![\"A](\"http:\/\/opentextbooks.concordia.ca\/art366\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/54\/2023\/07\/Img6.615.jpeg\")
<\/a> Claude Monet, Poppy Field in a Hollow near Giverny, <\/cite> 1885. Oil on canvas. 65.1 x 81.3 cm. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. View Source<\/a>[\/caption]\r\nCONTENTS<\/p>\r\n
Introduction<\/p>\r\n
6.1<\/p>\r\n
Beyond the Atelier<\/a><\/p>\r\n 6.2<\/p>\r\n Controversial Style<\/a><\/p>\r\n 6.3<\/p>\r\n Claude Monet, Eug\u00e8ne Boudin and Normandy<\/a><\/p>\r\n 6.4<\/p>\r\n Argenteuil and the Advent of Impressionism<\/a><\/p>\r\n 6.5<\/p>\r\n Impressionism: A Critical Concept<\/a><\/p>\r\n 6.6<\/p>\r\n Landscape and the Legacy of Romanticism<\/a><\/p>\r\n 6.7<\/p>\r\n Monet's Serial Subjects<\/a><\/p>\r\n 6.8<\/p>\r\n Paint Tubes and Portable Easels: Monet\u2019s Modern Palette<\/a><\/p>\r\n 6.9<\/p>\r\n Impressionism and Music<\/a><\/p>\r\n 6.10<\/p>\r\n Landscape and the Female Form<\/a><\/p>\r\n 6.11<\/p>\r\n The Garden at Giverny and the Influence of the Orient<\/a><\/p>\r\n 6.12<\/p>\r\n The Water Landscapes<\/a><\/p>\r\n 6.13<\/p>\r\n Water Lilies <\/em>as Immersive Experience<\/a><\/p>\r\n INTRODUCTION<\/p>\r\n Impressionism gave artists the liberty to experiment. Freed from narrative content and pictorial restraints, Impressionists such as Claude Monet,\u00a0August Renoir,\u00a0Edgar Degas,\u00a0Berthe Morisot, Alfred Sisley, and others established an art movement focused on the spontaneous and objective observation of the immediate world around them.<\/p>\r\nTheir subjects were diverse, ranging from street scenes, caf\u00e9 concerts, bourgeois interiors, waterscapes, cityscapes, and portraiture, but the informal group of nineteenth-century radical artists shared a common goal: to break from the strictures of French art academic institutions by adopting innovative approaches to art-making, and new ways by which to bring their work to public attention. They went out of their ateliers to find their subjects, looked to light, atmosphere, and colour to create their canvases, and organized independent exhibitions to show them.\r\n\r\nClaude Monet was a central figure in the movement, devoting his life to pursuing the transformative potential of light outdoors. His revolutionary plein air paintings altered how landscape painting was approached, conveyed, and perceived. His technique of building images through colour patches dabbed side by side, or passages of sheer, light-filled washes, produced sensory optical compositions that radically departed from the established norm. Monet aimed to depict the seen world as experienced on the retina's surface rather than to describe an illusion of the known world of space, mass, and contextual detail.\r\n\r\nThis chapter will consider the evolutionary course of Monet's naturalistic approach and his unique contribution to the Impressionist movement.\u00a0 In the early stages of his career, Monet was influenced by Romanticist painters like Eug\u00e8ne Delacroix and Camille Corot. Delacroix's expressive use of color and Corot's sensitivity to nature left a lasting impression on Monet's artistic sensibilities. Additionally, Monet's association with the older artist Eug\u00e8ne Boudin, who was known for his seascapes and beach scenes, played a crucial role in shaping his early interest in capturing the effects of light on water. The influence of Japanese Ukiyo-e prints is also noteworthy, as Monet incorporated elements of their composition and use of colour into his own work. We will trace the development of his luminous, open-air paintings in works produced along the Channel coast in Normandy, at Argenteuil and on the banks of the Seine River,\u00a0 and his interest in recording perceptual processes in the serial works of Rouen and Giverny, culminating with his water landscapes, his chef-d'oeuvre<\/em>, the Water Lilies,<\/em> of which he once remarked: \u201cOne instant, one aspect of nature contains it all....\u201d\r\n Claude Monet was twenty when he painted A Corner in the Studio<\/em>, his only studio scene and an anomaly within the context of his celebrated plein air practice. Nonetheless, this intimate, unusual canvas contains elements that hint at the artist's developing stylistic concerns and his eventual embrace of the impressionist landscape.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_5624\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"800\"] Gustave Courbet visited Monet's studio as the artist was struggling to complete his D\u00e9jeuner sur l'herbe<\/em> for the 1866 Salon. Realizing the challenge of the task, Courbet suggested he paint another \"quickly and well, in a single go,\" so he would have a work to submit to the jury. Monet\u2019s Camille <\/em>[Woman in the Green Dress<\/em>] was that painting. It is a life-size portrait of Camille-L\u00e9onie Doncieux, realistic in its use of dark vibrant colours and attention to detail.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_5637\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"600\"] Monet traveled to Normandy to paint in the 1860s as he would throughout his career, continually inspired by the unique light and atmosphere of the northern coast. \u00a0Camille and Claude honeymooned at Trouville-sur-Mer in 1870, a seaside resort town in Normandy on the English Channel developed by wealthy Parisians and foreign tourists. Camille would pose for him on several occasions during this pivotal summer in Monet's career, including The Beach at Trouville<\/em>, a work that stimulated his forward direction as a painter of the everyday.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_5645\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"800\"] Monet went to England and the Netherlands during the Franco-Prussian War (July 19, 1870 \u2013 May 10, 1871). When he returned, it was to a Paris destroyed by the war, a shock that influenced his decision to move to the suburb of Argenteuil.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_5648\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"800\"] During this period, Monet cultivated his impressionistic canvases, focusing on presenting visual sensations with an immediacy of execution that produced near-abstract compositions. Impression, Sunrise<\/em> was painted rapidly from a hotel window at Le Havre, in thin washes, without details, underscoring Monet's primary aim, which was to capture the fleeting pictorial elements of the given moment before him.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_5662\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"800\"]6.1\r\n| Beyond the Atelier<\/h1>\r\n
<\/a> Claude Monet, A Corner of the Studio,<\/cite> 1861. Oil on canvas. 180 x 130 cm. Mus\u00e9e d\u2019Orsay, Paris. View Source<\/a>[\/caption]\r\n\r\nIn contrast to the artist's later open air images, this interior scene is crowded and close. It is busily animated by a patterned oriental carpet and the large, landscape-like design elements of the florid wallpaper. The room is further filled by a table laden with books, brushes, a paintbox, and a palette loaded with colours poured straight from a tube. A red ch\u00e9chia, a style of North African hat, lies casually on the table's edge, and a shotgun leans against it. An 1850s-style French landscape hangs on the wall beside antique weaponry. While Monet's awareness of orientalist vocabularies is discernible, the palette is his own, and the romanticism of the pictured landscape alludes to his early and abiding love of his native France.\r\n\r\nMary-Dailey Desmarais, in \u201cRethinking the Origins of Impressionism:\u00a0The Case of Claude Monet and\u00a0A Corner of a Studio<\/em>\u201d\u00a0(Companion to Impressionism<\/em>,\u00a0Andr\u00e9 Dombrowski, and Dana Arnold, eds. Wiley Blackwell, 2021, 27-42) discusses the significance of this early painting and the unexpected insights it provides about Monet within the context of the origins of Impressionism. She writes,\r\nThe unframed landscape on the wall has been identified as a painting by Charles-Fran\u00e7ois Daubigny, which Monet claimed to have found \u201camong the rubbish piled up in the corners\u201d of his aunt Marie-Jeanne Lecadre\u2019s house in Le Havre, the seaside town where he spent his youth. Daubigny\u2019s landscape seems to acknowledge Monet\u2019s early admiration for, and debt to, Barbizon landscape painting.<\/blockquote>\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_5625\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"600\"]
<\/a> Detail of Claude Monet, A Corner of the Studio,<\/cite> 1861. Oil on canvas. 180 x 130 cm. Mus\u00e9e d\u2019Orsay, Paris. View Source<\/a>[\/caption]\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_5626\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"600\"]<\/a> Detail of Claude Monet, A Corner of the Studio,<\/cite> 1861. Oil on canvas. 180 x 130 cm. Mus\u00e9e d\u2019Orsay, Paris. View Source<\/a>[\/caption]\r\nLikewise, the paintbox on the desk is a portable one used to paint outdoors. In 1861, Monet had just purchased his first paintbox of this sort for his earliest plein air painting excursions in Le Havre with Eug\u00e8ne Boudin. What appears to be the back of a small canvas inside the box is one that would have been used for painting sketches en plein air<\/em> on just such occasions. Meanwhile, the tapestried landscape on the wall suggests that Monet was already envisioning landscape as a room in unwitting anticipation of the studio he would cultivate outdoors in his garden in Giverny \u2013 and of his late water-lily paintings, which now span the walls of the Mus\u00e9e de l\u2019Orangerie in Paris.\r\n\r\nCorner of a Studio<\/em> would thus seem to chart in advance the well-understood progression in Monet\u2019s practice from studio painting to\u00a0the plein air sketch, from \u00e9bauche <\/em>to d\u00e9coration<\/em>.\u00a0 But Corner of a Studio<\/em> also contains the seeds of a Monet much more unexpected, complicating received wisdom about the origins of Impressionism. It is generally understood that Impressionism was the natural outgrowth of the Realists\u2019 objective to depict contemporary subject matter \u2013 in the words of Gustave Courbet, \u201creal and existing things\u201d \u2013 coupled with a preference for the spontaneity of painting on-the-spot, or en plein air<\/em>, which developed primarily from the example of the Barbizon School. Impressionism, or so the story goes, privileged the seen over the felt, the outdoors over the interior, the moving over the still. Corner of a Studio<\/em> can help us to see that Impressionism, at least for Monet, was a much less binary endeavor.<\/blockquote>\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_5627\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"600\"]
<\/a> Detail of Claude Monet, A Corner of the Studio, <\/cite>1861. Oil on canvas. 180 x 130 cm. Mus\u00e9e d\u2019Orsay, Paris. View Source<\/a>[\/caption]\r\n\r\nMonet's inclusion of objects besides the tools of painting may indicate the importance he placed on historical and art historical influences. The books, weapons, and North African accoutrements make reference to the important Romanticist Eug\u00e8ne Delacroix, an idol of Monet's. According to Desmarais,\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_5628\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"800\"]<\/a> \u00c9douard-Antoine Renard, Atelier d\u2019Eug\u00e8ne Delacroix,<\/cite> 1852. Engraving. 20.5 x 23.7 cm. Brown University Library, Providence. View Source<\/a>[\/caption]\r\nMonet also liked to recount how, together with Pierre-Auguste Renoir, he would spy on Delacroix while working from a neighboring studio on the rue de Furstemberg in the early 1860s. Given Monet\u2019s admiration for the older artist Delacroix, we might imagine the weapons embedded in the landscape in Monet\u2019s picture as a distant evocation of what critics described as the \u201cbattle\u201d between Delacroix and his rival, Jean-Dominique Ingres, dueling it out for the forces of color and line, respectively. If this is so, then the spotlit colors on the palette and the absence of drawing tools on the table in <\/span>Corner of a Studio<\/em> seem to be clear signs that Monet came down on the side of color.<\/span><\/blockquote>\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_5629\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"600\"]
<\/a> Eug\u00e8ne Delacroix, Combat of the Giaour and the Pasha,<\/cite> 1835. Oil on canvas. 95.5 x 82 cm. Mus\u00e9e des Beaux-Arts de la ville de Paris. View Source<\/a>[\/caption]\r\n\r\nMonet's early palette, as seen in Corner of the Studio<\/em>, bears similarities to the deep, vibrant palette of Delacroix\u2019s battle paintings.\u00a0 The younger artist would have been familiar with Delacroix's distinctive tonal choices evidenced for example in The Combat of the Giaour<\/em> and the Pasha<\/em>, which he saw at Martinet\u2019s gallery in 1860.\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_5630\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"600\"]<\/a> Charles Lhuillier, Portrait of Claude Monet in Uniform,<\/cite> 1861. Oil on canvas. 37 x 24 cm. Mus\u00e9e Marmottan Monet, Paris. View Source<\/a>[\/caption]\r\n\r\nIn addition to its Romanticist colour affinities, Corner of a Studio<\/em> points to Monet's early references to orientalist motifs and subjects. As Desmarais has noted, the ch\u00e9chia had become an orientalist fashion trend in Paris, popular with Delacroix and others of his generation. It becomes more relevant here, given that Monet had been drafted into the army on March 2nd, 1861, joining the ranks of the Chasseurs d\u2019Afrique<\/em>, a cavalry corps stationed in Algeria. Most of all, the work exemplifies the importance Monet placed on direct observation and his early debt to the orientalist imagination of romanticism.\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_5631\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"800\"]<\/a> Gustave Courbet, The Artist\u2019s Studio, a Real Allegory Summing Up Seven Years of My Artistic and Moral Life,<\/cite> 1854. Oil on canvas. 361 x 598 cm. Mus\u00e9e d\u2019Orsay, Paris. View Source<\/a>[\/caption]\r\n\r\nIn its intimations and references, Corner of a Studio<\/em> warns against simplistic stylistic categorizations, a matter Gustave Courbet had addressed in his Realism Manifesto:\r\n... Titles have never given a true idea of things: if it were otherwise, the works would be unnecessary. \u2026 I have studied the art of the ancients and the art of the moderns, avoiding any preconceived system and without prejudice. I no longer wanted to imitate the one than to copy the other; nor, furthermore, was it my intention to attain the trivial goal of \u201cart for art\u2019s sake.\u201d No! I simply wanted to draw forth, from a complete acquaintance with tradition, the reasoned and independent consciousness of my own individuality. To know in order to do, that was my idea.<\/blockquote>\r\nAs Desmarais summarizes, \"In the small space of the studio corner, Monet condenses the larger lesson of Courbet\u2019s Studio<\/em>: landscape painting need not only be one thing or the other, only fact or fantasy, the imagined or the real. Corner of a Studio<\/em> works hard to sustain the possibility that these realms coexist in the context of landscape painting.\"\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_5632\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"800\"]
<\/a> Claude Monet, Luncheon on the Grass, <\/cite>1866. Oil on canvas. 130 x 181 cm. Pushkin Museum, Moscow. View Source<\/a>[\/caption]\r\n\r\nMonet's approach to the transient qualities of landscape was, therefore, not just stimulated by what was before him, but was also the product of imagination and his discerning perception.\r\n\r\nIn the spring of 1865, at twenty-five, Monet started his monumental canvas, Luncheon on the Grass<\/em> (D\u00e9jeuner sur l'herbe<\/em>). Measuring 4.65 x 6.40 m, it celebrated large-scale plein air painting nine years before Impressionism was an official movement. At the same time, it referenced history by portraying a site charged with the legacy of French landscape painting: <\/em>the Forest of Fontainebleau.\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_5633\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"800\"]<\/a> \u00c9douard Manet, Luncheon on the Grass, <\/cite>1863. Oil on canvas. 208 x 264.5 cm. Mus\u00e9e d\u2019Orsay, Paris. View Source<\/a>[\/caption]\r\n\r\nMonet intended to paint a modern subject in the grand format customarily reserved for history paintings, portraying a group of contemporaries picnicking outdoors. He also wanted to pay tribute to \u00c9douard Manet, whose 1863 Le Bain<\/em> (renamed Le D\u00e9jeuner sur l'herbe<\/em> in 1867) stirred controversy when it was exhibited at the Salon des Refus\u00e9s in 1863.\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_5634\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"800\"]<\/a> Claude Monet, Luncheon on the Grass <\/cite>(right section), ca. 1865-66. Oil on canvas. 248.9 x 218 cm. Mus\u00e9e d\u2019Orsay, Paris. View Source<\/a>[\/caption]\r\n\r\nThe picnic scene was intended to be three times larger than Manet's Le D\u00e9jeuner sur l\u2019herbe,<\/em> but Monet could not complete the project, abandoning it a year after its start. A few fragments are preserved at the Mus\u00e9e d'Orsay, and several studies survive, including one at the Pushkin Museum in Moscow, which, other than a few details, is the most faithful to the original painting imagined by Monet.\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_5635\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"800\"]<\/a> Claude Monet, Luncheon on the Grass,<\/cite> 1866. Oil on canvas. 130 x 181 cm. Pushkin Museum, Moscow. View Source<\/a>[\/caption]\r\n\r\nIn the Moscow study, Monet's interest in the ephemeral quality of light outdoors is in full evidence. Minute dots of colour convey the dappled spread of light outdoors, the dazzle of the white tablecloth, and the scintillating leaves on the trees add to the alfresco feel. Monet's use of broad strokes and loose brushwork further the sense of the spontaneity of the everyday scene. The figures portrayed were Monet's friends, including the painters Bazille and Renoir, and Monet's mistress and later wife, Camille Doncieux. They seem immersed in the landscape, animated by dancing shadows and lights. The easy atmosphere among them echoes the naturalism of their surroundings.\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_5636\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"800\"]<\/a> Claude Monet, Pav\u00e9 de Chailly in the Fontainebleau Forest, <\/cite> 1865. Oil on canvas. 97 x 130.5 cm. Ordrupgaard, J\u00e6gersborg Dyrehave. View Source<\/a>[\/caption]\r\n\r\nMonet\u2019s Pav\u00e9 de Chailly in the Fontainebleau Forest,<\/em> painted the previous year, is equally naturalistic. The woodland path draws the viewer in, while the billowy clouds and play of sun and shadows, leaves and grass engage our gaze. The empty landscape was likely a preliminary canvas for the larger Le D\u00e9jeuner sur l'herbe<\/em>, providing a background study for placing the figures in the forest clearing beneath the right tree.\r\n6.2\r\n| Controversial Style<\/h1>\r\n
<\/a> Claude Monet, Camille,<\/cite> 1866. Oil on canvas. 231 x 151 cm. Kunsthalle Bremen. View Source<\/a>[\/caption]\r\n\r\nCamille-L\u00e9onie Doncieux was still in her teens when she began to pose for Monet, Pierre-Auguste Renoir and \u00c9douard Manet. She became Monet's mistress and, later, his first wife. They married on June 28th, 1870, two years after the birth of their first son. Camille was more than Monet's model mistress and wife; she was his lifelong muse who inspired his paintings, his gardens and his aesthetic direction.\r\n\r\nAn ode to elegance, Camille wears a striped emerald-green and black silk dress under a black fur-trimmed jacket. She has yellow leather gloves and a dark capote decorated with feathers as accessories. Her hair is in a bun tied with black ribbons at the nape of her neck. Long brownish-red curtains provide a rich backdrop to her refined and chic figure.\r\n\r\nThere is captivating movement in the composition itself, in the sweep of the dress, the play of the folds in the skirt, and the tilted position of the head. But a sense of interiority permeates the space; Camille\u2019s eyes are downcast, the lighting is diffused, and without an obvious source, it surrounds Camille, highlighting her face, hand and skirt.\r\n\r\nCamille <\/em>is thought to have been completed in four days. It was accepted and shown at the Paris Salon, gaining the relatively unknown Monet some positive attention, and some judgment.\r\n\r\nThe critic, Theophile Thor\u00e9, described the painting as \u201ca large portrait of a standing woman seen from behind trailing a magnificent green silk dress, as dazzling as the fabrics painted by Veronese.\u201d\u00a0 But, his suggestion that the woman had been \"gathering violets\" implied that her elegant dress was intended to attract male admirers and that she was a woman of questionable morality.\r\n\r\nThe professional relationship between Monet and Camille Doncieux, his model and muse, is a principal theme of Monet and his Muse: Camille Monet in the Artist\u2019s Life<\/em> (University of Chicago Press, 2010) by psychologist and art historian Mary Matthews Gedo. In her analysis, Gedo observes that the model's dynamic pose, as much as her fashionable ensemble, conveys the stylish elegance of the modern Parisienne. Emphasizing Camille\u2019s intuition and professional skills, Gedo contends that Monet's companion defined the role of the contemporary artist's model. Camille was not simply a traditional muse but actively contributed to Monet's development as a figure painter.\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_5638\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"600\"]<\/a> Claude Monet, Madame Monet Wearing a Kimono,<\/cite> 1875. Oil on canvas. 231.8 x 142.3 cm. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. View Source<\/a>[\/caption]\r\n\r\nGedo compares Camille <\/em>[Woman\u00a0 in the Green Dress<\/em>] with La Japonaise<\/em> (Camille Monet in Japanese Costume<\/em>), shown in the Salon exhibition in 1876:\r\nMost certainly [Monet] did not intend - as Whistler presumably had - to create a convincing fusion of visual and stylistic elements of East and West, for the painting seems to parody both Western art and Japanese prints with equal freedom.<\/blockquote>\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_5639\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"600\"]
<\/a> Hishikawa Moronobu, Dancer, <\/cite>ca. 1618-1694. Hanging scroll; colour on paper. 78.1 x 41.9 cm. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. View Source<\/a>[\/caption]\r\nMonet, who owned numerous prints of courtesans . . . must have been well aware that woodblock artists characteristically represented courtesans . . . with rather impassive facial expressions far removed from the \"come-hither\" smile Camille wears in <\/span>La Japonaise<\/em>.<\/span><\/blockquote>\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_5640\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"400\"]
<\/a> Detail of Claude Monet,Madame Monet Wearing a Kimono, <\/cite>1875. Oil on canvas. 231.8 x 142.3 cm. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. View Source<\/a>[\/caption]\r\nEvery aspect of the painting - from the exaggerated realism, to the fierce little fellow embroidered on the kimono's visible right-side panel, to the agitated movements of the uchiwa, to Camille's blond wig and simpering expression - suggests that the composition was created in a spirit of raillery ... reminding us that Monet began his juvenile career as a caricaturist.<\/blockquote>\r\nThe intense controversy generated by Madame Monet Wearing a Kimono<\/em> (La Japonaise<\/em>) caused Monet to attempt to remove it from public access. Likely, it was Monet\u2019s parody of Eastern and Western artistic conventions: the Japanese fans and costume juxtaposed with Camille's blonde wig, which caused provocation, especially in tandem with a pose reminiscent of courtesans' seductive posturing found in the Japanese prints that Monet collected.\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_5641\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"800\"]
<\/a> Installation in Gallery 2, \u201cMonet\u2019s Camille: Re-imagining the Full-Length Portrait\u201d: Promenade dress, 1865\u201368. Alpaca and silk fringe. Manchester City Galleries, Manchester; Claude Monet, The Woman in a Green Dress,<\/cite> 1866. Oil on canvas. Kunsthalle, Bremen. View Source<\/a>[\/caption]\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_5642\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"800\"]<\/a> Claude Monet, Camille, <\/cite>1866. Oil on canvas. 231 x 151 cm. Kunsthalle Bremen. View Source<\/a>[\/caption]\r\n\r\nSomewhat ironically, four years after the publication of Gedo\u2019s Monet and his Muse <\/em>in 2014, Camille <\/em>(Woman\u00a0 in the Green Dress<\/em>) was presented as an impressionist fashion statement in the exhibition Impressionism, Fashion, and Modernity<\/em>\" one of the first shows to examine how the Impressionists used fashion to communicate notions of the 'modern.'\r\n\r\nGloria Groom curated the exhibition for the Art Institute of Chicago, the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, and the Mus\u00e9e d'Orsay in Paris.\r\n\r\nJanet Whitmore, in her exhibition review \u201cImpressionism, Fashion, and Modernity\u201d (in Nineteenth-Century Art Worldwide<\/em> 13, no. 1 (Spring 2014), http:\/\/www.19thc-artworldwide.org\/spring14\/whitmore-reviews-impressionism-fashion-and-modernity) describes an installation at the Metropolitan Museum entitled \u201cMonet\u2019s Camille: Reimagining the Full-Length Portrait\u201d:\r\nThe floor was now carpeted and the wall color shifted to a deep red. Ars\u00e8ne Houssaye\u2019s statement in an 1869 edition of L\u2019Artiste<\/em> was stenciled on the introductory partition wall: \u201cLa Parisienne is not in fashion, she is fashion.\u201d [Ars\u00e8ne Houssaye, bought the painting for 800 francs]. This sentiment sums up the perspective that was explored throughout the exhibition. Why was Paris fashion such a key element in defining \u2018modern life\u2019, and how did this phenomena influence the art, the artists and the women who modeled the fashions for them at the time? \u2026No one was a more consistent model for the Impressionists than Camille Doncieux, Claude Monet\u2019s mistress and wife, who is shown not only in her husband\u2019s paintings, but in numerous works by Renoir and Manet. Certainly, her role as the model for The Woman in a Green Dress<\/em> (1866, Kunsthalle, Bremen) shown at the Salon of 1866 brought her unwelcome notice as critics parsed the possible meanings of the green dress, including the presumed social status of the then obscure model.<\/blockquote>\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_5643\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"600\"]
<\/a> Gloria Groom, ed., Impressionism, Fashion, and Modernity <\/cite> (Chicago: Art Institute of Chicago, 2012). View Source<\/a>[\/caption]\r\n\r\nGloria Groom\u2019s exhibition catalogue, also titled Impressionism, Fashion and Modernity<\/em> (Art Institute of Chicago, 2012) contains nine special sections that highlight specific paintings. The first of these is Groom\u2019s multi-faceted discussion of the Woman in a Green Dress<\/em>, encompassing everything from the possible source of the original dress to the reasons why Monet chose to paint a full-length portrait, but then failed to provide a name for the model until the last minute. Groom\u2019s discussion of the fashion context of this dress is used to explain why critics considered this painting to be so unusual when it was shown at the Salon. The gown failed to provide sufficient visual cues about either the model or her position in society, thus creating an unresolvable ambiguity about Camille\u2019s social status. As Groom points out in her analysis of Joris-Karl Huysman's commentary on Impressionist painting, \u201cOne wonders how Huysmans would have judged Monet\u2019s Camille, neither trollop nor grande<\/em> dame, whose true modernity resides in her\u00a0 dress\u2014the fashion and the fit\u2014and the multiple readings of the model it provided.\u201d\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_5644\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"600\"]<\/a> Claude Monet, Madame Louis Joachim Gaudibert, <\/cite>1868. Oil on canvas. 216.5 x 138.5 cm. Mus\u00e9e d\u2019Orsay, Paris. View Source<\/a>[\/caption]\r\n\r\nIn contrast, on the opposite side of the partition wall from Woman in a Green Dress<\/em> was Monet\u2019s portrait, Madame Louis Joachim Gaudibert<\/em>. This was strictly a private commission, which the artist painted in a more conventional style, following the tradition of detailing the luxurious materials used in the gown and the domestic setting. In this case, there could be no doubt about Mme Gaudibert\u2019s social position or her fashionable elegance.\r\n6.3\r\n| Claude Monet, Eug\u00e8ne Boudin and Normandy<\/strong><\/h1>\r\n
<\/a> Claude Monet, Camille on the Beach in Trouville, <\/cite>1870. Oil on canvas. 38.1 x 46.4 cm. Yale University Art Gallery, New Haven. View Source<\/a>[\/caption]\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_5646\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"800\"]<\/a> Claude Monet, The Beach at Trouville,<\/cite> 1870. Oil on canvas. 38 x 46.5 cm. National Gallery, London. View Source<\/a>[\/caption]\r\n\r\nSusan D. Greenberg writes in \"The Face of Impressionism in 1870: Claude Monet's Camille on the Beach at Trouville<\/em>\" (Yale University Art Gallery Bulletin<\/em> (2001): 66-73):\r\nCamille turns to face Monet as she casually balances a parasol on her shoulder; Monet in turn paints an informal sketch of his wife relaxing at the beach. This aura of apparent casualness is in fact carefully constructed, and arises only after Monet has faced countless decisions and formidable challenges within the limited time span of one sitting: How could he convey the informality of his leisure subject in terms of form and style? How could he represent the transient sensory environment of the seashore surrounding him - the movement of wind, water, sun, and clouds - within the framed and static medium of painting?<\/blockquote>\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_5647\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"800\"]
<\/a> Eug\u00e8ne Louis Boudin, Beach Scene in Trouville, <\/cite> ca.1870-74. Oil on canvas. Yale University Art Gallery, New Haven. View Source<\/a>[\/caption]\r\nBoudin's work offered Monet a frame-work in which to expand, as Parisian art critics in the 1860s had acknowledged Boudin's views of the bourgeoisie along the shore as a novel, hybrid genre. Such lively everyday scenes offered a fresh alternative to traditional subjects of history and religion, and embodied the sort of modern-life subject encouraged by the art critic Charles Baudelaire in his 1863 essay \"The Painter of Modern Life.\"\r\n\r\nBoudin considered the critical recognition of his \"little studies of the fashionable beaches\" in a letter to the dealer Pierre-Firmin Martin in 1868:\u00a0 \u201cThese gentlemen congratulated me for . . . daring to depict in painting the people and things of our times . . . The idea is catching on, and a number of young painters, led, I would say, by Monet, find that it is a genre greatly underrated up to now. The peasants have their painters, Millet, Jacque, Breton; and that is a good thing. These painters produce serious works, they are involved in God\u2019s creation, and they continue it by helping its manifestation in a fruitful way for mankind. Well and good: but, between you and me, the bourgeois, walking along the jetty towards the sunset, has just as much right to be caught on canvas.\u201d<\/blockquote>\r\nBeach at Trouville<\/em> exemplifies the beginnings of Monet's carefully formulated colour theory and technique. He first used an imprimatura<\/em> to create a uniform tone across the canvas. He treated his ground with an underlayer of medium warm gray consisting of white mixed with traces of ivory black and chrome yellow. The luminous underpainting provided a subtle warm tone which enhanced his colour effects. In some areas, the canvas is left unpainted, the bare bits employed as descriptive elements, indicating parts of a dress, a puff of clouds, or a pictorial interlude.\r\n\r\nMonet used his innovations in colour optics to augment the effects of his palette. He created chromatic contrasts, for example, placing reds next to greens, to intensify pigmentation and to allow each colour to reflect different tonalities in different areas. The lavender tone of the parasol in The Beach at Trouville<\/em> is placed almost directly next to a yellow ochre flower in Camille's bonnet, creating a strategic juxtaposition of cool and warm tonalities.\r\n\r\nHere we see the beginnings of Monet's use of unique touches of colour to capture the ways light changes the formal elements of a given scene. He organizes the composition in order to effectively explore the shifting dimensions he is interested in depicting. The \u00a0upper and lower portions of sky and sea are sparsely coloured and detailed, leaving the artist to \u00a0concentrate on the ocean and Camille. As Greenberg describes,\r\n
For her dress, he applies broad strokes and dabs of white and tan, with a touch of the pink from the sailboat beyond. He focuses on the more distinguishing areas of head and torso and only hints at her full skirt, which is not quite a skirt, but the barest grouping of outlines and markings. For the sea, Monet uses choppy marks of an elegant, classical green, which becomes a sunnier blue-green closer to the horizon. Expressive white strokes and dabs convey swirls of sea foam and splashing waves. Ingeniously, a line of simple dots are swimmers in the distance; Monet is pressed for time; he has to get it all in one sitting. The dots are like an ellipsis, and seem to say, \"... you get the point.\" Thus, Monet is efficient and economical with his paint. His sense of measure is especially evident, however, in the use of gray priming laid over the canvas to inflect the applied paint. These contrasting gray areas emphasize and set off his touches of color. Gray seas appear cool in contrast to the surrounding greens shimmering in the sunlight; back on land, these tones appear warmer next to the tans and cool whites of Doncieux's dress. Monet is keenly aware of the effect created by these areas of absent paint. Such gaps also create meaning, as in the band of gray running between the ocean's white surf and the sand, an interlude explaining that water has not yet met land, and conveying in a broader sense the temporal aspect of the sea's back-and-forth motion.<\/blockquote>\r\n
6.4\r\n| Argenteuil and the Advent of Impressionism<\/h1>\r\n
<\/a> Claude Monet, The Highway Bridge Under Repair,<\/cite> 1872. Oil on canvas. 54 x 73 cm. National Gallery of Canada, Ottawa. View Source<\/a>[\/caption]\r\n\r\nThe Highway Bridge Under Repair<\/em> was Monet\u2019s first painting of the bridges near Argenteuil destroyed during the conflict.\u00a0The river is framed by scaffolding and beams, a reminder of ruination in the wake of the war, when the bridge was destroyed by retreating French troops. But the rafters and scaffolding here also stand as signs of reconstruction and as a testament to France\u2019s ambition to rebuild.\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_5649\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"800\"]<\/a> Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Claude Monet Painting in His Garden at Argenteuil, <\/cite>1873. Oil on canvas. 46 x 60 cm. Wadsworth Atheneum Museum of Art, Hartford. View Source<\/a>[\/caption]\r\n\r\nFrom December of 1871 until the autumn of 1878, Monet and his family lived in a rented gardened house in Argenteuil, on the banks of the Seine, eleven kilometres to the northwest of Paris and a fifteen-minute train ride from the capital's Gare Saint-Lazare. With its scenic vistas unmarred by urban industrialization, Argenteuil was a source of inspiration for Monet, who painted prolifically while there: river views, bridges, streets, and gardens.\r\n\r\nMonet's house became a meeting place for his fellow artists, Renoir and Sisley among them. Its topographical diversity appealed to their varied interests and offered opportunities to explore the outdoor effects of light and colour, the Impressionists' future hallmark. This period marks the beginnings of the Impressionist movement and the planning of the group's first exhibition in 1874.\r\n\r\nOn one of his many visits, Renoir painted Claude Monet Painting in His Garden at Argenteuil<\/em>. It shows Monet at his portable easel before a hedge of multicoloured dahlias. The focus is on the sensory aspects of the scene, light, colour, and nature, yet despite the lack of descriptive detail, Monet is fully recognizable by his signature dark jacket and round hat.\r\n\r\nThe canvas evocates the friendship and professional rapport between Renoir and Monet in the early 1870s. Naturally drawn to subjects of people, Renoir's domestic landscape is a deliberate portrayal of Monet as an Impressionist artist, underscoring his devotion to the twin principles of working outdoors and painting his immediate surroundings.\r\n\r\nRenoir's lively brushwork and the brilliance of his palette are scintillating. Despite the strict organization of the background: the stark, blue-roofed houses standing out against an opaque sky, Renoir focuses on the exuberant profusion of dahlia bushes barely contained by the palisade. The general oblique line suggesting the top of the hedge leads one's eye to the painter's standing silhouette. Renoir's textured technique here, with the image constructed from a succession of rapid and nervous strokes typical of Impressionism and an essential stylistic characteristic of both painters, suggests that each moment, or each stroke, is a registration of a new observation of reality.\r\n\r\nThomas B. Cole, in Monet Painting in His Garden at Argenteuil<\/em> (JAMA<\/em> 305, no. 23 (2011): 2384), contrasts Renoir\u2019s painting with Monet\u2019s rendition of the same subject:\r\nOn an overcast day in the outskirts of Paris, a painter stands at an easel by a rustic fence, facing a thicket of red, white, and yellow dahlias. \u2026\u00a0 Overlooking the pyramidal mass of vegetation to his right are several substantial houses topped with double-sloped roofs and dormer windows in the Second Empire style. Monet is outfitted for an expedition into the countryside, with paint box, palette, brushes, parasol, and portable easel, but in fact he is only a few steps from his house\u2014the cream-colored one with blue window shutters on the left... In Monet Painting in His Garden<\/em>, Renoir has emphasized the features of a suburban neighborhood, with plenty of open space for informal gardens. From where the painter in the picture stands, he can see several houses.<\/blockquote>\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_5650\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"800\"]
<\/a> Claude Monet, The Artist\u2019s Garden in Argenteuil (A Corner of the Garden with Dahlias), <\/cite>1873. Oil on canvas. 61 x 82.5 cm. National Gallery of Art, Washington. View Source<\/a>[\/caption]\r\n\r\nBy contrast, a painting made by Monet looking in the same direction excludes the neighboring houses, so that only his own is visible in a forest of dahlias. Monet's version looks less like a neighborhood than a country estate.\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_5651\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"800\"]<\/a> Claude Monet, Springtime,<\/cite> 1872. Oil on canvas. 50 x 65 cm. Walters Art Museum, Baltimore. View Source<\/a>[\/caption]\r\n\r\nThe image of Camille in the Monets' garden was a much-loved and reoccurring subject of the artist's Argenteuil paintings. The motif also traces the evolution of Monet's technical approach. In the early 1870s, Monet's stylistic penchant for individuated brushstrokes, the taches <\/em>of colour (as described by critics) was a notational shorthand for the sensation of seeing things outdoors. While Camille's face is carefully painted in Springtime,<\/em> the foreground of the painting is brought to life through abstracted fragments of colour.\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_5652\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"600\"]<\/a> Claude Monet, Gladioli, <\/cite>ca. 1876. Oil on canvas. 82.5 x 55.8 cm. Detroit Institute of Art, Detroit. View Source<\/a>[\/caption]\r\n\r\nIn Gladioli<\/em>, painted five years later, Monet's stylistic developments are taken further. Once again Camille posed for the figure in the garden, but her face is now indistinctly painted without identifying features.\r\n\r\nJohn House provides an in-depth analysis of \u201cMonet's Gladioli\u201d <\/em>(Bulletin of the Detroit Institute of Arts<\/em> 77, no.1\/2 (2003): 8-17):\r\n\r\nHere are some excerpts:\r\nThroughout Gladioli<\/em>, the brushwork dematerializes the forms depicted. Small areas of the light beige primed canvas are visible in many parts of the painting; these heighten the luminosity of the lighter areas of the picture, especially the flowerbed. They also remind us that the forms are not modeled in a conventional sense to suggest solidity and three-dimensionality, but are merely evoked by the network of separate colored touches that animates the entire picture surface.<\/blockquote>\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_5654\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"600\"]
<\/a> Detail of Claude Monet, Gladioli, <\/cite>ca. 1876. Oil on canvas. 82.5 x 55.8 cm. Detroit Institute of Art, Detroit. View Source<\/a>[\/caption]\r\n\r\nBy the mid-70s, there is increased fragmentation, and incongruity vis a vis <\/em>the object seen and the marks used to describe it. As House describes,\r\nThe painter's vision, as presented to us by the painted marks, is now so subtle, so sensitive, that it can take objects apart and recreate them in colored touches. We are invited to reconstitute the natural subject by taking these touches together and viewing the picture as a whole.\r\n\r\n... viewed from up close, the brushmarks are never descriptive; only the bold verticals of the stems of gladioli stand out clearly from the complex and constantly varied textures all around them, and even the path is treated with a gently variegated touch. Likewise, the trellis and the fence do not create a rigid, linear backdrop for the scene in front of them; rather, they are integrated into the overall play of colored touches that animates the whole canvas.\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_5653\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"600\"]
<\/a> Detail of Claude Monet, Gladioli, <\/cite> ca. 1876. Oil on canvas. 82.5 x 55.8 cm. Detroit Institute of Art, Detroit. View Source<\/a>[\/caption]\r\n\r\nThe effect of the brushwork on the surface of the picture is heightened by the flotilla of white butterflies that flutter across the scene. At times they are virtually indistinguishable from the touches that convey the flowers and foliage\u2014are there nineteen or twenty of them? We cannot be sure. Their flight and weightlessness act as a metaphor for the disembodiment of Monet's brushstroke, for its liberation from the task of defining forms and volumes and suggesting weight and gravity.<\/blockquote>\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_5655\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"600\"]<\/a> Claude Monet, Gladioli, <\/cite> ca. 1876. Oil on canvas. 82.5 x 55.8 cm. Detroit Institute of Art, Detroit. View Source<\/a>[\/caption]\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_5656\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"600\"]<\/a> James Tissot, Spring Morning, <\/cite>ca. 1875. Oil on canvas. 55.9 x 42.5 cm. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. View Source<\/a>[\/caption]\r\n\r\nIn this context, the painting demands to be viewed in relation to contemporary paintings of related subjects\u2014of women in gardens. Yet it cannot readily be interpreted in terms of the stock conventions of such scenes. Rather, Monet was taking a subject that carried a range of familiar associations and treating it in a way that refused to be categorized in these terms, emphasizing instead his own creative powers, both as maker of the garden and, centrally, as creator of the extraordinary painted surface that conveyed his experience of this garden.\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_5657\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"600\"]<\/a> Paul Hayes Tucker, The Impressionists at Argenteuil <\/cite>(Washington: National Gallery of Art; Hartford: Wadsworth Atheneum Museum of Art, 2000. View Source<\/a>[\/caption]\r\n\r\nDuring his years in Argenteuil, Monet evolved his methods and style of landscape painting. \u00a0According to Paul Hayes Tucker, author of\u00a0 Impressionists at Argenteuil<\/em> \u00a0(Washington: National Gallery of Art, 2000), Monet completed about 180 canvases during his stay \u201cfor an average of 30 pictures a year, or one every 12 days.\u201d In 1872 alone, he created 60 paintings.\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_5658\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"600\"]<\/a> Claude Monet, The Studio Boat, <\/cite>1876. Oil on canvas. 72 x 59.8 cm. Barnes Foundation, Philadelphia and Merion. View Source<\/a>[\/caption]\r\n\r\nMonet began using a floating studio boat to paint on the Seine at Argenteuil. As seen in The Studio Boat<\/em>, he would anchor his craft to work, completing his paintings later in his studio. The drifting movement of the boat on the river inspired momentary images that eloquently capture the flow and atmosphere of the watery scenes.\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_5659\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"800\"]<\/a> Claude Monet, Landscape: The Parc Monceau, <\/cite>1876. Oil on canvas. 59.7 x 82.6 cm. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. View Source<\/a>[\/caption]\r\n\r\nDuring the later 1870s, Monet sought out historically significant sites in the Capital to construct his vision of a re-born Paris.\u00a0 He painted the Parc Monceau six times between 1876 and 1878. \u00a0Seven years earlier, during the Bloody Week of the Paris Commune, Monceau Park had been the site of brutal executions of Communards captured by troops of Versailles. Juxtaposed against this reality, Monet\u2019s series speaks to reclamation and continuity.\r\n\r\nMonet's compositions pointedly leave the site's tainted past unstated. The<\/em> Parc Monceau<\/em> of 1876 depicts a space that is idyllic and verdant. The trees are in full bloom, and the scene is serene, reminiscent of a sheltered private garden at a secluded moment in time.\r\n\r\nMonet's concern with capturing the immediacy of the transient here and now relies on the play of ephemeral light. The strips of grass and flowering trees and the delicacy of the leaves are arranged and rearranged by the dynamics of light and shadows, their infinite variations at once fleeting and anchored to a single point in time.\u00a0 Monet's use of dappled light, broad outlines and strong contrasts suggest that he had already begun to experiment with the boldly two-dimensional motifs that would characterize his work of the 1880s and 1890s.\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_5660\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"600\"]<\/a> Claude Monet, The Parc Monceau, <\/cite>1878. Oil on canvas. 72.7 x 54.3 cm. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. View Source<\/a>[\/caption]\r\n\r\nNotably, Monet's painterly images of public life are anonymous and indeterminate, without allusions to historical narrative.\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_5661\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"800\"]<\/a> Claude Monet, The Parc Monceau, <\/cite>1878. Oil on canvas. 54.6 x 66 cm. Private collection. View Source<\/a>[\/caption]\r\n6.5\r\n| Impressionism: A Critical Concept<\/h1>\r\n
<\/a> Claude Monet, Impression, Sunrise, <\/cite> 1872. Oil on canvas. 48 x 63 cm. Mus\u00e9e Marmottan Monet, Paris. View Source<\/a>[\/caption]\r\n\r\nMonet\u2019s Impression, Sunrise<\/em> was first exhibited in a show later called the \"Exhibition of the Impressionists\" in Paris in April 1874. \u00a0Marnin Young, in the chapter \u201cImpressionism and Criticism\u201d \u00a0(in A<\/em> Companion to Impressionism<\/em>, Andr\u00e9 Dombrowski, and Dana Arnold, eds., Wiley Blackwell, 2021, 11-26) discusses the contribution of art critics to defining Impressionism, and the consistent misinterpretation and limited reading of the review by Leroy which defined the reception of Impressionism. She describes the complex intertwining of the histories of Impressionist painting and art criticism and how the historical priority given to the critical coining of \u201cImpressionism\u201d was refracted through the lens of the twentieth-century avant-garde citing, as John House has pointed out, that in the 1860s a \u201cquick notation of an atmospheric effect\u201d was already widely described as an impression.\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_5663\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"800\"]<\/a> Pierre-Henri de Valenciennes,\u00a0Landscape with Ruins,<\/cite> ca. 1782-1785.\u00a0 Oil on canvas. 33 cm x cm. Los Angeles County Museum of Art. View Source<\/a>[\/caption]\r\n\r\nPierre-Henri de Valenciennes,\u00a0Landscape with Ruins<\/em>, ca. 1782-1785.\u00a0 Oil on canvas. 33 cm x cm. Los Angeles County Museum of Art.\r\n\r\nHere are some excerpts from the chapter:\r\nThe evidence that Leroy was the source of the words \u201cImpressionism\u201d (or Impressionnisme<\/em> in French) and \u201cImpressionist\u201d rests entirely on precedence \u2013 he was certainly the first to use the words in print \u2013 but there is very little contemporary evidence that the words entered into common usage because of Leroy\u2019s article. How critics invented Impressionism becomes, therefore, a rather different story. That story hinges on the wider transition from \u2018impression\u2019 to \u2018Impressionism.\u2019\r\n\r\nThe critical attitude of Leroy\u2019s text is nonetheless not quite as clear as later historians have claimed. First published in Le Charivari<\/em> 10\u00a0days after the exhibition of 1874 had opened, \u201cL\u2019Exposition des Impressionnistes\u201d offers a fictional dialogue between a narrator (is it Leroy?) and an academic landscapist named Joseph Vincent. As the two move through the exhibition in Nadar\u2019s studio on the boulevard des Capucines, M. Vincent becomes more and more apoplectic in front of each new painting. The narrator, by contrast, calmly attempts to explain and defend the works on display, although M. Vincent presumes he is \u2018being ironic.\u2019 Such irony forms the backbone of what Jean Renoir once called the article\u2019s \u2018Boulevard wit,\u2019 and it is hard to determine, at least at first read, if the narrator actually shares his friend\u2019s hostility. Indeed, the humor of the text more obviously mocks the stick-in-the-mud mentality of the academic painter. For his part, however, Vincent is clearly appalled by the \u2018smears\u2019 and \u2018splashes\u2019 of paint.<\/blockquote>\r\n \r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_5664\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"800\"]
<\/a> Camille Pissarro, Hoarfrost at Ennery,<\/cite> 1873. Oil on canvas. 65.5 x 93.2 cm. Mus\u00e9e d\u2019Orsay, Paris. View Source<\/a>[\/caption]\r\nThe facture in Camille Pissarro\u2019s Hoarfrost<\/em> consists of \u201cpalette scrapings spread uniformly across a dirty canvas.\u201d<\/blockquote>\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_5665\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"800\"]