Om man ser en
bild av ett konstverk i en bok och sedan får tillfälle att se konstverket i
verkligheten, kan intrycket bli helt annorlunda även om man känner igen varje
detalj. I boken måste alla avbildade konstverk få plats på boksidan, medan
storleken i verkligheten kan skilja sig avsevärt. En bild som denna, med många
minutiöst målade detaljer, borde väl kräva ganska stor yta för att komma till
sin rätt? Men det är en liten målning, en goache i formatet 31x19
centimenter, alltså ungefär som en A4-sida. Och här är den något beskuren; på
originalbilden finns hela kyrktornet med och lite mer av vagnen längst till
höger.
Om jag skulle
fråga några personer om var de tror motivet finns, är jag övertygad om att de
flesta skulle svara Paris. Det finns en svårgripbar Parisstämning som ännu är
närvarande i staden, även om trafikbullret som mångdubblats sedan målningen
gjordes gör sitt för att förstöra den. Bilden kommer från en tid då bilar var
en exklusiv raritet, början av 1900-talet, det som brukar kallas la belle epoque. En tid då borgerskapet
i Paris hade det ganska gott ställt. Man hade råd att gå på krogen och teatern,
man åkte droska, var välklädd och handlade av gatuförsäljarna.
Konstnären
Eugène Galien-Laloue (1854–1941) kom från Paris och var född i Montmartre. Han
målade förvisso en del landskapsbilder från olika håll i Frankrike och hade
under första världskriget ett uppdrag att skildra krigstiden i mindre franska
samhällen. Men hans berömmelse vilar mest på de många bilder han gjorde av
Parismiljöerna. De är små till formatet, och det Paris han visar upp är höstens
med virvlande bruna löv eller, som ovan, vintern med snötäckt mark och flingor
i luften. Oftast är bilderna komponerade som här: en gata, boulevard, öppen
plats eller kaj, människor som flanerar, stabila byggnader, ofta gatustånd. Galien-Laloue är begränsad, men suverän på det han valde att skildra. Bilden
ovan sitter på min vägg och heter L’Eglise
Saint-Médard Rue Mouffetard.
Galien-Laloues
målningar från Paris anses utöver sin konstnärliga halt också ha ett
dokumentärt värde. Han visar hur Paris såg ut under la belle epoque. Men på den tiden var staden förmodligen mycket
fotograferad, i Frankrike utvecklades fotografin tidigt. Och målningarna
liknar, den omsorgsfulla kompositionen till trots, ett slags konstnärliga
snapshots. Människorna poserar inte för målaren utan tycks fångade i flykten.
Detaljerna är skarpa och omsorgsfullt tecknade, men i målningarna finns också
suddigare avsnitt, som gatan till vänster som försvinner i fjärran i ett töcken
av färgfläckar och några figurer som är oskarpt återgivna som i rörelse på
gamla foton med lång exponeringstid.
Det är svårt
att hitta personuppgifter om Eugène Galien-Laloue. Det verkar som om han ville
undvika att sätta personbiografiska avtryck i konsthistorien. Inte blev det
lättare av han satte myror i huvudet på historiker genom att arbeta under en
rad pseudonymer. Jag har emellertid hittat en intressant artikel om Galien-Laloue
av kulturjournalisten Peter Morrell som jag tillåter mig att citera några
avsnitt ur. Bilder finns det däremot gott om på internet, och jag har lånat
några för att illustrera Morrells ord. Artikeln finns här:
”To express what I like about Laloue’s art is that I adore his
colours, his composition and the lightness of his touch. These aspects
especially stand out. His pictures have a great lightness and delicacy about
them, very soft colours, a beautiful sense of invading tragic autumn or winter
impermanence: a summer is ending, the crowds are dispersing, the winter is
coming; his pictures show a scene sketched in a few minutes, in a hurry and
just for you. He tears the picture from its pad and with a smile presses it
urgently into your hand, and then he is gone!”
”Above all, his pictures glow with a gorgeous light; light
pours out of them; they are luminous like cathedral windows on a very bright
sunny day. The light is soft, golden, otherworldly. It is an autumnal and
evening light, never a morning or summer light. Compositionally, they are even
more perfect than an actual Parisian street. Every form and shape hangs
together nicely with its neighbours. This delicacy, this luminosity combines so
softly with the compositional perfectness to make them an utter joy on the
eyes. We do not so much look at a Laloue painting, as enter it. Our eyes are
drawn in to embrace a Laloue picture; the eye weaves pleasantly in and out of
the parts of the picture, glides smoothly over the soft surface, lovingly
caresses every detail, every colour, every tone, savouring every shape, never
tiring of the minutest joy and pleasure this encounter induces.”
”Looking at Laloue’s fine output, we tap straight into his
bright and delicate mind; his pictures invite us into his world of inner
vision. This is the assumption we make. In which case, his mind must have been
light, delicate, agile, luminous and essentially a bright, optimistic and
joyous place to be; that of a person in love with life, happy with himself and
permeated by a great sense of symmetry, balance and harmony that touches every
particle of his being. Such is the strong impression his pictures create upon our
senses. Such must be the impression he himself would make on us were we to meet
him. It is the quality of his particular soul.”
”For his sense of balance and delicacy, he reminds me slightly
of Vermeer or Leonardo, though in a more cavalier, throwaway, amateur way. It
is as if he did not even care about his pictures; as if he just did them for
himself, or for street people; as if they were done in a hurry and then he
moved on, uncaring about them; absorbed in the joy of his being, getting on
with his other life. As if the art was merely an excretion, a pastime,
something he did for others, before dinner, something that he had to do for
cash, but which was not a big deal to him. He seems very relaxed about his
pictures. He is not very serious about them. He does not cling to them or
labour over them because he does not care; he is unconcerned. They are not
precious to him. Unlike so many artists, he has no ego-identification with his
work. That is another beautiful aspect about his art – there is no sense of
ego. He is invisible. Few details about his life are known. In this, he also
resembles Vermeer and Leonardo. He himself is something of a mystery. All three
are hazy and transparent figures whose art reveals very little about the lives
they lived. This borders on innocence and egolessness. Such are the assumptions
we make about him as we try to view the man through his art.”
”His pictures do not look as though he laboured very long over
them; they look as if they poured out of him very quickly, probably in minutes.
They contain great symmetry, formal or organised lines of the streets and
buildings. We know he originally trained as an architect, but declined to
become an architect because he felt it was too bourgeois. He was uncomfortable
about wealth, preferred to stay poor, and wanted to be with poor people on the
streets. He probably lived rough or in some cheap house in a rough area of
Paris. He probably mixed with very ordinary street people who cared as little
for appearances as he did. My guess is that he despised pomposity and the rich.
It is almost implicit in his art and the life he led. Perhaps he felt stifled
by the stiff formality of it.”
”These are the enduring impressions Laloue fills me with. Such
are the impressions his art has upon me. I find his pictures wonderful,
transporting, an unending delight. They are treasure-troves of visual beauty.
To me, they are some of the finest art my eyes have ever seen. I love them most
dearly and have never tired of gazing at them since I first discovered them
quite by accident some four or five years ago. They are delightful, pleasing,
open and loose. They seem rapturous, lovingly created and reflecting a kind and
humane but humble person, a person who lived very simply and in spite of his
education preferred to live an uncomplicated life among poor and very ordinary
people. The pictures are fragile and soft, filled brimful with joy and light.
They are entrancing, dream-like visions of Paris as it was in the 1920s. They
seem to show a luminous sense of the divine, of the mystical, even in the most
mundane street scenes. They are also silky smooth composed in pastel shades
dribbled onto the canvas like ice-cream. They are all quick sketches done in
gouache or oil on board or canvas. Their softness, their delicacy and their
naturalness are especially appealing qualities. There is a timelessness to his
work that transcends their actual historical location. Such is surely the
hallmark of artistic greatness, of true genius.”
Vad hade han för olika signaturer på sina målningar?
SvaraRaderaJag har hittat några andra namn på nätet: Juliany, J. Lievin, Galiany och Dupuy Leon. Kanske använde han ytterligare pseudonymer.
SvaraRaderaTack för snabbt svar Du har inte hört nåt om Lumb och Burlett?
RaderaNej, jag känner inte igen de namnen, men jag har inte undersökt saken. Så de kan mycket väl vara andra pseudonymer.
Radera