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

[PatH]

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?  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

[bellamarie]

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.....,

[PatH]

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.

[bellamarie]

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~

[BarbStAubrey]

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

[pedln]

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.

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.

[bellamarie]

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~

[BarbStAubrey]

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.

[bellamarie]

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.

[PatH]

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

And here's another view of the petit rat, Marie:

http://www.nortonsimon.org/collections/browse_artist.php?name=degas,%20edgar&resultnum=64

[BarbStAubrey]

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.

[JoanP]

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."

[JoanP]

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!

[JoanP]

 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?

[bellamarie]

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. 

[PatH]

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.

[JoanP]

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.

[JoanP]

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."

[JoanP]

 - The finished painting...

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...

[PatH]

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.

[JoanP]

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.

[BarbStAubrey]

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.

[ANNIE]

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?   

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"!

[bellamarie]

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.

[BarbStAubrey]

"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.

[BarbStAubrey]

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.

[JoanP]

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!

[JoanK]

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

[JoanP]

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...

[JoanP]

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

[bellamarie]

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.

[JoanP]

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

[BarbStAubrey]

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

[BarbStAubrey]

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

[ANNIE]

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?!

[BarbStAubrey]

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.

[BarbStAubrey]

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

[ANNIE]

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??

[BarbStAubrey]

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



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.



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/

[BarbStAubrey]

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.