Gauguin, account

Impressionism, a historical reconstruction:

Paul Gauguin

(1848-1903)

Account

of his exhibited art-works

 

 

Introduction:
On this page you will find an account of the works the Gauguin has exhibited at the ‘impressionist’ expositions from 1879-86 and at the Salon. As indicated earlier the indication of a painting is often uncertain. Often there are more than one options. In my choices I mainly have followed the suggestions of Sylvie Crussard in her Catalogue Raisonné of the paintings 1873-1888 (2002=R181=iR186=CR), Moffett (1986=R2), Berson (1996=R90), sometimes added with Dony / Braun (1976=R36). The last 3 refer to the Catalogue Critique des tableaux by Georges Wildenstein (1964=R128=iR186=W) and for the sculptures to Gray (=Christopher Gray: Sculpture and Ceramics of Paul Gauguin; Baltimore, 1963). Berson and Crussard mostly choose pictures that are more large, dated and signed. This is an assumption that is affirmed by sendings to the Salon, but is it appropriate for paintings send in for the ‘impressionist’ expositions?
At the end of this page you will also find an account of the pictures that Degas exhibited at the Salon (and other exhibitions).

 

The 4th ‘impressionist’ exposition 1879:

  • Gauguin exhibited 1 sculpture outside the catalogue (=hc)
  • See for the suggestions of Moffett (R2,p271) and Berson (R90II,p113+128-131)
  • See link for the pictures.

Reviews:

 

4IE-1879-hc, no title (‘une petite sculpture agréable’).
Moffett and Berson suggest: 18xx, Gray 2, Emil Gauguin, marble bust, h43cm, Metropolitan (R2,p271;R90II,p113+132). Berzon refers to the review of Duranty: ‘a small pleasant sculpture by M. Gauguin, the only sculpture there is, also aroused, especially the first days, the interest of the visitors.’ (R90I,p219).

 

The 5th ‘impressionist’ exposition 1880:

  • catalogue numbers 55-62 = 8 works.
  • no.62 was a sculpture
  • So in total Gauguin exhibited about 8 works, 7 paintings and 1 sculpture.
    • 4x indication of place
    • 1x indication of time, season or weather
    • 1x a study
    • 0x loans (appartient à…),
  • See for the suggestions of Moffett (R2,p311) and Berson (R90II,p149/150+165/6)
  • See link for the pictures.

Reviews:

Charles Ephrussi (1880/05/01) reviewed ‘Gauguin … went over to the blue camp’ (R2,p325).
Silvestre (1880/04/24).
Henry Trianon (1880/04/08) reviewed ‘

1880 catalogue: (R2,p311;iR1)

5IE-1880-55, Les Pommiers de l’Hermitage (Seine-et-Oise)
Eng.: the apple trees at Hermitage (Seine-et-Oise). Moffett suggests W31 (perhaps), Berson follows: 1879, SDbr, Les Pommiers en fleurs I, 88×115, private (R2,p311;R90II,p149+165). Berson mentions W32 and W33 as pictures with the same subject, but W31 is the only one signed and dated and the largest (R90II,p149). This is also why Crussard suggests this work (R181,no52). Though W33=CR51 is not dated, this work is quite large, namely 66x101cm, therefor I also render it as an uncertain option. See also no.60. There were no reviews (R90II,p149).

5IE-1880-56, Les Maraîchers de Vaugirard
Eng.: The Market Gardeners of Vaugirard. Moffett suggests W36 (perhaps), Berson follows. 1879, W36, SDbl, The Market gardens of Vaugirard, 65×100, SCMA Northampton (R2,p311+325;R90II,p149+165). There were no reviews (R90II,p149).

5IE-1880-57, Effet de neige
Eng.: snow effect. Wildenstein, Moffett and Berson suggest W37 (perhaps). 1879, SDbr, Jardin sous la neige, 60×81, SM Budapest (R2,p311;R90II,p149+165). Crussard affirms this suggestion =CR57. Berson (R90II,p149) refers to the review of Silvestre (1880/04/24): ‘There are qualities in Mr. Gauguin’s exhibition, and his Effet de neige (no 57) is very accurate. But this ‘gratinée’ execution is awfully heavy. It is quite the opposite of the so independent and resolute way of Mr. Degas. It seems that the wall suffocates under too heavy tapestries. (R90I,p307). Note: ‘gratinée’ means union soup; and ‘gratiner’ means Sprinkle with grated cheese or breadcrumbs. CR56 = W38 depicts the same theme, but looks more heavy, so also render this one as uncertain second option even though this work is smaller and not dated: 1879ca, CR56, Snow at Vaugirard I (study), 42×49, NCG Copenhagen (iR54;R181,no56;R128,no38). I couldn’t find other snow scenes made in 1880 or earlier.

5IE-1880-58, Nature morte
Eng.: still-life. Moffett suggests W28 (Nature morte aux poissons, Km Göteborg) or W47. Berson stresses that W28 was not dated and only renders W47: 1880, SDbl, Le pot de terre et le pot de fer (Jug and mug), 54×65, private (R2,p311;R90II,p149+165;R181,no60;R128,no47). Crussard also only suggests W47=CR60. Berson refers to the review of Trianon (R90II,p149), who reviewed ‘with a firm touch and a vigorous colour’ (R90I,p314). The firm touch refers more to W28=CR27, the vigorous colour more to W47=CR60. This description of Trianon applies more to CR61=W48 and CR62=W49, who have been exhibited the next year under number 33 and 35.

5IE-1880-59, La sente du père Dupin (Seine-et-Oise)
Eng.: The pathway of father Dupin (Seine-et-Oise). Wildenstein, Moffett and Berson suggest W35 (perhaps): 1879, SDbl, 31×47, xx (R2,p311;R90II,p150+165). Berson refers to the review of Trianon (R90II,p150), who reviewed ‘eventful and mysterious, crossed by a disappearing path;  -a place for tragedies and love affairs’. (R90I,p314) Crussard writes that there is no trace of a ‘Père Dupin path’ in Pontoise, though there lived a Tupin family and there is a Tupin pond just north in Ennery (R181I,CR53).

5IE-1880-60, étude
Eng.: studie. Wildenstein, Moffett and Berson suggest W38 (perhaps): 1879ca, Jardin sous la neige, 41×49, NCG Copenhagen (R2,p311;R90II,p150+166). This work is a study for W37=CR57, which is suggested for no.57. I will render this option as uncertain. Crussard doesn’t affirm this suggestion. She renders as an uncertain option CR54=W38bis: 1879, CR54, SDbl, Riverside (the Oise near Pontoise?), 31×47, private (iR2;iR54;R181;R128,no38bis). Crussard doesn’t account for her suggestion; the picture looks more like a study, but there is not a more finished painting known, which depicts the same scene, so I will render this one as a very uncertain option. There were no reviews (R90II,p150), so this makes identification very hard. I like to suggest CR50=W32 and CR51=W33 as uncertain options, they can be seen as studies for CR52=W31, which is suggested for no.55. CR51 is larger and more finished, so I render that one as very uncertain.

5IE-1880-61, Ferme Pontoise
Eng.: farm at Pontoise. Wildenstein, Moffett and Berson suggest W34 (perhaps): 1879, SDbl, Environs de Pontoise, 16×25, private (R2,p311;R90II,p150+166;R181,no48;R128,no34). Crussard doesn’t affirm this suggestion and renders: 1879, CR47, SDbl, Geese on the farm, 60×100, private (iR54;iR2;R181,no47). This work was not in the Wildenstein catalogue. This larger picture depicts a farm that fits a Pontoise location.  There were no reviews (R90II,p150). I will render CR47 as an uncertain option and W34=CR48 as a very uncertain option.

5IE-1880-62, Buste Marbre
Eng.: Marble Bust. Moffett and Berson suggest 1877, Gray 1, Portrait of Mette Gauguin, Buste white marble, h34cm, Courtauld London (R2,p311+307;R90II,p150+166). Berson refers to the reviews of J.L., de Mont., de Thémines, Trianon (R90II,p150). Trianon reviewed ‘There is only one shipment of sculpture, and this shipment deserves to be quoted. It is signed: Mette. It is a young woman’s head that ends at the neck. There is a skillful and sincere handling of the chisel. The modelling has the elusive curves and soft flats of youth. If the hair had been treated less summarily, there would be almost nothing to take away from this lovely piece.’ (R90I,p313).

 

The 6th ‘impressionist’ exposition 1881:

  • catalogue numbers 30-39 =10
  • no. 38 + 39 were sculptures
  • in total  Gauguin exhibited 10 works, including 2 sculptures
    • 1x indication of place
    • 0x indication of time, season or weather
    • 1x a study; though no. 17+18 look like studies
    • 1x loans (appartient à…): de Bellio (no.33)
  • See for the suggestions of Moffett (R2,p354) and Berson (R90II,p180+190)
  • See link for the pictures.

Reviews:

J.-K. Huysmans reviewed ‘But although these paintings have qualities, I will not dwell on them, for the personality of M. Gauguin, so clear-cut in his nude study (no.36), has hardly escaped yet, in the landscape, from the embrace of M. Pissarro, his master.’ (R90I,p352)

1881 catalogue: (R2,p354;iR1)

6IE-1881-30, Une nuit à Vaugirard
Eng.: a night at Vaugirard. Wildenstein, Moffett, Berson and Crussard suggest W30=CR69 (perhaps): 1881, CR69, SDbl, Vaugirard Church by Night, 50×35, GM Groningen (iR2;R181,no69;R128,no30;R2,p354;R90II,p181+191). Berson refers to the reviews of Geoffroy and Huysmans. Huysmans reviewed ‘and a view of the church whose gloomy interior is reminiscent of a factory chapel, a mournful industrial town church, lost in this playful and homely corner of a province;’ (R90I,p352). 

6IE-1881-31, Le terrain de ma propriétaire
Eng.: My landlady’s yard. Wildenstein, Moffett, Berson and Crussard suggest W44=CR58 (perhaps): 1880, CR58, SDbl, Houses, Vaugirard, 81×115, IM Jerusalem (iR2;iR59;R1,p457;R181,no58;R128,no44;R2,p354;R90II,p181+191;M130). Berson mentions an uncertain reference of Huysmans.

6IE-1881-32, La tombée des feuilles
Eng.: Falling leaves. Moffett suggests W45=CR68, Berson repeats this suggestion, but leaves the work unidentified. Crussard affirms this suggestion and mentions that the work is disappeared (R181,no68;R128,no45). I couldn’t find a work that comes near.

6IE-1881-33, Fleurs et tapis; appartient à M. de Bellio
Eng.: Flowers and carpets. Wildenstein, Moffett, Berson and Crussard suggest W48=CR61: 1880, CR61, SDbl, Flowers and Carpet (Pansies), 24×36, private (iR2;R181I,no61;R128,no48;R2,p354;R90II,p181+191). Crussard affirms this work was given by Gauguin to Dr Georges de Bellio around April 1881 (R181I,no61). Trainon reviewed ‘yet he allows himself to go astray among the enigmas of impressionism (see his incomprehensible picture entitled Fleurs et tapis.’ (R181I,no61;R90I,px)

6IE-1881-34, Sur une chaise; appartient à M. Degas
Eng.: on a chair. Wildenstein, Moffett, Berson and Crussard suggest W46=CR63: 1880, CR63, SDcr, (Mandolin) on a chair, 47×31, A2018/11/13 (iR11;iR2;R181,no63;R128,no46;R2,p354;R90II,p181+191). There were no reviews (R90II,p181). Crussard affirms that Gauguin exchanged this work before April 1881 with Degas for his pastel Ballet dancer adjusting her shoe, CR699) (R1881I,CR63).

6IE-1881-35, Pour faire un bouquet
Eng.: For making a bouquet. Wildenstein, Moffett, Berson and Crussard suggest W49=CR62: 1880, CR62, SDbr, To make a bouquet, 55×65, A19990629 (iR2;iR15;iR11;R37,p43;R181,no62;R128,no49;R2,p354;R90II,p181+191). Berson refers to the review of Huysmans (R90II,p181).

6IE-1881-36, Etude de nu
Eng.: nude studie. Moffett, Berson and Crussard suggest W39=CR64: 1880, CR64, SDtl, Study of a Nude, Suzanne Sewing, 115×80, NCG Copenhagen (iR2;iR59;R3,p206;R1,p453;R31,no9;R49,p11;R128,no39;R2,p354+343;R90II,p181+192;M90).

6IE-1881-37, Le petit Mousse
Moffett suggests W43=CR67. Berson affirms this suggestion, but leaves the work unidentified. Crussard affirms this suggestion titled ‘ship’s boy’ and mentions the work is disappeared (R181I,no67). To compare I render a later work: 1888ca, CR304, Portrait of a Little Boy, 23×23, MFB Toulouse (iR2;R181,no304+67;R128,no39;R2,p354;R90I,p181)

6IE-1881-38, La chanteuse, Médaillon, sculpture
Eng.: The singer, Medallion, sculpture. Moffett suggests Gray 3, Berson follows: 1880, Gray 3, SDbl, The singer (Portrait of Valérie Roumi), medaillion / sculpture of mahogany, 54x51x13, NCG Copenhagen (R2,p354+343;R90II,p181+192;M90). Berson mentions there were some reviews (R90II,p181/2)

6IE-1881-39, Dame en promenade; figurine en bois
Eng.: Lady on a walk; wooden figure. Moffett suggests Gray 4, Berson follows: 1881ca, Gray 4, Woman on a stroll (Le petite Parisienne), wood stained red, h25cm, private (R2,p354+343;R90II,p182+192). Berson mentions there were some reviews (R90II,p182)

 

The 7th ‘impressionist’ exposition 1882:

  • catalogue numbers 18-30.
  • in total Gauguin exhibited 13 works, including 1 pastel (no.28), 1 sculpture (no.30) and 4 still lifes (no.18+23+24+26) .
    • 1x indication of place
    • 1x indication of time, season or weather
    • 2x a study
    • 0x loans (appartient à…),
  • See for the suggestions of Moffett (R2,p394/5) and Berson (R90II,p240/1+258/9).
  • See link for the pictures.

Reviews:
Philippe Burty (1882/03/08) reviewed ‘His painting is drab and lifeless.’ (R2,p399)
Joris-Karl Huysmans reviewed ‘Alas, Gauguin has not made any progress. Last year this artist brought us an excellent study of a nude; this year there is nothing worthwhile. (…)’ (R2,p399).
La Fare (1882/03/02) reviewed ‘(…) Almost all the paintings of this artist seem to be the charge of the paintings of Mr. Pissaro (sic), exposed next to them, the effect is very comical.’ (R90I,p401).
Jean de Nivelle (1882/03/04) refers in his review to no.18, 25 and 27 or 26.
Henri Rivière (1882/04/08) reviewed ‘Gauguin makes everything dark and his extraordinary execution is frightfully heavy. His subjects, moreover, are treated with a great deal of prejudice.’ (R2,p399).
Armand Sallanches (1882/03/03) reviewed ‘He is the Independent who has the most to do to earn the name! His exhibition is the least consequential as well as the least interesting.’ (R2,p399).

1882 catalogue: (R2,p394;iR1)

7IE-1882-18, Fleurs, nature morte
Eng.: flowers, still-life. Wildenstein, Moffett and Berson suggest W50 (perhaps), now: 1881, CR76, SDbr, Interior of the Painter’s House, rue Carcel, 130×162, Ng Oslo (iR2;iR59;R31,no10;R181,no76;R128,no50;R2,p394;R90II,p202+217;M92). Crussard affirms this suggestion. Berson refers to the reviews of de Nivelle and Huysmans. Jean de Nivelle reviewed ‘See the Fleurs, nature morte of M. Gauguin. They look like they were taken through the fog in a London shop, or at least seen through a mist that eats up the colours.’ (R90I,p406;R181,no76). Huysmans wrote ‘As for his workshop interior, it is of a dull, muted colour;’ (R90I,p397;R181,no76), but it is unclear if he refers to no.18. I don’t think, that these reviews strongly apply to W70=CR76, so I will render it as an uncertain option.

7IE-1882-19, Église de Vaugirard
Eng.: the church of Vaugirard. Berson refers to the review of Huysmans, who writes ‘At most, I shall quote, as more valid than the rest, his new view of the church of Vaugirard.’ (R90I,p397). Moffett suggests W61, Berson repeats this suggestion, but leaves the work unidentified. Wildenstein in his catalogue refers to the review of Huysmans, calls W61 ‘L’église de Vaugirard’, but leaves it unidentified. Crussard refers to CR69=W30 and CR70=67. She suggests both works as uncertain options for no.19. When suggesting CR70, she emphasizes the ‘new’ view of Huysmans, who already had reviewed the painting exhibited as 6IE-1881-30, which was probably CR69=W30. But in CR70 the church of Saint-Lambert is just vaguely visible behind the trees, this makes it unlikely it was titled ‘Église de Vaugirard’. So maybe indeed there is a painting that is disappeared and catalogized as no.61 by Wildenstein. I will render CR69 and 70 both to compare.  

7IE-1882-20, Un morceau du jardin
Eng.: a piece of the garden. There were no reviews. Wildenstein, Moffett and Berson suggest  W58=CR82 (perhaps), now: 1881, CR82, SDbl, Pissarro’s Garden, Quai du Pothuis, Pontoise, 65×54, private (iR2;iR59;R181,no82;R128,no58;R2,p394;R90I,p202+217). Crussard affirms this suggestion.  Berson also mentions two other suggestions: Le Jardin de la rue Carcel, A1965/06/23 (iR14) =CR73=W-, now: 1881-82ca, CR73, Un coin du jardin, Rue Carcel, 56×46, A2002/05/08 (iR2;iR11;R181,no73;R90II,p202), which is affirmed by Crussard; and W67=CR70, now: 1881ca, CR70, Gauguin’s Family, Rue Carcel, 87×114, NCG Copenhagen (iR2;R181,no70;R128,no67;R90II,p202;M90), which is affirmed by Crussard, but which she also suggests for no.19. But as CR70+73 are not signed, Berson thinks CR82=W58 is a ‘more likely candidate’ and she only renders this picture. (R90II,p202). Moffett also suggests a work that was auctioned at Sotheby’s 1981/06/30 as no.17, also refering to Bodelsen (1966), but I don’t know to which work he refers (R2,p394). I will render CR82 as an uncertain option and CR70+73 as very uncertain options.

7IE-1882-21, La mur mitoyen
Eng.: the adjoining wall. There were no reviews. Wildenstein, Moffett and Berson suggest W56=CR61 (perhaps), now: 1881, CR71, SDbl, Party Wall, 31×47, private (iR2;iR59;R181,no71;R128,no56;R2,p394;R90II,p202+217). 

7IE-1882-22, La petit rêve, étude
Eng.: The little dream, study. Berson refers for no.22 + 25 + 27 to the reviews of Hennequin and Huysmans. Huysmans wrote ‘His sketches of children are curious, but they are reminiscent of the interesting sketches of Pantazzis, the Greek painter, who exhibits in the Brussels circles.’ (R90I,p397) Emile Hennequin (1882/03/11) reviewed ‘For M. Gauguin, nature is overshadowed by a light black gauze, covering even the faces of his babies with sooty tints.’ (R90I,p393). Moffett suggests W52+54=CR75, now: 1881, CR75, SDtl, Young Girl Dreaming (Aline Gauguin, rue Carcel), 60×75, OC Copenhagen (iR2;R49,p9;R181,no75;R128,no52+54;R2,p394;R90II,p202+217;M93). Note: Wildenstein first identified the model as Emile Gauguin, titling W52 as  Garçon endormi’ (R128,no52;R90II,p202/3).

7IE-1882-23, A la fenêtre, nature morte
Eng.: at the window, still-life. There were no reviews. Wildenstein, Moffett and Berson suggest W63 (perhaps), now: 1881, CR80, Vase of Flowers and Window, 19×27, MBA Rennes (iR2;iR59;R31,no11;R181;R128,no63;R2,p394+399;R90II,p203+217;M210). Crussard affirms. Crussard also renders a second option: 1882, CR92, SDbr, At the Window (Still Life with Mig and Carafe), 54×65, Hermitage (iR2;R181,no92;M95).

7IE-1882-24, Fleurs et tapis, nature morte
Eng.: Flowers and carpets, still-life. There were no reviews. Wildenstein, Moffett and Berson suggest W64=CR81 (perhaps), now: 1881, CR81, SDbc, Flowers and Carpet, 19×27, private (iR2;R181,no81;R128,no48;R2,p394;R90II,p203+217), Crussard affirms. 

7IE-1882-25, Bébé, étude
Eng.: studie of a baby. Moffett suggests W51=CR77. Berson suggests W51 for no.27. For no.25 she suggests W53, following Wildenstein and the title of the review of De Nivelle. He reviewed ‘And this Tête de Bébé, a paper cutout that is not clean, that gets out of its bed, and that we see again a little further on and grown up, busy peeling oranges, which look like egg yellows.’ (R90I,p406). Berson refers for no.22 + 25 + 27 to the reviews of Hennequin and Huysmans and for no.25 also to Fichtre and de Nivelle. Fichtre reviewed ‘Mr. Sauguin (sic) exposes an unfortunate child who fell into a large jar of Isigny butter, which caused him a violent flux and poached his eye, so he looks upset.” (R90I,p387) Huysmans wrote ‘His sketches of children are curious, but they are reminiscent of the interesting sketches of Pantazzis, the Greek painter, who exhibits in the Brussels circles.’ (R90I,p397) Emile Hennequin (1882/03/11) reviewed ‘For M. Gauguin, nature is overshadowed by a light black gauze, covering even the faces of his babies with sooty tints.’ (R90I,p393). The reviews do not clearly refer to certain works, this makes identification hard. The suggestion of Berson and Wildenstein is a pastel, which is not indicated in the catalogue, so I will render it to compare, now: 1882ca, W53, Jean-René Gauguin (born 188104), p, private (iR186=R128,no53;R90II,p203+218). To compare I will also render an oil painting of a babies head: 1877-78ca, CR46, Portrait d’enfant (Aline Gauguin ?), on panel, 27×21, A2014/02/05 (iR6;iR11;iR2;R181,no46), the small size and the painting on panel make it a study.

7IE-1882-26, Oranges, nature morte
Eng.: oranges, still-life. Wildenstein, Moffett and Berson suggest W65=CR59 (perhaps), now: 1880-81ca, CR59, Still Life with Oranges, 33×46, MBA Rennes (iR2;iR59;R181,no59+p90;R128,no65;R2,p394;R90II,p203+218;M210). Crussard doesn’t affirm this suggestion and suggests: 1881, CR77, SDbr, Interieur avec Aline Gauguin, 52×60, M Sheffield (iR2;R181,no77;R128,no51;R90I,p402;M187). Berson refers to the review of Leroy, who reviewed ‘Be overly vigorous or anaemic to the point of tears. If you doubt it, look at the Oranges of Mr. Paul Gauguin. This fruit, when ripe, is generally golden yellow. -It has given its name to a colour.-  Yes, but if I paint it as we usually see it, I become common, I lack the unexpected. While filling a circle with small dirty grey lichettes, I produce my effect. Faced with this incomprehensible smear, the surprised rebus guesser consults the catalogue and reads: “Oranges”.  Then smiles, exclamations, amazement at such a singular interpretation of nature … and the trick is done.’ (R90I,p402). Nor CR59 as CR77 show something like ‘small dirty grey lichettes’. So maybe another work was exhibited, that is now lost. Still I will render CR59 and CR77 to compare. Compare 8IE-1886-42.

7IE-1882-27, La petite s’amuse
Eng.: The little one has fun. Berson refers for no.22 + 25 + 27 to the reviews of Hennequin and Huysmans and for no. 27 also to de Nivelle. Huysmans wrote ‘His sketches of children are curious, but they are reminiscent of the interesting sketches of Pantazzis, the Greek painter, who exhibits in the Brussels circles.’ (R90I,p397) Emile Hennequin (1882/03/11) reviewed ‘For M. Gauguin, nature is overshadowed by a light black gauze, covering even the faces of his babies with sooty tints.’ (R90I,p393). Wildenstein and Moffett suggest W55=CR74, now: 1881, CR74, SDbr, Pond with Ducks (Girl Amusing Herself), 32×50, private (iR2;R181,no74;R128,no55;R2,p395;R90II,p203), Crussard affirms this suggestion. Berson states that the review of De Nivelle pleads for W51=CR77, now: 1881, CR77, SDbr, Interieur avec Aline Gauguin, 52×60, M Sheffield (iR2;iR59;R181,no77;R128,no51;R90II,p203+218). Crussard reserves this work for no.26. The review of De Nivelle could refer to no.27, but also to number 26:  ‘And this Tête de Bébé, a paper cutout that is not clean, that gets out of its bed, and that we see again a little further on and grown up, busy peeling oranges, which look like egg yellows.’ (R90I,p406). So I will render CR74 and 77 both as uncertain options.

7IE-1882-28, Usine à gaz, pastel
Eng.: Gas factory. Moffett suggests W62, Berson follows. This pastel is not in the Crussard catalogue (R181II,p620). Wildenstein just mentions the work, that it was exhibited as no.28 and part of the Durand-Ruel collection, but leaves it unidentified (R128,no62;R2,p395;R90II,p203). Berson refers to the review of La Fare (1882/03/02): ‘Next, standing in front of a pastel by M. Gauguin depicting an Usine à gaz. It is incredible and indescribable.’ (R90I,p401)

7IE-1882-29, Un coin du mur, effet de nuit
Eng.: Corner of the sea, night effect. There were no reviews. Wildenstein, Moffett and Berson suggest W57=CR72 (perhaps), now: 1881, CR72, SDbr, Wall by night, 22×30, A2010/06/14 (iR6;iR11;R181,no72;R128,no57;R2,p395;R90II,p203+218); also exhibited at the Salon d’Automne 1906, no169. Crussard affirms the suggestion with an ‘?’. 

7IE-1882-30, Clovis, buste, sculpture
Moffett suggests Gray 6, Berson follows, now: 18xx, Gray 6, Portrait of Clovis, buste sculpture, h40cm, xx (R90II,p218+203;R2,p395). Berson refers to 4 reviews.

 

The 8th ‘impressionist’ exposition 1886:

  • catalogue numbers 42-60+hc.
  • Gauguin exhibited 1 sculpture outside the catalogue
  • so in total Gauguin exhibited 20 works, .
    • 3x indication of place
    • 1x indication of time, season or weather
    • 0x a study
    • 0x loans (appartient à…),
  • See for the suggestions of Moffett (R2,p444/5) and Berson (R90II,p240/1+258/9).
  • See link for the pictures.

Reviews:
Paul Adam reviewed ‘Heavy atmospheres weigh on the branches which sag in universal numbness; an angle of grey, plummeting sky among massed foliage. Elsewhere, the sunset scarlet stains the space between the edges of strong trees. A nature apart, evil, and yet attached with the strange attraction of feared things, that represented by Mr. Gauguin. He suggests the evil influences of landscapes, the egoistic sadness of vegatation, their indevinable life that meetsand seems to meditate on things / the unguessable life that one senses in it, the way it seems to brood. (…)’ (R90I,p428;R2,p457;R181I,no199).
Jean Ajalbert (1886/06/20) reviewed ‘Next to these dazzling / exuberant landscapes (of Guillaumin), those of M. Gauguin are quite pale. This conscientious artist makes sympathetic efforts, but he is torn apart by various influences, from which he nevertheless emerges here and there. But the monotony of the subjects treated with hesitant ‘doing’ betrays a painful uncertainty. Our desire to avoid concessions for our friends makes us more severe than we would like, for certain some paintings show good quality and latent strength. (…)’ (R90I,p432;R2,p457)
Jules Christophe (1886/06/13) reviewed ‘Two very new and independent landscape painters, Mr. Paul Gauguin and Mr. Armand Guillaumin, the former more intimate, more discreet, excellent at making a red roof burst through the greenery (compare CR193+194+195+203), exquisite in an evocation of a Danish park (no.56);’ (R90I,p437).
Félix Fénéon (1886/06/13) reviewed ‘Mr. Gauguin’s tones are always very close to each other. Dense forest trees sprout out of the fat, lush, damp ground, invade the frame, outlaw the sky. A heavy air, a little stormy. Bricks are seen indicating a nearby house (CR195+194?+203?); furs are lying (CR191!+CR192?), cow’s snout push aside bushes (CR192!), -cows (CR191+192+194+203). These red roofs (CR193+194+195+203) and beasts (CR191) (CR192), this painter constantly opposes them to his greens, and even doubles them in waters (CR194+195+203+CR192?) flowing between the tree trunks (‘fûts’ means several things made of wood) (CR191+192+193+194+203+195?+196?) and cluttered with long grass (CR191+193+195). (…)’ (R90I,p442/3). Or as translated by Crussard ‘Leafy trees spring from damp, loamy fertile soils, pervading teh canvas to the exclusion of the sky. The air is heavy. A glimpse of bricks suggests a nearby house; pelts stretched out under the sun, muzzles push aside the brush – cows. Constantly, the painter sets off the russet of the animals and roofs against his greens, mirroring them in the water that flows between the tree-trunks, its waters dense with fronds of weed.’ (R181I,no192)
Henry Fèvre reviewed ‘Frequent shortcomings make Mr. Gauguin’s paintings look like a jumbled mess, with a distorted perspective and slightly muted / smothered colours. (R90I,p447;R2,p456).
Gustave Geffroy (1886/05/26) reviewed ‘M. Gauguin exhibits nineteen paintings in which he has still lifes, but above all landscapes. He has sought out willows, corners of ponds, farm surroundings, roads; he has worked out a view of Rouen. There is firmness in most of these studies and an understanding of the dominant effect.’ (R90I,p449;R2,p456).
Emile Hennequin (1886/06/19) reviewed ‘Mr Gauguin, his (=Guillaumin) neighbour in the room, is rather black.’ (R90I,p454)
Octave Maus (1886/06/27) titled his review in L’art moderne (Brussels) ‘Les Vingtistes parisiens’, refering to the exhibitions of ‘Les XX’. He wrote ‘M. Paul Gauguin, a newcomer, we believe, among the Impressionists, follows in the footsteps of the previous one (=Guillaumin). To be examined l‘Eglise, le Parc, le Château, painted with firmness. But his Vaches au repos! But his Vache dans l’eau!!’ (R90I,p464;R2,p456).

1886 catalogue: (R2,p444;iR1)

8IE-1886-42, Nature morte
Moffett doesn’t give a suggestion. Berson suggests or W65=CR59, which was exhibited as 7IE-1882-26 was exhibited again or this work remains unidentified. Berson refers to the reviews of Ajalbert, Darzens and Fénéon and also H. (‘M. Gaugain shows several still lifes’), which also applies to no.54. Ajalbert reviewed ‘a still life, oranges’ (R90I,p432). Darzens reviewed ‘A still life, oranges, is also on view.’ (R90I,p439). Fénéon reviewed ‘a still life with a very skilful execution’ (R90I,p443). Crussard repeats the suggestion for CR59=W65 with a ?, now: 1880-81ca, CR59, Still Life with Oranges, 33×46, MBA Rennes (iR2;iR59;R181,no59+p90;R128,no65;R90II,p242;R90I,p432+439), but she finds it less ‘skilful’ in its execution and seems to prefer: 1881, CR77, SDbr, Interieur avec Aline Gauguin, 52×60, M Sheffield (iR2;R181;R128,no51) and according to here this work was exhibited as 7IE-1882-26 and not W65=CR59. But none of the reviews refer to an interior or to Aline sitting in this interior, it’s just ‘oranges’, so I prefer CR59=W65. The third suggestion of Crussard is: 1886ca, CR215, Fruit in a Bowl (au seigneur Roy), 33×45, private (iR2;R181,no215), a work that is not dated and clearly hasn’t a ‘very skilful execution’, so I think it is a solid suggestion. 

8IE-1886-43, Vaches au repos
Wildenstein, Moffett and Berson suggest W160 (perhaps), now: 1885, CR191, Cows near Dieppe (Landscape with Cows in an Orchard), 64×80, MBB Rotterdam (iR2;R181,no191;R128,no160;R2,p444;R90I,p242+260;M70). Crussard affirms this suggestion, but also suggests CR192. I don’t think CR192 fits the title ‘cows at rest’ very much, while there is just one cow lying in the grass, the others are standing, while in the CR191, 3 of the 4 cows are lying down. Berson refers to the reviews of Darzens, Hennequin and Maus. Hennequin reviewed ‘of a fertile workmanship and firmly placed on sooty (NL.=roetkleurig) backgrounds.’ (R90I,p454) or ‘abruptly slapped down on fuliginous backgrounds’ (R181,no191). Darzens and Maus don’t describe this work.

8IE-1886-44, Vache dans l’eau
Berson refers to the reviews of Darzens, Hennequin and Maus. Darzens and Maus don’t describe this work. Hennequin reviewed ‘of a fertile workmanship and firmly placed on sooty (NL.=roetkleurig) backgrounds.’ (R90I,p454) or ‘abruptly slapped down on fuliginous backgrounds’ (R181,no191). Wildenstein, Moffett and Berson suggest W159=CR203 (perhaps) now: 1885, CR203, SDbl, Watering Place, 46×55, private (iR2;R181,no203;R128,no159;R90II,p260;R2,p444), later probably exhibited at the  Salon d’Automne in 1906. Crussard doesn’t affirm this suggestion and states this is a later copy of CR194 (R181,no203). She suggests this CR194, now: 1885, CR194, SDbr, Watering Place I, 60×73, Osaka FG (iR2;R181,no194;R128,no191). The problem with CR194 is that there are two cows depicted of which one is standing in the water. I think CR203=W159 where there is just one cow in the water, better fits the title. So I will follow Wildenstein, Moffett and Berson in there suggestion.
Crussard also suggests CR191, which is also suggested for no.43. Indeed in CR191 there is one cow standing in the water, but while 3 cows are lying down and resting, I think it best fits no.43.   

8IE-1886-45, Un coin de la mare
Berson refers to the reviews of Darzens and Geffroy, both don’t describe the painting. Wildenstein, Moffett and Berson suggest W158=CR192 (perhaps), now: 1885, CR192, SDbl, Cattle Drinking (Cows at the Watering Place), 81×65, GAM Milan (iR2;R36,no22;R181,no192;R128,no158;R2,p444+457;R90II,p242+261;M107). Crussard affirms this suggestion. She refers to the description in the Fénéon review ‘muzzles push aside the brush’ which is only depicted in this painting. (R181,no192;R90I,p442/3). I think this picture more clearly depicts a ‘corner’, than CR194 and CR203, so I will render it as a certain suggestion.
Crussard also suggests CR193+194+196. CR193 doesn’t render cows and the house is firmly present and not just ‘indicated’ as Fénéon put it. CR196 neither show cows or an indication of a house. In addition it shows a boy, which is not mentioned in the reviews. For CR194 see no.44.
When we take CR191+203+192, than all the discriptions of Fénéon can be capped, so I like to render these for no.43+44+45. 

8IE-1886-46, Les saules
Berson refers to the reviews of Ajalbert, Fèvre and Geffroy, who don’t describe the painting. Ajalbert reviewed ‘”Les Saules” with turkeys bursting with red crests in the green meadow is worth a visit.’ (R90I,p432). Fèvre wrote ’than a wind-blown pond, where the altered branches of willow trees bend towards the water in the intermittent daylight of a sky where the breeze chases the clouds.’ (R90I,p447). Moffett suggests a work on loan to the  Musée Paul Gauguin in Tahiti (R2,p444). Berson and Crussard suggest 1883, CR100, SDbr, Stream, Osny, 55×65, private (iR2;R181,no100;R128,no89;R90II,p243+261;R90I,p432) Previously thought to be W156=CR200, but this suggestion is ruled out by the Ajalbert review (R2,p444;R90II,p243;R181,no200). 

8IE-1886-47, Près de la ferme
Berson refers to the reviews of Fouquier (just mentions the title) and Geffroy (‘surroundings of farms’). Wildenstein, Moffett and Berson suggest W161=CR184, now: 1885, CR184, SDbr, Geese in the Meadow, 56×100, Portland MA (iR2;iR59;R89,p48+52;R181,no184;R128,no161;R2,p444+457;R90I,p243+261). Crussard affirms this suggestion, but adds ’though this title might equally suit several pictures from Osny, Rouen or Dieppe’, she also adds that CR184 is an option for no.49. Moffett also suggests W124=CR117, which is not confirmed by Berson or Crussard. Compare also no.58.

8IE-1886-48, Paysage d’hiver
There were no reviews. Wildenstein, Moffett and Berson suggest W170, now: 1885, CR- W170, SDbl, Winter Landscape, 56×39, private (iR2;R90II,p243+261;R128,no170), note this work is not in the catalogue of Crussard (R181II,p620). Moffett and Berson add as second suggestion W188=CR210 (perhaps), Crussard affirms this suggestion, now: 1886, CR210, SDbr, Suburb under Snow, 78×56, private (iR2;R181,no210;R128,no188;R90II,p243+261;R2,p444). CR160+161+162 made in the winter of 1884-85 in Copenhagen also render winter landscapes, but probably stayed in Copenhagen and therefor probably are not serious options for no.48. CR167 was probably made at the end of that winter in Copenhagen, but maybe was part of a set of paintings that Gauguin arranged to send back to France in 1885 and therefor also could be an option, now: 1885, CR167, SDbl, Winter’s End, Copenhagen, 47×32, private (iR2;R181,no167;R128,no143). 

8IE-1886-49, Le château de l’Anglaise
Eng.: The castle of the English women. Moffett doesn’t give a suggestion, Berson also leaves the work unidentified and refers to the review of Maus, who calls it Le Château, but doesn’t describe the painting. Crussard suggests CR183=W165, now: 1885, CR183, SDbl, La maison blanche, 74×60, A2014/02/04 (iR11;iR2;R181,no183;R128,no165). Maybe this house / castle also appears in CR184=W161, suggested for no47, a work Crussard mentions as a second option for no.49. 

8IE-1886-50, L’église
Wildenstein, Moffett and Berson suggest W102=CR130 (perhaps), now: 1884, CR130, SDbl, Notre-Dame-des-Agnes, Rouen, 73×60, private (iR2;R181,no130;R128,no102;R2,p444;R90II,p243+261). Crussard affirms this suggestion. Berson refers to the reviews of Fèvre and Maus, who doesn’t describe the painting. Fèvre noted ‘However, it is worth noting a beautiful climb of orchards on the way up a hill where a church is located;’ (R90I,p447;R181,CR130). 

8IE-1886-51, Vue de Rouen
Berson refers to the review of Geffroy, who doesn’t describe the painting. Wildenstein, Moffett and Berson suggest W103=CR124 (perhaps), now: 1884, CR124, SDbr, Rouen, L’église Saint-Ouen, 90×73, A2013/05/09 (iR11;R181,no124;R128,no103;R2,p444;R90II,p243+262). Crussard doesn’t affirm this suggestion and as far as I know she doesn’t render an alternative. CR123, View of Rouen, also seems an option, but Crussard indicates this painting was given to William Lund perhaps during Gauguin’s stay in Copenhagen (R181,no123). I think CR116 is a good option for no.51: 1884, CR116, Blue Roofs, Rouen, 74×60, ORC Winterthur (iR2;R36,no15;R181,no116;R128,no100)

8IE-1886-52, Avant les pommes
Moffett doesn’t give a suggestion. Berson also leaves it unidentified and refers to the review of Ajalbert, who reviewed ’there floats a blond, ashy (pale, ashen) light of exquisite fluidity.’ (R90I,p432;R181,no177). Crussard suggests CR177, a work that is now lost: 1885ca, CR177, Before the apples, xx, xx (R181,no177). I render the black and white picture from the Crussard catalogue.

8IE-1886-53, Les baigneuses
Moffett suggests W167, Berson affirms, now: 1885, CR179, SDbl, Women Bathing, Dieppe, 38×46, NMWA Tokyo (iR2;iR59;R181;R128,no167;R2,p444+458;R90II,p243+262;M127). Crussard suggests CR178, now: 1885, CR178, SDbl, (Bathing) Beach Dieppe, 72×72, NCG Copenhagen (iR2;iR11;R181,no178;R128,no166;M90). Berson refers to the reviews of Adam and Fénéon (’the Normandy beaches’). Note that CR178 shows also the beach, but CR179 only the sea. Adam reviewed ‘A huge, metallic sea ripples and rolls, then moves in sheets towards these puny, sickly creatures: women.’ (R90I,p428). Also this discription suits CR178 better than CR179, a work that is smaller and also looks like a study for CR179. So I agree with Crussard.

8IE-1886-54, Fleurs, fantaisie
Note: the ‘fantasy’ in the title. Is this a foreshadowing of his more Symbolist period? Berson refers to the review of H. (‘M. Gauguin shows several still lifes’), which also applies to no.42. Moffett suggests W182=CR148 (perhaps), Berson follows, now: 1884, CR148, SDbr, Basket of Flowers, 48×60, Philadelphia MA (iR2;iR59;R181;R128,no182;R2,p444;R90II,p243+262;M28). Crussard affirms this suggestion, but adds ’this might equally refer to another still life, for example, 146, which I will also render: 1884, CR146, SDbc, Vase of Peonies II, 46×55, private (iR2;R181,no146;R128,no132). 

8IE-1886-55, Route de Rouen
Eng.: Rouen road or road to Rouen. Wildenstein, Moffett and Berson suggest W109=R125 (perhaps): 1884, CR125, Tree-lined road, Rouen I, 93×53, private (iR59;R181,no125;R128,no109;R90II,p243+262;R2,p444). Crussard affirms this work was made in Rouen, but doesn’t confirm the suggestion for no.55. She suggests this painting was with Gauguin in Denmark in 1885 when he made a faithfull copy of it which he gave to Theodore Philipsen and which was rejected for an exhibition 1885/03/26 in Charlottenborg, now: 1885, CR163, SDbl, Tree-lined road, Rouen II, 57×40, NCG Copenhagen (iR2;iR59;R181,no163;R128,no149). It is unclear where the painting was in 1886, so it could be in Paris and therefor an option for no.55. But the emphasize in this picture lies on the line of trees, not that they stand along a road, so I follow Crussard in not seeing it as option for no.55.
Crussard renders two options for no.55: 1884, CR122, SDbr, Street, Rouen, 73×92, MNTB Madrid (iR2;R181;R128,no111) or: 1884, CR127, SDbl, The Road Up, 47×38, Bührle Zurich (iR2;R181;R128,no117). Berson refers to the review of Geffroy (‘les routes’), who doesn’t describe the painting. The title could main a road in Rouen or a road leading to Rouen. This makes identification very hard. Other options could be: 1884, CR114, SDbl, La Rue du Nord, Rouen, 55×46, private (iR2;R181,no114;R128,no126); and: 1884, CR115, Rue Jouvenet, Rouen, 55×50, MNTB Madrid (iR2;R31,no19;R181,no115;R128,no127); and: 1884, CR128, SDbl, Sunken Lane, 73×60, private (iR2;R181,no128;R128,no111bis); and: 1884, CR129, SDbl, Near Rouen, 72×60, private (iR2;R181,no129). CR127 + 129 are less connected to Rouen, so I leave them out as options. As uncertain options I will render CR114, CR115, CR122 and CR129. 

8IE-1886-56, Parc, Danemarck
Wildenstein, Moffett and Berson suggest suggest W141=CR174 (perhaps), now: 1885, CR174, SDbr, Windmill, Østervold Park (Dronningens Molle), 93×73, NCG Copenhagen (iR2;R181,no174;R128,no141;R2,p444;R90II,p244+262). Crussard doesn’t affirm this suggestion and notes that this painting was bought from Mette Gauguin by Victor Hoffding during the 1893 exhibition in Copenhagen, so it was not likely it was in Paris in 1886. Moffett and Berson add as second suggestion W142=CR173, now: 1885, CR173, SDbl, Østervold Park, Copenhagen, 60×73, AGM Glasgow (iR2;R181;R128,no142;R2,p444;R90II,p244+262;M186). Crussard affirms this suggestion. Berson refers to the reviews of Ajalbert, Christophe and Maus. The last two don’t describe the painting. Ajalbert reviewed ’there floats a blond, ashy light of exquisite fluidity.’ (R90I,p432). This review could well refer to CR173, which I will render. CR161 a winter scene of a Danmark park also stayed with Mette Gauguin in Copenhagen and therefor isn’t an option.

8IE-1886-57, Conversation
There were no reviews. Wildenstein, Moffett and Berson suggest W144=CR175 (perhaps), now: 1885, CR175, SDbl, Conversation, 60×74, private (iR2;iR59;R181,no175;R128,no144;R2,p444;R90I,p244+263). Crussard affirms this suggestion, adding ’this is the only known picture fitting that title’ (R181,no175). 

8IE-1886-58, Chemin de la ferme
Moffett suggests W152=CR199 (perhaps), Berson follows, now: 1885, CR199, SDbl, Donkey by the Lane, 81×65, KMM Otterlo (iR2;R181,no199;R128,no152;R2,p444;R90II,p244+263;M72). Crussard affirms this suggestion. Berson refers to the review of Geffroy (‘surroundings of farms’), which could also apply to no.47. Crussard also refers to the review of Adam ‘Elswhere, the space between the trunks of the sturdy trees is peervaded with the scarlet of the setting sun.’ (R181I,no199;R90I,p428). But Crussard also renders a second suggestion: 1885, CR195, SDbr, Pere Jean’s Path, 81×65, MMMK Giza (Egypt) (iR2;R181,no195;R128,no155); she does so because this work was bought during the exhibition. This work also corresponds some of the Fénéon descriptions (R90I,p442/3).

8IE-1886-59, Falaises
Berson refers to the reviews of Ajalbert and Fénénon (just mentions the title). Moffett suggests W170 (perhaps) (R2,p445); this work is not in the Crussard catalogue (R181II,p620) and I couldn’t identify it. Berson calls this a misidentification and suggests W120=CR143, now: 1884, CR143, SDbr, Les falaises de la Bouille, 38×56, A2018/05/30 (iR11;iR2;R181,no143;R128,no120;R90II,p244+263). Crussard doesn’t confirm this suggestion, maybe because it was given in 1884 to Mme Carl August Manthey and the catalogue doesn’t indicate it was a loan. Crussard mentions CR181 fits the title, but ‘it seems unlikely that this very small painting was the one’ (R181,no181). But exactly this small size fits the review of Ajalbert: ‘a small seascape, very bright’ (R90I,p432). I will render CR143 as a very uncertain option and CR181 as an uncertain option, now: 1885ca, CR181, Cliff near Dieppe, on wood, 19×24, private (iR2;iR11;R181,no181); note: this work was not in the Wildenstein catalogue. 

8IE-1886-60, Portrait
There were no reviews. Moffett, Berson and Crussard suggest W186=CR207, now: 1886, CR207, SDcl, The boss’s daughter, 56×46, MDMD Saint-Germain-en-Laye (iR54;iR2;R181,no207;R128,no186;R2,p444;R90II,p244+263). Moffett and Berson render a second option: W187=CR208, now: 1886ca, CR208, Clovis with a book, 57×41, Portland MA (iR2;R31,no31;R181,no208;R128,no187;R2,p445;R90II,p244+263). Crussard doesn’t affirm this suggestion and suggests this work was made around Christmas 1886, because it is quite ‘advaned in manner and spirit’ (R181,no208). I still will render it as a very uncertain option.

8IE-1886-60+hc, La toilette
Moffett suggests Gray 7, Berson follows, now: 1882, Gray 7, La Toilette, pear wood, 34x55x7, Md Strasbourg (iR10;M212;R90II,p244+263;R2,p445;R90I,p443). Berson refers to the reviews of Adam, Ajalbert, Fénéon and La République française. Ajalbert reviewed ‘an essay in woodcarving, a woman painting herself, with an idyllic simplicity.’ (R90I,p432). Adam reviewed ‘A woodcarving, an enamelled and bizarre being.’ (R90I,p428). Fénéon reviewed ‘a wooden sculpture dated 1882’ and a bit further on: ‘His nude woman is shown in half-relief, with her hand in her hair, seated rectangularly in a landscape: it is of a sincere and delicate model, and certainly one of the attractions of these rooms.’ (R90I,p443). 

 

 

Gauguin at the Salon:
Gauguin exhibited just one work at the Salon. In these early days he made several larger paintings, which could be made to submit to the Salon.

S1876-867 Sous bois, à Viroflay (Seine-et-Oise)
Now: 1876ca, CR31, In the forest, Viroflay – Seine-et-Oise, xx, disappeared (R181,no31). To compare I render a smaller work with the same theme: 1875, CR14, SDbr, In the forest, Viroflay, 47×33, NCG Copenhagen (iR2;iR1;R181,no14;R128,no12).

 

Société Nationale des Beaux-Arts:

SNBA-1891-49, Bois sculpté; “Soyez amoureuses, vous serez heureuses
Now: 1889ca, Soyez amoureuses vous serez heureuses, wood, 97×75, MFA Boston (iR10;iR8;iR6;R36,noB6).

SNBA-1891-50, La Bordelaise (céramique); (Appartient à M. Schuffenecker)

SNBA-1891-51, Coupe (céramique); (Appartient à M. Schuffenecker)

SNBA-1891-52, Le Marchand d’escalves (céramique); (Appartient à M. F. Champsaur)

 

 

 

Recommanded citation: Paul Gauguin, an account of his exhibited art-works. Last modified 2022/11/01.  https://www.impressionism.nl/gauguin-account/