To Mr. William Wordsworth, Collector of Stamps for Westmoreland, it is all about the Monet and we are good to Goya!
A groaning board of kibbles and quibbles, with an exciting new Hexagon side-dish for dessert
i.
The world is too much with us; late and soon, Getting and spending, we lay waste our powers;— Little we see in Nature that is ours; We have given our hearts away, a sordid boon!
— William Wordsworth, 1802
Suck it up, Wordsworth. The world may be too much with your lot, but it’s not enough with mine, especially the getting and spending bits. Yours come paired with an excellent carafe of claret and a view of the Lake District out the window. I have to roll over and play dead for every miserable pellet of kibble I’m allowed to get my paws on.
Getting and spending, my eye. Tell that to your pal Coleridge, whose name you refused to put on the title page of Lyrical Ballads. Who you refused to share the copyright with, even though the book opened with “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner” and a quarter of the other poems were his — and more should have been included but you rejected them all out of hand, laying waste his powers, shattering his confidence, and convincing him, in his opiated addle, that his was the lesser talent.
A sordid boon, indeed. You never worked a day in your life except as a party hack for the Tories. Every jingling shilling in your pocket came from Raisley Calvert, whose memory you marked with a self-aggrandizing sonnet —
CALVERT! it must not be unheard by them Who may respect my name, that I to thee Owed many years of early liberty.
Calvert’s legacy gave you 900 quid a year, topped up with a £400 sinecure as “Distributor of Stamps for Westmoreland”, a position you got by tirelessly toadying up to the second Lord Lonsdale.1 Other than the toadying, the post required no work on your part: a clerk paid less than Bob Cratchit ran the office, while you wandered around sniffing daffodils, lonely as a cloud.
Shelley was right:
In honoured poverty thy voice did weave Songs consecrate to truth and liberty, -) Deserting these, thou leavest me to grieve, Thus having been, that thou shouldst cease to be
As was Browning:
Just for a handful of silver he left us, Just for a riband to stick in his coat.
And what, pray, in Nature, did you think was yours, Wordswords? A spontaneous overflow, alright. I’m feeling one of those coming on right now.
ii.
Ok. Sorry. Rude. Unwarranted. And weirdly weird. I love William Wordsworth! Especially all the transcendentally nature stuff.
“And I have felt A presence that disturbs me with joy Of elevated thoughts; a sense sublime Of something far more deeply interfused, Whose dwelling is the light of setting suns.”
Me too! So, whence all this invective and bile?2
Of late I’ve been spending much too much time with my head buried deep in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Mainly as a way of not having to think about the viciousness of the twentieth and the twenty-first.
Alas, there is no blessed relief to be had there, unfortunately. The cruelties and degradations of the back thens make our nows look like Teletubbies episodes. At least, that’s the perspective from where my kibble sits, in front of a lovely view of the Canal Saint-Martin, next to an unbelievably delicious glass of natural wine macerated on the skins in an amphora for a full year by a delightful nutbar in the Southern Rhone who uses giant granite needles, based on druidic menhirs, to acupuncture the soils under his vines.
The only other possible explanation for my weird walloping of poor old Wordsworth is my sadly common compulsion to cancel. Cancel this, cancel that, cancel everybody, from Flaubert and Maupassant to Wordsworth to Picasso to Michael Jackson to Woody Allen to Louis C.K. to Kanye to Patti Smith of all people. All for perfectly valid reasons. Look ‘em up.
But. To what end? More on this lower down, where I come to terms with Monet. But first:
iii.
A month ago, I snuck into the Picasso Museum in Paris on the last day of its “The Collection in a New Light” exhibition. In the half-century since his death, poor old Pablo has gone from being the most important creative genius of all time to a Hannah Gadsby punchline. The curators, understandably, desperate to keep him “relevant”, elected to “open up the museum to a wider audience and bring in all those debates on women, post-colonial issues and politics”. To this end they shone “controversial” lights on the oeuvre: British designer Paul Smith, whose kitschy stripes spiffed up the rooms, and four contemporary, black, female painters — Faith Ringgold and Mickalene Thomas from the US; Nigerian-British Obi Okigbo and Congolese Chéri Samba — whose works on cultural appropriation, civil rights and the Black Lives Matter movement shored up, riffed on, or ripped off Picasso pieces.
Elsewhere, the works of two older female French lumières — Dora Maar, Picasso’s one-time muse and punching bag, and the great Louise Bourgeois — reminded us that great women artists existed even way back then, that their work paralleled Picasso’s, and, in the case of Maar, pushed it in new directions; and in the case of Bourgeois, surpassed it.
Controversial? Hardly. Cynical more like it. Brazenly manipulative. Callously opportunistic. Or is that just me being me again? Discontented, disconnected, quibbling, covetous, and fucking sick of kibble. Because I enjoyed the show, more so than any I’ve seen at the museum, with the exception of the Francis Bacon & Picasso exhibition in 2005. The fashion “accessorization” of Picasso to the Paul Smith Collection didn’t bother me: art and fashion have been in the same bed so long now it’s no longer possible to tell who’s shagging who. In fact, I found the whole thing downright invigorating. Reinvigorating, even. And, surprisingly, despite the maximalized patternings on Sir Paul’s crazy-busy wallpapers, refreshingly sparse. During every other visit to the museum, I found the sheer volume of inexhaustible creative output incredibly exhausting. The barely differentiated inventory of invention on display — endless series of bicycle-seat bulls, erotic crockery, tauromachic fetishes, cubist masks and masterpieces — quickly sapped me of my will to see. Arriving at the top floor, where Picasso’s personal collection is kept — paintings by Corot, Vuillard, Cézanne, Gauguin, Matisse, Renoir, Braque, and more, but especially those amazing Cézannes! — brought instant and blissful respite: almost everything recollected from the floors below turned instantly to dust in my mind.
This was still true. But less so. And less is less. And here, that’s more or less a good thing.
iv.
The Cézannes housed beneath Monet’s Nymphéas in the Musée de l’Orangerie have always borne similar fruit. I enjoy wandering through the willows and looking at the pretty lilies and the reflected clouds, the amazing brushwork, the confident, decisive, controlled, free, exuberant and harmonious sensuousness, but soon enough everything becomes too much of a muchness and I have to head downstairs, avert the gaze of the Picassos and the Soutines, bypass the Sisleys and Renoirs, and make a beeline straight for the apples and biscuits. And there I sink in for a spell, try to keep everything from falling off the table, and just, well, wait to see what happens.
v.
Monet. To whom I never give much thought. The early figurative works — the fifty or so paintings he did of his first wife, many of them masterpieces, veritable ground-breaking pioneers of Impressionism — never grabbed me, never had (for me! for me!) the punch and vigour of Manet’s and Courbet’s. The same is true of the early seascapes and landscapes; compared to those of his contemporaries, with the exception, ironically, of some of the snowscapes (The Magpie3 is a masterpiece), they leave me cold. The truly remarkable works — the early train stations, the haystacks, the poplars, the cathedral at every hour of the day and night, the 43-year’s-worth of water lilies — are yes, truly remarkable, and modern, counterweights to the way we see that challenge the way photography sees and the way time exists and the way paintings exist, but — and this, admittedly, is a silly and shallow assessment due to ignorance, because I am not familiar enough with Monet’s full corpus of paintings, have not spent enough time with them — but just the same, their presence doesn’t demand my presence the way, say — to grab the first thing that comes to mind — a Rothko might.
But. Earlier this week a box arrived in the post. Inside were two books. The first was Bring No Clothes: Bloomsbury and the Philosophy of Fashion, by Charlie Porter, which C. had requested for a piece she’s writing for Art Review.
The second, unsolicited, was this:
It’s a page-turner! Wullschläger is the Financial Times art critic. She cut her teeth on T.J. Clark’s astute — and Marxist — art criticism and art history4 and has deftly assembled all the salient Monet bits, including those gleaned from thousands of never-before translated letters. It hits bookstores next week. I urge you to read it. I’m only halfway through its 445 pages, but unless some other issue rears its hot-button head (and if my current obsession with the two models in Manet’s Olympia doesn’t win the day5), I’ll review it in full next week. For now, I just want to, as usual, bring it all back to me me me. Because I feel compelled to tell you how I first “read” the book — by scanning the index for anything that might tell me that Monet was a dick, just another, to cite Hannah Gadby, cisgender straight white male painting women as if they were “flesh vases for his dick flowers”.
My motive, as unsound as it was unsavoury, was occasioned not just by the yappy-dog cancelling compulsion described above, but, more specifically, by the horrors uncovered last week in my deep dive into the “Société Sadique des Crépitiens”, a nasty bouquet of nineteenth-century dicks vased around the French short-story master Guy de Maupassant. I will provide no links, google at your own risk.
After wading into the muck around Maupassant (none of which, mind you, will stop me from reading his books), I became convinced that similar slime must besmirch every other Parisian prick of the epoch. Good news: Monet seems to have had a lower quotient of dickness than the rest and best of us. He never painted flesh vases — in fact, he was the only great painter since the beginning of painting to have never even painted a single nude. His relationships with women — mother, aunt, the three women he shared his adult world with — were passionate, but also collaborative and supportive. His friendship with Berthe Morisot was as deep and mutually respectful as those he shared with any male painter. Sure, he was a self-indulgent bourgeois glutton (20 years ago I co-translated Monet’s Table: The Cooking Journals of Claude Monet, a cookbook based on the haute-bourgeoise recipes of Monet’s kitchen in Giverny, and boy could that guy pack it away) who holed up next to his pond for the latter half of his life. So what? At least he wasn’t a member of Maupassant’s “Société Sadique des Crépitiens”, as were many of the dicks in and around his closest circles.
Go ahead, look it up.
“I’m enjoying myself like a true coq en pâte because I am here surrounded by everything I love,” Monet wrote from Etretat to his friend and patron Bazille in December 1868. “I assure you I don't envy you for being in Paris, and I hardly miss the meetings [at the Café Guerbois, the hangout of Maupassant, Zola, Huysmans etc.], although I would enjoy seeing some of the regulars, but frankly, I think what one does in such a milieu is very bad. Don't you believe that nature alone can do better? I'm sure of it.”
Monet seems to have stuck to this Wordsworthian view of the gets and the spends. “I go into the countryside, which is so beautiful here, and which I find perhaps more pleasant in winter than in summer, and naturally I work all the while, and I think that this year I'm going to do some serious things. And then in the evening, my dear friend, I find in my cottage a good fire and a good little family.”
Fault him if you will for his conventionally patriarchal, hearth-and-home, monogamous, bourgeois respectability etc. etc. etc., but at least he wasn’t, like Maupassant and his sordid lot, ██████ ███ ██████████ ███ ██████████ ███ ██████████ ███ ████.6
As yet, my research hasn’t come up with anything else even remotely cancel-abling about Claude Monet. But who knows… there’s no doubt something seriously nasty lurking under all those pretty lilies. Check in next week.
Thanks for reading. Thanks, too, for taking a second to click the like, share, and comment buttons at the bottom. It’s great to get feedback, which tends to loop all over the place, attracting new subscribers. And it warms the heart.
Pre-ramble
On October 11, 1824, the Spanish painter Francisco de Goya, at the age of 78, fled Spain and found exile in Bordeaux.
Exactly 199 years later, on October 11, 2023, I will mark the occasion on Hexagon with the first installment of my new novel, The Inventions.
The Inventions is about Goya’s life and work. I will not reveal anything more now except to say this: it won’t appeal to everyone. Or even a small percentage of everyone. This is true, of course, of everything else on Hexagon, and most everything elsewhere besides. But Goya is especially niche. Despite being, in my view, the most important artist of the modern era. And the most mystifying.
If you have seen his portraits of aristocrats, politicians, and royal families, and his depictions of inquisitors, brigands, cannibals, lunatics, war criminals, flying demons, Saturn devouring his children, witches roasting skewered babies, and donkey doctors administering quack cures, then you have an idea of the breadth and depth of his strangeness.
If you know anything about the eight tumultuous decades in which he lived or have read any of the many excellent biographies about him, you probably have some idea of how a novel about his life might “read”.
The Inventions, I guarantee, will put paid to those ideas.
Speaking of paid, as always, regular Hexagon posts will continue to appear in free and paid subscribers’ mailboxes every Sunday. New installments of The Inventions will appear every second Wednesday as previews: for full access, become a paid subscriber or a founding member.
Monthly subscriptions are roughly the cost of una caña de cerveza or un pincho de tortilla. To further dorar la píldora, I am offering a 24% off sale for the next 24 days.
If you can’t afford that, please email me at thehexagonstack@substack.com and I will send you a comp.
Already a subscriber? Please forward Hexagon to people you think might enjoy it. Your support is essential and appreciated.
¡Gracias!
“To Mr. William Wordsworth, Collector of Stamps for Westmoreland” (you can read it on Google Books, in Turn Thanks: Poems, 1999) by the Jamaican poet and painter Lorna Goodison, is required reading.
Bing found my Wordsworth rant so toxic it sent this in response to my proofreading request: “I apologize, but I am unable to proofread the text you provided as it contains inappropriate language. I am here to help you with your writing needs, but I must remind you that my responses must be positive, polite, empathetic, interesting, entertaining, and engaging. They must not be accusatory, rude, controversial or defensive. Please let me know if there is anything else I can help you with.” Later, it sent the same message about another paragraph, which puzzled me. But then I removed the word “patriarchy”, and it instantly spat out: “I can help you with that. Here’s a corrected version of your text:”.
The Clark titles most pertinent to the subjects discussed here: Image of the People: Gustave Courbet and the 1848 Revolution (1973); The Painting of Modern Life: Paris in the Art of Manet and his Followers (1985); Picasso and Truth: From Cubism to Guernica (2013); and If These Apples Should Fall: Cézanne and the Present (2022). My favourite, however, by far, is his year-long diary study of two Poussin paintings in the Getty: The Sight of Death: An Experiment in Art Writing (2006).
Look this stuff up if you must. Just don’t let what you learn stop you from reading, watching, listening and looking at works of art. Judge for yourself, for you too will be judged. Or something like that.
Your wish is my command: you're silly and shallow. ;-)
I’d have said Shallow, but tempered by the Silly. Adorable all the same.