28 RUE VIGNON
by
John S. Wilson
Read to The Chicago Literary Club.
December 17, 2001
28 Rue Vignon is the story of three people - how they got together
and some of their achievements which had a definite influence on the art
movement in the twentieth century. This is not a value judgment. This is
only saying that the art movement took the direction that it did as a
result of these three people coming together during the period from 1907 to
1914. Another combination might have pointed the art movement into an
entirely different direction. 28 rue Vignon is important only because it
was the specific location of the store of art dealer, Daniel-Henry
Kahnweiler. He brought two painters together, Pablo Picasso and Georges
Braque and made it possible for them to "do their thing," without having to
be distracted by the everyday problems of earning a living. In his own
words, "I wanted to offer for public admiration...painters who the public
did not know at all and for whom it would be necessary to clear the way."
It perhaps is no exaggeration to say that he was the catalyst of the Cubist
movement.
This was a young group with ages ranging from 23 to 26 in 1907, the
first year of operations at 28 rue Vignon. It was also a European group
representing Spain, France and Germany.
Pablo Picasso, "charging bull of modern art." and sometimes called
"the romantic movement..." was born in 1881, the oldest by one year of this
trio and lived the longest, 91 years. Under his father's instructions he
studied at La Guardia School of the Arts and Industries at La Coruna. He
spent the year from 1896 to 1897 at La Llonja Art School in Barcelona and,
for the first time, had his own studio. For a few months in 1897, he
studied in the advanced classes of the Royal Academy of San Fernanda in
Madrid. He worked in Barcelona from 1898 and had his first illustrations
for periodicals accepted in 1900. He first visited Paris in 1900 and
finally settled there in 1904. The Galeria Berthe Weill had an individual
showing of his paintings in 1902
Georges Braque, the movement's "classical master-controlled,
reflective, harmonious" , was born in 1882 and lived 81 years. He spent
the first eight years of his life in Argenteuil and the rest of his
formative years in Le Havre, Normandy. His father and grandfather were
house painters by profession and the father was a competent Sunday painter
by choice. The atmosphere was one of encouragement in the son of any
artistic talent in painting. His formal training was three years at Ecole
des Beaux Arts, Le Havre, from 1897 to 1900. He spent one year under his
father as an apprenticed commercial decorator in Paris until 1901. The
first showing of his works was in 1906 at the Salon des Independants, again
in 1907 and again in 1909.
Who was this art dealer of 28 rue Vignon? Why was he there? Where
did he come from? How did he get there?
He was born in 1884, making him the youngest of this group, on
June 25 in Mannheim Germany. His parents were jewish and his father was a
broker who moved the family to Stuttgart in 1885. While not wealthy, the
family was comfortably well off and could afford to send their children to
the "proper places" to be educated. Kahnweiler classifies his family at the
time as "respectable middle-class...well-to-do financiers..." He was sent
to boarding school after the usual two years stint with elementary school.
He had the happy ability of being able to cram for the required exams a
short time before each one and passing them. This left him with a lot of
time to pursue his own interests which inclined towards the arts. This
ability and habit of study probably contributed to his confidence as an art
dealer where quick decisions, on many occasions must have been crucial. The
ability to cram or absorb a lot of information in a short time must have
been a tremendous asset as well.
In 1900, at the age of 16, his parents decided, since he couldn't
make up his own mind, that a banking and stock exchange career was the
solution. He was placed in a number of banks in Germany for two years and
then, in 1902, was sent to Paris to work for M. Tardieu, a stockbroker. It
was hardly earning his own way since he was not paid any wages, but was
given a monthly allowance by his parents, "enough to live on very
decently."
He was interested in politics but not old enough to do more than
demonstrate. It doesn't sound as if he was what we would call an
"activist," but he did participate in a demonstration on the grave of Zola
at the time of his death. He also favored, without knowing why, Japan in
the Russo-Japanese conflict. He was pretty isolated in this view among the
financial people with whom he worked. Banks had loaded the portfolios of
their petite bourgeoise clients with Russian bonds. The reason for this
probably was that the major financial institutions did not rate the Russian
economy as favorably as the British or French economies. This meant that
the Russian bonds provided higher yields. Banks would have a tendency to
look for higher yields in response to their customers urgent demands for
more income.
It was no wonder that any disturbance in Russia was of great concern.
During the period from 1902 to 1905, when he was serving as an
"apprentice stockbroker," he had considerable time to pursue his own
interests, which were not high finance. From noon, when the Bourse opened,
until 3:00 P.M., when the session closed, young Kahnweiler would be free to
do whatever he chose. One of the things he did was to visit the Louvre. He
also discovered the Luxembourg which contained a room called the
"Caillebotte Collection," representing the works of the impressionists.
His initial reaction to these works was negative. In recalling this
episode, his observation was that "This proves that the comprehension and
even the reading of a new kind of painting is different for everyone."
He gradually came to realize that this was the "living painting of the
time." He didn't limit himself to the museums, but also visited the salons
and began acquiring prints of the paintings he liked. At the Salon des
Independants he discovered the painters who later became his friends. The
single exception was Picasso since he did not exhibit there. One of the
members of the Tardieu firm, Eugene Reignier, the cashier for stock
certificates, was a valuable source of information on French literature.
Through him Kahnweiler gained a considerable amount of knowledge of the
country. He also went to concerts and the theater. The content of the
theater was not up to the quality of the acting, which Kahnweiler described
as "excellent."
Kahnweiler could get away with this lifestyle because he was not
"burning the candle at both ends." He was not a lover of light
entertainment and never did enjoy night life. While he did not particularly
like the financial world, he was serious about doing what was required and
was also serious about learning about art in all its forms.
Late in 1905, he went to London to work for one of his uncles, an
international financier of "enormous wealth." His parents felt that this
would be a good opportunity for their son. This uncle had two sons and
several daughters, which meant there was limited opportunity for a cousin
of ever becoming prominent in the firm. While this did influence his
thinking, a more important factor was his dislike for the business and the
feeling of futility he had for all the activity. He was able, however, to
continue the same pattern in London as in Paris. This included visits to
the National Gallery, the British Museum, and the Wallace Collection.
Things came to a head for Kahnweiler in 1907 when the uncles
decided that he should go to South Africa, since he had learned all he
could about the business in London. Kahnweiler did not want to go and was
able to persuade those uncles to finance him for one year as an art dealer
in Paris. It's hard for me to decide whether the uncles were being kind,
indulgent, or saw something genuine in this nephew, or whether it was the
easiest way to get rid of him and still keep the peace in the family. No
matter, it happened after the uncles subjected their nephew to an interview
with their London art dealer, Wertheimer, allegedly to determine the
seriousness of his intentions.
Whether his uncles and Mr. Wertheimer felt he was serious or not,
Kahnweiler, at the ripe old age of 23, opened his gallery at 28 rue Vignon,
formerly occupied by a Polish tailor. I sometimes think that those uncles
must have believed that their errant nephew would soon be returning with
"tail between legs" and begging for a second chance. Kahnweiler did not
know anyone in Paris except those with whom he worked at the Bourse and a
few print sellers. He knew no artists, dealers, collectors, or critics.
There was no "Grand Opening," or press notices, cards were not printed, he
didn't have any paintings!
The confidence of this young man was remarkable. The confidence to
purchase paintings because he liked them and knew they were good works of
art. The confidence to set himself up in the first place without any
experience and very little knowledge of how to go about it.
There were several factors going for him. In the first place, he
had a year in which all his creature comforts were taken care of and enough
money to proceed with his plan of purchases. In the business world terms,
he had adequate working capital. He also could fall back on his parents,
who appeared to be well off, and I suspect that the door was left open in
London, once he had gotten this art dealer idea out of his system.
Another factor working for him was the times. Things were changing
rapidly. The trains were established, but still a recent development. The
automobile was broadening the concept of speed, out of the railway stations
and releasing it from the confines of the tracks and putting it on the
streets and roads in the country and on the race track as a spectator
sport. Communications with the telegraph and the telephone were bringing
the regions of the world closer together. Photography was not a novelty and
even the motion picture had been around long enough that the cinema meant
more than just viewing a phenomenon. The literacy rate had risen in Western
Europe and with that came the increasing use of daily newspapers, not just
for news, but for stories and advertising. The medicine of the mind was
being explored by Freud and Jung in Vienna.
Christopher Gray summed up the conditions for change at this time
when he wrote, "Dominant characteristic of the dawning century was to be
the rejection of the fin de siécle attitude of the last years of the old
and the birth of l'esprit nouveau, a reflection of the new dynamism which
was coloring all the thinking of the new century. Indeed, a new dynamic
concept of reality, as opposed to the static changelessness of Idealism and
Materialism was becoming the cardinal characteristic of the science,
philosophy and arts of the twentieth century." Robert March also summed it
up by saying, "But the spirit of the times was receptive to new ideas. With
young people seeking new directions in the world of art, music and
literature..."
Cubism did not spring up, a mature and well developed movement, as
if from nowhere, with a coterie of artists creating paintings, music and
literature. Movements are not spontaneous. Something has to get them going
and this something is usually the dissatisfaction with the way things are,
by the up and coming generation, along with a viable alternative.
Dissatisfaction may be another way of saying that a vacuum exists and
eventually vacuums get filled. New paradigms in science are examples of
this and can be evolutionary, or revolutionary. I have discussed some of
the conditions during this period in the brief biography of Kahnweiler.
There is always present, however, a restlessness between generations. My
contemporaries call this the "generation gap." It has always existed and
the attitude has been summed up as: "We must be able to do things better
than you have done, or are doing. The world is in a mess and will destroy
itself if we continue doing things the same way." In my lifetime, we told
our fathers' generation that we could have peace for all time because we
could and would police the world. We were wrong about this and the
following generation told us so through demonstrations in the 1960s. I use
this to illustrate what must have occurred around the turn of the century
with the generation in their 20s, with so many new developments.
In painting, some of the young artist had their champion Paul
Cézanne, others favored Gaugin or Van Gogh. The Cubists were mainly
inspired by Paul Cézanne, a painter of the impressionists era and
identified with them in his early work, but who, in his later works,
quietly created paintings that were quite different. Picasso describes his
position among the Cubists as, "like a mother who protects her children."
According to Clive Bell, Cézanne was "always looking for something to
replace the bad science of Claude Monet... about 1880 he found it,...
gazing at the familiar landscape Cézanne came to understand it, not as a
mode of light, nor yet as a player in the game of human life, but as an end
in itself and an object of intense emotion." Bell gives Cézanne full
credit for his part in the movement, saying, "In so far as one man can be
said to inspire a whole age, Cézanne inspires the contemporary movement."
In another part of his book, he describes Cezanne as, "The Christopher
Columbus of a new continent of form."
That sounds a bit dramatic, but it is not that far off the mark. Columbus
did the work of discovering a new continent and those who realized that
there was something valuable in the discovery did the development work.
Cézanne discovered something new in painting and those who could see what
he had discovered were able to develop and translate this discovery. Bell
was not alone in the credits to Cézanne; Kahnweiler also gave him full
credit, referring to the "maturity of Cézanne (about 1885)." This ties in
with Bell's statement of Cézanne's discovery, "about 1880..." In another
place, Kahnweiler describes Cézanne's life struggle as expressing "the
whole sensation."
A year after Cézanne's death in 1906 a retrospective showing took
place of his works in Paris. Braque and Picasso were experimenting at this
time and this showing was a "revelation" to them. In Canady's list of
ingredients for Cubism, "Cézanne, with his concept of volume and space as
abstract geometry to be dealt with at whatever necessary rejection of their
natural relationships;..." comes first. The significance of the
retrospective showing was that it revealed to these artists the direction,
the focus, if you will, for their efforts. It was as if at last the right
door had been opened and they could continue down this corridor which would
lead them to the answers they were seeking. Something like an explorer
going up an uncharted river for the first time and having to examine each
branch, unless he was lucky, until he found the mainstream to continue
further toward the source. Like Cézanne, they had to "rediscover painting,
which had been mangled by Impressionism and its sequels."
A second ingredient was "African and archaic sculpture with their
untheoretical but exciting reduction of natural forms to geometrical
equivalents, plus an element of the bizarre and savage..." The third
ingredient was the "intuitive genius of Picasso and the deductive mind of
Braque to merge these components with dashes of several others in their
search for new expressive means."
Kahnweiler stated that he was completely aware of the "importance
of Cubism in the history of painting." He had no doubts about the aesthetic
value as well as the importance of the pictures from the moment he was
introduced to it on viewing Picasso's Les Demoiselles d'Avignon for the
first time.
The Cubists saw in Cézanne's works the "construction of the
painting, the idea that the painting is not...a slice of nature served with
art, or a window opened onto the outside world, but that it is first of all
a plane surface of a certain size, on which the painter wants to give us
his sensations. The very fact of introducing colored forms that fix these
sensations on a plane rectangular surface creates a certain rhythm. Artists
wanted to understand the true nature of each art... In painting, too, they
asked themselves what painting really was." The impressionists painted what
they saw in a "single glance." It is an incomplete picture against which
the Cubists first rebelled. They attempted to give "more detailed, more
precise, more true" image to objects than the "single glance" impressionist
image. "The Cubists wanted to give...the local tone...the true color of the
object. They wanted to give the true form too, but at the same time they
wanted what they had to say to be shown on rectangular or sometimes oval
canvases, without unity of structure being broken." They basically thought
"the idea that the whole is always more important than the parts. Of
primary importance was the painting itself. Its rhythm could distort
objects." Picasso explained it thusly. "'Of course, when I want to make a
cup, I'll show you that it is round, but the over-all rhythm of the
painting, the structure, may force me to show this roundness as square.'"
The distortion, therefore, may be deliberate, but not for the sake of
distortion, but it may be necessary to fit the object into the rhythm of
the painting.
Kahnweiler developed this point further, in saying, "Painting is a
form of writing...that creates signs. A woman is a painting is not a woman;
she is a group of signs that I read as 'woman'... Fundamentally, painting
has never been a mirror of the external world, nor has it been similar to
photography; it has been a creation of signs which were always read
correctly by contemporaries, after a certain apprenticeship...the Cubists
created signs that were unquestionably new, and this is what made it so
difficult to read their paintings for such a long time. The painter by his
signs tries to reproduce his emotion in the spectator, to help him read his
painting." Tolstoy, in Communication of Emotion" wrote, "Art like speech
is a means of communication..." Kahnweiler added, "It's like music. Music
is a confused sound until you find the thread, melos, if you will, which
helps you to understand the intentions of the musicians. Painting is the
same. You must first recreate the picture yourself. The construction of
Cubists pictures makes it difficult to recreate because if the construction
itself distorted the forms, the round shape of a glass can become a
square... and this adds difficulties. The real meaning of Cubism... a form
of writing that was intended to be severe, consistent and precise..."
In another part of his biography Kahnweiler pointed out that
previous movements in art also had problems of being misunderstood.
Commenting on an exhibition of Monet's Thames series by Durand-Ruel in
Paris in 1904, "I remember something interesting about this show, which was
also a lesson in modesty about the future. I saw two cab drivers standing
in front of Durand-Ruel's window, rigid with hatred and rage, their fists
clenched, yelling 'Any place that shows such rubbish should have its
windows bashed in.' Now, you know...that one of those London paintings of
the Thames is today generally regarded as the most natural, the most
realistic, and at the same time, the most poetic imaginable. At that time
people must have seen something they recognized, but they must have seen it
'distorted,' so that it shocked them. And this, too, is very
significant...Painting is a kind of writing. Painting makes us see the
external world. It creates the external world of men, and when this
creation is new, when the signs invented by the painters are new, there
arises this constraint, this conflict, the result of which is that people
see objects, but do not see them as they are accustomed to seeing them.
This is what creates outrage..."
Ortega Y Gasset seems to have a less kind point of view when
saying, "All modern art is unpopular, and it is not so accidentally and by
chance, but essentially by fate." Further on he states, "the majority, the
masses, do not understand it."
I have done a lot of quoting from Kahnweiler because his
perspective was not totally from the painter's point of view and yet he
dealt with them and it was his business to know what they were thinking and
trying to communicate. He makes it all sound rather simple at first blush.
Further analysis, however, reveals some of the real problems for a lot of
non-painters, at least as far as broadening the acceptance of modern art.
What seems to have happened in painting is that artists were taking on the
complexities of the modern world and interpreting them as they saw them in
the restrictions of a two dimensional canvas. Each artist sees the world
differently, each spectator, if he is trying at all, sees the
interpretation differently and can only understand and identify with the
artist. Perhaps none of these attempts, so far, has really worked and
artists are still groping for a milieu in which to express themselves.
28 rue Vignon is the story of Picasso and Braque. It should be the
story of Daniel-Henry Kahnweiler, but who has ever heard of him? Only those
people closely associated to the field of art. Braque and especially
Picasso will be remembered long after anyone will remember Kahnweiler
because the tangible results of their efforts will endure. Kahnweiler's
efforts have no identifiable tangible results. His efforts, however,
resulted in placing these two artists at the forefront of the most
significant movement in art up to that point and possibly to this day. So,
28 rue Vignon is also the story of Daniel-Henry Kahnweiler. He has already
been more fully identified, along with the other members of the threesome.
How did they happen to get together?
Kahnweiler had a marketing plan, coupled with a philosophy stated
in the opening paragraph of this paper as wanting "to offer for public
admiration...painters who the public did not know at all and for whom it
would be necessary to clear the way." Once his store had been established,
his marketing strategy was to visit the Salon des Independants, which, "in
those days was truly the nursery of modern art." and proceeded to buy
paintings by Derain and Vlaminck of the fauves movement. His naiveté even
extended to here, since he paid the asking prices, not realizing that the
process of bargaining was an expected way of life. He also did not know
that, as a dealer, he was entitled to a "considerable reduction."
In 19th century Europe, art dealers tended to have elaborate
establishments. Emphasis was on impressing the clientele that they were
dealing with high class, important people. There were liveried doormen to
keep the artists in their place, Moorish fountains to impress the clientele
with the uniqueness of the place and formal attire by the art dealer. The
dropping of important names was also standard procedure. Unspoken, but
acknowledged by all, however, was the fact that the dealer was there to
fill an established need. They were the ones who might locate a
masterpiece for some wealthy client. Their decisions could be crucial to
the careers of aspiring artists and often determined whether they should
continue or take up some other profession. This condition continued into
the early 20th century, but with some dealers placing less emphasis on
show, at least in Paris. Kahnweiler was unusual, not only for the lack of
ostentation of his store and attire, but also in his life-style. The
traditional art dealer considered he was doing his artists a favor by
inviting them to lunch. By contrast, "Kahnweiler lived with Picasso,
Braque, Gris, Derain and Vlaminck on a day to day, hour by hour basis." He
felt that it was more important that they were "free to get on with their
work" than it was that they should sell. The only time he had been to a
gallery was the Monet exhibit in 1904 at the Durand-Ruel Gallery. He would
never have considered going into a gallery that did not have a public
exhibition; he was that shy.
He met Derain and Vlaminck when they delivered the paintings
Kahnweiler had bought. He then arranged to buy all their works without a
written contract. Shortly after this he began buying paintings by Braque
and Van Dongen.
His first encounter with Picasso was when the painter came into the
store, examined all the pictures, looked around some more, and left without
saying a word. The following day was a repeat performance, except that he
was accompanied by a prosperous looking older gentleman. This happened to
be Vollard, one of the two great art dealers in Paris at that time. He was
the first to show Picasso's works in 1901 and was not pleased with what
Picasso was doing at that time. Kahnweiler was not aware of who either
person was, but had seen some of Picasso's drawings in the front window of
a dealer on rue Lafitte, Clovis Sagot. A friend of Kahnweiler's, William
Uhde, A German writer and art historian first told him about an unusual
painting being done by an artist named Picasso. Kahnweiler was so intrigued
that he visited Picasso's studio at 13 rue Ravignon and saw the painting
later known as Les Demoiselles d'Avignon. This painting marks "the
beginning of Cubism."
Kahnweiler was excited - "overwhelmed," to use his term - by the
painting. His impression can best be described in his own words,
"I wish I could convey to you the incredible heroism of a man like
Picasso, whose spiritual solitude at this time was truly terrifying,
for not one of his friends had followed him. The picture he had
painted seemed to everyone something mad or monstrous. Braque, who had met
Picasso through Apollinaire (French poet and art critic), had
declared that it made him feel as if someone were drinking gasoline and
spitting fire, and Derain told me that one day Picasso would be found
hanging behind his big picture, so desperate did this enterprise
appear."
While Kahnweiler expressed genuine admiration for the painting, he only
bought some other that Picasso showed him. This meeting marked the
beginning of a lifelong friendship and mutual business arrangement,
interrupted only by World Wars I and II.
While the meeting with Picasso was unusual, the meeting with Braque
was similar to his meetings with Derain and Vlaminck. By early 1908
Picasso and Braque were both dealing with the art dealer of 28 rue Vignon.
Kahnweiler also had five or six clients he considered as much a part of the
team as the painters themselves. Among them were, Herman Rupf,
Kahnweiler's first real customer, Roger Dutilleal, "one of the last great
French collectors," and Serge Stchoukine who "almost on his own, built up
the 20th century French collection," which "makes such an effect at the
Pushkin Museum in Moscow and the Hermitage in St. Petersburg." These were
the people who bought the paintings from Kahnweiler so that he could buy
the paintings of the artists, making it possible for them to do what they
wanted to do, which was, "get on with their work. They weren't like the
Futurists, who were always getting into fights. They didn't even want to
draw attention to themselves by holding exhibitions. "My painters were
quite certain that what they were doing would triumph in the end, and all
they wanted to do was to live quietly and get on with it." Picasso summed
it up rather nicely when he said, "What I want is to be able to live like a
poor man with plenty of money."
In the Fall of 1908, Braque exhibited in the first one man show at
28 rue Vignon. A year earlier, he had sold all six of his paintings at a
group showing of the Salon des Independants. The following year he didn't
fare so well at the Salon d'Automne when the judges would not accept any of
his paintings. Two of the judges were ready to accept two of the paintings,
but Braque wanted to keep them all together. Kahnweiler believed in Braque
enough to hold this exhibition and it gave Braque the confidence to
continue painting rather than return to interior decorating. During the
previous Fall and Winter, he had started to work on the painting of a Nude,
showing Picasso's influence and is, in some respects, like Picasso's Les
Demoiselles d'Avignon, the painting signalling the beginning of Cubism.
During the Summer of 1908, Braque produced the L'Estaque landscapes which
were rejected by the Salon d'Automne and resulted in Kahnweiler's one man
show. These paintings represent a definite departure from his previous
paintings under the influence of the fauves.
During the Summer of 1909, Braque produced La Roce Guyon landscapes
while Picasso, at Horta de San Juan in Catalonia produced, among others,
his Landscape with a Bridge. Back in Paris when each saw what the other
was doing, they realized that they were on somewhat the same track. There
were differences in aim, but they both saw that each had something to offer
to the other. This was the beginning of their joining forces and becoming
"rather like two mountaineers roped together." This intense collaboration
period ended in 1912 when both of their styles had reached a maturity that
probably ended the collaborative need.
It is exciting to think of Braque and Picasso in their
collaborative period. Like so many partnerships of talented people,
especially of similar talents, the most productive period is the early
stages when there is novelty, mutual trust,mutual respect, mutual
objectives before other elements enter in that come from concentrated and
intense effort. It is an exhilarating period for the participants and the
people who see it.
This must have been what Kahnweiler saw and had a hand in bringing
about. He, no doubt, was part of the scene, being a friend with whom to
relax as well as the person who took care of their financial needs,
allowing them to work at their art, which is all they wanted to do. They
didn't want to hold exhibitions to publicize their efforts. They just
wanted to get on with their work and find solutions to their problems
through experiment, exchange of ideas and inspiration.
It was during this period that both artists started experimenting
with materials other than paint and canvas in their works as definite parts
and not as distractions. They both made an effort to "sublimate their
individualities" and achieve "a sort of mutual anonymity for the sake of
style." It even went so far as having a reluctance to sign their names on
the painted surface." If each had painted a picture of the other at work,
there would probably have been something of a self portrait evident in each
one. This does not mean that they worked side by side, but they were in
constant communication. What they were trying to do was to solve the
"strictly pictorial problems..." that came with their intention of finding
a "wholly new and precise way of recreating tangible reality on canvas."
They were more concerned with "forging the language of Cubism..." than with
"the aesthetic value of the subject matter."
The true Cubism created by Braque and Picasso was not the result of
any theory or "mathematical exercise which had to be demonstrated: it
derived from a wholly fresh conception of what painting should be, and
flowered creatively in the privacy of the studio." Due to the "intuitive
and inventive genius" of the two artists, it became a "vital force" with no
tendency towards becoming doctrinaire.
So what was the effect of this collaberation, this extraordinary
effort of two artistic geniuses, on western art? There is no question of
the influence on some of their contemporaries. Juan Gris admits as much and
Fernand Leger found a direction for his efforts, even though he abandoned
Cubist principles in later years. The movement spread to other European
countries, mainly through exhibits. In Holland, Piet Mondrian was exposed
to Cubism for the first time and made a number of visits to Paris before
World War I. Paul Klee, in Germany, came under its influence and Russia had
several artists adopting the Cubist style. During this period, from 1907 to
1914, the "solid foundations" of a new "language" had been established, a
"new conception in pictorial representation" had been given to the 20th
century which would change the course of art throughout the western world.
In the words of Douglas Cooper, the movement had:
Toppled the system of scientific linear perspective" prevalent in
European painting since the Renaissance.
Established the artist's right to look at things from several
view-points simultaneously and to incorporate into a work of art
knowledge gained from other than purely visual sources.
Separated the pictorial functions of color, form and volume,
allowing them to co-exist and function independently.
Established a more surface-conscious type of painting.
Found a way of expressing volumes and representing space without
penetrating into false depth.
Undermined the conception of belle peinture and the idea that works of
fine art can only be made with materials, proving this with the two wholly
new techniques of collage and papier colles as well as their scraps of
constructions.
The "pictorial conceptions of Cubism" and the "techniques of
collage and construction..." had an influence on the generations of artists
continuing into the 20s and 30s. This influence had also spread to
commercial and applied art in the 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s, as well as to
architectual design. "Its continuing influence proves that it has been a
major force in the development of western art."
There was no one episode or event that triggered the modern art
movement, but one event did bring two talented artists together which
shaped the course of the movement in the 20th century and, therefore, was a
unique focal point. 28 rue Vignon saw the beginning of the Cubist movement
in 1907 with Picasso's Les Demoiselles d'Avignon, the first one man exhibit
of Cubist painting by Braque in 1908, the display or showing of the results
of their collaboration until 1912, the showing of collages and more mature
works, as well as the flowering of Juan Gris and Fernand Leger until 1914.
Picasso took Braque and Derain to the Gare d'Avignon in early August, 1914,
marking the end of 28 rue Vignon, but not the end of the modern art
movement. I like to think of 28 rue Vignon as the launching pad for the
Cubist movement rocketing into the 20th century.