AS WORD OF "REVOLUTION in America" rises on the Black Lives Matter protests in US cities, the names of two French artists, Édouard Manet and Gustave Courbet, come to mind. Both were at the peak of their artistry during the short-lived revolution of the Paris Commune in spring of 1871.
Both were in the thick of the three month event—when left-leaning revolutionaries, back by a national militia, took over Paris. And both painters had roles in the outcome.
Manet, not living in Paris at the time, chronicled some of the upheaval. Courbet became head of Fine Arts for the new revolutionary regime. Both were sympathetic with the downfall of the aristocratic government (only temporary), but in one case passive, the other active.
The sudden turmoil in Paris resulted from the ill-conceived, and disastrous, French war with Prussia. The victorious Prussians did not occupy Paris, but they took over the long disputed region of Alsace-Lorraine. Still, the disconcerted Parisians kicked the royalist government out of Paris, and amid bold declarations of a new political order, formed a new government—The Commune (which has since been the model for left-wing revolutions, from Marx on down).
As middle-class (bourgeois) liberals, both Manet and Courbet knew which side they were on. Indeed, everyone was being forced to take sides. The short-lived revolt, with its barricades, gun fire, atrocities, and burning buildings, petered-out rapidly enough. And it gave rise to a moderate, enduring new system in France—the Third Republic, which lasted until the 1940s.
The Third Republic separated church and state—the revolutionaries most hated the church—set up a representative chamber to balance off the emperor, and undertook other social reforms. For all the tumult of this period, the rise of Impressionist art chronicled the seemingly pleasant return of bourgeoisie life in Paris: dinners, parks, cafes, races, countryside romps, and pleasant city scenes.
During the Commune, the group later called Impressionists kept the annual Salon at the Louvre going. Back in 1863, this group of painters had already held a Salon des Refusés, when their paintings were rejected (i.e. refused) by the Salon academicians. When Manet was rejected again in 1867, he again set up his own alternative exhibit, solidifying the pattern for later protest exhibits in modern painting. During the Commune Salon, the Impressionists not only took it over, they banned traditional academic painters.
Meanwhile, Manet completed two famous drawings of the tattered streets during the barricaded Commune. (It should also be noted that an aristocratic leader of the Salon, Ernest Meissonier, completed an exceptional painting of the rubble and barricades of war-torn Paris). Courbet led the anti-war appeal to take down a contested war-memorial column, suggesting it be moved to the military hospital site, not the center of Paris.
Courbet’s exact role is unclear, but in the end, the revolutionaries pulled it down and smashed it to bits. After the Commune revolt failed, Courbet was put on trial for his role in this. He was given a six month sentence (lenient), and required to pay to have the column rebuilt. Unable to afford this, he went into hiding, and finally exile in Switzerland. There, he no longer painted war, history, and social topics, but rather still life (and his realism influenced future Swiss painters).
At a time like this, the painter is torn, as seen in the two biographies. It is unclear whether the Commune was necessary to bring about the Third Republic. Either way, a stable and reformed system did result to the benefit of a prosperous French future. The moment also significantly influenced the direction of Parisian art, and of art history.
The fulsome life of the new Third Republic gave Impressionism its mood and subject matter. The bright light and color—often said to have sprung from the fires of the Commune—belied the chaos and destruction, and fratricide (like the Reign of Terror in the French Revolution) that preceded the Impressionist gaiety.
Manet, considered the founder of modern painting, has probably had a greater impact than Courbet. Manet painted in the wet (alla prima), used solid plains of color, revised normal perspective, used dark outlines, and combined sketchy passage with finished ones. He also chose topics that pushed the envelope in polite society—painting unblushing nudes and candid cafe scenes.
We will have to see if the current upheaval in American society will truly change its structure. But as history shows, such society-wide changes are rare, even though visions of radical transformation are abundant in minds and rhetoric in the heat of protest, conflict, and chaos. We will also be looking back to see if any painters chronicle the events. Or, whether a "new spirit" in painting arises. Although that is doubtful, we do have the story of Manet and Courbet to prove that it can happen in those rare moments of social upheaval.