Jacques Louis David's painting "The Oath of the Horatii" is a turning point in history European painting. Stylistically, it still belongs to classicism; This is a style oriented toward Antiquity, and at first glance, David retains this orientation. "The Oath of the Horatii" is based on the story of how the Roman patriots three brothers Horace were chosen to fight the representatives of the hostile city of Alba Longa, the Curiatii brothers. Titus Livy and Diodorus Siculus have this story; Pierre Corneille wrote a tragedy based on its plot.
“But it is precisely the oath of the Horatii that is missing from these classical texts. <...>It is David who turns the oath into the central episode of the tragedy. The old man holds three swords. He stands in the center, he represents the axis of the picture. To his left are three sons merging into one figure, to his right are three women. This picture is stunningly simple. Before David, classicism, with all its orientation towards Raphael and Greece, could not find such a harsh, simple male tongue to express civic values. David seemed to hear what Diderot said, who did not have time to see this canvas: “You need to paint as they said in Sparta.”
Ilya Doronchenkov
In the time of David, Antiquity first became tangible through the archaeological discovery of Pompeii. Before him, Antiquity was the sum of the texts of ancient authors - Homer, Virgil and others - and several dozen or hundreds of imperfectly preserved sculptures. Now it has become tangible, right down to the furniture and beads.
“But there is none of this in David’s picture. In it, Antiquity is amazingly reduced not so much to the surroundings (helmets, irregular swords, togas, columns), but to the spirit of primitive, furious simplicity.”
Ilya Doronchenkov
David carefully orchestrated the appearance of his masterpiece. He painted and exhibited it in Rome, receiving enthusiastic criticism there, and then sent a letter to his French patron. In it, the artist reported that at some point he stopped painting a picture for the king and began to paint it for himself, and, in particular, decided to make it not square, as required for the Paris Salon, but rectangular. As the artist had hoped, the rumors and letter fueled the public excitement, and the painting was booked a prime spot at the already opened Salon.
“And so, belatedly, the picture is put back in place and stands out as the only one. If it had been square, it would have been hung in line with the others. And by changing the size, David turned it into a unique one. It was a very powerful artistic gesture. On the one hand, he declared himself to be the main one in creating the canvas. On the other hand, he attracted everyone’s attention to this picture.”
Ilya Doronchenkov
The painting has another important meaning, which makes it a masterpiece for all time:
“This painting does not address the individual—it addresses the person standing in line. This is a team. And this is a command to a person who first acts and then thinks. David very correctly showed two non-overlapping, absolutely tragically separated worlds - the world of active men and the world of suffering women. And this juxtaposition - very energetic and beautiful - shows the horror that actually lies behind the story of the Horatii and behind this picture. And since this horror is universal, then “The Oath of the Horatii” will not leave us anywhere.”
Ilya Doronchenkov
Abstract
In 1816, the French frigate Medusa was wrecked off the coast of Senegal. 140 passengers left the brig on a raft, but only 15 were saved; to survive the 12-day wandering on the waves, they had to resort to cannibalism. A scandal broke out in French society; The incompetent captain, a royalist by conviction, was found guilty of the disaster.
“For liberal French society, the disaster of the frigate “Medusa”, the death of the ship, which for a Christian person symbolizes the community (first the church, and now the nation), became a symbol, a very bad sign of the emerging new regime of the Restoration.”
Ilya Doronchenkov
In 1818, the young artist Theodore Gericault, looking for a worthy subject, read the book of survivors and began working on his painting. In 1819, the painting was exhibited at the Paris Salon and became a hit, a symbol of romanticism in painting. Géricault quickly abandoned his intention to depict the most seductive thing - a scene of cannibalism; he did not show the stabbing, despair or the moment of salvation itself.
“Gradually he chose the only right moment. This is the moment of maximum hope and maximum uncertainty. This is the moment when the people who survived on the raft first see the brig Argus on the horizon, which first passed by the raft (he did not notice it).
And only then, walking on a counter course, I came across him. In the sketch, where the idea has already been found, “Argus” is noticeable, but in the picture it turns into a small dot on the horizon, disappearing, which attracts the eye, but does not seem to exist.”Ilya Doronchenkov
Géricault refuses naturalism: instead of emaciated bodies, he has beautiful, courageous athletes in his paintings. But this is not idealization, this is universalization: the film is not about specific passengers of the Medusa, it is about everyone.
“Gericault scatters the dead in the foreground. It was not he who came up with this: French youth raved about the dead and wounded bodies. It excited, hit the nerves, destroyed conventions: a classicist cannot show the ugly and terrible, but we will. But these corpses have another meaning. Look what is happening in the middle of the picture: there is a storm, there is a funnel into which the eye is drawn. And along the bodies, the viewer, standing right in front of the picture, steps onto this raft. We're all there."
Ilya Doronchenkov
Gericault's painting works in a new way: it is addressed not to an army of spectators, but to every person, everyone is invited to the raft. And the ocean is not just the ocean of lost hopes of 1816. This is human destiny.
Abstract
By 1814, France was tired of Napoleon, and the arrival of the Bourbons was greeted with relief. However, many political freedoms were abolished, the Restoration began, and by the end of the 1820s the younger generation began to realize the ontological mediocrity of power.
“Eugene Delacroix belonged to that layer of the French elite that rose under Napoleon and was pushed aside by the Bourbons. But nevertheless, he was treated kindly: he received a gold medal for his first painting at the Salon, “Dante’s Boat,” in 1822. And in 1824 he produced the painting “The Massacre of Chios,” depicting ethnic cleansing when the Greek population of the island of Chios was deported and exterminated during the Greek War of Independence. This is the first sign of political liberalism in painting, which concerned still very distant countries.”
Ilya Doronchenkov
In July 1830, Charles X issued several laws seriously restricting political freedoms and sent troops to destroy the printing house of an opposition newspaper. But the Parisians responded with fire, the city was covered with barricades, and during the “Three Glorious Days” the Bourbon regime fell.
In the famous painting by Delacroix, dedicated to the revolutionary events of 1830, different social strata are represented: a dandy in a top hat, a tramp boy, a worker in a shirt. But the main one, of course, is a young beautiful woman with a bare chest and shoulder.
“Delacroix achieves here something that almost never happens with 19th-century artists, who were increasingly thinking realistically. He manages in one picture - very pathetic, very romantic, very sonorous - to combine reality, physically tangible and brutal (look at the corpses beloved by romantics in the foreground) and symbols. Because this full-blooded woman is, of course, Freedom itself. Political developments since the 18th century have confronted artists with the need to visualize what cannot be seen. How can you see freedom? Christian values are conveyed to a person through a very human thing - through the life of Christ and his suffering. But such political abstractions as freedom, equality, fraternity have no appearance. And Delacroix is perhaps the first and not the only one who, in general, successfully coped with this task: we now know what freedom looks like.”
Ilya Doronchenkov
One of the political symbols in the painting is the Phrygian cap on the girl's head, a permanent heraldic symbol of democracy. Another telling motif is nudity.
“Nudity has long been associated with naturalness and with nature, and in the 18th century this association was forced. The history of the French Revolution even knows a unique performance, when a naked French theater actress portrayed nature in Notre-Dame Cathedral. And nature is freedom, it is naturalness. And that’s what it turns out, this tangible, sensual, attractive woman denotes. It denotes natural freedom."
Ilya Doronchenkov
Although this painting made Delacroix famous, it was soon removed from view for a long time, and it is clear why. The viewer standing in front of her finds himself in the position of those who are attacked by Freedom, who are attacked by the revolution. The uncontrollable movement that will crush you is very uncomfortable to watch.
Abstract
On May 2, 1808, an anti-Napoleonic rebellion broke out in Madrid, the city was in the hands of protesters, but by the evening of the 3rd, mass executions of rebels were taking place in the vicinity of the Spanish capital. These events soon led to a guerrilla war that lasted six years. When it ends, the painter Francisco Goya will be commissioned two paintings to immortalize the uprising. The first is “The Uprising of May 2, 1808 in Madrid.”
“Goya really depicts the moment the attack began - that first blow by the Navajo that started the war. It is this compression of the moment that is extremely important here. It’s as if he’s bringing the camera closer, from a panorama he moves to an extremely close-up shot, which also hasn’t happened to this extent before. There is another exciting thing: the sense of chaos and stabbing is extremely important here. There is no person here whom you feel sorry for. There are victims and there are killers. And these murderers with bloodshot eyes, Spanish patriots, in general, are engaged in the butcher’s business.”
Ilya Doronchenkov
In the second picture, the characters change places: those who are cut in the first picture, in the second they shoot those who cut them. And the moral ambivalence of the street battle gives way to moral clarity: Goya is on the side of those who rebelled and are dying.
“The enemies are now separated. On the right are those who will live. This is a series of people in uniform with guns, absolutely identical, even more identical than David’s Horace brothers. Their faces are invisible, and their shakos make them look like machines, like robots. These are not human figures. They stand out in black silhouette in the darkness of the night against the backdrop of a small clearing flooded with light from a lantern.
On the left are those who will die. They move, swirl, gesticulate, and for some reason it seems that they are taller than their executioners. Although the main, central character - a Madrid man in orange pants and a white shirt - is on his knees. He’s still higher, he’s a little bit on the hill.”
Ilya Doronchenkov
The dying rebel stands in the pose of Christ, and for greater persuasiveness, Goya depicts stigmata on his palms. In addition, the artist makes you constantly go through a difficult experience - look at last moment before execution. Finally, Goya changes understanding historical event. Before him, an event was depicted with its ritual, rhetorical side; for Goya, an event is a moment, a passion, a non-literary cry.
In the first picture of the diptych it is clear that the Spaniards are not slaughtering the French: the riders falling under the horses’ feet are dressed in Muslim costumes.
The fact is that Napoleon’s troops included a detachment of Mamelukes, Egyptian cavalrymen.
“It would seem strange that the artist turns Muslim fighters into a symbol of the French occupation. But this allows Goya to turn a modern event into a link in the history of Spain. For any nation that forged its identity during Napoleonic Wars, it was extremely important to realize that this war is part of the eternal war for one’s values. And such a mythological war for the Spanish people was the Reconquista, the reconquest of the Iberian Peninsula from the Muslim kingdoms. Thus, Goya, while remaining faithful to documentary and modernity, puts this event in connection with the national myth, forcing us to understand the struggle of 1808 as the eternal struggle of the Spaniards for the national and Christian.”
Ilya Doronchenkov
The artist managed to create an iconographic formula for execution. Every time his colleagues - be it Manet, Dix or Picasso - addressed the topic of execution, they followed Goya.
Abstract
The pictorial revolution of the 19th century occurred even more noticeably in the landscape than in the event picture.
“The landscape completely changes the optics. A person changes his scale, a person experiences himself differently in the world. Landscape is a realistic representation of what is around us, with a sense of the moisture-laden air and everyday details in which we are immersed. Or it can be a projection of our experiences, and then in the shimmer of a sunset or on a joyful sunny day we see the state of our soul. But there are striking landscapes that belong to both modes. And it’s very difficult to know, in fact, which one is dominant.”
Ilya Doronchenkov
This duality is clearly manifested in German artist Caspar David Friedrich: his landscapes tell us about the nature of the Baltic, and at the same time represent philosophical statement. There is a languid sense of melancholy in Frederick's landscapes; the person in them rarely penetrates further than the background and usually has his back turned to the viewer.
on his last picture“Ages of Life” depicts a family in the foreground: children, parents, an old man. And further, behind the spatial gap - the sunset sky, the sea and sailboats.
“If we look at how this canvas is constructed, we will see a striking echo between the rhythm of the human figures in the foreground and the rhythm of the sailboats at sea. Here are tall figures, here are low figures, here are large sailboats, here are boats under sail. Nature and sailboats are what is called the music of the spheres, it is eternal and independent of man. The man in the foreground is his ultimate being. Friedrich’s sea is very often a metaphor for otherness, death. But death for him, a believer, is a promise eternal life, about which we do not know. These people in the foreground - small, clumsy, not very attractively written - with their rhythm repeat the rhythm of a sailboat, like a pianist repeats the music of the spheres. This is our human music, but it all rhymes with the very music that for Friedrich fills nature. Therefore, it seems to me that in this painting Friedrich promises not an afterlife paradise, but that our finite existence is still in harmony with the universe.”
Ilya Doronchenkov
Abstract
After the Great french revolution people realized that they had a past. The 19th century, through the efforts of romantic aesthetes and positivist historians, created modern idea stories.
"The 19th century created historical painting, as we know it. Not abstract Greek and Roman heroes, acting in an ideal setting, guided by ideal motives. History XIX century becomes theatrically melodramatic, it comes closer to man, and we are now able to empathize not with great deeds, but with misfortunes and tragedies. Each European nation created its own history in the 19th century, and in constructing history, it, in general, created its own portrait and plans for the future. In this sense, European historical painting XIX centuries are terribly interesting to study, although, in my opinion, she did not leave, almost no, truly great works. And among these great works, I see one exception, which we Russians can rightfully be proud of. This is "Morning" Streltsy execution“Vasily Surikov.”
Ilya Doronchenkov
19th-century history painting, focused on superficial verisimilitude, usually follows a single hero who guides history or suffers defeat. Surikov’s painting here is a striking exception. Its hero is a crowd in colorful outfits, which occupies almost four-fifths of the picture; This makes the painting appear strikingly disorganized. Behind the living, swirling crowd, some of which will soon die, stands the motley, undulating St. Basil's Cathedral. Behind the frozen Peter, a line of soldiers, a line of gallows - a line of battlements of the Kremlin wall. The picture is cemented by the duel of glances between Peter and the red-bearded archer.
“A lot can be said about the conflict between society and the state, the people and the empire. But I think there are some other meanings to this piece that make it unique. Vladimir Stasov, a promoter of the work of the Peredvizhniki and a defender of Russian realism, who wrote a lot of unnecessary things about them, said very well about Surikov. He called paintings of this kind “choral.” Indeed, they lack one hero - they lack one engine. The people become the engine. But in this picture the role of the people is very clearly visible. Joseph Brodsky said beautifully in his Nobel lecture that the real tragedy is not when a hero dies, but when a choir dies.”
Ilya Doronchenkov
Events take place in Surikov’s paintings as if against the will of their characters - and in this the artist’s concept of history is obviously close to Tolstoy’s.
“Society, people, nation in this picture seem divided. Peter's soldiers in uniforms that appear to be black and the archers in white are contrasted as good and evil. What connects these two unequal parts of the composition? This is an archer in a white shirt going to execution, and a soldier in uniform who supports him by the shoulder. If we mentally remove everything that surrounds them, we will never in our lives be able to imagine that this person is being led to execution. These are two friends returning home, and one supports the other with friendship and warmth. When Petrusha Grinev in „ The captain's daughter“The Pugachevites hung them up, they said: “Don’t worry, don’t worry,” as if they really wanted to cheer you up. This feeling that a people divided by the will of history is at the same time fraternal and united is an amazing quality of Surikov’s canvas, which I also don’t know anywhere else.”
Ilya Doronchenkov
Abstract
In painting, size matters, but not every subject can be depicted on a large canvas. Various pictorial traditions depicted villagers, but most often - not in huge paintings, but this is exactly what “Funeral at Ornans” by Gustave Courbet is. Ornans is a wealthy provincial town, where the artist himself comes from.
“Courbet moved to Paris, but did not become part of the artistic establishment. He did not receive an academic education, but he had a powerful hand, a very tenacious eye and great ambition. He always felt like a provincial, and he was best at home in Ornans. But he lived almost his entire life in Paris, fighting with the art that was already dying, fighting with the art that idealizes and talks about the general, about the past, about the beautiful, without noticing the present. Such art, which rather praises, which rather delights, as a rule, finds a very great demand. Courbet was, indeed, a revolutionary in painting, although now this revolutionary nature of him is not very clear to us, because he writes life, he writes prose. The main thing that was revolutionary about him was that he stopped idealizing his nature and began to paint it exactly as he saw it, or as he believed that he saw it.”
Ilya Doronchenkov
In the giant painting, almost full height about fifty people are depicted. They are all real people, and experts have identified almost all the funeral participants. Courbet painted his fellow countrymen, and they were pleased to be seen in the picture exactly as they were.
“But when this painting was exhibited in 1851 in Paris, it created a scandal. She went against everything that the Parisian public was accustomed to at that moment. She insulted artists with the lack of a clear composition and rough, dense impasto painting, which conveys the materiality of things, but does not want to be beautiful. She frightened the average person by the fact that he could not really understand who it was. The breakdown of communications between the spectators of provincial France and the Parisians was striking. Parisians perceived the image of this respectable, wealthy crowd as an image of the poor. One of the critics said: “Yes, this is a disgrace, but this is the disgrace of the province, and Paris has its own disgrace.” Ugliness actually meant the utmost truthfulness.”
Ilya Doronchenkov
Courbet refused to idealize, which made him a true avant-garde of the 19th century. He focuses on French popular prints, and a Dutch group portrait, and ancient solemnity. Courbet teaches us to perceive modernity in its uniqueness, in its tragedy and in its beauty.
“French salons knew images of hard peasant labor, poor peasants. But the mode of depiction was generally accepted. The peasants needed to be pitied, the peasants needed to be sympathized with. It was a somewhat top-down view. A person who sympathizes is, by definition, in a priority position. And Courbet deprived his viewer of the possibility of such patronizing empathy. His characters are majestic, monumental, they ignore their viewers, and they do not allow one to establish such contact with them, which makes them part of the familiar world, they very powerfully break stereotypes.”
Ilya Doronchenkov
Abstract
The 19th century did not love itself, preferring to look for beauty in something else, be it Antiquity, the Middle Ages or the East. Charles Baudelaire was the first to learn to see the beauty of modernity, and it was embodied in painting by artists whom Baudelaire was not destined to see: for example, Edgar Degas and Edouard Manet.
“Manet is a provocateur. Manet is at the same time a brilliant painter, the charm of whose colors, colors very paradoxically combined, forces the viewer not to ask himself obvious questions. If we look closely at his paintings, we will often be forced to admit that we do not understand what brought these people here, what they are doing next to each other, why these objects are connected on the table. The simplest answer: Manet is first and foremost a painter, Manet is first and foremost an eye. He is interested in the combination of colors and textures, and the logical pairing of objects and people is the tenth thing. Such pictures often confuse the viewer who is looking for content, who is looking for stories. Manet doesn't tell stories. He could have remained such an amazingly accurate and exquisite optical apparatus if he had not created his last masterpiece already in those years when he was in the grip of a fatal illness.”
Ilya Doronchenkov
The painting "Bar at the Folies Bergere" was exhibited in 1882, at first earned ridicule from critics, and then was quickly recognized as a masterpiece. Its theme is a café-concert, a striking phenomenon Parisian life second half of the century. It seems that Manet vividly and authentically captured the life of the Folies Bergere.
“But when we start to take a closer look at what Manet did in his painting, we will understand that there are a huge number of inconsistencies that are subconsciously disturbing and, in general, do not receive a clear resolution. The girl we see is a saleswoman, she must use her physical attractiveness to make customers stop, flirt with her and order more drinks. Meanwhile, she does not flirt with us, but looks through us. There are four bottles of champagne on the table, warm - but why not in ice? In the mirror image, these bottles are not on the same edge of the table as they are in the foreground. The glass with roses is seen from a different angle than all the other objects on the table. And the girl in the mirror does not look exactly like the girl who looks at us: she is thicker, she has more rounded shapes, she is leaning towards the visitor. In general, she behaves as the one we are looking at should behave.”
Ilya Doronchenkov
Feminist criticism drew attention to the fact that the girl’s outline resembles a bottle of champagne standing on the counter. This is an apt observation, but hardly exhaustive: the melancholy of the picture and the psychological isolation of the heroine resist a straightforward interpretation.
“These optical plot and psychological mysteries of the picture, which seem to have no definite answer, force us to approach it again every time and ask these questions, subconsciously imbued with that feeling of the beautiful, sad, tragic, everyday modern life that Baudelaire dreamed of and which will forever Manet left before us."
Ilya Doronchenkov
Today we’ll talk about a painting by Edouard Manet BAR IN THE FOLIES BERGÉRE 1882, which became one of famous masterpieces world art.
In 1881 at the French Salon E. Manet presents the long-awaited second award for the portrait of a lion hunter. Pertuise. After which Manet becomes out of competition and can exhibit his paintings without any permission from the Salon jury.
E. Manet Portrait of a lion hunter.
The long-awaited glory comes, but his illness progresses simply inexorably and he knows about it and therefore, he is gnawed by melancholy.
In September 1879, Manet suffered his first acute attack of rheumatism. It soon turned out that he was suffering from ataxia - a lack of coordination of movements. The disease progressed rapidly, limiting the artist's creative capabilities.
Mane is trying to resist a serious illness. Will he really not be able to overcome the disease?
WORK ON THE PICTURE.
Mane decides to gather all his strength and will; they are still trying to bury him. He can be seen at the New Athens Café, at the Bad Café, at Tortoni's, at the Folies Bergere and at his girlfriends'. He always tries to joke and be ironic, has fun about his “infirmities” and jokes about his leg. Manet decides to carry out his new idea: to paint a scene from everyday Parisian life and depict the view of the famous Folies Bergere bar, in which the lovely girl Suzon stands behind the counter, in front of numerous bottles.
The girl is known to many regular visitors to the bar.
Painting "Bar at the Folies Bergere"is a work of extraordinary courage and picturesque subtlety: a blond girl stands behind the bar, behind her is a large mirror in which is reflected Big hall establishments with a public seated in them. She wears a black velvet decoration on her neck, her gaze is cold, she is bewitchingly motionless, she looks indifferently at those around her.
This complex plot of the canvas moves forward with great difficulty.
The artist struggles with it and remakes it many times. At the beginning of May 1882, Manet completed the painting and became happy contemplating it in the Salon. Nobody laughs at his paintings anymore; in fact, his paintings are viewed with great seriousness, and people begin to argue about them as real works of art.
Yours last piece“The Bar at the Folies Bergere” was created as if he was saying goodbye to the life that he valued so much, which he admired so much and about which he thought a lot. The work absorbed everything that the artist had been looking for and finding for so long in an unremarkable life.
Best images intertwined together to be embodied in this young girl who is standing in a noisy Parisian tavern. In this establishment, people seek joy by contacting their own kind, apparent fun and laughter reign here, a young and sensitive master reveals the image of a young life that is immersed in sadness and loneliness.
It is hard to believe that this work was written by a dying artist, to whom any movement of his hand caused pain and suffering. But even before his death, Edouard Manet remains a real fighter. He had to go through a difficult life path before he discovered the true beauty that he had been searching for all his life and found it in ordinary people, finding in their soul an inner richness to which he gave his heart.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PICTURE
The canvas depicts one of the most famous cabarets in Paris at the end of the nineteenth century. This is the artist's favorite place.
Why did he love going there so much? Bright life the capital was Manet's preference over the calm regularity of everyday life. He felt better in this cabaret than at home.
Apparently, Manet made sketches and preparations for the painting right in the bar. This bar was located on the first floor of the variety show. Sitting to the right of the stage, the artist began to make blanks for the canvas. Afterwards, he turned to the barmaid and his good friend, asking her to pose for him in her studio.
The basis of the composition was to be Manet's friend and the barmaid, facing each other. They should be passionate about communicating with each other. Found sketches by Manet confirm this master's plan.
But Manet decided to make the scene a little more significant than it was. In the background was a mirror displaying the crowds of customers filling the bar. Opposite all these people, the barmaid stood, she was thinking about her own things, being behind the bar counter. Even though there is fun and noise all around, the bartender has nothing to do with the crowd of visitors, she is soaring in her own thoughts. But on the right you can see, as if her own image, only she is talking with one visitor. How to understand this?
Apparently, the picture in the mirror is the events of the past minutes, but in reality what is depicted is that the girl was thinking about the conversation that happened a few minutes ago.
If you look at the bottles standing on the marble bar counter, you will notice that their reflection in the mirror does not match the original. The barmaid's reflection is also unreal. She looks directly at the viewer, while in the mirror she is facing the man. All these inconsistencies make the viewer wonder whether Manet depicted a real or imaginary world.
Although the picture is very simple in plot, it makes every viewer think and come up with something of their own. Manet conveyed the contrast between a cheerful crowd and a lonely girl among the crowd.
Also in the picture you can see a society of artists, with their muses, aesthetes and their ladies. These people are in the left corner of the canvas. One woman is holding binoculars. This reflects the essence of a society that wants to look at others and expose itself to them. At the top left corner you can see the acrobat's legs. Both the acrobat and the crowd of people having fun can’t brighten up the loneliness and sadness of the barmaid.
The date and signature of the master is displayed on the label of one of the bottles, which is in the lower left corner.
The peculiarity of this painting by Manet is its in a deep sense, many characters, and secrecy. Usually the artist’s paintings did not differ in such characteristics. This same picture conveys many depths of human thoughts. In the cabaret there are people of different origins and status. But all people are equal in their desire to have fun and have a good time.
And what do you think? What are your impressions of this picture?
from impression /fr./ - impression (1874-1886)
An art movement that originated in France. This name, a style that had a serious influence on the development of world art, received thanks to a sarcastic label invented by the critic of the magazine “Le Charivari” Louis Leroy. The mockingly truncated title of Claude Monet’s painting “Impression. Sunrise” (Impression. Soleil levant) later turned into a positive definition: it clearly reflects the subjectivity of vision, interest in a specific moment of an ever-changing and unique reality. The artists, out of challenge, accepted this epithet; later it took root, lost its original negative meaning and became part of active use. The impressionists tried to convey their impressions of the world around them as accurately as possible. For this purpose they abandoned compliance existing rules painting and created their own method. Its essence was to convey, with the help of separate strokes of pure colors, the external impression of light, shadow, and them on the surface of objects. This method created in the painting the impression of the form dissolving in the surrounding light-air space. Claude Monet wrote about his work: “My merit is that I wrote directly from nature, trying to convey my impressions of the most fickle and changeable phenomena.” The new trend was different from academic painting both technically and ideologically. First of all, the Impressionists abandoned the contour, replacing it with small separate and contrasting strokes, which they applied in accordance with the color theories of Chevreul, Helmholtz and Rud. The sun's ray is split into components: violet, blue, cyan, green, yellow, orange, red, but since blue is a type of blue, their number is reduced to six. Two colors placed next to each other enhance each other and, conversely, when mixed they lose intensity. In addition, all colors are divided into primary, or basic, and dual, or derivative, with each dual color being complementary to the first: Blue - Orange Red - Green Yellow - Violet, thus it became possible not to mix paints on the palette and get desired color by correctly applying them to the canvas. This later became the reason for refusing black.
Artists: Paul Cézanne, Edgar Degas, Paul Gauguin, Édouard Manet, Claude Monet, Berthe Morisot, Camille Pissarro Jacob Abraham Camille Pissarro), Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Alfred Sisley.
Exhibitions: There were eight in total, the first took place in 1874 in Paris, in the studio of the photographer Nadar, Boulevard des Capucines, 35. Subsequent exhibitions, until 1886, in various salons in Paris.
Lyrics: J.A. Castagnari "Exhibition on the Boulevard des Capucines. Impressionists", 1874; E. Duranty "New painting", 1876; T. Duret "Impressionist Artists", 1878.
Description of some works:
Pierre Auguste Renoir "Bal at the Moulin de la Galette", 1876. Oil on canvas. Paris, Musée d'Orsay. The famous Montmartre establishment "Moulin de la Galette" was located not far from Renoir's home. He went there to work, and the friends depicted in this painting often helped him carry the canvas. The composition is made up of many figures, it creates a complete feeling of a crowd captured by the joy of dance. The impression of movement with which the picture is full arises due to the dynamic manner of painting and the light that freely falls in glare on faces, suits, hats and chairs. As if through a filter, it passes through the foliage of the trees, changing the chromatic scale in a kaleidoscope of reflexes. It seems that the movement of the figures is continued and enhanced by the shadows, everything is united together in subtle vibrations that convey the feeling of music and dance.
Pierre Auguste Renoir "Ball at the Moulin de la Galette", 1876
Edouard Manet "Bar at the Folies Bergere", 1881-1882. Canvas, oil. London, Courtauld Institute Gallery. It is difficult to clearly define the genre of Manet's last major painting, “Bar at the Folies Bergere,” exhibited at the Salon in 1882. The painting uniquely combines an image of everyday life, a portrait, and a still life, which here acquires a completely exceptional, although not primary, significance. All this is combined into a scene of modern life, with an extremely prosaic plot motivation (what could be more banal than a saleswoman behind a bar?), transformed by the artist into an image of high artistic perfection. The mirror behind the bar, behind which the nameless heroine of the canvas stands, reflects a crowded hall, a glowing chandelier, the legs of an acrobat hanging from the ceiling, a marble board with bottles and the girl herself, who is approached by a gentleman in a top hat. For the first time, the mirror forms the background of the entire painting. The space of the bar, reflected in the mirror behind the saleswoman, expands to infinity, turning into a sparkling garland of lights and color highlights. And the viewer standing in front of the picture is drawn into this second environment, gradually losing the sense of the boundary between the real and the reflected world. The model's direct gaze violates the deceptive detachment (l'absorption) - the traditional method of representing the main character of the picture, intently busy with his own affairs and seemingly not noticing the viewer. Here, on the contrary, Manet uses a direct exchange of glances and “explodes” the isolation of the image. The viewer is involved in an intense dialogue and is forced to explain what is reflected in the mirror: the relationship between the waiter and the mysterious character in the top hat.
Painting "Bar at the Folies Bergere" was presented by Edouard Manet at the famous Paris Salon at an exhibition in 1882, just one year before his death. This last major work was the culmination of his interest in scenes of urban leisure, and at the same time, it remains the most mysterious picture French master. The masterpiece, written more than 100 years ago, still causes controversy among art critics and inspires artists.
History of the Folies Bergere variety show
Entertainment establishments called "folies" ( folies), appeared in France in late XVIII century. Unlike cafes, you had to pay for entry, and not just for what you ate and drank. But, unlike the theater, here you were allowed to freely enter and exit during the performance, drink and smoke. Typically, establishments were named according to the name of the street on which they were located. However, the owner of the entertainment establishment, located at the intersection of Richer and Trevize streets, wanted to avoid associations with the Duke of Trevize (Napoleonic marshal), and therefore gave the place the name of the neighboring Bergere street. This is how entertainment foley appeared, which in the future became the famous Parisian cabaret "Foli Bergere" (Folies Bergère). It is located at 32 rue Richet, 9th arrondissement of Paris. After two reconstructions of the facade, the cabaret externally retained its historical appearance, although it looked fresher.
All kinds of performances were held on the stage of this entertainment establishment, which opened its doors in 1869. In the first years of its existence, gymnasts performed here, comic operas, songs and dance numbers. In fact, the establishment was more like a circus. In the 1880s–90s, local stage celebrities included the Indian snake charmer Nala Damazhanti (actually the dark-skinned French-born Emily Poupon), and the only black wild-door tamer, Joseph Ledger, who performed under the pseudonym Delmonico. The Folies Bergere was visited on tour by a young and then unknown clown-trainer from the circus on Tsvetnoy Boulevard, Vladimir Durov. The “King of the Revolver”, the American shooter Ira Payne, demonstrated his skills in foley, performing the William Tell trick together with his beautiful wife.
Using a primitive projector, the public was even shown short films: the illusionist brothers Izola in 1895 were among the first to appreciate the invention of the Lumière brothers. True, entrepreneurship turned out to be more interesting than cinema: at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, they began buying and selling real estate. (It is noteworthy that in 1901 the brothers also purchased the premises of the Folies Bergere).
The Folies Bergere became one of the popular nightclubs in Paris, where admission cost only two francs. (By the way, he was “visited” more than once by the heroes of the novel “Dear Friend” French writer Guy de Maupassant).
But true success came in 1918, when Paul Derval became the manager of the club. He came up with the brilliant idea of not only diversifying the productions, but also making them spectacular by bringing dancers “without complexes” onto the stage. They became the main characters of the outspoken Show Girls with their fiery and frivolous cancan.
In addition, many famous artists performed here: from Charlie Chaplin and Marcel Marceau to Edith Piaf and Josephine Baker.
The latter, no less than the cancan dancers, attracted the audience with her shocking image on stage, where at the beginning of the 20th century the girl performed dances in revealing and extravagant outfits. The most famous example is her banana skirt, which she wore on stage at the Folies Bergere variety show. (Pictured: Josephine Baker, Folies Bergere cabaret, 1920s).
Barmaid from the Folies Bergere variety show.
Paris is generally considered the city of love. That's just " love, love and love"can represent three concepts, as the puppet entertainer of the theater S. Obraztsov said in one reprise. And this was well known to representatives of Parisian bohemia. Artists sometimes depicted “priestesses of love” of various kinds in their paintings, although this caused a flurry of reproaches and criticism from puritan-minded compatriots.
For example, Renoir painted a wonderful canvas “Mother Anthony's Tavern” (1866), depicting a real tavern where he and his friends dined. In the picture, Sisley, Pissarro, Cezanne are sitting around the table, a little further away is the owner of the tavern herself (from the back), and their table is served by the maid Nana - a girl who generously gave her body to everyone, thus working part-time in the rooms of the hotel residents where the artists stayed. The image of the "fallen girl" in Auguste Renoir's painting immediately drew the ire of critics.
The subjects of some of Edouard Manet's paintings were also perceived with scandal. The public considered his paintings and Olympia, in which he used nudity, great audacity. Manet's contemporaries found his paintings extremely obscene and vulgar.
Obviously, for Edouard Manet, public condemnation did not play a decisive role. Otherwise, he would not have dared to put the barmaid from the Folies Bergere, suspected of immorality, at the center of the composition of the last canvas in his life.
Writer Guy de Maupassant once called the barmaid from the Folies Bergere cabaret “ sellers of drinks and love " All Parisian ladies' men who attended shows with cancan-dancing girls knew about the variety show's attraction, which was less public but more accessible than expensive courtesan dancers. It was about barmaids/barmaids - naive simpletons recruited from the suburbs of Paris.
Tipsy and excited by the sight of half-naked bodies on stage, dapper gentlemen often flirted with them, seduced girls or bought their love. After which, having fun, they were thrown away like unnecessary toys. Humiliated girls usually became prostitutes with an unhappy fate. According to some art critics, it is precisely this moment of communication that is captured in the painting. "Bar in the Folies-Berge" written by Edouard Manet in 1882.
In the mirror, behind the standing barmaid, you can see that a wealthy, mustachioed gentleman in a bowler hat is talking to her about something. From the confused expression on her flushed face and sad look, one can judge that the conversation does not give her pleasure. The girl somewhat resembles a defenseless victim. However, her face and posture express dignity, despite her low social status. She looks like she's deep in thought. Perhaps her child is sick, she has nothing to pay for rent and other everyday troubles. Therefore, she hesitates and is afraid of both at the same time. Some art critics generally believed that the face of the barmaid, depicted by Edouard Manet, was more mysterious than the portrait of the Mona Lisa.
The large medallion on the barmaid’s neck, surrounded by a lace collar, also evokes thoughts about her secrets, which the viewer can only guess about.
The barmaid's condition is shaded by noisy fun in a huge hall filled with beautifully dressed women and men in hats. All of them are illuminated by the lights of a multi-tiered chandelier dominating the upper part of the picture. The women on the balcony are especially highlighted: one of them wearing orange gloves, her neighbor with binoculars, and a lady in a hat and low-cut dress standing next to them. (But almost no one notices in the very top corner of the picture on the left, an aerialist on a trapeze, wearing green shoes).
The mystery of Manet's painting
In addition to its emotional intensity, the film is a real visual puzzle. Manet, like a clever illusionist, made the backdrop of the painting a huge mirror. This is why the composition acquired multidimensionality. The mirror creates the illusion of volume, although the viewer guesses it rather than sees it.
Compositionally, the painting is structured so that the barmaid looks directly at the viewer, while the mirror behind her reflects the large hall and visitors to the Folies Bergere cabaret. It seems that Manet painted the image of the barmaid while standing right in front of her. In the reflection behind the girl, we see supposedly her talking to a gentleman in a bowler hat. However, this is contradicted by the reflections of the objects - neither the aerialist barely indicated in the upper left corner, nor the girl’s mustachioed interlocutor, based on the perspective, should not have been visible due to their location relative to the point of view of the draftsman. And the figure of the barmaid, reflected in the mirror, seems fuller and more animatedly talking with her boyfriend. This is noticeable by the tilt of her body towards the mustachioed gentleman. The doubt rightly arises: is this the same girl?
At first glance, it seems that the experienced painter made obvious graphic inconsistencies when painting the picture. But it’s hard to believe, since it can be argued that Edouard Manet carefully practiced the trick with mirror images long years. The most clearly constructed looking glass is noticeable in Manet’s painting depicting his wife playing music. Here you can notice the use of the effect of mirroring an invisible object. The mirror reflects another mirror hanging above the fireplace on the opposite wall of the room:
Elements of deliberate “parody mirroring” can be seen in his paintings “In a Cafe” and “Beer Peddler,” where he places images of Degas dancers in the background of artistic cafes. They are so skillfully integrated into the composition that they can easily be confused with reflections in a mirror.
In a word, assumptions about the erroneous construction of the painting “Bar at the Folies Bergere” do not have strong justification. Moreover, its other details are drawn with great pedantry. For example, the labels on the bottles are accurate. To the right of the bottle of red wine, which wine experts identify as Provençal Bordeaux, you can see a brown bottle with a red triangle on the label. This is the logo Bass Brewery- the first British patented beer. The company was founded in 1777 and still produces its beer.
By the way, the characters depicted in the picture are also real. Art historians have determined that the lady in orange gloves sitting in the front row on the balcony is Mary Laurent, the kept woman of a wealthy dentist and a friend of Proust, Manet and Zola. (The latter brought her out as the main character in the novel “Nana”). A little behind her stands Jeanne de Marcy, an actress and model for Renoir and Manet. And the green shoes visible at the top right belonged to the aerialist, American Katharina Jones, who performed at the Folies Bergere in 1881.
Art historians are still making all sorts of guesses about what is happening in the painting by Edouard Manet. " The author initially makes us believe that we are looking at a young barmaid standing in front of her mirror image. But looking closely, it turns out that this is not so. Thus, from the very beginning we are confused, and are forced to look elsewhere for clues. ».
It seems that the first version of the same painting, drawn by Edouard Manet a year earlier, could help in this confusing issue. This version of the painting was also called "Bar at the Folies Bergere" and was sold at auction in 1995 for $26.7 million. But this picture was created in a completely different spirit and mood.
The model for this version was a completely different woman. And she, with her unnaturally yellow hair, slouch, arms crossed on her stomach and obvious fatigue, looks like a real elderly bartender. It does not contain the mystery that the girl with the medallion and sad eyes, who appeared in the picture a year later, personifies.
In general, as always, opinions are divided. Some researchers, relying on technical capabilities, argue that such a composition of the picture cannot exist in real life. Although, an X-ray analysis of the painting showed that in the final version, Manet deliberately shifted the woman’s reflection in the mirror a little closer to the figure of her boyfriend.
Art historians also worked with this picture, like real detectives, trying to find a solution, some logical and natural explanations. And in the end they decided that they were not there.
But others believe that the distortions were made by the author on purpose, supposedly to show two sides of the barmaid’s character. In the reflection, she flirts, leaning toward the customer across the counter. But in an ordinary perspective, she is immersed in her thoughts and does not seem to care about the noisy crowd.
Each side has dozens more arguments for and against. Obviously, the sad Madonna of modernism, created by Edouard Manet in 1882, will remain as much of a mystery as the smiling Mona Lisa, painted several centuries earlier.
U famous painting there is not only a personal page on Wikipedia, books have been written about it, scientific works and articles, as well as several films have been made, dissecting the final work of Edouard Manet to its bones. For example, there is a dissertation by Australian art critic Malcolm Park ( Malcom Park), written by him on the topic “ Ambiguity, or the Clash of Spatial Illusions on the Surface of Manet’s Paintings”, in which a thorough study of the painting was carried out in various aspects
Although, in Perhaps it will be enough to watch/listen to a 15-minute video in which art historian Ilya Doronchenkov talks about the painting “Bar at the Folies Bergere”:
The famous painting could not help but attract the attention of postmodernists, for whom any noticeable art form becomes a “source of building materials.” By putting everything in a playful, ironic form, this style was able to level the distance between the mass and elite consumers, and reduced elite art to pop culture. The mysterious composition of the painting by Edouard Manet did not escape this fate. Here are some examples of her ironic remakes.
The long-awaited second award for the portrait of a lion hunter is presented. Pertuise. After which Manet becomes out of competition and can exhibit his paintings without any permission from the Salon jury.
Manne decides to do something completely unusual for art salon, at the beginning of 1882, where his paintings will appear with a special mark “V. TO".
Do you believe in astrology and star divination? Millions of people trust the forecasts made by various astrologers. The guru among such predictors is Pavel Globa. No one knows more about what the stars promise us than Globa.
The long-awaited fame finally comes to him, but his illness progresses inexorably and he knows about it and therefore, he is gnawed by melancholy. Mane is trying to resist a serious illness. Will he really not be able to overcome the disease?
Mane decides to gather all his strength and will; they are still trying to bury him. He can be seen at the New Athens Café, at the Bad Café, at Tortoni's, at the Folies Bergere and at his girlfriends'. He always tries to joke and be ironic, has fun about his “infirmities” and jokes about his leg. Manet decides to carry out his new idea: to paint a scene from everyday Parisian life and depict the view of the famous Folies Bergere bar, in which the lovely girl Suzon stands behind the counter, in front of numerous bottles. The girl is known to many regular visitors to the bar.
Painting "Bar at the Folies Bergere"is a work of extraordinary courage and picturesque subtlety: a blond girl stands behind the bar, behind her is a large mirror, which reflects the large hall of the establishment with the public sitting in it. She wears a black velvet decoration on her neck, her gaze is cold, she is bewitchingly motionless, she looks indifferently at those around her.
This complex plot of the canvas moves forward with great difficulty. The artist struggles with it and remakes it many times. At the beginning of May 1882, Manet completed the painting and became happy contemplating it in the Salon. Nobody laughs at his paintings anymore; in fact, his paintings are viewed with great seriousness, and people begin to argue about them as real works of art.
He created his last work, “Bar at the Folies Bergere,” as if he was saying goodbye to the life that he valued so much, which he admired so much and about which he thought a lot. The work absorbed everything that the artist had been looking for and finding for so long in an unremarkable life. The best images are woven together to be embodied in this young girl who is standing in a noisy Parisian tavern. In this establishment, people seek joy by contacting their own kind, apparent fun and laughter reign here, a young and sensitive master reveals the image of a young life that is immersed in sadness and loneliness.
It is hard to believe that this work was written by a dying artist, to whom any movement of his hand caused pain and suffering. But even before his death, Edouard Manet remains a real fighter. He had to go through a difficult life path before he discovered the true beauty that he had been looking for all his life and found it in ordinary people, finding in their soul the inner wealth to which he gave his heart.
