1874 expo reviews

 

 

Impressionism, a historical reconstruction:

Reviews

on the

 1st ‘impressionist’ exposition 1874

 

Introduction:
On this page you will find an overview of the 58 articles on the 1st ‘impressionist’ exposition (and the Société…) published in 1874. Most of them are gathered and published by Berson (1996=R90I). 22 of them contain just announcements (=A), mostly as part of larger articles*. This leaves us with 36 reviews (=Rv); 11 of them were part of larger articles on various subjects**, 25 were exclusively dedicated to the exposition at the boulevard des Capucines, 12 were more extended***, 13 were more short****. On this page you can read summaries of the content of these reviews*****.
See the page on the 1st ‘impressionist’ exposition for a general discussion on the reviews. See also the page on the partakers of this exposition with links to their exhibited art-works and to the accounts. See also the page on the art-critics and the newspapers.
Note*: for the announcements see A1-A22↓.
Note**: for the reviews within larger articles see Rv1+2+5+10+12+15+18+19+20+23+33.
Note***: for the extended reviews see Rv11+13+16+17+21+24+25+27+28+29=30+34.
Note****: for the shorter reviews see Rv3+4+6+7+8+9+14+22+26+31=32+35+36.
Note*****: Sylvie Patry mentions 61 articles published by Berson and another 10 unpublished onces (R410,p193; see at the bottom of this page) and Catherine Méneux that just 23 more extendedly reviewed the exposition (R410,p209).

 

Announcements:
Early 1874 there were 5 announcements on a (co-operative) society of artists; two rendered the statutes (A1+2), two the three objects (A3+4). Before the start of the 1st ‘impressionist’ exposition 1874/04/15 there have been 6 announcements on the exposition (A6-11). After the start there have been another 11 announcements (A12-22), 2 were published twice (A18=A19 + A21=A22). All these 22 announcements were more or less neutral.
The following 5 announcements tended more positive on these initiatives: F. de Gantès (A6), Silvestre (A3), Chesnau (A8), Enault (A10) and La Petite Press (A13). The last one commented “It is the free expression of the personal tendencies and talents of a number of original, independent minds, who absolutely reject the jury and administrative supervision”. The review of Gérôme that was published twice was more negative: “we will resist the temptation to go and pay our respects to realism* in the sanctuary of the Boulevard des Capucines” (A21=A22).
3 of the announcements were done in La chronique des arts et de la curiosité (A1+7+12), 3 in L’Entr’acte (A11+15+21) and two similar in Vert-Vert (A18=A19). Most of the announcements were part of broader articles. Some of these articles also announced other expositions (A20+A21=A22). Some announcements promised a follow-up review (A9+A11).
In some announcements the names of partakers are mentioned. It is interesting to see who is mentioned (and in what order) and who is forgotten.
Armand Silvestre (1874/01/25) named Monet, Feven-Perrin** (sic) and Pissaro (sic). (R90I,p39=A3)
Emile Cardon as E.C. in Revue de France (1874/02/28) named Monet, together with Pissarro, Sisley, Degas, etc… as part of the Société. (R90I,p11=A5)
F. de Gantès (1874/03/26) mentioned as partakers the instigators Monet and Renoir; furthermore Tissot**, Degaz (sic), Le Pic (sic), Pissaro (sic), Astruc, Cisane (sic), Mademoiselle Morissot (sic). And maybe Manet** and Fantin-Latour**. He specially named Rouard (sic). (R90I,p22=A6)
In the announcement in La Chronique des arts et de la curiosité (1874/03/28) on the Société anonyme des peintres, sculpteurs et graveurs, the following partakers are mentioned: Degas, Sisley, Monet, Pissaro (sic), Rouart, Lepic, de Nittis, G. Colin, Renoir, Lépine, Mll Morisot. (R90I,p20=A7)
In the announcement of Ernest Chesnau in Paris-Journal (1874/04/02) the following partakers are mentioned: Degas, Sisley, Monet, Pissarro, Rouart, Lepic, de Nittis, G. Colin, Renoir, Lépine, Mll Morisot. (R90I,p17=A8)
So, Pissarro is mentioned 5x, Monet and Degas 4x, Lépine, Morisot, Rouart and Sisley 3x, Colin, Lepic, de Nittis and Renoir 2x, Astruc and Cézanne 1x. 18 partakers are not mentioned in these announcements.
Note*: Realism, not Impressionism.
Note**: these artists didn’t join the exposition.

 

Extended reviews and successive reviews:
Here below you can read summaries of the content of the more extended reviews* and also successive reviews of one art-critic or reviews that are linked to each other. I will render them from more extended to lesser extended.
Note*: The more extended reviews contain more than one page in Berson (1996=R90I).

Burty:
Philippe Burty (1830-90) wrote 3 reviews, 2 in La République française and 1 in The Academy published in London (reviews 1+17+34). Maybe he also was involved in the announcement published in The Academy 1874/01/31 (A4).

His first review 1874/04/16 (Rv1) he wrote at the day of the opening, a Wednesday. It was the first review published on the 1st ‘impressionist’ exposition and titled ‘Chronique du jour’. Burty suggests that earlier he had already mentioned the opening hours. He finds the foundation of a cooperative society special and praiseworthy. He calls them ‘a group of militant and committed comrades’, but he also mentions that ‘some of these artists have little in common with loud protesters, for they have sent in works at the same time here and to the Champs-Elysées (=the Salon)’. And he adds ‘Even a member of the jury has promised to join*.’
He describes the exhibition rooms: the brown-red rooms, where works are placed by dimensions. He wishes them success and ‘a second exposition upcoming autumn’.
Note*: probably referring to Jean-Jacques Henner (1829-1905) (R410,p14+104+109+148) as mentioned in a letter of Degas to Tissot (1874/03/27 or 04/03) (R410,p16+106).

The second review 1874/04/25 (Rv17) is more extended and titled ‘Exposition de la société anonyme des artistes’. He writes they exhibit ‘at their own risk’ and like the English ’they have chosen the public to be the judge’. He praises this exposition ‘for the brightness of it’s colours, the mass franchise, the quality of the impressions’*. He contrasts it with traditional artists “At what degree of monotony, dryness, heaviness and of grimace the pupils of M. Gérôme have arrived, or the historical landscape painters who fill the valleys with nymphs, or painters with spanish scenes, or even … the members of L’Institut and their reputations for fauns and hamadryads”. The landscapists Monet, Pissarro, Sisley and Latouche render ’the general appearance of a landscape as purely as possible. Sometimes the illusion is astonishing. … But often the sacrifices are too visible.’
He reviews the following works and artists: Degas (no.58+57/61+55+56+60), Renoir (no.141+143+142), Astruc (no.3-4), Morisot (no.106), Monet (no.103), Pissarro (no.137). Than he summarises: “More moderate, but no less valiant works of Mrs. Colin, Rouart (no.150), Boudin, Lépine, Ottin fils (no.131) or de Nittis, the watercolours of M. Lepic; show how much we can expect from this school… notice in general the statues, the sculptures of M. Ottin père,
the superb enamels of M. Alfred Meyer and the frames with engravings so masculine and so colourful, so skilful and so free, of M. Bracquemond“.
Note*: this is repeated in the third review.

In both reviews Burty summed up the 30 artists mentioned in the catalogue and he also explicitly mentions the exhibited enamels, thus referring to Alfred Meyer. He clarifies it is a free manifestation and not a Salon des Refusés, nor of the unhappy, because ‘several of them have received medals‘. He refers to the statutes wherein a jury and awards are rejected.

The last review 1874/05/30 (Rv34) was also extended and written the 25th of May. It was titled  ‘The Paris Exhibitions: Les Impressionnistes’. He wrote ‘M. Castagnary, an intimate friend of Courbet and formerly an ardent defender of realism, christened these independent artists, happily enough “The Impressionists” (see review 25).  And also ‘M. Chesneau, late secretary to M. de Nieuwerkeke, justly regretted the absence of M. E. Manet‘ (see review 29=30). He calls Degas ’the promotor of the enterprise’ and also ’the least revolutionary and the most scholarly member of this group’. He mentions the ‘already known’ names of Astruc, Bracquemond, Boudin, Brandon, Lejeune*, Morisot ant ’the extreme realists**‘ Renoir, Monet, Sisley, Pissarro and Cézanne. He calls Monet, Pissarro and Sisley ’the great go-aheads of the group’. They ‘surpresss … what the human race is accustomed to see … far more radical than … the pre-Raphaelite movement in England, there remains, when the work is succesful, a singular illusion of light and freshness’. And adds ‘We must at least recognise in them the quality and services of forerunners’. He admits ‘I, for my own part, am quite won over to this doctrine’.
He refers to just a few works: no.106 of Morisot, no.103 of Monet and no144+142 of Renoir.
He wrongly states that the exhibiting artists ‘had not contributed to the Salon‘.
He also made some critical remarks ‘, based on the swiftest possible rendering of physical sensation, it considerably narrows the domain of painting. It scarcely leaves room for any but decorative motives;  … (no) analysis of places, situations, sentiments’.
He mentions ’the docks of painting’ and that ’the gas was lighted at dusk’.
Note*: It is unclear who is meant by Lejeune, maybe Lépine.
Note**: realists, not impressionists.

 

Ernest Chesneau:
Ernest Chesnau wrote 3 reviews for Paris-Journal, two of them were copied in Le Soir.

The first was an announcement in a larger article (1874/02/04) of the coming exposition of a ‘société anonyme‘ of young sculptors and engravers* (A8). “These don’t send in to the official exposition.” He mentions the names of Degas, Sisley, Monet, Pissarro, Rouart, Lepic, de Nittis, G. Colin, Renoir, Lépine, Mlle Morisot**, whom he has more often wrote about.
Note*: he doesn’t mention painters.
Note**: exactly the same names are mentioned in the announcement of 1874/03/28 (A7).

The second of 1874/05/07 is the most extended (Rv29=30). He calls the exposition a triomph for ‘the school of plein air’ and calls them also ‘Intransigeants’. As representatatives he names Monet, Pissarro, Sisley, Degas, Rouart, Renoir and Morisot. He calls Manet the ‘chef in line’. He wrote “I find a dozen canvases, that in a positive way open unplanned perspectives on the richness of effects on reality that can be achieved by colours.” He than mentions the following works of Monet (no.103+97+98+95), Renoir (no.147+143+141+142) and Degas (no.55+56+60+63). He also speaks positive about the watercolours of Morisot and Astruc, of Rouart (no.149), Sisley (no.163). (In the next review he mentions he was forgotten Pissarro (no.140).
He calls it ‘a major error in logic and strategy’ to include ’those painters who lag at the very tail end of the latest banalities of the official Salons’ and also ’those who show real talent, but who work in a very different direction – such as de Nittis, Boudin, Bracquemond, Brandon, Lépine and Gustave Colin’. He notes the intention for a next exposition in Autumn. But, he pleads for ‘a common principle’, otherwise it will be a common commercial society that will not last.

In the third (smaller) review of 1874/05/09 Chesnau first shares some thoughts on the role of an art-critic (Rv31=32). He mentions his sympathy for the exposition of the ‘intransigeants’, with fertile elements of renovation and general progress. He states that “The strong colours of romanticism is turned to grey under the influence of Ingres”*. He distinguishes a movement of colour by Henri Regnault, Humbert, Henri Lévy, Thirion and a movement of light by Manet, Monet, Renoir, Pissarro and Sisley.
Note*: I think that many works of Ingres are more colourful than works of Romantic artists.

 

Emile Cardon:
Emile Cardon wrote 4 reviews, including two as ‘E.C.’. Though he makes some positive remarks,  overall he is quite negative.

Berson makes clear that the ‘E.C.‘ who wrote two articles in the Revue de France is Emile Cardon (R90I,p478). 1874/02/28 he announced the forming of a Société, naming Monet, Pissarro, Sisley and Degas (A5).
In volume 10 (1874/04 = Rv26) he first reviewed the exhibition of the ‘Société Amis des arts de Paris’ held at the Durand-Ruel galleries. He praised the ‘very original watercolours of Zacharie Astruc‘. On the exposition of the Société anonyme… he was quite negative: “except for a few paintings that are quite surprising to come across in such an environment and which don’t belong there in any respect: those of Boudin, Brandon, Gustave Colin, de Molins, de Nittis, – (but) the totality of the works collected by the Societe Anonyme, would have been indignantly refused by the official jury of the Salon”. He makes an exception for the following works: “I will encourage the visitor only to look at no.63+56 of Degas, no.95+103 of Monet, no.104 of Morisot, no.140 of Pissarro, no.141+142 of Renoir, no.149 of Rouart, no.163 of Sisley and no.3-4 + 4-4 of Zacharie Astruc.” He continues “Besides these works, there are others of the same artists and of other artists, that look provocative and irritate visitors.” He (wrongly) states that the partakers were ‘systematically excluded from the official expositions’.

In La Presse Emile Cardon published two reviews under his own name, the first one the 28th of April, the second the 29th.
The first one of 1874/04/28 is a broader review (Rv22). It starts with criticism on the jury of the Salon and the regulations of the administration of Fine Arts, though he is not opposed at the jury as such. But it makes that art-galleries and hôtel Drouot more remarkable works can be seen. He distinquishes from the realist school of Courbet a new school of which Manet is the apostle and the disciples are called ‘les revoltés des arts’ and this school has found shelter at the Nadar studios. But, he states, more interesting is the exposition at 11, rue Le Peletier of the ‘Société des Amis des Arts de Paris’. The next day he would talk about the works at the Boulevard des Capucines.

The second (extended) review of 1874/04/29 has two sides (Rv24). Firstly he encourages the initiative for a free exposition. But he mentions that in 1859 200 artists had done the same, and also the Société nationale des Beaux-Arts and that in England there were 20 or 30 of such societies.
The works of some artists would surely be accepted by the jury of the Salon, namely those of De Nittis, Lépine and Bracquemond. And he mentions that Brandon, Cals and De Molins can’t be considered as followers of the new School.
Secondly Cardon mentions Degas, Cézanne, Monet, Sisley, Pissarro and Morisot and others disciples of Manet and representatives of the School of the impression. He criticizes them of neglecting the most elementary rules of drawing and painting, something which must be vigorously repelled. When looking at the works of Cézanne (no.42+43), Degas (no.54+60), Monet (no.97) and Sisley (no.164), Cardon suspects insanity. And he is asthonished that the art-collector Fauré sold his works of Dupré, Delacroix and Corot for works of Degas, Cézanne and Manet.

 

Marc de Montifaud:
The review of Marc de Montifaud 1874/05/01 in L’Artiste is the most extended one (Rv27).
Marc de Montifaud is a pseudonym for a woman named Emilie (or Marie-Amélie) Chartroule (de Montifaud) (born 1850), later known as Mme Jean-Francis-Léon de Quivogne. She was a friend of Villiers de L’Isle-Adam (=C. de Malte, see Rv9).

The review starts and ends with general remarks, calling the partakers ‘(a clan of) rebels’, ‘young people’, ‘the demolitionists of convention’. But, she can’t discern a ‘school … with a certain dogmatism’. Remarking that they want to prove ‘that you can paint better with a palette knife than with the bristles of a paintbrush’. But she doesn’t reject them, because ‘Within painting, there doesn’t excists a schism’. She only regrets, that ‘the study of figure is left behind for the landscape’ and she protest against ‘the abolute invasion of naturalism*’.
Note*: naturalism, not impressionism.

In her article De Montifaud reviews on 24 of the 31 partakers*, which is more than all the other reviews. She is the only one who mentioned Comtesse de Luchaire, who exhibited outside the catalogue (=hc) and whose work she extensively decribes. The other partakers and works she reviewed were:  Monet (no.103+98), Renoir (no.142+143+141+144), Degas (no.55+57), Cals (no.37), Debras (no.50), Cézanne  (no.43+42+44), comtesse de Luchaire (hc), Sisley, Rouart (no.148+153), Pissarro (no.138), Guillaumin (no.64). She reviews on the ‘marine painters’: Latouche (no.69), Bureau (no.35), Mulot-Durivage (no.113), Boudin (no.17+18/19), Levert (no.89), Lépine (no.83) and Colin (no.49). Then she mentions the statues of Auguste Ottin, the watercolours of Astruc and Morisot, the enamels of Alfred Meyer and the charcoal carton of Brandon (no.32).
Note*: she only leaves out Attendu, Béliard, Lepic, de Molins, de Nittis, Léon Ottin and Robert.

De Montifaud renders several extended descriptions, which helps with the identification. She also makes remarks on the hanging: La Loge (no.142) of Renoir hung besides Déjeuner (no.103) or Soleil levant (no.98) of Monet; she groups the marine painters, explicitly mentioning that no.49 of Colin hung below no.83 of Lépine. Summing up the watercolours of Astruc and Morisot, the enamels of Alfred Meyer and the charcoal carton of Brandon (no.32), could mean that these works were hung together in one room.

 

Armand Silvestre:
Armand Silvestre published 1874/04/22 an extended review in L’Opinion nationale (Rv13), which apart from some critical remarks is quite positive. It is quite opposed to the status quo of French art. Already 1874/01/25 he had announced in the same newspaper the forming of a ‘Nouvelle Société coopérative‘ (A3). The same newspaper announced 1874/05/02 among other expositions the “Exposition-manifesto of intransigeants at the former Palais-Nadar” (A20).

Silvestre starts his article (Rv13) with a reflection on the ‘Physiologie du refusé’. He shortly refers to the exposition of the Amis des Arts at the Durand-Ruel gallery. He praises the ‘Exposition des révoltés’, writing “its more personal character of protest, gives it a very special flavour”. He characterizes the participants as those ‘who make a career of no longer resorting to the exposition of the state, and to anticipate the jury’s verdict’. He specifies: “Ahead of them are three artists of which I have spoken of serveral times” (Monet, Sisley, Pissarro), and follows: “Mr Monet is the most skilful and daring, Mr Sisley, the most harmonious and the most timid, M. Pissaro (sic) who is basically the inventor of this painting (style), the most real and the most naive.” He caracterizes their way of painting: “What is certain is just the way these three landscapers see things, is nothing like that of any of the previous masters. … If one searches a definition, one finds that it foremost decorative. It is the effect of an impression they pursue only, leaving the search for expression to the  passionates of the line.” And: “Now, by what ways is this impression being sought! That is the true merit of these artists and in what way they will have been of infinite use to contemporary art. … It’s actually the range / the colour spectrum they’ve reconstructed from the paintings of the great artists of this century. … And don’t believe that this makes the palette a banal percussion intrument as one might initially think. … You need special eyes in order to be sensitive to the subtlety of their tonal relations, which constitutes their honor and merit.”  And also: “What will increase their influence is that their paintings are painted in a singularly cheerful tone. A blond light floods them and everything is cheerful, clear and festive, golden evenings or apple blossom. Their canvases … open … the windows on a joyfull countryside, on the river filled with boats, on a sky streaked with light vapours, on a life outside that’s full and charming.” He also makes a critical remark: “In that respect, I find their assignment quite awkward”.

Only then, Silvestre starts reviewing some participants and their works exhibited in ‘6 rooms’: Monet (no.103+97+96+98), Renoir (no.141+143), Sisley (164+163/165), Pissarro (no.140), Latouche (no.68+70), Degas, Guillaumin (no.65), Brandon, Morisot (no.108), the watercolours of Astruc and the engravings of Bracquemond. He reviews that Boudin, Lépine and De Nittis show nothing new and are ‘only remotely associated with this tradition’.

He ends with “In summary, this Exposition deserves to be seen.”, but also critises “It would have benefited from being less eclectic, … A gallery of this kind would quickly cease to be a genuine artistic event if it extended too far outside the school, which is its raison d’être.”

 

Castagnary:
Jules-Antoine Castagnary published an extended review 1874/04/29 in Le Siècle, partly called ‘Les Impressionnistes’ (Rv25).

In the introduction of this article Castagnary mentioned 6 expositions that were held Spring 1874, including the one at the boulevard des Capucines. He presents this ‘new school of painting’ as the victim of the authorities of the art-world: “The jury … pretended to block the way for new arrivals. They closed the doors to the Salon, prohibited them to enter publicity, … or … they tried to make them a laughing stock. Persecuted, hunted down, hated, banned from official art, the so-called anarchists grouped together.”

Castagnary renders some information on the société co-opérative: “All the associates have an equal right, the preservation of which is entrusted to a board of directors of 15 members, chosen by election, 1/3 being replaced year by year. The works are placed by size: The works are grouped according to size; and the small ones will be hung beneath the large, this in an alphabetical order; the letter with which to begin, being drawn by lot… there will be no more than two rows of paintings.” He calls these ‘wise provisions’.
He states: ‘One will not find works stigmatised by refusal (of the Salon jury). They are original works that haven’t been appeared before any jury’, which is just partly true. He also mentions, that among the exhibitors, ’there are a number of them whose place has long been marked in honourable rank’, naming: Boudin, Lépine, Brandon, Colin, Cals and Bracquemond. But, he writes ‘it is not about these well-known names’, but about the school he earlier mentioned: “To find out more about these new arrivals, about what they want, about what they dream of, about what they realise; to determine the difference between their way of interpretation and the previous way of interpretation, we need to place ourselves before the works of Mrs. Pissarro, Monet, Sisley, Renoir, Degas, Guillaumin, and also before those of Mlle Berthe Morisot. This is the headquarters of the new school”. And he invites: “Since 5 or 6 years there are 4* young men and one lady who shiver the jury! … So let’s have a look at what these terrible revolutionaries are announcing to us that is so monstrous, so subversive of the social order.” And he praises ‘On the ashes of Cabanel and Gérôme, I swear, there is talent here, much talent.  … What a quick grasp of the subject’.
Note*: He just before mentioned 6 men instead of 4.

Then he starts to review several of the partakers and there works: Pissarro (no.137+136+140), Monet (no.97+103+98), Sisley (no.161), Renoir (no.142), Degas, Morisot (no.104+106).

Then Castagnary tries to grasp to distinctive of this school: “The shared views that binds them as a groupe… Once the impression had been captured and fixed, they declared their role finished. … If we want to characterise them with a word that explains them, one has to use the new term impressionists. The are impressionists in the sense that they don’t render a landscape, but the sensation produced by that landscape. The very word is used in their language: it is not landscape, it is impression that is mentioned the Soleil levant of M. Monet. In this way, they step out of reality and into idealism. This is what essentially separates them from their forerunners, it is a question of more or less finishing. .. This is … the whole attempt of the impressionists.”

Then the tone of the review changes from overall positive, to negative. Castagnary doesn’t think they cause a revolution, because the content and the form of art stays the same. He doesn’t see them as a school, because the lack of ideas. The method of not finishing a work has been done before by Courbet, Daubigny and Corot, the impressionists only exagerated it.
He predicts “Within a few years, the artists that gather today at the boulevard des Capucines will be divided. … Those who have perfected their drawing along the way will leave the impressionism, for them, it has become an art form too superficial.” They will see that ’the painter’s superiority lies precisely in treating each subject in the way that suits it best’. But those who neglect to learn ‘will end up with this degree of unbridled romanticism, where nature is juste an excuse for dreaming … and personal phantasies … because they are not … verified in reality’. And he gives Une moderne Olympia of Cézanne as an excessive example.

Jean Prouvaire in Le Rappel:
Jean Prouvaire is an alias but there is discussion of whom. He published an extended review in Le Rappel 1874/04/20 (Rv11). After an introduction he renders chapters on Renoir (no.141+143+142), Degas (no.54/56), Morisot (no.110+112+105+107?+104), Sisley (hc), Monet (no.103+95+97), Cézanne, Bureau (no.35) and Rouart (no.151?).
Prouvaire starts his introduction with ‘The little Salon at the boulevard des Capucines, of which we have announced yesterday the opening’*. Writing: ‘Some artists, starving for independence, have resolved to respond with dedication to the stubborn contempt of the official jury, and have put their paintings in these offices.’ An initiative he praises ‘An audacious enterprice … having right on our sympathies’. Defending their way of painting: “Painting should render above all ‘the impression’ of things, not their own reality, and twelve yellow wooden stakes, plugged into the ground and crooked, express a large wood much better than the deep, bushy trees of Rousseau” and “It is no more about … representing the human face, but to awaken ‘the impression’, by any means necessary!”.
Note*: Maybe this refers to the review of Ernest d’Hervilly (Rv3), maybe they are one and the same person. If so, he wrote this review probably the 18th.

Ernest d’Hervilly in Le Rappel:
1874/04/17 Ernest d’Hervilly published a (shorter) review as ‘E. d’H.’ in Le Rappel (Rv3), starting with ‘yesterday took place’, so he wrote this review the 16th. He calls the exposition ‘excellently decorated and lightened’. Clarifying ‘This exposition is not a protest nor a refuge for rejected artists… It’s a free manifestation… of several original and independent spirits, who absolutely reject the jury and administrative supervision, the two great disablers of French art’. He (wrongly) calls the 30 partakers the first members of the cooperative society. He writes that the art-works are displayed in 7 or 8 rooms, ‘works that are always striking, never banal… that are frank and full of life, and whose very generous exaggeration is a charm and a consolation when you think of the sickening banalities what the academic routine produces’.
So, overall d’Hervilly is quite positive on the 1st ‘impressionist’ exposition and opposed to the status quo of French art in those days.
He shortly reviews / mentions the following artists and their art-works: Degas (54/55 + 56/60), Renoir (no.142), Sisley, Morisot, Pissarro, Lépine, Monet (no.97), de Nittis, Bracquemond, Colin, Boudin and Astruc.

La France:
In a more extended article in La France 1874/04/17* (Rv2) the introduction of d’Hervilly in Le Rappel (Rv3) is copied, namely the part in which he attacks the jury of the Salon. The author defends the jury ‘whatever our colleague may think, the juries, however imperfect they may be, are still the best thing that has been invented to regulate vanity and talent;’. He is quite negative on the ‘extravagant works to which they render asylum today’. He suggests this is the first of a yearly exposition, but he remarks ‘Honestly, it seems to us, it’s hard to see how such an initiative has any serious chance of success.’ Unlike other critics he states that the exhibitors are ‘relatively unknown for the most part’.
Note*: the review of d’Hervilly was also published the 17th. So, maybe Le Rappel was a morning paper and La France an evening paper, or a copy of the article of d’Hervilly was published the 16th in another newspaper, or the author had read the review before it’s publication.

Louis Leroy:
In his extended and often cited review of 1874/04/25 in Le Charivari (Rv16) called “L’Exposition des impressionnistes” Louis Leroy uses a dramatic performance of him visiting the exposition with a certain ‘Père Joseph Vincent’, a landscapist and pupil of Bertin. Père Vincent makes all kind of negative remarks on the displayed paintings and Leroy tried to excuse this (with ‘it’s an impression’). Half way M. Vincent takes the point of view of the impressionists, mocking that the presented works are too finished.
They pass along the following works: no.141 of Renoir, no.137 of Pissarro, no.161* of Sisley, no.150* of Rouart, no.96+97 of Monet, no.81* of Lépine, no.131* of Léon Ottin, no.140 of Pissarro, no.42 of Cézanne, marines* of Boudin (no.17-19), no.105 of Morisot, no.144 of Renoir, no.98 of Monet, no.149* of Rouart, no.130* of Léon Ottin, no.57/61 of Degas, no.103 of Monet, no.43 of Cézanne. During this tour the * indicated works are suggested to be less provocative, partly shown to M. Vincent to calm him down.
The blame is put on Corot: “It was you who brought into fashion this unleashed composition, this smear, these mud-splashes”.

Etienne Carjat:
The extended review of Etienne Carjat 1874/04/27 in Le Patriote français (Rv21) starts positive: “There are 30 artists that have enough initiative and courage to found a society… We don’t know how to encourage this bold initiative well enough…  All at this exposition is worthwhile to mention.” He than ‘quickly’ mentions ’the paintings that draw the most attention’: Morisot (no.104+106+108+hc+105+watercolours), Renoir (no.141+143+142), Latouche (no.69), Lépine (no.83+82), Degas (no.54+55+60+63), De Molins, Colin (49+47), marines of Boudin (17-19) and Mulot-Durivage (no.113+114), Levert (86+85), the small paintings of De Nittis and Léon Ottin, the watercolours of Astruc, the engravings of Bracquemond.
Then he writes “Mrs Monet, Pissarro, Cézanne, Sisley and Guillaumin forme a group apart in this exposition, of which they have been the principal initiators. What they seem to be looking for above all else, is the impression, a word that is invented purposely for the sake of their cause.” And then the reviews turns quite negative, criticizing the disdain towards form, the lack of effect and above all the ‘false, heavy and common’ colour: “What the masters call a tone, they name a blot (tache). For them, it’s no longer a question of broken colours blending into a deliberate harmony, but flat, multicoloured touches, juxtaposed at random, in all the crudeness of the palette.” He explains, that at first he applauded the beginnings of Monet, Pissarro and Cézanne. “We have defened them … against … the studios of Cabanel, Picot and others. … Hélas, we have mistaken.” He states ‘With some energie, perseverance, the will to learn all that they lack, they will soon concor their place at the first rangs’, but he is not very hopefull ’they don’t stop to follow the false road’.

F. de Gantès:
In a  larger article F. de Gantès (1874/03/26) also announced the upcoming ‘counter-exposition’ at Nadar (A6). Talking about ‘40 of them’, also mentioning Manet, Tissot and Fantin-Latour who didn’t join. Others he mentioned were: Monet, Renoir, Degas, Lepic, Pissarro, Astruc, Cézanne and Morisot. He calls them ’the young’. He gave special attention to Rouart: “a wealthy amateur, who has lent to this work all his care. His presence, moreover, removes from the counter-exposure anything that might have been unserious or bohemian, and gives it a real character.”

His later review 1874/04/23 (Rv14) was dedicated to ‘L’Exposition du boulevard’ at Nadar, which could also be called an ‘Exposition d’Esquisses’. “Many of these studies show temperament and a just impression of nature.” He supports the initiative: “We render praise for this independence and this need for emancipation”. He just gives attention to 4 partakers: Degas (no.58), Renoir (no.141+143+142), Morisot (no.106) and Sisley (hc), which he gives positive reviews. He also referred to Manet.

Henri Polday:
1874/05/03 Henri Polday published an extended review in La Renaissance littéraire et artistique (Rv28). In this newspaper 1874/01/25 there had been an announcement published on the Société Anonyme coopérative, also rendering its statutes (A2).

This negative review was called ‘Les Intransigeants’: “that’s how some modern painters describe themselves, ahead of them are Mrs. Claude Monet, Pissarro and Degas. Why are they called intransigeants? … they intend to found … a new school. … the visitor that wanders their free exposition is struck by the revolutionary bias of their paintings, all outragedly realistic. What is this realism* intransigeant? “We want, they say, to take nature as it is.” But in their works, sketches where they’re totally ignoring the details, they paint less than they see… “.
Note*: Realism, not Impressionism.

He describes the problem of grasping the impression within one session and that this impression has gone the next day at the same place at the same time. He sites Delacroix: “Nature isn’t a dictionnary… painters that obey at the imagination search in their dictionnary elements that suit their concept; again, by adjusting them with a certain art, they render a completely new appearance. They who haven’t got imagination just copy the dictionnary.” and uses this to criticise them: “brutally reproducing the image of the retina without any work of intelligence, that’s the ideal of the Intransigeant. For them a study is a painting… A photographe isn’t less artistic than you. … the true painting, is the painting with imagination”. He teaches “recognise that nature only communicates luminous and coloured impressions to our eyes by allowing them to compare, to understand relationships and observe differences in value”.

At last he mentions the uncompromising Cézanne. After looking at his pictures ‘one would take Mrs. Pissarro and Claude Monet for reactionaries’.

 

Shorter reviews:
Here below you will find the shorter* reviews on the 1st ‘impressionist’ exposition. Mostly they stand alone. Several are found within broader articles. I render them in order from larger till smaller, ending with the illustration of Hadol.
Note*: within the catalogue of Berson they fill less than one page (R90I).

Le Phare de la Loire:
1874/04/18 there was an review in Le Phare de la Loire (Rv6). This is the only article that is not in Berson (R90I).
The review was made the 16th and it had earlier announced this exposition of fine arts at the boulevard des Capucines at a serie of small rooms in the former studio of Nadar. The paintings are placed in two rows. The founders of the Société, render a general impression.
This article reviews several partakers and their works from a first and quick visit: Degas (no.58/59/63+54/55/60), Morisot (no.105+104), De Molins (no.93/94bis), Lépine (no.83+81), Boudin (no17/18/19), Rouart (no.150+148+149), Renoir (no.141+142), Monet (no.97+103), Sisley, De Nittis (no.118bis+118), Bracquemond (no.24-9+10 + 25-4+3), Lepic (no.80+79), Astruc (no.2) and the enamel paintings of Meyer.
Rouart is mentioned to be the main organizer of this exhibition. Renoir and Monet are indicated as being from the ‘school of Manet’: “these two artists, gifted with a true painter’s temperament, tackle the most realistic subjects and treat them with extreme skill”. “The master of this genre of painting is Sisley.”

Giuseppe de Nittis:
Giuseppe de Nittis was one of the partakers of the 1st ‘impressionist’ exposition. That Spring he (also) stayed in London. 1874/06/10 he wrote a review, that was published 1874/07/01 in the Italian newspaper Il Giornale artistico in Florence (Rv36). In this review he directly addresses himself to Carissimo Enrico.
He starts with a broader introduction mentioning the Salon at the Boulevard des Capucines. He states that a canvas of Degas, a drawing of Bracquemond (no.23) and a portrait of Morisot (hc) are enough to justify the entrance fee. He praises Pissarro, Monet and Sisley as ‘landscapists with beautiful qualities and of great interest’, but he is also critical on them: “These are attacked, and rightly so, for resembling each other a little too much because they are all descended from Manet and sometimes come to be shapeless”. He mentions that ‘4 of my best studies made in Napoli’ are exhibited and that some ‘call my studies shapeless sketches’.
Than he gives more attention to the works of Degas, his blanchisseuses (no.57/61), his ballerinas, especially a drawing (no.60). And also to the pastel portrait of Morisot (hc) and the drawing of Bracquemond (no.23).

E. Drumont:
Edouard-Adolphe Drumont (1844-1917) published 1874/04/19 a review in Le Petit Journal simply called ‘L’Exposition du boulevard des Capucines’ (Rv7).
The review was written the 16th. Drumont loves this ‘free exposition … without complaints, without protest, without controversy … an attempt of a new system’. He clarifies: “The associated artists don’t have the intention to protest against the decisions of the jury. … (They) have the desire to be judged directly by the public.” The characteristic of this ‘school’ is ‘Painting what they see, reprodecing without interpret it, and without arranging it’. He praises the admirably lighted location and mentions the 30 names from the catalogue.
Next he reviews several partakers and their works: Monet (no.103), Renoir (no.142), Morisot (no.104), de Nittis (no.115), Boudin (2 marines), Rouart (no.148), Mulot-Durivage (no.113), Bureau (no.33), Bracquemond (his engravings and a drawing), Degas (no.60=a drawing), Morisot (hc=a pastel), Astruc (watercolours; 3-4/3-5 + 5).

A.L.T.:
The unknown A.L.T. published 1874/04/21 an article in La Patrie called “Chronique” (Rv12). It was a broader article that also reviewed the 1st ‘impressionist’ exposition in a quite negative way.
The writer mentions a hundred paintings on the walls of 3 or 4 rooms*. He comments “A dozen would be accepted by the jury of the Salon. …. But the other paintings! … At the first studies one shrugs the shoulders, at the second one starts to laugh, at the last one gets angry.”
The writer desribes he visited the exposition ‘yesterday morning’ when there were 15 or so visitors**, who started to laugh or were lost in speculations, like: ‘To proof the jury is right’; ‘They are pupils of Manet’; ’they are too keen on realism, take no.42′ (House of the hanged of Cézanne); the auteurs of such smears’.
Note*: in fact their were about 225 art-works spread over probably 7 or 8 rooms; maybe he visited only the first floor.
Note**: In the daytime the 20th of April there were 167 entrance fees payed (R415,p367). So, the given suggestion there were hardly visitors, isn’t right.

Léon de Lora:
Léon de Lora published 1874/04/18 a (shorter) review in Le Gaulois (Rv4) partly titled ‘free exposition’. Léon de Lora was a pseudonym (also) used by Félix (Alexandre) Pothey.
He starts the review with ’21* artists had the idea to form a society with the aim to organise free expositions, without jury and awards … and already the number of members is 40′. He mentions they pay montly contributions**. He describes the accomodation as ‘admirable offices for an exhibition like this’, with two floors, no less than 170 works, hung in 1 or 2 rows. 10% of the sales is for the small social capital.
After a quick visit he mentions the following partakers and works: Brandon (no.29+32bis+30+31+32), Degas (no.56+60+61+58/59), Monet (no.103+97) + several pastel studies (no.99-102), Morisot (no.104+105), the watercolours of Astruc, the engravings of Bracquemond,  Cals (no.40), Renoir (no.141+143).
And he writes: Among the very excellent landscapes we mention: Lépine (no.82), Pissarro (no.136+137); Rouart (no.153+148); Sisley (no.162); Cézanne (no.42); Colin (no.46); the Marines of M. Napoléon Lepic (no.74-77); the views of Italy by M. de Nittis (no.116/117+118bis)***.
He ends with ‘Their efforts deserve being encouraged’.
Note*: in fact 1873/12/27 there were 22 founders of the Société…
Note**: this suggestion is not found at other sources, but the profit and loss account could confirm this, noting that several members had payed for the second financial year 10fr (R415,p366).
Note***: This part is almost identicly repeated by Lepelletier 1874/04/19 (Rv8).

C. de Malte:
C. de Malte is a pseudonym for Auguste Villiers de l’Isle-Adam. 1874/04/19 he published a shorter review in Paris à l’eau-forte (Rv9).
He writes ‘La Société anonyme d’artistes has started today a serie of yearly salons’. He describes the works are exhibited on two floors, writing ‘This exposition looks like a colourist’s ambush; bright, warm, silvery, lively, luminous tones… It’s an ambush of radiant colours’. We will limit ourselves to mentioning: Renoir (no.142+141+145+143), (Léon) Ottin (no.129), Monet (no.97), Degas (no.60+56?+54/55), the watercolours of Astruc, Morisot, Brandon, de Molins, Belin*, Boudin, Lépine, etc.
Ending with ‘In short, we urge you to visit this firework display of enraged palettes. You’ll come away with a new sensation’.
Note: it is curious that this magazine on engravings, doesn’t refer to the exhibited engravings, nor to the lithograph of Léon Ottin (no.133), while in the title the ‘lithographes’ are included.
Note*: probably meant is Béliard.

E. Lepelletier:
E. Lepelletier published 1874/04/19 a shorter review in Le Patriote français, partly titled a ‘free exposition’ (Rv8). He was born as Edmond-Adolphe de Bouhélier.
He mentions that this ‘Exposition Libre’ is more a gallery, than a salon and that the most painters are very known. “They have not a single intention to protest or compete the official Exposition. Several of the exhibiting artists can be found at the same time at the Salon.”
Among the principal canvases he mentions: Monet (no.103), Brandon (no.29+32bis), Degas (no.56).
And continues: Among the landscapes we mention: Lépine (no.82), Pissarro (no.136+137); Rouart (no.153+148); Sisley (no.162); Cézanne (no.42); Colin (no.46); the Marines of M. Napoléon Lepic (no.74-77); the views of Italy by M. de Nittis (no.116/117+118bis)*.
He ends with promising to return to ’this interesting attempt’**.
Note*: almost identical with Léon de Lora 1874/04/18 (Rv4).
Note**: maybe the extended review of Etienne Carjat 1874/04/27 in the same newspaper (Rv21)? But, Carjat miswrites Denittis and Lepelletier doesn’t.

La Liberté:
La Liberté published 1874/04/20 an article called ‘Nos Informations: Le Salon du boulevard des Capucines’ (Rv10). Despite the title it was a broader article in which the 1st ‘impressionist’ exposition also was shortly reviewed.
The review starts with ‘A 30 artists … that want to organise their yearly exposition’, than sums up the 30 names from the catalogue and later writes about the ‘33 artists who have taken the decision to approach the public’. The review mentions that the public can account for themselves the nessicity of such an artistic association, that works without a jury and without medals. Writing ‘let (the public) be the only judge’, adding ‘we hope people will buy their works’.
The review clarifies “Several of these artists are quite known … it is absurd to think this is a new Salon des refusées … Some have also admitted works to the official Salon”. The review also mentions that a member of the jury at the last moment has abstained to partake*.
Note*: probably referring to Jean-Jacques Henner (1829-1905) (R410,p14+104+109+148) as mentioned in a letter of Degas to Tissot (1874/03/27 or 04/03) (R410,p16+106).

Emile Zola:
1874/04/18 Le Sémaphore de Marseille published a ‘Lettre de Paris’, written 1874/04/16 by Emile Zola (Rv5). This was a broader article that also reviewed the 1st ‘impressionist’ exposition.
Zola writes about ’the very honourable attempt made by 30 associated artists’. They have formed a cooperative society for an exposition (without wishing to protest against the regulatory Salon) and the sale of their works, where one can judge the efforts of the Société for themselves. He remarks that the statutes of the Société are well made and writes ‘I can only applaud the happy audacity of these painters and sculptors’.
Zola gives special attention to Cézanne: “Between the works that struc me, I namely mention a very remarquable landscape by M. Paul Cézanne, one of your compatriots, from Aix, who has shown great originality. M. Paul Cézanne, who struggled a long time, has the true temperament of a great painter.” He follows: “I also mention other works ‘Études de danseuses’ of M. Degas; landscapes of Mrs. Pissaro (sic), Monet, Béliard and Sisley; at last several very interesting canvasses of Mrs. (sic) Morisot and of Mrs Renoir, Bracquemont (sic), Colin and Boudin. Good luck at the young ones…”

Ariste:
Ariste is a pseudonyme for Arsène-Arnaud (Jules) Claretie (1840-1913). He published 1874/06/13 a small review in L’Indépendance belge called “Salon de 1874 à Paris” (Rv35).
He starts the review with Manet, who ‘claims that we should be satisfied with the impression’. He than speaks of an exposition of these ‘impressionalistes’ and later calls them ‘intransigeant’. Monet, Pissarro and Degas ‘seem to declare war on beauty’. ‘The impression of some of these landscape artists became fog and grease.’ He calls Degas the most remarquable of them and a realist, summing up some of the themes he depicted*. He ends again with Manet, who ‘knows how to paint… He sufficiently proved so last year with his Le bon Bock**. Ending with a sigh: “How, after such a piece, return again at these fleeting impressions, at these studies, which they try to render us as finished art-works.”
Note*: this included ‘views on a circus’ which Degas didn’t exhibit in 1874.
Note**: exhibited and praised at the Salon of 1873.

Le Masque de fer:
Le Masque de fer is a pseudonym for Philippe-Emile-François Gille, who published two articles in Le Figaro the 24th and the 28th of April, both titled “Echos de Paris” (Rv15+23). Both broader articles included small reviews on the 1st ‘impressionist’ exposition.

The first article (Rv15) called it a ‘really curious exposition’, that belongs ’to the school of very advanced young painting’. He comments ‘There are more or less succesful attempts, and also studies of a promising originality’. Then ending ‘One has found a name for this exposition in which one recognises the revolutionaires of art: le Salon des intransigeant…’.

The second article (Rv23) is quite obscure in it’s meaning. It says ‘Here’s a coachman’s tour that I’ll excuse at face value, because it shows a certain imagination: … A private exposition with ‘intransigeant’ paintings’. Then there follows a small dialogue of which I can’t discern the meaning.

Pierre Véron:
Pierre Véron (1831/33 – 1900) published 1874/04/25 an article called “Chronique parisienne” in Le Journal amusant (Rv18). Within this broader article he also gave a short review of the 1st ‘impressionist’ exposition.
Véron writes that the Salon has competition of (the expositions at) the boulevard des Capucines and the rue Le Pelletier. He finds them common protests against the jury and predicts ‘Those who battle against the official Salon will certainly fail’. He promises ‘I tell you a bit more, in one of our next communications, about the heretics of the paintbrush who have erected altar against altar’*.
Note*: I’m not acquinted with this follow-up.

Le Père Siffleur:
Le Père Siffleur is a pseudonym of an unknown art-critic who published 1874/04/26 an article called “Coups de sifflet” in Le Sifflet (Rv20). Within this broader article he also gave a short review of the 1st ‘impressionist’ exposition, which contained many (writing) errors.
The review starts with ‘I have visited the small exposition des Refusés at the Boulevard des Italiens (sic)’. Overall he is quite negative ‘There are many scrums’, but he makes some exceptions ’there are also serieus works, worthy of attention’. Then he sums up: ‘Le déjeuner (no.103) of Monnet (sic); L’Avant-Scène (no.142) of Renoir; Le Clocher, de Jouy (sic)*; Le Comte of Boudin (sic)*; Un Paysage près Blois (no.115) of Nillis (sic); Les Barques à plomb (no.113) of Mulot-Durivage, are realy remarquable paintings’. He continues with ‘The watercolours of Zacharie Astruc are marvellous. On can see nothing more charming than his Intérieur japonais (no.3-4/3-5) and his Poupées blanches (no.5).
Note*: meant is Le Clocher de Jouy-le-Comte (no.33) of Bureau.

Charles Darcours:
Charles Darcours is a pseudonym for Charles Réty, who published 1874/05/24 an article called “Beaux-Arts et théatres” in Le Journal illustré (Rv33). Within this broader article he also gave some short remarks on the 1st ‘impressionist’ exposition, which he notices among other expositions. He mentions the painters try to institute what might be called a ‘dock’* of painting, where there works will directly be sold to the public. He calls it a good idea.
Note*: this term ‘docks of painting’ is also used by Burty (Rv34)

Hadol:
Hadol published 1874/04/26 an illustration titled “La Semaine comique, par Hadol” in L’Eclipse (Rv19). The illustration contained 5 distinguishable drawings of which the 4th depicts a frame with a poster indicating ‘Société Anonyme des Peintres, Sculpteurs – Exposition; 35 Boulev. des Capucines’. The subscription reads ‘Boulevard des Capucines: More than just chic; here’s an exhibition that fits in well!’

 

Chronological overview of the announcements (=A):

  1. 1874/01/17, La Chronique des arts et de la curiosité, p19, “Société anonyme coopérative d’artistes-peintres, sculpteurs, etc., à Paris” (R90I,p20;R2,p490)
  2. 1874/01/25, La Renaissance littéraire et artistique, p20, “Gazette des beaux-arts” (R90I,p35+36)
  3. 1874/01/25, L’Opinion nationale, p3, Armand Silvestre, “Chronique des beaux-arts: Une Nouvelle Société coopérative” (R90I,p38+39;R2,p490)
  4. 1874/01/31, The Academy (London), p132, “Postscript” (R90I,p9)
  5. 1874/02/28, Revue de France, Vol.9 p532, E.C. (=Emile Cardon), “Beaux-Arts” (R90I,p11+478)
  6. 1874/03/26, La Semaine parisienne, p30, F. de Gantès, “Courrier artistique: Contre-Exposition” (R90I,p22)
  7. 1874/03/28, La Chronique des arts et de la curiosité, p128, “Expositions” (R90I,p20)
  8. 1874/04/02, Paris-Journal, p3, Ernest Chesnau, “Avant le Salon” (R90I,p17;R2,p490)
  9. 1874/04/11-18, Le Monde artiste, p3, N. Olivetti, “Beaux-Arts” (R90I,p32)
  10. 1874/04/13, Le Constitutionnel, p2-3, Louis Enault, “Mouvement artistique” (R90I,p21)
  11. 1874/04/13, L’Entr’acte, p3, “Nouvelles” (R90I,p21)
  12. 1874/04/18, La Chronique des arts et de la curiosité, p155, “Expositions” (R90I,p20)
  13. 1874/04/18, La Petite Presse, p2, “Les Nouvelles” (R90I,p32)
  14. 1874/04/18-25, Le Monde artiste, p3, “Beaux-Arts” (R90I,p28)
  15. 1874/04/20, L’Entr’acte, p3, “Nouvelles” (R90I,p21)
  16. 1874/04/20, L’Evénement, p1, Le Sphinx (pseudonyme for Albert Delpit), “Echos de Paris” (R90I,p41+482;R2,p490)
  17. 1874/04/25, Le Magasin des demoiselles, p39, Le vicomte de Saint-Leu, “Causerie” (R90I,p38;R2,p490)
  18. 1874/04/25-30, Vert-Vert, p3, “Nouvelles” (R90I,p42;R2,p490)
  19. 1874/05/01, Vert-Vert, p3, “Nouvelles” (R90I,p42;R2,p490)
  20. 1874/05/02, L’Opinion nationale, p3, “Causerie parisienne” (R90I,p32)
  21. 1874/05/09, L’Univers illustré, p290, Gérôme, “Courrier de Paris” (R90I,p23;R2,p113)
  22. 1874/05/11, L’Entr’acte, p2+3, Gérôme, “Courrier du lundi” (R90I,p23)

 

 

Chronological overview of the given reviews (=Rv):

  1. 1874/04/16, La République française, p2, (Philippe Burty), “Chronique du jour” (R90I,p36;R87,p256;R2,p490)
  2. 1874/04/17, La France, p2, “Chronique” (R90I,p22)
  3. 1874/04/17, Le Rappel, p2, E. d’H (=Ernest d’Hervilly), “L’Exposition du boulevard des Capucines” (R90I,p23+24;R87,p256/7;R2,p108+490;R1,p328)
  4. 1874/04/18, Le Gaulois, p3, Léon de Lora (=Félix Phothey), “Petites Nouvelles artistique: Exposition libre des peintres” (R90I,p26+27;R87,p257;R2,p124+131+141+490)
  5. 1874/04/18, Le Sémaphore de Marseille, p1, (Emile Zola) 1874/04/16, “Lettre de Paris” (R90I,p38;R2,p126+490)
  6. 1874/04/18, Le Phare de la Loire, p2, (autre correspondance special), 1874/04/16 (iR437; R410,p)
  7. 1874/04/19, Le Petit Journal, p2, E. Drumont, “L’Exposition du boulevard des Capucines” (R90I,p20+21;R2,p108)
  8. 1874/04/19, Le Patriote française, p2, E. Lepelletier, “Chronique parisienne: L’Exposition libre du boulevard des Capucines” (R90I,p24;R2,p110+117)
  9. 1874/04/19, Paris à l’eau-forte, p12+13, C. de Malte (=Villiers de l’Isle Adam), “Exposition de la société anonyme des artitstes paintres, sculpteurs, graveurs, sculpteurs et lithographes” (R90I,p27+28;R2,p124+490)
  10. 1874/04/20, La Liberté, p2, “Nos Informations: Le Salon du boulevard des Capucines” (R90I,p26;R2,p490)
  11. 1874/04/20, Le Rappel, p3, Jean Prouvaire (=Pierre Toloza), “L’Exposition du boulevard des Capucines” (R90I,p34+35;R87,p258/9;R2,p126+131+134+141+142+490)
  12. 1874/04/21, La Patrie, p2, A.L.T., “Chronique” (R90I,p41;R2,p108/9)
  13. 1874/04/22, L’Opinion nationale, p2+3, Armand Silvestre, “Chronique des beaux-arts: Physiologie du refusé – L’Exposition des révoltés” (R90I,p39+40;R2,p108+125+128+135+141+490;R1,p328/9)
  14. 1874/04/23, La Semaine parisienne, p63+64, F. de Gantès, “Courrier artistique: L’Exposition du boulevard” (R90I,p22+23)
  15. 1874/04/24, Le Figaro, p1, Le Masque de fer, “Echos de Paris” (R90I,p28)
  16. 1874/04/25, Le Charivari, p79+80, Louis Leroy, “L’Exposition des impressionnistes” (R90I,p25+26;R87,p259-261;R2,p110+130+132+138+141+490)
  17. 1874/04/25, La République française, p2, (Philippe Burty), “Exposition de la société anonyme des artistes” (R90I,p36-38; R87,p261/2; R2,p108+124+125+127+133+136+138+490)
  18. 1874/04/25, Le Journal amusant, p7, Pierre Véron, “Chronique parisienne” (R90I,p41+42)
  19. 1874/04/26, L’Eclipse, p4, Hadol, “La Semaine comique, par Hadol” (illustration) (R90I,p24+43)
  20. 1874/04/26, Le Sifflet, p3, Le Père Siffleur, “Coups de sifflet” (R90I,p38)
  21. 1874/04/27, Le Patriote français, p3, Etienne Carjat, “L’Exposition du boulevard des Capucines” (R90I,p14+15;R2,p109-111)
  22. 1874/04/28, La Presse, p3, Emile Cardon, “Avant le Salon” (R90I,p11+12;R2,p490)
  23. 1874/04/28, Le Figaro, p1, Le Masque de fer, “Echos de Paris” (R90I,p28)
  24. 1874/04/29, La Presse, p2-3, Emile Cardon, “Avant le Salon: L’Exposition des révoltés” (R90I,p12-14;R87,p262/3;R2,p108+109+129+490;R1,p330/1)
  25. 1874/04/29, Le Siècle, p3, (Jules-Antoine) Castagnary, “Exposition du boulevard des Capucines: Les Impressionnistes” (R90I,p15-17;R87,p264/5;R2,p110+125+127+129+130+133+137+138+490;R1,p329+330)
  26. 1874/04, Revue de France, Vol.10 p254-255, E.C. (=Emile Cardon), “Chronique: Beaux-Arts: Expositions de peintures modernes” (R90I,p11+478)
  27. 1874/05/01, L’Artiste, p307-311, Marc de Montifaud (=Marie-Amélie Chartroule de Montifaud), “Exposition du boulevard des Capucines” (R90I,p28-31;R87,p266-268;R2,p109+110+126+129+139+141+142+490)
  28. 1874/05/03, La Renaissance littéraire et artistique, p186-188, Henri Polday, “Les Intransigeants” (R90I,p32+33)
  29. 1874/05/07, Paris-Journal, p2, Ernest Chesnau, “A côté du Salon: II. Le Plein Air: Exposition du boulevard des Capucines” (R90I,p17-19;R2,p108+109+125+127+130+141+490)
  30. 1874/05/07, Le Soir, p2, Ernest Chesnau, “A côté du Salon: II. Le Plein Air: Exposition du boulevard des Capucines” (R90I,p17-19;R2,p108+109+490)
  31. 1874/05/09, Paris-Journal, p2, Ernest Chesnau, “Au Salon: Avertissement préalable” (R90I,p19+20;R87,p268-270;R2,p108)
  32. 1874/05/09, Le Soir, p2, Ernest Chesnau, “Au Salon: Avertissement préalable” (R90I,p19+20;R2,p108)
  33. 1874/05/24, Le Journal illustré, p163, Charles Darcours, “Beaux-Arts et théatres” (R90I,p20)
  34. 1874/05/30, The Academy (London), p616, Ph. Burty 1874/05/25 “The Paris Exhibitions: Les Impressionnistes” (R90I,p9-11)
  35. 1874/06/13, L’Indépendance belge, p3, Ariste (pseudonyme for Jules Claretie) “Salon de 1874 à Paris” (R90I,p9+478;R2,p490;R1,p326+340)
  36. 1874/07/01, Il Giornale artistico (Florence), p25+26, Giuseppe de Nittis, 1874/06/10, “Corrispondenze: Londra” (R90I,p31+32;R2,p490)

 

Unpublished reviews:
In the 2024 catalogue edited by Patry/Robbins another 10 unpublished reviews (=uRv) are mentioned, including Rv6 (R410,p278). I haven’t found them on the internet and except some remarks didn’t use them on my pages. I add some other reviews mentioned, that maybe made some remarks on the 1st ‘impressionist’ exposition (R410,p279-282).

  1. 1874/03/22, Le Rappel, p.3, Un passant, “Les on-dit” (R410,p278)
  2. 1874/03/26, La République française, p3, (Philippe Burty), “Chronique du Jour” (R410,p279)
  3. 1874/03/28, Le Gaulois, p.4, H.N. (Hippolyte Nazet), “Petites Nouvelles” (R410,p278)
  4. 1874/04/03, Le Petit journal, p.3, N.s., “Paris” (R410,p278)
  5. 1874/04/08, Le Siècle, N.s., “Nouvelles du jour” (R410,p281)
  6. 1874/04/18, Le Soir, p.2/3, N.s., “De tout un peu” (R410,p278+213)
  7. 1874/04/19, Le Phare de Loire, p1/2, Léon Guillet, “Lettres de Paris” (R410,p278)
  8. 1874/04/21, La Gironde, p.2, C.L., “Chronique” (R410,p278)
  9. 1874/04/23, La Gironde, p.2, P.V., “Lettres d’un spectateur” (R410,p278+213)
  10. 1874/04/25, La Chronique illustrée, p3/4, Eugène Montrosier, “La Société anonyme des artistes peintres, sculpteurs, graveurs, etc. et son exposition” (R410,p278+213)
  11. 1874/04/26, Le Rappel, Un passant, “Les on-dit” (R410,p282)
  12. 1874/05/01, La Presse, Émile Cardon, “Avant le Salon” (R410,p279)
  13. 1874/05/03, La Patrie, Ernest Boysse, “Salon de 1874, I” (R410,p278)
  14. 1874/06/06, L’Illustration, Louis Clodion, “Un tableau à succès” (R410,p280)
  15. 1874/05/11, L’Entr’acte, p.2, Gérôme, “Courrier du lundi” (R410,p278)
  16. 1874/06/13, the Examiner (p.633/4), Frederic Wedmore, “Pictures in Paris – The Exhibition of “Les Impressionistes” (R410,p210+213+215+282).
  17. 1874/06/13, Le Journal amusant, Pierre Véron, “Chronique parisienne” (R410,p282)
    Note: compare Rv18.
  18. 1874/07/05, L’Avenir des femmes, Maria Deraismes, “Une Exposition particulière de l’École Réaliste” (R410,p280)
  19. 1874/11/06, Moniteur des arts, p.1, Adriani, “Courrier” (R410,p279)

 

Reviews probably only on the Salon of 1874:
There were about 100 reviews (namely) on the Salon of 1874 (R410,p209). Here are some of them.

  1. 1874/04/12, La Renaissance Artistique et Littéraire, S. Mallarmé, “Le jury de peinture pour 1874 et M. Manet” (R1,p326/7+340;R410,p281)
  2. 1874/05/01, Revue des Deux Mondes, no 3, p.689, Ernest Duvergier de Hauranne, “Le Salon de 1874” (R410,p280)
  3. 1874/05/03, La Gazette des étrangers, A. de Clermont, “Le Salon de 1874 – Impressions premières” (R410,p280)
  4. 1874/05/06, Le Figaro, Jean Rousseau, “Le Salon; Compte rendu du public” (R410,p282)
  5. 1874/05/08, Le Figaro, Jean Rousseau, “Le Salon” (R410,p282)
  6. 1874/05/10, Paris à l’eau-forte (p.38), F.C. Ribérac, “Salon de 1874, I” (R410,p282)
  7. 1874/05/11, Le Figaro, Jean Rousseau, “Le Salon” (R410,p282)
  8. 1874/05/12, Jurnal des débats politiques et littéraires, Charles Clément, “Exposition de 1874 (deuxième article)” (R410,p280)
  9. 1874/05/15, Journal de Paris, Jules Guillemot, “Salon de 1874; 2” (R410,p280)
  10. 1874/05/16, Le Figaro, Jean Rousseau, “Le Salon” (R410,p282)
  11. 1874/05/16, L’Univers Illustré, p310/1, A. de Pontmartin, “Salon de 1874” (R2,p110+111+117)
  12. 1874/05/17, Paris à l’eau-forte, vol.4, no.58, Jules Claretie, “Salon de 1874” (R410,p279)
  13. 1874/05/21, La Gazette des étrangers, A. de Clermont, “Le Salon de 1874 (Onzième article)” (R410,p280)
  14. 1874/05/22, Les tableaux militaires, Nestor Paturot, “Le Salon de 1874” (R410,p281)
  15. 1874/05/23, L’Illustration, Bertall, “Tour du Salon de 1874” (R410,p279)
  16. 1874/05/24, Le Tintamare, Maxime, “Salon de peinture, exposition de 1874” (R2,p113+117)
  17. 1874/05/24, Chronique des Arts et de la Curiosité, p207, N.s., “Exposition” (R410,p279)
  18. 1874/05/26, La France, Frances Aubert, “Le Salon” (R2,p110+117)
  19. 1874/05/29, Le National, Nestor Paturot, “Le Salon de 1874” (R410,p281)
  20. 1874/05/30, Chronique des Arts et de la Curiosité, p217, N.s., “Salon de 1874” (R410,p279)
  21. 1874/06/01, Revue des Deux Mondes, p659, Ernest Duvergier de Hauranne, “Le Salon de 1874” (R410,p280)
  22. 1874/06/09, Le constitutionnel, Énault, “Le Salon de 1874; Le fusain” (R410,p280)
  23. 1874/05/30, Chronique des Arts et de la Curiosité, p226, N.s., “Nouvelles” (R410,p279)
  24. 1874/06/12, Journal de Paris, Jules Guillemot, “Salon de 1874; 9: peinture” (R410,p280)
  25. 1874/08/09, L’Europe Artiste, E. Pignet, “Le Salon de 1874” (R2,p113+117)

 

Reviews probably only on other expositions in 1874:
In the Spring of 1874 there were several exhibitions held. Several announcements also refer to these. Some reviews only or mainly concern one of these other exhibitions.

  1. 1874/01/10, Chronique des arts, p.9/10, C. “Expositon d’aquarelles au Cercle de l’Union artistique” (R410,p279)
  2. 1874/01/31, Chronique des arts, p46, N.s., “Collection de feu M. Charles Turpin, conservateur honoraire du Musée de Blois” (R410,p279)
  3. 1874/01?, p.III, E.C. (Ernest Chesnau), “Avertissement”, Catalogue de tableaux modernes dont la vente aux enchères aura lieu hôtel Drouot, salle no.8, le mardi 13 janvier 1874 à deux heures,
  4. 1874/03/07, La Chronique des arts, p.91/2, N., “Exposition de peinture au Cercle de l’Union artistique” (R410,p281)
  5. 1874/04/18, Chronique des arts, p.159/160, A. D. , “Très-belle collection de tableaux des écoles anglaise, française, hollandaise et fiamandes” (R410,p279)
  6. 1874/04/25, Le Figaro, p1, Alfred d’Aunay, “L’Exposition au bénéfice des Alsaciens-Lorrains” (R410,p279)
  7. 1874, L’Association des artistes, Edmond About, Peintures décoratives du grand foyer de l’Opéra, Paris (R410,p279)
  8. 1874, Bulletin de la Société française de photographie, t.20, p141-162, N.s., “Procès-Verbal de la séance du 5 juin 1874” (R410,p279)
  9. 1874, Comte d’Haussonville, Explication des ouvrages de peinture exposés au profit de la dolonisation de l’Algérie par les Alsaciens-Lorrains, Paris” (R410,p280)
  10. 1874, Comte d’Haussonville, “Catalogue supplémentaire des ouvrages de peinture exposés au profit de la dolonisation de l’Algérie par les Alsaciens-Lorrains, Paris” (R410,p280)
  11. 1874, Joseph-Jules Junca, “La photographie au Salon de 1874, compte rendu de la dixième expositin de la Société française de photographie au Palais de l’Industrie, Paris” (R410,p281)
  12. 1874, Euxode and Camille Marcille, “Exposition des oeuvres de Prud’hon au profit de sa fille” (R410,p281)

 

 

Recommanded citation: “Impressionism, a historical reconstruction: Reviews on the 1st ‘impressionist’ exposition in 1874. Last modified 2024/10/09. https://www.impressionism.nl/1874-expo-reviews/”