Impressionism, a historical reconstruction:

Reviews

on the

 2nd ‘impressionist’ exposition 1876

 

Introduction:
This page renders analyses of the 60 known reviews on the 2nd ‘impressionist’ exposition in 1876. Most of them are gathered and published by Ruth Berson (1996=R90I,p53-113).
You will find summaries from the reviews on the main page on the 2nd ‘impressionist’ exposition.
The reviews are also extendedly cited in the accounts of the partakers.
Note: You will first find the chapters on this page.
Note: The most extended articles of Duranty and Mallarmé, that just sidely link to this exposition, are largely summarized on seperate pages and not included in the analyses of this page, see links.
Note: see for the number of the reviews (Rv1 etc.) the overview at the bottom of this page.
Note: Most reviews in Berson are in French and my French is poor. For me it is extra hard to understand the ambiguities in reviews. Still, I think the information that you find on this page is overall trustworthy.

 

Chapters on this page:
On this page several aspects from the reviews will be discussed in this order:

• How often was the exposition reviewed?
• How was the exposition valued?
• How were the ‘impressionists’ called in the reviews?
• Practical remarks on the exposition and the hanging
• How were the partakers reviewed?
• What is said about the group?
• What is said about the exhibited art-works?
• What is said about the painting style?
• Short summaries of more than one review
• The first reviews
• Short summaries of the large reviews***.
• Short summaries of the medium seized reviews**.
• Then the overview of all the reviews.
• External characteristics of the reviews
• An overview of the reviews
  (with short summaries of the small reviews*)

 

How often was the exposition reviewed?:
There are about 62 reviews known on the 2nd ‘impressionist’ exposition of 1876*. At the bottom of this page you will find a chronological overview** of the 59 reviews (=Rv1, 2…) found in Berson (R90I) and 3 additional reviews (note: of the last one I have only indirect information, so I leave it out in the rest of the discussion).
16 were large reviews*** (>1 page=3 columns in Berson); 21 were medium sized** (1-3 columns); 21 were short* (<1 column). There also were two essays**** one of Duranty (Rv9) and one of Mallarmé (Rv57).
Note: the size of a review is indicated with an asterix as small*, medium**, large***, very large****.
Some art-critics wrote more than one review↓: Bertall (Rv42***); Blémont (Rv35*** +40); Burty (Rv16** +43***); Leroy (Rv44** +45***); A. de L. (=Alfred de Lostalot) (Rv10** +26**); Punch (Rv15* +20**), Rivière (Rv51***), Zola (Rv22* +50** +54***).
Note*: Clayson (R2,p145+158) states that there were more reviews in the press than the reviews in 1874. But, probably this is based on the reviews known in 1986 (R2,p490/1). Berson (1996=R90I) renders 57 for 1874 and 59 for 1876.
Note**: this is based on the publication date. The reviews were written (much) earlier and / or based on an earlier visit.

 

How was the exposition valued?:
Hollis Clayson quotes from many reviews (R2,p145-159), namely on Duranty, Zola (Rv22+50 +54) and Mallarmé (p148-150); he analyzes 6 overtly hostile reviews*of Wolff (Rv24), Maillard (Rv27), Porcheron (Rv28), Bigot (Rv32), Vachon (Rv25) and Mancino (Rv1); and 6 positive reviews of d’Hervilly (Rv19), Blémont (=Emile Petitdidier) (Rv35+40), Burty (Rv16+43), Silvestre (Rv21), Pothey (Rv6), Alfred de Lostalot (Rv10+26) and Rivière (Rv51) (R2,p151-157).
I count 38% more positive reviews, 35% more negative and 27% mixed or more mixed / neutral**.
Note: the appraisal of the review will be indicated with coloured asterix; dominantly positive reviews are indicated with a green one*; dominantly negative with a red one*; mixed appraisals with an orange one* or a variation of green and red, for example***.
Note*: several of these reviews criticise the ‘impressionists’ of trespassing the Academic rules of painting, but several of their remarks trespass general rules of decency and respect. I think it is best not to affirm these remarks by citing them extendly, as many sources on impressionism do.
Note**: Clayson (R2,p145) mentions that about 1/2 was positive and 1/2 negative. Rewald stated that the press was as violent as before (R1,p368); he states that the more favorable reviews appeared in poorly distributed publications (p370). Monneret states that the reviews were ‘generally disastrous’ (R88II,p238).

 

How were the ‘impressionists’ called in the reviews?:
The term ‘impressionists’ was not generally and uniquely used, see Why Impressionist?
In most reviews the partakers are called ‘intransigéants’ and also ‘impressionnistes’.
The following reviews used the term ‘impressionists’ in the title of the article: A.V. in Rv8; Punch in Rv20; A. de L. in Rv26; Pocheron in Rv28; Boubée in Rv29; Schop in Rv31; Blémont in Rv35; Leroy in Rv45; Castagnary in Rv52; Cherbuliez in Rv55; Dolent in Rv58.
Instead of impressionists some reviews mention the variation ‘impressionnalistes‘: some in the title (Rv27 +42), many in the review itself (Rv 5 +11 +13 +14 +18 +23 +25 +27 +28 +42 +48).
The following reviews used the term ‘intransigéants’ or a variation on it in the title of the article: Claretie in Rv17; Schop in Rv31; Bigot in Rv32; Chaumelin in Rv33; Rv34; Enault in Rv36;  d’Olby in Rv38; de Saint-Leu in Rv39; Burty in Rv43.
Several reviews referred to the location it in the title of the article, namely the Durand-Ruel gallery, Rue Le Peletier, 11 (Rv9+10+21+36+38+41+42+47). Many reviews (also) mentioned it in the review itself.
Other terms used in the title are (variations of): Realists (Rv4 +23 +27); École des Batignolles (Rv14 +23 +31); indépendants (Rv2 +12 +27 +59); les tableaux de genre et les portraits (Cherbuliez in Rv55).
Other terms used in the reviews are (variations of): Realists (Rv4 +23 +27); École des Batignolles (Rv14 +23 +31); indépendants (Rv1 +2 +12 +27 +59); secte de la pure tache (Rv1); école de taches (Rv33); école du plein air (Rv1); les tableaux de genre et les portraits (Cherbuliez in Rv55).

 

Practical remarks on the exposition and the hanging:
Some reviews mention the exposition opened the 1st of April (Rv2;Rv34). The catalogue just mentions the exposition was held in April. But others mentions the 30th of March (Rv1 +3 +5 +32 +43) or that it opened on a Thursday (Rv6 +19)*. In some reviews it is noted ‘The exhibition that is bound to open…’ (Rv24+28+51), this suggests they had seen the exhibition before the official opening. So, probably there was a pre-opening the 30th of March on which ’the complete parisian press was present’ (Rv11).
It is not clear when the exposition stopped. Pothey (1876/03/31 =Rv6) wrote ‘during a month’. The catalogue just mentioned April. It is well possible that it ended Sunday the 30th.
Note*: in a letter Degas made clear that the exposition opened Thursday the 30th of March (Reff 2020, letter no.56 =R433III,p39).
Note: Others are not fully clear: the 30th (Rv11), the 31st (Rv14), the 2nd (Rv15 +Rv23); this is based on the publication date, but the review could have been written one or two days earlier.

Above the door of the exhibition “impressionnistes” was put (Rv27).
In a footnote Alfred de Lostalot (Rv10) remarks that the catalogue hadn’t been written yet. (R90I,p87) That can explain why in some reviews the amount of exhibited art-works was not correct: (about) 240 entries (Rv19+23+31+36), about 250 (Rv6), about 200 paintings (Rv27); about 150 paintings divided about 3 large rooms (Rv20).

Some reviews are quite explicit about the hanging in those 3 rooms:
Burty (Rv43) remarks ‘The rooms are very spacious and well lighted’. The second room is indicated as being the ‘larger gallery’ (Rv16).
Burty (Rv43+16): ‘in room 1 namely engravings, aquarelles, pastels and drawings were shown (of Desboutin, Legros, Degas, Jean-Baptiste Millet and of Morisot). In room 2 the paintings (interiors) of Morisot were hung and also marines of Lepic, portraits and figure paintings by Renoir, landscapes by Sisley and Monet (including no.153) and the works of Caillebotte. In room 3 landscapes of Tillot and Pissarro; works of Léon Ottin, Cals, Rouart, Béliard; still lifes of Jacques François; (other) works of Degas*.’ He leaves out Bureau and Levert.
Blémont (Rv35) discussing the first room mentions: Legros (etchings), Lepic (etchings, aquarelles and paintings), Millet (aquarelles) and Desboutin (dry points and paintings). And discussing the second room: Monet, Renoir, Morisot, Sisley and Caillebotte. And the 3rd room: Degas, Pissarro, Béliard and Ottin, Cals and Jacques-François. He leaves out Bureau, Levert, Rouart and Tillot.
Porcheron (Rv28) discussing the first room mentions: Millet (watercolours + 1 sépia); Morisot (drawings=no.182); Pissarro (landscapes; note: by others located in room 3); Desboutin (etchings and other works); Lepic (marines; note: by others located in room 2). Discussing the second room: Caillebotte; Morisot (figure paintings and marines); Monet; Renoir. Discussing the last room: Degas (paintings); Jacques Français; Ottin; Tillot; Bureau; Rouart.
La Liberté (Rv23) remarked on Lepic, that his marines were shown in the ‘grand salon’ (=room 2).
Enault (Rv36) remarked on Desboutin ‘We are welcomed at the entrance door by a serie of dry point etchings by Desboutin’ (Rv36). This is contradicted by Porcheron (Rv28) who wrote ‘In the first room when entering one finds a serie of watercolours of Millet’
Emile Blémont (Rv40) reviewed ‘In the third room is the submission of Mr. Degas.’
Note: It stays unclear where the works of Levert were exhibited, maybe in Room 3. It also stays unclear where the following works were exhibited: 3 drawings by Cals (no.33-35); a pastel by Degas (no.42); a pastel by Renoir (no.226); 2 drawings of Rouart (no.234+235). If room 1 was reserved for all the art-works that weren’t oil paintings, that would be a possibility. It is not sure if the paintings (no.60-66+hc) of Desboutin hung in room 1 or in another room. It is unclear if the oil paintings of Millet (no.142-144) also hung in room 1.

There were also some more specific remarks made:
Silvestre remarked the several small canvases of Morisot were displayed on one panel (Rv21).
Pothey even remarks ‘The canvasses of every artist are shown on one panel.’ (Rv6)

Enault (R90I,p81=Rv36) mentions 240 exhibited works, a difference of 12 with the catalogue that is now known; he explicitly mentions numbers of Renoir which were not correct 197 (=211),  and 200 (=214), (no.209) (sic =223), so a difference of 14. Chaumelin in the same (wrong) way mentions number 197 and 200 (R90I,p68=Rv55). The numbering of Porcheron (Rv28) doesn’t seem conform the known catalogue either; he describes no.152 of Monet as a blue boat and a green tree, but this doens’t fit the identified painting. More clearly he mentions no.217 which maybe is no.231 from the known catalogue.
Is it possible that the works of Léon Ottin (catalogue numbers 183-196) were left out in the first version of the catalogue or in the numbering of the hanging (R90II,p44+45)? But, than Enault would have mentioned 238 works or he gave a rounded number.

 

How were the partakers reviewed?:
See for a summary of the remarks on the partakers see the main page on the 2nd ‘impressionist’ exposition. Here below you will find summaries on the partakers in an alphabetical order:

Béliard is mentioned in 11 reviews. He is praised in two (partly similar) reviews of Zola (Rv50+54). Zola calls his works ‘perfectly drawn, with a true tone and with an absolute faithfullness’, mentioning no.4+1+7. He calls Béliard a ‘careful copyist of nature’, but criticises ’the personality is still a bit lacking’. Blémont remarked ‘His landscapes are of a fair and pleasant feeling, with a lot of air and depth and explicitly mentions no.1+?5+2 (Rv35). L’Audience remarked ‘please note…’ and then mentions no.2+4+5 (Rv34). Burty makes clear that ‘studies of varied interest’ of among others those of Béliard hung in room 3 (Rv43+16). Alfred de Lostalot calls his landscapes (among those of others) ‘bourgeois’ and ‘honest’ and mentions ’they would not frighten even the most timid curator’ (Rv10 +26). In the same way Chaumelin remarks ’they will not frighten anyone’ (Rv33). And Baignères calls them ‘ordinary’ (Rv41).

Pierre-Isidore Bureau his works were not explicitly reviewed (R90II,p33) except the remark in L’Audience (Rv34) that no.13 +15 ‘require special attention’ (R90I,p53). Bureau is mentioned in 4 other reviews. Alfred de Lostalot calls his paintings (among those of others) ‘honest’ and mentions ’they would not frighten even the most timid curator’ (Rv26). In the same way Chaumelin remarks ’they will not frighten anyone’ (Rv33). Pothey names them ‘conscientious’ (Rv6). Porcheron is the most explicit ‘Why is M. Bureau, who draws too much to preserve the impression of objects in all its purity, as must be done by every member of the sect we are currently discussing, (just like Tillot) counted among the impressionists? (Rv28) In some lists in which most partakers are mentioned Bureau is left out (Rv16+19+43).

Caillebotte is extendedly reviewed, he is mentioned in 27 reviews. Burty makes clear his works hung in room 2 (Rv16+43). L’Audience (Rv34) calls him the ‘primus interpares’. A. de L. calls him ‘The success of the exhibition’ (Rv10) and Burty (Rv43) mentioned ‘(he) has attracted a great deal of attention’, but Baignières (Rv41) writes that Caillebotte ‘remains far behind Degas‘. Namely his numbers 17+18 (15x) and less frequent no.19+20+21) are mentioned. Some call him original (Rv33+43). He renders a ‘faithful representation of life’ (Rv43+35). He is praised for his skill, his craft and is called a draftsman (Rv29+36+10). But Zola is more critical ‘because of their precision, the paintings are entirely anti-artistic’ (Rv54). The high perspective in these works is noted and labelled as ‘bizarre’ (Rv10), ‘scorning’ (Rv42), ‘astonishingly’ (Rv54). Porcheron (Rv28) calls his works the worst of the show because it martyrs perspective. Enault (Rv36) complains ‘The arms of the scrapers are too thin, and their chests are too narrow. (…) let your nude be beautiful, or leave the subject alone.’ But, Blémont (Rv35) reviews ‘They are full of truth, life, and of a simple and frank intimacy.’ Laurent-Pichet (Rv60) criticised ’the plates etc. stand upright on a vertical surface.’ Pothey (Rv6) praised the ‘very beautiful light’. Chaumelin (Rv33) calls him a ‘Realist as crude as but far more witty than Courbet, as violent as but far more precise than Manet.’ Also Baron Schop (Rv31) relates him to Courbet. Some see him as worthy to be accepted at the Salon (Rv10+26+35).

There were hardly reviews dealing explicitly on the works of Cals. The review of L’audience (Rv34) only mentions that no.29 +34 especially draw attention. Laurent-Pichet (Rv60) reviewed no.28 quite extendedly, but probably misunderstood it. In total Cals was mentioned within 10 reviews. Burty makes clear that ‘studies of varied interest’ of among others those of Cals hung in room 3 (Rv43+16). Alfred de Lostalot calls his landscapes (among those of others) ‘bourgeois’ and ‘honest’ and mentions ’they would not frighten even the most timid curator’ (Rv10 +26). Baignères calls them ‘ordinary’ (Rv41). Pothey ‘conscientious’ (Rv.6). Blémont just mentions ‘Let us also note… some studies by M. Cals’ (Rv35). Some make clear Cals depicted Honfleur (Rv35).

Edgar Degas was mentioned in 34 reviews. Burty (Rv43+16) makes clear that his ‘drawings of dancers’ (no.51) hung in room 1; it is unclear where his other drawing (no.59) and pastel (no.42) did hung. His paintings were hung in room 3 (Rv16+28+43). Claretie (Rv17) calls him ‘leader of the group’. Enault (Rv36) remarks ‘Degas is perhaps one of the most intransigent of this intransigent company’. Bagnières (Rv41) called Degas ’the pontificate of the sect of the intransigent impressionists’ and also that when they one day will be masters ‘M. Degas will hold the place that M. Ingres occupies among us, while that of M. Delacroix is reserved for M. Claude Monet, the dazzling colorist of the club.’ By some Degas is compared with Daumier (Rv6).
His Nouvelle-Orléans (no.36) is often reviewed and praised (16x), also in the more negative reviews. But Zola (Rv54) is critical ‘The misfortune is that he spoils everything by finishing.’ Some notice that Degas cuts of his canvasses (Rv28+41). Others remark that Degas tends ’to look rather at the bizarre or the ugly than the graceful’ (Rv32+28). In the same line Laurent-Pichet (Rv60) writes ‘Degas has achieved perfection in unpleasantness and incompleteness (…) these milliners, ballerinas and others do not seek to charm with their grace or beauty’. Ernest Fillonneau (Rv27) notes ’the other paintings of the artist are in general vulgar in sentiment and execution.’
Several find his pictures unfinished (Rv35+38+40+43), but Burty (Rv43) finds them ‘sufficient to prove … his intimate acquaintance with modern life’. And Dax (=Rivière; Rv51) even calls him an ‘impeccable draftsman’. Dolent (Rv58) mentions that he ‘has the ability to render what he senses’.
Chaumelin (Rv33) remarks ‘Degas follows the ‘école des taches’. Baron Schop (Rv31) remarks that his canvasses ‘are of a joyfull realism’. Wolff (Rv24) is very critical ‘Degas doesn’t understand the basic qualities of art, like drawing, colour and execution.’ Zola (Rv54) remarks ‘This painter has a deep love of modernity, interiors and types of everyday life.’

Marcellin Desboutin was mentioned in 23 reviews. 11 mention his dry points etchings. Some make clear they hung in room 1 (Rv16+35+43), ‘at the entrance door’ (Rv36). There was ‘a large number’ (Rv41+35), namely portraits (Rv10+35+41+43+51). 6 of them are explicitly mentioned and 2 general descriptions are rendered ‘portraits de femmes’ and ‘plusieurs têtes de femmes’ (Rv51+38+1+10). Bigot (Rv32) reviewed that ‘These (drypoint) portraits are certainly the most remarkable feature of this exhibition’. Rivière (Rv51) praised his ‘series of drypoint portraits, which are marvels of composition and execution… like the etchings of Rembrandt.’ Leroy called him ‘very weak as a painter, but interesting as an etcher’ (Rv44). Others more or less affirm this opinion (Rv1+6+38). Blémont suggests his paintings also did hung in room 1 (Rv35)*. But Rivière (Rv51) first reviews his paintings (and those of others) and at the end of the article he reviews seperately his etchings (and also those of Lepic), which could suggest they hung in two separate rooms. Of his paintings no.63+64 are most often mentioned (8x +9x). No.63 is explicitly described as ‘large’ and ‘quite big for it’s subject’ (Rv6+20+33+35+41). No.64 was described as ‘a small canvas as big as a hand’ (Rv36).
Rivière (Rv51) mentioned ‘First in line is M. Desboutins (sic), not that his exhibition is the most extensive, but it is the most complete.’ Desboutin is sometimes integrated in small lists of the most important partakers (Rv2+15+17+19). Chaumelin asks ‘What reason does Desboutin has to join among the Intransigeants?’ (Rv33). Also some others don’t think he fits in this group (Rv26+32+41+44+51), except for no.63 (Rv41).
Note*: Enault and Porcheron could affirm this, but are not very precise in the indentification of the location (Rv36+28). Clayson concludes the paintings hung in room 1 (R2,p146).

Jacques François (=Mme de Rambures) was mentioned in 10 reviews. In L’Audience she is first named ‘François-Jacques Levert’ and later ‘François-Jacques’. Some make clear her works hung in room 3 (Rv16+28+43). Namely her still lifes are mentioned, mostly in a positive way. Dax / Rivière highly praised (no.77) ‘It is a masterpiece without precedent. Never has a still life been done with this spirit and in this style. It is an extraordinary work and opens a new way to the still life’ (Rv51). Burty first remarked ’the remarkable Natures mortes, by a lady who took the pseudonym of Jacques-François’ (Rv16) and later ‘some nature mortes (…) by a woman of society who adopts the pseudonym of Jacques François. She has a very harmonious palette, and uses grays and free tints with remarkable skill’ (Rv43). Pothey ends with ‘Nor can we pay more attention to the beautiful still lifes signed by Jacques-François.’ (Rv6) Chaumelin wrote ’the still lifes of M. François the tone is soft and harmonious.’ (Rv33). The list of participants in Un Passant ends with ‘without forgetting the still lifes of M. Jacques François’ (Rv19). Porcheron is more critical ‘Two still lifes by Mr. Jacques Français are not without skill; but why did you sprinkle them with rice powder?’ (Rv28). Laurent-Pichet described no.75 (the Alhambra), but is critical on her still-lifes (Rv60). L’Audience writes ‘it is worth mentioning’ no.75 (Rv34).

Alphonse Legros was mentioned in just 12 reviews. Some make clear that his etchings hung in room 1 (Rv16+35+43), ‘one first encounters the etchings of M. Legros’ (Rv35). Burty speaks of ‘early and late etchings’ (Rv43). Alfred de Lostalot (Rv10) calls them ‘powerfull in their simplicity.’ Rivière reviewed ‘(his) work seems to come from the time of the old masters’ (Rv51). Leroy (Rv44) makes clear he doesn’t like the ‘pretentious etchings of Legros’. Mancino (Rv1) remarks ‘we are very surprised to see the remarkable etchings of M. Legros’. There were 3 reviews that described (shortly) 6 works (Rv20+51+60) and two others are just mentioned (Rv34). Still, most works are identified because of the specific titles in the catalogue.

Ludovic Lepic was mentioned in 24 reviews. L’Audience (Rv34) rendered a concise description ‘Lepic presents a numerous collection of marine paintings, watercolours and etchings’. It is called ‘very varied and interesting’ (Rv47). Lepic showed probably 49 art-works, but just 12 were mentioned and sometimes described in 10 reviews. Only Forcé! (no.111) was more often mentioned (7x) and decribed as large (Rv6+35). Probably this was an exception. Bertall (Rv42) mentions ‘a serie of small conscientious canvasses.’ Mostly his paintings are summarised as ‘his marines’; they were reviewed as ‘luminous and clear seascapes’ (Rv47). Pothey (Rv6) decribed the way he works ‘Every year, Mr. Ludovic Lepic spends five or six months on a laying ship, where he learns about the life of the people at sea. The studies, made on the open sea, which he brings back from these excursions, have a very great character.’ Some make clear that his marine paintings hung in the large second room (Rv16+23+43). But Blémont (Rv35), describing the first room, mentions his etchings, watercolours (of Pompeï) and his marines*.
Lepic is assumed to be ‘one of the organisers’ (Rv12+23). Lepic his works are called ‘moderate’ (Rv29), ‘bourgeois’ (Rv10), ‘(they) are not without merit’ (Rv14), ‘Lepic is precise even in the details’ (Rv60), ‘honest… they would not frighten even the most timid curator’, ‘(they) would be accepted everywhere, even at the official Exhibition‘ (Rv26); Lepic ‘stands out’ (Rv44). Enault (Rv36) writes ‘he is not an intransigeant… for a long time he has appeared in our regular exhibitions with undeniable honour.’ Baignières (Rv41) analysed his motives ‘Lepic renounced the official Salon, without doubt because he could exhibit 30 works at this exposition.’
Note*: Porcheron (Rv28) also seems to locate his marines in room 1, but he seems not very accurate in his allocation of the rooms.

Léopold Levert was only mentioned in the review of Laurent-Pichet (iR437). But even in reviews that sum up most of the partakers, Levert isn’t mentioned (Rv16 +19 +43).

Jean-Baptiste Millet was mentioned in 13 reviews, but none of his works were explicitly reviewed (R90II,p40). Mostly the reviews refer just shortly to his watercolours (Rv1+34). Some mention that his watercolours did hang in room 1 (Rv16+43). Porcheron also mentioned ‘a sepia’ (Rv28).
The watercolours are called ‘a serie of fresh and caressing rustic watercolours’ (Rv35); ‘well thought out, they testify of a real talent’ (Rv41); others are more critical and call them ‘studies’ (Rv16) ‘some very finished, some very primitive’ (Rv43); ‘insignificant’ and he should ‘not attempt watercolour painting’ (Rv28).
Alfred de Lostalot calls his landscapes (among those of others) ‘bourgeois’ and ‘honest’ and mentions ’they would not frighten even the most timid curator’ (Rv10+26). In the same way Pothey calls his works ‘conscientious’ (Rv6).
Laurent-Pichet remarked ‘Jean-Baptiste Millet is unsophisticated. He obeys to the destiny his name carries. He is condemned to work the way he does. And he sees and paints just, he can count on his reputation.’ (Rv60). Some refer to his famous older brother Jean-François Millet (Rv60); by one wrongly called his father (Rv41). In two reviews Millet was just mentioned as partaker (Rv19+31).

Claude Monet was mentioned in 34 reviews. Bertall (Rv42) mentioned ‘Monet is about to become as famous as Manet. Baignières (Rv41) sees him as the successor of Delacroix. Zola calls him ‘surely the head of the group’ (Rv50+54). Some are clear that his paintings were exhibited in room 2 (Rv16+35+43). His Japonnerie (no.153) is most often mentioned (18x) and described. Blémont (Rv35) calls it ‘his most imporatant painting’. Some criticise the colours (Rv36), others the drawing of head and hands (Rv10+47). Many of the other works are summarised as ‘landscapes’, sometimes more specified as ‘views of the Seine near Argenteuil‘ (Rv41). Some paintings are also explicitly mentioned. Dax / Rivière (Rv51) calls no.163 (Le printemps) a masterpiece. Some are critical on his use of colours: ‘He has an unfortunate taste for pinks and blues. Many of his landscapes are loud, fluttering. (Rv32)’; ‘In several other paintings, the artist pushes the decomposition of sunlight too far, the flickering of colours, the shimmering of light. Monet sometimes makes rainbow orgies with all colours and complementary hues. (Rv35)’; ‘Monet shows a collection of bright, explosive landscapes in blue, yelow and much pink. (Rv33)’; ‘His landscapes can’t be found in nature, with these violent tones. (Rv36)’; ’the lila, pink and azur blue landscapes of Monet (Rv45)’. Some are more positive: ‘among the 15 landscapes one finds impressions with astonishing accuracy and tones of rare finesse (Rv47)’; ‘an honest execution, genuine feeling and beautiful light (Rv6)’; ‘an extraordinary brightness. His landscapes are flooded with light. (Rv54)’. Some works could fit at the Salon (no.151+152+154) (Rv33).

Berthe Morisot was mentioned in 34 reviews. Burty (Rv16+43) makes clear that her watercolours and pastels were shown in room 1 (as confirmed by Rv28) and her paintings in room 2, where her small canvasses occupied a panel (Rv21+50+54). The paintings no.167+168+169+178 were noted most often. G. d’Olby (Rv38) praises her Déjeuner sur l ‘herbe (no.169) ‘a feast of spring tones taken from this range melted into tenderness’. Some resemble her with Goya and Manet (Rv6+21+33+60). She is called ’the most daring and skilful of this group of rebels; she is without mercy; she sees everything; she shows everything’ (Rv60). Punch (Rv20) (sarcastically?) mentioned ‘The masterpieces of this gallery are the paintings of Berthe Morisot’. Baignières remarked ‘She pushes the system to its extreme’ (Rv41).
She is often criticised of not finishing her paintings of rendering nothing but studies (Rv10+28+32+35+38+41+47). Some mention the works must be seen from a far distance (Rv33+44). Some praise ‘her delicacy, in this violent surroundings.’ (Rv31), but Wolff remarked ‘Her feminine grace remains unchanged among the excesses of a delerious mind.’ (Rv24).
There were also more positive remarks, even within the more negative reviews: ‘her delicate colour and the joyful boldness with which her brush plays with light’ (Rv10); ‘interior scenes with the most exquisite delicacy’ (Rv16); ‘Gifted with a perception that is sometimes very clear and very sharp and an eye capable of analyzing the most delicate tones and appreciating their relationships’ (Rv36); ‘marked by a very subtle indication of delicately contrasting tones and values’ (Rv38); ‘Nevertheless this lady has a certain sentiment for colour.’ (Rv44); ‘she has an eye with an amazing sensitivity’ (Rv51); ‘delicate and lively portraits’ (Rv52).

Léon Ottin was mentioned in 12 reviews. In two reviews Ottin was just mentioned as partaker (Rv19+31). Some make clear his works hung in room 3* (Rv16+28+43).
His works are called (among those of others) ‘landscapes’ (Rv16), ‘landscapes that… will not frighten anyone’ (Rv33), ‘studies of varied interest’ (Rv43). Some mention him depicting Montmartre (Rv11+60). His works are reviewed in the following way: ’two views of Montmartre who have a certain degree of truthfulness’ (Rv28); ‘It smells nice, like nature.’ (Rv58). Some call his works small (Rv21+58). In 2 reviews Ottin is compared with Giuseppe de Nittis (Rv11+21).
Some don’t see him as an ‘impressionist’: ‘he has only a very weak connection to the intransigeants.’ (Rv51) Laurent-Pichet remarked ‘Constantly protesting against the conventions of the modern school, he returned to the past.’ (Rv60)
Note*: Most works that hung in room 3 were paintings, namely landscapes. None of the reviews connect him with room 1 where many watercolours were hung. So, it is likely that Ottin depicted only (or mostly) paintings, of which most are now lost.

Camille Pissarro was mentioned in 28 reviews. In 16 of them his name is written wrongly. He often is integrated in small lists of the most important partakers (Rv2+3+15+22+52+56) But still, his exhibited paintings are mentioned in just 4 reviews (Rv21+28+35+51) and only Porcheron reviews them a bit more extendedly (Rv28). Some make clear that his paintings hung in room 3 (Rv16+35+43), but Porcheron seems to place him in room 1 (Rv28). Burty (Rv43) calls him the great high priest of the school of the Intransigeants. Zola (Rv50) calls him ‘even more revolutionairy than Monet.’ Ernest Fillonneau (Rv47) reviewed ‘Pissarro his landscapes are uniformly blue, yellow and violet. In which country does nature look like this?’ Emile Porcheron (Rv28) reviewed ‘His sheep are orange and blue, the trees are blue, the field is blue, everything is blue.’ Some others also criticised his use of colour, namely his dominant blues (Rv21+24+31+33+36). But Zola (Rv54) remarks ‘(his) colourful landscapes may confuse the uninitiated’. Porcheron (Rv28) also criticises his sketchy way of painting: ‘In another painting he renders 3 strokes depicting a tree and two men.’ Some others make similar remarks (Rv20). Some make clear that several of his paintings depicted Pontoise (Rv34).

Auguste Renoir was mentioned in 33 reviews. He often is integrated in small lists of the most important partakers (Rv2+3+17+52+56) Burty (Rv43) calls him ’the most vigorous artist’. Rivière (Rv51) calls him ‘a painter of light’. In several reviews he is labelled as a portraitist or figure painter. Some make clear that his paintings hung in the large second room (Rv16+35+43). Dolent (Rv58) mentions his pastel (no.226); it is possible this one hung in room 1. His nude torso (no.212) is reviewed most often (12x). Some are very negative ‘purplish tones of rotting flesh’ (Rv36+24), others are  more positive ‘a delicate model with harmonious colours’ (Rv47), ‘done with superb colours.’ (Rv6). In several reviews his use of colour is criticised (Rv24+29+36+41+42). Still, one remarks ‘Renoir uses a relatively sober coloration.’ (Rv33) and another ‘(Renoir is) a little dull in tone’ (Rv47). Blémont (Rv35) calls no.225 ‘a velvet harmony’. Zola (Rv50+54) praises ‘A range of light tones dominates his work, the transitions between them arranged with superb harmony.’

Henri Rouart was mentioned in 12 reviews. In one review he was just mentioned as partaker (Rv19). Le Siècle mentions Rouart as one of the 8 explicitly mentioned organisers (Rv2). Some make clear his works hung in room 3 (Rv16+28+43). Alfred de Lostalot calls his landscapes (among those of others) ‘bourgeois’ and ‘honest’ and mentions ’they would not frighten even the most timid curator’ (Rv10 +26). In the same way Chaumelin remarks ’they will not frighten anyone’ (Rv33) and Pothey calls them ‘conscientious’ (Rv6). Leroy called him a ‘reasonable artists’ (Rv44). His ‘works are not without merit’ (Rv14). One review remarked ‘he shows locations in Brittany and Normandy‘ (Rv34). The only work explicitly referred to is no.217 (sic) ’there is one important one no.217 (=?no.231); with a few well given touches, this landscape would be finished off nicely.’ (Rv28).

Alfred Sisley was mentioned in 24  reviews. He is integrated in small lists of the most important partakers (Rv2+3+15+19+52). Some make clear his works hung in room 2 (Rv16+28+43). He is valued as ‘more balanced, varied and complete’ than Pissarro (Rv21+47+50).
Mostly his works are summarised in ‘his landscapes’ and then some mention 1, 2 or 3 works and shortly remark on it. Only his Inondations à Port-Marly (no.244) is extendedly mentioned (11x) and also described. It is called by Bigot (Rv32) as ‘maybe it is the best piece at this exposition.’ And Ernest Fillonneau (Rv47) remarked ’the transparency of the water and the general tone of the study are the result of a trained eye and a trained hand.’ Chaumelin (Rv33) is more negative and calls his landscapes ‘are a radical mess.’ In some reviews his name is wrongly written (Rv6+33+38).

Charles Tillot his works were not specifically reviewed (R90II,p46), still he was mentioned in 10 reviews. Some make clear his landscapes did hang in the 3rd room (Rv16+43+28). Mostly Tillot is mentioned as one of several landscapers, who are shortly remarked at. Alfred de Lostalot calls his landscapes (among those of others) ‘bourgeois’ and ‘honest’ (Rv10). In the same way Chaumelin remarks ’they will not frighten anyone’ (Rv33). And Baignères calls them ‘ordinary’ (Rv41). Pothey ‘conscientious’ (Rv6). By Leroy Tillot is called ‘reasonable’ (Rv44). Porcheron is most explicit ‘We wonder why Tillot, who produces paintings reminiscent of the style of old masterpieces, has been counted among the impressionists.’ (Rv28) Some explicitly mention his rendering of ’the views and the cliffs of Villers-sur-mer.’ (Rv34+41). Burty calls him ’the pupil and disinterested friend of Th. Rousseau;’ (Rv43)

Note: the number of times a partaker is mentioned may not be entirely correct; I didn’t double check. But, overall it renders a reliable impression.

 

What is said about the group?:
Here below you will find several remarks in a chronological order. For a summary see the main page on the 2nd ‘impressionist’ exposition.
Mancino (Rv1) praises the ‘virile and dignified stance of independence’.
Le Siècle (Rv2) recommands their independance.
Blavet (Rv4) remarked ‘2nd exposition of the ‘Realist painters’. They are no rebels, at most dissidents.’
Pothey (Rv6) finds this exposition much more interesting than the first. The independent expositions merits encouragement. They are ironically called impressionalistes and intransigeants, while all together they search independance. (…) They have worked for 15 or 20 years already and their works are bought by art-lovers.
Alfred de Lostalot (Rv10) remarked ‘This exposition renders a totaly other sentiment at the public than the former one.’
Le Masque de Fer (Rv11) remarked ‘(they) work outside the accepted conditions, according to the customary rules.’
Le Petit Journal (Rv12) cals them independant painters, who refuse to present their works to the jury of the Salon.
Burty (Rv16) remarked ’this free exposition’ and (Rv43) wrote about ‘an independent body of artists’. He calls them ‘honest earnest-minded, hard-working, original young artists’; forming an association for their mutual benefit. Altogether the Intransigeants have earned an undoubted victory, which is the assertion of realism.
Zola (Rv22) remarked ‘They are the intransigeants of painting, the revolutionairies of drawing, who have the ambition to render above all the impression true to nature. (…) One starts to recognize the names of Monet, Renoir, Degas, Pinarro (sic), Béliard, who are maybe the masters of tomorrow.’ Later (Rv50) he remarked ‘The exposition of a small group of innovators, called ‘les intransigéants’, maybe because they don’t submit to the Salon again. They are also called impressionists… For me they are simply a group of naturalist painters who directly study nature.’ Zola (Rv50+54) writes about ‘6 or 7 artists that lead this movement’ and then reviews 8 artists: Béliard, Caillebotte, Degas, Monet, Morisot, Pissarro, Renoir and Sisley. And adds ‘This revolutionairy movement will surely transform the French school within 50 years (Rv50) within 20 years (Rv54).’ In another review he added ‘A group of young painters have vowed to stop sending paintings to the official exhibition, whose doors have been systematically closed to them for several years now. They now organise every Spring their own independent exposition. One cannot doubt we are witnessing the birth of a new school. In this group a revolutionary ferment is revealed which will litle by litle win over the Academy of Beaux-Arts itself, and in 20 years will transform the Salon from which today the innovators are excluded. We can say that Manet, the first, set the example. A dozen artists follow him in assaulting the sacred rules. Some of the paintings at the Salon already copy the new school.’
Wolff (Rv24) writes ‘There are 5 or 6 aliens, of which one is a woman. They merely throw paint on the canvas. They complete lack artistic education.’
Alfred de Lostalot (Rv26) writes about ‘a free exposition of the new religion with revolutionaire tendencies, called impressionist or ‘impressionaliste’ or intransigeants.’
Maillard (Rv27) finds no doctrine, idea or method in the new school. The only thing in common is their avoidance of the jury (of the Salon).
Porcheron (Rv28) claims they are ‘without talent, without training’.
Bigot (Rv32) remarked ‘This system of paintings misses a fertile principle.’
Chaumelin (Rv33) remarked ‘They hate the classical traditions and want to seperate from the Academy and the state. They all have left for the ‘école des taches’, of which Manet is the founder.’
L’Audience (Rv34) reviewed ‘The group distinguishes itself by its complete departure from convention and classicism, they attempt to open new ways and are concerned with… displaying movement, realism and the impression…’
Baignières (Rv41) reviewed ’they break off all dealings with anything official or academic.’
Rivière (Rv51) remarked ‘The intransigéants cause a revolution just like the one of 1830, but more violently and overall.’ And later: ‘The unifying idea of this exposition is a profound individuality. This is not only a new school, but also a new step towards the truth no one should ignore…’

Some partakers are not calculated as ‘impressionists’ or ‘intransigeants’, namely Béliard, Bureau, Cals, Desboutin, Lepic, Millet, Ottin, Rouart and Tillot.

Some partakers are attributed a special role:
L’Audience (Rv34) calls Caillebotte is called the ‘primus interpares’ (Rv34) and ‘The success of the exhibition’ (Rv10;Rv43).
Claretie mentions Degas is mentioned as the leader of the groupe (Rv17;Rv31;Rv41). Bagnières (Rv41) called Degas ’the pontificate of the sect of the intransigent impressionists’. Enault (Rv36) remarks ‘Degas is perhaps one of the most intransigent of this intransigent company’.
Rivière (Rv51) mentioned ‘First in line is M. Desboutins (sic), not that his exhibition is the most extensive, but it is the most complete.’
Some reviews assumed Lepic was one of the organisers (Rv12+23).
Zola calls Monet ‘surely the head of the group’ (Rv50+54). Baignères calls Monet ’the dazzling colorist of the club’ and sees him as the successor of Delacroix. (Rv41).
Morisot is called ’the most daring and skilful of this group of rebels’ (Rv60); ‘She pushes the system to its extreme’ (Rv41).
Burty (Rv43) calls Pissarro, the great high priest of the school of the Intransigeants. Zola (Rv50) calls him ‘even more revolutionairy than Monet.’
Burty (Rv43) calls Renoir ’the most vigorous artist’.
Le Siècle mentions Rouart as one of the 8 explicitly mentioned organisers (Rv2).

Some partakers are mentioned in the title of some reviews, which suggests a more important role (I use the correct writing): Degas (by Claretie in Rv17*); Monet, Pissarro, Sisley, Renoir, Caillebotte, Degas, Morisot (by Castagnary in Rv52**).
In the reviews also some other artists are mentioned:  Courbet (Rv4+31+33+38+52+54), J.F. Millet (Rv11+18+32+41+52+60), de Nittis (Rv11+21+32), Daumier (Rv6), Delacroix (Rv1+18+32+41+52), Ingres (Rv41), Rousseau (Rv1+18+32+52), Corot (Rv1+32+38), Chintreuil (Rv32), Daubigny (Rv31), Diaz (Rv1+21), Dupré (Rv1), Troyon (Rv1), Decamps (Rv1+32), Barye (Rv52), Jongkind (Rv1), Fromentin (Rv9+54), Bouguereau (Rv31), Cabanel (Rv31+60), Flandrin (Rv4+60), Rembrandt (Rv38+51), Frans Hals (Rv51), Goya (Rv21), Velasquez (Rv60) and also the English Pre-Raphaelites (Rv53+61).
But most of all  Manet is mentioned (Rv7+8+14+37+57) and identified as an important influencer: Bertall (Rv42) sees him as the initiator, master and high priest of this school. Leroy (Rv44) calls him the ‘head of the Impressionists’. Alfred de Lostalot (Rv26) calls him the acknowledged and recognised leader of this new school. Zola (Rv54) calls him ’the first, (who) set the example’. Boubée (Rv29) calls him their great master, but also sees him as more moderate. Chaumelin (Rv33) calls him the founder of the ‘école des taches’. G. d’Olby (Rv38) calls him the forerunner of the ‘naturalist or realist school’. R.M. (Rv56) calls him ’the great leader of the ‘new religion’.

 

What is said about the exhibited art-works?:
Many exhibited art-works are not mentioned at all. Many works are implied in an overall description: ’the marines of Lepic…’ or ’the landscapes of ‘… mentioning the honest landscapes of Lepic, Rouart, Tillot, Cals and B.Millet.’ Of many works just the title is rendered. On many works just a small remark is made. Some works are shortly or more extendedly described.
Some works are often mentioned in the reviews: Japonnerie (no.153) of Monet (26x); Raboteurs de Parquets (no.17+18) of Caillebotte (21x); Nouvelle-Orléans (no.36) of Degas (16x); 2x Jeune homme… (no.19+20) of Caillebotte (13x); the Etude (no.212) of Renoir (12x); Inondations à Port-Marly (no.244) of Sisley (11x)*.
Some works received special remarks:
Rivière (Rv51) highly praised no.77 of Jacques François: ‘It is a masterpiece without precedent. Never has a still life been done with this spirit and in this style. It is an extraordinary work and opens a new way to the still life’.
Bigot (Rv32) reviews Sisley his Inondations à Port-Marly (no.244) as ‘maybe it is the best piece at this exposition.’
Note: Berson claims Blanchisseuses (no.41) of Degas was mentioned 12 times, but I think this term is often used as a summation, just like ‘dancers’.
Note: For more info see the accounts of the partakers.

 

What is said about the painting style?
Here below you will find several remarks on the painting style. For a summary see the main page on the 2nd ‘impressionist’ exposition, See also an overview of the reviews of all 8 expositions.
Mancino (Rv1) criticises the partakers as being devoid of any creative thought, of any knowledge of composition, of any trace of drawing, of the least notion of perspective, of any anatomical knowledge, of any virtuose brushwork.’
Pothey (Rv6) remarked ‘They are ironically called impressionalistes and intransigeants, while all together they search independance. For the most part they depart from the standard methods, but they add a personal kind of drawing, a virile execution and render a new kind of expression.’
Le Petit Moniteur universel (Rv14) wrote ‘They only show sketches of which the colour is as poor as the drawing’.
Burty (Rv16) reviewed: The idea that dominates in this group is the research for the light and the effects of ‘plein air’, the iridescence of colour. He later (Rv43) reviewed: Their method ‘consists in studying nature en her varies aspects, chiefly in the open air… intruducing man, his passions, his allusions, his feelings, into the midst of this everlastingly impassive nature.’
Silvestre (Rv21) reviewed ‘This interesting school uses a method of simplification using elementary harmonies; less worried about form, it is exclusively decorative and colourfull. They seek the direct impression from nature en plein air using bright and charming hues, nice and vibrant tones, a whole new palette.’
Zola (Rv22) remarked ‘They … have the ambition to render above all the impression true to nature.’ Later (Rv50) he remarked ‘They are also called impressionists, because some among them above all want to render the impression of beings and things. For me they are simply a group of naturalist painters who directly study nature.’ In another review (Rv54) Zola quotes Duranty approvingly, that the crucial issues were those of coloration, drawing and a serie of original views. But, Zola seems to have a preference for the colorists over the draftsmen. He criticises the more finished works of Béliard, Caillebotte and Degas, whereas Duranty is highly positive on Caillebotte and Degas. He also writes ‘The artists I am talking about are called “impressionists” because the most of them make a visible effort to communicate above all the true impression given by things and beings; they want to grasp it and reproduce it directly, without losing themselves in unimportant details, that remove all the fresness of the personal and lively observation. But each, gladly, has his own original feature, his particular way of looking and transferring the reality.’
La Liberté (Rv23) remarked ‘They find it sufficient to indicate certain effects on a sketch to give an idea of the value of the painting.’ and writes about ‘paintings with awful, clashing colours, sketches with revoltingly brutal brushstrokes.’
Vachon (Rv25) criticises ‘(they) do everything contrary to what others do, without worrying in the least about good senes or truth. They paint the trees red or yellow, the houses indigo, the waters crimson or red. … they are jokers.’
Alfred de Lostalot (Rv26) reviewed: This new school eliminates all that is convention; they focus on emotion, on the impression of the moment and use the most simple means. Everything for the eye, nothing for the thought. The impressionist school chases the various effects of light.
Baron Schop (Rv31) reviewed ‘The search for light, and its blossoms and its iridescence, that is the peak of their art. This process of patient analyses in which they make ranges (of colour), follow the vibrations, study the intimite reports of various tonalities. They are in line with Manet (and Wagner in music). They should refrain from using dramatic effects and illusions, and restrict to intellectual realism. They represent the plein air, a product of nature and a direct reaction. They are against the Institute’s painting, academic and polished, against the satiny smoothness of Bouguereau and the sentimentality of Cabanel, against the banality of refinements and the vulgarity of cheap tricks. Their goal is simplification and rudimentary harmonies. They disdain form and deliberately decapitate an ideal for greater strength and virility.’
Bigot (Rv32) reviewd ‘They are called impressionists because they mainly want to render an impression of nature. They are also called ‘intentionnistes’ and ‘intransigeants’. They react against the black paintings made in studios, against polished paintings. They are namely influenced by Rousseau, Corot and Chintreuil. They exclude shadows, soften the contours, melt the colours, juxtapose hues side by side. These new realists render the objects as they appear in the distance, only rendering the essential.’ And later ‘The study in the landscape genre, even though she is a bit vague, still manages to please sometimes; we never look at all the details in nature; it is sufficient that some lines attract our attention, that some bright spots shine here and there. The human figure supports this genre less, and it is here that the incurable vice of this system appears.’
Enault (Rv34) remarks ‘one doesn’t find a smooth, correct and pure line and no harmonious colours.’
Blémont (Rv35) reviewed: What is an Impressionist? “They, using various methods of execution, follow a same goal: to render with absolute sincerity, without adjustment or mitigation, by simple and broadly applicable methods, the impression awakened in them by aspects of reality.” Art is not for them a meticulous and scrupulous imitation of what was once called “the good nature”. They don’t imitate, they translated, they interpret, they strive to bring out the resultant of the lines and multiple colours that the eye perceives at a glance when looking at an object. They are synthetists, not analists. They render their personal and direct sensation. In theory we aprove fully. But, the execution is something else. This is not always according their intentions. Still, they are free.’
G. d’Olby (Rv38) reviewed ‘(they) are directly inspired by nature; their eye only sees … a whole of an impression, the spectrum … the simplifications of form.’ And he writes about ‘delicately contrasting tones and values… that seems empty, hollow and mediocrely substantial’ to the visitor. He ends with ‘Manet, Rembrant and Corot used a system of symplification, which were the result of a profound study, which aims to summarise an impression through its dominant characteristics, by clearing away unnecessary details, or which undermine the unity of effect.’ But, he didn’t find this at this exhibition.
Baignières (Rv41) reviewed ‘They have established as a system the theory of the impression. They confine oneself to a truthful rendering of what the eye sees, a sort of telegraphic mechanism.’ And later ‘The theory here displayed starts from a true principle: the love for nature. But, loving and observing is not sufficient, one has to work and study. The system of the impressionist has the allure of dispensing with the need to learn.’
Bertall (Rv42) reviewed: For it is their impressions that they claim to portray to us. They use a feverish brush dipped in the most vivid and incoherent colours. They use a clash of colours without form and harmony, without perspective and without drawing. They abolish half-tones, paint the trees pink and the hair blue.’
Cherbuliez (Rv55) writes of ‘paintings that are not more than sketches’ and ‘They don’t render what they have seen, but what they have sensed, like symbols, rendering red trees, pink grass and lilac sky.’
Henry James (Rv61) wrote ’the painter’s proper field is simply the actual, and to give a vivid impression of how a thing happens to look at a particular moment’. He makes clear that they loosely treat a subject and render a general expression. (R1,p370/1)

Some art-critics criticise the use of colour:
Sir Frac (Rv18) writes of ‘excesses of colour and fanciful shapes’
Wolff (Rv24) remarked ‘There doesn’t excits a landscape as painted by Pisarro (sic) with violet trees and skys of fresh butter.’
Maillard (Rv27) accuses them of excessive use of colour.
Porcheron (Rv28) writes ‘Pissarro… his sheep are orange and blue, the trees are blue, the field is blue, everything is blue.’
Schop (Rv31) writes of ‘excessive colouring’.
Eanult (Rv34) remarked ‘Pissarro has to wear decolouring spectacles to really see the joy of nature.’
G. d’Olby (Rv38) marked on Pissarro and Monet: ‘Their palette evokes the intense tones of the solar spectrum, conveying impressions from nature that don’t appear to this world. (…) The objects are seen as if through a prism that breaks light down into its primary colours.’

 

Short summaries of more than one review:
Some art-critics published more than one article, in total this was 25% of the reviews: Bertall (Rv42***); Blémont (Rv35*** +40); Burty (Rv16** +43***); Leroy (Rv44** +45***); A. de L. (=Alfred de Lostalot) (Rv10** +26**); Punch (Rv15* +20**), Rivière (Rv51***), Zola (Rv22* +50** +54***).

Bertall (=Rv42***) (=Charles-Albert d’Arnoux) his review was published, in 3 journals (R90I,p55-59). Namely in Paris-Journal and Le Soir (1876/04/15) and, with small alterations, in Les Beaux-Arts (1876; 44-45). He calls the partakers, this strange madness,  ‘les impressionnalistes’. For it is their impressions that they claim to portray to us. They use a feverish brush dipped in the most vivid and incoherent colours. He sees Manet as the initiator, master and high priest of this school. They use a clash of colours without form and harmony, without perspective and without drawing. They abolish half-tones, paint the trees pink and the hair blue.
He remarks that Monet** is about to become as famous as Manet and criticises his numbers 148** +150** +157**.
Morisot also threatens to become a big celebrity too; he refers (sarcasticly?) to no.173 +168.
Degas** shows a washerwoman with a black arm like a coalminer (no54?**).
He mentions the portrait of a man by Renoir* with green hair and a pink beard (no.214?**).
Caillebotte* is known for scorning perspective, like in no.17* +18** +19* +21*.
Desboutin* shows some successful studies and well painted and his etchings well drawn and with a warm colour.
Lepic* shows a serie of small conscientious canvasses.

Emile Blémont (pseudonym of Emile Petitdidier; R2,p152) his review 1876/04/09 in Le Rappel was called “Les Impressionnistes” (=Rv35***) (R90I,p62-64). Since the first day there is a large crowd of visitors. 18 or 20 painters exhibited. The form a group called the Impressionists. What is an Impressionist? “They, using various methods of execution, follow a same goal: to render with absolute sincerity, without adjustment or mitigation, by simple and broadly applicable methods, the impression awakened in them by aspects of reality.” Art is not for them a meticulous and scrupulous imitation of what was once called “the good nature”. They don’t imitate, they translated, they interpret, they strive to bring out the resultant of the lines and multiple colours that the eye perceives at a glance when looking at an object. They are synthetists, not analists. They render their personal and direct sensation. In theory we aprove fully. But, the execution is something else. This is not always according their intentions. Still, they are free.
In the first room one first encounters the etchings** of M. Legros**, send in from London.
Lepic* also shows nice etchings*, watercolours depicting Pompei (no.124/5*), remarkable marines* and a large “Sanglier” (no.111*).
Mr. Jean-Baptiste Millet* has given a serie of fresh and caressing rustic watercolours*.
M. Desboutin** shows numerous dry point studies (no.67-70*), vigorous portraits and a genre painting, which is quite big for it’s subject (no.63***)
In the second room we find the exhibition of M. Claude Monet***. His most important painting is no.153***. Among his remarkable landscapes are no.151**, no.154**, no.161**, no.158* +150* +149*. We like less no.159**. In several other paintings**, the artist pushes the decomposition of sunlight too far, the flickering of colours, the shimmering of light. Monet sometimes makes rainbow orgies with all colours and complementary hues.
The large painting of Renoir** (no.225**) is of a velvet harmony. He makes short positive remarks by his portraits no.220** +211/214** +223** +?215-217* +212**.
Morizot** (sic) shows studies of women, landscapes and marines with a fine charm, when the indications are not too blurred or too sketchy.
No. 244*** of Sisley** is of great value. Also nice canvasses are no.240* +239/243* +hc**.
Caillebotte** is a newcomer. His no.20** +19** +17/18** ‘are strikingly modern and in certain passages are firmly modelled. They are full of truth, life, and of a simple and frank intimacy. One of the paintings Caillebotte shows us here was not admitted by the jury last year; a very bad mark for the official jury!’
In the 3rd room we find the submissions of Degas**. I particularly recommend his groups of yellow and pink dancers**; they have an appeal of a captivating realism. His Ironers are not inferior to his Dancers. But if we find excellent sketches, we have not seen a really finished painting by M. Degas, whose submission of the rest is still incomplete.
The manner of M. Pissaro* (sic) pleases us much less. In his painting of a mist (no199**) , one sees just mist. His Paysanne (no.207*) is a little better.
M. Béliard*’s landscapes, “Bords de l’Oise (no.1**), la Jetée (?no5**), Fabriques (no.2**)”, are of a fair and pleasant feeling, with a lot of air and depth.
Let us also note the views on Montmartre by M. Ottin*, some studies by M. Cals*; at last a large still life and a nice figure of a young woman (no.76**), signed by Jacques-François*.
We hope that this free enterprices has a fortunate influence.
Note: this review is, after an introduction, reprinted in Le Moniteur Universel (1876/04/11 =Rv40↓)

Philippe Burty published 1876/04/01 a review in La Republique française called “Chronique du jour” (R90I,p105-106;R2,p153 =Rv16**). A more extended review was published 1876/04/15 in The Academy (London) called “Fine Art: The Exhibition of the ‘Intransigeants’ “ (R90I,p64-66;R2,p153-155 =Rv43***). It is well posible that both reviews were written based on a visit the 30th of March. We will start with this last one.
Burty 2: Though published the 15th, the review was dated the first. ‘The exposition by ‘an independent body of artists’ was opened the day before yesterday. Burty admits that he ‘personally sympathises with the feelings that prompt these artists’. He calls them ‘honest earnest-minded, hard-working, original young artists’; forming an association for their mutual benefit. He claims that this present attempt is much better received than the first. He remarks ‘The rooms are very spacious and well lighted’. In the first room were portraits, dry-point engravings by Desboutin*; early and late etchings by Legros*; drawings of  dancers by Degas* (no.51*); watercolours, some very finished, some very primitive, by Jean-Baptiste Millet*; clever water-colour and pastel studies by Morizot* (sic) (no.179-182*).
In the next room some delicious oil-paintings by Morizot**, namely no.178** +167/168***;  sea-pieces by Lepic* come next; then portraits and figures by Renoir*, the most vigorous artist; landscapes by Sisley* and Moriet* (sic); by the latter also no.153***.
Their method ‘consists in studying nature en her varies aspects, chiefly in the open air… intruducing man, his passions, his allusions, his feelings, into the midst of this everlastingly impassive nature.’
Caillebotte**… who makes his first appearance in this exhibition ‘has attracted a great deal of attention. His pictures are original in their composition, but, more than that, so energetic as to drawing… their faithful representation of life.’ He send in no.17/18*** +20*** +19**.
The third room contains landscapes by Tillot*  … Pissarro*, the great high priest of the school of the Intransigeants; other studies of varied interest by Ottin*, Cals*, Ronard* (sic), Beliard*; some natures mortes by a woman of society who adopts the pseudonym of Jacques François**. ‘Then, finally, there are several sketches and a picture by M. Degas**, who introduces himself to the London public at M. Deschamps’ exhibition. (…) He more often throws his sketches on to the canvas than takes time to finish them; but these in themselves are sufficient to prove the power of his imagination, his science, his intimate acquaintance with modern life, with the gestures, effect, the athletics… His eye is true. The vigorous stroke of his pencil and the truth of his colour-indications show the talent of a master.’ One such finished painting is no.36**. Altogether the Intransigeants have earned an undoubted victory, which is the assertion of realism.
Burty 1: The review in La Republique française seems to be part of a larger review. The exposition opened yesterday and takes place in 3 large galleries of Durand-Ruel. The entrance was not at the rue Lafitte, but at the rue Le Peletier. It contains 240 submissions by 19 partakers. They are, with a view exceptions the same as at the boulevard des Capucines*. Burty refers to insults and denigrations they received in 1874. There are more and more varied works. The idea that dominates in this group is the research for the light and the effects of ‘plein air’, the iridescence of colour.
One sees at this free exposition in the first room engravings of Desboutins (sic) and Legros; studies in watercolour and with pencil by Morizot (sic), Degas and Millet.
In the large gallery marines by Lepic*; exquisite interiors by Morizot* (sic), portraits by Renoir*, landscapes by Sisley* and Monet* and also no.153* and no.17/18* by Caillebotte*, whose debut renders a sensation.
At last in the 3rd room landscapes by Tillot*, Pissarro*, Cals*, Rouard* (sic), Beliard* and Ottin*; the remarkable Natures mortes, by a lady who took the pseudonym of Jacques-François* and a serie of paintings by Degas*; no.36* and washerwomen and dancers.
This exposition is really interesting.
Note*: In fact 18 of the 31 partakers in 1874 didn’t join in 1876 and there were 6 newcomers.

The two fully different reviews of Louis Leroy were both published the 15th of April.
Leroy 1: In Le journal amusant (Rv44**) Leroy wrote that at the exposition of the impressionists were shown rubbish, splashes dripping with insanity, cascades of tone, simplifications of form. Among the objects meant to tease are portraits and nude studies (no.212*) of Renoir**. His gentleman with green and blue sky hair (?no.214*) has charmed me; the spots like a jaguar have immersed me in a dream, which was worsened by the lila, pink and azur blue landscapes of Monet*. I liked less the two women (no.41/49**) of Mr. Degas** ironing a rock covered with snow in the middle of a forest whose trees are loaded with whitish stalactites. (…) what I thought was a snow-covered forest was actually a laundry room interior. The stalactites of frost would be, they say, starched petticoats suspended on the wall. Pissaro* (sic) and Sisley* do not weaken my impression. Still, no.244* is very right of tone. Morisot** shows a marine with the same formula: The further away the objects are, the more vigorous they must be. This is what the aerial perspective of the impressionists dictates. Nevertheless this lady has a certain sentiment for colour.
There are some reasonable artists: landscapes of Rouart* and Tillot*; Desboutins* (sic) very weak as a painter, but interesting as an etcher; 500 times more my style than the pretentious etchings of Legros*. Lepic also stands out, with his logical canvasses.
At last he refers to Manet as head of the Impressionists.
Leroy 2: In Le Charivari (Rv45**) he cynically presents a pretended dialogues between Bigorneau, Portillon, Ravinard and Miraflores. Bigorneau remarks ‘Our exposition is a success.’ Portillon remarks ‘I have seen enough people laugh before my impressions’. Ravinard replies ‘You will become an artistic curiosity’. Portillon ‘I am sure I will be rejected for the Salon’ Miraflores brings in landscapes and still lifes, but Bigorneau urges him not to show his classical drawings. He criticises ’the unexpected is missing, and so is the impression… Nothing vague or indecisive in your manner. At first glance, we can guess what you wanted to do. … The aim of Impressionist art is not to produce a flat, idiotic representation of nature. … Look at no.49** (of Degas*) an interior with washerwomen that looks like a forest in winter. … Manet*  and Monet* reverse the colours.’ There also is a confusion between a miner and his wife on one site and bags with carbon on the other*. This is solved when he turns the painting right side up. Bigorneau ‘What matters is there is an impression!’
Note*: as far as I know this doesn’t refer to one of the exhibited paintings or it still refers to no.49 of Degas.

A. de L. (=Alfred de Lostalot) wrote two reviews. One was published 1876/04/01 in La Chronique des arts et de la curiosité (Rv10** ) and one 1876/04/04 in Le Bien public (Rv26**).
A. de L. 1: In his first review De Lostalot mentions a small group of artists called the impressionists. This exposition renders a totaly other sentiment at the public than the former one. One can find in the works exhibited the manifestation of a very real talent. These intransigeant artists seemed to have rebelled against the good taste and they despised everything except rendering a sensory impression.
The success of the exhibition seems to be a newcomer, Caillebotte**. ‘He refers to no.19** +17** +18** +20** and remarks ‘he creates scenes using a bizarre perspective. As a painter and draftsman, however, he returns shamelessly to the conservative ranks of the good school, that of knowledge…’ In his no.153** Monet** didn’t pay much attention to the head and hands. His landscapes render seldom the impression of nature. We will say the same about those of Pissarro* and Sisley*, except maybe Maisons sur les bords de la Marne (hc2*); a repetition of one of his best works. Renoir* disrupts his subject to soon, but L. finds in no.212* and 223* real qualities. The talent of Mlle Berthe Morisot* inspire us to the same reflexions (as rendered with Renoir); it is quite regrettable, given her delicate colour and the joyful boldness with which her brush plays with light, to see this artist give up her work when it is only barely sketched because she is so easily satisfied with it. Degas* shows quick silhouettes of washerwomen and more finished studies of dancers. La Boutique de marchand de coton at Nouvelle-Orléans (no.36**) is also a good painting, which has nothing to do with the revolutionaire methods. In the same bourgeois range one finds honest landscapes of Lepic*, Rouart*, Tillot*, Cals* and Millet*. Last but not least the originale etchings of Legros*, that are powerfull in their simplicity. M. Desboutin* has a collection of his portraits done in dry point, among others, the one of J. Jacquemart (no.71**), which was made for the Gazette des Beaux-Arts and our readers were able to appreciate the skillful craftsmanship, so expressive in its concision.’
In a footnote Alfred de Lostalot remarks that the catalogue hadn’t been written yet. (R90I,p86-87;R2,p156+169).
A. de L. 2: 3 days later his second review was published called “L’Exposition des ‘impressionnistes’ “. A very original (and free) exposition has just opened. He writes about a free exposition of the new religion with revolutionaire tendencies, called impressionist or ‘impressionaliste’ or intransigeants. Manet is the acknowledged and recognised leader. This new school eliminates all that is convention; they focus on emotion, on the impression of the moment and use the most simple means. Everything for the eye, nothing for the thought. The impressionist school chases the various effects of light.
Let us look at no.153* of Monet*, the studies of dancers by Degas*, no.212* of Renoir*, no.178* of Morizot* (sic); they are excellent pieces of painting. Caillebotte** is the success of the exposition, though he uses bizar perspectives, he would be distinguished at the official Salon. Also Sisley*, Cals* and Rouart* are keen to demonstrate their knowledge. The honest paintings of Bureau*, Lepic*, Desboutin* and Millet* would not frighten even the most timid curator. At last I like to note the powerfull and plain etchings of Legros*. (R90I,p87-88;R2,p156)

Punch (=Gaston Pérodeaud aka Gaston Vassy) published two reviews in l’Evénement, the first and the second of April.
Punch 1: The first (=Rv15*) is part of a large review and contains short remarks. “Attention all lovers of comical things! Tomorrow starts … the exposition of impressionists, of Pizarro (sic), Claude Monet, Renoir, Sisley, Desboutins (sic) and namely Mme Berthe Moriceau (sic)…” I will talk more of this bizar gallery in the next edition. (R90I,p104-105;R2,p158,note24)
Punch 2: The second (=Rv20**) called “La Journée à Paris: L’Exposition des impressionnistes”. The exposition of the School of impressionists … is much more amusing than the Salon. It consists of about 150* paintings placed within 3 large rooms. He mentions some ‘less bad’ works: a portrait and le Cours d’anatomie* (of Legros no.83-6** +81-6**); a large painting of Desboutins* (sic) (no.63***); The masterpieces** of this gallery are the paintings of Mme Berthe Morizot** (sic); he namely describes ‘a young woman seen from the back, at the seashore, waiting for the arrival of a steam boat. She has straw-coloured hair, enough to make a horse hungry.’ (no.177***) No less estonishing is ‘le Falot‘* of Lepic* (no.113??*). This latern (?) looks like preserved fruit…  He shortly describes a flood by Sisley* (no.244**). Another remarkable painting is the large Japanese (no.153**) of Monet*. Pizarro** (sic) renders a dozen spots of which it is unclear which impression he renders. (R90I,p105;R2,p158,note24)
Note*: in fact there were 252 catalogue numbers; probably these reviews were written before the catalogue was published. This could also explain why some titles are rendered incorrectly.
Note**: probably meant sarcastically.

Gustave or George Rivière published 1876/04/13 in L’Esprit moderne an article called “Les Intransigeants de la peinture”; this review is not located (R90I,p106), but reprinted 1876/05/01 in L’Artiste, under the pseudonym Pierre Dax, where it was part of a larger review (R90I,p70-71 =Rv51***). Note: in the overview I follow the date of 1876/05/01 and render it Rv51, but in fact it was first published earlier, a chronology I use here.
It starts with ‘The exhibition that is bound to open…’*. This group of artists move on a new road with such perseverance and sincerity that they will triumph. Les intransigéants cause a revoltion just like the one of 1830, but more violently and overall. There are about 20* partakers…, all don’t show their masterpieces.
‘First in line is M. Desboutins*** (sic), not that his exhibition is the most extensive, but it is the most complete. M. Desboutins (sic) is not a rebel (intransigeant) in the strictest sense of the word. He has preserved the great artistic traditions, and you can sense in his work a deep knowledge of the masters that does not detract from his originality. His Intérieur* is in line with Frans Hals (Rivière describes no.63*** and no.61***) in a solid and amusing style. There is also a very beautiful and fresh portrait of a woman (no66**), and a portrait of a young man (no.62**), furthermore an old dilettante / art-lover pushed as far as one of his beautiful dry points (?hc**).’
Degas** is a master observer and an impeccable draftsman as our time produces few. No.36*** is very estonishing. Les Danseuses (among them a photograph of a painting (??hc). Les blanchisseuses can’t be described, you have to see them.
Caillebotte** is a pupil of Degas. Le Canotier* half-reclining near a table (?no.24**), is his best painting; no.19** has great qualities; just like no.17/18**, which has an unquestionable stamp of originality. In no.20** shows a landscapist with talent.
Renoir** is a painter of light. No.225** is dazzling; he shows a head of a young girl (?no.217*), a portrait of an old man (?no.214/211*) and of his own (hc*), which are quite remarkable. In his Peintre* (no.224*), some parts are that of a master.
The landscapes of Monet** are very beautiful; no.163** is a masterpiece; des Enfants dans les champs* (no.?154*), a bridge near Paris (no.152/156*) dazzle with light. No.161*** has a special effect. No.162* is also very remarkable. No.153* I note without understanding.
Sisley*’s landscapes are all remarkable, but no.244* sums up all the qualities to a very high degree.
Some of the marines of Lepic* have great qualities; his beaupré  (no.110*) is very original.
Morisot* has an eye of remarkable sensitivity, all her landscapes are charming. No.169* is a rare perl.
Two paintings  of Pissaro* (sic) are very beautiful; a sun (?no.197*) +no199*.
Note some views of Ottin*; but he has only a very weak connection to the intransigeants.
M. Jacques François** (a lady, I believe) exhibited a remarkable still life (no.77***), it is a masterpiece without precedent. Never has a still life been made with this spirit and in this craftsmanship. It is an extraordinary oeuvre that opens a new direction for still life…  Many other still lifes by the same painter contain the same qualities but are not as important. Mr. Jacques François has just given a result from which many artists will certainly benefit.’
Rivière returns to the etchings** of Desboutins** (sic) (no.67-72**); a serie of portraits in dry point, which are marvels of composition and execution. (…) All these masterpieces should be cited, M. Goeneutte, M. R..; Le Faiseur de cigarettes, le Dilettante (the same as the painting l’Imprimeur); the portraits of women.
Lepic* has very good engravings and a remarkable head of a dog made with a procedure he has invented (no.137**).
At last the most original artist of our times, M. Legros**, has exhibited several engravings and some lithographes of a unusual character. No.87* +81-2*** +82*** +83-5*.
The unifying idea of this exposition is a profound individuality. This is not only a new school, but also a new step towards the truth no one should ignore…
Note*: This suggests the review was written much earlier. Maybe even before the catalogue was published because Rivière uses some titles that don’t fit the catalogue. He mentions ‘about 20 partakers’, which would have been clear if the catalogue was already published.
Note**: Rivière had earlier written about his paintings. This suggests they were exhibited in different rooms. He continues with the etchings of Lepic and Legros, which suggests that he reviewed in the end room 1.
See also the discussion by Hollis Clayson (R2,p156/7)

Emile Zola contributed 3 reviews.
Zola 1: The first in Le Sémaphore de Marseille (1876/04/02-03=Rv22*) is part of a larger review and was written the first of April and starts with ‘yesterday opened’ the exposition of the free artists known as the impressionists. They are the intransigeants of painting, the revolutionairies of drawing, who have the ambition to render above all the impression true to nature. There are many visitors. There are works full of talent. One starts to recognize the names of Monet, Renoir, Degas, Pinarro (sic), Béliard, who are maybe the masters of tomorrow. (R90I,p107-108)
Zola 2: The second also in Le Sémaphore de Marseille (1876/04/30 – 05/01 =Rv50***) was written the 29th of April. There are many similarities with the 3rd review, which will be more extendedly rendered (Rv54). The exposition of a small group of innovators, called ‘les intransigéants’, maybe because they don’t submit to the Salon again. They are also called impressionists, because some among them above all want to render the impression of beings and things. For me they are simply a group of naturalist painters who directly study nature.
In the 3 rooms I received a sensation of youth and all works have a charming flavour. I render some notes on the 6 or 7* painters that lead this movement in an alphabetical order.
Mr. Béliard** is a landscaper whose characteristic feature is conscientiousness. One senses in him a careful copyist of nature. He benefits from studying it with perseverance, a powerful robustness that makes his slightest canvases a learned and literal translation. Some of his landscapes (no.4** +1** +7**) are excellent works, solidly built, of an extremely accurate tone, which reach to the ’trompe-l’oeil’ (=highly accurate painting), so faithful are they. My only criticism is that the personality is still a bit lacking*. I would like a flame to rise in all this consciousness, even if this flame were to burn at the expense of truthfulness*.
Caillebotte** showed no. 17/18** +20**, paintings done in astonishingly high perspective. But, because of their precision, the paintings are entirely anti-artistic, clear as glass, bourgeois*. The mere photography of reality is paltry when not enriched by the original stamp of artistic talent.
M. Dagas (sic) renders a firm and individual drawing.
Monet surely is the head of the group.
Morisot shows small paintings
M. Pinarro (sic) is even more revolutionairy than Monet.
Renoir foremost is a figure painter.
Sisley is a landscapist with a large talent… There is an effect of snow with a remarkable truthfulness and solidity (no.237/238/240**).
This revolutionairy movement will surely transform the French school within 50 years.
(R90I,p108-109;R2,p169)
Note*: Zola mentions 6 or 7 leaders of the movement, but reviews 8 artists. He doesn’t make clear who are the leaders.
Zola 3: The third was published in the June number of Le Messager de L’Europe (St.Petersburg) and titled “Deux Expositions d’art au mois de mai” (=Rv54***). This was a slightly different review than Rv50↑.
Other artists also rebelled against the jury’s tyrannical conduct. A group of young painters have vowed to stop sending paintings to the official exhibition, whose doors have been systematically closed to them for several years now*. They now organise every Spring their own independent exposition. One cannot doubt we are witnessing the birth of a new school. In this group a revolutionary ferment is revealed which will litlle by litlle win over the Academy of Beaux-Arts itself, and in twenty years will transform the Salon from which today the innovators are excluded. We can say that Manet, the first, set the example. A dozen artists follow him in assaulting the sacred rules. Some of the paintings at the Salon already copy the new school.
Like Duranty Zola cites parts from a review of Fromentin in Revue des Deux Mondes on the Realist doctrine. Fromentin defends the traditions of the Academie des Beaux-Arts, but the realist painting will conquer, the painting en-plein-air, under the bright sunbeams. The group that exhibits at the rue Le Peletier is at the head of this movement. Zola quotes Duranty approvingly, that the crucial issues were those of coloration, drawing and a serie of original views. But, Zola extendly cites Duranty on the coloration, shortly on drawing and not on the serie of original views (in which Duranty refers to Degas).
The artists I am talking about are called “impressionists” because the most of them make a visible effort to communicate above all the true impression given by things and beings; they want to grasp it and reproduce it directly, without losing themselves in unimportant details, that remove all the fresness of the personal and lively observation. But each, gladly, has his own original feature, his particular way of looking and transferring the reality.
In the first 3 rooms where the paintings are exhibited I received at once an impression of youth, of good faith… Even the errors … have a liberal expression of art. … the art of tomorrow. I render some notes on the 6 or 7 painters that lead this movement in an alphabetical order.
Mr. Béliard** is a landscaper whose characteristic feature is meticulous. One senses in him an applied copyist of nature. Having thoroughly studied, he has acquired a solid touch which makes each of his pictures an erudite and textual translation of nature. Some of his landscapes (no.4** +1** +7**) are excellent choices, perfectly drawn, with a true tone and with an absolute faithfullness. I had liked that an inner flame consumes his scruples, even if this flame were to burn at the expense of truthfulness*.
Caillebotte** showed no. 17/18** +20**, paintings done in astonishingly high perspective. But, because of their precision, the paintings are entirely anti-artistic, clear as glass, bourgeois*. The mere photography of reality is paltry when not enriched by the original stamp of artistic talent.
Degas** has an exploratory spirit, finding occasionally very just and personal things. His Blanchisseuses (?no.41**) are namely striking for their artistic truthfullness: I am not talking about the banal truth, but the great and good truth of art which simplifies and enlarges everything. His Salle de danse (no.44/45**) with students in short skirts trying out steps; has also a great character of originality. This painter has a deep love of modernity, interiors and types of everyday life. What is annoying, though is the way he spoils everthing by finishing his work*. As a result, his best paintings are only sketches. As he completes his work, his draftmanship becomes blurred and pathetic*. He paints pictures like no.36** halfway between a seascape and a plate from an illustrated journal. He has excellent artistic perceptions, but I’m afraid his brush will never be really creative*.
Monet** is undoubtedly the head of the group. His paintings distinquish by an extraordinary brightness. His landscapes are flooded with light. He singles out Japonnerie (no.153**) and La Prairie (no.154**). We mustn’t forget other paintings of Monet, namely the portrait of a woman dressed in white, sitting in the shade of the foliage, her dress strewn with luminous spangles, like large drops.’ (hc**).
Morisot* paints small canvasses, extremely right and delicate. Zola namely likes 3 marines executed with surprising fineness.
Pissarro* is a more fierce revolutionairy than Monet. His painting is more basic and naïve. A glance at its gentle, colourful landscapes may confuse the uninitiated, …
Renoir is a painter who specializes in human figures. A range of light tones dominates his work, the transitions between them arranged with superb harmony. His work like Rubens, illuminated by the brilliant sunlight of Velasquez. He exhibits a very successful portrait of Monet (no.220**). I also liked his Portrait de jeune fille (no.223**) alot; she is a strange and sympathetic figure; with her long face, her red hair, her barely perceptible smile, she looks like some Spanish child.
Sisley** is a landscapist of great talent who has more balanced means than Pissarro. He knows how to reproduce snow with remarkable fidelity and accuracy (no.237/238/240**). No.244** is made with wide brush strokes and delicate colouring.
I will stop here. I am sure the revolutionairy movement will transform the French school within 20** years.
(R90I,p111-113;R2,p149+171+185+186;R1,p372)
Note*: In fact the main Impressionists were (average) as often accepted as rejected for the Salon. Many chose not to submit again. Many other partakers continued exhibiting at the Salon, even in this same year 1876.
Note**: In his former review (Rv50) he wrote about 50 years. The 20 years has proven to be more correct.
A short reflection: These are overall positive reviews. Zola is very optimistic about the future of the group and sees Manet as the forerunner. He quotes Duranty approvingly, that the crucial issues were those of coloration, drawing and choice of modern subject. But, Zola seems to have a preference for the colorists over the draftsmen. He criticises the more finished works of Béliard, Caillebotte and Degas, whereas Duranty is highly positive on Caillebotte and Degas. Clayson affirms this reflection (R2,p149).

 

The first reviews:
The 2nd ‘impressionist’ exposition opened Thursday the 30th of March. Probably it was a pre-opening for selected people like art-critics. In some reviews the following sentence is rendered (or a variation) ‘The exhibition that is bound to open…’ (Rv24 +28 +51). So, probably the official opening was still to come. This must have been Saterday the 1st (or Sunday the 2nd of April). Some reviews make clear that the catalogue wasn’t published yet (Rv10 +). This could explain why in several reviews the number and the titles of exhibited works is not correct.
When we read the reviews with this knowledge more precisely than we see that many reviews have been written in these early days (despite the publication date); in total 25 of 60 (=42%). We will render these reviews here below*.
Note*1: Of the art-critics that published more than one reviews↑, some were (probably) also made in those early days: Burty (Rv16 +43); A. de L. (Rv10); Punch (Rv15 +20) and Zola (Rv22).
Note*2: the following small reviews were (probably) also among the first reviews: Rv2 +3 +5 +11 +?12 +13 +14 +19.

Emile Blavet his review (Rv4**) was published 1876/03/01 in Le Gaulois and was titled “Avant le Salon: L’Exposition des réalistes” (R90I,p62). Blavet writes about the 2nd exposition of the ‘Realist painters’. They are no rebels, at most dissidents. He mentions Courbet as the beginning of this young school that studies severely nature. And that Flandrin of the École des Beaux-Arts admires Courbet his ‘Enterrement d’Ornans’.

Alex Pothey his review (=Rv6***) 1876/03/31 in La Presse was simply called “Chronique” (R90I,p103+104;R2,p155/6). He finds this exposition much more interesting than the first. The independent expositions merits encouragement. They are ironically called impressionalistes and intransigeants, while all together they search independance. For the most part they depart from the standard methods, but they add a personal kind of drawing, a virile execution and render a new kind of expression. They have worked for 15 or 20 years already and their works are bought by art-lovers.
This morning, Thursday, the impressionalistes, or, if you prefer, the independant have started their 2nd exposition. During a month the show in 3 large rooms their works. The catalogue, that hasn’t been published yet, will count almost 250 numbers. The canvasses of every artist are shown on one panel.
Monet** shows a serie of landscapes* with an honest execution, genuine feeling and beautiful light. He shows a life size figure (no.153***).
Lepic** works 5 or 6 months a year from a moored boat. These studies made en pleine mer’ have a very strong personality. We mention no.113* +115* +110* +106*. He also shows a large work depicting a boar in the snow (no.111**)
Pothey compares Morisot** her Déjeuner sur l’herbe (no.169*) with Manet, but ends ‘with a style unlike that of any other master’. He also mentions no.178* (firm like a Goya) +167* (a woman in white, taking a footbath, quite charming).
Desboutin** shows a large painting (no.63***). As contrast he shows a scene with frightening realism. They are two street singers (no.60***). We also have noted the charming portrait of Mme N. de C. (no66*) and of a violincellist (no.64*), beautiful studies that the artist used for engravings (no.67-72*), a genre in which he excells.
M. Degaz** (sic) shows a remarkable american scene (no.36***). In another work he shows us two washerwomen (no.41***); it is strong and true like a Daumier.
Of Caillebotte* we only cite no.17***, rendered with a very beautiful light and the naked men are perfectly handled.
Renoir** shows several portraits treated in different ways. Of Bazille (no.224**), of Choquet (sic) (no.214*), of Claude Monet (no.220*). La Baigneuse (no.212*) is done with superb colours.
Among the landscapes we remarkt those of Cisley* (sic), who are in the centre of his panel; and those of Pissarro* in which the uneven terrains are so well constructed. Pothey regrets he can’t give the attention the conscientious works of Cals*, Tillot*, Rouard* (sic), Bureau*, Millet* deserve. Nor can we pay more attention to the beautiful still lifes signed by Jacques-François*. Ending we say that we have found extreme pleasure in the collection of etchings by Legros**, one of the best painters.

Armand Silvestre his review (1876/04/02) in L’Opinion nationale was titled “Exposition de la rue Le Peletier” (R90I,p109-110;R2,p155+167 =Rv21**). A group of artists known as impressionists or intransigéants are about to open an exposition. This interesting school uses a method of simplification using elementary harmonies; less worried about form, it is exclusively decorative and colourfull. They seek the direct impression from nature en plein air using bright and charming hues, nice and vibrant tones, a whole new palette.
Degas* shows marvelous studies of backstage (no.47/48*). No.36* is spiritual.
Pissaro* (sic) shows several interesting paintings: no.198* +199* +197*. This artist uses blues with a charming delicacy, but it tends to overshadow his painting.
Sisley* is more varied and complete. The Inondations à Marly (no.244**) is a very good piece, painted with as much grace as solidity. The same applies to no.240*.
In no.153** one finds all the qualities of Monet*. I also like very much no.150*. But some of his paintings, which remind of Diaz, are not close to realilty*.
In this group Desboutin** distinguishes by an absolute sincerity. No.63* is charming and has a discrete tonality. No.61* +64* also deserve mention. And I praise his dry point etchings (no.167-172*).
Renoir* paints his chairs with agreable pink. I endlessly like his study of a naked woman numbered no.198 (sic) (no.212*); it is a colourfull piece.
The panel filled with small paintings of Morizot* (sic) are particularly agreable to the eye. It looks like a series of openings in the wall overlooking a pleasant, sunny landscape. Her small portrait of Mlle M… (?no.178**) has the charm of a Goya.
The small compositions of Ottin* are not inferior to the good paintings of M. de Nittis.
In no. 17/18* of Caillebotte* a great dal of observation is evident in the accessory details.
At the end he remarks, there works are not finished, but still have undeniable qualities.

The anomynous review 1876/04/03 in La Liberté (Rv23**) is called “Nos Informations: L’Ecole de Batignolles”. (R90I,p90)
La Liberté writes about an exhibition of the Ecole de Batignolles, also known as the impressionnalistes, the intransigeants, the radical realists. It opened ‘yesterday’ and shows 240* entries of 19 partakers. It is not an Exposition des refusés, for these proud souls didn’t submit their works to the judgement of the jury (of the Salon). “They find it sufficient to indicate certain effects on a sketch to give an idea of the value of the painting.” But, the writer criticises the execution, namely paintings with awful, clashing colours, sketches with revoltingly brutal brushstrokes. He shortly mentions the marvellous custume of the Japanese (no.153**) of Monet*. He shortly makes critical remarks on some works of Caillebotte (no.20**, no.17/18**). He mentions Morisot*, but then mentions interiors with laundry workers and dansers of the Opera of Degas. He assumes that Lepic is one of the organisers, showing marines in the large room.
Note*: In fact the catalogue rendered 252 numbers; so maybe this review was written before the catalogue was published; this is affirmed by the frase ‘It opened yesterday’.

Albert Wolff his review (Rv24**) 1876/04/03 in Le Figaro is called “Le Calendrier parisien” (R90I,p110/1;R2,p151+184;R1,p368-370;R4,p154/5). It is part of a larger review and written Sunday the 2nd*. Wolff calls the exposition a cruel spectacle. There are 5 or 6 aliens, of which one is a woman. He calls them intransigeant and impressionists. They merely throw paint on the canvas.
There doesn’t excits a landscape as painted by Pisarro* (sic) with violet trees and fresh butter coloured skies.
Degas* doesn’t understand the basic qualities of art, like drawing, colour and execution.
Try to explain to Renoir* that a woman’s torso is not a mass of decomposing flesh with the purplish-green patches that denote the final stage of decay in a corpse!
Morisot* is curious to observe. Her female grace sustains in the middle of the excesses of a delirious mind.
They complete lack artistic education. Personally I know some of these troublesome impressionists, these poor hallucinating individuals.
Note*: the frase ’they are about to open…’ suggests the visit took place the 30th or 31st of March

Georges Maillard his review (Rv27**) 1876/04/04 in Le Pays is called “Chronique: Les Impressionnalistes” (R90I,p91;R2,p151).
Maillard finds no doctrine, idea or method in the new school of impressionists or ‘impressionnalistes’. The only thing in common these Realist, independant, Intransigeant painters have, is their avoidance of the jury (of the Salon). Above the door of the exhibition of about 200* paintings “impressionnistes” was put. He accuses them of excessive use of colour, of savagery and insanity and finds it absolutely revolting. He calls them discontented radicals and revolutionairies.
Note*: the catalogue renders 252 numbers; this could indicate this was one of the first reviews.

Emile Porcheron his review (Rv28***) 1876/04/04 published in Le Soleil was called “Promenades d’un flâneur: Les Impressionnistes” (R90I,p102-103;R2,p151). What is an Impressionist? One who is without talent, without training. The only worth of their works are the frameworks. The exposition that is bount to open* with the unhealthy fantasies of these men. Porcheron discriminates between the works of the core group and others.
In the first room when entering one finds a serie of watercolours (no.138/139/140/141/142/147*) of Millet*, which are insignificant, a sepia is quite good (no.145/146*). The author, according to us, should stick to this genre and not attempt watercolour painting. Morisot* has the boldness to send in impossible drawings (no.182*).
Pissarro** his work is laughable. His sheep (in ?no203*) are orange and blue, the trees are blue, the field is blue, everything is blue. In another painting (no.199**) in a greyish tone, he renders 3 strokes depicting a tree and two men.
His review on Desboutins** (sic), namely his etchings (no.67-72*) is ambiguous and probably negative: ‘he doesn’t know how to draw’.
Lepic** shows a serie marines in which the colour is not without merit, but what an arrangement! There is a wave, a buoy (no.113), but the most funny is La pipe et le mât* (?no110***).
In the second room the works of Caillebotte** are the worst of the show because it martyrs perspective. Porcheron reviews no.19* +17* +18** +21***.
Morisot** stops painting before she has finished, she finds a few skilful touches enough, like in no.169* +167* +168*; the small boats in her marines* could be drawn in a schoolboy’s notebook.
He describes no.153*** of Monet** (his Japonnerie merely plays a juggling game with screens). No.149* merits its title, a view at the banks of the water; no.152** (=no?) must be the last word of impressionism; a blue boat, green trees, violets, pinks and yellows; we can’t discern what is rendered at the bottom.
Renoir** his portraits (no.210* +213* +212* +225*) have nothing remarkable but the artificial eyes that seem to jump off the canvas. His Tonnelle des Canotiers* (no.221*) without legs, and a portrait of the author (hc*) all shaded.
In the last room Degas** shows us among others, a washerwoman whose head and arms are almost black (no.49* or 54*). Then comes a Vue de coulisses (no47/48***): three or four dancers in the foreground are cut by the frame above the knee; in the third plan, we see a background curtain that does not go down to the ground and let us see the legs and the feet of which we regret the absence in the foreground. We won’t say anything about the Atelier des modistes (no.57*), who are obviously too ugly not to be virtuous.
Two still lifes of M. Jacques François* are not without skill; but why cover them power rice? Ottin* shows among others two views of Montmartre who have a certain degree of truthfulness. We wonder why Tillot* did submit his works among the impressionists. The same applies for M. Bureau*. Among the works of M. Rouart*, there is one important one no.217 (=?no.231*); with a few well given touches, this landscape would be finished off nicely.
Porcheron ends with ‘One cannot be tolerate toward painters who have neither talent nor have studied sufficiently.’
Note*: probably the review was written 30 or 31 March; this is affirmed by some incorrect titles.

Simon Boubée  his review (1876/04/05 =Rv29**) published in Gazette de France was called “Beaux-Arts: Exposition des impressionnestes, chez Durand-Ruel” (R90I,p64). He uses the term ‘impressionist’, but also intransigeants. He calls Manet*** their great master, but also sees him as more moderate. He refers to his painting refused at the Salon of 1876. He also calls Caillebotte and Lepic as more moderate. He mentions no.17-20** of Caillebotte*** as amusing, bright and cheerfull. He calls the paintings of Lepic** as truly remarkable and he recomments his Sanglier* no.111**. He accuses the impressionistes of not taking time to study, of not knowing how to compose and of using bright spots of paint. They resemble Valasquez who also paints very simple. He calls Monet*** a real intransigeant describes no.153*** and refers to a setting sun**. He shortly remarks on Renoir** (a spoiler of colours), Pissarro** and Morisot**.
Note*: this title doesn’t correspond the catalogue, nor does no.19 ‘Joueur de piano’, so maybe this review was written before the catalogue was published.

Baron Schop (=Théocore de Banville) his review (Rv31***) 1876/04/07 in Le National is called “La Semaine parisienne: L’Exposition des intransigeants – L’Ecole des Batignolles – Impressionnistes en plein air” (R90I,p106/7;R2,p491). This seems to be part of a larger review.
To find blues, and reds and yellows one just has to go to the exposition of the intransigeants, the école batignollaise, the impressionists.
Monet* his Jeune femme essayant une robe d’acteur japonais* (no.153*) is radiant and dazzling with colours. Schop wrongly calls it the first exposition of the impressionists. There are 240* entries by about 20* partakers of which Degas is the leader escorted by**…, etc. Of these intransigeant obey to the same words of the order, those of excessive colouring. They are exclusively colorists. The search for light, and its blossoms and its iridescence, that is the peak of their art. This process of patient analyses in which they make ranges (of colour), follow the vibrations, study the intimite reports of various tonalities. They are in line with Manet (and Wagner in music). They should refrain from using dramatic effects and illusions, and restrict to intellectual realism. They represent the plein air, a product of nature and a direct reaction. They are against the Institute’s painting, academic and polished, against the satiny smoothness of Bouguereau and the sentimentality of Cabanel, against the banality of refinements and the vulgarity of cheap tricks. Their goal is simplification and rudimentary harmonies. They disdain form and deliberately decapitate an ideal for greater strength and virility. It is a point of view which I reject, but their research will render a true service to the contemporary school (of art).
The canvases of Degas** are of a joyfull realism, no.36* +41*.
Pissard* (sic) drowns his landscapes in blue.
The marines of Lepic* are made of a less overwhelming azure.
I already talked about the Japonaise** of Monet**: a remarkable achievement with various merits, but not agreable to the eyes.
I prefer the etchings (no.67-72*) of Desboutin** above his paintings, of which his Violoncelliste (no64*) is the best of all.
Morisot* with her interiors stays faithful to the traditions of the school, but she shows some charm in this violent surroundings.
Caillebotte* his Râcleurs de parquet* (no17/18*) is in line with Courbet, but he is promissing.
Baron Schop remarks that his critic would have been more severe when these works were exhbited at the Salon.
He ends with noting that a large part of works of Daubigny was rejected by the jury of the Salon, which he calls a ‘unfortunate incident’.
Note*: probably this review was written before the catalogue was printed, the number of works (240 +153) and some titles are not correct (no.153 +36 +17/18).
Note**: Schop mentions 11 names, including Renoir, Sisley, Ottin, Millet, Rouart, Béliard and Cals, who he doesn’t review furthermore.

The very extended review of Charles Bigot (1876/04/08 =Rv32***) published in La Revue politique et littéraire was called “Causerie artistique: L’Exposition des ‘intransigeants’ ” (R90I,p59-620; R2,p151). He first reviewed an exhibition of the ‘cercle des Mirlitons’ at the Place Vendôme, which closed the 15th of March. Here several painters showed portraits and genre paintings, that will also be seen at the Salon that opens the 1st of May. It included also a landscape of M. Nittis made in the surroundings of Pompei.
The exposition at Durand-Ruel is open since the 30th of March, namely of the revolutionairy school. Bigot remarks that Faure, the classical singer, did loan several works to this exposition. The first exposition caused a large scandal, just like Delacroix, Decamps, Corot, Rousseau and Millet had done. They are called impressionists because they mainly want to render an impression of nature. They are also called ‘intentionnistes’ and ‘intransigeants’. They react against the black paintings made in studios, against finished and polished paintings. They are namely influenced by Rousseau, Corot and Chintreuil. They exclude shadows, soften the contours, melt the colours, juxtapose hues side by side. These new realists render the objects as they appear in the distance, only rendering the essential.
He namely mentions and reviews Monet and also Sisley, Morisot and Degas. It is certain that some of these gentlemen are not without talent. M. Claude Monet*** has the vigour in his hand and the eye of a true landscapist. He focusses (more positively) on two paintings no.163*** +154*** and describes them. But Monet is annoying in a large number of other paintings. He has an unfortunate taste for pinks and blues. Many of his landscapes are loud, fluttering. He also (critically) describes no.153***.
Sisley** also shows a beautiful landscape (no.244***), maybe it is the best piece at this exposition.
Morisot** is born with a real talent for painting.
‘M. Degas** is a curious artist. (…) his execution is always so insufficient, and his taste always carries him to look rather at the bizarre or the ugly than the graceful. (…) dancers in pink skirts and laundresses who yawn. (…) There are qualities in Un magasin de coton à la Nouvelle-Orléans* (no.36***). The misfortune is that Mr. Degas does not have the eye of a colorist and that he does not always have the hand of a draftsman (=dessinateur).
He shortly mentions Lepic, Renoir, Béliard and Caillebotte (who deserves a place of honour).
This system of paintings misses a fertile principle. In 1874 Bigot was curious for their development. But, he doesn’t see this development. Pissarro and Rouart even seem to have stepped backward. They abuse shadows, colours. Close by their paintings look like chaos. They are just studies. He sighs that the paintings, with such potential, of Morisot are never finished.
“The study in the landscape genre, even though she is a bit vague, still manages to please sometimes; we never look at all the details in nature; it is sufficient that some lines attract our attention, that some bright spots shine here and there. The human figure supports this genre less, and it is here that the incurable vice of this system appears.” (R90I,p61)
In the end he praises Desboutin***. He is not satisfied with some strokes thrown here and there. He namely praises Le Portrait de M.L… jouant du violoncelle* (no.64**) and the little Tête d’enfant* (?no65**) and his collection of dry point engravings (no.67-72**). They render drawing, precision, life, colour.
Note*: Some given titles don’t match the titles in the catalogue, so maybe this review was written before the catalogue was published.

 

Short summaries of the large reviews:
Here below you will find short summaries of the large*** reviews. The reviews will be chronologically rendered, sometimes adding later reviews of the same art-critic. The more extended reviews** will be rendered more below, the shorter reviews* will be quoted in the overview↓↓. The most extended articles of Duranty and Mallarmé are largely summarized on seperate pages, see links.
Note 1: It will be rendered which partakers and their art-works are just mentioned*, shortly remarked** or extendedly reviewed***. You will be linked to the accounts of these partakers when a catalogue number is mentioned.
Note 2: Some large reviews are rendered above at the first reviews: Pothey (Rv6); Porcheron (Rv28); Baron Schop (Rv31); Bigot (Rv32); Dax / Rivière (Rv51).

Marius Chaumelin his review 1876/04/08 in La Gazette des étrangers is called “Actualités: L’Exposition des intransigeants” (Rv33***) (R90I,p67-68;R2,p167). They have been called the painters of en plein air, as impressionists (to please Morisot and others), but the intransigeants fits better. They hate the classical traditions and want to seperate from the Academy and the state. They all have left for the ‘école des taches’, of which Manet is the founder. Morisot is the most kind practitioner of free brushwork.
The first who attracts attention is Monet***. He makes on his own more noice than all the other 18 together. No.153*** is dazzling and extraordinary. Aside of the large work Monet shows a collection of bright, explosive landscapes in blue, yelow and much pink. He mentions no.152* +154* +151*, full of frankness, originality, genuine brilliance, that fit at the Salon*.
He shortly mentions Pissarro* as a pupil.
Morisot*** (her work) proceeds more from Manet than from Monet. She brushes her paintings with a female swhiftness. He loves the small “taches”, which at 25 feet distance render an impression of a face. She shows landscapes, marines, flowers, genre paintings, portraits. Le Lever (no.167***) first seduced me; I saw it from a distance, a nice little woman in a white bathrobe, busy with a very intimate toilet. I had the recklessness to approach, and I sadly found out that this nice child had dirty clothing; and I figured that instead of washing her feet, which are pink, she’d better wash her face, which is smeared with soot. Ask a Presbyterian what he thinks about déjeuner sur l’herbe (no.169**) ; he’ll tell you he’s never seen a fresher lawn, a brighter sunshine, more transparent shadows, more naturally thrown figures. And I’ll agree with the Presbyterian, if, to look at the picture, I am required to place myself at the same distance if I had to watch the scene in the middle of the countryside.
Renoir*** uses a relatively sober coloration. He almost always takes the effort to finish his paintings. In his large painting no.225*** the soil evades. I can’t discern what no.212** represents. His portraits numbers 197 (=211*) and 200 (=214*) are not very lively. No.220* is one of his most solid productions.
No63** of Desboutin** is of an exaggerated size – for a genre painting. It is rough and powerfull, which doesn’t fit the subject. No60* has a realistic approach that I do not dislike. In no.64* +66* (‘Femme accoudée) he is combining finesse with strength. His etchings (no.67-72*) are expressive and original. What reason has Desboutin to join the intransigeants?
The landscapes of Sysley* (sic) are a radical mess. Those of Rouart*, Ottin*, Béliard*, Bureau*, Tillot* will not frighten anyone. In the marines of Lepic* and the still lifes of M. François* the tone is soft and harmonious.
He praises no.36*** of Degas** for his fine and truthfull representation. Degas follows the ‘école des taches’, in his Blanchisseuses (?no.41*); the design that is so accurate and firm, will not work for me: the laundry they iron is repulsively dirty.
Who knows Caillebotte**? (…) Al I know is that Caillebotte is one of the most original painters to have come forward in some time … he will be famous before long. In his Raboteurs de parquet (no.17/18*), Caillebotte shows himself to be a realist as crude as but far more witty than Courbet, as violent as but far more precise than Manet.
Note*: Overall the review is very negative, so maybe some positive remarks are meant sarcasticly.

Louis Enault (Rv36***) his review 1876/04/10 in Le Constitutionnel was called “Mouvement artistique: L’Exposition des intransigeants dans la galerie de Durand-Ruelle (sic)” (R90I,p81-83;R2,p167). He starts with explaining that the term intransigeants at first was a political term in Spain. They didn’t accept a comprimise.
At the exposition at la rue Lepelletier, one doesn’t find a smooth, correct and pure line and no harmonious colours. Enault mentions 19 partakers showing 240 works.
We are welcomed at the entrance door by a serie of dry point etchings by Desboutin*** (no.67-72**). They are not very inviting; some heads are heavier than in reality; some have a certain finess. Desbouting also shows a certain number of paintings, the most remarkable is a life-size study of a child (no61**), in which a certain frankness of touch is to be praised, and a certain affectation of realism blamed. We prefer a small canvas as big as a hand, entitled: le Violoncelliste (no.64**). It is well drawn and very pretty in tone.’
Pissarro** has to wear decolouring spectacles to really see the joy of nature.
Morisot*** is gifted with a perception that is sometimes very clear and very sharp and an eye capable of analyzing the most delicate tones and appreciating their relationships… (she exhibits almost 20 works) … she shows us acceptable works.
In the portraits of Renoir** there is nothing burlesque or absurd, like in those two portraits of men catalogued under the numbers 197 (=211**) and 200 (=214**)’; in his large study of a naked woman (no.212**) we become sad by his use of purplish tones of rotting flesh. I praise a nice portrait of a young girl (no.209) (sic =223**) with very honest tones.
It would be injust to Monet*** to denye a certain powerfull colouring, but for the rest, his work is very regrettable. His landscapes can’t be found in nature, with these violent tones. He sarcasticly reviews the redness of the dress of no.153.
That Gustave Caillebotte*** knows his craft is a matter that no one will wish to argue. (…) On no.17/18*** ’the perspective has been worked out accurately. (…) The arms of the scrapers are too thin, and their chests are too narrow. (…) let your nude be beautiful, or leave the subject alone. Partly the same observations apply to no.20**. In no.19** the perspective is not right, one fears the piano will fall any moment on the fine young man.
M. Edgard (sic) Degas** is perhaps one of the most intransigeant of this intransigeant company. He writes very negatively on his two washerwomen (no41***). But, I make an acception for no.36**, which is correctly rendered.
Lepic** is not an intransigeant and could be accepted at the Salon. His large study of a wild boar is of a rare vigor (no.111***). He shows no less than 35 pieces at this exposition: paintings, watercolours, etchings. Note namely the restorations of Pompei (no.124*).
This little group named intransigeants and impressionists are gifted with originality, but I see their doctrines as dangerous.

G. d’Olby his review (Rv38***) 1876/04/10 in Le Pays was called “Salon de 1876: Avant l’ouverture – Exposition des intransigeants chez M. Durand-Ruel, rue Le Peletier, 11” (R90I,p99-101;R2,p167). Olby writes about the naturalist or realist school of which Courbet and Manet are the forerunners. These painters are disqualified by the jury of the Salon, like Manet his year. Why does he still try at the Salon, when he could be the leader at this exposition? These ‘impressionnalistes’ are directly inspired by nature; their eye only sees … a whole of an impression, the spectrum … the simplifications of form. These formulas are applied by Manet, but in these 2 or 3 rooms, 15 or 18 partakers don’t have much in common.
Lepic** his large number of works could have been accepted at the Salon, like no.111**. Beside that he shows beach and marine studies with a true sentiment and a truly salty flavor. In no.103** the sky and the see melt. One could reproach Lepic his love for simplicity up to reducing them to poverty. He also mentions ‘The tender pink buoy, which flirts with its reflection in the water’ (no.113**).
The etchings of Desboutin** (no67-72*) evoke more than his paintings, who do not offend. There are several heads of women (no.69*), a portrait of a violoncelliste (no.69*), that deserve attention, because of the vivid and broad way in which they turn out the character of the models.
In no.36** Degas** renders true quality. The sketch in grisaille representing the foyer of a dance theater (no.44/45**) (…) is remarkable for its well observed indications of movements and group arrangements. But these are only indications: is it enough to make a painting?
Of the 7 or 8 important paintings shown by Caillebotte**, we prefer no.20*** much. No.17* +18* viewed from above, are curious and little pleasant. No.19* doesn’t appeal; no.21* doesn’t succeed to deceive. Caillebotte has the horror of the conventional, the banal in painting, but still he is gifted with the most valuable observational skills.
Morisot** makes nothing but studies, but they are sometimesmarked by a very subtle indication of delicately contrasting tones and values. It is basic and touched upon by independent notes. This method of indication may be excellent for reminding her of her personal impressions, but the eye of the visitor cannot be satisfied with such a meagre treat; the piece seems empty, hollow and mediocrely substantial. (…) More satisfaction renders no.169*** a feast of spring tones.
M. Sysley** (sic) whose paintings, at the previous exhibition of the Boulevard des Italiens*, had made a scandal by their strangeness, seems to want to humanize himself and to see nature with an eye of a less debatable sincerity. No.244** is established with notes that look right…,  but it’s not desolate at all…
Note*: it is unclear to which previous exhibition he refers.
We arrive at two partakers that are truely intransigeants and renovators of art: Monet** and Pissacco** (sic). Their palette evokes the intense tones of the solar spectrum, conveying impressions from nature that don’t appear to this world. It is the school of ‘l’Oeil crevé’ (the Gouged Eye). The objects are seen as if through a prism that breaks light down into its primary colours.
Is no.153** (of Monet) an example of the painting of the future?
When Monet and Pissacco (sic) are right, than Lepic, Caillebotte, Degas etc. are not. They have nothing revolutionairy to our habits of vision and sensation. Manet, Rembrant and Corot used a system of symplification, which were the result of a profound study, which aims to summarise an impression through its dominant characteristics, by clearing away unnecessary details, or which undermine the unity of effect. Olby doesn’t find this at this exhibition.
How to classify Monet et Pissacco (sic)? Their works testify of a cold determination, a madness preconceived and developed by a systematic mind. In the future they will be forgotten.

Arthur Baignères (1876/04/12 =Rv41***/***) qualifies this exposition as a ‘comic sketch’, as prelude for the official Salon. They are named ‘intransigeants’ (or impressionists) because they they break off all dealings with anything official or academic. They have established as a system the theory of the impression. They confine oneself to a truthful rendering of what the eye sees, a sort of telegraphic mechanism.
About Morisot*** he writes ‘She pushes the system to its extreme, and we feel all the more sorry abouth this as she has reare talent as a colorist. (…) He critisises the sketchyness of no.172***, no.173?*** and her watercolours (no.179-181*).
He writes ‘At the head of the men, we place M. Degas***, the pontificate, I believe, of the sect of the intransigent impressionists. He brings to the system other qualities than Miss Morisot: less natural talent and more science. The hand is more expressive than the eye, and one can see that he is a defrosted draughtsman. He praises no.36**. But, in his paintings of dancers and ironers he holds his rang among the impressionists. He criticises no.41*** and calls his dancers more picturesque. One of their processes that Mr. Degas also cherishes, is to cut the canvas anywhere, to remove the feet or the legs. He predicts that Degas will take the place of Ingres and Monet, the dazzling colorist of the club, that of Delacroix.’
Of Monet** he praises some remarkable landscapes (no.151**) and views of the Seine near Argenteuil (no.148/149/152/156/157/160**). Not many artists render the brightness of the day, the purity of the atmosphere and the azure of the sky and the waters. But, he should throw it into the fire no.163* or no.153**. He calls Monet a ’true talent’.
He calls Renoir** the portraitist of the inner circle, but he doesn’t appreciate them. He calls no.225** from a distance a bluish mist.
He calls the portrait etchings of Desboutin** quite lively and well drawn (no.67-72**), but critises the ‘intransigeant’ way of painting no.63**.
Lepic* who renounced the official Salon, without doubt because he could exhibit 30 works at this exposition.
Caillebotte* stays far behind Degas; and his Raboteurs (no.17+18**), however ugly they may be, don’t have the value of the Blanchisseuses (no.41*) of the master.
The landscapists are numerous and ordinary. Beliard* choose the Oise, Outtin* (sic) fils Montmartre, Tillot* Villiers, Cals* Honfleur. Sisley* distinquishes by a certain originality. Pissaro* (sic) is laughable due to its dull and monotonous execution. His landscapes have the effect of a sad tapestry. The watercolours of Jean-Baptiste Millet** are well thought out and testify of a real talent (no.138/139/140/141/147**).
The theory here displayed starts from a true principle: the love for nature. But, loving and observing is not sufficient, one has to work and study. The system of the impressionist has the allure of dispensing with the need to learn.

The review of L. Laurent-Pichat (Rv60***) was published 1876/06/01 in Le Phare de la Loire and was called “Salon de 1876; Cals, Degas, Jacques François, Alphonse Legros, Zacharie Astruc, Levert, Lepic, J.B. Millet, Monet, Ottin fils, Mme Berthe Morizot (sic)” (iR437)
He refers to an earlier article and now continues the examination of the canvases displayed at the exposition Durand-Ruel. He starts with an anecdote about Bouleau and a young poet. Then he writes about Velasquez. He paints workers like queens. Manet received an impression and he translated it; full of sincerity. M. Vollon, this year, with his ‘femme du Poulet’, is worthy of Velasquez. Cabanel doesn’t do those things. Manet and even Desboutin are far from it. Go to Madrid and copy (Velasquez). Then he introduces the actual exposition: There is enough to eat at the exposition in the rooms of Durand-Ruel.
Caillebotte** shows two breakfasts (no.21** +24**). The drawing is not correct; the plates etc. stands upright on a vertical surface.
Cals** shows a Madeleine (no.28**). Laurent-Pichat wrongly expects to see the biblical figure of Madeleine and therefore criticises Cals. ‘The painting titled le Madeleine; there is no indication that this is the beautiful sinner from Palestine. It maybe is a simple person from the Rue Rochechouart.’
M. E. Degas** summarises in him the deliberate shortcomings of the painters of this interesting group, despite all his boldness. M. Degas has achieved perfection in unpleasantness and incompleteness. His dancers and washerwomen (these subjects represent a dozen paintings) are true without mercy. In no.41** there is an ironer who yawns all night long at a ball, making you yawn too. The painting is moral, because these milliners, ballerinas and others do not seek to charm with their grace or beauty.
The fruits and flowers of M. Jacques François**, covered with slightly moldy down, lack a good dose of sunshine.
L’estamo de tabacco à l’Alhambra (no.75***), has the same cold appearance. (…) One more day of work and the pomegranates will open, and the grapes will become tasty, and the yellow roses will be overwhelmed with abundance.
Alphonse Legros** has a skilled hand and a lively and original imagination. His portrait of M. Barbey d’Aurevilly (no.83-6***)  is exactly as the model wanted to be represented.
Levert* shows at the Durand-Ruel exposition, heartfelt and lively seascapes. When the waves of these inspirations calm down, when the passions subside, we will have talented painters.
Mr. Lepic**, who, I believe, is the same person we discussed in relation to his flooding of the Quai de Bercy, has a bold talent. The fog is accurate. He knows how to be simple. Often there are too many accessories, as in Mr. Desboutin*’s work, for example in his painting of the Charpentier (no121*). Mr. Lepic is precise even in the details, exhibiting Buoy No. 2, Bay of Somme (no113*). One painting by this artist contains an idea, the Beaupré (no.110***).
Jean-Baptiste Millet* is unsophisticated. He obeys to the destiny his name carries. He is condemned to work the way he does. And he sees and paints just, he can count on his reputation.
When Millet is a name that can lead to confusions and encouragements, Monet is a name that is prone to mistakes. Monet! Manet! Both have seen and painted and celebrated Argenteuil. You remember the rowers by M. Manet?
M. Monet** likes reflections, and the caustic substances that receive and render like a mirror the flower beds, the stonebricks of a castle and the vast rows of trees. He paints in the parcs, near artistic small castles and for M. Faure whose gallery is filled with these sincere and hopeful works. La Japonnerie (no153***) of M. Monet offers a very interesting canvas, like those of M. C. Duran. It is not a portrait, (the work is described). It is a dream, but charming.
Mme Berthe Morizot** (sic) seems to us the most daring and skilful of this group of rebels. She is sincere, without flattering; she paints women, and captures them at charming and delicate moments: Au bal (no.166*), le lever (no.167*), la toilette (no.168*). She is without mercy. She sees everything; she shows everything; a female Goya and terrible. Criticism could be applied to several of these paintings. Le déjeuner sur l’herbe (no.169*) ressembles pencil drawings that are beginning to melt; le percher de blanchisseuse (no.175*)  is not suitable for laundry; le Chantier (no.174*) is too full with details; but the Figure de femme No.178**) has style and vitality. This dress is occupied; this being is walking. There are even some waves and gracefulness. When Mme Berthe Morizot (sic) will forget that she has originality and talent, everyone will notice.
M. Ottin jr.** has gone round in circles. Constantly protesting against the conventions of the modern school, he returned to the past. He has no need to go far to find motivs; their are subjects in Montmartre just like in Rome. That is absolutely true and exactly right. But, with the horned goats and the dry stones like he shows us, M. Ottin, believing that they were departing from the classical style and the tradition, reminds the Italien landscapes of M. Paul Flandrin.

 

Short summaries of the medium sized reviews:
Here below you will find short summaries of the medium seized** reviews. The reviews will be chronologically rendered, sometimes adding later reviews of the same art-critic.
Note 1: It will be rendered which partakers and their art-works are just mentioned*, shortly remarked** or extendedly reviewed***. You will be linked to the accounts of these partakers when a catalogue number is mentioned.
Note 2: Some more extended reviews have been summarised above at the first reviews: Silvestre (Rv21); La Liberté (Rv23); Wolff (Rv24); Maillard (Rv27); Boubée (Rv29);

The review of Léon Mancino published somewhere in 1876 in L’Art vol.5 was called “Deuxième Exposition de peintures, dessins, gravures faite par un groupe d’artistes” (Rv1**) (R90I,p97-98; R2,p152). Mancino refers to the 1st indépendent exposition in 1874 and the auction sale at Hôtel Drouot in 1875. He makes clear the exposition opened the 30th of March and that the group of artists is called intransigeants, impressionists, ‘la secte de la pure tache’, ‘l’école du plein air’. He praises the ‘virile and dignified stance of independence’. But, than critically calls it a vanity fair and doesn’t want to mention any name of the partakers. He criticises them as being devoid of any creative thought, of any knowledge of composition, of any trace of drawing, of the least notion of perspective, of any anatomical knowledge, of any virtuose brushwork. Instead he praises Jongkind, Rousseau, Delacroix, Decamps, Dupré, Corot, Troyon and Diaz, whose minor works are better than their arrogant crusts.
In a footnote he remarks: we are very surprised to see the remarkable etchings of M. Legros*, the watercolours of J.B. Millet*; Desboutin** would more than wisely abandon painting for etching, not that he excelled in this type of engraving, -the heavy manner in which he has treated the elegant physiognomy of M. Jules Jacquemart (no.67**) shows only too well how much he still has to learn, – but he shows real talent as an aquafortist, and has already achieved a number of pleasant successes.

The review of Sir Frac (Rv18**) 1876/04/02 in Le Courrier de France is simply called “Chronique” (R90I,p84/85).
Sir Frac, in maybe a larger review, mentions the exhibition at Durand-Ruel really amusing. They call themselves simply a ‘group’, others call them intransigeants or impressionnalistes. Their works would surely be refused at the Salon and maybe hung at a Salon des Refusés, with excesses of colour and fanciful shapes. He calls them nice jokers and cunning charlatans. Though they paint like children, they know the tricks of their profession. They use deliberate mistakes, faking to ignore perspective and drawing. He emphasizes the years it takes to become a master and refers to the great artists like Delacroix, Rousseau and Millet.

L’Audience (1876/04/09 =Rv34**; R90I,p53/54) starts with ‘Since the 1st of April, a group of painters, who excepted voluntary the qualification ‘intransigeants’…’ He later calls it the exposition of ‘intransigeants’ or impressionists. He sums up 17 partakers, leaving out Pissarro and Rouart, who later are mentioned. Strangely ‘Jacques François’ is named ‘François-Jacques Levert’. The group is characterised as follows ‘The group distinguishes itself by its complete departure from convention and classicism, they attempt to open new ways and are concerned with… displaying movement, realism and the impression…’
He mentions that the catalogue has just 252 numbers. He follows with ‘Please note…’ and continues with summing up many works, just interrupted by minor detours. He mentions no.2* +4* +5* of Béliard; no.13* +15* (Bureau), 29* +34* (Cals). It is the same for the Blanchisseuses by Degas (no.41* +49* +50* +54*), whose frankness and vital energy cannot be denied. We can see that the group we are dealing with has for principle the truth of nature, which does not mean that many do not add talent in their material execution.’ He continues his ‘please note…’ with no. 67* +69* and the drypoints (no.67-72*) of Desboutin; no.75* of ‘François-Jacques’; no.81-1* +83-6* +86* of Legros; several views on Portrieux (no.93* +94* +95* +96*) of Levert; no.168* +173* +181* of Morisot. The Butte de Montmartre has found in Mr. Ottin* the younger a faithful interpreter, whose brushwork traces the original points, for example no. 191* +189*/195-3* +193*. He praises the portrait of Bazille by Renoir (no.224**). He continues to mention no.241* of Sisley, a loan by Durand-Ruel; the views and cliffs of Villers-sur-Mer (no.245* +246* +247* +250*) by Tillot; the hills and views on Pontoise (no.200* +204*) by Pissarro; locations at Brittany and Normandie (no. 227* +229*) by Rouart. M. Lepic shows a large collection of marine paintings, watercolours and etchings… his large canvas Forcé (no.111*) earns a very special mention. We end this summary with the watercolours of M. Millet (no.138* +139* +140* +141* +147*), the very curious Japonnaise (no.153**) of Monet, so rich in imagination and in colour; the studies of Degas (no.42* +51*); the etchings of Legros (no.81-92*) and most remarkable the Rabotteurs de parquets (no. 17* +18*) of Caillebotte, the primus interpares. At the end a parallel is rendered between writers like Victor Hugo and the ‘intransigeants’. Daumier has made a name because he didn’t draw like everybody did. In the same way the partakers affirm their individuality.

Victor Fournel his review (Rv37**) published 1876/04/10 in Le Corresondant was called “Les Oeuvres et les homme: Courrier du théâtre, de la littérature et des arts” (R90I,p84). He starts with the rejection of ‘la Blanchisseuse’ of Manet at the Salon of 1876. Those who regret this rejection could visit the exposition at Durand-Ruel. He accuses the groupe of intransigeants or impressionists of ridiculous incompetence, painting like a child a horse yellow and a tree blue. (He also refers to a Mme de Maintenon.)

E.F. (=Ernest Fillonneau) his review 1876/04/21 published in the Moniteur des arts was called “Le Groupe d’artistes de la rue Le Peletier” (=Rv47**) (R90I,p83/4+479). The painters are called intransigeants or impressionists. But, some partakers are just partly so, or not at all, like Lepic.
Let us starts with those who are impressionists at all costs.
Monet** had in the past some success depicting his wife in a green dress. No.153** has no human face; among the 15 landscapes one finds impressions with astonishing accuracy and tones of rare finesse, like no.154**, no.148*, but no158*, with an artificial fire, can’t be defended.
Sisley** is less unbalanced, who cannot be denied of excellent qualities; no.241** +243**. He also shows two views of floodings (no.244**+hc1**), in which the transparency of the water and the general tone of the study are the result of a trained eye and a trained hand.
Pissarro** his landscapes are uniformly blue, yellow and violet. In which country does nature look like this?
Morisot** believes she can express everything in a few childish strokes. Sure here and there are fine tones and right notes.
The exposition of Lepic** is very varied and very interesting.  His sanglier (no.111), his marines, watercolours and etchings. His beaches of La Manche (no.114/5*), the ruines of Pompei (no124*), the cliffs of Treport (no.128*) and the mysterious landscapes of Holland (no.135/136*).
There are excellent choices in the works of Desboutin**, whose dry point etchings (no.67-72*) enjoy a legitemate reputation. He excells in rendering the aspect of things and the physionomy of people.
Caillebotte** renders in no.17/18* the movement in a truthful way, despite the strange perspective. No.20* has an original charm. In no.19* the defective perspective is repeared with the same qualities, but his Déjeuner (no.21*) definitely abuses his inclined plan. Caillebotte merits to be distinguished from the innovators.
In no.36* Degas*, presents the portraits as well-observed types, but the other paintings of the artist are in general vulgar in sentiment and execution.
Renoir* on the controrary is always distinguished and even a little dull in tone. I also recommend the torso of the woman (no.212*) , a delicate model with harmonious colours.

Castagnary his review, published 1876/05/06 in Le Siècle, is called “Salon de 1876: Premier Article: Les Impressionnistes: MM. Claude Monet, Pissaro (sic), Sisley, Renoir, Caillebotte, Degas, Mlle Morizot (sic)” (=Rv52**)  (R90I,p66-67). This is part of a larger review and deals mostly with his critic on the jury of the Salon. He shortly mentions ‘Forcing an entire group of artists to abstain from the Salon… is not a good thing either.’ (…) The impressionists show at Durand-Ruel landscapes, so true and vibrant, by Monet, Pissaro (sic), Sisley, delicate and lively portraits by Renoir and Morizot (sic), interiors so full of promise by Caillebotte, even the choreographic fantasies by Degas. For these painters, the plein air is a delight, the search for bright tones and removal of bitumen a true article of faith.
Then he extendedly remarks Firmin Girard, who first produced classical paintings and received a medal. Then a nude laying in the field done en plein air was rejected. This year his Marché aux fleurs was exepted, but according to Castagnary there is no live in this photographic picture. He is not like Delacroix, Rousseau, Courbet, Millet, Barye, Manet of the race of of the untamables.

Henry James Jr his English review (Rv53**) was published 1876/05/13 in the New-York Daily Tribune and was called (Parisian Festivity: Letter from Henry James Jr …. Cynical artists…” (R90I,p86). As part of a larger English article James writes about the little group of ‘Irreconcilables’ or Impressionists, whose “proper field is simply the actual, and to give a vivid impression of how a thing happens to look, at a particular moment, is the essence of his mission.” … “They send detail to the dogs and concentrate themselves on general expression.” He calls them ‘curious’, ‘incompatible’ and ‘cynical’. ‘None of them show signs of possessing first-rate talent’. He prefers the English Pre-Raphaelites, with whom this group has some similarities.

Victor Cherbuliez (1876/06/01=Rv55**) in a larger review titled “Le Salon de 1876: Les Impressionnistes, les tableaux de genre et les portraits” referred to the 2nd ‘impressionist’ exposition in the Revue des deux mondes without mentioning one partaker or one exhibited work. He defines the impressionist is being committed to providing impressions. The intransigeant is an impressionist who does not compromise with the need for clarity and continues to make paintings that are not more than sketches. They don’t render what they have seen, but what they have sensed, like symbols, rendering red trees, pink grass and lilac sky. He refers to a painting of a mediterrenean beach that was sold in 1875 for 40.000fr. He also refers to the writing ‘Confessions’. He accuses them of founding a new religion.

The review of R.M. (Rv56**) was published 1876/06/15 in Post-och Inrike Tidningar and was called “‘Salonen’ och den franska konsten 1876: En studie af RM” (R90I,p90/91). This review in Swedish is part of a larger article. The review speaks of a ‘kind of realism‘, of ‘intransigenta‘ and of ‘impressionister‘. M. mentions Manet as the great leader of the ‘new religion’ and mentions the various absurdities of Monnet (sic), mlle Morissot (sic), Pisarro (sic), Renoir and others. For whom bizarreness is the same as originality. In this review he also mentions the names of Andersen and Bellman jr., maybe Swedish artists.

Jean Dolent (Rv58**) his review published in 1877 was called “Visite de Madame Pastoudret à une exposition particulière d’artistes dits ‘impressionnestes’ ” (R90I,p71/2). This is a bit strange review. First it cites a fragment from Duranty La Nouvelle Peinture (Rv9) “…the bright light discolours the tones…”. Then he just asks: are these artists poor or economic?
Then he seems to render parts of a review of the painter Ingénio, mentioning Renoir* (pastel), Morizot* (sic), Monet*, Ottin* (small studies), Sisley* (he stops too early), Pissaro* (sic). More extendedly he mentions Degas**, who has the ability to render what he senses. ‘They have a feminin temperament’.
Then Dolent seems to cite from a review of the young Mme Pastoudret (who seems more critical), which he directly contradicts with his own words of those of Ingénio. La Japonaise of Monet* (no.153*), La Blanchisseuse of Degas* (?no.49*), l’Inondation of Sisley* (no.244*), a portrait of Renoir* (?no.211/214*) are shortly mentioned.
Note: Overall the review seems more positive, but it stays quite obscure.

 

External characteristics of the reviews:
Some art-critics published more than one article: Bertall (Rv42***); Burty (Rv16** +43***); A. de L. (=Alfred de Lostalot) (Rv10** +26**); Leroy (Rv44** +45***); Punch (Rv15* +20**), Zola (Rv22* +50* +54***).
Some newspapers or magazins published more than one review: Le Petit Moniteur universel (Rv5* + Rv14* +Rv35b +Rv40*); l’Evénement (Rv15* +Rv20**); Le Figaro (Rv11* +RV24**), Le Rappel (Rv19* +35a); Le Moniteur des Arts (Rv30* +47**).
Some reviews on the 2nd ‘impressionist’ exposition were part of a larger article: Rv3* (Le Temps), Rv5* + Rv14* (Le Petit Moniteur universel), Rv7* (Hyenne), Rv8* (A.V.); Rv11* (Le Masque de fer), Rv12* (Le Petit Journal), Rv13* (La Petit Presse), Rv15* (Punch), Rv19* (Un Passant), Rv22* (Zola), Rv24** (Wolff), Rv46* (X), Rv48* (Raymond), Rv49* (A. Paulon), Rv53** (James), Rv59* (Huysmans).
Of some reviews (8) the author stays anonymous: Rv2 +3 +5 +12 +13 +14 +23 +34.
Some reviews (3) were published in regional newspapers or magazins: Rv 22* +50* (both Zola); 60*** (Laurent-Pichat).
Some reviews (6) were published in foreign newspapers or magazins: Rv 17* (Claretie); 43*** (Burty) +53** (Henry James jr.) +54*** (Zola) +56** (R.M) +57**** (Mallarmé).

 

An overview of the reviews:
Here below you will find the 59 reviews in a chronological order as found in Berson (R90I). Articles that are quite the same are not numbered seperately. There were 14 were large reviews*** (>1 page=3 columns in Berson); 20 were medium sized** (1-3 columns); 23 were short* (<1 column) and 2 essays**** (Rv19 +57).
At the end you will also find some additional reviews that are not in Berson (1996).
Of small reviews a small citation will be rendered here below. The more extended** and the large*** reviews will be rendered here above. The most extended articles**** of Duranty and Mallarmé are largely summarized on seperate pages, see links.
Note: the size of a review is indicated with an asterix as small*, medium**, large***, very large****.
Note: the appraisal of the review will be indicated with coloured asterix; dominantly positive reviews are indicated with a green one*; dominantly negative with a red one*; mixed appraisals with an orange one*.
It will be rendered which partakers and their art-works are just mentioned*, shortly remarked** or extendedly reviewed***. You will be linked to the accounts of these partakers when a catalogue number is mentioned.

1. 1876, L’Art, Vol.5, p36-37, Léon Mancino, “Deuxième Exposition de peintures, dessins, gravures faite par un groupe d’artistes” (R90I,p97-98**)
2. 1876/03/29, Le Siècle, p2, anonymous, “Nouvelles du jour” (R90I,p109*)
   This review is part of a larger article. “The free exposition organised by … the impressionists Pissarro, Claude Monet, Renoir, Sisley, Berthe Morizot (sic), Rouart, Desbontins (sic), Degas, etc. opens the 1st of April.” He recommands their independance.
3. 1876/03/30, Le Temps, p3, anonymous, “Faits divers” (R90I,p110*)
   This review is part of a larger article. It announces the second exhibition of the intransigeant school of ‘impressionnalistes‘ painters, opening the 30th. He mentions the following partakers: Degas, Claude Monet, Pisaro (sic), Sisley, Renoir, Berthe Morisot.
4. 1876/03/31, Le Gaulois, p1, Emile Blavet, “Avant le Salon: L’Exposition des réalistes” (R90I,p62**)
5. 1876/03/31, Le Petit Moniteur universel, p3, anonymous, “Gazette universelle” (R90I,p101*)
   This review is part of a larger article. “The school of intransigeante of the impressionnalistes painters… is about to organise a second exhibition that will open today the 30th.”
6. 1876/03/31, La Presse, p3, Alex Pothey, “Chronique” (R90I,p103+104***;R2,p155/6)
7. 1876/04, Le Moniteur de la mode, Vol.5, April 1876, p209, Robert Hyenne, “Avant le Salon” (R90I,p86*)
   As part of a larger article Hyenne writes about a fanciful and curious group of painters, in line with Manet, called the impressionists. He just mentions some sincere studies* of Degas**.
8. 1876/04, La Revue de France, p295, A.V., “Nouvelles des arts: Les Impressionnistes” (R90I,p110*)
   This review is part of a larger article. It just mentions the exhibition of the impressionists or intransigeants. He more extensively mentions Manet who was refused for the Salon of 1876 and showed his works in his own studio.
9. 1876 (1-30 April), pamphlet / essay, Paris: E. Dentu, Edmond Duranty, La Nouvelle Peinture: À propos du groupe d’artistes qui expose dans les galeries Durand-Ruel (R90I,p72-81****; R2,p477-484 + 37-47 +148/9)
   See separate page with extended summary.
10. 1876/04/01, La Chronique des arts et de la curiosité, p119-120, A. de L. (=Alfred de Lostalot), “L’Exposition de la rue Le Peletier” (R90I,p86-87**;R2,p156)
11. 1876/04/01, Le Figaro, p1, Le Masque de fer, “Echos de Paris: A travers Paris” (R90I,p98-99*)
    This review is part of a larger article. ‘Le Masque de fer’ mentions that the day before yesterday the exposition of the intransigeants or impressionalistes opened and that the complete parisian press was present. He notices that there are lesser partakers as at the Boulevard des Capucines (in 1874). He finds it unjust to criticise these artists, who work outside the accepted conditions, according to the customary rules. He makes some short, positive remarks on Renoir (no.212**), the dancers** of Degas and the views of Montmartre* of (Léon) Ottin, which resembles M. de Nittis. He remarks that others imitate Millet.
12. 1876/04/01, Le Petit Journal, p2-3, anonymous , “Le Salon de 1876” (R90I,p101*)
    This review, that is part of a larger article, writes about an exhibition of independant painters, who refuse to present their works to the jury of the Salon. He praises the Japanese (no.153**) of Monet* with the dazzling costume, marvelous of tone and colour; but he criticises his marines made with a bizar fantasy. Renoir* his portraits have a strict reality, aside barely indicated sketches. Lepic** seems one of the organisers… showing a number of paintings, is one of those who has the least bias towards brutality. Mark also the effects of perspective in the paintings of Caillebotte*, namely in no.20**.
13. 1876/04/01, La Petite Presse, p3, anonymous, “Poignée d’informations” (R90I,p102*)
    This annoucement is part of a larger article. “The ‘intransigeante’ school of ‘impressionnalistes’ painters… organise a second (exhibition), which has opened yesterday…”
14. 1876/04/01, Le Petit Moniteur universel, p3, anonymous, “Courrier de Paris: l’École des Batignolles” (R90I,p101-102*)
    This review is part of a larger article. “Yesterday … the opening took place of the exhibition of the so-called school of impressionnalistes… or school of Batignolles.” They only show sketches of which the colour is as poor as the drawing*. He calls Manet** as the most famous propagandist. He calls Monet** as an artist of value; the garments of the Japanese dress are very skilfully rendered (no.153**). Of Renoir* he mentions the nice effect of the striking portrait of Monet (no.153**). There are works are not without merit of Lepic*, Rouart* and Sisley*.
15. 1876/04/01, l’Evénement, p2, Punch (=Gaston Pérodeaud aka Gaston Vassy), “La Journée à Paris” (R90I,p104-105*;R2,p158,note24) First review of Punch↑.
16. 1876/04/01, La Republique française, p3, (Philippe Burty), “Chronique du jour” (R90I,p105-106**;R2,p153) First review of Burty↑
17. 1876/04/02, L’Indépendance belge, p1, Jules Claretie, “Le Mouvement parisien: L’Exposition des intransigeants: M. Degas et ses amis” (R90I,p69-70*)
    Claretie describes the Intransigeants as researchers who are satisfied with impressions. He calls Degas** as leader of the group, calling him a man with an absolute talent. He is escorted by Renoir*, Caillebotte*, Marcelin Desboutin* and others. He refers to the 1st exposition in 1874.
18. 1876/04/02, Le Courrier de France, p3, Sir Frac, “Chronique” (R90I,p84-85**)
19. 1876/04/02, Le Rappel, p2, Un Passant, “Les On-Dit” (R90I,p101*)
    This review is part of a larger article. It mentions that the exhibition of the impressionists opened Thursday and shows 240 entries of 19 independant partakers. He mentions the ingenious and striking submissions of Degas, Renoir, Legros, J.-B. Millet, Monet, Rouard (sic), Pissaro (sic), Ottin, Desboutins (sic), Caillebot (sic), Tillot, Lepic, Sisley, Cals, Beliard and the charming scenes of Mlle Berthe Morizot (sic), without omitting the still lives of M. Jacques François. He announces to return to this exhibition, see Rv35, which was written by Emile Blémont (=Emile Petitdidier). But, Clayson identifies the writter of this short review (Rv19) as Ernest d’Hervilly (R2,p152).
20. 1876/04/02, l’Evénement, p2, Punch (=Gaston Pérodeaud aka Gaston Vassy), “La Journée à Paris: L’Exposition des impressionnistes” (R90I,p105**;R2,p158,note24) Second review of Punch↑
21. 1876/04/02, L’Opinion nationale, p3, Armand Silvestre, “Exposition de la rue Le Peletier” (R90I,p109-110**;R2,p155)
22. 1876/04/02-03, Le Sémaphore de Marseille, p1, (Emile Zola), “Lettres de Paris” (1874/04/01) (R90I,p107-108*) ↑Zola.
23. 1876/04/03, La Liberté, p2, anonymous, “Nos Informations: L’Ecole de Batignolles” (R90I,p90**)
24. 1876/04/03, Le Figaro, p1, Albert Wolff, “Le Calendrier parisien” (R90I,p110-111**;R2,p151)
25. 1876/04/04, La France, p2, (Marius Vachon), “Carnet de la journée” (R90I,p85*;R2,p152)
    “The impressionalistes … do everything contrary to what others do, without worrying in the least about good senes or truth. They paint the trees red or yellow, the houses indigo, the waters crimson or red. … they are jokers.”
26. 1876/04/04, Le Bien public, p3, A. de L. (=Alfred de Lostalot), “L’Exposition des ‘impressionnistes’ “ (R90I,p87-88**;R2,p156)
27. 1876/04/04, Le Pays, p3, Georges Maillard, “Chronique: Les Impressionnalistes” (R90I,p91**;R2,p151)
28. 1876/04/04, Le Soleil, p2-3, Emile Porcheron, “Promenades d’un flâneur: Les Impressionnistes” (R90I,p102-103***;R2,p151)
29. 1876/04/05, Gazette de France, p2, Simon Boubée, “Beaux-Arts: Exposition des impressionnistes, chez Durand Ruel” (R90I,p64**)
30. 1876/04/07, Moniteur des arts, p1, Adriani, “Courrier” (R90I,p53*)
    Adriani mentions it “a very interesting exposition” and announces a special article (probably Rv47 by E.F.).
31. 1876/04/07, Le National, p2-3, Baron Schop, (=Théocore de Banville) “La Semaine parisienne: L’Exposition des intransigeants – L’Ecole des Batignolles – Impressionnistes en plein air” (R90I,p106/107***; R2,p491)
32. 1876/04/08, La Revue politique et littéraire, p349-352, Charles Bigot, “Causerie artistique: L’Exposition des ‘intransigeants’ “ (R90I,p59-62***;R2,p151/2)
33. 1876/04/08, La Gazette des étrangers, p1-2, Marius Chaumelin, “Actualités: L’Exposition des intransigeants” (R90I,p67-68***)
34. 1876/04/09, L’Audience, p3, anonymous, “L’Exposition des intransigeants” (R90I,p53-54**)
35. 1876/04/09, Le Rappel, p2-3, Emile Blémont (=Emile Petitdidier), “Les Impressionnistes” (R90I,p62-64***;R2,p152/3)
    partially reprinted 1876/04/11 in Le Moniteur universel =Rv40.
    Compare Rv19.
36. 1876/04/10, Le Constitutionnel, p2, Louis Enault, “Mouvement artistique: L’Exposition des intransigeants dans la galerie de Durand-Ruelle (sic)” (R90I,p81-83***)
37. 1876/04/10, Le Correspondant, p134-135, Victor Fournel, “Les Oeuvres et les hommes: Courrier du théâtre, de la littérature et des arts” (R90I,p84**)
38. 1876/04/10, Le Pays, p3, G. d’Olby, “Salon de 1876: Avant l’ouverture – Exposition des intransigeants chez M. Durand-Ruel, rue Le Peletier, 11” (R90I,p99-101***)
39. 1876/04/10, Le Magasin des demoiselles, p25, Le vicomte de Saint-Leu, “Causerie: Le Salon – Les Intransigeants de la peinture” (R90I,p106*)
    They are united against the jury of the Salon. “Some random strokes of colour on a canvas, there you go a painting!”
40. 1876/04/11, Le Moniteur universel, p466, (Blémont), “Revue des journaux: Revue littéraire et anecdotique” (R90I,p99*)
    Introduction followed by the review of Blémont (1876/04/11, see Rv35b). This introduction refers to an article in Le Rappel (Rv35a) of the exhibition of the impressionists. “The intransigeants in art shake hands with the intransigeants in politics.”
41. 1876/04/13, L’Echo Universel, p3, Arthur Baignères, “Exposition de peinture par un groupe d’artistes, rue le Peletier, 11” (R90I,p54-55***)
42. 1876/04/15, Paris-Journal, p1-2, = Le Soir, p3, Bertall (=Charles-Albert d’Arnoux), “Exposition des impressionnalistes, rue Lepeletier” (R90I,p55-57***)
    With small alterations also published in Les Beaux-Arts, 1876, p44-45 “Les Impressionnalistes” (R90I,p57-59***)
43. 1876/04/15, The Academy (London), p363-364, Ph. Burty, “Fine Art: The Exhibition of the ‘Intransigeants’ “ (R90I,p64-66***;R2,p153-155)
44. 1876/04/15, Le Journal amusant, p6-7, Louis Leroy, “Choses et autres” (R90I,p88**)
45. 1876/04/15, Le Charivari, p2-3, Louis Leroy, “La Réception d’un impressionnistes” (R90I,p88-90***)
46. 1876/04/15, L’Illustration, p243, X. “Courrier de Paris” (R90I,p111*)
    This short review is part of a larger article. X. mentions there are many exhibitions, so he ignores the sketches of the intransigeants, also called the impressionists.
47. 1876/04/21, Moniteur des arts, p1-2, E.F., “Le Groupe d’artistes de la rue Le Peletier” (R90I,p83-84**)
48. 1876/04/29, L’art français, p146, Jean Raymond, “Le Salon de 1876” (R90I,p105*)
    This short review is (probably) part of a large article. Some of the artists of the exposition of ‘impressionalistes‘ have real value. He praises them for protesting against the jury of the Salon.
49. 1876/04/30, Le Tintamarre, p6, A. Paulon, “Faits-Paris …nadvertance” (R90I,p101*)
    This is (probably) part of a larger article and just refers to the exposition of the Impressionists.
50. 1876/04/30 – 05/01, Le Sémaphore de Marseille, p1, (Emile Zola), “Lettres de Paris: Autre correspondance” (1874/04/29) (R90I,p107-108***)
51. 1876/05/01, L’Artiste, p347-349, Pierre Dax (=Gustave or George Rivière), “Chronique” (R90I,p70-71***)
    reprint of 1876/04/13, L’Esprit moderne, Gustave (or George) Rivière, “Les Intransigeants de la peinture” (R90I,p106;R2,p156/7)
52. 1876/05/06, Le Siècle, p1-2, Castagnary, “Salon de 1876: Premier Article: Les Impressionnistes: MM. Claude Monet, Pissaro (sic), Sisley, Renoir, Caillebotte, Degas, Mlle Morizot (sic)” (R90I,p66-67**)
53. 1876/05/13, New-York Daily Tribune, p2, Henry James jr., “Parisian Festivity: Letter from Henry James, Jr … Cynical Artists …” (R90I,p86**)
54. 1876/06, Le Messager de L’Europe (St.Petersburg), “Deux Expositions d’art au mois de mai”;
    reprinted in Emile Zola: Le Bon Combat de Courbet aux impressionnistes. Anthologie d’écrits sur l ‘art. Ed. Gaëton Picon, Paris: collection Savoir / Hermann, 1974, p182-186“ (R90I,p111-113***) Note: variation of 1876/04/30 – 05/01, Le Sémaphore de Marseille.
55. 1876/ 06/01, Revue des deux mondes, p515-517, Victor Cherbuliez, “Le Salon de 1876: Les Impressionnistes, les tableaux de genre et les portraits” (R90I,p69**) ↑
56. 1876/06/15, Post-och Inrike Tidningar (Stockholm), p3, R.M., “ ‘Salonen’ och den franska konsten 1876: En studie af RM” (R90I,p90+91**)
57. 1876/09/30, The Art Monthly Review and Photographic Portfolio Vol. 1, no.9 (London), p117-122, Stéphane Mallarmé (translation George T. Robinson), “The Impressionists and Edouard Manet” (R90I,p91-97****;R2,p27-35 +149/150)
    See separate page with an extended summary.
58. 1877, Le Livre d’art des femmes: Peinture, sculpture, Paris: A. Lemerre, p109-112, Jean Dolent, “Visite de Madame Pastoudret à une exposition particulière d’artistes dits ‘impressionnistes’ “ (R90I,p71-72**)
59. 1880, L’Art Moderne Paris: G. Charpentier, 1883, p112, J.-K. Huysmans, “L’Exposition des indépendants en 1880” (this included remarks on the 1876 exposition) (R90I,p85+86*)
    I wrote in the Gazette des Amateurs “M. Degas shows…”, then he describes no.47or48***, 43?**, 51a+b**
    ‘I also recommend, in the painting above this one (no.47*?), the torso of the woman leaning forward’ (R90I,p86+290).
    x
    And additionally (not in Berson):
60. 1876/06/01, Le Phare de la Loire, p1, L. Laurent-Pichat, “Salon de 1876” (iR437***)
61. 1876/05/13, New York Tribune, Henry James, “Parisian Festivity: Cynical Artists”. (R2,p158,note 1;R1,p396,note39;R5,p97+94)
    Rewald extendedly cites from this review: James calls the partakers Irreconcilables or ‘Impressionists’. They ‘are partisans of unadorned reality and absolute foes to arrangement…; the painter’s proper field is simply the actual, and to give a vivid impression of how a thing happens to look at a particular moment, is the essence of his mission. This attitude has something in common with that of the English Pre-Raphaelies… None of its members shows signs of possessing first-rate talent.’ He makes clear that they loosely treat a subject and render a general expression. (R1,p370/1;R4,p153)
62. 1876, August Strindberg, “Fran Café de l’Ermitage till Marly-le-Roi (impressionisterna, 1876); reprinted in Strindberg, Kultur-historiska studier; Stockholm, 1881; p108-110 + 112-113.
    ‘Strindberg merely wrote a piece in what he considered an Impressionist literary style’ (R2,p158,note 1; R1,p396,note41)
    Strindberg visited the Durand-Ruel galleries: ‘we did not see the group show’. He made some negative remarks on ’this new art’ like ‘awful portraits of only ugly persons’ (R1,p372). Denvir writes that he saw the show and was very delighted (R5,p95).

 

Recommanded citation: “Impressionism, a historical reconstruction: Reviews on the 2nd ‘impressionist’ exposition in 1876. Last modified 2026/04/06. https://www.impressionism.nl/1876-expo-reviews/”

 

Note: additional info will follow.