Fauvism is the twentieth-century’s first movement in modern art. It was born out of a cultural revolution that took place between 1905 and 2007. Art was constantly challenged by the changing ideas of art and had to embrace innovation and experimentation. Fauvism was only one of many cogs that drove innovation towards Modernism and Futurism, Impressionism, Post-Impressionism, to name a few. Although each of these art movements has been thoroughly studied, Fauvism stands out. Sarah Whitfield claimed that Fauvism “was possibly the most transient and easily definable”. Van Dongen said that Fauvism was not associated with any particular doctrine. Fauvism is simply a group or painters that were more alike than others to the changing times. They shared the same aspirations and ideals regarding art. For example, they used bright artificial colours. Sometimes these colours were contrasting and complimentary. What happened to this temporary period of art? Jean Leymarie claims that “Collioure was Fauvism’s birth”. This essay will explore the reasons for Fauvism and the people, places, and things responsible.
One argument to support Collioure as the birthplace Fauvism was that Fauvism’s most important attributes were developed in Collioure. Leymarie and we therefore consider Collioure’s impact on Fauvism. Many of the characteristics we consider Fauvist are founded in Collioure. Matisse (and Derain) spent their time in Collioure developing their styles. Collioure is an idyllic fishing village in South France. It has Spanish influences and Matisse, Derain and other artists absorbed the Spanish landscapes and colours. Derain was just beginning to arrive in Collioure when he painted ‘Boats at Collioure’ (1905). He used thick brushstrokes, lots of paint and very few colours to convey texture. Derain later said that he needed to get rid of divisionism. The movement away from divisionism is key in the development Fauvism. Collioure could be considered to have been responsible. Leymarie also believes Collioure helped in this development. Derain himself stated, “I must eradicate everything that the division of tones involves.” They learned how light can reflect temperature and used bright colours to express warmth. Although it is possible to argue that they already used non-naturalistic colours, Collioure was more interested in how they used them. They used bright, vivid colours all around, “a blonde, golden glow that does away shadows”, and if the intention was to paint shadows they would use equally vivid colours. Because “every shadow” is a whole realm of luminosity, Derain’s View of Collioure’ (1905), is an excellent example of how this works. The colours are bright and both lighten the shadows.
Color was also used as a way of communicating warmth. Collioure’s Fauves emphasized the importance of colour. Fauvism in Collioure also included the use canvas as a color, which ties the entire painting together and creates a strong, cohesive work. The lack of depth or perspective was another way to show flatness. Matisse and Derain used continuous textures of colours to eliminate any sense of depth. Matisse’s “The open window” (1905) shows Matisse using similar colours in the background and foreground to create the illusion of depth. We can see that Collioure is the birthplace of Fauvism thanks to the many Fauvism characteristics that were created by two prominent Fauvism artists.
There is reason to believe, however, that Collioure’s developments and those that occurred there were not responsible for Fauvism’s development. Derain and Matisse see Collioure as a place of innovation, but it is possible to argue that elements of Fauvism which we attribute Collioure have been present in their work. Matisse, for example, painted ‘Luxury, Calm, and Desire in 1904. It was this painting that we believe is the result of Collioure’s use of colour. In it, we can see many of those characteristics, such the use and effect of vibrant colour as shadow and warmth. Collioure also credited using canvas in his painting. But, again, this is used in 1899 by the ‘Study of a Nude. While there are certain traits that Collioure has developed, primarily how to use colour, one could argue that Fauvism is not affected more by these characteristics than other areas. Fauvism had many influences beyond Collioure. Vlaminck, although he wasn’t present in Collioure was one of the foremost artists of Fauvism. Vlaminck said that Fauvism is “what?” It’s you.” Vlaminck is rightly acknowledged as a key person in the Fauvist style development. However, he wasn’t at Collioure and this suggests that Collioure didn’t actually birth Fauvism. Les Fauves is French for wild beasts. Vlaminck was the only one to exhibit this wild style of painting. His use of colour to communicate emotion was undoubtedly his best. Vlaminck’s intuitive, wild, and expressive use color is key to Fauvism. This is in contrast to Collioure’s origins of Fauvism.
You could argue Chatau was also the birthplace Fauvism. Vlaminck-Derain painted there for 15 months. It was the only place where Fauvists artists could collaborate. It is unclear why Collioure was rated as an influence on Fauvism more than Chatau. Chatau is where Derain/Vlaminck first began to use landscapes to their main subject, and landscapes are considered to be the main subject in Fauvism. It is worth noting, too, that Derain was the first to use non-descriptive colors and Vlaminck the first to make the transition to abstraction. It’s hard to believe that Collioure is the birthplace Fauvism. There were many Fauvist traits already being developed in Chatau by Vlaminck and Derain before Matisse in Collioure.
Vlaminck’s “Gardens in Chatau”, 1904, is an example of this. It uses thick, nondescriptive, block colours, and shows a shift toward abstraction. These features were developed in Collioure. Yet, Vlaminck’s Chatau paintings show them a year earlier than Collioure. Chatau, Vlaminck, and other factors played a significant role in the development Fauvism. One of these was the Japanese influence on Fauvist core characteristics. Japanese art inspired the Fauvists’ preference for landscape painting and flat colours. They also preferred simplification and simplicity. Matisse said, “Colour is its very existence. It has a unique beauty. This information was first discovered by us by the Japanese. That was when I realized that expressive colors can be used without necessarily being descriptive. Matisse’s use non-realistic colour palette was also inspired by this realization. Collioure was a great influence in this area but Japanese prints are what prompted it. It seems that Collioure did not have the greatest influence on Fauvism’s development.
Let’s conclude that it is difficult to argue that Collioure did not contribute greatly to Fauvism development. Derain and Matisse made significant advances in colour and divisionism. Derain also made important contributions to Fauvism development. But, I don’t believe Collioure was the origin of Fauvism. There were so many factors involved that led Fauvism to its growth. Fauvism did not have a defined goal or a manifesto. It was an experimentation phase and it is hard to pinpoint one person or place responsible for its growth. To conclude, I’ll say that I don’t believe Collioure, nor any other single person, is responsible for Fauvism’s development.
