more likely is that there were forces at play central to life in Haussmann’s Paris. Marcus suggests these include the alienation of modernity, a concern with hygiene, and a shift in the training of architects. Reviewing these forces offers additional readings of late-19th-century paintings and reinforces the need for private space in the bourgeoning industrial, consumerist city.
11 Ibid., 139.
In Interior, Woman at the Window, the woman stands in front of glass doors that were common in Haussmann’s Paris; similar glass doors are visible in the neighboring building and in Young Man at His Window. The reference to Haussmann’s Paris is notable because the Haussmannization of Paris was an alienating experience for many residents. With the radical changes made to the urban fabric in a short time, it is understandable that a home’s interior became a focus of control and personalization. Marcus points out that the commercial spaces encouraged by Haussmann inspired a focus on the interior.11 Fierro offers a similar sentiment: “the gaze of the public became anonymous, passive and truly modern in its alienated disaffection.”12 With this in mind, Interior, Woman at the Window can also be read as a general testament to the alienation and disillusionment of modern life. The portrayal of the window underlines this sentiment. While the glass window is physically transparent, in the painting it acts as a barrier against the city outside. Perhaps the couple in the painting is shown indoors as a reaction to the shocking change to the city. The tight cropping that blocks the figures from being whole human beings supports this reading.
15 Marcus, Apartment Stories, 159.
Given that domestic windows are conduits between the interior and exterior of the home, they can be discussed in the context of hygiene in mid- to late-19th century Paris. Marcus points to an 1852 domestic manual to illustrate that the home was no longer seen as a place of enjoyment but a battle zone with dirt and disease. Women were the commanders protecting the family from dirt. The manual recommends that windows should be shuttered to keep out the sun and the concept of a “hermetically sealed lair of domesticity” was promoted.13 This is not entirely farcical. Illness was a terrible reality. For example, Caillebotte lost his father and brother within two years and was greatly afraid of his own death.14 In this light, Little Girl in a Blue Armchair and Interior, Young Woman at the Window could be seen as narratives on the isolation needed to protect oneself from disease or a quarantine to stop a disease from spreading. Marcus also points to the training of architects after the 1840s as a reason for the private, secluded space. She explains that architects were trained to treat domestic spaces as interiorized and as private as possible. A prescriptive manner was outlined in architectural education. Architects were trained to see the home as a sanctuary from the excitements of the city. For example, Marcus points out that trompe l’œil was no longer encouraged in the interior in case it excited the nerves.15 With this sense
34
belvedere
volume 1
12 Fierro, The Glass State, 24. 13 Marcus, Apartment Stories, 150. 14 Broude, “Outing Impressionism,” 127.
16 Susan Sidlauskas, “Contesting Femininity: Vuillard’s Family Pictures,” The Art Bulletin 79, no. 1 (March 1997): 107.
of privacy in mind, Little Girl in a Blue Armchair and Interior, Young Woman at the Window could be seen in a different way. Due to the strong association of women with the home, the confining atmosphere for women is perhaps a general statement about the home as a safe haven from the city rather than only a statement about the confinement of women. Either way, there is a sense of a private, interiorized space in these paintings, underlined by how the windows are portrayed. Up to this point, I have outlined a clear dichotomy between public, masculine space that emphasizes transparency and openness and domestic, feminine space that emphasizes confinement and seclusion. I also offered several reasons for this clear differentiation associated with the nineteenth century. Reviewing Edouard Vuillard’s painting titled The Suitor confuses the clear dichotomy. It is well known that Vuillard’s mother ran a corset shop out of their home. Like the mixture of domestic and commercial space that such a shop would entail, Vuillard’s painting is a mixture of clear and opaque features. One possibility is that the two women are working and the man visible in the background is a voyeur. An alternative narrative isthat the man represents frivolous leisure in contrast to the industrious women. Susan Sidlauskas reveals that the woman standing erect is Vuillard’s sister and the man is her future husband.16 Similar to Young Man at His Window, the window is wide open but unlike the other painting, Vuillard’s woman is not in a position of empowerment. The waist of the woman at the window makes a right angle. Perhaps she is doubled over to convey the hard physical labor of preparing large swathes of fabric for sewing. Wet cloth is heavy and it would take skill to hang it out the window without dropping it or falling out of the window herself. But a more nuanced look at the painting reveals a more complex scene. There are several elements beyond the narrative that encourage a deeper reading. Calling upon Pollock’s analysis of pictorial space, it is notable that there are at least two different perspectives in this painting. The chair and table in the foreground are on a different plane from the remainder of the painting creating a sense of confusion. The patterning also has a blending effect that makes the forms harder to distinguish from each other. For instance, the open door shades the wallpaper, which blends in with the dress of the woman at the table. Additionally, the sky outside is portrayed as a pattern of white dots and obscures whatever is outside the window. Unlike Young Man at His Window where the view is a main focus of the painting, the view is not expansive or inviting. The window in Vuillard’s painting prompts a discussion about the same historical forces mentioned above. In response to the alienation of modernity, Vuillard’s specific style of patterning can be seen as a device used to personalize and internalize an interior space. Instead of painting a purely representational image, Vuillard’s painting becomes an exploration of personal experience perhaps in response to the alienation of the modernization of Paris. In relation to hygiene, the window is wide open but it is
Beyond Transparency: A Discussion Around Glass in 19th-Century Paris
35