Illustrator and May in Paris (1) - A Story from Finland

His Art Theory Changed Art History

In the 19th century, Europe was swept by the waves of the Industrial Revolution and citizen uprisings. Monarchies collapsed and were revived, majority rule prevailed, emperors emerged, parliaments fractured left, right, up, down, and diagonally, or coalesced, and when bubbles came, so did societal inequality.
New religions opened canals, elephants were brought from colonies, gods shed their halos, steam trains sped overhead, and carriages overturned. Sewers clogged, department stores were built, and nights were illuminated by gaslight.

New things were born in every field, and as they mingled with the old, the question arose: 'Is novelty truly good? Or is something more conservative better?'
It's likely that such discussions were quite common at the time.

In art, this manifested as the conflict between Romanticism and Classicism. Classicism advocated for the art of classical antiquity as the standard, pursuing its ideal form.

Romanticism, on the other hand, argued for referencing the present. While saying 'referencing the present,' they sometimes got carried away, perhaps deciding that anything not classical antiquity was acceptable, and even advocating for the Middle Ages. Looking at art history overall, Romanticism largely won this argument. Claims that art is ideal and valuable only when it depicts ancient gods majestically, and that this is true art, followed by further assertions... became less common thereafter.

Baudelaire, known for his poetry collection 'Les Fleurs du Mal,' was born in 1821 and died in 1867. He lived through the heart of a turbulent era in 19th-century Paris, the capital city, and naturally, he couldn't ignore these issues.

In his later years, he authored 'The Painter of Modern Life,' considered the culmination of his art criticism, posing a monumental question. Some even say his art theory changed art history. This time, I'd like to introduce a small part of it.

What Was So Great About Guys?

In this work, Baudelaire discusses an illustrator named Constantin Guys as a representative painter of his time.
Why was an illustrator treated as a painter and considered so important? If we start asking that, a heated debate awaits.

Some might say, 'Baudelaire favored the painter Manet in his later years. Considering the relationship between Baudelaire the theorist and Manet the practitioner of his theory of modern art, shouldn't 'The Painter of Modern Life' have focused on Manet, rather than a journalist or illustrator like Guys?' To which another might reply, 'No, that's not right. Guys is important precisely because he is Guys.' Or, 'This is framed as a discussion of Guys, but it's actually a message to Manet.' Or, 'Actually, it was supposed to be about someone else entirely, neither Manet nor Guys.'

Meanwhile, Baudelaire himself stated, 'For ten years, I have wished to become a born traveler, a cosmopolite, and to establish the acquaintance of Mr. G.'

'Do you readers recall that painting executed by the most powerful brush of our time—yes, it is truly a painting—...'

'Truly, it is no easy task to translate such a vast and complex poem, composed of countless sketches, with nothing but a mere pen...' Reading this literally, Baudelaire seems to praise Guys quite highly. For now, let's refrain from delving into complex debates and simply accept his words at face value.

What was so great about Guys? To put it extremely broadly, it's that Guys's art was contemporary, and that's what made it good.

Guys depicted not ancient gods or legendary battles, but contemporary figures: prostitutes, fashionable men, soldiers, and carriages of the 19th century. And that, Baudelaire argued, is what's important.

Similar opinions were expressed by critics other than Baudelaire at the time.
For example, Théophile Gautier, who could be considered Baudelaire's predecessor, stated years before the 1855 Paris Universal Exposition that shared beliefs had vanished with technological progress, leading to a diversification of subject matter. He noted that paintings now depicted scenes, products, and beauties from around the world, brought by railways and steamships, changing the nature of art exhibitions. Even Victor Hugo, their senior, argued that art should depict the 'here and now.'

Conversely, this suggests that for them, art expressing the things of the present moment held value worth asserting. Why might that be?

Illustrator and May in Paris (2)