It must be admitted that in the heat of the battle which had commenced, they set fire to more than they intended. Only a very small amount was necessary for the artists of the official Salons to perish in the flames of the new art – their demise had been prepared by preceding generations. But the strength of the reaction to Matisse’s group set both the Nabis and the future innovators in the shade. This can be sensed clearly in the comments by critics of all shades of opinion, and, as usual, more vividly in the negative ones than in the positive.
André Derain, The Castle or The New Castle in La Roche Guyon, c. 1910.
Oil on canvas, 66 × 87 cm.
Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts, Moscow.
Albert Marquet, Paris in Winter, The Quai Bourbon, 1907.
Oil on canvas, 65 × 81 cm.
Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts, Moscow.
Albert Marquet, The Pont Saint-Michel in Winter, 1908.
Oil on canvas, 61 × 81 cm.
Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts, Moscow.
Besides this, Fauvism was perceived by enemies and friends alike as a new young force, the only movement which had really come to maturity and one which set itself in opposition to absolutely everything that had existed until that time, both in the “right-wing” camp and on the left. And despite the contradiction within the movement itself which the critics remarked on, it was a single whole. Even, so it would seem, the incompatible co-existence of spontaneity and rationality became its distinguishing feature, one which no one previously had ever displayed to such a degree. Even their demonstrative taking of the public stage without a leader or a programme, united only on the basis of “a spirit of intimate kinship,”[10] was, in itself, the program to which most of the Fauvist artists were to adhere all their working lives, far beyond the brief time that is customarily called the Fauvist period.
For the next three years the Fauves used both the Salon des Indépendants and the Salon d’Automne for joint displays of their work, each time effectively organizing their own exhibition within the general one. In 1906 they presented about 150 works at the Indépendants and slightly fewer at the Salon d’Automne; in 1907 and 1908, practically unchanged in terms of membership, the group exhibited again, maintaining the same ratio. No less than twice each year the galleries run by Berthe Weill and Druet exhibited Fauves either in groups or singly. Other Parisian dealers also turned their attentions to them: apart from his annual personal exhibition of René Seyssaud, in 1908 Bernheim Jeune presented about one hundred works by Kees van Dongen.
Albert Marquet, Flood in Paris, c. 1910.
Oil on canvas, 33 × 41 cm.
Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts, Moscow.
Albert Marquet, The Pont Saint-Michel in Paris, The Quai des Augustins, 1908.
Oil on canvas, 65 × 81 cm.
Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts, Moscow.
André Derain, Houses on the Waterfront, 1910.
Oil on canvas, 61 × 102.3 cm.
State Hermitage Museum, Saint Petersburg.
From 1906, the Fauves began little by little to become known outside of France. In small groups, most frequently made up of pupils of Moreau, they displayed works at La Libre Esthétique exhibition in Brussels and in a private gallery in Vienna, while in 1910 the Manes Gallery arranged a display of Fauvist painting in Prague. At the 1909 Salon des Indépendants in Paris, the Fauves were again present in full number. At the Salon d’Automne, although their ranks had thinned some-what, they occupied the central position as before and were now perceived as a single whole.
The peaceful position and conception about the freedom of art which now prevailed no longer prompted them into the fray. The Fauves began a gradual withdrawal – not from the course they had selected, nor from the principles of which they were convinced – from the struggle for a slice of the cake, which, until then, had been divided up by the overwhelming mass of official artists of every hue. One after another they acquired their own regular dealers who provided them with the material wherewithal to live and work; one after another they ceased presenting their creations at collective exhibitions. From 1910 onwards, the number participating in the Fauvist displays at both the Salon des Indépendants and the Salon d’Automne steadily declined. The peak of group appearances had passed. Even the name they had won themselves in 1905 did not have the former audacious ring to it: “…the painters who for some time were called les fauves” is how they are described in a very serious review written in the summer of 1910 by a critic close to them – Michel Puy, brother of the painter Jean Puy, who had constantly and closely observed the Fauves development over seven years of joint exhibitions. Nevertheless, he was not yet ready to draw a final conclusion as to the nature of Fauvism. But Puy considered its most important qualities to be already indisputable.
André Derain, Cliffs, 1912.
Oil on canvas, 60.5 × 81 cm.
State Hermitage Museum, Saint Petersburg.
Louis Valtat, Girls Playing with a Lion Cub, c. 1905.
Oil on canvas, 81.5 × 100.5 cm.
State Hermitage Museum, Saint Petersburg.
Louis Valtat, Sunlight under the Trees, c. 1908–1909.
Oil on canvas, 66 × 82 cm.
State Hermitage Museum, Saint Petersburg.
Louis Valtat, The Farm, c. 1907.
Oil on canvas, 82 × 100 cm.
Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts, Moscow.
Louis Valtat, In the South of France, c. 1908.
Oil on canvas, 60 × 73.5 cm.
State Hermitage Museum, Saint Petersburg.
Undoubtedly, the concept of Fauvism includes both, the brief period when the group as well as the qualities of colour common to the painting of the majority. But the mighty impulse, known as Fauvism, which became one of the strongest foundations of twentieth-century painting is in fact far more complex and encompasses a sum total of many qualities. It was precisely the variety of these which attracted artists of very different kinds to Fauvism.
It embraced Matisse, who was engrossed in the science of his painting – in Salmon’s words, “a bearded painter in gold glasses, who brought a tone of severity, of professional gravity to the discussion,”[11] and the spontaneous Vlaminck who provoked the envy of friends from Montmartre for just the opposite reason: “How does that bugger Vlaminck manage to be so modern without the help of the least intellect. On the contrary!”[12] The ironical Van Dongen, susceptible to any kind of fame, be it scandalous or worldly, “…the painter of wenches, risen through the ranks to become portraitist to the great tarts, to achieve at last the glory of immortalizing dressmakers and duchesses who compete as patrons of the arts.”[13]