Courbet liked to utilise engaging devices and for this canvas he represents the major figure as seen from the back, encouraging the viewer to interact with the scene before the figure, giving an eye witness element to the painting. We are at once drawn into the rustic chamber, encouraged to take part in the daily labour of the young women. The powerful ellipse movement of Zoe’s actions are the captivating focal point of the composition. Her sensuous sway of arms and the falling trail of grain render it a compelling scene of domestic drama.
The Wheat Sifters highlights the important role of the woman as a worker, who is not concerned with elements of personal charm, but is prepared to toil hard for her family. Only the sleeping cat and the young boy, believed by some art historians to be the artist’s illegitimate son Desiree Binet, are exempt from the monotonous work. The child appears separate to the action of the scene, as he looks curiously into the wooden crate; his tender age precluding him from the work.
After The Wheat Sifters was exhibited at the 1855 Salon, it was taken to the 1861 exhibition of the Society of Friends of Art in Nantes. This organisation immediately bought the canvas for 4,000 francs on behalf of the city’s Museum of Fine Arts.
Detail
Detail
Detail
Detail
Detail
Detail
The Artist’s Studio
A REAL ALLEGORY OF A SEVEN YEAR PHASE IN MY ARTISTIC AND MORAL LIFE
Courbet was the intimate of the leading writers and philosophers of his day, winning him the distinction of being the leader of a new school of Realism, which would eventually prevail over all other contemporary movements. One of the enduring beliefs of this Realism was a lifelong attachment to the traditions and customs of the artist’s native province, the Franche-Comté, especially his birthplace, Ornans, a particularly beautiful town of the province. After a brief sojourn in Switzerland, Courbet returned to Ornans and in late 1854 he set about work on a wildly ambitious project: an enormous canvas, which he completed quickly in six weeks. The Artist’s Studio (1855) was designed as an allegory of the many influences on Courbet’s artistic life, each portrayed as human figures from varying levels of society. Of the painting, Courbet stated that it “represents society at its best, its worst, and its average.” The artist himself appears in the centre of the canvas, demanding our immediate attention, signalling his brazen, self-advertising personality. He is working on a landscape on an easel, while turning his back to a nude model that symbolises academic tradition. The landscape conveys the importance of the natural world, which in turn Courbet saw as a model for human life. The overriding message of the painting suggests that art, and the serious love of art, are essential for a good life. The people that “live on life” are ranged behind Courbet at work. His endeavours are admired by the watching boy, whilst another child is stretched on the floor drawing, seeking to attain the same skills of the artist.
Courbet includes portraits of persons known to him to serve as both representations of themselves and as symbols of deeper meanings. On the right side of the canvas, we can identify the poet Charles Baudelaire, absorbed in a large tome of poetry. We can also make out the Realist writer Champfleury seated near the foreground, while the poet Max Buchon and Courbet’s patron Alfred Bruyas are featured in the group of supporters at the back. By the window, Courbet introduces a pair of lovers, believed not to be specific individuals, but representative of the artist’s views. In a letter to a friend he explains that these are, “the people who live on life... the friends, the workers, the people who love the world of art.” To the left, the mystery of the painting appears to deepen. This group of gloomy figures, their heads bowed down in dejection, are described by Courbet as representing “the other world of trivial life, the people, misery, poverty, wealth, the exploited and the exploiters that live on death.” These figures are not individuals known to the artist, but serve as contemporary types, which include a debt collector, a rug merchant and a ragged mother nursing her child.
In the foreground, the seated figure of a trainer of hunting dogs, frequently regarded as a poacher, has been identified as Courbet’s satirical representation of Napoleon III, well known for his ridiculed waxed moustache and prominent boots. It was forbidden for the emperor to be the subject of caricature in the press and he was often symbolised by a boot. Courbet’s depiction of Napoleon III as a mere poacher, while seated among the group that “live on death,” would be a consistent act of the rebel artist, who was never shy of voicing his criticisms of the Emperor.
Housed today in the Musée d’Orsay, Paris, the bold painting was refused by the jury for the 1855 Universal Exposition and so Courbet, with the financial support of a friend, opened his own Pavillon du Réalisme (Pavilion of Realism) to exhibit his paintings in a site close to the official exposition. This was a unique forerunner of the various Salon des Refusés that would serve the Impressionists towards the end of the nineteenth century. Courbet was eager to show to the international audience attending the Universal Exposition the validity of a new kind of art that would embrace the realities of its own time. Courbet’s one-man exhibition was a manifesto and The Artist’s Studio was the central focus of his new theory of art. Courbet was not interested in presenting his studio in the descriptive genre manner typical of the period, but intended to construct an image that portrayed the significance of art in human society. Alas, the enterprise failed. The great master Eugène Delacroix alone praised Courbet’s talent and audacity.
Detail
Detail
Detail
Detail
Detail
Detail
Detail
Detail
Detail
Detail
Detail
Jules Fleury-Husson (1821-1889), who wrote under the name Champfleury, was a French art critic and novelist, a prominent supporter of the Realist movement in painting and fiction.
Eugène Delacroix (1798-1863) was regarded from the outset of his career as the leader of the French Romantic school.
Courbet, c. 1858
Young Ladies beside the Seine (Summer)
Painted between late 1856 and early 1857, Les Demoiselles des bords de la Seine was presented to the Paris Salon jury and was accepted and exhibited on 15 June 1857, along with two portraits and three landscapes. Eventually, it was purchased by Courbet’s friend and patron Étienne Baudry (1830-1908), who left it to the artist’s daughter Juliette, who in turn bequeathed it to the French state in 1906. Today, it hangs in the Petit Palais, an art museum in the 8th arrondissement of Paris. A smaller sketch of the subject is held in London’s National Gallery.
Courbet’s painterly skill in rendering the fabrics of the young ladies is a salient feature of the canvas. His brushwork employs a subtle range of white tones, conveying the rich texture of the cashmere shawl and the lace-like muslin. The artist also demonstrates his confident handling of decorative patterns in the garments, adding to the impression of a sensuous scene.
The composition features two reclining working class girls, apparently enjoying the leisurely calm of a Sunday afternoon beside the River Seine. The figure closest to us, almost seeming to spill out into our plane, is apparently dressed in only her undergarments, as she dozes with a satiated expression of rapture. She wears fine, skin-tight translucent yellow gloves, heightening the theme of thinly veiled eroticism. Beneath the leaves of the low tree, we can see a moored boat with a hat, suggesting the temporary absence of a male, likely to return at any moment. The other lady is located more in the background and appears distracted, as she peers off into the left distance, lost in her thoughts. Perhaps she is thinking of her own love and has yet to have the same satisfaction as her companion. Whether they are innocent city shop girls enjoying their Sunday afternoon with an unknown male friend or, as some would argue, they are in fact among the many prostitutes that were known to offer their services to the gentlemen frequenting the Seine, is left to the viewer to decide.
; The implicit nature of the painting unsurprisingly provoked an outcry at the Salon. Even the use of the word Demoiselles in the title was controversial. These two females were certainly not dressed as ‘proper’ young ladies nor were they acting with decorum. However, Courbet does not wish to censor these women, but is intent on ridiculing the severity of the class system in society. Why shouldn’t these working class women be regarded just as much as valid subjects for serious painting as the bourgeoisie women of society paintings?
The reference to sexuality alone would not be an issue for the Salon jury. They were used to it being referenced often in distanced nudes from classical stories, such as the idealised forms of Venus and Diana. Yet, they were entirely uncomfortable with the contemporary presentation of sexuality that verged on the explicit. And, of course, there was the hard-hitting message never absent from Courbet’s work, confronting the establishment with an unrestrained dose of social truths. For this reason, Les Demoiselles des bords de la Seine was regarded as far more sexually disturbing than the customary and more revealing nudes that were familiar to the Salon.
Detail
Detail
Detail
Detail
Detail
Detail
The sketch of the same subject in the National Gallery, London
The Petit Palais art museum
Portrait of P. J. Proudhon
In the late 1850’s Courbet continued to work in France, in spite of the severe criticism he constantly faced. For many, he was the undisputed model for a new generation of painters, who had turned away from the traditional schools of painting that they deemed as barriers to artistic inspiration. Courbet worked in all genres and he executed admirable portraits, noted for his adept technique of capturing a likeness.
In January 1865 the sudden death of the Socialist philosopher Pierre-Joseph Proudhon stirred Courbet to paint a tribute to his fellow Franche-Comtois, whom he had known since his late twenties. Proudhon was a politician and founder of mutualist philosophy. He was the first person to declare himself an anarchist and is widely regarded as one of the ideology’s most influential theorists. He became a member of the French Parliament after the Revolution of 1848, when he referred to himself as a federalist. Proudhon favoured workers’ associations or co-operatives as well as individual worker/peasant possession over private ownership or the nationalisation of land and workplaces. Still, he considered social revolution to be achievable in a peaceful manner. Courbet was a great admirer of Proudhon’s achievements and was noticeably upset when the socialist leader passed away.
To a friend the artist wrote, “The nineteenth century has lost its pilot and the man it has produced”. No doubt, Proudhon’s philosophy of democracy and human progress, influenced by the thinking of Charles Fourier, were important to the radical Courbet. Proudhon’s anti-authoritarian stance led to his imprisonment and exile, though it won him the devotion of a disciple in Courbet, who overlooked his friend’s moralistic and indeed philistine views on art.
For many years the artist had wanted to produce a portrait of the socialist, but he was an unwilling sitter and always managed to avoid to agreeing to the numerous requests. Therefore, Courbet had to write to another friend in Paris, asking him to send over several photographs of Proudhon to aid him with his projected portrait. In the letter, Courbet describes the wish to produce a monument for his mentor, which would “rise above the crowds”. The scene depicted is of the philosopher in 1853 — 12 years before the canvas was begun — as shown by the date inscribed on a step to the left: “P.J.P./1853.” Courbet likely selected this year as it was when La philosophie du progrès, one of Proudhon’s most seminal books, was published and duly banned.
Courbet presents Proudhon as a life-sized figure in a domestic setting, relaxing on the back steps of his unassuming house, while watching his two daughters at play. Proudhon wears a workman’s tunic and simple hat, though his books and writing materials confirm his status as a man of letters. His thoughtful expression adds to the complicated mixture of working-class artisan and intellectual. Courbet would have appreciated how the socialist’s family, like his own, had progressed in social standing through their industry and merits.
Courbet has not chosen to present Proudhon as a bohemian figure, but instead as the father figure of his own family, attended by his daughters. One girl is learning her alphabet, while the other is content to play with teacups and a pitcher, signalling their contrasting natures. Originally, Courbet had included the figure of Madame Proudhon, seated on the chair and noticeably pregnant. However, when the painting was exhibited at the Salon of 1865, the widow objected to her presentation and Courbet had to remove her from the painting. Now, the absent mother is represented by the sewing basket and a pile of linen on the empty chair.
Detail
Detail
Detail
Detail
Detail
Detail
Courbet’s portrait by of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, 1865
Proudhon by Nadar, 1864
Portrait of Courbet by Nadar, c. 1860
Sleep
Completed in 1866, Le Sommeil is one of Courbet’s most erotic paintings, depicting a scene of lesbianism. The provocative canvas was commissioned by the Turkish diplomat and art collector of the late Ottoman era, Halil Şerif Paşa, who had lived in Paris since 1860. Paşa had given up the life of a diplomat, choosing instead the role of a bon vivant and grand art collector. He amassed an incredible body of French artworks, including Ingres’ famous Turkish Bath. Le Sommeil is believed to have been inspired by Charles Baudelaire’s poem “Delphine et Hippolyte”, from his collection Les Fleurs du mal.
Held today in the collection of the Petit Palais, the canvas portrays two naked women lying asleep on a bed entwined in an erotic embrace, appearing to rest after sexual intercourse. The bedroom is decorated with various textiles and ornamental furnishings, adding to the exoticism. In the background, there is a dark blue velvet curtain and in the right corner a table with a decorative flower suggests splendour. In the foreground, there are three items positioned on a small wooden table: a coloured flacon (a small vessel), a transparent crystal vase and a cup. The broken string of pearls serves as a symbol for unbridled passion. Except for these few furnishings, there is nothing to overshadow the focal point of the image – the erotic pose of the women, which seizes our attention.
The women’s flesh is replicated with a shimmering light, blending with the varied palette of whites and pinks of the surrounding fabrics. One of the women is a redhead, while the other is brunette; the contrast stresses that these lovers are two women, with no suggestion of a man present. The sinuous curves of their limbs and bodies are denoted with separate lines, accentuating their acts of love.
The painting achieved such a scandal that it was not permitted to be shown publicly until 1988. Indeed, when Le Sommeil was first exhibited by a picture dealer in 1872, it became the subject of a police report. By that time, Khalil Bey had been financially ruined and was forced to sell his collection. Courbet was subsequently denounced for his ‘moral turpitude’. One of the models for the painting was Joanna Hiffernan, who was the mistress of fellow painter James Abbott Whistler. Whistler’s relationship with Hiffernan ended soon afterwards and he was very unhappy with Courbet for including her in his composition.
Such an explicit depiction of an erotic relationship between two women had not occurred in the tradition of high art prior to Courbet’s Le Sommeil. Despite its public ban, it would have an immense impact on the course of nineteenth century erotic art, as numerous artists were influenced by the theme of lesbian couples. In time, repetition of the theme helped to lower the taboos associated with these subjects. Courbet’s paintings of the 1850’s had striven to elevate the provincial people of his country as serious subjects for art; now, he was trying to do the same for homosexuals, whom society customarily judged as wicked and vile. Although it is true that Courbet painted the canvas for the enjoyment of a ma
le, it still stands a powerful example of challenging society’s prohibited views on sexuality. The artist had once more metamorphosed a subject previously held as vulgar and proscribed into a piece of astonishing artistry.
Detail
Detail
Detail
Detail
Detail
Detail
Detail
Detail
Delphi Complete Paintings of Gustave Courbet Page 3