Which artist lived in Tahiti. Paul Gauguin

Paul Gauguin. Self-portrait with yellow Christ. 1890

Paul Gauguin can be reproached for many things - infidelity to his official wife, irresponsible attitude towards children, cohabitation with minors, blasphemy, extreme selfishness.

But what does this mean compared to greatest talent, which fate awarded him?

Gauguin is entirely a contradiction, an insoluble conflict and a life similar to an adventure drama. And Gauguin is a whole layer of world art and hundreds of paintings. And a completely new aesthetics that still surprises and delights.

Life is ordinary

Paul Gauguin was born on June 7, 1848 into a very extraordinary family. The future artist’s mother was the daughter of a famous writer. Father is a journalist for a political magazine.

At 23, Gauguin finds Good work. He becomes a successful stockbroker. But in the evenings and on weekends he draws.

At 25 he marries Dutchwoman Mette Sophie Gad. But their union is not a story about great love and the honorable place of the great master’s muse. For Gauguin felt sincere love only for art. Which the wife did not share.

If Gauguin portrayed his wife, it was rare and quite specific. For example, against the background of a gray-brown wall, turned away from the viewer.

However, the couple will give birth to five children, and, perhaps, besides them, they will soon have nothing in common. Mette considered her husband's painting classes a waste of time. She married a wealthy broker. And I wanted to lead a comfortable life.

Therefore, one day the husband’s decision to quit his job and do only painting was a huge blow for Mette. Their union, of course, will not withstand such a test.

The beginning of art

The first 10 years of Paul and Mette's marriage passed calmly and safely. Gauguin was only an amateur in painting. And he painted only in his free time from the stock exchange.

Most of all, Gauguin was seduced. Here is one of Gauguin's works, painted with typical impressionist reflections of light and a sweet corner of the countryside.

Gauguin actively communicates with such outstanding painters of his time as Cezanne,.

Their influence is felt in Gauguin's early works. For example, in the painting “Suzanne Sewing.”

The girl is busy with her own business, and we seem to be spying on her. Quite in the spirit of Degas.

Gauguin does not seek to embellish it. She was hunched over, which made her posture and stomach unattractive. The skin is “ruthlessly” rendered not only in beige and pink, but also in blue and green. And this is quite in the spirit of Cezanne.

And some serenity and tranquility are clearly taken from Pissarro.

The year 1883, when Gauguin turns 35, becomes a turning point in his biography. He left his job at the stock exchange, confident that he would quickly become famous as a painter.

But the hopes were not justified. The accumulated money quickly ran out. Mette's wife, not wanting to live in poverty, goes to her parents, taking the children. This meant the collapse of their family union.

Gauguin in Brittany

Gauguin spends the summer of 1886 in Brittany in northern France.

It was here that Gauguin developed his individual style. Which will change little. And by which he is so recognizable.

The simplicity of the drawing borders on caricature. Large areas of the same color. Bright colors, especially a lot of yellow, blue, red. Unrealistic color schemes, when the earth could be red and the trees blue. And also mystery and mysticism.

We see all this in one of Gauguin’s main masterpieces of the Breton period - “The Vision after the Sermon or the Fight of Jacob with the Angel.”

The real meets the fantastic. Breton women in their characteristic white caps view a scene from the Book of Genesis. How Jacob wrestles with the Angel.

Someone is watching (including a cow), someone is praying. And all this against the backdrop of red earth. It's like it's happening in the tropics, oversaturated bright colors. One day Gauguin will go to the real tropics. Is it because its colors are more appropriate there?

Another masterpiece was created in Brittany - “The Yellow Christ”. This painting is the background to his self-portrait (at the beginning of the article).

Already from these paintings created in Brittany, one can see a significant difference between Gauguin and the Impressionists. The impressioners depicted their visual sensations without introducing any hidden meaning.

But for Gauguin, allegory was important. It is not for nothing that he is considered the founder of symbolism in painting.

Look how calm and even indifferent the Bretons are sitting around the crucified Christ. Thus Gauguin shows that the sacrifice of Christ has long been forgotten. And religion for many has become just a set of obligatory rituals.

Why did the artist depict himself against the background of his own painting with the yellow Christ? For this, many believers did not like him. Considering such “gestures” to be blasphemy. Gauguin considered himself a victim of the tastes of the public, which did not accept his work. Frankly comparing his suffering with the martyrdom of Christ.

And the public actually had a hard time understanding him. In Brittany, the mayor of one town ordered a portrait of his wife. This is how “Beautiful Angela” appeared.

The real Angela was shocked. She could not even imagine that she would be so “beautiful.” Narrow pig eyes. Swollen bridge of the nose. Huge bony hands.

And next to it is an exotic figurine. Which the girl regarded as a parody of her husband. After all, he was shorter than her. It’s surprising that the customers didn’t tear the canvas apart in a fit of anger.

Gauguin in Arles

It is clear that the incident with “Beautiful Angela” did not increase Gauguin’s customers. Poverty forces him to agree to the proposal about working together. He went to see him in Arles, the south of France. Hoping that life together will be easier.

Here they write the same people, the same places. Like, for example, Madame Gidou, the owner of a local cafe. Although the style is different. I think you can easily guess (if you haven’t seen these paintings before) where Gauguin’s hand is and where Van Gogh’s is.

Information about the paintings at the end of the article*

But the domineering, self-confident Paul and the nervous, hot-tempered Vincent could not get along under the same roof. And one day, in the heat of a quarrel, Van Gogh almost killed Gauguin.

The friendship was over. And Van Gogh, tormented by remorse, cut off his earlobe.

Gauguin in the tropics

In the early 1890s, the artist took possession of new idea– organize a workshop in the tropics. He decided to settle in Tahiti.

Life on the islands turned out to be not as rosy as Gauguin initially imagined. The natives received him coldly, and there was little “untouched culture” left - the colonists had long brought civilization to these wild places.

Local residents rarely agreed to pose for Gauguin. And if they came to his hut, they preened themselves in a European manner.

Throughout his life in French Polynesia, Gauguin would search for “pure” native culture, settling as far as possible from the cities and villages developed by the French.

Outlandish art

Undoubtedly, Gauguin discovered a new aesthetics in painting for Europeans. With each ship he sent his paintings to " mainland».

Canvases depicting naked dark-skinned beauties in a primitive setting evoked big interest from the European viewer.

Gauguin scrupulously studied local culture, rituals, and mythology. Thus, in the painting “Loss of Virginity” Gauguin allegorically illustrates the pre-wedding custom of the Tahitians.

The bride was kidnapped by the groom's friends on the eve of the wedding. They “helped” him make the girl a woman. That is, essentially the first the wedding night belonged to them.

True, this custom had already been eradicated by missionaries by the time Gauguin arrived. The artist learned about him from the stories of local residents.

Gauguin also loved to philosophize. This is how his famous painting“Where did we come from? Who are we? Where are we going?".

Gauguin's personal life in the tropics

There are many legends about Gauguin's personal life on the island.

They say that the artist was very promiscuous in his relationships with local mulatto women. He suffered from numerous venereal diseases. But history has preserved the names of some lovers.

The most famous affection was 13-year-old Tehura. The young girl can be seen in the painting “The Spirit of the Dead Never Sleeps.”

Gauguin left her pregnant and went to France. From this connection a boy, Emil, was born. He was raised by a local man, whom Tehura married. It is known that Emil lived to be 80 years old and died in poverty.

Confession immediately after death

Gauguin never had time to enjoy his success.

Numerous diseases difficult relationship with missionaries, lack of money - all this undermined the painter’s strength. Gauguin died on May 8, 1903.

Here's one of his latest paintings"Spell". In which the mixture of native and colonial is especially noticeable. Spell and cross. Naked and dressed in tight clothing.

And a thin layer of paint. Gauguin had to save money. If you've seen Gauguin's work in person, you've probably noticed this.

Events develop after his death as a mockery of the poor painter. Dealer Vollard organizes a grand exhibition of Gauguin. The salon** devotes an entire room to him...

But Gauguin was not destined to bathe in this grandiose glory. He didn't live to see her just a little...

However, the painter’s art turned out to be immortal - his paintings still amaze with their stubborn lines, exotic color and unique style.

Paul Gauguin. 2015 Artist's collection

There are many works by Gauguin in Russia. All thanks to pre-revolutionary collectors Ivan Morozov and Sergei Shchukin. They brought home many of the master’s paintings.

One of Gauguin’s main masterpieces, “Girl Holding a Fruit,” is kept in St. Petersburg.

Paul Gauguin was born in 1848 in Paris on June 7. His father was a journalist. After the revolutionary upheavals in France, the father of the future artist gathered his whole family and went to Peru by ship, intending to stay with the parents of his wife Alina and open his own magazine there. But on the way he had a heart attack and died.

Paul Gauguin lived in Peru until he was seven years old. Returning to France, the Gauguin family settled in Orleans. But Paul was completely uninterested in living in the provinces and was bored. At the first opportunity he left the house. In 1865, he hired himself as a worker on a merchant ship. Time passed, and the number of countries visiting the Field increased. Over the course of several years, Paul Gauguin became a real sailor who was in various troubles at sea. Having entered service in the French navy, Paul Gauguin continued to surf the seas and oceans.

After the death of his mother, Paul left the maritime business and took up work at the stock exchange, which his guardian helped him find. The work was good and it seemed that he would work there for a long time.

Marriage of Paul Gauguin

Gauguin was not at all confident in his artistic abilities. One day, one of Paul Gauguin's paintings was selected for display at an exhibition, but he did not tell anyone from the family about it.

In 1882, a stock exchange crisis began in the country, and Gauguin's further successful work began to be doubted. It was this fact that helped determine Gauguin’s fate as an artist.

By 1884 Gauguin was already living in Denmark, since there was not enough money to live in France. Gauguin's wife taught French in Denmark, and he tried to engage in trade, but nothing worked out for him. Disagreements began in the family, and the marriage broke up in 1885. The mother remained with 4 children in Denmark, and Gauguin returned to Paris with his son Clovis.

Living in Paris was difficult, and Gauguin had to move to Brittany. He liked it here. The Bretons are a very unique people with their own traditions and worldview, and even their own language. Gauguin felt great in Brittany; his feelings as a traveler awoke again.

In 1887, taking the artist Charles Laval with them, they went to Panama. The trip was not very successful. Gauguin had to work hard to support himself. Having fallen ill with malaria and dysentery, Paul had to return to his homeland. Friends accepted him and helped him recover, and already in 1888 Paul Gauguin moved to Brittany again.

The case of Van Gogh

After this incident, Paul Gauguin spent time traveling between Paris and Brittany. And in 1889, after visiting an art exhibition in Paris, he decided to settle in Tahiti. Naturally, Gauguin had no money, and he began to sell his paintings. Having saved about 10 thousand francs, he went to the island.

In the summer of 1891, Paul Gauguin set to work, buying a small thatched hut on the island. Many paintings from this time depict Gauguin's wife Tehura, who was only 13 years old. Her parents happily gave her to Gauguin as his wife. The work was fruitful; Gauguin painted many interesting paintings in Tahiti. But time passed, and the money ran out, and Gauguin fell ill with syphilis. He could stand it no longer and left for France, where a small inheritance awaited him. But he didn’t spend much time in his homeland. In 1895, he returned to Tahiti again, where he also lived in poverty and destitution.

Death and Resurrection

Once again sending paintings to Vollard, Gauguin had serious reasons to insist that the merchant finally send the money he owed him. Despite the fact that Gauguin fought with all his might against the unfair verdict and even entrusted his defense to lawyer Breaux, whom he had once attacked in Wasps, the authorities were determined to put an end to the artist. The verdict, passed in Atuon without any legal support, was reviewed in Tahiti at Gauguin's request. As a result, at the end of April the final verdict was announced: instead of three months in prison, one and still exorbitant fine of five hundred francs in gold. It was never presented for payment, since postal delays made it possible to do this only after the artist’s death.

There is no doubt that the pain that tormented Gauguin, like his eczema, was of a psychosomatic nature. The very first sentence, pronounced on March 31, could not but affect the artist’s health. After all, this news was not only a harbinger of prison and poverty, but also served as proof of the failure of his struggle for the rights of the natives. After Gauguin’s conviction, they had no choice but to avoid him, because the authorities were persecuting them too, and visiting the disgraced defender meant displeasing the gendarmerie. In addition, twenty-nine natives, whom Gauguin tried to defend after his own trial, were each sentenced to five days in prison and a fine of one hundred francs, which was a completely unthinkable amount for them. So, no matter how hard Gauguin tried, giving all his strength to this struggle and even more, he understood that he would get bogged down in the trap set by the authorities deeper and deeper. All that remained was to abandon any resistance and, abandoning their friends in trouble, leave the islands, leaving the bishop and the gendarmes to do their arbitrary acts. The very thought of this seemed unbearable to the artist, especially since, by doing this, he was depriving his art of the future, since, having betrayed his ideals, he would cease to be the former Gauguin. When he told Monfred last August that he could no longer stay here, he answered bluntly: “Now they look at you as an amazing, legendary artist who sends strange, inimitable works- the final works of a great man, so to speak, who disappeared from the world... You cannot return! In a word, you enjoy immunity along with the great dead. You have already entered the history of art.”

What a murderous mockery every word of this letter sounded when he now re-read it! Monfred could not even imagine that right now, when money was regularly coming from Vollard and Faye, the hatred of the gendarme and the fanaticism of the bishop would be enough to deprive him, while still alive, of this immunity, leaving the only way out - death. Gauguin hurriedly writes to Monfred that he is sending him three paintings, for which he needs to receive one thousand five hundred francs from Fayet: “This is ruin for me and the complete collapse of my health... Do everything as soon as possible and tell Mr. Fayet that I will be with him forever thankful". The pain by that time had become completely unbearable, and he again called Vernier to him. But he could not help the artist in any way, he only changed the bandages on his legs and prescribed opium, however, without too much hope for any result. Several months ago, Gauguin gave Ben Varney the syringe and morphine that he had used during the last attack, begging him never, under any circumstances, to return them. Now the artist turned to him with a plea to forget about this request, and Varney did not have the strength to refuse. It is obvious that Gauguin fell into complete despair.

As soon as the mail gunboat sailed for Tahiti, he locked himself in the “House of Pleasure” for a whole week. On the morning of May 8, Tioka found Gauguin lying on the bed and moaning and decided to go after Pastor Vernier. When the pastor appeared, he found the artist in prostration, not even aware of whether it was day or night. He complained of terrible pain caused by an abscess at the bottom of his spine. Vernier opened the abscess. Having come to his senses, Gauguin said that he lost consciousness twice in the morning, but his head remained clear after that, and he even talked to the pastor about “Salammbo.” This circumstance somewhat reassured Vernier.

“I left him lying on his back, calm and resting after our conversation,” the pastor said, returning to his students. Gauguin's servants were absent, as usual.

“About eleven,” writes Danielsson, “Tioka, who had come to visit the sick man, called to him from below, according to Marquis etiquette, announcing his arrival: “Koke, Koke!” Having heard no answer, he ran up the stairs and saw Gauguin, who was lying on the edge of the bed with his leg hanging down. Tioka grabbed him, grumbling that he was so careless in trying to get out of bed. But again I received no answer. Trying to revive Koke, according to the custom of the Marquesans, he began to bite him on the head, but nothing helped. And then he finally realized that he had lost his friend forever and started a funeral lament, wailing: “Koke is dead, we have no protector, woe to us!”

An empty bottle was found on the table; it could have contained laudanum or morphine. It seemed, writes Danielsson, that it had been empty for a long time. We will never know what really happened. Other sources mention several ampoules of morphine. This is how the version of possible suicide arose. In the notes of Dr. Potier, who arrived on the island after the artist’s death, but managed in time to save the official report on Gauguin’s death from the fire, we read: “Gauguin was indeed very ill: he had a bad heart (no doubt, syphilitic cardioaortitis); V literally no one killed him, but it is quite possible that he was poisoned gradually. I am absolutely sure that after Gauguin’s death, Bishop Martin burned some of the remaining paintings.” Potier goes even further in his assumptions: “It is possible that about twenty large-format paintings of naked women, which were captured by the bishop’s envoy, were burned later; several drawings and sculptures also disappeared, the subjects of which the bishop considered blasphemous.”

In any case, even if Gauguin took too strong a dose of the drug, it was not because he decided to commit suicide, and not out of carelessness, but rather out of panic fear of the unbearable pain that had haunted him for months. And even if this dose accelerated the fatal outcome, it was not what killed Gauguin. The pastor shared the same opinion. In 1904, Victor Segalen, the ship's doctor from the Durance, who was then at the scene of the tragedy, in a letter to Monfred, denied rumors about Gauguin's suicide or his murder by his enemies: “I believe that his death occurred as a result of a ruptured aneurysm, and this is the opinion shared by my colleague, a doctor from another Pacific warship, who saw Gauguin three months before his death.” Perhaps this was an attempt to avoid mention of syphilitic aortitis.

So, having discovered Gauguin, Tioka rushed after the pastor to try to give the artist artificial respiration. But no matter how much Vernier was in a hurry, Bishop Martin, who heard about what had happened, beat him to it. He arrived, accompanied by two brothers from a nearby religious school, and announced that he intended to bury the deceased in the Catholic mission cemetery, since he had been baptized. In vain did the pastor persuade him to arrange a civil burial, taking into account the well-known views of the artist, the Church was not going to miss such a prize. The bishop filled out the papers, which were signed by witnesses, one of whom was Tioka. Finally, Martin could not resist making a bilious remark: “Everyone knows that he was married and had children, but the name of his wife is unknown.” Tioka was allowed to anoint Gauguin's body and decorate it with flowers, then the bishop's henchmen took his place. While cleaning at night, they destroyed (or took with them, who knows?) postcards, Japanese prints and, of course, paintings, drawings and some sculptures purchased in Port Said.

Subsequently, Jean Loise discovered in an official report, literally saved from the fire, “that two official letters notifying the artist’s death were sent on May 23, that is, only two weeks later, and even then not to France, but so far only to Tahiti.” Such slowness was not at all typical of Piquenot, who notified the governor that Eugene Henri Paul Gauguin “died, apparently, of heart disease.”

It seemed that the day after his death, May 9, Gauguin was buried secretly, in the absence of friends, in the mission cemetery, with a large white cross erected on his grave, strikingly different from what was depicted in the last paintings of the deceased. The natives' fear of punishment for their participation in the fate of a man whom the bishop did not stop scourging even after death did not dissipate. Martin wrote to his congregation Picpus: “Nothing remarkable has happened recently except the sudden death of a notorious figure, a certain Gauguin. This famous artist is the enemy of God and everything that is good on earth.” These lines help to understand the character religious burial Gauguin, undoubtedly equated by its organizers to a conjurer of evil spirits.

As for Piquenot, he hurried Gauguin’s creditors to show up, concerned that, according to information that had reached him [wasn’t it from Claverie?] “the liabilities far outweigh the assets, and several paintings by the late decadent artist have little chance of finding buyers.” As a result, such a pessimistic attitude of the manager will lead to a hasty sale of works that survived episcopal censorship.

On May 27, we began the inventory. Claverie retrained as an appraiser, responsible for the sale of household items at the auction scheduled for July 20. Fortunately for us, on August 10, the patrol boat Durance anchored off Hiva Oa. On board it was future writer- twenty-five-year-old ship's doctor Victor Segalen, who admired Tahiti and knew Gauguin. Having learned about the death of the artist, he rushed straight from the pier to the “House of Pleasures”. Here is what he wrote for the Mercure de France in June 1904: “The decoration of the house looked solemn and funerary, which corresponded to the agony experienced in it: majestic and sad, a little paradoxical, it set the right tone for the last act of this vagabond life, it clarified and revealed this life. It was Gauguin’s personality that was reflected in the surrounding interior and illuminated it […] Gauguin was a monster. In other words, he could not be classified into any moral, intellectual or social category, membership in which is quite enough to define most individuals […] So, Gauguin was a monster, and he was one consciously and deliberately.”

Segalen drove up to the house: “Opposite the small staircase that leads to a platform raised above the ground, in the shadow of a small naive house stands a clay sculpture, dried by the sun and worn out by the rains. It's worth stopping in front of it. This is an image of an idol […] generated by the prophetic dreams of the artist. It is unusual in its heterogeneity: the general appearance resembles the Buddha, but the strong mouth, close-set eyes and straight nose, barely widening towards the nostrils, are clearly of native origin - this is a Buddha who could have been born in the country of the Maori. Around him Gauguin placed the heroes of Polynesian myths in various hieratic poses.” Obviously all this amazingly seen and carefully thought out by a man who has thought a lot about Maori civilization. Under the statue, Segalen discovered poetry written by Gauguin:

TE ATUA (god)

Yes, the gods died, and, as if dividing

Their fate is that the earth languishes and perishes.

In his half-day slumber and at night

She is fainted by terrible dreams.

With a sigh, lovely Eva

He looks at his barren womb...

(Translated by N. Ya. Rykova)

These poems, to which he alone drew attention, breathe the same muted, almost twilight light as the artist’s last canvases.

Then Segalen describes the carved entrance, two paintings at the back of the room, made “directly on the wooden panels of the walls. Against the bright blue background of one of them, a group of natives quietly wanders along the brown-ocher, almost red soil.” He writes about the workshop that it was “disorderly hung with Polynesian weapons.” He also notices “full of tragedy” the self-portrait “At Golgotha” and “another portrait, undated and unsigned, apparently later; on it, the inclined position of the head emphasizes the artist’s strong build and the imperious line of the nose.” We are talking about that “Self-Portrait”, where Gauguin, depicted in glasses, seems ready to forever confront the whole world. (It is now in the Museum of Art in Basel.) “The most interesting work in the studio, it is undoubtedly the most valuable,” - this is how Segalen speaks of the painting “Motherhood”, painted in 1899 and now adorning the Rockefeller collection. “And the last surprise,” adds Segalen, “was the canvas created by Gauguin in the last moments of his life in this country of warmth and light - this is a vision of the icy Breton winter, to which the last touches of the artist’s brush were given.” The deliberate similarity of the image on the “Self-Portrait” and on the canvas “At Golgotha” leaves no doubt that both of them were painted at approximately the same time, shortly before his death, when Gauguin tried to see in comparison the approach of impending old age and misfortune in his features. The fact that he placed “Motherhood” and “Breton Village in the Snow” side by side suggests that, recalling his works, he considered these two paintings very important, but not because of the plot, not because of the theme. Let us recall that “Motherhood” is one of the versions of the painting sent by Gauguin to Vollard and later purchased by the Russian collector Shchukin (now it is in the Hermitage).

Segalen then wondered: what could “these half-children” from the Marquesas Islands have given Gauguin? And he answered himself: “ Magnificent samples, which he dared to transform in his own way; melodious motifs in which amber-yellow warm notes broke through the blue and humid vibrations of the air; sparkling oily flesh on which golden sparks trembled in the sun; poses, finally, by which he schematically presented Maori physiology, which most likely was their true philosophy. Gauguin never looked for the mysterious Kanak soul under his beautiful shell - by painting the natives, he managed to become an animal painter.”

In this regard, Segalen wrote that “it is vain and stupid to talk about immorality in a country where the word shame is an English neologism, where this word and the feeling it defines hardly refer to sexual relations, where virginity is nothing more than a myth denoted by the Greek word, fidelity to the beloved is an absurdity, selfless love- is absurd, and a woman is just an exquisite animal. But, it must be admitted, the animal is civilized, since it intersperses love games with singing, interrupting it in order to list our French departments, including subprefectures.”

As for civilization, Segalen completely agreed with Gauguin, who predicted the “quick degeneration” of the inhabitants of the Marquesas Islands. “The opium made them look emaciated, the terrible fermented juices gradually destroyed their body with an unprecedented intoxication, and syphilis rewarded them with infertility.”

But let’s return to the “House of Pleasure” at that time, when it was not yet empty, until the things that the authorities of the Marquesas Islands considered valuable were sent to Papeete: paintings, drawings and books. The said authorities, led by the bishop, showed themselves to be too liberal in comparison with the so-called “experts” who examined the artist’s property before the auction, which was to take place on September 2, 1903. “The tax collector Vermeers,” wrote Le Pichon, “turned to the artist Le Moine with a request to help him prepare an inventory, and together they threw into a landfill (according to the expert, “in their proper place”) a huge number of drawings, sketches, crumpled pieces of paper, recorded thoughts, unfinished drafts and sculptural sketches, which testified, according to Le Moine, not to “brilliant thinking”, but to “greasy imagination”. The paintings, as one would expect, were sold for next to nothing.” The only one who benefited from this was Segalen, he spent all his salary on manuscripts and books, bought everything for sixteen francs wooden sculptures, which decorated the “House of Pleasure,” for four francs the artist’s palette and for eighty-five francs seven paintings. Among them were a self-portrait from the painting "At Calvary" and "Breton Village in the Snow", for which the appraiser asked seven francs, showing it upside down and giving it the unexpected name "Niagara Falls". The last “Self-Portrait” remained with Ki Dong, who fully deserved it for his unwavering loyalty to Gauguin. Lieutenant Cochin (the son of a politician and brother of a historian of the revolution) took with him the painting “Motherhood,” bought for one hundred and fifty francs (his entire salary), citing a higher price than ... Governor Petit, who offered one hundred and thirty-five francs. He seemed to have finally recognized the talent of the man whom he allowed him to pursue without even bothering to get to know him personally. In a letter to Monfred, who by that time had received a report from the Ministry of Colonies about the disappearance of several Gauguin manuscripts, Segalen reassured him about the book “Noah-Noah”. “Mr. Petit intended to leaf through this book, which the tax collector entrusted to him. But then the governor fell seriously ill and hastily left. The manuscript inadvertently ended up among his luggage, and the governor, who became aware of this and who is now almost dying, declared that upon his arrival in France he would immediately return the manuscript as it belonged.”

Meanwhile, as Perrucho writes, Piquenot managed to demand from Governor Petit that Sergeant Claverie be sent away from Atuona “for poor performance of administrative duties” and for the fact that, without his knowledge, he “supported the prosecution against Monsieur Gauguin.” The manager ordered an investigation, from which “it became clear that a number of facts pointed out by the deceased were confirmed.” Petit granted his subordinate's request. But soon another governor was appointed instead of Petit, who died in Australia, and, to the surprise and indignation of Piqueno, Sergeant Claverie was again installed in Atuon. Three weeks later he was given the rank of non-commissioned officer... It seems that, in addition to Piqueno and Petit, who allowed themselves to face the truth and finally figure out who Gauguin really was (and the second, perhaps, even experienced remorse), all other representatives of the colonial authorities and law and order understood absolutely nothing. Or rather, they didn’t want to understand. As a result, Piqueno was dissatisfied with the fact that he dared to be surprised by Claverie’s return.

According to Loise, in the report saved from burning there is an entry dated August 1, that is, three months after Gauguin’s death, where next to the artist’s name it is written: “to receive forty-five thousand francs as taxes,” of which, as is known, twenty thousand seventy-five francs was a fine. Luaz further adds:

“The comment that follows is captivating in its ease: “All this must be claimed, and from today [emphasized] the fight against the obstinate must be carried out. Mr. Deputy Special Agent [meaning the gendarme] will have something to add to his safe; especially since the cash I have does not allow me to send him money.” In this regard, I remember the words Gauguin once said to me: “A fine of one hundred francs for a native is the same as a thousand francs for any European or Chinese.”

According to Chasse's recollections, the retired Charpillet recalled with emotion the “master Paul Gauguin,” this “outstanding man” and “unfortunate great artist.” “He was a man like I had never seen in my life,” he said. - Seer." A letter published in the catalog for the Gauguin exhibition in Paris in 1949 introduces us to a new Claverie, who ran a tobacco shop in the Hautes-Pyrenees and honored the artist's memory even more fervently. He "reverently showed customers a small display case containing wooden sculptures of the one whom he had once persecuted and who had now become his idol." As Solzhenitsyn says: “They love only the dead.”

Ursula Frances Marx-Vandenbroucke, writing her thesis at the Sorbonne, gained access to the archives of the French colonies, where she discovered two reports on the Marquesas Islands. In the first, some administrator notes that “the natives were primarily accustomed to fear missionaries and gendarmes, and the fear of some was reinforced by the fear of others.” In another we read that the congregation of Bishop Martin “was engaged solely in establishing its power in the Marquesas, acquiring earthly wealth with the help of religious propaganda under the pretext of education, the establishment of morality and the planting of French influence.” Gauguin's enemies were enemies of the natives and their culture. He died from a collision with them. Of course, he had a difficult character, but the gap between his views and the behavior of the colonial authorities was in any case insurmountable. And it is unknown whether it has been overcome even now, after decolonization.

From August 23, when Monfred learned from Piqueno’s letter about the death of Gauguin, posthumous history the artist - the history of his work. Vollard was one of the first to realize how he could benefit from this: “If you happen to have any Gauguin works left for sale, I would be extremely grateful for your preference. And one more thing: I told you that according to my agreement with Gauguin, a payment of two hundred francs for each painting was established. Later, in one of my letters, I expressed my willingness to pay two hundred and fifty francs. But even more late letter, a copy of which I have preserved, I informed him that, taking into account the present state of my financial affairs, I was forced to adhere to our mutual agreement of two hundred francs. No one, I think, will be surprised that the mentioned letter was never found in Gauguin’s papers. After reflection, on October 8, Vollard wrote again to Monfred: “In any case, I hope you do not think that I announced this after the fact.”

At the same time, a lively correspondence began between Monfred and Mette. From now on she called Gauguin nothing more than “my poor Paul”, “this great artist” and “an extraordinary man”. She sent Monfred a power of attorney to sell the paintings. In fact, there was no need to sell off the Tahitian works to repay the debts, since the checks from Vollard and Faye amounted to an impressive amount - more than four thousand francs. It also included money from the sale of the House of Pleasures to Ben Varney. It remained uninhabited and eventually collapsed.

The first Autumn Salon opened on October 31. Its stars were former nabis - Sérusier and Maurice Denis. On the initiative of Charles Maurice, honors were also given to Paul Gauguin. The Salon featured five paintings, including Self-Portrait with the Yellow Christ, lent by Maurice Denis (he bought it from Madame Gloanec) and four studies. Four days later, Vollard exhibited fifty paintings and twenty-seven monotypes by Gauguin in his gallery. Matisse, who also participated in the Autumn Salon and back in 1899 bought one Tahitian painting from Vollard - “Young Man with a Flower” - probably could not miss this first retrospective exhibition, although his biographers usually do not mention this. And is it possible to imagine that Degas would not visit her? Of Gauguin's close associates, only two were absent - Cézanne, who did not leave Aix throughout 1903, and Pissarro, who died on November 12.

In any case, Gauguin's painting still made its way with difficulty, along roundabout paths. We know that the young Picasso, then living in Barcelona, ​​paid tribute to Gauguin by painting a nude very similar to his Tahitian women, which was pointedly signed by Paul Picasso. He knew about Gauguin from one of his most faithful friends in Paris, the Basque ceramist Paco Durrio, who all his life kept Gauguin’s paintings that belonged to him - “Portrait of Alina” and “Head of a Breton Woman.”

The re-evaluation of Gauguin's work began in the summer of 1905, when Matisse and Derain, working side by side in Collioure, painted several paintings that provoked a scandal in the Les Fauves, the Fauvist circle. Before this, Matisse met Maillol, who at one time learned a lot from Gauguin. Then he and Derain went to Monfred in Corneil-de-Conflans, where they became acquainted with many of Gauguin’s works written in Oceania. From this meeting with a man closely associated with Gauguin in last years his life, Matisse drew inspiration for his pastoral, which became the anthem of the Independents in 1906 and called “The Joy of Life,” as well as for some of the discoveries that were a revelation at his exhibition at Druet. His lithographs directly inherited Gauguin's method of monotypes, and his drawing as a whole became anti-classical.

There is enough research on Matisse, Derain and Picasso's discovery of black art to fill a library, but very little has been written about how they discovered Gauguin. This happened partly due to inaccuracies, most likely intentionally made by Flaminck, who could not bear the very thought of recognizing Gauguin’s primacy in this matter and who ultimately concluded that black art generally appeared in modern painting only in 1905. However, thanks to the works presented at the exhibition “Primitivism in the Art of the 20th Century” by Jack D. Flem, it was established that this happened only by mid-1906, namely after the already mentioned visit of the artists to Daniel de Montfred. The main reason for this misconception is that Gauguin’s work was truly studied only in the 1970–1980s. Only then was his contribution to the development of primitivism appreciated. And it became clear that Matisse not only became acquainted with the works of Gauguin, he perceived his art to such an extent that it turned into the meaning of life for the artist.

It is easier to judge the degree of influence of Gauguin’s multifaceted creativity on the development of primitivism if you know that the discovery of black art did not occur with the advent of finished works, as was the case with Japanese prints, but by giving a different status to attractions, all kinds of “cannibalistic fetishes,” which were suddenly recognized as works of, albeit primitive, but still art. Gauguin's achievements played a decisive role in this. In the development of primitive art, he highlighted two important points. First, he believed that its understanding would lead to a renewal of modern Western fine art, since primitivism existed as an effective and fruitful means of communication across time frames and civilizations. Secondly, it was precisely this property of primitive art, arising from its natural character, that called into question all existing theories of evolution. Art, by its nature, turned out to be very far from the achievements of technology and industry.

This was the other side of the coin of the successes of colonialism. Having taken the position of savior of the culture of enslaved peoples, colonialism itself became imbued with its richness and originality. Proof of this were the World Exhibitions of 1889 and 1900. The first thing that came to the minds of fans of this style was to inject a stream of fresh blood into modern European art, exhausted by academic decadence, with the help of primitive creativity. But very soon the most receptive, the most free creators, especially sculptors such as Rodin or Gauguin, realized that hitherto unknown arts opened up for them a new field of search, not only in the sphere of imagination and in methods of self-expression, but also in aesthetics in general. In “Before and Then,” Gauguin notes the “simplicity, majestic severity and slightly awkward, angular naivety” that distinguishes the art of the aborigines of the Marquesas Islands. This definition implies not just the revival of old art with the help of primitivism, but also opens the way to the idea of ​​updating outdated rules, makes accessible virgin artistic techniques, and allows us to get closer to the creativity of the future. Such aspirations not only corresponded to the vague hopes of that era, but also clothed them, thanks to the renewal of art, in flesh and blood. Therefore, despite the fact that Gauguin’s unique recordings were not yet known at that time, his role was important in itself, since his works existed.

And the more famous Gauguin’s work became, the wider the road to the overthrow of existing values ​​opened for those interested. In 1901, Gauguin wrote to Monfred about one of his works: “This engraving is interesting precisely because it returns us to primitive engraving. I am convinced that after some time my wood carving, so different from what others do, will be highly appreciated.” And is it possible to diminish his influence on subsequent generations now that it is known that both visitors to Monfred - Matisse and Derain - revolutionized the art of engraving. First Matisse in his lithographs, and a little later Derain in woodcuts, brilliantly executed for Apollinaire's first collection of poems, The Rotting Enchanter, which was published in 1909.

The artists' visit to Monfred had a great influence on their painting. While researching Gauguin's work, Jean Laud discovered that the artist owed some of his discoveries to “Tahitian tapa - drawings on ground bark, still practiced during his stay [on the island]. These tapas confirmed Gauguin's own research in the use of surfaces by applying isolated stylized forms to them, made with pure colors that did not create visual illusions. It was they who helped him understand that color itself is capable of arranging shapes in space and, with its saturation, imparting depth to the image, as well as removing or bringing individual objects closer.”

To the “expansion of the imaginary horizon,” as Jean Laud so aptly put it, Gauguin was able to add new possibilities to painting, making color and plastic rhythms express meaning and symbolism instead of acting as a “literary application.” To the artists of the new generation, his primitivism seemed comprehensive, since its development came from visual arts to meaning. Taking into account all these factors, it is easy to explain the scope of the large retrospective exhibition held at the Salon in the fall of 1906, where all the artist’s major achievements were demonstrated. It didn’t even hurt that due to poor demand, an insufficient number of works were exhibited. And it is clear that no amount of Monfred’s zeal or Vollard’s interest could have provided the exhibition with the success it had, even despite its unfavorable territorial location.

In 1906, particularly noticeable changes took place in the work of young artists. Matisse and Derain created their first “negro works”. Derain visited British museum and discovered Vlaminka. At the same time he met Picasso, and under the influence of this meeting he largely changed his style and his artistic preferences. Picasso probably attended an earlier exhibition at the Louvre of sculptures from the era that preceded the Roman conquests found in Osuna and Cerro de Los Santos. These sculptures were supposed to convey to him an echo of the primitive art of his native country. But he began to search for archaic forms in his work only in the spring of 1906, while in Gonzola in Upper Catalonia.

Matisse paid tribute to primitivism in its purest form in his painting “The Joy of Life” - a real masterpiece that inherited the dreams and aspirations of Gauguin. What is most interesting is that this work owes its appearance to the same collection of paintings with images of Oceanian nude women, which were kept in Monfred’s house. As Pierre Schneider convincingly argues, in this work Matisse managed to surpass Gauguin’s “And the Gold of Their Bodies” both in the heady colors of the Fauvist, and in the fact that his huge canvas “embodies a complete reproduction of the myth of the Golden Age, the sacred story of the origins of happiness, since there is no happiness, as soon as at the beginning, and there is no beginning that is not happiness.” It would be absurd to reduce Matisse or Picasso to Gauguin, but in order to understand what was happening in 1906, it is necessary to remember that it was Gauguin who played the role of a springboard for the most majestic and revealing creation of the avant-garde of that time, which was the painting “The Joy of Life”. (Story contemporary art assigns him the same role in the fate of two other great works, although they did not receive similar public recognition - we're talking about about Derain’s “Golden Age” and Picasso’s “Les Demoiselles d’Avignon.”)

Considering Gauguin’s similar role in the development of modern painting, it becomes clear why the 1906 retrospective exhibition not only met the expectations of innovators, but was also perceived as an event of the first magnitude, although the history of art, until very recently, belittled its role and practically eliminated memories of it.

If I am not mistaken, the report of Paul Jamot, published in the Gazette de Beaux-Arts for December 1906, has not been included in any current research as historical fact. However, Jamot, at forty-three years old, already held the honorary position of curator of the Louvre Museum and gained great authority in the polemics about Greek art that he waged with Furtwängler. He wrote: “From Cézanne [who had just died and to whom Jamot paid tribute] to Gauguin, there is a certain continuity that exists between the one who begins and the one who carries out his plans. Finally, the transformation of technical experiments into a decorative style took place.” Note that Matisse must have read this article, in which Jamot counterfeited him by writing: “... the puzzling and changeable Henri Matisse, with an undoubted gift as a colorist, continues, using supposedly new means, to show the most merciless indifference to the material provided by reality.” (We were talking about five works by Matisse, including Marguerite Reading and Red Carpets.)

“From these indicative documents,” continued Jamot, “we can trace those fifteen to eighteen years of work, during which Gauguin moved, constantly improving, towards his true destiny, to highest degree stylization and to the highest triumph of color." And here is the general conclusion: “In this short period, he managed to create his own art, refined and primitive at the same time, and there is nothing feigned in either these refinements or primitiveness. This is the result of a spontaneous combination of Peruvian and French atavisms. From the very beginning he felt that this ancient land[Tahiti], which they are trying to deprive of its past, its nature, the plasticity of its inhabitants will obediently submit to his dream. He could immediately convey in his works the bestial, untamed dignity, nobility and grace inherent in this primitive race. To do this, he depicted her surrounded by scenery in which nature, reduced to its basic components, glows with wide spots that do not merge with each other, combining in the most unexpected way, like the colors of majestic stained glass windows.” If we add to this the sculptures mentioned by Jamot, “especially small things in which the same features were manifested,” then even with the most cursory glance at Gauguin’s creative path, it becomes clear: in his work, he rightfully deserves the title of master. The problem is that, as in the case of Cézanne, Van Gogh, Matisse, Picasso, Derain and Braque, French collectors were less receptive than, for example, Russians such as Shchukin or Morozov. As a result, recognition in his homeland came to Gauguin much later than in other countries.

But here’s what’s striking about Zhamo’s notes. “Is it necessary,” he writes, “to respond to the common remark: “All these yellow women are ugly and do not interest us”? If we did not know how insensitive most people are to anything unusual, this remark might be surprising, because it often comes from those who easily perceive beauty in an image Arab women or Bedouins." And then suddenly you begin to understand that Gauguin’s Tahitians are as sharply different from the stereotype of stereotyped exotic women as the women of Courbet and Manet are different from the empty dolls of Cabanel and Bouguereau.

Further, Zhamo describes in detail, defending “The Spirit of the Dead is Awakening” and “Nave Nave Makhana” from attacks, clarifying: “Without exaggeration, four canvases from the Faye collection can be called masterpieces. “Woman with a Fan (Te aria wahine)” is depicted naked, lying on a green slope, next to her are several purple fruits […]. She exhibits a striking type of her race, and her posture is characteristic of the hot climate in which she lives. Thanks to the absolute harmony between the lines of the body and the landscape, beautiful texture and color, unprecedented heights have been achieved in the art of synthesis and the nobility of style. This brown Aphrodite inevitably brings to mind Baudelaire's lines about the beautiful dark stranger:

I love you like the night sky...

(Translated by V. Shor)

When I close my eyes on a sultry summer evening

I inhale the scent of your naked breasts,

I see the shores of the seas before me,

Flooded with the brightness of monotonous light...

(Translated by V. Bryusov)

From that autumn of 1906, the story of Gauguin's fame began, when he was finally able to settle in the Pantheon of modern painting along with Cezanne and Van Gogh. However, the speed of his posthumous rise should not be misleading. Let Gauguin forever remain the guiding star of Matisse, who in mature age He will even travel to Tahiti and become like-minded with Picasso in his search for freedom in painting and sculpture, but for a long time, for a whole century, all his daring, all his discoveries will excite the public, dividing society into his opponents and supporters. Gauguin's work will always be reduced to the exotic, to Bernard's cloisonnism or to his marginality. And only subsequent generations will be able to appreciate his genius, as Zhamo did. Apollinaire attended a small exhibition at Vollard in 1910. According to him, he came to admire “the liturgy of painting, where paints are carried symbolic meaning, enhancing their decorative appeal. The most religious of contemporary artists, Gauguin was the first to contrast his works with impressionism, which, unfortunately, completely reigned in art at that time […]. It is in the Louvre that these harmonious works should be exhibited, [in which] Paul Gauguin returned to the deep past of humanity in order to find the once lost divine purity of art.”

With these words, Apollinaire brings us very close to the traditions of primitivism. He, in turn, was introduced to them by Kahnweiler, who published the first collection of the poet’s poems. It is noteworthy that he ordered illustrations for “The Rotting Sorcerer” from Derain, and he used woodcuts for this, inspired by the works of Gauguin.

It can be said without exaggeration that it was from this moment that Gauguin gained well-deserved recognition outside of France. And if, as a result of the chaos caused by the Bolshevik revolution, the Gauguin paintings acquired by Shchukin and Morozov did not cause the proper reaction - after all, some of them are still practically unknown - then the German expressionists cheerfully took up the baton. Just at the time when the Fauves appeared in France, Kirchner and his like-minded people from Brücke, having completely independently studied one of the best galleries in the world, namely Dresden, invented their own primitivism. Their great interest in woodcuts brought them closer to the art of Gauguin. As a result, as one might expect, it was Gauguin, with all his creativity and legendary life, who became for them reference material, for a deeper study of which they constantly traveled to France. Gauguin exhibitions were organized in 1905 in Weimar, in 1906 in Berlin and in 1910 in Munich. Both Nolde and Pechstein explicitly stated that they were his supporters, and in 1913–1914 Nolde made a long trip to Oceania. As Goldwater wrote in 1938: “Whereas the nineteenth century (and especially, as we have seen, Gauguin) tried to grasp religious truth by freeing itself from historical or geographical accretions, the twentieth century, for the same purpose, preferred to tear away the emotional veils from the individual.” But Gauguin resolutely defended emotionality. With the help of his primitivism, indirectly, through Dada and expressionism, he nevertheless approached surrealism. This manner of his gave rise to new directions and trends in painting, thanks to which Gauguin is still present in modern art.

In France, this chain reaction did not take place until 1949, when they celebrated the centenary of Gauguin's birth.

It was then that the artist was finally recognized as the indisputable founder of modern art. And then Rene Hugh wrote about him that “he became the first who realized the need for a decisive change in the world so that modern art could be born, became the one who managed to abandon the gloomy and ossified Latin tradition to regain primitive powers in the tales of barbarians and the idols of savages; he became the first who, with a clear head, dared to change the surrounding reality or even completely abandon it, and at the same time rationalism […] He was able to understand: what affects the feelings - line, color, image - also affects the soul. And this understanding suddenly opened the way to quests, which, having been systematized, should have led to abstract art, and through it to completely new surrealism and expressionism."

In 1938, in Lucerne, Gauguin was symbolically present at the sale of works that Hitler's authorities considered to be decadent art. At the same time, by order of Stalin, the magnificent collections of Shchukin and Morozov were banned from display. This posthumous persecution totalitarian regimes might have pleased the inveterate supporter of anarchism, which the artist always remained at heart.

In 1968, Françoise Cachin, adding to the judgments of her predecessors about Gauguin, expressed the idea that he became “the first artist who really perceived painting at the level of absolute search and experienced it as if it were a personal drama.” And yet, it was only in 1984, when the exhibition “Primitivism in the Art of the 20th Century” was held at the Museum of Art in New York, which led to a revaluation of all modern art, that Gauguin began to be called the “father of modern primitivism.” If we take into account the exceptional intensity, richness and volume of creative research that Gauguin managed to bring to the end, then such long haul to the perception of his art seems completely natural. And only now Gauguin is truly with us.

Death, and only I testify: after watching “Taurus” - Sokurov’s film about Lenin - I heard very different opinions in the House of Cinema, for the most part negative, and I heard them from intelligent people, quite respectable ones. However, not a single negative review of the picture - according to