Napoleon III’s Empire:From Election to Exile

During 1850 and 1870, Napoleon III was a significant figure whose policies affected all French citizens. It is important to review the main characteristics of his reign in order to better understand how Disdéri, Marville and Nadar worked with and against him.
Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, born 1808, followed his namesake’s empirical model during a twenty-year reign of France.  Elected as President of the 2nd Republic in 1848, he was then resoundingly elected Emperor of the French just four years later (Aronson 16). Napoleon III began his rule with a clenched fist of control. “All effective power had rested with the Head of State.  His leading opponents had been ruthlessly imprisoned or exiled, the Press had been muzzled, political meetings banned and the corps legislative deprived of almost all of its powers”(Aronson 42). Repression was clearly a high priority in the early years of the Empire.
As a child of the Second Industrial Revolution, Napoleon III’s domestic politics and ideology reflected a desire for progress. He promoted “modernization, mechanization, transformation of banking and credit, capital investment, and conspicuous consumption”(McCauley Industrial 3). This last element, conspicuous consumption, had considerable impacts on photography.  As a luxury good, photography flourished under Napoleon’s watchful eye.
According to Rice, Paris of the 2nd Empire “marks the emergence of the commodity culture” (Rice Parisian 38).  From the début of the Second Empire, Napoleon III relied on photography to record his political endeavors.  These photographic documentaries can be divided in two geographic groups: Paris and the rest of France.   Photographic documentation of Paris focused on the city and urban renewal projects, other wise known as Haussmannization of the city.  Urban changes became synonymous Napoleon’s Prefect of the Seine: Baron George-Eugène Haussmann.  Appointed in 1851 by Napoleon III, Haussmann worked relentlessly towards restructuring Paris and addressing major problems like congestion and sanitation. Sewer system construction began in 1857 and within thirteen years there was a 348-mile network of sewers (Grandy 30).  During the height of reconstruction, when one-fifth of streets in Paris were being rebuilt, the construction business employed one in five Parisian workers (Grandy 28).
Haussmann dubbed his plan of physical changes percement, evoking the image of piercing through the heart of Paris.  Every decision Haussmann made was carried out on a grand scale.  The underworkings of the city evolved along with its outward appearance.  Though visual details were fundamental, they all factored into Haussmann’s bigger picture.  For example, one of his and Napoleon’s goals was to emphasize the glory of Parisian monuments.  “Whenever possible he built streets that terminated in a pre-existing monument” (Rice Parisian 43).
Despite the beautification of the city, not all of his work was seen in a positive light.  Some Parisians responded in gratitude for the gift of a well running city.  Others reacted with an intensified level of nostalgia.  Above all else, there was a vital migration of the population.

And if, by the creation of this system of grandiose roads cutting through the poorer quarters, Haussmann had lessened the chances of barricade-building by the mob, the higher rents which were the natural results of this aggrandizement had simply led to the creation of new, and still more dangerous, slums, farther afield. (Aronson 10)

The Parisians displaced during Haussmann’s reconstruction moved to the northeastern sections of Paris and would later play a significant role in the Commune of 1870. 

Charles Marville: A Double Life

Where Disdéri gained fame by documenting the faces of Parisian society, Charles Marville contributed to the visual definition and record of the city itself.  More strikingly, Marville is different from Disdéri in the sense that he had political beliefs that contradicted his photographic work.  As a photographer, Marville’s role had two parts: half was pure documentation for the government and the other half contained intriguing elements of propaganda. Though much of his life story is still a secret, Marville is best known for the Old Paris Collection, in which he documented much of Paris’ older quarters.  For this 1860s assignment, he was employed by the City of Paris.  With his camera, he methodically surveyed the medieval passageways that would be erased by Haussmann’s reconstructions.  This project stemmed more from the government’s goals than from Marville’s personal nature.  Above all else, Marville was on assignment. Some historians suggest a conscious effort on Marville’s behalf to persuade his viewer to accept urbanization. If this is true, then in a way, he enriched the Second Empire’s visual propaganda.

The Rue des Marmousets, pictured here, demonstrates Marville’s desire to ‘renew’ Paris. While documenting ‘Old Paris,’ he practiced many techniques in order to convey a specific tone.

First of all, “Marville is known to have sprayed the cobblestones in these old streets and alleyways with water in an attempt to render them unsanitary in appearance.”(Wilson 57). In this photo, we can see how Marville emphasized the limited light and gloomy shadows of these street scenes.  His choice in technique also highlighted the suggestiveness of each photograph.  Notably, he chose to work with wet-collodion plates where the exposure times were lengthy, often ranging from three to twelve seconds. (Rice, Still 10). This could result in the ghost-like impression left by moving objects.  Finally, as far as composition was concerned, there is a noticeable lack of people in the streets.  Viewing all of these techniques together, Marville clearly structured his photos to emphasize a public need for Haussmann’s proposed changes. (Rice, Still Points 10). A circular theme appears when looking at his entire career. He started with the old, then moved on to a period of renovation, and ended with the new state of Paris.  Following his work on ‘Old Paris,’ Marville photographed the physical tearing apart of Paris.

Exposed building sides, haphazard piles of bricks, and workers proudly posed atop their piles of rubbish, as if to suggest a job well done.  After this, Marville photographed construction of the new city.  Les Halles serves as a perfect example of this period.

Found in the center of Paris, this market area had been a commercial center since 1137, when founded by Louis VII.  Napoleon III reassembled the leftover dreams of his uncle and began reconstruction in the 1850s (Denoël).  In the exterior shot of Les Halles, we see one of the main buildings under construction. Shot in a documentary manner, the new structure is centered in the photograph and opposes an empty space in the foreground, which displays further construction. Outlined by the open sky behind it, the building is not crowded, almost as if its been placed on a pedestal to emphasize its greatness. The building itself is a masterpiece of broad arches, immense entrances, a glass roof and an industrial tone. 
The interior view of this building imitates its exterior curves and angles.  Empty because it is still under construction, we see the effect of a glass roof and how light illuminates the airy hall. The composition of the photo draws our attention to the spaciousness and marked emptiness with a long view punctuated by angular rays of light. Though this style feels more artistic than documentary, Marville is still emphasizing important elements of urbanization. These photos convey improved lighting, spacious areas, and a clean theme: support for Haussmannization as it benefited Paris.
Overall, however, the work and personal life of Marville is contradictory.  While working for the Second Empire, Marville appeared to have opposing personal beliefs to those of his employer. “Born 18th July, 1816 and apparently dying in 1879, he seems to have had social sympathies during the Second Republic and to have been friends with Nadar…”(Hungerford 227). Despite his political leanings, Marville was capable of separating this from his photographic work.  This is intriguing because during this era, socialist thinkers where seen in strong opposition to republicans, to Haussmannization, and to the Emperor. So, in a sense, Marville would have sacrificed his socialist views for a government paid assignment.  As proof, while Marville had friends and artist contacts within the Parisian socialist circles, he put this part of him aside to photograph for Napoleon III’s personal events.

Marville paraît en être, ou du moins partager les idées « socialistes » de ses confrères…En 1851, arrivant au pouvoir, Napoléon III s’efforce de rallier les artistes.  Marville, apparemment, ne lui est pas hostile puis qu’il photographie le décor, à Notre Dame, du mariage de l’empereur avec Eugénie et, cinq ans plus tard, en 1856, le baptême de leur fils. (De Thézy 10-11)
Marville appeared to be, or at least to share the ‘socialist’ ideas of his colleagues.  In 1851, arriving at power, Napoleon III strove to rally artists.  Apparently, Marville was not hostile towards him since he photographed the decorations at Notre Dame for the Emperor’s wedding with Eugénie. Five years later, in 1856, Marville also photographed the baptism of their son.

His involvement in such intimate events as weddings and baptisms suggests that he did not boldly advertise his personal viewpoints amongst his employers. Napoleon III and his government appear to have trusted Marville for personal events as well as for more politically official documentary projects. 
In conclusion, Marville thoroughly documented Parisian street scenes and royal events in a pro-Empire manner.  He produced biased documentary photographs because this is the job he was hired to do.  Most importantly, his acceptance of these government jobs questioned and opposed his personal beliefs.

La Mission Héliographique

In attempts at visually documenting monuments throughout the rest of the country, the Second Empire created a group called the Mission Héliographique. In 1851, five photographers, including Edouard Baldus, Hippoltye Bayard, Gustave LeGray, Henri LeSecq, and Auguste Mestral, dispersed to different regions of France in order to photograph historic sites.  This project directly associated photography with the government. “This first act of government patronage of the new art was heralded in the pages of La Lumière, the official organ of the Société Héliographique” (Mission Héliographique).  The Mission highlighted the use of photography as historical documentation of the Empire’s beginning as well as a propaganda tool to promote modernization.   
Despite the ambitious efforts of these photographers, the project was never fully completed. “Negatives- some 300- and prints were filed away without being reproduced or published, either because the project’s sole aim was to establish an archive or because the photographers depicted these ancient structures in too favorable a light for the images to serve as propaganda for restoration efforts” (Rosenblum 100). The real significance is bound more to the mere creation of the Mission by the government than to the project’s end result.

Napoleon III & Photography

The Mission Héliographique forged a distinct connection in the 1850s between photography and the government.  Moreover, there was a marked relationship between Napoleon III and photography. The emperor used photography as propaganda for the Empire and in particular to fuse his personal image with a vision of power.
As head of the new government, Napoleon III saw photography as a means of visually documenting his modernizing projects. “…The government continued to regard photography as a tool integral to its expansive domestic and foreign programs, commissioning documentations of the countryside, the railroad lines, and of natural disasters as evidence of its concern for national programs and problems” (Rosenblum 100). By photographing a run-down railroad line, for example, the government could make a case for further renovation funding, and thus continue their modernization campaigns.
Napoleon III also desired that his military strength be promoted through photography. “The best photographers of the day presented Napoleon III and his wife, Eugénie, with images symbolizing the beneficence of the Second Empire in splendidly bound albums showing new railway itineraries, a favorite military camp, or a newly constructed asylum”(Rosenblum 401). He consciously selected projects that would convey to the masses the social benefits of French royalty.  A photographic exhibit Pouvoir et Photographie at the Louvre, in Paris, displayed images of the royal family: “L’intérêt de Napoléon pour la photographie n’est donc pas tant personnel que politique, et passé le plus souvent par l’action des différents ministères.” (Napoleon’s interest in photography was less personal than political and was frequently addressed through his various ministers.)While this statement highlights Napoleon III’s political use of photography, it discredits his personal involvement. Although the Emperor may have maintained more publicly political goals through photography, he most assuredly used the art form to further his personal aims.  “The Emperor, Empress and their court quickly fell under this democratizing influence and understood its political usefulness.  They learned the art of being photographed”(Rosenblum 401).
In reaction to the developing social classes discussed earlier, European monarchs sought new ways to maintain power and popular support.  One such means was popularizing their personal image. Napoleon, taking cues from his uncle, a “master of visual propaganda” allowed images of the royal family, both paintings and photographs, to freely flow around the international market (McCauley A.A.E 62).  But the images were tailored to portray the royals as ordinary middle-class citizens. Instead of appearing robed and bejeweled, European monarchs, including England’s Queen Victoria and Prince Albert, opted for everyday wear (Hamilton and Hargreaves 45).  By dressing and posing purposefully, Napoleon III was prescribing a specific self-image to the masses, one that did not exactly match reality.

The new voters, peasants and workers, required more from their leader than military victories and courtly pomp; they wanted a man who appeared to be interested in social problems, who was both personally and politically generous toward the lower classes, and who had not only written The Extinction of Pauperism in 1844 but was going to put his words into action. (McCauley A.A.E. 83)

 L’Extinction du Paupérisme, written by Napoleon during a stint in prison, was directed at opening the eyes of the lower classes. He did little to hide this objective, as the first few lines speak of the richness of a country depending on agriculture, industry, and equal distribution of public revenue (Nadaux). With this publication, Napoleon had set new standards for the expectation of the government.  In response, the lower classes sought and demanded greater involvement in the workings of their government.
The elite members of society needed to react in order to maintain control and in some ways, they turned to visual propaganda. Being photographed became more complex than just a form of luxury entertainment.  In a sense, European monarchs began using photography as a political necessity for popular support.  “Hereditary monarchs could no longer rely on absolutism to retain their position.  They needed to cultivate popular support if their considerable power and wealth was to remain under their control”(Hamilton and Hargreaves 13). Napoleon III was well aware of these social dynamics and wisely tapped into the social persuasiveness of photography.

Disdéri : The Royal Photographer

During the Second Empire Disdéri actively sought to photograph French royalty, especially Napoleon III.  His work with the Emperor reflects the two categories mentioned earlier: personal and regime.  While Disdéri was best known for his portraits, there were also important implications concerning the regime hidden behind the subject of each photograph.
In Parisian high-society, Disdéri was known as the photographer for carte-de-visite portraits. “Individuals with a Republican or Socialist leanings, like Daumier…Courbet…Zola, Manet, George Sand, and Champfleury, avoided his studio…”(McCauley A.A.E. 84).  Without a doubt, Disdéri appealed more to the Monarchist crowd.  More than anything else, he was photographer to royalty. Glancing at his record books, it is evident that high society, or the beau-monde, frequented his studio.  Titles like ‘Count,’ ‘Baron’, ‘General,’ and ‘Princess’ appear numerously between 1857-1859 (McCauley A.A.E. 84). The social changes under Napoleon III’s regime created an ease with which noble titles could be bought.  “Not only was the ruling family nouveau royale, but the beau monde was full of new titles, of people whose money, looks or wit have earned them an entrée” (Aronson 9).  Disdéri seemingly did not discriminate against the new royalty.  He willingly photographed anyone who could afford it.
In Disdéri’s collection, one prime example of his Royal portraits is Napoleon III.

This portrait demonstrates the typical cartes-de-visite. The photograph pictures Napoleon looking straight into the camera, with a serious and almost stoic expression, as if to capture the attention of the viewer. He grips the chair with his right hand while holding the left in front of him.  As with most portraiture of the time, Napoleon would have been posed.  There is very little spontaneity in Disdéri’s portraits. The overall tone of the photo suggests a modest emperor.  Napoleon III is pictured in front of a very plain, light colored backdrop. The emperor himself conveys an air of importance, but is dressed simply, lacking any fashionable embellishments.  He sits in a large, yet basic chair that expresses power without frills. This portrait represents Disdéri’s political connections. Disdéri’s friendly rapport with the Emperor was widely talked of and much of his royal reputation began in May 1859, when Napoleon III was headed to Italy with his fleet of troops. He spotted Disdéri’s Parisian studio.On a whim, Napoleon III left his soldiers in tight formation on the street and entered the studio to pose for Disdéri. The extravagance of such an anecdote amplified Disdéri’s fame. “From that moment on, Disdéri’s reputation knew no bounds” (Freund 57). Whether founded in myth or reality, as the story passed by word of mouth, it boosted Disdéri’s reputation, elevated the demand for his portraits, and, above all else, situated him in a semi-personal relationship with Napoleon III.

In addition, Disdéri was an advocate for strengthening the bond between photography and the French military.  On February 19, 1861, he promoted the idea that each army regiment should have its own photographer (Freund 57). Not surprisingly, he became the French army’s first official photographer.  In the end, it is apparent that Disdéri’s business skills corresponded to his photographic relationship with the Second Empire.
Disdéri’s numerous royal portraits speak to the makeup of his personal politics.  He profited from the changing social classes of the 19th century by catering to the desires of the upper class.  The photographs he produced had a great impact on the masses in the sense that they were visual propaganda.

Félix Nadar: Bohémien

One photographer of the Second Empire opposed the work of Disdéri, Marville, and Napoleon III .  If the complexity of Félix Nadar’s personality could be captured in one word, it would be bohemian.  Artistic, opinionated and destined to attain hero-like stature for freethinking Parisians, Nadar developed a photographic career full of significance.  Nadar was the ultimate bohemian.  He was antiestablishment, and though he was clearly socialist, he would not describe himself as a political man.  Rather, he envisioned himself as “too absolute in what I think to conform my thoughts to a system”(McCauley A.A.E. 109).
Contrary to his self-perception, Nadar’s life was quite politically charged.  He embodied antiestablishment beliefs and incidentally became a symbol for this stance.  He most adamantly opposed the Second Empire and his dislike of Napoleon III’s values was cultivated from the very beginning of his career. Nadar was intellectually engaged in politics before Napoleon III even took over. “…Nadar’s social position in the 1840’s had made him, like his fellow bohemians, a convinced enemy of all that was bourgeois, safe, and restrictive of individual freedom…” (McCauley A.A.E. 107). From the beginning of Napoleon’s reign, Nadar kept his distance. “Seuls deux photographes majeurs restent à distance de l’administration: Félix Nadar pour des raisons politiques, son opposition affichée au régime l’excluant de faveurs ou d’encouragements qu’il n’a cure de solliciter, et Henri Le Secq…” (Pouvoir et Photographie).  Only two major photographers kept their distance from the government: Félix Nadar, for political reasons, a refusal of favors from the regime which he never asked for, and Henri Le Secq… Nadar maintained this distance in two ways.  First, he refused to directly photograph the Emperor.  Though Nadar was well practiced in the art of portraiture, he consciously decided not to participate in the government’s affairs.  One story tells of how Nadar refused to photograph Napoleon III and the army from his hot air balloon.  Apparently, Nadar declined the request because he didn’t support the Emperor’s campaign against Austria (Pollack 143). He stuck to his bohemian habits and was unwilling to photograph what he viewed as an empirical conquest.
Secondly, Nadar practiced strictly bohemian values where finances where concerned. He kept himself at distance by refusing gifts and encouragement from the Emperor. In Mémoire du Géant, he writes: “Je n’ai rien demandé – qu’une chose: -la jouissance de mon droit à me casser le cou au profit de mon Idée (qui eût eu pourtant si grand besoin d’autre aides!) – Hors cela, rien: ni argent pour le présent, ni récompense pour l’avenir.” (I asked just one thing: the joy of my right to break my neck to profit from my idea (that had nonetheless a great need for extra help!) Other than that, nothing; not money for the present, nor compensation for the future.) (339) Nadar refused payment for the present as well as money for the future.  Evidently, he was more focused on fulfilling his dream of successful ballooning than he was interested in profiting. 
Furthermore, in Nadar’s Mémoire, Napoleon III dictates a telegram that states a credit of 50,000 francs should be opened in Nadar’s name for the purpose of developing a new balloon system for the army’s use: “Je prie M.Fould d’ouvrir immédiatement un credit de cinquante mille francs à MM. Nadar et…pour un nouveau système de ballon utile à l’armée. –Napoléon.” (I beg of Mr. Fould to immediately open a credit of fifty thousand francs for Mr. Nadar…and for the new balloon system used for the army.) (81)Despite the generosity of Napoleon III, Nadar refused this money.  Later on in his memoires, Nadar explains his choice: “The only fortune I ever had was my work, and I would not have accepted even one penny from the government of that day – although they bore me good will, are remarkably insistent good will that I recall, which I must in conscience give them credit for today” (Nadar My Life 25). Thus, from popular legend and personal accounts, it seems that while Nadar did have contact with Napoleon III, the photographer concentrated more on distancing himself from the Second Empire.
Instead of drawing support from the government, Nadar found aid from within the socialist community (McCauley A.A.E. 123). In contrast to Disdéri, Nadar ignored the beau monde and instead focused on other left-thinking artists.  This is seen in the portraits he took between the 1850s-1870s: “…he put on record an image of French cultural nobility to which the nation continued to turn for assurance” (The Photography Book 341). Nadar presented the masses with a cultural form of nobility instead of one based on wealth or governmental prestige.  In fact, by ignoring the beau monde, Nadar offered alternative subject matter in his photography. A majority of his work was dedicated to portraiture.  Primarily, he photographed his artistic peers. Though the list was long, some of his more prominent models included Charles Baudelaire, George Sand, and Pierrot. 

The portraits themselves are stunning because of Nadar’s eye for detail and ability to convey varied emotions, from Sand’s longing sideward glance, to Pierrot’s exaggerated mimed poses. 
Photographing Baudelaire was a means for Nadar to document the social circle that he himself was part of.  Baudelaire was a nineteenth century author noted for his decadence, revolutionary participation in 1848, and close friendship with Nadar.  In this portrait the overall tone is moody and slightly mysterious.  It seems that Baudelaire catches the viewer looking at him and holds that connection.  His illuminated head stands out from the rest of his body, intensifying the power of his stare.  He seems reserved or secretive, with his hands tucked away under his jacket.
As far as the glance is concerned, Sand’s portrait could be viewed as the opposite of Baudelaire. She appears detached from the viewer, as if she is interacting with something unknown.  Her eyes express sadness, yet her mouth reveals the slightest hint of a smile.  Nadar expertly captures her complex persona in this portrait.  Sand was known in Parisian society for her rebellious and socialist character.  As a baroness, and a renowned writer, she refused to behave like a ‘lady’; she insisted on wearing male clothes and smoking tobacco in public. 
Pierrot, less of a rebel than Sand, was also an important figure in the French cultural nobility. His portrait references a type of French theater known as Commedia dell’Arte.  As a mime, he relied of the expressiveness of his body and face, which is what Nadar captures in this photograph.  Notably, our eye jumps to Pierrot’s body, illuminated in an all white costume.  Notice the theatrical elements represented here, such as the excess of folds in Pierrot’s sleve, the oversized buttons, and the shadow underneath his coat that acts almost as an extension of the body.
As a collected group, however, the portraits are more interesting in what their subject matter expresses.  By photographing other artists, who were also figures in the socialist world, the photographs become representations of the same values that Nadar admired. In consciously choosing to represent his socialism through photography, Nadar was assisting in the development of an “anti-bourgeois world” (McCauley A.A.E. 124).  His portraits expanded the visual definition of French socialist artists.  In this sense, Nadar’s subject matter differed greatly from Disdéri’s.  It was less a stylistic difference, and more of a subject discrepancy.  Both men photographed the faces of French nobility, yet they took the meaning in opposing directions.

Visualizing a Political Spectrum of Photographers

Indeed, Napoleon III’s Second Empire witnessed the “birth” of photography.   Many French photographers made their name famous across Europe.  Some focused on landscapes, like Gustave Le Gray, while others specialized in commercial portraits, like Mayer & Pierson.  Disdéri, Marville, and Nadar stand out amongst this group of developing artists as successful Parisian photographers. Each one represents an intriguing array of how French politics infiltrated 19th century photography.
Despite living in the same city during the same period, these three photographers form a unique political spectrum.  Disdéri represents a right wing position in full support of the Empire.  He never officially advertised his political perspective but dedicated himself to photographing the beau-monde for profit.  Marville is in the middle of the spectrum since he can be seen between Disdéri’s rightness and Nadar’s leftness.  He was willing to sacrifice his personal socialist beliefs to be employed by the Second Empire. Nadar stands out from Disdéri and Marville because of his staunch commitment to a bohemian approach to photography.  While Napoleon III was at the peak of fame, Nadar chose to photograph his socialist peers and advanced the use of artificial light in photography.  He was determined not to capitalize on photography if it meant surrendering his own political beliefs.
The twenty years of Napoleon’s reign coincided with the prime years of each photographer’s career.  The stylistic choices made during the Empire formed the basis of their work and would echo their individual reactions during the Commune of 1870.