I Always Loved you by Robin Oliveira~ June Book Club Online

[JoanP]

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

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
National Gallery of Art Exhibition of Degas/Cassatt paintings
Portrait of Mary Ellison ~ Mary Cassatt
Mary Cassatt's many paintings
Links to Impressionist Art discussed in this book
Interview with Robin Oliveira concerning those letters

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

[bellamarie]

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~

 

[JoanP]

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?

[bellamarie]

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.    

[JoanP]

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!

[JoanK]

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.

[JoanP]

Ah, but JoanK - did you notice Barb did not attempt his last name?  Did you avoid that on purpose, Barb?

Here's one of Pissarro's landscapes - painted in 1879.  Maybe for this exhibition?

[ANNIE]

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.

[ANNIE]

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. 

[pedln]

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.

[CallieOK]

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"?

[JoanP]

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!

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!

[JoanP]

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?

[BarbStAubrey]

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.  

[bellamarie]

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~

[JoanP]

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.

[JoanP]

"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" -

[JoanP]

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?

[pedln]

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

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.

[CallieOK]

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.

[bellamarie]

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~

[pedln]

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


Le figaro

[PatH]

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.

[CallieOK]

Oliveira explains this in her Authors Notes at the end of the book.

[bellamarie]

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.

[mabel1015j]

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

[bellamarie]

So very sorry to hear about your family losses and illnesses, Jean.  My thoughts and prayers go out to you and your loved ones.

[mrssherlock]

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.

[PatH]

Better late than never, Jackie.

Jean, I'm so sorry for your losses.

[JoanP]

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.

[BarbStAubrey]

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

[BarbStAubrey]

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. 

[BarbStAubrey]

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."

[BarbStAubrey]

Ruins of the City Hall,  Hôtel de Ville de Paris, 1871

[BarbStAubrey]

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.

[mrssherlock]

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.

[JoanP]

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...

[BarbStAubrey]

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
 
 

[BarbStAubrey]

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.

[JoanP]

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

Guess what?  My Library has many copies on the shelf - NO HOLDS - except for mine!