Post-Impressionism

Post-Impressionism. Term applied to various trends in painting, particularly in France, that developed from Impressionism or in reaction against it in the period c. 1880–c. 1905. Roger Fry coined the term as the title of an exhibition, ‘Manet and the Post-Impressionists', which he organized at the Grafton Galleries, London, in 1910. The exhibition was dominated by the work of Cézanne, Gauguin, and van Gogh, who are considered the central figures of Post-Impressionism. These three artists varied greatly in their response to Impressionism: Cézanne, who wished ‘to make of Impressionism something solid and enduring, like the art of the museums', was preoccupied with pictorial structure; Gauguin renounced ‘the abominable error of naturalism’ to explore the symbolic use of colour and line; and van Gogh's uninhibited emotional intensity was the fountainhead of Expressionism. Georges Seurat, a figure of almost equal importance, concentrated on a more scientific analysis of colour (see NEO-IMPRESSIONISM). The general drift of Post-Impressionism was away from the naturalism of Impressionism towards the series of avant-garde movements (such as Fauvism and Cubism) that revolutionized European art in the decade leading up to the First World War. (Some writers extend the notion of Post-Impressionism to cover these developments, making the term embrace the period c. 1880–c. 1914, but this makes an already broad concept less rather than more useful.)

Fry organized his first Post-Impressionist exhibition at short notice (to fill a gap in the gallery's programme) and in an almost casual atmosphere, but he brought together a highly impressive (if far from balanced) collection of pictures, mainly loaned by leading French dealers, including Bernheim-Jeune and Durand-Ruel. He was assisted by Clive Bell and by the literary critic Desmond MacCarthy, who acted as secretary. There were more than 200 exhibits, Cézanne, Gauguin, and van Gogh being represented by more than 20 pictures each. It was the first time they had been seen in such strength in Britain and the exhibition created what the Daily Mail called ‘an altogether unprecedented artistic sensation’ or what Sickert more succinctly described as a ‘rumpus'. Ian Dunlop (The Shock of the New, 1972) writes that ‘There is a strong case for saying that it marks the high-water mark of public concern for art in Britain'. The extensive press coverage included some vicious attacks: Robert Ross, critic of the Morning Post, wrote that ‘If the movement is spreading, it should be treated like the rat plague in Suffolk'. Some visitors were angry ( Duncan Grant recalled people shaking their umbrellas at the pictures) and others mocked ( Desmond MacCarthy wrote of ‘a stout elderly man … who went into such convulsions of laughter on catching sight of Cézanne's portrait of his wife … that his companion had to take him out and walk him up and down in the fresh air'). The conservative opinion was that the pictures on show were childish, crude, and the product of moral degeneracy or mental derangement. However, there was also a positive response. Duncan Grant said that he and Vanessa Bell were ‘wildly enthusiastic’ about the exhibition, and it powerfully affected the work of several of the painters in Sickert's circle (see CAMDEN TOWN GROUP), in general encouraging the use of strong, flat colours. Sickert himself was on the whole rather blasé about it (he admired Gauguin and admitted—or pretended—to embarrassment that he had once advised him to stick to stockbroking, but he thought Cézanne was overrated, lacking ‘a sense of aplomb', and he disliked van Gogh's way of applying paint, although he said this was ‘a mere personal preference').

Recalling the event forty years later, Clive Bell described the exhibition as ‘a prodigious success. It set all England talking about contemporary painting, and sent the more alert not only to Paris but to museums and collections where they could have a look at primitive, oriental and savage art. The attendance was a record for the gallery; the sales were more than satisfactory; the Yorkshire Penny Bank, which held the Grafton Galleries in mortgage, made a pretty penny.’ Douglas Cooper, however (writing at about the same time as Bell), gave a very different assessment: ‘one cannot help feeling that it was an unfortunate exhibition, for it presented a distorted view of Post-Impressionist developments and, by virtue of its own inconsistencies, had the effect of frightening the English public away from rather than encouraging it to take an active interest in modern French art.’

In 1912 Fry organized a second Post-Impressionist exhibition at the Grafton Galleries. This was more wide-ranging, coherent, and up-to-date than the first (it included several Cubist works), with a British section chosen by Clive Bell and a Russian section organized by Boris Anrep. It too caused a great deal of controversy, but did not have quite the same impact as the first.