‘Impressionists in London: French Artists in Exile 1870- 1904’ is the current blockbuster exhibition at Tate Britain that is cashing in on art historical buzzwords and big names. The problem is, a lot of the works in this show are not strictly Impressionistic, and those that are, are not painted by an artist in exile. The show began with a historical account of the Franco-Prussian war, before several rooms dedicated to individual artists and their experience of living in London during this period.
Many of these works appear to offer a postcard vision of London; the city seen through the eyes of a tourist who is aware that their voyage to the English capital will come to an end at some point. Consider Camille Pissarro’s The Avenue, Sydenham from 1871 (Figure One), the year he moved to London. This street scene appears to focus on the concept of a rural idyll unaffected by modernity or industrialisation: it is a pleasant and inoffensive scene that captures the peaceful life in Norwood, where he was staying. Moreover, many of James Tissot’s paintings, such as The Gallery of HMS Calcutta from 1876 (Figure Two) visualise his time spent in the high society of London during his time in exile. After serving for the National Guard during the Franco-Prussian war, Tissot moved to London in 1871, where he joined and painted high society girls. While these paintings are done by an artist in exile, whether or not they are Impressionistic is up for debate. Tissot refused to join the Impressionists when asked by Degas in 1874, and stylistically does not conform with the loose brushstrokes and sense of fleeting movement that has become associated with Impressionism, opting instead for a far more Realistic style that focuses on acute detail of material.
That being said, the room dedicated to the depiction of fog is excellent and makes the show worth the visit. Three highly atmospheric Whistler paintings line one wall beside Giuseppe de Nittis’ Westminster from 1871 (Figure Three), which perhaps best encapsulates the exhibition title. De Nittis’ painting is beautifully atmospheric, it brings a softness to the building, and incites contemplation and reflection on industrialisation and the power of the British Empire. Although de Nittis was not French, or in exile, he participated in the first Impressionist Exhibition in 1874, and here quietly comments on the imposing and dominating desire of Britain’s new government building. By placing this painting beside some of Whistler’s Nocturne’s, it emphasises the skill and ability of de Nittis to capture a vision of the city that is not limited by notions of tourism. Like Whistler, who was a permanent resident of the city, he successfully depicts the duality of modern London as a tough, industrial city and a romantic, powerful metropolis.
The exhibition’s most talked about room is the impressive collection of Claude Monet’s Houses of Parliament series from 1901- 1904 (Figure Four). Eight of the nineteen known paintings from the series make up the room, which is beautifully, lowly lit to allow the colours of each canvas to pull you in. This is a magnificent, entrancing series that captures the Impressionistic study of light, time, and movement perfectly. The only problem is that Monet did not paint these while in exile. By the time he began this series, Impressionism was all but over, with the final Impressionist exhibition taking place fifteen years earlier in 1886. Nevertheless, it was still a great room with incredible artworks, and even though the final room of Derain’s subsequent trip to London taking inspiration from Monet felt a bit redundant. It was great to sit in front of these Monet paintings and contemplate life in London both then and now.
This exhibition presents some truly wonderful works by talented artists that offer great insight into modern life in London and France during the late nineteenth-century. The problem is the title of the exhibition. As Eddy Frankel writes on Time Out, “There’s some really great art here but there’s no coherent argument. It’s two different shows: ‘Impressionists in London’ and ‘French Artists in Exile’, and it manages to half-arse them both”. It is possible that this exhibition, like many others, chose the title to bring in crowds seeking out anything under the umbrella of ‘Impressionism’. It is definitely worth visiting, if only for Giuseppe de Nittis’ Westminster, however pose your own questions before the visit. Do French artists in exile in London portray a realistic vision of life in the city? Can we label a painting Impressionistic if stylistically it is not? How do scenes of high society in London offer us a different understanding of modern life than that of cityscapes?
hellomatthieu 