Notes: Impressionism

Notes for the Text

Société anonyme: Rewald, The History of Impressionism, p. 313: “It was finally agreed that the group be called simply Societe anonyme des artistes peintres, sculpteurs, graveurs, etc.” Among the group’s other early names was “The Intransigents” (Denvir, ed., pp. 99-100). “Impressionalists”: Rewald, The History of Impressionism, pp. 325-326. “Impressionists”: Rewald, The History of Impressionism, p. 323. “Lunatics”: Denvir, ed., pp. 99-100. “Even the most”: Denvir, ed., p. 102: The Impressionists’ early supporter quoted in the text was Louis-Émile-Edmond Duranty, a friend of the Goncourt brothers and Degas and “habitué of the Café Guerbois,” an early Impressionist gathering place. Rejected the use: Rewald, The History of Impressionism, p. 338.

“Little fragments”: Rewald, quoting Philippe Burty, The History of Impressionism, p. 351: “They are like little fragments of the mirror of universal life, and the swift and colorful, subtle and charming things reflected in them well deserve our attention and our admiration.” In a London newspaper review of the 1876 show, Stéphane Mallarmé waxed even more poetic: “As to the details of the picture, nothing should be absolutely fixed in order that we may feel that the bright gleam which lights the picture, or the diaphanous shadow which veils it, are only seen in passing, and just when the spectator beholds the represented subject, which being composed of a harmony of reflected and ever-changing lights, cannot be supposed always to look the same, but palpitates with movement, light, and life ... That which I preserve through the power of Impressionism is not the material portion which already exists, superior to any mere representation of it, but the delight of having recreated nature touch by touch. I leave the massive and tangible solidity to its fitter exponent, sculpture. I content myself with reflecting on the clear and durable mirror of painting, that which perpetually lives yet dies every moment, which only exists by the will of Idea, yet constitutes in my domain the only authentic and certain merit of nature—the Aspect.” (Rewald, quoting Stéphane Mallarmé, The History of Impressionism, pp. 372-373.)

An apartment: BVG 30, 7/6/1875: The exact address of the apartment is not known. In later years, Van Gogh would typically gravitate to the cheaper residential areas that inevitably grew up for transients around train stations, such as the Gard du Nord (North Station) on the eastern edge of Montmartre. The fact that Van Gogh shared the apartment house with Harry Gladwell, the son of a wealthy English bookseller, may suggest, however, that the apartment was not in one of the seedier areas of Paris or of Montmartre. Van Gogh’s brief description of it would support that inference. Context: JLB 37, 7/6/1875: “I’ve rented a small room in Montmartre which you’d like; it’s small, but overlooks a little garden full of ivy and Virginia creeper.” Only blocks: Rewald, The History of Impressionism, p. 197. The Guerbois was located at 11, grande rue des Batignolles (later avenue de Clichy); The Nouvelle-Athènes, on the place Pigalle, both within a roughly three-block radius of the rue Chaptal (the blocks are very irregular) (ibid., p. 399). The group’s transition from one café to the other was a gradual, as well as historic process, but seems to have been well underway by the time of Van Gogh’s stay in Paris in 1875–76. Van Gogh worked: Bailey, Van Gogh in England, pp. 33, 35: The argument in the text—that Van Gogh could not help but encounter the controversy surrounding the Impressionists—would apply regardless of the Goupil branch at which he worked. Also, his work would have required him to move with some frequency between the branches. Renoir set up: Rewald, The History of Impressionism, pp. 385-386. Young dancers: Wagner, n.p.: These young girls were nicknamed “rats.” The dancers were known as “les petits rats de l’opera” (or “petit rats” for short). They were often drawn from the poorest families in Paris and began training with the Parisian Ballet and Opera when they were as young as six. Degas could be seen: Rewald, The History of Impressionism, p. 380: “[Degas] began to frequent music halls, café concerts, and circuses, once more attracted by the attitudes of performers obeying a merciless routine.”

Studios: “At Renoir’s Home, rue St.-Georges (formerly The Artist’s Studio, rue St.-Georges)”: Renoir’s studio, before he moved to Montmartre, was located on the rue St. Georges, one of several alternative routes to the gallery district from the rue Chaptal. Beckoned the public: Rewald, citing Étienne Moreau-Nélaton, Antonin Proust, and Adolphe Tabarant, The History of Impressionism, pp. 366 and 396, n. 30. Banners: Rewald, The History of Impressionism, p. 370. Durand-Ruel gallery: Rewald, The History of Impressionism, pp. 366-367: The gallery of Paul Durand-Ruel was located at 11, rue le Peletier, a short street only a few blocks up the rue la Fayette up from the place de l’Opera, near the Hôtel Drouot, and roughly halfway between the Goupil stores on the avenue l’Opera and the boulevard Montmartre. Japanese kimono: Rewald, The History of Impressionism, pp. 366-367: To general astonishment, Monet’s Japonnerie actually sold for the respectable sum of two thousand francs.

“I have seen”: BVG 371, 6/1/1884-6/15/1884: Van Gogh mentions Impressionism once, in November 1882, although in a way that suggests his understanding of it is quite shaky and his attitude toward it dismissive. Referring to Claude Lantier, the fictional painter in Zola’s Le Ventre de Paris (Belly of Paris), Van Gogh complains: “one would like to see Zola doing a kind of painter different from Lantier for once, who it seems to me is drawn from life by Zola after someone or other, and certainly not the worst, from the movement that was known as Impressionists, I believe. And they aren’t the ones who make up the core of the body of artists.” (JLB 288, 11/26/1882-11/27/1882; emphasis in original.) Context: BVG 371, 6/1/1884-6/15/1884: “When I hear you mention so many new names, it is not always easy for me to understand because I have seen absolutely nothing of them.” JLB 450, June 1884: “When I hear you talk about a lot of new names, it’s not always possible for me to understand when I’ve seen absolutely nothing by them” (emphasis in original). “And from what you told me”: BVG 371, 6/1/1884-6/15/1884. Furthermore, Van Gogh wrote (even more astonishingly): “I’m not particularly curious about or eager for something different or newer” (JLB 450, June 1884). Context: BVG 371, 6/1/1884-6/15/1884: “And from what you told me about ‘impressionism,’ I have indeed concluded that it is different from what I thought, but it’s not quite clear to me what it really is.” JLB 450, June 1884: “And from what you said about ‘Impressionism,’ I’ve grasped that it’s something different from what I thought it was, but it’s still not entirely clear to me what one should understand by it.”

Masters of the new rules: One of Goupil’s principal competitors, Durand-Ruel, had announced plans for a series of one-man shows for the Impressionists in 1883—an unprecedented exposure for “unapproved” art—and exhibitions were scheduled throughout the year in England, Germany, the United States, and Holland. “To me it seems”: BVG 241, 11/2/1882-11/3/1882. Context: BVG 241, 11/2/1882-11/3/1882: “But I can hardly say that I share your thought which you express in the following words: ‘To me it seems quite natural that the desired change will occur.’” JLB 280, 11/5/1882: “But for my part I can hardly say that I share your idea that you express as follows: ‘in my view it’s in the nature of things that the desired change will come.’”

In his opinion: BVG 241, 11/2/1882-11/3/1882. Context: JLB 280, 11/5/1882: “People will be forced to recognize that much of what’s new, in which people at first thought they saw progress, is indeed less sound than the old, and consequently the need will become apparent for strong men to redress the balance. ... But for my part I can hardly say that I share your idea that you express as follows: ‘in my view it’s in the nature of things that the desired change will come.’” Millet and Breton: BVG 241, 11/2/1882-11/3/1882. It is not clear whether Theo has mentioned Jean-François Millet and Jules Breton, or Vincent has supplied them (see context). Vincent toys with adding one name to this pantheon: “Israels, for example, may equal Millet, but with genius there’s no question of surpassing or being inferior. Now, though, the top has been reached in art.” (JLB 280, 11/5/1882.) Context: JLB 280, 11/5/1882: “Nonetheless, there was still progress up to Millet and Jules Breton in my view, but as for surpassing these two men, don’t talk to me of that. Their genius may be equalled in past, present or later ages, but to surpass them isn’t possible. If one reaches that high zone, one is amid an equality of geniuses, but one can’t climb higher than the top of the mountain.” Forces of decadence: BVG 241, 11/2/1882-11/3/1882. Context: JLB 280, 11/5/1882: “In the years to come we’ll most certainly see splendid things; something more sublime than what we’ve already seen—no. And for my part I fear that in a few years there may be a kind of panic, in this form: since Millet we have sunk very low—the word decadence, now whispered or pronounced in veiled terms (see Herkomer), will then sound like an alarm bell.” (Emphasis in original.)

The changes: BVG 238, 10/10/1882. A month later, he repeats the same sentiment, still fighting the battle against “newness” that Theo has precipitated with his approval of “modern” artists like the Impressionists: “The phrase ‘not needed any more’—how eagerly people use it and what a stupid and ugly phrase it is. ... I fear, Theo, that it will come about that many who have sacrificed the old for the sake of the new will deeply regret it. Especially in the realm of art.” (JLB 286, 11/24/1882.) Context: BVG 238, 10/10/1882: “And the changes which the moderns have made in art are not always for the better; not everything means progress—neither in the works nor in the artists themselves—and often it seems to me that many lose sight of the origin and the goal, or in other words, they do not stick to the point.” JLB 272, 10/15/1882: “And the changes introduced in art by the new people aren’t improvements in every respect, it isn’t all progress, neither in the work nor in the persons of the artists, and it often seems to me that many lose sight of both their starting-point and their target, or in other words don’t stand firm.”

“Losing sight”: BVG 238, 10/10/1882. The translation has been slightly altered. Context: BVG 238, 10/10/1882: “And the changes which the moderns have made in art are not always for the better; not everything means progress—neither in the works nor in the artists themselves—and often it seems to me that many lose sight of the origin and the goal, or in other words, they do not stick to the point.” JLB 272, 10/15/1882: “And the changes introduced in art by the new people aren’t improvements in every respect, it isn’t all progress, neither in the work nor in the persons of the artists, and it often seems to me that many lose sight of both their starting-point and their target, or in other words don’t stand firm.” “Hurry and bustle”: BVG 241, 11/2/1882-11/3/1882. Context: BVG 241, 11/2/1882-11/3/1882: “There is nowadays a hurry and bustle in everything that doesn’t please me, and it seems as if the joy has gone out of most things. I wish your expectation would come true: ‘that the desired change will come,’ but to me it doesn’t seem ‘quite natural.’” JLB 280, 11/5/1882: “The present has something hectic and harried about it for which I do not care, and it’s just as if death has touched everything. I’d like your expectation ‘that the desired change will come’ to prove true, but in my view it isn’t ‘in the nature of things.’” “À peu près”: BVG 220, 7/26/1882. Context:
BVG 220, 7/26/1882: “It is not sufficient to give an à peu près [approximation]; it was and is my aim to intensify it.” JLB 251, 7/26/1882: “It isn’t enough to give an approximation, and my aim has been and still is to make it more intense.”

“Cleverness”: BVG 251, 12/3/1882-12/5/1882. The “interpreters” Van Gogh disparages here are likely the Impressionists and the “artistic combinations” are their stylized, “unrealistic” renderings of light and nature (JLB 291, 12/4/1882-12/9/1882). Context: BVG 251, 12/3/1882-12/5/1882: “Indeed, in the field of landscape painting enormous gaps are beginning to show themselves, and I should like to apply Herkomer’s words to it: the interpreters allow their cleverness to mar the dignity of their calling. And I believe the public will begin to say: deliver us from artistic compositions, give us back the simple field.” JLB 291, 12/4/1882-12/9/1882: “Truly, huge voids are also beginning to come in the sphere of landscape, and I’d like to apply a remark by Herkomer: the interpreters allow their cleverness to mar the dignity of their calling. And I believe that the public will begin to say, deliver us from artistic combinations, give us back the simple field.” Would never save art: BVG 251, 12/3/1882-12/5/1882: “STALWARTNESS, as people say here, they make great play of this word—for my part I don’t know the true meaning of it, and have heard it applied to very insignificant things—stalwartness, is that what must save art?” (JLB 291, 12/4/1882-12/9/1882; emphasis in original). This is, of course, a rhetorical question, as Van Gogh goes on to equate this so-called “stalwartness” with outright evil. “I would say, loving-kindness is better than mockery, that goes without saying, but many say, no, there’s good in that mocking. Well, they must reap as they sow.” (ibid.) Context: BVG 251, 12/3/1882-12/5/1882: “Smartness, as they call it here, the word is used so much—I myself do not know its real meaning, and have heard it applied to very insignificant things—is smartness what must save art?” JLB 291, 12/4/1882-12/9/1882: “STALWARTNESS, as people say here, they make great play of this word—for my part I don’t know the true meaning of it, and have heard it applied to very insignificant things—stalwartness, is that what must save art?” (Emphasis in original.)

Only earnestness could: BVG 251, 12/3/1882-12/5/1882: Van Gogh indicates that he is agreeing with Theo on this point, although whether Theo made the web of connections Van Gogh did (linking earnestness to the old art and evil to the new, “stalwart” art, is doubtful). Context: BVG 251, 12/3/1882-12/5/1882: “What you say is quite true, ‘Earnestness is better than irony, no matter how sharp and witty it is.’ In other words, I should say, ‘Bonté vaut mieux que malice’ [Goodness is worth more than malice], that is self-evident; but many people say, ‘No, malice, that is it.’ Well, they will have to reap what they sow.” JLB 291, 12/4/1882-12/9/1882: “What you say is absolutely true, ‘Seriousness is better than raillery, however sharp and witty it is.’ In other words, I would say, loving-kindness is better than mockery, that goes without saying, but many say, no, there’s good in that mocking. Well, they must reap as they sow.”

Broad boulevards: Boulevard de Clichy, F 292 JH 1219, February-March 1887, oil on canvas, 18.3 by 21.7 inches, 46.5 by 55 cm., Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum. Suburban highways: On the Outskirts of Paris (F 351 JH 1255), Outskirts of Paris: Road with Peasant Shoulder (F 361 JH 1260), The Rispal Restaurant at Asnières (F 355 JH 1266), Roadway with Underpass (The Viaduct) (F 239 JH 1267). Industrial monuments: The Seine Bridge at Asnières (F 240 JH 1268) (steel bridge at Asnières), Sailing Boat on the Seine at Asnières (F 1409 JH 1276) (gasworks at Clichy), The Factory at Asnières (F 318 JH 1288) (factory), Roadway with Underpass (The Viaduct) (F 239 JH 1267) (tunnel underpass). Banlieue vistas: Outskirts of Paris: Road with Peasant Shoulder (F 361 JH 1260), Roadway with Underpass (The Viaduct) (F 239 JH 1267), Outskirts of Paris near Montmartre (F 1410 JH 1286), Factories at Asnières Seen from the Quai de Clichy (F 317 JH 1287), The Factory at Asnières (F 318 JH 1288). A Sunday rower: The Seine with a Rowing Boat, F 298 JH 1257, Spring 1887, oil on canvas, 21.7 by 25.6 inches, 55 by 65 cm., Paris, private collection. Timid waders: The Banks of the Seine, F 293 JH 1269, May-June 1887, oil on canvas, 12.6 by 17.9 inches, 32 by 45.5 cm., Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum. A straw-hatted stroller: A Woman Walking in a Garden, F 368 JH 1262, June-July 1887, oil on canvas, 18.9 by 23.6 inches, 48 by 60 cm., Private collection. A boatman resting: Fishing in Spring, F 354 JH 1270, Spring 1887, oil on canvas, 19.3 by 22.8 inches, 49 by 58 cm, Chicago, The Art Institute of Chicago.

The Sirène: The functions of the Sirène’s various salons—”anc[ien]ne maison salon,” “grands salons,” “restaurateur salons”—were announced by signs on its facade, which, in typical fashion, Van Gogh transcribed with varying degrees of care on his paintings (Restaurant de la Sirène at Asnières [ F 313 JH 1251], Restaurant de la Sirène at Asnières [F 312 JH 1253]) and drawing (Restaurant de la Sirène at Asnières [F 1408 JH 1252]) of the building—suggesting that he may have hoped to sell the former to the establishment. According to Van Heugten, however, the only fully legible references on the signs are to weddings (“noces”): ”anc[ien]ne maison salon pour noces” and ”meublée pâté restaurateur salons pour noces” (Van Heugten, p. 283). Huge bathing barges: The Banks of the Seine with Boats, F 353 JH 1271, Spring 1887, oil on canvas, 18.9 by 21.7 inches, 48 by 55cm, Private collection.

Fashionable waterside restaurants: Interior of a Restaurant, F 342 JH 1256, June-July 1887, oil on canvas, 17.9 by 22.2 inches, 45.5 by 56.5 cm., Kröller-Müller Museum, Otterlo. Also see Exterior of a Restaurant at Asnières (F 321 JH 1311), an exterior view of a restaurant in Asnières. There are no distinguishing markings, but either or both of these views may be of the restaurant Van Gogh refers to (with seeming affection) as “Old Perruchot’s” in an 1888 letter from Arles in which he describes his relationship with the “Contesse de la Boissière” in Asnières: “She stays in boulevard Voltaire, on the first floor of the first house at the end of the Clichy bridge. Père Perruchot’s restaurant is on the ground floor.” (JLB 611, 5/20/1888.) However, Welsh-Ovcharov cites an unpublished note from Coquiot in the VGA, which identifies the interior depicted in Interior of a Restaurant (F 342 JH 1256) as “a restaurant on ‘avenue de Clichy’” and questions if it is, in fact, the interior of the Restaurant du Chalet where Van Gogh staged an exhibition in November 1887 (Welsh-Ovcharov, Vincent van Gogh, p. 234). Welsh-Ovcharov supports this suggestion by identifying the painting on the wall of the interior as a landscape that Van Gogh painted in the spring, Lane in Voyer d’Argenson Park at Asnières (F 276 JH 1259). While the tiny painting-within-a-painting in Interior of a Restaurant (F 342 JH 1256) is organized very much like Lane in Voyer d’Argenson Park at Asnières (F 276 JH 1259), the interior depicted bears no resemblance to contemporary descriptions of the Restaurant du Chalet (Georges Seurat called it “an immense skylighted hall” [Kerssemakers in Stein, ed., p. 54]; Antonio Cristobal called it “an immense place, ‘like a Methodist chapel’” [Cristobal, in Stein, ed., p. 281]). As a low-priced, working-class establishment, the du Chalet would not have had tablecloths, crystal, and big bouquets of flowers on its tables, as depicted in Interior of a Restaurant (F 342 JH 1256) (see Rewald, Post-Impressionism from Van Gogh to Gauguin, p. 62; and Bernard, “Les Hommes d’Aujourd’hui,” in Stein, ed., p. 284). Nor could the interior depicted in Interior of a Restaurant (F 342 JH 1256) have held the fifty to one-hundred paintings that were reportedly included in the November exhibition. (According to Bernard, the restaurant “provided an area in which over a thousand canvases could be displayed” [quoted in Rewald, Post-Impressionism from Van Gogh to Gauguin, p. 64].) An alternate possibility is that Van Gogh hung Lane in Voyer d’Argenson Park at Asnières (F 276 JH 1259) in the restaurant he refers to as “Old Perruchot’s” in Asnières, perhaps as part of his little-known courtship with the “Contesse de la Boissière” who lived in the same building. Interestingly, Van Gogh locates this restaurant on the boulevard Voltaire in Asnières “at the end of the Pont de Clichy”—not the “Avenue de Clichy” (JLB 815, 10/25/1889).

The added benefit: Rewald, Post-Impressionism from Van Gogh to Gauguin, p. 43: Rewald, too, sees this obvious, ancillary benefit of Van Gogh’s sudden enthusiasm for plein-air painting: “It may have been partly in order to ease this tension that the painter began to spend less time in their home, that he did fewer still lifes, and turned, especially in the spring of 1887, to landscapes instead.” “To the days when Van Gogh”: Wilkie, p. 30. Coquiot gives a similar account, based, ostensibly, on his interview with Guillaumin: “between the two brothers it was a never-ending battle, once they had started on that subject [Impressionism]; and Theo, who was so disheartened at having to sell bad pictures, got to the point where he would hurry to return to his gloomy gallery, in order to have a little peace at last” (Coquiot, pp. 136-138). Although Guillaumin did not become a part of the Van Gogh brothers’ “circle” until the fall of 1887, he may well have visited the apartment sometime that spring after Theo visited the Revue Indépendante show in February or March and expressed an interest in his work. Guillaumin and Theo exchanged friendly letters soon thereafter and there are hints of social interactions around that time.

A huge canvas: Vegetable Gardens in Montmartre: La Butte Montmartre, F 350 JH 1245, June-July 1887, oil on canvas, 37.8 by 47.2 inches, 96 by 120 cm., Amsterdam, Stedelijk Museum. The ultimate version of Potato Eaters (F 82 JH 764) is 32.3 x 45 in. (82 x 114 cm.). Showing the white undercoat: Van Tilborgh nicely describes this change in Van Gogh’s approach to image-making in reference to another painting from the spring, Lane in Voyer d’Argenson Park at Asnières (F 275 JH 1278): “Van Gogh completed his image in one quick session, putting the different colors directly on top of each other. The white underlayer is used completely: It is visible between the separate paint touches and lends luminosity to the thin paints.” (Van Tilborgh, p. 123.)

Notes for the Plates

At the moment: BVG B7, 6/18/1888 | JLB 628, 6/19/1888. I prefer to wait: BVG 525, 8/15/1888 | JLB 662, 8/15/1888. Sisley, the most tactful: BVG 534, 9/9/1888 | JLB 677, 9/9/1888. What Pissarro says: BVG 500, 6/5/1888 | JLB 620, 6/5/1888. At the exhibition there’s a superb painting: BVG W22, 6/5/1890 | JLB 879, 6/5/1890. When good old Corot said: BVG 489, 5/20/1888 | JLB 611, 5/20/1888. Portier used to say: BVG 497, 6/12/1888-6/13/1888 | JLB 624, 6/12/1888 or 6/13/1888.