Pierre-Auguste Renoir: La Promenade

Pierre-A uguste Renoir LA PROMENADE

Pierre-A uguste Renoir LA PROMENADE John House GETTY MUSEUM STUDIES ON ART Los ANGELES

Christopher Hudson, Publisher Frontispiece: Mark Greenberg, Managing Editor Photograph of Pierre-Auguste Renoir, 1875. Paris, Musee d'Orsay. Gregory A. Dobie, rLaitor Suzanne Watson Petralli, Production Coordinator All works of art are reproduced (and photographs Gary Hespenheide, Designer . Lou Meluso, Photographer provided) courtesy or the owners unless other- wise indicated. © 1997 The J. Paul Getty Museum Typography by Hespenheide Design 1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1000 Printed in Hong Kong by Imago Los Angeles, California 90049-1687 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data House, John, 1945- Pierre-Auguste Renoir : La promenade / John House. p. cm. — (Getty Museum studies on art) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0-89236-365-7 1. Renoir, Auguste, 1841-1919. Promenade. 2. Renoir, Auguste, 1841-1919—Criticism and interpretation. 3. Impressionism (Art)— France. 4. J. Paul Getty Museum. I. Renoir, Auguste, 1841-1919. II. Title. III. Series. ND553.R45A73 1997 759.4—dc21 97-21894 CIP

CONTENTS Introduction i The Salon and the Art Trade: Genre Painting and the Value of Art 5 Reading Genre Paintings 25 The Setting of La Promenade 35 The Figure Subject in La Promenade 51 The Technique of La Promenade 61 Renoir's Position in 1870 69 The Place of La Promenade in Renoir's Career 72 Notes 80 Acknowledgments 88 Final page folds out, providing a reference color plate of La Promenade

INTRODUCTION At first sight, La Promenade [FIGURE i and FOLDOUT] is one of the most engaging and approachable of all Impressionist paintings. Dappled sun- light plays across a woodland glade; a young man pulls the foliage aside from a narrow path to allow his female companion to pass; she turns her head aside, perhaps momentarily hesitant to go farther into the woods. The technique— ebullient, variegated, informal—complements this scene of relaxed companion- ship and courtship. To late-twentieth-century eyes the work raises few questions and poses few problems; indeed, little has been written about it, despite its reg- ular appearance in exhibitions and the Renoir literature. Little is known about the picture other than the fact that it bears the artist's signature and the date of execution: "A. Renoir. 70." It is not clear where the canvas was painted or who its first owners were. The oil's first recorded appearance was at a Paris auction in 1898, where it was bought by the Im- pressionists' dealer Paul Durand-Ruel; first exhibited at the International Society in London in 1901, it passed through various private collections before being pur- chased by the J. Paul Getty Museum in 1989.* Even the painting's original title is not known. The work was sold in 1898 as La Promenade, but as early as 1941 it was pointed out that this may not have been the title that Renoir gave it.2 How, then, should we approach the painting? It would be easy to begin with what is known about Renoir himself—about his life and attitudes toward art. There is a problem with this approach, however. Many of the stories about Renoir and most of the accounts about his views come from his old age— from interviews conducted in the years before his death in 1919, particularly from conversations recorded by the dealer Ambroise Vollard and the remarkable Figure 1 reminiscences by the painter's son, the film director Jean Renoir.3 By the early Pierre-Auguste Renoir twentieth century, Renoir's opinions about art and society were firmly estab- (French, 1841-1919). La Promenade, 1870. Oil lished; his loathing for mechanization and modern urban life was accompanied on canvas, 81.3 x 65 cm (32 x 25V2 in.). Los by a nostalgic appeal to traditions of artisanal craftsmanship. His accounts of his Angeles, J. Paul Getty Museum, 89.PA.41. early career were viewed through the filter of these later concerns. i

The fragmentary evidence we have from Renoir's early career tells a rather different story. In the late i86os and early 18705 he was a close associate of many of the painters who were posing the most radical challenges to the artistic authorities of the period. He was especially close to Claude Monet and was one of a group of artists that looked to Edouard Manet as its leader. Moreover, the subjects Renoir chose to paint suggest an active engagement with many of the central issues in the contemporary art world, specifically an acute awareness of the question of modernity in painting, of how the everyday experiences of mod- ern city life might be transformed into fine art. The present account of La Promenade will seek to restore the picture to its original contexts. Of course, in a literal sense this is impossible. The painter's original intentions cannot be reclaimed, any more than can the responses to the painting of its first—now-unknown—viewers. However, we can explore the frameworks within which the picture was made. How did Renoir's choice of this theme and the ways in which he treated it relate to the art of his contemporaries and to contemporary debates about the purpose of fine art and its role in society? Here, though, the relevant contexts must be determined. Traditional histories of the period have viewed Renoir's early work, like that of his col- 4 leagues, as the beginnings of the history of Impressionism. Such histories have examined the pictures primarily in relation to the central concerns that charac- terized the Impressionist movement as it emerged in the mid-iSyos: an informal and seemingly spontaneous way of painting, and a concern with effects of out- door light and atmosphere. In accounts like this, the relevant context is largely confined to the activities of the group to which Renoir belonged. The artists are presented as a self-contained avant-garde, whose primary point of reference was 5 the art of their colleagues. Views such as this are anachronistic, more appropriate to the discus- sion of artistic groupings in the twentieth century, when the institutional struc- tures of the art world changed and the notion of the avant-garde became securely established. Certainly, as will be shown, the artists of Manet's circle were viewed as a distinctive group in the late i86os, but their distinctiveness was defined by comparison and contrast with other artists working in different modes. The paintings produced by members of the circle reveal their close and 2

active engagement with the same set of issues that faced artists with different values and affiliations. In the open forum of the Parisian art world of the i86os, the paintings of fashionable artists were just as relevant to the form Renoir's art took as the paintings of his friends and colleagues. The aim here is to bring out the issues that faced Renoir as he painted La Promenade. The other aspects of his work and that of his friends at this time will play a central part in this account, but the painting will be ana- lyzed in a broader frame throughout. What did it mean to paint a picture like La Promenade in France in 1870, in the final months of Napoleon Ill's Second Empire? Instead of beginning with the artist and proceeding toward the picture, this study will start with the picture and only at the end ask what it reveals about Renoir as a man and artist. 3

THE SALON AND THE ART TRADE: GENRE PAINTING AND THE VALUE OF ART For young French painters in the i86os, the annual Paris Salon was by far the most important showcase for their work. Critics' reviews of the Salon offer the most significant commentaries on contemporary art in nineteenth-century France. At the same time, though, alternative outlets for paintings were rapidly emerging, particularly through the growing number of art dealers in Paris. Renoir regularly submitted his most ambitious pictures to the Salon in these years; he had two paintings accepted by the jury in 1870. La Promenade, however, was not intended for the Salon. Although the work's early history is unknown, the likelihood is that Renoir painted it in hopes of a sale through a dealer. The Salon served two radically different functions. This govern- ment-organized event was intended to present the most elevated forms of con- temporary art—art that tackled significant themes, such as morality or heroism, and treated them in a sufficiently generalized way to raise them above everyday reality. But the Salon also served as a marketplace; many of the pictures shown there were designed to attract private collectors, whose tastes, most commenta- tors agreed, were for genre paintings—for trivial, familiar subjects treated in a meticulously illusionistic technique. The popularity of genre painting went back a long way—to the medievalizing "troubadour" scenes of the early years of the century and to the spate of paintings of peasant subjects from the 18205 on, ranging from the ideal- izing Italianate figures by artists such as Leopold Robert to the humble French scenes of Adolphe Leleux and, later, Jean-Fran£ois Millet. By the i86os even academically trained painters such as Jean-Leon Gerome were treating historical subjects in anecdotal, semihumorous ways that critics saw as more appropriate to Figure 2 Jean-Leon Gerome genre, as in Cleopatra and Caesar [FIGURE 2], shown at the 1865 Salon. Another (French, 1824-1904). academic painter, William Bouguereau, had virtually abandoned mythological Cleopatra and Caesar, 1865. Oil on canvas, and religious subjects—because they were so difficult to sell—in favor of ideal- 183 x 129.5 cm (72 x 51 in.). Sold Sotheby's, 6 New York, 23 May 1990, ized peasant themes, such as The Rustic Toilette of 1869 [FIGURE 3]. In 1867 lot 48. Courtesy of most of the medals awarded at the Paris Exposition Universelle were given to Sotheby's, Inc., New York. 5

genre painters, and in 1868, for the first time, a genre painting was chosen for the top award at the Salon: Gustave Brion's Reading the Bible: Protestant Interior in 7 Alsace (present location unknown). The traditionalists' view of genre painting was vividly spelled out by the critic Olivier Merson in 1861: Genre painting holds sway over artists and dominates the public. It is a sign of the decadence of art. . . . The public is satisfied with the exact imitation of the form and color of clothes, furnish- ings, and accessories . . . and excuses artists from the rest—that is to say, from thought and great principles. It is no surprise that, finding a convenient path by which they can gain success and a reputation, painters commit themselves to this, without thought for the interests of art, determined above all to satisfy the pic- ture dealers who seek to impose on them the whims of their 8 clientele, which are more ostentatious than intelligent. For Marius Ghaumelin in 1868, though, the triumph of genre painting was a cause for celebration: One can only applaud the decadence of mythologies and the decrepitude of symbolism, though we may regret that contem- porary art cannot retrace the great events of history But we con- sole ourselves by the realization that the humble scenes of private life have never been reproduced with greater finesse and energy. . . . We can be proud of the importance that genre paint- ing . . . has assumed in recent years. Do not these images of domestic life, these sketches of customs and characters, tell us the history of man himself? And is not this history as worthy of interest and as rich in lessons as the representation of empires 9 bloodstained by war? Figure 3 William Bouguereau The vogue for genre paintings that featured the lifestyle of fashion- (French, 1825-1905). The Rustic Toilette, able, contemporary city dwellers was more recent. These pictures were first 1869. Oil on canvas, popularized in the late 18508 by the Belgian painter Alfred Stevens [FIGURES 4, 130.8 X 90.2 cm (51V2 x 35V in.). Sold 2 20] and after him by the Belgians Charles Baugniet [FIGURE 17] and Gustave de Sotheby's, New York, 13 October 1993, lot 69. Jonghe [FIGURE 18] as well as French painters such as Auguste Toulmouche Courtesy of Sotheby's, Inc., New York. [FIGURES 5, 34]. By 1870 such meticulously painted images of women wearing 6

Figure 4 Alfred Stevens (Belgian, 1823-1906). The Blue Dress, circa 1868. Oil on panel, 31.9 x 26 cm 9 (12 /ie x 10V4 in.). Williamstown, Mass., Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute, no. 865.

the latest fashions, generally presented in luxurious interiors, were common at Figure 5 Auguste Toulmouche the Salon; they also formed the stock-in-trade of a number of dealers, notably (French, 1829-1890). the highly successful Adolphe Goupil. Waiting, 1865. Oil on canvas, size and present Renoir's own practice in these years shows an acute awareness of the whereabouts unknown. Reproduced from a status of different types of subject matter and of the ways in which artists were photograph published challenging traditional hierarchies. The examples of Gustave Courbet and Manet by Goupil and Co., circa 1867. London, Witt Library, were clearly relevant to him, especially in the paintings he submitted to the Salon Courtauld Institute of Art. between 1867 and 1870. However, his oeuvre in these years, when taken as a whole, was very diverse; it cannot be seen merely as an offshoot of theirs. To place La Promenade in its wider context, we need to explore the range of references and comparisons that his art invited and the range of issues with which it engaged. 9

Figure 6 Many of Renoir's most ambitious figure paintings abruptly brought Pierre-Auguste Renoir. Diana, 1867. Oil on can- together traditional and overtly contemporary elements. Diana [FIGURE 6], vas, 199.5 X 129.5 cm rejected by the Salon jury in 1867, is a fusion—perhaps an awkward one— (77 x 51V4 in.). Washington, National between the imagery of the classical goddess, with her attributes of a bow and a Gallery of Art, Chester Dale Collection, dead stag, and the fleshy, unidealized figure type familiar from the nudes of 1963.10.205. © 1997 Gourbet. In Bather with a Griffon [FIGURE 7], exhibited in 1870, a standing female Board of Trustees, National Gallery of Art, nude, again reminiscent of Gourbet, assumes a pose suggestive of the antique Washington. Venus pudica. Her hand shields her sex; her fashionable contemporary clothes are 10

Figure 7 Pierre-Auguste Renoir. Bather with a Griffon, 1870. Oil on canvas, 184 X 115 cm (72V X 2 45V4 in.). Museu de Arte de Sao Paulo Assis Chateaubriand, no. 95.

discarded beside her. The riverbank background and the presence of another woman echo Gourbet's notorious Young Women of the Banks of the Seine, Summer Figure 8 an Gustave Courbet (French, [FIGURE 8], which was exhibited at the Salon in 1857 d again in Gourbet's one- 1819-1877). Young man exhibition in 1867. However, the notion of updating the subject of Venus by Women of the Banks of the Seine, Summer, adapting poses from past art is closer to Manet's Olympia (Paris, Musee d'Orsay), 1856-57. Oil on canvas, with its clear echoes of Titian's Venus of Urhino (Florence, Uffizi). 174 X 206 cm (68% X SlVs in.). Paris, Musee Renoir's other Salon exhibit in 1870, Woman of Algiers, now known as du Petit Palais, no. 377. © Phototeque des Odalisque [FIGURE 9], invites a different range of comparisons—with recent Musees de la Ville de Orientalist painting. The sensual pose is reminiscent of pictures by Jean- Paris. 12

Auguste-Dominique Ingres, such as Odalisque with a Slave (versions in Figure 9 Pierre-Auguste Renoir. Baltimore, Walters Art Gallery, and Cambridge, Massachusetts, Fogg Art Odalisque [ Woman of Museum), but the fluent handling and rich color echo Eugene Delacroix, espe- Algiers], 1870. Oil on canvas, 69.2 x 122.6 cially his Women of Algiers of 1834 (Paris, Musee du Louvre). cm (27V4 X 48V4 in.). Washington, National Two other large early paintings by Renoir play on the same border- Gallery of Art, Chester line between tradition and modernity. One of these, perhaps rejected by the Dale Collection, 1963.10.207. © 1997 Salon jury in 1866, is now known only from its appearance on the wall in the Board of Trustees, National Gallery of Art, right background of Frederic Bazille's Studio of Bazille, 9 rue de la Condamine Washington. 10 [FIGURE io]. In the work, a standing female nude, seen from behind, gestures to a fashionably dressed woman seated at her feet. Nothing is known of the early history of the other work, A Nymph by a Stream [FIGURE 11], in which a laurel- wreathed figure, reclining beneath some bushes, is presented as the per- sonification of the source, with a spring, of water issuing from between her 11 fingers. Both canvases invite comparison, again, with Courbet—the lost picture with his Bathing Women of 1853 (Montpellier, Musee Fabre), and the Nymph with his paintings of the late i86os on the theme of the spring (for instance, La Source of 1868, Paris, Musee d'Orsay). 13

Figure 10 In all of these pictures Renoir followed Manet's example in another Frederic Bazille (French, 1841-1870). The Studio respect—he gave the figures individualized and clearly recognizable facial fea- of Bazille, 9 rue de la tures, those of Lise Trehot, his companion in these years. She was presumably Condamine, 1870. Oil on canvas, 98 x 128.5 cm 12 (38% x 50% in.). Paris, the model for La Promenade as well. In Courbet's nudes, by contrast, as in Musee d'Orsay, RF 2449. those of the academic tradition, the faces are generalized and typecast, thus dis- tancing the figures from any sense of direct psychological engagement with the viewer. Only in A Nymph by a Stream did Renoir take this sense of engagement still further, by making the figure stare directly at the viewer, as Manet had in Olympia and many other canvases. In this whole group of paintings Renoir's relationship to the tradi- tions he invoked was anomalous. Certainly his fusion of overt modernity with 14

evident citations of the canonical exemplars of academic art could be viewed as Figure 11 Pierre-Auguste Renoir. provocative or even as parody. Indeed, Marius Chaumelin in 1870 explicitly A Nymph by a Stream, 1 circa 1871-72. Oil on described Bather with a Griffon as a caricature of the Medici Venus. 3 The paro- canvas, 66.7 x 122.9 cm (26V X 48% in.). dic aspect of the paintings, however, is not as flamboyant as in Courbet's most 4 London, National Gallery, provocative canvases, nor are the pictures as starkly confrontational as Manet's.14 NG5982. Reproduced by In relation to the work of the artistic grouping to which Renoir belonged, this courtesy of the Trustees, The National Gallery, might be seen as a marker of his relative conservatism, but, viewed in the London. broader context of debates about the future of public painting and the relevance to modern art of the art of the past, his wide-ranging attempts to harness ele- ments from the past to an explicitly modern form of painting can be seen as an ambitious attempt at synthesis and reconciliation. With their references to past art, these oils stood on the borderline between genre and mythological painting. Renoir also explored other possible ways of treating genre-like themes, at the Salon as well as outside it. His Lise [FIGURE 12], accepted by the jury in 1868, presents the virtually life-size figure of a young woman in a wood. Zacharie Astruc, a critic and friend of Renoir's, described the picture, which is on the scale of a court portrait, as a sequel to Monet's Camllle (Bremen, Kunsthalle). This work, exhibited at the Salon two 15

Figure 12 Pierre-Auguste Renoir. Use, 1867. Oil on can- vas, 184 x 115.5 cm (72V x 45V in.). Essen, 2 2 Museum Folkwang.

years earlier, presents a life-size image of a young woman in a green dress. More 15 surprisingly, Astruc saw Manet's Olympia as the starting point for both canvases. Paul Mantz's general comments about the 1868 Salon relate particularly closely to Renoir's Lise. Criticizing artists for mixing the genres of painting, forgetting the laws of proportion, and treating trifling subjects on an epic scale, he concluded: "The anecdote has invaded everything; a particular play of light and shade has taken on the same value as a drama, and few artists still have the ambition to 16 express a sentiment or an idea." As will be seen, apart from the differences of scale, Lise bears a close relationship in thematic terms to La Promenade. By contrast, in 1869 Renoir exhibited at the Salon a smaller, half- length figure titled In Summer: Study [FIGURE 13]. The picture's primary title links it to the familiar imagery of the seasons, but the subtitle emphasizes the 17 work's informality. Both the relaxed, inexpressive pose and the very broadly brushed background are a marked contrast to the treatment of Lise the previous year. At around the same time Renoir painted a more elaborate, larger genre scene, The Engaged Couple [FIGURE 14], but he seems not to have submitted it to the Salon jury. Perhaps this was because of the presence of the male figure, a most unusual element, as we shall see, in the modern-life paintings shown at the Salon. Here, too, some of the themes of La Promenade are anticipated, although its garden setting, indicated by the flower bed and the house at back right, is very different. There is only one fragment of contemporary evidence about Renoir's attempts to sell his genre paintings in these years. In autumn 1869 he wrote to Overleaf: Frederic Bazille: "I have put Lise and Sisley on show at Carpentier's. I will try to Figure 13 Pierre-Auguste Renoir. get a hundred francs out of him, and I am going to put my woman in white up for In Summer: Study, 1868. Oil on canvas, 85 x auction; I'll take what I can get for it—it doesn't matter." The Engaged Couple 59 cm (33V2 x 23V4 in.). may well be the painting shown at Carpentier's; the "woman in white" is pre- Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer sumably Lise from the 1868 Salon.18 At this time it was a common practice for an Kulturbesitz Nationalgalerie, artist to put his own work up for public auction at the Hotel Drouot in Paris.19 A I 1019. Marie-Charles-Edouard Carpentier had become the partner of the Figure 14 long-established dealer Armand-Auguste Deforge in 1856 and took over the Pierre-Auguste Renoir. The Engaged Couple, business in the i86os. Deforge had made a reputation from the 18405 onward for circa 1868. Oil on can- vas, 105 x 75 cm (41% promoting la pemture de fantaisie, domestic-scaled genre paintings often x 29V2 in.). Cologne, 20 Wallraf-Richartz-Museum, inspired by Venetian art and the Rococo of the eighteenth century. The fact WRM 1199. I?

that Carpentier was interested in Renoir's art (as far as is known, alone of the Impressionists-to-be) provides another perspective on the painter's work at this period, for many of his compositions of the late i86os and early iSyos, among them La Promenade, show a lightness and delicacy of touch comparable to the 21 art of Rococo painters such as Fragonard. Renoir had been a great enthusiast of French eighteenth-century painting since his early days as a decorator of porce- lain. La Promenade would presumably have been the type of painting that he would have sought to sell to a dealer such as Carpentier. The production and marketing of paintings like La Promenade belongs to a larger history, that of the emergence of the commercial art dealer as the primary outlet for smaller, domestic-scaled paintings. Although the Salon continued to be by far the most important means of attracting the attention of buyers, by the 18505 there were many dealers in Paris operating out of small shops and displaying an ever-changing selection of their stock in their shop windows. It was the window displays that led Theophile Gautier in 1858 to describe rue Laffitte, the principal art dealers' street, as "a sort of perma- 22 nent Salon." The Deforge/Carpentier shop was nearby on the boulevard Montmartre. The advantages of showing smaller pictures in smaller spaces were described in 1861 by the genre painter Frangois Bonvin, writing to Louis Martinet, the director of a gallery space that mounted exhibitions of contempo- rary art in the early i86os: Yet another good mark for your idea of holding a permanent exhibition! That picture I brought you a week ago has just attracted the notice of the ministry to me. Placed in the big exhi- bition, where there are often many similar pictures, this canvas would not, perhaps, have been noticed. Intimate painting [la peinture intime], large or small, needs a setting like yours: larger 23 is too large. It was difficult for an artist to sell his work to dealers, however, if he had not made a name at the Salon. Eugene Boudin's attempts to market his works during the i86os provide insight into this problem. With luck, he might 20

be offered fifty or a hundred francs a picture, but he would never go beyond this Figure 15 Pierre-Auguste Renoir. unless he gained a reputation that enticed one of the few major dealers to buy Mixed Flowers in an 24 Earthenware Pot, circa from him. hopes for a hundred-franc sale to Garpentier show that he Renoir's 1869. Oil on paperboard was in the same position; what little is known about the sales that other mounted on canvas, 64.9 X 54.2 cm (25V x 2 Impressionists-to-be made to dealers in these years presents the same scenario. 21% in.). Boston, Pissarro, Monet, and Cezanne were selling the occasional picture to the modest Museum of Fine Arts. Bequest of John T. dealer p ere Martin; for The Seine at Rougival [FIGURE 42], Monet remembered, Spaulding, 48.592. Courtesy, Museum of Martin paid him fifty francs plus a small painting by Cezanne.25 y Fine Arts, Boston. Presumabl designed for sale through dealers, too, were the lavish still lifes that Renoir and Figure 16 Monet painted from the same bouquet of flowers, probably in the autumn of Claude Monet (French, 1840-1926). Still Life 26 with Flowers and Fruit, 1869 [FIGURES 15, i6]. Still lifes were especially marketable through dealers in 1869. Oil on canvas, these years. 100 x 80.7 cm (39% X 31% in.). Los Angeles, In 1869 tne dealer Paul Durand-Ruel opened new premises with J. Paul Getty Museum, gallery spaces intended to show paintings in their best light. He promoted his 83.PA.215. enterprise as an alternative to the Salon and to more aggressively populist dealers 21

27 such as Goupil. r may well have seen galleries such as Durand-Ruel's as Renoi potential outlets for his work, but it was only in 1872 that Durand-Ruel began to buy paintings from him and only in 1881 that he became Renoir's primary dealer. The politics of the Salon and the emergence of the dealer trade need to be seen in yet a wider historical framework, in the context of the last years of Napoleon Ill's Second Empire, specifically in relation to the notion of the "lib- eral empire" that he fostered in the late i86os. The premiership of Emile Ollivier in January 1870 was presented as the realization of these moves toward political and social freedom, although the state retained considerable controls over political expression and the press. However, the relaxation of controls in the late i86os did encourage the emergence of a vociferous republican opposi- tion. This brief phase of active political debate was abruptly truncated by the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War in July 1870 and the fall of the Second Empire in September. In the art world, the organization of the Salon was also liberalized; new regulations for the election of the Salon jury in 1868 gave the vote to all artists who had previously had a work accepted. The landscapist Charles- Fran9ois Daubigny was elected with the highest number of votes. In 1870 a group of artists opposed to the Academy drew up a list of artists whom they sought to have elected to the jury, including Gourbet and Manet, but only two of this list, Daubigny and Gorot, were elected, although with the highest number of votes. When the 1870 jury voted to reject Monet's submissions, Daubigny and 28 Gorot resigned in protest. Throughout the nineteenth century all images of contemporary life had a political dimension in the broadest terms. Any representation that claimed to show life as it was then lived was inevitably viewed in relation to the specta- tors' own visions of the social and political world. The gradual political emanci- pation of the late i86os encouraged a more overt engagement with the political implications of such paintings. In his comments on genre painting in 1868 in the republican newspaper La Presse, Marius Chaumelin viewed its emergence in overtly political terms: "Genre is, above all, democratic painting, since it assigns the highest rank to the individual. Should we be surprised that it is growing so 29 quickly and threatening to absorb the whole of art?" However, the political and 22

ideological meanings of genre painting were more complex than this implies. The choice of theme was of central importance; the contrast between images of city and country was crucial. Likewise, the treatment of the subject—the rhetor- ical devices used to express its meanings—might transform its significance. The same subject might carry diametrically opposed meanings and associations depending upon the way in which it was presented. In order to locate La Promenade in relation to these issues, we must focus more closely on its subject and treatment and examine it in the context of the range of alternative conventions current at the time, paying particular atten- tion to the artistic, social, political, and ideological associations these conven- tions brought with them at this particular historical moment. 23

READING GENRE PAINTINGS The ways in which nineteenth-century viewers examined and made sense of paintings of contemporary life must first be explored. Through this, some idea can be gained of how the first viewers of La Promenade—whoever they were—would have approached it. What habits of viewing would they have brought to the picture? What meanings and associa- tions might they have found in it? More specifically, the artwork and the devices it uses should be placed in relation to two points of comparison: the fashionable genre paintings in the Stevens/Toulmouche mode, and the provocative alterna- tive posed by the paintings of Manet. Viewers in the late twentieth century tend to look first at the general effect of a picture and to use their overall impression of it as the key to under- standing its meaning. Scrutiny of details follows later, if at all. In the nineteenth century, by contrast, pictures were usually interpreted through a closer act of read- ing. Painters deployed a whole range of devices that, taken together, expressed the general idea of the image. These included the title of the picture; the group- ing of the figures; their poses, gestures, and expressions; their clothing and attri- butes; and the setting in which they were presented. In reviewing the Salon of 1869, Jules Castagnary detailed the requirements of a successful genre painting: A feeling for functions, for fitness are indispensable. Neither the painter nor the writer can neglect them. Like characters in a comedy, so in a painting each figure must be in its place, play its part, and so contribute to the expression of the general idea. Figure 17 Nothing arbitrary and nothing superfluous, such is the law of Charles Baugniet every artistic composition.30 (Belgian, 1814-1886). The Troubled Conscience, 1865. Oil on canvas, size Paintings of the Stevens/Toulmouche type invited close reading of and present whereabouts unknown. Reproduced this sort. For instance, in Charles Baugniet's Troubled Conscience [FIGURE 17], from a photograph pub- lished by Goupil and Co., shown at the 1865 Salon, the viewer is invited to imagine a whole narrative from circa 1865. London, Witt Library, Courtauld Institute the pose and expression of the seated woman, combined with the title of the of Art. 25

picture and the mythological scene—seemingly of Venus with cupids—on the wall behind her. Even where there is no such implication of a narrative continu- ing outside the space of the picture and beyond the moment depicted, the details of pose, clothing, and setting combine to characterize the type of figure depicted. Gustave de Jonghe's many paintings of mothers and children, such as Preparing for the Ball [FIGURE 18], use these devices to evoke the quiet joys of family life among the prosperous bourgeoisie. Of course, pictures like these raise questions that go beyond what is depicted. The historian needs to explore the assumptions—both social and aes- thetic—that lay behind the making and marketing of such works. The aim, how- ever, was a form of transparency; artists sought to present images of a credible "real world," images that coincided with the viewers' notion of life as it was actually lived. In canvases like de Jonghe's, this is a self-contained world, seem- ingly presented in its entirety. In Baugniet's work, the viewer is not told exactly what is troubling the woman, but the indications in the painting leave little doubt that it is a question of sexual fidelity. Paintings of this kind faced criticisms of various sorts. For tradition- alists, as we have seen, the whole genre was a sad reflection of the triviality of the epoch, of the loss of values in everyday life as well as in art. Beyond this, par- ticular pictures and painters might be criticized for the lifelessness of their figures, but such criticisms generally implied that it was possible to create lively, credible figures within this genre of painting. In 1870 the critic Theodore Duret, a friend of Manet's whom Renoir also knew by this date, condemned the works of Stevens's imitators: Figure 18 The woman in all these paintings is as far as possible from being Gustave de Jonghe a living being; she is a puppet or a mannequin whose purpose is (Belgian, 1829-1893). Preparing for the Ball, to model the satin dress or the cashmere that is the principal 1865. Oil on canvas, character in the picture, surrounded by the vases and trinkets size and present whereabouts unknown. that decorate the mantelpiece or spread out across the table. Reproduced from a photograph published by Goupil and Co., circa 1866. London, At the same time, however, Duret praised the truthfulness and vivacity of the Witt Library, Courtauld figures in Stevens's own paintings: Institute of Art. 26

They reflect the image of the modern Parisienne, of that woman whose demeanor and toilette leave one not knowing quite what to think—hesitating to say a priori whether she is an honest woman or not.31 Criticism of paintings of this type could be extended into a whole- sale moral condemnation. L. Laurent-Pichat pursued this argument at great length in the republican newspaper Le Reveil in 1870: Let us turn our attention to these likable young people who know so well how to dress themselves and how to wear a low-cut dress—to these idle society women who have nothing to do and whose little heads are filled with unhealthy dreams. For this art that is dressed up in silk and velvet is just as immoral as the nude art that we discussed a few days ago. Looking at these women, "young, coquettish, preoccupied with mysteries, seduc- tive, amusing, inviting," the critic kept asking: "Has she any children?" He imag- ined the women with their lovers while their husbands pursued honest careers.32 Comments such as these are part of a wider debate about the rela- tionship between consumerist luxury and immorality that continued throughout the last years of the Second Empire. Fostered by anxiety at the licence of Napoleon Ill's court and the apparent triumph of the lorette (a high-class courte- san), this debate focused on the perceived impossibility of determining a woman's moral and sexual respectability from observation of her dress, appear- 33 ance, and manner. In Laurent-Pichat's diatribe, as so often in reviews of these pictures, there is a constant and fascinating slippage between the discussion of the paint- ings and of the supposed "real world" they represent. It was their legibility and seeming transparency that made it so easy for viewers and critics alike to view them as unmediated. Instead of being recognized as value-laden fictions, they were frequently seen as unproblematic reflections of the social reality they pur- ported to represent and were judged not as art but as an integral part of this social reality. At the same time there was another, quite distinct form of critique of fashionable genre painting—articulated to some degree in art criticism, but 28

more vividly in painted form—in the work of Manet and his associates. The focus of Gastagnary's comments about genre painting in 1869 was Manet's work, including The Balcony [FIGURE 19], which, as Castagnary pointed out at length, flouted his requirements for coherent, legible genre painting at every point: "He arranges his people at random without any reason or meaning for the composi- tion." The poses and details in Manet's paintings quite failed to add up to a coherent reading; in The Balcony he had not indicated the relationship between 34 the figures and what they were doing on the balcony. g to Antonin Accordin Proust, Manet himself mocked the anecdotal reading of details that paintings like those of Stevens (a personal friend of his) invited: Alfred Stevens had painted a picture of a woman drawing aside a curtain [FIGURE 20]. At the bottom of this curtain there was a feather duster which played the part of the useless adjective in a fine phrase of prose or the padding in a well-turned verse. "It's 35 quite clear," said Manet, "this woman is waiting for the valet." The motives behind Manet's dislocated compositions have been much discussed. The original viewers of the works had various ways of dealing with them. For the most hostile critics, they were simply evidence of the artist's incompetence. However, two other approaches help in focusing more clearly on the problems the pictures raised for viewers. One of these was to see Manet's paintings as a direct attack on the Toulmouche mode, and thence on the whole vogue for fashionable luxury, while the other claimed that Manet was concerned with color and touch alone, without regard to the subjects he was treating. Manet's paintings, wrote Marius Ghaumelin in 1869, "have greatly scandalized the lovers of neat, tidy, sentimental bourgeois painting"; they lacked "expression, sentiment, and composition." In 1870, in praising Manet's Salon exhibits, his friend Edmond Duranty made the opposition still clearer: Against refined, artful painting, Manet opposes a systematic naivete and a scorn of all seductive devices. He places his figures against a dull slate gray background, as if he was puritanically protesting against the trompe-1'oeil curtains and the bric-a-brac furnishings that the greater and the lesser toulmoucherie . . . heap up for fear of being taken as paupers.36 29

Figure 19 Edouard Manet (French, 1832-1883). The Balcony, 1868-69. Oil on canvas, 170 X 124.5 cm (67 x 49 in.). Paris, Musee d'Orsay, RF 2772. What lay behind Manet's rejection of the conventions of genre paint- Figure 20 ing? For Gastagnary in 1869, it revealed Manet's "feeling for the colored touch Alfred Stevens. The Morning Visit, circa \tache colorante\'; Paul Mantz, the same year, claimed that his concern was sim- 1868. Oil on canvas, size ply with "a combination of colors."37 In 1868, Mantz, reviewing Manet's Woman and present whereabouts unknown. Sold Brussels, with a Parrot (New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art), saw the "symphonic Galerie Royale, 17 December 1923, lot 51. dialogue" between the pinks of the woman's dress and flesh as evidence of his Photograph, London, Witt Library, Courtauld "indifference" and "dilettantism," his refusal to be moved and impassioned by Institute of Art. 3i

38 the life around him. In 1868 Theophile Thore saw Manet's preoccupation with "the tache of color" as evidence of "a pantheism that places no higher value on a 39 head than a slipper." It was Manet's technique that demanded attention, both for its breadth and seeming neglect of modeling and detail and for its concern with the distinctive effects of the colored touch on the canvas. What link should be seen between this emphasis on artistic qualities and the wider question of social and moral attitudes that Mantz's and Thore's comments raise? The answer lies in the question of legibility itself and the debates about it in the late Second Empire. The conventions of fine art painting pre- sented a world whose terms of reference were unambiguous: compositions should revolve around the key figures, and social status and emotional feeling should be clearly expressed. Yet much social debate in the i86os focused on the ways in which the modern world could not be clearly read or understood, most immedi- ately in the context of a woman's place in the contemporary city and the difficulty in distinguishing respectable women from "prostitutes." These debates turned on the same issues as were involved in the conventions of high art—on gesture, expression, and clothing—but their conclusions were different. In comparison with the comforting world of art, where everyone knew their place, modern social life presented a constant threat to legibility and hence potentially to social order. Critics' disquiet at Manet's images of contemporary urban life raised such questions of definition and classification. The viewer could not tell what the figures in The Balcony were doing, gazing out onto the insecure public space 40 of the street. How did such social uncertainty relate to the artistic claims of Manet's pictures? Did this "artistic" sphere locate them apart from questions of politics, or did this very notion of the "artistic" represent a political position? Manet's viewpoint belonged to a particular sector of Parisian artistic culture that cultivated a distance from dominant social and political values and yet set itself up as an anatomist of contemporary society. It was this detachment that opponents characterized as "indifference." Among the theorists of this posi- tion were the writers of Manet's immediate circle, notably the poet Charles 41 Baudelaire, author of "The Painter of Modern Life." In part their stance developed from a rejection of the stereotypes and hierarchies that underpinned 32

current social norms, but it was also crucially bound up with the question of cen- sorship. An assumed and ironic distance was a cogent, but less tangible, mode of opposition than overt confrontation.42 In paintings like The Balcony, Manet challenged the seeming anec- dotal transparency of the Stevens/Toulmouche mode by the inexpressiveness of his figures' poses and gestures. Another associate of Manet's, Edgar Degas, briefly Figure 21 explored a rather different way of subverting legible narrative during these same Edgar Degas (French, 1834-1917). Interior, years. In pictures such as Sulking (New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art) and circa 1868-69. Oil on Interior [FIGURE 21], the figure groupings and attributes offer the viewer a wide canvas, 81.3 x 114.3 cm (32 x 45 in.). range of potentially legible clues to the story, but in neither picture can a secure Philadelphia Museum of Art, The Henry P. reading be reached. Particularly in Interior, the accumulation of details and signs Mcllhenny Collection in Memory of Frances P. seems expressly designed to thwart any coherent narrative. The woman has been Mcllhenny, 1986-26-10. 33

sewing at the table, but her corset is carelessly cast on the floor; the man stands with his back to the door, but a top hat appears in the far left background; they seem to be a couple, but there is only a single bed. Degas would have known well the conventions by which such genre paintings were habitually read—the illegi- bility of Interior can only have been deliberate.43 Where should La Promenade be placed in relation to these paintings and these debates? In comparison with Manet's and Degas's paintings, the poses and gestures in Renoir's canvas are expressive and legible and the inter- change between the figures is intelligible. Overall it is closer to conventional, fashionable genre painting. However, in three respects La Promenade marks itself out as quite different from the Stevens mode and asserts its allegiance to the examples of Gourbet and Manet: in the setting in which the figures are placed, in the presence of a male figure in a context such as this, and in its tech- nique. We shall now explore each of these in turn. 34

THE SETTING OF LA PROMENADE At first sight, there is little to say about the setting of La Promenade, •because it is so unspecific. Nothing more is indicated than a path through dense woods. However, for the nineteenth-century viewer, the combi- nation of setting and figures would have raised a range of issues that are central to the historical interpretation of the picture. The forest was a potent image in the social and artistic mythology of nineteenth-century France. Both in the writings of travelers and in the many paintings of woodland interiors that appeared every year on the Salon walls, the forest was presented as a refuge from the city, a place for solitary repose and con- templation. In paintings of the Forest of Fontainebleau (the site most favored by landscapists) and of other woods within reach of Paris, the scene is generally shown as deserted or as peopled by a few, small peasant figures, treated as an integral part of the remote rural scenario. The reality was rather different. While the landscapist Theodore Rousseau was representing the Forest of Fontainebleau as a secluded refuge [FIGURE 22], he was also actively opposing the efforts of Charles-Francis Denecourt to develop the area, now within easy reach of Paris by train, as a 44 tourist spectacle. This "new" forest, which Rousseau repudiated, was the sub- ject of Monet's vast, abortive Dejeuner sur rherbe of 1865-66 (fragments in Paris, Musee d'Orsay). In Bazille and Camille (Study for "Dejeuner sur rherbe") [FIG- URE 23], Monet depicted a man and a woman alone in a forest glade, framed by foliage in a way comparable to La Promenade. In other ways, however, La Promenade is very unlike Monet's can- vas. Renoir's setting is an enclosed, secluded space surrounded by dense bushes, rather than an open glade in a forest, and the figures suggest an active, amorous interplay, quite unlike the cool inexpressiveness of Monet's couple. The combi- nation of setting and figures in Renoir's canvas is likely to have invited a rather different chain of associations: with the landscapes of the banks and islands of the Seine near Paris, and specifically with the image of the canotier. 35

Figure 22 Figure 23 Theodore Rousseau Claude Monet. Bazille (French, 1812-1867). and Camille (Study for The Forest of Fontaine- "Dejeuner sur I'herbe"), bleau, Morning, circa 1865. Oil on canvas, 1850. Oil on canvas, 93 x 68.9 cm (36% x 97 x 132 cm (38V x 2TVs in.). Washington, 8 52 in.). London, Wallace National Gallery of Art, Collection, P283. Ailsa Mellon Bruce Reproduced by permis- Collection, 1970.17.41. sion of the Trustees of © 1997 Board of the Wallace Collection. Trustees, National Gallery of Art, Washington.

From the 18405 onward the canotier was a familiar figure in the mythology of Parisian life and leisure. During the week a modest worker in a shop or office, on Sundays he was transformed into the intrepid explorer of the 45 Seine, accompanied, according to the mythology, by his "siren." One writer was careful to distinguish between the serious canotiers, who rowed for prizes, and the many who were there purely for pleasure, who rowed energetically only in order to reach more quickly a quiet spot where the wine is cool . . . the trees are green and the bathing women can find a sandy bottom in the river and some shade. . . . [These canotiers\ bring with them canotieres, nimble, spruce, laughing, tireless, who are never worried about the morrow, provided one takes them out for an excursion, feeds them well, and appears to find them pretty. Such excursions with "une camarade" rarely required much; their destination, it 46 is made clear, was usually one of the islands in the river. In these years, Asnieres, on the Seine just to the west of Paris, was the most famous site for canotage, but the more wooded Seine valley, a little fur- ther west around Bougival and Chatou—about ten miles west of the center of the city—was also celebrated as a site for boating and other entertainments. La Grenouillere, on the lie de Groissy in the river facing Bougival, was the most favored of the entertainment stations on the river. It offered a restaurant, bath- ing facilities, and a rental place for boats. At the Salon of 1870 the expatriate German painter Ferdinand Heilbuth exhibited a view of La Grenouillere with the title By the Waterside [FIGURE 24]. Reviewing this picture, Zacharie Astruc evoked the place: "La Grenouillere has attracted a great deal of attention. Oh, delightful home of div- ing, of greenery, vtcanotiers, of free young women, of journalists lying in wait for the latest cancan, you deserve to inspire some of our likable colorists. Monet has 47 long wanted to tackle this subject." Berthe Morisot's mother succinctly described its reputation around 1868: "It is said to be a very rustic little place used for rendezvous by a very frivolous society, and that if a man goes there alone, he returns in company of at least one other person."48 3«

This area was a central focus in a wider network of debates about Figure 24 Ferdinand Heilbuth city and country. In one sense these debates had a geographical focus: where did (German, active France, Paris end and the country begin? How far did one now have to go to reach the 1826-1889). By the Waterside, circa "real" countryside? Even more centrally, these areas were now the arenas for a 1869-70. Oil on canvas, 113 X 147 cm (44V X 2 set of competing representations. What are on the surface a set of questions 57% in.). Present where- about the "facts" of suburban expansion are also, and more fundamentally, abouts unknown; sold Paris, Hotel Drouot, expressions of competing interest groups. Their battle was over what might be 7 June 1911, lot 20. Photograph, London, Witt called symbolic territory. Library, Courtauld Institute of Art. In 1867 Victorien Sardou wrote of this frontier as if it could be defined in topographical terms. He described the contrast between Louveciennes, a 39

Figure 25 village in the hills behind Bougival, and Ghatou, on the Seine itself a little nearer Camille Pissarro (French, 1830-1903). View from Paris: "[Louveciennes] is the real village! Ghatou is far away; and those little Louveciennes, circa white flurries which the wind stirs up round you on the road, they are not rice 1869. Oil on canvas, 3 49 52.7 x 81.9 cm (20 A X powder . . . they are real dust." This seems to be a clear, unequivocal demarca- 32V4 in.). London, National Gallery, tion between suburb and "real" country, but two paintings act as a salutary warn- NG3265. Reproduced by ing. In Pissarro's View from Louveciennes [FIGURE 25], probably painted in the courtesy of the Trustees, The National Gallery, spring of 1869, the place is presented as a rural village, with simple peasants, but London. in Renoir's view of the same site [FIGURE 26], probably painted in the summer of Figure 26 Pierre-Auguste Renoir. 1870 (the same time as La Promenade}, the village space has been appropriated A Road in Louveciennes, by a family of fashionably dressed Parisian day-trippers. Because of the choice of circa 1870. Oil on can- vas, 38.1 x 46.4 cm (15 figures, these two canvases are pictures of different genres, but the difference x 18V in.). New York, 4 Metropolitan Museum of between them is an expression of a far wider set of debates about the relationship Art, The Lesley and between city and country and between notions of "nature" and artifice. Emma Sheafer Collection, Bequest of Renoir was living with his mother at Louveciennes in 1870 when he Emma A. Sheafer, 1973, 1974.356.32. created La Promenade. Late in the summer of 1869 he and Monet had painted a number of pictures at La Grenouillere [FIGURES 27, 28, for example], viewing the place from much the same angle as Heilbuth's By the Waterside [FIGURE 24]. In a letter to Frederic Bazille, Monet described his own versions of the place as 40

Figure 27 Pierre-Auguste Renoir. La Grenouillere, 1869. Oil on canvas, 65 x 92 cm (25V x 36V4 in.). 2 Winterthur, Switzerland, Oskar Reinhart Collection "Am Romerholz."

Figure 28 Claude Monet. Bathers at La Grenouillere, 1869. Oil on canvas, 73 x 92 3 cm (28 A X 36V4 in.). London, National Gallery, NG6456. Reproduced by courtesy of the Trustees, The National Gallery, London.

Figure 29 "bad sketches" but declared that both he and Renoir wanted to make a sig- Frangois Compte-Calix 50 (French, 1813-1880). A nificant picture of the subject. The figures in Renoir's La Grenouillere paint- Corner of a Garden, circa ings are very similar in type to those in La Promenade. 1868. Oil on canvas, size and present whereabouts Certainly there is nothing in La Promenade that allows its site to be unknown. Reproduced from a photograph pub- pinpointed; there is no sign, even, that the scene is near the river. All that is lished by Goupil and Co., clear is that the rough, uncultivated terrain—the uneven, irregular path and the circa 1869. London, Witt Library, Courtauld Institute dense foliage—is not that of the enclosed, protected space of a park or garden. of Art. Indeed, the contrast between gardens and open countryside was fundamental in the contemporary imagery of courtship. This can be clearly seen from the con- trast between La Promenade and The Engaged Couple [FIGURE 14], with its gar- den setting, and between the demureness of Francois Gompte-Calix's A Corner of a Garden [FIGURE 29], of the late i86os, and the suggestiveness of his A Little Path That Leads Far [FIGURE 30], shown at the 1875 Salon. 44

La Promenade offers none of the topographical points of reference that have been a major focus of research on the art of the Impressionists in 51 recent years. However, the imagery of a young man and woman in informal urban clothes, particularly the male figure's ribboned hat (a type of headgear associated with the canotier), link it with that of pleasure seekers in the Seine valley to the west of Paris. Reviewing Lise [FIGURE 12] at the Salon of 1868, Zacharie Astruc had no doubt that this female figure standing in the woods should be seen as a lower-class parisienne on an outing from the city: Figure 30 Frangois Compte-Calix. A Little Path That Leads Far, circa 1875. Oil on canvas, size and present whereabouts unknown. Reproduced from a photograph published in Goupil and Co., Salon de 1875. London, Witt Library, Courtauld Institute of Art. 45

She is the likable Parisian girl in the Bois . . . seeking the shade not for its coolness and solitude, but for the entertainments there: the ball, the pleasure garden, the fashionable restaurant, the freak tree converted into a dining room. . . . [Renoir's] heroine has nothing rustic about her except her features. She is a brunette, ruddy complexioned, plump, vigorous and healthy, and not lacking in spirit, I imagine. Her eyes express clearly her native mischievousness and her incisive working-class [popu- 52 laire] perceptiveness. The imagery of amorous excursions from Paris had a significant artis- tic ancestry, and even when no precise site was shown, critics were often ready to identify such images with particular places and to invoke their reputation when interpreting the pictures. Courbet's Young Women of the Banks of the Seine, Summer [FIGURE 8], Manet's Dejeuner sur I'herbe (Paris, Musee d'Orsay), and Renoir's Bather with a Griffon [FIGURE 7] had made explicit the theme of the secluded island in the river, reached by rowboat, although without identifiable topographical details. Courbet's canvas, in particular, was at once associated with the islands in the Seine. Bather with a Griffon, shown at the 1870 Salon, was presumably the ambitious canvas that emerged from Renoir's work at La Grenouillere in the autumn of 1869, a fascinating indication of the difference he perceived between a landscape study and a significant exhibition picture. Renoir had in 1866 painted a canvas, Outing in a Rowboat [FIGURE 31], which made explicit the link between such outings and the flirtatious excursion into the woods that forms the subject of La Promenade. Such images picked up on the traditional imagery of the "isle of love," with its artistic reminiscences of Watteau's Embarcation for the Isle of Cythera (versions in Paris, Musee du Louvre, and Berlin, Staatliche Museen); these stereotypes were also alluded to 53 in contemporary literature. The particular resonance of La Grenouillere and the lie de Croissy emerges from a review by Theophile Gautier fils of James Tissot's The Secret (Confidence) [FIGURE 32] at the 1867 Salon. Although the picture carries no clear indication of the site shown (beyond the presence of a riverbank), Gautier con- fidently located the setting in his imaginative re-creation of the scene: 6 4

Definitively renouncing his pastiches of Leys, M. James Tissot Figure 31 enters . . . the heart of modern life: it is doubtless on the banks of Pierre-Auguste Renoir. Outing in a Rowboat, the lie de Croissy, facing Bougival, that the Confidence is taking 1866. Oil on canvas, 67.9 x 90.8 cm (26% X place whose image he shows us without clearly revealing the 3 35 A in.). Private collec- secret. The branches of the willows are discreetly entangled tion. Christie's Images, around them . . . , no breeze disturbs the water; everything is New York. silent, and these two young women, leaning toward each other, may, without fear of being surprised, impart . . . the confidence 54 that has perhaps been long hidden deep in the heart. Gautier's insistence on the relationship between the subject and the enfolding landscape is particularly relevant to the image of a different sort of privacy in La Promenade. 47

It was in contexts such as these that the outskirts of Paris came to be seen in some sense as epitomizing the moral problems of the capital itself, and hence of the nation at large. The frivolous pastimes and sexual encounters that recur constantly in descriptions of the city's periphery were a marker of a larger anxiety—the loss of a fundamental set of values. These concerns emerge clearly from the 1877 preface to Adolphe Joanne's oft-reprinted guide to the environs of Paris. Joanne urged Parisians to explore the surroundings of the city—the land- scape and its climate, the castles, churches, abbeys, and palaces—both for their beauties and for their eloquent historical associations. At the same time he lamented how little Parisians knew of these: Parisians do not know how to go on excursions [se promener] in a profitable way. If they escape for a few hours from the appalling prisons of stone or plaster in which they purchase at too great expense the right to be shut up without air, space, or light, they rush in bands to particular places to which their naive curiosity is attracted by shameful publicity; they crowd together promiscu- ously in public establishments that are even more unhealthy and unappealing than their homes, in order to seek out trivial diver- sions that have nothing to do with the countryside and which they could have procured more cheaply within the great city55 La Promenade presents the image of one of these excursions; we must now look at the figures themselves in order to see what the picture reveals about their promenade and its goal. Figure 32 James Tissot (French, 1836-1902). The Secret (Confidence), circa 1867. Oil on canvas, 86.5 x 3 72 cm (34 x 28 /8 in.). Tokyo, Ishizuka Collection. 49

THE FIGURE SUBJECT IN LA PROMENADE Figure groups in paintings that appear to show everyday images of con- temporary life need to be viewed from two perspectives, one social, the other artistic. The figures can be studied in relation to the social practices they display and also in their artistic context, as images presented to viewers as fine art, with all the value-laden associations that this implies. Here, La Promenade presents an immediate paradox. The imagery of relaxed entertainments and excursions, and of flirtations between men and women, was widespread in Paris in the i86os, but only in the lower-status media of illustration, graphic journal- ism, and printmaking. In the world of fine art painting, to which Renoir's canvas unequivocally belonged, such subjects were most unusual. Male figures were only very rarely included in fashionable genre paintings of scenes from modern life. Often, in interior views of the Stevens/Toulmouche mode, the idea of a man is hinted at—by a letter a woman is reading, by some keepsake, or by the evident direction of her thoughts [see FIGURES 5, 17, 20]—but it was most unusual for a male to put in an appearance in a woman's space. In two examples where a man does appear, the distinction Figure 33 between masculine and feminine spheres is stressed. In Eugene Feyen's The Eugene Feyen (French, Honeymoon [FIGURE 33], shown at the 1869 Salon, a man working at his desk 1815-1908). The Honeymoon, circa 1869. turns aside briefly to kiss his wife, who sits behind him dutifully sewing, Oil on canvas, size and present whereabouts confined to passivity and domesticity even at the outset of their marriage. unknown. Reproduced from a photograph pub- Toulmouche's semicomic The First Visit [FIGURE 34], from the 1865 Salon, plays lished by Goupil and on the man's evident awkwardness as he, and his remarkable top hat, penetrate Co., circa 1869. London, Witt Library, Courtauld a female domestic space. Institute of Art. Why were male figures normally excluded from such paintings? The Figure 34 fact that they so regularly appeared with female figures in illustrations in maga- Auguste Toulmouche. The First Visit, circa 1865. zines such as La Vie parisienne shows that it was not only a question of moral Oil on canvas, size and present whereabouts propriety but also in part a matter of artistic decorum. What was perfectly unknown. Reproduced from a photograph pub- acceptable in illustration did not belong in the sphere of fine art. For Theodore lished in P. G. Hamerton, Duret in 1870, the answer was simple: male costume was too drab and ugly to Contemporary French Painters (London, 1869). 5i

merit inclusion in paintings, whose prime concern was to show off the glamour 56 and shimmer of women's clothing. A further reason may lie in the question of individuality and individ- ualization. Critics readily recognized that the female figures that appeared in paintings were types that represented stereotypical notions of femininity through their appearance, gestures, and behavior. By contrast, there was no lan- guage—either visual or cultural—for typecasting contemporary bourgeois male figures in this way. Jules Castagnary explored these issues in his review of the Salon of 1857. He described a sliding scale of individuality in the countryside, leading from the plant to the animal to the peasant figure (peasants were consid- ered part of the land in which they lived and worked). Later in the review he extended this notion to the urban world, contrasting the unformed child and the superficial, external image that women cultivated with the fully-fledged individ- uality found only in the adult bourgeois male. Only one art form—portraiture— 57 was able to express this true individuality. The position of the artist was that of the modern, urban bourgeois male, and the notion of artistic creativity depended on a notion of individuality, the uniqueness of the individual experience. It was this, perhaps, that made it impossible for fine art to evolve a credible set of stereotypes for the urban male figure. By contrast, the worlds of graphic illustration or satirical caricature could, as lesser genres, distance themselves from the bourgeois male and view him, like his female counterpart, as part of the tableau of la vie parisienne. This is not, though, to exclude the issue of moral propriety. The Salon walls operated a vivid double standard, with mythological debauches such as Alexandre Gabanel's Nymph Abducted by a Faun of 1860 [FIGURE 39] being viewed by most commentators as acceptable, while Manet's Dejeuner sur I'herbe (Paris, Musee d'Orsay), excluded from the Salon but shown in the Salon des Refuses in 1863, remained a cause celebre, with its clothed male figures along- side a naked woman. Even when there was no male presence, modern-life female nudes such as the Bather with a Griffon [FIGURE 7] were also controversial.58 Likewise, images of courtship were acceptable when presented in historical or mythological guise. Heilbuth's Spring [FIGURE 35], shown at the 1869 Salon, aroused no anxiety, because its figures were dressed in Venetian 52

Renaissance costume, although the background landscape clearly resembled the Figure 35 Ferdinand Heilbuth. Seine valley with its islands. At a more frivolous level, the Directoire costume of Spring, circa 1869. Oil circa 1800 made a picture such as Etienne Berne-Bellecour's A Lovers' Nest on canvas, size and present whereabouts [FIGURE 36] acceptable. Tissot in these years was making a speciality of risque unknown. Sold Paris, Sedelmeyer sale, 1907. subjects in Directoire costume; both of his 1870 Salon exhibits, A Foursome Photograph, London, Witt Library, Courtauld (Partie carre] and Young Woman in a Boat, presented Directoire-costumed fig- Institute of Art. ures in Seine riverside settings.59 In order to focus more closely on the figures in La Promenade, the question of the picture's title is pertinent. As we have seen, it is not known what Renoir originally called his painting, although it is possible that La Promenade 53

was the title from the very beginning. In later years Renoir was scornful of sen- timental titles given his pictures in order to help them sell. Told of a canvas put up for auction as La Pensee, he brusquely retorted: "My models do not think."60 Late in his life he said, perhaps disingenuously: "Why have they given names to my pictures which never represent the reason I painted such and such a subject? My joy consists in painting, and it has never been in my mind to paint a precon- 61 ceived subject." Presumably titles such as La Premiere Sortie (London, National Gallery) were not the artist's. However, the title La Promenade is more neutral in its associations, and Renoir did exhibit a picture, now known as Mother and Children, with the title La Promenade at the second Impressionist group exhibition in 1876 [FIGURE 37]. This, however, was a picture of a rather different type: a large canvas of a young woman guiding two fashionably dressed girls through a public park. The idea of the "promenade" was not confined to such public spaces, however, as Raimundo de Madrazo's After the Promenade [FIGURE 38] shows. In this work from the late i86os, a young woman has returned home; with her dress half- removed, she ponders over a memento, while the painting on the background wall hints at the location of her recent promenade—a riverside landscape show- ing a scene very like the banks of the Seine near Bougival and La Grenouillere. This extended analysis of the context of La Promenade suggests the range of associations that the picture and its imagery would have evoked for its first viewers. However, the poses and gestures of Renoir's figures themselves, in their secluded woodland setting, seem unambiguous. Indeed, there is an exag- gerated and almost caricatural quality to the man's gesture that is closer to the visual language of the illustrative prints found in magazines such as La Vie parisienne than it is to the more restrained gestures characteristic of fine art genre painting. There is no reason to suppose that a nineteenth-century viewer Figure 36 Etienne Berne-Bellecour would have been in any doubt about the interplay between Renoir's figures— (French, 1838-1910). A Lovers' Nest, 1870. between the man's encouragement and the woman's momentary hesitation—or Oil on canvas, size and about the destination that the man has in mind. Images of lovemaking in se- present whereabouts unknown. Reproduced cluded woodland settings were common in nineteenth-century imagery, ranging from a photograph pub- lished by Goupil and Co., from the mildly suggestive, like Compte-Calix's A Little Path That Leads Far circa 1871. London, 62 Witt Library, Courtauld [FIGURE 30], to the overtly pornographic. Institute of Art. 55

Figure 37 Pierre-Auguste Renoir. Mother and Children [La Promenade], circa 1875. Oil on canvas, 168 x 104.1 cm (66Vs X 41 in.). New York, The Frick Collection.

Renoir's own Lise [FIGURE 12] tackles much the same theme, with Figure 38 Raimundo de Madrazo the crucial difference being that the male presence is awaited, not seen. The (Spanish, 1841-1920). pose and gesture of the female figure can best be understood as one of expecta- After the Promenade, circa 1868. Oil on tion, while the tree beside which she stands in the wood bears carved initials, a canvas, size and present whereabouts unknown. standard emblem of a lovers' trysting place.63L# Promenade can readily be seen Reproduced from a as the next stage in a very similar narrative. photograph published by Goupil and Co., circa The effect of the figures in La Promenade is heightened by the way 1868. London, Witt Library, Courtauld Institute of Art. in which the composition is arranged and the lighting orchestrated. While the woman is framed by foliage and set off against the dark thicket beyond her, the man is wedged into the upper right corner of the canvas, his head tight beneath its top margin. The lighting plays a crucial role in the presentation of the scene 57

but blatantly rejects academic precept. Alphonse de Calonne outlined the con- ventional view in 1853: In a painting nothing should be left to chance; everything should be carefully calculated and worked out. If the painter focuses the light on a particular point in his picture, this is to give greater significance to that point. In a landscape or an interior, this point may be chosen merely for its material effect; the principal sub- ject in a picture of this sort is always the interior or the landscape itself. However, in a composition where groups of figures play a part in the action . . . , the effects of light must be calculated so as to give greater significance to the principal characters; above all, one must avoid attracting attention to secondary objects and producing a confused and disjointed effect.64 In La Promenade both figures are crucial to the action, but they are very differently treated. The woman is fully and frontally lit; she is emphatically the prime focus of the picture. Only scattered flashes of sunlight illuminate the man—on his trousers and hands, his collar and hat-—while the rest of his figure is seemingly absorbed into the foliage behind him. By contrast, the pathway through the woods—a "secondary object"—is largely in sunlight, providing a clear visual pointer out of the picture. This, of course, is a significant factor in the action, directing attention to the path that the man urges the woman to fol- low, to the prospective action of the couple. This playful contrast between lit and shadowy figures is heightened by the shade on the man's face and the highly simplified, almost caricatural treatment of his features. There are no signs of individualization here! Im- mersed in the woods, he becomes a Pan-like or satyr-like figure, luring his mod- ern nymph into his lair. Viewed in this context, La Promenade becomes a Figure 39 delightful parody of one of the most notorious genres of contemporary academic Alexandre Cabanel painting, exemplified by Cabanel's Nymph Abducted by a Faun [FIGURE 39], pur- (French, 1823-1889). chased by Napoleon III at the 1861 Salon and exhibited again at the 1867 Nymph Abducted by a Faun, 1860. Oil on can- Exposition Universelle. vas, 245 x 142 cm (96V x 557/s in.). Lille, 2 As a genre painting of modern life, La Promenade has none of the Musee des Beaux-Arts, no. 525. illegibility and inscrutability of Manet's Salon genre paintings [FIGURE 19, for 58

example]. It presents a recognizable world whose characters can be identified in social terms and whose actions are clearly presented. Nothing in the picture demonstrates whether the woman will follow the man where he seeks to lead her, but the scenario and the suggestion of the possibility of a secretive sexual encounter are unambiguous. In these terms La Promenade is comparable to the fashionable genre paintings of the Stevens/Toulmouche type. Where it differs from them is in the social world it depicts. These are not intrigues among the haute bourgeoisie or the lavishly endowed lorettes of Paris. Rather, this is a more modest and less etiquette-dominated world, the semibohemian sphere of the canotler and his camarade. He can be imagined in his weekday life as a petit bourgeois, and she as one of the legendary grisettes, the good-hearted girls so common in the mythology of bohemian life in Paris who were interested in handsome young men for their charm, not their money.65 The informality of the social life that the picture presents is comple- mented by the informality of its technique. This must now be examined before Renoir's position in the Parisian art world in 1870 can be evaluated. 60

THE TECHNIQUE OF LA PROMENADE La Promenade occupies an intermediate position within Renoir's oeuvre around 1870. It is far more fluently and informally painted than a con- temporary Salon picture such as Bather with a Griffon [FIGURE 7], but in com- parison to rapidly notated sketches such as his views of La Grenouillere [FIGURES 27, 40, for example], it is quite elaborately finished. These contrasts clearly reflect the different status of these three types of paintings: the large Salon oil for public exhibition, the smaller but generally resolved canvas designed for sale to a private collector, and the rapid sketch that was not meant for immediate sale and display (Monet described his very comparable canvases of La Grenouillere [FIGURE 28, for instance] as pochades, an informal artistic term for particularly rapid sketches).66 A similar contrast can be found among Renoir's landscapes from around 1870. The comparative finesse and elaboration of A Road in Louveciennes [FIGURE 26]—very comparable in touch to La Promenade—is quite unlike the improvisatory breadth of Barges on the Seine [FIGURE 41]. Likewise, Monet's The Seine at Bougival [FIGURE 42], sold to the dealer Martin, can be contrasted with his La Grenouillere pochades. Viewed in a wider context, though, Renoir's technique in La Promenade engages with many key issues of the period: the relationship between tonal values and color, the role of drawing and modeling in the suggestion of form, and the relationship between surface elaboration and perspectival space. La Promenade utterly repudiates the conventional notion of drawing as a means of demarcating between forms by a hard, clear-cut linear boundary. Here, Renoir evidently followed Delacroix's dictum that there were no lines in nature, in contrast to Ingres's insistence that, in art, line should always play the primary role. The contrast to the harsh contouring of an artist such as Toulmouche [FIGURES 5, 34] is immediately apparent. Toulmouche, like Renoir, had studied under Charles Gleyre, but, unlike Renoir, he remained faithful to his academic training. 61

Figure 40 The overall play of varied color in La Promenade further emphasizes Pierre-Auguste Renoir. La Grenouillere, 1869. Renoir's allegiance to Delacroix's example. However, the figures are conveyed by Oil on canvas, 66.5 x a combination of means that show him simultaneously exploring two distinct 81 cm (26V8 x 31% in.). Stockholm, modes of suggesting three-dimensional form. The woman's dress is primarily Nationalmuseum, NM 2425. modeled in tonal terms; its folds and crinkles are suggested by soft grays with scarcely a trace of color set off against the whites of material where it catches the sun. At the same time, clearer, light blue hues are used down the right margin of the dress and on the right side of the sleeve, introducing an alternative mode of modeling, by color contrasts, with the cool blues set off against the soft pinks that are seen at some points in the sunlit areas of the dress down the sleeve and around the neck. These pinks do not merely serve to heighten the effect of the blues; they can be seen as suggesting the woman's flesh, sensed through the material. The man's trousers are more boldly handled. Blue is used more extensively in the shadowed zones, and the lit areas include traces of both pink 62

Figure 41 Pierre-Auguste Renoir. Barges on the Seine, circa 1870. Oil on can- vas, 47 X 64 cm (ISVfe x 25V4 in.). Paris, Musee d'Orsay, RF3667. Figure 42 Claude Monet. The Seine at Bougival, 1869. Oil on canvas, 65.4 x 92.4 cm (25% X 363/s in.). Manchester, N.H., The Currier Gallery of Art, Currier Funds, 1949.1.

and yellow. The highlights on the trousers are freely scattered; the light-hued accents suggest the play of sunlight through foliage. They are applied, however, with a breadth and fluency that prevents the touches from being read in any lit- eral sense as reflecting the play of light and shade. Beyond this, the particularly emphatic highlight near the man's groin may be seen as a hint of the sexual dimension of the scene. Throughout the picture, flecks and dashes of contrasting tone and color animate the surface. At times, as on the path and in the foliage up the right margin, the effect is primarily achieved by shifts of color. Elsewhere, though, sharp contrasts of tone dominate. The brushwork, too, is variegated throughout. The foliage, earth, and clothing are differentiated from each other by a highly flexible painterly shorthand that evokes a sense of their textures without ever hinting at an illusionistic transparency of surface. The activity of the brush on the canvas always remains instantly visible. The effects of this type of painting, in contrast to more traditional notions of modeling, were well analyzed in an 1870 Salon review by the critic Philippe Burty, whom Renoir knew, in discussing Summer Scene [FIGURE 43], an ambitious canvas of male bathers by Renoir's close friend Frederic Bazille: It is clear that this is a deviation from realism, and that this new school, whilst wanting to remain truthful to general appearances, seeks to be more artistic through a more delicate choice of col- ors, through the absence of bituminous shadows, through a more faithful investigation of light as it falls from the sky in the green countryside. But figures or objects do not present themselves only in terms of colored taches and their luminous planes. They exist also in terms of what lies beneath. Even if classic teaching methods have for a long time abused this abstract line, which is supposed to circumscribe form and is called the contour, one should still not fall into the opposite excess and limit oneself to juxtaposing zones of light and dark, floating like white or dark 67 clouds on a blue sky. Although La Promenade rejects traditional modeling, the play of tone and color and the variety of touch and texture create a sense of form and space. The brushwork gives no sense of flatness. The surface effects of the 64

painting are quite unlike those in Manet's contemporary work [such as FIGURE Figure 43 Frederic Bazille. Summer 19]; his taches of color are more schematic and stylized, creating an evenness of Scene, 1869. Oil on can- weighting and emphasis that can more readily be seen in two-dimensional vas, 160 X 160.7 cm (63 X 63V4 in.). terms. Renoir's brushstrokes can be read as a more direct response to his Cambridge, Mass., Fogg Art Museum, Harvard sensations—as a shorthand for his immediate visual experiences of the forms and University Art Museums, textures in front of him. Gift of Mr. and Mrs. F. Meynier de Salinelles, Despite the constant variegation, the overall effect of La Promenade 1937.78. is one of unity. The composition is carefully framed. The tree trunk at bottom right and the twigs silhouetted against the woman's dress act as repoussoirs in the foreground, framing the scene and leading the eye into it, while the dark foliage behind her closes in the left background. Only the path on the right 65

Detail opens out the space to what lies beyond. For all its variety, the constant anima- The play of color and the touch of the brush on tion of the brushwork lends a further sense of coherence to the whole, and simi- the canvas animate the lar colors recur in many parts of the canvas. Most significantly, a sequence of surface of La Promenade. pinks and reds across the picture, set off against the surrounding cool greens and blues, operates in both aesthetic and thematic terms. It leads from the woman's face and hat through the joined hands (the reds are quite intense here) to the man's face and the remarkable red ribbon on his hat and finally to his left hand, pointing to where he wishes her to go. Throughout the canvas, color and touch together create a complex weave. The effect is never repetitive or systematic, but retains a sense of fresh- ness and informality, of pictorial solutions worked out as the picture evolved. This painterly virtuosity recognized no rules and saw no limits to its capacity to improvise. Renoir's touch does not have the measured density of Manet's or Monet's, the capacity to create the most vivid effects and contrasts with a few incisive strokes. However, the technique of La Promenade is vivid testimony to 66

the belief that an art devoted to the theme of modern leisure demanded an impromptu quality that somehow corresponded to the way of life it evoked. Viewed in a wider context, the assertive visibility of the brushwork in La Promenade would have marked it as the type of painting that appealed to a truly artistic viewership, in contrast to the popular appeal of genre paintings such as Toulmouche's. Two critics made this point in reviewing Renoir's Lise [FIGURE 12] at the 1868 Salon. Zacharie Astruc commented that it stood out from "commercial works" and won the approval of fellow artists and connalsseurs\ Jules Gastagnary noted its success among connaisseurs, stressing that this appeal derived from the boldness of its technique, especially from the halftones used to model the figure.68 These responses show how far Renoir's art was analyzed within the same terms of reference as Manet's in these years. As previously mentioned, Manet's concern for the tache of color marked his work out as "artistic"; in 1870 three critics who were close associates of Manet's—Astruc, Burty, and Duranty—all reiterated this connection between his technique and his audience in reviewing his work at the Salon, emphasizing the failure of the wider public to understand his art.69 Painting by taches served as a marker of the artist's distinctive, per- sonal vision and of his efforts to translate into paint his sensations of the world 70 around him. This aesthetic became the basis of the Impressionists' art in the 71 mid-18703, the years of their first group exhibitions. In these terms, the tech- nique of La Promenade makes it one of the first true Impressionist pictures. We must now explore its style and subject together in order to reveal Renoir's posi- tion within debates about modern art in Paris in 1870. 6 7

Figure 44 Henri Fantin-Latour (French, 1836-1904). A Studio in the Batignolles, 1870. Oil on canvas, 204 X 273.5 cm (80% x 107% in.). Paris, Musee d'Orsay, RF 729.

RENOIR'S POSITION IN 1870 In addition to having two pictures on the exhibition walls, Renoir played another starring role at the Salon of 1870. In Henri Fantin-Latour's group portrait A Studio in the Batignolles [FIGURE 44], showing Manet at work sur- rounded by his friends and supporters, Renoir appears standing in the center background, his head precisely framed by the secular halo of a gilt picture frame. Alone of the figures in the oil, he wears a hat, and his lean features gaze intently at the canvas on which Manet is working. Given the solemn tone of Fantin- Latour's painting, it is not surprising that Bertall caricatured it in 1870 as "Jesus Painting among His Disciples" or "The Divine School of Manet," religious picture 2 by Fantin-Latour ? Renoir's presence in Fantin-Latour's picture identified him clearly as one of Manet's admirers and followers. This loosely structured grouping had been recognized by a number of critics at the Salons of the two previous years; in 1869 Duranty had named the artists the "School of the Batignolles," taking the name from the area in northwestern Paris where Manet had his studio and where the Cafe Guerbois—a regular meeting place for the group—was located.73 Manet was, of course, the most celebrated member of the group; by 1870 even the critics who most disliked his work felt forced to discuss it at length. Of the other painters in Fantin-Latour's canvas, Monet was perhaps the most notorious—most of his pictures had been rejected by the Salon jury over the past four years—yet he is placed at the far right margin of the composition. It is not known why Fantin-Latour gave Renoir so prominent a role, but his presence here enshrines his position in the "School of the Batignolles." Viewed in broader terms, Renoir's position and career in 1870 can be understood in a number of different ways. His work highlighted his links with Courbet and Manet, and Fantin-Latour's picture placed him firmly in Manet's camp. Renoir, however, did not adopt the overtly confrontational strategies that, in their different ways, characterized both Courbet's and Manet's art, nor did he cultivate the aggressively bohemian lifestyle that contributed to Monet's notori- ety in these years. 9

Renoir's exhibition paintings at the 1870 Salon, notably Bather with a Griffon [FIGURE 7], highlighted his wish, like that of Manet, to harness old mas- ter prototypes to explicitly modern themes, but he consistently used these proto- types less provocatively than Manet. Likewise, as has been shown, pictures like La Promenade did not challenge the conventions of genre and narrative painting in the ways that Manet's did. Viewed in this perspective, Renoir's paintings of these years do not readily invite a political reading, in terms of republican "indifference," compara- ble to Manet's. It would be mistaken to conclude from this, however, that Renoir was disengaged from current social and political issues. His paintings of the time show that he was deeply committed to an aesthetic of modernity. The hindsight of his pronouncements in his later years has left behind the picture of an artist opposed to the modern city; it was almost in passing that his son, Jean, in his memoir of his father, acknowledged that, in his youth, Renoir had approved of 74 the modernization of Paris under Baron Haussmann in the 18505 and i86os. As we have seen, Renoir's Grenouillere paintings and La Promenade engage with a crucial dimension of this modernization process—the irruption of urban recreation into the countryside around Paris. Far from the strictures of contemporary moralists, they suggest an active enjoyment, relish even, in the life of the pleasure spots on the fringes of Paris. In this context, it is perhaps no coincidence that Renoir's own social background, from the humble artisanal petite bourgeoisie, was closer than that of any of his colleagues to the back- 75 ground of the typical Parisian day-tripper. There is a paradox here, though. The world that Renoir was cele- brating was a popular one, and his approach to it was one of positive engage- ment, not moral critique or humanitarian concern from a viewpoint outside that world. However, the medium he was working in—the oil painting—belonged to the realm of fine art and high culture. Certainly the photographic reproductions of genre paintings sold by dealers such as Goupil [see, for example, FIGURES 5, 17, 18] were directed at a more popular audience than the original oils, but as critics pointed out, the exe- cution of paintings such as these—crisply drawn and meticulously finished— could be seen as being designed for photographic reproduction. By contrast, Renoir's painterly fluency made sense only when the original work was seen. 70

Indeed, as previously mentioned, such handling was widely considered at the time as a marker of the distinctive temperament and personality of the true artist. Renoir's position in these years is perhaps best characterized in terms of bohemianism. His lifestyle, as he migrated from shared studio to shared studio, followed the stereotypes of bohemian life, as did his relationship with Lise Trehot, from what little is known of it. The surviving testimony from the 18705 about his personal habits and behavior amply confirms the image of a man resolutely refusing to conform to bourgeois social norms.76 Renoir's bohemianism is best characterized not by biographical details but rather through his persona, the image he projected of his work and career. Here, it is the range and combination of different elements that is sig- nificant. At the Salon he exhibited both ambitious modern-subject pictures like Bather with a Griffon [FIGURE 7] and "studies" like In Summer: Study [FIGURE 13]; his landscapes ranged from the finesse of A Road in Louveciennes [FIGURE 26] to the breadth—deliberate crudeness, even—of Barges on the Seine [FIGURE 41]; his subject matter might engage with a fantasy harem, as in Woman of Algiers [FIGURE 9], or with the popular imagery of magazines like La Vie parisienne, as in La Promenade. The former artisan porcelain painter even appears as a secular acolyte of the "divine" Manet in Fantin-Latour's group portrait [FIGURE 44]. The range of different social and artistic stances that Renoir adopted reveals his refusal to be typecast, in either aesthetic or social terms. Bohe- mianism cannot be viewed as a position outside the structures of social class, but it defined itself by its refusal to be coopted by any one social grouping. It was not working class or artisanal, nor was it bourgeois, except for the fact that many self-appointed bohemians came from bourgeois backgrounds. According to contemporary mythology, it was not explicitly political, but inevitably the bohemian was viewed as an opponent of the establishment, through the outsider position he adopted.77 In some ways, this stance anticipates the social and aesthetic ideals of Renoir's later years, but the Renoir of 1870 needs to be distinguished from the Sage of Gagnes after 1900, both because of his active engagement in the central issues of the contemporary art world and because of his commitment, in both his art and his life, to an explicitly modern, urban world view. ?i

THE PLACE OF LA PROMENADE IN RENOIR'S CAREER At the end of his life, Renoir told his son what he felt about subject mat- ter in art: What is important is to escape from the motif, to avoid being lit- erary and therefore to choose something that everyone knows— better still, to have no story at all. . . . Under Louis XV, I would have been obliged to paint subjects. What seems to me the most important thing about our movement is that we have freed painting from the subject. I can paint flowers and simply call them "flowers" without their having a story.78 Our exploration of La Promenade and the types of readings it invites has shown that it was indeed the sort of picture that might have been interpreted in terms of a "story," but at the same time, the way in which the subject was treated would have prevented the canvas from being understood purely in narrative terms. During the 18708 Renoir gradually drained his genre scenes of specifically narrative legibility. Two paintings of couples in the woods from the mid-18708 clearly take up the theme of La Promenade, but the titles these now bear—Confidences [FIGURE 45] and The Lovers [FIGURE 46]—are almost certainly not Renoir's own. He did not exhibit any paintings in these years with such explicitly anecdotal titles, and inevitably they condition the way the pictures are viewed today. In Ball at the Moulin de la Galette [FIGURE 47], Renoir's major tableau of modern Parisian life that was the centerpiece of the third Im- pressionist exhibition in 1877, the principal groupings of figures cannot readily be interpreted anecdotally. Only a few subsidiary couples in the background invite such a reading: the woman in blue turning away from the man in a top hat on the bench at back left, the over-urgent man dancing at back center, and the man to the right who leans on the tree to say something to the woman in blue with her back to him. The Swing [FIGURE 48], shown at the same exhibition, wholly thwarts such readings; there is no clue given to the reason for the 72

woman's gesture or to her relationship to the two men. Renoir confused the Figure 45 Pierre-Auguste Renoir. potential narrative even further by the inclusion of the child. The artist told his Confidences, 1875. Oil on canvas, 81.3 X 60.3 friend Georges Riviere that the youngster, who had been watching Renoir paint, cm (32 x 233/4 in.). was inserted into the picture without being aware of it.79 Portland, Maine, The Portland Museum of Art, Likewise, Renoir's great image of riverside entertainments, The Joan Whitney Payson Collection, Gift of Luncheon of the Boating Party (Dejeuner des canotiers] [FIGURE 49] of 1881, is par- Joan Whitney Payson, ticularly resistant to anecdotal readings, despite the fact that the theme of cano- 1991.62. tiers was inextricably linked, in popular mythology, with narratives of amorous Figure 46 Pierre-Auguste Renoir. interchange and sexual intrigue. Even the most apparently legible grouping can The Lovers, 1875. Oil on be understood in two quite different ways: is the woman at back right closing canvas, 175 x 130 cm (68% x 51Vs in.). her ears to the blandishments of the man who has his arm around her (his hat is Prague, Narodni Galerie, no. 0 3201. startlingly like that worn by the man in La Promenade], or is she simply adjust- ing her hat before leaving? 73

Figure 47 Figure 48 Pierre-Auguste Renoir. Pierre-Auguste Renoir. Ball at the Moulin de la The Swing, 1876. Oil on Galette, 1876. Oil on canvas, 92 x 73 cm canvas, 131 x 175 cm (36V4 x 28% in.). Paris, (51V x 68% in.). Paris, Musee d'Orsay, Bequest 2 Musee d'Orsay, Bequest of Gustave Caillebotte, of Gustave Caillebotte, 1894, RF 2738. 1894, RF 2739.

Figure 49 Renoir's three canvases of dancing couples of 1882-83 also give few Pierre-Auguste Renoir. Luncheon of the Boating anecdotal clues. Philippe Burty wrote of them in 1883: Party, 1881. Oil on can- vas, 129.5 X 172.7 cm (51 x 68 in.). Washington, One could add to them the literary commentary so dear to the The Phillips Collection. French imagination, but I can see in them only an art that is skilled in painting faces flushed with pleasure, relaxed by deli- cious fatigue, an art that makes clothing that is cut well and worn 80 well seem elegant and distinguished. While two of these paintings are now titled Dance in the Country (Paris, Musee d'Orsay) and Dance at Eougival [FIGURE 50], Renoir further revealed his lack of 76

Figure 50 Pierre-Auguste Renoir. Dance at Bougival, 1883. Oil on canvas, 181.8 x 98.1 cm (71% x 38% in.). Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, Picture Fund, 37.375. Courtesy, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.

concern for specific readings by regularly changing their titles or permitting them to be changed, despite the significance in contemporary writing of the dis- tinction between Bougival, with its entertainments, and the "true" countryside. Moreover, a drawing based on Dance at Bougival was also used as an illustration for a story by Renoir's friend Paul Lhote that was set at the Moulin de la Galette 81 in Montmartre. Renoir produced a final variant on the theme of La Promenade in 1883—a drawing [FIGURE 51] published in the magazine La Vie moderne as an illustration to a story by his younger brother, Edmond, entitled "L'Etiquette." The drawing has no title and does not illustrate any specific episode in the story, which is set at Bordighera, on the Mediterranean coast just over the Italian bor- der from Menton. In the drawing it is the woman who leads the man up the slope; in this sense the image is far more risque than La Promenade, since stock gender roles are so blatantly reversed. However, because it was reproduced in a magazine and not presented as a work of fine art, its imagery was unproblematic. Renoir's later art systematically avoids narrative; his figure groupings are presented as parts of the seamless whole that forms the picture, without hint of physical or psychological interplay that might suggest the slightest distur- bance of their equilibrium. Late in his life Renoir told Georges Besson: "What we wanted in our pictures in 1874 was des accords gais—life without litera- ture."82 There is a fascinating linguistic ambiguity in this formulation: should the accords be understood in terms of the social relationships depicted or the harmonies of color, tone, and touch used to depict them? In Renoir's later work he sought to make these two types of accords one, to re-create his image of a serene universe in paintings that were replete and harmonious from edge to 83 edge, top to bottom. La Promenade cannot simply be explained in these terms. As we have seen, its figures and setting linked it closely to contemporary social and moral debates, and the action itself is not seamless: the viewer is invited to interpret the play of gestures, although no clear outcome to the action is indi- cated. On the borderline between popular illustration and fine art painting, its imagery would have resonated with familiar narratives of courtship and seduc- tion, while its status as a fine art painting and its "artistic" technique would have 78

marked it out as an object from high culture, appealing to an enlightened elite. Figure 51 In a sense this paradoxical combination sums up the early history of Pierre-Auguste Renoir. Untitled drawing, 1883. Impressionism—an utter rejection of the idealist world of academic art, coupled Medium, size, and present whereabouts with an appeal to a new elite that placed the highest value on the virtuoso trans- unknown. Published in La We rnodeme (29 formation of the individual's visual sensations into fine art. December 1883), p. 835. 79

NOTES 1 The painting was lot 33 in the sale of of Fine Arts and Hartford, Wadsworth Gustave Goupy at the Hotel Drouot, Paris, Atheneum, 1984), especially pp. 99-101. 30 March 1898, and was purchased by 7 See Patricia Mainardi, Art and Politics of the Durand-Ruel for 1,050 francs. He sold it Second Empire: The Universal Exhibitions for 12,000 francs to the Berlin dealer Paul of 1855 and 1867 (New Haven and London, Cassirer in 1908. The work passed through the hands of the collector Bernhard Kohler, 1987), pp. 154-74, I87-93- the dealer Paul Rosenberg, the collectors 8 Olivier Merson, La Peinture en France: Nate B. and Frances Spingold, and the Exposition de 1861 (Paris, 1861), pp. Seito Collection before its acquisition by 229-30. For similar verdicts, see Maxime the British Rail Pension Fund in London in du Camp, Le Salon de 1857 (Paris, 1857), the late 19705. The picture was placed p. 51; Ernest de Toytot, "L'Art independant on loan at the National Gallery of Scotland, et le Salon de peinture en 1866," Le Edinburgh, for a number of years before Contemporain (May 1866), p. 917; Ernest being sold by the Pension Fund at Sotheby's, Chesneau, Les Nations rivales dans I'art London, on 4 April 1989, lot 6; the J. Paul (Paris, 1868), pp. 241-44; Raoul de Navery, Getty Museum was the purchaser. Le Salon de 1868 (Paris, 1868), p. 5. 2 Renoir Centennial Loan Exhibition, exh. cat. 9 Marius Chaumelin, "Salon de 1868: V," (New York, Duveen Galleries, 1941), p. 119. La Presse (29 June 1868). 3 Ambroise Vollard, La Vie et I'oeuvre de 10 This was first identified by Anne Distel Pierre-Auguste Renoir (Paris, 1918), in Renoir, exh. cat. (London, Hayward reprinted in Ambroise Vollard, En ecoutant Gallery, and Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, Cezanne, Degas, Renoir (Paris, 1938); Jean 1985), pp. 179-80. Renoir, Renoir (Paris, 1962). All translations 11 Barbara Ehrlich White, in Renoir: His Life, are by the author. Art and Letters (New York, 1984), pp. 4 The classic account is John Rewald, The 36-37, has suggested that this work should History of Impressionism, 4th ed. (New York be seen as a pair to Woman of Algiers, a can- and London, 1973); for a recent presenta- vas of virtually the same size. However, the tion of much the same selection of paint- tonality of the two is markedly different, ings, see Gary Tinterow and Henri and the technique of A Nymph by a Stream Loyrette, Origins of Impressionism, may suggest a date of circa 1871-72 (on this, exh. cat. (New York, Metropolitan Museum see John House, Renoir: Master of Art, 1994). Impressionist, exh. cat. [Queensland Art 5 For a strongly argued recent presentation of Gallery/Art Exhibitions Australia Limited, this view, see Michael Fried, Manet's 1994], p. 58). Modernism: or, The Face of Painting in the 12 On Lise, see Douglas Cooper, "Renoir, Lise i86os (Chicago, 1996). and the Le Coeur Family: A Study of 6 See Louise d'Argencourt, "Bouguereau and Renoir's Early Development," Burlington the Art Market in France," in William Magazine (May, September-October 1959). Bouguereau, exh. cat. (Montreal Museum Barbara Ehrlich White has recently sug- gested, in Impressionists Side by Side (New 80

York, 1996), p. 85, that the models for La tionally been identified as the painter Promenade were Claude Monet and his Alfred Sisley and his fiancee, but it has companion, Camille Doncieux. However, recently been suggested that this was the the man, clearly beardless, bears little painting put on show at Carpentier's and resemblance to Monet, who was already that the female model was Lise Trehot (see fully bearded by 1870, and the features of Renoir [1985], pp. 188-89). However, since the woman are not indicated with enough the scene is presented as a genre painting, precision for her to be securely identified not a portrait, the identity of the models is as Camille. Lise was the model for virtually less significant than the roles they play. all of Renoir's female figures at this time. 19 On auctions, see John House, "Framing the 13 Marius Chaumelin, "Salon de 1870: VII," Landscape," ^Landscapes of France/ La Presse (17 June 1870). He also compared Impressions of France, exh. cat. (London, the picture with Courbet's "celebrated Hayward Gallery, and Boston, Museum of Bathing Woman'' presumably referring to Fine Arts, 1995), p. 26. the Montpellier Bathing Women. 20 On Deforge, see Nancy Davenport, 14 On the parodic aspects of Courbet's Salon "Armand-Auguste Deforge, an Art Dealer paintings, see John House, "Courbet and in Nineteenth-Century Paris and 'La Salon Politics," Art in America (May 1989), Peinture de Fantaisie,'" Gazette des beaux- pp. 160-72, 215. arts 101 (February 1983), pp. 81-88 (on 15 Zacharie Astruc, "Salon de 1868 aux Carpentier, see pp. 84, 88, note 8). Champs-Elysees: Le grand style—II," 21 Robert L. Herbert, in Impressionism: Art, LEtendard (27 June 1868). Leisure, and Parisian Society (New Haven 16 Paul Mantz, "Salon de 1868: I," and London, 1988), pp. 190-92, has noted L Illustration (9 May 1868), p. 299. the eighteenth-century echoes in paintings such as La Promenade. 17 Pictures subtitled "study" (etude] were 22 Theophile Gautier, "La Rue Laffitte," unusual but not unknown at the Salon in L Artiste (3 January 1858), p. 10. these years. Two examples will show how differently the term might be used. In 1863 23 Letter from Bonvin to Martinet, 22 April Jean-Baptiste-Camille Corot exhibited two 1861, in Etienne Moreau-Nelaton, Bonvin small, informal landscapes, Etude a Ville- raconte par lui-meme (Paris, 1927), d'Avray and Etude a Mery, together with a pp. 58-59. picture titled Soleil couchant; in 1868 Jules 24 See letters from Boudin to his brother, Lefebvre showed an elaborately finished 8 December 1866, and to M. Martin, canvas of a reclining nude as Femme couchee; 18 January 1869, in G. Jean-Aubry, Eugene etude, presumably because the picture was a Boudin d'apres des documents inedits (Paris, modern life subject without any mythologi- 1922), pp. 63, 72. cal references (reproduced, although without reference to its appearance at the 25 For the Monet, see Tinterow and Loyrette, 1868 Salon, in Hollis Clayson, Painted Origins of Impressionism, p. 440; for Love: Prostitution in French Art of the Pissarro's The Versailles Road at Impressionist Era [New Haven and London, Louveciennes, purchased by the American I99i], P- 36). agent George Lucas from Martin in January 18 Letter from Renoir to Bazille, autumn 1869, 1870, see Pissarro, exh. cat. (London, in Gaston Poulain, Bazille et ses amis (Paris, Hayward Gallery, and Boston, Museum of 1932), pp. 156-57. The Engaged Couplewas Fine Arts, 1980), p. 80. so titled on its first exhibition early in the 26 See John House, Monet: Nature into Art twentieth century. The models have tradi- (New Haven and London, 1986), pp. 40-43. 81

27 A virtual manifesto was published for 35 Antonin Proust, "Edouard Manet Durand-Ruel's new gallery in Revue inter- (Souvenirs)," Revue blanche (\ March 1897), national de I'art et de la curiosite, a maga- pp. 202-3. zine directed by Durand-Ruel himself, 36 Marius Ghaumelin, "Le Salon de 1869: V," although this was not noted in its pages; see Llndependance beige (21 June 1869); Jacques Raffey, "Galerie de M. Durand- Edmond Duranty, "Le Salon de 1870: III," Ruel," Revue Internationale de I'art et de la Paris-Journal'(5 May 1870). curiosite 2 (15 December 1869), pp. 478-85. 28 See Jane Mayo Roos, Early Impressionism 37 Castagnary, Salons (1857-1879), vol. I, and the French State (1866-1874) pp. 364-65; Paul Mantz, "Le Salon de 1868: (Cambridge and New York, 1996). 2e et dernier article," Gazette des beaux-arts (July 1869), p. 13. 29 Chaumelin, "Salon de 1868: V." 38 Paul Mantz, "Salon de 1868: V," 30 Jules Castagnary, Salons (1857-1879) (Paris, LI I lustration (6 June 1868), p. 362. 1892), vol. i, pp. 364-65. 39 Theophile Thore, Salons de W. Burger, 1861 31 Theodore Duret, "Salon de 1870," in a 1868 (Paris, 1870), vol. 2, pp. 531-32, first Critique a"avant-garde (Paris, 1885), published in Llndependance beige (29 June pp. 19-20, first published in LElecteur libre 1868). (May and June 1870). 40 For further discussion of the illegibility and 32 L. Laurent-Pichat, "Salon de 1870 (lie arti- moral uncertainties of these pictures, see cle)," Le Reveil (4 June 1870). John House, "Manet's Naivete," in The 33 These debates were brought into focus by Hidden Face of Manet, supplement to the much-discussed Opinion de M. le Burlington Magazine 128, no. 997 (April Procureur Dupin sur le luxe effrene des 1986), pp. 1-19, and John House, "Social femmes, a speech delivered in the Senate in Critic or Enfant Terrible: The Avant-garde 1865, reprinted in Ernest Feydeau, Du luxe, Artist in Paris in the i86os," in Actes du des femmes, des moeurs, de la litterature et de XXVIle congres international d'histoire de la vertu (Paris, 1866), pp. 195-204. Dupin's rart: LArt et les revolutions, section 2: homily elicited responses from many points Changements et continuite dans la creation of view, among them Feydeau's, whose artistique des revolutions politiques, ed. book is from the perspective of a fashion- Klaus Herding (Strasbourg, 1992), pp. able boulevardier, and Olympe Audouard's, 47-60. whose Le Luxe des femmes: Reponse d'une 41 Charles Baudelaire, "Le Peintre de la vie femme a Monsieur le Procureur General moderne," Le Figaro (26, 29 November, Dupin (Paris, 1865) is from the perspective 3 December 1863), text written circa of a femimstfemme du monde. 1859-60 and reprinted many times. 34 Castagnary, Salons (1857-1879), vol. I, 42 For a valuable discussion of genre painting pp. 364-65. Although the models for The in the context of censorship, see Leila W. Balcony have been identified as the painters Kinney, "Genre: A Social Contract?" Art Berthe Morisot and Antoine Guillemet and Journal 46, no. 4 (winter 1987), pp. 267ff. the violinist Fanny Glaus, the fact that they See also John House, "Manet's Maximilian: are not named in the painting's title means Censorship and the Salon," in Elizabeth C. that this played no part in the way in which Childs, ed., Suspended Licenses: Essays in the work was viewed at the Salon, except the History of Censorship and the Visual Arts among the small circle of Manet's friends. (Seattle, 1997). 43 For a more detailed critique of the view that Interior should be seen as an illustra- 82

tion to a literary text, see John House, Richard R. Brettell, Pissarro and Pontoise "Degas' 'Tableaux de Genre,'" in Richard (New Haven and London, 1990). Kendall and Griselda Pollock, eds., Dealing 52 Astruc, "Salon de 1868 aux Ghamps- with Degas (London, 1992). For a persuasive Elysees." elaboration of a similar argument, see Susan Sidlauskas, "Resisting Narrative: The 53 In 1886 Renoir's friend Catulle Mendes Problem of Edgar Degas's Interior" Art published Les lies d'amour, a volume Bulletin 75, no. 4 (December 1993), of evocative essays that included one on pp. 671-96. La Grenouillere. Such amorous escapes to 44 See Nicholas Green, The Spectacle of the islands in the Seine were also a central Nature: Landscape and Bourgeois Culture in image in the stories of Guy de Maupassant, Nineteenth-Century France (Manchester, notably in "Une Partie de campagne" (later 1990), pp. 118-19, 167-81. the basis of a film by Jean Renoir) and "La Femme de Paul" (set at La Grenouillere), 45 See, for instance, Eugene Briffault, Paris both written around 1880. dans I'eau (Paris, 1844), pp. 26-27, and Oscar Commettant, En vacances (Paris, 54 Theophile Gaunerfi/s, "Le Salon de 1867 1868), pp. 179-87. Both of these writers use (5e)," Llllustration (25 May 1867), p. 326. the imagery of the "siren." 55 Adolphe Joanne, Les Environs de Paris 46 Emile de Labedolliere, Histoire des environs illustres (Paris, 1881 [preface dated 1877]), du nouveau Paris (Paris, 1861), pp. 136-37. pp. xxv-xxvi. 47 Zacharie Astruc, "Le Salon de 1870, 56 Duret, "Salon de 1870," in Critique d'avant- septieme journee," LEcho des beaux-arts garde, p. 19. (19 June 1870). 57 Castagnary, "Philosophic du Salon de 48 Letter from Madame Morisot to Berthe 1857," reprinted in Salons (1857-1879), Morisot, 19 August [1868?], in Denis vol. i, pp. 23,33-42. Rouart, ed., The Correspondence of Berthe 58 It has been suggested that the dog—a "grif- Morisot, new edition introduced by fon"—that accompanies the woman indi- Kathleen Adler and Tamar Garb (London, cates, by contemporary conventions, that 1986), p. 29. she is a prostitute. See Richard Thomson, 49 Victorien Sardou, "Louveciennes-Marly," in "Les Quat' Pattes: The Image of the Dog Paris-Guide, par les principaux ecrivains et in Late Nineteenth-Century French Art," artistes de la France (Paris, 1867), vol. 2, pp. Art History 5, no. 3 (September 1982), 1456-57, quoted in T. J. Clark, The Painting p. 328. of Modern Life: Paris in the Art of Manet 59 These paintings are reproduced in and His Followers (New York, 1984), p. 298, Christopher Wood, Tissot (London, 1986), note 7. "The Environs of Paris," chapter 3 pp. 47, 49. of this book, is the most searching and 60 Renoir, Renoir, p. 71; see also Albert Andre, thoughtful analysis of the imagery of this Renoir (Paris, 1928), p. 32. However, in 1883 region. Renoir did exhibit a painting with the title 50 Letter from Monet to Bazille, 25 September Jeunefemmepensive in his one-man show at 1869, in Daniel Wildenstein, Monet: Durand-Ruel's gallery in Paris. This work Biographie et catalogue raisonne (Lausanne can probably be identified with the 1879 and Paris, 1974), vol. i, p. 427, letter 53. painting now known as The Dreamer (Saint 51 For instance, see Herbert, Impressionism; Louis Art Museum). Paul Hayes Tucker, Monet at Argenteuil 61 Renoir Centennial Loan Exhibition, p. 119. (New Haven and London, 1982); and 83

62 An example of such a pornographic image is A. Renoir, A. Sis ley, sale catalogue (Paris, a small oil painting, attributed to Achille Hotel Drouot, 24 March 1875), reprinted in Deveria, entitled The Interrupted Walk in Denys Riout, ed., Les Rcrivains devant the Woods (Hamburg, Museum des ero- rimpressionnisme (Paris, 1989), pp. 47-49. tischen Kunst). See Museum der erotischen 72 The caricature by Bertall [Charles-Albert Kunst, Five Hundred Years of Erotic Art d'Arnoux], first published in Le Journal (Hamburg, 1992), pp. 76-77. amusant(2\ May 1870), is reproduced in 63 Zacharie Astruc interpreted the picture in Rewald, The History of Impressionism, terms of expectation; see Astruc, "Salon de p. 196. 1868 aux Champs-Elysees." 73 See Marcel Crouzet, Un Meconnu du 64 Alphonse de Calonne, "Beaux-Arts: Salon Realisme: Duranty (Paris, 1964), pp. 234-58, de 1853," Revue contemporalne 8 (i June 287-97. 1853), P- 153- 74 Renoir, Renoir, p. 64. 65 See, for example, Alfred Delvau, Les 75 Renoir's father was a tailor, whose trade was Plalslrs de Paris: Guide pratique et illustre threatened by mechanization, and Renoir's (Paris, 1867), pp. 193-94, 263-67. own first trade, as a porcelain painter, was 66 Letter from Monet to Bazille, 25 September undermined by the development of 1869, in Wildenstein, Monet, vol. I, p. 427, machine-made products. For further discus- letter 53. sion of his social background, see John 67 Philippe Burty, "Le Salon: X," Le Rappel House, "Renoir's Worlds," in Renoir (19%$), (15 June 1870). pp. 11-18. 68 Astruc, "Salon de 1868 aux Champs- 76 Ibid., pp. 11-13. Elysees"; Castagnary, Salons (1857-1879), 77 See Jerrold Seigel, Bohemian Paris: Culture, vol. i, p. 313. Politics and the Boundaries of Bourgeois 69 Zacharie Astruc, "Le Salon de 1870—4e Life, 1830-1930 (New York, 1986). For a journee," L'Echo des beaux-arts (29 May contemporary anatomy of the "bohemian" 1870); Philippe Burty, "Le Salon, III: Les position, see Paris-Boheme, par les auteurs Portraitistes," Le Rappel (11 May 1870); des Memoires de Bilboquet [i.e., Taxile Duranty, "Le Salon de 1870: III." Delord, Arnould Fremy, and Edmond Texier] (Paris, 1854). 70 For the seminal discussion of the subjectiv- 78 Renoir, Renoir, pp. 68, 179. ity of the sensation and the impression, see Richard Shiff, Cezanne and the End of 79 Georges Riviere, "Les Enfants dans 1'oeuvre Impressionism (Chicago, 1984), especially et la vie de Cezanne et de Renoir," LArt pp. 14-26, 187-94. vivant(\ September 1928), p. 673. 71 Philippe Burty's preface to the catalogue 80 Philippe Burty, "Les Peintures de M. P. of the auction sale organized by Renoir Renoir," La Republique fran^aise (15 April and some of his colleagues in March 1875 1883). (the nearest thing to a manifesto for the 81 For details of these titles, see Renoir (1985), Impressionist group) emphasizes the rela- pp. 235-38. tionship between their "rapid and subtly colored" handling and their view of the 82 Georges Besson, Renoir (Paris, 1929), p. 4. world, "like small fragments of the mirror of 83 See John House, "Renoir and the Earthly universal life [la vie universelle\'; see Paradise," Oxford Art Journal'8, no. 2 Philippe Burty, preface to Tableaux et (1985), pp. 21-27. aquarelles par Claude Monet, Eerthe Morisot, 8 4

Foldout Pierre-Auguste Renoir (French, 1841-1919). La Promenade, 1870. Oil on canvas, 81.3 x 65 cm (32 x 25V2 in.). Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Museum, 89.PA.41.

This page intentionally left blank

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My enthusiasm for La Promenade was sparked by John Walsh, then Curator of European Paintings at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, when we were col- leagues in the team preparing the 1985-86 Renoir retrospective exhibition. I did not have the chance to write about La Promenade in that exhibition catalogue, and I am very happy finally to have this opportunity to explore it—and at far greater length—after its acquisition by the museum of which he is now director. Much of the initial research that underpins this book was under- taken while I held a British Academy Research Readership in 1988-90; I take this opportunity to acknowledge my gratitude to the British Academy for this period of leave, during which I was able to broaden and deepen my understand- ing of the Paris art world in the Second Empire. Sabbatical leave at the Courtauld Institute of Art, University of London, enabled me to complete the research and prepare the final text. 88