Manet: A Radicalized Female Imagery
By: Eunice Lipton
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1.
Manet was first called an iconoclast by his contemporaries; history has more
than agreed. In fact, on that high road to what is popularly called modernism, Manet’s
name is written first. He earned this position almost entirely on the basis of his formal
innovations. Who is unfamiliar with the Manet liturgy which endlessly marches out
the flatness, tonalism, foreshortened shadows, and peculiar perspective of his
painting? While all of these are undeniable attributes of his work, they constitute only
a partial inventory of his vision; they in no way evoke the extraordinary scope and
power of his genius. For Manet was essentially a realist whose unique vision lay as
much in the novelty and acuteness of his contemporary social imagery as it did in his
formal discoveries.
2.
Manet critics have been so indoctrinated by a formalist view of modern art
history – a view which sees a relentless development from Manet to the present in
terms of abstract formal components – that inquiry into the social, political and
psychological implications of his imagery has until recently been anathema. There are
some outstanding exceptions. Linda Nochlin and Theodore Reff and N.P. Sandblad
have addressed themselves to more broadly based, humanistic questions. I would like
to extend that inquiry with an analysis of Manet’s attitude toward women.
3.
Manet was an idiosyncratic realist. With the Impressionists in the 1870’s and
‘80’s, he painted the milieu and mores of his own bourgeois life style. The
revolutionary position that he and the Impressionists shared was their adoption, on a
large scale, of such bourgeois subjects as picnics, boating, concerts, etc. Where they
differed was in their approach to social etiquette in that ambiance. Whereas the
Impressionists, with the exception of Degas, painted a social imagery dictated by
stereotypic social behavior, Manet never did. Renoir, or Monet early in his career,
painted the friendly social encounters of daily life, but Manet in the same context
reversed the expected protocol. For example, Manet would paint a couple or a mother
and child, but he denied them their stereotyped exchanges: the couple ignored each
other, the mother, instead of being loving, behaved selfishly. He did this in the interest
of portraying the unritualized and uncommemorated habits of daily life, not as they
were brushed up and shaken out for company or for a work of art, but as they
persistently and prosaically existed.
4.
The dynamic of Manet’s special brand of realism was to start with a timehonored theme, or convention, them emphatically withhold its most characteristic
trait. On one hand, he upheld the element of tradition, crucial to the dynamic of his
realism. On the other hand he unmasked it as the anachronistic disguise, or delimiting
social ritual that he saw it to be. The more stringent the etiquette of the original
convention, the more disconcerting and radicalized Manet’s images finally appear.
Since there are no conventions more entrenched in the history of art and social
Manet: Female Imagery / 2
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
conduct than those relating to women, it is in his images of women that Manet’s
irreverent habit of mind and peculiar realism are clearest cut. If one analyzes his
images of women and compared them to contemporary images – both avant-garde and
academic – one will discover not only the dynamics of his realism but his radical
perception of the model French woman as well.
5.
Manet painted women in a variety of social contexts: the isolated portrait, the
reclining nude, the nude with other figures, man and woman, woman and child. His
version of the reclining nude, of course, exists as a classic of its kind. The convention
associated with that figure, whether the image was Venus or some anonymous
odalisque, always emphasized female sensuality and tacitly implied availability.
Manet’s Olympia of 1863 does neither. She is not voluptuous in a traditional sense nor
is she served up to the viewer. Quite the contrary. She is aloof, self-contained and
almost disdainful; she faces her visitor and stares him down. One braceleted hand
plays with a luxuriant shawl while the other assertively rests on her thigh. A red
hothouse orchid in her hair and a black velvet ribbon around her throat flaunt, rather
than offer, her nakedness. Olympia is a contemporary, nonidealized women posing as
Venus. Perhaps it is this denial of tradition which partially explains the furor triggered
by the painting. For, we are told that “Sticks and umbrellas were brandished in [her]
face,” and that she was “a degraded model picked up I know not where.”
6.
Theodore Reff in “The Meaning of Manet’s Olympia” in part attributes the
contemporary emotional resonance of the painting to a literary source, Dumas fils’
novel, La Dame aux Camélias, 1848. (In this popular novel and play, a heartless
courtesan is named Olympia.) Reff interprets Olympia as an image of a contemporary
women living on the fringes of respectable society, a member of the demi-monde of
the second Empire. Complete with lascivious cat and exotic black maid, she certainly
was an inflammatory image to present to the Parisian public.
7.
Reff’s interpretation is provocative and convincing. His argument, however, can
be taken further, for his analysis omits the crucial ingredient of irony in Manet’s
sensibility. Considering some of Manet’s other paintings of the time with their
tongue-in-cheek eclecticism and disregard for propriety, it is highly unlikely that
Olympia was primarily conceived of as a straightforward depiction of a courtesan. For
example, Mademoiselle Victorine in the Costume of an Espada (Metropolitan
Museum of Art, New York, 1962) depicts a woman, painted in the style of Velasquez,
impersonating one of the most machismo-type males imaginable; Le Déjeuner sur
l’herbe, 1863) is a risqué contemporary picnic painted with the imagery of Raphael
and Giorgione in mind. Just as Manet was mocking stereotypes of one kind or another
in the above two paintings, he was doing the same in Olympia. Her very posture as
Venus heightens the irony of the rejected scenario. Olympia arrogantly confronts and
gives the lie to every Venus, odalisque and courtesan figure ever painted. She
undermines tradition and stares out at history as the self-contained model Victorine
Meurend posing as a classic nude. Manet’s undermining, his subversion, of an
Manet: Female Imagery / 3
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
ennobled and defined convention of femininity was surely a major, if unconscious
source of spectator outrage in 1865.
8.
Manet’s Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe is as unrelenting in its matter-of-fact realism
and irreverence toward ritualized responses. Despite the blatantly provocative state of
dress and undress in the painting, the female nude is completely uninvolved with any
erotic program. She is aloof and detached from the two clothed men seated nearby.
This is particularly disconcerting because artistic and social conventions dictate other
behavior. As John Berger, the British critic, has said in The Listener (June 20, 1972):
“A woman in the culture of privileged Europeans is first and foremost a sight to be
looked at … Her nakedness is not an expression of her own active feelings: it is a sign
of her submission.” Manet’s woman is no more an object to be looked at than she is a
creature of submission. These are precisely the conventions she rejects. She in no way
engaged in the erotic fête champêtre of which she is apparently a member; stark
naked, she nonetheless refuses the erotic script. She remains her own woman and
inaccessible. She is the model Victorine Meurend posing with other models for a
painting. Once again, conventional and expected behavior is denied in the interest of a
prosaic and demythicized realism. The reality in this painting is an event in the artist’s
studio. Again discomfort is produced by the simultaneous assertion and betrayal of
stereotypes.
9.
Just as the schematic outdoor backdrop belies a natural setting, so the
indifference of the nude woman amidst clothed men undermines the sexual
expectancies inherent in the theme. When Gerome painted The Slave Market (Clark
Art Institute, Williamstown, Mass, c. 1867), he adhered to that sexual etiquette
absolutely. A young woman, who is apparently having her teeth examined, has been
totally undressed for the occasion. She stands titillatingly close to a densely wrapped
Arab who is exploring her mouth; she submits to him and visually to us.
10. Even when approaching the revered subject of motherhood, Manet’s position
was outrageous and unconventional. The subject, almost as sacred as the Virgin and
Christ child themselves, was a favorite among his contemporaries. The convention is
well known: mothers are always loving and attentive. In the Gare St. Lazare (1873),
exhibited in the Salon of 1874, Manet banished the loving, patient and attentive
mother – the secularized Virgin of the 19th century. Instead, he painted a woman and
her child who, while physically close, are psychically distant. Each is located in her
own time and space. The mother, distracted from her book for a moment, looks up at
us, the passerby, or Manet; the child is turned away. The mother is alert, intelligent,
inquiring; the child, mannequinlike. The shared moments and familial warmth
demanded by mother-child conventions have vanished. A moment of ungilded realism
confronts the viewer instead. Mothers, in fact, have their own moments, times when
they are self-involved and emotionally detached from their children. The mother in
Manet’s painting appears to be an able and responsible middle class French woman, a
person who in fact, would not continually be subsumed in her child’s world. What is
Manet: Female Imagery / 4
125
130
135
140
145
150
155
160
staggering is that Manet dared to paint a woman who so openly challenged a sacred
social stereotype. Compared to contemporary images, Manet’s painting is positively
irreverent. (For example, A. Jourdan’s A Mother, Salon, 1872, Renoir’s Mother and
Children, Frick Collection, 1874-76, and Leon Bonnat’s First Steps, Salon, 1874).
11. Manet is his most unorthodox and provocative, however, when painting
couples. Romantic convention has dictated that men and women in close proximity
pay attention to each other and more specifically that the woman provide erotic
possibilities; she pauses, she hesitates nervously, she teases. A convention which
usually follows these rules in art is the serenade; Titian’s Venus with a Lute Player
and Watteau’s La Gamme d’Amour may serve as examples. Manet’s The Music
Lesson (1870) could not be further from the required convivial intercourse. The
earmarks of a tryst are present – guitar, couch, man and woman – but none of the
expected erotic high. A stolidly serious, bourgeois couple sit stiffly side by side, each
isolated in his or her own psychic ambiance. Each is autonomous. The artistic
convention, echoing middle-class fantasies, demands interaction, but reaction need
not comply. Indeed, the contemporary bourgeois sense of propriety – a brand of
French Victorianism – demanded a coolness which conflicted with the fantasy. The
real moment between men and women was frequently an awkward one, which is
exactly what Manet has captured in his painting. For he was particularly drawn to
intervals of personal abstraction, ennui, and indifference. People do retreat into their
own thoughts and spaces even when they are intimate. It is a mark of his good
judgment that he does not overstate the candor with which he examines these
situations.
12. A more traditional image of seduction was painted by Manet’s contemporary,
M. Ballavoine. In The Interrupted Séance (1880), Ballavoine painted a woman who
was apparently ready and eager for pleasure. Judging from her disarray and forlorn
expression, however, her lover has rushed off in the middle of it. Tokens of his
masculinity and the projected seduction – the palette and the lute – remain behind on
the bed. In a somewhat disguised form, Ballavoine’s Séance is nonetheless close to
such typical serenades as Watteau’s La Gamme d’Amour in London’s National
Gallery.
13. The woman in Manet’s The Music Lesson is particularly unsettling because
traditional etiquette requires that she be friendly and subordinate. Contemporary
images of women in similar situations always show her charming and engaged, if not
dependent. (See Wrencker’s Under the Leaves, Salon 1874, and Renoir’s Alfred Sisley
and His Wife, Cologne, 1868.) Only Manet’s couple is austere, and disengaged. It is
not surprising that the man in Manet’s painting is depicted as choosing to be frozen or
reflective (men have always had the prerogative to choose action or not). That the
woman also assumes that option is amazing. She refuses to be a cliché of femininity
and in so doing she rejects some of society’s most cherished and protected
conventions.
Manet: Female Imagery / 5
165
170
175
180
185
190
195
200
14. Manet chose to paint psychic and social distances between people. But as usual
he deliberately started with the traditional image of a loving couple and then
deconventionalized it in the interest of a contemporary, nonstereotypic reality. His
painting Argenteuil (Musée des Beaux-Arts, Tournai, 1874) captures just such a mood
again. An uncommunicative couple sit woodenly together. She is plainly the more
reluctant of the two. The myth would have her dependent, tentative, affectionate like
Mme. Sisley in Renoir’s Alfred Sisley and His Wife. She refuses.
15. The most psychologically iconoclastic of these images is In the Conservatory
(1879). The woman is positively recalcitrant. Far from being demure, retiring or
attentive, she is extraordinarily self-confident and self-engrossed. Where has one ever
seen a woman own the space in which she sits as this woman does? She neither folds
her hands in her lap nor feigns some other retiring gesture; she sits nonchalantly yet
imperiously, one arm draped over the top of the bench, the other calmly but assuredly
holding (one is tempted to say, wielding) a parasol. She is self-possessed, lost in
thought. There is not a hint of flirtation anywhere. In fact, during the moment of the
painting, the woman ignores her companion, who, it turns out, is her husband.
16. Manet’s images of courtship and love, robbed as they are of their mythic
scaffolding, are bold indeed. His women are seen as strong, autonomous beings,
firmly saying no to centuries of conventional behavior. They are not available,
seductive, good-tempered, pleasant, helpful or patient. In no way do they resemble
updated versions of Venus, Flora, Mary or Salome. Manet’s women are only people.
For example, in the Conservatory, he painted Monsieur and Madame Guillemet who
together ran the most fashionable clothing shop in Paris. Mme. Guillemet does not
look helpless, coy, idle or dependent, simply because Manet did not so see her.
17. Manet’s view of women was consistent with the overall development of the
realistic program of his art. In the 1860’s his realism played itself off between specific
art-historical sources. The two works of 1863, Olympia and the Déjeuner, used older
artists’ libretti, transforming their declared fictions into images of studio events.
Manet’s realism of the 1870’s and ’80’s, however, grew out of his day-to-day
experience. Undoubtedly the Franco-Prussian War and the even more bloody
Commune of 1871 contributed to his belief that the time of Venuses, however
ironically portrayed, had passed. He began to turn for his reference point to a strictly
bourgeois version of reality, the day-to-day experience of the leisured upper middle
class.
18. The women in his paintings of the ’70’s and ’80’s were bourgeois women of the
Third Republic whom he clearly appreciated as people. Some he knew intimately,
others he observed on the boulevards and in the cafés. With more and more frequency
in the 19th century, middle-class women shed the anonymity and clichés of past
tradition. They were more present in the world, more visible as doers. That was
especially clear in Paris where women could be seen at the cafés, shopping, working
Manet: Female Imagery / 6
205
210
215
220
225
in shops, etc. The fact that women worked outside the home, in clear view, had to
alter the idealized image of woman that demanded fragility and dependency.
19. The middle-class woman had become a more present and potent force during
the century, in part because of the rising number of the petite bourgeoisie. Where she
lacked power in public affairs, she had tremendous power at home in domestic affairs,
and in fact was emerging as a major client-consumer. The appearance at the end of the
century of large department stores like Bon Marché (1876) and Magasin Printemps
(1889) attest to the fact. The Parisian bourgeoise was not merely an adornment, a
luscious cornucopia, or a doll. She was also obstinate, courageous and shrewd like her
husband, and that is the woman Manet painted.
20. Other painters were not as observant. Neither avant-garde nor academic artists
challenged the stereotypic images of women. They painted the reality endorsed by
convention. It is not surprising that academic artists defended these ideals, but one
tends to expect more of an avant-garde artist – which is a mistake. In fact, it is often
uncharacteristic of avant-garde artists to challenge social or political conventions in
their art, for the concept “avant-garde” has traditionally been limited to formal and
stylistic considerations. That artists like Monet, Renoir and Pissarro can be absolutely
conservative in their depiction of social exchanges and yet be called radical (“avantgarde”) by their times and history, indicates that the concept avant-garde has been
ideologically limited and needs re-evaluating.
21. Manet was the first to become avant-garde in both senses of the term. That he
radicalized female imagery was only, to be sure, one of the many effects of his
socially conscious vision. Nevertheless, it was an outstanding gauge of the irony, wit,
and bravery of his mind which submitted neither to social nor stylistic etiquettes.