La Place des Pyramides (The Square of the Pyramids)
| Support Type: | Canvas |
| Paint Type: | Oil Paint |
| Current Location: | Musée d\'Orsay, Paris, France |
| Location History: | Initially held in a private collection but later acquired by the art dealership Goupil & Cie. Subsequently repurchased by Giuseppe De Nittis from Goupil & Cie for 25,000 francs. 1883: Donated by the artist to the Musée du Luxembourg in Paris. 1883–1922: Part of the Musée du Luxembourg collection (officially entered on 29 June 1883). 1922: Transferred to the Musée du Louvre, Paris. 1922–1946: Displayed at the Galerie du Jeu de Paume, then part of the Louvre and dedicated to foreign schools of art. 1946–1971: Assigned to the Musée National d’Art Moderne, Paris. Since 1977: Housed in the Musée d’Orsay, Paris, where it remains in the museum’s permanent collection. A larger version of the same composition (1876) is in the Galleria Nazionale d'Arte Moderna in Rome. |
Giuseppe De Nittis's La Place des Pyramides presents a vision of modern Paris shaped by the rise of the new 'modern' bourgeoisie. The painting depicts an orderly, peaceful urban life. Wide boulevards, fashionable pedestrians, and the rhythms of modernity dominate the scene. At first glance, it appears to celebrate the success of a renewed Paris, a city that was increasingly becoming the cultural capital of Europe and the site of international events such as the World's Fair. What interests me is the contradiction embedded within this image. De Nittis was celebrated for the so-called 'experimentation' with avant-garde techniques. His success in the World's Fair, raises a pertinent question: what kind of art do institutions choose to reward? Contemporary art fairs in India at present, such as the Delhi Art Fair, the Bombay Art Fair, or private initiatives like Abhivyakti in Gujarat enjoys a dominance in shaping the form of art that will gain recognition/visibilty. Innovation is often encouraged, yet only to the extent that it remains legible and non-threatening to its audience. The avant-garde Nittis practiced followed a tricky terrain where it does not fundamentally disturb the viewer. The second aspect that strikes me is the idea of 'peaceful' Paris. 1883 (the year the painting was created) offered no trace of the brutal military suppression of the Paris Commune by Bloody Week. The peace showcased here disconnects modern urban life from the conflicts that produced the very culture. Such observations, henceforth, lead to a broader question about the function of art itself. Is art primarily created for elite consumption and creation of a particular contextual memory by the dominant, or can it still operate as a site of resistance, hence, critique?
