The 2024 Olympics drew the world’s attention to this gracious, elegant city. But from the summer of 1870 to the spring of 1871 Paris was a city in ruins.
In a gripping piece of historical non fiction Sebastian Smee, the Pulitzer Prize–winning art critic at the Washington Post revisits this tumultuous time in its history. He writes:
‘This book is about how the city of Paris endured two military and political disasters in one year and how those events formed the backdrop both for an affair of the heart between two great artists and for the early days of the Impressionist movement.’
In Part One Smee recounts how the seeds of what later became the Impressionist Art Movement were sown by Édouard Manet, the ‘Father of Impressionism.’ Manet, an ardent Republican, rebelled against the conservative style favoured by the government-sanctioned jury who was charged with choosing the paintings for the annual art exhibition at the Salon. In his paintings, he forged a new direction, eschewing classical subject matter. He chose instead to show the real world, capturing the fleeting effects of light and colour with loose brushstrokes. Some other artists, who later became known as Impressionist painters, began to emulate him.
These years also marked the beginning of the complicated but enduring relationship between Édouard Manet and the painter Berthe Morisot, the only woman who played a significant role in the Impressionist movement from the start. Berthe was obviously in love with him, and he was enchanted by her and often asked her to be his model, but Édouard Manet was a married man which made it complicated. While Smee does his utmost to get to the heart of the matter all that happened between them will never be known.
Parts Two and Three are an incredibly detailed account of the political and military history of 1870-1871, the terrible year when Paris was under siege. Only three of the Impressionist painters, Édouard Manet, Berthe Morisot and Edgar Degas were trapped in Paris during this time.
It was a bitterly cold winter, and when the food, medicine and fuel ran out the hardships the Parisians suffered became too great and they surrendered to the German Army. Then, when rebel Republicans took over and established a breakaway government, chaos and violence erupted, and the centre of Paris went up in flames. The rebel Republicans in turn were crushed by the French army. The gruesome descriptions of the torture, the killings and executions that took place that year caused me to almost not finish reading the book. Was it really necessary to go into such graphic detail? But as Smee’s main premise in his book is that we cannot see Impressionism clearly without grasping the impact of that tumultuous time on the movement’s leading artists it was important for him to show how it really was.
Painting had taken a back seat during this year, but once peace was restored, the Impressionist artists took up their brushes again. In Part Four, Smee tells how the relationship between Manet and Berthe, both on an artistic and personal level, continued to deepen. In a brilliant analysis of a series of their paintings, he shows how the changes in their relationship can be deduced by looking closely at their compositions, the way the figures are posed and their facial expressions. It is like a conversation on canvas.
A puzzling aspect of the post-war paintings of the Impressionists is that, except for a few attempts by Manet to address both the siege and the Commune, they chose not to depict the carnage which had occurred. Instead, they painted a peaceable present, focussing on capturing the fleeting, ephemeral nature of reality. It was, as Smee comments, as if they were saying no to history. His analysis of why this happened is entirely plausible and is an important contribution to understanding Impressionist paintings. As a masterful storyteller he has also brought the era which brought forth Impressionism as an Art Movement to life in a dramatic way. It is an engrossing read.
Reviewer: Lyn Potter
Text Publishing