PAINTING	
  IN	
  PARIS:	
  VINCENT	
  VAN	
  GOGH,	
  1886-­‐1888	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

A	
  Dissertation	
  
Submitted	
  to	
  

the	
  Temple	
  University	
  Graduate	
  Board	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

In	
  Partial	
  Fulfillment	
  
of	
  the	
  Requirements	
  for	
  the	
  Degree	
  

DOCTOR	
  OF	
  PHILOSOPHY	
  
Art	
  History	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
by	
  

Christa	
  Rose	
  DiMarco	
  
July	
  2015	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
Examining	
  Committee	
  Members:	
  
	
  
Dr.	
  Therese	
  Dolan,	
  Advisor,	
  Tyler	
  School	
  of	
  Art,	
  Art	
  History	
  Department	
  
Dr.	
  Gerald	
  Silk,	
  Committee	
  Chair,	
  Tyler	
  School	
  of	
  Art,	
  Art	
  History	
  	
  	
  	
  

Department	
  
Dr.	
  Ashley	
  West,	
  Tyler	
  School	
  of	
  Art,	
  Art	
  History	
  Department	
  
Dr.	
  Suzanne	
  Singletary,	
  External	
  Member,	
  Philadelphia	
  University	
  
	
   	
  



ii	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
©	
  

Copyright	
  
2015	
  

	
  
by	
  
	
  

	
  
ChristaRoseDiMarco
All Rights Reserved

	
   	
  

	
  
	
   	
  



iii	
  

ABSTRACT	
  

 
In	
  Painting	
  in	
  Paris:	
  Vincent	
  Van	
  Gogh,	
  1886-­‐1888,	
  Christa	
  DiMarco	
  explores	
  

the	
  two-­‐year	
  period	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  lived	
  and	
  worked	
  in	
  Paris.	
  The	
  paintings	
  the	
  artist	
  

made	
  in	
  The	
  Netherlands,	
  where	
  he	
  lived	
  prior	
  to	
  Paris,	
  and	
  those	
  he	
  produced	
  in	
  

Arles,	
  where	
  he	
  moved	
  afterward,	
  usually	
  receive	
  scholarly	
  attention.	
  The	
  imagery	
  

from	
   the	
   artist’s	
   time	
   in	
   the	
   capital	
   is	
   generally	
   marginalized.	
   DiMarco	
   considers	
  

how	
   and	
   why	
   the	
   artist	
   used	
   a	
   brighter	
   palette	
   and	
   energetic	
   brushwork	
   while	
  

painting	
  in	
  Paris.	
  Considering	
  that	
  his	
  artistic	
  practice	
  spanned	
  only	
  a	
  decade	
  from	
  

1880	
   to	
   1890,	
   the	
   artist’s	
   time	
   in	
   the	
   capital	
   represents	
   a	
   significant	
   period	
   of	
  

growth	
   in	
   terms	
   of	
   his	
   engagement	
   with	
   the	
   art	
   market,	
   his	
   exposure	
   to	
   avant-­‐

garde	
  imagery,	
  and	
  his	
  understanding	
  of	
  Symbolist	
  theory	
   in	
  the	
  visual	
  arts.	
  Van	
  

Gogh	
   accomplished	
   significant	
   goals	
   in	
   Paris,	
   though	
   some	
   of	
   his	
   well-­‐developed	
  

imagery	
   does	
   not	
   necessarily	
   figure	
   into	
   discussions	
   regarding	
   the	
   canonical	
  

paintings	
  of	
  the	
  artist’s	
  body	
  of	
  work.	
  Attention	
  to	
  the	
  Paris-­‐period	
  not	
  only	
  locates	
  

Van	
  Gogh’s	
  pictorial	
  development	
  within	
  the	
  context	
  of	
  the	
  Impressionists	
  and	
  Neo-­‐

Impressionists,	
  but	
  also	
  establishes	
  the	
  ways	
  in	
  which	
  the	
  artist	
  diverged	
  from	
  the	
  

artistic	
   aims	
   of	
   the	
   Parisian	
   avant-­‐garde,	
   such	
   as	
   Claude	
   Monet	
   and	
   Camille	
  

Pissarro,	
  as	
  he	
  developed	
  his	
  Symbolic	
  approach.	
  	
  	
  

	
  

	
  

	
   	
  



iv	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

To	
  my	
  niece	
  Vivian	
  Rose	
  

	
  
	
   	
  



v	
  

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS	
  

My	
  work	
  on	
  Vincent	
  van	
  Gogh	
  began	
  with	
  my	
  master’s	
  thesis	
  and	
  grew	
  into	
  

a	
  focus	
  on	
  the	
  artist’s	
  Paris-­‐period	
  under	
  the	
  unwavering	
  guidance	
  of	
  my	
  advisor,	
  

Professor	
  Therese	
  Dolan.	
  She	
  first	
  suggested	
  I	
  write	
  on	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  for	
  my	
  thesis	
  and	
  

patiently	
   helped	
   me	
   craft	
   a	
   dissertation.	
   Her	
   influence	
   has	
   been	
   a	
   beacon	
   of	
  

encouragement	
  throughout	
  this	
  process,	
  and	
  I	
  always	
  keep	
  her	
  example	
  in	
  mind	
  as	
  

I	
  research,	
  write,	
  and	
  teach.	
  My	
  dissertation	
  committee	
  members,	
  Drs.	
  Gerald	
  Silk,	
  

Suzanne	
  Singletary,	
  and	
  Ashley	
  West,	
  helped	
  me	
  understand	
  the	
  long-­‐terms	
  goals	
  

of	
  my	
  project.	
  I	
  will	
  keep	
  their	
  suggestions	
  central	
  as	
  I	
  move	
  into	
  the	
  next	
  phase	
  of	
  

writing.	
  I	
  am	
  especially	
  grateful	
  to	
  my	
  committee	
  for	
  their	
  support	
  during	
  the	
  final	
  

phase	
  of	
  this	
  endeavor—they	
  have	
  given	
  me	
  the	
  confidence	
  to	
  continue.	
  	
  

My	
  family—Nathan,	
  Mom,	
  Raina,	
  and	
  Jon—created	
  the	
  space	
  I	
  needed	
  to	
  

find	
  peace	
  during	
  my	
  writing	
  journey.	
  They	
  helped	
  me	
  to	
  stay	
  focused	
  and	
  to	
  stick	
  

with	
   it.	
   I	
   am	
   proud	
   to	
   be	
   able	
   to	
   celebrate	
   this	
   accomplishment	
   with	
   them.	
  The	
  

memory	
  of	
  my	
  Dad’s	
  and	
  Mom-­‐Mom’s	
  voices	
  encouraged	
  me	
  as	
  I	
  wrote	
  each	
  day.	
  

They	
  both	
  were	
  tenaciously	
  hard	
  workers,	
  an	
  ethic	
  they	
  passed	
  down	
  to	
  me	
  and	
  

one	
  that	
  allowed	
  me	
  to	
  reach	
  my	
  goal.	
  	
  

Christy	
   Blanca	
   Gonzalez,	
   Michele	
   Kishita,	
   and	
   Peter	
   Stambler	
   read	
   my	
  

abstracts,	
  proposals,	
  chapters,	
  and	
  rewrites	
  and	
  were	
  always	
  available	
  to	
  give	
  kind,	
  

constructive	
  feedback.	
  	
  

My	
  friends	
  understood	
  my	
  writing	
  schedule	
  and	
  offered	
  the	
  inspiration	
  only	
  

good	
  friends	
  can	
  give.	
  	
  



vi	
  

My	
   colleagues	
   at	
   the	
   University	
   of	
   the	
   Arts	
   welcomed	
   me	
   into	
   the	
  

community	
  and	
  gave	
  me	
  a	
  sense	
  of	
  belonging.	
  	
  

The	
  Greenfield	
  Librarians	
  at	
  the	
  University	
  of	
  the	
  Arts,	
  Mary	
  Louise	
  Castaldi,	
  

Carol	
  Graney,	
  and	
  Sara	
  MacDonald	
  provided	
  me	
  with	
  almost	
  all	
  of	
  the	
  secondary	
  

source	
  material	
  I	
  needed	
  for	
  my	
  work.	
  	
  

I	
   wrote	
   the	
   majority	
   of	
   my	
   dissertation	
   while	
   on	
   a	
   paid	
   junior-­‐research	
  

leave,	
  and	
  I	
  could	
  not	
  have	
  completed	
  my	
  draft	
  without	
  sustained	
  time	
  to	
  consider	
  

and	
  expand	
  upon	
  my	
  ideas.	
  

	
  

	
   	
  



vii	
  

TABLE	
  OF	
  CONTENTS	
  

	
   Page	
  

ABSTRACT	
  ..........................................................................................................................	
  iii	
  

DEDICATION	
  ......................................................................................................................	
  iv	
  

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS	
  ........................................................................................................	
  v	
  

LIST	
  OF	
  FIGURES	
  ..............................................................................................................	
  viii	
  

	
  

CHAPTER	
  

1. INTRODUCTION	
  ............................................................................................................	
  1	
  

2. FROM	
  THE	
  ATELIER	
  TO	
  THE	
  AVANT-­‐GARDE	
  ...............................................................	
  11	
  

3. NEW	
  CONSIDERATION	
  OF	
  VAN	
  GOGH’S	
  PARIS	
  EXHIBITIONS	
  .....................................	
  68	
  

4. AGRICULTURE	
  AND	
  INDUSTRY	
  IN	
  VAN	
  GOGH’S	
  MONTMARTRE	
  AND	
  

CLICHY	
  IMAGERY	
  ......................................................................................................	
  143	
  

5. SYMBOLISM	
  IN	
  PARIS	
  ...............................................................................................	
  207	
  

6. CONCLUSION	
  ............................................................................................................	
  259	
  

	
  

BIBLIOGRAPHY	
  ................................................................................................................	
  265	
  

APPENDIX	
  

IMAGES……………………………………………………………………………………………274	
  

	
  

	
   	
  



viii	
  

LIST	
  OF	
  FIGURES	
  
	
  
Chapter	
  2:	
  From	
  the	
  Atelier	
  to	
  the	
  Avant-­‐Garde	
  
Figure	
   Page	
  

1. The	
  Discus	
  Thrower,	
  February	
  1886.	
  Chalk	
  on	
  paper,	
  56.2	
  x	
  44.3	
  cm.	
  	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  1364e…….…………………………………………..11,	
  19	
  

2. Female	
  Standing	
  Nude	
  Seen	
  from	
  the	
  Side,	
  January-­‐February	
  1886.	
  	
  
Pencil	
  on	
  Paper,	
  50.4	
  x	
  39.2	
  cm.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F1699….11,	
  19	
  

3. The	
  Potato	
  Eaters,	
  April-­‐May	
  1885.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  82	
  x	
  114	
  cm.	
  	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  82…..…………………………………………………………11	
  

4. Jozef	
  Israëls,	
  Peasant	
  Family	
  at	
  the	
  Table,	
  1882.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  71	
  x	
  105	
  cm.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam………………..…………11	
  	
  

5. Standing	
  Male	
  and	
  Seated	
  Female	
  Nudes,	
  March-­‐May	
  1886.	
  	
  
Chalk	
  on	
  paper,	
  31.4	
  x	
  47.5	
  cm.	
  	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  1363ar…………………………………………..13,	
  19,	
  31	
  	
  

6. Studies	
  of	
  a	
  Seated	
  Girl,	
  L’Ecorché	
  and	
  Venus,	
  	
  	
  
March-­‐May	
  1886.	
  Chalk	
  on	
  paper,	
  47.5	
  x	
  62	
  cm.	
  	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  1366r………………………………………………...13,	
  31	
  

7. Torso	
  of	
  Venus,	
  June	
  1886.	
  Oil	
  on	
  cardboard,	
  46.4	
  x	
  38.1	
  cm.	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  216b…………..………………………..……….13,	
  19,	
  30	
  

8. Lane	
  at	
  the	
  Jardin	
  du	
  Luxembourg,	
  June/July	
  1886.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  27.5	
  x	
  46	
  cm.	
  	
  
Sterling	
  and	
  Francine	
  Clark	
  Institute,	
  	
  
Williamstown,	
  Massachusetts.	
  F	
  223…………………………………………………………13,	
  35	
  

9. Bridges	
  across	
  the	
  Seine	
  at	
  Asnières,	
  1887.	
  
	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  52	
  x	
  65	
  cm.	
  	
  
Foundation	
  E.G.	
  Bührle	
  Collection,	
  Zurich………………………………………..….17,	
  51,	
  62	
  

10. Boulevard	
  de	
  Clichy,	
  1887.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  45.5	
  x	
  55	
  cm.	
  	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  292……………………………………………………………17	
  

11. The	
  Restaurant	
  de	
  la	
  Sirène	
  at	
  Asnières,	
  summer	
  1887.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  54	
  x	
  65	
  cm.	
  Musée	
  d’Orsay,	
  Paris.	
  F	
  313…………………………………..18	
  



ix	
  

12. The	
  Sower	
  (After	
  Millet),	
  April	
  1881.	
  
Pencil,	
  pen	
  and	
  brush	
  and	
  ink,	
  watercolor,	
  on	
  paper,	
  48.1	
  cm	
  x	
  36.7	
  cm.	
  	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  830……………………………………………….………….23	
  	
  

13. Jean-­‐François	
  Millet,	
  The	
  Sower,	
  1850.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  101.6	
  x	
  82.6	
  cm.	
  Museum	
  of	
  Fine	
  Arts,	
  Boston…………………..…….23	
  

14. Peasant	
  Women	
  Digging	
  up	
  Potatoes,	
  August	
  1885.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  31.5	
  x	
  42.5	
  cm.	
  F	
  97.	
  	
  
Kröller-­‐Müller	
  Museum,	
  The	
  Netherlands……………………………………………………….23	
  	
  

15. Pietà	
  (after	
  Delacroix),	
  September	
  1889.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  73	
  cm	
  x	
  60.5	
  cm.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  630…….……23	
  	
  

16. View	
  of	
  Het	
  Steen,	
  December	
  1885.	
  	
  
Pen	
  and	
  ink,	
  chalk,	
  pencil,	
  on	
  paper,	
  13.1	
  cm	
  x	
  21.1	
  cm.	
  	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  977……………………………………………………………25	
  	
  

17. Portrait	
  of	
  an	
  Old	
  Man,	
  December	
  1885.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  44.4	
  cm	
  x	
  33.7	
  cm.	
  	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  205…………………………………………………………..27	
  	
  

18. Head	
  of	
  a	
  Skeleton	
  with	
  a	
  Burning	
  Cigarette,	
  January-­‐February	
  1886.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  32.3	
  x	
  28.4	
  cm.	
  	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  	
  F	
  212…………………………………………………………..28	
  

19. Karel	
  Verlat,	
  Ariadne	
  et	
  amor,	
  1880………………………………………………………………..28	
  	
  

20. Eugène	
  Siberdt,	
  La	
  juene	
  orpheline,	
  1886.	
  Oil	
  on	
  panel,	
  52	
  x	
  37	
  cm…………….….28	
  	
  

21. Rembrandt,	
  The	
  Pilgrims	
  at	
  Emmaus,	
  1648.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  68	
  cm	
  x	
  65	
  cm.	
  Louvre,	
  Paris…………………………………………………….39	
  	
  

22. Claude	
  Monet,	
  Vétheuil,	
  c.	
  1878-­‐1881.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas.	
  Private	
  Collection,	
  England……………………………………………………….40	
  

23. Pierre-­‐August	
  Renoir,	
  Lunch	
  at	
  the	
  Restaurant	
  Fournaise	
  	
  
(The	
  Boater’s	
  Lunch	
  or	
  Les	
  canotiers),	
  1875.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  55	
  x	
  65.9	
  cm.	
  Art	
  Institute	
  of	
  Chicago,	
  Chicago………………..……….44	
  	
  

24. Edgar	
  Degas,	
  Femme	
  accoundée	
  près	
  d’un	
  pot	
  de	
  fleurs,	
  1865.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  73.7	
  x	
  92.7	
  x	
  46.2	
  cm.	
  
The	
  Metropolitan	
  Museum	
  of	
  Art,	
  New	
  York	
  City…………………………………………..44	
  	
  



x	
  

25. Claude	
  Monet,	
  Tempête	
  sur	
  les	
  côtes	
  de	
  Belle-­‐Isle,	
  1886.	
  	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  65	
  x	
  81	
  cm.	
  Musée	
  d’Orsay…………………………………………………..…..44	
  	
  

26. Claude	
  Monet,	
  Pyramides	
  de	
  Port-­‐Coton,	
  Belle-­‐Isle,	
  1886.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  65.5	
  x	
  65.5	
  cm.	
  Private	
  collection………………………………….………….44	
  

27. Paul	
  Gauguin,	
  Baigneurs,	
  nd.	
  	
  
Private	
  Collection.	
  Mr.	
  &	
  Mrs.	
  B.E.	
  Bensiger,	
  Chicago…………………….……………….44	
  	
  

28. La	
  Guinguette,	
  October	
  1886.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  49	
  x	
  64	
  cm.	
  Musée	
  d’Orsay,	
  Paris.	
  F	
  238…………………………….…….46	
  	
  

29. Bords	
  de	
  rivière	
  au	
  printemps:	
  pont	
  de	
  Clichy,	
  spring	
  1887.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  50	
  x	
  60	
  cm.	
  Museum	
  of	
  Art,	
  Dallas,	
  F	
  352…………………………….…..46	
  	
  

30. Bank	
  of	
  the	
  Seine,	
  summer	
  1887.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  32	
  x	
  45	
  cm.	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  293…………………………………………………………..48	
  

31. Femme	
  dans	
  un	
  jardin,	
  summer	
  1887.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  48	
  x	
  60	
  cm.	
  Private	
  collection.	
  F	
  368…………………………….…………..48	
  	
  	
  

32. George	
  Seurat,	
  	
  
Sunday	
  Afternoon	
  on	
  the	
  Island	
  of	
  La	
  Grande-­‐Jatte,	
  1884-­‐1886.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  205.7	
  x	
  305.7	
  cm.	
  The	
  Art	
  Institute	
  of	
  Chicago,	
  Illinois……………..53	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  

33. Camille	
  Pissarro,	
  Apple	
  Picking,	
  1886.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  128	
  x	
  128	
  cm.	
  	
  
Ohara,	
  Museum	
  of	
  Art,	
  Kurashiki,	
  Japan………………………………………………………...53	
  

34. Paul	
  Signac,	
  The	
  Gas	
  Tanks	
  at	
  Clichy,	
  1886.	
  
	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  65	
  x	
  81	
  cm.	
  National	
  gallery	
  of	
  Victoria,	
  Melbourne……….……….53	
  

35. Interior	
  of	
  a	
  Restaurant,	
  1887.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  45.5	
  x	
  56.5	
  cm.	
  Kröller-­‐Müller	
  Museum,	
  Netherlands……………...53	
  	
  

36. Claude	
  Monet,	
  Impression:	
  Sunrise,	
  1873.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  48	
  x	
  63	
  cm.	
  Musée	
  Marmottan,	
  Paris…………………………………….…54	
  	
  

37. Claude	
  Monet,	
  Boulevard	
  des	
  Capucines,	
  1873.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  79.4	
  x	
  59	
  cm.	
  	
  
The	
  Nelson-­‐Arkins	
  Museum	
  of	
  Art,	
  Kansas	
  City,	
  Missouri……………………..…..55,	
  58	
  	
  	
  	
  



xi	
  

38. Edgar	
  Degas,	
  Girl	
  Drying	
  Herself,	
  from	
  Suite	
  of	
  Nudes,	
  1885.	
  	
  
Pastel	
  on	
  paper,	
  80.1	
  x	
  51.2	
  cm.	
  	
  
National	
  Gallery	
  of	
  Art,	
  Washington	
  DC……………………………………..……………..57,	
  58	
  	
  

39. Edgar	
  Degas,	
  The	
  Baker’s	
  Wife,	
  from	
  Suite	
  of	
  Nudes,	
  1885.	
  	
  
Pastel	
  on	
  paper,	
  67	
  x	
  52.1	
  cm.	
  	
  
The	
  Henry	
  and	
  Rose	
  Perlman	
  Foundation……………………………………………………….57	
  	
  

40. Georges	
  Seurat,	
  The	
  Harbor	
  at	
  Grandcamp,	
  1885.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  65	
  x	
  81.2	
  cm.	
  Private	
  Collection……………………………………….……….57	
  	
  	
  	
  

41. Paul	
  Signac,	
  	
  
Brisk	
  Breeze	
  from	
  the	
  North	
  ¼	
  Northwest,	
  Saint-­‐Briac,	
  1885.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  45.1	
  x	
  64.1	
  cm.	
  	
  
Collection	
  of	
  Mr.	
  and	
  Mrs.	
  Ray	
  Dolby,	
  San	
  Francisco……………………………………….57	
  

42. Paul	
  Gauguin,	
  Edge	
  of	
  the	
  Pond,	
  1885.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  81	
  x	
  65	
  cm.	
  Civica	
  Galleria	
  d’Arte	
  Moderna,	
  Milan………….………..57	
  
	
  

43. Camille	
  Pissarro,	
  View	
  from	
  My	
  Window	
  in	
  Cloudy	
  Weather,	
  1886-­‐1888.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  65	
  x	
  80	
  cm.	
  The	
  Ashmolean	
  Museum,	
  Oxford……………………..……57	
  	
  

44. Paul	
  Gauguin,	
  Women	
  Bathing,	
  1885.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  38.1	
  x	
  46.2	
  cm.	
  
The	
  National	
  Museum	
  of	
  Western	
  Art,	
  Tokyo………………………………………………….58	
  	
  	
  

45. Plaster	
  Cast	
  of	
  a	
  Woman’s	
  Torso,	
  February-­‐March	
  1887.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  40.5	
  x	
  27	
  cm.	
  	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  	
  F216g……………………………….………………………..60	
  

46. Reclining	
  Nude,	
  January-­‐March	
  1887.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  59.7	
  x	
  73.7	
  cm.	
  	
  
The	
  Barnes	
  Foundation,	
  Philadelphia.	
  F	
  328…………………………………..……………….60	
  

47. Francisco	
  Goya,	
  La	
  mama	
  denude,	
  c.	
  1797-­‐1800.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  97	
  c	
  190	
  cm.	
  Museo	
  del	
  Prado,	
  Spain………………………………….…...60	
  	
  

48. Claude	
  Monet,	
  Les	
  bains	
  de	
  la	
  Grenouillère,	
  1869.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  74.6	
  x	
  99.7	
  cm.	
  Metropolitan	
  Museum	
  of	
  Art,	
  New	
  York……..…..62	
  

49. Pierre-­‐August	
  Renoir,	
  La	
  Grenouillère,	
  1869.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  66.5	
  x	
  81	
  cm.	
  National	
  Museum,	
  Stockholm………………………….….62	
  	
  

50. Comparison………………………………………………………………………………………………….…62	
  



xii	
  

51. Claude	
  Monet,	
  Train	
  in	
  the	
  Countryside,	
  circa	
  1870.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  19.68	
  ×	
  25.59	
  in.	
  Musée	
  d’Orsay,	
  Paris………………..……………….…..64	
  

52. Claude	
  Monet,	
  The	
  Railway	
  Bridge	
  from	
  the	
  Port,	
  1873.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  66	
  x	
  99	
  cm…………………………………………………………………….………….64	
  

	
  

Chapter	
  3:	
  New	
  Consideration	
  of	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  Paris	
  Exhibitions	
  
Figure	
  
	
  
1. Map	
  of	
  Montmartre,	
  Clichy	
  and	
  Asnières	
  	
  

from	
  Bogomila	
  Welsh-­‐Ovcharov’s	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  A	
  Paris	
  (1988),	
  pages	
  36-­‐37……….72	
  
	
  

2. Map	
  detail	
  of	
  Clichy	
  and	
  Asnières	
  	
  
from	
  Bogomila	
  Welsh-­‐Ovcharov’s	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  A	
  Paris	
  (1988),	
  pages	
  36-­‐37……….72	
  
	
  

3. Map	
  detail	
  of	
  Montmartre	
  from	
  	
  
Bogomila	
  Welsh-­‐Ovcharov’s	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  A	
  Paris	
  (1988),	
  pages	
  36-­‐37………………..72	
  
	
  

4. Agostina	
  Segatori	
  au	
  café	
  du	
  Tambourin,	
  spring	
  1887.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  55.4	
  x	
  46.5	
  cm.	
  	
  
Vincent	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  370………………………………………………73	
  
	
  

5. Basket	
  of	
  Pansies,	
  1886.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  46	
  x	
  55.5	
  cm.	
  	
  	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  244…………………………………………………...73,	
  103	
  
	
  

6. Fritillaires,	
  couronne	
  impériale	
  dans	
  un	
  vase	
  de	
  cuivre,	
  April-­‐May	
  1887.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  75.5	
  x	
  60.5	
  cm.	
  Musée	
  d’Orsay,	
  Paris.	
  F	
  213……………..………74,	
  104	
  
	
  

7. Portrait	
  of	
  Etienne-­‐Lucien	
  Martin,	
  1887.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  65.5	
  x	
  54.5	
  cm.	
  	
  Van	
  
Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  289………………………………………………………………….75	
  
	
  

8. Émile	
  Bernard,	
  Portrait	
  of	
  the	
  Artist’s	
  Grandmother,	
  1887.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  53	
  x	
  64	
  cm.	
  	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam…………………………………………..…………………76,	
  114	
  
	
  

9. Émile	
  Bernard,	
  Ragpickers	
  at	
  Clichy,	
  1887.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  39	
  x	
  59	
  cm.	
  Private	
  Collection……………………………………76,	
  124,	
  132	
  
	
  

10. Factories	
  at	
  Clichy,	
  1887.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  53.9	
  x	
  72.8	
  cm.	
  	
  
The	
  Saint	
  Louis	
  Art	
  Museum.	
  F	
  317………………………………………………………….77,	
  124	
  
	
  



xiii	
  

11. Factory	
  at	
  Clichy,	
  1887.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  46.5	
  x	
  54	
  cm.	
  	
  
Barnes	
  Foundation,	
  Philadelphia.	
  F	
  318………………………………………………..…77,	
  124	
  
	
  

12. Portrait	
  of	
  Père	
  Tanguy,	
  fall	
  1887.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  92	
  x	
  75	
  cm.	
  	
  
Musée	
  Rodin,	
  Paris.	
  F	
  363……………………………………………………………………..…77,	
  109	
  
	
  

13. Voyer	
  d’Argenson	
  Park	
  at	
  Asnières,	
  1887.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  75	
  x	
  112.5	
  cm.	
  	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  314…….79,	
  137	
  
	
  

14. Camille	
  Pissarro,	
  Apple	
  Picking,	
  1886.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  128	
  x	
  128	
  cm.	
  	
  
Ohara,	
  Museum	
  of	
  Art,	
  	
  Kurashiki,	
  Japan…………………………………………………………85	
  
	
  

15. Lucien	
  Pissarro,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  in	
  Conversation	
  with	
  Félix	
  Fénéon,	
  	
  
black	
  crayon,	
  circa	
  1886-­‐1888…………………………………………………………………………88	
  
	
  

16. Louis-­‐Emile	
  Anquetin,	
  Old	
  Peasant,	
  1886.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas………………………………….99	
  
	
  

17. Sunflowers	
  Gone	
  to	
  Seed,	
  1887.	
  Oil	
  in	
  canvas,	
  43	
  x	
  61.	
  	
  
Metropolitan	
  Museum	
  of	
  Art,	
  New	
  York	
  City.	
  F	
  375………………………………………..99	
  
	
  

18. Sunflowers	
  Gone	
  to	
  Seed,	
  1887.	
  	
  
Oil	
  in	
  canvas,	
  50	
  x	
  60.	
  	
  
Kuntsmuseum,	
  Bern,	
  Switzerland.	
  F	
  376………………………………………………………….99	
  
	
  

19. Basket	
  with	
  Potatoes,	
  1885.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  44.5	
  x	
  60	
  cm.	
  	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  100…………………………………………………………101	
  	
  
	
  	
  

20. Le	
  Cinéraire	
  (The	
  Funeral),	
  July-­‐August	
  1886.	
  	
  
Oil	
  in	
  canvas,	
  54.5	
  x	
  46.	
  
Museum	
  Boymans-­‐van	
  Beuningen,	
  Rotterdam.	
  F	
  282……………………………………103	
  
	
  

21. Roses	
  Trémières	
  dans	
  une	
  cruche	
  (Hollyhocks	
  in	
  a	
  Jug),	
  	
  
August-­‐September	
  1886.	
  Oil	
  in	
  canvas,	
  94	
  x	
  51.	
  
Kunsthaus,	
  Zurich.	
  F	
  235……………………………………………………………………………….103	
  
	
  

22. Fleurs	
  et	
  Tournesols	
  (Roses	
  and	
  Sunflowers),	
  fall	
  1886.	
  	
  
Oil	
  in	
  canvas,	
  50	
  x	
  61.	
  
Städtische	
  Kunsthalle,	
  Mannheim.	
  F	
  250.	
  ……………………………………………………..103	
  
	
  

23. Gustave	
  Courbet,	
  Hollyhocks	
  in	
  a	
  Copper	
  Bowl,	
  1872	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  60	
  x	
  49	
  cm.	
  	
  
Museum	
  of	
  Fine	
  Arts,	
  Boston………………………………………………………..………………103	
  
	
  



xiv	
  

24. Pierre-­‐August	
  Renoir,	
  Mixed	
  Flowers	
  in	
  an	
  Earthenware	
  Pot,	
  ca.	
  1869.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  64.9	
  x	
  54.2	
  cm.	
  Museum	
  of	
  Fine	
  Arts,	
  Boston…………………………103	
  	
  
	
  

25. Armand	
  Guillaumin,	
  Nature	
  morte	
  aux	
  chrysanthèmes,	
  1885.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  75	
  x	
  60	
  cm.	
  	
  
Musée	
  du	
  Petit	
  Palais,	
  Geneva………………………………………………………………………103	
  
	
  

26. Claude	
  Monet,	
  Vase	
  of	
  Flowers,	
  ca.	
  1881-­‐1882.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  100.4	
  x	
  81.9	
  cm.	
  	
  
Courtauld	
  Gallery,	
  London…………………………………………………………………………….103	
  
	
  

27. Paul	
  Signac,	
  Nature	
  morte:	
  oranges,	
  pomme	
  et	
  livre	
  Au	
  soleil,	
  1885.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  32.5	
  x	
  46.5	
  cm.	
  	
  
Staatliche	
  Museen,	
  Berlin………………………………………………………………………………105	
  
	
  

28. Grapes,	
  Lemons,	
  Pears	
  and	
  Apples,	
  1887.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  46.5	
  x	
  55.2	
  cm.	
  	
  
The	
  Art	
  Institute	
  of	
  Chicago,	
  Illinois.	
  F	
  382…………………………………………………….106	
  	
  	
  
	
  

29. Head	
  of	
  a	
  Peasant	
  Woman	
  with	
  a	
  Day	
  Cap,	
  March	
  1885.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  43	
  x	
  33.5	
  cm.	
  	
  
Rijksmuseum,	
  Amsterdam…………………………………………………………………………….110	
  
	
  

30. Portrait	
  of	
  Père	
  Tanguy,	
  1887.	
  	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas.	
  F	
  263……………………………………………………………………………………….113	
  
	
  

31. Émile	
  Bernard,	
  Portrait	
  of	
  Père	
  Tanguy,	
  1887.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas…………………………114	
  
	
  

32. The	
  Parsonage	
  Garden	
  in	
  Snow,	
  1885.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas	
  on	
  panel,	
  59	
  x	
  78	
  cm.	
  	
  
Norton	
  Simon	
  Art	
  Foundation,	
  Pasadena………………………………………………………118	
  
	
  

33. Émile	
  Bernard,	
  Verger	
  à	
  Pont-­‐Aven,	
  August	
  1886.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  52	
  x	
  53	
  cm.	
  	
  
Private	
  Collection………………………………………………………………………………………….119	
  
	
  

34. Émile	
  Bernard	
  and	
  Vincent	
  van	
  Gogh	
  (his	
  back	
  to	
  the	
  camera)	
  	
  
along	
  the	
  Seine	
  in	
  Asnières……………………………………………………………………………120	
  
	
  

35. Paul	
  Signac,	
  Pierre	
  Hâlé’s	
  Windmill,	
  Saint-­‐Briac,	
  1884.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  60	
  x	
  92	
  cm.	
  	
  
Private	
  Collection………………………………………………………………………………………….121	
  
	
  



xv	
  

36. Paul	
  Signac,	
  Brisk	
  Breeze	
  from	
  the	
  North	
  ¼	
  Northwest,	
  Saint-­‐Briac,	
  1885.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  45.1	
  x	
  64.1	
  cm.	
  	
  
Collection	
  of	
  Mr.	
  and	
  Mrs.	
  Ray	
  Dolby,	
  San	
  Francisco……………………………………..121	
  
	
  

37. Claude	
  Monet,	
  Apple	
  Trees	
  in	
  Bloom	
  beside	
  the	
  Water,	
  1880.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  73x	
  60	
  cm.	
  	
  
Private	
  Collection…………………………………………………………….……………………………121	
  
	
  

38. Paul	
  Signac,	
  La	
  Seine	
  à	
  Asnières:	
  la	
  berge,	
  November	
  1885.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  73	
  x	
  100	
  cm.	
  	
  
Private	
  Collection,	
  Paris…………………………………………………………………………………121	
  
	
  

39. Paul	
  Signac,	
  Paris.	
  Boulevard	
  de	
  Clichy.	
  La	
  neige,	
  January	
  1886.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  46.5	
  x	
  65.5	
  cm.	
  	
  
The	
  Minneapolis	
  Institute	
  of	
  the	
  Arts,	
  Minneapolis……………………………………….121	
  
	
  

40. Claude	
  Monet,	
  Studio	
  Boat,	
  1874.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas.	
  
Kröller-­‐Müller	
  Museum,	
  The	
  Netherlands……………………………………………………..122	
  
	
  

41. Paul	
  Signac,	
  The	
  Gas	
  Tanks	
  at	
  Clichy,	
  1886.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  65	
  x	
  81	
  cm.	
  
National	
  gallery	
  of	
  Victoria,	
  Melbourne…………………………………………………………122	
  
	
  

42. Paul	
  Signac,	
  Sunlight,	
  Quai	
  de	
  Clichy,	
  Opus,	
  1887.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  46	
  x	
  65	
  cm.	
  	
  
The	
  Baltimore	
  Museum	
  of	
  Art,	
  Maryland………………………………………………………124	
  
	
  

43. Émile	
  Bernard,	
  Les	
  Chiffonniers:	
  Ponts	
  de	
  fer	
  à	
  Asnières,	
  1887.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  45.9	
  x	
  54.2	
  cm.	
  	
  
The	
  Museum	
  of	
  Modern	
  Art,	
  New	
  York	
  City………………………………………….124,	
  132	
  
	
  

44. Albert	
  Fernique,	
  	
  
Plan	
  de	
  l’usine	
  à	
  gaz	
  de	
  Clichy,	
  c	
  1878-­‐1880.	
  
Bibliothèque	
  nationale	
  de	
  France………………………………………………………………….127	
  
	
  

45. Albert	
  Fernique,	
  	
  
Atelier	
  Charronnage	
  de	
  l’usine	
  à	
  gaz	
  de	
  Clichy,	
  c	
  1878-­‐1880.	
  
Bibliothèque	
  nationale	
  de	
  France………………………………………………………….………127	
  
	
  

46. Albert	
  Fernique,	
  Grues	
  de	
  débarquement,	
  	
  
L’Usine	
  à	
  gaz	
  de	
  Clichy,	
  c	
  1878-­‐1880.	
  
Bibliothèque	
  nationale	
  de	
  France………………………………………………………………….127	
  
	
  



xvi	
  

47. Camille	
  Pissarro,	
  Barge	
  at	
  La	
  Roche-­‐Guyon,	
  circa	
  1865.	
  	
  
Museé	
  Pissarro,	
  Pontoise………………………………………………………………………………133	
  	
  	
  
	
  

48. Camille	
  Pissarro,	
  L’Ile	
  Lacroix,	
  1888.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  44	
  x	
  55	
  cm.	
  
Philadelphia	
  Museum	
  of	
  Art,	
  Pennsylvania……………………………………………………133	
  	
  	
  
	
  

49. Self-­‐Portrait	
  as	
  a	
  Painter,	
  December	
  1887-­‐February	
  1888.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  65.1	
  x	
  50	
  cm.	
  	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  522…………………………………………………………139	
  
	
  

Chapter	
  4:	
  Agriculture	
  and	
  Industry	
  in	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  Montmartre	
  and	
  Clichy	
  Imagery	
  
Figure	
  	
  

1. Weaver	
  with	
  a	
  baby	
  in	
  a	
  high	
  chair,	
  1884.	
  	
  
Pencil	
  pen	
  in	
  brown	
  ink,	
  heightened	
  with	
  opaque	
  watercolor,	
  	
  
on	
  wove	
  paper,	
  32	
  x	
  40	
  cm.	
  	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  1118……………………………………………………….143	
  
	
  

2. Interior	
  of	
  a	
  Restaurant,	
  summer	
  1887.	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  45.5	
  x	
  56.5	
  cm.	
  
Kröller-­‐Müller	
  Museum,	
  Netherlands.	
  F	
  342………………………………………………….144	
  
	
  

3. Boulevard	
  de	
  Clichy,	
  February-­‐March	
  1887.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  46.5	
  x	
  55	
  cm.	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  292…………………………………………………………144	
  
	
  

4. Montmartre:	
  Windmills	
  and	
  Allotments,	
  March-­‐April	
  1887.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  45.2	
  x	
  81.4	
  cm	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  346………………………………………………….147,	
  168	
  	
  	
  	
  
	
  

5. Factories	
  at	
  Clichy,	
  1887.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  53.9	
  x	
  72.8	
  cm.	
  	
  
The	
  Saint	
  Louis	
  Art	
  Museum.	
  F	
  317………………………………………………..147,	
  190,	
  195	
  
	
  

6. The	
  View	
  from	
  Vincent’s	
  Room,	
  rue	
  Lepic,	
  spring	
  1887.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  board,	
  46	
  x	
  38.	
  Private	
  collection.	
  	
  F	
  341a……………………………………………148	
  
	
  

7. View	
  from	
  Théo’s	
  Apartment,	
  March-­‐April	
  1887.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  45.9	
  x	
  38.1.	
  	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  341…………………………………………………………148	
  
	
  

8. Moulin	
  Radet	
  dit	
  de	
  la	
  Galette	
  à	
  Paris,	
  1923.	
  
Bibliothèque	
  nationale	
  de	
  France………………………………………………………………….155	
  
	
  



xvii	
  

9. Eugène	
  Atget,	
  Montmartre,	
  Moulin	
  de	
  la	
  Galette,	
  Rue	
  Lepic,	
  1899.	
  
(I	
  think	
  this	
  may	
  be	
  Le	
  Radet.)	
  
Bibliothèque	
  nationale	
  de	
  France………………………………………………………………….155	
  
	
  

10. Eugène	
  Atget,	
  Montmartre,	
  Moulin	
  de	
  la	
  Galette,	
  Rue	
  Lepic,	
  1899.	
  
(I	
  think	
  this	
  may	
  be	
  Le	
  Blute-­‐fin.)	
  
Bibliothèque	
  nationale	
  de	
  France………………………………………………………………….155	
  
	
  

11. View	
  of	
  Paris,	
  from	
  Montmartre,	
  
	
  late	
  summer	
  1886.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  38.5	
  x	
  61.5	
  cm.	
  	
  	
  
Kunstmuseum,	
  Basel.	
  F	
  262…………………………………………………………………………..156	
  
	
  

12. Terrace	
  and	
  Observation	
  Deck	
  at	
  the	
  Moulin	
  de	
  Blute-­‐fin,	
  	
  
Montmartre,	
  early	
  1887.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  43.6	
  x	
  33	
  cm.	
  The	
  Art	
  Institute	
  of	
  Chicago.	
  F	
  272…………………….156	
  
	
  

13. Plan	
  of	
  Paris:	
  Montmartre,	
  the	
  rue	
  Lepic,	
  and	
  the	
  Moulin	
  de	
  la	
  Galette.	
  
Archives	
  numérisées	
  de	
  Paris,	
  PP/11834/E……………………………………………………156	
  
	
  

14. Jules-­‐Adolphe	
  Chauvet,	
  Le	
  Moulin	
  de	
  la	
  Galette	
  et	
  la	
  montée	
  de	
  la	
  rue	
  Lepic	
  
étant	
  placé	
  au	
  coin	
  de	
  la	
  rue	
  d'Orchamp	
  (I	
  think	
  this	
  is	
  Le	
  Radet),	
  1895.	
  
Bibliothèque	
  nationale	
  de	
  France………………………………………………………………….157	
  
	
  

15. Jules-­‐Adolphe	
  Chauvet,	
  Rue	
  Lepic	
  à	
  Montmartre:	
  	
  
Entrée	
  du	
  Moulin	
  Debray	
  (Bal	
  public)	
  (Le	
  Blute-­‐fin),	
  1880.	
  
Bibliothèque	
  nationale	
  de	
  France………………………………………………………………….157	
  
	
  

16. Jules-­‐Adolphe	
  Chauvet,	
  Impasse	
  des	
  2	
  frères	
  rue	
  Lepic,	
  1884.	
  
(I	
  think	
  this	
  is	
  Le	
  Radet.)	
  Bibliothèque	
  nationale	
  de	
  France……………………………157	
  
	
  

17. Jules-­‐Adolphe	
  Chauvet,	
  Montmartre	
  Le	
  Moulin	
  Des	
  frères	
  Debray,	
  	
  
Restaurant	
  Guinguette,	
  1888.	
  
Bibliothèque	
  nationale	
  de	
  France………………………………………………………………….157	
  
	
  

18. Moulin	
  de	
  la	
  Galette	
  (Le	
  Moulin	
  Le	
  Radet,	
  vue	
  de	
  la	
  rue	
  Girardon),	
  	
  
mid-­‐October	
  1886.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  38.5	
  x	
  46.	
  
Kröller-­‐Müller	
  Museum,	
  The	
  Netherlands.	
  F	
  227…………………………………………..157	
  
	
  

19. Pierre-­‐Auguste	
  Renoir,	
  Bal	
  du	
  moulin	
  de	
  la	
  Galette,	
  1876.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  131	
  x	
  175	
  cm.	
  
Musée	
  d’Orsay,	
  Paris…………………………………………………………………………………….158	
  	
  	
  
	
  



xviii	
  

20. La	
  Guinguette	
  du	
  Moulin	
  Le	
  Radet,	
  mid-­‐October	
  1886.	
  	
  
Pencil,	
  pen	
  and	
  brush	
  and	
  ink,	
  chalk,	
  on	
  paper,	
  38.5	
  x	
  52	
  cm.	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  1407……………………………………………………….158	
  
	
  

21. La	
  Guinguette,	
  mid-­‐October	
  1886.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  49	
  x	
  64	
  cm.	
  
Musée	
  d’Orsay,	
  Paris.	
  F	
  238………………………………………..…………………………………158	
  
	
  

22. The	
  Hill	
  of	
  Montmartre,	
  April-­‐May	
  1886.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  38.1	
  x	
  61.1	
  cm.	
  	
  
Kröller-­‐Müller	
  Museum,	
  Netherlands.	
  F	
  266………………………………………………….159	
  
	
  

23. The	
  Hill	
  of	
  Montmartre	
  with	
  Stone	
  Quarry,	
  June-­‐July	
  1886.	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  32	
  x	
  41	
  cm.	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  229…………………………………………………………159	
  	
  	
  
	
  

24. The	
  Hill	
  of	
  Montmartre	
  with	
  Stone	
  Quarry,	
  June-­‐July	
  1886.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  56.3	
  x	
  62.6	
  cm.	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  230…………………………………………………………159	
  	
  	
  
	
  

25. John	
  Constable,	
  The	
  Cornfield,	
  1826.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas.	
  
The	
  National	
  Gallery,	
  London………………………………………………………………………..160	
  
	
  

26. Le	
  Moulin	
  de	
  la	
  Galette,	
  1886.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  18	
  x	
  15	
  inches.	
  
Glasgow	
  Art	
  Gallery	
  and	
  Museum…………………………………………………………………163	
  
	
  

27. Le	
  Blute-­‐fin:	
  le	
  Moulin	
  de	
  la	
  Galette,	
  March	
  1887.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  46	
  x	
  38	
  cm.	
  	
  
The	
  Carnegie	
  Museum	
  of	
  Art,	
  Pittsburg.	
  F	
  348………………………………………………166	
  
	
  

28. Le	
  Moulin	
  de	
  Blute-­‐fin,	
  1886.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas.	
  Fundatie	
  museum,	
  Zwolle…………168	
  
	
  

29. Vegetable	
  Gardens	
  of	
  Montmartre,	
  summer	
  1887.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  96	
  x	
  120	
  cm.	
  
Stedelijk	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  350……………………………………………………………168	
  
	
  

30. Pierre	
  Vidal,	
  detail	
  from	
  the	
  illustrated	
  book	
  	
  
La	
  Vie	
  à	
  Montmartre	
  by	
  Georges	
  Montorgueil,	
  1899.	
  
Bibliothèque	
  nationale	
  de	
  France………………………………………………………………….170	
  
	
  

31. Paul	
  Signac,	
  Rue	
  Caulaincourt.	
  Moulins	
  à	
  Montmartre,	
  1884.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  35	
  x	
  27	
  cm.	
  
Musée	
  Carnavalet,	
  Paris………………………………………………………………………………..170	
  
	
  



xix	
  

32. Flower	
  Beds	
  in	
  Holland,	
  c.	
  1883.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  48.9	
  x	
  66	
  cm.	
  
National	
  Gallery	
  of	
  Art,	
  Washington	
  DC…………………………………………………........175	
  
	
  

33. Camille	
  Pissarro,	
  The	
  Gardens	
  of	
  l’Hermitage,	
  Pontoise,	
  c.	
  1867.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas.	
  
National	
  Gallery,	
  Prague………………………………………………………………………………..177	
  	
  
	
  	
  

34. Wheatfield	
  with	
  Partridge,	
  June-­‐July	
  1887.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  53.7	
  x	
  65.2	
  cm.	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  310…………………………………………………………179	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
	
  

35. Sheaves	
  of	
  Wheat,	
  July-­‐August	
  1885.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  40.2	
  x	
  30	
  cm.	
  	
  
Kröller-­‐Müller	
  Museum,	
  Netherlands.	
  F	
  193………………………………………………….180	
  
	
  

36. Peasant	
  Woman	
  Binding	
  Sheaves,	
  July-­‐September	
  1885.	
  	
  
Chalk	
  on	
  paper,	
  56.3	
  cm	
  x	
  44.5	
  cm	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  1266……………………………………………………….180	
  
	
  

37. Peasant	
  Woman	
  Digging,	
  July-­‐September	
  1885.	
  	
  
Chalk	
  on	
  paper,	
  55.7	
  x	
  41	
  cm.	
  	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  1255……………………………………………………….180	
  
	
  

38. The	
  Sower	
  (After	
  Millet),	
  April	
  1881.	
  	
  
Pencil,	
  pen	
  and	
  brush	
  and	
  ink,	
  watercolor,	
  on	
  paper,	
  48.1	
  x	
  36.7	
  cm.	
  	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  830…………………………………………………………182	
  
	
  

39. Jean-­‐François	
  Millet,	
  The	
  Gleaners,	
  1857.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  83.3	
  x	
  111.8	
  cm.	
  
Muse	
  d’Orsay,	
  Paris…………………………………………………………………………………….182	
  
	
  

40. Camille	
  Pissarro,	
  Haymaking,	
  Regan,	
  1887.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  55	
  x	
  66	
  cm.	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam……………………………………………………………………182	
  
	
  

41. Gate	
  in	
  the	
  Paris	
  Rampart,	
  summer	
  1887.	
  	
  
Pencil,	
  pen	
  and	
  ink	
  and	
  watercolor	
  on	
  paper,	
  24.1	
  x	
  31.6	
  cm.	
  	
  	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  1401………………………………………….……184,	
  187	
  
	
  

42. Road	
  Running	
  Beside	
  the	
  Paris	
  Ramparts,	
  June	
  1887.	
  	
  
Pencil,	
  watercolor,	
  chalk,	
  brush	
  and	
  (oil?)	
  paint,	
  pen	
  and	
  ink,	
  on	
  paper,	
  	
  
39.7	
  cm	
  x	
  53.8	
  cm	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  1400……………………………………………….184,	
  188	
  
	
  



xx	
  

43. Fortifications	
  of	
  Paris	
  with	
  Houses,	
  1887.	
  	
  
Watercolor,	
  black	
  chalk,	
  and	
  gouache,	
  heightened	
  with	
  pencil	
  on	
  laid	
  paper,	
  
24.1	
  x	
  31.6	
  cm	
  
Whitworth	
  Art	
  Gallery,	
  University	
  of	
  Manchester.	
  	
  F	
  1403…………………………….184	
  
	
  

44. Fortifications	
  of	
  Paris,	
  1887.	
  	
  
Watercolor,	
  black	
  chalk,	
  and	
  gouache,	
  heightened	
  with	
  pencil	
  on	
  laid	
  paper,	
  
39.5	
  x	
  54	
  cm.	
  	
  	
  
Location	
  unknown.	
  F	
  1402…………………………………………………………………………….184	
  
	
  

45. Lucien	
  Pissarro,	
  Sur	
  les	
  fortifications,	
  1886.	
  	
  
Pencil	
  and	
  black	
  chalk,	
  19.6	
  x	
  29.2	
  cm.	
  	
  	
  
Ashmolean	
  Museum,	
  Oxford…………………………………………………………………………186	
  
	
  

46. Factory	
  at	
  Clichy,	
  1887.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  46.5	
  x	
  54	
  cm.	
  	
  
Barnes	
  Foundation,	
  Philadelphia.	
  F	
  318…………………………………………………………190	
  
	
  

47. Allotment	
  with	
  Sunflower,	
  1887.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  43.2	
  x	
  36.2	
  cm.	
  	
  	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  388v……………………………………………………….190	
  
	
  

48. Coke	
  Factory	
  in	
  the	
  Borinage,	
  July-­‐August	
  1879.	
  	
  
Pencil	
  and	
  watercolor	
  on	
  paper,	
  26.4	
  x	
  37.5	
  cm.	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  1040……………………………………………………….193	
  
	
  

49. Gasworks,	
  The	
  Hague,	
  March	
  1882.	
  	
  
Pencil,	
  brush	
  and	
  ink,	
  watercolor,	
  on	
  paper,	
  23.8	
  cm	
  x	
  33.8	
  cm	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  924…………………………………………………………193	
  
	
  

50. Édouard	
  Manet,	
  A	
  Bar	
  at	
  the	
  Folies	
  Bergère,	
  1882.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  	
  	
  96	
  x	
  130	
  cm.	
  	
  
Courtauld	
  Gallery,	
  London…………….………………………………………………………………197	
  	
  	
  	
  
	
  

51. Edgar	
  Degas,	
  The	
  Song	
  of	
  the	
  Dog,	
  1875-­‐1877.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  51.8	
  x	
  42.6	
  cm.	
  
Private	
  Collection………………………………………………….………………………………………197	
  	
  	
  
	
  

52. Verrerie	
  du	
  Pont	
  de	
  Clichy,	
  documented	
  by	
  Michel	
  Baltzer	
  c.	
  1900.	
  	
  
Published	
  by	
  Jim	
  Friant………………………………………………………………………………….198	
  
	
  

53. Claude	
  Monet,	
  Men	
  Unloading	
  Coal,	
  1873-­‐1875.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  54	
  x	
  66	
  cm.	
  	
  Musée	
  d’Orsay,	
  Paris…………………………………………..201	
  	
  	
  	
  
	
  



xxi	
  

54. Émile	
  Bernard	
  (facing)	
  and	
  	
  
Vincent	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  on	
  the	
  banks	
  of	
  Asnières,	
  dated	
  1886,	
  probably	
  1887.	
  
Vincent	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam……………………………………………………….201	
  	
  	
  
	
  

55. Le	
  Pont	
  à	
  Asnières,	
  summer	
  1887.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  53	
  x	
  73	
  cm.	
  	
  
Collection	
  of	
  Dominique	
  de	
  Menil,	
  Houston.	
  F	
  240………………………………………..201	
  	
  	
  	
  
	
  

56. Paul	
  Signac,	
  The	
  Gas	
  Tanks	
  at	
  Clichy,	
  1886.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  65	
  x	
  81	
  cm.	
  
National	
  gallery	
  of	
  Victoria,	
  Melbourne…………………………………………………………201	
  
	
  

57. Émile	
  Bernard.	
  Vue	
  du	
  pont	
  d’Asnières	
  (View	
  from	
  the	
  Bridge	
  of	
  Asnières),	
  	
  
late	
  1887.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  38	
  x	
  46	
  cm.	
  	
  
Museé	
  des	
  Beaux-­‐Arts…………………………………………………………………………..………202	
  	
  
	
  

58. Camille	
  Pissarro,	
  Factories	
  near	
  Pontoise,	
  1873.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas.	
  
Museum	
  of	
  Fine	
  Arts,	
  Springfield,	
  Massachusetts………………………………………….204	
  
	
  
	
  

Chapter	
  5:	
  Symbolism	
  in	
  Paris	
  
Figure	
  
	
  
1. Sower,	
  June	
  1888.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  64.2	
  x	
  80.3	
  cm.	
  

Kröller-­‐Müller	
  Museum,	
  The	
  Netherlands.	
  F	
  422…………………………………………..208	
  
	
  

2. Fourteen	
  Flowers	
  in	
  a	
  Vase,	
  August	
  1888.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  93	
  x	
  73	
  cm.	
  
Kröller-­‐Müller	
  Museum,	
  The	
  Netherlands.	
  F	
  454…………………………………………..208	
  
	
  

3. Terrace	
  of	
  a	
  Café	
  at	
  Night,	
  September	
  1888.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  80.7	
  x	
  65.3	
  cm.	
  
Kroller-­‐Müller	
  Museum,	
  The	
  Netherlands.	
  F	
  467…………………………………………..208	
  
	
  

4. The	
  Night	
  Café,	
  September	
  1888.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  70	
  x	
  89	
  cm.	
  
Kröller-­‐Müller	
  Museum,	
  The	
  Netherlands.	
  F	
  463……………..…………………...208,	
  237	
  
	
  
	
  

5. The	
  Potato	
  Eaters,	
  April-­‐May	
  1885.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  82	
  x	
  114	
  cm.	
  	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  82……………………………………………………………209	
  	
  
	
  

6. Starry	
  Night,	
  1889.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  73.7	
  x	
  92.1	
  cm.	
  	
  
Museum	
  of	
  Modern	
  Art,	
  New	
  York	
  City.	
  F	
  612………………………………………………210	
  
	
  



xxii	
  

7. Park	
  at	
  Asnières	
  in	
  Spring,	
  spring	
  1887.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  1887.	
  50	
  x	
  65	
  cm.	
  F	
  362…………………………………………………..211,	
  223	
  
	
  	
  	
  

8. Patch	
  of	
  Grass,	
  April-­‐June	
  1887.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  30.8	
  x	
  39.7	
  cm.	
  	
  
Kröller-­‐Müller	
  Museum,	
  Netherlands.	
  F	
  583………………………………………….211,	
  239	
  
	
  

9. Path	
  in	
  the	
  Woods,	
  May-­‐July	
  1888.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  45.3	
  x	
  37.7	
  cm.	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  309…………………………………………………………211	
  
	
  

10. Exterior	
  of	
  a	
  Restaurant	
  in	
  Asnières,	
  summer	
  1887.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  18.5	
  x	
  27	
  cm.	
  	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  321………………………………………………….211,	
  227	
  	
  
	
  

11. Paul	
  Gauguin,	
  Vision	
  After	
  the	
  Sermon,	
  1888.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  73	
  x	
  92	
  cm.	
  Scottish	
  National	
  Gallery,	
  Edinburgh…………………….214	
  	
  
	
  

12. Romans	
  parisiens,	
  fall	
  1887.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  73	
  x	
  93	
  cm.	
  
Private	
  Collection.	
  F	
  359………………………………………………………………………………..215	
  
	
  

13. Still	
  Life	
  with	
  Bible,	
  October	
  1885.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  65.7	
  x	
  78.5	
  cm.	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  117…………………………………………………………216	
  
	
  

14. Three	
  Novels,	
  January-­‐February	
  1887.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  31.1	
  x	
  48.5	
  cm.	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  335…………………………………………………………217	
  
	
  

15. Gustave	
  Moreau,	
  The	
  Apparition,	
  1876.	
  	
  
Watercolor,	
  72.2	
  x	
  106	
  cm.	
  
Musée	
  d’Orsay,	
  Paris…………………………………………………………………………………….220	
  
	
  

16. Sous-­‐Bois,	
  summer	
  1887.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  46	
  x	
  55.5	
  cm.	
  	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  309…………………………………………………………223	
  	
  	
  
	
  

17. Avenue	
  of	
  Poplars	
  in	
  Autumn,	
  October	
  1884.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  99	
  x	
  65.7	
  cm.	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  122…………………………………………………………228	
  
	
  

18. Self-­‐Portrait	
  as	
  a	
  Painter,	
  1886.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  46.5	
  x	
  38.5	
  cm.	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  181…………………………………………………………231	
  	
  
	
  

	
  



xxiii	
  

19. Self-­‐Portrait	
  as	
  a	
  Painter,	
  December	
  1887-­‐Febraury	
  1888.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  65.1	
  x	
  50	
  cm.	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  522…………………………………………………………231	
  
	
  

20. Camille	
  Pissarro,	
  Pond	
  at	
  Montfoucault,	
  1874.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  53.5	
  x	
  65.5	
  cm.	
  Private	
  Collection……………………………………………236	
  	
  	
  
	
  

21. Claude	
  Monet,	
  Woman	
  with	
  a	
  Parasol—Madame	
  Monet	
  and	
  Her	
  Son,	
  1875.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  100	
  x	
  81	
  cm.	
  National	
  Gallery	
  of	
  Art,	
  Washington,	
  DC…………….236	
  
	
  

22. Café	
  table	
  with	
  Absinthe,	
  February-­‐March	
  1887.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  46.3	
  x	
  33.2	
  cm.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  339………….237	
  
	
  

23. Bertall,	
  Manet	
  as	
  Jesus	
  with	
  his	
  Disciples,	
  1870…………………………………………….247	
  
	
  

24. Georges	
  Seurat,	
  	
  
Sunday	
  Afternoon	
  on	
  the	
  Island	
  of	
  La	
  Grande	
  Jatte,	
  1884-­‐1886.	
  
	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  207.5	
  x	
  308.1	
  cm.	
  Art	
  Institute,	
  Chicago…………………………………248	
  	
  
	
  

25. Way	
  in	
  the	
  Voyer	
  d’Argenson	
  Park	
  in	
  Asnières,	
  spring	
  1887.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  59	
  x	
  81	
  cm.	
  	
  
Yale	
  University	
  Art	
  Gallery,	
  New	
  Haven,	
  Connecticut…………………………………….249	
  	
  
	
  

26. Édouard	
  Manet,	
  Olympia,	
  1863.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  190	
  x	
  130	
  cm.	
  Musée	
  d’Orsay,	
  Paris……………………………………….250	
  	
  
	
  

27. Claude	
  Monet,	
  Woman	
  with	
  a	
  Parasol—Madame	
  Monet	
  and	
  Her	
  Son,	
  1875.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  100	
  x	
  81	
  cm.	
  National	
  Gallery	
  of	
  Art,	
  Washington,	
  DC…………….254	
  	
  
	
  

28. Berthe	
  Morisot,	
  The	
  Wet	
  Nurse	
  Angèle	
  Feeding	
  Julie	
  Manet,	
  1880.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  50.2	
  x	
  61	
  cm.	
  Private	
  Collection,	
  New	
  York………………..……………254	
  	
  
	
  

29. Camille	
  Pissarro,	
  The	
  Shepherdess,	
  1881.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  81	
  x	
  64.7	
  cm.	
  
Musée	
  d’Orsay,	
  Paris…………………………………………………………………………………….254	
  	
  
	
  

30. 	
  Camille	
  Pissarro,	
  Le	
  Chemin	
  de	
  fer	
  de	
  Dieppe,	
  1886.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  54	
  x	
  65	
  cm.	
  Private	
  Collection…………………………………………………254	
  	
  
	
  

31. 	
  Georges	
  Seurat,	
  La	
  Luzerne,	
  Saint-­‐Denis:	
  champ	
  de	
  coquelicots,	
  1885-­‐1886.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  64	
  x	
  81	
  cm	
  
National	
  Galleries	
  of	
  Scotland,	
  Edinburgh..……………………………………………………254	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  



xxiv	
  

	
  
32. Paul	
  Gauguin,	
  Tropical	
  Vegetation,	
  1887.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  116	
  x	
  89	
  cm.	
  

National	
  Gallery	
  of	
  Scotland,	
  Edinburgh…………………………………………..……………255	
  	
  
	
  

33. The	
  Restaurant	
  Rispal	
  in	
  Asnières,	
  summer	
  1887.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  72	
  x	
  60	
  cm.	
  
	
  Nelson-­‐Atkins	
  Museum	
  of	
  Art,	
  Kansas	
  City…………………………………………………..258	
  
	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  
	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

1	
  

CHAPTER	
  1:	
  INTRODUCTION	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  Living	
  in	
  Paris	
  from	
  February	
  1886	
  through	
  February	
  1888,	
  Vincent	
  van	
  Gogh	
  

(1853-­‐1890)	
  completed	
  more	
  than	
  two	
  hundred	
  paintings	
  and	
  works	
  on	
  paper	
  and	
  

had	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  most	
  productive	
  periods	
  of	
  his	
  career.	
  Considering	
  that	
  his	
  artistic	
  

practice	
  spanned	
  only	
  a	
  decade	
  from	
  1880	
  to	
  1890,	
  the	
  artist’s	
  time	
  in	
  the	
  capital	
  

represents	
  a	
  significant	
  period	
  of	
  growth	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  his	
  engagement	
  with	
  the	
  art	
  

market,	
   his	
   exposure	
   to	
   avant-­‐garde	
   imagery,	
   and	
   his	
   understanding	
   of	
   Symbolist	
  

theory	
   in	
   the	
   visual	
   arts.	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   sought	
   out	
   artists	
   and	
   critics	
   whose	
   work	
  

changed	
  the	
  trajectory	
  of	
  his	
  painting	
  practice:	
  from	
  the	
  dark,	
  somber	
  paintings	
  he	
  

made	
  in	
  The	
  Netherlands	
  to	
  the	
  improvisational	
  brushwork	
  and	
  saturated	
  color	
  of	
  

the	
  Impressionists	
  and	
  Neo-­‐Impressionists.	
  By	
  the	
  summer	
  of	
  1886,	
  the	
  artist	
  began	
  

experimenting	
  with	
  texture,	
  hue,	
  and	
  perspective	
  in	
  landscape,	
  portraiture,	
  and	
  still-­‐

life,	
  developing	
  pictorial	
  strategies	
  that	
  underpin	
  the	
  Symbolist	
  works	
  he	
  generated	
  

after	
  he	
  left	
  the	
  capital	
  and	
  moved	
  to	
  Arles.	
  	
  

	
  Scholars	
  generally	
  address	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  two	
  years	
  in	
  Paris	
  as	
  a	
  biographical	
  

point.	
  Moreover,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  scholarship	
  is	
  problematic	
  because	
  the	
  artist’s	
  life	
  is	
  one	
  

of	
  the	
  most	
  documented	
  in	
  the	
  history	
  of	
  art.1	
  There	
  are	
  over	
  800	
  extant	
  letters	
  by	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
1	
  Richard	
  Shiff,	
  “Art	
  History	
  and	
  the	
  Nineteenth	
  Century:	
  Realism	
  and	
  Resistance,”	
  Art	
  Bulletin	
  70.1	
  
(March	
  1988):	
  29-­‐31.	
  Louis	
  van	
  Tilborgh,	
  “The	
  Parisian	
  Self-­‐Portraits	
  by	
  Van	
  Gogh,”	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  Bulletin	
  
2	
  (1994):	
  2-­‐7.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

2	
  

Vincent,	
  651	
  written	
  to	
  his	
  brother	
  and	
  art	
  dealer	
  Théo	
  van	
  Gogh	
  (1857-­‐1891).	
  In	
  his	
  

letters,	
  the	
  artist	
  explained	
  novels	
  he	
  was	
  reading	
  and	
  paintings	
  he	
  thought	
  about,	
  

and	
   gave	
   a	
   detailed	
   account	
   of	
   his	
   artistic	
   process.	
   According	
   to	
   Richard	
   Shiff,	
  

scholars	
  push	
  aside	
  theoretical	
  issues	
  because	
  there	
  are	
  overwhelming	
  facts	
  of	
  the	
  

artist’s	
  life,	
  which	
  continue	
  to	
  accumulate.	
  On	
  the	
  other	
  hand,	
  the	
  artist	
  wrote	
  few	
  

letters	
  while	
  in	
  the	
  capital	
  because	
  he	
  was	
  living	
  with	
  his	
  brother;	
  ten	
  letters	
  remain.	
  

Thus,	
  the	
  Paris	
  period	
  poses	
  difficulties	
  due	
  to	
  the	
  lack	
  of	
  first-­‐hand	
  evidence	
  and	
  

the	
  often-­‐exaggerated	
  instances	
  acquaintances	
  recalled.	
  I	
  think	
  this	
  may	
  contribute	
  

to	
  the	
  lack	
  of	
  scholarly	
  attention	
  paid	
  to	
  the	
  paintings	
  the	
  artist	
  created	
  in	
  Paris.	
  

	
  Bogomila	
   Welsh-­‐Ovcharov’s	
   research,	
   particularly	
   her	
   1988	
   catalog	
   for	
   an	
  

exhibition	
   at	
   the	
   Musée	
   d’Orsay,	
   was	
   a	
   benchmark	
   in	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   Paris-­‐period	
  

studies.2	
  She	
   pieced	
   together	
   the	
   whereabouts	
   of	
   many	
   images	
   and	
   situated	
   Van	
  

Gogh’s	
   practice	
   within	
   Paris,	
   comparing	
   his	
   paintings	
   to	
   those	
   of	
   contemporary	
  

Impressionist	
   and	
   Neo-­‐Impressionist	
   painters.	
   To	
   date,	
   her	
   catalog	
   is	
   the	
   most	
  

comprehensive	
  study	
  of	
  the	
  artist’s	
  Paris	
  period.	
  Since	
  this	
  publication,	
  Carol	
  Zemel,	
  

Cornelia	
  Homburg,	
  Richard	
  Thomson,	
  and	
  John	
  House	
  have	
  studied	
  the	
  theoretical	
  

implications	
  the	
  Parisian	
  avant-­‐garde	
  had	
  on	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  work	
  and	
  thereafter	
  as	
  it	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
2	
  Bogomila	
   Ovcharov-­‐Welsh,	
   Vincent	
   Van	
   Gogh:	
   His	
   Paris	
   Period	
   1886-­‐1888.	
   Diss.	
   (University	
   of	
  
Toronto,	
  1976.	
  Utrecht-­‐Den	
  Haag:	
  Editions	
  Victorine,	
  1976).	
  Bogomila	
  Ovcharov-­‐Welsh,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  à	
  
Paris	
  (Paris:	
  Musée	
  d’Orsay,	
  1988).	
  

	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

3	
  

figures	
  into	
  discussions	
  larger	
  in	
  scope.	
  Homburg	
  considers	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  Paris	
  sojourn	
  

central	
  to	
  his	
  developing	
  artistic	
  identity	
  and	
  entry	
  into	
  modern	
  painting;	
  a	
  body	
  of	
  

work,	
  she	
  notes,	
  that	
  should	
  not	
  be	
  peripheral	
  to	
  the	
  later	
  imagery.3	
  To	
  consider	
  Van	
  

Gogh’s	
  decision	
  to	
  move	
  to	
  Paris	
  and	
  his	
  subsequent	
  study	
  of	
  avant-­‐garde	
  painting,	
  

my	
   exploration	
   leads	
   from	
   their	
   respective	
   observations	
   and	
   takes	
   into	
   account	
  

Shiff’s	
  concerns.	
  I	
  do	
  not	
  rely	
  on	
  biographical	
  points	
  or	
  overemphasize	
  the	
  letters.	
  I	
  

aim	
  to	
  consider	
  the	
  critical	
  conversations	
  occurring	
  in	
  Paris	
  and	
  how	
  they	
  affected	
  

the	
  artist’s	
  aesthetic.	
  	
  

	
  To	
  begin,	
  in	
  chapter	
  two,	
  I	
  consider	
  how	
  market	
  patterns	
  shaped	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  

decision	
   to	
   learn	
   academic	
   drawing	
   and	
   painting	
   skills	
   and	
   to	
   then	
   engage	
   with	
  

avant-­‐garde	
   techniques.	
   The	
   artist	
   had	
   two	
   transitions	
   in	
   Paris:	
   the	
   first	
   from	
  

academic	
   to	
   avant-­‐garde	
   strategies,	
   and	
   the	
   second	
   from	
   a	
   close	
   study	
   of	
  

Impressionist	
   and	
   Neo-­‐Impressionist	
   methods	
   to	
   his	
   unique	
   modernist	
   painterly	
  

vernacular.	
  Although	
  scholars	
  typically	
  view	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  academic	
  studies	
  as	
  a	
  brief	
  

course	
  of	
  study	
  before	
  his	
  exposure	
  to	
  the	
  Impressionists	
  and	
  Neo-­‐Impressionists,	
  I	
  

draw	
   from	
   Zemel’s	
   point	
   that	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   intentionally	
   weighed	
   market-­‐driven	
  

opportunities.	
  Rather	
  than	
  focus	
  on	
  the	
  painter’s	
  clerical	
  studies	
  as	
  the	
  impetus	
  for	
  

his	
   early	
   painting	
   strategies,	
   I	
   make	
   Zemel’s	
   observation	
   central	
   to	
   my	
   analysis	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
3	
  Cornelia	
   Homburg,	
   “Vincent	
   van	
   Gogh’s	
   Avant-­‐Garde	
   Strategies,”	
   in	
   Vincent	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   and	
   the	
  
Painters	
  of	
  the	
  Petit	
  Boulevard,	
  ed.	
  Cornelia	
  Homburg	
  (Saint	
  Louis:	
  Saint	
  Louis	
  Art	
  Museum,	
  2001)	
  21-­‐
30.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

4	
  

regarding	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   Paris-­‐period	
   shifts.	
   I	
   examine	
   how	
   the	
   artist	
   crafted	
   avant-­‐

garde	
  works	
  to	
  appeal	
  to	
  a	
  niche	
  market	
  and	
  how	
  he	
  arrived	
  at	
  a	
  newfound	
  sense	
  of	
  

modernism.	
  	
  

	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  clerical	
  studies	
  typically	
  overshadow	
  the	
  seven	
  years	
  he	
  spent	
  

studying	
   the	
   works	
   of	
   old	
   masters	
   and	
   contemporary	
   artists	
   at	
   Goupil	
   &	
   Cie.,	
   a	
  

successful	
  print	
  shop	
  with	
  branches	
  in	
  Europe	
  and	
  London.	
  Although	
  the	
  artist	
  wrote	
  

a	
  passionate	
  letter	
  to	
  Théo	
  equating	
  the	
  power	
  of	
  a	
  Rembrandt	
  painting	
  with	
  that	
  of	
  

the	
   Gospel,	
   he	
   wrote	
   the	
   letter	
   in	
   1880	
   while	
   he	
   was	
   just	
   beginning	
   his	
   painting	
  

career.4	
  In	
  the	
  letter,	
  he	
  persuaded	
  his	
  brother	
  to	
  help	
  him,	
  and	
  he	
  noted	
  that	
  his	
  

artistic	
  pursuits	
  could	
  foster	
  a	
  meaningful	
  relationship	
  with	
  God.	
  In	
  context,	
  Vincent	
  

broke	
  a	
  year-­‐long	
  silence	
  with	
  Théo,	
  and	
  the	
  exchange	
  established	
  the	
  monetary	
  and	
  

professional	
  support	
  Théo	
  provided	
  for	
  the	
  rest	
  of	
  the	
  artist’s	
  life.	
  Vincent	
  admitted	
  

to	
  having	
  let	
  his	
  family	
  down	
  since	
  leaving	
  his	
  clerical	
  studies,	
  and	
  wanted	
  to	
  smooth	
  

over	
  the	
  relationship	
  with	
  Théo	
  because	
  he	
  distanced	
  himself	
  from	
  his	
  parents.	
  To	
  

re-­‐consider	
  the	
  religiously	
  based	
  reasoning	
  behind	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  decision	
  to	
  become	
  a	
  

painter,	
   I	
   address	
   how	
   the	
   artist	
   developed	
   an	
   avant-­‐garde	
   approach	
   while	
   he	
  

studied	
   in	
   the	
   atelier	
   of	
   Karl	
   Verlat	
   in	
   Antwerp	
   and	
   Fernand	
   Cormon	
   in	
   Paris.	
   I	
  

establish	
  how	
  Théo’s	
  connections	
  at	
  Goupil	
  &	
  Cie.,	
  where	
  he	
  worked	
  in	
  Montmartre,	
  

fostered	
  Vincent’s	
  understanding	
  of	
  experimental	
  work	
  within	
  the	
  art	
  market.	
  I	
  also	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
4	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  155	
  to	
  Théo	
  from	
  Cuesmes,	
  Belgium	
  around	
  22	
  or	
  24,	
  June	
  1880.	
  	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

5	
  

understand	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  unique	
  painterly	
  techniques	
  as	
  a	
  response	
  to,	
  rather	
  than	
  an	
  

adaptation	
  of,	
  paintings	
  by	
  artists	
  such	
  as	
  Camille	
  Pissarro	
  (1830-­‐1903)	
  and	
  Georges	
  

Seurat	
   (1859-­‐1891).	
   His	
   avant-­‐garde	
   method	
   developed	
   to	
   include	
   several	
   ideals	
  

from	
  modernist	
  painting,	
  which	
  became	
  an	
  innovative	
  aspect	
  of	
  his	
  imagery.	
  	
  

	
  Since	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  relied	
  on	
  market	
  strategies	
  to	
  shape	
  his	
  path,	
  I	
  re-­‐evaluate	
  

the	
  exhibitions	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  held	
  while	
  in	
  Paris	
  in	
  chapter	
  three.	
  The	
  last	
  Impressionist	
  

exhibition	
  opened	
  upon	
  his	
  arrival	
  and	
  similar	
  artist-­‐run	
  shows	
  in	
  Paris	
  provided	
  an	
  

example	
  as	
  to	
  how	
  avant-­‐garde	
  works	
  operated	
  within	
  the	
  market.	
  As	
  a	
  developing	
  

artist	
  in	
  a	
  new	
  city,	
  he	
  relied	
  on	
  a	
  co-­‐operative	
  model	
  and	
  accepted	
  varied	
  ideas	
  of	
  

mark-­‐making	
   and	
   compositional	
   aims	
   from	
   contributing	
   painters.	
   Although	
   it	
   is	
  

understood	
  that	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  experimented	
  with	
  Impressionist	
  and	
  Neo-­‐Impressionist	
  

techniques,	
  he	
  did	
  not	
  always	
  maintain	
  their	
  autonomy.	
  For	
  the	
  artist,	
  the	
  modes	
  

were	
  not	
  mutually	
  exclusive.	
  Instead,	
  he	
  translated	
  the	
  painting	
  approaches	
  to	
  his	
  

unique	
   end.	
   His	
   painting	
   practice	
   developed	
   to	
   consider	
   how	
   the	
   artist’s	
  

idiosyncratic	
   perspective	
   could	
   construct	
   a	
   canvas	
   that	
   conveyed	
   concepts	
  

symbolically.	
  	
  	
  

	
   In	
   considering	
   the	
   paintings	
   he	
   exhibited,	
   I	
   locate	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   pictorial	
  

strategies	
   within	
   the	
   ideals	
   expressed	
   by	
   critic	
   Félix	
   Fénéon	
   (1861-­‐1944),	
   who	
  

articulated	
   the	
   theoretical	
   aspects	
   of	
   Neo-­‐Impressionism.	
   Fénéon	
   focused	
   on	
   the	
  

experiential	
  concepts	
  of	
  the	
  work	
  of	
  art,	
  which	
   led	
  to	
  a	
  Symbolist	
  rhetoric	
   in	
  the	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

6	
  

visual	
  arts.	
  While	
  it	
  is	
  commonly	
  known	
  that	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  knew	
  Fénéon	
  while	
  in	
  Paris,	
  

interpreting	
  the	
  artist’s	
   imagery	
  through	
  the	
  critic’s	
   lens	
  has	
  not	
  been	
  addressed.	
  

Essentially,	
   Fénéon’s	
   theories	
   encouraged	
   artists	
   to	
   craft	
   their	
   canvases	
   with	
   the	
  

idea	
  that	
  there	
  can	
  be	
  an	
  intentional	
  discord	
  between	
  the	
  image	
  and	
  the	
  natural	
  

world.	
   I	
   establish	
   that	
   Fénéon’s	
   ideas	
   are	
   rooted	
   in	
   the	
   works	
   of	
   Édouard	
   Manet	
  

(1832-­‐1883)	
   and	
   Pissarro.	
   To	
   explore	
   how	
   Fénéon’s	
   ideas	
   influenced	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
  

painting	
  practice	
  and	
  that	
  of	
  the	
  up-­‐and-­‐coming	
  artists	
  the	
  painter	
  met	
  in	
  Paris,	
   I	
  

analyze	
  the	
  imagery	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  hung	
  in	
  two	
  exhibitions	
  he	
  organized	
  in	
  the	
  capital:	
  at	
  

the	
  Café	
  Tambourin	
  during	
  the	
  summer	
  of	
  1887	
  and	
  the	
  collective	
  Grand	
  Bouillon	
  

Exhibition	
  held	
  in	
  November	
  of	
  1887	
  at	
  the	
  Restaurant	
  du	
  Châlet.	
  I	
  also	
  consider	
  the	
  

landscape	
  painting	
  he	
  included	
  at	
  the	
  Théâtre	
  Libra	
  d’Antoine	
  alongside	
  the	
  imagery	
  

of	
   Seurat	
   and	
   Paul	
   Signac	
   (1863-­‐1935).	
   Through	
   Fénéon,	
   I	
   argue	
   that	
   the	
   artist’s	
  

Symbolist	
   painterly	
   methods	
   already	
   explored	
   in	
   Paris	
   set	
   a	
   foundation	
   to	
  

understand	
  the	
  imaginative	
  and	
  embodied	
  space	
  of	
  the	
  participant-­‐viewer.	
  

To	
   interpret	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   paintings	
   in	
   relation	
   to	
   an	
   implied	
   space	
   of	
   the	
  

viewer’s	
   body,	
   a	
   concept	
   set	
   forth	
   by	
   Greg	
   Thomas	
   in	
   relation	
   to	
   Théodore	
  

Rousseau’s	
   landscape	
   paintings,	
   I	
   explore	
   the	
   paths	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   included	
   in	
   his	
  

imagery	
   of	
   Montmartre	
   and	
   Clichy	
   in	
   chapter	
   four.5	
  Van	
   Gogh’s	
   arrival	
   coincided	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
5	
  Greg	
   M.	
   Thomas,	
   Art	
   and	
   Ecology	
   in	
   Nineteenth-­‐Century	
   France:	
   The	
   Landscape	
   of	
   Théodore	
  
Rousseau	
  (Princeton,	
  New	
  Jersey:	
  Princeton	
  University	
  Press,	
  2000).	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

7	
  

with	
  three	
  national	
  events	
  of	
  French	
  interest:	
  the	
  rise	
  of	
  the	
  socialist	
  political	
  party	
  

and	
  labor	
  reforms	
  of	
  the	
  working	
  classes,	
  the	
  decision	
  to	
  allow	
  small-­‐scale	
  farmers	
  

to	
  manage	
  their	
  land	
  individually	
  rather	
  than	
  collectively,	
  and	
  a	
  miner’s	
  strike	
  at	
  the	
  

Decazeville	
  coalmine.	
  In	
  Paris,	
  there	
  were	
  two	
  developments	
  that	
  dovetailed	
  with	
  

the	
  reform	
  movements	
  and	
  the	
  strike:	
  the	
  introduction	
  of	
  gas	
  lights	
  and	
  stoves	
  in	
  

the	
  homes	
  of	
  the	
  upper	
  classes	
  and	
  a	
  new	
  plant	
  on	
  the	
  Seine	
  in	
  Clichy	
  that	
  used	
  coal	
  

to	
   generate	
   gas.	
   These	
   events	
   implicitly	
   enter	
   the	
   pictorial	
   narratives	
   Van	
   Gogh	
  

developed,	
   and	
   he	
   conveyed	
   the	
   experience	
   of	
   the	
   working-­‐class	
   to	
   expose	
   the	
  

confining	
   and	
   marginal	
   spaces	
   they	
   occupy.	
   The	
   imagery	
   indicates	
   that	
   he	
  

considered	
   the	
   connection	
   between	
   commodity	
   and	
   labor	
   and	
   constructed	
   the	
  

landscape	
   to	
   indicate	
   the	
   exchange	
   between	
   middle-­‐class	
   spaces	
   and	
   lower-­‐class	
  

work.	
  	
  

Van	
  Gogh’s	
  paintings	
  of	
  Montmartre’s	
  Butte,	
  particularly	
  the	
  images	
  of	
  the	
  

allotment	
  farms	
  on	
  its	
  northern	
  slope,	
  and	
  the	
  factory	
  landscapes	
  of	
  Clichy	
  have	
  not	
  

been	
   addressed	
   in	
   light	
   of	
   the	
   afore-­‐mentioned	
   social	
   and	
   industrial	
   movements	
  

occurring	
   in	
   France.	
   I	
   outline	
   the	
   major	
   socialist	
   events	
   and	
   the	
   working-­‐class	
  

population	
  in	
  Montmartre	
  to	
  think	
  about	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  sympathetic	
  view	
  of	
  those	
  who	
  

labored	
  to	
  provide	
  goods	
  to	
  the	
  city.	
  The	
  working	
  classes	
  lived	
  on	
  the	
  outskirts	
  of	
  

the	
  capital,	
  and	
  rather	
  than	
  set	
  his	
  focus	
  on	
  the	
  city’s	
  center,	
  the	
  artist	
  painted	
  the	
  

peasant	
  farmers	
  who	
  rented	
  plots	
  on	
  the	
  Butte	
  and	
  factory	
  employees	
  who	
  worked	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

8	
  

in	
  the	
  Commune	
  de	
  Clichy.	
  The	
  painter	
  walked	
  through	
  the	
  arrondissement	
  and	
  into	
  

Clichy	
  and	
  passed	
  through	
  the	
  fortifications	
  on	
  the	
  boundary.	
  I	
  address	
  the	
  imagery	
  

of	
  the	
  Butte,	
  the	
  fortifications,	
  and	
  Clichy	
  to	
  underscore	
  the	
  ways	
  in	
  which	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  

empathized	
  with	
  the	
  working	
  classes.	
  I	
  find	
  that	
  the	
  artist	
  depicted	
  the	
  agricultural	
  

landscape	
   as	
   a	
   negotiation	
   between	
   the	
   middle-­‐class	
   and	
   the	
   labor-­‐class,	
   and	
  

painted	
  the	
  industrial	
  landscape	
  as	
  an	
  assertion	
  of	
  the	
  prevalence	
  of	
  industry	
  in	
  the	
  

lives	
  of	
  those	
  living	
  and	
  working	
  on	
  the	
  city’s	
  periphery.	
  	
  

In	
  the	
  last	
  chapter,	
  I	
  posit	
  that	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  Symbolist	
  aesthetic	
  strategies	
  are	
  

at	
  work	
  already	
  in	
  his	
  Paris-­‐period	
  imagery.	
  Scholars	
  generally	
  attribute	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  

shift	
  to	
  Symbolism	
  to	
  Paul	
  Gauguin’s	
  (1848-­‐1903)	
  1888	
  visit	
  to	
  Arles.	
  It	
  is	
  commonly	
  

held	
  that	
  Gauguin	
  shared	
  the	
  Symbolist	
  theoretical	
  methods	
  with	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  when	
  

they	
  briefly	
  lived	
  together,	
  and	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  then	
  began	
  to	
  reinvent	
  his	
  overall	
  painterly	
  

approach.	
  This	
  narrative	
  omits	
  significant	
  ideals	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  learned	
  in	
  Paris.	
  Symbolist	
  

concepts	
   extolled	
   by	
   critic	
   Charles	
   Baudelaire	
   (1821-­‐1867)	
   influenced	
   the	
  

Impressionist	
   and	
   Neo-­‐Impressionist	
   painters	
   and	
   critics	
   from	
   whom	
   Van	
   Gogh	
  

learned	
   avant-­‐garde	
   painting.	
   The	
   Paris-­‐period	
   imagery	
   reveals	
   the	
   artist’s	
  

engagement	
  with	
  a	
  Symbolist	
  practice	
  that	
  is	
  more	
  of	
  a	
  mind-­‐set	
  than	
  a	
  series	
  of	
  

painting	
   skills.	
   Moreover,	
   in	
   considering	
   the	
   tenets	
   of	
   Symbolism	
   in	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
  

imagery,	
   aspects	
   of	
   Impressionism	
   and	
   Neo-­‐Impressionism	
   become	
   relevant	
   only	
  

inasmuch	
  as	
  they	
  inform	
  the	
  experimental	
  aesthetic	
  the	
  artist	
  developed.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

9	
  

	
  I	
   examine	
   the	
   Symbolist	
   discourse	
   occurring	
   in	
   Paris	
   in	
   the	
   mid-­‐1880s	
   to	
  

show	
  how	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  imagery	
  leads	
  from	
  the	
  ideals	
  generated	
  by	
  the	
  artists	
  and	
  

critics	
  in	
  Paris.	
  I	
  conclude	
  by	
  exploring	
  the	
  role	
  of	
  the	
  canvas	
  as	
  it	
  was	
  conceived	
  by	
  

the	
  critic	
  G.-­‐Albert	
  Aurier	
  (1865-­‐1892),	
  the	
  first	
  to	
  write	
  about	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  imagery	
  

during	
  the	
  artist’s	
  lifetime.	
  The	
  text	
  is	
  significant	
  because	
  the	
  critic	
  firmly	
  located	
  the	
  

artist’s	
  work	
  within	
  the	
  Symbolist	
  aesthetic.	
  Aurier	
  called	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  his	
  messiah,	
  a	
  

leader	
   to	
   a	
   realm	
   that	
   exists	
   beyond	
   the	
   material	
   world,	
   and	
   suggested	
   that	
   an	
  

imaginatively	
   created	
   canvas	
   can	
   incite	
   an	
   experience	
   in	
   the	
   mind	
   of	
   the	
   viewer.	
  

Although	
  Aurier	
  used	
  Starry	
  Night	
  (1889)	
  to	
  explain	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  aesthetic,	
  I	
  find	
  that	
  

Patch	
  of	
  Grass	
  (1887),	
  a	
  painting	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  produced	
  in	
  Paris,	
  functions	
  similarly	
  in	
  

its	
  compressed	
  figure-­‐ground	
  relationship	
  and	
  highly	
  abstract	
  forms.	
  	
  In	
  so	
  doing,	
  I	
  

claim	
  that	
  the	
  Symbolist	
  aesthetic	
  that	
  is	
  well	
  developed	
  in	
  images	
  such	
  as	
  Starry	
  

Night,	
   is	
   rooted	
   in	
   the	
   Paris-­‐period	
   works,	
   namely	
   Patch.	
   With	
   Patch,	
   Van	
   Gogh	
  

reinvented	
   notions	
   of	
   landscape,	
   for	
   example,	
   within	
   the	
   Symbolist	
   aesthetic.	
  

Considering	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   Paris-­‐period	
   canvases	
   in	
   relation	
   to	
   Baudelaire’s	
   ideas	
  

situates	
  the	
  artist’s	
  transition	
  within	
  the	
  intellectual	
  milieu	
  of	
  Paris	
  in	
  the	
  mid	
  1880s.	
  

Van	
  Gogh	
  was	
  an	
  intellectually	
  driven	
  artist	
  who	
  developed	
  a	
  painterly	
  voice	
  that	
  is	
  

grounded	
  in	
  Symbolist	
  theory.	
  	
  

	
   In	
  reinventing	
  the	
  lessons	
  of	
  the	
  Impressionists	
  and	
  Neo-­‐Impressionists,	
  Van	
  

Gogh’s	
  Paris-­‐period	
  paintings	
  show	
  the	
  concepts	
  of	
  the	
  symbolic	
  imagery	
  he	
  created	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

10	
  

for	
  the	
  remainder	
  of	
  his	
  short	
  life	
  in	
  Arles,	
  St.	
  Rémy,	
  or	
  Auvers-­‐sur-­‐Oise,	
  where	
  he	
  

passed	
  away	
  two	
  and	
  one	
  half	
  years	
  after	
  leaving	
  the	
  capital.	
  While	
  not	
  all	
  of	
  the	
  

paintings	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  created	
  in	
  Paris	
  convey	
  a	
  well-­‐formulated	
  aesthetic,	
  there	
  are	
  a	
  

number	
  of	
  works	
  that	
  clearly	
  show	
  the	
  artist’s	
  intentional	
  development	
  within	
  the	
  

Parisian	
   avant-­‐garde	
   and	
   how	
   he	
   positioned	
   himself	
   within	
   their	
   milieu.	
   On	
   his	
  

arrival,	
   he	
   brought	
   with	
   him	
   ideas	
   of	
   painting	
   that	
   rely	
   on	
   a	
   descriptive	
   mimetic	
  

approach	
   and	
   a	
   metaphorical	
   use	
   of	
   color	
   and	
   form.	
   He	
   left	
   with	
   a	
   radically	
   re-­‐

considered	
  role	
  of	
  the	
  canvas	
  in	
  relation	
  to	
  the	
  viewer	
  and,	
  more	
  importantly,	
  an	
  

understanding	
   of	
   the	
   canvas	
   as	
   a	
   symbol	
   in	
   and	
   of	
   itself,	
   a	
   pivotal	
   shift	
   in	
   his	
  

approach	
  to	
  painting.	
  

	
   	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

11	
  

CHAPTER	
  2:	
  FROM	
  THE	
  ATELIER	
  TO	
  THE	
  AVANT-­‐GARDE	
  
	
  
	
  
“Think	
   carefully,”	
   Vincent	
   wrote	
   to	
   Théo	
   in	
   late	
   February	
   1886,	
   “about	
  

whether	
  we	
  couldn’t	
  find	
  a	
  combination	
  that	
  would	
  make	
  it	
  possible	
  for	
  me	
  to	
  be	
  in	
  

Paris	
  before	
  June.”6	
  About	
  four	
  days	
  later,	
  Vincent	
  arrived	
  “all	
  of	
  the	
  sudden”	
  in	
  the	
  

French	
   capital	
   eager	
   to	
   live	
   with	
   Théo,	
   an	
   art	
   dealer	
   at	
   Boussod	
   and	
   Valadon,	
  

successors	
  of	
  Goupil	
  &	
  Cie.7	
  In	
  Paris,	
  the	
  artist	
  wanted	
  to	
  enroll	
  in	
  academic	
  painting	
  

classes,	
   an	
   interest	
   that	
   began	
   in	
   Antwerp	
   in	
   the	
   atelier	
   of	
   Belgian	
   painter	
   Karel	
  

Verlat	
   where	
   he	
   drew	
   from	
   plaster	
   casts	
   and	
   in	
   a	
   drawing	
   club	
   that	
   staged	
   live	
  

models	
  [figures	
  1	
  &	
  2].	
  	
  

Prior	
  to	
  living	
  in	
  Antwerp	
  and	
  beginning	
  his	
  academic	
  painting	
  lessons,	
  Van	
  

Gogh	
  developed	
  a	
  practice	
  in	
  Nuenen	
  that	
  culminated	
  in	
  The	
  Potato	
  Eaters	
  (1885),	
  

based	
   on	
   Jozef	
   Israëls’s	
   Peasant	
   Family	
   at	
   the	
   Table	
   (1882)	
   in	
   which	
   a	
   humble	
  

peasant	
  family	
  shares	
  a	
  simple	
  meal	
  [figures	
  3	
  &	
  4].8	
  Vincent	
  sent	
  The	
  Potato	
  Eaters	
  

to	
   Théo	
   and	
   asked	
   him	
   to	
   show	
   it	
   to	
   the	
   well-­‐known	
   Parisian	
   art	
   dealer,	
   Paul	
  

Durand-­‐Ruel,	
  who	
  had	
  had	
  success	
  selling	
  Barbizon	
  and	
  Impressionist	
  imagery	
  since	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
6	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  566	
  to	
  Théo	
  from	
  Antwerp	
  around	
  Wednesday,	
  February	
  24,	
  1886.	
  	
  	
  

7	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  567	
  to	
  Théo	
  from	
  Paris	
  on	
  February	
  28,	
  1886.	
  “Don’t	
  be	
  cross	
  with	
  me	
  that	
  
I’ve	
  come…I’ve	
  thought	
  about	
  it	
  this	
  much	
  and	
  I	
  think	
  we’ll	
  save	
  time	
  this	
  way.”	
  	
  	
  
8	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  lived	
  in	
  Nuenen	
  from	
  1883	
  through	
  1885,	
  when	
  he	
  moved	
  to	
  Antwerp.	
  	
  

	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

12	
  

the	
  1870s.9	
  Théo	
  reported	
  that	
  he	
  had	
  shown	
  the	
  painting	
  to	
  two	
  other	
  colleagues;	
  

they	
  thought	
  the	
  painter	
  needed	
  to	
  work	
  on	
  his	
  figures,	
  and	
  Vincent	
  agreed.10	
  The	
  

reception	
  of	
  The	
  Potato	
  Eaters	
  influenced	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  foray	
  into	
  academic	
  painting	
  

because	
  he	
  wanted	
  to	
  produce	
  saleable	
  work.	
  To	
  him,	
  this	
  required	
  training	
  steeped	
  

in	
   an	
   academic	
   background,	
   a	
   series	
   of	
   drawing	
   and	
   painting	
   skills	
   he	
   felt	
   he	
  

lacked.11	
  Thus,	
  he	
  headed	
  to	
  a	
  metropolis	
  with	
  ateliers:	
  Antwerp,	
  where	
  he	
  lived	
  for	
  

three	
  months,	
  and	
  then	
  Paris.	
  	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
9	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  497	
  to	
  Théo	
  from	
  Nuenen	
  on	
  Thursday,	
  April	
  30,	
  1885.	
  “As	
  to	
  Durand-­‐Ruel—
although	
  he	
  didn’t	
  think	
  the	
  drawings	
  worthwhile,	
  show	
  him	
  this	
  painting.	
  He	
  may	
  think	
  it	
  ugly—very	
  
well—but	
   let	
   him	
   see	
   it	
   anyway—	
   so	
   that	
   they	
   may	
   see	
   that	
   we’re	
   putting	
   energy	
   into	
   our	
  
endeavors.”	
   Durand-­‐Ruel	
   did	
   not	
   like	
   some	
   of	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   drawings	
   that	
   Théo	
   had	
   shown	
   him	
  
previously,	
  but	
  the	
  artist	
  hoped	
  the	
  dealer	
  would	
  respond	
  well	
  to	
  the	
  painting,	
  one	
  he	
  had	
  worked	
  
hard	
  to	
  craft.	
  

10	
  On	
   the	
   reception	
   of	
   The	
   Potato	
   Eaters,	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   wrote	
   letter	
   506	
   to	
   Théo	
   from	
   Nuenen	
   on	
  
Tuesday,	
  June	
  2,	
  1885.	
  “Thanks	
  for	
  sending	
  the	
  money	
  for	
  this	
  month	
  so	
  promptly.	
  I’m	
  satisfied	
  with	
  
what	
  you	
  write	
  about	
  the	
  painting,	
  the	
  comments	
  that	
  they	
  made,	
  Portier	
  and	
  Serret,	
  but	
  that	
  they	
  
still	
  found	
  good	
  things	
  in	
  it.	
  I	
  myself	
  have	
  criticisms	
  of	
  it,	
  and	
  more	
  serious	
  ones	
  than	
  theirs—that	
  
about	
  the	
  torsos—so	
  I	
  don’t	
  wish	
  them	
  to	
  approve	
  of	
  the	
  whole.	
  When	
  you	
  speak	
  to	
  them,	
  just	
  tell	
  
them	
  that	
  it	
  may	
  very	
  well	
  be	
  that	
  I	
  draw	
  back	
  from	
  the	
  present	
  copper	
  and	
  green	
  soap-­‐like	
  tones,	
  
but	
  that	
  this	
  drawing	
  back	
  will,	
   I	
  hope,	
  be	
  twofold,	
  namely	
  that	
   I	
  hope	
  to	
  paint	
  some	
  in	
  a	
   lighter	
  
spectrum,	
  more	
  flesh	
  and	
  blood—but	
  equally	
  am	
  searching	
  for	
  something	
  that’s	
  even	
  more	
  green	
  
soap	
  and	
  coppery.”	
  On	
  addressing	
  the	
  concerns,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  513	
  to	
  Théo	
  from	
  Nuenen	
  on	
  
Sunday,	
  July	
  12,	
  1885.	
  “But	
  don’t	
  take	
  it	
  amiss	
  of	
  me	
  when	
  I	
  say	
  that	
  if	
  Serret	
  and	
  you—and	
  in	
  my	
  
view	
   very	
   rightly	
   want	
   to	
   see	
   other	
   things	
   in	
   my	
   figures—I’ll	
   have	
   to	
   spend	
   rather	
   more	
   on	
   my	
  
models.”	
  	
  

11	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  551	
  to	
  Théo	
  from	
  Antwerp	
  on	
  January	
  2,	
  1886.	
  “I…want	
  to	
  tell	
  you	
  that,	
  
given	
  my	
  desire	
  to	
  study	
  the	
  figure—if	
  I	
  weren’t	
  to	
  manage	
  it	
  here—I	
  might	
  perhaps	
  go	
  further	
  afield	
  
rather	
  than	
  go	
  back	
  to	
  Holland	
  before	
  I’ve	
  worked	
  in	
  a	
  studio	
  for	
  a	
  while.	
  And	
  that	
  further	
  afield—
might	
  possibly	
  be	
  Paris,	
  without	
  hesitation.”	
  On	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  drawing	
  abilities,	
  see	
  letter	
  565,	
  which	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  to	
  Théo	
  from	
  Antwerp	
  on	
  January	
  22,	
  1886.	
  “With	
  a	
  view	
  to	
  Cormon,	
  it’s	
  decidedly	
  
better	
  for	
  me	
  to	
  go	
  on	
  drawing	
  plaster	
  casts	
  rather	
  than	
  working	
  outdoors,	
  because	
  the	
  more	
  I	
  have	
  
the	
  structure	
  of	
  the	
  figure	
  in	
  my	
  head,	
  the	
  better	
  I’ll	
  be	
  able	
  to	
  follow…	
  Because	
  I’ve	
  always	
  worked	
  
from	
  nature,	
  I	
  may	
  perhaps	
  be	
  more	
  daring	
  than	
  many	
  others	
  in	
  dashing	
  things	
  off	
  and	
  tackling	
  a	
  
group	
  of	
  things.	
  But	
  the	
  others	
  will	
  most	
  likely	
  have	
  more	
  knowledge	
  of	
  the	
  nude,	
  for	
  which	
  I	
  haven’t	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

13	
  

Van	
  Gogh’s	
  ideal	
  of	
  a	
  Parisian	
  art	
  education	
  was	
  to	
  learn	
  from	
  master	
  works	
  

and	
  study	
  in	
  a	
  well-­‐regarded	
  studio	
  surrounded	
  by	
  focused	
  peers.	
  Once	
  in	
  Paris,	
  he	
  

enrolled	
   in	
   the	
   French	
   painter	
   Fernand	
   Cormon’s	
   Montmartre	
   atelier,	
   making	
  

studies	
  from	
  live	
  models	
  and	
  plaster	
  casts	
  in	
  class	
  and	
  on	
  his	
  own	
  [figures	
   5-­‐7].12	
  

Despite	
  his	
  atelier	
  training,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  left	
  Cormon’s	
  studio	
  early	
  that	
  summer	
  and	
  no	
  

longer	
   focused	
   on	
   figure	
   painting,	
   but	
   on	
   landscape,	
   portraiture,	
   and	
   still	
   life.	
   In	
  

many	
   ways,	
   this	
   was	
   a	
   return	
   to	
   the	
   subject	
   matter	
   he	
   developed	
   in	
   Nuenen.	
  

Although	
  he	
  tried	
  to	
  carve	
  a	
  path	
  in	
  the	
  academic	
  art	
  market,	
  he	
  took	
  a	
  decidedly	
  

clear	
  move	
  toward	
  learning	
  avant-­‐garde	
  painting	
  strategies.	
  Around	
  the	
  time	
  he	
  left	
  

Cormon’s,	
  he	
  painted	
  Lane	
  at	
  the	
  Jardin	
  du	
  Luxembourg	
  (June/July	
  1886)	
  [figure	
  8],	
  

a	
  city	
  landscape	
  of	
  Parisians	
  strolling	
  through	
  a	
  public	
  park	
  in	
  contemporary	
  dress.	
  

Punctuated	
  with	
  bright	
  spots	
  of	
  unblended	
  color	
  made	
  seemingly	
  quickly	
  with	
  the	
  

tip	
  of	
  the	
  artist’s	
  brush,	
  Lane	
  at	
  the	
  Jardin	
  du	
  Luxembourg	
  moves	
  away	
  from	
  the	
  

earth-­‐color	
   tones	
   and	
   heavily	
   modeled	
   forms	
   of	
   The	
   Potato	
   Eaters.	
   Rather	
   than	
  

attempt	
   to	
   craft	
   portraits	
   of	
   rural	
   peasants	
   with	
   thick	
   contour	
   lines,	
   Van	
   Gogh	
  

included	
  figures	
  made	
  with	
  a	
  couple	
  of	
  brushstrokes	
  within	
  the	
  context	
  of	
  a	
  modern	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
had	
  so	
  much	
  opportunity.	
  If	
  I	
  make	
  up	
  for	
  that—the	
  sooner	
  the	
  better—the	
  more	
  benefit	
  I’ll	
  get	
  from	
  
Cormon.”	
  
12	
  Letter	
  567.	
  See	
  also:	
  Letter	
  566.	
  “I	
  still	
  continue	
  to	
  urge	
  you	
  rather	
  to	
  go	
  ahead	
  with	
  the	
  Cormon	
  
plan	
  and	
  what,	
  for	
  my	
  part,	
  I	
  would	
  so	
  much	
  like	
  to	
  precede	
  it—a	
  further	
  period	
  continuing	
  to	
  draw	
  
plaster	
  casts.”	
  Cormon	
  was	
  an	
  academic	
  artist	
  who	
  showed	
  in	
  the	
  Paris	
  Salon,	
  was	
  the	
  student	
  of	
  
Alexandre	
  Cabanel,	
  and	
  taught	
  his	
  pupils	
  how	
  to	
  paint	
  in	
  the	
  tradition	
  of	
  the	
  École	
  des	
  Beaux-­‐Arts.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

14	
  

city.	
  He	
  explored	
  the	
  effect	
  of	
  the	
  sun	
  on	
  the	
  leaves	
  and	
  indicated	
  distance	
  with	
  a	
  

pattern	
  of	
  abstract	
  strokes	
  of	
  muted	
  hue	
  in	
  the	
  background.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  softened	
  the	
  

dark	
  umbers	
  of	
  The	
  Potato	
  Eaters	
  to	
  depict	
  the	
  trees	
  and	
  pavement,	
  which	
  frame	
  

brightly	
  hued	
  figures.	
  In	
  so	
  doing,	
  he	
  drew	
  from	
  the	
  practice	
  he	
  developed	
  in	
  The	
  

Netherlands	
  and	
  his	
  modernist	
  techniques	
  developed	
  rapidly	
  from	
  Lane	
  at	
  the	
  Jardin	
  

du	
  Luxembourg.	
  

Overall,	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  Paris	
  period	
  is	
  typically	
  marginalized	
  as	
  scholars	
  generally	
  

focus	
   on	
   the	
   early	
   paintings	
   and	
   the	
   mature	
   imagery	
   the	
   artist	
   created	
   in	
   Arles,	
  

timeframes	
   that	
   bracket	
   the	
   artist’s	
   practice	
   in	
   Paris. 13 	
  Scholars	
   attribute	
   the	
  

painter’s	
  shift	
  toward	
  avant-­‐garde	
  work	
  to	
  his	
  exposure	
  to	
  Impressionist	
  and	
  Neo-­‐

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
13	
  Adriana	
  R.	
  Salem,	
  “Van	
  Gogh	
  in	
  Paris,”	
  Harvard	
  Library	
  Bulletin	
  VI.	
  I	
  (Winter	
  1952):	
  137-­‐141.	
  A.L.C.	
  
Jaffé,	
  “La	
  period	
  parisienne	
  de	
  Van	
  Gogh”	
  Actes	
  du	
  XIXe	
  congres	
  international	
  d'histoire	
  de	
  l'art	
  (Paris,	
  
September	
   8-­‐13,	
   1958):	
   508-­‐511.	
   H.R.	
   Graetz,	
   “Light	
   Breaks	
   Through,”	
   The	
   Symbolic	
   Language	
   of	
  
Vincent	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  (New	
  York,	
  Toronto	
  and	
  London:	
  McGraw-­‐Hill	
  Book	
  Company,	
  INC,	
  1963)	
  43-­‐66.	
  
John	
  Rewald,	
  The	
  History	
  of	
  Impressionism	
  (New	
  York:	
  Museum	
  of	
  Modern	
  Art,	
  1973).	
  John	
  Rewald,	
  
Post-­‐Impressionism:	
   From	
   van	
   Gogh	
   to	
   Gauguin,	
   (New	
   York:	
   The	
   Museum	
   of	
   Modern	
   Art,	
   1978).	
  
Rewald’s	
  The	
  History	
  of	
   Impressionism	
  (1961)	
  and	
  Post-­‐Impressionism:	
  From	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  to	
  Gauguin	
  
(1956)	
  provide	
  short,	
  yet	
  comprehensive	
  studies	
  of	
  the	
  artist’s	
  Paris	
  life.	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  letter	
  writing,	
  
which	
  was	
  usually	
  copious,	
  ceased	
  while	
  the	
  artist	
  lived	
  in	
  Paris	
  because	
  he	
  stayed	
  with	
  his	
  brother	
  
with	
   whom	
   he	
   regularly	
   corresponded.	
   Rewald’s	
   research	
   is	
   significant	
   because	
   it	
   is	
   difficult	
   to	
  
ascertain	
  where	
  the	
  artist	
  went	
  and	
  with	
  whom	
  he	
  kept	
  company	
  because	
  there	
  is	
  an	
  absence	
  of	
  
letters	
   on	
   which	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   scholars	
   depend.	
   Rewald	
   connected	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   to	
   significant	
   painters,	
  
located	
   the	
   artist’s	
   saturated	
   color	
   within	
   Charles	
   Henry’s	
   complementary	
   color	
   theory,	
   and	
  
investigated	
   the	
   connections	
   between	
   Impressionism	
   and	
   Post-­‐Impressionism.	
   Mark	
   Roskill,	
   Van	
  
Gogh,	
  Gauguin	
  and	
  the	
  Impressionist	
  Circle	
  (Greenwich,	
  Connecticut:	
  New	
  York	
  Graphic	
  Art	
  Society,	
  
Ltd.,	
  1970).	
  In	
  Van	
  Gogh,	
  Gauguin	
  and	
  the	
  Impressionist	
  Circle	
  (1971),	
  Mark	
  Roskill	
  revisited	
  some	
  of	
  
the	
  primary	
  texts	
  Rewald	
  used,	
  and	
  formally	
  examined	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  relationship	
  to	
  Néo-­‐Impressionist	
  
painter	
   George	
   Seurat	
   and	
   to	
   Impressionist	
   Japonisme,	
   the	
   influence	
   of	
   Japanese	
   prints	
   on	
   the	
  
Impressionist’s	
  form	
  and	
  composition.	
  

	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

15	
  

Impressionist	
   artists.	
   John	
   Rewald	
   and	
   Bogomila	
   Welsh-­‐Ovcharov	
   point	
   out	
   the	
  

compositional	
  similarities	
  between	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  paintings	
  and	
  Impressionist	
  and	
  Neo-­‐

Impressionist	
  imagery	
  respectively.14	
  Cornelia	
  Homburg	
  notes	
  that	
  while	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  

clearly	
  built	
  on	
  the	
  Impressionists,	
  he	
  was	
  developing	
  unique	
  painting	
  strategies	
  in	
  

Paris.15	
  Warning	
  not	
  to	
  consider	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  periods	
  in	
  isolation,	
  Homburg’s	
  analysis	
  

of	
  the	
  Paris-­‐period	
  canvases	
  involves	
  the	
  painter’s	
  artistic	
  developments	
  prior	
  to	
  and	
  

after	
  Paris.	
  I	
  aim	
  to	
  further	
  Homburg’s	
  discussion	
  by	
  considering	
  the	
  distinct	
  pictorial	
  

elements	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   developed	
   as	
   he	
   studied	
   Impressionist	
   and	
   Neo-­‐Impressionist	
  

modes	
  of	
  color	
  and	
  composition.	
  Moreover,	
  characterizing	
  his	
  Paris-­‐period	
  works	
  in	
  

terms	
  of	
  Impressionism	
  and	
  Neo-­‐Impressionism	
  limits	
  the	
  ways	
  in	
  which	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  

modernist	
  aesthetic	
  pushed	
  the	
  boundaries	
  of	
  avant-­‐garde	
  art	
  and	
  operated	
  within	
  

the	
  market.	
  	
  

Van	
   Gogh	
   came	
   to	
   Paris	
   attempting	
   to	
   sustain	
   a	
   living	
   for	
   himself.	
   Carol	
  

Zemel	
   points	
   out	
   that	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   productivity	
   is	
   intricately	
   linked	
   to	
   establishing	
  

himself	
  as	
  a	
  professional	
  artist	
  in	
  the	
  nineteenth-­‐century	
  art	
  market.16	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  

decision	
   to	
   move	
   from	
   academic	
   to	
   avant-­‐garde	
   art	
   was,	
   Zemel	
   underscores,	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
14	
  John	
  Rewald,	
  “Van	
  Gogh	
  in	
  Paris,”	
  Post-­‐Impressionism:	
  From	
  van	
  Gogh	
  to	
  Gauguin	
  11-­‐72.	
  Bogomila	
  
Ovcharov-­‐Welsh,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  à	
  Paris	
  (Paris:	
  Musée	
  d’Orsay,	
  1988).	
  

15	
  Cornelia	
  Homburg,	
  “Introduction,”	
  Vincent	
  van	
  Gogh	
  and	
  the	
  Painters	
  of	
  the	
  Petit	
  Boulevard,	
  ed.	
  
Cornelia	
  Homburg	
  (Saint	
  Louis:	
  Saint	
  Louis	
  Art	
  Museum,	
  2001)	
  13-­‐14.	
  

16	
  Carol	
  Zemel,	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  Progress:	
  Utopia,	
  Modernity	
  and	
  Late-­‐Nineteenth-­‐Century	
  Art	
  (Berkeley,	
  
Los	
  Angeles	
  and	
  London:	
  University	
  of	
  California	
  Press,	
  1997)	
  172.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

16	
  

intentional	
  and	
  strategic	
  to	
  some	
  extent.17	
  I	
   take	
  Zemel’s	
  perspective	
  as	
  a	
  central	
  

factor	
  in	
  considering	
  the	
  decisions	
  that	
  shaped	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  Paris-­‐period	
  practice.	
  The	
  

artist’s	
   Paris-­‐period	
   has	
   been	
   generally	
   overlooked	
   in	
   terms	
   of	
   the	
   market’s	
  

influence.	
  I	
  explore	
  the	
  concerns	
  that	
  drove	
  his	
  artistic	
  decision-­‐making,	
  and	
  what	
  he	
  

encountered	
   through	
   two	
   main	
   venues—Goupil	
   &	
   Cie.	
   and	
   the	
   last	
   Impressionist	
  

Exhibition—that	
   revealed	
   new	
   conceptually	
   sound	
   yet	
   salable	
   art.	
   I	
   find	
   that	
   the	
  

market	
   system	
   to	
   which	
   he	
   was	
   exposed	
   provided	
   the	
   impetus	
   of	
   his	
   developing	
  

practice.	
   Although	
   the	
   artist’s	
   religious	
   studies	
   take	
   a	
   central	
   role	
   in	
   the	
  

historiography,	
  the	
  artist	
  dedicated	
  much	
  of	
  his	
  young-­‐adult	
   life—seven	
  years—to	
  

working	
  with	
  prints	
  of	
  master	
  works	
  at	
  Goupil	
  &	
  Cie.	
  The	
  formative	
  experience	
  in	
  the	
  

print	
   shop,	
   more	
   than	
   his	
   studies	
   to	
   become	
   a	
   preacher,	
   became	
   the	
   foundation	
  

through	
   which	
   he	
   carefully	
   thought	
   about	
   how	
   he	
   would	
   carve	
   a	
   niche	
   for	
   his	
  

paintings	
  in	
  the	
  contemporary	
  art	
  market.	
  	
  

The	
   market	
   in	
   Paris	
   when	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   arrived	
   was	
   distinct.	
   Avant-­‐garde	
  

exhibitions	
  presented	
  modern	
  art	
  as	
  varied	
  approaches	
  as	
  both	
  Impressionist	
  and	
  

Neo-­‐Impressionist	
   works	
   of	
   varying	
   genres	
   and	
   factures	
   hung	
   side-­‐by-­‐side	
   in	
  

exhibitions.	
  Although	
  the	
  Impressionist	
  and	
  Neo-­‐Impressionist	
  practices	
  differed	
  in	
  

some	
  ways,	
  their	
  understanding	
  of	
  subject	
  matter	
  as	
  a	
  substructure	
  for	
  a	
  subjective	
  

use	
  of	
  color	
  and	
  form	
  unified	
  their	
  practices.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  saw	
  that	
  paintings	
  of	
  modern	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
17	
  Zemel	
  173.	
  	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

17	
  

life	
  with	
  often-­‐disjointed	
  compositional	
  aspects	
  and	
  saturated,	
  highly	
  idiosyncratic	
  

paint	
  applications	
  not	
  only	
  had	
  a	
  market	
  but	
  also	
  were	
  supported	
  in	
  contemporary	
  

criticism.	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   Bridges	
   across	
   the	
   Seine	
   at	
   Asnières	
   (1887)	
   [figure	
   9],	
   for	
  

example,	
  clearly	
  leads	
  from	
  the	
  Impressionists	
  and	
  Neo-­‐Impressionists,	
  but	
  begins	
  to	
  

merge	
  the	
  two	
  modes	
  to	
  a	
  unique	
  end.	
  Thus,	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  exposure	
  to	
  Impressionism	
  

and	
   Neo-­‐Impressionism	
   is	
   not	
   so	
   easily	
   categorized	
   as	
   the	
   artist	
   learned	
   of	
   both	
  

approaches	
  from	
  several	
  painters	
  who	
  themselves	
  explored	
  the	
  methods	
  in	
  differing	
  

ways.	
   The	
   avant-­‐garde	
   artists	
   were	
   experimenting	
   with	
   hue,	
   texture,	
   and	
   subject	
  

matter	
  from	
  everyday	
  life,	
  an	
  idea	
  espoused	
  by	
  critic	
  and	
  poet	
  Charles	
  Baudelaire,	
  

whose	
  writings	
  influenced	
  the	
  subject	
  matter	
  and	
  facture	
  of	
  artists,	
  such	
  as	
  Édouard	
  

Manet	
  and	
  the	
  Impressionists.18	
  Baudelaire	
  called	
  for	
  artists	
  to	
  paint	
  modern	
  life	
  and	
  

include	
   aspects	
   of	
   their	
   contemporary	
   world.	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   imagery	
   included	
  

fashionably	
   dressed	
   people	
   crossing	
   wide	
   boulevards	
   depicted	
   with	
   a	
   varied	
  

application	
  of	
  stroke,	
  such	
  as	
  in	
  Boulevard	
  de	
  Clichy	
  (1887)	
  [figure	
  10].	
  	
  

Van	
   Gogh	
   made	
   two	
   transitions	
   while	
   working	
   in	
   Paris	
   that	
   I	
   will	
   consider	
  

within	
   the	
   context	
   of	
   the	
   avant-­‐garde	
   market.	
   First,	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   redefined	
   his	
   pre-­‐

conceived	
  notions	
  of	
  marketable	
  academic	
  art.	
  Second,	
  he	
  drew	
  from	
  avant-­‐garde	
  

aesthetic	
  objectives	
  that	
  had	
  found	
  a	
  market	
  niche.	
  His	
  painterly	
  techniques	
  grew	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
18	
  Charles	
  Baudelaire,	
  “The	
  Painter	
  of	
  Modern	
  Life,”	
  The	
  Painter	
  of	
  Modern	
  Life	
  and	
  Other	
  Essays:	
  
Charles	
  Baudelaire,	
   trans	
  and	
  ed.	
  Jonathan	
  Mayne	
  (New	
  York	
  and	
  London:	
  Phaidon	
  Press	
  Limited,	
  
2001)	
  1-­‐41.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

18	
  

from	
  the	
  discourse	
  of	
  painters	
  who	
  developed	
  their	
  imagery	
  in	
  response	
  to	
  the	
  1886	
  

exhibition—in	
  particular,	
  the	
  dialogue	
  generated	
  by	
  critic	
  Félix	
  Fénéon	
  with	
  the	
  help	
  

of	
  Neo-­‐Impressionist	
  and	
  emerging	
  painters	
  Georges	
  Seurat,	
  Camille	
  Pissarro,	
  Émile	
  

Bernard	
  (1868-­‐1941),	
  and	
  Paul	
  Signac.	
   In	
  the	
  capital,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  experienced	
  early	
  

modern	
   and	
   Impressionist	
   works	
   by	
   artists,	
   such	
   as	
   Manet,	
   Edgar	
   Degas	
   (1834-­‐

1917),	
   Pierre-­‐Auguste	
   Renoir	
   (1841-­‐1919),	
   and	
   Claude	
   Monet	
   (1840-­‐1926).	
   Like	
  

some	
  of	
  the	
  Neo-­‐Impressionist	
  painters—Pissarro,	
  Bernard,	
  and	
  Signac—Van	
  Gogh	
  

also	
  headed	
  outdoors	
  and	
  painted	
  from	
  urban	
  and	
  suburban	
  life,	
  in	
  images	
  such	
  as	
  

The	
  Restaurant	
  de	
  la	
  Sirène	
  at	
  Asnières	
  (Summer	
  1887)	
  [figure	
  11].	
  I	
  address	
  how	
  

Van	
   Gogh’s	
   exposure	
   to	
   academic	
   and	
   avant-­‐garde	
   works	
   led	
   him	
   to	
   build	
   his	
  

imagery	
  on	
  the	
  Impressionist	
  vocabulary	
  of	
  color	
  and	
  texture,	
  develop	
  a	
  symbolic	
  

form	
  extolled	
  by	
  the	
  Neo-­‐Impressionists,	
  and	
  depict	
  modern	
  and	
  peasant	
  life	
  in	
  an	
  

avant-­‐garde	
   vernacular.	
   In	
   his	
   Paris-­‐period	
   canvases,	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   vanguardism	
  

suggests	
  a	
  shift	
  from	
  a	
  common	
  understanding,	
  that	
  of	
  peasant	
  life	
  for	
  instance,	
  and	
  

toward	
   a	
   study	
   of	
   medium	
   and	
   the	
   compositional	
   structure	
   of	
   the	
   canvas. 19	
  

Immersed	
  in	
  the	
  exhibition	
  practice	
  and	
  painting	
  strategies	
  of	
  the	
  Impressionists	
  and	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
19	
  Clement	
  Greenberg,	
  “Avant-­‐Garde	
  and	
  Kitsch,”	
  Art	
  in	
  Theory,	
  1900-­‐2000:	
  An	
  Anthology	
  of	
  Changing	
  
Ideas,	
   eds.	
   Charles	
   Harrison,	
   Paul	
   Wood	
   and	
   Jason	
   Gaiger	
   (Massachusetts,	
   Oxford	
   and	
   Victoria,	
  
Australia:	
  Blackwell	
  Publishing,	
  1998)	
  539-­‐543.	
  For	
  Greenberg,	
  avant-­‐garde	
  artists	
  maintained	
  a	
  high-­‐
level	
  of	
  intellectual	
  exploration	
  within	
  the	
  structure	
  of	
  capitalism.	
  Avant-­‐garde	
  artists	
  searched	
  for	
  an	
  
absolute.	
  “Content,”	
  Greenberg	
  wrote,	
  “is	
  to	
  be	
  dissolved	
  so	
  completely	
  into	
  form	
  that	
  the	
  work	
  of	
  
art	
  or	
  literature	
  cannot	
  be	
  reduced	
  in	
  whole	
  or	
  in	
  part	
  to	
  anything	
  not	
  itself”	
  (541).	
  In	
  this	
  way,	
  “the	
  
poet	
  or	
  artist	
  turns	
  [his	
  attention]	
  in	
  upon	
  the	
  medium	
  of	
  his	
  own	
  craft”	
  and	
  away	
  from	
  a	
  “common	
  
experience”	
  (541).	
  	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

19	
  

Neo-­‐Impressionists,	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   became	
   aware	
   of	
   artists	
   who	
   critiqued	
   historical	
  

precedents	
   and	
   sought	
   to	
   challenge	
   present-­‐day	
   perceptions	
   of	
   present-­‐day	
  

culture. 20 	
  Van	
   Gogh’s	
   canvases	
   do	
   not	
   provide	
   an	
   overall	
   characterization	
   of	
  

contemporary	
  society	
  as	
  an	
  oppressive	
  state	
  or	
  a	
  utopia.	
   Instead,	
  they	
  convey	
  an	
  

understanding	
  of	
  the	
  qualities	
  of	
  modern	
  life	
  through	
  the	
  painting’s	
  form.	
  	
  

	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  in	
  Verlat	
  and	
  Cormon’s	
  Atelier	
  

In	
  Antwerp,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  enrolled	
   in	
  the	
  atelier	
  of	
  Verlat	
  and	
  transitioned	
  to	
  

Cormon’s	
  when	
  he	
  moved	
  to	
  Paris	
   later	
  that	
  year.	
  Over	
  the	
  four	
  months	
  he	
  took	
  

classes	
  in	
  the	
  ateliers	
  of	
  Verlat	
  and	
  Cormon,	
  he	
  conducted	
  figure	
  studies	
  in	
  drawings,	
  

such	
  as	
  The	
  Discus	
  Thrower	
  (February	
  1886)	
  and	
  Standing	
  Male	
  and	
  Seated	
  Female	
  

Nudes	
   (March-­‐May	
   1886)	
   [figures	
   1	
   &	
   5],	
   to	
   understand	
   how	
   to	
   blend	
   tints	
   and	
  

shades	
  to	
  develop	
  smooth	
  anatomically	
  correct	
  forms.	
  The	
  proportions	
  of	
  The	
  Discus	
  

Thrower	
  show	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  attempt	
  to	
  understand	
  canons	
  of	
  classical	
  measurements.	
  

In	
   these	
   drawings,	
   it	
   is	
   clear	
   that	
   the	
   artist	
   attempted	
   to	
   conform	
   to	
   academic	
  

compositional	
   skills.	
   Female	
   Standing	
   Nude	
   Seen	
   from	
   the	
   Side	
   (January-­‐February	
  

1886)	
   and	
   Torso	
   of	
   Venus	
   (June	
   1886)	
   [figures	
   2	
   &	
   7]	
   both	
   blur	
   the	
   categorical	
  

boundaries	
   between	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   early	
   period,	
   his	
   academic	
   studies,	
   and	
   his	
   Paris	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
20	
  Greenberg	
   540.	
   Greenberg	
   noted	
   that	
   avant-­‐garde	
   culture	
   has	
   developed	
   from	
   a	
   “superior	
  
consciousness	
  of	
  history—more	
  precisely,	
  the	
  appearance	
  of	
  a	
  new	
  kind	
  of	
  criticism	
  of	
  society,	
  an	
  
historical	
  criticism...The	
  criticism	
  has	
  not	
  confronted	
  our	
  present	
  society	
  with	
  timeless	
  utopias,	
  but	
  
has	
  soberly	
  examined	
  the	
  terms	
  of	
  history	
  and	
  of	
  the	
  cause	
  and	
  effects	
  of	
  antecedents,	
  justifications	
  
and	
  functions	
  of	
  the	
  forms	
  that	
  lie	
  at	
  the	
  heart	
  of	
  every	
  society.”	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

20	
  

practice.	
   These	
   drawings	
   suggest	
   his	
   experimentation	
   throughout	
   the	
   months	
   he	
  

was	
   enrolled	
   in	
   academic	
   classes.	
   From	
   the	
   carefully	
   studied	
   hatch	
   marks	
   in	
   The	
  

Discus	
  Thrower	
  to	
  the	
  round,	
  slightly	
  exaggerated	
  forms	
  in	
  Female	
  Standing	
  Nude	
  

Seen	
  from	
  the	
  Side,	
  the	
  artist’s	
  drawings	
  of	
  the	
  winter	
  and	
  fall	
  of	
  1886	
  indicate	
  that	
  

he	
   continued	
   to	
   consider	
   the	
   robust	
   bodies	
   he	
   included	
   in	
   his	
   imagery	
   from	
   The	
  

Netherlands	
  as	
  he	
  studied	
  academic	
  standards.	
  Although	
  the	
  contour-­‐line	
  quality	
  of	
  

Female	
  Nude	
  Standing	
  seems	
  angular,	
  such	
  as	
  the	
  lines	
  near	
  the	
  figure’s	
  shoulder	
  

blades,	
  and	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  hatch	
  marks	
  of	
  The	
  Discus	
  Thrower	
  remain	
  unblended,	
  both	
  

drawings	
   suggest	
   a	
   sense	
   of	
   the	
   figure’s	
   weight	
   and	
   anatomy	
   beneath	
   the	
   skin.	
  

These	
  are	
  both	
  difficult	
  drawing	
  skills	
  that	
  help	
  painters	
  portray	
  a	
  convincing	
  figure	
  

in	
  space.	
  	
  

Overall,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  began	
  studying	
  academic	
  aims	
  as	
  he	
  seriously	
  considered	
  

market	
   demands.	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   wanted	
   to	
   learn	
   from	
   masters	
   such	
   as	
   Verlat	
   and	
  

Cormon.	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   understanding	
   of	
   a	
   traditional	
   artistic	
   career	
   grew	
   from	
   his	
  

working	
  with	
  prints	
  of	
  masterworks	
  at	
  his	
  Uncle	
  Vincent	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  (Uncle	
  Cent’s)	
  

successful	
  Hague	
  branch	
  of	
  Goupil	
  &	
  Cie.,	
  where	
  he	
  began	
  working	
  in	
  July	
  1869.21	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
21	
  Chris	
  Stolwijk	
  and	
  Richard	
  Thomson,	
  Théo	
  van	
  Gogh,	
  1857-­‐1891:	
  Art	
  Dealer,	
  Collector	
  and	
  Brother	
  
of	
  Vincent	
  (Zwolle:	
  Waanders	
  Publishers,	
  1999)	
  69.	
  Uncle	
  Cent	
  formed	
  his	
  own	
  art-­‐dealing	
  business	
  in	
  
1839	
  in	
  The	
  Hague	
  and	
  joined	
  the	
  well-­‐established	
  Goupil	
  &	
  Cie	
  in	
  1846.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  did	
  well	
  there,	
  
received	
  a	
  promotion,	
  and,	
   in	
  June	
  1873,	
  moved	
  to	
  the	
  London	
  branch,	
  which	
  primarily	
  sold	
  print	
  
reproductions.	
   See	
   also:	
   Steven	
   Naifeh	
   and	
   Gregory	
   White	
   Smith,	
   Van	
   Gogh:	
   The	
   Life	
   (New	
   York:	
  
Random	
  House,	
  2011)	
  68.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  1	
  to	
  Théo	
  from	
  The	
  Hague	
  on	
  Sunday,	
  September	
  
29,	
  1872.	
  In	
  the	
  first	
  surviving	
  letter	
  between	
  the	
  brothers,	
  Vincent	
  noted	
  that	
  he	
  missed	
  Théo	
  after	
  
his	
  departure	
  from	
  their	
  visit.	
  See	
  also:	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  2	
  to	
  Théo	
  from	
  The	
  Hague,	
  on	
  Friday	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

21	
  

Goupil	
  &	
  Cie.	
  branches	
  were	
  primarily	
  print	
  shops,	
  selling	
  framed	
  reproductions	
  of	
  

masterworks.	
   They	
   also	
   sold	
   original	
   paintings,	
   drawings,	
   and	
   photographs	
   and	
  

generally	
  adapted	
  to	
  market	
  demands.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  enjoyed	
  learning	
  about	
  work	
  by	
  

Jean-­‐François	
   Millet	
   (1814-­‐1875),	
   Frans	
   Hals,	
   Israëls,	
   Jean-­‐Léon	
   Gérôme,	
   Jean	
  

Baptiste	
  Camille	
  Corot,	
  and	
  Théodore	
  Rousseau	
  to	
  name	
  a	
  few.22	
  To	
  Théo,	
  Vincent	
  

conveyed	
  a	
  sincere	
  excitement	
  regarding	
  the	
  artists’	
  prints	
  he	
  was	
  handling,	
  and	
  he	
  

appreciated	
  work	
  from	
  the	
  Dutch	
  masters	
  to	
  The	
  Hague	
  School	
  and	
  from	
  academic	
  

French	
   artists	
   to	
   Barbizon	
   painters.	
   In	
   1875,	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   moved	
   to	
   Paris,	
   kept	
   an	
  

apartment	
   in	
   Montmartre,	
   and	
   worked	
   in	
   the	
   Goupil	
   &	
   Cie.	
   gallery	
   on	
   the	
   rue	
  

Chaptal	
  until	
  1876.23	
  There	
  he	
  sold	
  the	
  prints	
  of	
  well-­‐known	
  images	
  by	
  old-­‐master	
  

artists	
  such	
  as	
  Jacob	
  van	
  Ruisdael,	
  Rembrandt	
  van	
  Rijn,	
  and	
  the	
  contemporary	
  artist	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
December	
  13,	
  1872.	
  Vincent	
  was	
  working	
  at	
  Uncle	
  Cent’s	
  branch	
  in	
  The	
  Hague	
  in	
  1872	
  when	
  fifteen-­‐
year-­‐old	
  Théo	
  visited	
  his	
  older	
  brother.	
  Shortly	
  thereafter,	
  Théo	
  too	
  began	
  working	
  at	
  Goupil	
  &	
  Cie.	
  
Brussels’s	
  branch	
  in	
  January	
  1873	
  and	
  would	
  go	
  on	
  to	
  create	
  a	
  career	
  that	
  would	
  lead	
  him	
  to	
  Paris,	
  
where	
   he	
   became	
   a	
   successful	
   dealer	
   himself.	
   When	
   Théo	
   moved	
   to	
   Brussels,	
   he	
   began	
  
corresponding	
  regularly	
  with	
  his	
  brother.21	
  Their	
  correspondence	
  began	
  as	
  they	
  both	
  embarked	
  on	
  a	
  
career	
  at	
  Goupil’s,	
  and	
  they	
  discussed	
  the	
  art	
  that	
  they	
  had	
  seen	
  in	
  the	
  shop	
  or	
  in	
  museums.	
  Over	
  the	
  
years,	
   Vincent	
   and	
   Théo	
   exchanged	
   many	
   ideas	
   about	
   art	
   and	
   artists,	
   a	
   subject	
   that	
   played	
   a	
  
significant	
  role	
  in	
  their	
  relationship	
  throughout	
  their	
  young-­‐adult	
  lives.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  3	
  to	
  
Théo	
  from	
  The	
  Hague	
  in	
  mid-­‐January,	
  1873.	
  “I’m	
  busy	
  now	
  at	
  the	
  beginning	
  of	
  the	
  year.	
  My	
  new	
  year	
  
began	
  well,	
  I	
  was	
  given	
  a	
  monthly	
  rise	
  of	
  10	
  guilders,	
  so	
  I	
  now	
  earn	
  50	
  guilders	
  a	
  month,	
  and	
  on	
  top	
  of	
  
that	
   I	
   received	
   a	
   50-­‐guilder	
   bonus.	
   Isn’t	
   that	
   wonderful?	
   I	
   now	
   hope	
   to	
   be	
   entirely	
   self-­‐
supporting.	
  	
  I’m	
  really	
  very	
  happy	
  that	
  you’re	
  also	
  part	
  of	
  this	
  firm.	
  It’s	
  such	
  a	
  fine	
  firm,	
  the	
  longer	
  one	
  
is	
  part	
  of	
  it	
  the	
  more	
  enthusiastic	
  one	
  becomes.”	
  

22	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  17	
  to	
  Théo	
  from	
  London	
  sometime	
  in	
  the	
  beginning	
  of	
  January	
  1884.	
  	
  

23	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  37	
  to	
  Théo	
  from	
  Paris	
  on	
  Tuesday,	
  July	
  6,	
  1875.	
  Naifeh	
  and	
  Smith	
  103.	
  See	
  
also:	
  letter	
  75,	
  which	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  from	
  Ramsgate	
  on	
  Monday,	
  April	
  17,	
  1876.	
  For	
  reasons	
  that	
  
are	
  not	
  clear,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  left	
  Paris	
  to	
  work	
  at	
  a	
  boarding	
  school	
  for	
  boys	
  in	
  England	
  in	
  April	
  1876.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

22	
  

Corot,	
  among	
  others.	
  During	
  his	
  first	
  stay	
  in	
  Paris,	
  he	
  sought	
  out	
  well-­‐known	
  painters	
  

and	
  masterworks,	
  though	
  he	
  did	
  not	
  then	
  learn	
  of	
  the	
  Impressionists	
  who	
  had	
  begun	
  

exhibiting	
  in	
  1874.	
  Instead,	
  he	
  visited	
  the	
  Louvre,	
  where	
  he	
  studied	
  the	
  paintings	
  of	
  

the	
  prints	
  he	
  sold	
  by	
  Corot,	
  Ruisdael,	
  Jules	
  Breton,	
  and	
  Rembrandt.24	
  	
  

	
  After	
   leaving	
   Goupil	
   &	
   Cie.	
   in	
   1876,	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   moved	
   frequently	
   and	
  

eventually	
  focused	
  on	
  becoming	
  a	
  preacher,	
   like	
  his	
  father,	
  but	
  that	
  was	
  a	
  short-­‐

lived	
  endeavor	
  that	
  ended	
  among	
  unknown	
  circumstances.25	
  By	
  1880,	
  he	
  decided	
  to	
  

embark	
   on	
   a	
   professional	
   career	
   as	
   a	
   painter.26	
  To	
   begin,	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   drew	
   and	
  

painted	
  from	
  masters	
  he	
  had	
  encountered	
  at	
  Goupil	
  &	
  Cie.,	
  such	
  as	
  Millet,	
  in	
  The	
  

Sower	
  (After	
  Millet)	
  (1881)	
  and	
  Peasant	
  Women	
  Digging	
  up	
  Potatoes	
  (August	
  1885)	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
24	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  34	
  to	
  Théo	
  from	
  Paris	
  on	
  May	
  31st,	
  1875.	
  	
  

25	
  After	
  Vincent	
  decided	
  he	
  wanted	
  to	
  dedicate	
  himself	
  to	
  painting,	
  he	
  wrote	
  to	
  Théo	
  in	
  the	
  summer	
  
of	
  1880,	
  equating	
  painting	
  with	
  the	
  Gospel	
  and	
  hoping	
  to	
  find	
  purpose	
  through	
  his	
  new	
  endeavors.	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  155	
  to	
  Théo	
  from	
  Cuesmes,	
  Belgium	
  sometime	
  between	
  Tuesday,	
  June	
  22nd	
  
and	
  Thursday,	
  June	
  24th	
  1880.	
  Initially,	
  he	
  wrote	
  to	
  thank	
  his	
  brother	
  for	
  the	
  fifty	
  francs	
  Théo	
  sent	
  as	
  
he	
  would	
  countless	
  times	
  in	
  the	
  years	
  to	
  come.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  asked	
  for	
  forgiveness	
  as	
  he	
  had	
  caused	
  his	
  
family	
  much	
  distress	
  because	
  his	
  relationship	
  to	
  the	
  congregation	
  to	
  which	
  he	
  was	
  matched	
  broke;	
  
the	
  terms	
  of	
  which	
  are	
  uncertain.	
  “…and	
  then	
  there’s	
  something	
  of	
  Rembrandt	
  in	
  the	
  Gospels	
  or	
  of	
  
the	
   Gospels	
   in	
   Rembrandt,	
   as	
   you	
   wish,	
   it	
   comes	
   to	
   more	
   or	
   less	
   the	
   same,	
   provided	
   that	
   one	
  
understands	
  it	
  rightly,	
  without	
  trying	
  to	
  twist	
  it	
  in	
  the	
  wrong	
  direction,	
  and	
  if	
  one	
  bears	
  in	
  mind	
  the	
  
equivalents	
  of	
  the	
  comparisons,	
  which	
  make	
  no	
  claim	
  to	
  diminish	
  the	
  merits	
  of	
  the	
  original	
  figures.”	
  	
  

26	
  From	
  this	
  point	
  on,	
  Théo	
  became	
  a	
  financial	
  and	
  emotional	
  partner	
  in	
  Vincent’s	
  artistic	
  goals.	
  By	
  
the	
  end	
  of	
  the	
  summer,	
  the	
  letters	
  between	
  the	
  brothers	
  took	
  on	
  the	
  enriching	
  and	
  practical	
  nature	
  
they	
  would	
  have	
  for	
  the	
  rest	
  of	
  Vincent’s	
  life:	
  an	
  in-­‐depth	
  discussion	
  about	
  art	
  and	
  the	
  exchange	
  of	
  
supplies	
  and	
  money.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  156	
  to	
  Théo	
  from	
  Cuesmes	
  on	
  Friday,	
  August	
  20,	
  1880.	
  
“I’m	
  writing	
  to	
  you	
  while	
  drawing,	
  and	
  I’m	
  in	
  a	
  hurry	
  to	
  get	
  back	
  to	
  it,	
  so	
  good-­‐night,	
  and	
  send	
  the	
  
sheets	
   as	
   soon	
   as	
   possible,	
   and	
   believe	
   me.”	
   Although	
   Vincent	
   depended	
   on	
   Théo	
   financially,	
   the	
  
prospect	
  of	
  being	
  tied	
  to	
  his	
  brother	
  indefinitely	
  caused	
  a	
  good	
  deal	
  of	
  stress.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  
422	
  from	
  Nuenen	
  around	
  January	
  15,	
  1884.	
  “I’d	
  have	
  qualms	
  about	
  continuing	
  on	
  the	
  same	
  footing.”	
  
See	
  also:	
  letter	
  420,	
  which	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  from	
  Nuenen	
  between	
  January	
  6	
  and	
  13,	
  1884.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

23	
  

[figures	
   12-­‐14].27	
  The	
   limbs	
   of	
   Peasant	
   Women	
   Digging	
   for	
   Potatoes	
   reflect	
   the	
  

round,	
  plump	
  body	
  of	
  the	
  type	
  of	
  the	
  woman	
  in	
  Female	
  Nude	
  Standing,	
  indicating	
  

the	
  influence	
  the	
  earlier	
  works	
  had	
  on	
  his	
  transitional	
  academic	
  period.	
   	
  Although	
  

Van	
   Gogh	
   probably	
   drew	
   Female	
   Nude	
   Standing	
   after	
   leaving	
   the	
   Academy,	
   the	
  

artist	
   modeled	
   the	
   figure	
   with	
   contour	
   lines	
   to	
   depict	
   well-­‐built	
   hips	
   and	
   arm	
  

muscles,	
  an	
  example	
  of	
  the	
  confluence	
  of	
  his	
  peasant	
  figures	
  and	
  cast	
  models.28	
  

In	
  The	
  Netherlands	
  and	
  Belgium,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  studied	
  many	
  painters,	
  but	
  the	
  

Romantic	
   painter	
   Eugène	
   Delacroix	
   (1798-­‐1863)	
   was	
   perhaps	
   an	
   artist	
   to	
   whose	
  

career	
  he	
  aspired,	
  both	
  aesthetically	
  and	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  a	
  marketable	
  presence.	
  To	
  Van	
  

Gogh,	
  Delacroix	
  was	
  a	
  model	
  artist—he	
  had	
  attended	
  the	
  studio	
  of	
  Pierre-­‐Narcisse	
  

Guérin,	
  enjoyed	
  a	
  successful	
  Salon	
  career,	
  and	
  had	
  been	
  a	
  celebrated	
  French	
  artist.29	
  

As	
  a	
  practicing	
  artist,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  of	
  Delacroix	
  often	
  and	
  in	
  1889	
  copied	
  images	
  

of	
  Delacroix’s	
  for	
  inspiration	
  [figures	
  15].30	
  	
  Among	
  other	
  French	
  masters,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
27	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
   letter	
  166	
  to	
  Théo	
  from	
  Etten	
  around	
  Sunday,	
  April	
  30,	
  1881.	
  “Meanwhile	
   I’ve	
  
started	
  on	
  the	
  Millet’s,	
  The	
  sower	
  is	
  finished	
  and	
  the	
  4	
  times	
  of	
  the	
  day	
  sketched.	
  And	
  now	
  still	
  to	
  
come	
  are	
  the	
  laborers	
  of	
  the	
  field.”	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  515	
  to	
  Théo	
  from	
  Nuenen	
  around	
  July	
  14,	
  
1885.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote:	
  “The	
  figure	
  of	
  the	
  peasant	
  and	
  the	
  workman	
  started	
  more	
  as	
  a	
  ‘genre’—but	
  
nowadays,	
  with	
  Millet	
   in	
  the	
  van	
  as	
  the	
  eternal	
  master,	
   it’s	
  the	
  very	
  heart	
  of	
  modern	
  art	
  and	
  will	
  
remain	
  so.”	
  See	
  also:	
  Toos	
  Van	
  Kooten	
  and	
  Mieke	
  Rijnders,	
  eds.	
  The	
  Paintings	
  of	
  Vincent	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  in	
  
the	
  Collection	
  of	
  the	
  Kröller-­‐Müller	
  Museum	
  (Otterlo,	
  Kröller-­‐Müller	
  Museum,	
  2003)	
  117.	
  

28	
  Marije	
  Vellekoop,	
  ed.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  at	
  Work	
  (New	
  Haven	
  and	
  London:	
  Yale	
  University	
  Press,	
  2013)	
  103.	
  	
  	
  

29	
  On	
   Delacroix’s	
   critical	
   reception,	
   see:	
   Andrew	
   Carrington	
   Shelton,	
   “Ingres	
   versus	
   Delacroix,”	
   Art	
  
History	
  23.5	
  (December,	
  2000):	
  726-­‐742.	
  

30	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  515	
  to	
  Théo	
  from	
  Nuenen	
  around	
  July	
  14,	
  1885.	
  	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

24	
  

considered	
  Delacroix	
  modern	
  and	
  he	
  studied	
  passages	
  from	
  former	
  director	
  of	
  the	
  

École	
  des	
  Beaux-­‐Arts	
  Charles	
  Blanc’s	
  essay	
  on	
  Delacroix	
  in	
  Les	
  artistes	
  de	
  mon	
  temps	
  

(1876).31	
  While	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   was	
   in	
   the	
   midst	
   of	
   working	
   on	
   The	
   Potato	
   Eaters,	
   he	
  

thought	
  of	
  Delacroix’s	
  use	
  of	
  color	
  and	
  how	
  the	
  master	
  painter	
  encouraged	
  artists	
  to	
  

paint	
  from	
  memory.32	
  For	
  The	
  Potato	
  Eaters,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  made	
  many	
  life	
  studies	
  and	
  

ended	
  up	
  painting	
  the	
  final	
  work	
  “largely	
  from	
  memory.”33	
  To	
  move	
  in	
  the	
  direction	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
31	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  290	
  to	
  Théo	
  from	
  The	
  Hague	
  on	
  Sunday,	
  November	
  5,	
  1882.	
  “Think	
  further	
  
back,	
  I	
  say,	
  Leys,	
  Gavarni,	
  Degroux	
  (to	
  name	
  just	
  a	
  few),	
  or	
  still	
  further,	
  Ingres,	
  Delacroix,	
  Géricault,	
  
think	
  how	
  old	
   it	
  already	
  is,	
  modern	
  art.	
  Add	
  to	
  them	
  many	
  who	
  are	
  aged.”	
  On	
  Charles	
  Blanc,	
  Van	
  
Gogh	
  wrote	
   letter	
  449	
  to	
  Théo	
  from	
  Nuenen	
  around	
  Friday,	
  June	
  6,	
  1884.	
   In	
  Blanc’s	
  passage,	
  the	
  
author	
   discussed	
   Delacroix’s	
   use	
   of	
   color,	
   noting	
   that	
   he	
   did	
   not	
   use	
   local	
   color	
   (the	
   color	
   that	
  
describes	
  the	
  subject	
  in	
  white	
  light).	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  was	
  interested	
  in	
  Blanc’s	
  ideas	
  on	
  hue	
  and	
  also	
  read	
  
his	
  Grammaire	
  des	
  arts	
  (1867).	
  See	
  also:	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  545	
  to	
  Théo	
  from	
  Nuenen	
  around	
  late	
  
August	
  or	
  early	
  September	
  1884.	
  “I’ve	
  been	
  given	
  a	
  magnificent	
  book,	
  J.F.	
  Millet	
  by	
  Sensier,	
  and	
  I	
  
myself	
  bought	
  a	
  book	
  by	
  Blanc,	
  Grammaire	
  des	
  arts	
  du	
  dessin,	
  because	
  of	
  a	
  passage	
  from	
  it	
  quoted	
  in	
  
Artistes	
  de	
  mon	
  temps.	
  This	
  book	
  deals	
  with	
  something	
  like	
  the	
  same	
  questions	
  as	
  the	
  little	
  book	
  by	
  
Vosmaer,	
  but	
  for	
  my	
  part	
  I	
  would	
  much	
  rather	
  read	
  Blanc.	
  You	
  can	
  read	
  Blanc’s	
  book	
  and	
  the	
  Millet	
  
too,	
   if	
  you	
   like.”	
  On	
  Delacroix,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
   letter	
  461	
  to	
  Théo	
  from	
  Nuenen	
  around	
  Monday,	
  
September	
  22nd	
  or	
  Sunday,	
  September	
  28th,	
  1884.	
  Vincent	
  was	
  acquainted	
  with	
  Delacroix’s	
  paintings,	
  
such	
  as	
  Liberty	
  Leading	
  the	
  People	
  (1830),	
  which	
  he	
  encouraged	
  Théo	
  to	
  visit	
  during	
  an	
  exhibition.	
  
“You	
   say	
   there’s	
   soon	
   to	
   be	
   an	
   exhibition	
   of	
   Delacroix’s	
   work.	
   Very	
   well—you’ll	
   certainly	
   see	
   a	
  
painting	
  there,	
  The	
  barricade,	
  that	
  I	
  only	
  know	
  from	
  biographies	
  of	
  Delacroix.	
  I	
  think	
  it	
  was	
  painted	
  in	
  
1848.”	
   A	
   fellow	
   peer	
   in	
   Cormon’s	
   class	
   noted	
   how	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   felt	
   about	
   Delacroix:	
  François	
  Gauzi,	
  
“Vincent	
  van	
  Gogh	
  (1886-­‐1887)”quoted	
  in	
  Welsh-­‐Ovcharov,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  in	
  Perspective	
  33.	
  “Delacroix,”	
  
Gauzi	
  recalled,	
  “was	
  [Van	
  Gogh’s]	
  God,	
  and	
  whenever	
  he	
  spoke	
  of	
  this	
  painter	
  his	
  lips	
  trembled	
  with	
  
emotion.”	
  See	
  also:	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  575	
  to	
  Bernard	
  from	
  Paris	
  in	
  December	
  1887.	
  In	
  Paris,	
  Van	
  
Gogh	
  also	
  shared	
  an	
  essay	
  about	
  Delacroix’s	
  work	
  with	
  his	
  new	
  friend	
  Bernard.	
  

32	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  496	
  to	
  Théo	
  from	
  Nuenen	
  around	
  Tuesday,	
  April	
  28,	
  1885.	
  “It’s	
  the	
  second	
  
time	
  that	
  I’ve	
  derived	
  a	
  great	
  deal	
  from	
  something	
  Delacroix	
  said.	
  The	
  first	
  was	
  his	
  theory	
  of	
  color,	
  
but	
  I	
  also	
  read	
  a	
  conversation	
  that	
  he	
  had	
  with	
  other	
  painters	
  about	
  the	
  making,	
  that	
  is	
  the	
  creation,	
  
of	
  a	
  painting.	
  He	
  asserted	
  that	
  one	
  made	
  the	
  best	
  paintings—from	
  memory.	
  By	
  heart!	
  he	
  said.	
  And	
  I	
  
read	
  of	
  the	
  conversation	
  in	
  question	
  that	
  when	
  all	
  those	
  good	
  people	
  were	
  going	
  home	
  late	
  in	
  the	
  
evening—Delacroix,	
  with	
  his	
  usual	
  vivacity	
  and	
  passion—	
  shouted	
  out	
  after	
  them	
  in	
  the	
  middle	
  of	
  the	
  
boulevard,	
  By	
  heart!	
  by	
  heart!,	
  probably	
  to	
  the	
  great	
  surprise	
  of	
  respectable	
  passers-­‐by.”	
  

33	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  497	
  to	
  Théo	
  from	
  Nuenen	
  on	
  April	
  30,	
  1885.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

25	
  

of	
  the	
  painters	
  he	
  encountered	
  at	
  Goupil	
  &	
  Cie.,	
  he	
  did	
  not	
  want	
  to	
  stay	
  in	
  rural	
  

Nuenen.	
  There,	
  “one	
  must	
  paint	
  the	
  peasants	
  as	
  if	
  one	
  were	
  one	
  of	
  them,”	
  so	
  he	
  

decided	
  to	
  establish	
  connections	
  in	
  a	
  city	
  with	
  an	
  art	
  market,	
  either	
  “in	
  Antwerp	
  or	
  

later	
  in	
  Paris.”34	
  	
  

After	
  a	
  few	
  weeks	
  in	
  Antwerp,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  made	
  a	
  cityscape	
  painting.	
  Although	
  

the	
  painting	
   is	
  unknown,	
  a	
  drawing	
  survives:	
  View	
  of	
  Het	
  Steen	
  (December	
  1885)	
  

[figure	
  16].	
  The	
  artist	
  showed	
  View	
  of	
  Het	
  Steen	
  to	
  dealers	
  to	
  see	
  if	
  he	
  could	
  sell	
  it,	
  

but	
  he	
  had	
  no	
  success.35	
  In	
  the	
  drawing,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  quickly	
  sketched	
  the	
  castle	
  of	
  

Antwerp,	
   a	
   landscape	
   depicting	
   an	
   older	
   vestige	
   of	
   the	
   city.	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   drew	
   the	
  

castle	
  in	
  two-­‐point	
  perspective	
  allowing	
  it	
  to	
  dominate	
  the	
  middle-­‐ground	
  and	
  rise	
  

up	
  from	
  a	
  small	
  hill.	
  The	
  artist	
  populated	
  the	
  foreground	
  with	
  figures	
  in	
  silhouette,	
  

some	
   of	
   whom	
   have	
   brightly	
   colored	
   garments.	
   When	
   he	
   shopped	
   the	
   painting	
  

around,	
   he	
   became	
   discouraged	
   that	
   the	
   dealers	
   did	
   not	
   want	
   his	
   work	
   and	
   had	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
34	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  543	
  to	
  Théo	
  from	
  Nuenen	
  on	
  November	
  20,	
  1885.	
  “You’ll	
  understand	
  why	
  
I’m	
  leaving	
  next	
  Tuesday	
  when	
  you	
  realize	
  firstly	
  that	
  I’m	
  really	
  longing	
  to	
  go—secondly	
  that	
  I’m	
  in	
  
danger	
   of	
   becoming	
   stuck	
   with	
   my	
   work	
   here	
   for	
   want	
   of	
   models,	
   while	
   working	
   outdoors	
   has	
  
stopped	
  because	
  of	
  the	
  cold.”	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  552	
  to	
  Théo	
  from	
  Antwerp	
  between	
  the	
  12th	
  
and	
  16th	
  of	
  January	
  1886.	
  “So	
  just	
  let	
  me	
  scratch	
  around,	
  and	
  for	
  heaven’s	
  sake	
  don’t	
  lose	
  heart	
  or	
  
weaken.	
   I	
   don’t	
   think	
   that	
   you	
   can	
   reasonably	
   ask	
   me	
   to	
   go	
   back	
   to	
   the	
   country	
   for	
   the	
   sake	
   of	
  
perhaps	
  50	
  francs	
  a	
  month	
  less,	
  when	
  the	
  whole	
  stretch	
  of	
  years	
  ahead	
  is	
  so	
  closely	
  related	
  to	
  the	
  
associations	
  I	
  have	
  to	
  establish	
  in	
  town,	
  either	
  here	
  in	
  Antwerp	
  or	
  later	
  in	
  Paris.”	
  

35	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  548	
  to	
  Théo	
  from	
  Antwerp	
  on	
  December	
  17	
  1885.	
  “Today,	
  for	
  the	
  first	
  time,	
  
I	
  feel	
  rather	
  dejected—I’d	
  made	
  a	
  painting	
  of	
  Het	
  Steen	
  and	
  took	
  it	
  round	
  the	
  dealers.	
  Two	
  of	
  them	
  
were	
  out,	
  and	
  one	
  didn’t	
  like	
  it,	
  and	
  one	
  lamented	
  in	
  a	
  dreadful	
  manner	
  that	
  literally	
  no	
  one	
  had	
  set	
  
foot	
  in	
  his	
  shop	
  in	
  a	
  fortnight.	
  This	
  isn’t	
  very	
  cheering,	
  particularly	
  when	
  the	
  weather’s	
  cold	
  and	
  bleak,	
  
and	
  one	
  has	
  already	
  broken	
  into	
  one’s	
  last	
  5	
  franc	
  piece	
  and	
  is	
  faced	
  with	
  a	
  fortnight	
  in	
  which	
  one	
  
sees	
  no	
  way	
  ahead.”	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

26	
  

heard	
   that	
   “heads	
   and	
   figures	
   of	
   women	
   were	
   most	
   likely	
   to	
   sell.”36	
  He	
   aimed	
   to	
  

paint	
  figures	
  because	
  the	
  market	
  was	
  saturated	
  with	
  landscapes.	
  In	
  some	
  ways,	
  Van	
  

Gogh’s	
   View	
   of	
   Het	
   Steen	
   resembles	
   Lane	
   at	
   the	
   Jardin	
   du	
   Luxembourg.	
   In	
   both	
  

images,	
   small-­‐scale	
   brightly	
   hued	
   figures	
   occupy	
   a	
   contemporary	
   landscape.	
  

Sketched	
  quickly	
  with	
  the	
  artist’s	
  implement,	
  the	
  figures	
  veer	
  away	
  from	
  those	
  he	
  

was	
  studying	
  in	
  his	
  classes	
  and	
  suggest	
  that	
  he	
  maintained	
  an	
  interest	
  in	
  descriptive	
  

landscape	
  imagery	
  and	
  moved	
  toward	
  a	
  contemporary	
  depiction	
  of	
  figures.	
  	
  

Through	
  his	
  work	
  at	
  Goupil	
  &	
  Cie.	
  and	
  interest	
  in	
  Delacroix,	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  ideas	
  

about	
   the	
   art	
   market	
   and	
   figure	
   painting	
   grew	
   in	
   some	
   ways	
   from	
   the	
   French	
  

government-­‐sponsored	
  Salon	
  structure.	
  In	
  order	
  to	
  have	
  a	
  good	
  chance	
  at	
  gaining	
  

entry	
   into	
   the	
   juried	
   Salon	
   exhibition,	
   many	
   young	
   artists	
   attended	
   the	
   training	
  

offered	
  at	
  the	
  École	
  des	
  Beaux-­‐Arts	
  where	
  artists	
  first	
  drew,	
  then	
  attempted	
  to	
  paint	
  

from	
  a	
  plaster	
  cast	
  and	
  finally	
  from	
  a	
  model.37	
  This	
  practice	
  was	
  in	
  contrast	
  to	
  Van	
  

Gogh’s	
  work	
  painting	
  peasants	
  outdoors,	
  modeling	
  them	
  with	
  robust	
  forms	
  bulging	
  

beneath	
  layers	
  of	
  cloth	
  as	
  he	
  did	
  in	
  Nuenen.	
  In	
  Antwerp,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wanted	
  to	
  paint	
  

from	
  a	
  model,	
  so	
  he	
  visited	
  the	
  Antwerp	
  Academy	
  and	
  Verlat’s	
  studio.	
  After	
  several	
  

failed	
   attempts	
   to	
   meet	
   Van	
   Gogh,	
   Verlat	
   eventually	
   saw	
   the	
   painter’s	
   work.	
   The	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
36	
  Letter	
  548.	
  

37	
  Harrison	
  C.	
  White	
  and	
  Cynthia	
  A.	
  White,	
  Canvases	
  and	
  Careers:	
  Institutional	
  Change	
  in	
  the	
  French	
  
Painting	
  Word	
  (Chicago	
  and	
  London:	
  The	
  University	
  of	
  Chicago	
  Press,	
  1965,	
  1993)	
  19.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

27	
  

teacher	
  was	
  uninterested	
  in	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  landscapes.	
  38	
  	
  When	
  he	
  saw	
  the	
  painter’s	
  

portraits,	
  though—probably	
  Portrait	
  of	
  an	
  Old	
  Man	
  (December	
  1885)	
  [figure	
  17]—

he	
  allowed	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  entry.	
  In	
  the	
  portrait,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  found	
  a	
  balance	
  between	
  the	
  

anatomy	
   of	
   the	
   head’s	
   features	
   and	
   the	
   application	
   of	
   stroke.	
   The	
   shades	
   and	
  

highlights	
  convey	
  a	
  sense	
  of	
  musculature	
  and	
  also	
  capture	
  the	
  figure’s	
  forlorn	
  gaze.	
  

Thick	
   paint	
   strokes	
   similar	
   to	
   those	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   developed	
   more	
   distinctly	
   in	
   Paris	
  

appear,	
  helping	
  to	
  shape	
  the	
  anatomy	
  of	
  the	
  facial	
  features	
  and	
  indicate	
  a	
  change	
  in	
  

texture.	
  The	
  figure’s	
  beard,	
  for	
  example,	
  consists	
  of	
  unblended	
  strokes	
  in	
  hues	
  that	
  

relate	
   to	
   skin	
   tone	
   and	
   to	
   the	
   graying	
   beard,	
   unifying	
   the	
   elements	
   of	
   the	
   facial	
  

features.	
  	
  	
  	
  

A	
  fellow	
  pupil	
  of	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  at	
  the	
  Academy,	
  Victor	
  Hageman,	
  recalled	
  that	
  

he	
   painted	
   rapidly	
   and	
   layered	
   paint	
   thickly,	
   	
   “so	
   heavily	
   that	
   his	
   colors	
   literally	
  

dripped	
  from	
  the	
  canvas	
  onto	
  the	
  floor.”39	
  Although	
  only	
  The	
  Discus	
  Thrower	
  and	
  a	
  

painting	
  of	
  wrestlers	
  (which	
  the	
  artist	
   later	
  painted	
  over)	
  survive	
  from	
  the	
  artist’s	
  

time	
  in	
  the	
  Academy,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  painted	
  Head	
  of	
  a	
  Skeleton	
  with	
  a	
  Burning	
  Cigarette	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
38	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  553	
  to	
  Théo	
  from	
  Antwerp	
  on	
  January	
  20,	
  1886.	
  “Wanted	
  to	
  tell	
  you	
  that	
  
Verlat	
  has	
  seen	
  my	
  work	
  at	
  last,	
  and	
  when	
  he	
  saw	
  the	
  two	
  landscapes	
  and	
  the	
  still	
  life	
  that	
  I	
  brought	
  
with	
  me	
  from	
  the	
  country,	
  he	
  said—‘yes,	
  but	
  that	
  doesn’t	
  concern	
  me’—when	
  I	
  showed	
  him	
  the	
  two	
  
portraits,	
  he	
  said—‘that’s	
  different,	
  if	
  it’s	
  the	
  figure	
  you	
  can	
  come.’	
  So	
  I’m	
  going	
  to	
  begin	
  tomorrow	
  
by	
  starting	
  work	
  in	
  the	
  painting	
  class	
  at	
  the	
  academy.”	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  began	
  his	
  studies	
  on	
  January	
  21st	
  
and	
  worked	
  there	
  throughout	
  February.	
  See	
  also:	
   letter	
  565,	
  which	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  to	
  Théo	
  from	
  
Antwerp	
  on	
  February	
  22,	
  1886.	
  	
  

39	
  Victor	
   Hageman,	
   “Vincent	
   in	
   Antwerp	
   (1886),”	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   in	
   Perspective,	
   ed.	
   Bogomila	
   Welsh-­‐
Ovcharov	
  (Englewood	
  Cliffs,	
  New	
  Jersey:	
  Prentice-­‐Hall,	
  Inc.	
  1974)	
  27.	
  	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

28	
  

(January-­‐February	
   1886)	
   [figure	
   18]	
   during	
   the	
   month	
   he	
   studied	
   at	
   the	
   atelier.40	
  

Van	
   Gogh’s	
   brushwork,	
   unlike	
   that	
   of	
   Verlat,	
   provides	
   a	
   texture	
   for	
   the	
   form.	
   In	
  

Verlat’s	
   Ariadne	
   et	
   amor	
   (1880)	
   [figure	
   19],	
   smooth	
   strokes	
   of	
   gradient	
   tint	
   and	
  

shade	
  form	
  mass	
  and	
  volume.	
  In	
  contrast,	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  wide	
  marks	
  appear	
  to	
  have	
  

been	
   applied	
   with	
   a	
   brush	
   loaded	
   with	
   paint	
   and	
   give	
   form	
   to	
   the	
   bones	
   with	
  

unblended	
  highlights.	
  When	
  Verlat	
  came	
  around	
  to	
  critique	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  work,	
  the	
  

master	
  quipped:	
  “I’ll	
  not	
  correct	
  these	
  dogs.”41	
  This,	
  according	
  to	
  Hageman,	
  angered	
  

Van	
  Gogh	
  who	
  worked	
  “eagerly”	
  and	
  attempted	
  to	
  grasp	
  the	
  lessons	
  at	
  hand.	
  	
  

Van	
  Gogh	
  also	
  studied	
  drawing	
  under	
  Eugène	
  Siberdt,	
  a	
  painter	
  who	
  used	
  a	
  

palette	
  of	
  color	
  that	
  describes	
  the	
  figures	
  and	
  landscape	
  accurately	
  and	
  with	
  a	
  tight,	
  

controlled	
  brushstroke	
  [figure	
  20].	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  The	
  Discus	
  Thrower	
  exemplifies	
  the	
  

lessons	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  attempted	
  in	
  Siberdt’s	
  class.	
  Siberdt	
  taught	
  students	
  to	
  depend	
  on	
  

the	
  outline	
  of	
  the	
  figure’s	
  form.42	
  Once	
  a	
  student	
  crafted	
  the	
  contour	
  lines,	
  he	
  could	
  

begin	
  to	
  use	
  shade	
  to	
  develop	
  volume.	
  For	
  The	
  Discus	
  Thrower,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  drew	
  a	
  

thick,	
   solid	
   chalk	
   line	
   around	
   the	
   figure’s	
   torso,	
   and	
   he	
   used	
   well-­‐blended	
   hatch	
  

marks	
   to	
   define	
   the	
   musculature	
   of	
   the	
   upper	
   back,	
   arms,	
   and	
   legs.	
   Hageman	
  

recalled	
  that	
  when	
  given	
  an	
  assignment	
  to	
  draw	
  a	
  plaster	
  cast	
  of	
  the	
  Venus	
  de	
  Milo,	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
40	
  Vellekoop	
  101.	
  

41	
  Karel	
  Verlat	
  quoted	
  in	
  Hagemen,	
  “Vincent	
  in	
  Antwerp	
  (1886)”	
  quoted	
  in	
  Welsh-­‐Ovcharov,	
  Van	
  
Gogh	
  in	
  Perspective	
  27.	
  

42	
  Vellekoop	
  101.	
  	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

29	
  

Van	
  Gogh	
  enlarged	
  her	
  hips,	
  making	
  them	
  the	
  rotund	
  forms	
  in	
  his	
  Nuenen	
  imagery	
  

and	
   perhaps	
   similar	
   to	
   those	
   he	
   depicted	
   in	
   Female	
   Nude	
   Standing.	
   According	
   to	
  

Hageman,	
   upon	
   seeing	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   drawing	
   of	
   Venus	
   with	
   its	
   “deformations,”	
  

Siberdt	
  ripped	
  up	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  study	
  and	
  explained	
  the	
  “canons	
  of	
  design,”	
  on	
  which	
  

Venus’s	
  proportions	
  could	
  serve	
  as	
  instruction.43	
  At	
  this,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  “flew	
  into	
  a	
  rage”	
  

and	
  yelled:	
  “It’s	
  obvious	
  you	
  don’t	
  know	
  what	
  a	
  young	
  woman	
  is	
   like,	
  damn	
  it!	
  A	
  

woman	
  must	
  have	
  hips,	
  buttocks	
  and	
  a	
  pelvis	
  in	
  which	
  she	
  can	
  carry	
  a	
  child!”44	
  In	
  

Hageman’s	
  estimation,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  was	
  more	
  inclined	
  to	
  consider	
  the	
  life	
  of	
  the	
  form,	
  

rather	
   than	
   its	
   classical	
   measurements.	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   inclination	
   to	
   subordinate	
  

anatomical	
  correctness	
  to	
  use	
  a	
  figure’s	
  build	
  to	
  convey	
  a	
  sense	
  of	
  identity,	
  relates	
  

to	
   the	
   contemporary	
   figures	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   included	
   in	
   Jardin	
   du	
   Luxembourg.	
   The	
  

modern	
  silhouette	
  of	
  women’s	
  and	
  men’s	
  fashion—bustles	
  and	
  top	
  hats—does	
  not	
  

indicate	
  the	
  figure’s	
  form,	
  but	
  suggests	
  their	
  upper-­‐class	
  status.	
  Similarly,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  

also	
  rendered	
  the	
  foliage	
  flatly	
  and	
  privileged	
  the	
  use	
  of	
  paint	
  medium	
  rather	
  than	
  a	
  

sense	
   of	
   depth.	
   The	
   abstract	
   marks	
   on	
   the	
   left	
   of	
   Jardin	
   du	
   Luxembourg	
   do	
   not	
  

create	
  a	
  depth	
  within	
  the	
  structure	
  of	
  a	
  tree	
  and	
  its	
  branches,	
  but	
  remain	
  on	
  the	
  

surface	
  of	
  the	
  canvas.	
  	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
43	
  Hagemen,	
  “Vincent	
  in	
  Antwerp	
  (1886)”	
  quoted	
  in	
  Welsh-­‐Ovcharov,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  in	
  Perspective	
  28.	
  

44	
  Hagemen	
   and	
   Vincent	
   van	
   Gogh,	
   “Vincent	
   in	
   Antwerp	
   (1886)”	
   quoted	
   in	
   Welsh-­‐Ovcharov,	
   Van	
  
Gogh	
  in	
  Perspective	
  28.	
  

	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

30	
  

Van	
  Gogh	
  considered	
  the	
  lessons	
  in	
  the	
  Antwerp	
  Academy	
  not	
  only	
  as	
  a	
  way	
  

to	
  change	
  the	
  direction	
  of	
  his	
  approach,	
  but	
  also	
  to	
  become	
  ready	
  for	
  the	
  Parisian	
  

atelier.45	
  Shortly	
   after	
   arriving	
   in	
   Paris,	
   he	
   attended	
   Cormon’s	
   atelier	
   from	
   March	
  

through	
   the	
   first	
   week	
   of	
   June.	
  46	
  Anecdotes	
   from	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   peers	
   from	
   letters,	
  

essays,	
  and	
  interviews,	
  give	
  the	
  sense	
  that	
  Cormon	
  was	
  not	
  interested	
  in	
  painters	
  

who	
  thought	
  independently,	
  and	
  he	
  wanted	
  his	
  students	
  to	
  focus	
  on	
  painting	
  the	
  

plaster	
   casts	
   as	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   was	
   doing	
   in	
   Torso	
   of	
   Venus	
   (June	
   1886)	
   [figure	
   7].	
  

“Cormon	
  demanded,”	
  classmate	
  François	
  Gauzi	
  recalled,	
  “that	
  they	
  limit	
  themselves	
  

to	
  studying	
  from	
  the	
  model,	
  which	
  is	
  to	
  say	
  that	
  they	
  copy	
  strictly	
  what	
  they	
  had	
  

before	
  their	
  eyes,	
  without	
  changing	
  anything.”47	
  Bernard,	
  who	
  attended	
  Cormon’s	
  

atelier	
  from	
  1884	
  until	
  April	
  1886	
  where	
  he	
  crossed	
  paths	
  with	
  Van	
  Gogh,	
  angered	
  

the	
  master	
  by	
  using	
  saturated	
  color.	
  Student	
  A.S.	
  Hartrick	
  recalled	
  that	
  Bernard	
  was	
  

painting	
  a	
  brown	
  sail	
  that	
  hung	
  behind	
  a	
  model	
  with	
  “alternate	
  streaks	
  of	
  vermilion	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
45	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  555	
  to	
  Théo	
  from	
  Antwerp	
  on	
  January	
  28,	
  1886.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote:	
  “…	
  just	
  to	
  
be	
   admitted	
   anywhere	
   in	
   Paris	
   one	
   has	
   to	
   have	
   been	
   somewhere	
   else	
   and	
   have	
   lost	
   one’s	
   rough	
  
edges,	
  and	
  one	
  always	
  has	
  to	
  contend	
  with	
  fellows	
  who’ve	
  already	
  worked	
  at	
  an	
  academy	
  for	
  some	
  
length	
  of	
  time.”	
  	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  565	
  to	
  Théo	
  from	
  Antwerp	
  on	
  February	
  22,	
  1886.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  
felt	
  that	
  he	
  “derived	
  benefit	
  from	
  coming	
  to	
  Antwerp,”	
  so	
  he	
  wanted	
  “to	
  go	
  straight	
  on”	
  to	
  Paris.	
  	
  	
  
46	
  Louis	
   van	
   Tilborgh,	
   “Van	
   Gogh	
   in	
   Cormon’s	
   Studio:	
   A	
   Chronological	
   Puzzle,”	
   Current	
   Issues	
   in	
  
Nineteenth-­‐Century	
  Art	
  (2007):	
  52-­‐71.	
  See	
  also:	
  letter	
  569,	
  note	
  14.	
  	
  	
  
47	
  Gauzi	
  quoted	
  in	
  Welsh-­‐Ovcharov,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  in	
  Perspective	
  33.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

31	
  

and	
  vert	
  veronese,”	
  two	
  saturated	
  green	
  hues.48	
  	
  	
  Bernard	
  “saw	
  [the	
  sail]	
  that	
  way,”	
  

and	
  Cormon	
  expelled	
  young	
  Bernard	
  for	
  his	
  painting	
  practice.	
  49	
  	
  

Like	
  Verlat	
  and	
  Siberdt,	
  Cormon	
  taught	
  students	
  to	
  draw	
  figures	
  with	
  contour	
  

line	
   and	
   shade	
   thereafter,	
   a	
   process	
   evident	
   in	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   Standing	
   Male	
   and	
  

Seated	
  Female	
  Nudes	
  and	
  Studies	
  of	
  a	
  Seated	
  Girl	
  (March-­‐May	
  1886)	
  [figures	
  5	
  &	
  

6].50	
  Cormon	
   required	
   mimetic	
   description	
   of	
   the	
   casts	
   and	
   models	
   and	
   did	
   not	
  

tolerate	
   deviation,	
   and	
   “students	
   followed	
   rigidly	
   this	
   advice”;	
   like	
   Bernard,	
   Van	
  

Gogh	
  sometimes	
  “ignored	
   it.”51	
  Van	
  Gogh,	
  who	
  worked	
  with	
  a	
  “fury…even	
  during	
  

rest	
  period,”	
  experimented	
  with	
  color	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  texture	
  while	
  in	
  Cormon’s	
  studio	
  as	
  

he	
  had	
  in	
  Verlat’s.52	
  Cormon	
  met	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  work	
  with	
  a	
  characteristic	
  silence	
  and	
  

kept	
  his	
  comments	
  to	
  the	
  structure	
  of	
  the	
  drawing	
  rather	
  than	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  use	
  of	
  

color.	
  Gauzi	
  remembered	
  that	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  painted	
  blue	
  drapery	
  hanging	
  behind	
  the	
  

model	
  with	
  a	
  “blue	
  of	
  an	
  unexpected	
  intensity,”	
  which	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  “juxtaposed	
  with	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
48	
  A.S.	
  Hartick,	
  “Vincent	
  van	
  Gogh	
  (1886-­‐1887)”	
  quoted	
  in	
  Welsh-­‐Ovcharov,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  in	
  Perspective	
  
30.	
  	
  

49	
  Mary	
   Ann	
   Stevens,	
   ed.	
   Emile	
   Bernard,	
   1868-­‐1941:	
   A	
   Pioneer	
   of	
   Modern	
   Art	
   (Waanders	
   Verlag,	
  
Zwolle:	
  Wanders	
  Publishers,	
  1990)	
  95.	
  Bernard	
  left	
  for	
  Brittany	
  in	
  early	
  April,	
  where	
  he	
  stayed	
  until	
  
sometime	
  around	
  October,	
  when	
  he	
  and	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  connected.	
  

50	
  Vellekoop	
  107.	
  	
  

51	
  Gauzi	
  quoted	
  in	
  Welsh-­‐Ovcharov,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  in	
  Perspective	
  33.	
  

52	
  Gauzi	
  quoted	
  in	
  Welsh-­‐Ovcharov,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  in	
  Perspective	
  34.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

32	
  

the	
  golden	
  yellow	
  of	
  the	
  woman’s	
  skin…[and]	
  unmodified	
  violet	
  tones	
  which	
  were	
  

mutually	
  intensifying.”53	
  	
  

Only	
   one	
   of	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   painted	
   studies	
   from	
   Cormon’s	
   remains,	
   but	
   the	
  

artist	
  created	
  Torso	
  of	
  Venus	
  around	
  the	
  time	
  he	
  attended	
  the	
  atelier.54	
  In	
  Torso	
  of	
  

Venus,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  used	
  a	
  Prussian	
  blue	
  as	
  the	
  backdrop.	
  The	
  painter	
  left	
  large	
  swaths	
  

of	
  brushstrokes	
  semi-­‐blended	
  and	
  seems	
  to	
  have	
  mixed	
  the	
  darker	
  hues	
  with	
  lighter	
  

values	
  directly	
  on	
  the	
  panel.	
  Rather	
  than	
  cascade	
  softly	
  against	
  the	
  cast’s	
  white	
  skin,	
  

the	
  strokes	
  extend	
  from	
  the	
  model,	
  forming	
  a	
  rudimentary	
  outline.	
  The	
  painter	
  used	
  

Naples	
   yellow	
   as	
   a	
   highlight	
   on	
   the	
   round	
   forms	
   of	
   the	
   torso,	
   and,	
   rather	
   than	
  

continue	
  with	
  local	
  color,	
  he	
  drew	
  short	
  Prussian	
  blue	
  marks	
  from	
  the	
  background	
  to	
  

express	
   the	
   figure’s	
   shadow.	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   modeled	
   the	
   classical	
   form	
   with	
  

brushstrokes,	
  a	
  process	
  in	
  contrast	
  to	
  giving	
  volume	
  to	
  form	
  through	
  layers	
  of	
  thinly	
  

applied	
   tint	
   and	
   shade.	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   would	
   have	
   been	
   expected	
   to	
   understand	
   the	
  

latter	
  approach,	
  smoothing	
  out	
  his	
  marks	
  and	
  indicating	
  the	
  round	
  quality	
  of	
  hips	
  

with	
  the	
  gradual	
  interplay	
  of	
  shade	
  and	
  highlight.	
  Instead,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  thickly	
  applied	
  

paint.	
  Torso	
  of	
  Venus,	
  painted	
  at	
  the	
  time	
  he	
  decided	
  to	
  leave	
  the	
  atelier,	
  indicates	
  

that	
  although	
  he	
  attempted	
  to	
  use	
  a	
  limited	
  palette	
  and	
  model	
  with	
  tints	
  and	
  shades	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
53	
  Gauzi	
  quoted	
  in	
  Welsh-­‐Ovcharov,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  in	
  Perspective	
  34.	
  

54	
  Vellekoop	
  107.	
  Nude	
  girl,	
  seated	
  (1886)	
  survives.	
  	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

33	
  

and	
   paint	
   classical	
   forms,	
   he	
   did	
   not	
   entirely	
   adjust	
   his	
   practice	
   to	
   an	
   academic	
  

technique.	
  	
  

Portrait	
  of	
  an	
  Old	
  Man,	
  Head	
  of	
  a	
  Skeleton,	
  and	
  Torso	
  of	
  Venus	
  represent	
  

images	
   that	
   lead	
   from	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   atelier	
   training	
   but	
   clearly	
   move	
   toward	
   the	
  

expressive	
   brushwork	
   and	
   inventive	
   use	
   of	
   hue	
   and	
   texture	
   the	
   artist	
   created	
   in	
  

Paris.	
  While	
  he	
  began	
  to	
  dedicate	
  himself	
  to	
  the	
  academic	
  model,	
  he	
  remained	
  open	
  

to	
  artistic	
  influences	
  and	
  modes	
  of	
  image	
  making	
  that	
  informed	
  the	
  forward-­‐thinking	
  

images	
   he	
   generated	
   shortly	
   thereafter.	
   When	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   definitively	
   shifted	
   his	
  

perspective	
  regarding	
  the	
  merits	
  of	
  the	
  atelier	
  structure	
  and	
  the	
  criteria	
  of	
  figure	
  

painting—depth,	
  perspective,	
  proportion,	
  muscular	
  definition,	
  and	
  smooth	
  gradual	
  

color	
  shifts—he	
  had	
  already	
  begun	
  to	
  consider	
  the	
  role	
  of	
  the	
  impasto	
  brush	
  mark	
  in	
  

depicting	
  form.	
  	
  

When	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  left	
  the	
  atelier,	
  he	
  wrote	
  to	
  painter	
  Horace	
  Mann	
  Livens:	
  

I	
  have	
  been	
  in	
  Cormon’s	
  studio	
  for	
  three	
  or	
  four	
  months	
  but	
  did	
  
not	
  find	
  that	
  as	
  useful	
  as	
  I	
  had	
  expected	
  it	
  to	
  be.	
  It	
  may	
  be	
  my	
  
fault	
  however,	
  [sic]	
  any	
  how	
  I	
  left	
  there	
  too	
  as	
  I	
  left	
  Antwerp	
  and	
  
since	
   I	
   worked	
   alone,	
   and	
   fancy	
   that	
   since	
   I	
   feel	
   my	
   own	
   self	
  
more.	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
	
  
Trade	
  is	
  slow	
  here,	
  the	
  great	
  dealers	
  sell	
  Millet,	
  Delacroix,	
  Corot,	
  
Daubigny,	
  Dupré,	
  a	
  few	
  other	
  masters	
  at	
  exorbitant	
  prices.	
  They	
  
do	
  little	
  or	
  nothing	
  for	
  young	
  artists.55	
  
	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
55	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  569	
  to	
  Horace	
  Mann	
  Livens	
  from	
  Paris	
  during	
  September	
  or	
  October	
  1886.	
  	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

34	
  

The	
  atelier	
  lessons	
  supported	
  an	
  idealized	
  form	
  that	
  could	
  occupy	
  the	
  central	
  plane	
  

of	
  a	
  canvas,	
  but	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  sought	
  out	
  emerging	
  artists	
  who	
  constructed	
  imagery	
  that	
  

was	
  akin	
  to	
  the	
  experimental	
  aspects	
  of	
  his	
  paintings,	
  such	
  as	
  the	
  beard’s	
  energetic	
  

brushwork	
  in	
  Portrait	
  of	
  an	
  Old	
  Man.	
  Painting	
  formulaically	
  no	
  longer	
  interested	
  Van	
  

Gogh.	
  When	
  he	
  embarked	
  on	
  a	
  painting	
  practice	
  that	
  allowed	
  him	
  to	
  transform	
  the	
  

modern	
  world	
  in	
  which	
  his	
  lived,	
  he	
  wrote	
  to	
  Bernard:	
  “one	
  finds	
  oneself	
  obliged	
  to	
  

learn	
  to	
  live,	
  as	
  one	
  does	
  to	
  paint,	
  without	
  resorting	
  to	
  the	
  old	
  tricks	
  and	
  trompe	
  

l’oeil	
  of	
  schemers.”56	
  	
  

At	
   this	
   point,	
   he	
   took	
   his	
   lessons	
   from	
   the	
   Impressionists	
   and	
   Neo-­‐

Impressionists	
   whose	
   imagery	
   he	
   could	
   observe	
   in	
   independent	
   exhibitions,	
   work	
  

that	
   had	
   become	
   increasingly	
   accessible	
   and	
   experimental	
   by	
   1886.	
   The	
  

Impressionists	
  circumvented	
  the	
  hierarchical	
  organization	
  of	
  the	
  École	
  and	
  Salon	
  and	
  

mounted	
  their	
  own	
  exhibitions,	
  creating	
  new	
  avenues	
  by	
  which	
  artists	
  could	
  make	
  a	
  

living,	
  and	
  made	
  landscapes	
  one	
  of	
  their	
  foci.	
  57	
  For	
  the	
  Impressionists,	
  the	
  École	
  and	
  

atelier	
   training	
   were	
   supposed	
   to	
   legitimize	
   their	
   rise	
   through	
   the	
   Salon’s	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
56	
  Letter	
  575.	
  

57	
  Jane	
  Mayo	
  Roos,	
  Early	
  Impressionism	
  and	
  the	
  French	
  State	
  1866-­‐1874	
  (Cambridge	
  and	
  New	
  York:	
  
Cambridge	
   University	
   Press,	
   1996)	
   204.	
   The	
   Impressionist	
   exhibitions	
   were,	
   in	
   some	
   respects,	
  
opposed	
  to	
  the	
  Salon	
  model,	
  a	
  system	
  Paul	
  Cézanne	
  petitioned	
  against	
  throughout	
  the	
  1860s,	
  arguing	
  
for	
  a	
  different	
  juried	
  body.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

35	
  

hierarchy.58	
  Instead,	
   academic	
   training	
   represented	
   the	
   ideals	
   against	
   which	
   their	
  

work	
   and	
   their	
   co-­‐operative	
   gallery	
   experience	
   railed.	
   When	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   began	
   to	
  

explore	
  the	
  avant-­‐garde	
  works,	
  his	
  attitude	
  toward	
  marketable	
  art	
  and	
  his	
  purpose	
  

changed.	
   “In	
   one	
   word,	
   with	
   much	
   energy,”	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   wrote	
   to	
   Livens,	
   “with	
   a	
  

sincere	
   personal	
   feeling	
   of	
   color	
   in	
   nature	
   I	
   would	
   say	
   an	
   artist	
   can	
   get	
   on	
   here	
  

notwithstanding	
  the	
  many	
  obstructions.	
  And	
  I	
  intend	
  remaining	
  here	
  still	
  longer.”59	
  

Van	
   Gogh	
   had	
   become	
   immersed	
   in	
   “seeking”	
   color	
   “oppositions”	
   to	
   “harmonize	
  

brutal	
  extremes,”	
  a	
  perspective	
  he	
  attributed	
  to	
  the	
  Impressionists	
  whom	
  he	
  had	
  

not	
  known	
  before	
  living	
  in	
  Paris.60	
  	
  

Contemporary	
   in	
   mark-­‐making,	
   color	
   use,	
   and	
   subject	
   matter,	
   Jardin	
   du	
  

Luxembourg	
   [figure	
   8]	
   is	
   an	
   early	
   example	
   of	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   familiarity	
   with	
   the	
  

Impressionist	
  approach.	
  Bright	
  crimson	
  parasols	
  and	
  distant	
  red	
  forms	
  seem	
  to	
  make	
  

an	
  implied	
  line	
  across	
  the	
  mid-­‐plane	
  of	
  the	
  canvas,	
  juxtaposing	
  the	
  several	
  hues	
  of	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
58	
  White	
  and	
  White	
  114	
  and	
  table	
  12.	
  Nearly	
  all	
  the	
  Impressionists,	
  except	
  for	
  Cézanne,	
  had	
  either	
  
attended	
  the	
  École	
  or	
  spent	
  time	
  training	
  in	
  the	
  atelier	
  of	
  an	
  academic	
  painter.	
  Although	
  the	
  first	
  
Impressionist	
  exhibition	
  was	
  held	
  in	
  1874,	
  the	
  artists	
  also	
  contributed	
  to	
  the	
  Salon.	
  Early	
  modern	
  and	
  
Impressionist	
   painters—Manet,	
   Degas,	
   Pissarro,	
   Cézanne,	
   Renoir	
   and	
   Alfred	
   Sisley—had	
   all	
   been	
  
accepted	
  to	
  the	
  Salon,	
  showing	
  in	
  the	
  state-­‐run	
  exhibitions	
  throughout	
  the	
  1870s.	
  Manet	
  and	
  Renoir	
  
exhibited	
  at	
  the	
  Salon	
  into	
  the	
  early	
  1880s,	
  and	
  Cézanne	
  continued	
  to	
  submit	
  work	
  until	
  1886,	
  but	
  
was	
  consistently	
  rejected.	
  Pissarro,	
  Degas	
  and	
  Monet	
  began	
  to	
  show	
  solely	
  in	
  group	
  exhibitions	
  in	
  the	
  
1880s.	
   Their	
   independent	
   shows	
   brought	
   about	
   a	
   change	
   in	
   the	
   gallery	
   system	
   whereby	
   dealers	
  
sought	
  out	
  new	
  artists	
  and	
  were	
  able	
  to	
  market	
  their	
  works	
  to	
  respective	
  buyers.	
  

59	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  569	
  to	
  Horace	
  Mann	
  Livens	
  from	
  Paris	
  in	
  September	
  or	
  October	
  1886.	
  

60	
  Letter	
  569.	
  “In	
  Antwerp	
  I	
  did	
  not	
  even	
  know	
  what	
  the	
  Impressionists	
  were,	
  now	
  I	
  have	
  seen	
  them	
  
and	
   though	
   not	
   being	
   one	
   of	
   the	
   club,	
   yet	
   I	
   have	
   much	
   admired	
   certain	
   Impressionist	
   pictures—
Degas,	
  nude	
  figure–Claude	
  Monet,	
  landscape.”	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

36	
  

green	
  in	
  the	
  foliage	
  and	
  creating	
  the	
  opposition	
  that	
  interested	
  Van	
  Gogh.	
  Although	
  

the	
  family	
  members	
  in	
  The	
  Potato	
  Eaters	
  were	
  contemporaries	
  of	
  Van	
  Gogh’s,	
  they	
  

were	
  rural,	
  and	
  the	
  painted	
  surface	
  crafted	
  with	
  relatively	
  smooth	
  marks.	
  In	
  Jardin	
  

du	
   Luxembourg,	
   he	
   depicted	
   a	
   modern	
   city	
   and	
   drew	
   silhouetted	
   figures	
   with	
   a	
  

sense	
  of	
  weight	
  and	
  solid	
  use	
  of	
  contour	
  line	
  he	
  honed	
  in	
  the	
  atelier.	
  The	
  brushwork	
  

in	
   the	
   trees	
   and	
   the	
   unblended	
   greens,	
   ochres,	
   and	
   Naples	
   yellow	
   relate	
   to	
   the	
  

texture	
   the	
   artist	
   developed	
   in	
   the	
   Portrait	
   of	
   an	
   Old	
   Man	
   around	
   the	
   figure’s	
  

temples,	
  or	
  the	
  shadows	
  in	
  Torso	
  of	
  Venus	
  that	
  form	
  the	
  figure’s	
  lower	
  abdomen.	
  

The	
  academic	
  paintings	
  show	
  his	
  first	
  attempts	
  at	
  gestural	
  mark-­‐making	
  against	
  the	
  

lessons	
  of	
  his	
  instructors.	
  Conversely,	
  for	
  Jardin	
  du	
  Luxembourg,	
  he	
  drew	
  from	
  some	
  

of	
   his	
   more	
   inventive	
   academic	
   work	
   to	
   create	
   one	
   of	
   his	
   earliest	
   paintings	
   of	
  

modern	
  life,	
  leaving	
  an	
  overlap	
  in	
  technique	
  between	
  his	
  academic	
  studies	
  and	
  first	
  

experiences	
  with	
  avant-­‐garde	
  painting.	
  	
  

	
  

Théo	
  at	
  Goupil’s	
  

Upon	
  his	
  arrival,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  considered	
  his	
  entry	
  into	
  the	
  art	
  market	
  through	
  

the	
  conventional	
  channels	
  of	
  academic	
  painting.	
  Perhaps	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  most	
  important	
  

lessons	
  in	
  gaining	
  a	
  place	
  in	
  the	
  market	
  came	
  from	
  Théo,	
  who	
  was	
  in	
  a	
  managerial	
  

position	
  at	
  Goupil	
  &	
  Cie.	
  to	
  work	
  with	
  the	
  Impressionist	
  painters.	
  At	
  the	
  time,	
  Goupil	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

37	
  

&	
  Cie.	
  was	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  top	
  firms	
  in	
  Europe	
  and	
  had	
  international	
  branches.61	
  Richard	
  

Thomson	
  points	
  out	
  that	
  Théo’s	
  work	
  with	
  the	
  Impressionist	
  painters	
  should	
  not	
  be	
  

mythologized,	
  and	
  that	
  the	
  dealer	
  cannot	
  be	
  considered	
  a	
  champion	
  of	
  the	
  avant-­‐

garde	
   painters.62	
  Nonetheless,	
   Thomson’s	
   scholarship	
   positions	
   Théo	
   as	
   a	
   dealer	
  

with	
  access	
  to	
  their	
  works.	
  Although	
  dealers	
  on	
  the	
  forefront,	
  such	
  as	
  Durand-­‐Ruel,	
  

had	
  begun	
  selling	
  Impressionist	
  paintings	
  the	
  previous	
  decade,	
  Théo	
  was	
  in	
  business	
  

with	
  the	
  painters	
  as	
  early	
  as	
  1885.	
  	
  

Théo	
  exposed	
  Vincent	
  to	
  the	
  new	
  modes	
  of	
  painting	
  during	
  a	
  time	
  when	
  the	
  

dealer	
  was	
  seeking	
  to	
  forge	
  business	
  alliances	
  with	
  the	
  Impressionists,	
  an	
  aspect	
  of	
  

the	
  developing	
  market	
  Vincent	
  saw	
  firsthand.	
  Théo	
  developed	
  a	
  relationship	
  with	
  

the	
  avant-­‐garde	
  painters	
  shortly	
  before	
  Vincent’s	
  move.	
  The	
  dealer’s	
  work	
  at	
  Goupil	
  

&	
  Cie.	
  gave	
  Vincent	
  access	
  to	
  the	
  Impressionist	
  works,	
  which	
  enabled	
  the	
  artist	
  to	
  

reconsider	
   the	
   role	
   of	
   the	
   figure	
   in	
   contemporary	
   canvases	
   and	
   the	
   use	
   of	
  

compositional	
   tools	
   to	
   challenge	
   traditional	
   ideals	
   of	
   depth	
   and	
   perspective.	
  

Although	
   scholars	
   acknowledge	
   Théo’s	
   dealings	
   with	
   the	
   Impressionists	
   as	
   an	
  

influence	
  on	
  Vincent’s	
  shift,	
  the	
  unique	
  painterly	
  strategies	
  the	
  painter	
  developed	
  in	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
61	
  John	
   Rewald,	
   “Théo	
   van	
   Gogh,	
   Goupil	
   and	
   the	
   Impressionists,”	
   Gazette	
   des	
   Beaux-­‐Arts	
   LXXXI	
  
(January-­‐February	
  1973):	
  2.	
  Léon	
  Boussod,	
  Théo’s	
  employer,	
  joined	
  the	
  company	
  with	
  a	
  controlling	
  
share	
  equal	
  to	
  Uncle	
  Cent’s	
  in	
  1856.	
  See:	
  Stolwijk	
  and	
  Thomson	
  69.	
  Goupil	
  &	
  Cie.	
  had	
  branches	
  in	
  
London,	
  Brussels,	
  The	
  Hague,	
  Paris,	
  New	
  York	
  and	
  Berlin.	
  

62	
  Stolwijk	
  and	
  Thomson	
  123.	
  

	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

38	
  

connection	
  with	
  the	
  work	
  Théo	
  handled	
  have	
  generally	
  been	
  overlooked.63	
  Although	
  

Van	
  Gogh	
  came	
  into	
  contact	
  with	
  Bernard	
  and	
  Henri	
  Toulouse-­‐Lautrec	
  at	
  Cormon’s	
  

atelier,	
  Théo’s	
  connections	
  to	
  the	
  Impressionists	
  and	
  Neo-­‐Impressionists	
  had	
  a	
  long-­‐

term	
  impact	
  on	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  painting	
  lessons	
  in	
  Paris	
  and	
  thereafter.	
  In	
  the	
  month	
  

after	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  left	
  Cormon’s,	
  the	
  painter	
  transitioned	
  from	
  his	
  anatomy	
  studies	
  to	
  

scenes	
   of	
   everyday	
   life	
   like	
   those	
   of	
   the	
   Impressionists,	
   such	
   as	
   in	
   Jardin	
   du	
  

Luxembourg	
  and	
  Boulevard	
  de	
  Clichy.	
  He	
  began	
  using	
  broken	
  strokes	
  and	
  hues	
  to	
  

convey	
   a	
   sense	
   of	
   atmosphere,	
   motion,	
   and	
   space.	
   I	
   aim	
   to	
   interpret	
   Vincent’s	
  

newfound	
  approach	
  among	
  the	
  works	
  with	
  which	
  Théo	
  came	
  into	
  contact	
  during	
  the	
  

artist’s	
  stay	
  in	
  the	
  capital,	
  which	
  set	
  the	
  painter	
  on	
  a	
  course	
  to	
  develop	
  his	
  symbolic	
  

conception	
  of	
  the	
  use	
  of	
  paint	
  and	
  texture	
  within	
  a	
  market	
  structure	
  that	
  supported	
  

experimental	
  imagery.	
  	
  

Théo	
  began	
  working	
  for	
  his	
  Uncle	
  Cent’s	
  Brussels’s	
  branch	
  in	
  1873,	
  where	
  he	
  

oversaw	
   the	
   stockroom,	
   and	
   sold	
   both	
   prints	
   and	
   images.	
  64	
  When	
   Uncle	
   Cent	
  

transferred	
  Théo	
  to	
  The	
  Hague	
  branch	
  later	
  that	
  year,	
  Théo	
  sold	
  works	
  by	
  artists	
  

such	
  as	
  Jacob	
  Maris,	
  Israëls,	
  and	
  Millet.	
  Théo	
  and	
  Vincent	
  often	
  traded	
  prints	
  and	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
63	
  Rewald,	
  Post-­‐Impressionism:	
  From	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  to	
  Gauguin	
  15-­‐16.	
  Homburg	
  33.	
  Zemel	
  189-­‐190.	
  	
  

64	
  In	
  January	
  1873,	
  Théo	
  moved	
  to	
  Brussels	
  and	
  at	
  fifteen	
  (he	
  would	
  turn	
  16	
  May	
  1st),	
  he	
  was	
  the	
  
branch’s	
   youngest	
   assistant.	
   See	
   also:	
   Letter	
   2.	
   Upon	
   finding	
   out	
   the	
   news,	
   Van	
   Gogh,	
   who	
   was	
  
working	
  at	
  The	
  Hague	
  branch	
  wrote:	
  “I’m	
  so	
  glad	
  that	
  both	
  of	
  us	
  are	
  now	
  in	
  the	
  same	
  line	
  of	
  business,	
  
and	
  in	
  the	
  same	
  firm;	
  we	
  must	
  correspond	
  often.”	
  See	
  also:	
  Stolwijk	
  and	
  Thomson	
  22.	
  	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

39	
  

discussed	
   the	
   acquisitions	
   of	
   their	
   respective	
   branches.65	
  “Today	
   we	
   received	
   the	
  

nouveautés,”	
  Théo	
  wrote	
  to	
  his	
  brother,	
  “which	
  included	
  the	
  print	
  after	
  Rembrandt	
  

[figure	
  21].	
  It	
  looks	
  beautiful,	
  the	
  figure	
  of	
  Jesus,	
  in	
  particular,	
  is	
  beautiful,	
  and	
  the	
  

whole	
  is	
  noble.”66	
  Uncle	
  Cent	
  then	
  sent	
  Théo	
  to	
  Paris	
  where	
  he	
  took	
  a	
  position	
  in	
  the	
  

Montmartre	
  branch	
  and	
  became	
  manager	
  in	
  1881.	
  67	
  	
  Perhaps	
  most	
  importantly	
  in	
  

terms	
  of	
  Vincent’s	
  development	
  as	
  a	
  career-­‐driven	
  painter,	
  Théo	
  took	
  part	
   in	
  the	
  

new	
   kind	
   of	
   dealer-­‐artist	
   relationship	
   necessitated	
   by	
   the	
   rise	
   in	
   independent	
  

exhibitions,	
  which	
  in	
  part	
  changed	
  the	
  company’s	
  direction.	
  	
  

In	
   1873,	
   Goupil	
   &	
   Cie.	
   considered	
   artists	
   such	
   as	
   Gérôme	
   and	
   Rousseau	
  

modern,	
  and	
  a	
  steady	
  stream	
  of	
  work	
  that	
  had	
  hung	
  in	
  the	
  Salon	
  passed	
  through	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
65	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  141	
  to	
  Théo	
  from	
  Amsterdam	
  on	
  February	
  18,	
  1878.	
  “I	
  think	
  of	
  you	
  so	
  often	
  
and	
   also	
   long	
   for	
   you,	
   and	
   every	
   morning	
   the	
   prints	
   on	
   the	
   wall	
   of	
   my	
   study	
   remind	
   me	
   of	
   you,	
  
Christus	
  Consolator	
  and	
  pendant,	
  that	
  wood	
  engraving	
  after	
  Van	
  Goyen,	
  Dordrecht,	
  the	
  portrait	
  of	
  
the	
  Rev.	
  Heldring,	
  The	
  oven	
  by	
  T.	
  Rousseau	
  and	
  so	
  on,	
  because	
  I	
  got	
  them	
  all	
  from	
  you,	
  and	
  so	
  the	
  pot	
  
called	
  the	
  kettle	
  black	
  when	
  you	
  wrote	
  that	
  it	
  was	
  so	
  wrong	
  of	
  me	
  to	
  give	
  you	
  a	
  print	
  for	
  your	
  room	
  
now	
  and	
  then,	
  if	
  I	
  find	
  something	
  that	
  goes	
  with	
  what	
  you	
  already	
  have.	
  So	
  enough	
  about	
  that,	
  I	
  say	
  
in	
  turn,	
  but	
  write	
  and	
  tell	
  me	
  whether	
  you’ve	
  added	
  some	
  good	
  thing	
  or	
  other	
  to	
  your	
  collection,	
  do	
  
continue	
  with	
  it,	
  because	
  the	
  way	
  you	
  do	
  it	
  and	
  set	
  about	
  it,	
  it’s	
  most	
  certainly	
  a	
  good	
  work.”	
  	
  
66	
  Théo	
   wrote	
   letter	
   45	
   to	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   from	
   The	
   Hague	
   on	
   October	
   7,	
   1875.	
   Théo	
   referred	
   to	
  
Rembrandt’s	
  The	
  Pilgrims	
  at	
  Emmaus	
  (1648).	
  

67	
  Letter	
  152,	
  note	
  16.	
  By	
  the	
  late	
  1870s	
  Goupil	
  &	
  Cie.	
  had	
  three	
  shops	
  connected	
  to	
  galleries:	
  9	
  Rue	
  
Chaptal	
  (with	
  a	
  printing	
  press,	
  hotel,	
  and	
  artist	
  studios),	
  19	
  Boulevard	
  Montmartre	
  (a	
  gallery	
  with	
  the	
  
ground	
  floor,	
  a	
  mezzanine,	
  and	
  a	
  basement),	
  and	
  2	
  Place	
  de	
  l’Opéra	
  (the	
  most	
  lavish	
  space).	
  See	
  also:	
  
Stolwijk	
  and	
  Thomson	
  78,	
  69.	
  Théo	
  visited	
  one	
  of	
  Goupil	
  &	
  Cie.’s	
  Paris	
  branches	
  in	
  1878	
  to	
  help	
  with	
  
the	
  company’s	
  Exposition	
  Universelle	
  stall	
  and	
  moved	
  to	
  Paris	
  in	
  November	
  1879.	
  At	
  this	
  time,	
  Uncle	
  
Cent	
  sold	
  his	
  shares	
  to	
  René	
  Valadon	
  (Boussod’s	
  son-­‐in-­‐law)	
  and	
  retired.	
  

	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

40	
  

Goupil	
  &	
  Cie.,	
  either	
  as	
  a	
  canvas	
  or	
  reproductive	
  print.68	
  In	
  the	
  1880s	
  Goupil	
  &	
  Cie.’s	
  

interest	
  in	
  work	
  vetted	
  at	
  the	
  Salon	
  did	
  not	
  waver,	
  but	
  Théo	
  visited	
  exhibitions	
  of	
  

emerging	
   artists	
   and	
   began	
   making	
   a	
   few	
   deals	
   with	
   Impressionist	
   painters.	
   Théo	
  

made	
   his	
   first	
   Impressionist	
   trade	
   in	
   March	
   1884,	
   a	
   landscape	
   by	
   Pissarro.69	
  Théo	
  

sold	
  three	
  more	
  Impressionist	
  canvases	
  the	
  following	
  year:	
  a	
  winter	
   landscape	
  by	
  

Alfred	
  Sisley,	
  a	
  garden	
  scene	
  by	
  Renoir,	
  and	
  Monet’s	
  Vétheuil	
  (c.	
  1878-­‐1881)	
  [figure	
  

22].	
   From	
   this	
   point	
   on,	
   Théo	
   handled	
   a	
   good	
   number	
   of	
   Pissarro	
   and	
   Monet’s	
  

respective	
  work.	
  70	
  From	
  his	
  experience,	
  Théo	
  tried	
  to	
  explain	
  to	
  Vincent	
  the	
  avant-­‐

garde	
   developments,	
   but	
   it	
   was	
   difficult	
   for	
   the	
   artist	
   to	
   understand	
   the	
   new	
  

pictorial	
   aims	
   because	
   he	
   could	
   not	
   study	
   the	
   imagery	
   while	
   he	
   was	
   living	
   in	
  

Nuenen.71	
  

Théo	
   had	
   come	
   to	
   find	
   the	
   Impressionists’	
   painterly	
   contribution	
   worth	
  

trading	
  and	
  continued	
  to	
  explain	
  to	
  Vincent	
  the	
  merits	
  of	
  the	
  new	
  methods,	
  which	
  

impacted	
  the	
  artist	
  indirectly.	
  “My	
  brother	
  was	
  here	
  just	
  recently,”	
  Vincent	
  wrote	
  to	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
68	
  Rewald,	
  “Théo	
  van	
  Gogh,	
  Goupil	
  and	
  the	
  Impressionists”	
  4.	
  

69	
  Théo	
  may	
  have	
  had	
  a	
  buyer	
  in	
  mind	
  because	
  the	
  painting	
  changed	
  hands	
  the	
  same	
  day.	
  

70	
  Letter	
  569,	
  note	
  3.	
  Letter	
  528,	
  note	
  9.	
  Renoir	
  dealt	
  mainly	
  with	
  Durand-­‐Ruel—Goupil’s	
  brokered	
  
only	
   five	
   sales	
   for	
   Renoir	
   between	
   1885	
   and	
   1892—and	
   Goupil’s	
   purchased	
   a	
   modest	
   number	
   of	
  
Sisley’s	
   canvases,	
   eleven	
   between	
   1885	
   and	
   1892.	
   See	
   Rewald,	
   “Théo	
   Van	
   Gogh,	
   Goupil	
   and	
   the	
  
Impressionists”	
  5.	
  	
  

71	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  450	
  to	
  Théo	
  from	
  Nuenen	
  in	
  mid-­‐June	
  1884.	
  “And	
  from	
  what	
  you	
  said	
  about	
  
Impressionism,	
  I’ve	
  grasped	
  that	
  it’s	
  something	
  different	
  from	
  what	
  I	
  thought	
  it	
  was,	
  but	
  it’s	
  still	
  not	
  
entirely	
  clear	
  to	
  me	
  what	
  one	
  should	
  understand	
  by	
  it.”	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

41	
  

Anthon	
  van	
  Rappard	
  a	
  few	
  months	
  after	
  Théo’s	
  first	
  Monet	
  sale;	
  “he	
  told	
  me	
  several	
  

things	
   about	
   what’s	
   going	
   on	
   in	
   Paris	
   [and]	
   I	
   was	
   interested	
   in	
   what	
   he	
   told	
   me	
  

about…Claude	
  Monet,	
  a	
  colorist	
   landscape	
  painter.”72	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  did	
  not	
  elaborate	
  

on	
  what	
  he	
  meant	
  by	
  “colorist	
  landscape	
  painter,”	
  but	
  at	
  the	
  time	
  he	
  was	
  thinking	
  

about	
   using	
   complementary	
   colors	
   and	
   of	
   “breaking	
   colors.”73	
  The	
   water	
   in	
   the	
  

foreground	
  of	
  Monet’s	
  Vétheuil,	
  for	
  instance,	
  depends	
  on	
  the	
  relationship	
  between	
  

the	
  shape	
  of	
  the	
  brush	
  and	
  unblended	
  violets,	
  umbers,	
  and	
  highlights	
  that	
  depict	
  the	
  

reflection	
  of	
  the	
  church	
  rising	
  in	
  the	
  mid-­‐ground.	
  Color	
  in	
  Monet’s	
  Vétheuil	
  is	
  literally	
  

broken;	
   marks	
   appear	
   as	
   if	
   floating	
   on	
   the	
   surface	
   they	
   intend	
   to	
   describe.	
   The	
  

church’s	
  colors	
  mirror	
  those	
  in	
  the	
  water,	
  unifying	
  the	
  foreground	
  and	
  mid-­‐ground	
  

through	
  hue,	
  but	
  their	
  respective	
  textures	
  remain	
  in	
  contrast.	
  Although	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  

encounter	
   with	
   Vétheuil	
   is	
   not	
   documented,	
   describing	
   Monet	
   as	
   a	
   colorist	
  

landscape	
  painter	
  accurately	
  encompasses	
  the	
  ways	
   in	
  which	
  Monet’s	
  use	
  of	
  hue	
  

and	
  texture	
  innovate.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  would	
  soon	
  adopt	
  Monet’s	
  approach	
  in	
  Paris.	
  	
  

The	
  year	
  Vincent	
  arrived	
  in	
  Paris,	
  Goupil	
  &	
  Cie.	
  underwent	
  several	
  changes	
  

that	
   would	
   allow	
   he	
   and	
   Théo	
   to	
   explore	
   the	
   work	
   of	
   artists	
   who	
   exhibited	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
72	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  528	
  to	
  Anthon	
  van	
  Rappard	
  from	
  Nuenen	
  on	
  August	
  18,	
  1885.	
  	
  

73	
  Letter	
  528.	
  	
  

	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

42	
  

independently.	
  74	
  Throughout	
   the	
   early	
   1880s,	
   Goupil	
   &	
   Cie.	
   handled	
   paintings	
   by	
  

Delacroix,	
   Gérôme,	
   and	
   academic	
   painter	
   William-­‐Adolphe	
   Bouguereau,	
   work	
  

Thomson	
  refers	
  to	
  as	
  “safe	
  stock.”75	
  Paintings	
  that	
  had	
  shown	
  at	
  the	
  Salon,	
  and	
  that	
  

were	
  academically	
  driven,	
  sold.	
  In	
  1887,	
  Goupil	
  &	
  Cie.	
  held	
  a	
  sale	
  to	
  liquidate	
  this	
  

stock,	
  began	
  reorganizing	
  the	
  company,	
  and	
  did	
  not	
  renew	
  contracts	
  with	
  successful	
  

artists,	
   such	
   as	
   Bouguereau.	
   After	
   this	
   restructuring	
   period,	
   Théo	
   began	
   dealing	
  

more	
  frequently	
  more	
  with	
  the	
  Impressionists.	
  With	
  the	
  capital	
  raised	
  through	
  the	
  

sale	
  of	
  the	
  old	
  stock,	
  Théo	
  investigated	
  new	
  artistic	
  options	
  and	
  was	
  in	
  charge	
  of	
  

finding	
  emerging	
  artists.76	
  Théo	
  hung	
  their	
  works	
  in	
  the	
  mezzanine,	
  introduced	
  their	
  

paintings	
   to	
   buyers,	
   and	
   included	
   their	
   imagery	
   in	
   a	
   dialog	
   with	
   other	
   respected	
  

avant-­‐garde	
  artists.77	
  	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
74	
  Stolwijk	
  and	
  Thomson	
  69.	
  Adolph	
  Goupil	
  stepped	
  down	
  in	
  1884	
  and	
  in	
  1887	
  retired,	
  leaving	
  Goupil	
  
&	
  Cie.	
  to	
  partners	
  Léon	
  Boussod	
  and	
  his	
  son-­‐in-­‐law	
  René	
  Valadon.	
  They	
  renamed	
  the	
  company	
  and	
  
created	
  a	
  new	
  insignia,	
  Boussoud	
  &	
  Valadon	
  successors	
  of	
  Goupil	
  &	
  Cie,	
  keeping	
  the	
  name	
  Goupil	
  as	
  a	
  
way	
  to	
  mark	
  their	
  lineage	
  (though	
  many	
  still	
  referred	
  to	
  the	
  company	
  as	
  “Goupil”).	
  

75	
  Stolwijk	
  and	
  Thomson	
  75.	
  	
  

76	
  Stolwijk	
  and	
  Thomson	
  137.	
  

77	
  Rewald,	
  “Théo	
  van	
  Gogh,	
  Goupil	
  and	
  the	
  Impressionists”	
  7.	
  Although	
  the	
  archival	
  records	
  of	
  Goupil	
  
&	
   Cie.	
   sales	
   do	
   not	
   list	
   the	
   broker	
   who	
   sold	
   particular	
   paintings,	
   the	
   records	
   do	
   indicate	
   a	
   steep	
  
increase	
  in	
  sales	
  of	
  Impressionist	
  works—and	
  they	
  were	
  most	
  likely	
  purchased	
  by	
  the	
  Montmartre	
  
branch	
   because	
   the	
   Place	
   d’Opéra	
   branch	
   did	
   not	
   sell	
   Impressionist	
   paintings	
   until	
   the	
   1890s.	
  
Furthermore,	
  artists	
  may	
  have	
  left	
  work	
  on	
  consignment,	
   in	
  which	
  case	
  the	
  clerk	
  at	
  Goupil	
  &	
  Cie.	
  
would	
  have	
  listed	
  the	
  date	
  of	
  purchase	
  and	
  date	
  of	
  sale	
  as	
  the	
  same	
  day.	
  That	
  the	
  paintings	
  were	
  sold	
  
on	
  the	
  same	
  day	
  the	
  company	
  acquired	
  them	
  may	
  indicate	
  that	
  the	
  dealer	
  had	
  a	
  buyer	
  lined	
  up.	
  If	
  the	
  
dealer	
  had	
  a	
  buyer	
  in	
  mind,	
  the	
  deal	
  was	
  not	
  as	
  risky	
  as	
  investing	
  in	
  a	
  painter’s	
  work.	
  If	
  a	
  painting	
  was	
  
not	
  sold	
  on	
  the	
  day	
  of	
  acquisition,	
  there	
  is	
  no	
  telling	
  how	
  long	
  a	
  work	
  on	
  consignment	
  would	
  have	
  
been	
   in	
   stock	
   nor	
   what	
   works	
   Goupil	
   &	
   Cie.	
   had	
   on	
   hand	
   but	
   did	
   not	
   sell.	
   See	
   also:	
   Stolwijk	
   and	
  
Thomson	
   123.	
   Thomson	
   points	
   out	
   that	
   due	
   to	
   factors	
   such	
   as	
   these,	
   Théo’s	
   work	
   with	
   the	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

43	
  

After	
   the	
   last	
   Impressionist	
   exhibition	
   in	
   1886,	
   Théo	
   began	
   aggressively	
  

acquiring	
  avant-­‐garde	
  works,	
  whose	
  market	
  had	
  developed	
  after	
  over	
  a	
  decade	
  of	
  

artist-­‐run	
  exhibitions.78	
  Pissarro,	
  for	
  instance,	
  placed	
  two	
  paintings	
  with	
  Goupil’s	
  in	
  

1887,	
   including	
   Récolte	
   des	
   joins	
   and	
   Marché	
   de	
   Pontoise.	
  79	
  Thereafter,	
   Pissarro	
  

dealt	
   regularly	
   with	
   Théo	
   and	
   Goupil	
   &	
   Cie.,	
   where	
   he	
   sold	
   23	
   more	
   paintings	
  

between	
  1888	
  and	
  1895,	
  most	
  of	
  which	
  fetched	
  prices	
  of	
  over	
  1000	
  francs.	
  In	
  1887,	
  

Goupil	
   &	
   Cie.	
   handled	
   15	
   canvases	
   by	
   Monet,	
   such	
   as	
   images	
   of	
   Belle-­‐Isle	
   and	
  

Étretat,	
  eight	
  of	
  which	
  sold	
  that	
  year.80	
  The	
  Impressionist	
  painter	
  exchanged	
  nearly	
  

100	
  paintings	
  with	
  Goupil	
  &	
  Cie.	
  thereafter,	
  and	
  his	
  works	
  demanded	
  higher	
  prices	
  

than	
  those	
  of	
  Pissarro,	
  selling	
  for	
  about	
  3000	
  francs.81	
  Although	
  Goupil	
  &	
  Cie.	
  did	
  not	
  

handle	
  as	
  many	
  of	
  Manet’s	
  and	
  Renoir’s	
  paintings	
  as	
  they	
  did	
  Monet’s,	
  Goupil	
  &	
  Cie.	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
Impressionists	
   should	
   not	
   cast	
   him	
   as	
   a	
   champion	
   of	
   Impressionism.	
   I	
   find	
   that	
   Théo’s	
   role	
   in	
  
marketing	
  the	
  Impressionist	
  works	
  cannot	
  be	
  overlooked	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  exploration	
  of	
  avant-­‐
garde	
  painterly	
  methods.	
  	
  

78	
  Stolwijk	
  and	
  Thomson	
  81.	
  	
  

79	
  Camille	
  Pissarro,	
  Camille	
  Pissarro:	
  Letters	
  to	
  his	
  Son	
  Lucien,	
  eds.	
  John	
  Rewald	
  and	
  Lucien	
  Pissarro	
  
(New	
  York:	
  Pantheon	
  Books	
  Inc.,	
  1943)	
  120.	
  “Things	
  are	
  picking	
  up,”	
  Pissarro	
  wrote	
  to	
  his	
  son	
  Lucien	
  
in	
  September	
  1887,	
  “I	
  received	
  a	
  letter	
  along	
  with	
  eight	
  hundred	
  francs	
  from	
  Théo	
  Van	
  Gogh;	
  he	
  sold	
  
[collector	
  George]	
  de	
  Bellio	
  my	
  large	
  painting;	
  the	
  one	
  in	
  grey	
  light.”	
  See	
  also:	
  Rewald,	
  “Théo	
  van	
  
Gogh,	
   Goupil	
   and	
   the	
   Impressionists”	
   appendix	
   1.	
   Goupil	
   &	
   Cie.’s	
   ledger	
   from	
   1887	
   indicates	
   that	
  
both	
  paintings	
  sold	
  the	
  day	
  of	
  acquisition.	
  

80	
  Rewald,	
  “Théo	
  van	
  Gogh,	
  Goupil	
  and	
  the	
  Impressionists”	
  appendix	
  1.	
  Three	
  of	
  Monet’s	
  paintings	
  
were	
  listed	
  as	
  selling	
  the	
  day	
  of	
  acquisition.	
  

81	
  One	
  of	
  Monet’s	
  snow	
  landscapes	
  sold	
  to	
  a	
  New	
  York	
  collector	
  in	
  1889	
  for	
  10,350	
  francs.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

44	
  

acquired	
  Manet’s	
  Marine	
  (an	
  unknown	
  painting)	
  in	
  1886,	
  which	
  sold	
  for	
  200	
  francs,	
  

and	
  bought	
  and	
  sold	
  Renoir’s	
  Canotiers	
  (1875)	
  [figure	
  23].82	
  	
  

Théo	
  also	
  made	
  investments	
  in	
  works	
  by	
  artists	
  such	
  as	
  Degas,	
  which	
  paid	
  off	
  

in	
   the	
   long	
   term.	
   Degas,	
   who	
   placed	
   Femme	
   accoundée	
   près	
   d’un	
   pot	
   de	
   fleurs	
  

(1865)	
  [figure	
  24]	
  with	
  Goupil’s	
  in	
  1887,	
  sold	
  in	
  1889	
  for	
  5500	
  francs,	
  twice	
  as	
  much	
  

as	
   some	
   of	
   the	
   equivalently	
   experimental	
   images.	
   Théo	
   also	
   maintained	
  

relationships	
  with	
  buyers	
  who	
  were	
  interested	
  in	
  new	
  work	
  by	
  established	
  artists,	
  

such	
   as	
   Monet,	
   and	
   up-­‐and-­‐coming	
   artists,	
   such	
   as	
   Gauguin.83	
  From	
   Théo,	
   the	
  

collector	
  Jean	
  Baptiste	
  Casimir	
  Dupuis	
  purchased	
  several	
  recently	
  painted	
  images	
  in	
  

1887,	
  such	
  as	
  Monet’s	
  Tempête	
  sur	
  les	
  côtes	
  de	
  Belle-­‐Isle	
  (1886)	
  and	
  Pyramides	
  de	
  

Port-­‐Coton,	
   Belle-­‐Isle	
   (1886),	
   Gauguin’s	
   Baigneurs	
   [figures	
   25-­‐27]	
   and	
   Armand	
  

Guillaumin’s	
  Paysage,	
  bord	
  de	
  rivière.84	
  Théo	
  developed	
  longstanding	
  relationships	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
82	
  Rewald,	
  “Théo	
  van	
  Gogh,	
  Goupil	
  and	
  the	
  Impressionists”	
  7,	
  note	
  10.	
  Marine	
  sold	
  to	
  an	
  artist	
  named	
  
Boggs.	
   See	
   also:	
   letter	
   570,	
   which	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   wrote	
   to	
   Charles	
   Angrand	
   from	
   Paris	
   on	
   Monday,	
  
October	
  25	
  1886.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wanted	
  to	
  exchange	
  work	
  with	
  Boggs	
  and	
  wrote	
  to	
  Angrand	
  about	
  it.	
  See	
  
also:	
  Rewald,	
  “Théo	
  van	
  Gogh,	
  Goupil	
  and	
  the	
  Impressionists”	
  appendix	
  1.	
  Canotiers	
  sold	
  on	
  the	
  same	
  
day	
  in	
  November	
  of	
  1887	
  for	
  350	
  francs.	
  

83	
  On	
  Théo	
  and	
  Gauguin’s	
  patron-­‐like	
  relationship,	
  see:	
  Théo’s	
  letter	
  711,	
  which	
  he	
  wrote	
  to	
  Vincent	
  
from	
  Paris	
  on	
  Tuesday,	
  October	
  23,	
  1888.	
  Théo	
  sold	
  several	
  of	
  Gauguin	
  paintings	
  to	
  Dupuis,	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  
other	
  collectors	
  such	
  as	
  Ambroise	
  Vollard,	
  through	
  Goupil	
  &	
  Cie.	
  “What	
  will	
  please	
  you,”	
  Théo	
  wrote	
  
to	
  Vincent	
  in	
  October	
  1888,	
  “is	
  that	
  I’ve	
  sold	
  Gauguin’s	
   large	
  painting,	
  the	
  Breton	
  women,”	
  which	
  
Théo	
  had	
  sold	
  to	
  Dupuis.	
  Théo	
  paid	
  Gauguin	
  monthly	
  in	
  exchange	
  for	
  work.	
  Although	
  the	
  relationship	
  
lasted	
  only	
  until	
  Gauguin	
  visited	
  Vincent	
  in	
  Arles	
  in	
  1888,	
  Théo’s	
  work	
  with	
  Gauguin	
  represents	
  a	
  new	
  
way	
  of	
  conducting	
  business	
  during	
  a	
  time	
  when	
  many	
  independent	
  artists	
  sought	
  a	
  gallery-­‐dealer	
  to	
  
stabilize	
  their	
  livelihoods.	
  	
  

84	
  Rewald,	
  “Théo	
  van	
  Gogh,	
  Goupil	
  and	
  the	
  Impressionists”	
  75.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

45	
  

with	
  clients	
  who	
  were	
  interested	
  in	
  developing	
  a	
  collection	
  of	
  contemporary	
  work,	
  

and	
  he	
  fostered	
  a	
  patron-­‐like	
  relationship	
  with	
  emerging	
  artists,	
  such	
  as	
  Gauguin.85	
  	
  

The	
  Impressionists	
  proved	
  that	
  landscapes	
  and	
  urban	
  subjects	
  not	
  only	
  held	
  a	
  

viable	
  market	
  niche,	
  but	
  that	
  salable	
  canvases	
  could	
  challenge	
  conventional	
  notions	
  

of	
   composition.	
   The	
   group	
   of	
   images	
   Goupil	
   &	
   Cie.	
   purchased	
   and	
   sold	
   between	
  

1884	
   and	
   1887	
   represent	
   both	
   new	
   works,	
   such	
   as	
   those	
   by	
   Monet,	
   and	
   older	
  

paintings,	
   such	
   as	
   Degas’s	
   and	
   Renoir’s	
   canvases.	
   Taken	
   together,	
   the	
   canvases	
  

capture	
   the	
   range	
   of	
   techniques	
   within	
   Impressionism	
   and	
   provide	
   a	
   frame	
   of	
  

historical	
  reference,	
  from	
  the	
  1860s	
  through	
  the	
  1880s.	
  For	
  instance,	
  Tempête	
  and	
  

Pyramide,	
  painted	
  while	
  Monet	
  was	
  staying	
  on	
  Belle-­‐Isle	
  an	
  island	
  of	
  Brittany,	
  have	
  a	
  

flattened	
  figure-­‐ground	
  relationship	
  and	
  Monet’s	
  characteristic	
  use	
  of	
  deep	
  blue	
  and	
  

violet	
   hues	
   to	
   craft	
   shadows.	
   Although	
   logistical	
   market	
   concerns	
   governed	
  

decisions,	
  the	
  initial	
  buying	
  pattern	
  at	
  the	
  start	
  of	
  Goupil	
  &	
  Cie.’s	
  relationship	
  with	
  

contemporary	
   and	
   Impressionist	
   artists	
   shows	
   an	
   interest	
   in	
   the	
   wide-­‐ranging	
  

perspectives	
  the	
  group	
  of	
  painters	
  had	
  to	
  offer—from	
  landscape	
  to	
  still	
   life,	
  from	
  

modern	
   working-­‐class	
   boaters	
   to	
   upper-­‐class	
   portraits	
   and	
   from	
   the	
   loose	
  

brushwork	
  of	
  Renoir’s	
  Canotiers	
  to	
  Degas’s	
  tightly	
  rendered	
  Femme.	
  	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
85	
  White	
   and	
   White	
   111,	
   126.	
   Durand-­‐Ruel,	
   and	
   his	
   rival	
   Georges	
   Petit,	
   and	
   Goupil	
   &	
   Cie.	
   began	
  
paying	
  painters	
  in	
  advance,	
  creating	
  a	
  patron-­‐like	
  system	
  that	
  allowed	
  for	
  a	
  good	
  deal	
  of	
  autonomy	
  so	
  
artists	
   could	
   create	
   innovative	
   imagery.	
   This	
   gave	
   dealers	
   first	
   glance	
   at	
   new	
   work	
   and	
   a	
   steady	
  
number	
  of	
  paintings	
  to	
  show	
  collectors	
  interested	
  in	
  avant-­‐garde	
  work.	
  	
  	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

46	
  

Van	
   Gogh’s	
   exposure	
   to	
   the	
   techniques	
   and	
   scope	
   of	
   subject	
   matter	
   is	
  

evident	
  in	
  his	
  landscapes	
  and	
  street	
  scenes	
  from	
  this	
  period,	
  subject	
  matter	
  to	
  which	
  

he	
   returned	
   after	
   his	
   short	
   foray	
   into	
   academic	
   paintings.	
   In	
   the	
   vein	
   of	
   Renoir’s	
  

Canotiers,	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   depicted	
   a	
   contemporary	
   Montmartre	
   café	
   scene	
   during	
   the	
  

day	
  in	
  La	
  Guinguette	
  [figure	
  28]	
  in	
  the	
  fall	
  of	
  1886.	
  He	
  continued	
  to	
  depend	
  on	
  the	
  

dark	
   umbers	
   and	
   sienna	
   hues	
   he	
   used	
   in	
   The	
   Potato	
   Eaters	
   and	
   Peasant	
   Women	
  

Digging	
  up	
  Potatoes,	
  but	
  the	
  sky	
  opens	
  with	
  a	
  light	
  hue,	
  and	
  the	
  highlights	
  in	
  the	
  

lamp	
  post	
  and	
  table-­‐tops	
  reflect	
  atmospheric	
  effects.	
   In	
  La	
  Guinguette,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  

applied	
  heavy	
  impasto	
  paint	
  and	
  indicated	
  some	
  the	
  figures	
  in	
  a	
  silhouette,	
  unlike	
  

Renoir’s	
   brushwork	
   in	
   Canotiers.	
   Canotiers	
   shows	
   Renoir’s	
   soft	
   scumbled	
   mark-­‐

making,	
   a	
   complex	
   combination	
   of	
   hue,	
   translucent	
   highlights,	
   and	
   saturated	
  

lowlights.	
  The	
  texture	
  Renoir	
  generates	
  allows	
  the	
  figures	
  to	
  appear	
  as	
  if	
  the	
  sun’s	
  

light	
  moves	
  over	
  the	
  fabric	
  of	
  their	
  clothing,	
  reflecting	
  glimmers	
  of	
  tints	
  that	
  quickly	
  

transition	
  to	
  deep	
  shadows.	
  Although	
  Renoir’s	
  surface	
  quality	
  is	
  sophisticated,	
  Van	
  

Gogh’s	
  mark-­‐making	
  in	
  Bords	
  de	
  rivière	
  au	
  printemps:	
  pont	
  de	
  Clichy	
  (spring	
  1887)	
  

[figure	
  29]	
  likewise	
  conveys	
  lighter	
  brushwork.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  left	
  the	
  mark	
  of	
  the	
  brush	
  

unblended	
  and	
  clustered	
  light	
  whites,	
  yellows,	
  and	
  greens	
  together	
  to	
  convey	
  light	
  

reflecting	
  from	
  the	
  foliage.	
  Based	
  on	
  a	
  prism	
  of	
  greens,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  attempted	
  a	
  sharp	
  

shift	
   from	
   highlights	
   to	
   lowlights,	
   indicated	
   with	
   dense	
   emerald	
   hues	
   situated	
  

adjacent	
  to	
  opaque	
  yellows.	
  Like	
  Renoir’s	
  Canotiers,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  included	
  a	
  body	
  of	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

47	
  

water	
  in	
  Bords	
  de	
  rivière	
  au	
  printemps	
  peeking	
  through	
  the	
  middle-­‐ground	
  grasses,	
  

providing	
  a	
  reflective	
  backdrop	
  framed	
  by	
  the	
  trees	
  and	
  bushes.	
  In	
  both	
  Canotiers	
  

and	
   Bords	
   de	
   rivière	
   au	
   printemps,	
   the	
   artists	
   painted	
   the	
   water	
   with	
   a	
   different	
  

motion	
  and	
  texture	
  to	
  contrast	
  the	
  foliage.	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  sense	
  of	
  textural	
  depth	
  led	
  

from	
  Renoir’s	
  in	
  some	
  ways	
  as	
  the	
  artist	
  recognized	
  Renoir’s	
  “pure,	
  clean	
  drawing”	
  

and	
  attempted	
  to	
  paint	
  with	
  a	
  keen	
  understanding	
  of	
  the	
  ways	
  in	
  which	
  the	
  sun’s	
  

light	
  can	
  give	
  shape	
  to	
  water	
  and	
  foliage.86	
  

Monet’s	
   landscape	
  also	
   influenced	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  use	
  of	
  perspectival	
  devices.	
  

Monet’s	
   Tempête	
   and	
   Pyramides	
   from	
   Étretat	
   both	
   have	
   a	
   compounded	
   figure-­‐

ground	
  relationship.	
  By	
  1886	
  Monet	
  was	
  experimenting	
  with	
  a	
  visual	
  rhetoric	
  that,	
  

although	
   grounded	
   in	
   the	
   optical	
   studies	
   of	
   Impressionism,	
   reduced	
   the	
   subject	
  

toward	
  the	
  symbolic	
  and	
  moved	
  away	
  from	
  the	
  mode	
  of	
  mimetic	
  painting	
  associated	
  

with	
  early	
  Impressionism.87	
  While	
  the	
  waters	
  of	
  Monet’s	
  Étretat	
  paintings	
  simulate	
  

the	
   horizon’s	
   distance,	
   the	
   furthest	
   point	
   seems	
   to	
   dissolve	
   in	
   Tempête	
   and,	
   in	
  

contrast,	
   the	
   horizon	
   line	
   delineates	
   rectangular	
   shapes	
   in	
   Pyramides.	
   In	
   both	
  

instances,	
  rather	
  than	
  recede	
  into	
  space,	
  the	
  horizon	
  fosters	
  the	
  flattened	
  figure-­‐

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
86	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  603	
  to	
  Théo	
  from	
  Arles	
  on	
  Friday,	
  May	
  4,	
  1888.	
  “I	
  very	
  often	
  think	
  of	
  Renoir	
  
here	
  and	
  his	
  pure,	
  clean	
  drawing.	
  That’s	
  just	
  the	
  way	
  objects	
  or	
  figures	
  are	
  here,	
  in	
  the	
  clear	
  light.”	
  

87	
  Robert	
  Goldwater,	
  Symbolism	
  (New	
  York,	
  New	
  York:	
  Westville	
  Press,	
  1979)	
  1-­‐2.	
  Goldwater	
  asserts	
  
that	
   Monet’s	
   Êtretat	
   and	
   Belle-­‐Isle	
   pictures	
   from	
   1886	
   moved	
   “in	
   the	
   direction	
   of	
   ‘scientific	
  
objectivity’—a	
  parallel	
  to	
  the	
  neo-­‐impressionist	
  goal”	
  (2).	
  On	
  Monet,	
  Goldwater	
  further	
  clarified	
  that	
  
“concentration	
  and	
  reduction	
  remove	
  the	
  scene	
  from	
  transcription	
   in	
  the	
  direction	
  of	
  symbol	
  and	
  
towards	
  the	
  fuller	
  development	
  of	
  the	
  nineties	
  and	
  later”	
  (2).	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

48	
  

ground	
  relationship,	
  causing	
  the	
  image	
  to	
  appear	
  as	
  an	
  abstract	
  plane	
  of	
  hue	
  and	
  

texture.	
   Other	
   than	
   the	
   rock	
   formation’s	
   shadows,	
   the	
   sense	
   of	
   the	
   sun’s	
   light	
   is	
  

absent	
  in	
  the	
  sky	
  itself,	
  and	
  the	
  brushstrokes	
  generate	
  a	
  pattern	
  of	
  hue	
  and	
  light	
  that	
  

signifies	
  the	
  sun’s	
  presence.	
  	
  

Van	
  Gogh	
  incorporated	
  these	
  compositional	
  strategies	
  in	
  Bank	
  of	
  the	
  Seine	
  

(summer	
   1887)	
   and	
   Femme	
   dans	
   un	
   jardin	
   (summer	
   1887)	
   [figures	
   30	
   &	
   31].	
   He	
  

used	
  a	
  pattern	
  of	
  varying	
  hues	
  to	
  suggest	
  water	
  lapping	
  against	
  the	
  shore.	
  In	
  Femme	
  

dans	
  un	
  jardin,	
  he	
  complicated	
  the	
  sense	
  of	
  the	
  sun’s	
  light	
  and	
  that	
  of	
  the	
  depth	
  of	
  

field	
   by	
   raising	
   the	
   horizon	
   line,	
   as	
   Monet	
   did	
   in	
   Pyramides.	
   The	
   compositional	
  

devices	
  at	
  work	
  in	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  two	
  paintings	
  not	
  only	
  indicate	
  that	
  he	
  was	
  studying	
  

Monet’s	
   imagery,	
  but	
  that	
  he	
  too	
  was	
  able	
  to	
  push	
  aside	
  considerations	
  of	
  depth	
  

and	
   atmospheric	
   perspective	
   to	
   understand	
   the	
   ways	
   in	
   which	
   hue,	
   stroke,	
   and	
  

texture	
  could	
  transform	
  the	
  surface.	
  He	
  effectively	
  generated	
  the	
  expression	
  of	
  the	
  

landscape	
  through	
  the	
  medium	
  of	
  his	
  palette	
  rather	
  than	
  through	
  descriptive	
  local	
  

color.	
  For	
  instance,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  did	
  not	
  indicate	
  a	
  sense	
  of	
  depth	
  in	
  Femme	
  dans	
  un	
  

jardin,	
  and	
  moved	
  into	
  a	
  symbolic	
  realm	
  that	
  focused	
  on	
  the	
  figure	
  as	
  a	
  vehicle	
  of	
  

shape	
  and	
  color,	
  intricately	
  bound	
  to	
  the	
  landscape’s	
  formal	
  qualities.	
  	
  

For	
  Van	
  Gogh,	
  the	
  figure	
  was	
  no	
  longer	
  a	
  form	
  centralized	
  in	
  a	
  space,	
  whose	
  

limbs	
  and	
  expression	
  he	
  had	
  to	
  capture	
  with	
  subtle	
  hints	
  of	
  modeled	
  color	
  as	
  he	
  had	
  

done	
  in	
  the	
  atelier	
  of	
  Verlat	
  or	
  Cormon.	
  The	
  figure	
  in	
  Femme	
  dans	
  un	
  jardin	
  becomes	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

49	
  

a	
   form	
   within	
   the	
   structure	
   of	
   the	
   composition,	
   and	
   suggests	
   that	
   Van	
   Gogh	
  

reconsidered	
  the	
  overall	
  organization	
  of	
  a	
  picture	
  plane.	
  In	
  contrast,	
  for	
  the	
  figures	
  

in	
  Peasant	
  Women	
  Digging	
  up	
  Potatoes,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  used	
  their	
  clothing	
  to	
  show	
  the	
  

shape	
  of	
  their	
  bodies	
  beneath	
  the	
  fabric.	
  Situated	
  firmly	
  in	
  the	
  middle-­‐ground,	
  Van	
  

Gogh	
  framed	
  the	
  figures	
  with	
  the	
  sky,	
  field	
  and	
  trees.	
  The	
  orange	
  fabric	
  in	
  Femme	
  

dans	
  un	
  jardin	
  complements	
  the	
  greens	
  of	
  the	
  grasses,	
  providing	
  a	
  counterpoint,	
  and	
  

positions	
   the	
   figure	
   in	
   an	
   unusual	
   play	
   of	
   spatial	
   depth.	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   created	
   a	
  

triangular	
  sense	
  of	
  space	
  through	
  the	
  orange	
  of	
  the	
  woman’s	
  skirt	
  and	
  the	
  similar	
  

hue	
   found	
   at	
   either	
   corner	
   of	
   the	
   image’s	
   foreground.	
   Among	
   the	
   sea	
   of	
   grasses	
  

indicated	
   with	
   elongated	
   strokes,	
   the	
   triangular,	
   recessive	
   shape	
   the	
   orange	
   hue	
  

creates	
  through	
  implied	
   lines	
   is	
  countered	
  by	
  the	
  wall-­‐like	
  view	
  of	
  abstract	
  green	
  

marks.	
  Monet’s	
  and	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  respective	
  images	
  belie	
  a	
  sense	
  of	
  depth.	
  They	
  use	
  

hue	
  and	
  facture	
  to	
  flatten	
  a	
  subject	
  matter	
  that	
  typically	
  conveys	
  a	
  deep	
  sense	
  of	
  

space,	
  an	
  ocean	
  and	
  a	
  woman	
  in	
  a	
  field	
  respectively.	
  

Van	
  Gogh	
  transitioned	
  from	
  mastering	
  the	
  figure’s	
  proportions	
  to	
  a	
  body	
  of	
  

work	
  that	
  included	
  the	
  figure	
  as	
  a	
  part	
  of	
  the	
  picture-­‐plane’s	
  compositional	
  devices,	
  

and	
   crafted	
   images	
   that	
   challenged	
   academic	
   standards.	
   The	
   competition	
   among	
  

dealers	
  generated	
  a	
  market	
  that	
  allowed	
  painters	
  more	
  freedom	
  and	
  provided	
  an	
  

income,	
  though	
  sometimes	
  insecure.	
  As	
  a	
  dealer,	
  Théo	
  was	
  a	
  part	
  of	
  the	
  process,	
  

from	
  selecting	
  artist’s	
  work,	
  to	
  managing	
  a	
  body	
  of	
  images.	
  This	
  economic	
  system	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

50	
  

led	
  Monet	
  to	
  generate	
  increasingly	
  innovative	
  works	
  that	
  re-­‐considered	
  perspectival	
  

ideals	
  and	
  showed	
  an	
  up-­‐and-­‐coming	
  artist,	
  like	
  Van	
  Gogh,	
  how	
  avant-­‐garde	
  work	
  

could	
  not	
  only	
  sell,	
  but	
  set	
  the	
  standard.	
  Théo’s	
  impact	
  on	
  the	
  Impressionists	
  was	
  

long	
  felt.	
  Emerging	
  artists,	
  such	
  as	
  Guillaumin	
  and	
  Bernard,	
  sought	
  Théo	
  because	
  he	
  

could	
   hang	
   their	
   works	
   in	
   the	
   mezzanine	
   of	
   Goupil	
   &	
   Cie.	
   alongside	
   those	
   of	
  

Monet.88	
  Vincent	
  wrote	
  to	
  his	
  sister	
  Willemien	
  (Wil)	
  that:	
  “Théo	
  works	
  for	
  all	
   the	
  

Impressionists,	
  he’s	
  done	
  something	
  for	
  and	
  sold	
  for	
  all	
  of	
  them,	
  and	
  will	
  certainly	
  go	
  

on	
  doing	
  so.”89	
  After	
  Théo’s	
  untimely	
  death	
  in	
  1891,	
  Pissarro	
  noted	
  that	
  his	
  imagery	
  

could	
  not	
  be	
  “understood”	
  without	
  Théo’s	
  steadfast	
  leadership.90	
  Théo’s	
  work	
  with	
  

the	
  Impressionists	
  eventually	
  led	
  to	
  their	
  general	
  acceptance	
  by	
  the	
  1890s,	
  a	
  decade	
  

in	
  which	
  Pissarro,	
  Renoir,	
  and	
  Monet	
  earned	
  sizable	
  incomes.91	
  For	
  his	
  brother,	
  Théo	
  

modeled	
  an	
  example	
  as	
  to	
  how	
  avant-­‐garde	
  work	
  functioned	
  within	
  a	
  viable	
  market,	
  

and	
   in	
   part	
   fostered	
   Vincent’s	
   shift	
   from	
   the	
   atelier	
   to	
   the	
   Impressionist’s	
  

exhibitions.	
  Although	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  could	
  not	
  generate	
  an	
  income	
  through	
  his	
  painting	
  

practice	
  within	
  his	
  lifetime,	
  the	
  connections	
  he	
  made	
  while	
  trying	
  to	
  do	
  so	
  became	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
88	
  Neifeh	
  and	
  White	
  Smith	
  544-­‐546.	
  	
  

89	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  to	
  his	
  sister	
  Willemien	
  from	
  Arles	
  on	
  Wednesday,	
  June	
  20,	
  1888.	
  

90	
  Pissarro	
  163.	
  	
  

91	
  Rewald,	
  “Théo	
  van	
  Gogh,	
  Goupil	
  and	
  the	
  Impressionists”	
  73.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

51	
  

the	
  foundation	
  by	
  which	
  the	
  influential	
  critic,	
  G.-­‐Albert	
  Aurier,	
  drew	
  attention	
  to	
  his	
  

paintings	
  and	
  propelled	
  his	
  reputation	
  and	
  career.92	
  	
  

	
  

8me	
  Exposition	
  de	
  peinture	
  

Bridges	
   across	
   the	
   Seine	
   at	
   Asnières	
   depicts	
   a	
   sunny	
   afternoon	
   along	
   the	
  

docks	
  in	
  the	
  residential	
  neighborhood	
  just	
  north	
  of	
  the	
  city	
  [figure	
  9].	
  A	
  woman	
  with	
  

a	
  fashionable	
  silhouette	
  and	
  a	
  bright-­‐pink	
  parasol	
  and	
  matching	
  dress	
  seems	
  static,	
  

as	
  if	
  she	
  has	
  paused	
  in	
  a	
  moment	
  of	
  leisure.	
  Painted	
  quickly	
  with	
  a	
  few	
  black	
  strokes,	
  

a	
  monochromatic	
  figure	
  with	
  slumped	
  shoulders	
  and	
  the	
  outline	
  of	
  a	
  working	
  man’s	
  

hat	
   sits	
   on	
   the	
   dock	
   overlooking	
   the	
   river,	
   pictorially	
   disjointed	
   from	
   the	
   woman	
  

through	
   his	
   scale,	
   color,	
   and	
   form.	
   	
   Aspects	
   of	
   the	
   modern	
   industrial	
   city	
   frame	
  

them:	
  railway	
  cars	
  rush	
  toward	
  the	
   industrial	
  Commune	
  de	
  Clichy,	
  smoke	
  plumes	
  

interrupt	
  the	
  sky,	
  bridges	
  appear	
  between	
  pilings	
  obliterating	
  the	
  horizon	
  line,	
  and	
  

boats	
  float	
  along	
  the	
  river.	
  John	
  House	
  has	
  interpreted	
  Bridges	
  across	
  the	
  Seine	
  as	
  a	
  

utopian	
   vision	
   of	
   leisure,	
   industry,	
   and	
   nature,	
   and	
   James	
   Rubin	
   as	
   a	
   study	
   of	
  

modern	
   life	
   derived	
   from	
   the	
   Impressionist	
   and	
   Neo-­‐Impressionist	
   images.93	
  Van	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
92	
  Carol	
  M.	
  Zemel,	
  The	
  Formation	
  of	
  a	
  Legend:	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  Criticism,	
  1890-­‐1920	
  (Ann	
  Arbor	
  Michigan:	
  
UMI	
  Research	
  Press,	
  1977)	
  62-­‐73.	
  	
  

93	
  John	
   House,	
   “Towards	
   the	
   Modern	
   Landscape,”	
   Vincent	
   van	
   Gogh	
   and	
   the	
   Painters	
   of	
   the	
   Petit	
  
Boulevard,	
   ed.	
   Cornelia	
   Homburg	
   (Saint	
   Louis:	
   Saint	
   Louis	
   Art	
   Museum,	
   2001)	
   166.	
   House	
   reads	
  
Bridges	
   across	
   the	
   Seine	
   as	
   a	
   utopia	
   of	
   leisure,	
   industry,	
   and	
   nature.	
   See	
   also:	
   James	
   H.	
   Rubin,	
  
Impressionism	
  and	
  the	
  Modern	
  Landscape:	
  Productivity,	
  Technology,	
  and	
  Urbanization	
  from	
  Manet	
  to	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  (Berkeley,	
  Los	
  Angeles,	
  and	
  London:	
  University	
  of	
  California	
  Press,	
  2008)	
  162-­‐164.	
  Rubin	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

52	
  

Gogh	
   encountered	
   their	
   works	
   as	
   a	
   varied	
   body	
   of	
   mark-­‐making	
   technique	
   and	
  

subject	
   matter	
   at	
   the	
   last	
   Impressionist	
   exhibition,	
   which	
   led	
   to	
   images	
   such	
   as	
  

Bridges	
  across	
  the	
  Seine.	
  	
  

Furthermore,	
  their	
  mode	
  of	
  modernism	
  was	
  distinct	
  in	
  that	
  their	
  images	
  did	
  

not	
   necessarily	
   entail	
   a	
   direct	
   study	
   of	
   the	
   material	
   world,	
   but	
   a	
   description	
   that	
  

depended	
  on	
  an	
  idiosyncratic	
  translation	
  through	
  paint,	
  color,	
  line,	
  or	
  form.	
  Through	
  

the	
  Impressionists	
  and	
  Neo-­‐Impressionists,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  learned	
  to	
  construct	
  modern	
  

life	
   through	
   notions	
   of	
   referential	
   illusion,	
   a	
   modernist	
   mode	
   of	
   verisimilitude	
  

defined	
  by	
  Roland	
  Barthes	
  by	
  which	
  the	
  artist	
  empties	
  the	
  sign	
  of	
  its	
  signified,	
  so	
  the	
  

real	
  becomes	
  a	
  connoted	
  signified.94	
  In	
  other	
  words,	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  painterly	
  rhetoric	
  

was	
  not	
  tied	
  to	
  the	
  model,	
  to	
  Asnières,	
  but	
  to	
  the	
  visual	
  construction	
  of	
  place,	
  to	
  

signs	
  of	
  modernity,	
  and	
  to	
  the	
  medium	
  and	
  techniques	
  themselves.	
  In	
  Bridges	
  across	
  

the	
   Seine,	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   belied	
   conventional	
   description	
   and	
   depended	
   on	
   non-­‐

functional	
   descriptive	
   details,	
   elements	
   that	
   do	
   not	
   describe	
   Asnières	
   realistically,	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
acknowledges	
   that	
   the	
   image	
   shows	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   interest	
   in	
   the	
   new	
   techniques	
   of	
   Neo-­‐
Impressionism.	
  	
  

94	
  Roland	
  Barthes,	
  “The	
  Reality	
  “Effect,”	
  The	
  Rustle	
  of	
  Language,	
  trans.	
  Richard	
  Howard	
  (New	
  York:	
  
Hill	
  and	
  Wang,	
  1986)	
  147-­‐148.	
  Using	
  Gustave	
  Flaubert’s	
  Madame	
  Bovary	
  (1857),	
  Barthes	
  noted	
  that	
  
Flaubert’s	
  referent	
  (his	
  medium)	
  is	
  connected	
  to	
  a	
  culturally	
  bound	
  representation,	
  not	
  to	
  the	
  model.	
  
For	
  Flaubert	
  Rouen	
  was	
  a	
  blank	
  canvas,	
  so	
  to	
  speak,	
   for	
  metaphorical	
  and	
  symbolic	
  meaning;	
  the	
  
author	
  sought	
  a	
  new	
  reason	
  to	
  describe—he	
  did	
  not	
  aim	
  to	
  be	
  realistic,	
  but	
  to	
  use	
  the	
  structure	
  of	
  
description	
  to	
  notate	
  meaning.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

53	
  

but	
  connote	
  the	
  experience	
  of	
  a	
  contemporary	
  place	
  through	
  the	
  structure	
  of	
  the	
  

painting.95	
  	
  

The	
  modernist	
  ideals	
  Barthes	
  observed	
  suggest	
  that	
  reality	
  is	
  an	
  effect,	
  and	
  

avant-­‐garde	
  artists	
  challenged	
  representation	
  by	
  postponing	
  the	
  object	
  and	
  halting	
  

the	
  subject	
  by	
  mediating	
  the	
  object’s	
  depiction	
  through	
  color	
  and	
  form.96	
  At	
  the	
  last	
  

Impressionist	
   Exhibition,	
   where	
   Degas,	
   Seurat,	
   Pissarro,	
   Signac,	
   and	
   Gauguin	
  

included	
  paintings,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  would	
  have	
  seen	
  paintings	
  and	
  drawings	
  of	
  innovative	
  

textures,	
   saturated	
   colors,	
   and	
   modern	
   subject	
   matter.	
   Seurat	
   debuted	
   his	
   new	
  

pointillist	
   technique	
   in	
   Sunday	
   Afternoon	
   on	
   the	
   Island	
   of	
   La	
   Grande-­‐Jatte	
   (1884-­‐

1886)	
  [figure	
  32].	
  Pissarro	
  submitted	
  pointillist	
  imagery,	
  such	
  as	
  Apple	
  Picking	
  (1886)	
  

[figure	
   33],	
   and	
   Signac	
   a	
   painting	
   that	
   merged	
   both	
   Impressionist	
   and	
   Neo-­‐

Impressionist	
   modes	
   in	
   The	
   Gas	
   Tanks	
   at	
   Clichy	
   (1886)	
   [figures	
   34].	
   From	
   their	
  

influence,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  incorporated	
  the	
  Neo-­‐Impressionist	
  technique	
  in	
  Interior	
  of	
  a	
  

Restaurant	
   (1887)	
   [figure	
   35].	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   included	
   varying	
   Impressionist	
   and	
   Neo-­‐

Impressionist	
   factures	
   in	
   Bridges	
   across	
   the	
   Seine.	
   From	
   broken	
   strokes	
   akin	
   to	
  

Monet’s	
  to	
  stippled	
  marks	
  like	
  Seurat’s,	
  Bridges	
  across	
  the	
  Seine	
  conveys	
  a	
  sense	
  of	
  

stasis	
  and	
  movement	
  through	
  the	
  methods	
  Monet	
  and	
  Seurat	
  employed.	
  	
  Bridges	
  

across	
   the	
   Seine	
   is	
   a	
   symbol	
   of	
   modern	
   life	
   painted	
   in	
   the	
   vernacular	
   of	
   his	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
95	
  Barthes	
  146.	
  

96	
  Barthes	
  141,	
  148.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

54	
  

contemporaries,	
  descriptive	
  elements	
  that	
  connect	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  to	
  the	
  Parisian	
  avant-­‐

garde	
  and	
  provide	
  the	
  effect	
  of	
  modern	
  life	
  through	
  the	
  painting’s	
  properties.	
  	
  

Since	
  the	
  Impressionist’s	
  first	
  1874	
  exhibition,	
  they	
  had	
  maneuvered	
  financial	
  

difficulties	
   and	
   generated	
   a	
   new	
   market	
   system,	
   which	
   gave	
   them	
   increasing	
  

exposure	
   and	
   the	
   ability	
   to	
   push	
   the	
   boundaries	
   of	
   their	
   individual	
   practices.	
  97	
  

Among	
   the	
   paintings,	
   spectators	
   could	
   view	
   Monet’s	
   Impression:	
   Sunrise	
   (1873)	
  

[figure	
  36].98	
  Individually,	
  their	
  subject	
  matter	
  was	
  distinct,	
  from	
  rural	
  landscapes	
  to	
  

bourgeois	
  pastimes,	
  and	
  their	
  painterly	
  approach	
  was	
  divergent	
  as	
  well.	
  Degas	
  was,	
  

in	
  the	
  words	
  of	
  critic	
  Stéphane	
  Mallarmé,	
  a	
  “master	
  of	
  drawing…[who]	
  has	
  sought	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
97	
  Roos	
  205.	
  The	
  Impressionists	
  held	
  the	
  first	
  exhibition	
  from	
  April	
  15th	
  thru	
  May	
  15th	
  in	
  the	
  former	
  
studio	
  of	
  Nadar	
  on	
  the	
  Boulevard	
  des	
  Capucines,	
  where	
  they	
  hung	
  165	
  works	
  and	
  received	
  more	
  than	
  
3500	
  visitors	
  over	
  the	
  course	
  of	
  the	
  month.	
  They	
  staged	
  the	
  first	
  exhibition	
  to	
  run	
  concurrent	
  to	
  the	
  
Salon.	
  The	
  Salon,	
  though,	
  welcomed	
  hundreds	
  of	
  thousands,	
  but	
  3500	
  (roughly	
  100	
  visitors	
  per	
  day)	
  is	
  
quite	
  a	
  large	
  number	
  considering	
  the	
  small	
  scale	
  of	
  the	
  exhibition.	
  The	
  co-­‐operative	
  exhibitions	
  were	
  
a	
  way	
  to	
  claim	
  a	
  new	
  part	
  of	
  the	
  market	
  and	
  to	
  assert	
  their	
  idiosyncratic	
  vision	
  against	
  the	
  values	
  of	
  
the	
  Salon.	
  See	
  also:	
  Paul	
  Tucker	
  “The	
  First	
   Impressionist	
  Exhibition	
  in	
  Context,”	
  The	
  New	
  Painting:	
  
Impressionism,	
  1874-­‐1876,	
  ed.	
  Charles	
  S.	
  Moffett	
  (San	
  Francisco:	
  The	
  Fine	
  Arts	
  Museum,	
  1986)	
  106.	
  
From	
  its	
  first	
  iteration,	
  the	
  group	
  show	
  was	
  an	
  early	
  instance	
  when	
  artists	
  merged	
  resources	
  to	
  host	
  
an	
  exhibition	
  free	
  from	
  a	
  juried	
  process,	
  allowing	
  painters	
  the	
  freedom	
  to	
  explore	
  subjective	
  painterly	
  
processes.	
  

98	
  Stephen	
   F.	
   Eisenman,	
   “The	
   Intransigent	
   Artist	
   or	
   How	
   the	
   Impressionists	
   Got	
   Their	
   Name,”	
   in	
  
Critical	
  Reading	
  in	
  Impressionism	
  and	
  Post-­‐Impressionism:	
  An	
  Anthology,	
  ed.	
  Mary	
  Tompkins	
  Lewis	
  
(Berkeley,	
  Los	
  Angeles	
  and	
  London:	
  University	
  of	
  California	
  Press,	
  2007)	
  149.	
  Louis	
  Leroy	
  derogatorily	
  
called	
   Impression:	
   Sunrise	
   just	
   an	
   impression,	
   arguing	
   that	
   the	
   canvases	
   could	
   not	
   be	
   considered	
  
complete	
  works	
  of	
  art.	
  “Wallpaper	
  in	
  its	
  embryonic	
  state,”	
  the	
  critic	
  wrote	
  chidingly,	
  “is	
  more	
  finished	
  
than	
  that	
  seascape.”98	
  The	
  artists	
  eventually	
  voted	
  to	
  adopt	
  the	
  name.	
  By	
  the	
  third	
  exhibition	
  in	
  1877,	
  
the	
  Société	
  anonyme	
  des	
  artists	
  voted	
  to	
  adopt	
  the	
  once	
  satirical	
  name	
  and	
  referred	
  to	
  themselves	
  as	
  
the	
  Impressionists.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

55	
  

delicate	
  lines.”99	
  In	
  contrast,	
  in	
  Boulevard	
  des	
  Capucines	
  [figure	
  37]	
  Monet	
  captured,	
  

according	
  to	
  critic	
  Ernest	
  Chesneau,	
  the	
  city	
  “in	
  all	
   its	
  tremendous	
  fluidity…in	
  this	
  

marvelous	
   sketch.”100	
  Although	
   mark-­‐making	
   approaches	
   differed,	
   the	
   painters’	
  

imagery	
   revolved	
   around	
   scenes	
   from	
   contemporary	
   life	
   painted,	
   in	
   Mallarmé’s	
  

words,	
  “freely	
  and	
  without	
  restraint…an	
  incentive	
  to	
  a	
  new	
  manner	
  of	
  painting.”101	
  

A	
  common	
  underlying	
  factor	
  was	
  that	
  the	
  artists	
  prioritized	
  their	
  respective	
  painterly	
  

vocabulary.	
  	
  Their	
  facture	
  was	
  thus	
  an	
  integral	
  a	
  part	
  of	
  their	
  conceptual	
  ideals,	
  and	
  

a	
  part	
  of	
  their	
  aesthetic	
  that	
  allowed	
  the	
  Impressionists	
  to	
  depict	
  the	
  material	
  world	
  

through	
   referential	
   illusion	
   by	
   depending	
   on	
   their	
   respective	
   notational	
   painterly	
  

devices.	
  

Due	
  to	
  market	
  considerations,	
  the	
  last	
  Impressionist	
  exhibition	
  in	
  1886	
  was	
  

perhaps	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  most	
  diverse	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  facture,	
  form,	
  and	
  hue.	
  Under	
  Degas	
  

and	
   Pissarro’s	
   leadership,	
   planning	
   for	
   the	
   last	
   exhibition	
   began	
   in	
   October	
   1885	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
99	
  Stéphane	
   Mallarmé,	
   “The	
   Impressionists	
   and	
   Édouard	
   Manet”	
   in	
   Moffett	
   33.	
   Since	
   the	
   first	
  
exhibition,	
  a	
  wealth	
  of	
  criticism	
  on	
  the	
  works	
  provided	
  a	
  perspective	
  into	
  the	
  artist’s	
  compositional	
  
and	
  theoretical	
  innovations,	
  namely	
  Mallarmé’s	
  “The	
  Impressionists	
  and	
  Édouard	
  Manet”	
  (1876)	
  and	
  
Edmond	
  Duranty’s	
  “The	
  New	
  Painting:	
  Concerning	
  the	
  Group	
  of	
  Artists	
  Exhibition	
  and	
  the	
  Durnad-­‐
Ruel	
   Galleries”	
   (1876),	
   written	
   in	
   response	
   to	
   the	
   second	
   exhibition.	
   Mallarmé’s	
   and	
   Duranty’s	
  
respective	
  ideas	
  helped	
  to	
  shape	
  the	
  discourse	
  surrounding	
  the	
  exhibitions,	
  providing	
  a	
  framework	
  to	
  
consider	
  the	
  value	
  of	
  avant-­‐garde	
  work.	
  

100	
  Ernest	
  Chesneau	
  in	
  Moffett	
  130.	
  

101	
  Mallarmé	
  quoted	
  in	
  Moffett	
  31.	
  	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

56	
  

amid	
  financial	
  setbacks	
  that	
  caused	
  the	
  artists	
  to	
  manage	
  the	
  exhibition	
  carefully.102	
  

For	
  the	
  first	
  time,	
  the	
  Impressionist	
  painters	
  had	
  to	
  compete	
  against	
  solo	
  exhibitions	
  

during	
  an	
  uncertain	
  financial	
  period.103	
  Degas	
  pressed	
  to	
  schedule	
  the	
  show	
  as	
  they	
  

had	
   the	
   first:	
   concurrent	
   to	
   the	
   Salon.104	
  To	
   enhance	
   their	
   marketable	
   presence,	
  

Degas	
   wanted	
   to	
   widen	
   the	
   painterly	
   scope	
   of	
   canvases	
   and	
   omitted	
   the	
   term	
  

“Impressionist”	
  from	
  the	
  exhibition’s	
  pamphlet,	
  titling	
  it	
  simply	
  the	
  “8me	
  Exposition	
  

de	
  peinture.”	
  As	
  Cormon	
  hung	
  his	
  works	
  at	
  the	
  Salon	
  that	
  year,	
  the	
  8me	
  Exposition	
  de	
  

peinture	
  opened	
  its	
  doors,	
  running	
  from	
  May	
  15th	
  thru	
  June	
  15th	
  and	
  including	
  works	
  

by	
   recognized	
   Impressionists—Degas,	
   Pissarro,	
   and	
   Berthe	
   Morisot—and	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
102	
  Ward,	
   “The	
   Rhetoric	
   of	
   Independence	
   and	
   Innovation”	
   in	
   Moffett	
   421-­‐422.	
   In	
   1882,	
   the	
   Union	
  
Générale	
   bank	
   collapsed,	
   which	
   directly	
   affected	
   Durand-­‐Ruel	
   who	
   had	
   received	
   financial	
   backing	
  
from	
  the	
  bank’s	
  director.	
  There	
  was	
  a	
  failed	
  attempt	
  to	
  launch	
  an	
  Impressionist	
  exhibition	
  in	
  1884	
  
because	
  Durand-­‐Ruel	
  was	
  selling	
  off	
  his	
  stock	
  to	
  recoup	
  his	
  losses	
  during	
  the	
  financial	
  depression.	
  See	
  
also:	
  Joel	
  Jackson	
  “The	
  Painters	
  Called	
  Impressionists”	
   in	
  Moffett	
  377.	
  The	
  decisions	
  regarding	
  the	
  
1882	
  Impressionist	
  Exhibition	
  were	
  driven	
  by	
  economic	
  restraints	
  and	
  the	
  need	
  to	
  make	
  a	
  profitable	
  
turn.	
   Durand-­‐Ruel	
   purchased	
   a	
   lot	
   of	
   paintings	
   as	
   this	
   time	
   in	
   the	
   hopes	
   of	
   providing	
   a	
   suitable	
  
income	
   for	
   the	
   painters.	
   Painting	
   prices	
   had	
   to	
   drop.	
   To	
   combat	
   the	
   deficit,	
   Durand-­‐Ruel	
   also	
  
ambitiously	
  lent	
  the	
  paintings	
  internationally	
  and	
  held	
  solo	
  shows	
  for	
  Monet,	
  Pissarro,	
  and	
  Renoir	
  in	
  
his	
  gallery	
  in	
  spring	
  1883,	
  which	
  were	
  not	
  financially	
  successful.	
  “Business	
  is	
  bad,”	
  Manet	
  wrote	
  to	
  
Berthe	
   Morisot:	
   “Everyone	
   is	
   penniless	
   as	
   a	
   result	
   of	
   the	
   recent	
   financial	
   events,	
   and	
   painting	
   is	
  
feeling	
  the	
  effect.”	
  See	
  also:	
  White	
  and	
  White	
  126.	
  Unlike	
  Goupil	
  &	
  Cie.,	
  Durand-­‐Ruel	
  had	
  purchased	
  
a	
  considerable	
  number	
  of	
  Impressionist	
  canvases.	
  	
  

103	
  White	
  and	
  White	
  144.	
  In	
  1885	
  and	
  1886,	
  Georges	
  Petit,	
  hosted	
  several	
  solo	
  shows	
  for	
  Monet	
  and	
  
Renoir,	
  neither	
  of	
  whom	
  exhibited	
  with	
  the	
  Impressionists	
  in	
  the	
  eighth	
  exhibition.	
  See	
  also:	
  Ward,	
  
“The	
  Rhetoric	
  of	
  Independence	
  and	
  Innovation”	
  421-­‐439.	
  Ward	
  argues	
  that	
  the	
  competition	
  against	
  
solo	
  shows	
  complicated	
  the	
  group’s	
  notion	
  of	
  independence.	
  	
  

104	
  Pissarro,	
   Camille	
   Pissarro:	
   Letters	
   to	
   his	
   Son	
   Lucien	
   69.	
   Pissarro	
   wrote	
   to	
   Lucien	
   from	
   Paris	
   on	
  
March	
   2,	
   1886.	
   Pissarro	
   felt	
   Degas’s	
   idea	
   was	
   risky	
   in	
   terms	
   of	
   sales,	
   but	
   Degas’s	
   view	
   persisted.	
  

“Nothing	
  to	
  report	
  about	
  the	
  exhibition.	
  I	
  am	
  afraid	
  it	
  will	
  be	
  held	
  on	
  account	
  of	
  Degas	
  who	
  insists	
  
that	
  it	
  run	
  from	
  May	
  15	
  to	
  June	
  15—Absurd!”	
  See	
  also:	
  Pissarro,	
  Camille	
  Pissarro:	
  Letters	
  to	
  his	
  Son	
  
Lucien	
  71.	
  Pissarro	
  wrote	
  to	
  Lucien	
  from	
  Paris	
  in	
  March	
  1886.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

57	
  

newcomers	
  Seurat,	
  Signac,	
  and	
  Odilon	
  Redon.	
  The	
  last	
  exhibition	
  brought	
  together	
  

several	
  artistic	
  perspectives	
  of	
  modern	
  life,	
  from	
  a	
  Degas’	
  nude	
  [figures	
  38	
  &	
  39]	
  to	
  

Seurat’s	
   symbolic	
   urban	
   scene	
   and	
   from	
   Pissarro’s	
   rural	
   pointillist	
   landscape	
   to	
  

Signac’s	
   industrial	
  suburb.	
   In	
  a	
  series	
  of	
  narrow	
  rooms	
  above	
  the	
  Maison-­‐Doré,	
  a	
  

visitor	
  would	
  be	
  able	
  to	
  observe	
  the	
  seascapes	
  of	
  Seurat	
  [figure	
  40]—misty,	
  still,	
  and	
  

carefully	
  executed—along	
  with	
  Signac’s	
  Brisk	
  Breeze	
  from	
  the	
  North	
  ¼	
  Northwest,	
  

Saint-­‐Briac	
  (1885)	
  [figure	
  41],	
  a	
  textural	
  seascape.	
  For	
  an	
  emerging	
  artist	
  like	
  Van	
  

Gogh,	
  the	
  ways	
  in	
  which	
  artists	
  could	
  approach	
  a	
  similar	
  subject	
  matter	
  suggest	
  new	
  

possibilities.105	
  	
  

The	
  body	
  of	
  work	
  at	
  the	
  8me	
  Exposition	
  de	
  peinture	
  underscored	
  that	
  artists	
  

did	
   not	
   need	
   to	
   reach	
   a	
   cohesive	
   painterly	
   rhetoric	
   but	
   could	
   explore	
   varying	
  

methods	
   among	
   a	
   body	
   of	
   work	
   and	
   within	
   one	
   canvas.	
   Gauguin	
   studied	
   with	
  

Pissarro	
  in	
  Pontoise,	
  and	
  his	
  paintings,	
  such	
  as	
  Edge	
  of	
  the	
  Pond	
  (1885)	
  [figure	
  42],	
  

resemble	
  those	
  of	
  his	
  teacher.	
  Similar	
  to	
  Pissarro’s	
  canvas	
  View	
  from	
  My	
  Window	
  in	
  

Cloudy	
   Weather	
   (1886-­‐1888)	
   [figure	
   43]	
   Gauguin’s	
   Edge	
   of	
   the	
   Pond	
   depicts	
   a	
  

compressed	
  figure-­‐ground	
  relationship,	
  organic	
  hues	
  of	
  greens	
  and	
  umbers,	
  and	
  a	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
105	
  When	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  arrived	
  in	
  Paris,	
  there	
  were	
  several	
  other	
  venues	
  besides	
  the	
  8me	
  Exposition	
  de	
  
peinture	
  in	
  which	
  he	
  could	
  observe	
  Impressionist	
  and	
  Néo-­‐Impressionist	
  works.	
  In	
  June,	
  George	
  Petit	
  
held	
  an	
  exhibition	
  of	
  Renoir	
  and	
  Monet.	
  In	
  late	
  August,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  could	
  have	
  observed	
  canvases	
  by	
  
Seurat	
  and	
  Signac	
  at	
  the	
  Société	
  des	
  artistes	
  indépendants	
  and	
  again	
  studied	
  Grand-­‐Jatte	
  or	
  Signac’s	
  
landscapes	
  from	
  Andelys.	
  

	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

58	
  

rural	
   subject	
   matter	
   of	
   farm	
   animals	
   and	
   foliage.	
   In	
   contrast,	
   one	
   of	
   Gauguin’s	
  

paintings,	
   Women	
   Bathing	
   (1885)	
   [figure	
   44],	
   moves	
   away	
   from	
   Pissarro’s	
  

aesthetic.106	
  Women	
  Bathing,	
  like	
  Monet’s	
  paintings	
  of	
  Belle-­‐Isle,	
  lacks	
  depth	
  and	
  is	
  

a	
   seascape	
   of	
   flat	
   horizontal	
   lines	
   without	
   perspective.	
   	
   Gauguin	
   used	
   clear	
   wide	
  

bands	
  to	
  delineate	
  space	
  rather	
  than	
  light	
  and	
  shadow	
  to	
  show	
  a	
  spatial	
  distance	
  

between	
  the	
  distant	
  sailboats	
  and	
  the	
  near	
  shore	
  where	
  the	
  bathers	
  wade.	
  Although	
  

the	
  brushwork	
  is	
  visible	
  in	
  the	
  foreground	
  and	
  middle-­‐ground,	
  Gauguin	
  included	
  a	
  

near-­‐solid	
  plane	
  of	
  bright	
  green	
  on	
  the	
  horizon.	
  Where	
  the	
  image	
  should	
  typically	
  

roll	
  softly	
   into	
  the	
  distance,	
  Gauguin’s	
  use	
  of	
  a	
  saturated	
  hue	
  makes	
  the	
  furthest	
  

waters	
   appear	
   flat.	
   Signac	
   created	
   a	
   comparable	
   image,	
   though	
   he	
   drew	
   from	
  

Monet’s	
  use	
  of	
  a	
  gestural	
  stroke	
  in	
  Brisk	
  Breeze.	
  Unlike	
  Signac’s	
  pointillist	
  Gas	
  Tanks	
  

at	
  Clichy,	
  Brisk	
  Breeze	
  conveys	
  rough	
  waters	
  along	
  the	
  coast	
  with	
  gestural	
  strokes	
  

and	
  stark	
  white	
  highlights	
  to	
  show	
  the	
  peaks	
  of	
  the	
  waves.	
  Both	
  Gauguin	
  and	
  Signac	
  

were	
  in	
  the	
  process	
  of	
  honing	
  their	
  respective	
  artistic	
  voices,	
  using	
  varying	
  modes	
  to	
  

experiment	
  with	
  hue	
  and	
  spatial	
  perspective.	
  	
  

Similarly	
  to	
  Gauguin	
  and	
  Signac,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  explored	
  several	
  genres	
  through	
  

different	
  factures	
  and	
  use	
  of	
  hue.	
  Degas	
  included	
  a	
  series	
  of	
  pastel	
  nudes,	
  Girl	
  Drying	
  

Herself	
   (1885)	
   and	
   The	
   Baker’s	
   Wife	
   (1885)	
   [figure	
   37	
   &	
   38].	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   admired	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
106	
  Paul	
  Adam	
  quoted	
   in	
  Moffett	
  458.	
  On	
  Women	
  Bathing,	
  critic	
  Paul	
  Adam	
  wrote:	
  “An	
  enormous	
  
metallic	
  sea	
  undulates	
  and	
  rolls,	
  advancing	
  in	
  sheets	
  toward	
  some	
  women….”	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

59	
  

Degas’s	
  nudes,	
  although	
  it	
   is	
  uncertain	
  which	
  nudes	
  the	
  painter	
  observed.107	
  With	
  

Degas’s	
  series,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  would	
  have	
  been	
  met	
  with	
  figures	
  seemingly	
  related	
  to	
  

those	
   he	
   had	
   hoped	
   to	
   paint	
   in	
   Cormon’s	
   studio.	
   In	
   contrast,	
   Degas	
   treated	
   the	
  

female	
  subject	
  as	
  a	
  vehicle	
  for	
  expressive	
  color	
  and	
  mark-­‐making	
  and	
  subverted	
  the	
  

smooth	
   forms	
   and	
   the	
   classical	
   canon	
   of	
   proportions	
   to	
   depict	
   “vulgar	
   slattern”	
  

figures	
  who	
  could	
  never	
  be	
  mistaken	
  for	
  a	
  classical	
  nymph.108	
  The	
  color	
  of	
  Degas’s	
  

nudes	
   is	
   opaque	
   and	
   intentionally	
   inconsistent	
   compared	
   to	
   the	
   golden-­‐hued	
  

goddesses	
   of	
   Bouguereau’s	
   canvases,	
   for	
   example.	
   A	
   professor	
   at	
   the	
   Académie	
  

Julian	
   and	
   at	
   the	
   École	
   des	
   Beaux-­‐Arts,	
   Bouguereau	
   was	
   a	
   well-­‐known	
   artist	
   who	
  

idealized	
  the	
  female	
  form	
  in	
  the	
  tradition	
  of	
  classical	
  art.109	
  In	
  Degas’s	
  images,	
  the	
  

women	
  are	
  most	
  likely	
  prostitutes	
  who	
  often	
  bathed	
  in	
  front	
  of	
  customers;	
  their	
  red	
  

hands	
   and	
   faces	
   indicate	
   their	
   ruddy	
   complexions	
   and	
   lower-­‐class	
   status.110	
  Dark,	
  

unblended	
  contour	
  lines	
  delineate	
  the	
  figure’s	
  flesh	
  from	
  that	
  of	
  the	
  setting.	
  Shown	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
107	
  Letter	
  569.	
  “In	
  Antwerp,”	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  to	
  Livens,	
  “I	
  did	
  not	
  even	
  know	
  what	
  the	
  impressionists	
  
were,	
  now	
  that	
  I	
  have	
  seen	
  them	
  and	
  though	
  not	
  being	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  club	
  yet,	
  I	
  have	
  much	
  admired	
  the	
  
impressionists’	
  pictures—Degas,	
  nude	
  figure—Claude	
  Monet,	
  landscape.”	
  

108	
  Maurice	
  Hermel	
  quoted	
  in	
  Moffett	
  452.	
  	
  

109	
  Damien	
  Bartoli,	
  “William	
  Bouguereau	
  the	
  Teacher,”	
   In	
  the	
  Studios	
  of	
  Paris:	
  William	
  Bouguereau	
  
and	
  His	
  American	
  Students,	
  ed.	
  James	
  F.	
  Peck	
  (New	
  Haven	
  and	
  London:	
  Yale	
  University	
  Press,	
  2006)	
  
47-­‐56.	
  

110	
  Joris-­‐Karl	
  Huysmans	
  in	
  Moffett	
  454.	
  “He	
  chooses	
  her	
  fat,	
  potbellied	
  and	
  short…drowning	
  any	
  grace	
  
of	
   contour	
   in	
   tubular	
   rolls	
   of	
   skin…no	
   matter	
   to	
   what	
   social	
   class	
   she	
   belongs…[she	
   is]	
   a	
   creature	
  
whose	
   vulgar	
   form	
   and	
   coarse	
   features…persuade	
   horror.”	
   Anthea	
   Callen,	
   The	
   Spectacular	
   Body:	
  
Science,	
  Meaning,	
  and	
  the	
  Method	
  in	
  the	
  Work	
  of	
  Degas	
  (New	
  Haven:	
  Yale	
  University	
  Press,	
  1995).	
  
See	
  also	
  a	
  review	
  on	
  Callen’s	
  book:	
  Thérèse	
  Dolan,	
  Art	
  Journal	
  18.2	
  (Autumn	
  1997	
  –	
  Winter	
  1998):	
  39-­‐
42.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

60	
  

in	
  the	
  act	
  of	
  drying,	
  Degas’	
  figures	
  convey	
  the	
  physiognomy	
  of	
  working	
  women	
  with	
  

stocky	
  rotund	
  forms.	
  	
  

Van	
   Gogh’s	
   Plaster	
   Cast	
   of	
   a	
   Woman’s	
   Torso	
   (February-­‐March	
   1887)	
   and	
  

Reclining	
   Nude	
   (January-­‐March	
   1887)	
   [figures	
   45	
   &	
   46]	
   both	
   show	
   the	
   painter’s	
  

consideration	
  of	
  the	
  nude	
  through	
  the	
  spectrum	
  of	
  Impressionism.	
  Painted	
  almost	
  a	
  

year	
  after	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  left	
  Cormon’s,	
  Plaster	
  Cast	
  of	
  a	
  Woman’s	
  Torso	
  illustrates	
  the	
  

artist’s	
  aim	
  to	
  carefully	
  craft	
  the	
  classical	
  nude	
  form.	
  The	
  texture	
  and	
  use	
  of	
  hue	
  

resembles	
  Degas’s	
  Suite	
  of	
  Nudes.111	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  hatch	
  marks	
  crisscross	
  down	
  the	
  

length	
   of	
   the	
   figure’s	
   back,	
   moving	
   between	
   cool	
   blue-­‐greens	
   and	
   warm	
   orange-­‐

reds.	
   Although	
   the	
   technique	
   of	
   hatching	
   can	
   create	
   subtle	
   tonal	
   shifts	
   when	
  

blended,	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  mark-­‐making	
  is	
  like	
  Degas’s	
  in	
  that	
  he	
  left	
  the	
  marks	
  visible	
  as	
  a	
  

sign	
  of	
  the	
  drawing	
  process.	
  The	
  artists	
  also	
  used	
  the	
  crosshatch	
  technique	
  to	
  depict	
  

the	
   rug	
   and	
   background	
   respectively,	
   but	
   ultimately	
   the	
   application	
   flattens	
   the	
  

picture	
  plane,	
  merging	
  the	
  background	
  and	
  central	
  figure	
  with	
  abstract	
  marks.	
  	
  

During	
   the	
   same	
   time	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   created	
   Plaster	
   Cast	
   of	
   a	
   Women’s	
   Nude	
  

Torso,	
  he	
  was	
  also	
  painting	
  Reclining	
  Nude	
  from	
  a	
  live	
  model.	
  Compositionally,	
  Van	
  

Gogh’s	
  Reclining	
  Nude	
  draws	
  from	
  Francisco	
  Goya’s	
  (1746-­‐1828)	
  La	
  maja	
  desnuda	
  

(1797-­‐1800)	
   [figure	
   47],	
   though	
   it	
   also	
   follows	
   Degas’s	
   example.	
   Similar	
   to	
   Girl	
  

Drying	
   Herself	
   and	
   The	
   Baker’s	
   Wife,	
   Reclining	
   Nude	
   depicts	
   an	
   explicitly	
   sexual	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
111	
  Welsh-­‐Ovcharov,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  à	
  Paris	
  17-­‐18.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

61	
  

woman	
  whose	
  large	
  hip,	
  jutting	
  up	
  a	
  bit	
  further	
  than	
  would	
  be	
  anatomically	
  correct,	
  

conveys	
  her	
  less-­‐than-­‐idealized	
  form.112	
  La	
  maja’s	
  small,	
  delicate	
  hips	
  are	
  narrower	
  

than	
  her	
  shoulders;	
  whereas	
  the	
  torsos	
  in	
  both	
  Degas’s	
  and	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  female	
  grow	
  

from	
   a	
   wide	
   set	
   of	
   legs,	
   buttocks,	
   and	
   hips.	
   With	
   eyes	
   closed,	
   the	
   figure	
   in	
   Van	
  

Gogh’s	
   Reclining	
   Nude	
   folds	
   her	
   arms	
   above	
   her	
   head,	
   leaving	
   her	
   body	
   fully	
  

exposed.	
  Her	
  breasts	
  hang,	
  making	
  a	
  concave	
  shape,	
  and	
  contrast	
  with	
  the	
  round	
  

swell	
  of	
  flesh	
  Goya	
  depicted.	
  The	
  overall	
  texture	
  of	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  canvas	
  is	
  a	
  pattern	
  of	
  

long	
  strokes,	
  shaping	
  the	
  bed’s	
  folds,	
  the	
  curtain’s	
  canopy,	
  the	
  skin’s	
  warm	
  hue,	
  and	
  

the	
  hair’s	
  dark,	
  unruly	
  nature.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  used	
  a	
  soft	
  ochre	
  to	
  delineate	
  the	
  lower	
  leg	
  

and	
   upper	
   arm	
   from	
   that	
   of	
   the	
   bed,	
   akin	
   to	
   the	
   umber	
   outline	
   around	
   Degas’s	
  

prostitutes.	
  The	
  emerging	
  artist	
  studied	
  a	
  modern-­‐day	
  lower-­‐class	
  woman	
  through	
  

the	
   lens	
   of	
   Degas’s	
   drawing	
   aesthetic.	
   In	
   critic	
   Edmond	
   Duranty’s	
   words,	
   Degas’s	
  

drawing	
   abilities	
   rendered	
   “the	
   relationship	
   between	
   forms,	
   and	
   reflect	
   the	
  

inexhaustible	
   diversity	
   of	
   character…[and	
   bid]	
   farewell	
   to	
   the	
   anatomical	
   model	
  

beneath	
   the	
   nude.”113	
  Rather	
   than	
   study	
   the	
   form’s	
   underlying	
   skeletal	
   structure,	
  

Van	
  Gogh	
  exaggerated	
  the	
  figure’s	
  anatomy.	
  	
  

In	
  the	
  landscape	
  genre,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  merged	
  aspects	
  from	
  Seurat,	
  Monet,	
  and	
  

Renoir	
  in	
  Bridges	
  across	
  the	
  Seine.	
  Similar	
  to	
  Seurat’s	
  Grand-­‐Jatte	
  in	
  which	
  high	
  and	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
112	
  Welsh-­‐Ovcharov,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  à	
  Paris	
  76.	
  	
  

113	
  Duranty	
  quoted	
  in	
  Moffett	
  43.	
  	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

62	
  

low-­‐class	
   Parisians	
   enjoy	
   the	
   day	
   along	
   the	
   Seine,	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   painting	
   includes	
  

lower-­‐class	
   laborers	
   and	
   a	
   middle-­‐class	
   woman	
   in	
   Asnières,	
   a	
   suburb	
   of	
   Paris	
  

accessible	
   by	
   train.	
   The	
   charcoal	
   colored	
   silhouette	
   of	
   the	
   slumped-­‐over	
   man	
  

perched	
  on	
  the	
  water’s	
  edge	
  provides	
  a	
  counterpoint	
  to	
  the	
  brightly	
  clothed	
  woman	
  

in	
   the	
   tailored	
   pink	
   dress.	
   Parasols	
   and	
   resting	
   workmen	
   populate	
   Seurat’s	
   large	
  

canvas,	
  but	
  these	
  elements	
  exist	
  seemingly	
  separate	
  from	
  one	
  another	
  and	
  convey	
  a	
  

static	
  quality.	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  figures	
  likewise	
  seem	
  motionless	
  and	
  do	
  not	
  engage	
  but	
  

remain	
  in	
  their	
  respective	
  compositional	
  planes.	
  	
  Unlike	
  Seurat,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  painted	
  

them	
   with	
   an	
   impressionistic	
   facture.	
   The	
   man	
   on	
   the	
   dock	
   and	
   those	
   in	
   the	
  

background	
  resemble	
  the	
  quickly	
  rendered	
  figures	
  in	
  Monet’s	
   Impression:	
  Sunrise,	
  

painted	
  monochromatically	
  with	
  a	
  few	
  strokes.	
  Poised	
  along	
  the	
  edge	
  of	
  the	
  Seine,	
  

the	
   man	
   and	
   fashionable	
   women	
   in	
   stasis	
   contrast	
   the	
   waters	
   that	
   ripple	
   below,	
  

providing	
  a	
  sense	
  of	
  movement.	
  	
  

Van	
   Gogh’s	
   depiction	
   of	
   water	
   in	
   Bridges	
   across	
   the	
   Seine	
   resembles	
   the	
  

techniques	
  of	
  Renoir	
  and	
  Monet.	
  The	
  Impressionist	
  painters	
  included	
  similar	
  strokes	
  

in	
  their	
  respective	
  images	
  of	
  the	
  suburb	
  Grenouillère	
  [figures	
  48	
  &	
  49].	
  Renoir	
  and	
  

Monet	
   depicted	
   the	
   leisurely	
   working-­‐class	
   in	
   Grenouillère,	
   both	
   using	
   broad	
  

unblended	
  bands	
  of	
  color	
  to	
  signify	
  the	
  water’s	
  ever-­‐changing	
  reflection.	
  Likewise,	
  

Van	
   Gogh’s	
   indication	
   of	
   the	
   water’s	
   movement,	
   affirms	
   the	
   immediacy	
   of	
   his	
  

painting	
   technique	
   before	
   sunlight’s	
   fleeting	
   effects	
   [figure	
   50].	
   Although	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

63	
  

Impressionist	
   paintings	
   seem	
   to	
   be	
   painted	
   quickly,	
   not	
   all	
   were. 114 	
  The	
  

impressionistic	
  comma-­‐like	
  stroke	
  became	
  a	
  symbol;	
  painters	
  intentionally	
  created	
  

well-­‐constructed	
  fleeting	
  moments.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  worked	
  with	
  a	
  varied	
  array	
  of	
  distinct	
  

factures,	
  from	
  the	
  point	
  to	
  the	
  elongated	
  mark	
  in	
  Bridges	
  across	
  the	
  Seine,	
  depicting	
  

transitory	
  moments	
  to	
  suggest	
  that	
  he	
  was	
  capturing	
  what	
  was	
  immediately	
  before	
  

him.	
   He	
   also	
   captured	
   a	
   sense	
   of	
   movement,	
   such	
   as	
   rippling	
   waves,	
   reflecting	
  

sunlight,	
  swaying	
  grasses,	
  puffing	
  smoke,	
  and	
  a	
  speeding	
  train.	
  While	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  use	
  

of	
  brushwork	
  resembles	
  Renoir	
  and	
  Monet’s	
  Grenouillère	
  imagery,	
  his	
  use	
  of	
  color	
  

connects	
  to	
  Seurat.	
  In	
  Grand-­‐Jatte,	
  Seurat	
  juxtaposed	
  greens	
  and	
  reds,	
  yellows,	
  and	
  

violets,	
  complementary	
  colors	
  that	
  when	
  placed	
  adjacent	
  fortify	
  hue,	
  making	
  a	
  blue	
  

next	
  to	
  an	
  orange	
  more	
  vibrant.	
  The	
  colors	
  found	
  in	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  depiction	
  of	
  the	
  

Seine	
   range	
   from	
   violets	
   to	
   Naples	
   yellow	
   and	
   from	
   deep	
   reds	
   to	
   sage	
   greens.	
  

Ultimately,	
   the	
   facture	
   is	
   Impressionistic,	
   but	
   his	
   choice	
   of	
   color	
   suggests	
   his	
  

application	
  of	
  Seurat’s	
  techniques.	
  	
  	
  	
  

On	
   the	
   bridge,	
   a	
   steam	
   train,	
   loaded	
   with	
   passengers,	
   travels	
   from	
   the	
  

suburbs	
  to	
  the	
  city;	
  the	
  plumes	
  of	
  smoke	
  billowing	
  behind	
  it	
  suggest	
  its	
  speed.	
  The	
  

train	
   was	
   a	
   well-­‐developed	
   theme	
   in	
   Monet’s	
   work	
   from	
   Argenteuil,	
   a	
   suburb	
  

located	
   twenty	
   minutes	
   from	
   the	
   city	
   and	
   easily	
   reached	
   by	
   train,	
   exemplified	
   by	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
114	
  Richard	
  Brettell,	
  Impressionism:	
  Painting	
  Quickly	
  in	
  France,	
  1860-­‐1890	
  (New	
  Haven	
  and	
  London:	
  
Yale	
  University	
  Press,	
  2000).	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

64	
  

Monet’s	
   landscapes	
   in	
  which	
  locomotives	
  trail	
  smoke:	
  Train	
   in	
  the	
  Countryside	
  (c.	
  

1870)	
  and	
  The	
  Railway	
  Bridge	
  from	
  the	
  Port	
  (1873)	
  [figures	
  51	
  &	
  52].115	
  In	
  the	
  same	
  

vein	
  as	
  Monet’s	
  Argenteuil	
  project,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  conceptualized	
  that	
  the	
  suburbs	
  were	
  

linked	
  to	
  Paris,	
  signified	
  by	
  the	
  steam	
  train	
  running	
  before	
  the	
  horizon.	
  Closer	
  to	
  the	
  

city	
  than	
  Argenteuil,	
  Asnières’	
  series	
  of	
  bridges	
  were	
  rebuilt	
  in	
  the	
  1850s,	
  creating	
  a	
  

direct	
  route	
  to	
  Asnières	
  through	
  Argenteuil,	
  and	
  allowing	
  it	
  to	
  grow	
  rapidly	
  into	
  a	
  

modern	
  suburb.116	
  In	
  Asnières,	
  there	
  were	
  relatively	
  inexpensive	
  activities	
  available	
  

to	
   the	
   middle	
   classes,	
   such	
   as	
   dining	
   in	
   cafes,	
   strolling	
   through	
   parks,	
   or	
   renting	
  

boats.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  depicted	
  some	
  of	
  these	
  activities	
  in	
  Bridges	
  across	
  the	
  Seine,	
  such	
  

as	
   the	
   boats	
   floating	
   on	
   the	
   Seine.	
   He	
   did	
   not	
   seek	
   a	
   cohesive	
   system	
   of	
   mark-­‐

making	
  but	
  aimed	
  to	
  set	
  differing	
  components	
  in	
  a	
  dynamic	
  tension.	
  	
  

Similar	
  to	
  the	
  artists	
  hanging	
  their	
  work	
   in	
  the	
  8me	
  Exposition	
  de	
  peinture,	
  

Van	
  Gogh	
  depended	
  on	
  the	
  notation	
  of	
  facture	
  and	
  hue.	
  For	
  Barthes,	
  experiencing	
  

the	
  artist’s	
  notation	
  was	
  the	
  essence	
  of	
  the	
  viewer’s	
  encounter	
  of	
  the	
  object.117	
  Van	
  

Gogh’s	
  exposure	
  to	
  experimental	
  paint	
  applications	
  and	
  compositional	
  devices	
  led	
  

him	
  to	
  generate	
  images,	
  such	
  as	
  Bridges	
  across	
  the	
  Seine,	
  in	
  which	
  the	
  textures	
  and	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
115	
  Rubin	
  91-­‐119.	
  Paul	
  Tucker	
  Hayes,	
  The	
  Impressionists	
  at	
  Argenteuil	
  (New	
  Haven	
  and	
  London:	
  Yale	
  
University	
  Press,	
  2000).	
  Richard	
  Brettell,	
  Pissarro	
  and	
  Pontoise:	
  The	
  Painter	
  in	
  the	
  Landscape	
  (New	
  
Haven	
  and	
  London:	
  Yale	
  University	
  Press,	
  1990).	
  

116	
  Robert	
   Herbert,	
   Impressionism:	
   Art,	
   Leisure	
   and	
   Parisian	
   Society	
   (New	
   Haven:	
   Yale	
   University	
  
Press,	
  1988)	
  196-­‐201.	
  

117	
  Barthes	
  148.	
  	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

65	
  

hues	
   act	
   to	
   show	
   fashionable	
   silhouettes	
   and	
   poor	
   working-­‐class	
   posture,	
  

mechanical	
  speed,	
  and	
  the	
  Seine’s	
  reflections.	
  The	
  brushstrokes	
  that	
  convey	
  stillness	
  

and	
  motion	
  do	
  not	
  mimetically	
  describe	
  but	
  connote	
  the	
  painterly	
  rhetoric	
  of	
  the	
  

avant-­‐garde	
  artists	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  encountered	
  in	
  Paris.	
  In	
  so	
  doing,	
  Bridges	
  across	
  the	
  

Seine	
  represents	
  the	
  signifiers	
  of	
  modern	
  painting	
  though	
  the	
  facture	
  and	
  color	
  of	
  

those	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  studied.	
  Although	
  Bridges	
  across	
  the	
  Seine	
  conveys	
  contemporary	
  

subject	
  matter,	
  its	
  modernity	
  lies	
  in	
  the	
  artist’s	
  dependence	
  on	
  the	
  meaning	
  of	
  the	
  

brushwork	
   and	
   color,	
   which	
   deny	
   the	
   viewer	
   access	
   to	
   the	
   object	
   of	
   Asnières.	
  

Instead,	
   the	
   viewer	
   is	
   met	
   with	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   avant-­‐garde	
   painting	
   practices	
   and	
   a	
  

mode	
  of	
  verisimilitude	
  that	
  does	
  not	
  mimetically	
  convey	
  the	
  suburb	
  itself,	
  but	
  the	
  

role	
   suburban	
   communities	
   played	
   in	
   Impressionist	
   and	
   Neo-­‐Impressionist	
   work.	
  

Rather	
  than	
  seek	
  a	
  recognizable,	
  unified	
  texture	
  and	
  surface,	
  as	
  he	
  had	
  done	
  in	
  The	
  

Potato	
  Eaters,	
  the	
  effect	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  created	
  in	
  Bridges	
  across	
  the	
  Seine	
  is	
  that	
  of	
  the	
  

representation	
  of	
  the	
  multiple	
  languages	
  of	
  avant-­‐garde	
  facture	
  to	
  convey	
  the	
  signs	
  

of	
   the	
   contemporary	
   world:	
   class,	
   mechanization,	
   and	
   the	
   suburban	
   community’s	
  

connection	
  to	
  the	
  city.118	
  	
  

	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
118	
  Carol	
  Armstrong,	
  “Introduction	
  Manet’s	
  ‘Inconsistency,’”	
  Manet	
  Manett	
  (New	
  Haven	
  and	
  London:	
  
Yale	
  University	
  Press,	
  2002)	
  xi-­‐xviii.	
  According	
  to	
  Armstrong,	
  Manet’s	
  style	
  was	
  built	
  on	
  a	
  fractured	
  
foundation,	
  and	
  she	
  underscores	
  that	
  the	
  artistic-­‐self’s	
  singularity	
  was	
  put	
  together	
  with	
  “multiple	
  
personalities	
  and	
  many	
  manners,	
  borrowed	
  from	
  elsewhere,	
  and	
  set	
  in	
  new	
  relation	
  to	
  one	
  another”	
  
(xviii).	
  Armstrong’s	
  assertion	
  overturns	
  the	
  notion	
  that	
  the	
  modern	
  artist	
  desired	
  to	
  reach	
  a	
  creative	
  
zenith,	
  a	
  succinct	
  and	
  recognizable	
  style.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

66	
  

Conclusion	
  

Walking	
  away	
  from	
  Cormon’s	
  atelier	
  and	
  his	
  academic	
  studies	
  led	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  

to	
   experience	
   the	
   contemporary	
   art	
   market	
   at	
   a	
   time	
   when	
   innovative	
   artists	
  

struggled	
   to	
   assert	
   a	
   unique	
   artistic	
   voice	
   within	
   a	
   community	
   of	
   peers.	
   Théo	
  

facilitated	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  access	
  to	
  Impressionist	
  works,	
  which	
  heightened	
  the	
  artist’s	
  

awareness	
  of	
  their	
  unique	
  talent	
  and	
  aesthetic	
  distinctiveness.	
  In	
  one	
  of	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  

first	
  attempts	
  at	
  avant-­‐garde	
  painting,	
  Lane	
  at	
  the	
  Jardin	
  du	
  Luxembourg,	
  the	
  artist	
  

captured	
  the	
  likeness	
  of	
  a	
  city	
  street,	
  a	
  depth	
  of	
  perspective	
  and	
  the	
  overall	
  sense	
  of	
  

space	
  filled	
  with	
  foliage	
  and	
  light	
  within	
  a	
  cityscape.	
  The	
  varying	
  approaches	
  within	
  

8me	
  Exposition	
  de	
  peinture	
  underscored	
  that	
  artists	
  could	
  practice	
  the	
  language	
  of	
  

color	
  and	
  form	
  in	
  idiosyncratic	
  ways	
  and	
  did	
  not	
  need	
  to	
  reach	
  a	
  homogenized	
  body	
  

of	
  work	
  with	
  related	
  surface	
  qualities.	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  facture	
  and	
  use	
  of	
  hue	
  in	
  Bridges	
  

across	
  the	
  Seine	
  in	
  Asnières	
  suggests	
  that	
  the	
  8me	
  Exposition	
  de	
  peinture	
  fostered	
  his	
  

study	
  of	
  avant-­‐garde	
  painters	
  and	
  introduced	
  the	
  practice	
  of	
  incorporating	
  differing	
  

aspects	
  from	
  their	
  canvases	
  into	
  his	
  composition.	
  That	
  his	
  works	
  reflect	
  divergent	
  

aspects	
   of	
   avant-­‐garde	
   imagery	
   underscores	
   that	
   he	
   became	
   exposed	
   to	
   the	
  

Impressionists	
   and	
   Neo-­‐Impressionists	
   at	
   once	
   and	
   did	
   not	
   see	
   their	
   varying	
  

aesthetics	
  develop	
  over	
  the	
  course	
  of	
  a	
  decade.	
  

Van	
  Gogh	
  expected	
  to	
  find	
  options	
  to	
  market	
  his	
  work	
  in	
  the	
  capital.	
  	
  As	
  he	
  

did,	
  he	
  found	
  a	
  new	
  way	
  to	
  express	
  himself	
  though	
  the	
  diverse	
  painterly	
  modes	
  of	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

67	
  

the	
  Impressionists	
  and	
  Neo-­‐Impressionists.	
   In	
  Paris	
  there	
  were	
  several	
  currents	
  of	
  

theory	
  that	
  opened	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  studies	
  to	
  different	
  ways	
  of	
  conceiving	
  an	
  image	
  to	
  

which	
   he	
   did	
   not	
   have	
   access	
   in	
   The	
   Netherlands	
   and	
   Belgium:	
   the	
   Impressionist	
  

understanding	
  of	
  abstracting	
  from	
  nature	
  and	
  the	
  Neo-­‐Impressionist	
  ideas	
  of	
  texture	
  

and	
  symbolic	
  form.	
  After	
  experiencing	
  the	
  independent	
  exhibitions	
  in	
  Paris,	
  he	
  too	
  

set	
  out	
  to	
  organize	
  some	
  of	
  his	
  own	
  installations	
  with	
  members	
  from	
  his	
  emerging	
  

community,	
  Bernard	
  and	
  Signac.	
   In	
  a	
  newfound	
  market	
  with	
  opportunities	
  to	
  sell	
  

avant-­‐garde	
   art	
   in	
   solo	
   gallery	
   or	
   collective	
   exhibitions,	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   developed	
  

opportunities	
  to	
  mount	
  exhibitions	
  for	
  his	
  new	
  works	
  and	
  those	
  of	
  the	
  artists	
  he	
  met	
  

in	
  the	
  capital.	
  	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

68	
  

CHAPTER	
  3:	
  NEW	
  CONSIDERATION	
  OF	
  VAN	
  GOGH’S	
  PARIS	
  EXHIBITIONS	
  
	
  
	
  
“What	
  regards	
  my	
  chances	
  of	
  sale,	
  look	
  here,	
  they	
  are	
  certainly	
  not	
  much	
  but	
  

still	
   I	
   do	
   have	
   a	
   beginning,”	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   wrote	
   to	
   painter	
   Horace	
   Mann	
   Livens	
  

regarding	
   the	
   state	
   of	
   the	
   market	
   for	
   an	
   emerging	
   artist	
   in	
   Paris.119	
  Although	
   the	
  

prices	
  of	
  works	
  by	
  unknown	
  artists	
  were	
  low	
  (50	
  francs),	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  saw	
  potential:	
  

“[It’s]	
  certainly	
  not	
  much	
  but—as	
  far	
  as	
  I	
  can	
  see	
  one	
  must	
  sell	
  cheap	
  to	
  rise,	
  and	
  

even	
  at	
  costing	
  price....Paris	
  is	
  Paris,	
  there	
  is	
  but	
  one	
  Paris	
  and	
  however	
  hard	
  living	
  

may	
  be	
  here	
  and	
  if	
  it	
  became	
  worse	
  and	
  harder	
  even—the	
  french	
  [sic]	
  air	
  clears	
  up	
  

the	
  brain	
  and	
  does	
  one	
  good—a	
  world	
  of	
  good.”120	
  At	
  this	
  time,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  had	
  lived	
  

in	
   Paris	
   for	
   about	
   seven	
   or	
   eight	
   months,	
   and	
   with	
   enthusiasm	
   and	
   new	
   artistic	
  

connections,	
  he	
  was	
  determined	
  to	
  establish	
  himself	
  in	
  the	
  Parisian	
  market.	
  	
  

In	
  1887,	
  after	
  living	
  in	
  Paris	
  for	
  a	
  year,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  began	
  organizing	
  exhibitions	
  

about	
   which	
   little	
   is	
   known,	
   except	
   that	
   they	
   were	
   not	
   successful	
   in	
   terms	
   of	
  

attendance,	
  sales,	
  and	
  press.121	
  He	
  staged	
  three	
  exhibitions:	
  one	
  of	
  Japanese	
  prints	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
119	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  569	
  to	
  Horace	
  Mann	
  Livens	
  (a	
  Dutch	
  painter)	
  from	
  Paris	
  in	
  September	
  or	
  
October	
   1886.	
   “At	
   this	
   present	
   moment	
   I	
   have	
   found	
   four	
   dealers	
   who	
   have	
   exhibited	
   studies	
   of	
  
mine.	
  And	
  I	
  have	
  exchanged	
  studies	
  with	
  several	
  artists….	
  Now	
  the	
  prices	
  are	
  50	
  Francs.”	
  

120	
  Letter	
  569	
  to	
  Livens.	
  

121	
  On	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  Paris	
  exhibitions:	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  640	
  to	
  Théo	
  from	
  Arles	
  around	
  Monday,	
  
May	
  14,	
  1888:	
  “When	
  I	
  was	
  in	
  Paris	
  I	
  always	
  hoped	
  to	
  have	
  a	
  showroom	
  of	
  my	
  own	
  in	
  a	
  café;	
  you	
  
know	
  that	
  that	
  fell	
  through.	
  The	
  exhibition	
  of	
  Japanese	
  prints	
  that	
  I	
  had	
  at	
  the	
  Tambourin	
  had	
  quite	
  
an	
   influence	
   on	
   Anquetin	
   and	
   Bernard,	
   but	
   it	
   was	
   such	
   a	
   disaster.	
   For	
   the	
   2nd	
   exhibition	
   at	
   the	
  
showroom	
  of	
  the	
  boul.	
  de	
  Clichy,	
  I	
  have	
  fewer	
  regrets	
  about	
  the	
  time	
  and	
  effort.	
  Bernard	
  having	
  sold	
  
his	
  first	
  painting	
  there,	
  Anquetin	
  having	
  sold	
  a	
  study	
  there,	
  and	
  I	
  having	
  made	
  the	
  exchange	
  with	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

69	
  

he	
   and	
   Théo	
   collected	
   and	
   another	
   of	
   his	
   flower	
   still	
   lifes	
   both	
   at	
   the	
   Café	
  

Tambourin,	
  and	
  a	
  collective	
  show	
  at	
  the	
  Grand	
  Bouillon,	
  Restaurant	
  du	
  Châlet.	
  He	
  

also	
  included	
  his	
  work	
  in	
  the	
  Théâtre	
  Libra	
  d’Antoine	
  alongside	
  avant-­‐garde	
  artists.	
  

Overall,	
   scholars	
   note	
   that	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   goal	
   to	
   exhibit	
   in	
   places	
   such	
   as	
   the	
   Café	
  

Tambourin	
  and	
  Grand	
  Bouillon	
  was	
  his	
  way	
  of	
  entering	
  into	
  the	
  Parisian	
  market,	
  but	
  

in	
  establishments	
  befitting	
  an	
  unknown	
  and	
  lower-­‐class	
  artist.	
  122	
  For	
  a	
  painter	
  in	
  a	
  

new	
  city,	
  the	
  venues	
  were	
  first	
  attempts	
  at	
  exhibiting,	
  but	
  were	
  not	
  on	
  par	
  with	
  the	
  

gallery	
   space	
   of	
   the	
   last	
   Impressionist	
   exhibition,	
   for	
   instance.	
   The	
   avant-­‐garde	
  

approach	
  to	
  painting	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  took	
  and	
  the	
  venues	
  in	
  which	
  the	
  work	
  hung	
  were	
  at	
  

odds—the	
   restaurant	
   and	
   café	
   patrons	
   remained	
   unmoved	
   or	
   unaware	
   of	
   the	
  

emerging	
  artistic	
  ideals.123	
  Nevertheless,	
  scholars	
  note	
  the	
  exhibitions	
  in	
  discussions	
  

of	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  Paris	
  period	
  because	
  they	
  show	
  the	
  artist’s	
  first,	
  albeit	
  unsuccessful,	
  

attempts	
  at	
  becoming	
  a	
  marketable	
  artist	
  within	
  a	
  modernist	
  realm.	
  	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
Gauguin,	
   we	
   all	
   got	
   something.	
   If	
   Gauguin	
   were	
   willing	
   we	
   could	
   do	
   a	
   Marseille	
   exhibition	
   all	
   the	
  
same.	
  But	
  better	
  not	
  rely	
  any	
  more	
  on	
  the	
  people	
  of	
  Marseille	
  than	
  on	
  Paris.”	
  See	
  also:	
  Steven	
  Naifeh	
  
and	
  Gregory	
  White	
  Smith,	
  Van	
  Gogh:	
  The	
  Life	
  (New	
  York:	
  Random	
  House,	
  2011)	
  552-­‐553.	
  	
  

122	
  Bogomila	
  Welsh-­‐Ovcharov,	
  Vincent	
  van	
  Gogh:	
  His	
  Paris	
  Period,	
  1886-­‐1888	
  (Den	
  Haag	
  and	
  Utrecht:	
  
Editions	
  Victorine,	
  1976)	
  36-­‐37.	
  This	
  is	
  Welsh-­‐Ovcharov’s	
  dissertation,	
  completed	
  at	
  the	
  University	
  of	
  
Toronto	
  in	
  1976.	
  Cornelia	
  Homburg,	
  “Vincent	
  van	
  Gogh’s	
  Avant	
  Garde	
  Strategies,”	
  Vincent	
  van	
  Gogh	
  
and	
   the	
   Painters	
   of	
   the	
   Petit	
   Boulevard	
   (Saint	
   Louis:	
   Saint	
   Louis	
   Museum,	
   2001)	
   26,	
   32.	
   Richard	
  
Thomson,	
  “The	
  Cultural	
  Geography	
  of	
  the	
  Petit	
  Boulevard,”	
  Vincent	
  van	
  Gogh	
  and	
  Painters	
  of	
  the	
  
Petit	
  Boulevard,	
  ed.	
  Cornelia	
  Homburg	
  (Saint	
  Louis:	
  Saint	
  Louis	
  Museum,	
  2001)	
  81.	
  Andreas	
  Blühm,	
  
“Displaying	
   Van	
   Gogh,	
   1886-­‐1999,”	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   Museum	
   Journal	
   (1999):	
   67-­‐68.	
  
http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/_van012199901_01/_van012199901_01_0007.php.	
   Carol	
   Zemel,	
   Van	
  
Gogh’s	
   Progress:	
   Utopian,	
   Modernity,	
   and	
   Late	
   Nineteenth-­‐Century	
   Art	
   (Berkeley,	
   Los	
   Angeles	
   and	
  
London:	
  University	
  of	
  California	
  Press,	
  1997)	
  185-­‐187.	
  

123	
  Zemel	
  188-­‐189.	
  	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

70	
  

Since	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  few	
  letters	
  while	
  in	
  the	
  capital,	
  the	
  exhibitions	
  reveal	
  

the	
   artists	
   with	
   whom	
   the	
   painter	
   had	
   contact	
   in	
   Paris’s	
   emerging	
   artistic	
  

community,	
  namely	
  Émile	
  Bernard	
  and	
  Paul	
  Signac.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  included	
  Bernard	
  and	
  

Signac	
  in	
  the	
  Grand	
  Bouillon,	
  both	
  of	
  whom	
  had	
  been	
  developing	
  their	
  techniques	
  

during	
  the	
  mid-­‐1880s,	
  but	
  had	
  yet	
  to	
  find	
  their	
  respective	
  painterly	
  voices.	
  Signac,	
  

for	
   example,	
   had	
   shown	
   in	
   the	
   last	
   Impressionist	
   exhibition,	
   8me	
   Exposition	
   de	
  

peinture,	
   in	
   1886	
   making	
   imagery	
   closely	
   related	
   to	
   the	
   forbearers.	
   In	
   1887,	
   Van	
  

Gogh,	
  Bernard,	
  and	
  Signac	
  emerged	
  stylistically	
  and	
  entered	
  into	
  a	
  unique	
  modernist	
  

artistic	
  dialogue	
  that	
  led	
  toward	
  Symbolism.	
  Significantly,	
  Ovcharov-­‐Welsh	
  highlights	
  

the	
  importance	
  of	
  the	
  Grand	
  Bouillon	
  Exhibition	
  as	
  a	
  body	
  of	
  work	
  that	
  established	
  

artists	
  who	
  were	
  learning	
  from	
  the	
  Impressionists	
  but	
  moving	
  toward	
  a	
  Symbolist	
  

aesthetic.124	
  Though	
   not	
   held	
   in	
   a	
   reputable	
   venue,	
   I	
   think	
   that	
   the	
   exhibition	
   is	
  

more	
   historically	
   significant	
   than	
   has	
   previously	
   been	
   noted.	
   My	
   consideration	
   of	
  

Van	
   Gogh’s	
   exhibition	
   strategies	
   reveals	
   the	
   symbolic	
   modes	
   of	
   painting	
   and	
  

conceptual	
  ideals	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  developed	
  in	
  his	
  own	
  work	
  and	
  sought	
  in	
  fellow	
  artists.	
  

Although	
   it	
   is	
   not	
   clear	
   exactly	
   what	
   paintings	
   the	
   artist	
   selected	
   for	
   the	
   Grand	
  

Bouillon,	
  the	
  work	
  of	
  the	
  artists	
  exhibiting	
  in	
  1886	
  and	
  1887,	
  particularly	
  Bernard’s	
  

and	
  Signac’s	
  canvases,	
  explore	
  the	
  overlapping	
  qualities	
  between	
  Impressionism	
  and	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
124	
  Welsh-­‐Ovcharov,	
  Vincent	
  van	
  Gogh:	
  His	
  Paris	
  Period	
  38.	
  Bogomila	
  Welsh-­‐Ovcharov,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  à	
  
Paris	
  (Paris:	
  Musée	
  d’Orsay,	
  1988)	
  20.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

71	
  

Neo-­‐Impressionism	
   as	
   Van	
   Gogh,	
   Bernard,	
   and	
   Signac	
   moved	
   toward	
   a	
   symbolic	
  

painterly	
  rhetoric.	
  	
  

Moreover,	
  I	
  interpret	
  the	
  shift	
  in	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  work	
  from	
  the	
  mimetic	
  to	
  the	
  

symbolic	
  within	
  the	
  aesthetic	
  contributions	
  of	
  critic	
  Félix	
  Fénéon.	
  The	
  critic	
  defined	
  

“Néo-­‐impressionnisme”	
   in	
   response	
   to	
   the	
   last	
   Impressionist	
   Exhibition	
   where	
  

Seurat	
  announced	
  the	
  new	
  pointillist	
  technique	
  with	
  Sunday	
  Afternoon	
  on	
  the	
  Island	
  

of	
   La	
   Grande	
   Jatte	
   (1884-­‐1886).	
   John	
   Rewald	
   and	
   Joan	
   Ungersma	
   Halperin	
  

acknowledge	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   awareness	
   of	
   Fénéon’s	
   criticism,	
   and	
   Halperin	
   traces	
  

Fénéon’s	
  alignment	
  with	
  Symbolism	
  in	
  1886,	
  but	
  neither	
  attribute	
  the	
  critic’s	
  ideas	
  

to	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  new-­‐found	
  understanding	
  of	
  symbolic	
  use	
  of	
  color,	
  line,	
  and	
  form.125	
  

This	
  omission	
  suppresses	
  the	
  Symbolist	
  ideals	
  to	
  which	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  had	
  direct	
  access	
  

in	
  Paris.	
  	
  

In	
  1886,	
  on	
  the	
  heels	
  of	
  the	
  Impressionist	
  exhibition,	
  Fénéon	
  wrote	
  “Le	
  Néo-­‐

impressionnisme”	
  and	
  provided	
  a	
  formula	
  (so	
  to	
  speak)	
  to	
  paint	
  with	
  the	
  pointillist	
  

dot.	
  While	
  Fénéon’s	
  ideals	
  are	
  connected	
  to	
  Seurat’s	
  methods,	
  I	
  find	
  that	
  the	
  critic’s	
  

texts	
   also	
   provided	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   with	
   the	
   notion	
   that	
   the	
   canvas	
   was	
   to	
   generate	
   a	
  

sensorial	
   experience	
   for	
   the	
   viewer,	
   an	
   important	
   aspect	
   of	
   Symbolism.	
   Fénéon’s	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
125	
  John	
   Rewald,	
   “Félix	
   Fénéon,	
   critique	
   d’art,”	
   26	
   no.	
   3	
   (March	
   1950):	
   67-­‐71.	
   John	
   Rewald,	
   Post-­‐
Impressionism:	
  From	
  van	
  Gogh	
  to	
  Gauguin,	
  3rd	
  ed.	
  (Boston:	
  New	
  York	
  Graphic	
  Society,	
  1978)	
  87-­‐93,	
  
136-­‐138.	
   Joan	
   Ungersma	
   Halperin,	
   Félix	
   Fénéon:	
   Aesthete	
   &	
   Anarchist	
   in	
   Fin-­‐de-­‐Siècle	
   Paris	
   (New	
  
Haven	
  and	
  London:	
  Yale	
  University	
  Press,	
  1988)	
  57-­‐69,	
  89,	
  115.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

72	
  

critical	
  accounts	
  privilege	
  the	
  sensation	
  the	
  canvas	
  conveyed	
  rather	
  than	
  serving	
  as	
  a	
  

descriptive	
  study,	
  a	
  foundational	
  difference	
  between	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  earlier	
  works	
  from	
  

the	
   Netherlands	
   and	
   those	
   of	
   his	
   Paris	
   period.	
   The	
   critic	
   also	
   underscored	
   a	
  

theoretical	
   structure	
   that	
   laid	
   the	
   groundwork	
   for	
   symbolic	
   imagery	
   through	
  

experimentation	
   with	
   both	
   Impressionism	
   and	
   Neo-­‐Impressionism.	
   	
   In	
   Paris,	
   Van	
  

Gogh	
  did	
  not	
  transition	
  from	
  Impressionism	
  to	
  Neo-­‐Impressionism	
  chronologically,	
  

but	
   experimented	
   with	
   elements	
   from	
   both	
   groups	
   of	
   artists	
   simultaneously	
   to	
  

develop	
  a	
  unique	
  pictorial	
  vocabulary.	
  

	
  

The	
  Exhibitions	
  

The	
  first	
  exhibition	
  in	
  February	
  and	
  March	
  1887	
  included	
  Vincent	
  and	
  Théo’s	
  

Japanese	
  woodblock-­‐print	
  collection	
  in	
  Agostina	
  Segatori’s	
  Café	
  Tambourin,	
  located	
  

in	
  Montmartre	
  at	
  62	
  Boulevard	
  de	
  Clichy	
  close	
  to	
  the	
  brothers’	
  rue	
  Lepic	
  apartment	
  

[figures	
   1-­‐3].126	
  The	
   Japanese	
   prints	
   are	
   well	
   documented,	
   unlike	
   the	
   subsequent	
  

collections	
   of	
   the	
   artist’s	
   work	
   exhibited	
   in	
   Paris.127	
  The	
   Tambourin	
   Exhibition	
   of	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
126	
  Welsh-­‐Ovcharov,	
  Vincent	
  Van	
  Gogh:	
  His	
  Paris	
  Period	
  36-­‐37.	
  See	
  also:	
  Zemel	
  185-­‐187.	
  	
  

127	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  began	
  studying	
  Japanese	
  prints	
  before	
  arriving	
  in	
  Paris.	
  When	
  he	
  was	
  living	
  in	
  Antwerp,	
  
he	
  wrote	
  to	
  Théo	
  on	
  Saturday,	
  November	
  28,	
  1885	
  (letter	
  545),	
  which	
  is	
  the	
  first	
  instance	
  the	
  painter	
  
referenced	
  Japanese	
  prints	
  (see	
  note	
  3).	
  Vincent	
  told	
  Théo	
  that	
  he	
  hung	
  Japanese	
  prints	
  on	
  the	
  wall	
  
of	
  his	
  studio,	
  which	
  made	
  the	
  space	
  “tolerable.”	
  And,	
  he	
  told	
  Théo	
  about	
  a	
  morning	
  walk	
  near	
  the	
  
docks	
   of	
   Antwerp.	
   He	
   compared	
   the	
   docks	
   and	
   landscape	
   to	
   Japonaiserie.	
   He	
   had	
   read	
   Jules	
   de	
  
Goncourt’s	
  Maîtres	
  et	
  petits	
  maîtres	
  (1877)	
  and	
  quoted	
  the	
  novel-­‐-­‐“Japonaiserie	
  for	
  ever!”—when	
  
describing	
   the	
   “fantastic,	
   singular,	
   strange”	
   Antwerp	
   wharves.	
   On	
   the	
   exhibition	
   see:	
   Welsh-­‐
Ovcharov,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  à	
  Paris	
  86.	
  On	
  the	
  influence	
  of	
  Japanese	
  prints	
  (Japonisme)	
  in	
  relation	
  to	
  Van	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

73	
  

Japanese	
  prints	
  had,	
  in	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  words,	
  “quite	
  an	
  influence”	
  on	
  painters	
  Bernard	
  

and	
   Louis	
   Anquetin.128	
  Through	
   the	
   formal	
   influence	
   of	
   Japanese	
   prints	
   and	
   the	
  

conceptual	
   ideals	
   of	
   literary	
   Symbolism,	
   Bernard	
   and	
   Anquetin	
   developed	
  

Cloisonism,	
   a	
   painting	
   style	
   that	
   set	
   off	
   flat	
   monochromatic	
   shapes	
   with	
   bold	
  

outlines.129	
  During	
  the	
  time	
  of	
  the	
  exhibition,	
  the	
  café	
  proprietor	
  sat	
  for	
  the	
  artist,	
  

and	
  in	
  the	
  painting	
  a	
  Japanese	
  scroll	
  with	
  two	
  female	
  figures	
  is	
  faintly	
  visible	
  on	
  the	
  

right-­‐hand	
   side	
   [figure	
   4].	
   That	
   summer,	
   amid	
   some	
   personal	
   strife	
   with	
   Segatori	
  

with	
  whom	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  may	
  have	
  had	
  a	
  romantic	
  relationship,	
  he	
  mounted	
  another	
  

exhibition	
  at	
  the	
  Café	
  Tambourin	
  of	
  his	
  own	
  works.	
  In	
  exchange	
  for	
  meals	
  and	
  in	
  a	
  

gesture	
  of	
  courtship,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  gave	
  Segatori	
  flower	
  still	
  lifes	
  that	
  covered	
  the	
  café’s	
  

walls.	
  In	
  the	
  café,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  may	
  have	
  exhibited	
  Basket	
  of	
  Pansies	
  (1886)	
  [figure	
  5],	
  a	
  

painting	
  of	
  flowers	
  in	
  somewhat	
  muted	
  colors	
  spilling	
  out	
  of	
  a	
  basket	
  resting	
  on	
  a	
  

table-­‐top	
  made	
  from	
  a	
  tambourine,	
  one	
  smaller	
  but	
  similar	
  to	
  the	
  table	
  on	
  which	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
Gogh’s	
  work	
  see:	
  Mark	
  Roskill,	
  “The	
  Japanese	
  Print	
  and	
  French	
  Painting	
   in	
  the	
  1880s,”	
  Van	
  Gogh,	
  
Gauguin	
   and	
   the	
   Impressionist	
   Circle	
   (London:	
   Thames	
   and	
   Hudson,	
   1970)	
   57-­‐85.	
   See	
   also:	
   Fred	
  
Orton,	
  “Vincent’s	
  Interest	
  in	
  Japanese	
  Prints,”	
  Vincent:	
  Bulletin	
  of	
  the	
  Rijksmuseum,	
  Vincent	
  van	
  Gogh	
  
1	
  no.	
  3	
  (1971):	
  2-­‐32.	
  Tsukasa	
  Kōdera,	
  “Van	
  Gogh’s	
  Utopian	
  Japonisme,”	
  Catalogue	
  of	
  the	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  
Museum’s	
   Collection	
   of	
   Japanese	
   Prints	
   (Zwolle:	
   Waanders	
   Publishers,	
   1991)	
   11-­‐46.	
   Axel	
   Rüger,	
  
“Vincent	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  and	
  Japan,”	
  Japonisme	
  and	
  the	
  Rise	
  of	
  the	
  Modern	
  Art	
  Movement:	
  The	
  Arts	
  of	
  the	
  
Menji	
   Period,	
   ed.	
   Gregory	
   Irvine	
   (New	
   York,	
   New	
   York:	
   Thames	
   and	
   Hudson,	
   2013)	
   13-­‐15.	
   Kris	
  
Schiermeier,	
   “Imitation	
   or	
   Innovation?”	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   Japonaiserie	
   and	
   Japanese	
   Art	
   of	
   the	
   Menji	
  
Period,”	
   Japonisme	
   and	
   the	
   Rise	
   of	
   the	
   Modern	
   Art	
   Movement:	
   The	
   Arts	
   of	
   the	
   Menji	
   Period,	
   ed.	
  
Gregory	
  Irvine	
  (New	
  York,	
  New	
  York:	
  Thames	
  and	
  Hudson,	
  2013)	
  140-­‐165.	
  	
  

128	
  On	
  Segatori:	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letters	
  571	
  and	
  572	
  to	
  Théo	
  from	
  Paris	
   in	
   late	
  July	
  1887.	
   I	
  quote	
  
directly	
  from	
  letter	
  640.	
  See	
  also:	
  Homburg	
  26,	
  32.	
  	
  

129	
  Roskill	
  106.	
   See	
  also:	
  Bogomila	
  Welsh-­‐Ovcharov,	
  Vincent	
  van	
  Gogh	
  and	
  the	
  Birth	
  of	
  Cloisonism.	
  
(Toronto,	
  Canada:	
  Art	
  Gallery	
  of	
  Toronto	
  and	
  Musée	
  des	
  Beaux-­‐Arts	
  de	
  L’ontario,	
  1981).	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

74	
  

Segatori	
   rests	
   her	
   arms.130	
  Bernard,	
   the	
   main	
   source	
   of	
   information	
   about	
   Van	
  

Gogh’s	
  Paris	
  exhibitions,	
  noted	
  that	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  hung	
  flower	
  still	
  lifes	
  to	
  decorate	
  the	
  

café,	
   similar	
   to	
   Fritillaires,	
   couronne	
   impériale	
   dans	
   un	
   vase	
   de	
   cuivre	
   (April-­‐May	
  

1887),	
   in	
  which	
  he	
  explored	
  the	
  then-­‐new	
  pointillist	
  technique	
  in	
  the	
  background	
  

[figure	
  6].131	
  	
  

The	
   largest	
   show	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   organized	
   took	
   place	
   in	
   November	
   1887.	
   The	
  

artist	
   curated	
   and	
   mounted	
   an	
   exhibition	
   at	
   the	
   popular	
   Grand	
   Bouillon	
   at	
   43	
  

Avenue	
  de	
  Clichy	
  in	
  Montmartre,	
  also	
  not	
  far	
  from	
  the	
  brothers’	
  apartment.132	
  The	
  

Grand	
  Bouillon	
  Exhibition	
  was	
  like	
  those	
  held	
  in	
  Paris	
  during	
  1886	
  and	
  1887,	
  such	
  as	
  

the	
   8me	
   Exposition	
   de	
   peinture	
   or	
   the	
   two	
   Société	
   des	
   Artistes	
   Indépendants	
  

installations,	
   in	
   which	
   Camille	
   Pissarro,	
   Seurat,	
   and	
   Signac	
   participated.	
   Likewise,	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
130	
  See	
  letter	
  572,	
  note	
  3.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  this	
  letter	
  while	
  living	
  in	
  Paris	
  to	
  Théo	
  sometime	
  around	
  
July	
  23	
  thru	
  the	
  25,	
  1887.	
  See	
  also:	
  Émile	
  Bernard,	
  “Julien	
  Tanguy,	
  Called	
  Le	
  Père	
  Tanguy”	
  (November-­‐
December	
  1908)	
  in	
  Van	
  Gogh:	
  A	
  Retrospective,	
  ed.	
  Susan	
  Alyson	
  Stein	
  (New	
  York:	
  Hugh	
  Lauter	
  Levin	
  
Associates,	
  Inc.,	
  1986)	
  93.	
  Originally	
  published	
  in	
  the	
  Mercure	
  de	
  France,	
  November-­‐December	
  1908.	
  
“It	
  was	
  about	
  this	
  time	
  that	
  Vincent	
  frequented	
  a	
  tavern	
  called	
  Le	
  Tambourin,	
  owned	
  by	
  an	
  extremely	
  
beautiful	
  Italian	
  woman,	
  a	
  former	
  model,	
  who	
  let	
  sprawl	
  her	
  robust	
  and	
  imposing	
  charms	
  onto	
  a	
  bar-­‐
top	
  she	
  made	
  exclusively	
  hers.	
  Vincent	
  agreed	
  to	
  do	
  several	
  paintings	
  a	
  week	
  for	
  Le	
  Tambourin	
  in	
  
exchange	
  for	
  meals.	
  He	
  wound	
  up	
  covering	
  the	
  large	
  walls	
  of	
  the	
  establishment	
  with	
  his	
  studies.	
  They	
  
were	
  mostly	
  flower	
  studies,	
  and	
  there	
  were	
  some	
  excellent	
  ones.	
  This	
  went	
  on	
  for	
  a	
  few	
  months;	
  
then	
  the	
  place	
  went	
  to	
  ruin,	
  was	
  sold,	
  and	
  all	
  the	
  paintings	
  in	
  a	
  pile,	
  were	
  sold	
  off	
  for	
  a	
  laughable	
  
sum.”	
  

131	
  Welsh-­‐Ovcharov,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  à	
  Paris	
  118.	
  See	
  also:	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
   letter	
  number	
  571,	
  note	
  3.	
  Émile	
  
Bernard,	
  “Les	
  Peintres	
  Impressionnists:	
  Vincent	
  Van	
  Gogh,”	
  Emile	
  Bernard,	
  1868-­‐1941:	
  A	
  Pioneer	
  of	
  
Modern	
  Art,	
  ed.	
  Mary	
  Anne	
  Stevens	
  (Zwolle:	
  Waanders	
  Publishers,	
  1990)	
  382-­‐383.	
  	
  

132	
  Blühm	
  67.	
  Welsh-­‐Ovcharov,	
  Vincent	
  Van	
  Gogh:	
  His	
  Paris	
  Period	
  38-­‐40	
  and	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  à	
  Paris	
  19-­‐20.	
  
Homburg	
   32.	
   Thomson	
   80-­‐81.	
   Zemel	
   187-­‐189.	
   Part	
   of	
   Bernard’s	
   account	
   of	
   the	
   Grand	
   Bouillon	
  
Exhibition	
  can	
  be	
  found	
  in	
  Rewald,	
  Post-­‐Impressionism:	
  From	
  van	
  Gogh	
  to	
  Gauguin	
  64.	
  

	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

75	
  

Van	
   Gogh	
   aimed	
   to	
   draw	
   together	
   a	
   large,	
   multi-­‐faceted	
   body	
   of	
   work	
   from	
   a	
  

number	
   of	
   artists	
   with	
   whom	
   he	
   connected	
   in	
   Paris,	
   an	
   ambitious	
   and	
   important	
  

event	
  for	
  the	
  emerging	
  painter.133	
  The	
  proprietor,	
  Monsieur	
  Martin	
  [figure	
  7],	
  gave	
  

Van	
  Gogh	
  a	
  large	
  dining-­‐room	
  space	
  in	
  which	
  to	
  hold	
  the	
  exhibition.	
  At	
  this	
  time,	
  

Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  to	
  Bernard	
  explaining	
  that	
  he	
  aimed	
  to	
  do	
  what	
  he	
  could	
  to	
  make	
  

the	
   exhibition	
   a	
   success.134	
  He	
   attempted	
   to	
   bring	
   together	
   a	
   collective	
   of	
   artists	
  

who	
  could	
  work	
  towards	
  a	
  common	
  goal	
  of	
  exhibiting	
  for	
  the	
  sake	
  of	
  the	
  group	
  and	
  

put	
   aside	
   “petty	
   jealousies.”135	
  Despite	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   intention	
   to	
   orchestrate	
   the	
  

images	
  of	
  a	
  community	
  of	
  artists	
  he	
  hoped	
  to	
  support,	
  the	
  restaurant	
  patrons	
  did	
  

not	
   receive	
   the	
   painter’s	
   efforts	
   openly.	
   	
   According	
   to	
   Bernard,	
   they	
   “were	
  

somewhat	
  horrified”	
  and	
  a	
  “little	
  disconcerted”	
  by	
  the	
  “forbidding	
  aspect[s]”	
  of	
  the	
  

paintings.136	
  Unfortunately,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  had	
  an	
  argument	
  with	
  Monsieur	
  Martin,	
  and	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
133	
  Welsh-­‐Ovcharov,	
  Vincent	
  Van	
  Gogh:	
  His	
  Paris	
  Period	
  218-­‐223.	
  In	
  Welsh-­‐Ovcharov’s	
  appendix,	
  she	
  
provides	
  a	
  list	
  of	
  exhibitions	
  concurrent	
  with	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  Paris	
  stay.	
  	
  

134	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  575	
  to	
  Bernard	
  while	
  in	
  Paris	
  in	
  December	
  1887,	
  probably	
  shortly	
  after	
  the	
  
Grand	
  Bouillon	
  Exhibition	
  ended.	
  “I’ll	
  gladly	
  do	
  all	
  I	
  can	
  to	
  make	
  a	
  success	
  of	
  what	
  was	
  started	
  in	
  the	
  
dining-­‐room,	
  but	
  I	
  believe	
  that	
  the	
  first	
  condition	
  for	
  success	
  is	
  to	
  put	
  aside	
  petty	
  jealousies;	
  it’s	
  only	
  
unity	
  that	
  makes	
  strength.	
  It’s	
  well	
  worth	
  sacrificing	
  selfishness,	
  the	
  ‘each	
  man	
  for	
  himself,’	
   in	
  the	
  
common	
  interest.”	
  

135	
  Letter	
  575.	
  	
  

136	
  Bernard	
  quoted	
  in	
  Rewald,	
  Post-­‐Impressionism:	
  From	
  van	
  Gogh	
  to	
  Gauguin	
  64.	
  	
  

	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

76	
  

subsequently	
  ended	
  up	
  angrily	
  hauling	
  all	
  of	
  the	
  paintings	
  away	
  in	
  a	
  wheelbarrow	
  to	
  

his	
  apartment	
  on	
  the	
  rue	
  Lepic.137	
  	
  

Although	
  the	
  Grand	
  Bouillon	
  Exhibition	
  ended	
  abruptly	
  and	
  neither	
  garnered	
  

criticism	
  nor	
  had	
  an	
  accompanying	
  catalog,	
  the	
  artists	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  included	
  represent	
  

the	
  artistic	
  avant-­‐garde	
  developing	
  after	
  the	
  last	
  Impressionist	
  exhibition:	
  Bernard,	
  

Signac,	
  Anquentin,	
  Henri	
  Toulouse-­‐Lautrec,	
  Harold	
  H.	
  Koning,	
  and	
  (perhaps)	
  Armand	
  

Guillaumin.	
  Together	
  they	
  exhibited	
  over	
  fifty	
  paintings,	
  such	
  as	
  Bernard’s	
  Portrait	
  of	
  

the	
   Artist’s	
   Grandmother	
   (1887)	
   and	
   Ragpickers	
   at	
   Clichy	
   (1887)	
   [figures	
   8	
   &	
   9],	
  

Anquetin’s	
  Boat	
  at	
  Sunset,	
  Lautrec’s	
  paintings	
  of	
  prostitutes,	
  and	
  Koning’s	
  apple	
  still	
  

lifes.138	
  Pissarro,	
  Seurat,	
  and	
  Paul	
  Gauguin	
  (who	
  had	
  just	
  returned	
  from	
  Martinique	
  

in	
  November)	
  saw	
  these	
  images	
  when	
  they	
  each	
  visited	
  the	
  exhibition,	
  which	
  was,	
  

Bernard	
  wrote,	
  “by	
  far	
  the	
  most	
  advanced	
  thing	
  in	
  Paris.”139	
  The	
  event	
  was	
  also	
  the	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
137	
  Bernard	
  quoted	
  in	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
   letter	
  575,	
  note	
  9.	
  Bernard	
  wrote	
  about	
  the	
  dining	
  room	
  of	
  the	
  
Grand	
  Bouillon	
  exhibition	
  and	
  referred	
  to	
  the	
  altercation	
  between	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  and	
  Monsieur	
  Martin:	
  
“The	
  room	
  referred	
  to	
  here	
  is	
  the	
  dining-­‐room	
  of	
  a	
  working-­‐class	
  restaurant	
  on	
  avenue	
  de	
  Clichy,	
  
whose	
  owner	
  Vincent	
  had	
  won	
  over,	
  and	
  which	
  he	
  had	
  turned	
  into	
  an	
  exhibition	
  of	
  our	
  paintings.	
  
Unfortunately,	
   this	
   socialist	
   exhibition	
   of	
   our	
   inflammatory	
   canvases	
   came	
   to	
   a	
   rather	
   sorry	
   end.	
  
There	
  was	
  a	
  violent	
  altercation	
  between	
  the	
  owner	
  and	
  Vincent,	
  which	
  made	
  Vincent	
  decide	
  to	
  take	
  a	
  
hand-­‐barrow	
  without	
  delay	
  and	
  cart	
  the	
  whole	
  exhibition	
  to	
  his	
  studio	
  in	
  rue	
  Lepic.	
  Obviously,	
  the	
  art	
  
of	
  the	
  Petit	
  Boulevard	
  had	
  not	
  been	
  understood	
  by	
  its	
  Barnum.”	
  

138	
  Bernard	
  quoted	
  in	
  Zemel	
  188.	
  See	
  Zemel,	
  chapter	
  five,	
  notes	
  44,	
  45	
  and	
  48	
  (pages	
  272-­‐273).	
  On	
  
Bernard’s	
  Ragpickers	
  at	
  Clichy,	
  see:	
  Welsh-­‐Ovcharov,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  à	
  Paris	
  200-­‐201.	
  On	
  the	
  number	
  of	
  
paintings	
  exhibited,	
  see	
  Welsh-­‐Ovcharov,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  à	
  Paris	
  33.	
  	
  

139	
  Bernard	
  quoted	
  in	
  Zemel	
  188.	
  See	
  also:	
  Ronald	
  Pickvance,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  (Martigny	
  Suisse:	
  Foundation	
  
Pierre	
  Gianadda,	
  2000)	
  75.	
  	
  

	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

77	
  

first	
  time	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  met	
  Seurat.	
  The	
  pointillist	
  artist	
  recalled	
  first	
  meeting	
  the	
  Dutch	
  

painter	
  at	
  the	
  Grand	
  Bouillon,	
  “a	
  working-­‐class	
  restaurant	
  located	
  near	
  la	
  Fourche,	
  

avenue	
  de	
  Clichy…[in]	
  an	
  immense	
  sky-­‐lighted	
  hall…decorated	
  with	
  his	
  canvases.”140	
  

Van	
   Gogh	
   himself	
   included	
   flower	
   still	
   lifes	
   and	
   landscapes	
   from	
   Clichy	
   and	
  

Asnières.141	
  Bernard	
   identified	
   three	
   paintings	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   exhibited,	
   Factories	
   at	
  

Clichy	
  (1887),	
  The	
  Factory	
  at	
  Clichy	
  (1887),	
  and	
  Portrait	
  of	
  Père	
  Tanguy	
  (fall	
  1887)	
  

[figures	
  10-­‐12].142	
  For	
  Bernard,	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  works	
  were	
  the	
  most	
  prominent	
  of	
  the	
  

exhibition,	
   conveying	
   a	
   “joyful,	
   vibrant,	
   harmonious	
   impression.”	
   143 	
  Bernard’s	
  

comment	
  suggests	
  that	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  was	
  developing	
  the	
  early	
  patterns	
  of	
  his	
  Arlesian	
  

imagery.	
  

Vincent	
  wrote	
  to	
  his	
  sister	
  Willemien	
  (Wil)	
  about	
  images	
  similar	
  to	
  the	
  flower	
  

still	
   lifes	
   exhibited	
   in	
   the	
   Café	
   Tambourin	
   and	
   the	
   landscapes	
   and	
   portrait	
   in	
   the	
  

Grand	
  Bouillon	
  Exhibition:	
  

Last	
  summer,	
   I	
  painted	
  almost	
  nothing	
  but	
  flowers	
  to	
  accustom	
  
myself	
   to	
   a	
   colour	
   other	
   than	
   grey,	
   that’s	
   to	
   say	
   pink,	
   soft	
   or	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
140	
  Letter	
  from	
  Georges	
  Seurat	
  to	
  Maurice	
  Beaubourg,	
  Paris,	
  28	
  August	
  1890,	
  in	
  Stein	
  90.	
  	
  
141	
  Bernard	
   quoted	
   in	
   Stevens	
   382-­‐383.	
   Bernard	
   quoted	
   in	
   Zemel	
   188.	
   Bernard	
   quoted	
   in	
   Rewald,	
  
Post-­‐Impressionism:	
  From	
  van	
  Gogh	
  to	
  Gauguin	
  64.	
  	
  

142	
  Bernard	
   quoted	
   in	
   Stevens	
   382.	
   Ronald	
   Dorn,	
   “The	
   Artistic	
   Reception	
   of	
   Vincent	
   van	
   Gogh’s	
  
Work—Prologue,”	
  Vincent	
  van	
  Gogh	
  and	
  the	
  Modern	
  Movement,	
  1890-­‐1914	
  (Amsterdam:	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  
Museum,	
  1990)	
  189.	
  	
  

143	
  Bernard	
  quoted	
  in	
  Rewald,	
  Post-­‐Impressionism:	
  From	
  van	
  Gogh	
  to	
  Gauguin	
  64.	
  	
  

	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

78	
  

bright	
  green,	
  light	
  blue,	
  violet,	
  yellow,	
  orange,	
  fine	
  red.	
  And	
  when	
  
I	
   painted	
   the	
   landscapes	
   in	
   Asnières	
   this	
   summer	
   I	
   saw	
   more	
  
colour	
  in	
  it	
  than	
  before.	
  I’m	
  studying	
  this	
  now	
  in	
  portraits.144	
  	
  
	
  

“Last	
  summer”	
  refers	
  to	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  first	
  summer	
  in	
  Paris	
  when	
  he	
  was	
  first	
  exposed	
  

to	
   the	
   Impressionists	
   and	
   Neo-­‐Impressionists.	
   He	
   used	
   flowers	
   to	
   practice	
   using	
  

color	
  and	
  then	
  did	
  so	
  with	
  more	
  complex	
  subjects	
  that	
  may	
  not	
  lend	
  themselves	
  to	
  

saturated	
   hue,	
   such	
   as	
   portraiture	
   and	
   landscape.	
   One	
   of	
   the	
   portraits	
   he	
   was	
  

working	
  on	
  at	
  the	
  time	
  for	
  the	
  Grand	
  Bouillon	
  was	
  of	
  Julien	
  Tanguy,	
  known	
  as	
  Père	
  

Tanguy,	
  a	
  well-­‐known	
  Paris	
  paint-­‐store	
  owner	
  who	
  sold	
  paint	
  to	
  Claude	
  Monet	
  and	
  

Pierre-­‐Auguste	
  Renoir,	
  championed	
  Paul	
  Cézanne,	
  and	
  who	
  let	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  hang	
  his	
  

paintings	
  in	
  the	
  shop.	
  A	
  great	
  source	
  of	
  artistic	
  inspiration,	
  the	
  shop,	
  Boutique	
  du	
  

Père	
   Tanguy	
   located	
   in	
   Montmartre,	
   was	
   a	
   place	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   frequented	
   often	
   to	
  

discuss	
   painting	
   concepts. 145 	
  Van	
   Gogh	
   also	
   hung	
   work	
   at	
   the	
   Théâtre	
   Libra	
  

d’Antoine	
  at	
  96	
  rue	
  Blanche	
  in	
  Montmartre	
  sometime	
  during	
  the	
  winter	
  of	
  1887-­‐

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
144	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  574	
  to	
  his	
  sister	
  Wil	
  from	
  Paris	
  in	
  late	
  October	
  1887.	
  	
  

145	
  Charles	
   Angrand	
   in	
   Conversation	
   in	
   Stein	
   89.	
   Angrand	
   was	
   a	
   painter	
   associated	
   with	
   the	
   Neo-­‐
Impressionists	
  during	
  the	
  time	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  lived	
  in	
  Paris.	
  “About	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  I	
  have	
  very	
  few	
  memories.	
  
Without	
  a	
  doubt,	
  we	
  found	
  ourselves	
  sometimes	
  at	
  père	
  Tanguy’s;	
  but	
  what	
  has	
  most	
  remained	
  in	
  
my	
  memory	
  is	
  the	
  visit	
  he	
  paid	
  me	
  at	
  the	
  end	
  of	
  one	
  November	
  at	
  the	
  Collège	
  Chaptal.	
  I	
  could	
  meet	
  
him	
  only	
  at	
  the	
  café.	
  I	
  remember	
  that	
  he	
  didn’t	
  want	
  to	
  drink	
  anything.	
  He	
  came	
  above	
  all	
  to	
  make	
  an	
  
exchange,	
  an	
  instance,	
  I	
  believe	
  of	
  his	
  mania.	
  I	
  had	
  at	
  père	
  Tanguy’s	
  then	
  a	
  thickly	
  painted	
  canvas	
  of	
  a	
  
woman	
  followed	
  by	
  chickens.	
  Had	
  he	
  been	
  seduced	
  by	
  the	
  impasto?	
  A	
  little	
  later,	
  he	
  had	
  to	
  leave	
  
Paris.	
  Anyway,	
  we	
  didn’t	
  stay	
  in	
  contact.	
  I	
  knew	
  his	
  brother	
  better	
  than	
  him.”	
  

	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

79	
  

1888.	
  Seurat	
  and	
  Signac	
  also	
  included	
  works	
  at	
  the	
  Théâtre	
  Libra.146	
  Although	
  there	
  

is	
   little	
  surviving	
  evidence,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  exhibited	
  Voyer	
  d’Argenson	
  Park	
  at	
  Asnières	
  

[figure	
  13].	
  	
  

Together	
  the	
  paintings	
  Vincent	
  exhibited	
  in	
  Paris	
  exemplify	
  the	
  rapid	
  change	
  

his	
  work	
  underwent	
  in	
  1887,	
  from,	
  as	
  he	
  noted	
  to	
  Wil,	
  grey	
  to	
  robust	
  color	
  and	
  from	
  

the	
   descriptive	
   to	
   the	
   symbolic.	
   Although	
   Van	
   Gogh’s,	
   Bernard’s,	
   and	
   Signac’s	
  

respective	
  canvases	
  are	
  distinct,	
  the	
  emerging	
  painters	
  conceived	
  of	
  the	
  relationship	
  

among	
   the	
   artist,	
   canvas,	
   and	
   viewer	
   similarly.	
   In	
   1886,	
   the	
   artists	
   had	
   varying	
  

contact	
  with	
  the	
  Impressionist	
  artists	
  and	
  with	
  each	
  other.	
  By	
  1887	
  they	
  developed	
  

into	
   a	
   group	
   of	
   artists	
   who	
   highlighted	
   the	
   discord	
   between	
   the	
   image	
   and	
   the	
  

natural	
   world	
   from	
   which	
   they	
   derived	
   their	
   subject	
   matter,	
   approaching	
   their	
  

respective	
  art-­‐making	
  processes	
  by	
  acknowledging	
  a	
  disassociation	
  between	
  nature	
  

and	
  the	
  image’s	
  form.	
  In	
  this	
  way,	
  they	
  generated	
  a	
  participant-­‐canvas	
  relationship	
  

that	
  privileged	
  the	
  image	
  as	
  a	
  subjective	
  creation,	
  emphasizing	
  its	
  artifice.	
  Although	
  

their	
  subjects	
  were	
  often	
  nature	
  or	
  their	
  surrounding	
  environments,	
  they	
  depicted	
  

highly	
  individual	
  interpretations	
  that	
  relied	
  on	
  their	
  imaginations.	
  For	
  example,	
  their	
  

canvases	
   depicting	
   factory	
   landscapes	
   became	
   a	
   conceptually	
   visual	
   paradox	
  

because	
  the	
  subject	
  matter	
  was	
  the	
  means	
  to	
  experiment	
  with	
  medium	
  and	
  form,	
  

not	
  to	
  render	
  the	
  sunlight’s	
  effects	
  or	
  the	
  smokestack’s	
  plume.	
  To	
  them,	
  the	
  canvas	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
146	
  Blühm	
  67.	
  Welsh-­‐Ovcharov,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  à	
  Paris	
  104.	
  Thomson	
  80.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

80	
  

was	
  a	
  visual	
  field	
  that	
  provided	
  a	
  catalytic	
  response	
  between	
  the	
  participant	
  and	
  the	
  

artist,	
  one	
  that	
  privileged	
  a	
  contemplative	
  gaze	
  to	
  engage	
  the	
  viewer’s	
  imagination.	
  I	
  

explore	
  the	
  lineage	
  of	
  this	
  painterly	
  concept	
  through	
  Édouard	
  Manet	
  and	
  Pissarro,	
  

painters	
   who	
   influenced	
   the	
   critical	
   lexicon	
   and,	
   in	
   Pissarro’s	
   case,	
   the	
   emerging	
  

painters	
  directly.	
  Pissarro	
  also	
  worked	
  closely	
  with	
  Fénéon	
  to	
  craft	
  the	
  ideals	
  of	
  Neo-­‐

Impressionism.	
   Thus,	
   I	
   also	
   consider	
   the	
   symbolic	
   methods	
   Fénéon’s	
   criticism	
  

espouses	
  to	
  a	
  generation	
  of	
  up-­‐and-­‐coming	
  artists,	
  such	
  as	
  Van	
  Gogh,	
  Bernard,	
  and	
  

Signac.	
  For	
  them,	
  the	
  critic	
  addressed	
  the	
  formal	
  and	
  conceptual	
  ways	
  in	
  which	
  a	
  

painter	
  could	
  subordinate	
  mimetic	
  rendering	
  to	
  focus	
  on	
  the	
  artist’s	
  unique	
  ideation	
  

of	
  the	
  material	
  world	
  to	
  convey	
  an	
  experience	
  symbolically.	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  Paris-­‐period	
  

imagery,	
   particularly	
   the	
   canvases	
   he	
   included	
   in	
   exhibitions,	
   conceptually	
  

emphasize	
  the	
  artist’s	
  vision.	
  	
  

	
  

Manet’s	
  and	
  Pissarro’s	
  Influence	
  

Underscoring	
   what	
   the	
   viewer	
   understood	
   as	
   reality	
   and	
   what	
   the	
   painter	
  

subjectively	
   translated	
   had	
   been	
   a	
   concept	
   in	
   painting	
   practice	
   since	
   the	
   early	
  

nineteenth	
   century,	
   finding	
   precedent	
   in	
   Jacques-­‐Louis	
   David’s	
   imagery.	
   TJ	
   Clark	
  

defines	
  David’s	
  modernism	
  with	
  the	
  painter’s	
  Death	
  of	
  Marat	
  (1793),	
  arguing	
  that	
  

Marat	
  is	
  fundamentally	
  modernist	
  because	
  it	
  challenged	
  the	
  boundary	
  between	
  the	
  

subject	
  (what	
  is	
  mimetically	
  depicted	
  in	
  the	
  literal	
  sense)	
  and	
  the	
  visual	
  (the	
  painting	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

81	
  

in	
  a	
  transformative	
  sense).147	
  Marat,	
  for	
  instance,	
  is	
  holding	
  a	
  letter;	
  but	
  he	
  is	
  dead,	
  

so	
  how	
  can	
  his	
  fingers	
  grasp?	
  With	
  Marat,	
  David	
  raised	
  important	
  questions	
  with	
  

which	
  nineteenth-­‐century	
  painters	
  grappled:	
  is	
  it	
  possible	
  to,	
  in	
  Clark’s	
  words,	
  “say	
  

what	
  we	
  are	
  looking	
  at,	
  or	
  see	
  what	
  we	
  are	
  saying?”148	
  	
  

Creating	
  an	
  image	
  that	
  intentionally	
  highlighted	
  the	
  painting	
  as	
  a	
  fiction	
  of	
  

reality,	
  one	
  that	
  was	
  based	
  on	
  the	
  artist’s	
  idiosyncratic	
  vision	
  that	
  had	
  an	
  effect	
  on	
  

the	
  viewer’s	
  imagination	
  is	
  a	
  modernist	
  concept	
  that	
  finds	
  further	
  roots	
  in	
  the	
  work	
  

of	
  Manet.	
  Michael	
  Fried	
  characterized	
  Henri	
  Fantain-­‐Latour,	
  James	
  McNeill	
  Whistler,	
  

Alphonse	
   Legros,	
   and	
   Manet	
   as	
   the	
   generation	
   of	
   1863.149	
  Fantain-­‐Latour	
   paid	
  

respect	
   to	
   their	
   generation’s	
   roots	
   in	
   Homage	
   to	
   Delacroix	
   (1864).	
   Fried	
   finds	
   a	
  

common	
  link	
  among	
  the	
  painters:	
  their	
  canvases	
  mark	
  a	
  shift	
  in	
  the	
  beholder-­‐canvas	
  

relationship.	
   Rather	
   than	
   create	
   imagery	
   that	
   is,	
   to	
   use	
   Fried’s	
   term,	
   absorptive,	
  

figures	
   in	
   paintings	
   acknowledged	
   the	
   spectator’s	
   gaze.	
   Significantly,	
   Manet	
  

subverted	
  seemingly	
  absorptive	
  subject	
  matter.	
  Manet’s	
  modernism	
  was	
  not	
  solely	
  

due	
  to	
  his	
  choice	
  of	
  subject	
  matter	
  and	
  evident	
  facture	
  but	
  more	
  so	
  to	
  his	
  ability	
  to	
  

construct	
  an	
  image	
  that,	
  although	
  it	
  may	
  include	
  a	
  figure	
  staring	
  directly	
  out	
  at	
  the	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
147	
  TJ	
  Clark,	
  “Painting	
   in	
  the	
  Year	
  2,”	
  Farewell	
  to	
  an	
  Idea	
  (New	
  Haven	
  and	
  London:	
  Yale	
  University	
  
Press,	
  1999)	
  42.	
  

148	
  Clark	
  42.	
  	
  
149	
  Michael	
  Fried,	
  “Manet	
  in	
  His	
  Generation:	
  The	
  Face	
  of	
  Painting	
  in	
  the	
  1860s,”	
  Critical	
  Inquiry	
  19.1	
  
(Autumn	
  1992):	
  22-­‐69.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

82	
  

viewer,	
   could,	
   in	
   Fried’s	
   words,	
   read	
   as	
   “a	
   single	
   instantaneously	
   apprehensible	
  

facing	
  entity…to	
  compel	
  the	
  beholder	
  to	
  take	
  it	
  in	
  as	
  a	
  whole,	
  a	
  single	
  intense	
  facing	
  

object	
  of	
  vision.”150	
  This	
  is	
  an	
  aim	
  the	
  Impressionists	
  made	
  effective.	
  	
  

Stéphane	
  Mallarmé’s	
  “The	
  Impressionists	
  and	
  Édouard	
  Manet”	
  (1874)	
  hailed	
  

Manet	
   as	
   the	
   forerunner	
   of	
   the	
   Impressionists,	
   arguing	
   that	
   the	
   artist	
   based	
   his	
  

paintings	
  upon	
  “a	
  new	
  creation	
  of	
  the	
  mind…the	
  eye	
  should	
  forget	
  all	
  else	
   it	
  has	
  

seen,	
  and	
  learn	
  anew	
  from	
  the	
  lesson	
  before	
  it.”151	
  The	
  eye,	
  Mallarmé	
  continued,	
  

“should	
  abstract	
  itself	
  from	
  memory,	
  seeing	
  only	
  that	
  which	
  it	
  looks	
  upon,	
  and	
  that	
  

for	
  the	
  first	
  time;	
  and	
  the	
  hand	
  should	
  become	
  an	
  impersonal	
  abstraction	
  guided	
  

only	
   by	
   the	
   will.”152	
  For	
   Mallarmé,	
   Manet	
   was	
   a	
   painter	
   whose	
   imagery	
   operated	
  

“outside	
   mere	
   Realism”	
   to	
   strike	
   a	
   visual	
   dichotomy	
   between	
   what	
   the	
   viewer	
   is	
  

looking	
  at,	
  the	
  painting,	
  and	
  real	
  life.153	
  Manet’s	
  contemporary	
  critics,	
  such	
  as	
  Émile	
  

Zola,	
  also	
  considered	
  the	
  notion	
  of	
  constructing	
  a	
  canvas	
  as	
  a	
  manifestation	
  of	
  the	
  

artist’s	
  inner	
  mind.	
  In	
  Zola’s	
  defense	
  of	
  Manet’s	
  work,	
  Mon	
  Salon	
  (1866),	
  he	
  argued	
  

that	
  there	
  is	
  not	
  a	
  fixed,	
  canonical	
  sense	
  of	
  beauty	
  and	
  that	
  the	
  term	
  “realist”	
  held	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
150	
  Fried,	
  “Manet	
  in	
  His	
  Generation”	
  61,	
  60.	
  

151	
  Stéphane	
  Mallarmé,	
  “The	
  Impressionists	
  and	
  Édouard	
  Manet,”	
  The	
  New	
  Painting:	
  Impressionism,	
  
1874-­‐1876,	
  ed.	
  Charles	
  S.	
  Moffett	
  (San	
  Francisco,	
  The	
  Fine	
  Arts	
  Museum,	
  1986)	
  29.	
  

152	
  Mallarmé,	
  “The	
  Impressionists	
  and	
  Édouard	
  Manet”	
  29.	
  

153	
  Mallarmé,	
  “The	
  Impressionists	
  and	
  Édouard	
  Manet”	
  29.	
  	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

83	
  

no	
   significance	
   for	
   him.	
   Rather,	
   a	
   successful	
   work	
   of	
   art	
   depends	
   on	
   the	
   artist’s	
  

subjective	
  perspective,	
  writing:	
  	
  

I	
   want	
   something	
   alive,	
   I	
   want	
   a	
   new	
   creation,	
   previously	
  
unknown,	
  true	
  to	
  the	
  artist’s	
  own	
  eyes	
  and	
  temperament.	
  What	
  I	
  
seek	
  above	
  all	
  in	
  the	
  painting	
  is	
  the	
  man	
  and	
  not	
  the	
  painting.	
  	
  
	
  
There	
  are,	
  in	
  my	
  opinion,	
  two	
  elements	
  in	
  a	
  work:	
  the	
  element	
  of	
  
reality,	
   which	
   is	
   nature,	
   and	
   the	
   personal	
   element,	
   which	
   is	
  
man.154	
  	
  
	
  

He	
   emphasized	
   that	
   Manet	
   painted	
   in	
   a	
   higher	
   tone	
   than	
   those	
   found	
   in	
   nature,	
  

evidence	
  of	
  the	
  painter’s	
  artistic	
  temperament.155	
  	
  

Zola’s	
   use	
   of	
   the	
   word	
   temperament	
   did	
   not	
   have	
   to	
   do	
   with	
   the	
   artist’s	
  

emotional	
  life,	
  but	
  the	
  painter’s	
  artistic	
  proclivities.	
  Ultimately,	
  Zola	
  argued	
  that	
  an	
  

artist	
   needed	
   to	
   reinvent	
   Nature	
   in	
   his	
   own	
   temperament,	
   an	
   important	
   idea	
  

regarding	
  the	
  notion	
  of	
  subjectivity	
  in	
  the	
  Impressionist	
  aesthetic.	
  For	
  Mallarmé	
  and	
  

Zola,	
  the	
  role	
  of	
  the	
  artist	
  is	
  two-­‐fold:	
  first,	
  to	
  see	
  Nature	
  not	
  as	
  it	
  is,	
  but	
  as	
  an	
  artist	
  

could	
  use	
  it	
  to	
  inventively	
  craft	
  an	
  image	
  in	
  accordance	
  to	
  the	
  imagination,	
  not	
  to	
  

reality;	
  and	
  second,	
  to	
  provide	
  the	
  spectator	
  an	
  opportunity	
  to	
  observe	
  not	
  a	
  lived	
  

reality	
   through	
   the	
   eyes	
   of	
   an	
   artist,	
   but	
   rather	
   a	
   reality	
   that	
   only	
   existed	
   in	
   the	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
154	
  Émile	
  Zola,	
  “Mon	
  Salon,”	
  Art	
  in	
  Theory:	
  1815-­‐1900:	
  An	
  Anthology	
  of	
  Changing	
  Ideas,	
  eds.	
  Charles	
  
Harrison,	
   Paul	
   Wood	
   and	
   Jason	
   Gaiger	
   (Massachusetts,	
   Oxford	
   and	
   Victoria,	
   Australia:	
   Blackwell	
  
Publishing,	
  1998)	
  552.	
  	
  

155	
  Émile	
  Zola,	
  “A	
  New	
  Manner	
  in	
  Painting:	
  Édouard	
  Manet,”	
  Art	
  in	
  Theory:	
  1815-­‐1900:	
  An	
  Anthology	
  
of	
  Changing	
  Ideas,	
  eds.	
  Charles	
  Harrison,	
  Paul	
  Wood	
  and	
  Jason	
  Gaiger	
  (Massachusetts,	
  Oxford	
  and	
  
Victoria,	
  Australia:	
  Blackwell	
  Publishing,	
  1998)	
  559.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

84	
  

language	
  of	
  expression,	
  the	
  medium	
  of	
  explication,	
  and	
  a	
  form	
  perceptible	
  senses.156	
  	
  

The	
  modernist	
  notion	
  of	
  reality	
  explored	
  through	
  Zola	
  and	
  Mallarmé	
  emphasized	
  the	
  

divergence	
   from	
   depicting	
   Nature	
   toward	
   an	
   ability	
   to	
   participate	
   in	
   a	
   canvas	
  

investigating	
  and	
  revealing	
  the	
  experimentation	
  of	
  a	
  painting’s	
  construction	
  and	
  its	
  

process,	
   one	
   that	
   grew	
   from	
   the	
   artist’s	
   temperament,	
   his	
   unique	
   lens.	
   Manet’s	
  

imagery	
   recognizes	
   the	
   visual	
   dichotomy	
   between	
   what	
   is	
   seen	
   and	
   how	
   it	
   is	
  

depicted.	
  Some	
  of	
  the	
  Impressionists	
  and	
  Neo-­‐Impressionists	
  addressed	
  the	
  visual	
  

fissure	
   Manet	
   ironically	
   articulated	
   to	
   acknowledge	
   that	
   the	
   aim	
   of	
   their	
   imagery	
  

was	
   to	
   intentionally	
   generate	
   a	
   discord	
   between	
   describing	
   the	
   subject	
   and	
  

constructing	
  an	
  image.	
  	
  

In	
  1874	
  when	
  the	
  not-­‐yet-­‐named	
  Impressionists	
  sought	
  a	
  venue	
  outside	
  of	
  

the	
  Salon	
  system,	
  Pissarro	
  wrote	
  the	
  initial	
  co-­‐op	
  post—a	
  Co-­‐operative	
  Joint	
  Stock	
  

Company	
   of	
   Artists	
   in	
   Painting,	
   Sculpture,	
   etc.,	
   of	
   Paris—calling	
   for	
   interested	
  

participants	
  to	
  apply	
  to	
  the	
  exhibition-­‐oriented	
  group.157	
  Pissarro	
  went	
  on	
  to	
  show	
  in	
  

all	
   of	
   the	
   eight	
   exhibitions,	
   changing	
   his	
   technique	
   for	
   the	
   1886	
   exhibition	
   while	
  

engaging	
  with	
  Seurat’s	
  pointillism.	
  In	
  1886,	
  Fénéon	
  relied	
  on	
  Pissarro	
  and	
  used	
  the	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
156 	
  Jean	
   Moréas,	
   “A	
   Literary	
   Manifesto—Symbolism	
   (1886),”	
   Symbolist	
   Art	
   Theories:	
   A	
   Critical	
  
Anthology,	
   trans	
   and	
   ed,	
   Henri	
   Dorra	
   (Berkeley,	
   Los	
   Angeles	
   and	
   London:	
   University	
   of	
   California	
  
Press,	
   1994)	
   151.	
   When	
   noting	
   that	
   artists	
   generate	
   a	
   form	
   perceptible	
   to	
   the	
   senses,	
   I	
   am	
  
paraphrasing	
  the	
  Symbolist	
  poet	
  Jean	
  Moréas.	
  	
  

157	
  Camille	
   Pissarro,	
   “A	
   Co-­‐operative	
   Joint	
   Stock	
   Company	
   of	
   Artists	
   in	
   Painting,	
   Sculpture,	
   ect.,	
   of	
  
Paris,”	
  Art	
  in	
  Theory:	
  1815-­‐1900:	
  An	
  Anthology	
  of	
  Changing	
  Ideas,	
  eds.	
  Charles	
  Harrison,	
  Paul	
  Wood	
  
and	
  Jason	
  Gaiger	
  (Massachusetts,	
  Oxford	
  and	
  Victoria,	
  Australia:	
  Blackwell	
  Publishing,	
  1998)	
  569-­‐571.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

85	
  

painter’s	
  break	
  in	
  technique	
  to	
  characterize	
  a	
  new	
  group,	
  the	
  Neo-­‐Impressionists,	
  

which	
  was	
  built	
  on	
  the	
  Impressionist’s	
  analytic	
  approach.	
  In	
  his	
  Neo-­‐Impressionist	
  

canvases,	
  Pissarro	
  blurred	
  the	
  boundary	
  between	
  what	
  we	
  see	
  and	
  what	
  we	
  know	
  

we	
  can	
  see.	
  For	
  instance,	
  in	
  Camille	
  Pissarro’s	
  Apple-­‐Picking	
  (1886),	
  exhibited	
  in	
  the	
  

1886	
  Impressionist	
  exhibition,	
  the	
  viewer	
   is	
  not	
   looking	
  at	
  what	
  can	
  be	
  rationally	
  

described	
  as	
  apple	
  trees	
  in	
  an	
  expansive	
  field	
  [figure	
  14].	
  How	
  can	
  the	
  foreground	
  

figure	
  merge	
  with	
  a	
  tree	
  that	
  appears	
  to	
  be	
  growing,	
  not	
  from	
  the	
  ground	
  the	
  figures	
  

occupy,	
  but	
  from	
  a	
  space	
  before	
  the	
  canvas,	
  the	
  space	
  in	
  which	
  the	
  viewer	
  stands?	
  A	
  

description	
  of	
  Apple	
  Pickers	
  would	
  diverge	
  from	
  an	
  explanation	
  of	
  what	
  one	
  would	
  

perceive	
   before	
   a	
   field.	
   Pissarro	
   conceived	
   the	
   painting’s	
   composition	
   through	
  

formal	
  devises,	
  not	
  by	
  depending	
  on	
  a	
  study	
  of	
  the	
  figures’	
  relationship	
  to	
  the	
  field.	
  

In	
  Apple	
  Pickers	
  Pissarro	
  subverted	
  the	
  canvas’s	
  visual	
  interplay	
  between	
  an	
  actual	
  

field	
  and	
  a	
  painting	
  of	
  a	
  field	
  to	
  assert	
  the	
  picture	
  plane	
  as	
  a	
  single	
  visual	
  object.	
  

Apple	
  Pickers	
  is	
  a	
  field	
  literally	
  and	
  metaphorically.	
  	
  

In	
  1896	
  and	
  1897,	
  Louis	
  Le	
  Bail	
  worked	
  with	
  Pissarro	
  and	
  in	
  his	
  notes	
  wrote	
  

down	
  some	
  of	
  Pissarro’s	
  advice	
  about	
  how	
  to	
  abstract	
  from	
  nature:	
  	
  

Look	
   for	
   the	
   kind	
   of	
   nature	
   that	
   suits	
   your	
   temperament.	
   The	
  
motif	
   should	
   be	
   observed	
   more	
   for	
   shape	
   and	
   color	
   than	
   for	
  
drawing.	
   There	
   is	
   no	
   need	
   to	
   tighten	
   the	
   form	
   which	
   can	
   be	
  
obtained	
   without	
   that.	
   Precise	
   drawing	
   is	
   dry	
   and	
   hampers	
   the	
  
impression	
  of	
  the	
  whole;	
  it	
  destroys	
  all	
  sensations.	
  Do	
  not	
  define	
  
too	
  closely	
  the	
  outlines	
  of	
  things;	
  it	
  is	
  the	
  brush	
  stroke	
  of	
  the	
  right	
  
value	
  and	
  color	
  which	
  should	
  produce	
  the	
  drawing.	
  In	
  a	
  mass,	
  the	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

86	
  

greatest	
  difficulty	
  is	
  not	
  to	
  give	
  the	
  contour	
  in	
  detail,	
  but	
  to	
  paint	
  
what	
  is	
  within.	
  Paint	
  the	
  essential	
  character	
  of	
  things,	
  try	
  to	
  convey	
  
it	
   by	
   whatever	
   means	
   whatsoever,	
   without	
   bothering	
   about	
  
technique….The	
  eye	
  should	
  not	
  be	
  fixed	
  on	
  one	
  point,	
  but	
  should	
  
take	
  in	
  everything	
  while	
  observing	
  the	
  reflections	
  which	
  the	
  colors	
  
produce	
  on	
  their	
  surroundings….Don’t	
  paint	
  according	
  to	
  rules	
  and	
  
principles,	
  but	
  paint	
  what	
  you	
  observe	
  and	
  feel.…One	
  must	
  have	
  
only	
  one	
  master—nature;	
  she	
  is	
  the	
  one	
  always	
  to	
  be	
  consulted.158	
  
	
  

Written	
   a	
   decade	
   after	
   Neo-­‐Impressionism	
   developed,	
   Le	
   Bail’s	
   words	
   summarize	
  

Pissarro’s	
  perspective,	
  include	
  the	
  Neo-­‐Impressionist’s	
  notion	
  of	
  the	
  picture	
  plane,	
  

and	
   attest	
   to	
   the	
   artist’s	
   ability	
   to	
   rely	
   on	
   subjective	
   temperament.	
   For	
   Pissarro,	
  

although	
  the	
   image	
  is	
  rooted	
  in	
  nature,	
   it	
   is	
  essential	
  that	
  the	
  artist	
  use	
  what	
  he	
  

observed	
  to	
  subordinate	
  the	
  subject’s	
  mimetic	
  description	
  and	
  to	
  explore	
  the	
  canvas	
  

as	
  an	
  optical	
  vehicle	
  of	
  form	
  separate	
  from	
  the	
  material	
  world.	
  The	
  goal	
  was	
  not	
  to	
  

depict	
  a	
  focused	
  subject	
  situated	
  against	
  a	
  background,	
  but	
  to	
  consider	
  the	
  subject	
  

as	
  the	
  painting’s	
  form.	
  	
  

Van	
  Gogh	
  and	
  the	
  emerging	
  artists	
  marked	
  an	
  important	
  paradigmatic	
  shift	
  

and	
  grew	
  from	
  Impressionism	
  and	
  by	
  extension	
  David	
  and	
  Manet.	
  In	
  1886,	
  Paris	
  had	
  

a	
  community	
  of	
  artists	
  who	
  were	
  grappling	
  with	
  the	
  distinction	
  between	
  depicting	
  

what	
  could	
  be	
  seen	
  and	
  what	
  could	
  be	
  crafted	
  through	
  medium	
  and	
  form.	
  Due	
  to	
  

avant-­‐garde	
   connections,	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   emerged	
   from	
   his	
   two-­‐year	
   stay	
   in	
   Paris	
   as	
   a	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
158	
  Louis	
  Le	
  Bail,	
  “Pissarro’s	
  Advise	
  to	
  a	
  Young	
  Artist,”	
  Impressionism	
  and	
  Post-­‐Impressionism,	
  1874-­‐
1904,	
  ed.	
  Linda	
  Nochlin	
  (Englewood	
  Cliffs,	
  New	
  Jersey:	
  Prentice-­‐Hall,	
  Inc.,	
  1966)	
  59-­‐60.	
  See	
  also:	
  John	
  
Rewald,	
  The	
  History	
  of	
  Impressionism	
  (New	
  York:	
  The	
  Museum	
  of	
  Modern	
  Art,	
  1973)	
  458.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

87	
  

modernist	
  painter	
  who	
  had	
  studied	
  the	
  visual	
  effects	
  of	
  the	
  Impressionist	
  canvas	
  and	
  

shaped	
  his	
  imagery	
  to	
  interact	
  with	
  nature	
  in	
  a	
  way	
  that	
  diverged	
  from	
  his	
  previous	
  

work.	
   Bernard,	
   Signac,	
   and	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   developed	
   canvases	
   in	
   1886	
   and	
   1887	
   that	
  

moved	
   markedly	
   from	
   the	
   depictions	
   of	
   nature	
   and	
   landscape	
   than	
   their	
  

Impressionist	
   forerunners,	
   ideas	
   that	
   Pissarro	
   and	
   Fénéon	
   articulated	
   and	
  

supported.	
  	
  

	
  

Félix	
  Fénéon	
  

Fénéon	
   was	
   a	
   significant	
   writer	
   in	
   the	
   critical	
   lexicon	
   of	
   both	
   the	
   Parisian	
  

literary	
  and	
  visual	
  arts	
  from	
  the	
  1880s	
  through	
  the	
  1890s.159	
  Pissarro	
  and	
  Fénéon	
  

had	
  significant	
  voices	
  in	
  the	
  shift	
  from	
  Impressionism	
  to	
  Neo-­‐Impressionism	
  due	
  in	
  

part	
  to	
  the	
  dialogue	
  surrounding	
  the	
  last	
  Impressionist	
  exhibition,	
  in	
  which	
  Fénéon	
  

theorized	
   about	
   the	
   imagery	
   and	
   heralded	
   a	
   younger	
   generation	
   of	
   artists.	
  160	
  

Pissarro	
  was	
  in	
  regular	
  contact	
  with	
  Vincent	
  and	
  Théo	
  during	
  the	
  former’s	
  stay	
  in	
  

Paris.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  also	
  met	
  Fénéon	
  in	
  Paris	
  when	
  the	
  writer	
  discussed	
  the	
  differing	
  

visual	
   aspects	
   between	
   Impressionism	
   and	
   Neo-­‐Impressionism.	
   Lucien	
   Pissarro,	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
159	
  Halperin,	
  Félix	
  Fénéon	
  5.	
  Fénéon	
  was	
  “so	
  active	
  in	
  the	
  Paris	
  literary	
  and	
  art	
  world	
  of	
  the	
  1880s	
  and	
  
1890s	
  that	
  every	
  major	
  account	
  of	
  the	
  period	
  names	
  him	
  as	
  a	
  pivotal	
  figure.”	
  

160	
  Martha	
  Ward,	
  Pissarro,	
  Neo-­‐Impressionism	
  and	
  the	
  Spaces	
  of	
  the	
  Avant-­‐Garde	
  (Chicago	
  &	
  London:	
  
The	
  University	
  of	
  Chicago	
  Press,	
  1995)	
  50-­‐59,	
  88-­‐97.	
  	
  

	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

88	
  

Camille	
   Pissarro’s	
   son	
   and	
   a	
   pointillist	
   painter	
   who	
   received	
   a	
   signed	
   copy	
   of	
  

Fénéon’s	
   1887	
   essay	
   on	
   Neo-­‐Impressionism,	
   drew	
   a	
   picture	
   of	
   the	
   critic	
   and	
   Van	
  

Gogh	
  talking	
  to	
  one	
  another	
  in	
  Paris	
  [figure	
  15].161	
  In	
  Lucien’s	
  image,	
  Fénéon	
  turns	
  

to	
  speak	
  to	
  Van	
  Gogh,	
  who	
  in	
  turn	
  stares	
  ahead	
  pensively,	
  and	
  with	
  a	
  wrinkled	
  brow	
  

and	
  crossed	
  arms	
  the	
  painter	
  ponders	
  the	
  critic’s	
  words.	
  The	
  critic	
  gazes	
  toward	
  Van	
  

Gogh	
  who	
  looks	
  out	
  of	
  the	
  picture	
  plane,	
  as	
  if	
  perhaps	
  studying	
  the	
  modern	
  world	
  

he	
  aimed	
  to	
  translate	
  on	
  canvas.	
  There	
  are	
  also	
  signs	
  of	
  the	
  relationship	
  between	
  

the	
   Parisian	
   dandy	
   and	
   a	
   maker	
   of	
   paintings,	
   a	
   laborer	
   in	
   a	
   sense.	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
  

shoulders	
   are	
   slumped	
   and	
   he	
   wears	
   a	
   working-­‐class	
   hat	
   and	
   nondescript	
   jacket,	
  

while	
   Fénéon	
   sits	
   regally	
   straight,	
   shoulders	
   back,	
   in	
   top	
   hat,	
   collar,	
   and	
   lapels.	
  

Lucien	
  depicted	
  an	
  exchange	
  between	
  one	
  who	
  toils,	
  brush	
  to	
  canvas,	
  and	
  one	
  who	
  

has	
   the	
   time	
   to	
   dress	
   well	
   and	
   who	
   seeks	
   pleasurable	
   imagery.	
   In	
   Charles	
  

Baudelaire’s	
  words,	
  the	
  dandy	
  “has	
  no	
  other	
  occupation	
  than	
  the	
  perpetual	
  pursuit	
  

of	
   happiness.”162	
  Lucien’s	
   drawing	
   conveys	
   the	
   critic	
   in	
   pursuit	
   and	
   the	
   influence	
  

Fénéon’s	
  ideas	
  may	
  have	
  had	
  on	
  emerging	
  painters	
  like	
  Van	
  Gogh.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  and	
  

Fénéon’s	
  meeting	
  was	
  fortuitous	
  because	
  at	
  this	
  time	
  the	
  critic	
  was	
  in	
  the	
  midst	
  of	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
161	
  Pissarro,	
  Letters,	
  85,	
  footnote	
  1.	
  

162	
  Charles	
  Baudelaire,	
  “The	
  Painter	
  of	
  Modern	
  Life,”	
  The	
  Painter	
  of	
  Modern	
  Life	
  and	
  Other	
  Essays,	
  
trans	
  and	
  ed.	
  Jonathan	
  Mayne	
  (London	
  and	
  New	
  York:	
  Phaidon	
  Press	
  Limited,	
  2001)	
  28-­‐29.	
  

	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

89	
  

defining	
  how	
  Pissarro,	
  Signac,	
  and	
  Seurat	
  differed	
  from	
  the	
  Impressionists	
  when	
  Van	
  

Gogh	
  was	
  planning	
  his	
  exhibitions.	
  	
  

A	
  regular	
  at	
  Mallarmé’s	
  Tuesday	
  Salon	
  since	
  1885,	
  Fénéon	
  was	
  perhaps	
  the	
  

closest	
   critic	
   to	
   the	
   emerging	
   painters	
   and	
   had	
   interactions	
   with	
   avant-­‐garde	
  

painters,	
   such	
   as	
   Monet,	
   Seurat,	
   Gauguin,	
   and	
   Pissarro.163	
  In	
   1886	
   he	
   founded	
   La	
  

Vogue,	
  spearheaded	
  by	
  Gustave	
  Kahn	
  and	
  co-­‐founded	
  with	
  Charles	
  Henry	
  and	
  Jules	
  

Laforgue,	
  and	
  he	
  had	
  a	
  direct	
  role	
  in	
  theorizing	
  the	
  significance	
  of	
  Seurat’s	
  pointillist	
  

technique.164	
  Having	
  worked	
  with	
  many	
  central	
  figures	
  of	
  Impressionist,	
  Symbolist,	
  

and	
   Post-­‐Impressionist	
   theory—Kahn,	
   Laforgue,	
   Pissarro,	
   Signac,	
   Seurat,	
   among	
  

others—he	
  crafted	
  several	
  texts	
  that	
  gave	
  way	
  to	
  an	
  understanding	
  of	
  the	
  picture	
  

plane	
  based	
  on	
  Impressionism	
  and	
  a	
  new-­‐found	
  curiosity	
  of	
  the	
  image-­‐participant	
  

relationship,	
   namely	
   “Les	
   Impressionnistes	
   en	
   1886”	
   (published	
   in	
   La	
   Vogue	
   and	
  

edited	
   by	
   Kahn)	
   and	
   “Le	
   Néo-­‐impressionnisme”	
   (published	
   in	
   L’art	
   moderne	
   de	
  

Bruxelle	
   on	
   May	
   1,	
   1887),	
   in	
   which	
   he	
   defined	
   the	
   Neo-­‐Impressionist	
   studio	
  

technique	
  and	
  conceptual	
  framework.165	
  	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
163	
  Félix	
  Fénéon,	
  “Le	
  Néo-­‐impressionnisme	
  (1887),”	
  Symbolist	
  Art	
  Theories:	
  A	
  Critical	
  Anthology,	
  trans	
  
and	
  ed.	
  Henri	
  Dorra	
  (Berkeley,	
  Los	
  Angeles	
  and	
  London:	
  University	
  of	
  California	
  Press,	
  1994)	
  157.	
  	
  

164	
  Joan	
  Ungersma	
  Halperin,	
  “Catching	
  up	
  with	
  Seurat	
  and	
  the	
  Impressionists	
  in	
  1886,”	
  Félix	
  Fénéon:	
  
Aesthete	
  &	
  Anarchist	
  in	
  Fin-­‐de-­‐Siècle	
  Paris	
  (New	
  Haven	
  and	
  London:	
  Yale	
  University	
  Press,	
  1988)	
  73-­‐
91.	
  	
  

165	
  Félix	
  Fénéon,	
  “Les	
  Impressionnistes	
  en	
  1886”	
  and	
  “Le	
  Néo-­‐impressionnisme,”	
  Félix	
  Fénéon:	
  Œuvres	
  
plus	
  que	
  complètes,	
  ed.	
  Joan	
  Ungersma	
  Halperin	
  (Genève,	
  Switzerland:	
  Librairies	
  Droz,	
  S.A,	
  1970)	
  27-­‐
38,	
  53-­‐58,	
  82-­‐85.	
  The	
  first	
  three	
  sections	
  of	
  Fénéon’s	
  “Le	
  Néo-­‐impressionnisme”	
  is	
  translated	
  in	
  in	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

90	
  

The	
  above-­‐mentioned	
  texts,	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  Pissarro	
  and	
  Fénéon’s	
  exchanges	
  over	
  

the	
  years,	
  represent	
  the	
  points	
  of	
  view	
  they	
  passed	
  down	
  to	
  painters	
  coming	
  into	
  

their	
  own	
  in	
  1886	
  and	
  1887,	
  Van	
  Gogh,	
  Bernard,	
  and	
  Signac	
  included.	
  Pissarro,	
  who	
  

became	
   acquainted	
   with	
   Fénéon	
   due	
   to	
   his	
   involvement	
   in	
   the	
   last	
   Impressionist	
  

exhibit,	
   encouraged	
   Fénéon’s	
   ideas,	
   reviewed	
   his	
   essay	
   “Les	
   Impressionnistes	
   en	
  

1886,”	
   and	
   sought	
   him	
   out	
   to	
   write	
   for	
   their	
   work.166	
  Fénéon	
   asked	
   Pissarro	
   to	
  

review	
   a	
   draft	
   of	
   “Les	
   Impressionnistes	
   en	
   1886,”	
   specifically	
   the	
   section	
   on	
  

technique,	
   but	
   Pissarro	
   was	
   worried	
   that	
   painters	
   would	
   “take	
   advantage”	
   of	
   the	
  

directives	
   and	
   make	
   similar	
   paintings. 167 	
  Fénéon	
   first	
   used	
   the	
   term	
   “néo-­‐

impressionnisme”	
   in	
   the	
   1886	
   essay	
   in	
   which	
   he	
   named	
   only	
   Pissarro	
   as	
   a	
  

practitioner.168	
  The	
  critic	
  underscored	
  that	
  Pissarro	
  brought	
  a	
  systematic	
  rigor	
  to	
  the	
  

new-­‐found	
   Neo-­‐Impressionist	
   approach	
   and	
   it	
   is	
   the	
   earliest	
   instance	
   where	
   the	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
Symbolist	
  Art	
  Theories:	
  A	
  Critical	
  Anthology,	
  trans.	
  Henri	
  Dorra	
  (Berkeley,	
  Los	
  Angeles	
  and	
  London:	
  
University	
   of	
   California	
   Press,	
   1994)	
   157-­‐163.	
   The	
   fourth	
   and	
   last	
   section	
   of	
   “Le	
   Néo-­‐
impressionnisme”	
  is	
  not	
  translated,	
  but	
  it	
   includes	
  a	
  short	
  list	
  of	
  Néo-­‐Impressionist	
  artists:	
  Charles	
  
Angrand,	
  Maximilien	
  Luce,	
  Lucien	
  Pissarro,	
  Albert	
  Dubois-­‐Pillet,	
  Georges	
  Seurat,	
  and	
  Paul	
  Signac.	
  See	
  
also:	
   Camille	
   Pissarro,	
   Letter	
   to	
   his	
   Son	
   Lucien,	
   eds.	
   Lucien	
   Pissarro	
   and	
   John	
   Rewald	
   (New	
   York:	
  
Pantheon	
  Books,	
  Inc.,	
  1943)	
  81,	
  footnote	
  1.	
  

166	
  Pissarro,	
  Letter,	
  81,	
  footnote	
  1,	
  95,	
  111,	
  134-­‐135.	
  In	
  a	
  letter	
  to	
  Lucien,	
  dated	
  September	
  15,	
  1886,	
  
Pissarro	
  told	
  his	
  son	
  that	
  Fénéon	
  sent	
  him	
  a	
  draft	
  of	
  “Les	
  Impressionnistes	
  en	
  1886.”	
  

167	
  Pissarro,	
  Letters,	
  81.	
  	
  

168 	
  Halperin,	
   Félix	
   Fénéon:	
   Aesthete	
   &	
   Anarchist	
   in	
   Fin-­‐de-­‐Siècle	
   Paris	
   92.	
   Fénéon,	
   “Les	
  
Impressionnistes	
   en	
   1886”	
   in	
   Halperin	
   37.	
   Fénéon	
   concluded	
   his	
   1886	
   essay	
   with	
   brief	
   comments	
  
about	
   Pissarro	
   and	
   Lucien.	
   He	
   found	
   Lucien’s	
   watercolors	
   “delightful	
   and	
   fresh”:	
   “Ses	
   aquarelles	
  
d’illustration	
  sont	
  savoureuses	
  et	
  fraîches,	
  et	
   il	
  a	
  gravé	
  sur	
  bois	
  une	
  série	
  d’êtres	
  ruraux,	
  bêtes	
  et	
  
gens,	
  avec	
  la	
  simplicité	
  exemplaire	
  des	
  primitifs	
  xylographes.”	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

91	
  

critic	
   used	
   the	
   term	
   “néo-­‐impressonnisme.”169	
  Fittingly,	
   the	
   term	
   first	
   appears	
   in	
  

reference	
  to	
  Pissarro,	
  a	
  painter	
  who	
  had	
  authority	
  in	
  the	
  Impressionist	
  millieu	
  and	
  

switched	
   to	
   using	
   the	
   pointillist	
   paint	
   application	
   in	
   1886.	
   In	
   the	
   revised	
   1887	
  

version,	
   “Le	
   Néo-­‐impressionnisme,”	
   Fénéon	
   named	
   Pissarro,	
   Seurat,	
   and	
   Signac	
  

(among	
  others)	
  Neo-­‐Impressionists.170	
  

A	
  critic	
  who	
  bridged	
  the	
  gap	
  between	
  Impressionism	
  and	
  Symbolism,	
  Fénéon	
  

sought	
  painters	
  who	
  could	
  craft	
  not	
  an	
  image	
  that	
  included	
  symbols,	
  but	
  rather	
  an	
  

image	
  that	
  was	
   itself	
  a	
  symbol.	
  This	
  distinction	
  characterizes	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  painting	
  

practice	
   in	
   Paris	
   as	
   he	
   transitioned	
   from	
   didactic	
   narrative	
   to	
   visual	
   devices	
   that	
  

suggested	
   the	
   symbol	
   of	
   an	
   experience.	
   In	
   images	
   such	
   as	
   Factory	
   at	
   Clichy	
  

(addressed	
  below),	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  use	
  of	
  elongated	
  strokes,	
  hyper	
  foreshortening,	
  and	
  

compressed	
   perspectival	
   angle	
   formally	
   indicate	
   a	
   lack	
   of	
   depth	
   and	
   symbolically	
  

convey	
   a	
   laborer’s	
   work	
   environment.	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   imagery	
   need	
   not	
   explicitly	
  

include	
   the	
   pointillist	
   approach	
   to	
   suit	
   Fénéon’s	
   aims	
   as	
   the	
   critic	
   articulated	
   the	
  

means	
  by	
  which	
  to	
  craft	
  a	
  symbolic	
  image.	
  Fénéon	
  addressed	
  technique	
  to	
  assert	
  

that	
  the	
  Neo-­‐Impressionists’	
  respective	
  canvases	
  were	
  individually	
  unique,	
  despite	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
169	
  Fénéon,	
  “Les	
  Impressionnistes	
  en	
  1886”	
  in	
  Halperin	
  37.	
  

170	
  Félix	
  Fénéon,	
  “Les	
  Impressionnistes	
  en	
  1886,”	
  in	
  Félix	
  Fénéon	
  Oeuvres	
  plus	
  que	
  complètes,	
  tome	
  I,	
  
ed.	
  Joan	
  U.	
  Halperin	
  (Genève:	
  Librarie	
  Droz,	
  1970)	
  27-­‐37.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

92	
  

having	
   rallied	
   around	
   a	
   similar	
   painterly	
   approach	
   of	
   constructing	
   local	
   color	
   (the	
  

hue	
  in	
  white	
  light)	
  by	
  using	
  complementary	
  colors.	
  	
  

Although	
   Fénéon	
   focused	
   on	
   the	
   formal	
   aspects	
   of	
   the	
   works	
   and	
   the	
  

pointillist	
   technique,	
   he	
   set	
   Monet,	
   Pissarro,	
   and	
   Degas	
   as	
   leaders	
   of	
   a	
   painting	
  

revolution,	
  noting	
  that	
  they	
  influenced	
  Manet	
  and	
  he	
  them.	
  He	
  also	
  located	
  Seurat,	
  

Signac,	
   Pissarro,	
   and	
   Lucien	
   Pissarro	
   as	
   innovators	
   within	
   the	
   Impressionist’s	
  

revolutionizing	
   tradition.	
   Seurat	
   was	
   the	
   first,	
   according	
   to	
   Fénéon,	
   to	
   create	
  

brighter	
  colors	
  by	
  applying	
  complementary	
  hues	
  with	
  the	
  tip	
  of	
  the	
  brush,	
  allowing	
  

colors	
   to	
   appear	
   brighter	
   and	
   to	
   mix	
   in	
   the	
   viewer’s	
   retina,	
   inviting	
   spectator	
  

participation.171	
  In	
  terms	
  of	
  the	
  viewer-­‐canvas	
  relationship,	
  Martha	
  Ward	
  points	
  out	
  

that	
  Fénéon	
  and	
  Pissarro	
  were	
  attracted	
  to	
  the	
  temporal	
  aspect	
  of	
  pictorial	
  devices,	
  

which	
  were	
  in	
  action.172	
  Through	
  an	
  emphasis	
  on	
  visual	
  effects,	
  a	
  painting	
  could	
  be	
  

in	
  a	
  state	
  of	
  coming	
  into	
  being.	
  In	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  imagery,	
  a	
  sense	
  of	
  motion,	
  a	
  dynamic	
  

tension	
  between	
  painterly	
  elements,	
  and	
  an	
  increase	
  in	
  color	
  that	
  relates	
  to	
  color	
  

rather	
  than	
  to	
  the	
  object	
  at	
  hand,	
  correspond	
  to	
  Fénéon’s	
  notion	
  that	
  a	
  painting	
  can	
  

be	
  experienced	
  sensorially	
  and	
  optically.173	
  Although	
  the	
  critic	
  depended	
  on	
  optical	
  

effects	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  Seurat,	
  he	
  also	
  prioritized	
  the	
  surface	
  and	
  the	
  materiality	
  of	
  the	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
171	
  Fénéon,	
  “Les	
  Impressionnistes	
  en	
  1886”	
  in	
  Halperin	
  35.	
  

172	
  Ward	
  96.	
  “…the	
  action	
  of	
  the	
  pictorial	
  elements	
  as	
  inexhaustible	
  and	
  the	
  image	
  as	
  forever	
  in	
  a	
  
state	
  of	
  coming	
  into	
  being	
  or	
  continuous	
  renewal”	
  (96).	
  

173	
  Ward	
  89.	
  	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

93	
  

painting.174	
  In	
  this	
  way,	
  he	
  argued	
  not	
  for	
  a	
  fixed	
  moment	
  of	
  a	
  transitory	
  effect,	
  but	
  

for	
  an	
  image	
  in	
  which	
  the	
  elements	
  communicated	
  with	
  one	
  another	
  and	
  were	
  not	
  

tied	
   to	
   the	
   depicted	
   object.	
   The	
   viewer	
   engaged	
   with	
   a	
   painting	
   of	
   the	
   artist’s	
  

translation	
   of	
   the	
   natural	
   world	
   mediated	
   through	
   medium,	
   which	
   exposed	
   the	
  

spectator	
  to	
  an	
  experience	
  with	
  the	
  painter’s	
  imagination,	
  rather	
  than	
  the	
  material	
  

realm.	
  	
  

Fénéon	
  and	
  Pissarro’s	
  relationship	
  continued,	
  and	
  in	
  1889,	
  Fénéon	
  prepared	
  

an	
   article	
   for	
   Pissarro,	
   and	
   asked	
   the	
   artist	
   to	
   clarify	
   his	
   ideas	
   on	
   landscape	
   and	
  

technique.	
  In	
  “Exposition	
  Pissarro,”	
  the	
  critic	
  noted:	
  “Pissarro,	
  a	
  searcher	
  of	
  clarity	
  

and	
  light,	
  adopted	
  the	
  division	
  because	
  it	
  seemed	
  to	
  be	
  the	
  best	
  way	
  invented	
  until	
  

now	
  to	
  paint	
  the	
  sun	
  and	
  shade.”175	
  In	
  1892,	
  Fénéon	
  wrote	
  more	
  specifically	
  about	
  

the	
   painter’s	
   use	
   of	
   symbolic	
   ornament,	
   locating	
   the	
   painter	
   in	
   the	
   realm	
   of	
  

Symbolism.	
  The	
  critic	
  wrote:	
  	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
174	
  Ward	
  93-­‐94.	
  	
  
175	
  Pissarro,	
   Letters,	
   134-­‐135,	
   footnote	
   1.	
   The	
   exchange	
   between	
   Pissarro	
   and	
   Lucien	
   is	
   dated	
  
February	
  20,	
  1889	
  and	
  Fénéon’s	
  quoted	
  essay,	
  “Exposition	
  Pissarro,”	
  was	
  dated	
  January	
  1889,	
  so	
  it	
  
does	
  not	
  seem	
  likely	
  that	
  Pissarro	
  is	
  referring	
  to	
  Fénéon’s	
  “Exposition	
  Pissarro,”	
  but	
  the	
  letter	
  bears	
  
mention.	
  “I	
  don’t	
  know	
  what	
  to	
  write	
  Fénéon	
  about	
  the	
  theory	
  of	
  ‘passages.’	
  I	
  will	
  write	
  him	
  what	
  
seems	
  to	
  me	
  to	
  be	
  the	
  truth	
  of	
  the	
  matter,	
  that	
  I	
  am	
  at	
  this	
  moment	
  looking	
  for	
  some	
  substitute	
  for	
  
the	
  dot;	
  so	
  far	
  I	
  have	
  not	
  found	
  what	
  I	
  want,	
  the	
  actual	
  execution	
  does	
  not	
  seem	
  to	
  me	
  to	
  be	
  rapid	
  
enough	
  and	
  does	
  not	
  follow	
  sensation	
  with	
  enough	
  inevitability;	
  but	
  it	
  would	
  be	
  best	
  not	
  to	
  speak	
  of	
  
this.”	
  See	
  also:	
  Félix	
  Fénéon,	
  “Exposition	
  Pissarro,”	
  Félix	
  Fénéon:	
  Œuvres	
  plus	
  que	
  complètes,	
  ed.	
  Joan	
  
Ungersma	
  Halperin	
  (Genève,	
  Switzerland:	
  Librairies	
  Droz,	
  S.A,	
  1970)	
  137.	
  My	
  translation.	
  The	
  essay	
  
was	
  initially	
  published	
  anonymously;	
  John	
  Rewald	
  identified	
  it	
  in	
  Post-­‐Impressionism:	
  From	
  van	
  Gogh	
  
to	
  Gauguin	
  (1956).	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

94	
  

Having	
   the	
   rich	
   memory	
   of	
   all	
   the	
   phenomena	
   of	
   reality	
   he	
  
fervently	
  observed	
  for	
  hours,	
  seasons	
  and	
  landscapes,	
  he	
  stopped	
  
painting	
   outdoors,	
   treating	
   Nature	
   like	
   a	
   index	
   of	
   decorative	
  
motifs,	
  freely	
  releasing	
  and	
  calming	
  the	
  antagonism	
  of	
  these	
  two	
  
characteristics:	
   energy	
   and	
   sweetness—and	
   reaching	
   highly	
  
unconscious	
  symbolizations.176	
  
	
  

Fénéon	
  continued,	
  citing	
  a	
  fictional	
  conversation	
  between	
  a	
  gallery	
  owner	
  and	
  the	
  

artist:	
   “And	
   if	
   Durand-­‐Ruel	
   was	
   surprised	
   by	
   this	
   unexpected…cow,	
   the	
   good	
   old	
  

Pissarro	
  would	
  say:	
  “But	
  it's	
  not	
  a	
  cow,	
  it	
  is	
  an	
  ornament."177	
  The	
  passages	
  address	
  

the	
  discord	
  between	
  the	
  natural	
  world,	
  a	
  realm	
  used	
  like	
  a	
  dictionary	
  (to	
  paraphrase	
  

Baudelaire),	
   and	
   the	
   image,	
   the	
   ornament.178	
  Fénéon	
   positioned	
   Pissarro	
   as	
   a	
  

painter	
  who	
  sought	
  to	
  deduce	
  the	
  material	
  world	
  into	
  symbols,	
  not	
  to	
  study	
  it.	
  For	
  

Fénéon,	
   the	
   image	
   as	
   a	
   whole	
   became	
   the	
   symbol,	
   one	
   that	
   relayed	
   an	
   allusive	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
176	
  Félix	
   Fénéon,	
   “Exposition	
   Camille	
   Pissarro,”	
   Félix	
   Fénéon:	
   Œuvres	
   plus	
   que	
   complètes,	
   ed.	
   Joan	
  
Ungersma	
   Halperin	
   (Genève,	
   Switzerland:	
   Librairies	
   Droz,	
   S.A,	
   1970)	
   209.	
   The	
   essay	
   was	
   initially	
  
published	
   in	
   L’Art	
   moderne	
   de	
   Bruxelles,	
   February	
   14,	
   1892.	
   “La	
   mémoire	
   riche	
   de	
   tous	
   les	
  
phénomènes	
  d’une	
  Réalité	
  si	
  fervemment	
  épiée	
  heures,	
  saisons	
  et	
  panoramas,	
  il	
  cesse	
  de	
  peindre	
  en	
  
plein	
   air,	
   traite	
   la	
   Nature	
   en	
   répertoire	
   de	
   motifs	
   décoratifs,	
   la	
   libère	
   de	
   l’accidental,	
   pacifie	
  
l’antagonisme	
  de	
  ces	
  deux	
  caractères:	
  énergies	
  et	
  douceur—et	
  atteint	
  à	
  de	
  hautes	
  symbolisations	
  
inconscientes.”	
  	
  

177	
  Félix	
  Fénéon,	
  “Exposition	
  Camille	
  Pissarro”	
  in	
  Halperin	
  209.	
  “Et	
  si	
  Durand-­‐Ruel	
  s’étonne	
  de	
  cette	
  
vache	
  imprévue	
  des	
  photographes,	
  le	
  bon	
  vieillard	
  Pissarro	
  dira:	
  “Mais	
  ce	
  n’est	
  pas	
  une	
  vache,	
  c’est	
  
un	
  ornement.”	
  

178	
  Charles	
  Baudelaire,	
  “The	
  Salon	
  of	
  1859,”	
  Art	
  in	
  Paris:	
  Salons	
  and	
  Other	
  Exhibitions,	
  trans	
  and	
  ed.	
  
Jonathan	
  Mayne	
  (Oxford	
  Press	
  Limited,	
  1965)	
  159-­‐162.	
  Baudelaire	
  relegated	
  Nature	
  to	
  a	
  dictionary	
  
and	
  called	
  for	
  artists	
  to	
  depend	
  on	
  their	
  imaginations.	
  “Painters	
  who	
  are	
  obedient	
  to	
  the	
  imagination	
  
seek	
   in	
   their	
   dictionary	
   the	
   elements	
   which	
   suit	
   with	
   their	
   conception….But	
   those	
   who	
   have	
   no	
  
imagination	
  just	
  copy	
  the	
  dictionary.	
  The	
  result	
  is	
  a	
  great	
  vice,	
  the	
  vice	
  of	
  banality….”	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

95	
  

idea.179	
  In	
  a	
  1908	
  catalog	
  preface	
  for	
  Van	
  Gogh,	
  the	
  critic	
  classified	
  the	
  artist’s	
  work	
  

into	
   categories,	
   writing	
   that	
   one	
   can	
   understand	
   the	
   development	
   of	
   the	
   painter	
  

who	
  was	
  “a	
  great	
  innovator	
  of	
  forms	
  and	
  harmonies,”	
  stressing	
  the	
  artist’s	
  ability	
  to	
  

depend	
  on	
  his	
  medium	
  in	
  relation	
  to	
  the	
  canvas’s	
  surface.180	
  	
  

	
  

The	
  Artists	
  of	
  the	
  Petit	
  Boulevard	
  

Within	
   the	
   critical	
   milieu	
   Fénéon	
   and	
   Pissarro	
   helped	
   to	
   shape,	
   Van	
   Gogh	
  

began	
  to	
  connect	
  with	
  artists	
  while	
  he	
  was	
  living	
  in	
  the	
  capital.	
  Some	
  of	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  

exhibited	
  canvases	
  explore	
  this	
  new	
  technique	
  of	
  separating	
  hue	
  and	
  applying	
  paint	
  

by	
  stippling,	
  a	
  way	
  of	
  laying	
  the	
  paint	
  on	
  the	
  canvas	
  in	
  a	
  small	
  dot	
  without	
  blending	
  

it,	
  and	
  they	
  also	
  read	
  as	
  one	
  field	
  of	
  vision.	
  The	
  exhibition	
  of	
  his	
  flower	
  still	
  lifes	
  at	
  

the	
  Café	
  Tambourin,	
  the	
  factory	
  landscapes	
  and	
  portrait	
  at	
  Grand	
  Bouillon,	
  and	
  at	
  

the	
   park	
   landscape	
   at	
   the	
   Théâtre	
   Libra	
   d’Antoine,	
   show	
   the	
   aesthetic	
   Van	
   Gogh	
  

developed	
  in	
  1886	
  and	
  1887	
  within	
  the	
  influence	
  of	
  an	
  emerging	
  artistic	
  community.	
  

He	
  included	
  artists	
  in	
  his	
  Grand	
  Bouillon	
  Exhibition	
  who	
  were,	
  like	
  him,	
  influenced	
  by	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
179	
  Ungersma	
  Halperin,	
  Félix	
  Fénéon,	
  63-­‐	
  64.	
  Fénéon	
  wrote	
  about	
  art	
  for	
  several	
  decades	
  thereafter,	
  
and	
  he	
  supported	
  the	
  painters	
  he	
  admired	
  long	
  term.	
  He	
  often	
  wrote	
  catalog	
  entries	
  and	
  organized	
  
their	
  respective	
  works	
  for	
  their	
  estate	
  or	
  for	
  an	
  exhibition	
  after	
  their	
  deaths.	
  

180	
  Félix	
  Fénéon,	
  “Preface,”	
  l’Exposition	
  Van	
  Gogh,	
  Félix	
  Fénéon:	
  Œuvres	
  plus	
  que	
  complètes,	
  ed.	
  Joan	
  
Ungersma	
  Halperin	
  (Genève,	
  Switzerland:	
  Librairies	
  Droz,	
  S.A,	
  1970)	
  247.	
  The	
  catalog	
  was	
  organized	
  
for	
  an	
  exhibition	
  at	
  the	
  Bernheim-­‐Jeune	
  Gallery	
   in	
  1908.	
  The	
  in-­‐text	
  translation	
  is	
  mine.	
  “Les	
  cent	
  
tableaux	
  que	
  voici—qui	
  constitute	
  le	
  quart	
  ou	
  le	
  cinquième	
  de	
  son	
  œuvre	
  peint—s’échelonnent	
  avec	
  
régularité	
  sur	
  cette	
  brève	
  carrière,	
  et	
  l’on	
  y	
  peut	
  suivre	
  sans	
  à-­‐coups	
  le	
  développement	
  d’un	
  grand	
  
inventeur	
  de	
  forms	
  et	
  d’harmonies.	
  Ils	
  sont	
  classés	
  ici	
  en	
  cinq	
  périodes:	
  Nuenen,	
  Paris,	
  Arles,	
  Saint-­‐
Remy,	
  Auvers.”	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

96	
  

Impressionism	
  and	
  engaging	
  with	
  the	
  new	
  pointillist	
  technique	
  and	
  exposed	
  to	
  new	
  

attitudes	
  toward	
  painting.	
   	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  called	
  the	
  emerging	
  artist	
  acquaintances	
  he	
  

made	
   in	
   Paris	
   the	
   painters	
   of	
   the	
   petit	
   boulevard,	
   referring	
   to	
   Gauguin,	
   Seurat,	
  

Signac,	
   Anquetin,	
   Guillaumin,	
   Bernard,	
   Toulouse-­‐Lautrec,	
   and	
   Lucien	
   Pissarro.	
   The	
  

petit	
  boulevard	
  painters	
  were	
  a	
  group	
  of	
  artists	
  who	
  shaped	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  developing	
  

ideas	
   and	
   were	
   in	
   turn	
   shaped	
   by	
   his.181	
  Van	
   Gogh	
   called	
   the	
   Impressionists	
   the	
  

painters	
  of	
  the	
  grand	
  boulevard—referring	
  to	
  Claude	
  Monet,	
  Edgar	
  Degas,	
  Renoir,	
  

and	
  Alfred	
  Sisley—and	
  asserted	
  his	
  place	
  (and	
  that	
  of	
  the	
  other	
  artists)	
  as	
  an	
  heir	
  of	
  

the	
  Impressionist	
  tradition.182	
  	
  

Van	
   Gogh	
   and	
   the	
   painters	
   of	
   the	
   petit	
   boulevard	
   were	
   geographically	
  

separate	
   from	
   the	
   painters	
   of	
   the	
   grand	
   boulevard.183	
  The	
   former	
   socialized	
   and	
  

exhibited	
  in	
  Montmartre	
  and	
  Clichy	
  among	
  varying	
  social	
  classes,	
  in	
  contrast	
  to	
  the	
  

Impressionists	
   who	
   showed	
   in	
   the	
   Georges	
   Petit	
   and	
   Paul	
   Durand-­‐Ruel	
   galleries,	
  

which	
  by	
  the	
  late	
  1880s	
  were	
  at	
  the	
  heart	
  of	
  the	
  Parisian	
  art	
  market.	
  The	
  areas	
  north	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
181	
  Homburg	
  21-­‐56.	
  See	
  also:	
  letter	
  584,	
  written	
  to	
  Théo	
  from	
  Arles	
  in	
  March	
  1888.	
  

182	
  See	
  letter	
  584,	
  note	
  6.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  asked	
  Théo	
  if	
  the	
  Impressionists	
  could	
  create	
  an	
  association,	
  sell	
  
their	
   paintings,	
   and	
   share	
   the	
   proceeds.	
   “Then	
   the	
   great	
   Impressionists	
   of	
   the	
   Grand	
   Boulevard,	
  
giving	
   their	
   paintings	
   that	
   become	
   common	
   property,	
   would	
   retain	
   their	
   prestige,	
   and	
   the	
   others	
  
won’t	
  be	
  able	
  to	
  criticize	
  them	
  for	
  keeping	
  to	
  themselves	
  the	
  benefits	
  of	
  a	
  reputation	
  gained	
  without	
  
any	
  doubt	
  by	
  their	
  efforts	
  and	
  by	
  their	
  individual	
  genius	
  in	
  the	
  first	
  place—but—nevertheless,	
  in	
  the	
  
second	
  place,	
  a	
  reputation	
  that	
  is	
  growing	
  and	
  is	
  now	
  also	
  being	
  consolidated	
  and	
  supported	
  by	
  a	
  
whole	
  battalion	
  of	
  artists	
  who	
  have	
  so	
  far	
  been	
  working	
  while	
  constantly	
  broke.”	
  

183	
  Thomson	
  65-­‐108.	
  	
  

	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

97	
  

of	
  the	
  city’s	
  center	
  attracted	
  artists	
  who	
  experimented	
  based	
  on	
  the	
  Impressionist’s	
  

innovations.	
  The	
  artists	
  of	
  the	
  petit	
  boulevard	
  held	
  similar	
  positions	
  regarding	
  the	
  

market.	
   Paris	
   had	
   a	
   viable	
   European	
   art	
   market,	
   and	
   the	
   painters	
   maturing	
   after	
  

Impressionism	
   likewise	
   sought	
   new	
   and	
   interesting	
   places	
   to	
   exhibit	
   their	
   work	
  

outside	
  of	
  the	
  capital,	
  which	
  was	
  ripe	
  with	
  opportunity,	
  such	
  as	
  Café	
  du	
  Tambourin	
  

or	
  Julien	
  Tanguy’s	
  paint	
  shop.184	
  “Guillaumin,	
  Pissarro,	
  Renoir,	
  Gauguin,	
  Van	
  Gogh,	
  

[Francisco]	
  Oller…Anquetin,	
  Signac,	
  Lautrec	
  and	
  countless	
  others,”	
  Bernard	
  wrote,	
  

“strolled	
  into	
  the	
  little	
  black	
  shop	
  at	
  14,	
  rue	
  Clauzel	
  to	
  simultaneously	
  put	
  up	
  their	
  

works.”185	
  With	
   all	
   of	
   those	
   paintings	
   available	
   for	
   study,	
   Tanguy’s	
   shop	
   was	
   an	
  

important	
  place	
  to	
  make	
  contacts;	
  it	
  is	
  where	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  met	
  Signac	
  and	
  connected	
  

with	
  Bernard.186	
  	
  

Although	
   Fénéon	
   did	
   not	
   employ	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   terms	
   petit	
   and	
   grand	
   to	
  

characterize	
   the	
   groups,	
   the	
   critic’s	
   1887	
   text	
   sets	
   the	
   Impressionists	
   apart	
   from	
  

those	
  who	
  used	
  the	
  pointillist	
  dot.	
  Fénéon	
  described	
  the	
  painters	
  who	
  developed	
  

Impressionism—namely,	
   Manet,	
   Pissarro,	
   Renoir,	
   Monet,	
   Sisley,	
   Cézanne,	
   and	
  

Ludovic	
   Piette—as	
   artists	
   who	
   were	
   groundbreaking	
   because	
   of	
   their	
   sensitivity	
  

toward	
   color	
   and	
   their	
   ability	
   to	
   generate	
   one	
   hue	
   through	
   a	
   contrast	
   of	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
184	
  Homburg	
  31-­‐32.	
  	
  

185	
  Bernard,	
  “Julien	
  Tanguy,	
  Called	
  Le	
  Père	
  Tanguy”	
  in	
  Stein	
  92.	
  	
  

186	
  Welsh-­‐Ovcharov,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  à	
  Paris	
  195.	
  On	
  when	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  met	
  Bernard,	
  see:	
  Stevens	
  95.	
  	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

98	
  

complements	
  to	
  create	
  luminous	
  surfaces.	
  Their	
  subject	
  matter,	
  he	
  noted,	
  was	
  not	
  

anecdotal,	
  dream-­‐like	
  or	
  historical,	
  but	
  a	
  “rapid	
  execution	
  before	
  nature”	
  or	
  modern	
  

life.187	
  Their	
  overall	
  effect	
  he	
  considered	
  “summary,	
  brutal	
  and	
  approximate,”	
  and	
  

underscored	
  their	
  use	
  (Monet’s	
  specifically)	
  of	
  violet	
  to	
  describe	
  cast	
  shadows.188	
  In	
  

contrast,	
   Seurat	
   and	
   Pissarro	
   used	
   dots,	
   not	
   swift	
   brushstrokes.	
   Whereas	
   the	
  

Impressionists	
  wanted	
  to	
  capture	
  nature’s	
  transient	
  aspects,	
  the	
  Neo-­‐Impressionists	
  

sought	
  to	
  provide	
  its	
  “sensation”	
  by	
  considering	
  how	
  color	
  can	
  convey	
  the	
  artist’s	
  

subjective	
  emotions—“a	
  superior	
  sublimated	
  reality,”	
  the	
  critic	
  wrote,	
  “into	
  which	
  

their	
  personality	
  transfuses	
  itself.”189	
  The	
  underlying	
  difference	
  was	
  formal	
  (stroke,	
  

use	
   of	
   color,	
   and	
   surface	
   quality),	
   but	
   Fénéon	
   privileged	
   the	
   canvas’s	
   affect.	
   In	
  

Fénéon’s	
  terms,	
  form	
  reflects	
  the	
  connection	
  between	
  the	
  artist’s	
  inner	
  mind	
  and	
  

the	
  medium,	
  a	
  notion	
  that	
  united	
  the	
  canvases	
  of	
  the	
  petit	
  boulevard	
  painters.	
  	
  

Although	
   the	
   painters	
   of	
   the	
   petit	
   boulevard	
   were	
   pictorially	
   diverse,	
  

Thomson	
  notes	
  that	
  they	
  all	
  gravitated	
  to	
  “simply	
  drawn	
  forms”	
  and	
  exaggerated	
  

“chromatic	
  and	
  textural	
  effects,”	
  and	
  that	
  they	
  wanted	
  to	
  sell	
  their	
  work.190	
  In	
  the	
  

fall	
   1887,	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   organized	
   the	
   Grand	
   Bouillon	
   exhibition	
   with	
   painters	
   of	
   the	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
187	
  Fénéon,	
  “Le	
  Néo-­‐impressionnisme”	
  in	
  Dorra	
  160.	
  	
  

188	
  Fénéon,	
  “Le	
  Néo-­‐impressionnisme”	
  in	
  Dorra	
  161.	
  

189	
  Fénéon,	
  “Le	
  Néo-­‐impressionnisme”	
  in	
  Dorra	
  162-­‐163.	
  	
  
190	
  Thomson	
  68.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

99	
  

petit	
   boulevard. 191 	
  Reminiscing	
   about	
   the	
   exhibition	
   to	
   Théo,	
   Vincent	
   wrote:	
  

“Bernard	
  having	
  sold	
  his	
  first	
  painting	
  there,	
  Anquetin	
  having	
  sold	
  a	
  study	
  there,	
  and	
  

I	
  having	
  made	
  the	
  exchange	
  with	
  Gauguin,	
  we	
  all	
  got	
  something.”192	
  Bernard	
  sold	
  his	
  

painting	
  (which	
  is	
  unknown)	
  to	
  a	
  dealer,	
  George	
  Thomas,	
  and	
  Anquetin	
  likely	
  sold	
  

Old	
   Peasant	
   (1886)	
   [figure	
   16].	
   Although	
   the	
   exhibition	
   ended	
   poorly,	
   Van	
   Gogh	
  

focused	
  on	
  the	
  relationships	
  he	
  was	
  forging.	
  The	
  painter	
  gave	
  Gauguin	
  Sunflowers	
  

Gone	
  to	
  Seed	
  (1887)	
  and	
  Sunflowers	
  Gone	
  to	
  Seed,	
  two	
  paintings	
  (with	
  the	
  same	
  

title)	
  of	
  a	
  close	
  up	
  of	
  sunflowers	
  [figures	
  17	
  &	
  18].	
  Similar	
  to	
  the	
  flower	
  paintings	
  

Van	
  Gogh	
  exhibited	
  at	
  the	
  Café	
  Tambourin,	
  they	
  show	
  his	
  transition	
  to	
  using	
  color	
  

and	
  robust	
  brush	
  work	
  in	
  the	
  vein	
  of	
  Impressionism,	
  and	
  his	
  engagement	
  with	
  Neo-­‐

Impressionism’s	
  approach	
  to	
  mark-­‐making	
  and	
  focus	
  on	
  the	
  painting’s	
  surface	
  in	
  his	
  

use	
  of	
  broken	
  color	
  and	
  texture.	
  	
  

The	
  petit	
  boulevard	
  had	
  an	
  impact	
  on	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  after	
  leaving	
  Paris	
  as	
  well,	
  

but	
   he	
   wanted	
   to	
   maintain	
   his	
   connection	
   to	
   the	
   Impressionist	
   painters.	
   In	
   1888,	
  

after	
   having	
   moved	
   to	
   Arles,	
   he	
   still	
   considered	
   himself	
   a	
   part	
   of	
   the	
   petit	
  

boulevard—a	
  group	
  that	
  for	
  him	
  pioneered	
  new	
  painting	
  methods	
  that	
  grew	
  directly	
  

from	
  the	
  pictorial	
   inventions	
  of	
  the	
  Impressionists.	
  He	
  wrote	
  to	
  Théo	
  that	
  he	
  was	
  

trying	
  to	
  convince	
  H.G.	
  Teersteg,	
  his	
  old	
  boss	
  at	
  Goupil’s	
  Dutch	
  branch,	
  that	
  he	
  really	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
191	
  Homburg	
  32.	
  See	
  also:	
  Letters	
  575	
  and	
  640.	
  	
  

192	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  640	
  to	
  Théo	
  from	
  Arles	
  on	
  Sunday,	
  July	
  15,	
  1888.	
  Letter	
  640,	
  note	
  7.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

100	
  

was	
  “an	
  Impressionist	
  of	
  the	
  Petit	
  Boulevard”	
  and	
  that	
  he	
  expected	
  “to	
  retain	
  that	
  

position.”193	
  The	
   younger	
   generation	
   developed	
   a	
   slightly	
   different	
   relationship	
  

among	
  the	
  canvas,	
  the	
  painter,	
  and	
  the	
  viewer.	
  They	
  created	
  an	
  extreme	
  version	
  of	
  

an	
   instantaneously	
   beheld	
   canvas,	
   an	
   object	
   to	
   be	
   visually	
   apprehended.	
   	
   In	
   the	
  

canvases	
   from	
   the	
   petit	
   boulevard,	
   the	
   image-­‐beholder	
   relationship	
   became	
   one	
  

that	
   was	
   a	
   single-­‐facing	
   visual	
   object	
   that	
   belied,	
   in	
   some	
   ways,	
   the	
   signs	
   of	
   the	
  

natural	
   world.	
   Their	
   imagery	
   not	
   only	
   considered	
   the	
   difference	
   between	
   the	
  

mimetic	
   and	
   the	
   transformative,	
   but	
   also	
   defined	
   the	
   picture	
   plane	
   within	
   the	
  

modernist	
  lineage	
  to	
  read	
  as	
  a	
  symbol	
  of	
  form,	
  color,	
  or	
  movement,	
  generating	
  a	
  

tenuous	
  relationship	
  between	
  reality	
  and	
  the	
  canvas.	
  

	
  

Flower	
  Still	
  Lifes	
  at	
  the	
  Café	
  Tambourin	
  

Van	
   Gogh	
   painted	
   still	
   lifes	
   at	
   the	
   beginning	
   of	
   his	
   painting	
   career	
   that	
  

indicate	
  the	
  ways	
  he	
  taught	
  himself	
  how	
  to	
  use	
  a	
  limited	
  color	
  palette	
  and	
  model	
  

with	
   tones	
   and	
   highlights.	
   Before	
   moving	
   to	
   Paris	
   and	
   having	
   access	
   to	
   Parisian	
  

avant-­‐garde	
   painters,	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   visited	
   the	
   Rijksmuseum,	
   “longing	
   most	
   of	
   all	
   for	
  

Rembrandt	
   and	
   Frans	
   Hals,”	
   and	
   the	
   subtle	
   play	
   of	
   tint	
   and	
   shade	
   that	
   revealed	
  

objects	
   and	
   unfolded	
   forms	
   through	
   a	
   contrast	
   of	
   dense	
   shadows	
   and	
   diffuse	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
193	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  592	
  to	
  Théo	
  from	
  Arles	
  around	
  Thursday,	
  April	
  3,	
  1888.	
  	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

101	
  

light.194	
  He	
  made	
  many	
  still	
  lifes	
  at	
  this	
  time,	
  thinking	
  that	
  it	
  was	
  a	
  useful	
  practice,	
  

and	
  Basket	
  with	
  Potatoes	
  (1885)	
  [figure	
  19]	
  is	
  an	
  example	
  of	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  relationship	
  

to	
  color	
  and	
  his	
  treatment	
  of	
  still-­‐life	
  subjects	
  during	
  his	
  Dutch	
  period.195	
  Basket	
  is	
  

one	
  of	
  several	
   images	
  of	
  potatoes	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  painted	
  the	
  same	
  month	
  (or	
  shortly	
  

after)	
  he	
  visited	
  the	
  Rijksmuseum	
  during	
  a	
  fall	
  trip	
  in	
  October	
  1885—where	
  he	
  had	
  

hardly	
  any	
  time	
  for	
  anything	
  other	
  than	
  visiting	
  the	
  museum196—and	
  a	
  few	
  months	
  

before	
  his	
  wintertime	
  move	
  to	
  Paris.	
  Aiming	
  to	
  express	
  the	
  potatoes	
  “such	
  that	
  they	
  

become	
   lumps	
   that	
   have	
   weight	
   and	
   are	
   solid,	
   which	
   you’d	
   feel	
   if	
   they	
   were	
  

thrown,”	
   dark,	
   somber	
   tones	
   and	
   an	
   attention	
   to	
   textural	
   detail	
   and	
   form	
   take	
  

priority.	
  197	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  set	
  the	
  potatoes	
  before	
  a	
  somewhat	
  deep	
  space	
  in	
  a	
  central	
  

basket	
  overflowing	
  with	
  a	
  recent	
  harvest,	
  exploring	
  light	
  and	
  shade	
  (from	
  one	
  light	
  

source)	
   within	
   a	
   monochromatic	
   color	
   family:	
   sienna,	
   a	
   deep	
   transparent	
   reddish	
  

brown.	
  The	
  other	
  potato	
  still-­‐lifes	
  he	
  made	
  by	
  studying	
  variations	
  of	
  warm	
  earthy	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
194	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  533	
  to	
  Théo	
  on	
  Sunday,	
  October	
  4,	
  1885,	
  from	
  Nuenen.	
  He	
  was	
  going	
  to	
  
Amsterdam	
  to	
  visit	
  the	
  Rijksmuseum	
  (which	
  had	
  opened	
  in	
  July	
  1885).	
  He	
  was	
  in	
  Amsterdam	
  from	
  the	
  
6th	
  thru	
  the	
  8th	
  (see	
  note	
  4,	
  and	
  letter	
  534).	
  	
  See	
  also:	
  Maureen	
  S.	
  Trappeniers	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  in	
  Brabant	
  
(Zwolle:	
  Waanders	
  Publishers,	
  1987)	
  233-­‐235.	
  

195	
  Letter	
  533.	
  “As	
  for	
  the	
  work,	
  I’ve	
  been	
  painting	
  a	
  lot	
  of	
  still	
  lifes	
  lately,	
  as	
  I	
  already	
  wrote,	
  and	
  I	
  like	
  
it	
  enormously.	
  I’ll	
  send	
  you	
  some.	
  I	
  know	
  that	
  they’re	
  difficult	
  to	
  sell—but	
  it’s	
  devilish	
  useful	
  and	
  I’ll	
  
go	
  on	
  doing	
  a	
  lot	
  to	
  them	
  in	
  the	
  winter.”	
  

196	
  Van	
   Gogh	
   wrote	
   letter	
   543	
   to	
   Théo	
   around	
   Saturday,	
   October	
   10,	
   1885,	
   about	
   his	
   Amsterdam	
  
museum	
  trip.	
  	
  

197	
  Letter	
  533.	
  	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

102	
  

colors:	
   burnt	
   sienna,	
   yellow	
   ochre,	
   and	
   red	
   ochre.198	
  In	
   these	
   studies,	
   Van	
   Gogh	
  

explored	
  one	
  central	
  color	
  as	
  it	
  related	
  to	
  the	
  subject	
  at	
  hand.	
  	
  

Most	
  recently,	
  Anabelle	
  Kienle	
  notes	
  that	
   in	
  Paris	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  was	
  drawn	
  to	
  

flowers	
  as	
  a	
  subject	
  matter	
  so	
  the	
  artist	
  could	
  begin	
  working	
  with	
  color	
  and	
  try	
  to	
  

reinvent	
  his	
  painting	
  strategies	
  from	
  The	
  Netherlands	
  and	
  Belgium	
  and,	
  eventually,	
  

use	
  saturated	
  color	
  that	
  suited	
  his	
  temperament	
  in	
  his	
  Paris-­‐period	
  canvases.199	
  As	
  

Vincent	
  mentioned	
  in	
  the	
  above-­‐quoted	
  letter	
  to	
  his	
  sister	
  Wil,	
  the	
  flower	
  still	
  lifes	
  

were	
  a	
  vehicle	
  to	
  experiment	
  with	
  expressive	
  form	
  and	
  innovative	
  hue.	
  The	
  flower	
  

still	
   lifes	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   supposedly	
   first	
   exhibited	
   at	
   the	
   Café	
   Tambourin,	
   Basket	
   of	
  

Pansies	
   and	
   Fritillaires	
   (although	
   we	
   are	
   not	
   sure	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   exhibited	
   these	
  

paintings,	
  Bernard	
  suggested	
  he	
  hung	
  paintings	
  along	
  these	
  lines),	
  represent	
  a	
  few	
  

paintings	
   from	
   a	
   large	
   body	
   of	
   work	
   he	
   made	
   when	
   first	
   living	
   in	
   the	
   capital,	
  

including	
   the	
   sunflower	
   paintings	
   he	
   gave	
   to	
   Gauguin.	
   The	
   still	
   lifes	
   Van	
   Gogh	
  

painted	
   in	
   Paris	
   reveal	
   a	
   connection	
   to	
   Impressionism,	
   to	
   the	
   avant-­‐garde	
   ideals	
  

Fénéon	
  explained,	
  and	
  the	
  interests	
  of	
  the	
  petit	
  boulevard	
  painters.	
  I	
  find	
  that	
  these	
  

paintings,	
  particularly	
  Fritillaires,	
  move	
  beyond	
  an	
  exploration	
  of	
  Impressionism	
  and	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
198	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  536	
  to	
  Théo	
  from	
  Nuenen	
  around	
  Tuesday,	
  October	
  10,	
  1885	
  regarding	
  his	
  
potato	
  still-­‐life	
  studies.	
  

199	
  Anabelle	
  Kienle,	
  “Still	
  Life,”	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  Up	
  Close,	
  ed.	
  Cornelia	
  Homburg	
  (New	
  Haven	
  and	
  London:	
  
Yale	
  University	
  Press,	
  2012)	
  186-­‐201.	
  Kienle	
  explores	
  the	
  trajectory	
  of	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  still	
  lifes	
  from	
  his	
  
Paris	
  period,	
  makes	
  connections	
  to	
  Renoir’s	
  and	
  Monet’s	
  respective	
  still	
  lifes	
  (Monet’s	
  Peaches,	
  1883,	
  
and	
   Renoir’s	
   The	
   Onions	
   1881),	
   and	
   asserts	
   that	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   interest	
   in	
   painting	
   objects	
   up	
   close	
  
began	
  in	
  Paris.	
  	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

103	
  

Neo-­‐Impressionism	
  and	
  toward	
  a	
  sense	
  of	
  motion	
  and	
  energetic	
  texture	
  in	
  a	
  genre	
  

associated	
  with	
  stasis.	
  	
  

Basket	
  of	
  Pansies	
  [figure	
  5]	
  is	
  similar	
  to	
  the	
  monochromatic	
  palette	
  he	
  used	
  

in	
  images	
  such	
  as	
  Potato	
  Eaters	
  (1885)	
  and,	
  in	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  1886	
  images	
  he	
  painted	
  

during	
  his	
  first	
  year	
   in	
  Paris—Le	
  Cinéraire	
  (July-­‐August	
  1886)	
  and	
  Roses	
  Trémières	
  

dans	
   une	
   cruche	
   (August-­‐September	
   1886)	
   and	
   Fleurs	
   et	
   Tournesols	
   (Fall	
   1886)	
  

[figures	
   20-­‐22]—lush	
   brushstrokes	
   model	
   petals	
   and	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   left	
   some	
   color	
  

unblended.	
   He	
   continued	
   his	
   still-­‐life	
   practice	
   in	
   Paris,	
   but	
   the	
   flower	
   still	
   lifes	
  

reference	
   French	
   painting	
   traditions,	
   such	
   as	
   Gustave	
   Courbet’s	
   deeply	
   shaded	
  

Hollyhocks	
  in	
  a	
  Copper	
  Bowl	
  (1872),	
  or	
  Renoir’s	
  brightly	
  hued	
  Mixed	
  Flowers	
  in	
  an	
  

Earthenware	
   Pot	
   (ca.	
   1869)	
   [figures	
   23	
   &	
   24].	
   Guillaumin,	
   like	
   Van	
   Gogh,	
   also	
  

painted	
   flowers	
   that	
   similarly	
   built	
   on	
   the	
   painterly	
   rhetoric	
   developed	
   by	
   the	
  

Impressionists,	
  in	
  his,	
  for	
  instance,	
  Nature	
  morte	
  aux	
  chrysanthèmes	
  (1885)	
  [figure	
  

25].	
   Guillaumin	
  used	
  a	
  subtle	
  green	
  background	
  to	
  set	
  off	
  yellow-­‐orange	
  flowers,	
  

and	
   painted	
   blue-­‐violet	
   shadows	
   surrounding	
   the	
   flowers	
   to	
   show	
   the	
   spatial	
  

difference	
  between	
  the	
  petals	
  and	
  table,	
  attempting	
  to	
  do	
  so	
  in	
  a	
  similar	
  fashion	
  as	
  

Monet’s	
  use	
  of	
  violet	
  in	
  his	
  Vase	
  of	
  Flowers	
  (ca.	
  1881-­‐1882)	
  [figure	
  26].	
  	
  

In	
  Guillaumin’s	
  and	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  flower	
  still	
  lifes	
  from	
  1885	
  and	
  1886,	
  colors	
  

describe	
  the	
  flower’s	
  natural	
  appearance.	
  Similar	
  to	
  Courbet’s	
  and	
  Renoir’s	
  still	
  lifes,	
  

Van	
  Gogh	
  modeled	
  the	
  Hollyhocks	
  in	
  Trémières	
  with	
  tints	
  and	
  shades	
  to	
  resemble	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

104	
  

the	
   flower’s	
   color.	
   Although	
   brushstrokes	
   are	
   visible,	
   they	
   mimic	
   petals.	
   And	
   the	
  

background	
   serves	
   as	
   a	
   muted	
   backdrop	
   that	
   emphasizes	
   the	
   deep	
   hue	
   of	
   the	
  

hollyhocks.	
   The	
   roses	
   and	
   sunflowers	
   in	
   Fleurs	
   et	
   Tournesols	
   remain	
   in	
   their	
  

respective	
  chromatic	
  color	
  family,	
  yellow	
  and	
  white	
  (with	
  hints	
  of	
  pink)	
  respectively.	
  

Light	
  reflects	
  off	
  the	
  vase,	
  suggested	
  with	
  quick	
  white	
  brushstrokes.	
  The	
  background	
  

and	
  foreground	
  indicated	
  by	
  the	
  table-­‐line	
  in	
  the	
  background.	
  Compared	
  to	
  still	
  lifes	
  

Van	
  Gogh	
  created	
  in	
  1885	
  in	
  Holland,	
  such	
  as	
  Basket	
  with	
  Potatoes,	
  the	
  flower	
  still	
  

lifes	
   of	
   1886	
   become	
   bright,	
   open,	
   and	
   incorporate	
   the	
   brush’s	
   mark	
   to	
   swiftly	
  

indicate	
  a	
  delicate	
  flower.	
  And	
  they	
  exemplify	
  the	
  Impressionist	
  approach	
  of	
  color	
  

and	
  mark-­‐making,	
  such	
  as	
  in	
  the	
  white	
  baby’s	
  breath	
  in	
  Fleurs	
  et	
  Tournesols.	
  After	
  a	
  

few	
  months	
  in	
  Paris,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  felt	
  that	
  his	
  color	
  had	
  been	
  developing	
  along	
  the	
  lines	
  

of	
  the	
  Impressionists,	
  but	
  could	
  never	
  be	
  “exactly	
  the	
  same	
  as	
  their	
  theories,”	
  and	
  

that	
   he	
   could	
   make	
   friends	
   in	
   the	
   art	
   community,	
   those	
   who	
   introduced	
   him	
   to	
  

pointillism.200	
  	
  	
  

In	
  Fritillaires	
  [figure	
  6]	
  several	
  modes	
  of	
  painting	
  come	
  together	
  and	
  show	
  

Van	
  Gogh’s	
  inventive	
  use	
  of	
  both	
  Impressionist	
  and	
  pointillist	
  mark-­‐making.	
  Painted	
  

a	
   year	
   after	
   his	
   arrival,	
   Fritillaires	
   shows	
   the	
   influences	
   he	
   was	
   studying	
   and	
   the	
  

newer	
  techniques	
  he	
  and	
  the	
  petit	
  boulevard	
  painters	
  developed.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  used	
  

the	
  pointillist	
  brush	
  mark	
  in	
  the	
  background,	
  elongated	
  strokes	
  he	
  developed	
  during	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
200	
  Letter	
  569	
  to	
  Livens.	
  	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

105	
  

this	
  period	
  on	
  the	
  table	
  and	
  foliage,	
  and	
  Impressionist	
  mark-­‐making	
  techniques	
  to	
  

signify	
  the	
  reflection	
  on	
  the	
  copper	
  vase.	
  Painterly	
  influences	
  also	
  merge	
  in	
  Signac’s	
  

Nature	
   morte:	
   oranges,	
   pomme	
   et	
   livre	
   Au	
   soleil	
   (1885)	
   [figure	
   27],	
   in	
   which	
  

Cézanne’s	
  influence	
  can	
  be	
  understood—the	
  furthest	
  edge	
  of	
  the	
  table	
  top	
  appears	
  

to	
  not	
  recede	
  into	
  one-­‐point	
  perspective	
  but	
  is	
  raised.	
  In	
  this	
  way,	
  the	
  viewer	
  looks	
  

down	
  at	
  the	
  contents	
  of	
  a	
  table	
  and	
  at	
  the	
  base	
  of	
  the	
  vase,	
  both	
  of	
  which	
  would	
  

only	
  be	
  partly	
  seen	
  if	
  they	
  were	
  foreshortened	
  to	
  appear	
  in	
  deep	
  space.	
  Elements	
  of	
  

Monet	
   are	
   also	
   evident	
   in	
   the	
   blue	
   shadows	
   modeling	
   the	
   round	
   forms	
   of	
   the	
  

oranges	
  and	
  the	
  flowers	
  created	
  with	
  one	
  stroke.	
  Signac	
  also	
  used	
  the	
  direction	
  of	
  

the	
  brushstroke	
  to	
  indicate	
  the	
  different	
  objects.	
  	
  

Signac’s	
  Nature	
  morte	
  and	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  Fritillaires	
   lead	
  from	
  influences,	
  but	
  

both	
   begin	
   to	
   explore	
   the	
   artist’s	
   response	
   to	
   the	
   subject	
   matter	
   as	
   a	
   means	
   to	
  

pictorially	
  engage	
  with	
  the	
  artifice	
  of	
  the	
  canvas’s	
  medium,	
  rather	
  than	
  as	
  an	
  object	
  

to	
  be	
  depicted	
  or	
  described	
  for	
  its	
  own	
  sake.	
  In	
  Fritillaires,	
  Van	
  Gogh,	
  like	
  Signac,	
  

used	
  directional	
  marks	
  to	
  indicate	
  aspects	
  of	
  the	
  picture	
  plane,	
  foreground,	
  flowers,	
  

pot,	
   and	
   background.	
   Complementary	
   color,	
   similar	
   to	
   Guillaumin’s	
   Nature	
   morte	
  

aux	
  chrysanthèmes,	
  organizes	
  the	
  relationship	
  between	
  the	
  background	
  and	
  flowers.	
  

Movement	
  in	
  Fritallaires	
  is	
  a	
  component	
  that	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  created	
  by	
  considering	
  the	
  

background	
   and	
   foreground	
   elements	
   as	
   a	
   whole—the	
   background	
   space	
   neither	
  

recedes	
  nor	
  acts	
  to	
  highlight	
  the	
  central	
  bunch	
  of	
  flowers.	
  Long,	
  unblended	
  strokes	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

106	
  

of	
  the	
  table	
  (perhaps	
  indicating	
  fabric)	
  contrast	
  the	
  stippled	
  approach	
  in	
  the	
  blue	
  

background.	
  The	
  mark-­‐making	
  techniques,	
  although	
  distinct,	
  seem	
  to	
  work	
  together,	
  

creating	
   a	
   circular	
   effect	
   around	
   the	
   flowers.	
   The	
   typically	
   static	
   background	
   and	
  

table	
  top,	
  evident	
  in	
  the	
  still	
   lifes	
  Trémières	
  and	
  Fleurs	
  et	
  Tournesols,	
  support	
  the	
  

central	
  object.	
  In	
  Fritillaires,	
  although	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  indicated	
  the	
  space	
  of	
  the	
  picture	
  

plane	
  with	
  the	
  edge	
  of	
  a	
  receding	
  table	
  top,	
  the	
  edge	
  on	
  the	
  left	
  and	
  right	
  do	
  not	
  

meet	
  and	
  are	
  thus	
  not	
  exactly	
  in	
  perspective	
  (a	
  trait	
  found	
  in	
  Cézanne’s	
  still-­‐lifes,	
  

paintings	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  may	
  have	
  seen	
  at	
  Tanguy’s).	
  Paint	
  strokes	
  move	
  diagonally	
  on	
  

the	
  tabletop	
  and	
  the	
  directionality	
  continues	
  into	
  the	
  blue	
  background;	
  brushstrokes	
  

merge	
  from	
  one	
  surface	
  to	
  the	
  other	
  on	
  the	
  left.	
  The	
  fritillaries	
  become	
  animated	
  

flowers.	
  Foliage	
  winding	
  out	
  of	
  the	
  copper	
  pot,	
  particularly	
  the	
  leaves	
  on	
  the	
  left-­‐

hand	
  side,	
  generates	
  movement	
  in	
  the	
  circular	
  pattern.	
  	
  

In	
  these	
  ways,	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  Fritillaires	
  shows	
  his	
  use	
  of	
  both	
  an	
  Impressionist	
  

and	
  Neo-­‐Impressionist	
  painterly	
  vocabulary.	
  Moreover,	
  the	
  techniques	
  he	
  used	
   in	
  

Fritillaires	
  bring	
  focus	
  to	
  the	
  surface	
  and	
  treat	
  the	
  picture	
  plane	
  as	
  a	
  single-­‐facing	
  

object.	
  The	
  planes	
  in	
  Fritillaires	
  function	
  together	
  as	
  a	
  compelling	
  whole;	
  one	
  part	
  is	
  

not	
   necessarily	
   subordinate	
   to	
   the	
   other.	
   Similarly,	
   In	
   Grapes,	
   Lemons,	
   Pears	
   and	
  

Apples	
   (1887)	
   [figure	
   28],	
   brushstrokes	
   radiate	
   around	
   the	
   fruits,	
   and	
   the	
   mark-­‐

making	
  in	
  Grapes,	
  Lemons,	
  Pears	
  and	
  Apples	
  and	
  Fritillaires	
  shows	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  new-­‐

found	
   engagement	
   with	
   color	
   and	
   his	
   ability	
   to	
   convey	
   movement	
   through	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

107	
  

brushstroke.	
  The	
  circular	
  motion	
  of	
  strokes	
  around	
  the	
  bulbs	
  and	
  copper	
  pot	
  do	
  not	
  

describe	
  depth	
  or	
  what	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  saw	
  necessarily,	
  but	
  transform	
  the	
  whole	
  of	
  the	
  

picture	
  plane	
  through	
  texture	
  and	
  color	
  so	
  that	
  the	
  painting	
  reads	
  as	
  a	
  symbol,	
  a	
  

painterly	
  mode	
  Fénéon	
  described.	
  	
  

With	
  the	
  exception	
  of	
  Pissarro,	
  Fénéon	
  separated	
  the	
  Impressionists	
  and	
  the	
  

Neo-­‐Impressionists.	
   The	
   former	
   the	
   critic	
   considered	
   “mechanical	
   copyists	
   of	
  

externals,”	
   and	
   the	
   latter	
   created	
   a	
   “sublimated	
   reality.”201	
  For	
   Fénéon,	
   the	
   Neo-­‐

Impressionists	
  generated	
  images	
  by	
  reacting	
  subjectively	
  to	
  color	
  and	
  form,	
  not	
  to	
  

nature.	
   Developing	
   a	
   color	
   palette	
   in	
   relation	
   to	
   nature	
   is	
   quite	
   different	
   than	
  

constructing	
  a	
  canvas	
  with	
  respect	
  to	
  the	
  artist’s	
  experience	
  before	
  the	
  easel—one	
  

approach	
  considers	
  hue	
  as	
  it	
  describes	
  an	
  object	
  and	
  the	
  other	
  as	
  it	
  relates	
  to	
  the	
  

colors	
   on	
   the	
   canvas	
   or	
   the	
   artist’s	
   response.	
   Before	
   arriving	
   in	
   Paris,	
   Van	
   Gogh	
  

attempted	
  to	
  paint	
  what	
  he	
  saw,	
  what	
  was	
  before	
  him,	
  and	
  used	
  color	
  mimetically.	
  

In	
   Basket	
   with	
   Potatoes	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   chromatic	
   decisions	
   relate	
   to	
   the	
   vegetables,	
  

using	
  shades	
  and	
  tints	
  of	
  sienna.	
  In	
  contrast,	
  in	
  Fritillaires,	
  the	
  choices	
  of	
  brushstroke	
  

and	
  hue	
  led	
  from	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  idiosyncratic	
  reaction	
  to	
  the	
  canvas,	
  not	
  precisely	
  to	
  

the	
  fritillaries	
  themselves	
  but	
  to	
  the	
  liveliness	
  of	
  the	
  flowers.	
  	
  

Fritillaires	
   conveys	
   the	
   sense	
   of	
   living	
   flowers	
   in	
   a	
   copper	
   pot—and,	
   in	
  

Fénéon’s	
   terms—suggests	
   the	
   sensation	
   of	
   movement	
   by	
   considering	
   the	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
201	
  Fénéon,	
  “Néo-­‐impressionnisme”	
  in	
  Dorra	
  163.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

108	
  

relationship	
  between	
  the	
  canvas’s	
  forms.	
  The	
  flowers,	
  unlike	
  the	
  potatoes,	
  are	
  not	
  

inert	
  static	
  objects	
  to	
  hold	
  color.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  used	
  texture	
  and	
  color	
  to	
  suggest	
  the	
  

essence	
  of	
  motion.	
  Although	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  modeled	
  the	
  fritillaries	
  with	
  highlights	
  and	
  

shades,	
  saturated	
  orange	
  and	
  yellow	
  do	
  not	
  correspond	
  to	
  the	
  hue	
  of	
  the	
  flower	
  

within	
   the	
   atmosphere	
   or	
   under	
   white	
   light	
   as	
   in	
   Basket	
   of	
   Pansies,	
   but	
   as	
   high-­‐

keyed	
  color	
  that	
  responds	
  in	
  contrast	
  to	
  the	
  background.	
  The	
  color	
  and	
  strokes	
  in	
  

Fritillaires	
   show	
   that	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   merged	
   the	
   Impressionist	
   and	
   Neo-­‐Impressionist	
  

method	
  to	
  generate	
  an	
  experimental	
  still-­‐life	
  technique,	
  conveying	
  the	
  sensation	
  of	
  

the	
   living	
   subject	
   rather	
   than	
   its	
   still	
   forms	
   in	
   chromatic	
   reality.	
   The	
   two	
   flower	
  

images	
  that	
  may	
  have	
  been	
  in	
  the	
  Café	
  Tambourin	
  exhibition	
  suggest	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  

understanding	
   of	
   the	
   Impressionist	
   and	
   Neo-­‐Impressionist	
   ideals	
   and	
   his	
   goal	
   to	
  

align	
  his	
  practice	
  with	
  the	
  grand	
  boulevard	
  painters	
  and	
  to	
  innovate	
  with	
  those	
  of	
  

the	
  petit.	
  	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  did	
  not	
  attempt	
  to	
  capture,	
  for	
  instance,	
  a	
  transitory	
  moment	
  of	
  

light	
  illuminating	
  the	
  flowers.	
  Instead,	
  the	
  image	
  performs	
  a	
  sense	
  of	
  the	
  flowers	
  in	
  

action	
   and	
   provides	
   the	
   spectator	
   with	
   an	
   experience	
   of	
   the	
   flowers	
   coming	
   into	
  

being.	
  	
  

	
  

Tanguy’s	
  Portrait	
  at	
  the	
  Grand	
  Bouillon	
  Exhibition	
  

Fénéon	
   underscored	
   the	
   main	
   differences	
   as	
   he	
   saw	
   them	
   between	
  

Impressionism	
   and	
   Neo-­‐Impressionism.	
   Both	
   the	
   critic	
   and	
   Van	
   Gogh,	
   though,	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

109	
  

considered	
   Impressionism	
   to	
   be	
   the	
   underpinnings	
   of	
   Neo-­‐Impressionism.	
   The	
  

portrait	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  exhibited	
  at	
  the	
  Grand	
  Bouillon	
  Exhibition,	
  Portrait	
  of	
  Père	
  Tanguy	
  

[figure	
  12],	
  can,	
  in	
  some	
  ways,	
  be	
  more	
  firmly	
  located	
  within	
  Fénéon’s	
  ideas	
  and	
  the	
  

painters	
   of	
   the	
   petit	
   boulevard,	
   particularly	
   in	
   concept.	
   Overall,	
   scholars	
   read	
   the	
  

portrait	
  as	
  a	
  testament	
  to	
  the	
  influence	
  of	
  Japonisme	
  and	
  understand	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  

depiction	
  of	
  Tanguy	
  as	
  that	
  of	
  a	
  working-­‐class	
  outsider,	
  a	
  Socialist,	
  and	
  a	
  dealer	
  in	
  

contrast	
   to	
   gallery	
   owner	
   Paul	
   Durand-­‐Ruel.202	
  Significantly,	
   Zemel	
   notes	
   that	
   the	
  

image	
   is	
   symbolic	
   in	
   arrangement,	
   and	
   I	
   intend	
   to	
   further	
   her	
   observation	
   to	
  

consider	
  the	
  ways	
  in	
  which	
  the	
  portrait	
  aligns	
  with	
  Fénéon’s	
  ideals.203	
  Similar	
  to	
  the	
  

flower	
   still-­‐lifes,	
   Père	
   Tanguy	
   also	
   moves	
   between	
   Impressionism	
   and	
   Neo-­‐

Impressionism	
  while	
  conveying	
  the	
  innovations	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  began	
  to	
  make	
  while	
  he	
  

was	
   in	
   Paris.	
   Although	
   Père	
   Tanguy	
   falls	
   into	
   the	
   Neo-­‐Impressionistic	
   painterly	
  

vocabulary,	
   the	
   elongated	
   brushstrokes	
   that	
   provide	
   texture	
   and	
   movement	
   in	
  

Fritillaires	
  become	
  a	
  more	
  prevalent	
  aspect	
  of	
  the	
  painting,	
  complicating	
  the	
  figure-­‐

ground	
  relationship	
  and	
  furthering	
  the	
  overall	
  sensation	
  the	
  portrait	
  conveys.	
  	
  

Prior	
  to	
  working	
  on	
  Tanguy’s	
  image	
  in	
  Paris,	
  Potato	
  Eaters	
  (1885)	
  stands	
  as	
  

the	
  best	
  example	
  of	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  Dutch	
  portraiture—he,	
  for	
  instance,	
  made	
  several	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
202	
  Roskill	
  81-­‐85.	
  Welsh-­‐Ovcharov	
  165-­‐169.	
  Zemel	
  201-­‐205.	
  See	
  also:	
  Elizabeth	
  Childs,	
  “Seeking	
  the	
  
Studio	
   of	
   the	
   South:	
   Van	
   Gogh,	
   Gauguin,	
   and	
   Avant-­‐Garde	
   Identity,”	
   Vincent	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   and	
   the	
  
Painters	
  of	
  the	
  Petit	
  Boulevard	
  (Saint	
  Louis:	
  Saint	
  Louis	
  Museum,	
  2001)	
  121-­‐122.	
  	
  

203	
  Zemel	
  204.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

110	
  

studies	
  of	
  the	
  central	
  female	
  figure	
  Cordina	
  de	
  Grout	
  (who	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  called	
  Sein)	
  of	
  

which	
   Head	
   of	
   a	
   Peasant	
   Woman	
   with	
   a	
   Day	
   Cap	
   (March,	
   1885)	
   serves	
   as	
   an	
  

example	
  [figure	
  29].204	
  Similar	
  to	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  Basket	
  of	
  Potatoes,	
  de	
  Grout’s	
  portraits	
  

are	
  studies	
  of	
  color,	
  light,	
  texture,	
  and	
  expression.	
  “I	
  haven’t	
  made	
  a	
  head	
  yet,”	
  Van	
  

Gogh	
  wrote	
  while	
  he	
  was	
  working	
  on	
  the	
  sketches,	
  “that’s	
  so	
  much	
  painted	
  with	
  the	
  

soil.”205	
  Created	
  while	
  he	
  was	
  reading	
  Émile	
  Zola’s	
  Germinal	
  (1885),	
  a	
  novel	
  of	
  the	
  

hard-­‐labor	
  coal	
  miner’s	
  experienced	
  in	
  nineteenth-­‐century	
  France,	
  the	
  portraits	
  of	
  

Sein	
  attempt	
  to	
  convey	
  a	
  forlorn,	
  sorrowful	
  look	
  of	
  a	
  person	
  subject	
  to	
  the	
  obstacles	
  

of	
   a	
   peasant’s	
   life. 206 	
  Her	
   gaze	
   peers	
   off	
   to	
   the	
   side	
   and	
   her	
   simple	
   dress,	
  

complexion,	
  and	
  cap	
  are	
  awash	
  in	
  brown	
  and	
  bear	
  the	
  mark	
  of	
  a	
  field	
  laborer.	
  In	
  

Potato	
  Eaters,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  situated	
  Sein’s	
  portrait	
  within	
  a	
  home	
  painted	
  (like	
  her	
  skin)	
  

the	
  color	
  of	
  the	
  dirt,	
  connoting	
  the	
  family’s	
  livelihood.	
  	
  

Tanguy,	
   a	
   significant	
   figure	
   in	
   the	
   Parisian	
   avant-­‐garde,	
   was	
   a	
   subject	
   Van	
  

Gogh	
   and	
   Bernard	
   painted	
   several	
   times.207	
  Van	
   Gogh’s	
   choice	
   to	
   paint	
   Tanguy	
   is	
  

somewhat	
   similar	
   to	
   his	
   Dutch-­‐period	
   portrait	
   subjects	
   in	
   that	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   chose	
   a	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
204	
  Trappeniers	
  161-­‐162.	
  

205	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  505	
  to	
  Théo	
  from	
  Nuenen	
  around	
  Thursday,	
  May	
  28,	
  1885.	
  	
  
206	
  Letter	
  505.	
  “I’ve	
  just	
  received	
  Germinal,	
  which	
  I	
  started	
  on	
  immediately.	
  I’ve	
  read	
  50	
  pages	
  of	
  it—
which	
  I	
  think	
  splendid.	
  I	
  also	
  walked	
  there	
  once...	
  Regards,	
  thanks	
  again	
  for	
  Germinal,	
  I’m	
  still	
  reading	
  
it	
  as	
  I	
  write.	
  It’s	
  splendid.”	
  

207	
  Bernard,	
  “Julien	
  Tanguy,	
  Called	
  Le	
  Père	
  Tanguy”	
  in	
  Stein	
  92-­‐94.	
  

	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

111	
  

financially	
   struggling	
   working-­‐class	
   shopkeeper	
   with	
   socialist	
   politics.	
   Despite	
  

Tanguy’s	
   economic	
   situation,	
   he	
   supported	
   artists	
   with	
   a	
   free	
   venue	
   and	
   paint	
  

supplies	
  on	
  credit	
  or	
  through	
  a	
  trade.	
  Tanguy	
  is	
  similar	
  to	
  the	
  family	
  in	
  the	
  Potato	
  

Eaters	
  whose	
  meager	
  livelihood	
  and	
  commitment	
  to	
  work	
  connected	
  to	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  

study	
   of	
   laborers	
   throughout	
   his	
   body	
   of	
   imagery.	
   According	
   to	
   Bernard—whose	
  

short	
   essay	
   “Julien	
   Tanguy,	
   Called	
   Le	
   Père	
   Tanguy”	
   (1908)	
   explains	
   the	
   unique	
  

relationship	
  between	
  the	
  shopkeeper	
  and	
  Van	
  Gogh—Tanguy	
  was	
  as	
  interested	
  in	
  

the	
  artist’s	
  socialist	
  politics	
  as	
  he	
  was	
  in	
  his	
  paintings.208	
  	
  

In	
  an	
  artistic	
  way,	
  the	
  choice	
  to	
  depict	
  Tanguy	
  is	
  significant	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  the	
  

emerging	
  and	
  established	
  painters	
  from	
  whom	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  was	
  learning.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  

could	
  be	
  found	
  often	
  in	
  Tanguy’s	
  shop,	
  where	
  he	
  “practically	
  lived,”	
  and	
  where	
  he	
  

met	
   painters	
   contributing	
   to	
   the	
   avant-­‐garde	
   theories	
   in	
   the	
   Parisian	
   community,	
  

such	
   as	
   Cézanne	
   and	
   Signac.209	
  Like	
   an	
   “apostle”	
   who	
   had	
   found	
   a	
   sympathetic	
  

leader,	
   a	
   “sage,”	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   defined	
   “his	
   own	
   artistic	
   movement”	
   as	
   Tanguy	
  

listened.210	
  In	
  turn,	
  the	
  shopkeeper	
  “venerated”	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  paintings	
  as	
  a	
  “tangible	
  

manifestation	
   of	
   his	
   hopes	
   and	
   dreams.”211	
  Tanguy	
   supported	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   with	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
208	
  Bernard,	
  “Julien	
  Tanguy,	
  Called	
  Le	
  Père	
  Tanguy”	
  in	
  Stein	
  93.	
  

209	
  Bernard,	
  “Julien	
  Tanguy,	
  Called	
  Le	
  Père	
  Tanguy”	
  in	
  Stein	
  93.	
  

210	
  Bernard,	
  “Julien	
  Tanguy,	
  Called	
  Le	
  Père	
  Tanguy”	
  in	
  Stein	
  92-­‐93.	
  
211	
  Bernard,	
  “Julien	
  Tanguy,	
  Called	
  Le	
  Père	
  Tanguy”	
  in	
  Stein	
  92-­‐93.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

112	
  

supplies	
  and	
  allowed	
  him	
  to	
  exhibit	
  works	
  in	
  the	
  shop	
  (although	
  the	
  painter	
  had	
  an	
  

altercation	
  with	
  the	
  shop	
  owner’s	
  wife).212	
  	
  The	
  September	
  after	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  arrival	
  

in	
   Paris,	
   he	
   had	
   been	
   able	
   to	
   hang	
   a	
   painting	
   in	
   the	
   shop	
   with	
   the	
   help	
   of	
   two	
  

dealers,	
  which	
  was	
  his	
  first	
  “beginning”	
  as	
  an	
  exhibiting	
  artist	
  in	
  Paris,	
  and	
  around	
  

this	
   time	
   he	
   painted	
   Tanguy.213	
  Tanguy’s	
   portraits	
   are	
   symbolic	
   of	
   the	
   energetic	
  

community	
  in	
  which	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  found	
  himself	
  and	
  a	
  way	
  to	
  assert	
  his	
  entry	
  into	
  a	
  

realm	
  of	
  newly	
  developed	
  painterly	
  techniques.	
  

Van	
   Gogh	
   painted	
   three	
   portraits	
   of	
   Tanguy	
   that	
   speak	
   to	
   the	
   artist’s	
  

developing	
  theories,	
  leading	
  from	
  Sein’s	
  monochromatic	
  expression	
  and	
  toward	
  the	
  

type	
  of	
  experiential	
  sensation	
  Fénéon	
  described.	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  approach	
  was	
  in	
  some	
  

ways	
  similar	
  to	
  Sein’s	
  portrait,	
  but	
  his	
  paint	
  application	
  and	
  use	
  of	
  color	
  relates	
  to	
  

the	
  Impressionists	
  and	
  Neo-­‐Impressionists.	
  	
  Before	
  creating	
  Tanguy’s	
  portrait	
  against	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
212	
  Vincent	
  referred	
  to	
  Tanguy	
  in	
  two	
  letters	
  he	
  wrote	
  to	
  Théo	
  while	
  in	
  Paris,	
  letter	
  571	
  and	
  572.	
  In	
  
letter	
  571,	
  written	
  to	
  Théo	
  from	
  Paris	
  sometime	
  between	
  July	
  17th	
  and	
  19th,	
  1887,	
  he	
  commented	
  on	
  
the	
  incident	
  with	
  Tanguy’s	
  wife	
  (see	
  note	
  8).	
  “Because	
  remember	
  when	
  I	
  started	
  in	
  Asnières,	
  I	
  had	
  
lots	
  of	
  canvases	
  and	
  Tanguy	
  was	
  very	
  good	
  to	
  me.	
  He	
  still	
  is,	
  when	
  it	
  comes	
  down	
  to	
  it,	
  but	
  his	
  old	
  
witch	
  of	
  a	
  wife	
  noticed	
  what	
  was	
  going	
  on	
  and	
  objected	
  to	
  it.	
  Now	
  I	
  gave	
  Tanguy’s	
  wife	
  a	
  piece	
  of	
  my	
  
mind	
  and	
  said	
  it	
  was	
  her	
  fault	
  if	
  I	
  wouldn’t	
  buy	
  anything	
  else	
  from	
  them.	
  Père	
  Tanguy’s	
  wise	
  enough	
  
to	
  keep	
  quiet,	
  and	
  he’ll	
  do	
  what	
  I	
  ask	
  of	
  him	
  all	
  the	
  same.”	
  Tanguy	
  often	
  allowed	
  artists	
  to	
  trade	
  
paintings	
  for	
  supplies,	
  and	
  this	
  was	
  a	
  habit	
  with	
  which	
  his	
  wife	
  disagreed.	
  See	
  also:	
  Bernard,	
  “Julien	
  
Tanguy,	
  Called	
  Le	
  Père	
  Tanguy”	
  in	
  Stein	
  93.	
  According	
  to	
  Bernard,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  brought	
  Tanguy	
  to	
  Le	
  
Tambourin,	
  a	
  tavern	
  that	
  “greatly	
  upset	
  Tanguy’s	
  good	
  wife,	
  who	
  could	
  scarcely	
  imagine	
  innocent	
  and	
  
infantile	
  reasons	
  for	
  such…escapades.”	
  	
  	
  

213	
  Letter	
  569	
  (see	
  note	
  12)	
  to	
  Livens.	
  “What	
  regards	
  my	
  chances	
  of	
  sale,	
  look	
  here,	
  they	
  are	
  certainly	
  
not	
  much	
  but	
  still	
   I	
  do	
  have	
  a	
  beginning.”	
  In	
   letter	
  718	
  (see	
  note	
  3),	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  confirmed	
  that	
  he	
  
started	
  showing	
  work	
  in	
  at	
  Paris	
  Père	
  Tanguy’s,	
  writing	
  to	
  Théo	
  from	
  Arles	
  on	
  Saturday,	
  November	
  
10,	
  1888.	
  “There	
  were	
  few	
  canvases	
  at	
  Tanguy’s	
  place	
  first	
  of	
  all…”	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

113	
  

a	
  wall	
  of	
  Japanese	
  prints,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  made	
  two	
  other	
  portraits	
  of	
  Tanguy	
  in	
  1887.214	
  	
  

In	
  the	
  first	
  of	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  portraits,	
  Tanguy	
  wears	
  the	
  apron	
  of	
  a	
  paint-­‐shop	
  owner	
  

[figure	
  30].	
  This	
  portrait	
  connects	
  to	
  his	
  previous	
  Dutch	
  paintings;	
  although	
  Tanguy’s	
  

skin	
  is	
  brighter,	
  the	
  overall	
  tone	
  of	
  the	
  painting	
  is	
  considered	
  through	
  a	
  limited	
  color	
  

palette.	
  Whereas	
  the	
  earlier	
  portrait	
  commits	
  to	
  an	
  ochre	
  hue,	
  the	
  latter	
  portrait	
  

meets	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  Neo-­‐Impressionist	
  objectives	
  Fénéon	
  outlined.	
  	
  

In	
   Père	
   Tanguy,	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   positioned	
   the	
   paint-­‐shop	
   owner	
   against	
   a	
  

backdrop	
  of	
  Japanese	
  prints.	
  Tanguy	
  did	
  not	
  sell	
  Japanese	
  prints	
  in	
  his	
  shop,	
  so	
  Van	
  

Gogh	
  aimed	
  to	
  locate	
  the	
  influential	
  shop	
  owner	
  among	
  his	
  own	
  pictorial	
  influences.	
  

The	
  shopkeeper	
  appears	
  as	
  a	
  worker,	
  a	
  socialist,	
  indicated	
  with	
  his	
  “planter’s	
  hat”	
  

and	
  jacket.215	
  His	
  torso	
  is	
  fully	
  frontal	
  and	
  his	
  gaze	
  stares	
  directly	
  at	
  the	
  viewer	
  “like	
  

a	
  Buddha.”216	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  captured,	
  in	
  Bernard’s	
  view,	
  Tanguy’s	
  “upright	
  character,”	
  

his	
  “tender	
  and	
  soft”	
  nature,	
  a	
  man	
  who	
  literally	
  put	
  “the	
  materials	
  for”	
  the	
  artists’	
  

work	
  into	
  their	
  hands.	
  217	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  mediated	
  the	
  subject	
  through	
  the	
  materials—

brushes,	
  tubes	
  of	
  paint,	
  canvases—Tanguy	
  provided.	
  Tanguy’s	
  hands	
  are	
  clasped	
  in	
  

the	
  same	
  way	
  he	
  spoke	
  in	
  person—“he	
  would	
  bend	
  over	
  a	
  little	
  and	
  rub	
  his	
  hands	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
214	
  Zemel	
  202-­‐205.	
  

215	
  Bernard,	
  “Julien	
  Tanguy,	
  Called	
  Le	
  Père	
  Tanguy”	
  in	
  Stein	
  94.	
  

216	
  Homburg	
  76.	
  Childs	
  121-­‐122.	
  	
  	
  

217	
  Bernard,	
  “Julien	
  Tanguy,	
  Called	
  Le	
  Père	
  Tanguy”	
  in	
  Stein	
  94.	
  

	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

114	
  

together	
   while	
   speaking	
   to	
   you.” 218 	
  In	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   portrait,	
   the	
   viewer	
   can	
  

experience	
   Tanguy’s	
   essence,	
   talking	
   about	
   art,	
   while	
   observing	
   Japanese	
   prints	
  

behind	
   the	
   figure,	
   as	
   if	
   a	
   reference	
   to	
   Tanguy’s	
   thoughts.	
   	
   Considered	
   within	
   the	
  

context	
  of	
  the	
  Grand	
  Bouillon	
  Exhibition,	
  Père	
  Tanguy	
  provides	
  the	
  perspective	
  of	
  a	
  

figure	
  supportive	
  of	
  the	
  new	
  techniques.	
   	
  Situated	
  among	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  works,	
  the	
  

portrait	
   symbolizes	
   a	
   new	
   mode	
   of	
   painting	
   and	
   positions	
   the	
   viewer	
   in	
   dialogue	
  

with	
   one	
   of	
   the	
   people	
   responsible	
   for	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   new	
   ideals	
   and	
   those	
   of	
   an	
  

emerging	
  artistic	
  community.	
  	
  Formally,	
  the	
  prints	
  share	
  the	
  blue	
  of	
  Tanguy’s	
  jacket	
  

and	
  the	
  two	
  images	
  of	
  the	
  Japanese	
  women	
  flank	
  his	
  torso,	
  their	
  gaze	
  generating	
  an	
  

implied	
  line	
  toward	
  his	
  body.	
  	
  

In	
   contrast	
   to	
   Père	
   Tanguy,	
   Bernard	
   depicted	
   the	
   shopkeeper	
   in	
   formal,	
  

bourgeois	
  attire	
  [figure	
  31].	
  Vertical	
  paint	
  strokes	
  evident	
  on	
  Tanguy’s	
  face	
  suggest	
  

that	
   Bernard	
   attempted	
   to	
   render	
   his	
   complexion	
   but	
   aimed	
   to	
   leave	
   strokes	
  

unblended,	
  using	
  complementary	
  red	
  and	
  violets	
  to	
  give	
  shape	
  to	
  Tanguy’s	
  features.	
  

The	
   decorative	
   background	
   prints	
   and	
   the	
   flat	
   shape	
   of	
   Tanguy’s	
   torso	
   relate	
   to	
  

Bernard’s	
  portrait	
  of	
  his	
  grandmother	
  (exhibited	
  at	
  the	
  Grand	
  Bouillon)	
  [figure	
  8]	
  in	
  

which	
  un-­‐modulated	
  shapes	
  represent	
  the	
  figures’	
  forehead,	
  hat,	
  and	
  dress.	
  Bernard	
  

conceived	
   of	
   the	
   Portrait	
   of	
   the	
   Artist’s	
   Grandmother	
   through	
   the	
   ideals	
   of	
  

Cloisonism,	
   setting	
   off	
   his	
   grandmother’s	
   features	
   with	
   thick	
   black	
   contour	
   lines.	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
218	
  Bernard,	
  “Julien	
  Tanguy,	
  Called	
  Le	
  Père	
  Tanguy”	
  in	
  Stein	
  94.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

115	
  

Although	
  Bernard	
  used	
  simplified	
  shapes,	
  and	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  modeled	
  forms	
  with	
  stroke	
  

and	
   broken	
   color,	
   they	
   both	
   arrived	
   at	
   a	
   somewhat	
   flattened	
   composition	
   that	
  

translated	
   the	
   figure’s	
   individuality	
   through	
   the	
   artist’s	
   temperament.	
   Fénéon	
  

underscored	
   that	
   the	
   Neo-­‐Impressionist	
   canvases	
   were	
   abstract	
   and	
   thus	
   not	
  

“uniform.”219	
  “Each	
   of	
   them,”	
   he	
   wrote,	
   referring	
   to	
   Pissarro,	
   Signac,	
   and	
   Seurat,	
  

“stresses	
  his	
  disparity…through	
  his	
  own	
  interpretation	
  of	
  the	
  emotional	
  meaning	
  of	
  

colors…but	
   never	
   through	
   a	
   monopoly	
   of	
   deft	
   studio	
   tricks.”220	
  Bernard	
   and	
   Van	
  

Gogh	
  too	
  found	
  differing	
  modes	
  to	
  craft	
  a	
  portrait.	
  	
  

Thomson	
  notes	
  that	
  Père	
  Tanguy	
  does	
  not	
  show	
  an	
  allegiance	
  to	
  the	
  petit	
  

boulevard	
   painters. 221 	
  Thomson’s	
   point	
   of	
   view	
   can	
   be	
   understood	
   in	
   the	
  

brushstrokes	
   and	
   influence	
   of	
   Japonisme	
   found	
   in	
   the	
   flat	
   shapes	
   and	
   the	
  

compounded	
   figure-­‐ground	
   relationship.	
   The	
   petit	
   boulevard	
   artists	
   experimented	
  

with	
  varying	
  approaches.	
  The	
  use	
  of	
  violet	
  undertones	
  in	
  Tanguy’s	
  beard	
  and	
  hands	
  

in	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  Père	
  Tanguy	
  relates	
  to	
  the	
  Impressionist	
  way	
  of	
  modeling	
  shadow.	
  

Van	
  Gogh	
  did	
  not	
  employ	
  the	
  dot-­‐like	
  stroke	
  of	
  Nèo-­‐Impressionism	
  in	
  Père	
  Tanguy.	
  

He	
  did	
  use	
  complementary	
  hues—a	
  Prussian	
  blue	
  jacket	
  set	
  against	
  a	
  yellow	
  print—

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
219	
  Fénéon,	
  “Le	
  Néo-­‐impressionnisme”	
  in	
  Dorra	
  162.	
  

220	
  Fénéon,	
  “Le	
  Néo-­‐impressionnisme”	
  in	
  Dorra	
  162.	
  

221	
  Thomson	
  76.	
  	
  

	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

116	
  

and	
   individual	
   strokes	
   that,	
   in	
   Fénéon’s	
   words,	
   “attuned	
   [color]	
   on	
   the	
   canvas	
  

according	
   to	
   the	
   law	
   of	
   simultaneous	
   contrast	
   by	
   another	
   series	
   of	
   strokes.”222	
  In	
  

Van	
   Gogh’s	
   earliest	
   portrait	
   of	
   Tanguy,	
   the	
   painter	
   addressed	
   hue	
   on	
   the	
   palette	
  

prior	
  to	
  applying	
  medium	
  to	
  the	
  canvas.	
   In	
  the	
  portrait	
  with	
  Japanese	
  prints,	
  the	
  

brushstrokes	
  on	
  Tanguy’s	
  trousers,	
  for	
  instance,	
  are	
  individual	
  brush	
  marks	
  in	
  light	
  

blues,	
  umbers,	
  and	
  ochres	
  and	
  move	
  lengthwise	
  across	
  his	
  body,	
  indicating	
  the	
  curve	
  

of	
  his	
  upper	
  leg.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  considered	
  color	
  as	
  hue	
  related	
  to	
  hue.	
  The	
  painting	
  as	
  a	
  

whole	
  reads	
  flatly—Tanguy	
  does	
  not	
  protrude	
  or	
  appear	
  to	
  be	
  firmly	
  seated	
  on	
  a	
  

stool.	
  Although	
  there	
  are	
  a	
  few	
  deep-­‐toned	
  marks	
  between	
  his	
   legs	
  to	
   indicate	
  a	
  

shadow,	
   for	
   the	
   most	
   part,	
   he	
   appears	
   in	
   outline	
   against	
   the	
   prints.	
   Here,	
   the	
  

complementary	
   yellow-­‐blue,	
   green-­‐red	
   relationships	
   and	
   the	
   compressed	
   figure-­‐

ground	
   relationship	
   speak	
   to	
   Tanguy’s	
   role	
   in	
   the	
   new-­‐found	
   position	
   Van	
   Gogh	
  

aimed	
   to	
   secure,	
   an	
   avant-­‐garde	
   painter	
   exploring	
   Impressionism	
   and	
   Neo-­‐

Impressionism	
  and	
  exhibiting	
  in	
  a	
  new	
  market.	
  Tanguy	
  is	
  a	
  laborer,	
  but,	
  through	
  the	
  

artist’s	
  attention	
  to	
  the	
  surface,	
  the	
  shopkeeper	
  is	
  a	
  construction	
  within	
  a	
  canvas,	
  a	
  

symbol	
  of	
  the	
  delicate	
  divide	
  between	
  what	
  we	
  see	
  and	
  what	
  can	
  be	
  transformed	
  in	
  

medium.	
  	
  	
  

The	
  painter	
  had	
  hoped	
  to	
  sell	
  his	
  works,	
  an	
  aim	
  throughout	
  his	
  career,	
  and	
  

Tanguy’s	
  shop	
  gave	
  him	
  the	
  opportunity	
  to	
  try	
  to	
  do	
  so.	
  The	
  painter	
  hung	
  a	
  few	
  of	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
222	
  Fénéon,	
  “Le	
  Néo-­‐impressionnisme”	
  in	
  Dorra	
  161.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

117	
  

the	
  landscapes	
  (although	
  we	
  do	
  not	
  know	
  which	
  images)	
  from	
  Clichy	
  and	
  Asnières	
  in	
  

the	
  shop,	
  thinking	
  that	
  they	
  may	
  be	
  hard	
  to	
  sell.	
  “In	
  time,”	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote,	
  “people	
  

will	
  see	
  that	
  there’s	
  open	
  air	
  and	
  good	
  cheer	
  in	
  them”	
  and	
  that	
  they	
  would	
  be	
  fitting	
  

to	
  hang	
  in	
  a	
  dining	
  room.223	
  	
  Tanguy	
  invited	
  the	
  painter	
  to	
  hang	
  a	
  work	
  in	
  his	
  front	
  

window	
  and	
  the	
  landscapes	
  of	
  Clichy	
  and	
  Asnières	
  may	
  have	
  been	
  similar	
  to	
  those	
  

included	
   in	
   the	
   Grand	
   Bouillon	
   Exhibition.	
   That	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   choose	
   to	
   include	
   a	
  

portrait	
  of	
  Tanguy	
  in	
  front	
  of	
  Japanese	
  prints	
  along	
  with	
  the	
  landscapes,	
  may	
  suggest	
  

that	
  he	
  paid	
  an	
  homage	
  to	
  the	
  shop	
  keeper	
  for	
  supporting	
  the	
  images	
  he	
  had	
  been	
  

painting	
  along	
  the	
  banks	
  of	
  the	
  Seine,	
  and	
  the	
  transformative	
  approach	
  his	
  painting	
  

practice	
  took.	
  	
  The	
  painting	
  of	
  Tanguy	
  in	
  form	
  and	
  subject	
  represents	
  the	
  ideals	
  Van	
  

Gogh	
  supported	
  and	
  the	
  way	
  he	
  wanted	
  to	
  be	
  perceived	
  within	
  the	
  Parisian	
  artistic	
  

community—as	
   a	
   painter	
   who	
   used	
   his	
   medium	
   expressively,	
   to	
   convey	
   the	
  

experience	
   of	
   Tanguy,	
   a	
   leader	
   in	
   the	
   painter’s	
   new	
   conceptually	
   inventive	
  

community.	
  	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
223	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  572	
  to	
  Théo	
  from	
  Paris	
  between	
  Saturday	
  July	
  23	
  and	
  Monday	
  July	
  25	
  1887.	
  
“I	
  saw	
  Tanguy	
  yesterday	
  and	
  he	
  put	
  a	
  canvas	
  I	
  had	
  just	
  done	
  in	
  his	
  window,	
  I’ve	
  done	
  four	
  since	
  you	
  
left,	
  and	
  I	
  have	
  a	
  big	
  one	
  on	
  the	
  go.	
  I	
  am	
  well	
  aware	
  that	
  these	
  big,	
  long	
  canvases	
  are	
  hard	
  to	
  sell,	
  but	
  
in	
  time	
  people	
  will	
  see	
  that	
  there’s	
  open	
  air	
  and	
  good	
  cheer	
  in	
  them.	
  Now	
  the	
  whole	
  lot	
  will	
  make	
  a	
  
decoration	
  for	
  a	
  dining	
  room	
  or	
  a	
  house	
  in	
  the	
  country.”	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

118	
  

Industrial	
  Landscapes	
  at	
  the	
  Grand	
  Bouillon	
  Exhibition	
  

As	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  began	
  to	
  formulate	
  what	
  would	
  become	
  his	
  unique	
  brushstroke	
  

and	
   compositional	
   strategies	
   and	
   move	
   away	
   from	
   his	
   Dutch-­‐period	
   methods,	
   he	
  

met	
  and	
  painted	
  with	
  Signac	
  and	
  Bernard.	
  In	
  1887,	
  Signac	
  (in	
  his	
  early	
  twenties)	
  and	
  

Bernard	
  (in	
  his	
  late	
  teens)	
  were	
  young	
  painters	
  considering	
  new	
  techniques	
  within	
  

the	
   scope	
   of	
   Impressionism	
   and	
   Neo-­‐Impressionism	
   and	
   were	
   developing	
   what	
  

would	
  become	
  their	
  respective	
  recognizable	
  styles.	
  The	
  three	
  painters	
  sometimes	
  

worked	
  together	
  in	
  Clichy	
  and	
  Asnières	
  during	
  spring	
  1887	
  (when	
  Fénéon	
  published	
  

“Le	
  Néo-­‐impressionnisme,”)	
  and	
  exhibited	
  at	
  the	
  Grand	
  Bouillon	
  in	
  the	
  fall.	
  Working	
  

closely	
  with	
  Signac	
  and	
  Bernard,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  organized	
  the	
  Grand	
  Bouillon	
  Exhibition	
  

that	
   situated	
   their	
   distinct	
   landscapes	
   among	
   one	
   another’s,	
   a	
   manifesto	
   of	
   the	
  

emerging	
  concepts	
  with	
  which	
  they	
  engaged.	
  	
  

Though	
  they	
  were	
  exploring	
  their	
  new	
  ideas	
  in	
  1887,	
  Van	
  Gogh’s,	
  Bernard’s,	
  

and	
  Signac’s	
  1885	
  and	
  1886	
  imagery	
  developed	
  from	
  different	
  modes	
  of	
  landscape	
  

painting.	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   Dutch-­‐period	
   landscapes,	
   such	
   as	
   The	
   Parsonage	
   Garden	
   in	
  

Snow	
  (1885)	
  [figure	
  32]	
  shows	
  his	
  consideration	
  of	
  the	
  figure	
  against	
  a	
  garden.	
  As	
  he	
  

generally	
  did	
  in	
  this	
  period,	
  the	
  artist	
  felt	
  that	
  exploring	
  the	
  subject	
  matter	
  through	
  a	
  

limited	
   color	
   scheme	
   situated	
   the	
   figure	
   in	
   his	
   or	
   her	
   space,	
   allowing	
   the	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

119	
  

environment	
  to	
  literally	
  shape	
  the	
  figure.224	
  The	
  clergyman,	
  for	
  instance,	
  has	
  knotted	
  

limbs	
  that	
  reflect	
  the	
  gnarly	
  quality	
  of	
  tree	
  trunks	
  signifying	
  his	
  hard	
  work	
  readying	
  

his	
  garden	
  for	
  spring.	
  	
  

Whereas	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   developed	
   landscape	
   imagery	
   in	
   the	
   monochromatic	
  

palette	
  he	
  used	
  in	
  The	
  Netherlands,	
  in	
  1886	
  Bernard	
  was	
  exposed	
  to	
  the	
  gestural,	
  

comma-­‐like	
  mark	
  of	
  the	
  Impressionists.	
  Bernard’s	
  Verger	
  à	
  Pont-­‐Aven	
  (August	
  1886)	
  

[figure	
  33]	
  draws	
  from	
  both	
  Pissarro’s	
  and	
  Seurat’s	
  canvases	
  from	
  the	
  8me	
  Exposition	
  

de	
   peinture.225	
  Broken	
   brushstrokes,	
   a	
   somewhat	
   geometric	
   delineation	
   of	
   the	
  

picture	
   plane,	
   and	
   lack	
   of	
   depth	
   resemble	
   Pissarro’s	
   Apple	
   Pickers.	
   Bernard	
  

attempted	
   to	
   emulate	
   the	
   tree’s	
   color	
   by	
   separating	
   hue—greens,	
   blues,	
   ochre,	
  

sienna—to	
  compose	
  the	
  unified	
  expression	
  of	
  summer	
  foliage.	
  Bernard	
  noted	
  that	
  

he	
   and	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   followed	
   the	
   Impressionists	
   and	
   together	
   they	
   worked	
   “at	
   the	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
224	
  Van	
   Gogh	
   wrote	
   letter	
   483	
   to	
   Théo	
   around	
   February	
   26,	
   1885	
   from	
   Nuenen	
   (almost	
   one	
   year	
  
before	
  arriving	
  in	
  Paris)	
  and	
  commented	
  on	
  Parsonage	
  Garden	
  in	
  the	
  Snow:	
  “I	
  painted	
  a	
  few	
  more	
  
studies	
  of	
  our	
  garden	
  when	
  there	
  was	
  snow	
  on	
  it.	
  The	
  landscape	
  has	
  changed	
  greatly	
  since	
  then—we	
  
now	
   have	
   magnificent	
   evening	
   skies	
   of	
   lilac	
   and	
   gold,	
   above	
   the	
   tonal	
   silhouettes	
   of	
   the	
   houses	
  
between	
   the	
   masses	
   of	
   the	
   coppices,	
   which	
   are	
   a	
   ruddy	
   colour,	
   above	
   which	
   rise	
   slender	
   black	
  
poplars—while	
  the	
  foregrounds	
  are	
  blanched	
  and	
  bleached	
  green,	
  varied	
  by	
  strips	
  of	
  black	
  earth	
  and	
  
dry,	
  pale	
  reeds	
  along	
  the	
  sides	
  of	
  the	
  ditches.	
  I	
  see	
  all	
  that,	
  too—I	
  find	
  it	
  as	
  superb	
  as	
  anyone	
  else—
but	
  what	
  interests	
  me	
  even	
  more	
  is	
  the	
  proportion	
  of	
  a	
  figure,	
  the	
  division	
  of	
  the	
  oval	
  of	
  a	
  head,	
  and	
  I	
  
have	
  no	
  grasp	
  on	
  the	
  rest	
  until	
  I	
  have	
  more	
  mastery	
  of	
  the	
  figure.	
  In	
  short—the	
  figure	
  first—for	
  my	
  
part,	
   I	
   can’t	
   understand	
   the	
   rest	
   without	
   it,	
   and	
   it’s	
   the	
   figure	
   that	
   creates	
   the	
   mood.	
   I	
   can	
  
understand,	
  though,	
  that	
  there	
  are	
  people	
  like	
  Daubigny	
  and	
  Harpignies	
  and	
  Ruisdael	
  and	
  so	
  many	
  
others,	
  who	
  are	
  absolutely	
  and	
  irresistibly	
  carried	
  away	
  by	
  the	
  landscape	
  itself;	
  their	
  work	
  is	
  totally	
  
satisfying	
  because	
  they	
  themselves	
  were	
  satisfied	
  by	
  sky	
  and	
  soil	
  and	
  a	
  pool	
  of	
  water	
  and	
  a	
  bush.	
  
However,	
  I	
  think	
  what	
  Israëls	
  said	
  about	
  a	
  Dupré	
  is	
  a	
  mighty	
  clever	
  saying—it’s	
  just	
  like	
  a	
  painting	
  of	
  a	
  
figure.”	
  

225	
  Welsh-­‐Ovcharov,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  à	
  Paris	
  196.	
  	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

120	
  

French	
   Renaissance…[feeling]	
   more	
   French	
   than	
   ever	
   in	
   this	
   task;”	
   and	
   in	
   Paris	
  

Vincent	
   and	
   Théo	
   were	
   “in	
   their	
   homeland.”226	
  Rather	
   than	
   make	
   many	
   careful	
  

studies,	
  Bernard	
  and	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  had	
  an	
  enthusiasm	
  for	
  painting	
  outdoors	
  and	
  turned	
  

their	
  attention	
  to	
  Paris’s	
  city	
  streets	
  and	
  suburban	
  landscapes.	
  From	
  the	
  rue	
  Lepic,	
  

Van	
  Gogh	
  set	
  out	
  for	
  a	
  day’s	
  work	
  with	
  several	
  large	
  canvases	
  strapped	
  to	
  his	
  back.	
  

He	
  returned	
  at	
  the	
  end	
  of	
  the	
  day—having	
  painted	
  within	
  Paris’s	
  neighborhoods,	
  

such	
  as	
  Montmartre,	
  Asnières,	
  and	
  Clichy—with	
  a	
  “portable	
  museum,	
  wherein	
  were	
  

culled	
  all	
  the	
  emotions	
  of	
  the	
  day.”227	
  When	
  he	
  saw	
  the	
  paintings,	
  Bernard	
  “savored	
  

their	
   charm…because	
   [he]	
   lived	
   in	
   those	
   places…they	
   were	
   the	
   objects	
   of	
   [his]	
  

solitary	
   walks	
   and	
   because	
   they	
   were	
   rendered	
   with	
   the	
   soul	
   that	
   [he]	
   felt	
   in	
  

them.”228	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  could	
  make	
  three	
  paintings	
  a	
  day.	
  And,	
  along	
  his	
  way,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  

often	
  visited	
  Bernard	
  while	
  the	
  latter	
  was	
  in	
  his	
  family	
  home	
  in	
  Asnières	
  [figure	
  34].	
  

These	
   visits	
   led	
   to	
   painting	
   Tanguy’s	
   portraits	
   and	
   to	
   the	
   Clichy	
   and	
   Asnières	
  

landscapes,	
  where	
  he	
  worked	
  with	
  Signac	
  as	
  well.	
  	
  

Signac	
   saw	
   Seurat’s	
   Bather’s	
   in	
   Asnières	
   (1883-­‐1884)	
   at	
   the	
   Société	
   de	
  

Artistes	
  Indépendantes	
  in	
  1884	
  and	
  met	
  Pissarro	
  in	
  1885.	
  By	
  1886,	
  he	
  kept	
  a	
  studio	
  

next	
  to	
  Seurat’s	
  on	
  the	
  Avenue	
  de	
  Clichy	
  in	
  Montmartre.	
  Although	
  Signac	
  is	
  typically	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
226	
  Bernard,	
  “Preface”	
  in	
  Stein	
  91.	
  

227	
  Bernard,	
  “Preface”	
  in	
  Stein	
  91.	
  

228	
  Bernard,	
  “Preface”	
  in	
  Stein	
  91.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

121	
  

associated	
   with	
   pointillism	
   in	
   1886,	
   that	
   year,	
   he,	
   like	
   Bernard,	
   moved	
   between	
  

experimenting	
  with	
  an	
  Impressionist	
  and	
  a	
  pointillist	
  practice.	
  Prior	
  to	
  this	
  time,	
  he	
  

used	
  violet	
  undertones	
  similar	
  to	
  Monet	
  in	
  Pierre	
  Hâlé’s	
  Windmill,	
  Saint-­‐Briac	
  (1884)	
  

and	
  expressionist	
  strokes	
  in	
  Brisk	
  Breeze	
  from	
  the	
  North	
  ¼	
  Northwest,	
  Saint-­‐Briac,	
  

like	
  Monet’s	
  Apple	
  Trees	
  in	
  Bloom	
  beside	
  the	
  Water	
  (1880),	
  a	
  painting	
  Signac	
  had	
  

seen	
  in	
  1880	
  and	
  had	
  acquired	
  for	
  his	
  collection	
  in	
  1932	
  [figures	
  35-­‐37].229	
  Signac	
  

exhibited	
  both	
  Pierre	
  Hâlé	
  and	
  Brisk	
  Breeze	
   in	
  the	
  8me	
  Exposition	
  de	
  peinture,	
  the	
  

only	
   Impressionist	
   exhibition	
   in	
   which	
   Signac	
   participated—he	
   submitted	
   fifteen	
  

paintings	
  and	
  three	
  drawings.	
  From	
  the	
  body	
  of	
  work	
  exhibited	
  at	
  the	
  Impressionist	
  

exhibition,	
  Signac’s	
  early	
   interest	
   in	
   industrial	
  Paris	
   is	
  evident.	
  Signac’s	
  La	
  Seine	
  à	
  

Asnières:	
  la	
  berge	
  (November	
  1885)	
  and	
  Paris.	
  Boulevard	
  de	
  Clichy.	
  Le	
  neige	
  (January	
  

1886)	
  [figures	
  38	
  &	
  39],	
  also	
  included	
  in	
  the	
  eighth	
  Impressionist	
  exhibition,	
  speak	
  to	
  

the	
  influence	
  from	
  Monet	
  and	
  Pissarro	
  whose	
  images	
  of	
  the	
  streets	
  of	
  Paris	
  capture	
  

the	
   pace	
   of	
   modern	
   life.	
   In	
   Fénéon’s	
   words,	
   Signac	
   “knows	
   how	
   to	
   translate	
   the	
  

melancholy	
   overcast	
   weather,	
   imprisoning	
   the	
   banks	
   in	
   its	
   waters:	
   as	
   in	
   his	
  

Boulevard	
   de	
   Clichy.	
   Le	
   neige	
   and	
   his	
   Banks	
   at	
   Asnières	
   (November	
   1885).”230	
  In	
  

Boulevard	
  de	
  Clichy,	
  there	
  is	
  a	
  clear	
  sense	
  of	
  depth,	
  and	
  he	
  also	
  shows	
  atmospheric	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
229	
  Marina	
   Ferretti-­‐Bocquillon,	
   “Signac	
   as	
   a	
   Collector,”	
   Signac,	
   1863-­‐1935,	
   eds.	
   Marina	
   Ferretti-­‐
Bocquillon	
  et	
  al.	
  (New	
  Haven:	
  Yale	
  University	
  Press,	
  2001)	
  55.	
  	
  
230	
  Fénéon,	
  “Les	
   Impressionnistes	
  en	
  1886”	
   in	
  Halperin	
  37.	
  “Il	
  sait	
  aussi	
  traduire	
   la	
  mélancolie	
  des	
  
temps	
  gris,	
  emprisonner	
  ses	
  eaux	
  dans	
  des	
  quais:	
  et	
  l’on	
  a	
  son	
  Boulevard	
  de	
  Clichy	
  par	
  la	
  neige	
  et	
  sa	
  
Berge	
  à	
  Asnières	
  (November	
  1885).”	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

122	
  

effects,	
   such	
   as	
   the	
   snowy-­‐fog	
   and	
   the	
   sun	
   reflecting	
   on	
   the	
   rippling	
   Seine	
   in	
   La	
  

berge.	
  	
  

In	
  La	
  berge,	
  he	
  appears	
  to	
  have	
  included	
  a	
  reference	
  to	
  Monet’s	
  studio-­‐boat.	
  

In	
   the	
   painting,	
   a	
   houseboat	
   resembling	
   the	
   one	
   Monet	
   painted	
   in	
   Studio	
   Boat	
  

(1874)	
  [figure	
  40],	
  floats	
  on	
  the	
  bank.	
  Similar	
  to	
  the	
  opaque,	
  light-­‐green	
  color	
  and	
  

structure	
   of	
   Monet’s	
   houseboat,	
   Signac’s	
   inclusion	
   ties	
   his	
   subject	
   matter	
   and	
  

painterly	
   method	
   to	
   the	
   Impressionist	
   aesthetic.	
   While	
   several	
   canvases	
   vary	
   in	
  

mark-­‐making	
   technique,	
   some	
   of	
   the	
   images	
   Signac	
   presented	
   in	
   1886	
   show	
   his	
  

dedication	
  to	
  the	
  developing	
  pointillist	
  approach,	
  such	
  as	
  in	
  The	
  Gas	
  Tanks	
  at	
  Clichy	
  

(1886)	
   [figure	
   41].	
   Gas	
   Tanks	
   is	
   Neo-­‐Impressionist	
   in	
   paint	
   application	
   and	
   draws	
  

from	
  an	
  Impressionist	
  practice	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  color	
  and	
  figure-­‐ground	
  relationship.231	
  	
  

Due	
  in	
  part	
  to	
  Fénéon’s	
  discussion	
  of	
  Signac’s	
  work	
  in	
  his	
  Neo-­‐Impressionist	
  

criticism,	
  by	
  1887,	
  Signac	
  was	
  a	
  significant	
  artist	
  in	
  the	
  realm	
  of	
  the	
  newly-­‐defined	
  

theory,	
  had	
  many	
  artistic	
  connections,	
  and	
  wrote	
  on	
  art	
  (notably	
  a	
  1911	
  booklet	
  on	
  

the	
  connection	
  between	
  Delacroix’s	
  work	
  and	
  Neo-­‐Impressionistic	
  ideals).	
  A	
  friend	
  

of	
  Fénéon’s,	
  Seurat’s,	
  and	
  Pissarro’s,	
  Signac	
  met	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  in	
  1887	
  at	
  Tanguy’s	
  shop,	
  

the	
  former	
  having	
  also	
  shown	
  his	
  works	
  in	
  the	
  paint	
  shop	
  as	
  well.232	
  Signac	
  and	
  Van	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
231	
  John	
  Leighton,	
  “Out	
  of	
  Seurat’s	
  Shadow:	
  Signac,	
  1863-­‐1935,	
  An	
  Introduction,”	
  Signac,	
  1863-­‐1935,	
  
eds.	
  Marina	
  Ferretti-­‐Bocquillon	
  et	
  al.	
  (New	
  Haven:	
  Yale	
  University	
  Press,	
  2001)	
  5.	
  

232	
  Roskill	
   89.	
   See	
   also:	
   Françoise	
   Cachin,	
   Paul	
   Signac	
   (Greenwich,	
   Connecticut:	
   New	
   York	
   Graphic	
  
Society	
  Ltd.,	
  1971)	
  41-­‐51.	
  	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

123	
  

Gogh	
  painted	
  landscapes	
  together	
  in	
  the	
  spring	
  of	
  1887	
  in	
  Clichy,	
  Saint-­‐Ouen,	
  and	
  

Asnières.	
  They	
  worked	
  along	
  the	
  banks	
  of	
  the	
  Seine	
  and,	
  in	
  Signac’s	
  words,	
  “lunched	
  

at	
  an	
  open-­‐air	
  roadhouse,”	
  walking	
  back	
  to	
  Paris	
  along	
  the	
  Avenues	
  of	
  Saint-­‐Ouen	
  or	
  

Clichy. 233 	
  Van	
   Gogh	
   worked	
   intensely	
   while	
   with	
   Signac—he	
   “shouted	
   and	
  

gesticulated,	
   brandishing	
   his	
   large,	
   freshly	
   painted…canvas	
   in	
   such	
   a	
   way	
   that	
   he	
  

polychromed	
  himself	
  and	
  the	
  passerby.”234	
  Pissarro	
   joined	
  Signac	
   in	
  the	
  winter	
  of	
  

1887	
  in	
  Asnières	
  as	
  well,	
  writing	
  to	
  his	
  son	
  Lucien	
  that	
  there	
  was	
  “…nothing	
  new	
  

since	
  yesterday,	
  except	
  our	
  meeting	
  at	
  Asnières,	
  attended	
  by	
  Fénéon,	
  Seurat,	
  and	
  

Signac.”235	
  	
  

On	
  the	
  banks	
  of	
  the	
  Seine	
  in	
  Clichy	
  and	
  Asnières,	
  Bernard,	
  Signac,	
  and	
  Van	
  

Gogh	
  explored	
  the	
  signs	
  of	
  industry	
  that	
  fostered	
  the	
  economic	
  system	
  in	
  the	
  areas	
  

north	
  of	
  Paris.	
  Signac	
  and	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  lived	
  in	
  Montmartre	
  and	
  set	
  out	
  for	
  the	
  day	
  

walking	
  north	
  toward	
  Clichy	
  or	
  across	
  the	
  bridge	
  to	
  Asnières,	
  where	
  Bernard’s	
  and	
  

Signac’s	
   families	
   had	
   homes.	
   North	
   of	
   Montmartre,	
   Clichy	
   and	
   Asnières	
   were	
  

working-­‐class	
  suburbs	
  generally	
  undocumented	
  by	
  the	
  Impressionists,	
  but	
  Asnières	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
233	
  A	
  letter	
  from	
  Paul	
  Signac	
  to	
  Gustave	
  Coquiot,	
  written	
  in	
  1923,	
  in	
  Stein	
  89.	
  

234	
  Signac	
  quoted	
  in	
  Stein	
  89.	
  

235	
  Pissarro	
  quoted	
  in	
  Camille	
  Pissarro:	
  Letters	
  to	
  His	
  Son	
  Lucien	
  93.	
  Pissarro	
  wrote	
  to	
  his	
  son	
  Lucien	
  
on	
  January	
  14,	
  1887.	
  Signac	
  and	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  maintained	
  a	
  friendship	
  after	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  moved	
  to	
  Arles	
  as	
  
well:	
  one	
  time	
  Signac	
  visited	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  in	
  the	
  hospital,	
  and	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  to	
  thank	
  him,	
  noting	
  that	
  
Signac’s	
  profound	
  friendship	
  helped	
  him	
  heal.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
   letter	
  756	
  to	
  Signac	
  from	
  Arles	
  on	
  
Wednesday	
  April	
  10,	
  1889.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

124	
  

was	
  an	
  integral	
  part	
  of	
  Seurat’s	
  body	
  of	
  work.	
  As	
  emerging	
  artists,	
  Bernard,	
  Signac,	
  

and	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   struck	
   out	
   in	
   a	
   location	
   that	
   was	
   associated	
   with	
   Seurat’s	
   Neo-­‐

Impressionistic	
   imagery	
   and	
   in	
   neighborhoods	
   that	
   provided	
   goods	
   to	
   the	
   city.	
  

Bernard	
  and	
  Signac	
  were	
  in	
  the	
  process	
  of	
  changing	
  their	
  surfaces	
  to	
  reflect	
  their	
  

individual	
   approaches.	
   Signac	
   was	
   honing	
   his	
   Neo-­‐Impressionistic	
   technique	
   and	
  

Bernard	
  was	
  working	
  through	
  Cloisonism.	
  Signac’s	
  and	
  Bernard’s	
  approaches	
  directly	
  

affected	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   paintings	
   formally	
   and	
   conceptually,	
   particularly	
   those	
   from	
  

Clichy	
   and	
   Asnières.	
   Bernard’s,	
   Signac’s,	
   and	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   respective	
   factory	
  

landscapes	
  have	
  commonalities	
  because	
  they	
  considered	
  the	
  canvas	
  as	
  a	
  symbol	
  of	
  

their	
  environment	
  and,	
  through	
  direct	
  and	
  indirect	
  references	
  of	
  industry	
  and	
  labor,	
  

they	
  suggested	
  the	
  effects	
  of	
  factory	
  life.	
  The	
  industrial	
  landscapes	
  Signac,	
  Bernard,	
  

and	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  generated	
  in	
  1887	
  show	
  the	
  differing	
  techniques	
  the	
  painters	
  of	
  the	
  

petit	
   boulevard	
   undertook.	
   Like	
   the	
   Impressionists	
   and	
   Neo-­‐Impressionists,	
   they	
  

neither	
  sought	
  a	
  unified	
  approach	
  nor	
  a	
  similar	
  interpretation	
  of	
  a	
  painterly	
  ideal.	
  	
  

The	
  landscape	
  scenes	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  painted	
  in	
  Clichy	
  and	
  Asnières	
  and	
  exhibited	
  

in	
  the	
  Grand	
  Bouillon—Factories	
  at	
  Clichy	
  and	
  Factory	
  at	
  Clichy	
  [figures	
  10	
  &	
  11]—

relate	
  to	
  the	
  factory	
  images	
  by	
  Signac,	
  such	
  as	
  Sunlight,	
  Quai	
  de	
  Clichy,	
  Opus	
  (1887)	
  

[figure	
  42],	
  a	
  pointillist	
  painting,	
  and	
  those	
  of	
  Bernard,	
  such	
  as	
  Ragpickers	
  at	
  Clichy	
  

(1887),	
   also	
   exhibited	
   at	
   the	
   Grand	
   Bouillon,	
   and	
   Les	
   Chiffonniers:	
   Ponts	
   de	
   fer	
   à	
  

Asnières	
  (1887)	
  [figure	
  9	
  &	
  43].	
  Together,	
  they	
  described	
  the	
  industrial	
   landscape	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

125	
  

along	
  the	
  Seine’s	
  banks	
  in	
  a	
  facture	
  that,	
  although	
  distinct	
  in	
  the	
  painters’	
  respective	
  

works,	
   derived	
   from	
   Fénéon’s	
   suggestion	
   to	
   “synthesize	
   the	
   landscape	
   into	
   a	
  

definitive	
  aspect	
  that	
  perpetuates	
  one’s	
  sensation	
  of	
  it.”236	
  For	
  Van	
  Gogh,	
  Bernard,	
  

and	
   Signac,	
   to	
   develop	
   the	
   pictorial	
   plane	
   through	
   a	
   synthesis	
   meant	
   to	
   consider	
  

objects	
  as	
  forms	
  and	
  shapes	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  color	
  to	
  privilege	
  an	
  overall	
  symbolic	
  image.	
  

The	
   planes	
   of	
   their	
   canvases	
   became	
   more	
   compounded—similar	
   to	
   the	
   figure-­‐

ground	
  relationship	
  in	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  portrait	
  of	
  Tanguy	
  with	
  Japanese	
  prints.	
  To	
  this	
  

end,	
  they	
  considered	
  the	
  function	
  of	
  the	
  scene	
  as	
  a	
  vehicle	
  for	
  the	
  canvas’s	
  affect,	
  as	
  

a	
  product	
  of	
  the	
  artist’s	
  selection	
  and	
  imaginative	
  painterly	
  description.	
  	
  

Van	
   Gogh’s	
   Factory	
   at	
   Clichy	
   and	
   Factories	
   at	
   Clichy	
   both	
   have	
   an	
  

Impressionistic	
  sky,	
  but	
  overall	
  develop	
  an	
  expressionistic	
  facture	
  that	
  forms	
  shapes	
  

to	
  enhance	
  the	
  images’	
  symbolism.	
  Factory	
  at	
  Clichy	
  depicts	
  an	
  alley	
  among	
  factory	
  

buildings,	
   the	
   foreground	
   path	
   rises	
   up	
   to	
   the	
   viewer,	
   undulating	
   toward	
   the	
  

spectator’s	
  body—the	
  brushstrokes	
  assert	
  a	
  sense	
  of	
  perspective	
  but	
  move	
  directly	
  

down	
  toward	
  the	
  edge	
  of	
  the	
  canvas	
  in	
  the	
  foreground.	
  The	
  viewer	
  is	
  met	
  with	
  a	
  

small	
  figure,	
  a	
  factory	
  worker,	
  created	
  monochromatically	
  with	
  a	
  few	
  brushstrokes	
  

much	
   like	
   the	
   figures	
   in	
   Monet’s	
   Impression	
   Sunrise	
   (1874).	
   The	
   figure	
   does	
   not	
  

seem	
   to	
   acknowledge	
   the	
   spectator’s	
   presence.	
   The	
   strokes	
   invite	
   the	
   viewer,	
  

incorporating	
  the	
  spectator	
   in	
  a	
  pictorial	
  narrative	
  of	
  walking	
  along	
  the	
  path.	
  The	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
236	
  Fénéon,	
  “Le	
  Néo-­‐impressionisme”	
  in	
  Dorra	
  162.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

126	
  

experience	
   locates	
   the	
   participant	
   in	
   the	
   midst	
   of	
   a	
   working	
   factory	
   among	
   the	
  

numerous	
  structures	
  that	
  made	
  up	
  a	
  compound.	
  The	
  lush	
  white	
  volumetric	
  material	
  

billowing	
  out	
  of	
  the	
  gates	
  alongside	
  the	
  path	
  juxtaposes	
  the	
  dirty,	
  well-­‐worn	
  quality	
  

of	
  the	
  buildings.	
  The	
  shapes	
  of	
  the	
  buildings	
  seem	
  to	
  lie	
  on	
  top	
  of	
  one	
  another	
  rather	
  

than	
   show	
   depth	
   through	
   shadow	
   or	
   perspectival	
   angle.	
   The	
   structures,	
   grouped	
  

together,	
   suggest	
   the	
   constricting	
   space	
   the	
   factories	
   provide	
   among	
   textiles	
   and	
  

smoke.	
  The	
  brick-­‐like	
  brushstrokes	
  of	
  the	
  chimney	
  appear	
  in	
  the	
  sky	
  as	
  well,	
  belying	
  

the	
   sky’s	
   translucent	
   quality	
   with	
   tactile	
   architectural	
   details.	
   In	
   contrast	
   to	
   the	
  

rectilinear	
  forms	
  of	
  the	
  buildings,	
  the	
  painting’s	
  composition	
  consists	
  of	
  forms	
  that	
  

foster	
   the	
   curvilinear	
   perspective	
   of	
   the	
   path,	
   circling	
   in	
   toward	
   center,	
   the	
   end	
  

point	
  of	
  which	
  is	
  the	
  fellow	
  worker	
  cloaked	
  in	
  a	
  color	
  similar	
  to	
  that	
  emitting	
  from	
  

the	
  chimneys,	
  a	
  sign	
  of	
  his	
  bodily	
  connection	
  to	
  labor	
  and	
  a	
  confining	
  factory	
  life.	
  	
  

Van	
  Gogh	
  depicted	
  a	
  scene	
  from	
  outside	
  a	
  factory-­‐building	
  maze,	
  showing	
  

the	
  industrial	
  complex	
  rising	
  beyond	
  a	
  field	
  of	
  grasses	
  in	
  Factories	
  at	
  Clichy.237	
  It	
  is	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
237	
  Cornelia	
  Homburg	
  most	
  recently	
  refers	
  this	
  painting	
  as	
  Factories	
  at	
  Asnières,	
  Seen	
  from	
  the	
  Quai	
  
de	
  Clichy	
  in	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  and	
  the	
  Painters	
  of	
  the	
  Petit	
  Boulevard	
  (New	
  York:	
  Saint	
  Louis	
  Art	
  Museum	
  in	
  
association	
   with	
   Rizzoli	
   International	
   Publications,	
   Inc.,	
   2001).	
   I	
   find	
   it	
   unlikely	
   that	
   the	
   factory	
  
complex	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  depicted	
  was	
  located	
  in	
  Asnières.	
  Homburg’s	
  title	
  suggests	
  that	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  would	
  
have	
  been	
  working	
  from	
  the	
  docks	
  of	
  Clichy,	
  looking	
  across	
  the	
  Seine,	
  past	
  the	
  docks	
  at	
  Asnières	
  and	
  
into	
   a	
   complex	
   of	
   factories.	
   Although	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   would	
   not	
   have	
   mimetically	
   depicted	
   a	
   factory	
  
complex,	
  it	
  seems	
  out	
  of	
  context	
  to	
  consider	
  that	
  he	
  would	
  have	
  been	
  looking	
  across	
  a	
  body	
  of	
  water	
  
or	
  along	
  the	
  docks	
  to	
  paint	
  a	
  field	
  of	
  grasses.	
  See	
  also:	
  Welsh-­‐Ovcharov,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  à	
  Paris	
  146,	
  notes	
  
1	
  and	
  2.	
  Welsh-­‐Ovcharov	
  points	
  out	
  that	
  the	
  location	
  of	
  the	
  factories	
  depicted	
  in	
  Factories	
  at	
  Clichy	
  is	
  
unknown.	
  The	
  buildings	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  depicted,	
  she	
  notes,	
  do	
  not	
  resemble	
  the	
  gas	
  tanks	
  at	
  L’Usine	
  à	
  gaz	
  
de	
  Clichy	
  as	
  Paul	
  Signac	
  realized	
  them	
  in	
  Gas	
  Tanks	
  at	
  Clichy	
  (1886).	
  L’Usine	
  à	
  gaz	
  de	
  Clichy	
  complex	
  
was	
  quite	
  large,	
  made	
  up	
  of	
  a	
  number	
  of	
  different	
  types	
  of	
  buildings,	
  and	
  could	
  have	
  been	
  depicted	
  
from	
   within	
   the	
   complex	
   in	
   Signac’s	
   case	
   and	
   from	
   afar	
   in	
   Van	
   Gogh’s.	
   Based	
   on	
   van	
   Gogh’s,	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

127	
  

possible	
  that	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  was	
  inspired	
  by	
  a	
  factory	
  such	
  as	
  L’Usine	
  à	
  gaz	
  de	
  Clichy,	
  a	
  

large	
  complex	
  of	
  buildings	
  located	
  along	
  the	
  Seine	
  and	
  bounded	
  by	
  the	
  Boulevard	
  

National	
   on	
   the	
   northeast	
   and	
   Rue	
   Chasses	
   on	
   the	
   southeast	
   [figures	
   44-­‐46].	
   As	
  

Signac	
  noted,	
  he	
  and	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  walked	
  back	
  and	
  forth	
  from	
  Montmartre	
  to	
  Clichy	
  

and	
  across	
  the	
  Seine	
  to	
  Asnières	
  and	
  would	
  have	
  passed	
  L’Usine	
  à	
  gaz	
  de	
  Clichy	
  or	
  

have	
  seen	
  it	
  from	
  a	
  distance	
  as	
  it	
  occupied	
  quite	
  a	
  large	
  portion	
  of	
  land	
  along	
  the	
  

banks.	
  Signac	
  depicted	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  factory’s	
  buildings	
  located	
  among	
  the	
  complex’s	
  

seven	
  gas	
  tanks,	
  which	
  appear	
  behind	
  the	
  central	
  structure	
  of	
  Signac’s	
  Gas	
  Tanks	
  at	
  

Clichy.	
  L’Usine	
  à	
  gaz	
  de	
  Clichy	
  also	
  included	
  three	
  rectangular	
  buildings	
  that	
  housed	
  

the	
  gas	
  factory	
  itself,	
  a	
  wheelwright	
  shop,	
  and	
  landing	
  cranes	
  on	
  the	
  river’s	
  banks.	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
Bernard’s,	
  and	
  Signac’s	
  depictions	
  along	
  the	
  banks	
  and	
  docks	
  of	
  the	
  Seine	
  from	
  both	
  the	
  Clichy	
  and	
  
Asnières	
  areas,	
  the	
  grassland	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  depicted	
  in	
  Factories	
  at	
  Clichy	
  does	
  not	
  relate	
  to	
  images	
  along	
  
the	
  docks.	
  I	
  think	
  the	
  painting	
  may	
  be	
  inspired	
  by	
  L’Usine	
  à	
  gaz	
  de	
  Clichy,	
  which	
  was	
  located	
  in	
  an	
  
area	
  Signac	
  noted	
  he	
  and	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  walked	
  through	
  along	
  the	
  Avenue	
  de	
  Clichy	
  heading	
  to	
  paint	
  on	
  
the	
   docks	
   of	
   Clichy	
   and	
   Asnières.	
   See	
   also:	
   John	
   Rewald,	
   Post-­‐Impressionism:	
   From	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   to	
  
Gauguin	
  (New	
  York:	
  Museum	
  of	
  Modern	
  Art,	
  1978)	
  64.	
  Bernard	
  referred	
  to	
  the	
  painting	
  as	
  Factories	
  
at	
  Clichy	
  in	
  his	
  account	
  of	
  the	
  Grand	
  Bouillon	
  Exhibition.	
  Père	
  Tanguy,	
  who	
  was	
  in	
  possession	
  of	
  the	
  
painting,	
  first	
  sold	
  it	
  for	
  100	
  francs	
  in	
  the	
  Hôtel	
  Drouot	
  sale	
  in	
  1894.	
  On	
  the	
  painting’s	
  frame,	
  there	
  is	
  
an	
  inscription	
  in	
  ink:	
  Die	
  Hüth	
  Werke.	
  Previous	
  titles	
  include:	
  Die	
  Hüth	
  Werke,	
  Die	
  Hüttenwerke	
  and	
  
The	
  Huth	
  Factory.	
  The	
  painting	
  changed	
  hands	
  a	
  number	
  of	
  times	
  until	
  The	
  Saint	
  Louis	
  Museum	
  of	
  Art	
  
acquired	
  it	
   in	
  1958,	
  where	
  they	
  list	
   it	
  as	
  Factories	
  at	
  Clichy.	
  For	
  information	
  about	
  the	
  sale	
  of	
  the	
  
painting	
   and	
   previous	
   titles,	
   see:	
   Saint	
   Louis	
   Museum	
   of	
   Art,	
   nd,	
  
http://www.slam.org/emuseum/code/emuseum.asp?style=Browse&currentrecord=1&page=search&
profile=objects&searchdesc=van%20gogh&quicksearch=van%20gogh&newvalues=1&newstyle=single
&newcurrentrecord=1.	
   For	
   a	
   discussion	
   of	
   the	
   painting,	
   see:	
   John	
   House,	
   “Towards	
   the	
   Modern	
  
Landscape,”	
  Vincent	
  van	
  Gogh	
  and	
  the	
  Painters	
  of	
  the	
  Petit	
  Boulevard,	
  ed.	
  Cornelia	
  Homburg	
  (Saint	
  
Louis:	
  Saint	
  Louis	
  Art	
  Museum,	
  2001)	
  165-­‐166,	
  168.	
  On	
  the	
  facture	
  in	
  Factories	
  at	
  Clichy,	
  see	
  also:	
  
James	
   H.	
   Rubin,	
   Impressionism	
   and	
   the	
   Modern	
   Landscape:	
   Productivity,	
   Technology,	
   and	
  
Urbanization	
  from	
  Manet	
  to	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  (Berkeley,	
  Los	
  Angeles,	
  and	
  London:	
  University	
  of	
  California	
  
Press,	
  2008)	
  164-­‐165.	
  	
  

	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

128	
  

The	
  semi-­‐rural	
  area	
  between	
  Montmartre	
  and	
  Clichy	
  bordered	
  the	
  factory	
  on	
  the	
  

southwest.	
  Had	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  approached	
  the	
  factory	
  from	
  that	
  vantage	
  point—facing	
  

away	
  from	
  Montmartre	
  and	
  toward	
  Clichy—the	
  factory	
  compound’s	
  scale,	
  series	
  of	
  

structures,	
   and	
   various	
   types	
   of	
   buildings	
   would	
   have	
   eclipsed	
   the	
   landscape.	
  

Moreover,	
  he	
  would	
  have	
  been	
  looking	
  toward	
  Asnières,	
  which	
  also	
  had	
  a	
  number	
  of	
  

factories	
   as	
   well	
   and	
   could	
   attribute	
   to	
   the	
   endless	
   view	
   of	
   smokestacks	
   on	
   the	
  

painting’s	
  horizon.	
  	
  

In	
  Factories	
  at	
  Clichy,	
  factories	
  and	
  domestic	
  life	
  merge,	
  and	
  the	
  notions	
  of	
  

an	
   industrial	
   presence	
   infuse	
   the	
   environment.	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   provided	
   an	
   expansive	
  

view,	
  indicating	
  the	
  overwhelming	
  quality	
  of	
  a	
  factory	
  in	
  contrast	
  to	
  the	
  small-­‐scale	
  

of	
   a	
   couple,	
   dwarfed	
   by	
   the	
   flues	
   extending	
   into	
   the	
   sky.	
   In	
   this	
   landscape,	
  

smokestacks	
  spill	
  into	
  the	
  air	
  far	
  off	
  on	
  the	
  horizon	
  while	
  the	
  couple	
  pauses,	
  arms	
  

linked,	
  to	
  observe	
  a	
  spectacle	
  of	
  modern	
  industry.	
  Rather	
  than	
  marvel	
  at	
  a	
  sunset,	
  

they	
  see	
  a	
  horizon	
  that	
  has	
  been	
  obscured	
  by	
  an	
  unending	
  series	
  of	
  smoke	
  stacks.	
  

Compositionally,	
  the	
  couple	
  aligns	
  with	
  the	
  largest	
  smoke	
  stack	
  in	
  the	
  center	
  of	
  the	
  

canvas.	
  	
  

The	
  smokestacks	
  in	
  Factories	
  at	
  Clichy	
  rise	
  among	
  roofs	
  of	
  homes	
  or	
  smaller	
  

factory-­‐related	
  structures	
  and	
  are	
  similar	
  in	
  color	
  to	
  the	
  roof	
  in	
  Signac’s	
  Gas	
  Tanks.	
  

In	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  painting,	
  though,	
  the	
  roofs	
  are	
  geometrically	
  simplified	
  through	
  use	
  of	
  

line	
   and	
   quick	
   brushstrokes.	
   The	
   smaller	
   structures	
   stand	
   closely	
   to	
   a	
   fence	
   that	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

129	
  

marks	
  a	
  boundary	
  between	
  the	
  open,	
  undeveloped	
  grasslands	
  in	
  which	
  the	
  couple	
  

walks	
  and	
  the	
  complex	
  of	
  factories	
  so	
  congested	
  there	
  is	
  not	
  a	
  sliver	
  of	
  sky	
  between	
  

the	
   buildings.	
   The	
   fence	
   divides	
   the	
   natural	
   world,	
   constructed	
   with	
   unblended	
  

brushstrokes	
   of	
   light	
   blue,	
   green,	
   ochre,	
   and	
   Naples	
   yellow,	
   from	
   that	
   of	
   the	
  

manufacturing	
  plants	
  depicted	
  in	
  rectilinear	
  shapes	
  and	
  in	
  darker	
  saturated	
  reds	
  and	
  

violets.	
   The	
   facture	
   changes	
   beyond	
   the	
   fence	
   to	
   a	
   tightly	
   controlled	
   mark	
   and	
  

unified	
   texture.	
   The	
   fence	
   figuratively	
   excludes	
   the	
   idiosyncratic	
   expressive	
  

brushwork	
  from	
  the	
  industrial	
  commune,	
  suggesting	
  the	
  separation	
  of	
  nature	
  and	
  

industry.	
  	
  

With	
   over	
   a	
   dozen	
   smoke	
   stacks,	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   suggested	
   pervasive	
   factory	
  

emissions	
  and	
  the	
  impact	
  on	
  the	
  senses.	
  Through	
  the	
  implication	
  of	
  wind,	
  emulated	
  

in	
  the	
  directionality	
  of	
  the	
  grasses	
  moving	
  toward	
  the	
  left	
  of	
  the	
  painting	
  in	
  the	
  same	
  

course	
  as	
  the	
  smoke,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  evokes	
  a	
  sense	
  of	
  movement	
  and	
  thus	
  a	
  synthesis	
  of	
  

the	
  natural	
  and	
  industrial	
  realms	
  regardless	
  of	
  the	
  arbitrary	
  boundary	
  of	
  a	
  fence.	
  The	
  

painting	
  itself,	
  Bernard	
  noted,	
  “smelled	
  so	
  strongly	
  of	
  coal	
  and	
  gas,”	
  conveying	
  the	
  

atmosphere	
   in	
   which	
   it	
   was	
   painted. 238 	
  Bernard’s	
   comment	
   is	
   synesthetic,	
   an	
  

important	
   aspect	
   of	
   Symbolism.	
   Synesthesia	
   is	
   the	
   concept	
   that	
   the	
   participant’s	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
238	
  Bernard	
  quoted	
  in	
  Rewald,	
  Post-­‐Impressionism:	
  From	
  van	
  Gogh	
  to	
  Gauguin	
  64.	
  	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

130	
  

body	
  has	
  been	
  affected	
  when	
  one	
  sense	
  triggers	
  another.239	
  In	
  Bernard’s	
  instance,	
  

looking	
  at	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  image	
  of	
  smokestacks	
  informs	
  his	
  sense	
  of	
  smell,	
  creating	
  an	
  

imaginative	
   experience	
   before	
   the	
   picture	
   plane	
   and	
   placing	
   the	
   spectator	
   in	
   the	
  

position	
  of	
  the	
  artist	
  during	
  the	
  moment	
  of	
  creation.	
  	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  Factories	
  at	
  Clichy	
  

provided	
   Bernard	
   with	
   the	
   feeling	
   of	
   walking	
   through	
   the	
   industrial	
   suburban	
  

commune.	
   Bernard’s	
   experience	
   also	
   connects	
   to	
   Fénéon’s	
   notion	
   regarding	
   the	
  

temporality	
  of	
  the	
  work	
  of	
  art.	
  For	
  Fénéon,	
  the	
  viewer	
  experiences	
  the	
  image	
  anew	
  

because	
  the	
  texture,	
  color,	
  and	
  forms	
  can	
  operate	
  to	
  convey	
  a	
  moment	
  in	
  action	
  

each	
   time	
   a	
   viewer	
   stands	
   before	
   the	
   work.	
   240 	
  	
   This	
   is	
   antithetical	
   to	
   the	
  

Impressionist	
   sense	
   of	
   “a	
   unique	
   moment	
   never	
   to	
   be	
   recaptured,”	
   one	
   fixed	
  

transitory	
  instance.241	
  	
  

Factories	
   were	
   a	
   prominent	
   motif	
   in	
   Signac’s	
   landscapes	
   as	
   well,	
   though	
  

unlike	
   Van	
   Gogh’s,	
   they	
   convey	
   a	
   sense	
   of	
   stillness	
   due	
   to	
   Signac’s	
   pointillist	
  

application.	
  Although	
  they	
  maintain	
  a	
  sense	
  of	
  stasis,	
  Signac’s	
  unified	
  texture	
  and	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
239	
  Lauren	
   Silvers,	
   “Beyond	
   the	
   Senses:	
   The	
   Cenesthetic	
   Poetics	
   of	
   French	
   Symbolism,”	
   Modern	
  
Philology	
  112	
  no.	
  2	
  (November	
  2014):	
  381-­‐404.	
  See	
  also:	
  Wallace	
  Fowlie,	
  Poem	
  and	
  Symbol:	
  A	
  Brief	
  
History	
  of	
  French	
  Symbolism	
  (University	
  Park	
  and	
  London:	
  The	
  Pennsylvania	
  State	
  University	
  Press,	
  
1990).	
  Charles	
  Baudelaire’s	
  “Correspondances”	
  (1857),	
  The	
  Flowers	
  of	
  Evil	
  &	
  Paris	
  Spleen:	
  Poems	
  by	
  
Charles	
  Baudelaire,	
  trans.	
  William	
  H.	
  Crosby	
  (Brockport,	
  NY:	
  BOA	
  Editions,	
  Ltd.,	
  1991)	
  28.	
  Although	
  
Silvers	
  takes	
  issue	
  with	
  considering	
  Baudelaire’s	
  “Correspondances”	
  the	
  origin	
  of	
  synesthesia,	
  for	
  the	
  
Parisian	
  Symbolist	
  writers	
  and	
  poets,	
  Baudelaire’s	
  body	
  of	
  work	
  and	
  the	
  ideals	
  therein	
  permeated	
  the	
  
tenets	
  of	
  their	
  critical	
  discourse	
  (in	
  some	
  cases	
  directly,	
  such	
  as	
  in	
  G.-­‐Albert	
  Aurier’s	
  critical	
  accounts	
  
of	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  and	
  Gauguin).	
  	
  

240	
  Ward	
  96.	
  	
  

241	
  Fénéon,	
  “Le	
  Néo-­‐impressionisme”	
  in	
  Dorra	
  162.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

131	
  

surface	
   quality	
   relates	
   to	
   Fénéon’s	
   symbolically	
   constructed	
   canvas.	
   Signac	
  

developed	
   a	
   committed	
   Neo-­‐Impressionistic	
   mark	
   in	
   images	
   of	
   Clichy,	
   such	
   as	
   in	
  

Sunlight,	
  Quai	
  de	
  Clichy,	
  Opus,	
  located	
  on	
  the	
  Seine	
  downstream	
  from	
  the	
  tanks	
  at	
  

L’Usine	
   à	
   gaz	
   de	
   Clichy	
   in	
   Gas	
   Tanks.	
   To	
   paint	
   Sunlight,	
   Signac	
   faced	
   northeast	
  

(downstream)	
  toward	
  the	
  Pont	
  d’Asnières.242	
  L’Usine	
  à	
  gaz	
  de	
  Clichy	
  on	
  the	
  Seine’s	
  

south	
  bank	
  of	
  the	
  Clichy	
  docks	
  would	
  be	
  on	
  the	
  right	
  but	
  is	
  not	
  visible.	
  The	
  plant’s	
  

coal	
  cranes	
  are	
  evident	
  on	
  the	
  right,	
  to	
  the	
  left	
  of	
  a	
  smoke	
  stack.	
  Here,	
  although	
  the	
  

atmospheric	
  effect	
  of	
  the	
  sun	
  appears	
  to	
  be	
  the	
  focal	
  point	
  of	
  the	
  image,	
  the	
  overall	
  

sense	
  of	
  shapes	
  take	
  primary	
  form.	
  The	
  light	
  marks,	
  typically	
  used	
  to	
  show	
  the	
  light’s	
  

reflection	
   or	
   the	
   spatial	
   relationships	
   in	
   the	
   picture	
   plane,	
   tend	
   to	
   delineate	
  

rectangular-­‐like	
  areas.	
  Signac	
  painted	
  the	
  foreground,	
  for	
  instance,	
  with	
  several	
  long	
  

rectangles	
   outlined	
   with	
   lighter	
   hues	
   that	
   run	
   parallel	
   to	
   one	
   another	
   similar	
   to	
  

perspectival	
  lines,	
  simplifying	
  the	
  docks.	
  The	
  lightest	
  parts	
  of	
  the	
  canvas,	
  such	
  as	
  the	
  

bank	
   directly	
   behind	
   the	
   trees	
   and	
   the	
   building	
   to	
   the	
   right,	
   seem	
   to	
   not	
   be	
  

representative	
  of	
  the	
  sun’s	
  fleeting	
  effects	
  and	
  the	
  nuances	
  of	
  daylight	
  but	
  more	
  so	
  

a	
  product	
  of	
  Signac’s	
  intention	
  to	
  use	
  color	
  to	
  build	
  forms	
  with	
  outlines	
  of	
  highlights.	
  

The	
  horizon	
  line,	
  similar	
  to	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  in	
  Factories,	
  is	
  obscured	
  by	
  (from	
  left	
  to	
  right)	
  

the	
  bridge	
  crossing	
  the	
  Seine,	
  the	
  trees,	
  and	
  the	
  buildings	
  near	
  the	
  gas-­‐tank	
  plant,	
  

which	
  was	
  set	
  back	
  from	
  the	
  docks.	
  	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
242	
  Ferretti-­‐Bocquillon	
  128.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

132	
  

In	
  Ragpickers	
  in	
  Clichy	
  [figure	
  9]	
  and	
  Les	
  Chiffonniers:	
  Ponts	
  de	
  fer	
  à	
  Asnières	
  

[figure	
  43],	
  similar	
  in	
  perspective	
  to	
  Signac’s	
  Sunlight,	
  Bernard	
  depicted	
  the	
  docks	
  of	
  

the	
  Seine	
  on	
  the	
  Asnières	
  and	
  Clichy	
  banks.	
  In	
  both	
  images,	
  rag	
  pickers	
  dressed	
  in	
  

contemporary	
  lower-­‐class	
  clothing	
  stroll	
  along	
  the	
  docks	
  of	
  the	
  Seine,	
  framed	
  with	
  

signs	
  of	
  modern	
  life,	
  such	
  as	
  a	
  steam	
  train,	
  an	
  iron	
  bridge	
  and	
  oil-­‐company	
  cranes,	
  

evident	
  on	
  the	
  left-­‐hand	
  side	
  of	
  Ragpickers.243	
  Although	
  the	
  landing	
  cranes	
  Bernard	
  

depicted	
  are	
  not	
  identified,	
  L’Usine	
  à	
  gaz	
  de	
  Clichy’s	
  landing	
  cranes	
  were	
  located	
  on	
  

the	
  Quai	
  de	
  Clichy	
  on	
  the	
  stretch	
  of	
  the	
  Seine’s	
  banks	
  the	
  gas	
  company	
  occupied.	
  	
  

Similar	
  to	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  and	
  Signac,	
  Bernard	
  obscured	
  the	
  horizon	
  with	
  signs	
  of	
  industry	
  

in	
   Les	
   Chiffonniers.	
   Unlike	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   and	
   Signac,	
   he	
   diluted	
   hue	
   with	
   white	
   to	
  

generate	
  an	
  opaque	
  surface	
  and	
  generally	
  did	
  not	
  allow	
  quick	
  brushwork	
  to	
  show.	
  In	
  

1887	
  he	
  visited	
  Signac’s	
  studio	
  and,	
  regarding	
  Neo-­‐Impressionism,	
  Bernard	
  felt	
  that	
  

although	
  the	
  application	
  of	
  paint	
  in	
  dots	
  or	
  broken	
  strokes	
  “was	
  good	
  for	
  the	
  vibrant	
  

reproduction	
   of	
   Light,	
   it	
   spoilt	
   the	
   color,”	
   so	
   he	
   “instantly	
   adopted	
   an	
   opposite	
  

theory”—Cloisonism.244	
  The	
   paintings	
   exemplify	
   Bernard’s	
   Cloisonism,	
   which	
   grew	
  

to	
  be	
  highly	
  abstract	
  Synthetism	
  by	
  1888.	
  At	
  this	
  time,	
  Bernard	
  outlined	
  flat	
  shapes	
  

of	
  un-­‐modulated	
  color	
  with	
  black	
  contour	
  lines,	
  depicted	
  figures	
  in	
  silhouette,	
  and	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
243	
  Welsh-­‐Ovcharov,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  à	
  Paris	
  200.	
  	
  	
  	
  

244	
  Bernard	
  quoted	
  in	
  Stevens	
  70.	
  	
  

	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

133	
  

geometrically	
   reduced	
   forms.	
   The	
   cranes,	
   for	
   instance	
   in	
   Ragpickers	
   are	
   vertical	
  

Impressionistic	
   brushstrokes	
   and	
   the	
   locomotive’s	
   components	
   in	
   Les	
   Chiffonniers	
  

are	
  squares	
  and	
  rectangles.245	
  He	
  simplified	
  signs	
  of	
  suburban	
  industry	
  to	
  a	
  painterly	
  

vernacular	
  that	
  he,	
  in	
  some	
  ways,	
  shared	
  with	
  Signac	
  and	
  Van	
  Gogh.	
  	
  

That	
   Van	
   Gogh’s,	
   Bernard’s,	
   and	
   Signac’s	
   respective	
   canvases	
   replace	
   the	
  

horizon	
   line	
   with	
   bridges,	
   industrial	
   buildings,	
   and	
   smoke	
   stacks,	
   imply	
   that	
   the	
  

industrialized	
  landscape	
  eradicated,	
  in	
  some	
  respects,	
  the	
  natural.	
  Pissarro’s	
  images	
  

of	
  work	
  and	
  industry	
  of	
  the	
  1860s,	
  in	
  contrast,	
  maintain	
  depth	
  through	
  atmospheric	
  

perspective	
   and	
   reflection.	
   In	
   Barge	
   at	
   La	
   Roche-­‐Guyon	
   (circa	
   1865)	
   [figure	
   47],	
  

laborers	
   load	
   a	
   barge	
   docked	
   on	
   the	
   banks	
   of	
   the	
   Seine	
   and,	
   in	
   the	
   distance,	
  

although	
  a	
  boat’s	
  emissions	
  trail	
  above	
  the	
  river,	
  distant	
  rolling	
  hills	
  preserve	
  a	
  sense	
  

of	
  the	
  natural	
  world	
  in	
  an	
  image	
  focused	
  on	
  labor.246	
  Pissarro’s	
  L’Ile	
  Lacroix	
  (1888,	
  

probably	
   painted	
   in	
   late	
   1887)	
   [figure	
   48]	
   represents	
   his	
   return	
   to	
   Impressionist	
  

ideals	
  after	
  his	
  foray	
  into	
  Neo-­‐Impressionism,	
  though	
  he	
  maintained	
  the	
  pointillist	
  

approach.247	
  Along	
   the	
   banks	
   of	
   the	
   Seine	
   in	
   Rouen,	
   Pissarro	
   made	
   labor	
   and	
  

industry	
  a	
  focus.	
  Although	
  he	
  used	
  smaller	
  strokes	
  and	
  constructed	
  a	
  unified	
  surface,	
  

the	
  picture	
  plane	
  recedes,	
  with	
  a	
  clear,	
  central	
  site-­‐line	
  leading	
  to	
  a	
  soft,	
  tranquil,	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
245	
  Welsh-­‐Ovcharov,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  à	
  Paris	
  198-­‐199.	
  

246	
  Rubin	
  79-­‐83.	
  	
  

247	
  Ward	
  115.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

134	
  

horizon	
  suggested	
  with	
  a	
  band	
  of	
  strokes	
  and	
  hue.	
  Although	
  a	
  barge	
  with	
  laborers	
  

floats	
   in	
   the	
   foreground	
   and	
   a	
   chimney	
   releases	
   fumes	
   into	
   the	
   sky,	
   the	
   overall	
  

structure	
   of	
   the	
   composition	
   relies	
   on	
   the	
   artist’s	
   ability	
   to	
   consider	
   atmospheric	
  

effects	
  and	
  craft	
  a	
  convincing	
  three-­‐dimensional	
  space.	
  For	
  Bernard,	
  Signac,	
  and	
  Van	
  

Gogh,	
   the	
   horizon	
   line	
   need	
   not	
   convey	
   depth,	
   denying	
   the	
   viewer	
   from	
  

experiencing	
   the	
   landscape’s	
   space;	
   instead,	
   the	
   spectator’s	
   gaze	
   remains	
   in	
   a	
  

shallow	
  space	
  confined	
  by	
  industry.	
  	
  	
  

Although	
   Bernard,	
   Signac,	
   and	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   painted	
   in	
   Clichy	
   and	
   Asnières,	
  

Bernard	
  argued	
  with	
  Signac	
  and	
  had	
  a	
  riff	
  with	
  the	
  pointillist	
  painter.	
  It	
  seems	
  that	
  

Bernard	
  may	
  not	
  have	
  wanted	
  to	
  exhibit	
  with	
  Signac	
  at	
  the	
  Grand	
  Bouillon	
  Exhibit	
  

and	
  was	
  going	
  to	
  pull	
  his	
  paintings	
  from	
  the	
  show.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  urged	
  Bernard	
  to	
  find	
  

common	
  ground	
  with	
  Signac	
  so	
  that	
  they	
  may	
  work	
  together.248	
  Above	
  all,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  

stressed	
  the	
  importance	
  of	
  being	
  open	
  to	
  painting	
  practices	
  emerging	
  at	
  the	
  time.	
  

“If…you’ve	
  already	
  considered,”	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  to	
  Bernard,	
  “that	
  Signac	
  and	
  the	
  

others	
  doing	
  pointillism	
  often	
  make	
  very	
  beautiful	
  things	
  with	
  it—Instead	
  of	
  running	
  

things	
  down	
  one	
  should	
  respect	
  them…especially	
  when	
  there’s	
  a	
  falling	
  out.”249	
  He	
  

wrote	
  this	
  advice	
  shortly	
  (about	
  a	
  month)	
  after	
  the	
  Grand	
  Bouillon	
  exhibition	
  began.	
  

Aiming	
  to	
  continue	
  what	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  started	
  in	
  the	
  exhibition—a	
  coming	
  together	
  of	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
248	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  575	
  to	
  Bernard	
  from	
  Paris	
  in	
  December	
  1887.	
  	
  

249	
  Letter	
  575.	
  	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

135	
  

differing	
   painterly	
   modes	
   about	
   which	
   the	
   group	
   could	
   reflect—he	
   attempted	
   to	
  

sooth	
  the	
  break	
  between	
  them.	
  	
  

That	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   included	
   his,	
   Bernard’s,	
   and	
   Signac’s	
   images	
   of	
   Clichy	
   and	
  

Asnières	
  in	
  the	
  Grand	
  Bouillon	
  exhibition	
  suggests	
  that,	
  as	
  an	
  emerging	
  painter	
  in	
  

the	
  Parisian	
  avant-­‐garde,	
  he	
  was	
  interested	
  in	
  exploring	
  varying	
  techniques	
  of	
  mark-­‐

making	
   and	
   color	
   that	
   lead	
   from	
   the	
   artist’s	
   idiosyncratic	
   translation	
   of	
   nature,	
  

guided	
  by	
  their	
  respective	
  temperaments.	
  The	
  differences	
  in	
  the	
  paintings	
  indicate	
  

that	
   he	
   was	
   open	
   to	
   the	
   possibilities	
   of	
   the	
   Neo-­‐Impressionists	
   but	
   was	
   also	
  

interested	
  in	
  developing	
  his	
  own	
  approach.	
  In	
  terms	
  of	
  subject	
  matter,	
  the	
  artists	
  

remain	
  connected	
  by	
  addressing	
  the	
  financial	
  means	
  of	
  the	
  neighborhoods,	
  but	
  they	
  

innovate	
   in	
   their	
   own	
   ways:	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   through	
   expressionistic	
   facture,	
   Signac	
  

through	
   the	
   overall	
   quality	
   of	
   his	
   surface	
   due	
   to	
   the	
   application	
   of	
   the	
   dot-­‐like	
  

stroke,	
  and	
  Bernard	
  due	
  to	
  his	
  engagement	
  with	
  Cloisonism.	
  	
  

The	
  artists	
  connect	
  conceptually	
  through	
  Fénéon’s	
  ideals.	
  They	
  did	
  not,	
  for	
  

instance,	
  develop	
  a	
  similarity	
  of	
  approach	
  but	
  rather	
  mediated	
  the	
  subject	
  through	
  

their	
  respective	
  artistic	
  sensibilities.	
  Fénéon’s	
  1887	
  text	
  outlines	
  the	
  formal	
  aspects	
  

of	
   Neo-­‐Impressionist	
   painting	
   that	
   Pissarro	
   feared	
   would	
   reveal	
   too	
   much	
   about	
  

their	
   practices.	
   That	
   aspect	
   of	
   the	
   text	
   aside,	
   the	
   critic’s	
   overall	
   ideal	
   privileges	
   a	
  

fictional	
  imagistic	
  creation	
  transcribed	
  in	
  medium	
  and	
  the	
  ability	
  metaphorically	
  to	
  

convey	
   the	
   experience,	
   or,	
   in	
   his	
   terms,	
   the	
   sensation	
   of	
   the	
   landscape.	
   Signac’s	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

136	
  

paint	
  application	
  aligns	
  with	
  Fénéon’s	
  formalist	
  definition	
  of	
  Neo-­‐Impressionism,	
  a	
  

definition	
  Signac	
  had	
  a	
  hand	
  at	
  developing:	
  to	
  make	
  “individual	
  brushstrokes	
  [that]	
  

are	
  the	
  outcome,	
  not	
  of	
  swift	
  dashes	
  of	
  the	
  brush.	
  But	
  of	
  the	
  application	
  of	
  minute	
  

dots.”250	
  In	
   Sunlight,	
   Signac	
   is	
   not	
   necessarily	
   attempting	
   to	
   portray	
   the	
   light’s	
  

reflection	
   on	
   the	
   water’s	
   surface	
   nor	
   modeling	
   with	
   bright	
   light.	
   Signac	
   suggests	
  

sunlight	
  through	
  brightly	
  toned	
  shapes.	
  In	
  this	
  way,	
  Signac’s	
  canvas	
  leans	
  toward	
  an	
  

organization	
   of	
   form	
   similar	
   to	
   Bernard’s.	
   Together,	
   Van	
   Gogh’s,	
   Bernard’s,	
   and	
  

Signac’s	
   landscapes	
   lead	
   from	
   a	
   common	
   “stimulus”—factories	
   and	
   the	
   industrial	
  

signs	
   connected	
   to	
   the	
   complex—and	
   interpret	
   the	
   “emotional	
   meaning	
   of	
  

colors.”251	
  By	
   conveying	
   movement,	
   simplifying	
   forms	
   and	
   geometrizing	
   the	
   scene	
  

before	
   them,	
   the	
   painters	
   addressed	
   a	
   pervasive	
   component	
   of	
   life	
   in	
   Clichy	
   and	
  

Asnières	
  and	
  allowed	
  the	
  viewer	
  to	
  partake	
  in	
  this	
  experience.	
  Their	
  geometry	
  and	
  

mark-­‐making	
  address	
  the	
  subject’s	
  essence,	
  reducing	
   it	
  to	
  a	
  grid-­‐like	
  pattern	
  of	
  a	
  

factory	
  suburb	
  or	
  an	
  encompassing	
  series	
  of	
  factory	
  structures.	
  Unlike	
  their	
  work	
  of	
  

the	
   years	
   prior,	
   in	
   which	
   they	
   emulated	
   the	
   Impressionist	
   rhetoric,	
   the	
   symbolic	
  

ideation	
   of	
   landscape	
   factories	
   convey	
   how	
   the	
   industrial	
   complex	
   shaped	
   the	
  

landscape	
   outside	
   of	
   Paris.	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   depiction	
   of	
   wind	
   symbolizes	
   the	
  

pervasiveness	
   of	
   the	
   emissions,	
   Signac’s	
   bright-­‐hued	
   canvas	
   the	
   sun’s	
   presence	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
250	
  Fénéon,	
  “Le	
  Néo-­‐impressionnisme”	
  in	
  Dorra	
  162.	
  

251	
  Fénéon,	
  “Le-­‐néo-­‐impressionnisme”	
  in	
  Dorra	
  162.	
  	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

137	
  

within	
  an	
  industrialized	
  horizon,	
  and	
  Bernard’s	
  simplified	
  linear	
  forms	
  a	
  metaphor	
  of	
  

mechanization	
  along	
  the	
  banks	
  of	
  the	
  Seine.	
  	
  	
  

	
  

A	
  Neo-­‐Impressionistic	
  Park	
  Landscape	
  at	
  the	
  Théâtre	
  Libra	
  d’Antoine	
  

The	
  final	
  venue	
  where	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  hung	
  a	
  painting	
  and	
  perhaps	
  the	
  one	
  for	
  

which	
  there	
  is	
  the	
  least	
  amount	
  of	
  evidence	
  was	
  at	
  the	
  Théâtre	
  Libra,	
  where	
  André	
  

Antoine	
  opened	
  a	
  small	
  theater	
  on	
  May	
  30th	
  1887.252	
  Antoine,	
  who	
  had	
  the	
  support	
  

of	
   writers	
   such	
   as	
   Zola,	
   Impressionist	
   critic	
   Louis	
   Edmond	
   Duranty,	
   and	
   Symbolist	
  

writer	
  Paul	
  Adam,	
  allowed	
  artists	
  to	
  hang	
  their	
  works	
  in	
  the	
  theater’s	
  entryway,	
  an	
  

informal	
   venue.	
   Seizing	
   on	
   this	
   opportunity	
   for	
   visual	
   artists,	
   Signac	
   and	
   Seurat	
  

(whose	
  studios	
  were	
  located	
  next	
  to	
  the	
  theater)	
  hung	
  their	
  works	
  on	
  the	
  foyer’s	
  

walls.	
   Van	
   Gogh,	
   having	
   ended	
   his	
   Grand	
   Bouillon	
   Exhibition,	
   placed	
   Voyer	
  

d’Argenson	
  Park	
  at	
  Asnières	
  [figure	
  13]	
  in	
  the	
  lobby.253	
  It	
  is	
  not	
  clear	
  when	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  

installed	
  Voyer	
  d’Argenson	
  Park,	
  but	
  most	
  likely	
  in	
  the	
  last	
  few	
  months	
  of	
  living	
  in	
  

Paris.	
  He	
  left	
  the	
  capital	
  on	
  February	
  19th,	
  1888,	
  so	
  it	
  is	
  possible	
  he	
  hung	
  his	
  painting	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
252	
  Thomson	
  80.	
  See	
  also:	
  “Le	
  Théâtre	
  libre:	
  saisons	
  1887	
  à	
  1889,”	
  Bibliothèque	
  nationale	
  de	
  France,	
  
last	
   modified	
   August	
   23,	
   2013,	
  	
  
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k58333014.r=theatre+libre+1887.langEN.	
  

253	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  592	
  to	
  Thèo	
  from	
  Arles	
  on	
  April	
  3rd,	
  where	
  he	
  had	
  been	
  since	
  mid-­‐February:	
  
“The	
  painting	
  with	
  the	
  lovers	
  is	
  at	
  the	
  Théâtre	
  Libre.”	
  This	
  is	
  the	
  only	
  reference	
  to	
  the	
  painting	
  from	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  and	
  the	
  reason	
  we	
  know	
  it	
  hung	
  the	
  Théâtre	
  Libre,	
  and	
  probably	
  stayed	
  there	
  after	
  he	
  left	
  
Paris.	
  	
  

	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

138	
  

in	
   the	
   Montmartre	
   theater	
   sometime	
   in	
   the	
   fall	
   or	
   winter	
   of	
   1887-­‐1888.	
   Having	
  

worked	
   closely	
   with	
   Signac	
   by	
   this	
   point,	
   the	
   theater,	
   although	
   not	
   an	
   organized	
  

exhibition,	
   was	
   the	
   last	
   Parisian	
   public	
   place	
   where	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   attempted	
   to	
   seek	
  

recognition	
  within	
  the	
  avant-­‐garde.	
  	
  

Considering	
   the	
   presence	
   of	
   Seurat’s	
   and	
   Signac’s	
   images	
   in	
   the	
   Théâtre	
  

Libre’s	
  foyer	
  as	
  well,	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  Voyer	
  d’Argenson	
  Park	
  is	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  most	
  striking	
  

examples	
  of	
  his	
  Neo-­‐Impressionistic	
  approach.	
  Aside	
  from	
  the	
  couples,	
  there	
  is	
  an	
  

overall	
  uniform	
  size	
  of	
  stroke	
  and	
  similar	
  surface	
  patterns,	
  unlike	
  Père	
  Tanguy,	
  or	
  

Factory	
   at	
   Asnières	
   in	
   which	
   varying	
   mark-­‐making	
   techniques	
   are	
   evident	
   in	
   one	
  

canvas.	
   Although	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   used	
   an	
   elongated	
   stroke	
   rather	
   than	
   the	
   Neo-­‐

Impressionist	
   dot	
   in	
   Voyer	
   d’Argenson	
   Park,	
   Fénéon’s	
   directives	
   seem	
   to	
   be	
  

underlying	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  painting	
  methods.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  instilled	
  a	
  sense	
  of	
  motion	
  in	
  

this	
   canvas	
   as	
   well,	
   using	
   “individual	
   brushstrokes”	
   that	
   break	
   down	
   a	
   hue	
   to	
   be	
  

combined	
   on	
   the	
   viewer’s	
   retina.254	
  Van	
   Gogh	
   also	
   created	
   “delicate	
   modeling	
  

transitions”	
  and	
  “subtle	
  gradations	
  of	
  hues…”255	
  The	
  sky’s	
  hue,	
  for	
  instance,	
  threads	
  

throughout	
   the	
   foreground,	
   the	
   grasses	
   and	
   the	
   couples’	
   clothing,	
   flattening	
   the	
  

picture’s	
  depth	
  into	
  a	
  single	
  plane.	
  The	
  texture	
  of	
  the	
  sky,	
  tree	
  foliage,	
  and	
  grass	
  

blend,	
  encompassing	
  three	
  couples	
  who	
  seem	
  to	
  be	
  situated	
  within	
  the	
  pattern	
  of	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
254	
  Fénéon,	
  “Le-­‐néo-­‐impressionnisme”	
  in	
  Dorra	
  162.	
  

255	
  Fénéon,	
  “Le-­‐néo-­‐impressionnisme”	
  in	
  Dorra	
  162.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

139	
  

the	
   brushstrokes,	
   rather	
   than	
   the	
   park’s	
   atmosphere.	
   As	
   in	
   a	
   study,	
   the	
   couples’	
  

positions	
   depict	
   the	
   three	
   ways	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   could	
   include	
   figures	
   in	
   a	
   landscape—

seated,	
   lying	
   in	
   the	
   grass,	
   and	
   standing.	
   They	
   may	
   be	
   a	
   product	
   of	
   his	
   decision-­‐

making	
   process	
   rather	
   than	
   a	
   studied	
   observation.	
   Paint	
   and	
   stroke	
   here	
  

differentiate	
  and	
  connect	
  the	
  figures	
  to	
  their	
  environment.	
  A	
  way	
  of	
  asserting	
  the	
  

subject	
   matter	
   as	
   a	
   creation	
   of	
   medium,	
   Voyer	
   d’Argenson	
   literally	
   and	
  

metaphorically	
  addresses	
  the	
   interwoven	
  relationship	
  between	
  the	
   landscape	
  and	
  

the	
  figures.	
  	
  

The	
  color	
  of	
  men’s	
  jackets—light	
  blue,	
  waist-­‐length	
  garments—connects	
  to	
  

the	
  sky’s	
  hue.	
  The	
  jackets	
  are	
  also	
  similar	
  to	
  one	
  another’s	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  to	
  the	
  one	
  

Tanguy	
  wears	
  in	
  Père	
  Tanguy,	
  and	
  to	
  the	
  smock	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wears	
  in	
  his	
  Self-­‐portrait	
  

as	
   a	
   Painter	
   (January-­‐February,	
   1888)	
   [figure	
   49].	
   Signac	
   recalled	
   that	
   when	
   Van	
  

Gogh	
  painted,	
  he	
  was	
  dressed	
  in	
  “a	
  blue	
  jacket	
  of	
  a	
  zinc	
  worker,”	
  and	
  had	
  “small	
  

dots	
  of	
  color”	
  on	
  his	
  sleeves,	
  a	
  Neo-­‐Impressionistic	
  thinker	
  indeed.256	
  A	
  sign	
  of	
  their	
  

working-­‐class	
  status	
  in	
  Asnières,	
  the	
  jackets	
  represent	
  the	
  labor	
  that	
  supported	
  the	
  

area.	
  In	
  Voyer	
  d’Argenson	
  Park,	
  the	
  men	
  appear	
  in	
  a	
  public	
  park	
  that	
  was	
  formerly	
  a	
  

grand	
  private	
  residence.	
  The	
  land	
  for	
  the	
  Voyer	
  d’Argenson	
  Park	
  had	
  been	
  a	
  part	
  of	
  a	
  

large	
  eighteenth-­‐century	
  estate	
  and	
  was	
  established	
  as	
  a	
  public	
  space	
  in	
  Asnières	
  

(adjacent	
  to	
  the	
  Château	
  Voyer	
  d’Argenson)	
  a	
  few	
  years	
  before	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  arrived	
  in	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
256	
  Signac	
  quoted	
  in	
  Stein	
  89.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

140	
  

Paris.257	
  The	
   park	
   included	
   a	
   pond	
   and	
   rustic-­‐looking	
   bridges;	
   and	
   the	
   tree-­‐lined	
  

docks	
  on	
  the	
  Seine	
  in	
  Asnières	
  bounded	
  the	
  park’s	
  south-­‐west	
  entrance.	
  Here,	
  the	
  

public	
  park’s	
  history	
  as	
  part	
  of	
  the	
  grounds	
  of	
  the	
  Château,	
  had	
  been	
  repurposed,	
  

allowing	
   for	
   the	
   leisurely	
   afternoon	
   of	
   these	
   lower-­‐class	
   couples.	
   The	
   figures	
  

embedded	
  into	
  the	
  paint’s	
  texture,	
  appear	
  to	
  consider	
  the	
  nature	
  of	
  the	
  park	
  as	
  a	
  

constructed	
  landscape	
  for	
  the	
  working-­‐class	
  suburb.	
  	
  	
  

	
  

Conclusion	
  

By	
   the	
   end	
   of	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   stay	
   in	
   the	
   capital,	
   he	
   had	
   made	
   an	
   enormous	
  

effort	
  to	
  secure	
  a	
  financial	
  future	
  for	
  himself	
  and	
  the	
  painters	
  of	
  the	
  petit	
  boulevard.	
  

Meeting	
  with	
  artists	
  such	
  as	
  Lucien	
  and	
  Camille	
  Pissarro,	
  Signac,	
  and	
  Bernard,	
  led	
  

him	
   to	
   focus	
   on	
   sustaining	
   a	
   livelihood	
   while	
   creating	
   experimental	
   imagery	
   that	
  

dovetailed	
  with	
  both	
  the	
  Impressionist	
  and	
  Neo-­‐Impressionist	
  aesthetics.	
  “In	
  these	
  

discussions,”	
   he	
   wrote	
   to	
   Gauguin	
   in	
   fall	
   1888	
   reminiscing	
   about	
   his	
   Paris	
   artist	
  

friends,	
  “it	
  was	
  often	
  a	
  matter	
  of	
  the	
  thing	
  that’s	
  so	
  dear	
  to	
  our	
  hearts,	
  my	
  brother’s	
  

and	
   mine,	
   the	
   steps	
   to	
   be	
   taken	
   in	
   order	
   to	
   preserve	
   the	
   means	
   of	
   production	
  

(colours,	
   canvases)	
   and	
   to	
   preserve	
   to	
   them	
   the	
   share	
   of	
   the	
   price...” 258 	
  He	
  

attempted	
  to	
  forge	
  a	
  group	
  dynamic	
  similar	
  to	
  the	
  exhibition	
  practices	
  in	
  Paris	
  at	
  the	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
257	
  Welsh-­‐Ovcharov,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  à	
  Paris	
  104.	
  	
  
258	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  695	
  to	
  Gauguin	
  from	
  Arles	
  on	
  Wednesday,	
  October	
  3rd	
  1888.	
  	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

141	
  

time,	
  and	
  worked	
  to	
  establish	
  a	
  platform	
  for	
  the	
  generation	
  of	
  artists	
  developing	
  in	
  

1886	
   and	
   1887.	
   Although	
   the	
   exhibitions	
   went	
   virtually	
   unnoticed,	
   the	
   venues	
   in	
  

which	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  attempted	
  to	
  stake	
  a	
  presence	
  show	
  his	
  dedication	
  to	
  entering	
  into	
  

a	
  culturally	
  rich	
  gallery	
  system	
  to	
  which	
  he	
  was	
  exposed.	
  	
  

In	
   1886	
   Pissarro	
   commented	
   on	
   the	
   Neo-­‐Impressionists’	
   diverse	
   surface	
  

qualities,	
  writing	
  to	
  gallery	
  owner	
  Paul	
  Durand-­‐Ruel	
  to	
  explain	
  the	
  Neo-­‐Impressionist	
  

theory	
   and	
   the	
   divergent	
   interpretations	
   of	
   the	
   ideals	
   Fénéon	
   laid	
   forth:	
   “as	
   for	
  

execution,	
  we	
  regard	
  it	
  as	
  inconsequential,	
  of	
  very	
  little	
  importance:	
  art	
  has	
  nothing	
  

to	
  do	
  with	
  it;	
  originality	
  consists	
  only	
  in	
  the	
  quality	
  of	
  the	
  drawing	
  and	
  the	
  vision	
  

particular	
  to	
  each	
  artist.”259	
  Pissarro	
  also	
  urged	
  Durand-­‐Ruel	
  to	
  review	
  Fénéon’s	
  text	
  

should	
  he	
  have	
  further	
  questions.	
  Fénéon’s	
  definition	
  of	
  the	
  formalist	
  methods	
  may	
  

seem	
   to	
   apply	
   only	
   to	
   Seurat,	
   the	
   exemplar	
   of	
   Neo-­‐Impressionism.	
   Fénéon’s	
   text	
  

describes	
  qualities	
  beyond	
  the	
  formal,	
  such	
  as	
  the	
  phenomena	
  of	
  standing	
  before	
  a	
  

landscape.	
  While	
  facture	
  does	
  play	
  a	
  part	
  in	
  the	
  painting’s	
  meaning,	
  what	
  Pissarro	
  

and	
  eventually	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  aimed	
  to	
  discover	
  was	
  a	
  difference	
  between	
  the	
  world	
  that	
  

can	
   be	
   depicted	
   and	
   that	
   which	
   can	
   be	
   created.	
   The	
   artists	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   brought	
  

together	
  generated	
  distinct	
  canvases	
  based	
  on	
  Fénéon’s	
  principles.	
  At	
  this	
  time,	
  Van	
  

Gogh,	
   Bernard,	
   and	
   Signac	
   combined	
   compositional	
   strategies	
   from	
   the	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
259	
  Camille	
  Pissarro	
  quoted	
  in	
  Nochlin	
  54.	
  Pissarro	
  wrote	
  to	
  Durand-­‐Ruel	
  from	
  Eragny	
  on	
  November	
  6	
  
1886	
   answering	
   the	
   gallery	
   owner’s	
   request	
   that	
   Pissarro	
   send	
   a	
   brief	
   description	
   of	
   the	
   Néo-­‐
Impressionist’s	
  ideals.	
  	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

142	
  

Impressionists	
  and	
  Neo-­‐Impressionists	
  throughout	
  their	
  bodies	
  of	
  work.	
  The	
  artists	
  

ultimately	
   translated	
   the	
   Neo-­‐Impressionist	
   method	
   in	
   their	
   own	
   terms	
   and	
  

considered	
  the	
  canvas	
  a	
  vehicle	
  for	
  the	
  viewer’s	
  participation.	
  Van	
  Gogh,	
  Signac,	
  and	
  

Bernard	
   focused	
   on	
   the	
   sensation	
   of	
   the	
   subject,	
   which	
   led	
   to	
   their	
   symbolic	
  

representations	
  of	
  still-­‐life,	
  portraiture,	
  and	
  landscape.	
  	
  	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

143	
  

CHAPTER	
  4:	
  AGRICULTURE	
  AND	
  INDUSTRY	
  IN	
  VAN	
  GOGH’S	
  
MONTMARTRE	
  AND	
  CLICHY	
  IMAGERY	
  

	
  
	
  
“When	
   I	
   say	
   I’m	
   a	
   poor	
   painter,”	
   Vincent	
   wrote	
   to	
   Théo	
   from	
   The	
   Hague,	
  

“and	
  still	
  face	
  years	
  of	
  struggle—in	
  my	
  daily	
  life	
  I	
  have	
  to	
  arrange	
  things	
  more	
  or	
  less	
  

as	
  a	
  farm	
  laborer	
  or	
  factory	
  worker	
  does….”260	
  From	
  the	
  beginning	
  of	
  his	
  painting	
  

career,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  displayed	
  empathy	
  toward	
  the	
  labor-­‐class—weavers,	
  coal	
  miners,	
  

farmers,	
   factory	
   workers—and	
   addressed	
   the	
   individual	
   struggle	
   of	
   the	
   laborer	
  

amidst	
  hard	
  times.261	
  The	
  artist’s	
  perspective	
  on	
  the	
  labor-­‐class	
  was	
  an	
  aspect	
  of	
  his	
  

clerical	
  studies	
  that	
  carried	
  over	
  into	
  his	
  painterly	
  aims,	
  and	
  he	
  depicted	
  those	
  who	
  

toiled	
  in	
  the	
  dirt,	
  sat	
  behind	
  a	
  loom,	
  or	
  filed	
  into	
  a	
  factory.	
  

Carol	
  Zemel	
  has	
  drawn	
  attention	
  to	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  pictorial	
  engagement	
  with	
  a	
  

socio-­‐political	
   idea	
   in	
   his	
   images	
   of	
   weavers	
   in	
   the	
   rural	
   village	
   of	
   Nuenen	
   in	
  

Brabant.262	
  The	
  painter	
  depicted	
  weavers	
  confined	
  by	
  the	
  looms	
  that	
  provided	
  their	
  

livelihood	
  in	
  small,	
  dank	
  spaces	
  [figure	
  1].	
  Dominated	
  by	
  their	
  looms,	
  the	
  workers	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
260	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  374	
  to	
  Théo	
  from	
  The	
  Hague	
  on	
  Friday,	
  August	
  1883.	
  

261 	
  James	
   H.	
   Rubin,	
   Impressionism	
   and	
   the	
   Modern	
   Landscape:	
   Productivity,	
   Technology,	
   and	
  
Urbanization	
   from	
   Manet	
   to	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   (Berkeley,	
   California,	
   and	
   London:	
   University	
   of	
   California	
  
Press,	
  2008)	
  165.	
  In	
  a	
  brief	
  discussion	
  of	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  Paris-­‐period	
  industrial	
  landscape,	
  Factories	
  at	
  
Clichy	
  (1887),	
  Rubin	
  notes	
  that	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  “leftist	
  sympathies	
  for	
  the	
  working	
  man”	
  led	
  to	
  his	
  interest	
  
in	
  depicting	
  images	
  of	
  industry	
  and	
  an	
  urban	
  environment.	
  

262	
  Carol	
  Zemel,	
  “The	
  ‘Spook’	
  in	
  the	
  Machine:	
  Pictures	
  of	
  Weavers	
  in	
  Brabant,”	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  Progress	
  
(Berkeley,	
  Los	
  Angeles,	
  and	
  London:	
  University	
  of	
  California	
  Press,	
  1997)	
  55-­‐85.	
  Nuenen	
  is	
  a	
  village	
  in	
  
the	
  North	
  Brabant	
  province.	
  The	
  life	
  of	
  an	
  artisan	
  was	
  in	
  every	
  way	
  connected	
  to	
  his	
  domestic	
  life	
  as	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  indicated	
  by	
  including	
  familial	
  signs,	
  such	
  as	
  babies	
  in	
  highchairs	
  and	
  men	
  working	
  before	
  
small	
  windows	
  that	
  provided	
  little	
  light	
  in	
  their	
  meager	
  houses.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

144	
  

appear	
  as	
  non-­‐descript	
  tradesmen,	
  “caged	
  artisans”	
  trapped	
  in	
  a	
  cycle	
  of	
  economic	
  

hardship.263	
  Zemel	
  notes	
  that	
  the	
  series	
  of	
  weavers	
  do	
  not	
  provide	
  an	
  explicit	
  call	
  for	
  

socialist	
   reform.	
   	
   Nevertheless,	
   they	
   underscore	
   the	
   disintegrating	
   role	
   of	
   the	
  

weaver	
  within	
  an	
  uncertain	
  economic	
  situation	
  and	
  convey	
  a	
  sense	
  of	
   loss	
  of	
  the	
  

artisan’s	
  way	
  of	
  life.264	
  	
  

In	
  Paris,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  depicted	
  Montmartre’s	
  social	
  center	
  on	
  the	
  Boulevard	
  de	
  

Clichy,	
   such	
   as	
   Interior	
   of	
   a	
   Restaurant	
   (summer	
   1887)	
   and	
   Boulevard	
   de	
   Clichy	
  

(February-­‐March	
  1887)	
  [figures	
  2	
  &	
  3],	
  in	
  which	
  gaslights	
  illuminate	
  café	
  tables,	
  a	
  

top	
   hat	
   hangs	
   on	
   the	
   wall,	
   and	
   figures	
   cross	
   wide	
   boulevards	
   lined	
   with	
   Second-­‐

Empire	
  architecture.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  also	
  explored	
  the	
  laborer	
  in	
  the	
  agricultural	
  areas	
  on	
  

Montmartre’s	
  Butte,	
  which	
  was	
  a	
  short	
  walk	
  from	
  the	
  Boulevard,	
  and	
  the	
  Commune	
  

de	
  Clichy,	
  an	
  industrial	
  suburb	
  that	
  bordered	
  Montmartre	
  to	
  the	
  north.	
  To	
  set	
  out	
  

for	
  the	
  day	
  to	
  paint,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  walked	
  from	
  the	
  arrondissement,	
  to	
  the	
  boundary	
  

between	
   Paris	
   and	
   the	
   banlieue	
   (the	
   industrial	
   suburbs),	
   through	
   the	
   city’s	
  

fortifications,	
  and	
  into	
  Clichy.265	
  Within	
  this	
   landscape,	
  he	
  considered	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
263	
  Zemel	
  60.	
  

264	
  Zemel	
  85.	
  	
  

265	
  A	
   letter	
   from	
   Paul	
   Signac	
   to	
   Gustave	
   Coquiot,	
   written	
   in	
   1923,	
   Van	
   Gogh:	
   A	
   Retrospective,	
   ed.	
  
Susan	
  Alyson	
  Stein	
  (New	
  York:	
  Hugh	
  Lauter	
  Levin	
  Associates,	
  Inc.,	
  1986)	
  89.	
  “Yes,	
  I	
  knew	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  
from	
   the	
   shop	
   of	
   Père	
   Tanguy.	
   I	
   would	
   meet	
   him	
   other	
   times	
   at	
   Asnières	
   and	
   at	
   Saint-­‐Ouen;	
   we	
  
painted	
  on	
  the	
  river-­‐banks,	
  lunched	
  at	
  an	
  open-­‐air	
  roadhouse,	
  and	
  we	
  returned	
  by	
  foot	
  to	
  Paris	
  by	
  
the	
  avenues	
  of	
  Saint-­‐Ouen	
  and	
  Clichy.”	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

145	
  

aspects	
   akin	
   to	
   his	
   Dutch-­‐period	
   imagery:	
   working-­‐class	
   laborers	
   and	
   their	
  

relationship	
   to	
   the	
   agricultural	
   terrain	
   and	
   the	
   built	
   environment.	
   Van	
   Gogh	
  

pictorially	
  studied	
  the	
  allotments	
  on	
  Montmartre’s	
  Butte	
  and	
  a	
  relatively	
  newly	
  built	
  

factory	
  that	
  turned	
  coal	
  into	
  gas,	
  L’Usine	
  à	
  gaz	
  de	
  Clichy,	
  along	
  the	
  Seine.	
  	
  The	
  area	
  

between	
   Montmartre’s	
   semi-­‐rural	
   Butte	
   and	
   L’Usine	
   à	
   gaz	
   was	
   in	
   transition	
   as	
  

agricultural	
  and	
  factory	
  practices	
  underwent	
  a	
  shift	
  during	
  the	
  Third	
  Republic:	
  from	
  

meeting	
  the	
  needs	
  of	
  local	
  markets	
  to	
  those	
  of	
  a	
  consumer-­‐driven	
  metropolis,	
  and	
  

from	
   reliance	
   on	
   skilled	
   artisanal	
   craftsman	
   to	
   large-­‐scale	
   mechanized	
   processes.	
  

Walking	
  between	
  Montmartre’s	
  robust	
  nightlife	
  and	
  artistic	
  scene	
  and	
  L’Usine	
  à	
  gaz,	
  

Van	
  Gogh	
  observed	
  a	
  landscape	
  shaped	
  by	
  the	
  needs	
  of	
  a	
  modern	
  Parisian	
  consumer	
  

market.	
  	
  

Scholars	
  have	
  not	
  addressed	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  images	
  of	
  Montmartre	
  and	
  Clichy	
  in	
  

light	
  of	
  socio-­‐political	
  changes	
  that	
  affected	
  farmers	
  and	
  factory	
  laborers.266	
  In	
  the	
  

mid-­‐1880s,	
   peasants	
   in	
   semi-­‐rural	
   Montmartre	
   farmed	
   land	
   for	
   their	
   own	
  

sustenance	
  and	
  sometimes	
  sold	
  the	
  surplus	
  produce.	
  Socialist	
  leaders	
  argued	
  that	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
266	
  André	
  Krauss,	
  Vincent	
  van	
  Gogh:	
  Studies	
  in	
  the	
  Social	
  Aspects	
  of	
  his	
  Work	
  (Atlantic	
  Highlands,	
  NJ:	
  
Humanities	
  Press	
  International,	
  Inc.,	
  1983).	
  Krauss	
  briefly	
  addressed	
  some	
  of	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  Paris-­‐period	
  
industrial	
   landscapes	
   in	
   connection	
   to	
   socialist	
   politics.	
   He	
   characterizes	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   images	
   of	
  
laborers	
  prior	
  to	
  his	
  Paris-­‐period	
  as	
  dogmatically	
  realist	
  and	
  maintains	
  this	
  point	
  of	
  view	
  in	
  the	
  Paris-­‐
period.	
   Krauss	
   asserts	
   that	
   the	
   artist	
   did	
   not	
   aim	
   to	
   “treat	
   subjects	
   outside	
   the	
   realm	
   of	
   physical	
  
reality”	
  (126).	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  was	
  not	
  a	
  mimetic	
  painter.	
  He	
  explored	
  the	
  socio-­‐political	
  climate	
  through	
  
his	
   images	
   of	
   peripheral	
   communities	
   by	
   transforming	
   the	
   landscape	
   and	
   using	
   color	
   and	
   form	
  
symbolically.	
  I	
  lead	
  from	
  Zemel’s	
  claims	
  regarding	
  his	
  weaver	
  series	
  as	
  her	
  argument	
  considers	
  how	
  
Van	
  Gogh’s	
  formal	
  devices	
  convey	
  socio-­‐political	
  meaning.	
  	
  

	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

146	
  

farmers	
  should	
  be	
  able	
  to	
  maintain	
  small	
  plots	
  of	
  land,	
  rather	
  than	
  merge	
  farms	
  and	
  

manage	
   them	
   collectively.267	
  Additionally,	
   in	
   1887,	
   the	
   Paris	
   Gas	
   Company	
   (PGC)	
  

marketed	
   gas-­‐powered	
   lighting	
   and	
   stoves	
   to	
   those	
   living	
   in	
   upper-­‐class	
  

arrondissements,	
   generating	
   the	
   largest	
   margin	
   of	
   growth	
   in	
   domestic	
   sales	
   and	
  

increasing	
  the	
  demand	
  for	
  factory	
  workers.268	
  I	
   intend	
  to	
  explore	
  how	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  

paintings	
  of	
  Montmartre	
  and	
  Clichy	
  convey	
  the	
  land’s	
  relationship	
  to	
  the	
  economic	
  

livelihood	
   of	
   its	
   inhabitants,	
   highlighting	
   the	
   land’s	
   significance	
   in	
   the	
   day-­‐to-­‐day	
  

operations	
  of	
  modern	
  Paris.	
  To	
  do	
  so,	
  I	
  do	
  not	
  take	
  a	
  polarizing	
  interpretation,	
  such	
  

as	
  a	
  utopian	
  view	
  of	
  labor	
  or	
  a	
  condemnation	
  of	
  the	
  capitalist	
  model.	
  In	
  line	
  with	
  

Zemel,	
   I	
   consider	
   how	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   constructed	
   the	
   landscape—and	
   what	
   role	
   the	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
267	
  Leslie	
   Derfier,	
   Paul	
   Lafargue	
   and	
   the	
   Flowering	
   of	
   French	
   Socialism,	
   1882-­‐1911	
   (Cambridge,	
  
Massachusetts	
  and	
  London,	
  England:	
  Harvard	
  University	
  Press,	
  1998)	
  124-­‐125.	
  In	
  1883,	
  the	
  French	
  
Work’s	
  Party	
  (Parti	
  ouvrier	
  français	
  or	
  POF)	
  formed	
  to	
  fight	
  for	
  worker’s	
  rights.	
  The	
  Party	
  was	
  part	
  of	
  
a	
   larger	
   movement	
   to	
   provide	
   better	
   living	
   and	
   working	
   conditions	
   to	
   those	
   dependent	
   on	
   labor-­‐
based	
  wages.	
  Two	
  POF	
  leaders	
  differed	
  regarding	
  how	
  to	
  manage	
  small-­‐scale	
  farms.	
  Jules	
  Guesede	
  
feared	
   that	
   peasant	
   farmers	
   would	
   disappear	
   if	
   they	
   owned	
   their	
   individual	
   farms:	
   a	
   “swift	
   and	
  
inevitable	
  disappearance	
  of	
  petty	
  proprietors	
  in	
  the	
  face	
  of	
  capitalist	
  encroachments.”	
  In	
  contrast,	
  
Paul	
  Lafargue	
  fought	
  against	
  the	
  strategy	
  to	
  collectivize	
  the	
  smaller	
  plots	
  and	
  for	
  the	
  rights	
  of	
  the	
  
peasant	
  and	
  his	
  or	
  her	
  small	
  allotment	
  of	
  land.	
  He	
  understood	
  the	
  collective	
  approach	
  as	
  a	
  capitalist	
  
system	
  in	
  which	
  someone	
  would	
  eventually	
  out-­‐earn	
  others	
  at	
  the	
  expense	
  of	
  those	
  who	
  had	
  worked	
  
their	
   land	
   for	
   generations.	
   Lafargue	
   argued	
   that	
   by	
   preserving	
   the	
   family-­‐owned	
   and	
   operated	
  
peasant	
   farms,	
   the	
   worker	
   would	
   be	
   in	
   control	
   of	
   his	
   own	
   livelihood	
   and	
   not	
   succumb	
   to	
   the	
  
capitalist-­‐driven	
  system	
  of	
  appropriating	
  land	
  that	
  could	
  be	
  passed	
  down	
  for	
  generations.	
  

268	
  Lenard	
  R.	
  Berlanstein,	
  Big	
  Business	
  and	
  Industrial	
  Conflict	
  in	
  Nineteenth-­‐Century	
  France:	
  A	
  Social	
  
History	
   of	
   the	
   Parisian	
   Gas	
   Company	
   (Berkeley,	
   Los	
   Angeles,	
   and	
   Oxford:	
   University	
   of	
   California	
  
Press,	
  1991)	
  15,	
  51	
  &	
  82.	
  In	
  1887,	
  the	
  Paris	
  Gas	
  Company	
  instituted	
  a	
  fee-­‐free	
  program	
  to	
  increase	
  its	
  
customer	
  base.	
  PGC	
  salesmen	
  asked	
  65,000	
  residents,	
  who	
  mostly	
  all	
  lived	
  in	
  luxury	
  buildings	
  near	
  a	
  
gas	
  main,	
  if	
  they	
  would	
  like,	
  at	
  the	
  company’s	
  expense,	
  to	
  outfit	
  their	
  apartments	
  with	
  gas	
  lines,	
  a	
  
lighting	
  fixture,	
  and	
  a	
  stove.	
  In	
  1887,	
  12,000	
  residents	
  enrolled	
  in	
  the	
  program.	
  Through	
  the	
  fee-­‐free	
  
program,	
  PGC	
  effectively	
  captured	
  the	
  upper-­‐class	
  market	
  and	
  the	
  commodity	
  was	
  mass	
  marketed	
  to	
  
the	
  bourgeoisie	
  as	
  an	
  easy-­‐to-­‐have	
  resource,	
  but	
  gas	
  lighting	
  fixtures	
  and	
  stoves	
  had	
  yet	
  to	
  reach	
  the	
  
middle	
  and	
  lower-­‐class	
  markets.	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

147	
  

landscape	
   held—in	
   relation	
   to	
   labor	
   and	
   industrial	
   growth	
   within	
   the	
   context	
   of	
  

socialist	
  reform	
  strategies	
  developing	
  in	
  the	
  early	
  1880s.	
  	
  

I	
   begin	
   my	
   discussion	
   where	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   journey	
   began—looking	
   out	
   the	
  

window	
   from	
   his	
   rue	
   Lepic	
   apartment	
   atop	
   Montmartre’s	
   Butte,	
   a	
   geographic	
  

highpoint—and	
   follow	
   his	
   path	
   to	
   the	
   rural	
   side	
   of	
   the	
   Butte,	
   through	
   the	
   city’s	
  

fortifications,	
   and	
   among	
   the	
   smokestacks	
   in	
   the	
   banlieue.	
   In	
   Montmartre	
   and	
  

Clichy,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  created	
  an	
  encompassing	
  view	
  of	
  the	
  landscape	
  and	
  its	
  resources	
  

by	
  including	
  varying	
  aspects	
  of	
  industry,	
  labor,	
  and	
  agriculture—the	
  components	
  of	
  

an	
  interrelated	
  work	
  force	
  that	
  served	
  an	
  urban	
  population.	
  Similar	
  to	
  his	
  weaver	
  

images,	
  the	
  landscape	
  paintings	
  from	
  Montmartre	
  and	
  Clichy,	
  such	
  as	
  Montmartre:	
  

Windmills	
  and	
  Allotments	
  (March-­‐April	
  1887)	
  and	
  Factories	
  at	
  Clichy	
  (1887)	
  [figures	
  

4	
  &	
  5]	
  overpower	
  the	
  figure.	
  In	
  contrast	
  to	
  his	
  weaver	
  images,	
  laborers	
  in	
  his	
  Paris-­‐

period	
   landscapes	
   are	
   small-­‐scale,	
   ingrained	
   within	
   farming	
   plots	
   or	
   among	
   an	
  

immense	
  landscape	
  populated	
  with	
  smokestacks	
  that	
  pump	
  emissions	
  into	
  the	
  sky.	
  

The	
  figures	
  are	
  parts	
  of	
  a	
  greater	
  whole,	
  operating	
  in	
  a	
  macro-­‐system	
  of	
  demand	
  

and	
  production.	
  	
  

	
  

Socialism	
  in	
  Paris	
  

From	
  the	
  perspective	
  of	
  his	
  window,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  painted	
  a	
  scene	
  overlooking	
  

the	
   roofs	
   of	
   Montmartre	
   toward	
   the	
   center	
   of	
   Paris	
   in	
   The	
   View	
   from	
   Vincent’s	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

148	
  

Room,	
  rue	
  Lepic	
  (spring	
  1887)	
  and	
  View	
  from	
  Théo’s	
  Apartment	
  (March-­‐April	
  1887)	
  

[figures	
  6	
  &	
  7].269	
  The	
  Cathedral	
  of	
  Notre	
  Dame	
  in	
  the	
  city’s	
  center	
  appears	
  on	
  the	
  

horizon,	
   indicating	
   that	
   the	
   view	
   from	
   the	
   brother’s	
   apartment	
   at	
   the	
   top	
   of	
   the	
  

Butte	
  of	
  Montmartre	
  is	
  to	
  the	
  southeast.270	
  Blocking	
  an	
  otherwise	
  panoramic	
  view	
  of	
  

the	
   city	
   on	
   the	
   right	
   is	
   a	
   new	
   building.	
   The	
   building	
   was	
   under	
   construction;	
   its	
  

façade	
   was	
   left	
   unfinished	
   to	
   abut	
   another	
   structure.	
   The	
   squat	
   building	
   in	
   the	
  

foreground,	
  which	
  is	
  more	
  visible	
  in	
  View	
  from	
  Théo’s	
  Apartment,	
  was	
  a	
  tenement	
  

for	
   workers,	
   the	
   poorest	
   living	
   on	
   the	
   top	
   floors. 271 	
  The	
   paintings	
   from	
   the	
  

apartment	
  window	
  visually	
  underscore	
  the	
  peripheral	
  relationship	
  of	
  Montmartre’s	
  

working	
  classes	
  in	
  relation	
  to	
  the	
  distant	
  Parisian	
  center.	
  	
  

In	
   the	
   1830s,	
   Montmartre	
   was	
   a	
   village	
   with	
   a	
   population	
   of	
   about	
   6,000	
  

people,	
  and	
  a	
  commune	
  outside	
  of	
  the	
  city’s	
  boundary	
  marked	
  by	
  the	
  Octroi	
  wall.	
  272	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
269	
  When	
  Vincent	
  arrived	
  in	
  Paris	
  in	
  February,	
  Théo	
  lived	
  on	
  the	
  rue	
  Laval	
  south	
  of	
  the	
  busy	
  Boulevard	
  
de	
  Clichy	
  and	
  Boulevard	
  de	
  Rochechouart.	
  Four	
  months	
  later,	
  in	
  June,	
  they	
  moved	
  across	
  the	
  main	
  
Boulevards	
  to	
  the	
  rue	
  Lepic	
  on	
  the	
  Butte.	
  Living	
  there,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  began	
  painting	
  images	
  from	
  the	
  
Butte’s	
  summit.	
  

270	
  Bogomila	
  Welsh-­‐Ovcharov,	
  Vincent	
  van	
  Gogh:	
  His	
  Paris	
  Period,	
  1886-­‐1888	
  (Den	
  Haag	
  and	
  Utrecht:	
  
Editions	
  Victorine,	
  1976)	
  94-­‐96.	
  	
  

271	
  Richard	
  Thomson,	
  “Introducing	
  Montmartre,”	
  Toulouse-­‐Lautrec	
  and	
  Montmartre	
  (Washington	
  and	
  
Chicago:	
  National	
  Gallery	
  of	
  Art	
  and	
  The	
  Art	
  Institute	
  of	
  Chicago,	
  2005)	
  66.	
  Thomson	
  identified	
  the	
  
worker’s	
  tenement	
  as	
  the	
  tall	
  building	
  in	
  the	
  foreground.	
  

272	
  Robert	
   Herbert,	
   Impressionism:	
   Art,	
   Leisure	
   and	
   Parisian	
   Society	
   (New	
   Haven	
   and	
   London:	
   Yale	
  
University	
   Press,	
   1988)	
   13-­‐14.	
   Émile	
   Zola,	
   L’Assommoir,	
   trans.	
   Margaret	
   Mauldon	
   (Oxford:	
   Oxford	
  
University	
  Press,	
  1995)	
  441,	
  note	
  7.	
  The	
  Octroi	
  wall	
  was	
  at	
  the	
  Boulevard	
  de	
  Rochechouart	
  and	
  de	
  la	
  
Chapelle.	
  See	
  also:	
  Ernest	
  Alfred	
  Vizetelly,	
  Paris	
  and	
  Her	
  People	
  Under	
  the	
  Third	
  Republic	
  (1919;	
  repr.,	
  
Charleston,	
  South	
  Carolina:	
  Bibliolife,	
  2009)	
  1.	
  	
  Although	
  communes	
  such	
  as	
  Montmartre	
  and	
  Passy	
  
were	
  surrounded	
  by	
  the	
  fortifications	
  under	
  Louis-­‐Philippe,	
  they	
  were	
  not	
  considered	
  part	
  of	
  Paris	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

149	
  

Under	
  the	
  Second	
  Empire,	
  Prefect	
  of	
  the	
  Seine	
  Baron	
  Georges-­‐Eugène	
  Haussmann	
  

expanded	
   the	
   city’s	
   borders	
   in	
   1860	
   to	
   include	
   Montmartre,	
   and	
   at	
   this	
   time	
   the	
  

arrondissement’s	
  population	
   increased	
  to	
  over	
  100,000.	
   In	
  his	
  novel	
  Nana	
  (1880),	
  

Émile	
  Zola	
  (1840-­‐1902)	
  used	
  Montmartre	
  to	
  indicate	
  lower-­‐class	
  status.	
  In	
  the	
  novel,	
  

which	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  read	
  in	
  1882,	
  Montmartre	
  serves	
  as	
  the	
  backdrop	
  of	
  the	
  downfall	
  of	
  

Nana,	
  a	
  prostitute	
  who	
  grew	
  up	
  in	
  the	
  “slum[s]”	
  of	
  the	
  arrondissement.273	
  Due	
  to	
  the	
  

number	
   of	
   working-­‐class	
   inhabitants,	
   their	
   concerns	
   became	
   part	
   of	
   the	
   political	
  

platform	
  as	
  socialist	
  candidates	
  gained	
  support	
  in	
  the	
  early	
  to	
  mid-­‐1880s.274	
  At	
  this	
  

time,	
  the	
  tension	
  between	
  republican	
  capitalism	
  and	
  the	
  large	
  population	
  of	
  manual	
  

laborers	
  caused	
  the	
  rising	
  socialist	
  party	
  to	
  call	
  for	
  a	
  number	
  of	
  legislative	
  reforms	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
until	
  1860.	
  The	
  Octroi	
  wall	
  separated	
  the	
  communes	
  until	
  they	
  were	
  absorbed	
  into	
  the	
  city’s	
  political	
  
structure	
  during	
  the	
  Second	
  Empire.	
  

273	
  Émile	
  Zola,	
  Nana,	
  trans.	
  Douglas	
  Parmée	
  (Oxford	
  and	
  New	
  York:	
  Oxford	
  University	
  Press,	
  1992)	
  
190,	
  226.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  250	
  to	
  Théo	
  from	
  The	
  Hague	
  on	
  Sunday,	
  July	
  23,	
  1882,	
  noting	
  that	
  he	
  
had	
  read	
  Nana.	
  Nana	
  experienced	
  physical	
  abuse	
  at	
  the	
  hands	
  of	
  her	
  lover,	
  and	
  held	
  the	
  company	
  of	
  
a	
   lower	
   class	
   of	
   prostitutes	
   who	
   were	
   visibly	
   poorer	
   “little	
   draggle-­‐tailed	
   tarts”	
   than	
   their	
  
counterparts	
   who	
   worked	
   in	
   the	
   center	
   of	
   the	
   city	
   for	
   higher-­‐class	
   clientele.	
   On	
   Montmartre	
   as	
   a	
  
topographical	
  feature	
  in	
  Zola’s	
  novels,	
  see:	
  Eduardo	
  Febles,	
  “Anarchy	
  as	
  Narrative	
  Capital,”	
  Explosive	
  
Narratives:	
  Terrorism	
  and	
  Anarchy	
  in	
  the	
  works	
  of	
  Émile	
  Zola	
  (Amsterdam:	
  Editions	
  Rodoli,	
  2010)	
  65-­‐
107.	
  Febles	
  analyzes	
  the	
  author’s	
  1898	
  novel	
  Paris.	
   In	
  Febles’	
  words	
  the	
  Butte	
  was	
  “the	
  center	
  of	
  
subversive	
  practices”	
  and	
  thus	
  offered	
  a	
  backdrop	
  to	
  the	
  varied	
  aspects	
  of	
  Montmartre:	
  “from	
  the	
  
resistance	
   to	
   industrial	
   capitalism”	
   upheld	
   by	
   the	
   large	
   population	
   of	
   artisans	
   to	
   the	
   avant-­‐garde	
  
artists	
  (76-­‐77).	
  

274	
  Lenard	
  R.	
  Berlanstein,	
  The	
  Working	
  People	
  of	
  Paris,	
  1871-­‐1914	
  (Baltimore	
  and	
  London:	
  The	
  Johns	
  
Hopkins	
  University	
  Press,	
  1984)	
  155,	
  159.	
  Not	
  all	
  working-­‐class	
  constituents	
  were	
  ready	
  to	
  support	
  
socialist	
  politics.	
  In	
  1886,	
  the	
  socialist	
  candidate	
  who	
  ran	
  as	
  a	
  supporter	
  of	
  the	
  worker	
  during	
  a	
  time	
  
of	
   economic	
   crises,	
   Ernest	
   Roche,	
   gained	
   40%	
   (up	
   considerably	
   from	
   1881)	
   of	
   the	
   vote	
   in	
   the	
  
arrondissement,	
  a	
  large	
  portion	
  of	
  the	
  vote	
  in	
  Clichy,	
  and	
  was	
  supported	
  by	
  the	
  socialist	
  press.	
  Roche	
  
had	
  gained	
  popularity	
  as	
  a	
  politician	
  during	
  the	
  Decazeville	
  miner’s	
  strike.	
  

	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

150	
  

that	
  were	
  similar	
  in	
  scope	
  to	
  those	
  at	
  the	
  beginning	
  of	
  the	
  twentieth	
  century.	
  By	
  the	
  

mid-­‐1880s,	
  working-­‐class	
  politics	
  under	
  the	
  Third	
  Republic	
  (1870-­‐1940)	
  occupied	
  a	
  

central	
  platform.	
  In	
  contrast,	
  the	
  early	
  agenda	
  of	
  the	
  Third	
  Republic,	
  founded	
  under	
  

Adolphe	
   Thiers	
   (r.	
   1871-­‐1873),	
   was	
   based	
   on	
   conservative	
   politics	
   that	
   aimed	
   to	
  

protect	
  France,	
  ward	
  away	
  revolutionary	
  sentiments,	
  and	
  maintain	
  peace.	
  Fearing	
  a	
  

cycle	
   of	
   “humiliating	
   progress	
   from	
   anarchy	
   to	
   despotism	
   and	
   from	
   despotism	
   to	
  

anarchy,”	
   Thiers	
   suppressed	
   socialist-­‐party	
   politics	
   after	
   the	
   fall	
   of	
   the	
   Paris	
  

Commune	
   in	
   1871.275 	
  During	
   a	
   time	
   of	
   innovation	
   in	
   agriculture	
   and	
   modern	
  

technologies,	
   there	
   was	
   pressure	
   on	
   the	
   working	
   class	
   to	
   rise	
   to	
   new	
   production	
  

standards	
  while	
  living	
  in	
  unsafe	
  conditions	
  and	
  working	
  for	
  low	
  wages.	
  	
  

The	
   discord	
   between	
   the	
   working-­‐class	
   population	
   and	
   the	
   conservative	
  

republican	
   administration	
   led	
   to	
   a	
   labor-­‐rights	
   movement.276	
  By	
   the	
   mid-­‐1870s,	
  

there	
  was	
  a	
  resurgence	
  of	
  a	
  socialist	
  agenda	
  and	
  a	
  call	
  for	
  work-­‐place	
  reform	
  and	
  the	
  

appearance	
  of	
  a	
  number	
  of	
  socialist	
  publications.	
  In	
  1880	
  and	
  1882,	
  two	
  worker’s	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
275	
  Adolphe	
  Thiers,	
  “Chamber	
  of	
  Deputies,”	
  Journal	
  officiel	
  de	
  la	
  République	
  française	
  (13	
  November	
  
1872)	
  in	
  William	
  Fortescue,	
  ed.,	
  The	
  Third	
  Republic	
  in	
  France,	
  1870-­‐1940:	
  Conflicts	
  and	
  Continuities	
  
(London	
  and	
  New	
  York:	
  Routledge,	
  2000)	
  27.	
  Many	
  socialists	
  faced	
  sentencing	
  and	
  exile,	
  and	
  thus	
  
their	
   politics	
   lost	
   its	
   leaders	
   and	
   a	
   voice	
   in	
   an	
   otherwise	
   traditionalist	
   administration	
   that	
   never	
  
wanted	
  to	
  “witness	
  again”	
  the	
  atrocities	
  that	
  occurred	
  between	
  the	
  fall	
  of	
  the	
  Second	
  Empire	
  and	
  the	
  
rise	
  of	
  the	
  Third	
  Republic.	
  

276	
  Berlanstein,	
  Big	
  Business	
  151.	
  The	
  tension	
  was	
  on	
  par	
  with	
  that	
  of	
  1848	
  and	
  the	
  ensuing	
  revolution	
  
that	
  overthrew	
  the	
  Orléans	
  Monarch.	
  

	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

151	
  

parties	
  were	
  founded.277	
  They	
  sought	
  reforms	
  to	
  protect	
  property-­‐less	
  wage-­‐earners	
  

under	
   republican	
   capitalism,	
   such	
   as	
   legislation	
   to	
   regulate	
   the	
   business	
   day,	
   set	
  

standards	
  of	
  working	
  conditions,	
  supply	
  financial	
  support	
  for	
  injured	
  employees,	
  and	
  

grant	
   funds	
   for	
   retirement.278	
  In	
   1883,	
   the	
   French	
   Worker’s	
   Party	
   (Parti	
   ouvrier	
  

français	
   or	
   POF)	
   organized,	
   calling	
   for	
   a	
   six-­‐day	
   work	
   week,	
   minimum-­‐age	
  

requirements	
  for	
  workers	
  (fourteen-­‐years	
  old),	
  standard	
  minimum	
  wages,	
  a	
  position	
  

for	
   workers	
   in	
   the	
   managerial	
   system,	
   mandatory	
   schooling	
   for	
   the	
   children	
   of	
  

working-­‐class	
   parents,	
   and	
   proper	
   care	
   for	
   the	
   elderly.279	
  The	
   Union	
   Générale,	
   a	
  

merchant	
  bank	
  that	
  had	
  national	
  and	
  international	
  dealings,	
  stopped	
  payments	
  in	
  

January	
  1882,	
  which	
  contributed	
  to	
  an	
  economic	
  crisis	
  and	
  the	
  dire	
  circumstances	
  of	
  

the	
   labor-­‐class.	
   As	
   agricultural	
   production	
   rose,	
   the	
   value	
   of	
   crops	
   and	
   products,	
  

such	
  as	
  corn	
  and	
  wine,	
  dropped	
  considerably	
   in	
  1885.280	
  During	
  the	
  first	
  working-­‐

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
277	
  Berlanstein,	
  The	
  Working	
  People	
  of	
  Paris	
  154.	
  The	
  Militants	
  favored	
  strikes	
  and	
  action,	
  and	
  the	
  
Blanquists	
  were	
  anarchists	
  who	
  represented	
  the	
  Communes.	
  

278	
  Berlanstein,	
  The	
  Working	
  People	
  of	
  Paris	
  154-­‐155.	
  	
  

279	
  Jules	
  Guesde	
  and	
  Paul	
  Lafargue,	
  “Le	
  Programme	
  du	
  Parti	
  Ouvrier:	
  son	
  histoire,	
  ses	
  considérants,	
  
ses	
  articles,”	
  Paris:	
  Henry	
  Oriol,	
  1883	
  in	
  Fortescue	
  35.	
  POF	
   leaders,	
  Guesde	
  and	
  Lafargue,	
  stressed	
  
that	
   the	
   worker	
   needed	
   to	
   gain	
   a	
   role	
   in	
   the	
   system	
   that	
   determined	
   their	
   earning	
   potential.	
   An	
  
“interference	
   by	
   employers”	
   regarding	
   banking	
   needed	
   to	
   cease;	
   they	
   wanted	
   laborers	
   to	
   have	
  
“exclusive”	
  control	
  over	
  their	
  financial	
  livelihoods	
  and	
  work-­‐place	
  conditions.	
  

280	
  Jean-­‐Marie	
   Mayeur	
   and	
   Madeleine	
   Reberioux,	
   The	
   Third	
   Republic	
   from	
   its	
   Origins	
   to	
   the	
   Great	
  
War,	
  1871-­‐1914,	
  trans.	
  Maison	
  des	
  Sciences	
  de	
  l’Homme	
  and	
  Cambridge	
  University	
  Press	
  (New	
  York,	
  
New	
  Rochelle,	
  Melbourne	
  and	
  Sydney:	
  Cambridge	
  University	
  Press,	
  1973)	
  46,	
  62-­‐63.	
  

	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

152	
  

class	
  congress	
  in	
  1876,	
  representatives	
  did	
  not	
  support	
  protest	
  and	
  strike.281	
  By	
  the	
  

early	
   1880s,	
   the	
   economic	
   depression	
   led	
   to	
   widespread	
   strikes	
   that	
   took	
   on	
  

defining	
   strategies.	
   Unions	
   called	
   for	
   a	
   complete	
   stoppage	
   of	
   all	
   work	
   within	
   a	
  

factory,	
  and	
  members	
  had	
  an	
  ability	
  to	
  express	
  demands,	
  pinpoint	
  needs,	
  and	
  utilize	
  

negotiation	
  tactics.282	
  	
  

Within	
   this	
   time	
   of	
   labor	
   reform,	
   economic	
   crisis,	
   and	
   protest,	
   Van	
   Gogh	
  

considered	
  the	
  life	
  of	
  the	
  labor-­‐class.283	
  “I	
  immersed	
  myself	
  in	
  religious	
  and	
  socialist	
  

affairs,”	
  Vincent	
  wrote	
  to	
  his	
  sister	
  Willemien	
  from	
  Paris,	
  “and	
  considered	
  art	
  more	
  

sacred,	
  more	
  than	
  now.”284	
  To	
  this	
  end,	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  imagery	
  portrayed	
  the	
  worker’s	
  

role	
   under	
   the	
   Third	
   Republic	
   through	
   agricultural	
   images	
   of	
   Montmartre	
   and	
  

industrial	
   landscapes	
   of	
   Clichy,	
   some	
   of	
   which	
   he	
   hung	
   in	
   the	
   Grand	
   Bouillon	
  

Exhibition.	
  Émile	
  Bernard	
  considered	
  the	
  exhibition	
  at	
  the	
  Grand	
  Boullion	
  in	
  which	
  

Van	
  Gogh,	
  Bernard,	
  and	
  Paul	
  Signac	
  included	
  imagery	
  to	
  be	
  a	
  “socialist	
  exhibition,”	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
281	
  Fortescue	
  36.	
  The	
  working-­‐class	
  congress	
  held	
  their	
   first	
  meetings	
   in	
  Paris	
  and	
  Lyon	
   in	
  fall	
  and	
  
winter	
  1876.	
  

282	
  Berlanstein,	
  The	
  Working	
  People	
  of	
  Paris	
  169-­‐174.	
  There	
  was	
  an	
  increase	
  in	
  protests	
  in	
  the	
  early	
  
1880s	
  that	
  paralleled	
  those	
  of	
  the	
  early	
  twentieth	
  century:	
  in	
  1881	
  there	
  were	
  42	
  strikes	
  and	
  37	
  in	
  
1882,	
  more	
  than	
  half	
  of	
  which	
  (66%)	
  were	
  full-­‐stop	
  work	
  orders	
  from	
  the	
  unions.	
  

283	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  moved	
  to	
  Montmartre	
  under	
  the	
  Third	
  Republic	
  during	
  the	
  administration	
  of	
  Jules	
  Grévy	
  
(r.	
  1879-­‐1887),	
  a	
  moderate	
  republican	
  who	
  resigned	
  in	
  December	
  1887	
  due	
  to	
  a	
  scandal	
  involving	
  his	
  
son-­‐in-­‐law,	
   and	
   the	
   transition	
   to	
   President	
   Sadi	
   Carnot	
   in	
   the	
   winter	
   of	
   1887-­‐1888	
   who	
   was	
  
assassinated	
  in	
  1894	
  by	
  an	
  anarchist	
  (r.	
  1887-­‐1894).	
  

284	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  574	
  to	
  Willemien	
  from	
  Paris	
  in	
  late	
  October	
  1887.	
  	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

153	
  

an	
   ideology	
   that	
   may	
   have	
   contributed	
   to	
   the	
   show’s	
   abrupt	
   end.285	
  Bernard	
   also	
  

noted	
  that	
  Père	
  Tanguy	
  and	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  engaged	
  in	
  a	
  socialist	
  discourse,	
  writing:	
  	
  

Julien	
   Tanguy,	
   a	
   faithful	
   reader	
   of	
   Le	
   Cri	
   du	
   peuple	
   and	
  
L’intransigent	
   espoused	
   a	
   doctrine	
   of	
   single-­‐minded	
   love	
   of	
   the	
  
poor,	
   fixing	
   his	
   ideal	
   on	
   a	
   future	
   filled	
   with	
   goodness	
   and	
   love,	
  
when	
   all	
   human	
   beings	
   would	
   turn	
   toward	
   one	
   another	
   and	
  
personal	
   struggles	
   and	
   ambitions,	
   always	
   so	
   bitter	
   and	
   bloody,	
  
would	
  come	
  to	
  an	
  end.	
  Vincent	
  only	
  diverged	
  from	
  this	
   ideal	
   in	
  
that	
   his	
   artistic	
   nature	
   sought	
   to	
   make	
   a	
   kind	
   of	
   religion	
   and	
  
esthetic	
  credo	
  of	
  the	
  notion	
  of	
  social	
  harmony.	
  286	
  	
  	
  
	
  

Camille	
  Pissarro,	
  Félix	
  Fénéon,	
  Georges	
  Seurat,	
  and	
  Signac	
  all	
  concurred	
  and	
  were	
  

open	
   about	
   their	
   socialist	
   or	
   even	
   anarchist	
   ideals. 287	
  Van	
   Gogh	
   had	
   collegial	
  

friendships	
  with	
  Père	
  Tanguy,	
  Fénéon,	
  Pissarro,	
  and	
  Signac	
  whose	
  beliefs	
  shaped	
  not	
  

only	
  their	
  political	
  leanings	
  but	
  also	
  their	
  respective	
  criticism	
  and	
  imagery.288	
  Signac	
  

and	
  Pissarro,	
  for	
  example,	
  drew	
  political	
  influence	
  from	
  Pierre-­‐Joseph	
  Proudhon,	
  a	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
285	
  Bernard	
  quoted	
  in	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  letter	
  575,	
  note	
  9.	
  

286	
  Bernard,	
   “Julien	
   Tanguy,	
   Called	
   Le	
   Père	
   Tanguy”	
   (November-­‐December	
   1908)	
   in	
   Van	
   Gogh:	
   A	
  
Retrospective,	
  ed.	
  Susan	
  Alyson	
  Stein	
  (New	
  York:	
  Hugh	
  Lauter	
  Levin	
  Associates,	
  Inc.,	
  1986)	
  93.	
  

287	
  John	
  Rewald,	
  Post-­‐Impressionism:	
  From	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  to	
  Gauguin	
  (New	
  York:	
  Museum	
  of	
  Modern	
  Art,	
  
1978)	
  141-­‐142.	
  See	
  also:	
  Joan	
  Ungersma	
  Halperin,	
  Félix	
  Fénéon:	
  Aesthete	
  &	
  Anarchist	
  in	
  Fin-­‐de-­‐Siècle	
  
Paris	
  (New	
  Haven	
  and	
  London:	
  Yale	
  University	
  Press,	
  1988)	
  33-­‐34	
  &	
  56.	
  See	
  also:	
  Ferretti-­‐Bocquillon	
  
47-­‐48.	
   Fénéon	
   published	
   Lafargue’s	
   writing	
   after	
   the	
   socialist	
   writer’s	
   death.	
   Fénéon	
   also	
   thought	
  
that	
  anarchy,	
  rather	
  than	
  socialism,	
  would	
  lead	
  to	
  more	
  effective	
  reform	
  measures.	
  When	
  President	
  
Carnot	
  was	
  assassinated	
  on	
  June	
  24,	
  1894	
  at	
  the	
  hands	
  of	
  an	
  anarchist,	
  the	
  government	
  investigated,	
  
bringing	
  charges	
  against	
  known	
  anarchists.	
  During	
  this	
  incident,	
  critic	
  Fénéon	
  and	
  painter	
  Maximilien	
  
Luce	
  both	
  found	
  themselves	
  in	
  lawsuits.	
  Fénéon	
  was	
  jailed	
  during	
  the	
  1894	
  anarchist	
  bombings	
  and	
  
assassination	
   of	
   President	
   Carnot,	
   but	
   was	
   acquitted.	
   He	
   stayed	
   in	
   Belgium	
   at	
   this	
   time;	
   Signac	
  
offered	
  him	
  financial	
  help.	
  	
  

288	
  Ferretti-­‐Bocquillon	
  46-­‐47.	
  	
  

	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

154	
  

philosopher	
  writing	
  in	
  mid-­‐century	
  who	
  studied	
  economic	
  inequalities	
  and	
  saw	
  art	
  

as	
  a	
  means	
  to	
  dispose	
  of	
  a	
  confining	
  material	
  culture.289	
  Proudhon	
  argued	
  that	
  art	
  

had,	
  with	
  the	
  paintings	
  of	
  Gustave	
  Courbet,	
  “become	
  rational”	
  and	
  could	
  “no	
  longer	
  

profess[]	
  indifference	
  in	
  matters	
  of	
  faith,	
  government,	
  or	
  morality.”290	
  	
  

Although	
  the	
  view	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  provided	
  from	
  his	
  rue	
  Lepic	
  window	
  is	
  not	
  an	
  

explicit	
  statement	
  about	
  “matters	
  of…government,”	
  the	
  artist	
  used	
  the	
  window,	
  the	
  

tenement	
   house,	
   and	
   a	
   newly	
   constructed	
   building	
   to	
   crop	
   and	
   frame	
   the	
   urban	
  

metropolis.	
  The	
  towers	
  of	
  Notre	
  Dame	
  on	
  the	
  horizon	
  appear	
  in	
  a	
  minuscule	
  scale,	
  

and	
   the	
   tenement-­‐housing	
   complex	
   and	
   unfinished	
   structure	
   dominate	
   the	
  

foreground.	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  pictorial	
  use	
  of	
  scale	
  relates	
  to	
  the	
  reality	
  of	
  working-­‐class	
  

residents	
   of	
   Montmartre.	
   	
   In	
   1886,	
   Montmartre	
   was	
   home	
   to	
   a	
   disproportionate	
  

number	
  of	
  manual	
  laborers	
  versus	
  white-­‐collar	
  employees.	
  More	
  than	
  60-­‐70%	
  of	
  the	
  

residents	
  of	
  the	
  arrondissement	
  were	
  of	
  the	
  labor	
  class.291	
  To	
  create	
  the	
  painting,	
  

the	
  artist	
  looked	
  over	
  those	
  who	
  work	
  for	
  the	
  city,	
  and	
  represented	
  the	
  labor-­‐class	
  

from	
  their	
  marginal	
  role	
  in	
  the	
  city’s	
  structure.	
  As	
  a	
  population,	
  they	
  remain	
  outside	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
289	
  Pierre-­‐Joseph	
  Proudhon,	
  “Definitions	
  of	
  the	
  New	
  School,”	
  Art	
  in	
  Theory,	
  1815-­‐1900:	
  An	
  Anthology	
  
of	
  Changing	
  Ideas.	
  Eds.	
  Charles	
  Harrison	
  and	
  Paul	
  Wood	
  with	
  Jason	
  Gaiger	
  (Oxford,	
  UK:	
  Blackwell	
  
Publishers,	
  1999)	
  404-­‐410.	
  

290	
  Proudhon	
  quoted	
  in	
  Harrison	
  410.	
  

291	
  Berlanstein,	
  The	
  Working	
  People	
  of	
  Paris	
  12-­‐13,	
  figure	
  1	
  &	
  2.	
  In	
  comparison,	
  less	
  than	
  25%	
  (and	
  in	
  
some	
  areas	
  less	
  than	
  50%)	
  of	
  the	
  population	
  made	
  up	
  manual	
  laborers	
  just	
  south	
  of	
  Montmartre	
  in	
  
the	
   Ninth	
   arrondissement.	
   Between	
   25-­‐50%	
   of	
   the	
   population	
   was	
   of	
   the	
   labor-­‐class	
   near	
   the	
  
Cathedral	
  of	
  Notre	
  Dame.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

155	
  

of	
  the	
  metropolis.	
  As	
  in	
  the	
  weaver	
  paintings,	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  imagery	
  does	
  not	
  posit	
  a	
  

political	
   stance,	
   but	
   addresses	
   the	
   realities	
   of	
   their	
   condition	
   through	
   pictorial	
  

metaphors,	
  such	
  as	
  scale	
  and	
  point-­‐of-­‐view.	
  In	
  so	
  doing,	
  the	
  artist	
  obliquely	
  suggests	
  

the	
  boundary	
  between	
  class	
  structures	
  and	
  provides	
  a	
  perspective	
  of	
  someone	
  who	
  

sees	
  the	
  city	
  from	
  the	
  peripheral	
  status	
  of	
  the	
  labor-­‐class.	
  	
  

	
  

Montmartre’s	
  Butte	
  

When	
  Vincent	
  arrived	
  in	
  Paris,	
  Théo	
  lived	
  on	
  the	
  rue	
  Laval,	
  just	
  south	
  of	
  the	
  

busy	
  Boulevard	
  de	
  Clichy	
  and	
  Boulevard	
  de	
  Rochechouart.	
  Four	
  months	
  later	
  in	
  early	
  

summer,	
  the	
  brothers	
  moved	
  across	
  the	
  main	
  boulevards	
  to	
  the	
  rue	
  Lepic	
  on	
  the	
  

Butte.	
   When	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   lived	
   in	
   Montmartre,	
   the	
   Butte	
   was	
   known	
   for	
   three	
  

prominent	
  windmills—neighborhood	
  attractions	
  with	
  cafés	
  and	
  a	
  viewing	
  platform	
  

upon	
  which	
  observers	
  could	
  overlook	
  Paris	
  [figures	
  8-­‐10].292	
  During	
  his	
  first	
  summer	
  

in	
  the	
  capital,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  took	
  advantage	
  of	
  the	
  perspective	
  from	
  the	
  viewing	
  terrace	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
292	
  Welsh-­‐Ovcharov,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  à	
  Paris	
  (Paris:	
  Musée	
  d’Orsay,	
  1988)	
  56.	
  Welsh-­‐Ovcharov,	
  Vincent	
  Van	
  
Gogh:	
   His	
   Paris	
   Period,	
   1886-­‐1888	
   232.	
   Ferretti-­‐Bocquillon	
   95.	
   Kooten	
   and	
   Rijnders	
   141-­‐142,	
   161.	
  
Bogomila	
  Welsh-­‐Ovcharov	
  clarifies	
  the	
  different	
  mills,	
  as	
  do	
  subsequent	
  scholars,	
  by	
  their	
  respective	
  
location:	
  the	
  Moulin	
  Le	
  Blute-­‐fin	
  was	
  located	
  on	
  the	
  rue	
  Lepic	
  and	
  included	
  the	
  viewing	
  platform,	
  the	
  
Moulin	
   Le	
   Radet	
   on	
   the	
   corner	
   of	
   rue	
   Girardon	
   and	
   Norvins,	
   and	
   the	
   Moulin	
   à	
   Poivre	
   on	
   the	
   rue	
  
Norvins.	
  See	
  Welsh-­‐Ovcharov’s	
  map	
  in	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  à	
  Paris	
  on	
  page	
  37:	
  Le	
  Radet	
  (called	
  “The	
  Moulin	
  de	
  
la	
  Galette”),	
  the	
  Moulin	
  à	
  Poivre	
  (“Pepper	
  Mill”	
  and	
  also	
  called	
  Moulin	
  Debray),	
  and	
  the	
  Blute-­‐fin	
  
(associated	
   with	
   the	
   viewing	
   deck).	
   All	
   were	
   also	
   known	
   as	
   the	
   Moulin	
   de	
   la	
   Galette.	
   The	
   Debray	
  
family,	
  who	
  owned	
  two	
  of	
  the	
  mills	
  for	
  most	
  of	
  the	
  nineteenth	
  century,	
  possibly	
  decided	
  to	
  name	
  the	
  
mills	
  “Moulin	
  de	
  la	
  Galette”	
  to	
  attract	
  tourists	
  to	
  the	
  eateries	
  and	
  to	
  the	
  viewing	
  deck	
  overlooking	
  
Montmartre	
   and	
   all	
   of	
   Paris,	
   as	
   marketed	
   in	
   Jules-­‐Aldolphe	
   Chauvet’s	
   illustrative	
   postcards	
   of	
   the	
  
mills	
  (addressed	
  below).	
  “The	
  Moulin	
  de	
  la	
  Galette”	
  was	
  also	
  a	
  phrase	
  used	
  to	
  distinguish	
  the	
  entire	
  
top	
  of	
  the	
  Butte	
  from	
  1834	
  to	
  1895.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

156	
  

and	
  painted	
  the	
  crowded	
  metropolis	
  stretching	
  off	
  into	
  the	
  horizon	
  toward	
  the	
  heart	
  

of	
   the	
   city	
   in	
   View	
   of	
   Paris,	
   from	
   Montmartre	
   (late	
   summer	
   1886)	
   [figure	
   11].293	
  

Smokestacks	
  rise	
  above	
  the	
  roofs	
  punctuating	
  the	
  cityscape,	
  indicating	
  the	
  factory	
  

labor	
  supporting	
  the	
  city.	
  That	
  winter,	
  the	
  artist	
  also	
  depicted	
  the	
  observation	
  deck	
  

from	
  the	
  point	
  of	
  view	
  of	
  leisurely	
  observers	
  in	
  Terrace	
  and	
  Observation	
  Deck	
  at	
  the	
  

Moulin	
  de	
  Blute-­‐fin,	
  Montmartre	
  (early	
  1886-­‐1887)	
  [figure	
  12].	
  Painted	
  in	
  the	
  muted	
  

earth	
  tones	
  of	
  his	
  summer	
  cityscape,	
  he	
  included	
  elements	
  of	
  a	
  modern	
  city,	
  such	
  as	
  

gas-­‐lights	
  and	
  figures	
  in	
  contemporary	
  dress	
  enjoying	
  the	
  city	
  vista	
  in	
  winter.	
  	
  

Just	
   off	
   the	
   rue	
   Lepic,	
   the	
   windmills	
   were	
   not	
   far	
   from	
   the	
   bustle	
   of	
   café	
  

culture	
   on	
   the	
   Boulevard	
   de	
   Clichy.294	
  The	
   Debray	
   family,	
   a	
   well-­‐known	
   family	
   in	
  

Montmartre,	
  owned	
  two	
  (possibly	
  all	
  three)	
  of	
  the	
  mills	
  and	
  perhaps	
  the	
  farmland	
  

on	
  the	
  Butte	
  for	
  most	
  of	
  the	
  nineteenth	
  century	
  [figure	
  13].	
  295	
  A	
  short	
  walk	
  uphill	
  

from	
   the	
   Boulevard,	
   the	
   windmills	
   were	
   places	
   to	
   socialize.	
   Illustrations	
   by	
   Jules-­‐
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
293	
  Welsh-­‐Ovcharov,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  à	
  Paris	
  46-­‐47.	
  
294	
  Mary	
  Weaver	
  Chapin,	
  “The	
  Chat	
  Noir	
  and	
  the	
  Cabaret,”	
  The	
  Spirit	
  of	
  Montmartre:	
  Cabarets,	
  Humor	
  
and	
   the	
   Avant-­‐Garde,	
   1875-­‐1905,	
   eds.	
   Phillip	
   Dennis	
   Cate	
   and	
   Mary	
   Shaw	
   (New	
   Brunswick,	
   New	
  
Jersey:	
  Rutgers,	
  The	
  State	
  University	
  of	
  New	
  Jersey,	
  1996)	
  90-­‐91.	
  The	
  Butte	
  was	
  located	
  close	
  to	
  café	
  
life	
   on	
   the	
   Boulevard	
   Clichy:	
   the	
   famous	
   Moulin	
   Rouge,	
   Le	
   Chat	
   Noir	
   Cabaret	
   (which	
   opened	
   in	
  
November	
  1881,	
  and	
  a	
  second	
  location	
  on	
  the	
  rue	
  Laval	
  in	
  1885),	
  Aristide	
  Bruant’s	
  cabaret	
  Mirliton	
  
(which	
   took	
   over	
   the	
   first	
   Le	
   Chat	
   Noir	
   location	
   in	
   1885	
   at	
   84	
   Boulevard	
   Rochechouart),	
   and	
   the	
  
Théâtre	
  Libre.	
  

295	
  Although	
   there	
   is	
   not	
   a	
   study	
   or	
   summary	
   of	
   the	
   Debray	
   family,	
   the	
   father	
   and	
   his	
   sons	
   are	
  
mentioned	
  in	
  two	
  histories	
  of	
  Montmartre.	
  Georges	
  Montorgueil,	
  La	
  vie	
  à	
  Montmartre,	
  illustrations	
  
by	
   Pierre	
   Vidal	
   (1899;	
   Gallica.bnf,	
   2012),	
  
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6377146c.image.r=Debray.f21.langEN.	
   See	
   also:	
   Le	
   Vieux	
  
Montmartre.	
   Société	
   d'histoire	
   et	
   d'archéologie	
   du	
   XVIIIe	
   arrondissement	
   (1886-­‐1935;	
   Gallica.bnf,	
  
2011)	
  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5690746b.image.r=Debray.f6.langEN.	
  	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

157	
  

Adolphe	
  Chauvet	
  (1828-­‐1906)	
  provide	
  an	
  example	
  [figures	
  14-­‐17].	
  296	
  In	
  Montmartre	
  

Le	
  Moulin	
  Des	
  frères	
  Debray,	
  Restaurant	
  la	
  Guinguette,	
  people	
  greet	
  one	
  another	
  in	
  

middle-­‐class	
  and	
  upper-­‐middle	
  class	
  attire	
  in	
  front	
  of	
  Restaurant	
  la	
  Guinguette.	
  A	
  tall	
  

man	
  to	
  the	
  left	
  raises	
  his	
  top-­‐hat	
  nodding	
  toward	
  the	
  couple	
  on	
  the	
  street	
  as	
  the	
  

waiter,	
   menu	
   tucked	
   under	
   his	
   arms,	
   waits	
   to	
   the	
   side.	
   A	
   sign	
   to	
   the	
   left	
   reads	
  

“Jardin	
  de	
  la	
  Galette”	
  and	
  a	
  sign	
  above	
  the	
  establishment	
  reads	
  “Debray	
  Aine,”	
  or	
  

(aîné)	
   elder	
   Debray,	
   either	
   referring	
   to	
   the	
   family’s	
   patriarch	
   or	
   the	
   eldest	
   son.	
  

Tables	
  with	
  empty	
  wine	
  bottles	
  and	
  half-­‐full	
  glasses	
  suggest	
  that	
  outdoor	
  seating	
  at	
  

this	
  café	
  was	
  a	
  popular	
  activity	
  on	
  a	
  sunny	
  afternoon.	
  In	
  this	
  print,	
  the	
  Butte	
  is	
  a	
  

destination,	
  a	
  place	
  to	
  visit,	
  and	
  a	
  neighborhood	
  with	
  eateries	
  and	
  gardens	
  that	
  are	
  

worth	
  the	
  walk	
  up	
  the	
  Butte’s	
  slope.	
  Chauvet’s	
  illustration	
  prioritizes	
  the	
  upper-­‐class	
  

and	
   indicates	
   a	
   clean,	
   well-­‐organized	
   inviting	
   area	
   of	
   Montmartre	
   where	
   middle-­‐

class	
  visitors	
  could	
  take	
  advantage	
  of	
  leisurely	
  activities.	
  	
  

Van	
  Gogh	
  depicted	
  a	
  group	
  of	
  people	
  at	
  the	
  top	
  of	
  the	
  Butte	
  in	
  Moulin	
  de	
  la	
  

Galette	
  or	
  Le	
  Radet	
  (mid-­‐October	
  1886)	
  [figure	
   18]	
  on	
  a	
  corner	
  at	
  the	
  top	
  of	
  the	
  

Butte	
  close	
  to	
  the	
  scene	
  Chauvet	
  described.297	
  While	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  maintained	
  a	
  sense	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
296	
  The	
  Moulin	
  Le	
  Radet	
  is	
  associated	
  with	
  La	
  Guiguette.	
  Toos	
  van	
  Kooten	
  and	
  Mieke	
  Rijnders,	
  eds.	
  
The	
  Paintings	
  of	
  Vincent	
  van	
  Gogh	
  in	
  the	
  Collection	
  of	
  the	
  Kröller-­‐Müller	
  Museum	
  (Otterlo:	
  Kröller-­‐
Müller	
  Museum,	
  2003)	
  161-­‐162.	
  

297	
  The	
  image	
  probably	
  features	
  the	
  Blute-­‐fin	
  although	
  it	
  is	
  labeled	
  “Moulin	
  de	
  la	
  Galette.”	
  Chauvet’s	
  
sketch,	
   Impasse	
   des	
   2	
   frères	
   rue	
   Lepic,	
   from	
   1884	
   is	
   similar	
   to	
   the	
   corner	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   depicted	
   in	
  
Moulin	
  de	
  la	
  Galette	
  or	
  Le	
  Radet	
  (1886).	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

158	
  

of	
  mimetic	
  description,	
  the	
  artist’s	
  ideas	
  of	
  the	
  Butte	
  convey	
  a	
  working-­‐class	
  area	
  

with	
   few	
   upper-­‐class	
   people.	
   In	
   contrast	
   to	
   Chauvet’s	
   print	
   in	
   which	
   people	
  

congregate,	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   corner	
   on	
   the	
   Butte	
   reads	
   as	
   a	
   residential	
   area,	
   a	
   place	
  

where	
   passersby	
   are	
   in	
   transit.	
   The	
   structure	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   depicted	
   is	
   also	
   the	
   site	
  

represented	
   in	
  Pierre-­‐Auguste	
  Renoir’s	
  Bal	
  du	
  moulin	
  de	
   la	
  Galette	
  (1876)	
  [figure	
  

19],	
  a	
  painting	
  that	
  shows	
  the	
  popular	
  Sunday	
  dance	
  as	
  a	
  fun	
  social	
  gathering	
  under	
  

the	
  shimmering	
  sun.298	
  Unlike	
  Chauvet	
  and	
  Renoir,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  depicted	
  simple	
  street	
  

life	
  and	
  used	
  the	
  umbers	
  of	
  his	
  earlier	
  imagery	
  to	
  create	
  a	
  balance	
  of	
  earthy	
  hues	
  

against	
  an	
  overcast	
  sky.	
  A	
  sign	
  that	
  reads	
  “commerce	
  de	
  vino”	
  labels	
  the	
  structure,	
  

and	
  Le	
  Radet	
  (one	
  of	
  the	
  windmills)	
  rises	
  behind	
  the	
  café.	
  To	
  depict	
  Montmartre’s	
  

Butte,	
  the	
  artist	
  included	
  figures	
  of	
  differing	
  classes,	
  including	
  the	
  lower	
  classes.	
  The	
  

male	
  figure	
  on	
  the	
  left	
  stands	
  tall	
  and	
  wears	
  a	
  top	
  hat;	
  in	
  contrast,	
  the	
  figure	
  walking	
  

up	
  the	
  hill	
  slouches	
  and	
  wears	
  a	
  rounded	
  hat	
  and	
  non-­‐descript	
  garments.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  

also	
   studied	
   the	
   interior	
   of	
   the	
   café	
   illustrated	
   by	
   Chauvet	
   in	
   La	
   Guinguette	
   du	
  

Moulin	
  Le	
  Radet	
  (mid-­‐October	
  1886)	
  and	
  La	
  Guinguette	
  (mid-­‐October	
  1886)	
  [figures	
  

20	
   &	
   21].	
   Aside	
   from	
   the	
   prominent	
   gas	
   lamp	
   in	
   the	
   center	
   of	
   the	
   drawing	
   and	
  

painting,	
  the	
  outdoor	
  seating	
  area	
  appears	
  modest.299	
  Figures	
  drawn	
  with	
  a	
  couple	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
298	
  Toos	
  and	
  Rijnders	
  162.	
  On	
  Renoir’s	
  painting,	
  see:	
  Robert	
  Herbert,	
  Impressionism:	
  Art,	
  Leisure	
  and	
  
Parisian	
  Society.	
  (New	
  Haven	
  and	
  London:	
  Yale	
  University	
  Press,	
  1988)	
  	
  62,	
  132-­‐139.	
  

299	
  Welsh-­‐Ovcharov,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  à	
  Paris	
  58	
  and	
  60.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  painted	
  the	
  same	
  establishment	
  Pierre-­‐
Auguste	
  Renoir	
  did	
  in	
  the	
  Frenchman’s	
  Bal	
  du	
  Moulin	
  de	
  la	
  Galette	
  (1876),	
  which	
  depicts	
  the	
  Moulin	
  
Le	
  Radet,	
  a	
  windmill	
  that	
  was	
  quite	
  close	
  to	
  the	
  apartment	
  Vincent	
  shared	
  with	
  Théo.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

159	
  

of	
  brushstrokes	
  in	
  deep	
  tones	
  huddle	
  over	
  drinks.	
  The	
  couple	
  seated	
  in	
  the	
  corner	
  

represents	
  the	
  upper-­‐classes;	
  the	
  woman	
  wears	
  a	
  bright	
  pink	
  dress	
  with	
  a	
  modern	
  

silhouette	
  and	
  her	
  companion	
  a	
  top	
  hat.	
  	
  The	
  woman	
  in	
  the	
  foreground	
  sitting	
  at	
  the	
  

table	
  alone	
  seems	
  to	
  be	
  dressed	
  more	
  simply;	
  her	
  shoulders	
  wrapped	
  in	
  a	
  scarf.	
  Van	
  

Gogh’s	
  waiter	
  appears	
  in	
  the	
  center	
  of	
  the	
  image,	
  not	
  as	
  a	
  figure	
  on	
  the	
  margins	
  of	
  a	
  

group	
  in	
  conversation	
  as	
  in	
  Chauvet’s	
  image.	
  In	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  depiction,	
  the	
  worker	
  is	
  

central.	
  	
  

By	
  the	
  spring,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  turned	
  his	
  attention	
  to	
  the	
  agricultural	
  aspects	
  of	
  

the	
  Butte	
  and	
  omitted	
  direct	
  reference	
  to	
  the	
  metropolis,	
  leisurely	
  afternoons,	
  and	
  

the	
  middle-­‐class.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  painted	
  The	
  Hill	
  of	
  Montmartre	
  (April-­‐May	
  1886)	
  [figure	
  

22],	
   and	
   the	
   Debray-­‐family	
   farm	
   building	
   appears	
   on	
   the	
   cusp	
   of	
   the	
   hill.300	
  Two	
  

paintings	
   of	
   the	
   same	
   title	
   The	
   Hill	
   of	
   Montmartre	
   with	
   Stone	
   Quarry	
   (June-­‐July	
  

1886)	
  [figures	
  23	
  &	
  24]	
  show	
  the	
  north-­‐facing	
  slope	
  from	
  the	
  base	
  of	
  the	
  Butte,	
  and	
  

limestone	
   quarries	
   that	
   appear	
   like	
   open	
   sores	
   in	
   the	
   earth	
   appear	
   in	
   the	
  

foreground.	
  The	
  quarries	
  were	
  nearly	
  abandoned	
  by	
  the	
  1880s,	
  but	
  had	
  provided	
  

limestone	
  for	
  Parisian	
  plaster	
  for	
  centuries.301	
  In	
  the	
  distance,	
  the	
  three	
  mills	
  of	
  the	
  

Butte	
  and	
  small	
  plots	
  appear	
  on	
  the	
  slope.	
  	
  Although	
  these	
  images	
  maintain	
  a	
  sense	
  

of	
  realism,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  chose	
  to	
  pictorially	
  negate	
  the	
  city’s	
  aspects.	
  	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
300	
  Toos	
  and	
  Rijnders	
  141.	
  

301	
  Welsh-­‐Ovcharov,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  à	
  Paris	
  54.	
  	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

160	
  

In	
  both	
  The	
  Hill	
  of	
  Montmartre	
  with	
  Stone	
  Quarry	
  images,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  took	
  the	
  

vantage	
  point	
  of	
  someone	
  standing	
  at	
  the	
  bottom	
  of	
  the	
  Butte	
   looking	
  up	
  to	
  the	
  

Debray-­‐family	
  farm.	
  The	
  paintings	
  include	
  small-­‐scale	
  figures	
  viewed	
  from	
  someone	
  

who	
   ostensibly	
   observes	
   the	
   workers	
   from	
   within	
   the	
   small	
   plots	
   or	
   allotments,	
  

known	
  as	
  jardin	
  ouvriers	
  or	
  biens	
  de	
  famille.	
  Allotments	
  were	
  small	
  strips	
  of	
  arable	
  

land	
   operated	
   by	
   poor	
   tenant	
   farmers	
   who	
   paid	
   rent	
   to	
   a	
   landowner.302	
  The	
  

allotments	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  depicted	
  were	
  located	
  directly	
  behind	
  the	
  mills,	
  La	
  Guinguette,	
  

and	
  the	
  Bal	
  du	
  Moulin	
  de	
  la	
  Galette.	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  perspective	
  from	
  the	
  other	
  side	
  of	
  

the	
   Butte	
   destabilizes	
   the	
   patriarchal	
   view	
   in	
   paintings	
   by	
   artists	
   such	
   as	
   John	
  

Constable	
  (1776-­‐1837)	
   in,	
  for	
  example,	
  The	
  Cornfield	
  (1826)	
  [figure	
   25],	
  an	
  image	
  

Van	
  Gogh	
  knew.303	
  In	
  The	
  Cornfield,	
  Constable,	
  himself	
  from	
  a	
  wealthy	
  landowning	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
302	
  Micheline	
   Nilsen,	
   The	
   Working	
   Man’s	
   Green	
   Space:	
   Allotment	
   Gardens	
   in	
   England,	
   France,	
   and	
  
Germany,	
  1870-­‐1919	
  (Virginia:	
  University	
  of	
  Virginia	
  Press,	
  2014)	
  1-­‐3,	
  7-­‐9,	
  98-­‐100,	
  109-­‐111.	
  Although	
  
poor	
  peasant	
  farmers	
  worked	
  small	
  plots	
  of	
  land	
  around	
  urban	
  French	
  centers	
  since	
  the	
  middle-­‐ages,	
  
an	
  organized	
  allotment	
  structure	
  began	
  under	
  the	
  Third	
  Republic,	
  later	
  than	
  England	
  and	
  Germany.	
  In	
  
France,	
  allotments	
  moved	
  to	
  urban	
  areas	
  during	
  the	
  early	
  1870s	
  and	
  became	
  a	
  full-­‐fledged	
  workers’	
  
garden	
  movement	
  in	
  the	
  1890s.	
  Landowners—and	
  in	
  France	
  many	
  churches	
  allotted	
  land—allowed	
  
needy	
   workers	
   to	
   rent	
   land	
   to	
   feed	
   their	
   families	
   and	
   perhaps	
   sell	
   the	
   surplus,	
   depending	
   on	
   the	
  
landowner’s	
  rules.	
  In	
  some	
  cases,	
  selling	
  the	
  surplus	
  was	
  prohibited;	
  but,	
  in	
  others,	
  sale	
  of	
  the	
  surplus	
  
helped	
  the	
  tenant	
  gain	
  a	
  return	
  on	
  his	
  initial	
  investment	
  or	
  purchase	
  of	
  seeds.	
  An	
  allotment	
  typically	
  
had	
   a	
   shed	
   and	
   a	
   water-­‐distribution	
   system	
   to	
   feed	
   the	
   plants.	
   The	
   landowner’s	
   rules	
   may	
   have	
  
applied	
  to	
  the	
  size	
  of	
  the	
  shed,	
  the	
  ratio	
  of	
  fruits	
  and	
  vegetables,	
  or	
  ability	
  to	
  raise	
  livestock.	
  The	
  first	
  
international	
  congress	
  of	
  jardin	
  ouvriers	
  was	
  held	
  in	
  1903,	
  and	
  the	
  second	
  in	
  1906.	
  At	
  this	
  time,	
  there	
  
was	
  an	
  increase	
  in	
  French	
  allotments	
  gardens,	
  from	
  6,453	
  in	
  1903	
  to	
  12,081	
  in	
  1906.	
  On	
  the	
  1906	
  
congress,	
   see:	
   Robert	
   Pico,	
   Deuxième	
   Congrès	
   International	
   des	
   Jardin	
   Ouvriers	
   (1907;	
   repr.,	
  
Charleston,	
  South	
  Carolina:	
  BiblioLife,	
  2009)	
  64-­‐65.	
  

303	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  453	
  to	
  Théo	
  from	
  Nuenen	
  around	
  Monday,	
  August	
  4,	
  1884.	
  He	
  also	
  referred	
  
to	
  Constable’s	
  The	
  Valley	
  Farm:	
  Willy	
  Lot’s	
  House	
  (1835).	
  “…you	
  certainly	
  won’t	
  forget	
  to	
  look	
  at	
  a	
  
couple	
  of	
  very	
  fine	
  Constables	
  there	
  (Cornfield)	
  and	
  also	
  in	
  South	
  Kensington	
  (where	
  that	
  farm	
  is,	
  
Valley	
  farm).	
  I’m	
  very	
  curious	
  as	
  to	
  what	
  will	
  have	
  struck	
  you	
  most	
  and	
  what	
  you’ll	
  have	
  seen	
  there.”	
  	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

161	
  

family,	
   provided	
   a	
   view	
   from	
   that	
   of	
   the	
   landowner.	
   The	
   small	
   figures	
   of	
   the	
  

sheepherder	
  and	
  plowman	
  indicate	
  a	
  distance	
  necessary	
  to	
  the	
  class	
  system	
  of	
  the	
  

patriarchy,	
   a	
   separation	
   that	
   indicates	
   how	
   social	
   difference	
   functions	
   within	
   the	
  

economy.304	
  Figures	
  work	
  to	
  support	
  the	
  landowner;	
  his	
  achievements	
  are	
  implied	
  

through	
  the	
  vantage	
  point	
  overlooking	
  his	
   land	
  and	
  his	
  workers.305	
  As	
  John	
  Barrell	
  

has	
  pointed	
  out,	
  Constable’s	
  figures	
  should	
  not	
  be	
  understood	
  as	
  dabs	
  of	
  paint	
  or	
  

forms	
  of	
  color,	
  but	
  as	
  figures	
  who	
  are	
  absorbed	
  into	
  the	
  landscape	
  as	
  indiscriminate	
  

aspects	
  of	
  work	
  under	
  the	
  gaze	
  of	
  the	
  landowner.306	
  These	
  figures	
  do	
  not	
  work,	
  but	
  

are	
  worked.	
   In	
  The	
  Cornfield,	
  Constable	
  provided	
  a	
  view	
  of	
  the	
  land	
  extending	
  off	
  

into	
  the	
  horizon,	
  and	
  from	
  the	
  perspective	
  above	
  the	
  path	
  in	
  the	
  foreground,	
  gaining	
  

a	
   sense	
   of	
   the	
   vast	
   landscape	
   across	
   several	
   fields.	
   Past	
   the	
   plowman	
   in	
   The	
  

Cornfield,	
  two	
  white	
  forms	
  topped	
  with	
  black	
  shapes	
  appear,	
  and,	
  in	
  this	
  way,	
  the	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
304	
  On	
  the	
  landowner’s	
  perspective	
  in	
  Constable’s	
  paintings,	
  see:	
  John	
  Barrell,	
  “John	
  Constable,”	
  The	
  
Dark	
   Side	
   of	
   Landscape:	
   The	
   Rural	
   Poor	
   in	
   English	
   Painting,	
   1730-­‐1840	
   (Cambridge:	
   Cambridge	
  
University	
   Press,	
   1980)	
   131-­‐164.	
   Constable’s	
   family	
   position	
   was	
   that	
   of	
   wealthy	
   landowners,	
   and	
  
thus	
  he	
  had	
  a	
  conservative	
  “rural	
  tory”	
  view	
  of	
  workers.	
  His	
  figures	
  of	
  the	
  labor-­‐class	
  are	
  small	
  to	
  
underscore	
  their	
  insignificance.	
  The	
  laborers	
  do	
  not	
  work	
  in	
  the	
  pastoral	
  sense	
  “whereby	
  the	
  fruits	
  of	
  
nature	
   are	
   easily	
   come	
   by,	
   more	
   or	
   less	
   without	
   effort”	
   (132).	
   Instead,	
   from	
   the	
   perspective	
   of	
   a	
  
landowner	
  (painted	
  by	
  an	
  artist	
  who	
  himself	
  did	
  not	
  know	
  the	
  names	
  of	
  his	
  father’s	
  laborers),	
  they	
  
are	
  worked	
  (137).	
  In	
  this	
  way,	
  they	
  are	
  in	
  harmony	
  with	
  the	
  land	
  as	
  their	
  hard	
  labor	
  is	
  necessary	
  to	
  
support	
  patriarchal	
  aims.	
  Constable	
  developed	
  his	
  aesthetic	
  at	
  a	
  time	
  when	
  a	
  “class-­‐consciousness	
  
[of]	
  the	
  rural	
  poor”	
  developed:	
  there	
  was	
  a	
  perceived	
  difference	
  between	
  the	
  laborer’s	
  individuality	
  
and	
  “what	
  others	
  forced	
  them	
  to	
  be”	
  (156).	
  Thus,	
  the	
  distance	
  Constable	
  maintained	
  in	
  his	
  paintings	
  
between	
  the	
  small-­‐scale	
  figures	
  and	
  the	
  viewer	
  is	
  one	
  necessary	
  to	
  social	
  difference,	
  and	
  Constable’s	
  
ideas	
  of	
  “social	
  harmony”	
  are	
  based	
  on	
  “social	
  division”	
  (164).	
  

305	
  Barrell	
  133.	
  

306	
  Barrell	
  141-­‐149.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

162	
  

figures	
  perform	
  work	
  in	
  harmony	
  with	
  the	
  landowning	
  system,	
  not	
  necessarily	
  with	
  

nature.	
  	
  

Similarly,	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  almost	
  imperceptible	
  figures	
  in	
  The	
  Hill	
  of	
  Montmartre	
  

with	
  Stone	
  Quarry	
  paintings	
  suggest	
  a	
  distance	
  between	
  the	
  viewer	
  and	
  the	
  worker.	
  

Van	
   Gogh’s	
   viewer	
   looks	
   up	
   to	
   the	
   Debray-­‐family	
   farm	
   building	
   and	
   thus	
   to	
   the	
  

position	
  of	
  power	
  from	
  that	
  of	
  the	
  worker’s	
  space	
  within	
  his	
  rented	
  plot.	
  The	
  stone	
  

quarry	
   in	
  the	
  foreground	
  serves	
  as	
  a	
  reminder	
  of	
  the	
  production	
  the	
  land	
  and	
  its	
  

workers	
  yield;	
  the	
  figures	
  peering	
  over	
  the	
  edge	
  highlight	
  its	
  importance.	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  

perspective	
   is	
   from	
   the	
   earth,	
   not	
   from	
   hierarchical	
   position	
   hovering	
   above	
   the	
  

landscape.	
   Earthy	
   hues	
   frame	
   the	
   base	
   of	
   the	
   canvas,	
   providing	
   a	
   space	
   for	
   the	
  

viewer	
  who	
  can	
  look	
  down	
  at	
  the	
  ground	
  from	
  the	
  margin	
  of	
  the	
  picture	
  plane.	
  Van	
  

Gogh	
  addressed	
  class	
  through	
  metaphorical	
  means.	
  The	
  figures	
  operate	
  under	
  the	
  

gaze	
  of	
  the	
  landowner	
  implied	
  from	
  the	
  farmhouse	
  atop	
  the	
  hill,	
  and	
  thus	
  the	
  viewer	
  

is	
  alongside	
  fellow	
  tenants	
  among	
  the	
  allotments,	
  casting	
  an	
  egalitarian	
  gaze.	
  In	
  the	
  

first	
   few	
   images	
   of	
   the	
   Butte,	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   complicated	
   the	
   expected	
   sense	
   of	
   land	
  

ownership	
  and	
  the	
  space	
  of	
  the	
  viewer,	
  yet	
  conveyed	
  the	
  worker	
  as	
  an	
  element	
  in	
  

the	
  allotment	
  system	
  under	
  which	
  peasants	
  work	
  their	
  rented	
  land.	
  	
  

At	
  this	
  time,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  also	
  began	
  studying	
  the	
  plots	
  at	
  a	
  closer	
  range,	
  within	
  

the	
  work	
  area,	
  and	
  developed	
  a	
  compositional	
  strategy	
  that	
  organized	
  his	
  allotment	
  

imagery	
  through	
  a	
  newfound	
  perspective.	
  In	
  one	
  of	
  his	
  earliest	
  images,	
  Le	
  Moulin	
  de	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

163	
  

la	
   Galette	
   (1886)	
   [figure	
   26],	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   conveyed	
   a	
   painterly	
   description	
   of	
  

allotments.	
   The	
   organization	
   of	
   urban	
   allotments	
   developed	
   under	
   the	
   Third	
  

Republic	
  in	
  the	
  early	
  1870s.307	
  The	
  allotment	
  system	
  was	
  considered	
  social-­‐reform	
  

and	
  the	
  landowner	
  as	
  charitable	
  citizen	
  because	
  the	
  service	
  allowed	
  tenant	
  farmers	
  

to	
  grow	
  food	
  to	
  feed	
  their	
  families.	
  The	
  arrangement	
  was	
  also	
  understood	
  as	
  a	
  form	
  

of	
   social	
   control	
   that	
   upheld	
   the	
   conservative	
   values	
   of	
   landowners	
   because	
   the	
  

working	
   poor	
   had	
   to	
   manage	
   their	
   land,	
   rather	
   than	
   spend	
   idle	
   time	
   drinking	
   in	
  

taverns	
   or	
   meeting	
   with	
   socialist	
   factions. 308 	
  Allotments	
   were	
   organized	
   as	
   a	
  

collective	
   association	
   of	
   members	
   and	
   rules	
   were	
   particular	
   to	
   the	
   landowner.	
   In	
  

most	
   cases	
   the	
   rules	
   extended	
   to	
   a	
   tenant’s	
   behavior	
   as	
   well.	
   Depending	
   on	
   the	
  

rules,	
  tenants	
  could	
  also	
  sell	
  their	
  surplus,	
  which	
  was	
  sometimes	
  encouraged	
  as	
  it	
  

enabled	
  the	
  laborer	
  to	
  pay	
  his	
  rent	
  and	
  make	
  a	
  return	
  on	
  his	
  initial	
  investment.	
  	
  

Van	
   Gogh’s	
   early	
   depiction	
   includes	
   some	
   basic	
   elements	
   of	
   allotment	
  

farming.	
   Sheds,	
   two	
   of	
   which	
   stand	
   in	
   the	
   foreground	
   framing	
   the	
   path,	
   were	
  

typically	
  required	
  on	
  each	
  plot	
  and	
  were	
  a	
  recognized	
  aspect	
  of	
  allotment	
  aesthetics.	
  

The	
  allotments	
  were	
  also	
  disconnected	
  from	
  a	
  residence	
  and	
  were	
  often	
  provided,	
  

though	
  rent	
  dues	
  applied,	
  from	
  an	
  existing	
  farm	
  or	
  smallholding,	
  a	
  small-­‐scale	
  farm	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
307	
  See	
  note	
  302	
  in	
  this	
  chapter.	
  

308	
  Nilsen	
  110.	
  	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

164	
  

that	
   measured	
   less	
   than	
   50	
   acres. 309	
  In	
   the	
   1870s,	
   farmers	
   began	
   using	
   new	
  

agricultural	
   techniques	
   and	
   landowners	
   who	
   owned	
   or	
   leased	
   smallholdings	
   and	
  

peasant	
   farmers	
   who	
   worked	
   the	
   allotments	
   were	
   thus	
   able	
   to	
   provide	
   a	
   large	
  

portion	
   of	
   goods	
   throughout	
   the	
   nineteenth-­‐century	
   in	
   France. 310 	
  By	
   1884,	
  

smallholdings	
   occupied	
   half	
   of	
   France’s	
   landmass,	
   and	
   the	
   productivity	
   gave	
  

peasants	
  a	
  sense	
  of	
  financial	
  security	
  as	
  the	
  output	
  satisfied	
  the	
  country’s	
  demands	
  

and	
  hindered	
  the	
  need	
  for	
  large-­‐scale	
  practices.311	
  The	
  system	
  also	
  gave	
  the	
  peasant	
  

entry	
   into	
   the	
   agricultural	
   market,	
   and,	
   although	
   farming	
   practices	
   on	
   allotments	
  

and	
  smallholdings	
  maintained	
  rural	
  traditions,	
  new	
  techniques	
  yielded	
  marketable	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
309	
  Peter	
  McPhee,	
  “Preface,”	
  in	
  Stephen	
  J.	
  Russell,	
  Agriculture,	
  Prosperity,	
  and	
  the	
  Modernization	
  of	
  
French	
  Rural	
  Communities,	
  1870-­‐1914:	
  Views	
  from	
  the	
  Village	
  (Lewiston,	
  Queenston	
  and	
  Lampeter,	
  
2004)	
  vii-­‐viii.	
  A	
  smallholding	
  was	
  land	
  that	
  measured	
  less	
  than	
  20	
  hectares,	
  or	
  less	
  than	
  around	
  50	
  
acres.	
  Russell’s	
  account	
  considers	
  the	
  Allier,	
  a	
  rural	
  department	
  in	
  central	
  France,	
  and	
  the	
  traditional	
  
farming	
  methods	
  of	
  smallholdings.	
  In	
  France,	
  smallholdings	
  were	
  the	
  primary	
  agricultural	
  structure	
  
throughout	
   the	
   nineteenth	
   century	
   until	
   World	
   War	
   I.	
   Peasants	
   operated	
   smallholdings	
   and	
   their	
  
productivity	
  hindered	
  the	
  large-­‐scale	
  mechanical	
  process	
  of	
  farming	
  because	
  the	
  peasants	
  kept	
  up	
  
with	
  the	
  country’s	
  agricultural	
  demands.	
  Historians	
  typically	
  understand	
  the	
  smallholdings	
  and	
  their	
  
respective	
  operations	
  as	
  a	
  disruption	
  in	
  the	
  economy	
  of	
  large-­‐scale	
  farming,	
  but	
  Russell’s	
  research	
  
indicates	
   that	
   they	
   prospered.	
   Peasants	
   intentionally	
   developed	
   a	
   system	
   by	
   which	
   they	
   gained	
   a	
  
sense	
   of	
   financial	
   security,	
   feed	
   themselves,	
   and	
   contributed	
   to	
   the	
   French	
   economy	
   (4).	
   On	
   the	
  
difference	
   between	
   an	
   allotment	
   and	
   a	
   smallholding,	
   see:	
   Nilsen	
   32-­‐33,	
   56,	
   161.	
   Although	
   Nilsen	
  
bases	
  her	
  definition	
  of	
  the	
  smallholding	
  structure	
  on	
  the	
  English	
  model	
  and	
  the	
  1908	
  Small	
  Holdings	
  
and	
   Allotments	
   Act,	
   her	
   figures	
   on	
   smallholdings	
   are	
   the	
   same	
   as	
   McPhee’s	
   regarding	
   France.	
   An	
  
allotment	
   measured	
   between	
   one	
   and	
   five	
   acres	
   and	
   a	
   smallholding	
   between	
   one	
   and	
   fifty	
   acres.	
  
Thus,	
   an	
   allotment	
   could	
   also	
   be	
   considered	
   a	
   smallholding.	
   The	
   allotments	
   were	
   also	
   sometimes	
  
broken	
  off	
  from	
  a	
  smallholding,	
  and	
  an	
  allotment	
  typically	
  measured	
  two-­‐hundred	
  to	
  three-­‐hundred	
  
square	
  meters.	
  	
  

310	
  Russell	
  59-­‐60.	
  

311	
  McPhee,	
  “Preface,”	
  Russell	
  vii-­‐viii.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

165	
  

stock.312	
  	
  

In	
   terms	
   of	
   the	
   Butte,	
   I	
   think	
   the	
   Debray	
   family	
   may	
   have	
   owned	
   the	
  

smallholding	
  and	
  provided	
  allotments	
  on	
  the	
  Butte’s	
  north	
  slope.	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  images	
  

represent	
   a	
   rural	
   artisanal	
   farming	
   approach	
   within	
   an	
   urban	
   context,	
   and	
   old	
  

farming	
  systems	
  that	
  were	
  reinvented	
  to	
  meet	
  the	
  agricultural	
  needs	
  of	
  the	
  country.	
  

From	
  the	
  perspective	
  of	
  the	
  allotment	
  farmer	
  behind	
  Le	
  Blute-­‐fin,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  used	
  a	
  

row	
   of	
   unidentifiable	
   shrubs	
   to	
   mark	
   a	
   boundary	
   between	
   the	
   space	
   of	
   the	
   poor	
  

tenant	
  farmer	
  and	
  that	
  of	
  the	
  residential	
  area	
  and	
  the	
  Butte’s	
  cafés.	
  Although	
  the	
  

viewing	
  platform	
  crowded	
  with	
  observers	
  remains	
  in	
  clear	
  sight,	
  the	
  allotments	
  were	
  

segmented	
  both	
  from	
  the	
  landowner’s	
  plot	
  and	
  the	
  city.	
  Similar	
  to	
  the	
  perspective	
  

he	
  painted	
  from	
  his	
  apartment	
  window,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  provided	
  a	
  view	
  of	
  the	
  middle	
  

classes	
  from	
  the	
  vantage	
  point	
  of	
  the	
  laboring	
  poor,	
  and	
  kept	
  the	
  tenant	
  farmers	
  at	
  a	
  

distance	
  from	
  the	
  leisure	
  class	
  that	
  indicates	
  the	
  peasant’s	
  marginal	
  status.	
  Unlike	
  

the	
   view	
   from	
   his	
   window	
   that	
   assumes	
   the	
   perspective	
   of	
   the	
   artist	
   himself,	
   Le	
  

Moulin	
  de	
  la	
  Galette	
  takes	
  the	
  view	
  of	
  a	
  person	
  standing	
  in	
  the	
  allotments.	
   In	
  so	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
312	
  Stephen	
  J.	
  Russell,	
  Agriculture,	
  Prosperity,	
  and	
  the	
  Modernization	
  of	
  French	
  Rural	
  Communities,	
  
1870-­‐1914:	
   Views	
   from	
   the	
   Village	
   (Lewiston,	
   Queenston	
   and	
   Lampeter,	
   2004)	
   13,	
   81-­‐82.	
   Russell	
  
provides	
  an	
  example	
  of	
  the	
  relationship	
  between	
  the	
  smallholding’s	
  owner	
  and	
  the	
  tenant	
  farmer.	
  He	
  
cites	
   a	
   passage	
   from	
   Émile	
   Guillaumin’s	
   Rose	
   et	
   sa	
   Parisienne	
   (1907)	
   in	
   which	
   the	
   tenant	
   farmer	
  
worked	
  the	
  land	
  for	
  his	
  owner	
  who	
  lived	
  in	
  Paris,	
  accruing	
  for	
  50,000	
  francs	
  per	
  year.	
  Tenant	
  farmers	
  
often	
  took	
  on	
  more	
  land	
  than	
  they	
  could	
  cultivate	
  themselves	
  and	
  managed	
  a	
  sharecropping	
  system.	
  	
  

	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

166	
  

doing,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  begins	
  to	
  situate	
  the	
  viewer	
  within	
  the	
  canvas’s	
  narrative.313	
  The	
  

expanse	
  of	
  the	
  path	
  runs	
  along	
  the	
  entire	
  base	
  of	
  the	
  canvas	
  and	
  weeds	
  or	
  plants	
  

frame	
   an	
   implied	
   space	
   for	
   the	
   spectator,	
   a	
   pictorial	
   organizational	
   strategy	
   that	
  

allows	
   the	
   participant	
   to	
   imagine	
   standing	
   on	
   the	
   earth	
   at	
   the	
   threshold	
   of	
   the	
  

picture	
  plane.	
  	
  

The	
  following	
  year,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  crafted	
  aspects	
  of	
  the	
  city	
   in	
  miniscule	
  sale,	
  

and	
  enlarged	
  the	
  slope	
  of	
  the	
  Butte,	
  swelling	
  its	
  form.	
  Thus,	
  the	
  distance	
  between	
  

those	
  working	
  to	
  feed	
  themselves	
  and	
  Montmartre	
  becomes	
  more	
  exaggerated.	
  In	
  

Le-­‐Blute-­‐fin:	
  le	
  Moulin	
  de	
  la	
  Galette	
  (March	
  1887)	
  [figure	
  27],	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  relegated	
  

signs	
  of	
  the	
  urban	
  view	
  of	
  Montmartre	
  to	
  the	
  periphery	
  of	
  the	
  otherwise	
  rural	
  scene.	
  

The	
  terrace	
  platform	
  rises	
  to	
  the	
  right	
  of	
  the	
  windmill	
  and	
  the	
  streetlights	
  are	
  faintly	
  

visible	
   between	
   the	
   foundation’s	
   pilings.	
   The	
   gray-­‐blue	
   triangle	
   on	
   the	
   far	
   right	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
313	
  Greg	
  M.	
  Thomas,	
  Art	
  and	
  Ecology:	
  In	
  Nineteenth-­‐Century	
  France	
  (Princeton,	
  New	
  Jersey:	
  Princeton	
  
University	
  Press,	
  2000)	
  34-­‐47.	
  	
  Here,	
  and	
  for	
  subsequent	
  images	
  of	
  the	
  allotments	
  I	
  discuss,	
  I	
  take	
  
Thomas’s	
   characterization	
   of	
   what	
   he	
   calls	
   the	
   “ellipsoidal	
   perspective”	
   in	
   relation	
   to	
   Théodore	
  
Rousseau’s	
   and	
   Camille	
   Corot’s	
   mid-­‐nineteenth-­‐century	
   paintings.	
   Essentially,	
   Thomas	
   observes	
   an	
  
elliptical	
   form,	
   created	
   by	
   sunlight,	
   shadow,	
   or	
   trees,	
   for	
   instance.	
   The	
   artists	
   intentionally	
  
constructed	
   a	
   space	
   in	
   the	
   landscape	
   to	
   insinuate	
   the	
   viewer’s	
   body	
   on	
   the	
   earth,	
   within	
   the	
  
environment,	
   and	
   as	
   a	
   part	
   of	
   the	
   pictorial	
   narrative.	
   Thomas	
   deems	
   this	
   an	
   ecological	
   visual	
  
organization	
  that	
  disrupts	
  the	
  Renaissance	
  ideal	
  that	
  a	
  disembodied	
  eye	
  moves	
  through	
  the	
  painting’s	
  
frame	
  that	
  serves	
  as	
  a	
  window.	
  Moreover,	
  Thomas	
  points	
  out	
  that	
  his	
  visual	
  evidence	
  is	
  in	
  contrast	
  to	
  
a	
   panoramic	
   view.	
   In,	
   for	
   instance,	
   John	
   Constable’s	
   The	
   Dung	
   Heap	
   (circa	
   1815)	
   the	
   raised	
  
perspective	
   suggests	
   that	
   of	
   a	
   landowner	
   overseeing	
   his	
   expanse.	
   The	
   landowner	
   himself	
  
commissioned	
  the	
  image	
  for	
  his	
  daughter.	
  In	
  Rousseau’s	
  landscapes,	
  in	
  contrast,	
  the	
  horizon-­‐line	
  is	
  
lower	
   and	
   there	
   is	
   an	
   attention	
   to	
   detail	
   in	
   the	
   foreground	
   that	
   places	
   the	
   viewer	
   within	
   the	
  
perspective	
   of	
   the	
   landscape.	
   The	
   viewer	
   can	
   thus	
   become	
   an	
   “imagined	
   physical	
   body”	
   in	
   the	
  
landscape,	
  standing	
  at	
  “the	
  edge	
  of	
  the	
  picture’s	
  space”	
  (37).	
  	
  

	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

167	
  

provides	
  a	
  narrow	
  view	
  of	
  the	
  city	
  extending	
  below	
  the	
  Butte.314	
  In	
  this	
  image,	
  Van	
  

Gogh	
  shifted	
  from	
  an	
  observational	
  study	
  to	
  a	
  transformative	
  interpretation	
  of	
  the	
  

landscape.	
   Rather	
   than	
   convey	
   foreshortened	
   perspective,	
   he	
   compressed	
   the	
  

figure-­‐ground	
  relationship.	
  A	
  viewer	
  can	
  look	
  directly	
  down	
  at	
  the	
  details	
  of	
  foliage	
  

in	
  the	
  foreground	
  but	
  also	
  directly	
  at	
  the	
  fence	
  in	
  the	
  middle-­‐ground.	
  Through	
  an	
  

inconsistent	
  series	
  of	
  posts	
  surrounding	
  the	
  farms,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  emphasized	
  the	
  fence’s	
  

makeshift	
  quality	
  and	
  used	
  it	
  to	
  divide	
  uncultivated	
  land	
  from	
  that	
  of	
  the	
  farm.	
  From	
  

this	
   vantage	
   point,	
   the	
   artist	
   placed	
   the	
   viewer	
   outside	
   the	
   small	
   land	
   plots	
   and	
  

among	
   the	
   grasses,	
   looking	
   up	
   toward	
   the	
   Butte.	
   Although	
   quotations	
   of	
   city	
   life	
  

emerge	
  in	
  the	
  far	
  distance,	
  the	
  hill	
  obfuscates	
  tavern	
  life	
  just	
  beyond	
  the	
  terrace.	
  

From	
   the	
   position	
   on	
   the	
   grass	
   signifying	
   the	
   Butte	
   as	
   a	
   rural	
   area,	
   the	
   viewer	
   is	
  

denied	
  a	
  view	
  over	
  the	
  Butte	
  and	
  exposure	
  to	
  the	
  city’s	
  offerings.	
  	
  

Through	
   the	
   stretch	
   of	
   abstract	
   foliage	
   in	
   the	
   immediate	
   foreground	
   in	
   Le	
  

Blute-­‐fin,	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  compositional	
  strategies	
  invite	
  the	
  viewer	
  to	
  be	
  an	
  imagined	
  

embodied	
  participant,	
  and	
  subversively	
  articulate	
  the	
  complicated	
  social	
  narrative	
  of	
  

the	
  Butte’s	
  allotments.	
  The	
  image	
  raises	
  questions	
  of	
  ownership	
  and	
  the	
  relation	
  of	
  

work	
  to	
  the	
  land.	
  If	
   in	
  Constable’s	
   images	
  work	
  assumes	
  a	
  low-­‐level	
  role	
  within	
  a	
  

system	
   of	
   hierarchical	
   power,	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   paintings	
   reinterpret	
   the	
   economic	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
314	
  Welsh-­‐Ovcharov,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  à	
  Paris	
  82.	
  	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

168	
  

structure	
  because	
  the	
  work	
  performed	
  is	
  for	
  benefit	
  of	
  the	
  laborer,	
  which	
  enhanced	
  

his	
   nutrition,	
   income,	
   agricultural	
   education,	
   leisure	
   space,	
   and	
   connection	
   to	
  

nature.315	
  	
  In	
  Le	
  Blute-­‐fin,	
  the	
  male	
  figure	
  stands	
  leaning	
  against	
  fence,	
  observing	
  his	
  

crops	
   in	
   a	
   space	
   in	
   which	
   he	
   has	
   some	
   sense	
   of	
   ownership.	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   image	
  

problematizes	
  these	
  advantages.	
  Although	
  the	
  allotment	
  tenants	
  managed	
  land	
  they	
  

oversaw	
  and	
  their	
  quality	
  of	
  life	
  had	
  in	
  some	
  ways	
  improved,	
  in	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  images	
  

they	
  are	
  nonetheless	
  disconnected	
  from	
  Montmartre.	
  The	
  image	
  depicts	
  a	
  form	
  of	
  

social	
  charity	
  and,	
  at	
  the	
  same	
  time,	
  underscores	
  the	
  reality	
  that	
  the	
  laboring	
  poor	
  

did	
   not	
   have	
   access	
   to	
   middle-­‐class	
   Montmartre.	
   Just	
   over	
   the	
   Butte,	
   Van	
   Gogh	
  

captured	
  a	
  crowd	
  of	
  fashionably	
  dressed	
  middle-­‐class	
  people	
  descending	
  the	
  stairs	
  

of	
  le	
  Blute-­‐fin	
  in	
  Le	
  Moulin	
  de	
  Blute-­‐fin	
  (1886)	
  [figure	
  28].	
  With	
  hats,	
  bustles,	
  and	
  

corseted	
  silhouettes,	
  their	
  presence	
  is	
  distinctly	
  removed	
  from	
  the	
  afternoon	
  of	
  the	
  

tenant	
  farmer,	
  who	
  they	
  can	
  view	
  from	
  the	
  deck.	
  	
  

In	
  subsequent	
  images,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  took	
  the	
  first-­‐hand	
  perspective	
  of	
  a	
  person	
  

walking	
  on	
  the	
  paths	
  within	
  the	
  allotment	
  gardens	
  rather	
  than	
  from	
  afar.	
  Among	
  the	
  

plots	
   in	
  Montmartre:	
  Windmills	
  and	
  Allotments	
  (March-­‐April	
  1887)	
  and	
  Vegetable	
  

Gardens	
  of	
  Montmartre	
  (summer	
  1887)	
  [figure	
  4	
  &	
  29],	
  the	
  Butte	
  halts	
  the	
  viewer’s	
  

glimpse	
  over	
  the	
  hill,	
  indicating	
  the	
  truncated	
  portion	
  of	
  land	
  with	
  which	
  the	
  tenant	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
315	
  McPhee	
  “Preface,”	
  in	
  Russell	
  viii.	
  Russell	
  30-­‐33.	
  Nilsen	
  130-­‐131,	
  143-­‐146,	
  146-­‐147.	
  	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

169	
  

farmer	
  had	
  to	
  work.	
  Staving	
  off	
  the	
  city’s	
  urban	
  boundary,	
  the	
  Butte	
  functions	
  as	
  a	
  

class	
  border	
  between	
  the	
  farm	
  and	
  the	
  bustling	
  metropolis.	
  Moreover,	
  the	
  small-­‐

scale	
  viewing	
  platform	
  in	
  Montmartre:	
  Windmills	
  and	
  Allotments	
  and	
  the	
  Debray-­‐

family	
  farm	
  building	
  in	
  Vegetable	
  Gardens	
  have	
  become	
  considerably	
  smaller	
  than	
  in	
  

previous	
  imagery.	
  In	
  this	
  way,	
  the	
  images	
  explore	
  notions	
  of	
  power	
  through	
  visibility.	
  

Those	
  who	
  are	
  entitled	
  to	
  observe	
  from	
  the	
  viewing	
  platform	
  or	
  the	
  farm	
  and	
  the	
  

tenant	
  farmers	
  who	
  operate	
  under	
  a	
  hierarchical	
  gaze	
  enact	
  a	
  visual	
  dynamic	
  that	
  

explores	
  the	
  precarious	
  situation	
  of	
  the	
  working	
  poor.	
  	
  	
  	
  

In	
   Montmartre:	
   Windmills	
   and	
   Allotments,	
   a	
   non-­‐descript	
   pale-­‐yellow	
  

structure	
  rises	
  to	
  the	
  left	
  and	
  the	
  viewing	
  terrace	
  appears	
  on	
  the	
  right,	
  representing	
  

vague,	
  distant	
  signs	
  of	
  the	
  city.	
  Similar	
  to	
  the	
  foreground	
  space	
  in	
  Le	
  Blute-­‐fin,	
  the	
  

rows	
   of	
   crops	
   extend	
   toward	
   the	
   threshold	
   of	
   the	
   picture	
   plane,	
   leaving	
   an	
  

empathetic	
  space	
  for	
  the	
  viewer	
  and	
  including	
  him	
  or	
  her	
  in	
  the	
  position	
  of	
  walking	
  

on	
  the	
  path	
  between	
  the	
  plots.	
  The	
  central	
  row	
  of	
  poles	
  leads	
  toward	
  the	
  viewer	
  

and	
   veers	
   slightly	
   to	
   the	
   right,	
   indicating	
   that	
   the	
   viewer's	
   embodied	
   position	
   is	
  

situated	
  between	
  the	
  grasses	
  on	
  the	
  left	
  and	
  the	
  fence	
  on	
  the	
  right.	
  The	
  spectator	
  

walks	
  on	
  a	
  narrow	
  path	
  between	
  two	
  allotments	
  and	
  completes	
  an	
  asymmetrical	
  

triangle	
   among	
   the	
   two	
   tenant	
   farmers	
   who	
   tend	
   to	
   their	
   fields.	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  

Similarly,	
   the	
   path	
   in	
   Vegetable	
   Gardens	
   recedes	
   toward	
   the	
   mill	
   in	
   a	
   hyper-­‐

foreshortened	
   way,	
   moving	
   down	
   toward	
   the	
   lower	
   threshold	
   of	
   the	
   canvas	
   and	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

170	
  

creating	
  an	
  experience	
  for	
  the	
  viewer	
  as	
  someone	
  who	
  is	
  walking	
  down	
  the	
  path.	
  

The	
   viewer	
   thus	
   experiences	
   two	
   boundaries:	
   that	
   of	
   the	
   path	
   between	
   the	
  

allotment	
  plots	
  and	
  that	
  of	
  the	
  Butte	
  between	
  the	
  allotments	
  and	
  the	
  city.	
  Whereas	
  

the	
  path	
  is	
  inviting	
  and	
  asserts	
  the	
  viewer’s	
  egalitarian	
  position,	
  the	
  Butte	
  hinders	
  a	
  

view	
  of	
  Montmartre,	
  severing	
  the	
  people	
  on	
  the	
  allotments	
  from	
  the	
  city.	
  	
  

In	
   contrast	
   to	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   images,	
   illustrations	
   of	
   the	
   period	
   celebrate	
   the	
  

peasant’s	
  work	
  in	
  relation	
  to	
  Paris,	
  suggesting	
  the	
  important	
  tangential	
  connection	
  

between	
   the	
   capital	
   and	
   the	
   farmer.	
   Panoramic	
   views	
   of	
   Paris,	
   such	
   as	
   that	
  

illustrated	
  by	
  Pierre	
  Vidal	
   in	
  1899’s	
  La	
  Vie	
  à	
  Montmartre,	
  could	
  be	
  seen	
  from	
  the	
  

Butte	
  [figure	
  30].	
   In	
  Vidal’s	
  image,	
  a	
  farmer	
  works	
  the	
  land	
  with	
  his	
  sickle,	
  but	
  he	
  

need	
  only	
  glance	
  up	
  to	
  see	
  the	
  spectacle	
  of	
  Paris	
  to	
  the	
  south.	
  Likewise,	
  Signac’s	
  

painting	
  of	
  the	
  rue	
  Caulaincourt	
  [figure	
  31],	
  near	
  his	
  Montmartre	
  studio,	
  juxtaposes	
  

the	
  modern	
  aspects	
  of	
  the	
  arrondissement—city	
  streets,	
  sidewalks,	
  and	
  gas	
  lamps—

against	
  the	
  vegetable	
  plots	
  and	
  the	
  Moulin	
  du	
  Blute-­‐Fin	
  in	
  the	
  background.	
  With	
  an	
  

Impressionist	
   facture,	
   Signac’s	
   image	
   shows	
   a	
   flat	
   cross-­‐section	
   of	
   the	
   modern,	
  

agricultural,	
   and	
   social	
   aspects	
   of	
   Montmartre.	
   In	
   Vidal’s	
   illustration	
   and	
   Signac’s	
  

painting,	
  the	
  agricultural	
  life	
  of	
  the	
  peasant	
  visually	
  supports	
  Paris,	
  connecting	
  the	
  

progressive	
  center	
  to	
  its	
  fringes	
  through	
  signs	
  of	
  modern	
  living.	
  	
  

Van	
  Gogh’s	
  visual	
  separation	
  of	
  the	
  tenant	
  farmer	
  from	
  the	
  city	
  underscores	
  

a	
  subversive	
  concept	
  of	
  a	
  peasant	
  farmer	
  on	
  the	
  outskirts	
  of	
  Paris	
  that	
  was	
  particular	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

171	
  

to	
   the	
   mid-­‐1880s.	
   Paris	
   was	
   one	
   of	
   the	
   largest	
   consumer-­‐driven	
   urban	
   cities	
   in	
  

Europe	
  by	
  the	
  mid-­‐nineteenth	
  century.	
  When	
  the	
  railroads	
  were	
  built,	
  agriculture	
  

moved	
   outside	
   the	
   city	
   limits.	
   316 	
  Most	
   of	
   the	
   produce	
   grown	
   in	
   peripheral	
  

communities	
  made	
  its	
  way	
  to	
  the	
  city’s	
  center	
  to	
  be	
  sold	
  at	
  Les	
  Halles,	
  which	
  since	
  

the	
  1860s	
  had	
  been	
  the	
  largest	
  covered	
  food	
  market	
  in	
  the	
  world.317	
  The	
  concept	
  of	
  

production-­‐focused	
  communes	
  and	
  their	
  relationship	
  to	
  the	
  economic	
  structure	
  of	
  

Les	
  Halles	
  appears	
  in	
  Zola’s	
  The	
  Belly	
  of	
  Paris	
  (1873),	
  a	
  novel	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  read	
  in	
  1882	
  

that	
   “painted”	
   a	
   description	
   of	
   the	
   market. 318 	
  Set	
   during	
   the	
   Second	
   Empire	
  

aftermath	
  of	
  the	
  1851	
  coup,	
  the	
  novel	
  begins	
  with	
  a	
  train	
  of	
  carts,	
  all	
  full	
  of	
  produce,	
  

shuffling	
  through	
  the	
  night,	
  heading	
  to	
  Les	
  Halles.319	
  Zola	
  noted	
  that	
  the	
  country-­‐to-­‐

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
316	
  Peter	
  J.	
  Atkins,	
  “’A	
  Tale	
  of	
  Two	
  Cities’:	
  A	
  Comparison	
  of	
  Food	
  Supply	
  in	
  London	
  and	
  Paris	
  in	
  the	
  
1850s,”	
   Food	
   and	
   the	
   City	
   in	
   Europe	
   Since	
   1800,	
   ed.	
   Peter	
   J.	
   Atkins	
   (Hampshire,	
   England:	
   Ashgate	
  
Publishing	
  Limited,	
  2007)	
  25.	
  	
  

317	
  Atkins	
  30.	
  Les	
  Halles	
  was	
  a	
  market	
  with	
  stalls	
  that	
  sold	
  meat,	
  produce,	
  dairy,	
  and	
  fish	
  in	
  the	
  First	
  
arrondissement	
   in	
   the	
   city’s	
   center,	
   and	
   was	
   remodeled	
   under	
   Napoleon	
   III	
   and	
   Baron	
   von	
  
Haussmann	
   to	
   enlarge	
   it	
   by	
   ten	
   times	
   its	
   original	
   size	
   and	
   to	
   include	
   gaslights	
   (a	
   then-­‐new	
  
development	
   in	
   lighting)	
   so	
   people	
   could	
   work	
   early	
   in	
   the	
   morning	
   and	
   throughout	
   the	
   night.	
  
Between	
  1854	
  and	
  1857,	
  Les	
  Halles	
  was	
  razed—developers	
  leveled	
  21	
  acres—and	
  rebuilt	
  to	
  include	
  
six	
  pavilions.	
  Modern	
  materials,	
  such	
  as	
  iron	
  and	
  glass,	
  dominated	
  the	
  architecture	
  of	
  the	
  building.	
  
Four	
  more	
  pavilions	
  were	
  added	
  in	
  the	
  mid-­‐1860s,	
  which	
  made	
  it	
  the	
  largest	
  covered	
  food-­‐market	
  in	
  
the	
  world.	
  

318	
  Émile	
  Zola,	
  The	
  Belly	
  of	
  Paris,	
  trans.	
  Brian	
  Nelson	
  (Oxford	
  and	
  New	
  York:	
  Oxford	
  University	
  Press,	
  
2007).	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  251	
  to	
  Théo	
  from	
  The	
  Hague	
  on	
  Wednesday,	
  July	
  26,	
  1882.	
  “I’m	
  still	
  
under	
  the	
  spell	
  of	
  Zola’s	
  books.	
  How	
  painted	
  those	
  [Les]	
  Halles	
  are.”	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  245	
  to	
  
Théo	
  from	
  The	
  Hague	
  on	
  Friday	
  July	
  7,	
  1882.	
  “P.S:	
  That	
  Émile	
  Zola	
  is	
  a	
  superb	
  artist.	
  I’m	
  now	
  reading	
  
Le	
  ventre	
  de	
  Paris,	
  it’s	
  mightily	
  clever	
  [sic].”	
  	
  

319	
  Théo	
  wrote	
  letter	
  770	
  to	
  Vincent	
  van	
  Gogh	
  from	
  Paris	
  on	
  Wednesday,	
  May	
  8,	
  1889,	
  note	
  2.	
  Théo	
  
once	
  saw	
  a	
  cart	
  with	
  four	
  horses	
  trying	
  to	
  pull	
  a	
  heavy	
  load	
  to	
  Les	
  Halles,	
  an	
  arduous	
  task	
  that	
  the	
  
cart	
  driver	
  eventually	
  achieved	
  and	
  a	
  moment	
  that	
  left	
  an	
  impression	
  on	
  Théo	
  “I	
  remember	
  seeing	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

172	
  

city	
  food	
  transfer	
   lulled	
  Parisians	
  asleep,	
  as	
  they	
  were	
  unaware	
  of	
  the	
  hard	
  labor	
  

involved	
  and	
  simply	
  heard	
  a	
  faint	
  buzzing	
  noise	
  of	
  the	
  rigorous	
  commute.	
  Characters	
  

such	
  as	
  widower	
  Madame	
  François	
  lived	
  a	
  hard	
  life	
  loading	
  and	
  carting	
  vegetables	
  to	
  

Les	
  Halles	
  from	
  Nanterre.	
  Similar	
  to	
  the	
  tenant	
  farmers	
  on	
  the	
  Butte,	
  she	
  tended	
  “a	
  

long	
   strip	
   of	
   ground,	
   divided	
   down	
   the	
   middle	
   by	
   a	
   narrow	
   path…on	
   a	
   gentle	
  

slope.”320	
  “Green	
  hedges	
  separated	
  [her	
  garden]	
  from	
  other	
  plots	
  of	
  land,”	
  and	
  the	
  

vegetables	
  she	
  grew	
  were	
  taxed	
  upon	
  crossing	
  into	
  the	
  Parisian	
  boundary	
  from	
  the	
  

communes,	
  but	
  she	
  made	
  the	
  journey	
  alone	
  to	
  make	
  a	
  living.321	
  	
  

Van	
  Gogh	
  appreciated	
  Madame	
  François	
  for	
  her	
  humanity	
  as	
  she	
  helped	
  one	
  

of	
   the	
   main	
   characters	
   Florent	
   Quenu,	
   an	
   activist	
   who	
   aimed	
   to	
   restructure	
   Les	
  

Halles	
  to	
  feed	
  the	
  poor	
  and	
  lower	
  the	
  taxes	
  levied	
  on	
  produce.322	
  	
  Zola’s	
  seventy-­‐two	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
something	
  that	
  struck	
  me	
  greatly	
  a	
  long	
  time	
  ago.	
  In	
  rue	
  des	
  Petits-­‐Carreaux	
  I	
  saw	
  a	
  very	
  heavy	
  dray	
  
which	
  had	
  to	
  climb	
  that	
  street.	
  The	
  driver	
  struck	
  his	
  four	
  horses	
  harder	
  and	
  harder,	
  but	
  right	
  in	
  the	
  
middle	
  the	
  worn-­‐out	
  horses	
  refused	
  to	
  go	
  a	
  step	
  further.	
  So	
  he	
  made	
  them	
  turn	
  round	
  and,	
  when	
  
they	
  were	
  back	
  at	
  the	
  bottom	
  of	
  the	
  street,	
  almost	
  without	
  resting	
  them,	
  he	
  turned	
  round	
  again	
  and	
  
arrived	
  at	
  the	
  top	
  of	
  the	
  street	
  without	
  difficulty.”	
  	
  

320	
  Zola,	
  The	
  Belly	
  of	
  Paris	
  188.	
  

321	
  Zola,	
   The	
   Belly	
   of	
   Paris	
   124,	
   188,	
   189.	
   Émilie	
   Charles	
   quoted	
   in	
   Russell	
   3.	
   Derfier	
   125.	
   Peasant	
  
farmers	
  were	
  taxed	
  on	
  goods	
  crossing	
  Paris’s	
  borders	
  or	
  for	
  violating	
  new	
  agricultural	
  sanctions	
  and	
  
referred	
  to	
  the	
  Third	
  Republic	
  as	
  “the	
  first	
  thief.”	
  

322	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  250	
  to	
  Théo	
  from	
  The	
  Hague	
  on	
  Sunday,	
  July	
  23,	
  1882.	
  “Now	
  I	
  must	
  ask	
  you	
  
what	
  you	
  think	
  of	
  Mme	
  François,	
  who	
  picks	
  up	
  poor	
  Florent	
  as	
  he	
  lies	
  unconscious	
  in	
  the	
  middle	
  of	
  
the	
   road	
   where	
   the	
   vegetable	
   carts	
   are	
   passing,	
   and	
   lets	
   him	
   ride	
   with	
   her.	
   Although	
   the	
   other	
  
vegetable	
  sellers	
  shout:	
  ‘Leave	
  him	
  lying	
  there,	
  the	
  drunk!	
  We’ve	
  no	
  time	
  to	
  pick	
  up	
  men	
  lying	
  in	
  the	
  
gutter,’	
  &c	
  [sic].	
  The	
  figure	
  of	
  Mme	
  François	
  stands	
  against	
  the	
  background	
  of	
  the	
  Halles	
  throughout	
  
the	
  book,	
  contrasting	
  with	
  the	
  brutal	
  egoism	
  of	
  the	
  other	
  women,	
  so	
  calm	
  and	
  so	
  dignified	
  and	
  so	
  
sympathetic.”	
  Zola,	
  The	
  Belly	
  of	
  Paris	
  124.	
  Zola’s	
  character	
  Florent	
  Quenu,	
  an	
  activist	
  who	
  aimed	
  to	
  
be	
  a	
  political	
  writer,	
  wanted	
  to	
  reorganize	
  Les	
  Halles.	
  Florent	
  “successively	
  drafted	
  an	
  outline	
  for	
  a	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

173	
  

year-­‐old	
   Mére	
   Chantemesse	
   made	
   a	
   mere	
   forty	
   sous	
   a	
   day	
   selling	
   turnips	
   on	
   the	
  

street	
   near	
   Les	
   Halles.323	
  Allotment	
   farmers	
   like	
   Madame	
   François,	
   managed	
   land	
  

autonomously,	
   grew	
   food	
   to	
   feed	
   Paris’	
   citizens,	
   and	
   recycled	
   the	
   waste	
   the	
   city	
  

created.	
  “Paris,”	
  Zola	
  wrote,	
  “made	
  everything	
  rot	
  and	
  returned	
  everything	
  to	
  the	
  

earth,	
  which	
  never	
  wearied	
  of	
  repairing	
  the	
  ravages	
  of	
  death.”324	
  Madame	
  François	
  

also	
  enjoyed	
  the	
  benefits	
  of	
  the	
  allotment	
  system:	
  “…a	
  great	
  sense	
  of	
  peace…silence	
  

disturbed	
  only	
  by	
  buzzing	
  insects…the	
  scent	
  of	
  thyme	
  warmed	
  by	
  the	
  sun.”325	
  	
  

Van	
  Gogh’s	
  allotment	
  paintings	
  engage	
  with	
  the	
  dichotomy	
  of	
  the	
  working	
  

poor.	
  Painter	
  Émile	
  Bernard	
  wrote	
  that	
  it	
  was	
  due	
  to	
  Zola’s	
  influence,	
  “that	
  Vincent	
  

thought	
   of	
   painting	
   the	
   humble	
   shanties	
   of	
   Montmartre	
   where	
   the	
   lower	
   middle	
  

classes	
  come	
  to	
  cultivate	
  their	
  tiny	
  pieces	
  of	
  sand	
  in	
  the	
  early	
  morning	
  sun.”326	
  Van	
  

Gogh	
  created	
  Montmartre:	
  Windmills	
  and	
  Allotments	
  and	
  Vegetable	
  Gardens	
  at	
  a	
  

time	
  when	
  socialist	
  leaders	
  and	
  the	
  peasants	
  themselves	
  were	
  fighting	
  to	
  keep	
  their	
  

land.	
   In	
   the	
   early	
   1880s,	
   questions	
   regarding	
   smallholdings	
   occupied	
   socialist	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
complete	
  reform	
  of	
  the	
  administrative	
  system	
  of	
  Les	
  Halles,	
  a	
  scheme	
  for	
  transforming	
  the	
  city	
  dues,	
  
levied	
  on	
  produce	
  as	
  it	
  entered	
  Paris,	
  into	
  tax	
  on	
  sales,	
  a	
  new	
  system	
  for	
  distributing	
  provision	
  to	
  the	
  
poorer	
  neighborhoods,	
  and	
  finally,	
  a	
  vague	
  humanitarian	
  scheme	
  for	
  the	
  common	
  warehousing	
  of	
  
the	
   produce	
   brought	
   to	
   markets,	
   with	
   the	
   aim	
   of	
   ensuring	
   that	
   every	
   household	
   in	
   Paris	
   would	
  
receive	
  the	
  minimum	
  daily	
  supply.”	
  

323	
  Zola,	
  The	
  Belly	
  of	
  Paris	
  12,	
  see	
  note	
  on	
  page	
  279.	
  

324	
  Zola,	
  The	
  Belly	
  of	
  Paris	
  188.	
  	
  

325	
  Zola,	
  The	
  Belly	
  of	
  Paris	
  189.	
  

326	
  Émile	
  Bernard,	
  “People	
  of	
  Today:	
  Vincent	
  Van	
  Gogh”	
  quoted	
   in	
  Bogomila	
  Welsh-­‐Ovcharov,	
  ed.,	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  in	
  Perspective	
  (Englewood	
  Cliffs,	
  New	
  Jersey:	
  Prentice-­‐Hall,	
  Inc.	
  1974)	
  38.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

174	
  

political	
   platforms,	
   such	
   as	
   should	
   small	
   plots	
   be	
   collectively	
   folded	
   into	
   larger	
  

operations?	
   Or,	
   should	
   peasant	
   farmers	
   continue	
   to	
   individually	
   work	
   small	
  

farms?327	
  By	
  the	
  mid-­‐1880s,	
  socialists	
  adapted	
  the	
  latter	
  policy	
  and	
  argued	
  to	
  allow	
  

farmers	
   to	
   work	
   their	
   land	
   in	
   allotments,	
   hoping	
   to	
   ensure	
   some	
   financial	
  

opportunities	
   for	
   later	
   generations.328	
  In	
   contrast	
   to	
   England,	
   a	
   country	
   that	
   had	
  

moved	
   toward	
   progressive	
   large-­‐scale	
   agricultural	
   practices,	
   France	
   depended	
   on	
  

the	
  smallholdings,	
  an	
  agricultural	
  revolution	
  that	
  kept	
  pace	
  with	
  rising	
  demands.	
  329	
  

Paris	
   still	
   depended	
   on	
   smallholdings	
   for	
   its	
   food	
   supply	
   more	
   than	
   large-­‐scale	
  

production,	
  causing	
  almost	
  half	
  (47%)	
  of	
  its	
  labor	
  force	
  to	
  work	
  in	
  the	
  agricultural	
  

sector. 330 	
  Part	
   of	
   the	
   move	
   toward	
   large-­‐scale	
   methods	
   was	
   based	
   on	
   false	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
327Derfier	
  124-­‐125.	
  In	
  1883,	
  the	
  French	
  Work’s	
  Party	
  (Parti	
  ouvrier	
  français	
  or	
  POF)	
  formed	
  to	
  fight	
  for	
  
worker’s	
   rights.	
   The	
   Party	
   was	
   part	
   of	
   a	
   larger	
   movement	
   to	
   provide	
   better	
   living	
   and	
   working	
  
conditions	
  to	
  those	
  dependent	
  on	
   labor-­‐based	
  wages.	
  Two	
  POF	
  leaders	
  differed	
  regarding	
  how	
  to	
  
manage	
  small-­‐scale	
  farms.	
  Jules	
  Guesede	
  feared	
  that	
  peasant	
  farmers	
  would	
  disappear	
  if	
  they	
  owned	
  
their	
   individual	
   farms:	
   a	
   “swift	
   and	
   inevitable	
   disappearance	
   of	
   petty	
   proprietors	
   in	
   the	
   face	
   of	
  
capitalist	
  encroachments.”	
  In	
  contrast,	
  Paul	
  Lafargue	
  fought	
  against	
  the	
  strategy	
  to	
  collectivize	
  the	
  
smaller	
  plots	
  and	
  for	
  the	
  rights	
  of	
  the	
  peasant	
  and	
  his	
  or	
  her	
  small	
  allotment	
  of	
  land.	
  He	
  understood	
  
the	
  collective	
  approach	
  as	
  a	
  capitalist	
  system	
  in	
  which	
  someone	
  would	
  eventually	
  out-­‐earn	
  others	
  at	
  
the	
  expense	
  of	
  those	
  who	
  had	
  worked	
  their	
  land	
  for	
  generations.	
  Lafargue	
  argued	
  that	
  by	
  preserving	
  
the	
  family-­‐owned	
  and	
  operated	
  peasant	
  farms,	
  the	
  worker	
  would	
  be	
  in	
  control	
  of	
  his	
  own	
  livelihood	
  
and	
  not	
  succumb	
  to	
  the	
  capitalist-­‐driven	
  system	
  of	
  appropriating	
  land	
  that	
  could	
  be	
  past	
  down	
  for	
  
generations.	
  	
  

328	
  Derfier	
  126.	
  Writing	
  in	
  1882,	
  Lafargue	
  urged	
  his	
  party	
  to	
  support	
  the	
  maintenance	
  of	
  the	
  peasant	
  
way	
  of	
  life,	
  calling	
  it	
  “madness”	
  to	
  collectively	
  or	
  co-­‐operatively	
  organize	
  “the	
  small	
  weaver’s	
  loom,	
  
the	
   boatman’s	
   vessel,	
   or	
   the	
   peasant	
   proprietor’s	
   land.”	
   By	
   1884,	
   the	
   Party	
   recognized	
   Lafargue’s	
  
point.	
  In	
  an	
  attempt	
  to	
  win	
  peasants’	
  votes,	
  the	
  Party	
  made	
  a	
  distinction	
  between	
  capitalist	
  owners	
  
and	
  small-­‐farm	
  peasant	
  owners.	
  

329	
  Russell	
  13-­‐21.	
  	
  

330	
  Peter	
  McPhee,	
  “Preface,”	
  in	
  Russell	
  viii.	
  On	
  agricultural	
  labor	
  force	
  statistics,	
  see:	
  Derfier	
  126.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

175	
  

assumptions	
  that	
  smallholding	
  farms	
  were	
  ill	
  kept	
  shantytowns.331	
  Among	
  Madame	
  

François’s	
  neatly	
  organized	
  garden,	
  “the	
  eternal	
  cradle,”	
  there	
  was	
  not	
  a	
  weed	
  in	
  

sight,	
  and	
  Zola	
  characterized	
  her	
  produce	
  as	
  fresh	
  and	
  clean.332	
  

Within	
  the	
  space	
  of	
  the	
  gardens,	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  depiction	
  of	
  the	
  smallholdings	
  

addresses	
  the	
  complicated	
  notions	
  of	
  allotment	
  gardening	
  and	
  land	
  ownership.	
  In	
  

Montmartre:	
   Windmills	
   and	
   Allotments	
   and	
   Vegetable	
   Gardens,	
   the	
   artist	
  

emphasized	
  that	
  farming	
  production	
  works	
  as	
  a	
  small-­‐scale	
  system,	
  conveying	
  the	
  

economic	
   structure	
   on	
   which	
   the	
   peasants	
   depended.	
   Unlike	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   Dutch-­‐

period	
  Flower	
  Beds	
  in	
  Holland	
  (c.	
  1883)	
  [figure	
  32]	
   in	
  which	
  he	
  delineated	
  colorful	
  

banks	
   of	
   tulips	
   with	
   saturated	
   hue,	
   in	
   Montmartre:	
   Windmills	
   and	
   Allotments	
   he	
  

used	
  texture	
  and	
  shape	
  to	
  emphasize	
  the	
  differing	
  crop.	
  Through	
  the	
  motif	
  of	
  fences	
  

and	
   robust	
   patches	
   of	
   color	
   in	
   Montmartre:	
   Windmills	
   and	
   Allotments,	
   Van	
   Gogh	
  

stressed	
  the	
  division	
  among	
  the	
  various	
  crops	
  and	
  plots.	
  The	
  posts	
  and	
  sheds	
  are	
  of	
  

varying	
  heights,	
  sizes,	
  and	
  qualities,	
  indicating	
  that	
  they	
  were	
  built	
  and	
  arranged	
  by	
  

the	
   tenant	
   farmers	
   themselves.	
   Allotment	
   sheds	
   represented	
   a	
   tenant	
   farmer’s	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
331	
  Russell	
   18.	
   Stephen	
   Russell	
   has	
   overturned	
   the	
   misunderstood	
   notion	
   that	
   smallholdings	
   were	
  
primitive.	
  Instead,	
  the	
  system	
  depended	
  on	
  a	
  large	
  group	
  of	
  smaller	
  farms	
  that	
  implemented	
  new	
  
techniques	
  and	
  supported	
  the	
  agricultural	
  industry.	
  

332	
  Zola,	
  The	
  Belly	
  of	
  Paris	
  189.	
  

	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

176	
  

individual	
  creativity,	
  rather	
  than	
  imposed	
  standards	
  of	
  materials	
  and	
  dimensions.333	
  

In	
  the	
  painting,	
  each	
  shed	
  has	
  a	
  different	
  shape—squat	
  and	
  square	
  with	
  a	
  flat	
  roof	
  or	
  

long	
  and	
  narrow	
  with	
  a	
  pitched	
  roof.	
  The	
  irregular	
  construction	
  of	
  the	
  sheds	
  stems	
  

from	
   the	
   tenant	
   farmer’s	
   ability	
   to	
   build	
   his	
   own	
   structure;	
   he	
   need	
   not	
   follow	
  

prescribed	
  measurement.	
  Among	
  their	
  rented	
  parcels,	
  they	
  had	
  a	
  sense	
  of	
  agency,	
  a	
  

freedom	
  within	
  their	
  landscape	
  to	
  experience	
  nature.334	
  Away	
  from	
  “dreadful	
  Paris”	
  

that	
  aged	
  him,	
  Florent	
  was	
  “reborn	
  in	
  pure	
  air”	
  on	
  Madame	
  François’s	
  garden	
  plot,	
  

where	
  the	
  sunshine	
  shone	
  in	
  his	
  eyes.335	
  Similarly,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  indicates	
  a	
  pervasive	
  

warm	
   sunlight	
   in	
   Montmartre:	
   Windmills	
   and	
   Allotments	
   in	
   the	
   vegetable	
   garden	
  

through	
   a	
   bright	
   yellow,	
   a	
   hue	
   that	
   seems	
   to	
   blanket	
   the	
   earth	
   beneath	
   the	
  

vegetables.	
  The	
  sun’s	
  rays	
  do	
  not	
  reflect,	
  rather	
  the	
  vegetables	
  grow	
  as	
  a	
  symbol	
  of	
  

the	
  sun;	
  its	
  light	
  infused	
  in	
  the	
  ground	
  of	
  the	
  allotments.	
  Tidy	
  vibrant	
  rows	
  unfurl	
  

toward	
  the	
  viewer,	
  signifying	
  the	
  growth	
  occurring	
  in	
  the	
  gardens.	
  	
  

Van	
   Gogh	
   directly	
   connected	
   the	
   figures	
   in	
   Montmartre:	
   Windmills	
   and	
  

Allotments	
   to	
   their	
   crops	
   by	
   means	
   of	
   hue.	
   The	
   male	
   figure	
   on	
   the	
   left	
   and	
   the	
  

female	
   figure	
   on	
   the	
   right	
   share	
   colors,	
   such	
   as	
   green,	
   red,	
   and	
   orange,	
   with	
   the	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
333	
  David	
  Crouch	
  and	
  Colin	
  Ward,	
  The	
  Allotment:	
  Its	
  Landscape	
  and	
  Culture	
  (1988	
  repr.,	
  Nottingham:	
  
Five	
  Leaves	
  Publications,	
  2007)	
  11,	
  31.	
  See	
  also:	
  Nilsen	
  144.	
  	
  
334	
  Nilsen	
  144.	
  	
  

335	
  Zola,	
  The	
  Belly	
  of	
  Paris	
  190.	
  

	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

177	
  

land.	
   In	
   this	
   way,	
   the	
   peasants	
   are	
   metaphorically	
   connected	
   to	
   their	
   fields.	
   In	
  

Pissarro’s	
  The	
  Gardens	
  of	
  l’Hermitage,	
  Pontoise	
  (c.	
  1867)	
  [figure	
  33],	
  the	
  small-­‐scale	
  

figures	
  are	
  an	
  expected	
  part	
  of	
  a	
  rural	
  French	
  landscape	
  painting.	
  Richard	
  Brettell	
  

points	
   out	
   that	
   the	
   peasant	
   farmers	
   in	
   Pissarro’s	
   images	
   of	
   L’Hermitage	
   populate	
  

rather	
  than	
  define	
  their	
  space.336	
  Pissarro	
  shows	
  no	
  indication	
  that	
  he	
  engaged	
  with	
  

the	
   peasants.	
   Instead,	
   they	
   appear	
   as	
   a	
   part	
   of	
   the	
   natural	
   landscape.	
   Pissarro	
  

indicated	
   the	
   difference	
   between	
   the	
   upper-­‐classes	
   and	
   the	
   rural	
   farmers	
   in	
  

Pontoise	
  by	
  isolating	
  classes	
  within	
  the	
  canvas;	
  only	
  rarely	
  did	
  Pissarro	
  include	
  both	
  

upper	
   and	
   lower	
   classes	
   in	
   one	
   image.	
   Gardens	
   L’Hermitage	
   does	
   not	
   imply	
   the	
  

viewer,	
  but,	
  similar	
  to	
  Constable,	
  hovers	
  above	
  the	
  fields	
  gazing	
  down	
  on	
  the	
  earth	
  

and	
   the	
   peasants.	
   While	
   the	
   landscape	
   in	
   Montmartre:	
   Windmills	
   and	
   Allotments	
  

also	
   overwhelms	
   the	
   figures,	
   the	
   path	
   and	
   fence	
   pole	
   suggest	
   the	
   viewer’s	
  

engagement	
  with	
  the	
  Butte	
  tenant	
  farmer.	
  Thus	
  the	
  painting’s	
  perspective	
  conveys	
  

the	
  community	
  the	
  tenant	
  farmer	
  experienced	
  on	
  his	
  plot.	
  	
  

For	
   the	
   urban	
   tenant	
   farmer	
   the	
   break	
   from	
   the	
   city	
   came	
   as	
   a	
   confined,	
  

controlled	
   sense	
   of	
   freedom.	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   allotment	
   aesthetic	
   in	
   Montmartre:	
  

Windmills	
  and	
  Allotments	
  also	
  conveys	
  the	
  tension	
  of	
  the	
  allotment	
  garden	
  and	
  the	
  

tenant	
   farmer	
   within	
   the	
   landscape.	
   Although	
   they	
   enjoyed	
   a	
   temporary	
   rural	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
336	
  Richard	
  Brettell,	
  Pissarro	
  and	
  Pontoise:	
  The	
  Painter	
  and	
  the	
  Landscape	
  (New	
  Haven	
  and	
  London:	
  
Yale	
  University	
  Press,	
  1990)	
  124-­‐130,	
  130-­‐135.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

178	
  

retreat	
   from	
   the	
   pressures	
   of	
   Paris	
   among	
   fresh-­‐growing	
   vegetables,	
   their	
   rented	
  

land	
  is	
  not	
  an	
  expansive	
  far-­‐reaching	
  realm,	
  but	
  a	
  tiny	
  domain	
  bounded	
  by	
  the	
  city	
  

and	
  supported	
  by	
  a	
  landowner.	
  The	
  viewing	
  platform	
  serves	
  as	
  a	
  reminder	
  that	
  the	
  

peasants	
  could	
  be	
  observed	
  and	
  inspected.337	
  When	
  painting	
   in	
  Pontoise,	
  Pissarro	
  

omitted	
   signs	
   of	
   industry	
   and	
   bourgeois	
   pastimes	
   to,	
   in	
   Robert	
   Herbert’s	
   terms,	
  

construct	
   decidedly	
   rural	
   images.338	
  Van	
   Gogh’s	
   inclusion	
   of	
   a	
   landowner’s	
   farm	
  

building	
  and	
  a	
  middle-­‐class	
  viewing	
  deck	
  indicates	
  that	
  he	
  departed	
  from	
  Pissarro’s	
  

imagery	
  by	
  considering	
  the	
  peasant’s	
  role	
  within	
  a	
  middle-­‐class	
  urban	
  context.	
  On	
  

the	
  allotments	
  in	
  Montmartre:	
  Windmills	
  and	
  Allotments,	
  the	
  tenant	
  farmer	
  remains	
  

fixed,	
   confined	
   within	
   his	
   plot	
   and	
   thus	
   the	
   middle-­‐classes	
   can	
   exert	
   their	
  

hierarchical	
   gaze	
   over	
   the	
   tenant	
   farmer.	
   The	
   allotment	
   farmer’s	
   access	
   to	
   their	
  

rented	
  parcel	
  depended	
  on	
  their	
  behavior	
  and	
  ability	
  to	
  conform	
  to	
  the	
  landowner’s	
  

agenda.	
  Thus,	
  the	
  viewing	
  platform	
  allows	
  the	
  middle	
  class	
  observer	
  to	
  enact	
  his	
  or	
  

her	
   power,	
   sustaining	
   the	
   dominant	
   relationship	
   of	
   the	
   middle-­‐classes	
   over	
   the	
  

working	
  poor.	
  Although	
  the	
  tenant	
  farmers	
  earn	
  wages,	
  they	
  remain	
  rooted	
  in	
  the	
  

environment	
  and	
  disconnected	
  from	
  the	
  urban	
  center	
  they	
  work	
  to	
  feed.	
  	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
337	
  Michel	
  Foucault,	
  “Panopticism,”	
  Discipline	
  &	
  Punish:	
  The	
  Birth	
  of	
  the	
  Prison,	
  trans.	
  Alan	
  Sheridan	
  
(1975;	
  repr.	
  New	
  York:	
  Vintage	
  Books,	
  1995)	
  195-­‐209.	
  “Hence	
  the	
  major	
  effect	
  of	
  the	
  Panopticon:	
  to	
  
induce	
   in	
   the	
   inmate	
   a	
   state	
   of	
   conscious	
   and	
   permanent	
   visibility	
   that	
   assures	
   the	
   automatic	
  
functioning	
  of	
  power”	
  (201).	
  

338	
  Robert	
  Herbert,	
  A	
  Day	
  in	
  the	
  Country:	
  Impressionism	
  and	
  the	
  French	
  Landscape	
  (New	
  York:	
  Harry	
  
N.	
  Abrams,	
  1994)	
  179.	
  	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

179	
  

In	
   Wheatfield	
   with	
   Partridge	
   (June-­‐July	
   1887)	
   [figure	
   34],	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
  

allotment	
   aesthetic	
   extends,	
   in	
   some	
   respects,	
   to	
   the	
   crop	
   itself.	
   In	
   depicting	
   the	
  

field,	
   the	
   painter	
   addressed	
   the	
   paradoxical	
   relationship	
   between	
   abundance	
   and	
  

issues	
   that	
   affected	
   the	
   lower-­‐class	
   farmer.339	
  The	
   grain	
   crop,	
   particularly	
   wheat,	
  

took	
   on	
   a	
   significant	
   meaning	
   as	
   it	
   represented	
   traditional	
   farming	
   ways	
   but	
   also	
  

signified	
  a	
  point	
  of	
  economic	
  disparity	
  between	
  the	
  Third	
  Republic	
  and	
  the	
  labor-­‐

class.	
  340	
  With	
  a	
  cut	
  row	
  of	
  grain	
  in	
  the	
  foreground,	
  and	
  wheat	
  swaying	
  in	
  the	
  wind	
  in	
  

the	
  background,	
  Wheatfield	
  symbolizes	
  the	
  cycles	
  of	
  the	
  harvest.	
  Although	
  the	
  crop	
  

appears	
  abundant,	
  in	
  1880s	
  France,	
  wheat	
  was	
  in	
  decline.	
  Between	
  1878	
  and	
  1879,	
  

the	
   country’s	
   wheat	
   supply	
   could	
   not	
   meet	
   demands,	
   so	
   wheat	
   had	
   to	
   be	
  

imported.341	
  During	
   a	
   depression	
   in	
   wheat	
   prices	
   around	
   the	
   world,	
   the	
   prices	
  

declined	
  further	
  in	
  France	
  due	
  to	
  the	
  dependence	
  on	
  grain	
  from	
  America	
  and	
  Russia	
  

where	
  farmers	
  had	
  robust	
  harvests.	
  Import	
  prices	
  suppressed	
  financial	
  wheat	
  yields	
  

for	
  French	
  farmers	
  into	
  the	
  mid-­‐1880s.	
  	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
339	
  Welsch-­‐Ovcharov,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  à	
  Paris	
  144.	
  	
  

340	
  Russell	
  50,	
  note	
  13.	
  Rural	
  economic	
  developments	
  took	
  hold	
  slowly.	
  As	
  they	
  did,	
  the	
  government	
  
took	
  an	
  active	
  role	
  in	
  establishing	
  best	
  practices	
  and	
  enforcing	
  protocol.	
  The	
  new	
  techniques	
  evolved	
  
in	
  three	
  stages.	
  The	
  first,	
  beginning	
  at	
  the	
  end	
  of	
  the	
  Second	
  Empire	
  and	
  into	
  the	
  1880s,	
  encouraged	
  
farmers	
  to	
  begin	
  planting	
  ground	
  cover	
  rather	
  than	
  have	
  fields	
  lie	
  fallow	
  and	
  use	
  manure	
  as	
  the	
  only	
  
fertilizer.	
  Aside	
  from	
  planting	
  grains	
  such	
  as	
  wheat,	
  farmers	
  were	
  encouraged	
  to	
  begin	
  varying	
  crops,	
  
grow	
  meadows	
  and	
  use	
  plows	
  that	
  dug	
  into	
  the	
  soil	
  more	
  deeply	
  for	
  effective	
  crop	
  growth	
  and	
  soil	
  
maintenance.	
  

341	
  Russell	
  63.	
  	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

180	
  

In	
  Sheaves	
  of	
  Wheat	
  (July-­‐August	
  1885)	
  [figure	
  35],	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  had	
  considered	
  

bountiful	
   grain	
   as	
   a	
   subject	
   matter	
   when	
   he	
   was	
   painting	
   in	
   Nuenen.	
   During	
   the	
  

summer	
  harvest	
  of	
  1885,	
  the	
  artist	
  painted	
  several	
  bunches	
  of	
  crop	
  standing	
  in	
  a	
  

freshly	
  cut	
  field,	
  conveying	
  the	
  stoic	
  quality	
  of	
  a	
  new	
  harvest	
  against	
  the	
  landscape.	
  

The	
  artist	
  organized	
  his	
  canvas	
  into	
  three	
  planes:	
  a	
  foreground	
  with	
  cut	
  grain,	
  the	
  

central	
  subject	
  of	
  the	
  crop	
  itself,	
  and	
  a	
  background	
  with	
  a	
  slightly	
  overcast	
  Holland	
  

sky.	
  He	
  also	
  made	
  drawings	
  of	
  laborers,	
  a	
  celebration	
  of	
  their	
  commitment	
  to	
  their	
  

work	
   and,	
   at	
   the	
   same	
   time,	
   a	
   reminder	
   that	
   they	
   are	
   entwined	
   with	
   field	
   labor	
  

[figures	
   36	
   &	
   37].	
   Large,	
   robust	
   bodies	
   that	
   have	
   been	
   shaped	
   by	
   a	
   lifetime	
   of	
  

bending,	
  hoeing,	
  picking,	
  and	
  gathering	
  seem	
  to	
  meld	
  with	
  the	
  shape	
  of	
  harvested	
  

wheat	
   or	
   the	
   earth	
   beneath	
   them.342	
  Van	
   Gogh’s	
   image	
   of	
   an	
   abundant	
   crop	
  

monumentalizes	
   the	
   peasants’	
   efforts	
   and	
   suggests	
   that	
   the	
   hard	
   work	
   of	
   the	
  

Nuenen	
  peasant	
  produced	
  a	
  significant	
  resource.	
  	
  

Writing	
  to	
  Willemien	
  from	
  Paris	
  in	
  the	
  fall	
  1887,	
  Vincent	
  used	
  wheat	
  as	
  a	
  sign	
  

of	
  oppression:	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
342	
  Griselda	
  Pollack,	
  “The	
  Ambivalence	
  of	
  the	
  Maternal	
  Body:	
  Re/drawing	
  Van	
  Gogh,”	
  Differencing	
  the	
  
Canon:	
  Feminist	
  Desire	
  and	
  the	
  Writing	
  of	
  Art’s	
  Histories	
  (London	
  and	
  New	
  York:	
  Routledge,	
  1999)	
  41-­‐
63.	
   Griselda	
   Pollack	
   observes	
   that	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   drawings	
   of	
   women	
   bending	
   diverge	
   from	
   similar	
  
images	
  of	
  bending	
  women	
  at	
  work,	
  such	
  as	
  Millet’s	
  (46).	
  This	
  distinction,	
  she	
  argues,	
  represents	
  a	
  
gendered	
  power	
  dynamic	
  between	
  Van	
  Gogh,	
  a	
  bourgeois	
  artist	
  who	
  can	
  afford	
  to	
  hire	
  a	
  model,	
  and	
  
the	
  model,	
  a	
  woman	
  of	
  the	
  working-­‐poor	
  class	
  who	
  is	
  made	
  to	
  bend	
  before	
  the	
  artist.	
  Pollack	
  posits	
  
that	
  the	
  act	
  of	
  bending	
  is	
  a	
  mark	
  of	
  class	
  as	
  bourgeois	
  women	
  would	
  not	
  be	
  able	
  to	
  bend	
  due	
  to	
  
corsets,	
  and,	
  if	
  they	
  could	
  bend,	
  they	
  would	
  not	
  do	
  so	
  before	
  a	
  man.	
  The	
  hired	
  model	
  in	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  
imagery	
  bends	
  before	
  him,	
  her	
  body	
  vulnerable	
  before	
  his	
  gaze.	
  Pollack	
  reads	
  the	
  pose	
  as	
  sexual	
  and	
  
thus	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  drawings	
  of	
  bending	
  women	
  as	
  an	
  exertion	
  of	
  the	
  male	
  artist’s	
  phallocentric	
  desire.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

181	
  

Now	
  what	
  shall	
  I	
  say	
  about	
  your	
  little	
  piece	
  about	
  the	
  plants	
  and	
  
the	
   rain?	
   You	
   see	
   for	
   yourself	
   in	
   nature	
   that	
   many	
   a	
   flower	
   is	
  
trampled,	
   freezes	
   or	
   is	
   parched,	
   further	
   that	
   not	
   every	
   grain	
   of	
  
wheat,	
   once	
   it	
   has	
   ripened,	
   ends	
   up	
   in	
   the	
   earth	
   again	
   to	
  
germinate	
  there	
  and	
  become	
  a	
  stalk—but	
  far	
  and	
  away	
  the	
  most	
  
grains	
  do	
  not	
  develop	
  but	
  go	
  to	
  the	
  mill—don’t	
  they?	
  
	
  
Now	
   comparing	
   people	
   with	
   grains	
   of	
   wheat—in	
   every	
   person	
  
who’s	
  healthy	
  and	
  natural	
  there’s	
  the	
  power	
  to	
  germinate	
  as	
  in	
  a	
  
grain	
  of	
  wheat.	
  And	
  so	
  natural	
  life	
  is	
  germinating.	
  
	
  
What	
  the	
  power	
  to	
  germinate	
  is	
  in	
  wheat,	
  so	
  love	
  is	
  in	
  us.	
  Now	
  
we,	
  I	
  think,	
  stand	
  there	
  pulling	
  a	
  long	
  face	
  or	
  at	
  a	
  loss	
  for	
  words	
  
when,	
   being	
   thwarted	
   in	
   our	
   natural	
   development,	
   we	
   see	
   that	
  
germination	
  frustrated	
  and	
  ourselves	
  placed	
  in	
  circumstances	
  as	
  
hopeless	
   as	
   they	
   must	
   be	
   for	
   the	
   wheat	
   between	
   the	
  
millstones.343	
  
	
  

Wheat,	
  for	
  Van	
  Gogh,	
  metaphorically	
  relates	
  to	
  the	
  farmer’s	
  position.	
  The	
  “wheat	
  

between	
  the	
  millstones”	
  suggests	
  a	
  frustrating	
  future	
  for	
  the	
  labor	
  classes,	
  a	
  person	
  

who	
   does	
   not	
   get	
   to	
   thrive,	
   but	
   who	
   is	
   instead	
   “being	
   thwarted”	
   in	
   the	
   “natural	
  

environment.”	
   His	
   remarks	
   indicate	
   that	
   he	
   saw	
   wheat	
   as	
   an	
   allegorical	
   symbol	
  

standing	
   for	
   those	
   who	
   had	
   been	
   “trampled”	
   by	
   a	
   greater	
   force	
   as	
   their	
  

circumstances	
  did	
  not	
  allow	
  them	
  to	
  “germinate”	
  in	
  the	
  farming	
  system.	
  	
  

Greg	
  Thomas	
  notes	
  that	
  Barbizon	
  painters,	
  indicated	
  in	
  Jean-­‐François	
  Millet’s	
  

imagery,	
   considered	
   the	
   ecology	
   of	
   Fontainebleau,	
   depicting	
   the	
   conservation	
   of	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
343	
  Letter	
  574.	
  	
  

	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

182	
  

“nonindustrial”	
   peasant	
   life	
   while	
   peasants	
   harvest	
   grain.344	
  	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   admired	
  

Millet	
  and	
  copied	
  the	
  painter’s	
  Sower	
  (1850)	
  in	
  an	
  1881	
  work	
  on	
  paper	
  [figure	
  38].345	
  

In	
  Millet’s	
  Gleaners	
  (1857)	
  [figure	
  39],	
  poor	
  peasants	
  have	
  come	
  to	
  pick	
  the	
  left	
  over	
  

crop	
   from	
   the	
   main	
   harvest.	
   Millet	
   conveys	
   the	
   large	
   expanse	
   of	
   fields	
   that	
  

surrounded	
   the	
   forest	
   where	
   peasants	
   planted	
   and	
   reaped	
   plentiful	
   harvests.346	
  

Images	
  of	
  wheat	
  from	
  the	
  same	
  year	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  made	
  his	
  allotment	
  paintings,	
  such	
  

as	
  Pissarro’s	
  Haymaking,	
  Érgany	
  (1887)	
  [figure	
  40],	
  represent	
  notions	
  of	
  work	
  in	
  a	
  

pastoral	
  sense	
  as	
  the	
  peasants	
  in	
  this	
  field	
  tend	
  to	
  their	
  tasks	
  with	
  little	
  effort.347	
  The	
  

peasants	
  gather	
  mounds	
  of	
  hay	
  together	
  after	
  what	
  appears	
  to	
  be	
  a	
  long	
  day	
  (based	
  

on	
  the	
  low-­‐lying	
  sun)	
  of	
  field	
  work.	
  The	
  horizon	
  line	
  far	
  off	
  in	
  the	
  distance	
  under	
  a	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
344	
  Thomas	
  69,	
  214-­‐215.	
  Millet’s	
  imagery,	
  painted	
  during	
  the	
  transition	
  from	
  the	
  Second	
  Republic	
  to	
  
the	
  Second	
  Empire,	
  focused	
  on	
  the	
  Forest	
  of	
  Fontainebleau,	
  a	
  royal-­‐game	
  preserve	
  intact	
  since	
  the	
  
French	
  Renaissance	
  south-­‐west	
  of	
  Paris	
  that	
  Napoleon	
  III	
  began	
  cutting	
  down	
  to	
  make	
  plantations.	
  
Under	
  the	
  Second	
  Empire,	
  Barbizon	
  painters	
  petitioned	
  Napoleon	
  III	
  (Alfred	
  Sensier	
  perhaps	
  authored	
  
the	
  document)	
  to	
  preserve	
  the	
  forest:	
  “for	
  artists	
  who	
  study	
  nature,	
  it	
  offers	
  what	
  others	
  find	
  in	
  the	
  
models…of	
   the	
   great	
   masters	
   of	
   past	
   ages.”	
   	
   I	
   quoted	
   a	
   petition	
   to	
   Napoleon	
   III	
   (1852),	
   probably	
  
written	
  by	
  Alfred	
  Sensier,	
  Théodore	
  Rousseau’s	
  biographer,	
  who	
  “made	
  naturalism	
  the	
  core	
  of	
  his	
  
richly	
  documented	
  study	
  of	
  Rousseau’s	
  life”	
  (78).	
  	
  

345	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
   letter	
  166	
  to	
  Théo	
  from	
  Etten	
  around	
  Saturday,	
  April	
  30,	
  1881.	
  “The	
  sower	
   is	
  
finished…and	
  now	
  still	
  to	
  come	
  are	
  the	
  laborers	
  in	
  the	
  field.”	
  On	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  and	
  his	
  understanding	
  of	
  
Alfred	
  Sensier,	
  see:	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  210	
  to	
  Théo	
  from	
  The	
  Hague	
  on	
  Saturday,	
  March	
  11,	
  1882.	
  
“Listen,	
  Théo,	
  what	
  a	
  man	
  that	
  Millet	
  was!	
  I	
  have	
  the	
  big	
  work	
  by	
  Sensier	
  on	
  loan	
  from	
  De	
  Bock.	
  It	
  
interests	
  me	
  so	
  much	
  that	
  I	
  wake	
  up	
  at	
  night	
  and	
  light	
  the	
  lamp	
  and	
  go	
  on	
  reading.”	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  
letter	
   158	
   to	
   Théo	
   from	
   Cuesmes,	
   Belgium,	
   on	
   Friday	
   September	
   24,	
   1880.“What	
   you	
   say	
   in	
   your	
  
letter	
  on	
  the	
  subject	
  of	
  Barbizon	
  is	
  very	
  true	
  and	
  I’ll	
  tell	
  you	
  one	
  or	
  two	
  things	
  that	
  will	
  prove	
  to	
  you	
  
that	
  that’s	
  my	
  own	
  way	
  of	
  seeing	
  as	
  well.”	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  depicted	
  sower	
  figures	
  in	
  1881	
  and	
  1888	
  and	
  
copied	
  another	
  Millet	
  series	
  of	
  figures	
  binding	
  sheaves	
  in	
  1889.	
  

346	
  Thomas	
  151-­‐153.	
  	
  

347	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  http://vangoghmuseum.azurewebsites.net/en/collection/s0520S2010.	
  Théo	
  
sold	
  this	
  painting	
  in	
  1887,	
  so	
  perhaps	
  Vincent	
  would	
  have	
  seen	
  it.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

183	
  

blue	
   sky	
   dotted	
   with	
   clouds	
   conveys	
   the	
   large-­‐scale	
   stretch	
   of	
   land.	
   Pissarro	
  

celebrated	
  the	
  figure	
  among	
  the	
  vast	
  landscape,	
  and	
  the	
  peasant	
  within	
  his	
  or	
  her	
  

rural	
   environment	
   in	
   collaboration	
   with	
   one	
   another.	
   In	
   contrast,	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
  

Wheatfield	
  alludes	
  to	
  the	
  complicated	
  relationship	
  between	
  the	
  laboring	
  farmer	
  and	
  

a	
  stifling	
  financial	
  situation.	
  The	
  wheat	
  crop	
  in	
  his	
  painting	
  sways	
  collectively,	
  but	
  

each	
  stalk	
  can	
  be	
  considered	
  as	
  an	
  individual	
  yearning	
  for	
  “power.”348	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  

crop	
   reads	
   as	
   a	
   wall,	
   another	
   boundary	
   that	
   keeps	
   the	
   farmer	
   in	
   his	
   respective	
  

economic	
  place.	
   In	
  Wheatfield,	
  the	
  shallow	
  space	
  of	
  the	
  foreground	
  indicates	
  the	
  

farmer’s	
  space	
  is	
  limited,	
  growing	
  a	
  product	
  by	
  which	
  he	
  could	
  not	
  make	
  a	
  living.	
  

Here,	
  the	
  viewer	
  finds	
  himself	
  in	
  an	
  inviting,	
  yet	
  unforgiving	
  landscape.	
  Akin	
  to	
  his	
  

allotment	
  imagery,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  used	
  the	
  landscape	
  to	
  convey	
  a	
  place	
  of	
  labor	
  that	
  was	
  

a	
   respite	
   from	
   industrial	
   Paris,	
   but	
   operated	
   within	
   a	
   market	
   that	
   controlled	
   the	
  

working	
  poor	
  whose	
  labor	
  in	
  turn	
  fed	
  Paris.	
  Whereas	
  Millet	
  and	
  Pissarro’s	
  paintings	
  

maintain	
  a	
  rural,	
  non-­‐industrial	
  context,	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  allotment	
  paintings	
  and	
  field	
  of	
  

wheat	
  show	
  the	
  effects	
  of	
  industry	
  within	
  a	
  rural	
  setting.	
  In	
  his	
  landscape	
  paintings	
  

of	
   the	
   Butte,	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   did	
   not	
   maintain	
   the	
   character	
   of	
   unspoiled	
   plots	
   and	
  

plentiful	
  harvests,	
  but	
  a	
  version	
  of	
  rural,	
  working-­‐class	
   life	
  mediated	
  by	
  the	
  city’s	
  

middle	
  classes,	
  constructing	
  the	
  landscape	
  as	
  a	
  social	
  negotiation	
  between	
  charity	
  

and	
  labor,	
  nature	
  and	
  sustenance.	
  	
  	
  	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
348	
  Letter	
  574.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

184	
  

Paris’s	
  Fortifications	
  

The	
   paths	
   among	
   the	
   gardens	
   took	
   on	
   defining	
   strategies	
   in	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
  

allotment	
  imagery,	
  occupying	
  the	
  base	
  of	
  the	
  painting	
  and	
  serving	
  as	
  a	
  vehicle	
  by	
  

which	
  the	
  viewer	
  enters	
  the	
  image.	
  From	
  the	
  path,	
  issues	
  of	
  surveillance	
  and	
  social	
  

control	
  arise	
  amid	
  a	
  tranquil	
  landscape.	
  The	
  compositional	
  strategy	
  is	
  also	
  at	
  work	
  in	
  

the	
  images	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  made	
  of	
  the	
  fortifications.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  created	
  several	
  works	
  on	
  

paper	
  that	
  depict	
  the	
  transitional	
  spaces	
  between	
  the	
  city	
  and	
  its	
  outlying	
  suburbs.	
  

Gate	
  in	
  the	
  Paris	
  Rampart	
  (summer	
  1887),	
  Road	
  Running	
  Beside	
  the	
  Paris	
  Ramparts	
  

(June	
  1887),	
  Fortifications	
  of	
  Paris	
  with	
  Houses	
  (summer	
  1887)	
  and	
  Fortifications	
  of	
  

Paris	
   (1887)	
   comprise	
   four	
   works	
   on	
   paper	
   in	
   which	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   considered	
   the	
  

boundary	
  between	
  Paris	
  and	
  Clichy	
  [figures	
  41-­‐44].349	
  Richard	
  Thomson	
  points	
  out	
  

that	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   fortification	
   drawings	
   are	
   observational	
   drawings	
   of	
   “precise	
  

modernity”	
   and	
   do	
   not	
   convey	
   the	
   complicated	
   notions	
   of	
   a	
   marginalized	
  

community	
   among	
   structures	
   of	
   governmental	
   control.350	
  Van	
   Gogh	
   explored	
   the	
  

socio-­‐political	
   climate	
   through	
   his	
   images	
   of	
   peripheral	
   communities	
   by	
   using	
   the	
  

bastions	
  to	
  interrupt	
  the	
  horizon.	
  Considering	
  that	
  Clichy	
  was	
  an	
  industrial	
  commune	
  

with	
   a	
   socialist	
   stronghold,	
   and	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   exploration	
   of	
   the	
   allotment	
   gardens	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
349	
  The	
  Porte	
  de	
  Clichy	
  was	
  located	
  along	
  the	
  Avenue	
  de	
  Clichy,	
  which	
  transitioned	
  into	
  the	
  Boulevard	
  
National,	
   running	
   north	
   throughout	
   the	
   Commune	
   de	
   Clichy	
   and	
   past	
   the	
   L’Usine	
   à	
   gaz	
   de	
   Clichy,	
  
toward	
  the	
  Seine,	
  and	
  into	
  Asnières.	
  

350	
  Richard	
   Thomson,	
   “Van	
   Gogh	
   in	
   Paris:	
   The	
   fortifications	
   drawings	
   of	
   1887,”	
   Jong	
   Holland	
   3	
  
(September	
  1987):	
  14-­‐25.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

185	
  

examined	
   issues	
   of	
   class-­‐structure	
   and	
   power,	
   I	
   find	
   that	
   the	
   roads	
   through	
   the	
  

fortifications	
   likewise	
   address	
   peasant	
   foot-­‐traffic	
   and	
   the	
   relation	
   between	
   labor	
  

and	
  a	
  consumer-­‐driven	
  urban	
  center.351	
  

Van	
  Gogh	
  depicted	
  the	
  Porte	
  de	
  Clichy,	
  the	
  passage	
  through	
  the	
  fortifications	
  

between	
   the	
   city	
   proper	
   in	
   Montmartre	
   and	
   the	
   Commune	
   de	
   Clichy.	
   A	
   series	
   of	
  

fortifications	
  built	
  around	
  Paris	
  between	
  1841-­‐1845,	
  the	
  boundary	
  had	
  a	
  history	
  of	
  

class	
  struggle	
  as	
  the	
  July	
  Monarchy	
  (1830-­‐1848)	
  built	
  the	
  bastions	
  and	
  forts	
  to	
  utilize	
  

force	
  during	
  class	
  warfare.	
  352	
  In	
  the	
  event	
  of	
  a	
  lower-­‐class	
  uprising,	
  the	
  government	
  

could	
   extend	
   its	
   reach	
   toward	
   the	
   banlieue	
   quickly	
   and	
   forcefully.	
   Critics	
   saw	
   the	
  

project	
  as	
  an	
  exclusionary	
  symbol	
  because	
  the	
  focus	
  was	
  on	
  the	
  urban	
  center,	
  not	
  

on	
  those	
  living	
  on	
  the	
  city’s	
  boundary.	
  Some	
  of	
  the	
  land	
  for	
  the	
  fortifications	
  was	
  

given	
  over	
  to	
  allotment	
  gardens;	
  during	
  the	
  Third	
  Republic,	
  though,	
  the	
  fortifications	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
351	
  Berlanstein,	
   The	
   Working	
   People	
   of	
   Paris	
   47,	
   100,	
   159,	
   177.	
   Clichy	
   was	
   a	
   commune	
   with	
   many	
  
different	
  types	
  of	
  factories—gas,	
  glass,	
  chemical,	
  printing—and	
  a	
  high	
  number	
  of	
  factory	
  and	
  metal	
  
workers.	
  Although	
  in	
  the	
  1886	
  election,	
  Clichy	
  did	
  not	
  vote	
  in	
  a	
  socialist	
  candidate	
  to	
  office	
  as	
  had	
  
happened	
  in	
  Saint-­‐Ouen,	
  the	
  commune’s	
  socialists	
  did	
  come	
  close.	
  There	
  was	
  also	
  a	
  conflict	
  between	
  
factory	
   owners	
   and	
   the	
   rising	
   unions.	
   The	
   Paul	
   Dupont	
   printing	
   company	
   in	
   Clichy,	
   for	
   example,	
  
employed	
   550	
   workers	
   and	
   provided	
   benefits,	
   such	
   as	
   pensions,	
   subsidized	
   housing,	
   and	
   medical	
  
care,	
  so	
  that	
  Dupont	
  could	
  stave	
  off	
  union-­‐organized	
  workers.	
  

352	
  Patricia	
  O’Brien,	
  “L’Embastillement	
  de	
  Paris:	
  The	
  Fortifications	
  of	
  Paris	
  during	
  the	
  July	
  Monarchy,”	
  
French	
  Historical	
  Studies	
  9.1	
  (Spring	
  1975):	
  63-­‐65,	
  75-­‐76.	
  In	
  1844,	
  Louis	
  Philippe	
  completed	
  a	
  large-­‐
scale	
  project	
  to	
  build	
  a	
  series	
  of	
  forts	
  around	
  Paris	
  to	
  protect	
  it	
  militarily	
  and	
  to	
  centralize	
  the	
  capital	
  
city’s	
  power.	
  Thiers,	
  then	
  the	
  minister	
  of	
  the	
  interior	
  and	
  by	
  1840	
  minister	
  of	
  foreign	
  affairs,	
  oversaw	
  
the	
   plan	
   to	
   build	
   the	
   fortifications,	
   a	
   series	
   of	
   bastions,	
   gates,	
   and	
   terraces.	
   	
   During	
   the	
   building	
  
phase,	
  opponents	
  criticized	
  Thiers	
  and	
  the	
  fortification	
  plan	
  as	
  a	
  way	
  to	
  suppress	
  lower-­‐class	
  citizens	
  
from	
  an	
  armed	
  revolt	
  against	
  the	
  bourgeoisie.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

186	
  

still	
   occupied	
   thirty	
   square	
   miles.353	
  In	
   the	
   1880s,	
   the	
   fortifications	
   Van	
   Gogh	
  

depicted	
  had	
  an	
  unsavory	
  reputation	
  at	
  night—the	
  press	
  regularly	
  reported	
  violent	
  

crimes	
  and	
  prostitution—but	
  by	
  day	
  it	
  was	
  the	
  most	
  open	
  route	
  between	
  the	
  city	
  

and	
  the	
  banlieue.354	
  	
  

Lucien	
  Pissarro	
  depicted	
   laborers	
  walking	
  past	
  the	
  fortifications	
   in	
  1886	
  at	
  

the	
  Porte	
  de	
  Saint-­‐Ouen,	
  separating	
  the	
  Commune	
  de	
  Saint-­‐Ouen	
  which	
  was	
  one	
  of	
  

the	
   earliest	
   Communes	
   to	
   industrialize	
   in	
   the	
   1870s,	
   from	
   Paris	
   in	
   the	
   northeast	
  

[figure	
   45].355	
  In	
   1886,	
   Saint-­‐Ouen	
   was	
   known	
   politically	
   as	
   a	
   socialist	
   commune	
  

because	
   many	
   of	
   the	
   elected	
   officials	
   were	
   themselves	
   factory	
   workers.356	
  Lucien	
  

drew	
   the	
   image	
   from	
   the	
   perspective	
   of	
   Paris	
   as	
   a	
   few	
   people	
   walk	
   by	
   the	
  

fortifications.	
  With	
  their	
  backs	
  to	
  Paris,	
  they	
  walk	
  toward	
  the	
  industrial	
  commune	
  

dotted	
   with	
   smokestacks	
   rising	
   up	
   from	
   the	
   residential	
   roofs.	
   Many	
   clerks	
   from	
  

Saint-­‐Ouen	
  and	
  the	
  neighboring	
  Saint-­‐Denis,	
  had	
  to	
  commute	
  to	
  Paris	
  and	
  made	
  the	
  

walk.357	
  The	
  trip	
  was	
  also	
  considered	
  a	
   leisurely	
  activity	
  for	
  the	
   labor	
  class.	
  Zola’s	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
353	
  Nilsen	
  19.	
  Vizetelly	
  1.	
  	
  

354	
  Thomson,	
  “The	
  fortifications	
  drawings	
  of	
  1887”	
  20-­‐21.	
  	
  

355	
  Welsh-­‐Ovcharov,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  à	
  Paris	
  260.	
  Berlanstein,	
  The	
  Working	
  People	
  of	
  Paris	
  28.	
  	
  

356	
  Berlanstein,	
   The	
   Working	
   People	
   of	
   Paris	
   160.	
   Saint-­‐Ouen	
   also	
   had	
   socialist	
   solidarity	
   among	
  
laborers,	
  who,	
  for	
  example	
  pulled	
  funds	
  together	
  to	
  help	
  the	
  Decazeville	
  miners	
  during	
  their	
  strike;	
  
revolutionary	
  public	
  addresses	
  were	
  also	
  commonplace.	
  

357	
  Berlanstein,	
  The	
  Working	
  People	
  of	
  Paris	
  22,	
  32,	
  106.	
  In	
  Saint-­‐Ouen,	
  a	
  tanning	
  factory	
  that	
  utilized	
  
mechanical	
  processes	
  (as	
  opposed	
  to	
  individualized	
  craftsman	
  products)	
  employed	
  150	
  workers,	
  and	
  
the	
  Farcot	
  engineering	
  firm	
  employed	
  550	
  laborers	
  in	
  the	
  mid-­‐1880s.	
  	
  	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

187	
  

working-­‐class	
   characters	
   in	
   L’Assommoir	
   (1877)	
   who	
   live	
   in	
   Montmartre,	
   Gervaise	
  

and	
  Coupeau,	
  work	
  long	
  hours	
  as	
  a	
  laundress	
  and	
  roofer	
  respectively	
  and	
  “…took	
  

their	
  Sunday	
  walk	
  over	
  Saint-­‐Ouen	
  way.”358	
  In	
  Lucien’s	
  image,	
  the	
  constant	
  steam	
  of	
  

smoke	
  emanating	
  from	
  the	
  banlieue	
  indicates	
  the	
  work	
  of	
  hundreds	
  of	
  laborers.	
  The	
  

fortifications	
  in	
  Lucien’s	
  drawing	
  suggest	
  the	
  working-­‐class’s	
  economic	
  connection	
  to	
  

the	
  city	
  as	
  their	
  source	
  of	
  livelihood,	
  and	
  the	
  industrial	
  landscape	
  as	
  a	
  sign	
  of	
  the	
  

cyclical	
  relationship	
  between	
  the	
  capital	
  and	
  those	
  who	
  produce	
  in	
  the	
  banlieue.	
  In	
  

his	
  drawing,	
  Lucien	
  took	
  the	
  perspective	
  of	
  an	
  observer,	
  from	
  the	
  side	
  of	
  the	
  path,	
  

and	
  treated	
  the	
  landscape	
  as	
  a	
  wide,	
  far-­‐reaching	
  expanse.	
  Just	
  over	
  the	
  fortification	
  

lies	
  the	
  horizon,	
  extending	
  across	
  the	
  width	
  of	
  the	
  picture	
  plane.	
  	
  

Van	
  Gogh’s	
  bright,	
  sunny	
  depictions	
  of	
  the	
  fortifications	
  depart	
  from	
  Lucien’s	
  

because	
  he	
  considered	
  the	
  point-­‐of-­‐view	
  of	
  a	
  working	
  commuter.	
  In	
  this	
  way,	
  Van	
  

Gogh’s	
  drawings	
  construct	
  the	
  fortifications	
  as	
  a	
  passageway	
  for	
  the	
  working	
  classes,	
  

a	
  sign	
  of	
  Paris’s	
  military	
  power,	
  and	
  a	
  class	
  divide	
  between	
  the	
  city	
  and	
  its	
  outlying	
  

country.	
  Gate	
  in	
  the	
  Paris	
  Rampart	
  [figure	
  41]	
  is	
  a	
  view	
  toward	
  Paris	
  from	
  the	
  Porte	
  

de	
  Clichy.359	
  A	
  horse-­‐drawn	
  omnibus	
  carries	
  passengers	
  outside	
  of	
  the	
  city.	
  By	
  1886,	
  

Montmartre	
  had	
  grown	
  into	
  a	
  bustling	
  extension	
  of	
  the	
  capital	
  with	
  a	
  population	
  of	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
358	
  Émile	
  Zola,	
  L’Assommoir,	
  trans.	
  Margaret	
  Mauldon	
  (Oxford	
  and	
  New	
  York:	
  Oxford	
  University	
  Press,	
  
1995)	
  95.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  did	
  not	
  mention	
  L’Assommoir	
  (1877),	
  a	
  story	
  that	
  began	
  in	
  1850,	
  specifically	
  in	
  
his	
  letters.	
  	
  

359	
  Welsh-­‐Ovcharov,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  à	
  Paris	
  134.	
  	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

188	
  

over	
   200,000,	
   making	
   it	
   necessary	
   for	
   horse-­‐drawn	
   omnibuses	
   to	
   transport	
   an	
  

average	
   of	
   200	
   million	
   passengers	
   per	
   year.360	
  Among	
   the	
   crowd,	
   a	
   young	
   boy	
  

perches,	
  shoulders	
  slumped,	
  on	
  the	
  edge	
  of	
  the	
  gate,	
  with	
  a	
  posture	
  reminiscent	
  of	
  

the	
   central	
   working-­‐class	
   boy	
   in	
   Bathers	
   at	
   Asnières	
   (1884).	
   In	
   Bathers,	
   Seurat	
  

connected	
  industry	
  and	
  the	
  environment	
  as	
  Clichy’s	
  factory	
  chimneys	
  chug	
  smoke	
  

behind	
  working-­‐class	
  men	
  who	
  find	
  a	
  moment	
  of	
  repose	
  in	
  the	
  Seine.361	
  In	
  line	
  with	
  

Seurat’s	
  Bathers,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  depicted	
  an	
  afternoon	
  of	
  working-­‐class	
  transportation	
  

against	
   the	
   backdrop	
   of	
   industry.	
   In	
   Gate	
   in	
   the	
   Paris	
   Rampart,	
   a	
   stand-­‐alone	
  

Second-­‐Empire	
   building	
   rises	
   to	
   the	
   south	
   and	
   factory	
   smokestacks	
   appear	
   to	
   its	
  

right,	
  indicating	
  the	
  metropolis	
  on	
  the	
  horizon.	
  Some	
  commuters	
  require	
  a	
  rest,	
  lying	
  

down	
   along	
   the	
   path	
   behind	
   the	
   ramparts	
   in	
   Road	
   Running	
   Beside	
   the	
   Paris	
  

Ramparts	
  [figure	
  42].	
  In	
  this	
  image,	
  another	
  horse-­‐drawn	
  omnibus	
  appears	
  between	
  

the	
  fortifications.	
  Evident	
  here	
  as	
  well,	
  among	
  women	
  with	
  parasols,	
  are	
  the	
  factory	
  

smokestacks	
   in	
   the	
   far	
   distance.	
   In	
   this	
   work	
   on	
   paper,	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   looked	
   toward	
  

Clichy;	
  Montmartre	
  is	
  behind	
  him.	
  Thomson	
  identified	
  the	
  chimneys	
  of	
  the	
  Gouin	
  

factory,	
   a	
   machine	
   company,	
   in	
   the	
   near	
   right	
   and	
   the	
   trees	
   of	
   Cimétière	
   des	
  

Batignolles	
  on	
  the	
  left.362	
  A	
  place	
  that	
  was	
  neither	
  home	
  to	
  a	
  residential	
  community	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
360	
  Herbert,	
  Impressionism:	
  Art,	
  Leisure	
  and	
  Parisian	
  Society	
  14.	
  

361	
  Robert	
  Herbert,	
  Seurat	
  at	
  the	
  Making	
  of	
  La	
  Grande	
  Jatte	
  (Berkeley	
  and	
  Los	
  Angeles:	
  University	
  of	
  
California	
  Press,	
  2004)	
  40-­‐45.	
  	
  

362	
  Thomson,	
  “The	
  fortifications	
  drawings	
  of	
  1887”	
  20.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

189	
  

nor	
  an	
  industrial	
  complex,	
  from	
  the	
  perspective	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  provided,	
  factories	
  appear	
  

on	
   both	
   sides	
   of	
   the	
   boundary.	
   Thus,	
   from	
   both	
   directions,	
   industry	
   remains	
   the	
  

endpoint,	
   suggesting	
   that	
   the	
   outskirts	
   of	
   the	
   city	
   function	
   to	
   provide	
   the	
  

environment	
  of	
  the	
  factory	
  labor.	
  	
  

In	
   walking	
   between	
   industrialized	
   areas,	
   the	
   laborer	
   experiences	
   the	
  

atmosphere	
  of	
  the	
  fortifications—pleasant	
  weather	
  and	
  greenery—as	
  a	
  relief	
  from	
  

the	
   city	
   and	
   the	
   banlieue.	
   In	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   fortification	
   drawings,	
   the	
   bastions	
   are	
  

structures	
  to	
  walk	
  through,	
  not	
  by,	
  as	
  the	
  bastions	
  and	
  walls	
  conceal	
  the	
  horizon	
  and	
  

hem	
  in	
  the	
  pedestrians.	
  The	
  viewer	
  cannot	
  look	
  above	
  the	
  wall	
  and	
  at	
  the	
  horizon	
  as	
  

in	
  Lucien’s	
   image.	
  In	
  contrast,	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  fortifications	
  rise	
  up	
  on	
  the	
  side	
  of	
  the	
  

path.	
  The	
  fortifications	
  assert	
  a	
  diagonal	
  boundary,	
  cutting	
  into	
  the	
  depth	
  of	
  field.	
  

The	
  paths,	
  which	
  occupy	
  the	
  entire	
  base	
  of	
  the	
  canvas	
   in	
  all	
   four	
   images,	
  extend	
  

sharply	
   into	
   the	
   picture	
   plane,	
   radically	
   narrowing	
   to	
   highlight	
   the	
   deep	
   space	
  

between	
  the	
  foreground	
  and	
  the	
  middle-­‐ground.	
  Similar	
  to	
  his	
  allotment	
  imagery,	
  

the	
   paths	
   provide	
   the	
   egalitarian	
   point-­‐of-­‐view	
   of	
   a	
   fellow	
   commuter	
   whose	
  

embodied	
  presence	
  gazes	
  down	
  to	
  the	
  footpath	
  before	
  him.	
  From	
  the	
  perspectives	
  

of	
  the	
  path,	
  indications	
  of	
  both	
  the	
  banlieue	
  and	
  the	
  city	
  are	
  miniscule,	
  indicating	
  

the	
  distance	
  between	
  Clichy	
  and	
  Montmartre	
  from	
  the	
  fortifications.	
  The	
  intransient	
  

space	
   of	
   the	
   fortifications	
   is	
   a	
   route	
   of	
   the	
   working	
   class,	
   requiring	
   a	
   long	
   walk	
  

between	
  working-­‐class	
  areas	
  on	
  either	
  side	
  of	
  the	
  border	
  that	
  transitions	
  through	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

190	
  

the	
   walls	
   of	
   the	
   government.	
   The	
   working-­‐class	
   landscape	
   consists	
   of	
   the	
   built	
  

structures	
  of	
  the	
  Second	
  Empire,	
  and	
  movement	
  guided	
  by	
  an	
  implied	
  sense	
  of	
  force	
  

and	
  surveillance.	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  

	
  

The	
  Banlieue	
  

I	
  addressed	
  the	
  symbolic	
  nature	
  of	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  Factories	
  at	
  Clichy	
  (1887)	
  and	
  

Factory	
  at	
  Clichy	
  (1887)	
  [figures	
  5	
  &	
  46]	
  in	
  chapter	
  three,	
  and	
  I	
  include	
  a	
  discussion	
  

of	
   these	
   paintings	
   here	
   within	
   the	
   context	
   of	
   the	
   banlieue	
   to	
   highlight	
   the	
  

connection	
   between	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   Montmartre	
   allotments	
   paintings	
   and	
   the	
   Clichy	
  

industrial	
   environment	
   images.	
   Allotment	
   with	
   Sunflower	
   (1887)	
   [figure	
   47],	
   for	
  

instance,	
  visually	
  connects	
  a	
  peasant	
  woman	
  to	
  the	
  industrialized	
  horizon	
  she	
  can	
  

see	
  from	
  her	
  plot.	
  From	
  the	
  fence	
  that	
  bounds	
  her	
  small	
  allotment	
  garden,	
  she	
  looks	
  

out	
  over	
  an	
  urban	
  sprawl	
  at	
  the	
  factories	
  that	
  appear	
  in	
  the	
  far	
  distance,	
  not	
  toward	
  

the	
  towering	
  sunflower	
  in	
  the	
  foreground	
  she	
  herself	
  probably	
  nurtured.	
  Similarly,	
  

Van	
   Gogh’s	
   factory	
   images	
   of	
   Clichy	
   address	
   the	
   role	
   of	
   products	
   in	
   the	
   lives	
   of	
  

women	
   such	
   as	
   the	
   peasant	
   in	
   Allotment	
   with	
   Sunflower.	
   Although	
   her	
   allotment	
  

provides	
  her	
  with	
  sustenance,	
  she	
  does	
  not	
  have	
  access	
  to	
  amenities	
  provided	
  by	
  

the	
  coal-­‐dependent	
  factories	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  depicted	
   in	
  Clichy,	
  but	
  she	
   is	
  nonetheless	
  

related	
  to	
  the	
  life	
  of	
  the	
  factory	
  through	
  lower-­‐class	
  labor.	
  	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

191	
  

The	
   highly	
   publicized	
   Decazeville	
   (located	
   in	
   south-­‐central	
   France)	
   coal-­‐

miner’s	
   strike	
   highlighted	
   the	
   disenfranchised	
   morale	
   of	
   the	
   working	
   poor.363	
  In	
  

January	
   1886,	
   2,000	
   miners	
   frustrated	
   with	
   poor	
   pay	
   and	
   hazardous	
   conditions	
  

stopped	
  working	
  and	
  protested.364	
  While	
  visiting	
  a	
  coal	
  mine	
  in	
  Marcasse	
  in	
  1879,	
  

Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  of	
  the	
  tension	
  between	
  laborers	
  and	
  management:	
  the	
  miners,	
  he	
  

observed,	
   “have	
   a	
   festering	
   and	
   deep-­‐rooted	
   hatred	
   and	
   an	
   innate	
   distrust	
   of	
  

anyone	
  who	
  tries	
  to	
  boss	
  them	
  around.”365	
  In	
  Decazeville,	
  the	
  distrust	
  grew	
  into	
  an	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
363	
  Similar	
  to	
  an	
  uprising	
  of	
  coal	
  miners	
  in	
  Zola’s	
  Germinal	
  published	
  a	
  year	
  prior	
  in	
  1885,	
  the	
  protest	
  
focused	
  on	
  the	
  desperate	
  lives	
  of	
  the	
  laborers.	
  Émile	
  Zola,	
  Germinal,	
  trans.	
  Havelock	
  Ellis	
  (Gloucester,	
  
Massachusetts:	
  Doubleday	
  &	
  Company,	
  Inc.,	
  1968)	
  Chapter	
  V,	
  313-­‐326.	
  Led	
  by	
  Étienne	
  Lantier	
  (who	
  
also	
  appeared	
  in	
  L’Assommoir),	
  a	
  mob	
  of	
  angry	
  miners	
  from	
  Marseillaise	
  marched	
  to	
  the	
  owner’s,	
  
Hennebeau’s,	
  villa.	
  Shouting	
  “Bread!	
  bread!	
  bread!”	
  the	
  mob	
  surrounded	
  the	
  bourgeois	
  home.	
  During	
  
the	
  mob’s	
  march,	
  the	
  republican	
  Négral	
  who	
  was	
  supposed	
  to	
  be	
  in	
  support	
  of	
  the	
  working	
  class,	
  
remarked:	
  “Take	
  out	
  your	
  scent-­‐bottles,	
  the	
  sweat	
  of	
  the	
  people	
  is	
  passing	
  by!”	
  See	
  also	
  Halperin,	
  
Félix	
  Fénéon:	
  Aesthete	
  &	
  Anarchist	
  in	
  Fin-­‐de-­‐Siècle	
  Paris	
  56.	
  Zola	
  based	
  the	
  strike	
  he	
  depicted	
  on	
  one	
  
he	
  saw	
  first-­‐hand	
  at	
  the	
  Anzin	
  mine,	
  located	
  in	
  the	
  northern	
  France.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  lowered	
  into	
  a	
  mine	
  
shaft	
  and	
  was	
  involved	
  in	
  a	
  mine	
  explosion	
  while	
  living	
  in	
  the	
  Borinage;	
  he	
  thus	
  found	
  Zola’s	
  Germinal	
  
inspirational	
  and	
  drew	
  miners	
  during	
  the	
  early	
  years	
  of	
  his	
  painting	
  practice.	
  Naifeh	
  and	
  Smith	
  194-­‐
196	
  and	
  200-­‐201.	
  Théo	
  sent	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  Zola’s	
  Germinal,	
  which	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  received	
  and	
  began	
  reading	
  
on	
  Thursday,	
  May	
  28,	
  1885	
  in	
  Nuenen.	
  In	
  letter	
  505,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote:	
  “I’ve	
  just	
  received	
  Germinal,	
  
which	
  I	
  started	
  on	
  immediately.	
  I’ve	
  read	
  50	
  pages	
  of	
  it—which	
  I	
  think	
  splendid.	
  I	
  also	
  walked	
  there	
  
once…If	
  all	
  goes	
  well—if	
  I	
  earn	
  rather	
  more	
  so	
  that	
  I	
  can	
  travel	
  more—well	
  then	
  I’ll	
  also,	
  I	
  hope,	
  paint	
  
the	
  miners’	
  heads	
  sometime.”	
  In	
  letter	
  506,	
  which	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  to	
  Théo,	
  on	
  Tuesday	
  June	
  2,	
  1885,	
  
he	
  noted	
  that	
  Germinal	
  inspired	
  him	
  to	
  paint:	
  “…among	
  the	
  latter	
  you’ll	
  find	
  a	
  head	
  that	
  I	
  couldn’t	
  
help	
  painting	
  after	
  reading	
  Germinal.”	
  In	
  letter	
  506,	
  he	
  also	
  paraphrased	
  passages	
  from	
  Germinal.	
  

364	
  Jules	
  Guesde,	
  “Le	
  Cri	
  du	
  peuple	
  (February	
  1886),”	
  Le	
  Socialism	
  au	
  jour	
  le	
  jour	
  (Paris:	
  V.	
  Giard	
  et	
  E.	
  
Brière,	
  1889)	
  in	
  Fortescue	
  40-­‐41.	
  Berlanstein,	
  The	
  Working	
  People	
  of	
  Paris	
  155.	
  Derfier	
  48.	
  	
  

365	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  151	
  to	
  Théo	
  from	
  Wasmes	
  sometime	
  during	
  the	
  first	
  two	
  weeks	
  of	
  April	
  
1879.	
  “This	
  mine	
  has	
  a	
  bad	
  name	
  because	
  many	
  die	
  in	
  it,	
  whether	
  going	
  down	
  or	
  coming	
  up,	
  or	
  by	
  
suffocation	
   or	
   gas	
   exploding,	
   or	
   because	
   of	
   water	
   in	
   the	
   ground,	
   or	
   because	
   of	
   old	
   passageways	
  
caving	
  in	
  and	
  so	
  on.	
  It’s	
  a	
  somber	
  place,	
  and	
  at	
  first	
  sight	
  everything	
  around	
  it	
  has	
  something	
  dismal	
  
and	
  deathly	
  about	
  it.	
  The	
  workers	
  there	
  are	
  usually	
  people,	
  emaciated	
  and	
  pale	
  owing	
  to	
  fever,	
  who	
  
look	
  exhausted	
  and	
  haggard,	
  weather-­‐beaten	
  and	
  prematurely	
  old,	
  the	
  women	
  generally	
  sallow	
  and	
  
withered.	
  All	
  around	
  the	
  mine	
  are	
  poor	
  miners’	
  dwellings	
  with	
  a	
  couple	
  of	
  dead	
  trees,	
  completely	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

192	
  

angry	
  rage.	
  The	
  miners	
  threw	
  the	
  manager	
  out	
  of	
  a	
  window	
  and	
  bludgeoned	
  him	
  to	
  

death	
   when	
   he	
   hit	
   the	
   ground;	
   the	
   government	
   sent	
   troops	
   immediately.366	
  The	
  

Chamber	
   of	
   Deputies	
   voted	
   in	
   favor	
   of	
   “maintaining	
   public	
   order,”	
   and	
   the	
  

“bourgeois	
   political	
   parties	
   joined	
   together	
   and	
   found	
   themselves	
   united	
   against	
  

the…working	
   class.” 367 	
  The	
   government	
   financially	
   supported	
   the	
   coal-­‐mining	
  

company	
  with	
  “reduced	
  transport	
  charges”	
  and	
  a	
  guaranteed	
  ten-­‐year	
  coal	
  order	
  for	
  

the	
  railway—leaving,	
  in	
  the	
  words	
  of	
  POF	
  leader	
  Jules	
  Guesde,	
  “starvation	
  labor”	
  to	
  

cry	
  “for	
  help	
  from	
  members	
  of	
  the	
  government,”	
  from	
  those	
  who	
  had	
  forced	
  the	
  

working	
  classes	
  into	
  “bankruptcy.”368	
  The	
  strike	
  became	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  most	
  important	
  

political	
   events	
   for	
   the	
   French	
   socialist	
   movement,	
   leading	
   to	
   a	
   labor	
   committee	
  

within	
  the	
  Chamber	
  of	
  Deputies.369	
  The	
  strike	
  brought	
  together	
  socialists,	
  such	
  as	
  

Signac,	
  from	
  around	
  the	
  country	
  to	
  financially	
  and	
  politically	
  support	
  the	
  worker’s	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
black	
   from	
   the	
   smoke,	
   and	
   thorn-­‐hedges,	
   dung-­‐heaps	
   and	
   rubbish	
   dumps,	
   mountains	
   of	
   unusable	
  
coal....”	
  

366	
  Derfier	
  48.	
  Berlanstein,	
  The	
  Working	
  People	
  of	
  Paris	
  174.	
  The	
  Decazeville	
  strike	
  was	
  national	
  news,	
  
but	
   it	
   was	
   not	
   uncommon	
   for	
   workers	
   to	
   threaten	
   the	
   lives	
   of	
   the	
   managerial	
   staff	
   under	
   terse	
  
working	
  conditions.	
  In	
  1887,	
  a	
  chemical	
  company	
  in	
  Saint-­‐Denis	
  (a	
  commune	
  northeast	
  of	
  Paris,	
  east	
  
of	
   Clichy)	
   lowered	
   wages;	
   in	
   retaliation,	
   and	
   in	
   a	
   desperate	
   attempt	
   to	
   maintain	
   a	
   paycheck,	
   an	
  
employee	
  shot	
  the	
  foreman	
  and	
  held	
  the	
  factory	
  under	
  siege	
  for	
  a	
  night.	
  

367	
  Jules	
  Guesde,	
  Le	
  Cri	
  du	
  peuple	
  in	
  Fortescue	
  41.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  arrived	
  in	
  Paris	
  in	
  early	
  February,	
  a	
  week	
  
or	
  so	
  before	
  the	
  parliamentary	
  debate	
  regarding	
  the	
  Decazeville	
  strike.	
  

368	
  Jules	
  Guesde,	
  Le	
  Cri	
  du	
  peuple	
  in	
  Fortescue	
  40-­‐41.	
  

369	
  Derfier	
  48.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

193	
  

fight.370	
  At	
  this	
  time,	
  the	
  Paris	
  Gas	
  Company	
  built	
  the	
  Clichy	
  factory	
  between	
  1880	
  

and	
   1881,	
   which	
   roasted	
   coal	
   to	
   make	
   gas.371	
  In	
   the	
   wake	
   of	
   the	
   strike,	
   PGC	
  

developed	
  a	
  successful	
  marketing	
  strategy	
  and	
  gained	
  the	
  largest	
  domestic-­‐gas	
  sales	
  

gross	
  in	
  the	
  company’s	
  history	
  offering	
  gaslights	
  and	
  gas	
  stoves	
  at	
  the	
  company’s	
  

expense	
  to	
  those	
  living	
  in	
  upper-­‐class	
  arrondissements.372	
  	
  

While	
   in	
   The	
   Netherlands	
   and	
   Belgium,	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   addressed	
   new	
   factory	
  

processes	
  and	
  drew	
  two	
  images	
  akin	
  to	
  those	
  of	
  the	
  coal-­‐dependent	
  Clichy	
  factories,	
  

Coke	
  Factory	
  in	
  the	
  Borinage	
  (July-­‐August	
  1879)	
  and	
  the	
  gas	
  tanks	
  at	
  The	
  Municipal	
  

Gasworks	
   in	
   Loosduinseweg	
   in	
   Gasworks,	
   The	
   Hague	
   (March	
   1882)	
   [figures	
   48	
   &	
  

49].373	
  Compositionally,	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   Coke	
   Factory	
   in	
   the	
   Borinage	
   (coke	
   is	
   a	
   fuel	
  

made	
  from	
  coal)	
  and	
  Gasworks,	
  The	
  Hague	
  reveals	
  views	
  of	
  a	
  coal-­‐factory	
  complex.	
  

At	
  this	
  time,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  visited	
  the	
  Marcasse	
  coal	
  mine	
  and	
  was	
   lowered	
   into	
  the	
  

mine,	
   one	
   of	
   the	
   most	
   dangerous	
   “hidden…underworld[s],”	
   where	
   he	
   spent	
   six	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
370	
  Signac	
  quoted	
  in	
  Ferretti-­‐Bocquillon	
  47.	
  Paul	
  Alexis	
  was	
  writing	
  under	
  the	
  pen	
  name,	
  Trubalt	
  for	
  Le	
  
Cri	
   du	
   peuple,	
   a	
   newspaper.	
   In	
   the	
   wake	
   of	
   the	
   news,	
   Signac	
   wrote	
   that	
   he	
   would	
   support	
   the	
  
naturalisse	
   and	
   the	
   workers	
   on	
   strike	
   in	
   Decazeville:	
   “My	
   dear	
   Trublot,	
   here	
   five	
   francs	
   for	
   the	
  
naturalisse	
  subscription.	
  A	
  buck	
  is	
  not	
  much,	
  but	
  cobalt	
  blue	
  is	
  expensive.”	
  Paul	
  Alexis,	
  a	
  novelist	
  and	
  
journalist	
   writing	
   under	
   the	
   pen	
   name	
   Trulbot,	
   published	
   part	
   of	
   the	
   letter	
   Signac	
   had	
   written	
  
regarding	
  the	
  call	
  for	
  support	
  the	
  first	
  week	
  of	
  February	
  1886.	
  Signac	
  signed	
  the	
  letter	
  “Paul	
  Signac,	
  
Impressionist,”	
  indicating	
  both	
  his	
  connection	
  to	
  socialism	
  and	
  to	
  his	
  trade	
  as	
  a	
  painter.	
  	
  

371	
  Berlanstein,	
  Big	
  Business	
  81.	
  PGC	
  built	
  another	
  new	
  plant	
  in	
  Saint-­‐Denis.	
  

372	
  See	
  footnote	
  268	
  in	
  this	
  chapter.	
  	
  

373	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  280	
  to	
  Théo	
  from	
  The	
  Hague	
  on	
  Sunday,	
  November	
  5,	
  1882;	
  see	
  note	
  13.	
  	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

194	
  

hours	
   at	
   700	
   meters	
   below	
   ground. 374 	
  He	
   observed	
   the	
   mine’s	
   hazardous	
  

infrastructure,	
  a	
  system	
  the	
  company	
  left	
  in	
  disrepair,	
  and	
  noted	
  that	
  supplying	
  coal	
  

affected	
  the	
  laborer’s	
  bodies.375	
  In	
  Coke	
  Factory	
  at	
  the	
  Borinage,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  depicted	
  

an	
   above-­‐ground	
   view	
   where	
   hundreds	
   of	
   workers	
   refined	
   the	
   product	
   in	
   the	
  

“underground	
   prison.”376	
  Coke	
   Factory	
   of	
   the	
   Borinage	
   includes	
   one	
   small-­‐scale	
  

worker	
  who	
  remains	
  above	
  ground,	
  but	
  the	
  chimneys	
  indicate	
  the	
  number	
  of	
  those	
  

keeping	
  the	
  furnaces	
  burning.	
  Children,	
  horses,	
  men,	
  and	
  women	
  all	
  sank	
  below	
  the	
  

earth,	
   lowering	
   down	
   in	
   a	
   cage,	
   mining	
   in	
   dark,	
   damp	
   caves	
   and	
   crevices.	
   In	
  

Gasworks,	
  The	
  Hague,	
  men,	
  dwarfed	
  by	
  the	
  looming	
  tanks	
  and	
  smokestacks,	
  head	
  

into	
  the	
  complex,	
  some	
  with	
  shovels	
  flung	
  over	
  their	
  shoulders.	
  Stokers,	
  those	
  who	
  

fueled	
  the	
  furnaces	
  with	
  coal,	
  were	
  essential	
  laborers	
  in	
  the	
  factory	
  complex.377	
  The	
  

stoker	
   symbolized	
   new	
   industry	
   standards	
   that	
   arose	
   due	
   to	
   gas	
   production:	
   the	
  

stoker	
  did	
  not	
  complete	
  intricate	
  tasks	
  or	
  undergo	
  craftsman-­‐level	
  training,	
  but	
  he	
  

did	
  perform	
  a	
  number	
  of	
  arduous	
  and	
  dangerous	
  skills	
  repetitively.	
   In	
  these	
  early	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
374	
  Letter	
  151.	
  	
  

375	
  Letter	
  151.	
  	
  

376	
  Letter	
  151.	
  See	
  also	
  note	
  5:	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  painted	
  Coke	
  Factory	
  at	
  the	
  Borinage,	
  but	
  scholars	
  do	
  not	
  
know	
  if	
  the	
  image	
  is	
  of	
  the	
  Marcasse	
  mine	
  the	
  artist	
  visited.	
  	
  

377	
  Berlanstein,	
  Big	
  Business	
  262-­‐291.	
  In	
  the	
  early	
  1880s,	
  the	
  stoker	
  was	
  a	
  prominent	
  laborer	
  in	
  a	
  gas	
  
factory.	
  Some	
  factory	
  models,	
  such	
  as	
  the	
  gas	
  company,	
  did	
  not	
  have	
  an	
  artisanal	
  phase	
  supplanted	
  
by	
  the	
  skilled	
  industrial	
  worker	
  because	
  the	
  gas	
  factory	
  developed	
  within	
  the	
  era	
  of	
  mechanization.	
  
Most	
   importantly,	
   the	
   stoker	
   maintained	
   pressure	
   levels	
   (without	
   the	
   right	
   pressure	
   levels,	
   an	
  
explosion	
   could	
   ensue)	
   and	
   spent	
   his	
   days	
   shoveling	
   coal	
   from	
   the	
   yard	
   and	
   into	
   the	
   sweltering	
  
distillation	
  rooms	
  before	
  a	
  bank	
  of	
  furnaces.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

195	
  

depictions,	
  the	
  artist	
  did	
  not	
  invite	
  the	
  viewer	
  into	
  the	
  work	
  through	
  a	
  path.	
  Instead,	
  

he	
  blocked	
  off	
  the	
  foreground	
  with	
  non-­‐descript	
  marks,	
  suggesting	
  that	
  he	
  did	
  not	
  

aim	
  to	
  emphasize	
  the	
  lower	
  portion	
  of	
  the	
  canvas.	
  Overall,	
  these	
  images	
  take	
  the	
  

view	
  of	
  a	
  distant	
  observer	
  and	
  offer	
  a	
  glimpse	
  into	
  the	
  life	
  of	
  a	
  factory	
  worker	
  amid	
  

the	
  overwhelming	
  complex.	
  	
  

In	
   Paris,	
   the	
   images	
   challenge	
   descriptive	
   notions	
   to	
   unhinge	
   seemingly	
  

serene	
  work	
  environments.	
  In	
  Factories	
  at	
  Clichy	
  [figure	
  5],	
  a	
  couple	
  observes	
  the	
  

expanse	
  of	
  industry,	
  perhaps	
  inspired	
  by	
  the	
  large-­‐scale	
  PGC	
  complex,	
  on	
  a	
  leisurely	
  

walk.	
   John	
   House	
   reads	
   the	
   painting	
   as	
   a	
   utopian	
   vision	
   of	
   industry,	
   leisure,	
   and	
  

nature.378	
  Arguing	
  for	
  a	
  utopian	
  ideal	
  overlooks	
  the	
  Decazeville	
  miner’s	
  strike	
  and	
  

the	
  remarks	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  made	
  while	
  visiting	
  the	
  Marcasse	
  mine.	
  I	
  consider	
  Factories	
  at	
  

Clichy	
  within	
  the	
  socialist	
  agenda	
  of	
  factory-­‐worker	
  reform	
  and	
  the	
  development	
  of	
  

PGC’s	
   Clichy	
   plant.	
   In	
   1855,	
   PGC	
   was	
   founded	
   during	
   the	
   Second	
   Empire. 379	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
378	
  John	
  House,	
  “Towards	
  the	
  Modern	
  Landscape,”	
  Vincent	
  van	
  Gogh	
  and	
  the	
  Painters	
  of	
  the	
  Petit	
  
Boulevard,	
  ed.	
  Cornelia	
  Homburg	
  (Saint	
  Louis:	
  Saint	
  Louis	
  Art	
  Museum,	
  2001)	
  165-­‐166,	
  168.	
  House	
  
addresses	
  Factories	
  of	
  Clichy,	
  a	
  painting	
  he	
  refers	
  to	
  as	
  Factories	
  at	
  Asnières,	
  Seen	
  from	
  the	
  Quai	
  de	
  
Clichy.	
  First,	
  I	
  think	
  the	
  painting’s	
  subject	
  matter	
  is	
  located	
  in	
  Clichy,	
  not	
  Asnières.	
  Second,	
  House’s	
  
interpretation	
  does	
  not	
  take	
  into	
  account	
  the	
  other	
  images	
  of	
  industry	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  painted	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  
those	
   by	
   Bernard	
   and	
   Signac.	
   Although	
   House	
   begins	
   to	
   locate	
   the	
   image	
   within	
   the	
   anarchist	
  
discourse	
  shared	
  by	
  painters	
  with	
  whom	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  worked	
  in	
  Paris,	
  namely	
  Camille	
  Pissarro,	
  I	
  find	
  his	
  
approach	
  reductive.	
  On	
  the	
  facture	
  in	
  Factories	
  at	
  Clichy,	
  see	
  also:	
  James	
  H.	
  Rubin,	
  Impressionism	
  and	
  
the	
   Modern	
   Landscape:	
   Productivity,	
   Technology,	
   and	
   Urbanization	
   from	
   Manet	
   to	
   Van	
   Gogh	
  
(Berkeley,	
   Los	
   Angeles,	
   and	
   London:	
   University	
   of	
   California	
   Press,	
   2008)	
   164-­‐165.	
   Rubin	
   locates	
  
Factories	
  at	
  Clichy	
   in	
  Clichy,	
  and	
  briefly	
  asserts	
  that	
  the	
  image	
  suggests	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  interest	
  in	
  the	
  
industrial	
  landscape	
  similar	
  to	
  his	
  contemporaries,	
  such	
  as	
  Pissarro.	
  Interestingly,	
  Rubin	
  observes	
  that	
  
Van	
  Gogh’s	
  idiosyncratic	
  paint	
  texture	
  relates	
  to	
  artisanal	
  methods	
  and	
  a	
  Leftist	
  political	
  agenda.	
  	
  	
  

379	
  Berlanstein,	
  Big	
  Business	
  13.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

196	
  

Restaurants	
  and	
  homes	
   in	
  the	
  wealthier	
  arrondissements	
  could	
   live	
  with	
  the	
  new	
  

commodity	
  in	
  both	
  the	
  domestic	
  and	
  public	
  sphere,	
  but	
  the	
  cost	
  excluded	
  those	
  who	
  

earned	
  a	
  laborer’s	
  wage.	
  In	
  Zola’s	
  Nana,	
  gaslights	
  metaphorically	
  reveal	
  the	
  greed	
  

and	
  debauchery	
  of	
  the	
  bourgeoisie.380	
  The	
  propensity	
  of	
  gaslights	
  suggest	
  material	
  

gain	
  and	
  literally	
  shine	
  light	
  on	
  the	
  aspects	
  of	
  upper-­‐class	
  Parisians	
  who	
  were	
  served	
  

well	
  under	
  the	
  Second	
  Empire.381	
  By	
  1885,	
  PGC	
  had	
  grown	
  into	
  the	
  country’s	
  largest	
  

manufacturing	
  company,	
  but	
  only	
  the	
  bourgeoisie	
  still	
  largely	
  utilized	
  gas-­‐powered	
  

lights	
  and	
  stoves,	
  despite	
  claims	
  that	
  gas	
  was	
  in	
  “general”	
  use.382	
  Those	
  working	
  and	
  

living	
  in	
  the	
  commune	
  would	
  not	
  have	
  been	
  able	
  to	
  afford	
  gas	
  in	
  their	
  homes.	
  In	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
380	
  Zola,	
   Nana	
   1,	
   179.	
   Readers	
   meet	
   Zola’s	
   Nana	
   at	
   her	
   performance	
   in	
   the	
   fashionable	
   theater	
  
Variétes,	
   where	
   “the	
   gas	
   jests	
   of	
   the	
   chandelier	
   were	
   turned	
   down	
   and	
   in	
   the	
   half	
   light”	
   and	
   the	
  
ceiling’s	
   murals	
   had	
   been	
   “stained	
   green	
   by	
   gas	
   fumes.”	
   Gaslights	
   and	
   glass	
   literally	
   reflect	
   the	
  
consumerism	
  of	
  Count	
  Muffat	
  of	
  Beuville,	
  one	
  of	
  Nana’s	
  bourgeois	
  clients,	
  as	
  he	
  strolls	
  along	
  Paris’	
  
grand	
   boulevards	
   waiting	
   for	
   Nana:	
   “…Count	
   Muffat	
   was	
   walking	
   through	
   the	
   Passage	
   des	
  
Panoramas…The	
  glass	
  roof	
  was	
  gleaming	
  with	
  bright	
  reflection	
  and	
  the	
  passage	
  was	
  ablaze	
  with	
  light	
  
from	
   white	
   globes,	
   the	
   red	
   lamps,	
   the	
   blue	
   transparencies,	
   and	
   banks	
   of	
   flaring	
   gas-­‐jets	
   depicting	
  
giant	
  watches	
  and	
  fans	
  flickering	
  in	
  the	
  air;	
  and	
  behind	
  the	
  clear	
  plate-­‐glass	
  shop	
  windows,	
  the	
  gaudy	
  
displays,	
  the	
  gold	
  of	
  the	
  jewelers,	
  the	
  crystal	
  ware	
  of	
  the	
  confectioners	
  were	
  all	
  glittering	
  in	
  the	
  glare	
  
of	
  the	
  reflectors….”	
  

381	
  Zola,	
   Nana	
   181,	
   238.	
   Gaslights	
   signified	
   those	
   with	
   a	
   disposable	
   income	
   who	
   could	
   attend	
   the	
  
theater	
  and	
  shop	
  in	
  fashionable	
  places—the	
  light	
  also	
  revealed	
  the	
  superficial	
  quality	
  of	
  the	
  “gaudy”	
  
objects.	
  “To	
  light	
  up	
  the	
  entrance,”	
  Muffat	
  noticed	
  as	
  he	
  waited	
  by	
  Nana’s	
  stage	
  door,	
  “there	
  was	
  
only	
  one	
  gas-­‐jet	
  in	
  a	
  frosted	
  globe.”	
  In	
  contrast,	
  as	
  Nana	
  returns	
  to	
  low-­‐class,	
  clandestine	
  prostitution	
  
along	
  the	
  sleazy	
  backstreets	
  of	
  Montmartre,	
  the	
  streets	
  remained	
  “dark	
  and	
  deserted,”	
  as	
  “shadowy	
  
female	
   figures”	
   walked	
   along	
   the	
   rue	
   Notre-­‐Dame-­‐de-­‐la-­‐Lorette	
   waiting	
   for	
   a	
   client.	
   To	
   find	
   light,	
  
prostitutes	
  clamored	
  around	
  delicatessens	
  and	
  cafés,	
  “the	
  last	
  corner…which	
  stayed	
  alive	
  at	
  night.”	
  

382	
  Berlanstein,	
  Big	
  Business	
  3-­‐4,	
  13,	
  15,	
  51-­‐52,	
  82.	
  When	
  PGC	
  began	
  providing	
  gas	
  to	
  daily	
  customers	
  
in	
  September	
  of	
  1856,	
  they	
  served	
  about	
  1500	
  restaurants,	
  cafés,	
  bakeries	
  and	
  hotels;	
  the	
  number	
  
increased	
  to	
  190,000	
  customers	
  by	
  1885.	
  Until	
  1894,	
  when	
  city	
  officials	
  pressured	
  PGC	
  to	
  make	
  the	
  
resource	
  available	
  to	
  low-­‐income	
  households	
  and	
  renters,	
  only	
  a	
  small	
  fraction	
  of	
  the	
  employees	
  at	
  
PGC	
  were	
  actually	
  able	
  to	
  afford	
  the	
  commodity.	
  	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

197	
  

1888,	
  less	
  than	
  1%	
  of	
  residents	
  in	
  Montmartre	
  had	
  gas	
  lighting.383	
  In	
  contrast,	
  23.7%	
  

of	
   residents	
   in	
   the	
   eighth	
   arrondissement,	
   which	
   was	
   home	
   to	
   the	
   Avenue	
   des	
  

Champs	
  Élysées,	
  used	
  gas	
  in	
  their	
  homes.384	
  Through	
  the	
  marketing	
  push	
  in	
  1887,	
  

the	
  introduction	
  of	
  gas-­‐powered	
  light	
  in	
  interior	
  homes	
  changed	
  the	
  way	
  upper-­‐class	
  

Parisians	
   lived	
   and	
   was	
   a	
   resource	
   that	
   divided	
   them	
   from	
   the	
   lower	
   classes.	
  

Restaurants	
  and	
  homes	
  in	
  the	
  wealthier	
  arrondissements	
  had	
  the	
  new	
  commodity	
  in	
  

both	
  the	
  domestic	
  and	
  public	
  spheres,	
  but	
  the	
  cost	
  excluded	
  those	
  who	
  earned	
  a	
  

laborer’s	
  wage.	
  	
  

Edgar	
   Degas’	
   At	
   the	
   Café	
   Concert:	
   The	
   Song	
   of	
   the	
   Dog	
   (1875-­‐1877)	
   and	
  

Édouard	
  Manet’s	
  A	
  Bar	
  at	
  the	
  Folies-­‐Bergère	
  (1882)	
  [figures	
  50	
  &	
  51]	
  show	
  how	
  gas-­‐

lights	
   illuminate	
   the	
   leisurely	
   evenings	
   of	
   the	
   upper-­‐classes.	
   In	
   1886,	
   the	
   Folies-­‐

Bergères	
   was	
   one	
   of	
   the	
   top	
   twenty	
   customers	
   of	
   PGC.385	
  Manet	
   depicted	
   a	
  

sparkling	
   gaslight	
   chandelier	
   hanging	
   from	
   the	
   ceiling	
   and	
   round	
   electric	
   lights	
  

flanking	
  the	
  waitress’s	
  head.	
  That	
  the	
  Bar	
  at	
  the	
  Folies-­‐Bergère	
  could	
  support	
  two	
  

light	
   sources	
   is	
   in	
   stark	
   contrast	
   to	
   those	
   who	
   could	
   yet	
   afford	
   gaslights.	
   Unlike	
  

Degas	
   and	
   Manet	
   who	
   convey	
   glittering	
   nightlight	
   and	
   the	
   relationship	
   between	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
383	
  Berlanstein,	
  Big	
  Business	
  3-­‐4,	
  13,	
  21,	
  table	
  3.	
  

384	
  Berlanstein,	
  Big	
  Business	
  21,	
  table	
  3.	
  	
  

385	
  Berlanstein,	
  Big	
  Business	
  19,	
  table	
  2.	
  	
  

	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

198	
  

leisure	
   and	
   industry,	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   addressed	
   the	
   working-­‐class	
   areas	
   that	
   provided	
  

goods.	
   He	
   emphasized	
   the	
   discord	
   between	
   those	
   who	
   labored	
   to	
   provide	
   from	
  

those	
  who	
  partook.	
  In	
  Factories	
  of	
  Clichy,	
  the	
  couple	
  serves	
  as	
  surrogate	
  viewers,	
  

inviting	
   the	
   spectator	
   to	
   consider	
   the	
   great	
   efforts	
   of	
   labor	
   occurring	
   below	
   the	
  

smokestacks.	
  Similar	
  to	
  Coke	
  Factory	
  of	
  the	
  Borinage,	
  the	
  workers	
  are	
  concealed,	
  

signified	
  only	
  by	
  the	
  smoke	
  pouring	
  out	
  of	
  the	
  stacks	
  they	
  stoke	
  to	
  keep	
  burning.	
  As	
  

they	
   keep	
   the	
   factories	
   functioning,	
   the	
   couple	
   stands	
   in	
   a	
   field	
   comprised	
   of	
  

gestural	
   brushwork.	
   The	
   fence	
   figuratively	
   excludes	
   the	
   idiosyncratic	
   expressive	
  

brushwork	
  from	
  the	
  industrial	
  commune,	
  suggesting	
  the	
  separation	
  of	
  nature	
  and	
  

industry;	
  as	
  noted	
  previously,	
  the	
  indication	
  of	
  wind	
  connects	
  the	
  two	
  spheres.	
  	
  

When	
  the	
  gas	
  industry	
  developed	
  and	
  gas-­‐lights	
  began	
  lining	
  the	
  streets	
  of	
  

Paris	
   or	
   hanging	
   above	
   the	
   dinner	
   tables	
   of	
   the	
   upper-­‐classes,	
   there	
   was	
   a	
   new	
  

demand	
  for	
  glass	
  to	
  house	
  the	
  flames.	
  386	
  To	
  meet	
  demands,	
  there	
  were	
  three	
  glass	
  

factories	
  in	
  Clichy.	
  The	
  building	
  in	
  Factory	
  at	
  Clichy	
  is	
  the	
  Pont	
  de	
  Clichy,	
  Glasshouse,	
  

which	
  was	
  built	
  in	
  1845,	
  in	
  operation	
  until	
  1917,	
  and	
  located	
  under	
  the	
  bridge	
  from	
  

Clichy	
  to	
  Asnières	
  immediately	
  to	
  the	
  west	
  of	
  the	
  gas-­‐factory	
  complex	
  [figure	
  52].387	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
386	
  Jim	
  Friant,	
  “Van	
  Gogh	
  Painting	
  Shows	
  a	
  Glasshouse,”	
  The	
  Glass	
  Club	
  Bulletin	
  (Fall/Winter	
  2008):	
  
21-­‐23.	
  See	
  also:	
  Julien	
  Turgan,	
  Les	
  grandes	
  usines:	
  etudes	
  industrielles	
  en	
  France	
  et	
  a	
  l’étranger,	
  vol.	
  
12	
  (Paris:	
  Calman	
  Lévy,	
  Libraire-­‐Éditeur,	
  1879)	
  239.	
  http://cnum.cnam.fr/CGI/redire.cgi?4KY15.	
  Cette	
  
industrie	
  produit	
  annuellement	
  pour	
  105	
  million	
  de	
  francs	
  d’objets	
  fabriqués.	
  Son	
  exportation	
  est	
  de	
  
35	
  millions.	
  Son	
  exportation	
  est	
  de	
  35	
  millions	
  (In	
  the	
  1870s,	
  the	
  glass	
  industry	
  as	
  a	
  whole	
  generated	
  
105	
  million	
  objects	
  annually	
  and	
  exported	
  35	
  million).	
  For	
  more	
  in	
  Turgan,	
  see	
  Rubin,	
  chapter	
  5.	
  	
  

387	
  Friant	
  21.	
  	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

199	
  

Factory	
  at	
  Clichy	
  includes	
  both	
  an	
  outdated	
  wooden	
  glass	
  house	
  on	
  the	
  left	
  and	
  a	
  

newer	
  brick	
  and	
  iron	
  building	
  in	
  the	
  center.	
  The	
  smokestacks	
  are	
  also	
  brick,	
  which	
  

indicates	
   that	
   parts	
   of	
   the	
   factory	
   are	
   older	
   since	
   newer	
   factories	
   included	
   metal	
  

smokestacks.	
  Analogous	
  to	
  his	
  peasant	
   images	
  of	
  the	
  Butte,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  included	
  a	
  

traditionally	
  functioning	
  glass	
  house	
  and	
  the	
  contemporary	
  changes	
  to	
  the	
  system,	
  

juxtaposing	
   both	
   the	
   artisanal	
   and	
   manufacturing	
   production	
   of	
   glass. 388 	
  The	
  

monochromatic	
  figure	
  on	
  the	
  path	
  and	
  the	
  two	
  barely	
  discernable	
  figures	
  on	
  the	
  

glass	
   heap	
   to	
   the	
   left	
   are	
   similar	
   to	
   the	
   small-­‐scale	
   farmers	
   who	
   are	
   pictorially	
  

entangled	
  in	
  the	
  factory	
  environment	
  providing	
  a	
  product	
  to	
  which	
  few	
  in	
  the	
  area	
  

had	
  access.	
  	
  	
  

In	
  both	
  Factories	
  at	
  Clichy	
  and	
  Factory	
  at	
  Clichy,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  emphasized	
  the	
  

emissions	
   wafting	
   into	
   the	
   atmosphere	
   above	
   Clichy,	
   symbolizing	
   the	
   labor	
  

happening	
  within	
  the	
  factories.	
  Foul	
  odor	
  due	
  to	
  industry	
  and	
  waste	
  indicated	
  an	
  

unhealthy	
   environment	
   and	
   those	
   who	
   could	
   afford	
   to,	
   lived	
   further	
   away	
   from	
  

cesspools	
   or	
   a	
   concentration	
   of	
   factories.	
   In	
   1886,	
   Louis	
   Barron,	
   author	
   of	
   Les	
  

Environs	
  de	
  Paris	
  (1886),	
  aimed	
  to	
  attract	
  people	
  to	
  Asnières	
  and	
  noted	
  that	
  Clichy	
  

was	
  a	
  “collector	
  sewer”	
  of	
  the	
  Seine	
  and	
  to	
  not	
  “fear	
  the	
  odors”	
  coming	
  from	
  Clichy,	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
388	
  According	
  to	
  Friant,	
  there	
  are	
  a	
  number	
  of	
  annealing	
  (cooling)	
  ovens	
  held	
  in	
  the	
  sheds	
  adjacent	
  to	
  
the	
   main	
   structures,	
   indicating	
   that	
   the	
   factory’s	
   products	
   would	
   have	
   varied.	
   Glassware	
   was	
  
transported	
  in	
  crates,	
  similar	
  to	
  the	
  wooden	
  crate	
  on	
  the	
  left.	
  Heaps	
  of	
  broken	
  vessels	
  piled	
  around	
  
the	
  factory’s	
  grounds,	
  such	
  as	
  the	
  vase-­‐like	
  vessel	
  that	
  appears	
  on	
  the	
  ground	
  on	
  the	
  left.	
  	
  	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

200	
  

those	
  “full	
  of	
  coal	
  dust	
  spread	
  by	
  workers	
  unloading	
  barges,	
  bordered	
  by	
  factories	
  

covered	
  by	
  soot…”389	
  To	
  emphasize	
  the	
  smog,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  constructed	
  the	
  perspective	
  

in	
   Factories	
   of	
   Clichy	
   from	
   above,	
   which	
   is	
   similar	
   to	
   the	
   perspective	
   found	
   in	
  

Constable’s	
  landscape	
  images.	
  Unlike	
  Factory	
  at	
  Clichy	
  and	
  the	
  allotment	
  images	
  in	
  

which	
  the	
  path	
  is	
  a	
  central	
  compositional	
  element	
  fostering	
  a	
  sympathetic	
  view	
  of	
  

the	
   laborer,	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   did	
   not	
   include	
   a	
   path	
   in	
   Factories	
   in	
   Clichy.	
   Instead,	
   he	
  

created	
  a	
  hierarchical	
  perspective	
  over	
  the	
  grasslands	
  and	
  the	
  never-­‐ending	
  horizon	
  

of	
  factories.	
  The	
  artist	
  problematized	
  the	
  utopic	
  ideal	
  of	
  a	
  landowner’s	
  prideful	
  view.	
  

The	
  vantage	
  point	
  serves	
  to	
  emphasize	
  the	
  unpleasant	
  effects	
  of	
  industry,	
  and	
  the	
  

less-­‐than	
   ideal	
   environment	
   of	
   those	
   working	
   in	
   Clichy.	
   The	
   couple	
   views	
   an	
  

industrial	
  landscape	
  literally	
  produced	
  at	
  the	
  expense	
  of	
  the	
  laborer’s	
  body	
  and	
  life.	
  

In	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  landscape,	
  the	
  worker	
  creates	
  the	
  horizon,	
  not	
  nature,	
  and	
  thus	
  the	
  

couple’s	
  point-­‐of-­‐view	
  acknowledges	
  the	
  labor	
  of	
  those	
  who	
  mine	
  and	
  stoke	
  amid	
  a	
  

complicated	
  time	
  of	
  industrial	
  progress	
  in	
  gas	
  and	
  protest	
  against	
  coal	
  companies,	
  

and	
  during	
  reform	
  measures	
  for	
  the	
  labor	
  class	
  in	
  a	
  socialist	
  commune.	
  	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
389	
  Louis	
  Barron	
  quoted	
  in	
  Rubin	
  87-­‐88.	
  See	
  also:	
  Barrie	
  M.	
  Ratcliff,	
  “Cities	
  and	
  environmental	
  decline:	
  
elites	
   and	
   the	
   sewage	
   problem	
   in	
   Paris	
   from	
   the	
   mid-­‐eighteenth	
   to	
   the	
   mid-­‐nineteenth	
   century,”	
  
International	
   Planning	
   History	
   5	
   (1990):	
   190.	
   Parisians	
   related	
   unpleasant	
   smells	
   as	
   a	
   danger	
   to	
  
public-­‐health.	
  Parisians	
  connected	
  odor	
  as	
  a	
  sign	
  of	
  pollution	
  since	
  the	
  beginning	
  of	
  the	
  nineteenth	
  
century	
   when	
   city	
   officials	
   began	
   planning	
   to	
   move	
   the	
   sewer	
   system	
   outside	
   the	
   city	
   limits	
   to	
  
eliminate	
  the	
  smell	
  of	
  decaying	
  waste.	
  

	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

201	
  

A	
   decade	
   prior,	
   Claude	
   Monet	
   painted	
   Men	
   Unloading	
   Coal	
   (1873-­‐1875)	
  

[figure	
  53]	
  from	
  the	
  base	
  of	
  the	
  bridge	
  from	
  Clichy	
  to	
  Asniéres.390	
  Shadowy	
  figures	
  

walk	
  up	
  and	
  down	
  planks	
  unloading	
  coal	
  onto	
  the	
  banks	
  of	
  Clichy.	
  Marching	
  up	
  to	
  

the	
  docks	
  and	
  back	
  to	
  the	
  barge,	
  they	
  work	
  under	
  overcast	
  skies	
  and	
  before	
  Clichy’s	
  

landscape	
  of	
  factory	
  chimneys.	
  Monet	
  literally	
  framed	
  the	
  figures	
  with	
  industry:	
  the	
  

bridge,	
  line	
  of	
  barges,	
  smokestacks,	
  and	
  planks	
  surround	
  the	
  workers	
  who,	
  trapped	
  

in	
  a	
  world	
  of	
  industry,	
  laboriously	
  unload	
  coal.	
  In	
  the	
  mid-­‐1880s,	
  PGC	
  transported	
  

coal	
  by	
  barge	
  on	
  the	
  Seine	
  as	
  well,	
  but	
  cranes	
  over	
  the	
  river	
  hauled	
  the	
  resource	
  into	
  

the	
  factory	
  complex.	
  From	
  the	
  point-­‐of-­‐view	
  of	
  the	
  same	
  Bridge	
  of	
  Asnières,	
  where	
  

Van	
  Gogh	
  and	
  Bernard	
  sat	
  along	
  the	
  banks	
  of	
  the	
  Seine	
  [figure	
  54],	
  they	
  painted	
  the	
  

river,	
  with	
  the	
  newly	
  built	
  smokestacks	
  of	
  L’Usine	
  à	
  gaz	
  de	
  Clichy	
  in	
  the	
  background.	
  

Van	
  Gogh’s	
  Le	
  Pont	
  à	
  Asnières	
  (summer	
  1887)	
  [figure	
  55]	
  shows	
  the	
  bridge	
  reaching	
  

out	
   across	
   the	
   Seine,	
   south-­‐west	
   towards	
   Clichy.391	
  Three	
   boaters	
   maneuver	
   the	
  

Seine’s	
   waters;	
   the	
   factory	
   punctuates	
   the	
   landscape	
   generating	
   the	
   gas	
   flaming	
  

within	
  the	
  lighting	
  fixtures	
  installed	
  across	
  the	
  bridge.	
  At	
  the	
  foot	
  of	
  the	
  bridge	
  on	
  

the	
  banks	
  of	
  Clichy,	
  a	
  circular	
  form	
  rises	
  in	
  the	
  far	
  left	
  side,	
  emulating	
  the	
  scaffold	
  

shape	
  surrounding	
  the	
  gas	
  tanks,	
  similar	
  to	
  those	
  Signac	
  depicted	
  in	
  The	
  Gas	
  Tanks	
  

at	
   Clichy	
   (1886)	
   [figure	
   56].	
   In	
   Le	
   Pont	
   d’Asnières,	
   the	
   bridge,	
   lined	
   with	
   glass-­‐

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
390	
  Rubin	
  88-­‐89.	
  	
  

391	
  Welsh-­‐Ovcharov,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  à	
  Paris	
  42.	
  	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

202	
  

covered	
  gaslights,	
  pictorially	
  connects	
  to	
  the	
  company	
  that	
  provided	
  the	
  resource	
  to	
  

light	
  the	
  bridge.	
  	
  

On	
   the	
   same	
   bridge,	
   Bernard	
   depicted	
   Vue	
   du	
   pont	
   d’Asnières	
   (late	
   1887)	
  

[figure	
  57],	
  a	
  scene	
  from	
  the	
  top	
  of	
  the	
  bridge	
  that	
  explicitly	
  connects	
  the	
  emissions	
  

rising	
  from	
  L’Usine	
  à	
  gaz	
  and	
  the	
  pollution	
  seeping	
  into	
  the	
  Seine.	
  By	
  mid-­‐century,	
  

the	
  Seine	
  had	
  become	
  a	
  polluted	
  river	
  due	
  to	
  industrial	
  dumping.392	
  	
  The	
  byproducts	
  

of	
  refining	
  coal	
  to	
  gas	
  were	
  an	
  essential	
  economic	
  development	
  in	
  the	
  success	
  of	
  

PGC.	
  393	
  Chemical	
  manufacturers	
  purchased	
  ammonia	
  water,	
  for	
   instance,	
  but	
  PGC	
  

dumped	
  much	
  of	
  into	
  the	
  Seine.	
  In	
  Bernard’s	
  image,	
  two	
  barges	
  appear:	
  an	
  empty	
  

barge	
  moving	
  away	
  from	
  the	
  factory	
  that	
  was	
  just	
  unloaded,	
  and	
  another	
  docked	
  

alongside	
   the	
   cranes	
   waiting	
   to	
   be	
   emptied.	
   Smoke	
   calligraphically	
   swirls	
   south	
  

toward	
  Clichy	
  and	
  its	
  inhabitants	
  as	
  the	
  current	
  moves	
  south-­‐east	
  carrying	
  a	
  tide	
  in	
  a	
  

color	
  and	
  form	
  that	
  relates	
  to	
  the	
  chimney’s	
  plumes,	
  indicating	
  the	
  direct	
  effect	
  of	
  

industry	
   on	
   the	
   waterway.	
   Although	
   the	
   two	
   lower-­‐class	
   women	
   occupy	
   the	
  

foreground	
  as	
  they	
  traverse	
  the	
  bridge	
  from	
  Clichy	
  to	
  Asnières,	
  the	
  coal	
  barge	
  floats	
  

in	
   the	
   Seine	
   in	
   the	
   center	
   point	
   of	
   the	
   picture	
   plane,	
   emphasizing	
   the	
   barge’s	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
392	
  Ratcliff	
  200-­‐201.	
  

393	
  Berlanstein,	
  Big	
  Business	
  138-­‐139.	
  Organic	
  dye,	
  an	
  industry	
  that	
  developed	
  alongside	
  that	
  of	
  the	
  
gas,	
  used	
  coal	
  tar.	
  The	
  artificial	
  dye	
  company	
  also	
  developed	
  during	
  mid-­‐century,	
  making	
  use	
  of	
  PGC’s	
  
aniline,	
  a	
  byproduct	
  created	
  by	
  refining	
  the	
  coal-­‐tar	
  itself.	
  In	
  the	
  early	
  years	
  of	
  PGC	
  much	
  of	
  the	
  tar	
  
was	
   thrown	
   away.	
   Ammonia	
   water,	
   for	
   example,	
   was	
   a	
   byproduct	
   derived	
   during	
   coal’s	
   purifying	
  
process.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

203	
  

prominence	
  in	
  the	
  day-­‐to-­‐day	
  life	
  on	
  Seine	
  in	
  Clichy.	
  Similarly,	
  Signac	
  depicted	
  the	
  

cranes	
  of	
  the	
  L’Usine	
  à	
  gaz	
  from	
  both	
  the	
  banks	
  of	
  Asnières	
  and	
  Clichy	
  in	
  Asnières,	
  

Ponton	
  et	
  Grues	
  (1885)	
  and	
  Quai	
  de	
  Clichy.	
  Temps	
  Gris	
  (1887).394	
  His	
  images	
  depict	
  

the	
  Seine	
  as	
  an	
  expanse	
  of	
  water,	
  the	
  cranes	
  of	
  L’Usine	
  à	
  gaz	
  lurching	
  over	
  its	
  banks.	
  

From	
   the	
   Asnières	
   side,	
   chimneys	
   rise	
   up	
   from	
   Clichy’s	
   factory	
   complex	
   in	
   the	
  

background,	
  and,	
  from	
  the	
  Clichy	
  banks,	
  Asnières’s	
  tree-­‐lined	
  banks	
  extend	
  into	
  the	
  

horizon.	
  

Through	
  motifs	
  of	
  the	
  Seine,	
  smokestacks,	
  cranes	
  and	
  gaslights,	
  Van	
  Gogh,	
  

Bernard,	
  and	
  Signac	
  emphasized	
  the	
  company’s	
  pervasive	
  infrastructure	
  within	
  the	
  

lives	
   of	
   the	
   laborer	
   and	
   the	
   residents	
   of	
   Clichy.	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   particular	
   ability	
   to	
  

visually	
  make	
  connections	
  between	
  old	
  and	
  new,	
  gas	
  and	
  glass	
  products,	
  labor	
  and	
  

class,	
   indicate	
   that	
   the	
   landscape	
   of	
   Clichy	
   symbolized	
   the	
   shifting	
   needs	
   of	
   a	
  

metropolis.	
   As	
   a	
   production-­‐focused	
   commune,	
   Clichy	
   was	
   home	
   to	
   the	
   working-­‐

class	
   laborers	
   during	
   a	
   time	
   of	
   strife.	
   Van	
   Gogh,	
   Bernard,	
   and	
   Signac’s	
   respective	
  

approaches	
  contrast	
  Pissarro’s	
  Pontoise	
  landscapes.	
  Pontoise	
  was	
  historically	
  a	
  rural	
  

area,	
   but	
   when	
   Pissarro	
   arrived	
   in	
   1866,	
   it	
   was	
   becoming	
   an	
   industrial	
   area.	
  395	
  

Located	
   45	
   minutes	
   by	
   train	
   from	
   Paris,	
   Pontoise’s	
   agricultural	
   terrain	
   had	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
394	
  Welsh-­‐Ovcharov,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  à	
  Paris	
  200	
  and	
  298.	
  Unfortunately,	
  Signac’s	
  images	
  are	
  not	
  available	
  
in	
  color	
  and	
  are	
  held	
  in	
  private	
  collections.	
  	
  

395 	
  Richard	
   Brettell,	
   “Pissarro,	
   Cézanne	
   and	
   the	
   School	
   of	
   Pontoise,”	
   A	
   Day	
   in	
   the	
   Country:	
  
Impressionism	
   and	
   the	
   French	
   Landscape	
  (New	
   York,	
   New	
   York:	
   Harry	
   N.	
   Abrams,	
   Inc.,	
   Publishers,	
  
1984)	
  175.	
  	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

204	
  

modernized	
  to	
  provide	
  an	
  array	
  of	
  produce	
  to	
  the	
  Parisian	
  market,	
  and	
  sugar	
  and	
  

paint	
   factories	
   had	
   supplanted	
   some	
   of	
   the	
   pastoral	
   areas	
   along	
   the	
   Oise	
   River,	
  

which	
   was	
   dredged	
   to	
   transport	
   goods	
   via	
   the	
   Seine	
   to	
   the	
   capital.	
   Pissarro’s	
  

Pontoise	
   imagery	
   rarely	
   included	
   signs	
   of	
   industry.396	
  Instead,	
   Pissarro	
   aimed	
   to	
  

study	
   the	
   village-­‐like	
   character	
   of	
   this	
   once	
   rural	
   town.	
   Pissarro’s	
   Factories	
   near	
  

Pontoise	
  (1873)	
  [figure	
  58]	
  is	
  an	
  example,	
  but	
  the	
  Seine	
  and	
  surrounding	
  greenery	
  

remains	
  untouched	
  by	
  the	
  effects	
  of	
  industry.	
  Van	
  Gogh,	
  Bernard,	
  and	
  Signac,	
  did	
  

not	
  include	
  a	
  factory	
  within	
  a	
  landscape.	
  Instead,	
  the	
  painters	
  used	
  the	
  factory	
  to	
  

shape	
  the	
  industrial	
  horizon,	
  and	
  underpin	
  the	
  environment	
  on	
  the	
  Seine	
  in	
  Clichy.	
  

	
  

Conclusion	
  

While	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   imagery	
   of	
   the	
   Butte	
   maintained	
   a	
   rural	
   depiction	
   of	
  

Montmartre,	
  the	
  segmented	
  plots	
  relate	
  to	
  the	
  contemporary	
  debates	
  of	
  land	
  issues	
  

among	
  socialists.	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  industrial	
  images	
  of	
  the	
  banlieue	
  propose	
  connections	
  

among	
   issues	
   surrounding	
   labor,	
   class,	
   and	
   environment.	
   Rather	
   than	
   depict	
   a	
  

straight-­‐forward	
   image	
   of	
   back-­‐breaking	
   labor,	
   he	
   provided	
   the	
   experience	
   of	
  

walking	
   through	
   allotments,	
   fortifications,	
   and	
   glass	
   factories.	
   By	
   drawing	
  

associations	
   among	
   industries,	
   such	
   as	
   coal,	
   gas,	
   and	
   glass,	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   aimed	
   to	
  

depict	
   the	
   lived	
   experience	
   of	
   a	
   working-­‐class	
   observer,	
   one	
   walking	
   through	
   the	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
396	
  Brettell	
  179.	
  	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

205	
  

Commune	
  or	
  working	
  there.	
  An	
  upper-­‐class	
  spectator	
  may	
  witness	
  the	
  fashionable	
  

cafés	
   Manet	
   depicted,	
   but	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   provided	
   a	
   lower-­‐class	
   lens,	
   enabling	
   the	
  

viewer	
  to	
  consider	
  a	
  laborer’s	
  perspective.	
  

Montmartre:	
   Windmills	
   and	
   Allotments,	
   Vegetable	
   Gardens,	
   Factories	
   at	
  

Clichy,	
  and	
  Factory	
  at	
  Clichy	
  represent	
  adjacent	
  areas	
  on	
  either	
  side	
  of	
  Paris’s	
  border	
  

that	
  deliver	
  products	
  to	
  the	
  city’s	
  center.	
  Through	
  this	
  imagery,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  created	
  

connections	
  among	
  the	
  agricultural,	
  gas,	
  and	
  glass	
   industries,	
  and	
  depicted	
  small-­‐

scale	
  figures	
  enmeshed	
  within	
  the	
  rapidly	
  changing	
  environment	
  on	
  the	
  periphery	
  of	
  

the	
   capital.	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   images	
   complicate	
   traditional	
   paintings	
   of	
   farming	
   and	
  

factory	
   work	
   by	
   indicating	
   that	
   agricultural	
   and	
   factory	
   processes	
   were	
   changing	
  

rapidly	
   during	
   the	
   1880s.	
   Living	
   in	
   Montmartre,	
   an	
   arrondissement	
   rich	
   with	
   an	
  

artistic	
  culture,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  sought	
  out	
  the	
  rural,	
  labor-­‐intensive	
  aspects	
  that	
  shaped	
  

the	
   modern	
   landscape.	
   The	
   artist	
   preserved	
   artisanal	
   methods	
   of	
   agricultural	
   and	
  

industrial	
   production,	
   included	
   new	
   factory	
   practices,	
   and	
   considered	
   the	
  

nineteenth-­‐century	
   laborer	
   as	
   a	
   figure	
   sequestered	
   within	
   his	
   or	
   her	
   respective	
  

realm.	
   Between	
   foreshortened	
   perspective	
   and	
   suggestive	
   color,	
   the	
   paintings	
  

symbolically	
   convey	
   the	
   experience	
   of	
   a	
   working-­‐class	
   person.	
   The	
   viewer	
   is	
   not	
  

necessarily	
  looking	
  at	
  images	
  of	
  work	
  but	
  through	
  the	
  lens	
  of	
  peasants	
  in	
  a	
  field,	
  a	
  

couple	
  in	
  the	
  banlieue,	
  or	
  a	
  factory	
  worker	
  in	
  his	
  complex.	
  The	
  relationship	
  between	
  

the	
  landscape	
  and	
  the	
  peasants	
  and	
  factory	
  workers	
  shows	
  that	
  they	
  exist	
  within	
  a	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

206	
  

cycle	
  of	
  supply	
  and	
  demand	
  that	
  absorbs	
  them	
  into	
  the	
  landscape	
  and	
  keeps	
  them	
  

connected	
   to	
   the	
   city	
   through	
   their	
   physical	
   labor	
   or	
   the	
   commodity	
   their	
   work	
  

provides.	
  For	
  Van	
  Gogh,	
  labor	
  shaped	
  the	
  modern	
  landscape.	
  

	
  
	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

207	
  

CHAPTER	
  5:	
  SYMBOLISM	
  IN	
  PARIS	
  
	
  
 
“I	
  am	
  leaving	
  tomorrow,”	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  told	
  Bernard	
  on	
  the	
  eve	
  of	
  his	
  departure	
  

from	
  Paris,	
  “[and]	
  we	
  must	
  arrange	
  the	
  apartment	
  so	
  that	
  my	
  brother	
  will	
  feel	
  that	
  I	
  

am	
   still	
   with	
   him.”397	
  In	
   the	
   rue	
   Lepic	
   apartment,	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   and	
   Bernard	
   hung	
  

Japanese	
  prints	
  on	
  the	
  walls,	
  placed	
  some	
  of	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  paintings	
  on	
  easels,	
  and	
  left	
  

a	
  stack	
  of	
  canvases.	
  The	
  friends	
  walked	
  through	
  Montmartre	
  and	
  shook	
  hands	
  on	
  

the	
  Boulevard	
  de	
  Clichy—the	
  petit	
  boulevard	
  as	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  called	
  it—and	
  that	
  was	
  

the	
  last	
  time	
  they	
  saw	
  each	
  other.	
  Almost	
  two	
  years	
  since	
  coming	
  to	
  Paris,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  

left	
  on	
  February	
  19th,	
  1888,	
  and	
  arrived	
  in	
  Arles	
  two	
  days	
  later.	
  

Van	
  Gogh	
  moved	
  south	
  because	
  Paris	
  had	
  become	
  overwhelming	
  for	
  him.	
  

Théo,	
  too,	
  felt	
  the	
  strain	
  of	
  their	
  living	
  arrangement.398	
  The	
  painter	
  hoped	
  to	
  build	
  

the	
   artist	
   collective	
   that	
   he	
   had	
   been	
   trying	
   to	
   foster	
   through	
   the	
   exhibitions	
   he	
  

arranged	
   in	
   Paris,	
   and	
   thought	
   that	
   Arles	
   would	
   be	
   conducive	
   to	
   his	
   community-­‐

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
397	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  quoted	
  in	
  Émile	
  Bernard,	
  “Preface	
  to	
  the	
  Letters	
  of	
  Bernard,”	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  in	
  Perspective,	
  
ed.	
  Bogomila	
  Welsh-­‐Ovcharov	
  (Englewood	
  Cliffs,	
  New	
  Jersey:	
  Prentice	
  Hall,	
  Inc.,	
  1974)	
  40-­‐41.	
  	
  

398	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  577	
  to	
  Théo	
  from	
  Arles	
  on	
  Tuesday,	
  February	
  21,	
  1888.	
  “It	
  seems	
  to	
  me	
  
almost	
  impossible	
  to	
  be	
  able	
  to	
  work	
  in	
  Paris,	
  unless	
  you	
  have	
  a	
  refuge	
  in	
  which	
  to	
  recover	
  and	
  regain	
  
your	
  peace	
  of	
  mind	
  and	
  self-­‐composure.	
  Without	
  that,	
  you’d	
  be	
  bound	
  to	
  get	
  utterly	
  numbed.”	
  On	
  
the	
  date	
  of	
  his	
  departure,	
  see	
  note	
  1.	
  Théo	
  wrote	
  letter	
  FR	
  b908	
  to	
  Willemien	
  from	
  Paris	
  on	
  March	
  
14,	
   1887	
   (http://vangoghletters.org/vg/documentation.html).	
   At	
   this	
   point,	
   Théo	
   was	
   certain	
   that	
  
Vincent	
  would	
  eventually	
  sell	
  his	
  canvases,	
  and	
  he	
  wanted	
  to	
  support	
  his	
  brother	
  financially.	
  Living	
  
together	
  posed	
  some	
  inter-­‐personal	
  problems	
  between	
  the	
  brothers.	
  Théo	
  wrote	
  to	
  Wil	
  that	
  Vincent	
  
was	
  messy	
  and	
  argued	
  with	
  guests.	
  Théo	
  did	
  not	
  enjoy	
  living	
  with	
  his	
  brother	
  and	
  wanted	
  him	
  to	
  find	
  
a	
  place	
  to	
  live	
  on	
  his	
  own,	
  which	
  would	
  take	
  another	
  year.	
  	
  

	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

208	
  

minded	
  goals.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  felt,	
  in	
  Bernard’s	
  words,	
  that	
  “it	
  is	
  in	
  the	
  south	
  of	
  France	
  

that	
  it	
  is	
  now	
  necessary	
  to	
  found	
  the	
  artists’	
  workshop	
  of	
  the	
  future.”399	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  

also	
  sought	
  the	
  brighter,	
  richer	
  colors	
  of	
  the	
  terrain	
  of	
  southern	
  France,	
  which	
  would	
  

allow	
  him	
  to	
  generate	
  the	
  saturated	
  hues	
  that	
  were,	
  according	
  to	
  him,	
   in	
  market	
  

demand.400	
  Living	
  alone	
  during	
  his	
  first	
  summer	
  in	
  Arles,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  produced	
  some	
  

of	
   the	
   most	
   captivating	
   works	
   of	
   his	
   painting	
   career,	
   such	
   as	
   Sower	
   (June	
   1888),	
  

Fourteen	
  Sunflowers	
  in	
  a	
  Vase	
  (August	
  1888),	
  Terrace	
  of	
  a	
  Café	
  at	
  Night	
  (September	
  

1888)	
   and	
   The	
   Night	
   Café	
   (September	
   1888)	
   [figures	
   1-­‐4].	
   Through	
   the	
   subject	
  

matter	
   of	
   a	
   biblical	
   figure	
   inspired	
   by	
   Jean-­‐François	
   Millet,	
   a	
   flower	
   still-­‐life,	
   and	
  

modern	
   night-­‐life,	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   developed	
   a	
   unique	
   painterly	
   voice.	
   He	
   created	
  

contrasts	
   between	
   lush,	
   intense	
   colors—Prussian	
   blue,	
   chrome	
   yellow,	
   emerald	
  

green,	
   vermilion	
   red,	
   orange	
   lead401 —and	
   painted	
   with	
   controlled,	
   yet	
   highly	
  

expressive,	
  layered	
  brushwork.	
  	
  

Scholars	
  typically mark	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  shift	
  to	
  a	
  Symbolist	
  aesthetic	
  in	
  the	
  visual	
  

arts	
   during	
   the	
   early	
   Arlesian	
   period.	
   Deborah	
   Silverman	
   argues	
   that	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
399	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  quoted	
  in	
  Bernard,	
  “Preface	
  to	
  the	
  Letters	
  of	
  Bernard,”	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  in	
  Perspective	
  41.	
  

400	
  Van	
   Gogh	
   wrote	
   letter	
   579	
   to	
   Wil	
   from	
   Arles	
   on	
   February	
   24,	
   1888.	
   “You	
   see	
   that	
   I’ve	
   gone	
  
somewhat	
  further	
  to	
  the	
  south—I’ve	
  seen	
  only	
  too	
  clearly	
  that	
  I	
  cannot	
  prosper	
  with	
  either	
  my	
  work	
  
or	
  my	
  health	
  in	
  the	
  winter—moreover,	
  nowadays	
  people	
  are	
  demanding	
  colour	
  contrasts	
  and	
  highly	
  
intense	
  and	
  variegated	
  colours	
  in	
  paintings	
  rather	
  than	
  a	
  subdued	
  grey	
  colour.	
  So	
  I	
  thought	
  for	
  one	
  
reason	
  and	
  another	
  that	
  I	
  wouldn’t	
  do	
  anyone	
  any	
  harm	
  if	
  I	
  just	
  went	
  to	
  what	
  attracted	
  me.”	
  

401	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  593	
  to	
  Théo	
  from	
  Arles	
  on	
  Thursday,	
  April	
  5,	
  1888.	
  	
  

	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

209	
  

Sower,	
  painted	
  during	
  his	
  first	
  summer	
  in	
  Arles,	
   indicates	
  this	
  transition.402	
  Sower,	
  

Silverman	
  notes,	
  conveys	
  powerful	
  color	
  and	
  animated	
  brushwork	
  to	
  express	
  what	
  

could	
  be	
  an	
  explicit	
  parable	
  figure	
  in	
  a	
  specific	
  location,	
  in	
  a	
  universal	
  way.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  

moved	
   away	
   from	
   a	
   realistic	
   story-­‐telling	
   agenda—which	
   he	
   employed	
   in,	
   for	
  

example,	
  The	
  Potato	
  Eaters	
  (1885)	
  [figure	
  5]—and	
  considered	
  the	
  ways	
  in	
  which	
  the	
  

painterly	
   components	
   engage	
   the	
   spectator’s	
   senses.	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   reliance	
   on	
  

intensified	
  color	
  and	
  indirect	
  references	
  to	
  foster	
  viewer	
  participation	
  suggests	
  that	
  

the	
   painter	
   recognized	
   the	
   canvas’s	
   ability	
   to	
   provide	
   the	
   viewer	
   an	
   imaginative	
  

experience.	
  For	
  Silverman,	
  this	
  experience	
  is	
  spiritual.	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  

Recognizing	
  an	
  imaginative	
  escape	
  depends	
  upon	
  perceiving	
  the	
  world	
  in	
  two	
  

realms.	
  This	
  perspective	
  is	
  based	
  on	
  critic	
  and	
  poet	
  Charles	
  Baudelaire’s	
  The	
  Painter	
  

of	
  Modern	
  Life	
  (1863)	
  in	
  which	
  he	
  defined	
  Beauty	
  in	
  two	
  components:	
  the	
  material	
  

world	
  and	
  an	
  eternal	
  world	
  that	
  exists	
  beyond	
  the	
  tangible.403	
  An	
  imaginative	
  escape	
  

before	
  a	
  work	
  of	
  art	
  allows	
  the	
  spectator	
  to	
  become	
  free	
  from	
  the	
  material	
  world’s	
  

restraints—monotony,	
  banality,	
  or	
  bourgeois	
  attitudes—and	
  experience	
  an	
  eternal,	
  

invisible	
   realm	
   beyond	
   the	
   transitory.	
   Privileging	
   the	
   canvas’s	
   effect	
   on	
   the	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
402	
  Deborah	
  Silverman,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  and	
  Gauguin:	
  The	
  Search	
  for	
  the	
  Sacred	
  in	
  Art	
  (New	
  York,	
  New	
  York:	
  
Farrar,	
  Straus	
  and	
  Giroux,	
  2000)	
  49-­‐50,	
  78-­‐90.	
  See	
  also:	
  Toos	
  van	
  Kooten	
  and	
  Mieke	
  Rijnders,	
  eds.	
  The	
  
Paintings	
  of	
  Vincent	
  van	
  Gogh	
  in	
  the	
  Collection	
  of	
  the	
  Kröller-­‐Müller	
  Museum	
  (Otterlo:	
  Kröller-­‐Müller	
  
Museum,	
  2003)	
  233-­‐237.	
  In	
  Paris,	
  the	
  École	
  des	
  Beaux-­‐Arts	
  held	
  a	
  Millet	
  exhibition	
  in	
  spring	
  1887.	
  	
  

403	
  Charles	
  Baudelaire,	
  “The	
  Painter	
  of	
  Modern	
  Life,”	
  The	
  Painter	
  of	
  Modern	
  Life	
  and	
  Other	
  Essays,	
  
trans.	
  and	
  ed.	
  Jonathan	
  Mayne	
  (London	
  and	
  New	
  York:	
  Phaidon	
  Press	
  Limited,	
  2001)	
  3.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

210	
  

spectator’s	
  senses	
  is	
  a	
  foundational	
  aspect	
  of	
  Symbolist	
  theory	
  and	
  a	
  principle	
  found	
  

in	
   the	
   work	
   of	
   Baudelaire	
   and	
   the	
   critics	
   and	
   poets	
   he	
   influenced,	
   namely	
  

Impressionist	
  critic	
  Stéphane	
  Mallarmé,	
  and	
  Neo-­‐Impressionist	
  critic	
  Félix	
  Fénéon.	
  

Mallarmé’s	
  and	
  Fénéon’s	
  assertions	
  built	
  on	
  those	
  of	
  Baudelaire	
  as	
  the	
  critics	
  argued	
  

that	
  the	
  picture	
  plane	
  is	
  a	
  means	
  to	
  a	
  unique	
  experience	
  standing	
  before	
  the	
  canvas.	
  

Baudelaire’s	
  influence	
  also	
  affected	
  the	
  perspective	
  of	
  G.-­‐Albert	
  Aurier,	
  who	
  in	
  1890	
  

was	
  the	
  first	
  critic	
  to	
  write	
  about	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  work	
  and	
  locate	
  the	
  artist	
  within	
  the	
  

Symbolist	
  aesthetic.	
  In	
  “Les	
  isolés—Vincent	
  van	
  Gogh,”	
  Aurier	
  articulated	
  how	
  Van	
  

Gogh’s	
  paintings,	
  namely	
  Sower	
  and	
  Starry	
  Night	
  (1889)	
  [figure	
  6],	
  ignited	
  the	
  critic’s	
  

imagination	
  and	
  led	
  his	
  mind	
  on	
  an	
  intense	
  journey.404	
  	
  

I	
  find	
  that	
  the	
  Symbolist	
  aspects	
  extolled	
  by	
  Aurier	
  and	
  those	
  that	
  Silverman	
  

points	
  out	
  in	
  Sower	
  that	
  lead	
  to	
  such	
  an	
  escape	
  are	
  also	
  at	
  work	
  in	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  Paris-­‐

period	
  canvases,	
  such	
  as	
  in	
  Park	
  in	
  Asnières	
  in	
  Spring	
  (spring	
  1887),	
  Patch	
  of	
  Grass	
  

(April-­‐June	
  1887),	
  Path	
  in	
  the	
  Woods	
  (May-­‐July	
  1887),	
  Exterior	
  of	
  a	
  Restaurant	
  at	
  

Asnières	
  (summer	
  1887),	
  and	
  The	
  Restaurant	
  de	
  la	
  Sirène,	
  Asnières	
  (summer	
  1887)	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
404	
  Sjraar	
  van	
  Heugten,	
  Joachim	
  Pissarro,	
  and	
  Chris	
  Stolwijk,	
  Eds.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  and	
  the	
  Colors	
  of	
  the	
  Night	
  
(The	
   Museum	
   of	
   Modern	
   Art	
   and	
   the	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   Museum,	
   2008)	
   17,	
   80-­‐85.	
   Artists	
   who	
   depicted	
  
imagery	
  at	
  night	
  needed	
  to	
  rely	
  on	
  their	
  imaginations	
  to	
  do	
  so.	
  Sjraar	
  notes	
  that	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  did	
  not	
  use	
  
an	
  under-­‐drawing	
  to	
  compose	
  Starry	
  Night	
  and	
  painted	
  directly	
  onto	
  the	
  canvas.	
  He	
  also	
  argues	
  that	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  did	
  not	
  have	
  an	
  “understanding	
  of	
  color	
  theories”	
  and	
  that	
  they	
  remained	
  “beyond	
   his	
  
grasp”	
  (81).	
  I	
  will	
  argue	
  that	
  the	
  color	
  theories	
  at	
  work	
  in	
  Starry	
  Night	
  can	
  be	
  found	
  in	
  some	
  of	
  Van	
  
Gogh’s	
  Paris-­‐period	
  imagery.	
  

	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

211	
  

[figures	
  7-­‐10].	
  In	
  these	
  canvases,	
  there	
  is	
  a	
  suggested	
  meaning	
  veiled	
  in	
  high-­‐keyed	
  

color	
   and	
   forceful	
   brushwork.	
   I	
   contend	
   that	
   the	
   Symbolist	
   compositional	
   devices	
  

Robert	
  Goldwater	
  deems	
  “nascent”	
  in	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  Paris-­‐period	
  paintings	
  are	
  more	
  

overt	
  than	
  has	
  been	
  previously	
  discussed.405	
  In	
  Goldwater’s	
  terms,	
  Symbolist	
  artists	
  

saw	
  emotional	
  ideas	
  as	
  a	
  priority,	
  making	
  the	
  subject	
  matter	
  secondary	
  to	
  a	
  means	
  

that	
   could	
   acknowledge	
   a	
   greater,	
   mind-­‐altering	
   goal.	
  406	
  The	
   subject	
   matter,	
   in	
  

some	
  sense,	
  is	
  a	
  vehicle	
  by	
  which	
  the	
  formal	
  qualities	
  convey	
  something	
  other	
  than	
  

a	
  theme	
  related	
  to	
  the	
  subject	
  itself.	
  For	
  instance,	
  in	
  The	
  Potato	
  Eaters,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  

depicted	
  the	
  figures	
  in	
  an	
  umber	
  hue	
  similar	
  to	
  the	
  color	
  of	
  dirt	
  to	
  make	
  an	
  analogy	
  

between	
  the	
  earth-­‐colored	
  complexions	
  of	
  the	
  peasants	
  and	
  the	
  ways	
  in	
  which	
  they	
  

sustain	
   their	
   family	
   through	
   a	
   potato	
   harvest. 407 	
  To	
   paint	
   within	
   a	
   Symbolist	
  

aesthetic	
   was	
   a	
   condition	
   of	
   the	
   mind,	
   a	
   perception	
   that	
   recognized	
   the	
   world’s	
  

duality	
   and	
   the	
   ways	
   in	
   which	
   an	
   imaginatively	
   generated	
   canvas	
   could	
   lead	
   the	
  

spectator	
  to	
  an	
  eternal,	
  universal	
  state	
  of	
  mind.	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  Paris-­‐period	
  canvases,	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
405	
  Robert	
  Goldwater,	
  Symbolism	
  (Boulder,	
  Colorado:	
  Westview	
  Press,	
  1979)	
  127-­‐129.	
  

406	
  Goldwater	
  7.	
  

407	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  Théo	
  letter	
  499	
  from	
  Nuenen	
  on	
  May	
  2,	
  1885.	
  “Now	
  the	
  flesh	
  tones—I	
  know	
  that	
  
on	
  a	
  superficial	
  examination,	
  that	
  is	
  if	
  you	
  don’t	
  think	
  it	
  through,	
  they	
  look	
  like	
  what	
  people	
  call	
  flesh	
  
color.	
  I	
  did	
  paint	
  them	
  that	
  way	
  at	
  the	
  beginning	
  of	
  the	
  painting—some	
  yellow	
  ochre,	
  red	
  ochre	
  and	
  
white,	
  for	
  example.	
  But	
  that	
  was	
  much	
  too	
  light	
  and	
  certainly	
  didn’t	
  do.	
  What	
  was	
  to	
  be	
  done?—I	
  had	
  
finished	
  all	
  the	
  heads	
  and	
  even	
  finished	
  them	
  with	
  great	
  care—but	
  I	
  quickly	
  repainted	
  them	
  without	
  
mercy,	
   and	
   the	
   color	
   they’re	
   painted	
   now	
   is	
   something	
   like	
   the	
   color	
   of	
   a	
   really	
   dusty	
   potato,	
  
unpeeled	
  of	
  course.”	
  

	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

212	
  

particularly	
   his	
   landscapes,	
   show	
   the	
   painter’s	
   Symbolist	
   attitude	
   toward	
   an	
  

expressive	
  painterly	
  vernacular	
  that	
  privileged	
  meaning	
  through	
  color	
  and	
  form.	
  Van	
  

Gogh’s	
   depiction	
   of	
   park	
   scenes,	
   for	
   instance,	
   indicates	
   his	
   reconsideration	
   of	
   a	
  

subject	
   as	
   it	
   lends	
   itself	
   to	
   painterly	
   exaggeration.	
   Unlike	
   The	
   Potato	
   Eaters,	
   the	
  

Paris-­‐period	
   paintings	
   do	
   not	
   rely	
   on	
   color	
   and	
   texture	
   to	
   clarify	
   subtext—the	
  

painter’s	
  tools,	
  such	
  as	
  brushes,	
  oil	
  paints,	
  and	
  hue,	
  suggest	
  meaning	
  aside	
  from	
  that	
  

of	
  the	
  scene	
  at	
  hand.	
  In	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  Paris-­‐period	
  canvases,	
  hue	
  and	
  texture	
  convey	
  

metaphors	
  of	
  the	
  relationship	
  among	
  a	
  painter’s	
  work,	
  experience	
  before	
  nature,	
  

and	
  imaginative	
  translation	
  of	
  the	
  material	
  world.	
  	
  

Moreover,	
  the	
  art-­‐historical	
  narrative	
  Goldwater	
  and	
  Naomi	
  Margolis	
  Mauer	
  

develop	
   to	
   explain	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   exposure	
   to	
   Symbolist	
   theory	
   begins	
   with	
   Paul	
  

Gauguin’s	
  visit	
  to	
  Arles	
  between	
  October	
  and	
  December	
  1888.	
  408	
  They	
  conclude	
  that	
  

during	
   this	
   two-­‐month	
   period,	
   the	
   French	
   painter	
   imparted	
   Symbolist	
   tenets,	
  

notably	
  depending	
  on	
  the	
  artist’s	
  imagination	
  rather	
  than	
  the	
  scene	
  before	
  him	
  to	
  

craft	
  an	
   image.	
  Connecting	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  engagement	
  with	
  Symbolism	
  to	
  Gauguin’s	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
408	
  Naomi	
  Margolis	
  Mauer,	
  The	
  Pursuit	
  of	
  Spiritual	
  Wisdom:	
  The	
  Thought	
  and	
  Art	
  of	
  Vincent	
  van	
  Gogh	
  
and	
  Paul	
  Gauguin	
  (Madison	
  and	
  Teaneck:	
  Fairleigh	
  Dickinson	
  University	
  Press,	
  1998)	
  79-­‐88.	
  Using	
  a	
  
quotation	
  from	
  Gauguin’s	
  journal,	
  Mauer	
  notes	
  that	
  Gauguin	
  felt	
  he	
  taught	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  to	
  paint	
  from	
  
his	
  imagination.	
  Mauer	
  underscores	
  that	
  we	
  have	
  no	
  way	
  of	
  knowing	
  if	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  would	
  agree,	
  and	
  
continues	
  to	
  argue	
  that	
  “it	
   is	
   indeed	
  clear	
  that	
  under	
  [Gauguin’s]	
  encouragement	
  Vincent	
  made	
  a	
  
brief	
   foray	
   into	
   painting	
   from	
   imagination	
   instead	
   of	
   from	
   the	
   scenes	
   around	
   him.”	
   See	
   also:	
  
Goldwater	
  128.	
  	
  

	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

213	
  

visit	
   solely	
   omits	
   significant	
   painterly	
   ideals	
   that	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   had	
   begun	
   in	
   The	
  

Netherlands	
   and	
   developed	
   in	
   Paris.	
   While	
   painting	
   from	
   memory	
   to	
   attain	
   a	
  

likeness	
  and	
  drafting	
  from	
  the	
  imagination	
  are	
  different	
  painterly	
  approaches,	
  Van	
  

Gogh	
  began	
  depending	
  on	
  his	
  memory	
  when	
  sketching	
  for	
  The	
  Potato	
  Eaters,	
  which	
  

led	
  to	
  his	
  ability	
  to	
  rely	
  on	
  his	
  inner	
  mind’s	
  esoteric	
  ideas	
  in	
  Paris.409	
  Depending	
  on	
  

memory	
  to	
  create	
  allowed	
  the	
  artist	
  to	
  have	
  an	
  energetic	
  spell,	
  and,	
  in	
  Baudelaire’s	
  

words,	
   to	
   experience	
   “a	
   fire,	
   an	
   intoxication	
   of	
   the	
   pencil	
   or	
   brush,	
   amounting	
  

almost	
  to	
  a	
  frenzy…ideal	
  execution,	
  may	
  become	
  as	
  unconscious	
  and	
  spontaneous	
  

as	
  digestion….”410	
  Drawing	
  from	
  memory	
  unfettered	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  mind	
  and	
  freed	
  him	
  

from	
  wondering	
  if	
  he	
  was	
  achieving	
  a	
  likeness	
  or	
  hesitating	
  before	
  the	
  canvas.	
  	
  

Although	
  Symbolist	
  aesthetics	
   in	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  painting	
  practice	
  did	
  not	
  fully	
  

culminate	
  until	
  the	
  summer	
  of	
  1888,	
  constructing	
  Gauguin	
  as	
  a	
  mythical	
  sage	
  and	
  

Van	
  Gogh	
  as	
  a	
  receptor	
  circumvents	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  Paris-­‐period	
  works	
  that	
  lead	
  from	
  

the	
  palette	
  and	
  paint	
  application	
  of	
  Impressionist	
  and	
  Neo-­‐Impressionist	
  canvases.	
  

Van	
  Gogh’s	
  paintings	
  include	
  the	
  avant-­‐garde	
  compositional	
  strategies	
  that	
  set	
  his	
  

painting	
  practice	
  on	
  a	
  Symbolist	
  course.	
  Gauguin	
  was	
  somewhat	
  absent	
  when	
  Van	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
409	
  Mark	
   A.	
   Cheetham,	
   “Mystical	
   Memories:	
   Gauguin’s	
   Neoplatonism	
   and	
   ‘Abstraction’	
   in	
   Late-­‐
Nineteenth-­‐Century	
  French	
  Painting,”	
  Art	
  Journal	
  46,	
  no.	
  1	
  (Spring,	
  1987):	
  15-­‐21.	
  Cheetham	
  attributes	
  
Gauguin’s	
  move	
  toward	
  abstraction	
  in	
  1888	
  to	
  the	
  importance	
  the	
  artist	
  placed	
  on	
  memory.	
  For	
  a	
  
discussion	
  of	
  Baudelaire’s	
  ideas	
  on	
  memory	
  in	
  his	
  1846	
  Salon	
  see:	
  Michael	
  Fried,	
  “Painting	
  Memories:	
  
On	
  the	
  Containment	
  of	
  the	
  Past	
  in	
  Baudelaire	
  and	
  Manet,”	
  Critical	
  Inquiry	
  10	
  no.	
  3	
  (March,	
  1984):	
  
510-­‐542.	
  

410	
  Baudelaire,	
  “The	
  Painter	
  of	
  Modern	
  Life”	
  17.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

214	
  

Gogh	
   lived	
   in	
   Paris.411	
  Overall,	
   Gauguin	
   was	
   in	
   Paris	
   for	
   about	
   ten	
   months	
   when	
  

Vincent	
   lived	
   there,	
   and,	
   although	
   Gauguin	
   had	
   been	
   dealing	
   with	
   Théo,	
   the	
   two	
  

painters	
  met	
  only	
  briefly.	
  During	
  Gauguin’s	
  last	
  trip	
  to	
  Pont-­‐Aven,	
  Gauguin	
  painted	
  

Vision	
   After	
   the	
   Sermon	
   (1888)	
   [figure	
   11],	
   considered	
   one	
   of	
   his	
   first	
   Symbolist	
  

works,	
  around	
  the	
  same	
  time	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  was	
  also	
  making	
  his	
  foray	
  into	
  a	
  Symbolist	
  

aesthetic	
  in	
  paintings	
  such	
  as	
  Sower.412	
  	
  

After	
   leaving	
  the	
  capital,	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
   letter	
  writing	
  began	
  at	
  a	
  steady	
  pace	
  

again.	
   The	
   painter	
   was	
   living	
   far	
   away	
   from	
   his	
   brother	
   who	
   financially	
   and	
  

professionally	
  supported	
  him.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  also	
  continued	
  to	
  discuss	
  art	
  and	
  painting	
  

with	
  Bernard,	
  an	
  extension	
  of	
  the	
  conversations	
  that	
  had	
  perhaps	
  begun	
  in	
  Paris.	
  

The	
  letters	
  Vincent	
  wrote	
  to	
  Théo	
  and	
  Bernard	
  regarding	
  his	
  painting	
  practice	
  from	
  

his	
   first	
   summer	
   in	
   Arles	
   reveal	
   some	
   of	
   the	
   Symbolist	
   ideals	
   that	
   draw	
   from	
  

Baudelaire’s	
  objectives,	
  notably:	
  drawing	
  from	
  nature	
  but	
  transforming	
  the	
  image	
  

through	
   medium	
   and	
   using	
   his	
   imagination	
   to	
   convey	
   a	
   compositionally	
   symbolic	
  

image,	
  not	
  a	
  descriptive	
  representation.	
  Although	
  Silverman	
  and	
  Mauer	
  argue	
  that	
  

Van	
  Gogh	
  aimed	
  to	
  generate	
  paintings	
  to	
  share	
  his	
  religious	
  ideals,	
  while	
  in	
  Paris	
  he	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
411	
  After	
  the	
  8me	
  Exposition	
  de	
  peintre	
  in	
  spring	
  1886,	
  Gauguin	
  painted	
  in	
  Pont-­‐Aven	
  in	
  Brittany	
  from	
  
June	
  through	
  November,	
  left	
  for	
  Martinique	
  in	
  April	
  1887	
  where	
  he	
  stayed	
  until	
  November,	
  and	
  left	
  
in	
  February	
  again	
  for	
  Pont-­‐Aven	
  where	
  he	
  painted	
  with	
  Bernard	
  throughout	
  October.	
  Gauguin	
  left	
  
Pont-­‐Aven	
  and	
  traveled	
  to	
  Arles	
  to	
  meet	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  that	
  October.	
  

412	
  Silverman	
   91-­‐118.	
   On	
   the	
   story	
   of	
   Jacob	
   and	
   the	
   Angel	
   in	
   Symbolism,	
   see:	
   Suzanne	
   Singletary,	
  
“Jacob	
  Wrestling	
  with	
  the	
  Angel:	
  A	
  Theme	
  in	
  Symbolist	
  Art,”	
  Nineteenth-­‐Century	
  French	
  Studies	
  32	
  
(Spring-­‐Summer	
  2004):	
  298-­‐315.	
  	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

215	
  

engaged	
   with	
   formal	
   strategies	
   that	
   were	
   in	
   line	
   with	
   the	
   Literary	
   Symbolist	
   and	
  

Neo-­‐Impressionist	
   theories.	
   In	
   so	
   doing,	
   the	
   religious	
   goals	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   set	
   in	
   1880	
  

when	
  he	
  first	
  decided	
  to	
  become	
  a	
  painter	
  shifted	
  as	
  he	
  entered	
  a	
  modernist	
  milieu	
  

and	
   reconsidered	
   the	
   role	
   of	
   the	
   canvas.	
   Considering	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   Paris-­‐period	
  

paintings,	
   such	
   as	
   Patch,	
   as	
   his	
   transition	
   into	
   a	
   symbolic	
   use	
   of	
   color	
   and	
   form	
  

locates	
   the	
   artist’s	
   developing	
   Symbolist	
   aesthetic	
   within	
   the	
   Baudelairean	
   ideals	
  

that	
   influenced	
   the	
   Impressionists’	
   subject	
   matter	
   and	
   facture.	
   I	
   explore	
   how	
   the	
  

Symbolist	
  theoretical	
  ideals	
  propelled	
  the	
  changes	
  in	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  painting	
  practice.	
  

Furthermore,	
   I	
  consider	
  how	
  the	
  new	
  compositional	
  devices	
  with	
  which	
  the	
  artist	
  

constructed	
  his	
  canvases	
  led	
  to	
  a	
  highly	
  reduced	
  method	
  of	
  capturing	
  natural	
  effects	
  

and	
  a	
  shift	
  toward	
  symbolic	
  imagery	
  that	
  sent	
  Aurier	
  on	
  an	
  imaginative	
  voyage.	
  	
  

	
  

Symbolist	
  Theory	
  

A	
  pile	
  of	
  more	
  than	
  a	
  dozen	
  French	
  novels,	
  strewn	
  against	
  a	
  wall,	
  decorated	
  

with	
  yellow,	
  green,	
  pink,	
  and	
  red	
  book-­‐jackets	
  in	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  Romans	
  parisiens	
  (fall	
  

1887)	
   [figure	
   12]	
   testify	
   to	
   the	
   artist’s	
   appreciation	
   for	
   books.	
   Vincent	
   left	
   the	
  

painting	
   in	
   Paris	
   with	
   Théo	
   who	
   sent	
   Romans	
   parisiens	
   to	
   the	
   third	
   Société	
   des	
  

Artistes	
  Indépendants	
  exhibition	
  held	
  in	
  spring	
  1888	
  to	
  represent	
  his	
  brother’s	
  new	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

216	
  

work.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  was	
  pleased.413	
  Judy	
  Sund	
  uses	
  Romans	
  parisiens	
  to	
  assert	
  that	
  Van	
  

Gogh	
  remained	
  wholly	
  unmoved	
  by	
  the	
  Symbolist	
  literature	
  circulating	
  in	
  Paris	
  in	
  the	
  

mid-­‐1880s.414	
  He	
  was,	
  she	
  continues,	
  captivated	
  by	
  Naturalist	
  writers,	
  such	
  as	
  Émile	
  

Zola,	
  and	
  stayed	
  committed	
  to	
  their	
  novels	
  and	
  realistic	
  approach	
  to	
  subject	
  matter.	
  

Although	
  A.M.	
  Hammacher	
  warned	
  not	
  to	
  read	
  Romans	
  parisiens	
  iconographically,	
  

Sund	
  calls	
  attention	
  to	
  the	
  brightly	
  colored	
  book-­‐covers,	
  pointing	
  out	
  that	
  Naturalist	
  

novels	
  appeared	
  in	
  similar	
  hues.415	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  was	
  not	
  a	
  mimetic	
  painter,	
  and,	
  at	
  this	
  

point	
  in	
  his	
  painting	
  career,	
  he	
  neither	
  faithfully	
  depicted	
  the	
  scene	
  before	
  him	
  nor	
  

used	
  local	
  color	
  to	
  describe	
  objects.	
  	
  

In	
  earlier	
  still	
  lives	
  with	
  texts,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  underscored	
  content	
  or	
  recognizable	
  

titles.	
  	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  Still	
  Life	
  with	
  Bible	
  (October	
  1885)	
  [figure	
  13]	
  includes	
  his	
  father’s	
  

bible	
  and	
  Zola’s	
  La	
  joie	
  de	
  vivre	
  (1884),	
  a	
  contrast	
  between	
  religious	
  testaments	
  and	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
413	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  582	
  to	
  Thèo	
  from	
  Arles	
  around	
  Friday,	
  March	
  2,	
  1888.	
  See	
  note	
  9.	
  See	
  also:	
  
letter	
  584,	
  which	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  to	
  Théo	
  from	
  Arles	
  on	
  Saturday,	
  March	
  10,	
  1888.	
  

414 	
  Judy	
   Sund,	
   “Romans	
   parisiens:	
   Reading	
   Naturalism	
   in	
   its	
   habitat,”	
   True	
   to	
   Temperament	
  
(Cambridge	
  and	
  New	
  York:	
  Cambridge	
  University	
  Press,	
  1992)	
  126,	
  144-­‐152.	
  	
  

415	
  A.M.	
  Hammacher,	
  “Van	
  Gogh’s	
  Relationship	
  with	
  Signac	
  (1962),”	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  in	
  Perspective	
  146-­‐147.	
  
Hammacher	
  aimed	
  to	
  shift	
  the	
  conversation	
  on	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  still-­‐life	
  images	
  that	
  included	
  books	
  from	
  
an	
   iconographical	
   reading	
   to	
   an	
   investigation	
   of	
   the	
   artist’s	
   “separate	
   and	
   conflicting	
   patches	
   of	
  
color”	
  in,	
  for	
  example,	
  Romans	
  parisiens.	
  She	
  stressed	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  use	
  of	
  the	
  books	
  as	
  rectangular	
  
objects	
  that	
  allowed	
  for	
  artistic	
  experimentation	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  color.	
  Sund	
  later	
  claimed	
  that	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  
inclusion	
  of	
  novels	
  was	
  more	
  “purposeful”	
  than	
  Hammacher	
  initially	
  argued.	
  I	
  return	
  to	
  Hammacher’s	
  
claims	
  and	
  consider	
  her	
  analysis	
  in	
  light	
  of	
  Symbolist	
  theory	
  as	
  I	
  find	
  Sund’s	
  argument	
  about	
  the	
  overt	
  
nature	
  of	
  the	
  book’s	
  titles	
  and	
  content	
  an	
   irrelevant	
  point	
   in	
   Romans	
   parisiens	
  because	
  the	
  artist	
  
omitted	
  text-­‐related	
  cues.	
  	
  

	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

217	
  

those	
  of	
  a	
  contemporary	
  author	
  who	
  paints	
  “life	
  as	
  we	
  feel	
  it	
  ourselves….”416	
  Two	
  

extinguished	
  candles	
  may	
  symbolize	
  the	
  passing	
  of	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  father,	
  who	
  had	
  died	
  

a	
   few	
   days	
   before	
   he	
   made	
   this	
   painting,	
   which	
   he	
   completed	
   in	
   one	
   sitting.417	
  

Painted	
  in	
  the	
  dense	
  umbers	
  characteristic	
  of	
  the	
  painter’s	
  Nuenen	
  imagery,	
  Still	
  Life	
  

with	
   Bible	
   addresses	
   the	
   notion	
   of	
   a	
   search	
   for	
   understanding,	
   during	
   which	
   one	
  

could	
   refer	
   to	
   scripture	
   or	
   modern	
   novels.	
   In	
   a	
   Parisian	
   still-­‐life	
   painting,	
   Three	
  

Novels	
  (January-­‐February	
  1887)	
  [figure	
  14],	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  drew	
  legible	
  book	
  titles	
  in	
  a	
  

deep,	
  warm	
  palette	
  related	
  to	
  Still	
  Life	
  with	
  Bible.418	
  Painted	
  in	
  crimson	
  red,	
  Zola’s	
  

Au	
   Bonheur	
   des	
   Dames	
   (1883)	
   lies	
   on	
   a	
   diagonal	
   in	
   the	
   background,	
   and,	
   in	
   the	
  

foreground,	
  Jean	
  Richepin’s	
  Les	
  Braves	
  gens	
  (1886)	
  sits	
  atop	
  Edmond	
  de	
  Goncourt’s	
  

La	
  Fille	
  Elisa	
  (1877).	
  Although	
  Still	
  Life	
  with	
  Bible	
  and	
  Three	
  Novels	
   imply	
  meaning	
  

between	
   and	
   among	
   the	
   books’	
   content,	
   the	
   artist’s	
   color	
   describes	
   the	
   book	
  

jackets,	
  leaving	
  the	
  viewer	
  to	
  consider	
  the	
  objects	
  as	
  they	
  are	
  and	
  the	
  meaning	
  the	
  

texts	
  share	
  or	
  juxtapose.	
  	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
416	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  574	
  to	
  Wil	
  from	
  Paris	
  in	
  late	
  October	
  1887.	
  “On	
  the	
  contrary,	
  if	
  one	
  wants	
  
truth,	
  life	
  as	
  it	
  is,	
  De	
  Goncourt,	
  for	
  example,	
  in	
  Germinie	
  Lacerteux,	
  La	
  fille	
  Elisa,	
  Zola	
  in	
  La	
  joie	
  de	
  
vivre	
  and	
  L’assommoir	
  and	
  so	
  many	
  other	
  masterpieces	
  paint	
   life	
  as	
  we	
  feel	
   it	
  ourselves	
  and	
  thus	
  
satisfy	
  that	
  need	
  which	
  we	
  have,	
  that	
  people	
  tell	
  us	
  the	
  truth.”	
  

417	
  See	
  the	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum’s	
  brief	
  overview	
  of	
  Still	
  Life	
  with	
  Bible:	
  
http://www.vangoghmuseum.nl/en/collection/s0008V1962.	
  	
  

418	
  Bogomila	
  Ovcharov-­‐Welsh,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  à	
  Paris	
  (Paris:	
  Musée	
  d’Orsay,	
  1988)	
  148.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

218	
  

A	
   principal	
   component	
   of	
   the	
   Symbolist	
   aesthetic	
   is	
   to	
   invite	
   viewer	
  

participation	
   through	
   suggestive,	
   rather	
   than	
   literal,	
   means.	
   In	
   Symbolist	
   terms,	
  

color	
  need	
  not	
  describe	
  the	
  subject	
  matter	
  for	
  optimal	
  clarity,	
  but	
  rather	
  enhance	
  

and	
  exaggerate	
  compositional	
  qualities.	
   In	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  Romans	
  parisiens	
  the	
  titles	
  

are	
  intentionally	
  illegible,	
  and	
  the	
  brush	
  strokes	
  lend	
  a	
  sense	
  of	
  motion	
  around	
  the	
  

pile	
  of	
  inert	
  books.	
  While	
  the	
  literal	
  analysis	
  of	
  the	
  book	
  titles	
  may	
  or	
  may	
  not	
  lead	
  

to	
   either	
   Naturalist	
   or	
   Symbolist	
   novels,	
   the	
   compositional	
   strategies	
   Van	
   Gogh	
  

employed	
  do	
  so.	
  By	
  omitting	
  any	
  indication	
  of	
  the	
  novels’	
  content,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  shifts	
  

from	
  a	
  direct	
  literary	
  reference	
  and	
  potential	
  content-­‐related	
  themes	
  to	
  relying	
  on	
  

texture	
  and	
  hue	
  to	
  convey	
  an	
  aspect	
  that	
  does	
  not	
  allow	
  the	
  viewer	
  to	
  investigate	
  

the	
   books’	
   titles,	
   but	
   rather	
   to	
   consider	
   the	
   artist’s	
   medium.	
   In	
   some	
   cases,	
   the	
  

application	
   of	
   paint	
   supplants	
   the	
   text.	
   The	
   artist	
   later	
   recalled	
   that	
   the	
   paint	
  

application	
  was	
  rather	
  plain:	
  “no	
  stippling,	
  no	
  hatching,	
  nothing;	
  the	
  tints	
  flat,	
  but	
  in	
  

harmony.”419	
  	
  

These	
  painterly	
  attributes	
  relate	
  to	
  the	
  developing	
  Symbolist	
  aesthetic	
  of	
  the	
  

mid	
  1880s,	
  evident	
  in	
  novels,	
  manifestoes,	
  and	
  critical	
  accounts,	
  which	
  were	
  rooted	
  

in	
  Baudelairean	
  theory.	
  Romans	
  parisiens	
  does	
  not	
  convey	
  typical	
  textures,	
  stipple,	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
419	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  707	
  to	
  Thèo	
  from	
  Arles	
  on	
  Wednesday,	
  October	
  17,	
  1888.	
  See	
  also:	
  letter	
  
584.	
  “I	
  think	
  it’s	
  a	
  very	
  good	
  idea	
  that	
  you	
  put	
  the	
  books	
  in	
  the	
  Independents’	
  too.	
  This	
  study	
  should	
  
be	
  given	
  the	
  title:	
  ‘Parisian	
  novels’.”	
  

	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

219	
  

or	
   hatch	
   marks.	
   Instead,	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   elongated,	
   somewhat	
   gestural	
   strokes	
   are	
  

unique	
   to	
   his	
   act	
   of	
   painting.	
   Baudelaire	
   privileged	
   the	
   artist’s	
   imagination—“the	
  

queen	
  of	
  faculties”—during	
  the	
  creative	
  process	
  so	
  that	
  the	
  canvas	
  could	
  provide	
  

the	
   viewer	
   with	
   an	
   experience	
   that	
   excited	
   his	
   imagination.420	
  For	
   Baudelaire,	
   an	
  

image	
  constructed	
  with	
  the	
  artist’s	
  individual	
  use	
  of	
  stroke	
  and	
  hue	
  could	
  enhance	
  

the	
  spectator’s	
  senses.	
  Rather	
  than	
  describe	
  a	
  pile	
  of	
  books,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  transcribed	
  

the	
  subject	
  matter	
  through	
  his	
  imaginative	
  use	
  of	
  medium.	
  A	
  block	
  of	
  red	
  made	
  with	
  

a	
   few	
   vertical	
   strokes,	
   for	
   instance,	
   appears	
   on	
   the	
   right	
   wall,	
   which	
   neither	
  

connotes	
  a	
  shadow	
  nor	
  pattern	
  as	
  it	
  is	
  hue	
  for	
  the	
  sake	
  of	
  artifice.	
  	
  

Van	
   Gogh	
   was	
   aware	
   of	
   Baudelaire	
   as	
   a	
   poet	
   and	
   critic,	
   but	
   he	
   did	
   not	
  

fervently	
   study	
   Baudelaire’s	
   texts	
   first-­‐hand	
   as	
   he	
   had	
   Zola’s,	
   for	
   instance.	
   421	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
420	
  Charles	
  Baudelaire,	
  “The	
  Salon	
  of	
  1859,”	
  Art	
  in	
  Paris:	
  Salons	
  and	
  Other	
  Exhibitions,	
  trans	
  and	
  ed.	
  
Jonathan	
  Mayne	
  (Oxford	
  Press	
  Limited,	
  1965)	
  163.	
  

421	
  Charles	
   Baudelaire,	
   “The	
   Salon	
   of	
   1846,”	
   Art	
   in	
   Paris:	
   1845-­‐1862:	
   Salons	
   and	
   Other	
   Exhibitions	
  
Reviewed	
   by	
   Charles	
   Baudelaire,	
   trans.	
   and	
   ed.	
   Jonathan	
   Mayne	
   (Oxford:	
   Phaidon	
   Press,	
   Limited,	
  
1965)	
  47.	
  Before	
  arriving	
  in	
  Paris,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  must	
  have	
  read	
  Baudelaire’s	
  “Salon	
  of	
  1846”	
  in	
  which	
  the	
  
critic	
  aimed	
  to	
  define	
  Romanticism	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  Eugène	
  Delacroix’s	
  paintings,	
  but	
  did	
  so	
  at	
  the	
  expense	
  
of	
  Rembrandt’s	
  imagery:	
  “And	
  yet	
  Rembrandt	
  is	
  not	
  a	
  colourist,	
  but	
  a	
  harmonizer.	
  How	
  novel	
  then	
  
would	
  be	
  the	
  effect,	
  and	
  how	
  matchless	
  his	
  romanticism,	
   if	
  a	
  powerful	
  colourist	
  could	
  realize	
  our	
  
dearest	
  dreams	
  and	
  feelings	
  for	
  us	
  in	
  a	
  colour	
  appropriate	
  to	
  their	
  subjects!”	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  paraphrased	
  
the	
   critic’s	
   sentence	
   regarding	
   the	
   difference	
   between	
   color	
   and	
   harmony	
   in	
   letter	
   536,	
   which	
   he	
  
wrote	
  to	
  Théo	
  from	
  Nuenen	
  around	
  Tuesday,	
  October	
  20,	
  1885;	
  see	
  note	
  18.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  understood	
  
Baudelaire’s	
  position,	
  and	
  he	
  took	
   issue	
  with	
  the	
  use	
  of	
  black	
  and	
  white	
   in	
  regards	
  to	
  using	
  color	
  
effectively.	
   Although	
   Baudelaire	
   did	
   not	
   specifically	
   address	
   the	
   use	
   of	
   black	
   and	
   white	
   in	
  
Rembrandt’s	
  paintings,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  could	
  have	
  interpreted	
  the	
  critic’s	
  use	
  of	
  “harmonizer”	
  to	
  mean	
  
using	
   tints	
   and	
   shades.	
   Ultimately,	
   I	
   think	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   disagreed	
   with	
   Baudelaire’s	
   support	
   of	
  
Delacroix’s	
  use	
  of	
  color	
  against	
  that	
  of	
  Rembrandt’s.	
  In	
  a	
  subsequent	
  letter	
  to	
  Horace	
  Mann	
  Livens	
  
(letter	
  569	
  written	
  from	
  Paris	
  in	
  September	
  or	
  October	
  1886),	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  noted	
  that	
  he	
  was	
  not	
  trying	
  
to	
  render	
  a	
  harmony	
  with	
  hue,	
  but	
  aimed	
  to	
  use	
  “intense	
  color.”	
  I	
  understand	
  this	
  statement	
  as	
  a	
  way	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

220	
  

Baudelaire’s	
   ideas	
   about	
   indirect	
   meaning	
   to	
   engage	
   the	
   viewer’s	
   imagination	
  

became	
   a	
   crucial	
   part	
   of	
   the	
   theoretical	
   structure	
   of	
   Symbolist	
   author’s,	
   such	
   as	
  

Joris-­‐Karl	
   Huysmans.	
   	
   While	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   was	
   enamored	
   with	
   Zola’s	
   writings,	
   the	
  

painter	
   also	
   read	
   Huysmans’	
   A	
   rebours	
   (1884),	
   a	
   novel	
   for	
   which	
   Baudelaire’s	
  

aesthetic	
  serves	
  as	
  a	
  foundational	
  tenet.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  had,	
  according	
  to	
  Bernard,	
  “a	
  

limitless	
   admiration	
   for	
   Huysmans;	
   he	
   especially	
   liked…A	
   rebours.”422	
  Huysmans’	
  

sensitive	
   character	
   Des	
   Esseintes	
   stays	
   in	
   his	
   Fontenay	
   home	
   so	
   that	
   his	
   decrepit	
  

senses	
   that	
   have	
   been	
   dulled	
   by	
   the	
   monotony	
   of	
   the	
   material	
   world	
   can	
   be	
  

stimulated	
  by	
  Gustave	
  Moreau’s	
  The	
  Apparition	
  (1876)	
  [figure	
  15],	
  and	
  the	
  work	
  of	
  

Odilon	
   Redon. 423 	
  The	
   paintings	
   allowed	
   him	
   to	
   live	
   in	
   a	
   state	
   of	
   “dreamy	
  

contemplation,”	
  away	
  from	
  the	
  “boredom	
  of	
  the	
  drawing-­‐room…the	
  stupidity	
  at	
  the	
  

gaming	
  table	
  and	
  of	
  the	
  depravity	
  of	
  the	
  brothel.”424	
  Moreau’s	
  imagery	
  allows	
  Des	
  

Esseintes	
   to	
   escape	
   the	
   despair	
   of	
   modern-­‐day	
   Paris	
   because	
   Moreau’s	
   paintings	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
for	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   to	
   align	
   his	
   practice	
   with	
   Rembrandt	
   and	
   against	
   Baudelaire’s	
   assessment	
   of	
  
Rembrandt’s	
  color.	
  	
  

Baudelaire	
  was	
  an	
  important	
  poet	
  to	
  Bernard.	
  In	
  an	
  1888	
  letter	
  to	
  Bernard,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  quoted	
  a	
  verse	
  
from	
   Baudelaire	
   in	
   which	
   the	
   poet	
   mentioned	
   Rembrandt	
   in	
   his	
   poem	
   “Phares”	
   published	
   in	
   Les	
  
Fleurs	
  du	
  mal	
  (1857).	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  cited	
  the	
  verse	
  that	
  included	
  Rembrandt	
  to	
  underscore	
  that	
  the	
  critic	
  
knew	
  “more	
  or	
  less	
  nothing”	
  of	
  the	
  Dutch	
  artist.	
  	
  See	
  letters	
  628	
  (note	
  18)	
  and	
  649	
  (note	
  6),	
  which	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  to	
  Bernard	
  from	
  Arles	
  during	
  summer	
  1888.	
  	
  

422	
  Welsh-­‐Ovcharov,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  in	
  Perspective	
  38.	
  	
  

423	
  Joris-­‐Karl	
   Huysmans,	
   A	
   rebours,	
   trans.	
   Robert	
   Baldick	
   (New	
   York	
   and	
   London:	
   Penguin	
   Group,	
  
2003)	
  56.	
  

424	
  Huysmans	
  198.	
  	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

221	
  

suggest	
  meaning	
  through	
  ancient	
  references	
  that	
  do	
  not	
  form	
  a	
  succinct	
  narrative,	
  

which	
   lead	
   the	
   main	
   character	
   to	
   a	
   dream-­‐like	
   state.425	
  Des	
   Esseintes’	
   experience	
  

before	
  a	
  Symbolist	
  work	
  of	
  art	
  is	
  symptomatic	
  of	
  a	
  shift	
  in	
  considering	
  the	
  role	
  of	
  the	
  

color	
  and	
  texture	
  of	
  a	
  canvas.	
  These	
  attributes	
  lent	
  themselves	
  to	
  the	
  effect	
  of	
  the	
  

canvas	
  on	
  the	
  viewer’s	
  senses,	
  not	
  necessarily	
  to	
  shape	
  forms	
  or	
  set	
  objects	
  into	
  a	
  

deep	
   space.	
   For	
   Des	
   Esseintes,	
   Moreau’s	
   facture	
   conveyed	
   “subtly	
   evocative	
  

suggestions.”426	
  Moreau	
  intended	
  for	
  a	
  somnambulistic	
  viewer	
  to	
  contemplate	
  his	
  

imagery,	
   be	
   jarred	
   awake	
   by	
   the	
   interesting	
   use	
   of	
   medium	
   and	
   unresolved	
  

narratives,	
  reach	
  a	
  higher	
  reality,	
  and	
  realize	
  that	
  the	
  bourgeois	
  mores	
  clouded	
  life’s	
  

vibrancy.427	
  Moreau	
   referred	
   to	
   the	
   escape	
   and	
   the	
   subsequent	
   realization	
   of	
  

modern	
  life’s	
  deterioration	
  as	
  a	
  fixed	
  dream	
  (le	
  rêve	
  fixe).	
  

Moreau’s	
  concept	
  of	
  the	
  fixed	
  dream	
  is	
  not	
  an	
  explicit	
  experience	
  available	
  in	
  

Van	
  Gogh’s	
  Romans	
  parisiens,	
  but	
  the	
  underlying	
  aspects	
  that	
  lead	
  to	
  a	
  work	
  that	
  

does	
   jar	
   a	
   viewer’s	
   senses	
   are	
   evident	
   in	
   the	
   artist’s	
   painting	
   techniques.	
   	
   The	
  

“harmony”	
  between	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  use	
  of	
  “flat	
  tints”	
  and	
  facture	
  in	
  the	
  painting	
  is	
  akin	
  

to	
   the	
   relationship	
   between	
   the	
   aspects	
   of	
   Moreau’s	
   canvas	
   that	
   engage	
   the	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
425	
  Huysmans,	
  A	
  rebours	
  56.	
  

426	
  Huysmans	
  56-­‐59.	
  

427	
  Douglas	
   Druick,	
   “Moreau’s	
   Symbolist	
   Ideal,”	
   Gustave	
   Moreau:	
   Between	
   Epic	
   and	
   Dream,	
   ed.	
  
Geneviève	
   Lacambre	
   (Princeton,	
   NJ:	
   The	
   Art	
   Institute	
   of	
   Chicago	
   in	
   Association	
   with	
   Princeton	
  
University	
  Press,	
  1999)	
  35-­‐36.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

222	
  

spectator	
  through	
  indirect	
  meaning.	
  The	
  paint	
  application	
  halts	
  the	
  subject	
  matter’s	
  

meaning,	
  placing	
  emphasis	
  on	
  the	
  artist’s	
  painterly	
  construction.	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  use	
  of	
  

hue	
   does	
   not	
   explain	
   the	
   novel’s	
   meaning,	
   as	
   he	
   had	
   done	
   in	
   Three	
   Novels,	
   but	
  

conveys	
   a	
   sense	
   of	
   motion	
   in	
   a	
   seemingly	
   still	
   space.	
   The	
   blue	
   marks	
   of	
   the	
  

tablecloth	
  rush	
  toward	
  the	
  lower	
  edge	
  of	
  the	
  picture-­‐plane	
  and	
  contrast	
  with	
  the	
  

green	
  strokes	
  moving	
  up	
  the	
  wall	
  in	
  the	
  background.	
  The	
  books	
  are	
  not	
  static	
  but	
  

operate	
  as	
  blocks	
  of	
  color	
  within	
  the	
  circular	
  motion	
  generated	
  by	
  the	
  elongated	
  

brushwork	
  on	
  the	
  table	
  and	
  wall.	
  There	
  is	
  a	
  shift	
  within	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  book	
  still-­‐life	
  

genre	
   from	
   the	
   directive	
   and	
   descriptive	
   to	
   oblique	
   references.	
   Creating	
   motion	
  

became	
   a	
   visual	
   technique	
   in	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   paintings,	
   and	
   in	
   Romans	
   parisiens	
   this	
  

sense	
   is	
   a	
   contributing	
   factor	
   to	
   the	
   overall	
   symbolic	
   nature	
   of	
   the	
   still	
   life	
   as	
   a	
  

measure	
  of	
  the	
  artist’s	
  physical	
  movement	
  during	
  the	
  act	
  of	
  creation.	
  	
  

Van	
  Gogh’s	
  mark-­‐making	
  is	
  an	
  indication	
  of	
  the	
  artist’s	
  movement	
  before	
  the	
  

canvas.	
  He	
  transformed	
  the	
  subject	
  matter	
  by	
  capturing	
  the	
  actions	
  he	
  performed	
  

between	
   his	
   medium	
   and	
   his	
   canvas.	
   Translating	
   the	
   natural	
   world	
   through	
   an	
  

exaggerated	
  use	
  of	
  medium	
  rather	
  than,	
  for	
  instance,	
  depicting	
  a	
  convincing	
  depth	
  

of	
   space,	
   is	
   another	
   integral	
   component	
   to	
   Symbolist	
   aesthetics.	
   As	
   the	
   subject	
  

matter	
  is	
  typically	
  suggestive,	
  the	
  paint	
  application	
  is	
  also	
  experimental	
  and	
  often	
  

highly	
   embellished	
   texture	
   and	
   color.	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   depiction	
   of	
   landscape	
   in	
   Paris,	
  

particularly	
  that	
  of	
  parks	
  such	
  as	
  Park	
  at	
  Asnières	
  in	
  Spring	
  or	
  Sous-­‐Bois	
  (Summer	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

223	
  

1887)	
   [figures	
   7	
   &	
   16]	
   also	
   lead	
   from	
   a	
   tangible	
   subject	
   matter,	
   foliage	
   and	
  

underbrush,	
  yet	
  move	
  into	
  an	
  expressive	
  use	
  of	
  hue	
  and	
  stroke	
  to	
  show	
  that	
  the	
  

scene	
   has	
   undergone	
   a	
   rigorous	
   reinvention	
   in	
   the	
   artist’s	
   mind.	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
  

approach	
   to	
   landscape	
   in	
   the	
   Paris-­‐period	
   paintings	
   can	
   also	
   be	
   found	
   within	
  

Baudelaire’s	
  theoretical	
  structure.	
  	
  

Baudelaire	
  relegated	
  nature	
  to	
  a	
  “dictionary”	
  and	
  urged	
  artists	
  to	
  pull	
  from	
  

the	
   material	
   world	
   the	
   aspects	
   they	
   could	
   “digest	
   and	
   transform”	
   using	
   an	
  

“execution”	
  that	
  is	
  both	
  “deft	
  and	
  unerring.”428	
  The	
  critic	
  encouraged	
  artists	
  to	
  paint	
  

quickly,	
   losing	
  the	
  drive	
  to	
  capture	
  objects	
  as	
  they	
  were	
  and	
  instead	
  tap	
  into	
  the	
  

energetic	
  nature	
  of	
  the	
  brush	
  on	
  the	
  canvas	
  during	
  the	
  intense	
  process	
  of	
  painting.	
  

In	
   Baudelairean	
   aesthetics,	
   the	
   participant	
   deduces	
   symbolic	
   meaning	
   from	
   an	
  

intense	
   experience	
   and	
   the	
   viewer’s	
   ability	
   to	
   connect	
   to	
   his	
   senses	
   without	
  

hindrance.	
  The	
  eternal	
  realm	
  is	
  one	
  that	
  was	
  a	
  hitherto	
  invisible	
  reality	
  that	
  reveals	
  

itself	
  mysteriously.	
  The	
  infinite	
  is	
  a	
  part	
  of	
  the	
  participant’s	
  interior	
  world	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  

a	
  dimension	
  beyond	
  Nature,	
  beyond	
  mundane	
  everyday	
  experiences.	
  Elevation	
  into	
  

the	
  eternal	
  world	
  can	
  be	
  stimulated	
  by	
  scent,	
  “contemplation	
  of	
  a	
  landscape,”	
  and	
  

by	
  a	
  work	
  of	
  art.429	
  Essentially,	
  for	
  Baudelaire,	
  there	
  are	
  signs	
  in	
  the	
  material	
  world	
  

that	
  can	
  trigger	
  an	
  experience	
  of	
  the	
  spiritual	
  world.	
  The	
  intermediaries	
  between	
  the	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
428	
  Baudelaire	
  “The	
  Salon	
  of	
  1859”	
  160-­‐162.	
  

429	
  F.W.	
  Leakey	
  186.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

224	
  

two	
  worlds,	
  the	
  transitory	
  and	
  the	
  infinite	
  realms,	
  are	
  the	
  hidden	
  correspondence,	
  

signs	
  available	
  in	
  nature,	
  such	
  as	
  sounds,	
  scents,	
  and	
  colors.430	
  Art	
  is	
  the	
  antidote	
  to	
  

the	
  banality	
  of	
  the	
  modern	
  world,	
  and	
  through	
  a	
  work	
  of	
  art’s	
  suggestive	
  nature	
  and	
  

overstated	
   use	
   of	
   medium,	
   an	
   experience	
   within	
   an	
   eternal	
   realm	
   is	
   possible.	
   In	
  

relation	
   to	
   Baudelaire’s	
   notion	
   that	
   artists	
   should	
   paint	
   modern	
   life,	
   this	
   aspect	
  

addresses	
  the	
  first	
  component	
  of	
  the	
  critic’s	
  definition	
  of	
  Beauty,	
  composed	
  of	
  the	
  

material	
  world	
  and	
  the	
  eternal	
  realm.	
  Baudelaire	
  noted	
  that	
  a	
  participant	
  could	
  not	
  

transcend	
   nature—but	
   only	
   in	
   a	
   representation	
   of	
   nature	
   that	
   transcended	
  

reference	
  to	
  the	
  material	
  world.	
  “When	
  nature	
  is	
  so	
  lovely,”	
  wrote	
  Van	
  Gogh,	
  “…I	
  

am	
   no	
   longer	
   aware	
   of	
   myself	
   and	
   the	
   painting	
   comes	
   to	
   me	
   as	
   if	
   in	
   a	
   dream”	
  

(687).431	
  Succumbing	
   to	
   the	
   painting	
   process,	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   dream-­‐like	
   experience	
  

relates	
   to	
   Baudelaire’s	
   directives	
   in	
   terms	
   of	
   the	
   imagination’s	
   role	
   during	
   the	
  

moment	
  of	
  creation.	
  	
  

While	
  there	
  is	
  no	
  evidence	
  linking	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  directly	
  to	
  the	
  texts	
  of	
  Symbolist	
  

poets	
   Jean	
   Moréas	
   and	
   Gustave	
   Kahn,	
   the	
   Baudelairean	
   ideals	
   of	
   creating	
   from	
  

nature,	
  but	
  entirely	
  abstracting	
  the	
  material	
  world	
  can	
  also	
  be	
  found	
  in	
  Symbolist	
  

literary	
   theory.	
   In	
   his	
   Symbolist	
   literary	
   manifesto	
   of	
   1886,	
   Moréas	
   referred	
   to	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
430	
  Townley	
  Mathews	
  29.	
  	
  

431	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  this	
  passage	
  from	
  Arles	
  to	
  Théo	
  in	
  a	
  letter	
  dated	
  Tuesday,	
  September	
  25,	
  1888.	
  	
  

	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

225	
  

Platonic	
  Idea,	
  the	
  highest	
  level	
  of	
  Beauty	
  that	
  exists	
  beyond	
  the	
  material	
  world.432	
  

Mallarmé	
   also	
   noted	
   that	
   the	
   experience	
   before	
   “the	
   only	
   authentic	
   and	
   certain	
  

merit	
  of	
  nature—the	
  Aspect”	
  was	
  Idea.433	
  Reaching	
  Idea	
  is	
  to	
  attain	
  a	
  state	
  of	
  mind,	
  

a	
   state	
   that	
   separates	
   the	
   viewer	
   from	
   the	
   constraints	
   of	
   the	
   material	
   world	
   and	
  

allows	
  him	
  to	
  experience	
  an	
  escape,	
  one	
  that	
  is	
  triggered	
  by	
  the	
  suggestive	
  nature	
  

and	
   high-­‐keyed	
   color	
   of	
   the	
   canvas.	
   Similar	
   to	
   Moreau’s	
   fixed	
   dream,	
   Moréas	
  

considered	
   an	
   intangible	
   realm,	
   an	
   eternal	
   space	
   that	
   was	
   a	
   harbor	
   to	
   the	
   over-­‐

wrought	
  senses	
  of	
  someone	
  living	
  in	
  the	
  modern	
  world.	
  Mallarmé	
  and	
  Kahn	
  both	
  

also	
  noted	
  that	
  a	
  painting’s	
  idea	
  is	
  paramount;	
  they	
  did	
  not	
  focus	
  on	
  the	
  painting	
  as	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
432 	
  Jean	
   Moréas,	
   “A	
   Literary	
   Manifesto—Symbolism	
   (1886),”	
   Symbolist	
   Art	
   Theories:	
   A	
   Critical	
  
Anthology,	
   trans.	
   and	
   ed.	
   Henri	
   Dorra	
   (Berkeley,	
   Los	
   Angeles	
   and	
   London:	
   University	
   of	
   California	
  
Press,	
  1994)	
  151.	
  Erwin	
  Panofsky,	
  Idea,	
  trans.	
  Joseph	
  J.S.	
  Peake	
  (Columbia,	
  S.C.:	
  University	
  of	
  South	
  
Carolina	
  Press,	
  1968)	
  4,	
  6,	
  13.	
  Panofsky	
  explains	
  that	
  for	
  Plato,	
  only	
  the	
  dialectician	
  could	
  be	
  trusted	
  
with	
  the	
  divine	
  task	
  of	
  allowing	
  for	
  transport	
  to	
  the	
  eternal.	
  Plato	
  understood	
  the	
  world	
  as	
  a	
  duality;	
  
the	
  eternal	
  is	
  veiled	
  by	
  the	
  transitory	
  or	
  material	
  world.	
  Pulsing	
  beneath	
  what	
  we	
  can	
  see	
  is	
  a	
  beyond	
  
realm	
  that	
  is	
  accessible	
  through	
  contemplative	
  thought	
  of	
  something	
  beautiful	
  and	
  traveled	
  to	
  by	
  the	
  
mind.	
  Idea	
  exists	
  in	
  the	
  universal	
  realm	
  beyond	
  the	
  material.	
  This	
  high-­‐level	
  of	
  beauty	
  already	
  exists	
  
in	
  the	
  mind	
  of	
  an	
  artist	
  and	
  it	
  is	
  up	
  to	
  the	
  artist’s	
  soul	
  to	
  recognize	
  the	
  pure	
  ideal	
  of	
  beauty	
  within.	
  
This	
  beauty	
  cannot	
  take	
  a	
  material	
  form;	
  its	
  representation,	
  Plato	
  stated,	
  was	
  simply	
  an	
  illusion	
  able	
  
to	
  reveal	
  a	
  “truth”	
  through	
  intellectual	
  communication.	
  See	
  also:	
  Wladyslaw	
  Tatarkiewicz,	
  History	
  of	
  
Aesthetics:	
  Ancient	
  Aesthetic,	
  Vol.	
  1.	
  Ed.	
  J.	
  Harrell,	
   trans.	
  Historia	
  Estetyki	
  and	
  Estetyka	
  Starozytna	
  
(Paris:	
   PWN-­‐Polish	
   Scientific	
   Publishers,	
   1970)	
   118.	
   According	
   to	
   Tatarkiewicz,	
   Idea	
   exists	
   in	
   the	
  
universal	
  realm	
  beyond	
  the	
  material.	
  Plato	
  believed	
  in	
  the	
  transcendence	
  of	
  the	
  body	
  and	
  soul	
  to	
  
Idea,	
  a	
  constant	
  eternal	
  beauty.	
  For	
  a	
  brief	
  discussion	
  of	
  Baudelaire’s	
  ideas	
  on	
  transcendentalism	
  and	
  
ancient	
   tradition	
   see:	
   F.W.	
   Leakey,	
   Baudelaire	
   and	
   Nature	
   (London:	
   Manchester	
   University	
   Press,	
  
1965)	
  175-­‐	
  176.	
  

433	
  Stéphane	
  Mallarmé,	
  “The	
  Impressionists	
  and	
  Édouard	
  Manet,”	
  The	
  New	
  Painting:	
  Impressionism,	
  
ed.	
  Charles	
  S.	
  (San	
  Francisco:	
  The	
  Fine	
  Arts	
  Museum,	
  1986)	
  34.	
  	
  

	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

226	
  

a	
   thing.434	
  The	
   prime	
   experience	
   happened	
   through	
   the	
   process	
   of	
   interpretive	
  

thinking,	
   not	
   by	
   reveling	
   in	
   the	
   formal	
   details	
   of	
   the	
   subject	
   itself.435	
  Although	
  

Baudelaire	
  did	
  not	
  define	
  his	
  aesthetic	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  an	
  Ideic	
  experience,	
  his	
  definition	
  

of	
   Beauty	
   relates	
   to	
   the	
   Symbolist	
   poets’	
   ideals.	
   Baudelaire’s	
   Beauty	
   is	
   a	
   duality	
  

between	
  the	
  transitory	
  and	
  eternal	
  realms,	
  and,	
  in	
  his	
  terms,	
  the	
  imagination	
  has	
  “a	
  

positive	
   relation	
   to	
   the	
   infinite”	
   and	
   is	
   the	
   mind’s	
   conduit	
   between	
   the	
   material	
  

world	
  and	
  an	
  eternal,	
  universal	
  feeling.436	
  In	
  Baudelaire’s	
  aesthetic,	
  the	
  imagination	
  

can	
  communicate	
  through	
  an	
  inherent,	
  universal	
  language	
  and	
  thus	
  directly	
  connect	
  

to	
  the	
  viewer’s	
  mind.437	
  Baudelaire	
  and	
  the	
  Symbolist	
  theorists	
  recognize	
  a	
  pathway	
  

to	
  the	
  eternal	
  state	
  of	
  mind	
  through	
  one’s	
  imagination,	
  which	
  could	
  be	
  activated	
  by	
  

a	
  painting	
  the	
  artist	
  produced	
  by	
  drawing	
  from	
  his	
  inner	
  mind.	
  	
  	
  

Writing	
  to	
  Bernard	
  from	
  Arles,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  echoed	
  this	
  painting	
  process:	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
434	
  Townley	
  Mathews	
  9-­‐10.	
  	
  

435	
  Gustave	
  Kahn,	
  “Seurat,”	
  Symbolist	
  Art	
  Theories:	
  A	
  Critical	
  Anthology,	
  trans.	
  and	
  ed.	
  Henri	
  Dorra	
  
(Berkeley,	
  Los	
  Angeles	
  and	
  London:	
  University	
  of	
  California	
  Press,	
  1994)	
  172-­‐174.	
  

436	
  Baudelaire	
  “The	
  Salon	
  of	
  1859”	
  156.	
  “Imagination	
  first	
  taught	
  man	
  the	
  moral	
  meaning	
  of	
  colour,	
  of	
  
contour,	
  of	
  sound	
  and	
  of	
  scent.	
  In	
  the	
  beginning	
  of	
  the	
  world	
  it	
  created	
  analogy	
  and	
  metaphor.	
  It	
  
decomposes	
  all	
  creation,	
  and	
  with	
  raw	
  materials	
  accumulated	
  and	
  disposed	
  in	
  accordance	
  with	
  rules	
  
save	
  in	
  the	
  furthest	
  depths	
  of	
  the	
  soul,	
  it	
  created	
  a	
  new	
  world,	
  it	
  produces	
  the	
  sensation	
  of	
  newness.	
  
As	
  it	
  has	
  created	
  the	
  world…it	
  is	
  proper	
  it	
  should	
  govern	
  it…Imagination	
  is	
  the	
  queen	
  of	
  truth,	
  and	
  the	
  
possible	
  is	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  provinces	
  of	
  truth.	
  It	
  has	
  a	
  positive	
  relation	
  with	
  the	
  infinite.”	
  

437	
  J.A.	
  Hiddleston,	
  “In	
  Search	
  of	
  an	
  Aesthetic,”	
  Baudelaire	
  and	
  the	
  Art	
  of	
  Memory	
  (Oxford:	
  Clarendon	
  
Press,	
  1999)	
  41.	
  See	
  also:	
  F.W.	
  Leakey,	
  Baudelaire	
  and	
  Nature	
  (London:	
  Manchester	
  University	
  Press,	
  
1965)	
  195-­‐217.	
  Through	
  an	
  analysis	
  of	
  Baudelaire’s	
  “Correspondances”	
  (1857),	
  Leakey	
  explores	
  the	
  
relationship	
  between	
  Nature	
  and	
  the	
  symbol	
  in	
  the	
  critic’s	
  aesthetics.	
  	
  

	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

227	
  

But	
  in	
  the	
  meantime	
  I’m	
  still	
  living	
  off	
  the	
  real	
  world.	
  I	
  exaggerate,	
  
I	
  sometimes	
  make	
  changes	
  to	
  the	
  subject,	
  but	
  still	
  I	
  don’t	
  invent	
  
the	
  whole	
  of	
  the	
  painting;	
  on	
  the	
  contrary,	
  I	
  find	
  it	
  ready-­‐made—
but	
  to	
  be	
  untangled—in	
  the	
  real	
  world.438	
  
	
  

Untangling	
  pictorial	
  elements	
  from	
  nature	
  came	
  for	
  Van	
  Gogh,	
  in	
  some	
  ways,	
  in	
  the	
  

form	
  of	
  landscape,	
  as	
  the	
  subject	
  matter	
  lends	
  itself	
  to	
  intense	
  abstraction.	
  In	
  Park	
  in	
  

Asnières	
   in	
   Spring	
   and	
   Sous-­‐Bois,	
   there	
   is	
   an	
   overall	
   sense	
   of	
   pattern	
   generated	
  

between	
   strokes,	
   layered	
   in	
   saturated	
   greens	
   and	
   Naples	
   yellow,	
   and	
   that	
   of	
   the	
  

flattened	
  compositional	
  frame.	
  The	
  sense	
  of	
  motion	
  references,	
  not	
  a	
  breeze	
  among	
  

the	
   shrubbery,	
   but	
   wind	
   as	
   a	
   metaphor	
   for	
   the	
   act	
   of	
   painting,	
   the	
   moments	
   of	
  

uninhibited	
  creation.	
  Wind	
  rendered	
  in	
  tactile	
  medium	
  becomes	
  the	
  experience	
  of	
  

the	
  artist	
  within	
  the	
  landscape	
  and	
  the	
  marks	
  are	
  evidence	
  of	
  his	
  experience,	
  which	
  

is	
  unlike	
  the	
  process	
  of	
  rendering	
  the	
  scene	
  to	
  capture	
  transitory	
  effects.	
  	
  

In	
  Park	
  in	
  Asnières	
  in	
  Spring,	
  the	
  sun’s	
  light	
  illuminates	
  the	
  canvases,	
  but	
  the	
  

painter	
   did	
   not	
   reveal	
   the	
   sun’s	
   light	
   source	
   directly,	
   only	
   obliquely	
   through	
   the	
  

warm	
  light	
  hues	
  that	
  permeate	
  the	
  canvas.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  did	
  not	
  use	
  the	
  sun’s	
  light	
  to	
  

shape	
  the	
  landscape,	
  providing	
  a	
  depth	
  within	
  a	
  far-­‐reaching	
  perspectival	
  space,	
  but	
  

rather	
  crafted	
  the	
  canvas	
  as	
  a	
  sign	
  of	
  the	
  sun	
  itself.	
  Similarly,	
  Exterior	
  of	
  a	
  Restaurant	
  

in	
  Asnières	
  (1887)	
  [figure	
  10]	
  shows	
  a	
  canvas	
  as	
  a	
  sign	
  of	
  sun	
  and	
  light,	
  rather	
  than	
  

the	
  sun’s	
  rays	
  illuminating	
  a	
  surface,	
  helping	
  to	
  render	
  it	
  in	
  convincing	
  perspective.	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
438	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  698	
  to	
  Bernard	
  from	
  Arles	
  around	
  Friday,	
  October	
  5,	
  1888.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

228	
  

In	
  Park	
  in	
  Asnières	
   in	
  Spring,	
  the	
  wind	
  and	
  sun	
  operate	
  symbolically,	
  as	
  the	
  artist	
  

suggested	
  their	
  effects	
  but	
  subordinated	
  literal	
  translations	
  to	
  evoke	
  the	
  indication	
  

of	
   an	
   atmospheric	
   occurrence.	
   He	
   did	
   not	
   necessarily	
   explore	
   his	
   experience	
  

standing	
   in	
   the	
   park	
   of	
   a	
   forest,	
   but	
   that	
   of	
   the	
   relationship	
   among	
   his	
   palette,	
  

brush,	
  and	
  image.	
  The	
  park	
  scene	
  and	
  forest	
  do	
  not	
  indicate	
  the	
  delicate	
  sense	
  of	
  

light	
  upon	
  branches	
  or	
  foliage	
  but	
  reference	
  the	
  artist’s	
  relationship	
  to	
  his	
  canvas	
  

and	
  the	
  action	
  of	
  applying	
  paint.	
  Standing	
  before	
  Park	
  in	
  Asnières	
  in	
  Spring	
  or	
  Sous-­‐

Bois,	
  the	
  viewer	
  cannot	
  recognize	
  an	
  area	
  of	
  a	
  familiar	
  park,	
  but	
  instead	
  experiences	
  

a	
   generalized	
   body	
   of	
   foliage	
   depicted	
   with	
   an	
   interplay	
   of	
   color.	
   The	
   park	
   is	
   a	
  

substructure	
  to	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  stroke,	
  hue,	
  and	
  impasto	
  texture	
  that	
  act	
  to	
  capture	
  the	
  

artist’s	
   imaginative	
   transcription.	
   The	
   landscape	
   as	
   the	
   catalyst	
   to	
   the	
   artist’s	
  

interpretative	
  use	
  of	
  medium	
  and	
  the	
  painting	
  in	
  turn	
  is	
  the	
  trigger	
  to	
  the	
  viewer’s	
  

mind-­‐altering	
  experience.	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  

In	
  Paris,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  developed	
  a	
  new	
  approach	
  to	
  his	
  landscape	
  painting:	
  he	
  

moved	
   from	
   a	
   world	
   of	
   light,	
   organic	
   forms,	
   and	
   perspective	
   to	
   the	
   underlying	
  

remnants	
  of	
  the	
  natural	
  world.	
   In	
  his	
   landscape	
  paintings,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  shifted	
  from	
  

attempting	
   to	
   create	
   a	
   convincing	
   perspectival	
   space,	
   such	
   as	
   in	
   the	
   Avenue	
   of	
  

Poplars	
  in	
  Autumn	
  (October	
  1884)	
  [figure	
  17],	
  to	
  an	
  idiosyncratic	
  experience	
  within	
  

nature	
  and	
  between	
  the	
  artist	
  and	
  the	
  canvas.	
  In	
  Avenue	
  of	
  Poplars	
  in	
  Autumn,	
  an	
  

early	
  instance	
  in	
  which	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  included	
  bright,	
  unblended	
  strokes	
  to	
  convey	
  the	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

229	
  

sun’s	
  effect,	
  he	
  was	
  also	
  committed	
  to	
  depicting	
  a	
  deep	
  sense	
  of	
  space.	
  The	
  blue	
  sky	
  

peeks	
  through	
  the	
  tall,	
  vertical	
  trees,	
  and	
  cast	
  shadows,	
  tinted	
  orange	
  and	
  Naples	
  

yellow,	
  extend	
  over	
  the	
  dirt	
  path.	
  	
  To	
  move	
  into	
  a	
  symbolic	
  painterly	
  vocabulary,	
  in	
  

Park	
  in	
  Asnières	
  in	
  Spring	
  or	
  Sous-­‐Bois,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  opted	
  to	
  provide	
  a	
  depiction	
  of	
  

nature	
  that	
  could	
  create	
  the	
  kind	
  of	
  experience	
  for	
  which	
  Baudelaire	
  called.	
  For	
  the	
  

critic,	
   who	
   was	
   writing	
   during	
   the	
   Romantic	
   period,	
   one	
   could	
   not	
   transcend	
   in	
  

nature,	
   a	
   Romantic	
   ideal,	
   but	
   one	
   could	
   have	
   a	
   significant	
   experience	
   before	
   a	
  

canvas	
   whose	
   depiction	
   of	
   nature	
   had	
   been	
   so	
   wholly	
   subsumed	
   by	
   the	
   artist’s	
  

perspective.439	
  The	
  participant	
  can	
  experience	
  the	
  eternal	
  realm	
  if	
  he	
  experiences	
  an	
  

aspect	
  of	
  Nature	
  through	
  a	
  suggestive	
  symbol,	
  one	
  an	
  artist	
  makes	
  clear	
  to	
  a	
  keenly	
  

intuitive	
  observer.440	
  	
  

In	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  Park	
  in	
  Asnières	
   in	
  Spring,	
  the	
  artist	
  approached	
  the	
  canvas	
  

with	
  forceful	
  strokes,	
  embodied	
  with	
  a	
  sense	
  of	
  movement.	
   	
  There	
  is	
  a	
  path	
  that	
  

appears	
   in	
   the	
   center	
   of	
   the	
   canvas,	
   short	
   light	
   green	
   strokes,	
   highlighted	
   with	
  

strokes	
  of	
  yellow—a	
  series	
  of	
  rock	
  or	
  wooden	
  steps,	
  perhaps.	
  The	
  path	
  does	
  not	
  

create	
  a	
  recession	
  into	
  the	
  space,	
  but	
  instead	
  complicates	
  the	
  notion	
  of	
  depth.	
  The	
  

space	
  the	
  path	
  creates,	
  one	
  that	
  could	
  typically	
  imply	
  the	
  viewer’s	
  presence	
  as	
  if	
  he	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
439	
  Leakey	
  195-­‐217.	
  Through	
  an	
  analysis	
  of	
  Baudelaire’s	
  “Correspondances”	
  (1857),	
  Leakey	
  explores	
  
the	
  relationship	
  between	
  Nature	
  and	
  the	
  symbol	
  in	
  Baudelairean	
  aesthetics.	
  	
  

440	
  Leakey	
  179-­‐185.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

230	
  

would	
   enter	
   the	
   pictorial	
   plane	
   along	
   the	
   stepping-­‐stones,	
   leads	
   to	
   a	
   wall-­‐like	
  

pattern	
   of	
   dense	
   foliage.	
   Marks	
   in	
   the	
   foreground,	
   long	
   green	
   strokes	
   made	
   by	
  

pulling	
  a	
  loaded	
  brush	
  over	
  the	
  canvas’s	
  surface,	
  seem	
  to	
  disappear	
  off	
  the	
  bottom	
  

of	
   the	
   canvas.	
   Floating	
   light,	
   strings	
   of	
   short	
   oval-­‐like	
   brush	
   stroke	
   marks,	
   link	
  

together.	
   Is	
   the	
   viewer	
   within	
   and	
   looking	
   down	
   or	
   glancing	
   across	
   a	
   field?	
   From	
  

these	
  paradoxical	
  ambiguities,	
  leaf-­‐like	
  forms	
  emerge,	
  but	
  they	
  have	
  shed	
  some	
  of	
  

their	
  organic	
  qualities	
  and	
  are	
  instead	
  cloaked	
  in	
  an	
  impenetrable	
  pattern	
  of	
  paint.	
  

There	
   is,	
   though,	
  a	
  sense	
  of	
  movement,	
  but	
  that	
  of	
  the	
  artist’s	
  brush,	
  not	
  of	
  the	
  

leaves	
  turning	
  in	
  the	
  wind.	
  This	
  suggests	
  that	
  light	
  and	
  greenery	
  are	
  transmutable.	
  

Foliage	
  forms	
  and	
  transitory	
  effects	
  become	
  substantive,	
  tangible	
  paint,	
  belying	
  their	
  

qualities	
   and	
   complicating	
   the	
   viewer’s	
   expectations	
   of	
   a	
   park’s	
   landscape	
   as	
   an	
  

easily	
  recognizable	
  genre	
  scene.	
  	
  

Likewise,	
   in	
   Sous-­‐Bois	
   the	
   subject	
   matter	
   is	
   the	
   forest	
   undergrowth	
   and	
   a	
  

glimmer	
   of	
   sun	
   on	
   the	
   horizon,	
   but	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   gave	
   the	
   canvas	
   over	
   to	
   a	
   play	
  

between	
  stroke	
  and	
  hue,	
  again	
  indirectly	
  providing	
  a	
  sense	
  of	
  fluid	
  motion	
  and	
  light.	
  

Although	
  a	
  sense	
  of	
  movement	
  within	
  underbrush	
  crowded	
  with	
  ground	
  cover	
  and	
  

low-­‐lying	
  shrubs	
  may	
  lend	
  itself	
  to	
  conveying	
  the	
  effect	
  of	
  wind	
  on	
  the	
  leaves,	
  Van	
  

Gogh’s	
  mark-­‐making	
  in	
  Sous-­‐Bois	
  renders	
  organic	
  greenery	
  tactilely.	
  The	
  strokes	
  thus	
  

form	
  an	
  opaque	
  pattern	
  from	
  which	
  the	
  artist’s	
  process	
  emerges.	
  The	
  quick,	
  lighter	
  

strokes	
  in	
  the	
  foreground	
  emulate	
  the	
  scale	
  and	
  hue	
  of	
  the	
  horizon,	
  confusing	
  the	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

231	
  

depth	
  and	
  causing	
  the	
  horizon-­‐line,	
  dotted	
  with	
  a	
  bright,	
  light	
  Naples	
  yellow	
  to	
  push	
  

forward	
  rather	
  than	
  gradually	
  fade.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  symbolically	
  suggested	
  the	
  aspect	
  of	
  a	
  

forest,	
  but	
  the	
  imagery’s	
  meaning	
  veers	
  into	
  the	
  ideal	
  of	
  the	
  creation	
  process	
  itself	
  

and	
  the	
  artist	
  in	
  the	
  act	
  of	
  using	
  his	
  imagination	
  to	
  translate	
  nature.	
  In	
  both	
  Park	
  in	
  

Asnières	
  in	
  Spring	
  and	
  Sous-­‐Bois,	
  the	
  picture	
  plane	
  becomes	
  a	
  subtle	
  variation	
  of	
  a	
  

landscape,	
   the	
   specifics	
   of	
   which	
   have	
   been	
   subdued	
   to	
   create	
   a	
   canvas	
   that	
   is	
  

almost	
  entirely	
  a	
  flat	
  field	
  of	
  abstract	
  marks.	
  	
  

Van	
   Gogh’s	
   sense	
   of	
   creating	
   from	
   his	
   imagination	
   to	
   reduce	
   the	
   subject	
  

matter	
  to	
  the	
  essence	
  through	
  color	
  and	
  form	
  appears	
  in	
  a	
  letter	
  to	
  Bernard:	
  

Certainly—imagination	
  is	
  a	
  capacity	
  that	
  must	
  be	
  developed,	
  and	
  
only	
   that	
   enables	
   us	
   to	
   create	
   a	
   more	
   exalting	
   and	
   consoling	
  
nature	
   than	
   what	
   just	
   a	
   glance	
   at	
   reality	
   (which	
   we	
   perceive	
  
changing,	
  passing	
  quickly	
  like	
  lightning)	
  allows	
  us	
  to	
  perceive.441	
  
	
  

“Exalting,”	
  moving	
  away	
  from	
  or	
  into	
  another	
  realm,	
  depended	
  on	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  ability	
  

to	
  paint	
  ambiguous	
  imagery	
  that	
  relates	
  to	
  the	
  material	
  world,	
  but	
  provides	
  a	
  unique	
  

effect	
  through	
  hue	
  and	
  stroke.	
   In	
  Paris,	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  palette	
  changed	
  dramatically,	
  

although	
  he	
  used	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  colors—such	
  as	
  Naples	
  yellow	
  and	
  Prussian	
  blue—as	
  

he	
  did	
  in	
  The	
  Netherlands.	
  Two	
  self-­‐portraits	
  [figures	
  18	
  &	
  19]	
  that	
  include	
  the	
  artist	
  

with	
  his	
  palette	
  indicate	
  the	
  dramatic	
  revision	
  the	
  colors	
  of	
  his	
  palette	
  underwent.	
  In	
  

Self-­‐Portrait	
  as	
  a	
  Painter	
  (1886),	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  included	
  his	
  easel	
  and	
  looks	
  directly	
  at	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
441	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  596	
  to	
  Bernard	
  around	
  Thursday,	
  April	
  12,	
  1888.	
  	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

232	
  

the	
  viewer.	
  His	
  flesh	
  emerges	
  from	
  deep	
  tones	
  of	
  greens	
  and	
  Prussian	
  blue.	
  On	
  his	
  

palette	
  sits	
  a	
  pot	
  of	
  turpentine,	
  and	
  several	
  colors	
  laid	
  out	
  in	
  a	
  discrete	
  row.	
  From	
  

left	
  to	
  right,	
  a	
  dark	
  red,	
  a	
  viridian	
  and	
  emerald	
  green,	
  and	
  a	
  bright	
  orange	
  appear	
  in	
  

a	
  line	
  of	
  small	
  piles	
  of	
  medium.	
  442	
  Above,	
  a	
  light	
  blue	
  and	
  a	
  yellow	
  almost	
  disappear	
  

into	
  the	
  shadows,	
  and	
  a	
  few	
  paint	
  strokes	
  of	
  lead	
  white	
  that	
  have	
  been	
  tapped	
  down	
  

with	
  a	
  quick	
  movements	
  rest	
  on	
  the	
  corner.	
  They	
  all	
  maintain	
  a	
  boundary	
  on	
  the	
  

palette,	
  careful	
  not	
  to	
  be	
  cross-­‐mixed.	
  Painting	
  from	
  a	
  mirror,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  holds	
  his	
  

palette	
  close	
  to	
  his	
  body	
  in	
  foreshortened	
  perspective	
  and	
  the	
  object	
  remains	
  as	
  a	
  

signature	
  of	
  the	
  painter	
  as	
  a	
  professional	
  artist	
  at	
  work.	
  

In	
  the	
  last	
  painting	
  he	
  made	
  in	
  Paris,	
  Self-­‐Portrait	
  as	
  a	
  Painter	
  (1887-­‐1888),	
  

Van	
  Gogh,	
  wearing	
  “a	
  blue	
  smock	
  of	
  coarse	
  linen,”	
  peers	
  out	
  over	
  the	
  easel	
  before	
  

him	
  but	
  his	
  eyes	
  do	
  not	
  meet	
  the	
  viewer’s	
  gaze.443	
  The	
  artist’s	
  left	
  pupil	
  seems	
  to	
  be	
  

fixated	
  on	
  the	
  canvas	
  before	
  him,	
  and	
  the	
  right	
  iris,	
  which	
  is	
  a	
  bit	
  larger	
  than	
  the	
  

other,	
  remains	
  in	
  shadow	
  and	
  was	
  awkwardly	
  positioned	
  too	
  closely	
  to	
  the	
  artist’s	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
442	
  Vellekoop	
  118.	
  	
  

443	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  626	
  to	
  Wil	
  from	
  Arles	
  in	
  mid-­‐June	
  1888.	
  “Here’s	
  an	
  impression	
  of	
  mine,	
  
which	
  is	
  the	
  result	
  of	
  a	
  portrait	
  that	
  I	
  painted	
  in	
  the	
  mirror,	
  and	
  which	
  Theo	
  has:	
  a	
  pink-­‐grey	
  face	
  with	
  
green	
  eyes,	
  ash-­‐coloured	
  hair,	
  wrinkles	
  in	
  forehead	
  and	
  around	
  the	
  mouth,	
  stiffly	
  wooden,	
  a	
  very	
  red	
  
beard,	
  quite	
  unkempt	
  and	
  sad,	
  but	
  the	
  lips	
  are	
  full,	
  a	
  blue	
  smock	
  of	
  coarse	
  linen,	
  and	
  a	
  palette	
  with	
  
lemon	
  yellow,	
  vermilion,	
  Veronese	
  green,	
  cobalt	
  blue,	
  in	
  short	
  all	
  the	
  colours,	
  except	
  of	
  the	
  orange	
  
beard,	
  on	
  the	
  palette,	
  the	
  only	
  whole	
  colours,	
  though.	
  The	
  figure	
  against	
  a	
  grey-­‐white	
  wall.	
  You’ll	
  say	
  
that	
  this	
  is	
  something	
  like,	
  say,	
  the	
  face	
  of—death—in	
  Van	
  Eeden’s	
  book	
  or	
  some	
  such	
  thing–very	
  
well,	
  but	
  anyway	
  isn’t	
  a	
  figure	
  like	
  this—and	
  it	
  isn’t	
  easy	
  to	
  paint	
  oneself—in	
  any	
  event	
  something	
  
different	
  from	
  a	
  photograph?	
  And	
  you	
  see—this	
  is	
  what	
  Impressionism	
  has—to	
  my	
  mind—over	
  the	
  
rest,	
  it	
  isn’t	
  banal,	
  and	
  one	
  seeks	
  a	
  deeper	
  likeness	
  than	
  that	
  of	
  the	
  photographer.”	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

233	
  

eyelid	
  to	
  meet	
  the	
  viewer’s	
  gaze.	
  Self-­‐Portrait	
  as	
  a	
  Painter	
  conveys	
  the	
  new	
  ways	
  in	
  

which	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  approached	
  his	
  canvases,	
  as	
  in	
  Park	
  in	
  Asnières	
  in	
  Spring	
  and	
  Sous-­‐

Bois.	
  On	
  the	
  palette,	
  two	
  small	
  pots	
  rest	
  on	
  the	
  edge,	
  one	
  for	
  turpentine	
  and	
  the	
  

other	
  for	
  oil	
  (used	
  to	
  thin	
  the	
  paint).444	
  Paint	
  colors	
  similar	
  to	
  those	
  in	
  the	
  previous	
  

palette	
   appear,	
   with	
   the	
   addition	
   of	
   orange-­‐reds,	
   cadmium	
   yellow,	
   and	
   cadmium	
  

orange.445	
  Perhaps	
  what	
  is	
  most	
  striking	
  is	
  the	
  way	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  depicted	
  his	
  palette	
  in	
  

use.	
  There	
  are	
  not	
  small	
  spots	
  of	
  paint,	
  the	
  product	
  of	
  a	
  frugal	
  squeeze	
  of	
  medium	
  

from	
  its	
  tube.	
  Instead,	
  there	
  are	
  the	
  marks	
  of	
  the	
  artist’s	
  brush,	
  pushing	
  together	
  

colors	
  but,	
  overall,	
  the	
  colors	
  are	
  unblended.	
  	
  This	
  palette	
  is	
  the	
  byproduct	
  of	
  Van	
  

Gogh’s	
  more	
  intense	
  use	
  of	
  paint.	
  	
  

There	
  is	
  a	
  stark	
  difference	
  between	
  the	
  marks	
  on	
  the	
  jacket,	
  beard,	
  and	
  facial	
  

features	
   from	
   those	
   on	
   the	
   palette.	
   The	
   former	
   provide	
   a	
   sense	
   a	
   movement	
  

characteristic	
  of	
  the	
  Paris-­‐period	
  paintings.	
  Warm	
  orange	
  and	
  yellow	
  specks	
  weave	
  

through	
  the	
  cool-­‐blue	
  jacket,	
  but	
  rather	
  than	
  form	
  a	
  sense	
  of	
  the	
  torso’s	
  structure,	
  

they	
   wrap	
   around	
   the	
   figure,	
   encircling	
   the	
   creator	
   in	
   his	
   painterly	
   vocabulary.	
  

Likewise,	
  the	
  flesh	
  tones	
  of	
  the	
  head	
  and	
  neck	
  seem	
  to	
  suppress	
  the	
  intense	
  coloring	
  

peeking	
  out	
  from	
  below	
  the	
  lighter	
  tones.	
  The	
  canvas	
  and	
  background	
  are	
  muted,	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
444	
  Vellekoop	
  118.	
  	
  
445	
  Vellekoop	
  147.	
  	
  

	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

234	
  

drawing	
  attention	
  to	
  the	
  painter	
  in	
  the	
  moment	
  of	
  creation.	
  That	
  his	
  eyes	
  avoid	
  the	
  

viewer’s	
  and	
  that	
  there	
  is	
  an	
  array	
  of	
  marks	
  on	
  the	
  palette	
  shifts	
  the	
  image’s	
  focus	
  

from	
  the	
  portrait	
  to	
  the	
  act	
  of	
  painting	
   itself,	
  one	
  driven	
  by	
  the	
  artist’s	
  ability	
  to	
  

determine	
  color	
  from	
  his	
  inner	
  mind.	
  Referring	
  to	
  the	
  portrait	
  as	
  an	
  “impression,”	
  

one	
   that	
   “isn’t	
   banal,”	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   crafted	
   his	
   expression	
   from	
   careful	
   study	
   but	
  

mediated	
  his	
  appearance	
  through	
  an	
  intense	
  color	
  palette.446	
  	
  

Lastly,	
  a	
  component	
  of	
  Symbolist	
  aesthetics	
  that	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  developed	
  within	
  

his	
   Parisian	
   works	
   was	
   that	
   his	
   canvases	
   could	
   not	
   only	
   excite	
   senses	
   other	
   than	
  

vision,	
  but	
  also	
  bring	
  about	
  a	
  state	
  akin	
  to	
  intoxication	
  in	
  the	
  mind	
  of	
  the	
  viewer.	
  

Described	
   as	
   a	
   feeling	
   similar	
   to	
   one	
   induced	
   by	
   drugs	
   or	
   alcohol,	
   Impressionist	
  

critics	
   made	
   the	
   reference	
   to	
   explain	
   how	
   a	
   highly-­‐charged	
   canvas	
   affected	
   the	
  

spectator’s	
  senses.	
  Referencing	
  a	
  drug-­‐affected	
  mind	
  was	
  a	
  metaphor	
  for	
  the	
  ways	
  

in	
   which	
   the	
   work	
   of	
   art	
   catapulted	
   the	
   viewer’s	
   imagination	
   on	
   its	
   journey.	
  

Comparing	
  the	
  state	
  of	
  mind	
  to	
  a	
  high	
  achieved	
  by	
  a	
  drug—hashish,	
  opium,	
  alcohol,	
  

or	
  absinthe—gave	
  a	
  concrete	
  narrative	
  to	
  the	
  metaphysical	
  journey	
  associated	
  with	
  

paintings.	
  Since	
  the	
  transition	
  from	
  a	
  fully-­‐aware	
  state	
  before	
  the	
  work	
  of	
  art	
  inward	
  

through	
  the	
  mind’s	
  journey	
  was	
  not	
  a	
  physical	
  space	
  the	
  body	
  entered,	
  the	
  parallel	
  

to	
   an	
   inebriated	
   state	
   explored	
   reaching	
   such	
   a	
   feeling:	
   a	
   separation	
   from	
   the	
  

material	
  world’s	
  stresses	
  and	
  the	
  pervasive,	
  all-­‐encompassing	
  nature	
  of	
  becoming	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
446	
  Letter	
  626.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

235	
  

altered	
  due	
  to	
  consuming	
  a	
  mind-­‐altering	
  substance.	
  When	
  considered	
  within	
  the	
  

context	
   of	
   Baudelairean	
   aesthetics,	
   references	
   to	
   an	
   intoxicated	
   feeling	
   in	
   the	
  

presence	
  of	
  a	
  canvas	
  or	
  group	
  of	
  works	
  indicate	
  a	
  series	
  of	
  steps	
  that	
  lead	
  the	
  viewer	
  

to	
  Idea.	
  	
  

Baudelaire	
  used	
  the	
  experience	
  of	
  hashish	
  as	
  a	
  metaphor	
  for	
  the	
  stages	
  of	
  

mind-­‐escape	
   before	
   a	
   canvas,	
   which	
   attracted	
   the	
   eye.	
   Upon	
   ingesting	
   hashish,	
  

Baudelaire	
  noted	
  that	
  the	
  senses	
  are	
  intensely	
  heightened	
  and	
  feelings	
  amplified	
  so	
  

one	
  should	
  be	
  in	
  a	
  stimulating	
  place,	
  such	
  as	
  a	
  “landscape-­‐garden”;	
  second,	
  senses	
  

become	
  “acute”	
  and,	
  as	
  “your	
  eyes	
  pierce	
  the	
  infinite,”	
  hallucinations	
  take	
  shape,	
  

including	
   colors	
   that	
   hold	
   music	
   and	
   sounds	
   that	
   give	
   way	
   to	
   forms. 447	
  	
   The	
  

intoxicated	
  person	
  experiences	
  a	
  sensorial	
  cacophony	
  of	
  sights,	
  sounds,	
  and	
  smells,	
  

and	
  transcends	
  the	
  restraints	
  of	
  commonplace-­‐life	
  to	
  another	
  world,	
  soaring	
  freely	
  

and	
   without	
   everyday	
   struggles.	
   After	
   leaving	
   the	
   “marvelous,	
   fantastic	
   world,”	
  

exaltation	
   gives	
   way	
   to	
   a	
   “dizzying	
   intoxication”	
   and	
   a	
   calm,	
   blissful	
   feeling	
  

ensues.448	
  

Impressionist	
  critics	
  began	
  to	
  note	
  the	
  canvas’s	
  intoxicating	
  effect	
  as	
  well.	
  “In	
  

certain	
  canvases,	
  you	
  feel	
  the	
  vibration	
  and	
  palpitation	
  of	
  light	
  and	
  heat,”	
  Edmond	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
447	
  Charles	
   Baudelaire,	
   “On	
   Wine	
   and	
   Hashish,”	
   Artificial	
   Paradises:	
   Baudelaire’s	
   Classic	
   Work	
   on	
  
Opium	
  and	
  Wine,	
  trans.	
  Stacy	
  Diamond	
  (New	
  York,	
  New	
  York:	
  A	
  Citadel	
  Press	
  Book,	
  1996)	
  14-­‐23.	
  

448	
  Baudelaire,	
  “On	
  Wine	
  and	
  Hashish”	
  21.	
  	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

236	
  

Duranty	
  noted	
  in	
  his	
  Impressionist	
  criticism	
  of	
  1876.	
  “You	
  feel,”	
  the	
  critic	
  continued,	
  

“an	
   intoxication	
   of	
   light.” 449 	
  Referring	
   to	
   the	
   landscapes	
   of	
   some	
   of	
   the	
  

Impressionists	
   (he	
   did	
   not	
   mention	
   specific	
   artists	
   or	
   painters),	
   Duranty	
  

differentiated	
   painters	
   who	
   conveyed	
   the	
   experience	
   within	
   nature	
   versus	
   those	
  

who	
  represented	
  nature.	
  From	
  the	
  Impressionists,	
  he	
  could	
  feel	
  light	
  through	
  their	
  

use	
  of	
  color.	
  Camille	
  Pissarro	
  and	
  Claude	
  Monet’s	
  images	
  shown	
  in	
  the	
  Impressionist	
  

exhibition	
   the	
   year	
   Duranty	
   penned	
   his	
   text,	
   exemplify	
   “impressions	
   taken	
   in	
   a	
  

nature	
  that	
  does	
  not	
  belong	
  to	
  this	
  world,”	
  as	
  one	
  critic	
  put	
  it.450	
  Pissarro’s	
  Pond	
  at	
  

Montfoucault	
   (1874)	
   [figure	
   20]	
   does	
   not	
   convey	
   a	
   convincing	
   scene	
   observed	
   in	
  

nature	
   in	
   all	
   the	
   canvas’s	
   aspects;	
   the	
   pond,	
   for	
   example,	
   appears	
   to	
   be	
   a	
   solid	
  

square	
   of	
   brush	
   strokes	
   that	
   intentionally	
   falls	
   short	
   of	
   depicting	
   a	
   reflection.	
  

Monet’s	
   Woman	
   with	
   a	
   Parasol	
   (1875)	
   [figure	
   21]	
   likewise	
   includes	
   areas	
   that	
  

function	
  to	
  express	
  the	
  painter’s	
  mark	
  rather	
  than	
  distance,	
  sunlight	
  or	
  shadow,	
  the	
  

elements	
   of	
   a	
   landscape.	
   The	
   lower	
   portion	
   of	
   the	
   canvas,	
   while	
   it	
   may	
   serve	
   to	
  

convey	
   the	
   female	
   figure’s	
   weight	
   on	
   the	
   mound,	
   appears	
   also	
   to	
   be	
   a	
   flattened	
  

rectangular	
  shape,	
  a	
  study	
  of	
  long	
  marks	
  acting	
  as	
  a	
  barrier	
  to	
  the	
  curvilinear	
  form	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
449	
  Louis	
  Emile	
  Edmond	
  Duranty,	
  “The	
  New	
  Painting:	
  Concerning	
  the	
  group	
  of	
  Artists	
  Exhibiting	
  at	
  the	
  
Durand	
   Ruel	
   Galleries,”	
   The	
   New	
   Painting:	
   Impressionism,	
   1874-­‐1876,	
   ed.	
   Charles	
   S.	
   Moffett	
   (San	
  
Francisco:	
  The	
  Fine	
  Arts	
  Museum,	
  1986)	
  43.	
  	
  

450	
  G.	
  d’Olby	
  quoted	
  in	
  Moffett	
  183.	
  	
  

	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

237	
  

the	
  hill	
  should	
  have.	
  Allowing	
  parts	
  of	
  the	
  canvas	
  to	
  remain	
  in	
  a	
  state	
  disconnected	
  

from	
  the	
  convincing	
  elements	
  of	
  an	
  outdoor	
  space	
  caught	
  the	
  attention	
  of	
  critics.	
  

After	
  seeing	
  a	
  Moreau	
  exhibition,	
  Huysmans	
  wrote	
  that	
  Moreau’s	
  color	
  went	
  to	
  his	
  

head	
  and	
  intoxicated	
  his	
  sight;	
  the	
  critic	
  became	
  so	
  dizzy	
  he	
  had	
  to	
  grope	
  his	
  way	
  

out	
  of	
  Goupil’s	
  gallery	
  where	
  he	
  remembered	
  being	
  transported	
  to	
  “distant	
  realms,”	
  

and	
  once	
  out	
  on	
  the	
  street	
  he	
  was	
  met	
  with	
  the	
  “ignoble”	
  and	
  “shameful”	
  streets	
  of	
  

Paris.451	
  	
  

Van	
  Gogh’s	
  Arlesian	
  painting	
  Night	
  Café	
  (1888)	
  [figure	
   4]	
   conveys	
  such	
  an	
  

aesthetic.	
  The	
  artist	
  noted	
  that	
  the	
  clashing	
  blood-­‐red	
  and	
  Veronese	
  green	
  suggest	
  

the	
  underbelly	
  of	
  a	
  late-­‐night	
  café,	
  “a	
  place	
  where	
  you	
  can	
  ruin	
  yourself,	
  go	
  mad,	
  

commit	
  crimes.”452	
  Between	
  the	
  gaslights	
  emitting	
  waves	
  of	
  colors	
  and	
  the	
  skewed	
  

perspective,	
  the	
  painting	
  symbolically	
  conveys	
  a	
  state	
  of	
  drunkenness.	
  The	
  viewer	
  

himself	
   is	
   not	
   looking	
   at	
   an	
   image	
   of	
   inebriation	
   but	
   through	
   the	
   lens	
   of	
   an	
  

intoxicated	
  state.	
  In	
  Paris,	
  images	
  such	
  as	
  Café	
  Table	
  with	
  Absinthe	
  (February-­‐March	
  

1887)	
   [figure	
   22]	
   portray	
   a	
   drug.	
   A	
   direct	
   statement	
   about	
   drug	
   culture	
   in	
   late-­‐

nineteenth-­‐century	
   Paris,	
   Café	
   Table	
   with	
   Absinthe	
   takes	
   absinthe	
   as	
   a	
   still-­‐life	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
451 	
  Joris-­‐Karl	
   Huymans,	
   “Gustave	
   Moreau	
   (1889),”	
   Certains,	
   Symbolist	
   Art	
   Theories:	
   A	
   Critical	
  
Anthology,	
   trans.	
   and	
   ed.	
   Henri	
   Dorra	
   (Berkeley,	
   Los	
   Angeles	
   and	
   London:	
   University	
   of	
   California	
  
Press,	
  1994)	
  44-­‐47.	
  

452	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  677	
  to	
  Théo	
  from	
  Arles	
  on	
  September	
  9,	
  1888.	
  	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

238	
  

object	
  and	
  the	
  artist	
  depicts	
  the	
  hazy	
   liquid	
   in	
  white	
   light	
  before	
  a	
   large	
  window	
  

looking	
  out	
  onto	
  a	
  Paris	
  street.	
  	
  

In	
  canvases	
  such	
  as	
  Park	
  in	
  Asnières	
  in	
  Spring	
  and	
  Sois-­‐Bois,	
  the	
  suggestion	
  of	
  

an	
  inebriated	
  state	
  through	
  color	
  and	
  mark-­‐making	
  assumes	
  a	
  new	
  canvas-­‐viewer	
  

relationship.	
  Although	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  landscapes	
  do	
  not	
  depict	
  an	
  observed	
  scene	
  of	
  

drugs	
   or	
   alcohol,	
   the	
   artist’s	
   painterly	
   approach	
   relates	
   to	
   the	
   ways	
   Baudelaire	
  

connected	
  the	
  contemplation	
  of	
  the	
  landscape	
  with	
  a	
  drug-­‐induced	
  mind-­‐set,	
  a	
  step	
  

on	
  the	
  way	
  to	
  an	
  imaginative	
  journey.	
  Depicting	
  an	
  overt	
  reference	
  to	
  a	
  drug	
  was	
  

not	
   a	
   symbolic	
   means	
   of	
   conveying	
   an	
   intoxicating	
   state.	
   In	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   canvases	
  

movement	
  initiates	
  the	
  overall	
  effect,	
  leaving	
  the	
  viewer	
  to	
  contemplate	
  the	
  natural	
  

forces	
  through	
  the	
  mediated	
  means	
  of	
  color	
  and	
  mark-­‐making.	
  Rather	
  than	
  depict	
  a	
  

scene	
  that	
  appeared	
  to	
  convey	
  a	
  sense	
  of	
  drunkenness	
  or	
  include	
  alcohol	
  or	
  drugs	
  

themselves,	
   the	
   artist,	
   similar	
   to	
   the	
   approach	
   of	
   Pissarro	
   and	
   Monet,	
   dedicated	
  

much	
   of	
   the	
   canvas	
   to	
   a	
   study	
   of	
   the	
   paint	
   itself,	
   and	
   not	
   toward	
   constructing	
   a	
  

sense	
  of	
  distant	
  space.	
  While	
  the	
  motion	
  within	
  the	
  paintings	
  could	
  be	
  attributed	
  to	
  

the	
  wind	
  within	
  the	
  leaves	
  and	
  among	
  the	
  shrubbery,	
  in	
  Park	
  in	
  Asnières	
  in	
  Spring	
  

and	
   Sois-­‐Bois	
   the	
   motion	
   does	
   not	
   resolve	
   the	
   relationship	
   among	
   the	
   natural	
  

elements	
  depicted	
  but	
  the	
  modes	
  of	
  construction	
  at	
  work	
  in	
  the	
  canvas.	
  This	
   is	
  a	
  

significant	
  departure	
  for	
  Van	
  Gogh,	
  whose	
  works	
   initially	
  aimed	
  to	
  situate	
  figures	
  

and	
  scenes	
  within	
  a	
  landscape.	
  In	
  1887,	
  the	
  transformation	
  his	
  work	
  underwent	
  is	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

239	
  

evident	
  in	
  the	
  imagery	
  that	
  describes	
  his	
  process	
  rather	
  than	
  the	
  scene	
  before	
  him.	
  

To	
  this	
  end,	
  the	
  artist	
  ventured	
  into	
  a	
  painting	
  practice	
  rooted	
  in	
  the	
  Baudelairean	
  

notions	
  that	
  prioritized	
  the	
  imagination	
  to	
  ignite	
  that	
  of	
  the	
  viewer.	
  In	
  doing	
  so,	
  he	
  

employed	
  a	
  pictorial	
  language	
  that	
  symbolically	
  suggested	
  a	
  translation	
  in	
  which	
  the	
  

painter	
  intentionally	
  left	
  the	
  relationship	
  among	
  the	
  paintings’	
  elements	
  unresolved.	
  

Although	
  there	
  is	
  an	
  attempt	
  to	
  show	
  depth	
  in	
  Park	
  in	
  Asnières	
  in	
  Spring	
  and	
  Sois-­‐

Bois,	
  both	
  may	
  also	
  be	
  read	
  as	
  a	
  whole,	
  a	
  wall	
  of	
  uninterrupted	
  abstract	
  marks.	
  In	
  

this	
   way,	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   landscapes	
   engaged	
   the	
   viewer’s	
   senses	
   to	
   create	
   an	
  

experience	
  that	
  could	
  lead	
  to	
  a	
  drug-­‐like	
  trance.	
  	
  	
  

	
  

G.-­‐Albert	
  Aurier’s	
  Messiah	
  

Van	
  Gogh’s	
  Patch	
  of	
  Grass	
  (April-­‐June	
  1887)	
  [figure	
  8]	
  indicates	
  a	
  departure	
  

from	
   his	
   previous	
   Paris-­‐period	
   landscapes.	
   Void	
   of	
   depth	
   and	
   atmospheric	
  

perspective,	
   Patch	
   begins	
   a	
   new	
   painterly	
   vocabulary	
   that	
   led	
   to	
   images	
   such	
   as	
  

Starry	
  Night.	
  Flat	
  and	
  abstract,	
  the	
  painting	
  aesthetic	
  parallels	
  Baudelaire’s	
  aesthetic	
  

directives.	
   Baudelaire’s	
   ideas	
   not	
   only	
   shaped	
   the	
   ways	
   in	
   which	
   the	
   painter	
  

conceived	
  the	
  subject	
  matter,	
  but	
  put	
  the	
  emphasis	
  on	
  the	
  artist’s	
  mindset	
  and	
  in	
  

turn	
   the	
   viewer’s	
   imagination	
   upon	
   experiencing	
   the	
   painting.	
   In	
   Patch,	
   the	
   artist	
  

omitted	
  considerations	
  of	
   light	
  and	
  perspective	
  and	
  instead	
  captured	
  the	
  signs	
  of	
  

the	
  natural	
  world	
  in	
  a	
  highly	
  idiosyncratic	
  mode	
  that	
  subordinated	
  the	
  Impressionist	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

240	
  

and	
  Neo-­‐Impressionist	
  goals.	
  In	
  some	
  of	
  their	
  canvases,	
  the	
  Impressionist	
  and	
  Neo-­‐

Impressionist	
   artists,	
   such	
   as	
   Monet,	
   Pissarro,	
   Bernard	
   and	
   Signac,	
   consistently	
  

capture	
  the	
  sun	
  or	
  depth	
  as	
  a	
  way	
  to	
  give	
  spatial	
  perspective	
  to	
  a	
  somewhat	
  abstract	
  

image.	
   In	
   Patch,	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   interpreted	
   a	
   field	
   in	
   a	
   simplified	
   mode,	
   but	
   with	
  

amplified	
   medium.	
   Patch,	
   like	
   Starry	
   Night,	
   is	
   visually	
   complicated	
   as	
   the	
   artist	
  

suppressed	
  the	
  details	
  of	
  the	
  grasses	
  and	
  shrubbery	
  but	
  still	
  emphasized	
  the	
  means	
  

by	
  which	
  the	
  image	
  was	
  constructed.	
  The	
  lack	
  of	
  perspectival	
  depth	
  in	
  Patch	
  and	
  

Starry	
  Night	
   forces	
  the	
  journey	
  inward,	
   into	
  the	
  viewer’s	
   imagination,	
  rather	
  than	
  

through	
   a	
   visual	
   experience	
   within	
   the	
   painting’s	
   pictorial	
   devices.	
   In	
   Patch,	
   the	
  

viewer’s	
  gaze	
  cannot	
  meander	
  throughout	
  the	
  painting,	
  but	
  is	
  kept	
  on	
  the	
  surface	
  of	
  

the	
  canvas.	
  The	
  surface	
  thus	
  becomes	
  paramount	
  and	
  the	
  landscape	
  a	
  subject	
  that	
  

the	
  artist	
  can	
  root	
  obliquely	
  in	
  the	
  natural	
  world	
  yet	
  reinterpret	
  through	
  his	
  artistic	
  

vision.	
  	
  	
  

Patch	
  and	
  Starry	
  Night	
  have	
  the	
  components	
  that	
  caused	
  Aurier	
  to	
  consider	
  

Van	
   Gogh	
   his	
   guide	
   to	
   Idea	
   in	
   “Les	
   isolés,”	
   which	
   appeared	
   in	
   the	
   first	
   issue	
   of	
  

Mercure	
  de	
  France	
  in	
  1890.	
  	
  During	
  Aurier’s	
  research	
  for	
  the	
  article,	
  Bernard	
  shared	
  

with	
  the	
  critic	
  some	
  of	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  imagery	
  (though	
  unknown)	
  and	
  one	
  letter	
  Van	
  

Gogh	
  wrote	
  while	
  Gauguin	
  was	
  staying	
  with	
  him	
  in	
  Arles.	
   Interestingly,	
  the	
   letter	
  

included	
  a	
  passage	
  which	
  Aurier	
  paraphrased	
  in	
  “Les	
  isolés”	
  to	
  underscore	
  that	
  Van	
  

Gogh’s	
  imagery	
  created	
  dream-­‐like	
  experiences	
  in	
  a	
  far-­‐away	
  world,	
  a	
  description	
  of	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

241	
  

his	
  mind’s	
  journey.453	
  Although	
  Aurier	
  scholar	
  Patricia	
  Townley	
  Mathews	
  holds	
  that	
  

Van	
  Gogh	
  was	
  unsettled	
  by	
  the	
  critic’s	
  article,	
  Cornelia	
  Homburg	
  and	
  Carol	
  Zemel	
  

respectively	
  underscore	
  that	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  thanked	
  Aurier	
  for	
  the	
  essay	
  and	
  referred	
  to	
  

it	
  often	
  to	
  his	
  friends	
  and	
  family.454	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  was	
  not	
  unsettled	
  per	
  se,	
  but,	
  rather,	
  

“surprised”	
  by	
  the	
  attention	
  paid	
  to	
  his	
  work.455	
  The	
  painter	
  was	
  flattered	
  by	
  Aurier’s	
  

essay,	
   and	
   both	
   he	
   and	
   his	
   brother	
   Théo	
   applauded	
   the	
   critic.456	
  “Les	
   isolés”	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
453	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  716	
  to	
  Bernard	
  from	
  Arles	
  on	
  the	
  1st	
  or	
  2nd	
  of	
  November	
  when	
  Gauguin	
  was	
  
staying	
  with	
  him:	
  “Next,	
  I	
  don’t	
  think	
  it	
  will	
  astonish	
  you	
  greatly	
  if	
  I	
  tell	
  you	
  that	
  our	
  discussions	
  are	
  
tending	
   to	
   deal	
   with	
   the	
   terrific	
   subject	
   of	
   an	
   association	
   of	
   certain	
   painters.	
   Ought	
   or	
   may	
   the	
  
association	
  have	
  a	
  commercial	
  character,	
  yes	
  or	
  no?	
  We	
  haven’t	
  reached	
  any	
  result	
  yet,	
  and	
  haven’t	
  
so	
  much	
  as	
  set	
  foot	
  on	
  a	
  new	
  continent	
  yet.	
  Now	
  I,	
  who	
  have	
  a	
  presentiment	
  of	
  a	
  new	
  world,	
  who	
  
certainly	
  believe	
  in	
  the	
  possibility	
  of	
  a	
  great	
  renaissance	
  of	
  art.	
  Who	
  believe	
  that	
  this	
  new	
  art	
  will	
  
have	
  the	
  tropics	
  for	
  its	
  homeland	
  [sic].”	
  See	
  also:	
  note	
  2.	
  As	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  did	
  in	
  many	
  of	
  his	
  letters,	
  he	
  
remarked	
   on	
   his	
   dream	
   to	
   have	
   a	
   collective	
   of	
   artists	
   working	
   together.	
   Aurier	
   paraphrased	
   this	
  
passage	
  in	
  “Les	
  isolés”	
  to	
  describe	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  as	
  “an	
  exalted	
  believer,	
  a	
  devourer	
  of	
  beautiful	
  utopias	
  
living	
  on	
  ideas	
  and	
  on	
  dreams.”	
  Aurier	
  quoted	
  in	
  Dorra	
  223.	
  

454	
  Patricia	
  Townley	
  Mathews,	
  Aurier’s	
  Symbolist	
  Art	
  Criticism	
  and	
  Theory	
  (Ann	
  Arbor,	
  Michigan:	
  UMI	
  
Research	
   Press,	
   1984)	
   122-­‐23.	
   Cornelia	
   Homburg,	
   “Vincent	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   Avant	
   Garde	
   Strategies,”	
  
Vincent	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  and	
  the	
  Painters	
  of	
  the	
  Petit	
  Boulevard	
  (Saint	
  Louis:	
  Saint	
  Louis	
  Museum,	
  2001)	
  53.	
  
Carol	
  Zemel	
  The	
  Formation	
  of	
  a	
  Legend:	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  Criticism,	
  1890-­‐1920	
  (Ann	
  Arbor,	
  Michigan:	
  UMI	
  
Research	
  Press,	
  1980)	
  65-­‐67.	
  Among	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  family	
  members,	
  his	
  mother,	
  sister	
  Willemien	
  (Wil)	
  
and	
  sister-­‐in-­‐law	
  Jo	
  (Theo’s	
  wife)	
  responded	
  generally	
  about	
  the	
  essay	
  shortly	
  after	
  it	
  appeared	
  (845).	
  

455	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  850	
  to	
  Théo	
  from	
  Saint-­‐Rémy	
  on	
  February	
  1,	
  1890.	
  

456	
  Théo	
   wrote	
   letter	
   T55	
   to	
   Aurier	
   on	
   August	
   27,	
   1890	
   from	
   Paris.	
   See:	
   Vincent	
   Van	
   Gogh,	
   The	
  
Complete	
  Letters	
  of	
  Vincent	
  van	
  Gogh:	
  with	
  reproductions	
  of	
  the	
  drawings	
  in	
  the	
  correspondence,	
  vol.	
  
III	
  (New	
  York:	
  New	
  York	
  Graphic	
  Society,	
  1978)	
  589-­‐590.	
  On	
  “Les	
  isolés,”	
  see	
  also	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  letters	
  
to	
  Théo,	
  all	
  written	
  from	
  Saint-­‐Rémy:	
  850,	
  853,	
  854,	
  863.	
  Théo	
  also	
  wrote	
  letter	
  867	
  to	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  
from	
  Paris	
  on	
  Sunday,	
  May	
  3,	
  1890	
  in	
  which	
  he	
  noted	
  that	
  he	
  received	
  the	
  painting	
  of	
  cypresses	
  Van	
  
Gogh	
  wanted	
  to	
  give	
  to	
  Aurier.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

242	
  

garnered	
   critical	
   praise	
   from	
   Aurier’s	
   peers	
   as	
   well,	
   and,	
   after	
   its	
   publication,	
   the	
  

critic	
  became	
  a	
  sought-­‐after	
  theorist.457	
  

I	
   consider	
   the	
   framework	
   Aurier	
   provided	
   to	
   define	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   Symbolist	
  

approach	
   in	
   Patch.	
   Aurier’s	
   text	
   is	
   an	
   explicit	
   imaginative	
   voyage	
   to	
   Idea,	
   which	
  

began	
   by	
   contemplating	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   Starry	
   Night.	
   In	
   considering	
   the	
   components	
  

that	
  culminate	
  in	
  a	
  symbolically	
  charged	
  image,	
  Patch	
  reflects	
  the	
  underpinnings	
  of	
  

Symbolist	
  painting	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  undertook	
  after	
  leaving	
  Paris.	
  While	
  Aurier	
  focused	
  on	
  

later	
  works,	
  those	
  of	
  the	
  Paris-­‐period	
  bear	
  the	
  mark	
  of	
  the	
  climactic	
  images,	
  such	
  as	
  

Starry	
  Night,	
  that	
  could	
  cause	
  the	
  viewer	
  to	
  pause,	
  stand	
  before	
  the	
  image,	
  block	
  

out	
  the	
  material	
  world,	
  and	
  through	
  the	
  lens	
  of	
  the	
  artist’s	
  perspective,	
  engage	
  in	
  a	
  

mind-­‐altering	
  experience.	
  Although	
  Patch	
  led	
  from	
  nature,	
  a	
  wall	
  of	
  texture,	
  mark-­‐

making	
  and	
  hue,	
  the	
  painterly	
  principles	
  caused	
  Aurier	
  to	
  experience	
  Idea	
  and	
  name	
  

Van	
  Gogh	
  his	
  messiah.	
  Similar	
  to	
  Fénéon,	
  who	
  characterized	
  the	
  Neo-­‐Impressionists’	
  

approach	
   as	
   a	
   way	
   to	
   symbolically	
   convey	
   the	
   subject	
   matter’s	
   sensation,	
   Aurier	
  

defined	
   Symbolism	
   in	
   the	
   visual	
   arts	
   as	
   a	
   canvas	
   so	
   wholly	
   deduced	
   through	
   the	
  

artist’s	
  mode	
  of	
  painting	
  that	
  the	
  subject	
  matter	
  appears	
  not	
  as	
  an	
  object	
  to	
  behold,	
  

but	
   as	
   one	
   that	
   is	
   experienced	
   sensorially.	
   The	
   painting’s	
   formal	
   qualities	
   did	
   not	
  

need	
  to	
  correspond	
  to	
  the	
  subject	
  matter	
  directly,	
  but	
  rather	
  communicated	
  with	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
457	
  Mathews	
  12-­‐13.	
  On	
  the	
  reception	
  of	
  “Les	
  isolés,”	
  Mathews	
  writes:	
  “It	
  had	
  a	
  tremendous	
  success,	
  
even	
  among	
  those	
  who	
  knew	
  nothing	
  of	
  Vincent’s	
  art…[Aurier]	
  is	
  acknowledged	
  as	
  an	
  authority	
  on	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  from	
  this	
  point	
  on.”	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

243	
  

the	
  critic’s	
  senses,	
  allowing	
  him	
  to	
  make	
  imaginative	
  connections	
  between	
  the	
  effect	
  

of	
  the	
  color	
  and	
  form.	
  Aurier	
  quoted	
  Baudelaire’s	
  poem	
  “Correspondances”	
  (1857)	
  

to	
  explain	
  how	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  imagery	
  corresponded	
  to	
  an	
  otherwise	
  hidden	
  symbol,	
  to	
  

which	
   the	
   senses	
   become	
   attuned	
   when	
   stimulated.	
   For	
   Aurier,	
   this	
   exchange	
  

resulted	
  in	
  a	
  mind-­‐transport	
  to	
  Idea.	
  	
  

Aurier	
  began	
  “Les	
  isolés”	
  by	
  describing	
  how	
  he	
  regained	
  his	
  bearings	
  after	
  

experiencing	
  a	
  journey	
  to	
  Platonic	
  Idea,	
  the	
  highest	
  level	
  of	
  Beauty	
  that	
  exists	
  in	
  a	
  

realm	
   beyond	
   the	
   material	
   world.	
   He	
   reached	
   the	
   utopian	
   state	
   standing	
   before	
  

Starry	
  Night,	
  a	
  painting	
  whose	
  color	
  and	
  form	
  ignited	
  his	
  dormant	
  senses,	
  senses	
  

dulled	
  by	
  the	
  material	
  world’s	
  monotony.	
  “Suddenly,”	
  Aurier	
  began,	
  “now	
  that	
  I	
  had	
  

returned	
  to	
  the	
  ignoble,	
  muddy,	
  razzle-­‐dazzle	
  of	
  the	
  dirty	
  street	
  and	
  ugly	
  real	
  life,	
  

these	
  disparate	
  bits	
  and	
  pieces	
  of	
  verse	
  emerged	
  in	
  my	
  memory.”458	
  Once	
  he	
  briefly	
  

reached	
  the	
  euphoric	
  state,	
  he	
  realized	
  the	
  ugliness	
  of	
  his	
  world.	
  He	
  then	
  recounted	
  

the	
   pathway	
   to	
   his	
   transcendent	
   voyage.	
   Starry	
   Night’s	
   color,	
   similar	
   to	
   “glaring	
  

sapphire	
  or	
  turquoise”	
  under	
  skies	
  of	
  “molten	
  metal	
  and	
  crystal,”	
  was	
  “nature	
  given	
  

to	
  excess”	
  and	
  was	
  transformed	
  into	
  a	
  symbol.459	
  In	
  Aurier’s	
  terms,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  was	
  a	
  

“messiah,”	
   a	
   “drunken	
   giant”	
   who	
   created	
   imagery	
   to	
   provide	
   a	
   much-­‐needed	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
458	
  Aurier	
  quoted	
  in	
  Dorra	
  220.	
  	
  

459	
  Aurier	
  quoted	
  in	
  Dorra	
  220.	
  

	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

244	
  

escape	
  from	
  societal	
  problems.460	
  “Without	
  doubt,”	
  Aurier	
  wrote,	
  “like	
  all	
  painters	
  

of	
  his	
  race	
  he	
  is	
  conscious	
  of	
  the	
  importance	
  and	
  beauty	
  of	
  matter,	
  but	
  more	
  often	
  

than	
  not	
  he	
  takes	
   in	
  this	
  magical	
  matter	
  only	
  as	
  a	
  marvelous	
   language	
  ultimately	
  

intended	
  to	
  translate	
  Idea.”461	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  felt	
  that	
  Aurier	
  wrote	
  it	
  as	
  a	
  guide,	
  not	
  only	
  

for	
  him	
  but	
  also	
  for	
  all	
  of	
  the	
  Impressionists,	
  and	
  the	
  painter	
  thought	
  that	
  this	
  was	
  a	
  

lot	
  of	
  responsibility	
  to	
  bear.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  was	
  grateful	
  for	
  Aurier’s	
  praise,	
  writing	
  also	
  

that	
   the	
   essay	
   “has	
   its	
   own	
   merit	
   as	
   a	
   critical	
   work	
   of	
   art.”462	
  “I	
   rediscover	
   my	
  

canvases	
  in	
  your	
  article,”	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  to	
  Aurier	
  to	
  thank	
  him,	
  “but	
  better	
  than	
  

they	
  are—richer,	
  more	
  significant.”463	
  	
  

Patch	
   closely	
   resembles	
   the	
   works	
   on	
   which	
   Aurier	
   focused	
   in	
   terms	
   of	
  

formal	
   qualities	
   and	
   painterly	
   approach.	
   For	
   Aurier,	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   canvas	
   was	
   the	
  

catalyst	
  to	
  Idea,	
  the	
  “final	
  cause”	
  of	
  the	
  work	
  of	
  art.464	
  The	
  concept	
  that	
  a	
  viewer	
  

could	
  reach	
  an	
  eternal	
  realm	
  through	
  the	
  work	
  of	
  art	
  suggests	
  a	
  new	
  relationship	
  

paradigm	
   among	
   the	
   canvas,	
   the	
   artist,	
   and	
   the	
   spectator.	
   Although	
   Van	
   Gogh	
  

remained	
   a	
   religious	
   man	
   throughout	
   his	
   life,	
   the	
   short	
   time	
   during	
   which	
   he	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
460	
  Aurier	
  quoted	
  in	
  Dorra	
  223,	
  222.	
  

461	
  Aurier	
  quoted	
  in	
  Dorra	
  223.	
  	
  

462	
  Letter	
  850.	
  	
  

463	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  853	
  to	
  Aurier	
  from	
  Saint-­‐Rémy	
  on	
  February	
  9th	
  or	
  10th,	
  1890.	
  	
  

464	
  Aurier	
  quoted	
  in	
  Dorra	
  223.	
  

	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

245	
  

attempted	
  to	
  become	
  a	
  preacher	
  like	
  his	
  father	
  had	
  obscured	
  his	
  shifting	
  ideas	
  of	
  

reaching	
   an	
   infinite,	
   spiritual	
   realm.	
   Through	
   Baudelairean	
   concepts,	
   the	
   painter	
  

became	
  exposed	
  to	
  new	
  ways	
  of	
  thinking	
  about	
  religious	
  ends.	
  As	
  an	
  artist	
  capable	
  

of	
   constructing	
   enigmatically	
   inventive	
   paintings,	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   engaged	
   with	
   an	
  

emerging	
   concept:	
   that	
   the	
   artist	
   could	
   be,	
   in	
   a	
   metaphorical	
   way,	
   a	
   preacher	
  

because	
   his	
   works	
   could	
   lead	
   the	
   devotee	
   to	
   experience	
   a	
   world	
   free	
   of	
   the	
  

hindrances	
  and	
  stresses	
  of	
  the	
  material	
  world.	
  	
  

“Look,”	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  to	
  his	
  Thèo	
  in	
  1881,	
  “I	
  find	
  the	
  clergyman’s	
  God	
  as	
  

dead	
  as	
  a	
  doornail.”465	
  At	
  this	
  point,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  had	
  just	
  left	
  his	
  clerical	
  studies.	
  He	
  

later	
  explained	
  to	
  Bernard	
  that	
  the	
  emblems	
  of	
  religious	
  beliefs—such	
  as	
  the	
  cross	
  in	
  

the	
  small	
  image	
  hanging	
  above	
  the	
  patriarch’s	
  head	
  in	
  The	
  Potato	
  Eaters—could	
  be	
  

conveyed	
   through	
   color	
   itself.	
   	
   “And	
   in	
   my	
   painting	
   I’d	
   like	
   to	
   say	
   something	
   as	
  

consoling	
   as	
   music,”	
   he	
   wrote	
   to	
   Bernard	
   from	
   Arles,	
   “I’d	
   like	
   to	
   paint	
   men	
   or	
  

women	
  with	
  that	
   je	
  ne	
  sais	
  quoi	
  of	
  the	
  eternal,	
  of	
  which	
  the	
  halo	
  used	
  to	
  be	
  the	
  

symbol,	
   and	
   which	
   we	
   try	
   to	
   achieve	
   through	
   the	
   radiance	
   itself,	
   through	
   the	
  

vibrancy	
  of	
  our	
  colorations.”466	
  Written	
  a	
  month	
  before	
  Gauguin’s	
  visit,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  

associated	
  the	
  power	
  of	
  hue	
  with	
  the	
  ability	
  to	
  convey	
  a	
  sensorial	
  experience	
  that	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
465	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  193	
  to	
  Théo	
  from	
  Etten	
  on	
  December	
  23,	
  1881.	
  	
  

466	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  693	
  to	
  Bernard	
  from	
  Arles	
  on	
  Monday,	
  September	
  3,	
  1888.	
  	
  

	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

246	
  

relates	
   to	
   the	
   infinite	
   realm.	
   In	
   a	
   sense,	
   these	
   words	
   from	
   the	
   artist	
   show	
   the	
  

trajectory	
   of	
   his	
   thought	
   process,	
   particularly	
   his	
   views	
   on	
   the	
   role	
   of	
   the	
   paint	
  

medium	
  on	
  the	
  viewer’s	
  senses	
  and	
  the	
  overall	
  impact	
  the	
  canvas	
  can	
  have.	
  	
  

The	
  roots	
  of	
  the	
  artist	
  as	
  messiah	
  can	
  be	
  found	
  within	
  Baudelaire’s	
  criticism.	
  

Baudelaire	
  believed	
  in	
  the	
  Catholic	
  notion	
  of	
  Original	
  Sin,	
  but	
  not	
  in	
  redemption—

death	
   could	
   not	
   bring	
   a	
   release	
   and	
   God	
   could	
   not	
   provide	
   salvation	
   from	
   the	
  

world’s	
  evils.467	
  He	
  considered	
  religion	
  “the	
  highest	
  fiction	
  of	
  the	
  human	
  mind”	
  and	
  

a	
  misuse	
  of	
  the	
  imagination’s	
  power.468	
  The	
  viewer	
  of	
  a	
  religious	
  image	
  must	
  use	
  his	
  

imagination	
  to	
  believe	
  in	
  the	
  biblical	
  narrative.	
  In	
  Baudelaire’s	
  estimation,	
  this	
  was	
  a	
  

futile	
  imaginative	
  exercise.469	
  The	
  imagination	
  allows	
  the	
  painter	
  to	
  connect	
  to	
  his	
  

dreams,	
  creating	
  a	
  good	
  picture	
  that	
  consists	
  of	
  layers	
  of	
  the	
  artist’s	
  perspective	
  that	
  

“confer[s]	
   greater	
   reality	
   upon	
   the	
   dream.”470	
  The	
   notion	
   of	
   religion,	
   as	
   it	
   was	
  

traditionally	
   understood,	
   did	
   not	
   become	
   outdated	
   per	
   se;	
   rather,	
   in	
   Baudelaire’s	
  

mind	
   it	
   misused	
   the	
   power	
   of	
   the	
   imagination.	
   For	
   Baudelaire,	
   art	
   provided	
   the	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
467	
  On	
  Baudelaire’s	
  religious	
   ideals	
  and	
  his	
  concept	
  of	
  the	
  transitory	
  and	
  eternal	
  world,	
  see:	
  David	
  
Carrier,	
   “Introduction:	
   Baudelaire’s	
   Metaphysics,”	
   High	
   Art:	
   Charles	
   Baudelaire	
   and	
   the	
   Origins	
   of	
  
Modernist	
  Painting	
  (University	
  Park:	
  The	
  Pennsylvania	
  State	
  University	
  Park,	
  1996)	
  1-­‐5.	
  	
  

468	
  Baudelaire	
  “The	
  Salon	
  of	
  1859”	
  163.	
  	
  

469	
  Charles	
   Baudelaire,	
   Intimate	
   Journal,	
   trans.	
   Christopher	
   Isherwood	
   (San	
   Francisco:	
   City	
   Light	
  
Books,	
  1947,	
  1983)	
  46.	
  “As	
  for	
  religion,	
  I	
  believe	
  it	
  is	
  useless	
  to	
  speak	
  of	
  it	
  or	
  to	
  search	
  for	
  its	
  relics….”	
  

470	
  Baudelaire	
  “The	
  Salon	
  of	
  1859”	
  161.	
  

	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

247	
  

antidote	
   to	
   the	
   banality	
   of	
   the	
   material	
   world,	
   and	
   the	
   critic	
   articulated	
   a	
  

relationship	
   among	
   the	
   artist,	
   canvas	
   and	
   viewer	
   that	
   was	
   akin	
   to	
   an	
   intoxicated	
  

experience,	
  such	
  as	
  with	
  wine	
  or	
  hashish.471	
  Baudelaire	
  urged	
  artists	
  to	
  depend	
  on	
  

their	
  imagination	
  to	
  transform	
  nature	
  because	
  the	
  canvas	
  could	
  affect	
  the	
  viewer’s	
  

mind	
   and	
   lead	
   the	
   participant	
   to	
   an	
   eternal	
   world	
   beyond	
   the	
   material	
   realm.472	
  

Artists	
  he	
  valued	
  were	
  those	
  he	
  called	
  “imaginatives,”	
  those	
  who	
  sought	
  to	
  paint	
  

their	
  own	
  souls	
  and	
  who	
  did	
  not	
  conform	
  to	
  traditional	
  art-­‐making	
  practices.	
  Instead	
  

they	
  followed	
  their	
  inner	
  voices,	
  generating	
  images	
  by	
  dreams	
  that	
  were	
  held	
  deep	
  

in	
  their	
  imaginations.	
  	
  

	
  	
  By	
  the	
  1880s,	
  artists	
  and	
  critics	
  both	
  equated	
  the	
  role	
  of	
  the	
  artist	
  with	
  that	
  

of	
   the	
   preacher	
   and	
   creators	
   and	
   viewers	
   understood	
   that	
   the	
   canvases	
   had	
   the	
  

ability	
   to,	
   metaphorically	
   speaking,	
   intoxicate	
   viewers.	
   James	
   McNeill	
   Whistler	
  

introduced	
   himself	
   as	
   a	
   preacher	
   in	
   his	
   public	
   lecture	
   “Ten	
   O’Clock”	
   (1885)	
   and	
  

noted	
  that	
  the	
  duty	
  of	
  the	
  artist	
  is	
  to	
  “elevate”	
  the	
  viewer’s	
  mind.473	
  Bertall	
  depicted	
  

Édouard	
  Manet	
  as	
  Jesus	
  with	
  his	
  disciples	
  in	
  a	
  caricature	
  [figure	
  23],	
  and	
  Mallarmé	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
471	
  Baudelaire	
  “On	
  Wine	
  and	
  Hashish”	
  14-­‐23.	
  	
  

472	
  Baudelaire	
  “The	
  Salon	
  of	
  1859”	
  144-­‐216,	
  155-­‐162,	
  163-­‐188.	
  	
  

473 	
  James	
   McNeill	
   Whistler,	
   “Ten	
   O’clock,”	
   The	
   Correspondence	
   of	
   James	
   McNeill	
   Whistler,	
  	
  
<http://www.whistler.arts.gla.ac.uk/miscellany/tenoclock/>	
  (12	
  March	
  2014).	
  

	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

248	
  

referred	
   to	
   Manet	
   as	
   a	
   preacher	
   in	
   his	
   Impressionist	
   criticism.474	
  Mallarmé	
   also	
  

emphasized	
  that	
  Manet	
  and	
  his	
  Impressionist	
  followers	
  sought	
  truth	
  by	
  focusing	
  on	
  

the	
  painting’s	
  effect	
  on	
  the	
  viewer’s	
  senses,	
  rather	
  than	
  the	
  canvas	
  (the	
  thing)	
  itself.	
  

The	
   critic	
   concluded	
   that	
   painting’s	
   purpose	
   is	
   to	
   lead	
   to	
   Idea.475	
  Moréas,	
   in	
   his	
  

Symbolist	
  literary	
  manifesto,	
  asserted	
  that	
  the	
  artist’s	
  aim	
  is	
  to	
  “clothe	
  the	
  Idea	
  in	
  a	
  

form	
  perceptible	
  to	
  the	
  senses,”	
  convey,	
  in	
  other	
  words,	
  a	
  symbolic	
  language	
  within	
  

an	
  enticing	
  mode.476	
  In	
  response	
  to	
  Georges	
  Seurat’s	
  pointillist	
  Sunday	
  Afternoon	
  on	
  

the	
   Island	
   of	
   La	
   Grande	
   Jatte	
   (1884-­‐1886)	
   [figure	
   24],	
   critic	
   Octave	
   Maus	
  

characterized	
  the	
  debate	
  surrounding	
  the	
  painter	
  as	
  a	
  “messiah	
  of	
  a	
  new	
  art—or	
  a	
  

cold-­‐blooded	
  mystifier.”477	
  Kahn	
  published	
  a	
  response	
  to	
  the	
  symbolist	
  painters	
  in	
  

1886	
   and	
   in	
   1891	
   articulated	
   that,	
   in	
   terms	
   of	
   Seurat,	
   a	
   painting	
   is	
   a	
   system	
   of	
  

suggestive	
   symbols.	
   The	
   symbolic	
   painterly	
   elements	
   Kahn	
   addressed	
   similarly	
  

shifted	
  the	
  perspective	
  of	
  a	
  religious	
  hierarchy	
  from	
  the	
  pulpit	
  to	
  the	
  canvas.	
  The	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
474	
  Mallarmé	
   in	
   Moffett	
   28.	
   On	
   Manet	
   as	
   a	
   preacher:	
   “For	
   it	
   was	
   evident	
   that	
   the	
   preacher	
   had	
  
meaning;	
  he	
  was	
  persistent	
  in	
  his	
  reiteration,	
  unique	
  in	
  his	
  persistence,	
  and	
  his	
  works	
  were	
  signed	
  by	
  
the	
  then	
  new	
  and	
  unknown	
  name	
  of	
  Édouard	
  Manet.”	
  	
  	
  

475	
  Mallarmé	
   in	
   Moffett	
   34.	
   “I	
   content	
   myself	
   with	
   reflecting	
   on	
   the	
   clear	
   and	
   durable	
   mirror	
   of	
  
painting,	
  which	
  only	
  exists	
  by	
  the	
  will	
  of	
  Idea,	
  yet	
  constitutes	
  in	
  my	
  domain	
  the	
  only	
  authentic	
  and	
  
certain	
  merit	
  of	
  nature—the	
  Aspect.”	
  

476 	
  Jean	
   Moréas,	
   “A	
   Literary	
   Manifesto—Symbolism	
   (1886),”	
   Symbolist	
   Art	
   Theories:	
   A	
   Critical	
  
Anthology,	
   trans.	
   and	
   ed.	
   Henri	
   Dorra	
   (Berkeley,	
   Los	
   Angeles	
   and	
   London:	
   University	
   of	
   California	
  
Press,	
  1994)	
  151.	
  	
  

477	
  Octave	
  Maus	
  quoted	
  in	
  Moffett	
  469.	
  	
  

	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

249	
  

critics,	
  Aurier	
  included,	
  depended	
  on	
  the	
  artist’s	
  translation	
  of	
  the	
  objective.478	
  The	
  

painting	
  in	
  the	
  critics’	
  terms	
  did	
  not	
  supplant	
  a	
  religious	
  experience,	
  but	
  could	
  act	
  as	
  

a	
  starting	
  point	
  to	
  experience	
  an	
  imaginative	
  escape.	
  	
  

In	
  Paris,	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  landscapes,	
  including	
  Patch,	
  became	
  highly	
  suggestive.	
  

In	
  Way	
  in	
  the	
  Voyeur	
  d’Argenson	
  Park	
  in	
  Asnières	
  (June/July	
  1887)	
  [figure	
  25]	
  the	
  

image’s	
  composition	
  leaves	
  a	
  space	
  for	
  the	
  spectator’s	
  presence,	
  acknowledges	
  the	
  

viewer’s	
   gaze,	
   and	
   provides	
   richly	
   saturated	
   hues	
   and	
   forceful	
   brush	
   strokes	
   that	
  

generate	
  a	
  pattern	
  among	
  the	
  seemingly	
  distinct	
  objects	
  within	
  the	
  painting.	
  The	
  

woman,	
   dressed	
   colorfully	
   in	
   a	
   crimson	
   blouse	
   and	
   floral	
   skirt	
   that	
   bears	
   little	
  

distinction	
   from	
   the	
   gardens	
   surrounding	
   her,	
   gazes	
   outside	
   the	
   picture	
   plane.	
  

Although	
  her	
  eyes	
  and	
  facial	
  expression	
  are	
  obscured,	
  her	
  bodily	
  posture	
  is	
  parallel	
  

to	
  someone	
  who	
  would	
  stand	
  before	
  the	
  canvas,	
  turning	
  her	
  shoulders	
  away	
  from	
  

the	
  path’s	
  direction	
  and	
  toward	
  the	
  open	
  gravel-­‐like	
  path	
  beyond	
  the	
  curb	
  on	
  which	
  

she	
  stands.	
  She	
  appears	
  to	
  be	
  caught	
  in	
  a	
  moment	
  of	
  paused	
  motion,	
  holding	
  up	
  her	
  

skirt	
   and	
   looking	
   at	
   whoever	
   has	
   stepped	
   upon	
   the	
   path.	
   The	
   path’s	
   openness	
  

recognizes	
  a	
  space	
  the	
  viewer’s	
  body	
  could	
  take,	
  empathetically	
  leaving	
  a	
  place	
  for	
  

the	
   participant	
   to	
   meet	
   the	
   body	
   of	
   the	
   female	
   figure.	
   She,	
   in	
   turn,	
   meets	
   the	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
478	
  Richard	
  Shiff,	
  “Impressionism	
  and	
  Symbolism	
  as	
  Modes	
  of	
  Artistic	
  Expression,”	
  Cézanne	
  and	
  the	
  
End	
   of	
   Impressionism:	
   A	
   Study	
   of	
   the	
   Theory,	
   Technique,	
   and	
   Critical	
   Evaluation	
   of	
   Modern	
   Art	
  
(Chicago	
  and	
  London:	
  The	
  University	
  of	
  Chicago	
  Press,	
  1984)	
  39.	
  Kahn	
  also	
  responded	
  to	
  the	
  paintings	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  included	
  in	
  the	
  Indépendants,	
  noting	
  that	
  the	
  artist	
  needed	
  to	
  address	
  his	
  use	
  of	
  value;	
  a	
  
criticism	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  found	
  helpful.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  wrote	
  letter	
  594	
  to	
  Théo	
  from	
  Arles	
  on	
  Monday,	
  April	
  9	
  
1888;	
  see	
  also:	
  note	
  15.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

250	
  

newcomer’s	
  gaze.	
  With	
  the	
  female	
  figure,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  began	
  to	
  assert	
  a	
  new	
  painterly	
  

purpose	
   because	
   the	
   female	
   figure	
   is	
   an	
   optical	
   agent,	
   underscoring	
   the	
   act	
   of	
  

contemplative	
   viewing.	
   For	
   Aurier,	
   this	
   was	
   the	
   first	
   stage	
   of	
   his	
   transcendent	
  

journey.	
  	
  

The	
  overall	
  blended	
  painterly	
  approach	
  and	
  the	
  figure’s	
  gaze	
  in	
  Way	
  in	
  the	
  

Voyeur	
  d’Argenson	
  Park	
  is	
  not	
  unlike	
  that	
  of	
  Olympia	
  and	
  the	
  elements	
  surrounding	
  

her	
   in	
   Manet’s	
   1863	
   painting	
   [figure	
   26].	
   In	
   his	
   defense	
   of	
   Manet’s	
   controversial	
  

painting,	
  Émile	
  Zola	
  pointed	
  out	
  that	
  the	
  artist	
  simplified	
  the	
  figure’s	
  eyes	
  and	
  lips	
  

and	
  the	
  large	
  bouquet.479	
  In	
  so	
  doing,	
  the	
  artist	
  subsumed	
  facial	
  details	
  and	
  floral	
  

particulars,	
  which	
  were	
  typically	
  used	
  to	
  show	
  a	
  hierarchy	
  among	
  the	
  items	
  of	
  the	
  

painting’s	
  subject	
  matter.	
  Zola	
  underscored	
  that	
  Manet’s	
  ability	
  to	
  treat	
  both	
  figures	
  

and	
  flowers	
  as	
  objects	
  that	
  “reconstruct	
  reality…by	
  means	
  of	
  connect[ing]	
  surface	
  

shapes	
   and	
   large	
   zones	
   of	
   light”	
   gave	
   his	
   work	
   the	
   “severity	
   of	
   nature.”480	
  Zola’s	
  

thoughts	
  on	
  Manet’s	
  depiction	
  of	
  nature	
  dovetail	
  with	
  Fénéon’s	
  and	
  Aurier’s	
  ideals	
  

as	
  both	
  critics	
  relied	
  on	
  the	
  artist’s	
  ability	
  to,	
  in	
  Zola’s	
  words,	
  “take	
  a	
  few	
  steps	
  back”	
  

to	
   translate	
   nature’s	
   vital	
   sensations	
   in	
   an	
   unassuming	
   form.	
   Having	
   read	
   Zola’s	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
479	
  Émile	
  Zola	
  quoted	
   in	
  Hajo	
  Düchting,	
  Édouard	
  Manet:	
   Images	
  of	
   Parisian	
  Life	
   (Munich	
  and	
  New	
  
York:	
  Prestel-­‐Verlag,	
  1995)	
  46-­‐47.	
  	
  

480	
  Zola	
  quoted	
  in	
  Düchting	
  46.	
  	
  

	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

251	
  

passage	
  on	
  Olympia,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  found	
  the	
  critic’s	
  analysis	
  an	
  effective	
  way	
  to	
  depict	
  

nature,	
  but	
  nature	
  channeled	
  and	
  reinvented	
  through	
  the	
  artist.481	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  found	
  

he	
   needed	
   to	
   reduce	
   forms	
   and	
   omit	
   details	
   that	
   alluded	
   to	
   a	
   person	
   or	
   object’s	
  

significance	
   and	
   allow	
   the	
   painting	
   to	
   be	
   read	
   as	
   a	
   surface,	
   without	
   defining	
  

characteristics	
  that	
  would	
  draw	
  attention	
  to	
  one	
  aspect	
  more	
  than	
  another.	
  	
  

The	
  figure’s	
  gaze	
  in	
  Way	
  in	
  the	
  Voyeur	
  d’Argenson	
  Park	
  parallels	
  the	
  painterly	
  

attributes	
  Zola	
  outlined.	
  Although	
  the	
  figure’s	
  shoulders	
  turn	
  toward	
  the	
  viewer,	
  her	
  

overall	
  depiction	
  blends	
  with	
  the	
  foliage,	
  presenting	
  her	
  level	
  with	
  that	
  of	
  the	
  park.	
  

In	
  Patch	
  a	
  similar	
  approach	
  of	
  sublimated	
  details	
  appears	
  for	
  the	
  only	
  indication	
  of	
  

the	
   sky	
   is	
   a	
   horizontal	
   stripe	
   of	
   neutral	
   color	
   at	
   the	
   canvas’s	
   top.	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   was	
  

neither	
  interested	
  here	
  in	
  capturing	
  the	
  sun’s	
  fleeting	
  effects	
  nor	
  the	
  atmospheric	
  

qualities	
   of	
   the	
   sky,	
   ephemeral	
   traits	
   associated	
   with	
   Impressionistic	
   painting.	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
481	
  Although	
  Düchting	
  points	
  out	
  that	
  Zola	
  himself	
  missed	
  Manet’s	
   intentionally	
   ironic	
  use	
  of	
  paint	
  
medium,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  read	
  Zola’s	
  account	
  and	
  used	
  the	
  critic’s	
  words	
  to	
  shape	
  his	
  own	
  painting	
  practice.	
  
On	
   Zola’s	
   passage,	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   wrote	
   letter	
   359	
   to	
   Anthon	
   van	
   Rappard	
   from	
   The	
   Hague	
   around	
  
Tuesday,	
  July	
  3,	
  1883.	
  “I	
  would	
  truly	
  like	
  to	
  begin	
  by	
  saying	
  that	
  I’m	
  not	
  one	
  of	
  those	
  who	
  blame	
  Zola	
  
for	
  this	
  book.	
  Through	
  it	
  I’m	
  getting	
  to	
  know	
  Zola,	
  I’m	
  getting	
  to	
  know	
  Zola’s	
  weak	
  side—insufficient	
  
understanding	
  of	
  painting—prejudices	
  instead	
  of	
  correct	
  judgment	
  in	
  this	
  special	
  case.	
  But,	
  my	
  dear	
  
friend,	
  should	
  I	
  get	
  irritated	
  with	
  a	
  friend	
  on	
  account	
  of	
  a	
  fault	
  in	
  him?—far	
  from	
  it.	
  On	
  the	
  contrary,	
  
he	
  is	
  all	
  the	
  dearer	
  to	
  me	
  because	
  of	
  his	
  fault.	
  So	
  I	
  read	
  the	
  articles	
  about	
  the	
  Salon	
  with	
  a	
  most	
  
curious	
  feeling.	
  I	
  think	
  it	
  utterly	
  wrong,	
  entirely	
  mistaken,	
  except	
  in	
  part	
  the	
  appreciation	
  of	
  Manet—I	
  
too	
   think	
   Manet	
   is	
   clever—but	
   very	
   interesting,	
   Zola	
   on	
   art,	
   interesting	
   in	
   the	
   same	
   way	
   as,	
   for	
  
instance,	
   a	
   landscape	
   by	
   a	
   figure	
   painter:	
   it	
   isn’t	
   his	
   genre,	
   it’s	
   superficial,	
   incorrect,	
   but	
   what	
   an	
  
approach—not	
  carried	
  through—so	
  be	
  it—not	
  quite	
  clear—so	
  be	
  it—but	
  at	
  any	
  rate	
  it	
  makes	
  one	
  
think	
  and	
  is	
  original	
  and	
  tingling	
  with	
  life.	
  But	
  it’s	
  mistaken	
  and	
  most	
  incorrect,	
  and	
  rests	
  on	
  shifting	
  
sands.”	
  

	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

252	
  

Instead,	
  Patch	
  immerses	
  the	
  viewer’s	
  sight	
  in	
  a	
  cacophony	
  of	
  lines,	
  dotted	
  color,	
  and	
  

hue.	
  Although	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  began	
  the	
  image	
  by	
  painting	
  nature,	
  he	
  veers	
  toward	
  the	
  

abstract	
   and	
   does	
   not	
   rely	
   on	
   underbrush	
   or	
   linear	
   tree	
   trunks	
   to	
   provide	
   spatial	
  

descriptive	
   devices.	
   The	
   painter	
   did	
   not	
   aim	
   to	
   mimetically	
   articulate	
   the	
   shadow	
  

and	
  scale	
  of	
  the	
  field.	
  In	
  the	
  foreground	
  the	
  participant	
  meets	
  several	
  strokes	
  of	
  a	
  

light	
   Naples	
   yellow,	
   a	
   close	
   up	
   of	
   a	
   plant.	
   These	
   organic	
   forms	
   have	
   shed	
   their	
  

characteristics—their	
   sense	
   of	
   delicacy,	
   their	
   connection	
   to	
   the	
   ground,	
   their	
  

appearance	
   beneath	
   the	
   sunlight.	
   Nevertheless	
   there	
   is	
   an	
   overall	
   sense	
   of	
  

movement,	
   as	
   the	
   strokes	
   read	
   as	
   one	
   wall	
   of	
   colorful	
   patterns.	
   Movement	
   is	
   a	
  

symbol	
  of	
  the	
  natural	
  grace	
  of	
  a	
  field	
  of	
  flowers	
  and	
  grasses	
  and	
  part	
  of	
  the	
  painter’s	
  

experience—and	
  the	
  symbolic	
  reference	
  to	
  nature	
  transformed	
  is	
  the	
  aspect	
  of	
  Van	
  

Gogh’s	
  painting	
  that	
  Aurier	
  would	
  find	
  significant.	
  	
  

Patch	
  shows	
  the	
  transition	
  to	
  a	
  denotation	
  of	
  movement	
  through	
  color	
  and	
  

form—a	
   painting	
   that	
   emits	
   chromatic	
   vibrations	
   through	
   a	
   reductive	
   painterly	
  

process.	
  In	
  Patch	
  and	
  Starry	
  Night,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  did	
  not	
  rely	
  on	
  the	
  atmospheric	
  issues	
  

of	
   light	
   and	
   reflection,	
   but	
   used	
   the	
   paint	
   medium	
   to	
   materialize	
   the	
   intangible	
  

presence	
   of	
   natural	
   elements,	
   such	
   as	
   implied	
   motion	
   from	
   a	
   gentle	
   breeze,	
   in	
   a	
  

tactile	
  medium.	
  The	
  thrust	
  of	
  the	
  foliage	
  leaves	
  room	
  for	
  the	
  spectator’s	
  body,	
  as	
  

the	
   pattern	
   moves	
   in	
   an	
   oval-­‐like	
   shape	
   from	
   the	
   bottom	
   center	
   of	
   the	
   canvas	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

253	
  

through	
  to	
  the	
  top.	
  The	
  viewer’s	
  space	
  is	
  in	
  the	
  center	
  of	
  the	
  oval	
  as	
  the	
  shape	
  swirls	
  

around	
  the	
  periphery.	
  	
  To	
  this	
  end,	
  there	
  are	
  several	
  monochromatic	
  Prussian-­‐blue	
  

lines	
  threaded	
  throughout	
  the	
  plane.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  painted	
  a	
  fiction	
  of	
  nature	
  in	
  this	
  

sense.	
   The	
   blue	
   lines,	
   natural-­‐like	
   forms,	
   signify	
   motion	
   around	
   the	
   participant’s	
  

focused	
  gaze.	
  Patch	
  is	
  significant	
  because	
  it	
  indicates	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  ability	
  to	
  provide	
  

an	
   explicit	
   respite	
   for	
   the	
   viewer’s	
   gaze	
   among	
   his	
   enigmatic	
   lines	
   and	
   colors,	
  

suggesting	
  that	
  the	
  aim	
  of	
  his	
  painting	
  becomes	
  a	
  means	
  to	
  a	
  transcendent	
  end.	
  Van	
  

Gogh,	
   Aurier	
   wrote,	
   was	
   a	
   “messiah,	
   a	
   sower	
   of	
   truth…[who	
   regenerated]	
   our	
  

decrepit	
   art	
   and	
   perhaps	
   our	
   imbecile	
   society.”482	
  After	
   shedding	
   the	
   material	
  

world’s	
   hindrances,	
   Aurier	
   found	
   imaginative	
   salvation	
   through	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   Starry	
  

Night,	
   describing	
   the	
   artist’s	
   process	
   in	
   a	
   manner	
   that	
   can	
   be	
   applied	
   to	
   Patch:	
  

“…often	
  clumsy	
  buildups	
  comparable	
  to	
  shimmering	
  masonry,	
  and	
  all	
  this	
  gives	
  his	
  

canvases	
  the	
  solidity	
  of	
  dazzling	
  ramparts	
  of	
  crystal	
  and	
  sunlight.”483	
  Aurier’s	
  words	
  

describe	
   a	
   contradictory	
   analogy—dense,	
   yet	
   reflective,	
   and	
   wall-­‐like,	
   yet	
  

permeable.	
   	
   Patch	
   is	
   likewise	
   a	
   conflicting	
   landscape	
   in	
   that	
   it	
   implies	
   light	
   and	
  

reflection,	
  but	
  is	
  ultimately	
  and	
  thick,	
  crowded	
  and	
  compressed	
  image	
  of	
  a	
  field.	
  	
  

Van	
  Gogh’s	
  approach	
  reflects	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  Impressionist	
  painter’s	
  practices	
  as	
  

some	
  painters	
  also	
  complicate	
  depth	
  and	
  simplify	
  forms	
  through	
  an	
  egalitarian	
  use	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
482	
  Aurier	
  quoted	
  in	
  Dorra	
  223.	
  	
  

483	
  Aurier	
  quoted	
  in	
  Dorra	
  225.	
  	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

254	
  

of	
  paint	
  stroke	
  and	
  texture.	
  In	
  Monet’s	
  Woman	
  with	
  Parasol—Madame	
  Monet	
  and	
  

Her	
   Son	
   (1875)	
   and	
   Berthe	
   Morisot’s	
   (1841-­‐1895)	
   The	
   Wet	
   Nurse	
   Angèle	
   Feeding	
  

Julie	
  Manet	
  (1880),	
  abstract	
  marks	
  dominate	
  the	
  figures	
  and	
  landscape	
  [figures	
  27	
  &	
  

28].	
  The	
  peasant	
  girl	
  in	
  Pissarro’s	
  The	
  Shepherdess	
  (1881)	
  appears	
  to	
  be	
  sliding	
  down	
  

a	
   hill	
   whose	
   depth	
   has	
   been	
   thrust	
   forward	
   to	
   reconsider	
   the	
   spatial	
   relationship	
  

among	
  the	
  foreground,	
  the	
  figure	
  and	
  the	
  horizon	
  [figure	
  29].	
  The	
  three	
  areas	
  used	
  

to	
  provide	
  illusory	
  space	
  have	
  been	
  subordinated	
  to	
  emphasize	
  the	
  medium’s	
  form.	
  

Le	
   Chemin	
   de	
   fer	
   de	
   Dieppe	
   (1886)	
   exemplifies	
   Pissarro’s	
   pointillism	
   of	
   1886,	
   the	
  

flattened	
  picture	
  plane	
  and	
  all-­‐over	
  sense	
  of	
  pattern	
  that	
  emerged	
  [figure	
   30].484	
  

Seurat’s	
  La	
  Luzernes,	
  Saint-­‐Denis:	
  champ	
  de	
  coquelicots	
  	
  (1885-­‐1886	
  and	
  exhibited	
  at	
  

the	
   Exposition	
   des	
   Indépendants	
   in	
   September	
   of	
   1886)	
   [figure	
   31]	
   is	
   a	
   canvas	
  

strikingly	
  similar	
  to	
  Le	
  Chemin	
  because	
  the	
  viewer	
  is	
  faced	
  with	
  a	
  wall	
  of	
  texture	
  and	
  

pattern	
  in	
  the	
  near	
  foreground.	
  A	
  clear	
  path	
  separates	
  the	
  abstract	
  lower	
  portion	
  

and	
  the	
  horizon	
  dotted	
  with	
  structures.	
  Seurat’s	
  hatch-­‐marked	
  foreground	
  occupies	
  

about	
  two	
  thirds	
  of	
  the	
  painting’s	
  height.	
  The	
  foreground	
  demands	
  attention,	
  both	
  

for	
   its	
   scale	
   and	
   lack	
   of	
   depth,	
   and	
   in	
   this	
   way	
   actively	
   vies	
   for	
   the	
   participant’s	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
484	
  Martha	
   Ward,	
   Pissarro:	
   Neo-­‐Impressionism	
   and	
   the	
   Spaces	
   of	
   the	
   Avant-­‐Garde	
   (Chicago	
   and	
  
London:	
  The	
  University	
  of	
  Chicago	
  Press,	
  1996)	
  75-­‐78.	
  Pissarro	
  executed	
  the	
  painting	
  in	
  the	
  summer	
  
of	
  1886	
  and	
  completed	
  (retouched)	
  it	
  in	
  December.	
  During	
  this	
  time,	
  according	
  to	
  Naifeh	
  and	
  Smith,	
  
Pissarro	
  and	
  his	
  son	
  Lucien	
  visited	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  and	
  Théo	
  regularly	
  in	
  the	
  apartment	
  on	
  the	
  rue	
  Lepic	
  
(550).	
  	
  

	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

255	
  

senses.	
  The	
  foliage	
  does	
  not	
  connect	
  to	
  the	
  atmospheric	
  perspective	
  the	
  horizon	
  line	
  

brings.	
  Seurat	
  sought	
  the	
  symbolic	
  through	
  suggesting	
  nature,	
  not	
  denoting	
  it,	
  as	
  the	
  

foreground	
  foliage	
  neither	
  appears	
  to	
  grow	
  from	
  a	
  distinct	
  earth	
  nor	
  has	
  leaf-­‐like	
  

shapes.485	
  In	
  these	
  images,	
  a	
  paradox	
  between	
  the	
  medium	
  and	
  the	
  representation	
  

is	
   at	
   work.	
   Whereas	
   the	
   painters	
   depict	
   open-­‐air	
   subjects	
   or	
   fields	
   that	
   extend	
  

infinitely	
  into	
  the	
  horizon,	
  their	
  respective	
  applications	
  of	
  hue	
  and	
  medium	
  create	
  a	
  

dense	
  screen	
  that	
  belies	
  the	
  typical	
  effects	
  found	
  in	
  a	
  landscape	
  painting.	
  	
  	
  

As	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   engaged	
   with	
   the	
   Impressionist	
   canvases	
   and	
   experimented	
  

with	
  perspective	
  and	
  brushwork,	
  Gauguin	
  was	
  also	
  developing	
  what	
  would	
  become	
  

his	
  Symbolist	
  style	
  in	
  Martinique.	
  In	
  Martinique	
  in	
  1887,	
  Gauguin	
  too	
  made	
  paintings	
  

of	
   foliage	
   that	
   became	
   walls	
   of	
   color	
   and	
   facture,	
   compounding	
   figure-­‐ground	
  

relationships	
  such	
  as	
  in	
  Tropical	
  Vegetation	
  (1887)	
  [figure	
   32].	
   In	
  Gauguin’s	
  Notes	
  

Synthétiques,	
  written	
  between	
  1884	
  and	
  1885,	
  he	
  wrote:	
  	
  

Painting	
  is	
  the	
  most	
  beautiful	
  of	
  all	
  the	
  arts;	
  it	
  is	
  the	
  summation	
  of	
  
all	
  our	
  sensations,	
  and	
  contemplating	
  it	
  we	
  can	
  each,	
  according	
  to	
  
our	
  imagination,	
  create	
  the	
  story,	
  in	
  a	
  single	
  glance	
  our	
  soul	
  can	
  
be	
   flooded	
   with	
   the	
   most	
   profound	
   reflection;	
   no	
   effort	
   of	
  
memory,	
  everything	
  summed	
  up	
  in	
  a	
  single	
  instant.—A	
  complex	
  
art	
  which	
  completes	
  all	
  the	
  others.—Like	
  music,	
  it	
  works	
  on	
  the	
  
soul	
  through	
  the	
  intermediary	
  of	
  the	
  senses;	
  harmonies	
  of	
  tones	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
485	
  Kahn	
  quoted	
  in	
  Dorra	
  174.	
  In	
  Kahn’s	
  words	
  from	
  the	
  painter’s	
  1891	
  obituary:	
  Seurat’s	
  work	
  was	
  
“the	
  most	
  suggestive”	
  because	
  “the	
  symbol…lay	
  in	
  the	
  interpretation	
  of	
  a	
  subject,	
  not	
  in	
  the	
  subject	
  
itself….”	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

256	
  

correspond	
  to	
  harmonies	
  of	
  sounds…486	
  

Gauguin	
  too	
  asserted	
  that	
  the	
  viewer’s	
  soul	
  can	
  be	
  inundated	
  with	
  a	
  reflection,	
  a	
  

pulse	
   of	
   an	
   instant	
   that	
   warrants	
   significant	
   meditation.	
   Gauguin	
   also	
   echoed	
  

Baudelairean	
  theory	
  and	
  underscored	
  his	
  ability	
  to	
  use	
  the	
  natural	
  world	
  to	
  convey	
  

the	
  symbolism	
  of	
  universal	
  ideals.487	
  Gauguin	
  had	
  lost	
  faith	
  in	
  civilization	
  to	
  lead	
  man	
  

to	
  truth,	
  and	
  depended	
  instead	
  on	
  natural	
  locales	
  to	
  guide	
  him	
  to	
  a	
  transcendent	
  

state.	
  He	
  held	
  that	
  to	
  experience	
  Idea,	
  one	
  must	
  meet	
  the	
  artist’s	
  subjective	
  view.488	
  	
  

For	
   Aurier,	
   Gauguin’s	
   and	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   respective	
   canvases	
   held	
   the	
  

mysterious	
   symbol	
   that	
   could	
   correspond	
   with	
   the	
   universal	
   realm	
   beyond	
   the	
  

material	
   world	
   by	
   relating	
   color	
   and	
   sound,	
   triggering	
   sensory	
   experiences.	
   In	
  

Aurier’s	
   essay	
   on	
   Gauguin,	
   the	
   critic	
   began	
   with	
   Vision	
   After	
   the	
   Sermon	
   [figure	
  

11]—in	
  which	
  the	
  preacher’s	
  profile	
  resembles	
  that	
  of	
  Gauguin	
  himself,	
  leading	
  the	
  

congregation	
  through	
  an	
  imaginative	
  journey—and	
  he	
  cited	
  parts	
  of	
  the	
  first	
  stanza	
  

of	
   Baudelaire’s	
   “Correspondances.” 489 	
  Aurier	
   noted	
   that	
   the	
   Vision’s	
   symbolic	
  

imagery	
   had	
   transformed	
   in	
   some	
   way	
   into	
   sound,	
   leaving	
   only	
   the	
   priest’s	
  

(Gauguin’s)	
   voice	
   and	
   those	
   of	
   the	
   congregation.	
   Another	
   artist	
   in	
   the	
   role	
   of	
   a	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
486	
  Paul	
  Gauguin,	
   Notes	
  Synthétiques,	
   quoted	
   in	
   Belinda	
   Thomson,	
   ed.	
   Gauguin	
   by	
   Himself	
   (United	
  
Kingdom:	
  Time	
  Warner	
  Books,	
  2004)	
  34.	
  	
  	
  

487	
  Mathews	
  87-­‐90.	
  

488	
  Mathews	
  20	
  and	
  42.	
  

489	
  Aurier,	
  “Symbolism	
  in	
  Painting:	
  Paul	
  Gauguin	
  (1891)”	
  quoted	
  in	
  Dorra	
  199-­‐200.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

257	
  

preacher	
  draws	
  forth	
  a	
  mind-­‐altering	
  experience	
  for	
  the	
  viewer.	
  What	
  is	
  particularly	
  

important	
   in	
  terms	
  of	
  Gauguin’s	
  and	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  symbolic	
   imagery	
   is	
  Baudelaire’s	
  

understanding	
   of	
   the	
   relationship	
   between	
   nature	
   and	
   the	
   process	
   of	
  

correspondance.	
  Within	
  nature	
  lay	
  a	
  dictionary	
  of	
  signs.	
  The	
  artists	
  made	
  reasoned	
  

selections	
  from	
  the	
  natural	
  world	
  and	
  transformed	
  a	
  field	
  of	
  grasses	
  and	
  flowers,	
  for	
  

example,	
  into	
  a	
  symbol	
  of	
  movement	
  (in	
  Patch	
  or	
  Starry	
  Night)	
  or	
  into	
  a	
  collection	
  of	
  

voices	
  (in	
  Vision).	
  Van	
  Gogh,	
  in	
  Aurier’s	
  words,	
  wrote	
  “out	
  those	
  forms…according	
  to	
  

a	
   mode	
   susceptible	
   to	
   general	
   comprehension.”490	
  In	
   the	
   critic’s	
   terms,	
   Van	
   Gogh	
  

corresponded	
   with	
   complex	
   ideas	
   and	
   forms	
   to	
   generate	
   a	
   canvas	
   that	
   could	
  

accessibly	
  communicate	
  through	
  reductive	
  means.	
  What	
  Aurier’s	
  senses	
  responded	
  

to	
  were	
  visual	
  devices	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  and	
  Gauguin	
  created	
  to	
  allow	
  the	
  viewer	
  to	
  read	
  

the	
   image	
   as	
   one	
   plane	
   of	
   pattern,	
   form,	
   facture	
   and	
   color.	
   Both	
   painters	
   began	
  

depending	
   on	
   their	
   subjective	
   vision	
   and	
   drew	
   from	
   their	
   inner	
   minds.	
   Aurier	
  

described	
   the	
   feeling	
   of	
   being	
   drawn	
   into	
   a	
   correspondant	
   experience,	
   an	
  

intoxication,	
  an	
  inebriated	
  state	
  brought	
  on	
  by	
  an	
  inventive	
  canvas.	
  	
  

	
  

Conclusion	
  

By	
   the	
   1880s,	
   Baudelaire’s	
   ideas	
   had	
   been	
   absorbed	
   into	
   the	
   theoretical	
  

lexicon	
   and	
   critics	
   explicitly	
   referenced	
   his	
   aesthetic	
   ideas,	
   namely	
   those	
   that	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
490	
  Aurier,	
  “Symbolism	
  in	
  Painting:	
  Paul	
  Gauguin	
  (1891)”	
  quoted	
  in	
  Dorra	
  200.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

258	
  

addressed	
  the	
  changing	
  role	
  of	
  the	
  painter	
  within	
  the	
  context	
  of	
  a	
  viewer’s	
  journey.	
  

Van	
  Gogh	
  arrived	
  in	
  Paris	
  during	
  a	
  time	
  when	
  Baudelairean	
  ideas	
  helped	
  shaped	
  the	
  

Symbolist	
   literary	
   and	
   poetic	
   milieu,	
   and	
   the	
   painter	
   become	
   exposed	
   to	
   new	
  

methods	
  of	
  eliciting	
  a	
  mind-­‐altering	
  experience	
  before	
  the	
  canvas.	
  The	
  journey	
  itself,	
  

in	
   Aurier’s	
   terms,	
   was	
   associated	
   with	
   a	
   metaphysical	
   realm. 491 	
  Although	
   the	
  

materiality	
  of	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  surfaces	
  in	
  images	
  like	
  Patch	
  became	
  more	
  concrete	
  and	
  

literally	
   solid,	
   almost	
   impenetrable,	
   the	
   image	
   paradoxically	
   invites	
   the	
   viewer’s	
  

participation	
  and	
  ignite	
  an	
  imaginative	
  journey.	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  approach	
  inverted	
  the	
  

typically	
   light	
   and	
   airy,	
   sunshine-­‐filled	
   canvases	
   in	
   images	
   such	
   as	
   The	
   Restaurant	
  

Rispal	
   à	
   Asnières	
   (summer	
   1887)	
   [figure	
   33].	
   In	
   The	
   Restaurant	
   Rispal,	
   Van	
   Gogh	
  

employed	
  two-­‐point	
  perspective;	
  trees	
  and	
  clouds	
  frame	
  the	
  endpoints.	
  The	
  main	
  

gentleman	
  crossing	
  the	
  boulevard	
  appears	
  in	
  slightly	
  more	
  detail	
  than	
  the	
  working	
  

class	
  man	
  in	
  the	
  white	
  jacket	
  on	
  the	
  sidewalk,	
  owing	
  to	
  the	
  latter	
  figure’s	
  distance.	
  

Patch	
   indicates	
   that	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   engaged	
   in	
   the	
   Baudelairean	
   dialog	
   and	
   had	
   been	
  

exposed	
   to	
   the	
   methods	
   of	
   painting	
   that	
   attracted	
   Aurier’s	
   senses	
   while	
   in	
   Paris.	
  

Upon	
  leaving,	
  his	
  color	
  palette	
  changed	
  in	
  Arles,	
  but	
  components	
  remained	
  from	
  his	
  

painting	
  practice	
  in	
  the	
  capital:	
  treating	
  the	
  picture	
  plane	
  not	
  as	
  a	
  translation	
  of	
  an	
  

optical	
  phenomena,	
  but	
  rather	
  as	
  a	
  sensorial	
  body	
  of	
  medium.	
  	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
491	
  Cheetham	
  15.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

259	
  

CHAPTER	
  6:	
  CONCLUSION	
  

	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  accomplished	
  significant	
  goals	
  while	
  painting	
  in	
  Paris,	
  though	
  some	
  

of	
   his	
   well-­‐developed	
   imagery—Bridges	
   Across	
   the	
   Seine	
   at	
   Asnières	
   (1887),	
  

Factories	
  at	
  Clichy	
  (1887),	
  Factory	
  at	
  Clichy	
  (1887),	
  and	
  Patch	
  of	
  Grass	
  (April-­‐June	
  

1887)—does	
  not	
  necessarily	
  figure	
  into	
  discussions	
  regarding	
  the	
  canonical	
  paintings	
  

of	
  the	
  artist’s	
  body	
  of	
  work.	
  Between	
  the	
  dark,	
  modeled	
  forms	
  of	
  The	
  Potato	
  Eaters	
  

(1885)	
  and	
  the	
  saturated	
  color	
  and	
  movement	
   in	
  Sower	
  (June	
  1888),	
  the	
  imagery	
  

that	
  attributes	
  to	
  the	
  artist’s	
  radical	
  re-­‐conception	
  of	
  color,	
  form,	
  and	
  composition	
  

are	
  those	
  he	
  developed	
  in	
  Paris.	
  Attention	
  to	
  the	
  Paris-­‐period	
  not	
  only	
  locates	
  Van	
  

Gogh’s	
   pictorial	
   development	
   within	
   the	
   context	
   of	
   the	
   Impressionists	
   and	
   Neo-­‐

Impressionists,	
  but	
  also	
  establishes	
  the	
  ways	
  in	
  which	
  the	
  artist	
  diverged	
  from	
  the	
  

artistic	
  aims	
  of	
  the	
  Parisian	
  avant-­‐garde,	
  such	
  as	
  Claude	
  Monet	
  and	
  Camille	
  Pissarro,	
  

as	
  he	
  developed	
  his	
  Symbolic	
  approach.	
  	
  	
  

In	
  his	
  consideration	
  of	
  the	
  differences	
  between	
  Impressionist	
  and	
  Symbolist	
  

aesthetics,	
  Richard	
  Shiff	
  concludes	
  that	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  did	
  not	
  create	
  his	
  Symbolic	
  canvas	
  

by	
   suppressing	
   or	
   re-­‐evaluating	
   Impressionist	
   methods.492	
  The	
   Impressionist	
   and	
  

Symbolist	
   approaches	
   overlap	
   in	
   a	
   key	
   way:	
   artists	
   subjectively	
   create	
   a	
   painterly	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
492	
  Richard	
  Shiff,	
  “Impressionism	
  and	
  Symbolism,”	
  Cézanne	
  and	
  the	
  End	
  of	
  Impressionism:	
  A	
  Study	
  of	
  
the	
  Theory,	
  Technique,	
  and	
  Critical	
  Evaluation	
  of	
  Modern	
  Art	
  (Chicago	
  and	
  London:	
  The	
  University	
  of	
  
Chicago	
  Press,	
  1984)	
  39-­‐52.	
  	
  	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

260	
  

reality	
  based	
  on	
  an	
  emotion	
  particular	
  to	
  their	
  temperament	
  to	
  which	
  spectators	
  

from	
  any	
  period	
  can	
  respond	
  sympathetically.	
  For	
  Shiff,	
  an	
  artist	
  can	
  generate	
  an	
  

ideal,	
   or	
   a	
   universal	
   truth,	
   through	
   both	
   the	
   Impressionist	
   and	
   Symbolist	
   method	
  

because	
  the	
  subjective	
  can	
  lead	
  to	
  the	
  universal.	
  493	
  The	
  Impressionist	
  and	
  Symbolist	
  

canvases	
  differ	
  because	
  the	
  viewer	
  experiences	
  an	
  impression	
  through	
  observation	
  

and	
  the	
  symbolic	
  through	
  intuition;	
  the	
  former	
  emphasized	
  the	
  effect	
  and	
  the	
  latter	
  

the	
  ideal.	
  The	
  Impressionists	
  maintained	
  individuality	
  by	
  responding	
  to	
  the	
  natural	
  

world,	
  and	
  the	
  Symbolists	
  used	
  the	
  canvas	
  itself	
  as	
  a	
  means	
  to	
  address	
  a	
  state	
  of	
  

mind.494	
  The	
  Symbolists	
  made	
  a	
  shift	
  from	
  an	
  experience	
  with	
  the	
  material	
  realm	
  to	
  

an	
  encounter	
  with	
  the	
  artist’s	
  inner	
  mind-­‐set.	
  For	
  Félix	
  Fénéon,	
  Neo-­‐Impressionists	
  

maintained	
  a	
  “distance	
  from	
  the	
  accidental	
  and	
  the	
  transitory,”	
  and,	
  for	
  G.-­‐Albert	
  

Aurier,	
   the	
   Symbolists	
   treated	
   the	
   object	
   “as	
   a	
   sign	
   of	
   an	
   idea	
   perceived”	
   by	
   the	
  

artist.495	
  	
   With	
   these	
   concepts,	
   the	
   critics	
   underscored	
   the	
   relationship	
   between	
  

Neo-­‐Impressionist	
  and	
  Symbolist	
  aesthetics	
  that	
  Shiff	
  highlights.	
  The	
  artist	
  can	
  arrive	
  

at	
   the	
   symbolic	
   by	
   asserting	
   his	
   vision	
   over	
   the	
   transitory.496	
  Although	
   Van	
   Gogh	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
493	
  Shiff	
  41	
  &	
  43.	
  	
  
494	
  Shiff	
  44,	
  46-­‐47.	
  	
  

495	
  Félix	
  Fénéon,	
  “Le	
  Néo-­‐impressionnisme	
  (1887),”	
  Symbolist	
  Art	
  Theories:	
  A	
  Critical	
  Anthology,	
  trans	
  
and	
  ed.	
  Henri	
  Dorra	
  (Berkeley,	
  Los	
  Angeles	
  and	
  London:	
  University	
  of	
  California	
  Press,	
  1994)	
  162.	
  G.-­‐
Albert	
   Aurier,	
   ”Symbolism	
   in	
   Painting:	
   Paul	
   Gauguin	
   (1891)”	
   Symbolist	
   Art	
   Theories:	
   A	
   Critical	
  
Anthology,	
   trans	
   and	
   ed.	
   Henri	
   Dorra	
   (Berkeley,	
   Los	
   Angeles	
   and	
   London:	
   University	
   of	
   California	
  
Press,	
  1994)	
  200.	
  

496	
  Shiff	
  50-­‐51.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

261	
  

aimed	
  to	
  capture	
  fleeting	
  affects,	
  such	
  as	
  wind	
  in	
  Patch,	
  the	
  artist	
  did	
  not	
  do	
  so	
  to	
  

stage	
   an	
   atmospheric	
   environment.	
   Instead,	
   he	
   arrived	
   at	
   natural	
   occurrences	
  

through	
   a	
   reduction	
   of	
   form	
   and	
   a	
   use	
   of	
   medium	
   that	
   signified,	
   rather	
   than	
  

described,	
  the	
  idea.	
  

I	
   find	
   that	
   the	
   artistic	
   currents	
   to	
   which	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   was	
   exposed	
   in	
   Paris	
  

provided	
  him	
  with	
  the	
  ability	
  to	
  thoroughly	
  interrupt	
  the	
  transitory,	
  generating	
  an	
  

ideal	
  that	
  the	
  artist	
  developed	
  through	
  his	
  subjective	
  lens.	
   	
  The	
  above-­‐mentioned	
  

paintings	
  are	
  rooted	
  in	
  an	
  observational	
  study	
  of	
  the	
  natural	
  world,	
  but	
  the	
  artist	
  

privileged	
  his	
  temperament	
  in	
  the	
  creation	
  process,	
  mediated	
  the	
  temporal	
  through	
  

his	
   experience,	
   and	
   generated	
   a	
   symbol.	
   On	
   the	
   banks	
   of	
   Asnières,	
   within	
   the	
  

factories	
   of	
   Clichy,	
   or	
   among	
   the	
   grasses	
   of	
   Paris,	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   confounded	
   the	
  

impression	
  and	
  the	
  symbol,	
  the	
  reactive	
  and	
  the	
  conceptual.	
  The	
  artist	
  drew	
  from	
  a	
  

particular	
   circumstance—aspects	
   of	
   industry,	
   modern	
   life,	
   or	
   landscape—to	
  

generate	
   a	
   universal	
   experience	
   of	
   labor	
   or	
   atmospheric	
   effects.	
   The	
   artist’s	
  

paintings	
   effectively	
   generate	
   an	
   impression	
   related	
   to	
   his	
   concept,	
   not	
   to	
   the	
  

object.	
  	
  

Van	
   Gogh’s	
   imagery	
   subsumed	
   the	
   experience	
   of	
   the	
   optical	
   within	
   the	
  

symbolic.	
  Spatial	
  effects	
  such	
  as	
  a	
  confined	
  industrially	
  built	
  environment	
  in	
  Factory	
  

at	
   Clichy	
   leads	
   to	
   an	
   experience	
   that	
   subverts	
   a	
   sense	
   of	
   depth	
   to	
   convey	
   the	
  

restricted	
  reality	
  of	
  the	
  working	
  classes.	
  The	
  wind	
  in	
  Patch	
  does	
  not	
  grow	
  from	
  the	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

262	
  

effect	
  of	
  light	
  and	
  shadow	
  on	
  the	
  surface,	
  but	
  from	
  the	
  surface	
  itself.	
  As	
  a	
  plane	
  of	
  

abstract	
   marks,	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   used	
   the	
   flat	
   surface	
   to	
   indicate	
   the	
   motion	
   of	
   wind	
  

through	
  the	
  form	
  of	
  the	
  paint	
  and	
  the	
  color	
  of	
  hue.	
  The	
  bright,	
  warm,	
  seemingly	
  

straightforward	
  imagery	
  of	
  modern	
  life	
  in	
  Bridges	
  Across	
  the	
  Seine	
  and	
  Factories	
  at	
  

Clichy,	
  give	
  way	
  to	
  a	
  complicated	
  sense	
  of	
  the	
  urban	
  landscape.	
  In	
  these	
  images,	
  the	
  

artist	
  included	
  signs	
  of	
  the	
  industrial	
  world	
  that	
  convey	
  the	
  artist’s	
  understanding	
  of	
  

the	
   environment,	
   not	
   an	
   observed	
   study,	
   to	
   emphasize	
   how	
   the	
   industrial	
   world	
  

intervenes	
  in	
  the	
  natural.	
  	
  

In	
  these	
  ways,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  created	
  a	
  distance	
  between	
  the	
  work	
  of	
  art	
  and	
  the	
  

transitory,	
  as	
  Fénéon	
  described.	
  Within	
  this	
  distance,	
  the	
  artist’s	
  paintings	
  lead	
  from	
  

the	
  artist’s	
  experience.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  asserted	
  his	
  point-­‐of-­‐view	
  upon	
  his	
  engagement	
  

with	
  the	
  material	
  world	
  and	
  constructed	
  an	
  ideal	
  the	
  viewer	
  can	
  realize	
  through	
  the	
  

process	
   of	
   looking.	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   did	
   not	
   circumvent	
   the	
   particular	
   notion	
   of	
   labor,	
  

industry,	
  or	
  the	
  natural	
  realm	
  to	
  consider	
  his	
  sense	
  of	
  seeing.	
  Instead,	
  he	
  used	
  the	
  

specificity	
   of	
   the	
   city	
   and	
   its	
   environs	
   to	
   provide	
   the	
   framework	
   to	
   an	
   accessible	
  

experience.	
   In	
   John	
   Berger’s	
   terms,	
   the	
   gap	
   between	
   what	
   we	
   see	
   and	
   what	
   we	
  

know	
   will	
   never	
   be	
   reconciled,	
   and	
   that	
   when	
   we	
   look,	
   we	
   always	
   see	
   things	
   in	
  

relation	
  to	
  ourselves.497	
  	
  The	
  disparity	
  between	
  seeing	
  and	
  knowing	
  or	
  the	
  chasm	
  

between	
  the	
  temporal	
  and	
  the	
  eternal	
   is	
  the	
  space	
   in	
  which	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
   imagery	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
497	
  John	
  Berger,	
  Ways	
  of	
  Seeing	
  (London:	
  British	
  Broadcasting	
  Corporation,	
  2003)	
  7-­‐9.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

263	
  

operates.	
  He	
  did	
  not	
  aim	
  to	
  settle	
  this	
  breach	
  in	
  understanding,	
  and	
  did	
  not	
  allow	
  

the	
  transitory	
  to	
  acquiesce	
  to	
  the	
  symbolic.	
  Rather,	
  he	
  created	
  canvases	
  that	
  convey	
  

the	
  essence	
  of	
  his	
  sense	
  of	
  perception	
  to	
  underscore	
  the	
  gap	
  between	
  seeing	
  and	
  

knowing	
  and,	
  in	
  so	
  doing,	
  generate	
  the	
  symbolic.	
  	
  

Van	
  Gogh	
  came	
  to	
  Paris	
  to	
  create	
  a	
  market	
  niche	
  for	
  his	
  work	
  and	
  for	
  the	
  

paintings	
  of	
  emerging	
  artists.	
  I	
  do	
  not	
  think	
  he	
  lived	
  in	
  Paris	
  long	
  enough	
  to	
  establish	
  

his	
  work	
  in	
  the	
  market	
  in	
  order	
  to	
  sell	
  his	
  paintings.	
  Émile	
  Bernard	
  and	
  Théo	
  did	
  help	
  

support	
  Aurier’s	
  critical	
  account	
  of	
  Vincent’s	
  work.	
  	
  After	
  the	
  artist	
  left	
  Paris,	
  Théo	
  

continued	
  to	
  support	
  Vincent’s	
  career.	
  Théo	
  rented	
  a	
  space	
  at	
  Père	
  Tanguy’s	
  home	
  

to	
  store	
  paintings,	
  showed	
  his	
  brother’s	
  work	
  to	
  Pissarro	
  and	
  exhibition	
  organizers,	
  

and	
  sent	
  completed	
  work	
  to	
  up-­‐coming	
  shows.498	
  Upon	
  Vincent’s	
  death,	
  Théo	
  was	
  

frustrated	
   that	
   more	
   people	
   did	
   not	
   recognize	
   his	
   brother’s	
   work	
   while	
   he	
   was	
  

alive.499	
  Although	
  the	
  painter	
  did	
  not	
  realize	
  all	
  of	
  the	
  accomplishments	
  he	
  set	
  for	
  

himself	
  in	
  his	
  lifetime,	
  posthumously	
  his	
  paintings	
  foster	
  a	
  significant	
  component	
  of	
  

the	
  art	
  market	
  today.	
  The	
  exposure	
  to	
  the	
  Parisian	
  avant-­‐garde	
  of	
  the	
  mid-­‐1880s	
  led	
  

the	
  artist	
  to	
  create	
  images	
  that	
  garnered	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  highest	
  prices	
  in	
  the	
  modern	
  

international	
   market.	
   In	
   1990,	
   Portrait	
   of	
   Dr.	
   Gachet	
   (1890)	
   sold	
   to	
   the	
   Japanese	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
498	
  Théo	
  wrote	
  letter	
  792	
  to	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  from	
  Paris	
  on	
  July	
  16,	
  1889.	
  

499	
  Chris	
  Stolwijk	
  and	
  Richard	
  Thomson,	
  Théo	
  van	
  Gogh,	
  1857-­‐1891:	
  Art	
  Dealer,	
  Collector	
  and	
  Brother	
  
of	
  Vincent	
  (Zwolle:	
  Waanders	
  Publishers,	
  1999)	
  56.	
  



	
  

	
  
	
  

264	
  

Kobayashi	
  Gallery	
  for	
  82.5	
  million	
  dollars.500	
  At	
  the	
  time,	
  Dr.	
  Gachet	
  commanded	
  the	
  

highest	
  auction	
  price	
  ever	
  paid.	
  Dr.	
  Gachet	
  remains	
  the	
  highest	
  bid	
  in	
  the	
  secondary	
  

market	
  for	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  paintings,	
  but	
  was	
  surpassed	
  by	
  Cézanne’s	
  The	
  Card	
  Players	
  

(1894-­‐1895).501	
  Most	
   recently,	
   Nature	
   Morte,	
   Vase	
   aux	
   marguerites	
   et	
   coquelicots	
  

(June	
   1890)	
   sold	
   in	
   November	
   2014	
   for	
   over	
   61	
   million	
   dollars. 502 	
  While	
   the	
  

compositional	
  strategies	
  at	
  work	
  in	
  these	
  painting	
  developed	
  from	
  the	
  methods	
  Van	
  

Gogh	
  studied	
  in	
  the	
  capital,	
  the	
  enduring	
  legacy	
  of	
  the	
  artist’s	
  Paris-­‐period	
  canvases	
  

lies	
   not	
   in	
   technical	
   strategies,	
   although	
   they	
   are	
   paramount,	
   but	
   in	
   the	
   ways	
   in	
  

which	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  developed	
  a	
  concept	
  of	
  perception	
  that	
  conflates	
  fleeting	
  effects	
  

and	
  the	
  eternal	
  ideal.	
  	
  

	
   	
  

	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
500	
  Suzanne	
  Muchnic,	
  “Van	
  Gogh	
  Painting	
  Sells	
  a	
  Record	
  82.5	
  Million,”	
  Los	
  Angeles	
  Times,	
  May	
  16,	
  
1990.	
  http://articles.latimes.com/1990-­‐05-­‐16/news/mn-­‐262_1_van-­‐gogh.	
  

501	
  The	
  Card	
  Players	
  sold	
  for	
  more	
  than	
  250	
  million	
  in	
  2012	
  when	
  George	
  Embiricos’s	
  collection	
  went	
  
up	
  for	
  sale.	
  Jane	
  Lee,	
  “Cézanne’s	
  Card	
  Players	
  Shatters	
  Highest	
  Price	
  Ever	
  for	
  a	
  Work	
  of	
  Art,”	
  Forbes,	
  
February	
  6,	
  2012.	
  http://www.forbes.com/sites/janelee/2012/02/06/cezannes-­‐card-­‐players-­‐shatters-­‐
record-­‐for-­‐highest-­‐price-­‐ever-­‐for-­‐a-­‐work-­‐of-­‐art/.	
   Carol	
   Vogel,	
   “Embirico’s	
   Collection	
   is	
   Selling	
   Some	
  
Works,”	
   The	
   New	
   York	
   Times,	
   October	
   4,	
   2012.	
  
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/arts/design/cezanne-­‐picasso-­‐and-­‐bacon-­‐works-­‐for-­‐
sale.html?_r=1.	
  

502	
  Sotheby’s,	
  Impressionist	
  and	
  Modern	
  Art	
  Evening	
  Sale,	
  “Vincent	
  van	
  Gogh:	
  Nature	
  Morte,	
  Vase	
  aux	
  
marguerites	
   et	
   coquelicots,”	
   November	
   4,	
   2014.	
  
http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2014/impressionist-­‐modern-­‐art-­‐evening-­‐sale-­‐
n09219/lot.17.html.	
  



	
   265	
  

BIBLIOGRAPHY	
  
	
  
Armstrong,	
  Carol.	
  Manet	
  Manette.	
  New	
  Haven	
  and	
  London:	
  Yale	
  University	
  Press,	
  

2002.	
  
	
  
Atkins,	
  Peter	
  J.,	
  ed.	
  Food	
  and	
  the	
  City	
   in	
  Europe	
  Since	
  1800.	
  Hampshire,	
  England:	
  

Ashgate	
  Publishing	
  Limited,	
  2007.	
  
	
  
Barrell,	
  John.	
  The	
  Dark	
  Side	
  of	
  Landscape:	
  The	
  Rural	
  Poor	
  in	
  English	
  Painting,	
  1730-­‐

1840.	
  Cambridge:	
  Cambridge	
  University	
  Press,	
  1980.	
  
	
  
Barthes,	
  Roland.	
  “The	
  Reality	
  “Effect.”	
  The	
  Rustle	
  of	
  Language.	
  Translated	
  by	
  Richard	
  

Howard.	
  New	
  York:	
  Hill	
  and	
  Wang,	
  1986.	
  147-­‐148.	
  
	
  
Baudelaire,	
  Charles.	
  Art	
  in	
  Paris:	
  Salons	
  and	
  Other	
  Exhibitions.	
  Translated	
  and	
  edited	
  

by	
  Jonathan	
  Mayne.	
  Oxford	
  Press	
  Limited,	
  1965.	
  	
  
	
  
-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐.	
  The	
  Flowers	
  of	
  Evil	
  &	
  Paris	
  Spleen:	
  Poems	
  by	
  Charles	
  Baudelaire.	
  Translated	
  by	
  

William	
  H.	
  Crosby.	
  Brockport,	
  NY:	
  BOA	
  Editions,	
  Ltd.,	
  1991.	
  	
  
	
  
-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐.	
   Intimate	
   Journal.	
   Translated	
   by	
   Christopher	
   Isherwood.	
   San	
   Francisco:	
   City	
  

Light	
  Books,	
  1947,	
  1983.	
  
	
  
-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐.	
  “The	
  Painter	
  of	
  Modern	
  Life.”	
  The	
  Painter	
  of	
  Modern	
  Life	
  and	
  Other	
  Essays:	
  

Charles	
  Baudelaire.	
  Translated	
  and	
  edited	
  by	
  Jonathan	
  Mayne.	
  New	
  York	
  and	
  
London:	
  Phaidon	
  Press	
  Limited,	
  2001.	
  1-­‐41.	
  

	
  
Berger,	
  John.	
  Ways	
  of	
  Seeing.	
  London:	
  British	
  Broadcasting	
  Corporation,	
  2003.	
  
	
  
Berlanstein,	
   Lenard	
   R.	
   Big	
   Business	
   and	
   Industrial	
   Conflict	
   in	
   Nineteenth-­‐Century	
  

France:	
  A	
  Social	
  History	
  of	
  the	
  Parisian	
  Gas	
  Company.	
  Berkeley,	
  Los	
  Angeles,	
  
and	
  Oxford:	
  University	
  of	
  California	
  Press,	
  1991.	
  

	
  
-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐.	
   The	
   Working	
   People	
   of	
   Paris,	
   1871-­‐1914.	
   Baltimore	
   and	
   London:	
   The	
   Johns	
  

Hopkins	
  University	
  Press,	
  1984.	
  
	
  
Blühm,	
   Andreas.	
   “Displaying	
   Van	
   Gogh,	
   1886-­‐1999.”	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   Museum	
   Journal	
  

(1999):	
  67-­‐68.	
  	
  	
  	
  
http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/_van012199901_01/_van012199901_01_0007.php.	
  	
  
	
  
Brettell,	
   Richard.	
   A	
   Day	
   in	
   the	
   Country:	
   Impressionism	
   and	
   the	
   French	
   Landscape.	
  

New	
  York,	
  New	
  York:	
  Harry	
  N.	
  Abrams,	
  Inc.,	
  Publishers,	
  1984.	
  
	
  



	
   266	
  

-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐.	
  Impressionism:	
  Painting	
  Quickly	
  in	
  France,	
  1860-­‐1890.	
  New	
  Haven	
  and	
  London:	
  
Yale	
  University	
  Press,	
  2000.	
  

	
  
-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐.	
  Pissarro	
  and	
  Pontoise:	
  The	
  Painter	
  in	
  the	
  Landscape.	
  New	
  Haven	
  and	
  London:	
  

Yale	
  University	
  Press,	
  1990.	
  
	
  
Callen,	
   Anthea.	
   The	
   Spectacular	
   Body:	
   Science,	
   Meaning,	
   and	
   the	
   Method	
   in	
   the	
  

Work	
  of	
  Degas.	
  New	
  Haven:	
  Yale	
  University	
  Press,	
  1995.	
  	
  
	
  
Cachin,	
  Françoise.	
  	
  Paul	
  Signac.	
  Greenwich,	
  Connecticut:	
  New	
  York	
  Graphic	
  Society	
  

Ltd.,	
  1971.	
  
	
  
Carrier,	
  David.	
  High	
  Art:	
  Charles	
  Baudelaire	
  and	
  the	
  Origins	
  of	
  Modernist	
  Painting.	
  

University	
  Park:	
  The	
  Pennsylvania	
  State	
  University	
  Park,	
  1996.	
  
	
  
Cate,	
  Phillip	
  Dennis	
  and	
  Mary	
  Shaw,	
  eds.	
  The	
  Spirit	
  of	
  Montmartre:	
  Cabarets,	
  Humor	
  

and	
  the	
  Avant-­‐Garde,	
  1875-­‐1905.	
  New	
  Brunswick,	
  New	
  Jersey:	
  Rutgers,	
  The	
  
State	
  University	
  of	
  New	
  Jersey,	
  1996.	
  

	
  
Cheetham,	
  Mark	
  A.	
  “Mystical	
  Memories:	
  Gauguin’s	
  Neoplatonism	
  and	
  ‘Abstraction’	
  

in	
   Late-­‐Nineteenth-­‐Century	
   French	
   Painting.”	
   Art	
   Journal	
   46,	
   no.	
   1	
   (Spring,	
  
1987):	
  15-­‐21.	
  

	
  
Clark,	
  TJ.	
  Farewell	
  to	
  an	
  Idea.	
  New	
  Haven	
  and	
  London:	
  Yale	
  University	
  Press,	
  1999.	
  
	
  
Crouch,	
   David	
   and	
   Colin	
   Ward.	
   The	
   Allotment:	
   Its	
   Landscape	
   and	
   Culture.	
   1988.	
  

Reprint,	
  Nottingham:	
  Five	
  Leaves	
  Publications,	
  2007.	
  
	
  
Derfier,	
   Leslie.	
   Paul	
   Lafargue	
   and	
   the	
   Flowering	
   of	
   French	
   Socialism,	
   1882-­‐1911.	
  

Cambridge,	
   Massachusetts	
   and	
   London,	
   England:	
   Harvard	
   University	
   Press,	
  
1998.	
  

	
  
Dolan,	
  Thérèse.	
  Review	
  of	
  The	
  Spectacular	
  Body:	
  Science,	
  Meaning,	
  and	
  the	
  Method	
  

in	
  the	
  Work	
  of	
  Degas.	
  Art	
  Journal	
  18.2	
  (Autumn	
  1997	
  –	
  Winter	
  1998):	
  39-­‐42.	
  
	
  
Dorra,	
  Henri,	
  trans	
  and	
  ed.	
  Symbolist	
  Art	
  Theories:	
  A	
  Critical	
  Anthology.	
  Berkeley,	
  Los	
  

Angeles	
  and	
  London:	
  University	
  of	
  California	
  Press,	
  1994.	
  
	
  
Düchting,	
   Hajo.	
   Édouard	
   Manet:	
   Images	
   of	
   Parisian	
   Life.	
   Munich	
   and	
   New	
   York:	
  

Prestel-­‐Verlag,	
  1995.	
  
	
  
Febles,	
  Eduardo.	
  “Anarchy	
  as	
  Narrative	
  Capital.”	
  Explosive	
  Narratives:	
  Terrorism	
  and	
  

Anarchy	
  in	
  the	
  works	
  of	
  Émile	
  Zola.	
  Amsterdam:	
  Editions	
  Rodoli,	
  2010.	
  65-­‐
107.	
  	
  



	
   267	
  

	
  
Ferretti-­‐Bocquillon,	
   Marina	
   et	
   al,	
   eds.	
   Signac,	
   1863-­‐1935.	
   New	
   Haven:	
   Yale	
  

University	
  Press,	
  2001.	
  
	
  
Fortescue,	
   William,	
   ed.	
   The	
   Third	
   Republic	
   in	
   France,	
   1870-­‐1940:	
   Conflicts	
   and	
  

Continuities.	
  London	
  and	
  New	
  York:	
  Routledge,	
  2000.	
  
	
  
Fowlie,	
  Wallace.	
  Poem	
  and	
  Symbol:	
  A	
  Brief	
  History	
  of	
  French	
  Symbolism.	
  University	
  

Park	
  and	
  London:	
  The	
  Pennsylvania	
  State	
  University	
  Press,	
  1990.	
  
	
  
Foucault,	
   Michel.	
   Discipline	
   &	
   Punish:	
   The	
   Birth	
   of	
   the	
   Prison.	
   Translated	
   by	
   Alan	
  

Sheridan.	
  1975.	
  Reprint,	
  New	
  York:	
  Vintage	
  Books,	
  1995.	
  
	
  
Friant,	
   Jim.	
   “Van	
   Gogh	
   Painting	
   Shows	
   a	
   Glasshouse.”	
   The	
   Glass	
   Club	
   Bulletin	
  

(Fall/Winter	
  2008):	
  21-­‐23.	
  
	
  
Fried,	
  Michael.	
  “Manet	
  in	
  His	
  Generation:	
  The	
  Face	
  of	
  Painting	
  in	
  the	
  1860s.”	
  Critical	
  

Inquiry	
  19.1	
  (Autumn	
  1992):	
  22-­‐69.	
  
	
  
Goldwater,	
  Robert.	
  Symbolism.	
  New	
  York,	
  New	
  York:	
  Westville	
  Press,	
  1979.	
  
	
  
Graetz,	
  H.R.	
  The	
  Symbolic	
  Language	
  of	
  Vincent	
  Van	
  Gogh.	
  New	
  York,	
  Toronto	
  and	
  

London:	
  McGraw-­‐Hill	
  Book	
  Company,	
  INC,	
  1963.	
  	
  
	
  
Greenberg,	
   Clement.	
   “Avant-­‐Garde	
   and	
   Kitsch.”	
   Art	
   in	
   Theory,	
   1900-­‐2000:	
   An	
  

Anthology	
   of	
   Changing	
   Ideas.	
   Edited	
   by	
   Charles	
   Harrison,	
   Paul	
   Wood	
   and	
  
Jason	
   Gaiger.	
   Massachusetts,	
   Oxford	
   and	
   Victoria,	
   Australia:	
   Blackwell	
  
Publishing,	
  1998.	
  539-­‐543.	
  	
  

	
  
Halperin,	
  Joan	
  Ungersma.	
  Félix	
  Fénéon:	
  Aesthete	
  &	
  Anarchist	
  in	
  Fin-­‐de-­‐Siècle	
  Paris.	
  

New	
  Haven	
  and	
  London:	
  Yale	
  University	
  Press,	
  1988.	
  
	
  
-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐.,	
  ed	
  and	
  trans.	
  Félix	
  Fénéon:	
  Œuvres	
  plus	
  que	
  completes.	
  Genève,	
  Switzerland:	
  

Librairies	
  Droz,	
  S.A,	
  1970.	
  	
  
	
  
Hayes,	
  Paul	
  Tucker.	
  The	
  Impressionists	
  at	
  Argenteuil.	
  New	
  Haven	
  and	
  London:	
  Yale	
  

University	
  Press,	
  2000.	
  	
  
	
  
Herbert,	
   Robert.	
   A	
   Day	
   in	
   the	
   Country:	
   Impressionism	
   and	
   the	
   French	
   Landscape.	
  

New	
  York:	
  Harry	
  N.	
  Abrams,	
  1994.	
  	
  
	
  
-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐.	
   Impressionism:	
  Art,	
  Leisure	
  and	
  Parisian	
  Society.	
  New	
  Haven:	
  Yale	
  University	
  

Press,	
  1988.	
  
	
  



	
   268	
  

-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐.	
  Seurat	
  at	
  the	
  Making	
  of	
  La	
  Grande	
  Jatte.	
  Berkeley	
  and	
  Los	
  Angeles:	
  University	
  
of	
  California	
  Press,	
  2004.	
  

	
  
Heugten,	
   Sjraar	
   van,	
   Joachim	
   Pissarro,	
   and	
   Chris	
   Stolwijk,	
   eds.	
   Van	
   Gogh	
   and	
   the	
  

Colors	
  of	
  the	
  Night.	
  The	
  Museum	
  of	
  Modern	
  Art	
  and	
  the	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  
2008.	
  

	
  
Hiddleston,	
  J.A.	
  Baudelaire	
  and	
  the	
  Art	
  of	
  Memory.	
  Oxford:	
  Clarendon	
  Press,	
  1999.	
  
	
  
Homburg,	
  Cornelia,	
  ed.	
  Vincent	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  and	
  the	
  Painters	
  of	
  the	
  Petit	
  Boulevard.	
  

Saint	
  Louis:	
  Saint	
  Louis	
  Art	
  Museum,	
  2001.	
  
	
  
-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐,	
  ed.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  Up	
  Close.	
  New	
  Haven	
  and	
  London:	
  Yale	
  University	
  Press,	
  2012.	
  
	
  
Huysmans,	
   Joris-­‐Karl.	
   A	
   rebours.	
   Translated	
   by	
   Robert	
   Baldick.	
   New	
   York	
   and	
  

London:	
  Penguin	
  Group,	
  2003.	
  
	
  
Irvine,	
  Gregory,	
  ed.	
  Japonisme	
  and	
  the	
  Rise	
  of	
  the	
  Modern	
  Art	
  Movement:	
  The	
  Arts	
  

of	
  the	
  Menji	
  Period.	
  New	
  York,	
  New	
  York:	
  Thames	
  and	
  Hudson,	
  2013.	
  	
  
	
  
Jaffé,	
  A.L.C.	
  “La	
  period	
  parisienne	
  de	
  Van	
  Gogh.”	
  Actes	
  du	
  XIXe	
  congres	
  international	
  

d'histoire	
  de	
  l'art	
  (Paris,	
  September	
  8-­‐13,	
  1958):	
  508-­‐511.	
  	
  
	
  
Jansen,	
  Leo,	
  Hans	
  Luijten	
  and	
  Nienke	
  Bakker,	
  eds.	
  Vincent	
  van	
  Gogh:	
  The	
  Letters.	
  

Van	
   Gogh	
   Museum.	
   Last	
   modified	
   November	
   2014.	
  
http://vangoghletters.org/vg/.	
  	
  

	
  
Krauss,	
  André.	
  Vincent	
  van	
  Gogh:	
  Studies	
  in	
  the	
  Social	
  Aspects	
  of	
  his	
  Work.	
  Atlantic	
  

Highlands,	
  NJ:	
  Humanities	
  Press	
  International,	
  Inc.,	
  1983.	
  
	
  
Kōdera,	
   Tsukasa.	
   “Van	
   Gogh’s	
   Utopian	
   Japonisme.”	
   Catalogue	
   of	
   the	
   Van	
   Gogh	
  

Museum’s	
  Collection	
  of	
  Japanese	
  Prints.	
  Zwolle:	
  Waanders	
  Publishers,	
  1991.	
  
11-­‐46.	
  	
  

	
  
Kooten,	
  Toos	
  Van	
  and	
  Mieke	
  Rijnders,	
  eds.	
  The	
  Paintings	
  of	
  Vincent	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  in	
  the	
  

Collection	
   of	
   the	
   Kröller-­‐Müller	
   Museum.	
   Otterlo,	
   Kröller-­‐Müller	
   Museum,	
  
2003.	
  

	
  
Lacambre,	
  Geneviève,	
  ed.	
  Gustave	
  Moreau:	
  Between	
  Epic	
  and	
  Dream.	
  Princeton,	
  NJ:	
  

The	
  Art	
   Institute	
  of	
  Chicago	
  in	
  Association	
  with	
  Princeton	
  University	
  Press,	
  
1999.	
  

	
  
Leakey,	
  F.W.	
  	
  Baudelaire	
  and	
  Nature.	
  London:	
  Manchester	
  University	
  Press,	
  1965.	
  
	
  



	
   269	
  

Lewis,	
   Mary	
   Tompkins,	
   ed.	
   	
   Critical	
   Reading	
   in	
   Impressionism	
   and	
   Post-­‐
Impressionism:	
  An	
  Anthology.	
  Berkeley,	
  Los	
  Angeles	
  and	
  London:	
  University	
  
of	
  California	
  Press,	
  2007.	
  

	
  
Mathews,	
  Patricia	
  Townley.	
  Aurier’s	
  Symbolist	
  Art	
  Criticism	
  and	
  Theory.	
  Ann	
  Arbor,	
  

Michigan:	
  UMI	
  Research	
  Press,	
  1984.	
  
	
  
Mauer,	
  Naomi	
  Margolis.	
  The	
  Pursuit	
  of	
  Spiritual	
  Wisdom:	
  The	
  Thought	
  and	
  Art	
  of	
  

Vincent	
   van	
   Gogh	
   and	
   Paul	
   Gauguin.	
   Madison	
   and	
   Teaneck:	
   Fairleigh	
  
Dickinson	
  University	
  Press,	
  1998.	
  

	
  
Mayeur,	
  Jean-­‐Marie	
  and	
  Madeleine	
  Reberioux.	
  The	
  Third	
  Republic	
  from	
  its	
  Origins	
  to	
  

the	
  Great	
  War,	
  1871-­‐1914.	
  Translated	
  by	
  Maison	
  des	
  Sciences	
  de	
  l’Homme	
  
and	
   Cambridge	
   University	
   Press.	
   New	
   York,	
   New	
   Rochelle,	
   Melbourne	
   and	
  
Sydney:	
  Cambridge	
  University	
  Press,	
  1973.	
  

	
  
Moffett,	
  Charles	
  S.,	
  ed.	
  The	
  New	
  Painting:	
  Impressionism,	
  1874-­‐1876.	
  San	
  Francisco,	
  

The	
  Fine	
  Arts	
  Museum,	
  1986.	
  
	
  
Montorgueil,	
   Georges.	
   La	
   vie	
   à	
   Montmartre	
   (1899).	
   Illustrations	
   by	
   Pierre	
   Vidal.	
  

Gallica:	
   Bibliothèque	
   numérique.	
   	
   Bibliothèque	
   nationale	
   de	
   France.	
  
December	
  24,	
  2012.	
  	
  

http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6377146c.image.r=Debray.f21.langEN.	
  	
  
	
  
Société	
   d'histoire	
   et	
   d'archéologie	
   Le	
   vieux	
   Montmartre.	
   Le	
   Vieux	
   Montmartre.	
  

Société	
  d'histoire	
  et	
  d'archéologie	
  du	
  XVIIIe	
  arrondissement	
  Rapport	
  (1886-­‐
1935).	
  Gallica:	
  Bibliothèque	
  numérique.	
   	
  Bibliothèque	
  nationale	
  de	
  France.	
  
February	
  6,	
  2011.	
  

http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5690746b.image.r=Debray.f6.langEN.	
  	
  
	
  
Naifeh,	
  Steven	
  and	
  Gregory	
  White	
  Smith.	
  Van	
  Gogh:	
  The	
  Life.	
  New	
  York:	
  Random	
  

House,	
  2011.	
  
	
  
Nilsen,	
  Micheline.	
  The	
  Working	
  Man’s	
  Green	
  Space:	
  Allotment	
  Gardens	
  in	
  England,	
  

France,	
  and	
  Germany,	
  1870-­‐1919.	
  Virginia:	
  University	
  of	
  Virginia	
  Press,	
  2014.	
  
	
  
Nochlin,	
   Linda,	
   ed.	
   Impressionism	
   and	
   Post-­‐Impressionism,	
   1874-­‐1904.	
   Englewood	
  

Cliffs,	
  New	
  Jersey:	
  Prentice-­‐Hall,	
  Inc.,	
  1966.	
  
	
  
O’Brien,	
  Patricia.	
  “L’Embastillement	
  de	
  Paris:	
  The	
  Fortifications	
  of	
  Paris	
  during	
  the	
  

July	
  Monarchy.”	
  French	
  Historical	
  Studies	
  9.1	
  (Spring	
  1975):	
  63-­‐82.	
  	
  
	
  
Orton,	
   Fred.	
   “Vincent’s	
   Interest	
   in	
   Japanese	
   Prints.”	
   Vincent:	
   Bulletin	
   of	
   the	
  

Rijksmuseum,	
  Vincent	
  van	
  Gogh	
  1	
  no.	
  3	
  (1971):	
  2-­‐32.	
  	
  



	
   270	
  

	
  
Peck,	
  James	
  F.,	
  ed.	
   In	
  the	
  Studios	
  of	
  Paris:	
  William	
  Bouguereau	
  and	
  His	
  American	
  

Students.	
  New	
  Haven	
  and	
  London:	
  Yale	
  University	
  Press,	
  2006.	
  
	
  
Pickvance,	
  Ronald.	
  Van	
  Gogh.	
  Martigny	
  Suisse:	
  Foundation	
  Pierre	
  Gianadda,	
  2000.	
  
	
  
Pico,	
   Robert.	
   Deuxième	
   Congrès	
   International	
   des	
   Jardin	
   Ouvriers.	
   1907.	
   Reprint,	
  

Charleston,	
  South	
  Carolina:	
  BiblioLife,	
  2009.	
  
	
  
Pissarro,	
  Camille.	
  Camille	
  Pissarro:	
  Letters	
  to	
  his	
  Son	
  Lucien.	
  Edited	
  by	
  John	
  Rewald	
  

and	
  Lucien	
  Pissarro.	
  New	
  York:	
  Pantheon	
  Books	
  Inc.,	
  1943.	
  
	
  
-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐.	
  “A	
  Co-­‐operative	
  Joint	
  Stock	
  Company	
  of	
  Artists	
  in	
  Painting,	
  Sculpture,	
  ect.,	
  of	
  

Paris.”	
  Art	
  in	
  Theory:	
  1815-­‐1900:	
  An	
  Anthology	
  of	
  Changing	
  Ideas.	
  Edited	
  by	
  
Charles	
  Harrison,	
  Paul	
  Wood	
  and	
  Jason	
  Gaiger.	
  Massachusetts,	
  Oxford	
  and	
  
Victoria,	
  Australia:	
  Blackwell	
  Publishing,	
  1998.	
  569-­‐571.	
  

	
  
Pollack,	
  Griselda.	
  Differencing	
  the	
  Canon:	
  Feminist	
  Desire	
  and	
  the	
  Writing	
  of	
  Art’s	
  

Histories.	
  London	
  and	
  New	
  York:	
  Routledge,	
  1999.	
  
	
  
Proudhon,	
  Pierre-­‐Joseph.	
  “Definitions	
  of	
  the	
  New	
  School.”	
  Art	
  in	
  Theory,	
  1815-­‐1900:	
  

An	
  Anthology	
  of	
  Changing	
  Ideas.	
  Edited	
  by	
  Charles	
  Harrison	
  and	
  Paul	
  Wood	
  
with	
  Jason	
  Gaiger.	
  Oxford,	
  UK:	
  Blackwell	
  Publishers,	
  1999.	
  404-­‐410.	
  

	
  
Ratcliff,	
  Barrie	
  M.	
  “Cities	
  and	
  environmental	
  decline:	
  elites	
  and	
  the	
  sewage	
  problem	
  

in	
   Paris	
   from	
   the	
   mid-­‐eighteenth	
   to	
   the	
   mid-­‐nineteenth	
   century.”	
  
International	
  Planning	
  History	
  5	
  (1990):	
  201-­‐222.	
  

	
  
Rewald,	
  John.	
  “Félix	
  Fénéon,	
  critique	
  d’art.”	
  26	
  no.	
  3	
  (March	
  1950):	
  67-­‐71.	
  	
  
	
  
-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐.	
  The	
  History	
  of	
  Impressionism.	
  New	
  York:	
  Museum	
  of	
  Modern	
  Art,	
  1973.	
  
	
  
-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐.	
  Post-­‐Impressionism:	
  From	
  van	
  Gogh	
  to	
  Gauguin.	
  New	
  York:	
  The	
  Museum	
  of	
  

Modern	
  Art,	
  1978.	
  	
  
	
  
-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐.	
  “Théo	
  van	
  Gogh,	
  Goupil	
  and	
  the	
  Impressionists.”	
  Gazette	
  des	
  Beaux-­‐Arts	
  LXXXI	
  

(January-­‐February	
  1973):	
  1-­‐108.	
  	
  
	
  
Roos,	
  Jane	
  Mayo.	
  Early	
  Impressionism	
  and	
  the	
  French	
  State	
  1866-­‐1874.	
  Cambridge	
  

and	
  New	
  York:	
  Cambridge	
  University	
  Press,	
  1996.	
  
	
  
Roskill,	
   Mark.	
   Van	
   Gogh,	
   Gauguin	
   and	
   the	
   Impressionist	
   Circle.	
   Greenwich,	
  

Connecticut:	
  New	
  York	
  Graphic	
  Art	
  Society,	
  Ltd.,	
  1970.	
  	
  
	
  



	
   271	
  

Rubin,	
  James	
  H.	
  Impressionism	
  and	
  the	
  Modern	
  Landscape:	
  Productivity,	
  Technology,	
  
and	
   Urbanization	
   from	
   Manet	
   to	
   Van	
   Gogh.	
   Berkeley,	
   Los	
   Angeles,	
   and	
  
London:	
  University	
  of	
  California	
  Press,	
  2008.	
  

	
  
Russell,	
   Stephen	
   J.	
   Agriculture,	
   Prosperity,	
   and	
   the	
   Modernization	
   of	
   French	
   Rural	
  

Communities,	
  1870-­‐1914:	
  Views	
  from	
  the	
  Village.	
  Lewiston,	
  Queenston	
  and	
  
Lampeter,	
  2004.	
  

	
  
Salem,	
  Adriana	
  R.	
  “Van	
  Gogh	
  in	
  Paris,”	
  Harvard	
  Library	
  Bulletin	
  VI.	
  I	
  (Winter	
  1952):	
  

137-­‐141.	
  	
  
	
  
Shelton,	
  Andrew	
  Carrington.	
  “Ingres	
  versus	
  Delacroix.”	
  Art	
  History	
  23.5	
  (December,	
  

2000):	
  726-­‐742.	
  
	
  
Shiff,	
  Richard.	
  “Art	
  History	
  and	
  the	
  Nineteenth	
  Century:	
  Realism	
  and	
  Resistance.”	
  Art	
  

Bulletin	
  70.1	
  (March	
  1988):	
  29-­‐31.	
  	
  
	
  
-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐.	
  Cézanne	
  and	
  the	
  End	
  of	
  Impressionism:	
  A	
  Study	
  of	
  the	
  Theory,	
  Technique,	
  and	
  

Critical	
   Evaluation	
   of	
   Modern	
   Art.	
   Chicago	
   and	
   London:	
   The	
   University	
   of	
  
Chicago	
  Press,	
  1984.	
  

	
  
Silverman,	
  Deborah.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  and	
  Gauguin:	
  The	
  Search	
  for	
  the	
  Sacred	
  in	
  Art.	
  New	
  

York,	
  New	
  York:	
  Farrar,	
  Straus	
  and	
  Giroux,	
  2000.	
  
	
  
Silvers,	
  Lauren.	
  “Beyond	
  the	
  Senses:	
  The	
  Cenesthetic	
  Poetics	
  of	
  French	
  Symbolism.”	
  

Modern	
  Philology	
  112	
  no.	
  2	
  (November	
  2014):	
  381-­‐404.	
  	
  
	
  
Singletary,	
   Suzanne.	
   “Jacob	
   Wrestling	
   with	
   the	
   Angel:	
   A	
   Theme	
   in	
   Symbolist	
   Art.”	
  

Nineteenth-­‐Century	
  French	
  Studies	
  32	
  (Spring-­‐Summer	
  2004):	
  298-­‐315.	
  	
  
	
  
Stevens,	
   Mary	
   Ann,	
   ed.	
   Emile	
   Bernard,	
   1868-­‐1941:	
   A	
   Pioneer	
   of	
   Modern	
   Art.	
  

Waanders	
  Verlag,	
  Zwolle:	
  Wanders	
  Publishers,	
  1990.	
  
	
  
Stein,	
  Susan	
  Alyson,	
  ed.	
  Van	
  Gogh:	
  A	
  Retrospective.	
  New	
  York:	
  Hugh	
  Lauter	
  Levin	
  

Associates,	
  Inc.,	
  1986.	
  
	
  
Stolwijk,	
   Chris	
   and	
   Richard	
   Thomson.	
   Théo	
   van	
   Gogh,	
   1857-­‐1891:	
   Art	
   Dealer,	
  

Collector	
  and	
  Brother	
  of	
  Vincent.	
  Zwolle:	
  Waanders	
  Publishers,	
  1999.	
  
	
  
Sund,	
  Judy.	
  True	
  to	
  Temperament.	
  Cambridge	
  and	
  New	
  York:	
  Cambridge	
  University	
  

Press,	
  1992.	
  
	
  
Thomas,	
  Greg	
  M.	
  Art	
  and	
  Ecology	
  in	
  Nineteenth-­‐Century	
  France:	
  The	
  Landscape	
  of	
  

Théodore	
  Rousseau.	
  Princeton,	
  New	
  Jersey:	
  Princeton	
  University	
  Press,	
  2000.	
  



	
   272	
  

	
  
Thomson,	
   Belinda,	
   ed.	
   Gauguin	
   by	
   Himself.	
   United	
   Kingdom:	
   Time	
   Warner	
   Books,	
  

2004.	
  
	
  
Thomson,	
   Richard.	
   “Van	
   Gogh	
   in	
   Paris:	
   The	
   fortifications	
   drawings	
   of	
   1887.”	
   Jong	
  

Holland	
  3	
  (September	
  1987):	
  14-­‐25.	
  
	
  
-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐.	
  Toulouse-­‐Lautrec	
  and	
  Montmartre.	
  Washington	
  and	
  Chicago:	
  National	
  Gallery	
  

of	
  Art	
  and	
  The	
  Art	
  Institute	
  of	
  Chicago,	
  2005.	
  
	
  
Tilborgh,	
  Louis	
  van.	
  “The	
  Parisian	
  Self-­‐Portraits	
  by	
  Van	
  Gogh.”	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  Bulletin	
  2	
  

(1994):	
  2-­‐7.	
  
	
  
Tilborgh,	
  Louis	
  van.	
  “Van	
  Gogh	
  in	
  Cormon’s	
  Studio:	
  A	
  Chronological	
  Puzzle.”	
  Current	
  

Issues	
  in	
  Nineteenth-­‐Century	
  Art	
  (2007):	
  52-­‐71.	
  	
  
	
  
Trappeniers,	
  Maureen	
  S.	
  	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  in	
  Brabant.	
  Zwolle:	
  Waanders	
  Publishers,	
  1987.	
  

233-­‐235.	
  
	
  
Turgan,	
  Julien.	
  Les	
  grandes	
  usines:	
  etudes	
  industrielles	
  en	
  France	
  et	
  a	
  l’étranger,	
  vol.	
  

12.	
   Paris:	
   Calman	
   Lévy,	
   Libraire-­‐Éditeur,	
   1879.	
   Le	
   Cnum.	
   Le	
   Conservatoire	
  
numérique	
  des	
  Arts	
  et	
  Métiers.	
  April	
  1,	
  2013.	
  	
  

http://cnum.cnam.fr/CGI/redire.cgi?4KY15.	
  
	
  
Vernea,	
   de	
   E.,	
   ed.	
   	
   “Le	
   Théâtre	
   libre:	
   saisons	
   1887	
   à	
   1889.”	
   Gallica:	
   Bibliothèque	
  

numérique.	
  	
  Bibliothèque	
  nationale	
  de	
  France.	
  August	
  23,	
  2010.	
  
	
  http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k58333014.r=theatre+libre+1887.langEN.	
  
	
  
Vellekoop,	
  Marije,	
  ed.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  at	
  Work.	
  New	
  Haven	
  and	
  London:	
  Yale	
  University	
  

Press,	
  2013.	
  	
  	
  
	
  
Vizetelly,	
   Ernest	
   Alfred.	
   Paris	
   and	
   Her	
   People	
   Under	
   the	
   Third	
   Republic.	
   1919.	
  

Reprint,	
  Charleston,	
  South	
  Carolina:	
  Bibliolife,	
  LLC,	
  2009.	
  	
  
	
  
Ward,	
   Martha.	
   Pissarro,	
   Neo-­‐Impressionism	
   and	
   the	
   Spaces	
   of	
   the	
   Avant-­‐Garde.	
  

Chicago	
  &	
  London:	
  The	
  University	
  of	
  Chicago	
  Press,	
  1995.	
  
	
  
Welsh-­‐Ovcharov,	
  Bogomila.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  à	
  Paris.	
  Paris:	
  Musée	
  d’Orsay,	
  1988.	
  
	
  
-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐,	
  ed.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  in	
  Perspective.	
  Englewood	
  Cliffs,	
  New	
  Jersey:	
  Prentice-­‐Hall,	
  Inc.	
  

1974.	
  
	
  
-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐.	
  Vincent	
  van	
  Gogh	
  and	
  the	
  Birth	
  of	
  Cloisonism.	
  Toronto,	
  Canada:	
  Art	
  Gallery	
  of	
  

Toronto	
  and	
  Musée	
  des	
  Beaux-­‐Arts	
  L’Ontario,	
  1981.	
  	
  



	
   273	
  

-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐.	
   Vincent	
   Van	
   Gogh:	
   His	
   Paris	
   Period	
   1886-­‐1888.	
   Ph.D.	
   diss.,	
   University	
   of	
  
Toronto,	
  1976.	
  Utrecht-­‐Den	
  Haag:	
  Editions	
  Victorine,	
  1976.	
  	
  

	
  
Whistler,	
   James	
   McNeill.	
   “Ten	
   O’clock,”	
   The	
   Correspondence	
   of	
   James	
   McNeill	
  

Whistler.	
  University	
  of	
  Glasgow.	
  March	
  12,	
  2014.	
  	
  
http://www.whistler.arts.gla.ac.uk/miscellany/tenoclock/.	
  

	
  
White,	
  Harrison	
  C.	
  and	
  Cynthia	
  A.	
  White.	
  Canvases	
  and	
  Careers:	
  Institutional	
  Change	
  

in	
  the	
  French	
  Painting	
  Word.	
  Chicago	
  and	
  London:	
  The	
  University	
  of	
  Chicago	
  
Press,	
  1965.	
  	
  	
  	
  

	
  
Zemel,	
  Carol	
  M.	
  	
  The	
  Formation	
  of	
  a	
  Legend:	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  Criticism,	
  1890-­‐1920.	
  Ann	
  

Arbor	
  Michigan:	
  UMI	
  Research	
  Press,	
  1977.	
  
	
  
-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐.	
   Van	
   Gogh’s	
   Progress:	
   Utopia,	
   Modernity	
   and	
   Late-­‐Nineteenth-­‐Century	
   Art.	
  

Berkeley,	
  Los	
  Angeles	
  and	
  London:	
  University	
  of	
  California	
  Press,	
  1997.	
  
	
  
Zola,	
   Émile.	
   L’Assommoir.	
   Translated	
   by	
   Margaret	
   Mauldon.	
   Oxford:	
   Oxford	
  

University	
  Press,	
  1995.	
  
	
  
-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐.	
  The	
  Belly	
  of	
  Paris.	
  Translated	
  by	
  Brian	
  Nelson.	
  Oxford	
  and	
  New	
  York:	
  Oxford	
  

University	
  Press,	
  2007.	
  	
  
	
  
-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐.	
  “A	
  New	
  Manner	
   in	
  Painting:	
  Édouard	
  Manet.”	
  Art	
   in	
  Theory:	
  1815-­‐1900:	
  An	
  

Anthology	
   of	
   Changing	
   Ideas.	
   Edited	
   by	
   Charles	
   Harrison,	
   Paul	
   Wood	
   and	
  
Jason	
   Gaiger.	
   Massachusetts,	
   Oxford	
   and	
   Victoria,	
   Australia:	
   Blackwell	
  
Publishing,	
  1998.	
  554-­‐565.	
  

	
  
-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐.	
  Germinal.	
  Translated	
  by	
  Havelock	
  Ellis.	
  Gloucester,	
  Massachusetts:	
  Doubleday	
  

&	
  Company,	
  Inc.,	
  1968.	
  
	
  
-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐.	
  Mon	
  Salon.	
  Art	
  in	
  Theory:	
  1815-­‐1900:	
  An	
  Anthology	
  of	
  Changing	
  Ideas.	
  Edited	
  

by	
  Charles	
  Harrison,	
  Paul	
  Wood	
  and	
  Jason	
  Gaiger.	
  Massachusetts,	
  Oxford	
  and	
  
Victoria,	
  Australia:	
  Blackwell	
  Publishing,	
  1998.	
  550-­‐554.	
  

	
  
-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐.	
  Nana.	
  Translated	
  by	
  Douglas	
  Parmée.	
  Oxford	
  and	
  New	
  York:	
  Oxford	
  University	
  

Press,	
  1992.	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  



	
   274	
  

APPENDIX:	
  IMAGES	
  
	
  

Chapter	
  2:	
  From	
  the	
  Atelier	
  to	
  the	
  Avant-­‐Garde	
  
	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  1.	
  The	
  Discus	
  Thrower,	
  February	
  1886.	
  Chalk	
  on	
  paper,	
  56.2	
  x	
  44.3	
  cm.	
  	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  1364e.	
  

	
  



	
   275	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  2.	
  Female	
  Standing	
  Nude	
  Seen	
  from	
  the	
  Side,	
  January-­‐February	
  1886.	
  
Pencil	
  on	
  Paper,	
  50.4	
  x	
  39.2	
  cm.	
  

Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  1699.	
  
	
  



	
   276	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  3.	
  	
  The	
  Potato	
  Eaters,	
  April-­‐May	
  1885.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  82	
  x	
  114	
  cm.	
  	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  82.	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  4.	
  Jozef	
  Israëls,	
  Peasant	
  Family	
  at	
  the	
  Table,	
  1882.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  71	
  x	
  105	
  cm.	
  	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  	
  



	
   277	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  5.	
  Standing	
  Male	
  and	
  Seated	
  Female	
  Nudes,	
  March-­‐May	
  1886.	
  Chalk	
  on	
  
paper,	
  31.4	
  x	
  47.5	
  cm.	
  

	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  1363ar.	
  	
  
	
  



	
   278	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  6.	
  Studies	
  of	
  a	
  Seated	
  Girl,	
  L’Ecorché	
  and	
  Venus,	
  March-­‐May	
  1886.	
  	
  
Chalk	
  on	
  paper,	
  47.5	
  x	
  62	
  cm.	
  

	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  1366r.	
  	
  
	
  



	
   279	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  7.	
  Torso	
  of	
  Venus,	
  June	
  1886.	
  Oil	
  on	
  cardboard,	
  46.4	
  x	
  38.1	
  cm.	
  
	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  216b.	
  	
  

	
  



	
   280	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  8.	
  	
  Lane	
  at	
  the	
  Jardin	
  du	
  Luxembourg,	
  June/July	
  1886.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  27.5	
  x	
  46	
  cm.	
  	
  

Sterling	
  and	
  Francine	
  Clark	
  Institute,	
  Williamstown,	
  Massachusetts.	
  F	
  223.	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  



	
   281	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  9.	
  	
  Bridges	
  across	
  the	
  Seine	
  at	
  Asnières,	
  1887.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  52	
  x	
  65	
  cm.	
  	
  
Foundation	
  E.G.	
  Bührle	
  Collection,	
  Zurich.	
  

	
  
	
  



	
   282	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  10.	
  Boulevard	
  de	
  Clichy,	
  1887.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  45.5	
  x	
  55	
  cm.	
  	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  292.	
  



	
   283	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  11.	
  The	
  Restaurant	
  de	
  la	
  Sirène	
  at	
  Asnières,	
  summer	
  1887.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  54	
  x	
  65	
  cm.	
  Musée	
  d’Orsay,	
  Paris.	
  F	
  313.	
  

	
  



	
   284	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  12.	
  The	
  Sower	
  (After	
  Millet),	
  April	
  1881.	
  	
  
Pencil,	
  pen	
  and	
  brush	
  and	
  ink,	
  watercolor,	
  on	
  paper,	
  48.1	
  cm	
  x	
  36.7	
  cm.	
  

	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  830.	
  	
  
	
  



	
   285	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  13.	
  Jean-­‐François	
  Millet,	
  The	
  Sower,	
  1850.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  101.6	
  x	
  82.6	
  cm.	
  
	
  Museum	
  of	
  Fine	
  Arts,	
  Boston.	
  	
  

	
  



	
   286	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  14.	
  Peasant	
  Women	
  Digging	
  up	
  Potatoes,	
  August	
  1885.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  31.5	
  x	
  42.5	
  cm.	
  	
  

Kröller-­‐Müller	
  Museum,	
  The	
  Netherlands.	
  F	
  97.	
  
	
  



	
   287	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  15.	
  Pietà	
  (after	
  Delacroix),	
  September	
  1889.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  73	
  cm	
  x	
  60.5	
  cm.	
  	
  

Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  630.	
  	
  
	
  



	
   288	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  16.	
  View	
  of	
  Het	
  Steen,	
  December	
  1885.	
  	
  
Pen	
  and	
  ink,	
  chalk,	
  pencil,	
  on	
  paper,	
  13.1	
  cm	
  x	
  21.1	
  cm.	
  

Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  977.	
  	
  



	
   289	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  17.	
  	
  Portrait	
  of	
  an	
  Old	
  Man,	
  December	
  1885.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  44.4	
  cm	
  x	
  33.7	
  cm.	
  

Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  205.	
  	
  



	
   290	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  18.	
  Head	
  of	
  a	
  Skeleton	
  with	
  a	
  Burning	
  Cigarette,	
  January-­‐February	
  1886.	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  32.3	
  x	
  28.4	
  cm.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  	
  F	
  212.	
  



	
   291	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  19.	
  Karel	
  Verlat,	
  Ariadne	
  et	
  amor,	
  1880.	
  
	
  	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  20.	
  Eugène	
  Siberdt,	
  La	
  juene	
  orpheline,	
  1886.	
  Oil	
  on	
  panel,	
  52	
  x	
  37	
  cm.	
  	
  



	
   292	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  21.	
  Rembrandt,	
  The	
  Pilgrims	
  at	
  Emmaus,	
  1648.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  68	
  cm	
  x	
  65	
  cm.	
  

Louvre,	
  Paris.	
  	
  
	
  



	
   293	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  22.	
  Claude	
  Monet,	
  Vétheuil,	
  c.	
  1878-­‐1881.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas.	
  Private	
  Collection,	
  England.	
  	
  



	
   294	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  23.	
  Pierre-­‐August	
  Renoir,	
  Lunch	
  at	
  the	
  Restaurant	
  Fournaise	
  	
  
(The	
  Boater’s	
  Lunch	
  or	
  Les	
  canotiers),	
  1875.	
  	
  

Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  55	
  x	
  65.9	
  cm.	
  Art	
  Institute	
  of	
  Chicago,	
  Chicago.	
  	
  
	
  



	
   295	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  24.	
  Edgar	
  Degas,	
  Femme	
  accoundée	
  près	
  d’un	
  pot	
  de	
  fleurs,	
  1865.	
  
	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  73.7	
  x	
  92.7	
  x	
  46.2	
  cm.	
  

The	
  Metropolitan	
  Museum	
  of	
  Art,	
  New	
  York	
  City.	
  	
  



	
   296	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  25.	
  Claude	
  Monet,	
  Tempête	
  sur	
  les	
  côtes	
  de	
  Belle-­‐Isle,	
  1886.	
  	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  65	
  x	
  81	
  cm.	
  Musée	
  d’Orsay.	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  26.	
  Claude	
  Monet,	
  Pyramides	
  de	
  Port-­‐Coton,	
  Belle-­‐Isle,	
  1886.	
  	
  
	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  65.5	
  x	
  65.5	
  cm.	
  Private	
  collection.	
  



	
   297	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  27.	
  Paul	
  Gauguin,	
  Baigneurs,	
  nd.	
  
Private	
  Collection.	
  Mr.	
  &	
  Mrs.	
  B.E.	
  Bensiger,	
  Chicago.	
  	
  



	
   298	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  28.	
  La	
  Guinguette,	
  October	
  1886.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  49	
  x	
  64	
  cm.	
  

Musée	
  d’Orsay,	
  Paris.	
  F	
  238.	
  	
  
	
  



	
   299	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  29.	
  Bords	
  de	
  rivière	
  au	
  printemps:	
  pont	
  de	
  Clichy,	
  spring	
  1887.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  50	
  x	
  60	
  cm.	
  Museum	
  of	
  Art,	
  Dallas,	
  F	
  352.	
  	
  

	
  



	
   300	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  30.	
  	
  Bank	
  of	
  the	
  Seine,	
  summer	
  1887.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  32	
  x	
  45.	
  cm.	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  293.	
  



	
   301	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  31.	
  Femme	
  dans	
  un	
  jardin,	
  summer	
  1887.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  48	
  x	
  60	
  cm.	
  Private	
  collection.	
  F	
  368.	
  	
  	
  



	
   302	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  32.	
  George	
  Seurat,	
  	
  
Sunday	
  Afternoon	
  on	
  the	
  Island	
  of	
  La	
  Grande-­‐Jatte,	
  1884-­‐1886.	
  	
  

Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  205.7	
  x	
  305.7	
  cm.	
  	
  
The	
  Art	
  Institute	
  of	
  Chicago,	
  Illinois.	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  



	
   303	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  33.	
  Camille	
  Pissarro,	
  Apple	
  Picking,	
  1886.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  128	
  x	
  128	
  cm.	
  	
  

Ohara,	
  Museum	
  of	
  Art,	
  Kurashiki,	
  Japan.	
  
	
  



	
   304	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  34.	
  Paul	
  Signac,	
  The	
  Gas	
  Tanks	
  at	
  Clichy,	
  1886.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  65	
  x	
  81	
  cm.	
  

National	
  gallery	
  of	
  Victoria,	
  Melbourne.	
  
	
  



	
   305	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  35.	
  	
  Interior	
  of	
  a	
  Restaurant,	
  1887.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  45.5	
  x	
  56.5	
  cm.	
  	
  

Kröller-­‐Müller	
  Museum,	
  Netherlands.	
  	
  
	
  



	
   306	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  36.	
  Claude	
  Monet,	
  Impression:	
  Sunrise,	
  1873.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  48	
  x	
  63	
  cm.	
  	
  
Musée	
  Marmottan,	
  Paris.	
  	
  	
  

	
  



	
   307	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  37.	
  Claude	
  Monet,	
  Boulevard	
  des	
  Capucines,	
  1873.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  79.4	
  x	
  59	
  cm.	
  	
  

The	
  Nelson-­‐Arkins	
  Museum	
  of	
  Art,	
  Kansas	
  City,	
  Missouri.	
  	
  	
  	
  
	
  



	
   308	
  

	
  
	
  

Figures	
  38.	
  Edgar	
  Degas,	
  Girl	
  Drying	
  Herself,	
  from	
  Suite	
  of	
  Nudes,	
  1885.	
  
	
  Pastel	
  on	
  paper,	
  80.1	
  x	
  51.2	
  cm.	
  

	
  National	
  Gallery	
  of	
  Art,	
  Washington	
  DC.	
  	
  
	
  



	
   309	
  

	
  
	
  

Figures	
  39.	
  Edgar	
  Degas,	
  The	
  Baker’s	
  Wife,	
  from	
  Suite	
  of	
  Nudes,	
  1885.	
  	
  
Pastel	
  on	
  paper,	
  67	
  x	
  52.1	
  cm.	
  	
  

The	
  Henry	
  and	
  Rose	
  Perlman	
  Foundation.	
  	
  



	
   310	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  40.	
  Georges	
  Seurat,	
  The	
  Harbor	
  at	
  Grandcamp,	
  1885.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  65	
  x	
  81.2	
  cm.	
  Private	
  Collection.	
  	
  	
  	
  

	
  



	
   311	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  41.	
  Paul	
  Signac,	
  Brisk	
  Breeze	
  from	
  the	
  North	
  ¼	
  Northwest,	
  Saint-­‐Briac,	
  
1885.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  45.1	
  x	
  64.1	
  cm.	
  	
  

Collection	
  of	
  Mr.	
  and	
  Mrs.	
  Ray	
  Dolby,	
  San	
  Francisco.	
  
	
  



	
   312	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  42.	
  Paul	
  Gauguin,	
  Edge	
  of	
  the	
  Pond,	
  1885.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  81	
  x	
  65	
  cm.	
  

	
  Civica	
  Galleria	
  d’Arte	
  Moderna,	
  Milan.	
  
	
  



	
   313	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  43.	
  Camille	
  Pissarro,	
  View	
  from	
  My	
  Window	
  in	
  Cloudy	
  Weather,	
  	
  
1886-­‐1888.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  65	
  x	
  80	
  cm.	
  
The	
  Ashmolean	
  Museum,	
  Oxford.	
  	
  

	
  



	
   314	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  44.	
  Paul	
  Gauguin,	
  Women	
  Bathing,	
  1885.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  38.1	
  x	
  46.2	
  cm.	
  

	
  The	
  National	
  Museum	
  of	
  Western	
  Art,	
  Tokyo.	
  	
  	
  
	
  



	
   315	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  45.	
  Plaster	
  Cast	
  of	
  a	
  Woman’s	
  Torso,	
  February-­‐March	
  1887.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  40.5	
  x	
  27	
  cm.	
  

Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  	
  F	
  216g.	
  
	
  



	
   316	
  

	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  
	
  
	
  

Figure	
  46.	
  Reclining	
  Nude,	
  January-­‐March	
  1887.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  59.7	
  x	
  73.7.	
  	
  

The	
  Barnes	
  Foundation,	
  Philadelphia.	
  F	
  328.	
  
	
  



	
   317	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  47.	
  Francisco	
  Goya,	
  La	
  maja	
  desnuda,	
  c.	
  1797-­‐1800	
  .	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  97	
  x	
  190	
  cm.	
  
Museo	
  del	
  Prado,	
  Spain.	
  	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  



	
   318	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  48.	
  Claude	
  Monet,	
  	
  
Les	
  bains	
  de	
  la	
  Grenouillère,	
  1869.	
  
	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  74.6	
  x	
  99.7	
  cm.	
  

	
  Metropolitan	
  Museum	
  of	
  Art,	
  New	
  York.	
  
	
  

	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  

Figure	
  49.	
  Pierre-­‐August	
  Renoir,	
  La	
  Grenouillère,	
  1869.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  66.5	
  x	
  81	
  cm.	
  	
  

National	
  Museum,	
  Stockholm.	
  	
  



	
   319	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  

	
  
	
  

	
  
	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  50.	
  Comparison.	
  	
  
	
  



	
   320	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  51.	
  Claude	
  Monet,	
  Train	
  in	
  the	
  Countryside,	
  circa	
  1870.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  19.68	
  ×	
  25.59	
  in.	
  Musée	
  d’Orsay,	
  Paris.	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  52.	
  Claude	
  Monet,	
  The	
  Railway	
  Bridge	
  from	
  the	
  Port,	
  1873.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  66	
  x	
  99	
  cm.	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  



	
   321	
  

Chapter	
  3:	
  New	
  Consideration	
  of	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  Paris	
  Exhibitions	
  
	
  

	
  
	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  1.	
  	
  Map	
  of	
  Montmartre,	
  Clichy	
  and	
  Asnières	
  from	
  Bogomila	
  Welsh-­‐
Ovcharov’s	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  A	
  Paris	
  (1988),	
  pages	
  36-­‐37.	
  	
  

	
  
	
  

Montmartre)

Clichy)

Asnières)

For4fica4ons)at)the)
boundary)of)Montmartre)



	
   322	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  2.	
  Map	
  detail	
  of	
  Clichy	
  and	
  Asnières	
  from	
  Bogomila	
  Welsh-­‐Ovcharov’s	
  	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  A	
  Paris	
  (1988),	
  pages	
  36-­‐37.	
  

	
  

1.#Gas#tanks#at#
Clichy#

#
2.#Landing#cranes#
for#the#gas#factory#

at#Clichy#
#

4.#Émile#Bernard’s#
family#home#

#
5.#Paul#Signac’s#

family#home#
#

6.#Château#Voyer#
d’Argenson#

#
7.#Voyer#

d’Argenson#Park#
#



	
   323	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  3.	
  Map	
  detail	
  of	
  Montmartre	
  from	
  Bogomila	
  Welsh-­‐Ovcharov’s	
  	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  A	
  Paris	
  (1988),	
  pages	
  36-­‐37.	
  	
  

	
  
	
  
.	
  	
  
	
  

15.$Grand$Bouillon$
Restaurant$$
du$Chalet$

$
16.$Signac’s$Studio$

$
17.$Seurat’s$Studio$

$
19.$Café$

Tambourin$
$

20.$Théo$and$
Vincent’s$

apartment$
$

28.$BouFque$of$
Père$Tanguy$

$
$



	
   324	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  4.	
  Agostina	
  Segatori	
  au	
  café	
  du	
  Tambourin,	
  spring	
  1887.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  55.4	
  x	
  46.5	
  cm.	
  Vincent	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  370.	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  



	
   325	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  5.	
  Basket	
  of	
  Pansies,	
  1886.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  46	
  x	
  55.5	
  cm.	
  	
  	
  

Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  244.	
  
	
  



	
   326	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  6.	
  Fritillaires,	
  couronne	
  impériale	
  dans	
  un	
  vase	
  de	
  cuivre,	
  April-­‐May	
  1887.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  75.5	
  x	
  60.5	
  cm.	
  	
  Musée	
  d’Orsay,	
  Paris.	
  F	
  213.	
  

	
  



	
   327	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  7.	
  Portrait	
  of	
  Etienne-­‐Lucien	
  Martin,	
  1887.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  65.5	
  x	
  54.5	
  cm.	
  	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  289.	
  

	
  



	
   328	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  8.	
  Émile	
  Bernard,	
  Portrait	
  of	
  the	
  Artist’s	
  Grandmother,	
  1887.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  53	
  x	
  64	
  cm.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  

	
  



	
   329	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  9.	
  Émile	
  Bernard,	
  Ragpickers	
  at	
  Clichy,	
  1887.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  39	
  x	
  59	
  cm.	
  Private	
  Collection.	
  	
  

(A	
  color	
  reproduction	
  is	
  available	
  in	
  Welsh-­‐Ovcharov,	
  	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  A	
  Paris,	
  page	
  201.)	
  

	
  



	
   330	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  10.	
  	
  Factories	
  at	
  Clichy,	
  1887.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  53.9	
  x	
  72.8	
  cm.	
  	
  
The	
  Saint	
  Louis	
  Art	
  Museum.	
  F	
  317.	
  



	
   331	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  11.	
  	
  Factory	
  at	
  Clichy,	
  1887.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  46.5	
  x	
  54	
  cm.	
  Barnes	
  
Foundation,	
  Philadelphia.	
  F	
  318.	
  

	
  



	
   332	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  12.	
  	
  Portrait	
  of	
  Père	
  Tanguy,	
  fall	
  1887.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  92	
  x	
  75	
  cm.	
  Musée	
  Rodin,	
  Paris.	
  F	
  363.	
  

	
  



	
   333	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  13.	
  Voyer	
  d’Argenson	
  Park	
  at	
  Asnières,	
  1887.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  75	
  x	
  112.5	
  cm.	
  	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  314.	
  

	
  



	
   334	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  14.	
  Camille	
  Pissarro,	
  Apple	
  Picking,	
  1886.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  128	
  x	
  128	
  cm.	
  	
  

Ohara,	
  Museum	
  of	
  Art,	
  Kurashiki,	
  Japan.	
  
	
  



	
   335	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  15.	
  Lucien	
  Pissarro,	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  in	
  Conversation	
  with	
  Félix	
  Fénéon,	
  	
  
black	
  crayon,	
  circa	
  1886-­‐1888.	
  

	
  



	
   336	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  16.	
  Louis-­‐Emile	
  Anquetin,	
  Old	
  Peasant,	
  1886.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas.	
  
	
  



	
   337	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  17.	
  Sunflowers	
  Gone	
  to	
  Seed,	
  1887.	
  Oil	
  in	
  canvas,	
  43	
  x	
  61.	
  	
  
Metropolitan	
  Museum	
  of	
  Art,	
  New	
  York	
  City.	
  F	
  375.	
  

	
  



	
   338	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  18.	
  Sunflowers	
  Gone	
  to	
  Seed,	
  1887.	
  Oil	
  in	
  canvas,	
  50	
  x	
  60.	
  	
  
Kuntsmuseum,	
  Bern,	
  Switzerland.	
  F	
  376.	
  

	
  



	
   339	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  19.	
  Basket	
  with	
  Potatoes,	
  1885.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  44.5	
  x	
  60	
  cm.	
  	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  100.	
  	
  	
  

	
  



	
   340	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  20.	
  Le	
  Cinéraire	
  (The	
  Funeral),	
  July-­‐August	
  1886.	
  Oil	
  in	
  canvas,	
  54.5	
  x	
  46.	
  
Museum	
  Boymans-­‐van	
  Beuningen,	
  Rotterdam.	
  F	
  282.	
  

	
  



	
   341	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  21.	
  Roses	
  Trémières	
  dans	
  une	
  cruche	
  (Hollyhocks	
  in	
  a	
  Jug),	
  	
  
August-­‐September	
  1886.	
  Oil	
  in	
  canvas,	
  94	
  x	
  51.	
  

Kunsthaus,	
  Zurich.	
  F	
  235.	
  
	
  



	
   342	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  22.	
  Fleurs	
  et	
  Tournesols	
  (Roses	
  and	
  Sunflowers),	
  fall	
  1886.	
  	
  
Oil	
  in	
  canvas,	
  50	
  x	
  61.	
  

Städtische	
  Kunsthalle,	
  Mannheim.	
  F	
  250.	
  
	
  



	
   343	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  23.	
  Gustave	
  Courbet,	
  Hollyhocks	
  in	
  a	
  Copper	
  Bowl,	
  1872.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  60	
  x	
  49	
  cm.	
  	
  

Museum	
  of	
  Fine	
  Arts,	
  Boston.	
  
	
  



	
   344	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  24.	
  Pierre-­‐August	
  Renoir,	
  Mixed	
  Flowers	
  in	
  an	
  Earthenware	
  Pot,	
  ca.	
  1869.	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  64.9	
  x	
  54.2	
  cm.	
  Museum	
  of	
  Fine	
  Arts,	
  Boston.	
  	
  



	
   345	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  25.	
  Armand	
  Guillaumin,	
  Nature	
  morte	
  aux	
  chrysanthèmes,	
  1885.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  75	
  x	
  60	
  cm.	
  	
  

Musée	
  du	
  Petit	
  Palais,	
  Geneva.	
  
	
  



	
   346	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  26.	
  Claude	
  Monet,	
  Vase	
  of	
  Flowers,	
  ca.	
  1881-­‐1882.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  100.4	
  x	
  81.9	
  cm.	
  	
  
Courtauld	
  Gallery,	
  London.	
  

	
  



	
   347	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  27.	
  Paul	
  Signac,	
  Nature	
  morte:	
  oranges,	
  pomme	
  et	
  livre	
  Au	
  soleil,	
  1885.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  32.5	
  x	
  46.5	
  cm.	
  	
  
Staatliche	
  Museen,	
  Berlin.	
  

	
  



	
   348	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  28.	
  Grapes,	
  Lemons,	
  Pears	
  and	
  Apples,	
  1887.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  46.5	
  x	
  55.2	
  cm.	
  The	
  Art	
  Institute	
  of	
  Chicago,	
  Illinois.	
  F	
  382.	
  	
  	
  

	
  



	
   349	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  29.	
  Head	
  of	
  a	
  Peasant	
  Woman	
  with	
  a	
  Day	
  Cap,	
  March	
  1885.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  43	
  x	
  33.5	
  cm.	
  	
  
Rijksmuseum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  

	
  



	
   350	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  	
  30.	
  Portrait	
  of	
  Père	
  Tanguy,	
  1887.	
  	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas.	
  F	
  263.	
  

	
  



	
   351	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  31.	
  Émile	
  Bernard,	
  Portrait	
  of	
  Père	
  Tanguy,	
  1887.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas.	
  
	
  



	
   352	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  32.	
  The	
  Parsonage	
  Garden	
  in	
  Snow,	
  1885.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas	
  on	
  panel,	
  59	
  x	
  78	
  cm.	
  	
  

Norton	
  Simon	
  Art	
  Foundation,	
  Pasadena.	
  
	
  



	
   353	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  

Figure	
  33.	
  Émile	
  Bernard,	
  Verger	
  à	
  Pont-­‐Aven,	
  August	
  1886.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  52	
  x	
  53	
  cm.	
  	
  

Private	
  Collection.	
  
	
  



	
   354	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  34.	
  Émile	
  Bernard	
  and	
  Vincent	
  van	
  Gogh	
  (his	
  back	
  to	
  the	
  camera)	
  	
  
along	
  the	
  Seine	
  in	
  Asnières.	
  

	
  



	
   355	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  35.	
  Paul	
  Signac,	
  Pierre	
  Hâlé’s	
  Windmill,	
  Saint-­‐Briac,	
  1884.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  60	
  x	
  92	
  cm.	
  Private	
  Collection.	
  	
  

(Sorry	
  for	
  the	
  web-­‐site	
  stamp—it	
  is	
  the	
  only	
  Internet	
  image)	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  



	
   356	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  36.	
  Paul	
  Signac,	
  Brisk	
  Breeze	
  from	
  the	
  North	
  ¼	
  Northwest,	
  Saint-­‐Briac,	
  
1885.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  45.1	
  x	
  64.1	
  cm.	
  	
  

Collection	
  of	
  Mr.	
  and	
  Mrs.	
  Ray	
  Dolby,	
  San	
  Francisco.	
  
	
  



	
   357	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  37.	
  Claude	
  Monet,	
  Apple	
  Trees	
  in	
  Bloom	
  beside	
  the	
  Water,	
  1880.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  73x	
  60	
  cm.	
  	
  

Private	
  Collection.	
  
	
  



	
   358	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  38.	
  Paul	
  Signac,	
  La	
  Seine	
  à	
  Asnières:	
  la	
  berge,	
  November	
  1885.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  73	
  x	
  100	
  cm.	
  	
  
Private	
  Collection,	
  Paris.	
  

	
  



	
   359	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  39.	
  Paul	
  Signac,	
  Paris.	
  Boulevard	
  de	
  Clichy.	
  La	
  neige,	
  January	
  1886.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  46.5	
  x	
  65.5	
  cm.	
  	
  

The	
  Minneapolis	
  Institute	
  of	
  the	
  Arts,	
  Minneapolis.	
  
	
  



	
   360	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  40.	
  Claude	
  Monet,	
  Studio	
  Boat,	
  1874.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas.	
  
Kröller-­‐Müller	
  Museum,	
  The	
  Netherlands.	
  

	
  



	
   361	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  41.	
  Paul	
  Signac,	
  The	
  Gas	
  Tanks	
  at	
  Clichy,	
  1886.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  65	
  x	
  81	
  cm.	
  

National	
  gallery	
  of	
  Victoria,	
  Melbourne.	
  
	
  



	
   362	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  42.	
  Paul	
  Signac,	
  Sunlight,	
  Quai	
  de	
  Clichy,	
  Opus,	
  1887.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  46	
  x	
  65	
  cm.	
  	
  

The	
  Baltimore	
  Museum	
  of	
  Art,	
  Maryland.	
  
	
  



	
   363	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  43.	
  Émile	
  Bernard,	
  Les	
  Chiffonniers:	
  Ponts	
  de	
  fer	
  à	
  Asnières,	
  1887.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  45.9	
  x	
  54.2	
  cm.	
  	
  

The	
  Museum	
  of	
  Modern	
  Art,	
  New	
  York	
  City.	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  



	
   364	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  44.	
  Albert	
  Fernique,	
  Plan	
  de	
  l’usine	
  à	
  gaz	
  de	
  Clichy,	
  c	
  1878-­‐1880.	
  
Bibliothèque	
  nationale	
  de	
  France.	
  

	
  

Seine%

Gas%Tanks%

Usine%de%la%
ville%de%Paris%

Gas%Factory%
Atelier%Charronnage%



	
   365	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  45.	
  Albert	
  Fernique,	
  Atelier	
  Charronnage	
  de	
  l’usine	
  à	
  gaz	
  de	
  Clichy,	
  	
  
c	
  1878-­‐1880.	
  

Bibliothèque	
  nationale	
  de	
  France.	
  
	
  
	
  



	
   366	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  46.	
  Albert	
  Fernique,	
  Grues	
  de	
  débarquement,	
  L’Usine	
  à	
  gaz	
  de	
  Clichy,	
  	
  
c	
  1878-­‐1880.	
  Bibliothèque	
  nationale	
  de	
  France.	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  47.	
  Camille	
  Pissarro,	
  Barge	
  at	
  La	
  Roche-­‐Guyon,	
  circa	
  1865.	
  	
  
Museé	
  Pissarro,	
  Pontoise.	
  	
  	
  

	
  



	
   367	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  48.	
  Camille	
  Pissarro,	
  L’Ile	
  Lacroix,	
  1888.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  44	
  x	
  55	
  cm.	
  
Philadelphia	
  Museum	
  of	
  Art,	
  Pennsylvania.	
  	
  	
  

	
  



	
   368	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  49.	
  Self-­‐Portrait	
  as	
  a	
  Painter,	
  December	
  1887-­‐February	
  1888.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  65.1	
  x	
  50	
  cm.	
  	
  

Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  522.	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  



	
   369	
  

Chapter	
  4:	
  Agriculture	
  and	
  Industry	
  in	
  Van	
  Gogh’s	
  	
  
Montmartre	
  and	
  Clichy	
  Imagery	
  

	
  
	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  

Figure	
  1.	
  Weaver	
  with	
  a	
  baby	
  in	
  a	
  high	
  chair,	
  1884.	
  Pencil	
  pen	
  in	
  brown	
  ink,	
  
heightened	
  with	
  opaque	
  watercolor,	
  on	
  wove	
  paper,	
  32	
  x	
  40	
  cm.	
  	
  

Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  1118.	
  
	
  



	
   370	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  2.	
  Interior	
  of	
  a	
  Restaurant,	
  summer	
  1887.	
  
	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  45.5	
  x	
  56.5	
  cm.	
  Kröller-­‐Müller	
  Museum,	
  Netherlands.	
  F	
  342.	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  3.	
  Boulevard	
  de	
  Clichy,	
  February-­‐March	
  1887.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  46.5	
  x	
  55	
  cm.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  292.	
  



	
   371	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  4.	
  Montmartre:	
  Windmills	
  and	
  Allotments,	
  March-­‐April	
  1887.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  45.2	
  x	
  81.4	
  cm.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  346.	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  5.	
  	
  Factories	
  at	
  Clichy,	
  1887.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  53.9	
  x	
  72.8	
  cm.	
  	
  
The	
  Saint	
  Louis	
  Art	
  Museum.	
  F	
  317.	
  



	
   372	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  6.	
  The	
  View	
  from	
  Vincent’s	
  Room,	
  rue	
  Lepic,	
  spring	
  1887.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  board,	
  46	
  x	
  38.	
  Private	
  collection.	
  	
  F	
  341a.	
  

	
  



	
   373	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  7.	
  View	
  from	
  Théo’s	
  Apartment,	
  March-­‐April	
  1887.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  45.9	
  x	
  38.1.	
  	
  

Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  341.	
  
	
  



	
   374	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  8.	
  Moulin	
  Radet	
  dit	
  de	
  la	
  Galette	
  à	
  Paris,	
  1923.	
  
Bibliothèque	
  nationale	
  de	
  France.	
  

	
  



	
   375	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  9.	
  Eugène	
  Atget,Montmartre,	
  Moulin	
  de	
  la	
  Galette,	
  Rue	
  Lepic,	
  1899.	
  
(I	
  think	
  this	
  may	
  be	
  Le	
  Radet.)	
  

Bibliothèque	
  nationale	
  de	
  France.	
  
	
  



	
   376	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  10.	
  Eugène	
  Atget,Montmartre,	
  Moulin	
  de	
  la	
  Galette,	
  Rue	
  Lepic,	
  1899.	
  
(I	
  think	
  this	
  may	
  be	
  Le	
  Blute-­‐fin.)	
  
Bibliothèque	
  nationale	
  de	
  France.	
  

	
  



	
   377	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  11.	
  View	
  of	
  Paris,	
  from	
  Montmartre,	
  
	
  late	
  summer	
  1886.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  38.5	
  x	
  61.5	
  cm.	
  	
  	
  

Kunstmuseum,	
  Basel.	
  F	
  262.	
  
	
  



	
   378	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  12.	
  Terrace	
  and	
  Observation	
  Deck	
  at	
  the	
  	
  
Moulin	
  de	
  Blute-­‐fin,	
  Montmartre,	
  early	
  1887.	
  	
  

Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  43.6	
  x	
  33	
  cm.	
  	
  	
  
The	
  Art	
  Institute	
  of	
  Chicago.	
  F	
  272.	
  

	
  



	
   379	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  13.	
  Plan	
  of	
  Paris:	
  Montmartre,	
  the	
  rue	
  Lepic,	
  and	
  the	
  Moulin	
  de	
  la	
  Galette.	
  
Archives	
  numérisées	
  de	
  Paris,	
  PP/11834/E.	
  

	
  

Théo%and%%
Van%Gogh’s%
apartment%on%
the%rue%Lepic%

Moulin%%
de%la%Gale9e%



	
   380	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  14.	
  Jules-­‐Adolphe	
  Chauvet,	
  Le	
  Moulin	
  de	
  la	
  Galette	
  et	
  la	
  montée	
  de	
  la	
  rue	
  
Lepic	
  étant	
  placé	
  au	
  coin	
  de	
  la	
  rue	
  d'Orchamp	
  (I	
  think	
  this	
  is	
  Le	
  Radet),	
  1895.	
  

Bibliothèque	
  nationale	
  de	
  France.	
  



	
   381	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  15.	
  Jules-­‐Adolphe	
  Chauvet,	
  Rue	
  Lepic	
  à	
  Montmartre:	
  	
  
Entrée	
  du	
  Moulin	
  Debray	
  (Bal	
  public)	
  	
  

(Le	
  Blute-­‐fin),	
  1880.	
  
Bibliothèque	
  nationale	
  de	
  France.	
  

	
  



	
   382	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  16.	
  Jules-­‐Adolphe	
  Chauvet,	
  Impasse	
  des	
  2	
  frères	
  rue	
  Lepic,	
  1884.	
  
(I	
  think	
  this	
  is	
  Le	
  Radet.)	
  

	
  Bibliothèque	
  nationale	
  de	
  France.	
  
	
  



	
   383	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  17.	
  Jules-­‐Adolphe	
  Chauvet,	
  Montmartre	
  Le	
  Moulin	
  Des	
  frères	
  Debray,	
  
Restaurant	
  Guinguette,	
  1888.	
  

Bibliothèque	
  nationale	
  de	
  France.	
  
	
  



	
   384	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  18.	
  Moulin	
  de	
  la	
  Galette	
  (Le	
  Moulin	
  Le	
  Radet,	
  vue	
  de	
  la	
  rue	
  Girardon),	
  	
  
mid-­‐October	
  1886.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  38.5	
  x	
  46.	
  

Kröller-­‐Müller	
  Museum,	
  The	
  Netherlands.	
  F	
  227.	
  
	
  



	
   385	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  19.	
  Pierre-­‐Auguste	
  Renoir,	
  Bal	
  du	
  moulin	
  de	
  la	
  Galette,	
  1876.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  131	
  x	
  175	
  cm.	
  

Musée	
  d’Orsay,	
  Paris.	
  	
  	
  
	
  
	
  



	
   386	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  20.	
  La	
  Guinguette	
  du	
  Moulin	
  Le	
  Radet,	
  mid-­‐October	
  1886.	
  	
  
Pencil,	
  pen	
  and	
  brush	
  and	
  ink,	
  chalk,	
  on	
  paper,	
  38.5	
  x	
  52	
  cm.	
  

Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  1407.	
  
	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  21.	
  La	
  Guinguette,	
  mid-­‐October	
  1886.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  49	
  x	
  64	
  cm.	
  
Musée	
  d’Orsay,	
  Paris.	
  F	
  238.	
  

	
  



	
   387	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  22.	
  The	
  Hill	
  of	
  Montmartre,	
  April-­‐May	
  1886.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  38.1	
  x	
  61.1	
  cm.	
  	
  
Kröller-­‐Müller	
  Museum,	
  Netherlands.	
  F	
  266.	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  



	
   388	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  23.	
  The	
  Hill	
  of	
  Montmartre	
  with	
  Stone	
  Quarry,	
  June-­‐July	
  	
  1886.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  32	
  x	
  41	
  cm.	
  

Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  229.	
  	
  	
  
	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  24.	
  The	
  Hill	
  of	
  Montmartre	
  with	
  Stone	
  Quarry,	
  June-­‐July	
  	
  1886.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  56.3	
  x	
  62.6	
  cm.	
  

Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  230.	
  	
  	
  



	
   389	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  25.	
  John	
  Constable,	
  The	
  Cornfield,	
  1826.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas.	
  
The	
  National	
  Gallery,	
  London.	
  

	
  



	
   390	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  26.	
  Le	
  Moulin	
  de	
  la	
  Galette,	
  1886.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  18	
  x	
  15	
  inches.	
  
Glasgow	
  Art	
  Gallery	
  and	
  Museum.	
  

	
  



 

 
	
  	
  

Figure	
  27.	
  Le	
  Blute-­‐-­‐-­‐fin:	
  le	
  Moulin	
  de	
  la	
  Galette,	
  March	
  1887.	
  	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  46	
  x	
  38	
  cm.	
  	
  	
  

The	
  Carnegie	
  Museum	
  of	
  Art,	
  Pittsburg.	
  F	
  348.	
  	
  
	
  	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  	
   391	
  



392	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  28.	
  Le	
  Moulin	
  de	
  Blute-­‐-­‐-­‐fin,	
  1886.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas.	
  Fundatie	
  museum,	
  Zwolle.	
  



393	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  29.	
  Vegetable	
  Gardens	
  of	
  Montmartre,	
  summer	
  1887.	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  96	
  x	
  120	
  cm.	
  

Stedelijk	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  350.	
  



394	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  30.	
  Pierre	
  Vidal,	
  detail	
  from	
  the	
  illustrated	
  book	
  
La	
  Vie	
  à	
  Montmartre	
  by	
  Georges	
  Montorgueil,	
  1899.	
  

Bibliothèque	
  nationale	
  de	
  France.	
  



395	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  31.	
  Paul	
  Signac,	
  Rue	
  Caulaincourt.	
  Moulins	
  à	
  Montmartre,	
  1884.	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  35	
  x	
  27	
  cm.	
  
Musée	
  Carnavalet,	
  Paris.	
  



396	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  32.	
  Flower	
  Beds	
  in	
  Holland,	
  c.	
  1883.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  48.9	
  x	
  66	
  cm.	
  
National	
  Gallery	
  of	
  Art,	
  Washington	
  DC.	
  



397	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  33.	
  Camille	
  Pissarro,	
  The	
  Gardens	
  of	
  l’Hermitage,	
  Pontoise,	
  c.	
  1867.	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas.	
  National	
  Gallery,	
  Prague.	
  



398	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  34.	
  Wheatfield	
  with	
  Patridge,	
  June-­‐-­‐-­‐July	
  1887.	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  53.7	
  x	
  65.2	
  cm.	
  

Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  310.	
  



399	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  35.	
  Sheaves	
  of	
  Wheat,	
  July-­‐-­‐-­‐August	
  1885.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  40.2	
  x	
  30	
  cm.	
  
Kröller-­‐-­‐-­‐Müller	
  Museum,	
  Netherlands.	
  F	
  193.	
  



400	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  36.	
  Peasant	
  Woman	
  Binding	
  Sheaves,	
  July-­‐-­‐-­‐September	
  1885.	
  
Chalk	
  on	
  paper,	
  56.3	
  cm	
  x	
  44.5	
  cm.	
  

Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  1266.	
  



401	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  37.	
  Peasant	
  Woman	
  Digging,	
  July-­‐-­‐-­‐September	
  1885.	
  
Chalk	
  on	
  paper,	
  55.7	
  x	
  41	
  cm.	
  

Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  1255.	
  



402	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  38.	
  The	
  Sower	
  (After	
  Millet),	
  April	
  1881.	
  
Pencil,	
  pen	
  and	
  brush	
  and	
  ink,	
  watercolor,	
  on	
  paper,	
  48.1	
  x	
  36.7	
  cm.	
  

Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  830.	
  



403	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  39.	
  Jean-­‐-­‐-­‐François	
  Millet,	
  The	
  Gleaners,	
  1857.	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  83.3	
  x	
  111.8	
  cm.	
  

Musée	
  d’Orsay,	
  Paris.	
  



404	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  40.	
  Camille	
  Pissarro,	
  Haymaking,	
  Érgany,	
  1887.	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  55	
  x	
  66	
  cm.	
  

Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  



405	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  41.	
  Gate	
  in	
  the	
  Paris	
  Rampart,	
  summer	
  1887.	
  
Pencil,	
  pen	
  and	
  ink	
  and	
  watercolor	
  on	
  paper,	
  24.1	
  x	
  31.6	
  cm.	
  

Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
   F	
  1401.	
  



406	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  42.	
  Road	
  Running	
  Beside	
  the	
  Paris	
  Ramparts,	
  June	
  1887.	
  
Pencil,	
  watercolor,	
  chalk,	
  brush	
  and	
  (oil?)	
  paint,	
  pen	
  and	
  ink,	
  

on	
  paper,	
  39.7	
  cm	
  x	
  53.8	
  cm.	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  1400.	
  



407	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  43.	
  Fortifications	
  of	
  Paris	
  with	
  Houses,	
  1887.	
  Watercolor,	
  black	
  chalk,	
  and	
  
gouache,	
  heightened	
  with	
  pencil	
  on	
  laid	
  paper,	
  24.1	
  x	
  31.6	
  cm.	
  

Whitworth	
  Art	
  Gallery,	
  University	
  of	
  Manchester.	
   F	
  1403.	
  



408	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  44.	
  Fortifications	
  of	
  Paris,	
  1887.	
  Watercolor,	
  black	
  chalk,	
  and	
  gouache,	
  
heightened	
  with	
  pencil	
  on	
  laid	
  paper,	
  39.5	
  x	
  54	
  cm.	
  

Location	
  unknown.	
  F	
  1402.	
  



409	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  45.	
   Lucien	
  Pissarro,	
  Sur	
  les	
  fortifications,	
  1886.	
  
Pencil	
  and	
  black	
  chalk,	
  19.6	
  x	
  29.2	
  cm.	
  

Ashmolean	
  Museum,	
  Oxford.	
  



410	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  46.	
   Factory	
  at	
  Clichy,	
  1887.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  46.5	
  x	
  54	
  cm.	
  
Barnes	
  Foundation,	
  Philadelphia.	
  F	
  318.	
  



411	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  47.	
   Allotment	
  with	
  Sunflower,	
  1887.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  43.2	
  x	
  36.2	
  cm.	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  388v.	
  



412	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  48.	
  Coke	
  Factory	
  in	
  the	
  Borinage,	
  July-­‐-­‐-­‐August	
  1879.	
  
Pencil	
  and	
  watercolor	
  on	
  paper,	
  26.4	
  x	
  37.5	
  cm.	
  

Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  1040.	
  



413	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  49.	
   Gasworks,	
  The	
  Hague,	
  March	
  1882.	
  
Pencil,	
  brush	
  and	
  ink,	
  watercolor,	
  on	
  paper,	
  23.8	
  cm	
  x	
  33.8	
  cm.	
  

Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  924.	
  



414	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  50.	
  Édouard	
  Manet,	
  A	
  Bar	
  at	
  the	
  Folies	
  Bergère,	
  1882.	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  96	
  x	
  130	
  cm.	
  
Courtauld	
  Gallery,	
  London.	
  



415	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  51.	
  Edgar	
  Degas,	
  The	
  Song	
  of	
  the	
  Dog,	
  1875-­‐-­‐-­‐1877.	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  51.8	
  x	
  42.6	
  cm.	
  

Private	
  Collection.	
  



416	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

	
  
	
  

Above:	
  Figure	
  52.	
  Verrerie	
  du	
  Pont	
  de	
  Clichy,	
  
documented	
  by	
  Michel	
  Baltzer	
  c.	
  1900.	
  Published	
  by	
  Jim	
  Friant.	
  



417	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  53.	
   Claude	
  Monet,	
  Men	
  Unloading	
  Coal,	
  1873-­‐-­‐-­‐1875.	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  54	
  x	
  66	
  cm.	
   Museé	
  d’Orsay,	
  Paris.	
  



418	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  54.	
   Émile	
  Bernard	
  (facing)	
  and	
  Vincent	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  on	
  the	
  banks	
  of	
  
Asnières,	
  dated	
  1886,	
  probably	
  1887.	
  

Vincent	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  



419	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  55.	
  Le	
  Pont	
  à	
  Asnières,	
  summer	
  1887.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  53	
  x	
  73	
  cm.	
  
Collection	
  of	
  Dominique	
  de	
  Menil,	
  Houston.	
  F	
  240.	
  



420	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  56.	
  Paul	
  Signac,	
  The	
  Gas	
  Tanks	
  at	
  Clichy,	
  1886.	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  65	
  x	
  81	
  cm.	
  

National	
  gallery	
  of	
  Victoria,	
  Melbourne.	
  



421	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  57.	
   Émile	
  Bernard.	
  Vue	
  du	
  pont	
  d’Asnières	
  (View	
  from	
  the	
  Bridge	
  of	
  
Asnières),	
  late	
  1887.	
  

Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  38	
  x	
  46	
  cm.	
  Museé	
  des	
  Beaux-­‐-­‐-­‐Arts.	
  



422	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  58.	
   Camille	
  Pissarro,	
  Factories	
  near	
  Pontoise,	
  1873.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas.	
  
Museum	
  of	
  Fine	
  Arts,	
  Springfield,	
  Massachusetts.	
  



423	
  	
  

	
  

Chapter	
  5:	
  Symb	
  olism	
  in	
  Paris	
  
	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  1.	
  Sower,	
  June	
  1888.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  64.2	
  x	
  80.3	
  cm.	
  
Kröller-­‐-­‐-­‐Müller	
  Museum,	
  The	
  Netherlands.	
  F	
  422.	
  



424	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  

Figure	
  2.	
  Fourteen	
  Flowers	
  in	
  a	
  Vase,	
  August	
  1888.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  93	
  x	
  73	
  cm.	
  
Kröller-­‐-­‐-­‐Müller	
  Museum,	
  The	
  Netherlands.	
  F	
  454.	
  



425	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  3.	
  Terrace	
  of	
  a	
  Café	
  at	
  Night,	
  September	
  1888.	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  80.7	
  x	
  65.3	
  cm.	
  

Kröller-­‐-­‐-­‐Müller	
  Museum,	
  The	
  Netherlands.	
  F	
  467.	
  



426	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  4.	
  The	
  Night	
  Café,	
  September	
  1888.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  70	
  x	
  89	
  cm.	
  
Kröller-­‐-­‐-­‐Müller	
  Museum,	
  The	
  Netherlands.	
  F	
  463.	
  



427	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  5.	
  The	
  Potato	
  Eaters,	
  April-­‐-­‐-­‐May	
  1885.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  82	
  x	
  114	
  cm.	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  82.	
  



428	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  6.	
  Starry	
  Night,	
  1889.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  73.7	
  x	
  92.1	
  cm.	
  
Museum	
  of	
  Modern	
  Art,	
  New	
  York	
  City.	
  F	
  612.	
  



429	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  7.	
   Park	
  at	
  Asnières	
  in	
  Spring,	
  spring	
  1887.	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  1887.	
  50	
  x	
  65	
  cm.	
  F	
  362.	
  



430	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  8.	
  Patch	
  of	
  Grass,	
  April-­‐-­‐-­‐June	
  1887.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  30.8	
  x	
  39.7	
  cm.	
  
Kröller-­‐-­‐-­‐Müller	
  Museum,	
  Netherlands.	
  F	
  583.	
  



431	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  9.	
  Path	
  in	
  the	
  Woods,	
  May-­‐-­‐-­‐July	
  1888.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  45.3	
  x	
  37.7	
  cm.	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  309.	
  



432	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  10.	
   Exterior	
  of	
  a	
  Restaurant	
  in	
  Asnières,	
  summer	
  1887.	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  18.5	
  x	
  27	
  cm.	
  Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  321.	
  



433	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  11.	
   Paul	
  Gauguin,	
  Vision	
  After	
  the	
  Sermon,	
  1888.	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  73	
  x	
  92	
  cm.	
  

Scottish	
  National	
  Gallery,	
  Edinburgh.	
  



434	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  12.	
  Romans	
  parisiens,	
  fall	
  1887.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  73	
  x	
  93	
  cm.	
  
Private	
  Collection.	
  F	
  359.	
  



435	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  

Figure	
  13.	
  Still	
  Life	
  with	
  Bible,	
  October	
  1885.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  65.7	
  x	
  78.5	
  cm.	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  117.	
  



436	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  14.	
  Three	
  Novels,	
  January-­‐-­‐-­‐February	
  1887.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  31.1	
  x	
  48.5	
  cm.	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  335.	
  



437	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  

Figure	
  15.	
  Gustave	
  Moreau,	
  The	
  Apparition,	
  1876.	
  
Watercolor,	
  72.2	
  x	
  106	
  cm.	
  Musée	
  d’Orsay,	
  Paris.	
  



438	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  16.	
  Sous-­‐-­‐-­‐Bois,	
  summer	
  1887.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  46	
  x	
  55.5	
  cm.	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  309.	
  



439	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  17.	
  Avenue	
  of	
  Poplars	
  in	
  Autumn,	
  October	
  1884.	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  99	
  x	
  65.7	
  cm.	
  

Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  122.	
  



440	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

Figure	
  18.	
  Self-­‐-­‐-­‐Portrait	
  as	
  a	
  Painter,	
  1886.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  46.5	
  x	
  38.5	
  cm.	
  
Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  181.	
  



441	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  19.	
  Self-­‐-­‐-­‐Portrait	
  as	
  a	
  Painter,	
  December	
  1887-­‐-­‐-­‐Febraury	
  1888.	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  65.1	
  x	
  50	
  cm.	
  

Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  522.	
  



442	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  20.	
  Camille	
  Pissarro,	
  Pond	
  at	
  Montfoucault,	
  1874.	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  53.5	
  x	
  65.5	
  cm.	
  Private	
  Collection.	
  



443	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  21.	
   Claude	
  Monet,	
  Woman	
  with	
  a	
  Parasol—	
  
Madame	
  Monet	
  and	
  Her	
  Son,	
  1875.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  100	
  x	
  81	
  cm.	
  

National	
  Gallery	
  of	
  Art,	
  Washington,	
  DC.	
  



444	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  22.	
   Café	
  table	
  with	
  Absinthe,	
  February-­‐-­‐-­‐March	
  1887.	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  46.3	
  x	
  33.2	
  cm.	
  

Van	
  Gogh	
  Museum,	
  Amsterdam.	
  F	
  339.	
  



445	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  23.	
   Bertall,	
  Manet	
  as	
  Jesus	
  with	
  his	
  Disciples,	
  1870.	
  



446	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  24.	
   Georges	
  Seurat,	
  
Sunday	
  Afternoon	
  on	
  the	
  Island	
  of	
  La	
  Grande	
  Jatte,	
  1884-­‐-­‐-­‐1886.	
  

Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  207.5	
  x	
  308.1	
  cm.	
  Art	
  Institute,	
  Chicago.	
  



447	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  25.	
   Way	
  in	
  the	
  Voyer	
  d’Argenson	
  Park	
  in	
  Asnières,	
  spring	
  1887.	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  59	
  x	
  81	
  cm.	
  

Yale	
  University	
  Art	
  Gallery,	
  New	
  Haven,	
  Connecticut.	
  



448	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  26.	
   Édouard	
  Manet,	
  Olympia,	
  1863.	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  190	
  x	
  130	
  cm.	
  Musée	
  d’Orsay,	
  Paris.	
  



449	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  27.	
   Claude	
  Monet,	
  Woman	
  with	
  a	
  Parasol—	
  
Madame	
  Monet	
  and	
  Her	
  Son,	
  1875.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  100	
  x	
  81	
  cm.	
  

National	
  Gallery	
  of	
  Art,	
  Washington,	
  DC.	
  



450	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  28.	
   Berthe	
  Morisot,	
  The	
  Wet	
  Nurse	
  Angèle	
  Feeding	
  Julie	
  Manet,	
  1880.	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  50.2	
  x	
  61	
  cm.	
  
Private	
  Collection,	
  New	
  York.	
  



451	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  29.	
   Camille	
  Pissarro,	
  The	
  Shepherdess,	
  1881.	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  81	
  x	
  64.7	
  cm.	
  

Museé	
  d’Orsay,	
  Paris.	
  



452	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  30.	
   Camille	
  Pissarro,	
  Le	
  Chemin	
  de	
  fer	
  de	
  DIeppe,	
  1886.	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  54	
  x	
  65	
  cm.	
  

Private	
  Collection.	
  



453	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  

Figure	
  31.	
  Georges	
  Seurat,	
  La	
  Luzerne,	
  Saint-­‐-­‐-­‐Denis:	
  champ	
  de	
  coquelicots,	
  
1885-­‐-­‐-­‐1886.	
  Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  64	
  x	
  81	
  cm.	
  

National	
  Galleries	
  of	
  Scotland,	
  Edinburgh.	
  



454	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  32.	
   Paul	
  Gauguin,	
  Tropical	
  Vegetation,	
  1887.	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  116	
  x	
  89	
  cm.	
  

National	
  Gallery	
  of	
  Scotland,	
  Edinburgh.	
  



455	
  	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

Figure	
  33.	
   The	
  Restaurant	
  Rispal	
  in	
  Asnières,	
  Summer	
  1887.	
  
Oil	
  on	
  canvas,	
  72	
  x	
  60	
  cm.	
  

Nelson-­‐-­‐-­‐Atkins	
  Museum	
  of	
  Art,	
  Kansas	
  City.	
  


	Christa DiMarco's Dissertation Front Matter
	Christa DiMarco's Dissertation Body, Painting in Paris, Vincent van Gogh, 1886-1888
	Christa DiMarco's Dissertation Bibliography
	Christa DiMarco's APPENDIX Images
	Christa DiMarco's Appendix Images Part II