The Judgment of Paris: The Revolutionary Decade That Gave the World Impressionism by Ross King

The Judgment of Paris: The Revolutionary Decade That Gave the World Impressionism Reviews

• 
  AC

  This review MAY contain a spoiler -- I'm not sure..., it's hard for me to tell….
  
  (It has taken me quite a while to write this review -- I wasn't sure why…. I thought maybe I was just being busy, or just being lazy…; but I think the reason is deeper than that.... Anyway, this is what I originally wrote, and didn't post, when I finished the book:)
  
  This was the perfect book for me. I knew just enough to profit from this informed and intelligent review of the roots of Impressionism and this fascinating history of the Second Empire… the Franco-Prussian War, the Siege of Paris, the Commune (and its aftermath), but not enough to be troubled by the limitations inherent in what is (I assume) merely a book for the general reader. I've learned an enormous amount about the history of 19th century French painting, however -- and recommend the book highly. It's a great read.
  
  There are some nuances and complexities, however....
  
  I had expected this to be a book written in celebration of Manet -- though, in truth, King does not (as I read it, at least) have all that high an opinion of Manet as an artist. In fact, throughout much of the book, it is Ernest Messonier -- who starts out simply as a foil for Manet -- who appears to be the hero. But by the end…, the catastrophe of Messonier's "Friedland", the painting so perfect in every minute detail -- the painting which took 10 years to paint -- was yet a total failure…, PRECISELY because with his preoccupation with the parts..., he couldn't capture the sense of motion in the whole. In point of fact..., King's book is in many ways less about the birth of the new, of the 'modern', of Impressionism, than it is "an elegy for a lost empire and a testimonial to [the] fugitive and meretricious grandeur" of the Second Empire….
  
  (But this is what I think I should have written instead....)
  
  This is not a book about Impressionism, but about the Second Empire and about the death of French Academic art and, indeed, of an entire way of life…
  
  The period of Louis Napoleon is key to an understanding the roots and structure of 'modernity'. Napoleon III was the first modern authoritarian -- he ruled by cooption and Spectacle, rather than by force… In that sense, Marx was absolutely right to focus on him (The 18th Brumaire)…, and to see in him the initial note and prelude to what later we would call fascist authoritarianism… (or, at least, one aspect of fascism)….
  
  
  http://www.amazon.com/Spectacular-Pol...
  (not a book I have read, or am recommending -- but the title is significant…)
  
  
  http://www.amazon.com/Napoleon-III-A-...
  
  It is often said (correctly) that in 1914, no one could have imagined what the world would look like four years hence…. It's just as true that no one in 1867 - after nearly 20 years of Louis Napoleon and his Regeanesque prosperity and Haussmannization… that no one could have imagined what would happen to Paris within a mere 4 years….
  
  
  Monet's Garden of the Princess (1867)
  
  
  
  
  
  Messonier's Ruins of the Tuileries (1871):
  
  
  
  Indeed, Sedan (and its aftermath) was perhaps the first truly "modern" catastrophe… afterwards…, nothing has quite been the same..., has it? One might say that the Second Empire, meretricious though it was, was the final dance of that aging debutante known as l'ancien regime…
  
  Well… that's not quite right either -- so I give up. At any rate, this book got me thinking, that's for sure.
  
• 
  Chrissie

  
  The Judgment of Paris: The Revolutionary Decade That Gave the World Impressionism is a good book, but I would not recommend it to everyone. It is dense. It is chockfull of details, and in parts excessively so, the information at times verging on gossip. A quarter of the way through, I was about to dump it for this very reason. A discussion of Empress Charlotte’s panties and the mistresses of Second Empire dignitaries annoyed me. In the discussion of paintings, I questioned the similarities drawn between the poses of figures in Manet’s Le Bain / Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe and Rafael’s The Judgment of Paris. I’m stubborn, and so I continued. On completion, I was glad I hadn’t given up. There is a lot of miscellanea concerning history and art that is interesting.
  
  This book is as much about history as it is about art. It is about the birth of impressionism in an historical context more than the art form itself. Techniques and methods employed are only brushed upon. We meet Manet, Courbet, Pissarro, Degas, Siseley, Whistler, Cezanne, Monet and more. We are told of their paintings and their frustration when their works failed to be accepted by the annual and then biennial Salons de Paris, the official art exhibitions of the Académie des Beaux-Arts. We meet Comte de Nieuwerkerke, who for much of the time between 1863 and 1874 set the rules for these shows. It is this decade the book focuses upon. We are given a year by year account detailing who sat on the juries, how the juries were chosen, which paining were accepted to the respective exhibitions, even down to where on the walls the paintings were hung. In desperation, the artists refused demanded alternative exhibitions. Impressionism grew from a revolt against earlier aesthetic criteria and the restrictive regulations of the Salons de Paris. Initially, without recognition at these exhibitions an artist was doomed to obscurity, and the artists had families to support!
  
  The Salons de Paris did not occur in a vacuum, and thus historical events need be related too. During the period 1863 to1874 we see the Franco-Prussian War, the Siege of Paris, the failed Commune, the fall of Louis Napoleon and the Second Empire. To understand how impressionism came to be, one must understand French history. If you are not interested in history, don’t read this book.
  
  The book has two titles. One is as given above. The other is
  The Judgement of Paris: Manet, Meissonier and An Artistic Revolution. While the book covers many, many artists of the decade, the author focuses primarily on Édouard Manet (1832 – 1883) and Jean-Louis Ernest Meissonier (1815- 1891), two polar opposites.
  
  Meissonier was a French classicist painter known for his depictions of Napoleon, military battles and his early “bonhomme” portraits, popular and easier to sell. His paintings exhibit fine detail and assiduous craftsmanship. In his lifetime he was immensely successful.
  
  Manet was the polar opposite, fame arriving only posthumously. Yet he is the artist we today praise while Meissonier is scarcely known! Manet is seen as the father of impressionism, one of the first 19th century artists to paint contemporary life and a pivotal figure in the transition from realism to impressionism.
  
  Details about world fairs, diverse art forms (for example lithography and frescoes), the industrial revolution, the expansion of railways as well as information about contemporary authors such as Henry James, Victor Hugo, Baudelaire and Emil Zola are all here within the covers of this book.
  
  The book is full of all sorts of interesting minutia. I really did learn a lot, and for this reason I am very glad I read the book. For me, it was more a history book than a book about impressionism. The chapters on the Siege of Paris, the Commune and “Bloody Week” particularly drew my interest. Learning about Meissonier and how he constructed a railroad on his property so he could observe the muscles of horses running was fascinating. In fact, Meissonier captivated me more than what I learned about Manet!
  
  Actor Tristan Layton‘s reading of the audiobook was too rapid. A narrator must take into consideration a book’s content. This book is too dense to be read quickly. Layton is not French, and you here this in his pronunciation. French names of both people and cities are indistinct. Names are often repeated in the text, so in the end you do recognize who or what city is being referred too. Given the density of the text, the narration is an added challenge one can do without! I have given the narration two stars, which is to say it was OK but could have been better.
• 
  HBalikov

  I believe many of us fall into the category: “I don’t know much about art, but I know what I like.” For those who want to know more about Impressionism, the style of painting that created a revolution in the world of art, this book offers a view of the decade that led up to that shift.
  
  If you love the art of the Impressionists, you are not going to be satisfied with what King chooses to include in this book and how his publisher, Walker Books, chooses to print them. Yet, to be fair, this is not the primary intention of the author. King is ambitiously straddling two horses with this book. While he is training his focus on the emergence of Impressionism, he is also casting a wide net to provide the context of the art world in the 1860s and the larger elements of culture, politics and personalities. To do otherwise would have given us a very dull book, in the nature of: These were the artists judged worthy of the Salon of 1863 and these were the artists rejected: These were the artists judged worthy of the Salon of 1866 and these were the artists rejected; these were the artists judged worthy of the Salon of 1868 and these were the artists rejected; and so forth.
  
  The primary device King employs is to compare and contrast Ernest Meissonier, France’s most famous and successful painter, with Édouard Manet, who had trouble getting a good review of his art even from friends. In the decade between Manet’s first appearance on the scene and the first massive show devoted to Impressionist art, many changes took place. King documents the waning of control by the Emperor’s Académie des Beaux-Arts and the gradual freeing of restraints that took place. The popularity of Meissonier’s infinitesimally detailed and stylized historical paintings gave way to a subject matter that tended to embrace reality from natural landscapes to gritty urban scenes.
  
  We are taken from Édouard Manet’s The Luncheon on the Grass (Le déjeuner sur l'herbe), in 1863 through Claude Monet’s Impression, Sunrise (Impression, soleil levant); the painting that gave its name to the style. We learn that Manet, almost compulsively, flouted convention. While Monet was derided for a style that struck most critics as “mere sketching.”
  
  King’s efforts to provide some context for the emergence of this new style should be considered generally successful. However, you have to be delighted with mid-Nineteenth Century trivia. If you are willing to know the name of every artist’s, journalist’s, general’s and royal’s mistress; if you are curious about which year there was a cholera, smallpox, or other plague; if you live for who loved or hated whom during this period; then you will certainly enjoy the wrapping of this less than tidy package.
  
• 
  Robert Boyd

  Stirring and dramatic. The book tells the story of a sea-change in art by concentrating on two painters, Manet and Messonier. If you've never heard of Meissonier, don't worry--few have. He was the most successful French painter in the second half of the 19th century, but his reputation collapsed almost instantly after his death. But choosing these two artists to focus on doesn't take away from the other artists whose stories intersect in the Paris of the 1960s. Courbet is an especially appealing character, as are Gerome and Cabanel, as are the members of the new generation--Whistler, Degas, Monet, Morisot, etc. (Even some elderly old masters make appearances--Ingres and Delacroix.) But perhaps the best part of the book is its explication of the importance and complex politics of the Salon, the biannual then annual art competition held in Paris where the best of the best was chosen first by a jury then by public opinion. The establishment of the Salon des Refuses by the emperor, Louis Napoleon himself, is but one surprise in the book. Of course, economics and international politics play a part--culminating in the Franco-Prussian war (which ends the 2nd empire) and the crushing of the Paris Commune. This book had a novelistic momentum. The birth of modernism turns out to be a very complex human story.
• 
  Dvora Treisman

  I very much enjoyed this history of the beginnings of Impressionism in France. It was well written, fairly well illustrated (there is always the internet for looking up more of the paintings mentioned, but I hate getting up from my reading to do that), and the subject matter and people involved were fascinating to me. Thanks AC and the Artist Lovers group on GR for drawing my attention to this book, which I doubt I ever would have heard of otherwise.
  
  I wanted to add that after reading this, I am watching (for the second time) my DVD of the BBC drama series The Impressionists starring Richard Armitage. I enjoyed the series the first time, but it's even more enjoyable now that I am more familiar with the people and the events. It's fun seeing it all brought to life.
• 
  Lori

  This is an excellent exploration of the political, social and artistic background that led to the birth of Impressionism. It is a very detailed, in-depth look at the artists Manet and Meissonier, their work and how that work both exemplified and defied the artistic trends and political environment of 19th century Paris - the crucial time period that both shaped and changed the art world.
  
  This is not a book for the casual art observer, but an in-depth exploration for those seriously interested in the Impressionists and/or the evolution of art during the 19th century as well as serious fans of Manet and Meissonier. Meissonier who, prior to this book, was rather unfamiliar to me exemplifies the ultimate, classically-trained French artist of his time. The author contrasts Meissonier with Eduard Manet who was was a key player in challenging the VERY strict dictates of the Academie des Beaux Arts in Paris. The Academie was the ultimate authority in mid 19th Century Paris as to who did or did NOT get presented during the annual exhibition each year.
  
  This book gives an excellent, in-depth exploration of the numerous influences and happenings that resulted in the birth of Impressionism. It helps significantly to either be familiar with or have access (at least via internet) to copies of the paintings discussed here while King explores their significance and import. The beauty of reading a book like this today is the almost instant access the internet can provide to these works while reading the book. Its a bit like having your own personal docent step you through the foundational works of Impressionism, being able to see how one influenced the other.
  
  I used this as research for a recent study tour I was leading to Paris featuring both the Louvre and the Orsay museums and I found the material here both well presented, fascinating and an excellent preparation for my trip. I've always loved the Impressionists and studied them for years, but this helped to fill in some of the blanks surrounding both their work and its revolutionary effect on the entire world of art.
• 
  Ensiform

  This densely-packed, well-researched, erudite 375 page tome is also, somehow, an engaging and readable account of the conflicting careers, and reversing fortunes, of two French painters: Jean-Louis-Ernest Meissonier, whose precise, detailed, studied work makes him the most beloved painter in France, and the derided interloper Édouard Manet. As Manet's star rises with the emergence of impressionism, the art world gradually changes its sympathies, and Meissonier's falls. It is fascinating to read that Manet, now considered one of the towering figures of French art, was not only overlooked but so reviled that visitors to his exhibition hit his canvases with their walking sticks; and the barbs of the art critics of the time are quoted with ironic glee by King. Meissonier, meanwhile, was enormously successful, admired, vain, a purist for exactitude, but known today to art critics and historians but not the general public.
  
  There isn't as much of an ironic or underdog story here as King tries to make out. Meissonier was successful and honored until his death, while Manet didn't achieve critical recognition until nearly after his death. However, it's a useful way to show the human side of the 1860s and '70s of Europe. King shows how, for example, during the Siege of Paris both artists were reduced to eating rats to live, but still found time to paint. Many other figures of the time pop up in the narrative as the various annual Salons go by: Émile Zola, Henry James, Napoleon III, and so on. This is a highly engaging and entertaining look at art history and the changing tides of art appreciation.
• 
  Frank Stein

  Ross King, author of the pop-histories "Brunelleschi's Dome" and "Michelangelo and the Pope's Ceiling," writes another great story that combines artistic and political intrigue. This is a tale of the 1860s in France, when Edouard Manet and the not-yet-named Impressionists challenged the artistic establishment while Napolean III's "Second Empire" teetered on the brink of disaster.
  
  Most interesting is King's ability to tease out the relations between the political and artistic world, which were admittedly closer in Second Empire France than in just about any period in history. A section of Napoleon's Ministry of State known as the Ministry of the Imperial House and Fine Arts, based at the Louvre, controlled artistic exhibitions in Paris, most importantly the annual Salon, where artists displayed and sold their work. In the 1860s the arch-conservative Minister of Fine Arts, Comte de Nieuwerkerke, set the annual regulations which determined who was elected to the Salon's jury, and therefore what type of paintings were exhibited (and where they got exhibited: Manet's revolutionary Olympia was moved from eye-level to high above visitors heads at the 1865 Salon. One critic said "you scarcely knew whether you were looking at a parcel of nude flesh or a bundle of laundry."). The Comte's strict, conservative regulations for the 1863 Salon led to such an outcry that Napoleon, in order to gain artistic support, sponsored a "Salon de Refuses" where the rejects could be judged by the people as a whole. The 1866 Salon was known for its "Jury of Assassins," after one artist committed suicide when his art was refused entry. In order to gain more liberal support along with his liberalization of the censorship laws, Napolean in 1868 opened the "Salon of Newcomers," where previously rejected artists like Pisarro, Renoir, and Degas exhibited. King shows that art functioned as an important art of the state in this period.
  
  King also shows that this political concern about art was not idle or elitist. The Salon attracted as many as a million visitors in some years, sometimes up to 50,000 a day when it was free on Sundays, and they were truly visitors of all classes (he compares this to the most popular exhibition of 2003, Leonardo: Master Draftsman, at the Met, which drew 400,000 attendees, or around 6,800 visitors a day, not even a fraction of the attendance at the old Paris Salons). Painting and sculpture were real popular and political entertainments.
  
  He also relates some great anecdotes, such as the confusion among Manet's friends when Monet began to exhibit at the Salon (they complimented the angry Manet on his new landscapes: generations of art students, you have company). He also shows that it was the Americans who first showed the full appreciation for the Impressionists (Louisine Havemeyer, wife of the sugar-magnate, spent more than anyone else buying up Monet, Pissarro, and Cezanne works in the 1890s).
  
  Of course there are a few problems. King spends too much time comparing Manet and the now forgotten painter Meissonier, who was called the greatest artist of his age but who today is so ignored that he even had his statute removed from the Louvre by a recent French Minister of Culture. Although it is interesting to know about this oft-ignored representative of the "conservative" establishment, it's hard to get excited about the details of his family life. Also, the endless annual salons tend to blur into one another at some points in the story, a little more discretion here would have been nice. But overall this book gave me a real appreciation for the world that birthed modern art, and its importance in its time.
• 
  Czarny Pies

  I greatly enjoyed the "Judgement of Paris" because France in the age of impressionists is one of my happy places. I love not only the painting of the era but also the sculpture (Barye), architecture (Garnier), urban planning (Haussman), opéra (Saint-Saens), music (Berlioz), poetry (Baudelaire), theatre (Dumas fils), ballet (Petitipa), and novels (Flaubert, Zola). Albeit with a primary focus on painting, King brings the cultural life of the Second Empire brilliantly. If you love the period the way I do, this book written for the general public not for any academic forum is sure to please.
  I disagree with any number of the points that King made which in no way spoiled the fun. One reads "The Judgement of Paris" for the the mood and ambience created not for any thesis. The nominal subject of the book is the struggle between the officially sanctioned Beaux-Arts tradition in painting of whom the champion was Ernest Meissonier (1815-1891) and the impressionist young Turks of whom the champion was Édouard Manet (1832-1883). This is of course a somewhat ironic tale. Meissonier lived long enough to see the death of his tradition whereas Manet who died a victim of his bohemian (i.e. from complications arising from syphilis) never lived to see the full extent of his victory.
  Much as I loathe Meisonnier's art, I have to concede that King makes a clever defense of it. In King's view, Meissonier was superbly talented painter of horses who was as committed or more to art than any of the impressionists. Although, he behaved with shocking vindictiveness to Gustave Courbet for having organized the toppling of the Vendome Column as a communard, Meissonier was a relatively decent fellow most of the time. King argues that Meisonnier's paintings has fallen out of favour because it glorified Bonapartism and armed conflict. The museum going public continues to adore Manet and the impressionists because they celebrate the simple pleasures of middle class life. I am inclined to believe that King is right on all accounts. Nonetheless, I still find Meissonier and the glorification of armed conflict to be abominations.
• 
  Lisa

  I came across The Judgement of Paris via GoodReads where the Art Lovers group were reading it, and it’s a most interesting book. It’s the story of the birth of the Impressionist movement and the initial hostile reception by conservative forces in Paris, but the book also traverses the tumultuous period of the Franco-Prussian War and the Commune so it’s interesting as a work of general history too.
  
  To represent the opposing forces, King focuses on Ernest Meissonier (1815-1891) and Edouard Manet (1832-1883. At a time when the old Paris Salons attracted literally millions of visitors from all walks of life, Meissonier was immensely popular and fabulously wealthy because his works sold for a small fortune. He had a huge estate (which he endlessly renovated) and he was able to spend years trying to perfect his paintings because he didn’t have to worry about the wolf at his door. Manet wasn’t starving in a garret, but it was just as well he had an inheritance and a supportive mother because he could not generate an income from his art and didn’t become popular until after his death. Posterity, however, has reversed these positions…
  
  To read the rest of my review please visit
  http://anzlitlovers.com/2011/11/05/th...
• 
  Susanna - Censored by GoodReads

  Very interesting study of the French art scene in the 1860s and 1870s, and also a requiem for the Second Empire. The stars of the show, however, are two artists at opposite poles from each other: Edouard Manet and Ernest Meissonier. Meissonier, for those who haven't heard of him (which would include me when I started this book), was one of the most famous artists in France in the mid-19th century, and the best-paid. Manet, on the other hand, was the art scene's pariah/joke.
• 
  Christopher

  A detailed and enjoyable look at the Paris art world of the 1860s, as the movement that was to become Impressionism began to emerge. King focuses on Ernest Meissonier, one of the most successful and famous artists of the decade, and Edouard Manet, who struggled to sell his work and met with a great deal of criticism from the art establishment, while also including the stories of other significant artists and critics. King closely examines the controversies surrounding the choice of juries and artists for the annual Salon, expertly setting his narrative within the wider political and social context of the last years of the Second Empire. Highly recommended.
• 
  Adrian Stumpp

  King's exploration of the birth of Impressionism, which he considers the greatest revolution in art since the Italian Renaissance, interweaves the stories of two French artists: Ernest Meissanier, the most famous artist of his time who is now derided, dismissed, and virtually forgotten by art historians, and Edouard Manet, considered the father of Impressionism and one of the most influential artists in history who was scorned and insulted for most of his professional career. This dichotomy represents the central conceit of the book. History will tell the tale, King implies, the fickle tasts of a generation have no bearing on what will ultimately prove to be immortal. Posterity chooses its heroes, the Academies do not get to perscribe them. That's fine. For me, however, there is just one glaring problem: when considered alongside one another there is not a question in my mind about who is the superior artist: Meissonier. I believe King's premise ought also to be attached to our current tastes in art. Posterity, in the truest sense, has not yet had its full say. What the twentieth century deamed to be great art (Manet) will most likely be rebelled against in the 21st century, and Meissonier may, in the end, have the final say. One art historian quoted by King said something to the effect that he is disgusted by the thought that Meissonier, a pompous self-indulgeant technician supposedly without a true artistic notion, who made a career and a lot of money by creating empty decorations for the homes of rich bourgoisie's, while obviously supperior artists, such as Manet, toiled in absolute obscurity, barely able to scratch together enough francs to buy paints and brushes. This is the prevailing sentiment among art historians, and one would imagine, among contemporary artists. These idiots don't seem to understand that Manet's work today decorates the homes of the rich bourgoisie, that ultimately political sentiment has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with art, and that, yes, history will tell the tale. When viewed next to Meissonier's paintings, Manet's best work seems cartoonish, immature, untalented, and entirely forgettable, with the only exceptions being Le dejaneur sur l'herbe and The Assassination of Maximillian. By contrast, Meissonier's best work is breathtaking, even in reproductions, and his less great paintings are at least interesting.
  
  But back to the book. Ross King is a great writer, a compelling storyteller, and, for the most part, a fair historian. The only exception to this is his never clearly justified loathing for Victor Hugo. The Judgment of Paris is a very good read and likely to spark many interesting conversations about the nature of art, artistic immortality, taste, transformation, revolution, and evolution.
• 
  Tom

  The title, The Judgement of Paris, refers to the annual art exhibition sponsored by the French government (the second empire under Louis Napoleon Bonaparte) and the French Academy of Fine Arts, not the mythological cause of the Trojan war. However, the cultural and political shift that the salon and the salon des refuses (art submitted by such giants as Manet, Monet, Courbet, Pissaro, Renoir, Cezanne, but rejected by the annual government exhibition) represented a cataclysmic shift in the political and cultural life of France and Europe in the 19th century. The book centers on a roughly ten year period from 1863 to 1873, a period which includes the American Civil War, the Franco-Prussian War, the rise and fall of the Paris Commune, the failed French military intervention in Mexico (and subsequent execution of Emperor Maximilian), and the founding of the third Republic. All of these political events signaled the collapse of monarchy and the ascendance of republican democracy in France and Europe. That political shift as mirrored in popular culture as Classicism, represented by Ernest Meissonier, is replaced by Impressionism, represented by Edouard Manet.
  The book is fascinating. I was reminded of Barbara Tuchman's great , The Proud Tower, in its ability to show history not so much as a string of political events, but as cultural evolution. You do not need to know a great deal about art or art history to enjoy The Judgement of Paris; nor do you even need an extensive background in European history. The book seamlessly blends historical and political events with the machinations and intrigues behind the Paris Salon and anecdotes of the "bohemian class" of Paris in the 1870's. If it sounds too academic, it is not. It is never less than entertaining and it provided me with a deeper understanding and appreciation of the Impressionists, who they were, and what they were attempting to do.
• 
  Kathleen

  1. I listened to half on my way home from Ohio, and now I'm going to actually READ the second half. I like to see events coincide: the Civil War and the birth of Impressionism and the downfall is it? of Napoleon III of France. I like to learn about art history this way, with new facts tossed in as part of the larger story: : Impasto is paint layered thickly. Chiaroscuro is paint getting gradually lighter, with a dark background, to show volume. Painting for Paris of mid-nineteenth century was like the high-tech world today: exciting! scandalous! picky! The French liked their paintings smooth, detailed, and classically grand. Impressionists tried a new way, with thick paint and not so much care for foreground and background. Everything shifts. Sex happens on the canvas. Crowds are aghast, uppity. Meissonier the classicist is idolized and rich, Manet is poor, but not now, now that he is dead.
  2. I've decided to keep on listening. Narrator Tristan Layton pronounces those Parisian place names with aplomb, where I stumble, like they are cobblestones in my mind. As I drove between home and Publix yesterday, Layton told me about the Franco-Prussian War, in which the Parisians were starved, humiliated, and driven to eating cats. Finally I understand why my Parisian great-great-grandfather disowned his beautiful daughter (my great-grandmother, the mother of Caroline Lily Frey) when she married a German.
  3. Now it's over, and I understand this: It took 10 decisive years and more before that for the Impressionists to be respected. Paris was in political flux at the time. The word Impressionism comes from someone who said it's like painting an impression of a horse, something you'd see from the window of a passing train.
  
  
• 
  Kristy Miller

  The decade that led to the rise of impressionism was a turbulent one, both in the art world and the world in general. Ross describes this decade through the lives 2 artists, Ernest Meissonier and Édouard Manet. Meissonier was considered France's most successful artist at the time. He painted popular subjects, and his style appealed to the traditional school. Manet was a young upstart, who scorned the traditional school of style and his subjects were often considered low and vulgar. We see these two contrasting careers through the famous Paris Salon, the very political annual show where artist made their names known. Along with Meissonier and Manet we see many familiar names, including Monet, Renoir, Degas, Pissaro, Whistler, and many others. We also see how the political events, including the fall of Louis Napoleon, plays out in the art world.
  I consider myself to be fairly literate when it comes to art, especially in impressionism. Monet is my favorite artist, and I have a deep appreciation of most of the other impressionists. This is a very good book, but it is also incredibly dense. There is so much information!! It may have been better to start with one of Ross's shorter books. You will definitely want to read this with Google, so you can look up all the paintings. A timeline of French revolutions and Napoleons could also be helpful. Very interesting, but this is a read that will take time. 3.5 stars, rounded up.
• 
  Shawn Callon

  A very comprehensive if overly-detailed history of the Impressionist revolution in Paris. It documents the scorn and derision of the professional art critics, the art establishment and the general public that was meted out to the new movement. It wasn't until the late nineteenth century when the movement moved across the Atlantic to the USA that it was recognized as an artistic triumph and validated as true art. The author explores in tandem the life of a little-known artist nowadays Meissonier. In nineteenth century France he was seen as a leading artist if not the leading artist whose style was heroic, imperialistic and somewhat sycophantic to the Emperor. His highly detailed style (for instance trying to replicate the exact movement of galloping horses) reminded me a little of Da Vinci's dissection of corpses and animals to achieve exactitude in his art. The difference between Meissionier's style and that of the Impressionists was miles apart - he did not approve of brushy, fuzzy paintings and the realistic portrayal of the regular people of Paris. The Impressionists won. Two decades after Meisonnier's death in 1981, he had vanished from the history of French art.
  This review was written by Shawn Callon author of The Diplomatic Spy.
• 
  Beverly

  Great quote: "In this bitch of a life, one can never be too well armed." by Edouard Manet. About poor Manet's struggle with the Academy of Arts and the public and critics who hated his style of art. His main opponent was Ernest Meissonier. An artist I have never heard of who was as well-known then as Vermeer is today. He was filthy rich, well-respected and got all the awards and recognition from the Academy that Manet never got and deserved.
• 
  David

  One of the best art books I have read in a long time. Manet I know; Messonier I barely remember from art history classes. One was poor most of his life; the other had everything. Big lesson to learn from here. COmpelling writing style as well.
• 
  Benny

  Zo heb ik mijn (kunst)geschiedenisboeken graag! Ross King combineert het Grote Verhaal (hier: het ontstaan van de moderne kunst in Parijs in de tweede helft van de 19de eeuw) met leuke weetjes en boeiende karakterschetsen. Dat is smullen zowel voor wie al wat ingewijd is, als voor de leek.
  
  Het centrale verhaal hangt King op aan twee personages. Manet staat voor het nieuwe, het onaffe, het vluchtige, het ontluisterende…voor alles wat de moderniteit fascinerend maakt. Meissonier staat voor de klassieke kunst vol vormelijke en inhoudelijke stichtelijkheid. Die laatste was destijds de bekendste schilder op aarde, terwijl Manet een randfiguur was die pas postuum écht beroemd werd. Wat zijn de tijden veranderd!
  
  Toch is dit geen held-en-antiheldverhaal. Meissonier is inmiddels achterhaald door de geschiedenis, maar King laat hem in zijn waardigheid. Zo wordt Meissonier, ondanks al zijn kleine kantjes, een tragische figuur, waar de lezer best wel sympathie voor voelt. Manet, daarentegen, blijft, ondanks al wat we over hem te weten komen, een raadsel.
  
  Daarin zit de kracht van dit boek. Daarin, en in de enorme leesbaarheid. De omwenteling van Parijs is een aanrader voor al wie graag over kunst en/of geschiedenis leest en een must voor al wie in (het ontstaan van) het impressionisme geïnteresseerd is.
• 
  Lauren

  More readable than I expected. The book is packed with details and facts but still reads like a novel as far as keeping me engrossed in the story.
  
  By focusing on two artists, Ernest Meissonier and Édouard Manet, King creates a more accessible book, allowing readers to ease into the art world of 1860s Paris. King pulls in politics, to an extent that some readers might dislike, although I found those details necessary. It’s a fascinating glimpse into not only the birth of Impressionism but how the politics and memory of art shape the art world and how society responds to it. I found similarities to the founding of Bauhaus movement in Germany half a century later, and I’d even suggest that many of the conflicts and issues remain relevant today.
  
  I expected to enjoy this one, and I’m surprised at how it beat my expectations. Well worth a read. Highly recommended.
  
• 
  Marty Coleman

  The book focuses on two painters from the 19th century in Paris, Edouard Manet and Ernest Meissonnier, one a classicist on top of the art world and the other an up-and-comer who has no standing. King follows the careers of both artists, showing how their rise and fall throughout their careers and after their deaths.
  
  The focus may be on these two but the larger picture embraces the entirety of art at that time in French history (1860s-1880s). For me one of the most interesting parts was the detailed explanation of how the salon system worked; who got chosen, who juried, who organized, who were the hidden powers behind the decisions.
  
  One thing that surprised me about the rise of the impressionists is how we see them now versus how they were seen then. I don't mean their rejection and disregard from the establishment back then, we all know about that to some degree. What I mean is how lacking in cohesion they had as a group. We see them as a monolithic block now, foreordained to be together. But back then they most decidedly would ever have said that.
  
  For example, Manet never once exhibited with the Impressionists in any group show that they had under that name (or any other name). Yet he was known as the king of the Impressionists by all. Also, Manet could not stand Monet, thinking him an upstart who had purposely used a name similar to his own to try to get attention. Only later in life did the two of them become great friends. Cezanne meanwhile was not welcomed by many of the other young painters, being to radical even for them. It's these little details that make the book entertaining and enlightening.
  
  I listened to this as an audio book and I do recommend it. The narrator is british and his accent is perfect for the topic at hand. Unfortunately I was given an abridged edition so there were obvious gaps in the narrative. The choice of what to keep in and what to take out was not always smooth or smart for the telling of the story. If you are going to listen to it, make sure to get the unabridged edition.
• 
  Benny

  Zo heb ik mijn (kunst)geschiedenisboeken graag! Ross King combineert het Grote Verhaal (hier: het ontstaan van de moderne kunst in Parijs in de tweede helft van de 19de eeuw) met leuke weetjes en boeiende karakterschetsen. Dat is smullen zowel voor wie al wat ingewijd is, als voor de leek.
  
  Het centrale verhaal hangt King op aan twee personages. Manet staat voor het nieuwe, het onaffe, het vluchtige, het ontluisterende…voor alles wat de moderniteit fascinerend maakt. Meissonier staat voor de klassieke kunst vol vormelijke en inhoudelijke stichtelijkheid. Hij was destijds de bekendste schilder op aarde. Manet was een randfiguur en werd pas postuum écht beroemd.
  
  Toch is dit geen held-en-antiheldverhaal. Meissonier is inmiddels achterhaald door de geschiedenis, maar King laat hem in zijn waardigheid. Zo wordt Meissonier, ondanks al zijn kleine kantjes, een tragische figuur, waar de lezer best wel sympathie voor voelt. Manet, daarentegen, blijft, ondanks al wat we over hem te weten komen, een raadsel.
  
  Daarin zit de kracht van dit boek. Daarin, en in de enorme leesbaarheid. De korte hoofdstukken zorgen voor een enorme vaart in dit boek. De omwenteling van Parijs is een aanrader voor al wie graag over kunst en/of geschiedenis leest en een must voor al wie in (het ontstaan van) het impressionisme geïnteresseerd is.
  
  (Gelezen in de Nederlandse vertaling.)
• 
  Sue

  I have had this book in my to read stack for a while and finally picked it up and read it! I really like this kind of book, but the last half reads too much like a history book. The book follows the events of 1863-the 1870's Paris and the Salon and the events of the time with Napoleon III and then into the Franco-Prussian war in the early 1870's, and how the events affected the artist’s lives. Mostly I find it interesting how Manet plugged along without any success like the other young Parisian artists who were trying to get their "modern" style of art recognized by the Salon. I love these Impressionists and it's interesting to me how much they struggled...like most artists. Also I really didn’t know much about Meissonier and it is kind of funny how he really isn’t considered the master painter he was thought to be in 1860's Europe. The last half goes into the commune siege of Paris and the Franco-Prussian war which is kind of interesting.....kind of.
  Not as engaging a read as Brunelleschis Dome or the Popes Ceiling but worth the while if you are interested in the history of Impressionist artists
  
• 
  Steven Yenzer

  I absolutely loved this book. I have never had much of an interest in art history, but King's approach — tying political and social events to the art that captured and reflected them — really brought it to life. I can't wait to read more from him.
• 
  Sally Sugarman

  This is a fine social history about the development of French Impressionism. Two of the major figures in this account are the artists Manet and Meissonier. Meissonier was the most highly acclaimed artist in Paris and most of the world. He was precise, taking care to be accurate. He loved painting horses and watched them carefully to see how they moved. Manet, on the other, hand painted freely, with loose brush strokes. . Meissonier was lauded by the art critics while Manet was ridiculed consistently. King provides a sense of the art scene in 19th century Paris with is juried exhibits and its politics that involved the arts as well as the reign of Louis Napoleon (Napoleon III). During the Franco/Prussian war which was devastating for France, the two painters briefly encountered each other as Meissonier was Manet’s commander. Manet, although scorned by the critics, was followed by many of the young painters such as Monet, Renoir and others. There s a beautiful scene describe when the three painters, Monet, Manet and Renoir are visiting together and painting out doors at Monet’s home. This shift to painting out in the fresh air and painting the scenes of contemporary Paris life was a new development, encouraged by Baudelaire and others. The subjects of the paintings moved from painting scenes of classic Greek and Roman life or heroic battles to recording life at the races and at the seashore and on the streets of Paris. The canvases of the new artists introduced new pigments and freer brush strokes. The critics and the art elite were shocked by this change and scornful of it, but refused at the official exhibits the young artists set up their own exhibits. We see how change happens in this account of the change in how artists painted and how the public received the new works. Although some people think Meissonier was the villain, it is hard to see him as that. He was different as Manet was different. Manet found it hard to accept Cezanne’s work. Art keeps changing as society changes. Technology changes society and photography with is precision may have been a factor in the painters depicting reality not accurately as it was, but about the feelings it evoked in the artist. Taking just one period of art history and looking at in detail makes one want to look freshly at these paintings that are the subject of this book, but at how art responds to the changes in the society, while also changing the society by the images it presents to people. After the impressionists came the Cubists. Since photography would eventually capture that everyday life which the Impressionists offered, that led to the focus on abstract art. Instead of rejecting the past or the new, the viewer should enjoy the pleasure of both, Michelangelo, Raphael, Meissonier, Manet, Picasso, Pollack, Johns. What is special about painting, as about theatre, is that it is not mass produced. When you are looking at a canvas, you are connecting directly to the artist’s work. It is reassuring that at the Metropolitan Museum of Art , Meissonier’s Friedland is in the hall leading to the room with Manet’s work. This book makes one want to read more about art history and its social and political context, but also to visit the nearest museum.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• 
  John Martindale

  I loved how King contrasted both Manet (Initially a laughing stock and refused by the Salon, only later to be considered one of the most significant artist of the modern era) with Meissonier (The most successful and wealthy artist of his time, who shortly after death, was despised and is now mostly forgotten).
  I am in awe of a lot of the French Academy works, I think Meissonier's Friedland is phenomenal. I also of course love the works of the impressionist and a number of paintings by Manet and Courbet. I can understand how it was stiffing and restrictive the Salon was for the avant garde, so I am in part glad they won this war, the world is richer for their art, I just wish it could be BOTH AND, especially since I now see the trajectory Manet gave the those who followed him. Tragically, it is like once gaining the upper hand, the winners in art-world can't be satisfied with their art being recognize, they must destroy and deride those who went before and become as dictatorial as those who went before them.
  Since Melavich's black square, and Marcel Duchamp's Fountain and the conceptualism which followed, it is hard for me to see how the international art scene which controls what makes it into Modern art museums is any less strict than the Salon, it just taste of radically changed, to where now if it isn't literal filth, vomit, excrement, piss or trash, another variation of scribbles or a blank canvas with minor variations like the "zip", or poorly painted object, inharmonious, ugly and revolting color-wise, than it isn't to make it in today's art world. Twombly today, like Meissonier back in the day makes millions. Meissonier might take 4 years and engage in incredible research to do a breath-taking masterpiece, while Twombly does paintings that look like a kid scribbled on the bathroom wall with blood and poop, paintings he likely completed within minutes, and yet they sell for millions today. I do wonder, if some day, modern art which is still all the rage will go the way of Meissonier and the other Neoclassicist and Romanticist of the French Academy. If it does, than my word, while Meissonier and the other work like his has more intrinsic value, due to beauty, detail and the depth of skill involved in their creation, just think of the fate of Twombly's childish scribbles, or Manzoni's "can of shit". Yes they're valued and worth millions today, but if the art world ever finally acknowledges the emperor has no clothes, there is nothing, absolutely nothing left of value. People still want to go to Museums to see the works of master's of old, if the spell is broken concerning modern art, it is hard to see how hardly anyone could want to pay money to go museum to see endless portrayals of literal garbage.
• 
  Joshua

  Having a mother who tutored Art history and having a friend who recommended this book to me before she moved away and mostly out of my life, it seemed fitting to read this book.
  
  Ross King has established himself as an important and relevant voice in the art history community, and this book demonstrates his ability at not only writing effective art history, he also accomplishes a human narrative. The figures in this book, while they are the figures that will go on to make history, are fully fleshed human beings with faults, foibles, and highly personal idiosyncrasies so that the reader, even if they have no idea who Monet is, will still come away with an impression of these persons as real.
  
  King tells a fascinating narrative, and while I felt that this book went on a little longer than it really needed to, I still felt, by the end, that I had grown with these people. Art is never accomplished in a vacuum, and in the case of the Impressionists, a group of oddballs and weirdos who somehow managed to change the world, King reminds his reader that the artists who created this unforgettable aesthetic were in the midst of forces of change that had to be seen to be believed.