Académie Julian: the French artistic model from a Transatlantic perspective (1880-1920)

"M Yasui,

Born in Kioto, M. Yasui is only twenty one. For two years he frequented in his own country a teaching establishment founded on the model of Académie Julian, where M. Kanokogui, a former student of M. J.P. Laurens, taught him the principles and methods of French art. Afterwards, encouraged in his vocation by his parents, he came to France, and immediately entered Académie Julian and the atelier of M. Laurens. After two years of work, we can see that he has conquered his place among the best. However, he will probably remain a Japanese painter when he returns to his country. But the sketches he has made here, the vision of figures and European things, will give him the precision, assimilation, and subtlety which all of his compatriots have tried to achieve, in a European fashion, in works that are extremely Japanese."¹

The article published by the journal of Académie Julian about the painter of a Japanese origin, Yasui, reveals the international prestige which the school had achieved, and how much this dimension was valued by the institution. The text enthusiastically highlights that Académie Julian had contributed to the diffusion of the 'French model' through the world, even implanting it in the Orient. In teaching the 'precision, the subtlety' of the figurative vision and 'things of Europe' it gave artists from all over the world the technical qualities which allowed them return to their countries of origin, where, however, despite being profoundly transformed, they were suited for 'national' works. Propagandistic in nature the text points to the Transatlantic character of the school, whose impacts were felt in the four corners of the world. The centrality it claimed became dependent on and resulted from its dissemination among the artistic peripheries, demonstrating the interdependence between the terms.² In effect, much of the school's success can be measured by the large number of foreigners among its student body. In 1899 it had approximately 600 students, one third of whom were Americans, Russians, Poles, Norwegians, Brazilians, etc.³ Attracted by the centrality conquered by Paris during the nineteenth century, which had become a global artistic metropole,⁴ such aspiring artists often found a home in Académie Julian.

Opened in 1867 by Rudolf Julian (1839-1907) – a former student of Léon Cogniet and Alexandre Cabanel, who obtained little success as a painter – initially it consisted of a small room in Passage des Panoramas, located in Montmartre, where it offered students permanent access to studies of live models, followed by two sessions of weekly corrections with well-reputed artists. In 1880, alongside this space, the director opened a course exclusively for women, initially with few students, no more than forty. However, gradually this venture became an empire: in 1885 the school had four hundred female students, four years later reaching six hundred.⁵ In two decades the director opened nine new ateliers scattered around Paris, amongst which five were for male students and four for females.

The institution's success derived from three principal motives. First, the teaching method used followed the same principles propagated by the École des Beaux Arts, the most renowned institution for teaching artists in global terms. Moreover, the teacher hiring policy gave it a privileged position in the French academic field, since Julian selected well-known teachers, who held dominant positions in the artistic salons, who at the same time worked as teachers and held positions on juries, tending to favor their own disciples in theses competitive awards. Finally, the academy was a pioneer in the teaching and the professionalization of female artists from all over the world, becoming attractive to a large group of women who wanted to improve as artists and did not find in their countries of origin the possibility of doing this.⁶

Study in Paris: challenges and possibilities for foreign artists

In the French artistic system, the École des Beaux Arts held a preponderant role, at least since the seventeenth century when, thanks to a royal decree, it came to monopolize the study of the live model, seen as central for the education of painters and sculptors. Alongside this, EBA provided a solid structure aimed at the teaching of drawing, seen as the essential paradigm of the 'great art.' However, the practical study of painting (or sculpture) was taught in private ateliers run by artists who, in general, were either teachers from the school or consecrated by the system. Until the 1863 reform, it can be said that that there was an artistic education system divided between two complementary parts, one the one hand, the drawing and theoretical classes given in EBA, and on the other the practical classes in private ateliers.⁷

The importance of these ateliers for the history of art has been reassessed in recent studies.⁸ For a long time the historiography of the education of nineteenth century artists concentrated exclusively on the role of art academies. While these had a central role, the private ateliers were not on the margins of the system, to the contrary they guaranteed the complete education of artists under 1863, when the Ecole des Beaux Arts came to house ateliers of painting and sculpture within its structure, in other words it came to have 'official ateliers.' In the ateliers of Jacques Louis David, Thomas Couture, and Anne-Louis Girordet, amongst many others, various aspiring artists came into contact with a fundamental technical apprenticeship, taught in an environment that was generally more informal but which was led by a consecrated master. These spaces were constitutive of the artistic mythology and education constructed in the nineteenth century, as Alain Bonnet has demonstrated.⁹

To a certain extent, the art schools which appeared in the post-reform period in France, such as Académie Julian, Académie Colarossi, Académi de la Grand Chaumière etc., were heirs of these private ateliers. Like the latter, they should not be seen as 'rivals' or antipodes to EBA, but rather as complementary to the system. One of the functions performed was preparing students for the hard admission exams to the official school.

After the 1884 decree, the admission exam to École des Beaux-Arts determined that the same procedure be used for French nationals and for foreigners. The entrance exams were held twice a year, in March and August, and consisted of the following stages: for painters, one drawing of a live model in one of the sessions and from plaster in the other, to be carried out in twelve hours (an exam considered eliminatory); afterwards an anatomy drawing (osteology) to be done in two hours in the loges; a perspective exam to be done in the galleries in four hours; an object in relief with indications of lines in perspective; a fragment of a figure modeled from plaster, to be completed in nine hours; an exercise of elementary architecture, done over six hours in the galleries; and an exam, written or oral, about the general notions of history. For sculptors the same exams were held, though without the perspective exam, while the figure had to be modeled d'après nature in similar conditions to painters. Only artists who received medals or who had won first place in the previous exams were dispensed from the admission exams.¹⁰ The exams thus required prior knowledge, especially of drawing.

One of the functions of Académie Julian was to prepare students for these entrance exams. With models paid eight hours a day for the whole year,¹¹ on payment of the monthly fee anyone could practice the drawing of the human body, so central to the abilities expected of an academic artist. Twice a week they would receive a visit from a well-known teacher to comment on their production, in the 'scéances de correction.'

However, even after passing the entrance exams to EBA various students opted to remain in Académie Julian. Why? A second point to be noted about the centrality of the institution is that due to the hiring of a select group of teachers an effective policy of the favoring of the latter's disciples operated there. By hiring distinguished teachers who, in addition to their artistic value, held positions of prestige in the salons, acting as jury members for both selections of students and the awarding of prizes, the director of the school assured the chances of success for many of its students. In 1904, for example, among the 107 students accepted into EBA, 44 came from Académie Julian, while for women the proportion was even higher, seven out of the ten accepted were former students of the Académie.¹²

Among the teaching staff of Académie Julian were: Jules Lefèbvre, member of the Academy in 1891 and president of the painting jury of Société des Artistes Français; Tony Robert-Fleury, president of the Société des Artistes Français and EBA teacher in 1905; William Bouguereau, member of the Academy in 1876, EBA teacher in 1888 and president of Société des Artistes Français in 1902; Gabriel Ferrier, member of the Academy in 1896 and head of the EBA painting atelier in 1904; Jean-Paul Laurens, EBA teacher in 1885 and member of the Academy in 1891; Gustave Boulanger, EBA teacher in 1883; Marcel Baschet, elected to the Academy in 1913; François Schommer, EBA teacher in 1910; and Raoul Verlet, EBA teacher in 1905, as well as Paul Gervais and Henri Royer.

Belonging to the Academy implied the possibility of selecting the juries of the Salons and of proclaiming the winners of the Prix de Rome. Certainly, the teachers hired for Julian tended to more easily approve their own disciples, who they knew well and who followed their own precepts, than strangers. This situation did not go unperceived. In 1889, La Curiosité Universelle newspaper published a petition from a group of students denouncing the school's policy of favoritism. The text began stating that "The École des Beaux-arts is no more than the terrain of manipulations of Académie Julian" and then stated that this could be proved through an analysis of the position of the jury:

"Who were the jury? Thirty members had been convoked, four had answered the call, and of these four two had a direct interest. One of these, M. Jules Lefebvre, the pillar of La Maison Julian, admitted without any great ceremony four out of the five of his students and two out of the three of his colleague Bouguereau; and another M. Henri Levy contented himself with receiving his two students. Damn! When one does not have three."¹³

It can thus be seen that belonging to Académie Julian tended not only to help enter EBA, but also helped in the acceptance of works to be shown in the Salon, which was the principal means available to French and foreign artists to build their reputations, making the school very attractive because of the policy of favoritism intermediated by its teaching staff. Having a work accepted in the Salon was fundamental for an artist's career. It was a condition of visibility desired by everyone, but in a bitter battle which was possibly even harder for foreigners.

Académie Julian was even more significant for the careers of women artists.¹⁴ After the reorganization caused by the Revolution at the end of the eighteenth century the Academy stopped accepting women. While until this date a total of four women could be accepted if judged 'exceptional' by the king, in the new era they were formally excluded from the Ecole des Beaux Arts.¹⁵ It was only in 1897 that they were allowed enter the École de Beaux Arts as regular students and only in 1902 that they could inscribe themselves to compete for the Prix de Rome.¹⁶ The institutional closure to women derived to a large extent from the central role that the study of the nude had acquired in the training of artists, seen as an indecent practice for the 'fragile' sex. With this, female artists were cut off from knowledge of the live model, at the very moment that this became essential for the figuration of heroes. In turn the latter became fundamental in the compositions of historic paintings, the genre at the top of the artistic hierarchy. Being unable to portray the human body implied their exclusion from the highest genre within the rigid academic canons.¹⁷

In other countries the situation was not very different. In Germany, the most important academies, such as those of Berlin and Dusseldorf, only admitted female students after 1914. Although in Latin America female students were permitted before their European contemporaries, their entrance was still late. In Mexico the Academia de San Carlos accepted female students in 1888, while in Brazil this occurred under the republic, in 1892.¹⁸

Nevertheless, during the nineteenth century many female artists exhibited their works,¹⁹ some even obtaining a reputation at the time. This was possible thanks to the proliferation of private ateliers, amongst which Académie Julian stood out.²⁰ Shortly after its foundation in 1868, the school highlighted the existence of mixed classes (in 1873). In 1880, the director noticed that exclusively female classes would be even more successful due to the prudery of many French women who did not hide their discomfort in cohabiting the same space as male colleagues.²¹ In the new classes, young women received education similar to men, could study live models daily, and also received lessons from masters who also taught in EBA. The only exception is that they had to be willing to pay dear for these privileges: the monthly and annual fees for women were in general the double of what men paid.²²

Another positive aspect for the female public was the emphasis given to the training of portrait artists. Julian believed that, different from the painting of history which due to its gigantesque proportion constituted an almost exclusively male space, the painting of portraits was a good field for women. The genre was then popular, counting on various types of clients in several countries and, due its small dimensions and emphasis on a psychological dimension, it seemed conducive to what was once believed to be a typical female sensibility. Many American, such as Elizabeth Gardner, or Swiss women such as Louise Breslau, took part in this: in the dual role of portrait painters and successful exhibiters in the salons they established glorious careers in their countries of origin.²³

It is important to note that Académie Julian was rehabilitated in history of art studies through gender studies, or better its contribution to the formation of a female artistic Transatlantic elite. It was initially studies about female artists carried out by US researchers that called attention to the centrality of this institution which received hundreds of female artists from the United Stated, wanting an artistic education denied to them their countries of origin. The publications of Catherine Feher, Denise Nöel, and Gabriel Weisberg were followed by others which sought to open similar paths, though focusing on Latin American artists, amongst which I include my own work²⁴ and that of the Argentine researcher Georgina Gluzmann.²⁵

Paradoxically, the relevance of the institution in the field of studies of art and gender does not find a parallel in more general history of art, attentive to the theme of the transferences of artistic models, with rare exceptions, such as the work of Mark Zgórniak, concerned with the impact of the school on the education of Polish artists, Arthur Valle, concerned with the importance of Académie Julian for Brazilian pensioners,²⁶ and Samuel Montiège, who points to its role in the education of Canadian artists at the turn of the twentieth century.²⁷

Académie Julian and Transatlantic artists

Académie Julian played a relevant role in the education of American artists, both from North and South America, and both male and female. Although the historiography about its centrality for female artists is more developed this should not restrict its general importance.

Studies about transference of models tend to prioritize the Ecole des Beaux Arts. But it is necessary to empirically verify how many artists were able to overcome the difficulties caused by the entrance exams, which required, in addition to a great knowledge of drawing, much practice in French that would have been difficult for the foreigners. In a previous paper, I analyzed the trajectories of Brazilian artists in Paris between the end of the nineteenth century and the 1920s, where I obtained the following figures: 75 men and fourteen women passed through Académie Julian, while in the same period only five entered EBA, namely Almeida Júnior (in 1878), Pedro Américo de Figueiredo e Mello (in 1863), Rodolfo Amoedo (in 1899), Lucílio de Albuquerque (in 1910) and his wife, Georgina de Albuquerque (in 1910).²⁸

The census of Canadian artists in Paris made by Samuel Montiège found a total of 200 names, of whom around 89 had matriculated in Académie Julian, while approximately 55 were admitted in École des Beaux-Arts.²⁹ It should be noted that, in the case of Canada part of the population spoke French as a native language, which meant they had less difficulties to face certain of the entrance exams, such as general knowledge, given in either oral or written French.

Having said this, it is also worth noting that the number of Brazilians and Canadians in Académia Julian was very similar, as well as quite significant. Although it was a much lower number than the approximately 2200 American artists who had stayed in Paris according to Weinberg, amongst whom around 400 entered EBA,³⁰ while a few hundred others had opted for Académie Julian.³¹ The numerical similarity is even more surprising when it can be seen that the countries had very different conditions, in all senses, from diverse types of colonization, to the cultural and linguistic matrices in each country, with Canada being multilinguistic (anglophone and francophone) while Brazil is predominantly Portuguese speaking.

Even more relevant is considering that in Brazil the French artistic model had been imposed since 1826 due to the inauguration of an Academy, as a consequence of the demands raised by the transfer of the capital of the Portuguese Empire to its former colony, as the court fled from the 1808 Napoleonic invasion. In the wake of this political transformation, in 1816 a group of French artists were contracted to found an art school, following the overseas models. Opened in 1826, the Brazilian version emulated the principles of the Parisian matrix, in aesthetic and pedagogical terms.³² As a result, in 1844 a system of exhibitions and awards was created at the top of which was created the greatest of laurels: the trip to Paris. Through scholarships granted either directly by the Emperor or the academy, a constant flow of Brazilian artists was sent to Paris to complete their artistic education from the middle of the nineteenth century at the very least.³³ A series of artists counted on direct patronage to pay for their studies, including at times from lesser authorities (such as mayors or governors). In the case of Canada there was no similar structure, since an academy had not been built there, rather there existed a set of art schools lacking scholarships.³⁴ In this case artists were obliged to either pay for their stay in France directly or to receive patronage. A system that was thus exclusively private, very different from the Brazilian one, but which approximated Canada to the US, where artists also did not have a public system based on scholarships, but rather relied on the support of patrons or their own families.

However, the existence of an academy did not guarantee a great flow of Mexican artists to Paris in the period studied.³⁵ The foundation of Academia de San Carlos in Ciudad do Mexico in 1783 was a pioneer in the interiorization of the French model in Latin America, but this did not result in many Mexican artists going to the city of light. The students who received scholarships from the Academy, known in the period as porfiriato, tended to choose Rome as their principal destination. This is the case, for example, of the painter Carmela Duarte (1870-1940), the only woman with a scholarship in this period who, despite the attractions of the French model, did not opt for this destination.³⁶ The case of Mexico shows that Paris was not the only metropole to attract Transatlantic artists at the end of the nineteenth century.

In relation to the other Latin American artists it is notably difficult to obtain more precise data. No systematic studies have yet been carried out in the National Archives which have meticulously counted the presence of artists from countries such as Argentina, Mexico, Colombia, Chile etc. In the case of female artists there is an aggravating factor, for a long time the documents remained in the private archive of Del Debbio, where they were partially accessed by some US and Latin American researchers.³⁷ In a primary research, the notebook with the registrations of female Latin American artists contained the following names: from Brazil, Sra. Barbosa, Berdier, Castillos, Capper, De Mesquita, Hermina Palla, Calbo Lott, Mme. Viscondessa de Sistello, Srta. Lobo, Sra. Cabral, Sra. Silva, Sra. Elvira Mayol, Marguerite Caymari, Mariette Rezente, Julieta de França, Sra. Negrão, Sra. de Aassis Vaz, Sra. Nair de Teff; from Chile, Gandarillas, Srta. Matte, Sra. Waricz; from Bolivia, Mlle. Matté; from Guatemala, Aparicio, and De Montis; from Argentina, Arameyo, Marispe, Pietranera, Crovetto, Fernandez Blanco and, from Colombia, Fletcher, Helley, Wallarino, and Pérez.³⁸ This data has been revised and corrected (since on the list of Brazilians various Argentinians appears), aided in the case of Argentineans by Georgina Gluzman's research.³⁹

The list is indicative of the importance of the institution for successful careers in their home countries, since among them figure the Chileans Celia Castro, María Teresa Gandarillas, and the sculptor Rebeca Matte, a renowned name in Chile;⁴⁰ the Brazilians Julieta de França and Nicolina Vaz de Assis, the most reputed in their time in Brazil; and the painter Maria Obligado de Soto y Calvo, who stood out in the French salons and dedicated herself to painting the history of South America.⁴¹ In all cases, access to live models and classes with renowned masters in the French system were indispensable elements for the education of these artists, as this was incomplete in their countries of origin, constituting a fundamental stage in their professionalization and a decisive element for the consecration they enjoyed on their return.

In the case of the men the research still has to be done, as a result it is not possible to present now a more conclusive analysis about the impact of the school on their production and trajectories. A timely case study, about the presence of Latin Americans in one of the ateliers of the school - the one led run Jean Paul Laurens and Henri Royer between 1904 -1907 on Rue du Dragon -, can be indicative and present clues for new investigations. Among the 520 matriculations⁴² I found the following Latin American names:

*Sometimes the same artist has two registrations in the book, when they matriculated more than once in the same period. I chose to include the data under the same name.

**This data does not appear in the archives, all the rest does, consult: Archives Nationales. 63-A-S5.2 (microfilms)

Pointing to a single artistic model which had circulated among masters and disciples, creating some sort of thematic or stylistic homogeneity capable of forming a 'school,' is perhaps a barren effort. After all what predominated in the private ateliers and made them so attractive for aspirants to the artistic career was the absolute defense of the 'freedom of creation,' the importance and value of 'personal style' in the configuration of artists and their works, in which copying as an 'exercise' was recommended but the 'imitation' of masters as a process was strongly advised against. As Nerlich stated, "work in the private ateliers leads above all to a definition – agonizing and exhilarating – of oneself."⁴³ These spaces were certainly important for engendering a technical apprenticeship, especially in relation to the figuration of the live model, by stimulating meetings, coexistence, and shared experiences among artists, which still waits for deeper analyses capable of analyzing the materializations of these elements in works and careers of the artists of the après l´Atlantique.

For foreigners, alongside this formative and informative dimension, Académie Julian stood out as a more open and welcoming space than EBA, although it counted on the same masters reputed by this system, which was relevant for the voyages and permanence of these artists and to confer respectability and sometimes success on their return to their 'home.' Recovering these elements is a fundamental project to revisit the history of art and its movement between the 'old' and ' new worlds,' so often eclipsed by the modernist paradigm, which tended to despise nineteenth century production or even that produced at the beginning of the twentieth century not oriented towards the languages of the vanguard.⁴⁴ In effect, the study of the production of Latin American, US, and Canadian artists who studied in the Parisian academies, notably Julian, can be highly revealing of how much during the first two decades of the twentieth century the continuity of these so-called 'academic' practices continued to enjoy prestige and meaning.⁴⁵ This explains, for example, the choice of Académie Julian by someone who would soon become a celebrated Brazilian 'modernist' a year before her 'conversion' to cubism: Tarsila do Amaral. In 1920, following the traditional path of her fellow artists, she entered the school preferred by Brazilians, Académie Julian. Like all the students from the institution she also dedicated herself to capturing and portraying naked models, in poses made in the ateliers of the institution. However, her perception showed that this formula had gradually begun to become exhausted. Her letter to her Brazilian friend and fellow painter Anita Malfatti is symptomatic of a process that was tottering, that of the loss of the centrality of the school which soon would be seen as a 'bulwark of French academism,' pernicious to the construction of a 'local' modernity, which would become such as effervescent theme for so many nations on this side (or that side, depending where one is) of the Atlantic.⁴⁶

[...] I am writing to you from here in Académie* *Julian. I come every morning. I am working in a large group of more than 50 students. It appears to me than many are called but few are chosen. I do not see any strong students. Some work well, but what impresses us is missing. I had already been in the 'Grand Palais', in the October Salon; look, Anita, almost everything here is tending towards Cubism or futurism.⁴⁷

However, between 1870 and 1920, the legacies of the school were unquestionable and its most concrete impacts on the faturas and trajectories of Latin and North America painters and sculptors await more timely research, which will be the necessary foundation for the interpretations which will allow comparisons between the appropriations made by artists of different nationalities. For now, the research which is most developed is related to female artists who spent time in Académie Julian, and in their cases the education received was essential for qualified returns and for their professionalization in their native lands, whether it was in the field of sculpture, including public sculpture, (such as Rebeca Matte, in Chile and Nicolina Vaz de Assis, in Brazil), or as portraits (such as the Brazilians Berthe Worms and Nicota Bayeux or Elvira Aramayo from Argentina). The study of male ateliers, predominant and more numerous, and whose documentation is accessible in the French Archives Nationales, curiously still has to be better developed. The present text constitutes a stimulus for new perspectives capable of revisiting the history of Latin American art in a period which demands revisions and in an amplified, transnational, and Transatlantic dimension.