Nineteenth-Century French Portraiture Paul Cezanne Portrait Article Discussion Douglas Lord’s article “Nineteenth-Century French Portraiture” explains that

Nineteenth-Century French Portraiture Paul Cezanne Portrait Article Discussion Douglas Lord’s article “Nineteenth-Century French Portraiture” explains that Paul Cezanne’s
Portrait of the Artist’s Wife, and other of his portraits are “quite indifferent to his sitter’s face
or character : but he minded a great deal about their construction.” In some ways his portraits,
including those of his wife, expose more about himself (and his aims) than reveal things about
the sitter.
– Using one of his portraits of his wife, briefly (200-300 words) discuss Cezanne’s emphasis on
“construction,” his interest in form over content. Be specific and cite article as applicable.
(You might explore how he used color (rather than light and shadow) to create form, etc.).dont forget the works cited Nineteenth-Century French Portraiture
Author(s): Douglas Lord
Source: The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs, Vol. 72, No. 423 (Jun., 1938), pp. 252255+258-261+263
Published by: Burlington Magazine Publications Ltd.
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/867336
Accessed: 29-04-2019 19:17 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

Terms and Conditions of Use

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on

Nineteenth-Century French Portraiture Paul Cezanne Portrait Article Discussion Douglas Lord’s article “Nineteenth-Century French Portraiture” explains that

Get an essay WRITTEN FOR YOU, Plagiarism free, and by an EXPERT! Just from $10/Page

Order Essay

Burlington Magazine Publications Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs
This content downloaded from 205.175.106.233 on Mon, 29 Apr 2019 19:17:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
FRENCH ART of the NINETEENTH CENTURY
HEN THE BURLINGTON MAGAZINE was founded thirty-five years ago, the art to whic
special number is in the main devoted was to a large extent unknown to the general p
in this country, or if known, was consistently despised. Manet and Degas were then regard
as the doubtful limit to which any reputable connoisseur might go; Cezanne, who was just t
being rediscovered in his own country, was dismissed as incompetent, Matisse as infantile.
the situation is very different. Manet and Degas occupy an unchallenged position among the great
of the past, and Cezanne, if not so unanimously accepted, is seen as a genius whose work has dete
the subsequent development of painting in the twentieth century.
Our own part in this transvaluation of aesthetic values has been considerable ever since Roger Fry spr
to the defence of this school in a letter which was published in our issue of March, I908. This was follo
in January, 1911, by one of the first, and what still remains one of the best, appreciations of th
Impressionists by Arthur Clutton-Brock-an article inspired by the famous exhibition of the work
school which had been organized by Mr. Fry, who was then one of the joint editors of this Magaz
from that time artists like Cezanne, Gauguin and Van Gogh were treated with increasing respect
pages. That even so we were well in advance of official and academic opinion is shown by the fac
was not until I9I7 that the National Gallery, Millbank, ventured to acquire a painting by Gaugu
Gogh was not thus honoured until I924; Cezanne not until 1926.
We publish this special number to demonstrate once more our conviction that art has no tem
boundaries. As students and collectors we must be prepared to exercise our sensibilities and to
values against works of art whether they are recovered from the remote past of mankind or are the cr
expression of our own age. We may make mistakes; but the evidence as it is eventually registered
museums no less than in the market shows that when our principles are sound our courage will be justi
NINETEENTH-CENTURY FRENCH
PORTRAITURE BY
DOUGLAS LORD
c F ORTRAITURE is essentially an art of
( collaboration, but one which demands
from the artist as much as, and frequently
more than, is offered. For a portrait is
a concrete presentation of an individual
personality and as a work of art must therefore
satisfy both personal as well as aesthetic standards.
On the whole it is dangerous for an artist to become
too devoted to the painting of portraits for, unless
he is both authoritative and strong-willed, he is
subject in air and light, see him as a fragment o
universe, concentrate less on his actual feature
and allow colour and their imagination to evok
his personality. The one group therefore distor
for plastic purposes, the other for psychological
Periodically either one or the other prevailed
In the first part of the nineteenth century, howev
we are faced with both tendencies existing sim
taneously and as rivals, but each in its way a
dominant: in the latter half every artist is f
likely to sacrifice aesthetic necessities to non-aesthetic
himself and simply flaunts his talent, or lack of i
England in the eighteenth century, where the artist
whatever. The two periods are separated by Courb
prestige by painting flattering portraits of him and
deprived portraiture of much of its usefulness, bu
torical and the fictional: and up to a point one
Thus the public did not understand them when th
no longer painted portraits to please but to expres
their feelings : as a result their subjects were limit
almost completely to fellow artists, themselves an
demands. This happened all too obviously in
existed merely to satisfy his patron’s desire for
his family. Baudelaire has divided portraits into
two categories, ” l’histoire et le roman,”l the hiscan accept this classification. That is to say that
broadly speaking there have been two main forms of
portraiture : the one typified by such artists as Durer,
Holbein, Fouquet and Philippe de Champaigne,
the other by Greco, Rubens, Rembrandt, Watteau
and Fragonard. The former place their subject as
in a vacuum and concentrate on a faithful rendering
of the contours and modelling of his features,
selecting the attitude most characteristic and expressive of his personality; the latter bathe their
1 Le Salon de I846.
with the result that there is no conceptual un
and the invention of the camera. Photograp
also created a perverted public taste, with whi
the self-respecting artists refused to compromi
members of their own family or immediate cir
of friends.
Up till the French Revolution there had, in ea
century, been a tradition: not merely in the fo
of an artistic mould in which portraits were ca
but indeed a tradition of taste among the patro
which meant that they knew more or less what
expect of an artist. Thus the outstanding artis
Q
THE BURLINGTON MAGAZINE, No. 423, Vol. lxxii, June, I938.
This content downloaded from 205.175.106.233 on Mon, 29 Apr 2019 19:17:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
253
THE ARTIST’S WIFE, BY PAUL CEZANNE. CANVAS, 65 BY 50 CM. (MESSRS. WILDENSTEIN & CO., LTD.)
This content downloaded from 205.175.106.233 on Mon, 29 Apr 2019 19:17:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Nineteenth-Century French Portraiture
of each century had to express their genius more or
less within the limitations of a current plastic
language, while the minor artists at least had a
model to which they could conform and, though
their work was academic and dull, it was seldom
so vulgar as to be unbearable. Nanteuil, Le Brun,
Mignard or Tocque bear this out. But the French
Revolution changed everything: at that time
tradition was swept away and so were the patrons.
Hence the nineteenth century is characterised by a
complete lack of taste as well as of tradition : yet
despite, or rather because of, this it produced an
astonishing sequence of highly individual artists.
The true effect of the collapse can, however, best
be measured by a look at the minor figures, such as
Vernet, Lhermitte, Bouguereau, Bonvin or
Meissonnier, even Guerin, Gerome or Couture.
The wealth of the nation and the control of art had
pour leurs portraits ? Qui se soucie de savoir si les
bustes d’Alexandre sont ressemblants. II suffit que
nous ayons de lui une image conforme a son genie.
C’est ainsi qu’il convient de peindre les grands
hommes.” He found Gros and David willing to
obey, as well as minor Court painters, such as
Guerin, Gerard and Gerome : idealisation was the
order of the day.
Suddenly, however, Ingres, another young pupil
of David, appeared and replied to Napoleon:
” Les chefs d’oeuvre de l’antiquite ont ete faits avec
des modeles comme nous en avons sous les yeux
en ce moment a Paris. … II faut trouver le secret
du beau par le vrai.”2 What must have been
Napoleon’s reaction to the Portrait of Napoleon, First
Consul (Liege Museum) painted in I805, or Napoleon
on his Throne (Musee de l’Armee, Paris) painted in
I806 ? Great care has been lavished on the clothes
passed into the hands of ignorant people : but they and on the composition, but the face is dead white
knew what they wanted from art-they wantedlike a death mask, while the character, though
portraits to be sentimental and naturalistic, but strongly felt, is expressed through the almost
above all to be noble. David, who had then justgrotesque attitude. No wonder it was condemned
returned from Rome, quickly became the founderas being quite unlike Napoleon. In I806 Ingres
of the new style. Painting, he decreed, must remind left France for Italy, where he spent eighteen years
men that they were like the ancient Romans, and learnt much by studying Raphael. His portraits
citizens of a free and enlightened Republic: heremain essentially “histoires,” but he forces his
attempted in his painting to express sentiments asfigures into a deliberately rhythmical composition.
noble as those proclaimed by the popular orators. When confronted with his own or some other face
His figures sit solidly immobile, as though hewnhe forgot all about ideal beauty; he was so excited
out of marble: the Portrait of M. Gerard and hisby what was actually before his eyes that he just
Family (Museum of Le Mans) is a typical example. wanted to record it as accurately as possible. At
How ideal this father sitting among his four children: the same time he remembered aesthetic considerations,
the little daughter dutifully playing the piano, the and the more he saw rhythmic possibilities develop
elder brother with his protective arm around thethe more deliberately, the more significantly did he
younger one’s shoulder, the smallest child dandleddistort the figure. ” Si vous voulez voir cette jambe
between father’s knees. Each figure is severelylaide, je sais bien qu’il y aura matiere : mais je
detached from every other, yet the artist has been vous dirai : prenez mes yeux et vous la trouverez
very observant: each has a distinctly personalbelle “3 he said to his pupils. M. Bertin has an arm
expression, the crude essentials of character are quite and hand like an eagle’s claw, Mme. Moitessier’s is
directly and vigorously set down. There is little like some bulb or submarine growth pushing out
trace of an interest in proportion or arrangement,its shoots. ” L’art n’est jamais a un si haut degre
but there is a vividness, a realism which is striking : de perfection que lorsqu’il ressemble si fort a la
the style is linear, the artist is clearly detached, thisNature qu’on peut le prendre pour la Nature
is ” histoire.”
elle-meme.”4 Ingres’ colour may at first sight seem
The Republic was soon replaced by Napoleon,
cold and ugly, but then in his opinion: “une
who saw in painting a means of celebrating his ownchose bien dessinee est toujours assez bien peinte,”5
triumphs; and indeed as early as 1796 the First
and his colour accords perfectly with his line. Few
Consul found, during his campaign in Italy, a young
artists have had such an amazing feeling for con-
pupil of David, Antoine Gros, who was burning tours:
to
but his contours are not flat, they express
serve him. On the day he painted him at the Pont
all the tension of the forms they enclose. His line
d’Arcole he was obviously fascinated by the face,
is never flaccid, it is unhesitating and evocative:
with its thin lips and long pointed nose; he makes
the modelling is broad, the full volume of the forms
us feel the youthful fire, the determination, even
is expressed and every part of a figure is related to
the idealism of his subject: but there is no idealisathe whole. The figure is plastically grasped, so
tion. It is also a step forward from David in itsthat even the excessive length of Mme Riviere’s
relaxation of the contours and its sensitive use of
colour. Moreover it is alive and actual. But within
[PLATE II, C] right arm is not worrying. Ingres was
2 M. JANMOT: Opinions d’un artiste sur l’Art. Paris I885.
3 Cf. M. LAPAUZE : Ingres, sa vie et son oeuvre Paris, Imprimerie,
a few months Napoleon was already saying:Georges Petit, I91I.
“Qu’avez-vous besoin de modele? Croyez-vous
4 Ibid.
5 Ibid.
que les grands hommes de l’antiquite aient poses
254
This content downloaded from 205.175.106.233 on Mon, 29 Apr 2019 19:17:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
A-PORTRAIT OF LORD BEROX, BY THEODORE GERI- B-SELF-PORTRAIT, BY EUGENE DELACROIX. CANVAS,
CAULT. CANVAS, 61 BY 49 CM. (MUSEE FABRE, MONT- 64 BY 51 CM. (MUSEE DU LOUVRE, PARIS)
PELLIER)
C-PORTRAIT OF MADAME RIVIERE, BY J. A. D. INGRES.
CANVAS, 117 BY 90 CM. (MUSEE DU LOUVRE)
D-PORTRAIT OF M. ALFRED BRUXAS, BY GUSTAVE
COURBET. CANVAS, 91 BY 72 CM. (MUSEE FABRE,
MONTPELLIER)
PLATE II. NINETEENTH-CENTURY FRENCH PORTRAITURE
This content downloaded from 205.175.106.233 on Mon, 29 Apr 2019 19:17:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
X-PORTRAIT OF A TOtTXG WOMAX, BY EDGAR DEGAS. B-PORTRAIT OF MME. MICHEL LEVX, BY EDOUARD
CANVAS, 62.5 BY 48.5 CM. (MRS. A. CHESTER BEATTY; MANET. CANVAS, 74.3BY52.2 CM. (MR. &MRS.CHESTER
COURTESY OF MESSRS. REID & LEFEVRE) DALE; COURTESY OF MESSRS. REID & LEFEVRE)
C-SELF-PORTRAIT, BYJ. B. C. COROT. CANVAS, 33 BY 25 CM.
D-POR TRAIT OF M. BOCK, BY VINCENT VAN GOGH.
(UFFIZI, FLORENCE)
CANVAS. (PRIVATE COLLECTION)
PLATE III. NINETEENTH-CENTURY FRENCH PORTRAITURE
This content downloaded from 205.175.106.233 on Mon, 29 Apr 2019 19:17:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Nineteenth-Century French Portraiture
undoubtedly a great portrait painter, but too unique
to be a chef d’ecole. Bouguereau is there to show us
the folly of trying to follow him blindly, while
another pupil, Chasseriau, was forced to try the
experiment of grafting on romantic colouring: not
unsuccessfully indeed, to judge from his Self-Portrait
in the Louvre.
du Louvre) : the one a thrilling expression of an
enthralling musical experience, emphasises the performance, the other a materialistic view of a deter-
mined gentleman with a violin under his arm and
a bow tightly gripped in a little hand, emphasises
the profession. The one evokes the magic of the
music he makes, the other states the mastery of his
The opposing, the Romantic, school of portraitureinstrument: one is dynamic, the other static.
grew out of Davidism, or rather out of the studio Between these two giants must be fitted two
of Gros. It arose partly as a natural reaction againstsmaller painters whose portraits are nevertheless far
the tyranny of Neo-Classicism, but partly fromfrom being negligible. The first of these is Corot,
Gros’ own principles of colour and composition. Thethe second Daumier. The figure in Corot’s SelfPortrait (Uffizi, Florence) [PLATE III, c], painted
first protagonist was Gericault and his Portrait of Lord
about 1835, is beautifully placed on the canvas, the
Byron (Montpellier Museum) [PLATE II, A], painted
forms develop naturally out of each other and the
in Italy about I816, is evidence of a new directness
of vision. The forms are no longer incised, though
face is cleverly emphasised between the dark cap
and the dark scarf. There is no romantic emphasis
there is still a suggestion of contour, there is real
here, it is a product of meditation. Corot has studied
feeling for paint and colour, the head is felt plastically
himself, for there is an intensity in his look; the
and the modelling is careful. The clue to character
figure has vitality and there is a subtle revelation
is not the attitude (though the raised finger pointing
of the character in the pose. It is not strained, the
at the brain is obviously symbolic) but the obtruding
veins, the brooding angry look in the eyes, the forms are solid and the modelling careful, though
pursed lips. However, the fruit of Gericault’s attitudesimple. But he has been content merely to bring
is only seen in his disciple Delacroix, who was asout the main facts of the structure of the head, quite
a lot is left to the imagination. Daumier on the
gifted a theorist as he was a painter. With him
other hand is violent: his portraits are not poetic
ideal beauty is dead: it is simply personality which
but realistic. His Portrait of Baudelaire looking like
matters; but the technique is much broader than
in the case of Gericault, there is not even a trace ofa terrified vulture is typical. Daumier insists on
the intense individuality of his sitter and he stresses
hard outline and there is a real passion for colour.
it by seizing on intensely characteristic poses. He
His Self-Portrait (Musee du Louvre) [PLATE II, B],
painted in 1829, is one of the noblest portraits of thedoes more than paint, he practically models the
head in paint. He attempts simply to realise
nineteenth century. Here “imagination speaks
above all else “6 ; one is conscious of a man living
plastically the principal elements of the head: he
indicates the shape of the skull by highlights on one
in an inner world of imaginative excitement and the
whole pose suggests the grandeur of his conceptions;side and shadows on the other, he hollows out the
but there is no doubt as to his intelligence. The
eye-sockets, models the nose and chin and carves
model has been so thoroughly understood that he isa mouth. But he succeeds in achieving considerable
vigour as well as an air of sinister mystery.
able to pass over the details of clothing, even the
form of the ear, to concentrate on the really charac- The middle of the century is emphasized by the
teristic details of the face. The head grows naturallyappearance of a new and powerful vision, which
cuts across each of the existing schools. Courbet,
on the body: it is felt in all its volume and when
the artist to whom I refer, has been called a
the eye reaches the back it needs no emphatic line,
as in Mme. Riviire, to take it round to the other side.”realist
” and this appellation can stand. He
determined to paint only what he saw before him,
It is not a servile reproduction of nature, nor is it
that the result must be good because it would
prosaically descriptive: it is, in terms of paint, believing
a
be true. There is no idealization about the Portrait
suggestive portrait. ” It is much more important,”
he writes in his Journal,7 ” for the artist to approach
of M. Bruyas (Montpellier Museum) [PLATE II, D] :
the ideal which is in him, and peculiar to him, thanbut nor is it merely photographic. The very fact
that he was in front of a model seems to have liberto record, even in a strong way, the transitory ideal
which nature may present-and she does presentated his plastic imagination, for the exaggeration
of the left side is clearly done for compositional
such aspects : but it is only a certain type of man
who sees them in nature, and not the common run
reasons. There is no very deep psychological perception, the figure stands there melancholy and
of men, which is a proof that it is his imagination
thoughtful, wearing a black morning coat and a
which creates the beautiful and precisely because
he follows his genius.” It is perhaps not unin-red and white striped bow tie, one hand resting
structive in this context to contrast Delacroix’
in the armhole of his brown waistcoat, the other
on a green book labelled Etudes sur l’art moderne:
Portrait of Paganini (Phillips Memorial Gallery,
Solution. Here is the solidly respectable bourgeois,
Washington) with Ingres’ portrait drawing (Musee
even to the heavy gold watch chain hangmg across
* Delacroix’s Journal: Oct. I2th, 1853.
7 Ibid.
his stomach : ” oui, je vous ai compris, et vous en
259
This content downloaded from 205.175.106.233 on Mon, 29 Apr 2019 19:17:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Jineteenth-Century French Portraiture
Impressionism had its linear as well as its colourist
avez une preuve vivante, c’est votre portrait .. .”I8
wrote Courbe…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment