From the beginning, Monet’s intense interest in nature was evident from his earliest sketchbooks, which are filled with meticulous drawings of trees and countryside scenes (Rachman, 19). He later studied in Le Havre with Eugène Boudin, a landscapist, who taught him to paint en plein air, and advised him to paint landscapes (Mathey, 39). Monet clearly found value in Boudin’s words, articulating his partiality to landscapes in an 1861 letter to his fellow artist and friend Frédéric Bazille in which Monet wrote, “it is essential to think only about nature; it is by dint of observation and by reflection that you make discoveries.” (qtd. Denvir, 28). Monet’s words communicate his passion for nature as well as his lack of interest in any other subject, such as figure painting. However, Monet’s desire to be a “serious” painter led him to doubt his high estimation of landscapes; he did not trust himself. For example, while working on his Déjeuner he wrote to Bazille, “I would like your opinion on the choice of landscape for my figures. Sometimes I’m afraid of making a mistake” (qtd. Isaacson, 22). This trepidation seems uncharacteristic of the famously confident Monet, but when placed in the context of his “serious” aspirations, we understand his self-doubt. His anxiety also demonstrates the importance of landscape to Monet, even at this stage: it mattered as much as, if not more than, the figures.
Scholars have paid little attention to the incongruity of figure painting with Monet’s character, attributing his decision to make figure paintings to his youthful ambition. As art historian Grace Seiberling has articulated, “Monet wanted his oeuvre to be something more than a collection of small works made from day to day. The continuing ambition to make important paintings led him initially to make large works” (Seiberling, 24). Monet’s idea of an “important” painting was based on the ideas of the Salon, to which he frequently submitted work throughout the 1860’s. Critically at the time, “important paintings” in the Salon were not only “large”, they were figure paintings; thus Monet’s ambition, as Seiberling notes, could only be achieved by making large figure paintings. His Déjeuner sur l’herbe (1865) was inspired by Edouard Manet’s painting of the same name, which was exhibited in the Salon des Refusés in 1863, causing great controversy.
Manet’s painting led Emile Zola, the famous French critic and writer, to declare, “[Manet] has realized the dream of all painters - to pose life-size figures in a landscape” (qtd. Denvir, 25). Monet’s decision to depict a déjeuner sur l’herbe, made in response to the clamor surrounding Manet’s version, was no doubt a result of Monet’s ambition. The older artist’s influence on Monet is unquestionable, as Monet said, “I made it [Déjeuner sur l’herbe] after Manet’s” (qtd. Champa, 4). What better way to establish himself as an artist than to better paint the contentious Déjeuner of the notorious Manet? Monet’s aim for his “important” painting was to create a larger and more truthful representation of a déjeuner sur l’herbe, which he sought to achieve by painting his version entirely outside, en plein air, with the background as accurate as the figures in the foreground, for Manet’s Déjeuner was a studio portrait with a painted background. Such a desire reveals Monet’s inability not to focus on the landscape. Monet planned considerably for the piece, yet the majority of his planning was consumed by his choice of background as opposed to the models or positions of the figures. He took three months in Chailly to determine the perfect spot for the background (Isaacson, 22); were he in charge of choosing a picnic spot, he would have some very hungry companions.
Image: Manet, Edouard. Déjeuner sur l’herbe, 1863. Musée d’Orsay, Paris.
Scanned from: Cuno, James and Joachim Kaak, ed. Manet Manet: Zwei Bilder Im Dialog. Munich, Germany: Pinakothek-Dumont, 2004.