Early Chapters Discussion: Meissonier's Popularity

[Jessica]

Chapter 1 gives a sense of Meissonier's grandeur in the 1860s. What factors do you think account for his almost mind-boggling popularity? Had you heard of Meissonier before reading this book?

---

Reply to this message to discuss any of these topics. Or start your own new topic by clicking "New Message."

Note: This topic refers to events through Chapter Ten, "Famous Victories." Some readers of this thread may not have finished the book. If you are referring to events that occur after Chapter Ten, please use "Spoiler Warning" in the subject line of your post. Thanks!

[Jessica]

This is one of the questions I kept asking myself throughout the reading: "If Meissonier was such a big shot, how have I never heard of him?"

I'm sure his name came up at some point in my life, but he just doesn't have the longevity that Monet and Renoir have. So I have to admit that I didn't know a thing about Meissonier before reading this book.

But now, I think he's unforgettable! Using himself as a model for Napoleon, subjecting his models (human and animal) to excruciating sessions, his huge success and equally large ego -- all of these things were fascinating to me.

But most interesting is the story of how he made a fortune painting the bonshommes, but never really felt like he was living up to his true potential.

What does everyone else think of Meissonier? Had you heard of him? (I'm dying to know!)

Jessica
Book Club Editor

Message Edited by Jessica on 04-02-2007 01:44 PM

[Mariposa]

I know quite a bit about art and never heard of Meissonier. I thought the Napoleon part was hilarious...sitting naked on the horse posing for the painting. But more amusing was how he compared his physique to that of Napoleon: "I have exactly his thighs!" The book reads like a novel and for me that is a compliment to a non-fiction writer.

Lizabeth

[ross_king]

I should point out ... there's actually no shame in admitting you've never heard of Meissonier. Quite a few people who've studied art history - sometimes 19th-century French art - have told me that *they* hadn't heard of Meissonier. As I describe towards the end of the book, there are some very particular reasons why Meissonier has vanished in a puff of smoke. But Jessica's right - that's an injustice to the old devil, and so I've tried to revive him. It's impossible to understand 19th-century French art, or how modern art began, without coming to terms with him.

Ross

[Mariposa]

I found this to be very interesting:

"Landscapes, protraits and still ifes were all thought inferior because, unlike history paintings, they could not impart moral precepts to the spectator..."(8)

So Impressionism broke new ground not solely because of the style of painting but also the subject matter. I always thought it dealt mainly with a breakthrough way of painting that captured an impression, rather than an exact reproduction. Also the way the impressionists dealt with light and color challenged traditional artists. But yes, it was also the subject matter. That now makes so much sense to me. So "The Absinthe Drinker" challenged viewers not only because of its brushstrokes, etc. but also because Manet painted a drunk! That was a far cry, of course, from Napoleon on a horse.

Lizabeth

[sweetnaranja]

I am a non-art person who likes to view painting and sculpture but I do not have any background and just a little knowledge about the works and painters (I just know what I like!), and so before my husband and I took a trip to Paris and were planning on visiting several art museums, I thought I might read a little about the art scene. The Judgement of Paris, as another participant in this discussion wrote, reads like a novel - it was intriguing. I actually finished the book after the trip, but it was meaningful to have seen many of the works discussed in the story.
On another occasion, I was visiting a friend of the family who is a professor of art history and I enthusiastically told her about a few snippets from the story. Manet complained that another painter stole his name and his work was not any good! ( He was referring to Monet at the exhibition room). The critics and public thought that the model in Manet's paintings was a prostitute and his Dejeuner sur l'Herbe and Olivia were pornographic -funny how our standards have changed - although I must admit that in the Dejeuner sur l'Herbe the fact that the men were dressed in fancy clothes and the woman was naked made me feel like they were using her as a source of entertainment. After my discussion with the friend, she sent me a book of work from a local artist and invited me to visit his gallery for a private viewing!
I never heard of Meissonier but I did see some of his paintings recently in Baltimore. I visited several museums there and I can't remember which one had the paintings, but it was probably the Baltimore Museum of Art.
I learned so much from the book, and it was such a story!

[ross_king]

Hi Lizbeth

The subject matter of a painting counted for a lot in the 19th century. History painting came top of the heap - i.e., scenes from classical mythology, the Bible, or national history (hence the popularity of Napoleon as a subject). Lots of opportunity there for patriotism, celebration, and moral instruction. It was followed by portraits (“great men”), with landscape and still-life trailing behind. Humble scenes - like people in a cafe or sitting by a riverbank - were often frowned on by the more conservative critics who wanted “noble and elevated” subject matter. Art was intended by many members of the Académie to be “morally improving.” There’s a great quote from an art critic named Charles Blanc (whom I discuss in the book): writing in 1870, he laments how art has fallen from the “heights” of the Sistine Chapel to “peasant subjects.”

As I hope I succeeded in showing, painting a “humble” subject - an industrial scene, or laborers in a field - was often taken as a politically provocative act. Painters who did such scenes were suspected of radical political tendencies (which was true in the case of some of them, such as Courbet and Millet). I quote the Comte de Nieuwerkerke (that terrible snob), who disliked the landscapes of the Barbizon School: “This is the painting of democrats,” he wrote, “of men who don’t change their underwear.” Talk about an ad hominem attack!

I wonder ... do we still expect moral guidance from painters and writers today? Or have ethics and aesthetics completely split?

Ross

[ross_king]

"I never heard of Meissonier but I did see some of his paintings recently in Baltimore. I visited several museums there and I can't remember which one had the paintings, but it was probably the Baltimore Museum of Art."

I think the painting you would have seen is a portrait of Napoleon on horseback that’s in the Walters Art Museum in Baltimore, which has some really great 19th-century works.

There are a number of other places to see Meissonier’s works in the United States (should you be so inclined). I discuss Friedland, his most famous painting - it’s usually in the Metropolitan Museum in New York, but the Met has sent much of its 19th-century French collection on tour: it was at the MFA in Houston in February and March (and might still be there?), but it’ll be going to Frankfurt for the summer, then back to NYC when the galleries reopen in Fall 2007.

The Cleveland Museum of Art has a couple of Meissoniers, and there’s a nice landscape of his at the Philadelphia Museum of Art (it shows just how good Meissonier could have been if he stuck to landscape!). Two classic little Meissoniers are in Omaha, at the Joslyn - one of a cellist, the other of a print collector. They give, more than any of Meissonier’s other paintings in America, an indication of his style, and why he became so famous. They might not be to our taste today, but they set the standard in the middle of the 19th century.

There's not a lot of Meissonier on show in Paris, but you can find him in a dark corner of the Musée d'Orsay. Manet, of course, is much more prominently featured there, with both Olympia and Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe on view.

The densest concentration of Meissonier on earth is in the Wallace Collection in London. I discuss Sir Richard Wallace's interest in Meissonier, and how the paintings ended up in London. So that's the place to go if you want to have the full Meissonier experience ....

[sweetnaranja]

I did visit the Walters Art Museum on my trip to Baltimore so that was where the Meissonier painting was on display. Thanks for the correction.

[Mariposa]

This is so funny that I have to share it. I am in two other book clubs...anyhow in one (CafedeiLetterati) I mentioned this book and recommended it etc. Then one of the members said (posted) that she knew the painting The Campaign of France by Meissonier because she had the painting in a puzzle she did once!!!! Can you imagine that painting as a puzzle? Well, I guess it is still acknowledged today as important art!

Lizabeth

[Mariposa]

Okay so now no one is going to believe me, but I swear this is true. I was just doing the crossword puzzle in New York magazine a few minutes ago which I do weekly and guess what 69 down is?

"Olympia" painter...

How quickly I filled in the boxes!

Lizabeth

[ross_king]

---

dianearbus wrote:
This is so funny that I have to share it. I am in two other book clubs...anyhow in one (CafedeiLetterati) I mentioned this book and recommended it etc. Then one of the members said (posted) that she knew the painting The Campaign of France by Meissonier because she had the painting in a puzzle she did once!!!! Can you imagine that painting as a puzzle? Well, I guess it is still acknowledged today as important art!

Lizabeth

---

The other place The Campaign of France appears is on a paperback (Penguin?) edition of Tolstoy's War and Peace. That's very appropriate, since all Napoleonic scholars know who Meissonier was.

At least The Campaign of France would make an easier jigsaw puzzle than many of the Impressionist paintings. Imagine the trouble you could get into with one of Manet's Waterlily scenes!

[sweetnaranja]

Olympia not Olivia! I just realized my mistake - oh, well, sorry.

Sharon

[Jessica]

---

dianearbus wrote:
Okay so now no one is going to believe me, but I swear this is true. I was just doing the crossword puzzle in New York magazine a few minutes ago which I do weekly and guess what 69 down is?

"Olympia" painter...

How quickly I filled in the boxes!

Lizabeth

---

Lizabeth-
I had the very same moment last night, myself!!

[marlohill]

It was very surprising to me to find that the paintings had hidden meanings in them, like Manet's Le Bain. How more fascinating art is when you know the history behind it! I had never heard of Meissonier either and found it interesting that he had pioneered painting outdoors. Actually, about the only thing I know about artwork is the abundance I am learning from your book, Mr. King, and from the Kirk Douglas movie about Vincent Van Gogh. I always liked that movie a whole lot, but my Mom finds it depressing. I think Kirk Douglas does a really good job playing the part of Vincent Van Gogh. His son, Michael Douglas, said when they were little and the movie came to the part where Vincent Van Gogh cuts off his ear, the boys ran out of the theatre. They thought their Dad had really done that! About your thoughts on whether we can expect moral guidance from painters and writers today...definitely not from television and the movie industry. (Although, I like that Vincent Van Gogh movie!) The experts keep saying that violence and immorality on television isn't having any effect on our youth today, yet why do they teach cooking classes on television? It is something that you can learn by watching, just the way the other negative traits can be learned.

[ross_king]

---

marlohill wrote:
I think Kirk Douglas does a really good job playing the part of Vincent Van Gogh. His son, Michael Douglas, said when they were little and the movie came to the part where Vincent Van Gogh cuts off his ear, the boys ran out of the theatre. They thought their Dad had really done that!

---

I’ve always been a fan of the Irving Stone books and their movie versions: Lust for Life and The Agony and the Ecstasy. They were one of my earliest introductions to art history - but more important, they introduced me to the characters (Vincent Van Gogh and Michelangelo) and stories behind the paintings.

Two other good movies about Vincent Van Gogh are "Vincent," done sometime in the late 1980s, with John Hurt narrating, and "Vincent & Theo," directed a few years later by Robert Altman. But warn your mother - they’re both really sad!