, IHIHTUIWI!UIJJH'IHITIHIIMWIUIHHIIW
31293 10792 8883
* RETURNING MATERIALS:
)V153l.l P1ace 1n bookhdrgp :of
remove this c ec ou rom
1:222:2221. your record. FINES w111
__2, be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.
E61 15%?
' ECO A291
* . 3‘59"“. 2., 1.3 1:2:
RENOIR: THE SUCCESS AND FAILURE
OF HIS CLIMB TO FAME
By
Elizabeth Anne King
A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
Department of the History of Art
1984
Copyright by
Elizabeth Anne King
1984
ABSTRACT
RENOIR: THE SUCCESS AND FAILURE
OF HIS CLIMB T0 FAME
By
Elizabeth Anne King
Pierre Auguste Renoir, who today is much admired and
revered in our society, is known for his depictions of the
human element in his vast legacy of approximately 4,000
paintings and for his contributions to the movement of
impressionism, an ideology in art committed to the study
of the effects of light on objects in the surrounding
environment. A number of his works are poignant, spectacular
and moving; without a doubt, the history of art would
experience a grave vacuum should certain of his paintings,
in particular, Au Moulin de la Galette, never have been
created. Yet few of his paintings do in fact reflect the
goals of impressionism; his oeuvre is uneven in quality; and
the vast majority of his paintings are portraits or nudes,
both of which, unconcerned with ideals, are intended to
sell. Why, then, should such a talented artist, noticeably
outstanding in his handling of paint, colour and composition,
and obviously a dedicated, hard-working man, have produced
so few truly great works of art? To get at an answer, it
is necessary to look at surrounding factors. Hence, this
thesis is an examination of the background of Renoir, the
conditions in nineteenth century France which influenced
his life, the prevalent conceptions of art, the motivational
forces directing this artist, and their resultant impact
upon his work.
Figure 1. Photograph of Pierre Auguste Renoir, 1861
to my Mother and Father
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am most appreciative of the efforts and assistance
of Dr. Eldon Van Liere, Ph.D., a specialist in nineteenth
century History of Art at Michigan State University. Dr.
Van Liere is highly knowledgeable of art and artists in
this field, open with his thoughts, perceptive in his
comments, and accurate in his criticisms; thereby making
him an invaluable resource. He was able to recommend a
variety of reading material on a broad range of subjects,
all of which were pertinent to this thesis, and
altruistically lent books from his personal collection when
these were unavailable in the library. Dr. Van Liere
generously offered his time during the summer to peruse
this thesis, and was able to add information and correct
certain misconceptions which increased its precision. It
would be difficult to find a more magnanimous individual,
and I am deeply indebted to his input.
I am grateful for the thoughtful comments and helpful
suggestions of Dr. Webster Smith, Ph.D. and Dr. Linda
Stanford, Ph.D., instructors of Art History at Michigan
State University, who read this thesis and discussed it
with me. Their questions and observations, which shed light
on new ways in which this topic can be examined, have the
iii
potential of enriching future work on this topic. Their
expressed desire to see this study carried further was most
encouraging for, admittedly, one can never be quite certain
of the value of one's contributions to a given area of
research, and outside opinions do help one put a subject
into perspective.
Mrs. Shirley Studt and Mrs. Joyce Dwyer, the
libriarians in charge of the Art History section in the
Main Library of Michigan State University, were gems to
consult. Always polite and courteous, they were
knowledgeable and readily willing to assist students, which
made working with them a pleasure, especially during tight
deadlines or when it was necessary to find difficult-to-
locate information.
I am grateful to my parents, Mr. and Mrs. H. R. King,
and to my sister-in-law, Kerry, who read this thesis and
caught a number of typographical errors. In addition, most
helpful were their suggestions regarding the wording of
certain phrases.
Finally, I appreciate the moral support of Dr. Marilyn
Baker, Ph.D., Head of the Department of Art History at the
University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Canada, who encouraged
me to further my studies in this field.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures
List of Appendices
Part I: Introduction
Background
The Conditions
Stage One: Education
Stage Two: The Establishment of a Career as
an Artist
Footnotes
Part II: Renoir's Early Career
Early Goals and Hurdles
Renoir and his Friends
Decisions and Indecisions
The Impressionist Decade
The
The
Renoir's
Renoir's
The
The
Renoir's
Conclusion-
Footnotes
Appendices
Bibliography
First Step
Shows
Rise to Wealth and Prominence
"Machiavellian Phase"
Preparation
Work
Final Years
vi
X
DNbI-I‘
40
45
50
70
96
102
122
151
167
177
186
191
209
225
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
LIST OF FIGURES
Photograph of Pierre Auguste Renoir, 1861 frontispiece
Portrait of Mme. Joseph Le Coeur, 1866
F€te Champétre (ceiling decoration), 1868
Pont des Arts, c. 1867
Woman of Algiers, 1870
Diana, 1867
Lise with a Parasol, 1868
Summer, 1869
Morning Ride in the Bois de Boulogne, 1873
Eugene Delacroix, Massacre at Chios, 1824
Portrait of the painter, Emile Henri Laporte, 1864
Self-Portrait, 1875
Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres, Portrait of
Louis-Francois Bertin, 1832
Portrait of William Sisley, 1864
Mother Anthony's Inn, 1866
Alfred Sisley and his Wife, 1868
Portrait of Alfred Sisley, 1868
Femme au Corsage de Chantilly, 1869—70
Jean-Francois Millet, The Cleaners, 1857
Clearing in the Woods
Young Man (Jules Le Coeur) Walking his Dog
in the Forest of Fontainebleau, 1866
vi
24
25
28
31
32
33
34
34
54
58
59
63
64
65
66
66
67
69
72
73
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
Claude Monet, Garden of the Princess, 1866
Monet, Terrace at Sainte-Adresse, 1866
Monet, Women in the Garden, 1866-67
Madame Monet and her Son in their Garden at
Argenteuil, 1874
Edouard Manet, The Monet Family in their
Garden at Argenteuil, 1874
Mount Sainte-Victoire, 1889
Paul Cézanne, Mount Sainte-Victoire, 1888
Fruits of the Midi, c. 1882
Grapes and Fruits, 1881
La Grenouillére, 1869
Monet, La Grenouillére, 1869
Parisian Women Dressed in Algerian Costumes, 1872
Eugene Delacroix, Les Femmes d'Alger dans leur
appartement, 1834
Bather with a Griffon, 1869
Praxiteles, Reconstruction of Aphrodite of
KnidOS, C. 350-325 BoCo
Gustave Courbet, The Bathers, 1853
Manet, Luncheon on the Grass, 1863
The Jewish Wedding, 1875
Delacroix, Jewish Wedding in Morocco, c. 1839
La Parisienne, 1874
La Loge, 1874
The Dancer, 1874
The Harvesters, 1873
Nu au Soleil, 1876
vii
75
76
77
78
79
81
81
82
82
84
84
86
86
87
89
90
92
95
95
104
105
106
106
109
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
Portrait of Alfred Sisley, c. 1874
Portrait of Jacques-Eugene Spuller, 1871
Au Moulin de la Galette, 1876
Monet, Impression, Sunrise, 1872
Jacques-Louis David, Portrait of Mme. Récamier,
1800
Portrait of Jeanne Samary, 1877
Woman with a Fan, 1881
Fisherwoman of Mussels at Bernval, 1879
Portrait of Mme. Théodore Charpentier, 1869
Portrait of Charles Le Coeur, 1874
Portrait of Mlle. Marie Le Coeur, 1869
Portrait of Mme. Charles (née Marie Charpentier)
Le Coeur, 1870
Mme. Charpentier and her Children, 1878
Portrait of Marthe Bérard, 1879
Stairwell Decoration for the Charpentier mansion,
1876
Stairwell Decoration for the Charpentier mansion,
1876
Scene from Tannhauser: Act One (rejected), 1879
Scene from Tannhaï¬ser: Act One (accepted), 1879
Scene from Tannhaï¬ser: Act Three (rejected), 1879
Scene from Tannhaï¬ser: Act Three (accepted), 1879
Luncheon of the Boating Party, 1881
Monet, Haystacks, 1884
Portrait of an Old Woman, 1878
Pink and Blue, 1881
viii
111
112
114
116
118
128
128
130
131
132
133
134
135
137
139
139
140
140
141
141
142
146
148
149
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
Jean-Louis-Ernest Meissonier, Friedland, 1807,
watercolour, 1888
William Adolphe Bouguereau, Alma Parens, last
half of nineteenth century
Portrait of Richard Wagner, 1882
Portrait of Richard Wagner, 1893
View of Venice (Grand Canal), c. 1881
View of Venice (Doge's Palace), 1881
The Daughters of Catulle Mendés, 1888
The Large Bathers, c. 1884-87
Francois Girardon, Nymphs Bathing, iron bas-
relief, 1668-70
Francois Boucher, Diana at her Bath, 1742
Raphael, Galatea, fresco, 1513
Self-Portrait, 1910
Photograph of Renoir, 1913
ix
152
153
158
159
163
164
166
168
172
173
175
178
178
LIST OF APPENDICES
Salon System of Honours and Privileges
Paintings Entered by Renoir in the Salons: 1864
to 1873
Number of Works Submitted to and Exhibited in
the Salons
The Examinations Which Renoir Wrote and his
Standings While Attending the Ecole des Beaux Arts
Renoir's Increasing Number of Patrons: 1864 to 1875
Paintings of the Le Coeurs by Renoir (1865 to 1874)
Miscellaneous Paintings by Renoir that Were Owned
by the Le Coeurs
Public and Critical Attitude Toward Types of
Paintings
Public and Critical Attitude Toward Style
Renoir's Participation in Exhibitions: 1874 to 1890
Renoir's Contributions to the Impressionist Shows
Works Which Renoir Showed in the Salon: 1875 to 1890
Family Connections: the Charpentiers and the Le
Coeurs
Patrons Acquired by Renoir through his Friends
and Associates
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
222
223
224
PART I: INTRODUCTION
PART I: INTRODUCTION
The twentieth century of the Western World is built
upon dreams of hope and opportunity. Through application
and intellect, a person can improve his or her position
in life. During previous centuries, for the most part,
the occupation and status of a man or woman would have been
determined by that of his or her parents at birth. In
France one hundred years ago, with few exceptions, upward
mobility was almost impossible and one's station in life
was fairly rigidly fixed. To acquire and maintain a
position of wealth, one needed money either to school one's
self, to buy land, or to purchase and maintain a business.
It was a rare exception for someone who "beat the system"
to increase his wealth from little or nothing. Even if
one's wealth was increased, it was rare for a person to
be accepted into the social class of a bourgeois, let alone
"la haute" of France. Pierre-Auguste Renoir was a man who
defied all odds and shattered all molds by breaking free
of his low social status and circulating within higher
echelons. Renoir was a poor man who "made it big".
Today many writers regard Renoir as a revolutionary
who dared to go against the grain and who rose above the
1
tide of customs which governed taste. Stylistically, his
art stood as an alternative to tiers upon tiers of placid
paintings which covered the Salon walls. His acts stood
as a challenge to the very idea of Salon showings in that
he chose to include his paintings in a group show of
independent artists instead of the conservative Salon, as
though he were a belligerant, childish artist thumbing his
nose at the establishment. But was Renoir a veritable
revolutionary? If so, to what degree? Was not the upper
crust, amongst whom he circulated, conservative? Was it
not in their best interest to maintain their status quo
by upholding the checks and balances which kept the lower
class in their place? How amused would they be by a radical
who defied the system which they had worked for and believed
in? Quotes attributed to Renoir contradict all that we
tend to associate with him: he himself would have denied
the revolutionary label.
On the contrary, according to Jean, his son, Renoir's
favorite and oft-repeated theory was that of the "cork":
"'One is merely a cork....You must let yourself go along
in life like a cork in the current of a stream.'"(1) Jean
questioned him about his association with the "Impressionist
revolution", but was promptly informed that, on the contrary
and in keeping with the "cork" theory, Renoir believed
himself simply to have followed the path of those who had
worked before him. Jean recounts the words of his father:
"'You go along with the current...Those who want to go
against it are either lunatics or conceited; or what is
worse, 'destroyers.'"(2) Renoir elaborated: "'When I
painted in light tones I was not being revolutionary, I
was being the 'cork.""(3)
But if Renoir was not a radical, what, then, was he?
At that, was not impressionism, with whom Renoir was then
and still is today closely associated, in itself
revolutionary? Was not the creative process radical and
out-of-step when measured, inch by inch, against the typical
Salon canvas? Was not the unity of the impressionist group
on the issue of rejecting the staid, static Salon
exhibitions indicative of a defiant, maverick temperament
out to turn society upside down and push it forward at
whatever the cost? By virtue of association, was not Renoir
a part of the thinking and decision-making which made
impressionism what it is?
Renoir today is perhaps the best known of the
impressionists among the public at large. What is
impressionism? What credence did Renoir place in the
movement? To what degree was he instrumental in its outset
and evolution? How significant was Renoir's contribution
to the movement? How revolutionary were his works, and
how did they fit in with the art of Paris at the time?
These are questions which shall be broached in this thesis
to help put Renoir and his contributions into perspective.
BACKGROUND
Those familiar with books on Renoir are aware of his
rags-to-riches tale. Of humble origin, he was born on
February 25, 1841, the son of a tailor in Limoges, France
and was the fourth of five children. The family moved to
Paris in 1845 when Renoir was four years old.(4) Money
gave a person options and Renoir, being poor, was without
those options. When Renoir was thirteen years old, his
father was unable to pay for additional schooling. Had
he continued the academic route, his father would have
needed money for the boy's training in high school and
university, should Renoir demonstrate aptitude and gain
entrance. Renoir had two major talents: he could sing and
he could draw. He was encouraged to become a baritone opera
singer by Gounod, the choirmaster of his church, but as
an occupation, this was dubious. Had a person desired a
sampling of poverty at its most debilitating, this as a
career would have offered more than ample flavour. Renoir,
as a singer, could have been as poor as a church mouse.
0n the other hand, art could be lucrative. Most if not
all decoration at the time was painted by hand, there was
a market demand for decorated objects, and one could support
oneself with wages drawn from the activity. Renoir was,
hence, placed by his father into an apprenticeship program
as a porcelain painter. He made his debut by decorating
the borders of dessert plates with garlands, arabesques
and flowers, and later, he progressed to embellishing the
center of plates with depictions of Marie Antoinette
profiles, which were lucrative. Paid by the piece, Renoir
received two sous for a dessert plate and "three sous for
Marie Antoinette in profile".(5) He was offered, according
to Jean Renoir, "the exorbitant salary of twenty francs
a month" but his sister made him turn it down and accept
only a salary by the piece.(6) According to the biographer
Vollard, Renoir earned a salary of six francs per day when
painting porcelain.(7) The point is, from an early age,
Renoir had to earn a living.
Porcelain painting is said to have made its mark in
Renoir's work as an artist. This can be seen both in his
treatment of the painted surface and in his work ethic.
As pointed out by the author Pool, "it has often been
suggested that this early experience fostered in him a
precise use of the brush, a delicate touch and an
appreciation of the effect of bright colours on a smooth
white ground. Renoir always retained a technical brilliance
in his handling of surface and texture; moreover, dark
shadows and rich impastos cannot be achieved on porcelain.
He often spoke of painting as a handicraft, observing that
good craftsmen are needed to do it well and that the
disappearance of the old apprenticeship system was by no
means an artistic gain."(8)
In addition, Renoir learned at an early age that
aesthetics were inextricably bound with money. Permission
to depict Marie Antoinette profiles was granted only to
those who showed the ability to handle the exercise. In
other words, these had to be accomplished and flattering
enough to sell. Renoir's position and success were
contingent upon his ability to create attractive depictions
of people.
Renoir was geared into a career as a porcelain painter
and regarded it as his position for life. However, he ran
into a snag. Mechanization made inroads into pottery and
pre-printed designs replaced the hand craftsman. Renoir's
employer was driven out of business in 1858 (9) and Renoir
was out of a job. Vollard stated that Renoir was seventeen
at this time and had worked as a porcelain painter for four
years.(10)
Renoir tried various solutions to re-establish himself
in the career as a porcelain painter, but to no avail.
The buying public preferred the evenness of mechanically
printed designs over and above the range in quality of hand
painting. Still an adolescent, Renoir was forced to seek
an alternate career. He turned to mural and fan painting,
then later depicted religious scenes on blinds for
missionaries in Africa under the employment of M. Gilbert.
In each case, he worked for an employer who paid him by
the piece or square footage.
The "crisis in career" turned out to be fortuitous.
In the long run, the challenge of adapting to new conditions
and a new repertoire of images paid off, not merely in his
resultant gain in versatility. Perhaps due to the incentive
of piecework, Renoir had learned to work quickly and to
take shortcuts. This became his major strength,
particularly when he painted religious scenes. The work
entailed the transfer of designs onto blinds. Renoir's
predecessor had approached the chore by meticulously
squaring off the material to be painted, drawing the
outlines of the scene, square by square, onto the blinds,
then painting within the outlines. Renoir shortened these
steps by eliminating the squares completely and sighting
the design directly onto the blinds. Renoir was able to
paint a number of blinds to his predecessor's one, and as
a result made, in proportion, more money.
THE CONDITIONS
Money gave Renoir options which he never before had
had. He was encouraged by his lifelong friend Laporte to
elevate his position in life by becoming an artist. He
could redirect his profits into formal training by entering
the Ecole des Beaux Arts. Laporte was aware of an atelier
instructed by Gleyre whose fees were low and covered only
the cost of the studio rent and model. The risk was high
but so were the stakes. He could submit to the Salon, do
portraits and cultivate a moneyed clientele who, when he
made a name for himself, would pay him upwards of 1,000
francs per painting instead of the paltry sum he received
for his piecework. He would be self-employed instead of
under the thumb of an employer. He would be a man of
letters rather than a plebian. He would be in a position
to generate and sell "high art" which could command a high
market value once his name became familiar on the tongue
of the bourgeois Parisian. Be his occupation the
reproduction of religious scenes as an artisan or the
orchestration of masterpieces in the guise of an artist,
Renoir nevertheless was dealing with visual images, and
both were work. The latter role, however, might be more
gratifying in the long run. Renoir, at the bottom looking
up, had nothing to lose.
Should this endeavour prove unprofitable, Renoir could
always return to work as an artisan with full confidence
in his ability to find a comfortable job and earn a living.
To his last days, Renoir never lost sight of the idea that
art was an occupation. He started work as early as 8:00
a.m. (11) and kept at it throughout the day, taking only
a few breaks, then stopped "as soon as it grew dark."(12)
However, before practicing Academic art, Renoir first needed
to acquire both an approach and knowledge of the medium;
these fundamentals he could attain through the schooling
system.
An aspiring student need not enter the Academic system
to achieve the goal of professional artist. Well-known
options, distinct from the official system, included the
Academie Suisse and the Academie Julienne where, for a small
fee used to cover rent and the cost of a model, artists
worked together. However, to Renoir, the best and most
legitimate means to becoming an artist was the official
Academy. Clearly demarcated to all who had the time,
talent, inclination, perseverance and money, its structure
assured security, if not fame, to all who succeeded within
it.
To train artists in the fundamentals in painting, the
Academy had sanctioned two complementary forms of
instruction, the first of which was administered at the
Ecole des Beaux Arts, and the second, at the studio of a
recognized Academician. A student entered the $2313 and,
following a proscribed series of steps, copied drawings,
progressed to studies of plaster casts of classical
sculpture, then worked from a living human model.(13) Upon
completion of the £2213, or while still in attendance, a
student then joined the atelier of a recognized Academician
to whom he paid a monthly fee.(14) In this purlieu the
student would paint from available plaster casts or the
living model and an Academician would come around once or
twice a week to give critiques. The atelier of an Academic
painter, although a sanctioned part of the Academic training
10
program, was distinct from the 22222.
Such routes were not open to anyone: a ceiling was
placed on the number of students admitted to the 22222.
Applicants were required to submit to and pass an entrance
examination. The age of entrants into the 22222 ranged
at least from fifteen to twenty-seven.(15) Admitted
students who created the best works during the year were
rewarded with medals; those who did not "were required to
keep on taking the annual examinations."(16)
Within the structure of the 22222 a student could vie
for the annual medals and awards offered. The culminating
and most prestigious award within this educational system
was the Grand Prix de Rome.(17) On average, one student
was awarded this coveted prize per year, although
occasionally no awards were given, and sometimes multiple
awards were made.(18)
The Grand Prix de Rome had a number of advantages.
Aided by a generous scholarship which covered most of the
recipient's expenses, including food, lodging and medical
care, a student was sent by the 22222 to study for four
years at the French Academy in Rome.(19) Furthermore, funds
were provided to support their study for additional years
after the student's return to Paris.(20) The age of
recipients of the Prix de Rome, on the whole, ranged between
twenty-five and thirty. The age limit of eligible winners
was thirty; in late 1863 this was reduced to twenty-five.
11
Publicity meted out to award recipients gave them direly
needed recognition when they joined the throngs of artists
who met the public.
The Ecole des Beaux Arts was not the be-all to end-all
in the life of an artist; it simply helped an aspiring youth
get his feet off the ground. Winners of awards benefitted
most from the system due to publicity which aided their
establishment of a clientele and, in turn, income. The
22222 also served a practical purpose. When artists ground
their own paints, they needed guidance in discovering what
minerals and ores were stable and could be used in
combination to ensure permanence. However, with the advent
during the 1830's of oil paint in tubes, (21) instruction
from the Ecole in this vein became phased out. Manufacture
of oil paint in tubes, ironically, was no guarantee of the
medium's stability.
The next step in the career of an artist was the
establishment of ties with the public. To live, the artist
needed to sell his work. The Salon, established by the
Academy, acted as a liason between the artist and the public
who admired and purchased art. On an annual basis, in late
March or early April, artists, usually no younger than the
age of twenty, (22) submitted in general from one to three
canvases to the Salon. As early as 1791 anyone could
enter; they need not go through the Ecole des Beaux Arts
to receive this privilege. A jury, dominated by members
12
of the Academy, was elected to select works which would
be admitted. Having gone through the 22222 regime and,
consequently, being moulded by its doctrine, the judgements
of the jury tended to perpetuate the status quo. After
having viewed as many as 5,000 paintings, the jury then
authorized the placement of the chosen works on the walls
of the Palace of Industry-—the equivalent of Britain's
Crystal Palace--by a hanging committee.
The Salon established its own built-in merit system
which rewarded the signal success of artists who created
oil paintings of outstanding worth (Appendix A). This was
distinct from the 22222, which had its own system of awards,
mentioned earlier. All artists who had previously won a
Salon medal were automatically granted the privilege, called
hors concours, of by-passing the jury and exhibiting on
the Salon walls. Awards themselves, coupled with generous
gifts of money, were classified as first-, second- and
third-class medals. A number of artists could win medals
within each one of these categories. These were capped
by one single, highly esteemed Medal of Honour which
originated in 1853.(23) Medals called the attention of
patrons to particular artists; while mere entrance into
the Salon provided the skeletal basis of public exposure.
Medals could lead to government purchases, state commissions
and publicity, in addition to aiding the foundation of a
regular clientele.
13
The Salon did not mark the end of the road to official
recognition. Two concomitant societies, prevalent as
adjuncts to the system of merits and honours bestowed upon
artists, were indirectly connected with the Salon. The
penultimate laureate was the Legion of Honour, with which
an artist was decorated and to which he automatically became
a member. Artists were singled out and conferred this
distinction later in their lives after they had contributed
a recognizably salient body of work to the whole of
contemporary French art.
The ultimate token of esteem was election to the
Academy. This glory, like the Legion of Honour, generally
was conferred later in an artist's life, and membership
was permanent. An artist was voted in by the members of
the Academy when a "chair" opened; in short, when one of
its members died. Admission in great measure was
exclusive. Forty artists were permitted to join the
Academy; of these, fourteen seats were reserved for
painters.(24) The average age of entrants was fifty-three
in the nineteenth century.(25) As can be seen from the
foregoing survey, the system, as complicated as it was,
provided a range of significant rewards, spaced out along
the career of an artist, which assured both his fame, if
earned, and the system's growth. There were many examples
of painters who had used the system to advantage and became,
as a result, rich; hence, a career in art was most
14
attractive to one with talent.
STAGE ONE: EDUCATION
Thus was the system available to Renoir when he chose
to become an artist. Renoir wrote the entrance examination
to the Ecole des Beaux Arts and placed sixty-eighth on a
list of eighty.(26) In 1862 Renoir attended evening classes
at the Ecole des Beaux Arts under Signol.(27) Further
evaluations of the influence of Signol and the Ecole des
Beaux Arts on Renoir have yet to be established.
Renoir also attended the atelier of Gleyre, the Swiss
artist who, according to the author Boime, was not an
Academician,(28) but was respected. Because his own youth
had been beset with the struggle of scraping together 25
or 30 francs to meet the consulting fees of his own master,
Gleyre was sympathetic toward students of limited financial
means. Thus, he kept his own atelier fees low,(29) charging
in the early 1860's 10 francs per month to cover the cost
of rent and the model's wage.(30)
The advantage of entering Gleyre's atelier was not
strictly pecuniary. His instruction was recommended to
many new students by their senior peers perhaps because,
in the words of Boime, "in the period just prior to the
Reforms of 1863, his was the most promising of the important
ateliers, and perhaps one of the last maintaining the old
15
tradition".(31) Because Gleyre had inherited it from the
respected artist, Delaroche and its lineage went back to
the highly revered painter, J.-L. David, it had a great
tradition of respectability. Gleyre encouraged original
thinking in art, drawing from memory, landscape painting
in open air, drawing, composition, and copying of the great
colourists in the Louvre.(32) Gleyre's atelier is
significant because it was in this environ where Renoir
met his closest friends and colleagues, namely, Monet,
Bazille and Sisley, all of whom contributed to the
development of impressionism.
One can surmise that Renoir was well indoctrinated
by Academic training and placed full credence in its
benefits. Renoir regarded himself as a serious student,
and became upset when the atelier closed due to Gleyre's
poor health and unstable financial condition.(33) Renoir,
while in attendance, wrote all of the exams, beginning in
April, 1862 when he was admitted and ending in April, 1864,
during the closing days of Gleyre's studio.(34)
When the Reform of 1863 lowered the age limit of the
contestants in the Prix de Rome competition from thirty
to twenty-five, this affected a number of students who were
presently attending the 22222. Those vying for this coveted
award but who had reached the age of twenty-five were
automatically struck off the list of potential candidates.
Sisley, two years older than Renoir, became a part of this
16
category in 1864, one year after its enactment, and, with
understandable consternation, signed a petition which
fulminated against it. Renoir did not sign. It seems
doubtful that Renoir ever held hopes of winning it himself,
even though one of his major competitors, albeit a close
friend, was put out of action.
If Renoir had harboured no hopes of winning the 2223
de Rome, such a petition would have been meaningless to
him. Renoir felt strong aversion to being associated with
anything which remotely resembled the notion of radical,
and not without good cause. His career depended upon
acceptance by society. Should his actions affront anyone,
he would risk losing his own credibility and, subsequently,
his potential to earn a living. Furthermore, he endorsed
the Academic system. Without it, he would have experienced
great difficulty in closing the gap between the tools and
knowhow of an artisan and those of a great painter.
An unanswered question is, had the Academic system
been of such great import to Renoir, why did he not simply
switch to another studio after Gleyre's atelier had closed?
Peer pressure cannot be undermined: none of his colleagues
selected this route. Moreover, cost was a major factor.
Renoir could afford Gleyre's atelier, but his resources
might easily have been stretched thin if not totally
depleted under the pressure of paying consulting fees over
and above the basic costs of the model and rent. Moreover,
17
there might have been little advantage. Renoir might have
felt secure enough to strike out on his own, given his
background and training under Gleyre. The benefit of
joining another atelier would arise only if Renoir were
vying for the Prix de Rome. But the problems associated
with doing so would have been insurmountable. Within one
year Renoir would need to win the confidence and support
of a new instructor who already would have selected his
star pupils. In addition, Renoir would need to usurp not
only these satellites but also those of other Academicians
in other studios, all within a span of two years. Renoir
had not received the backing for this award from Gleyre,
let alone even hoping to win the confidence of other
Academicians under new conditions. However, another route
to success open to him was the Salon, within which Couture
and Gerome had both won their glory without first winning
the Prix de Rome. Thus, the stage was set for Renoir's
entrance into the world of art, competitions, Salon shows
and patrons.
STAGE TWO: THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CAREER AS AN ARTIST
The ground was laid for the second stage in Renoir's career
as a professional artist: he needed to cultivate sources
of income. To effectuate this, Renoir chose three courses
of action: he exhibited in the annual Salon shows, he made
18
new contacts, and he maintained close ties with his
friends. Eager of necessity, Renoir entered his works in
the Salon of 1864, the year in which Gleyre had closed his
studio. Renoir submitted one painting, Esmeralda Dancing
with her Goat, a theme selected from a contemporary novel,
The Hunchback of Notre Dame, by Victor Hugo. Renoir's work
was accepted by the jury. The significance is, Renoir
learned not only that his paintings could be accepted in
Salon corridors but, moreover, they could attract the
interest of potential clients. When the Salon had ended,
a patron who wanted to buy Esmeralda Dancingï¬with her Goat
approached Renoir. Unfortunately, following a conversation
with the Barbizon artist Diaz in the Forest of
Fontainebleau, Renoir had destroyed this work, believing
that it contained too many blacks; thus, it no longer was
available for the walls of the art aficionado.
Cracks were prevalent in the Academy and Salon systems
which created hardships for artists who hoped to build
careers in art. A wide gulf separated expectations from
reality. The Academy was built on the premise that art
is a respectable profession for a learned man who should
enjoy the same economic and social status as that of a man
of letters; specifically, an artist expected to be a
bourgeois. However, the Salon itself was overloaded with
artists whose abilities ranged from exceptional to
mediocre. Wide differences in ability among artists, or
19
people in any field for that matter, obviously is a fact
of life. Well-planned organizations would accommodate these
variations and bring out the best in all people. However,
in this sense, the design of the Salon was a failure.
Artists of humble talents were pitted against those with
multiple gifts in one great competition which had one set
of expectations regarding what artists should produce, and
little room for divergence. This affected all artists,
including Renoir. Reasons for this situation had to do
with the historical background of the Royal Academy.
When the Royal Academy first became an official
organization in 1648,(35) it developed alongside artists'
guilds, an older, well-established mediaeval system of
services in the visual arts. Both the Royal Academy and
the guilds shared rigid views on what constitutes art.
However, each had distinct structures, objectives and, to
a certain extent, audiences. Guilds were equipped to employ
wide ranges in artistic abilities: those of exceptional
talents were trained to co-ordinate and conduct challenging
projects in painting and sculpture, whereas artists with
lesser abilities were channelled into the crafts. On the
other hand, the Royal Academy was designed to cater
specifically to the interests of the elite.(36) During
the seventeenth century the Royal Academy rose in power
and soon dominated the guilds, which were finally
extinguished in the French Revolution when the last of their
20
members, the Guild of St.-Luc, was destroyed.(37) In its
inception, the Royal Academy did not have to deal with
mediocre artists, for those with lesser abilities could
be sent to a guild to learn a trade. Without this as an
alternative, mediocre artists, who now had only the Royal
Academy to look to, became an integral part, if not the
Achilles' heel, of the system.(38)
In combination with the decree which allowed anyone
to submit work to the Salon jury, Paris became flooded with
more artists and more paintings than the market could
handle. Because there was a great variance in the degree
of talent possessed by the artists themselves, similarly,
the quality of their overall body of work ranged. As a
result, the best in art became watered down by the worst.
Buyers of art had much to choose from and, consequently,
upcoming artists experienced great difficulty: most found
their works obscured among the hoards of exhibits which
covered the Salon walls. Although nascent artists expected
to enjoy the status and income of a bourgeois, much time
was needed to build up a clientele who supplied a stable,
substantial income. In the interim, these artists were
faced with the financial burden of middle-class rents and
family responsibilities.(39)
A new, upcoming artist would feel lost and hopeless
being one of 3,000 entrants into the Salon. Should the
artist be admitted, usually he was represented by only one
21
or two paintings displayed amid a sea of approximately 2,000
that filled the Salon walls. Although admission itself
marked a modicum of success, it could be undermined when
an artist saw his work "skied" near the rafters on the high
walls, so that a patron, not wishing to stand back or strain
his neck muscles, could easily overlook the work. The room
in which it was hung also mattered: an artist usually was
assured of greater success if his painting was placed near
the entrance to the Salon and greeted the throngs of art
lovers. However, should a painting be obscured among the
multitudes of works which embraced the walls of remote
rooms, it could be overlooked by prospective patrons. Many
bourgeois parents discouraged their sons from pursuing this
vocation because it contained the element of risk: an artist
could fail to draw an income and, draining his parents'
resources and his inheritance, a life of poverty could lie
in wait. As pointed out by the authors White and White,
an artist could lose his bourgeois status.(40)
Implications of rejection were numerous. Should an
artist be excluded from a Salon showing, he would be forced
to wait one year for the next exhibition. It thwarted
access to public exposure, the artist's major contact with
potential clientele. Moreover, art not endorsed by the
Salon was usually refused by dealers and, on the whole,
turned down by buying customers. Purchasers were known
to return paintings which they had bought and to ask for
22
their money back should the artist have been refused that
year at the Salon, as had happened to Jongkind, a colleague
of the impressionists.(41) People did not necessarily assert
their own taste, judgement and discretion, but rather let
Salon juries set the pace.
To survive, Renoir needed to submit his work to the
Salon and to build up his contacts. Renoir approached the
Salon by creating paintings which would win Academic
approval. Renoir's contributions to the Salon ranged from
the years 1864 to 1890 inclusive, by which time he was well
established. Work created by Renoir for this express
purpose will be analyzed at a later point.
Early in his career, Renoir fortuitously befriended
Jules Le Coeur, whose family became important to his
career. Renoir's ties with this man, beyond friendship,
were somewhat complex. The two companions courted sisters,
Clémence and Lise Tréhot, the latter of whom was Renoir's
girlfriend approximately between 1866 and 1872. Jules Le
Coeur, eight years older than Renoir, was an architect
turned painter. Douglas Cooper speculates that Renoir and
Jules might have met as early as 1862 or 1863 at the 22222
des Beaux Arts when the latter "was engaged in supervising
the reconstruction" of the institution.(42) That they knew
each other in 1865 is recorded in a letter by Jules.(43)
However, according to Cooper, their friendship lasted only
for a few short years and Renoir instead developed closer
23
ties with other members of the Le Coeur family, in
particular Charles, the brother of Jules.
The Le Coeur family was significant in the career of
Renoir because they became his first major patron. Renoir
was introduced to and accepted by this prosperous family
as early as 1865 (44) and retained ties with them until
1874. In 1866 Renoir, who had a knack for winning the
confidence of the head of a family first and then
progressing to other members, initiated a series of
portraits of the Le Coeurs. Beginning sensibly with the
widowed mother of Jules and Charles, viz., Mme. Joseph Le
Coeur (1866, Figure 2), Renoir extended his portraits to
include the rest of the immediate family and, if married,
their spouses. Few settings could be more glamourous for
several of these sittings than the cosmic garden of
Mme. Joseph Le Coeur's elegant home, a "late
eighteenth-century pavillon on the edge of Paris, which
had once been given by Napoleon to Massena in recognition
of his military victories."(45)
The occupations of Renoir and Charles Le Coeur
complemented one another and, moreover, greatly benefitted
Renoir. An architect, Charles gave Renoir a golden
opportunity. Privately commissioned, Charles was
responsible for the design and construction of "an h3tel
Egrticulier at 22 Avenue de Latour-Maubourg which was being
built for the Prince Georges Bibesco. As part of the
24
Figure 2.
Mme. Joseph Le Coeur,
1866.
decoration of this h§£22 he commissioned Renoir to paint
two ceilings."(46) Work on this commission was carried
out during the early part of 1868, according to a letter
written by Jules,(47) who had enquired about Renoir's
progress. Drawings of the decoration which survive reflect,
in one, the influence of Fragonard and, in the other, the
influence of Tiepolo (48) (Figure 3).
Thus the Le Coeur family, the first and most important
contact in Renoir's early career, could have opened
additional doors had not a disgraceful incident occurred
25
A
Figure 3. Fete Cham Etre (ceiling decoration), 1868.
in 1874. Renoir, who had become a friend of the family,
watched Marie, the young daughter of Charles and Marie (née
Marie Charpentier) Le Coeur, grow from a child of seven
and blossom into a young lady of sixteen, a marriageable
age. Aside from basic attraction, Renoir, advancing in
years, would benefit financially from strengthened ties
with this family. They were rich; he was not. The author
Douglas Cooper records the unfortunate episode in this
fashion: "Renoir, so family tradition relates, made
overtures to Marie Le Coeur, then aged sixteen, writing
her a billet which was read by Jules. The latter promptly
informed his brother Charles, as a result of which Renoir
was banished from the Le Coeur circle for ever."(49)
26
It appears, after Renoir was cut off from the Le Coeur
family, that his social interaction with Prince Bibesco
also came to an end, such as it may have been. Although
much ink has been spilt on Renoir's friendship with the
Prince, their ties must be regarded as indirect and
primarily related to work: Charles as an architect and
Renoir as an artist. Thus, Renoir, 33, once again was
floating in his career without promise of future patrons,
but with one difference: ten years had passed since his
departure from Gleyre's atelier.
Although the incident with the Le Coeur family did
coincide with Renoir's involvement with the first
impressionist group exhibition in 1874, it did not determine
his decision to participate actively in the development
of impressionist shows and policy-making of the group.
The inspiration for an independent artistic exhibition can
be traced back to the Paris World Fair of 1855 when the
artist Gustave Courbet displayed his own works in the
Pavilion of Realism. Because his paintings had been
excluded from the official art exhibition, he decided, as
an alternative, to build, at his own expense, his own
exhibition quarters and to hold his own show.(50) Manet
adapted Courbet's practice when, during the Paris World
Fair of 1867, both artists displayed their works
independently in individual pavilions.(51) During this
same year, Bazille had suggested that he and his friends
27
hold their own independent exhibition, but this idea was
taken seriously only six years later, in 1873. Several
months had yet to pass before the Le Coeur incident would
occur. Hence, Renoir's agreement to exhibit with his
friends in an independent group show was unrelated to the
Le Coeur incident. Rather, feeling restricted by the
limited number of opportunities to build a clientele through
the Salon, Renoir hoped that an independent exhibition would
draw patrons and provide a smaller, more intimate
environment where his works could easily be seen,
appreciated and sold.
The decision to participate in the organization of
an independent group show came not during a period of
depression and failure, but rather in the wake of moderate
success. Renoir had had in his pocket at this time the
patronage of the Le Coeurs, Captain Darras (during the
Franco-Prussian War) and Prince Bibesco. Moreover, Paul
Durand-Ruel had been introduced to Renoir in 1872 and, by
1873, supported his work. Although short-lived, Durand-
Ruel had paid at this point more than the market value for
the works of Renoir and his friends in hopes of attaining
a monopoly on these artists and their depictions of
landscapes. In 1873, following a number of purchases made
by this dealer, Renoir was able to rent a large studio on
rue St. Georges in Paris.(52)
And yet, Renoir did not have a sharp ken for value.
__ fl
28
Figure 4. Pont des Arts, 1867.
Earlier, when Renoir did piecework, the number of francs
attached to one item was small. One can compare Renoir
to Monet in this respect. When Renoir was earning in the
vicinity of three to eight sous for a profile of Marie
Antoinette, Monet was selling his caricatures of teachers
and lawyers in his home town of Le Havre for twenty francs
each.(53) Similarly in 1872, when Renoir received two
hundred francs for Pont des Arts (1867, Figure 4) from
Durand-Ruel,(54) Monet was receiving three hundred francs
for each of his paintings from the same dealer during the
same year in London.(55)
Paul Durand-Ruel supported landscape painters. His
father had initiated this trend by handling canvases of
29
the Barbizon painters, all of whom Renoir and his friends
were either aware of or personally acquainted with from
their expeditions to the Forest of Fontainebleau.
Durand-Ruel continued the practice of his father, but more
aggressively when he added Renoir, Monet, Sisley and
Pissarro to his repertoire of landscape painters. Of his
close colleagues, Renoir was the only artist who was not
fully ensconced in landscapes as a subject matter. Instead,
at this time, his work was distributed among Academic
styles, portraits, landscapes, rococo styles, classical
themes and romantic styles. Despite this range, it seems
fitting that Durand-Ruel's first purchase from Renoir was
a landscape, given the dealer's ostensible wish to make
a name for himself as the major retailer of this métier
in Paris.
Holding a monopoly on specific artists had distinct
advantage. Once a demand for these artists was created,
Durand-Ruel could create a bull market by causing the value
of their works to artificially rise and fall. Rises could
be instigated by withholding all with the exception of
select works from the market, whereas falls would be
generated by flooding the market, a strategy which could
be most useful when the competition tried to handle the
works of these artists. If the competition held no
paintings by the artists who received support from
Durand-Ruel, the latter could display in his shOp one or
30
two examples of their oeuvre. This would leave a patron
with the desired impression that such paintings were hard
to come by, and hence, valuable. The prices of individual
works by these artists could then rise and the dealer, in
turn, could reap higher profits. However, if the
competition, seeing the prices rise, decided to capitalize
on this and handle the oeuvre of the same artists,
Durand-Ruel could retaliate by pulling out from storage
his stockpile of their work and use these to flood the
market. Prices would drop, and as a result, the competition
would be forced to sell low. Had the competition bought
high with hopes of selling even higher, he could face the
loss of much money and even go out of business.(56)
Over and above the support of patrons and, in
particular Durand-Ruel, Renoir had in his background a
history of submitting to the annual juried Salons (Appendix
B). Before his decision to join his friends in an
independent group show, Renoir had entered his works in
all of the nine Salons held between 1864 and 1873 inclusive
(the Salon of 1871 was cancelled due to the Franco-Prussian
War). Renoir was admitted to five of these Salons, namely,
during the years 1864, 1865 and 1868-70 inclusive. Renoir
was excluded from the Salons of 1866, 1867, 1872 and 1873,
although during the latter year he was included in an
exhibition of rejected artists. 0f the seven accepted
paintings, two were classical, one was a landscape, three
31
Figure 5. Woman of Algiers, 1870
were portraits and one was in the mode of Delacroix ([2222
of Algiers, 1870, Figure 5). 0f the Classical paintings,
one, Bather with a Griffon, was distinctly a contemporary
portrait of Lise Tréhot. Of the four rejected paintings,
each fell into one of the four aforementioned categories,
such as 22232 which was executed in the classical mode
(Figure 6). By virtue of his desultory approach, was Renoir
seeking a "key" to what the jury would like, or had he yet
to find his own element?
Quite often writings underline the poor treatment of
the impressionists by the established Academy and the lack
of recognition of their ability on the part of the Salon.
Renoir himself complained of these express points when he
n: 11.1}...
4‘11
32
Figure 6.
Diana, 1867.
discussed his early years.(57) It should be pointed out
that all of the works submitted to the Salon by Renoir,
with the exception of three paintings, were done according
to academic standards. Renoir's "genius" could not be
discerned if he did not show it. Moreover, the two
paintings created with a style which reflected later trends
in impressionism, viz., an interest in light, vibrant
colours and loose brushwork, were both accepted by the
jury. These paintings, titled Lise with a Parasol (1868,
33
Figure 7) and Summer (1869, Figure 8) were exhibited in
the Salons of 1868 and 1869 respectively. The third
painting, Bather with a Griffon (1870, Figure 35), was
produced in a realist mode, a style that was frowned upon
by the Academy at that time in France. Nevertheless, it
was accepted by the jury and exhibited in the Salon of 1870.
Nor was Renoir ignored by the press. Between 1868
and 1870 inclusive, three of the four paintings accepted
into the Salon received press coverage. Moreover, an
Figure 7.
Lise with a Parasol,
1868.
34
Figure 8.
Summer, 1869.
Figure 9.
Morning Ride in the
Bois de Boulogne,
1873
35
additional painting, Morninngide in the Bois de Boulogne
(1873, Figure 9), which had been refused by the Salon jury
but later exhibited in the Exposition artistique des oeuvres
rEfuses of 1873 (essentially a Salon des REfuses fashioned
after its forerunner of 1863), was discussed favourably
by three critics and subsequently purchased by Henri Rouart.
Press coverage in general was positive. One reviewer
mentioned and two discussed Lise with a Parasol, a canvas
in which Renoir observed the effects of reflected outdoor
light on forms in space. Two reviews were positive and
one was negative. Burger commended Renoir on his inclusion
of green reflected from the background foliage on the white
gauze dress of his foreground model, since these lighting
conditions occur naturally in real life.(58)
The negative criticism levied by F. de Lasteyrie
against Lise withgg Parasol seemed moreso directed toward
the "realist school" led by Manet and Courbet in general
than against Renoir and his painting in particular.(59)
More than likely, the charges spelled out would have had
an effect diametrically opposed to the critic's intent; in
other words, it would have stimulated interest in the
realist school and the artist's work rather than snuffing
it out. By referring to Lise... as "a fat woman splashed
with white" and by implying that this one particular
painting was indeed powerful enough (albeit in a negative
connotation) to forebode the demise of the realist
36
school,(60) one would be curious to see exactly what kind
of a painting could generate all of these catastrophic
disasters. Furthermore, was Lise... as grotesquely fat
as Lasteyrie made her out to be or was he exaggerating?
Lasteyrie's use of terminology, although deliberately
vituperative, is humourous and does stimulate interest.
By using the word fat, one could say that he called a spade
a spade, minus the euphemisms. How many people would rush
to stand in front of the painting had the critic referred
to the subject as a sweet, sophisticated, placid, pretty
young thing standing daintily outdoors in her gorgeous white
dress and gently shading herself under her delicate sun
umbrella? Running to see the painting would be as thrilling
as viewing the wedding album of someone whom you do not
know. But Lasteyrie's select terminology in combination
with the implication that this painting could bring an end
to the strong realist movement in art would stimulate an
audience to wonder what on earth was in the painting which
would make it so destructive. Ironically, art very well
can be made or broken through polemics, not quality. Or
perhaps, controversiality is a quality of art.
The handful of paintings by Renoir admitted into the
Salon between 1864 and 1873 inclusive may seem scant if
not parsimonious, and the reviews in the newspapers more
brief jottings than full-fledged articles. However, an
unbiased evaluation of Renoir's seeming modicum of success
37
can be made only in the context of the period. The number
of artists working in Paris at the time was not small but
great: White and White estimate that the number of painters
alone who were alive and working in 1863 totalled
approximately 3,300.(61)
Statistics are unavailable for the number of paintings
that were shown in the Salon between 1864 and 1873
inclusive. However, White and White state that the number
of entries admitted to the Salon between 1835 and 1847
totalled on average a little over 2,000 with a low of 1,597
in 1843 and a high of 2,536 in 1836 (Appendix C).(62)
Should circumstances have remained fairly constant, one
could speculate that these figures would apply as the lower
average for number of works shown in the Salon between the
years 1864 to 1873, with the ceiling being no greater than
3,000 or 3,500. It is necessary to go over the Salon
catalogues to arrive at a more accurate figure.
According to White and White, 3,000 painters submitted
5,000 entries to the Salon of 1863.(63) According to
Rewald, 70 per cent of the paintings were rejected in this
year.(64) Because of the resultant outcry among artists,
a gglon des Réfuses was established, and the following year
the jury eased up considerably in its decision-making.
According to Rewald, in 1864, the year in which Renoir first
entered the Salon, only 30 per cent of the paintings were
rejected and provision was made for the display of rejected
38
works.(65)
Should a 30 per cent acceptance rate in 1863 be
accurate, then approximately 1,500 paintings would have
been displayed, well below the norm of approximately 2,000
set for the decade between 1835 and 1847.(66) The following
year, in 1864, if 70 per cent of the works were accepted,
this would mean that approximately 3,500 paintings alone
were displayed, provided 5,000 of them were again handed
into the jury. These figures seem improbable and one cannot
make an assessment with them.
The question is, was the jury being hard on Renoir
and short-sighted in ascertaining the merit of his work
between the years 1864 and 1873 respectively? Was the press
myopic in its criticisms and blind in its failure to
recognize Renoir's talent and "genius"?
To begin with, as mentioned previously, the paintings
which Renoir submitted to the Salon for judgement by the
jury were of academic orientation, and in relationship to
his competition on this level, his paintings were average,
not outstanding. Again, as stated earlier, most of the
press coverage which he did receive was positive. The one
example of negative criticism did associate Renoir with
the realist school, but in reality Renoir rarely submitted
a painting which could fit into this category without
argument. This is hardly enough evidence to convict the
artist on the grounds of his association with any maverick
39
tendencies.
In ascertaining the "fairness"of the press, one must
keep uppermost in mind what Renoir was competing against.
The number of painters working in Paris was large and the
number of works accepted per artist was small. Renoir was
only one of approximately 3,000 practicing artists. Renoir
was not a special case: like many, he was merely starting
out in the mid-1860's and joining their throngs. Critics
had no reason to single him out. Again, the conditions
laid out by the Salon applied to Renoir as they did to all
others: an artist was limited to three entries, and
generally only one or two were accepted per artist. Given
the possibility, of these entries, that the number of works
accepted by the jury and admitted into the Salon might have
been narrowed down by as many as one-half to two-thirds,
Renoir's paintings would number only one or two among
approximately 1,700 to 2,400 canvases. That he was accepted
and, above all, that his paintings caught the attention
of the press amid this mass of work is to his credit.
Renoir had few legitimate complaints about his treatment
when the plans for an independent exhibition were in
progress. As pointed out by White and White, the structure
of Salon shows as a whole lay at the bottom of discontent
experienced by an artist.(67) The Salon was a slow, tedious
road to success. This affected not only Renoir, but most
artists.
FOOTNOTES
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
FOOTNOTES
Jean Renoir, Renoir, My Father, p. 36
Ibid, p. 76
Ibid, p. 78
Ibid, p. 13
Ibid, p. 60. According to the author Ambroise Vollard,
Renoir was paid 8 sous per profile of Marie
Antoinette. (Vollard, Renoir, p. 23)
Jean Renoir, ibid, p. 60
Vollard, Renoir, p. 24
Phoebe Pool, Impressionism, p. 47
Ibid, p. 60
Vollard, op. cit.
Claude Roger-Marx, Anciens et Modernes Renoir, p. 53.
According to Vollard, Renoir "went to his studio just
as punctually as a clerk to his office." (Vollard,
op. cit., p. 17)
Jean Renoir, op. cit., p. 4
White and White, Canvases and Careers, p. 19
Ibid
Ibid
Ibid
Ibid
Ibid
Ibid, p. 25
Ibid, p. 19
4O
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
41
Ibid, p. 83
Ibid, p. 45
Ibid, p. 31
Ibid, p. 17
Boime, The Academy and French Painting in the
Nineteenth Century, p. 4
Francois Daulte, Auguste Renoir, Catalogue Raisonne,
Vol. I, Figures, 1860-1890, p. 32
Fosca, Renoir, pp. 8—10
Boime, op. cit., p. 59
Clement, Gleyre, p. 171
Rewald, 0p. cit., p. 74
Boime, op. cit., p. 61
Ibid, p. 58-65
Ibid, p. 63; see also Rewald, op. cit., pp. 74, 90
Douglas Cooper, "Renoir, Lise and the Le Coeur
Family--II: The Le Coeurs", Burlington Magazine,
September-October 1959, p. 322; see also Rewald, op.
cit., p. 72
White and White, op. cit., p. 6
Ibid, p. 5
Ibid, p. 155
Ibid, pp. 27, 102-103, 155-156
Ibid, pp. 129-130
Ibid, p. 113
Rewald, op. cit., p. 79
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
42
Cooper, op. cit., II, p. 322
Ibid, p. 322, n. 1
Ibid, p. 325
Ibid, p. 326
Ibid
Ibid. This ceiling decoration no longer survives.
Following two changes of ownership, a pickaxe met
Renoir's efforts, crumbling the ceiling to a debris.
This occurred in c. 1911. (Cooper, ibid)
Ibid
Ibid, p. 328
Rewald, op. cit., p. 16
Ibid, p. 171
Ibid, pp. 280, 599
Ibid, p. 37
Ibid, pp. 255, 272
Ibid, p. 255
According to White and White, "monopoly of an artist's
production was important in making speculation
rational; Durand-Ruel in his first daring coup bought
up almost the entire production of several Barbizon
painters." (White and White, op. cit., p. 92).
Durand-Ruel was a businessman first and foremost.
When opportune, profit motive was substituted for
scruples. If it was necessary to construct a
fictitious collection, he would; or if it benefitted
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
43
the dealer to show recent paintings in an exhibition
of earlier generations of painters, this, too, he did.
For instance, "In 1870....In London he opened a gallery
on New Bond Street and exhibited his pictures, as well
as the collections of several French amateurs who had
entrusted them to him for safe-keeping. Since his
own name was not well-enough known, he used a
fictitious sponsor: "The Society of French Artists.'
Among the pictures, mostly 'School of 1830,’ appear
several paintings by Monet and Pissarro." (White and
White, op. cit., p125; see pp. 124-126 for additional
accounts)
C. L. de Moncade, "Le peintre Renoir et le Salon
d'Automne", La Liberte, X:13, n.p., Oct. 15, 1904,
translated by Lucretia Slaughter Gruber;; quoted in
B. E. White, Impressionism in Perspective, under the
heading "Renoir's interview with C. L. de Moncade"
(Editor's title), pp. 21-22
Rewald, op. cit., p. 180
Ibid, p. 187
Ibid. In the critic's words: "'And thus, from
to imitation, the realist school threatens to go down
...in cascades.'"
White and White, op. cit., pp. 45-46
Ibid, p. 30
Ibid, p. 52
64.
65.
66.
67.
44
Rewald, op. cit., p. 136, n 22
Ibid, pp. 102-106; 136, n. 22
White and White, op. cit., p. 30
Ibid, p. 155. The Academic system and its Salon were
originally designed to handle only a few hundred
artists. However, through time, the profession of
art had grown, but the system had not changed to
accommodate this expansion. In turn, severe restraints
were placed on its ability to help each individual
artist build a moderate clientele, which, in turn,
would assure a steady income (For a synopsis of the
structural problems within the Academic system, see
White and White, ibid, "Conclusions", pp. 155-161).
PART II: RENOIR'S EARLY CAREER
PART II: RENOIR'S EARLY CAREER
EARLY GOALS AND HURDLES
Renoir's main objective in life was to earn a living
through art. If it were merely a matter of making money,
he would have remained employed in the occupation of
painting blinds, where he was offered a partnership had
he agreed to stay. However, Renoir wished to become
affluent. This never would come about in the little
esteemed business of decorating blinds, but it was possible
through art.
Once Renoir became an artist, he would experience a
rise in status. As a painter of blinds, he would always
have been low on the social scale. On the other hand,
because the occupation of an artist connoted self-
employment, he would be allowed admission to the ranks of
the bourgeois. Although at the outset he might earn very
little, Renoir was bound and determined to ride this
occupation for what it was worth, to overcome poverty, and
to be comfortable, if not wealthy.
Renoir learned the significance behind adding numbers
when he did piecework. According to the writer Daulte,
45
46
Renoir was paid 30 francs each for the blinds which he
painted. In his words: "Comme Renoir travaille rapidement,
il peint jusqu'é trois stores par jour que M. Gilbert lui
paie trente francs piece. 11 amasse ainsi un petit pécule,
qui lui permettra bient3t de réaliser son réve: se vouer
a la peinture."(1) Over the period of one year, if he
worked a six day week, his wage would reach the vicinity
of 9,000 francs. If, instead of 30 francs per blind he
received 500 to 1,000 francs per painting, he would soon
have more money than he would know what to do with. His
earnings over the period of one year could range anywhere
from 100,000 to 300,000 francs at a time when an average
skilled worker earned an annual salary of 1,300 to 2,000
francs. Renoir would be rich.
Before taking the Ecole des Begux Arts examination
and entering the profession of art, Renoir had tested
himself. It was a calculated risk. Could he compete in
the top leagues of the world of art? Renoir sought to
discover his limitations before he went into the profession,
not after. The only way an artist could learn how he stood
among the best would be through experiment. Renoir applied
for and received permission to paint in the Louvre and copy
its masters. Given to him by the administration and valid
for the duration of one year, the cards were issued on
January 24, 1860, March 5, 1861, January 21, 1862, and April
9, 1863 respectively.(2) Notably, Renoir had received his
47
cards before he entered the E2222 on April 1, 1862, the
start of the summer semester.(3) In addition to testing
and developing his own skills, Renoir, understandably, might
also have wanted to give himself every advantage when he
competed against his fellow students for awards: practice
in copying the masters would give him a distinct edge.
Renoir, a serious student at the E2222 and at Gleyre's
atelier, undoubtedly would have stayed to compete for its
awards and, ultimately, the Prix de Rome had he experienced
greater success when taking the examinations. The results
of Renoir's examinations were uneven: only once did he come
close to the top, but at that, he rated merely fifth on
the list (Appendix D). His next closest two ratings were
both tenth, a further distance from award. Coupled with
the shut-down of the atelier of his instructor, Gleyre,
Renoir's unsuccessful attempts at competing for medals and
prizes within the schooling system caused him to renounce
his desire to contend for the coveted Prix de Rome in
1864,(4) to leave behind the £222; and to test his skills
in the real world of Salons, patrons, state commissions,
press reports and auctions.
Renoir quickly learned that there was life after the
Ecole des Beaux Arts. An artist could make his mark in
the world of art through the Salon without first winning
the Prix de Rome: Thomas Couture (1815-1879), who ran an
atelier for students, had done so as had his contemporary,
48
the Academician Jean Leon Gerome (1824-1904). Renoir, who
relished the prospect of winning Salon medals, worked
diligently to create Academic showpieces which, he hoped,
would be approved by a difficult-to-please jury and admitted
to the Salon. However, Renoir faced one major shock once
he was accepted: being one mere artist amid the
multitudinous hoards of exhibitors proved a great burden,
especially if his works were "skied" in a back room. Renoir
could hardly expect to be noticed. Moreover, even though
he was admitted to five of the seven Salons held between
1864 and 1870 inclusive, Renoir could not be guaranteed
that its jury would admit him to any subsequent Salon.
Renoir's hopes for finding a smooth journey down the road
to fame and fortune were dampened.
Nonetheless, Renoir continued to submit his work to
the Salon, and for good reason. Despite its drawbacks,
here was one of his few opportunities to become acquainted
with moneyed clientele, to win Salon awards, and to vie
for government commissions, which usually were meted out
only to Salon medalists. Even though his early entries
drew little attention and few patrons, Renoir was chained
to this system. Having come from a poor background, his
family had no social ties with the upper class. Any
contacts which Renoir wanted to make had to be earned on
his own merit or cultivated of his own accord. Nor was
Renoir able to turn his back on the numbers of people who
49
visited the Salon. As many as 8,000 to 10,000 people daily
paid an admission fee for the privilege of viewing the
paintings, sculpture, drawings and prints within.(5) For
the duration of its run of approximately forty days, these
numbers would sometimes add up to as many as 400,000 guests
over the whole of the exhibition.(6) Even if only one or
two people noticed his work and, subsequently, became his
patrons, his entrance into the Salon would have proven
productive.
Renoir needed his name to become known and circulated.
He did receive a modicum of publicity through his early
Salon showings, but he would be long inhumed before he could
hope to build up a reputation in this manner; at least,
so it seemed from the start. Renoir was in a quandary: he
wanted desperately not only to succeed within the Salon,
but moreover, through it, to earn much money. Renoir firmly
believed, through application and meeting the right people,
that this was possible. But only the Salon system of merits
and awards could quench Renoir's thirst for fame and
fortune. Recognition through any other channel was not
genuine honour: true commendation had to come from the
Salon. Renoir could agree wholeheartedly with his elder
colleague, Manet, who stated that the Salon was an artist's
proving ground.(7) Yet award through the Salon seemed as
close at hand as the moon. Even the simple task of
cultivating one or two new patrons though this system proved
50
to be a gargantuan hurdle against which Renoir more often
collapsed than climbed. The glittering goddess tempting
him to reach for the sky became Renoir's target, yet foil.
It lured him in with its promise of patrons, success, fame
and fortune, yet it denied him these exact rewards.
Thus, Renoir had much food for thought when he made
decisions about his direction in art. The Salon was a
viable route without which he could not live, yet his dire
need for recognition seemed as though it would never find
satisfaction. Renoir was forced to seek alternatives.
In the interim, Renoir continued to maintain close contact
with his friends.
RENOIR AND HIS FRIENDS
Who the impressionists were was to a great extent
determined by friendships. Renoir, Sisley, Bazille and
Monet had considerable interaction as friends throughout
the 1860's. They worked together, lived together, revelled
at parties, saw plays, ballets and operas together and
visited the same cafés. They exchanged views on Wagner's
operas and argued about the merits of writers whose books
they had read. The friends congratulated one another when
their paintings were accepted into the Salon, and consoled
any of their group who failed to gain entrance, noting how
injust the system was and how short-sighted the members
51
of the jury were, feeling especially convinced of the latter
when their own works were refused.
The formation of the impressionist circle for the most
part took place naturally: Claude Monet, Frederic Bazille,
Alfred Sisley and Renoir had met and developed a friendship
at Gleyre's atelier. The activities of this group were
not always as a foursome; on the contrary, at an early date
Monet and Bazille had paired off as one set of friends,
while Renoir and Sisley were a second.
The meeting of Monet, Bazille and Sisley became
singularly the most significant event in Renoir's artistic
life. Through their joint efforts in painting landscapes
and their awareness of current theories and trends, the
group developed a style, now known as impressionism, through
which they later became famous. Because of this style,
the group is now looked upon as an art historical landmark.
Had it not been for his role in the impressionist
movement, Renoir's place in the history of art in all
probability would have been minor. Renoir listened to the
ideas discussed by his colleagues, especially during his
frequent visits to the Café Guerbois in the evenings, and
saw the new and stunning canvases produced by his friend,
Monet, who propouned upon his intent to paint light and
colour. Influenced by these ideas, Renoir created
masterpieces for which he is now famous, such as Au Moulin
de la Galette, 1877, which otherwise never would have come
52
about (Figure 48).
The formative years in the development of style was
shared by Renoir, Sisley, Bazille, and Monet between 1862
and 1874 inclusive. Sisley, however, faded into the
background somewhat, but not completely, after the early
1870's. The year 1870 also marked the sad termination of
Bazille's participation. This talented artist died in the
Franco-Prussian War when struck by a bullet while in action
in the battle of Beaune-la-Rolande on November 28.(8) Renoir
and Monet, who then continued to maintain close contact
with one another, have since been credited as the prime
generators of the impressionist style.
During its formative years, Monet surfaced as the
natural leader of the group. Not only was he aggressive
and gregarious, but he must also have seemed worldly to
his friends, including Renoir. By 1862, the year of their
acquaintance, Monet had had informal instruction from the
artist Boudin and experience painting landscapes for five
years, while virtually none of his associates could at that
time have claimed a career as a professional artist. Renoir
came close, yet the practice of copying on one cup after
another the profile of Marie Antoinette required little
skill, particularly after the third, fifth, or, especially,
the tenth representation. 0n the other hand, landscape
painting demanded critical judgement, particularly in the
placement of motifs such as trees, grass, sky, rocks, and
53
water within a convincing space and atmosphere.
Monet must also have served to a certain degree the
character of a mentor to his friends. Among them, he was
the only person who was able to present an alternate
viewpoint toward Academic training. Monet had worked
independently in Parisian studios, such as the Academie
Suisse, developing his own tastes and interests for a period
of approximately two years prior to his entrance to Gleyre's
atelier in 1862. During this time, Monet's curiosity had
led him around the art world and had increased his awareness
of the identity of artists living in Paris and their work.
He formed an out-of-step attitude toward training at
Gleyre's atelier, which must have stimulated thought and
interest among his friends.
Renoir, on the other hand, was unable to follow Monet's
example of independence. Renoir's one and only opportunity
to excel was through the emulation of "high art" which,
taught by the Academy, could command a high price on the
market. Renoir, well aware of this, took his studies in
art seriously, hoping to learn how to paint in this mode.
Nevertheless, he could benefit from surveying the scene
as though from Monet's vantage point. Monet had alternate
ideas which comforted Renoir and their friends when, as
students, they were pommelled by their instructors with
unkind criticisms. For instance, Renoir had been attacked
for his prolific use of reds and was warned to avoid at
54
Figure 10.
\
Eugene Delacroix,
Massacre at Chios,
1824.
all costs the path of his predecessor, Eugene Delacroix,
who was known to bathe shadows and highlights of his work
such as Massacre of Chios, 1824, with this colour (Figure
10).(9) Renoir idolized Delacroix and found support in
this veneration through Monet. Delacroix offered an
additional role model to these impressionable young
artists: he was a maverick who had fought the Academic
system and won. Renoir was further berated by his £2222
instructor, Signol, for a crude rendering of the toe of
Germanicus. Renoir had been working from a plaster cast
derived from a surviving statue of this ancient Roman
55
general (10) when Signol spotted him at work. To drive
the point home, Signol testified that a toe in art never
should resemble that of a coal merchant.(11) When Signol
aimed this jibe at Renoir, he had in mind the outlawed
realist school led by Gustave Courbet who painted anything
from pigs and bulls to obese women and lesbians. Because
Courbet refused to glamourize his subjects and remove their
flaws but instead relished the vulgar and garish aspects
of the human condition, his work sparked an outrage among
conservative stalwarts. Signol's derision of Renoir's
drawings implied that such characteristics were unorthodox,
repulsive and without a home in the world of art. Renoir
endured the sting of this opprobrium through the support
of his friends, in particular Monet, who admired Courbet.
Monet acquired his reverence for Courbet second-hand,
through his informal instructor, Boudin, who had known
Courbet and had worked with him. Moreover, Monet realized
that the realist school was the newest, most progressive
and most stimulating of contemporary art movements. At
that time in Paris, it behooved creative members of the
avant-garde to bear the pennant of realism. Vanguard
artists and writers engaged in the thankless mission of
depicting contemporary life stripped of narrative, moral
content and the idealized treatment of human form. Monet
could pass on his affirmation of realism to Renoir and their
friends. On the other hand, having his vision clouded with
56
Academic precepts, Renoir listened to new ideas, but,
nevertheless, he felt pulled in the other direction.
Monet's views might supply the benefit of a fresh outlook
but, without a doubt, Renoir saw with his own eyes paintings
which did sell for 100,000 francs, and these were all
Academic showpieces. That alone was good reason for
remaining on a straight and narrow path.
A poignant difference existed between the background
of Renoir, who was from a working class family, and that
of his friends, who were bourgeois. Today the width of
the ravine between these two social categories, in status
no less than income, is narrow in comparison with the chasm
that divided French society during the nineteenth century.
Artisans such as tailors, the trade of Renoir's father,
were part of the servile race who performed menial tasks.
Never would a bourgeois be found using his hands to sew
tedious stitches to create a wardrobe for another
individual. A true bourgeois would be a designer of fashion
who hired a team of seamstresses to carry out his ideas.
So great was the aversion not merely to artisan praxis but,
moreover, to anyone associated with servile activity, that
certain bourgeois flatly refused to be seen in the same
room with their inferiors.(12) Indeed, during the
nineteenth century even the design of homes mirrored
distinction between social categories. Neither the trade
of Renoir's father nor his own former employment as a
57
painter of blinds or porcelain were regarded in high
esteem: both were pegged in the lower social echelons of
France.
Nevertheless, Renoir was accepted by his friends.
Without a second thought, they refused to permit his
background to slant their perceptions of his talent and
accepted him into their ranks. However, had a taint of
reverse prejudice existed? In other words, did Renoir
select his friends on the very basis of their manifest
promise in art or high social rank?
The answer to this query remains in doubt. Without
question, Renoir at this point had no inkling of what would
become of his friends. However, one cannot help but wonder
if there was any motive or advantage on his part when he
did choose his friends, granted that he did have a tendency
to be selective. For instance, Renoir's first friend from
early childhood, Emile Laporte, had encouraged him to join
Gleyre's atelier. Renoir frequently lunched at the home
of Laporte's parents during his student days.(13) In 1864
Renoir painted the portraits of Laporte (Figure 11) and
his sister, Marie. Shortly afterward, Renoir apparently
terminated his fellowship with this man. Renoir declared
that they no longer had any interests in common,(14) whereas
Laporte speculated their falling out might have occurred
because: "'Life...women...separated us....Indeed, when I
started falling in love, I began to neglect my friends a
58
Figure 11.
Portrait of the Painter,
Emile Henri Laporte,
1864.
bit.'"(15) Laporte's social status probably would have
been reasonably close to Renoir's own. When Renoir shifted
ranks and fostered a friendship with his new Gleyre circle,
Laporte appears excluded.
Although a substantial number of students who attended
the E2222 were born of poor or working class families,
Renoir tended to avoid their company. These students could
attend drawing, painting and sculpture classes at the E2222
only because they had been awarded scholarships, engendered
for the express purpose of helping needy but artistically
promising students whose abilities had been noticed in
Figure 12.
Self-Portrait, 1875.
provincial drawing schools. According to the author
Philippe Grunchec, "Even contemporary observers had noted
that in the ateliers of the Ecole it was more common to
encounter the sons of workers and of peasants than the sons
of the rich bourgeoisie or of the aristocracy..."(16) Jean
Renoir, in his biography on his father, relays an account
of Monet which concurs with this position. Well aware of
social distinction, Monet discriminated between those who
could and could not be his friend. "Except for his friends
in the 'group,' he looked upon the rest of his fellow
60
students as a sort of anonymous crowd--'just a lot of
grocer's assistants,' he called them."(17) Thus, a number
of students in the @2222 were not well-to-do, but Renoir
chose only the latter as friends.
Obviously Monet did not regard Renoir as part of the
faceless, characterless mass below, and one cannot help
but wonder why this would be. It appears Renoir was able
to successfully hide his humble origins and, moreover, to
abstain from cultivating ties with anyone who, like himself,
was poor or from the working class. Renoir cannot be blamed
for desiring to disassociate himself from a sector of the
populace which was disdained and which he thought would
hinder his own acceptance by the upper classes: it was his
attempt to improve his own standing in life. Renoir was
in a position to generate ploys which could enhance his
own social position and impress his friends. For instance,
he could casually mention that he had been offered a
partnership in the business of painting religious scenes
on blinds, but had turned it down to enter the E222; and
become an artist. From his earnings, Renoir had the means
to purchase textiles of a heavier weight and higher quality,
and could enlist the aid of his father for the design of
a suit for himself of a stylish cut.
Yet Renoir had little control over certain behaviours
which revealed that, at certain points in his life, he must
have been acquainted with the borderline between desperation
61
and hopelessness. For instance, other students from
wealthier backgrounds discarded their paint when it neared
the end of the tube. Renoir rummaged through the
wastebarrels and salvaged these tubes, squeezing out the
very last drops which he then added to his own canvases.(18)
Renoir, moreover, methodically pressed paint out of its
tube from the bottom upward, making sure that he did not
miss even a scant drop when he arranged colours on his
palette. This habit of Renoir stayed with him throughout
his life, and his neatly rolled tubes of paint often ranked
among his first idiosyncratic traits noticed by his
visitors.(19) However, despite the financial difficulties
which Renoir had seen his own parents face, he apparently
withdrew from others, even close friends, who fell upon
hard times, as in the case of Sisley.
As with Laporte, Renoir's friendship with Sisley came
to an end. Sisley's father, who had made much money through
a legitimate silk business which traded principally with
South America, lost all of his wealth in 1871 as a result
of the Franco-Prussian War.(20) Renoir apparently worked
with Sisley in that same year, but only once since then,
in 1873.(21) Although he painted portraits of Sisley in
1874 and his two children in 1875, Renoir apparently stopped
visiting him as a friend or working companion. During the
early 1870's, Renoir admittedly would have felt elated by
his friendship with the Le Coeur family and his encounters
62
with Prince Bibesco. Needless to say, it was Monet, not
Renoir, whom Sisley was influenced by when he painted
landscapes. On his deathbed in January, 1899, Sisley would
summon Monet, not Renoir, to see him.
After the 22222 and during the early stages of his
career, Renoir moved toward his objective of success at
a slow, halting pace. The Salon created more obstacles
than openings on the way to his goal of a comfortable
income. However, during the 1860's, Renoir saw the inchoate
growth of a modest number of patrons, including the Le
Coeurs. As evident in Appendices E, F and G, Renoir would
have had great difficulty making ends meet as an artist
had it not been for his friendship with the Le Coeurs.
Aside from their direct support, Renoir, through them, met
other patrons, especially Prince Bibesco and probably the
Countess de Pourtales.
For an income, Renoir looked toward portraiture and,
for sitters, be relied heavily upon personal contacts, few
of which were made through the Salon. Renoir tended to
make the most of his affluent friends and contacts by
painting portraits of them and their families. In one
sense, he was left with little choice: he was poor while
they were rich. Without question, he needed to earn an
income which only they had the capacity to provide. Renoir
perceived them as a ticket to greater gain, whereas they
saw him as a talented artist who needed a financial boost.
63
The depiction of Alfred Sisley's father was the first
of what was to become a series of portraits of children;
budding adolescents; youthful, charming mothers; and,
occasionally, distinguished fathers, all of whom came from
well—to-do families. Renoir accepted commissions to paint
portraits until approximately 1890, at which point work
which he did on his own, especially his nudes, was in demand
and supplied a more than substantial income. Borrowing the
pose of Ingres' portrait of Louis-Francois Bertin (1832,
Figure 13), Renoir showed Sisley's father seated in an
armchair (William Sisle , 1864, Figure 14). Although he
Figure 13.
Jean-Auguste-Dominique
Ingres, Portrait of
Louis-Francois Bertin,
1832.
64
Figure 14.
William Sisley, 1864.
fell short of the brutal, turbulent character simmering
beneath the surface of his predecessor's potent image, the
portrait was accomplished and did win the approval of the
jury who admitted it into the Salon of 1865, the year
following its completion. The portrait was subsequently
purchased by Dr. Leudet, the brother-in-law of Alfred
Sisley.(22)
Renoir's surviving portraits of Alfred Sisley begin
at a later date than that of his father. Renoir included
Sisley in Mother Anthony's Inn (1866, Figure 15) and
portrayed him stealing a clandestine kiss from his wife
65
in 1868 (Alfred Sisley and his Wife, Figure 16). Renoir
also made him the sole subject of two portraits, both titled
Alfred Sisley, which were painted in 1868 (Figure 17) and
approximately 1874 respectively. The actual date of the
latter painting, which was exhibited in the third
impressionist exhibition of 1877, is speculative and
possibly could have been created during Renoir's last
working visit with Sisley.
Renoir's main goal at this point was the establishment
of a steady flow of income, and portraiture proved to be
Figure 15.
Mother Anthony's Inn,
1866.
Figure 16
Alfred Sisley and his
Wife,1868.
Figure 17.
Alfred Sisley,
1868.
\c
~u.\
67
one direct, lucrative means to this end. In June 1870
Renoir was a guest for several weeks at the apartment of
Edmond Maitre,(23) whom he had met through Bazille and the
latter's distant relative, the Commandant Lejosne.(24)
Sometimes portraiture led to additional responsibilities.
During his stay, Renoir not only created portraits of this
amateur musician and his mistress, Rapha, but, moreover,
painted designs on some of their belongings, such as a cabi-
net which can be seen in the background of Femme au Corsage
de Chantilly (1869-70, Figure 18).(25) Approximately ten
years later, Renoir decorated the country home, located
at Wargemont, of his recently acquired patrons, the
Figure 18.
Femme au Corsage de
Chantilly, 1869-70.
68
Bérards. According to the biographer Fosca, "0n the
woodwork and the doors of the library and the bedrooms,
and over the fireplace in the little sitting-room, he
painted flowers; on the dining-room panelling he depicted
La Chasse l'ete (hares, partridges and quails) and La Chasse
d'hiver (rabbits, pheasants and woodcock)."(26) In
addition, there was a flourishing market for paintings of
nudes, which he not only enjoyed depicting, but selected
as a motif throughout his career. However, until the mid
to late 1880's, portraiture was the mainstay of Renoir's
income. As early as 1874, among his friends, Renoir was
the only artist who was in good financial shape, and this
came about specifically because he painted nudes and
willingly accepted commissions for portraits to support
himself.(27)
Concepts about what art was and was not were clear-cut
in nineteenth century France (Appendices H, I). Beauty
and honourable ideals were regarded as being synonymous
with art. The public raved when they saw paintings of
flawless goddesses sitting in tranquil, spectacular, idyllic
countrysides, and gasped when bedazzled by vast crowd scenes
wherein people appeared to move about convincingly in real
space, be they standing nearby in the foreground or
vanishing off into the distance. These were virtuoso
paintings which few people had the patience or ability to
carry out; hence they admired them greatly.
69
Figure 19. Jean-Francois Millet, The Cleaners, 1857.
As easily as the public could be beguiled by art, they
could be offended. An artist who wanted to be noticed in
nineteenth century France need only observe the weak links
in taste. Depictions of peasants were only beginning to
receive acceptance when Renoir came on the scene. Millet,
however, suffered the sting of cruel derisions when he
monumentalized humble workers such as The Gleaners or 122
§222§ in his art (Figure 19). The director of Art in France
at that time, Count de Nieuwerkerke, spoke of Millet's
subjects in an opprobrious manner: "'this is the painting
of men who don't change their linen, who want to intrude
themselves upon gentlemen; this art offends and disgusts
70
me.'"(28) Courbet and Manet, like Millet, both ran against
strong opposition when they depicted human figures which
were flawed, not idealized, and found in contemporary French
society rather than the classical past.
Renoir had a few decisions to make. He could follow
the straight and narrow path, clearly laid out by Salon
strictures, which could lead him only after many years,
if ever, to fame and success. Or he could break the rules
and, by creating ignoble art, possibly achieve notoriety
instantaneously. Both options were tempting, and true to
form, Renoir was pulled in both directions, as is reflected
in his work.
DECISIONS AND INDECISIONS
Upon leaving the Ecole des Beaux Arts and stepping
feet first into his career, Renoir cannot be accused of
placing financial gain as a strict, all-encompassing
prerogative in life. Comradeship mattered as much as art,
and Renoir willingly joined his friends in their gay,
spirited trips to the outskirts of Paris to paint depictions
of the countryside.
Impressionism was largely a landscape movement that
had been initiated and led by Monet, an avowed follower
of this métier, who rounded up his friends, including
Renoir, for what was to become the first of their many
71
peregrinations throughout the countryside around Paris.
In 1863 he sojourned with Bazille in the Forest of
Fontainebleau, then expanded his entourage the following
year to include Renoir and Sisley. Monet had practiced
painting en plein air since his mid to late teens.
The impressionists were not the first to tackle the
problems of outdoor vistas and make their mark in it.
Mounting respect in Parisian eyes for landscapes was born
as a result of the tireless efforts of an earlier generation
of artists, the Barbizon painters, a group which included
Corot, Millet, Theodore Rousseau, Dupre, Daubigny and Diaz.
The Forest of Fontainebleau, which contained breath-taking
scenery, had been a hunting preserve stalked by the kings
of France, but later became an artists' mecca inspired by
the lustrous visions created in the art of their Barbizon
forerunners. Hence, the nascent impressionists were joining
a vanguard of aspiring artists when they sojourned here.
Renoir had many reasons for adhering to paintings of
the countryside as a subject in art. Encouragement to paint
landscapes in open air came not just from Monet but also
from Gleyre, their former instructor.(29) In addition,
other Academicians such as Cabanel, Bouguereau and Gér6me
all endorsed the activity.(30) Landscapes served a useful
purpose: not only were they compelling in and of themselves,
but they made convenient backdrops for figures and classical
themes. Quite rightly, Renoir needed to get a handle on
72
them. Through them, he was able to kill two birds with
one stone: he could enjoy an outing with his friends,
thereby welding these ties more permanently, and he could
develop his skills in depicting the out—of-doors au
naturel. Renoir at this point very much was under the
influence of Monet.
Renoir's early renderings of the Forest of
Fontainebleau were tight, restrained, and detailed. When
Renoir undertook Clearing in the Woods (c. 1865, Figure
20), he was determined to depict a shallow expanse of land
with a stream which broke a wooded region. He successfully
caught the magnitude of individual trees, bush and rock
by showing a raking light against stark shadows, and used
Figure 20. Clearing in the Woods, c. 1865.
73
Figure 21.
Young Man (Jules Le
Coeur) Walking his
Dog in the Forest
of Fontainebleau,
1866.
this Chiaroscuro effect to portray the structure of
individual branches. Nevertheless, the full breadth of
Renoir's creative potential was stagnated by overt caution.
Form was constrained; and composition, conservative. Renoir
denoted the leaves and foliage in Young Man (Jules Le Coeur)
Walking his Dog in the Forest of Fontainebleau (1866, Figure
21) with greater freedom, but nonetheless, these resembled
bunched splatters of colour that were vacant of vitality
expressly because the brush strokes were deadened by
repetition. In addition, the greens and oranges in this
pi
Cc
111'
in
ex
ye
of
be
Clc
fo:
Sho
lot
“is
50m]
50,,
inc
We;
1as
and
74
painting, potentially dynamic and vivacious colours, were
vitiated by a heavy application of lugubrious earth tones.
Colours were monochromatic and lacked the brilliance of
his future work, wherein the inherent greens of trees and
blues of water, imbued with a rainbow of colours, resulted
in an atmosphere of scintillating light, life and
exuberance. Renoir's early paintings, hence, must as of
yet be considered Academic exercises in want of the fervour
of exploration and the excitement of discovery that will
be found in his forthcoming art.
Five years later, thoughts of fame and success shifted
closer to the forefront of Renoir's thoughts. He ached
for these goals but did not quite know how to get there.
He had a taste of what it was like to mix shoulder-to-
shoulder with la haute and wanted to be a part of this,
not just a mere hired, albeit talented, artist.
At first, the Academic route seemed most promising
when Renoir joined forces with Sisley, a rising star who
competed for the Prix de Rome when under the tutelage of
Gleyre during their student days. A few years later,
however, the satellite productions of Sisley began to fade
into the background, especially when Renoir's eye wandered
over to the paintings of Monet. In contrast, Monet's work
was stupendous: already it showed manifestations of novelty
and greatness.
Early on, Monet was building an edifice of first-rate
75
work based on the concept of depicting light and colour
through landscapes.(31) Landmark results from these
included Garden of the Princess (1866, Figure 22), wherein
people were reduced to quick brush strokes, not detailed
studies; Terrace at Sainte-Adresse (1866, Figure 23), which
had shadows permeated with colour, not black, and had forms
reduced to strong light and dark contrasts; and Women in
the Garden (1866-67, Figure 24), again, with strong light
and dark contrasts whose shadows were imbued with colour,
= :5" a; ’- ’ __ ..
% Figure 22.
Claude Monet,
Garden of the Princess,
1866.
' I «_‘ :1â€:
H:
'15:" '4‘ ’
_ _ â€"'41‘1 ‘17
- ~__
76
Figure 23. Monet, Terrace at Sainte-Adresse, 1866.
not black or dull earth tones.
However, Monet experienced negative repercussions when
he submitted the latter work to the Salon of 1867, a year
that Paris hosted the World's Fair. It was refused because
it was carried one step too far out-of-bounds for Academic
taste. Monet was deeply let down by this development
because he had counted on this Salon to sell his work.
However, he refused to modify his artistic goals simply
to cater to the predilections of a handful of Salon jurers.
Through Monet, Renoir had a first-hand opportunity
to watch a friend defy the system. Renoir knew that exactly
these moves could help an artist become famous down the
77
Figure 24.
Monet,
Women in the Garden,
1866-67.
road. Previous artists such as Delacroix, Courbet, and
presently Manet, all of whom revolutionized art, usually
faced strong opposition at first, but later became known
and well-to-do as a result of their efforts. Now Monet
was making obvious ploys to follow the same route, and,
true to form, he was eliciting the antagonisms of the
Academy. If his art could raise such a great fuss, the
potential was there for Monet to be remembered.
Notably, when the power and promise of Monet's work
became evident to all within their circle, Renoir decided
not only to strengthen their ties, but, moreover, to work
78
with him and copy his style while in progress. In a letter
to Bazille, Monet wrote: "'I have indeed a dream, a picture
of bathing at La GrenouillEre, for which I've made some
bad sketches, but it's a dream. Renoir, who has been
spending two months here, also wants to do this
picture.'"(32)
Renoir's knack for copying the works of his friends
was not limited to Monet. In 1874, he arrived at the home
of Monet in time to see Mme. Monet posing with her son for
a painting which Manet had begun. Renoir immediately pulled
out his paints, placed his easel right beside Manet's, and
began to paint exactly the same motif from almost exactly
the same point of view (compare Mme. Monet and Her Son in
Figure 25. Mme. Monet and Her Son in their Garden at
Argenteuil, 1874.
79
Figure 26. Edouard Manet, The Monet Family in Their Garden
in Argenteuil, 1874.
their Garden at Argenteuil, Figure 25, by Renoir with 322
Monet Family in Their Garden in Argenteuil, Figure 26, by
Manet). Following his departure, Renoir's elder, more
sophisticated colleague, in a moment of irritation,
approached Monet and advised him to tell Renoir to give
up painting. In his words, "'He has no talent at all, that
boy.'"(33) It is difficult to ascertain whether Manet's
drastic pronouncement was prompted as a result of Renoir's
rather obvious mimicry or a serious evaluation of the man's
abilities. That it should be noted at all is of great
interest.
One decade later, Cezanne began to produce his most
ml
L1.
[(f‘l
80
outstanding paintings. Renoir visited this artist at his
home province of Aix, France and, working at his side,
created still lifes and at least one landscape which, in
composition and subject matter, could never have
materialized without knowledge of Cézanne's work. The art
dealer and biographer Vollard showed another biographer,
Fosca, a landscape by Renoir, stating that the artist had
visited Cézanne with the express purpose of picking up his
style.(34) Exactly which landscape Vollard showed Fosca
is not known; however, Renoir did paint his own version
of Mount Sainte-Victoire (1899, Figure 27) with Cézanne's
work in mind (compare Cézanne's version of M2222
Sainte-Victoire, 1888, Figure 28).(35) Ironically, this
painting was created when Renoir revisited the province
of Aix in 1889, one year after Renoir and Cézanne had had
a falling out.(35) Existing still lifes by Renoir that
were created at Cézanne's side include Fruits of the Midi
(c. 1881, Figure 29) and Grapes and Fruits (1881, Figure
30). In these, Renoir retained components of his own style,
including a haphazard pastiche of iridescent violets,
mauves, blues and greens which scintillated amid the reds
and oranges of the fruit. Cézanne, on the other hand,
reduced his palette to unadulterated primary colours and
their complements which he left unmixed and let stand, side
by side, in stark, flat planes. Cézanne also wrapped blue
outlines around each depiction of individual fruit, although
Figure 27. Mount Sainte-Victoire, 1889.
Figure 28. Paul Cézanne, Mount Sainte-Victoire, 1888.
1‘. k
a
-
Figure 29. Fruits of the Midi, c. 1881.
Figure 30. Grapes and Fruits, 1881.
83
Renoir chose not to adopt this device. Hence, Renoir had
no aversion to working with his colleagues such as Monet,
Manet and Cézanne, observing their approaches and
incorporating their styles into his own work.
The body of work by Renoir which most poignantly
expresses Monet's influence was created in 1869 at their
new outdoor haunt, La Grenouillére. During this time, a
radical about-face sprung into the paintings of Renoir,
best observed in his representation of one specific site
at this fun-filled paradise. Working side by side, Renoir
and Monet created almost identical versions of a point on
the Seine River punctuated with a small, circular island
which was jammed with a crowd of people and bridged to the
mainland with a wharf. The two versions by these artists
were, predictably, both titled La Grenouillére (see Figure
31 for Renoir's version and Figure 32 for that by Monet).
At this moment, Renoir's technique did not meander
but sprinted in leaps and bounds. In contrast to the taut,
particularized versions of Clearing in the Woods or 1222g
Man (Jules Le Coeur) Walkigg his Dqg in the Forest of
Fontainebleau, Renoir suddenly exhibited great latitude
in his approach. His brush stroke transformed into loose,
distinct, stark, unblended units as seen, like Monet, in
his depiction of water. The full spectrum of colours,
frequently placed adjacent to one another within their host
verdure, gave birth to sprinklings of tinctures which
Figure 31. La Grenouillére, 1869.
Figure 32. Monet, La Grenouillére, 1869.
85
glittered gaily from shrubs, trees, grass and flowers.
The technique of a loose brush stroke, in combination with
a liberal use of colour dappled throughout the scene, became
a hallmark of impressionism.
When Renoir and Monet made their selection of site,
method might have furnished the impetus behind their
madness. 22 Grenouillére served two-fold advantage: it
attracted a number of wealthy, prominent Parisians to its
environs and it was a playground resort. During the day,
Renoir and Monet could don a conservative front and meet
well-to-do patrons who might return home with the youthful
adventurers in mind for future commissions. At night, the
two friends could storm the town and enjoy themselves
without restraint.
_2 Grenouillére represents an abrupt shift in style
when placed in context with other of Renoir's work created
during the same period. Within a span of less than eight
months, Renoir had jumped from impressionism (22
Grenouillére) to romanticism (compare Woman of Algiers,
1870, Figure 5 and Parisian Women Dressed as Algerians,
1872, Figure 33 by Renoir with Delacroix's version, 222
Femmes d'Alggr dans leur appartement, 1834, Figure 34) to
classicism (Bather with a Griffon, 1870, Figure 35).
Night and day could not be greater opposites than 22
Grenouillére and Bather with a Griffon. In the former work,
Renoir matched, step by step, almost identically the path
Figure 33.
Parisian Women Dressed
as Algerians, 1872.
Figure 34. Eugéne Delacroix, Les Femmes d'Alger dans leur
appartement, 1834.
87
Figure 35.
Bather with a Griffon,
1870.
cleared by his friend Monet; whereas in the latter canvas,
with the exception of its realist content influenced by
Courbet, Renoir diverged barely one inch from Academic
ground rules. Aside from the obvious difference of subject
matter (landscape as opposed to a bather), the chasm between
techniques was radical. Loose brush strokes permeated 22
Grenouillére, but were subordinate to the whole in Bather
with a Griffon. Figures in La Grenouillére were loosely
sketched, enabling the eye to trace the movement of the
88
brush down a leg from hip to toe, whereas the nude figure
in Bather with a Griffon was a belaboured study of light
and shadow cast across exposed flesh. Form was decomposed
in the figures portrayed on Renoir's landscape, whereas
form was solid and impervious in Bather with a Griffon.
Not only did Renoir experiment with different styles
from one painting to the next but he also played with the
combination of styles within the same painting.
Essentially, Bather with a Griffon was a portrait, a
classical nude and a nineteenth century realist painting
all rolled into one. Beginning with her overall pose and
extending to the disposal of her recently removed garb,
Renoir's bather would need little adjustment to correspond
almost exactly with the time revered form of Aphrodite of
Knidos (c. 350-325 B.C., Figure 36) by Praxiteles. Because
it was painted in reverse, one can with a fair degree of
assurance speculate that Renoir had consulted an etching
of Aphrodite that would have been in circulation at the
time.
As mentioned earlier, Renoir had been chastised as
a student for a rendering which was described as a coal
merchant's toe and might have tried to avoid all such
implication in this painting at whatever cost. Be that
as it may, despite his bold attempts to launder
respectability into it by using a distinguished Praxitelian
predecessor, Bather with a Griffon had more in common with
89
Figure 36.
Praxiteles,
Aphrodite of Knidos,
c. 350-325 B.C.
the toe of a coal dealer than with the ancient Greek goddess
of love. As touched upon earlier, Courbet, the leader of
the realist movement, blazed the trail for artists who were
interested in the depiction of contemporary life stripped
of rose-coloured visions, flawless physiques and calm,
beautiful faces. Certain examples of Courbet's realist
paintings, especially The Bathers (1854, Figure 37), his
famous work which had aroused antagonisms and tipped the
whip of Napoleon III, were blatant, belligerent selections
90
Figure 37. Gustave Courbet, The Bathers, 1854.
of coarse, earthy, flawed fat, unattractive human beings.
By no means did Renoir consciously attempt to emulate
Courbet's lead to the letter. However, without a doubt,
Bather with a Griffon failed to conform with the Academic
outline of pulchritude but instead echoed the covenants
of the realist school.
Bather with a Griffon not only contravened the physical
paradigms laid out by Praxiteles but also went against
Academic doctrine. To nineteenth century art connoisseurs,
forms found in nature, including the human body, were looked
upon as mere take-off points from which an artist could
work. The human figure needed to be purified; namely, to
91
be raised above mundane, blasé platitudes, cleansed of any
imperfections and idealized. It was believed that beautiful
visions would uplift the spirit of humankind, provide
individuals with ideals worthy of emulation, and eventually
strengthen and improve the human race. Renoir, however,
created a clearly identifiable facial and anatomical
portrait of his model, Lise Tréhot. The face conformed
with the specific contours and modulations of Tréhot rather
than being generalized and beautified. The body itself
was given particular traits such as awkward, bulging
breasts, a narrow chest, broad hips and thick thighs,
denoting the configuration of a specific individual instead
of a model translated into a slender, artistic showpiece.
Renoir further appears to have toyed with the idea
of following the mode of Manet's Luncheon on the Gr22s
(1863, Figure 38) which showed two clothed nineteenth
century bourgeois men relaxing in the company of a seated,
nude woman. As a result of this juxtaposition, Manet ran
up against a great deal of criticism. Renoir's background
figure in Bather with a Griffon, although a woman, appears
originally to have been cast as a man. Fully dressed and
in the company of a bather who has just removed her dirndl,
she is not just a companion, but a voyeur who appreciates
the nude body of her friend. The griffon, like most dogs
in art history, is a time-honoured symbol of fidelity in
art, and, in combination with the wedding band worn on the
92
Figure 38. Manet, Luncheon on the Grass, 1863.
left-hand ring finger of the bather, would make sense only
if the background figure were a man.
Had he shown a nineteenth century bourgeois man in
the background, like Manet, instantaneously Renoir would
have jumped from a nonentity to a radical outcast.
Nineteenth century Parisian sensibilities accepted works
wherein nude women appeared with clothed men, but only on
the provision that the men wore classical robes which safely
distanced the scene in the past. But, on the other hand,
if a nude woman appeared in the same scene as a man garbed
in contemporary bourgeois or aristocratic dress, it created
an uproar. How dare an artist hand to posterity a legacy
$8?
the
hi:
3
(V
A
13105,
5r11.
93
which suggested that Parisians were morally debauched and
sexually lascivious?! The consequences were far graver
than he was willing to bear. Faced with a desire to remedy
his impecunious status, Renoir compromised his values: the
attainment of a moneyed clientele and income took precedence
over long-term ideals. Renoir chose not to promote his
own demise as an artist by raising the antagonisms of
Academicians and eliminating his hopes of ever exhibiting
again in Salon corridors. Renoir was unable to face the
prospect of being a poor, starving artist.
Had Renoir tampered with the spirit of revolt, it was
in a substantially modified manner. In Bather with a
Griffon, Renoir more or less played with existing modes
of expression (realism and classicism) and their various
combinations, rather than trying to achieve a new or radical
approach to art. Nevertheless, especially in this painting
and his work of this period, it is evident that Renoir was
pulled between the pursuit of radical ideals and Academic
precepts.
Granted, Renoir had arrived at a perfect solution for
those who were unable to make up their minds about what
style they liked best: he could now offer paintings which
combined current tastes, such as classicism and realism.
When he showed Bather with a Griffon in the same Salon as
Woman of Algiers, obviously he had hoped to impress art
collectors with his ability to handle almost any style.
94
Indeed, Renoir built up a repertoire of canvases which
he could offer to customers when they knocked on his door.
If they wanted a classical painting, he could show them
one, or if they preferred a romantic, he had examples of
these, too. He had worked in the styles of Delacroix,
Courbet, Rubens, Boucher and Fragonard, and he could offer
conventional portraits of patrons seated on horses. Should
someone want a bather, he could sell them one, or, should
a client prefer landscapes, why, he had these as well.
Renoir would capy verbatim paintings of his predecessors
in the Louvre if the price was right, and, at least at this
point in his career, fairly low prices would do. Renoir
was building up a reputation for being able to paint in
the style of Delacroix, which led to at least two
commissions, one of which, at the request of Jean Dollfus,
a rich industrialist, involved the direct copying of £2
Noce Joive (The Jewish Wedding) in the Louvre (see Figure
39 for Renoir's version and Figure 40 for the original by
Delacroix).
Between 1869 and 1873 inclusive, Renoir continued his
production of conservative paintings designed for exhibition
on Salon walls but, with the exception of Bather with a
Griffon, never once did he paint a canvas which would
challenge Academic values. In the foregoing painting the
realist content might have ruffled a few feathers, but not
all indignantly condemned him, obviously, because he was
Figure 39. La Noce Joive (The Jewish Wedding), 1875.
Figure 40. Delacroix, Jewish Wedding in Morocco, c. 1839.
...1 .a‘; Jill
.1111:
AU
96
let into the Salon.
Concurrently, in the company of Monet, Renoir
surreptitiously built up a repertoire of landscapes which
reflected Monet's advancements. ‘For the time being, the
Academic route seemed most lucrative; however, it was
equally obvious that Monet's novel paintings, by virtue
of their unorthodox nature, presaged posterity. Rather
than gamble and risk losing the fortune which could be had
through either one of these viable approaches, Renoir chose
to follow both.
THE IMPRESSIONIST DECADE
The First Step
In late 1873, Renoir swung full force into
impressionism, marking the start of a phase which lasted
almost nine years. Renoir's earlier work in the footsteps
of Monet predisposed him to claim membership in the group.
By the time of the first independent exhibition, the number
of artists with similar interests had enlarged to include
Berthe Morisot, Camille Pissarro, Edgar Degas and Paul
Cézanne, among others.(36) Pissarro and Morisot shared
with the Gleyre's group an interest in landscape painting.
One of the major bonds which held these friends and
colleagues together was their common desire to display their
own paintings. Motivations among the artists were many
97
and varied. A prime impetus was the desire for
recognition. All members of the group could wholeheartedly
concur that the Salon offered an unquestionably fickle and
tedious system which hindered the acceptance of ambititous,
creative young artists, especially those whose works were
less than congenial, if not at loggerheads, with the Salon
norm. An independent group exhibition would obviate the
practice of catering on an annual basis to the Academic
leanings of conservative Salon juries.
Another advantage to such an exhibition was expressed
by Morisot who believed their work was distinct, unique
and united by their common interest in landscapes. To be
convinced of their merit, patrons needed to be exposed to
their work as one whole unit, rather than seeing it
scattered and watered down by run-of-the-mill paintings
in the Salon.
Degas, of an alternate view, insisted that
practitioners of divergent styles be included in the
independent show. Because his art centered on Parisian
night life and people as subject matter, obviously he wished
to avoid having his own art swamped by and lost amongst
the landscapes of his friends. Renoir could concur with
Degas's policy on two counts. First, the inclusion of a
greater number of artists, albeit of different styles, would
mean that the substantial cost of holding a show would be
spread among a wider range of people, thereby easing the
O 9‘
H.
ta.
di:
Cf
1111'
as
095
.u
r!‘
0f
98
financial burden on each individual artist. This was not
a concern of Degas, but it meant much to artists such as
Renoir, Pissarro and Monet who were less affluent. Second,
many of Renoir's paintings were not landscapes and, like
Degas, he might have felt uncomfortable if he were part
of an exhibition that was dominated by this subject matter.
Moreover, Renoir intended to cater to a wide range of public
taste. An art connoisseur who liked his paintings but
disliked landscapes could now choose from his selection
of alternate subjects, such as portraiture and nudes.
Third, Renoir was fully aware that landscapes did not sell
as well as paintings of peOple. An exhibition that was
open to a greater range of subject matter might attract
a broader range of buyers.
Renoir's decision not merely to show with the group
of independent painters, but, moreover, to accept a
management position on the committee, came at a time of
moderate success. Juries usually accepted his work into
the Salon, and critics, for the most part, were positive.
Renoir sat in a favourable position with a growing
clientele, in particular, the Le Coeurs, for whom he created
the most portraits during this time and through whom he
was led to new patrons. The dealer, Durand-Ruel,
intermittently purchased some of his work and, even though
he lacked the adequate funds to carry it out fully, seemed
enthusiastic about supporting Renoir and his friends. He
he
to
sa
ob,
en
99
purchased paintings by a number of the artists during the
early 1870's, although the frequency of these gradually
dropped off, not because he disliked their works but because
he was unable to find buyers. These artists undoubtedly
hoped that an independent show would spur Durand-Ruel's
sales and give the public an opportunity to view their work
objectively in order to, ultimately, share their dealer's
enthusiasm.
Had Renoir believed he was joining the ranks of
mediocre or insignificant artists who were failures at the
Salon, he would have abstained from showing with them.
However, prudently, Renoir was associating with a
respectable group who had experienced a reasonable degree
of success at the Salon, especially Morisot and Degas who
had always been accepted by its jury since the submission
of their first entries in 1864 and 1865 respectively.
Renoir was not alone in his determination to be visible
in the public eye as a creditable artist. All wished to
avoid the stigma of being confounded with artists who could
not make it in the Salon. For this reason, the majority
of artists were opposed to the participation of Cezanne,
whose works, consistently rejected by the Salon juries,
caused the artists to believe that these would lower the
quality of their show. Cézanne was permitted to join the
group, but only by the skin of his teeth, and at the
insistence of Pissarro.
thi
thq
1111
put
the
by
100
In keeping with the idea of a respectable exhibition,
the timing of the show took on as great a significance as
the status of its participants. A show held concurrently
with the Salon or after it had ended might mislead the
public into believing that these artists were displaying
their works separately only because they had been rejected
by the jury and were unable to get into the Salon. Hence,
to avoid any confusion, these artists ran their exhibition
before the Salon had a chance to open its doors. Moreover,
members of the group realized that not all of their
colleagues consistently had good fortune when submitting
to the Salon. For instance, Renoir, Monet and Sisley all
fell into this category: although they were sometimes
admitted, each had also faced rejections. If exhibitors
in the independent show also submitted their work to the
Salon only to watch the jury turn it down, why, critics
could have a heyday, being supplied with ample ammunition
to attack them as incompetents who, failing approval through
official routes, were groping for last resorts. Thus, the
organizers of the independent exhibition, including Renoir,
agreed upon a pact which barred the inclusion in their
galleries of anyone who submitted work to the Salon.(37)
In addition to the above, Renoir had personal
motivations for becoming a part of an independent group
exhibition. First, the overall respectability of the group
enhanced his own, not only in their status as artists but
m
Re
If
aI
Th
101
also in their family background. Morisot was the daughter
of a wealthy magistrate (38) and Degas came from an upper
middle class background.(39) Second, like his comrades,
Renoir unquestionably felt the pangs associated with slow
recognition. Displaying only one or two paintings amid
a couple or so thousand would dampen the spirits of many
artists who hoped to gain public recognition and clients.
Third, as mentioned earlier, the Salon attracted throngs
of visitors. Should an independent exhibition attract even
a fraction of these multitudes and interest them in their
art, members of the group conceivably could survive in
moderate comfort, if not decadent luxury. Finally, since
the Franco-Prussian War, Renoir's works had been rejected
from both Salons held in 1872 and 1873, although his entry
during the latter year had been successfully shown in the
1873 Salon des Réfuses (see pages 33-35). It would be
easier for Renoir to participate in an independent
exhibition and be assured of having his works displayed,
rather than submitting to the Salon without guarantee that
his paintings would even be accepted. In the latter
instance, if he was rejected, Renoir would have to wait
one year before he could submit new work, and at that, he
could again face rejection.
The Salon had yet to aid Renoir in building a solid
clientele. If Renoir did meet patrons through this gallery,
their numbers were low. Because the mainstay of his
U’
r
I
«II
102
business was built on personaljcontact, Renoir had every
reason to believe that this trend would continue at an
independent show where he would be one of 30, not 1,500,
painters and where he could meet people on a one-to-one
basis. On December 27, 1873, when Renoir added his
signature to the first charter of independent artists, the
independent group exhibition held the greatest promise of
fame and fortune, and thus, was worth the risk.
The Shows
The group of independent artists held a total of eight
independent impressionist exhibitions which ranged
intermittently from 1874 until 1886 inclusive; of these,
Renoir participated in only four shows; namely, in 1874,
1876, 1877 and 1882 respectively (Appendix J).
Before their first opening, minor details, such as
their name, needed to be clarified among members of the
independent artists. In this, there were two opposing
views. Degas promulgated the idea of calling their
exhibition by a quaint, but neutral title such as 22
Capucine (the nasturtium),(40) based on the name of the
street, 35, boulevard des Capucines, where it would be
held. Renoir, however, adamantly vetoed all attempts to
give the show a name, including Degas' suggestion, the most
neutral that was brainstormed. To Vollard, Renoir explained
n!)
01
be
it
EX
Pe
103
that he "...was afraid that if it were called the
'Somebodies' or 'The So-and-Sos' or even 'The Thirty-Nine,'
the critics would immediately start talking of a 'new
school'".(41) Renoir feared that a "new school" would
frighten away people who bought art. Hence, the title
finally agreed upon for the first impressionist exhibition
was: "Societe anonyme des artistes peintres, sculpteurs,
graveurs, etc..."(42) Despite Renoir's efforts, the first
show was dubbed "impressionism" by the critic Louis Leroy
in his derisive article on this group of painters, and the
name stayed.
Renoir ceased production of his academic work and went
full force into independent exhibitions, showing a total
of sixty-eight works during the whole of his participation,
beginning with a modest contribution of seven paintings
in the first and reaching the astounding number of
twenty-five in the last show (Appendix K). For the first
exhibition, Renoir displayed a range of works, mostly of
people, which could appeal to a variety of public tastes.
He employed models to pose for three of his paintings,
including La Parisienne (1874, Figure 41), La Loge (1874,
Figure 42) and The Dancer (1874, Figure 43). La Loge was
created after Renoir had made a number of studies of his
model Nini, whose countenance he transformed from a plain,
apparently homely appearance to that of a stunning
vision.(43) The Dancer was of a young ballerina
'0‘
cf
104
Figure 41.
La Parisienne, 1874.
standing singly against a plain background, whereas 22
Parisienne was strictly a genre portrait of a woman,
Mme. Henriot, one of Renoir's preferred models, who more
than obviously had adopted a cute pose which would appeal
to the taste of certain audiences for pretty, albeit
unprofound pictures. However, all of these paintings are
about appearance and subject matter, not theory. During
this exhibition, Renoir included only one painting, The
Harvesters (1873, Figure 44) in which he did experiment
105
with impressionist theories by breaking away from
conventional brush strokes and showing an interest in the
qualities of light. However, Renoir's paintings were far
from being fully developed, nor were they as daring as
Monet's. The sentiments of the critic Jean Prouvaire, who
visited their show and wrote an article on it, are wholly
apt. Apparently he has "Trés fortes réserves sur le
mouvement, mais, dans l'ensemble, appréciation sympathique
des peintres, qu'il trouve moins révolutionnaires que leur
théories."(44)
The impressionists were met with a host of critics
Figure 42.
La Loge, 1874.
Figure 43.
The Dancer, 1874.
Figure 44. The Harvesters, 1873.
107
when their doors opened to the public. Had Renoir thought
the term "fat" was a serious malediction directed toward
Lise with a Parasol in the Salon of 1868, he was in for
an even greater shock. During the impressionist
exhibitions, the critics went on the rampage. Beginning
with Louis Leroy and patterning themselves after his lead,
many jumped on the bandwagon and gleefully contributed to
the rapidly growing ranks, clever or otherwise, of derisive
articles.
Leroy, on his own account, had toured the first
impressionist exhibition with a cohort, the painter Joseph
Vincent, whom he had encountered on the premises. The
reader is led to believe that all commentary in Leroy's
subsequent article originated from the collaborated efforts
of both men. According to this facetious account printed
in Charivari, the legs of The Dancer were described by
"'as cottony as the gauze of her
Vincent as being
skirts'"(45) and The Harvesters, a loosely painted work,
was called "too finished†when compared with the paintings
of Morisot.(46) In the ribald view of these adversaries,
a man depicted by Renoir in the midst of a field of wheat
should have been depicted with one stripe of colour, not
three, had the artist been a true impressionist.(47)
Whereas his friends went one way and continued to
develop impressionism, Renoir turned and ran in the opposite
direction. During the second impressionist exhibition in
108
1876, Renoir took no chances. Under no circumstance did
he wish to show paintings which could draw the attention
of critics who would label him a revolutionary. Renoir
feared this tag would give his reputation a beating and
cause his slowly building clientele to drop. Almost all
of his works were portraits, and two thirds of these were
society commissions, but not one was a landscape. Moreover,
eleven of the fifteen paintings were owned by his patrons
whose names Renoir included next to the entries in the
catalogue, hoping to add an air of respectability to these
works. However, this ruse failed to waylay the attacks
of critics. If two years earlier Louis Leroy had sharpened
a knife, the critic Albert Wolff now wielded a hatchet.
In this show, Nu au Soleil (1876, Figure 45), a modest
study, was one of the few, if only, paintings in which
Renoir experimented with impressionist theory. The flesh
of the nude was dappled with reds, blues, violets, greens
and yellows, denoting sunlight that had been refracted upon
striking the skin.
Wolff described this torso as "'a mass of flesh in
the process of decomposition with green and violet spots
which denote the state of complete putrefaction of a
corpse!‘"(48) Less ingenious critics took this description
and played it to the utmost, perhaps causing the
impressionists and, especially, Renoir to feel that they
would never live it down. Never again would Renoir depict
109
Figure 45..
Nu au Soleil, 1876.
human flesh with obviously variegated tints of colour.
In 1876, during the winter months which preceded the
third impressionist show, Renoir was sought out by a
recently acquired patron, Georges Charpentier, who had
purchased his painting, Pecheur a la Ligne, during one of
the group's auctions held at the Hstel Drouot in 1875.
Renoir was commissioned to tackle portraits of this patron's
family and, later in the year, was invited to their evening
salons, at which he became a regular guest. Apparently
one of the most spectacular in Paris, these soirées bristled
with influential coteries of keynote politicians, official
110
painters, famous writers, and prominent critics.(49)
Before the commencement of the third impressionist
exhibition in 1877, and because of his contacts made at
the salons held by the Charpentiers, Renoir was well on
his way to establishing a solid clientele in the upper class
quarters of French society. During this exhibition, Renoir
had distributed his subject matter equally into three
distinct categories. This would enable patrons to choose
their preferences in art, be these society portraits, which
comprised the first third of his paintings; genre, the
second; or landscapes, the third. This time, when Renoir
singled out the society portraits which he would show, the
notability of his patron mattered. The individuals
who had posed for him were prominent, well-to-do
citizens of Paris. Mme. Charpentier, the daughter of a
"grand bourgeois", a jeweler to the Crown,(50) was married
to M. Georges Charpentier, a publisher who owned a
bookstore (51) and who, in addition, maintained the
Charpentier library that was founded by his father.(52)
Mme. Daudet, the daughter of a rich industrialist, was a
talented writer who had published poems, memoirs and
essays.(53) Jeanne Samary was an attractive, well-known
and very papular actress in Paris whom Renoir had met at
the Charpentier Salon and had volunteered to paint.(54)
Renoir had hoped that the prestige of these prominent people
would enhance his own.
111
Renoir also showed two reschtable portraits of men,
completed a few years earlier, including the Portrait of
Alfred Sisley (c. 1874, Figure 46) and the Portrait of
Jacques-Eugéne Spuller (1871, Figure 47), a member of the
provisionary government during a short-lived commune
following the seige of Paris after the Franco-Prussian War.
Although his exhibits were dominated by portraits of women,
Renoir wished to remind visitors that societal depictions
of men were also within his powers. Renoir was more
strongly committed to building an income by painting the
portraits of moneyed clientele than to following the ideals
Figure 46.
Portrait of Alfred Sisley,
c. 1874.
112
Figure 47.
Portrait of
Jacques-Eugéne Spuller,
1871.
of impressionism.
Especially in his representations of women, Renoir
distinguished his paintings with a "soft-focus" appearance
which had a tendency to make the sitters look very
attractive, even if they were not. To achieve the same
results, Academic paintings used a scumble; that is, a thin
coating of opaque colour placed over an abrupt edge to
soften it. Renoir eliminated the distinct edge, completing
contours of a figure, face or hand with jagged dabs of
paint. As he had learned when depicting Marie Antoinette
profiles, attractive appearances sell.
113
Notably at this time, Renoir credited himself with
insisting upon the use of the title "impressionism" for
the third group exhibition in 1877. Vollard presented
Renoir's reasoning as follows: "It served to explain our
attitude to the layman, and, hence, nobody was
deceived".(55) Degas, naturally, was opposed to the use
of the name of impressionism. A neutral title could have
been employed as a reference to a general exhibition which
contained a variety of styles; whereas the name
impressionism denoted only a handful of artists within this
exhibition, among whom he felt his own work did not belong.
Renoir, however, had personal motivations for now desiring
the designation "impressionism". Undoubtedly, at the salon
of the Charpentiers, he would have been introduced as one
of the impressionists since, at this point, this name was
circulating in Paris. Thus, by using this name, Renoir
undoubtedly hoped that a number of the wealthy art
collectors whom he had met at the Charpentier salon would
recognize the show when it was advertised and be interested
in visiting it. Once drawn, they could see his work and
perhaps purchase a few paintings or commission a portrait.
If the exhibition was called by any other designation, these
amateurs might unwittingly overlook the advertisement and
not realize that Renoir's work would be in it. To draw
these wealthy clientele, it had to be called impressionism.
Renoir, however, apparently was unable to convince his
his associates to go along with the new name. His friends
and colleagues, instead, agreed upon the title Exposition
de Peinture (Exhibition of Painting) for the third
independent group show.(56)
For this show, Renoir produced his greatest and
deservedly famous work, Au Moulin de la Galette (1876,
Figure 48). This masterpiece cannot help but overwhelm
a viewer. One is beguiled by the dazzling lights, the
sensuous waltzes, the gay smiles, the relaxed demeanors,
the fond, affectionate gestures of hands brushing shoulders,
the warm contact of embracing bodies, the frivolous
conversations and the pungent wines. Not one single person
has a quarrel with another; or, if so, this is not depicted.
Figure 48. Au Moulin de la Galette, 1876.
115
All are vivacious. All are engrossed in their surroundings
and enveloped in an atmosphere of moderate pleasure of one
sort or another. No one is either languid or downright
depressed. Women are pretty with wide set eyes, smooth
noses and archaic smiles on their lips, reminiscent of the
expression carved on the faces of ancient Greek kouros and
kore statues. Men, on the other hand, are stoic and suave.
Many of the costumes are of a relatively dark navy blue
or black colour; yet the painting as a whole avoids
melancholy for it is sprinkled with arrays of colour
radiating from the occasional dress, terrace, trees,
flowers, hats and ornaments. No one would have a sour
thought, and realities such as jealousies, broken
engagements, false promises, pregnancies, marital breakdowns
and the menial chores of daily life have no place in this
world of wine, song and roses. Perhaps Renoir had his head
set squarely upon his shoulders when he constructed this
masterpiece: life is short and the world is to be enjoyed.
Perhaps the spirit of freedom permeated its influence:
Renoir was 35 at the time and a bachelor.
At this point it may seem difficult to ascertain why,
exactly, a painting such as Au Moulin de la Galette is a
specific example of impressionism, but not mainstream art,
or, for that matter, any other style of art. After all,
it seems moreso a depiction of a glamourous outdoor ball
attended by cavorting people sharing intimate waltzes and
obstreperous revelry than that of artistic theory. To find
an answer, it is necessary to return to the first
impressionist exhibition where the name had originated.
In the spring of 1874, Monet had titled one of his
paintings with the caption, Impression, Sunrise (1872,
Figure 49), which was spotted by Leroy and his accomplice,
Vincent.(57) In their eyes, the label "impression" aptly
described what they were seeing in the works of a number
of artists; in particular, Renoir, Monet, Sisley, Morisot,
Pissarro, Degas, and Cézanne. The critic and his associate
saw brush strokes stand unblended on the surface of the
canvas, which implied a lack of concern for exactitude and
Figure 49. Monet, Impression, Sunrise, 1872.
117
truth to nature. These two adversaries were accustomed
to viewing paintings in which brush strokes were
subordinated to the whole and smoothed to an indiscernible,
glossy patina. They believed that colours should ring and,
moreover, exhibit a certain agreement with those extant
in nature. Most highly valued in France at that time were
trompe l'oeil paintings which could make a viewer forget
that the image hanging in front of them was comprised simply
of slippery oil brushed on the surface of a primed canvas,
but instead almost convince them that living, breathing
people, massive buildings, spacious rooms, sun-drenched
vistas, light-shot trees, elegant dining room suites, and
other paraphernalia stood before their eyes.
The use of distinct brush strokes was not unknown to
the French public. Delacroix liberally deployed them
throughout his canvases to convey the excitement and drama
of his action-packed subjects, well aware that these would
be optically blended the moment a person stood back from
a painting. However, to art connoisseurs, unblended brush
strokes were chiefly associated with an unfinished canvas.
A technique, called ébauche, was taught by the Ecole des
Beaux Arts and practiced by artists, wherein the composition
was rapidly built up with an undercoat of paint using crude,
broad brush strokes which covered the whole of the canvas
surface in a haphazard, multi-directional fashion. This
method was employed as a means to envision the overall
118
product in short order. The subject would later be worked
to achieve a smooth finish. Not only did Gleyre advocate
this practice to his students at the atelier, but this
technique dates at least as far back as 1800 to
Jacques-Louis David's unfinished portrait of Mme. Récamier
(Figure 50).(58)
Thus, when critics and artists viewed the first
independent show, they were not impressed. They were
familiar with unblended brushstrokes but chiefly associated
these with the inchoate stage of a finished work. They
knew full well the practice of putting down on paper a quick
rendering of a subject, but regarded this as merely one
Figure 50. Jacques-Louis David, Mme. Récamier, 1800.
'
,4)
(JD
119
step in a series of stages toward a finished painting.
To contemporaries, the name impressionism well suited the
art on display at the first independent exhibition. These
seeming dilettantes created only what caught their eyes
at a quick glance; namely, their first impressions of the
scene or, in other words, a sketch; but not a finished,
studied, perhaps one could say scholastic version of their
métier. Unfinished sketches, per se, were not nearly as
irritating as attitude: the artists not only presented these
to the public as completed works, but propounded them as
earth-shattering masterpieces. It was either a farce or
the artists were stark raving mad and fit only for an insane
asylum. If these artists apparently failed to take
seriously their own paintings, the public might have
questioned how anyone else could have been expected to do
so.
The ideas of the artists, when compared with those
in published reports, are as divergent as the gun and the
moon. Had the artists any intention of capturing an
"impression" of what they saw, this was incidental to their
concerns. Instead, originating with Monet, impressionism
took root in the idea of depicting light with colour. Glass
prisms, which refract the rays of the sun into the visible
spectrum, demonstrated that light was synonymous with
colour. Because black was not part of this spectrum and
denoted the absense of light, it was incongruous with their
120
interests and, hence, dropped from their palette.
Early on, under the influence of Monet, Renoir showed
an interest in depicting light, as evidenced in Lise with
a Parasol (1868, Figure 7; page 35). In Au Moulin de la
Galette, Renoir interpreted the impressionists' interest
in light in a novel and spectacular fashion. In this
painting, like Monet, Renoir's use of light was daring but,
unlike Monet, it was literal. In real life on a clear day
the outdoor sun greets the ground, benches, and people in
sharp, patchy contrasts of shadow and light when it is
filtered through the leaves of trees and surrounding
plants. Renoir depicted the premises of this dance hall
and its affable crowd with these splashes of light and
colour, adding to the motion, gaiety and bedazzlement of
the activities.
Following the position of the realists who were their
forerunners, the impressionists, in Renoir's words, wanted
to take the literature out of painting.(59) In France,
"high art" had grown on the tradition of choosing select
passages from classical and, later, contemporary
literature. Whereas at one point in time this approach
had given artists an opportunity to demonstrate their
erudition and knowledge of ancient sculptures, now such
ploys were tired, worn out and overdone. Long ago, the
art world was "Diana-ed"to death but, on the other hand,
contemporary life opened up a new field day to artists.
121
Renoir had personal reasons for desiring to see
classical and contemporary literature removed from the realm
of art. Having stopped formal schooling at the age of
thirteen to undergo an apprenticeship in porcelain painting,
his knowledge of classical literature would have been
truncated. Moreover, Renoir had difficulty appreciating
most contemporary French literature. In France during the
nineteenth century, there were two styles of language in
circulation. One, referred to as classical French, was
used in books by most writers and spoken by scholars. The
other was vernacular French, quite commonly used on the
street by the average citizen who had little or no
education. Renoir took a disliking to authors such as
Victor Hugo expressly because his books influenced readers
away from the use of simple French.(60) The author William
Gaunt tabulates Renoir's reaction to contemporary authors
in another fashion: "He had a distrust of literature as
a bad influence on painting and his views of authors were
seldom appreciative. He summed up the naturalism of Zola
in the phrase 'He imagines he has painted the people when
he says they smell.‘ He could not bother with Flaubert's
'Madame Bovary', 'the story of an idiot whose wife wanted
to be somebody'. He liked to hear Mallarmé talk but had
only a glimmering through him of the sensuous power of
words. Renoir was not an intellectual."(61)
RENOIR'S RISE TO WEALTH AND PROMINENCE
Following the third impressionist exhibition, Renoir,
who now perceived these as failures, wanted to get out of
them essentially because he was experiencing a considerable
degree of success through another channel, portraiture,
and the impressionist shows were harmful to his reputation.
Since the end of 1876, Renoir circulated in the realms of
famous, wealthy peOple and painted their portraits, for
which he was well reimbursed. These he met through his
patrons, the Charpentiers, but not the impressionist
exhibitions. He noticed, whenever his work sold with the
impressionist painters, that prices would drop to less than
half of what he could attain when working on a one-to-one
basis with moneyed clientele. During the auction at the
HStel Drouot in 1875, he fared the worst among his friends.
His twenty paintings put up for bidding commanded 2,250
francs.(62) Even though this sum may seem low, in this
one day his earnings were better than the approximately
1,500 franc annual salary of the average skilled worker,
or the 1,200 franc annual wage of the average clerk.(63)
Two years later, following the third impressionist
exhibition, Renoir and his friends held another auction,
again, at the H6tel Drouot, "where all Paris auctions take
place under government supervision".(64) Renoir's paintings
brought between 47 and 285 francs,(65) totalling 2,005
francs for fifteen paintings and one pastel during the
122
123
bidding.(66) Again, it was a fair wage relative to Renoir's
background and the cost of living, but now it no longer
measured up to his standard of living. Since 1873, Renoir
had been renting a studio at 35, rue St. Georges and, by
1875, could afford "to rent - for 100 francs a month - a
small house with a garden on the heights of Montmartre,
Cortot."(67) In comparison, in 1866 the average skilled
worker with a family of four could afford to rent good
living accommodations at a rate of 294 francs per year,
not month; thus, by now Renoir was living the life of a
full-fledged bourgeois, well out of the range of a person
in the lower income bracket. Renoir did not wish to lose
this status, and felt concerned that the impressionist
auctions and shows would have a deflationary influence on
his rates.
Renoir was also worried about his reputation. If in
1874 he had openly objected to titles as tame as
"Nasturtium", surely he experienced several shades of
mortification when the core members of the group, including
him, were labelled lunatics. Association with a school
in a negative context probably turned Renoir off from ever
wanting to show with the group again. Wolff's 1876 article
in Le Figaro ran: "'Yesterday a poor soul was arrested in
the rue Le Peletier, who, after having seen the exhibition,
was biting the passers-by. Seriously, these lunatics must
be pitied; benevolent nature endowed some of them with
124
superior abilities which could have produced artists."(68)
Renoir would also have been concerned about what was
said about his works. In 1877, the year following its
original use, lesser critics were having a heyday with the
charge "putrefaction of the corpse."(69) Renoir, who took
pains to make his work pleasing to the public, surely felt
chagrined when he read press coverages and glanced at
cartoons. In Le Charivari, one humourist, Cham, published
a caricature "in...which an impressionist painter tells
his model: 'Madame, a few tones in the face are lacking
for your portrait. Couldn't you first spend a couple of
days on the bottom of a river?'"(70) Now that Renoir was
becoming known and receiving a reasonable return on his
canvases, he refused to jeopardize this success on account
of abuse directed toward him by critics. Moreover, should
even one of his prized patrons be labelled by the press
in one portrait as being a corpse in the advanced state
of decomposition, Renoir could face losing all of his
clientele.
Renoir looked with a yearning heart back to the Salon.
When art lovers wanted to buy art, they went here where
they could choose from a wide selection of artists. At
the Salon, approximately 1,300 painters exhibited, whereas
the numbers of participants in independent shows had
dwindled from thirty down to eighteen by the third
exhibition. If eighteen artists thought they could outdo
125
1,300, why, they had to be a bit crazy. Moreover, the Salon
offered a range of coveted medals which could lead to
government commissions and positions in prestigious
societies such as the Legion of Honour or the Academy.
Renoir longed for such honours and even made an unsuccessful
attempt to acquire a coveted state commission through
M. J.-E. Spuller (Figure 47) and M. Georges Charpentier
during the late 1870's or early 1880's.(71) However, he
knew that he was cutting himself out of these exact awards
expressly because he was exhibiting with the independent
artists. Renoir realized that when his patrons did visit
the Salon, they would undoubtedly run into their friends
and colleagues. If only one patron pointed Renoir's work
out to one associate and this led to another commission,
it would be well worth his while to have his paintings
there:
Unlike his comrades, Renoir was the first to return
to the Salon. In 1875, the year following the first
impressionist show, Renoir was the only member who handed
work over to the jury in hopes of selection, although to
no avail: his canvas was rejected.(72) In 1878, Renoir
again was the only member among his colleagues (with the
exception of Cézanne) who submitted his work to the Salon,
and he continued this practice henceforth, giving up on
independent shows (with the exception of the Seventh
Impressionist Exhibition, which shall be discussed later).
126
One difference in attitude existed between Cezanne and
Renoir. Cézanne knew without a doubt that he would be
rejected from the Salon but submitted regardless, never
modifying his work to get in. Renoir always hoped to be
accepted, and geared his art accordingly.
From hereon, Renoir restricted his submissions to the
Salon to genre and portraiture, both of which he knew would
get him past the jury and, moreover, had a market. In a
letter to Durand-Ruel dated March, 1881 he confessed: "11
y a dans Paris a peine quinze amateurs capables d'aimer
un peintre sans le Salon. 11 y en a 80.000 qui n'acheteront
méme pas un nez si un peintre n'est pas au Salon."(73)
In addition, Renoir realized that the vast numbers who
visited the Salon dwarfed those who dropped into the
impressionist exhibitions. For instance, a total of 3,500
visitors attended the first independent group show over
a period of thirty days and viewed 165 works, dominated
by paintings, by thirty artists. On the other hand,
attendance at the Salon throughout the course of its
duration could reach, in Zola's estimation, 400,000 visitors
who viewed as many as 4,000 works of art.(74) Of these,
paintings could number as many as 2,400, while the number
of painters who showed their works could reach approximately
1,300 to 1,500 (Appendix C).(75) Thus, the Salon attracted
up to 300 vistors per painter, well above the 116 guests
per artist attracted to the independent group show. In
VS
127
addition, the Salon drew between 160 to 200 visitors per
painting shown, whereas the impressionists had only 21
visitors per work. The independent show did have the
advantage of enabling its artists to exhibit a greater
number of canvases, instead of the one or two that were
restricted by the Salon. Nevertheless, the large number
of visitors who attended the Salon made this latter
exhibition more appealing to Renoir.
Renoir knew how to take advantage of the Salon
(Appendix L). He was fully aware that the public liked
paintings of people, particularly ones whom they could
recognize. If Renoir's paintings stood out at the Salon
because the individuals whom he represented were known and
attractive, Renoir, in turn, would be noticed and
remembered, which would increase his own sales, commissions
and income. For instance, Renoir contributed to the Salon
of 1881 two portraits of Jeanne Samary: one, an oil and
the other, a pastel (see Figures 51 and 52 for examples
of Renoir's paintings of this actress). It benefitted
Renoir to paint many portraits of this woman, which he did,
because she was a well-known, charming, beautiful actress
whom Parisians loved and raved about. In a letter dated
March 1881 to Durand-Ruel, Renoir confessed: "Mon envoi
au Salon est tout commercial. En tout cas, c'est comme
de certaines médecines. Si ca ne fait pas de bien, ca ne
fait pas de mal."(76)
Figure 51.
V;
r
a
m
a
S
e
n
n
a
e
J
f
O
t
.1
a
r
t
r
O
P
1877.
Figure 52.
n
a
F
a
h
t
.1
W
n
a
m
0
w
1881.
129
There was, in addition, a peculiarity to human
temperament, also capitalized upon by Renoir. Should word
get around that notables were having their portraits painted
by a promising artist, quite often this attracted new
clientele, some of whom felt genuine admiration for his
work. Others would have been speculators drawn to the
potential of the art to increase in value. In addition,
a third segment of art patrons might have perceived the
ownership of canvases by a talented painter who carried
out portrait commissions for la haute as a status symbol
which would elevate their own prestige. Renoir, undoubtly
aware of this trait, made sure that many of his Salon
entries included prominent, moneyed members of Parisian
society. Thus, he submitted to the Salon portraits of the
Charpentiers, previously discussed; the grandchildren of
M. Armand Grimprel of the Bérard-Grimprel Bank;(77) and
Mme. Léon Clapisson, who was married to Léon Clapisson,
the son of the musical composer for the comic opera, 22
Mere Gregoire (Mother Gregory).(78)
Renoir also sent to the Salon picturesque views of
poor people who barely scraped by during their lives. Under
no uncertain terms, these genre paintings revealed none
of their hardships and little insight into their daily
lives; but, rather, were intended to please a French public
who wanted to see only glamourous visions of poverty and
believe that the sordid side of the human condition was
130
not all that bad. An example of Renoir's genre painting,
submitted to the Salon of 1880, is Fisherwoman of Mussels
at Bernval (1879, Figure 53). Coming from a spartan
background himself, one could be led to believe that Renoir
would feel an empathy for the poor and wish to direct his
paintings to improve their condition. Renoir, however,
simply desired to paint an attractive work which would
appeal to buyers and sell, as did most genre art that was
typical of his time.
However, it was Renoir's contact with the Charpentiers,
Figure 53.
Fisherwoman of Mussels
at Bernval, 1879.
not strictly the Salon, which led to his ultimate success.
The Charpentiers were Renoir's veritable opening to an
affluent lifestyle. Essentially, this contact dates back
to the Le Coeur family, through whom the Charpentiers would
have learned of Renoir, although at that time they had yet
to meet him. Marie, the sister of Georges Charpentier,
early on had married Charles Le Coeur, the architect who
had arranged Renoir's commission to paint ceiling
decorations for the mansion of Prince Bibesco (pages
18-20). In 1869 Renoir had produced a portrait of the
Charpentier's mother, Mme. Théodore, née Marie-Pauline Le
Figure 54.
Mme. Théodore
W.
1869.
132
Figure 55.
Portrait of Charles Le Coeur,
1874.
Grand (Figure 54) and later painted a number of portraits
of Charles and Marie Le Coeur and their children (Figures
55-57; Appendices M, N). It seems little coincidence,
one year following the severance of Renoir's ties with the
Le Coeurs, that Georges Charpentier made a point of
attending the auction at the H8tel Drouot where, in 1875,
he purchased a painting by not just anyone, but Renoir.
It seems more striking that this same man, in 1877, chose
to seek Renoir out and commission him to paint portraits
of his family before inviting him to attend the stimulating
soirées in their salons. Had he been informed of the
incident which occurred between Renoir and the Le Coeur
family, perhaps Georges Charpentier, twelve years younger
than his sister, did not see things in exactly the same
manner and felt that she and her husband had been too hard
on Renoir, whom he obviously thought was a talented artist.
Having a grandfather, Augustin Le Grand, who was a prominent
engraver, a father who was an architect and a father—in-law
who was a Crown jeweler, Georges Charpentier felt great
sympathy toward the Fine Arts.
Figure 56.
Portrait of Mlle. Marie
Le Coeur,1869.
Figure 57.
Portrait of
W
(nee Marie Charpentier)
M21, 1870-
And assist the artist the Charpentiers did, far beyond
Renoir's wildest hopes, dreams and imaginations. Renoir
attained recognition through the efforts of Mme.
Charpentier, for whom he had painted one of his major
commissioned works, Mme. Charpentier and her Children (1878,
Figure 58). Not only was he well remunerated for this
painting, receiving 1,000 francs for it, but Mme.
Charpentier used her influence over the hanging committee
to ensure that it would be placed in the prime location
of the Salon, which, in turn, transformed it into the key
135
Figure 58. Mme. Charpentier and her Children, 1878.
painting of 1879. Renoir became a success overnight. The
painting was discussed by almost all critics, who furnished
nothing for it but praise.
Renoir's strength in Mme. Charpentier and her Children
lies in his ability to show warm human interaction. The
son of Mme. Charpentier, Paul, is seated on the sofa and
looks down with an angelic, engaging smile at his older
sister, Georgette, who takes advantage of their resigned
dog as a chair. One would believe that these were the
sweetest, most well-behaved children in the world, even
though they might under normal circumstances get into
typical childhood antics such as fights and other assorted
136
mischiefs.
The Charpentiers augmented the public exposure
of a number of artists whom they supported, including
Renoir. To publicize these artists, in 1879 both of the
Charpentiers were instrumental in producing a weekly
publication, La Vie Moderne, "devoted to artistic, literary,
and social life".(79) As part of the plan, the Charpentiers
donated a room on their editorial premises for use as a
gallery of art,(80) wherein artists would be given
alternating one-man shows. The reasoning was sound.
According to the Charpentiers, often the public was heard
propounding an interest in visiting the private studio of
their favorite artist to see his work as a whole, rather
than hunting for one or two glimpses of his work amid the
multitudes of canvases deployed throughout the walls of
an annual Salon. The Charpentiers intended to give the
public access to a broad range of paintings by one artist
without the interference of works by extraneous artists.(81)
In this exhibition chamber, Renoir was the second artist
to hold a one-man show, for which his brother, Edmond,
devoted an article in La Vie Moderne.
Through the evening soirees at the salon of the
Charpentiers, Renoir made a network of connections with
a number of wealthy, prominent citizens, for whom he carried
out portrait commissions. The range and breadth of these
contacts was profound, especially when compared with the
137
modicum of clients made by Renoir through other contacts.
From the soirées, the most important of Renoir's newly
acquired patrons were the Bérards, who commissioned a number
of portraits and remained his steadfast clients until the
death of M. Paul Bérard in 1904 (Figure 59). In July 1879,
at their invitation, Renoir enjoyed a two-month work—holiday
at the Bérard's country home in Wargemont, near Dieppe,
where he painted a number of portraits of this family and
decorated their home on rainy days (pages 67-68).
Figure 59.
Portrait of Marthe Bérard,
1879.
138
Throughout the 1880's, Renoir returned on subsequent
occasions to visit them and to fulfill new portrait
commissions .
During this period, Renoir became inundated with
requests to paint portraits. To Mme. Charpentier in the
autumn of 1880 he wrote: "'J'ai commence un portrait ce
matin.... J'en commence un autre ce soir et je vais aprEs
pour un troisiéme probablement.'"(82)
Over and above his newly gained wealth of clientele,
Renoir's relationship with his art dealer turned around
during this period. In 1880, the financial shape of
Durand-Ruel had benefited from rising returns in the stock
market which, at this time, flourished from active trading
by speculators who wished to "make a killing" during the
building of the railroad. Durand-Ruel acquired new
financial backing, which enabled him to resume his purchases
of paintings by Renoir and the impressionists.(83)
Certain of Renoir's commissions extended beyond
portraiture. For instance, in 1876, at the request of the
Charpentiers, he decorated the main stairway of their
mansion with matching paintings of a man and a woman,
respectively, leaning on a forged iron bannister (Figures
60, 61).(84) Three years later, in 1879, at the request
of Dr. Emile Blanche and his wife, Renoir was commissioned
to paint two panels based on the first and third acts of
the opera Tannhaï¬ser by Richard Wagner.(85) As directed,
139
Figures 60, 61. Stairwell decorations for the Charpentier
mansion, 1876.
Renoir designed these panels for the spaces above the doors
of the Blanche's living room at their chalet in
Bas-Fort-Blanc, near Dieppe. He created a total of four
panels, the first two of which were turned down (86) (Scenes
from Tannhaï¬ser, Acts One and Three, Figures 62-65
inclusive).
SCENES FROM TANNHAUSER
Figure 62. Act One (rejected), 1879.
Figure 63. Act One (accepted), 1879.
SCENES FROM TANNHAUSER
Figure 64. Act Three (rejected), 1879
Figure 65. Act Three (accepted), 1879
142
As is easily noticed from the foregoing picture of
Mme. Charpentier and her Children, Renoir had a gift for
depicting warm interactions among people and, during this
period, created one of his greatest masterpieces of
conviviality, Luncheon of the Boating Party (1881, Figure
66). People are smiling and enjoying themselves; the day
is sunny, pleasant, and warm; thoughts appear innocent; and
conversation, light-hearted. It is a world of health and
good cheer. Colours are attractive and bright, much light
infiltrates the work, the paint itself is handled for the
most part uniformly yet loosely, and complexities such as
light filtering through glasses or touching flowers adorning
Figure 66. Luncheon of the Boating Party, 1881.
143
the table are compelling. Women are charmingly pretty,
alluring and aware of it, whereas men are relaxed and seated
in informal poses as if such pleasurable company were their
custom. The colour, lightness and gaiety beguiles us to
like this work. How could anyone dare muster up the
gumption to find even a scant flaw in it? Most people,
including artists, undoubtedly would be of the view that,
had they been in Renoir's shoes and produced a similar work,
they would feel good about it.
A number of the people in the painting have been
identified. We do know a bit about who loved whom.
Although the central focus is somewhat diffused, our eye
is pulled toward Aline Charigot, the woman seated near
the end of the table on our left who is doting her fullest
attention on a dog. In 1880 Renoir became involved in
a relationship with Charigot (1860-1915), whom he had met
at the home of Camille, a dairywoman.(87) Renoir and
Charigot cohabited in 1882 (88) and, nine years later,
were married.(89) On the other hand, we are left
unawares of intrigues which might have occurred between
others. The painting is not a specific psychological
portrait of either the whole of the group or of any one
person in particular; rather, it is a general depiction
of life, vitality and gaiety. If we attempted to discover
anything in it which could be deemed spiritually or
intellectually profound, we would reach an impasse. The
144
painting itself, by virtue of its mere presence, inspires
feelings of empathy and lightheartedness, like a panacea
to the troubles of daily life and cares of the world.
Much emphasis has been placed on the so-called
"technical" breakthroughs of impressionist paintings, such
as the distinct comma-like brushstrokes, the lightened
canvas, the idea of painting light and atmosphere, and the
idea of capturing a quickly rendered impression of a scene
rather than working it with painstakingly meticulous care.
However, these do not formulate the major reasons behind
viewer enjoyment of Luncheon of the B22ting Pgrty; rather,
they are incidental details. Granted, technical approach
figures heavily in the success of Renoir's painting. Renoir
generalized form rather than making it specific. Renoir
counted heavily upon maximum reduction to achieve optimum
emotional impact. Had Renoir included every single hair,
fingernail and dimple, as was a valued mode of operation
during his day, the result would have pulled one's attention
away from the main point of the painting; namely, his
friends who were enjoying the afternoon on a sundeck by
the river. Indeed, one's eyes would be continually
distracted, even entranced, by prodigious detail. Instead,
faces are round and flat; eyes are large, wide set and
depicted with few strokes; noses are smooth and straight;
while lips are small and, in the case of women, encased
with spurious pouts amid their rouged cheeks. Light raking
145
'across faces, necks, arms and hands is minimal, and shadows
cast on garments are reflections of colours already present
in the background of the painting. Complexities of light
and shadow are reduced to flat surfaces with little tonal
variation. Atmospheric effects on the figures to indicate
depth of space are discarded. In certain instances, figures
in the background have a "painted-in" look, as though they
were afterthoughts which were entered later. The journalist
Maggiolo, appearing in the right foreground and wearing
a light, striped seersucker jacket, has a head growing out
of his right shoulder.
Focus on the general results in convincingly casual
poses. A man "caught" holding a cigarette, a woman "caught"
sipping some wine from a glass, and another woman "caught"
leaning on a balcony all have relaxed, natural demeanors.
Subject matter in art has been played down during the
twentieth century, particularly since the advent of the
impressionists; and yet, Renoir's best paintings would lose
the whole of their strength without it.
However, Luncheon of the Boating Party significantly
marks the point at which Renoir had parted company with
impressionism. No longer were his colours and light daring
or experimental, especially when compared with Au Moulin
de la Galette or Nu gu Soleil. Skin was strictly flesh
toned, with virtually no attempt to incorporate the concept
of refracted light. Light filtering through the red and
146
white overhanging canopy could have been used to create
dynamic lighting conditions by striking the diners below
in splashes of red and white. However, Renoir simply let
this one pass by. Renoir did riddle clothing that was light
in tone with pale blue, yellow and mauve tints to create
a feeling for light and shadow; however, on the whole, every
item in the painting rigidly adheres to its inherent
colour: blues were blue; browns, brown; reds were red; and
yellows, yellow. In contrast, during the same period, Monet
carried his experiments with impressionism to their
extreme. In Haystacks (1884, Figure 67), the innate colours
of the stacks of hay, rolling land and clear sky no longer
Figure 67. Monet, Ha stacks, 1884.
147
dictated the hue which Monet would apply to his canvas.
Monet attempted to capture light in fleeting moments during
odd hours of the day before it had a chance to shift.
Haystacks, often a dull, raw sienna in everyday life, were
transformed into a resplendent spectrum of hues, such as
a combination of reds and violets, which lost their
relationship with the original colour of the straw. On
the other hand, Renoir attempted to please. Renoir cared
not one iota about impressionism and, at this point, having
attained a comfortable level of success, no longer needed
to resort to its theory to try and sell his works. His
main concern was whether or not what he did would be liked
and would sell.
The years of 1877 to 1882 were among the most
significant of his life because it was then, for the first
time since his start in a career as a professional artist,
that he became considerably affluent. He could afford
servants such as a cook whose portrait he painted in 1878
(Portrait of an Old Woman, Figure 68). He became accustomed
to receiving payment in the four figure range for his
paintings and, in 1881, even felt chagrined when the amount
given to him for a portrait commission did not meet his
expectations. M. Louis Cahen d'Anvers, a Parisian banker,
had asked Renoir to paint a full-length portrait of his
two young daughters, Alice and Elisabeth, as they posed
in their prettiest dresses. Before beginning this painting,
Figure 68.
Portrait of an Old Woman,
1878.
now known as Pink and Blue (1881, Figure 69), Renoir had
not the prudence to discuss his rates with Cahen d'Anvers
and, upon its completion, was disturbed by the 1,500 franc
sum which he received for it. On February 19, 1881, he
registered a complaint in a letter to Charles Deudon:
"'Quant aux quinze cents francs des Cahen, je me permettrai
de vous dire que je la trouve raide. 0n n'est pas plus
pingre...'"(90) Obviously, Renoir was well aware that he
had created one of his better masterpieces in portraiture
and felt, quite rightly, proud of it. His complaint,
however, implies that he was now accustomed to receiving
149
a higher return on his commissions.
Thus, Renoir had come a long way during the twenty-nine
months which separated the commission of Mme. Charpentier
and her Children from that of Pink and Blue. When Renoir
was remunerated for the former canvas, he had been grateful
to receive the token sum of 1,000 francs, but now he changed
his tune. 1,500 francs no longer represented a good income,
even though the latter painting was considerably more modest
Figure 69.
Pink and Blue, 1881.
150
a work both in size (it was less than one third the surface
area of Mme. Charpentier and her Children) and artistic
conception.
The prices attained by Renoir are known for only a
few of his paintings during this period. However, the art
dealer Durand-Ruel purchased many canvases from Renoir and
the impressionists, particularly between 1880 and 1882 when
he was in good shape financially. Durand-Ruel, who wished
to hold a monopoly on their work when demand for it
escalated, which seemed imminent (pages 29-30), paid the
impressionists quite reasonable prices for their work.
For instance, he acquired The Fisherwoman of Mussels at
Bernval and Dans la Loge from Renoir for 3,400 francs.
This period was highlighted financially for Renoir
by the sale of Luncheon of the Boatinngarty, which now
dwarfed in comparison the 1,000 franc mark paid by the
Charpentiers for Mme. Charpentier and her Children.
Durand-Ruel sold this painting to M. Balnesi on December
10, 1881 for 15,000 francs but then, five months later,
bought it back and held on to it for forty-one years. In
December 1923 , four years after the death of Renoir and
one year after that of Durand-Ruel, it was then sold by
the dealer's sons to Duncan Phillips of Washington, D.C. for
200,000 dollars, then equivalent to approximately 2,500,000
francs. It was a common practice of Durand-Ruel to buy
back paintings and resell them at a later date for
151
additional profits. Thus, the years 1877 to 1882 were
significant to Renoir because they provided him with a more
than abundant source of income and prepared the ground for
the next step which he would take as an artist.
RENOIR'S "MACHIAVELLIAN PHASE"
The Preparation
The stage was now set for Renoir's entrance into a
new phase of his career: that of a painter of "high art".
Although portraiture had ensconced him into a position of
considerable affluence, to Renoir it was inconsequential
relative to what could be had in art. Granted, between
1877 and 1882, the sums of 1,000, 2,000 and, especially,
15,000 francs were quite high when compared with the
considerably depressed sales of 200 francs which he had
received for many of his works during the early 1870's,
not to mention the paltry 3 or 8 sous payment he accepted
for each depiction of Marie Antoinette's profile when he
was a porcelain painter.(91) As the artists were well
aware, the renowned painter Corot did not receive more than
1,000 francs for any of his works until he reached the age
of seventy-five.(92) Renoir was thirty-six when his
portrait commissions consistently commanded at least this
amount. However, these seemingly high figures were
automatically dwarfed when placed next to the market value
152
Figure 70. Jean-Louis-Ernest Meissonier, Friedland, 1807,
watercolour, 1888.
of "high art" by painters such as Meissonier, who was known
to receive 100,000 francs for some of his paintings,(93)
or Bouguereau, whose works also touched the 100,000 franc
range (Figures 70, 71).(94) Renoir, who knew full well
how much these paintings were worth, no longer wished to
dally in portraiture and now coveted the direction of
Academic artists.
Occasionally, the prices attained by Bouguereau for
his paintings are unfavourably compared by art historians
with those received by the impressionists. However, the
fairness of such a comparison can be questioned. The amount
of time which Bouguereau needed to create one of his
paintings far outstripped that which Renoir would have spent
on any of his works, with, perhaps, the exception of 122
Large Bathers (1884-87, Figure 77). By virtue of the nature
of the problem which he set for himself, Bouguereau's
"photographic" images of people, depicted as though they
were physically present in a life-entrenched natural world,
would have been exceedingly time-consuming. On the other
hand, Renoir was able to execute paintings with greater
speed, mainly because he used a sketchy technique and
Figure 71.
William Adolphe Bouguereau,
Alma Parens, last half of
nineteenth century.
154
omitted what was then considered to be the final step of
covering the work with a smooth, polished finish.
Appreciative of Bouguereau's efforts and technical
competence, the French public rewarded him accordingly.
0n the other hand, sketchy techniques were not highly valued
by most and, for this reason, commanded considerably less
return on the market.
Renoir had structured his life in a series of
methodical steps. First, he had endeavoured to establish
himself so that he could afford a studio, servants, models,
supplies, and a comfortable home. Essentially, he wanted
to cover his basic cost of living, including business
expenses, and have some cash left over. He now had achieved
this and, at this point, decided to revamp his bearings.
He could continue in the direction of this channel and rely
upon portrait commissions as an income for the remainder
of his life, or he could direct some of his profits toward
the attainment of higher goals. Renoir opted for the latter
route and chose to become a painter of "high art".
Degas was the first to observe a change come over
Renoir and, according to the artist Caillebotte in his
letter to Pissarro, tried to convince his colleagues that
Renoir had Machiavellian ideas.(95) Surprisingly, although
he chastised Degas for his trait of calling down almost
all artists with whom he came in contact, Caillebotte did
not disagree with him. "'As for me,’ he continued, "'I
155
have no right to condemn anyone for these motives.'"(96)
Renoir knew that artists took certain steps on the
road to becoming painters of good taste, some of which he
had missed during the course of his own career, but for
which he now chose to compensate. One of these was the
Prix de Rome, which enabled artists to travel to Italy on
a four year scholarship to experience and absorb 1e bon
g2ï¬t left in the masterpieces of ancient sculptors,
Pompeiian artists and Renaissance painters; in particular,
Raphael. Not everyone won this coveted award; only students
who came out on top during the competitions at the Ecole
des Beaux Arts. Renoir, who left the E2222 after two years
of study when the atelier of his instructor, Gleyre, shut
down, obviously was out of the running. However, had he
desired to be a winner, he need not tell his clients of
his failure to attain sufficient results on the 22222
examinations (Appendix D).
The two prominent and most controversial artists in
Paris had for a number of years been Ingres and Delacroix,
albeit now deceased. Ingres had patterned himself after
Raphael, the epitome of a civilized man and highly
cultivated artist, when he was a Prix de Rome student;
whereas Delacroix had travelled in the opposite direction
to the untamed, exotic African domain of harems, tigers,
lions, brilliant sunlight, and ruthless Bedouins in Algiers,
a stronghold of France. Renoir decided to sojourn,
156
significantly, in Algiers where Delacroix, who was much
admired by many art collectors in Paris, made some of his
most famous works. Next on Renoir's itinerary was Italy,
where he expressly intended to imbibe the art of
Raphael.(97) Renoir again might have had on his mind the
idea of somehow forming a combination or resolution of the
two incongruent styles of Ingres and Delacroix.
Had this trip been meaningless to Renoir, he would
not have gone, let alone put himself through the motions
of downplaying it as much as he did. Under no circumstance
did he wish to reveal exactly how much the journey really
meant to him. Not only was this his chance to emulate the
role of a Prix de Rome winner, but it was also like
investing in a life insurance policy. Inundated with art
which followed the precepts of the Academy, patrons, on
the whole, were conditioned to believe that paintings by
a Prix de Rome recipient were at the apogee of this
universe. As a result, work from the hands of such a
recipient was in high demand and readily commanded tOp
francs. Renoir hoped that his trip to Italy would enable
him to branch out and extend himself into this lucrative
channel. Advantage in doing so would be two-fold. First,
he could stave off the possibility of exhausting the supply
of patrons who requested his services for portrait
commissions. Second, having ingested the highly revered
examples of Raphael's work, Renoir could proceed to work
157
in this mode and create his own version of "high art".
Although this was less prestigious than being a full-fledged
Prix de Rome recipient, Renoir hoped that art in the style
of Raphael would be sought after by collectors who admired
this Renaissance artist. Should his calculation prove
correct, Renoir could extend the range of his clientele
beyond those who commissioned portraits to those who
supported art which reflected lofty values. Consequently,
Renoir would draw a higher return on each painting. As
Degas would have put it, Renoir was going for power.
Armed with letters of introduction, on January 15,
1882 Renoir made a side trip to Palermo, Sicily where he
made the acquaintance of the composer Richard Wagner who,
one day earlier, had added the finishing touches to his
opera, Parsifal.(98) Well aware that he avowedly was
antagonistic against having his portrait painted, Renoir
procured a sitting from the distinguished composer, although
he was granted only thirty-five minutes (Figure 72).(99)
Having in the back of his mind the success of his depictions
of famous Parisians, in particular, the actress Jeanne
Samary, coupled with his knowledge of the breadth of
Wagner's popularity in Paris, Renoir could speculate how
much he would receive for this portrait when he returned
to France. Thinking back to his earlier days during the
1860's, Renoir could reminisce the time when his close
friend Bazille, the artist Fantin-Latour and the amateur
158
Figure 72.
Portrait of Richard Wagner,
1882.
musician Edmond Maitre all raved about Wagner.(lOO) In
addition, Renoir could recall the success of his recent
commission for the Blanche's home of two scenes from
Tannhaï¬ser, essentially a tribute to Wagner. Amid all of
the Wagner aficionados, not only would Wagner's portrait
command a high price but, in addition, it could enhance
Renoir's own budding reputation as a painter of famous and
notable persons. Ironically, later in life, Renoir had
developed a distaste for Wagner's operas, considering them
boring.(101) Upon his return from Italy, Renoir sold the
portrait of Wagner to the Charpentiers and, eleven years
159
later, at the request of M. Chéramy of the Bibliothéque
de l'Opéra, made a duplicate of it (Figure 73).(102) Renoir
might have wanted to develop a reputation as a painter of
high art, but he was as of yet uncertain of where this
direction would take him. Consequently, he hesitated to
give up his reputation as a painter of famous and affluent
persons.
En route back to Paris, while staying in the southern
province of Aix, France to visit and work with Cézanne,
Renoir was notified by Durand-Ruel of the Seventh
Figure 73.
Portrait of Richard Wagner,
1893.
160
Impressionist Exhibition in which he was invited to
participate. In a sharply worded reply dated February 24,
1882, Renoir indicated that he would exhibit only with
Monet, Sisley, Morisot and Pissarro, then later eased up
a bit and included Degas; otherwise, he flatly refused to
participate.(103) Impressionism was now receiving a growing
acceptance by the public, although the independent shows
had become infiltrated by a wave of new artists, such as
Gauguin, whose unconventional works, paradoxically
influenced by the impressionists, would never win Salon
endorsement.
Two days later, on February 26, 1882, Renoir wrote
a second letter in which he revealed to a greater extent
his reasoning. He intended to exhibit at the Salon of 1882,
a move which would violate the pact agreed upon by the
original members, including himself; however, if, in the
artist's sentiment, one were forfeited, it would be the
impressionist show. In addition, Renoir vented his pent-up
feelings against "revolutionary" artists who included
Gauguin, Guillaumin and, this time, even Pissarro, a staunch
socialist, stating that if these men were included in the
show, he would not exhibit. "'Le public,'" he explained,
"'n'aime pas ce qui sent la politique et je ne veux pas,
moi, 5 mon age, Etre révolutionnaire. Rester avec
l'israélite Pissarro, c'est la revolution. De plus ces
messieurs savent que j'ai fait un grand pas 5 cause du
161
Salon. 11 s'agit de se dépécher 5 me faire perdre ce que
j'ai gagné. Ils ne negligeront rien pour ca, quitte 5 me
lï¬cher une fois tombé. Je ne veux pas, je ne veux pas.
Débarrassez-vous de ces gens-15 et presentez-moi des
artistes tels que Monet, Sisley, Morisot, etc. et je suis
5 vous, car ce n'est plus de la politique, c'est de l'art
pur.'"(104) Renoir feared that he would once again be
labelled a revolutionary by virtue of presence in the same
show, and that his reputation, which he took pains to build,
would suffer among la haute upon whom he depended for his
sales and high standard of living. Had Renoir wished at
one point in his career to emulate Delacroix, he took few
lessons in character. Whereas the latter artist did his
utmost to support artists who tried to swim upstream, Renoir
disparaged them.
Renoir regarded Gauguin, not Durand-Ruel, as the person
responsible for the instigation of this exhibition and,
moreover, stated he believed, by exhibiting in it, that
his own work would tumble in value by 50 per cent.(105)
As Renoir more than implied in his letter to Durand-Ruel,
money was their common interest.(106)
Although many of his sentiments against exhibiting
in the Seventh Impressionist Exhibition were tainted by
his dislike of Gauguin, Pissarro and Guillaumin, Renoir,
drawn to the lure, was fully aware of the positive benefits
of public exposure, be it in a private exhibition or
162
at the Salon. In the same letter, Renoir revised his
position. Paintings by him but in the possession of Durand-
Ruel were the dealer's personal property. Because he felt
he could not prevent the dealer from displaying these,
Renoir granted him permission to include them in the show,
albeit on one provision. Durand-Ruel had to make it clear,
in all captions, catalogues and printed literature, that
Renoir's works were "the property of...and exhibited by
M. Durand-Ruel."(107) Renoir chose to wash his hands of
any personal association with the show.
Frankly, this stipulation was a clever ruse on the
part of Renoir, for it enabled him to save face and feign
innocence amid his friends when he broke their agreement
and exhibited at both the Salon the independent show.
Moreover, he could now clear his name of any responsibility
for the labelling of his work as radical art should critics
choose to be unreasonably vicious, and he could pin the
blame on Durand-Ruel should his prices drop as a result
of his participation in the show. Of course, these
paintings were by Renoir and, as an artist who creates work
for a dealer to sell, he did have much say over them.
Moreover, in his letter, Renoir essentially granted
Durand-Ruel permission to include his works in this show,
which the dealer, quite rightly, took as such. In act
alone, but not intent, Renoir was a part of the Seventh
Impressionist Exhibition, and the show itself exemplifies
163
this. Of the 25 paintings exhibited, 17 were landscapes
selected by Durand-Ruel, in keeping with his staunch support
of this subject matter. Among these, such as View of Venice
(Grand Canal) (c. 1881, Figure 74) and View of Venice
(Doge's Palace) (1881, Figure 75),(108) Durand-Ruel included
as many paintings as he could which reflected the
inpressionists' interest in light and colour. It is
interesting to note, during this period, that Renoir knew
his audience. The dealer supported impressionism, and,
true to form, Renoir painted a number of landscapes in this
mode in order to sell his work through him. Not one of
the paintings which Durand-Ruel put in the show was a
Figure 74. View of Venice (Grand Canal), c. 1881.
164
Figure 75. View of Venice (Doge's Palace), 1881.
society commission, although he did include genre. Had
Renoir selected and organized his works himself, a
substantial proportion would have been of both la haute
and genre (Appendix K).
When Renoir returned from his journey, he stepped into
the next phase of his career: he became a painter of high
art. It had been said that, during this period, Renoir
was in dire straits because France entered a major
depression which began in 1882. According to the writer
B. E. White, "in the mid-1880's, Renoir's dealer, Paul
Durand-Ruel, could give the artist little financial help.
The years 1883-87 were desperate for Renoir; he sold few
165
works, and these went for low prices."(109) However, this
view can be challenged.
It would be wrong to blame Renoir's weakened financial
condition on the inconsistent backing of Durand-Ruel. It
must be remembered that the dealer had stopped purchasing
this artist's work from 1874 to 1880, forcing Renoir to
seek other outlets. Rather, Renoir had relied upon income
from a steadily increasing volume of clientele who commis-
sioned him to paint their portraits. He had met the major-
ity of his patrons at the salon of the Charpentiers between
1877 and 1882. Hence, Renoir experienced his greatest loss
when, in 1882 or 1883, the Charpentiers withdrew their
support.(110) Because with them went his ties with many
of the patrons and art collectors in the upper echelons
of society, this was particularly devastating to the artist.
However, these forces were counterbalanced by other
factors. In 1883 Durand-Ruel had held in his gallery a
one-man show which honoured Renoir. Apparently as a result
of its success, Renoir stOpped exhibiting in the Salon from
1884 to 1889 inclusive, a total of seven years. To the
Salon of 1890 he submitted his last formal entry, 222
Daughters of Catulle Mendés (1888, Figure 76).(111) Had
he been desperate for money, in the interim Renoir would
have sent works to the Salon on an annual basis for approval
by its jury. Renoir added new clients and retained former
ones, especially the Bérards, whom he visited to fulfill
166
Figure 76.
The Daughters of
Catulle Mendés, 1888.
commissions which rode him through difficult times, as in
the years 1884 and 1885. Renoir destroyed all of his works
generated during the summer of 1886 not long after he had
created them, an act which an artist who was hard up for
cash never would have done. Most telling, however, were
Renoir's living accommodations. In 1887 he was forced to
move from his 3,000 franc home to a more modest abode which
rented for only 1,200 francs.(112) The former figure
represented 10.8 and the latter figure 4.3 times the 277
franc per year rent paid by the average skilled worker with
a family of four for a moderate home in 1884.(113) Overall,
the money situation might have been tight and Renoir might
have had to reduce his standard of living from that of a
167
middle class bourgeois to one in the lower range, yet,
without question, he was still a bourgeois. Moreover, this
period was short-lived: through the efforts of Durand-Ruel,
all of the impressionists had swung clear of these
difficulties by 1888. The worst of his financial troubles
seems to have lasted for one year; thus, for the greatest
portion of the years between 1883 and 1888, Renoir possessed
both the time and the income to create "high art".
The Work
To originate his personal vision of "high art", a
period in his life which lasted approximately from 1883
to 1887, Renoir began what was intended to be his once-in-a-
lifetime definitive oeuvre, The Large Bathers (completed
in 1887, Figure 77), which he claims to have worked on for
three years. Because his approach was extrinsic to his
experience, the act of formulating this painting was
difficult for Renoir.
Renoir's work during this period, especially The Large
Bathers, can best be understood in relationship to the
principles of high art established by the Academy. The
most salient feature of this painting is its subject
matter; that is, the theme of women bathing in a wooded
landscape. The Academy propounded that "The human form
is the highest form and expresses perfect 'absolute'
168
Figure 77. The Large Bathers, c. 1884-1887.
beauty."(114) In keeping with Christian beliefs about man
being fashioned in the image of God, only the nude form
could express perfect or '
"absolute' beauty", further
legitimized by the revered models left by the ancient
Graeco-Romans. In-depth study of the human nude served
two-fold advantage, as pointed out by the author Boime.
"On a more practical level, the live model was ideal for
studying the practical functioning of muscle, bone and sinew
that otherwise could only be furnished by charts and
skeletons. Academicians further taught that the forms of
the body with their contracted and expanded volumes,
concavities and convexities, yielded the greatest variety
of examples for mastery of the material world."(115)
169
From especially the 1880's onward, the Salon saw a
proliferation of themes on the bather grace its exhibition
corridors. Depictions of the nude female form, coupled
with its associations with water, birth, life-giving forces,
and death, gave host to a wealth of poetic imagery, thoughts
of love, and sexual desire in a male dominated world of
art. Indeed, so popular became this mode that annually
books were bound in which individual Salon paintings of
female nudes were complemented with lofty poetry and prose
intended to uplift the mind and titillate the desires of
yearning male hearts who took a few moments out to read
them. To the average male Parisian art lover, this was
an example of high art, fully endorsed by and under the
aegis of the Academy.
Renoir might have been accused of wasting his talents
on repetitious portrayals of women as sexual objects and,
without question, he did succeed in capturing the sensual
side of a woman. To Vollard, Renoir made his artistic
objectives clear when he informed him of the criteria which
he used to determine when a painting was completed. In
the artist's words, in reference to a woman's behind, Renoir
stated that he considered a painting finished when he wanted
to reach out and touch it.(116) Somehow The Large Bathers
fails to measure up to the "sensual" woman rendered in other
of his works. This is significant because clearly it was
intended not as a "commercial" painting which would "sell",
170
but rather as "high art" in which he wanted to create beauty
and achieve lofty values. Nudes were a genre of painting
that was fully endorsed by the Academy and rewarded at the
Salons; thus, when creating these throughout his career,
Renoir simply was following the Academy's established
dictums which he himself firmly believed in. On January
4, 1886 Renoir stated to Morisot "that he thought nudes
were one of the essential subjects in art."(117) Definitely
this is an echo of Academic doctrine.
The next noticeable feature of The Large Bathers is
its strong linear quality. Rebounding upon Renoir was the
old adage of the Academy and, in particular, Ingres, who
decried: "Drawing is the probity of art."(118) Renoir
endeavoured to achieve proficiency in drawing during this
period, and the impetus behind this move was deep-rooted,
going beyond the sense of failure which he had experienced
as a student when his standing in the Figure Drawing
Competition were low (Appendix D). Parisian art collectors
and Academicians discerned the degree of control that an
artist had over his ability to draw, believing this to be
a direct reflection of his intellectual powers and
mentality. In the words of Boime, "The Academy insisted
on artistic integrity in the form of clarity and precision.
Slipshod workmanship was considered unethical, and therefore
looseness and sketchiness in definitive works were
condemned....Acceptable in preparatory sketches, spontaneity
171
was suspect in final compositions, where fuzzy execution
implied muddy thinking and poor moral standards."(119)
Having followed and built, in part, his reputation on his
own mode of impressionism over the past decade, when fuzzy
executions were his hallmark, Renoir might have felt he
had not just a high level of achievement in art to attain,
but, moreover, his whole moral character and intellectual
capabilities to defend. On one hand, he might have been
trying to "prove" himself, but on the other, this approach
corresponded with the concept of what le bon goat was in
France during the nineteenth century.
When viewed next to his earlier paintings such as
Mme. Charpentier and her Children, Pink and Blue or Luncheon
of the Boating Party, wherein he achieved natural looking,
relaxed poses, The Large Bathers appears contrived. The
third dictum of Academic ideals stressed that "only a
certain set of 'nobly' expressive positions and gestures
(again classical or high Renaissance in origin) are
appropriate in the representation of the human figure."(120)
Thus, for "nobly" expressive gestures and positions, Renoir
looked to a low relief cast in iron of BathinggNymphs
(1668-70, Figure 78) by Girardon, "situated in the Allée
des Marmousels at Versailles."(121) The bathers which
Girardon had placed on the right shore of his relief were
virtual prototypes of Renoir's bathers who, in a similar
manner, were shown seated by the water on the left shore
172
Aâ€
.' g, .4 : \
‘1
1‘
a
1
‘
d ~o/
Figure 78. Francois Girardon, Bathing Nymphs, iron
has-relief, 1668-70.
of his canvas. In the mode of Girardon, Renoir also
included background nudes, one of whom stands with arms
raised. Unlike Girardon, Renoir has shown this bather with
both arms raised, not one.
As pointed out by B. E. White, Diana at her Bath (1742,
Figure 79) by Boucher, an ever popular artist, was a second
source for gestures and positions. In both, the bathers
are framed by a shallow landscape. Following Boucher's
lead, Renoir used the pose of one bather to complement her
seated adjunct, and the resultant planned array of diagonals
and criss-crossed limbs, according to White, establishes
a pattern which simulates this painting.(122)
However, Renoir did not permit himself to get carried
away only with the concept of diagonals, but rather used
173
them to achieve superior goals. Arms were raised just high
enough and torsos were turned just slightly enough to reveal
sexual components of the female human body, of which,
indeed, Renoir had the perspicacity to include front, side
and back views. Often an artist would include multiple
views of the human figure in his work to display his
technical virtuosity.
Another characteristic of The Large Bathers was its
overall chalky appearance and light tonality. This effect
was influenced by the frescoes of Raphael, whom Renoir was
trying to emulate. Academic doctrine advocated that "only
the most 'perfect' forms (as those found in classical
,1“ 1,3 .,_
-
Figure 79. Francois Boucher, Diana at her Bath, 1742.
174
sculpture and the paintings of Raphael) should be selected
from nature to portray such subjects."(123) As he confessed
to Vollard later in his life, Renoir struggled to make his
paintings look like a fresco or, in other words, to have
the countenance of a work by Raphael: "I must admit that
some of my paintings of the period are not very soundly
painted, because after having studied fresco, I had fancied
I could eliminate the oil from the colour....At this time
I also did some paintings on cement, but I was never able
to learn from the ancients the secret of their inimitable
frescoes."(124)
In addition, Renoir used as a reference the former
painter's fresco of Galatea (1513, Figure 80), modelling
his far bather seated on the left shore of his canvas after
the central woman, Galatea, in Raphael's painting. With
the exception of the position of the right arm and leg,
Renoir's bather mimics almost exactly the pose of Galatea
in Raphael's fresco. It appears as though Renoir had worked
either from drawings that he had made or from a print of
Galatea. As a result, he ran into a snag which he would
not have encountered had he worked from a living model.
Unlike Raphael's model, Renoir's bather was seated, not
standing. When he depicted her right leg, Renior apparently
had experienced some difficulty with it, for her thigh
appears abnormally attenuated in proportion to the remainder
of her figure. Indeed, the treatment of this thigh,
175
unlike the sharply outlined treatment of the human figure
in other parts of this painting, was given a fuzzy edge,
enhancing the impression of elastic motion. The indistinct
edge makes the exaggerated length of the thigh appear less
obvious.
The Academy postulated that "Pictorial composition
should preserve classical balance, harmony and unity: there
should be no jarring elements either of form or
expression."(125) Renoir perhaps had a glimmering of
Raphael's mastery of geometric groupings for human figures,
Figure 80.
Raphael, Galatea,
fresco, 1513.
176
sometimes employing circles within circles, triangular
conformations and squares all within the same painting,
as in Galatea. To conform with the precept of classical
balance, harmony and unity, Renoir included a geometric
configuration in The Large Bathers, but simplified it to
the more modest use of one right triangle, seen in the
alignment of the three foreground figures who dominate the
composition.
Thus, when Renoir was financially equipped to generate
his version of high art, he followed Academic precepts and
looked to earlier examples laid out by the recognized
progenitors of le bon_goï¬t, a move which, he hoped, would
be noticed by and win accolades from staunch conservative
quarters. In addition, although atavistic traits of
impressionism reside in this work, as seen in the
luminescent shift of reds, blues and yellows within the
background foliage and the nacreous flesh, these are greatly
subdued. The natural colour of the object, be it blue
water, green foliage, or flesh-toned skin, governed the
hue which Renoir had utilized in this work. Moreover, Renoir
severely restricted the flow and interaction of each of
his forms with tight outlines. Renoir was searching for
an audience who believed in the Academic system, who was
wealthy, who had conservative tastes, and to whom the idea
of a toned down version of impressionism would have its
appeal. Poignantly, he first exhibited this work at
177
Le Petit's (the 'department store of painting' in the words
of Zola),(126) a gallery known to attract a high volume
of the upper class in Paris.(127) Significantly, when
Renoir did create his own version of "high art", this was
not impressionism. Nevertheless, Renoir did retain in this
work his own sense of youth and playfulness, which gives
it a delightful spirit and unique touch.
RENOIR'S FINAL YEARS
The Large Bathers marks a turning point in Renoir's
career, throughout which he was intermittently drawn to
the classical nude bather as a theme. Now, this seed
developed into a fully mature plant whose fibres gradually
permeated his thoughts and formed an inalienable component
of his art. From 1890 onward, rarely did Renoir divert
his theme away from that of the classical nude, whose
expression became a hallmark of his oeuvre.
The motif itself remained constant, especially with
the advent of The Large Bathers; however, its demeanor had
changed. During the 1890's, Renoir returned to a modified
version of impressionism, creating a rich body of work which
hinged on a loose handling of brush strokes and a palette
whereon warm colours, in particular, red, increasingly
reigned. The sharp outlines of Renoir's "harsh" period,
from which he had just walked away, began to thaw as his
Figure 81.
Self-Portrait, 1910.
Figure 82.
Photograph of Renoir,
1913.
179
brush strokes changed into the former, soft, ductile
strength of impressionism. On the surface, the "harsh"
or "sour" period seemed only a brief stint; a ceremony which
Renoir felt plagued to perform; and the finale, or perhaps
dead-end, of a long-term goal. However, emerging from this,
as though released from a chrysalis, came a new sense of
three-dimensional solidity which Renoir carried with him
throughout the remainder of his career.
Reasons for Renoir's return to the impressionist vogue
can be attributed to the frustration which he undoubtedly
had experienced when working within the tight strictures
of Academic guidelines. Or perhaps, as he himself had
claimed, his work was not well received; although this is
not entirely true. Granted, certain of Renoir's associates,
in particular, Durand-Ruel and Pissarro, did experience
disappointment when viewing work from this phase. However,
others, such as Morisot and Monet, apparently liked the
work and lent moral and critical support to the artist.
Moreover, although Pissarro might have felt opposed to
Renoir's The Large Bathers, he lent wholehearted
encouragement to this artist for his decision to pursue
his ideals and beliefs in art regardless of consequence.
Although the art market was in a slump during the mid-
1880's, these hard times might have worked, in the long
run, to the benefit of the artists. For a vaiety of
reasons, perhaps, in part, related to the slump, all had
180
turned to new expressions and, perhaps with the assistance
of Durand-Ruel who saw its foreshadowing, the word that
impressionism was dead slowly fingered its way through the
public at large. Paris became bombarded with new movements
such as pointillism by Seurat, Signac and Pissarro;
expressionism by Van Gogh; primitivism by Gauguin; symbolism
by Denis and architectonic landscapes by Cézanne.
Impressionism, no longer a contemporary idiom, now became
history. Moreover, the number of art lovers who competed
for examples of impressionist canvases skyrocketed when
the doors of the market were opened in the United States.
Speculators who anticipated a rise in value now eagerly
purchased examples of these works and, to serious
collectors, only the original impressionist paintings
created during the 1870's, the movement's developing years,
would suffice as a component worthy of being added to their
collection. Collectors with less critical discernment or
a smaller pocketbook, by virtue of necessity, would have
been content with more recent works.
With increasing demand for impressionist paintings,
the prices quickly stepped into pace, performing mere
warm-ups during the 1890's, then ascending in leaps and
bounds after 1900. Had the owner of Renoir's La Source
felt, to even the minutest degree, queasy about spending
110 francs for this painting during the March 24, 1875 sale
at the H8tel Drouot,(128) his hesitation would have been
181
appeased by his acquisition of 1,000 francs when he resold
it to Durand-Ruel in 1890 (129): he had succeeded in
increasing his profits by 900 per cent within a span of
merely fifteen years; or, in other words, his original
investment had appreciated in value at a rate of
approximately 17.2 per cent per annum with compound
interest. However, the same owner probably would have
choked had he learned that this exact painting was resold
sixteen years later by Durand-Ruel for 70,000 francs,(130)
representing a sheer profit of 69,000 francs, or, in other
words, an increase in the dealer's original investment at
a rate of approximately 30.4 per cent per annum with
compound interest. Obviously, by 1890 Durand-Ruel was fully
cognizant of the potential value of impressionist works,
particularly those done during the 1870's; otherwise, he
never would have taken the trouble to seek out the original
owners and offer them deals which they could not afford
to refuse. Lines of communication between Renoir and
Durand-Ruel were open and fluid; hence, Renoir could not
help but be aware that impressionist works by him were in
growing demand. Predictably, 1890 designated the year in
which Renoir returned full-fledged to the impressionist
mode.
Even today, arguments are volleyed as to whether or
not these last works by Renoir are, indeed, impressionism
and, ironically, the viewpoint of either proponent can be
182
vindicated. Arguments alone are not nearly as interesting
as the tactics which might have evolved to sell his works.
A means to generate sales of impressionist paintings by
Renoir would be to create a deficit of his work in the
market. Believing that his paintings were scarce, the
public could be more easily swayed into buying them.
However, one problem was extant; namely, Renoir was still
alive, in good health, and prolific in his production of
art. What better way could there be to create a demand
for his work but to advocate that this was no longer
impressionism and that the movement had reached its apogee
during the 1870's but was phased out during the 1880's?!
An art buyer with greater purchase power could easily be
beguiled into coveting only the "original" and "true"
impressionist works which would, of course, command a
greater asking price.
Enigmatically, impressionism could be deemed alive
but dead. A double entendre could be employed to sweep
a hesitant bourgeois with more tightly squeezed financial
resources into the steady flow of clients who would purchase
Renoir's recent work. Canvases might not have had an
experimental use of colour, as did those engendered during
the 1870's, but they did have a soft focus, a contention
which would have been capitalized upon. After all, was
not Renoir an impressionist and, by virtue of association,
were not all of his works representative of this mode
183
regardless of style? The average customer off the street
would be unable to distinguish an early impressionist
painting by Renoir from his later work and, moreover, few
paintings by this artist could be labelled true
impressionism, including those of the 1870's. Buyers would
know only that they were now the new, proud owners of a
"Renoir".
However, with the exception of the loose handling of
the brush, little remained of impressionism in Renoir's
work and, even in theory, evident as early as 1884, Renoir's
thoughts had changed. As indicated in his letter dated
May 1884, Renoir had desired to found a new movement, which
he called The Society of Irregularists, for which he wrote
a short document.(131) This he used to advocate the merits
of imperfect and asymmetrical art, claiming that such is
appropriate because in nature itself, nothing is identical.
Unfortunately, he was unable to draw many converts to this
idea. His doctrine, although true, appears to be less a
profound theory and moreso a vindication of his own work,
which had yet to reach the high level of competence achieved
by his contemporaries who could produce almost
"photographic" appearances in their art. Had Renoir not
attempted to emulate these artists, the irregularities in
his own work would have meant nothing to him.
Despite his manifesto, ideas to Renoir mattered less
than product. Mary Cassatt once commented to him: "'There
184
is one thing against your success: your technique is too
simple. The public doesn't like that.'" Renoir retorted:
"'Don't worry...Complicated theories can always be thought
up afterwards.'"(132)
Early on in his career, Renoir had been influenced
by Monet's practice of eliminating black and earth tones
from his repertoire of colours. However, later in his
career, Renoir had conflicting reactions to this approach.
Originally, thoroughly indoctrinated by his contemporaries'
theories on light, Renoir was known for advising a young
artist that black and white are not colours and do not exist
in nature.(133) Yet, within the same time frame, Renoir
blatantly contradicted himself. Without a doubt, Renoir's
son Jean knew what he was talking about when he reminisced
that Renoir loved nothing more than to pull the leg of the
art dealer Vollard.(134) There is a distinct possibility
that Renoir was playing the devil's advocate when, upon
Vollard's insistent prodding, he contradicted everything
which the impressionists stood for and declared: "black
is the queen of colours".(135) Nevertheless, a certain
degree of seriousness stands behind this remark. This
statement mimics Academic doctrine and, specifically, the
tenets espoused by his instructor, Gleyre, who pronounced
that "'ivory black is the base of all tones'."(136) Not
surprisingly, Renoir's statement to Vollard was made during
a period when he had returned full force under the umbrella
185
of Academic covenants. Moreover, Renoir made an additional
comment which belittled artists who thought they could
change the world by eliminating the colour black from their
palettes.(137) The sting of this barb was aimed directly
at Monet and, poignantly, reflected distinct anti-
impressionist sentiments.
Audience might have influenced the disparity between
Renoir's former pro-impressionist comment to the young
artist and his latter two anti-impressionist remarks.
Renoir had made his mark and fortune by 1910 specifically
because of his involvement in impressionism. In a formal
interview, it was in his best interest to uphold this
movement. However, to a close associate such as Vollard,
Renoir could share his private thoughts and admit that he,
personally, did not place great credence in the concept
upon which the whole of the impressionist movement was
founded. Indeed, the seriousness of his deep-rooted
antagonism against impressionism was summed up in his own
statement when he said that paintings of this style were
of no worth other than being a surface upon which one could
strike a match.(138)
CONCLUSION
Art was Renoir's means to earn a living and, early
on in his career, he had begun to equate work with money.
He had learned, when he was paid by the piece, that the
more flowers or profiles he could paint in one day, the
greater his earnings would be. When he switched from the
modest profiles of Marie Antoinette to the more lucrative
occupation of painting blinds, it served a sound lesson
which demonstrated that the return from art was quantitative
as well as qualitative. Renoir was permitted to tackle
more challenging responsibilities when he had proven that
he could create a quality product. In addition, he
discovered that he could increase his daily income when
he was paid more highly for each individual unit of piece
work. His change from the occupation of porcelain painting
to that of blinds allowed him to build up his savings which
he used to finance his studies in art at the E2222. In
turn, art enabled him to earn 200, 500, or even 1,000 francs
per individual painting instead of a mere pittance.
Renoir did not know which direction would prove most
lucrative when he first stepped into professional art as
a career; hence, he created a variety of styles along a
number of channels, including landscapes, classical themes,
Delacroix's romanticism, portraits and nudes. In addition,
when Monet's work began to take on the shape of greatness,
Renoir made a point of painting with this artist and copying
186
187
his work, well aware that Monet's innovations could,
plausibly, carry him along to his personal goal of posterity
and wealth.
For a variety of reasons, when he first began to
exhibit with the impressionists, this move offered the best
channel available toward his objective of fame and fortune.
However, Renoir's contributions, on the whole, were modest
and very conservative; only a small handful of his work
reflected the ideals of impressionism established by Monet,
and, when these were criticized, Renoir took measures to
ensure that negative statements could never be said of his
art again. Indeed, Renoir started to use the impressionist
exhibitions to display his growing repertoire of portraits
of la haute bourgeois and the upper class, for which he
was well remunerated, haping that these would lead to more
commissions and, in turn, a greater income. Society
portraits were a far cry from the original artistic ideals
of impressionism.
Renoir missed only three Salons as a result of his
involvement in the independent shows, and was quick to get
out of the latter when exhibiting with this group appeared
to be an artistic liability. Although he did display his
works in four of the eight impressionist shows, his last
participation came about only because he had taken advantage
of one technicality. However, essentially his spirit was
wrapped up in Salon shows and making money, but not
188
impressionism. Poignantly, Renoir's commitment to theory
was best displayed in his attitude toward Pissarro, Gauguin
and Guillaumin during the Seventh Impressionist Exhibition.
Forgetting his own struggles to attain a footing in the
art world, and manifestly never having had a set of ideals
to be able to appreciate others who did, Renoir violently
reacted against the very idea of even showing with any
"radical" or "political" artists. Renoir, who was
circulating among the top echelons of society at this point,
feared that la haute would react negatively against him
if he were so much as remotely associated with his
colleagues by virtue of being in the same show. Having
reached a point where he was receiving upwards from 1,500
francs per portrait, he did not want to lose this. Money,
not ideals, seemed to matter most.
During the 1880's, when Renoir finally turned toward
his own version of high art, this was not impression.
Instead, perhaps with the works of Bouguereau and Meissonier
in mind, Renoir now wished to upgrade his art and produce
canvases which would command a greater return per piece.
Through the sale of Luncheon of the Boating Party for 15,000
francs, he had already proven to himself that he was ready
to handle this stage and could gamble in this league. In
addition, the upper class clientele who commissioned his
portraits, due to the strong influence of the 22222 and
Academy, were entrenched in the association of high art
189
with almost photographic" images of subject matter and
lofty, Academic ideals.
Shortly after this period, the demand for impressionism
took off when the doors of the market in the United States
were opened. This demand might also have been influenced
by the notion that impressionism was now dead, first
"noticed" by Durand-Ruel in 1886 when he viewed the works
of these artists at the gallery of Georges Petit.
Impressionism now became lucrative and Renoir, without
wasting any time, returned to it, albeit only in loose brush
strokes and dominant reds, but not the idea of depicting
light with colour. During this period Renoir did produce
his richest and, for the first time in his life, most
consistent body of work, although based to a large extent
on classical nudes and, occasionally, even classical themes.
Renoir must be regarded as an impressionist, if only
in the guise of an associate, not leader; and perhaps his
return to the Salon, where subsequently he became
successful, did contribute to the early growing acceptance
of the movement. In contrast, Pissarro and Morisot, who
held fast to their commitment to the independent shows and
never again submitted a work to the Salon, are nowhere near
as well known as Renoir, even today. However, to Renoir,
impressionism was a style which, he hoped, would lead to
his ultimate goal of fame and fortune, and he did follow
any channel which might end in this destination.
190
As evidenced in Au Moulin de la Galette, Renoir was
capable of producing masterpieces of great note under the
mode of impressionism; however, because his ideals in art
were subordinate to his quest for wealth and status, he
compromised his values throughout the majority of his
career; indeed, toward the end of his life when these did
begin to dominate, they were more strongly rooted in
Academic doctrine than impressionism.
Overall, one cannot help but admire the man for his
efforts and, in particular, success in skyrocketing from
a non-entity to the status of a famous, wealthy artist,
as one might admire any "poor man who made it big" story.
Nevertheless, unfortunately his work suffered as a direct
result of his ambition and, amid the massive legacy which
Renoir passed down, only a mere handful are masterpieces.
FOOTNOTES
FOOTNOTES
Early Goals and Hurdles
Francois Daulte, Auguste Renoir, Catalogue Raisonne,
1860-1890. Vol. I, p. 32. According to this author,
Renoir was paid 30 francs per blind and could paint
up to three blinds per day. For a number of reasons,
this figure is questionable. This was a period when
wages were low for artisans. According to White and
White, in 1857, skilled workers such as printers and
stonecutters earned 5 francs per day; roofers earned
6 francs; and metalcutters, 7. In 1878, skilled
workers such as carriage builders and wheelwrights
earned 5.50 francs per day, whereas industrial workers
earned 4.90 francs. Between 1878 and 1884, "shop
clerks averaged 100 francs per month." (White and
White, Canvases and Careers, Table 9, p. 130). Had
Renoir been paid 30 francs per blind and had he been
able to finish up to 3 in one day, then his earnings,
viz., 9O francs, would have exceeded by a wide margin
those of his occupational coequals. This would mean,
in one day, that he would have drawn between 12 to
19 times the wage of an equivalent skilled worker
of the same period, and 23 times that of an unskilled
worker. Renoir might have been able to work quickly,
but probably not that quickly. It seems doubtful
that his efforts could replace the manpower of 12
191
192
to 19 individuals. In addition, the profit of the
owner and distributor, in combination with the cost
of packaging and shipping, would have been tacked
on to the wholesale cost of the blinds, over and above
Renoir's basic wages. This would, at the very least,
double or, more accurately, triple the cost of the
blinds to the consumer. Moreover, the blinds were
made of inexpensive material, namely, translucent
paper, not silk. (Jean Renoir, Renoir, My Father,
p. 82). To missionaries, the notoriously poor
audience to whom these were directed, the cost pf
purchasing one blind alone would represent the wage
of approximately two weeks to one month. It is
questionable whether they would make a purchase at
so great a cost when the product was so fragile and
perishable.
Daulte, op. cit., p. 32
Ibid
Ibid
White and White, Canvases and Careers, p. 30; Rewald,
The History of Impressionism, p. 327
Rewald, ibid, p. 327
Manet stated that the "'Salon is the real field of
battle. It's there that one must take one's
measure." Renoir "regretted his occasional
rejections simply because to exhibit at the Salon
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
193
seemed the natural thing to do." (Rewald, ibid,
p. 214.
Renoir and his Friends
Daulte, op. cit., p. 36
Vollard, Renoir, an Intimate Record, p. 31
Germanicus Caesar, 15 B.C. to A.D. 19
Vollard, op. cit., p. 31
Theodore Zeldin, France 1848-1945: Ambition and Love,
see ch. on "The Pretensions of the Bourgeoisie", in
particular, p. 15
Daulte, op. cit., p. 414
Vollard, op. cit., p. 30
Ibid, p. 39
Philippe Grunchec, The Grand Prix de Rome: Painting§
from the Ecole des Beaux-Arts, 1797-1863, p. 20
Jean Renoir, op. cit., p. 111
Lawrence Hanson, Renoir: the Man, the Painter and
his World, p. 34
Vollard, op. cit., pp. 16-17
Rewald, op. cit., p. 72; White and White, op. cit.,
p. 112. Rewald claims that Sisley's family was
wealthy through the silk trade, whereas White and
White state that he belonged to the middle sector
of the middle class.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
194
Rewald, op. cit., pp. 289, 597
Daulte, op. cit., Catalogue Number 11
Ibid, pp. 36, 416
Rewald, op. cit., pp. 76, 116, 197
Daulte, op. cit., Catalogue Number 46; p. 416
Fosca, Renoir, p. 140
Rewald, op. cit., p. 350
John Canaday, Mainstreams of Modern Art, p. 164
Decisions and Indecisions: Renoir 1864 to 1874
Albert Boime, The Academy and French Painting in the
Nineteenth Century, p. 59
Albert Boime, "We Don't Want to Set the World on Fire,
We Just Want to Start a Flame in Your Heart", Art
Pompier: Anti-Impressionism. See section on 'Academic
Doctrine', (no page number)
Rewald, op. cit., p. 150. The origins of this idea
may date back to the instructor, Gleyre, who created
some "remarkable studies of light" which "should not
be overlooked because they were outdone by his pupils
Renoir, Monet and Whistler." (Theodore Zeldin, France
1848-1945: Taste and Corruption, p. 130)
Rewald, op. cit., p. 228
Ibid, p. 341-342
Fosca, op. cit., p. 197
35.
195
This date, cited in Cabanne et al., Renoir, pp.
154-155, and in Daulte, op. cit., p. 54, has behind
it an unusual history. Cézanne had severed all ties
with Renoir one year before the painting was created.
Accompanied by his wife, Renoir had visited Cézanne
in Aix-en-Provence in 1888 and, apparently, was warmly
received. However, within a few days, he was thrown
out, having to leave the home of his friend "in
haste", carrying with him "his roughly sketched out
works." (Daulte, ibid, pp. 52-53). Why a rift
occurred between the two artists, who had known each
other and associated within similar circles for the
past approximately twenty years, is unknown. One
year later, Renoir returned to southern France and
rented from Maxime Conil, the brother-in-law of
Cézanne, a property in the vicinity of Aix-en-
Provence, where he created a number of landscapes,
including Mount Sainte-Victoire (Daulte, ibid, p.
54). Perhaps Renoir had begun a sketched out version
of Mount Sainte-Victoire in 1888, then returned in
1889 to complete it. Or, perhaps remembering the
strength of Cezanne's versions of this mountain,
Renoir might have wished to see if he could do the
same 0
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
196
The other exhibitors during the first impressionist
exhibition include:
Zacharie Astruc Antoine Ferdinand Attendu
Edouard Béliard Eugéne Boudin
Félix Bracquemond Edouard Brandon
Pierre Bureau Félix Cals
Gustave Colin Louis Debras
Armand Guillaumin Louis Latouche
Viscount Ludovic Napoléon
Lepic Léopold Levert
Stanislas Lépine Alfred Meyer
Auguste de Molins Emilien Mulot-Durivage
J. de Nittis Auguste Ottin
Léon Ottin Léopold Robert
Henri Rouart
(See Lionello Venturi, Les Archives de
l'Impressionnisme, Vol. II, pp. 255+; Rewald, op.
cit., p. 591
According to Rewald, this stipulation was discussed
and approved in 1877 (Rewald, ibid, p. 390-391). That
the exhibition might be confused by the public with
a Salon des Refuses was, at the outset, a concern of
the group, especially Degas, and members were deter-
mined to refrain from sending any of their works to
the Salon (Rewald, ibid, p. 312).
Ibid, p. 76
White and White, op. cit., p. 112
The Shows
Rewald, op. cit., p. 313
Vollard, op. cit., p. 62
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
197
Venturi, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 255+
Daulte, op. cit., Catalogue Numbers 114, 115, 116.
According to Daulte, the model Nini was nicknamed
"Guele de raie" ("fish-face"). Yet Renoir, in
conversation with Vollard, referred to Nini as "...a
beautiful girl...and very charming". However,
Renoir stated that he preferred the model Marguerite.
In his words, "'Nini always seemed to me a sort of
Belgian counterfeit.'" (Vollard, op. cit., p. 74)
"Very strong reservations about the movement, but,
on the whole, sympathetic appreciation for these
painters, whom he finds less revolutionary than their
theories." (Jean Prouvaire, "L'Exposition du
Boulevard des Capucines", Le Rappel, 20 April 1874;
summarized by Venturi, op. cit., Vol II, p. 297
Louis Leroy, "L'Exposition des impressionnistes,"
Charivari, April 25, 1874. Reprinted in full in
English in Rewald, op. cit., pp. 318-324. This
particular quote is found on p. 318.
Ibid, p. 322-323
Ibid
Rewald, op. cit., pp. 369-370
Daulte, op. cit., p. 40
Ibid, p. 411
Georges Riviére, Renoir et ses amis, p. 167
Daulte, 0p. cit., p. 411
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
198
Ibid, p. 412
Ibid, p. 40
Vollard, op. cit., p 64
Rewald states: "However, Degas lost out when he
energetically opposed the plan of calling the event
Exposition des Impressionnistes." (Rewald, op. cit.,
p. 390). On the other hand, Venturi lists the title
on the catalogue for the third impressionist
exhibition as the Catalogue de la 3e Exposition de
Peinture (Venturi, op. cit., p. 259). It would appear
the latter title, placed in the exhibition catalogue,
was adopted as the official name. Curiously, later
in his life, Renoir confessed to his son Jean that
he disliked the name impressionism. Referring to
the first impressionist exhibition wherein the group
was given this vituperative tag, he commented: "'The
only thing we got out of it was the label
' (Jean Reanoir,
'Impressionism,' a name I loathe."
op. cit., p. 160)
The name impressionism, coined in derision by the
malevolent critic Louis Leroy, is a misnomer, although
it serves to explicate the impact of the new style
on the French public and their resultant
interpretation. Paintings by Monet, not Renoir,
inspired this opprobrious tag.
This remains unfinished because Mme. Récamier was
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
199
dissatisfied with her portrayal and refused to take
the work. In turn, David refused to finish it.
Vollard, op. cit., p. 66
Ibid, p. 20
William Gaunt, intro., Renoir, p. 8
Renoir's Rise to Wealth and Prominence: 1877 to 1882
Rewald, op. cit., p. 354
White and White, op. cit., p. 130
Rewald, 0p. cit., p. 351
G. Geffroy, Claude Monet, sa vie, son oeuvre, Paris,
1924, Vol. I, ch. XIX, quoted in Rewald, ibid, p.
397, n. 71
Daulte, op. cit., p. 41
Rewald, op. cit., p. 384
Ibid, p. 370
Ibid
Ibid, p. 397, n. 66
Fosca discusses this, quoting in full Renoir's letter
to M. Charpentier. Following is an excerpt:
"My dear friend,
"Spuller, a politician and a friend of
Gambetta's, has decided to try hard to get me
a State commission; only, as he knows nothing
about such things and doesn't want to make a
howler, he asked me to give him exact information
on what is possible: he wants me to say to him,
'I want to have such a ceiling and such a wall
or staircase in such-and-such a place.' By
racking my brains, I finally decided that the
only man who could give him this information was
the secretary of M. Bardoux, who is the employer
72.
73.
74.
75.
200
of your friend Lafenestre - through whom you
could perhaps help me. I want to hurry matters
along because of the budget, etc., etc. In other
words, could you write a line to Lafenestre on
my behalf or go and see him yourself?..."
(Fosca, op. cit., p. 118-120)
Perhaps by invitation through Charpentier, Renoir
apparently visited Lafenestre personally to discuss
the project, the results of which were mentioned in
Renoir's next letter to Charpentier, as follows:
"My dear friend,
"I have seen Lafenestre, who asked to be
remembered to you. He told me to apply to the
town council, but I don't think it will be any
use...." (Fosca, ibid, pp. 118-120)
Fosca interpreted this last letter as follows: "We
do not know whether Renoir's attempt to obtain a
commission for some decorative work from the city
failed, or whether he simply got discouraged."
(Fosca, ibid, p. 120)
Rewald, 0p. cit., p. 358
"There are in Paris fewer then fifteen art lovers
capable of liking a painter without the Salon. There
80,000 of them who will not buy so much as a nose
if the painter isn't in the Salon." Letter of Renoir
to Durand-Ruel, Algiers, March 1881, reprinted in
Venturi, op. cit., Vol.1, p. 115
Rewald, op. cit., p. 327
Based on figures available in White and White, op.
cit., pp. 28-31; and Elizabeth Gilmore Holt, selector
and editor, The Art of All Nations, 1850-1873,
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
201
"My shipment to the Salon is strictly commercial.
In any event, it is comparable to certain medicines.
If it does no good, it does no harm." (Letter from
Renoir to Durand-Ruel, Algiers, March 1881, printed
in Venturi, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 115)
Daulte, op. cit., p. 414
Ibid, p. 411
Rewald, op. cit., p. 430
Ibid
Ibid
"'1 have begun a portrait this morning...I will begin
another one this evening and, later, I am probably
going to do a third.'" (Daulte, op. cit., p. 45)
Rewald, op. cit., pp. 452-453; see also Daulte, op.
cit., p. 45
Daulte, ibid, p. 40
Ibid, p. 43
Ibid, p. 43; Catalogue Numbers 315-318
Ibid, p. 44
Ibid, p. 47
Charigot bore Renoir's first son, Pierre, on March
21, 1885. Later, two additional sons were born:
Jean, in 1894 and Claude (nicknamed Coco) in 1901.
Renoir and Charigot were married on April 14, 1890
(B. E. White, "Renoir's Trip to Italy", The Art
Bulletin, Vol. 51, Dec. 1969, p. 333)
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
202
"'Regarding the fifteen hundred francs from Cahen,
I take the liberty to tell you that I find it hard
to take. No one could be more stingy.'" (Daulte,
op. cit., p. 45)
Renoir's "Machiavellian Phase"
The Preparation
Jean Renoir (who cited 3 sous), op. cit., p. 60;
Vollard (who cited 8 sous), op. cit., p. 23.
A sous is 1/20th of a franc; or, in other words,
the proportional equivalent of a nickel to one dollar.
Rewald, op. cit., p. 335
B. E. White, "Renoir's Trip to Italy", Art Bulletin,
December 1969, Vol. 51, p. 338
B. E. White, "The Bathers of 1887 and Renoir's Anti-
Impressionism", The Art Bulletin, March 1973, Vol. 55,
p. 122. (According to White, Bouguereau's Two
Bathers sold in 1886 for 100,450 francs.)
Caillebotte to Pissarro, January 24, 1881; published
for the first time in Rewald, ibid, p. 448
Ibid
Although, as he had intended, Renoir did view the
frescoes of Pompeii, these were incidental to his
concerns
Rewald, op. cit., pp. 460-461; see also Daulte,
Catalogue Number 394
Rewald, pp. 460-461. However, after twenty-five
100.
101.
102.
103.
104.
203
minutes had elapsed, Wagner, apparently tired, stood
up and abruptly terminated the sitting (Vollard,
op. cit., p. 105). He disliked the result because
he thought it made him look like a "protestant
pastor" (Fosca, op. cit., p. 167).
Rewald, op. cit., pp. 460-461
Jean Renoir, op. cit., pp. 188-189. To Vollard,
Renoir confessed:
"I used to like Wagner very much. I was quite
carried away by the kind of passionate fluidity
that there seemed to be in his music; but a friend
took me once to Beyreuth, and I hardly need tell
you that I was frightfully bored. The screams
of the Walkyries are all right for a short time,
but when they last six hours on end, you go mad.
I'll never forget the scandal that I created when,
in an excess of boredom, I lighted a match in
the theatre while the performance was still going
on." (Vollard, op. cit., pp. 106-107)
Daulte, op. cit.,p. 420
Letter of Renoir to Durand-Ruel, February 24, 1882,
quoted in Venturi, op. cit.,Vol I, pp. 119-120
"'The public dislikes anything which smells of
politics and, I, at my age, do not wish to be a
revolutionary. To stay with the Israelite Pissarro,
this is revolution. On top of this, these gentlemen
know that I have taken a great step because of the
Salon. They cannot wait to make me lose what I have
earned. For that, they neglect nothing, even if it
means letting go of me once I have fallen. I don't
want to, I don't want to. Get rid of these folks
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
204
and introduce me to some artists such as Monet,
Sisley, Morisot, etc. and I am yours, because this
is no longer politcs, this is pure art.'" (Daulte,
op. cit., p. 47)
Renoir to Durand-Ruel, February 26, 1882, quoted in
Venturi, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 121
Ibid
Ibid
Venturi, ibid, Vol. II, p. 269, Numbers 146, 147;
B. E. White, "Renoir's Trip to Italy", The Art
Bulletin, Vol. 51, December 1969, pp. 337-338
B. E. White, "The Bathers of 1887 and Renoir's Anti-
Impressionism", The Art Bulletin, Vol. 55, March 1973,
p. 113
Hanson, op. cit., p. 216. Little is known about the
reasons behind the severance of these ties. According
to Hanson, Renoir, in the view of Mme. Charpentier,
"...had become vieux jeu and was subject to criticism
for failing to paint pictures pretty enough to get
into the Salon" (Hanson, ibid, p. 216). However,
this seems more on the level of scurrilous gossip
than sound reasoning from, in the words of the author
Georges Riviere, a "femme remarquablement
intelligente" (Riviére, op. cit., p. 167). More
accurately, Renoir was able to get into the Salon
without any difficulty since 1878, and stopped
205
exhibiting by choice after 1883, as mentioned in the
thesis, apparently due to his enormous success during
his one-man show held in 1883 at Durand-Ruel's art
gallery.
111. According to Francois Daulte, following this
exhibition, Renoir apparently refused to submit
another painting to the Salon because The Daughters
of Catulle Mendés, although accepted, was poorly lit,
being hung just below the canopy. In Daulte's words:
Mais, une fois de plus, les membres de la
commmission de placement n'accordent 5 la toile
de Renoir qu'une mauvaise lumiére, juste sous
le vélum. Dépité par cet accrochage injuste,
Renoir renoncera désormais 5 reparaitre au Salon."
(Daulte, op. cit., p. 55)
By this point in time, 1890, the unhappy
undercurrents, both within the Salon and without,
had led to number of changes. Boime describes this
development:
"In 1881 occurred the first Salon managed entirely
by artists, a policy placed on a permanent basis
two years later. While this liberalized the
representation (indeed, Manet received an award
in 1881), Academicians still received the lion's
share of the votes....In 1883 the Société des
Artistes Francais was founded: embracing some
3,000 artists who had been admitted at least
once to the Salon, it organized the Salons and
elected the juries. Until 1889 it functioned
smoothly, but in that year a schism within the
organization occurred over awarding the hors
concours category to foreign artists entering
the World's Fair....As a result, Meissonnier and
his followers...defected to form an entirely new
Salon organization under the auspices of the
Société Nationale des Beaux-Arts." (Boime, "We
Don't Want to Set the World on Fire, We Just Want
to Start a Flame in Your Heart", Art Pompier:
112.
113.
114.
115.
116.
117.
118.
119.
206
Anti-Impressionism, see section on 'Salon Des
Refuses', no page number.
It would seem reasonable to believe that a modified
Salon, long overdue for a major structural overhaul,
would have been more sympathetic to artists such as
Renoir who had struggled with alternate ways to become
known. However, judging by the reception of his work
at the Salon of 1890, Renoir appears to have received
little sympathy from the new organization of artists
who took over.
B. E. White, "The Bathers of 1887 and Renoir's
Anti-Impressionism", op. cit., p. 122
White and White, op. cit., p. 131
The Work
Ibid, p. 6
Boime, "We Don't Want to Set the World on Fire...",
op. cit., see section on 'Idealization and the Nude'
(no page).
Vollard, op. cit., p. 57
Denis Rouart, compiler and editor, The Correspondence
of Berthe Morisot, p. 160
Gardner's Art Through the Ages, seventh edition,
p. 742
Boime, "We Don't Want to Set the World on Fire...",
op. cit.
207
120. White and White, op. cit.
121. B. E. White, "The Bathers of 1887...", op. cit.,
p. 120
122. Ibid
123. White and White, op. cit.
124. Vollard, op. cit., pp. 122-123
125. White and White, op. cit., pp. 6-7
126. Camille Pissarro, Letters to his son Lucien,
p. 75, n. 1
127. Rewald, op. cit., p. 481
Renoir's Final Years: 1890 to 1919
128. Francois Duret-Robert, "Un milliard pour un Renoir?",
ch. in Cabanne et al., Renoir, p. 250
129. Ibid
130. Ibid
131. Venturi, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 127
132. Jean Renoir, op. cit., p. 254
133. Rewald, op. cit., p. 210
134. Jean Renoir, op. cit., p. 10
135. Vollard, op. cit., p. 112; see also Jean Renoir,
op. cit., pp. 176-177
136. Boime, The Academy and French Painting in the
Nineteenth Century, op. cit., p. 63
137. According to Rouart, Renoir stated:
208
"Painters fancy themselves extraordinary
creatures. If once they take it into their heads
to put on blue instead of black, they imagine
they are going to change the face of the world.
Personally I have always refused to set up as
a revolutionary. I have always felt, and still
feel, that I am simply carrying on what others
have done before me, and done much better than
I.'" (Denis Rouart, Renoir: A Biographical and
Critical Study, pp. 104-106)
138. Rosamund Frost, Renoir, p. 10; Rouart, op. cit., p. 64.
Rouart quotes Renoir as follows:
"'I tried painting in tiny dabs, which made it
easier to run tones into one another, but then
the surface is always so rough - that rather puts
me off....l like to fondle a picture, run my hand
across it. But damn it all, when they're painted
like that, I feel more inclined to strike a match
on them. Then there's the dust that settles in
the crevices and mars the tones.'" (Rouart, ibid)
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
209
Adm .a .muomwmu was mome>amu .muï¬ns can ouanzv
museum ooo.¢ 1 usoao: no deco: museum con.
museum con 1 Have: mmeflouvaooom museum omN
«mnwa a“ newness who: waï¬zoaï¬om on» .wocdumaw wow «mï¬wcme
.mwoucï¬mm pom mapmago>a mums uasu macaw 3H
umï¬uue couowï¬om may maï¬a scans wound .aoï¬uooao up was
H 1 auto: mmoHUuumuam
1 Hana: mmeaouvuï¬ne
voacamsoooe mmwawm :mmu .m
on» no oco assume vaaos
hamemo< as» ou ounmuucm .N
.stï¬ modem may smacks» ow ou wcï¬>m£ uaoauaz mwaï¬sonm noï¬am
unsavomnsm ou wouuï¬Evm SHHeoaueEousw was Haves coï¬ew
Amy uaoao:
n11. mo Hues:
AmV Hana:
AHV muaoocou unmannumwï¬m
who: aoaaw
Amv deco:
mmdaUunaooom
Ame sees:
meeau-eea:e
nowuco:
mapcuaoao:
a vo>wooow on; comuom < .H
ANV xemveo<
promo:
no common
mmuqu>Hmm Dz< mmDozo: ho zmhwwm zoq<m
< xHszmm<
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX B
PAINTINGS ENTERED BY RENOIR IN THE SALONS: 1864 TO 1873 (1)
Jury* Year Title Subject**
A 1864 Esmeralda Dancing with her Goat C
A 1865 Summer Evening L
A Portrait of William Sisley P
R 1866 Young Man (Jules Le Coeur) Walking
his Dog in the Forest of
Fontainebleau L
R 1867 Diana C
A 1868 Lise with a Parasol P
A 1869 Summer P
A 1870 Bather with a Griffon C
A Woman of Algiers D
R 1872 Parisian Women Dressed in Algerian
Costumes D
R 1873 Morning Ride in the Bois de
Boulogne (2) P
* - refers to the jury ** C - Classical
decision: L - Landscape
A - Accepted P - Portrait
R - Rejected D - Style and subject matter
of Delacroix
1. Compiled from a variety of sources.
2. Exhibited in the Exposition artistique des oeuvres
refusés, 1873 (essentially a Salon des refusés).
210
APPENDIX C
NUMB
APPENDIX C
ER OF WORKS SUBMITTED TO AND EXHIBITED IN THE SALONS (1)
Years Number of Number of Number of Of these, Number
Works Paintings Works Number of of
Submitted Submitted Exhibited Paintings Painters
1765-90 300-400
1791* 794 551 210
1806 704 573 293
1835 2,5361
1842 c.4,000
1843 5 1,59?
1848** 5,362 5,180 4,598 1,900“
1853 1,208 728
1863 5,000 3,000
1864 3,478
1865 3,559
1866 3,338 1,998
* - First Salon open to all
** - Second Salon open to all
1. This Appendix is based on figures available in White and
White, Canvases and Careers, pp. 28-31; and Elizabeth
Gilmore Holt, selector and editor, The Art of All
Nations, 1850-1873, pp. 455-456.
This marked the high point in numbers of works exhibited
between 1835 and 1847 inclusive, which averaged a little
over 2,000 (White and White, op. cit., p. 30).
This marked the low point in the numbers of works
exhibited between 1835 and 1847 inclusive (White and
White, p. 30).
According to White and White: "This is about one and a
half times the numbers of painters and paintings
ordinarily appearing in juried Salons during the 1840's".
Should this be true, the number of painters who appeared
in juried Salons would usually range from 1,250
to 1,275.
The revolutionary government of 1848 announced that
the Salon would be "free", namely, that all works
submitted would be hung. Thereupon, 182 works were
withdrawn, indicative of certain artists' respect for
juried exhibitions.
211
APPENDIX D
212
sea ca Assesses enemas saeaeeeav a some Haea< m
om mm :oï¬uauomeou waï¬smuo ounwï¬m mama nonouoo m
ow ON soasaesaeoo wsaasua enemas mama sees: an
s ca souoxw kucaam on» no coï¬uaaflamxm Nowa um=w=< we
a n seasassaeou s>aeosaeesm Nona saua< ma
om we co«umcï¬smxm mocmwuam Nowï¬ magnum
mmoaflsmxm no .02 wcaudmum aoï¬umaï¬smxm no make mama
w9m< xD<mm mun mgoom HIE OZHDZMHB< MAHIZ
mOzHDz<Hm mH= Qz< m90m3 mHozmm IUH=3 monH<sz<xm NIB
9 xHozmmm<
APPENDIX E
APPENDIX E
RENOIR'S INCREASING NUMBER OF PATRONS: 1864 TO 1875
1864
1865
1868
1870
1871
1872
1873
1874
1875
M. Lacaux
Dr. Leudet
Colonel Barton Howard Jenks
Mlle. Sicot
Jules Le Coeur and the Le Coeur Family
Prince Bibesco
Edmond Maitre
Comptesse Edmond de Pourtalés
Mme. Massonie
Captain Paul Darras
Paul Durand-Ruel (dealer)
Théodore Duret
Henri Rouart
Gustave Caillebotte
Mme. Georges Hartmann
Jean Dollfus
M. de la Pommeraye
Delphine Legrand
Auguste Moulins
Victor and Marie Chocquet
Georges Charpentier
Charles Ephrussi
Emmanuel Chabrier
213
APPENDIX F
1866
1868
1868
1869
1871
1872
1874
c.18
APPENDIX F
PAINTINGS OF THE LE COEURS BY RENOIR (1865 TO 1874)
Young Man (Jules Le Coeur) Walking his Dog in the
Forest of Fontainebleau
Cabaret of Mother Anthony *
Mme. Joseph Le Coeur
Jules Le Coeur and Clémence Tréhot (water colour)
Head of Joseph Le Coeur
Mme. Charles Le Coeur and her son Joseph in the
Garden (project)
-69 Le Garcon au Chat*
Mme. Théodore Charpentier
Monsieur and Madame Charles Le Coeur
Mademoiselle Marie Le Coeur
Joseph Le Coeur
Morning Ride in the Bois de Boulogne* (Joseph
posed for the boy)
Mademoiselle Marthe Le Coeur
Charles Le Coeur (Galant Jardinier)
74 Garden at Fontenay* (Madame Charles Le Coeur) (1)
not owned by the Le Coeurs
Believed to have been created at the time of the rift
between Renoir and the Le Coeurs, and, thus, was left
unfinished. (Douglas Cooper, Renoir, Lise and the
Le Coeur Family - II: The Le Coeurs, op. cit., p. 328)
214
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX G
MISCELLANEOUS PAINTINGS BY RENOIR
THAT WERE OWNED BY THE LE COEURS
1866 Two major still lifes with vases of flowers
One view in the Fontainebleau Forest
One still life (Bourriche et Perdrix)
1867 Lise holding a bunch of Wild Flowers
c.1873/4 Roses
1873 L'Amazone (head of Mme. Darras, a study for the
head of the woman in the equestrian portrait,
Morning Ride in the Bois de Boulogne, 1872)
215
APPENDIX H
216
can .czon @660» ohms
mï¬naumooomcs
vm>oumam
museumooom wcazouw
vo>ouamm
vo>oumqm
AHV vo>ouamm
no>owmme
vm>oummm
co>owmam
+¢nwï¬
.aoonm oï¬nmawmomancï¬ no ou voacpsm moxouum swans
.wow ma non» .munoHoo no on: as» wocw>oum .uo>oumma .H
unaumï¬xonaoc
wo>owaaw
oï¬nauaoooaca
vo>owmmm
no>owmao
Adv vo>owmmm
vw>owmam
co>ouqme
co>oumme
Qumï¬ ou coma
esesnaeua Heeasauo ens assess
Aodmum umï¬coï¬mmoumeï¬v mommomvaaa
Aaouocowv mwmuumvcoq
umaaoom
movnz
ounce
caucasom
amoï¬uouma:
Haoammsï¬o
wUMQHUHom
weapon no nouns: woonnsw
mUzHBzH<m mo mmmrh Qm<309 mmDDBHBH< A<UHBHMU Qz< UHAmbm
: xHszmm<
APPENDIX I
217
Au=o~oo sud: unwï¬ï¬ wcï¬wsuaao
on» ..o.av womnnam me knows»
huw>ï¬uaouo uo:
woman mouawum
.xuï¬amou no
«coï¬umcï¬wwEa mo xoau
mxoï¬uw .mowaomm
.mumwaww .mwwu .om~cx ouuoawm
unocaeoum axouum swamp some
mumauuaoo :ouassnxomï¬n: manna
Avon some oou ..o.wv mwaoaoo
wawumcï¬eon no manages mo uso
uoonnnw savage
mo maoaonoo 30H
yaw newsman
mxuoï¬oom
messaaesea>aesa
muoasoï¬uuma «haw:
:wcauMï¬ï¬aa haamuos:
mmoï¬cz .nuaw voHï¬Om .mwau
Amousuwumoua
mo maroon “cases mesa nu“:
awe conuoHov waï¬uuom :oavmï¬u:
ca muwwooumawo Ho maoowunon
awï¬maumm muauoaeouaou .u suds
mï¬nauaooomca
Amwauauouï¬ï¬ Heoï¬mmmgo ..m.wv
ousuowouaa Eoww wouuwe uoonnam
coHumcamew
xuï¬um ï¬nes “mozmswn mo humaua>
oï¬nuauwomwvaa .nuooEm oxouum :mzwn
muwï¬sm Haaou odpï¬awwomwcaa umosaa
venue: a“ amonu nouns mason vocou
o~no«Mï¬uconï¬:= muonumum
mwmoazmam manuauseon nausea
manawomoum monou Haoammdao
opnwï¬m Haouuoumï¬n amen oHnoa has
waï¬uuom Hmoauouman a“
mass: «A xuewomEmuaoo .0 :uoa
mmuswam muummmï¬maom
newsman venom ï¬aoamweï¬o
uo>owma<
ï¬msumoonou
Amoï¬uouoonh
wï¬ooh
osaï¬dnook
snob
uaoï¬oo
atom dean:
wsaeuoau
Beau
uï¬umawouomwano
NA>Hm D¢<3OF
mQDHHHB< A<UHBHMU Qz< UHAmDm
H xHazmmm<
APPENDIX J
APPENDIX J
RENOIR'S PARTICIPATION IN EXHIBITIONS: 1874-1890
Date Salons Impressionist Exhibitions
1874 - lst P
1875 R
1876 - 2nd P
1877 - 3rd P
1878 A
1879 A 4th -
1880 A 5th -
1881 A 6th -
1882 A 7th P
1883 -
1884 -
1885 -
1886 - 8th -
1887 -
1888 -
1889 -
1890 A
A - Accepted R - Rejected
P - Participant - - Abstained from showing
218
APPENDIX K
APPENDIX K
RENOIR'S CONTRIBUTIONS
First
TO THE IMPRESSIONIST SHOWS
Exhibition
Society Anonyme des Artistes
Graveurs, etc...
Peintres, Sculpteurs,
35, boulevard des Capucines, Paris
15 April to 15 May 1874
Hours: 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.; 8:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.
Admission: 1 franc
30 Exhibitors
Renoir
141. The Dancer (1874)
142. The Loge (1874)
143. La Parisienne (Woman in Blue, 1874)
144. The Harvesters (1873)
145. Flowers
146. Sketch (pastel)
147. Head of a Woman
Total: 7 works exhibited
Second Exhibition
11, rue Le Peletier, Paris
10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
20 Exhibitors
Renoir
209. Woman and Child (property or M. Poupin)
210. On the Terrace (property of M. Chocquet)
211. Portrait (property of M. Chocquet)
212. Etude (Nu au Soleil, 1876)
213. The Reader (Mme. Chocquet Reading, 1876; property of
M. Chocquet)
214. Head of a Man (Portrait of Monsieur Chocquet, 1876;
property of M. Chocquet)
215. Portrait of a Child (portrait of M. Chocquet)
219
216.
217.
218.
219.
220.
221.
222.
223.
Total:
220
Head of a Child (property of M. Chocquet)
Portrait of a Woman (Woman with a Rose, 1876; property
of M. Dollfus)
Portrait of Mlle. S.
Woman at the Piano (1876; property of M. Poupin)
Portrait of Claude Monet (property of M. Dollfus)
Luncheon at the Fournaise's
Portrait of Mme. D.
Portrait of a Young Girl (Portrait of Mlle. Legrand or
The Attentive Girl, 1875; property of M. Legrand)
15 works exhibited
Third Exhibition
6, rue Le Peletier, Paris
April
Hours:
1877
10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
18 Exhibitors
Renoir (studio: 35, rue Saint-Georges, Paris)
185.
186.
187.
188.
189.
190.
191.
192.
193.
194.
195.
196.
197.
198.
199.
200.
201.
202.
203.
204.
205.
Total:
The Swing (1876; prOperty of M. Caillebotte)
Bal du Moulin de la Galette (1876)
Portrait of Mme. Georges Charpentier (1877; property
of M. G. Charpentier)
Portrait of Mlle. Georgette Charpentier (1877; property
of M. G. Charpentier)
Portrait of Mme. Alphonse Daudet (1867; property of
M. Alphonse Daudet)
Portrait of Alfred Sisley (1874)
Portrait of Mlle. Jeanne Samary (The Dreamer, 1877)
Portrait of M. Jacques-Eugene Spuller (1871)
Young Girl
Seated Woman
The Seine at Champrosay
Saint-Georges Square
The Sunset
Garden
Garden
Head of a Young Girl
Bouquet of Wild Flowers
Two Heads
Two Heads
The Dahlias
Portrait of a Child
21 works exhibited
221
Seventh Exhibition
251, rue Saint-Honore (Salons du Panorama de Reichshoffen)
March 1882
9 Exhibitors
Renoir
137. Young Girl with a Cat (1880)*
138. The Two Sisters
139. A Loge at the Opera
140. A Luncheon at Bougival
141. Daydreaming
142. Woman Gathering some Flowers (The Inverted Parasol,
1872)
143. Banana Plantation near Algiers
144. Plate of Prunes
145. Lilacs
146. View of Venice (Grand Canal)
147. View of Venice (Doge's Palace)
148. Young Girl Sleeping
149. The Reading
150. At the Shore of the Seine
151. The Boaters.
152. The Shores of the Seine
153. Woman Seated on the Grass
154. The Seine at Chatou
155. Chestnut Trees in Blossom
156. Geraniums
157. Desaix Garden in Algeria
158. Peonies
159. The Peaches
160. Woman with a Fan
161. Near Bougival
Total: 25 works exhibited
* also exhibited in the Salon of 1880
Note: This appendix was derived from tables in Venturi,
op. cit., pp. 255+; and from catalogue entries in
Daulte, Auguste Renoir, Catalogue Raisonne, op. cit.
221
APPENDIX L
APPENDIX L
WORKS WHICH RENOIR SHOWED IN THE SALON: 1875 TO 1890*
1875 Rejected (it is not known which work Renoir had
submitted)
1878 The Cup of Chocolate (1878)
1879 Portrait of Mademoiselle Jeanne Samary (1878)
Mme. Charpentier and her Children (1878)
Two pastels of Hommes**
1880 Fisherwoman of Mussels at Bernval (1879)
Young Girl with a Cat (1880)***
1881 Portrait of Jeanne Samary (oil)
Portrait of Jeanne Samary (pastel)
1882 Mademoiselle Grimprel with a Blue Ribbon (1880)
1883 Portrait of Madame Léon Clapisson (1883)
1890 The Daughters of Catulle Mendés (1888)
* See also Appendices B and J
** According to Daulte, these pastels were shown in the
Salon of 1879 (Daulte, Auguste Renoir, Catalogue
Raisonne, op. cit., p. 42)
*** Also shown in the Seventh Impressionist Exhibition
(see Appendix K)
222
APPENDIX M
223
amass Asnoa Assad Aamea
-namAV Aaawa.av “mama.ev -Namav Anema.ev -oewav -mmmev
deem ouuowuoou onwaaovez maooaaum snaps: summon wane:
Amoea ANNeH Aeoea “Nana Aoaea amass
uoï¬caoeoa leewav usmmav nomwuv n~nwav 1Hnmav uammav
muaumswumz mowwomu mane: moï¬wenu awash mews: omï¬aoa
Anema-aoaav Amams-~owav Aanwa-nowas Aeawa-~owav
uoï¬uaomuwso ensue ma usoou ma aaaaaseh aflowawm
ouocowsa ocaaaemnoï¬uaz nammow meaddom< oawuonueo
enema 0A aaaflï¬aun
caum=w=< mvawao kwawm
muoï¬BCmawmno munooo mu
mmbmou ma mxB Qz< mmmHHzmmm<zu mzk â€monBUMZZOU >4Hz<h
z xHszmm<
APPENDIX N
224
mouwï¬ccom on phenom .oez
wmï¬ï¬‚z COHMH< oz
Houaeï¬uo mowuooo
seossam ssaem .sa
mamHHon snow
mcouumm amuse stoune
wouï¬aco< mucmï¬ï¬u zoz
mMH<Huomm< Qz<
va maowxz ouovowne
cumHHo> omwouas<
weumaawz madnqoum
huosoaa moa
uwswï¬wummq ouwowm oaowam
vwavou casdmamm
uoHuwm .mez
va mason Eï¬mnauom
xumamm madden
wommï¬mmau .oE:
nosuuse “was: vaosvm .mez
uovnmo onconaï¬< .oaz
muo>c<.v cacao masog
cwmwwm Assn
amuse muovowse
magma .052 a .z
uumsom “new:
waved: ucOEvm
va wmamuuom mmmuaaou
oummnwm museum
manure gram aaoumau
muowucou\mcawwum m.uaoaom
:waouae cmwwavo< maowuwm
mQZMHmm wH: :UDOKmH mHozmm >m
z xHszmm<
uomï¬wo: magnum
mumaaoï¬mmouasH
umwunmso Hosamsem
mwmï¬ucodumno
mmwmn umwum
mï¬awwmm oï¬uokum
munoou mg
wuomuaou\mvno«wm m.uoHcmm
ammHaou< mzome<m
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books on Renoir
Andre, Alexander, Renoir, Les Editions G. Crés & Cie (Paris)
1928
Cabanne, Pierre; Cogniat, Raymond; Daulte, Francois;
Duret-Robert, Francois; Renoir, Claude; Robida, Michel;
Roger-Marx, Claude; Rouart, Denis; Taillandier, Yvon;
Renoir, Editions de Realités (Paris) 1970
Coquiot, Gustave, Renoir, Albin Michel, Publisher (Paris)
1925
Duret, Theodore, Renoir, Madeleine Boyd, translator; Crown
Publishers (New York) 1937
Florisoone, Michel, Renoir, André Gloeckner, Editor; George
Frederic Lees, translator; The Hyperion Press (Paris)
French and European Publications Inc. (New York) 1938
Fosca, Francois, Renoir, Harry N. Abrams, Inc. (New York)
n.d.
Fouchet, Max-Pol, Les Nus de Renoir, Editions Clairefontaine/
Vilo (Paris) 1974
Frost, Rosamund, Renoir, Hyperion Press (New York) 1944
Gaunt, William, introduction, Renoir, Phaidon Publishers
Inc. (New York) 1952
Hanson, Lawrence, Renoir: the Man, the Painter and his World,
Dodd, Mead & Company (New York) 1968
Lhote, Andre, Peintures de Renoir, Les Editions du Chéne,
(France) 1947
Pach, Walter, introduction, Renoir, Harry N. Abrams Publisher
(New York) 1950
Renoir, Jean, Renoir, My Father, Randolph and Dorothy Weaver,
translators; Little, Brown and Company (Toronto) 1958,
1962
225
226
Riviére, Georges, Renoir et ses Amis, H. Floury, Publisher
(Paris) 1921
Roger-Marx, C2aude, Les Lithographies de Renoir, André
Sauret, Editions du Livre (Monte-Carlo) 1951
Roger-Marx, Claude, Anciens et Modernes Renoir, Librairie
Floury (Paris) 1933
Rouart, Denis, Renoir, Editions d'Art Albert Skire (Paris)
1954
Vollard, Ambroise, En ecoutant Cézanne, Dggas, Renoir,
Bernard Grasset Editeur (Paris) 1938
Vollard, Ambroise, Renoir, An Intimate Record, Harold L.
Van Doren and Randolph T. Weaver, translators; Alfred
A. Knopf (New York) 1925
Wheldon, Keith, Renoir and his Art, Hamlyn (London, New York
Sydney, Toronto) 1975
Books: General
Boime, Albert, The Academy and French Paintigg in the
Nineteenth Century, Phaidon Press (London) 1971
Canaday, John, Mainstreams of Modern Art, second edition,
Holt, Rinehart and Winston (New York, Chicago, San
Francisco, Philadelphia, Montreal, Toronto, London,
Sydney, Tokyo, Mexico City, Rio de Janeiro, Madrid)
1981
Clément, Charles, Gleyre, Didier et Cie, Libraires-Editeurs
(Paris) 1878
Gardner, Helen, Art Through the A es, seventh edition,
revised and edited by Croix, Horst de la, and Tansey,
Richard G.; by; Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc. (New
York, San Diego, Chicago, San Francisco, Atlanta,
London, Sydney, Toronto) 1980
Guerin, Marcel, editor, Edgar Germain Hildaire Degas Letters,
Bruno Cassirer (Oxford) n.d.
Haskell, Francis, Rediscoveries in Art: Some Aspects of
TasteJ Fashion and Collecting in England and France,
The Wrightsman Lectures, Phaidon Press Limited (Oxford,
England) 1976, 1980
227
Haskell, Francis, and Penny, Nicholas, Taste and the Antique,
Yale University Press (New Haven and London) 1981
Holt, Elizabeth Gilmore, The Art of All Nations 1850-73:
The Emerging Role of Exhibitions and Critics, Princeton
University Press (Princeton, New Jersey) 1981, 1982
Holt, Elizabeth Gilmore, The Triumph of Art for the Public:
The Emerging Role of Exhibitions and Critics, Anchor
Books, Anchor Press/Doubleday (Garden City, New York)
1979
Hollander, Anne, Seeing Through Clothes, The Viking Press
(New York) 1975, 1976, 1978
Pissarro, Camille, Letters to his son Lucien, Edited with
the assistance of Lucien by John Rewald; Pantheon Books
Inc. (New York) 1943
Pool, Phoebe, Impressionism, Thames and Hudson (London) 1967
Reff, Theodore, Degas, The Artist's Mind, The Metropolitan
Museum of Art; Harper & Row, Publishers (New York)
March 1976
Reitlinger, Gerald, The Economics of Taste: The Rise and
Fall of the Picture Market 1760-1960, Holt, Rinehart
and Winston (San Francisco) 1961
Rewald, John, The History of Impressionism, The Museum of
Modern Art (New York) 1961
Rouart, Denis, compiler and editor, The Correspondence of
Berthe Morisot, Betty W. Hubbard, translator; Lund,
Humphries and Company, Limited (London and Bradford)
second edition, 1959
Venturi, Lionello, Les Archivgs de l'Impressionnisme,
2 Volumes, Durand-Ruel, Editeurs (Paris, New York)
1939
Vollard, Ambroise, Degas, An Intimate Portrait, Randolph
T. Weaver, translator; Greenberg, Publisher Inc. (New
York) 1927
Weber, Eugene, Peasants into Frenchmen: the Modernization
of Rural France 1870-1914, Stanford University Press
(Stanford, California) 1976
White, Barbara Ehrlich, Impressionism in Perspective,
Prentice-Hall Inc. (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey) 1978
228
White, Harrison C. and White, Cynthia A., Canvases and
Careers: Institutional Change in the French Painting
World, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (New York, London,
Sydney) 1965
Zeldin, Theodore, France 1848-1945: Ambition and Love,
Oxford University Press (Oxford, New York, Toronto,
Melbourne) 1979
Zeldin, Theodore, France 1848-1945: Anxiety & Hypocrisy,
Oxford University Press (Oxford, New York, Toronto,
Melbourne) 1981
Zeldin, Theodore, France 1848-1945: Taste and Corruption,
Oxford University Press (Oxford, New York, Toronto,
Melbourne) 1980
Magazine Articles - Signed
Adhemar, Helene, "La danse a la ville de Renoir", Revue
du Louvre (France) Vol. 28, No. 3, 1978, pp. 201-04
Adhemar, Helene, "La donation Kahn-Sriber", Revue du
Louvre (France) Vol. 26, No. 2, 1976, pp. 102-03
Adhemar, Jean, "Schnerb, Cezanne, Renoir", Gazette des
Beaux-Arts (France, No. 1359, April 1982, pp. 147-52
Butler, Joseph T., "Review of Exhibition 22 May to
29 September 1974", Connoisseur, CLXXXVII/751, September
1974, pp. 54-55
Cooper, Douglas, "Renoir, Lise and the Le Coeur Family:
A Study of Renoir's Early Development - I: Lise"
The Burlington Mggazine, Vol. 101, May 1959, pp. 163-171
Cooper, Douglas, "Renoir, Lise and the Le Coeur Family:
A Study of Renoir's Early Development - II: The
Le Coeurs", The Burlington Magazine, Vol. 101,
September-October 1959, pp. 322-28
Daulte, Francois, "Renoir et la famille Berard" Oeil (France)
No. 263, February 1974, pp. 4-13
Daulte, Francois, "Vive Renoir", Artnews (USA) Vol. 68,
April 1969, pp. 30-33, 72B
Dunstan, Bernard, "Looking at Paintings" (re: Dejeuner des
Canotiers), American Artist, (USA) Vol. 41, No. 416,
March 1977, pp. 28-29
229
Dunstan, Bernard, "Looking at Paintings", American Artist,
(USA) Vol. 44, pp. 54-55, May 1980
Duthy, Robin, "The Investment File", The Connoisseur,
Vol. 208, No. 835, September 1981, pp. 49-51
Failing, Patricia, "The Objects of their Affection", Artnews,
Vol. 81, November 1982, pp. 122-131
Guillaumin, Jacqueline, "Renoir toujours aussi admire"
Connaissance des Arts (France) No. 301, March 1977,
p. 118
Gurley, Mme. Elizabeth Ryan, "Renoir a beaucoup puisé chez
Manet", Connaissance des Arts, No. 255, May 1973,
pp. 132-139
Hoffman, Edith, "Review", Burlington Magazine, CXVIII/874,
January 1976, pp. 54-57
Isaacson, Joel, "Impressionism and Journalistic
Illustration", Arts Magazine, June 1982, pp. 95-115
Kingsbury, Martha, "The Femme Fatale and Her Sisters",
Artnews Annual (New York) Vol. 38, 1972, pp. 182-205
Mastai, M.-L. d'Otrange, "The Connoisseur in America:
'Renoir: Painter of Childhood'", Connoisseur (Great
Britain) Vol. 157, November 1964, No. 204
Mellow, James R., "New York Letter", Art International,
Vol. 13, Summer 1969, p. 48
Mikotajuk, Andrea, "The insistent Impressionism of Renoir",
Arts Magazine, XLIX/3, November 1974, pp. 64-65
Oursel, Hervé, "La donation Masson 5 Lille", Revue du Louvre
(France) Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 32-33, 1977
Patterson, Jerry E., "The appreciation of Renoir", Artnews
(USA) Vol. 72, pt. 2, February 1973, pp. 43-45
Peppiatt, Michael, "Paris Letter", Art International,
Vol. 13, March 1969, pp. 54-55
Pickvance, Ronald, "Renoir's Venus Victorious in Bond
Street", Connaissance, Vol. 159, June 1965, p. 125
Potterton, Homan, "The sculpture collection" (of the Dublin
National Gallery of Ireland), Apollo, XCIX/144,
February 1974, pp. 142-145
Rewald, John, "Jours sombres de l'impressionnisme", Oeil
(France) No. 263, February 1974, pp. 14-17
230
Salinger, Margaretta M., "Windows Open to Nature", The
Metr0politan Museum of Art Bulletin, Vol. 27, No. 1,
Summer 1968, pp. 1-45; Renoir discussed pp. 18-26
Schlumberger, Eveline, "Les impressionnistes, peintres du
bonheur - Mais de quel bonheur?", Connaissance des Arts,
No. 263, January 1974, pp. 48-57
Schulze, Franz, "Some lesser known aspects of Renoir's art",
Artnews (USA) Vol. 72, pt. 2, February 1973, pp. 39-42
Shiff, Richard, "The End of Impressionism: A Study in
Theories of Artistic Expression", The Art Quarterly,
Vol. 1, n.s., pt. 4, Autumn 1978, pp. 338-374
Strachan, Walter, "The Contemporary Female Nude", Art and
Artists, (UK) Vol. 12, pt. 11, March 1978, pp. 32-35
Stuckey, Charles F., "What's Wrong with this Picture?"
Art in America (USA) Vol. 69, pt. 7, September 1981,
pp. 96-107
Van Liere, Eldon, "Solutions and dissolutions: The bather
in nineteenth-century French painting", Arts, Vol. 54,
May 1980, pp. 104-114
Walter, Rodolphe, "Critique d'art et verité: Emile Zola en
1868", Gazette des Beaux-Arts, (France) serial 6,
Vol. 63, April 1969, pp. 225-234
Werner, Alfred, "Renoir's Daimon" (commemorative show at
Wildenstein) Artnews (USA) Vol. 43, No. 6, April 1969,
pp. 36-41
White, Barbara Ehrlich, "Renoir's Sensuous Women",
Woman As Sex Object, Art News Annual (USA) Vol. 38,
1972, pp. 166-181
White, Barbara Ehrlich, "Renoir's Trip to Italy", Art
Bulletin, (USA) Vol. 51, December 1969, pp. 333-
351
White, Barbara Ehrlich, "The Bathers of 1887 and Renoir's
Anti-Impressionism", The Art Bulletin, (USA) Vol. 55,
March 1973, pp. 106-126
Young, Mahonri Sharp, "Letter from U.S.A.: Springtime in
Paris", Apollo, Vol. 93, February 1971, pp. 135-40
231
Magazine Articles - Unsigned
"Conseils aux acheteurs", Connaissance des arts (France)
No. 237, November 1971, p. 131
"Conseils aux acheteurs", Connaissance des arts (France)
No. 203, January 1969, p. 91
"La danse 5 la campagne par Auguste Renoir", Revue du Louvre
(France) Vol. 30, pt. 2, 1980, p. 123
"Renoir, Renoir, Renoir", Connaissance des arts, No. 203,
January 1969, pp. 13-15
"Visites é Renoir et 5 Rodin, extraits des carnets inédits
de Jacques-Félix Schnerb, 1907-1909", communiqués par
M. et Mme. Froté, Gazette des Beaux-Arts, Vol. CI,
pt. 6, April 1983, pp. 175-176
Exhibition Catalogues
Art Pompier: Anti-Impressionism: 19th Century French Salon
Painting, October 22 to December 15, 1974; articles
Stuart Pivar, 1951: "Art Pompier: Anti-Impressionism";
Albert Boime: "We Don't Want to Set the World on Fire,
We Just Want to Start a Flame in Your Heart"; The Emily
Lowe Gallery (New York) 1974
Frederic Bazille and Earlyilmpressionism (French and English)
Essay and catalogue entries by J. Patrice Marandel;
essay by Francois Daulte; translations by Paula
Prokopoff-Giannini; The Art Institute of Chicago
(Chicago) March 4 to April 30, 1978
Le Musée du Luxembourg en 1874, Catalogue directed by
Geneviéve Lacambre with the assistance of Jacqueline
de Rohan-Chabot, Reunion des Musées Nationaux (Paris)
1974
Pierre Auguste Renoir, 1841-1919: paintings, drawings, prints
and sculpture, July 14 to August 21, 1955; San Francisco
Museum of Art, September 1 to October 2, 1955; Los
Angeles County Museum (California) 1955
Pissarro, foreword by John Rewald; Hayward Gallery (London),
30 October 1980 to 11 January 1981; Grand Palais
(Paris), 30 January to 27 April 1981; Museum of Fine
Arts (Boston), 19 May to 9 August 1981; Arts Council
of Great Britain and the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston,
1980
232
Renoir, aquarelles et dessins, reproductions by Daniel
Jacomet; introduction by George Besson; Greenwich,
Connecticutt; New York Graphic Society (New York) 1956
Renoir; centennial loan exhibition 1841-1941 for the benefit
of the Free French Relief Committee, November 8 to
December 6, 1941; Duveen Galleries (New York) 1941
Renoir, in commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary of
Renoir's death, March 27 to May 3, 1969; text by
Francois Daulte; foreword by Charles Durand; chronology
by John Rewald; Wildenstein (New York) 1969
Renoir in time, exhibition from January 7 to February 8,
1969; preface by Francois Daulte; Durand-Ruel Galleries
(Paris) 1969
Pierre-Auguste Renoir: "The Gentle Rebel", a loan exhibition
for the benefit of the Association for Mentally
Retarded Children; October 24 to November 30, 1974 (?);
foreword by Dr. Francois Daulte; chronology by Dr. John
Rewald; Wildenstein (New York) 1974
The Grand Prix de Rome: Paintings from the Ecole des
Beaux-Arts, 1797-1863; by Philippe Grunchec; with
introduction by Jacques Thuillier (Washington, D.C.)
1984-85
The Neglected 19th Century: An Exhibition of French Paintings
Part II, H. Schickman Gallery (929 Park Avenue, New
York) October 1971
Catalogue Raisonne
Auguste Renoir, Catalogue Raisonne de l'oeuvre peint, Vol. I
Figures, 1860-1890; by Francois Daulte; Editions
Durand-Ruel (Lausanne) 1971
Microfilm
Exhibition Catalogues 1907-1966: Exhibition of Paintingg
by Renoir, February 19 to March 9, 1918; Durand-Ruel
Galleries,12 East 57th St. (New York); Archives of
American Art; Roll No. N-69-98; Frame No. 425+
Exhibition Catalogues: Le Bulletin de la Vie Artistique,
1 February 1921, "Au Salon des Independants", Roll
233
Exhibition Catalogues: "Monet et Renoir", May 18 to June
6, 1908; Durand-Ruel Galleries, 16 Rue Laffitte (?),
(Paris); Roll No. N/69-98, Ex. Cata. No. 320
Dorothy Varian Papers: Paris letter of Dorothy Varian to
her cousins Mr. and Mrs. Vanderbilt Barton of New York
City; November 20, 1920; Source: Archives of American
Art, Smithsonian Institution, Roll No. 797, Frame
No.'s 226-227 incl.
Rene Gimpel Papers: Letter from Renoir to M. Rene Gimpel;
Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution,
Roll No. 918, Frame No.'s 988-990 incl.
Royal Cortissoz, Seven Paintings by Renoir, Durand-Ruel
(Paris and New York) 193?, Detroit Institute of Arts,
New York Public Library, Reel No. N35, Frame No. 126-132