Salon des Refusés

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Whistler : Girl in White, 1862, National Gallery of Art , Washington DC

The Salon des Refusés , also known as the Salon of the Refused or the Salon of the Rejected , was a parallel exhibition to the official Salon de Paris . In this exhibition, those paintings and sculptures were shown which had been rejected by the jury of the Salon de Paris. The most significant exhibition in terms of art history is that of 1863, which was organized on the initiative of Napoléon III. came about after the jury was criticized for its selection methods. A number of art historians classify this exhibition as the birth of modernism.

The Salon de Paris

Importance of the salon

The Salon de Paris (also Paris Salon ) was the most important French art exhibition, the history of which went back to the 17th century. It was not only an internationally known meeting place for collectors and dealers, at which millions of euros were turned over every year, but also an important social event and cultural figurehead of the respective French government. During the Ancien Régime , the salon was reserved for members of the royal art academy ; after the revolution , the salon was also open to other artists. For a long time, admission to the exhibition was the basic requirement for an artist to be generally recognized. During the so-called Salon era in the 19th century, the influence of the Salon de Paris made the profession of the painter in France an attractive profession with a state-regulated training path and above-average income opportunities. French salon painters on both sides of the Atlantic were able to fetch top prices for their paintings.

Beginning in 1804, individual exhibition participants were awarded and from then on a jury regularly decided on the admission, rejection and awarding of the works submitted to the salon. The jury that determined which pictures were exhibited there tended to be more indebted to the traditional tastes of the art academies , such as those taught at the École des Beaux-Arts . In the second half of the 19th century, however, the jury came under increasing criticism. Countless intrigues took place within the jury to ensure the acceptance of certain artists, because exhibiting in the Paris Salon, receiving good reviews in the press and possibly even receiving an award, was a sure way for a painter to sell works or to receive orders. Rejected images, however, were rarely for sale. It is said that the painter Jongkind had to repay the purchase price for a painting that was not accepted by the jury. For a while, an "R" for "Refusé" was even stamped on the stretcher frames of the pictures submitted and rejected for the exhibition.

Development of the salon in the Second Empire up to 1863

Franz Xaver Winterhalter : Comte de Nieuwerkerke , director of the state museums from 1852

The Salon de Paris has always been the cultural figurehead of the respective regime. The climax of this development was that at the Paris World Exhibition of 1855 the industrial palace with its range of industrial achievements was given a palace of fine arts on an equal footing.

After the February Revolution of 1848 , the admission regulations were largely relaxed, with the result that both art critics and the public scoffed at the weaknesses of a number of the works on display. Even in 1850, the jury did not select very strictly. During the Second German Empire (1852 to 1870) it was the explicit goal of those responsible for the salon to re-emphasize the traditional prestige function of the salon.

“In the future, participation in the salon will again be an honor for our artists, which should only be limited to the most worthy of them. The necessity of putting together a salon of highly remarkable works demands a correspondingly indomitable rigor from the jurors ”

explained the new director of the state museums, Alfred Émilien de Nieuwerkerke at the constituent meeting of the new salon jury on March 4, 1852. Only half of the jurors had been selected by the artists. Only artists who had already been admitted to the exhibition at the Salon de Paris were eligible to vote, and participation in the Salon of 1848 was expressly not recognized. At the same time they turned away from the policy that an artist could present any number of works to the jury and limited the number of exhibits to three per artist. The consequence of this restrictive policy was that the number of exhibiting artists and the works exhibited decreased significantly. In 1850, 1614 artists had shown a total of 3929 works. In 1852 there were only 1040 artists with 1757 works. In 1855, the year of the Paris World's Fair, the choice of jurors was completely suspended. All jury members were personally appointed by imperial decree. From 1856 onwards, all jurors had to be academy members.

Artists like Monet , Manet , Renoir , Bazille or Sisley , with their divergent conceptions of art, had little chance of being exhibited in the official Paris Salon. The jury even regularly rejected paintings by Courbet , who at that time was already one of the recognized artists.

The background to the first Salon des Refusés

The jury's decisions in the spring of 1863

It was a typical side effect of a Parisian salon that artists whose works were rejected protested against this decision. Rejection rates of more than 40 percent were typical in the 1850s; in 1853, for example, only 57.6 percent of the submitted works were admitted. In 1863 there were additional protests because the number of paintings that a single artist was allowed to present to the jury for this year's Paris Salon had been limited to three.

The jury's deliberations on which paintings should be included in the exhibition at the Paris Salon began on April 2, 1863. As early as April 5, the rumor spread among Parisian artistic circles that the jury was particularly picky this time. The jury's decisions were announced on April 12th: between 2000 and 3000 artists had submitted a total of almost 6000 works. 1727 artists with a total of 2919 works were accepted for the exhibition. Among the rejected artists were a disproportionately large number of young painters who had applied for the first time. Ultimately, only 20 of the rejected artists were already known in 1863. Among these were Edouard Manet, James McNeill Whistler, Henri Fantin-Latour , Antoine Chintreuil , the Desbrosses brothers, Armand Gautier , Henri Harpignies , Camille Pissarro , Johan Barthold Jongkind , Alphonse Legros , Constant Dutilleux and Paul Cézanne , all of whom were representatives of the the avant-garde of the time. The salon jury's reputation for not being open to avant-garde trends is based on their rejection. For some artists, however, it was only a partial refusal. Legos and Fantin-Latour had one picture each rejected and one picture accepted, Armand Gautier even accepted two pictures, but two others were rejected. In addition, the salon jury in 1863 had rejected a number of well-known painters who were more in line with the academy's taste, such as Emil-Normand Saint-Marcel , Nicolas-Francois Chifflart , Antoine Vallon , Jean-Paul Laurens , Philippe Pavrot , Étienne Prosper Berne-Bellecour and Jean- Charles Cazin .

The gallery owner Louis Martine had already made a name for himself in previous years by exhibiting works that deviated from the traditional conception of art. Martine informed the Paris press on April 15 that he was willing to show the rejected images in his sales rooms. However, its rooms would not have been sufficient to accommodate the more than 3,000 paintings and sculptures.

The decision of Napoleon III.

Portrait of Napoleon III by Alexandre Cabanel , around 1865

The exuberant criticism that the jury of the Paris Salon had received due to its rigid selection was also noted by the French emperor. Napoleon III had some of the rejected paintings shown on April 22nd. Count Nieuwerkerke , who was also General Director of the Museums, Superintendent of Fine Arts and President of the Jury, was then instructed to show all rejected paintings in a separate part of the exhibition. The imperial plan was published in the Moniteur on April 24, 1863 . The exhibition venue was to be the Palais de l'Industrie, which also housed the Paris Salon. The Palais de l'Industrie was built for the 1855 World's Fair and was so spacious that it was actually able to accommodate both exhibitions. Only a turnstile separated the two exhibitions.

At the time, the French emperor's decision was largely viewed in the press as wise, generous and liberal. Art history partly shares this view. The move was closely related to the general trend towards liberalization in imperial domestic policy. Against the background of growing political unrest, he quieted both the protesting painters without Napoleon III. had to make major political sacrifices and gave the public the opportunity to judge the rejected images for themselves. Napoleon III found a large part of the rejected images, such as Manet's breakfast in the country, to be ugly or indecent. Since some of the pictures deviated far from the usual taste in art, it was to be assumed that the public would find little pleasure in the rejected pictures. The decision to now exhibit all of the paintings in the Salon des Refusés could therefore have been made with the intention of restoring the prestige and authority of the jury of the Paris Salon.

Manet's biographer comes to a slightly different assessment. He sees in it a single move in a varied and uninterrupted game of intrigues between the court and the opposition, in which Alfred Émilien de Nieuwerkerke was particularly involved. The École des Beaux-Arts was an institution of the city of Paris until 1863 and behaved in the opinion of Napoleon III. too independent. The protest of the rejected painters was a welcome opportunity for him to turn this institution into a state school. In fact, Comte de Nieuwerkerke succeeded in largely ousting the academy by subordinating the Ecole des Beaux-Arts to the arts administration on November 13, 1863, and thus to de Nieuwerkerke.

Don't exhibit or exhibit?

The artists were free to either withdraw their pictures until May 7, 1863, or to accept that they would be exhibited. For the rejected artists, this decision was not easy to make. Those who exhibited their pictures ran the risk of drawing the wrath of the jury and thereby endangering their artistic career in the long term. On the other hand, if an artist withdrew his painting, he was suspected of not having confidence in his own abilities. Gustave Courbet, for example, welcomed the opportunity to show the paintings he had rejected by the jury to a broader public. Édouard Manet, on the other hand, was convinced that only the official Paris Salon was the right place to gain recognition as an artist.

In the case of many rejected artists, it played a role that they did not know anything more precise about the quality of the rejected pictures, at the side of which your own was exhibited. The Salon de Paris of 1848, to which artists were very generously admitted, was still remembered by many because of its unsatisfactory level.

The art of hanging pictures

In addition to the intrigues that took place within the jury of the Paris Salon when the paintings were selected, the Paris Salon also had the reputation of having relationships and possibly even bribes a role in the hanging of the paintings. Pictures could be placed on the walls, which were densely hung with paintings, in such a way that they were most likely noticed by the visitors. Painters without influence, on the other hand, often found their pictures in a hard-to-reach corner or placed so high up on the walls that they were overlooked by visitors. - The jury of the Paris Salon now also took care of the hanging of the paintings in the Salon des Refusés. This was even viewed critically by the critics close to the academic conception of art:

“It is dangerous to allow the jury or any of its members to influence the hanging of pictures that have been rejected by that jury. Their primary concern is, of course, to justify themselves to the public, and this time, contrary to the usual practice, they have put the worst pictures in the best places with great care. "

wrote the English art critic Hamerton in a London magazine.

For example, the painting Girl in White by James McNeill Whistler , which was judged to be particularly bad by the jury, was given a place near the entrance to the salon, so that every visitor had to see this painting, which was unusual for the time, when entering the exhibition.

The reaction of the audience

Of the artists who are now classified as important 19th century painters, in addition to Manet, Courbet and Whistler, Johan Barthold Jongkind , Camille Pissarro , Paul Cézanne , Armand Guillaumin , Felix Bracquemond and the painters Henri Fantin-Latour , Amand Gautier , Henri Harpignies and Alphonse Legros represented. Paintings from the last four painters were also accepted for the official exhibition. Henri Harpignies, who exhibited three pictures in the Salon des Refusés, was nevertheless awarded the “Mention honorable” in the Salon of 1863. The same applies to the landscape painter Charles Jacque , who received a 3rd class medal and the landscape painter Charles Daubigny , who, like Harpignies, was awarded a "Mention honorable". However, the catalog of the Salon of Refugees does not list all of these painters. It had remained incomplete because it had to be put together without the help of the administration and there was not enough time to complete.

While the official salon had already opened on May 1st, the exhibition of the Refused began on May 15th. From the beginning, this exhibition attracted a large number of visitors. Up to four thousand visitors were counted on Sundays. This makes this exhibition a bigger draw than the official salon. The press devoted more and longer articles to the artists exhibited in the Salon des Refusés, so that the joke was rampant in the press that the artists of the Paris Salon hoped to be rejected in the next year in order to attract more attention. The vast majority of the articles, however, were negative towards the art exhibited here and the public's reaction was negative. People were amused by the rejected pictures.

Girl in white and breakfast in the green - the scandals of the salon

The jury's strategy of hanging Whistler's girls in white so that no visitor could miss them showed the desired success. Émile Zola reports that this image was particularly often mocked by visitors. The picture, which today is considered a masterpiece due to its harmony of different shades of white, aroused particularly strong rejection from the public and critics because of its unconventional way of painting and representation. Whistler had painted his lover Jo in the picture; the depiction was described by an American critic as

"... a strong, red-haired woman with an empty look from soulless eyes who, for some inexplicable reason, stands on a wolf's skin."

Manet , Breakfast in the Green , 1863, Musée d'Orsay , Paris

Manet's breakfast in the country , which was referred to in the catalog as Les Bains , met with similar rejection . After it became known in the press that the Emperor Napoléon III. had taken particular offense at this, this picture was sure to attract the attention of all visitors. The depiction of two naked women accompanied by two clothed men was unusual, but not unknown in art history. For this painting, Manet was inspired by a detail from Marcantonio Raimondi's Judgment of Paris . The rejection that the picture received from the critics was therefore due to both the sitter and the painting style.

“The 'bath' has a very daring taste: a naked woman sits resting on the lawn, in the company of two clothed men; further back a bather in a small pond, and a hilly background. The canopy of large trees arches over the scene. The naked woman is unfortunately not of a beautiful figure, and one could not imagine anything uglier than the gentleman who stretched out next to her and never even thought of taking off his hideously soft hat in the open air. It is precisely this contrast between a booby, who does not fit the character of a rural scene at all, and the bather without a shell that is so hurtful. I have no idea what could have induced an intelligent and distinguished artist to choose such an incongruous composition ... "

wrote the cultural critic Théophile Bürger-Thoré in a report on the Salon des Refusés. In contrast to the conventional style, the background is only sketchily indicated; Contours are only reproduced with fleeting brushstrokes, the forms acquire shape through the contrast of colors.

literature

Single receipts

  1. ^ Andrée Sfeir-Semler: The painters at the Paris Salon 1791-1880 , p. 19.
  2. ^ A b Andrée Sfeir-Semler: The painters at the Paris Salon 1791–1880 , p. 27.
  3. ^ Andrée Sfeir-Semler: The painters at the Paris Salon 1791-1880 , p. 14.
  4. ^ Andrée Sfeir-Semler: The painters at the Paris Salon 1791–1880 , p. 28.
  5. ^ Andrée Sfeir-Semler: The painters at the Paris Salon 1791-1880 , p. 30.
  6. ^ Andrée Sfeir-Semler: The painters at the Paris Salon 1791–1880 , pp. 129–132.
  7. ^ Andrée Sfeir-Semler: The painters at the Paris Salon 1791–1880 , p. 132 and p. 133.
  8. ^ Andrée Sfeir-Semler: The painters at the Paris Salon 1791–1880 , p. 133.
  9. ^ Andrée Sfeir-Semler: The painters at the Paris Salon 1791-1880 , p. 134.
  10. ^ A b c Andrée Sfeir-Semler: The painters at the Paris Salon 1791–1880 , p. 136.
  11. ↑ Juliet Wilson Bareu: The Salon des Refuses of 1863. A new view. In: The Burlington Magazine , Vol. 149 (2007), No. 1250, pp. 309-319, ISSN  0007-6287
  12. ^ Andrée Sfeir-Semler: The painters at the Paris Salon 1791–1880 , p. 139.
  13. ^ Sue Roe: The private life of the Impressionists . Parthas Verlag, Berlin 2007. ISBN 978-3-86601-664-4 .
  14. ^ Andrée Sfeir-Semler: The painters at the Paris Salon 1791–1880 , p. 135.
  15. ↑ cit. n. Rewald, p. 58.
  16. ↑ cit. n. Rewald, p. 62
  17. ↑ cit. n. Jedlicka, p. 51.
This version was added to the list of articles worth reading on December 8, 2005 .