Student Name
ART 105
Research Paper Final Draft
Descriptive Title (or omit)
When Western art began to shift towards abstraction during the early 1900s, one of the
first groups to take a step in that direction was the Fauves. Among the leaders of this faction was
a man named Andre Derain who would go on to produce paintings that displayed the essence of
Fauvism. As Derain became an artist he was affected by the recent invention of photography
which was quickly gaining ground. Artists of the time soon realized that this new creation had
practically replaced them in the job of replicating the natural world because the reality of the
pictures was perceived to be better than any rendition by history’s artists, for less cost, and in a
fraction of the time. This spurred artists to represent the world in new ways, and one of the first
methods was to move away from the natural colors. The result: Fauvism. No goal or creed held
this group together, just friendships and similar styles, yet one of the leaders was no doubt Andre
Derain (Whitfield 8).
Born in 1880 in Chatou, France (a suburb of Paris), Andre Derain grew up comfortably,
but forsook his father’s wishes for his career in favor of becoming an artist, creating a rift
between him and his family that was not healed until many years later. In 1899 while he was
living in Paris, where he was supposed to be studying to become an engineer, Derain met artists
that were beginning to use techniques that would form the basis of Fauvism (Lee 11). They
introduced him to Henri Matisse and despite the eleven year difference in age, the two became
friends. Derain and Matisse worked together and one summer while doing so made some
important Fauvist paintings. Matisse’s commitment to what he believed to be true Fauvism was
commendable, and helped drive the movement forward (Whitfield 7). Another important
friendship that Derain made during this time was with an artist his own age and it would last
many years. Derain and Maurice de Vlaminck met when they happened to sit next to one another
on a train. They soon realized that they shared a common hunger to make art. Although
Vlaminck’s personality was strong and aggressive, while Derain leaned toward being quiet and
thoughtful, the two got along well and became roommates, sharing a studio (Negri 8; Brodskai︠ a
95). Derain, Matisse, and Vlaminck built off one another as they explored this new style, yet
each was distinct in their own creations.
Fauvist artists all used colors as a tool to convey something, whether it be an emotion, or
the presence of noise, activity, or calmness. This loosely organized group became collectively
known as the Fauves from an art critic’s writing on an exhibit where about ten of these artists
(including Derain, Matisse, and Vlaminck) were featured. The critic was so surprised by the
assaulting colors and aggressive style the group used that he called them “les fauves”, translated
to “wild beasts” (Brodskai︠ a︡ 7). The name fit their style so well that it quickly stuck and has been
used ever since.
At the height of Fauvism, Derain received a commission from Ambroise Vollard, an art
dealer who believed in their faction, for a series of paintings depicting London. Vollard may have
hoped to eclipse the stir created by Monet’s series of the Thames River completed two years
before in the Impressionist style (Whitfield 103). The thirty paintings produced from Derain’s
two resulting trips to London in 1905 and 1906 were ones that exemplified the characteristics of
Fauvism. Therefore, when comparing the two series, just as the first viewers did, one is not only
comparing two artists, but Impressionism and Fauvism, two similar, yet different styles. The
masters of each both admired, disliked, and competed with the other (Whitfield 105-106). It was
with these expectations in mind that Derain traveled to London to portray the city in his own
unique style.
All three of Derain’s paintings studied here, along with most of the others created in this
series, focus on, feature, or at least allude to the river Thames. Derain was probably drawn to it,
not only because it is the main artery of the city, but also because it was the focus of Monet’s
series that inspired his own. Although, this is where the comparison stops. Monet chose to
feature an idealized version of the river; he did not include people, boats, or life of any kind.
Instead, he showcased beautiful architectural works, and if something was blocking the view of
the river or building, he completely edited the obstruction out (Whitfield 106). On the other
hand, Derain showed how people were always on or around the river, and sometimes that was
the focus of the painting. In Charing Cross Bridge (see appendix C), Derain even takes the time
to include smoke rising in the city from possibly an industrial building or a boat, despite the fact
that at times it goes right in front of one of the focuses of the work. The manner in which each
artist worked differed as well; Monet completed most of his paintings on site, while Derain
sketched and painted the city on location, and brought at least some back to France to finish
(Dorment). Most of the locations where each of Derain’s paintings were finished are unknown
(Whitfield 103). While Monet’s series has gained critical acclaim and is known of even by
amateur art studiers, Derain’s London series is not as well-known by the public, but nevertheless,
it is considered an excellent display of Fauvism. Even when not comparing the two series, each
can be enjoyed based on its own merits.
Upon seeing Derain’s oil on canvas paintings, the viewers are forcefully hit by the bright
and unrealistic colors utilized that demand one’s attention and inspection. In the painting London
Bridge (see appendix A), the cool colors used for the buildings and river evoke a sense of calm
that is at odds with the fact that the bridge is actually quite crowded. The warm bits of yellow
intermixed in the throng reflect the true hustle and bustle nature of the city. Meanwhile, the sky
is depicted using a red (repeated on the bridge itself) that is nearly the opposite of the tranquil
blue one expects to see. A tension is created between one’s expectations and what the viewer is
presented with as he works to make sense of the painting.
Perplexity is again created in The Houses of Parliament from Westminster Bridge (see
appendix B) because there is a change in color of the building from a deep red to a bright yellow
for no perceivable reason (there is no change in the building’s actual color or architecture to
warrant such a variation). The red used does do justice to the imposing nature of this building;
the commanding presence results from The Palace of Westminster’s architecture, the difference
between it and the surrounding structures, and the importance of the decisions made here through
history. Then, the large rectangular green shape behind the building causes questions. Is it a
continuation of the sky? Or some unknown building that no longer exists?
The final painting, Charing Cross Bridge (see appendix C) in this study, again stirs
bewilderment when one begins to analyze it because the two disorienting factors from the
previous paintings are included in this one. The buildings are cool greens and blues while the sky
is a bright red. Again there is an abrupt switch in color, this time in not only in the buildings, but
on the water as well. While the changes between yellow and blue reflect lights and shadows on
the water, the reason for what might be a red light over the water is unseen. Also, an unnatural
blue outline hangs around the docked boats, seemingly disconnecting them from the water.
Both the London Bridge (appendix A) and Charing Cross Bridge (appendix C) feature
simplified forms and shapes, and rely on these and implied 3-D space to convey depth instead of
traditional shading. The Houses of Parliament (appendix B) is unusual for Fauvism since the
intricate detail of the architecture is shown using reds, and oranges, or leaving a space blank.
This decision to leave areas free of paint is used extensively in the water of Charing Cross
Bridge (appendix C), and probably shaped the texture of the paintings to make them rough. As
one views the three paintings collectively, he can observe the inconsistences that run rampant in
the series as a whole. Including where the point the subject is seen from, which varies.
In The Houses of Parliament from Westminster Bridge (appendix B) as the name implies, the
viewer is standing on Westminster Bridge looking up at the Palace of Westminster. On the other
hand, both the London Bridge (appendix A) and Charing Cross Bridge (appendix C) seem to be
viewed from the air, or some unknown bridge or building. The styles in the paintings also vary
slightly since some emulate various masters including Cézanne, Van Gogh, Gauguin, and Seurat
(his Pointillism is used when depicting water) (Dorment).
Since the paintings are all rather small at approximately 29’ by 38’ they must rely on
something to draw the viewer in. For both the London Bridge (appendix A) and The Houses of
Parliament (appendix B) the role is fulfilled by the heavy visual weight of the structures on the
right side of the image that the individual’s eye soon drifts towards. Charing Cross
Bridge (appendix C) is again different because one’s eye floats over the various focus points of
the painting. First, the bright yellows used for the water pull the viewer in, and then subtly
directly him up to find the bit of yellow just under the bridge. Once up there, one notices one of
the focal points, the green Houses of Parliament and Big Ben in the distance. They stand out
against the red sky defying the law that warm colors pop out and cool ones fall back. After
observing those, one notices the Charing Cross Bridge itself that was skipped over earlier and is
actually closer to the viewer. The bridge holds its visual weight in the red cross-sections and
solidness of its mass. Finally, the viewer’s eyes follow the downward slant of the Charing Cross
Bridge to the buildings that border the river and the boats that float on it.
All three paintings walk a fine line between being static and dynamic. Both The Houses
of Parliament (appendix B) and London Bridge (appendix A) contain very strong diagonal lines,
and Charing Cross Bridge (appendix C) has some lesser ones from the tilt of the bridge and
buildings. Yet, there is little implied movement in any of the paintings-the most is in the boatman
who is rowing in London Bridge (appendix A). This general calmness is perhaps best explained
by a line written by Derain to Matisse the same year, 1906, that these paintings were made: “I
sincerely believe that we ought to aim for calm. . . This calm is something of which we can be
certain. Beauty, then, ought to be an aspiration towards this calm” (“London”).
A few years after these paintings were completed was when the Fauvists were beginning
to be recognized as a single respected group by the art community, but ironically, many of the
key members began to drift away around this time. Vlaminck, Derain’s roommate, began to
engage in the Cézanne style, but he never lost the Fauve flavor since out of all of them he was
the one that was most aptly a ‘wild beast’ (Brodskai︠ a︡ 85-86, 91). Matisse was the man who never
left Fauvism, instead he continued to experiment in the style and be the strongest proponent;
those factors helped lead to his wide-spread fame (Whitfield 10). Vlaminck and Matisse were
always the most opposite out of the members, and in their later works they continued to utilize
their distinct techniques.
Out of these three important figures in the movement, Derain rejected the techniques he
had formally used most completely. He first began by becoming more and more interested in
Cézanne’s style, which he slowly drifted towards. Derain later became close to Picasso and
Braque, founders of Cubism, and although some of his works reflected their influence, it was
always just bordering on actually being Cubism (Brodskai︠ a︡ 98). He never did cross that line and
join their movement. Eventually, Derain gained popularity by painting in a realist, neo-classic
style (Negri 82). Looking back on the period of his life that he is most known for, his Fauvist
phase, Derain dismissed it as “youthful brashness” (Whitfield 10). At times he may have had
much more negative feelings towards it because he destroyed some of his works in the Fauvist
style and painted over others (“Andre Derain: Introduction”). Despite Derain’s abandonment of
Fauvism, those who enjoy the approach he used admire what he turned his back on.
Fortunately, twenty-nine out of the thirty completed in Derain’s London series survive
today, and continue to display the ideals of the short-lived Fauvism movement wonderfully.
When viewing them, one can literally see some of the steps in the transition to more abstract
styles that modern art was going through at a critical time in history. First, Impressionists like
Monet began the trend toward abstraction by intentionally blurring the lines to create a hazy
effect. Next, Fauvism broke free from the restraints of natural color in a dramatic way. Finally,
Cubism followed, taking some nods from its predecessor and using some unrealistic colors, but
differentiated itself by simplifying and flattening the shapes of the world. The process eventually
lead to art works created today that are completely abstract, not even beginning by using cues
from the visual world. Instead they try to express emotions, among other things. This new genre
is indebted to Andre Derain for his paintings that helped pioneer the way to abstraction as it is
known today.
Appendix
A London Bridge by Andre Derain (1906)
Oil on Canvas 26 x 39 in
B The Houses of Parliament from Westminster Bridge by Andre Derain (1906)
Oil on Canvas 29 x 36 in
C Charing Cross Bridge by Andre Derain (1906)
Oil on Canvas 31 5/8 x 39 ½ in
Bibliography "Andre Derain, Introduction." Oxford University Press (2009): n. pag.MoMA: The Collection.
MoMA. Web. 14 Nov. 2014.
Brodskai︠ a︡ , Nathalia V. The Fauves. New York: Parkstone International, 2011. Print.
Dorment, Richard. "The Colour of Genius." The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group, 20 Dec.
2005. Web. 13 Nov. 2014.
Lee, Jane. Derain. Oxford: Phaidon, 1990. Print.
"London Bridge." MoMA Learning. MoMA, n.d. Web. 1 Oct. 2014.
Negri, Renata. Matisse and the Fauves. New York: McCall, 1970. Print.
Whitfield, Sarah. Fauvism. New York: Thames and Hudson, 1996. Print.