France Divided - Neoclassicism and Impressionism in the Late 19th Century

    Neoclassical art is the 19th-Century offspring of the Age of Enlightenment (1685 - 1815). Still-life paintings, classical portraits, naturalistic scenes, and idealized bodies abounded as artists built upon the Enlightenment, gravitating towards the works, ideas, and subject matters of Ancient Greek and Roman culture. The movement was spearheaded by the likes of Jacques Louis David (1748 - 1825) and Alexandre Cabanel (1823 - 1889). During the late 19th-Century, in the midst of this neoclassical craze, the Académie des Beaux-Arts (Academy of Fine Arts) sat at the peak of its cultural influence. This French art institution was considered the chief governing body behind high art in Europe during this period, with their official annual exhibition, The Paris Salon, being one of the most prominent, influential art exhibitions in the Western world.

 

    Despite the immense cultural impact of French neoclassicism and its esteem by The Academy, as is the case with all cultural movements, there was also a counterculture - what we now commonly refer to as Impressionism. This art style, originating in the 1870s, was not received well by The Academy whatsoever - the title comes from a critic describing the work as an unfinished “impression” of a real painting. Certain impressionist artworks by figures like Claude Monet (1840 - 1926) were shown at the Salon des Refusés in 1863, an art show of paintings rejected for the official Salon, where they were ridiculed by critics and the public alike. This curatorial project was created to show how these two artistic movements, neoclassicism and impressionism, managed to coexist within the same country at the same time, a remarkable cultural phenomenon. This project will depict similar images from each art movement, providing a lens to compare and contrast these seemingly disparate French artists.

Alexandre Cabanel, The Birth of Venus, 1875

Oil on canvas, 41 3/4 x 71 7/8 in. (106 x 182.6 cm), The Met  94.24.1

    The Birth of Venus is one of the most recognizable neoclassical paintings in the world. Created by French artist Alexandre Cabanel in 1875, the artwork was a resounding success at the Salon, and has become the foundation for a significant portion of paintings depicting the reclining female nude. The depicted body is idealized, showcasing smooth, uniformly porcelain skin with creases made by shadow, and glossy hair that rests atop the waves. The painting is extremely detailed, as nearly every wave has a crest, and the wings of the putti floating above Venus have fine lines detailing their feather-like qualities.
 

Auguste Renoir, Reclining Nude, 1883
Oil on canvas, 41 3/4 x 71 7/8 in. (106 x 182.6 cm), The Met  94.24.1

 

    Auguste Renoir’s Reclining Nude is an impressionist representation of the female nude. While it does depict a nude female figure near the coast, the impressionist art style makes it drastically different from Cabanel’s Birth of Venus. The body is not idealized in neoclassical conventions, using shades of blue and purple to create creases in the body rather than maintaining porcelain white skin and the illusion of shadow. The background is more of a suggestion of nature than an actual recognizable depiction, only identifiable by the color palette - large use of greenery with splashes of orange, yellow, and red, with a blue sky and slightly lighter-blue sea.

Pierre-Auguste Cot, Springtime, 1873
Oil on canvas, 84 x 50 in. (213.4 x 127 cm), The Met 2012.575

 

    Auguste-Pierre Cot’s Springtime is my chosen artwork of study for this semester, and the inspiration behind this curation project. This is a neoclassical artwork depicting two lovers in idealized fashion, sitting on a swing in a whimsical forest.  Specific breeds of flowers, reeds, grass, trees, and even bugs are easily identifiable throughout the painting. Despite the swirling fabric and textures of tree bark, leaves, and a pond, we easily ascertain that the couple is sitting on a rope swing with a wooden plank on the bottom. This artwork showcases a neoclassist’s manner of depicting the outdoors - even a whimsical, fairytale-like area contains plants and structures which we can identify in our real world.
 

Auguste Renoir, Nini in the Garden (Nini Lopez), 1876
Oil on canvas, 24 3/8 x 20 in. (61.9 x 50.8 cm), The Met 2002.62.2

 

    Nini in the Garden is an example of an impressionist’s depiction of nature. Much like Cot’s Springtime, this artwork depicts a woman sitting in an area containing significant amounts of greenery. However, Renoir is unconcerned with providing us with naturalistic trees and plants. Rather, he simply gives a depiction of general greenery, hardly distinguishing between trees, flowers, and grass. You must look rather closely to ascertain that the woman is sitting in a chair rather than on the ground, unlike Cot’s rope swing in the aforementioned painting. The Impressionist is interested in depicting a representation of nature, not nature itself.
 

Pierre-Auguste Cot, The Storm, 1880
Oil on canvas, 92 1/4 x 61 3/4 in. (234.3 x 156.8 cm), The Met 87.15.134

 

    The Storm is a commission done by Cot, in which he was asked to depict the same couple from his previous masterpiece, Springtime. This artwork is perfect for showcasing how a French neoclassicist depicted clothing. The young man wears a colorful tunic of rough cloth, and the woman is dressed in a sheer, organza-like fabric. These are clearly not clothing articles typical of 19th-Century France - rather, they harken back to the neoclassical infatuation with ancient Greek and Roman society. Cot depicts the woman’s gown in the same manner as the classical artists before him - sheer, yet clinging to the body at certain points, folding and flowing in the breeze as she runs with her lover.

Berthe Morisot, Young Girl With Basket, 1892
Oil on canvas, 36 1/4 × 28 3/4 inches (92.1 × 73 cm), Philadelphia MoA 1991-180-1

    Finally, we see Berthe Morisot’s Young Girl With Basket, a wonderful example of an Impressionist’s depiction of a person in a gown. The girl in this painting is also wearing a long white gown, much like that of the woman in Cot’s sister paintings. However, the clothing style and bodily representation are completely different. In this painting, the gown is significantly more appropriate for a 19th-Century French context, and doesn’t attempt to draw upon ancient Greek and Roman styles for inspiration. It does not cling to the skin, and rather than opting for sheer or partially open fabric, Morisot uses a solid color and covers everything except the girl’s hands, neck, and face. While there is a slight difference in texture between the dress itself and the girl’s veil, the difference in texture is not nearly as stark as that of the couple’s clothing, or the woman’s skin and her dress in Cot’s paintings. The Impressionist is, once again, more concerned with a general depiction of reality rather than a naturalistic, classical representation.