Week Five

                If we were to judge by the works of Caillebotte that we have been looking at, we could say the "modern" cityscape replaces the Parisian's need for nature.  The new city was admirable and a marvel. It deserved recognition, and the architecture was worth looking at and painting. In the works we looked at, citizens went for strolls in the city, on the street, looked down from a building -- they did not have people out for walks in the woods or enjoying a lakeside. Caillebotte did paint some situations outside the realm of city life, be it out in a lake or garden or inside a home.  But the city provided so much potential for man to create and dominate. The modernization of Paris was a conscious decision to represent the capabilities of man.  A lot of it was dependent on only one man, making it even more awe-inspiring. The idea of man wandering about Paris was supposed to infer that the man can do anything, accomplish what he wants and experience life. The new modern city meant that life and living was supposed to be easier. Caillebotte painted cityscapes that effectively described the awesomeness of the new Paris.

                But then, Caillebotte used human subjects that resented the opposite reaction from mankind.  Paris advancements seemed to stunt his characters. This new place was beyond what Caillebotte's men were capable of.  It had surpassed their aspirations; there was nothing left to hope for, and their dreams became pointless and therefore unattainable. In Pont de l'Europe, the city and architecture fills up a lot of the space and creates a vast depth.  The city is so much beyond what Caillebotte's figures could imagine accomplishing. A man leans against the largest, darkest architecture Caillbotte included, apparently intimidated into depression or at least sulkiness. You cannot help but imagine him sighing, resigned to the daunting nature of the city. Or maybe the sigh is from longing for something more.  Either way, the artist decided city life was too much for this man to handle with a cheerful attitude.

                Not only are his characters' dreams dashed, but Caillebotte stunted their social aspirations as well. Frequently, the figures in his paintings are in close proximity, appearing as though they should be interacting with each other, but he does not actually give them the desired connections and relationships. For example, in Paris Street: a Rainy Day, there is a man and a woman sharing an umbrella walking toward the viewer as a man is walking toward them.  The couple are not looking at the man approaching them or even willing to face his direction. Not only that, but, despite obviously being connected, the couple is not really interacting with themselves.  The man has his arm out for the woman, so they are definitely together, and they might be looking at the same thing off to the left, and they are sharing an umbrella, but there is still space between them.  They are not talking with each other, and it does not look as though they are out to enjoy the day together.  In fact, the man seems to be ahead of the woman and pointedly looking away from her.  Possibly, Caillebotte imagined this man wanted to use this walk as a chance to distance himself from the woman.  Happy couples out for a stroll tend to walk a lot closer to each other, especially when sharing an umbrella.

                Both of these works use colder colors. Generally, the paintings we looked at use grayer colors or a more monotonous color scheme than those of the Impressionists. Purposefully or not, Caillebotte integrated depression in these compositions, which is not surprising when we realize that his family was dying off as he was painting them. It is quite possible that he and his family perhaps death with their losses by isolating themselves.  Life probably felt lonelier and lonelier as time went on. This was a possible contributor to the loneliness and isolation exposed in his cityscapes.

                Placing his works into historical context and ignoring his personal life, I would assume that Caillebotte was just depicted what he observed in real city life. At the time, Impressionists were interested in painting what their eyes saw instead of the ideas or subjects our brains interpret, and Realists were insisting on showing everyday situations instead of the idealized. It only makes sense that Caillebotte would paint depressed people in the city because he saw depressed people in the city.  Maybe he did, and maybe he did not. I cannot say for sure. But, unlike the Impressionists he was associated with, Caillebotte's works were planned out ahead of time, showing he thought of his compositions as more than an observation.  He valued his subjects and his subject matter. The city impressed him. The people depressed him.