In Chicago, a fresh view of Toulouse-Lautrec’s art
A dwarfish cripple of exalted birth, absinthe-sodden and dead at 37, Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec was perhaps the most spectacular peintre maudit of the late 19th century: a doomed dog of modernism, fit for Hollywood. No reputation can quite survive a movie like Moulin Rouge, and ever since its release in 1953 the popular image of Toulouse-Lautrec has been shaped by the sight of Jose Ferrer, legs bound, peering with lugubriously feigned interest up at the boiler-plated buttocks of Zsa Zsa Gabor. Thus Toulouse-Lautrec became one of the few artists most everyone has heard of, a guarantee perhaps that the retrospective of 109 of his paintings, along with a group of his drawings and prints, which opened last week at the Art Institute of Chicago, will be so crammed that the work may be invisible.
If so, a pity: this is an admirable show, finely curated with an exemplary catalogue by Art Historian Charles Stuckey and his assistant Naomi Maurer. It puts one’s attention where it should go—to the work, not the myth.
One enters expecting the familiar recorder of a vanished culture, the cafe and boulevard life of the Belle Epoque, the lowlife of the cabarets, the well-known cast of characters—May Milton, La Goulue, Paul Sescau, Jane Avril. One leaves with an impression of precocious modernity, partly because Lautrec’s caustic and tender view of the world speaks directly to our culture of narcissism. Lautrec’s art was about watching; as Stuckey observes, each figure spins in its own solitude in the midst of the schedules of lust and sociability: “In Lautrec’s paintings glances are only seldom acknowledged or returned. Instead, he diagrams the routines of curiosity and anticipation he observed at public places.” If the stream of life is subdivided into an infinity of fleeting moments, as it is by a culture based on photography, each looks like an actor’s gesture, a pose—or a snapshot. This disarticulation was what Lautrec attempted, and one still marvels at the speed and accuracy of his notation, whether it was real (in his sketch pads) or feigned (in the finished theatrical lithographs). The impression that his drawing of Jane Avril’s kick or Yvette Guilbert’s bow took as little time as the movement itself does not hold for long: one’s admiration for Lautrec’s craft, for the eggshell delicacy of spattered lithographic ink or the exact placement of a complementary color, overrides it. But it lasts just long enough to give a sense of wholly different organization—that the painting or the drawing is based on a precarious, swift sense of the real, exact but friable, quite unlike the formal traditions of European art since the Renaissance. There was nothing expressionistic about Lautrec. He did not revel in the miseries of the soul, and even his most pathetic images come to us across a measured distance and through a focused sense of human absurdity. The painting that summed up Lautrec’s sense of what Baudelaire, another wounded argonaut of the boulevards, called “the heroism of modern life” was At the Moulin Rouge, 1892-95. It is a gathering of Lautrec’s tribe, his best male friends and the cabaret women who were the main characters of his art. It also seems to be Lautrec’s most complete answer to the Parnassian pretensions of French artists’ circles in the ’90s—the kind of high-mindedness he had mocked as a student, ten years before, with an acrid parody of Puvis de Chavannes’s Sacred Grove, into whose pallid scattering of muses he introduced a line of stray moderns from a Paris street, including his stunted self, back turned, urinating on the turf of Parnassus. Lautrec thought the timeless and the eternal a boring joke, and in At the Moulin Rouge he offered the alternative: let the aesthetes dedicate themselves to Higher Thought, but he would stick with gaslight, friends and the fallen soul.
“Heads pass by in the crowd,” wrote a Belgian painter describing the Moulin Rouge in 1893. “Oh, heads green, red, yellow, orange, violet. Vice up for auction. One could put on the door front: People, abandon all modesty here.” This, as Stuckey points out, is almost a verbal postcard of Lautrec’s painting; but anyone who read into its brilliant, sickly jolts of complementary color and its ravaged cast of characters the evidence of moral disapproval would not know his Lautrec. The sheer ingenuity of vision is still astonishing; for instance, how the unstable colors within the group at the table, laced with patches and lines of burning red — the plaid lines of La Macarona’s bodice, the serpentine fur trim of Jane Avril’s coat — are stabilized by the four hatted heads of men receding to the upper left, all in profile, including Lautrec himself, like medallions. Nor is there any more shocking apparition in early modernist painting than the low-lit green-and-yellow mask of May Milton, clashing with Jane Avril’s writhing brioche of red hair, that rears into the right side of the scene.
With this image, the stage is set for Fauvism and the early Matisse. The achievement of this show, in short, is to give us a Lautrec very different from the slumming boulevardier of fiction. It argues, success fully, that he was one of the creators of modernism itself.
Robert Hughes
More Must-Reads from TIME
- Your Vote Is Safe
- The Best Inventions of 2024
- How the Electoral College Actually Works
- Robert Zemeckis Just Wants to Move You
- Column: Fear and Hoping in Ohio
- How to Break 8 Toxic Communication Habits
- Why Vinegar Is So Good for You
- Meet TIME's Newest Class of Next Generation Leaders
Contact us at letters@time.com