New issue

Issues of 2008

Paul Gauguin: in the depths of impressionism

╚Work not according to the rules and principles, but paint what you can see and feel, ≈ asserted Camille Pissarro, ≈ paint lavishly and confidently, as it is desirable not to lose the first impression received. Don▓t quail at the face of nature, one should be brave, even risking getting disillusioned and committing mistakes. One should have a single teacher ≈ nature; it is always to be consulted with╩.

In June 1885 Gauguin paints ╚Still life with Japanese peonies in a vase and a mandolin╩, nowadays preserved at the collection of Musee d▓Orsay. A vase with Japanese peonies, a mandolin, a plate of Chinese porcelain, a wicker stand, a table cloth, a wall, a landscape. A closer glance ≈ and the quiver in the fingertips will respond to the cold of a sonorous, thick-walled glazed vessel, the silk of the mandolin wood, smooth, melting porcelain surface, dense, splendid weaving of the stand and finally, some vital current of incredible potency, nourishing powerful, tight inflorescences of peonies.

P. Cezann. Flowers in a Delft Vase. 1873. Oil on canvas. Private collection [zoom (60k)]

Blue background fills the depiction with air and at the same time enhances special depth, set by the compositional structure ≈ the arrangement of items along two crossing diagonals. A cinnabar spot of the roof in the landscape on the wall fixes this breathing space from inside as if with a high musical tuning fork. Thus the ╚field of action╩ for Gauguin▓s brush is created.

And Gauguin▓s brush in this still life is virtually spectacular. Whirling, turbulent, it literary wrenches the forms of petals, becomes caressing, touching the mandolin, lumpy, knotty strokes ╚beat up╩ a stand and dissolve absolutely in the gentle and tender texture of the porcelain. The blue vase is painted tightly, the background ≈ dynamically and widely; in the white frame of the landscape the canvas weaving is unexpectedly uncovered, while the very landscape is outlined lightly, in a sketch manner.

Texture polyphony is echoed by the colour solution of the still life, its harmony built on warm ocherous, green and cold bluish-violet hues. The colour, as well as the composition, seems to develop along diagonals: from the right lower corner to the upper left the ╚warm╩ diagonal is forcing through, while from the left lower to the upper right corner ≈ the ╚cold╩ one. The focus of their merging is the peon flower ≈ the optic center of the still life. Woven of the finest nuances of the canvas colour harmony basic elements the flower seems to have absorbed all of its colour wealth and incandescent by agitating combinations of complimentary colours (violet ≈ yellow, orange ≈ blue) is conceived as some energetic core of the composition.

Dynamics set in the colour scheme of the still life is supported by the forms treatment: they do not dissolve in the light and air ambience, the contours are definitely observed though not accentuated. Thus along with fine correlation, set by the colour and soft rounding volumes, the sensation of consolidation, inner concentration, individual sounding of each object in a supremely orchestrated whole immerges.

The still life was painted by the artist before the departure from Copenhagen, where he came in December 1884 in the attempt to arrange his family life, which fractured after he had left stock exchange in 1883. However, rigid and conservative Dutch society, having suspiciously and hostilely met both his artistic aspirations and mode of thinking, soon forced him into ╚giving up at physical inability to discharge the duty╩. Having found himself in isolation and nursing the plans of soon return to Paris, Gauguin abandons himself to lengthy meditations over the ways of art; in their depth a peculiar worldview is strengthening and developing, a singular creative individuality is maturing.

Self-absorbed world cognition (perhaps, that▓s the way to define the kernel of the process) ≈ is the essential quality of Gauguin▓s personality. ╚The artist for me is the personification of supreme intellect; feelings, expressing the finest and most invisible brain activity are characteristic of him╩, ≈ Gauguin writes in a letter to Schuffenecker on January 14, 1885. One can judge about the course of Gauguin▓s reflections from the same letter: ╚Philosophers have been long speculating over the phenomena, seeming to us supernatural, but which we, nevertheless, can sense. It▓s here, in this word, that everything is set. Rafael and others ≈ they are people, whose sensations found the form of expression much earlier than thoughts, that let them even studying never destroy this sensation and stay artists┘╩

Dwelling on the existence of diverse profound relationships between ╚boundless creativity of nature╩ and human soul potential, whose realization is fulfilled through our five senses, the artist comes to following conclusions: ╚there are noble lines, deceitful and so on; direct line gives the sensation of infinity, while the curving one limits the creative urge╩, ╚there are dignified tones and ordinary, calm, consoling harmonies and others whose boldness is exciting╩, ╚in reality there are no sides, ≈ he continues, ≈ but in our sensation the lines from the right are directing ahead, the lines from the left are receding. Why are the willows with their branches hanging down called weeping? Isn▓t it because the lines going down are sad? And the sycamore is grievous because it is planted on the cemeteries? ≈ No, it▓s its colour that is sorrowful╩.

Gauguin declares freedom of sensation as an inalienable right of a creative individuality and at the same time the guarantee of its singularity ≈ ╚you can not devise your personality, mind and heart╩, for ╚it▓s the most intimate in the human being that turns out to be most concealed╩. ╚Work freely and madly┘ And above all, don▓t sweat over the painting, a great emotion can be conveyed immediately, dream over it and search for the simplest form╩.

Here we▓ll cite the remark of a different master, produced four years earlier in France in Pontoise: ╚Choose the nature, coherent to your temperament. Treat the motif from the point of view of form and colour, not drawing. There▓s no need to outline the form, which can be exposed without it╩. Drawing eliminates the impression of the image integrity, it is summoned to be replaced by a brush stroke ╚correct in colour and intensity╩.

Turning to the object portrayed, the artist urges to paint only ╚the most essential in the character of things╩, striving ╚to render it by any means, regardless of technique╩. One should work over the whole canvas simultaneously, gradually applying the paints, accurately fixing with colourful brush strokes colour nuances and relations, in order to incarnate an integral impression in the most plenary way. Landscapes produced by the artist himself in the 70es might serve a wonderful illustration of these recommendations ≈ ╚The Garden and blossoming trees; The Spring in Pontoise╩ (1877, Musee d▓Orsay, Paris) or ╚The Red roofs╩ (1877, Musee d▓Orsay, Paris); he didn▓t paint still lives until 1898.

A.Renoir. Roses and Jasmin in a Delft Vase. 1880√1881. Oil on canvas. 81.5 х 65.0. From O. Krebs' collection. The State Hermitage [zoom (83k)]

╚Don▓t quail at the face of nature, one should be brave, even risking to get disillusioned and commit mistakes. One should have a single teacher ≈ nature; it is always to be consulted with╩. These words sounded in Pontoise in 1881 from the lips of Camille Pissarro and were addressed to his sons and friends students, among which there were Gauguin and Cezanne.

The utterances of the student and the teacher (and Gauguin, in spite of divergence of opinions, up to the last days considered Pissarro his teacher) cited hereinabove might seem somewhat heterogeneous. Gauguin reasons of suggestive potencies of the outer world and the value of creative individuality, able to get in dialogue with it, while Pissarro gives practical advice to the painters. However in the essence these are two monologues on the topic of creative comprehension of reality, only Pissarro offers a receipt of its imprinting on the canvas, while for Gauguin this solution is still in process of elaboration. The piety before nature as the beginning if beginnings, some world ocean, to draw the inspiration from, as well as the call to embody the concept boldly, declared by both artists, attract the attention. The only discrepancy lies in a fact that the teacher views the aim in the preservation of ╚the first impression╩, while the student ≈ in the necessity to retain the sensation. The difference in these lines, as artistic practice will show, is fundamental.

One can make sure of it, having turned to the still life, executed in 1884 ≈ ╚The basket of flowers╩ (National gallery, Oslo). Perhaps, being unaware of the author, one could hardly recognize Gauguin here. This is a painting of pure, ╚classical╩ impressionism, having Pissarro▓s principles successively implemented ≈ modulated with tiny strokes of sonorous colour incarnation of the integral impression. The composition of Gauguin▓s still life is simple ≈ the plane of the table, in the center there is a basket with chrysanthemums and nasturtiums against the wall background ≈ but how luxurious and highly complex is its painting.

Exquisite pictorial solution of Gauguin▓s early still lives (╚Gladioli╩, ╚Vase with flowers╩, ╚Flowers╩, ╚The interior of the painter▓s apartment in Carselle street╩, ╚Sleeping girl╩) reveals an unconditional importance of impressionistic school for the artist.

Skipping through this list one unwittingly pays attention to the fact, that the depictions of flowers definitely prevail in Gauguin▓s early still lives. This point is easily explicable. The Impressionists on a large scale didn▓t interest in the genre of still life (if we don▓t consider the late works of E.Manet, imbued with admirable peace, the object in which reigns in a pictorial aura (╚Lemon╩, 1880, Musee d▓Orsay, Paris). Static nature and constancy, implied by the genre, both temporal and special, didn▓t cohere with the character of their search.

In the book of J.Zvezdina ╚Emblematic in the world of old still life╩ we encounter the following characteristics of impressionistic still lives: ╚Objects are imparted with peculiar mobility: the glance slides along their surface, in passing noting the glimpses of light, penetrating a transparent haze of air and even shadows, parting with deathly colourlessness and attaining bright, open tones. Glittering of colours creates an impression of unstable and as if incorporeal volume ≈ real weight and texture of the object lost in a light fume, embracing it. Still life details often practically dissolve in the ambience, while their semantic contents is the last thing to arise the interest of the Impressionists.╩

If the Impressionists turned to still life, most often they portrayed flowers, incarnating the idea of transiency, quiver of the moment of life at the face of inevitable death, carrying in themselves the spirit of uniqueness and irrevocability of the wonder of being. Let us recollect in this respect O.Renoir still lives, captivating with their freshness, vases in which are perceived as a constricting basis of the flowery element (╚Roses and Jasmin in the Delft vase╩, about 1800╛1881, The Hermitage, Saint-Petersburg), C.Monet sunflowers, ignescent in the incandescent haze of light and air ambience (╚Sunflowers╩, 1881, Metropolitan Museum, New-York) or enchanting with their tenderness peons in the exquisite compositions of E.Manet (╚Still life with a branch of peon and scissors╩, 1864, Musee d▓Orsay, Paris). In Cezanne flower compositions of 1870s, where the artist strived to discover, according to N.Kalitina sharp observation, ╚a reasonable balance between the constructive basis inherent in the objects and the emotional agitation of the person looking at them╩, tightly modeled inflorescences of dahlias are dominating (╚Flowers in a Delft vase╩, 1873, private col.). ╚Nature in a cage: its might, colourfulness, solidity, power, riot, compressed in the canvas field╩, Parisian still lives by Van Gogh are perceived (╚Fritillaries in a copper vase╩ 1887, Musee d▓Orsay, Paris) (Murina H. Van Gogh. Moscow, 1978, p.163).

At the early stage this genre provided Gauguin with a natural possibility to perfect pictorial technique. In the still life examined he copes with the task virtuosicly, attaining an integral color impression. Light brush strokes make the forms glimmer in the fiery-gold radiance.

C. Pissarro. Garden and Blossoming Trees; Soring in Pontoise. 1877. Oil on canvas. Paris, Orsay Museum [zoom (90k)]

Colour stream of yellows, oranges, with rear inclusions of violets, overflows the background, changes the direction, with the sparks of reds and greens violently splashes out into the world. Finely harmonized autumn combinations together with vibrating instability of a brush stroke impart sad tenderness to the ephemeral creatures, seeming to exhale luscious aroma. Comparing the technique of these two still lives, we shall mark that though both are painted with separate brush strokes of pure colour, finely nuanced in the colourful shades and reflections ≈ closely observing the rules of impressionism ≈ colour gamut of ╚Still life with Japanese peonies in a vase and a mandolin╩ is less light and iridescent, as the one of the still life of 1884, closer to the Impressionists, while the forms, molded, as if built up with brush strokes, are enclosed into clearly defined contours. The flowers, monolithic in their practically crystal forms, are perceived quintessences of vital energy.

And finally the spirit of this Gauguin▓s still life ≈ it can not be mistaken for the work of the Impressionist ≈ energy, might and inner tension, the tension of thought, in which the new plastic language is meant to form. Thus, the still life examined in fact turns out to be on the verge of impressionism, whose overcoming will become the aim of succeeding three years of the painter▓s life.

Reasoning of Gauguin▓s interaction with Pissarro and wider with the Impressionism, we can state that indisputable charm of this pedagogue▓s individuality couldn▓t but win the heart of the student, while his advice ≈ attention to the analysis of pictorial relations of the object and the air and light ambience, the usage together with mixed paints, pure colour ≈ became virtually Gauguin▓s first artistic school. By his mentality Gauguin couldn▓t be an Impressionist because of his inclination to synthetic world perception, search for a generalizing concept of creative work.

Consolidating with the view of F.Cachin, we▓ll single out Pissarro▓s role in the formation of Gauguin▓s ╚respect for nature, understanding of the necessity of humble and artisanal labour in the comprehension of reality, contempt for all forms of academism and lightness and the notion, new at that time, that the greatness of the painter is not necessarily connected with his success╩ (Cachin F. Gauguin. Paris, 1968. c. 50).

It▓s curious that it was Pissarro who brought up in his student one of the principles, that the latter would develop afterwards, viewing it in the light of symbolism. Following A.Kantor-Gukovskaya one can not but acknowledge that ╚the major lesson of the Impressionism ≈ the refusal from approved but dead, conventional formulas and allegiance solely to the personal visual experience╩ ≈ Gauguin learnt for the rest of his life, and ╚in the basis of his synthesis, or symbolism, there always lied an analytical method, adopted from the Impressionism╩.