Annie Hagner
London and Paris
Professor Rauser
Research Paper
May 1, 2015
Manet’s Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe and Olympia
Two widely-known impressionist works by Édouard Manet, Le Déjeuner sur
l’herbe (Luncheon in the grass) and Olympia, have undoubtedly been seen as
controversial, for similar and different reasons. Two scholars, T.J. Clark and Paul Hayes
Tucker have studied these paintings and how they were received both by critics and the
public as well as in the context of the Paris Salon. This paper seeks to discover what
elements exactly yielded the known reactions of the public, and what differences there
may have been, as one painting was deemed too scandalous for the Paris Salon, and the
other was not.
In order to appreciate the varying reactions to the Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe, it is
critical to observe the painting itself. Originally titled Le Bain,1 it was completed from
1862-1863 and displayed in the Salon des Refuses of 1863 after its rejection from the
Paris Salon that same year.2 The scene is presumed to be at the Ile Saint-Ouen, not far
from where Manet grew up,3 where a nude woman leisurely sits with two clothed men
and a clothed woman washes herself in the water just behind them. The nude woman
1. Paul Hayes Tucker, “Making Sense of Edouard Manet’s Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe”
Manet’s Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe, ed. Paul Hayes Tucker (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press, 1998), 6.
2. Juliet Wilson-Bareau, “The Salon des Refusés of 1863: A New View,” The
Burlington Magazine, May 2007, 309.
3. Paul Hayes Tucker, “Making Sense of Edouard Manet’s Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe,”
24.
1
looks directly to the viewer, while her male counterparts look in separate directions.4
Although many critics didn’t see a connection at the time, Manet drew inspiration for this
painting from his studies of the works of old masters such as Giorgione’s The Pastoral
Concert,5 Marcantonio Raimondi’s engraving The Judgement of Paris,6 and Jean Antoine
Watteau’s Le Villageoise.7 The figures are said to be modeled after certain people in
Manet’s life; the nude woman was inspired by his favorite model Victorine Meurent, later
depicted in Olympia, the man furthest to the right was inspired by his two brothers
Eugène and Gustave, and the man in the center was inspired by Ferdinand Leenhoff, the
brother of his future wife, Susan.8 The scale of this painting was a major point of
conversation as the canvas was custom created to measure as large as many historical,
religious and mythological paintings, uncharacteristic of a painting of this genre.9
As an impressionist painting, one would describe it composed of rough
brushstrokes, with very harsh contrasts in color and light, and hard and flat lines. These
techniques emphasize the contrast between the flat and harsh whiteness of the nude
Victorine and the much darker males that more fluidly blend in with the surrounding
nature. Though the males tend to blend in terms of color and light, the smooth
brushstrokes of the figures are different than the more coarse brushstrokes of the
4. Rolf Læssøe, “Édouard Manet’s ‘Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe’ as a Veiled Allegory of
Painting,” Artibus et Historiae, Vol. 26, No. 51 (2005): 24.
5. Paul Hayes Tucker, “Making Sense of Edouard Manet’s Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe,”
14.
6. Paul Hayes Tucker, “Making Sense of Edouard Manet’s Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe,”
19.
7. Michael Fried, Manet’s Modernism or, The Face of Painting in the 1860s (Chicago
and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1996), 57.
8. Paul Hayes Tucker, “Making Sense of Edouard Manet’s Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe,”
24.
9. Paul Hayes Tucker, “Making Sense of Edouard Manet’s Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe,”
11.
2
surrounding grass and trees.10 Other notable aspects of the painting worth analyzing are
the interaction of the figures, the gaze of the nude woman, and the gesture of the man
furthest to the right. The males appear to be in conversation while the gaze of the nude
woman indicates the intensity of her focus on the viewer. It is up for debate whether the
woman’s gaze is
challenging the
viewer or
accepting the
viewer into the
scene, or perhaps
returning the
viewer’s own
gaze at the
Edouard Manet "Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe," 1862-1863, Oil on Canvas, Musée d’Orsay
painting. This
interaction between the nude woman and the viewer subsequently includes the object of
her gaze as another figure of the painting worth considering. The gesture of the male
pointing in the direction of his other two companions raises other questions. It is unclear
exactly what he is pointing at, as it may be concerned with the conversation he is having
or something that is not in view. The viewer could however understand the gesture to
draw more attention to the contrast in femininity and masculinity, the nude and the
10. Carol Armstrong, “To Paint, to Point, to Pose,” Manet’s Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe,
ed. Paul Hayes Tucker (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 93.
3
dressed, and the light and dark of the female and male in the direction in which the finger
is pointing. 11 In a sense, this male is specifying what the observer should be focused on.
Manet’s other impressionist work of controversy, Olympia, was also finished in
1863, and exhibited two years later in the Paris Salon of 1865 along with other works. It’s
display included poetic lines written by Zacharie Astruc under its title, “Quand, lasse de
songer, Olympia s’éveille, Le printemps entre au bras du doux messager noir; C’est
l’esclave, à la nuit amoureuse pareille, Qui vient fleurir le jour délicieux à voir: L’auguste
jeune fille en qui la flame veille.”12 The painting was an obvious depiction of a nude
prostitute, Olympia, also modeled after Victorine Meurent, reclining with her cat at her
feet, as her servant brings her a bouquet of flowers. Although many failed to connect the
two, Manet clearly used Titian’s Venus of Urbino of 1538 as inspiration, with more
modernistic changes.13
Much like Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe, the contrast of lights and darks is very harsh
and abrupt, while the brushstrokes are generally very smooth with firm and clear linear
edges that define the forms such as Olympia’s body.14 The body itself appears extremely
flat as a result of Manet’s use of tones, while it is also linearly outlined, so much so, that
some say it seems unlively.15 In contrast to the depiction of Venus by Titian, Olympia has
no idealized and desired features that distract from her authentic nakedness. As a whole,
11. Carol Armstrong, “To Paint, to Point, to Pose,” 111.
12. T.J. Clark, The Painting of Modern Life: Paris in the Art of Manet and his
Followers (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984), 82-83.
13. T.J. Clark, The Painting of Modern Life: Paris in the Art of Manet and his
Followers, 93.
14. T.J. Clark, The Painting of Modern Life: Paris in the Art of Manet and his
Followers, 134.
15. Beth Haris and Steven Zucker, “Manet, Olympia,” (lecture, Khan Academy).
4
Manet employed many similar techniques as in Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe that give it the
similar impression that it is unfinished. There is much support to the notion that Olympia
is in fact a prostitute. Normally, with a depiction of a nude woman, it is easy for the
nudity to remain separate from sexual implications, but in this piece they are impossible
to separate, speaking to its more modernistic quality. Furthermore, there are certain
iconographic indications that the creation of male desire is rooted in this work, such as
the hissing cat and the offering of flowers.16 Some speak to the possibility of the client
actually being present
as the flowers are
presented to her, due
to the frightened
nature of the cat and
her facial
expression.17 Other
obvious signs are the
symbols of wealth
that she wears
Edouard Manet, "Olympia" 1863, Oil on Canvas, Musée d’Orsay
such as the orchid in her hair, bracelet, and earrings. Lastly, Olympia was also considered
a classic stereotypical name of prostitutes during this time.18 Much like Déjeuner, the
gaze of Olympia is also a major point of discussion. She clearly addresses the viewer that
16. T.J. Clark, The Painting of Modern Life: Paris in the Art of Manet and his
Followers, 130.
17. Beth Haris and Steven Zucker, “Manet, Olympia,” (lecture, Khan Academy).
18. T.J. Clark, The Painting of Modern Life: Paris in the Art of Manet and his
Followers, 86.
5
enters her sphere with a certain awareness, but in a less confrontational and challenging
way. One could characterize this look as more compliant, yet still guarded. She also does
not offer any gesture to welcome or rid the viewer, which evokes a certain candor of the
situation. This look conveys the subject as a routine exchange of goods and services.19
To contextualize the reactions of these two works in the social sphere of Paris
during the 19th century, it is critical to understand the prominence of the Paris Salon and
the Salon des Refusés. The Paris Salon was the official exhibition of the Académie des
Beaux-Arts that began in 1725. It lasted until just before the 20th century, but it wasn’t
until the 19th century that it became an annual public exhibition with a juried entrance for
participating artists. It was not until the 1863 Salon that the rejected works by the jury
became such a notorious concern.20 The Paris Salon took place in the Palais de l’Industrie
where galleries ran along parallel hallways from the central room and throughout more
rooms to the east and west.21 As a result of new rules for jurying in 1863, many more
artists had been rejected than ever before.22 After a petition of protest signed by Manet
and several others to the Minister of State, Emperor Napoleon III authorized the Salon
des Refusés, an exhibition of only rejected works, located just next to the official salon. 23
All of the refused works were automatically submitted, unless intentionally withdrawn,
although many artists chose to remain anonymous.24 The entrance of the Refusés was
actually in the Paris Salon, with a visible sign that read “Œuvres Refusés par le jury,
19. T.J. Clark, The Painting of Modern Life: Paris in the Art of Manet and his
Followers, 132-133.
20. Juliet Wilson-Bareau, “The Salon des Refusés of 1863: A New View,” 309.
21. Juliet Wilson-Bareau, “The Salon des Refusés of 1863: A New View,” 312.
22. Juliet Wilson-Bareau, “The Salon des Refusés of 1863: A New View,” 313.
23. Juliet Wilson-Bareau, “The Salon des Refusés of 1863: A New View,” 309.
24. Juliet Wilson-Bareau, “The Salon des Refusés of 1863: A New View,” 314.
6
exposées par ordre de l’Empereur.”25 Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe was one of three of
Manet’s works to be refused in 1863, while two years later Olympia was accepted in the
Salon of 1865.
The rejection of Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe from the Salon is without a doubt
connected to some sort of scandal, but not necessarily in the same way the Olympia was.
There are countless reactions and critiques to the piece that involve the painting
technique more than the subject matter. Some argue that Manet attempted his own
tableau with this piece, but failed to comply with traditional standards of a tableau. Privat
contended that with his so-called tableau, he sought more the overall effect and feeling
and placed technical detail as secondary in importance.26 As a whole, according to Thoré
the works that were refused in 1863 were just simply different than the art that they were
used to. After a long dominance of Italian art that emphasized perfection of technique and
practice above all else, a type of work like Le Déjeuner that didn’t obsess over detail and
finish was seen as wild. An overwhelming amount of the scandal lied in this unfamiliarity
of style.27 This is not to say that the subject matter yielded no controversy. Those that
were offended by the subject matter were mostly just confused. It was unclear to viewers
what exactly was going on in the scene, whether or not the nude was a prostitute, and
why this group of people was together. Critic Louis Etienne described the painting as a
word puzzle, and Arthur Stevens could not at all explain what Manet was trying to
25. Juliet Wilson-Bareau, “The Salon des Refusés of 1863: A New View,” 316.
26. Michael Fried, Manet’s Modernism or, The Face of Painting in the 1860s, 271.
27. Anne McCauley, “Sex and the Salon: Defining Art and Immorality in 1863,”
Manet’s Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe, ed. Paul Hayes Tucker (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press, 1998), 43.
7
portray.28 These “incomprehensible subjects” besides confusion, generally provoked
laughter in its audience. Anne McCauley argues that the lack of interaction of the men
with the female, as she connects with the viewer, disregards any immorality. She also
argues that the response of laughter and confusion suppressed any sexual tension that
may have arisen.29
After his harsh rejections in 1863, Manet was uneasy and insecure about his
works following. In letters of correspondence to his friend and confidant Baudelaire, he
sought guidance and comfort about his previous disappointment. Baudelaire had
submitted a letter of recommendation for the Salon of 1865, which was not even put to
use as Olympia and another religious painting of Manet’s had been accepted on their
own. Even with this triumph, the initial criticism and press about Olympia gave Manet
some panic and insecurity about his work. With a bit of tough love, Baudelaire reassured
Manet that great artists don’t go without adversity at some point.30
With its salon acceptance in 1865, Olympia definitely did not go unnoticed. In La
Revue Artistique et Littéraire, critic Louis Auvray described the enormous crowds that
consistently surrounded the work, making it difficult for anyone to get remotely close to
it. It caused quite a stir in the salon, with reactions that ranged from laughter, to mockery,
and confusion.31 The public generally remained unoffended by it, but the intense
fascination forced the salon to relocate the work to a less central spot to lessen the
28. Anne McCauley, “Sex and the Salon: Defining Art and Immorality in 1863,” 43.
29. Anne McCauley, “Sex and the Salon: Defining Art and Immorality in 1863,” 44.
30. T.J. Clark, The Painting of Modern Life: Paris in the Art of Manet and his
Followers, 82.
31. T.J. Clark, The Painting of Modern Life: Paris in the Art of Manet and his
Followers, 83.
8
hysteria.32 Privat considered that the public reaction of laughter might have been fueled
by their inability to comprehend the abstractness of the painting.33 The more general
response of knowledgeable critics found scandal in the implications of social class of the
prostitute, and how her sexuality seemed violent to the body.34 The reactions that focused
on technique instead of subject matter, criticized the portrayal of Olympia’s body
rubbery, lacking cleanliness, with an air of “death and decomposition.”35 This
characterization is a result of Manet’s unusual technique to portray the nude, composed
of abrupt lighting, harsh lines, and flatness, which yielded its supposed unfinished
quality.36
There is a clear difference in magnitude of reactions to subject matter and
technique of Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe and Olympia. The criticism of Le Déjeuner is
dominated by the believed lack of appreciation and attention to technique, detail, and
practice, whereas the criticism of Olympia is dominated by the understood implications
of the subject matter. Paul Hayes Tucker, with the help of other scholars, and T.J. Clark
confirm these generalizations for why these two works, in slightly different contexts, both
achieved so much attention.
The evidence that Paul Hayes Tucker presents, through both his research and the
studies of others, collectivizes reactions regarding the technique and practice of Manet
32. T.J. Clark, The Painting of Modern Life: Paris in the Art of Manet and his
Followers, 84-85.
33. Michael Fried, Manet’s Modernism or, The Face of Painting in the 1860s, 271.
34. T.J. Clark, The Painting of Modern Life: Paris in the Art of Manet and his
Followers, 88.
35. T.J. Clark, The Painting of Modern Life: Paris in the Art of Manet and his
Followers, 97.
36. T.J. Clark, The Painting of Modern Life: Paris in the Art of Manet and his
Followers, 134.
9
that cohesively speak to the source of the controversy of Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe. Firstly,
the combination of the grand scale of the piece with the inability to reform to the
boundaries of fine art made for an impossible genre classification, diminishing some of
its importance.37 The general response to the lack of detail and coarse quality of the
brushstrokes was to claim that the work looked unfinished. This general classification of
the “sloppy finish” characterized the most disgusted responses. Castagnary, calling the
painting “a sketch” due to the fact that there was definition to the anatomy and thus the
painting lacked sincerity.38 Appreciator of fine arts, Philip Hamerton was one of the very
few that drew the connection between Le Déjeuner and Pastoral Concert yet he found no
appreciation for the work due to the lack of photographic detail.39 Taking into account all
of these critiques about technical process, Tucker essentially argues that the unfamiliarity
and displeasure with this style, so different from realist depictions before, generated
responses that deemed the painting as a fabricated sense of reality, thus lacking real truth.
T.J. Clark’s argument for the controversy surrounding Olympia concerns the
modernity depicted that seemed to threaten certainties about class and boundaries of
social order. One aspect of Clark’s argument involves the fact that art depicting
prostitution up until this point had never before sparked this level of controversy. He
seeks to understand the reasoning for this by looking at the context of the city of Paris.
During the 1860s prostitution in Paris was becoming a major concern and source of
anxiety for the city. As it had more of a societal presence than ever, there was concern
37. John House, “Manet and the De-Moralized Viewer,” Manet’s Le Déjeuner sur
l’herbe, ed. Paul Hayes Tucker (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 76.
38. Anne McCauley, “Sex and the Salon: Defining Art and Immorality in 1863,” ed.
Paul Hayes Tucker, 42.
39. Anne McCauley, “Sex and the Salon: Defining Art and Immorality in 1863,” ed.
Paul Hayes Tucker, 43.
10
about what the future would bring. Leading up to this point, prostitution had been very
regulated, classified into certain spheres, and mostly maintained in private. At this time,
more and more women were beginning to pursue work alone, but in the public sphere.
This was becoming an issue that raised concerns about safety, lack of police control, lack
of regulation, and social mixing.40 It is certainly possible that the display of Olympia, in
the most prominent of all cultural organizations in Paris confirmed the vast presence of
prostitution in society.
Clark argues that another source of possible controversy may have been rooted in
the desire of the critics to understand who Olympia was and where she came from, and
the subsequent signal of her class. In many documented critiques, journalists describe her
as a courtisane. This was a classification of a prostitute that glazed over many of the
actual insinuations of the title, yet the public knew exactly what this meant. Clark
discusses the associations of a courtisane as a woman that came from the “Quartier
Bréda,” right in between the train station and the debtors’ prison.41 This classification
automatically places Olympia in a very low social class, differing from literary
descriptions of prostitutes varying from “petite faubourienne” to “des mystères de Paris.”
Though cruel and insensitive, Clark argues that this honest depiction and discussion
reveals the modernity of the piece.42
In short, the contrast in arguments of Tucker and Clark reveals the core issues of
these two paintings of Manet. These core issues that brought about such emotional
40. T.J. Clark, The Painting of Modern Life: Paris in the Art of Manet and his
Followers, 104.
41. T.J. Clark, The Painting of Modern Life: Paris in the Art of Manet and his
Followers, 86-87.
42. T.J. Clark, The Painting of Modern Life: Paris in the Art of Manet and his
Followers, 88.
11
responses both stemmed from a lack of familiarity, lack of understanding, and a fear of
the unknown brought about by certain elements of the paintings.
12