PISSARRO!
Howdy, I jsut sent in my last final paper and am now officially finished the semester. Zoom. I did it on Pissarro and he was a pretty rad guy. I'd never heard of him before. I encourage everyone to check him out. Get a book to look through though, the pics o nthe interwub don't really do him justice.
here's my essay, edited by the one and only :
Etienne "CRUSHING EDITORIAL PROWESS "Domingue
Rock on and enjoy
Pissarro's Paris Series Paintings as Art, Not Commodities
The final decade of Camille Pissarro’s life was an eventful one. During this period he created more than three hundred different paintings of urban scenes in and around Paris. While in the city he experienced some great hardships including: the death of a friend (Caillebotte), the death of a son, the long illness of another son and anti-Semitic rallies in the streets. Nevertheless, Pissarro still shows in his letters to family and friends a great joy and appreciation for the beauty of his surroundings (Shike 295). Pissarro used his art to transcend the hatred and pain around him (House 142). Many speculate that Pissarro used his urban series as a commodity to make money, but one might also just as well propose that they were an expression of his ongoing search for unity in his work (House 81). There has been much conjecture surrounding Pissarro’s Parisian city series containing; The Gare Saint-Lazare, The Boulevard Montemartre, The Avenue de l’Opéra, The Tuileries Gardens, The Square du Vert-Galant, The Pont Neuf and Quai Voltaire. What was the significance of the series paintings? Did Pissarro make a commodity of his art?
Pissarro created his urban series for many reasons. The motivation most critics seem to think of is the intention of his art dealer; to make money. Pissarro’s paintings of the city sold quite quickly and made him more comfortable financially than he had ever been (House 142). Also before anyone can criticize Pissarro for painting canvases of commercial value they must also take into consideration the emergence of independence from salons and art dealers, both relatively new concepts that artists were forced to latch on to for survival. It also becomes clear after reading anything about Pissarro that his anarchism would have made it difficult for him to live with himself if he was only doing it for the money. He had a fervent dislike of capitalists, bankers especially (Shike 232). It’s also true that he had reached his sixties and had a large family to take care of; one can be certain this was something he thought of often due to an indisputable love of his family. Pissarro was very excited about his new venture into urban painting, not so much about the motif and subject of the paintings but the effect of the weather and light on the city. He was astonished by the beauty that sunlight or rain could bring out on old grey roofs and dirty smokestacks (House 88). The unity involved in painting one scene under the influence of different elements was just what Pissarro loved. That special atmosphere the city could harness and reflect was something he knew he could transfer onto the canvas.
When looking at all of the series paintings it is quite simple to tell that they are all part of the same series. All are very distinctly Pissarro. After very little study, his almost trademarked speckled crosshatch style becomes distinctly recognizable. Pissarro has very excellent command of perspective, depth, composition, light and dark, and most of all color. Even paintings of grey, fog-covered days feel vibrant and alive, something one might wish was true of real life. Pissarro used an even and consistent unified tone throughout his series. He played with changing light and weather conditions to make his scenes change greatly no matter how many times he would paint the same bridge or boulevard (House 142). To enhance the weather effects he thinned out his whites to make them more transparent, to give them purer hues It gave his new paintings a different look that critics noticed (Shike 294). Most of the paintings in the series were painted from indoors due to Pissarro’s increasing difficulties with his eyes and infections (Shike 293). An element in Pissarro’s cityscapes that differs from Monet’s or Caillebotte’s is that although he was painting from indoors, he would never show a window frame or curtain. There are no allusions to Pissarro himself, all attention is on the scene ahead. The viewer is not a participant in the painting, but an observer from afar (Pissarro xxv). However distant from the scene the viewer is, the space does not detract from the fact that no detail is overlooked in a Pissarro city scene. Where Monet would sometimes dissolve the figures in curving strokes, Pissarro makes every person painted a caricature with definitive shape and style (Pissarro xxii). Pissarro believed working from memory in the studio cleaned up the image and made it into something he felt rather than something he saw. He used himself as an artistic filter of reality (House 81). Pissarro’s skill as a painter is not the question here, however; the meaning and depth of these arguably commodified urban landscapes are.
In the urban series paintings it becomes simple to grasp what a city is all about. Despite it being over a hundred years since they were painted, the viewer is still very aware of the same feelings Pissarro sent to us through time via his work. His street scenes bustling with people really impress upon the viewer the movement that a busy city street can contain, especially in Boulevard Montmartre: Shrove Tuesday (O’Donovan 19). The street is filled to the brim with people. Pissarro wasn’t just concerned with content however; he would always seek a harmony between the sky, earth and water before starting any painting, taking the pieces and putting them together as a whole (Pissarro xlix). Pissarro saw the city as an example of injustice & the evils of the modern capitalist world. His series paintings had high vantage points, depersonalizing the city. Watching the city from on high is not a neutral view. It brings to mind topographical maps of the time that an invading army would put to use for their nefarious needs. The perspective also represents and opposing concept, postcards popular at the time were of a similar position. They were used to showboat the new city and its glamorous new boulevards. Pissarro's previous paintings of rural peasants were close-up and very personal, whereas his new paintings of the city were far away and impersonal. Distanced, not integrated as he was in the rural landscapes (House 82, 84) This perspective helps to illustrate Pissarro’s feelings about the city.
One might ask, “where are Pissarro’s politics?” as he assembles these pretty harmonious postcard-like images. Where is the Jewish Anarchist? The only hint at Pissarro’s politics in his foray into urban painting was his choice of locations. One must first note the recent Haussmannization of Paris and take that into consideration. The locales chosen by Pissarro all correspond to important parts of Old Paris. The Avenue de l’Opera is built over the remains of the Butte des Moulins, a tightly packed anarchistic community that was rolled over by the march of progress. His paintings of the view over the Tuileries Gardens show an area that was once the site of ruins which symbolized the government’s suppression over the commune (House 141). The figures in the Paris paintings are on their way somewhere else, none of them are caught in the moment. None are enjoying the beauty of the scene around them, they are in a capitalist system, off to spend or make money, like most modern cities (Pissarro xxix). Pissarro had also recently completed a series of drawings entitled Les Turpitudes sociales which were biting political commentary of the Anarchist sort, mostly pictures involving crowds of exploited people, or the exploiting people in cities, coincidentally (Shike 237). Another important point to draw attention to is the lack of representation of the Eiffel Tower and the Notre de Dame de Paris, important Paris landmarks that would have easily bolstered sales. Pissarro understood the Eiffel Tower as a capitalist symbol and the Notre Dame would be a symbol of Catholicism of which he was also no great supporter (Pissarro xxxv). His politics are very subtle in his paintings but present elsewhere and lurking just beneath the surface. With background information included it is difficult to think of the urban series as mere money makers.
Was Pissarro’s Paris series commodified? In a way, yes. In the same way that all art can become commercialized and for sale. Many artists and other creative people suffer the same problem today. Did Pissarro paint the urban series just for the money? It is unlikely that any amount of research could come up with evidence to support that statement. It is true that Pissarro was able to make enough money before he died to support his family and leave them with an inheritance, but one can easily see he painted the Paris city series for the love of his art. Pissarro was devoted to the sensations he could communicate with paint and had finally reached a point in his life where he thought unity would be possible to achieve. Adding around three hundred urban scenes to balance out a lifetime of rural scenes appears to be an attempt at that unity, if nothing else. In Pissarro’s own words about his career, “I began to understand my sensations, to know what I wanted, at around the age of forty - but only vaguely; at fifty, that is in 1880, I formulated the idea of unity, without being able to render it; at sixty, I am beginning to see the possibility of rendering it” (House 81).
Bibliography
1) Brettell, Richard R. & Pissarro, Joachim (1992) The Impressionist and the City : Pissarro’s Series Paintings, York University Press, New Haven and London.
4) House, John (1993). Anarchist or Esthete? Pissarro in the City, Art in America, 11/93, Vol. 81 Issue 11, p 80, 13p.
5) O’Donovan, Leo J. (1993). The City as a Stage for Time: Camille Pissarro’s Serial Cityscapes, America; 4/24/93, Vol. 168 Issue 14, p18, 5p.
6) Shikes, Ralph E. & Harper, Paula (1980). Pissarro: His Life and Work, Horizon Press – New York.
to look at paintings I recommend the first book on the list there in the Bishop's library, but here are soem links for those not as interested:
http://ifg.les.gares.free.fr/galerie/peinture/peinture02.htm = The Gare Saint Lazare
http://www.abcgallery.com/P/pissaro/pissaro-2.html = Boulevard Montmartre, Tuileries Gardens, Pont Neuf
http://cyrano.blog.lemonde.fr/photos/uncategorized/pissarro_1.jpg = Avenue de l’Opera
http://www.oceansbridge.com/paintings/artists/p/Pissarro_Camille_big_collection/big/Square_du_Vert-Galant_Sunny_Morning__1902.jpg = Square de Vert Galant
This just in: I got a 34 out of 40 (85%) on this essay, which according to my prof, is an A. Zoom!
Looks like I should be getting into my program in September. Doot doot dooday!
here's my essay, edited by the one and only :
Etienne "CRUSHING EDITORIAL PROWESS "Domingue
Rock on and enjoy
Pissarro's Paris Series Paintings as Art, Not Commodities
The final decade of Camille Pissarro’s life was an eventful one. During this period he created more than three hundred different paintings of urban scenes in and around Paris. While in the city he experienced some great hardships including: the death of a friend (Caillebotte), the death of a son, the long illness of another son and anti-Semitic rallies in the streets. Nevertheless, Pissarro still shows in his letters to family and friends a great joy and appreciation for the beauty of his surroundings (Shike 295). Pissarro used his art to transcend the hatred and pain around him (House 142). Many speculate that Pissarro used his urban series as a commodity to make money, but one might also just as well propose that they were an expression of his ongoing search for unity in his work (House 81). There has been much conjecture surrounding Pissarro’s Parisian city series containing; The Gare Saint-Lazare, The Boulevard Montemartre, The Avenue de l’Opéra, The Tuileries Gardens, The Square du Vert-Galant, The Pont Neuf and Quai Voltaire. What was the significance of the series paintings? Did Pissarro make a commodity of his art?
Pissarro created his urban series for many reasons. The motivation most critics seem to think of is the intention of his art dealer; to make money. Pissarro’s paintings of the city sold quite quickly and made him more comfortable financially than he had ever been (House 142). Also before anyone can criticize Pissarro for painting canvases of commercial value they must also take into consideration the emergence of independence from salons and art dealers, both relatively new concepts that artists were forced to latch on to for survival. It also becomes clear after reading anything about Pissarro that his anarchism would have made it difficult for him to live with himself if he was only doing it for the money. He had a fervent dislike of capitalists, bankers especially (Shike 232). It’s also true that he had reached his sixties and had a large family to take care of; one can be certain this was something he thought of often due to an indisputable love of his family. Pissarro was very excited about his new venture into urban painting, not so much about the motif and subject of the paintings but the effect of the weather and light on the city. He was astonished by the beauty that sunlight or rain could bring out on old grey roofs and dirty smokestacks (House 88). The unity involved in painting one scene under the influence of different elements was just what Pissarro loved. That special atmosphere the city could harness and reflect was something he knew he could transfer onto the canvas.
When looking at all of the series paintings it is quite simple to tell that they are all part of the same series. All are very distinctly Pissarro. After very little study, his almost trademarked speckled crosshatch style becomes distinctly recognizable. Pissarro has very excellent command of perspective, depth, composition, light and dark, and most of all color. Even paintings of grey, fog-covered days feel vibrant and alive, something one might wish was true of real life. Pissarro used an even and consistent unified tone throughout his series. He played with changing light and weather conditions to make his scenes change greatly no matter how many times he would paint the same bridge or boulevard (House 142). To enhance the weather effects he thinned out his whites to make them more transparent, to give them purer hues It gave his new paintings a different look that critics noticed (Shike 294). Most of the paintings in the series were painted from indoors due to Pissarro’s increasing difficulties with his eyes and infections (Shike 293). An element in Pissarro’s cityscapes that differs from Monet’s or Caillebotte’s is that although he was painting from indoors, he would never show a window frame or curtain. There are no allusions to Pissarro himself, all attention is on the scene ahead. The viewer is not a participant in the painting, but an observer from afar (Pissarro xxv). However distant from the scene the viewer is, the space does not detract from the fact that no detail is overlooked in a Pissarro city scene. Where Monet would sometimes dissolve the figures in curving strokes, Pissarro makes every person painted a caricature with definitive shape and style (Pissarro xxii). Pissarro believed working from memory in the studio cleaned up the image and made it into something he felt rather than something he saw. He used himself as an artistic filter of reality (House 81). Pissarro’s skill as a painter is not the question here, however; the meaning and depth of these arguably commodified urban landscapes are.
In the urban series paintings it becomes simple to grasp what a city is all about. Despite it being over a hundred years since they were painted, the viewer is still very aware of the same feelings Pissarro sent to us through time via his work. His street scenes bustling with people really impress upon the viewer the movement that a busy city street can contain, especially in Boulevard Montmartre: Shrove Tuesday (O’Donovan 19). The street is filled to the brim with people. Pissarro wasn’t just concerned with content however; he would always seek a harmony between the sky, earth and water before starting any painting, taking the pieces and putting them together as a whole (Pissarro xlix). Pissarro saw the city as an example of injustice & the evils of the modern capitalist world. His series paintings had high vantage points, depersonalizing the city. Watching the city from on high is not a neutral view. It brings to mind topographical maps of the time that an invading army would put to use for their nefarious needs. The perspective also represents and opposing concept, postcards popular at the time were of a similar position. They were used to showboat the new city and its glamorous new boulevards. Pissarro's previous paintings of rural peasants were close-up and very personal, whereas his new paintings of the city were far away and impersonal. Distanced, not integrated as he was in the rural landscapes (House 82, 84) This perspective helps to illustrate Pissarro’s feelings about the city.
One might ask, “where are Pissarro’s politics?” as he assembles these pretty harmonious postcard-like images. Where is the Jewish Anarchist? The only hint at Pissarro’s politics in his foray into urban painting was his choice of locations. One must first note the recent Haussmannization of Paris and take that into consideration. The locales chosen by Pissarro all correspond to important parts of Old Paris. The Avenue de l’Opera is built over the remains of the Butte des Moulins, a tightly packed anarchistic community that was rolled over by the march of progress. His paintings of the view over the Tuileries Gardens show an area that was once the site of ruins which symbolized the government’s suppression over the commune (House 141). The figures in the Paris paintings are on their way somewhere else, none of them are caught in the moment. None are enjoying the beauty of the scene around them, they are in a capitalist system, off to spend or make money, like most modern cities (Pissarro xxix). Pissarro had also recently completed a series of drawings entitled Les Turpitudes sociales which were biting political commentary of the Anarchist sort, mostly pictures involving crowds of exploited people, or the exploiting people in cities, coincidentally (Shike 237). Another important point to draw attention to is the lack of representation of the Eiffel Tower and the Notre de Dame de Paris, important Paris landmarks that would have easily bolstered sales. Pissarro understood the Eiffel Tower as a capitalist symbol and the Notre Dame would be a symbol of Catholicism of which he was also no great supporter (Pissarro xxxv). His politics are very subtle in his paintings but present elsewhere and lurking just beneath the surface. With background information included it is difficult to think of the urban series as mere money makers.
Was Pissarro’s Paris series commodified? In a way, yes. In the same way that all art can become commercialized and for sale. Many artists and other creative people suffer the same problem today. Did Pissarro paint the urban series just for the money? It is unlikely that any amount of research could come up with evidence to support that statement. It is true that Pissarro was able to make enough money before he died to support his family and leave them with an inheritance, but one can easily see he painted the Paris city series for the love of his art. Pissarro was devoted to the sensations he could communicate with paint and had finally reached a point in his life where he thought unity would be possible to achieve. Adding around three hundred urban scenes to balance out a lifetime of rural scenes appears to be an attempt at that unity, if nothing else. In Pissarro’s own words about his career, “I began to understand my sensations, to know what I wanted, at around the age of forty - but only vaguely; at fifty, that is in 1880, I formulated the idea of unity, without being able to render it; at sixty, I am beginning to see the possibility of rendering it” (House 81).
Bibliography
1) Brettell, Richard R. & Pissarro, Joachim (1992) The Impressionist and the City : Pissarro’s Series Paintings, York University Press, New Haven and London.
4) House, John (1993). Anarchist or Esthete? Pissarro in the City, Art in America, 11/93, Vol. 81 Issue 11, p 80, 13p.
5) O’Donovan, Leo J. (1993). The City as a Stage for Time: Camille Pissarro’s Serial Cityscapes, America; 4/24/93, Vol. 168 Issue 14, p18, 5p.
6) Shikes, Ralph E. & Harper, Paula (1980). Pissarro: His Life and Work, Horizon Press – New York.
to look at paintings I recommend the first book on the list there in the Bishop's library, but here are soem links for those not as interested:
http://ifg.les.gares.free.fr/galerie/peinture/peinture02.htm = The Gare Saint Lazare
http://www.abcgallery.com/P/pissaro/pissaro-2.html = Boulevard Montmartre, Tuileries Gardens, Pont Neuf
http://cyrano.blog.lemonde.fr/photos/uncategorized/pissarro_1.jpg = Avenue de l’Opera
http://www.oceansbridge.com/paintings/artists/p/Pissarro_Camille_big_collection/big/Square_du_Vert-Galant_Sunny_Morning__1902.jpg = Square de Vert Galant
This just in: I got a 34 out of 40 (85%) on this essay, which according to my prof, is an A. Zoom!
Looks like I should be getting into my program in September. Doot doot dooday!
posted by bazooka radio at 10:49 AM
4 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I have always liked Pissaro. His Hermitage à Pontoise has always been my favourite. I have seen the original at the Guggenheim museum in NYC. It is so large, you feel you can enter it and walk up the path.
How come you don’t link to me, by the way? I am mortally insulted.
I like your essay, and though I can't remember at the moment what Pissaro's art looks like, I'm sure it's very nice. I guess artists have to paint what people like to some extent because otherwise, they'd never have any money. However, I think it's wonderful when an artist can paint what he likes and that the public also likes it... Well, to some extent anyway. I don't make much sense right now. I'm tired.
"Crushing Editorial Prowess"? Hardly. I could send you other works I have edited for other people, along with the originals, & you'd see that yours really wasn't bad at all. In fact, it was fine before I had a look at it, & I've only made it superficially better, if that.
Post a Comment
<< Home