Edgar
Degas’ credo that behind the deceitful appearance of art should be found some
kind of truth is characteristic not just for his work, but for the entire
Impressionistic movement. For Degas and the impressionists the relation between
“real” and “fake” was very important. Almost the entire 19th century was under
the influence of Realism in art, which often served political purposes and
featured mostly historical or religious figures, mythical and fictional
stories, filled with smooth and refined bodies of nymphs and other magical
creatures. But in the last part of the century, art, still lead by the French
masters, become more separate from the political issues in Europe and the
historical or religious themes. Impressionism redefined the meaning of
realistic and truthful in art by exposing the hypocrisy behind the “realistic”
paintings of the time and exploring the immediate sensations that the world
offered. A group of innovative artists started exploring the modern life, the
things and people that surrounded them, the nature with its vibrant colours and
ever-changing light, the moment itself – the impression.
Impressionists
captured reality as they saw it by using more expressive, unpolished techniques
– the visible brush strokes, blank spots on the canvas, bright swirls of
colours – they all remind the viewers that what they are looking at is just an
illusion, an art form. But art form that captures a fleeting moment as the
artist sees it; every particular artist with his own “accent” - we can easily
recognize the stylistic differences between impressionists like Monet, Renoir,
Degas, even Cezanne. Rodin did the same thing for sculpture and together they
gave a start to what we now call modern art. Their less photographic, less
polished, “unfinished” techniques were more capable of representing life as it
is. And that’s what Degas tries to do, as he explained: "A picture is
something that requires as much trickery, malice, and vice as the perpetration
of crime, so create falsity and add a touch from nature." This also rings
true with the critics of the day, who looked at the first impressionistic works
as a blasphemy, a crime.
Before
Impressionism was accepted even Courbet, one of the prominent realists, started
indulging himself mostly with beautiful landscapes. Still, the true mediator
between these two schools was Edouard Manet, who wasn't so much invested in the
“realistic” and polished depiction, but in the expressiveness of the moment,
the immediacy of the scene and its meaning for the society he was living in.
And the painting that bridged the gap between the traditional and the modern
was his “Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe” (“Launch on the grass”) from 1863, which
broke every convention and became one of the most scandalous paintings in
history. The work shows a naked woman in a way no one has seen before – she’s a
not a mythological creature, but a contemporary woman, a courtesan that boldly
stares directly at her audience. The men are dressed in modern clothes – the
entire painting exposes modern society as it is, when no one would acknowledge
all its realities. The lack of depth in “Le Déjeuner” and the use of artificial
light intentionally emphasize that the painting is produced in a studio –
that’s how even landscapes were painted before Impressionism took place. There
are visible brush strokes and many clues mocking the hypocrisy of the society
and art at the time, so consequently the painting was displayed in the “Saloon
of the rejected” ("Salon des Refusés").
But the painting that defined the new
movement and gave it its name was “Impression,
soleil levant” (“Impression,
Sunrise”) from 1872 by Claude Monet. It was one of his many beautiful
landscapes, painted with energy and swiftness, capturing the brief impression
in the sky, the moment when the sun lights the horizon. Critics often say that Monet
“paints with light”, he is using clear, bright colors to give live to the sunbeams
playing on the surface of the water and to capture all shades in the sky. With
sweeping brush strokes he turns the impressionistic landscape into something much
more intense and personal. The sun at center of the picture is a magnificent
contrasting point that draws the attention and although it looks much brighter
than the rest of the painting, it was actually measured that it has the same
brightness as the sky and if you look at a black and white copy of “Impression, soleil levant” the sun is almost
impossible to notice.
However, despite being part of the
group and its independent exhibitions, Edgar Degas didn’t consider himself
truly an impressionist, but a realist, who relied on his imagination, memories
and a little bit of mystery to masks the truth behind the visible: "A
painting requires a little mystery, some vagueness, and some fantasy. When you
always make your meaning perfectly plain you end up boring people." The
truth in a work of art depends on the interpretation of the viewer and the
ability of the artist to show the truth as he perceives it without giving away
too much. Degas painted what he saw and what he loved, everyday people and
scenes, theater, ballet. He believed that although art was deceitful by its
nature, it had the power to lead the person to profound revelations. Similarly,
many philosophers, both ancient and modern, would vouch that the main purpose
of the arts is to serve the truth. Heidegger stated that art objectifies the
truth and Plato believed that its role must be to educate and humanize.
More
than half of Degas’ paintings depict ballet dancers. He was fascinated by the
beauty of the body and its movement, by the skills behind the art; so he
painted mostly female dancers and everyday routines that happened behind the
scenes. Like a painting, the ballet performance is the illusion and the trivial
preparation, the hard work behind the curtains is the reality. That’s why his
dancers are often depicted from unusual viewpoints – not from the audience’s
perspective. Degas would often use the dark costumes of the ballet teachers,
gentlemen from the public, the orchestra or the piano to balance the fresh
bright colors in the composition with some black elements.
He
often cuts off the figures with the frame of his paintings as if he was just a
second too late to “photograph” the moment. It seems like Degas uses the
picture’s frame to emphasize on the fact that we never see the entire truth,
but just a tiny piece of the world – that small part that grabbed the attention
of the artist. After that it’s up to the audience to give his works their own
“accents of the truth”. The frame reminds us that a picture is carefully
crafted work of art that’s given its dimensions by the artist, not by reality
itself. His works are like a moments flowing through a camera, in which some
frames don’t get exposed and remain in the dark.
Edgar
Degas also had very particular way of painting nudes. His women aren't
ancient princesses and goddesses, posing seductively on luxurious beds. He
painted the trivial, intimate life of modern women, most often while they were
bathing, rarely showing their faces. These paintings often create the illusion
that the audience is a voyeur, peeking to see the women in these unusual, even unflattering
poses, which are absolutely breathtaking and much more truthful to life. These
women look real, but they are still far from us, they don’t sense our presence
and often we can’t see their faces, so we can only dream about them and imagine
“any woman” we want to create our own truth and experience.
"We were created to look at one another, weren't we?"
Edgar
Degas also did sculpture. His first and most recognizable three-dimensional
work is originally made of wax, which was very unusual for the time. “Little
dancer of fourteen years” from 1881 was nothing like the other sculptures from
the period – it wasn't made of bronze or marble. It wasn't smooth with perfect
and elegant figure that would serve simply to showcase the skill of the
sculptor to recreate realistic bodies dawn to do smallest detail. Degas’ work
was always more than just the visible: "It is very good to copy what one
sees; it is much better to draw what you can't see any more but is in your
memory. It is a transformation in which imagination and memory work together.
You only reproduce what struck you, that is to say the necessary." And the
dancer was exactly that - it was unlike any other sculpture at the time.
She
had real clothes on, except for her stockings, and she had some smeared wax on
her bodice and hair (almost entirely covered wig), she wasn't life-size, nor was she small enough to be a doll. By
Degas’ request she was displayed in a glass case. What these unconventional artistic decisions
tell us is that although very realistic, the “little dancer” is still art, an
“unfinished” lie, created for display. Everyone was shocked, people said she
was ugly and vicious, vulgar. They were probably offended because at the time
ballet dancers were often seen as sluts. And we can see in many of Degas’ works
rich men hiding in the corners of the paintings, often behind the curtains,
silently observing the ballet dancers, creating an eerie atmosphere in a lot of
his beautiful and at first sight entirely joyful compositions. In the 19th
century there was a special room at the Paris opera – “Le foyer de la danse” - it was built specifically to allow the ballet dancers to meet with “ballet
lovers”, where only men and ballet girls could enter. So, although there were
many girls pursuing the ballet as a profession, there were others looking for
rich men, who could offer them a better life. Degas captured the ballet girl in
a crucial moment in her life, a moment somewhere between her childhood and her
adult life when it will be determined if she’s going to have a career in ballet
or the tragic fate of a street girl. A moment, which was about to reveal the
truth, but didn't. I guess we have to decide for ourselves, in which future
version of the dancer we want to believe.
The "accents of the truth" certainly most often depend on the context – the social
and economic environment, the aesthetic and moral values of a particular
historical period and social group. But the mysteries of the “Little dancer” go
beyond that and there are still various theories on its meaning and the
discussion about its aesthetic qualities goes on. But even if you don’t think
she’s beautiful, art doesn’t have to be always beautiful, at least not in the
conventional way. As Kant and David Hume loved to point out – beauty and truth
can be two absolutely contradictory things.
Some even believe that the sculpture
reflects the belief of Degas’ contemporaries that people with lower foreheads
are more primitive. In a painting by Degas of two murderers in court we can see
that he deliberately skew the truth by giving them more primitive features. In
fact, one of Degas’ critics said that the dancer belonged in a zoological or
anthropology museum. The new medical museum at France at the time featured
numerous mutated specimens and wax figures displaying various medical
conditions. They were also displayed in glass boxes. On the other hand, many
critics also noticed similarities with the ancient Egyptian art and its
simplicity, calling the “Little dancer” both “modern” and “classical”. The
collector Louisine Havemeyer referred to it as "One of the greatest works
of art since the dynasties of the Nile". Ancient art in museums was
exhibited in glass cases, too. Egyptian and other ancient sculptures were
sometimes wearing wigs and even some clothes.
Hopefully, this is the kind of heated
discussion evolving during the years that Degas would appreciate: "Drawing
is not what one sees but what one can make others see." You can always go
back to his paintings and decide what beautiful lies and discreet truths Degas
hid in the canvas exclusively for you.
"It is essential to do the same subject over again, ten times, a hundred times. Nothing in art must seen to be chance, not even movement."
"I assure you no art was ever less spontaneous than mine. What I do
is the result of reflection and study of the great masters; of inspiration,
spontaneity, temperament -- temperament is the word -- I know nothing."
For more on the impressionists in a more entertaining and emotional form check out the great
mini-series "The Impressionists" from 2006. Produced for BBC and staring Julian Glover and Richard Armitage (currently playing Thorin in "The Hobbit"). And don't miss the brilliant
series "Private Life of a Masterpiece", where I've learnt everything for "The little dancer" and many other works by various artists. You can find them both on YouTube, too.
The pictures in the post are from Wikipedia and Edgar-Degas.org.
