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

The average rating for Judgment of Paris: The Revolutionary Decade that Gave the World Impressionism based on 2 reviews is 4 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2011-01-19 00:00:00 James Fitzgerald 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)…. (not a book I have read, or am recommending -- but the title is significant…) 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.

Review # 2 was written on 2015-04-11 00:00:00 Gary Pyle 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.