, The
Church at Vernon, The Village of Sandviken, and Mount Kolsaas (all
exhibited 1895); The Fiord near Christiana, The Cliffs at Pourville, Petit-
Ailly, and Dieppe, The Coast Guard Lookout House at Varengeville,
Morning on the Seine (all exhibited 1898); The Water Lily Pond (exhi-
bited 1900); Views of the Thames (exhibited 1904); Water Lilies (exhi-
bited 1909); and Views of Venice (exhibited 1912). Indeed, aside from
his leading role during the 1860s and 1870s in the development of
stenographic Impressionist brushwork as an idiom to record the capri-
cious flux of visual sensations, Monet’s dedication to making works
in series and presenting these works as ensembles was his most
important, influential, and abiding legacy to modern art. Even today,
more than a century after Monet’s historic 1891 exhibition, countless
visual artists (not just painters) still make multiple versions of a single
subject (representational or abstract) and present these together in
solo exhibitions, as if the display of variations on a single theme in
itself was inherently a modern mode of art expression. In an acclaimed
exhibition in 1968 at the Pasadena Art Museum John Coplans made
the case that Monet’s works in series, coincidentally related to the
development beginning in the 1870s of mathematical theories of
serial order, provided the foundation for the ubiquitous series art of
such heralded post–World War II innovators as Josef Albers (1888–
1976), Ad Reinhardt (1913–1967), Andy Warhol (1928–1987), Donald
Judd (1928–1994), and Frank Stella (b. 1936), to name but a few.1

83
84 Just what sorts of related works constitute That began to change in 1972 with the publi- The publication beginning in 1979 of the 85 1891–1892
series art is open to debate. Generally speak- cation of a catalogue raisonné of Monet’s last four (of five) volumes of Daniel Wilden- Reporting on the prospect of Monet’s 1891

The Predications and Implications of Monet’s Series

ing, works in a series are made at the same Nymphéas paintings by Denis Rouart and stein’s model Monet biography and catalogue Wheatstacks exhibition in an often-quoted
time approximately, but there are cases (such Jean-Dominique Rey. In their book, which raisonné was a milestone with respect to the 9 April letter to his eldest son, Lucien,
as works by Albers) of variations ongoing includes listings of seventy paintings of water establishment of concrete information about Camille Pissarro (1831–1903) expressed dis-
over years, even decades. Moreover, the term lilies done during the first decade of the Monet’s one-artist exhibitions. Wildenstein’s may about his longtime friend: “I do not
“series” would seem to be limited to art moti- twentieth century, these authors starred the publications brought together reproductions know how it is that Monet is not annoyed
vated by some reason beyond the fulfillment specific works (now scattered by market trans- of every known work by Monet and deter- by limiting himself to this repetition of the
of market demand for a particular image. actions to museums and collections world- mined, as far as it is possible to do so, which same subject; such are the terrible effects
The reason might equally well be conceptual wide) that had been among the forty-eight specific works were included in every exhibi- of success.”4 As far as Pissarro could tell,
(as the representation of stages in a changing listed in the catalogue of Monet’s 6 May– tion that Monet himself helped to organize.3 aside from the accommodation of eager
sequence) and/or decorative (as in the multi- 5 June 1909 exhibition at the Galerie Durand- In retrospect, it seems unfortunate that buyers, Monet had no other motivation to
plication of a single image in order to partly Ruel (Les nymphéas: Séries de paysages d’eau).2 Wildenstein, given his access to all these paint the same picture over and over. To be
or completely surround a given space to As if it lacked any interest, however, they pro- reproductions, stopped short of providing fair, Pissarro was rather exaggerating the
create a mood). While the presentation of vided no account of how or why they deter- a special exhibition-by-exhibition section repetition involved, since the fifteen Wheat-
the related works as an exhibition ensemble mined which works to star. This book was an for his catalogue with the contents of each stacks that Monet included in his 1891 exhi-
seems integral to the fulfillment of series art, inspiration to me as a young scholar in Paris individual show during the artist’s lifetime bition were based on six or seven distinct
Monet, his predecessors, and his successors in the late 1970s, when I was welcomed by reunited photographically to provide a vivid compositions (figs. 1–13). This jealous out-
have seldom required that works in a particu- Charles Durand-Ruel and his staff to consult composite “picture” of what constituted burst notwithstanding, by the end of the
lar series remain together. the archives and library of the Galerie Durand- these remarkable art events. Such an unprec- same year Pissarro was himself at work
The enormous significance of Monet’s late Ruel. Nearly every day I invented some new edented catalogue feature would have done on his own series of paintings of the land-
works in series notwithstanding, for a variety way to ask them for any scrap of information some justice to Monet’s revolutionary innova- scape observed from an upstairs window
of reasons there is surprisingly little available about the specific appearance of Monet’s tions as a series artist. Unfortunately, the enor- of his home at Eragny, not far upstream on
information about them. The disinclination famous series exhibitions. But no installation mous difficulties and costs of arranging for the River Epte from where Monet lived at
to study series art seemingly has to do with photographs had ever been taken to show the loans or even reproduction rights continues Giverny. “I was afraid that repetition of the
the old-fashioned notion that great art tran- order in which works were installed or how to thwart exhibition and publication attempts same motif would be tiring,” he wrote to
scends monetary issues, including commer- they were framed. No one had ever made, or to study the history of series art in concrete Lucien on 26 December. “But the effects
cial art displays. State-sponsored museum bothered to keep, any installation diagrams. terms. Seldom if ever illustrated in surveys are so varied that everything is completely
acquisitions of unique works in conjunction Although M. Durand-Ruel could show me or even in monographs, the ensembles com- transformed, and then the compositions and
with large state-sponsored group exhibitions some of the wine-red fabric that had served prising the complex events in the evolution angles are so different.”5 Pissarro’s quick
still provided the core structure for the devel- as the gallery’s standard wall covering, the of series art continue to be disregarded. What conversion to painting variations hardly
opment of contemporary art in the 1850s archives lacked an architectural ground plan is needed to grasp the foundational issues comes as a surprise considering how series
and 1860s. But already during these same of the exhibition space, with which it might of modern series art in the second half of fever swept through the French art world
years an international commercial gallery have been possible to speculate generally the nineteenth century is a fully illustrated of the 1890s. What comes as a big surprise,
network very quickly began to provide artists as to how paintings on display had been reconstruction (with “blanks” to indicate any however, is how Pissarro at first disregarded
with unprecedented exhibition opportuni- grouped. Aside from coded gallery trans- apparent gaps), of whatever can be salvaged the many ways in which Monet’s Wheatstacks
ties and with access to ever more numerous action records (invaluable as they are), all about the contents of private sector exhibi- exhibition related to a steady flood of art
clients. Monet’s series exhibitions simply that was available to reconstruct the exhibi- tions. An introductory compilation (in out- based on variations, going back to their stu-
would not have been possible without the tions were brief catalogues (with checklists line more than in depth) of some of the key dent days in the late 1850s.6
commercialization of contemporary art. and introductory essays) and, of course, events connected with Monet’s series, this Series art was greatly at issue in the few
While individual paintings representative widespread, if generally superficial, press present essay should ideally include hun- months leading up to and following Monet’s
of Monet’s various series groups have always coverage. It is worth considering how the dreds of illustrations. While I understand the Wheatstacks exhibition in May 1891. In March
enjoyed acclaim, including museum status, exclusively literary record concerning Monet’s need to do without them from financial and the Galerie Durand-Ruel was at the disposal
in 1968 at the time of the Pasadena Serial series exhibitions has resulted in a history administrative necessity, their absence is a of Monet’s series-minded mentor, Eugène
Imagery exhibition, no scholar had yet both- of Impressionism far more concerned with considerable shortcoming to be kept in mind. Boudin (1824–1898), who presented thirty-
ered to determine the specific contents of any what was written about publicly displayed four paintings (many with similar motifs),
of Monet’s series exhibitions in its entirety. art than with what specifically was on view. as well as an astonishing two hundred and
 4, 9

5, 10

6, 11

7, 12

8, 13

3
Page 86: Page 87: Fig. 9. Stack of Wheat Opposite:
Figs. 1–13. Claude Monet, Fig. 4. Grainstack (Snow (Snow Effect, Overcast Fig. 14. Eugène Boudin,
Meules (Wheatstacks), Effect), 1891. 65.4 × Day), 1890–91. 66 × Sky, ca. 1854–60. Pastel
1890–91. Oil on canvas. 92.4 cm. Museum of 93 cm. The Art Institute on beige paper, 21.5 ×
Fine Arts, Boston, Gift of Chicago, Mr. and 28.6 cm. Paris, Musée
Fig. 1. Stacks of Wheat of Miss Aimée and Mrs. Martin A. Ryerson d’Orsay, donation Claude
(Sunset, Snow Effect), Miss Rosamond Lamb Collection (1933.1155) Roger-Marx (RF 36795)
1890–91. 65.3 × in memory of Mr. and
100.4 cm. The Art Mrs. Horatio Appleton Fig. 10. Stack of Wheat, Fig. 15. Eugène Boudin,
Institute of Chicago, Lamb (1970.253) 1890–91. 65.6 × 92 cm. Cloudy Sky, ca. 1854–60.
Potter Palmer Collec- The Art Institute of Pastel on gray paper,
tion (1922.431). Fig. 5. Stack of Wheat Chicago, Restricted gift 21.5 × 29.6 cm. Paris,
(Thaw, Sunset), 1890/91. of the Searle Family Musée du Louvre
Fig. 2. Grainstack 64.9 × 92.3 cm. The Art Trust, Major Acquisitions (RF 16795)
(Sunset), 1891. 73.3 × Institute of Chicago, Gift Centennial Endowment;
92.7 cm. Museum of of Mr. and Mrs. Daniel C. through prior acquisi- Fig. 16. Eugène Boudin,
Fine Arts, Boston, Juliana Searle (1983.166) tions of the Mr. and Sky at Sunset, ca. 1854–
Cheney Edwards Collec- Mrs. Martin A. Ryerson 60. Pastel on beige
14
tion, 1925 (25.112) Fig. 6. Haystacks at and Potter Palmer col- paper, 21.5 × 29.1 cm.
Sunset, Frosty Weather, lections; through prior Paris, Musée du Louvre,
Fig. 3. Grainstack in 1891. 65 × 92 cm. Private bequest of Jerome donation Camondo
Winter, Misty Weather, collection Friedman (1983.29) (RF 36795)
1891. 65 × 92 cm.
Private collection, Fig. 7. Haystacks (Effect Fig. 11. Wheatstacks,
courtesy of Ivor Braka of Snow and Sun), 1891. Snow Effect, Morning,
65.4 × 92.1 cm. New 1891. 65 × 100 cm.
York, The Metropolitan Los Angeles, The J. Paul
Museum of Art, H. O. Getty Museum (95.PA.63)
Havemeyer Collection,
Bequest of Mrs. H. O. Fig. 12. Haystacks, Snow
Havemeyer, 1929 Effect, 1891. 65 × 92 cm.
(1929.100.109) Edinburgh, National
Gallery of Scotland
Fig. 8. Grainstacks, (NG 2283)
Snow Effect, 1891.
60 × 100 cm. Shelburne, Fig. 13. Grainstacks, Sun
Vermont, Shelburne in the Mist, 1891. 60 ×
Museum, Gift of Electra 100.3 cm. Minneapolis
Havemeyer Webb Fund, Institute of Arts, Gift of
15
Inc., 1972 (27.1.2-106) Ruth and Bruce Dayton,
The Putnam Dana McMil-
lan Fund, The John R. Van
Derlip Fund, The William
Hood Dunwoody Fund,
The Ethel Morrison Van
Derlip Fund, Alfred and
Ingrid Lenz Harrison, and
Mary Joann and James R.
Jundt (93.20)

16
90 sixteen pastels, watercolors, and drawings. century print artists as Edgar Degas (1834– 1849) great suite of broadsheet horizontal- 91 order to add Ratapoil, the controversial 1851
Given the dearth of studies devoted to 1917), Cassatt, and Pissarro often showed format woodblock prints, Thirty-six Views plaster sculpture by the late Honoré Daumier

The Predications and Implications of Monet’s Series

Boudin’s works on paper, it is all but impos- multiple versions of the same image together, of Mount Fuji, published beginning around (1808–1879), to the state’s modern art col-
sible to reconstruct the contents of the March sometimes in a single frame. For example, 1831.8 Monet would have been aware of lections at the Musée du Luxembourg, on
1891 exhibition, which likely included works one of the items by Pissarro listed in the Hokusai’s famous cycle of landscape prints 16 February the Ministry of Fine Arts ordered
similar to the cloud studies that first got catalogue to the 1880 Impressionist group (promptly extended from thirty-six to forty- an example in bronze. Although the state had
Monet thinking about series thirty-two years exhibition was “One frame: Four states of a six views) already in the 1860s, and he would never issued regulatory guidelines to control
before (figs. 14–16). At the Salon des Indépen- landscape to be published in [a never-realized eventually acquire nine of the set for his own the number of versions made of any sculp-
dants, which opened in Paris on 20 March print periodical to be called] Le jour et la nuit.” collection. Keeping in mind his decision to ture, it seemingly arranged for the casting
1891, several artists showed groups of similar Keeping in mind the longstanding apprecia- exhibit Wheatstacks paintings in series in of Ratapoil to be limited to as few as eight
works nearly as interrelated to one another tion among print connoisseurs for different 1891, it is worth noting that Hokusai’s works examples, each numbered in the bronze.12
in composition as the various Wheatstacks states and impressions, in 1891 Pissarro ought were featured in the large survey of Japanese The Musée du Luxembourg obtained cast
in Monet’s exhibition. For example, Georges to have understood Monet’s Wheatstacks exhi- prints presented in Paris in April 1890 at the number “4” in December 1891. While the
Seurat (1859–1891) presented four closely bition as a way, without resorting to mechani- École des Beaux-Arts.9 It was the display of history of sculpture castings in the nine-
related paintings showing the port of Grave- cal processes, to provide the same sorts of prints by Nishikawa Sukenobu (1671–1751) teenth century is far from satisfactory, to
lines near the Belgian border, and Henri de exquisite variations, challenging observers to and Kitagawa Utamaro (1753–1806) at this the best of my knowledge the 1891 casting
Toulouse-Lautrec (1864–1901) exhibited four appreciate slight differences between two or same exhibition that prompted Cassatt to of Ratapoil is among the earliest numbered
separate portraits of male friends in evening more otherwise similar images. undertake her set of ten etchings to be editions on record.13 With respect to prints,
dress. To be sure, lacking installation photo- Like the different impressions of any one printed in unique color variations. sculptures, or paintings, Monet and his
graphs of this large group exhibition, there of Cassatt’s etchings contemplated together Printmakers’ ambitions aside, duplicate associates, painters no less than dealers,
Fig. 17. Jacques-Ernest
is no way to know whether or not these or in sequence, the fifteen works in the May versions and variations had controversial Bulloz, silver gelatin were all well aware by 1891 that similar vir-
works were displayed in tandem. Neverthe- 1891 Wheatstacks exhibition constitute a “per- importance to nineteenth-century sculptors, proof, undated, of tuoso objects released in multiple but strictly
Auguste Rodin’s plaster
less the presentation of such similar works formance” of variations on a set theme, anal- many of whom authorized limitless repro- limited numbers had enormous appeal in
of Three Shades, 26.5 ×
at the same venue is a good indication of ogous in concept to the concert variations ductions of their most popular works. In an 33.1 cm. Paris, Musée the rapidly developing international contem-
how widespread series art was by early 1891. popularized earlier in the century by Nicolo ingenious commentary on the proliferation Rodin (PH 2410) porary art market.14
In early April 1891, when Pissarro wrote his Paganini, Franz Liszt, or Johannes Brahms. of mass-produced sculptures, Auguste Rodin
cranky letter about Monet’s upcoming solo Hardly as abstract as modern music, how- (1840–1917) realized that he could compose
exhibition, he himself showed what he ever, Monet’s variations record specific times complex figure groups by combining two or
referred to as “series” of pastels, watercolors, of day and/or seasons of the year, and so as a more casts of the same sculpture, as in the
and etchings at the Galerie Durand-Ruel as group imply narrative sequence, documenta- case of his so-called Three Shades (fig. 17),
part of a small display of his works together tion of the transformative powers of coming conceived as the pinnacle element for The
with those of his old friend Mary Cassatt and going light. Since medieval times paint- Gates of Hell.10 Indeed, this unorthodox work,
(1844–1926), herself a longtime advocate of ers often created bookish cycles of works composed of three identical figures, was
making closely related works and showing related in narrative sequence, sometimes as among the thirty-six sculptures by Rodin
them in tandem.7 It was at this April 1891 monumental decorative ensembles, the parts included in a summer 1889 two-artist exhibi-
exhibition that Cassatt first showed her now subservient to the whole. During the nine- tion with one hundred and forty-five paint-
famous suite of ten complex color etchings of teenth century, suites of related images were ings by Monet at the Galerie Georges Petit in
everyday female activities. Cassatt displayed widely available as albums of prints devoted Paris. As if in dialogue with his friend Rodin,
only one example of each of the ten etchings to a single theme or as book illustrations, Monet made romantic paintings during the
in the set at the Galerie Durand-Ruel exhibi- most often focused on the activities of fig- 1880s featuring more and more “sculpted”
tion, but with considerable effort, she had ures. Considering his landscape bias, Monet shapes—for example, isolated rocks, trees,
printed some two-dozen examples of every may have had little special interest in book or wheatstacks—and he included two, three,
single image in the suite, no two colored illustration, but like Cassatt he passionately four, even six versions of some of these 1880s
alike. Presumably admirers could ask the gal- admired Japanese master woodblock prints. motifs in this in-depth exhibition.11 A rather
lery staff to show them variant impressions. As Edmond de Goncourt pointed out in remarkable 1891 event in the history of mod-
Delighted with different states or impres- 1896, all of the Impressionists were deeply ern French sculpture in editions must have
sions of a single image, such late nineteenth- indebted to Katsushika Hokusai’s (1760– been of considerable interest for Rodin. In
92 As interesting as they may be, such paral- Figs. 18–20. John Leslie on speculation or out of some unprece- 93 imagine that Breck would undertake this
lel series events taking place in 1891 provide Breck, Studies of an dented conviction that works in series are project without first obtaining Monet’s bless-

The Predications and Implications of Monet’s Series

Autumn Day, 1891.
little indication of what Monet hoped to Oil on canvas, each
best kept together, such patronage immedi- ing. Could it be that Monet encouraged
achieve by creating works in series. Presum- 32.7 × 40.8 cm. Chicago, ately bolstered Monet and other artists in Breck’s experimental, albeit simplistic,
ably his guiding motivations grew out of Terra Foundation for the enterprise of making interrelated works approach to the series idea? After all, Monet
American Art
his own frustrations and ambitions during for ensemble display. himself would subsequently show a growing
more than thirty years of painting landscapes While Monet was providing works for interest in the idea that a series of similar
directly from nature. But whatever his multi- the Palmers in July 1891, the brilliant young paintings could constitute décor. In 1897 he
faceted reasoning, Monet was evidently American painter John Leslie Breck (1860– mentioned that he hoped to paint a group of
somewhat taken by surprise by a conceptual 1899) returned to Giverny after a hiatus of Water Lilies paintings to be displayed around
question that arose when he exhibited fifteen nearly two years, engaged now to an Ameri- a dining room.17 But in the autumn of 1891
of his Wheatstacks together in the same can woman. Although his fiancée was not something went seriously wrong with respect
room: should the group of related works be with him, Breck’s mother, brother, and sister- to any series dialogue between Monet and
kept together? During a chance encounter in-law joined him there. Among the found- Breck. After the departure of Breck’s mother
at Durand-Ruel’s with the Dutch essayist ing members of the international art colony and brother, in November 1891 Monet con-
Willem Byvanck, Monet explained, “[the in Giverny, Breck was perhaps closer to fronted Breck about his unacceptable treat-
individual paintings] acquire their full value Monet and his family than any other young ment of the Hoschedé daughters and asked
only by comparison [with the others] and in American. He stayed in the village nearly him to leave the village.18 Regardless of
the succession of the full series.”15 Probably year-round from 1887 through the autumn whether Monet took displeasure with Breck
lacking much expectation that individual of 1889, when his mother (possibly fearful as Lothario or as plagiarist, the American
collectors might buy multiple Wheatstacks, about his affections for the daughters of left with his Studies of an Autumn Day,
Monet had already begun to sell individual Monet’s partner, Alice Hoschedé) seems and in 1893 he presented these paintings
canvases by 1889. But the early ownership to have obliged him to return with her to unframed as a dado at the Chase Gallery
history of these pictures helps explain how Boston. In the autumn of 1891, while Monet in Boston. This possibly was the first series
very quickly the market for contemporary was working from his studio boat on his exhibition in the United States. As far as
art changed in reaction to series works. Poplars series, Breck remarkably enough, is known, none was sold.
Although little is known about Monet’s trans- undertook his own Wheatstacks series, fifteen Meanwhile in Paris at the end of 1891 the
actions with James F. Sutton, the American small paintings (twelve of which are known Ministry of Fine Arts began to consider the
dealer owned two of the earliest Wheatstacks. to survive) with identical compositions, acquisition of a painting by Monet’s best
It seems likely that Sutton bought them in which he titled collectively Studies of an friend, Pierre-Auguste Renoir (1841–1919),
1889 and thus may deserve the credit for pio- Autumn Day (figs. 18–20). Working in the culminating in the purchase on 2 May 1892
neering a trend that snowballed in the months field next door to Monet’s house, where of Young Girls at the Piano. With his models
ahead. Following Sutton’s lead, American the older artist had already painted his cele- posed indoors and thus immune to the sort
collectors Alfred Atmore Pope and Harrison brated Wheatstacks from 1888 through 1891, of shifting light conditions that transformed
Whitmore each obtained first one, then a Breck for his part seemingly traced the out- landscapes while Monet was at work, Renoir
second, Wheatstacks painting, as if one all lines of the stacks and the Giverny hills in had no inherent motivation to develop this
by itself was insufficient to convey the series the background from one canvas to the next. particular subject in five or six slightly differ-
artist’s overriding idea. The Chicago hotel Next Breck differentiated each painting in ent full-size versions, but nevertheless he
magnates Berthe and Potter Palmer did not terms of colors and shadows in order to chart did just that. A 4 April letter from the poet
see the May 1891 Wheatstacks exhibition in the course of a single day hour by hour. In Stéphane Mallarmé to Roger Marx—his
Paris, yet beginning in July they quickly the event, it took Breck three days to com- “accomplice” (in lobbying for this particular
bought one after another of these paintings, plete his paintings, which he subsequently state purchase)—provides the first indica-
and by the summer of 1893 they owned eight arranged high on his studio wall, one tion that Renoir was duplicating his picture.
or nine of them. Sadly, no photographs of work directly adjacent to the next, as if the Mallarmé explained to Marx that the director
the interior of their Chicago mansion show ensemble had something like the decorative of fine arts, Henry Roujon, had delayed his
whether the Palmers installed them as an integrity of a frieze.16 Considering the risks visit to Renoir’s studio for health reasons and
ensemble. Whether they bought the paintings of ostracism in the art colony, it is hard to that the painter had taken advantage of the
94 extra time “to make the same painting just may have been Arsène Alexandre, who had in painting: the relationships between forms 95 for example: 8 October, noon, northwest wind. If you
next [to the first version], and you will be at provided a preface to the catalogue for the and colors, which vary infinitely within a have sometimes had the leisure to get to know

The Predications and Implications of Monet’s Series

a loss to choose [between them].”19 Although May 1892 Durand-Ruel Renoir exhibition. single motif, and which variations one grasps such meteorological beauties, your memory would
he made no reference to the fact, it should Many years later, Alexandre contended that better when one no longer needs to concen- allow you to verify the precision of M. Boudin’s
be presumed that Mallarmé was aware that Renoir made so many different versions trate on the motif.”22 observations. Place your hand over the inscription
Renoir had already sold a (third) version of simply to achieve one that might be worthy and you would be able to guess the season, the
the same subject to his dealer, Durand-Ruel, of purchase by the state. If so, he had no 1859 time of day and the wind condition. I am not
on 2 April.20 It is unknown whether Renoir scruples about selling the other versions What could be understood as the first series exaggerating. I saw. In the end all these clouds
informed Roujon about this recent transac- immediately, as if, thanks to Monet’s Wheat- incident in the history of modern French art with fantastic luminous forms, these chaotic
tion when the director of fine arts finally stacks exhibition, the market now authorized came about by accident, when during a visit shadows, these green-and-pink expanses, sus-
came to his studio, nor whether Roujon saw any artist to produce multiple series versions to Honfleur in the spring of 1859 Gustave pended and superimposed upon each other, these
more than a single version of the subject at of any single subject. Courbet (1819–1877) met Boudin, who kept gaping furnaces, these firmaments of black or
that time. Whether to promote the state’s Oddly enough, Renoir inscribed one of the a studio there. At the time Courbet’s old purple satin, crumpled, rolled up, or torn to
new acquisition or Renoir and his dealer, versions of Young Girls at the Piano as a gift friend Charles Baudelaire was staying with shreds, these mournful horizons streaming with
Roujon gave permission to include the Musée to his old friend, the painter Gustave Caille- his mother in Honfleur while composing an molten metal, all these depths, all these splendors,
du Luxembourg’s latest acquisition in the botte (1848–1894). Perhaps Renoir wished to account of the Salon of 1859 (on view in Paris surged through my brain like a heady drink or
context of a large exhibition of Renoir’s paint- express gratitude for the important loans that at the time) to be published in installments the eloquence of opium. Curiously enough, it
ings upcoming at Durand-Ruel’s in May. It Caillebotte provided from his personal collec- in the Revue française. Weary of writing never once occurred to me in front of one of these
was presented on an easel in a separate room tion to his important May 1892 Durand-Ruel reviews of the enormous Salon exhibitions liquid, aerial forms of magic to complain about
adjacent to the rest of the display. Apparently exhibition. Perhaps Renoir wished to acknowl- of contemporary art, as he had since 1845, the absence of man.23
the dealer and Renoir chose not to display edge how much he admired Caillebotte’s own Baudelaire wanted in 1859 to describe the
any other version rather than risk contro- more dour treatment of the same theme of culture spectacle as if he had never bothered Some of this commentary might equally well
versy with respect to the state’s new pur- two woman at a piano, painted already in 1881 to go and see it. So rather than report about apply to the sky and sea photographs of Gus-
chase. It is not clear what to make of the and subsequently a centerpiece in the collec- Boudin’s painting on display at the Salon tave Le Gray (1820–1882) celebrated in Paris
dealer’s purchase of another version of the tion of their mutual friend, Monet. However, in Paris, Baudelaire decided to praise this already by 1857 and featured in the third Salon
same picture in June 1892. Had he already since Renoir was the executor of Caillebotte’s emerging artist on the basis of works in the of the Société française de photographie held
sold the version purchased in April to a for- estate and thus aware of his longstanding Honfleur studio—little quick sketches that adjacent to the Salon of 1859 for conventional
eign buyer? Or, the state sale finalized, had determination to give his extensive collec- would be out of place at any large public contemporary art.24 Is it possible that Baude-
Renoir completed a new version and offered tion of Impressionist art to the Musée du exhibition. Visiting Paris specifically to see laire (who vigorously disclaimed photography
it to the dealer? Luxembourg, should it not be asked whether the Salon of 1859, the nineteen-year-old as a mere commercial enterprise) celebrated
As if to respond to concerns about the Caillebotte and Renoir in 1892 shared an Claude Monet must have been amazed to Boudin’s cloud studies as a foil to Le Gray’s
state’s acquisition of a non-unique work, an ambition to see two versions of a single work read about his mentor in the July install- efforts? Whatever the case may be, never
anonymous insider published information on display together at a French museum? ment of Baudelaire’s review: before or afterward did any critic respond
about the atypically numerous versions of Curiously, after Caillebotte’s death in 1894, so passionately to any of Boudin’s works in
Young Girls at the Piano in a newspaper arti- Renoir seemingly opted to omit Young Girls During a recent visit with Boudin (who, be it said any medium. Courbet, Monet, and Boudin’s
cle on 9 August under the subheading “La at the Piano from the list of controversial in passing, exhibited a very good and sensible other friends familiar with his sky studies
conscience du peintre” (The painter’s integ- works offered to the state. Whether or not painting, le pardon de Sainte Anne Palud ) I saw must have assumed that he would quickly
rity): “But we can testify that this canvas Renoir ever saw fit to exhibit similar works several hundred studies improvised in pastels realize a group of exhibition paintings to
was preceded by five or six [others], begun together à la Monet, he surely subscribed to while facing the sea and the sky. . . . [Boudin] has fulfill the expectations of the influential
over entirely one after another, and differing thinking about art in series. According to his no pretension to consider these notes as pictures. Baudelaire. But Boudin never chose to do so,
in nuances from one another. And we are son Jean Renoir, “This question of ‘subject,’ Later he will certainly astound us with realized and so series painting got off to something
not counting the numerous studies for each as we know, concerned him not at all. He paintings of the prodigious magic of air and water. of a false start. Be that as it may, the 1859
separate detail. Such is the extreme conscien- told me one day that he regretted not having So quickly and faithfully sketched from what is episode prefigured by some thirty years what
tiousness of M. Renoir. He knows and prac- painted the same ­picture—what he wanted most transient, what is most impossible to grasp would become Monet’s ultimate ambitions as
tices that profound and indisputable art to say was the same subject—throughout his in terms of form or color, from waves and clouds, a painter: the loving accumulation of images
axiom that time does not respect what is entire life. That way, he could have devoted these studies are always inscribed marginally with of a constantly changing landscape spectacle
done too quickly.”21 The author of the article himself entirely to what constitutes creation the date, the hour, and the wind condition, thusly, observed with meteorological exactitude and
96 Fig. 21. André-Adolphe- poetic wonder. And Monet’s lifelong series (1820–1910), known as Nadar, made a com- 97 auction sale in February at the Hôtel Drouot
Eugène Disdéri, The Legs art rival, Edgar Degas, would arrange to posite photograph showing himself in the of the works in Delacroix’s estate. Baude-

The Predications and Implications of Monet’s Series

of the Opéra, ca. 1864.
Albumen print carte
buy not one, but as many as six cloud pas- round, so to speak, the twelve different expo- laire’s passionate familiarity with the art of
de visite, 8.8 × 5.1 cm. tels by Boudin at the posthumous sale of sures on the single print, each registering Delacroix notwithstanding, the poet-critic
Rochester, George works from the artist’s studio in 1899.25 his appearance from a different angle as he was evidently unaware that the leading
Eastman House, Gift of
Strictly by coincidence, it was also in 1859 rotated his pose in 30-degree increments Romantic artist had himself occasionally
Eastman Kodak Com-
pany, ex. coll. Gabriel that the American painter Martin Johnson (fig. 22). captured sky subjects with pastels. Other-
Cromer Heade (1819–1904) dated the first of more The earliest premonitions of Monet’s series wise in 1859 Baudelaire could not have been
than fifty paintings in which he would fea- mindset date to 1864, when he began to paint so surprised by the hundreds of sky pastels
Fig. 22. Félix Tournachon
(Nadar), Twelve Self- ture haystacks in New England marshes duplicate versions of some works, presumably to be seen in Boudin’s Honfleur studio. But
Portraits from Different and meadows. But Heade, who invented in accord with an entry in one of Boudin’s Baudelaire would have finally seen these
Angles: Study for a new variations on the theme as late as notebooks from around the same time: “Res- works at the preview to the Delacroix auction,
Photo-Sculpture,
from Petit folio vol. 1,
the mid-1880s, is not known ever to have olution: Do not waste a minute. As much for as would Boudin, Degas, Manet, Monet,
Eo 15b. Paris, Biblio- exhibited his paintings of haystacks in my own instruction as for a likely profit, [I and everyone else in Paris with an interest
thèque nationale de ensemble fashion. resolve to] undertake copies which I will make in contemporary art. Seventeen studies of
France, Département
Both in the United States and France in to see to it that I keep a duplicate for myself, skies were among the pastels in lots 608–
des Estampes et de
la photographie 1859 the most ubiquitous ensembles of simi- in order to put it in my future salon.”27 Such 613. Coming as a revelation in series mode,
lar images were those produced by profes- duplicate versions aside, in 1864 Monet Delacroix’s pastels provided considerable
sional photographers to meet the swelling was hardly yet as series-minded as Courbet, momentum to a revival of chalk-based art
demand for cartes de visite. Thanks to a pro- who tended to produce groups of distinct during the remainder of the century.
cess patented in Paris in November 1854 by works based on similar themes, like hunting,
André-Adolphe-Eugène Disdéri (1819–1889), even though he never exhibited such works 1865–1867
a single collodion plate could be exposed together as ensembles during the 1850s. In August 1865 Courbet took what he
section by section to capture the same sitter With market opportunities in mind, however, intended as a brief excursion to the seashore
multiple times (most often six or eight). Courbet wrote to his dealer, Jules Luquet, at Trouville and ended up spending three
While the vast majority of these gridded in the spring or summer of 1864: “I went to months there. He was joined in October by
multi-image prints were cut up into their the source of the Loue recently and did four the American artist James Whistler (1834–
component units to serve as fashionable landscapes 1.4 meters long, more or less like 1903) and his partner, Jo Heffernan. Miss
illustrated calling cards, several photogra- those you have.”28 Of course, Courbet’s most Heffernan served as Courbet’s model for a
phers realized the appeal of composite successful contemporaries took advantage soulful painting of a woman caressing her
sheets showing slightly differing poses of wide market interest in a single work hair while looking at a hand mirror, today
of a single sitter. by creating replica versions. For example, known in four nearly identical versions.29
Jean-Léon Gérôme (1824–1904), after sell- Whether or not Courbet painted all four
1864 ing his much-acclaimed Duel after the Mas- versions in quick succession, which seems
Disdéri took advantage of his own process to querade from the Salon of 1857 to the dealer unlikely, there is no record that he ever
create a grid image of small photographs of Arthur Stevens, made two replicas in 1859 exhibited more than a single version of this
the legs of dancers at the Opéra (fig. 21), and for the international market, one smaller “portrait.” But the far more numerous ver-
in order to take advantage of the sales poten- than the original, one larger (see above, sions of the Trouville seashore that Courbet
tial of this pioneering series image, in 1864 pp. 44–45, figs. 13–16). What significantly painted in oils during the same months (as
he submitted an example to the dépot legal in distinguishes Courbet’s strategy with respect if determined to realize the full potential of
conformity with French reproduction laws.26 to his Source of the Loue variations is the fact the quickly drawn sky pastels of Delacroix
Such early composite images in series pre- that he painted these u ­ niform-format works and Boudin) would indeed be presented
figure in an astonishing way drawings made at the same time on speculation, without together in Paris and thus constitute noth-
a decade later by Degas showing multiple being commissioned. Such entrepreneur- ing less momentous than the birth of series
close-up views of a single figure’s head or ship would be essential to series art. painting for exhibition. It goes without say-
feet. It was probably also in 1864 that Baude- One final 1864 event to mention in con- ing that presenting a group of nearly identi-
laire’s remarkable friend Félix Tournachon nection with the early history of series is the cal works in series could never be done at
Fig. 23. Gustave Courbet, Fig. 24. Gustave Courbet, Fig. 25. Gustave Courbet,
Seacoast (Marine), 1865. Low Tide at Trouville, Marine, 1866. Oil on
Oil on canvas, 45.8 × 1865. Oil on canvas, canvas, 50.2 × 61 cm.
53.5 cm. Cologne, Wallraf 59.6 × 72.6 cm. Walker Pasadena, The Norton
Richartz Museum (WRM Art Gallery, National Simon Foundation
2905) Museums Liverpool (F.1970.12.P)
(acc. 6111)
100 the state-organized Salon, where individual Bruyas painting when he borrowed it to increasing incidents of early serial art in the 101 was named with respect to ten other paint-
artists were restricted by limited wall space. include in his 1867 retrospective exhibition late 1860s. Courbet wrote to a Paris dealer ings, grouped together here as “various

The Predications and Implications of Monet’s Series

But series display was possible in the emerg- in Paris?) Courbet made no reference to named Bardenet in early 1867 about a new seascapes.” Presumably these ten were
ing theater of commercial gallery exhibitions, the figure in his 1854 seascape when he venture: “I have a series of snow landscapes among the forty or so 1865 Trouville paint-
and the very possibility stimulated artists mentioned that very painting in a January that will be similar to the seascapes.”34 As of ings, grouped together now in the catalogue
after Courbet to orchestrate related works 1866 letter to Bruyas: “Last summer I went yet there has been no attempt to determine since there was no easy way to distinguish
in new modes of display. to Trouville for three months. . . . I did exactly which works Courbet referred to as between them by title as variations on a
Taken separately, Courbet’s relatively small thirty-eight paintings in that place, including an ongoing snow series, but roughly a dozen single composition.
Trouville paintings (figs. 23–25), roughly twenty-five seascapes similar to yours and . . . similar compositions datable to 1866 or 1867 “Nothing, nothing, and nothing in this
ten of them lacking anything at all vertical, twenty-five autumn skies, one more extra- are known, all indicative of Courbet’s admira- Courbet exhibition,” noted Edmond and
introduced a radical simplicity into modern ordinary and free than the next.”31 Unfor- tion for Japanese woodblock print motifs. Jules de Goncourt in their diary on 18 Sep-
French art, representing the vast “empty” tunately, somewhat fewer than twenty of Especially as concerns the wildlife portrayed, tember 1867. “At best, two ocean skies.”36 Yet
space extending across sea and sky as a matrix the works mentioned here by Courbet are however, these paintings are rather more Courbet’s 1865 beach paintings would seem-
for the most far-reaching vision, elemental accounted for today. Whatever the case may different one from the other than his sea- ingly have served as ideal examples of the
yet cosmic. The caricaturist Gilbert Randon be, by April 1866 Courbet had exhibited a scapes, and as far as is known Courbet never imaginary works described in Manette Salo-
(1814–1884) summed it up enthusiastically in group of these Trouville seascapes at Luquet’s showed the snowscapes together.35 Presum- mon, the Goncourts’ novel (which appeared
1867: “Just as God extracted the sky and the gallery at 79, rue de Richelieu in Paris. The ably the painter had not made sufficient pro- in installments beginning in January 1867)
earth from the nothingness, so M. Courbet only record of this unprecedented exhibition, gress on this new series to include examples about modern landscape painters at work at
extracts his seascapes from nothing, or almost for which there was no catalogue, is con- at the extensive retrospective exhibition of his Normandy sites (including Trouville) captur-
nothing: three tones on his palette, three tained in a letter from Courbet to his closest works that he presented in Paris beginning ing a series of successive changing effects
strokes of his brush, as he knows how to childhood friend, Urbain Cuénot, with whom at the end of May 1867. of light.37
apply them, and, behold, an infinite sky and he had shared the excitement of his first It is most unfortunate that Courbet did
sea. Fantastic! Fantastic! Fantastic!”30 Quite visit ever to the sea twenty-five years earlier: not hire a photographer to take installation 1868–1872
likely unaware of Courbet’s precedent, such “Luquet’s exhibition was very beneficial. I photographs of this historic 1867 exhibition. Early in 1868 yet another mostly undocu-
series-minded artists as Mark Rothko (1903– had twenty-five paintings, old and new, includ- Consequently, it is not known whether he mented event can be presumed to have greatly
1970) and Brice Marden (b. 1938) would ing my Trouville seascapes. Those seascapes displayed similar works together in groups. encouraged the series attitude: the 25 March
continue a century later to address the done in two hours sold for twelve or fifteen He did divide his works into categories in auction sale organized at the Hôtel Drouot by
abstract implications of these heroically hundred francs apiece. In certain painters’ the catalogue. For example, he included seven Boudin, which included around a hundred
“empty” 1865 paintings of balanced rectan- circles they call me a charlatan, a hoaxer, a pictures (five can be identified) under the of his pastels and watercolors. The near-
gular zones. As if commemorating a truly humbug. . . .”32 While he made no reference catalogue heading “snow landscapes.” But impossible task of determining what works
signal event, Whistler immediately painted to the recent exhibition as such, the well- these works differ greatly from one another may have constituted this sale has never
a “portrait” of Courbet observed from behind, informed critic Théophile Thoré described and hardly constitute the series mentioned been attempted to my knowledge; yet it
standing on the beach to behold the spec- Courbet’s 1865 Trouville sea paintings in in the letter to Bardenet. Courbet’s marine would seem likely that a group of pastels
tacle that so obsessed him as a series painter. his review of the Salon of 1866: “And every paintings were listed together in the same like those praised by Baudelaire in 1859
Curiously, Whistler’s painting (which he morning, the [light] effects of the vast waters catalogue under the heading “sea landscapes” was included, as well as other small-format
repeated in a second version) amounts to a and the vast sky always changing, every (paysages de mer ), a neologism that Monet works with Boudin’s specialty beach sub-
reprise of a unique 1854 seascape by Courbet morning [Courbet] did a study on the beach would evidently remember more than forty jects.38 Judging from the dates (“68,” “1868”)
that the American artist had never seen of what he saw, what he called ‘sea land- years later, when he used the term “water inscribed on three landscape pastels by
(since it had always belonged to the Mont- scapes.’ He brought back forty paintings of landscapes”( paysages d’eau) as a subtitle for Monet, Boudin’s sale may have immediately
pellier collector Alfred Bruyas). Courbet’s an extraordinary perception [‘impression’] the forty-eight Water Lilies he exhibited as a prompted his protégé to make small, poten-
1854 painting, borrowed from its owner for and [the] rarest quality.”33 It is simply not group in 1909. Among the “sea landscapes” tially saleable works. Executed in closely
his large 1867 retrospective in Paris, includes known how many of the paintings in the in Courbet’s 1867 retrospective were thirteen interrelated sequences of from three to
a tiny figure of the artist making an apostro- Luquet exhibition sold, much less whether individual works showing boats and rocks six landscape images, Monet’s pastels (the
phe to the sea. Did Whistler undertake his any single buyer thought to buy two or and storms, to judge from the listed titles. majority not inscribed with dates) constitute
so-similar painting in 1865 at the request more similar compositions. Six of these thirteen works were borrowed his earliest significant body of art in series.
of his French friend? (Or, did Courbet him- Perhaps motivated by the financial suc- from owners identified by name. But, as if Yet these fragile works, seldom exhibited
self add a Whistleresque little figure to the cess of the Luquet exhibition, there were they all still belonged to Courbet, no owner or even reproduced, remain unstudied in
102 relationship to his paintings, much less of a single composition limited to a wave Fig. 26. Gustave Caille-
in relationship to works by his colleagues breaking as it comes ashore, demonstrating botte, Sky Study, Clouds,
1, before 1879. Oil on
during the 1860s.39 As for the group of more his virtuoso ability to observe and record canvas, 24 × 37 cm.
than forty seaside landscape pastels done nature’s fastest transformations. When the Private collection, cour-
by Degas in the late 1860s, nearly a dozen sea was calm, he worked at other nearby tesy Comité Gustave
Caillebotte, Paris
with similar compositions limited to sea and motifs, including the cliff at the west of
sky, recent studies have discussed them as Étretat with its famously pierced rock forma- Fig. 27. Gustave Caille-
an assimilation of the highly simplified and tion extending into the sea like the buttress botte, Sky Study, Clouds,
2, before 1879. Oil on
concentrated images by Delacroix, Boudin, of a Gothic cathedral. He devoted as many
canvas, 24 × 35 cm.
and Courbet among others. Important to as eight paintings to this particular motif, Private collection, cour-
stress here is the fact that Degas likely cre- which would subsequently obsess Monet in tesy Comité Gustave
ated his own body of serial landscape work the early 1880s. During the summer of 1869 Caillebotte, Paris

in response to seeing art in series on public Monet was working in tandem with Renoir Fig. 28. Gustave Caille-
display, whether at Courbet exhibitions or at on the Seine at La Grenouillère, a leisure botte, Sky Study, Clouds,
the Boudin auction. In his remarkable 1993 establishment where Parisians came by 3, before 1879. Oil on
canvas, 24 × 32 cm.
exhibition catalogue, Degas Landscapes, Rich- train to boat and swim. Working side by side,
Private collection, cour-
ard Kendall stressed the surprising fact that each of the artists made three closely related tesy Comité Gustave
Degas (famously reluctant to release any of “sketches” of the same locale. While they Caillebotte, Paris

his works publicly), signed and dated eight of both intended to develop these into exhibi-
these pastels “69,” as if he had special plans tion pictures, it seems nevertheless worth
for them. Kendall speculated that Degas may noting how their efforts this summer were
have intended to put them on exhibition at carried out collaboratively in series fashion.
that early date, possibly in a commercial But Renoir and Monet’s incipient interest in
gallery. Indeed, one could speculate even series art was sidetracked, as were all con-
further that Degas hoped to collaborate with temporary art trends, by the outbreak of war
such colleagues as Boudin, Monet, and even in the summer of 1870.
Berthe Morisot (1841–1895) on some unreal- As is well known, Courbet initially took an
ized or unrecorded group exhibition or auc- active role in the Commune, the provisional
tion project featuring landscape pastels.40 government established in Paris in March
Whether or not there is any merit to such 1871, which soon splintered into extreme
a hypothesis, it is worth noting that while factions and collapsed when French national
seven of the signed Degas landscape pastels troops invaded the capital at the end of May.
of the late 1860s are identical in dimensions, Seriously implicated in the destruction of the
all but three show distinctly different compo- Vendôme Column on 16 May, Courbet was
sitions, suggesting that Degas was not as arrested in June and sentenced to spend six
yet prepared to display very many too simi- months at the prison of Sainte-Pélagie. But
lar works together. All such speculation by the end of 1871 he was paroled for health
aside, Degas’s relatively rare landscape ser- reasons to house arrest at a clinic in Neuilly.
ies campaign in the late 1860s has rather Unable to cope with ongoing persecution in
enormous implications considering how France, Courbet would soon flee to Switzer-
fundamental the series concept would be land, where he died in exile on the final day
throughout the remainder of the artist’s of 1877. Needless to say, Courbet immediately
astonishing career. lost his status as France’s leading contem-
Series activity was intense during the porary artist, and even today many of his
summer of 1869, when Courbet worked at achievements remain overlooked. Given his
a little fisherman’s house on the beach at pioneering role as a series artist, Courbet’s
Étretat, painting more than twenty versions sudden fall from favor seems, at least briefly,
104 to have put an end to the growing momen- a letter to a colleague that in order to enhance unfortunately no way to know what prompted 105 explained: “My different versions are filed
tum for art made as variations on a particular a pervasive harmony to this exhibition he Jules de Goncourt to express the following alphabetically at Cadart’s publishing house

The Predications and Implications of Monet’s Series

composition. As for himself, however, Cour- had designed his own frames, marked with series art wish in his diary for 24 February and can be inspected by anybody. A land-
bet continued to make works in multiple his butterfly monogram, as were his pictures. 1874: “If I were a painter, I would make an scape of the banks of the Escaut has been
variations. While in prison, for example, The exhibition was briefly described by an outline engraving of the background of Paris transformed in eighty-five different ways.”46
he began an extensive group of still lifes of unidentified journalist, who mentioned, visible from the top of the Pont Royal. I Meanwhile, according to the catalogue
fruits, mostly apples, possibly because the aside from Whistler’s Self-Portrait and The would print a hundred proofs on coated of the 1876 Impressionist group exhibition,
red color had left-wing political overtones. Balcony, “some views of the banks of the paper [papier collé], and I would amuse Degas showed five different images of laun-
In five of these paintings the apples seem Thames in fog or at the end of the day. Every- myself by recording on them in watercolors dresses (four paintings and a drawing), dis-
to turn brown on the ground underneath a thing is strictly monotone, either greenish all the tints awakened by the watery fogs of tinct compositions on a theme, rather than
tree. In another two the apples are on the blue or light yellow. . . . There is a glaring the Seine, all the magical colors with which variations on a set composition, and he
seat of a stool. But in the greatest number ambition to achieve the candor of Japanese our autumn, our winter paint this horizon showed more than that number of works
of examples the apples (sometimes in con- prints.”43 There are relatively few views of with grayed plaster and blackened stone.”45 featuring ballet dancers. The fact that similar
junction with a pear or a pomegranate) are the Thames that might be described as light Despite Degas’s exhortation to do so, Whis- subjects are seldom listed sequentially in the
presented close-up, grouped on a tabletop, yellow monotones: Battersea Reach from tler opted not to join the French artists soon catalogue suggests that his repetition of any
as if the artist was intrigued with the apple Lindsey Houses (Hunterian Museum and to be dubbed Impressionists, and, judging particular theme has no significance beyond
variations as he had once been with the Art Gallery, University of Glasgow); possibly, from his diary, Goncourt never went to see his catering to perceived market preferences.
variations in skies or waves. Never exhibited Nocturne in Blue and Gold—Southampton their historic first exhibition, which opened Entirely out of character, Degas’s decision to
in Paris during Courbet’s lifetime, these Water (Art Institute of Chicago). But many on 15 April 1874. It included a few series present so many related works in 1876 was
apple still lifes were seemingly known as a of Whistler’s similar-format blue-green items, most notably groups of related pas- likely intended as a way to raise money fol-
group only to those of his supporters, like Thames views survive. As individual works tels and watercolors by Boudin. Presuming lowing the deaths of his father and uncle and
Boudin and Monet, who visited him at the they are at least as similar to one another as that he framed them individually, Boudin the eventual revelation of substantial family
Neuilly clinic in 1872. There is no record of are Courbet’s 1865 Trouville beach scenes showed four sky studies of the sort that had business debts. Besides what was on view in
any visit paid by Paul Cézanne (1839–1906), or Monet’s Wheatstacks, begun in the late so enchanted Baudelaire back in 1859. Monet Paris at the Impressionist group show, Degas
the artist perhaps most deeply under Cour- 1880s. Surpassing the simplification of Cour- showed seven pastels, six of them framed as had works with Durand-Ruel’s partner in
bet’s spell during the 1860s.41 Yet, around bet’s starkly divided compositions with two pairs, suggesting that variant views of the London, Charles Deschamps. In April 1876
1877–78 Cézanne undertook a group of zones, Whistler limited himself to nocturnal same image were on display. Serial or not, Deschamps sold four different dance paint-
modest close-up images of apples on chair scenes when sea and sky all but coalesce in these relatively small-scale works on paper by ings to the Brighton collector Henry Hill.47
seats and tabletops in the spirit of Courbet, visual terms.44 With these variations Whistler Boudin and Monet were entirely disregarded Berthe Morisot, the only female artist in the
albeit evidently never intended for ensemble verged on what today would be called “field” by the many journalists who published Impressionist group, used the 1876 Paris
exhibition. painting. If twentieth-century abstract paint- accounts of the exhibition focused on the exhibition as an opportunity to display eleven
ing can be said to begin anywhere, it would controversial paintings. works (out of a total of seventeen listed in
1873 be with these monotones, first shown the catalogue) made during the course of her
It was thanks to Whistler that Paris again together, at least some of them, in Paris at 1876 1875 honeymoon to the Isle of Wight: three
confronted the option of art in series. The the beginning of 1873. If Whistler’s achieve- One of the exhibitors in 1874 and again at pastels (listed as a single item, possibly dis-
London-based American expatriate had been ment gets virtually no credit in the history the second Impressionist group exhibition in played together in the same frame), three
with Courbet at Trouville in 1865 as the idea of Impressionism, that is because ensemble 1876 was the printmaker Ludovic-Napoléon watercolors, and five small oils painted out-of-
for series painting came of age, and in the displays are fundamentally transitory, with Lepic (1839–1889), who had been close friends doors. The two of these bold, quickly painted
coming years Whistler would revolutionize the individual units dispersed by market since the early 1860s with Monet and Degas. works that can be identified on the basis of
art with his demonstration that a commer- decisions. Its enormous role in the history While Lepic did not show series art at these descriptions in newspaper accounts of the
cial exhibition in itself could be orchestrated of modern art notwithstanding, series art exhibitions, in 1876 he published a remark- exhibition both feature a steamboat, and one
as an art event with the capacity to transcend still escapes historical notice because so little able album of prints, titled L’eau-forte mobile, of these two does not even bear the artist’s
the significance of any particular work on of it is left to see as first intended. with a prologue explaining how he became signature as testimony that it is finished in
display. In January 1873 the Galerie Durand- an unconventional etcher who never inked any conventional sense (figs. 29 and 30).48
Ruel in Paris presented an exhibition of 1874 his plate twice the same way. Capturing This unsigned picture corresponds very
Whistler’s works about which too little is The early 1873 Paris exhibition of Whistler’s nearly as many variations as Goncourt closely to two other stenographic paintings
known.42 The artist himself explained in misty nocturnal river views aside, there is had fancied in his 1874 diary entry, Lepic by Morisot showing the same Isle of Wight
106 promenade alongside a yacht-filled harbor. installation suggests that series was not at 107 art collection would be donated to the French
Although one of the works is larger than those issue. Many critics of the 1877 Impressionist national museums. His decision to acquire

The Predications and Implications of Monet’s Series

mentioned in the newspaper accounts, never- exhibition were struck by one or another of three Gare Saint-Lazare variations therefore
theless it seems clear that she painted them Monet’s paintings showing the glass-roofed might suggest that he and Monet now real-
one immediately after the other in sequential shed of the Gare Saint-Lazare and the tracks ized how a group of these related works had
series fashion. There is nothing to indicate, extending beyond it, bustling with smoking special significance beyond what any single
however, that she included all of these works trains, railway workers, and crowds of tiny work might have on its own. If they indeed
in the 1876 Impressionist exhibition as a passengers. But no writer mentioned that thought this way, it was in vain, since only
series display à la Courbet or Whistler. But there were seven of them on display in total, one of the Gare Saint-Lazare variations was
whether the five Isle of Wight paintings that variations on a single theme, nor that they eventually accepted when the bequest was
she exhibited included close variations or were exhibited next to one another, as might negotiated with the Musée du Luxembourg
not, Morisot’s decision to show so many be expected at this stage in the evolution in 1896.
works painted in a single locale set an impor- of series art. They were not listed one after Already by 1877 Caillebotte had himself
tant precedent for Monet, who would soon the other in the catalogue. Two were larger caught series fever. An avid boater, Caille-
undertake an even greater number of related than the rest.50 When the paint was likely botte executed two paintings and one pastel
paintings with the comings and goings, not still wet, Monet sold three of the Gare Saint- showing men rowing canoes and sculls on
of ships on a Channel Island resort, but of Lazare variations (including one of the large- the Seine near his summer residence at
trains at the Gare Saint-Lazare in Paris. format ones) to his most active collector, Yerres. Expanding the group the following
Ernest Hoschedé. But it seems unlikely that year beyond Monet’s seven train-station
1877 Hoschedé understood his particular group paintings, Caillebotte eventually had a group
On display together in a room all their as a series “triptych,” since he loaned only of ten river sports scenes to show at the
own, the twenty-three paintings and pastels two of his newly acquired Gare Saint-Lazare fourth Impressionist exhibition in 1879. But
exhibited by Degas (along with three groups paintings to the April Impressionist exhibi- Caillebotte’s conversion to series painting is
of monotypes) at the third Impressionist tion. Moreover, the fact that Monet sold a probably first manifest in groups of small
exhibition in 1877 included eight pictures fourth Gare Saint-Lazare in March 1877 to uniform oil studies done on his Yerres prop-
of the ballet, three pictures of spectators a different collector before the opening of erty. Quite similar in appearance to pastels
watching performers at café-concerts, and the exhibition indicates that he never had by Boudin and Monet (examples of which
three showing women with bathtubs. But any interest in keeping the group of seven he had seen at the 1874 Impressionist exhi-
works on a particular theme are not necessar- together as an ensemble. Monet apparently bition), four of Caillebotte’s oil studies cap-
ily listed together in the catalogue, nor did chose to paint so many examples of the train ture various cloud formations over the Briard
any press account discuss especially signifi- station theme for the same reason that Cour- Plain (see figs. 26–28), and six show a park
cant juxtapositions or groupings of similar bet in 1863 had painted so many versions lawn at different times of day.51 Caillebotte’s
works. Indeed, for the most part the differ- of the Source of the Loue—because the dra- concern with recording the ever-different
ences among Degas’s exhibited work on any matic paintings seemed likely to have broad configurations of the same scene were shared
single theme are as notable as the similari- market appeal. this year by best-selling novelist Émile Zola,
ties. Supposedly both Degas and Pissarro Whatever Monet’s original motivations, at work on the eighth of his interrelated
used (long-lost) white frames for at least however, the seven Gare Saint-Lazare paint- Rougon-Macquart novels, Une page d’amour
some of their works at the third Impression- ings in the 1877 Impressionist exhibition (serialized episodes of which began to be
ist exhibition, although oddly enough such constitute the first documented act of series published in December 1877). As if emu-
an innovation did not receive attention in the painting in the career of the artist who would lating the concerns of his Impressionist
press.49 Supposing these artists did introduce come to personify series art. Moreover, there painter friends, Zola structured this novel
unconventional white frames, such framing Top: Above: may be special significance to the fact that with a sequence of panoramic views of
would inevitably create a decorative associa- Fig. 29. Berthe Morisot, Fig. 30. Berthe Morisot, Monet’s fellow Impressionist, Gustave Caille- Paris observed at different times under differ-
West Cowes, Isle of Harbour Scene, Isle
tion among different works on display by Wight, 1875. Oil on of Wight, 1875. Oil on
botte, obtained three Gare Saint-Lazare paint- ent conditions, playing the role of a sort of
the same artist, and so foster a series mood. canvas, 48 × 36 cm. canvas, 38 × 46 cm. ings in March 1878. Sufficiently well-off to Greek chorus as comment on the actions of
But the absence of press commentary about Private collection, United Private collection, United collect works by his colleagues, Caillebotte his protagonists.52 Since Caillebotte’s Impres-
States, courtesy Galerie Kingdom, courtesy Pyms
white frames or any other sort of ensemble had written a will in 1876 specifying that his sionist studies lack Zola-esque dramatic
Hopkins-Custot, Paris Gallery, London
108 overtones, however, and were evidently not year. While never realized, the project never- 109 the village of Vétheuil when the frozen Seine
intended for public display, it might be more theless was responsible for groups of inter- thawed, creating icy havoc along its entire

The Predications and Implications of Monet’s Series

appropriate to think of them as informal related prints by all three artists at the 1880 course. With only this single landscape sub-
meteorological documentation. Mounted Impressionist exhibition. As already men- ject at hand, Monet made around twenty
together as an ensemble, Caillebotte’s stud- tioned, Pissarro listed in the catalogue a closely related paintings. Although he never
ies would provide some of the same infor- single frame containing four states of one attempted to show these topical paintings
mation organized in systematic grid-format landscape image selected to appear in Le jour as a group, from now on Monet made more
meteorological charts. For example, the et la nuit. In the same 1880 catalogue, Degas and more versions of single motifs, as if
25 May number of La Nature included an listed one item as “Eaux-fortes. Essais et the experience at Vétheuil had provided an
article about daily weather fluctuations in états de planches” (Etchings. Impressions unprecedented opportunity for him to realize
April 1878 with a full-page illustration con- and states). Seemingly at issue was a printing the full potential of transcribing the same
sisting of a calendar grid of thirty identical known today as Mary Cassatt at the Louvre: scene over and over, each time transformed
little maps of France, each superimposed The Etruscan Gallery, but it is not known how by shifting atmospheric conditions.57 With so
with a differing “map” of shifting daily air- many of the nine states of this complex print many similarly composed paintings under
pressure patterns (fig. 31). he presented together as a work in process way at the same time in his Vétheuil work-
“sequence.”55 Cassatt herself listed two differ- space, Monet presumably had a particularly
1878–1880 ent states for two of the etchings in her sec- meaningful opportunity to sense the poten-
The 14 December 1878 issue of La Nature tion of the same exhibition. For some reason tial beauty of serial art display. But at first
introduced the French public to a break- she preferred not to exhibit Interior Scene, Monet worked in series because of the con-
through in the history of series art: the which she had worked through thirteen siderable practical advantages. Instead of
sequential images of a galloping horse and different states, all of them acquired around expending extra time getting himself and
of a horse pulling a sulky, proto-cinematic this time by Degas, probably as a gift. For all his supplies from one site to another, an
photographs made in California by the of these artists the full set of different states out-of-doors Impressionist artist working
­British-born Eadweard Muybridge (1830– of a single printed image clearly had a special in series could switch from one canvas to
1904). While single images by Muybridge Fig. 31. “Cartes quoti- cal means, in the catalogue for the 1879 significance beyond that of any particular another as conditions changed. Returning
provided accurate new information about the diennes du temps en Impressionist exhibition, Degas listed among image taken out of the sequence context, so to the same site day after day with the expec-
avril, 1878, d’après le
appearance of bodies at particular stages of Bulletin international de
his usual variety of dance subjects, a painting it is to be regretted that the thirteen states of tation that similar light effects would recur
locomotion too fast for the human eye to see, l’Obervatoire de Paris,” titled Dancer Posing for a Photographer. At Cassatt’s print were dispersed after the auc- around a particular time, a painter could
sequences of his photographs demonstrated La Nature: Revue des this exhibition Degas showed five ballet sub- tion of Degas’s collection in 1918.56 devote repeated sessions to the same subject,
sciences, sixième année,
as never before the inescapable scientific jects in fan format, while Pissarro presented Meanwhile, during the severe winter at as long as there were no figures to take into
no. 260 (25 May 1878),
value of images in series (fig. 32). As impor- 400 eleven fans decorated with farm scenes.54 the beginning of 1880 Monet was trapped in account. This way, with the possibility of
tant, such strips of sequential photographic Needless to say, the format itself inevitably
images established expectations about what brought attention to these works as variations
series art should be and how to organize its in series fashion. Aside from the already men- Fig. 32. Eadweard Muy-
display. For example, although Monet always tioned ten paintings on river sports subjects bridge, “Sallie Gardner,”
owned by Leland Stan-
avoided any sense of system in the presenta- presented by Caillebotte, the series spirit ford, running at a 1:40
tion of his various series ensembles, some of was most evident at the fourth Impressionist gait over the Palo Alto
his closest admirers expected him to arrange exhibition in the room of works by the Amer- track, 19th June 1878.
Albumen print, 1878.
his paintings to show a logical sequence ican newcomer, Mary Cassatt, four of which
Washington, Library of
related to the measured passage of time. In showed young women with fans in theater Congress, Prints and
1895 Georges Clemenceau badgered Monet boxes, each distinct in composition and size Photographs Division

to let him rearrange the twenty Rouen Cathe- but all orchestrated in tones of pink, red, and
dral variations (see figs. 51–53) more system- yellow, whether rendered in oils or pastels.
atically for the final ten days of their display These three artists—Degas, Pissarro, and
at the Durand-Ruel gallery.53 Cassatt—began already in May 1879 to col-
As if commenting on the excitement laborate on plans for Le jour et la nuit, a jour-
of documenting movement with mechani- nal with etchings to be issued the following
 Figs. 33–42: Edgar 36. 11th state. Electric 40. 15th state. Drypoint
Degas, Leaving the Bath, crayon, etching, drypoint, and aquatint on wove
ten states, 1879–80. and aquatint. Austin, paper. New York, The
Approximate plate Blanton Museum of Art, Metropolitan Museum of
dimensions: 12.8 × The University of Texas at Art, Harris Brisbane Dick
12.8 cm. Austin, Archer M. Hun- Fund, Rogers Fund, The
tington Museum Fund, Elisha Whittelsey Collec-
33. 2nd state. Etching 1982 (1982.705) tion, The Elisha Whittel-
and drypoint with bur- sey Fund, 1972, by
nishing. Fine Arts Muse- 37. 12th state. Drypoint exchange (1972.659)
ums of San Francisco; and aquatint on laid
Museum purchase paper. New York, The 41. 16th state. Etching,
(1973.9.13) Metropolitan Museum of aquatint, and drypoint
Art, Rogers Fund 1921 on wove paper. Williams-
34. 7th state. Electric (21.39.1) town, Massachusetts, 36, 40
crayon, etching, drypoint, Sterling and Francine
and aquatint on laid 38. 13th state. Drypoint Clark Art Institute
paper. Ottawa, National and aquatint. Northhamp- (1971.39)
Gallery of Canada, ton, Massachusetts,
33
Purchased 1976 (18662) Smith College Museum 42. 20th state. Electric
of Art, Gift of Selma crayon, etching, drypoint,
35. 21st state. Electric Erving, class of 1927 and aquatint. Washington,
crayon, etching, drypoint, (SC 1972:50-19) National Gallery of Art,
and aquatint. Washington, Rosenwald Collection
National Gallery of Art, 39. 14th state. Etching (1950.16.48)
Rosenwald Collection and aquatint. Williams-
(1950.16.47) town, Massachusetts, 43. Impression from
Sterling and Francine canceled plate, printed
Clark Art Institute 1959. Etching, aquatint,
(1969.19) and drypoint. The Balti-
more Museum of Art, 37, 41
Blanche Adler Memorial
Fund (BMA 1960.128)

34

38, 42

35 39, 43
112 working on the same painting briefly day sell two versions, sometimes three, of his format works greatly appealed to some 113 in this timely survey of Boudin’s profoundly
after day, the orthodox Impressionist com- most recent motifs to the dealer. In other journalists and greatly upset others, none influential art. For his part, Monet evidently

The Predications and Implications of Monet’s Series

mitted to the truthful transcription of sen- words, the market immediately encouraged addressed the series issue and its implica- missed Boudin’s exhibition while he readied
sory experience, no matter how fleeting, and Monet’s incipient series enterprise, and by tions. Not surprisingly, Monet developed works for his own retrospective at Durand-
obtained extra time to achieve ever-richer 1882 the word “series” began to enter into an approach to series art that would ulti- Ruel’s, opening at the end of February, with
detail in the transcription of very specific the painter’s correspondence with increasing mately silence those critics who complained some sixty paintings, fifty-six of them listed
and fugitive appearances. One problem frequency. that Impressionist art was too hurried and in the catalogue. Of these, five (catalogue
was that a painter might need to transport Returning to the Channel coast in Febru- sketchy. Predicated on the possibility of numbers 3, 27, 33, 42, and 47) showed vari-
ten or more canvases to the same site. If ary 1882 Monet now painted even more vari- returning to the same site day after day at ous views of the abandoned coast guard
the painter lived near his chosen subject, ations of individual subjects, especially views the same time to refine his work on the lookout house at Petit Ailly.
as had been the case in 1877 when Monet of isolated little houses overlooking the sea, same canvas, Monet’s practical approach to But, again, without installation photo-
painted the Gare Saint-Lazare or in 1880 treated in more than a dozen canvases. series allowed him to observe and render graphs, there are only two ways to evaluate
when he recorded the dramatic winter at Again, as at Vétheuil in early 1880, the expe- scenes with the sort of rich precision absent the series component of Monet’s 1883 exhibi-
Vétheuil, the transport of art supplies was rience of surrounding himself with so many from early Impressionist painting. But no tion, both inconclusive: the contents of the
relatively simple; but logistics were far more variations in his hotel room underway pre- matter how much progress Monet made on exhibition can be reconstructed, at least in
complex when Monet worked away from sumably heightened Monet’s interest in this score, it would take him years to assert part, from the gallery catalogue checklist; and
home, as he often would throughout the groups of related works, as suggested in a the decorative implications of serial display press accounts, generally more abundant in
1880s. For example, he needed slotted cases 25 March 1882 letter to Durand-Ruel: “I will already so crucial for Whistler. the 1880s for commercial gallery displays,
to transport a sufficient supply of canvases, be in Paris for Easter, by which time I hope Indeed, there was no evidence of sym- can be consulted. But do they provide any-
all the same size in accord with the dimen- to have finished all my canvases. I already pathy for series art where it might be most thing like complete and careful coverage for
sions of each particular case. Similar sub- have some finished ones, but if it does not expected, for example, at the large retrospec- issues of serial production and ensemble
jects repeated on canvases of uniform format matter to you, I would prefer to show you tive Courbet exhibition in Paris in May 1882. display? While several journalists in 1883
encouraged other forms of s­ tandardization— the entire series of my studies at once, as A set of installation photographs of this indeed praised Monet’s achievement in
framing for example—and the simplification I wish to see them all together at my home Courbet exhibition indicates that the orga- demonstrating the fact that a single subject
of such practical matters must be taken into [in Poissy].”60 In letters to his partner, Alice nizers, while including a few similar works was entirely different when observed under
account as factors in Monet’s increasing predi- Hoschedé, he explained that he was devoting as matching pairs, mostly avoided the central transmuted conditions of atmospheric light,
lection for making art in series, culminating ten or more sessions to many of his indi- role of variations in his art. So preoccupied none mentioned any unusual matching or
in the 1891 exhibition of fifteen Wheatstacks vidual paintings, without wasting any time was Monet with painting Courbet-like varia- grouping as an installation feature to pro-
that so annoyed Pissarro at first.58 during the day by relocating himself from tions on the coast of Normandy that he may mote this essential serial issue.62 As happens
one motif to another. He informed her, more- not have taken the time to see this historic, all too often, lack of press commentary
1881–1884 over, that he had gone so far as to hire a albeit flawed, retrospective. But by the end encourages ongoing historical disregard.
Perhaps the most interesting early evidence caddy to help him carry so many canvases of that same year, Monet urged Durand-Ruel Monet was greatly preoccupied when his
of Monet’s eagerness to make variations is to where he was working.61 In what was to mount retrospective one-artist exhibitions exhibition closed—first of all, with moving his
a 9 December 1880 letter to his old friend becoming standard business between them, (rather than group shows) in his relatively large household into a new home in Giverny
Théodore Duret, confiding how he would like come April 1882 Durand-Ruel purchased small gallery space. Exceeding such expecta- and, second, with the death of his longtime
to spend a month in London making views three and four versions of some subjects tions, in February 1883 the dealer rented a friend Édouard Manet. Consequently he
of the Thames.59 Nearly twenty years would from Monet’s latest campaign. Moreover, larger space on the boulevard de la Madeleine likely did not see the most remarkable of all
pass before Monet could begin to realize this while Monet was hard at work this way in and presented consecutive solo shows, start- series art displays on view in Paris in the
particularly Whistlerian series project, with Normandy, Durand-Ruel helped to arrange ing with one devoted exclusively to works by spring of 1883. I refer to a group of works by
roughly twenty to forty variations on three for a selection of his new works to be included Boudin—150 paintings, as well as pastels Whistler, who only weeks earlier in London,
key compositional themes. In the meantime in the sixth Impressionist group exhibition, and watercolors. Given the extremely limited in February 1883, had staged the most contro-
Monet went no further than the Normandy which opened in Paris on 1 March. Judging range of Boudin’s motifs, this particular exhi- versial yet of his artist-designed exhibitions—
coast, where he now made three, four, and from the exhibition checklist, there were bition must have been something of a mile- this, an installation of his Venice etchings.63
five examples of single motifs. Most signifi- no fewer than three versions of the same stone in the history of display with serial Invited by Durand-Ruel’s rival, Georges Petit,
cantly, having recently reestablished business landscape image observed from the cliffs overtones. But, as with so many of the likely to show work at his gallery’s second annual
dealings with Durand-Ruel after nearly a at Fécamp looking west. While Monet’s constituting events in the history of series Internationale exhibition, which opened on
decade’s lapse, in May 1881 Monet began to stenographic brushwork in these uniform art, there has never been any special interest 11 May, Whistler presented four so-called
114 concern with shopping has its closest paral- 115
lel, of course, in the series of pastels devel-

The Predications and Implications of Monet’s Series

oped by Degas in 1882 on the theme of
hat shops (fig. 44). As if both spoofing and
endorsing serial art, Degas in each of these
works includes near identical shop girls
handling near identical hats. But, of course,
throughout the 1870s, with his racehorse
pictures (figs. 45, 46) and those devoted to
the ballet, Degas had incorporated the series
concept into scores of individual pictures of
regimented look-alike figures.
Judging from the excited letters that Monet
wrote from the Mediterranean village of
Bordighera, where he suddenly installed
Nocturnes, according to titles listed in the Fig. 44. Edgar Degas, himself in January 1884, the painter expected
checklist. The minimal seascape painted Little Milliners, 1882. the opportunity to exhibit his ongoing series
Pastel on paper, 48.9 ×
in Trouville late in 1865, with the miniature 71.7 cm. Kansas City, The
later that same year at Durand-Ruel’s large
figure of Courbet observing the spectacle Nelson-Atkins Museum rented gallery space on the boulevard de la
of clouds and waves to the far horizon, may of Art, Purchase: acquired Madeleine. Indeed, he even anticipated the
through the generosity
have been the work listed as Harmony in Blue imminent publication of an illustrated bro-
of an anonymous donor
and Silver. Otherwise, it has been impossible (F79-34) chure about his art by Gustave Goetschy.
to determine specifically which of Whistler’s (No such publication was realized.) In his 45
(presumably horizontal format) landscapes excitement Monet went so far as to order
were exhibited at Petit’s. Some vague idea frames for his only-just-begun works, to be
of this key series presentation was, however, ready upon his eventual return to Giverny.
captured by the novelist J. K. Huysmans: Even though he learned from Renoir at the
“These were veiled horizons, glimpsed in beginning of February that Durand-Ruel
another world, twilights shrouded in sum- had decided not to renew the lease on his
mery showers, river fogs, poetic flights of large rented gallery space, thus foreclosing
blue mist, a spectacle of indistinct nature, hopes for any exhibition, Monet neverthe-
floating cities, languishing waters, everything less extended his Mediterranean campaign
mixed up in a daydream.”64 Why were not for another two months, making up to four
more journalists struck by Whistler’s picto- versions of some motifs. But he never had
rial magic? Nationalist zeal? any appropriate opportunity to show these
It seems reasonable to assume that any works, and consequently his evolution as
emphasis on the refined display of pictures a series artist was stalled and frustrated
in series in 1883 was open to charges of in 1884.
commercialism at odds with the high-
minded traditions of art created outside a Fig. 45. Edgar Degas, Fig. 46. Edgar Degas,
market context. It is probably worth noting Before the Race, ca. 1882. Before the Race,
Oil on panel, 26.5 × 1882/84. Oil on panel,
that 1883 was the year of publication for 34.9 cm. Williamstown, 26.4 × 34.9 cm. Balti-
Zola’s eleventh Rougon-Macquart novel, Massachusetts, Sterling more, The Walters Art
Au bonheur des dames, a somewhat troubling and Francine Clark Art Museum. Bequest of
Institute (1955.557) Henry Walters, 1931
commentary on the burgeoning retail world
(37.850)
of Paris department stores with ever-more-
opulent displays of merchandise. Zola’s
46
116 1886 titled the group as a whole in the exhibition that he would capture at Belle-Île, working 117 advocate—at Petit’s gallery again the follow-
While he was in Naples on family business catalogue. Several of these pastels show through November on canvases of several ing year, if possible with Morisot and Rodin.

The Predications and Implications of Monet’s Series

in January 1886, Degas famously wrote to slightly different stages in the ritual of a different formats (suggesting that he used With this exhibition prospect in mind, in
his sculptor friend Albert Bartholomé (1848– woman washing at a round floor tub, as if more than one shipping case), carried for January 1888 Monet returned to the Mediter-
1928), advising, “You must repeat the same Degas shared the ambition fulfilled by Muy- him by a porter. Still more commercially ranean, where he painted from two to five
subject ten times, one hundred times. bridge in 1887 with the publication of his successful than his 1880s works done in versions of some ten different motifs. In a
Nothing in art must look accidental, even classic Animal Locomotion to see images of Normandy or along the Mediterranean, letter sent from Antibes, Monet confessed to
movement.”65 How similar in spirit to a different stages of a single action in proto- Monet’s Belle-Île paintings constituted a Alice Hoschedé his need to be wary of allow-
description of Monet at work by Guy de cinematic sequence.67 As for the decorative sort of series pictorial manifesto when the ing himself to go on with versions of a single
Maupassant that was published in late ensemble quality of Degas’s “suite” display, artist included ten of them among the seven- motif.69 Meanwhile in Paris, Degas agreed
September that same year: “[Monet] went intentional or not, it may have had an influ- teen or more works that he put on display at to show a group of his nudes again, this time
along followed by children who carried his ence on the young Georges Seurat, whose Petit’s sixth Internationale, which opened on under the auspices of Theo van Gogh at the
canvases, five or six canvases all depicting vast Un dimanche à la Grande Jatte dominated 8 May 1887. With only sparse documentation Galerie Boussod et Valadon. The dealer’s
the same subject at different hours of the the 1886 Impressionist group show. Seurat it is impossible to determine exactly which brother, Vincent, would have seen this little
day and with different effects. He would spent the summer of 1886 in Honfleur, ten works were at issue or whether they were presentation prior to his departure for Arles,
take them up in turn, then put them down where he made six decoratively interrelated grouped together, as would seem to have been where he immediately set to work as a series
again, depending upon the changes in the and notably stylized paintings of the port nearly unavoidable. It is likewise impossible artist. Writing to Theo in mid-April, Vincent
sky. Standing before his subject, he waited, where Boudin had long ago amazed Baude- to determine exactly what Whistler included explained: “That will make six canvases of
watched the sun and the shadows, capturing laire with his endlessly varied studies of at this same exhibition, although the titles orchards in bloom. . . . I dare hope for three
in a few brushstrokes a falling ray of light clouds. As for Monet, who had already made listed in the catalogue suggest that the Amer- more, matching in the same way, but so far
or a passing cloud and, scorning false and an effort to acquire one of Degas’s pastels ican expatriate showed several groups of they have got no further than embryos or
conventional techniques, transferred them of a woman at her tub (as he would finally related works among fifty small oils, water- fetuses. I should like very much to do this
rapidly onto his canvas.”66 Maupassant had manage to do in 1887), his participation colors, and pastels. Although lacking any series of nine canvases. You see, we may
himself witnessed Monet at work at the in the final Impressionist group show was reference to the subject of ensemble dis- consider this year’s nine canvases as the
Normandy fishing village resort of Étretat, precluded by the terms of his invitation to play, Monet’s correspondence nevertheless first design for a final scheme of decoration
where during various campaigns from 1883 show works at the fifth Internationale exhibi- makes it clear that he hoped to show together a great deal bigger (it would consist of size
to 1885, Monet had painted more than twenty tion at the Galerie Georges Petit. Surprisingly with Whistler—the innovation’s foremost 25 and 12 canvases), which would be carried
variations of the same image of the cliff at enough, he opted to show a variety of differ- out along just the same lines next year at the
the western edge of the town, with its famous ent works at Petit’s, rather than orchestrate a same season.”70 By August, Vincent hoped to
buttress and needle formation at the water’s group of his variations, as Whistler had done Fig. 47. Félix Tournachon decorate his studio in Arles with half a dozen
edge. Remarkably enough, given Monet’s at the same gallery three years earlier. (Nadar), portrait photo- pictures of sunflowers.71
graphs of Eugène
determination to paint in series this way and One wonders whether Monet, before leav- Chevreul, Le journal
Both van Gogh brothers considered Monet
his ability to sell the variations, there was ing on 12 September for a long campaign on illustré, 5 September to be the greatest living landscape painter,
never an opportunity for him to show a sub- the Atlantic island of Belle-Île, saw a copy 1886, p. 284. Paris, and Theo in June 1888 scored a coup when
Bibliothèque nationale
stantial group of these works as an ensemble. of the historic 5 September 1886 issue of he arranged to buy ten of Monet’s brand-new
de France, Département
Degas, however, had such an opportunity, Le journal illustré, which celebrated the one des Estampes et de la Antibes paintings (only two showing the
come 15 May, with the opening of the eighth hundredth birthday of the great scientist photographie same motif ) and negotiated the privilege of
and final Impressionist group exhibition. Eugène Chevreul. For the occasion, Monet’s first refusal as the painter’s works might
In addition to exhibiting several of his 1882 longtime associate Nadar interviewed the come to market. Immediately Theo put the
pastels showing the repetitious routines of venerable celebrity while his son Paul took “suite” of Antibes works on exhibit, to con-
hat retailing, Degas submitted ten pastels sequential photographs of their conversation, siderable but hardly unanimous acclaim.
devoted to a single theme that had obsessed a dozen of which were published now in Pissarro reported to Lucien that Degas “con-
him already for a decade: nude women series fashion, four to a page, a milestone siders these paintings to have been made to
grooming in the privacy of their apartments. achievement in photo-journalism (fig. 47).68 sell. Besides, he always maintains that Monet
“Suite of nude women bathing, washing, Surely the painter could appreciate the paral- made nothing but beautiful decorations.”72
drying, wiping, and combing themselves or lels between these remarkable photographs Used here disparagingly, to invoke superficial
having their hair combed” was how Degas and the five and six versions of single motifs and vulgar backgrounds little more ambitious
118 Loie Fuller; to Constantin Brancusi (1876– 119 the Orangerie display is the culmination of
1957), who, not long after the presentation in Monet’s series mode. Yet it is far from clear

The Predications and Implications of Monet’s Series

1908 of Monet’s forty-eight Nymphéas paint- when and why Monet felt so obliged to per-
ings at Durand-Ruel’s, began to sculpt his petuate this way the full potential of series
hallmark motifs, like sleeping heads and art that he had so concerned him throughout
totemic birds, in ever more refined varia- his career. After completing any given previ-
tions; to the impresario Alfred Stieglitz ous series, Monet had never made any effort
(1864–1946), whose photographs of clouds to show it in whole or part at his famous
(Music—A Sequence of Ten Cloud Photographs, Giverny home. Visitors commented that
1922) amount to a reprise in rich blacks at best the painter was able to keep for him-
and whites of the Boudin pastels that so self but one example of each of his famous
amazed Baudelaire in Honfleur in 1859. In series. Still obscure and unstudied, a few
her diary for 26 March 1965, Susan Sontag remarkable events related to his paintings
opined, “Jasper Johns—Duchamp painted of the façade of the Cathedral of Notre-Dame
by Monet.” The issues of virtuoso brush- at Rouen (see figs. 51–53) perhaps offer
than wallpaper, the concept of “decoration” Left to right: during the Paris Exposition Internationale. work evoked by such an equation aside, insight into Monet’s evolving ambitions.
was held in great esteem by, among others, Fig. 48. Edgar Degas, Noting how many writers had described Sontag somehow intuited here how, Marcel Sensing the importance of these particular
Trotting Horse, the Feet
Whistler, van Gogh, and Monet, all of whom Not Touching the Ground,
Monet’s elaborate method of bringing sev- Duchamp’s (1887–1968) outspoken disdain works, rival dealers and collectors sought
aspired to orchestrate related works as an ca. 1881. Bronze, 23.2 × eral canvases to a given site and then switch- for repetition in art notwithstanding, the to reserve examples in advance of the May
ensemble with greater significance than any 27 × 12.4 cm. Fine Arts ing from one to the next as light conditions notion of series has been inescapable for 1895 exhibition at Durand-Ruel’s Paris gal-
Museums of San Fran-
of its constituent parts. The brilliant young changed in order to do justice to the beauties such modern masters as Johns (b. 1930), lery, including a room with twenty Rouen
cisco; Museum purchase,
critic Félix Fénéon was also unenthusiastic Gift of Jay D. McEvoy in of diversity, Fénéon nevertheless felt that so with his obsessive reiterations of nearly Cathedral variations. According to the cata-
about the display at Boussod et Valadon, memory of Clare C. many versions of a single scene rather exuded every subject in his repertoire.77 logue checklist, eight of the twenty already
McEvoy and Partial Gift
worried that Monet’s new works showed no monotony.75 He must have been referring to Asked about his series over and again, belonged to collectors, four of these to the
of the Djerassi Art Trust
progress beyond the Étretat series that had (1989.16) the presence of no fewer than six versions Monet explained how he developed his Constantinopolitan banker Count Isaac de
so impressed him at the 1886 Internationale of a single landscape motif painted earlier method of painting variations in order to Camondo, who had recently begun to acquire
exhibition.73 By 1888 Fénéon was altogether Fig. 49. Edgar Degas, on the Creuse River.76 His brief commen- capture every shift in the envelope of col- key Impressionist works for his spectacular
Horse Walking, model
familiar with the series tendency in contem- early 1870s, cast
tary made no mention of two paintings each ored light by undertaking as many distinct collection, intended as a legacy to France.
porary art, both its pros and cons. Reviewing ca. 1920/1925. Bronze, showing a pair of wheatstacks in a field at canvases as there were distinct spectacles. Put on view at the Louvre in 1914 just weeks
the group exhibition staged concurrently at 21 × 26.6 × 9.8 cm. Giverny. Repeated again and again as serial While he stressed the honesty and practical- before the outbreak of World War I, the four
Washington, National
Durand-Ruel’s gallery, the critic noted that variations during the next year, these Wheat- ity involved for him in painting this way, Rouen Cathedral paintings that Camondo
Gallery of Art, Gift of
Alfred Sisley’s (1839–1899) paintings were Mrs. Lessing J. Rosen- stacks would finally establish Monet as the however, Monet (unlike his friend Whistler) had acquired from Monet in the late sum-
not as interesting as his pastels, six of which wald (1989.28.2) preeminent series artist of his generation showed little concern for the most signifi- mer of 1894 effectively established museum
showed the same desolate winter landscape when he exhibited fifteen of them at the cant implications, whether decorative or status for series art.79 There is no way to
Fig. 50. Edgar Degas,
in series fashion. Yet a few months later, in Rearing Horse model Galerie Durand-Ruel in 1891. philosophical, of presenting his variations know the extent to which Monet guided
December 1888, when the critic reviewed a early 1880s, cast as ensembles. Only in the summer of 1897 Camondo’s extraordinary patronage, or
small exhibition of Sisley’s new paintings at 1919/1921. Bronze, After 1891 did Monet confide to a journalist that he whether the artist encouraged the collec-
31 × 25.5 × 20.2 cm
the Galerie Georges Petit, he complained that (with base). Washington,
There is not space enough even to list, much hoped to decorate a circular room with tor to chose examples rendered in each
Sisley, who had “none of Monet’s decorative National Gallery of Art, less comment upon, the flood of series art paintings of the water lilies luxuriating in of four distinct color modes, but it can be
genius,” tended always to paint the same Collection of Mr. and incidents that followed the presentation of his famous garden pond; and, of course, presumed that the sale was conditional on
Mrs. Paul Mellon
unattractive view of the Loing River, twenty fifteen Wheatstacks paintings at Monet’s 1891 he devoted the last decade of his life to the promise that all four paintings would
(1999.79.38)
times over in recent years.74 solo exhibition at Durand-Ruel’s gallery in painting mural-size Nymphéas to be perma- be included in the May 1895 exhibition.
Fénéon expressed somewhat the same Paris. Artists all over the world working in nently installed in two adjacent rooms at That particular exhibition overwhelmed
boredom when, during the summer of 1889, every medium are part of the story, from the Orangerie in Paris only months after Monet’s close friend Georges Clemenceau,
he saw the vast retrospective exhibition of Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec, with his roughly his death.78 future prime minister. Praising the exhibi-
Monet’s art, in tandem with a Rodin retro- sixty differently colored impressions of the Rooms conceived with no other purpose tion on the front page of his nearly bankrupt
spective, staged at the Galerie Georges Petit famous 1893 lithograph showing the dancer than aesthetic delectation and meditation, newspaper, La Justice, Clemenceau called
upon the president of France to acquire the
entire group, as if such an unprecedented
purchase might still be possible, considering
the fact that so many of the individual works
were already sold. Using the sort of language
characteristic of Baudelaire’s most enthusias-
tic art writing, Clemenceau ventured that
Monet’s twenty works could be “divided into
four series that I would call gray series, white
series, rainbow series, blue series,” and he
further expressed the wish that the twenty
works installed together in the same room
could be arranged in series fashion: “Imag-
ine them aligned on the four walls, as today,
but serially, according to transitions of light:
the great black mass in the beginning of the
gray series, constantly growing lighter, the
white series, going from molten light to
bursting precisions that develop and culmi-
nate in the fires of the rainbow series, which
subside in the calm of the blue series and
fade away in the divine mist of azure.”80
When the greatly acclaimed exhibition was
extended for eight days, Monet evidently
invited Clemenceau to realize his notion
of how best the works might be installed.81
Whether the exhibition was indeed rein-
stalled this way is not known, but if so, each
wall would have included one of the works
obtained by Camondo, quite possibly with
the intention to provide an abbreviated
Monet series in perpetuity for the Louvre.
The enlightened criticism and patronage
of Clemenceau and Camondo aside, series
art has been its own worst enemy from a his-
torical point of view. Seldom available to be
viewed, except in fragmentary ways, too often
beyond the means of collectors or institutions
to purchase or accommodate, from its earli-
est beginnings series art has suffered from Opposite: Fig. 51. Claude Monet, Fig. 52. Claude Monet, Fig. 53. Claude Monet,
Detail of fig. 53 The Cathedral at Rouen Rouen Cathedral, Façade, The Portal of Rouen
a sort of oblivion resulting from unavoidable in the Fog, ca. 1893. Oil 1894. Oil on canvas, Cathedral in Morning
deinstallations and dispersals. As a largely on canvas, 100 × 70 cm. 100.6 × 66 cm. Museum Light, 1894. Oil on
invisible force, however, the idea of series Museum Folkwang Essen of Fine Arts, Boston, canvas, 100.6 × 64.9 cm.
Juliana Cheney Edwards Los Angeles, The J. Paul
art continues still today to pervade the fun-
Collection (39.671) Getty Museum (2001.33)
damental meaning of modern art when it
seeks the insights that can come from look-
ing lovingly at being in its flux, as often as
it might take to perceive how things are.
122 Notes 11.  For a brilliant, fully illustrated reconstruction of These four are in the Art Institute of Chicago, the 123 Dumas, “The Source of the Loue 1864,” in Sarah
1.  John Coplans, Serial Imagery, exh. cat., Pasadena Art this historic exhibition, see Jacques Vilain, ed., Claude Dixon Art Gallery, Memphis, the Sterling and Fran- Faunce and Linda Nochlin, eds., Courbet Reconsidered,

The Predications and Implications of Monet’s Series

Museum (1968). Monet-Auguste Rodin, Centenaire de l’exposition de 1889, cine Clark Art Institute, and in a private collection exh. cat., Brooklyn Museum (1988), 153–57 (nos. 47
2.  Although it omits any reference to Monet’s 1909 exh. cat., Paris, Musée Rodin (1989). (John House, Renoir, Master Impressionist, exh. cat. and 48). To my knowledge there has as yet been no
gallery show (out of uncharacteristic oversight) 12.  Édouard Papet, in Daumier 1808–1879, exh. cat., Brisbane, Queensland Art Gallery [Sydney: Art Exhibi- careful study of the Delacroix exhibition in August
Donald E. Gordon’s Modern Art Exhibitions: 1900– Ottawa, National Gallery of Canada (1999), 282–87 tions Australia, 1994], no. 30). Executed around the 1864 at the Galerie Martinet in Paris, and it seems
1916, published in 1974 (Munich: Prestel), provides (no. 143). time that Courbet died, they may be understood as doubtful that Courbet came to Paris to see it. Judging
the contents of most other early twentieth-century an acknowledgement by Renoir of Courbet’s status as from a painting of the display by Édouard Albertini
13.  The best overviews of the complex sculpture of
exhibitions as listed in the original gallery check- a pioneering series artist. (Paris, Musée Carnavalet), the exhibition did not fea-
nineteenth-century sculpture editions are Jacques
lists. In 1981 Garland Publishing issued a series of 23.  Charles Baudelaire, Oeuvres complètes, ed. Claude ture Delacroix’s multiple paintings of single subjects.
de Caso, “Serial Sculpture in Nineteenth-Century
reprinted nineteenth-century exhibition catalogues, France,” in Jeanne L. Wasserman, ed., Metamorphoses Pichois, 2 vols. (Paris: Gallimard, 1975–76), 2:665–66. 29.  Ann Dumas, “Portrait of Jo, the Beautiful Irish
some institutional, others commercial, compiled by in N
­ ineteenth-Century Sculpture, exh. cat., Cambridge, Both Baudelaire and Boudin could have been aware Girl 1865(?),” in Faunce and Nochlin, Courbet Reconsid-
Theodore Reff. Fogg Art Museum (1975), 1–28; and Catherine Chevil- of the numerous oil studies of clouds by British artist ered, 162–66, nos. 53–56.
3.  For a compendium of the new information, see lot, “Édition et fonte au sable,” in Pingeot, La sculpture John Constable (1776–1837). C. R. Leslie’s description 30.  G[ilbert] Randon, “Exposition G. Courbet,” Journal
Daniel Wildenstein, Claude Monet: Biographie et cata- française, 80–94. of these was published in French translation in the amusant, no. 598 (29 June 1867). Randon’s comments
logue raisonné, 5: Supplément aux peintures: Dessins, August and October 1855 issues of Magasin pittoresque. are connected with a lost work in Robert Fernier, La
14.  For the most insightful assessment of Monet’s
pastels, index (Lausanne: Wildenstein Institute, 1991), To the best of my knowledge, Constable never showed vie et l’oeuvre de Gustave Courbet: Catalogue raisonné
series and commerce, see John Klein, “The Dispersal
295–303. any of his cloud studies, much less a group of them (Lausanne and Paris: Bibliothèque des Arts, 1977),
of the Modernist Series,” Oxford Art Journal 21, no. 1
in tandem. As for Constable’s great rival, in 1841–42 1:272 (no. 520). For a recent assessment, see Laurence
4.  Janine Bailly-Herzberg, ed., Correspondance de (1998): 121–35.
J. M. W. Turner (1775–1851) made no fewer than three des Cars, “Les ‘paysages de mer’ de Gustave Courbet,
Camille Pissarro, 3: 1891–1894 (Paris: Éditions de 15.  A translation of Byvanck’s remarks are included
serially related exhibition watercolors showing Mont un enjeu moderne,” Musée Malraux (le Havre), Vagues:
Valhermeil, 1998), 60 (letter 652). in Charles F. Stuckey, ed., Monet: A Retrospective (New
Rigi observed across Lake Lucerne. Although they Autour des Paysages de mer de Gustave Courbet (2004).
5.  Ibid., 175 (letter 737). The artist’s eldest son, Lucien York: Hugh Lauter Leven Associates, 1985), 165–66.
were part of a group of ten similar-format Swiss views
Pissarro, wrote to the collector Georges de Bellio on 31. Chu, Letters of Gustave Courbet, 273 (no. 66-3).
16.  Kathryn Corbin, “John Leslie Breck, American to be sold by his dealer, Thomas Griffith, there is no
26 February 1893, that his father would be in Paris Impressionist,” Antiques, November 1988, 1142–49. 32.  Ibid., 273 and 277 (nos. 66-3 and 66-7).
indication that they were put on display together at
for an exhibition of his work at Durand-Ruel in March 33.  Théophile Thoré, “Salon de 1866,” in Salons de
17.  Maurice Guillemot, “Claude Monet,” La revue Griffith’s premises, nor that French Impressionist
to include “une série de paysages qu’il a fait par sa W. Bürger, 1861 à 1868, 2 vols. (Paris: Renouard, 1870;
illustrée 13, no. 7 (15 March 1898). artists had any access to them. See John Russell and
fenêtre où le clocher de Bazincourt apparaït comme repr., Paris: Place, 1987), 1:281–82.
18. Wildenstein, Claude Monet: Biographie et catalogue Andrew Wilton, Turner in Switzerland (Dubendorf:
le Fuji Yama des japonais, au milieu de toutes sortes
raisonné, 3: 1887–1898, peintures, 265 (no. 1139). De Clivo Press, 1976), 20, 27, 86 ff., and 138. 34. Chu, Letters of Gustave Courbet, 303 (no. 67-2).
d’effets.” See Maison Chavary, Lettres autographes et
19.  Stéphane Mallarmé, Correspondance, ed. Henri 24.  Catalogues des expositions organisées par la Société 35. Fernier, Courbet: Catalogue raisonné, nos. 385, 560,
documents historiques, no. 754 (Paris, December 1974),
Mondor and Lloyd James Austin, 5: 1892 (Paris: Galli- française de photographie: 1857–1876, 2 vols., repr., 562–65, 614–17, 648–50, 653. Without any special
no. 36,377.
mard, 1981), 61–62; and John House, “Young Girls at Paris: Durier/Place, 1987), 1:38, nos. 772–74 emphasis on the series issue, Courbet’s snowscapes
6.  See Joachim Pissarro and Claude Durand-Ruel
the Piano, nos. 89–91” in Renoir (London: Hayward (“Marines”). are discussed by Charlotte Eyerman in Courbet and
Snollaerts, Pissarro: Catalogue critique des peintures,
Gallery, 1985), 260–62. See also Albert Kostenevich, 25.  Colta Ives et al., The Private Collection of Edgar the Modern Landscape (Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty
3 vols. (Paris: Wildenstein Institute Publications/Skira,
Hidden Treasures Revealed: Impressionist Masterpieces Degas: A Summary Catalogue (New York: Metropolitan Museum, 2006), 91–93.
2005), 1:73–74; 2:55–64.
and Other Important French Paintings Preserved by the Museum of Art, 1997), 4 (nos. 18–20). 36.  Edmond and Jules de Goncourt, Journal: Mémoires
7. Bailly-Herzberg, Correspondance de Camille Pissarro,
State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg (New York: 26.  Elizabeth Anne McCauley, A. A. E. Disdéri and the de la vie littéraire, ed. Robert Ricatte, 22 vols. (Monaco:
3:55 (letter 650).
Abrams, 1995), 112–15, for a discussion of a version Carte de Visite Portrait Photograph (New Haven and Éditions de l’Imprimerie nationale, 1956–58), 8:55.
8.  Edmond de Goncourt, Hokousai (Paris: Bibliothèque formerly in the Krebs Collection, the provenance his- London: Yale University Press, 1985), esp. 45 and 96. 37.  Among the possible inspirations for the novelist
Charpentier, 1896), quoted in Geneviève Aitken and tory of which needs to be established. Michel Hoog
27.  See Gustave Cahen, Eugène Boudin: Sa vie et son brothers was a series of nine watercolors done at Bay
Marianne Delafond, La collection d’estampes japonaises pointed out the connection between Monet’s Cathedral
oeuvre (Paris: Floury, 1900), 188. By “salon,” Boudin of the Trépassés in Brittany by Paul Huet (1803–1869)
de Claude Monet à Giverny (Giverny: Maison de Monet, series and Renoir’s serial work in Musée de l’Orangerie:
meant either exhibition or, more literally, the living during sunset on a single evening. These are cited by
1983), 70–71. Catalogue de la collection Jean Walter et Paul Guillaume
room of his own home. John House, Monet: Nature John House, Monet: Nature into Art (New Haven and
9.  Exposition de la gravure japonaise à l’École nationale (Paris: Réunion des musées nationaux, 1984), 190. London: Yale University Press, 1986), 243 n.6, refer-
into Art (New Haven and London: Yale University
des Beaux-Arts à Paris du 25 avril au 22 mai: Catalogue 20.  The first version to be purchased by Durand-Ruel ring to Heim Gallery, Paul Huet, exh. cat. (London,
Press, 1986), 193–94, mentions Théodore Rousseau
(Paris: Imprimerie Chaix, 1890). The best recent survey is now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 1969), nos. 97 A-I.
(1812–1867), Charles-François Daubigny (1817–1878),
of the subject is David Bromfield, et al., Monet & Japan, which provides this information on its website: www and Johan Barthold Jongkind (1819–1891) as other 38.  See John House, “Boudin’s Modernity,” in Vivien
exh. cat., Canberra, National Gallery of Australia (2001). .metmuseum.org/Works_of_Art/. artists who may have influenced Monet’s interest Hamilton, ed., Boudin at Trouville, exh. cat., Glasgow
10.  Nicole Barbier, “Assemblages et répétitions dans 21.  “Nos artistes: Le peintre P.-A. Renoir chez lui,” in duplicate versions. See also Stephen Z. Levine, Museums (London: J. Murray, 1992), 22–23. He points
l’oeuvre de Rodin,” in Anne Pingeot, ed., La sculpture L’éclair, 9 August 1892. “Monet’s Pairs,” Arts 49, no. 10 (June 1975): 72–75. out that fellow artists bought most of the works on
française au XIXe siècle, exh. cat., Paris, Galeries paper at this auction.
22.  Jean Renoir, Pierre-Auguste Renoir, mon père (Paris: 28.  Petra ten-Doesschate Chu, ed. and trans., Letters
nationales du Grand Palais (Paris: Réunion des
Gallimard, 1981), 431–32. Renoir undertook no fewer of Gustave Courbet (Chicago and London: University 39.  Indeed, the extent of Monet’s work in pastels was
musées nationaux, 1986), 107–9.
than four paintings of a wave crashing on a beach. of Chicago Press, 1992), 243 (no. 64-11). See also Ann evident only with the publication of Wildenstein,
124 Claude Monet: Biographie et catalogue raisonné, 5: New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art (1980), 20–21 62.  For the 1883 exhibition, see ibid., 13–17, and vol. 5, 125 Fénéon refers here to three, not four, Rouen Cathe-
Supplément aux peintures: Dessins, pastels, index, 155–75. and 94–95. Supplément aux peintures: Dessins, pastels, index, 295; dral paintings.

The Predications and Implications of Monet’s Series

Noting how difficult it is to know when and by whom 47.  See Michael Pantazzi, “1873–1881,” in Jean Suther- and Steven Z. Levine, Monet and His Critics (New York 80.  Georges Clemenceau, “Révolution des cathé-
these works were in fact initialed and dated, Wilden- land Boggs, ed., Degas, exh. cat., Ottawa, National and London: Garland Publishing, 1976), 52–62. drales,” La justice, 20 May 1895; Joachim Pissarro,
stein does not attempt to give a precise date for Gallery of Canada, and New York, Metropolitan 63. Bendix, Diabolical Designs, 223–30. Monet’s Cathedral: Rouen, 1892–1894 (London: Pavilion,
Monet’s 1860s series of five sequential black crayon Museum of Art (1988), 214. 1990), 29–30.
64.  Joris-Karl Huysmans, Certains (first published
drawings (three of them signed) showing a boat
48.  The identifying press accounts are reproduced 1889) (Paris: Union Générale d’Éditions, 1975), 327. 81. Wildenstein, Claude Monet: Biographie et catalogue
stranded on a beach. Ibid., 123–24.
in Ruth Berson, ed., The New Painting: Impressionism 65.  Marcel Guérin, ed., Lettres de Degas (Paris: Édi- raisonné, 5: Supplément aux peintures: Dessins, pastels,
40.  Richard Kendall, Degas Landscapes (New Haven 1874–1886, Documentation, 2 vols. (San Francisco: Fine index, 206 (letter 2,938).
tions Bernard Graset, 1945), 119 (no. 90).
and London: Yale University Press, 1993), 85–107. Arts Museums of San Francisco, 1996), 1:54 and 105.
66.  Guy de Maupassant, “La vie d’un paysagiste,”
Kendall raises the possibility that Degas’s concern for
49.  The unconventional frames are mentioned in a Gil-Blas, 28 September 1886; translated in Stuckey,
the landscape at Beuzeval may have something to do
short 1890 biography of Pissarro; see Isabelle Cahn, Monet: A Retrospective, 121–34.
with his dialogue with Morisot. Only a few of her early
Cadres de Peintres (Paris: Réunion des musées natio-
landscape pastels survive, and these were eventually 67.  See Gary Tinterow, “1881–1890,” in Boggs, Degas,
naux, 1989), 65–68 and 85 n.55; and Matthias Was-
assigned a date of 1864, without taking into account 448 (no. 211).
chek, “Camille Pissarro,” in Eva Mendgen, ed., In
their similarity to the Degas pastels. See M.-L. Bataille 68.  Michèle Auer, Le premier interview photographique:
Perfect Harmony, Picture + Frame, 1850–1920, exh. cat.,
and G. Wildenstein, Berthe Morisot: Catalogue des Chevreul, Félix Nadar, Paul Nadar (Neuchâtel: Éditions
Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum (1995), 142.
peintures, pastels et aquarelles (Paris: Les Beaux-Arts, Ides et Calendes, 1999).
50.  The most helpful summaries of studies about
1961), 51 (nos. 417–18). 69. Wildenstein, Claude Monet: Biographie et catalogue
Monet’s Gare Saint-Lazare paintings are Berson,
41.  Although Courbet was not allowed to take part at raisonné, 2: 1882–1886, peintures, 225 (letter 808).
The New Painting, 2:76 (no. III-97 note); and Juliet
the Salon of 1872, his recent apple still lifes were suffi- 70.  The Complete Letters of Vincent van Gogh, 2d ed.,
Wilson-Bareau, Manet, Monet, and the Gare Saint-
ciently widely known to be the subject of caricatures 3 vols. (Boston: New York Graphic Society, 1978), 2:545
Lazare (New Haven and London: Yale University
published in conjunction with that event. Indeed at (letter 477).
Press, 1998), 103–29 and esp. 188 n.83.
the time of the Salon, one was displayed in the win- 71.  Ibid., 2:511 (letter B15 [19]).
51.  Pierre Wittmer, Caillebotte and His Garden at Yerres
dow of the Durand-Ruel gallery. See Klaus Herding,
(New York: Abrams, 1991), 72, 77, 254–58, and 275–76. 72. Bailly-Herzberg, Correspondance de Camille
“Courbets Modernität im Spiegel der Karikatur,” in
52.  Rodolphe Walter, “Émile Zola et Claude Monet,” Pissarro, 2 (1986), 239 (letter 492).
Werner Hofmann, ed., Courbet und Deutschland, exh.
Les cahiers naturalists 10, no. 26 (1964), 57. 73.  “Calendrier de juin,” Revue indépendante, July
cat., Hamburg, Kunsthalle (Cologne: Du Mont, 1978),
53.  Charles F. Stuckey, Claude Monet, 1840–1926, exh. 1888; reprinted in Félix Fénéon, Oeuvres plus que
518. For a recent discussion of these works, see Cour-
cat., Art Institute of Chicago (New York and Chicago: complètes, ed. Joan U. Halperin, 2 vols. (Geneva and
bet et la Commune, exh. cat., Paris, Musée d’Orsay
Thames and Hudson/Art Institute of Chicago, 1995), Paris: Librairie Droz, 1970), 1:113.
(Paris: Réunion des musées nationaux, 2000), in
particular the essay by Laurence des Cars, “Le silence 228 (24 May entry). 74.  “Tableaux de Sisley,” in Fénéon, Oeuvres plus
de la peinture.” 54.  See George T. M. Shackelford, “Pas de deux: que complètes, ed. Halperin, 1:133.

42.  See Robin Spencer, “Whistler’s First One-Man Mary Cassatt and Edgar Degas,” in Judith Barter, ed., 75.  “Tableaux: Exposition de M. Claude Monet, Paris,
Exhibition Reconstructed,” in Gabriel Weisberg and Mary Cassatt, Modern Woman, exh. cat., Art Institute Galerie Georges Petit, 8, rue de Séze, 5e Exposition de
Laurinda Dixon, eds., The Documented Image: Visions of Chicago (New York and Chicago: Thames and la Société des Artistes Indépendants, Paris, 84, rue de
in Art History (Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Hudson/Art Institute of Chicago, 1998), 115–16. Grenelle,” in Fénéon, Oeuvres plus que complètes, ed.
Press, 1987), 28; and Deanna Marohn Bendix, Dia- 55.  Sue Welsh Reed and Barbara Stern Shapiro, Edgar Halperin, 1:162. For other accounts of serial imagery
bolical Designs: Paintings, Interiors, and Exhibitions Degas, The Painter as Printmaker, exh. cat., Boston, and Monet’s 1889 show, see Levine, Monet and His
of James McNeill Whistler (Washington and London: Museum of Fine Arts (1984), 169 (no. 51). Critics, 109–10.
Smithsonian Institution Press, 1995), 212–13. 56.  Catalogue des estampes anciennes et modernes . . . 76.  For an illustrated reconstruction of this exhibition
43.  Quoted in Andrew McLaren Young et al., The Paint- composant la collection Edgar Degas, Paris, Hôtel based on Wildenstein’s research, see Vilain, Claude
ings of James McNeill Whistler, 2 vols. (New Haven and Drouot, 6–7 November 1918, lot 54. Monet-Auguste Rodin, 73–105.
London: Yale University Press, 1980), 1:84 (no. 138). 57.  Charles Stuckey, “Love, Money, and Monet’s 77.  See “On Self: From the Notebooks and Diaries of
44.  For the classic account of Whistler’s Nocturnes, Débâcle Paintings of 1880,” in Monet at Vétheuil: Susan Sontag, 1958–67,” New York Times Magazine,
see E. R. and J. Pennell, The Life of James McNeill The Turning Point, exh. cat., Ann Arbor, University 10 September 2006, 56.
Whistler, 2 vols. (London: Heinemann, 1909), 1:161–67. of Michigan Museum of Art (1998), 58–61. 78.  For Monet’s 1897 comments, see Maurice Guille-
45.  E. and J. de Goncourt, Journal, 10 (1871–75), 166. 58. Stuckey, Claude Monet, 1840–1926, 12–13. mot, “Claude Monet,” La revue illustrée 13, no. 7
(15 March 1898).
46.  Michel Melot, The Impressionist Print, trans. 59. Wildenstein, Claude Monet: Biographie et catalogue
Caroline Beamish (New Haven and London, Yale raisonné, 1: 1840–1881, peintures, 441 (letter 203). 79.  See Félix Fénéon, “Les grands collectionneurs:
University Press, 1996), 123. Nine of sixteen versions I.—Isaac de Camondo,” Bulletin de la vie artistique,
60. Wildenstein, Claude Monet: Biographie et catalogue
now belonging to the Baltimore Museum of Art are 1 April 1920, reprinted in Oeuvres plus que complètes,
raisonné, 2: 1882–1886, peintures, 217 (letter 260).
reproduced in The Painterly Print: Monotypes from ed. Halperin, 1:345–46. For some unknown reason,
61.  Ibid., 218 (letters 264, 266, and 270).
the Seventeenth to the Twentieth Century, exh. cat.,
 Risible Cézanne

Richard Shiff Paul Cézanne was the originator, the master of the [symbolist] movement
of 1890. [Although] his work involves no theory, it exercised considerable
influence on the evolution of painting. This great artist had a singular
weakness, being incapable of practicing an art of which he was not the
[sole] creator.
—maurice denis, 19171

Unleashed
For most of Paul Cézanne’s life, history held him in reserve. In
November 1895, at the age of fifty‑six, he had his first comprehen-
sive exhibition, an event only indirectly his doing. Ambroise Vollard,
aided by the painter’s son, gathered as many as 150 works to be
shown at his Paris gallery.2 Cézanne accepted this initiative, despite
being leery of public exposure, which his antisocial attitude contin‑
ued to discourage. Inured to isolation and without financial worry,
he had been enjoying the good working conditions that accompany
public neglect. “An artist wishes to elevate himself intellectually as
much as possible, but”—he declared, shortly after his exhibition
closed—“the man should remain obscure. Gratification ought to
come [only] in working.”3 “He creates in solitude,” critic Gustave
Coquiot wrote retrospectively, “and he needs none of our admira‑
tion.”4 Granted, there are indications to the contrary; Cézanne often
welcomed visits from appreciative young painters and writers.5
But by and large, Coquiot’s judgment holds, for Cézanne’s practice
was self‑sustaining technically, intellectually, and psychologically.
Although he drew after sculptures and paintings in the Louvre, by
the norms of his era his art hardly followed their model. He was
creating himself: “I am the primitive of my own way”—this, sup-
posedly, was his self‑assessment.6
After 1895, Cézanne’s apparent indifference to his public presence
and to the standards set by others had little effect on the increasing

127
128 frequency of his exhibitions; nor did it slow in capturing the curious circumstances of or a blue abruptly confronted a yellow within 129
the spread of the fame that accompanied his Cézanne’s reception. He referred to the effect the torso of a nude. In addition, Cézanne’s

Risible Cézanne
notoriety. He had reason to be uneasy about of the painter at “two successive stages of painted surface tended to be irregular, some
his new situation, symptomatic of a general art,” meaning ­impressionism—during the sections thick and others thin or even bare.
problem. In 1902, he complained that the 1890s, still entirely credible as an advanced Certain critics regarded this pictorial coarse‑
expansion of museums and the increasing aesthetic position—and the symbolism of ness as the sign of a painter’s immediacy
number of commercial exhibitions had the following generation, led by Paul Gauguin of vision; others derived from it a commit‑
become a pernicious distraction for artists, (1848–1903). Gauguin was only a decade ment to naïveté and sincerity (just the neces‑
their vision transfixed not by earth and sky younger than Cézanne; Matisse, three decades sities, no embellishments, no rhetoric). By
but by constellations of stylish brushmarks: younger and the same age as many of the Lecomte’s clever reckoning, as far as the
“We no longer view nature; we keep seeing symbolists, represented a third generation, older generation of impressionists was con‑
paintings. We should be looking at the work Lecomte’s own. The critic had enough dis‑ cerned, the Cézanne syndrome indicated a
of God!”7 If painting had in fact devolved tance to realize that first in the eyes of heroic rejection of the conventions of aca‑
into a narrowing repetition of painting for impressionists like Pissarro, then in the demic art risked for the sake of observing
painting’s sake, with the forms of one exhib‑ eyes of symbolists like Gauguin, Cézanne’s nature directly, even if no final resolution
ited body of work responding to the forms style “met the strange fate of being lauded should come of the effort. To the symbolists,
of another, the irony was that Cézanne had less for its good qualities than for its faults.”9 the same constellation of features signaled a
been an unwitting catalyst. Before Lecomte, Geffroy and others had return to techniques of the European “primi‑
Throughout the twentieth century, the noted the “faults”; they were matters of tives” (the pre‑academic styles of late Gothic
majority of critics and historians perceived omission, neglect of the technical niceties. and early Renaissance masters) as well as to
Cézanne as a master of structured composi‑ A contour would turn too abruptly and spoil the “classical” tradition of a faded but grand
Fig. 1. Paul Cézanne,
tion, but this opinion solidified only gradu‑ Three Bathers, 1879– the anatomical coherence or the sense of Mediterranean culture. Beyond these associa‑ Fig. 2. Jean-Baptiste- deficient intellectually. This natural painter
ally after his death in 1906. Before that time, 82. Oil on canvas, 52 × volume. A passage of color would seem to tions, with or without links to naturalism, Camille Corot, The of nature was paint‑­oriented, not Nature‑
54.5 cm. Paris, Musée du Evening Star (detail),
the interpretation of his controversial work lack its proper transitional elements, as in primitivism, and classicism, Cézanne’s 1864. Oil on canvas,
oriented; he lacked a concept of Nature. Corot,
Petit Palais, Don Mon-
varied considerably. Nearly all of the early sieur et Madame Henri situations where a stroke of red lay incongru‑ technique offered a fundamental advantage 71 × 90 cm. Baltimore, many believed, dealt with material appear‑
commentary nevertheless alluded to a single Matisse, 1936 (2099) ously beside a green within an area of foliage, to impressionists and symbolists alike: The Walters Art Museum. ances to the exclusion of ultimate meanings,
Bequest of Henry
physical feature: the peculiarly insistent way increased emotional force. Viewers of the as if he would prefer a viewer of The Evening
Walters, 1931 (37.154)
that Cézanne applied colored marks to can‑ 1890s perceived emotion in the brilliance Star (fig. 2) to pass over the starstruck figure
vas. Gustave Geffroy described a full range of his color and the directness of his paint for the sake of concentrating on the cascade
of the effect, from surfaces “executed over application—stroke by stroke by stroke— of paint in the upper sky—yellow, pink, gray-
an extended period, with thin layers, which with the marks lined up as if to record a ish blue. The depicted figure contemplates
in the end become compact, dense, and sequence of autonomous moments of visual Nature. Corot’s painting encourages a viewer
velvety,” to thicker, coarser finishes (perhaps sensation, each bearing its particular quan‑ to contemplate paint and its color, no matter
more typical), “coagulated and luminous.” tum of emotional energy. how much or how little it depicts.
At times “the forms grew awkward with the With its evident directness, Cézanne’s art During Corot’s lifetime, numerous critics
represented objects becoming confused”; caused the studied rendering of Nature’s complained that his thematic clichés, pre‑
in every instance, however, Cézanne’s vital traditional idylls to appear all the more artifi‑ sented with his characteristic range of color
intensity was evident.8 Those who noticed cial and obsolete, affecting even the reveries and light, were mindlessly repetitious even
were impressed even by works of small of the most “natural painter” of the previous when the scene varied: “It becomes quite
scale, such as the relatively late Group of generation, Jean-Baptiste-Camille Corot difficult to distinguish one of his [visual]
Bathers (see fig. 28) and the relatively early (1796–1875). The record of response to the melodies from the next. . . . He simply com‑
Three Bathers (fig. 1), which Henri Matisse two artists in their different eras establishes poses a scene, but has never composed more
(1869–1954), who certainly noticed, pur‑ certain parallels. Like Cézanne, for better than one.”11 The monotony of Corot’s typical
chased from Vollard in 1899. or worse, Corot had the reputation of being effect—a relatively even tonality across each
That same year, Georges Lecomte, a “content to arrange attractive colors on a canvas surface, similar from one painting
young critic close to the impressionist canvas.”10 Praise that began and ended with to the next—nullified the variation in his
Camille Pissarro (1830–1903), succeeded his visual merits implied that his art was mythological fantasies. Just as often, writers
130 nevertheless concluded that his homegrown readily associated with mistakes, misjudg‑ 131 either Cézanne’s or Gauguin’s, with this
technique resulted in a “poetic” and “emo‑ ments, and utter incapacity. Yet all was shift from three‑dimensional illusion to a

Risible Cézanne
tionally moving” art.12 “Don’t analyze Corot being excused in the name of feelings that rudimentary two‑dimensional planarity or
by dissecting his painting,” Alfred Sensier more polished techniques would never gen‑ ­flatness—from an imaginary, metaphorical
stated, “love him as you love a bountiful erate. Lecomte recognized that Cézanne, if vision to a literal materiality. For ­twentieth‑
tree.”13 (No one objects when apples from the not in practice then in his reputation, had century historians, what it all meant became
same tree look and taste alike.) This type of benefited from a heightened sensitivity to a vexed question. In the case of Cézanne,
appreciation came despite the fact that detrac- what counted as direct emotional expression interpreters usually associated the move
tors, or nearly anyone taking stock of Corot’s and what did not. During the decade preced‑ from illusion to materiality with a fundamen‑
technique, could “so complacently point out ing Vollard’s inaugural show, his art had tal reduction, a search for forms having an
its faults.”14 Although simplicity and spare‑ gained a special ­audience—a cult following essential presence.25 In the case of Gauguin,
ness might be faults, they held an obvious among painters and writers linked to or primitivist fantasy was the likely association.
advantage: “[Corot] reduces technique to its inspired by Gauguin and his emerging picto‑ The two artistic ends are clearly related; and
most elementary form and puts on the can‑ rial version of the symbolist literary program. the range of feelings linked to externals as during the 1890s and into the early twentieth
vas only just enough painting to say what he In many ways, Gauguin’s approach marked a well as to an artist’s self. Once committed century, the essential and the primitive were
feels.”15 As in Cézanne’s case, viewers had radical departure from impressionist natural‑ to extending emotional boundaries, an art- hardly distinguished by the many critics who
the initial impression that neither intellect ism. Not surprisingly, it never met Cézanne’s ist still had to decide how far to take repre‑ approved of both.
nor method sustained this art; rather, it was approval.18 He identified with the impres‑ sentational liberties for the sake of those When interpretation stagnates, look for
feeling—both sensation and emotion.16 The sionism of the 1870s and, in his opinion, had feelings, how insistently to mark the primacy an alternative, attend to whatever has been
concern for feeling among those involved been extending it.19 This did not prevent the of emotion in painting and in life.22 Allowed neglected. Believing that early twentieth-
with mid‑nineteenth‑century landscape paint- younger generation from running off with its due, emotion was likely to overwhelm century writers focused too rigidly on formal,
ing opened a door of acceptance not only to what they viewed as his inventions. “I had representational articulation. Its range was technical features, later critics and scholars
the technical antipodes of monotony and a little sensation, just a little, little sensation. greater than what any rule of representation delved into Cézanne’s subject matter, attempt-
irregularity but even to an execution that . . . But it was mine,” Cézanne said, probably accommodated. ing to identify the details and relate them to
bordered on incompetence. In 1847, Paul half joking, half serious: “One day this guy For the sake of emotion, an artist can specifics of his cultural environment. They
Mantz admitted his attraction to landscapists Gauguin, he took it from me.”20 attempt to adjust the balance between an also speculated on his personal psychology.
“less able in execution than most others, Symbolist images were more suggestive inherited order and what feels as if it were This orientation toward identifying the repre‑
barely initiated into the subtleties of their than representational, and more obviously free sensation. An intensification of color— sented people, objects, and locations, as well
craft.” He described one painter’s technique charged with emotion than was customary. bold in the view of some, crude as seen by as the various sources in earlier art, contin‑
as “simple to the point of awkwardness, fol- This is not to claim that emotion became the others—will often signify an unrestrained ues to yield remarkable results on several
lowing in Corot’s tracks”—that is, like Corot exclusive province of symbolists. Impression‑ intensification of emotion: “We find . . . fronts. But the method goes against the grain
in this potentially pejorative regard, but more ists, naturalists, and realists, as well as most the emotions of Cézanne in the interrela- of most of the record of early reception. The
so. Concerning an entire group of amateur‑ others, understood that painting of any kind tionship of colors,” the constructivist Theo more personal and local references made by
ish landscapists showing at the Salon, Mantz conveyed the emotion necessarily instilled in van Doesburg (1883–1931) stated in 1916.23 Cézanne’s paintings—and recovered, rightly
noted what truly mattered: “Their painstak‑ it as it was created. Awareness of this issue Gauguin had reasoned in 1885: “People or wrongly, by scholarship—went undetected
ing incapacity is not without a strange seduc‑ was ubiquitous. When reviewing the Impres‑ complain about our unblended colors, each by his critical audience at the time. Whatever
tiveness.”17 A strange seduction indeed: sionist exhibition of 1877, Mantz, by then one set against the other. . . . [Yet] a green such references were, they contributed little
rhetorical finesse and pictorial skill were eminently established as a writer, argued that beside a red does not yield a reddish brown, if anything to the actual effect that an ambi‑
not seducing Mantz; it was their absence. Corot—“poetic,” “emotionally moving”—was as in physical mixture, but rather two vibrant tious commentator like Lecomte had to con‑
Half a century later, Lecomte’s commen‑ himself “the foremost impressionist in the notes” (see Still Life with Peaches [fig. 3]).24 front, blind to what today’s art historians see.
tary of 1899 tacitly acknowledged the effect world,” superior to all those newcomers who, The practice of juxtaposing strokes of Fig. 3. Paul Gauguin, During the 1880s, Gauguin had responded
Still Life with Peaches,
of a cumulative mass seduction: Corot, like Pissarro and Cézanne, were claiming the abruptly contrasting hue, which Gauguin more directly to Cézanne’s mark than to
ca. 1889. Oil on cradled
Barbizon, Realism, Impressionism. Along name.21 Implicit in the conflict between older had come to admire in the work of Cézanne, panel, 16 × 31.8 cm. his thematics; and as he spoke freely of
with desirable qualities such as naturalness, naturalists and newer impressionists, and violated the conventional order of tonal varia‑ Cambridge, Massachu- this experience, it proved crucial to how the
setts, Harvard University
these shorthand references called forth eventually between impressionists and sym‑ tion, designed to convert planar images to Cézanne effect unfolded.26 This is the same
Art Museums. Gift of
visions of monotony, irregularity, awkward‑ bolists, was the question of whether to stress naturalistic illusions. Standard art‑historical Walter E. Sachs Gauguin otherwise so concerned with com‑
ness, and coarseness, technical features the emotionality that few if any doubted— accounts still identify early modernist art, (1958.291) plex allegories, narrative programs, and
132 arcane symbology; in Cézanne’s case, to 133
the contrary, it was the painter’s mark that

Risible Cézanne
became Gauguin’s issue. Between the early
twentieth‑century applications of formal
analysis and the late ­twentieth‑century meth‑
ods of cultural and social history, many
aspects of the position of a Gauguin or a
Lecomte go unrepresented. Interpretive paths
remain to be taken, alternatives that might
better capture the cultural shock Cézanne
produced around 1895, when history, in the
person of Vollard, unleashed his wildness.

Loss of Subject
The subject disappears, there is only a motif.
—paul sérusier, as quoted by Maurice Denis, 1907 27

Whatever Cézanne did during the 1890s

built on his initial impressionist experience
of the 1870s. Regarded as an exercise in
impressionist sensation at either historical
moment, his technique of discrete, parallel
brushstrokes converted still images to mov‑
ing images—“moving” in the sense of pro‑ Fig. 4. Paul Cézanne, point, Cézanne kept the outer contours of
jecting an emotion as well as being physically Bather with Outstretched figures fragmented and tentative even when
Arms, ca. 1883. Oil on
in a state of transition. What might have canvas, 33 × 23.2 cm.
they join a presumably preparatory series
become the picture of a fixed, fully realized Collection Jasper Johns of studies and variants, which in this case
concept or theme became instead a dynamic would include a smaller Bather with Out‑
corporeal and psychological response to imme- stretched Arms (fig. 4) and any number of
diate experience. An objection is likely: each related drawings. It is as if he were forever
of Cézanne’s blunt, truncated strokes of paint painting the image for the first time, each
is itself an arrested movement; the effect is of and every element of it suspended in sen- situated between two standing bathers Fig. 5. Paul Cézanne, in which aristocratic and oligarchic privilege
building blocks, discrete units, segments, the sation, never passing into the structures (one with a towel, the other with swimming Bathers, 1890—92. Oil faded into historical distance, into a past to
on canvas, 54.3 × 66 cm.
antithesis of organic change and flux. So here of memory. Memory would allow a more trunks); but he colored this area as if it Saint Louis Art Museum.
be forgotten.
interpretation is at liberty to divide. It can complete image to be established quickly, were a continuation of the distant mountain. Funds given by Mrs. Mark In Cézanne’s art, more than with his
establish Cézanne’s individual mark of color efficiently. When Cézanne did create generic Thematically, it might be either. His tech‑ C. Steinberg (2:1956) impressionist peers, what ought to have been
or line as an essential structural element, or figures of bathers from memory, his marks nique leveled the pictorial image, eliminat- conceptually secure became evidence of an
it can follow each mark as a gesture, perhaps remained tentative, performing acts of ing or at least obscuring potential hierarchies anxious sensory movement, associated more
futile, at a passing sensation. re‑animation.29 Some of the marks passed of value among its thematic components. with the repetitive marking of an act of paint‑
Take the latter direction. In both paintings through pictorial segments without striking This was not an unusual effect for painters ing than with the resolution of an established
and drawings, Cézanne fragmented the outer any clear representational pose. In this of an impressionist orientation. Leveling, theme. His marks were in motion but had
contours of representational forms and did respect, Cézanne granted his material tech‑ evenness of tonality, color equally distributed no preconceived moral end. His painting
so even in instances of a single figure with nique autonomy; he released his marks among the representational elements: all lived in the present. Perhaps this caused him
a monumental presence, where a more from a single, specific descriptive function. this evoked a pervasive atmospheric light. intellectual frustration without accompany‑
resolved linearity would be expected; a work In a composition of the early 1890s, Bathers Less directly, pictorial leveling alluded to ing bodily discomfort. His art was oriented
probably of the early 1880s, Bather with Out‑ (fig. 5) he gave the curving, tangled shape republican and anarchist ideals of a society toward the physical, toward feeling; and in
stretched Arms, is an example.28 More to the of foliage to a central area of background in which rank and order lost all authority, this regard, it succeeded aesthetically. Yet this
134 did not mean that he considered himself a of disruptive forces deep within modern together from copies of individual figures he 135 theme of apples: it was as if no apples, at
cultural or social success. His analytical, rea- culture; if his aesthetics posed a problem, used repeatedly, lifted out of their original least none like those depicted, existed before

Risible Cézanne
soning mind and his emotive, sensing body this was everyone’s problem. The painter contexts and recombined—hence, the “unre‑ Cézanne painted them, before he made them
may have been moving at cross-purposes. too eccentric to follow society’s lead, too alistic” or unnatural bearing of these repre‑ “his own” (fig. 6). The apples resembled each
Taking stock of Cézanne retrospectively, Pablo schizoid to have accepted his own tradition- sentational elements, even in terms of myth other but not the appearance of any other
Picasso (1881–1973) perceived the “anxiety” alist instincts, presented the most telling and fantasy (fantasy, too, has its regularity, apples, real or pictorial, despite the artist’s
his art reflected, while Maurice Merleau‑ example to his better-adjusted peers. its conventions). Problematically, Cézanne custom of making arrangements of fruit in
Ponty found evidence of a “schizoid tem- Prominent as a theorist among the young freed his motif from the normative restraints his studio before painting what he consid‑
perament.”30 As a painter, Cézanne was a symbolists, Denis offered a compromise of the subject. Because many of the physical ered their image. Cézanne’s theme of apples
traditionalist with a modernist sensibility. concerning Cézanne’s relation to tradition: aspects of his art failed to correspond to the became a repetitious imitation of itself: “He
If a resolution to his mind‑body divide ever he had reconstituted classical composition, existing classical paradigm, his supportive restricted his effort at painting for the love
arrived through his art—and perhaps, from but not as one would have expected, not as a critics were obliged to explain. They resorted of certain forms he had invented.”39
certain interpretive perspectives, it did— consequence of rigorous academic study. It to modifiers. Cézanne was a “modern” clas‑ Viewers encountered the “apples” as a set
he was in no psychological state to have was as if classical form were generated from sic, a “primitive” classic, a “spontaneous” of sensory qualities that existed only because
acknowledged it. within Cézanne’s body, soul, and psyche—a classic. His classicism was in the form, in Cézanne painted them: his particular reds,
While twentieth‑century notions of anxiety classicism identified with his unique “sen- the color, in the composition. The early crit‑ his rhythms of rounded contours—his apple
and even of schizophrenia may apply to sation” (the term he preferred) or with his ics applied any number of cultural categor- motif. Denis implied that any illusion of a
Cézanne’s case, his late nineteenth‑century instinctive emotional response to his cultural ies and technical terms to acknowledge real apple must be secondary, alluding again
interpreters, close to the scene, advanced a environment (a viable alternative). In 1907, the disjunction between subject and motif, to a statement by Sérusier: “He is the pure
less scandalous vocabulary. Gauguin’s aco- Denis eulogized Cézanne as having neither obvious enough to anyone who looked. painter. . . . Of an ordinary painter’s apple
lyte Paul Sérusier (1864–1927) epitomized model nor true counterpart within the tradi‑ you say, ‘I could take a bite out of it.’ Of
Cézanne’s situation, and Maurice Denis tion he joined: “so naturally a painter and so Wild Apples Cézanne’s apple you say, ‘How beautiful!’” 40
quoted him: “The subject disappears, there spontaneously classical.”35 A spontaneous Creator of work resembling nothing that could A conventional apple is suitable for nourish‑
is only a motif.”31 A motif does not equal a movement is a physical contradiction in that be seen before it. . . . [Cézanne] makes apples ment; Cézanne’s apple suits only the senses.
Fig. 6. Paul Cézanne,
subject.32 Conceptualized to a lesser degree, it reacts to nothing; it lacks an external cause. his own. . . . They are to him as an object is to Having read Denis’s commentary, Sérusier
Compotier, pommes
if at all, a motif lacks a subject’s stability. An Eccentric and even flawed, Cézanne’s spon- its creator. et miche de pain, added: “Cézanne can’t be described in words.
artist’s representational subject—preselected, taneous classicism did not result from his —thadée natanson, 189538 1879–80. Oil on canvas, He’s too pure a painter.”41 Both Sérusier and
55 × 74.5 cm. Winterthur,
fixed in place—ought to be paramount, a indoctrination, and he never adhered to the Denis suggested that the beauty Cézanne
Sammlung Oskar Rein-
guide to the process of rendering. But in Mediterranean tradition as strictly as he Responding to Vollard’s exhibition, Thadée hart “am Römerholz” created reflected a moral order, a paradigm
Cézanne’s art, the subject was diminished might have wished. It was in this sense that Natanson presented the paradox of Cézanne’s (1921.2) for living, an ethic of truth to oneself and
to an unusual extent, even suffering an his independence, safeguarded by his social one’s practice. This was consistent with a
“absence” (Sérusier’s term) in relation to isolation—in Denis’s words, his “being inca‑ romantic‑realist tradition that stressed the
the motif.33 Loss of the subject may have pable of practicing an art of which he was central importance of each person’s experi‑
been the most common understanding not himself the creator”—became a “weak‑ ence, their personal, observational perspec‑
of the troubled state of modern representa‑ ness,” potentially self‑defeating.36 tive (which could nevertheless be quite
tional practice, to which Gauguin and his Classical by inclination, spontaneously, anonymous). In a different context, the
associates directed their contemporaries. Cézanne fit a tradition yet followed his sin- scandal surrounding publication of Madame
They saw both the problem and its potential gular way. Though the subject might be Bovary in 1856, Gustave Flaubert had stated
solution in Cézanne. Honoring Gauguin classical and arcadian—bathers beside a the operative principle: “The morality of
upon his death in 1903, Denis wrote of stream, a distant mountain—the motif was art”—its moral value or social justification—
a special accomplishment: “He revealed the ­painter’s. The presumptive subject was “is found in its beauty itself.”42 Beauty can be
Cézanne’s work to us not as the product of no more than a “pretext,” Denis remarked, independent of the subject. Cézanne’s apple
an independent agent of genius . . . but as with the theme of bathers converted from ranked high on beauty. “Facing [a] Cézanne,
the conclusion to a long struggle, the neces‑ classical to what could only seem nonsensi‑ we think only of the [material] painting,”
sary result of a great crisis.”34 Loss of subject cal: “nude figures, unrealistically grouped in Denis wrote; “neither the object represented
was the crisis. By Denis’s account—or was a nonexistent landscape.”37 In fact, Cézanne’s nor the subjectivity of the artist holds our
it Gauguin’s?—Cézanne was the nodal point compositions of bathers were hybrids pieced attention.”43 Absence of subjectivity as well
136 as of the subject: this was the work of “too of an apple. To some, this beauty was a mate‑ as if he were wild and uncultivated.” The 137 ready to paint: “No theories! Works. Theories
pure a painter.” rial property, available primarily to sensation; writer’s precise words, fruste et comme sau‑ ruin people.”52 Yet the artist was no doubt at

Risible Cézanne
Absence of subjectivity in Cézanne’s case to others, an abstract essence. All the while, vage, connoted a lack of refined culture that home with words. His upbringing provided
meant absence of the familiar signs of sub‑ without making quite the same “symbolist” might have applied to the man as much as access to literary culture, and he had consid‑
jectivity, indications of a personal statement. claims, Cézanne’s initial impressionist to his art.47 But Cézanne’s wildness, even if ered becoming a writer.53 In later life he often
This did not imply that his painting lacked ­colleagues—Pissarro, Edgar Degas (1834– evident in his art, was questionable in view drew on his cultural privilege, sometimes with
personal feeling. In fact, to be a “spontane‑ 1917), Claude Monet (1840–1926), Pierre- of who he was to those who knew him—a complicated ironies, for he mixed crudeness
ous” classic was to be among those romantics Auguste Renoir (1841–1919)—remained wealthy, well‑educated bourgeois, religious, into his daily habits and speech. One of his
who insisted on following their natural incli‑ true to their early appreciation of his talents. and relatively conservative in his politics. young acquaintances became convinced that
nations as opposed to cultural precedents, On visiting the exhibition at Vollard’s gal- Despite a reputation for isolation, antisocial he acted strangely only to cause others to leave
to be among those who conceived of art as lery, Pissarro spoke of how deeply he and behavior, and even misanthropy, he was him alone—to paint.54 On the few occasions
the untutored realization of inner feelings, the others had been affected by this “refined hardly uncultivated. In conversation he when he was observed at work, he may never-
thoughts, and character. (There remains the savage [sauvage raffiné].” “All of us,” he won‑ cited Virgil and the Latin classics.48 Witness theless have appeared lost in contemplative
question whether the feelings a person expe‑ dered, “are we mistaken? . . . I don’t think accounts indicate that when intellectually thought rather than absorbed in visual sensa‑
riences as “inner” are inner, whether that so.”46 For two different groups of informed stimulated, he joined in speculation on mat‑ tion, not an easy distinction to make. Gasquet
person’s immersion in a culture eliminates viewers, then, the 1895 exhibition confirmed ters of current philosophical debate: Does a referred to him “sometimes remain[ing] still
this possibility, substituting social forms for existing beliefs and even strengthened them. sensitive person perceive feelings that belong for twenty minutes between two strokes of
personal ones. I will return to this.) To the contrary, for the newer public audi‑ to elements of nature, as if the trees them‑ the brush.”55 What was happening? Was he
Eugène Delacroix (1798–1863), hedging ence, the same body of work generated a selves were conscious? Or do we project our mentally plotting refinements to the image?
Romantic‑versus‑classic bets, claimed that savage shock; its forms appeared devoid of feelings onto the trees that surround us? This Or was he immobilized by the raw intensity
he had achieved an independent mastery; the mitigating refinement that both artists question motivates an exchange recorded by of the sensation, tantamount to his emotion?
because of this, others would copy him as like Pissarro and critics like Natanson could Joachim Gasquet, the son of one of Cézanne’s This was emotion that, for the moment, did
their classic model, but he would have no perceive because they were already seasoned boyhood friends. Little should be taken ver‑ not allow him to move.
need to imitate anything outside himself in Cézanne’s wildness. Concentrating on batim, yet Gasquet’s text captures issues of We have to assume that Cézanne experi‑
(figs. 7–12).44 In 1846, critic Théophile Thoré the beauty, they refrained from condemning plausible concern to the painter. It poeticizes enced intense sensation as well as the move‑
prefigured the Cézanne problem by arguing as utter mistakes the technical blemishes Cézanne’s thought, which becomes phenom‑ ment people feel as emotion. At times, he was
that true artists defy classification according that might appear in a painted apple and enological and pantheistic: “In a [vision of ] led to wild, passionate painting, at times to
to lineage; they exist as “the sons of no one elsewhere. And if Cézanne, like Delacroix green my brain flows along with the sap of doubt and immobility.56 In so many respects,
[and] go forth from their own innateness.”45 before him, was becoming recognized as the tree. Moments of conscious awareness he was a paradox. If he sacrificed much of his
The classical tradition had been marked an independent but classic master, then of the world live on in our paintings.”49 inherited aesthetic culture to his innovations,
by the repetition of both thematic and stylis‑ his “mistakes,” like Corot’s, would seduce Translation: Cézanne was painting his it seemed to Natanson that this happened for
tic forms. In what might be identified as a others to repeat them. motif. Coquiot invoked the same harmo- the sake of a competing aesthetic good—
modernist reorientation, the new romanti‑ Reviews of Vollard’s show, whether posi- niousness more succinctly: “Cézanne “bold coloring, astonishing in its crudeness
cism (Delacroix), realism (Flaubert, Gustave tive or negative, duly registered its contro- adds his soul to the soul of things.”50 . . . work that is exclusively painting, which
Courbet [1819–1877]), and impressionism versial nature. Among the more detailed If it was true (not merely Gasquet’s pro- can please only those totally enamored of
(Pissarro) reiterated only what belonged to accounts was Natanson’s, which, coinciden‑ jection) that Cézanne’s mind moved through painting.” Cézanne’s guiding intention cor‑
each artist alone: a personal style. Cézanne’s tally, adopted the terms of Pissarro’s judg‑ layers of philosophical speculation, this may responded to that of the most radical innova‑
apple, classical or not, belonged to no cate- ment, perhaps because the oppositional play have had little bearing on his immediate tors of past eras: “to create a number of new
gory other than his. of refinement and savagery was such a cliché, practice of painting. As if cognizant of his signs [quelques signes neufs].”57 To change the
Inadvertently, Cézanne inspired the sym‑ these contradictory terms having been fully mind-body problem, he distinguished clearly sign is to change the culture, to instill in it a
bolist school to depart from both academic assimilated into the prevailing critical dis‑ between verbal and visual modes, abstract new mentality. The representational sign for
and impressionist standards of representa‑ course. Natanson presented savagery—that thought and concrete sensation: “The literary an object, event, or psychic state is already
tion. Symbolists believed that impressionists is, wildness—as a feature of merit (not an type [the theorist] expresses himself with an interpretation imposed on the course of
and the academics who preceded them were unusual position then or now). Cézanne had abstractions, whereas the painter makes his living. When the interpretation is new, even
painting apples as a subject, whether real or rejected “any disingenuous seduction”; and sensations, his perceptions concrete.”51 Gas‑ its creator will have doubts. At one end of
imaginary, whereas Cézanne was painting if there was seduction, it was not intended. quet dutifully recorded Cézanne’s frustration the artistic spectrum of the 1890s was “disin‑
“beauty,” setting it arbitrarily into the form Natanson continued: “He dares to be coarse, over too much talk when out in the landscape genuous seduction,” skillful manipulation
Fig. 7. Ferdinand-Victor-
Eugène Delacroix, Christ
on Lake Genasareth,
1853(?). Oil on canvas,
45.1 × 54.9 cm. Port-
land, Oregon, Portland
Art Museum, Gift of
Mrs. William Mead Ladd
and children (31.4)

Fig. 8. Ferdinand-Victor-
Eugène Delacroix, Christ
on the Sea of Galilee,
ca. 1841. Oil on canvas,
45.7 × 54.6 cm. Kansas
City, Missouri, The
­Nelson-Atkins Museum
of Art. Purchase:
Nelson Trust through
exchange of the gifts
of the Friends of Art,
Mr. and Mrs. Gerald
Parker, and the Durand-
Ruel Galleries; and
9, 10
the bequest of John K.
Havermeyer (89-16)

11, 12

Fig. 9. Ferdinand-Victor- Fig. 10. Ferdinand-Victor- Fig. 11. Ferdinand-Victor- Fig. 12. After Ferdinand-
Eugène Delacroix, Eugène Delacroix, Christ Eugène Delacroix, Christ Victor-Eugène Delacroix,
Christ Asleep during the on the Sea of Galilee, on the Sea of Galilee, Christ on the Lake of
Tempest, 1853. Oil on 1853. Oil on composition 1854. Oil on canvas, Gennesaret, 1854. Oil
canvas, 50.8 × 61 cm. board, 47.6 × 58.1 cm. 59.8 × 73.3 cm. Baltimore, on paper mounted on
New York, The Metropoli- Philadelphia Museum of The Walters Art Museum, Masonite, 25.1 × 31.4 cm.
tan Museum of Art, Art, Gift of R. Sturgis and Bequest of Henry Museum of Fine Arts,
H. O. Havemeyer Marion B. F. Ingersoll, Walters, 1931 (37.186) Boston, Bequest of
Collection, Bequest of 1950 (1950-6-1) Josiah Bradlee, 1903
Mrs. H. O. Havemeyer, (03.741)
1929 (29.100.131)
140 of the viewer by means of conventional signs. is to lead people where they would otherwise constitute a human figure or an object (see 141 attitude toward prevailing social forms and
At the other end was its ethical antidote: be disinclined to go—from one mental frame The Bathers [Baigneurs], fig. 14). their media rhetoric, seeking to separate the

Risible Cézanne
crudeness, coarseness, wildness (with or to another, one moral state to another. Rhetorical eloquence enables a communi‑ “genuinely” natural from whatever the cul‑
without Cézanne’s tenuous anchor in Virgil Despite his surrealist orientation, Bataille cative medium, whether a picture in colors ture has merely naturalized: its rhetorical
and the ancients, a safeguard against his took an interest in impressionist painters or a description in words, to appear not only “seductions.” Natanson’s account of Cézanne
doubt).58 Trying to accommodate the one— of the late nineteenth century, Cézanne authoritative and comprehensible but also— implied that the painter had returned to natu-
classical pictorial rhetoric—while being included. In 1955, he published a short book paradoxically—natural, that is, without need ral forms of visual expression through his
drawn to the other—“nothing that could be on the impressionism of Cézanne’s some‑ of rhetorical eloquence. The representation aesthetic wildness. His art was distinguished
seen before”—sometimes brought Cézanne’s what older contemporary Édouard Manet passes through the cultural environment not for its culturally approved thematics
sensation and emotion, as well as the associ‑ (1832–1883). He offered this characterization, fluidly, effortlessly. Culturally sanctioned, a (bathers, apples, and so on) but for “all the
ated movements of his brush, to a standstill. ironic in relation to Manet’s refined manners “natural” sign affirms itself in repeating its remainder, which is nothing but painting
No wonder that he believed, very late in life, and speech: “Every element of rhetorical allusions to an established constellation of itself.”64 Easy enough to announce in con‑
that he had achieved only “slow progress.”59 eloquence, true or false, is eliminated. There values. When social life is agreeable and cept, in practice this shift was momentous
remain the strokes of different colors [liter‑ individuals are in easy command of their and troubling even to those who brought it
Manet /Cézanne ally: spots, taches]. . . . This is the negation discourse, no need arises to question the about. Natanson’s “remainder,” “painting
[Manet] had nothing that would have been of painting that expresses, as language does, collective cultural order; it feels “natural” itself,” corresponded to Sérusier’s and Denis’s
needed to tame a “savage.” His elegance, worldly a specific feeling.”62 According to Bataille, despite the artificiality and arbitrariness of “motif”—a complex of felt emotion, physical
manners, the urbane wit of his conversation, Manet’s art abandoned eloquent articulation its coding. movement, and natural form (form suited
all this worked to distance Cézanne. and with it the possibility of expressing a For whatever reason—matters of political to the material medium). At a distance of
—georges rivière, 192360 fully defined “specific feeling,” feeling sub‑ resistance, aversion to authority, personal sixty years, Bataille would reach Natanson’s,
ject to classification. A specific feeling is a conflict—an individual artist may decide on Sérusier’s, and Denis’s shared conclusion,
I don’t offer my hand, Monsieur Manet; familiar emotion, already bearing a name, or merely drift along a countercultural path. still problematic. He framed the question
I haven’t washed in a week. easily discussed and managed. Feelings of He or she assumes an open, incredulous in terms of a void rather than a remainder.
—cézanne, upon meeting Manet in 186661 this type neither overwhelm nor threaten. Manet’s art filled him with “the strange
In Bataille’s estimation, feelings to be derived impression of an absence.”65 Sérusier and
The purpose of culture is to bring moral from Manet’s art would be otherwise: just Denis had also spoken of a loss, a subject dis-
order to the physical world, regulating the as specific yet unattached to language and its appearing, replaced by a motif. Analogously,
body and mind, setting standards for behav‑ usual rhetorical forms—uncultivated, wild. Bataille invoked “the destruction of the sub‑
ior and even thought. Culture tames wildness Lacking eloquence, Manet’s sign, his ject.”66 But did anything replace the subject
in both people and their world of things. Like picture in its bare material manifestation, when it was gone?
an ideology, a cultural order relies on the would have to locate its beauty elsewhere Converting disorderly human sensation
“rhetorical eloquence” of its representational than in rhetoric. It risked the appearance into moral order, culture reduces selective
signs, which constitute projections of author‑ of crudeness and even ugliness. Worse than aspects of experience to intellectual abstrac‑
ity. Eloquence—proper, effective discourse— that, Manet’s manner of rendering seemed tions, mental constructions suited to the
ensures that the message of the sign is con- incomplete and malformed, as if he had memory. Bataille was one of those t­ wentieth‑
vincing with respect to both its logic and its abandoned any pretence to an accomplished century critics who perceived n ­ ineteenth‑
sincerity. Because we fully expect rhetoric to naturalism and realism. His crudeness was century art in terms of what it had lost, that
be eloquent, the phrase “rhetorical eloquence” quantitative: in the context of an essay on is, failed to remember. Among other things,
is pleonastic. Here I quote it from Georges Cézanne, Denis noted that Manet’s Fifer of it lost its capacity for generalized conceptual
Bataille, a twentieth‑century critic and theo‑ 1866 (fig. 13) displayed a mere “four shades” abstraction—the “subject.” If nineteenth‑
rist associated primarily with the surrealist of gray, whereas a typical impressionist century painting had been moving toward
generation of French artists. In Bataille’s painting would introduce a full palette to the kind of twentieth‑century abstract art
reasoning, as with the ancients who debated take advantage of every nuance of every that lacked a subject, then its “abstraction”
the use and abuse of rhetoric, “rhetorical hue in the spectrum.63 Cézanne might have Fig. 13. Édouard Manet, was more sensory than intellectual, address‑
The Fifer, 1866. Oil on
eloquence” shades into what Natanson called seemed like a full‑palette Manet, using a ing the body rather than the mind. Accord-
canvas, 1,610 × 970 cm.
“disingenuous seduction.” Rhetoric is value‑ relatively small number of discrete strokes Paris, Musee d’Orsay ing to Bataille, Manet’s “absence” contributed
neutral but inherently seductive. Its purpose or juxtaposed patches of saturated color to (RF 1992) to an aesthetic, sensory withdrawal from
142 to the senses, an arbitrary repetition of r. 143 door: painting for itself.”70 Natanson repeated
The conventional perception of a rose (red, the claim in 1895. And in 1899, Félicien Fagus

Risible Cézanne
not blue), together with its standard meta‑ (pseudonym of Georges Faillet) wrote simi‑
phoric meanings, constitutes the moral larly of Cézanne’s love of “color for its own
content of this physical thing. Morality is sake. . . . Through color he composes, [dis‑
cultural. Inessential aspects of the verbal daining] every aspect of theory, every [estab‑
or visual representation of a rose, such as lished] technique, every method.” To this use
its full range of color, inhabit a physical of color, Fagus linked a challenging practice
realm outside the established moral order. then becoming known as “pure painting”:
To turn away from the representational “Cézanne sometimes copies onto his can‑
meaning of a sign, drawing attention to its vases scenes from popular prints and alma‑
physical, sensory character—in our example, nacs . . . faithful to them at least in terms of
to dwell on the alliterative r in an aural the moral content,” that is, the thematics.71
description or on variations of hue in the The critic’s phrasing was tenir vrai . . . morale‑
visual image—is to foster cultural anarchy. ment, to hold true to the source morally.
Modern critics have accepted the conse‑ The painter’s copy would faithfully preserve
quences, stressing the value of physicality the subject matter and its familiar cultural
and materiality for the very reason that the ­connotations—the moral factor—even as he
physical realm promises release from hier- converted black‑and‑white graphic sources to
archies of conceptual abstraction grown too brilliant color, which then became the salient
rigid within a cultural structure.68 Culture feature of the image, and rather striking:
ideologically organized systems of reason; Fig. 14. Paul Cézanne, because this is our customary abstraction can deaden as well as enliven. In a fully con- “color for its own sake,” “painting for itself,”
and for its destruction of the rational sub- The Bathers (Baigneurs), of a rose. “Roses are red” is a thought more structed world, certain modes of art presume the physical element rendered paramount.
1898–1900. Oil on
ject, Manet’s painting was to be valued. The canvas, 27 × 46 cm. The
than an observation, a lasting concept (moral) to offer an unconstructed anti‑world. Do By this reasoning, Cézanne’s art preserved
loss was welcome. For Natanson, Cézanne’s Baltimore Museum of rather than a transient sensation (physical). they? Artists often believe so. Perhaps this the moral thematics of a generalized classical
wildness—fruste et comme sauvage—had Art: The Cone Collection, Any reversal or inversion in the system of is no more than my fantasy (our collective tradition and specific (often popular) sources,
formed by Dr. Claribel
had much the same effect. Both Manet and generalized signification presents a danger, fantasy?), a beneficial fiction I would like to but in an etiolated form, merely as a hollow
Cone and Miss Etta Cone
Cézanne contributed to (or merely reflected) of Baltimore, Maryland for regression from the abstraction of events believe despite suspicions to the contrary. shell. In contradistinction, color and its
the loss of a secure sense of morality and its (BMA 1950.195) and phenomena to raw sensation threatens When the intellectual abstractions of a culture materiality, now liberated from the image,
abstract concepts. Manet’s and Cézanne’s to undermine the intellectualized cultural prove restrictive, an individual can test out forged an aggressively autonomous way.72
“strokes of different colors” belonged with order, even when the ensuing complications an escape through the realm of the physical. As the moral abstraction weakened, the
all that was physical in art, a physicality out‑ are slight. Mere sensation makes no sense in Gauguin did so, leaving Parisian civilization physical abstraction strengthened. Paul
side ideological control on the far side of itself, and a society can tolerate only so many for the fantasia he would fashion from Tahiti. Signac’s (1863–1935) description of Cézanne’s
any steady moral line. nonsensical appendages to its streamlined What about Cézanne, far less revealing technique, also from 1899, captured much
forms of communication. Speakers intend than Gauguin in his personal statements? the same sense of its s­ ignificance—“strokes
Painting for Itself more than the pleasing alliteration of “red Laying down his little marks of color, he rectilinear and pure, concerned with neither
With impressionism, painting attained auton‑ rose,” an aural sensation that may seem arrived at his own countercultural position. mimeticism nor artfulness.”73
omy, but Cézanne alone made forceful use of the free of context. Beyond the aesthetics of the How radical he intended to be, if at all, may In 1904, Bernard had the good fortune
freedom it offered. . . . [He paints] what we see, sound, we equate such words with accepted be impossible to know. Artists sometimes sur- to observe Cézanne directly at his studio
without reflecting on it intellectually, without notions, believing in the case of roses that prise themselves. Gauguin during the 1880s in Aix‑en‑Provence, conversing with him
assimilating it to linguistic formulations. they actually are red and ought to be. Beyond took the lead in appreciating Cézanne’s art over a period of several weeks. “To my great
—georges bataille, 195667 the color lie the connotative meanings: love, for the cultural liberation it seemed to offer.69 astonishment,” he wrote subsequently,
sex, death. Although the poetic sound of Many others followed. In 1891, Gauguin’s “Cézanne had no objection to a painter’s
What we remember may be no more than the verbal sign aids in our remembering the erstwhile colleague Émile Bernard (1868– use of photography; but in his case, it was
a fraction of what we sense. In passing, we redness and these social facts, it would be 1941) included a bold claim in the first publi‑ necessary to interpret this exact reproduc-
glimpse a rose that displays both red and destabilizing for the concept and meaning cation devoted exclusively to the enigma of tion just as he would interpret nature itself ”
blue hues; we remember it as red, not blue, of the rose to depend on a capricious appeal Cézanne: “He opened to art this amazing (see Melting Snow, Fontainebleau [fig. 15]).74
144 To Manet, who sacrificed meaning, and Bataille then added to the anecdote an obser‑ 145 represented, even if not a standard mean-
Vincent van Gogh (1853–1890), who sac- vation more his own: Monet’s vision accepted ing. Manet, however, did something else,

Risible Cézanne
rificed himself, the surrealist‑inspired “the incongruity of things as they are.”80 Real‑ “substitut[ing] for the conventional view
Bataille added Cézanne as a paradigmatic ity was not merely a truth, but an unwelcome, of things an unforeseen aspect that has no
modernist artist, one who may have sacri‑ unruly, unaccommodating truth, inconsistent meaning.”84 Manet’s art would result in a
ficed both.77 Bataille’s thoughts on the shock with any conceivable order of logical truth. sensory flow amounting to nonsense, a non‑
value of nineteenth‑century painting draw The reality of nature included, and perhaps meaning that dominates the given iconic
on the distinction between morality and featured, physical deformations of “a striking subject, which as a result loses contact with
physicality, applicable in all three cases: incongruity, somewhat comical but all the any meaning that might be derived from
Manet, van Gogh, Cézanne. He warned more discomforting, mysteriously linked to its cultural origin.
of an indoctrinated public’s tendency to a profound seductiveness.”81 No construc‑ Bataille knew that the public had often
deny, disregard, or discredit the value of tion, no resolution, would contain reality’s greeted Manet’s paintings with a shrug accom-
physical and material aspects of experience formlessness, attractive in its repulsiveness. panied by laughter.85 This was not the same
that fail to relate to immediate, conscious In 1929, long before his accounts of laugh that had been directed at Delacroix and
needs. In a work of art, a material factor Manet, Cézanne, and impressionism, Bataille Courbet, whose innovations could be analyzed
lacking obvious representational function had been writing for the surrealist‑oriented as a comedy of pictorial errors (analogous
This statement confirms what Fagus had Fig. 15. Paul Cézanne, might generate this type of useless sen- journal Documents; there, in a more overtly to the response to Corot’s technique, where
surmised from seeing an array of exhibited Melting Snow, Fontaine- sation. An excessive physical or material theoretical mode, he presented the release of viewers would “so complacently point out
bleau, 1879–80. Oil on
works: Cézanne converted black‑and‑white canvas, 73.5 × 100.7 cm.
presence would be likely to provoke a the sensing eye from the reasoning intellect its faults”). Manet’s public laughed instead as
images to his chosen range of color, just as New York, The Museum fit of anxious laughter in dismissal, and as tantamount to absolute liberty, a terrifying they encountered a truth “not to be reached
he converted a natural scene to colors suited of Modern Art. Gift of perhaps indignation: What is that smear, prospect: “The substitution of natural forms by conscious ­knowledge”—an abrupt, con‑
André Meyer (373.61)
for painting on canvas. The colors were of his that daub, supposed to be doing? for today’s philosophical abstractions . . . founding shock to reason. Pondering Manet
painting but not necessarily derived from the In 1956, Bataille reviewed several his- would risk going much too far: in the first in 1955, Bataille may have hit on the source of
concept of the subject matter, nor from the torical studies of impressionism, includ- place, it would result in a feeling of utter the laughter Georges Rivière observed during
chemistry of photography, nor even from what- ing the newly translated French edition freedom, the availability of the self to itself showings of Cézanne eighty years previously—
ever objects he may have observed in nature. of John Rewald’s History of Impressionism in every respect, which for most people the “forced laughter,” the laughter in “bad
Both the color and the thematic content as well as Maurice Raynal’s Cézanne. He would be intolerable.”82 Through his con- faith” that greeted Bathers at Rest (fig. 16).86
would affect the emotions, but their affirming stressed what had by then become com- cern for such an “intolerable,” perhaps According to Bataille, Manet’s public realized
­coordination—a moral factor normally estab‑ mon interpretive points both in France intoxicating sensation of boundless free- that “superficial appearances [can] hide a
lished by rhetorical eloquence—appeared and in America: dom, we readily associate Bataille with complete absence of what one expects [in a
diminished or entirely absent. Cézanne’s art radical social theory in general and, more particular object of art]. . . . The laughter . . .
reduced its culture to an awkward stutter. Or At first the [nineteenth‑century] public showed an specifically, surrealism in the art and litera‑ is unleashed in the void of thought created
perhaps a snigger: reflecting on Cézanne’s aptitude for laughing at whatever seemed new. . . . ture produced between two catastrophic in the mind by the object.”87
initial public, a twentieth‑century advocate Painting should imitate, it should copy the real European wars. Yet there should be no fixed An unregulated encounter of mind and
of modernist practice recalled that during world.78 No doubt. But [only] as convention would division between the culture of Cézanne’s art object, perceiver and perceived, becomes
the nineteenth century, “smiling at a painting see it, entirely opposed to what the eye sees, if the nineteenth century and Bataille’s twentieth. itself the source of the laughter. The object
meant one disliked it.”75 eye—instead of seeing what the cultivated mind, Bataille’s sensitivity to extremes of physicality occupies the mind, totally—like an unassimi‑
the intellect, represents to it—should suddenly was spurred by the late romanticism of fig‑ lated foreign body. Despite its overt represen‑
Laughing at Painting reveal the world.79 ures like Friedrich Nietzsche and Charles tational subject, it assumes the paradoxical
In his works, Cézanne is a Greek of the golden Baudelaire.83 And he was well aware of the form of a semantic void, a no‑name, a noth‑
age . . . and the ignorant souls who laugh in Bataille repeated the well‑known story of challenge posed by Delacroix’s romanticism ing. Its force remains unaffected by any
front of his Baigneurs [Bathers at Rest, fig. 16] Monet’s encounter with his aggrieved teacher and Courbet’s realism. He argued that their logical line of thinking. Thought and feeling,
look to me like barbarians criticizing the Parthe‑ Charles Gleyre (1808–1874), who criticized art nevertheless had its self‑imposed limita‑ intellect and emotion, descend from their
non. . . . These laughs and these cries stem from his pupil for stupidly representing the big tions, for Delacroix’s flights of imagination hierarchical order of conceptualization into
a bad faith that people don’t even try to hide. . . . feet of a model whose feet unfortunately and Courbet’s earthiness paralleled the work‑ a formlessness that grants to feeling and
This is forced laughter. were big. Monet’s mistake was to render the ing of language; in their different ways, these emotion an unaccustomed plenitude. The
—georges rivière, 187776 figure in its true proportion, a disproportion. painters gave meaning to the objects they laughter responds to a condition that has
146 moment possesses the person: “Only by
eliminating, or at least neutralizing in our‑
selves every operation of rational under-
standing, are we in the moment, without it
slipping away. This can happen under the
force of intense emotions that shatter, inter‑
rupt, or cast aside the continuous flow of
thought.”91
Like other artists of his generation,
Cézanne referred to sensations as if they
were tantamount to his personal identity:
“I paint as I see, as I feel, and I have very
strong sensations.”92 Yet we wonder whether
this way of putting it does not simply repre‑
sent a failing of the language of Cézanne’s
day. He made this statement in 1870, not
long after Manet created his greatest scan‑
become not comical but . . . risible. Here, Fig. 16. Paul Cézanne, dals, exhibiting Le déjeuner sur l’herbe in 1863
like Bataille, with no logic to invoke, no Bathers at Rest, 1876– and Olympia in 1865. The feeling of “very
77. Oil on canvas, 82 ×
analysis to follow to conclusion, I resort 101.2 cm. The Barnes
strong sensations” that Cézanne described
to tautology. A person laughs at what is Foundation, Merion, Pa. cannot have been personal and specific to
“risible,” a category outside the purview (BF 906) him alone. It was his version of what in
of literary theories of the comic.88 Associat- Manet was risible. Cézanne’s “strong sensa‑
Opposite:
ing laughter with the risible is as empty an Fig. 17. Paul Cézanne, The tions” were wild, ridiculous, too strong even
analytical gesture as linking the behavior Small Bathers, 1896–97. for him to control with a moral thematics,
Brush and tusche and
of cows to a bovine temperament. despite his allusions to Poussin, classicism,
crayon color lithograph,
The engulfing plenitude of laughter is 22.3 × 27.3 cm. The arcadian themes, childhood memories, the
simultaneously an empty “effacement.” Baltimore Museum of Provençal landscape, and so on. People laugh
Positive becomes negative, negative becomes Art: The Cone Collection, at what overwhelms their habitual sense of
formed by Dr. Claribel
positive, and calculated logic loses its form— Cone and Miss Etta Cone
order, their sense of self. Like the catastrophe
like “spit,” as Bataille would say.89 Regarding of Baltimore, Maryland of war, sensation overwhelms. Cézanne’s
Manet’s works of the 1860s, he wrote: “The (BMA 1950.12.605) sensation was catastrophic.
text”—the cultural meaning, the theme ordi‑ For Bataille, as for most art historians
Fig. 18. Paul Cézanne,
narily pondered and interpreted—“is effaced The Large Bathers, 1896– before and after, Manet’s innovation was not
by the painting. And what the painting signi‑ 97. Brush and tusche only chronologically but logically Cézanne’s
transfer and crayon
fies is not the text, but the effacement.”90 As precedent. However eccentric his account
color lithograph, 48 ×
if it were involved in a familiar play of mod‑ 56.5 cm. The Baltimore of the various nineteenth‑century painters
ernist reform, Manet’s painting eliminates Museum of Art: The Cone is in its details, Bataille committed his inter‑
accumulated culture and empties the mind Collection, formed by pretation to the existing, canonical outline
Dr. Claribel Cone and
of its accustomed thought—all thought. Yet Miss Etta Cone of Balti-
of the history of modernist art. Ironically, he
it does not deactivate the mind; sensing the more, Maryland (BMA is best known (certainly in America) for his
effacement of the subject, the mind is free to 1950.12.681.1) immersion in the utter baseness and base‑
go elsewhere. Something alien occupies it: a lessness of “formless” matter: think again
feeling, a sensation (as Cézanne might say)— of the elusive qualities of spit. Art historians
feeling so strong that neither painter nor have had difficulty in adjusting to Bataille’s
viewer nor any other agent of culture would out‑of‑character references to Manet’s “pure
think to claim possession of it. Instead, the painting,” a term favored by the likes of
148 Bernard, Natanson, and Denis, which the the method with a phrase drawn from the Cézanne in his last years stressed emotive 149 from his cultural codes even more violently
surrealist‑inspired critic accepted as he found painter himself: “the logic of organized sen‑ as opposed to structural qualities, redressing and scandalously than Manet had.107 From

Risible Cézanne
it.93 How “pure” is the formlessness of spit? sations.”98 The dominant critical approach a proper balance.101 Bataille himself took a the start, he had recognized, or perhaps
We have inherited the notion that “pure that evolved through much of the twentieth simpler tack, eliminating the question of fantasized, his difference, his supersession:
painting” must possess form rather than lack century, from Denis to Gowing, found evi‑ geometrical order from his interpretive equa‑ “I don’t offer my hand, Monsieur Manet. . . .”
it, an arbitrary generalization that tends to dence of “classical” order and organization tion.102 Instead, he shared with Raynal the Bataille’s view of Cézanne was not as
go unquestioned.94 Accordingly, recent writ‑ within Cézanne’s art of visual sensation. At belief—originally Gauguin’s and Bernard’s eccentric as it may seem from paraphrases.
ers insist on distancing Bataille from the the base of Cézanne’s style, supposedly, one notion—that Cézanne instilled painting with He derived it in the process of reviewing
deceptively anodyne statements he repeats. would discover a logic, a structure, a formal “autonomy.”103 Both writers noted the physi‑ four books that were offering rather standard
T. J. Clark, 1985: “Whatever else one might geometry. In 1910, Guillaume Apollinaire cal appropriation of moral order in acts of histories of the impressionist movement—
wish to say of this criticism [Bataille on referred to this argument as if it were already “pure painting.” Raynal wrote that Cézanne better documented and better illustrated
Manet’s Olympia], it has little to do with the common knowledge: “They say that Cézanne “was removing from his art all the worldly, than ever before, but hardly revisionist. We
simpler narratives of modernist art history.”95 made himself primitive to prepare a new referential factors that the approach of death can profit from the canonical elements in
Rosalind Krauss, 1986: “Is it really Bataille classicism. . . . While painting from nature, rendered alien to him, attending only to a Bataille’s understanding, especially when
who is telling us—once again—that Manet’s he concentrated the effort of his genius on supreme exaltation of the specific reason filtered through the critic’s corporeal meta‑
achievement was the destruction of subject raising impressionism to an art of reason for his living: painting itself.”104 phors, which recuperate the moral force
matter so that in its place . . . should arise and culture.”99 Apollinaire put all the pieces Raynal may have caused the “reason of the physical tensions in Cézanne’s art.
pure painting—‘painting,’ as he writes, ‘for together: a commitment to nature, a primi‑ for [Cézanne’s] living” to appear all too rea‑ Bataille’s manner of interpretation bears on
its own sake’?”96 Put off by Bataille’s approach tive wildness, a new (rather than renewed) sonable. Here I think of one of Bataille’s the issue of pictorial repetition: repetition
to Manet, Clark and Krauss nevertheless classicism, “an art of reason and culture.” touchstones, Nietzsche, who referred to can be conceptual; but, even more so, it is
treat him as a figure of heroic proportion This combination is consistent with Denis’s “those who suffer from the over‑fullness physical. Fundamental to Bataille’s reasoning
who would never accept the standard inter‑ belief that Cézanne’s art led the younger of life.”105 For Bataille, mindlessness, empty- is the traditional distinction between the
pretation. But it seems that he did, and this generation out of its cultural confusion, headedness, thought reduced to nothing, moral, intellectualized side of human experi‑
confounds them.97 If not for his stature, even as the painter remained withdrawn assumed a certain literal value, inconsistent ence and the unorganized excesses of physi‑
today’s critics would laugh at Bataille’s text and thoroughly idiosyncratic. with any claim that artistic creation should cal sensation: the moral and the physical.
or snicker discreetly: What naïve art history! By the 1950s, the classical‑order thesis be logical, organized, and constructive. In Along with other early twentieth‑century
Yet something more subversive than gener‑ had become all the more entrenched as the his view, reason and logic were intellectual figures now associated with cultural resis‑
ally acknowledged may hide within the lingua franca of Cézanne criticism. Denis’s accoutrements of language and of codified tance, Bataille understood this distinction
late‑nineteenth‑century argument that paint‑ account and that of his British translator academic art, factors of moderation and just as painters and critics of Cézanne’s
ing had become “pure.” Purity need not act Roger Fry are early twentieth‑century ver‑ standardization that would only inhibit generation did, though he developed it more
as culture’s cleansing agent. Closer to early sions; Gowing’s is a late twentieth‑century those committed to what might be called explicitly. He shared this opposition (moral
modernism than we are, Bataille was better version.100 Elements of the thesis were evi‑ the “over‑fullness” of modernist painting. versus physical) with those who wished
positioned to sense the transgression in dent in the four mid‑century books Bataille As Bataille put it, Cézanne had been over‑ not only to justify the nature of Cézanne’s
things rendered pure. reviewed for his 1956 article on impression‑ whelmed by his “attraction to the excessive practice, but also to explain the complicated
As a solution to the dilemma we can ism, including Raynal’s Cézanne, which and the prodigious [and was] aware of the public reaction. The public laughed at
explore the canonical account with Bataille’s appeared in the same series from the Skira impossibility of communicating the grandi‑ Cézanne’s art; they felt threatened; and yet
degree of conviction. Since we take Bataille publishing house as Bataille’s own contribu‑ ose emotion that persisted in agitating him, they experienced an emotional frisson. This
seriously, why not take his attitude toward tion, Manet. Raynal wrote: “Cézanne saw in which he experienced as a sovereign emo‑ response seemed illicit. Why?108
pure painting and the “destruction of sub‑ geometrical features only an expression of tion.” A “sovereign” emotion so rules over Bataille stated what many earlier writers
ject” just as seriously? He must have had the essence of the form.” The form was the a person as to reduce him to it—the semi- were reluctant to admit: when experienced in
his reasons. It turns out that he followed the content, a kind of idealist abstraction. It otic void, the “nothing” (Bataille’s term) that its fullness, physicality presents an unbear‑
standard view only so far. When he spoke of inspired the cubist painters at an early stage; fully occupies a person.106 “Nothing” is the able freedom. Ironically, it was Cézanne’s fate
Cézanne, a particular element of the canoni‑ but in the hands of certain others who took pure form—the formless form, the chance to be labeled a classical master of composi‑
cal interpretation went missing. I refer to Cézanne’s inventions “more by the letter movement—of something. Of what? It would tional order by more members of Bataille’s
the rational, systematic use of color that than the spirit,” it reduced them to “quite have to be something without a name, cate- generation than of earlier ones. This may well
Lawrence Gowing ascribed to Cézanne in a conventional signs.” According to Raynal— gory, or definition. Caught up in his sovereign have been the most expedient way to accul‑
frequently cited essay of 1977, characterizing but this was hardly a unique opinion— autonomy‑without‑reason, Cézanne broke turate or domesticate the physical wildness
150 of Cézanne’s art, especially for those political [Cézanne] can’t put two strokes of color on a thematic element (as opposed to repetitive‑ 151 (who had been close to Manet) referred to
and social conservatives among the earlier canvas without it [already] being very good. ness in technique) would normally increase Cézanne’s large‑scale paintings of female

Risible Cézanne
voices, such as Denis. He admired Cézanne’s —pierre‑auguste renoir, 1906, as reported by its significance, with or without aspects of bathers “where figures are placed side by
paintings aesthetically but had political cause Denis113 material form joining the effort. In Cézanne’s side, without being given distinctive gestures,
to want to defuse their effect.109 He credited case, for example, a critic might infer that the above all put there to be painted.”118 Put
Gauguin as the first to recognize an autono‑ Cézanne died on 23 October 1906. Charles theme of bathers in a landscape was para‑ where? It seemed that any one position on
mous beauty in Cézanne’s material tech- Morice, formerly Gauguin’s literary collab- mount because it appeared so often within the surface—left, right, up, down, front,
nique and to understand its “primitive” orator and eventually his biographer, had the oeuvre. But still‑life pictures of apples back—counted much the same as any other.
implications. Eventually, he linked Gau- a substantial record of commenting on appeared with equal frequency. Traditionally, Cézanne’s compositional positions, like his
guin’s sense of Cézanne to the vogue for Cézanne but was not among the first to the theme of bathers, with its mythological points of thematic focus, were exchangeable.
German ­Romanticism—a “taste for whatever report the sad news. Because he wrote for connotations, was grand, whereas still‑life As Fagus and other early reviewers indi‑
is simple, primitive, wild.” Denis implied that the biweekly Mercure de France, critics for themes were decorative and slight: hence, cated, Cézanne’s accentuated marking and
this variety of Romanticism was as French the dailies preceded him. This positioned Meyer Schapiro’s effort to reveal an allegori‑ coloring of figures was distinctive enough to
as it was German, at least as personified in Morice to allude not only to Cézanne’s cal pattern of deep cultural and psychological give these quasi‑independent characteristics
Gauguin. But it had been taken too far: “The achievement but also to the ambivalence of meaning centered on apples, as if to redeem the sense that they had reached their proper
influence of these [Romantic] ideas reached its summary assessment. His own announce‑ Cézanne’s disproportionate investment in a end with no higher, synthetic order destined
its maximum in France in Gauguin’s era ment, dated 1 November, began with the sug- trivial subject.117 Studies like Schapiro’s are a to appear. From Cézanne’s material specifics,
[the symbolist decade of the 1890s]. Assum‑ gestion that rival commentators had glossed rearguard scholarly action. Cézanne’s art had critics derived neither intellectual abstraction
ing an almost animal meaning, the notion over their dilemma: “They report that the already done its cultural damage (the loss of nor expressive generality.119 Duret wrote that
of instinct replaced that of genius, and every‑ painter Paul Cézanne passed away in his subject). Repetitiveness in his practice leveled the “expression of abstract feelings [senti‑
thing that was not rude, infantile, coarse, sixty‑sixth year ‘full of glory.’ They don’t dare traditional hierarchies of value, as opposed ments abstraits] and states of mind always
and even uncouth seemed to merit our dis‑ write: full of controversy.”114 In the course to articulating the meaning of the repeated remained outside [Cézanne’s] ken.”120 For
dain.”110 Through his evolving interpretation, of reviewing new work by Matisse in 1904, elements by setting them into ranked order. better or worse, depending on the attitude
Denis reformed Cézanne by substituting Morice himself had identified Cézanne’s By restoring the “subject” to articulate cul‑ of the critic, with the painter’s technique so
rational order for his wildness. To a Cézanne example as exercising a “beneficial tyranny tural significance, scholars have undermined evenhandedly applied, the effect of the most
who had lost too much of the “subject,” a over the younger painters.”115 Essentially this the radical effect of Cézanne’s art within its humble themes equaled that of the most
Cézanne whose “motif ” teetered at the edge was praise, but with phrasing that cut both original social context. They have been mak‑ exalted: “A still life—some apples and a
of control, Denis restored the rule of art. But ways depending on whether a critic approved ing familiar kinds of sense out of an art that napkin on a table—acquired a certain gran‑
Bataille did the opposite. We are left with two of the current level of accomplishment of was significant for the very fact that it made deur, to the same degree as a human head or
competing characterizations of Cézanne’s Matisse and others of his generation. Regard‑ no sense (Cézanne the proto‑dadaist, the a landscape by the sea.”121 Opinion divided
practice: one leading to moral coherence and ing this, Morice wavered. His contemporary proto‑surrealist, the Cézanne of Bataille). on this issue, which had appeared in Manet’s
intellectual order, the other leading to physi‑ Raymond Bouyer was more decisive, vilify- There must have been something odd case before Cézanne’s. Thoré wrote in 1868:
cal instability and sensual excess. ing Matisse for being “more Cézannean than about Cézanne’s repetitions, because other “[Manet’s] present vice is a kind of pantheism
Cézanne,” whom he had already classed painters of his era also reduced thematic that values a human head no more than a
Moral, physical . . . among the “feeble‑minded [and] infirm.”116 differences, yet never became so controver‑ slipper [and] paints everything almost uni‑
[The author] is fine to read when he deals with Morice was candid enough to acknowledge sial. On his part, Morice neither elevated formly.”122 As it happened, Bataille said much
the moral value of the artist’s work [ la valeur the continuing divergence of evaluative opin‑ Cézanne’s art above aesthetic law, nor balked the same but without echoing Thoré’s dis‑
morale: the thematics] . . . but he dodges the ion at the time of Cézanne’s death. What was at its peculiarities, including the repetitions tress. In The Execution of Maximilian (fig. 19),
question whenever the difficulty pertains to art its cause? It was not the subjects Cézanne of compositional form and scale that would Manet “painted the death of the condemned
itself [its materiality and physicality]. represented, however bizarre they sometimes cause one work to resemble another in sig‑ man with the same indifference that he
—paul mantz, reviewing a new book on Poussin in appeared. The lasting problem was instead nificance, even when the subjects differed. would have felt had his chosen subject been
1858111 the physical character of the material surface Cézanne’s art frustrated critics, who failed to a flower or a fish.”123
of Cézanne’s images—a certain insistence derive any moral meaning from his portrayal Assume that Duret in 1906 correctly identi-
I see. By strokes of color [taches]. . . . One touch and repetitiveness that seemed to establish of a range of themes. The root of this frustra‑ fied the trouble caused by coarsely composed,
[touche] after the other. . . . Sensation before all his physicality as a feature apart from his tion was evident enough to early observers. hyper‑physical art: the loss of subject, the
else. thematics. This point requires further expla‑ In a text of 1906, quoted appreciatively by leveling of values. It follows that Cézanne’s
—Cézanne’s words, as reported by Gasquet and Denis112 nation, if only because the repetition of a Morice the following year, Théodore Duret painting, as much as Manet’s, laid the ground
152 for a general statement with which Bataille the physical arrangement of color appeared the picture.”130 When “abstraction” became 153 effects Geffroy noticed in his review of 1894,
began one of his early theoretical essays: to have eliminated the moral value, the moral the issue, it sometimes meant that concep- dismissing such confusions as by-products

Risible Cézanne
“It is vain to see in the appearance of things side of his life. To put it another way: his tualization was displacing a natural empir- of the painter’s aggressive technique.133 Still
only those intelligible signs that allow vari- physicality, his sensation, became the only ical order. But use of this word could also Life with Plaster Cupid (fig. 21) exemplifies
ous elements to be differentiated one from moral basis that remained to him. indicate the contrary situation, when the the problem. Its array of studio props—a
another. What strikes human eyes deter‑ mute materiality of lines and colors, lacking plaster statuette, apples, onions, a serving
mines not only knowledge of the relations . . . comical: Laughing with Painting clear referential function, interfered with dish, a decorative cloth, some canvases in
between various objects, but just as much a A situation is comical if it calls our attention to every conceivable intellectual classification. ­progress—has been composed so that it
specific, inexplicable state of mind.”124 This a person’s physical state when the moral state is Anarchic physicality, a kind of abstraction, undermines the normal logic of the represen‑
“state of mind” belonged to the viewer, not at cause. disrupts the moral, cultural order. tational process.134 Cézanne positioned the
the artist. It was not something fixed in —henri bergson, 1899126 Some years later, in 1914, the writer Octave patterned cloth as if he were determined to
advance of painting and set up for repre- Mirbeau imagined how Cézanne might have break the illusion of a coherent volume of
sentation like a model in a studio, already When Cézanne repeated representational explained his artistic achievement: “I know space. The cloth extends from a table in the
a kind of intellectual abstraction. It was themes such as his bathers, the sequence how to put greens, blues, and reds on a can‑ depicted studio foreground to a table within
instead an unstable psychic condition com‑ of works did not lead to a culminating mas‑ vas.”131 However evasive, a statement of this a still‑life canvas situated against a rear wall.
ing in response to the unfathomable com‑ terwork, nor were different versions of a type connects with Bernard’s reduction to This picture‑within‑the‑picture becomes the
plexity of material and sensory relations at theme produced to meet market demands material “abstraction.” Mirbeau always looked pictorial background plane, overlapped by the
a given moment. In 1905, Morice captured or to complement each other in display. favorably on Cézanne’s art, probably because foreground table and its objects. The distinc‑
the problem in a sentence, aided by a clever The individual paintings remained no more his good friends Pissarro and Monet did. By tive blue cloth is forced to occupy two spaces
pun: “Cézanne takes no more interest in a than variations of one another. Even his reducing its essence to the composition of that cannot be one, passing from a fictive
human face than in an apple, and in his eyes late, large‑scale compositions appeared as color, he was not demeaning but merely char- reality (the depicted table with its objects)
neither has any [moral] value beyond being if each might yet resume its progress. In to a fictive fiction (the depicted painting of
[color] ‘values.’” Still more succinctly, he this sense, all of Cézanne’s works were a similar table with its own objects).
provided a variant of his formulation: “The “studies”; none was definitive. He referred Fig. 20. Paul Cézanne in The central element of the foreground
Fig. 19. Édouard Manet,
humanity in [Cézanne’s] paintings has only to his paintings as études: studies, exercises, his studio at Les Lauves, composition, a plaster cupid, replays similar
The Execution of Emperor
in front of the Large
the [moral] value of a [color] value”—la valeur Maximilian of Mexico, attempts.127 Attempts at what? Bernard Bathers. Photograph
relationships. Pictorially, Cézanne set it
19 June 1867, 1868/69.
d’une valeur.125 Each stroke of paint with its observed one of the grand compositions by Émile Bernard, 1904. against a stretched canvas shown lying
Oil on canvas, 252 ×
specific color was a “value,” a physical ele‑ of female bathers unfinished in Cézanne’s John Rewald Papers, behind it. This canvas centers and frames
302 cm. Städtische
National Gallery of Art,
ment. Cézanne’s extreme concentration on Kunsthalle, Mannheim studio in March 1904 (fig. 20) and again, the cupid’s torso, yet does not fully contain
Washington, Gallery
still unfinished, about a year later on a sec‑ Archives it. Unlike the depicted painting accommo-
ond visit to Aix. According to his account, dating the blue cloth, this background
the picture was “hardly more advanced, canvas appears blank, devoid of an image.
despite obstinate effort; several of the fig- Apparently, the cupid itself fills it, as if this
ures had changed position, the color having otherwise unarticulated canvas surface had
been thickened by successive layers.”128 been awaiting its proper image—any image.
Like Morice (in the obituary notice of acterizing. Cézanne used color; he painted. How suited is this image, the plaster cupid,
November 1906), Bernard acknowledged His significance would have to be found to the surface behind it? A reflective painter
that the case of Cézanne lacked resolution: there—in the color and the paint.132 knows how easy it is to confuse what lies
“He takes his secret to the grave.”129 Privi‑ Yet certain of Cézanne’s compositions behind in space (according to the moral, con-
leged in having had direct contact, even Ber- hardly seem consistent with Mirbeau’s sense ceptual order of pictorial illusion) with what
nard was uncertain that he comprehended of color or Bernard’s sense of “abstraction.” lies underneath on the material plane (accord-
Cézanne’s methods and motivation. In 1904, He was not always so removed from thematic ing to the physical order or layering of actual
he may nevertheless have captured the organization and manipulation. At times his substances). The cupid extends beyond its
essence of the problem with an allusion work seems to plot out a scene with deliberate surrounding pictorial frame; its fit is hardly
to “abstraction”: “The more he works, the visual wit, verging on the absurd or the comi‑ perfect. A visual logic of likeness neverthe‑
more his work removes itself from the cal. What should be distanced comes near; less confirms the strange relationship, for
external view [and] the more he abstracts things that should remain apart converge— the background canvas leans at an angle
154 has the same material base—the surface that [back] on the materiality of a metaphorical figure, 155 into a mechanism, stiffly inanimate. The
the painter physically touched, his “greens, the idea expressed becomes comical.135 effect is comical.139 Repetition imposes con‑

Risible Cézanne
blues, and reds.” sciousness of materiality in situations where
Once Cézanne set his studio objects in It seems that when Cézanne resorted to it would normally be ignored or suppressed.
place as a compositional “model” to be primitive materiality, it gave a classic come‑ In the case of “red rose,” the physicality of
represented—arranging his plaster cast, his dic structure to his operation. In 1877, Rivière the phrase—its sound, whether grating or
apples, his onions, perhaps even the unfin‑ had observed people laughing at Bathers at mellifluous—should have only a secondary,
ished canvases in the background—his hand Rest (see fig. 16)—as wrongheaded as laugh‑ connotative bearing on its moral, rational
struck only the flat plane of his painting. His ing at the Parthenon, he claimed.136 Perhaps meaning. But an insistent repetition of the
cupid retained its volume and weight in a something quite specific struck those viewers physical element inverts the hierarchy, with
figurative, not a literal sense; depicted, it con- as comical, such as a confusion of gender the sound first dominating, then obliterating
sisted only of paint, a material normally of identities, since Cézanne’s four bathers have the meaning, perhaps to the point of ridicu‑
negligible volume and weight when applied awkwardly ambiguous body types.137 Even lousness because the listener remains aware
to cover a surface. Here, the figurative sense so, the public may have sensed something of the inappropriateness of the inversion. We
grows twofold, for the depicted cupid and risible beyond anything comical—an exces‑ understand what the moral meaning ought
the depicted canvas behind it occupy the same sive physicality in the rendering of the bath‑ to be, simultaneously realizing that under
area of a single painting in progress. A logi‑ ers, masses of pigment that neither a science the immediate physical conditions, we can‑
cal response is to imagine that the sculpture nor a mythology of trans‑gendering would not take its sense seriously. Every artist of
could be a painting of a sculpture. But this is explain.138 the nineteenth century who, like Cézanne,
precisely what the “sculpture” is. We view it Bergson noted that the base, material prop- abutted one discrete stroke of paint against
as if it had been painted twice: on the one erties of phenomena become evident through another, risked creating a condition in which
hand, illusionistically; on the other hand, as repetition. No matter how animated in them‑ the juxtaposition of similars, intended as
a composition in the flat. To create his visual selves, movements when repeated degenerate nuance, was transformed by its inherent
pun with its comedic effect, Cézanne took
advantage of a confusion of the figurative and
sympathetic to the dynamic tilt of the statu‑ Fig. 21. Paul Cézanne, literal senses of any painted representation.
ette. This provides the cupid with composi‑ Still Life with Plaster The image is figurative; the material is literal.
Cupid, ca. 1894. Oil
tional support and, moreover, a sense that on paper, mounted
The “sculpture” within Cézanne’s painting
it makes contact with the surface it overlaps. on panel, 70.6 × 57.3 cm. becomes a “painting”—materially flat like
In addition to likeness (a metaphoric ele‑ London, Courtauld the surface that supports it. Its existence as
Institute of Art Gallery
ment), the relationship of cupid to canvas illusion moves one step closer to material
(P1948SC59)
depends on contact (a metonymic element). reality, still without reaching it.
The two represented objects, statuette and Still Life with Plaster Cupid sacrifices
blank canvas, adhere in tactile intimacy. Once moral coherence and resolution for the
we notice how they relate, we can imagine sake of an increase in literal physicality.
the fictive space of Cézanne’s painting as if In this respect, philosopher Henri Bergson,
it were compressed or compacted to a single, Cézanne’s contemporary (but younger by
energized plane—a plane of sensory color, twenty years), becomes his theorist:
of formal “abstraction.” The foreground
image projects onto the background area; Most words have a physical meaning [un sens
the background becomes equivalent to the physique] and a mental or moral meaning [un
foreground. Perhaps what Cézanne discov‑ sens moral], depending on whether we take them
ered in composing his cupid reflects on literally or figuratively. Every word originates, in Fig. 22. Paul Cézanne,
what he learned from positioning his pat‑ effect, by designating a concrete object or material Pichet de grès, 1893–
94. Oil on canvas, 38 ×
terned cloth: a depicted object can be situ- action; gradually, however, the meaning of the
46 cm. Riehen/Basel,
ated in two different kinds of fictive space word dematerializes, becoming an abstract rela- Fondation Bayeler
because each of its articulated elements tion or a pure idea. . . . When attention focuses (inv. 99.7)
156 structure into material repetition. To those to gauge whether they convey meaning. Mean- as Cupid’s moral equivalent? If so, Cézanne 157 the cultural thematics of sexuality. Thematics
who perceived mere repetition rather than a ing fulfills the critical impulse, advanced by was indulging in a double sublimation: depos- of any kind hardly mattered. In cases where

Risible Cézanne
set of unique variations, the painter’s marks formalized methods: beyond the composi‑ iting his sexual desire in the painted figure Cézanne reworked a heavily painted canvas
were a distraction or an outright annoyance. tional analysis of pictorial orders, a critic of Eros, then embalming Eros within the jug. or imposed one configuration on another,
Viewers either sloughed off the encounter might apply semiotic analysis or rhetorical Inured to Cézanne’s material innovations his artistic act exchanged one charged set of
with a laugh or demanded from criticism a analysis, or even (as psychoanalysis) the and physical assertiveness, late twentieth‑ marks for the next, the two equally eroticized,
deeper understanding. Pondering his experi‑ geometric and linguistic structuralism of century writers have freely interpreted his equally invested with somatic and psychic
ence with the risible, Bataille eventually Lacanian mimicry and mirroring.143 What‑ thematic elements according to a variety of energy. His early critics surmised that his
provided one. ever the mode of analysis, a salient parallel, theoretical and cultural orders, an option his images became “abstract” as a consequence
a kind of repetition, defines Cézanne’s two early critics were not at ease to take, given of his having immersed himself in the mate‑
Risible Repetition paintings structurally: like the statuette in their degree of agitation. Struck by his tactile rial compulsions of painting. This was a
Art reduced to technique ceases to be art and Still Life with Plaster Cupid, the large jug in mark, they experienced interpretive paralysis, physical and emotional abstraction, to be
becomes a science—a new kind of science, Pichet de grès converges with and is framed whether staring in wonder or laughing in distinguished from the intellectual, allegori‑
useless. by a studio canvas behind it; it functions nervous stupefaction. They were hardly dis- cal abstraction of Cupid‑Eros. Mentally pre-
—charles morice, 1905140 simultaneously as foreground and back‑ posed to entertain elaborate, sublimatory occupied by the physical intensity of his act,
ground.144 Other pictorial contradictions— hypotheses to explain away the disturbance Cézanne, so his initial viewers believed, was
Witticism changes character on the second or better, incompossibles (but it is a strange they sensed; they invented no psychological blind to complex cultural and social values.
appearance. A joke told repeatedly becomes word)—exist among the relationships that narratives as background for the painter’s This accounted for the abstract or abstracted
a demonstration of a principle or a formal Pichet de grès establishes. To grasp Cézanne’s nudes.146 In their experience of the works, a look of his work as well as its primitivism, all
exercise in timing. Useless as information absurd joke, more risible than comical, we physical shock preceded any moral shock; it contributing to its loss of subject. Many of
(we already know what direction it takes), it need only notice the mutually metaphoric was the paint that had received the painter’s his paintings, especially the densely marked
may still provoke a psychophysical response. semblance of the two central “figures”: one, erotic investment, not the culturally con‑ landscapes, appeared to contain little more
Repeated, the comic effect retains its struc‑ a statuette, convex with a dimpled belly; the structed image. This eroticism went beyond than repetitive strokes of color, the famous
ture while losing what remains compelling other, a jug, convex with a dimpled emboss‑ “little sensations,” which Gauguin once
about its ironic logic (this is another way of ment. Improbably, these objects look alike: threatened to “steal.”147
referring to the “loss of subject”).141 As the improbably, because the resemblance is Sensation is distracting. Absorbed in it,
logic fades, it becomes appropriate to won- relational as much as morphological, and Cézanne developed a procedural tic, which
der whether the words or pictures had ever its force depends on the structuring of each left its traces nearly everywhere. It shows
revealed any serious meaning. Do we laugh picture as a whole. All the more improbably, most blatantly in his modest sketchbook draw-
anxiously, suspecting that the forms and an apple mediates the crucial likeness, for ings, never intended for public viewing. He
structures we perceive do not, and never in each composition the figural convexities had a habit of linking disparate images by
did, have a moral reason to be?142 echo the form of an apple shown lying on their happenstance form, as well as exchang‑
Cézanne created some curious repeti- Cézanne’s studio floor (large and yellow‑ ing pictorial positions, with no apparent con-
tions, not always recognized for what they green, it must be a hedge apple).145 The rela‑ cern for thematic consistency. (Consistency
are. His Pichet de grès (fig. 22) proves to be tionship of the statuette to the jug is surely can nevertheless be private and inapparent,
a companion piece to Still Life with Plaster metaphoric—yet also metonymic. Resem‑ but this contributes nothing to what the crit-
Cupid; it plays out the same joke. Although blance in form is the metaphoric factor; an ical viewer sees unless provided with access
neither work should be regarded as a study analogous structural and compositional func- to privileged information.) In his sketch‑
for the other, the doubling suggests that tion, exchangeable from one pictorial environ- books, it seems that Cézanne let moral iden‑
Cézanne deliberately constructed this set ment to the other, is the metonymic factor. tities go unacknowledged; only physical
of pictorial relationships (at least the sec- The implied exchange of the two objects, placement counted. In a multifigured draw‑
ond time around), as if he were involved statuette and jug, drains whatever moral, ing sheet of the early 1880s (fig. 23), he com‑
Fig. 23. Paul Cézanne,
in a studio exercise, practicing his comic thematic specificity the plaster cupid or fig- Head of Paul Cézanne, bined a horizontally oriented head of Ceres
timing. His activity may have been more ure of Eros may have connoted on its own, fils; Bather; Head after (derived from Peter Paul Rubens [1577–1640])
Rubens: Ceres, early
physical and sensory than intellectual, but independent of the repetitive structural with a vertically oriented striding female
1880s. Graphite pencil on
any repetition‑with‑variation calls for an motif. Does the jug, as the cupid’s sem‑ wove paper, 22 × 12.5 cm. bather, and juxtaposed this hybrid to a por‑
analysis of the physical, material differences blance, nevertheless receive erotic energy Private collection trait head of his young son, also oriented
158 of the leaning tree as it passes into the bathers, complements the hand of the figure 159 devise a cultural link between Atlas and the
extended hand of the leftmost standing to its left. It becomes difficult to dissociate bathers and their own sources in the art of

Risible Cézanne
bather. The semblances seem to develop the curves and angles of the swan from those Cézanne’s past, but it would be speculative
of their own accord, as if the artist were of either bather because they fulfill each invention, not the type of “meaning” poten‑
powerless to resist the thematically confus- other’s implied graphic intentions. Yet we tial viewers would have perceived. Only the
ing but graphically compelling force of each would hardly think to integrate these forms physical positioning, the motif, introduces
motif. In the multifigured drawing just dis‑ thematically, as, say, “Leda and the Swan.”150 sense; but this is limited to a formal, struc‑
cussed, even the diagonal stroking of the A similar situation, thematically noncom‑ tural type of sense. Instead of directing his
background, to the right of the boy’s head, municative but formally satisfying: a frag‑ composition at its traditional end, enhanc-
may represent a response to the diagonal ment after Pierre Puget’s (1620–1694) Opposite below: ing and clarifying the thematic message,
thrust and background stroking of the sculpture of Atlas closes off the leftward end Fig. 25a. Paul Cézanne, Cézanne either engaged his technique in a
Standing Male Bather,
bather below. And nothing guarantees that of a double spread from the sketchbook that Puget’s Atlas, 1885–1900
confusing, subversive play with thematics, or
Cézanne would not have returned from a contains the page of striding bathers with a (Sketchbook II, page L he kept form, color, and movement indepen‑
vertically, but inverted.148 By all appearances, Fig. 24. Paul Cézanne, later drawing on his page to an earlier one, swan (figs. 25a, b) The double page shows recto). Graphite pencil dent of his nominal subject—in either case,
Female Bathers and and graphite offset from
the three figural elements resulted from compulsively rendering the morally unlike studies for a composition of male bathers a situation that frustrates analysis.
a Swan, 1885–1900 page XLIX verso on wove
three different directional uses of the sketch‑ (Sketchbook II, page
alike—a countercultural travesty. that Cézanne often repeated (compare figs. 5 paper, 12.9 × 21.6 cm. Exchange of position or place is an extreme
book. The images, unlikely to have been XXXVI recto). Graphite Another drawing (fig. 24)—comical? and 28). Logically, we would have to assume Philadelphia Museum case of the mutual exchange that Cézanne’s
pencil on wove paper, of Art: Gift of Mr. and
drawn at a single sitting or intended to be ­risible?—converts the buttocks of a striding that the Atlas fragment preceded the images analogies of form produce. Returning to
11.6 × 18.2 cm. Philadel- Mrs. Walter H. Annenberg,
thematically coordinated, form a single female bather into a motif of rhythmically of bathers, for why begin a figure in a space 1987 (1987-53-79a) Eros: one of Cézanne’s sketchbook drawings
phia Museum of Art: Gift
composition, with the first two elements of Mr. and Mrs. Walter H. spaced, bowed verticals, which double as the insufficient to complete it? Yet the position of copies an antique “Aphrodite and Eros” sculp-
thoroughly interlocking and the third held Annenberg, 1987 legs of a swan. On the same sheet, Cézanne this fragment, especially its curving bottom Below: ture from the Louvre; Eros forms a short
(1987-53-65a) Fig. 25b. Paul Cézanne,
in subtle tension by the near conjunction drew a more developed version of the strid‑ edge, extends the implied recession suggested Male Bathers, 1885–1900
vertical to the right of Aphrodite’s long verti‑
of the boy’s collar and the bather’s lower ing bather, inserting a plane of diagonal by the shift in scale of the two variants of a (Sketchbook II, page cal (fig. 26). On the facing page, Cézanne
leg. Collar and leg break off in the same way, pencil strokes that fill the background space single figure to its right. It even echoes the XLIX verso). Graphite repeated this proportional relation by com‑
pencil and graphite offset
so that one is a vertical variant of an open between the figure’s legs. He continued this curving, angled legs of the seated bather on bining an image of a dog with an unrelated
from page L recto on
convex form and the other is its horizontal diagonal stroking throughout the body and the facing page, whose left‑hand position it wove paper, 12.9 × standing male bather (fig. 27). Either draw‑
counterpart. Many more graphic analogies beneath an extended hand, giving the entire occupies in exchange. Coincidence? As an 21.6 cm. Philadelphia ing could have preceded the other. Cézanne
Museum of Art: Gift of
can be discerned within this drawing sheet. figure a sense of vectored movement: physi‑ art historian, this drawing makes me laugh set the dog into a position (“condition” might
Mr. and Mrs. Walter H.
Thematically laughable, the combinations are cally assertive, morally mute.149 The position nervously. I fail to understand its moral or Annenberg, 1987 be a better term) analogous to the one Eros
formally—that is, physically, even ­sensually— of the swan’s tail, inverted in relation to the rational stance. One way or another, I could (1987-53-79b) holds on the Aphrodite page. He had to rotate
moving (“I have very strong sensations,” the placement ninety degrees. The naturalis‑
Cézanne said). The sensual aspects of the tic horizontality of the dog becomes arbitrar-
marks in this casual composition page, ily vertical, so long as we allow the standing
released from standard thematic controls, bather to determine the orientation of this
become risible and “sovereign” in a Batail‑ compound image. Here the dog assumes the
lean sense. pictorial position not only of Eros but also of
In Cézanne’s works on canvas, a similar numerous male bathers reduced in vertical
effect comes about through the juxtaposi- stature because they sit on a river bank or
tion of diverse thematic elements caused to stand partly immersed in the stream, beside
resemble each other by their contiguity and the full vertical of a standing figure. Cézanne
common motif: see the sequence of tree developed this motif—long vertical, short
trunk, bifurcated towel, and leg of a strid- vertical, long vertical, short vertical—in
ing bather at the left of Three Bathers (fig. 1), Group of Bathers (fig. 28), where the stand-
or the sequence of tree trunk, arm, and ing figure toward the right corresponds to
bather’s torso at the left of Bathers (fig. 5), the bather of the drawing, and the immersed
or, in the same painting, the sequence of bather at the extreme right of this painting
parallel strokes that articulates the foliage corresponds to (the position or condition of )
160 Fig. 26. Paul Cézanne, 161
Antique Aphrodite

Risible Cézanne
and Eros, 1885–1900
(Sketchbook II, page
XXXVII verso). Graphite
pencil on wove paper,
18.2 × 11.6 cm. Philadel-
phia Museum of Art: Gift
of Mr. and Mrs. Walter H.
Annenberg, 1987
(1987-53-66b)

Fig. 27. Paul Cézanne,

Standing Male Bather
and Dog, 1885–1900
(Sketchbook II, page
XXXVIII verso). Graphite
pencil on wove paper,
18.2 × 11.6 cm. Philadel-
phia Museum of Art: Gift
of Mr. and Mrs. Walter H.
Annenberg, 1987
(1987-53-67a)

‘values’”; “The humanity in his paintings Fig. 28. Paul Cézanne, ever much this kind of “abstraction” might
has only the value of a value.”152 Morice Group of Bathers, appeal to the intellect or the imagination,
ca. 1895. Oil on canvas,
did not intend this remark, potentially hu- 20.6 × 30.8 cm. Phila-
it was crucial for it to retain a distinct mate‑
the dog. The “values” of both drawing and the physical. He may have been suffering morous, as a sanguine observation on the delphia Museum of Art: rial component located in a purified form
painting are physical not moral, at least in the schizoid tension he attributed to his advanced state of modern culture; to the The Louise and Walter and a straightforward procedure. This was
Arensberg Collection,
the sense that Bergson and Bataille brought depressed and desiccated society (his contrary, Cézanne seemed to be reflecting what Denis meant by speaking of “­simple
1950 (1950-134-34)
to this distinction. Bergson might have argued ­characterization)—separation of sensation contemporary society’s misfortune. Morice ­decoration”—form from which viewers could
that Cézanne’s arbitrary exchanges of posi‑ from reason, the physical from the moral. appreciated the painter’s intensity, but the take simple pleasure. Cézanne was exemplary
tion gave his images a mechanistic quality, In his opinion, Cézanne suffered from the results disturbed him. because his marks of color and even his
hence comical. Noting how far from discur‑ same cultural disorder. Denis was more of a committed advocate arbitrarily positioned figures appeared inde‑
sive language Cézanne pushed his physical Morice’s realization, already noted, came (or apologist) for Cézanne than Morice was. pendent of complex thematic and theoreti-
paintings, Bataille considered them risible. in the guise of a pun. It depended on the He argued that artists of his generation were cal motivations; it was all so very physical,
happenstance capacity of a single word, valeur being dehumanized by the leveling effects of representing a material, not a conceptual,
Value, Value (value), to refer to distinct realms of experi‑ their modern urban existence—its mechani‑ abstraction of the painting process. Denis
[Contemporary life] not only separates each one ence that had become—like Cézanne’s bath‑ zation, its commodification, its standardiza‑ nevertheless soon decided that “abstraction”
of us from others but also divides us internally, ers, swans, and dogs—fluidly exchangeable. tion, its social regulation—all factors leading and “form” were being pushed so far that
divorcing our feelings [sensibilité] from our What is moral assumes the form of estab‑ to impoverishment of intellectual and spiri‑ neither sensible reason nor human feeling,
intellect. lished cultural values. What is physical tual life, the moral life. Denis claimed that but only misguided theorization, could jus‑
—charles morice, 1905151 assumes the form of color values or tonali‑ the remedy could be found in what, for a tify such practices. After Cézanne died, Denis
ties, both a source and a reflection of sen- brief moment in 1905, he was willing to call decided to salvage the painter’s reputation
To Bergson and Bataille, we can add Morice: sory and emotional feeling (and also of “an abstract ideal . . . the expression of inner from such associations, insisting that he had
he perceived an increasingly fraught separa‑ science and technical skill). So—here I [mental] life or a simple decoration for the never “compromised” his pictorial synthesis
tion of feeling (both sensation and emotion) repeat—Morice wrote of la valeur d’une pleasure of the eyes.”153 Under the circum‑ “with any abstraction”; his art of pure paint‑
from the intellectual, cultural order that valeur: “Cézanne takes no more interest in stances, the representational arts should strive ing had remained rooted in nature.155
would regulate it. Unlike Bataille, he resisted a human face than in an apple, and in his to mask out dull environmental realities Morice, too, linked the emerging problem
casting his moral lot entirely on the side of eyes neither has any value beyond being and “evolv[e] toward abstraction.”154 How- of abstraction to social and cultural modernity.
162 For him, there were two “abstractions” visible Morice added: “Was [his action] fully con‑ of whoever encountered it, purging people 163 The aesthetics of art is a science of feeling
at the beginning of the twentieth century: scious? I don’t know.”159 of their normative culture, the ideological as much as of representing (mimesis is both).

Risible Cézanne
the abstract marks of the neo-impressionist This was the essential mystery of Cézanne, values that directed them. In 1889, the aesthetician Paul Souriau, a
followers of Georges Seurat (1859–1891), who not only resisted the culture around Cézanne sought to represent sensation near‑contemporary of Cézanne, published
derived (Morice believed) from a mistaken him by concentrating so resolutely on the (how the object or the atmosphere looked a statement that seems remarkably germane
faith in science and what it could do for physicality of his painting, but also resisted and felt—to him) while expressing emotion but appears only as a footnote. Perhaps
technique; and Cézanne’s abstract marks, revealing his moral motivations—if he actu‑ (how he felt). As categories of feeling, the Souriau believed that the issue did not merit
which, significantly, were more of a product ally knew them, which cannot be assumed. two phenomena may have been differentiable being addressed centrally, or that he himself
of withdrawal and isolation.156 With science Morice’s central observation, that Cézanne by the terms of logical analysis but not by lacked a sufficiently specialized understand‑
or without, the cultural impact was the substituted painting for living, seems prog‑ lived experience. Through painting, Cézanne ing of painting to pursue it. Whatever the
same—a loss of humanistic content. After nostic, given the number of major twentieth‑ realized that separating one of the two sides case, he observed that French academic art-
Cézanne’s death, Morice summarized the century artists who appear to have lost their of representational practice from the other ists were often criticized for the artificiality
situation: “We hardly dare say that Cézanne social selves in concentrated studio practice, would misrepresent or even nullify both. Per- of their figures’ gestures; he found the com‑
lived; no, he painted. . . . [His is] painting often highly technical and experimental. haps he developed his tendency to exchange plaint justifiable because the academics
estranged from the course of life, painting Morice feared that artists of this type, Seurat the positions of thematically unrelated relied on preconceived models and standard‑
with the [sole] aim of painting. . . . [His art first among them, would do little more than objects—I called it a mere tic—because he ized compositions, depicting only “those
constitutes] a tacit protest, a reaction [to produce “a new kind of science, useless.”160 intuited the need to overcome categorical postures we adopt to express our feelings to
society]. . . . He put everything in ques‑ Those young artists who drew from Cézanne’s distinctions. He understood that he and his show them on the outside.” Souriau’s inter‑
tion.”157 How does a painting—of apples, “pure painting” while failing to see that its objects were exchanged in his acts of repre‑ est was feeling from the inside: “Truly expres‑
say, or a repetitive grouping of bathers— seductions had something to do with his, as sentation, that sensing was tantamount to sive postures are those that do not set about
“put everything in question”? well as their own, anxiety over the cultural expressing, that objects occupied the con‑ to express anything, but are unconsciously
Like Denis, Morice believed that a collec‑ surroundings, rendered his art morally sciousness of subjects and subjects occupied determined by a deeply felt emotion.”163
tive culture of scientism and technocratic inconsequential. the consciousness of objects. Yet something This conclusion—if uttered today, it would
efficiency was deadening all spiritual life. Two or three decades later, Bataille and his is amiss: objects do not have a consciousness seem vaguely Freudian—suggests that subtle
One could either join this new society or colleagues were accustomed to associating to be occupied. Do they? It had been said movements accurately reflecting a person’s
withdraw into personal sensory experience. art with alienation and useless excess. To put repeatedly that Cézanne painted people as emotional state will appear to represent
For a painter, it would mean withdrawing their situation another way, they understood if they were apples. It might just as well have nothing in particular. Following no stock
into pure painting. The fact that Cézanne that the most challenging art would strike been said that he painted apples as if they thematic structures, their expressive lan‑
disapproved of electric street lighting— the public and even themselves as risible— were people (an explanation, in fact, for the guage becomes a non‑language. Bataille
it spoiled the twilight in Marseille—may meaningful in being meaningless. Morice impulse to allegorize his still lifes and other said of Manet that he “substituted for the
be symptomatic of his actual position.158 and Denis had struggled to channel Cézanne’s images of inanimate things). His living conventional view of things an unforeseen
Acting in opposition to his new society, art toward a beneficial moral lesson about presence and active attention animated the aspect that has no meaning,” and of Cézanne
Cézanne (it seemed to Morice) purged modern life. Their interpretation prefigured world that his senses engaged, as if things, that he painted “without assimilating it to
his life of all moral values, for which he Bataille’s, though he inverted its primary like people, might be sentient. Speculation linguistic formulations.”164
substituted his color values. This did not features. He, too, sought an exemplary les‑ on the possibility of sentience in inanimate A “deeply felt emotion,” the correlative
mean that Cézanne abandoned his politi- son, but unlike his predecessors, found his things and substances was a relatively famil‑ of a specific sensation, would appear only
cal, religious, and philosophical beliefs; in moral redemption in a physicality that oblit‑ iar notion during Cézanne’s lifetime.161 between the lines of whatever expressive
fact, the conversations that Gasquet recon‑ erated all ordinary sense of the moral. He When Gasquet attributed to him a kind of cliché an artist chose to represent the situ-
structed would be full of such “moral” issues. made no apologies about the excesses of pantheistic vision—“In a green my brain ation “on the outside.” The majority of
Rather, the problem was that theoretical modern painting, all those cases in which flows along with the sap of the tree. Moments Cézanne’s subjects were ordinary enough
and ideological concerns could no longer the physical marking system and the artis- of conscious awareness of the world live on to be described as thematic clichés in this
guide Cézanne’s practice, nor any artist’s tic gesture became more rewarding for the in our paintings”—the writer may have been respect—moral clichés. Traditional cultural
practice. It was left to the technique of paint‑ viewer than the subject of the picture. As drawing from a prominent current of theory identities and mythologies might transfer
ing, not the worldly subject matter it repre‑ much as it might be expressing something as much as imaginatively rephrasing what readily from the masters in the museums
sented, to become the means, as Morice coming from inside the artist, this physicality he thought the painter had attempted to to the figures that Cézanne copied; but the
wrote, of a “tacit protest.” Acknowledging (Bataille would argue) was significant for the communicate.162 The concept of “motif” emotional content would be something else,
the obscurity of Cézanne’s inner feelings, fact that it penetrated and occupied the inside actually covered it all. located in fragments of meaningless excess
164 between one conventional, repeatable ele‑ Fig. 29. Paul Cézanne, Notes 6.  Cézanne, statement reported by Joachim Gasquet, 165 15 April 1904 and 23 October 1905, in Paul Cézanne,
ment of expression and another. The motif Standing Bather Seen 1.  Maurice Denis, “L’impressionnisme et la France” Cézanne (Paris: Bernheim‑Jeune, 1926 [1921]), 70. correspondance, 300, 315. See also Cézanne’s words

Risible Cézanne
from Behind, 1879–82. (1917), in Nouvelles théories: Sur l’art moderne, sur l’art On Cézanne as “primitive,” see Richard Shiff, “The as reported in Émile Bernard, “Souvenirs sur Paul
of a painting encompasses this excess. Like Oil on canvas, 27 × sacré 1914–1921 (Paris: Rouart et Watelin, Paris, 1922), Primitive of Everyone Else’s Way,” in Guillermo Cézanne et lettres inédites,” Mercure de France 69
Bataille’s “sovereign emotion,” a motif 17.1 cm. The Henry and
67–68. Pursuing his argument, Denis added that Solana, ed., Gauguin and the Origins of Symbolism (1, 16 October 1907): 400. Bernard was a willing
extends beyond the nominal subject to occupy Rose Pearlman Founda-
Cézanne drew Latin culture “from the rich depths (Madrid: Fundación Colección Thyssen-Bornemisza, receiver of Cézanne’s complaints and may have
tion; on long-term loan to
all the physical space within the materialized of his psyche,” whereas others depended on labored 2004), 63–79. solicited them; he had long before distanced him-
Princeton University Art
image; its extremes of physicality affect the Museum (L.1988.62.1) study of the ancient monuments. All translations 7.  Cézanne, statement recorded in 1902 (not necessar‑ self from Gauguin’s methods.
moral, psychological space of reception. With are mine unless otherwise indicated. I thank Caitlin ily verbatim), in Jules Borély, “Cézanne à Aix,” L’art 19.  On aspects of Cézanne’s impressionism, see
Haskell for essential aid in research and Terence vivant 2 (1 July 1926): 493. Richard Shiff, Cézanne and the End of Impressionism
unusual directness, Cézanne’s technique
Maloon and Cord Bynum for acute reading. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984).
revealed this modernist principle, at once 8.  Gustave Geffroy, “Paul Cézanne” (1894), La vie
2.  For Vollard’s account of the circumstances, see artistique, 8 vols. (Paris, Dentu [vols. 1–4], Floury 20.  Cézanne’s remark came in conversation at a
pure and transgressive: painting left to its Ambroise Vollard, Paul Cézanne (Paris: Georges Crès, [vols. 5–8], 1892–1903), 3:257–59. luncheon hosted by Monet in November 1894; see
own devices is all motif, all excess. To those 1919 [1914]), 75–79. Vollard’s narrative is now disputed, Octave Mirbeau, “Préface du catalogue du Salon
9.  Georges Lecomte, “Paul Cézanne,” Revue d’art 1
early viewers who noticed what Cézanne’s interestingly but willfully, by Robert Jensen, “Vollard
(9 December 1899): 86. d’automne 1909,” Combats esthétiques, ed. Pierre
art made happen, the effect was either won‑ and Cézanne: An Anatomy of a Relationship,” in Michel and Jean‑François Nivet, 2 vols. (Paris:
10.  Gustave Kahn, “Seurat,” L’art moderne (Brussels) 11
Rebecca A. Rabinow, ed., Cézanne to Picasso: Ambroise Séguier, 1993), 2:485.
drous or risible and just as likely, both. (5 April 1891): 108. Kahn was contrasting Corot’s
Vollard, Patron of the Avant‑Garde (New York: Metro‑
naturalness with Georges Seurat’s artificiality. On the 21.  Paul Mantz, “L’exposition des peintres impres-
politan Museum of Art, 2006), 29–47. This new study
significance of Corot, see also Richard Shiff, “Natural, sionnistes” (1877), reprinted in Ruth Berson, ed., The
glosses over the crucial, yet perhaps indeterminate,
Personal, Pictorial: Corot and the Painter’s Mark,” New Painting, Impressionism 1874–1886: Documenta‑
role played by Cézanne’s son (in effect, the artist’s
in Andreas Burmester, Christoph Heilmann, and tion, 2 vols. (San Francisco: Fine Arts Museums of
agent), as well as the degree to which Cézanne may
Michael F. Zimmermann, eds., Barbizon: Malerei San Francisco, 1996), 1:166.
have neglected or mistreated his paintings (compare
der Natur—Natur der Malerei (Munich: Klinkhardt & 22.  As an early twentieth‑century champion of
the memories of one of Cézanne’s country lessors,
Biermann, 1999), 120–38. Cézanne, Clive Bell gave a succinct statement of the
Eugène Couton, in Erle Loran Johnson, “Cézanne’s
11.  Paul de Saint‑Victor, La presse, 10 June 1866; Félix problem: “People had grown so familiar with the
Country,” The Arts 16 [April 1930]: 532–35). Jensen
Jahyer, Deuxième étude sur les beaux‑arts: Salon de idea of a cup, with that purely intellectual label ‘cup,’
draws a number of unambiguous conclusions from
1866 (Paris: Librairie centrale, 1866), quoted in Pierre that they never looked at a particular cup and felt its
ambiguous documentation. One example: he supports
Miquel, Le paysage français au XIXe siècle, 1824–1874, emotional significance. Also, professional painters . . .
his statement, “We know that Cézanne had been
3 vols. (Maurs‑la‑Jolie: Martinelle, 1975), 2:48. neither felt things nor expressed their feelings. . . .
looking for a dealer before he was contacted by Vol‑
A determination to free artists from utilitarian vision
lard,” by a crossed-out line to this effect in an incom‑ 12.  Paul Mantz, Salon de 1847 (Paris: Sartorius, 1847),
and the disastrous science of representation was
plete draft of a letter to the writer Octave Mirbeau, 98–99.
the theoretic basis of that movement which is associ‑
published in John Rewald, ed., Paul Cézanne, corre‑ 13.  Alfred Sensier, “Conférence sur le paysage” (1870),
ated with the name of Cézanne” (Clive Bell, Since
spondance (Paris: Grasset, 1978), 241–42. Rewald’s Souvenirs sur Théodore Rousseau (Paris: Léon Techener,
Cézanne [New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1922], 49–50).
editorial notes speculate plausibly regarding the 1872), xiv.
Art‑historical writing of recent years tends to obscure
­circumstances—Cézanne’s having recently encoun‑ 14. Mantz, Salon de 1847, 98–99. the crux of the matter—emotion and the expression of
tered Mirbeau, Mirbeau’s having mentioned him
15.  Charles Clément, “Les paysagistes français con‑ emotion. Early twentieth‑century changes in the form
favorably in print, the death earlier that year of
temporains” (1853), Études sur les beaux‑arts en France of representational art were motivated by perceived
Cézanne’s Paris “dealer,” the paint merchant Julien
(Paris: Michel Lévey frères, 1869), 336. On Corot’s emotional needs, not form for the sake of form; see
Tanguy—none of which Jensen mentions, all of
taking care not to introduce more painting than Richard Shiff, “From Primitivist Phylogeny to Formal‑
which complicates an omniscient “we know” (see
needed, see also Charles Baudelaire, “Salon de 1845,” ist Ontogeny: Roger Fry and Children’s Drawings,” in
Jensen, “Vollard and Cézanne,” 42, 46 n.82). Might
Oeuvres complètes, ed. Claude Pichois, 2 vols. (Paris: Jonathan Fineberg, ed., Discovering Child Art: Essays
a less tendentious alternative be developed along
Gallimard, 1975–76), 2:389–90. on Childhood, Primitivism, and Modernism (Princeton:
Jensen’s lines? I don’t know.
16.  Thoré‑Bürger (Théophile Thoré), “Salon de 1844,” Princeton University Press, 1998), 157–200.
3.  Cézanne, letter to Joachim Gasquet, 30 April 1896,
Les Salons, 3 vols. (Brussels: Lamertin, 1893), 1:35. 23.  Theo van Doesburg, “De Nieuwe Beweging in de
in Rewald, Paul Cézanne, correspondance, 249.
17. Mantz, Salon de 1847, 102–3. In response to the Schilderkunst, II,” De Beweging 12 (June 1916): 222;
4.  Gustave Coquiot, Les Indépendants 1884–1920
same Salon, Théophile Thoré (to some extent, Mantz’s translation by Mette Gieskes.
(Paris: Ollendorff, 1920), 36.
mentor) had similar thoughts about the expressive 24.  Paul Gauguin, “Notes synthétiques” (1885), Oviri:
5.  Prominent among Cézanne’s admirers was potential of a naïve attitude toward representing Écrits d’un sauvage, ed. Daniel Guérin (Paris: Galli‑
Maurice Denis, to whom he wrote a polite note of nature; Thoré‑Bürger, “Salon de 1847,” Les Salons, mard, 1974), 24.
gratitude upon learning that Denis had painted a 1:477–79, 538. 25.  And through this reduction to essence, Cézanne
scene of homage to him, shown at the Salon of 1901:
18.  Cézanne disapproved of the linear “abstraction” became for many critics the source of cubist practice:
Cézanne, letter to Denis, 5 June 1901, in Rewald,
and unmodulated color apparent in the style Gauguin “Cubism appears as the final outcome of the work of
Paul Cézanne, correspondance, 274.
derived from him; see his letters to Émile Bernard, simplification undertaken by Cézanne. . . . The cubists
166 have cast out from their domain all those characters 36.  Denis, “L’impressionnisme et la France,” Nouvelles and intellectual abstraction (as opposed to physical 167 67.  Bataille, “L’impressionnisme,” 12:380, 376.
that the painters habitually took from fables, mythol‑ théories, 67–68. abstraction) were common in Cézanne’s day. See, for 68.  In the course of this essay, I may at times verge

Risible Cézanne
ogy, history[;] they aspire to the essence, to the pure 37.  Denis, “Cézanne,” Théories, 252. example, Louis Vauxcelles, “Le Salon des ‘Indépen‑ on equating materiality and physicality, but there is
idea” (Michel Puy, “Les indépendants,” Les marges, dants,’” Gil blas, 20 March 1906, reprinted in Philippe a difference: materiality refers to an artist’s manipula‑
38.  Thadée Natanson, “Paul Cézanne,” La revue
July 1911, reprinted in Edward Fry, Le cubisme [Brussels: Dagen, ed., Le fauvisme (Paris: Somogy, 1994), 74: tion of a physical medium as material substance;
blanche 9 (1 December 1895): 500.
La Connaissance, 1968], 65). “In art, it’s necessary to ward off the plague of theo‑ physicality refers to the experience of a medium or a
39.  Natanson, “Paul Cézanne,” 500.
26.  When Gauguin described Cézanne’s Allée d’arbres ries, system, and abstraction.” representation in relation to one’s sense of one’s own
40.  For Sérusier’s statement, see Denis, “Cézanne,”
(ca. 1879) as having “trees set in rank like soldiers, 53.  See Rivière, Le maître Paul Cézanne, 2–6. body. For elaboration, see Richard Shiff, “Breath of
Théories, 252.
with cast shadows in tiers like a staircase,” he was 54.  Edmond Jaloux, Les saisons littéraires, 2 vols. Modernism (Metonymic Drift),” in Terry Smith, ed.,
making a statement about the distribution of the 41.  Paul Sérusier, letter to Maurice Denis, 27 Novem‑ In Visible Touch: Modernism and Masculinity (Chicago:
(Fribourg: Éditions de la librairie de l’Université,
separate, repeating strokes rather than attributing ber 1907, in Paul Sérusier, A B C de la peinture (Paris: University of Chicago Press, 1997), 184–213.
1942), 1:75.
significance to the represented scene; see Gauguin, Floury, 1950), 131.
55. Gasquet, Cézanne, 152. 69.  See Gauguin, letter to Camille Pissarro, ca. 10 July
letter to Camille Pissarro, between 25 and 29 July 1883, 42.  Gustave Flaubert, letter to Louis Bonenfant, 1884, and letter to Émile Schuffenecker, 14 January
56.  An account from Renoir, recorded by Geffroy,
in Victor Merlhès, ed., Correspondance de Paul Gauguin 12 December 1856, in Jean Bruneau, ed., Flaubert, 1885, in Merlhès, Correspondance de Paul Gauguin
conveys Cézanne’s intensity: “It was an unforgettable
(1873–1888) (Paris: Fondation ­Singer‑Polignac, 1984), correspondance, 4 vols. (Paris: Gallimard, 1973–1998), (1873–1888), 65, 87–89.
sight, Cézanne standing at his easel, painting, looking
51. 2:652.
at the countryside: he was truly alone to the world, 70.  Émile Bernard, “Paul Cézanne,” Les hommes
27.  Maurice Denis, “Cézanne” (1907), Théories, 1890– 43.  Denis, “Cézanne,” Théories, 247. d’aujourd’hui 8, no. 387 (February–March 1891), n.p.
ardent, focused, attentive, respectful” (Geffroy, “Paul
1910: Du symbolisme et de Gauguin vers un nouvel ordre 44.  See Alexandre Dumas, “L’École des beaux‑arts,” Cézanne,” La vie artistique, 3:256). 71.  Félicien Fagus, “Quarante tableaux de Cézanne,”
classique (Paris: Rouart et Watelin, 1920), 252. Paris Guide, 2 vols. (Brussels: Librairie internationale,
57.  Natanson, “Paul Cézanne,” 498–99. La revue blanche 20 (15 December 1899): 627. On
28.  For a reproduction, see plate 122 in Philip Conis‑ 1867), 1:858. Fagus, see André Salmon, Souvenirs sans fin: Première
58.  Gauguin referred to the two poles by opposing
bee and Denis Coutagne, eds., Cézanne in Provence 45.  Thoré‑Bürger, “Salon de 1846,” Les Salons, 1:290. époque (1903–1908) (Paris: Gallimard, 1955), 73–77.
himself to Pierre Puvis de Chavannes (1824–1898),
(Washington: National Gallery of Art, 2006), 250. 46.  Camille Pissarro, letter to Lucien Pissarro, whom many of the young symbolist-oriented painters 72.  Here, “autonomous” refers to techniques of
29.  On Cézanne’s composing bathers without a 21 November 1895, in Janine Bailly‑Herzberg, ed., painting developing apart from any system in which
(Gauguin included) lionized: “He is Greek [civilized]
model, see Francis Jourdain, Cézanne (Paris: Braun, Correspondance de Camille Pissarro, 5 vols. (Paris: the “abstract” conceptualized theme would determine
whereas I am a savage [or wild animal], a wolf in
1950), 11; Jourdain visited Cézanne in January 1905. Presses Universitaires de France [vol. 1]; Valhermeil or limit the character of its “abstract” material repre‑
the forest without a collar”; Paul Gauguin, letter to
30.  See Christian Zervos, “Conversation avec Picasso” [vols. 2–5], 1980–91), 4:119. Charles Morice, July 1901, in Maurice Malingue, ed., sentation. Critical commentary referring to such
(1935), in Marie‑Laure Bernadac and Androula 47.  Natanson, “Paul Cézanne,” 499. Developing the Lettres de Gauguin à sa femme et à ses amis (Paris: autonomy around 1900—an autonomy itself not
Michael, eds., Picasso: Propos sur l’art (Paris: Galli- notion favorably, Joris‑Karl Huysmans had invoked Bernard Grasset, 1946), 300. absolute, but a condition to be assessed relative to
mard, 1998): 36; Maurice ­Merleau‑Ponty, “Le doute a similar image of the artist, who painted “pears and prevailing standards—has often been read as a much
59.  Cézanne, letter to Émile Bernard, 21 September
de Cézanne” (1945), Sens et non‑sens (Paris: Nagel, apples that are brutal, coarse [ frustes], plastered as stronger claim to an “autonomous” aesthetic prac-
1906, in Rewald, Paul Cézanne, correspondance, 327.
1966), 35. if with a trowel”; J.‑K. Huysmans, “Trois peintres,” tice independent of forces of a more general nature,
Given the pretentiousness that Cézanne perceived
31.  Denis, “Cézanne,” Théories, 252. La cravache parisienne, no. 389 (4 August 1888), n.p. such as the economics determining the market for
in Bernard, his reference to “slow progress” might
48.  For evidence of Cézanne’s invocation of Virgil, art. This extreme of historical autonomy is an intel-
32.  Cézanne appears to distinguish between subject contain an element of false modesty.
see, for example, Paul Gauguin, letter to Émile lectual leap attributed to critics who did not take it.
matter (sujet) and motif (motif ) in a letter to his son 60. Rivière, Le maître Paul Cézanne, 20.
Schuffenecker, 14 January 1885, in Merlhès, Corre- By no means does an autonomy of the painter’s
Paul, 8 September 1906, in Rewald, Paul Cézanne,
61.  Cézanne’s statement, according to an anecdote mark entail it.
correspondance, 324.On the general concept of “motif,” spondance de Paul Gauguin (1873–1888), 88. See also
transmitted through Monet; see Marc Elder (Marcel
including Cézanne’s use of the term, see Georges Paul Smith, “Joachim Gasquet, Virgil and Cézanne’s 73.  Paul Signac, D’Eugène Delacroix au néo‑
Tendron), A Giverny, chez Claude Monet (Paris:
Roque, “Au lieu du sujet, le motif: la quête des pein‑ Landscape: ‘My Beloved Golden Age,’” Apollo 148 impressionnisme, ed. Françoise Cachin (Paris:
Bernheim‑Jeune, 1924), 48. Elder’s book consists
tres depuis l’impressionnisme,” Ethnologie française (October 1998): 11–23; “Cézanne’s Late Landscapes, Hermann, 1978 [1899]), 117.
of a series of interviews with Monet, apparently con-
25/2 (1995): 196–204; Richard Shiff, “Sensation, or the Prospect of Death,” Cézanne in Provence, 58–74. 74.  Bernard, “Souvenirs sur Paul Cézanne,” 609. For
ducted around 1920–22. An account of the same inci-
Movement, Cézanne,” in Terence Maloon, ed., Classic 49. Gasquet, Cézanne, 150, 153. For aspects of the Cézanne’s photographic source, see John Rewald, Paul
dent, probably also stemming from Monet, appears
Cézanne (Sydney: Art Gallery of New South Wales, context of this anecdotal account of Cézanne’s philo‑ Cézanne, a Biography (New York, Schocken, 1968), 94.
earlier in Octave Maus, “L’art au Salon d’automne,”
1998), 13–27; Richard Shiff, “Mark, Motif, Materiality: sophical speculations, see Nina Maria Athanassoglou‑ 75.  Thomas B. Hess, “Introduction to Abstract,” Art
Mercure de France 65 (1 January 1907): 66–67.
The Cézanne Effect in the Twentieth Century,” in Felix Kallmyer, Cézanne and Provence: The Painter in His News Annual 20 (1951 [November 1950]): 146.
62.  Georges Bataille, Manet (Geneva: Skira, 1955),
Baumann, Evelyn Benesch, Walter Feilchenfeldt, and Culture (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003),
52, 55 (order of phrases reversed). On Manet’s 76.  Georges Rivière, “L’exposition des Impression‑
Klaus Albrecht Schröder, eds., Cézanne: Finished— 176–81.
evasion of language, see also Georges Bataille, nistes,” L’Impressionniste, journal d’art, 14 April 1877,
Unfinished (Ostfildern‑Ruit: Hatje Cantz, 2000), 50. Coquiot, Les indépendants 1884–1920, 36. “L’impressionnisme” (1956), Oeuvres complètes, reprinted in Lionello Venturi, Les archives de
99–123.
51.  Cézanne, letter to Émile Bernard, 26 May 1904, ed. Michel Foucault, 12 vols. (Paris: Gallimard, l’impressionnisme, 2 vols. (Paris: Durand‑Ruel, 1939),
33.  Denis, “Cézanne,” Théories, 253. in Rewald, Paul Cézanne, correspondance, 303. 2:315 (order of sentences reversed).
1970–88), 12:373–74.
34.  Denis, “L’influence de Paul Gauguin” (1903), 52. Gasquet, Cézanne, 132. See also Georges Rivière, 77.  On van Gogh, see Bataille, “La mutilation sacrifi-
63.  Denis, “Cézanne,” Théories, 250.
Théories, 168. Le maître Paul Cézanne (Paris: Floury, 1923), 41: cielle et l’oreille coupée de Vincent Van Gogh” (1930),
64.  Natanson, “Paul Cézanne,” 498.
35.  Denis, “Cézanne,” Théories, 251. “Cézanne forgot [his theories] whenever he had a “Van Gogh Prométhée” (1937), Oeuvres complètes,
65. Bataille, Manet, 55.
brush in hand.” Statements against the use of theory 1:258–70, 497–500.
66. Ibid., Manet, 61.
168 78.  Here Bataille virtually equates imitating and 92.  “Je peins comme je vois, comme je sens, et j’ai les 105.  Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science, trans. 169 117.  Meyer Schapiro, “The Apples of Cézanne: An
copying, which is characteristic of twentieth‑century sensations très fortes”: Cézanne’s words as quoted by Walter Kaufmann (New York: Vintage, 1974 [1887]), Essay on the Meaning of Still‑life,” ARTnews Annual

Risible Cézanne
writers and certain earlier theorists who abandoned the journalist “Stock,” Le Salon, 20 March 1870; see 328. 34 (1968): 34–53. As another example of an interpret‑
the old academic distinction between the two prac‑ John Rewald, Histoire de l’impressionnisme (Paris: Albin 106.  Bataille, “L’impressionnisme,” 12:379. On er’s allegorization of Cézanne’s imagery—intelligent
tices. On this issue, which bears on the question Michel, 1986), 163. “sovereignty,” see Bataille, La part maudite: La and plausible, yet necessarily inconclusive because of
of repetition, see Richard Shiff, “The Original, the 93.  Bataille, “L’impressionnisme,” 12:380. souveraineté, Oeuvres complètes, 8:247–61. its ­tendentiousness—see Mary Louise Krumrine, Paul
Imitation, the Copy, and the Spontaneous Classic: Cézanne: The Bathers (Basel: Öffentliche Kunstsamm-
94.  “Pure” visual art stimulates feeling as opposed 107.  Bataille, “L’impressionnisme,” 12:380.
Theory and Painting in Nineteenth-Century France,” lung Basel, 1989), 239–42.
to providing the intellect with referential links. The 108.  Compare thinking related to Bataille’s from a
Yale French Studies 66 (1984): 27–54; “Original Copy,” 118.  Théodore Duret, Histoire des peintres impression‑
feeling is just as likely to be disorderly and discomfit‑ parallel critique of modern, bourgeois culture: “For
Common Knowledge 3 (Spring 1994): 88–107. nistes (Paris: H. Floury, 1906), 173. For Morice’s use
ing as orderly and assuring: “The [pure] picture or civilization, pure natural existence, animal and vegeta‑
79.  Bataille, “L’impressionnisme,” 12:372–73. statue exhausts itself in the visual sensation it pro‑ of this passage, see Charles Morice, “Paul Cézanne,”
tive, was the absolute danger. . . . Any reversion to [a
80.  Ibid., 12:372, 374 (emphasis added). Bataille also duces. There is nothing to identify, connect or think Mercure de France 65 (15 February 1907): 592.
superseded state of development] was to be feared as
described the nude body of Manet’s Olympia in terms about, but everything to feel” (Clement Greenberg, implying a reversion of the self to that mere state of 119.  In semiotic terms, the character of the signifier
of its “incongruity” (Manet, 67). “Towards a Newer Laocoon” [1940], in John O’Brian, [physical] nature from which it had estranged itself was dominating both the representational referent and
81.  Bataille, “Les écarts de la nature” (1930), Oeuvres ed., Clement Greenberg: The Collected Essays and Criti‑ with so huge an effort, and which therefore struck the expressive, interpretive signified. If critics were to
complètes, 1:229. cism, 4 vols. [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, such terror into the self ”; Max Horkheimer and derive a meaning from a painting by Cézanne, they
1986–1993], 1:34). Theodor W. Adorno, Dialectic of Enlightenment, trans. would have to associate this sense directly with the
82.  Bataille, “Le langage des fleurs” (1929), Oeuvres
95.  T. J. Clark, The Painting of Modern Life (New York: John Cumming (New York: Seabury, 1977 [1944]), 31. materiality of the signifier (the painted surface).
complètes, 1:178.
Knopf, 1985), 139, note. It was not only Cézanne’s art that was unnervingly 120. Duret, Histoire des peintres impressionnistes, 173.
83.  See, for example, Bataille, “Baudelaire” (1946),
96.  Rosalind Krauss, “Antivision,” October 36 (Spring risible, but also the man. Two decades after his death, 121. Duret, Histoire des peintres impressionnistes, 180.
Oeuvres complètes, 9:202, where the author, as on
1986): 147. his old neighbors “would begin snickering” at the
many other occasions, finds cause to cite Nietzsche. 122.  Thoré‑Bürger, “Salon de 1868,” Les Salons, 3:532.
mere mention of his name (Johnson, “Cézanne’s
84.  Bataille, “L’impressionnisme,” 12:373–74 (empha‑ 97.  Yve‑Alain Bois explains the later critics’ sympa‑ 123. Bataille, Manet, 52. We might also recall Flau‑
Country,” 544–45).
sis added). thetic questioning of Bataille, without considering that bert’s divergence of subject and style (the “beauty” of
they might just as well have accepted his position at 109.  On the political and religious beliefs factored
85.  With regard to Manet’s Olympia, Bataille cites his writing) in this regard.
face value, no rationalization required; Yve‑Alain Bois, into Denis’s aesthetic theory, see Jean‑Paul Bouillon,
the observation of Théophile Gautier to this effect; 124.  Bataille, “Le langage des fleurs” (1929), Oeuvres
“The Use Value of ‘Formless,’” in Yve‑Alain Bois and “The Politics of Maurice Denis,” in Guy Cogeval, ed.,
Bataille, Manet, 62. complètes, 1:173.
Rosalind E. Krauss, Formless: A User’s Guide (New Maurice Denis 1870–1843 (Ghent: Snoeck‑Ducaju &
86.  Rivière, “L’exposition des Impressionnistes,” Zoon, 1994), 95–109; and Jean‑Paul Bouillon, “Le 125.  Charles Morice, “Le XXIe Salon des Indépen‑
York: Zone Books, 1997), 14–15.
2:315. modèle cézannien de Maurice Denis,” in Françoise dants,” Mercure de France 54 (15 April 1905): 552:
98.  Émile Bernard attributed this phrase to Cézanne,
87.  Bataille, “Non‑savoir, rire et larmes” (1953), La Cachin, ed., Cézanne aujourd’hui (Paris: Réunion des “Cézanne ne s’intéresse pas plus à un visage qu’à
presumably having heard it when he visited the artist
part maudite: La souveraineté (1954), Oeuvres complètes, musées nationaux, 1997), 145–64. une pomme, et celui–là comme celui–ci n’ont d’autre
in 1904: Cézanne stated that an artist should develop
8:216, 254. valeur à ses yeux que d’être des ‘valeurs.’” Charles
his eye in terms of the vision of nature, and his brain 110.  Maurice Denis, Journal, 3 vols. (Paris: La
Morice, “Le Salon d’automne,” Mercure de France 58
88.  Compare Bataille, “Non‑savoir, rire et larmes,” in terms of “la logique des sensations organisées” Colombe, 1957–59), 2:172 (entry for autumn 1914).
(1 December 1905): 390: “Il est inquiet, mais unique‑
Oeuvres complètes, 8:214. Risible is a general term that (Émile Bernard, “Paul Cézanne,” L’Occident 6 [July The timing of Denis’s remark is significant in relation
ment de savoir si ses valeurs sont justes, et l’humanité
operates, like laughter itself, in metonymic reciprocity. 1904]: 23). See Lawrence Gowing, “The Logic of to political tensions between France and Germany.
dans ses tableaux n’a que la valeur d’une valeur.” The
It signifies both the capacity to laugh and the capacity Organized Sensations” (1977), in Michael Doran, ed., 111.  Paul Mantz, “Un nouveau livre sur le Poussin,”
pun on valeurs/values works in both French and
to induce laughter. When we laugh anxiously at some- Conversations with Cézanne (Berkeley: University of L’artiste 4 (30 May 1858): 56.
English.
thing unexpected or disturbing, our laughter causes California Press, 2001), 194. Here the emphasis is 112.  Taches, touche: Gasquet, Cézanne, 136, 196. Sen-
others to laugh, though they may or may not be experi- 126.  Henri Bergson, Le rire: Essai sur la signification du
on the form, not the formlessness of a sovereign sation: Cézanne’s statement as recorded in Denis,
encing the same anxiety. comique (Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1981
sensation. Journal, 2:29 (entry for 26 January 1906).
[1899]), 39 (emphasis eliminated).
89.  Bataille, “Informe” (1929), Oeuvres complètes, 1:217. 99.  Guillaume Apollinaire, “Figures de Cézanne 113.  Statement reported by Denis, who visited Renoir
127.  See Jean-Claude Lebensztejn, “Études cézanni‑
90. Bataille, Manet, 67. chez Vollard” (1910), Chroniques d’art (1902–1918), just after seeing Cézanne in 1906: Denis, “Cézanne,”
ennes” (2004), Études cézanniennes (Paris: Flamma-
91. Bataille, La part maudite (1954): La souveraineté, ed. L.-C. Breunig (Paris: Gallimard, 1960), 116–17. Théories, 252. For a variant of the statement, referring
rion, 2006), 61–78.
Oeuvres complètes, 8:254. These various passages from 100.  Roger Fry, Cézanne: A Study of His Development to only one stroke, see Georges Rivière, Cézanne, le
128.  Bernard, “Souvenirs sur Paul Cézanne,” 621.
Bataille have parallels in writings of his friend in Paris (Chicago, 1989 [1927]). peintre solitaire (Paris: Floury, 1936), 19.
during the 1930s, Walter Benjamin: “By means of its 129.  Émile Bernard, letter to Mme Bernard, 25 Octo‑
101.  Maurice Raynal, Cézanne (Geneva: Skira, 1954), 114.  Charles Morice, “Mort de Paul Cézanne,” Mercure
technical structure, the film has taken the physical ber 1906, “Lettres inédites du peintre Émile Bernard
114, 118, 120. de France 64 (1 November 1906): 154.
shock effect out of the wrappers in which Dadaism à sa femme à propos de la mort de son ami,” Art‑
102.  Bataille, “L’impressionnisme,” 12:371, note. 115.  Charles Morice, “Exposition Henri Matisse,”
had, as it were, kept it inside the moral shock effect” Documents (Geneva), no. 33 (June 1953), 13. For details
103. Raynal, Cézanne, 30. On autonomy, see above, Mercure de France 51 (August 1904): 534.
(Walter Benjamin, “The Work of Art in the Age of of Bernard’s involvement with Cézanne, see Rodolphe
note 72. 116.  Raymond Bouyer, “Le procès de l’art moderne au Rapetti, “L’inquiétude cézannienne: Émile Bernard
Mechanical Reproduction” [1936–39], Illuminations,
104. Raynal, Cézanne, 105. Salon d’automne,” Revue politique et littéraire [Revue et Cézanne au début du XXe siècle,” Revue de l’art,
ed. Hannah Arendt, trans. Harry Zohn [New York:
bleue] 2 (5 November 1904): 604–5. no. 144 (June 2004): 35–50; Shiff, Cézanne and the End
Schocken, 1969], 238).
of Impressionism, 125–32.
170 130.  Bernard, “Paul Cézanne” (1904), 21. Walter Feilchenfeldt and Jayne Warman, The Paintings Like Still Life with Plaster Cupid, Pichet et fruits sur une 171 153.  Denis, “A propos de l’exposition de Charles
131.  Octave Mirbeau, Cézanne (Paris: ­Bernheim‑ of Paul Cézanne: A Catalogue Raisonné, 2 vols. (New table is an oil work on paper; this unusual support is Guérin” (1905), Théories, 143–44. Elsewhere Denis

Risible Cézanne
Jeune, 1914), 10. Mirbeau dedicated little of his writing York: Harry N. Abrams, 1996), 1:177–80, entries for an indirect indication that these works were produced argued that Cézanne’s decorative form, beautiful by
directly to Cézanne; but when the critic mentioned cat. nos. 259, 261. I am inclined to agree with Rewald at about the same time. any standard, would express “inner life” by conveying
him, it was with approval. In 1891, he associated that the work illustrated here (Rewald 261) is the 145.  Imported into Europe from North America in the “emotions or states of mind” induced by nature,
Cézanne with Chardin and referred to him as an correct choice. eighteenth century, the hedge apple or Osage‑orange “without the need of furnishing [its illusionistic]
“unrecognized genius” (Mirbeau, “Rengaines” [1891], 137.  Edgar Degas manipulated (perhaps caricatured) (Maclura pomifera) could reach six inches in diameter. copy,” that is, without specificity of subject matter
Des artistes, 2 vols. [Paris: Flammarion, 1922–24], this ambiguity in sketches after the central standing It was used to repel cockroaches and other pests; (“De Gauguin et de Van Gogh au classicisme” [1909],
1:140). In 1894, he included him as an equal within figure in Bathers at Rest; see the illustration in Fran‑ hence its placement on the floor of Cézanne’s studio. Théories, 267–68, 271 [original emphasis]).
a group of better-known impressionists (Mirbeau, çoise Cachin and Joseph J. Rishel, Cézanne (Philadel‑ 146.  It could be argued that Cézanne’s tactile stroke 154.  Denis, statement in Charles Morice, “Enquête sur
“Le legs Caillebotte et l’État” [1894], Combats esthé‑ phia: Philadelphia Museum of Art, 1996), 540. displaces another kind of reciprocal touching‑and‑ les tendances actuelles des arts plastiques,” Mercure de
tiques, 2:70). 138.  In 1888, Joris-Karl Huysmans referred to a canvas being‑touched, namely, the masturbatory touching of France 56 (1 August 1905), 356.
132.  Of course, this emphasis on color inverts the “weighed down [with paint] to the point that it bowed one’s own body, often linked with a voyeuristic vision 155.  Denis, “Cézanne,” Théories, 260.
usual moral order. Traditionalists expected linear outward.” His description would fit Bathers at Rest, that has its origin in autoeroticism (see Sigmund 156.  Morice, “Paul Cézanne,” 577.
design to dominate decorative color. Charles Blanc except for the fact that he identified the figures as Freud, “Instincts and Their Vicissitudes” [1915], Stan‑
157.  Morice, “Paul Cézanne,” 593.
took up the issue, explaining it in terms of gender, women (Cézanne’s title explicitly signifies the male dard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of
158.  See Cézanne, letter to Paule Conil, 1 September
with feminine color properly subordinate to mascu- gender: Baigneurs). He may have confused the bathers’ Sigmund Freud, ed. and trans. James Strachey, 24 vols.
1902, in Rewald, Paul Cézanne, correspondance, 290.
line line: Charles Blanc, Grammaire des arts du dessin sex, or been thinking of a different painting, or con‑ [London: Hogarth Press, 1953–74], 14:127–133). Theo‑
(Paris: Henri Laurens, 1880 [1867]), 22. flated two different works, for he wrote his brief article dore Reff developed the theme of masturbation in 159.  Morice, “Paul Cézanne,” 593–94.

133.  See Geffroy, “Paul Cézanne,” La vie artistique, only to lend support to Cézanne’s cause, having no Cézanne’s visual imagery, regarding the repetitive 160.  Morice, “Le XXIe Salon des Indépendants,” 553.
3:257–59. particular exhibition in mind (Huysmans, “Trois brushstroke as a device to control the visualization The prevalence of studio themes (still lifes, images
Peintres,” La cravache parisienne, n.p.). of fantasies, more a sublimated looking than subli‑ of models, views from windows) in early t­ wentieth‑
134.  Cézanne painted Still Life with Plaster Cupid on
139. Bergson, Le rire, 68–71. mated touching (Theodore Reff, “Cézanne’s Bather century painting resulted, at least in part, from iso-
paper, mounted on panel, an unusual support for
with Outstretched Arms,” Gazette des beaux‑arts 59 lation being regarded as a suitable response to
him; but the properties of this painting do not differ 140.  Morice, “Le XXIe Salon des Indépendants,” 553.
[March 1962]: 173–90). Reff’s argument as applied to conditions of modernity. The studio, like the bour‑
appreciably from works on canvas. The painting 141.  I allude to the traditional Enlightenment associa‑
Cézanne’s male bathers with outstretched arms (see geois home, could be a place of withdrawal. Artists
has been extensively discussed: see Richard Shiff, tion of morality with reason: “Morality is the same in
fig. 4) is significantly complicated by the identification represented the nude—traditionally, much more than
“Cézanne’s Physicality: The Politics of Touch,” in all humans who make use of their reason”; Voltaire,
of a source image and subsequent analysis in Wayne a studio object—“as if they were making a [mere] still
Salim Kemal and Ivan Gaskell, eds., The Language of Dictionnaire philosophique, ed. Julien Benda and
Andersen, Cézanne and the Eternal Feminine (Cam‑ life, interested only in [abstract] relations of line and
Art History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Raymond Naves, 2 vols. (Paris: Garnier frères, 1935
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 115–35, color [and turning the model into] a decorative acces‑
1991), 129–80; and other scholarly works cited there. [1767]), 2:162.
237 n.8. sory” (Charles Morice, “Art moderne: Nus,” Mercure
135.  Here Bergson makes a distinction basic to tradi‑ 142.  Cézanne’s complicated sense of humor sup-
147.  See Gauguin, letter to Camille Pissarro, July 1881, de France 85 [1 June 1910]: 546).
tional French philosophy, commonly introduced into ports this line of questioning: “Many of the naive
in Merlhès, Correspondance de Paul Gauguin (1873– 161.  Theorists speculated that mineral and vegetable
commentary on art—“sens physique” as opposed to statements attributed to him should be understood
1888), 21. forms (rocks, trees) merely “felt” sensation in a less
“sens moral”: Bergson, Le rire, 87–88 (emphasis in the sense of a subtle mockery of which the listener
148.  For the identification of Ceres and similar mat‑ acute, less intense way than animal forms: “What we
eliminated). The notion that the physical, material would have been the unwitting target. . . . With people
ters of iconography to follow, see Gertrude Berthold, call matter is not completely dead, but is merely mind
meaning must precede the moral, intellectual one is [like Cézanne] from Provence, you never know who’s
Cézanne und die Alten Meister (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, hidebound with habits. It still retains the element of
disputed by Jacques Derrida, “Signature Event Con‑ joking and who’s fallen for it” (Edmond Jaloux, “Sou‑
1958); and Theodore Reff and Innis Howe Shoemaker, diversification; and in that diversification there is life”;
text,” Margins of Philosophy, trans. Alan Bass (Chicago: venirs sur Paul Cézanne,” L’amour de l’art 1 [December
Paul Cézanne: Two Sketchbooks (Philadelphia: Phila- Charles Sanders Peirce, “The Law of Mind” (1892),
University of Chicago Press, 1982 [1972]), 307–30. 1920]: 285–86; Les saisons littéraires, 1:104). See also
delphia Museum of Art, 1989). Collected Papers, ed. Charles Hartshorne, Paul Weiss,
On Bataille’s attitude toward Bergson, see his autobio‑ Gasquet, Cézanne, 28. Pissarro’s son Lucien recalled
and Arthur W. Burks, 8 vols. (Cambridge, Mass.:
graphical note (1958?) in Bataille, “Notes Conférences, some early instances of “Cézanne’s malicious humor”: 149.  For the same type of effect in a painting, see the
Harvard University Press, 1958–60), 6:111. See also
1951–53,” Oeuvres complètes, 8:562. see W. S. Meadmore, Lucien Pissarro, un coeur simple legs and the space between of the seated figure at the
Ian Hacking, The Taming of Chance (Cambridge:
136.  Rivière, “L’exposition des Impressionnistes,” in (New York: Knopf, 1963), 26. left of Group of Bathers (fig. 28).
Cambridge University Press, 1990), 213–14.
Venturi, Les archives de l’impressionnisme, 2:315. Bathers 143.  See Jacques Lacan, The Four Fundamental Con‑ 150.  The drawing makes no apparent allusion to
162. Gasquet, Cézanne, 150, 153.
at Rest generated controversy again in 1894 when it cepts of Psycho‑Analysis, ed. Jacques‑Alain Miller, trans. “Leda and the Swan.” Nevertheless, a recent study
was included in Gustave Caillebotte’s (1848–1894) of Cézanne’s involvement with this theme should be 163.  Paul Souriau, L’esthétique du mouvement (Paris:
Alan Sheridan (New York: W. W. Norton, 1978), 105–19,
bequest to the French nation; along with a number consulted for additional examples of the same strange Alcan, 1889), 211 n.1.
which briefly invokes Cézanne’s separate little marks
of works by other impressionists, the state refused of color. graphic conflation of subjects: see Lebensztejn, “Une 164.  Bataille, “L’impressionnisme,” 12:373–74, 376.
this part of the gift. Between 1896 and 1898, Cézanne source oubliée de Cézanne,” Etudes cézanniennes,
144.  To confirm that the stoneware jug (pichet de grès)
reworked the composition for a lithograph to be sold 46–59.
actually is part of the foreground still‑life arrangement
by Vollard (see fig. 17). There remains some disagree‑ 151.  Morice, “Le Salon d’automne,” 381.
on Cézanne’s studio table, it helps to compare Pichet
ment among scholars as to which of two versions of
de grès to Pichet et fruits sur une table: see cat. nos. 742 152.  Morice, “Le XXIe Salon des Indépendants,” 552;
this composition was included in the 1877 Impression‑
and 743 in Rewald, Paintings of Paul Cézanne, 2:255. “Le Salon d’automne,” 390.
ist exhibition; see John Rewald, in collaboration with
 The Matisse Grid

Jeffrey Weiss It is a decidedly peculiar sequence of images: photographs of three

walls in Henri Matisse’s exhibition at the Galerie Maeght in Paris in
late 1945 (figs. 1a–c). The centerpiece of each wall is a single painting
by the artist: The Dream, The Romanian Blouse, and Still Life with a Mag-
nolia, respectively (all painted in 1940–41). The rest of the wall is hung
with photographs—as many as a dozen (and perhaps more beyond
the camera’s frame)—recording prior versions of the painting in
question. The photographs are smaller than the painting they depict
(but identical in size to one another); they are also identically mounted
in heavy frames. The images of the Maeght exhibition (taken by the
photographer Marc Vaux) have not gone unnoticed in the Matisse
literature, but for all of their strangeness, they are barely remarked.
Henri Matisse (1869–1954) began using the camera in this way
in 1935, but for a few earlier exceptions, recording what he referred
to as states, or états: compositional shifts in the course of producing
a single work. The evidence of this procedure was first published
that year by Roger Fry in his Matisse monograph, which reproduces
eight states of the recently finished Large Reclining Nude arranged as
a single plate in two vertical columns of four images each (captioned
sequentially A through H [fig. 2]). Matisse’s application of the camera
was much more fully revealed fifty years later by his model and stu‑
dio assistant Lydia Delectorskaya in her book L’apparente facilité . . .
Henri Matisse: Peintures de 1935–1939. There it became clear that at
least several dozen paintings and possibly as many charcoal draw-
ings had been photographed in progress. Further, the photographs
appear to have taken various forms: in contrast to the Maeght gallery
Figs. 1a–c. Installation exhibition, Delectorskaya reproduces notebook pages onto which the
photographs by Marc images, quite small in format, are pasted down (precisely aligned in
Vaux of Henri Matisse’s
double rows, as in Fry’s book) and labeled in the artist’s hand (fig. 3).
December 1945 exhi-
bition at the Galerie Looking closely, one can also detect a small slip of paper inscribed
Maeght, Paris with a date in the corner of each. Several of the photographs are

173
174 take, photographs in anticipation of a paint‑ a close vantage about Matisse’s late period, 175
ing; in his easel painting he always worked Clement Greenberg was well positioned to

The Matisse Grid

from nature,” which was, for him, a source observe the shift, given the formal p
­ rejudices—
of “exaltation.”1 Leaving aside questions his belief in the essentializing opticality of
begged by the notion of transparently “work‑ the project of modernist painting from
ing from nature,” we observe that Delector‑ Édouard Manet (1832–1883) through Jackson
skaya, in seeking to spare Matisse’s art from Pollock (1912–1956)—in which his criticism
negative associations with photography, had been grounded for roughly a decade.
makes an un-self-conscious but crucial dis- In our context, Greenberg’s bias is conve‑
tinction: between relying on photography in nient. Addressing Matisse’s painting Woman
order to paint (to mediate between nature in Blue from 1937 (fig. 30), he wrote: “In 1935,
and art), which is understood to be anathema Matisse, simplifying his art, abandoned shad-
to Matisse, and the use of photography to ing altogether and made the figure as flat as
record stages of work, which, as her book its background, relying on line and the ‘opti‑
demonstrates, had become Matisse’s stan‑ cal’ properties of color—oppositions of warm
dard practice. It remains for us to determine and cool color—to give it relief. . . . The
whether we can still describe the camera, artist, attacking head-on the problem of flat
applied in this way, not just as a recording easel painting, came dangerously near the
device but also as an instrument of mediation. poster in these years.” In this context, Green‑
In fact, it is hard not to recognize the berg specifically references the états: “With
photographs as a discrete body of work. sweat and concentration, he went too often
For the conceptual nature of the images, where his feeling could not quite follow.
while foreign to the language with which Starting with a somewhat realistic statement
we usually address Matisse’s painting, is of the subject, he would in this period carry
acutely rhetorical, with specific reference a painting through as many as twenty-two
to the photograph as a mechanical instru‑ different stages in order to arrive at the most
ment of information—of inventory, of sort‑ ‘permanent’ definition of his ‘sensation.’
ing, sequence, and record-keeping. More, (The wonder is that the paint still looked
the repetition inherent to the camera might fresh in the end.)” Greenberg notably mis‑ Fig. 3. Six states An examination of the five photographed
even be said to instrumentalize a process of represents Matisse’s procedure, for any close of Henri Matisse’s states of Woman Seated in an Armchair
Large Reclining Nude,
signed by Matisse. In the case of Large Fig. 2. Eight states of ­subjectivity—of labor, but also of choice and examination of the photographs show that 4–15 September 1935.
(figs. 4–8), allows us to itemize the kind of
Reclining Nude, Delectorskaya shows twenty- Henri Matisse’s Large touch. And the variety of formats, from note‑ it is rarely correct to describe the first state changes that occupied Matisse across the
Reproduced from
Reclining Nude, 1935.
four states—three times as many as Fry book scale to framed exhibition copy, further of a given painting as having represented a Lydia Delectorskaya, recorded stages of a work. These include
Reproduced from Roger
L’apparente facilité . . .
had shown—produced over the course of Fry, Henri-Matisse (Paris: positions photography near the center of greater degree of “realism” than the final one. dramatic shifts in the pattern and value (pre-
Henri Matisse: Peintures
six months. Éditions des Chroniques Matisse’s activity. Ultimately, it is the dead‑ But he is not wrong in describing the pull of sumably the color, as well) of the floor, which
de 1935–1939 (Paris:
du Jour, 1935), pl. 57
It is difficult to account for the relative pan nature of both the camera and the photo‑ the third dimension in Matisse’s late manner, Adrien Maeght Éditeur, occupies some 50 percent of the image and
1986), 63
silence regarding Matisse’s camera among graph as “instruments” that concerns us, for his “saturations of the intensest and flattest which was painted-over or scraped-out mid‑
critics. Even Delectorskaya, in the text of her the camera’s mechanical function encourages color.” For Greenberg that pull also character‑ way through the sequence, reinstated, and
book, cautions us, claiming that the many us to reimagine the process of the painted izes phases of greater or lesser “realism” subjected to further revisions in the final
small photographs—which she describes oeuvre after 1935. In certain respects, we have throughout Matisse’s career. In this regard, état (in which changes in the pattern can be
having received as a gift from Matisse— to conclude that Matisse was painting for he commends the artist for displaying self- observed along the lower edge of the canvas,
were no more than an “occasional amuse‑ the camera. awareness, a “constant questioning of his up around the back of the chair, and beneath
ment” (un divertissement occasionnel) taken, It is uncertain whether Matisse’s imple‑ own work.” Following his description of the the door). Further, Matisse’s brushwork
she notes, with a small Kodak camera that mentation of the camera motivated, or was process of états, he concludes, “Such studied‑ appears to tighten up along the way; follow‑
Matisse acquired in 1930 for his trip to Tahiti. motivated by, the artist’s shifting pictorial ness made him his own art critic,” although ing Greenberg’s cue, we might acknowledge
“Unlike certain painters,” she continues, imperatives circa 1935, although we should he finds that Matisse was too often satisfied a stiffening of the overall design, for the first
“Henri Matisse never took, nor had others probably presume the latter. Writing from “only with the most static of resolutions.” state is loosely worked and shows a good deal
 Figs. 4–8. Five states of Henri Matisse’s Woman Fig. 9. Henri Matisse, Woman Seated in an Armchair,
Seated in an Armchair, 3–17 January 1940. 1940. Oil on canvas, 54 × 65.1 cm. Washington,
Courtesy Archives Matisse, Paris National Gallery of Art, Given in loving memory of her
husband, Taft Schreiber, by Rita Schreiber (1989.31.1)

4, 5
6, 7
8 9
178 of what appears to be exposed canvas. The white photographs of Pierre Bonnard’s (1867– anticipate a proliferating body of work that 179 Zervos project—is central to our consider‑
artist signed the penultimate version (fig. 7), 1947) paintings, which, he observed, prove did not yet exist. Far from being a transpar‑ ation of Matisse’s états because of the shared

The Matisse Grid

which must have meant he had decided to that Bonnard constructs “form” through ent record, then, the catalogue establishes an implementation of the photographic image.
stop there; but changes in the floor pattern color, presumably by demonstrating how interpretive visual structure, one that (espe‑ The simple reproduction of works of art on
eight days (fig. 8) later necessitated a new Bonnard’s form dissolves when, in photo‑ cially given the participation of the artist the pages of a book is something one is apt
signature. In work on this painting, the posi- graphic reproduction, it is deprived of hue.)2 himself, whose work was still ongoing) must to take for granted. But, of course, there is
tion of the figure did not change, nor did The timing of Matisse’s application of the be understood to conceptualize the art. nothing generic or inevitable about the Zer‑
the placement of furniture or other objects, camera may correspond to the artist’s chang‑ To a certain but significant degree (albeit vos catalogue, at least from the vantage of
although such adjustments are common in ing ambition for his work beginning in 1935. one difficult to quantify), the Zervos catalogue 1932. The design of its pages is a specific
other paintings during this period. But, considered as an enterprise of its own, raisonné did not merely measure Picasso’s one with obvious consequences for the way
Greenberg’s characterization of Matisse’s the quasi-serial photographic record of work work but—as a mechanism, even an ethos— in which we apprehend Picasso’s work. With
“studiedness” beginning in 1935, with the in progress can also be compared to a sepa‑ can be said to have infiltrated it. It is, for the Zervos layouts, paintings are no longer
advent of the sequential development of an rate instance of photographic inventory example, no coincidence that shortly after distinguishable in their dimensions or pal‑
image through stages, establishes a clear from this period, one that was close at hand. the appearance of the catalogue’s first vol- ette; they are assembled instead as modules,
divide in the work, but it is one defined as Unlike Matisse, Pablo Picasso (1881–1973) ume Picasso began systematically to date his elements embedded in a kind of counting
much by studio procedure as by the formal‑ had employed photography as far back as work—to inscribe paintings and drawings system (fig. 10). This implicates development
ism of the paintings. What is the difference 1900, making unconventional use of the with day, month, and year. This is something or advancement of some kind and further
between “carrying a painting” through close camera during his Cubist period, when he he had done prior to Zervos, but only inter‑ suggests that there is a functional value to
to two-dozen stages in 1935 and the proce‑ shot multiple images of paintings in the mittently. During the early 1930s, the habit establishing relational coordinates among
dure of bringing a painting to completion studio and even went so far as to fabricate became routine. It was certainly long estab‑ the works in any given two-page spread. In
prior to that date? Greenberg’s distinction double exposures.3 With reference to Matisse, lished by the 1960s, when Françoise Gilot their way, the pages of Zervos represent an
rests on the role of the camera (although he however, what should concern us is the com- remembered Picasso having said that his art interpretation of process. More, they process
does not put it that way); photographic record- pilation of a photographic record in relation was like a diary (something we should take the work through the devices of mechanical
keeping implies that the “stages” or states are to the preparation and publication of the to be at least as much about the artist’s pro‑ reproduction.
viable solutions in and of themselves, quite now-celebrated catalogue raisonné on which cess as about his life). One must imagine the If there is a structural principle that
unlike normal stages of painting process, Picasso collaborated with the historian and strenuous retroactive exercise of dating his emerges from the Zervos project and,
which implicate (pentimenti notwithstand‑ critic Christian Zervos. own work that Picasso would have endured in turn, from the operation of the état in
ing) gradual progress in a composition that The Zervos catalogue raisonné is a remark‑ in helping Zervos prepare the first volume Matisse’s work beginning in 1935, then it
is preestablished and that remains largely able publication, for the complete catalogue of the catalogue (keeping in mind that many is figured by the grid. Such an image is not
unchanged from beginning to end. of the work of a living artist (not to mention of the works that appear in the catalogue one we readily associate with the sinuous
To be exact, there are a handful of examples an artist who had only just passed mid-career) still actually belonged to the artist). One can corporeality and dynamic asymmetry that
of états that do reveal a somewhat conven‑ was virtually unprecedented in 1932, the year envision the new dating initiative as a form motivate Matisse’s compositional types (as
tional process of that kind—of increasing of the first volume’s publication. Such an of improved bookkeeping. But it is beginning far back as the pre-war period), but its very
states of finish rather than shifts in design. endeavor reflects on Picasso’s work in numer- during this period, as future volumes of the foreignness is useful. The grid in fact does
But examples departing from such norms of ous ways, not least with respect to the mar‑ Zervos catalogue show, that Picasso’s work in occur as a representational motif, appear-
progress—the Large Reclining Nude, among ket. But the vastness and complexity of the fact took a very distinct turn in drawings and ing in the form of checked fabrics and back‑
others—signal our closest attention. In those oeuvre, above all, are invoked by the Zervos paintings that are by implication produced in drop configurations (tiled walls, for example)
cases, which are far more common, Matisse’s volumes (which number thirty-four in total, far less than a single day. They can even be throughout the period. It first emerged in
interest in the photographs suggests that twenty-three of which were completed, with said to look that way, to have acquired a pecu‑ Matisse’s work of the 1920s, where walls
something could be gained by examining the his full cooperation, during Picasso’s life‑ liar character of speed as well as, in many and floors bear tilted or diagonal grids of
solutions in (and perhaps out of ) sequence. time). In this regard, we can say that the cases, a decided emptiness and a related, this kind; but it is with the Large Reclining
Further, the fact that the photographs forfeit Zervos catalogue came into existence as a pronounced quality of sameness. Nude in 1935 (reproduced by Fry as a sequence
color surely tells us that Matisse was employ‑ massive sorting device and that the proce‑ There are numerous implications for this of états) that the represented grid is truly
ing the camera partly to separate consider‑ dure it represents was not only to be applied argument relating above all to the develop‑ squared up such that its axes are parallel
ations of form from the overwhelming power to the past, but, by implication, to work of ment of Picasso’s own work.4 For the present to the edges of the canvas, thereby function‑
of colorism in his work. (This is a distinction the present and the future. It was, in other context, my claim is that the example of ing as a device that holds the surface of
Matisse made with reference to black-and- words, a project that could be understood to Picasso—or, more properly speaking, of the the ­painting—the canvas as plane. This
180 page—the Zervos catalogue raisonné. There 181 they were produced according to a regular‑
repetition occurs across multiple paintings, ized pattern of inventoried stages highly

The Matisse Grid

rather than, as with Matisse, multiple states amenable to picture-taking. The letters
of a single work. The difference is important: Matisse used to itemize the états are apt:
in principle, it indicates a kind of material as a model, the alphabet represents a sys-
depth in Matisse’s process—painting and tem of components, a list rather than a nec-
scraping and painting and scraping—that essarily progressive sequence of qualitative
Picasso replaces with a form of dispersion change (which might have been implicated
in which each “state” is preserved. Picasso’s by a number system).
paintings, moreover, lend themselves to the On a few recorded occasions, Matisse did
role of component parts in the Zervos cata‑ expressly allude to the purpose of the photo‑
logue, as if each were produced for the very graphic état. In an interview in 1945, he was
purpose of distribution within the layout queried on the role of spontaneity in his
matrix. Whether deliberate or not, Picasso’s work, which he denied, emphasizing labor
precise dating of each work further suggests instead—six months of work, for example,
this impulse. That is, his painting practice to produce The Dream (1940) and Still Life
represents something like an internalization with a Magnolia (1941), both paintings that
of the catalogue raisonné as an index, a mea‑ had been subjected to the camera. “The
suring device that succeeds in modifying or photos taken in the course of the execution
motivating the thing it sets out to measure or of the work,” he explained in this context,
describe. In turn, it is not difficult to imagine “permit me to know if the last conception
that the pages of the catalogue were acutely conforms more to the ideal than the pre-
relevant to Matisse’s practice of shooting and ceding ones; whether I am advancing or
preserving états. regressing.”6 This account begs the defini-
corresponds to the powerful ­flattening— Fig. 10. Pablo Picasso, dates inscribed on each photographic state, We might instead be inclined to ascribe tion or identity of an “ideal,” of course, but
remarked by Greenberg—of Matisse’s fig- Still Lifes, 1943–44. is complemented by the cross-referencing of repetition in Matisse’s work to the vague it also suggests that the photographic record
Reproduced from
uration and his representation of pictorial Christian Zervos, Picasso,
works through the flat space of the vertical genre of theme-and-variation, a concept the served a retroactive function for Matisse,
space. In such a context, the grid maps the vol. 13 (Paris: Éditions and horizontal axes. Such comparisons are artist actually enlisted for a series of draw‑ and that it was meaningful more as a narra‑
surface differently than ornamental pattern Cahiers d’art, 1962), taxonomic, as the multiple states of a paint- ings produced in 1943: multiple, simply tive than as a row of individual images. Yet
136–37
(more familiar to us from Matisse’s work), ing are inevitably scanned for distinctions— executed versions of a single image, such it is unclear whether or not Matisse used
although both grid and pattern constitute for features they do not share. But one also as a face.5 But the functionality of the grid the photograph of a given state as a means
proliferation, repeating shapes, or linear grasps the perceptual whole, the grid of in the language of photography and the life through which to assess the next step in his
elements distributed at regular intervals paintings as a single image of modular dis‑ of the photograph in Matisse’s studio sug‑ pursuit of the “ideal.” His explanation seems
across a field. play. In this regard, it is the sameness of gests instead that we examine the far more to indicate only that the sequence mattered,
Can this grid be said to pertain to the con- each image that impresses us: the principle complex category of the painted état for the direction of progress from step to step—
ceptual relation between Matisse’s painting of repetition. The flatness of the grid as motif something other than “variation,” which that the camera served to preserve and reveal
practice and his application of the camera? (the wall or floor tiles)—along with the flat‑ is no more descriptive, after all, than, say, a trajectory. This would mean that the photo‑
Simultaneously image, form, and matrix, the tening of Matisse’s pictorial space during the “trial-and-error.” Again, to the extent that graphic images were intended to function as
grid does structure Matisse’s treatment of the period of the photographic état—corresponds we can identify a rupture in Matisse’s prac‑ single frames in a kind of film. Indeed, both
photographic record of états: as small-format to the compression that photographic repro‑ tice in 1935, we can say that he came to Matisse and Picasso had occasion during this
photographs, the images of “states” of a single duction enacts on a painting, which the photo- channel his work through a staging process period to resort to the analogy of the moving
composition are pasted down in precise side- graph deprives of tactility and the visual for the record-keeping operation of the cam‑ picture with reference to stages of work.
by-side columns on quadrillé notebook pages depth of oil on canvas. These visual general‑ era’s mechanical eye. Taken together, the As we might expect, Picasso distinguishes
(just as the larger versions of the photographs izations may have been expressly useful to works he produced (the états) appear to between preserving the “metamorphosis”
were shown in gridded formations on the wall the artist in his application of the camera. describe rather than reflect process; if it is of the image, rather than its states or steps
of the Galerie Maeght). In both cases, chron‑ In Picasso’s case, the grid of images per‑ too extreme to claim that they were created (étapes); the result, he claims, is that, in the
ological sequencing, which is recorded by the tains to the designer’s layout of the printed for the camera, then it is certainly fair to say final work, the initial vision remains intact.
182 Yet the filmstrip or cinematic model would which contains a version of much earlier to presume it influenced the function of 183 a given painting, a role mirrors have also
apply better to a painting that is observed to observations on photography solicited by the états, which would in this respect repre‑ often served in the setting of the atelier.

The Matisse Grid

be developing according to predictable stan‑ Alfred Stieglitz (1864–1946) and published in sent not stages of pictorial progress subject As Arnaud Maillet has discussed, Matisse
dards of finish (beginning, middle, end), not Camera Work in 1908, the same year Matisse to careful scrutiny toward determining a recalled using both a portable frame and a
to the kind of advance and retreat that largely wrote his celebrated “Notes of a Painter”: viable next move, but self-sustaining pictorial “black mirror” around 1900 in the course
characterizes Matisse’s method beginning in “Photography has greatly disturbed the imag‑ solutions that the camera was intended to of painting a landscape en plein air; the frame
1935, through which, for example, the faces ination, because one has seen things devoid seize and thereby expunge. In any case, it is established a circumscribed view, while the
of the two figures in Music are inscribed, of feeling. . . . Photography has very clearly clear that the photograph was, for Matisse, mirror served to mute passages of bright
wiped out, and reinscribed. If anything, determined the distinction between painting an objectifying and distancing device; in dir- color in the landscape (which tend to pop,
such a model of systematic advance applies as a translation of feelings and descriptive ect opposition to Delectorskaya’s observation compromising one’s consistent impression
much more plainly to Picasso’s methods, painting. Descriptive painting has become about photography versus the “exaltation” of of measurable space), thereby creating a
as revealed by the photographs of work in useless.” But this statement (and, by exten‑ nature, he claimed that it brought him closer unified tonal effect. The overall purpose of
progress on the painting Guernica in 1937, sion, Matisse’s devotion to this shopworn to “nature” by distancing him from the medi‑ these devices, according to Matisse, was to
in which process is more a case of filling-in distinction between painting and photogra‑ ating influence of other art. The technique of establish “fixed elements” that would allow
than of change (not, for that matter, unlike phy) contains a separate, more provocative repetition represents a stop-action procedure him to work on a single painting at the site
Matisse’s work on the Barnes mural project, observation: “When I wanted to get rid of all for parceling process. Given the timing, the over the course of several days without suc‑
which Matisse photographed in process in influences that prevented me from seeing Zervos catalogue may have motivated Matisse cumbing to the confusion of day-to-day shifts
1932). In other words, each photograph of a nature from my own personal view, I copied to heighten the difference between Picasso’s in “sensibility.”10 The camera, as aperture,
Matisse état could, in most cases, be taken to photographs. We are encumbered by the sensi- practice and his own; regardless, Zervos corresponds to this function. Recalling the
record a “finished” work (what I have called a bilities of the artists who have preceded us. would have been a key figure in that he inad‑ burden of “previous imaginations” (which is
“solution”)—hence the relevance of Zervos’s Photography can rid us of previous imagina‑ vertently demonstrated how inventory could alleviated by photography), we recognize that
Picasso, of finished paintings that resemble tions.”8 Copying photographs of nature is, of itself be taken up as a conceptual tool. The even Matisse’s own previous imagination—
one another in the manner of the Matisse course, different from taking photographs of wall of photographic états at the Galerie the sensibility that had infused his work the
états. This distinction in the process of exe‑ one’s own work, but this prescription reveals Maeght in 1945 can perhaps be accounted day before—might itself qualify as some‑
cuting an individual work between Picasso an anxiety of influence for which the camera for by the dialectic of labor and intuition in thing to suppress. To photograph multiple
and Matisse is heightened when we note perhaps served as a check or filter. Here the Matisse’s statements during the period. It versions of a single composition would, by
that, in addition to the familiar case of photo‑ photograph’s capacity for “description” as was clearly intended to be a demonstration conceit, be to neutralize their impulses; see-
graphed paintings, Matisse applied the pro- opposed to “feeling” is a source of its func‑ of some kind. Yet our impression of the ing the états mechanically, the artist would
cedure of successive states to drawing, as tional value to the painter. Something similar Maeght images is one not just of demystified register their “fixed elements” in the form
well—specifically, a number of large, heavily is suggested by Matisse, as quoted by Louis process, but of subliminal urgency—of an of an all-at-once imprint.
worked charcoal drawings that were also Aragon in his text “Matisse-en-France” from effort toward a defensive formulation, some‑ The language of Matisse’s statements on
produced over time as a sequence of plausi‑ 1942, in which Matisse claims to copy photo‑ thing like a marshalling of evidence in order art during the period largely concerns vague
bly finished versions of the subject in ques‑ graphs in order to produce a likeness, thereby to represent the practice of painting—the notions of “harmony” and “unity” (as well as
tion, such as a seated nude.7 In the drawings, distancing himself from artists (Raphael and sustained act—as a form of endurance. labor), and these things—however we define
erasures and cancellations are far more Renoir are named) “who seem to have always The framing aperture represents the optic them—are compatible with the reductivism
obvious than in the paintings; they remain painted from the same woman.” In this way, of Matisse’s studio. Views through a window of the mirror (as it was understood in the
visible as pentimenti and trace, investing Matisse explains, “I thus limited the field proliferate in his work, and walls of painted history of studio practice) and the camera,
the image (by way of removal) with material of errors.”9 interiors are frequently fenestrated and hung which, after all, eliminates color and literally
weight, a quality that confirms the disparity “Photography can rid us of previous imagi‑ with framed and unframed canvases. Mir- reduces the dimensions of the canvas, creat‑
in technique between Picasso and Matisse nations.” This is an extraordinary statement, rors appear in some paintings and drawings ing a form of pictorial compression. The
as well as in the role of the camera as a one that, while based on a mistaken presump- and, perhaps more important, can be seen camera is, again, also an instrument of
record-keeping tool. tion of the objectivity of the camera, possesses throughout studio photographs from the ­repetition—of the repeating image or frame.
That Matisse was fully capable of—­perhaps a strategic edge that is not often apparent in 1910s through the late years in Vence. The Its character as an iterative device is twofold:
even invested in—perpetuating common Matisse’s pronouncements from this period. mirror is a traditional tool of self-portraiture specific to the mechanical production of
biases against the camera in relation to paint‑ If Matisse brought such a conception of the and certainly served Matisse in that way; but images in a row (or, on the proof sheet, a
ing can be demonstrated by remarks from camera with him to the photographic cam‑ Matisse may well have deployed the mirror grid) as well as to the photographic image as
the period, such as a statement from 1933, paign that begins in 1935, then it is reasonable in order to dis- or reorient his perception of a version (a record) of the thing it depicts. If
184 that “thing” is a painting, then we are speak‑ 185 An analogy to the Matisse grid might be
ing of reproduction—of image-making once identified in the work of another artist, albeit

The Matisse Grid

removed. And, in the language of the camera one whose imperatives stand apart from those
in France, we are more precisely speaking of Matisse. Beginning around 1920, Giorgio
of the cliché, a word that possesses a multiple De Chirico (1888–1978) occupied himself
meaning relating both to the image and to with creating copies (verifalsi, or “authentic
ordinary speech: a repetition, the source of fakes”) of his own early work and, more
an imprint (a photographic negative, a plate relevantly, producing long sequences of
of type, a woodblock, a stencil), and a truism paintings devoted to a single subject or city
or tired expression. In more than one man‑ view. This aspect of De Chirico’s project has
ner of speaking, then, the camera trans- drawn scrutiny over the years from scholars
forms the painting—the état—into a cliché, and critics, who have often held it up to
a mechanical iteration (an utterance) that demean the work of the artist’s “late” career
does not serve to disorient, after all, but to (between 1920 and his death in 1978). As a
familiarize. As a narrative of form, Matisse’s practice, it is also related to the replication
photographs of compositional states describe of De Chirico’s paintings by other artists
a certain debasement of the painted image (including Max Ernst [1891–1976]), some
as well as an exposure of the process of pro‑ apparently fakes intended to deceive.13
ducing the work, which, as a result, is surely Eighteen versions of De Chirico’s painting
deprived of a certain degree of auratic power. Disquieting Muses, produced between 1945
With respect to familiarization, it is ironic and 1962, were reproduced together in
that Matisse’s image grid is, for its time, a the periodical Critica d’Arte in 1979 (fig. 12);
startling thing. Already in 1941, it was given that spread was, in turn, reprinted three
a fuller published treatment than Fry’s in the years later by William Rubin in his catalogue
pages of ARTnews, where seventeen states of essay for the De Chirico exhibition at the
Music were reproduced with the final paint‑ Museum of Modern Art in New York, where
ing, recently acquired by the Albright (later the paintings are described as “reproduc‑
the Albright-Knox) Art Gallery in Buffalo, tions.” (Rubin also observed that some can‑
New York (fig. 11). Indeed, the photographs vases were backdated in De Chirico’s hand.)14
were shown together with the painting on An examination of the series as they appear
the walls of the museum. Correspondence this way in photographic reproduction shows
from 1940 between the gallery’s director, a pointed relationship with the images of
George Washburn, and the artist’s son, Music in ARTnews.
Pierre Matisse, in anticipation of the instal- Between De Chirico and Matisse we are
lation reveals that there were two sets of speaking of different practices pertaining, on
photographs divided between Matisse and the one hand, to multiple “finished” replicas
his son; significantly, Pierre referred to them and, on the other, to multiple stages in the
as “only snapshots.”11 In the short text accom- realization of a single work. Yet the Matisse
panying the photographs in ARTnews, the resemblance is not merely coincidental: the
phenomenon of photographed states was De Chirico images show small changes from
compared to the day-to-day photographic work to work, and the overall grid displays a
images of Guernica.12 Distributed across the shifting spectrum of light and dark (in the
grid, Matisse’s process looks at first glance Opposite: case of De Chirico, some of these shifts may
more like a case of genetic self-replication: Fig. 11. “Mr. Matisse indeed be due to inconsistent exposures over
Paints a Picture: 3 Weeks’
before examining it closely, we could mistake the years). As far as we know, De Chirico
Work in 18 Views.” Repro-
the photographs for a single image subjected duced from ARTnews, did not photograph his work in order to com-
to shifts in time of exposure or f-stop setting. 1–30 September 1941, 8 pose a grid, the way Matisse did; rather, as
186 a layout, the grid became the obvious form deliberation before the easel. Finally, though, 187
through which to display the working proce‑ it is the very notion of the “state” that permits

The Matisse Grid

dure of replica and repetition. But De Chirico us to award a certain conceptual autonomy to
reminds us that the Matisse état is an ele‑ the grid of images. The term état or “state”
ment in a matrix. With the camera, Matisse derives, after all, from the medium of print‑
accomplished two apposite representations making, where it refers to stages in the devel‑
of process in his work. Regardless of whether opment of a finished work; in this context,
or not he used them as tools over the course “state” pertains as much to the plate as to the
of producing a painting (rather than as image—the element that makes printmaking
records only), the photographs want to dem‑ a reproductive medium. A printed state is a
onstrate that the labor of painting is slow repetition in the sequential sense, a phase
and incremental, although not so much a in a narrative of completion,15 and printmak‑
matter of motor control as an exercise of ing in general is repetitive in that it results
rarefied intuition and choices concerning in the production of the same image over
minute compositional change. Yet, in the and over—the print as multiple. Such a two-
photographic grid, intuition and manual fold repetition—stages of progress toward a
labor themselves are made to occupy a single finished image and replication of
mechanical (or technological) dimension; that image in an edition—is achieved in
the narrative of the grid is less one of conti‑ painting by Matisse through the agency
nuity (the continuous struggle to produce a of the camera, which, like the print, creates
work) than it is a series of stoppages. Given replication by means of an indexical trace
the stop-action nature of the grid as a form, (the trace of light on film in one case, and,
Matisse’s sequence of états recasts process as in the other, the mechanical trace or impres‑
fixation: just as with the spread of De Chirico sion of an inked plate).
“reproductions,” there is no natural termi‑ With the Matisse grid, the activity of printmaking as the tripartite medium of a Fig. 12. Twelve versions the mechanicity of technique, caught up to
nus, no measurable index of finish per se ­painting—of a kind of painting that had single critical project—will have to await of Giorgio De Chirico’s the last precinct of pictorial intuition—of
Disquieting Muses.
in the sense of technique or design; there is, long been held to signify nuances of brush‑ Andy Warhol (1928–1987). By the 1960s, a Reproduced from
“harmony” and “unity” as goals of subjective
in other words, no obvious reason why the work and composition—is projected through crisis of means would transform painting Carlo L. Ragghianti, judgment—when Matisse began applying the
sequence finishes where it does. Matisse, a mechanical procedure. The grid depicts after Abstract Expressionism; for the Warhol “Il caso de Chirico,” repeating image to his own work in 1935.
Critica d’arte, Anno
of course, would claim that his work stops intuition as a sequence of quantifiable opera‑ generation, an impoverishment of conven‑ But to the extent that Matisse staged paint‑
XLIV, n.s., fasc. 163–65
when certain values—unity or harmony— tions, bringing us unexpectedly close to an tional esthetic values would come to be (­January–June 1979), ing for the camera, we are permitted to say
are achieved, but the mechanical depiction endgame ethos we more commonly associate expressed through the grid as an instrument 13–14 that inventory became a form, a structure of
of the stages of labor does not evince such with abstraction and reflecting—despite the of replication, a numbing proliferation spe‑ operations to which the artist brought spe‑
a thing. artist’s claims to the contrary—some encroach- cifically pertaining to the realm of the com‑ cific expectations concerning the stop-action
If we can begin to call the grid of états ing doubt regarding the viability of values modified image. This is painting’s second exposure (literally and figuratively) of fully
its own species of work, then it is because pertaining to painting as an inherently sub‑ crisis of the last century. Painting’s first formed solutions to problems of composition
Matisse’s practice of recording and display- jective practice of judgment and taste. By crisis, toward the beginning of the century, or design. In this respect, Matisse’s claim
ing the stages of a painting lasted some ten 1935, Matisse knew that his work was the was denoted by the gradual abandonment that the photographic états allowed him to
years and took both private and public forms: prime site of just such a practice, of intuition of conventions of painting as craft in favor track his progress toward an ideal is compat‑
that is, in notebooks, in magazine spreads, plus labor, although his (repetitive) state‑ of quasi-mechanical means (the repeated ible with his characterization of the camera
and on gallery walls the image-grid itself was ments to this effect perhaps also betray application of the brush in the work of as an instrument for the eschewal of “previ‑
subject to repetition, the kind of persistence uncertainty. The Matisse grid claims intu‑ Georges Seurat [1859–1891], for example). ous imaginations”; recorded on film, ver-
that enhances the purposefulness of the act, ition for the realm of inventory and in so And it was allegorized by Marcel Duchamp’s sions of a composition are transformed from
conferring intention and meaning. “Only doing, deliberately or not, it represents an (1887–1968) invention of the readymade expressions of sensibility into established
snapshots”: yet the photographs were sub- anxious, acutely critical interpretation of (with which Duchamp replaced the rejected facts (solutions subject to being discarded).
ject to enlargement and display. They also authenticity. The apotheosis of the repeat- practice of painting beginning in 1913).16 We Put differently, paintings and photographs
represent a way of recasting the process of ing image—of painting, photography, and might say that this first crisis, as it concerns are two procedural elements that constitute
Opposite: Above:
Figs. 13, 14. Two states of Henri Matisse’s Still Life Fig. 15. Henri Matisse, Still Life with Sleeping Woman,
with Sleeping Woman, 22 December 1939, 2 January 1940. Oil on canvas, 82.5 × 100.7 cm. Washington,
1940. Courtesy Archives Matisse, Paris National Gallery of Art, Collection of Mr. and Mrs. Paul
Mellon (1985.64.26)
190 a single “work,” for together they indicate the Figs. 16–20. Five states Notes something like the labor of états in 1931, one year prior 191 (164–68). See also William Robinson, “De Chirico
search for an impersonal result—an “ideal,” of Henri Matisse’s Pink 1.  Lydia Delectorskaya, L’apparente facilité . . . Henri to the practice of photographic record-keeping. With Forgeries,” IFAR Journal 4, no. 1 (2001): 10–17.

The Matisse Grid

Nude, March–April Matisse: Peintures de 1935–1939 (Paris: Adrien Maeght regard to a heavily worked charcoal drawing, Matisse
to use Matisse’s word—arrived at by channel‑ 14.  William Rubin, “De Chirico and Modernism,” in
1935. Courtesy Archives Éditeur, 1986), 24–25. explained to Gotthard Jedlicka that “It consists, if you De Chirico, exh. cat., New York, Museum of Modern
ing personal intuition through the mechani‑ Matisse, Paris
2.  Letter from Matisse to his daughter Amélie, quoted will, of hundreds of sketches, superimposed one on Art (1982), 72.
cal reflex of a recording instrument. In this top of the other.” See Jedlicka, “Begnung mit Matisse,”
in Hilary Spurling, Matisse the Master: A Life of Henri 15.  Regardless of the sometimes problematic defini‑
context, the grid is a radical leveling device: Matisse. The Conquest of Colour, 1909–1954 (New York: translated in Flam, Matisse on Art, 103. (The interview
tion of a finished or final print; see Peter Parshall
as a figure within a painting, it is a form of Alfred A. Knopf, 2005), 440. was published in 1933 but is presumed to have been
et al., The Unfinished Print, exh. cat., Washington,
pattern that articulates the shape and planar‑ conducted in 1931.)
3.  For Picasso’s application of photography during National Gallery of Art (2001).
ity of the canvas; as a sorting structure, it his Cubist period, see Anne Baldassari, Picasso Photo- 8.  Matisse, in E. Tériade, “Emancipation de la pein‑
16.  My summary of this historical circumstance
graphe: 1901–1916 (Paris: Réunion des musées natio- ture,” Minotaure I, nos. 3–4 (1933): 10; translated in
implicates not development or advance but follows a lengthy argument put forth by Thierry de
naux, 1994), 93–245; and Jeffrey Weiss, Picasso: The Flam, Matisse on Art, 106.
modularity, an interchangeability of parts Duve in various publications; see, for example, De
Cubist Portraits of Fernande Olivier (Washington: 9.  Reprinted in Louis Aragon, Henri Matisse: Roman, Duve, Kant After Duchamp (Cambridge, Mass., and
according to which states of a painting are National Gallery of Art, 2004), 30–39. 2 vols. (Paris: Gallimard, 1971), 1:135. In 1947, Matisse London: MIT Press), 147–90.
autonomous; as an optical mechanism, a 4.  I first presented this thesis concerning Picasso and would have further recourse to the camera as a meta‑
17.  Indeed, Ryman has also made use of the camera,
kind of aperture derived from layout design the Zervos catalogue raisonné as a conference paper, phor for descriptive versus “inner” vision; see André
using images of finished paintings to examine the
or the form of the proofsheet, it disperses although it remains unpublished. The occasion was Marchand, “L’Oeil,” in Jacques Kober, ed., Henri
narrative of development and permutation in his own
a symposium held in conjunction with the exhibition Matisse (Paris: Maeght, 1947): 51–53; translated in
the painted image, resulting in an all-over work. For an image of these black-and-white photo‑
Matisse-Picasso at the Museum of Modern Art in New Flam, Matisse on Art, 114–15.
proliferation that is virtually abstract. graphs arranged as a grid on the artist’s studio wall,
York on 12 March 2003. 10.  Arnaud Maillet, The Claude Glass: Use and Mean‑ see Robert Storr, Robert Ryman (New York: Abrams,
Consider the labor of Matisse’s studio:
5. Matisse, Dessins: Thèmes et variations (Paris: ing of the Black Mirror in Western Art, trans. Jeff Fort 1993), 8.
draw/paint; shoot; preserve and expunge; (New York: Zone Books, 2004), 125–26.
M. Fabiani, 1943). 18.  And, with reference to the locus classicus of this
paint; shoot; collate. And the devices of see‑ 11.  My thanks to Susanna Tejada at the Albright-Knox
6.  Interview with Léon Degand in Les lettres françaises, problematic in relation to the mechanical reproduc‑
ing: frame; window; mirror; shutter; proof translated in Jack Flam, ed., Matisse on Art (Berkeley Art Gallery for providing me with this information. tion of the unique work of art, between aura and
(and cliché ). Beginning in 1935, Matisse and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1995), There are no photographs of this installation. replication (although reproduction in Matisse’s case
reinvented painting process as a series of 103. 12.  “Mr. Matisse Paints a Picture: 3 Weeks’ Work in does not imply a commodified image), see Walter
operations, and thereby positioned himself 7.  Two such states are reproduced in Roger Fry, Henri- 18 Views,” ARTnews, 1–30 September 1941, 8. Benjamin, “Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduc‑
Matisse (Paris: Éditions des Chroniques du Jour, 1935), 13.  For a recent, revisionist consideration of this topic, tion,” in Illuminations, ed. Hannah Arendt, trans.
at the outermost critical edge of his own
pl. 59. In fact, this very drawing is reproduced in see Michael R. Taylor, Giorgio De Chirico and the Myth Harry Zohn (New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World,
work. (Painting of this kind—investigating 1968), 217–51. The essay first appeared in a French
Delectorskaya as a sequence of seven states, the of Ariadne, exh. cat., Philadelphia Museum of Art
the medium in a deeply critical mode while final work dated 1936 (that is, after the publication (2003), especially two essays: “The Piazza d’Italia translation in 1936, and was not published in German
managing to retain and express pleasure in of Fry’s book); see pp. 49–51. In the case of the char‑ Paintings” (133–44) and “Warhol and De Chirico” until 1955.
the materiality of it—has been inherited coal drawings, we have a reference by Matisse to
above all by Robert Ryman.)17 In Matisse’s
late oeuvre, the act of repetition negotiates
an exchange between intuition and proce‑
dure,18 but it does so by effecting a reversal:
it classes intuition as a form of certainty
while demonstrating that the mechanics
of procedure represent a form of second-
guessing. Matisse’s grid—as a figure of
regularity and fixation, above all—is unex‑
pected and, ironically, destabilizing; as such,
his deployment of the repeating image
posits nothing less than a renewal of the
easel picture through a rigorous interroga‑
tion of painterly doubt.
21, 22, 23

24, 25, 26

Figs. 21–29. Nine states of Henri Matisse’s Woman Fig. 30. Henri Matisse, Woman in Blue, 1937. Oil on
in Blue, 26 February 1936–2 April 1937. Courtesy canvas, 92.7 × 73.7 cm. Philadelphia Museum of Art:
27, 28, 29 Archives Matisse, Paris Gift of Mrs. John Wintersteen, 1956 (1956-23-1)
Checklist of the Exhibition

Data herein are those given by the 7  Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres, 13 Ferdinand-Victor-Eugène 19  Achille Sirouy, 1834–1904, after 25  Jean-François Millet, 1814–1875 32  Eadweard Muybridge, 38  Edgar Degas, 1834–1917
lending institutions. Dates, attribu- 1780–1867 Delacroix, 1798–1863 Jean-Léon Gérôme, 1824–1904 The Sower, 1850 1830–1904 Before the Race, 1882/ 84
tions, and titles in some instances Oedipus and the Sphinx, ca. 1826 Christ on the Sea of Galilee, 1854 Un duel après le bal, 1859 Oil on canvas, 105.4 × 85.7 cm Animal Locomotion, plate 621: Oil on panel, 26.4 × 34.9 cm
may diverge from those given by Oil on canvas, 17.5 × 13.7 cm Oil on canvas, 59.8 × 73.3 cm Lithograph, impression on a tint- Pittsburgh, Carnegie Museum Annie G. cantering, saddled, Baltimore, The Walters Art
the essay authors. London, The National Gallery, Baltimore, The Walters Art stone background, hand-colored of Art. Purchase: gift of Mr. and 1872–85; published 1887 Museum. Bequest of Henry
bought 1918 (NG 3290) Museum. Bequest of Henry with watercolor and gouache, Mrs. Samuel B. Casey and Mr. and Collotype, 48 × 60.4 cm (sheet) Walters, 1931 (37.850)
1  Italian, 1550–1600, after Illustrated p. 48, fig. 19 Walters, 1931 (37.186) with gum arabic highlights, Mrs. George L. Craig, Jr. (63.7) Washington, The Corcoran Gallery Illustrated p. 115, fig. 46
Leonardo da Vinci, 1452–1519 Illustrated p. 139, fig. 11 37.7 × 54.5 cm Illustrated p. 57, fig. 5 of Art. Museum purchase (87.7.567)
Mona Lisa 8  Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres, Bordeaux, Musée Goupil: Direction Not illustrated 39  Edgar Degas, 1834–1917
Oil on canvas, 79.3 × 63.5 cm 1780–1867 14  After Ferdinand-Victor-Eugène des Établissements culturels de 26  Jean-François Millet, 1814–1875 Leaving the Bath (La sortie du
Baltimore, The Walters Art Oedipus and the Sphinx, 1864 Delacroix, 1798–1863 Bordeaux (98.I.1.5) The Sower, 1865 33  Eadweard Muybridge, bain), 2nd state, 1879–80
Museum. Bequest of Henry Oil on canvas, 105.5 × 87 cm Christ on the Lake of Gennesaret, Illustrated p. 45, fig. 16 Pastel and crayon or pastel on 1830–1904 Etching and drypoint with burnish-
Walters, 1931 (37.1158) Baltimore, The Walters Art 1854 cream buff paper, 43.5 × 53.5 cm Animal Locomotion, plate 652, ing on laid paper, 12.8 × 12.8 cm
Not illustrated Museum. Bequest of Henry Oil on paper mounted on Masonite, 20  Jean-Baptiste-Camille Corot, Baltimore, The Walters Art Horses rearing, etc., 1872–85; (plate)
Walters, 1931 (37.9) 25.1 × 31.4 cm 1796–1875 Museum. Bequest of Henry published 1887 Fine Arts Museums of San Fran-
2  Jacques-Louis David, 1748–1825, Illustrated p. 48, fig. 20 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. L’étoile du matin, signed 1864 Walters, 1931 (37.905) Collotype, 47.6 × 60.4 cm (sheet) cisco. Museum purchase (1973.9.13)
and Studio Bequest of Josiah Bradlee, 1903 Oil on canvas, 129 × 160 cm Baltimore only Washington, The Corcoran Gallery Illustrated p. 110, fig. 33
La mort de Marat, ca. 1794 9 Ferdinand-Victor-Eugène (03.741) Toulouse, Musée des Augustins Illustrated: p. 68, fig. 16 of Art. Museum purchase (87.7.598)
Oil on canvas, 111.3 × 85.6 cm Delacroix, 1798–1863 Illustrated p. 139, fig. 12 (Ro 60) Not illustrated 40  Edgar Degas, 1834–1917
Reims, Musée des Beaux-Arts de Christ on the Sea of Galilee, Illustrated p. 62, fig. 9 27  Jean-François Millet, 1814–1875 Leaving the Bath (La sortie du
la Ville de Reims. Don Paul David, ca. 1841 15  Paul Delaroche, 1797–1856, The Sower, ca. 1865 34  Edgar Degas, 1834–1917 bain), 7th state, ca. 1879–80
1879 (879.8) Oil on canvas, 45.7 × 54.6 cm with Charles Béranger, 1816–1853 21  Jean-Baptiste-Camille Corot, Pastel on tan paper, 29.8 × 24.1 cm Horse Walking, model early 1870s; Electric crayon, etching, drypoint,
Illustrated p. 23, fig. 6 Kansas City, The Nelson-Atkins Hémicycle des Beaux-Arts, 1796–1875 Pittsburgh, The Frick Art & Histori- cast ca. 1920/25 and aquatint on laid paper, 12.8 ×
Museum of Art. Purchase: Nelson ca. 1841; repainted and signed 1853 The Evening Star (L’étoile du cal Center (1984.9) Bronze, 21 × 26.6 × 9.8 cm 12.8 cm (plate)
3  Studio of Jacques-Louis David, Trust through exchange of the Oil on canvas, 41.6 × 257.3 cm berger), 1864 Illustrated p. 69, fig. 18 Washington, National Gallery of Art. Ottawa, National Gallery of Canada.
1748–1825 gifts of the Friends of Art, Mr. and Baltimore, The Walters Art Oil on canvas, 71 × 90 cm Gift of Mrs. Lessing J. Rosenwald Purchased 1976 (18662)
Marat assassiné, 1793–94 Mrs. Gerald Parker, and the Durand- Museum. Bequest of Henry Baltimore, The Walters Art 28  Jean-François Millet, 1814–1875 (1989.28.2) Illustrated p. 110, fig. 34
Oil on canvas, 162.5 × 130 cm Ruel Galleries; and the bequest of Walters, 1931 (37.83) Museum. Bequest of Henry The Sower Illustrated p. 118, fig. 49
Paris, Musée du Louvre. Legs John K. Havemeyer (89-16) Illustrated p. 36, fig. 8 Walters, 1931 (37.154) Pastel on black crayon and pale 41  Edgar Degas, 1834–1917
du Baron Jeanin, descendant Illustrated p. 138, fig. 8 Illustrated p. 63, fig. 10 brown paper, 36 × 43 cm 35  Edgar Degas, 1834–1917 Leaving the Bath (La sortie du
de l’artiste, 1945 (RF 1945-2) 16  Louis Pierre Henriquel-Dupont, French & Company LLC, New York Rearing Horse, model 1880s; cast bain), 11th state, ca. 1879-80
Illustrated p. 23, fig. 7 10 Ferdinand-Victor-Eugène 1797–1892, after Paul Delaroche, 22  Jean-Baptiste-Camille Corot, Baltimore only 1919/21 Electric crayon, etching, drypoint,
Delacroix, 1798–1863 1797–1856 1796–1875 Illustrated p. 69, fig. 19 Bronze, 31 × 25.5 × 20.2 cm (with and aquatint, 12.8 × 12.8 cm (plate)
4  Studio of Jacques-Louis David, Christ on the Lake of Genesareth, Hémicycle des Beaux-Arts, 1853 The Evening Star, signed 1863 base) Austin, Blanton Museum of Art,
1748–1825 1853 (?) Engraving in three parts: Left panel [1864?] 29  Jean-François Millet, 1814–1875 Washington, National Gallery of The University of Texas at Austin.
La mort de Marat, ca. 1793 Oil on canvas, 45.1 × 54.9 cm of three: 53 × 112.5 cm; center Oil on canvas, 112.4 × 145.4 cm The Sower, n.d. Art. Collection of Mr. and Mrs. Paul Archer M. Huntington Museum
Oil on canvas, 92 × 73 cm Portland, Oregon, Portland Art panel: 53 × 65.5 cm; right panel: Private collection, on deposit at Lithograph on paper, 19.1 × 15.6 cm Mellon (1999.79.38) Fund, 1982 (1982.705)
Dijon, Musée des Beaux-Arts de Museum. Gift of Mrs. William Mead 53 × 112.5 cm the Saint Louis Art Museum (plate) Illustrated p. 118, fig. 50 Illustrated p. 111, fig. 36
Dijon (2306) Ladd and children (31.4) Baltimore, The Walters Art Illustrated p. 63, fig. 12 Pittsburgh, Carnegie Museum
Illustrated p. 23, fig. 4 Illustrated p. 138, fig. 7 Museum. Gift of C. Morgan of Art. Gift of Andrew Carnegie 36  Edgar Degas, 1834–1917 42  Edgar Degas, 1834–1917
Marshall, 1944 (93.113a–c) 23  Jean-François Millet, 1814–1875 (16.18.1) Trotting Horse, the Feet Not Leaving the Bath (La sortie du
5  Studio of Jacques-Louis David, 11 Ferdinand-Victor-Eugène Illustrated p. 36, fig. 9 The Sower, 1847–48 Illustrated p. 70, fig. 20 Touching the Ground, ca. 1881 bain), 12th state, ca. 1879–80
1748–1825 Delacroix, 1798–1863 Oil on canvas, 95.2 × 61.3 cm Bronze, 23.2 × 27 × 12.4 cm Drypoint and aquatint on laid
Marat assassiné, 1793 Christ Asleep during the Tempest, 17  Jean-Léon Gérôme, 1824–1904 Cardiff, Amgueddfa Cymru– 30  Eadweard Muybridge, Fine Arts Museums of San Fran- paper, 12.7 × 12.7 cm (plate)
Oil on canvas, 157.5 × 136 cm 1853 Duel after a Masked Ball (Duel National Museum Wales 1830–1904 cisco. Museum purchase, Gift New York, The Metropolitan
Versailles, Musée national des Oil on canvas, 50.8 × 61 cm après un bal masqué), 1857 (NMW A 2474) Animal Locomotion, plate 580: of Jay D. McEvoy in memory of Museum of Art. Rogers Fund,
châteaux de Versailles et de New York, The Metropolitan Oil on canvas, 68 × 99 cm Baltimore only Annie G, walking, saddled, Clare C. McEvoy and Partial Gift 1921 (21.39.1)
Trianon (MV 5608) Museum of Art. H. O. Havemeyer St. Petersburg, Russia, The State Illustrated p. 56, fig. 2 1872–85; published 1887 of the Djerassi Art Trust (1989.16) Illustrated p. 111, fig. 37
Baltimore only Collection, Bequest of Mrs. H. O. Hermitage Museum (GE 3872) Collotype, 48.5 × 61.3 cm (sheet) Illustrated p. 118, fig. 48
Illustrated p. 23, fig. 5 Havemeyer (29.100.131) Illustrated p. 44, fig. 14 24  Jean-François Millet, 1814–1875 Washington, The Corcoran Gallery 43  Edgar Degas, 1834–1917
Baltimore only The Sower, 1850 of Art. Museum purchase (87.7.526) 37  Edgar Degas, 1834–1917 Leaving the Bath (La sortie du
6  Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres, Illustrated p. 139, fig. 9 18  Jean-Léon Gérôme, 1824–1904 Oil on canvas, 101.6 × 82.6 cm Not illustrated Before the Race, ca. 1882 bain), 13th state, ca. 1879–80
1780–1867 The Duel after the Masquerade, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Gift Oil on panel, 26.5 × 34.9 cm Drypoint and aquatint, 21 × 17.5 cm
Edipe explique l’énigme du sphinx, 12 Ferdinand-Victor-Eugène 1857–59 of Quincy Adams Shaw through 31  Eadweard Muybridge, Williamstown, Massachusetts, (sheet)
1808 Delacroix, 1798–1863 Oil on canvas, 39.1 × 56.3 cm Quincy Adams Shaw, Jr. and 1830–1904 Sterling and Francine Clark Art Northhampton, Massachusetts,
Oil on canvas, 189 × 144 cm Christ on the Sea of Galilee, 1853 Baltimore, The Walters Art Mrs. Marian Shaw Haughton Animal Locomotion, plate 620: Institute (1955.557) Smith College Museum of Art.
Paris, Musée du Louvre. Legs Oil on composition board, 47.6 × Museum. Bequest of Henry (17.1485) Annie G. cantering, saddled, Illustrated p. 115, fig. 45 Gift of Selma Erving, class of 1927
de la Comtesse Duchâtel, 1878 58.1 cm Walters, 1931 (37.51) Illustrated p. 56, fig. 3 1872–85; published 1887 (SC 1972:50-19)
(RF 218) Philadelphia Museum of Art: Gift of Illustrated p. 45, fig. 15 Collotype, 48 × 60.5 cm (sheet) Illustrated p. 111, fig. 38
Illustrated p. 48, fig. 18 R. Sturgis and Marion B. F. Ingersoll, Washington, The Corcoran Gallery
1950 (1950-6-1) of Art. Museum purchase (87.7.566)
Illustrated p. 139, fig. 10 Not illustrated

194 195
44  Edgar Degas, 1834–1917 50  Paul Cézanne, 1839–1906 56  Paul Cézanne, 1839–1906 Index
Leaving the Bath (La sortie du Standing Bather Seen from Standing Male Bather; Puget’s 63  Henri Matisse, 1869–1954
bain), 14th state, ca. 1878–80 Behind (Baigneur debout Atlas Woman Seated in an Armchair,
Etching and aquatint, 12.7 × vu de dos), 1879–82 Page L recto from Sketchbook II, 1940
12.7 cm (plate) Oil on canvas, 27 × 17.1 cm 1885–1900 Oil on canvas, 54 × 65.1 cm
Page references in italics Bouguereau, William-Adolphe, Pichet et fruits sur une table,
Williamstown, Massachusetts, The Henry and Rose Pearlman Graphite pencil and graphite offset Washington, National Gallery of Art.
denote illustrations. Refer- 28, 40 170–71 n 144
Sterling and Francine Clark Art Foundation; on long-term loan from page XLIX verso on wove Given in loving memory of her
Institute (1969.19) to the Princeton University Art paper, 12.9 × 21.6 cm husband, Taft Schreiber, by Rita ences to works not easily Bourgeois, Louise, 18 The Small Bathers (BMA,
Illustrated p. 111, fig. 39 Museum (L.1988.62.1) Philadelphia Museum of Art: Gift of Schreiber (1989.31.1) distinguishable are anno- Boussod et Valadon, 117, 118 litho.), 147
Illustrated p. 164, fig. 29 Mr. and Mrs. Walter H. Annenberg, Illustrated p. 177, fig. 9 tated with the medium and Bouyer, Raymond, 150 Standing Male Bather, Puget’s
45  Edgar Degas, 1834–1917 1987 (1987-53-79a) abbreviated name of the Brame, Hector, 60 Atlas, 158, 159
Leaving the Bath (La sortie 51  Paul Cézanne, 1839–1906 Illustrated p. 159, fig. 25a 64  Henri Matisse, 1869–1954 institutional owner (BMA: Brancusi, Constantin, 119 Standing Male Bather, Seen
du bain), 15th state, 1879–80 Bathers, 1890–92 Still Life with Sleeping Woman, The Baltimore Museum Breck, John Leslie, Studies of from Behind, 164
Drypoint and aquatint on wove Oil on canvas, 54.3 × 66 cm 57  Paul Cézanne, 1839–1906 1940 of Art; PMA: Philadelphia an Autumn Day, 92, 93 Standing Male Bather and
paper, 12.7 × 12.8 cm (plate) Saint Louis Art Museum. Funds Male Bathers Oil on canvas, 82.5 × 100.7 cm
Museum of Art; SLAM: Bruyas, Alfred, 100 Dog, 159, 160
New York, The Metropolitan given by Mrs. Mark C. Steinberg Page XLIX verso from Sketch- Washington, National Gallery of
Saint Louis Art Museum). Bulletin of the American Art- Still Life with Plaster Cupid,
Museum of Art. Harris Brisbane (2:1956) book II, 1885–1900 Art. Collection of Mr. and Mrs. Paul
Dick Fund, Rogers Fund, The Baltimore only Graphite pencil and graphite offset Mellon (1985.64.26) Union, 29, 31, 32 153, 154, 156–57
Elisha Whittelsey Collection, Illustrated p. 133, fig. 5 from page L recto on wove paper, Illustrated p. 189, fig. 15 Albers, Josef, 83, 84 Bürger, Willem. See Thoré, still lifes, 104, 151
The Elisha Whittelsey Fund, 1972, 12.9 × 21.6 cm Albertini, Édouard, 123 n 28 Théophile Three Bathers (Petit Palais),
by exchange (1972.659) 52  Paul Cézanne, 1839–1906 Philadelphia Museum of Art: Gift of 65  Henri Matisse, 1869–1954 Alexandre, Arsène, 94 Burty, Philippe, 71, 77 n 61 128, 158
Illustrated p. 111, fig. 40 Group of Bathers, ca. 1895 Mr. and Mrs. Walter H. Annenberg, Woman in Blue, 1937 American Sculpture of the Chang, Briankle, 20
Oil on canvas, 20.6 × 30.8 cm 1987 (1987-53-78b) Oil on canvas, 92.7 × 73.7 cm Sixties (exhibition), 14, 16 Cadart, Alfred, 78 n 74, 78 n 76 Chase Gallery, Boston, 93
46  Edgar Degas, 1834–1917 Philadelphia Museum of Art: The Illustrated p. 158, fig. 25b Philadelphia Museum of Art: Andre, Carl, 14, 16 Caillebotte, Gustave, 94, 107–8 Chennevières, Philippe de, 71
Leaving the Bath (La sortie du Louise and Walter Arensberg Gift of Mrs. John Wintersteen, 1956
Apollinaire, Guillaume, 148 Cloud Studies, 103, 107 Chevreul, Eugène, 116, 117
bain), 16th state, ca. 1878–80 Collection, 1950 (1950-134-34) 58  Claude Monet, 1840–1926 (1956-23-1)
Aragon, Louis, 182 Calamatta, Luigi, 25 n 22, 46, Chirico, Giorgio de, 185–87
Etching, aquatint, and drypoint on Illustrated p. 161, fig. 28 Stacks of Wheat (Sunset, Snow Phoenix only
wove paper, 12.7 × 12.7 cm (plate) Effect), 1890–91 Illustrated p. 193, fig. 30 Art in Series (exhibition), 16 47 Clark, T. J., 148
Williamstown, Massachusetts, 53  Paul Cézanne, 1839–1906 Oil on canvas, 65.3 × 100.4 cm L’Artiste, 70, 81 n 123 Voeu de Louis XIII, 43 Clemenceau, George, 108,
Sterling and Francine Clark Art The Small Bathers, 1896–97 The Art Institute of Chicago, Potter Photographic Documentation Les artistes anciens et modernes, Cambon, Armand, 51 n 53 119–20
Institute (1971.39) Brush and tusche and crayon Palmer Collection (1922.431) Henri Matisse, 1869–1954 71, 81 n 122 Camondo, Isaac de, 119 Cleophas (dealer), 60
Illustrated p. 111, fig. 41 color lithograph, 22.3 × 27.3 cm Illustrated p. 86, fig. 1 Nine states of Woman in Blue, Athenaeum, 28, 29 cartes de visite, 42, 96 Cock, César de, 51 n 29
The Baltimore Museum of Art: 1937 (no. 65 above) Cassatt, Mary, 90, 91, 108 Constable, John, 123 n 23
47  Edgar Degas, 1834–1917 The Cone Collection, formed by 59  Claude Monet, 1840–1926 26 February 1937; 3, 12, 13, 22, 23, Bann, Stephen, 14, 18 Interior Scene, 109 Coplans, John, 15–16, 17, 19, 83
Leaving the Bath (La sortie du Dr. Claribel Cone and Miss Etta Grainstack (Snow Effect), 1891 24 and 25 March 1937; 2 April 1937
Bardenet (dealer), 101 Cézanne, Paul, 127–71 Coquiot, Gustave, 127, 137
bain), 20th state, 1879–80 Cone of Baltimore, Maryland Oil on canvas, 65.4 × 92.4 cm Courtesy Archives Matisse, Paris
Bartholomé, Albert, 116 Allée d’arbres, 166 n 26 Corot, Jean-Baptiste-Camille,
Electric crayon, etching, drypoint, (BMA 1950.12.605) Gift of Miss Aimée and Miss Illustrated 192, figs. 21–29
and aquatint, 12.7 × 12.7 cm (plate) Illustrated p. 147, fig. 17 Rosamond Lamb in memory of Barye, Antoine-Louis, 74 n 18, Antique Aphrodite (Aphrodite 53, 60–64, 67, 71–72,
Washington, National Gallery of Art. Mr. and Mrs. Horatio Appleton Henri Matisse, 1869–1954 77 n 71 and Eros), 159, 160 129–30, 145
Rosenwald Collection (1950.16.48) 54  Paul Cézanne, 1839–1906 Lamb (1970.253) Five states of Pink Nude (Nu rose Bataille, Georges, 140, 141, 142, The Bathers (Baigneurs) Bathers of the Borromean
Illustrated p. 111, fig. 42 The Large Bathers, 1896–98 Illustrated p. 87, fig. 4 crevette), discarded and destroyed 144–46, 148–50, 152, 156, (BMA), 140–41, 142 Isles, 76 n 51
Brush and tusche transfer and 16, 17, 20 March 1935; undated 160, 162–64 Bathers (SLAM), 132, 133 Crépuscule, 77 n 61
48  Edgar Degas, 1834–1917 crayon color lithograph, 48 × 60  Claude Monet, 1840–1926 [March or April 1935], 25 April 1935 Baudelaire, Charles, 95, 96, Bathers at Rest (Barnes), 144, Dante and Virgil, 64
Leaving the Bath (La sortie du 56.5 cm Grainstack in Winter, Misty Courtesy Archives Matisse, Paris 97, 105, 116, 145 145, 146, 155, 170 n 137, Democritus, 81 n 123
bain), 21st state, 1879–80 The Baltimore Museum of Art: Weather, 1891 Illustrated pp. 190–91, figs. 16–20
Bell, Clive, 165 n 22 170 n 138 The Evening Star, 60–61,
Electric crayon, etching, drypoint, The Cone Collection, formed by Oil on canvas, 65 × 92 cm
Bell, Larry, 15 Bather with Outstretched 62–63, 64, 129
and aquatint, 12.7 × 12.7 cm (plate) Dr. Claribel Cone and Miss Etta Private collection, courtesy of Henri Matisse, 1869–1954
Washington, National Gallery of Art. Cone of Baltimore, Maryland Ivor Braka Two states of Still Life with Sleep- Bellio, Georges de, 122 n 5 Arms, 132, 171 n 146 Les Gaulois, 76 n 51
Rosenwald Collection (1950.16.47) (BMA 1950.12.681.1) Baltimore only ing Woman, 1940 (no. 63 above) Benjamin, Walter, 18, 168 n 91, Compotier, pommes, et miche Hagar and the Angel, 76 n 50
Illustrated p. 110, fig. 35 Illustrated p. 147, fig. 18 Illustrated p. 86, fig. 3 22 December 1939 and 2 January 191 n 18 de pain, 135 Une matinée (Dance of the
1940 Béranger, Charles, 38–39 Female Bathers (Beigneuses), Nymphs), 60, 71, 72
49  Edgar Degas, 1834–1917 55  Paul Cézanne, 1839–1906 61  Claude Monet, 1840–1926 Courtesy Archives Matisse, Paris Bergson, Henri, 152, 154, 155, series, 151, 152 Orphée, 77 n 64
Leaving the Bath (La sortie du The Bathers (Baigneurs), Rouen Cathedral, Façade, 1894 Illustrated p. 188, figs. 13, 14 160 Female Bathers and a Swan, Le petit berger, 81 n 121,
bain), impression from canceled 1898–1900 Oil on canvas, 100.6 × 66 cm Bernard, Émile, 143, 149, 153, 158, 159 81 n 123
plate, 1879–80, printed 1959 Oil on canvas, 27 × 46 cm Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Henri Matisse, 1869–1954
165 n 18, 168 n 98 Group of Bathers (PMA, oil), Solitude, Souvenir of Vigen,
Etching, aquatint, and drypoint, The Baltimore Museum of Art: Juliana Cheney Edwards Collection Five states of Woman Seated in
Beugniet, Adolphe, 76 n 53 128, 159–60, 161, 171 n 149 61
12.8 × 13 cm (plate) The Cone Collection, formed by (39.671) an Armchair, 1940 (no. 64 above)
The Baltimore Museum of Art: Dr. Claribel Cone and Miss Etta Illustrated p. 121, fig. 52 3, 4, 8, 9, and 17 January 1940 Bingham, Robert Jefferson, 41 Head of Paul Cézanne, fils, Souvenir of Riva, 60
Blanche Adler Memorial Fund Cone of Baltimore, Maryland Courtesy Archives Matisse, Paris Blanc, Charles, 170 n 132 157, 158 Courbet, Gustave, 95, 97, 102,
(BMA 1960.128) (BMA 1950.195) 62  Claude Monet, 1840–1926 Illustrated p. 176, figs. 4–8 Bochner, Mel, 14–15 The Large Bathers (BMA, 104, 136, 145
Illustrated p. 111, fig. 43 Illustrated p. 142, fig. 14 The Portal of Rouen Cathedral Bonnard, Pierre, 178 litho.), 136 n 17, 147 1882 retrospective, 113
in Morning Light, 1894 Boudin, Eugène, 85–86, 95, Male Bathers (PMA, Low Tide at Trouville, 98–99
Oil on canvas, 100 × 64.9 cm 101, 104, 105, 113 graphite), 159 Seascapes (Marines), 98–99,
Los Angeles, The J. Paul Getty Cloud Studies (pastel), 89, Melting Snow, Fontainebleau, 100
Museum (2001.33)
96, 97, 119 143, 144 Snow Scenes, 101
Illustrated p. 121, fig. 53
Le pardon de Sainte Anne Pichet de grès, 155, 156 Source of the Loue, 97, 107
Palud, 95

196 197
Courbet, Gustave (continued) Disdéri, André-Adolphe- Goncourt, Edmond and Jules, Lee, David, 16 Men Digging (Les becheurs), Nadar (Félix Tournachon), Royal Academy (London), 29 Sukenobu, 91
still lifes, 104 Eugène, 96 de, 90, 101, 105 Leonardo da Vinci, Mona Lisa, 75 n 38, 79 n 90, 81 n 114 96–97, 116, 117 Rubin, William, 185 Sutton, James F., 92
Wave (Étretat), 102, 116, 118 Documents (journal), 145 Goupil, Adolphe (dealer and 24 n 22 Quarriers, 74 n 23 Natanson, Thadée, 135, 136–37,
Criscuolo, Giovan Filippo, Doesburg, Theo van, 131 gallery), 28, 31, 32, 39, 40, Lepic, Ludovic-Napoléon, 105 Sheepfold, Moonlight, 65, 67 140, 141, 143, 148 Sabatier-Ungher, François, 58 Tanguy, Julien, 164 n 2
51 n 28 Duchamp, Marcel, 15, 119, 187 41, 42, 43, 50 n 1, 60 LeWitt, Sol, 14 Shepherdess, 80 n 105 La Nature, 108 Saintin, Jules-Émile, 51 n 45 Tedesco (dealer), 60, 78 n 74
Cuénot, Urbain, 100 Dumesnil, Henri, 53, 60, Gowing, Lawrence, 148 Lichtenstein, Roy, 19 Shepherdess and Her Flock, Naylor, James, 31, 32, 39 Salon des Indépendants, 90 Thoré, Théophile (Willem
76 n 61, 81 n 120 Greenberg, Clement, 175, 178 Los Angeles County Museum, 65, 66 Nietzsche, Friedrich, 145 Salon exhibitions: 1831, 32; Bürger), 16–17, 100, 136,
Daubigny, Charles, 76 n 47, Durand-Ruel, Paul (dealer Griffith, Thomas, 123 n 23 14 Shepherdess Watching a Noland, Kenneth, 15, 17, 18 1833, 30; 1835, 76 n 53; 151, 165 n 17
123 n 27 and gallery), 18, 75 n 41, Louis, Morris, 15 Flight of Geese, 80 n 107 1836, 73 n 10; 1837, 39, Three American Painters
Daumier, Honoré, 77 n 71, 91 75–76 n 43, 76 n 45, 83, Heade, Martin Johnston, 96 Lucas, George, 40, 61, 76 n 56, The Sower (etching), 58 Olitski, Jules, 17 43; 1838, 73 n 10; 1840, (exhibition), 17
David, Jacques-Louis 84, 90, 92, 94, 95, 104, Herbert, Robert, 59 79 n 94 The Sower (lithograph) 67, Onslow, Earl of, 31, 32, 33 81 n 121, 81 n 123; 1841, Toulouse-Lautrec, Henri de,
The Death of Marat, 12, 108, 112, 113, 114, 115, 118, Heffernan, Jo, 97 Luquet, Jules, 78 n 74, 78 n 76, 70 Orangerie (Paris), 119 81 n 123; 1847, 42, 165 n 16; 90, 118
20–21, 22–23 122 n 5 Henriquel-Dupont, 97, 100–101 The Sower (oil), 54–59, Orleans, duchesse d’, 1853 sale, 1850, 58, 60, 76 n 53; Tournachon, Felix. See Nadar
Zénaïde and Charlotte Duret, Théodore, 73 n 12, 112, Pierre-Louis 79 n 90 51 n 26 1851, 75 n 41; 1853, 76 n 53; Turner, J. M. W., 123 n 23
Bonaparte, 28 151 Cromwell and Charles I, after Maeght Gallery (Paris), 173, The Sower (pastels), 65–67, Oudinot, Achille-François, 64 1855, 78 n 74; 1857, 42,
De Thomas (collector), 66, Dutocq (framemaker), 40 Delaroche, 29, 30 180, 183 68–69 97; 1859, 64, 95; 1861, Une image sur le mur
79 nn 97–99 Hémicycle des Beaux-Arts, Malibran, Maria, 77 n 57 Woman Feeding Her Child Palmer, Berthe and Potter, 77 n 64; 1863, 78 n 75; (exhibition), 51 n 45
Degas, Edgar, 65, 90, 96, 97, École des Beaux-Arts, Paris, after Delaroche, 34–35, Mallarmé, Stéphane, 93 (La bouillie), 70–71 92–93 1864, 65, 78 n 75; 1866, L’Union, 58
102, 106–9, 116–17, 136, 34, 38, 40, 41, 46, 91 36–37, 39, 42, 46 Mame, Adolphe, 80 n 107 minimalist (ABC) art, 16 Panofsky, Erwin, 14, 19, 20 100; 1870, 73 n 12, 75 n 42; Utamaro, 91
170 n 137 Ernst, Max, 185 Hesse, Eva, 16, 17 Manet, Édouard, 16–17, 40, 113, Mirbeau, Octave, 153, 164 n 2, Pasadena Art Museum, 15, 83, 1872, 124 n 41; 1881, 28;
Before the Race, 114, 115 Hill, Henry, 105 140–42, 144, 145, 148, 151, 170 n 131 84 1901, 164 n 5 Van Gogh, Theo, 117
Dancers, 105 Fagus, Félicien (Georges Hokusai 163, 175 Mirecourt, Eugène, 35 Pereire, Émile, 47 San Donato collection, sale, Van Gogh, Vincent, 59, 67, 117,
Horses (bronze), 118 Faillet), 143, 144, 151 Thirty-six Views of Mount Le dejeuner (à l’atelier), 40 Mondrian, Piet, 15 Petit, Georges (dealer and 51 n 26 118, 144
Laundresses, 105 Fénéon, Félix, 118 Fuji, 90–91 Le déjeuner sur l’herbe, 146 Monet, Claude, 83–125 gallery), 40, 91, 113, 114, Schapiro, Meyer, 151 Sower, after Millet, 59
Leaving the Bath, 110–11 Fer, Briony, 20 Hoschedé, Alice, 93, 112, 117 The Execution of Maximil- Fécamp series, 112–13 116, 117, 118 Scheffer, Ary, 28, 50 n 1 Vaux, Marc, 173
Little Milliners (pastel), 114 Feydeau, Ernest, 80 n 112 Hoschedé, Ernest, 107 ian, 151, 152 Gare Saint-Lazare, 106–7, Picasso, Pablo, 134, 178–180, Sensier, Alfred, 58, 59, 67, Vernet, Horace, 30, 50 n 1
Mary Cassatt at the Louvre, Finch College Museum of Art, Huet, Paul, 123 n 37 The Fifer, 140, 141 112 181–82 70, 73 n 16, 74 n 31, Vertov, Dziga
The Etruscan Gallery, 109 16 Hunt, William Morris, Olympia, 146, 148 pastels, 101–2, 105 Guernica, 182, 185 75 n 33, 75 n 36, 75 n 40, The Man with the Movie
Delaborde, Henri, 46 Flaubert, Gustave, 135 74–75 n 31 Mantz, Paul, 130 Petit Ailly, 113 still lifes, 180 75 n 41, 75–76 n 43, Camera, 21
Delacroix, Eugene, 123 n 28, Flavin, Dan, 14 Huysmans, Joris-Karl, 114, Marden, Brice, 100 Rouen Cathedral, 12, 15, 19, Pissarro, Camille, 65, 85, 90, 79 n 97, 79 n 98, Viardot, Pauline, 76–77 n 57
136, 145 Foucart-Walter, Elisabeth, 31 166 n 47, 170 n 138 Marx, Roger, 93 85, 108, 119–20, 121 106, 108, 109, 117, 128, 79 n 99, 80 n 106, Vollard, Ambroise, 127, 128,
Christ on the Sea of Galilee, Français, François-Louis, 71–72 Matisse, Henri, 13, 128, 150, Water Lilies (Nymphéas), 19, 130, 136 80 n 112, 80 n 130, 130 132, 135, 136
138–39 Frankenstein, Alfred, 18 Ingres, Jean-Auguste- 173–83 83, 84, 93, 101, 119 Pissarro, Lucien, 85, 117 Serangeli, Gioacchino
pastels, 97, 102 Fried, Michael, 16–17 ­Dominique, 27, 30, 43, Barnes mural project, 182 Wheatstacks (Meules), 15, Pollock, Jackson, 175 Guiseppe, 21 Walters, William T., 27, 34, 38,
Delaroche, Paul, 27, 29–42, 46 Fry, Roger, 148, 173 46–47 The Dream, 173, 181 16, 83, 85, 86–87, 90, 92, Pope, Alfred Atmore, 92 Serial Imagery (exhibition), 15, 39, 41, 43, 51 n 26, 61,
The Assassination of the Duc Fuller, Loie, 118–19 Apotheosis of Homer, 46 Large Reclining Nude (BMA), 112, 118 Puvis de Chavannes, Pierre, 16, 17, 18, 19, 83–84 78 n 94
de Guise, 42, 51 n 26 Oedipus and the Sphinx, 13, 173, 174, 175, 178 Moore, Henry, 18 167 n 58 Sérusier, Paul, 134, 135, 141 Warhol, Andy, 15, 16, 17, 83, 187
Bonaparte Crossing the Alps, Gaillard, Eugène, 39, 40 46–47, 48–49 Music, 182, 184, 185 Moreau-Nélaton, Étienne, 55, Seurat, Georges, 90, 162, Wheelwright, Edward, 80 n 104
31, 32, 33, 34, 46 Gaillard, Ferdinand, Oedipus “Notes of a Painter,” 182 66, 74 n 31, 79 n 91, Randon, Gilbert, 100 165 n 10, 187 Whistler, James, 97, 100, 104,
The Cock Fight, 42 (after Ingres), 46, 47 Jalabert, Charles-François, 34, Pink Nude (Nu Rose 79 n 96 Raynal, Maurice, 144, 148–49 Un dimanche à la Grande 105, 116–18
Cromwell and Charles I, 29, Gambart, Ernest, 43 50 n 5 Crevette), 190–91 Morice, Charles, 150, 151, 152, Reff, Theodore, 171 n 146 Jatte, 116 Harmony in Blue and Silver,
30, 31, 32, 35 Gasquet, Joachim, 137, 163 Japanese prints, 90, 91, 101, Sleeping Woman, 186–87 160–62 Reinhardt, Ad, 83 Signac, Paul, 143 114
The Execution of Lady Jane Gauguin, Paul, 128, 130–32, 104 Still Life with a Magnolia, Morisot, Berthe, 78 n 75, 102, Renoir, Jean, 94 Silvestre, Théophile, 61 Nocturnes, 104, 113–14
Gray, 51 n 26 134, 143, 149, 150, 157 Johns, Jasper, 16, 119 173, 181 105, 117, 124 n 40 Renoir, Pierre, Auguste, 93, Sirouy, Achille, 42, 43, 44 Whitmore, Harrison, 92
Hémicycle des Beaux-Arts, Still Life with Peaches, 131 Le jour et la nuit, 90, 108, 109 Woman in Blue, 175, 192–93 Isle of Wight paintings, 105, 94, 102, 122–23 n 22, 136, Sisley, Alfred, 118 Wildenstein, Daniel, 85
34–41, 46, 34, 35, 36–37, Gautier, Théophile, 58 Judd, Donald, 15, 16, 17, 83 Woman Seated in an 106 167 n 56 Smith, Tony, 16 Wilson, William, 17–18
41 Gavet, Émile, 65, 67, 79 n 90, La Justice, 119 Armchair, 175, 176–77, 178 Morris, Robert, 16 Young Girls at the Piano, 93, Société des Dix, 79 n 94 Wounded Amazon (Musée du
Princes in the Tower (Les 79 n 91, 80 n 103, 80 n 107 The Romanian Blouse, 173 Mouilleron, Adolphe, 81 n 123 94 Société française de photog- Louvre), 60
enfants d’Édouard), 32 Gazette des Beaux-Arts, 47, 70 Kelly, Ellsworth, 15, 16 Maupassant, Guy de, 116 Moureaux (dealer), 65, 79 n 97 Rewald, John, 144 raphie, 95
Napoleon at Fontainebleau, Geffroy, Gustave, 128, 153 Kendall, Richard, 102 Meissonier, Ernest, 24 n 9 Mulvey, Laura, 21 Rey, Jean-Dominique, 84 Société nationale des Beaux- Zervos, Christian, 178–80,
32 Gérard, François, 21 Klein, John, 18–19 Mercure de France, 150 Musée du Luxembourg, Paris, Richmond, Walter, 75 n 39 Arts, Paris, 61 181–82, 183
Delectorskaya, Lydia, 173, 174, Gérôme, Jean-Léon, 27, 41–46 Kooning, Willem de, 16 Merleau-Ponty, Maurice, 134 91, 94, 107 Rivière, Georges, 145, 155 Sontag, Susan, 119 Zola, Émile, 107, 114
183 The Duel after the Masquer- Kubler, George, The Shape of Millet, François, 59 Musée Goupil, Bordeaux, 42 Rodin, Auguste, 18, 91, 117, 118 Souriau, Paul, 163
Deleuze, Gilles, 19, 20 ade, 42–43, 44–45, 97 Time, 11–12, 18 Millet, Jean-François, 53, Museum of Modern Art, New Three Shades, 91 Stammann, Friedrich, 30, 39
Denis, Maurice, 134–35, 140, Gérome et Goupil: Art et 54–59, 65–72 York, 185 Rossetti, Dante Gabriel, 29 Stella, Frank, 15, 83
141, 148, 161–62 enterprise (exhibition), 42 Langdon, Woodbury, 31, 32 Couturières de village, 81 n 123 Musset, Alfred de, 60 Rothko, Mark, 100 Stevens, Arthur, 97
Derain, André, 18 Gigoux, Jean, 47, 81 n 122 Langlois, Jérome-Martin, 21 The Gleaners, 59, 81 n 114 Muybridge, Eadweard Rouart, Denis, 84 Stieglitz, Alfred, 119, 182
Deschamps, Charles, 105 Gleyre, Charles, 144 Le Gray, Gustave, 95 Man Standing after Work, Animal Locomotion, 108, Rouart, Henri, sale, 78 n 72 Strahan, Edward (Earl Shinn),
Desplaces, Auguste, 58 Goetschy, Gustave, 114 Le Rat, Paul-Edmé, 58, 59 79 n 90 109, 116 Roujon, Henry, 93–94 34, 35, 38, 40–41
Détrimont, Paul, 75 n 39 Gombrich, Ernest, 14 Lecomte, Georges, 128, 129, Man with a Hoe, 59 Rousseau, Théodore, 73 n 10, Sudre, Jean-Pierre, 46
Deutsches Kunstblatt, 30 130, 131 75 n 43

198 199
Photography Credits

Title page: Jean-Léon Gérôme, The Duel after the ­Masquerade, left panel: Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; 70 fig. 21: © Copyright the Trustees
Musée Condé, Chantilly (44 fig. 13), detail; center panel: Walters Art of The British Museum; 71 fig. 22: The New York Public Library / Art
Museum (45 fig. 15), detail; right panel: The State Hermitage Museum Resource, NY; 71 fig. 23: The Bridgeman Art Library; 72 fig. 24: © Copy-
(44 fig. 14), detail right the Trustees of The British Museum; 72 fig. 25: © Réunion des
Musées Nationaux / Art Resource, NY
Page 5: Jean-Léon Gérôme, The Duel after the Masquerade, The State
Hermitage Museum (44 fig. 14), detail
Charles Stuckey, The Predications and Implications of Monet’s Series
Page 10: left panel: Jacques-Louis David, The Death of Marat, Musée d’art 86 fig. 1: Photography © The Art Institute of Chicago; 86 fig. 2: Photo-
ancien, Musées royaux des Beaux-Arts (22 fig. 3), detail; center panel: graph © 2007 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston; 87 fig. 4: Photograph ©
Studio of Jacques-Louis David, The Death of Marat, Musée du Louvre, 2007 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston; 87 figs. 5, 9, and 10: Photography
Paris (23 fig. 7), detail; right panel: Jacques-Louis David and Studio, The © The Art Institute of Chicago; 86 fig. 6: The Bridgeman Art Library;
Death of Marat, Musée des Beaux-Arts de la Ville de Reims (23 fig. 6), 87 fig. 7: Photograph © 1996 The Metropolitan Museum of Art; 89
detail figs. 14–16: © Réunion des Musées Nationaux / Art Resource, NY (Hervé
Lewandowski [14], C. Jean [15], Gérard Blot [16]); 91 fig. 17: © Musée
Page 26: Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres, Oedipus and the Sphinx,
Rodin, Paris; 92 figs. 18–20: Terra Foundation for American Art,
left panel: The Walters Art Museum, Baltimore (48 fig. 20), detail;
Chicago / Art Resource, NY; 98 fig. 23: © Rheinisches Bildarchiv; 110
right panel: Musée du Louvre, Paris (48 fig. 18), detail
fig. 34: Photo © National Gallery of Canada; 110 fig. 35: Image © 2007
Page 52: Jean-François Millet, The Sower, left panel: French & Company Board of Trustees, National Gallery of Art, Washington; 111 fig. 36: Photo
LLC, New York (69 fig. 19), detail; right panel: The Frick Art & Rick Hall; 111 figs. 37, 40: Image © The Metropolitan Museum of Art;
Historical Center (69 fig. 18), detail 111 figs. 39, 41: © Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute, Williamstown,
Massachusetts; 111 fig. 42: Image © 2007 Board of Trustees, National
Page 82: Claude Monet, Rouen Cathedral, Façade, left panel: Museum
Gallery of Art, Washington; 114 fig. 41: Photograph by Jameson Miller;
Folkwang, Essen (121 fig. 51), detail; center panel: Museum of Fine Arts,
115 fig. 42: © Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute, Williamstown,
Boston (121 fig. 52), detail; right panel: The J. Paul Getty Museum,
Massachusetts; 115 fig. 43: Photograph by Susan Tobin; 118 figs. 46, 47:
Los Angeles (121 fig. 53), detail
Image © 2006 Board of Trustees, National Gallery of Art, Washington;
Page 126: Paul Cézanne, left panel: Bathers, Saint Louis Art Museum (133 121 fig. 49: © Museum Folkwang, Essen; 121 fig. 50: Photograph © 2007
fig. 5), detail; center panel: Group of Bathers, Philadelphia Museum of Art Museum of Fine Arts, Boston
(161 fig. 28), detail; right panel: The Bathers (Baigneurs), The Baltimore
Museum of Art (142 fig. 14), detail Richard Shiff, Risible Cézanne
128 fig. 1: Erich Lessing / Art Resource, NY; 131 fig. 3: Photo Katya Kallsen
Front cover: Details, left to right: 1. Scala / Art Resource; 2. © Musée © President and Fellows of Harvard College; 132 fig. 4: Photograph by
des Beaux-Arts de la Ville de Reims, C. Devleeschauwer; 3. © Musée Dorothy Zeidman; 138 fig. 7: © Portland Art Museum, Portland, Oregon;
des Beaux-Arts de Dijon; 4. Réunion des Musées Nationaux / Art 138 fig. 8: Photograph by Robert Newcombe; 139 fig. 9: Photograph ©
Resource, NY 1984 The Metropolitan Museum of Art; 139 fig. 10: Photograph by Gray-
Back cover: Courtesy Archives Matisse, Paris; © 2007 Succession don Wood; 139 fig. 11: Photograph by Susan Tobin; 139 fig. 12: Photograph
H. Matisse, Paris / Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York © 2007 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston; 141 fig. 13: Scala / Art Resource,
NY; 144 fig. 15: Digital Image © The Museum of Modern Art / Licensed by
Eik Kahng, Repetition as Symbolic Form Scala / Art Resource, NY; 146 fig. 16: Photograph © Reproduced with the
12 fig. 1: © 1962, Yale University Press, New Haven and London; Permission of The Barnes Foundation™. All Rights Reserved; 152 fig. 19:
15 fig. 2: © Norton Simon Museum, Pasadena, Calif.; 22 fig. 3: Scala /  Erich Lessing / Art Resource, NY; 153 fig. 20: Image © 2007 Board of
Art Resource, NY; 23 fig. 4: © Musée des Beaux-Arts de Dijon; Trustees, National Gallery of Art, Washington; 154 fig. 21: Erich Less-
23 figs. 5–7: © Réunion des Musées Nationaux / Art Resource, NY ing / Art Resource, NY; 158 fig. 24: Photograph by Graydon Wood; 160
(Gérard Blot / C. Jean); 23 fig. 6: © Musée des Beaux-Arts de la Ville fig. 28: Photograph by Graydon Wood; 164 fig. 29: Photo Bruce White
de Reims, C. Devleeschauwer © Trustees of Princeton University

Stephen Bann, Reassessing Repetition in Nineteenth-Century Academic Jeffrey Weiss, The Matisse Grid
Painting: Delaroche, Gérôme, Ingres 172 figs. 1a–c: Bibliothèque Kandinsky—Centre de documentation et de
30 fig. 1: Bildarchiv Preussischer Kulturbesitz / Art Resource, NY (photo recherche du Musée national d’art moderne / Centre de création industri-
Elke Walford); 32 fig. 2: Réunion des Musées Nationaux / Art Resource, elle (Centre Georges Pompidou). Paris; 174 fig. 2: © Annabel Cole; 175
NY (Gérard Blot); 33 fig. 4: © Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute, fig. 3: © Adrien Maeght Éditeur, Paris; 176 figs. 4–8: © 2007 Succession
Williamstown, Massachusetts; 42 fig. 12: © Mairie de Bordeaux; 44 fig. 13: H. Matisse, Paris / Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York; 177 fig. 9:
Réunion des Musées Nationaux / Art Resource, NY (Gérard Blot); 44 © 2007 Succession H. Matisse, Paris / Artists Rights Society (ARS),
fig. 14: © The State Hermitage Museum, Saint Petersburg, Russia; 45 New York; image © 2007 Board of Trustees, National Gallery of Art,
fig. 15: Photograph by Susan Tobin; 45 fig. 16: © Mairie de Bordeaux, Washington; 180 fig. 10: © Éditions Cahiers d’art, Paris / Yves Sicre
photo B. Fontanel; 48 fig. 18: Réunion des Musées Nationaux / Art de Fontbrune; photograph courtesy Special Collections, The Sheridan
Resource, NY (R. G. Ojeda); 48 fig. 20: Photograph by Susan Tobin Libraries, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland; 184 fig. 11:
© 1941, ARTnews LLC, September 1–30; Reprinted courtesy of the pub-
Simon Kelly, Strategies of Repetition: Millet / Corot lisher; 187 fig. 12: Courtesy Università internazionale dell’arte—Firenze;
57 fig. 2: © Amgueddfa Cymru–National Museum Wales; 57 fig. 3: 188 figs. 13, 14: © 2007 Succession H. Matisse, Paris / Artists Rights
Photograph © 2007 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston; 59 fig. 8: Erich Society (ARS), New York; 189 fig. 15: © 2007 Succession H. Matisse,
Lessing / Art Resource, NY; 62 fig. 9: Photograph by Daniel Martin; Paris / Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York; image © 2007 Board
63 fig. 18: Photograph by Susan Tobin; 64 fig. 13: Photo Jean-Louis Bellec, of Trustees, National Gallery of Art, Washington; 190–91 figs. 16–20:
Courtesy Centre de recherche et de restauration des musées de France, © 2007 Succession H. Matisse, Paris / Artists Rights Society (ARS),
Toulouse; 66 fig. 14: Photograph by Susan Tobin; 66 fig. 15: Erich New York
Lessing / Art Resource, NY; 68 fig. 16: Photograph by Susan Tobin;
68 fig. 17: © Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute, Williamstown,
Massachusetts; 68 fig. 18: © The Collection of The Frick Art & Historical

200