The 1900 Universal World Exhibition in Paris: The Splendors of The Third Republic

Publikacja Eleonory Jedlińskiej „Powszechna Wystawa Światowa w Paryżu w 1900 roku. Splendory Trzeciej Republiki” to obszerna monografia jednej z najważniejszych wystaw światowych schyłku XIX w., prowadzących w wiek XX. Dziewiętnastowieczne wystawy, swoisty fenomen cywilizacji europejskiej, służyły głównie pokazaniu osiągnięć nauki i jej zastosowań w przemyśle, choć ważnym ich elementem były dzieła sztuki, traktowane jako wyraz syntezy materii i ducha nowych czasów. Eksponowały osiągnięcia techniczne, umożliwiały konfrontację postaw artystycznych. Polscy historycy sztuki zabiegali o udział w wystawach artystów polskich – często była to jedyna możliwość zaprezentowania ich dorobku w Europie i w Stanach Zjednoczonych. W ówczesnej sytuacji politycznej właśnie tak starano się przemycić świadectwa trwania polskości w sferze kultury. Zasadniczą treść książki (napisanej przez historyka sztuki) stanowią problemy artystyczne, którym towarzyszą zagadnienia historyczne, socjologiczne, polityczne i filozoficzne, kształtujące postawy społeczne końca XIX w. Obszerne fragmenty dotyczą obecności na wystawie 1900 r. artystów polskich – ich dzieł i roli w kształtowaniu świadomości istnienia Polski. Publikacja zawiera kilkadziesiąt wyjątkowych zdjęć z 1900 r. oraz współczesne fotografie najważniejszych obiektów architektonicznych Paryża, powstałych na Wystawę Światową. Bogactwo ilustracji, przedstawiających rzadko reprodukowane dzieła sztuki z licznych muzeów na świecie sprawia, że książka może być atrakcyjnym źródłem ikonograficznym. „Prezentowana książka jest jedyną tak dokładną monografią jednego z serii wydarzeń w dziejach cywilizacji europejskiej, jakimi były wystawy światowe. Wybrana została wystawa 1900 roku, przełomowa dla dojrzewających przez cały XIX wiek tendencji politycznych, naukowych i kulturalnych, wyrażających niespełnione nadzieje. Narastające konflikty wkrótce doprowadziły do wybuchu I wojny światowej”.The present book is devoted mainly to problems in the presentation and interpretation of architecture and the fine arts at and ‘alongside’ the Universal World Exposition in Paris in 1900. Also touched upon are the epoch-making issues which shaped the ideas behind the world expositions. We consider, among others, such problems as: an outline of the expositions’ genesis, the first attempts at exhibition of industrial goods from various countries as a form of international rivalry, reception of the watchwords of Enlightenment rationalism at the beginning of the 19th century, the influence of the Industrial Revolution, and the universal exhibitions as a realization of the ideas of Count Henri de Saint-Simon. The world expositions became a model for the realization of Saint-Simon’s thought, in which the creations of human thought and handiwork, as well as the power and authority of money, were demonstrated. The Count’s heirs were fascinated by the colonization of unknown lands, deserts and seas; colonization was supposed to cause economic development, and even just the carrying out of colonization gave these activities a political and philosophical dimension. The first French Exposition, organized during the revolution in 1798, was essentially a type of folk festival, and all of the later expositions retained a similar character. The initial intent of the endeavor’s organizers was to create a peculiar sort of fair which was meant to celebrate the decision to abolish the guild restrictions that had been brought on by the successive decrees of the Great French Revolution. The exposition fulfilled a propaganda role; it focused Europe’s attention not only on Napoleon’s conquests, but also on France’s industrial and cultural potential. After this modest exhibition – in comparison to those which came after it – Paris was to host exhibitors from various corners of France 11 more times; six times, it was the host of events in which goods from almost the entire world were presented. Polish participation in the exhibitions was initially insignificant. As exhibitors, inhabitants of the Austrian and Prussian partitions – as well as Poles living in exile – could display their products and artworks, representing the states in which they were currently living. The participation of Polish artists was considerably more visible than that of Polish industrialists. A success for France was the exposition organized in 1889, on the 100th anniversary of the Great French Revolution. While it was officially ignored by Great Britain and other kingdoms, it did nonetheless attract exhibitors from almost the entire world. The aim of the exposition was to display the achievements of France and the rest of the world over the century that had passed since the outbreak of the Revolution. However, the great European monarchies (understandably) did not appear inclined to participate in celebration of the year 1789. France presented itself as a country which had revolutionized the lives of its citizens, making almost universal use of electricity, which was treated as a great technical achievement and prospect for the world. The participation of Polish artists in this impressive exposition was modest, disproportionate to their real achievements; the artworks were included in the collection presented by the ‘Partition countries’ in a chaotic manner, paying no attention to the movements and trends with which the artists were associated. Among the Russian art, such world-renowned Polish artists as Siemiradzki were missing. In the Austrian pavilion as well, young artists with Polish roots were not shown. Among the paintings sent to Paris, there were none by young painters from Galicia: Jacek Malczewski, Kazimierz Pochwalski, Wojciech Kossak, Witold Pruszkowski, Julian Fałat. Celebrations of the 400th anniversary of the discovery of America were graced by the world exposition in Chicago in 1892; it was this city which was the host. Poles, not having the opportunity to demonstrate their achievements in industry, agriculture or commerce as representatives of their own country, made their national and cultural affiliation felt, displaying artworks by their most outstanding artists. Art, along with the issues it raised concerning Poles’ efforts toward national liberation, became the most important voice speaking of their existence and involvement in the civilizational development of the world. Many Polish artists, displaying their work at international exhibitions, attempted to indicate their national affiliation. Together, they worked out ways to enable reception of their œuvre as a whole characterizing their separate national identity. They made efforts for their works not to represent the Partition powers. The organization in Chicago of an exhibition of Polish art as an independent national exposition met with strong protests from the government commissars of Germany and Austria. «Designs and Realizations» The Art Nouveau style was a great experience of novelty and a peculiar emblem of the 1900 Expo. Thus, even the construction of the main entrance to the exposition premises embodied this particular stylistic language. Everything that people wanted to display at this exhibition had to be and was gigantic. […] […] Also in Art Nouveau style were the Metro stations adorned by Hector Guimard with a line of plans and shells characteristic of this style; Art Nouveau – making its presence felt in architecture only with difficulty – left a strong mark on decorative and functional art. Excellent examples of Art Nouveau style were the Pavillon Bleu restaurant, as well as the theater building in which dancer Loïe Fuller performed. […] […] The Grand Palais and Petit Palais, representing France at the 1900 World Exposition in Paris, were a testimony to the respect enjoyed by the French architectural tradition, and represented an apotheosis thereof. Manifesting the style of Kings Louis XIII–XVI, they became a model for the Europe of that time. Another structure intended to grace Paris on a permanent basis was the Pont Alexandre III, a work commemorating the Franco-Russian Alliance formed in 1891 by the Russian tsar and French president Sadi Carnot. A twin structure, known as the Trinity Bridge, was constructed in St. Petersburg. Placed on it were the national emblems of France and the Russian Empire, as well as personifications of the Seine and Neva Rivers. […] […] Another attraction at the exposition was the Rue des Nations, marked out along the left bank of the Seine between the Pont des Invalides and the Pont de l’Alma. The national pavilions had a more or less sumptuous appearance, dependent on the wealth at their disposal, which found its reflection in a highly-defined hierarchy. The main accent was placed on the artistic, and then on the economic, scientific and financial message. Though erected with the intent of temporary use, the buildings – imaginatively-conceived, but also extraordinarily interesting in architectural and urban planning terms – presented themselves in full splendor. On the second floor of the magnificent Austrian Palace, where works of art were presented, a small space was allocated for an exhibition of the ‘Galician art industry’. Hidden behind this cryptonym was the so-called ‘Polish chamber’. It was designed by Edgar Kováts, who utilized ornamental Polish highland motifs in his design. Part III is devoted to the fine arts, presented in abundance at the Paris exposition in 1900. The fundamental aim of this book is to present problems concerning artistic events associated with the exhibition, to accentuate the importance of phenomena pertaining to architecture and building construction, as well as sculpture and painting. It was architecture and the fine arts which were surrounded with particular care on the part of the Exposition organizers, who spared no expense: the Grand Palais and Petit Palais were built to present works by artists from all over the world of that time. Independently of the splendid displays in the main art palaces, in each of the national pavilions, space was set aside to display art from the given country. Even if the fine arts triumphed at the 1900 exhibition, it was the confrontation of that which was anachronistic in the exhibition with the anxious expectation of something new – something modern, which would be brought by the 20th century – which gave rise to the question: at what moment was the optimistic 18th-century faith in science and the associated progress replaced by a feeling of doubt, of uncertainty as to their meaningfulness? At what moment in history did an abatement ensue in the conviction that expanding urban agglomerations, heavy industry, the possibility of taking control over the world would bring happiness to humanity? The 1900 exposition was a show against the background of which society at that time, remaining convinced of its participation in historical, cultural, artistic and conventional transformations, digested an awareness that the time of ‘innocence’ was inevitably coming to an end, that a ‘great catastrophe’ was approaching. The 1900 exposition was a bridge linking two eras. For posterity, the 19th century had turned out to be a time of universal teaching, implementation of the achievements of science and technology, which were meant to make life easier and more pleasant. These areas were pointed to as the chief elements shaping progress in the past hundred years; their beneficiary was to be the 20th century, presently perceived as the century that witnessed the most horrible totalitarian systems and world wars in human history. The 1900 Universal World Exhibition in Paris, like the previous expositions, invited representatives of nearly every state in the world that time to participate and display the entirety of their nation’s creative and manufacturing activity. From among the hundreds of artworks which exhibitors sent to the exposition, I shall cite only those which won prizes or honorable mentions; some of them, presently considered to be outstanding works of art, have been described in more detail and set against the background of their historical, political and artistic context. I have devoted more attention to architecture and to the creators of the Grand Palais, Petit Palais and Pont Alexandre III, the Palais de l’Electricité and the Château d’Eau, the Finnish and Russian pavilions, the work of Finnish painter Akseli Gallen-Kallela, Anna Ancher, Jacek Malczewski and Józef Mehoffer. In separate sections, I have discussed the exhibition of works by Auguste Rodin and Claude Monet, at that time already recognized artists, who displayed their works alongside, or rather – as an expression of protest against the official exhibition – in separate, independent places located outside the exposition premises. Art in 1900 was put on a pedestal; it was art which people perceived as the foundation for the building of national identity, seeing in it one of the most important elements comprising the concept of civilization in a broad sense. The chapter entitled ‘Designs and Plans’ was written on the basis of materials in the archival collections of the Faculty of Architecture library at the Warsaw University of Technology. Analysis of texts, drawings of the architectural plans and designs placed in the pages of “Architecture” magazine has permitted us to follow the complicated legal, administrative, urban planning and architectural procedures which were conducted by the most outstanding French architects and engineers. The most interesting source was reports and detailed descriptions of designs by architect and “Architecture” editor-in-chief Louis-Charles Boileau, one of the jurors of the architectural competition for, among other things, the realization of the construction of the Grand Palais and Petit Palais. From the heated debates, from the superfluity of ideas from architects and engineers, designs were chosen that were considered most appropriate for realization, fulfilling criteria concerning a vision of monumental architecture of suitable caliber for the end of the century, official architecture summarizing the essence of the French national building style. The Grand Palais and Petit Palais; the Pont Alexandre III; the train station at the Quai d’Orsay, located on the left bank of Seine, whose creator was Victor Laloux; and the metro station entrances designed by Hector Guimard have blended in perfectly with the urban planning structure of today’s Paris. Both palaces – in accordance with the decision of their funders and creators – are presently important places for the presentation of art. Since 1986 (after the restructuring performed by architect Gae Aulenti, begun in 1979), the huge Gare d’Orsay train station has successfully functioned as a museum of 19th-century art from France and elsewhere in the world. «The Fine Arts at the 1900 Universal Exhibition in Paris» Interest in painting and sculpture in the 19th century was so great that when the jurors of the fine arts section of the 1900 Universal Exhibition in Paris announced a call for works, thousands of works from nearly every continent were transported to the capital of France; interest in the art of the ‘subversives’ (Realists, Impressionists, Neo-Impressionists, Symbolists, Nabis, artists working in the Art Nouveau style) and digressions concerning the manner and scope of presentation of their works temporarily eclipsed the grand preparations for the official display at the Grand and Petit Palais. Both palaces housed an impressive exhibition of the fine arts, the likes of which had never yet been presented in Paris. The organizers took care to place particular emphasis on the significance of French art for art in the world at large. At the Petit Palais, works of French art from the Middle Ages to the painting of Antoine Watteau were presented. At the Grand Palais, art works created in the period from 1800 to 1889 were exhibited. The Grand Palais became the place where the most serious contradiction was clearly revealed, that occurs between that which is unchanging and that which undergoes inevitable change, to which even the most conservatively-inclined minds will (unwillingly and reluctantly) eventually yield. The tensions among the jury members (who came from, above all, circles adhering to academic tradition) who qualified works for the Exposition not infrequently took on the characteristics of a fight for the right to remain in that which is well-known, permanent and safe (academicism) in confrontation with the new, revolutionized concept of art which was radically leading the way into the 20th century. «The National Aspect» A review of the works which were displayed at the Exposition of the Decade indicates how essential the national aspect was for individual countries – an aspect shaped at the turn of the century by such factors as the need to strengthen national identity for some, the fight for independence for others, and the consolidation of newly-gained independence for yet other nations. A work of art became a mirror of political aspirations, of a conviction concerning the status of one’s own nation as a superpower, and an expression of the desire to become involved in the current, modern activities of the world at that time. The Irish and Greek issue was still vivid and close to the matter of Poland’s independence; the nations of the Balkan Peninsula were fighting for independence; the Italians had been enjoying independence only since 1861; and the French still had in their memory the war with Prussia. The 1900 exposition was a parade presenting a utopian vision of universal harmony among nations and states. In the 19th century, there ensued an explosion of the quest for and rediscovery of national identifications, of the battle for independence on the part of the nations absorbed by economically and militarily powerful states, of world colonization and of aggressive Eurocentrism. From today’s viewpoint, this was in essence one of the most important problems mirrored by the art exhibition at the Grand Palais. The quest for and consolidation of national identities was a dominant phenomenon in the 19th century. Its background was the foundation of one-nation states, wars, national uprisings, economic and superpower rivalry and nationalism. Art became a tool for the promotion of national ideologies. Artists had specific tasks to perform, and they often did this with relish. The exhibition halls were full of landscapes, as well as presentations of local traditions and scenes from national myths forming part of contemporary reality. The emphasis of national identification was served by the architecture of individual nations’ pavilions and by the subject matter of the works presented at their exhibitions. Nationalistic moods accompanied artists who came from countries fighting for their independence, as well as those who represented states enjoying a stable geopolitical situation. «Art Nouveau or fin-de-siècle?» For a long time, Art Nouveau was not accepted; the year 1900 was not a time of complete triumph for it. It was still a style esteemed mainly in the ornamental arts. While an international Art Nouveau center had been founded in Paris, the creation of which had preceded Samuel Bing’s opening of the salon L’Art Nouveau in 1895, and in 1900, at the great world exhibition, it had achieved the apogee of its creative capabilities and popularity, it was still perceived as an ephemeral style devoid of canon, torn among architecture, handicraft and painting. It gained popularity and recognition only in the 1920s and 30s, when, via a return to the subdued forms and harmonious structure characteristic of Art Deco, a final break with the convention of copying and imitation ensued. Even if it was emphasized in the works of avant-garde artists, it was still perceived as a style occurring outside the main current of art. Art Nouveau in Paris was ‘officially’ presented in such structures as the Monumental Gate and the stylish metro station entrances designed by Guimard; in the form and ornamentation of the theater building in which Loïe Fuller danced; and in the openwork wooden construction of the Pavillon Bleu restaurant. Vis-à-vis the predilection for the Renaissance and Baroque accepted at that time, Art Nouveau brought into architecture, the fine arts, handicrafts and the ornamental arts an element of lightheartedness, enthusiasm and freedom of imagination. Society at the end of the 19th century in general accepted official art, and academic theorists treated it as a peculiar sort of message conveying simple philosophical, political and moral content. The dominant role of the academics caused a break in the contact of living art with society, as well as with that which was innovative in art, independent of canons and of the bourgeois viewer’s taste. «Auguste Rodin’s Exhibition on the Place de l’Alma» Within the official display of French sculpture at the Grand Palais, the artistic output of Auguste Rodin was represented by only two works from the early period of his œuvre. These were plaster sculpture studies for “The Kiss”. In response to the decision of jurors not interested in Rodin’s most recent work, the artist – 1.5 months after the official opening of the exposition, near the fairgrounds, in a purpose-built pavilion (Pavillon de l’Alma), he opened his first solo exhibition, in which he displayed approximately 150 sculptures, as well as numerous drawings. «Claude Monet – Exhibition at the Paul Durand-Ruel Gallery» Monet refused to take part in the official exhibition, and 10 days after the close of the 1900 exposition, he opened an presentation of his most recent paintings at the gallery of well-known collector and merchant Paul Durand-Ruel. Key to the exhibition were his most recent works painted at Gi