Paul Gaugin

Roderic O'Connor

Their friendship comes to an end however when he decides to marry Jelizaweta's flatmate, Eugenia Szewcowa, another Russian but a wealthy one, whom he marries before his 44th birthday. I have found no record of the actual date or place of marriage (?) but this photograph suggests to me that by 1900 he was already married.

Although their marriage was childless, Slewinski is known to have had a son by another woman back in Poland. Although this was an open secret, nothing is known about the contacts, if any, between the father and son. Equally, little is known of the son's life; his Christian name was also Wladyslaw, he studied at the Fine Art Academy in Krakow, and died of TB soon after World War I. This information comes from the memoirs of Zygmunt Kaminski who was Slewinski’s art student in Warsaw.

photo: Eugenia and Wladyslaw Slewinscy, 1900.

Slewinski's claim that he was a down to earth painter contrasts surprisingly with unusual readiness to relegate the subject to an almost token existence within an ostere aesthetic scheme. Perhaps the "Woman combing her hair", a painting widely regarded as his most enigmatic masterpiece, may be a key to Slewinski's relationship to his subject matter. I agree that the face reflected in the mirror is that of a man, very likely the painter himself. Yet the image suggests to me not a man (or a boy) simply looking at the long hair and outstretched arm of the young woman but one who desires; a voyeur, not an observer of life. Let me add that I am not suggesting here the specific sexual meaning of voyeurism but a more general experience of emotional gratification, which obtains mainly through a contemplation of the image rather than of the object itself. The voyeur does not experience gratification through a relationship with the object, rather he is gratified by a substitute, that is the image itself.

1897
Wladyslaw Slewinski "Woman combing her hair".

I think that in order to understand why Slewinski painted what he did, and how he saw the significance of the object and the aim of representation in painting, this wider concept of voyeurism is quite useful. Indeed, in this sense voyeurism is an element in all Art. We are gratified more or less differently by the image than by the thing represented yet "realistic" or "naturalistic" representation indicates some sort of direct connection between the gratification and the thing. In other words, a correspondence between the feeling and the object represented. Voyeurism would then imply a distance, a longing for intimacy, a sense of isolation. Who is "The woman combing her hair"? Is it Jelizaweta Kruglikowa

Wladyslaw Slewinski "Woman combing her hair", detail.

Slewinski's subject matter falls neatly into 3 categories; landscapes, portraits and still life. By universal account he was a realist-cum-naturalist in that he took his subjects from the material world around him; furniture, fruit, flowers, rocks, boats and the sea, also people he knew. What informed his choices however in selecting from the surrounding multitude?

Let me speak for a moment about the personal relationship of the artist to his times. Of the three artists, it was prominently Paul Gaugin who set out to concretise his vision of the world. Whether wholly convincing or not, a vision of the world and society permeates his art. And the world and society were going through some "interesting” times. Broadly speaking, all three were contemporaries born into a post revolutionary Europe coming to terms with the failure of Romantic Idealism. The era of industrial progress and scientific realism triumphs. In politics the rise of nationalism and the birth of nation states lead to the unification of Italy in 1871 and victorious Germany, under Bismarck, becomes an Empire. The transfer of wealth and power on a massive scale from landowners to the burgeoning capitalist class increases rural poverty and swells the ranks of the now politicised proletariat. Karl Marx "Das Kapital" is published in 1867, eight years after Darwin's "On the Origin of the Species" came out in London, and only a year earlier the first transatlantic cable was laid between Europe and America.

Amid prosperity and optimism there was yet a growing crisis of conscience. The rift between scientific materialism and religion for many became irreconcilable, while others sought a resolution in mysticism. Bergson, Nietzsche, Freud, Jung, Rimbaud, Rilke, and Strindberg all contributed to the thought of the times. The mutiny on battleship Potiomkin in 1905 signaled a change of mood in European affairs yet the same year saw also the publication of Einstein's "Theory of Relativity", and it was already in 1900 that Freud published "The Interpretation of Dreams".

The outbreak of the Great War and the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 soon define modern history. Hardly half a century had passed since the carnage of 1848 uprisings and Europe again descends into unimaginable misery.

And what of our painters? Slewinski's life was never far from political upheaval. His father was arrested and exiled to Siberia by the Russian authorities in Poland after the "January Uprising" of 1863, when Wladyslaw was 7. We must recall that Poland was still under partition, and like Ireland was not a self governing nation state.

Slewinski's abrupt return to Poland in 1905 may have been prompted by events in Russia as well as in Poland, where marshal Law was declared in October that year. After all, his wife's unearned income from St. Petersburg seems to have been their main source of livelihood in France. It is not clear how much he was earning from art sales, but the rental of a flat and studio in Paris, and the purchase of two properties - a large house in Doelan and a fisherman's cottage in Pouldu must have been financed by Emilia's purse.

Something which struck me about Emila is that although they had no children she apparently gave up her own painting soon after becoming Slewinski wife. Since they have always relied on a housekeeper, I am a little curious as to what this talented and independent woman was up to during their long marriage.

photo: Slewinskis' home in Doelan.

They stayed in Poland for 5 years until 1910, moving residence about once a year between Warsaw, Krakow, Domaniewice (his father's estate) and Poronin, a place popular with artists and intellectuals in the Tatra mountains in the south of Poland. His inability to settle down professionally among his peers back in Poland makes one feel that his return after 17 years abroad (at 49) might have meant also for Slewinski a triumphant return home of the "prodigal son". Although during his long absence he maintained close links with Poland, regularly sending in paintings to exhibitions and hosting numerous visitors at his homes in France, it is clear that his ambition was to bring back to his native land a new way of seeing; through his own work to re-invigorate polish painting, no less.

Those 5 years in Poland were perhaps far more significant in Wladyslaw Slewinski’s life than what they may at first appear. He came back lock, stock and barrel, a journey of some magnitude at the time. There is no reason to suspect that it was not a journey for good. Yet, his unshakeable belief (some did say arrogance) in being the avant-garde and, arguably, a certain lack of intellectual dimension to his work, both made it difficult for him to establish the desired position in Polish artistic circles.

Whether or not Poles in general indeed reflect deeply upon the metaphysics of life or simply indulge the rational, in Polish artistic circles the expectations placed upon any artist, especially one so desirous of recognition, would have been quite demanding yet consistent with the prevailing mind cast. It is here that Wladyslaw Slewinski failed to impress.

Slewinski went to Poland to find "the primitive" and it is possible that he regarded his piers with an similar air of patrimony. His opinion of Stanislaw Wyspianski (highly regarded imaginative artist and playwright) may perhaps be a clue; "I prefer his stained glass. He is a great talent but the man is ill". This was apparently a reference to "exaltacja”, a term applied liberally by Slewinski to describe artists as diverse as the painter Gaustave Moreau and the polish writer Stefan Zeromski. It seems that Slewinski is referring here partly to romantic idealism, and partly to a tendency in these artists to extrapolate from the fact to the idea, as when intangibles become functionally real. The ghosts which emerge from under Moreau's paintbrush are no less realistic than the trees and ruins among which they appear.

1907
Wladyslaw Slewinski "Goralka z jablkiem".

The polish term "exaltacja” implies a certain pretentiousness, which would seem to suggest that for Slewinski all symbolism and the use of metaphor are mere "literariness” or worse, decadence(!) Its opposite for him is "prostota”, "simplicity” meaning "straightforwardness”, and it is this which informs his critical eye. In his own words, a subject represented as is "means more than it means”. What exactly Slewinski had in mind is difficult to say as every representation is bound to some symbolic order. It is simply in the nature of the world that it becomes less "straightforward”, the more we think about it and the longer we live in it.

In a letter to a friend Antoni Potocki, Slewinski suggests that Paul Gaugin may not have had enough "prostota” for it is "apparent” how (much) Gaugin strove to achieve it. Yet, when asked to write about Paul Gaugin, a kind of artistic obituary by a fellow artist and a friend, Slewinski comes across strangely. He describes Paul Gaugin as "the greatest decorator of his time” yet claims that because he was "too much of an artist” one cannot analyse him. One must accept him whole or not at all(?) Slewinski says he accepts Paul Gaugin for he represents for Slewinski his ideas of Art and Beauty. By Beauty he means God given laws (in nature) and by Art an artist's ability to express his experience of Beauty through outward signs. These are arbitrary and can only be understood by a handful of mortals. The Artist's role is to enable others (less fortunate than himself) to see Beauty. I think this shows how far he was at odds with Paul Gaugin's whole take on Art.

In an essay introduction to an exhibition of Slewinski's paintings in Paris in 1898 (this is a year after he painted "Woman combing her hair" and around the time of his break-up with Jelizawieta), Zenon Przesmycki, a well known literary & art critic, addressing himself directly to the artist, said in conclusion,

"your (emotional) sensitivity to formal meanings is consummate. Your ability to capture the spirit of the thing, its fundamental idea, and be inspired by it, together with your ability to marry form to content, is here for all to see. Yet you must develop these further. As an artist you are forearmed from head to toe. Forward to battle.

I can wish for you nothing better than virgin white palace walls or a church to enrich and enliven with your art. Time on your hands and the necessary comforts so that you can give yourself fully to authentic work, more complex, thought-out work, more creative work.”

Was Slewinski himself then "the greatest decorator of his time”? and was his failure to become the leading avant-garde figure in polish painting due mainly to his lack of engagement with his socio-political milieu? With the intention to encounter the "authentic" such as drove Gaugin and others to paint Breton folk, Slewinski set out to paint the Polish peasant.

Whether a true or an objective or a significant representation of the peasant (significant beyond the social cliché) would ever be possible for a member of the land owning class, who so far as I know never questioned the moral or philosophical basis of the prevailing status quo, is a moot point. Even if imagination transcends all, how far did Wladyslaw Slewinski transcend his own background?

1906
Wladyslaw Slewinski "Sierota z Poronina".

1896
Wladyslaw Slewinski "Young Breton Woman”.

Slewinski was fond of saying that "in life a Polish gentleman could do either of two things; be a farmer or an artist, as in neither (activity) can one cheat.” "Oszukac" (the Polish for "cheat" in this translation) suggests also "deceit". Taken at face value, this would indicate a poor reason why he chose to practice Art. However, what he may be telling us here is that cheating or deceit were vital issues in his life. We hear about his near obsession with the sea and the wave, to paint the crest of the wave "as it really is, not as cotton wool"

Since he was brought up in the countryside, it is understandable that the sea would have naturally held a certain fascination for him but why to such an extent? What was the sea for him, considering that his Polish mountain landscapes are judged inferior to anything he ever did of the Brittany coast?

1904
Wladyslaw Slewinski "Morze”.