Impressionism: the first ‘impressionist’ exposition
organised by the
Société anonyme
des artistes peintres, sculpteurs, graveurs, etc
or:
Société Anonyme Coopérative des Artistes Peintres, Sculpteurs, Graveurs, etc à Capital et Personnel variable
Introduction:
On this page you will find extended information on the ‘Société anonyme coopérative d’artistes peintres, sculpteurs, etc.’, that was also under other names and in short just called the ‘Société’. You will see that now unknown artists were active and now well known artists were just guests, without any active involvement. You will also find names of artists invited and artists that were member, but didn’t join the 1st ‘impressionist’ exposition in 1874.
Numbers of artists involved:
The first ‘impressionist’ exposition that started 1874/04/15 was organised by the ‘Société anonyme coopérative d’artistes peintres, sculpteurs, etc.’. There were 30+1hc=31 partakers. The Société… was founded 1873/12/27. There were 22 subscribers; 6 of them wouldn’t join the 1874 exposition. The bookkeeping of the Société… from around 1874/05/27 counted 35 contributors; 6 of them didn’t join the 1874 exposition; 3 of these 6 hadn’t subscribe and maybe had become a member after the start of the exposition.
1873/05/12 Paul Alexis named 10 artists that were involved in organising an independant exposition; 5 of them wouldn’t join the 1874 exposition. Somewhere (early) 1873 there was a list of 20+ (in fact 30) potential members of the Société… ; 15 would actually subscribe and 12 exhibit 1874/04/15.
Several other artists have been approached in 1873 and early 1874 to join the Société… and the 1874 exposition (in total at least 29). 15 of them would join the 1874 exposition; 2 of them didn’t appear in the list of 35 contributors.
At the liquidation meeting 1874/12/17 just 14 members were present; two had send a notice of absence; 5 of these 16 hadn’t subscribe about a year earlier.
All in all we see just 4 artists who were involved in the whole process, from the names mentioned by Paul Alexis up to the liquidation meeting: Monet, Pissarro, Sisley and Béliard. We see another 5 artists who were involved in the whole process, starting the 20+ list: Degas, de Molins, Renoir, Robert and Rouart.
In total at least 69 artists were invited to become member of the Société and to exhibit at the 1874 exposition. As said the exposition had 31 partakers. There were 9 artists that were officially involved in the Société, but didn’t join. The other 29 artists rejected the invitations.
Of all these names there were just 5 women: Berthe Morisot and ‘Comtesse de Luchaire’, who exhibited in 1874 (the last one outside the catalogue=hc); Mlle Sanson (sic?), who was on the 20+ list; Dona Guyot (?), who was on the list of contributors; Edma Morisot, who rejected the invitation , because she had stopped painting in 1869 after here marriage with Adolphe Pontillon.
Note: more info you will find lower at this page.
Different names for the Société…:
On 27 December 1873 the ‘Société des artistes Peintres, Sculpteurs, Graveurs et Lithographs‘ was officially constituted. (The Society Artists Painters, Sculptors, Engravers, Lithographers). In the statutes published 1874/01/17 in the Chronique des Arts et de la Curiosité it was called ‘Société anonyme coopérative d’artistes peintres, sculpteurs, etc.’ (R87,p223;R2,p105+116). So, the term ‘anonymous cooperative’ was added and ‘engravers and lithographers’ was left out. Still, the statutes mentions the ‘artistes-peintres, sculpteurs, graveurs et lithographes (R87,p223), so the ‘engravers and lithographers’ are added again. This Society would organize what is now known as the first ‘impressionist’ exposition in 1874. The 1874 catalogue called them ‘Société Anonyme des Artistes Peintres, Sculpteurs, Graveurs, etc.’ (Joint Stock Company of Artists Painters, Sculptors, Engravers, etc.). So ‘anonymous’ was added and ‘cooperative’ was left out and ‘Engravers’ was added and ‘Lithographers’ left out. In earlier concept actes the term ‘Dessinateurs‘ was also added. The balance sheet of 1874/05/27 notes ‘Société Anonyme Coopérative à Capital variable des Artistes Peintres, Sculpteurs, Graveurs, etc.’ (R415,p366). So, ‘cooperative’ and ‘variable capital’ is added. The minutes of the Liquidation meeting 1874/12/17 notes ‘Société Anonyme Coopérative des Artistes Peintres, Sculpteurs, Graveurs, etc. à Capital et Personnel variable‘ (R415,p368). So, again ‘cooperative’ is mentioned and ‘variable capital’ is extended with ‘variable in staff’. I assume the ‘Société Anonyme Coopérative des Artistes Peintres, Sculpteurs, Graveurs, etc. à Capital et Personnel variable’ is the most complete and official formulation. In short there is spoken of the ‘Société‘.
Who were the Sculpteurs, Graveurs, Lithographs, Dessinateurs?
The most ‘impressionist’ expositions were easily named ‘exposition de peinture’, though there were many engravings, drawings and also some sculptures and lithographs exhibited. But, in the preparations of the first exposition these other techniques were explicitly mentioned. Who were these artists they referred to?
Who were the Sculpteurs? Firstly Auguste Ottin, who showed 10 sculptures at the 1st ‘impressionist’ exposition. In the list of subscribers of 1873/12/27 we see him and Solari explicitly mentioned as sculptor. In the 20+ list Alfred Rosse and Chapuis (?) were also explicitly named as sculptors. Auguste Lançon wasn’t indicated as such and didn’t exhibit sculptures at the Salon, but still is mentioned in sources also as an sculptor.
Who were the ‘Graveurs’? Of the artists that showed engravings in the 1874 exposition, only Henri Rouart was one of the subscribers 1873/12/27. But, he was a painter who also did some etching, not a typical ‘graveur’. André Gill, who was on the 20+ list, was more known as an engraver. Auguste Lançon, who also was on the 20+ list, exhibited many etchings at the Salon.
Who were the ‘Lithographs’? Emile-Louis Vernier exhibited at the Salon many lithographs. Léon Ottin showed at the 1874 exposition 1 lithographs, but further more he is not really known as a lithograph. Amand Gautier, who was mentioned by Alexis↓, also made lithographs.
Who were the ‘Dessinateurs’? The ‘dona Guyot’ who was in the list of contributors namely exhibited charcoal drawings at the Salon. But, as she joined maybe after the start of the 1874/04/15 exposition, this probably didn’t refer to her. André Gill, who was in the 20+ list, also was a caricaturist.
Note: It seems a bit overdone to name all these artistic disciplines, when just a few of the (potential) artists that were to exhibit, applied these techniques.
The announcements of Alexis, May 1873:
1873/05/05 Paul Alexis, an art-critic and friend of the ‘impressionists’, encouraged in an article in L’avenir National the formation of artistic syndicates that would organize their own exhibitions without a jury. Monet replied (1873/05/07) ‘A group of painters gathered at my house read the article with pleasure (…) We’re all delighted to see you defending our ideas.’ Expressing the hope on support for ‘la Société’ we are in the process of forming. Alexis published the letter in L’avenir National (1873/05/12) and added ‘We know already that it will have several artists of great merit among its members, MM Pissarro, Jongkind, Siseley (sic), Belliard (sic), Armand Gautier, Guillaumin, Authier, Numa Coste, Visconti, etc.’ (R116I,p139). In an appendix Alexis called them a group of ‘naturalists‘ ‘with the just ambition of painting nature and life in their broadest reality’. And also that ‘They only want to unite interests, not systems’. Monet already had mentioned this concrete initiative in a letter dated 1873/04/22 to Pissarro.
It is unclear to me if the names were given by Monet or if they were supposed by Alexis. Anyway, note that famous artists like Cézanne, Degas, Morisot and Renoir are absent and Béliard and Guillaumin were present.
Sources: R2,p17+104; R22I,p104; R88I,p5+6; R88II,p231+395; R1,p309; R127I,p428 (letters 64+65); R116I,p139.
A list of 20+ names of artists:
Rewald found in the papers of Camille Pissarro a list of 20+ names of artists added with 11 additional names (R415,p360). No.8 was left out, so in fact it renders 20-1+11=30 names. Probably it consisted of potential subscribers of the Société (I understand somehow 20 names were needed.)
When we compare these names with the 22 artists mentioned in the constitution charter↓, we see the following 14 names return: 1) C. Pissarro; 2) E. Beliard; 3) C. Monet; 4) Guillaumin; 5) Renoir; 6) Sisley; 7) Cézanne; 9) de Molins; 11) Lépine; 13) Rouart; 16) Degas; 20) Robert; (20+2) Gilbert; (20+10) Feyen-Perrin.
Lacking in this list are: Desbrosses, Levert, Meyer, Auguste and Léon Ottin, Rousselin and Solari, who all were subscribers 1873/12/27.
Lubin Authier, who was named by Paul Alexis↑, also appeared in the list as number 18.
We also see the names of 5 other artists that are numbered: 10. Rosse, a sculptor; 12. Auguste Lançon; 14. Ernest Quost; 15. Vernier; 19. Margotet.
And in the additional names we find the following 9 extra names: (20+1) Mathon; (20+2) Rios de los Rios; (20+3) Alphonse Masson; (20+4) John Lewis Brown; (20+5) Brisset; (20+6) Chapuis (?), a sculptor; (20+7) Gill; (20+8) Corroenne (?); (20+11) Mlle Sanson (sic?).
I wonder if the order of the names is of any relevance. It is curious that Béliard is named as second, Guillaumin as 4th and Degas just as no.16. Feyen-Perrin was among the added names.*
When was this list written? For example, the 5th of December** Lançon had indicated to wait for his signature and he never would sign, still he was no.12 on this list. Robert was listed as no.20, which would suggest that the list was made after 1873/12/11** when Monet wrote that his subscription wasn’t clear yet. But, this would mean that all the additionally mentioned artists have withdrawn in the period before the 27th. So, I assume it was a list of potential subscribers. When we look at the addresses of Mll Samson (the Salon of 1873 gave a new address), it seems the list was made early 1873 (or the author didn’t know she had moved).
Note*: the names Belliard, Cézane, Metling, de Mollins, Renouar (Renoir) and probably Mlle Sanson (Samson) were wrongly written. I wonder who has written this list. I suppose someone who was not close with Béliard, Cézanne, Mettling, de Molins and Renoir. So, I suppose it is not Pissarro and not Monet. Unless, one of them suffered from dyslexia.
Note**: see the letters no.75 and 74 of Monet (R127I,p128/9)
The preparations in 1873:
It is interesting to see which artists were involved in the preparations in 1873. Who had ideas? Who discussed with whom? Who approached others to subscribe for the Société? Most of this information can be found in the correspondence which has been preserved.
We see that 1873/04/22 Monet wrote Pissarro ‘if we can get together to finalise things’. He already had mentioned Sisley and Béliard in his letter. Also mentioning his brother as subscriber, who ‘won’t have any room at the shows’. Ending with ‘everyone thinks it’s a good idea, only Manet is against it.’
In a letter early May to Pissarro, Piette rejects the idea of an independent exhibition.
We see that in the letter to Pissarro written 1873/09/12 Monet is in the proces of formulating the statutes: ‘I’ve suggested some improvements to the phrasing of certain articles which are not sufficiently clear and which absolutely must be better formulated’.
Raeburn writes that Renoir attended meetings on the foundation of the ‘Société’ and that several of these meetings took place in his appartment / studio at 35, rue Saint-Georges (9th arrondissement).
1873/11/30 Monet wrote Pissarro that he hasn’t forgotten the ‘Société’. Making clear that he is in the process of finding subscribers: ‘I went several times to meet Carjat*; at last he has promised me the signature of Gill and Lançon.’
In the letter to Pissarro of 1873/12/05 we see Monet very occupied with finding subscribers, sighing ‘it seems to me, that it is more difficult to obtain these five signatures than the first 15.’ So, there already have been 15 subscribers, but it is unclear who. And for some reason it was important to find 5 more. He wrote ‘Carjat* yesterday has sent back the statutes, writing that Lançon and others ask me to wait for their signatures until later’. Lévy, La Rochenoire and an artist that is not a French citizen didn’t want to subscribe. He would try to meet Los Rios and Solari the next day and had written Feyen-Perrin to meet. Renoir would see Guillemet tomorrow. And he suggests Pissarro to meet Robert to ask im to subscribe.
1873/12/06 Duret warned Pissarro not to take part in the Société and to leave Monet and Sisley.
1873/12/11 Monet wrote Pissarro that it is still not clear if Robert, Guillemet and Feyen-Perrin will subscribe.
The role of Degas stays unclear. Fact is that in April 1873 he returned from New Orleans, where he visited his brother since October 1872. Early 1874 he went to Turin (or Naples), where his father died 1874/02/23. After that he was busy to settle his father’s debts.
Note: It is interesting to study all the correspondences known of 1873 and early 1874 to see who were actively involved and who passively just agreed to sign (1873/12/27) and to exhibit (1874/04/15).
Sources: letters of Monet (no.64 +67 +69 +73 +74 +75 in R127I,p428+429); R116I,p139-141; R31,p297; R46,p234; R47,p47+48; R26,p12; .
Note*: Etienne Carjat was an art-critic with many contacts.
Acte de constitution, 1873/12/27:
1873/12/27 the ‘acte de constitution’ (constitution charter) of the Société des Artistes Peintres, Sculpteurs, Graveurs et Lithographes** was signed by 22 artists***: Béliard, Cézanne, Degas, Desbrosses*, Feyen-Perrin*, Gilbert*, Guillaumin, Lépine, Levert, Mettling*, Meyer, de Molins, Monet, Auguste Ottin, Léon Ottin, Pissarro, Renoir, Robert, Rouart, Rousselin*, Sisley and Solari* (R410,p106). The same appeared when the constitution charter was registered at the Seine Commercial Court dated 1873/12/31 by Léon Ottin, which was noted as ‘Procès Verbal de la déclaration de la Société’ and dated 1874/01/07 (R410,p103****). Auguste Ottin and Solari were noted as sculptors, all the others as painters.
Sources: R410,p101-106;
Note*: 6 of these 22 artists wouldn’t join the 1st ‘impressionist’ exposition.
Note**: Already in 1856 there was a ‘Sociétes des Artistes Peintres, Sculpteurs, Graveurs et Dessinateurs’ (iR40). Le Courrier Artistique (1865/02/05) mentions a ‘Sociétes des Artistes Peintres, Sculpteurs, Architectes, Graveurs et Dessinateurs’ (iR40). L’Echo des Beaux-Arts (1870/07/10) mentions a ‘Société des Artistes Peintres, Sculpteurs, etc.’ (iR40).
Note***: The name of Morisot is absent. Still, several sources include her (wrongly) among the co-founders (R166,p263;R47,p48;R42,p29).
Note****: the names ‘Guillaumain’ and ‘De Mollins’ were wrongly written.
Publication of the ‘Acte de constitution’, 1874/01/09:
The ‘Acte de constitution’ was published in the ‘Journal général d’affiches, annonces judiciaires, légales et avis divers‘ 1874/01/09. As far as I know, this Acte isn’t published in a book, nor on internet. Partly this will coincide with the Statutes that were published 1874/01/17↓.
It is a shame that this important document isn’t made public domain.
Sources: R410,p106+102.
Publication of the Statutes de Société… , 1874/01/17:
The statutes of the ‘Société anonyme coopérative d’artistes peintres, sculpteurs, etc. à Paris‘ were published 1874/01/17 in the Chronique des Arts et de la Curiosité (iR131). It is decribed as ‘une société anonyme coopérative, à personnel et capital variables’ formed 1873/12/27 by artists ‘peintres, sculpteurs, graveurs et lithographes’ for the duration of 10 years. The registered office was provisionally at the treasurer M. Auguste Ottin, 9, Rue Vincent Compoine.
In these statutes the goals and rules of the ‘Société…’ are mentioned:
- the organization of free exhibitions, without a jury and honorary awards, where each member can show his work
- the sale of the exhibited works
- the publication (as soon as possible) of a journal exclusively related to the arts*
Every ‘sociétaires’ must subscribe to a share (‘action’) of 60fr and pay every month 5fr for the ‘caisse sociale’. The statutes call Auguste Ottin as the ’trésorier’ (treasurer) of the group.
The statutes mention that untill the first ‘assemblée générale’ (the general meeting) of the ‘Société’ 7 members are the provisional Administrators:
Feyen-Perrin, Mettling, Meyer, de Molins, Monet, Pissarro* and Rouart.
The statutes mention there were 3 members in ‘conseil provisoire de surveillance’ (the provisional supervisory board):
Béliard, Auguste Ottin and Renoir.
Sources: R87,p223; R17,p311; R22I,p106; R87,p223; R17,p311; ;R287,p420; R116I,p142; R410,p101-106; iR131 (Chronique des Arts et de la Curiosité 1874/01/17).
Note*: this is part of art.2 of the ‘Acte de constitution’ of 1874/01/09 (R410,p102).
Note**: citing the ‘Journal général d’affiches, annonces judiciaires, légales et avis divers’ (1874/01/09) Méneux indicates that Pissarro was the President (R410,p102).
Previous concept actes:
John Rewald has found in the papers of Camille Pissarro other undated actes, probably preceding the 1873/12/27 Acte* and published it in the Appendix of his ‘Histoire de l’Impressionnisme’ (R415,p358-363). According to Rivière (1921) Pissarro had shared a charter of a professional bakers’ corporation in Pontoise and pleaded for a joined-stock company (R1,p312;R116I,p139).
The first one of the ‘Société des Artistes Peintres, Dessinateurs, Graveurs, etc. de Paris‘. In pencil it was added ‘Monet, Porte St. Denis (Argenteuil). The first article wrote: ‘The undersigned, all painters, drawers and engravers, in a spirit of solidarity and independence, have today decided to form a mutual aid and protection society, the distinctive title of which will be Independent Art.’ It also says the ‘assemblée générale des sociétaires’ will gather at least once a year (art.II); the expositions will be held at least once a year in the same period as the yearly exhibition by the State (=the Salon); on sundays the entrance will be free** (art.IV); the larger pictures will be hung below the smaller once in no more than two rows*** (art.V), representatives will be chosen for the ‘direction générale de l’exposition et de l’administration’ (art.VII); before the 12th of January the ‘Trésorier’ must have received the contribution of 60fr (art.XI).
The second one was called ‘Société des Artistes Peintres, Dessinateurs, Graveurs‘ and maybe Renoir was opposed to it. It was called a ‘A cooperative society with a variable staff and capital’ of ‘Artistes Peintres, Dessinateurs, Graveurs, Sculpteurs’ (art.1). The goal of the Society is firstly to organise free expositions, without Jury or honorary awards (…), secondly to sell art-works and thirdly to publish a journal (art.2). ‘Le Fonds Social’ is fixed at the amount of 1200fr. (art.6). The account year starts in April (art.8). Till, the day of the first ‘Assemblée Générale’ La Société will be administered by a ‘Conseil d’Administration’, there also will be a ‘Conseil provisoire de Surveillance’ and a ’trésorier provisoire’ (art.13). The larger pictures will be hung below the smaller once in no more than two rows***. The hanging will be alphabetical, starting with the letter that is drawn by lot****. The catalogue has to mention the price of the art work (art.22). At max 10% will be taken from the price of the works sold*5 (art.24). In general this Acte contained much more detailled regulations.
The third act was called ‘Exposition en participation‘. A ‘Société’ was formed for the exposition of paintings, sculptures, engravings and related objects and the sale of these objects. It had to take place around the first of March and would last a month till 6 weeks. It would show 300 art-works, at most two paintings above each other, the larger ones below***. Shown in an alphabetical order****. There are 150 shares of 60fr, that give right of showing two art-works*5. No-one can subscribe more than 3 shares, unless at the 15th of February there are shares left; than one has the right on two supplementary shares. When at the 15th of March there still are shares left, a ‘Réunion des Souscripteurs’ will decide what will be done with it. The administration will be done by a ‘Gérant’ (managing director), who will receive 20% of the revenues. Decisions will be made in the ‘Réunion Général’. For the constitution of the ‘Participation’ M. Martin*7 is ‘Gérant provisoire’, MM. Renoir and Rouart ‘Commissaires’ (a name for the ‘Trésorier’ is left out).
Sources: R415,p358-364; .
Note*: I namely will render the articles that differ from the published Statutes of 1874/01/17.
Note**: this intention to have free entrance on sundays isn’t practised (R415,p367), though several sources do repeat it.
Note***: this idea about the hanging in at most two rows and the larger once below …
Note****: this idea that the hanging will be alphabetical, starting with the letter that is drawn by lot…
Note*5: this idea of a commision of 10% over the sold works seems to be in art. 19 of the ‘Acte de Constitution’ of 1874/01/09 (R410,p102).
Note*6: this idea that a share of 60fr gave the right to exhibit two art-works… Partakers could show up to 6 works if they paid for 3 shares. The third concept act assumes that 150 shares will be sold and 300 art-works will be hung. In fact, almost every partaker showed more than two works, but no one paid more then those 60 francs a year. One source states that the 60fr share gave right to ‘show as many works as he likes’ (R116I,p141). It is also said that the ‘associés’ subscribed for a share of 60 frans, of which one twelfth was paid to the treasurer’ (R410,p102).
Note*7: this suggestion that M. Martin would be the temporary managing director is also mentioned in other sources (R88I,p503;iR4)
The finances the ‘Société…’:
The most important revenues consisted of the ‘actions’ (shares) acquired by the members. How must we see these actions of the ‘Société Anonyme (cooperative) des Artistes, Peintres, Sculpteurs, Graveurs, etc.’? As the shares of a cooperative limited company? You invest in the company and when you sell your shares you hope to receive the invested money back with a little profit. The ‘Société’ was explicitly called a ‘Société coopérative à personnel et capital variable’ (R415,p360;R410,p102). This seems to substantiate this view.
But, firstly the ‘Société’ was called just ‘Société des Artistes…’. A society of artists. In the overview of the ‘dépenses’ we see that the ‘sociétaires’ pay each financial year a share of 60fr (+ 1,25fr for a start extra). In this sense it looks more like a contribution to a club of which you are a member and of which in return you benefit. The benefit is the possibility of exhibiting your art-works (also as form of general promotion), with the possibility of selling them. In that case you don’t expact your money back.
In the accounting balance sheet of 1874/05/27 (R415,p365) we don’t see an item of repurchased shares. At the liquidation of 1874/12/17 there is decided that sums paid by members for the second year’s ‘cotisation’ (subscription / member’s fee) would be returned. So, the meaning of the ‘actions’, is more a yearly nonrefundable membership’s fee. In the balance sheet of 1874/05/27 this is noted as 76,25fr (R415,p365). In the profit and loss account it is noted as 96fr, but a proper counting renders 116fr (R415,p366). But, it is unknown what payments of ‘actions’ were done for the second financial year 74/75 after the end of May.
Another form of capital were the ‘avances’, the advance payments done by the members. In the balance sheet this was noted as being 3.938fr. In the profit and loss account the ‘argent’ part was counted 2.318fr. The other unclear noted part was noted as 1300fr, but a proper account is 1600fr, which comes close to the 3.938fr in the balance sheet. But, this excludes indecipherable notifications in this accounting column. The highest advance payments were done by Rouart, Pissarro* and Degas.
At the liquidation of 1874/12/27 the Trésorier made clear that the external debts were already payed. Did this include these ‘avances’ were already paid back? Rewald suggests the noted 3.713fr consisted of advanced payments by members. 1874/05/27 this was 3.938fr (R1,p336;R415,p638).
When we look at the balance sheet of 1874/05/27 we see the following revenues:
entrance fees, the sale of catalogues and tickets** amounting to 3.869fr and again to be expected for tickets 73fr. So, we see as pure revenues 3.942fr.
I assume that the poor sale of art-works was the most disappointing part, just 260 +257 +100 (still due) = 617fr.
The revenues*** for the actions was 1.739,90 + 281,25 (still due) = 2.021,50fr****.
There also were 81,25fr of donations*5.
This makes a total of revenues 6.661,75fr. The expenses amounted a 9.272,20fr. So, there was an actual loss of 2.610,45fr.
But, this was not directly visible in the balance sheet, because there were 3.938fr of advance payments noted. Payments that had to be payed back. So, the amount of money in cash mentioned in the balance sheet of 949,20 and often mentioned in sources, wasn’t that positive.
This loss of 2.610,45fr divided by 33 members makes is 79,10fr a member. But, somehow this mounted to 184,50 per member at the end of the year. It is not clear how. But, it was enough to choose for the liquidation of the Société.
Note: the amounts from the profit and loss account (R415,p366/7) are slightly different from the ones in the balance sheet (R415,p365) and also some of the counting is not correct.
Sources: R415,p365-367; R410,.
Note*: the name of Camille Pissarro is surprising because he is known to be quite poor.
Note**: for me it is not clear what is meant by ‘billets’. They were linked to the members.
Note***: I leave out the actions for the financial year 74/75 and I assume that the already paid 81,25 would be paid back at the end of the year, as decided.
Note****: So, it was expected that 33 members would pay 61,25fr, but the profit and loss account renders 35 names, including Grandhomme who wasn’t to be expected the contribution for the first financial year (R415,p366).
Note*5: these don’t appear in the profit and loss account.
What have been the expectations?
The 3rd concept act (R415,p363) mentions the expectation of showing 300 art-works*. Each artist could buy a share, that gave the right to exhibit 2 art-works**. So, they expected to sell 150 shares, that costed 60fr each. This would have given at total revenue of 9.000fr***. At most one could buy 3 shares. So, they expected between 50 and 150 artists to join****.
When we look at the prices asked for the art-works, they were quite high, up to 5.000fr for Déjeuner of Monet (no.103). Maybe this was influenced by benificial sales during the Hoschede sale at Hôtel Drouot earlier that year 1874/01/13. Still, several partakers were more modest asking between 190 and 400fr for their paintings*5. In total there were 61 oil paintings offered for 69.630fr, an average of 1.141fr a painting*6. When all were sold this would have given 6.963fr revenues on commissions. Clear is that some partakers had lowered their prices*7.
Degas asked a high price for his drawing (no.82), namely 800fr, the only work he had for sale; 7 of the 10 works were loans. He was more aimed on ‘social capital’, potential buyers that would become interested and later on would buy their works (R410,p224).
Joining this 1874 exposition would have been provitable when you sold 1 art-work for more than 66fr. A low amount. But, even in this most partakers, didn’t succeed. Cals was the most profitable, probably selling a work for 2.570fr, paying 257fr commission and 60fr for his share, this left him with a profit of 2.253fr.
Sources: R425,p359-368; R410,p221-224; R411;
Note*: In reality there were 165 catalogue numbers and about 225 art-works exhibited.
Note**: Probably therefore many etchings and watercolours were shown within one frame, something that was hardly done at the later ‘impressionist’ expositions. Also loose frames, of for example pastels, were shown within one catalogue number.
Note***: In reality there have been according to the balance sheet 33 and according to the profit and loss account 34 members that had payed or were due to pay 60fr (+1,25fr for a start) for the first financial year 73/74. So, no-one payed for more than one share, though many showed more than two art-works. I assume that this rule of two art-works has been abondonned shortly before the exposition. We see several ‘bis’ numbers added and works shown outside the catalogue.
Note***: In reality there were just 31.
Note*5: This applies to Attendu, Béliard, Bureau, Cézanne, Debras, Guillaumin, Levert, Mulot-Durivage.
Note*6: I have left out the art-works made in other techniques and also works which were not surely paintings, like those of Léon Ottin.
Note*7: Monet payed 80fr commission for his soleil levant (no.98), so he sold it for 200fr less than the 1000 he asked for it. Renoir sold a work priced for 1000fr (no.144), but didn’t pay commission. Béliard payed a commission of 15fr, which would mean that he sold one of the two works he had priced for 200fr, for 150fr. Latouche payed 25fr commission for no.69, for which he had asked 290fr, so he lowered 40fr (note: the writing is not fully clear, Léa Saint-Raymond claims he asked 250fr for this painting (originally or eventually?); R410,p224). Sisley, de Molins and Léon Ottin probably sold their works for the asked prices (1.000, 1200 + 200fr). Cals payed 257fr commission, so probably he had sold (at the last moment) a work for 2.570fr, the highest sale of this exposition; but none of his works were priced in the catalogue.
The liquidation of the Société, 1874/12/17:
1874/12/17 a Verbal Proces was made up at of the ‘Société Anonyme Cooperative des Artistes Peintres, Sculpteurs, Graveurs etc (à Capital et Personnel variable)’, located at 9, Rue Vincent Compoine (18th arrondissement). This was done by the ‘Assemblée Générale’ gathered at Renoir 35, Rue Saint-Georges. The members had been invited the 10th.
14 members were present*: Béliard, Bureau, Cals, Colin, Degas, Latouche, de Molins, Monet, Auguste and Leon Ottin, Renoir, L. Robert, Rouart and Sisley. 2 members were excused: Pissarro was in Monfoucault with Piette; Brandon was ill.
Renoir was appointed ‘President’ of the assembly and made the minutes / ‘Proces Verbal’.
The Trésorier** made clear that the external debts were already payed. ‘The shareholders’ equity of the ‘Société’ still stood at 3713fr (money advanced by the Members), but there was just 277,99fr in the cash register. Each member* would therefore be liable for the sum of 184,50 to pay off these internal debts and replenish the social fund.’ (R415,p369).
After that there was an unanimous decision to liquidate the ‘Société’. It was also decided that sums paid by members for the second year’s ‘cotisation’ (subscription / member’s fee) would be returned. Bureau, Renoir and Sisley were chosen in the committee of liquidation. Bureau had the ‘Acte de dissolution’ filed 1874/04/23 at the ’tribunal de commerce de la Seine’ and the 28th the ‘Société…’ was officially dissolved. (R410,p106)
Note 1: after this meeting Brandon, Colin, Latouche, de Molins, Auguste Ottin and Robert would retreat from the ‘impressionist’ expositions.
Note 2: the following 15 partakers of the 1st ‘impressionist’ exposition were absent and hadn’t left a message: Astruc, Attendu, Boudin, Félix Bracquemond, Cézanne, Debras, Guillaumin***, Lepic, Lépine, Levert, comtesse de Luchaire, Meyer, Morisot, Mulot-Durivage and de Nittis****.
Sources: R415,p368+369; R1,p336; R3,p135 +136; R2,p105; R5,p86; R88II,p235.
Note*: it is unclear how many members are meant. The 35 in the financial overview (R415,p366)? The 31 partakers? The 14 present + 2 excused members? Dony writes that Renoir invited 39 ex-partakers (R30,p6). When we divide 3713-277,99=3435,01 through 184,50, that would leave us with 18,6 members who had to pay, a strange number. Still, 184,50fr is more than 3x the yearly contribution (R410,p221).
Note**: it is unclear if Auguste Ottin was still the treasurer, like he was 1874/05/27, but since the ‘Société…’ was still located at his home address, I suppose he was (R415,p365).
Note***: It is namely obvious that Guillaumin was absent, because he already was named by Paul Alexis 1773/05/12.
Note****: Levert, Meyer, Cézanne and Lépine had been subscribers 1873/12/27, the last two were already on the 20+ list.
Who were the active in the Société anonyme…?
Which partakers of the ‘impressionist’ expositions were active in the ‘Société Anonyme des artistes peintres, sculpteurs, graveurs, etc.’ and in the preparations of the 1st ‘impressionist’ exposition? This is not fully clear. The sources give various informations, using various English and French terms:
See at first the names given in the Statutes published 1874/01/17↑.
The following members were part of the ‘organising committee’ (of the exposition?): Degas, Monet, Morisot, Pissarro, Renoir and Sisley (aR1).
Rewald mentions that Béliard and Rouart were in the inaugural committee (R1,p313). Castagnary wrote (1874/04/29) about ‘an administative council of 15 elected members, one third of which was to be renewed every year’ (R1,p339).
So, anyway we see an active role for famous ‘impressionists’ like Degas, Monet, Pissarro and Renoir. But, we see also an active role for lesser known artists like Béliard, Guillaumin, Auguste Ottin and Rouart.
Several artists had done advance payments (in total 3938fr), namely Rouart, Pissarro and Degas (R415,p365+366;R410,p104).
An overview of the subscribers of the Acte de constitution (1873/12/27) and their role:
Here I will render the 22 names of the subscribers of the Act of constitution of the ‘Société des Artistes Peintres, Sculpteurs, Graveurs et Lithographes’ 1873/12/27. In sources they are mentioned as co-founder. I will also mention in what way they were involved. First I will render the 16 artists that joined the 1st ‘impressionist’ exposition. I will do so in order of early, active and ongoing involvement.
Claude Monet was active from the beginning early 1873. He corresponded with Paul Alexis, with Pissarro and others (R88I,p5;R127I,p428/9). He approached many potential members in 1873 and early 1874. He was involved in the formulation of the Acte. He was a co-founder of the Société (R410,p103). He was one of the 7 members of the provisional board of directors (R87,p223;R410,p102). In a letter to Pissarro, 1874/01/27, Monet wrote ’that the board of directors (‘le conseil d’administration‘) was doing its job; the announcement of the formation (in L’Événement) of the Société is proof of this.’ (R127I,p429; letter 76), so indirectly praising themselves. He did 210fr of advance payments (R415,p366). He was present at the liquidation meeting (R415,p368).
Camille Pissarro also was involved from the beginning early 1873. He was mentioned by Paul Alexis 1873/05/12 (R88I,p6). He intensively corresponded with Monet on the Société (R127I,p428/9). He approached others to become a member. He was a co-founder of the Société (R410,p103). He was President of the group of the provisional board of directors (R87,p223;R410,p102). He did pay his contribution for the first financial year and already 10fr for the second (R415,p366). He did 690fr of advance payments (R415,p366). He was present at the liquidation meeting (R415,p368).
Edouard Béliard: Already 1873/04/22 Monet mentioned Béliard as being involved in the organisation of an independant exposition (R127I,p428). His name was also mentioned by Paul Alexis (R88I,p6) and as no.2 in the list of 20+ artists (R415,p360). He was a co-founder of the Société (R410,p103). He was 1 of the 3 members of the provisional supervisory board (R87,p223;R410,p102). He did pay his contribution for the first financial year and already 10fr for the second (R415,p366). He was part of the committee that controlled the bookkeeping (R415,p365). He was present at the liquidation meeting (R415,p368).
Note: Monneret mentions he was invited by Pissarro (R88II,p233), if so, this must have been done early 1873.
Auguste Renoir wasn’t mentioned by Paul Alexis as being involved in organising an independant exposition (R88I,p6). Sometimes Monet mentions Renoir as being actively involved. Raeburn writes that Renoir attended meetings on the foundation of the ‘Société’ and that several of these meetings took place in his appartment / studio at 35, rue Saint-Georges (9th arrondissement). He was a co-founder of the Société (R410,p103). He was 1 of the 3 members of the provisional supervisory board (R87,p223;R410,p102). He did most of the hanging for the 1874 exposition. He was part of the committee that controlled the bookkeeping (R415,p365). He did 285fr of advance payments (R415,p366). He did the invitations for the liquidation meeting at his house, of which he was the President. He also would be part of the liquidation committee (R415,p368/9).
Alfred Sisley: Already 1873/04/22 Monet mentioned Sisley as being involved in the organisation of an independant exposition (R127I,p428). His name was also mentioned by Paul Alexis (R88I,p6) and as no.6 in the list of 20+ artists (R415,p360). He was a co-founder of the Société (R410,p103). Furthermore he doesn’t seem to have been very active. He did 160fr of advance payments, but he was short in paying his contribution and his commission (R415,p366). He was present at the liquidation meeting and was part of the liquidation committee (R415,p368/9).
Note: Rewald just mentions him as a member (R1,p313).
Armand Guillaumin: His name was mentioned by Paul Alexis (R88I,p6) and as no.4 in the list of 20+ artists (R415,p360). He was a co-founder of the Société (R410,p103). Furthermore he doesn’t seem to have been very active. He was not present at the liquidation meeting (R415,p368).
Note: Monneret mentions he was invited by Pissarro (R88II,p233), if so, this must have been done early 1873.
Auguste Ottin was not mentioned by Paul Alexis 1873/05/12, nor was he in the 20+ list. Still, he was a co-founder of the Société (R410,p103). He was 1 of the 3 members of the provisional supervisory board (R87,p223;R410,p102). Maybe he did some advance payments (R415,p366). He was the treasurer, who made up the bookkeeping 1874/05/27 and probably also in December. On account of his figures it was decided to liquidate the Société, that had it’s registered office at his house (R415,p365+368).
Henri Rouart: His name was not mentioned by Paul Alexis (R88I,p6), but it was no.13 in the list of 20+ artists (R415,p360). He was a co-founder of the Société (R410,p103). He was one of the 7 members of the provisional board of directors (R87,p223;R410,p102). He did pay his contribution for the first financial year and already 10fr for the second (R415,p366). He did 1120fr of advance payments (which is far out the highest) (R415,p366). He was present at the liquidation meeting (R415,p368).
Note: some mention him as being invited by Degas (R88II,p232), which seems inappropriate.
Edgar Degas Several sources mention that he had found the most supporters (R22I,p107;R410,p102). He wanted to include artists who had earned reputations at the Salon to avoid the idea it was an exhibition of rejected artists (R2,p105;R1,p313). But, his role stays unclear. Fact is that in April 1873 he returned from New Orleans, where he visited his brother since October 1872. Therefore probably, his name wasn’t mentioned by Paul Alexis (R88I,p6) and he was just no.16 in the list of 20+ artists (R415,p360). Early 1874 he went to Turin (or Naples), where his father died 1874/02/23. After that he was busy to settle his father’s debts. We see him active inviting people in March and April 1874, but it stays unclear if he did so before. He was a co-founder of the Société (R410,p103), but was not active in a committee. He did pay his contribution for the first financial year and already 10fr for the second (R415,p366). He did 450fr of advance payments (R415,p366). He was present at the liquidation meeting (R415,p368).
Auguste de Molins: His name was not mentioned by Paul Alexis (R88I,p6), but it was no.9 in the list of 20+ artists (R415,p360). He was a co-founder of the Société (R410,p103). He was one of the 7 members of the provisional board of directors (R87,p223;R410,p102). He did pay his contribution for the first financial year and already 10fr for the second (R415,p366). He did 300fr of advance payments (R415,p366). He was present at the liquidation meeting (R415,p368). After that he never joined the ‘impressionist’ expositions again. He also exhibited at the Salon of 1874.
Alfred Meyer was not mentioned by Paul Alexis, nor in the 20+ list. He was a co-founder of the Société (R410,p103). He was one of the 7 members of the provisional board of directors (R87,p223;R410,p102) in which he was the secretary (R411). He had gathered the prices asked for the exhibited art-works (R410,p102;R411). He did some advance payments (R415,p366). He was not present at the liquidation meeting (R415,p368). He never joined the ‘impressionist’ expositions again. He also exhibited at the Salon of 1874.
Léon Ottin: was not mentioned by Paul Alexis, nor in the 20+ list. He was a co-founder of the Société (R410,p103). He was charged with depositing the articles of incorporation (R410,p102). Maybe he did some advance payments (R415,p366). He was present at the liquidation meeting (R415,p368).
Stanislas Lépine: His name was not mentioned by Paul Alexis (R88I,p6), but it was no.11 in the list of 20+ artists (R415,p360). He was a co-founder of the Société (R410,p103). He did 150fr of advance payments (R415,p366). He was not present at the liquidation meeting (R415,p368). He never joined the ‘impressionist’ expositions again.
Note: Moffett doesn’t mention him as co-founder (R2,p105).
Robert was not mentioned by Paul Alexis (R88I,p6), but was no.20 in the list of 20+ artists (R415,p360). Early December he was approached by Pissarro to sign in (R127I,p429). He was a co-founder of the Société (R410,p103). He was present at the liquidation meeting (R415,p368). After that he never joined the ‘impressionist’ expositions again.
Paul Cézanne was not mentioned by Paul Alexis (R88I,p6), but was no.20 in the list of 20+ artists (R415,p360). He was a co-founder of the Société (R410,p103). Some sources mention that he was invited by Pissarro; some were against his partaking (R88II,p233;R1,p314). He doesn’t seem to have been active. He was not present at the liquidation meeting (R415,p368).
Note: in this sense it is strange that Cézanne was one of the 5 artists that was presented in the ‘Immersive experience Tonight with the Impressionists Paris 1874‘ at the Musée d’Orsay in Paris 2024 (R412). He wasn’t that important in 1874.
Levert was not mentioned by Paul Alexis, nor in the 20+ list. He was a co-founder of the Société (R410,p103). He did pay his contribution for the first financial year and already 10fr for the second (R415,p366). Probably he did 100fr of advance payments (R415,p366). He was not present at the liquidation meeting (R415,p368). Some sources mention him as being invited by Degas (R88II,p232;R9;R3;iR4); if this is true this must have been done somewhere in 1873.
6 of these subscribers didn’t join the 1st ‘impressionist’ exposition:
There were also 6 subscribers of the ‘Société des Artistes Peintres, Sculpteurs, Graveurs et Lithographes’, that didn’t join the 1st ‘impressionist’ exposition. Two of them even have been active; 3 of them weren’t in the 20+ list, nor in the list of contributors.
Feyen-Perrin was invited by Monet (before 1873/12/05) to join the Société, but he hadn’t given a reaction on the 11th. Still, the 27th he was one of the subscribers. He became one of the 7 members are the ‘provisional Administrators’. He had payed some contribution (6fr, still lacking 55,25fr). But he didn’t exhibit at the 1st ‘impressionist’ exposition in 1874, but continued to exhibit at the Salon, where he had received a medal in 1865 +1867 (R337=iR19).
Mettling was a co-founder of the ‘Société des Artistes Peintres, Sculpteurs, Graveurs et Lithographes.‘. He was on the 20+ list and probably one of the 15 first subscribes, Monet wrote about 1873/12/05 (R127I,p429). He had payed contribution (11fr, so lacking 50,25fr) (R415,p366), but didn’t exhibit at the 1st ‘impressionist’ exposition in 1874. He was one of the 7 members the ‘provisional Administrators’. He (probably) was the teacher of Ferdinand Attendu who did join in 1874.
Victor-Gabriel Gilbert was one of the subscribers of the Société des Artistes Peintres, Sculpteurs, Graveurs et Lithographes’ (R410,p103). He also was mentioned in the 20+ list↑. He at least exhibited at the Salon of 1873 +74. I assume he belonged to the first groupe of 15 subscribers to which Monet referred in his letter 1873/12/05. He also was in the list of contributors, but had only paid 6fr (still lacking 55,25fr) (R415,p366). He exhibited at the Salon of 1874.
A ‘Desbrosses, peintre, rue de Seine, 47′ was subscriber of the Société des Artistes Peintres, Sculpteurs, Graveurs et Lithographes’ (R410,p103). Probably he was the same as Jean(-Alfred) Desbrosses (1835-1906) who exhibited at the Salon of 1872 and lived at the same address. His name was not listed as one of the contributors (R415,p366), nor in the 20+ list (R415,p360).
Rousselin was noted as one of the subscribers of the ‘Socété des Artistes Peintres, Sculpteurs, Graveurs et Lithographes’ 1873/12/27 (R410,p103). Consequently he didn’t join the 1st ‘impressionist’ exposition and he wasn’t on the list of the contributors (R415,p366), nor in the 20+ list (R415,p360). It was noted that he lived 194, Boulevard Pereire. In 1873 Auguste Rousselin exhibited a hunting scene at the Salon des Refuses. He was noted as a pupil of Gleyre (iR1).
Philippe Solari was noted as one of the subscribers of the ‘Socété des Artistes Peintres, Sculpteurs, Graveurs et Lithographes’ 1873/12/27 (R410,p103). So, I think it is not right to say that he rejected the invitation of Monet (R22I,p107). Consequently he didn’t join the 1st ‘impressionist’ exposition and he wasn’t one of the contributors (R415,p366), nor in the 20+ list (R415,p360). It was noted that he was a sculptor and that he lived rue d’Enfer 33. He wasn’t on the list of the contributors (R415,p366). He exhibited at the Salon of 1874.
Which partakers were invited members of the ‘Société…’ ?
Who were the artists that accepted the invitation to become member of the ‘Société Anonyme des artistes peintres, sculpteurs, graveurs, etc.’ in 1874 and also did exhibit at the 1st ‘impressionist’ exposition (1874/04/15)? I will render the names in an alphabetical order.
Astruc was no co-founder of the Société (R410,p103), though Walther claims otherwise (R3,p645). Belloli mentions he was later invited (R17,p311); Monneret adds that he was invited by Pissarro (R88II,p232). He did pay his contribution (R415,p366). At about the same time he also exhibited with the Société des Amis des Arts and at the Salon (R410,p257;iR1). He was not present at the liquidation meeting (R415,p368). He never joined the ‘impressionist’ expositions again.
Attendu was no co-founder of the Société (R410,p103). He did pay his contribution (R415,p366). He did 100fr of advance payments (R415,p366). He was present at the liquidation meeting (R415,p368). He was a pupil of the co-founder Mettling, who didn’t join the 1st exposition. Attendu also exhibited at the Salon of 1874. He was not present at the liquidation meeting (R415,p368). He never joined the ‘impressionist’ expositions again.
Boudin was no co-founder of the Société (R410,p103). He was later invited to participate (R17,p311); other sources add by Monet (R88II,p232;R1,p314). He did pay his contribution (R415,p366). He also exhibited at the Salon of 1874. He was not present at the liquidation meeting (R415,p368). He never joined the ‘impressionist’ expositions again.
Bracquemond (Félix) accepted to join shortly before the opening. Degas had written him the 27th of March or the 3rd of April. He is absent in the list of contributors. (R410,p104+257; R415,p366;R1,p339+314R22I,p107). The idea of Rappard-Boon that Bracquemond was among the co-founders is not correct (R73,p17). He was not on the list of contributors (R415,p366). He was not present at the liquidation meeting (R415,p368). He joined the ‘impressionist’ expositions again in 1879 +80. All these years he hadn’t exhibited at the Salon. For the Salon of 1874 he received 11 votes for the jury (section gravure). He was not appointed (R337=iR19). Did this inspire him to join the ‘impressionist’ expositions?
Brandon was no co-founder of the Société (R410,p103). He is mentioned to have been invited by Degas (R88II,p232). He did pay his contribution (R415,p366). Brandon couldn’t come to the liquidation meeting 1874/12/17, because he was ill (R415,p368).
Bureau was no co-founder of the Société (R410,p103). He was befriended with Boudin. He did pay his contribution (R415,p366). He also exhibited at the Salon of 1874. He was present at the liquidation meeting and was part of the liquidation committee (R415,p368/9). Furthermore he only would join the 2nd ‘impressionist’ exposition in 1876.
Cals was no co-founder of the Société (R410,p103). He was invited by Monet (R88II,p232;R1,p314); he also had connections with Père Martin (R410,p105). He did pay his contribution (R415,p366). He did 100fr of advance payments (R415,p366). He was present at the liquidation meeting (R415,p368). He was present at the liquidation meeting 1874/12/17 (R415,p368). He would continue exhibiting at the ‘impressionist’ expositions.
Colin was no co-founder of the Société (R410,p103). He is connected with Rouart and Père Martin (R410,p105). He did pay his contribution for the first financial year and already 10fr for the second (R415,p366). He also exhibited at the Salon of 1874. He was present at the liquidation meeting 1874/12/17 (R415,p368). He never joined the ‘impressionist’ expositions again.
Debras was no co-founder of the Société (R410,p103). He is connected with Rouart and Père Martin (R410,p105). He did pay his contribution for the first financial year and already 10fr for the second (R415,p366). He also exhibited at the Salon of 1874. He was not present at the liquidation meeting (R415,p368). He never joined the ‘impressionist’ expositions again.
Latouche was no co-founder of the Société (R410,p103). He was later invited to participate (R17,p311); Monneret adds by Monet (R88II,p232). He sold one Marine (no.69) for which he payed 25fr commission, so probably he had lowered his price from 290 to 250fr. According to his own letter he did duty as a guardian during the exposition (R1,p324). Two weeks later he also exhibited at the Salon of 1874. Latouche did pay his full contribution for the financial year 73/74 and already 10fr for the next year (R415,p366). He was part of the financial control committee (he name is on the balance sheet (R415,p365). He was present at the liquidation meeting 1874/12/17 (R415,p368). He never joined the ‘impressionist’ expositions again.
Lepic was no co-founder of the Société (R410,p103), though he is mentioned as such by Moffett and Rewald (R2,p105;R1,p313;R89,p18); others mention him as being invited by Degas (R88II,p232;R9;R3;iR3). He did pay his contribution (R415,p366). He did 250fr of advance payments (R415,p366). He also exhibited at the Salon of 1874. He was not present at the liquidation meeting (R415,p368). Furthermore he only would join the 2nd ‘impressionist’ exposition in 1876.
Comtesse de Luchaire: was no co-founder of the Société (R410,p103); she probably joined at the last moment, for she was not in the catalogue (=hc). She neither was in the list of contributors (R415,p366). She was not present at the liquidation meeting (R415,p368) and never joined the ‘impressionist’ expositions again.
Berthe Morisot is mentioned as co-founder by several sources (R1,p313;R2,p105;R54,p75), but this is not true (R410,p103). Degas had invited her and her sister Edma in writing their mother in March. Morisot herself replied to Pissarro the same month; Edma had stopped painting in 1869 after she married Adolphe Pontillon (R410,p102+106+157;R88II,p232). Manet tried to persuade Berthe to exhibit at the Salon (R1,p315). Some sources claim that Morisot had been involved at the start (of the 1874 exposition) (R17,p311;R54,p75;R2,p105), but this is a bit curious, since she only agreed to exhibit somewhere in March. So I wonder on what sources this statement is made. She did pay her contribution (R415,p366). She was not present at the liquidation meeting (R415,p368).
Note: in this sense it is strange that Morisot was one of the 5 artists who was presented in the ‘Immersive experience Tonight with the Impressionists Paris 1874‘ at the Musée d’Orsay in Paris 2024 (R412). Morisot would become the most important female partaker of the ‘impressionist’ expositions, but probably she wasn’t prominent in 1874.
Mulot-Durivage was no co-founder of the Société (R410,p103), though Walther mentions him as a member (R3,p684). Coming from Le Havre, he probably was connected with Monet (R410,p105), but this is not affirmed by Wildenstein (R22I,p472). He did pay his contribution (R415,p366). He was not present at the liquidation meeting (R415,p368). He never joined the ‘impressionist’ expositions again.
Degas invited De Nittis, writing: ‘As you are exhibiting also at the Salon, one cannot say that we are a manifestation of refused.’ (R88II,p232;R1,p313). It seems he decided to join at the last moment, after one of his entries for the Salon was rejected. (R410,p104). He did pay his contribution (R415,p366). He was not present at the liquidation meeting (R415,p368). He never joined the ‘impressionist’ expositions again.
Invited artists that didn’t join:
Several artists didn’t join the ‘Société Anonyme des artistes peintres, sculpteurs, graveurs, etc.’ nor the 1st ‘impressionist’ exposition, though they were invited and / or were involved in earlier initiatives for an (independent) exhibitions apart from the Salon. Many of them ‘… felt the battle for recognition should be fought in the Salon’ and they didn’t want to exhibit together with secondary and tertiary figures’ (R2,p105+22).
Note: For more info on these artists, unless otherwise indicated, see para-impressionists.
Artists mentioned by Paul Alexis that didn’t join:
When writing (1873/05/12) on the initiative of Monet for an independant exposition, Paul Alexis mentioned several names of artistes he assumed to be involved. Some of them would have nothing to do with the Société and didn’t join the ‘impressionist’ expositions.
Authier: was mentioned by Paul Alexis↑ (1873/05/12) as being involved in an initiative for an independant exposition; his name returns as Lubin Authier in the 20+ list, indicating he lived 350, rue St-Jacques.
Numa-Augustin Coste was mentioned by Paul Alexis 1873/05/12↑ as one of the artists involved in organizing an independent exhibition. But, he had no further involvement in the Société…
Gautier, Amand: was mentioned by Paul Alexis↑ (1873/05/12) as being involved in an initiative for an independant exposition. He exhibited at the Salon of 1874.
Jongkind: refused the invitation of Monet (R87,p224;R1,p314); was mentioned by Paul Alexis↑ (1873/05/12) as being involved in an initiative for an independant exposition; also was involved in an independant initiative in 1872.
Visconti was mentioned by Paul Alexis 1873/05/12↑ as one of the artists involved in organizing an independent exhibition (R127I,p428; R22I,p104; R88II,p395). But he isn’t mentioned in any other source concerning the Société…
Artists from the 20+ list that didn’t join:
As mentioned above Rewald found in the papers of Camille Pissarro a list of 20 names of artists added with 11 additional names (R415,p360). This list of potential members of the Société… with in fact 30 names, was probably made early 1873. 15 of these artists would become subscribers of the Société… 1873/12/27; so 15 didn’t. One was already mentioned by Paul Alexis, namely Lubin Authier. The other 14 you will find listed here:
A ‘Brisset‘ was mentioned in the 20+ list of names of artists (that were to be invited as subsribers of the Société…) (R415,p360). It was noted that he lived 19, rue de Delta. This is where Pierre-Nicolas Brisset (1810-90) also lived. He exhibited regularly at the Salon, anyway also in 1872 +73 (not in 1874); he was an awarded artist and exhibited hors concours (R337-iR19). He wasn’t one of the subscribers 1873/12/27, nor one of the paying members (R410,p103;R415,p366).
John Lewis Brown was mentioned in the 20+ list of names of artists (that were to be invited as subsribers of the Société…) (R415,p360). It was noted that he lived 64, Laroche-Foucauld. He had no further involvedment in the Société… He exhibited at the Salon of 1874; he was an awarded artist and exhibited hors concours (R337-iR19).
A ‘Chapuis‘ was mentioned in the 20+ list of names of artists (that were to be invited as subsribers of the Société…) (R415,p360). Maybe his name must be written a bit different, because it is hard to descipher. It was noted that he was a sculptor and lived 116, rue d’Assas, but this was the same address as of Gill, who was mentioned just before, so maybe this was a writting error. In 1872 there was a Honoré Chapuis who showed a portrait at the Salon, so a painting, and who lived in Besançon. I couldn’t find more information. Anyway, this ‘Chapuis’ had no further involvedment in the Société…
A ‘Corroenne (?)’ was mentioned in the 20+ list of names of artists (that were to be invited as subsribers of the Société…) (R415,p360). It was noted that he lived 138, faubourg Poissonière. I couldn’t find any additional information. Anyway he had no further involvedment in the Société…
A ‘Gill‘ was mentioned in the 20+ list of names of artists (that were to be invited as subsribers of the Société…) (R415,p360). Probably he was the same as André Gill, who lived at the same address and exhibited at the Salon des Refusés of 1873. In his letter of 1873/11/30↑ Monet mentioned to approach him to subscribe via Carjat. But, Gill didn’t subscribe.
Auguste Lançon had indicated to wait for his signature to Monet around 1873/12/05 and he never would subscribe the Société… Still he was no.12 on the 20+ list, where it was indicated that he lived at 69, Boulevard St-Jacques. Instead he exhibited at the Salon of 1874. In 1873 he had received a 2nd class medal for engraving (R337=iR19).
Margotet was mentioned in the 20+ list of names of artists (that were to be invited as subscribers of the Société…) (R415,p360), but he had no further involved with the Société…
Alphonse Masson (1814-98) was mentioned in the 20+ list of names of artists (that were to be invited as subsribers of the Société…) (R415,p360). It was noted that he lived 11, Avenue des Tilleuls (Montmartre). He exhibited at least at the Salon of 1872 +73 +74. He had no further involvement in the Société…
Mathon was mentioned in the 20+ list of names of artists (that were to be invited as subscribers of the Société…) (R415,p360), but he had no further involvement in the Société…. He exhibited at the Salon of 1874.
Ernest Quost was mentioned in the 20+ list of names of artists (that were to be invited as subscribers of the Société…) (R415,p360), but he had no further involvement in the Société…. It was noted that he lived 5, Rue des Rosiers. There was also an Ernest Quost that exhibited in 1872 +74 at the Salon and in 1873 at the Salon des Refusés. He was born in Avallon (Yonne). In 1872 +73 he lived 71, Rue de Laval and in 1874 30, Rue de la Fontenelle (Montmartre). So, the addresses don’t correspond.
Ricardo de los Rios was invited by Monet. Some state that, it was probably he who refused because he didn’t want to oppose the State, while being a foreign (Spanish) citizen, probably referring to Monet his letter of 1873/05/12. But, in this same letter Monet announces to go and meet Los Rios, hoping he will have more luck. He also was in the list of 20+. (R127I,p129; R2,p116+105; R22I,p107; R88II,p63). He exhibited at the Salon of 1874.
Alfred Rosse was mentioned in the 20+ list of names of artists (that were to be invited as subscribers of the Société…) (R415,p360), but he had no further involvement in the Société…. It was noted that he was a sculptor and lived 78, avenue de Breteuil. He exhibited a terracotta bust at the Salon des Refusés in 1873. Here it was noted that he was a pupil of M. Gouffroy.
Mlle Sanson (sic?) was mentioned in the 20+ list of names of artists (that were to be invited as subscribers of the Société…) (R415,p360), but he had no further involvement in the Société…. It was noted that she lived at 72, rue de Rivoli. Mlle Jeanne Samson, born in Lyon and pupil of M. Fichel, exhibited (at least) at the Salon of 1872 +73 +74. In 1872 she also lived at 72, rue de Rivoli. But in the Spring of 1873 (and 1874) her address is noted as 22, rue de Monsieur-le-Prince. Does this mean that the 20+ list was made very early 1873? Or is another Mlle Sanson mentioned?
Vernier: was mentioned in the 20+ list of names of artists (that were to be invited as subscribers of the Société…) (R415,p360), but he had no further involvement in the Société…. It was noted that he lived 19, rue de Constantinople. The Salon database makes clear that Emile-Louis Vernier lived there in the Spring of 1873 (+1874). In the Spring of 1872 he still lived at 40, rue Fontaine-Saint-Georges. He was born in Lons-le-Saunier and was a pupil of M. Colette. At the Salon he exhibited paintings and also many lithographes. Note that 1873/12/27 the Société had the addition ‘Lithographes’. He had received medals in 1869 +1870 (R337=iR19).
Other artists invited in 1873 that didn’t join:
There also were artists that weren’t mentioned by Paul Alexis and that weren’t in the 20+ list, who probably were approached in 1873 to join the Société…, but who refused. Several of them were mentioned in letters of Monet (R127I,p428/9).
Fantin-Latour: refused to join with similar arguments as Manet↓ (R1,p315) and had been involved in independant initiatives in 1867 and 1872. He had received a medal in 1870 (R337=iR19)
Renoir would meet Antoine Guillemet 1873/12/06 to ask him to subscribe the Société…, but Guillemet refused (R127I,p428; R1,p316), though he had been involved in independant initiatives in 1867. He was congratulated by Corot for his choice not to be involved in this gang and received a second medal at the Salon of 1874 (R22I,p107).
La Rochenoire, Charles-Julien de: rejected the invitation of Monet and exhibited at the Salon of 1874 (R22I,p107;iR1)
Lévy, Henri-Michel was invited by Monet who had met him in Zaandam and was ‘scared of compromisisng himself’ (R2,p105;R22I,p107). He exhibited at the Salon of 1874.
Manet: refused several invitations (R87,p224), fearing to compromise the success he had just achieved at the Salon (R88II,p232). He felt that the battle for recognition should be fought in the Salon (R2,p105), only participation in the Salon could bring real recognition (R1,p315); Manet also didn’t want to exhibited together with Cézanne (R1,p315). He had been involved in independant initiatives in 1867 and 1872. He exhibited at the Salon of 1874.
Which contributors didn’t join the first ‘impressionist’ exposition?
In the bookkeeping of around 1874/05/27 there was a list of 35 contributors (R415,p366). Three of the 1873/12/27 subscribers were lacking: Desbrosses, Rousselin and Solari (22-3=19). Two of the partakers of the 1874 also were missing: Félix Bracquemond and Comtesse de Luchaire (31-16=15-2=13). In this list there are 3 artists who were no subscribers in 1873/12/27 and who didn’t participate in the 1874/04/15 exposition. So, maybe they joined after the start of the exposition.
‘Beaume’ was in alphabetical order in the list om members that had to pay their contribution. He hadn’t done this yet. There was probably noted that he had paid 10fr in advance (R415,p366). He wasn’t one of the subscribers 1873/12/27, so I assume he joined early 1874. He hadn’t paid his contribution, nor for the financial year 73/74 as for that of 74/75. Except for this last name, I have no further information on him. Maybe he was the Joseph Beaume (1796-1885), who regularly exhibited at the Salon, also in 1872 and 1874; he exhibited hors concours (R337=iR19). It is not likely that such a well-established artist joined the Société, so I assume it concerned another artist with that last name. (R415,p366; R9,p65; iR1)
There is a ‘Grandhomme’ mentioned as contributor of the Société… He was not obliged to pay for the financial year 73/74. For 74/75 he had paid 6fr, was due to pay another 51,25fr. (R415,p366). Maybe he is the same as Paul Grandhomme (1851-1944) a medalist, engraver and enameller, who exhibited at the Salon of 1874.
‘Dona Guyot‘ had payed contribution for the Société…, but didn’t exhibit at the 1st ‘impressionist’ exposition in 1874. She had payed 61,25fr for the first financial year (73/74) and already 20fr for the second (74/75), which is more than any other member. There has been a Mlle Louise Guyot, who had received a 3rd class medal in 1841, but it is doubtfull this is the same woman (R337=iR19).
Artists invited that didn’t join in 1874, but did later:
Some artists that were invited, didn’t join the Société…, nor the first ‘impressionist’ exposition. But, they would join in later ‘impressionist’ expositions.
Degas was not able to persuade Legros, who lived in England (R1,p313). Maybe he was expected to join, because the numbers 71-73 are left open in the 1874 catalogue, between Latouche and Lepic. Later Legros would join the 2nd ‘impressionist’ exposition in 1876.
Piette made clear to Pissarro in a letter written in the summer of 1873, that he didn’t believe in an association of people of talent, he was afraid of a gang of incapables, who wouldn’t show solidarity (R1,p312); still, he would join at the third ‘impressionist’ exposition in 1877 and posthumously in 1879.
Artists invited in 1874 that didn’t join:
The following artists were no subscribers 1873/12/27 of the ‘Société des Artistes Peintres, Sculpteurs, Lithographes’. Nor were they on the 20+ list. So, probably they were invited in 1874 to become member of the Société… and to join the 1st ‘impressionist’ exposition. Several sources claim that Degas had found the most supporters (R22I,p107; R410,p102). But I couldn’t find sources that proof he was doing acquisition in 1873. And I assume he started to recruit March onwards, because in February he was in Italy, because his father had died.
Jacques-Émile Blanche was invited by Morisot but refused out of modesty (R87,p224).
Jean-Jacques Henner refused to join the Société… He was approached by Degas (in 1874) (R1,p316; R410,p104). Probably Philippe Burty (1874/04/16) referred to him writing ‘A member of the Jury, has even promised to join the show. His absence, at the last moment, will only be platonically regretted.’ (R87,p256; R410,p104). He exhibited at the Salon of 1874. The year before he was appointed Chevalier in the Légion d’Honneur (R337=iR19).
Meissonier would be invited by Degas (aR1; iR202; )
Edma Morisot, married with Adolphe Pontillon since 1869: Degas had invited her and her sister Berthe in writing their mother in March. But Edma had stopped painting in 1869 (R410,p102+157+257;R88II,p232)
Pierre Prins: the French WikiPedia site claims that Pierre Prins was one of the subscribers 1873/12/27 (iR4), but this isn’t true (R410,p103). The page on Pierre Prins (iR4), refers to an article in Le Point (2015/04/15) by Frédéric Lewino et Gwendoline Dos Santos writing ‘he entrusted twelve paintings to his childhood friend, the sculptor Émile Philippe Scailliet (1846-1911), so that he could hand them over to Alfred Sisley, who was to bring them to the studio’ (=of Nadar, where the 1st ‘impressionist’ exposition was held). The same notification is found with Monneret (R88I,p683). Pierre Prins wasn’t in the 20+ list of names of artists (that were to be invited as subscribers of the Société…) (R415,p360). I wonder if his name appears in the correspondence of the ‘impressionists’.
Tissot (James): Degas was not able to persuade Tissot, who lived in England, though he pointed at the dozen notices in the newspapers prior to the exposition. Degas had written him the 27th of March or the 3rd of April. (R1,p313; R2,p105; R410,p104+106+257) Tissot had received a medal in 1866 (R337=iR19).
James McNeill Whistler: was invited by Degas to exhibit; something Cassatt around 1908 remembered him saying so (R410,p257)
Artists involved in earlier independant initiatives, that didn’t join:
There were several artists that were involved in earlier initiatives for independant expositions. But they didn’t join the Société …, nor the ‘impressionist’ expositions.
Bazille had died in 1870 and had been involved in independant initiatives in 1867 and 1869.
Corot refused to exhibit and (probably) praised others for doing the same; still he was involved in independant initiatives in 1867 and 1869 (R87,p224;R2,p105)
Courbet was in exile in Switzerland (R2,p105), and had been involved in independant initiatives in 1867 and 1869.
Daubigny: had been involved in independant initiatives in 1867 and 1869.
Diaz: had been involved in independant initiatives in 1867 and 1869.
Marison, Fortuné: had been involved in independant initiatives in 1866.
Rousseau had died in 1867 and had been involved in independant initiatives in 1867.
Sources:
My main sources are:
Rewald (1955=R415,p358-369)
Rewald (1973=R1,p313+336+339)
Moffett (1986=R2,p105+116)
Walther (2013=R3,p135-138 +645)
Denvir (1993 =R5,p86)
Schurr&Cabanne (2008=R9)
Belloli (1990=R17,p311+331)
Wildenstein (1996=R22I,p107+106)
Wildenstein (1972=R127I,p428+429)
Porro (1992=R54,p75)
Monneret (1978-81=R88II,p231-235)
Patry/Robbins (2024=R410), namely Catherine Méneux (p.101-106)
WikiPedia (iR3; iR4)
additional sources: (=aRx)
- impressionistsarts.com//first (extended article on the 1st ‘impressionist’ exposition; with 19 pictures of which 9 were exhibited in 1874 and 5 of Manet; also repeating several myths on Impressionism; =iR374)
- culture.gouv.fr//the_new_society (extended article on the Société Anonyme des Artistes Peintres Sculpteurs, Graveurs, etc.; =iR424)
Recommanded citation: “Impressionism: The Société Anonyme des artistes peintres, sculpteurs, graveurs, etc. Last modified 2024/10/09. https://www.impressionism.nl/societe-anonyme-des-artistes-peintres-sculpteurs-graveurs-etc/”