How did Gustave Flaubert’s realism differ from Champfleury’s ideas about realism?

Gustave Flaubert actively distanced himself from the Realism championed by Champfleury, as their approaches to literature were fundamentally different.1

Champfleury, a key theoretician of the movement, advocated for novels to act as "daguerreotypes" of everyday life, emphasizing the need for careful research, documentation, and the portrayal of ordinary people without any didactic purpose. He rejected stylistic artifice in favor of a plain, documentary style.23

In contrast, Flaubert rejected the notion that there was merit in simply transposing a "slice of life" into everyday language. His realism was defined by:1

• The Primacy of Art: Flaubert believed that only through the artist's careful reworking could raw material be given meaning and lifted above the "utilitarian emptiness" of daily life.1
• Subjectivity: He emphasized that any version of reality is relative to the person perceiving it, undermining the idea of a stable, objective reality.1
• Stylistic Mastery: Unlike Champfleury, Flaubert utilized a brilliant, highly crafted style that molded itself to the specific personality and limits of his characters, rather than relying on a plain, unadorned presentation.1

Ultimately, while Champfleury sought a documentary record, Flaubert used his objective, ironic, and analytical presence to explore the psychological nuances and illusions of his characters.41