-
The Book Club Online is the oldest book club on the Internet, begun in 1996, open to everyone. We offer cordial discussions of one book a month, 24/7 and enjoy the company of readers from all over the world. Everyone is welcome.
June Book Club Online
I ALWAYS LOVED YOU: A NOVEL
by Robin Oliveira
(http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/ialwayslovedyou/ialwayslovedyou.jpg)
|
This should be FUN! With the Internet at our fingertips, we'll be able to examine each of the artworks described here by the new talent, Robin Oliveira!
This is from a recent Seattle Times review:
"Degas is tempestuous, sardonic and witty. But the focus is squarely on Mary, working on unfinished paintings, washing her brushes, reeking of turpentine, collaborating with Degas on a journal of etchings, thinking about “the essential talent of seeing.” Mary Cassatt comes alive as disciplined, socially acute, outspoken and stoic in facing down her self-doubt." |
Discussion Schedule:
June 1-2 1926 Prologue
June 3-6 1877 Chapters One - Nine
June 7-13 1877 cont. Chapters Ten - Nineteen
June 14-16 1878 Chapters Twenty - Twenty Six
June 17-22 1879 Chapters Twenty Seven - Thirty Five
June 23-27 1880 Chapters Thirty Six - Forty Four
June 28-30 1881-3 Chapters Forty Five - Fifty Three
Related links:
Vocabulary Help (http://www.seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/ialwayslovedyou/ialwayslovedyouvoc.html)
National Gallery of Art Exhibition of Degas/Cassatt paintings (http://www.nga.gov/content/ngaweb/exhibitions.html)
Prologue~June 1-2 1926
1. Did you think it odd that the Prologue tells the end of story in the opening chapter? Why do you think Ms Oliveira did this?
2. "What detritus a life leaves." Can you begin to relate to Mary's situation as she packs up the contents of her old studio?
3. "Letters, so many pages, you would think they had been in love." He saved hers too. What did this say of their relationship?
4. What more do we learn of Mary and Degas in the Prologue?
June 3-6 1877 Chapters One-Nine
1. Acceptance by the jury of artists at the Salon - "the ambition of every artist in Paris." What becomes of those not invited?
2. Does Degas' painting, "In a Cafe-the Absinthe Drinker" (http://0.tqn.com/d/arthistory/1/0/t/0/1/picasso-degas-clark_02.jpg) make you uncomfortable, as it did Abigail Alcott? Should Art make viewer feel uncomfortable? What effect does it have on you?
3. Are you familiar with Berthe Morisot's paintings? Was she one of the Impressionists? Why doesn't Manet exhibit with the Impressionists? (He's always been rejected by the Salon.)
4. Do you agree with Degas - that artistic talent "is not a gift, but rather hard work, study of form, and obsessive revision?"
5. Do you believe Degas actually told Mary on their first meeting that she "hated" her own paintings,which had just been rejected by the Salon? Was her portrait of the young American, Mary Ellison her first painting after that meeting? Can you find it?
6. Have you noticed Robin Oliveira's use of the artist's palette in her descriptions - the bitumen and ocher dresses, the Viridian green?
Discussion Leader: Joan P (jonkie@verizon.net)
|
|
-
June already! What happened to May? Many of you have started the book, some are still waiting for a copy. How are the downloads going? We'll begin slowly. Once you have the book, we'll pick up the page, I think.
Let's spend the next two days on the Prologue...which I found surprising
Did you think it odd that the Prologue tells the end of story in the opening chapter? I found it a moving way to begin...
-
Hope can find your way here...
-
No problem finding my way--I've been out most of the day.
It's an odd way to start, ending first, but very effective. Oliveira isn't really giving away much, either, except for a few basic facts. She raises more questions than she answers, and leaves you wondering whether you will be certain of anything.
-
Oliviera is telling us that this is no ordinary love story, though it is about their love for one another. Edgar I can understand because so much of the lives of the Impressionists is common knowledge. It will be hard work to 'get' Mary. Obsessive women seem so unwomanly to me and it surely must be obsession that drives her.
-
Glad we are open for chatting - back later it has been a full day - son up from the Houston area to install a new Hot Water heater - whew - all week it was like living in 1879 using pitchers of water heated on the stove to bathe - tonight a hot shower, wash my hair - laundry is going now and tomorrow my grandson from NC arrives with his Dad for a week...wheee.
-
Hope to catch up when my book arrives.
-
"What detritus a life leaves."
I can really relate to that, as I'm trying to clear out some of my own detritus just now. I haven't found any love letters from a famous painter, though. She's kind of stalling on packing up, though, rummaging through the rubble to find the letters.
-
Methinks it will be easy to catch up - once your books arrive. Don't rush through the "Prologue" (I corrected my use of the term in earlier post) - The Prologue spoke volumes to me about Mary C.
"It will be hard work to 'get' Mary."
I'm beginning to agree with you, Jackie - mrssherlock. It's funny, I always think of those loving paintings of hers... mothers with babies. I can see a revision of this viewpoint in the future.
"No ordinary love story," you say. I just have to ask - what IS an ordinary love story? :D I'm serious.
Mary is hunting for a box of letters - it is clear they are letters from him. Don't you wonder what's in them? The question in the back of my mind - how much of this book is fiction, how much is fact. Boxes of love letters would be proof there really was an affair, don't you think?
-
"What detritus* a life leaves."
PatH - I know what you are saying about dealing with the accumulation of a lifetime. I think the only cure is to move out of the house, making decisions about which few things are going with you. Letters - from friends who have deceased. Would they make the cut? How about love letters? Would you hang on to them?
Mary seems to be packing to move. Will we find out where she is going? She hasn't painted in some time...her eyesight is failing. This seems to be a common ailment among artists - or with everyone. Maybe painters depend on sharp eyesight to paint details and when this fades with age, then they can no longer paint?
Speaking of "detritus" - Annie had requested earlier that we keep a page of unfamiliar words in the heading...we've started such a page here - Vocabulary Help (http://www.seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/ialwayslovedyou/ialwayslovedyouvoc.html)
Please let us know of terms you think would be helpful...
-
My reason for not knowing if I wanted to continue this book came after reading the Prologue. I thought why would I want to read about a woman who is so cold and unreasonable. But, as you might know I haven't put the book down for more than a day as I am hooked! Oliveira has that talent that I found in Susan Vreeland (Luncheon of the Boating Party) and Tracy Chavalier (Remarkable Creatures). All three of these authors have such a wonderful way of bringing the readers right in to their novels. As if we are really there and experiencing the weather, the cold, the heat and the hard work and the love of their work that these people have. So, here I am, loving this story. Must get back to it!!!! :D :D
-
I looked for the site yesterday, and couldn't find it. For some reason, the "look for new posts didn't tell me that there was a new post in the pre-discussion so I almost left without looking for this site. Hope no one else makes that mistake.
I must admit, I found what the book said about painting more interesting than the character of Mary. Particularly what she says about "seeing." I'm interested in what those of you who paint think of it.
I don't paint, but I did get a book years ago called "Painting with the Right Side of Your Brain" that tried to teach exactly the shift in "seeing" that Mary Cassatt talks about --- from seeing a chair as a chair, for example, to seeing it as lines, curves, and colors. Art101 -- but it was new to me.
And in Chapter 1, Mary says that Degas has a way of seeing that she lacks. I find this interesting. I have no desire to paint, but I'm always trying to "see things" more (don't know exactly what I mean by this).
-
Oops, I lost you in the shuffle from the Pre-Discussion!
I will pick up the book at the library tomorrow and begin reading.
-
No rush, Callie! You're not the only one scurrying to get a copy of the book. We'll take it easy to get started - continue with the Prologue and into the first half of the year, 1877 - the year MaryC. and Degas met. Each year after that is a clear break for our discussion purposes...1877 is an exception, so let's take the first half of that year, the first NINE chapters.
Remember, this is just for the discussion - of course you can read at whatever pace you choose when you get your book.
Discussion Schedule:
June 1-2 1926 Prologue
June 3-6 1877 Chapters One - Nine
June 7-13 1877 cont. Chapters Ten - Nineteen
June 14-16 1878 Chapters Twenty - Twenty Six
June 17-22 1879 Chapters Twenty Seven - Thirty Five
June 23-27 1880 Chapters Thirty Six - Forty Four
June 28-30 1881-3 Chapters Forty Five - Fifty Three
|
|
-
In an hour, PatH and Pedln and I plan to meet at the National Gallery of Art to see the new Mary Cassatt/Edgar Degas exhibition. Of course we will be alert for any information that will shed light on our discussion. I'm particularly interested in Mary's paintings after 1877 - the year she met Degas. I thought that was the turning point in the way she approached her painting.
Do you believe Degas actually told Mary on their first meeting that she "hated" her own paintings,which had just been rejected by the Salon? Was her portrait of the young American, Mary Ellison her first painting after that meeting? I wonder if we'll see it in the exhibit.
Back this afternoon with a report~
All systems go, Pedln? Pat?
-
JoanK. I think I know what you are trying to say, I too look beyond the painting trying to see more. We just toured our Toledo Art Museum, they had the painter Varujan Boghosian exhibits recently. They had a special engagement called Arts in Bloom, where local florists made glass blown vases, at our Glass museum, and then made floral arrangements to depict certain paintings to place their floral/glass blown arrangements near. Our tour guide would have us look beyond just the painting and asked us many questions correlating the vases and floral arrangements with the fantastic works of art hanging. We have a wonderful art museum here in Toledo Ohio, and draw many tourists. We were also honored to have on loan from the vast collections of the Versailleshe Musée du Louvre, the Musée Carnavalet - Histoire de Paris, the Palace of Versailles, and other museums and private lenders, many have never before been exhibited outside Paris.
The Toledo Art Museum
The Varujan Boghosian exhibition in the Wolfe Gallery mezzanine continues through May 25.
#ParisatTMA is in its final days. "The Art of the Louvre's Tuileries Garden" is on view through Sunday, May 11 and features one hundred works related to the garden, including large-scale sculptures, paintings, photographs, prints and architectural models.
https://www.facebook.com/events/456118721189364/
I never appreciated our museum as much until I spent the afternoon there recently.
I have not gotten my book yet, but intend to download it into my iPad today.
Joan, Pedln and Pat, how exciting! Can't wait to hear all about your day at the museum.
Ciao for now~
-
I misremembered the schedule and only read through Chapter 6.
Here is the portrait of Mary Ellison:
https://www.google.com/search?q=mary+cassatt+miss+mary+ellison&tbm=isch&imgil=6UeDZMqJLiuPgM%253A%253Bhttps%253A%252F%252Fencrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com%252Fimages%253Fq%253Dtbn%253AANd9GcRVO63bMo_969TeuOS5JyFXiexAyYqnySHyzGTMd5CV-Ae_Fk-P%253B573%253B772%253BpULLar-NvtpufM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.canvasreplicas.com%25252FCassatt102.htm&source=iu&usg=___dTV5lBe6Zu1wHxlTBcvywuax6U%3D&sa=X&ei=Dx-OU6mVO5fioASG74EQ&ved=0CCIQ9QEwAA&biw=853&bih=570#facrc=_&imgrc=6UeDZMqJLiuPgM%253A%3BpULLar-NvtpufM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.canvasreplicas.com%252Fimages%252FMiss%252520Mary%252520Ellison%252520Mary%252520Cassatt.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.canvasreplicas.com%252FCassatt102.htm%3B573%3B772
-
Wow! If the long UR causes trouble, please remove it.
-
No problem, JoanK, with seeing the picture. And isn't it lovely! I must go back and save it to my ??????? Well, I will remember how to do that later. :D :D
-
I didn't get back in town before my library closed to move across the parking lot to a brand new building. So i didn't get the book. It will be closed for 2-3 weeks, so i'm just going to hitch a ride on your discussion until then when i can pick up the book.
I just today ran across a blog you may like to investigate. Ironically his latest blog is about paintings of mothers and children and mentions MC.
http://albertis-window.com
Jean
-
JoanK Here's a site that takes care of that pesky url problem:http://tinyurl.com/
(url) has a length of 694 characters and resulted in the following TinyURL which has a length of 26 characters:
http://tinyurl.com/kw5jmxg
[Open in new window]
[Copy to clipboard]
Or, give your recipients confidence with a preview TinyURL:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/kw5jmxg
[Open in new window]
-
(http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/ialwayslovedyou/nationalgallery.jpg)
We did it! A wonderful day - we walked our feet off, viewing hundreds of paintings - right out of the pages of Robin Oliveira's book! I brought my book with me...was aware the whole day that I ALWAYS LOVED YOU was on display - for sale - all over the gallery! Of course, I had no receipt! Twas a birthday present - not a mark on it...
Will provide details from the show...though not all at once as we read about the individual paintings.
I can't wait for PatH (center) and Pedln(on left) to get here to share their impressions and ...of these Impressionists. It was a delightful experiences. I hope Pedln shares her "selfies" - that was a riot that had everyone laughing along with us... :D
-
(http://www.canvasreplicas.com/images/Miss%20Mary%20Ellison%20Mary%20Cassatt.jpg)
JoanK - thank you! Thank you! You have identified Mary Cassatt's painting of Mary Ellison! We saw this painting yesterday at the National Gallery...in fact we saw several paintings of her! Pedln kept finding them, but nowhere was she named! Wonderful!
If you don't have the book yet, you might not know the significance of this painting. After having had her paintings rejected by the Salon in Paris, Mary was so depressed, she began packing - heading back to America. A meeting with a family friend, who brought along his friend, Edgar Degas, the artist. Degas insisted on seeing her rejected paintings...then convinced her to show her paintings with his group of impressionists the following year - 1879. Mary decided to stay and started again, painting in a different way as Degas inspired her - an Impressionsist is born!. The first paintings she did after this meeting were those of Mary Ellison.
-
Oh, I can't wait to "read all about it"!!!
I found this web site of Mary Cassatt paintings. However, I do not see that they are dated - so am not sure which are "pre-Degas" and which came later.
http://www.marycassatt.org/ (http://www.marycassatt.org/)
Also found this information about "Nana", the Degas painting that was not accepted for the Salon because it was "considered contemptuous of the morality of the time" (according to the Wikipedia article).
Interesting to read the observations that brought about this decision.
I also found the definition of a "Nana" interesting - since that name makes me think of the "other grandmother" of my grandchildren (who would probably get a kick out of the "other" definition). :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nana_(painting) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nana_(painting))
-
Oops - glad I caught my error before anyone else did.
It was Degas' friend Manet who painted "Nana". Sorry 'bout that. :-[
-
I just downloaded my book from our local library onto my iPad! I am so excited, because I did not want to pay $14.99 for it. Pedln, PatH., and JoanP., I can only imagine how much fun the three of you had at the museum. Can't wait to see the selfies....isn't technology so much fun!
Well, I have read the Prologue and feel a bit sad. Knowing the ending before reading a book is sometimes a nice thing, and yet this seems bittersweet knowing Degas has died, Mary has managed to get her hands on his letters she wrote to him, and has them with the letters he wrote to her. Both piles tied up in ribbon, hers pink, his black. How romantic this seems even though it appears love slipped through their fingers. Or did it? Can two people be in love, without ever exchanging a physical relationship? I certainly think so....
I loved this "Tonight, she would paint once again, though only in her mind; would indulge imagination, though only once. Would believe what she's scarcely been able to believe then." pg.9
"She fingered the scalloped tendril of faded pink ribbon that bound the letters. She had chosen ribbon, instead of string because it reminded her of his danseuses' bright sashes, their pink and green bows, lush and extravagant in their fullness. Somehow, he had made even the sashes seem to dance," pg. 5
Then this tells us a bit more about Degas....."He had been an uncompromising man, stubborn and ironic; hence ribbons, to goad as much as to honor." pg. 6
R.O. has truly captured the essence of Degas's painting and personality, using something as simple as ribbons, to tie up letters of sentiment and love.
I am a bit behind all of you, but will catch up quickly. I just have to say, I can tell I am going to enjoy this style of writing.
Ciao for now~
-
Good! Another "book" in hand. Bella, I had the same sad feeling reading the Prologue. I suppose it shouldn't have come as a surprise learning that Degas had died. Inevitable. Always sad for the one left behind. Are her memories of Degas "sweet"? She's remembering him as a difficult man - "uncompromising, stubborn."
Do we know if theirs was a physical relationship - or NOT? I suppose the answer can be found in the box of letters. Here in Mary's flat we learn that his letters to her - and hers to him! The letters are the key. Both their contents - and the volume. So many letters - saved. I'm curious - have you saved old letters from the past?
-
Callie - thank you for those links! Will save the one of Manet's "Nana" - we're going to be hearing much more of that one painting next week when we learn more of his relationship with Berthe Morisot.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ed/Edouard_Manet_037.jpg/300px-Edouard_Manet_037.jpg)
I can understand why the conservative Salon jury - fellow artists old school - (no Impressionists on this panel) - would not accept the lady in her state of undress. What I don't understand is why he keeps submitting them - and why he won't show his paintings with the Impressionists...
-
Callie's link to Mary Cassatt's paintings - another keeper. 431 paintings! When we were at the Cassatt/Degas exhibit a few days ago, we saw several paintings and drawings of Mary by Degas. I remember searching for even one that she did of him. Awful memory - can't remember if successful. PatH, Pedln, do you remember? I'm going to go through those paintings, Callie - and see if my memory is jogged.
At the very end of same link, I see a very short bio - Mary Stevenson Cassatt (May 22, 1844 - June 14, 1926). So I think we're safe in concluding that Mary didn't marry - and notice that she died in 1926 - which is the same year that Oliveira begins the novel with the Prologue...
-
I can't remember seeing one. Pedln?
The exhibit was a wonderful experience. It was perfect for the book, too; the focus was on the interaction between Degas and Cassatt, and how they influenced each other's style. I must admit that before this, I had a rather lukewarm reaction to Cassatt's paintings, but not any more. I got a much better feel for her.
It was particularly interesting to see studies for a painting, or different variations of the same painting. In the link Callie gave us, look at Women in a Loge, the last picture on page 9, and The Loge, first picture in the 4th row on page 15.
-
So now we learn Mary has had her paintings rejected while Abigail, her friend in Paris has a showing. That has to be difficult, yet she goes to support her friend. Rejection has caused Mary to doubt her talents as an artist.
"Degas provokes and reveals our prejudices. Wouldn't you like to be good enough to unsettle someone in the same way one day?" Though "good enough" was a shameful understatement. Instead, Mary wished she had said, wouldn't you like to be skilled, sensitive, gifted, brilliant, generous enough, all the things that she, Mary, was not.
Then getting the letter from her father telling her, "Enough my dear. Time to come home. Come back to Philadelphia and find yourself a husband before it is too late." seems to make her second guess what she is doing in Paris.
"And at thirty-three, on had to assess. One had to come to terms. One had to confront dreams."
Degas sees Mary sitting on the bench and asks his friend Manet, who she is. The responses of the two men sure does make me question both of their characters. A bit of a womanizer in both men I dare say. Degas describes Mary almost as if he is describing how he would paint her.
"I meant the elegant woman over there, the one who wears her clothing as if she were the Empress Eugenie herself, come back from England to dazzle us with her finery and impeccable taste. And mind you, leave her alone. I spotted her first." Appreciation spilled from him, and though the woman's eyes were too close together and the shape of her nose was wrong, he admired its misbegotten residence on a face with such magnificent cheekbones. Those were positively architectural.
JoanP., Yes, I have saved old letters from the past. As a matter of fact I think I have saved every correspondence my hubby and I sent to each other while dating. They remain in a box in my attic, with a white ribbon tied around the box. I can't bring myself to part with them. Just like my journals I have kept along the way. I am a writer and romantic by nature, so I imagine if anything happened to my hubby and myself my kids would come across them and possibly read them. I was sorting through my china cabinet yesterday and came across an entire folder of poems I had wrote and submitted for publishing years ago, and the letters of response and awards I received for recognition of excellent work. I had truly forgotten all about them.
Maybe Mary and Degas were romantics at heart, and held on to the letters for memories of what could have been or "was." The letters may be the key, or maybe we will learn everything as we go along to show why they kept them.
My chapters in the downloaded book are numbered beginning with #1 and ends with how many pages are in the chapter. So in other words the page numbers are not ongoing. It is difficult to put a page number with a quote so I will try to use the chapter instead.
Ciao for now~
-
Oh! Those beautiful paintings. Cassatt as joined my pantheon of artists whose members also include Caravaggio and Van Gogh.
-
Does Degas' painting, "In a Cafe-the Absinthe Drinker" make you uncomfortable, as it did Abigail Alcott?
It doesn't make me feel uncomfortable, but it makes me feel a little sad. The woman looks so tired and hopeless. Her shoulders are drooping, her feet are splayed out as though tired, and her eyelids are drooping. And she's the one drinking absinthe. Absinthe was popular in arty circles then, but it's pretty lethal; it has a VERY high alcohol content, plus the wormwood that flavors it has a toxic component that supposedly can cause convulsions and madness. Artists tended to drink themselves to death with it.
You can enlarge the picture in the link in the heading by clicking on it, and it's worth doing. You can see how good the faces are. She looks even more tired, or deadened. He looks contemplative, but his eyes are bloodshot, suggesting the life he leads.
-
Bella, yes, I have a thick packet of old letters from my husband - back in the day - (he didn't save mine! :D) But these letters are the only ones Mary Cassett has saved - and those from Degas. They never married - one another - or any one else! Is this significant? Two adults, with no other attachments...but one another?
-
Jackie - where does Degas fit in to your Pantheon of artists?
PAT - You weren't the only one who felt sad looking at "the Absinthe Drinker." I read that this painting was "booed off its easel" when shown in Paris under the name of "In a Cafe" in Paris - and not at all well received in London, where it was first called "the Absinthe Drinker." Obviously the Salon in Paris turned it down - but no one liked it.
I wish we could have seen it in the National Gallery exhibit the other day - but it wasn't there. It is in the Musée d'Orsay in Paris. I don't remember any paintings in the exhibit from abroad. Most seemed to be from collections here in the US. Pat and Pedln...do you remember any from abroad? Surprising the number of paintings owned by the Smithsonian National Gallery and the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NY. There were paintings from other collections in the US too.
More about this painting in the coming chapters...
-
Let's step back from the story and talk about Robin Oliveira's writing in these opening chapters. Have you noticed her use of the artist's palette in her descriptions - the bitumen and ocher dresses, the Viridian green? I thought that was quite clever - and look forward to coming chapters to see if she continues this. She seems to be right there in the midst of the artists, doesn't she?
Makes you wonder about her background sources - besides the letters...
bitumen ? I'm not sure. Any artistes in the room?
ocher - a soft brownish yellow
viridian green - a deep blue green
Vermillion - a brilliant red, scarlet
-
I Googled "What color is bitumen?" and only brought up the term as a material that's an alternate to asphalt and comes in several colors.
Then, the term "bituminous coal" came to mind (I don't know why :D) and I looked it up. Yes, there is such a thing and, of course, it's black.
Maybe the author means a "shiny black"?
-
Either of those would work in the context the author uses them, Callie, either "asphalt" or black - Thanks! (Will add it to the vocabulary help link in the heading. If you find words that you need to look up and they are not in the heading link, please let me know and I'll try to keep up with you!)
"As Mary made her way into the Salon, she felt underdressed in her simple white blouse and blue skirt. Everywhere, nattily attired men...were guiding women draped in Spring silk of Naples yellow and vermillion...
Their finery sparkled against the dull bitumen and the ocher dresses of the less well off..."
Ms. Oliveira - painting words from an artist's palette?
-
If you look at the body language of the two figures in the painting, I get the feeling they do not want to be there. It's as if they have had an unpleasant conversation and are trying very hard to not deal with each other. The woman looks very depressed. I didn't feel sad looking at the painting, but I did feel sorry for her because the man is totally disinterested in her presence.
PatH., " And she's the one drinking absinthe. Absinthe was popular in arty circles then, but it's pretty lethal; it has a VERY high alcohol content, plus the wormwood that flavors it has a toxic component that supposedly can cause convulsions and madness. Artists tended to drink themselves to death with it.
What interesting facts about Absinthe.
Ciao for now~
-
Hello all, I just got home this afternoon after a 900 mile two-day drive. I started a post here and lost it and decided a good night's sleep must first occur.
Callie, what a good source for Mary C's pictures, and JoanK, thanks for the site with the Mary Ellison portraits. I was really enchanted with her and with The Girl in the Blue Chair.
I feel I'm missing not having the book and will splughe (huh?) if the library does not come through.
More later, but no selfies unless BO gives me some good pointers.
-
The Book Club Online is the oldest book club on the Internet, begun in 1996, open to everyone. We offer cordial discussions of one book a month, 24/7 and enjoy the company of readers from all over the world. Everyone is welcome.
June Book Club Online
I ALWAYS LOVED YOU: A NOVEL
by Robin Oliveira
(http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/ialwayslovedyou/ialwayslovedyou.jpg)
|
This should be FUN! With the Internet at our fingertips, we'll be able to examine each of the artworks described here by the new talent, Robin Oliveira!
This is from a recent Seattle Times review:
"Degas is tempestuous, sardonic and witty. But the focus is squarely on Mary, working on unfinished paintings, washing her brushes, reeking of turpentine, collaborating with Degas on a journal of etchings, thinking about “the essential talent of seeing.” Mary Cassatt comes alive as disciplined, socially acute, outspoken and stoic in facing down her self-doubt." |
Related links:
Vocabulary Help (http://www.seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/ialwayslovedyou/ialwayslovedyouvoc.html)
National Gallery of Art Exhibition of Degas/Cassatt paintings (http://www.nga.gov/content/ngaweb/exhibitions.html)
Portrait of Mary Ellison ~ Mary Cassatt (http://www.marycassatt.org/Portrait-of-a-Lady-(or-Miss-Mary-Ellison).jpg)
Mary Cassatt's many paintings (http://www.marycassatt.org/)
Links to Impressionist Art discussed in this book (http://www.robinoliveira.com/i-always-loved-you/art-links.php)
Interview with Robin Oliveira concerning those letters (http://tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2014050100)
Discussion Schedule:
June 1-2 1926 Prologue
June 3-6 1877 Chapters One - Nine
June 7-13 1877 cont. Chapters Ten - Nineteen
June 14-16 1878 Chapters Twenty - Twenty Six
June 17-22 1879 Chapters Twenty Seven - Thirty Five
June 23-27 1880 Chapters Thirty Six - Forty Four
June 28-30 1881-3 Chapters Forty Five - Fifty Three
June 3-6 1877 Chapters One-Nine
1. Acceptance by the jury of artists at the Salon - "the ambition of every artist in Paris." What becomes of those not invited?
2. Does Degas' painting, "In a Cafe-the Absinthe Drinker" (http://0.tqn.com/d/arthistory/1/0/t/0/1/picasso-degas-clark_02.jpg) make you uncomfortable, as it did Abigail Alcott? Should Art make viewer feel uncomfortable? What effect does it have on you?
3. Are you familiar with Berthe Morisot's paintings? Was she one of the Impressionists? Why doesn't Manet exhibit with the Impressionists? (He's always been rejected by the Salon.)
4. Do you agree with Degas - that artistic talent "is not a gift, but rather hard work, study of form, and obsessive revision?"
5. Do you believe Degas actually told Mary on their first meeting that she "hated" her own paintings,which had just been rejected by the Salon? Was her portrait of the young American, Mary Ellison her first painting after that meeting? Can you find it?
6. Have you noticed Robin Oliveira's use of the artist's palette in her descriptions - the bitumen and ocher dresses, the Viridian green?
June 7-13 1877cont. Chapters Ten-Nineteen
1. Do you think the American, Mary Cassatt, would have been able to crash the inner circle of French Impressionists without Degas' introduction? Does Berthe Morisot accept her or does she insult her at their first meeting?
2. What advice does Morisot give to Mary regarding Degas? Is this from her own experience with fellow artist? Can you find Berthe Morisot's "the Chevalier Glass"? How does it compare to Manet's "Nana"? Do you think they collaborated?
3. Why does Degas show deference to Mary, treating her like a china doll - holding her hand in public, though briefly? Do you think this is all Robin Oliveira's fiction?
4. "Paint what is real," he tells her. "Paint what people hide. What people hide is more real than what they show." Do you see this in his work? In hers?
5. Degas is insulted when Mary thinks his work is effortless. Tells her he has no talent - only hard work and doubt. Do you agree with him?
6. Degas asks Mary to sit for him, which Oliveira writes "is beyond intimacy." Do you agree?
7. Degas takes home a petit rat for a night. Says she was a specimen to him. Apparently this is not the first time. What was his motive? (What is a rat in world of French ballet?)
8. Was Degas trying to impress the Cassatt family with his gifts? Did he succeed? Do you think this actually happened?
Discussion Leader: Joan P (jonkie@verizon.net)
|
|
-
Bitumen is not so much a black vibrant pigment, it is what Bitumen does - it is used over another color and rather than being transparent with a hint of its own color it has a streaky quality and according to the under color can take on a dull grayish black look or a clear shinny black - it was a paint used to create effects before synthetic pigments when the material that paint was made from reacted as much as the hue mixture - example; a pigment made from precious stone will lay on top of a hue made from earth like an Umber - they will not mix and made a third color.
With paints made from - earth, clay, bugs, flowers, leaves, sea creatures an other natural sources ground in oils or egg yolks - it was not just a case of mixing say a Sienna (red brownish) with a Gamboge - they will not mix to make an orange like mixing today's red and yellow paint that is made from the same basic chemical material as compared to the historic pigments.
Bitumen is an asphalt or tar that mixed with linseed oil gave it unusual properties and allowed an artist to create depth and creases more easily as well as give a shimmering effect to the fabric in a painting. The under color controlled the look of the Bitumen.
-
Thanks for the explanation, Barb. So that's another example of Oliveira's painterly word palette.
-
Thanks, Barb. I've been thinking about the "shiney" quality on the bituminous dresses of the "less well off." Inclined to think they are shiney from wear? Is that how you saw them, Callie?
You deserve a good rest, Pedln! 900 miles of driving - Understand about the selfies. It's difficult to take a group...when your arm isn't long enough. Someone's face is always getting distorted!
Looking at the discussion schedule, I see we are ready to move on to the rest of the 1877 chapters, but will leave the discussion questions from the first half for those still waiting for the book. You know we are always interested in your observations from the earlier chapters.
Do you really think that Mary would have packed up and gone back to America after being rejected by the Salon? I do. Had it not been for that meeting with Degas days before she left Paris, I don't think she would have changed her style - would have been included in the Impressionists' exhibitions. Would she have been recognized in America?
-
JoanP, since I know nothing about how an artist mixes colors, I was only thinking about the way coal can shine. Good point about the well worn look of the "less well off".
Yes, I think Mary would have come back to America. I wonder if her father would have encouraged her to continue painting or if he would have "married her off"?
-
Been reading along and will join you fully on Monday - Sunday is when my grandson and son-in-law leave to return home - been a great visit all week and Gary helped me with some major tasks around the house and yard - yipee - The big one we emptied out the entire garage and tool room - washed it down and only put back what I am keeping - the rest to either Good Will or the dumpster - what a difference but oh I am tired. Tonight my son and Sally Gale come up and we are all going to Schultz's for beer and barbeque No dropped shoulders around here to influence an artist - now half closed eyes maybe but from a body pushed. ;)
-
Barb...sounds like a fun weekend with your guys...plus you had help around the place! Can't beat that! Will be looking for you tomorrow...
I've been looking at Berthe Morisot and her relationship with Eduard Manet. What a pair! Mary Cassatt was floored by their relationship - can't you see her mind turning, resolving NOT to get into a similar situation - married the one brother because she needed to be taken care of - but in love with the other (also married)- Eduard tells her he could not have painted his "Nana" without first having seen her "Le Cheval-Glass." I just had to look that up...
(Le Cheval in French is "horse" - but I found that -
cheval glass is a tall mirror swung on an upright frame that takes its name from French cheval, "horse"—a synonym for "supporting framework," which describes this mirror.
Here are their two paintings, side by side:
(http://37.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lsig3l7a5r1r1eenfo1_500.jpg) (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ed/Edouard_Manet_037.jpg/300px-Edouard_Manet_037.jpg)
Berthe Morisot's "Le Cheval-Glass" Eduard Manet's "Nana"
-
It was extremely difficult to make it in the art world in the late 1800's - expecially for those who deviated from the old masters in any way, still hoping to be accepted by the important panel of jurors at the Salon. The small group making up the Impressionists were careful about who they accepted too. I read there were only THREE women accepted into this group of new-style painters. We've been seeing Berthe Morisot and the sacrifices she made for her art. I found this information on the third, whose name is little known because she gave up trying to live with her artist-husband's criticism - jealousy, perhaps?
Marie Bracquemond (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Bracquemond)
Had you ever heard of her? Here are some of her paintings: Slide show of Marie Bracquemond's paintings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Bracquemond#mediaviewer/File:Auf_der_Terrasse_in_S%C3%A8vres.jpg) Surely Mary C knew her, though I see no mention of her so far...
-
Even if a painting was accepted for the annual Salon it was not always easy to see. Paintings were hung covering the walls. Mamet complained about the bright light, it washed out his colors.
Poor Marie. While I did not get an emotional jolt on viewing the slide show, her work was respectable. I wonder who were the 'favored' artists of that time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impressionists
-
The Bracquemond paintings are interesting and - imho- good. That first one is interesting, the women on the left looking straight at the viewer is rather strange, almost like it was done as a stand alone figure and then added to this one. I like the other three very much.
Jean
-
Jean - the woman looking out of the painting appears to be looking directly at the viewer - almost imploring us to understand her. The one in this painting - Under the Lamp - got my attention. Do you think the model was her husband? He looks intimidating...almost overbearing. Is that an oversized teacup or soup bowl in his hand? Notice she's looking away from him - and seems to be bracing herself on the table's edge...
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e2/Marie_Bracquemond_Under_the_Lamp.jpg/1024px-Marie_Bracquemond_Under_the_Lamp.jpg)
Imagine if Marie had been free of her husband's criticism and scrutiny - free to develop. Berthe Morisot and Mary Cassatt were fortunate in that they had the support of the Impressionists to try new methods and leave the old ways behind.
-
In these chapters, it is written that Degas had admired Mary's work - years before he met her. One particular painting was mentioned that he particularly enjoyed - her Ida or Spanish Dancer, which she painted in Madrid in 1873. This was accepted by the Salon in 1874, I think it was. It was there that Degas had seen and admired it. It was only after her paintings were refused by the Salon that Degas took a look at her work and persuaded her to change her methods. We'll have to compare this one with the one of Mary Ellison - side by side to see how she began to change.
(http://americanart.si.edu/images/1967/1967.40_1a.jpg)
-
I find myself wondering just how much fact Oliveira had to work with. Does anyone know if she had any sources - some of Mary's family members who kept records, memoirs, perhaps. Do you remember the title of the book about Mary's sister Lydia? It was mentioned in the Prediscussion. Maybe there is something in that author's biography that reveals sources - other than all those letters...
-
Would this be it, JoanP ? Fiction, by Harriet Scott Chessman.
Reading the Morning Paper (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/869406.Lydia_Cassatt_Reading_the_Morning_Paper)
As stated in Goodreads --
This richly imagined fiction entices us into the world of Mary Cassatt’s early Impressionist paintings. The story is told by Mary’s sister Lydia, as she poses for five of her sister’s most unusual paintings, which are reproduced in, and form the focal point of each chapter. Ill with Bright’s disease and conscious of her approaching death, Lydia contemplates her world with courageous openness, and asks important questions about love and art’s capacity to remember.
Still no library book, but I've been trying to play catch up by reading news articles and searching for pictures. There seems to be a lot out there. I don't know what has been mentioned in the prediscussion, so I hope I'm not being repetitious, but I was surprised to read that Degas' mother was born in Louisiana and that some family members had a business in New Orleans.
-
JoanP: I wonder about that to. that is always the problem with historical fiction: you're never sure how much is history and how much is fiction.
I'm still bogged down in the party. How horrible all the people seem. The only one you can stand is Morisot's husband. And of course nobody pays any attention to HIM!
If I ever thought it would be great to be part of such a glittering crowd, I've changed my mind. I should have known. I've read enough about famous musicians to know they were pretty much all impossible to live with. Why not artists.
-
Pedlin: you were posting while I was. That book sounds interesting -- maybe I'll read it later and see a different view of Mary.
I thought Ida, the early painting that Degas admired was very good.
-
I, too, wonder how much source material there is. They were a pretty self-focussed crowd, and articulate, so maybe there was a lot. JoanP, I take it from your remark that we do actually have the letters? Both his and hers?
-
:D Pat - I just assumed that the letters were kept, that Degas and Mary C. were well-known in the art world at this time - and that those letters would have become important in museum archives somewhere. I haven't finished the book - am reading along with all of you. Maybe we'll learn something different...in the Epilogue, for instance. Oh my - I don't even want to consider that they don't exist -
Pedln - thank you for the title - and the link to Harriet Scott Chessman's Lydia Cassatt Reading the Morning Paper . I'm going to go to that SeniorNet discussion of this book and see if there are any clues leading to other resources as to the relationship between the two artists. According to Oliveira's book, it was public knowledge that there was a romance there. I
Does the fact that these two artists worked so closely together for such a long time, never married - never married anyone else, indicated theirs was an exclusive relationship? It wasn't too far-fetched for both of these authors, Oliveira and Chessman, to put together their "fiction" based on their artwork and evidence that they worked so closely together...
"the problem with historical fiction: you're never sure how much is history and how much is fiction."
JoanK, maybe we need to be content to read it (and enjoy it) as "fiction" then? ;)
-
If Degas and Mary Cassatt did in fact have a private romance which they kept well hidden, public figures as they were - doesn't that give even more meaning to the advice Degas gives to Mary C -
"Paint what is real," he tells her. "Paint what people hide. What people hide is more real than what they show." Do you see this in his work? In hers?
-
Interesting how we can all see different things in a painting. Thank you JoanP. for posting the paintings.
JoanP., " Under the Lamp - got my attention. Do you think the model was her husband? He looks intimidating...almost overbearing. Is that an oversized teacup or soup bowl in his hand? Notice she's looking away from him - and seems to be bracing herself on the table's edge..."
When I look at this picture first I see the man seeming very gentle. The woman seems peaceful and contemplating what the man may be saying to her. Her arm and hand on the table has a relaxed feel to me. Without knowing any background to the painting, my impression is a serene dinner. They both seem to be lost in thought.
I'm having a bit of a problem getting interested in this story. The men seem to be self absorbed and a bit immature for their age.
Suddenly, the woman rose and just as quickly disappeared into the crush, and not even Degas's sudden wail of frustration could produce her.
"Pity," Edouard mocked.
"Oh, shut up."
"You can hunt for her on the streets."
"She is not the streetwalking type."
"Then she should be of little interest to you. A woman who doesn't take off her clothes on command? Who won't let you paint her juicy bits? Why would you even care?"
I get the sense these famous artists are much like celebrities, full of themselves and lack good moral judgement. So what is it about Mary that causes Degas to want to run after her and finally meet her.
"He would very much like to see a painting by her again. There had been something so intimate about that portrait he had admired of hers. Ida, was it?
Seeing the Ida painting, I get a sense of virginal, matrimonial look, with the veil and wanderlust look in the Ida's eyes. Is it the innocence that Degas sees and wishes for, since he obviously has had many women of "the streets."
I am very far behind in my reading only up to chapter three. Those who have not gotten your books, I hope some of our posts from the book will help you follow along with the story line. As for what is history or fiction is interesting to ponder. I will have to do a little Google search to see what I can find out. I do so hope the letters are real and existed. They seem to be what has captured my interest in the story. The mystery of what is in them. Aren't we all a bit of a voyeur, wanting to peek inside others private lives...... :-[
Ciao for now~
-
Hurrah, library book arrived late last night -- good for two weeks. A renew button will appear if no one else has the book on hold. Let's hope.
Am curious about the letters, too, Bellamarie, and I will have to go back and read that section again. I'm left with the idea that Cassatt found HER letters to Degas when she was helping organize his paintings, etc. after his death.
So, while trying to track that down, I came across this title of a poem. I cannot find the text of the poem.
13 / Mary Cassatt, After Destroying the Letters of Edgar Degas, a poem by Ruthann Robson
Surely she didn't . . . .
-
Oh my heavens! Please tell me she did not destroy the letters. I am so glad your book has arrived pedln.
I finally found some spare time this morning, and have read up to chapter nine. I'm finding it a bit more interesting. Edoud and Berthe with their secret love for one another, and he having so many women. ::)
-
In the Prologue, Cassatt is described as having found her letters to Degas in his studio after his death. I'd really like to know. I couldn't track down the text of that poem either.
-
Pedln - thank you for tracking down Harriet Scott Chessman's Lydia Reading the Morning Paper for us. I spent some enjoyable time reading about this book (I really want to read it now!)...and searching to see if I could find sources she might have used about Mary C's life. From what I can see, she did much the same thing that Robin Oliveira may have done - came up with her story from the paintings. Which would make her "historical fiction" more "fiction" - the history coming from the factual evidence - the paintings.
THAT SAID - there are still other sources - beyond the letters - beyond family members. Mary had many friends, personal, artists, art dealers. One that shows promise is Louisine Elder. I think we should pay attention to her in these early chapters. She came to Paris in 1874 and remained Mary's friends throughout. It was Louisine who got Mary interested in Degas's work early on.
Have you heard of the famous Havemeyer Collection at the Met in New York? Oscar Havemeyer was Louisine's second husband.
She wrote a memoir - Sixteen to Sixty: Memoirs of a collector .
Would love to get a look at that!
-
JoanP, don't we wish we had access to Sixteen to Sixty. Louise Elder sounds like someone who would be a friend of Mary Cassatt. They both seem like strong-minded women. Elder was quiet a feminist, very strong for the suffrage movement, and even managed to get herself arrested on its behalf.
And although Henry Osborne Havemeyer was by no means merely a walking checkbook, it was his wife, Louisine, and Cassatt who were principally responsible for putting together the astonishing group of 19th-century French paintings that are at the heart of the collection celebrated in this exhibition.
But it was Cassatt especially who encouraged them to buy the works of Degas when he was virtually unknown in America and who fostered their interest in Courbet and Manet when those artists were still considered avant-garde here.
Quotes from NYT article about a Havemeyer exhibit (http://www.nytimes.com/1993/03/26/arts/review-art-havemeyer-collection-magic-at-the-met-museum.html)
-
Sixteen to sixty is available from Amazon for as little as $3.99 plus $3.99 shipping. I ordered a copy.
-
I am following along but between gadding about with family here and the poor service due to the mountain terrain, I am not posting much. JoanP, the info you want about the history used in the book is in the book at the end. The author tells of her research. Most interesting!
I certainly am sorry that one of the women who was asked to join the Independents decided to quit painting. From the slide show of a little of her art, I think she certainly shows great promise. Night all!
-
Received my book today so have catching up to do. Am reading her book about Mary Sutter.
-
I feel silly, Annie. I looked for a description of the author's research, and totally missed the bit at the end. Thanks for pointing it out. So Oliveira didn't have access to any letters Degas and Cassatt wrote each other, though she did have other letters of Degas and Cassatt and her family and acquaintances. This bunch of artists was very self-aware and gossipy and full of themselves, and I'm sure there's a ton of primary material from and about them dissecting their doings in great detail. Oliveira hasn't waded through the French of original sources, but she's read a number of books by the people who have, so she's pretty well grounded in her subject matter.
-
Good to hear from you, Annie. Hope youo are enjoying your "vacation."
And kidsal. we'll be looking forward to hearing your observations as you begin the book. If you've been reading the posts here, you probably won't have trouble catching up.
What did you think of the author's first book - a bestseller - My Name Is Mary Sutter: A Novel. ? I recently read something Oliveira said about it in an interview -
"A theme that runs through each of your books is a strong woman fighting for a place in a man's world. Is this in any way related to your own life? What draws you to this theme?
Many people have asked me whether or not I have encountered prejudicial obstacles that have led me to this theme. I have not. I've been extraordinarily lucky. I was raised with four sisters and no brother to compare us to, so I was always told that I could do anything I wanted. Certainly, in the sixties and seventies, no one was encouraging me to be a brain surgeon, but I always thought that if I wanted to be one, I could. (Though I would make a terrible brain surgeon. Trust me on this.) But women as a whole have always had to fight for a place among men. It is one of the unifying conflicts across cultures. It continues to astonish me how tenacious this prejudice remains worldwide. I like to showcase women who have successfully fought the good fight and shown us how it is done"
-
JoanK, aren't you something - your own copy of Louisine Elder's Memoirs! I'll bet you are reading one of the very sources that Robin Oliveira researched!
On my way to read the end of the book to check out the sources Annie refers to - though not having read the whole book yet, I can't say I was happy to learn that the letters between the two artists were not available as sources. Takes away from some of the mystery. That's what I get from seeking other sources, I guess.
I'm baaack. Just read the author's notes in the back of the book. JoanK, she doesn't mention Louisine Elder, Mary Cassatt's lifetime friend's memoir as a source. So maybe you will come across something there when your book arrives. And it doesn't say why the author didn't use those letters as sources - so they were not available to her. In fact, she doesn't mention them in her notes. The question remains...what did Robin Oliveira find in the sources she's listed to suggest the romance between the two. :D
Somewhere the author must have found reference to those rather personal presents Degas brought as gifts to Mary C's family when he returned to Paris, don't you think? I don't think she made that up. And if true, what do you think mom, dad and Lydia would conclude?
-
Just discovered this wonderful page in which Robin Oliveira provides links for much of the Art described in this book. I'm going to include it in the heading for your future reference!
Links to Impressionist Art discussed in this book (http://www.robinoliveira.com/i-always-loved-you/art-links.php)
-
I found a link of an interview with R.O. And lost it before bookmarking. The interviewer asked Robin about the romance in the novel between Mary and Degas and it appears Robin took liberty and made it up. She admits there was NO source that could actually confirm anything other than a mutual admiration each other had for their shared artistic skills, and friendship. So, as for the letters, although I was so looking forward to Mary disclosing their contents in this book, it appears my curiosity is squelched. Imagine my disappointment reading before the end of the story the letters were destroyed. I don't read ahead or search for answers dealing with endings due to finding out too much before I care to.
Considering our author has chosen to intimate there was more of a romance than actuality, from here I will read this story more as "fictional history." The paintings are factual, but without diaries, journals, letters or their personal confirmations, everything else is other's opinions, or assumptions, or the author's imagination to make the story romantic. Which does not lessen the quality of the story, it just puts things into perspective for the reader. So when I read Degas was away writing to Mary inventing an intimacy, now it makes sense to me why the author wrote this.
Ciao for now~
P.s. I will continue to search to find the link to the interview with R.O.
-
Alas! I found it!!
http://www.auntiesbooks.com/interview-robin-oliveira
I Always Loved You by- Robin Oliveira
INTERVIEW WITH ROBIN OLIVEIRA by Linda Bond Prior to the author’s visit to Auntie’s on Saturday, March 22, 2014
"Mary Cassatt and Edgar Degas and their associates had to be, to my mind, fairly represented within what is known about their lives, even as I imagined and crafted their emotional arcs."
Here is a face to face interview with Oliveira
http://tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2014050100
This is an excellent interview with the author Robin Oliveira. Seems the letters being destroyed is what she said sparked her interest in wanting to write the story.
Be sure to watch the entire interview to the end, two journalists discuss the historical/fiction of the book and whether they have a problem with how Oliveira felt since the letters were destroyed it gave her a blank canvas and the liberty to create a relationship she imagined, could or would have been between Mary and Edgar.
Why do you suppose Mary burned all the letters? Isn't it interesting how she went to Degas's studio and searched to find his letters she wrote to him? What was in the letters she did not want others to know about? Guess we will never know, but like Oliveira, the letters are what sparked my interest in this story. Do you suppose that is why Oliveira put the letters in the beginning of the book, because she knew the reader would want to know, just as she did? Very smart positioning of the story, since we would never have known the letters were destroyed until the end of the book, which means we all would have been flipping page after page wanting, hoping, willing to find out if Mary would reveal the contents of the letters.
Ciao for now~
-
Thanks, Bella...will be sure to put the link to the Interview in the heading. So now, we know for a fact what happened to those letters. What we don't know is WHY Mary C burned them. I think it's safe to assume there was something she wished to remain private...and not share with the world when she died.
I wasn't devastated to learn that Robin O. created the romance between these two. It was more like she did the research, she read many other sources and letters, she studied their art, the way they interacted with their painting - little Alice in the Blue Chair, as an example.
Robin O. noted that Degas asked Mary to pose for him. (He wasn't easy on his models as he reworked his paintings to the point of his models' collapse.)
Oliveria commented that sitting for him "was beyond intimacy."
I can see why she'd say that.
There were other drawings - those numerous sketches he did of Mary as they strolled through the Louvre, for example...
(http://blog.mrsjonesandco.com/wp-content/uploads/mrs_jones/mary-cassatt-at-the-louvre.jpg)
I don't think Ms. Oliveira made up a romance out of whole cloth. There were plenty of indications that theirs was a special relationship - let's not forget that the two never married - one another - or anyone else. They seemed not to feel the need - their relationship - and art - were enough for them. (Don't you wonder if Mary ever had a beau?)
-
Before we move on to the next chapters and the upcoming Exhibition of 1878 - can we talk about Degas' little ballet dancer? She's the first thing I think of when I think of his work.
He brings home this 14 year old girl for the night. She doesn't know what to expect. My heart broke for all of them. I was furious with their mothers! I wonder if Mary knew what he was up to. From what Oliveira writes, this was not unusual at the time - not unusual for Degas. A cheap way to get a model...making her pose all night. Her mother never asked about her. Seemed to accept the situation.
Can you find the meaning of rat in the world of French ballet?
-
JoanP., This is an interesting hearing Oliveria's opinion here....
Oliveria commented that sitting for him "was beyond intimacy."
After reading how the night went for the fourteen year old, that was "beyond intimacy", that was for me a controlling man, so filled with himself and his painting he borders on abuse with this young girl. It was a bit sickening, knowing he goes and gets his young models at the Opera', leaving the mothers with the impression he is using them for sex, and the young girls assume he will be using them for sex.
Degas may have been a successful painter, but as far as his character as a man, human being, I can't respect him. I thought his insult to Mary's father at the dinner was rude and just another example of how Degas is self absorbed. He doesn't like to think about money, yet he insults Mary's father for pointing out the reality of needing money.
"We in France despise money," Degas said, "We despise its necessity, having to run after it, to think about it, to have to acquire it, to settle accounts, to owe people things."
"Thank God the world isn't run by artists,"Robert said, seemingly unable to think of a further reply to a man who didn't appreciate the value of money."
Oliveria states the relationship turns tumultuous, which does not surprise me. He is already showing how controlling he is of Mary.
"It was on one of those afternoons that she had told him that her family was moving to Paris. The shock had been significant. He had come to think of her as his and could not imagine her with other loyalties."
Oliveria also notes the Impressionists are a group of rebels, which makes me see why Mary would be interested in joining them. Berthe Morisot warns Mary about Degas. This is a glimpse of his violent temper when Mary is simply asking him about his painting and how he does it.
"It's extraordinary. It looks effortless."
"Effortless?" Degas's placid expression twisted into a fiery swirl of pursed lips and forehead. "What do you think? That this is easy for me? That I could decided to paint something and then it magically appears from my hand? That I have some gift, that my work arrives finished, that this is not a struggle for me?"
"No. Not at all, but__"
"It's an insult for you to think that I do not work. That I do not have to earn every painting, every print, every drawing I produce."
"I didn't mean to insult you. I was merely asking__I was admiring __."
"You're not stupid. Don't say stupid things."
"I wasn't."
He turned away, the trails of his coat brushing a stack of tracings to the already littered floor. His sudden fury seemed to have enervated him, for within seconds he turned to face her, his shoulders drooping with regret, but Mary was already pulling on her coat, lunging for the stairwell, for escape.
He then states, "Your admiration will give me power over you I do not want to wield." Yet, I think he already knows he has this power over her. He is older, accomplished, she stated she decided to stay in Paris because of his invitation into the group, she has decided to change her own style of painting because of him. He can open doors for her, introduce her to his friends. Even Berthe and Edouard see the power Edgar has over Mary.
Berthe says to her, "I invited you here because I wish to warn you, with respect, that Monsieur Degas can be mercurial. You haven't known him long enough to know that his regard can easily be withdrawn. You must understand, he is not fickle as much as he is paradoxical. One really never knows what he intends when he says or does anything."
"Are you saying his offer to exhibit is insincere?"
"What I am saying is that you must be careful. I do adore him," Berthe continued, appearing to erase all her life's earlier adores, all the truth of that perilous word. "But he can be terrible."
"What I mean is that you should own yourself. Don't rely on Monsieur Degas."
"I am not enamored of him," Mary said. "I merely admire his art."
"Well, he admires you. He could speak of little else the last time I spoke with him."
Hmmmm.....just maybe the letters contained some pretty not so romantic conversations, rather something Mary would not want others to know about how he treated her.
Ciao for now~
-
I'm still playing catch-up. JoanP, that a wonderful site to the Impressionist art in the book. Plenty to see there. Oliviera's comments comparing paintings to text proved very timely, considering the new film that has just come out -- Words and Pictures.
Bellamarie, I was disappointed that the video interview did not have captions, but I've emailed TVW to see if there might be a transcript.
It dawned on me that I had David McCullough's Greater Journey on my Kindle, so did a little index and source checking, and am now finding that I can't remember if I read something in Oliviera or was it in McC. Mary Cassatt's family moved to Paris and rented an apartment on the sixth floor!
That must have been extremely hard on Lydia. I like that Cassatt painted her mother (Reading Le Figaro) for her Impressionist debut.
Now, back to catching up, but want to check out Oliviera's sources at the end of the book. A digital problem there -- now I'll be forever synced to the end of the book.
-
In her author comments Oliviera says "The letters in the book are fiction . . ." Does she mean the letters between Cassatt and Degas? So what was burned?
-
A good question, Pedln! Perhaps there were no letters in the first place! ;)
I don't think the night (s?) painting "le petit rat" were intimate at all. She was merely a specimen - like a nude sitting in an art school. Do you think it was intimate painting Mary for hours?
-
The Book Club Online is the oldest book club on the Internet, begun in 1996, open to everyone. We offer cordial discussions of one book a month, 24/7 and enjoy the company of readers from all over the world. Everyone is welcome.
June Book Club Online
I ALWAYS LOVED YOU: A NOVEL
by Robin Oliveira
(http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/ialwayslovedyou/ialwayslovedyou.jpg)
|
This should be FUN! With the Internet at our fingertips, we'll be able to examine each of the artworks described here by the new talent, Robin Oliveira!
This is from a recent Seattle Times review:
"Degas is tempestuous, sardonic and witty. But the focus is squarely on Mary, working on unfinished paintings, washing her brushes, reeking of turpentine, collaborating with Degas on a journal of etchings, thinking about “the essential talent of seeing.” Mary Cassatt comes alive as disciplined, socially acute, outspoken and stoic in facing down her self-doubt." |
Related links:
Vocabulary Help (http://www.seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/ialwayslovedyou/ialwayslovedyouvoc.html)
National Gallery of Art Exhibition of Degas/Cassatt paintings (http://www.nga.gov/content/ngaweb/exhibitions.html)
Portrait of Mary Ellison ~ Mary Cassatt (http://www.marycassatt.org/Portrait-of-a-Lady-(or-Miss-Mary-Ellison).jpg)
Mary Cassatt's many paintings (http://www.marycassatt.org/)
Links to Impressionist Art discussed in this book (http://www.robinoliveira.com/i-always-loved-you/art-links.php)
Interview with Robin Oliveira concerning those letters (http://tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2014050100)
Discussion Schedule:
June 1-2 1926 Prologue
June 3-6 1877 Chapters One - Nine
June 7-13 1877 cont. Chapters Ten - Nineteen
June 14-16 1878 Chapters Twenty - Twenty Six
June 17-22 1879 Chapters Twenty Seven - Thirty Five
June 23-27 1880 Chapters Thirty Six - Forty Four
June 28-30 1881-3 Chapters Forty Five - Fifty Three
June 14-16 1878 Chapters Twenty-Twenty-Six
1. Had Mary Cassatt not met Degas and become involved with the Impressionists, do you think her painting would have evolved beyond acceptance of the old masters of the Salon?
2. How has freedom from the Salon's requirements and expectations affected Mary Cassatt's style as she hurries to prepare for the upcoming Impressionist exhibition? Can you locate any of them? Do you notice change?
3. What is Mary's greatest problem with her painting at this time? Why did Degas think his "gift" would help her?
4. Much has been made of the discovery of the corroboration between Mary Cassatt and Eduard Degas on her Blue Chair painting. What did you think of it? Do you think this close corroboration indicated an intimacy between the two?
5. Degas decides to cancel the 4th Impressionist exhibition - "out of practicality." Did you believe that? Can you understand Mary Cassatt's disappointment and anger about the way he puts her down when she objects?
June 17-22 ~ Chapters Twenty Seven-Thirty Five 1879
1. Are you familiar with any of the seven new artists Degas invited to the 1879 exhibition? Marie and Felix Bracquemond, Gaugin, Forain, Somme, Lebourg, Zandomeneghi?
2. Does Mary seem in control of her place in the exhibit now, arranging her own paintings, ignoring Degas' framing suggestions,etc? Does she understand his warnings that the reviews would be negative and hurtful? Could he have prepared her for the critics?
3. What do you think? Did Degas love anyone, as Mary asked him - or is that question impossible to answer?
4. Were the reviews the morning after the Impressionists' exhibition as bad as Degas had warned Mary? Why did critics rave about Degas's "exquisite" Impressionist painting style and laugh at Mary's "horrible, mediocre" works? Were you surprised at her father's reaction to the critics?
5. Will Mary overlook Degas' insults and thoughtlessness to work with him on his new journal, "Le Jour et La Nuit?" Was it ever published? If so, are there any copies in existence?
6. "So many drawings of Marie." Are these Degas' "pornographic" sketches referred to elsewhere? Were they done in preparation for his doll-sized figure of La Petite Danseuse? When, if ever, was la danseuse accepted by the public, by the art world?
Discussion Leader: Joan P (jonkie@verizon.net)
|
|
-
No, I don't think the sitting or posing or posturing for the "le petit rat" was intimate at all. The way he had her undress, and the positions were a bit invasive, but intimate, not at all.
Now wouldn't that be a hoot if there never were any letters at all.....,
-
Invasive but not intimate--perfect wording.
Thank you very much for that interview with Oliveira, Bellamarie. It helped me a lot in coming to terms with the book. My problem with historical novels is that I don't like not knowing how much is known fact and how much is speculative or completely made up. Oliveira talks a lot about this. There really was correspondence between Cassatt and Degas, and Cassatt did burn these letters shortly before her death. She kept many other letters, though, between her and family and friends. Both artists said a lot about how they felt about art, what their ideas were. Much detail is known about what the two did, where they went, who they saw. Oliveira tried scrupulously to stay faithful to all the known facts, feelings, and ideas. She only filled in where nothing is known. This of course includes the nature of the personal relationship between the two, beyond the fact that they were collaborators and admirers of each other's work.
I can live with this. I feel much more on solid ground now.
-
PatH.,
My problem with historical novels is that I don't like not knowing how much is known fact and how much is speculative or completely made up.
Your words are exactly how I feel about historical/fiction novels. I too am okay, and have come to terms with the romance Oliveira decides to add to the story. It's not too far a stretch of the imagination to add the romance, even though every single article and interview I have seen, and I have searched many, indicate there was NO romance. Admiration of each other's artistic talents and good friendship, that over the years lessened from Degas taking it personal when Mary sold his painting, distance when Mary moved away, aging, Mary started painting mothers and children, and some disagreement over:
The Dreyfus Affair, (which began in 1894, would have challenged their relationship in any case. In that year, Captain Alfred Dreyfus, the only Jew on the General Staff of the French Army, was falsely accused of betraying France by passing military secrets to Germany and He was sentenced to life imprisonment. on Devil’s Island off the coast of South America.
The case divided France into bitter sides. Joining most French intellectuals, the American Cassatt believed Dreyfus innocent. Degas, on the other hand, became vehemently anti-Dreyfus and anti-Semitic. and often berated the supporters of Dreyfus. There is a report of at least one open quarrel between Degas and Cassatt over Dreyfus.
As evidence mounted that Army officers had forged the evidence against Dreyfus, Degas insisted that the honor of the French army was more important than the fate of the Jew rotting on Devil’s Island off the coast of South America. The government exonerated Dreyfus in 1906, but Degas never accepted this turn in the affair.
The Dreyfus affair, however, did not end their relationship. Cassatt helped her American relatives and friends, especially H.O. and Louisine Havemeyer, amass collections of Degas works, often by buying from Degas directly.)
http://www.huntingtonnews.net/88243
Also in an interview I read that Degas himself destroyed his own letters that Mary had wrote to him, and she destroyed the ones he wrote to her. So it's possible, that Oliveira saw having Mary go to his studio, and find his letters was making the story a bit mysterious, questioning why she would go to such lengths. I feel Oliveira used the letters as her opening, and closing of the book because she knew what effect it would have on the readers, the same as it had on her.....a bit of a mystery to uncover, as to if they were romantically involved, what was in the letters, and why burn them. These next articles seem to answer the question, as to the why, at least for me.
http://www.huntingtonnews.net/88243
Their relationship, a close one for a decade, is one of the best known in art history. What is not known is whether the relationship blossomed beyond a few pedagogical pointers into a secret romantic interlude.
Each destroyed the letters from the other. Most historians doubt an affair. The two artists seemed too strait-laced for that.
After the final salon of impressionist painting in 1886, the relationship between Cassatt and Degas waned. This was the era when Cassatt began painting her renowned canvases of mothers and children, such as “Child Picking a Fruit.” is a good example in the show.
http://onews.us/a-most-exquisite-exhibit-degascassatt-at-the-national-gallery.html
KJ: Certainly in Cassatt’s later years she did things like destroy correspondence with Degas — she destroyed a lot of correspondence, in fact. She started to cull her collection, and there were intimations in letters that she even destroyed some of her own art. She was thinking about her legacy in those later years and was streamlining and getting rid of all sorts of things. She didn’t just get rid of the Degas but Pisarros, Monets, all the other art that she owned was sold off. So it wasn’t just that portrait, but part of a bigger trend in her life at that time.
CJ: So it was purely business, not personal.
KJ: It just wasn’t the image she wanted people to think of her by. She was very explicit that she did not want it going to an American collection because she didn’t want her name attached and the American collectors would know it was her. Ironically, it now usually hangs in the National Portrait Gallery in Washington with her name very much attached. So everything she tried to avoid in that regard happened.
If Oliveira had not included the possibility of romance between the two of them, I feel the readers would have conjectured it anyway.
I'm anxious to see where the next chapters will take us.
Ciao for now~
-
Here is an interesting article that gives us more background on the 'le petit rat' - according to the article it was the brother of Degas who destroyed much of his letters as well as some of his sketches and paintings.
http://sarahinromania.canalblog.com/archives/2012/07/19/24737017.html
-
An interesting article, Barb, and it leads to even more when clicking on the links offered, such as this one from The Guardian, written by Germaine Greer.
Degas and Germaine Greer (http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2009/jan/12/degas-women-germaine-greer).
One of her commenters presents a provacative statement -- There is no such thing as moral or immoral art, only good art and bad art..
As someone here mentioned earlier, Degas' exploration of Marie was not intimate, but certainly invasive. His treatment of his subjects presents an enigma to me. Did he feel compassion or sympathy for his subjects -- Greer claimns not -- or were they simple models, to be manipulated by him depending on the needs of his art? HIs models come from the shabbier streets of life - because he wants to show the reality of their lives?
I guess we get back to the question of both Degas an Cassatt. What do they see? Are they painting what they see?
Bellamarie, TVW sent me a transcript, which was indeed a big help. I wish Oliveira told more about how she learned, going from one museum to another, that the letters were burned.
-
pedln, I said Degas was invasive with Marie, by the way he made her undress herself and the positions he had her pose in for lengthy periods of time. What did the undressing have to do with his painting her?
Did he feel compassion or sympathy for his subjects -- Greer claims not -- or were they simple models, to be manipulated by him depending on the needs of his art?
I feel Degas is a very unfeeling human being, who gives little respect to others, yet expects it from all. He is very defensive in his conversations, ready to insult and humiliate anyone who disagrees with him.
Thank you Barb and pedln for the articles. I wonder why artists, photographers, and authors have a tendency to destroy their works, journals and correspondences, before their deaths, leaving very little behind. As I recall Lewis Carroll and Jane Austen did the same thing, as I am sure many others have. What is it they don't want others to see or know?
I guess after reading the above article this explains why his brother or he himself destroyed his work.
His subject, when it is not horses, is the interaction of gentlemen and labouring women, whether dancers, prostitutes or laundresses. Sex is always part of the relationship, but love has nothing to do with it.
Degas's brother René is said to have destroyed 70 pornographic sketches that were found at the time of the artist's death. One escaped and can be seen in this exhibition. Joris-Karl Huysmans was troubled by what he saw as "scorn and loathing" for women in Degas's work. It is undeniable that most of Degas's women are faceless and abject, foreshortened heaps of limbs and buttocks, but ultimately it is less insulting to women to show their bodies coarsened by privation and hard work, by age and ill health, than it is to show them forever delectable and young.
I sense he had an inability to love anyone, including himself.
pedln, I too wish Oliveira gave us more information, especially how she found out about the letters. But then she could have learned about the letters being destroyed just like we do, through articles on the internet.
Ciao for now~
Ciao for now~
-
I can see why there would be no compassion much less sympathy for the subject - we - those of us who look at art just as those of us who read poetry and as we have found reading fiction we project onto the art our own life experiences and associate with the over all composition what chords the art is striking within us.
Here is a great example of the elements and principles of 2 dimensional art- http://www.projectarticulate.org/principles.php
3D or sculpture has another group of elements - shadow being one of them.
I am having a difficult time getting into the story but oh have I been enjoying the art - and you can see the growth in Mary - Degas so far, has been proving and reproving various versions of one design that is built into his use of light and dark value in shapes where as Mary has really grown in the use of a circular foundation.
The center point of art is where the darkest dark and lightest light meet - there is usually an entry point that they artist leads the eye into the picture. Degas most often uses a pathway from bottom up where as, Mary uses a pathway most often from the side - It is when you squint your eyes till the object painted no longer has meaning and you only see the lights, darks, lines that are formed regardless what object, person etc they are attached to and follow the line created with other placed objects.
The easiest example to me was the painting not done by either Mary or Degas - the one of the couple at the dining room table - if you squint up it is easy to see that her arm and hand is the lead in and part of a circular line that goes to the bread and other dishes on the table - even the pile of dinner plates you see when squinting are not round but there is a slight flat that works as an arrow helping the eye to follow the circle - against the white cloth that arrangement is then leading to her face - making the emotional connection that she and what is on the table is what the painting is about -
The lines in her dress are the pathway into the picture - when you squint you realize the background is not as dark as the dark of some of that on the table nor, as dark as the chair back that breaks the lines of her dress so the dress lines are not so direct - matching that there are spaces in the opposite of black - the white of the table cloth that is the background to create the encircling line to her face.
You also see when squinting up he is practically part of the background and their connection is the hanging lamp that connects the two heads - and then you can see the shape of her hair is like an upside down cone again, leading to her face but also dark hair which acts as a circular frame to her face while the matching dark is picking up the circular shape in the back of the chair both, are a very dark similar colors.
None of this relates to feelings - we, the onlooker can come up with all sorts of messages - and when you see what the artist is attempting to do there are still other messages. Our opinion about the man, presumed husband is from our own life experiences - he could be a guest or husband, a father, someone she has to show off her culinary skills or, if she did not do the cooking her ability to set a nice table. We can make all sorts of stories in our head about the people in the painting but if brought to a gallery what is measured is the unique way the elements and principles of art are used - yes, that particular painting has a scene that can be heartwarming or whatever but the same elements are used to determine a Picasso, Chagall or Kandinsky and many more whose work use these elements exclusive of representation in life.
My thought is these artists were ahead of society in their thinking and that is what they incorporated into their art - thank goodness they sought out each other because they would all be very lonely as independent thinkers - as a group they were trying to prove and push what the eye would behold with relatively small, thin, yet visible brush strokes, open composition with an emphasis on accurate depiction of light. Yet, like the later De Stijl and Bauhaus artists they were all developing their art based in the elements and principles of art.
Rather than simply framing her subject with the circle Mary grows and uses the circle within her design and subjects - I have not looked at enough of Degas paintings of the 'rats' or his horse racing paintings to see if he gets past that shadow with the two rectangular shapes in the upper part of his work that are attached to a unique large shape in the bottom part of his painting. He does it over and over again. Sometimes the dark shapes are shadows on the wall and other times men dressed in dark clothing or one man with a top hat and his shadow creating the other box shape.
Mary's early painting of the women wearing the mantilla which surrounds her face - when you squint up your see that she had in-cooperated three rectangular shapes as almost stair steps - the light is the trick - as light a color and value as the mantilla is the rectangle on her chest, left upper check and forehead are lighter spots - look and see the left cheek is lighter than the right cheek - we are looking at prints so I cannot tell if the long rectangle on her neck is really the path to her cheeks - squinting up you cannot tell where her hair and the shadow on her face start and following the shadow it is broken but enough to make a path across her upper chest to the dark hair on the other side of her head - again, forming a circle framing the face. Although the fan is very light its rounded shape does not add as an arrow but simply as an eye stopper so that you do not go out of the picture but rather pick up the mantilla and circle around again finding more details. As she matures in her painting I see less the use of rectangle shapes and more the use and experimentation with the circle from broad and almost flat to tight.
Just like a house needs a good foundation and structure that holds space, a piece of art needs its foundation and structure for the eye. The elements and principles help us discover the foundation and structure.
Yep, I did art and sold many a painting and did much silk screening, teaching it to those interested and to the high school age students in summer. When I decided to make money all that was packed up - I would never have done more than local and so I am glad I had my time but have other things in life I would like to try rather than pick it all up again. However, my house is filled with original art but not the art of any famous names.
-
Barb, ONLY a true artist could depict all that you mention in the styles of the paintings. Degas felt insulted when he thought Mary demeaned his work of painting as a possible gifted talent. He wants to emphasize how much hard work he puts into each brush stroke.
Not to demean or deny the work any artist puts into their paintings or sketches, I do feel it is a God given talent, just as any other skill we are born with, and then go on to learn, sharpen, and master. Not all of us can no matter how much instructions we receive, how many classes we attend, or how many experts guide us, accomplish being successful or even good at something we are not born with the natural talent first. So...as much as Degas would scream and shout and call me stupid, as he did with Mary, I have to resign my conclusion is it is a gift, to be mastered. IMO.
How exciting for you, Barb, to treasure such a gift. I took an art class in High School and was just horrible at painting. Now drawing with pencils seemed to come to me a bit natural.
Mary, like any student, under the tutelage of Degas, grew in her talents as an artist, became more confident in herself, and as any student, outgrew her teacher/mentor Degas. After learning his brush strokes, movement, impressionistic styles, etc., she finally became her own person/artist and decided to paint mostly mothers and children. That shows she had emotion in her paintings, something Degas lacked, and I think he envied. Although he taught her much, we can not forget she was already an artist in her own right and own style. She just seemed to admire Degas's style so much so she felt it necessary to learn from him.
-
Barb, thanks for your analysis of the structure of those paintings. That's the sort of thing I don't see on my own without having someone point it out. I assume it affects me, though, even if I don't know why the painting looks good to me.
I can't find the passages now, but at one point Mary comments on Degas painting fans. Another place she suggests seeing an exhibit of Japanese prints. There was a Japanese fad at the time, and it influenced Degas' fans. The Norton Simon museum in Pasadena has some of the fans, and once, when I was there looking at an exhibit of Japanese prints, I was lucky enough to catch a lecture which first explained the conventions of the prints, then moved to the Degas room and showed the same conventions in the fans and some other works. Unfortunately that was at least 5 years ago, and I don't remember any of the details, but here's one of the fans:
http://www.nortonsimon.org/collections/browse_artist.php?name=degas,%20edgar&resultnum=40 (http://www.nortonsimon.org/collections/browse_artist.php?name=degas,%20edgar&resultnum=40)
And here's another view of the petit rat, Marie:
http://www.nortonsimon.org/collections/browse_artist.php?name=degas,%20edgar&resultnum=64 (http://www.nortonsimon.org/collections/browse_artist.php?name=degas,%20edgar&resultnum=64)
-
Fascinating about the fans - did not know it was 'the thing' at that time - but come to think there are paintings of someone's studio with fans on the wall as if the fans where a painting - not Monet, he was in the country, Manet was still too classical - could be Van Gogh but his paintings are usually not so detailed - it will come to me - it was during that period - Mary's use of fans seems to be less ornamental and more an every day object used to help with eye direction - her fans end up setting a mood. There is the use of the fan when she painted her sister - now I will have to look to see what paintings include fans and if there are any other devices used in more than one painting.
In another discussion someone brought up that Stalin was a poet and Hitler a painter and frustrated architect - I guess the old 'truth' fire can cook food or burn down houses. So far I could see Degas going either way and because of her subject matter it is easy to see Mary as a gentle soul till you see her photos in later life - she looked like one tough cookie and in her early years there is that chin that appears to be made of hard bone giving her a very determined appearance.
-
I'm playing catch up with the articles you've been researching all weekend. We celebrated Father's Day with one of our sons whose router stopped working - Verizon says "corroded wires"...(have you ever!)
Y
Some of the things you referred to - the pornographic sketches of Marie...the dimensional figure of "la petite danseuse" for example, come up in later chapters of Oliveira's book...
But before getting into 1877, the year Mary expected to show her work with the Impressionists for he first time, I'd like to disagree with the historians on something...
"Most historians doubt an affair. The two artists seemed too strait-laced for that."
Hey! Are we really seeing Degas as straight-laced? These is the free Parisian bohemian art colony- not sure who fathers whose child in some cases. Mary is well brought up, yes, but has always had a mind of her own, defying society's norms. Besides, she has a real soft spot where Degas is concerned. I don't think of Mary as straight-laced. I think she would have given herself to Degas...if she thought he loved her. I think she's being very careful about this. I admire the Mary Oliveira portrays in the upcoming chapters.
I can agree with this- ;)
"If Oliveira had not included the possibility of romance between the two of them, I feel the readers would have conjectured it anyway."
-
Was not able o see the fans, Pat- will ty again in the morning. I do remember reading at the National Gallery where we saw several of them...including one Degas gave to Mary...that when artists' works weren't selling, they painted fans and other items in order to eat. I thought they sold them to tourists. Imagine finding one of Degas' fans in your grandma's attic!
Barb- I intend to pull up that painting and reread your post with it on front of me - in the morning when wide awake!
I agree...whether or not, you get into the fiction, the art is REAL - and what an opportunity to focus on the work of both artists!
-
Degas decides to cancel the Impressionist exhibition of 1878-- "out of practicality." Did you believe that?
I can understand Mary's disappointment. This is the big moment she's been working for. I wonder if she was ready? She seemed to be having difficulty focusing - finding models until Degas stepped in and helped with the painting of Eloise in the Blue Chair. http://www.nga.gov/content/ngaweb/Collection/art-object-page.61368.html
What do you think of that early painting? It was the center of the recent exhibit at the National Gallery - the star of the show. Do you think Degas cancelled because he felt Mary needed to develop more - to find her focus? A larger number of new paintings, perhaps? Or was he really not ready himself?
-
I feel Degas cancelled because he was not ready. He admitted he did not have anything to show, he was a bit furious it was brought up. I don't blame Mary for being upset with him for cancelling after she had worked so hard to be ready. That truly put a huge strain on their friendship. I personally don't see the romance between the two of them. They have admiration, but romance seems not at all important to either of them, or Mary would not have let months and months go by even after Lydia tried forcing her to answer Edgar's apology note. Berthe has warned Mary and now she is seeing first hand how cruel Degas can be.
-
I agree. Degas himself wasn't ready. No wonder he was so cross about it.
The story of Degas helping Cassatt with the lines in the portrait of Eloise in the blue chair is true. X-ray analysis shows the original horizontal line where the wall meets the floor, and the original position of the dog. The NGA exhibit had a nice drawing showing both. The dog had originally been on the floor, but that didn't work with the changed line of the walls. That's a gorgeous painting, even more impressive in real life. It had just been cleaned, too, so it practically glowed.
-
It doesn't even sound like Degas has respect for Mary, or that he cares about her feelings, Bella . Degas knew how hard she had worked on her new paintings...he'd worked closely with her, even helped her, taking her paint brush to the Girl in the Blue Chair. He knew it would be devastating to her if he cancelled the Exhibition.
So he wasn't ready, didn't want to embarrass himself. I can understand this. But the thoughtless and abrupt way he spoke to her and the other artists when he cancelled it? It sounds like a defense mechanism. I find myself wondering if he actually called off the Exhibition like this, or how much is fiction.
-
The following is a link describing their corroboration that we saw at the National Gallery, Pat. http://www.demingheadlight.com/allaccess/ci_25728810/museum-reveals-degas-cassatts-interaction-art
By the way, this painting is part of the permanent collection here in DC - keep this in mind the next time you come to town...
"During an extensive cleaning and analysis of Cassatt's painting "Little Girl in a Blue Armchair," the museum used x-rays and infrared imagery to reveal changes Degas made under the surface of Cassatt's picture.
Conservators found brushstrokes true to Degas' style and a change in the orientation of Cassatt's picture. She almost always used a straight horizon line in her paintings, but Degas used strong diagonals. Infrared imagery revealed Degas had drawn a diagonal line on Cassatt's canvas to suggest a change.
"We learned a lot more about the relationship between the two artists," said conservator Ann Hoenigswald. "He wasn't going to just finish her painting. I think he really respected her so much that he could say, 'um, I think this is going to work, it's going to expand the sense of space, and now you finish.'"
Cassatt later wrote about her work with Degas. "I had done the child in the armchair, and he found it to be good and advised me on the background, he even worked on the background," she wrote. But curators knew little more until now.
As a serious artist, Cassatt was frustrated when people thought she was Degas' student or protege, Curator Kimberly Jones said. It was an inevitable conclusion at the time because she was a younger woman.
"I hope this exhibition will confirm that they really were peers," Jones said. "They were colleagues, and it was a level playing field between them. He might have had more experience, but she was a fast learner."
-
- The finished painting...
(http://1vze7o2h8a2b2tyahl3i0t6812c3.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/3646-001_600.jpg)
See the change? the infrared shows what was under the paint - Mary's perspective...The blue line indicates Mary's original perspective of the room - the red is Degas' revision - the horizontal lines we see in the finished painting...
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/express/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Little-Girl-infraredCOPY.jpg)
-
You can see the dog on the floor too. He's much better up front in the chair. I'm impressed that you found this.
I'm glad for one thing I learned from Oliveira's description. There was only one blue chair. Cassatt just duplicated it to fill the room. The thought of having to live in a whole roomful of that bold, in-your-face color isn't good.
-
I'd forgotten that - about the furniture, Pat. This bit is for dog lovers - Mary owned a little Brussels Griffon, who appears in some of her other paintings. (Models weren't inexpensive!) Not sure if the dog's name appears anywhere.
-
Oh yes, I can see the change had the darker bit of wall act as a shield so your eye had a way back into the picture after exploring the fact there is distance - all those sausage shapes in chair arms, cumberbun, cushion ends, soft backs of chairs even the Brussels Griffon appears in a sausage shape - the little girls seems to be the only thing that is not sausage shaped - great way to call attention to the main focus of the picture isn't it.
-
Barbara, I tried squeezing my eyes to see different lines in the painting that you used for your lesson on painting. I guess I am not an artist or my eyes aren't? :D
PatH I agree about that one garish color or fabric being too much. But what draws my eyes back to the little girl is the white of her clothing. It just stands out, maybe too much? Heck, I don't know.
So did Degas move the dog to the chair? Or did Mary? I can see the dog on the floor and on the chair in the photo with the Mary lines and the Degas lines.
JoanP How did you know where to find this photo of the lines? You are a magician of "googling"!
-
Where are you seeing the dog on the floor? I just don't see it. This is a great picture showing the differences in Mary and Degas's lines. I feel Degas could see Mary was surpassing him, he could see her growth and I think he knew her paintings would be well accepted, where his was not being as received. Did he get lazy and not care about the exhibit? Degas admits he struggles with his own insecurities, and laziness.
I don't care for the four pieces of furniture all in the same color and print, interesting how Mary decided to use the same chair and just add three more. The two in the background seem too much. I do love the dog on the chair and the little girl. I can only imagine how exciting it was to see this painting in the museum.
-
"You got it" Anne - yes the little girls stands out from all the rest because she is painted light to the point our eye sees the white as bright because as clear a blue as the chairs appear they are really a greyed blue and so Mary did with color and value what others do with creating lines - the two dangling legs act as arrows to her body the center of the painting -
The center being if a painting was a piece of cloth where would you pick it up and everything would dangle from that point and the dark of her cummerbund against the white of her dress is where the greatest difference or opposite values from light to dark is in the painting and so that is where all the shapes and lines and values and colors are leading the eye - to that spot but done is such a way you are not riveted as if the spot is a bulls eye so you will travel around the painting again.
The negative shape, which is the floor or carpet is an interesting shape - to isolate that shape it is interesting to see how like an octopus with 4 arms she used the shape to hold all the sausages together - ;) I am calling all the overstuffed furniture sausages.
Back to the little girl - as light a value for her face, arms and legs they are not quite as light as the dress and where the dark hair and dark eyes are opposites to the light value of her face the contrast is not as great as the cummerbund to the white dress but enough to call your eye to her face after you had landed on that cummerbund. The shape of the little girl reminds me of a giant letter A.
She sure captured how a little girl in her own space without adults around will simply fall into the furniture without caring if she is sitting properly - it is really a fun piece telling a well kknown ageless story.
I can see how if Degas was advising Mary while being interested in her work it would be very hard to have pulled back into his own creative growth and an exhibition would have been a challenge to show what comes from his creativity - that process is hard work that takes all of your focus and energy and so I can see he was not going to embarrass himself by showing old work - I bet he would have felt humiliated for himself if he did not have something new that challenged him to create and therefore, that he felt proud of.
-
Whoops we are posting together Bellamarie - think of the chairs more like wall paper - to use another kind or color or pattern of chair would have brought interest to that area and away from the little girls - all those chairs are like a frame - like the mantilla - framing the little girl - it is easy isn't it to look at a painting as if it were trying to depict a real room when all it is is background with enough interest to get away from the shades of black and grey that were often used in earlier portrait paintings.
Interesting we each have a different intent for why Degas pulled out of the exposition. I still think his competitive nature would not permit him to exhibit anything that did not show his growth as a painter handling a new challenge.
-
Isn't this fun! I just love the different interpretations of this piece...and what they might reveal about the two artists.
Annie - I agree, the white pantaloons draw attention to the slouching child, oblivious to the fact that she is being scrutinized by the artists behind the easel. This certainly isn't an expected portrait posture at this time.
Any idea why Degas had tossed his tartan scarf across the child? Do you thing there was an artistic reason - a contrast? Remember this little girl was Degas' "gift" to Mary, who had been struggling for a subject to paint. She had not painted children before she did little Eloise. I wondered whether Degas left his scarf as a sort of souvenir, a signature, or reminder of his contribution to the painting.
Barb - I just read your post, referring to Degas' scarf - so you do see the artistic value - the reason Degas tossed it in to the composition. Thanks!
-
Here is a link to the exhibit brochure for the exhibit that some of you saw. It gives a lot of detail with pictures of examples of how the two influenced each other and eventually grew apart.
http://www.nga.gov/content/dam/ngaweb/exhibitions/pdfs/2014/degas_cassatt_bro_final%20copy.pdf
-
Bella, It's hard to see the little dog on the floor seen when cleaning the picture using infrared...The answer to your question...Who moved the dog - is Mary. I found this-
"Conservators found brushstrokes true to Degas' style and a change in the orientation of Cassatt's picture. She almost always used a straight horizon line in her paintings, but Degas used strong diagonals. Infrared imagery revealed Degas had drawn a diagonal line on Cassatt's canvas to suggest a change.
"We learned a lot more about the relationship between the two artists," said conservator Ann Hoenigswald. "He wasn't going to just finish her painting. I think he really respected her so much that he could say, 'um, I think this is going to work, it's going to expand the sense of space, and now you finish.'"
Infrared imagery also showed Cassatt tried moving a dog in the picture to the floor but changed her mind and painted over it."
I liked reading that - she didn't just turn over all decision-making to her mentor...
-
JoanK - thanks for the brochure. When I look at the infrared picture in the brochure, I see I was wrong. The little dog can be seen on the floor more clearly there in the brochure...so that when I went back to the one posted here, I can see him on the floor now...a dim little "sausage"
Thanks!
The brochure tells of this painting being submitted to the 1879 exhibition the following year. By this time, Mary has gotten past the great disappointment of the previous year when the exhibition had been cancelled.
I remember reading that Degas was never really satisfied with his work. Always felt they needed more work. I think this may have been one of the reasons he wasn't ready in 1878.
But how thoughtless to cancel the whole showing...just because he wasn't ready, as if it was to be a one man show.
I notice that by 1879, most of the artists had not returned - new ones were invited to replace them. Have you begun the 1879 chapters yet? How many of thee artists are you familiar with? Marie and Felix Bracquemond, Gaugin, Forain, Somme, Lebourg, Zandomeneghi
-
I took this pic of my grand daughter Hayden last night while the two of us were watching the movie Tangled, as you can see my sweet dog Sammy prefers her when she spends the night instead of my lap. After seeing the painting above with the girl and dog I couldn't resist sharing this girl and dog pic. Sorry for the size I am still learning this process of inserting pics.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/t1.0-9/10488102_10204272651159818_2249273882785841440_n.jpg)
-
Precious! Little girl and dog. What breed? Looks a bit like Mary Cassatt's Brussell's Griffin.
I just located a list of those participating in the 1879, the 4th Impressionist exhibition...
Artists Participating in the Fourth Impressionist Exhibition:
• Félix Braquemond
• Marie Braquemond
• Gustave Caillebotte
• Adolphe-Félix Cals
• Mary Cassatt
• Edgar Degas
• Louis Forain
• Paul Gauguin (not in the brochure)
• Albert Lebourg
• Claude Monet
• Ludovic Piette (not in the brochure)
• Camille Pissarro
• Henri Rouart
• Henri Somm
• Charles Tillot
• Federico Zandomeneghi
-
Nice web site by Sotheby on Federico that tells some of his relationship with Degas
http://www.sothebys.com/en/news-video/videos/2013/10/frederico-zandomeneghi-paris-november-2013.html
-
An interesting time line of all 8 exhibits - the year, the artists who were represented and other bits of information.
http://www.semiotys.com/images/kPuleo-ExhibitsFlowchart.pdf
-
Well, I didn't know that the plaid across the little girl's lap was Degas scarf! So, when I looked at the picture, to me, the white shown there was the little girl's petticoat, and the plaid scarf was her thrown up skirt. But we have white at the top of the shoulders and then matching colors in the scarf (skirt), her socks and the bow in her hair. Maybe that 's why I thought that scarf was her skirt. Who knows?!
-
Oh this is quite wonderful - the page talks about the building - the large restaurant on the main level - that there was a newspaper office in the building and on the second level is where in 1888 the last and 8th Impressionist's exhibit was held - the second photo of the black and white sketch that includes the building, done by Jean Béraud is breathtaking and best of all the sketch shows the typical clothing worn at the time.
http://www.aloj.us.es/galba2/BERAUD/ItaliensImag5.htm
Seeing street scenes of this time done by Béraud eveyone is so buttoned up with very little color worn except by a few women which makes these Impressionistic paintings a shock in comparison.
-
Anne I have been calling the scarf a commerbund because to me it acts as one and found it confusing to refer to the plaid piece of cloth as a Degas' scarf - if you look at other paintings and even the very few photos of little girls at the time they where a lot of white dresses - usually made from a fabric we called 'lawn' - and yes, you can see either the end of her panties that would be lace or her petticoat that could also be lace but more often with a decorative series of folds that could be un-stitched as a child grew and so my guess with her slouched pose the lace is at the bottom of her panties that were long at this time in history. Seeing the particulars of any of this work is difficult when we have only photographic copies and the size is very different than the painting.
This site has a way that you can use your curser and magnify the painting section by section - the dress is still not clear as to where the dress ends and her undergarment begins and to make it even more confusing the puff sleeves and neckline show bits of lace - the scarf is much easier to see that is it a piece of cloth laid on the child and not just around her waist - In the scheme of things the details of any of the objects really does not make any difference to the art - we are admiring these colors and shapes as an overall 2 dimensional design of canvas and paint that delights our senses. Going back, looking at art work from earlier centuries especially the portraits but even wagons and other objects often we cannot tell the particulars painted in the picture - we have to remember it is art not photography.
https://shop.nga.gov/item/584484/little-girl-in-a-blue-armchair-exhibition-poster/1.html?gclid=CjkKEQjw8YSdBRChhPXJvPvMztABEiQAkn893oVqqxvDPG50RsG8smsKJYU8k8n_Tl_dIhf1lv5J-dLw_wcB
here is a link to a larger version of the painting - however, I think the sites that allow you to magnify sections of the painting give a closer inspection - you can catch bits of the paint strokes in the magnified versions.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/Mary_Cassatt_-_Little_Girl_in_a_Blue_Armchair_-_NGA_1983.1.18.jpg/1024px-Mary_Cassatt_-_Little_Girl_in_a_Blue_Armchair_-_NGA_1983.1.18.jpg
Here on this site is another even clearer version that allows you to magnify sections of the painting
http://www.designtoscano.com/product/code/DA3403.do?code=PDINCLUDE&code=DTPLAS12
-
Let's look at the "cummerbund", scarf, skirt. Using your links I found that the ability to enlarge the picture makes me think that it is a scarf (Degas's?) as when one pays closer attention to it, one can almost see fringe on the bottom and on the top, behind her shoulder. Buuuuut, its not really coming up at the right place. Its not centered upon itself. From the girl's lap to behind her shoulder.
I love your knowledge of the white lace at the bottom of her dress or her pantaloons or petticoat. Where does one learn all this. Another thing that I wondered with the scarf/skirt/cummberbund: Was it there all the time and if so, who put it there? Cassatt or Degas??
-
Anne among my many interests - but I have lived a long time now - I delved into needlework and whitework (lace without the bobbins) and that leads you into costume and yes, I taught needlework for several years including after having researched Samplers all over Great Britian and Wales I created a long sampler and taught it at a national needlework guild annual in 1980 - the class was 3 days and I had included in the kits I put together a book I made with the patterns and stitches.
What may help is to know that little girls wore pantaloons - till the 1860s which if you remember where long, very decorative with lace and her dress started closer to her knee
(http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/1a/d8/15/1ad815103261806443b19444a70764ce.jpg)
And so by the 1880s the panties were still decorative and came to her thigh but were not long to be seen and so the message this little girl in the painting is sitting in a very intimate and unladylike pose that would not be typical of her conduct with others in the room.
I did find a petticoat from the 1880s and it does have a form of ruching at the bottom edge.
(http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/3a/d6/98/3ad698924b21384e5c5307729fb9724f.jpg)
Don't you just love this - Pinterest has pages and pages of children's clothing from the nineteenth century
http://www.pinterest.com/robingrace7/childrens-clothes-19th-cent/
-
Oh yes, now I do see the scarf above her shoulders and next to her head by using the magnified version - yes, I see now and it does look like it has fringe doesn't it.
For sure using the word cummerbund does not do justice to describing the cloth scarf - what a difference the size of a copy makes in picking out even the basics like this frame she had created using the scarf to surround her face and the top part of the dress.
-
The Book Club Online is the oldest book club on the Internet, begun in 1996, open to everyone. We offer cordial discussions of one book a month, 24/7 and enjoy the company of readers from all over the world. Everyone is welcome.
June Book Club Online
I ALWAYS LOVED YOU: A NOVEL
by Robin Oliveira
(http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/ialwayslovedyou/ialwayslovedyou.jpg)
|
This should be FUN! With the Internet at our fingertips, we'll be able to examine each of the artworks described here by the new talent, Robin Oliveira!
This is from a recent Seattle Times review:
"Degas is tempestuous, sardonic and witty. But the focus is squarely on Mary, working on unfinished paintings, washing her brushes, reeking of turpentine, collaborating with Degas on a journal of etchings, thinking about “the essential talent of seeing.” Mary Cassatt comes alive as disciplined, socially acute, outspoken and stoic in facing down her self-doubt." |
Related links:
Vocabulary Help (http://www.seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/ialwayslovedyou/ialwayslovedyouvoc.html)
National Gallery of Art Exhibition of Degas/Cassatt paintings (http://www.nga.gov/content/ngaweb/exhibitions.html)
Portrait of Mary Ellison ~ Mary Cassatt (http://www.marycassatt.org/Portrait-of-a-Lady-(or-Miss-Mary-Ellison).jpg)
Mary Cassatt's many paintings (http://www.marycassatt.org/)
Links to Impressionist Art discussed in this book (http://www.robinoliveira.com/i-always-loved-you/art-links.php)
Interview with Robin Oliveira concerning those letters (http://tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2014050100)
Discussion Schedule:
June 1-2 1926 Prologue
June 3-6 1877 Chapters One - Nine
June 7-13 1877 cont. Chapters Ten - Nineteen
June 14-16 1878 Chapters Twenty - Twenty Six
June 17-22 1879 Chapters Twenty Seven - Thirty Five
June 23-27 1880 Chapters Thirty Six - Forty Four
June 28-30 1881-3 Chapters Forty Five - Fifty Three
June 14-16 1878 Chapters Twenty-Twenty-Six
1. Had Mary Cassatt not met Degas and become involved with the Impressionists, do you think her painting would have evolved beyond acceptance of the old masters of the Salon?
2. How has freedom from the Salon's requirements and expectations affected Mary Cassatt's style as she hurries to prepare for the upcoming Impressionist exhibition? Can you locate any of them? Do you notice change?
3. What is Mary's greatest problem with her painting at this time? Why did Degas think his "gift" would help her?
4. Much has been made of the discovery of the corroboration between Mary Cassatt and Eduard Degas on her Blue Chair painting. What did you think of it? Do you think this close corroboration indicated an intimacy between the two?
5. Degas decides to cancel the 4th Impressionist exhibition - "out of practicality." Did you believe that? Can you understand Mary Cassatt's disappointment and anger about the way he puts her down when she objects?
June 17-22 ~ Chapters Twenty Seven-Thirty Five 1879
1. Are you familiar with any of the seven new artists Degas invited to the 1879 exhibition? Marie and Felix Bracquemond, Gaugin, Forain, Somme, Lebourg, Zandomeneghi?
2. Does Mary seem in control of her place in the exhibit now, arranging her own paintings, ignoring Degas' framing suggestions,etc? Does she understand his warnings that the reviews would be negative and hurtful? Could he have prepared her for the critics?
3. What do you think? Did Degas love anyone, as Mary asked him - or is that question impossible to answer?
4. Were the reviews the morning after the Impressionists' exhibition as bad as Degas had warned Mary? Why did critics rave about Degas's "exquisite" Impressionist painting style and laugh at Mary's "horrible, mediocre" works? Were you surprised at her father's reaction to the critics?
5. Will Mary overlook Degas' insults and thoughtlessness to work with him on his new journal, "Le Jour et La Nuit?" Was it ever published? If so, are there any copies in existence?
6. "So many drawings of Marie." Are these Degas' "pornographic" sketches referred to elsewhere? Did you view his exhausting sketches of the girl as pornography?
Discussion Leader: Joan P (jonkie@verizon.net)
|
|
-
Yes, if you remember it said Degas threw his scarf around the little girl. Why do you suppose he did that knowing Mary was going to be painting her? Did he want a piece of himself in the painting? Was it because the studio was very cold? Because it exists in the actual painting, it obviously is not something the author made up, and it really did happen, I am concluding.
Now the exhibition is over, and Mary has been scrutinized, and feels very upset for the horrible critics write ups in the papers. Degas warned her it was going to happen, but to see it in print has such a huge effect on her. Mary's father surprised me with his reaction. He came through for her, supported her, and wanted to comfort her, deciding they should go on vacation together to give her distance and time to relax.
So what did everyone think of the kiss between Mary and Edgar? Personally, I felt it was so out of place and too staged for the story. I felt Oliveira placed it at an awkward time, and it was just uncomfortable for me. I just don't see the romance with the two of them. And only minutes later, Edgar says the most cruelest comment to Berthe about her child looking more like Edouard. How mortifying could that be in front of her husband, and all the people there. This guy just has no filter or feelings for others, and NO class. Although, Mary asking Edgar, has he ever loved anyone,, seemed a bit as harsh. I tend to feel this is where the author has taken much liberty to force a romance, and then a sudden reason to end it, before it gets started. (A Danielle Steele moment is what I was feeling.)
Barb, I am amazed with all your knowledge and talents. Thank you so much for sharing with us who haven't a clue what to look for in these artist's paintings, other than the beauty of the subjects.
JoanP., My Sammy is a Shih Tzu with short hair, because it tends to matte easily when long. That picture just reminded me so much of Cassett's little girl and dog. Life as it is happening.
Ciao for now~
-
From Robin Oliveira's book - chapter twenty-two, page 150 in the hardcover edition:
"Eloise squirmed in his arms...and he set her down...The coal stove hadn't yet heated the studio, so Degas unwound his scarf and gave it to the girl.
The girl's coat had scrunched above her knees...sprawled on the seat of the blue armchair...the scarf entwined about her waist...
Eloise was playing with Degas' scarf...
Threw off her coat, revealing her white dress and petticoats, and then slumped back again, dragging Degas's scarf across her dress.
The tartan clashed with the upholstery in a beguiling contrast."
A cummerbund?
Annie - are you questioning Oliveira's fictional account? Don't you think she had some evidence that this is Degas's scarf, to have repeated it so many times?
-
Thank you JoanP., for the actual wordage...I knew Edgar had given her the scarf, I just was too lazy to go find the page. :-[
-
Barb - thank you for the link to each of the Impressionist exhibitions. Mary was in some pretty heady company, her first time out. Some of the names I wasn't familiar with - but I must say, I love Pissarro's work...though I think of him as a landscape artist. And Monet showed up after all - Gaugin too!
I would have been happy reading Degas' warning to Mary about how cruel the critics would be. That was thoughtful and caring. I agree with you, Bella, the kiss was a little over the top. A kiss on the forehead would have been enough!
-
With all the riches above, I am most impressed that BARBARA got Federico's name right while the computer address got it wrong (Frederico). I'm sensitive on the point, since Federico is my family name, and I almost didn't graduate from college, because they had parts of my records stored under several different spellings and thought I didn't have enough credits.
-
Ah, but JoanK - did you notice Barb did not attempt his last name? Did you avoid that on purpose, Barb? :D
Here's one of Pissarro's landscapes - painted in 1879. Maybe for this exhibition?
(http://uploads2.wikiart.org/images/camille-pissarro/a-path-in-the-woods-pontoise-1879.jpg)
-
Cummerbund? Is that correct? I have been mispronouncing it my whole long life! Egad!
Barbara, I love that site of the years gone by in clothing. How did you google that? Do you think that the petticoat that you copied might have been on the girl under her dress? Do I remember that this art work was in the 1889 exhibit? Another thing that I noticed is that the pantaloons came down over the legs which would have covered socks presented. Did you notice the bow in her hair? Is also picks up the colors from the socks and the scarf.
JoanP I know what the text said concerning the scarf but I had forgotten that it was so exact in the explanation. So who left it there? Mary or Degas? Was it included from the very beginning? Was Degas there from the very start of the Mary's painting? It would seem so. It sounds as though he was giving her lessons on using the diagonal.
I have to say that I am sorry that Bracquemond was a real loss to the Independents/Impresionists cause. After seeing just the few that we had up here, I actually liked her better than Cassat and Degas. There is something so clean and delicate in her art that I really love. Also, has anyone looked up to see what her husband exhibited? I will go do that right now.
-
Felix Bacquemond: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Félix_Bracquemond
Marie Bacquemond: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Bracquemond
If one reads both of these, one discovers the reason for Marie's discontinuing her art work. What a shame! He was not very supportive of her work.
I am thinking that the man in the "Under the Lamp" painting is definitely Felix. And she really puts him in shadow as though to ignore him and his unkind critique of her. She remained faithful to the Impressionist theory and defended it throughout her lifetime.
-
Annie, like minds, I guess. Like you, I thought the plaid was the little girl's skirt, tossed up, like little girls' skirts do. And then I got confused when someone talked about a cummerbund shaped like a sausage. :-* What a fun discussion this has been. I finally did a search on the word scarf (with no thanks to Windows 8.1) in the Kindle part of my pc -- it came up 11 times -- only one time not from that chapter.
I'm glad you straightened us out on how the scarf got where it was, JoanP. And Barb, your links are so helpful, as is everything you're sharing with us from you background. Fantastic.
Despite some of his other attributes, Degas seems to have a good way with children - giving Eloise his scarf because the room was cold, tying her hat ribbons.
JoanP, thanks for the list of Impressionists. Gaugin, Monet, Pissarro were names I recognized, in addition to Cassatt and Degas. I see that Manet was not listed. Because he was ill? I find the subplot of the Manets in this book to be quite interesting, and hope to read more about them in other sources.
-
It seems the discussion has become more about analyzing individual paintings than the story.
No one has mentioned Degas' failing eyesight, about which we learned in Chapter 8. In the section for this week, he has begun the sculpture of the petit rat (Chapter 32). As he is working on the sculpture's framework, the author writes:
Memory. He had made so many drawings of Marie, drawings that would have to revive themselves so he could make into something so true, so specific, so bestial (bestial??) that her beauty could not be denied...
His eyes, the fickle, traitorous, necessary organs of his work had now begun to steal from him the mass of things, their shapeness, their roundness, their solidity. Edges wavered and blurred and doubled until forms became...liquid impersonations of what had once been reliable, immutable matter.
Do you think the eyesight situation is part of his "attitude problem"?
-
Pedln, the only reason I can see that Manet doesn't show with the Impressionists is he craves the acceptance of the Salon. They love his work there. I guess he doesn't experiment as much as the others. The Impressionists have a rule that if you show with the Salon, you can't show with them. It all seems very friendly though - Manet and the Impressionsists. Manet seems to be Degas' best friend, from what I can see. Although Pissarro seems a good friend too.
You're right - that's an interesting family, the Manets! :D
I'm thinking, Pedln... of Degas having a way with children...and Mary, who is remembered for her lovely mothers and children. It was Degas who brought little Eloise to Mary, who was having trouble finding a subject for her paintings. The child must have trusted him...she came alone with him and then let Mary paint her.
Callie, I keep forgetting that Oliveira has taken actual people - and paintings - and written her own fiction, filled in what art history omits. But she does build her story fiction around the actual paintings. So it's understandable that we're looking closely at them.
I was surprised at the number of artists who develop eye problems as they grow older. Do you think this goes with the profession? Why, I wonder? Maybe eyestrain from working so long and hard, staring at the same painting for so long? Can you think of anything else? Degas has a dual problem - the black blob that comes and goes - and then something else - concerning light. Does anyone remember what that was about?
"liquid impersonations of what had once been reliable, immutable matter." Does it sound as if his eyes are watering?
"Do you think the eyesight situation is part of his "attitude problem"?" Would you explain how you connect his eyesight and his attitude? I'm fascinated!
-
Pretty impressive, wasn't it? Mary's first time showing with the Impressionists...and now she has an entire room of her own to do with as she pleases. She fills the room with her paintings, the Little Girl in the Blue Chair was just one of them. It's hard to believe that this doesn't go to her head, considering some of the big names...known Impressionist artists who are taking part in this exhibition. This is a better showing than she would have made if Degas hadn't cancelled last year's showing. She's been painting for a year now, with a new, bolder, different approach.
Degas tried to warn her - the public, expecially the critics were NOT yet ready for Mary's art. What I didn't understand...they panned Mary - and yet they LOVED Degas's "exquisite" work. How did he become the darling of the art world - in an Impressionist camp? Sounds as if the critics gave him a break. What was he showing this year - 1879?
-
A couple of thoughts - at the time these Impressionists may have been selling their work but not with the success WE attribute to them - Manet was still the more popular art for buyers not experimenting just as today few of us have copy of one of today's collectable artist's, Aaron Curry on our walls.
http://artsalesindex.artinfo.com/asi/lots/5122587
As to eyesight - where there were some successful cataract removal work done in Europe in the eighteenth century replacing the lens was only developed in 1940 - I do not thing the eyes were included in everyday care when even when I was a child becoming ill was a searing fearful worry with no antibiotics and very little medicine.
It was not just painters that had problems seeing - among women who made lace and did other needlework and were most often because of the dexterity and size of their small hands hired to create this decorative cloth under unimaginable conditions from the age of 10 and 11 so that often by the age of 12 your eyes started to go - remember there was no electric light that we take for granted - those making lace were in a room on a straight backed chair in a darkened room with a candle next to a glass of water and where the spark of light came from the reflected light into the room you sat with that one small beam of light on your work.
The Impressionist artists who worked out of doors were in bright light with no eye protection and they were making small strokes that had to be placed so the eye would pick up the color that was not directly mixed and put on the canvas but was made with strokes of paint that together the eye suggested the color they were trying to convey - in broad terms we know that red and yellow make orange when mixed but what they were doing was making one stroke in red with as many close by strokes of yellow needed to allow the eye to see orange - well blues were greyed not with a lighter or darker blue or even a light gray but with purples and yellows the opposite of blue - lots of eye strain in bright out of door daytime light or in natural light in their studio. My guess is they developed cataracts.
As to the black blob - do not know for sure but a guess - It is hereditary and is usual among folks from northern europe - in fact it is so common in Scandinavia the current belief is someplace in your history you have genes from a Viking and in Scandinavia since the problem accelerates with age and it is so common, after the age of 65 you are no longer allowed to drive at night. The eye problem is called 'pseuoexfoliation - Dave Letterman has talked about developing it - forgot what part of the eye but it sheds and you see these black oddly shaped blobs that when you look quickly you think a mouse ran across the floor or a large bug was crawling up the wall or someone's shirt till you think and realize it is one of the sheddings that unfortunately, fill up the tear duct so that you are lucky if the tear duct empties on your face rather than simply filling up the area behind the eye which causes glaucoma - all we can do today, much less 150 years ago is to use drops to help reduce the pressure because this does lead to blindness.
I have been able to go back 5 generations and no direct Scandinavian link however, an Irish great grandfather could have been the offspring of a parent whose blood lines included a viking. Degas being French is not like being Spanish or Italian where this is not a typical malady however, we do not know his family heritage and glory only knows if this was his problem and if so, how far back in his family history before the mutation can be found.
-
Callie,
It seems the discussion has become more about analyzing individual paintings than the story.
I was just thinking this today. I feel we are missing the entire humanistic story being told here. We are missing the interactions of the people, and the relationships among these artists. I realize the paintings are very important to the story, but I am someone who finds the people in this story fascinating. The story explained the scarf was Degas' and how he placed it on Eloise, so I am confused how it was mistaken for anything else. Sometimes we can get lost in details, and miss the story itself being told, even though Oliveira did use fiction to tell their relationships, they are essential to the story. IMO
I don't think Degas' eyesight problem is due to his attitude. Just as painters overtax their eyes while spending hours and hours painting minor details, it could result in eye strain and loss of sight, just as computer screens can, with the people of today, who spend hours and hours subjecting their eyes to one item for hours. My young friend mentioned a few months ago about seeing a black spot in her eye and was concerned. I Googled it and it can be a common condition called "Floaters," with nothing to do with loss of eyesight. This was not the case for Degas, unless back in his time the conditions and knowledge for treatments was not advanced enough to prevent his blindness.
https://www.google.com/#q=black+spots+in+vision
Interestingly, Mary too lost her eyesight later in her years.
By 1912, Mary Cassatt had become partially blind. She gave up painting entirely in 1915, and had become totally blind by her death in 1926 in Mesnil-Beaufresne, France.
http://womenshistory.about.com/od/cassattmary/a/mary-cassatt.htm
Ciao for now~
-
Thanks for the information on the eye problems afflicting the artists at the time, Barb and Bella. We take for granted cataract surgery, corneal transplants, etc. available to so many of us today.
A terrible thing for anyone to be losing eyesight - and feel so helpless, not being able to do anything about it. Can't imagine what Degas was going through! I imagine they looked different to him in different light, at different times of the day.
So yes, I can see where failing eyesight would account for his "attitude" - and for his never feeling that his works were finished to his satisfaction.
-
"Manet was still the more popular art for buyers not experimenting just as today few of us have copy of one of today's collectable artist's, Aaron Curry on our walls."
So Barb, how many Aaron Curry's are hanging on your wall today? ;)
Went searching for some of Degas' 1879 paintings entered into the Impressionist exhibition- trying to understand why critics would have praised his as "exquisite" - while Mary's were severely panned.
Here's one of Marie, his "petite danseuse" -
(http://images.metmuseum.org/CRDImages/ep/web-large/DT1883.jpg)
-
Callie, while searching for Degas work in 1879, I came across the term "bestial" used to describe the little dancer. Could it have been Germaine Greer's quote from one of the Degas' critics, that caught Robin Oliveira's eye as she researched for this book?
"The first exhibition of the clad figure caused an outcry, not because the subject was a child, but because she was so unattractive. "With bestial effrontery she moves her face forward, or rather her little muzzle - and this word is completely correct because the little girl is the beginning of a rat." (The adolescent corps de ballet at the Paris Opera were known as petits rats.)"
http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2009/jan/12/degas-women-germaine-greer
This same little face in the painting above appears in many of the sketches of Marie - and on the wax model Degas is secretly working on at this time. It is sort of "mousey" looking, isn't it?
Can you find any of the other paintings Mary submitted to this exhibition? Were they all beyond the critics' ability to appreciate?
-
I don't remember how to make the image show up here, but here's a link to a Cassatt painting of Katherine Cassatt. David McC, in A Greater Journey, says that this was Mary's Impressionist Debut. I don't find any reference to it in Oliveira's book.
Reading LeFigaro (http://www.artinthepicture.com/artists/Mary_Cassatt/figaro.jpeg)
W8.1 seems to have changed a lot of things. I can't highlight and copy from Kindle pages shown on my PC. Too much to type in. But Mary started this in the winter of 1877 and the quote from the book is something like "it marked her arrival as an impressionist." I could swear that somewhere I saw the phrase "Impressionist debut" but I can't find it now.
-
Sorry for the delay in responding. Been busy with family events and just "socializing". :)
Others have said what I was thinking about Degas' vision problems affecting his attitude toward the other artists in his group. However, perhaps the vision problems that were steadily getting worse just made the less attractive qualities of his temperament stand out.
A friend of mine has horrible "floaters" in both eyes that she has described as "blobs". She has almost had to give up singing in the church choir because she has such trouble seeing the details of the music. The opthamologist has said there's nothing that can be done.
Joan, thank you for the reference to "bestial". That makes sense in this context. I think of that word referring to behavior instead of looks.
I've finished the book because my copy is due back at the library in the next few days.
However, I will certainly follow along with the rest of the discussion - and appreciate how much I'm learning.
-
I felt very sad reading Abigail died just weeks after giving birth to her daughter. I researched Abigail May Alcott and saw she preferred being called, "May" and so I wonder why Oliveira chose to use Abigail in this story. Because her husband traveled, the daughter was sent to be raised by her sister Louisa May Alcott, the writer of "Little Women." An interesting find, was that it was Louisa who helped finance Abigail's travels to become a famous artist, with the sales of her book.
JoanP., the face in the painting of, Marie, "petite danseuse" does look like a rat, hence the reason they refer to the models as Opera rats. Isn't Degas a bit strange.....he sleeps with prostitutes, paints women laboring, and creates their faces like rats. Makes me wonder what type of sadistic personality he had. I can't even imagine him being able to have real deep, affectionate love for Mary, knowing how he sees and treats other women. There is just something very off with this character....the flare ups remind me of a bipolar personality. Many great geniuses, artists, musicians, etc., suffered from bipolar, yet accomplished fantastic works and enormous fame.
Yes, Callie, I can see with Degas's eyesight leaving him, he could very easily not see or think his paintings were as good as they should be. It had to be very frustrating for him as a detailed painter to not be able to see his work clearly.
Off to read the next chapters.
Ciao for now~
-
Oh heavenly day, I got it. Thank you Amazon for not putting me on hold and for telling me how to copy from the Kindle. I would never in 100 years have been able to figure that out.
Thus with the onset of winter, 1877, Mary began work on the portrait that was to mark her debut as an Impressionist. The setting for the painting was entirely private, her mother plainly at ease comfortably seated in an upholstered chair reading Le Figaro through dark shell pince-nez glasses. She wore a casual white morning housedress. The chair was chintz-covered with a floral pattern. Behind, on the left, was a large gilt-framed mirror, a favorite visual device among the Impressionists and one Mary was to employ repeatedly. It was the antithesis of a formal academic portrait. The subject was not set off by a conventional dark background. Nor did the subject look directly at the viewer. She was busy at something else, her mind elsewhere. She could have been anyone and she seemed altogether unaware of anyone else’s presence.
The title did not provide the subject’s name. The painting was called simply Reading Le Figaro and would be greatly admired for portraying its subject so honestly, so entirely without pretense. “It is pleasant to see how well an ordinary person dressed in an ordinary way can be made to look, and we think nobody … could have failed to like this well-drawn, well-lighted, well-anatomized, and well-composed painting,” an admiring American art critic wrote. For her part Katherine Cassatt was extremely pleased. She thought it made her look ten years younger.
Read more at location 5718
(http://www.artinthepicture.com/artists/Mary_Cassatt/figaro.jpeg)
Le figaro
-
I researched Abigail May Alcott and saw she preferred being called, "May" and so I wonder why Oliveira chose to use Abigail in this story.
I learned that somewhere, think it was from the interview with Oliveira. Oliveira felt it would be confusing to be often talking of "Mary" and "May" at the same time. She's got a point.
Abigail's death was indeed sad--just as she got everything she had longed for in life, with so much ahead of her. Mary's thought on the subject was poignant--"This was the danger of being a woman. Childbirth could take everything from you, even your chance at happiness." Thank goodness it's no longer such a big factor.
-
Oliveira explains this in her Authors Notes at the end of the book.
-
PatH., Thank you for the quote...."Childbirth could take everything from you, even your chance at happiness."
Do you suppose this is why Mary never married or had children? She was so set on painting, I couldn't see her ever having maternal feelings wanting a child. She did begin painting only mothers and children, so possibly this is how she felt maternal.
Ah ha! Thank you for letting me know Oliveira explains why she did not call Abigail, "May" I have not read the notes in the end of the book yet.
-
I love Reading Le Figaro! Such wonderful shadings of color.
Haven't been around much. It's been an unhealthy month for our family, two deaths and a sister who has had a pace maker implanted.
So i'm catching up and enjoying your conversation and the paintings.
Jean
-
So very sorry to hear about your family losses and illnesses, Jean. My thoughts and prayers go out to you and your loved ones.
-
Sorry to be so tardy. My only excuse is that Ginny seduced me with, first, The Divorce Papers, and second, The Shelf. These books are both told by true story tellers; since I find Oliviera's style less than riveting, I let myself be led astray. Now, the book is overdue so I'll be catching up ASAP. More when I can comment knowledgeably.
-
Better late than never, Jackie.
Jean, I'm so sorry for your losses.
-
Sounds like a rough time, Jean - happy you can come to us for comfort...and a little distraction.
Ah, Pedln, like Jean, I also love the portrait of Mary Cassatt's mother, reading Le Figaro, too. Thank you. I really like to see her paintings of those other than of mothers/babies - which I had always associated with Mary Cassatt.
I have been trying to make a list of those she entered in her first Impressionist Exhibition - besides the one of Eloise - the Little Girl in the Blue Chair - just to see which paintings the critics had criticized so severely.
Here are the ones on my list so far...
- Katherine, her mother
- Lydia, At the Opera
- Louisine Elder and Mary Ellison at the Opera
- Lydia, tight string of pearls
The one of her sister Lydia at the Opera was magnificent, I thought...the critics didn't agree...I'm not sure if this one is "Lydia at the Opera" - or "Lydia, Tight String of Pearls." Maybe these are titles of the same painting.
(http://bg.chamberart.net/archive/M/Mary%20Cassatt%20(1844-1926)/Cassatt.Mary.Woman.With.A.Pearl.Necklace.In.A.Loge.jpg)
-
Although the book is suggesting the Salon Exhibition for the year as wanting, that judgement would be typical of the artists who were painting in this different style - however the Salon Exhibitions had been in Paris, started by and encouraged by the King since 1667 - this site is a treasure - it shows a the highlights of each Salon in the form of a collage - the site shows each years major works and then I found most interesting near the bottom of the list were two pages - one devoted to the statistics of the artist who showed their work a number of times - Ingres showing most often and the only name among the group we are reading about that showed 21 times is Manet.
The other page I found fascinating is the page devoted to the Impressionists and on that page the collage that included the critical responses that for us today we consider the important attributes of an Impressionistic Painting.
Here is the link towards hours of delight
https://sites.google.com/a/plu.edu/paris-salon-exhibitions-1667-1880/home
-
In the early chapters of this book the French Civil War is mentioned and I do not think we delved into what that was all about - although I went to a high school that required we take 4 years of Latin and 3 years of French I do not remember studying French history for more than the French Revolution and a bit about Bonaparte - I had not heard of this war that from this link devastated Paris. Here this story is starting just 6 years after this war took its toil on Paris -
a quote from the site about the war that stunned me and I can see the makings of WWI programed into the Treaty of Frankfort
The palace of the Tuileries, situated at the eastern end of the Louvre, the Palais Royal, the Hôtel de Ville, the Palais de Justice, the Finance ministry and police head-quarters were burned down. Parties of British tourists came to view the smoking ruins. 147 Communards were shot in the Père Lachaise cemetery, and hundreds of Communards were buried in a ditch there. Many more were shot after courts-marshal. Between 20,000 and 30,000 Communards were killed, and after a further 35,000 arrests, many were deported to New Caledonia in the Pacific.
As a result of the Treaty of Frankfurt which ended hostilities, most of Alsace and part of Lorraine passed from France to the German Empire, and the French inhabitants could only retain their nationality if they left the area. France also had to pay huge war reparations.
http://www.bl.uk/reshelp/findhelpsubject/history/francoprussionwar/franceprussian.html
Evidently almost immediately after the Franco-Prussian War Treaty, the poor of Paris aligned themselves with Marx and the group for 72 days took control of the city of Paris. "Fearing for their lives, thousands of regular troops, along with most of the French bourgeoisie, fled Paris for Versailles."
http://www.isreview.org/issues/34/civilwarinfrance.shtml
This is the recent atmosphere that Mary and her sister have embarked on their art education in Paris - the buildings we associate with Paris were all burned down - now I wonder when and how long it took to build what we see today. To think the Salons continued in this war torn city is remarkable. And no wonder the average middle and upper class Parisian had no desire to see peasants glorified as models in art or to consider new experimental paintings - they would want the tried and true to salve their bruises after this insurrection as they would consider the Civil unrest by the poor of Paris.
It is no wonder Mary's family was encouraging her to come home - it the duty of a well born family to 'take care of' their women.
-
On 23 May 1871, during the suppression of the Paris Commune, 12 men under the orders of Jules Bergeret, the former chief military commander of the Commune, set the Tuileries on fire at 7 p.m., using petroleum, liquid tar and turpentine. The fire lasted 48 hours and thoroughly gutted the palace, except for the southernmost part, the Pavillon de Flore (the gate of honor, the Arc de Triomphe du Carrousel, also remains, as well as the foundation). The dome itself was blown up by explosives placed in the central pavilion and detonated by the converging fires. Observing this, Bergeret sent a note to the Committee of Public Safety: 'The last vestiges of Royalty have just disappeared. I wish that the same may befall all the public buildings of Paris' It was only on 25 May that the Paris fire brigades and the 26th battalion of the Chasseurs d'Afrique managed to put out the fire. The library and other portions of the Louvre were also set on fire by Communards and entirely destroyed. The museum itself was only miraculously saved.
The ruins of the Tuileries stood on the site for 11 years...Other monuments of Paris also set on fire by Communards, such as the City Hall, were rebuilt in the 1870s...all the furniture and paintings from the palace survived the 1871 fire because they had been removed in 1870 at the start of the Franco-Prussian War and stored in secure locations.
Today, the furniture and paintings are still deposited in storehouses and are not on public display due to the lack of space in the Louvre. It is argued that recreating the state apartments of the Tuileries would allow the display of these treasures of the Second Empire style which are currently hidden.
Cost
In 2006 a rebuilding of the Palace of the Tuileries was estimated to cost 300 million euros (US$ 380 million). The plan was to finance the project by public subscription with the work being undertaken by a private foundation, with the French government spending no money on the project. The French president at that time, Jacques Chirac, called for a debate on the subject. Former president Charles de Gaulle had also supported reconstruction, saying that it would "make a jewel of the center of Paris."
-
Ruins of the City Hall, Hôtel de Ville de Paris, 1871
(http://www.nga.gov/content/ngaweb/features/marville/the-paris-commune/jcr%3acontent/parmain/textimage/image.img.jpg/1391810257509.jpg)
-
Putting this in further context - it was only during Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte's second Empire that the Paris we know today took shape with Haussmann as the architect of the city of Paris - it was a 3 phase renovation that started in 1853 with most of the work completed by 1870 when Bonaparte had to dismiss Haussmann from office. After that his vision limped along and to have these important landmarks to the city destroyed must have been much as we were shocked by 9/11.
In his memoires, written many year later, Haussmann had this comment on his dismissal: "In this eyes of the Parisians, who like routine in things but are changeable when it comes to people, I committed two great wrongs; over the course of seventeen years I disturbed their daily habits by turning Paris upside down, and they had to look at the same face of the Prefect in the Hotel de Ville. These were two unforgiveable complaints."
Here is a link to Paris just prior to and during the renovation of Paris - a famous early French Photographer leaves us these photos - from these photos the poor were living in old world conditions.
http://www.nga.gov/content/ngaweb/features/marville/paris-transformed.html
And most interesting "When Édouard Manet's Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe and other avante-garde paintings were rejected by the Paris Salon of 1863, Napoleon III ordered that the works be displayed, so that the public could judge for themselves.
-
This what I love about reading-seeing beyond the dry facts of history and discovering the human toll. An entire revolution, that destroyed Paris, of which we were ignorant.
-
Maybe we ought to read Victor Hugo's Les Miserables in this context, Jackie!
As Barb points out, Mary Cassatt's family were justified in being concerned about her living in Paris on her own in the unsettling post-war time. Paris was in shambles -
Though panned by the critics, Mary's work stood out in the emerging fields of Impressionism. It was surprising the way her father stood up for Mary's art after reading the harsh criticism following the 1879 exhibition...
Surely 1880 will be even better...
-
Two aspects of Literature that helped me round out the times -
Good Reads put together a nice list of authors who were writing during the Belle Epoque - having tired Proust and quickly loosing my focus I did get the blush of how he saw women so that this group of artists I think are depicted with the many scenes showing them as womanizers by Robin Oliveira in order to follow through with what was written about the era by those who were writing in that time of history. What today we think of as a sleazy attitude, and certainly, we do not think of it as commonplace it appears that in this era woman slept around much as during our hippie generation, however, the French woman did it in style.
Here is Good Reads list
https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/10395.Belle_poque
And second, often when there is fruit basket upset in the social history of a country as a result of war there is more social change that those looking for change have the courage to push their acceptance. It appears women took the initiative and this magazine of the time was aimed at helping to create the modern women.
http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=22400
-
Wow OK here is my next read - Dawn of the Belle Epoque: The Paris of Monet, Zola, Bernhardt, Eiffel, Debussy, Clemenceau, and Their Friends by Mary McAuliffe
http://www.amazon.com/Dawn-Belle-Epoque-Bernhardt-Clemenceau/dp/1442209275#
A humiliating military defeat by Bismarck's Germany, a brutal siege, and a bloody uprising—Paris in 1871 was a shambles, and the question loomed, "Could this extraordinary city even survive?"
Mary McAuliffe takes the reader back to these perilous years following the abrupt collapse of the Second Empire and France's uncertain venture into the Third Republic. By 1900, Paris had recovered and the Belle Epoque was in full flower, but the decades between were difficult, marked by struggles between republicans and monarchists, the Republic and the Church, and an ongoing economic malaise, darkened by a rising tide of virulent anti-Semitism.
Yet these same years also witnessed an extraordinary blossoming in art, literature, poetry, and music, with the Parisian cultural scene dramatically upended by revolutionaries such as Monet, Zola, Rodin, and Debussy, even while Gustave Eiffel was challenging architectural tradition with his iconic tower.
Through the eyes of these pioneers and others, including Sarah Bernhardt, Georges Clemenceau, Marie Curie, and César Ritz, we witness their struggles with the forces of tradition during the final years of a century hurtling towards its close. Through rich illustrations and evocative narrative, McAuliffe brings this vibrant and seminal era to life.
-
A glorious find, Barb! Have spent much time pouring through the online pages - just now stopped at the 1879 Impressionist Exhibition which McAuliffe describes here on
A page from Mary McAauliffe's Dawn of the Belle Epoque - on Mary Cassatt's debut at the 1879 Exhibition (http://books.google.com/books?id=QH-pq8PYJZgC&pg=PA94&lpg=PA94&dq=Mary+Mcauliffe+mary+cassatt&source=bl&ots=Sofbc-I6Tk&sig=6-DYtucCZvdtDjqKXKE6kYl78VA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KbuoU-6pMMi1yATCvoLICg&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Mary%20Mcauliffe%20mary%20cassatt&f=false)
Guess what? My Library has many copies on the shelf - NO HOLDS - except for mine! :D
-
The Book Club Online is the oldest book club on the Internet, begun in 1996, open to everyone. We offer cordial discussions of one book a month, 24/7 and enjoy the company of readers from all over the world. Everyone is welcome.
June Book Club Online
I ALWAYS LOVED YOU: A NOVEL
by Robin Oliveira
(http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/ialwayslovedyou/ialwayslovedyou.jpg)
|
This should be FUN! With the Internet at our fingertips, we'll be able to examine each of the artworks described here by the new talent, Robin Oliveira!
This is from a recent Seattle Times review:
"Degas is tempestuous, sardonic and witty. But the focus is squarely on Mary, working on unfinished paintings, washing her brushes, reeking of turpentine, collaborating with Degas on a journal of etchings, thinking about “the essential talent of seeing.” Mary Cassatt comes alive as disciplined, socially acute, outspoken and stoic in facing down her self-doubt." |
Related links:
Vocabulary Help (http://www.seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/ialwayslovedyou/ialwayslovedyouvoc.html)
National Gallery of Art Exhibition of Degas/Cassatt paintings (http://www.nga.gov/content/ngaweb/exhibitions.html)
Portrait of Mary Ellison ~ Mary Cassatt (http://www.marycassatt.org/Portrait-of-a-Lady-(or-Miss-Mary-Ellison).jpg)
Mary Cassatt's many paintings (http://www.marycassatt.org/)
Links to Impressionist Art discussed in this book (http://www.robinoliveira.com/i-always-loved-you/art-links.php)
Interview with Robin Oliveira concerning those letters (http://tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2014050100)
Discussion Schedule:
June 1-2 1926 Prologue
June 3-6 1877 Chapters One - Nine
June 7-13 1877 cont. Chapters Ten - Nineteen
June 14-16 1878 Chapters Twenty - Twenty Six
June 17-22 1879 Chapters Twenty Seven - Thirty Five
June 23-27 1880 Chapters Thirty Six - Forty Four
June 28-30 1881-3 Chapters Forty Five - Fifty Three
June 23-27~ Chapters Thirty Six - Forty Four 1880
1. Didn't the production of the prose, poetry and art journal sound like a messy endeavor? Messy, expensive, and time-consuming too. Will Mary have anything of her own to show in the 1880 exhibition? Does she seem to be doing all of the work?
2. The whole process of printing became addictive for Mary. For Degas as well? What does Mary think of his secret project? Would you say that Degas was more obsessed with Marie's body or with the art he is trying to create?
3. What was Mary's reaction to Degas's decision to cancel Le Nuit et La Jour? ? Does anyone know what became of it? Was it ever published? What was his excuse this time? Will she forgive him, as she did when he cancelled the 1877 Exhibition
4. Do you get the impression that Oliveira is making excuses for Degas's behavior? That he is really helpless, and cannot finish his work?
5. Oliveira writes that neither artist believes he/she is talented or gifted. Do you think perhaps most artists feel this way, fear the same thing?
6. Were you surprised that Degas did not bring La Petite Danseuse to the empty vitrine at the Exhibition? Since when does he care about what others think of his work? Was it this decision that led to the "encounter" at last? Do you think Oliveira took great liberty with her fiction on thiis matter?
Discussion Leader: Joan P (jonkie@verizon.net)
|
|
-
June 23-27~ Chapters Thirty Six - Forty Four 1880
Though panned by the critics, Mary's work stood out in the emerging fields of Impressionism. It was surprising the way her father stood up for Mary's art after reading the harsh criticism following the 1879 exhibition...
Surely 1880 will be even better...if Mary can find some time for her paint brushes, what with travelling with her father and working with Degas on the journal they getting ready for for publication...
Sometimes I'm surprised on how helpless Mary seems when confronted by her father's demands - Is it the same with Degas? Will she reach the point where she cannot forgive his thoughtlessness?
-
Reading further in your link JoanP it hit me - these artists were scrambling for money and I bet that was why Mary Cassett chose to paint mothers and babies - they recently had the poor rebelling and so, showing the likes of her sister and others attending the opera in fine clothing would only appeal to a select few - not that the poor were buying art however, those who could buy would be conscious of looking upon and admiring anything that smacked of dollars to achieve the lifestyle portrayed and so, mothers and babies were a safe subject along with the many who chose to paint street scenes and the countryside.
I can see that peasants playing cards or any other view of peasant life would only be a reminder of the civil war while women, children and even men decked out in their upper class finery or attending even horse races would be subject to feelings that those who could afford art hanging on their walls would prefer to avoid. Artists needed to live by their work and that meant their work had to sell which like all sales it has to appeal to the buyer.
I am only guessing because, no where do I find Oliveira explaining why Mary chose her subject matter. Also, I am getting a queue to this novel - whenever Robin Oliveira writes/quotes thoughts or even dialogue she can only be guessing based on what she could deduce from her research - she was not there to hear what was said nor was she privileged to their thoughts and so she is building a plausible scene like a movie or stage production around the tidbits she has collected as a result of her research. However, I am getting a sense she has not placed these characters in the environment of Paris at this time in history other than the manners she read about. She seems to have missed the history of the devastation that we are now learning about.
-
Although she did travel to Paris to research the paintings, surely she would have taken the time to research the period during which they were painted. Don't you think? I don't know how long she stayed in Paris for the research though...
Here's an INTERVIEW in which Oliveira was asked that very question about what she knew about the Belle Epoque (http://www.robinoliveira.com/i-always-loved-you/q-and-a.php)...says she read 50 books. Maybe she read McAuliffe's? That page from the link above sounds familiar
-
I guess like most of us we ingest what we read into our view on life - I am sure those writing about or buying the work of the cabinet makers during thsi period, who created some glorious shapes like, Francois Linke were not spending time or emotion on the devastation of the civil war.
http://www.internetantiquegazette.com/decorative_accessories/2512_linke_francois_french_belle_epoque_furniture_maker/
We certainly do not read any reference to the wars in Proust or Gustave Flaubert although, most of Flaubert's stories take place out of Paris. Maybe that is what makes a book a classic for the ages by not getting timely description of place. However, this story seems like a cross between a novel and a biography and the environment they live in would set a mood and a rational for some of their life experiences and choices.
I guess I was more stunned to learn what was happening in the recent past of our story and could not help liken it to a story written about folks who were not directly connected but lived in NY 6 years after 9/11 which was not even about living with the memory and fear of a civil war where many of the people from NY would have to flee to another safe city as they did in Paris.
The many cityscapes painted at the time do not belay the fact that many of the important buildings in Paris were blown up, set on fire and gutted. There were no paintings shown in the Salon that showed crowd sourcing or street fighting with Paris in flames. Hard to believe it was all so calm so soon after 1871 however, the arts do not seem to show any evidence of upheaval. But then the arts do not show the depression that followed in this last quarter of the nineteenth century in most of the western nations.
-
wheee its here - she did include it - I knew there was a reason to review this book - I lost my focus and sure enough on page 46 she has Mary ruminating about how she had returned to Philadelphia after moving to Europe the first time because the Prussians were bombing Paris. Nothing about the civil war and its destruction to the city but at least there is mention of the Franco Prussian war.
Then upon her return she paints outside of Paris in the Alps and with the accompaniment of her mother she studied in Rome.
And then referring again, to her escaping the Prussian bombings she and her art finished after her dutiful studies in Europe doing everything as should be done Mary is caught in the Chicago fire.
-
Again, Edgar has cancelled an exhibition without even so much as telling Mary, after she has spent a year on helping him with the prints for Le Jour et la Nuti. He feels he owes her no explanation or apology yet again. This just infuriated me:
"Your problem Mademoiselle Cassatt," said Edgar, "is that you worked on only one thing, while I had other projects. You should have been more prolific."
"How could I have been?" Mary said. "I sacrificed everything for that journal. On a promise you made. You saw me. I was at your studio every day. When could I have done more?"
________
"I am not responsible for your work or your happiness," Edgar said, rising. "I cannot apologize for doing what is right for me. I see that I have hurt you, which is unfortunate."
Lydia said, "But you don't mean this?"
"I am afraid I do," Edgar said, and was out the door before anyone could say anything else.
Once the exhibition takes place and Degas does not bring any of his work to hang Mary goes to his studio. He again in my opinion insults her with:
"Look around Mary. Nearly every single one of my canvases for the exhibition is still here. I am late for everything. What was the journal anyway? Just an idea that didn't work out. Nothing else. It means nothing. It's not a failure."
She threw up her hands. "I've gone backwards. I want to pull all my work off the wall. I'm embarrassed that anyone has seen it."
"Then do it!" His raised voice echoed off the walls. "What are you whining at me for? What do I have to do with your work? It's your work, not mine." _______
"My God," Mary said. "We aren't good together, you and I. You have a masterpiece but I have so little to show for the year that I am ashamed of my work. I lost something working with you. Something of myself. Something essential. Something I cannot abandon."
"You lost yourself."
"The trouble with you is that you care more about art than you do about love."
"So do you."
"But I don't abandon anyone."
"You abandoned yourself." Degas wrenched himself around to face her. "Besides, I have no materpiece."
"She is standing there in all her glory."
Mary then honestly critiques the statue and it happens..... she and Edgar make love. Whether this happened in real life, I am certain many of their friends and others suspected it did, just as the readers suspected it to happen, in real life or fiction in the book. It was suspected to happen, expected to happen and so Oliveira makes it happen. Oliveira placed this scene in a perfect spot considering many couples who are frustrated and angry with themselves, and each other, tend to heighten their sexual feelings and end up having sex. Again...Oliveira immediately has them separate after this spontaneous love making and pull away from each other. Mary nor Degas are the marrying type, and he insults her by finally coming to her and asking:
You don't want to marry, do you? All that complication and commitment? That obligation and boredom?
At this point I personally feel Mary has allowed Edgar to strip her of her virginity, pride, self respect and has allowed him to cause her to lose herself. There can be no turning back from this point in my opinion.
So where do they go from here? Edgar is losing his eyesight and is no longer able to see well enough to even sculpt the face, and lines for his masterpiece. Mary needs to continue to paint to accomplish the approval of not only her father, but the critics and public, which is why Degas feels she paints at all. Edouard is dying of syphilis, and Berthe has decided to religiously maintain her marriage, contented with her children. Their lives and dreams are passing them by, life happens and death is inescapable.
Ciao for now~
-
I'm a bit confused trying to understand Mary's character. At times she appears a strong woman, brave enough to stand up to her father - to live alone in Paris and follow her own dream, travelling around Europe, wherever she pleases. At other times, she allows her father to make her decisions for her - he insisted she come with him on that trip...not "allowing" her time to sketch or paint. She wants to please him. She wants his approval.
And then of course, there is Degas - able to persuade her to spend her time on that journal, not "allowing" her time to work on her own. I hear that phrase - "not allowing her" - and have to wonder why she didn't have the backbone to tell him she needed time for the next exhibition. I think she trusted him - that "Le Jour et La Nuit" would be finished - and perhaps be the center of the 1880 exhibition. She must have understood that she was doing all the work on it. She gave her all to finish it in time. She never saw that Degas would make the decision that it wasn't good enough to enter. Why didn't she stand up to him? (What ever became of it? Was it ever published?)
I can only conclude, as Robin Oliveira did - that Mary forgave him, again and again - because she wanted to please him - because she loved him. And it was this conclusion that led to that "love" scene.
Imagine her entries to the 1880 Exhibition - compared to the triumph the year before!
-
Good grief 'angry love' --- do not want to analyze that one - if they make love and it is not rape than I am confused how that is stripping her of her virginity - ah so - better minds than me - but then, is that the overall arch of the theme of this book I wonder -
My take has been she pushed through so many huge obsticles, including the biggie, not being satisfied with herself and her ability to either live or paint as her imagination suggests is possible. I am seeing this as a story that is enlightening Mary Cassatt to the love she always had to an inner spark of who and what she believes she is, and that Degas is just one more experience in life from whom she learns more about herself that helps her uncover herself.
To me I am reading this as a novel and therefore we do not know if any of the dialogue took place in real life - however, she was a good friend to his end, even clearing out his studio after his death. That would leave us to believe there was a strong relationship - how it was expressed we do not know - however, if there were many hurts and forgiveness's I think he was part of her inner voice saying she had not met her expectations of her ability and in order to keep pushing toward that inner spark of satisfaction she needed to have a critique that was more than her thoughts and Degas satisfied that critical voice that matched her own self critique. If anything, to me that is the love between them - at least for Mary - the 'need' to have that critical voice that complemented her inner critic.
At least Berthe loves herself and plays the game therefore, she is clearer about her love for Manet so that all she is doing is not making social waves with first, her mother and then, she is not going to hurt the one they decided she should marry. Where as I do not get the sense that Mary is confident with herself but she does love herself enough to keep pushing to prove to herself that she is what she imagines she can be.
Golly I would hate to read this to find out that all it is a buildup to a few minutes of her life in angry love - that to me is not worth a life much less a book. ah so... if so, maybe it is to be a metaphor to the times that we dub Belle Epoque suggesting it was not very beautiful at all. Sure was not Belle to women's spirit although their dress and manners helped to define Belle.
-
Hmmmm.....with all do respect Jean, I don't see my post stating the story was about "angry love," as you state. I said:
Oliveira placed this scene in a perfect spot, considering many couples who are frustrated and angry with themselves, and each other, tend to heighten their sexual feelings and end up having sex. Again...Oliveira immediately has them separate after this spontaneous love making and pull away from each other. Mary nor Degas are the marrying type, and he insults her by finally coming to her and asking:
You don't want to marry, do you? All that complication and commitment? That obligation and boredom?
I don't doubt there was some level of affection, love, admiration and possibly an obsession they had for each other. As Mary stated before the lovemaking happened: "My God," Mary said. "We aren't good together, you and I."
She was right, even though the two of them could help each other bring out their talents in art, Degas was selfish, uncaring for her feelings, she knew this about him. Berthe warned her early on, he would break her heart. She saw all the signs. So yes, besides the story of the artist's paintings, this is about a complicated couple, who really ultimately expected things the other was unable to give to each other, Mary wanting and needing Degas's love and approval.
JoanP., " I hear that phrase - "not allowing her" - and have to wonder why she didn't have the backbone to tell him she needed time for the next exhibition. Why didn't she stand up to him?
I too am confused, it seems a bit contradictory to me. I used the phrase, "not allowing her" only because Mary argued he took up all her time. She acts like she had no other decisions to make. They had fought prior to her deciding to work with him on this journal. Did he use the journal to approach her, to get her back in his life, knowing all along he would never exhibit it, but it would keep her close to him? He was a controlling and deceptive person. And then once the journal is done, HE decides it is not good enough, and cancels the exhibition, they argue at her dinner table, and he leaves. She later goes to his studio and they argue yet again. So, yes they were angry with each other, she states she was furious with him, and it results into lovemaking. And Oliveira realizes this would never work, so she immediately has Degas pull away and avoid Mary.
Mary is not a helpless woman here, she is naive, and Degas knows it. She has allowed Degas to control her art, her life, her emotions, her actions and yes, allows him to take her virginity, knowing he can not be trusted:
Mary turned and sat down, the glimmer of the candle fading now, and with it all her vague dreams of a life lived beside this man, strange and indistinct as they had been. The flame trembled in its puddle of molten wax and went out, rendering the studio a place of shadows and depth. Edgar, at once reticent and irreverent, generous and selfish, careless and careful, was a terrible man to want, as terrible a man as Edouard Manet was for Berthe. What was it about genius that sabotaged happiness? What was it about desire that betrayed?
Jean, I am seeing this as a story that is enlightening Mary Cassatt to the love she always had to an inner spark of who and what she believes she is, and that Degas is just one more experience in life from whom she learns more about herself that helps her uncover herself.
I would like to agree with you to some degree, but I am afraid it just doesn't ring true because she and Degas both admit, she lost herself.
I think he was part of her inner voice saying she had not met her expectations of her ability and in order to keep pushing toward that inner spark of satisfaction she needed to have a critique that was more than her thoughts and Degas satisfied that critical voice that matched her own self critique. If anything, to me that is the love between them - at least for Mary - the 'need' to have that critical voice that complemented her inner critic.
I think Mary possibly believed this, but Degas states:
"You are to me what no other creature is. We are the same mind, Mary. We are the same soul, occupying two different bodies."
"We are not," she said.
"You are the only woman I can tolerate in the world."
"That is not praise."
"Why would I flatter you? I respect you too much."
"This is how you show your respect?"
I sense Degas knew from the first time he ever saw one of Mary's paintings, before he met her that she was exceptional. He chased after her from the Salon, he was driven to meet her. Why? I feel he stunted her painting, by seeming to be helping her. We are talking about a man all his friends verified was incapable of love. Mary even questioned if he had ever loved anyone. Yet, he seduces her after she says,
"I was furious with you."
"I want to draw you."
She did not resist, though she thought she ought to because she was not a woman to let herself be seduced.
"Are you certain?" he said.
"She could not bring herself to answer, but she meant no just as much as she meant yes, and in the noisy silence he kissed her again and then there was no more no. There was no drawing, either. There was only clumsy touch and willing surrender, timeless discovery and shocked astonishment, and when it was over, the fear that she had been enticed forever into the tangle of him.
There is no doubt Mary had this idea Edgar could love her. "Mary felt herself yielding, or want to yield. She wondered whether this would be the way that Edgar would finally, truly see her. And what was virtue in a warm studio on a rainy night in Paris, when possibility seduced and intimacy beckoned? Over the years she had believed there had been no one else for him, at least no one he had ever revealed , and certainly no one else for her.
If you remember Mary and Edgar parted and was distant in their relationship before he died. We don't know what is real and what is fiction, so we don't know for a fact Mary did go to clean Edgar's studio after he died, or retrieved his letters. As research stated, he destroyed his letters himself, and she destroyed the ones he had written to her. So, just possibly Oliveira based the beginning of this novel, on a love story, with the letters as the basis. After all, in her interview she stated, the letters is what inspired her to write the book. I have not seen this as a beautiful love story from the beginning. I expected a love scene to take place, yet I also expected them to part ways, and Mary would realize her true talent was with her all along. I sense she did, with this statement:
She squeezed paint from the tubes and took up her brush and began, as if she had never known him.
Ciao for now~
-
JoanP.,
What ever became of it? Was it ever published?
This is an interesting question. Was there ever a Le Jour et la Nuti journal? Is this something Oliveira added to the story? I would like to know now that you have my curiosity raised. Guess I will have to go on a Google search.
According to Degas: "What was the journal anyway? Just an idea that didn't work out. Nothing else. It means nothing. It's not a failure."
Was it a ploy to occupy Mary's time?
According to this it was the worst film of all time. Ughhh...is this why Oliveira has Degas say it was no good?
Le Jour et la Nuit
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Le Jour et la Nuit (Day and Night) is a 1997 French film directed by philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy and starring Alain Delon.[1][2][3] The film follows a French author who fled to Mexico for a quiet life and an actress who is willing to seduce him to get a part in a film adapted from one of his books. It is considered by some to be one of the worst films of all time.
Reception[edit]
When the film premiered at the Berlin International Film Festival in 1997, hundreds of journalists walked out of the screening and those that stayed audibly ridiculed the film.[4] Le Jour et la Nuit was considered the worst French film since 1945 by Cahiers du cinéma, and considered as a possible "worst film in history" by the French version of Slate.[5] Variety claimed that the film was, "Laugh-out-loud awful without touching the cult realm of 'so bad it's good," Françoise Giroud stated "It's a bad movie, there's no question",[4] and L'Humanité called it an "Absolute debacle".[6] An original documentary, Anatomy of a Massacre, was released with the Le Jour et la Nuit DVD, and focused on the film's intense negative reception and failure.[7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Jour_et_la_Nuit
-
Found this:
There is no question that they were collaborators in the art of printmaking. In 1879, Degas invited Cassatt to join him and several other artists in creating a periodical that would offer original prints to customers. It would be called Le Jour et La Nuit (Day and Night). Degas was more experienced at printmaking than Cassatt, but Cassatt soon caught up with him.
For the first issue, Degas prepared a complex etching called “Mary Cassatt at the Louvre: The Etruscan Gallery.” It showed the back of the well-dressed Cassatt, wearing a sumptuous hat and leaning on a folded umbrella for balance, as she studied a canvas. in the Louvre. Her sister Lydia, reading a guidebook, sat nearby. (He used the same material later for a second etching and for a pastel.)
Cassatt’s contribution was an etching with a familiar subject, a woman with a fan sitting in the opera house. This print, called “In the Opera Box (No. 3),” omits the detail of her paintings on the same subject and offers a kind of fleeting, impressionist view of the woman caught in the lights of the opera house.
But Le Jour et La Nuit folded even before its first issue. It is not clear why, but some attribute the failure to Degas’ loss of interest. He evidently decided that printmaking demanded excessive labor for limited reward.
http://www.huntingtonnews.net/88243
So it seems Oliveira did take the history of the journal, and use fiction, in making Mary exclusively, the only one helping Degas, there for monopolizing her year, while he worked on many other projects of his own.
I suspect other than the names of the artists and paintings, all else was fictitious to create a story. The letters were Oliveira's interest, turning it into a love story of sort. This is in no way being critical, because without it, what would the story be? The article states Mary was par to Degas, not a student. Oliveira, making Mary lacking in confidence, needing and wanting his approval sets the theme, along with the letters.
-
I knew the letters were not real and part of the Novel but I did not know the cleaning of the studio after his death was also a tale - thought that was true - ah so...I do find it difficult trying to comment on this book since again, we do not know what is a tale for a novel and what is biography -
As to the possible love making I just have a difficult time believing that the climax of this story and its title (alluding to an ongoing love), is consummated because of a heated argument accompanied by wounding words - I see no other bit in the story that shows romantic love and yet, the beguiling title, I always loved you - the 'you' can be subjective and like all of us, when we read a novel it becomes our own and for me, I just cannot see a beautiful time (Belle Epoque) exemplified as frustration lashed out, expressed in sex rather than something beautiful, un bel amour -
So far, the only beautiful I am seeing is Mary's strength and belief that she is as large and capable as her imagination. That she continues, attempting to bring her vision into reality regardless, war, major city fire, gossip, no support from the public and limited support from her family, a mercurial friend in Degas who may support but also wounds, failing health and eyesight - in spite of all this she pushes to be the artist she imagines she could be capable of - that, to me is a noble love which is not for a man but for the nobility of purpose that she sees is her life.
I do not know what she, Mary Cassatt thinks only what I am taking away from this novel as the theme - I also see her saying to herself all the things Degas says to her as if he is the living voice of her self image - she begrudgingly gives her self brownie points as well as, she considers her work trash as she rips it into pieces after hacking it with a knife. In the story, as a character she works hard to be this image she has but does not work hard for the joy of working -
Degas we know is under the stress-gun because of the huge family debt he is paying to the bank in Amsterdam and so he also attacks his work with his nose to the grindstone where as, when we read of Monet and a few others there is joy in their act of painting - oh it is hard work and there are problems to solve in their work and they also doubt their results but, they paint so engrossed to bring about beauty not to accomplish something that will sell or be accepted in a judged show.
As to a union between them that would be more than close friends during the nineteenth century I wonder - since Degas was Creole on his maternal side. In France at the time this was not a problem however, Mary is from a wealthy Philadelphia family. When she purchases her Villa she retains 7 servants - as open as the family maybe I doubt they would look favorably on a Creole sun-in-law. Yes, it could be one more of her many hurdles in life but I am not seeing the title of this book taking us to any long enduring secret or otherwise traditional love between man and woman - yes, I think she loved him as we do a few good friends who know us and can read us but I choose to see their relationship as an allegory to her/our ability to accept ourselves with all our warts and failings which is a self love. So far that is the arch I am seeing of this story.
As usual when we read here on SeniorLearn there are different associations that we each see as a result of clarifying the various themes.
-
I agree, each reader sees what they choose to see in reading a novel. We can only discuss what the author provides, whether it be history or fiction, even though we have no proof of what all is fiction. We do know what is history, just as Oliveira did through her research. Also through research I sense Oliveira was able to come to the same conclusion as others, there was a close friendship, but no romantic/sexual relationship was ever believed to exist between the two. As I said in one of my first posts knowing the early fiction, I am okay with the romance in the story. For me it's not a stretch of the imagination, and it makes for a good plot. What more could the story be, if it were only about the art?
For me, Mary was trapped in loving Degas, with an idea he too could love her, yet she struggles knowing he will in fact break her heart. From the interviews I read, Oliveira was inspired to write the novel due to the letters, and saying she (Oliveira) was "in love" with her characters, and took liberty to create the romance since the letters were destroyed. Oliveira said, (paraphrasing) She felt it was a clean canvas giving her the liberty to create the romance. The kiss, and the caresses, earlier in the story was leading us up to the eventual love making.
Jean, "she considers her work trash as she rips it into pieces after hacking it with a knife."
I have not come to this part of the story......It seems pretty drastic and sad, makes me wonder if she is taking out all that anger on her work because of her weakness for Degas and believing in him. I can see why their relationship later waned. He thinking she sold his paintings she owned, out of personal reasons, when in fact she was getting rid of and destroying many things, so as not to leave for public knowledge or suspect to preserve her own legacy. (This was in the link I provided earlier.)
I'm not sure I saw a growth in Mary's character. She may have learned to paint more like Degas, but ultimately she returned to her true self. She had this talent, skill, and ability from day one, she just relinquished it to Degas because of his influence, and her admiration, affection, and need for his company, love and approval. In the end, she gave all, including losing herself, only to find she had only herself to rely on. As she stated, "I've gone backwards." Indeed she did go backwards, from the moment she allowed Degas so much control of her life. Oliveira made the Impressionists to be a group of rebels, I'm not even sure this was in fact the case.
I'm not sure it would have mattered according to Oliveira as to the nineteenth century rules of acceptance where these two were concerned, especially since she made them out to be rebels. She wanted to write a love story between them and so she did, with the beauty of the history of the paintings. Now there is where I found the beauty of this story. We can not deny the beauty in the art.
-
Hello. I am the author, and I've enjoyed reading your comments online.I often go to book clubs to discuss my books, but I haven't been invited here. I don't want to disturb your conversations, and if you wish me to remain not a part of the conversation, just say the word and I'll disappear. I'm only jumping in because there are some inaccuracies being asserted regarding some of the history of the artists. I'd be happy to comment on those if you like, and if not, I'll step aside. Thanks so much for choosing the book for your discussion.
-
Oh my! It's Ms. Oliveira...the author herself! Indeed we would be honored to have you join us. We tried to reach you at the start of the discussion, but were unable to find the right button on your home page.
As you can tell, we are divided here - some reading the book as fiction, some deeply interested in the real characters, some engrossed in researching the artwork... You must have had a wonderful time researching the book, especially your trip to Paris!
Of course - please do clear up "any inaccuracies being asserted regarding some of the history of the artists." I might add we would be delighted if you to stay on after that!
Welcome!
-
Hopefully, we will hear from the author soon...
in the meantime, I'd like to share what I found on
the Fifth Impressionist Exhibition in 1800 (http://arthistory.about.com/od/first_eight_exhibitions/a/fifth_Impressionism_exhibition.htm) -
"The green poster with bright red letters advertised: "5th Exhibition created by a Group of Independent Artists, 10 rue des Pyramides (at the corner of rue la Sainte-Honoré), April 1 - 30 [1880], 10 o'clock to 6 o'clock, Admission fee: 1 franc." Only the 16 male artists were listed - and none of the women: Marie Braquemond, Mary Cassatt and Berthe Morisot.
Degas wrote to Félix Braquemond that this omission (Caillebotte's idea?) was "idiotic." Degas, defending a woman's honor? Yes. So much for his alleged misogyny. Degas, incidentally, directly or indirectly invited all three women artists into the Impressionist shows.
The poster's inaccurate information seems symptomatic of the 1880 exhibition's anemic quality.
Impressionism, despite its financial success in 1879, still had a long way to go to garner support from mainstream art critics and academicians.
The fifth Impressionist exhibition was not a total wash. Mary Cassatt exhibited one of her best-known works Five O'Clock Tea (1880) "
the Fifth Impressionist Exhibition in 1800 (http://arthistory.about.com/od/first_eight_exhibitions/a/fifth_Impressionism_exhibition.htm)
(http://teatropolitan.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/mary_cassatt_five-oclock_tea.jpg?w=510)
Mary had been heartsick about this showing...so few entries ready. She put up some of the prints she'd prepared for Le Jour et La Nuit, although she felt they looked small and inconsequential hanging on the wall. I'm going to hunt for the one she did of Lydia. When some of us met at the National Gallery of Art, we saw a number of the plates worked on my Mary Cassatt and Degas. I forget the years on those, though. Does anyone remember? It would be good to know that Mary and Degas went on with printmaking AFTER 1880, wouldn't it?
-
Ms. Oliveira, Welcome!!!! We would truly be honored to hear any input you are willing to share with us. I have read a few interviews, and watched the video of the interview I provided the link to early on. I loved your enthusiasm for the characters. Please feel free to clear up "any inaccuracies being asserted regarding some of the history of the artists."
Please, pull up a chair, fix yourself a cup of tea, and join our discussion. Stay as long as you like! I will humbly, take note of any inaccuracies I may have posted. :-[
Ciao for now~
-
OH MY - I do hope you join us Robin - we would love to hear your intent and I would love to know how you set the mood writing this novel - looking at history I am seeing another side of this glory time as we think of it - as close as we are to European History with remembered school study this time was brushed over and reading this has prompted me to look into some of the main political characters active in France at the time - fascinating.
Please anything you can share with us will be wonderful - especially is we picked up some inaccuracies.
-
Just a quickie - have to leave here in just a bit - I got thinking last night and realized how easy it is to accept a dependency that we are saying Mary has to the exhibitions that Degas had planned and cancelled just as his cancellation of the book using prints. Regardless their professional relationship or their personal friendship can any of us imagine one of the male artists who would also not have an exhibition available getting bent out of shape because the exhibition was cancelled - oh they may growl but I do not think they would feel betrayed or wounded as if a slur on their work - I cannot imagine them complaining about all the work they did to get ready - they would realize if they wanted an exhibition than they needed to create their own or go on and find other ways of selling their work.
That realization led me to see the boulder Mary was trying to climb - in one breath she wanted to be an artist with as much public acclaim as possible which, Degas is right saying it takes courage, forthright belief in your work and the ability not to be "needy" - 'needy' for others to make it possible to show your work or to comment favorably or for the good will of those who you admire. I think that is the message Degas is trying to give to Mary but at this time in history as a women that is new behavior and new thinking - she had been more independent than most women, even most professional women at the time but not yet as independent as a male artist who may have doubts and who do seek approval but are not going to cry out to another artist friend about how they disappointed them.
-
How lovely! Thank you for the warm reception. I would have loved to have been a part of the discussion early on, but I do love being a fly on the wall. Sometimes, at book clubs where I have been physically invited, people forget I am there and I love that.
I am writing now--my next book--but in about four hours or so I'll have time to address some of the questions. Thank you so much. And if someone is still opposed to my being here, please don't hesitate to say so.
Robin
-
marking
-
Welcome, RLO.
Of course we're delighted to see you here--honored, too. You must be very busy. Anything you have the time to say will be very welcome.
-
Jean,
Regardless their professional relationship or their personal friendship can any of us imagine one of the male artists who would also not have an exhibition available getting bent out of shape because the exhibition was cancelled - oh they may growl but I do not think they would feel betrayed or wounded as if a slur on their work - I cannot imagine them complaining about all the work they did to get ready - they would realize if they wanted an exhibition than they needed to create their own or go on and find other ways of selling their work.
If you go back and read how everyone reacted to the first cancelled exhibition, I do believe the men were as upset with Degas cancelling the exhibitions, as much as Mary was. If you recall a couple of the men/artists, left and went to the Salon, and I recall he lost friendships due to his inconsiderateness. Mary seemed more upset about the fact she felt she had wasted a whole year helping Degas with the journal, only for him to decide it was not good enough to place in the exhibit. She was furious he would cancel without so much as telling her his intentions. I feel Mary had every right to be furious with him. She had placed her trust in him yet once again, only for him to once again disregard her time and work, yet as she stated, "he had his masterpiece."
Mary was well on her way in the very beginning, I feel had she continued on without Degas, she would have accomplished as much, if not more, with or without his help. Yes, she was planning on returning to Philadelphia, and meeting Degas, and he inviting her to be a member of the Impressionist's group gave her the incentive to stay in Paris, but the critics were still as harsh on her as before. Woman or man I feel to break through as an artist at that time, as well as today is very difficult. It's a rough world to be in.
Ciao for now~
Oh dear, went to check on something and my book I borrowed from the library online has expired! Egads I am going in circles trying to get it back into my browser. Wish me luck.
-
Someone asked if the journal Le Jour et la Nuit was ever published. No, it wasn't. The current exhibit at the National Gallery has a number of the prints, with some explanations of the techniques involved. The prints range from definitely good enough to publish to somewhat experimental.
-
" I knew the letters were not real and part of the Novel but I did not know the cleaning of the studio after his death was also a tale - thought that was true - ah so...I do find it difficult trying to comment on this book since again, we do not know what is a tale for a novel and what is biography."
Hello All!
I thought I would respond to the above statement, since it contains some misconceptions. It is well known that Mary Cassatt burned Edgar Degas's letters to her and hers to him. The letters were real, but destroyed. The cleaning of the studio after his death did occur. It was referred to in the book "My Friend Degas." Mary Cassatt participated, and at that time, retrieved all the letters that she had ever written to him.
This book is historical fiction, not biography, but the genre of historical fiction allows for some latitude on the part of the writer. However, I hove very closely to as much biographical truth as I possibly can. I do not veer from what is known. I do, however, feel free to imagine the emotional arc of the characters, however I also hove closely to diary entries, other letters, and reported conversations, to stay, as much as possible within the bounds of who the historical personages were, as far as I can tell from what is known.
I hope this helps with those of you having difficulty with the biographical nature of the book versus the fictive nature of the book.
It's a real pleasure to have the book receive so much serious attention.
If you have any other questions, I'd be happy to answer them.
-
RLO: WELCOME WELCOME! We love having authors in our discussion: it adds so much. Don't be surprised if we ask you questions.
I'll never forget when I asked an author "Did you mean such-and-such to be a symbol for so-and-so?" and she answered "Oh, what a good idea! Of course I did." I'm still laughing.
-
Welcome Robin Oliveira. We're delighted that you have joined us.
JoanP, I don't remember the years on prints, but the brochure from the National Gallery states that "the participants (in the journal) worked diligently throughout the autumn of 1879 and the early months of 1880, but the proposed journal was never published."
I feel that Degas treated his colleagues (from the journal) poorly, but at the same time Mary Cassatt learned a skill that she might not have attempted without the encouragement of Degas. Again, from the brochure, "Despite her lack of training, Cassatt proved extraordinarily adept at printmaking."
Alas, my library consortium ebook became due, and quickly returned itself, so the final chapters were only quickly scanned.
-
Welcome, Robin! What a delight to have you joining our discussion.
-
RLO, I have a question regarding the lovemaking scene. I saw this as a climax to what seemed inevitable, to me the reader.
Why did you chose this particular spot in the story for this to happen?
I personally found it to be the perfect place for them to give into their feelings they have been suppressing, and yes after such a heated argument, it seems Degas was determined to draw Mary, make love to her with his pencil, instead he makes love to her with his body.
Thank you for clarifying the fact, (Mary indeed went to his studio to clean it up, and found the letters.) The letters seem pivotal to the story. I understand you having some latitude, especially with the emotional arc of the characters, but knowing the letters were destroyed, did you at any time feel the urge to have Mary reveal any of the contents in the letters, fictitiously of course?
I have not completed the book, since our discussion is set up for weekly reading assignments, but from what I gather you reveal Mary destroyed the letters. Had this not been revealed by a reader early on, I would have been turning page after page, just to find out if she at any time would reveal anything in the letters. Call me a hopeless romantic.
Thank you for creating the romance to the story, not only with Mary and Edgar, but also with Edouard and Berthe, without it I personally would not have been as interested, since I know so little about art or artists. I commend you on a wonderful story.
Marie~
-
Bellamarie,
Why did I choose this particular spot in the story for the lovemaking to happen?
Good question! I knew it had to be at a fraught moment, when they were both at their most vulnerable. Let's face it, Degas was no romantic. His connection to Mary was intellectual, rather than physical. A moment when they both might give in, or at least when Mary might be tempted was when Degas asked her for help. He did not often do so. But he was in trouble. Was it selfish? I think so...
And regarding the letters: Yes, I wondered whether I ought to fabricate the letters, to write them in, but somehow that seemed like too much of an overstep. I wanted them to remain Cassatt's secret, and that choice maintains some of the mystery about what was actually in those letters. If you recall the line from the prologue: "So many letters, you would think they had been in love.", you can see that I inserted the element of doubt. You would think... Is Mary questioning it too? Look carefully for other signs in the prologue that cast doubt on whether anything in the novel is true.
Does that help?
-
Yes, Robin it does help. I saw exactly as you stated, two very vulnerable people, coming off a heated argument, wondering where their friendship/relationship would go. Is it coincidental that each time Degas asks for help it is after an argument? Mary gives in both times, helping with the journal, drawing her, and making love. Indeed it was selfish, but that stayed true to the character.
Okay, without sounding cheesy, in the movie, Jerry Maguire the famous statement is, "You had me at Hello." For me, in the prologue as you stated, "So many letters, you would think they had been in love.", was for me, "You had me at Hello." From that point on, I had to read this story to see if anything would be revealed, and IF they were truly in love.
-
Hmmm, she does give in after arguments, doesn't she? But you can be certain that in books, rarely is anything left to coincidence.
-
Yes, I think it does help, Robin. And talk about being in a vulnerable fragile state - consider Degas. His beloved doll has just received criticism from two artists he values most. All that careful consideration, working, reworking...and now he is told that the proportions are off?! It must have been devastating for him!
He was about to enter la petite danseuse into the Impressionist Exhibition...everyone waiting to see what he will carry into that empty vitrine.
(http://www.musee-orsay.fr/typo3temp/zoom/tmp_d12dd0d407f41875571ffa84c67a5c47.gif)
Two questions...what else had he entered into this exhibition? Did he ever show his precieuse danseur at a future exhibition...and how was she received? (It occurs to me that this might be discussed in the concluding chapters of the book, which I haven't read yet. If so, ignore the question.) ;)
Thank you so much for joining us, Robin...and addressing the questions we've all been considering since the opening chapters in the Prologue.
-
JoanP:
I'm happy to be here. You might want to finish reading the book to see about the dancer... :)
-
From the prologue:
He was equally to blame, but what she still didn't understand was whether there was room for love in two lives already consumed by passion of another sort. You would think she would know the answer by now.
And that great exit line:
So many pages, you would think they had been in love.
I took these to be fair warning that things would be complicated, and we might or might not get answers.
-
Posting together, PatH...good points~
We're about to discuss the final chapters in another day or so. I hope to see more about Degas's danseuse. Here's a question for you, Robin...
Do I detect some sympathy or empathy for Degas on your part? I am feeling that in your portrayal of his character.
-
PatH:
Or even: "Tonight she would paint once again, though only in her mind; would indulge imagination, though only once. Would believe what she'd scarcely been able to believe then."
-
JoanP:
I think Degas has gotten a bad rap over the years. He's been labeled a misogynist unfairly, I think. I believe this label stemmed from the way he painted women in a hyper-realist vein. But he was reacting to the beatification of women in academic painting, where women were presented as glorious, marble visions of piety. He exaggerated, as artists do, to make a point. Therein lay the seed of the conviction, I believe, that Degas hated women. I don't believe it's true. Would he have championed Cassatt as he did if he truly believed women were inferior? He did once say something like "I won't believe that a woman can paint or draw so well" (I'm paraphrasing) but I bet he said it with a sly smile.
-
I have to say, I don't think you painted a very kind image of Degas in the book as well. He did come over as a man who had little regard for women, and found using them as his models and sexual release, was what their purpose in life was to him. Although, he sees something different in Mary. He refers to her as them being (paraphrasing) one in two bodies, his equal.
When you mention, " I also hove closely to diary entries, other letters, and reported conversations, to stay, as much as possible within the bounds of who the historical personages were, as far as I can tell from what is known."
May I ask, who these diaries, letters, etc., belonged to? My understanding from research was that Mary destroyed her personal items, as well did Degas, so I am assuming none of your research was from their personal belongings. Through your research was there anyone or anywhere you found something that contradicted the personality of Degas? Also, are there any websites you used for your research, that you can share with us?
It has been such a delight having you here with us, answering our questions, and giving us insight into your writing the story.
-
The Book Club Online is the oldest book club on the Internet, begun in 1996, open to everyone. We offer cordial discussions of one book a month, 24/7 and enjoy the company of readers from all over the world. Everyone is welcome.
June Book Club Online
I ALWAYS LOVED YOU: A NOVEL
by Robin Oliveira
(http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/ialwayslovedyou/ialwayslovedyou.jpg)
|
This should be FUN! With the Internet at our fingertips, we'll be able to examine each of the artworks described here by the new talent, Robin Oliveira!
This is from a recent Seattle Times review:
"Degas is tempestuous, sardonic and witty. But the focus is squarely on Mary, working on unfinished paintings, washing her brushes, reeking of turpentine, collaborating with Degas on a journal of etchings, thinking about “the essential talent of seeing.” Mary Cassatt comes alive as disciplined, socially acute, outspoken and stoic in facing down her self-doubt." |
Related links:
Vocabulary Help (http://www.seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/ialwayslovedyou/ialwayslovedyouvoc.html)
National Gallery of Art Exhibition of Degas/Cassatt paintings (http://www.nga.gov/content/ngaweb/exhibitions.html)
Portrait of Mary Ellison ~ Mary Cassatt (http://www.marycassatt.org/Portrait-of-a-Lady-(or-Miss-Mary-Ellison).jpg)
Mary Cassatt's many paintings (http://www.marycassatt.org/)
Links to Impressionist Art discussed in this book (http://www.robinoliveira.com/i-always-loved-you/art-links.php)
Interview with Robin Oliveira concerning those letters (http://tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2014050100)
Discussion Schedule:
June 1-2 1926 Prologue
June 3-6 1877 Chapters One - Nine
June 7-13 1877 cont. Chapters Ten - Nineteen
June 14-16 1878 Chapters Twenty - Twenty Six
June 17-22 1879 Chapters Twenty Seven - Thirty Five
June 23-27 1880 Chapters Thirty Six - Forty Four
June 28-30 1881-3 Chapters Forty Five - Fifty Three
June 28- Chapters Forty Five - Fifty Three 1881-83
1. Sixth Impressionist Exhibition: "Mary Cassatt's work exceeded anything she ever did." What did she enter into the 1881 exhibition? Do you have any favorite Cassatt paintings from the later years?
2. Everything had changed with Edgar, though they saw one another on a regular basis. Is the sexual tension completely gone?
3. "She did not think about Edgar, though of course she did." What is the meaning of this observation? That she isn't over him?
4. Do you think Ms. Oliveira used Berthe Morisot and Eduard Manet's affair as an example of what Mary Cassatt and Edgar Degas were trying to avoid?
5. "Had she given in and allowed herself to become hopelessly entangled..." Isn't that what we all do when we marry? Is it the state of matrimony that they both fear?
6. What do you know of the Dreyfus Affair? Was this the real reason leading to the estrangement between Mary Cassatt and Degas?
7. What did you think of Degas' response to Julie Manet's question why he didn't marry Mary - Was their problem simply one of communication? Or something more than that? "Why didn't he know if Mary loved him? Why doesn't Mary know if he loves her?
8. In a way, did the little dancer represent their broken, neglected relationship? What became of her? Did anyone rescue her?
Discussion Leader: Joan P (junkie@verizon.net)
|
RLO:
I read all the letters of Degas, those of Cassatt and her family (which she did not burn), the letters of Manet and Morisot and Morisot's family, recollections of Degas's friends, Renoir's letters, Caillebotte's, among others, etc. Degas's letters to his friends are very warm, which gave me the impression that his reputation did not live up to his reality. Yes, he was difficult, but he was also generous and witty. You see that in the book: He brings Mary scraping tools, he helps her find a model for Little Girl in teh Blue Armchair, he sought her out, etc.
And when he was with the young model for the little dancer he was studying her anatomy for his sculpture, oblivious to the sexual implications that we might read into them. |
-
How exciting to learn you actually read letters of Degas, Mary, her family, and all the others letters which were not destroyed, and still exist. I love how people thought to keep pieces of history, for future references and so generations to come can learn from them. It's nice hearing Degas's letters to his friends were warm. It gives me a new light to him. He did show some thoughtful times in the book as you mention, making me want to like him, although I must say the hurt he inflicts on Mary overshadows those thoughtful moments for me. Not that Mary was not warned by others who knew him. Do you believe in destiny, and do you feel Mary and Edgar were destined to meet?
When I read the part of Degas using the fourteen yr. old model, and having her pose in positions I felt were "invasive" I never saw him as intimate or sexual with this model, just the positions he had her stay in, and how he touched her body seemed invasive to me. You did help me see it differently with this comment:
"And when he was with the young model for the little dancer he was studying her anatomy for his sculpture, oblivious to the sexual implications that we might read into them."
I posted a link early on I had found that said Mary destroyed the letters Edgar wrote to her, and that Edgar destroyed the letters Mary wrote to him. You say that Mary destroyed all letters, his and hers. Not questioning the validity of your source, but do you have any idea why one source would contradict yours?
Any websites, or books you can recommend for us to learn more information you used in your research for your book? Can you tell I am an amatuer writer with all my questions? lololol Sorry, I am inquisitive and curious by nature. :)
I hope you will stick around, and poke in every now and then before we finish the book at the end of the month. It would be great to get more insight from you. Can you tell us a little about the book you are currently writing?
-
Whoops 2 posts since I started this - oh well not going to re-write - wonderful - agree with Bellamarie to learn you had letters in hand - Wow - were you so into it that there was no trembling moment or were you in awe for just a minute - well here goes with my questions and thoughts...
Interesting information - Like everyone here I am so glad you are able to take the time to give us this insight and answer our questions - I wondered if it was to keep the book from sprawling that you chose to limit the artists in the story - I was surprised when I looked up the individual artists who participated in several of the exhibitions that Degas arranged, some whose work or name I was not familiar and in their online bio they speak of the friendship between themselves and Degas - example Charles Tillot as well as others -
I got the picture after the bit of online look-see that Degas was a professional friend with all who were included in these Impressionistic Exhibitions - do you know - was he friends with all who contributed their work - did he know them separably rather than as if they were a band of fellow artists - were there too many artist friends to include in the story - was there no evidence of large gatherings with all of them in attendance - My secret wish is that you will say you had to stay within the bounds of a story-focus but I still find it fascinating that so many bios of artists include a tidbit about being friends with Degas.
And the other question has to do with Mary - she does come across with strength of purpose even when she wavers - was that strength of purpose built into what you learned about her, or did you highlight that aspect of her character - or were you attempting to show Mary as a modern women, who seemed to be merging with the time. Did you find you had to research woman authors and magazines from that time to better understand Mary or to give her the independence and strength of purpose that is in the story. Were her insecurities in the story, not in life but in the story, shown in order to set her strengths as if a spotlight were turned on or to balance her so she does not come across as Lady Liberty.
As to Degas - we all have our viewpoints as we read his behavior - I see him as a driven man who has no truck for emotional doubts to be displayed among professional artists. They can slump, rile and even thunder but gender is not given sugar, carrots or apples - I do not think he would have given Mary the time and attention unless he saw she was a serious professional artist and as a good friend climbing the steep crevasse together they both poured all they had into the climb. As most driven men he is competitive, not beyond ridiculing others during a heated exchange using any weak spot and this is where Mary's gender was pulled in. He does not seem to cat around. To me, Degas sees females as having a role - a professional role - objectifying them as a model, artist, friend, wife, sister etc. He reminds me of a guy in a pen with a cow - you and your horse cannot give that cow an inch if you want it to go where you want it. That is how I see Degas living his life - a guy doing his life's work.
-
Robin I was wondering.....Berthe and Edouard had a very complicated relationship. The forbidden love, were they in real life as the book shows or did you create their hidden, but not so hidden love affair?
I truly loved Abigail's character in the book, a warm friend to Mary, yet strong enough to make decisions for her own happiness. Again, did you have information for her character leading up to her death, or was this fictitious? It was such a sad part to read when she died.
Even though Degas and Edouard seemed to be thoughtless cads, sleeping with prostitutes or many other women they barely knew, I did like the fact that the two men had a friendship. They knew each other's flaws and accepted each other in spite of them. All the other artists that were in the story seemed less important, yet necessary to show the circle of people that were in the group, and in the Salon. It was interesting for me to get to know these artists since I am someone with so little artistic knowledge.
-
I do believe RLO has answered our question #4 - 'Do you get the impression that Oliveira is making excuses for Degas's behavior? That he is really helpless, and cannot finish his work?"
It's difficult for him to work with another person on anything - this time Mary and Pissarro were putting in time and energy on the journal - at Degas' invitation. It's one thing to cancel presentation of your own work if unfinished, if short on "perfection," but what of the work of others?
Did you blame Degas for cancelling the publication of Le Jour et La Nuit? From all we've seen, he's a perfectionist. If it isn't perfect, then he won't make a deadline. (Even Mary agreed when she saw the prints hanging on the Exhibition wall - they weren't very good.) Should he have gone ahead with the publication in recognition of Mary's hard work? Even if it wasn't perfect?
I guess where I fault him - not telling her sooner. He just lost interest in the printmaking process - spent his time elsewhere, leaving her to pull it off - and when she did that, met the deadline, he decided that it wasn't good enough to print.
-
Just read the last few days of your discussion.
You don't want to marry, do you? All that complication and commitment? That obligation and boredom?
That sounds to me like Degas projecting his own attitudes onto Mary and i then thought that he may be doing that a lot. When he is critical of her work or her decisions or her behavior, is he actually stating his feelings about his own?
Hoe lovely to have RLO with us. Welcome!
Jean
-
Oh dear - to make excuses for behavior - ouch - feels like we have the right to do that - seems to me, like all of us, he is what he is - probably it comes from hearing my Mom when we grew up calling us 'Queen for the day' or for my brother, 'King for the day' if we judged another - on Sunday it was always, 'God will take care of that, you just mind your own Ps and Qs young lady' or again, for my brother 'young man '.
I laugh now with the memory but it was one of my lessons and in that light I've seen many guys like Degas who are more about pushing their dream and projecting their dream on those who are in their arena - They simply take it for granted that you have the same desire, dream and outlook as they and frankly, I see we all do that to a degree when we would like others to agree with our conclusions about a set of circumstances.
From what I have read I see him as strong and independent as Mary, both going after what is best for themselves - he does not play partner very well but then his dream is not as a team player - In another profession, I would hire him in a NY minute - he is all about pushing the envelope to his next level and bringing anyone along who matches his drive. Not making it easy for them just expecting they are also going to respect only the best.
-
Love it Jean --- "You don't want to marry, do you? All that complication and commitment? That obligation and boredom?" That really sums it up doesn't it - I get the impression they both feel the same and now, how does this fit into the theme of this story I wonder.
-
Yes, JoanP I do see that - he is just not a good team player is he - he seems typical of the owners of a business before the idea of giving those working in the business a voice in its ongoing practices. I giggle with the realization he would make a great ranch foreman.
-
Jean,
That sounds to me like Degas projecting his own attitudes onto Mary and i then thought that he may be doing that a lot. When he is critical of her work or her decisions or her behavior, is he actually stating his feelings about his own?
Indeed Degas projected his own attitudes onto Mary and others. For me it is infuriating, and this is why in the story he lost friendships. For some reason Mary kept allowing him to do this to her. After giving herself to him, and he goes and does not come around for weeks and then to show up on her doorstep with that statement, I would have slapped him in the face, and I am not a violent person.
I have given a lot of thought as to how I feel about Degas, and how he works, or does not work, well with others. He is driven by what he wants, and does not give much thought about others. Yes, he is willing to give advice and offer some help when he decides to, but ultimately, he is a very selfish, self centered person. He made it clear to Mary, not to whine to him about things, her work is hers, he is not responsible for her work. Indeed this is so, but she was upset about the fact he saw she put an entire year into helping with the journal, and without so much as a warning he decided it would not be shown. It's ALL about him! He is not at all a team player, he can't even be a partner player. I would not want him in charge of my business or anything else. For me job performance is not ONLY about how well you do something, it is also about dependability, loyalty, leadership, and trust. He proved to Mary, and his artist friends, he can not be any of these. He calls the shots, and it really does not matter to him how much work and time others have applied for the exhibitions, if he decides it's a no go....too bad so sad for them.
Am I being tough on Degas? Indeed I am, because he cuts no one any slack! I don't see him as a horrible person, I just would never put my trust in him with a working or personal relationship. Hearing he wrote warm letters to his friends is nice to know, because in this story I haven't found warmth in him. His selfishness, and cruelty overshadows any attempts he makes by being warm. Mary has been on the receiving end and I am hoping this last round of hurt and insults have taught her to back off....as my mother would say, "How many times do you need to touch that hot stove and get burnt, before to learn to not touch it again?"
I am ready to go on to the next chapters to see just where all this goes. PLEASE let Mary get a backbone and self respect, and stop this vicious cycle of allowing him to control her work, and life.
-
I think we are seeing Degas' fears...of entanglement - something he has never wanted or invited, Jean. But don't we see Mary's fear of marital "entanglement" too? Is she certain marriage is what she wants? She sees Berthe Marisot and all those complications. I think Mary wants freedom to paint, as much as Degas does.
She gets no signal from Degas that he wants marriage, or even that he loves her. He is tongue tied - cannot express what he is feeling. He doesn't seem to know what he feels. Does he know what Mary feels?
So why did Mary give in? (We don't know for sure if she did, do we, Robin? ;)
I wouldn't be surprised if they are finished, once the sexual tension has gone out of the equation...
Bella - please wait to comment until Saturday, once you've read the closing chapters, okay? We all need to finish up these chapters first.
-
Bella:
The level of complexity within the Manet household was extraordinary: Suzanne, Manet's wife, may or may not have been mistress to both father and son. Manet's mother arranged to have Suzanne leave Paris for her confinement and return with her "brother." Berthe Morisot, in her letters with her mother and sister betrays an enormous level of disillusionment and sadness around love and courting that is astonishing. It is clear that Something happened between Edouard Manet and Berthe--but, like most romantic trysts, little was recorded for posterity. Inference was involved.
As far as Abigail Alcott Neiriker: She wrote a book, and letters of hers survived. I gleaned as much as possible from those documents as I could to portray her as acurately as I could. I even wrote the Harvard library (or was in Yale? I'll have to look it up--I think it was Harvard) to have them scan the copy of a letter written by an attendee at her funeral.
-
Bella:
Bella:
Regarding destiny: no, I don't believe in destiny. I believe in happenstance and choice.
I doubt very much that Degas burned the letters. He was an inveterate pack rat. He kept everything. And, at the end of his life, he was functionally blind, and alone. He was not well enough to hunt down hidden letters to burn them. Sources often conflict. History is not set in stone. It is a story, and is vulnerable to memory, time, error, and point of view.
I have no record of the web sites I explored. I used books as much as possible.
And, sadly, no, I can't share what I've been writing about. Talking about it tends to kill the story. And, sometimes, novels don't work out. Then you've gone blabbing about them all over the internet and you have to explain why you didn't write the book you said you were writing. :) So, mum's the word.
And, JoanP? I'm not sure I understand your question? Why Mary gave in? To what?
-
An interesting question...did Mary give in...and to what? When reading of the "encounter" between Mary and Edgar, you wrote:
"Mary felt herself yielding, or wanting to yield."
But rereading their encounter" I see Degas the vulnerable one, "stripped of his defenses". "Here was his soul, asking for her."
"She did not resist, though she thought she ought to because she was not a woman to let herself be seduced."
And then finally - the reference to willing surrender...and "the fear that she had been enticed forever into the tangle of him."
So then, is it fair to say that Mary did not give in, was not seduced, but there was a night of mutual surrender? One night? I find it difficult to believe it was only that once. Did they mutually agree to that?
-
Robin, Thank you so much for all the answers to my questions. It truly helps me understand, and see things so much more clearer, knowing the facts and the fiction in the book, which makes up this wonderful story.
I just finished the book and will not comment until Saturday. I will say to Robin, as far as this novel is concerned, if I may use Mary's words to Degas referring to his "little dancer" masterpiece, "She is standing there in all her glory."
I respect you are not able to tell us anything about the book you are working on. I will wait til, if and when it is in print. ;)
-
JoanP.,
I think we are seeing Degas' fears...of entanglement - something he has never wanted or invited, Jean. But don't we see Mary's fear of marital "entanglement" too? Is she certain marriage is what she wants? She sees Berthe Marisot and all those complications. I think Mary wants freedom to paint, as much as Degas does.
I agree, as much as they may have loved each other, I don't think either wanted to give up their freedom to paint. Mary may have just wanted Degas to say the words, "I love you." Mary deserved to be treated with respect after the love making. Degas was probably very scared of what happened between them. I don't think he was capable of dealing with it any other way than avoiding her. With how he dealt with it, it did without a doubt show Mary that if even remotely somewhere deep down inside she hoped for more, she saw it was not going to come from him.
Imagine what Degas would have said if Mary replied, "Yes, I do want marriage." He asked her in that way, knowing her response before asking.
-
Finally finished chapter thirty-nine - breathtaking - glorious - a stand alone chapter - the soul of Degas - I want to send it to my one grandson who is in art but 21st century art where he lives and breathes using, instead of tubes of paint, computer language - he just submitted this weekend a project started in January that may give him an opportunity to perfect his work in Seattle with a two year grant that only 10% of his creation needs to be paid to the investors. He lives and breathes his work also with a girl, a sought after artist who he adores but does not own his loving her, just as this chapter describes Degas.
Chapter Thirty-nine is like a homily invoking the nobility of single minded effort to achieve a utopian dream worthy of the gods. This chapter truly moved me and saying it sounds trite, like a suck up since Robin is obviously reading - however, I am in awe at the insight and beauty of describing the soul of this man.
Chapter Forty is just as strong describing Mary and what I call her 'neediness' - her striving to be free rather than, as Degas, striving to create wonders.
Chapter Forty-Two is far sweeter than I expected after the bits that had been shared of their passion - a true metaphor as he unbound her and freed her from the corsets that were holding in her ability to be free.
In chapter Forty-Three the question is so pure Degas,"You love to be loved, even more than you love art. Why do you chase glory?"
Oh and a great zinger - love it - "The two things that didn't exist in their world: syphilis in Edouard's, and love in Degas's."
Wow that last sentence in chapter Forty-Four - at first I was taken back with. "as if she had never known him." How sad a reaction but then, I re-read and it is the entire sentence that says it -- Mary does not seem to realize yet what she has finally achieved she is so busy nursing her 'what could have been' fantasy - "She squeezed paint from the tubes and took up her brush and began, as if she had never known him." which, when read as one thought suggests she begins painting having dropped her neediness - she paints from her belief in her own ability to discover, improve, say something in art not dependent on Degas for what he offered as if he was not a factor in her expressing her art. She is finally free...!
-
Had to go back and read Thirty-Nine again - it is perfect for anyone who devotes their life to a single minded project - I realize not even in the field of art - it made me think of my daughter-in-law's brother who devoted over 20 years to improving the wild deer on his south Texas ranch. He found a small herd of blind deer and created a pasture near the ranch house to follow and learn the cause of their blindness - he made the big sacrifice of reducing his cow numbers to devote his resources to building up the health of the deer and the size of the antlers on the bucks - and then 3 years ago the drought became so bad he lost most of the deer herd and 2 years ago all the cows and deer - it all ended without his achieving his dream - he was able to send some reports that are useful for other ranchers to A&M but his dream was dashed.
We do not see Degas's dream dashed but we know, attempting an ordinary life would have been the end of him and this man was the à cause de signifie of Mary Cassatt's freedom from her own insecurity to be what she was afraid to see in herself, a great painter...she did not need the crutch of his approval and never realized, that was not what she needed nor, was she ever going to get it in a way that she wanted.
-
Barb, I agree, I felt that last sentence showed Mary finally freed herself of the dependency on Degas. Since they run in the same circles together, they will never be free from bumping into each other and maintain a civil, social relationship, but at this point she has finally decided to paint "her" way, no longer needing him or his approval. Degas could never be happy married, he is married to his art, just as Mary is. They both know this.
Such a sad story of your daughter in law's brother striving to achieve his dream/goal only for it to be out of his reach. Isn't that what life is all about? We set out with a dream/mission in life. We spend years, maybe a lifetime working towards that dream, purpose, and sometimes some accomplish exactly what they were seeing the end would be. Others, well, they enjoy life as they work toward their dreams, yet come to some point in life that prevents them to feel the feat of success. The fact some of his data is useful for other ranchers should give him a sense of accomplishment.
I saw Mary from the very beginning of this story as an exceptional painter. I felt Degas side tracked her, yes, I believe they were meant to meet for more than the purpose of helping each other with art, but without him, she would have sooner or later realized how exceptional she was all along. IMO
-
Without going back and quoting specific lines from your posts, I'd like to thank you for zeroing in on the key elements in these chapters that led to the encounter - which seems to be both the beginning and end of their "affair". I can understand the attention RLO gave to this moment...
It is fiction yes, but to me, the high point of the novel...the only explanation of what actually happened between these two. But where to go from this point? What do you make of the title, I Always Loved You. ALWAYS. It will be interesting to follow them into the future.
I'm reminded of the current exhibition some of us recently attended at the National Gallery of Art in DC - which emphasized the close working relationship between the two artists during these Impressionist exhibitions of the late 1880's. The entire NBA exhibit was made up of the work of Mary Cassatt and Edgar Degas. Nowhere is there a suggestion of a romance, but the closeness of their collaboration is evident.
I wondered at the time if you had attended this exhibit, Robin? If so, you would have noticed the space in the bookshops devoted to your book. Some of us wondered where the idea for this exhibit came from - your book? When did you learn that the exhibit was planned?
-
JoanP.,
But where to go from this point? What do you make of the title, I Always Loved You. ALWAYS. It will be interesting to follow them into the future.
Where do you see the two of them going from here? Personally, after her asking Degas to leave, and she picks up her brush to paint as though she never knew him, (paraphrasing) I feel Mary will paint with love, as she always has. Degas will continue to paint as long as his eyes allow him.
My eleven yr. old granddaughter posed a question to me yesterday out of the blue. She said, "Nonnie, if you had to lose one thing, either your eyesight or your hearing which would you want it to be?" I have always thought about macular degenerate, since Glen Beck mentioned a few years back he may go blind one day. I said to my sweet granddaughter, "I would prefer to lose my hearing if I have to chose one. I can always learn braille to help me communicate with people, but if I lost my eyesight I would be devastated, because I personally always want to be able to see all the beauty in the world." She agreed, she said that's what she would choose. I thought about this when learning in my research on Google, how Degas and Mary lost their eyesight, and I felt so sad knowing that art being their life, so much to the point they past love by, I can't begin to imagine how they must felt the day their eyes could no longer allow them to paint, nor see the beauty of their art and others. I felt life was just a little bit cruel for both Mary and Degas in them losing their eyesight in their final years of living.
-
??? Hellooow...anyone there - maybe a long nap day... :-*
-
Barb, I've just got to ask - when did you post this? Friday pm, Saturday am?
Until we read some posts this morning, it is difficult to say who is napping, who is reading, who has finished the book. :D
Before moving on to the concluding chapters, there's a lingering question on my mind.
RLO writes that neither Mary C nor Edgar D. believes that he/she is talented or gifted. Degas positively bristled at the idea. No talent...just hard work. Do you think most artists - writers too, for that matter, feel this way, have the same fear that the next idea or theme will not come? Is inspiration a talent - or is it pulling off the inspiration through the hard work that accounts for a work of art? Have you ever felt this way?
-
The 1881 chapters begin with Sixth Impressionist Exhibition in 1881: RLO writes: "Mary Cassatt's work exceeded anything she ever did." What did she enter into the 1881 exhibition? I'm really interested to see what she was working that year following her...'encounter' with Degas...
-
JoanP.,
Is inspiration a talent - or is it pulling off the inspiration through the hard work that accounts for a work of art? Have you ever felt this way?
I gave this some thought and for me inspiration is something that comes from inside you, after one of your fives senses have been triggered and touches your heart and soul, that then creates an idea inside your mind. I am a writer, and many things have inspired me to write poems, children stories, articles, and novels. Art in any form be it painting, writing, singing, dancing, etc., etc, comes from inspiration. A feeling that allows your mind to create, and your body to develop that inspired idea, in physical or even spiritual form.
in·spi·ra·tion noun \ˌin(t)-spə-ˈrā-shən, -(ˌ)spi-\
: something that makes someone want to do something or that gives someone an idea about what to do or create : a force or influence that inspires someone
: a person, place, experience, etc., that makes someone want to do or create something
: a good idea
Full Definition of INSPIRATION
1
a : a divine influence or action on a person believed to qualify him or her to receive and communicate sacred revelation
b : the action or power of moving the intellect or emotions
c : the act of influencing or suggesting opinions
2
: the act of drawing in; specifically : the drawing of air into the lungs
3
a : the quality or state of being inspired
b : something that is inspired <a scheme that was pure inspiration>
4
: an inspiring agent or influence
— in·spi·ra·tion·al adjective
— in·spi·ra·tion·al·ly adverb
See inspiration defined for English-language learners »
See inspiration defined for kids »
Examples of INSPIRATION
Where does the inspiration for your art come from?
His paintings take their inspiration from nature.
She had a sudden inspiration. They would have the party outdoors!
Deciding to have the party outdoors was sheer inspiration.
First Known Use of INSPIRATION
14th century
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inspiration
Onto the final chapters of the story..... the final Exhibition, and Mary is now an accomplished, recognized, acclaimed artist according to the critics, her colleagues, and public alike. She has made it by all definitions she held herself to for success. She has done it in spite of the hurt, ridicule, bad reviews, lost love, and no longer having the tutelage of Degas beside her. She has finally come into her own, and has the admiration of her father!
Chapter Fifty ( First paragraph)
The struggle that had seemed so essential, the yearning for transcendence, the doubt that had plagued her, fell away in the face of success. Mary had become the artist she had wanted to be by dint of hard work and perseverance. And what was left was work, the work she had chosen: the pleasure of the puzzle, the technical questions of execution, the choice of composition and color, nothing different than before except that now she understood that pain was the foundation of art__not always its subject, but always its process. To be in pain was to be in the work. But no longer did she fear it meant failure. She knew she would succeed eventually with a canvas. She knew that if she stayed with it long enough, through the blindness, she would finally see what it was meant to be. She knew that she would find its soul. Pain was the essential ingredient.
As much as she can attribute some of her success to Degas teaching her "gesture," she also learned he held her back from succeeding sooner.
"(Louisine Edler) She asked Mary, from time to time, how it was with Edgar, and Mary made brave answers of independence and indifference, but Edgar's cutting tongue set loose on one of her paintings or proffered opinions could set her back so much that she wouldn't be able to paint for day, sometimes weeks."
Then Mary ponders the what ifs of her and Degas's life......
Mary often wondered whether, had she given in, had she allowed herself to become irretrievably entangled, had she been willing to submit to a lifetime of uncertainty, they might have found a way to be at intimate peace with one another.
Fleeting, but unsettling, the question rebounded throughout the years to bedevil her. Why was so little in life ever truly settled? Not the happenstance of things, but the why of things?"
After Degas is no longer in her day to day life, she seems to be able to paint at will, with the gift he had given her.
The work came to her in an endless profusion of possibilities. There were a thousand ways to paint a mother and child, for in each familial bond there was a unique tie that found its expression in a particular gesture. It was what he had taught her, so long ago. Gesture. Made, not spontaneous. Studied, not accidental. The signifier of a unique truth about a life, or two lives. The gift of Degas.
I finished the book and I will take the time to discuss each chapter, so we may cherish these last pages, but I can not hold in my feelings so I will say this much.... Oliveira, in these last chapters captivated me, she captured the qualities of Degas, his vulnerabilities that I could not see throughout the story. Maybe it's because I could see the exceptionalism in Mary from the beginning, and how he stunted her work, that I just personally saw how extremely selfish and full of himself he was. In the last chapters/pages my heart went out to Degas. My eyes filled with tears, and streamed down my face, trying to see through them, to continue reading the words on the pages. The final pages in my opinion make this novel a true masterpiece in every sense of the word, as in comparison to Mary's success with her art.
For me this ranks up on my favorite books of all times with Pride and Prejudice and Wives and Daughters. It may not say much for someone who has not yet read a ton of classics, but you don't have to see every pebble on the beach, to recognize a lucky stone, when you see it shining through.
Ciao for now~
-
I stayed off the site yesterday while I finished the book, because I didn't want to risk getting any hints of where it would go. I won't talk about the last section until I find out where everyone else is, but I'll say it was very satisfying.
In the meantime, I can fill in some bits.
-
The library book is still on my computer. I did not know because it was erased from the Kindle and iPad on last Monday's due date, and I assumed it was gone here too. I'm almost afraid to touch it.
JoanP, I don't know if this was what she entered in the 6th Exhibition, but after her "encounter" with Degas, and with LYdia's improving health, she painted many scenes that focused on Lydia. And with the arrival of her brother and his family she took advantage of ready-made models showing the love between mother and children.
It seems logical to think that someone at the National Gallery might have picked up on the idea for the exhibit after reading I Always Loved You. Or among art historians has there always been the idea of a mentoring bond? Robin, I hope you can shed some light on that for us. At any rate, I'm so glad I had a chance to see the exhibit and to read the book. I had never really paid much attention to Cassatt, never knew anything about her focus. And as for Degas, just a fleeting knowledge of his ballet dancers.
I'm flying to Seattle on Monday, but will try to return here again before I go.
Bellamarie, I like the way you express yourself, and have really learned much from your posts. Re: your granddaughter's question, I'm reminded of someone wiser who once told me -- If we put our troubles in a pot, and then passed the pot around, we'd pull out what we had put in. DIL's mother has had vision problems for several years, can't drive anymore. She told her daughter she would rather have my rotten knees and mobility problems instead. My eyes are now my ears, and I don't know how I would be if that was reversed.
-
Degas didn't like the idea of talent; he thought good art was all hard work, nothing else.
I think that's wrong. Yes, art is hard work, sometimes overwhelming, but the hard work alone isn't enough. If you don't have the talent, all you will get is very thoroughly produced second-rate work.
-
Please fill in bits, Pat. I agree with you - Degas was wrong! But I'll bet he became irritated, as Mary C did when people asked him where his ideas came from.
Bella - thanks for the inspiration definitions - examples. I remember when Mary C. first met Degas, she was looking for inspiration, concerned that nothing came. It was Degas who brought little Eloise to her flat - which was the inspiration she needed. I often find myself trying to meet deadlines...waiting for inspiration. There's no way to rush it, is there? It just has to come on its own.
Pedln - I've been searching to see what Mary C. exhibited in the 1881 exhibit...wondering what could have surpassed her1879 exhibit when she filled an entire room with such outstanding work. I think you're on to something...her brother's visit - with his family - provided the models and inspiration she needed for the 1881 exhibit.
-
:D :D ;) About midnight so either - nothing all day and I thought it would be fun to treat the discussion like coming to visit and finding the house is empty with everyone probably out back or taking a walk since the dog is gone as well. ;)
Back later...
-
Chapters 39 and 40: what he does not tell her, what she does not tell him. That's the crux of their interaction. Both are full of anguish and insecurity, want comfort without having to share. Both want to know the other's feelings without revealing too much of their own. Neither is able to share fully.
-
To me reading a good book is seldom to re-enforce our own values but rather to discover a new viewpoint and new to me values described and used by others. The relationship between Degas and Mary Cassatt reminds me of the young today who have things to do and places to go - but more, it prompts us to look at and dig into what the behavior in this story of these two characters is suggesting.
I'm thinking aloud here - We cannot change and say, "if only" because then we are changing the story, real or fictitious - what I am seeing is most of the story has Degas helping, expecting, demanding Mary to be free - to find her personal freedom - once she did that she painted as she imagined she could - not perfectly because the story is not about achieving perfection but to strive to be more attuned to the life of the painting while exploring and pushing the known boundaries of the elements of art - color, space, line, shape/form, texture.
I can find many quotes extorting the benefits of putting breaks on freedom in order to accomplish anything from being closer to God to being a success in a job to a relationship. One aspect of this story is to loosen what binds and be free. Commitment to marriage binds us to, not just a person but, to creating a team with that person - a tight, intimate, secure, give and take team. Built into creating this team are expectations, obligations, duty, fewer boundaries, granted freely given but the emphasis is on this relationship, with love as the glue. Love does not keep going by itself - nor can love continue based on biological urges or emotional need - it takes some attention to maintain a loving commitment.
So with that in mind here are a few quotes about commitment and its affect on freedom.
“Love consists of a commitment which limits one's freedom - it is a giving of the self, and to give oneself means just that: to limit one's freedom on behalf of another.”
― John Paul II
"To the degree that we are creative, growing persons, our love is full of surprises rather than governed by expectations.
If we find ourselves in the rut of customary activities, then we know that freedom and flexibility have disappeared... Permanence, however, looks forward and makes promises, which might prevent us from growing and evolving as we otherwise would."
― James Park, Philosopher
"the three components of love, according to the triangular theory, are an intimacy component, a passion component, and a decision/commitment component. The amount of love one experiences depends on the absolute strength of these three components, and the type of love one experiences depends on their strengths relative to each other."
― Robert Sternberg, Psychologist
Robert Sternberg talks about passionate love and companionate love and this explanation rang true to me describing the ongoing love between Degas and Cassatt. -
"Passionate love is associated with strong feelings of love and desire for a specific person. This love is full of excitement and newness. Passionate love is important in the beginning of the relationship and typically lasts for about a year. There is a chemical component to passionate love. Those experiencing passionate love are also experiencing increased neurotransmitters, specifically phenylethylamine.
Companionate love follows passionate love. Companionate love is also known as affectionate love. When a couple reaches this level of love, they feel mutual understanding and care for each other. This love is important for the survival of the relationship."
I think the relationship is used to tell the story which gives us the opportunity to dwell on the value of companionate love and also to recognize freedom does not take commitment-to-security lightly and is therefore, a dichotomy to a committed relationship.
The story shows us several kinds of love which suggests that for a reader, love could be narrowly understood based on their own knowledge and experiences however, the Andrew Lloyd Webber play and song suggest the many - Aspects of Love - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXUptP_9Rik
From the musical our romantic vision of love in Love Changes Everything - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QieVYC8uqJs
Can you really see either Degas or Cassatt acting as Michael Ball in this clip. It would be our fantasy and not in keeping with their desire to continue their love affair with making their art.
Their commitment to their art limits their freedom to focus on each other which is needed to keep married love vibrant and alive.
-
Bella and BarbSteAubrey: I want to thank you for your kind words about the book. I appreciate them more that you can ever know. Once I write a book and send it out into the world, it becomes the reader's book, the reader's experience, and I am very glad that you had an experience of it that touched your heart. It does a writer good to know that a reader connected in an extremely emotional way. For you to tell me is very kind. Authors are frequently met with silence after the book goes into the world. It is lovely to have the kind of feedback you have given me. Thank you.
JoanP: Yes, I've been to the Degas Cassatt exhibition in DC. I had a niece's graduation festivities to attend in NYC, then I hopped on a train to DC, just to see the exhibition. Happily, I was able to combine that with visits with old friends, some of whom attended the exhibit with me. I thought it was fantastic. To see Degas's portrait of Mary Cassatt was wonderful; and some of the prints of Le Jour et La Nuit from Yale were ones I hadn't yet seen. And Little Girl in the Blue Armchair really shone, I thought.
The curators at the National Gallery were already planning the exhibit. The publication of I Always Loved You and the exhibit is entirely coincidental. You can imagine how happy I am that they are selling the book. It was thrilling to see it in all the stores. The exhibit goes to the middle of October. I highly recommend going!
-
Wow...we just missed seeing you at the exhibit in DC, Robin! We were there shortly after it opened in May. It was wonderful, wasn't it? You should have seen us flitting around from painting to painting with your book open - as our guide. Must say again how surprsed and pleased we are to have you join us now. So the planned exhibit and the publication of your book were entirely coincidental! I can't tell you how many times we spoke of that when in the National Gallery.
-
"...what he does not tell her, what she does not tell him. That's the crux of their interaction. Neither is able to share fully."
Pat - I was about to add to your observation that this lack of communication would always be a problem with these two - if they married. They can't even express their feelings before they get that far.
Then I read Barbara's thoughtful post...and am now thinking that yes, there was attraction, admiration and respect- but also the understanding that neither was able to commit. How does one put that in words? Degas seems to understand that more than Mary does. He fights his feelings towards her...hoping she can understand what a mistake it would be to marry. Maybe because he has had more time to realize there is no room for the demands of married life if he is to concentrate on his art. Maybe because she's younger - she hasn't come to terms of a life without marriage - and children. I'm thinking now of all those mother/babies she will paint after this - as she "paints love."
I can't think but that she is putting her maternal yearnings into her art. I wonder if anyone ever did a study of this?
I think I've located the paintings Mary submitted into the 1881 Exhibition...will be right back.
-
"Whatever the reason, the 1881 exhibition was decidedly Degas' show. It reflected Degas' taste in terms of the artists involved (Cassatt and the Raffaëlli were invited into the group by Degas; Gauguin had become his protégé) and catholicity of vision - that is, an openness to various interpretations of this new Realism in art.
Above all, the 1881 exhibition should be remembered for the debut of Degas' Little Fourteen-Year Dancer (ca. 1881, National Gallery, Washington, DC), a radical departure from conventional sculpture. It was made of wax (not unusual at the time) with a real silk ribbon tied around real hair, a silk faille bodice, and a muslim tutu. This combination of traditional and non-traditional materials shocked the public.
Most critics panned the entire show, including our beloved "little ballerina."
"Cassatt loved to uses children as subjects. Some of the hallmarks of Cassatt's portrayal of children in her works during the 1880s and 1890s were her use of naturalism and the element of a pure, nonsexual sensuality. A subject that compelled Cassatt even more than children was the involvement of adults in the emotional and physical care for children. In the 1880s her compositions often depicted children being dressed, bathed, read to, or held.
An example of such a composition is her oil on canvas painting entitled Reading that she painted in 1880 and is an image of Cassatt's mother reading to her grandchildren. Joris Karl H
Another example of this kind of composition is a pastel on paper she did in 1880 entitled Mother and Child. Joris Karl Huysmans called these two works "impeccable pearls" when he viewed them at the sixth Impressionist exhibition in 1881.
(http://www.the-athenaeum.org/art/display_image.php?id=16955)
Mother and Child 1880
(http://uploads1.wikiart.org/images/mary-cassatt/mrs-cassatt-reading-to-her-grandchildren-1880.jpg)
Mary Cassatt's Mother reading to her Grandchildren
-
Looks like everyone is back home today and sharing the wonders of your thoughts.
Robin thanks for your words and it never occurred to me that authors do not know how a book affects the reader - I guess not - all you have is what the critics say and if it is considered for an award but still, that is not the same as realizing the affect a book has on the reader. There are many spots where you are telling the story and bringing us along but every so often there is a passage that I have to 'put-down-the-book-and-dwell-for-a-minute-on-the-thought and the-way-it-is-written'.
The wisdom shared in these last pages that describe the feelings of these characters in their elder years is so lyrical and filled with truth it is difficult for me to believe you are a young women - fabulous! The second paragraph in Chapter Forty-Nine summed up life so elegantly as it continues to the next page - "but he could not help the ways of the universe." Another bit of writing that will be copied into my Gwen Fostic notebook where I save bits of verbiage from stories told by writers like, Kurt Vonnegut, Joy Harjo, Haruki Murakami
JoanP the painting of Mary's mother reading to the grandchildren reminds me of my childhood when there was no TV and for us, no radio so that having Mama read was enchanting - we would be glued to her arm while our imagination reeled full of color and action as we pictured in our heads what the characters looked like and what was happening - wonderful painting and wonderful memory.
And yes, earlier I thought Mary's choice of subject was to catch a sale during the economic ups and downs of this period but now we understand she was full with her family around her and that was what she painted. As life goes on, as JoanP you brought up she questions if she should have made other choices that included having her own children.
It appears Mary never was completely free - she dithered about her life choices on through her senior years. Have any of you spoken with women who decide to remain childless or never marry as my one sister never married - the childless women that I have spoken with most often share thoughtful rational, from career to the 'awful' conditions of society and some to avoid inflicting on a child the memories from their own childhood that they see affecting how they would instinctively raise a child. Those who never marry probably each have their stories -
Interesting to ponder - Mary is followed to her end and she passes at the beginning of a war much as her adult story started soon after a war - what has changed - the bricks and plaster - the new inventions - the commonplace of her life is all memory - people come and go in our lives - interesting to consider what is it all about...is it the pain that accompanies any creative process?
On my TBR pile I have Degas in New Orleans It will be interesting to learn how that association and time was incorporated into his art and lifestyle.
-
Robin, you are most welcome, but I feel it is I who should be thanking you, for moving such strong emotions in me with this story. I am a hard critic which the members of this book club can attest to, but I also give high praise when I see a book worthy of it. You touched the raw human emotions of Degas and Mary in these last chapters, the tenderness of aging, regret, loneliness, lost love, loss of eyesight, and time coming to an end, and the inevitable, death.
From the point Mary goes to Degas's studio for the visit I felt myself being overwhelmed with emotions:
A wraith answered the door: an old man with unkempt white hair, and a snowy, bushy beard. He wore ill-fitting threadbare woven coat, baggy pants, and slippers on his unsocked feet. His skin had grown translucent, creped and spotted here and there under his eyes, which were glassed behind thick lenses smoked black. Through the opaque glass it was impossible to tell if he betrayed shock at her unheralded arrival or if perhaps he just needed a moment, as she needed one, to accommodate the mark of time. She had not written him to tell him she was coming to visit, not when he could not see to read her note. She stepped forward, took his hands in hers.
"Is it you?" he said.
"It is."
He felt his way into a cluttered parlor, a pathway it seemed he had traversed a hundred times, expertly dodging dusty tables and chairs piled with dishes crusted with dried food. Here and there stale half-eaten loaves of bread hibernated i in their paper wrappers. ______
No one had told her that it was this bad. _____
Degas's myopic gaze searched for hers and he said, "I never loved you, did I?"
Then he pulled off his glasses and kissed her. Her lips softened and opened to his. His hand rose to her cheek and still the kiss went on. He was forgetting, she thought, that they could have spent a lifetime doing this.
After a time, he pulled away slowly, his brown eyes cloudy with blindness. Then he sank into the armchair and closed his eyes. In his sudden sleep, age veiled any vestige of his former self: his savage vitality, his mirthful savoir faire, his ruthless devotion to principles on one else believed in and which had made his art as masterful as Velasquez's or Titan's.
She covered him with a blanket and went back upstairs,
When Mary found the little dancer hidden upstairs, all broken, and then the mask of Edgar, I was so sad, feeling these represented their past youth, and their inevitable deaths.
A life mask, rendered in gray plaster, stared up at her from the clutter. It was Degas when she had fallen in love with him: heavy lidded, long nosed, his once piercing gaze rendered blindly benevolent by the opaque clay. It must have been done when his bust was sculpted in the early eighties. She stared at the face frozen in time, all of who he had been to her preserved now in plaster. She stroked the contours of his cheeks, the lilting wave of his hair, his half-closed eyes. Edgar.
She turned away.
My heart broke for the two of them at this point. To think of them now, after all the years they could have shared with each other. How, why did they deny themselves of a love they had for each other, for the love of their art? In the end they are alone. The life lesson I take away from this is don't miss your chance at love. Grab on to it, treasure it, don't let anything stand in the way at a life of being loved, and giving love to another human being. Ultimately all the fame and fortune can not comfort you in the end. Degas said, "Paint with love." My advice to him, and Mary had I been there would have been, "Live with love."
Ciao for now~
-
Robin, So I have to ask you, was the little dancer really broken in pieces, or was this a part you created to show how time had escaped them, and even though she was Degas's obsession, in the end she became hidden away all broken, representing his life now?
If in fact the little dancer was broken, was she repaired, and is she on display somewhere at the present time?
-
The statue really was broken. It was repaired and cast after his death, as were a number of other statues, many of them small experimental pieces.
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/dgsb/hd_dgsb.htm (http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/dgsb/hd_dgsb.htm)
-
The Book Club Online is the oldest book club on the Internet, begun in 1996, open to everyone. We offer cordial discussions of one book a month, 24/7 and enjoy the company of readers from all over the world. Everyone is welcome.
June Book Club Online
I ALWAYS LOVED YOU: A NOVEL
by Robin Oliveira
(http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/ialwayslovedyou/ialwayslovedyou.jpg)
|
This should be FUN! With the Internet at our fingertips, we'll be able to examine each of the artworks described here by the new talent, Robin Oliveira!
This is from a recent Seattle Times review:
"Degas is tempestuous, sardonic and witty. But the focus is squarely on Mary, working on unfinished paintings, washing her brushes, reeking of turpentine, collaborating with Degas on a journal of etchings, thinking about “the essential talent of seeing.” Mary Cassatt comes alive as disciplined, socially acute, outspoken and stoic in facing down her self-doubt." |
Related links:
Vocabulary Help (http://www.seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/ialwayslovedyou/ialwayslovedyouvoc.html)
National Gallery of Art Exhibition of Degas/Cassatt paintings (http://www.nga.gov/content/ngaweb/exhibitions.html)
Portrait of Mary Ellison ~ Mary Cassatt (http://www.marycassatt.org/Portrait-of-a-Lady-(or-Miss-Mary-Ellison).jpg)
Mary Cassatt's many paintings (http://www.marycassatt.org/)
Links to Impressionist Art discussed in this book (http://www.robinoliveira.com/i-always-loved-you/art-links.php)
Interview with Robin Oliveira concerning those letters (http://tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2014050100)
Discussion Schedule:
June 1-2 1926 Prologue
June 3-6 1877 Chapters One - Nine
June 7-13 1877 cont. Chapters Ten - Nineteen
June 14-16 1878 Chapters Twenty - Twenty Six
June 17-22 1879 Chapters Twenty Seven - Thirty Five
June 23-27 1880 Chapters Thirty Six - Forty Four
June 28-30 1881-3 Chapters Forty Five - Fifty Three
June 28- Chapters Forty Five - Fifty Three 1881-83
1. Sixth Impressionist Exhibition: "Mary Cassatt's work exceeded anything she ever did." What did she enter into the 1881 exhibition? Do you have any favorite Cassatt paintings from the later years?
2. Everything had changed with Edgar, though they saw one another on a regular basis. Is the sexual tension completely gone?
3. "She did not think about Edgar, though of course she did." What is the meaning of this observation? That she isn't over him?
4. Do you think Ms. Oliveira used Berthe Morisot and Eduard Manet's affair as an example of what Mary Cassatt and Edgar Degas were trying to avoid?
5. "Had she given in and allowed herself to become hopelessly entangled..." Isn't that what we all do when we marry? Is it the state of matrimony that they both fear?
6. What do you know of the Dreyfus Affair? Was this the real reason leading to the estrangement between Mary Cassatt and Degas?
7. What did you think of Degas' response to Julie Manet's question why he didn't marry Mary - Was their problem simply one of communication? Or something more than that? "Why didn't he know if Mary loved him? Why doesn't Mary know if he loves her?
8. In a way, did the little dancer represent their broken, neglected relationship? What became of her? Did anyone rescue her?
Discussion Leader: Joan P (junkie@verizon.net)
|
|
-
Pat, I'm learning more about the little dancer - surprised to learn that the wax figure we have right here in the National Gallery is the ORIGINAL beeswax figure! What are seen in museums around the world are bronze cast from the original.
These two sites tell the story of what became of Degas' collection of crumbling wax figures at his death. (I'm surprised that anyone but Degas was able to reconstruct those sinews and muscles...}
http://www.nga.gov/content/ngaweb/Collection/highlights/highlight110292.html
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Dancer_of_Fourteen_Years
"After Degas's death, his heirs (brother and sister's children[2]) made the decision to have the bronze repetitions of Le Petite Danseuse and other wax and mixed-media sculptures cast. The casting took place at the Hébrard foundry in Paris from 1920 until the mid-20th century.
Sixty-nine of Degas's wax sculptures survived the casting process
The original wax sculpture was acquired by Paul Mellon in 1956. Beginning in 1985, Mr and Mrs Mellon gave the National Gallery of Art 49 Degas waxes, 10 bronzes and 2 plasters, the largest group of original Degas sculptures. Little Dancer was among the bequests.
(http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/ialwayslovedyou/petitedanceur.jpg)
-
Were you interested to learn that even with the corrections Degas made to his little dancer, she was still not well-received by the art world. When did this sculpture receive the positive acclaim she enjoys today? Was it after his death?
Can we back up in time - the period following that 1881 exhibit? Apparently Mary and Degas still see one another - he attends intimate Cassatt family gatherings - funerals. Must this have been uncomfortable for either one of them?
Robin writes -
"Everything had changed with Edgar, though they saw one another on a regular basis."
(Is the sexual tension completely gone?}
"She did not think about Edgar, though of course she did."
Does this mean she isn't over him?
-
Thank you PatH., and JoanP., for answering my question, and for the link providing this pic. She is absolutely beautiful! I tried to insert the pic but I just don't seem to be able to. Thank you JoanP., for the pic, the bronze statue if stunning, but the wax seems more the original and able to feel the work Degas put into it.
Knowing indeed the little dancer was broken, it makes this part of the story even more bittersweet. Degas was obsessed with creating this statue. Mary could see what this masterpiece meant to him. I felt Mary wanted Degas to love her, as much as he loved this statue, yet in the end his love for either the little dancer or Mary, did not bring him or her joy. It had to break Mary's heart all over again seeing the condition of the statue.
Seeing the pic brings only one thought to mind:
Mary saying to Degas, "She is standing there in all her glory."
I think the sexual tension was no longer there between Mary and Degas. After the love making, and the hurt, I feel it rather distinguished it, but I do feel that Mary loved him in a special way forever. Hence the title...."I Always Loved You" The last kiss Degas gives to Mary is his final good-bye, just as Mary said to Jeanne, when she asked:
"Don't you want to say good-bye?"
"I already did."
"Are you all right?"
"Not at all," Mary said, and kissed the girl on the cheek, then picked her way to the bottom of the stairs, where Mathilde and the chauffeur were waiting to take her back to Mesnil, alone.
:'( :'( :'( If this were a play, it's where the curtain would close, the audience would applause, and then maybe sit in silence a few minutes before leaving, pondering on what could have been. I think this book would make a splendid movie.
-
Oooops....I meant to say I think it "extinguished" the sexual tensions not distinguished. Ughhhh.....
-
pedln Maybe you can read some of the book on your computer on your plane ride to Seattle. Have a safe trip. Thank you for your kind words, I especially like this:
“If we put our troubles in a pot, and then passed the pot around, we'd pull out what we had put in.
DIL's mother has had vision problems for several years, can't drive anymore. She told her daughter she would rather have my rotten knees and mobility problems instead. My eyes are now my ears, and I don't know how I would be if that was reversed.
I am glad you do not have to know the reverse.
PatH., “Degas didn't like the idea of talent; he thought good art was all hard work, nothing else.
I think that's wrong. Yes, art is hard work, sometimes overwhelming, but the hard work alone isn't enough. If you don't have the talent, all you will get is very thoroughly produced second-rate work.
I totally agree with you, I too, feel Degas got it wrong. I feel you must have the talent, and inspiration. Many can be inspired to do something, but without the talent, they will only attempt, and not succeed, or create nothing more than" second-rate work."
-
Seems to me we looked into the Dreyfus Affair when we read The Hare with the Amber Eyes - cannot remember the family name who came from Odessa, very wealthy and members of the family moved to a fashionable street in Paris during this time.
This is another I've just added to my list of TBR - For the Soul of France: Culture Wars in the Age of Dreyfus by Frederick Brown
In the aftermath of the Franco-Prussian War of 1870–71, a defeated and humiliated France split into cultural factions that ranged from those who embraced modernity to those who championed the restoration of throne and altar. This polarization—to which such iconic monuments as the Sacre-Coeur and the Eiffel Tower bear witness—intensified with a succession of grave events over the following decades: the crash of an investment bank founded to advance Catholic interests; the failure of the Panama Canal Company; the fraudulent charge of treason brought against a Jewish officer, Alfred Dreyfus, which resulted in a civil war between his zealous supporters and fanatical antagonists.
In this brilliant reconsideration of what fostered the rise of fascism and anti-Semitism in twentieth-century Europe, Frederick Brown chronicles the intense struggle for the soul of a nation, and shows how France’s deep fractures led to its surrender to Hitler’s armies in 1940.
Another curiosity I want to look into is to learn more about this Bonaparte - during my school days we were to understand that Napoleon was a bad guy and not to delve into his history with any admiration - My first trip to Paris I was confused to see buildings that memorialized Napoleon remembering my childhood education that he was not to be admired and was sent to Elba to die. Where as, this mid-century Bonaparte, a nephew I believe was not even brought to our attention - in fact this time in history was sorta swiped over with our own Civil War being front and center and then we skip to WWI - that entire century of European history was barely mentioned and it appears that within that century in Europe were the seeds and tiny shoots for not only WWI but for WWII as well as, what is going on in the middle east today. So I am curious.
Another is the duo written by Mary McAuliffe - she has the Dawn of the Belle Epoque... and Twilight of the Belle Epoque
And then I never have read Zola who was in the middle of bringing the Dryfus affair to the attention of the world.
http://www.law.uga.edu/dwilkes_more/his9_jaccuse.html
My copy of The Fortune of the Rougons arrived this week - it is the first in Zola's Rougon-Macquart series - I think there are 14 books in the series - we shall see what we shall see - I thought it a good idea to start with the first. Has anyone read this series or anything written by Zola?
Every book we read ends up being a stepping stone for more - I keep saying I am not going to bury myself in another exploration and here we go again - but to think there was so much that affects us today happening during the 'Beautiful Time' and we have no clue - maybe after reading some of this the news commentary about the push and pull in the EU will make more sense.
-
I like that, Bella - - "second rat work" ;)
We've just opened July's Book Club Online...David McCullough's big fat book about American's in Paris between 1830 and 1900 -
Of course he's devoted many pages to Miss Mary. Really interesting to read her in this context.
We won't be starting until Bastille Day...plenty of time to locate a copy of the book... The just-opened discussion can be found here - The Greater Journey: Americans in Paris (http://seniorlearn.org/forum/index.php?topic=4295.0)
Plenty of time to finish this book in the context of the period.
Many many years ago, I dimly remember reading Zola's famous letter - "J'accuse..." - nothing else. Barb, would you say that their differences over the Dreyfus Affaire was the final blow to the relationship between Mary C and Edgar Degas? I thought at first they were going to putter along, side by side, working in Paris to the end...though never resuming former relationship, of course - but friends. Mary has taken a firm stand on this, no longer awed by his opinions. He was by himself in his views on Dreyfus' guilt, wasn't he?
ps I just heard from my Library this morning - my copy of Dawn of the Belle Epoque is waiting for me to pick up! :D
-
eww fabulous - I need to read along so we can compare a few notes - terrifffffic
that is a difficult one isn't it - part of the break I think was Mary no longer feeling the 'need' for Degas to comment on her every move and thought - I do not think earlier she would have had the courage to act on or voice her objections to his stand - I see it as one more step on her road to freedom but then, the Dreyfus Affair, that we learn was bogus was a big issue at the time and was probably hitting old buttons for everyone.
There is so much written the same in all the online bios you have to wonder if they all copy from one another but aside - they all agree that "Edgar appreciated Catholic rituals and traditions but was not religious." Hmm I wonder - it is like growing up believing in Santa - you may not act on it but there is a pull of memory and an unheralded concept that belief in the miraculous and in goodness as a myth is OK. I think there was still a core connection to the teachings of the church if only that it was the saving grace for the peasants - Edgar Degas may have come from wealth but he did mix and live among the poor most of his artistic life in Paris. And then to top it off the fact that special dispensations were given by the Pope enabling Edgar’s two sibling to marry cousins suggests to me the church and its traditions were part of his upbringing that you do not entirely loose.
I remember when we read "The Hare..." I became so curious to find out when all this attitude about the Jews started - I must have read over a dozen books tracing the European history - Did not even Know that there was a pale in Russia - and traced back how, because of the burgeoning trade class emerging in Europe, this new middle class came from the peasants who. since before the fall of Rome were part of tribes and groups that wholesale became Catholic because their leader wanting the blessings of the then Pope in order to show he was the more powerful and the rightful crowned leader. The bourgeoisie who were Catholic, in order to protect what the Jews were masters at, Trade, blamed, scourged, attacked the Jews, including hanging them and all sorts of atrocities in order to protect their profits in this new middle class venture, trade.
I traced this back and back and realized the old Catholic cry "the Jews killed Jesus" had to be something that came about later - at the time those who followed Jesus were not called Catholic - the word was not in use for another 100 year or more after the death of Jesus. At the time they were all Jews - some who followed the Christ - Now Rome did have issue with the Jews, waging war and blowing up their temple in Jerusalem a few times.
The nearest I came to figuring the start of all of this for Catholics is when Constantine turned Catholic bringing along all the Romans, including his army that at his direction got into the middle of church politics, he soon changed his flag - there had been in the corner a small Jewish symbol that he changed to the symbol of the Catholic Church - also, until Constantine accepted hook line and sinker the Catholic religion and church the Catholics were being eaten by lions thanks to these Roman leaders - my gut says that the Catholics were not going to look at a gift horse except to give it all the sugar, carrots and apples they could find which could have included the Roman sentiment about Jews - plus it was one more way for Catholics to differentiate themselves from the Jews - thus forever more a cornerstone of Catholic thinking that was peasant thinking and later, the thinking of the bourgeoisie and ;) :D yes, the neck bone is connected to the shoulder bone etc. so that I could see how the roots of Degas' childhood would have set him up for his opinion against Dreyfus.
Mary being free now from her need for his OK and her background was not Catholic also, America was not exposed to that many Jews until the turn of the century she could easily have used her noggin instead of a knee jerk traditional viewpoint. And so, where I do not think it was a deciding factor I do think it was one more nail in the coffin that kept them separated.
-
The Dreyfus affair was hugely divisive in French society. Antisemitism was only one of the issues, though the most important. It became clear that the innocent Dreyfus had been framed in a cover-up of corruption in the army. He wasn't liked, and his Jewishness made him a good target. So there was an issue of corruption in the army, and as this was used as an excuse to try for more government supervision of the army, it became a political issue. Since the army officers came from the elite, Establishment politics played a part. So you took sides based on class feelings, political philosophy, religious prejudice, etc., and these could conflict in families, even in one person. Oh, yes, there was also the issue of simple justice, which some people actually put first. And it definitely conflicted with the other issues in some people.
I'm looking forward to learning more about this in our next discussion.
-
Thanks, Barb - and Pat, for your explanation..It seems that all of Paris - of France, was was in turmoil over the accusations against Dreyfus, but these differences over belief in his guilt, accentuated other differences. Mosts of the artists, writers, were in support of Dreyfus' innocence - excluding Degas. Zola's famous letter, beginning "J'accuse" was dated 1898, which marked a real break in the relationship between Mary and Degas. I guess I still have difficulty understanding Degas' stance. But do understand how it led to the break between these two.
There's a familiar portrait of Mary Cassatt by Degas - said to be the only portrait he did of her. I thought Mary was older in this portrait - that it was painted in their later years - as friends, before the Dreyfus Affair. But from what I can find, it was painted between 1880 and 1884 - (it took a while for Degas to finally finish it) -Mary would have been only in her late 30's then, right? This would have been painted shortly AFTER their encounter following the 1880 exhibit...
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e7/Edgar_Degas_-_Mary_Cassatt_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg/640px-Edgar_Degas_-_Mary_Cassatt_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg)
At the National Gallery of Art exhibition, we learned that this portrait was a gift to Mary from Degas. We also learned that she never liked it - and sold it without telling Degas. It is part of the permanent collection of the National Gallery - maybe Mary sold it in America? I think the story tells us something about Mary's state of mind at this time.
Something else -
"Cassatt herself was not particularly fond of this portrait and requested that the agent who was selling it for her not mention it was her portrait.
It is perhaps ironic that we see a portrait of a great artist holding what could be cards or small photographs, rather than surrounded by her paintings. "
http://gallery.sjsu.edu/paris/breaking_away/women_artist_1.htm
-
A question for the author - did young Julie Manet ever put the question to Degas, why didn't he marry Mary? Just wondering if that was recorded fact - or part of the fiction?
Could a marriage between these two have worked? I've been thinking about that since reading RLO's comment about becoming their fear of becoming "hopelessly entangled..." Isn't that what we all do when we marry? Don't you think they had enough understanding of one another - and respect for their need to work - to have had an entanglement that wasn't necessarily "entangled?"
-
PatH.,
So you took sides based on class feelings, political philosophy, religious prejudice, etc., and these could conflict in families, even in one person. Oh, yes, there was also the issue of simple justice, which some people actually put first. And it definitely conflicted with the other issues in some people.
I agree, look at how our country is divided today just on their feelings of this president and his policies. I actually have lost friendships, and relatives not speak to me, since Obama has been president. I could see where this could definitely put even more strain on Mary and Edgar's relationship. They were already a bit distant when the Dreyfus affair took place. But as we know they were able to stay in touch, and treat each other with civility, and yes even friendship to the end.
JoanP., This picture of Mary he painted is not very flattering at all. I don't blame her for not liking it. I remember earlier I posted a link to an article that stated, Edgar also was upset with Mary because she sold his paintings and he took it personal.
Seems these two lived their lifetime of knowing each other, filled with misconceptions, misunderstandings, and miscommunications. It's no wonder they missed out on love. To the very end each of them questioned each other's and their own feelings.....
"She didn't know, she didn't know."
When the words, "I love you," go unspoken, it always leaves wonder and doubt, that is why it is so important to say those three little words, that have such a huge impact.......
Well today is the final day, for the final chapter of the book....a couple of pages that pretty much sums it all up. For those who no longer have their book, or never were able to get one, I decided to give them these last pages of the last chapter:
Chapter Fifty-Three
"Yes, it was then that the light dimmed. The moment Edgar wondered whether he had ever loved her. Later, at his funeral, the light barely penetrated at all. The buried him in the cemetery in the show of Montmartre, so that he would always be at home.
Mary put down the magnifying glass. The night had completely fallen now. The lights in the studio were on; she didn't know how. No doubt Mathilde had come in and seen her reading the letters and retreated. She wished she hadn't because she could have used her help; she wasn't quite certain what she had read. Some of the lines had faded, and even his latest letters, written in Jeanne's hand, recalled a past unfamiliar to her. Sometimes she had to remember what she had wanted. It was the meaning of life, wasn't it, all that desire? But desire for what? Lately, she was waking up at night gasping for air, and in those strained few moments when it seemed that she might not be able to catch her breath, the past opened up to her in one shining image of color and light that by morning had receded and left her only with a sense of wonder. It was the heart that saw what your mind hid from you. Perhaps, as Edgar so reverently believed, it wasn't the mind that saw, after all.
Mathilde must have stoked the fire, too, for it flickered and flared with a savage, comforting warmth. Well, it was over now, all of it, or it soon would be. How odd it was to survive nearly everyone, to be the last, to be the one who might tell everyone the tale, though no one would ever care now, she thought. For what was lost love? It was the story of everyone's life. Hers, Edgar's, Berthe's, Edouard's. A multiplicity of confusion, a multiplicity of pain.
The letters had scattered: in her lap and on the divan and on the floor. Her memories. His. How slowly she moved now, what effort it took to gather them up. It seemed it was the work of her lifetime.
Was it a crime to burn memory? She didn't know. Memory is all we have, Degas had once said. Memory is what life is, in the end.
She would be ash herself, soon like all the others. She thrust the letters one by one into the fire. The flames took their time consuming the inked pages, turning indigo and vermillion and ocher, a dazzling radiance that penetrated the opaque wall of blindness that in the end had stolen from both of them their beloved avocation. How odd it was that in burning their lives__burning memory__color and light returned to her.
The pages burned on and on. And those flames the years evaporated, the things unsaid and foregone, the misunderstandings and misconceptions and subverted hopes, the things that would now never be said.
Paint love, he had once said to her. You must always paint love.
In this, she supposed he had given her all he could give.
And what had she given him?
She didn't know. She didn't know.
I feel so melancholy, after reading this final chapter. It really is what the ending of life is all about. Faded memory, thinking back to the years, wondering how you got here, how things you desired was not in your reach, those gone before you, and then you deciding how to let your ending be. Mary decides to burn the letters, she sees she is close to death, and ashes is what will be the final stage of everything that ever was. It seems fitting that the book should end in ashes:
Ashes to ashes
Meaning
We come from dust; we return to dust.
Origin
'Ashes to ashes' derives from the English Burial Service. The text of that service is adapted from the Biblical text, Genesis 3:19 (King James Version):
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou
taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
The 1662 version of the Book of Common Prayer indicated the manner and text of the burial service:
Then, while the earth shall be cast upon the Body by some standing by, the Priest shall say,
For as much as it hath pleased Almighty God of his great mercy to take unto himself the soul of our
dear brother here departed, we therefore commit his body to the ground; earth to earth, ashes to
ashes, dust to dust; in sure and certain hope of the Resurrection to eternal life, through our Lord
Jesus Christ; who shall change our vile body, that it may be like unto his glorious body, according to
the mighty working, whereby he is able to subdue all things to himself.
The term has been used frequently in literature and song lyrics.
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/ashes-to-ashes.html
I'm not sure either Mary or Edgar gave me any sense either were religious, or what religion or faith if any their families had. I don't think it really matters, this just seems fitting regardless of what religion.
-
I think it means something when she sells off a painting by Degas - for whatever reason. I put myself in her position. If an artist I greatly respect - and one who I consider a close friend, gives me a gift that he's been working on for four years, I
think KNOW I would keep it rather than sell it - especially if I knew it would hurt his feelings.
Since we won't be starting A Greater Journey: Americans in Paris until Bastille Day - July 14, we can keep this discussion going until the last posts are in.
What is interesting about this July selection - McCullough's book overlaps in time with the Dreyfus upheaval - from 1860-1900 when Americans are coming in great numbers into Paris...Americans such as Mary Cassatt.
-
JoanP., I agree. I think even if like the article stated, (paraphrasing) she was getting rid of a lot of her stuff near the end, she got rid of his paintings before Degas died, so he was aware of the fact she sold some of his paintings she owned. I can understand him being hurt and upset with her. IF, the article is factual, and she did get rid of his paintings, it could mean she was disconnecting from him, and he saw this. Maybe having the paintings around were too painful, reminders of the what could have been, or even reminders of the cruel ways he treated her.
I have items that have little monetary value, but are sentimental to me, I have kept from my grandmothers, mother and mother in law, and others who have passed on. These bring me comfort, and remind me of the love I shared with these people in my life. I didn't get the sense Edgar or Mary gave in to sentimental thoughts for things.
Glad to hear the discussion will remain open beyond June 30. I will be busy the next few days helping my son move his family into a new home. Then come July 3rd I will begin my vacation, I am so looking forward to. I love my daycare kids and grandkids, but being kid free for ten days is going to be glorious!!! I will drop in from time to time, especially to hear Robin's final comments and to wish he a farewell. This is the first book by Robin I have read, but won't be my last.
I have begun reading "The Divorce Papers" someone mentioned in the book club. Really enjoying this style of writing.
-
Hello, Ladies,
This is that delinquent MegR who's been away for a while. Tried to find old Senior Net site for book club & finally got new address from Ginny. Still trying to figure out this new set-up! Saw earlier that you were doing this book & wanted to join in. Went to B & N for it, but they didn't have it in stock - and I couldn't coordinate schedule to join this month. (Definitely will look for "IALY" to read independently. It sounds really intriguing. Would like to return to these in near future. Currently am in one for a Louise Penny mystery on-line. What's the next book and when does it start? Happy 4th to all on Friday! - MegR
-
Welcome Meg - did you have a nickname on the old SeniorNet - tell us a bit about yourself - Did you go to the Chicago Bash?
-
After reading how the young "rats" were the children of maids and laundress's I wondered when it changed - at least here in the states - that the ballet corp usually train in dance schools where their parents can afford to send them for years of lessons - we heard how in Russia there were children from very poor families who were brought to boarding schools to learn ballet but that is not typical here in the states and I had not heard of the state training youngsters in dance other than in Communist Russia. So when did the change occur I wonder...
So far have not found the answer but did come across this great site - the History of Ballet
http://www.thecharlestonballet.com/educationOutreach.pdf
-
Barbara, that link reminded me of granddaughter's "Russian" experience two years ago when she was 11. The Moscow Ballet came to town and she was selected to take part in the seasonal production of Nutcracker. It seems they did not travel from city to city with kids, so they selected from each city's dance schools. (We guessed they sold a lot of tickets to these kids' families.) Lindsay was delighted - until the Moscow troupe arrived...and would not talk to her - in fact, seemed annoyed at her attempt to communicate. (She's a dedicated swimmer now)
-
MegR - Welcome home! Are you the Meg, friend of Jo from Pittsburgh?
We look forward to seeing you in future discussions. On July 14, we'll be starting David McCullough's A Greater Journey about Americans in Paris between 1860 and 1900 ( no idea why he stopped at 1920 - things were just beginning to flap and roar! You can find it here-
http://seniorlearn.org/forum/index.php?topic=4295.0
Then we will probably go on to Kingsley Amis'' Lucky Jim - (don't know why I never read it before)
Really look forward to your return.
ps. Our author will not be happy to hear you were unable to get a copy of her book, I Always Loved You in time for this discussion. Know that the whole discussion will be available to you in the Archives, complete with the author's comments.
-
Barbara, I did participate in Senior Net book discussions a few years ago. Initially joined up when my friend "JoMeander" told me about the site. Think last few books read with SN group were Andre Dubus House of Sand and Fog and Grisham's Painted House. Am drawing a bit of a blank. I tried recently to find Senior Net site again for book discussions and had some difficulty. Finally emailed Ginny A to get new address. And here I am. Retired, frequently swamped with large family stuff -- and a reading fool! Remember your name, Traude's, Maryal (bless her soul), of course, Ginny A. and Joan P.
Am finding new site a little confusing & not sure how to use it. Took me a while to just find where to be able to post!
Is there a tutorial?
Where can I find a list of upcoming titles for discussion?
Know I'm too late for this one and definitely will read I Always Loved You independently. (I can't catch up for now & am in middle of another on-line one for a Louise Penny mystery). Really enjoyed SN's group & since our local live body group disbanded after some years, I'm looking forward to participating again.
Nickname? It was the result of a typing error (not hitting space bar!) - so it's still MegR!
-
Hi Joan! Yes! I'm that Pittsburgh gal & Jo is still a pal and a greatgma too! Nice to see you're still here too!
-
OH yes, I remember Jo as well - we have become so used to this site it is too easy to forget the pages are different - yes, SeniorNet became something else and moved to Wash.DC - Marcie who was on staff in Calif is here on these pages - Our next read is starting on Bastille Day, July 14 with David McCullough's The Greater Journey: Americans in Paris . - I hope this link works for you .
http://seniorlearn.org/forum/index.php?topic=4295.0
And again I hope I hope I hope this link brings you to the list of discussions - just hit the discussion title and when you post anything it will automatically let you know the number of post since you last posted and when you hit the title it will bring you to your last post.
http://seniorlearn.org/forum/index.php
there are other tricks of the trade and Jane or JoanP will probably be the best to help you
-
JoanP--
I find it interesting that so many folks want to parse the biography from the fiction. For an author, it's interesting to know that that question vexes so many readers. As to Julie Manet, Edgar Degas, along with Renoir, became very close to her after her mother died. Her father was already dead. She was well taken care of, she had aunts and cousins who ensured her comfort, but Degas and Renoir made certain to continue their association with her. Manet kept a diary, which you, too, can read. And now for the truth of what was said and not said: I can't say, because I wasn't there when any of their conversations took place. So ANY dialog in historical fiction is invented, even that which is based on letters and diaries, because later recollections of what was said are filtered through the person's memory who recorded them, which is inherently unreliable. This is not biography, it's fiction, which is hard for readers, I think, but one must allow for characters to come to life on their own and speak. Even dialog in biographies is filtered through the historian's point of view. That said, I derived that idea from intimations in Manet's diary. But what took place on any day between two given people more than a hundred years ago, unless recorded by a scribe or filmed, is impossible to say.
Everyone, I want to thank you so much for reading I Always Loved You. I enjoyed this back and forth very much, in addition to your intelligent and wide ranging commentary on my narrative. I was very touched by your welcome when I asked to intrude, and hope very much that it added to, rather than detracted from, your experience of reading the book. My very best wishes to everyone.
-
Robin - please accept our sincere gratitude for contributing to our enjoyment - and understanding of the relationship between these two artists. If we "tend to parse the biography," please remember that many of us knew little of Mary Cassatt, to say nothing of her relationship with Degas until we read your book.
Of course we have never considered the conversations in historical fiction to be anything but the author's creation...but knowing of the existence of your sources, such as Eugene Manet's diary, adds so much to the plausibility that young Julie would have been comfortable enough with Degas to ask him why he didn't marry Mary. Thank you so much for sharing this information.
Please let us know when your next book is published - know that you have friends here, and that you will be warmly welcomed here - again!
-
Robin, Thank you so much for dropping in on our discussion. It was not only an honor, but a pleasure to have you. You truly did clarify many things, and answered all my questions, which helped me with accepting some things I was not certain of. I never had heard of Degas or Cassatt until this book, so imagine how much I was able to learn, between fact and fiction. I feel you did a marvelous job in merging the facts with your fiction, creating a story of art and love, and the love of art. I know this book will stay with me for a very long time.
Good luck with writing your next book. Not that you need luck, if it's remotely as good as this book, I will be excited for your success and look forward to reading it.
Ciao for now~
-
Robin thank you for introducing yourself to us and adding to this discussion - your story has opened Pandora's box about so many subjects - We hear so much about Monet, Manet and a few others however, your book opens us to see the impact Degas had added to their careers.
Still so many questions - how you even started to become interested in Degas and Cassatt - did you travel to see where they lived - what kind of background research did you find necessary to tell their story -
I will look for your interviews and find out more - you have opened up all kinds of interests from some of the other artists and what happened to them to more about this 'beautiful time' in France - thank you for sharing with us - it made our discovery into your book that much more meaningful - and most of all thanks for chapter Forty-Nine - magic, pure magic what you did with words.
-
This discussion has really caught my imagination, aroused my curiosity, and filled me with admiration for an author who would take on the serious business of a love affair between two such strong characters as Degas and Cassatt. Who can deny that the relationship bore much fruit. From the link to the NGA exhibit:
"The affinity between the two artists is undeniable." "He changed my life." "She is someone who feels as I do." "They remained devoted friends for forty years."
I'm looking forward to reading I Always Loved You. But it will have to wait. I must see the show at the National Gallery, but not in Washington in July or August! Late September should be lovely. And when I've seen the pictures I'll buy the book to take away with me. In the meantime it's off to Paris in The Greater Journey. What a great prelude this dicussion has been to the next.
A question for the author. What about those two others, Edouard Manet and Berthe Morisot? Is there a book there?
-
Jonathan:
You'll have to read the book to find out about Manet and Morisot. They are a subplot in the book.
-
Jonathon, It's nice to see you drop in. Too bad you could not have shared the book discussion with us. I am sure you would have truly enjoyed it. Edgar, Mary, Edouard, and Berthe had complicated relationships. But keep in mind when reading the book it is historical/fiction, not biographical.
You ask, Who can deny that the relationship bore much fruit.
In my opinion there was no fruit born, if anything, I feel the two of them denied themselves, or resisted such a union. From all the research myself, others, including Robin, has delved into gives no proof of any such intimacy, although there was much speculation or suspect. I do feel Robin did a magnificent job in creating a relationship between Mary and Edgar, that one could imagine they possibly gave way once or twice to temptation. But then as Robin said, you'll have to read the book to find out.
I hope you enjoy your trip to Washington and the Museum, when you decide to go.
-
I will be reading your book, Robin. I could have guessed that Manet and Morisot would be a subplot. How do you feel about the Cassatt/Degas relationship bearing fruit? I'll admit I'm only guessing (in fact my wife tells me I'm too far out on this one), but I feel that Degas aroused some form of maternal longing in Cassatt. There seem to be a fair number of mother and child scenes in Cassatt's work. Two in JoanP's post several days ago: Mother and Child, and Mother Reading to Her Grandchildren And in books around the house I find three more: The Boating Party, Breakfast in Bed,, and, the loveliest of all, Mother and Child Against a Green Background. Perhaps Degas fathered them all. In an artistic sense. But my wife is back with evidence to the contrary. In William Wiser's The Great Good Place: American Expatriate Women in Paris Cassatt is asked "Wasn't Degas your teacher?" and she replies: "My dear boy, The Louvre was my teacher. The Louvre was the first most important teacher of us all. And nature was, (the teacher) for the Barbizon painters.
Cassatt's mother and child stuff seems supremely natural to me. Why couldn't she admit it?
Bellamarie, I loved your ashes to ashes post. Very moving. But these ashes left works of art behind and art is eternal.
-
Jonathon, Your wife is a very wise woman, listen to her, and listen to Mary Cassatt, "My dear boy, The Louvre was my teacher. The Louvre was the first most important teacher of us all. And nature was, (the teacher) for the Barbizon painters."
Mary was a stronger woman, and more talented than even she knew. I have said it throughout the book, from beginning to end, Mary was an exceptional artist in her own right. When you read the story I think you will have a different view. What seemed to arouse the maternal feeling in Mary, or I like to think of it as "inspiration," was the beauty of seeing mothers with their children. I don't think Degas had anything to do with it. If anything she saw how much being a mother involved with her friend Berthe, and knew it was not something she wanted in her life. It did not negate her being able to paint the tenderness and love she saw in mothers and their children.
But these ashes left works of art behind and art is eternal.
Indeed art is eternal, but their lives and letters were not, and that is where the book ends...... in ashes.
You do not do the story, or author justice, and you can only understand, and appreciate Robin's creative work of art in writing this wonderful love story that did not develop, by reading the book in it's entirety. And again, keep in mind, it is historical/fiction not biographical, as Robin has stated, so the reader is not confused, using sources that may attempt to negate her own story. That's the wonderful thing about fiction......it's what the author chooses it to be.
-
I've been traveling, and without internet for several days. Now I'm wired again; thank goodness the discussion is still open.
The last section (don't have the book, so can't give chapters): the tone here is absolutely pitch-perfect. Not only is the course of the relationship likely, but the words and thoughts of the two ring true.
I especially liked the moment when Mary uncovered the life mask of Degas as he was when they were close. I could see and feel myself feeling and saying exactly what she did.
-
Glad we kept the light on for you, PatH - and for anyone else who has been without Internet the last few days. A great way to express the last chapters of the book - Mary's visit to Degas. "absolutely pitch-perfect." It was in this section that I was able to relax - stop "parsing the biography" - and give myself up to the author's "fiction." A most satisfying ending. Not that I didn't wish that their lives hadn't taken a different turn long before... You could just feel their regret. It was such a realization pf the choices we make and regret ...gee, I can't even finish the thought without going into my own "biography."
The author's research led her to Paris and the to the mask she located among Degas' belongings. She has translated her own stunned reaction at viewing the mask - the "life mask" - into Mary's memory of the younger Degas, when she uncovered it in Degas' studio at the end. Didn't you come to tears when reading that section? As PatH says - "absolutely pitch-perfect!"
Jonathan - you do know that you will be able to follow this discussion as you read the book? - It will be in the SeniorLearn Archives (see main page.) Will provide a link once this is moved.
How about we stay open through the weekend for those unable to come in before this? Happy 4th everyone!
-
Interesting - as I aged and looked at aspects of my life I toyed with regret and realized there are always multiple paths - to have followed another would mean other aspects of my life would be different - I think we would like to avoid pain and so we see the wrenching decisions we made and are reminded again of how painful, that if we just went in that direction but then we also look at the paths we chose and we think had we chose differently we would not have experienced pain or the bigger realization the choice did not bring about the results we hoped for.
And that is what i wonder if Mary is contemplating - not so much the regret of sharing a life that alone she could not have created. Degas would have had to also wanted a married life - but then Mary may be thinking just being married and imagining her own children with her regret being her old nemesis of not being satisfied with her art and now that she can no longer see to paint her regret is she gave up her perceived happiness to be an artist and her art never came to the level she hoped.
-
So, we are left with three questions it seems.
In her last days did Mary regret not having children of her own? Maybe. At one time..But not now.
Does Mary seem to regret not having shared her life with Degas? Mary was a realist. She knew his art was all-consuming. But Mary? Does she regret the decision made so long ago so that she too, would be free to pursue her own work?
Please join us in the upcoming July discussion...We can talk about this more, as David McCullough considers her life and art in -
The Greater Journey: Americans in Paris (http://seniorlearn.org/forum/index.php?topic=4295.msg225320#new)l