Use of Glass by Camille and Pissarro in Crystal Palace - Essay Example

Use of glass by Camille and Pissarro in Crystal Palace (Name) (Institution) (Course) (Module) (Instructor’s Name) 11th September 2009 Camille Pissarro was a French painter born on 10 July 1830 in St. Thomas, Virgin Islands in France. His father, Abraham Gabriel Pissarro, was a Portuguese Sephardic Jew and his mother, Rachel Manzano-Pomié was from the Dominican Republic. He developed an interest in art as early as at the age of 12 during which he showed much interest in anarchism. By 1850’s he was travelling around the world to various institutions to study art. He thus met with a number of painters who were later to have an influence on his paintings. The most influential ones are considered to be Charles-Francois Daubigny, Gustave Courbet and Jean-Baptiste-Camille Corot in Paris1. One of his early paintings, Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, exudes a naturalism aspect a characteristic common Courbet paintings. Together with his family, Pissarro moved to London in 1870 to flee the Franco-Prussian war. In London he settled in the Upper Norwood, modern day Crystal Palace. While in London, he produced several paintings including the famous Crystal Palace before moving back to Paris. His paintings were largely impressionist thus he was to be dubbed the father of impressionism.2 The Crystal Palace was a building constructed in 1850 in Hyde Park London, to house the Great Exhibition of 1851 before it was relocated to Sydenham. The building marked a very important phase in the history of architecture. He says that its method of construction rather than design was its main attribute. This is because the building was constructed under haste and he designer of the building, Joseph Paxton was not even an architect by profession but rather a gardener and greenhouse expert. Paxton’s experience in green houses, his innovativeness and clear thinking were the basic ingredient for the building’s sketch that was produced in ten days. While the building was meant to house the display and exhibitions of great industrial development of that time, the building itself turned out to be England’s biggest exhibition (Bretwell, 1999). According to Lieberman (1969), “the building itself displayed the vision, determination, wealth, technical knowledge and powers of production of the nation.” (P.1). Again, the building was to be constructed with glass, steel and wooden beams with no solid brick walls as conventional buildings back then. Paxton’s idea in using glass mainly lay on ensuring enough lighting of the interior and also that glass would be easily assembled as there was not enough time for construction. His first sketch of the building (fig 1) was done on a blotting paper during a railway board meeting.3 First sketch for the Great Exhibition Building by Sir Joseph Paxton. Paxton’s idea of using glass in the building was heavily criticised by engineers and architects. His experience in greenhouses made of glass was viewed as not sufficient as the planned exhibition gallery was very large. The contemporary architects were concerned that the building would not be strong enough to last long or even endure strong winds and snow storms. By then glass was only used for windows and relatively small green houses like the ones Paxton was used to making. The story of construction of that building was in part a fairly tale and a piece of magic as it was labelled by the commentators back then.4 In fact, it is noted that in the advanced stages of the construction, the constructors used to charge the public to view the ongoing works. After completion, the magnificent art of work housed over 13,000 exhibits and viewed by over 6,200,000 visitors. After the exhibition over, it was pulled down and reconstructed at Sydenham Park as earlier agreed between the constructors and the authority responsible for the exhibition. At Sydenham Park, Camille Pissarro painted the building in 1871 and named it the Crystal Palace, same as the building. Debate in the world of art has bee rife on how the painting and the actual sketch or building approached the use of glass. Pissarro is rumoured to have struggled with the painting producing about 12 miniature paintings before he could settle on a final one.5 Pissarro’s choice of the building as his painting subject and the way he represented the glass structure in oil is very different from Paxtons views. This paper seeks to show how the sketch and the painting approached the use of glass from Paxton’s and Pissarro’s point of view. The Crystal Palace, anonymous The Crystal palace has received relatively low level criticism since its no longer exists after it burned down completely in 1936. While the painting exists, it is possible that the structure’s review is carried out using Camille’s painting where the representation of glass is different from the original and hence there might be misplaced similarity or differences.6 Pissarro’s Crystal Palace painting consists of translucent shades of grey that emphasizes the tonal subtlety of the low-lying clouds in the skyline. According to Lieberman (1969) and Rewald (1938) this is common among artists aligned to impressionism. Impressionists was a loosely organised art movement that comprised of Paris based artists whose paintings were largely characterised by visible brush strokes, free flow of though, depiction of movement as a crucial element of human perception and experience, prominence of light in its varying qualities more so in reference to time, everyday subject matter themes, the inclusion of movement, and remarkable visual perspectives and angles. At the time of construction, glass could only be produced in small pieces though larger than building bricks and stones in use by then. As such, Paxton viewed that using glass would require less time that it would be needed for making stone and brick walls. Lieberman (1969), says that the largest glass plate that could be produced enmasse measured 49 X 30 inches. However, Paxton preferred work with measurements that he had experience in and thus he opted to use 49 X 10 inches measurements same as ones he had used in making the Chartsworth Lily House. Paxton emphasis on this emanates from the fact that he preferred to work with what he already new existed and thus staying away from new inventions of measurements whose suitability had not been tested. Fast forward to what was to be reproduced of this building in paint by Pissaro shows that the painter in the same way as his fellow impressionists steered away from imaginary matter, whose existence or suitability for use either in real life or in painting was not proven. At that time, contemporary artists had taken to painting what was in their mind rather than duplicate what already exists in the physical world. Also, in the case of Paxton, architects believed that glass would not be fit for use in building a structure of such importance and size.7 Fig 1. The Crystal Palace (1871), London by Camille Pissarro Paxton’s experience with glasswork was a sort of a coincidence. Born of a poor family in 1803, he had little or no hope of formal training due to financial limitations. At age twenty, he was employed by the Royal Horticultural Society as a gardener. The duke of Devonshire happened to own the neighbouring Chatsworth and was not only impressed by Paxton’s gardening skill but his intelligence and friendly nature. He thus hired him to be the head gardener at Chatsworth. With an extremely imaginative mid, Paxton transformed the Duke’s gardens into the finest in England thereby winning his admiration even further. With time, a friendship between the two developed and he even became the financial advisor to the Duke who was interested in railway business. Though the Duke’s influence, Paxton was soon to feature in railway board. With his earnings, published many articles in gardening and horticulture and even founded a newspaper.8 However, Paxton remained a gardener employed by the Duke of Chatsworth. In his reign as the head gardener, Paxton designed and oversaw the erection of several glass greenhouses with the Great Conservatory measuring 277 feet long, 123 wide and 163 feet high being the largest glass building in the world by then. It is clear that what Paxton was sought in making his designs according to Lloyd was the functions of the building rather than the existing values and rules governing building and construction then. He supports his views on Paxton by quoting his works in building The Lily House which was another greenhouse made in Chatsworth in honour of the Queen to house an exotic South American Lily called Victoria Regia. Lieberman (1969) also adds that this house had a very unique roof consisting of glass panes set at a series of angles to make ridges and furrows. The roof had also “Paxton gutters” supported by wooden beams and iron columns. Paxton is said to have derived the idea of this roof design from a lily’s pad structure which made it broad yet very light and strong. Other structures designed by Paxton had an element of uniqueness not witnessed any where else. As a result, most of his designs were viewed sceptically by trained architects and engineers.9 Pissarro’s paintings, like those of other impressionists emphasised that the eye must confront the temporary appearance by highlighting quality and creativity in the piecework. One author notes that a commentator criticised Pissarros’s Salon painting saying that the artist had used his “robust and exuberant talent specifically.”10 The author goes ahead and says that Pissarro’s ideas in painting were obvious to the commoner and even easier to understand. In fact he says that the paintings needed little study as they were self explanatory. In that respect, Pissarro captured current issues then and put them on canvas. Most notable is the fact that as early as 1873, some of his paintings captured industrialization in form of factories which he represented as “neither as dark, satanic, mills nor as harbingers of technological progress, but simply as elements denied nor unduly emphasised, within an admirable, contemporary pictorial motif.”11 In the same manner of capturing industrialization, Pissarro was also capturing the use of glass as a major component in building and not as something used to fill a hole in a wall but as a wall itself. Pissarro J. (1993) is quoted to say of his paintings that Pissarro's attachment to freedom extended into specifically technical aspects. Not only is it impossible to classify his style into neat chronological categories, but furthermore, his style often varies even within the same painting: his brushwork techniques, together with his compositional devices, seldom follow a single formulaic pattern within any given work12. Pissaro J. compares Upper Norwood, Crystal Palace London of 1870, and The Siesta, Eragny and realises that each of these paintings represented its own technique chromatically and compositionally. In addition each work displays at least four or five juxtaposed and unique techniques. This is summarised as, The speckled surface in the foreground of Upper Norwood Crystal Palace, London and its rather tight, agitated brushwork are in stark contrast with the more ample, serene swirls of paint that make up the sky; these in turn are offset by the smooth, homogeneous, earthy blocks of paint that form the sidewalks; all this, in turn, is heightened by many regular touches of paint which, in combination, suggest small, cubical units of architecture in the central part of the painting.13 Pissarro J. (1993) also noted that the works of the older Pissaro differed greatly in technique and juxtaposition. This emphasises on Pissarro’s view of freedom of the brush and the mind. Therefore, his painting of the Crystal Palace was capturing the imagination and creativity of another person’s work. As earlier stated, people were excited by Pissarro’s design of the Crystal Palace as its construction went on to say that the building was rising up magically. The magic in the building point to the fact that Paxton had been experimental and enjoyed enough mental freedom to allow him to picture a building of that size made purely of glass, wooden beams and iron columns that never existed before. Therefore, it is easy to note that while Paxton was busy defying contemporary thinking that favoured brick and stone in building, Pissaro would later be bold enough to capture the free mind of Paxton expressed through the design of the Crystal Palace.14 Paxton and Pissarro will remain as two of the greatest figures in architecture and art respectively. However, the common thing about them is that they dared deviate from the ordinary into what they believed in. In the designing of the Crystal Palace, Paxton believed that glass suited the purpose due to the urgency of the work, lighting and aerations needs, urgency of construction, weight of the material, space saved from if bricks were to be used, ease of demolition and for aesthetic purposes. On the other hand, Pissarro’s approach to the use of glass was mainly in applying his techniques and free mind in painting as shown by all his paintings which showed different levels of techniques. Therefore, to Pissarro, the glass afforded him a new painting technique and also an opportunity to chronologically capture the development of glass as a major building material through Paxton’s works. References Artchive, (2009) Camille Pissarro, (Online). Available: http://www.artchive.com/artchive/P/pissarro.html Bretell, R. (1999) Modern art, 1851-1929: capitalism and representation, London: Oxford University Press, Lieberman, R. (1969), The Crystal Palace: A late twentieth century view of its changing place architectural history and criticism. Llyod, C. (1986) Studies on Camille Pissarro, London: Routledge Rewald, J. 1938. Camille Pissarro: His Work and Influence, The Burlington magazine, JSTOR database (Online). Victoria and Albert Museum (2009. The Great Exhibition, The Crystal Palace, (Online). Available:http://www.vam.ac.uk/collections/periods_styles/features/great_exhibition/crystal_palace/index.html Victorian Station, (2009), The Great Exhibition at the Crystal Palace, http://www.victorianstation.com/palace.html Ward, M. (1996). Pissarro, Neo-impressionism, and the spaces of the avant-garde, Chicago: University of Chicago Press Read More