This blog, in general, stirs up a couple of recurring themes in my email. The majority accuse me of being either a lefty academic socialist or of being a right-wing fascist, then a few mad people want to know how they can apply to Enema U, and most of the rest complain about the “too damn many stories about Napoleon Bonaparte.”
Please forgive me: I can understand why people might tire of French history—particularly if they have seen that recent horrible bio-pic about ‘the Little Corporal’. I’ll try and tone it down for a while.
So, Napoleon III—a totally different guy—had successfully gotten himself elected President of the French Republic and, by skillful and underhanded use of his executive power, had managed to seize the country and (like his uncle, who shall remain nameless) make himself the emperor.
Note. I’m still thinking about that awful movie. Of course, Josephine was worried about not bearing a certain Corsican an heir. Despite the movie showing a middle-aged emperor with a young Josephine, it was actually the other way around with a post-menopausal Josephine terrified that she would be tossed out on her tired ass in favor of a fertile tart who could produce an heir. So, Josephine came up with a plan to keep that ass on the throne by marrying off her daughter from an earlier marriage to the emperor’s favorite brother, Louis Bonaparte. Josephine hoped that, if that union produced a baby boy, the emperor would be satisfied with a combination nephew and grandson for an heir. The plan did produce a male child, but the emperor still divorced Josephine and remarried. That male child eventually became Napoleon III, so while Josephine’s plan did not save her marriage, it did provide an heir. Why didn’t that dreadful movie tell that story?
While Napoleon III initially came to power through a popular vote and was initially seen as a proponent of some liberal reforms, his rule gradually became more authoritarian. As he consolidated power, curtailed freedoms, and limited political opposition, he faced criticism for suppressing democratic ideals. An inept example of 19th century authoritarianism, the emperor might have been termed a fascist a century later.
Napoleon III's foreign policy involved military interventions, and he faced significant setbacks (“He chose…poorly.”). One notable example was the French intervention in Mexico, which resulted in establishment of the short-lived, French-supported regime of Emperor Maximilian I. The military venture faced resistance and it ultimately ended in failure for Napoleon III (It ended even worse for Maximilian, who was executed!). The French Army, after losing in the Crimean War, suffered one setback after another, seriously eroding any sense of French national pride.
Chief among Napoleon’s problems was the problem that plagues all bad leaders. As James Carville once said, “It’s the economy, stupid.” Economic issues, including financial crises and difficulties in managing the economy, contributed to public dissatisfaction. The French economy experienced “challenges” and there were concerns about inflation and rising unemployment.
Napoleon III may have been a lousy emperor who ran France like a carnival on acid, but he wasn’t stupid and he knew that he was losing the support of the people, so he sided with a strange group in order to gain the support of the common people.
In one of his more public roles, the Emperor supported the arts—he was a patron of the arts and supported various artists and cultural initiatives. He sponsored the construction of grand public buildings and monuments, including the renovation of Paris under the direction of Georges-Eugène Haussmann. The redesign of Paris included the creation of wide boulevards, public squares, and parks (in large part giving the city of Paris the look that we know today). While the emperor supported the arts, this support was used to enhance the regime's legitimacy and present an image of prosperity and refinement.
During the mid-19th century in France, the annual official art exhibition, known as the Salon, was organized by the Académie des Beaux-Arts. It was a prestigious event, mostly because of its exclusivity and was the venue where artists could showcase their works. However, the selection process for inclusion in the Salon was highly competitive and many artists found their works rejected by the conservative jury of the Academy, a group that firmly believed that the pinnacle of artistic expression had already been reached and there was no need for either growth or change.
In 1863, a significant number of artists, including some who were trying to portray both light and color, had their works rejected from the official Salon. The rejected artists, feeling that their innovative and non-traditional styles were not being given due recognition, loudly protested against the decisions of the staid Academy and appealed directly to their emperor.
Napoleon III, recognized the growing discontent among artists and saw an opportunity to align himself with public sentiment. By authorizing a separate non-government exhibition, the Salon des Refusés, he could appeal to the public's appreciation for new and unconventional artistic expressions. This move allowed Napoleon III to position himself as a supporter of artistic freedom and innovation a move far more calculated to curry public favor than an actual appreciation of a new art form.
The artists who participated in the Salon des Refusés included Édouard Manet, James McNeill Whistler, and Paul Cézanne. While the public was...intrigued…by the daring new art, the Academy and most art critics were appalled. The new style was light, bright, and painted in a hurry, even appearing unfinished and scandalous. The unconventional and daring nature of the artworks appealed to a segment of the public that was eager to see something new and different from the academic norms.
The art critic, Louis Leroy, reviewed a later exhibition in the satirical magazine "Le Charivari," and used the term "impressionists" to describe Claude Monet's work, Impression, Sunrise. In his review, Leroy commented sarcastically that the painting looked more like an "impression" than a finished artwork. He used the term "impressionists" as a way of deriding the artists who painted in a style that he perceived as unfinished or sketch-like. According to Leroy, it was not a real painting, only an impression of one.
Leroy's use of the term was not intended as a compliment, but the artists embraced it, and the term "Impressionism" became associated with a revolutionary and innovative approach to painting. The Impressionist movement was a rebellion, a markedly radical change from the academic conventions of the time. Impressionist painters sought to capture the effects of light, color, and atmosphere in their works, often employing loose brushstrokes and focusing on everyday scenes.
Over time, the term, "Impressionism", became widely accepted and is now used to describe one of the most influential art movements of the late 19th century. The Impressionists played a crucial role in challenging traditional artistic norms and paved the way for new approaches to painting.
So, in an unintended consequence of his quest to curry public favor, it was Napoleon III who gave the world the art of the Impressionists.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Normally, I would never force comments to be moderated. However, in the last month, Russian hackers have added hundreds of bogus comments, most of which either talk about Ukraine or try to sell some crappy product. As soon as they stop, I'll turn this nonsense off.