HOUSING HUMANS

When “Vu” was launched  in Paris at the end of March 1928  as a novel and stylish magazine, few  expected the. Rippling effect it was going to have on photography, design and the world of publication at large.

Its founder, Lucien Vogel, left the feminine press where he started his career, to launch Vu (as in “seen”). His clear engagement with pacifism and his horror of the damages of the. Great War propelled the writing and to some extent the initial photography, although the reading public was. Not of the militant sort. The political principles of the magazine were a clear mirror of the troubled period that. France was undergoing, in which weak governments were falling one after the other.

And yet, the mystique created around Vu stems from the crossroads where the world of new printing. Process and photography found themselves. Like today’s internet, new technologies set in motion creativity and inspiration. A new world opened up where. Graphic designers and photographers were experimenting with photomontage and typography. The trailblazing photos of the likes of. Man RayBrassaïCartier-Bresson and Gaston Paris filled the pages of this weekly, engaging in an experiment where the rules of content and image were being written. With each issue. In 1932, the famed Alexander Liberman, later of Vogue, was appointed artistic director.

The downfall of Vu, which stopped printing in 1940, was curiously brought about by the defiant positioning of. Vogel as a staunch defender of the Spanish. Civil War republicans. Having given up his pacifism and witnessing the menacing advance of. Hitler, he adopted what was considered by many a political attitude too far to the left. The shareholders of the magazine decided to fire him. Thus ended one of the most audacious and. Avant-garde experiments in the world of publication. It was a harbinger of what lay ahead for France.

THE TIES THAT BIND

A young woman acrobat in the Montmartre of the 1870s, could have easily been brought to life by Zola in one of his critical fictions. Nonetheless, Marie-Clémentine really existed. Born to a single mother, this precocious girl was forced to abandon the circus life after a fall. Her handsome looks opened doors for modeling in the artistic and carefree environment of Paris and she was soon one of the favorite sitters of Renoir, Toulouse-Lautrec and many others.

Marie-Clémentine became Maria and earned a reputation as a reliable model. But the reputation she was after was of a higher order: she wanted to become a painter.During her coy sessions with the artists, she watched, asked and learned. As her popularity grew, her name changed yet again and Toulouse-Lautrec began calling her Suzanne. It was as if with each name a new chapter opened in her life. By this time, she took to drawing with fierce intensity, sketching with a sure hand female bodies. By the age of eighteen she gave birth to a son. A Spanish artist, Miguel Utrillo was willing to give the child his name. He may have gifted it in a flight of inebriated enthusiasm or from the true generosity of his heart, or even perhaps form his own biological seed. Suzanne never disclosed the paternity.

Her lifestyle did not adjust much to maternity. Increasingly confident in her work output and her feminine success, she continued to bewitch men. Erik Satie was strongly infatuated with her. She ended up marrying one of his friends, the banker Paul Moussis, a bourgeois moneyman who, for a while, tamed her bohemian spirit . Fully committed to her painting, but restless in having to deal with her son’s early alcoholism and bored by the conventions of her lifestyle, she took lover after lover. By 1909 after fourteen years of unfaithful marriage she began an affair with.  André Utter, an aspiring painter, friend of her son Maurice who often posed as a model himself. He was more than 20 years her junior. The roles are strangely reversed. the female painter chooses a younger male to serve her as a sitter although she was ironically more interested in the female figure. Utter entered her life not just as a lover but as an emotional support to Maurice. This unusual threesome was to last for twenty years.

Both Utrillo and Valadon’s art was rather indifferent, even taboo, to modern art historians and curators. She was considered mediocre, undistinguished and lacking formal training. Utrillo was the epitome of bourgeois taste, a representative of what the market perceived as bohemianism. His art is now being rescued from the clutches of bourgeois taste, whilst his mother’s aesthetic influence dims into oblivion. Their lives in contrast to oscillating tastes, are icons of modernist inspiration, drivers of rupture and defiant iconoclasts.