The Great Outdoors Myth: Tubes, Tyrants, and the "Vermine" of the Fields
- Art d'Histoire
- May 29
- 5 min read
The popular history of Impressionism is founded on a singular, romantic image: the painter standing in a poppy field, easel planted in the earth, capturing the fleeting moment before the sun shifts. We imagine a sudden liberation from the dark, stifling studios of the Academy, fuelled by a love for nature and the wind in the trees. However, the reality of the plein air revolution was far less poetic and far more industrial, bureaucratic, and conflicted. It was a movement driven by technological convenience, marketed through calculated myths, and internally torn by violent disagreements over whether painting outdoors was a liberation or a sign of intellectual weakness.
The Tin Revolution
Before the artists could conquer the countryside, they needed the tools to survive the journey. Until the mid-19th century, painting outdoors was a logistical nightmare. Artists had to grind their own pigments and store them in pig’s bladders—fragile, organic purses that had to be pierced with a tack to release the paint and were prone to bursting or drying out. The liberation arrived not with a manifesto, but with a patent.
In 1841, the American portraitist John Goffe Rand invented the collapsible tin paint tube, a technology that Winsor & Newton quickly marketed. For the first time, paint was sterile, portable, and shelf-stable. As Pierre-Auguste Renoir later admitted, without these tubes, there would have been no Cézanne, no Monet, and no Impressionism. Yet, technology alone does not make a movement. The tube was a necessary condition for nomadic painting, but the patent dated back decades before the first Impressionist exhibition. The tube provided the means, but the artists still needed the audacity to use it.
The Invasion of the Landscape
Once armed with these tubes, a "tidal wave" of painters descended upon the French countryside, much to the annoyance of the locals. The forests of Fontainebleau and the coasts of Normandy were suddenly besieged by men in city clothes, wielding brushes. Satirists like Honoré Daumier and Charles Keen mocked this invasion, depicting the landscape painter not as a hero, but as a nuisance or a fool.
Cartoons from the era show farmers' wives bewildered by artists staring at empty fields, or "excursionists" offering to stand in the foreground to make the painting "genteel." Daumier famously sketched landscape artists in winter, freezing to death while trying to capture the "warmth" of nature, or simply copying one another because they were too lazy to look at the trees. This proliferation of easels created a sense that painting had become a trade rather than an art, a "sport" where the goal was to cover canvas rather than compose a masterpiece.
The Myth of the Studio-Less Painter
The greatest beneficiary of this outdoor mystique was Claude Monet, who carefully cultivated the image of the artist who had completely abandoned the studio. In a famous interview in 1880, when a journalist asked to see his studio, Monet dramatically gestured towards the Seine, the hills of Vétheuil, and the setting sun, declaring, "That is my studio."
It was a brilliant piece of marketing, but it was largely a mystification. While Monet did indeed break the windows of the academic tradition to let the light in, he never truly abandoned the indoor workspace. In Vétheuil, he stored his canvases in his house; in Giverny, he built multiple studios, including a massive one for his Water Lilies. He even utilised a studio-boat, following in the footsteps of Daubigny, to paint on the water. The image of the solitary painter battling the elements was a carefully constructed narrative to sell the authenticity of his "impressions" to a public hungry for sincerity.
The Slow Method of the Outdoors
Even among those who championed the outdoors, the method was rarely as spontaneous as the legend suggests. Frédéric Bazille, a close friend of Monet and Renoir, painted almost entirely en plein air, yet his work retained the rigid structure of the classical tradition. Writing from Aigues-Mortes, he described spending eight days on the ramparts to capture a single view.
Bazille did not merely record a sensation; he engaged in a laborious creation. He made sketches, took visual notes he called "little thoughts," and worked slowly to impose form onto nature. Unlike Renoir, who described himself as a "cork thrown into the water" carried away by the current, Bazille composed his outdoor scenes with the intellectual rigour of a studio painter. He proved that one could use the tools of Impressionism—light and colour—without surrendering to the chaos of the fleeting moment.
The Conflict of Colour
The true shock of plein air painting was not just where it was painted, but how it looked. The intense light of the sun "bleached" the tones, forcing artists to abandon the dark, bituminous "juices" of the Academy in favour of raw, unmixed colours. Critics and academic masters like Thomas Couture were horrified. They argued that nature’s raw lighting was "ugly" and that a painting done entirely outdoors lacked the "transposition" necessary for art.
To the academic eye, a study painted in sunlight looked garish and crude when brought indoors, because the shadows were blue (reflecting the sky) rather than the conventional black or brown. The Impressionists, however, embraced this "crudeness." They realised that the scientific truth of light required a new language, one where violet trees and blue shadows were not errors, but accurate transcriptions of the retina’s experience. This "sickly school of purple" was simply the result of eyes that refused to lie about what they saw.
The Despot of the Studio
Not every member of the avant-garde accepted this surrender to nature. The most ferocious critic of the plein air movement came from within the Impressionist group itself: Edgar Degas. He viewed the obsession with painting outdoors as a mindless activity, a resignation of the artist's intellect. He famously told the dealer Ambroise Vollard that he wished he could act as a despot and arm a police force to "shoot down" the plein air painters like "harmful vermin."
For Degas, art was a lie, a construction of the mind, not a copy of a field. He boasted that he could paint all the landscapes in the world without leaving his Paris apartment, using "soup and three old brushes." He created landscapes on his stove, using pieces of coal to simulate cliffs and rocks, prioritising the imagination over the "stupidity" of standing in a field. He mocked those who needed a "real" sky to paint, arguing that the air one breathes in a painting should not be the air of the atmosphere, but the air of the master's genius. For Degas, the plein air revolution was not a liberation, but a limitation—a sport for those who had forgotten that painting was, above all, a mental discipline.
This blog is based on the anthologies of primary sources edited by Art d'Histoire Academy. Find the complete academic references in:
We believe in making academic art history accessible and reliable for everyone.
The Art d’Histoire Academy platform specialises in primary sources and digitised archives, covering French art history from 1850 to 1910.
It offers clear, structured, interactive videos, as well as a library of over a thousand articles that explain and contextualise primary sources.
Whether you are preparing for an exam, exhibition or publication, the Art d’Histoire Academy will support you.
