History of Modern Art with Klaire
Explore Modern Art history including Impressionism, Cubism, Surrealism, and other key Modernist art movements. Join artist and educator Klaire Lockheart as she examines famous artists and artwork through a 21st century intersectional feminist lens. Whether you’re an artist, student, or patron of the arts, you will hopefully learn something new about Modern Art.
Impressionism: When Sunsets and Floppy Babies Scandalized Paris
Impressionism may seem like nothing but inoffensive blurry paintings of cute subjects that are perfect to hang over the sofa, but this Modernist art style was full of rebellion and scandal. Join Klaire Lockheart as she explores the context and history of Impressionism, including the Salon, the male gaze, and artists who refused to conform.
Artists and Artwork: Alexandre Cabanel (The Birth of Venus), Édouard Manet (Luncheon on the Grass), Felix Nadar, Katsushika Hokusai (The Great Wave), Claude Monet (Impression, Sunrise), Pierre-August Renoir (Dance at Le moulin de la Galette), Edgar Degas, Alfred Sisley, Camille Pissarro, Berte Morisot (After Lunch, The Artist’s Daughter, Julie, with Her Nanny), and Mary Cassatt (At the Theater)
Additional Topics: Salon des Refusés, Hierarchy of Painting, Venus, Male Gaze, the Louvre, John Berger (Ways of Seeing), Émil Zola, Japanese Prints, Plein Air Painting, Louis Leroy, and Linda Nochlin (“Why are There no Great Women Artists”), and Ugly Renaissance Babies
Artists and Artwork: Alexandre Cabanel (The Birth of Venus), Édouard Manet (Luncheon on the Grass), Felix Nadar, Katsushika Hokusai (The Great Wave), Claude Monet (Impression, Sunrise), Pierre-August Renoir (Dance at Le moulin de la Galette), Edgar Degas, Alfred Sisley, Camille Pissarro, Berte Morisot (After Lunch, The Artist’s Daughter, Julie, with Her Nanny), and Mary Cassatt (At the Theater)
Additional Topics: Salon des Refusés, Hierarchy of Painting, Venus, Male Gaze, the Louvre, John Berger (Ways of Seeing), Émil Zola, Japanese Prints, Plein Air Painting, Louis Leroy, and Linda Nochlin (“Why are There no Great Women Artists”), and Ugly Renaissance Babies
Transcript
Hello, my friends! Welcome to the History of Modern Art with Klaire, an exploration of Modernism one movement at a time viewed through a 21st century intersectional feminist lens. I’m your host Klaire Lockheart, and I’m so happy you could join me because I’m going to share about Impressionism. Whether you are an artist, a student, or you’ve always just wanted to learn a little more about Impressionist artworks and artists, I think you’ll enjoy this episode.
[Music]
To kick off the history of Modernism, I’m going to begin with Impressionism. Art historians will debate about exactly when Modern Art began, but I feel Impressionism is a good place to start. I will share when, where, and why Impressionism developed. I’ll also talk about some of the key artists. Impressionist paintings are categorized by their loose brushstrokes, bright colors, and outdoor scenes that capture the light. Many contemporary viewers understand that these paintings are famous, but they see these scratchy, bright paintings as non-threatening artworks that make nice decorations to hang above the sofa. However, I’m going to share that there is a lot more to this art movement than pretty landscapes.
Before I dive into the scandal of Impressionism, I need to go on one tiny little rant about contemporary artists who claim that they are “Impressionists” because they paint quickly without including details. Impressionism, like other movements in the history of Western art, is tied to a specific time and location. Impressionism occurred in Paris, France during the 1870s and 1880s. There was a specific group of artists involved in this movement as well. Even though current living artists may paint, draw, or make prints in a way reminiscent of Impressionism, they technically aren’t Impressionists because they don’t live in late 19th century France nor did they actively exhibit with the Impressionists. Current artists who like to emulate this type of art-making can say they create in an Impressionistic style, but they technically aren’t Impressionists. Being part of an art movement takes more than just mimicking the techniques.
Impressionism developed in the late 19th century in Paris, and it was a rebellion against the academic style of art that reigned supreme. Paintings at the time were ranked by the hierarchy of genres, which was developed by the French Royal Academy in the 17th century. History paintings were considered the best, followed by portraits, then genre scenes, landscapes, but still life paintings were at the bottom. The hierarchy of paintings was important to the Academy as well as the Salon.
The Salon was a public exhibition that could make or break an artist’s career. Every year, artists would submit their work, and the jurors from the Academy of Fine Arts and the French government would select the “best” works to display. The artwork the jury liked the best often included dark, epic paintings with scores of nudes that reenacted dramatic moments in history or mythology. Imagine a bunch of undressed, burly men fighting on a boat or a nude Venus draped over cushions. Artists would paint to please the judges because they wanted to be included in the show, which would lead to government and private commissions.
I’d like to take a moment to mention who was permitted to participate in the Salon. It’s important to note that girls didn’t have the same educational opportunities as boys in Europe. This discrepancy was similar in the United States at the time, but America was even worse because Impressionism arose around the same time as the Civil War. In Western civilization, the expectation was that girls would grow up, become women, get married, make children, and take care of their husbands and families in a supporting role. Women were typically forbidden from training as professional artists, which meant that very few women actually became artists. This why not many women artists had their artwork chosen to be displayed in the Salon exhibitions.
The Salon of 1863 was especially important in the development of Impressionism, but before I get into the details I think now is a good time for me to apologize in advance for my pronunciations of French names and words. I don’t mean any disrespect, but I will acknowledge that I’m bound to mispronounce something. In 1863, over 5,000 artworks were submitted to the Salon in Paris, but most of the work was rejected. The remaining 2,000 artworks were hung floor to ceiling. This exhibition style was extremely cramped compared to the way contemporary curators prefer to hang exhibitions. The crammed display was often why artists made huge paintings; if an artist’s work was hung at an insulting high spot, it could still be visible because of its massive scale.
One of the exalted paintings displayed at the 1863 Salon was The Birth of Venus by Alexandre Cabanel. It’s over 7 feet wide, and there’s a completely nude giant woman writhing on top of the sea. She somehow isn’t sinking into the blue-green water, and her long hair is under her pale body. It was completely acceptable, and still often is, for men to paint nude women for their enjoyment as long as they refer to the figure as a Venus. These paintings appealed to the male gaze. That’s “G-A-Z-E,” and it refers to art being created to appeal to heteronormative male desires. If you’re interested in learning more about it, I recommend reading Ways of Seeing by John Berger. I also want take a moment to mention that I refer to undressed figures in art as being nude not naked. According to Kenneth Clark in his book The Nude, naked figures happen to be not dressed. Nude figures, on the other hand, are undressed but are on display or clothed in the concept of academia.
Let’s get back to the 1863 Salon. Because there were thousands of artworks rejected from the Salon, Emperor Napoleon III declared, “His Majesty, wishing to let the public judge the legitimacy of these complaints, has decided that the works of art which were refused should be displayed in another part of the Palace of Industry.” This exhibition of rejected artwork was called the Salon des Refusés, and many artists were too insulted to agree to include their work. However, Édouard Manet chose to participate.
I will introduce you to Manet and describe his impact on Impressionism after the break.
[Break]
Like many of his artist peers, Édouard Manet was rich and privileged. This is important to mention because many artists often feel discouraged because they can’t display or sell enough of their work since they don’t have connections. The Impressionists all knew each other, and they used their connections with their upper-class families and associates to contribute to their success. It also helped that they had influential art critics in their social circles. If you are an artist who is struggling, I want to reassure you that it often doesn’t mean that your art lacks quality. You may have just made the terrible mistake of not being born wealthy and well-connected. I also want to emphasize that I don’t think the Impressionist artwork was bad just because they had privilege. Their access to money gave them time and resources to create their paintings and drawings. Their connections and money also helped them break away from the Salon tradition and made it easier for them to promote themselves, which contributed to their fame.
Édouard Manet studied under an academic painter and copied paintings in the Louvre. His goal was to display his work in the Salon, and sometimes he did. However, one of his oil paintings, Luncheon on the Grass was rejected and hung in the refused exhibition. Luncheon on the Grass is 82 inches tall and 104 inches wide. Manet painted four figures in a dark green wooded area. In the foreground, there are two men dressed in contemporary clothes for the time. They are wearing dark jackets and white shirts. The man on our right is lounging on the grass propped up on his left elbow; he’s wearing a black hat and grey trousers. The other man is a little further away and he wears lighter gray pants. The woman to this man’s right is completely nude. She is sitting upright, her body is in profile, her chin is in her right hand with her elbow propped up on her knee. She stares directly at the viewer. Remember the male gaze? This woman is here for the viewer of the painting, not her companions in the scene. The artist is assuming that the viewer of this painting will be a man like himself. There is another woman in the background who is barely dressed and knee-deep in water. She is slightly bent over at the waist. The women’s castoff clothing is in a pile in the bottom left corner along with the discarded picnic basket.
This painting stirred up controversy at the exhibition. First of all, it looked like the artwork was unfinished. The paint was applied quickly, and the choppy brushstrokes were very apparent. It looked like the study paintings that artists typically made in preparation for their finished work. The painting also received criticism for the content. Some people thought the combination of undressed women with fully-clothed men was controversial, but not everyone. Art critic Émil Zola stated, “This nude woman has scandalized the public, who see only her in the canvas. My God! What indecency: a woman without the slightest covering between two clothed men! That has never been seen. And this belief is a gross error, for in the Louvre there are more than fifty paintings in which are found mixes of persons clothed and nude.”
Zola was sarcastic because he knew that the Salon and the audience was pretty familiar with and expected nude women in the paintings. Keep in mind, the giant nude Birth of Venus painting was considered one of the best compositions that year. The big scandal with Luncheon on the Grass was that Manet didn’t try to disguise the subjects as a history painting. He painted them in their modern clothes. He also placed his models in a location that was easily recognizable as a spot where upper class Parisian men liked to seek out sex workers. Can you imagine? These upper class bourgeoise men simply wanted to ogle paintings of acceptable nude Venuses with their wives at the Salon, but then they had to face the embarrassment of recognizing a location where they like to romp around with prostitutes unbeknownst to their wives? While these men had no problem visiting that particular location and participating in those particular activities, they just didn’t want to be reminded of it in front of their families at an art exhibition. Oh the scandal!
Anyway, the Salon des Refusés caused a stir, but it was influential in the development of Impressionism. This exhibition inspired artists to organize their own shows independent of the official Salon. In 1874, 30 artists displayed their artwork as the Anonymous Association of Painters, Sculptors, and Engravers. Felix Nadar hosted this show in his photography studio. Nadar’s role in the development of Impression is valuable not just because he provided a location for the first show. Photography itself was key for this break away from the academic style of painting that was popular at the time in France. Many artists thought, “Why should we paint realistically now that we have photography?” This caused part of the rebellion of how paint was applied to canvas. The big, bold brushstrokes that are imperative to this style shows viewers that they are looking at a painting. They are seeing something handmade. The Impressionists didn’t just rebel against photography, but they also drew inspiration from it. Some of the cropping, angles, and the quick “snapshots” in their work was inspired by photographs. Impressionism was Modernist because they were responding to their modern lives.
Another huge influence on the Impressionists included Japanese artwork. The second Japanese Embassy visited Paris in 1863. French artists were exposed to Japanese artwork, and it made a lasting impression. The woodblock prints were particularly influential. You might already be familiar with Katsushika Hokusai’s The Great Wave. This print is about 10 by 14 inches, and there is a big blue and white wave on the lefthand side of the paper. It curves toward the center. Mount Fuji appears far off in the distance with a white peak, and the dull yellow and grey sky is in the background. There are two boats on the water on the right side, the people in the boat are holding on as the waters churn around them. Prints like this made an impact on the Impressionists, and they adopted the use of flat, bold colors. They also liked the different perspectives and compositional elements the Japanese artists utilized.
This was also a time when painters were able to purchase oil paint in tubes, and this innovation made it possible for them to transport their supplies a little bit easier. Artists could create plein air paintings, which means they could paint outside on location. This also contributes to the sketch-like qualities of their artwork. If you want to paint a sunset, you have to work quickly before it’s dark! These artists would capture quick moments outdoors, and they had to paint fast before the sun moved and all the shadows changed.
At this exhibition hosted by Nadar, Claude Monet displayed Impression, Sunrise. This horizontal oil painting is 19 by 25 inches, and it depicts a red-orange sun setting over a body of water. The water takes up the bottom 2/3 of the composition, and the water is a light, dull blue-green. There’s a dark silhouette of a boat at the center, and there are additional boats that get lighter and bluer in the distance to demonstrate atmospheric perspective. The water reflects the boats and the sky with shades of green and blue. Monet painted the sun’s reflection with several red-orange horizontal wiggles. The horizon is a murky and sketchy blue-green, and the sky includes orange, pink, and light violet. Many viewers at the time hated this painting when they saw it at the Anonymous Association of Painters, Sculptors, and Engravers show.
Art critic and playwright Louis Leroy wrote the following dialog to describe Monet’s painting:
“What’s this painting about? Look at the booklet.”
“Impression, Sunrise.”
“Impression — I knew it. I was thinking that since I’m impressed, there must be some impression in there. And the draftsmanship is so free, so effortless! Sketches for wallpaper are more developed than that seascape.”
The insults about the art at this exhibition stuck. The style of art later became known as Impressionism.
To learn about additional Impressionists, please join me after the break.
[Break]
Some of the other artists who displayed their artwork at this independent 1874 exhibition included Pierre-August Renoir, Edgar Degas, Alfred Sisley, Camille Pissarro, Berte Morisot, and Mary Cassatt. Even though Édouard Manet made art that looks similar to work created by the Impressionists and he adhered to similar principals, he refused to exhibit his work in the Impressionist shows. Manet would have liked to have considered himself a Realist, but historians often categorize him with the Impressionists. Manet wanted his art to be accepted by the establishment, and some of his work was accepted by the Salon’s jury. Many of the Impressionists created paintings that were in the Salon too, but they also liked proclaiming their independence. It’s also notable that Impressionists created Modern Art with a capital “M” because they were depicting their modern, their contemporary, life.
Instead of going into detail about all the Impressionists that I listed, I will focus on Berte Morisot and Mary Cassatt. It’s important that women are represented in the arts because the traditional history of art often excludes them, even though women make up half the population. Janson’s History of Art textbook, which was first published in 1962, didn’t include a single woman artist. Many books to this day still often forget to include women, but that is a reflection of who museums and galleries celebrate. According to a 2019 study lead by Chad Topaz of Williams College, only 12.5% of artists in major museums are women. There is also a lack of representation of art created by people of color.
Mary Cassatt was aware of the challenges she faced as a woman, especially because she worked as an artist. In 1893, she was commissioned to create a mural in the Woman’s Building for the World’s Columbian Exposition in Chicago. When someone asked her why she didn’t include men in her painting, she retorted, “Men I have no doubt are painted in all their vigor on the walls of other buildings.” This is part of the reason that I don’t feel bad by not providing more information on the men artists. Monet, Renoir, Degas, Sisley, and Pissarro are easier to find in museums and publications. Collectors also pay way higher prices for the artwork made by them. In 1990, someone purchased Dance at Le moulin de la Galette by Pierre-August Renoir for over $78 million, which equals almost $153 million in today’s currency. By comparison, the most expensive painting by a woman Impressionist was After Lunch by Berte Morisot; it sold for $11 million in 2013, which is a little over $12 million when adjusted for inflation. The $140 million price difference is just one way to quantify the way Cassatt and Morisot have been traditionally overlooked and undervalued when compared to their counterparts who happened to be men.
Cassatt is often known for her paintings of women, children, and motherhood. Contemporary audiences can sometimes view her paintings as cute and non-threatening, but that’s not how her work was originally received. Cassatt was a rebel. First of all, she was one of the very few women who was permitted to study art. She was born to a rich family, which is pretty common for famous artists. It’s important to keep in mind that having access to money and connections gives many artists the opportunity to become successful. This is still true to this day, which I want to mention just in case you’re wondering why, despite your hard work and skill, you still haven’t made it as an artist.
Cassatt was born in the United States, but she lived a lot of her life in France. She began studying art in Pennsylvania at a time where women were just starting to be allowed to take art classes. However, women did not receive an equal education to their peers who were men. Remember the hierarchy of painting? Great artists had to show their skills by making giant paintings of nudes, but women were forbidden from life-drawing classes. They weren’t allowed to see male nudes to draw them, which meant they couldn’t paint them, which resulted in them from being banned from creating the highest form of art at the time. If you really want to get riled up about the disparaging treatment of women in the art world, I highly recommend reading Linda Nochlin’s essay “Why are There no Great Women Artists” from 1971. It’s 50 years old, but it is still relevant to this day.
Even though Mary Cassatt didn’t receive an equal education, she was determined to develop her skills as an artist. She, like many other men artists of the time, made copies of paintings at the Louvre. She also had her artwork accepted in the Salon when she made it dark and moody enough to appease the jurors. However, Cassatt also painted in the style that highlighted the artist’s hand. Her paintings have obvious brushstrokes, she used a lot of light colors, and she was influenced by Japanese prints. Cassatt was a prolific printmaker herself. You can see samples of her prints at the National Gallery of Art, the Brooklyn Museum, the Minneapolis Institute of Art, the New York Public Library, and many other institutions that have a decent print collection.
As I mentioned, Cassatt created many paintings of women and children. She is well-known for her domestic scenes, but her domestic paintings were rebellious. In the history of Western art, the archetypical mother and child represented was Mary and Jesus from the Christian tradition. You may picture awkward and stiff medieval paintings, or ugly Renaissance babies that show a tiny, adult-like baby sitting on the lap of a very rigid mother. In art, Mary and Jesus were almost always shown rigid, and perfect. Cassatt, on the hand, showed floppy and squirmy children. This truly rebelled against the traditional perfectly behaved way babies and children were represented. Her depictions of wiggly children were scandalous for her time. She showed children as they actually were. I find this particularly funny because I recall reading a story about how a child Cassatt was painting would not hold still, and she snapped at the child and chastised them. After they cried themselves to sleep, Cassatt had a sigh of relief and resumed painting because the child finally held still! She also painted her women models as active, which was also considered scandalous because the Salon preferred their women passive, languishing, and nude.
Part of the reason Cassatt depicted her friends and family was because who she could paint was extremely limited compared to her peers. First of all, the men could hire sex-workers as models, which would have certainly been off-limits to women artists, especially upper-class women like Cassatt and Morisot. Cassatt would have also been unable to travel to the bars, cafés, and brothels, which were often depicted in Impressionist artwork. She also didn’t leer at teenagers at ballet rehearsal while they were in their late 19th century underwear, as Degas did. So, this is a reason why Cassatt frequently painted her friends and family. She was also a Modern artist, and portraying people she knew permitted her to paint the modern world around her.
Cassatt created her pastel drawing At the Theater circa 1879. It’s currently at the Nelson-Aktins Museum of Art. This drawing is a little over 18 inches tall, and the subject is Cassatt’s sister, Lydia, at the theater, which was a public space that upper-class women were permitted to enjoy. Lydia is wearing a bright yellow dress, and she is in the right third of the composition. Her hands are clasped together in her lap as she leans forward. She is intently watching something out of the picture plane. She is sitting in a red chair, and she casts a dark shadow on the chair’s back. There is another woman in a similar dress seated behind her, with her back to the viewer. The background is composed of quick, gestural lines in blue, yellow, green, violet, and red. There is a white, glowing chandelier in the top left corner.
I’d also like to add that Cassatt’s importance extends beyond her artwork, particularly in the United States. She was a suffragist, and she was critical in bringing Impressionism to the United States. She used her connections to influence American art collectors to buy Impressionist artworks. I find it ironic that she played a pivot role in bringing Modernism to the United States, yet her artwork is extremely undervalued.
[Music]
Berthe Morisot was able to relate to Cassatt’s experience of receiving an inadequate art education compared to men in the late 19th century. Morisot grew up in France, but she received private painting lessons. At the time, upper-class women would receive painting or music lessons to amuse them while they waited to get married off, and many families would opt for painting lessons because that was a quieter activity. These girls and young women were expected to give up their hobbies once they got married so they could support their husbands’ lives and careers. Morisot surprised her teacher with her dedication and skill, and he warned her mother that she might try to make career as an artist! Oh no! Morisot’s mother encouraged her nonetheless. Like many other Impressionists, she copied artwork at the Louvre. As an adult, Morisot’s artwork was exhibited in the Salon. She also participated in seven out of the eight Impressionist exhibitions. The only artist who participated in all eight was Camille Pissarro, and the only reason Morisot missed one show was because she had a baby that year.
Like the other Impressionists, Morisot painted with bold brushstrokes, and her drawings have a quick gestural quality. The Minneapolis Institute of Art is home to Morisot’s oil painting called The Artist’s Daughter, Julie, with Her Nanny. This canvas is 22.5 by 28 inches. Morisot’s painting shows her young daughter in the left third of the canvas. She is blonde and wearing a blue-green dress. Her attention is turned to turned to the center of the composition, where her nanny appears to be sewing something with white fabric. The nanny occupies the right third of the canvas, and she is wearing a blue dress. Her head is in profile and turned down to see her hands at work. The subjects are inside, and the window behind them gives a view of the outdoors. Morisot replicated the realistic proportions of her models, but she used bold, fast marks to create her subjects. She created form with an economy of line, and the left arm of the adult woman in this work represents Morisot’s ability to render texture with a few, well-placed brushstrokes. The white highlights on the blue dress make the fabric appear shiny, like it is made of silk or satin.
Even though Berthe Morisot’s artwork may appear docile and non-threatening today, her paintings and drawings were rebellious at the time. Not only was it atypical for women to work outside of the home in late 19th century France, it was incredibly rare for them to be professional artists. Additionally, Morisot continue to work as an artist after she got married. Cassatt never married in order to maintain her independence, which is also respectable. Morisot married Édouard Manet’s younger brother, but she was already established as an artist. She was 33, which at the time was considered terribly old, especially considering that her mother was married at age 16. Despite being married, Morisot still continued to work instead of taking a backseat to her husband’s career.
The last Impressionist exhibition was their 8th group show, and it occurred in 1886. Morisot and Cassatt both participated and showed their artwork. Degas and Pissarro also included their work, but Pissarro’s artwork already began to transition to Postimpressionism. Even though this was the last Impressionist exhibition, the artists who development this movement still continued to make work as long as they were able. Claude Monet, Pierre-August Renoir, Edgar Degas, Alfred Sisley, Berte Morisot, Mary Cassatt, Édouard Manet, and their peers continued to make artwork of modern life as they saw it.
Overall, I want you to remember that Impressionism can be identified by the noticeable brushstrokes, bright colors, outdoor scenes, and domestic settings. The men artists had more freedom in where they could go, and so they also depicted bars, cafés, and brothels. These artists were rebellious for their time, especially because they didn’t adhere to the Salon’s standards. The Impressionists were Modern Artists because they depicted modern life at the time. They were influenced by Japanese artwork, the invention of photography, and the freedom to paint outside because of the invention of paint tubes.
[Music]
Thank you very much for joining me to explore the Modern Art movement of Impressionism, and I hope you’ll be back to learn about Orientalism. To find a transcript of this episode, the resources I consulted, or to become a patron, please visit klairelockheart.com and click on the”Media” tab. That’s K-L-A-I-R-E-L-O-C-K-H-E-A-R-T dot com. Find me on Instagram @klairelockheart to see my current projects, or you can follow me on Facebook by searching for Klaire A. Lockheart.
The History of Modern Art with Klaire was conceived, written, and performed by me, Klaire Lockheart. This podcast was recorded with equipment provided by Aaron C. Packard of Aaron C. Packard Productions. Check out his artwork at aaronpackard.com, that’s A-A-R-O-N-P-A-C-K-A-R-D dot com.
I truly appreciate your support and positive feedback. If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe so you can hear additional topics. Thank you once again!
[Music]
To kick off the history of Modernism, I’m going to begin with Impressionism. Art historians will debate about exactly when Modern Art began, but I feel Impressionism is a good place to start. I will share when, where, and why Impressionism developed. I’ll also talk about some of the key artists. Impressionist paintings are categorized by their loose brushstrokes, bright colors, and outdoor scenes that capture the light. Many contemporary viewers understand that these paintings are famous, but they see these scratchy, bright paintings as non-threatening artworks that make nice decorations to hang above the sofa. However, I’m going to share that there is a lot more to this art movement than pretty landscapes.
Before I dive into the scandal of Impressionism, I need to go on one tiny little rant about contemporary artists who claim that they are “Impressionists” because they paint quickly without including details. Impressionism, like other movements in the history of Western art, is tied to a specific time and location. Impressionism occurred in Paris, France during the 1870s and 1880s. There was a specific group of artists involved in this movement as well. Even though current living artists may paint, draw, or make prints in a way reminiscent of Impressionism, they technically aren’t Impressionists because they don’t live in late 19th century France nor did they actively exhibit with the Impressionists. Current artists who like to emulate this type of art-making can say they create in an Impressionistic style, but they technically aren’t Impressionists. Being part of an art movement takes more than just mimicking the techniques.
Impressionism developed in the late 19th century in Paris, and it was a rebellion against the academic style of art that reigned supreme. Paintings at the time were ranked by the hierarchy of genres, which was developed by the French Royal Academy in the 17th century. History paintings were considered the best, followed by portraits, then genre scenes, landscapes, but still life paintings were at the bottom. The hierarchy of paintings was important to the Academy as well as the Salon.
The Salon was a public exhibition that could make or break an artist’s career. Every year, artists would submit their work, and the jurors from the Academy of Fine Arts and the French government would select the “best” works to display. The artwork the jury liked the best often included dark, epic paintings with scores of nudes that reenacted dramatic moments in history or mythology. Imagine a bunch of undressed, burly men fighting on a boat or a nude Venus draped over cushions. Artists would paint to please the judges because they wanted to be included in the show, which would lead to government and private commissions.
I’d like to take a moment to mention who was permitted to participate in the Salon. It’s important to note that girls didn’t have the same educational opportunities as boys in Europe. This discrepancy was similar in the United States at the time, but America was even worse because Impressionism arose around the same time as the Civil War. In Western civilization, the expectation was that girls would grow up, become women, get married, make children, and take care of their husbands and families in a supporting role. Women were typically forbidden from training as professional artists, which meant that very few women actually became artists. This why not many women artists had their artwork chosen to be displayed in the Salon exhibitions.
The Salon of 1863 was especially important in the development of Impressionism, but before I get into the details I think now is a good time for me to apologize in advance for my pronunciations of French names and words. I don’t mean any disrespect, but I will acknowledge that I’m bound to mispronounce something. In 1863, over 5,000 artworks were submitted to the Salon in Paris, but most of the work was rejected. The remaining 2,000 artworks were hung floor to ceiling. This exhibition style was extremely cramped compared to the way contemporary curators prefer to hang exhibitions. The crammed display was often why artists made huge paintings; if an artist’s work was hung at an insulting high spot, it could still be visible because of its massive scale.
One of the exalted paintings displayed at the 1863 Salon was The Birth of Venus by Alexandre Cabanel. It’s over 7 feet wide, and there’s a completely nude giant woman writhing on top of the sea. She somehow isn’t sinking into the blue-green water, and her long hair is under her pale body. It was completely acceptable, and still often is, for men to paint nude women for their enjoyment as long as they refer to the figure as a Venus. These paintings appealed to the male gaze. That’s “G-A-Z-E,” and it refers to art being created to appeal to heteronormative male desires. If you’re interested in learning more about it, I recommend reading Ways of Seeing by John Berger. I also want take a moment to mention that I refer to undressed figures in art as being nude not naked. According to Kenneth Clark in his book The Nude, naked figures happen to be not dressed. Nude figures, on the other hand, are undressed but are on display or clothed in the concept of academia.
Let’s get back to the 1863 Salon. Because there were thousands of artworks rejected from the Salon, Emperor Napoleon III declared, “His Majesty, wishing to let the public judge the legitimacy of these complaints, has decided that the works of art which were refused should be displayed in another part of the Palace of Industry.” This exhibition of rejected artwork was called the Salon des Refusés, and many artists were too insulted to agree to include their work. However, Édouard Manet chose to participate.
I will introduce you to Manet and describe his impact on Impressionism after the break.
[Break]
Like many of his artist peers, Édouard Manet was rich and privileged. This is important to mention because many artists often feel discouraged because they can’t display or sell enough of their work since they don’t have connections. The Impressionists all knew each other, and they used their connections with their upper-class families and associates to contribute to their success. It also helped that they had influential art critics in their social circles. If you are an artist who is struggling, I want to reassure you that it often doesn’t mean that your art lacks quality. You may have just made the terrible mistake of not being born wealthy and well-connected. I also want to emphasize that I don’t think the Impressionist artwork was bad just because they had privilege. Their access to money gave them time and resources to create their paintings and drawings. Their connections and money also helped them break away from the Salon tradition and made it easier for them to promote themselves, which contributed to their fame.
Édouard Manet studied under an academic painter and copied paintings in the Louvre. His goal was to display his work in the Salon, and sometimes he did. However, one of his oil paintings, Luncheon on the Grass was rejected and hung in the refused exhibition. Luncheon on the Grass is 82 inches tall and 104 inches wide. Manet painted four figures in a dark green wooded area. In the foreground, there are two men dressed in contemporary clothes for the time. They are wearing dark jackets and white shirts. The man on our right is lounging on the grass propped up on his left elbow; he’s wearing a black hat and grey trousers. The other man is a little further away and he wears lighter gray pants. The woman to this man’s right is completely nude. She is sitting upright, her body is in profile, her chin is in her right hand with her elbow propped up on her knee. She stares directly at the viewer. Remember the male gaze? This woman is here for the viewer of the painting, not her companions in the scene. The artist is assuming that the viewer of this painting will be a man like himself. There is another woman in the background who is barely dressed and knee-deep in water. She is slightly bent over at the waist. The women’s castoff clothing is in a pile in the bottom left corner along with the discarded picnic basket.
This painting stirred up controversy at the exhibition. First of all, it looked like the artwork was unfinished. The paint was applied quickly, and the choppy brushstrokes were very apparent. It looked like the study paintings that artists typically made in preparation for their finished work. The painting also received criticism for the content. Some people thought the combination of undressed women with fully-clothed men was controversial, but not everyone. Art critic Émil Zola stated, “This nude woman has scandalized the public, who see only her in the canvas. My God! What indecency: a woman without the slightest covering between two clothed men! That has never been seen. And this belief is a gross error, for in the Louvre there are more than fifty paintings in which are found mixes of persons clothed and nude.”
Zola was sarcastic because he knew that the Salon and the audience was pretty familiar with and expected nude women in the paintings. Keep in mind, the giant nude Birth of Venus painting was considered one of the best compositions that year. The big scandal with Luncheon on the Grass was that Manet didn’t try to disguise the subjects as a history painting. He painted them in their modern clothes. He also placed his models in a location that was easily recognizable as a spot where upper class Parisian men liked to seek out sex workers. Can you imagine? These upper class bourgeoise men simply wanted to ogle paintings of acceptable nude Venuses with their wives at the Salon, but then they had to face the embarrassment of recognizing a location where they like to romp around with prostitutes unbeknownst to their wives? While these men had no problem visiting that particular location and participating in those particular activities, they just didn’t want to be reminded of it in front of their families at an art exhibition. Oh the scandal!
Anyway, the Salon des Refusés caused a stir, but it was influential in the development of Impressionism. This exhibition inspired artists to organize their own shows independent of the official Salon. In 1874, 30 artists displayed their artwork as the Anonymous Association of Painters, Sculptors, and Engravers. Felix Nadar hosted this show in his photography studio. Nadar’s role in the development of Impression is valuable not just because he provided a location for the first show. Photography itself was key for this break away from the academic style of painting that was popular at the time in France. Many artists thought, “Why should we paint realistically now that we have photography?” This caused part of the rebellion of how paint was applied to canvas. The big, bold brushstrokes that are imperative to this style shows viewers that they are looking at a painting. They are seeing something handmade. The Impressionists didn’t just rebel against photography, but they also drew inspiration from it. Some of the cropping, angles, and the quick “snapshots” in their work was inspired by photographs. Impressionism was Modernist because they were responding to their modern lives.
Another huge influence on the Impressionists included Japanese artwork. The second Japanese Embassy visited Paris in 1863. French artists were exposed to Japanese artwork, and it made a lasting impression. The woodblock prints were particularly influential. You might already be familiar with Katsushika Hokusai’s The Great Wave. This print is about 10 by 14 inches, and there is a big blue and white wave on the lefthand side of the paper. It curves toward the center. Mount Fuji appears far off in the distance with a white peak, and the dull yellow and grey sky is in the background. There are two boats on the water on the right side, the people in the boat are holding on as the waters churn around them. Prints like this made an impact on the Impressionists, and they adopted the use of flat, bold colors. They also liked the different perspectives and compositional elements the Japanese artists utilized.
This was also a time when painters were able to purchase oil paint in tubes, and this innovation made it possible for them to transport their supplies a little bit easier. Artists could create plein air paintings, which means they could paint outside on location. This also contributes to the sketch-like qualities of their artwork. If you want to paint a sunset, you have to work quickly before it’s dark! These artists would capture quick moments outdoors, and they had to paint fast before the sun moved and all the shadows changed.
At this exhibition hosted by Nadar, Claude Monet displayed Impression, Sunrise. This horizontal oil painting is 19 by 25 inches, and it depicts a red-orange sun setting over a body of water. The water takes up the bottom 2/3 of the composition, and the water is a light, dull blue-green. There’s a dark silhouette of a boat at the center, and there are additional boats that get lighter and bluer in the distance to demonstrate atmospheric perspective. The water reflects the boats and the sky with shades of green and blue. Monet painted the sun’s reflection with several red-orange horizontal wiggles. The horizon is a murky and sketchy blue-green, and the sky includes orange, pink, and light violet. Many viewers at the time hated this painting when they saw it at the Anonymous Association of Painters, Sculptors, and Engravers show.
Art critic and playwright Louis Leroy wrote the following dialog to describe Monet’s painting:
“What’s this painting about? Look at the booklet.”
“Impression, Sunrise.”
“Impression — I knew it. I was thinking that since I’m impressed, there must be some impression in there. And the draftsmanship is so free, so effortless! Sketches for wallpaper are more developed than that seascape.”
The insults about the art at this exhibition stuck. The style of art later became known as Impressionism.
To learn about additional Impressionists, please join me after the break.
[Break]
Some of the other artists who displayed their artwork at this independent 1874 exhibition included Pierre-August Renoir, Edgar Degas, Alfred Sisley, Camille Pissarro, Berte Morisot, and Mary Cassatt. Even though Édouard Manet made art that looks similar to work created by the Impressionists and he adhered to similar principals, he refused to exhibit his work in the Impressionist shows. Manet would have liked to have considered himself a Realist, but historians often categorize him with the Impressionists. Manet wanted his art to be accepted by the establishment, and some of his work was accepted by the Salon’s jury. Many of the Impressionists created paintings that were in the Salon too, but they also liked proclaiming their independence. It’s also notable that Impressionists created Modern Art with a capital “M” because they were depicting their modern, their contemporary, life.
Instead of going into detail about all the Impressionists that I listed, I will focus on Berte Morisot and Mary Cassatt. It’s important that women are represented in the arts because the traditional history of art often excludes them, even though women make up half the population. Janson’s History of Art textbook, which was first published in 1962, didn’t include a single woman artist. Many books to this day still often forget to include women, but that is a reflection of who museums and galleries celebrate. According to a 2019 study lead by Chad Topaz of Williams College, only 12.5% of artists in major museums are women. There is also a lack of representation of art created by people of color.
Mary Cassatt was aware of the challenges she faced as a woman, especially because she worked as an artist. In 1893, she was commissioned to create a mural in the Woman’s Building for the World’s Columbian Exposition in Chicago. When someone asked her why she didn’t include men in her painting, she retorted, “Men I have no doubt are painted in all their vigor on the walls of other buildings.” This is part of the reason that I don’t feel bad by not providing more information on the men artists. Monet, Renoir, Degas, Sisley, and Pissarro are easier to find in museums and publications. Collectors also pay way higher prices for the artwork made by them. In 1990, someone purchased Dance at Le moulin de la Galette by Pierre-August Renoir for over $78 million, which equals almost $153 million in today’s currency. By comparison, the most expensive painting by a woman Impressionist was After Lunch by Berte Morisot; it sold for $11 million in 2013, which is a little over $12 million when adjusted for inflation. The $140 million price difference is just one way to quantify the way Cassatt and Morisot have been traditionally overlooked and undervalued when compared to their counterparts who happened to be men.
Cassatt is often known for her paintings of women, children, and motherhood. Contemporary audiences can sometimes view her paintings as cute and non-threatening, but that’s not how her work was originally received. Cassatt was a rebel. First of all, she was one of the very few women who was permitted to study art. She was born to a rich family, which is pretty common for famous artists. It’s important to keep in mind that having access to money and connections gives many artists the opportunity to become successful. This is still true to this day, which I want to mention just in case you’re wondering why, despite your hard work and skill, you still haven’t made it as an artist.
Cassatt was born in the United States, but she lived a lot of her life in France. She began studying art in Pennsylvania at a time where women were just starting to be allowed to take art classes. However, women did not receive an equal education to their peers who were men. Remember the hierarchy of painting? Great artists had to show their skills by making giant paintings of nudes, but women were forbidden from life-drawing classes. They weren’t allowed to see male nudes to draw them, which meant they couldn’t paint them, which resulted in them from being banned from creating the highest form of art at the time. If you really want to get riled up about the disparaging treatment of women in the art world, I highly recommend reading Linda Nochlin’s essay “Why are There no Great Women Artists” from 1971. It’s 50 years old, but it is still relevant to this day.
Even though Mary Cassatt didn’t receive an equal education, she was determined to develop her skills as an artist. She, like many other men artists of the time, made copies of paintings at the Louvre. She also had her artwork accepted in the Salon when she made it dark and moody enough to appease the jurors. However, Cassatt also painted in the style that highlighted the artist’s hand. Her paintings have obvious brushstrokes, she used a lot of light colors, and she was influenced by Japanese prints. Cassatt was a prolific printmaker herself. You can see samples of her prints at the National Gallery of Art, the Brooklyn Museum, the Minneapolis Institute of Art, the New York Public Library, and many other institutions that have a decent print collection.
As I mentioned, Cassatt created many paintings of women and children. She is well-known for her domestic scenes, but her domestic paintings were rebellious. In the history of Western art, the archetypical mother and child represented was Mary and Jesus from the Christian tradition. You may picture awkward and stiff medieval paintings, or ugly Renaissance babies that show a tiny, adult-like baby sitting on the lap of a very rigid mother. In art, Mary and Jesus were almost always shown rigid, and perfect. Cassatt, on the hand, showed floppy and squirmy children. This truly rebelled against the traditional perfectly behaved way babies and children were represented. Her depictions of wiggly children were scandalous for her time. She showed children as they actually were. I find this particularly funny because I recall reading a story about how a child Cassatt was painting would not hold still, and she snapped at the child and chastised them. After they cried themselves to sleep, Cassatt had a sigh of relief and resumed painting because the child finally held still! She also painted her women models as active, which was also considered scandalous because the Salon preferred their women passive, languishing, and nude.
Part of the reason Cassatt depicted her friends and family was because who she could paint was extremely limited compared to her peers. First of all, the men could hire sex-workers as models, which would have certainly been off-limits to women artists, especially upper-class women like Cassatt and Morisot. Cassatt would have also been unable to travel to the bars, cafés, and brothels, which were often depicted in Impressionist artwork. She also didn’t leer at teenagers at ballet rehearsal while they were in their late 19th century underwear, as Degas did. So, this is a reason why Cassatt frequently painted her friends and family. She was also a Modern artist, and portraying people she knew permitted her to paint the modern world around her.
Cassatt created her pastel drawing At the Theater circa 1879. It’s currently at the Nelson-Aktins Museum of Art. This drawing is a little over 18 inches tall, and the subject is Cassatt’s sister, Lydia, at the theater, which was a public space that upper-class women were permitted to enjoy. Lydia is wearing a bright yellow dress, and she is in the right third of the composition. Her hands are clasped together in her lap as she leans forward. She is intently watching something out of the picture plane. She is sitting in a red chair, and she casts a dark shadow on the chair’s back. There is another woman in a similar dress seated behind her, with her back to the viewer. The background is composed of quick, gestural lines in blue, yellow, green, violet, and red. There is a white, glowing chandelier in the top left corner.
I’d also like to add that Cassatt’s importance extends beyond her artwork, particularly in the United States. She was a suffragist, and she was critical in bringing Impressionism to the United States. She used her connections to influence American art collectors to buy Impressionist artworks. I find it ironic that she played a pivot role in bringing Modernism to the United States, yet her artwork is extremely undervalued.
[Music]
Berthe Morisot was able to relate to Cassatt’s experience of receiving an inadequate art education compared to men in the late 19th century. Morisot grew up in France, but she received private painting lessons. At the time, upper-class women would receive painting or music lessons to amuse them while they waited to get married off, and many families would opt for painting lessons because that was a quieter activity. These girls and young women were expected to give up their hobbies once they got married so they could support their husbands’ lives and careers. Morisot surprised her teacher with her dedication and skill, and he warned her mother that she might try to make career as an artist! Oh no! Morisot’s mother encouraged her nonetheless. Like many other Impressionists, she copied artwork at the Louvre. As an adult, Morisot’s artwork was exhibited in the Salon. She also participated in seven out of the eight Impressionist exhibitions. The only artist who participated in all eight was Camille Pissarro, and the only reason Morisot missed one show was because she had a baby that year.
Like the other Impressionists, Morisot painted with bold brushstrokes, and her drawings have a quick gestural quality. The Minneapolis Institute of Art is home to Morisot’s oil painting called The Artist’s Daughter, Julie, with Her Nanny. This canvas is 22.5 by 28 inches. Morisot’s painting shows her young daughter in the left third of the canvas. She is blonde and wearing a blue-green dress. Her attention is turned to turned to the center of the composition, where her nanny appears to be sewing something with white fabric. The nanny occupies the right third of the canvas, and she is wearing a blue dress. Her head is in profile and turned down to see her hands at work. The subjects are inside, and the window behind them gives a view of the outdoors. Morisot replicated the realistic proportions of her models, but she used bold, fast marks to create her subjects. She created form with an economy of line, and the left arm of the adult woman in this work represents Morisot’s ability to render texture with a few, well-placed brushstrokes. The white highlights on the blue dress make the fabric appear shiny, like it is made of silk or satin.
Even though Berthe Morisot’s artwork may appear docile and non-threatening today, her paintings and drawings were rebellious at the time. Not only was it atypical for women to work outside of the home in late 19th century France, it was incredibly rare for them to be professional artists. Additionally, Morisot continue to work as an artist after she got married. Cassatt never married in order to maintain her independence, which is also respectable. Morisot married Édouard Manet’s younger brother, but she was already established as an artist. She was 33, which at the time was considered terribly old, especially considering that her mother was married at age 16. Despite being married, Morisot still continued to work instead of taking a backseat to her husband’s career.
The last Impressionist exhibition was their 8th group show, and it occurred in 1886. Morisot and Cassatt both participated and showed their artwork. Degas and Pissarro also included their work, but Pissarro’s artwork already began to transition to Postimpressionism. Even though this was the last Impressionist exhibition, the artists who development this movement still continued to make work as long as they were able. Claude Monet, Pierre-August Renoir, Edgar Degas, Alfred Sisley, Berte Morisot, Mary Cassatt, Édouard Manet, and their peers continued to make artwork of modern life as they saw it.
Overall, I want you to remember that Impressionism can be identified by the noticeable brushstrokes, bright colors, outdoor scenes, and domestic settings. The men artists had more freedom in where they could go, and so they also depicted bars, cafés, and brothels. These artists were rebellious for their time, especially because they didn’t adhere to the Salon’s standards. The Impressionists were Modern Artists because they depicted modern life at the time. They were influenced by Japanese artwork, the invention of photography, and the freedom to paint outside because of the invention of paint tubes.
[Music]
Thank you very much for joining me to explore the Modern Art movement of Impressionism, and I hope you’ll be back to learn about Orientalism. To find a transcript of this episode, the resources I consulted, or to become a patron, please visit klairelockheart.com and click on the”Media” tab. That’s K-L-A-I-R-E-L-O-C-K-H-E-A-R-T dot com. Find me on Instagram @klairelockheart to see my current projects, or you can follow me on Facebook by searching for Klaire A. Lockheart.
The History of Modern Art with Klaire was conceived, written, and performed by me, Klaire Lockheart. This podcast was recorded with equipment provided by Aaron C. Packard of Aaron C. Packard Productions. Check out his artwork at aaronpackard.com, that’s A-A-R-O-N-P-A-C-K-A-R-D dot com.
I truly appreciate your support and positive feedback. If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe so you can hear additional topics. Thank you once again!
Resources
Warren Adleson, Marc Rosen, and Susan Pinsky, Art in a Mirror: The Counterproofs of Mary Cassatt. (New York: Adelson Galleries, 2007).
Pierre Assier, “The Impressionist Insult,” The Westologist, March 14, 2014, https://thewestologist.wordpress.com/2014/03/14/the-impressionist-insult/
Judith A. Barter, Mary Cassatt, Modern Woman. (New York: Art Institute of Chicago, 1998).
John Berger, Ways of Seeing. (London: Penguin Books, 1977).
“Berthe Morisot, ” National Museum of Women, https://nmwa.org/art/artists/berthe-morisot/
Kenneth Clark. The Nude: A Study in Ideal Form. (New York: Random House, 1964).
Guerrilla Girls, The Guerrilla Girls’ Bedside Companion to the History of Western Art. (New York: Penguin Books, 1998.)
Beth Gersh-Nesic, “The Eight Impressionist Exhibitions From 1874-1886,” ThoughtCo., June 17, 2019, https://www.thoughtco.com/the-eight-impressionist-exhibitions-183266
Peter Kalb, ed., H. H. Arnason History of Modern Art, 5th ed. (Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, Inc, 2004).
Patricia Mathews, “Returning the Gaze: Diverse Representations of the Nude in the Art of Suzanne Valadon,” The Anti Bulletin, September, 1991, 415-430.
Tiernan Morgan and Lauren Purje, “An Illustrated Guide to Linda Nochlin’s ‘Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?’” Hyperallergic, May 23, 2017, https://hyperallergic.com/377975/an-illustrated-guide-to-linda-nochlins-why-have-there-been-no-great-women-artists/
Linda Nochlin. “Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?” ARTnews. May 20, 2015, https://www.artnews.com/art-news/retrospective/why-have-there-been-no-great-women-artists-4201/
Sam Phillips, …isms: Understanding Modern Art. (New York: Universe, 2013).
Griselda Pollock. Mary Cassatt: painter of modern women. (London: Thames and Huston, 1998).
Benedetta Ricci, "The Shows That Made Contemporary Art History: The Salon Des Refusés.” Artland, 2020, https://magazine.artland.com/the-shows-that-made-contemporary-art-history-the-salon-des-refuses/
Kelly Richman-Abdou, “How Impressionism Changed the Art World and Continues to Inspire Us Today,” My Modern Met, June 12, 2019, https://mymodernmet.com/what-is-impressionism-definition/
Margaret Samu, “Impressionism: Art and Modernity,” Metropolitan Museum of Art, October, 2004, https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/imml/hd_imml.htm
Chad M. Topaz, “Diversity of artists in major U.S. museums,” PLoS One, March 20, 2019, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6426178/
Pierre Assier, “The Impressionist Insult,” The Westologist, March 14, 2014, https://thewestologist.wordpress.com/2014/03/14/the-impressionist-insult/
Judith A. Barter, Mary Cassatt, Modern Woman. (New York: Art Institute of Chicago, 1998).
John Berger, Ways of Seeing. (London: Penguin Books, 1977).
“Berthe Morisot, ” National Museum of Women, https://nmwa.org/art/artists/berthe-morisot/
Kenneth Clark. The Nude: A Study in Ideal Form. (New York: Random House, 1964).
Guerrilla Girls, The Guerrilla Girls’ Bedside Companion to the History of Western Art. (New York: Penguin Books, 1998.)
Beth Gersh-Nesic, “The Eight Impressionist Exhibitions From 1874-1886,” ThoughtCo., June 17, 2019, https://www.thoughtco.com/the-eight-impressionist-exhibitions-183266
Peter Kalb, ed., H. H. Arnason History of Modern Art, 5th ed. (Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, Inc, 2004).
Patricia Mathews, “Returning the Gaze: Diverse Representations of the Nude in the Art of Suzanne Valadon,” The Anti Bulletin, September, 1991, 415-430.
Tiernan Morgan and Lauren Purje, “An Illustrated Guide to Linda Nochlin’s ‘Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?’” Hyperallergic, May 23, 2017, https://hyperallergic.com/377975/an-illustrated-guide-to-linda-nochlins-why-have-there-been-no-great-women-artists/
Linda Nochlin. “Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?” ARTnews. May 20, 2015, https://www.artnews.com/art-news/retrospective/why-have-there-been-no-great-women-artists-4201/
Sam Phillips, …isms: Understanding Modern Art. (New York: Universe, 2013).
Griselda Pollock. Mary Cassatt: painter of modern women. (London: Thames and Huston, 1998).
Benedetta Ricci, "The Shows That Made Contemporary Art History: The Salon Des Refusés.” Artland, 2020, https://magazine.artland.com/the-shows-that-made-contemporary-art-history-the-salon-des-refuses/
Kelly Richman-Abdou, “How Impressionism Changed the Art World and Continues to Inspire Us Today,” My Modern Met, June 12, 2019, https://mymodernmet.com/what-is-impressionism-definition/
Margaret Samu, “Impressionism: Art and Modernity,” Metropolitan Museum of Art, October, 2004, https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/imml/hd_imml.htm
Chad M. Topaz, “Diversity of artists in major U.S. museums,” PLoS One, March 20, 2019, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6426178/