The Turning Point
The Salon des Refusés, held in Paris in 1863, served as a turning point in the development of modern art. This exhibition was a direct response to the rejection of 2,218 submissions to the official Salon, which had been a cornerstone of French artistic culture since its founding in 1648 by Cardinal Mazarin, the chief minister of France.
By examining the history of the Salon, we can gain a deeper understanding of the artistic landscape of 19th-century France. The École des Beaux-Arts, which had been the primary institution for artistic training since its establishment, had a profound influence on the development of French art. The official Salon, which showcased the work of recent graduates of the École, was a platform for artists to gain recognition and establish their careers.
The Salon des Refusés, authorized by Napoleon III, provided an alternative platform for artists whose work had been rejected by the official Salon. This event not only challenged the traditional artistic establishment but also paved the way for the emergence of new artistic movements, such as Impressionism and Realism.
The staggering number of 2,218 rejected submissions to the official Salon in 1863 was a testament to the deep-seated dissatisfaction among French artists. Many of these individuals felt a sense of injustice and resentment, having been arbitrarily rejected by the State-appointed magistrate who governed the Salon. The École des Beaux-Arts and the Salon itself had long been emblematic of the entrenched power structures of the ancien régime, institutions that had somehow managed to endure even the tumultuous upheaval of the French Revolution.
It is indeed remarkable that the École and the Salon had survived the Revolution, a period of profound social and cultural transformation. By the mid-19th century, however, it had become clear that reform was long overdue. Napoleon III, aware of the potential for social unrest and the growing discontent among the artistic community, took a calculated step to address the situation. In a move aimed at placating the frustrated artists and avoiding further turmoil, he decreed the establishment of a separate exhibition, the Salon des Refusés, where the rejected artists' submissions could be showcased.
The Salon des Refusés marked a pivotal moment in the relationship between art and politics in France. From this point forward, the creation and reception of art would be inextricably linked to the broader social and cultural landscape. When viewers express confusion or frustration with contemporary art, what they are often revealing is a sense of disorientation, a feeling of uncertainty about how to navigate the increasingly complex and politicized world of art.
By establishing the Salon des Refusés, Napoleon III had temporarily defused the situation, implementing a policy of tolerance that averted further social unrest. However, this decision ultimately had the unintended consequence of shifting public opinion against the very artists who had been given a platform. The rejected submissions, which had been seen as a manifestation of the artistic community's discontent, were now widely regarded as lacking in artistic merit. This reversal of fortunes would have significant implications for the development of modern art, as the boundaries between art and politics continued to blur and the notion of "good" art became increasingly tied to the values and ideologies of the ruling class.
The inclusion of Eduard Manet's provocative painting, Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe, in the Salon des Refusés was a particularly incendiary moment. The public was scandalized by the work's perceived licentiousness and perceived affront to traditional values. However, in a telling turn of events, the public's outrage actually ended up vindicating the government's strategy. The Academy, which had been the primary target of the artists' discontent, was relatively muted in its criticism, whereas the public's vociferous objections proved to be the perfect foil for the Emperor's policy of temporizing with dissent.
This unexpected outcome demonstrated the Emperor's astute political instincts, as he had correctly calculated that the public's outrage would serve to diffuse the situation and legitimize the government's actions. The success of this policy led to the establishment of subsequent Salons des Refusés in 1874, 1875, and 1886, each of which provided a platform for artists to showcase their work, while also allowing the government to maintain a semblance of control over the artistic community.
The École des Beaux-Arts, as well as the subsequent Salons des Refusés, managed to weather the tumultuous events of the Paris Commune in 1871, although the Emperor Napoleon III himself would ultimately meet a different fate. As the social and cultural landscape of France continued to evolve, so too did the tastes and preferences of the art world. The Commune's brutal suppression would have far-reaching consequences, but it also paved the way for the emergence of a new artistic movement in the very same city that had been the site of such violence.
Montmartre, the location of the infamous May 1871 massacre, would become a crucible for the development of Modernism, drawing artists and intellectuals from across the city. Pablo Picasso, among others, would be drawn to this vibrant and revolutionary hub, not only by the romance of the Commune's ideals, but also by the innovative ideas and artistic experimentation that were taking place in the cafes and studios of Montmartre. The intersection of politics, art, and revolution would shape the course of modern art, and Montmartre would emerge as a key site of creative ferment and intellectual curiosity.
The 20th century was a transformative period for the art world, marked by the proliferation of various -isms, each representing a distinct artistic movement and corresponding ideology. Artists began to identify themselves with specific styles, such as Cubism, Expressionism, and others, which in turn became closely tied to their individual identities and artistic practices. This phenomenon was not unlike the formation of political parties in a democratic system, where distinct factions coexist and interact within a larger coalition.
In this context, the styles of art functioned as competing ideologies, each with its own agenda and platform. As long as the art world remained a relatively open and inclusive space, where artists were free to express themselves and engage with one another, the system seemed to function harmoniously. However, the dynamics of this coalition were inherently fragile, and the art world was not immune to the tensions and conflicts that often arise in democratic societies.
The year 1907 was a pivotal moment in the trajectory of Modern art, marked by a confluence of significant events that would shape the course of artistic history. It was also a year that would witness a pivotal moment in the life of Adolf Hitler, a young Austrian artist who had set his sights on the prestigious Academy of Fine Arts in Vienna. Twice, in 1907 and 1908, Hitler submitted his work to the Academy, only to be met with rejection on both occasions.
The rejection was not merely a setback, but a deeply personal affront to Hitler's artistic ambitions and ego. His work, as judged by the Academy's standards, was deemed lacking in talent and skill. The perceived insult was a catalyst for a deep-seated resentment that would fuel Hitler's artistic disposition and eventually, his broader ideological ambitions. The rejection would become a defining moment in his life, a turning point that would shape his worldview and inform his subsequent actions.
When Adolf Hitler rose to power, he would turn the very concept of the Salon des Refusés on its head, inverting the original intention of providing an alternative platform for rejected artists. Instead, Hitler's regime would deliberately marginalize and suppress the very art that had once been celebrated as a manifestation of dissent and innovation. The art that met the Nazi's approval, on the other hand, would be presented as the victim of persecution, in need of protection and safeguarding from the supposed threat of "degenerate" art.
This reversal of values was a masterful stroke of propaganda, as it allowed the Nazi regime to cast itself as the champion of artistic virtue, while simultaneously demonizing those artists who refused to conform to their ideology. The term "degenerate" art, with its connotations of moral decay and corruption, would become a potent tool for stigmatizing and silencing any artist who dared to challenge the Nazi's narrow vision of what constituted acceptable art.
The consequences of repression are always far-reaching and ultimately self-defeating. The Nazi regime's brutal suppression of artistic dissent, while intended to maintain control and crush opposition, ultimately served to galvanize resistance and forge unbreakable bonds of allegiance among those who dared to challenge their ideology. The aftermath of Hitler's defeat saw a significant shift in the way artists were perceived, with many being accorded a newfound reverence and respect as a way of compensating for the atrocities committed against them under the Nazi regime.
The notion that artists were vulnerable to persecution at the hands of the state had a profound impact on the art world, making post-war art criticism a highly sensitive and complex issue. The fear was that any criticism of an artist's work might be perceived as a personal attack, rather than a legitimate evaluation of the art itself. This led to a culture of caution and self-censorship, where critics and curators were reluctant to engage with challenging or provocative art, lest they be accused of targeting the artist personally.
In his influential book, "Saint Genet, Comédien et Martyr," Jean-Paul Sartre offered a profound exploration of the artist as a figure of profound significance and tragic fate. Through his study of the life and work of Jean Genet, a convicted criminal and self-proclaimed outcast, Sartre revealed the complex dynamics of profane martyrdom, a phenomenon in which the artist's very existence becomes a testament to their suffering and persecution.
Genet's status as a convicted criminal and social outcast made him, in Sartre's eyes, a quintessential victim of state oppression. As an artist, Genet's writing was seen as a form of imaginative performance, one that not only expressed his inner turmoil but also served as a form of redemption. Sartre's decision to champion Genet's cause was motivated by a deep sense of empathy and solidarity, as he sought to balance Genet's troubled relationship with the law against the power of his artistic imagination. By doing so, Sartre underscored the notion that the artist's work is often a manifestation of their very being, a reflection of their struggles and contradictions.
Jean-Paul Sartre's advocacy for Jean Genet marked a pivotal moment in the history of art, serving as a clarion call for the importance of artistic expression and the artist's role as a champion of the marginalized and oppressed. This landmark case would set the stage for the culture wars of the present day, where the artist's personal background and experiences are often seen as a crucial factor in determining the value and relevance of their work.
In the aftermath of Modernism, the notion that an artist's art is only truly challenging if they have a troubled or unconventional past has become a dominant trope. If an artist is perceived as not having personally struggled or been victimized, their work is often dismissed as insufficiently provocative or innovative. This emphasis on the artist's personal narrative has created a culture where the authenticity of the artist's experience is seen as a key factor in determining the value of their art, rather than the artistic merit of the work itself.
The post-Modernist obsession with the artist's personal narrative has led to a curious paradox, where the artist's individual experiences and background are often prioritized over the artistic merit of their work. This emphasis on the artist's biography has created a culture where certain artists are stigmatized for not conforming to a particular mold of suffering or marginalization.
In light of this, it is ironic that the art world has historically been a site of repression and stigmatization, where certain individuals and groups have been excluded or marginalized. Rather than perpetuating this cycle of exclusion, we should be working to remove the stigmas that have been attached to certain artists and art forms. By doing so, we can create a more inclusive and equitable art world, where all artists are valued and respected for their contributions.
(Author's draft edited with Llama 3.1 [88] General Purpose Chat)