A youthful Monet

Long before he lived in Giverny and painted waterlilies, Claude Monet started sketching the landscape and people around him. He was a very precocious young man, and it is fascinating to see his beginnings.

We live not far from Le Havre, so I never miss an exhibition at the lovely MuMa museum, built by the sea. The latest of these was to mark the centenary of Monet’s death by presenting an exploration of his youth.

Claude Monet’s parents moved to Le Havre when he was five. There he took his first steps as an artist, filling sketchbooks with drawings from life, and mischievously caricaturing people around him by the age of 15. These caricatures became so popular that he made brisk business selling them.

At Le Havre he met Eugène Boudin, who became his mentor, as did Johan Jongkind. He absorbed the teachings of his masters and composed his first still lifes. As he oscillated between the city where he grew up and Paris, where he associated with the future Impressionists, his gaze was gradually formed and his ambition confirmed.

His was a family of merchants who—his father in particular—took a dim view of his artistic ambitions. However, his brother Léon encouraged him; and the Gaudibert family became his earliest patrons, regularly buying his work. See below a painting of Mme Gaudibert. I don’t think Monet was a particularly excellent portrait painter, his interest lay elsewhere. But I love the portrait of Mme Gaudibert—her face, partially turned away, showing her discreet character, the texture of her clothes, rich and interesting, but not showy

I also like this portrait of his mother. Very good attitude and composition, and I love the patterns on the sofa and carpet, contrasting with her plain dress.

I also admired the simple pastel landscapes, brilliantly conveying weather in just a few lines. Food for inspiration.

I cropped out the frames so the details are more prominent.

A dramatic sunset below:

And of course, living in a port inspired him to paint the sea, and boats.

This was difficult to photograph, because of the glare on the glass. It was a lot more impressive live. As is most art, however good the photo.

One gripe was that all these paintings were behind glass, even the oil paintings. This together with the lighting, detracted from the viewing. And all due to activists who think it’s effective to douse masterpieces in ketchup. Sigh…