Courbet vs. Renoir
Courbet and Renoir were two very influential painters during the 19th century in France. Both seemed radical and outrageous at times, despite that, both represented two different approaches to art.
Introduction
The 19th century was a time of great change across Europe. While the Industrial Revolution was transforming every aspect of daily life. Art, too, was undergoing its own revolution with the advent of new movements like Realism and Impressionism.
Realism, as exemplified by artists such as Gustave Courbet, emerged in the mid-19th century as a reaction against the idealized depictions of Romanticism. Realist painters sought to portray the world as it was (as opposed to the Romantic ‘the world as it ought to be’ approach), focusing on the daily lives of ordinary people.
On the other hand, Impressionism, which came into prominence in the later part of the century, was about capturing the fleeting effects of light and color. Pierre-Auguste Renoir, one of the key figures of this movement, painted scenes from his own life, emphasizing the beauty and joy he found in them.
Both of these movements were revolutionary in their own ways, breaking away from the conventions of academic art. However, the philosophies and artistic styles of their main proponents—Courbet and Renoir—were notably distinct, reflecting the changing societal and artistic landscape of 19th-century France.
( Le Désespéré, Gustave Courbet, 1845)
It is impossible to discuss 19th-century paintings without mentioning Courbet or Renoir. Both were pioneers in their groundbreaking depictions of the rampant societal change during their times.
Courbet’s work and rebellious attitude toward the traditional way of making art paved the way for the Impressionist Revolution. Without Courbet, Renoir was impossible. Renoir took Courbet's interest in everyday life as a subject. The working man is the main subject of his art.
However, it is not coincidental that there is a distinction among art scholars between Courbet and the Impressionists. The Impressionists wanted to provide the viewer with an impression of reality. Courbet wanted to paint reality “as it is,” hence the term “Realism.”
Courbet was interested in the lives of the lower classes: the stone masons, the priests, the peasants, and the wheat sifters. Renoir was interested in middle-class life: the parties, the weddings, and the weekend garden lunches.
In terms of style, Courbet’s lines were rough. His works were not very selective in the sense that he did not abstract away small, minute details. Courbet aimed to show his viewers everything—raw reality. That would include elements that the Impressionists would later find unimportant. Unlike Renoir, Courbet was not only interested in the beautiful but also in the ugly. Renoir, on the other hand, used smooth and curly lines. Most of the time, his backgrounds were faded, blurry, and colorful. Renoir was very selective about which elements of reality he wanted to capture and which ones were irrelevant.
Impressionism vs. Realism
(The Trellis, Gustave Courbet, 1862)
(Two Sisters, Pierre-Auguste Renoir, 1881)
During its time, Realism was seen as a radically new movement that challenged the traditional convictions of the art scene. But after Impressionism, we can see how “traditional” Realism really was compared to Impressionism.
The main parallel between Realism and Impressionism is their focus on everyday life scenes. Both movements were anti-academic in that sense. Of course, Realism was the first, which was a major influence on the Impressionists.
We can see how different they are when we look closer at style and the Realist approach to making art compared to Impressionism.
In Courbet’s “Trellis,” we can see his realistic approach to painting. We can see how meticulous he is in painting every little detail of the flowers, the way the fabric of the lady’s dress folds, and even the sky gets a fair bit of attention. On the other hand, in Renoir’s iconic “Two Sisters,” there isn’t nearly as much attention to detail; the fruit basket is brushed with Renoir’s lovely lines, but it’s very hard to tell if those are apples or pomegranates. The fabric of women's clothing is not moving according to their posture. Rather, it’s as if it’s glued to their bodies. Also, we can see how little attention Renoir devotes to making the background look realistic.
The reason for this significant difference between these two paintings is understood when learning about what Courbet wanted to achieve in his art and what the Impressionists wanted to achieve.
To quote from Courbet’s Realist Manifesto:
“Above all, the art of painting can only consist of the representation of objects which are visible and tangible for the artist.”
Courbet saw the art of painting as representing the “visible reality.” Notice the “only” part of the quote. An artist’s job, according to Courbet, is to only paint what he sees, and that’s it. Renoir and the Impressionists begged to differ. They believed they ought to provide the viewers with their “Impression” of reality, personal experience, and perspective.
The Impressionists wanted to portray snippets of reality. Courbet wanted to show us everything—the good, the bad, the beautiful, and the ugly.
Middle-Class vs. Lower Class
(The Wheat Sifters, Gustave Courbet, 1854)
This difference between depicting the lower vs. middle classes may seem superficial. But it is revealing of the artist's sense of life. Courbet grew up in the small village of Ornas and is very familiar with these scenes of the wheat sifters and the stone masons. He even goes back to visit his village many times during his life. Courbet was fascinated by a simpler, lower-class life, even though he lived comfortably in Paris's middle- to upper-class neighborhoods.
(Lunch at the Restaurant Fournaise, Pierre-Auguste Renoir, 1875)
Renoir, on the other hand, was fond of the good life. Of the new middle-class leisure life. The modern city, the restaurants, the weddings, and the weekend activities. He was fascinated by the new opportunities that modern life enabled. Renoir was not born into either wealth, but unlike Courbet, he didn’t look back.
Conclusion
(A Burial at Ornans, Gustave Courbet, 1850)
Renoir’s and Courbet’s art celebrates their sense of life. Courbet was an immensely talented painter who painted many magnificent portraits, landscapes, and genre art. He was a disciple of reality. He was strongly convinced that a painter should paint what he sees. He was also a big provocateur who constantly got himself into trouble. This adds to his colorful and interesting character.
In his art, Courbet celebrates many of his values, such as the village of Ornas and its people, his deep admiration for the art of painting, and his mastery of it. He hints at his political views hidden underneath his many subjects. These are some, but not all, of the positive values that can be found in Courbet’s wide oeuvre.
(Dance at Le Moulin de la Galette, Pierre-Auguste Renoir, 1876)
Renoir loved his life in Paris. He enjoyed the restaurants, the boating parties, the luncheons with his Impressionist friends, and perhaps most profoundly, he loved beauty. To quote Renoir: “To my mind, a picture should be something pleasant, cheerful, and pretty—yes, pretty! There are too many unpleasant things in life as it is without creating still more of them.”
Thank you for reading “Philosophy: I Need It.” If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting me so that I could create more content like it.
Well done!