URBAN PERSPECTIVES AND THE MODERN CITY IN THE WORKS OF
GUSTAVE CAILLEBOTTE AND CHILDE HASSAM
by
NANCY H. WRIGHT
HEATHER MCPHERSON, COMMITTEE CHAIR
JESSICA DALLOW
ROBERT MELLOWN
A THESIS
Submitted to the graduate faculty of The University of Alabama at Birmingham
and The University of Alabama,
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts
BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA
2009
Copyright by
Nancy H. Wright
2009
URBAN PERSPECTIVES AND THE MODERN CITY IN THE WORKS OF
GUSTAVE CAILLEBOTTE AND CHILDE HASSAM
NANCY H. WRIGHT
ART HISTORY
ABSTRACT
The modern city was a key theme for artists in the 1870s and 1880s. Paris,
specifically, developed into the quintessential modern city. Urban renewal, industrial
developments, and city planning helped form the image of the modern city. These factors
influenced how artists depicted the city. Two artists who painted cityscapes during this
time were Gustave Caillebotte and Childe Hassam. Caillebotte, a French impressionist,
is now remembered for his interesting perspectives of the city of Paris. Hassam is
recognized as an American impressionist who painted a variety of subjects, including
modern cities, notably New York. Between 1883 and 1889, the cities of Boston and Paris
retained his attention and helped him develop his interest in urban themes. Both cities are
important in his oeuvre, but Paris’s urban renewal, city planning, and encouragement for
new styles of art inspired him to continue the cityscape theme and to explore the
impressionist style.
Caillebotte and Hassam share key similarities in their depictions of Paris. This
thesis compares and contrasts Caillebotte’s and Hassam’s techniques and their use of
modern perspectives in their Parisian cityscapes. It also considers Hassam’s depictions
of Boston which seem to have been inspired by his first visit to Paris in 1883 and by the
cityscapes of Caillebotte and other French artists, such as Manet, Monet, and Béraud.
Caillebotte’s and Hassam’s evolution in their palettes and techniques is also analyzed.
Both artists began with a naturalistic and detailed style and developed a more typical
iii
impressionist style over time. Their perspectives in their cityscapes highlight city
planning and urban geometry. Caillebotte’s decisive perspectives of Paris are very
unique, and Hassam’s perspectives seem indebted to those of Caillebotte.
It is through the comparison of their cityscapes that this thesis contributes to our
understanding of how artists used new approaches to interpret the modern city. It also
draws attention to the commonalities between artists who may have had no direct
connection other than their subject matter. This correlation between Caillebotte’s and
Hassam’s works has not been considered in depth before in the existing scholarship, and
this thesis lays the groundwork for future research.
iv
To Dad, Mom, Karen, and Jeremy
v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
There were many people that supported my thesis efforts. I am grateful to the
members of my committee, Dr. Jessica Dallow and Dr. Robert Mellown, for their
patience and their advice, but especially to Dr. Heather McPherson, my advisor and
committee chair. Her consistent encouragement and guidance have been greatly
appreciated over the past few years. Also, her personal excitement over this topic helped
my decision to develop it from a class paper into this thesis. I also wish to thank my art
and art history teachers at Delta State University, The University of Alabama at
Birmingham, and The University of Alabama. My research has benefited in particular
from the scholarship of Kirk Varnedoe and Robert Herbert. Without their books on the
subjects of the Parisian cityscape and Gustave Caillebotte, this thesis and Impressionist
scholarship would be greatly diminished. Lastly, I would like to acknowledge the
support of my family. Without their encouragement and God’s guidance, I would not
have taken this route toward this degree.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... iii
DEDICATION.....................................................................................................................v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................. vi
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... viii
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................1
2 THE PHENOMENON OF THE MODERN CITY ........................................................6
3 TECHNIQUE AND THE INFLUENCES OF THE CITY...........................................16
4 URBAN PERSPECTIVES ...........................................................................................24
5 CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................32
NOTES...............................................................................................................................35
BIBLIOGRAPHY..............................................................................................................53
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
1 Edouard Manet, View of the Paris World’s Fair, 1867 .................................................39
2 Gustave Caillebotte, Young Man at his Window, 1876 .................................................40
3 Claude Monet, Boulevard des Capucines, 1873............................................................41
4 Gustave Caillebotte, Paris Street, Rainy Day, 1877......................................................42
5 Childe Hassam, Cab Station, Rue Bonaparte, 1887 ......................................................43
6 Childe Hassam, April Showers, Champs Elysées, Paris, 1888......................................44
7 Childe Hassam, Rainy Day, Boston, 1885 .....................................................................45
8 Childe Hassam, Columbus Avenue, Rainy Day, 1885 ...................................................46
9 Gustave Caillebotte, The Man on the Balcony, 1880.....................................................47
10 Childe Hassam, Grand Prix Day, 1887 .......................................................................48
11 Childe Hassam. Pont Royal, Paris, 1897....................................................................49
12 Jean Béraud, Boulevard des Capucines, n.d. ...............................................................50
13 Gustave Caillebotte, Pont de l’Europe, 1876 .............................................................51
14 Childe Hassam, Charles River and Beacon Hill, 1890-92 ..........................................52
viii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
During the second half of the nineteenth century, the modern city became a
popular artistic theme especially among the impressionists. Cities were becoming the
places to experience modern life. Industry and fashion were booming, new architecture
and city plans were developing, and artists responded to these changes. The topography
and physical features of the city were also changing. The growth in population and
industry contributed to a city's transformation. Paris had to evolve if it was to remain a
leading international center. Industrial developments, such as railroads, encouraged
commerce and travel. Haussmannization expanded the narrow streets into bustling
boulevards and helped shape the modern city of Paris. The Franco-Prussian War, the
Commune, and the reconstruction following it affected the physical cityscape as well as
social and political attitudes. Artists sought to capture both the spectacle of the modern
cityscape and the social effects it had on its residents. This thesis focuses on the urban
perspectives of Gustave Caillebotte and Childe Hassam and their innovative approaches
to depicting the modern city.
Beginning with an overview of the modern city of Paris and its impact on late
nineteenth-century artists, this thesis compares and contrasts the cityscapes of Gustave
Caillebotte and Childe Hassam and it examines the artistic strategies they used to
interpret the modern city. It explores how urban development and the modern city
inspired and shaped their works and analyzes the significant and largely unexplored
1
parallels and similarities in their cityscapes. Both artists’ directions were influenced by
the cityscape of Paris and the prevalence of artists and art styles, specifically
impressionism, that the city had to offer. This thesis uses the cityscapes of Caillebotte
and Hassam to further draw attention to the various ways that the modern cityscape was
interpreted and painted and the commonalities between artists who may have had no
connections other than that of their subject matter. By doing this, this thesis sheds new
light on impressionist strategies for depicting the city of Paris and other modern cities.
Caillebotte and Hassam are just two of the artists who painted cityscapes, and in
particular Paris, during the 1870s and 1880s. The rationale for comparing and
contrasting these two artists’ works is complex. Initially, the visual resemblance between
their cityscapes suggested the need for further comparison between the two artists. Both
artists often painted the wide boulevards, the rain washed streets, and the bourgeois
lifestyle. However, on closer inspection, previous authors quickly abandoned the
comparison. As Warren Adelson explained, “Hassam’s empty foreground and casually
structured space are unlike Caillebotte’s flattened figures and calculated compositional
balance.”1 Adelson’s explanation points out that these two artists were very different in
some of their approaches and compositional strategies. However, closer examination
reveals significant similarities in palette and perspective. This more complex pattern,
combined with the fact that Caillebotte was French and Hassam was American, merits
further in-depth analysis. By examining their connections in theme and impressionist
technique, and taking into account their differences, this thesis sheds new light on the
interpretation of the modern city as a subject of modern life.
Understanding the development of Paris in the nineteenth century is crucial to
understanding its appeal as a modern subject. Although other cities experienced similar
2
developments, artists flocked to Paris because of its appeal as an international art capital
and as the quintessential modern city. The growing population and industrial
development that transformed Paris encouraged artists to portray it as a modern subject.
Population became an important issue in the nineteenth century. Under Baron
Haussmann’s plan of reconstruction, from 1853 until 1870, the physical plan and social
environment of Paris would change to support the expanding population and improve
public health. His plan called for innovative ways to reorganize and reshape the city to
accommodate those needs. Paris expanded both in acreage and height through the
annexing of surrounding areas and the building of taller structures.2
In addition to addressing the rising population, Haussmann's program of urban
renewal focused on incorporating new industrial developments. Beginning early in the
century, the development of rail transportation influenced the modernization of Paris. It
forced Paris to plan for railroad tracks as well as for roads. The railroads facilitated the
transportation of goods, increasing the availability of goods. “By the early 1860s, France
was crisscrossed by 6,000 miles of railway track.”3 Both Haussmannization and the
railroad system increased job availability in the city and soon became the representative
images of the modern cityscape. “By 1870, one in five Parisian workers was employed
in the building trade.”4
France’s turbulent history also affected Paris and its development as a modern
city. After the Franco-Prussian War and the Commune, Paris experienced a period of
renewal. Within several years after the war and the Commune, Haussmann’s remaining
unfinished projects were completed.5 Artists introduced new styles of art, such as
impressionism. “Many of the Paris cityscapes…are permeated with memories of war,
depicting reconstruction and often the street recovered for pleasure and commerce.”6 But
3
Paris’s modernity also contributed to political and social tensions. The division between
the classes that erupted during the Commune has been tied to Haussmannization.
Elaborating on this perspective, Matthew Gandy states, “The urban transformation
created a city in which social and economic differences not only were widened but were
much more keenly felt.”7
The second chapter of this thesis considers Paris’s emergence as the quintessential
modern city, the physical and social factors that helped shape it, and the artists who
represented it. The impressionists excelled at capturing the momentary impressions of
light of the urban atmosphere, the sense of flux, and the new architecture of the modern
city. Understanding how Paris became a modern city and how the impressionists
interpreted it is essential in order to compare and assess the particular contributions of
Caillebotte and Hassam.
The third chapter examines the similarities and differences between the two
artists’ styles and palettes. Caillebotte and Hassam were not traditional impressionists
when it came to their palettes. Initially, both often used tonal palettes based on the
academic tradition. They both experienced a development toward a more typical
impressionist palette and brushstrokes in their later works. Their similarities in palette
and other formal techniques connect the two artists.
The fourth chapter compares Caillebotte’s and Hassam’s visions of Paris and
analyzes their perspectives and attitudes toward the city and its inhabitants. Both artists
experienced Haussmann’s transformation of Paris and incorporated the effects of
Haussmannization, such as the uniformity of the buildings and its effect on the social
atmosphere, in their works.
4
Caillebotte and Hassam thought about the modern city in Baudelairian terms.
Charles Baudelaire encouraged artists to paint what they knew, more specifically, the city
and the flux of modern life around them.8 Both Caillebotte and Hassam felt they had a
responsibility to interpret their own time. Caillebotte’s cityscapes are some of the most
recognizable depictions of Paris from the 1870s. Although Hassam is primarily
remembered for his depictions of New York, his time in Paris during the 1880s when he
adopted aspects of the impressionist style profoundly influenced his later works. Both
saw Paris and the cityscape as distinctly modern subjects, and their interpretations of the
modern city helped to establish both artists as unique recorders of their time.
Reconsidering these two artists and their views of Paris sheds new light on impressionist
strategies for depicting the city of Paris.
5
CHAPTER 2
THE PHENOMENON OF THE MODERN CITY
Over the past two centuries, the phenomenon of the modern city has intrigued
many writers from Charles Baudelaire to T.J. Clark, and inspired numerous artists.
Particular interest has been taken in the shaping of modern Paris during its height as
international art capital, from the 1860s to the end of the nineteenth century. Art
historian Robert Herbert states that “it is important to look at the altered Paris, because its
new streets and squares, its expositions, cafés, restaurants, and theaters are the images we
see in the paintings of Manet, Degas, Morisot, Cassatt, Monet, Caillebotte, and Renoir.”9
During the second half of the nineteenth century, the impressionists and other artists
captured the Paris cityscape and explored different perspectives of modernity.
“Visions of the past may have abounded in France, but so too did unmistakable
signs of the present, of a world that over the past few decades had been dramatically
transformed through technology and invention.”10 Ross King is referring to the altered
Paris created by Haussmannization and the development of industry and new modes of
transportation such as railways. By the late 1870s and early 1880s, Haussmann’s urban
renewal had been carried out, and the physical look of the city had been dramatically
transformed. In order to understand the new developments in art and how artists
responded to the subject of the city, we must first review how Paris became the
quintessential modern city and an inspiration for modern artists.
6
The road to Paris’s modernization was not painless or apolitical. After the French
Revolution of 1789 and over the first few decades of the nineteenth century, Paris was
slowly starting to develop into a modern city. Some of the grand boulevards were
starting to be mapped out, and the former architecture of the city was being wiped away
to make room for the newer structures. However, the social and political atmosphere of
the city was stifling the impetus for urban development. The first half of the nineteenth
century saw the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte, changes in political power, and
revolutionary actions occurring in the streets. More focus was placed on the form of
government and the current leader than on stabilizing the city for growth and progress. It
was not until Napoleon III proclaimed the Second Empire in 1852 that Paris began to
take serious steps toward creating a dynamic modern metropolis.11 While his empire did
not stabilize fears of another revolution, it did focus the city’s plans for becoming a
modern city. In 1853, he made Baron Georges Haussmann prefect of the Seine and gave
him the responsibility to plan the future development of the city.12
Haussmann's plans for the city had to accommodate Paris's growing population
and its industrial urbanization. Paris, which retained many narrow medieval streets, did
little to anticipate population growth. Although some boulevards had been mapped out
earlier, the city's structure needed further overall organization. A complete renovation of
the sewer system was one of the main concerns for Haussmann and his team. This part of
the renovation may not seem as important because it is nearly invisible in the art
depicting the renovated city; however, the renewal of the sewers was essential to
preventing the spread of diseases and to encouraging the city’s growth.13
The most visible part of the reconstruction of Paris was the creation of new
boulevards and the uniform appearance and increased size of the newly constructed
7
buildings. The boulevards and buildings took the place of the former cramped quartiers
and narrow streets. In The Painting of Modern Life, T. J. Clark explains that the
construction of the boulevards and buildings left different impressions on the Parisians.
From one perspective, a new, modern city was developing that allowed progress and
growth. From another perspective, the city was being socially divided because the
reconstruction was forcing the lower classes and workers to leave their dwellings in the
center of the city and move to the outskirts. The city’s reconstruction had already begun
before Haussmannization, but it is during the 1850s and 1860s that large portions of Paris
were being constructed and therefore more people were moving from their homes.14
From the second perspective, Haussmannization had an underlying rationale of
preventing insurrection in Paris. The previous revolutionary actions were focused on
creating a city of equality, and the Empire's plans did not allow for another uprising. The
large boulevards were not only planned for transportation; their size and paving helped
prevent the formation of barricades.15 Gradually throughout the process of the
reconstruction, the center of the city seemed to be slowly purified for the upper
bourgeoisie. The Second Empire's privileging of the bourgeoisie and their places of
pleasure, such as parks and shops, was a reason for altering the center of the city. The
lower classes could not afford to stay in the areas where they had formerly lived, and so
they were forced to move. Tens of thousands were evicted and most ended up on the
outskirts of Paris, what was known as the banlieue.16 This result of Haussmannization
seems contradictory to the goal of making room for the growing population. After
Haussmannization, the urban topography of Paris showed that the wealthier inhabited the
newer, cleaner areas of the city, and since the lower classes were relegated to the
8
outskirts, society became separated. Later, in 1871, with the Commune, this wedge in
society became dangerous.
A large part of the city of Paris was reconstructed before the Universal Exhibition
of 1867. This event not only celebrated the industrial and artistic progress of Paris and
other countries, but it also revealed the renovated city of Paris to the world. Paris’s
renovated boulevards and uniform buildings were revealed to these curious outsiders.
Manet’s art was continuing to cause a stir in the art world, and Paris seemed to be the
quintessential city for new ideas to blossom. At this time, the Second Empire was at its
apogee .
However, in 1870, the Franco-Prussian war broke out. France was defeated,
Napoleon III was removed from power, and Paris was forced to capitulate. Haussmann’s
plan’s were halted, and he was dismissed from his position. The Third Republic was
declared, but its power was weak in the wake of war. The glory of the modern city
seemed to be fading and the Commune made the city’s turmoil worse.
Earlier in the century, in 1848, an uprising of Parisian workers had been
suppressed quickly and brutally. In March 1871, another uprising of workers and the
lower classes, referred to as the Commune, succeeded in seizing power for a few months.
This uprising was what the former empire had feared. The city had been weakened from
the reparations of war and the military was tired. However, the insurrectionists’ power
was short-lived and ended in bloodshed. In June, government troops, under the
leadership of Marshal MacMahon, repressed the Commune. Thousands were killed and
many others were imprisoned or banished.
The Commune was an unprecedented and shocking event for the residents of
Paris. Albert Boime, who has researched the Paris Commune and its connection to
9
modern art, underscores the harm it caused to the city and its residents. “Ironically, it had
been the work of ‘Haussmannization’ to eradicate the threat of insurrection, and now this
very ‘modernity’ was being turned inside out.”17 The modernity that privileged the
bourgeoisie no longer could be accepted as a safer option for the city. Only a few artists,
such as Manet, were directly involved in the war or the Commune, but all were impacted
by their effects. Herbert adds that the “political and psychological scars that resulted
were palpable for decades.”18
After these events, France and the city of Paris needed some stability. In 1872,
France paid the war reparations and the Germans left the country. The government was
struggling with the plans for the Third Republic; however, Paris decided to finish the
urban projects that were halted before the war. Many of the boulevards were completed,
such as the Avenue de l’Opéra in 1877. The city’s renewal seemed to spread a sense of
national renewal as well. In 1878, some hope for reconciliation between the classes was
felt with the playing of La Marseillaise on the national holiday. The following year,
some of the exiled Communards came back into the city, and a new president was
elected.19 Sagraves notes that the city begins to be depicted by artists as revitalized by
the urban renewal that took place after the events of 1871. It seems that artists preferred
to view the city in a positive manner even if it was not truly recovered from its trauma.20
Artists returned to developing their new directions and seemed to become more free and
expressive as the city returned to a more stable atmosphere. Many of the works discussed
in this thesis were painted after 1871 in this time of urban renewal. This history helps
create a connection between the more positive attitude of the city and the bright palette
and inventive perspectives of the impressionists.
10
Artists living in Paris observed the changes in political power and social ambiance
as well as the physical development of the new cityscape. Before the 1870s, few artists
chose to depict the modern city in their works. Most cityscapes were considered merely
documentary or topographical recordings and did not consider the city as anything more
than a historical subject. In response to the factors that were changing the city, artists
began to modernize the image of the city by incorporating perspectives of the new
boulevards, buildings, and industrial infrastructure as well as their impressions of the
changing rhythms and attitudes of the city. By realistically and expressively depicting
their city, artists felt they were making a modern impact.21
Edouard Manet’s View of the Paris World’s Fair, 1867 (Figure 1) is perhaps one
of the first truly modern Parisian cityscapes. Manet chose to celebrate modern life and its
association with the changes that were transforming the city. The subject is clearly the
city itself. The painting’s partly finished state connects with the state of the unfinished
city. Different social classes are represented amidst the modern atmosphere of steam and
industrial expansion. In the top right corner of the painting, a balloon recalls the
photographer Nadar, who photographed Paris from the air. Its distance from the
cityscape suggests the growing distance between the future of the city and its past.22 The
point of view is important to consider because Manet uses it to draw the viewer into the
scene. This point of view, also known as the perspective of the flâneur, is used in many
modern paintings. For Clark, this painting introduces the modern concept of the lack of
contact between individuals.23 This painting laid the groundwork for the modern
cityscapes to come.
Building on Manet’s contributions to the subject of the modern city, the next
artists to explore the theme were the impressionists. They adopted the subject of modern
11
life in almost all of their works. Barbara Weinberg connects the impressionist view of
modern life and the modern cityscape:
The French Impressionists, and such Americans…who were nourished by their
example, were committed to the depiction of modern life. No subjects more
vividly announced this commitment than those originating in the modern
city…By contrast with earlier images of cities, which are for the most part
comprehensive panoramas that resemble vertical maps, their paintings capture not
only the architecture of cities but also their urban energy and enlist modern styles
to express modern dynamism.24
The impressionists used new techniques in creating all their subjects, including the
modern city. They were influenced by Manet’s innovative painting technique; he helped
give the surface of the painting as much importance as the painted image. He disregarded
academic techniques of painting and did not stress traditional modeling. His influence
and other influences, such as Japanese woodblock prints and photography, led the
impressionists to focus on light, new perspectives, and the momentary quality of life.
Their works had a brushy quality in the way they were painted. Their approach to
painting left their works with an unfinished quality, yet their works exuded the
impression of life.
The impressionists’ adoption of the subject of the modern city is fitting. Their
youthful attitudes toward life echoed the changes that made Paris feel young and new.
Many of their works portrayed the current fashions and the bustling life of the streets.
Other aspects of modernity were portrayed in the impressionists’ works: the railroad and
its clouds of steam, sweeping views of the new boulevards, and the modern bridges with
their industrial infrastructure all appear frequently in impressionist works. Haussmann’s
reconstructed Paris, which now had a “surprisingly cosmopolitan nature,” became a
symbol of the bourgeois lifestyle of pleasure in the works by the impressionists.25 The
impressionists used all parts of the city as subjects. Not only the boulevards, but also the
12
parks and the cafés were depicted. The city took on the role of spectacle through the
impressionists’ depictions, and Manet’s painting is an appropriate first example.26
However, the impressionist artists were not entirely lighthearted and overtly
positive in their works representing the city. Many of the impressionists depicted parts of
the city that did not celebrate the city’s new modern image. They had a range of views
about government and did not all see the new Paris as a joyful change. Some
impressionists, such as Caillebotte and Degas, implied that modernity was furthering the
separation between the Parisians. In several of their works, they highlight the modern
city as contributing to the separation between social classes and individuals. Caillebotte,
in his Young Man at his Window, 1876 (Figure 2), establishes a barrier, the balustrade,
between the main figure and the new Paris.
Expanding from this information, it is evident the impressionists left a wide
variety of views of the city, some depicting the urban environment with very innovative
approaches. In Impressionism: Art, Leisure, and Parisian Society, Herbert examines
three paintings that portray the same subject but in different ways. The paintings all deal
with the subject of the Gare Saint-Lazare and the bridge over the tracks. The artists he
compares are Manet, Monet, and Caillebotte. To summarize his comparison, he notes
that while all three paint the same modern subject, all three take different, yet unique
approaches. Manet paints modern industry as a part of the background and focuses his
attention on the figures in the foreground. Monet paints the tracks and the architecture,
avoiding the use of figures. His brushy handling creates an impression of the light
touching the forms. In contrast, Caillebotte’s painting is clearer and the forms and
figures of the city are both defined. Caillebotte shows both the industrial infrastructure
and the urban society that dwells in it.27 This comparison allows the viewer to see that
13
Parisian artists were interpreting Baudelaire’s call to paint modernity but were not all
doing it in the same way.
These varied cityscapes influenced American artists, as well as other foreign
artists, who came to study art in Paris. Many of these artists learned the techniques of
Manet, Monet, or Caillebotte before returning to their native lands. Also, Paris’s role as
the international art capital encouraged these artists to paint the modern city. They
experienced the same boulevards and modern culture of Paris. Many of these foreign
artists came to Paris after the historical events that impacted Paris in the late nineteenth
century, and most of their works remained neutral in their interpretations of the social
issues of the city. Their works create a broader view of how Paris was interpreted.
The American artist Childe Hassam came to Paris and painted multiple views of
the city. Hassam has an enormous oeuvre which incorporates different styles and
influences. Yet, the character of his art is original. Originally from Boston, he was
already an established artist when, in 1886, he decided to study in Paris at the Academy
Julian.28 He spent three years in Paris and learned not only at school but also from the
city, its places, and its people. He viewed artwork in a range of styles by current Parisian
and foreign artists. On an earlier visit to Europe, and most likely Paris, in 1883, Hassam
seemed to have no interest in the impressionist style; yet, while living in Paris a few years
later, he adopted aspects of the impressionist style. He returned to America in 1889, later
becoming one of the American impressionists.
Gustave Caillebotte’s very Parisian views of the city offer a compelling
comparison with Childe Hassam’s Americanized views of Paris. Their works formally
resemble each other’s, which is caused by their using a similar naturalistic, rather than a
typical impressionistic, approach. This approach and their gradual adoption of the
14
impressionist technique are important to consider in conjunction with the theme of the
modern city. Also, in their interpretations of Haussmann’s Paris and its impact on their
cityscapes, there are similarities worth analyzing. The next two chapters will examine
the similarities in Caillebotte’s and Hassam’s formal techniques and urban perspectives
and shed new light on their artistic responses of the modern city.
15
CHAPTER 3
TECHNIQUE AND THE INFLUENCES OF THE CITY
Kirk Varnedoe states that Paris was seen as a “carnival of form and light, a
generalized landscape of bustle” by many of the impressionist artists.29 As mentioned in
the last chapter, the impressionists took up the subject of the city because it was a part of
the everyday life that surrounded them. However, most impressionist artists painted the
city in the same manner that they painted their other subjects. They focused on the
momentary image created by light and the movement that was taking place. Many of
their cityscapes were from a bird’s eye view perspective, where the crowds of people
resembled blotches of color, or they were of a social events full of movement. Monet’s
Boulevard des Capucines, Paris, 1873 (Figure 3) is an example of these sorts of
portrayals of the city. Also, many of their works allowed their techniques to be noticed
on the surfaces of the canvas. Visible brushstrokes and a light, bright palette are
characteristics of typical impressionist works.
However, there were other artists, some impressionist, who painted the city in a
more naturalistic vein. They took notice of the details of the city’s physical attributes,
and they also brought more emphasis to the figure. Instead of bustling crowds, these
artists portrayed individuals of various classes inhabiting the modernized city.
Caillebotte was a member of the impressionist group, but his works were never in the
typical impressionist style. Hassam, who later adopted impressionist techniques in his
works, never settled with a specific style. Both Caillebotte and Hassam created works
16
depicting the city of Paris that can be considered non-typical impressionist works that
relate to a naturalistic, more academic technical approach.
Until the 1980s and 1990s, Caillebotte’s non-typical impressionist style, seen in
many of his early works, led many to consider him a derivative impressionist artist. In
Gustave Caillebotte (1987), Kirk Varnedoe linked Caillebotte to artists such as Béraud
and De Nittis; all three participated in this special kind of realism in the 1870s and 1880s.
Their naturalistic style was similar to impressionism, yet differed in important ways.
This connection helps establish Caillebotte’s validity as an original artist, and not a
derivative impressionist artists. Varnedoe argues that the artists of this realistic style
were aware of photography and took an interest in composing their works similar to the
way a photograph records a moment in time.30 However, Caillebotte’s works stand apart
from these other artists because of their scale and use of exaggerated perspective. In the
next chapter, more will be said about Caillebotte’s connections with Béraud and how
Caillebotte’s perspectives and purposes differed in creating views of the city. When
compared to other impressionists, Caillebotte’s cityscapes may lack the spontaneity and
color seen in their works; however, his traditional technique and realistic style allowed
him to clearly and uniquely express the modernization of Paris.
Joris-Karl Huysmans, like Baudelaire, called on painters to represent
contemporary subjects; however, as Robert Herbert notes “Huysmans preferred
Caillebotte to Monet” in the representation of these subjects because Caillebotte’s works
were clearer images.31 Caillebotte's clarity is attributable to his traditional realist
technique and palette. Caillebotte’s cityscapes represent the effects of Haussmannization
perhaps more clearly than those of any other impressionist artist. The catalogue The
Origins of Impressionism refers to Caillebotte as a “practitioner of a style…consistent
17
with Haussmann’s architecture – dry, cold, implacable, and fascinating because of its
mineral accents and compositional rigor.”32
Caillebotte, who was born in 1848, did not know Paris before the Second Empire;
however, he experienced first hand the changes effected by Haussmannization.
Therefore, his desire to paint the modern urban culture and surroundings of Paris was not
to highlight a change; rather, he painted what he knew and what surrounded him. This
helps connect him with other artists who did not know Paris before its reconstruction. An
American and eleven years Caillebotte’s junior, Childe Hassam first encountered Paris in
the 1880s after its reconstruction had been completed. Hassam’s paintings of Paris are
similar in style and approach to the cityscapes of Caillebotte. Both artists depicted the
modern images of the city with subtle brushstrokes and grayish tones. They are painted
in a calm, traditional way that incorporated impressionist influences.
Because of his arrival in the late 1880s, Hassam experienced the peak of
impressionism and its acceptance as an artistic style. Barbara Weinberg suggests that
Hassam’s engagement with impressionism began with his Parisian works. “Hassam’s
Parisian works suggest that he was much more inclined than were most of his compatriots
to interpret in a personal and vital way the styles of the modern French painters…and to
celebrate urban life.”33 Hassam carried the theme of modern life from his earlier Boston
cityscapes, dating from the years 1883-1886; however, he allowed the atmosphere and
attitude of Paris to transform his cityscapes into “personal” interpretations of the city.
The development of his cityscapes is also linked to the changes that occurred in
his palette. At the beginning of Hassam’s Paris stay, his palette was mostly traditional
and gray toned. At first, he may have looked at Paris the same way as Caillebotte; this
would direct him to seeing the city in a realistic way. For example, he would have
18
noticed the monochromatic tone of the modern structures and would not have focused on
the colors and shades produced by the light. Yet, when he left Paris, his adoption of the
impressionist style and palette was evident.
Caillebotte’s Paris Street, Rainy Day, 1877 (Figure 4) and Hassam’s Cab Station,
Rue Bonaparte, 1887 (Figure 5) are two works that illustrate the similarities in their
painting styles and their portrayal of Paris. Formally, the works resemble each other
because of the tonal palette and naturalistic handling of the figures and architecture. Both
paintings capture the modern Paris that had been transformed by Haussmannization and
was still in a state of renewal. Although Caillebotte and Hassam painted about ten years
apart, both seemed to understand the modernized look and attitude of the Paris of the
Third Republic.
One key difference between Caillebotte’s Paris Street, Rainy Day and Hassam’s
Cab Station, Rue Bonaparte is that Caillebotte’s painting depicts a specific modern
location in Paris and Hassam’s painting shows an older part of Paris.34 Caillebotte’s
painting depicts one of the busiest intersections in Paris. The buildings are newly built
and are five or six stories tall. In contrast, Hassam’s work depicts lower level buildings
that are less pristine than Caillebotte’s buildings. However, Hassam’s perspective of the
street creates an illusion of a wider street more like the newer boulevard depicted in Paris
Street, Rainy Day. In another cityscape by Hassam, April Showers, Champs Elysées,
Paris, 1888 (Figure 6), the painting’s setting is more like that of Paris Street, Rainy Day.
April Showers, Champs Elysées, Paris is painted in the same palette as Cab Station, Rue
Bonaparte showing Hassam’s tonal technique. However, this painting is more
representative of the bustling street scenes more often portrayed in Hassam’s works and
19
is a good example of his particular interest in transportation. Carriages and horses are in
the majority of his cityscapes, unlike Caillebotte’s works, which rarely show this motif.
Hassam grew up in America and spent much of his time in Boston before living in
Paris. In contrast to Caillebotte, Hassam is a younger American artist who only became
linked to the impressionist style in the late 1880s. After establishing himself in America,
Hassam came to Paris to study in 1886. Boston’s urban planning had been based on that
of Paris, so Hassam may have felt a closeness to the city that other foreigners may not
have felt. In Boston, Hassam lived in the recently enlarged South End area. Like Paris,
this area of Boston was “designed on grid plans based on Baron Georges-Eugène
Haussmann’s new Paris. Columbus Avenue (where Hassam lived) was laid out in
1869.”35 In light of this connection, it makes sense to consider Hassam’s Boston
cityscapes in relation to his later depictions of Paris and those of Caillebotte.
The most noteworthy example of Hassam’s more pre-impressionist naturalistic
style is Rainy Day, Boston, 1885 (figure 7). Although it was painted before Hassam’s
stay in Paris, it has more similarities with Caillebotte's Paris Street, Rainy Day than the
Rue Bonaparte painting. Bullock suggests that he may have been influenced by recent
exhibitions in Boston and New York the year before he left for Paris. At these
exhibitions, Hassam would have seen cityscapes by conservative French painters, like
Béraud. Caillebotte’s works were not a part of these exhibitions; however, the works
Hassam saw were most likely done by artists who knew of Caillebotte and Paris Street,
Rainy Day.36 However, it is still possible that Hassam may have seen Caillebotte’s work
on his first visit to Europe in 1883.
Rainy Day, Boston and Paris Street, Rainy Day seem to mirror each other in
composition because of the panoramic view of boulevards receding in multiple
20
directions. This insistence on emphasizing the width and length of the new streets was a
new idea in paintings of the city. The prominence of boulevards in the painting engages
the viewer and highlights the modern urban spaces. Caillebotte and Hassam purposely
left the foreground mostly empty to further emphasize the receding perspective.37
Both works are painted with a grayish palette, and both are scenes of rainy days.
Both works lack the high value color palette and broad brushstrokes of the impressionists.
Instead, the artists adopt a more traditional style of painting the cityscape. The works
share similar motifs. Both artists liked painting rain washed streets. The reflection of
light captured in the rain washed streets is an impressionist note. Other similar motifs are
the umbrellas and the current fashions. Both Caillebotte and Hassam preferred to depict
the city street rather than the other spectacles in Paris.38 They enjoyed watching the
urban environment and wanted to incorporate the everyday fashions worn by the city
dwellers. Another Boston cityscape that incorporates this motif is Columbus Avenue,
Rainy Day, 1885 (Figure 8). This work, like Rainy Day, Boston, shares the tonal palette
found in Caillebotte’s Paris Street, Rainy Day, but differs in its inclusion and emphasis
on transportation vehicles.
Impressionist artists often avoided painting individual figures in their works, and
instead chose to represent unfocused crowds of people at greater distances. The
impressionists tended to be more concerned with representing effects of light and
atmosphere than figures as illustrated by Monet’s Boulevard des Capucines, 1873.
Varnedoe states that Caillebotte’s clearly defined figures help draw the viewer into
involvement with the modern city. “The near life-size strollers loom so immediately
before us, that we are drawn irresistibly into a greater involvement with the scene and the
21
subject.”39 This inclusion of detailed figures sets Caillebotte’s and Hassam’s cityscapes
apart from the typical impressionist works.
Both Caillebotte and Hassam gradually adopted typical impressionist techniques
into their cityscapes. As Caillebotte’s style changed, his cityscapes seemed to lose the
uniqueness of his earlier works. This was partly because he began to use broader
brushstrokes which made his perspective views of the street seem to have a blurry quality
instead of the crispness that he displayed in Paris Street, Rainy Day. Yet, others kept a
unique quality by incorporating an unusual perspective and a figure. His palette became
brighter, and many of his cityscapes began to show more natural elements, such as trees
lining the boulevards. Many of his early cityscapes lacked this natural element that he
put in works like The Man on the Balcony, 1880 (figure 9). After this discussion of his
later palette, it is important to recall that most of Caillebotte’s cityscapes were created
during the late 1870s, years before Hassam visited the city and the popularity of
impressionism grew. By 1882, Caillebotte had largely stopped painting and was focusing
on boating and collecting. If he had continued to paint, it is likely his palette and
technique would have come even closer to the typical impressionist technique.
Hassam’s path toward impressionism increased his popularity as an artist. In
contrast to Caillebotte, Hassam’s works allowed him to represent a more vivid view of
the city. While he often reverted to his earlier style, he later became recognized for his
impressionist style. His time in Paris was the catalyst for his adoption of impressionism.
One of his more impressionistic works done in Paris was Grand Prix Day, 1887 (figure
10). This work shows that Hassam began to explore a brighter palette and softer focus.
Also, he blocks the modernized buildings that were more prevalent in his more tonal
works and replaces their presence with airy trees. This change in palette and use of softer
22
strokes poses the question of his being influenced by more typical impressionists, such as
Monet. On his return to New York, Hassam set out to portray that city with a bold palette
and broader brushstrokes. Weinberg states that “he exemplified the buoyant spirit of
most of the American Impressionists.”40 His sojourn, his paintings of Paris, and his time
in the quintessential modern city allowed his future works to realize their full potential.
An example of his later, more luminous palette is Pont Royal, Paris, 1897 (Figure 11).
This work was painted while visiting Paris in 1897. It is a good example of the loosely
painted impressionist style that Hassam used consistently in the 1890s.
23
CHAPTER 4
URBAN PERSPECTIVES
The introduction of impressionism not only brought a more luminous palette to
the forefront of modern painting but also encouraged distinctly modern urban
perspectives. The reconstruction of Paris by Haussmann and the urban renewal in the
1870s created a visual stimulus for artists, especially the impressionists. In painting
modern life, impressionist artists took into consideration the physical development of the
city as well as the development of the urban society that surrounded them. Caillebotte
and Hassam’s works display a desire to portray Paris from these distinctly modern
perspectives. Caillebotte’s works are now widely recognized for their exploration of
unusual urban perspectives. Although Hassam’s works share some common features
with Caillebotte’s works, they have not been considered together in any detail in previous
scholarship. Caillebotte’s distinct approach in depicting the Parisian cityscape will be
analyzed, and Hassam’s works and perspectives will be compared to Caillebotte’s.
Caillebotte, a Parisian of the Second Empire and Third Republic, experienced
many of Paris’s changes first hand. Several of his early works, like Young Man at his
Window (Figure 2), discussed earlier, portray a figure observing the city below. This
particular painting, which depicts the artist’s brother, shows how Caillebotte must have
experienced the city while growing up. Caillebotte’s family was well off and enjoyed a
comfortable bourgeois lifestyle. Many of Caillebotte’s early works were interior family
scenes with an introspective view of the world. In Young Man at his Window, the viewer
24
perceives what the young man in the picture sees. We accept the voyeuristic perspective
of the man and are able to interpret his social standing and relationship to the city.
Caillebotte’s bourgeois upbringing presents us with this controlling viewpoint.
His association with the impressionist artists is surprising in light of his family
background. With the exception of Degas and Manet, Caillebotte did not fit into the
typical impressionist mold because of his family’s wealth and social standing and his
financially independent role as a collector, yet he was accepted into the group. Perhaps
these qualities helped him develop his distinct view of Paris. Many of his works are
street level and present the viewpoint of a flâneur. Some of the other impressionists, such
as Degas and Manet, were also flâneurs; however, Caillebotte's social standing and role
as a collector combined with his flâneur personality make him an interesting artist to
consider in relation to the urban environment. In these street level works, the viewer may
interpret Caillebotte’s viewpoint in a different light from the interior scenes or balcony
views. In works such as Paris Street, Rainy Day (figure 4), Caillebotte’s focus is the
street itself and the plunging perspective.
Briefly mentioned in the previous chapter was the connection between Caillebotte
and Jean Béraud. Robert Herbert noticed this connection and tied Béraud’s painting,
Paris, On the Boulevard, c. 1878-82, to Caillebotte’s paintings Paris Street, Rainy Day
and Le Pont de l’Europe. Both this painting by Béraud and Caillebotte’s Paris Street,
Rainy Day are set on the newer boulevards and depict a modern view of the city.
Béraud’s painting Boulevard des Capucines, n. d. (figure 12), also shares connections
with the same two Caillebotte works mentioned. Its composition is almost identical to
Paris, On the Boulevard. The similarities between the two artists’ works are noteworthy;
both have a naturalistic palette and technique. Both display a contemporary Parisian
25
street, but they are different in the specific streets or bridges portrayed. Caillebotte’s
work has significantly fewer people on the street. Also, Caillebotte’s vanishing point
carries down the boulevard without the interruptions of foliage found in Béraud’s work.
But, as Herbert points out, it is Caillebotte’s curious and willful decision in recreating the
boulevard that makes his work unique. Herbert notes, “Ordinary though it is,
Caillebotte’s naturalism seems willful, even aggressive, when compared to the anecdotal
naturalism of an artist like Jean Béraud.”41 Caillebotte carefully considered his
composition when portraying the modern city. His concern was balance and geometry.
His purposeful compositions help the viewer relate him more to artists such as Degas and
Manet.
While Caillebotte exhibits some impressionist tendencies, his cityscapes differ
from other impressionist cityscapes primarily because of their formal handling as well as
their specific figure involvement in the urban atmosphere. In Young Man at his Window,
the streets below are mostly empty, but a female figure is easily recognizable. This
painting depicts a residential area nearby the bustling boulevards, specifically the Rue de
Miromesnil and the Rue de Lisbonne.42 This explains the emptiness of the streets below.
In contrast, Monet’s cityscapes, such as Boulevard de Capucines, 1873, do not clearly
delineate the crowd that fills the street below. Monet’s works typically focus on the
movement and flux of the crowd and the overall impression or moment in time. Monet
and Caillebotte do not emphasize the same things; therefore, Caillebotte’s interpretation
of the cityscape is unique, yet it is similar in its aim toward modernity. However, later in
their careers, both Caillebotte and Hassam painted more balcony level views, some
resembling Monet’s perspectives. Two paintings from this perspective are Caillebotte’s
26
The Man on the Balcony, 1880 (figure 9) and Hassam’s Pont Royal, Paris, 1897 (figure
11).
In addition to his focus on individual figure representation in the cityscape,
Caillebotte focuses on the urban architecture and atmosphere. Many of his works are
about the city itself. At this point, it is important to note the specifically modern areas of
Paris included in his works and how his sharp and extreme perspective echoes the
uniformity and character of the modern architecture. Paris Street, Rainy Day depicts a
busy intersection in the renovated Paris. Located near the bridge seen in Pont de
l’Europe, 1876 (figure 9), this intersection was truly a modern area. It was also near his
home, which helps explain his attraction to the intersection. Julia Sagraves raises another
relevant point. She notes that these areas of Paris were of “strategic importance” during
the Commune.43 Their use during the Commune’s fighting led these streets to be
considered in the reconstruction after the Commune, which makes these areas not only
Haussmannian but modern in their construction.
Sagraves further notes that Caillebotte's compositions are “characteristically
Haussmannian” because of “the straight, sharply plunging perspective lines.”44 This
means that not only are his works modern because of their location but also because of
their perspective. The streets are not idealized; they echo the true reality of the modern
cityscape. In the modern Paris that was created in the Second Empire, many of the
buildings resemble each other. Caillebotte’s deep perspective showcases the length and
width of the new boulevards and the uniformity of the buildings, thus enlarging the city’s
urban space. This perspective gives his works an unusual, but truthful, feel and reflects
the renovated Paris.
27
Most of Caillebotte’s modern cityscapes were created in the late 1870s. As
mentioned, there is no definitive evidence to prove that Hassam saw Caillebotte’s works,
although he may have viewed them during his 1883 trip to Europe or at an exhibition in
Paris or New York in the 1880s. Hassam may also have known of Caillebotte’s works
through the descriptions of American artist friends. Hassam’s similar street level
perspectives employed in his pre-Parisian works suggest an interest in Caillebotte’s
works or works by other artists concerned with depicting the modern city.
Paris and Boston’s architecture were similarly designed around Haussmannian
plans. Hassam’s urban themed works began while he was living in Boston and his first
hand experience of this city’s planning may have prepared him for what he saw in Paris.
Also, in works such as Rainy Day, Boston (figure 6), Hassam used sweeping
perspectives. Later in Paris, he continues to portray the city from this street level
perspective similar to that employed in his Boston works. When comparing Hassam’s
Cab Station, Rue Bonaparte (figure 5) and Caillebotte’s Paris Street, Rainy Day (figure
4) their similar perspective cannot be denied. Both works show a wide empty expanse in
their foregrounds. Both recede following the line of the road and the surrounding
buildings. A key difference in these two works is their locale in the city of Paris. While
Paris Street, Rainy Day depicts a new boulevard, Cab Station Rue Bonaparte portrays an
older quarter close to the new construction. However, Hassam has seemingly stretched
the width of this street to resemble one of the newer boulevards causing this painting to
look more modern.
Both Caillebotte and Hassam took up the role of the flâneur while observing and
recording the city. A flâneur was someone who walked the city and understood the urban
atmosphere. Both Caillebotte and Hassam painted from carriages on eyelevel with those
28
walking the city.45 Both desired to be involved with the modern city at street level thus
giving them an up close view of the look and attitude of the city. This allowed them to
incorporate unique perspectives in the angles of the buildings as well as the attitudes of
the figures. As seen in the paintings discussed in the previous chapter, both artists were
on eye level with the figures as if they were a part of the scene themselves. In their
works, the viewer can sense the character and social standing of an individual in the city.
Both Hassam and Caillebotte created several works that feature multiple classes
of individuals in the same realm of space. Their portrayals of Parisian society match
what Clark observes about painting in the late nineteenth-century. “The typical scene –
this new painting certainly suggested – was likely to be one in which the classes
coexisted but did not touch; where each was absorbed in a kind of dream, cryptic, turned
in on itself or out to some spectacle, giving off equivocal signals…class exists, but
Haussmann’s spaces allow it to be overlooked.”46 Few other artists with impressionist
tendencies, with the exception of Manet and Degas, painted the city and its multiple
classes in a single painting.
Their technique adds an additional layer of social perspective. The gray palette
can relate to the loneliness and tensions that many in the city felt. Herbert felt that:
Everything in Caillebotte’s painting conforms to the altered city: the plunging
perspective, the opposed forward force of the figures on the left, the rapid pace of
dog and flâneur, the plain surfaces of sidewalk and pavement, the impersonal
brushwork, the bleached light…he exposes the harsh power, full of tensions,
which underlay industrial Paris and its new society.47
Herbert was referring to Caillebotte’s painting Pont de l’Europe, 1876 (figure 13), but
this quotation could apply to Paris Street, Rainy Day (figure 4) as well. Both Caillebotte
and Hassam found ways to express the underlying social tensions in their works yet
seemed to view the city objectively.
29
In Hassam’s painting Cab Station, Rue Bonaparte (figure 5), he portrayed three
different classes of Parisian society: the upper middle class, the working class, and the
lower class. Almost exiting the painting in the lower front right corner are a man and
young girl of the lower class. The working class cab drivers are shown with their
carriages on the left middle ground. In the right middle ground, an upper bourgeois
mother and child are seen strolling. His painting seems deliberate in placing the multiple
classes together, but Hassam does not do this for dramatic social reasons. Most likely the
composition was created because it was an everyday scene for Hassam. Because of his
American background, he had no reason to make a statement about Parisian society and
its hardships. Having different social classes in one painting does show that Hassam was
aware of his environment.
Caillebotte’s Pont de l’Europe, like Cab Station, Rue Bonaparte displays more
than one class in the same space. The man leaning against the bridge railing is a worker.
After the Commune, it was unusual to incorporate working class individuals into
impressionist paintings because many workers were killed during the repression of the
Commune or were exiled. By the time of this painting, some of the workers involved in
the Commune had returned to the city; however, the social tensions between the classes
were still felt. Perhaps, that is the reason Caillebotte shows him facing away from the
architecture and boulevards and toward the railroad tracks. If the new architecture of the
buildings relates more to the bourgeoisie, he would not have a reason to admire it. The
worker’s hopes would most likely lie in the direction of the train and its industrial future.
Perhaps, Caillebotte is incorporating his own view of society into this work.
It is possible that Hassam may have seen this painting while living in Paris or
after he left because some of his later works employ similar compositions and the worker
30
shows up.48 Caillebotte’s worker belonged to the time and place he was in, but Hassam
used the figure of the worker in another place and time. In one of Hassam’s later Boston
works, Charles River and Beacon Hill, 1890-92 (figure 14), he seems to refer back to
Caillebotte’s composition. Paris left a permanent mark on Hassam’s style and subject
matter. Perhaps in this work he is also making a reference to Caillebotte and his
contribution to the subject of the city.
When discussing Caillebotte with Béraud, Caillebotte’s intentional perspectives
set his works apart from Béraud and the other urban naturalist artists. However,
Hassam’s works share Caillebotte’s idea of a purposeful composition, but they do not
have the same harsh, willful effects. Caillebotte’s use of composition to create his
balanced compositions set him apart from Hassam’s more picturesque perspectives.
However, Hassam’s works, although unlike Caillebotte’s, characterize Hassam’s
appreciation of the cityscape theme. While not similar in all aspects, Caillebotte and
Hassam did choose parts of the city that were not the typically crowded views that many
of the impressionists chose. Also, they chose to depict the city streets with direct
naturalism and did not hide the sharp perspectives that the city produced. Their works
might not have been as momentary as works by the other impressionist artists; however,
their controlled and decisive perspectives make their works stand out as unique
contributions to the subject of Parisian cityscape.
31
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION
Mentioned earlier was a quote from The Origins of Impressionism. It noted that
Caillebotte was a “practitioner of a style…consistent with Haussmann’s architecture –
dry, cold, implacable, and fascinating because of its mineral accents and compositional
rigor.”49 This thesis has analyzed Caillebotte’s works along similar lines. He is one of
the few artists whose cityscapes truly give the viewer a look back on the modernity of
Paris created by Haussmann. His works were purposely intended to depict the true
character of the city created by Haussmann’s urban renewal.
Paris’s development into a modern city was considered in this thesis because it
outlines the Paris that both Caillebotte and Hassam lived in. Also, without the history of
the city, the modern importance of the cityscape theme would be missing. The first two
chapters went into detail about the cityscape as a subject and the artists who depicted it.
Several different examples were analyzed and their differences help prove that artists
ranged in their interpretations of the city.
The third chapter described Caillebotte’s and Hassam’s formal techniques and
how they evolved over time. It showed that Caillebotte and Hassam shared similar
palettes and directions toward the development of their palettes. Some of Hassam’s
Boston cityscapes were compared with Caillebotte’s cityscapes because of their similar
city layout and tonal palette. At the end of the chapter, cityscapes showing their technical
progression were compared.
32
The fourth chapter examined Caillebotte’s and Hassam’s perspectives on the
modern city. In this chapter, their role as flâneurs was analyzed and their compositions
that recreated urban geometry were considered. Lastly, their roles in portraying the
social atmosphere was considered.
Throughout this thesis, Hassam’s contributions to the Parisian cityscape have
been compared and contrasted to Caillebotte’s works. This analysis of their works was
not to show that Hassam’s cityscapes were solely inspired by Caillebotte’s works. It may
be possible that Hassam never knew Caillebotte’s works. The main point of this analysis
of their works is to show that the city of Paris was interpreted differently and that no one
style was the only way to portray the modern city. These two artists exemplify this fact
because both started out being unlike the typical impressionists, and while similarities
have been drawn, each artist has a unique quality to his depiction of the modern city.
Although some of their techniques and perspectives are very different, both artists created
works that have helped shape a new view of the Parisian cityscape, one that praises the
urban renewal in a more naturalistic way and gives the viewer a specific perspective of
the cityscape to consider.
This thesis lays the groundwork for further research on Caillebotte’s influence on
other artists. As we have seen, Caillebotte’s strategy seemed to have an indirect
influence on the cityscapes of Hassam. I am proposing that further research be done to
demonstrate Caillebotte’s influence on American impressionism. Supporting this
proposition is the fact that many of Caillebotte’s influential cityscapes are now housed in
American museums. The modern cityscape theme was not just a Parisian theme; it was
relevant to every city at the turn of the century. The connections I have discovered
33
between Caillebotte’s and Hassam’s cityscapes proves that this direction of research is
worth pursuing.
34
NOTES
Chapter 1
Warren Adelson, et al., Childe Hassam, Impressionist (New York: Abbeville Press,
1999), 14. This quote comes from his chapter called “Cosmopolitan and Patriot.”
Adelson comments that Hassam may have “adopted the Frenchman’s strategy” but notes
their artistic differences and the probability that Hassam never saw Caillebotte’s work.
1
T. J. Clark, The Painting of Modern Life: Paris in the Art of Manet and his Followers
(New York: Princeton University Press, 1986), 38. Clark states that Haussmannization
“was more than the making of the streets…it was doubling the acreage of the city by
annexation.”
2
3
Ross King, The Judgment of Paris (New York: Walker and Company, 2006), 23.
Clark, 37. The building trade at this time included many working on Haussmann’s
reconstruction of the city.
4
Robert Herbert, Impressionism: Art Leisure, and Parisian Society (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 2004), 13.
5
Julia Sagraves, “The Street,” in Anne Distel, et al, Gustave Caillebotte: Urban
Impressionist, Exhibition Catalogue (Chicago: Art Institute, 1995), 92. The street
recovered for pleasure and commerce is related to paintings by Pierre-Auguste Renoir.
6
Matthew Gandy, “The Paris Sewers and the Rationalization of Urban Space,”
Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, Vol. 24, No. 1 (1999): 35.
7
Charles Baudelaire, “The Painter of Modern Life,” in The Nineteenth-Century Visual
Culture Reader, (New York: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group), 42. He says that the
artist who depicts modern life seeks the “fugitive and fleeting beauty” that surrounds him
in his every-day life.
8
Chapter 2
Herbert, Impressionism: Art, Leisure, and Parisian Society, 2. Herbert begins this
statement with “To the historian of Impressionism.” This part was left out because the
altered Paris is important to look at from other vantage points. Matthew Gandy’s article
“The Paris Sewers and the Rational of Urban Space,” which is mentioned in this thesis, is
an example of the study of the renovated Paris from a broader historical perspective.
9
10
King, 23.
Herbert, xvi. In the opening pages of Herbert’s book, he sets up a timeline for Paris
and the impressionist group. Louis Napoleon became president of the Second Republic
11
35
in autumn 1848. In December 1851, his coup d’état took place, and in December 1852,
the Second Empire was proclaimed and he became Napoleon III.
12
Gandy, 27.
13
Gandy, 24. Gandy’s article focuses on the sewer projects during Haussmannization.
Clark. This discussion of the differing perspectives toward the modern city is found in
his first chapter, entitled “The View from Notre Dame.”
14
Walter Benjamin, “Paris: Capital of the Nineteenth Century,” Perspecta, Vol. 12,
(1996), 171.
15
Herbert, 3. Herbert states that the “poor were pushed out.” Clark also discusses the
banlieue in “The View from Notre Dame.”
16
Albert Boime. Art and the French Commune: Imagining Paris after War and
Revolution (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995), 5.
17
18
Herbert, 13.
19
Herbert, xviii.
20
Sagraves, 92.
Herbert, 7. Herbert observes that the impressionists were casting away the use of
historical subjects in their works and instead chose to depict modern subjects. They also
chose a new way to create exhibitions and get their work public. Their style and
independent spirit is compared to Haussmann’s modernization of the city.
21
22
Herbert, 4-5.
23
Clark, 65.
H. Barbara Weinberg, et al. American Impressionism and Realism: The Painting of
Modern Life, 1885-1915 (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1994), 135. This
quote is from the chapter “The City: The Urban Scene” and from the section called
“Painters of Modern Life in the Age of Great Cities.”
24
25
Herbert, 1.
26
Clark, 66. Clark was the first to refer to the modern city of Paris as a spectacle.
Herbert, 20-30. The paintings that Herbert discusses are Manet’s The Railroad, 1873;
Monet’s Le Pont de l’Europe, 1877; and Caillebotte’s Le Pont de l’Europe, 1876. The
first two paintings are not discussed in this paper, but the paintings included share
qualities with them.
27
36
Ulrich W. Hiesinger. Childe Hassam: American Impressionist (Munich: PrestelVerlag,1994), 31.
28
Chapter 3
29
Kirk Varnedoe, Gustave Caillebotte, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987), 88.
30
Varnedoe, 12-15.
31
Herbert, 24.
Gary Tinterow and Henri Loyrette, The Origins of Impressionism, Exhibition catalogue
(New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1994), 290.
32
H. Barbara Weinberg, Child Hassam: American Impressionist (New York:
Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2004), 59.
33
Hiesinger, 34. “The buildings characteristic of the ‘Latin Quarter’ fade down in to the
distance.” This painting is of a street in Paris that had the Ècole de Beaux-Arts on it and
was one of the artistic epicenters of Paris.
34
35
Weinberg, Childe Hassam: American Impressionist, 42.
Margaret E. Bullock, Childe Hassam: Impressionist in the West, Exhibition Catalogue,
(Portland, Oregon: Portland Art Museum, 2004), 11.
36
37
Weinberg, Childe Hassam: American Impressionist, 42.
Hiesinger, 42. Hiesinger notes that Hassam preferred to depict the Parisian street and
racing scenes.
38
39
Varnedoe, 88.
40
Weinberg, Childe Hassam: American Impressionist, 7.
Chapter 4
41
Herbert, 24.
42
Herbert, 19.
43
Sagraves, 95.
Sagraves, 95. The new boulevards were wide and long; The boulevard views became a
symbol of Haussmannization because that is when they were developed.
44
45
Adelson, et al., 22.
46
Clark, 73.
37
47
Herbert, 22.
Hassam went to see several exhibitions that displayed French impressionist works.
However, on checking the history on Paris Street and Pont de l’Europe, there is no
documentary evidence to tie Hassam to these works.
48
Chapter 5
49
Tinterow and Loyrette, 290.
38
Figure 1. Edouard Manet, View of the Paris World’s Fair, 1867. National Museum,
Oslo. From T.J. Clark, The Painting of Modern Life, Plate IV.
39
Figure 2. Gustave Caillebotte, Young Man at his Window, 1876. Private Collection.
From Kirk Varnedoe, Gustave Caillebotte, p. 60.
40
Figure 3. Claude Monet, Boulevard de Capucines, Paris, 1873. Pushkin Museum,
Moscow. Image from Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts website (www.museum.ru).
41
Figure 4. Gustave Caillebotte. Paris Street, Rainy Day, 1877. Art Institute of
Chicago. Image from Artstor.
42
Figure 5. Childe Hassam, Cab Station, Rue Bonaparte, 1887. Terra Museum of Art,
Chicago. Image from Artstor.
43
Figure 6. Childe Hassam, April Showers, Champs Elysées, Paris, 1888. Joslyn Art
Museum, Omaha, Nebraska. Image from www.frederickhassam.org.
44
Figure 7. Childe Hassam, Rainy Day, Boston, 1885. Toledo Museum of Art, Toledo,
Ohio. From H. Barbara Weinberg, Childe Hassam, American Impressionist, p. 42.
(*Check Title)
45
Figure 8. Childe Hassam. Columbus Avenue, Rainy Day, 1885. Worcester Art
Museum, Worcester, Massachusetts. Image from www.frederickhassam.org.
46
Figure 9. Gustave Caillebotte, The Man on the Balcony, 1880. Private Collection, Paris.
From Kirk Varnedoe, Gustave Caillebotte, p. 41.
47
Figure 10. Childe Hassam, Grand Prix Day, 1887. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.
From Ulrich H. Hiesinger, Childe Hassam: American Impressionist, p. 49.
48
Figure 11. Childe Hassam. Pont Royal, Paris, 1897. Cincinnati Art Museum. Image
from www.frederickhassam.org.
49
Figure 12. Jean Béraud, Boulevard des Capucines, n.d. Private Collection. Image from
Wikipedia (www.wikipedia.org).
50
Figure 13. Gustave Caillebotte, Pont de l’Europe, 1876. Musée du Petit Palais, Geneva.
Image from Artstor.
51
Figure 14. Childe Hassam, Charles River and Beacon Hill, 1890-92. Museum
of Fine Arts, Boston. Image from Artstor.
52
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adelson, Warren, et al. Childe Hassam, Impressionist. New York: Abbeville Press, 1999.
Adelson, Warren. Sargent Abroad: Figures and Landscapes. New York: Abbeville Press,
1997.
Baudelaire, Charles. “The Painter of Modern Life.” Vanessa Schwartz and Jeannene M.
Przyblyski, ed. The Nineteenth-Century Visual Culture Reader. New York:
Routledge Taylor and Francis Group, 2004, 37-42.
Benjamin, Walter. “Paris: Capital of the Nineteenth Century.” Perspecta, Vol. 12,
(1969): 165-172.
Berhaut, Marie. Caillebotte: the Impressionist. Translated by Diane Imber. Lausanne
International Art Book, 1968.
Boime, Albert. Art and the French Commune: Imaging Paris after War and Revolution.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998.
Brettell, Richard R. Impressionism: Painting Quickly in France, 1860-1890. New Haven:
Yale University Press, 2000.
Broude, Norma, ed. Gustave Caillebotte and the Fashioning of Identity in Impressionist
Paris. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2002.
Broun, Elizabeth. “Childe Hassam’s America.” American Art 13, no. 3 (Autumn 1999):
32-57.
Bullock, Margaret E. Childe Hassam: Impressionist in the West. Exhibition Catalogue.
Portland, Oregon: Portland Art Museum, 2004.
53
Childe Hassam (1859-1935). Exhibition catalogue. New York: Spanierman Gallery,
1988.
Childe Hassam: A Retrospective Exhibition. Exhibition Catalogue. Washington D.C.:
The Corcoron Gallery of Art, 1965.
Childe Hassam: Catalogue of the Etchings and Dry Points. Royal Cortissoz and the
Leonart Clayton Gallery. Revised edition. San Francisco: Alan Wofsy Fine Arts,
1989.
Chipp, Herschel B. Theories of Modern Art: A Source Book by Artists and Critics.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968.
Clark, T. J. The Painting of Modern Life: Paris in the Art of Manet and His Followers.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986.
Clayson, Hollis. Paris in Despair: Art and Everyday Life under Siege, 1870-1. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 2002.
Coven, Jeffrey. Baudelaire’s Voyages: The Poet and His Painters. Boston: Bulfinch
Press, 1993.
Distel, Anne, et al. Gustave Caillebotte: Urban Impressionist. Exhibition Catalogue.
Chicago: Art Institute of Chicago, 1995.
Feldman, Edmund Burke. The Artist: A Social History. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice Hall, 1995.
Fort, Ilene Susan. The Flag Paintings of Childe Hassam. Los Angeles: Los Angeles
County Museum of Art, 1988.
Fried, Michael. “Caillebotte’s Impressionism.” Representations 66, (Spring 1999): 1-41.
Galassi. Peter. “Caillebotte’s Method.” In Varnedoe’s Gustave Caillebotte, 27-40.
54
Gandy, Matthew. “The Paris Sewers and the Rationalization of Urban Space.”
Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series, Vol. 24, No. 1
(1999): 23-44.
Genocchio, Benjamin. “America’s Favorite Impressionist.” The New York Times, (July
25,2004); available from http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html; internet;
accessed 23 May 2008.
Gerdts, William. American Impressionism. New York: Abbeville Press, 1984.
________. “The City.” In Adelson’s Childe Hassam, Impressionist, 122-153.
Gluck, Mary. Popular Bohemia: Modernization and Urban Culture in Nineteenth
Century Paris. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2005.
Herbert, Robert. Impressionism: Art, Leisure, and Parisian Society. New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1988.
________. Neo-Impressionism. New York: Guggenheim Museum, 1968.
Hiesinger, Ulrich W. Childe Hassam: American Impressionist. Munich: Prestel-Verlag,
1994.
Hoopes, Donelson F. The American Impressionists. New York: Watson-Guptill
Publications, 1972.
________. Childe Hassam. New York: Watson-Guptill Publications, 1979.
House, John. Impressionism: Paint and Politics. New Haven: Yale University Press,
2004.
Images de La France: American Artists in Paris: 1880-1925. New York: Debra Force
Fine Art, Inc., 2002.
King, Ross. The Judgment of Paris. New York: Walker and Company, 2006.
55
Milner, John. The Studios of Paris: The Capitol of Art in the Late Nineteenth Century.
New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988.
Rapetti, Rodolphe. “Paris Seen from a Window.” In Distel, et al, Gustave Caillebotte:
Urban Impressionist, 142-147.
Reck, Rima Dell. “Review of Gustave Caillebotte: Urban Impressionist.” The French
Review 69, no. 1 (October 1995): 157-64.
Rewald, John. The History of Impressionism. Fourth ed. New York: Metropolitan
Museum of Art, 1973.
Roos, Jane Mayo. Early Impressionism and the French State: 1866-1874. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Rubin, James. Impressionism and the Modern Landscape: Productivity, Technology, and
Urbanization from Manet to Van Gogh. Berkeley: University of California Press,
2008.
Sagraves, Julia. “The Street.” In Distel, et al, Gustave Caillebotte: Urban Impressionist,
88-99.
Shikes, Ralph E. Pissarro, His Life and Work. New York: Horizon Press, 1980.
Shapiro, Barbara Stern, et. al. Pleasures of Paris: Daumier to Picasso. Boston: Boston
Museum of Fine Arts, 1991.
Tinterow, Gary, and Henri Loyrette. The Origins of Impressionism. Exhibition catalogue.
New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1994.
Varnedoe, Kirk. Gustave Caillebotte. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987.
Weinberg, H. Barbara. “American Painters in Paris, 1860-1900: Urban Encounters and
Rural Retreats.” The Magazine Antiques 170, no. 5 (November 2006): 118-25.
56
________. Childe Hassam, American Impressionist. Exhibition Catalogue. New York:
Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2004.
________. The Lure of Paris: Nineteenth-Century American Painters and Their French
Teachers. New York: Abbeville Press, 1991.
Weinberg, H. Barbara, et al. American Impressionism and Realism: The Painting of
Modern Life. Exhibition Catalogue. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art,
1994.
57