Manet: The Realism of Human Body - Case Study Example

30 November 2007 Manet: Realism of the Human Body Beyond any doubt, Manet’s depiction of the human body is, in many ways, characteristic of his style. Blurring the lines between realism, impressionism and modernism, the painter became a precursor of rare, at that time, manner of breaking with academicism and systematicism in art. His use of realist techniques is envisioned in an almost blatant referral to the social reality of his times and allows him to formulate a bold commentary on morality and gender relations. Moreover, Manet developed a highly individualized quality of presenting human bodies by endowing his works with the potential to render his vision by means of evoking obvious connotations. The intentions of Manetian realism are visible on two levels that will be discussed in this paper. Both artistic techniques and exhibition strategies, as will be seen, participate in semantic signification and have specific aims to achieve. As soon as at the level of Manet’s workshop we can see traces of his philosophy. The process of creation is stressed as the painter uncovers his modus operandi and invites the viewer to assist him in the completion of his vision. In a way, he implicates his viewers in participation in the artistic endeavor. Smalls writes that Manet managed to conjoin “transparency of representation” with “delineating body flesh and form” (2003). Applying this technical paradox, he prompts the emotional response from the audience who become performers at this stage. The middle and high class art specialists are both surprised and offended by the eccentricity displayed in coloring and stylization (Tse, 2007). The viewers, mostly critics and high-class drawing-room savants, felt offended because Manet did not make it clear if some imperfections in his paintings were intended and were subject to interpretation or if the artist just mocked them. The audience was enabled to see how the texture was composed and even estimate the number of paint-brushes put on the bodies of his models: “Manet applied a sketch-like technique, the paining looked unfinished with invisible brush marks, it showed no detail on figures face, which are represented by a couple of brushstrokes. But this approach achieved movement; the scene is like taking place in front of our eyes. Manet applied a sketch-like technique, the paining looked unfinished with invisible brush marks, it showed no detail on figures face, which are represented by a couple of brushstrokes. But this approach achieved movement; the scene is like taking place in front of our eyes” (Tse). Apart from overexposing the fact that his paintings are in fact nothing more than just a representation of reality as he sees it, Manet had a policy Greenberg called “inconsistency” – presentation of single episodes from life without any continuity (Smalls). Every painting recounted a separate story elucidating facets of bourgeois and aristocratic life. He avoided categorical classification just like reality which he perceived to be too fragmented and complex to be grasped coherently. Using many different trends in each and every painting, his close regard of details and even some dose of frivolity were conspicuous: ”the colorist tendencies of the “Spanishized” paintings into the phenomenon of dressing up in Parisian fashion”. Manetian bodies are adorned with the same fantasy and scrupulousness as the bodies possessed by his male onlookers. Masculine masquerade illustrated in many of his paintings almost invaded the privacy of his peers who would consider decking oneself out feminine, anti-intellectual and shameful. Apart from allowing the audience entrance into his atelier, so-to-speak, Manet also used certain unique exhibition strategies. Noticeably, painting such as Luncheon on the Grass is devoid of strict representational frames. The background is shadowy; almost an illusion. A woman can be seen in some distance, but her figure is more floating than real. The carelessness is striking all the more since his models, brought to the forefront, are held in artificial light smacking of studio fashion (Wikipedia). The viewer is not having doubts that this painting concentrates on the people included in the front which, consequently, constitutes the focal point of attention alluding to the redundancy of any additional decorations. Context obtains the status of mannerist excuse to present naked bodies for a plausible reason. Manet signalizes that he has no absolutely no intention whatsoever to escape from the physical and sexual dimension of corporacy. But nudity alone would not be too big a problem, in fact, if not for the evident identity of the picnickers: Victorine Meurend, Ferdinand Leenhoff, and Manets younger brother, Eugène (Pioch, 2002). Placing respectable persons in such a situation was considered very provocateur and was met with widespread disapproval (Pioch). But Luncheon… was so daring also because it accentuated that the moral decay of 19th century European elites was class-informed. Manet is a historicist of his times and writes his narratives with bodies. To him it is the most flexible and the most symbolic material. Edouard Manet, Luncheon on the Grass, 1863. To some extent, Manet can be considered slightly feminist, especially, as for an artist of his times. Masculine dress-coding here is remarkable. The two men are stylized as typical agents of dandyism and bohemian decadence (Wikipedia). Paradoxically, the picture displays masculine masquerade rather than feminine. The men are engaged in frivolous conversation and appear to be entirely oblivious to the nude woman. Her gaze, so importunate in the picture, shows how desperate she might be about gaining some consideration. This impression is reinforced by the mess she presumably made rushing to dispose of her clothing. Even though, the idea of the female body as an object can be questioned on the ground of her active stance, the painting lashes at the exclusion of the woman from any form of intellectualism; the only position she can have is that of a courtesan. Realism of the three bodies resides in the synopsis of reality provided by the representation. Similarly, Zola notes in his obiter commentary: “the artist had [not] placed an obscene intent in the disposition of the subject, [while] the artist had simply sought to obtain vibrant oppositions and a straightforward audience” (1837). The painting unmasks a whole array of social problems connected with sexuality and life-style both of which are embodied on the canvas. Another painting, Olympia, stresses strong position of a sexually active woman. Her nudity is neither fetishlike nor vulgar. Instead, the painting delicately underlines female beauty and self-confidence. The courtesan’s coy gaze shows how much she enjoys being looked at. Her body is neither mutilated nor shown in any sort of physical degeneration. Olympia presents a European courtesan living a life many respectable women could not possibly have. It amazed many of Manet’s contemporaries since as some critics observe: “no serious artist dared to paint a woman of such obvious ill repute without at least draping her in the exotic garb of harem girl. Yet here was a courtesan glorified” (Williams, 2005). The woman appears to be served and adored on a daily basis since her oblivion to the humble servant implies routine. Her secretive smile contrasts with the coquettish exposition of her nude body which is realist in the most rudimentary sense of the word. Edouard Manet, Olympia, 1863, France. Manet shows that prostitutes are beautiful, well-to-do and live in comfort. Breaking with the stereotype of courtesans suffering from syphilis as they were depicted in art and literature of that time, Manet challenges double standards of morality. It is a severe criticism of blaming the phenomenon of prostitution on the part of females. Objectification and demonization of a Fallen Woman, in the moralist hypocrisy of men, saves the latter from a sense of guilt and allows indulging in what is considered immoral without being judged. Simultaneously, he represents the culture of boudoir with almost painful honesty: this woman is all capability to manipulate men; she is sort of femme fatale even. Though she is probably an exclusive prostitute, Manet displays a pictorial claim that she avails her clientele as much as they avail her. Men could possess courtesans’ bodies but, as a natural consequence, their superiority in the domain of sexual life was threatened: “To the wealthy collectors of art and women, who regarded both as possessions, Olympia stripped them of their illusions. Her body is ripe for the taking, but everything else, including the meaning behind that enigmatic almost-smile, shes keeping for herself” (Williams). In a way the painting advocates sexual liberation of women as Manet consciously provokes and almost mocks his male audience. It delivers a message about the rise of modernist thought in every sphere of life and most distinctly – social graces: “[w]ith a single shocking canvas depicting a prostitute in repose, Edouard Manet ushered in the brave nude world of modern art” (Williams). The above argument can be seen as constructed around McMahan’s idea of aesthetic realism which is a category innate in any type of pictorial representation (Mclver Lopes, 2006). In other words, realism is achieved so long as the painting makes reference to any aspect of reality. When we consider Manet’s pictures it seems to be the case. His art, particularly these two paintings, do not only represent realistic bodies but also give the bodies the right to speak about reality as well as the right to defy artificial contexts in which they would signify in accordance with the interests of men. Early modern preoccupation with the bodily rather than the spiritual encouraged Manet to recreate live history as flesh which is neither passive nor victimized. On the contrary, the female body signifies a groundbreaking change; the future of society is already inscribed in the insolent look of the courtesan and the confident isolation from mainstream bohemian lifestyle. References Dandy. Wikipedia. Retrieved November 28, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dandy McIver Lopes, D. (2006, January 18) The Special and General Theory of Realism: Reply to Abell, Armstrong, and McMahon. Retrieved on November 28, 2007, from http://www.contempaesthetics.org/newvolume/pages/article.php?articleID=373 Pioch, N. (2002, July 14) Le Déjeuner sur lherbe. Webmuseum. Retrived on November 30,2007, from http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/manet/dejeuner/ Smalls, J. (2003, March). Manet Manette [Review of carol Armstrong’s Manet Manette]. H- France Review Vol. 3. Retrieved on November 29, 2007, from http://www.h- france.net/vol3reviews/smalls.html Tse, A. Manet in: 19th Century Art. Retrieved November 30, 2007, from http://www.geocities.com/rr17bb/movement5.html Williams, M. E. (2002, May 13) Manets "Olympia". Retrieved on November 30, 2007, from http://dir.salon.com/story/ent/masterpiece/2002/05/13/olympia/ Zola, E. (1867) Édouard Manet. Wikipedia. Retrieved November 29, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Luncheon_on_the_Grass Read More