| In the 1870's and early 1880's, two French avant-garde groups, the Impressionist painters and the Naturalist writers, advocated the depiction of modern life subjects. These subjects were, in the main, scenes of life in Paris and its suburbs. The artists and the writers were linked by personal friendships, and the critics of the day perceived connections between their work.; This study examines those connections by comparing the ways the writers and the painters treated particular modern life subjects: domestic life, the crowds on the boulevards, the railroads and train stations, and the places of suburban leisure along the Seine. Paintings by Edouard Manet, Claude Monet, Edgar Degas, Gustave Caillebotte, and Auguste Renoir are discussed with reference to novels and short stories by Emile Zola, J.-K. Huysmans, Guy de Maupassant and others.; The painters' and writers' conceptions of modernity are seen in relation to the social and cultural climate of early Third Republic France. Although the Impressionists and Naturalists aimed to be truthful observers of their world, each ultimately created differing visions of modern life. This "objectivity", and the choice of subjects which many critics felt were vulgar or immoral, led some conservatives to accuse them of a lack of patriotism. The Naturalists' assessment of the potential for meaningful human relationships in modern Paris was much more pessimistic than the Impressionists'. However, the Impressionists' ambivalence about the depiction of modern life subjects becomes more apparent when seen in tandem with the fictional accounts.; To a certain extent, the Impressionists were pushed by the critics into an association with Naturalism that was not a perfect fit for them. They were a much less cohesive group than the Naturalists, who had Zola's strong leadership. Yet Zola's enormous popular success, and his vigorous championing of modern life themes were an important factor in shaping the public perceptions of Impressionist painting in that decade. |
