BEHIND THE NONCOMMITTAL GAZE

Who else? Who but the well bred, courteous Edouard Manet could have put before an astonished public the “female gorilla”, that “gamy courtesan” Olympia? Public and critics were for once unanimous. There could be no two ways about it: Manet had violated a taboo. He had painted neither a pneumatic goddess nor a startled nymph; the Salon’s customary fare, but a common or garden whore receiving a punter. For the first time, here, on canvas, was a truly naked woman, unrobed from myth and history; in flesh and blood, as if she had just this minute stepped out of her clothes. And therein lay the scandal.

Bar at the Folies Bergeres. 1881. The barmaid in Manet's last major painting looks out with a gaze even more noncommittal than Olympia's. In its foreground the painting summarizes all of Manet's brilliant talent for definition, while the background, consisting entirely of a mirror, is an equally brilliant display of impressionist effects.t

The spectacle Manet revealed was one of vices proper to conceal. True, he claimed Plato had already argued in the “Symposium” that there were two sorts of Venus, the celestial and the vulgar. And Renoir soon afterward entered another defense: “let the nude woman arise from ocean or bed, call her Venus or Nini nothing better has ever been invented.” The simple fact is that “Olympia” was not a nude; she was naked.Painting had seen nothing of the kind since Rembrandt’s “Bathsheba”.

Manet protested his innocence, but there is no reason to credit him. Every great artist knows exactly what he or she is doing. Moreover, there was a hint of perversity. The slender body of Victorine Meurent, his model and mistress, encouraged a misinterpretation; only nineteen years old at this point, her breasts fully developed but her hips those of an adolescent, she might have been a child sold into prostitution. Today, we could hint of paedophilia and perhaps indeed, of racism in this painting of young white mistress and black slave. On the latter point, we simply note that Manet’s “Olympia” belongs in a long tradition of odalisques with slaves. The cat is black as ink and much ink was expended on it.

Olympia. "...Degas sketched Manet several times; and did a major oil portrait of him sitting on a couch while his wife plays a piano. Manet disliked how Degas painted his wife’s face, so he cut off about 1/2 of the canvas which included her face. When Degas saw the mutilated painting, he was incensed and removed the image. Their friendship was permanently severed. After that, whenever the two men encounter each other (such as the cafés), they only exchanged competitive remarks. Degas always intended to repaint the removed section of the painting, but never did. Possibly, because 2 years later, Manet painted the same painting and included his wife’s face..."

Manet could not have been unaware of the multifarious provocation constituted by that black cat, which was painted in as an afterthought likely a year later for the Salon of 1865. This in itself shows that Manet was ambiguous. Manet took the composition of Titian’s “Venus of Urbino” as a ready made, hoping no doubt to shield himself from criticism by invoking the Master’s name. As if this were not enough, he replaced the innocuous lapdog sleeping at the feet of Titian’s Venus with a black cat, its back arched and tail raised. The black cat is often thought of as Satan’s minion, and French “Chatte” and English “pussy” designate precisely what Olympia’s left hand so emphatically refuses to the spectator’s eye.


Baudelaire’s spirit haunts the entire work: ” I should like to have lived with a young giantess/like a voluptuous cat at the feet of a queen.” Manet was determined to be modern, but the modernity remained Romantic and Baudelarian. The scandal was not to his taste, but was he really surprised by it? …

The balcony. 1868. The Balcony borrows a composition from Goya for transformation into a triple portrait, inclding the first of several of Berthe Morisot, who leans against the railing. She commented that the picture had the quality of a "wid slightly green fruit," and found her own likeness "more strange than ugly".

The wonder of a painting like “Olympia” is that we see it completely at a glance, yet that it remains inexhaustible. In the way he captured the immediate visual essence of an object Manet was truly an impressionist, although, impressionism as it developed under Monet and others, became an informal  and semi-scientific technique of fracturing form and color into prismatic vibrations in a way totally unsympathetic to Manet’s concern with definition. he was by taste a studio painter and not comfortable working out of doors to capture transient effects.

During the decade that followed Manet’s “Salon des Réfuses” debut as the Academy’s whipping boy, the group of somewhat generally younger acquaintances who were to become known as the impressionists were having at least equally rough going. If they were less violently attacked than Manet, it was only because they had less conspicuous reputations, and most of them were going through desperate times financially. Manet, still with his sights set on success in the Academy’s own pattern , refused to exhibit with them; possibly because he feared a repetition of the imbroglios in which he had already been involved. He was justified , for the press treated these exhibitions as a three-ring freak show though Manet himself was just as badly received at the Salon.

"Emile Zola, writing in L’Evénement on the Salon of 1866, launched a spirited defence of Manet, whose The Fifer (1866; Paris, Mus. d’Orsay) and the Tragic Actor (1865; Washington, DC, N.G.A.) had been rejected by that year’s Salon jury. In 1867 he published a fuller biographical and critical study. This support gained Zola the friendship of Manet who painted his portrait in 1868 (Paris, Mus. d’Orsay). The portrait shows the impact on Manet’s art of Japanese woodblock prints, newly available in Paris since the opening of Japan to the West in 1853. A tendency toward flattened space and unmodulated areas of colour, already present in such earlier works as Mlle Victorine in the Costume of an Espada (1862; New York, Met.), was reinforced, and Japanese artefacts began to appear as accessories. Zola’s criticism pointed out these features in Manet’s art and argued that he was primarily intereste


the act of painting and of representing visual experience rather than in the subject-matter depicted. This approach, intended to defuse hostile reactions to the somewhat shocking subject-matter of Déjeuner sur l’herbe and Olympia, had the added effect of aligning Manet’s art with the prevailing avant-garde theory of Art for Art’s Sake."

But by now these continued aburdities had stimulated a sizable group of critics and even some collectors and dealers to diagnose correctly the nature of the Salon’s mortal illness and to recognize the fertile vitality of the group that had been forced into rebellion.

The Salon began to accept Manet’s work with some regularity, but he remained an intruder; the liberal or conservative nature of a critic or jury member could be measured by his attitude toward Manet’s work. Finally, in 1881 less than two years before his death on April 30, 1883 at age fifty-one, Manet was awared the second-class medal in the Salon and was nominated for the Legion of Honor by a boyhood friend, Antonin Proust, a career politician who had just become Minister of Fine Arts. It is appropriately ironic  that when official rewards finally came to Manet, they came through the channel of a well placed friend: he had indeed succeeded according to the academic pattern.

Mallarme's portrait as subtle as his poetry...Julie Lorenzen:In 1875 and 1876, Mallarme and Manet collaborated on a few notable projects. In 1875, Manet created five drawings reproduced lithographically for Mallarme’s translation of Edgar Allen Poe’s The Raven. Manet’s creations for that collaboration would become some of his best-known drawing. In 1876, Manet produced four drawing for wood engravings illustrating Mallarme’s “L’Apres-midi d’un faune.” It is interesting to me that the same year Mallarme wrote his popular poem, which translated to English, reads “Afternoon of a Faun”, 1876, was also the same year that Manet painted his famous Portrait of Mallarme. Manet’s subject, in his mid-thirties at the time, looks out from the center of the painting and appears to be meditating over the book on which his hand is resting. Lloyd wrote “The Japanese screen behind him, with its mere suggestion of flowers and butterflies, the transubstantiation of text into smoke; and the poet’s rapt contemplation all combine to suggest the blend of intellect and sensuality, the quiet understatement of the essential point that united the two friends.”

Manet’s personality is a bit difficult to reconstruct since the simple exterior facts of his life do not add up to the sum of the parts. Manet’s friends speak rather consistently of his contempt for bourgeoisism, yet the kind of success he wanted conformed to the bourgeois ideal. He was distrustful of eccentricity- which he seemed to regard sometimes as a sign of weakness and sometimes only as a matter of social gaucherie- yet he was more patient with his friend Baudelaire, when that poor man took to painting his face, than some other friends were able to be. There are accounts of Manet’s charm and enjoyment of good company, of his wit, sparkle and social grace. And there are accounts of his surliness, his irritablity and his preference for seclusion.

Manet could behave at times with an almost feminine excitablity in spite of the one trait that, when everything is balanced, seems most persistent in his character whatever the contradictions. This trait was an essentially aristocratic reserve, a self-containment that forbade all casual intimacy and accepted intimacy of any kind only up to a point- and, in turn, respected the privacy of other people.

Related Posts

This entry was posted in Art History/Antiquity/Anthropology, Feature Article, Literature/poetry/spoken word, Miscellaneous, Modern Arts/Craft and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>