.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
Behind the cottages at the fore of Le Champ Lollichon et l'église de Pont-Aven, rises the steeple of the church of Pont-Aven. It was in this small Breton town that Gauguin's art began to truly develop along its own lines and came to dominate the work of the group around him. This painting still shows the heavy influence of Pissarro in Gauguin's art, as for many years he had in his individual manner pursued the Impressionist adventure. However, on the establishment of a circle of artists at Pont-Aven, a loose group comprising artists of differing talent and originality, Gauguin came out from the shadow of his former mentor, and indeed the entire Impressionist movement. Although his first displayed piece in an Impressionist exhibition was shown as a tribute to his sponsorship of the impoverished Impressionists, not to its actual aesthetic merits, within a short space of time it was clear that he was a force to be reckoned with in his own right. Indeed, Pissarro's willingness to instruct him was a tribute to his growing skills.
Gauguin's final rupture with the Impressionists was caused by Degas' introduction of mediocre artists to the group and Gauguin's own militant refusal to exhibit alongside Monet and Renoir, who had managed to exhibit at the more conservative and academic Salon. He wrote repeated letters of threat and resignation, and finally quit the group completely. Indeed, amongst his Pont-Aven colleagues, he would refer to them as 'the others' and by the end of the year he publicly refused to shake hands with either Signac or his former teacher.
Despite this break, largely caused by his disagreement with the techniques of Neo-Impressionism, Gauguin retained the heavy influence of his former mentor in his work. His subject-matter came increasingly into line with Pissarro's prescriptions, for it was during this particular trip that he began to successfully incorporate human figures in his Breton landscapes. Formerly, they had either been insubstantial - drowned by their surroundings - or ineffective. Now, the women in the field are treated with ease and confidence. This kudos came in part from his obsequious followers in Pont-Aven - Gauguin himself seems to have been surprised at these artists' willingness to treat every morsel of advice and criticism as words from a wise teacher.
His increased confidence also affected his coloration and his appreciation of form. Although Pissarro's influence is overt in these, nonetheless it is clear that Gauguin was beginning to find his own path. The colours, especially the greens and yellows, have an intensity that marks the development of his own idiom. Although, of course, Pissarro sometimes used bright colours, nonetheless colouration itself was to become central to Gauguin's idiom. Likewise, the actual application of the paint both reflects the older artist's continued influence, and the younger man's new appreciation of how to manipulate it. Although in some ways the small dabs of colour are reminiscent of the Pointillism prevalent at the time - and so offensive to Gauguin's tastes - yet here they fill the painting with life. This is not a scientific view of the tones and hues of the countryside scene, but instead an expressive translation, the paint applied with vigour and feeling. Gauguin's aim to not merely represent a scene but to convey a certain amount of emotional content through his painting finds an early, discreet form in Le Champ Lollichon et l'église de Pont-Aven as the artist captures the beguiling nature of the Breton landscape.
Pont-Aven was a perfect haven for the avant-garde artists. Not only was it set amongst mysterious countryside, with a large enough artistic colony to help formulate ideas, but was also a lot cheaper than Paris or any other metropolis. Even with very little money, artists could live there, merely producing art, and not starving. This was an important factor for Gauguin, as 1886, a year that began with his promotion in the banking world, soon brought him failure and financial embarrassment. This misfortune, however, was seminal to his increasing status as a full-time artist. Art was not, however, as lucrative as banking, as Gauguin soon found. Even in Brittany, some money was needed in order to survive. One of Gauguin's lenders was banker Eugène Mirtil. In his new catalogue raisonné of the artist's works, the late Daniel Wildenstein proffered a simple explanation of this painting's provenance: that it was chosen by Mirtil as repayment for a loan. However, Mirtil's son provided a mildly differing elaboration of the story: Gauguin apparently asked him for some money, which Mirtil duly lent, then asked the purpose of the funds. Mirtil was shocked to find that Gauguin merely wished to use it to go to Brittany and paint. However, a year later, it seems that Gauguin returned to Mirtil's office 'dressed as a fisherman' and gave him Le Champ Lollichon et l'église de Pont-Aven on the spot (D. Wildenstein, Gauguin: Premier itinéraire d'un sauvage, vol.I, Paris, 2001, p.280).
Gauguin's final rupture with the Impressionists was caused by Degas' introduction of mediocre artists to the group and Gauguin's own militant refusal to exhibit alongside Monet and Renoir, who had managed to exhibit at the more conservative and academic Salon. He wrote repeated letters of threat and resignation, and finally quit the group completely. Indeed, amongst his Pont-Aven colleagues, he would refer to them as 'the others' and by the end of the year he publicly refused to shake hands with either Signac or his former teacher.
Despite this break, largely caused by his disagreement with the techniques of Neo-Impressionism, Gauguin retained the heavy influence of his former mentor in his work. His subject-matter came increasingly into line with Pissarro's prescriptions, for it was during this particular trip that he began to successfully incorporate human figures in his Breton landscapes. Formerly, they had either been insubstantial - drowned by their surroundings - or ineffective. Now, the women in the field are treated with ease and confidence. This kudos came in part from his obsequious followers in Pont-Aven - Gauguin himself seems to have been surprised at these artists' willingness to treat every morsel of advice and criticism as words from a wise teacher.
His increased confidence also affected his coloration and his appreciation of form. Although Pissarro's influence is overt in these, nonetheless it is clear that Gauguin was beginning to find his own path. The colours, especially the greens and yellows, have an intensity that marks the development of his own idiom. Although, of course, Pissarro sometimes used bright colours, nonetheless colouration itself was to become central to Gauguin's idiom. Likewise, the actual application of the paint both reflects the older artist's continued influence, and the younger man's new appreciation of how to manipulate it. Although in some ways the small dabs of colour are reminiscent of the Pointillism prevalent at the time - and so offensive to Gauguin's tastes - yet here they fill the painting with life. This is not a scientific view of the tones and hues of the countryside scene, but instead an expressive translation, the paint applied with vigour and feeling. Gauguin's aim to not merely represent a scene but to convey a certain amount of emotional content through his painting finds an early, discreet form in Le Champ Lollichon et l'église de Pont-Aven as the artist captures the beguiling nature of the Breton landscape.
Pont-Aven was a perfect haven for the avant-garde artists. Not only was it set amongst mysterious countryside, with a large enough artistic colony to help formulate ideas, but was also a lot cheaper than Paris or any other metropolis. Even with very little money, artists could live there, merely producing art, and not starving. This was an important factor for Gauguin, as 1886, a year that began with his promotion in the banking world, soon brought him failure and financial embarrassment. This misfortune, however, was seminal to his increasing status as a full-time artist. Art was not, however, as lucrative as banking, as Gauguin soon found. Even in Brittany, some money was needed in order to survive. One of Gauguin's lenders was banker Eugène Mirtil. In his new catalogue raisonné of the artist's works, the late Daniel Wildenstein proffered a simple explanation of this painting's provenance: that it was chosen by Mirtil as repayment for a loan. However, Mirtil's son provided a mildly differing elaboration of the story: Gauguin apparently asked him for some money, which Mirtil duly lent, then asked the purpose of the funds. Mirtil was shocked to find that Gauguin merely wished to use it to go to Brittany and paint. However, a year later, it seems that Gauguin returned to Mirtil's office 'dressed as a fisherman' and gave him Le Champ Lollichon et l'église de Pont-Aven on the spot (D. Wildenstein, Gauguin: Premier itinéraire d'un sauvage, vol.I, Paris, 2001, p.280).