Dark, critical and solemn. For an exceptionally art-centered novel The Masterpiece focuses mainly on the inartistic. As a work it is undaunted by the prospect of dealing with the sordid aspects of life, casually intent on presenting their squalor.
Originally and more appropriately titled L’œuvre (literally ‘The Work’) The Masterpiece deals with the ways in which humanity copes with the subjects of mortality, specifically through the medium of mundanity, work and Art. Not unusually, the translated title loses some of its force, although it conveys some of the sense of obsession which dogs the artists of the novel.
The obsession over creating something immortal, of gaining recognition through a perfect ‘Masterpiece’, if such a thing exists at all, looms over the characters. Only some yield to its call, achieving various degrees of success, but all feel its presence. Such a theme has already been broadened upon in a previous post, but here obligates a different and specific examination.
Art and social norms
Before introducing its nihilistic themes clearly, although they are ever present, The Masterpiece tackles the nature of Art and its relation to society. The novel relates the story of Claude Lantier, an aspiring young painter whose art stands out for its originality.
Claude’s Art is both extremely life-like and unorthodox. While religiously avoiding classical realism as a style, he depicts all sides of life within his works. In a way, his artistic ideals share much with those of Gogh. Gogh preferred to illustrate in his Art objects that show decay and wear, he liked to add a sense of passing time. Claude, like Gogh, does not appreciate romanticized and picturesque forms. Both prefer the down-trodden over the fair, they share the notion that Art must represent and reflect life as it is, and not embellish it.
Life! Life! Life! What it is to feel it and paint it as it really is! To love it for its own sake; to see it as the only true, everlasting, ever-changing beauty, and refuse to see how it might be “improved” by being emasculated. To understand that its so-called defects are really signs of character. To put life into things, and put life into men! That’s the only way to be a God!
Above all what signifies Claude is his denial of standardized artistic styles. He and his shan’t be compromised by popular demands, he will not acquiesce. His work is above all original, and therefore artistic, for “What was Art, after all, if not simply giving out what you have inside you?” He lays harsh criticism upon all who conform their art for popularity, and most harshly upon himself. His attempt to create a Masterpiece is above all independent.
Society, however, reacts poorly to Claude’s attempts. Incapable of understanding the artistic spirit behind Claude’s works, the public treats the paintings with derision. People had become too accustomed to accepted, popular formulas dictated by the notorious Beaux-Arts. Art is treated as nothing but the rearrangement of said formulas with an occasional change of subject, anything which trespasses beyond its boundaries is deemed vulgar and boorish.
Herein lies Claude’s conflict with society. While ardently hoping for recognition and popular success Claude cannot but mock the great dissonance between his views of Art and what society entails. If Art can be ordained, calculated and formulated, is it even art? Is art not meant specifically to disengage itself from conventions and express through its medium something new and original?
Truly, Claude is so immersed in his ideals that he discards artistic outlets which differ from his own. The Beaux-Arts and its followers all but sicken him. When his companions sway away from originality and attempt to please the audience his sardonic criticism is immediately heard. Therefore Oscar Wilde would have approved of him as an artist:
Bad artists always admire each other’s work. They call it being large-minded and free from prejudice. But a truly great artist cannot conceive of life being shown, or beauty fashioned, under any conditions other than those that he has selected.
Within his group of friends and artists Claude is an undeniable leader, the only one whose character is strong enough to both discard expectations and carry others in his path. Their admiration, however, is but temporary. Before long the hardships and discomfort of failure and obscurity overcome them, pushing them towards conformism for the sake of monetary relief.
Claude’s persistence in his Art and pursuance of a true Masterpiece, alongside his unshakable conviction, become a discomfiture for them. They are achingly aware of their inferiority, and would like such a glaring image of true ideals to disappear. They’d rather not cope with such a reminder of their compromise.
Some, however, willingly accept the compromise. Fagerolles, the most devious of the group, intentionally subdues his artistic impulse and prefers to remain within the boundaries of social standards. Specifically, he uses modes and ideas which were invented by Claude and tones down their violence for the sake of public accessibility. Swift success welcomes the inartistic imitator, conformer and cajoler. Meanwhile, the original artist and genius is all but shunned by the public.
Fagerolles is perfectly aware of his mimicry. He realizes Claude as his superior and ever holds him highly. However, he mocks Claude’s adamant insistence in expressing his techniques in spite of public demands. He realizes that society could never truly comprehend such raw ability. Claude’s understanding is similar. Both disregard ‘the intelligence of the public’, however both pursue different ends. Fagerolles is interested firstly in commercial success while Claude focuses on artistic achievements.
Originality soon becomes a sign of madness in Claude. Truly, what is originality but madness? The farther one strays from conventions, from the Beaux-Arts, the farther are norms left behind. And what is madness but detachment from norms? It is precisely the failure, or choice, to stand against social standards. “Persons of genius are, ex vi termini, more individual than any other people.” Therefore geniuses will forever remain at the margins of society, but ‘a few grams of genius’ from crossing the line to ‘lunacy’. They are mocked like Diogenes, whose light illumines the unseemly viciousness of society.
The greater the artist, the harder it is to make an impression. In Paris, absolutely talentless people like Dubuche and Naudet succeed immediately. People of moderate talent succeed only after a struggle – like Fagerolles and Sandoz. Claude, the unmistakable leader and genius of the group is the one to fail miserably. Those of talent who do succeed, like Bongrand, only do so out of luck and are then doomed to deteriorate. Bongrand clearly shows that even should Claude succeed it would earn him naught but temporary glory.
The blame lies not with Claude, Bongrand or even Fagerolles, but with the public. By opening the path to success through conformism Art is left trampled underfoot. Only in a society which encourages individuality can Art truly unfold. Although Fagerolles considers Claude’s attempt foolish, it is his voice that falters in their meetings.
Nihilism within the masterpiece
The subject of nihilism runs through The Masterpiece ‘like a purple thread’. Take the example of the funeral. Most authors would have perhaps finished the story at the suicide scene for the sake of dramatic effect. Not Zola. He insists on showing the dreariness of the burial. The futility inherent within the life of an animal, doomed to die eventually.
For Zola it is important to portray the cold indifference of the earth, the mundanity of the priests’ ceremony, the sparse attendance and even the utter annihilation of all of Claude’s creations. In the end the tremendous effort bore but insignificant fruits, only to soon rot and fade away meaninglessly.
Clearly alongside the sharp criticism of society’s lack of appreciation for Art The Masterpiece produces a painful question. Yes, Art’s position is staggering, but what of it? If achievements are but temporary, what makes a specific moment or issue important? If attempts at deciphering meaningfulness eventually prove barren, what project remains for man? Although I have expanded upon the subject elsewhere, it can be aptly summed by the notorious Bazarov:
The tiny space I occupy is so infinitesimal in comparison with the rest of space, which I don’t occupy and which has no relation to me. And the period of time in which I’m fated to live is so insignificant beside the eternity in which I haven’t existed and won’t exist… And yet in this atom, this mathematical point, blood is circulating, a brain is working, desiring something… What chaos! What a farce!
Of all the characters Bongrand is the one who represents the nihilistic argument. From his first appearance he epitomizes the inevitable future which awaits Claude, should he miraculously achieve his so ardently desired success. Bongrand shows that appreciation is disappointingly brief, that genius dwindles away and that popularity proves unsatisfying.
But the motif which I find most indicatory of mankind’s meaningless and dreary future is the fragility and ineptitude of the children. Far from healthy and promising, all are half-formed and grotesque. The talented and common alike are incapable of producing decent offspring, regardless of their effort. While Claude and Christine neglect Jacques completely, leaving him deformed and simple, not even the whole attention of Dubuche can assist his own children.
In a similar sense, the works of the artists are equally disappointing. Always short of the artist’s vision and expectations, lacking ‘life’ and ‘motion’, they call to question the value of the endeavor. None can actually produce a masterpiece. As Bongrand says after Claude’s suicide: “Lucky to be away from it all, instead of wearing himself out, as we do, producing offspring who are either headless or limbless and never really alive.” The dual meaning is unmistakable.
Humanity, then, is doomed to forever “sit in the mud and reach for the stars.” Should one attempt to transcend above that destiny in earnest, only ultimate failure awaits him. Let Icarus and Phaethon set the example. Such is the lot of mortals. Claude realized the magnitude of his limitations, and in the face of such despair “admitted his impotence and did away with himself.”
What then is Zola’s response to nihilism? The answer of course lies with Sandoz. He accepts the fact that his is only a small and insignificant existence. Unlike Claude he refrains from pursuing the achievement of the unachievable, focusing on work for the sake of work and on his personal life. It is for his sake that the novel is titled L’œuvre. “And now, back to work!” he tells Bongrand after the funeral, for it is the only solution he finds in the face of death.
So long as you can say to yourself that you’ve put your whole life into your work, that you expect neither immediate justice nor even serious appreciation, that you’re working without hope of any kind, simply because the urge to work beats in your body like your heart, because you can’t help it, you can let yourself die happy and console yourself with the illusion that you’ll be appreciated one day.