Issue Number 86
December 19, 2002
©2002, Charles Giuliano

Charles Giuliano is a Boston based artist, curator and critic. He is an editor of Art New England, contributor to Nyartsmagazine, and the director of exhibitions for The New England School of Art and Design at Suffolk University. He is represented by Flatfiles Gallery in Chicago.

Sugarplum Fairies Cavort at the MFA
Impressions of Light: The French Landscape from Corot to Monet
The Museum of Fine Arts Boston
December 15 through April 13
Co-curated by George Schackelford and Sue Reed

Catalogue with essays by the curators and contributions by David P. Becker, Karen E. Haas, Anne E. Havinga, Joanna Karlgaard, Nicole R. Myers, Rebecca Senf, and Barbara Stern Shapiro, 291 pages, illustrated, MFA Publications.

For ballet companies it is endless performances of the Nutcracker during the holiday season. In the music business there are boxed sets of greatest hits just in time for gift giving. And, for the Museum of Fine Arts, its version of the dance of the Sugarplum Fairies, is yet another ersatz  exhibition of French Impressionist paintings. This time, tarted up in a gay little tutu as, "Impressions of Light: The French Landscape from Corot to Monet," through April 13.

This somewhat sprawling and eclectic survey of 150 paintings, prints, drawings, photographs and sculptures is drawn entirely from the permanent collection of the MFA with its renowned depth in all matters 19th century and French. After that, well, sadly the buck stopped there. Would that the MFA had continued its French mania into the 20th century. The Brahmin trustees had fits when a brave former director had the temerity to acquire Matisse’s nude, "Carmelina," from 1909. One of the trustees resigned stating that the MFA was no longer a proper place to bring his wife and daughters. That put the kibosh on all things modern and the MFA didn’t get around to starting a contemporary department until 1971 when it was pretty much too late.

Some years back, during my first interview with then new MFA director, Malcolm Rogers, he stated emphatically that, "I assure you Charles, I will not be dragging things up from the basement."

This was in response to an accusation of just that in a few ersatz, Frenchoid shows during a time of attempting to balance the books. Well, in hindsight, Malcolm was just kidding or fibbing, because here we are again with one of those basement shows.

But, having toured the exhibition, in all honesty, one has to observe, zowie, what a basement. Many of these works I have never seen before in absolute decades of covering the MFA like a blanket. Just where did they get all this stuff? And, why do they never show it?

In some instances the answer is rather obvious. The work is just marginal, mediocre or ludicrously awful. But then, hindsight is 20-20, and acquisitions that look like stinkers now may have seemed good at the time. The first couple of galleries in this survey are pretty grim. This show gets off to a very slow and tedious start with the likes of Pierre-Henri de Valenciennes, who was quite the rage back in 1790 or so. There are more clunkers as you drag yourself through subsequent galleries with momentum building to a crescendo ending in a gallery with the great works by Monet that are the heart and soul of the MFA holdings. The separate galleries underscore the sub-themes of this overview of 19th century French landscape: The Beginnings of French Landscape, The Barbizon
School, Photography: A New Medium, The Impressionists, Beyond Impressionism.

So, in reality, this is not really a blockbuster show of French Impressionist Painting. It is just pretending. We rather doubt that this bit of legerdemain and marketing will boost tourism in Boston. Don’t bother to call ahead for tickets or book a hotel room. The MFA shouldn’t expect to make much on its smoke and mirrors. As a basement job, with staff curators and writers, however, this show was cheap.

Actually, this is a beefed up version of a road show, "Monet, Renoir and the Impressionist Landscape," which the MFA organized for its partner, The Nagoya/ Boston Museum of Fine Arts in Japan, in 1999. That traveling show went on to the National Gallery of Canada, The Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, and the National Gallery of Ireland.

Having already collected traveling fees, back home, it has been upgraded and recycled.

Now that I have vented on the bah humbug responses it is time to discuss the exhibition itself which is remarkable and stunning on many levels that have nothing to do with marketing and art world politics. There are, indeed, some terrific works on view and the very rare opportunity to see photography, prints and drawings so cleverly and splendidly integrated with the usual suspects in the field of painting. It is a bit mind boggling to encounter such photographers as Atget and Le Gray smack up against sublime monotypes by Degas, or intriguing experiments in the quasi photographic drawing process of cliché verre, by Corot. Or a trial proof print by the pointillist Signac with hand written corrections for the printer. There are many such magical moments for viewers with the time and inclination to find them.

Also, this is not really a show of Impressionism but rather a kind of overview of many aspects of 19th century French art. There is a broad range of work from academic salon artists, to such regional movements as the Barbizon and Pont Aven, the Post Impressionism of van Gogh and Gauguin, the symbolism of Redon, and the pointillism of Signac. This show is begging for a Seurat.

But the MFA doesn’t have one. So there.

It would also have been enticing to see some contemporaneous British landscape. The MFA has choice examples by Constable and Turner. And, over in Cambridge, the Busch Reisinger might have loaned some of its German Romantic and Northern European landscapes. This cloistered show would have us believe that the 19th century landscape is a singularly French accomplishment.

What about the great German artist Casper David Friedrich? Or the writings of the British theorists Burke and Ruskin? They said a lot about the landscape. And what about American landscape from the Hudson River School to the Luminists?

Why always French Impressionist landscapes? As if there were nothing else. Isn’t this more preaching to the converted? How many times can Malcolm draw up buckets from the same well? Isn’t there also the issue of educating and building audiences?

But don’t let me be the grinch. Do by all means get thee to the MFA. There to enjoy. Fun for the whole family. Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. Ho, ho, ho. Or is it Hoe, Hoe, Hoe.

-30-
Y’All Come Back