54 pages • 1 hour read
Paris in Ruins: Love, War, and the Birth of Impressionism
A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Part 4-EpilogueChapter Summaries & Analyses
Part 4: “The Birth of Impressionism”
Part 4, Chapter 16 Summary: “A New Way of Painting”
During the “Bloody Week” (May 21st-28th), artist James Tissot made a watercolor depicting the massacre of the National Guard by the military. It was one of the few artistic depictions of the events made by contemporary artists, although depictions of the ruins were popular.
Many artists struggled to produce new art. Monet returned to the outskirts of Paris, Argenteuil, in 1871. Courbet was tried for his role in the Commune and the destruction of the Vendôme Column. He was imprisoned and eventually fled to Switzerland to avoid the enormous fines levied against him. Édouard Manet was depressed, particularly about the death of his “acolyte” Bazille. He returned to art in 1872 with a lithograph depicting the Commune. He submitted a painting showing a US Civil War naval battle to the 1872 Salon, an oblique reference to the “civil war” France had just experienced. Berthe painted intimate portraits of her sister in Cherbourg. Her mother, Cornélie, grew increasingly concerned that Berthe was still not married.
The fragile French republic was still under threat by reactionary monarchist and clerical factions. These factions restored the conservative governmental art system, regarding artists like Manet and Morisot as culturally and politically subversive. Manet’s circle wanted to portray immediate, everyday sights in new ways instead of the technical, sweeping epics and myths preferred by the conservatives.
Part 4, Chapter 17 Summary: “Berthe Morisot with a Bouquet of Violets”
Following the end of the Commune in 1871, Édouard Manet and Berthe Morisot spent a lot of time together. They grew even closer. Their work influenced one another, especially as Berthe advanced in her depiction of “light’s flickering fugitive quality” (280). Manet painted a series of portraits of Berthe beginning in 1872. The most famous one, Berthe Morisot with a Bouquet of Violets, is notable for its flat, asymmetrical composition, loose brushstrokes, and Morisot’s ambiguous expression. Smee argues that they were now “palpably in love” (282) and that this love can be seen in the portraits.
Édouard also put Berthe in contact with wealthy people and dealers to help her sell her paintings. That same year, Berthe completed her most famous painting, depicting her sister Edma with her newborn daughter, The Cradle. Smee describes how the two artists’ paintings over the next few years were in dialogue with each other in terms of subject matter, method, and color. For instance, Smee notes that Édouard’s brushstrokes in his portrait of Nina de Callais are very similar to those found in Berthe’s work. In January 1873, Berthe’s father died.
In May 1873, a group of Parisian artists created the Société Anonyme to launch an exhibition outside of the Salon that would be run according to the republican values of the Commune, such as accessibility and equality. Berthe agreed to contribute to the show, but Édouard did not. He worried that being associated with “a group of self-declared republicans and mavericks” (293) would be detrimental to his career. Despite Édouard’s and others’ pleas trying to change her mind, Berthe remained committed to the show.
Part 4, Chapter 18 Summary: “The Launch of Impressionism”
On April 15th, 1874, the Société Anonyme show opened. It came to be known as the first of eight Impressionist exhibitions held from 1874 to 1886. The gallery had low entry fees and long hours to make it as accessible as possible to the public. In addition to Berthe, Monet, Renoir, Degas, and other well-known painters showed their work.
Many of the paintings depicted places ravaged by “the Terrible Year” returned to their idyllic states, without explicitly referencing the events that had happened. Smee argues that the artists chose not to depict battles or heroic scenes because they were “in revolt against state-sanctioned hierarchies of art” (301) which privileged paintings of “martial value” over the landscapes, portraits, and still lives they had created. The paintings were an attempt to capture the world in a specific moment rather than create mythic narratives.
The reviews of the show were mixed. Many critics felt the works seemed unfinished. One of Courbet’s supporters dubbed the painters “Impressionists,” because “they represent not the landscape, but the sensation produced by the landscape” (303). Right-wing newspapers like Le Figaro criticized both the work and the artists’ left-wing political orientations.
That month, Berthe was reckoning with the fact that her father’s death left her responsible for herself. Her brother, Tiburce, urged her to continue to focus on her painting and not worry about getting married. Indeed, Berthe was still in love with Édouard. However, that summer, the Morisot and Manet families went on vacation to Normandy together. There, Berthe spent a lot of time with Eugène Manet, Édouard’s brother. He fell in love with her and proposed. She accepted his proposal. Although some see their marriage as a cynical ploy for Berthe to remain close to Édouard, Smee argues that she appreciated how Eugène admired and supported her.
Part 4, Chapter 19 Summary: “Bastille Day”
In October 1876, the “rebel artists” held another exhibition. Once again, Berthe participated, but Édouard did not. He had had some success in the 1875 Salon, but he was blacklisted from the 1876 Salon for his unwillingness to conform to their standards.
In March 1876, a group of Communards had been elected to the government. The right-wing papers conflated the Communards with the Impressionists. Despite the sexist criticism in the press, Berthe continued to paint the feminine subjects she was best known for, such as The Psyche Mirror (1876).
In 1875, the French republic was confirmed. The republican and conservative, monarchist factions continued to wrestle over control of the government. Édouard and other Impressionists, like Renoir, actively supported the republicans. In 1879, the republicans gained control of the government. Entrance standards for the Salon were relaxed, and Manet once again submitted paintings. In 1880, his health began to decline. He moved to the countryside. However, he was very excited about the first celebration of Bastille Day, the French National Holiday, which had just been established that year. It was a symbol of the republicanism Édouard had supported throughout his life.
Epilogue Summary
Despite Édouard’s declining health, he made a series of paintings of the radical republican Henri Rochefort and other “monumental” works like A Bar at the Folies-Bergère. A doctor gave him a prescription of “derivatives of ergot” (328) to treat the symptoms of syphilis. His primary doctor warned it could give him gangrene.
Léon Gambetta died in 1882. Cornélie Morisot died in 1876. In 1878, Berthe gave birth to her only child, Julie. Berthe made many, many paintings of Julie at every stage of her life. Berthe’s friend Marcello died in 1879. Édouard Manet died in 1883 of gangrene. Eugène Manet, Berthe’s husband, died in 1892 after a long illness.
Over the course of this period, Berthe’s painting continued to improve and grew bolder and more experimental. Her work reflected the themes of “the transience of love, the brevity of youth, and the hesitations of being itself” (333). Berthe and her work were admired for their honesty and immediacy. In 1895, Berthe Morisot died of “pulmonary congestion” at the age of 54.
Her fellow painters, Renoir, Monet, and Degas, worked together to create a solo exhibition of her work after her death. Her daughter Julie attended its opening and described it as “marvelous.”
Part 4-Epilogue Analysis
In Part 4, “The Birth of Impressionism,” Smee presents the culmination of his evidence for the argument that Impressionism was an artistic movement that developed in part as a response to the Terrible Year. To make this argument, Smee focuses on The Impact of Collective Trauma on Creativity. He cites biographical, historical, and artistic evidence to make his case. He opens with the admission that there are very few explicit depictions of the siege of Paris and the Paris Commune. Indeed, Tissot’s little-known watercolor is “one of the very few contemporaneous artistic depictions” (263) of the end of the Commune.
To account for the connection between the trauma of the events and its impact on the Impressionist artists, Smee relies on psychological explanations for the subject matter and form, constructing informed speculation about their artistic approaches. He notes that in the year following the event, they were not very productive and “what little work they did produce tended to be on a smaller scale and in a subdued palette” (264). He attributes this to their creativity “seiz[ing] up” as a trauma response.
When the artists do mount a show on April 15th, 1874, the works do not depict the traumatic events. However, Smee argues that “many of the landscapes on view were, in fact, haunted by memories of the Terrible Year” (300). For instance, he notes Sisley painted an idyllic view of Bougival, where there was a deadly battle of the War of 1870. He attributes their collective decision to a “revolt” against depictions of war and violence, which they associated with the Second Empire. It is also suggestive of psychological sublimination, in which a traumatic object is depicted in metaphorical, figurative forms.
Smee then argues that the artists’ selection of subjects was also an expression of their political moderation or centrism: “[T]he young painters had recoiled from the delusional ravings of men, whether of the left or the right, who were willing to sacrifice sons and daughters, stability and security for absurd and hopeless causes” (301). However, it is not clear how this view of their artistic response squares with Smee’s evidence in the Epilogue that many of the Impressionist artists continued to actively support republican causes, including radical republicans like Henri Rochefort.
Smee also analyzes contemporaneous newspaper columns to highlight the extent to which The Relationship Between Art and Politics remained a key element of production and reception for Impressionist artists following the crisis. Throughout the 1870s, the connection between Impressionists and republicans “became ever more explicit” (318). For instance, he quotes conservative art critic Marius Chaumelin, who used political language like “Intransigents” to characterize the Impressionists’ work. He also notes that Manet made a caricature of the royalist Patrice de MacMahon in 1874, an overtly political form of art.
In the Epilogue, Smee focuses on The Personal Experience of Artists During Crises. He captures the interpersonal dynamics between other members of Édouard’s and Berthe’s circle and how they responded to Berthe’s death. The quotations are most likely taken from Julie Manet’s diary, although they are not specifically cited. The anecdote is written in journalistic, or novelistic, detail that provides insight into the dramatic artistic personalities and their shock and sadness over the loss of their friend. For instance, Smee writes that “the gallery staff” laughed while Monet and Degas “shouted at each other about who ‘adored’” Berthe more while Renoir “sprawled on a chair” (336). These details are intended to make these great artists seem more human and relatable, with the scene invoking an ordinary family bickering over funeral preparations.
Unlock all 54 pages of this Study GuidePlus, gain access to 8,800+ more expert-written Study Guides.
Including features: