NICOLE
L.
GRAEV
NICOLE L. GRAEV
The Body as a Sign of Class in Courbet’s
The Stone Breakers and Manet’s Olympia
Bodies are inevitably occupied by class. Addressing ways in which
artistic representations of the body can function as signs of class, Linda
Nochlin’s essay “Realism” and T. J. Clark’s essay “Olympia’s Choice,”
while focusing on two different artists, touch on many of the same
ideas. These include the social implications of iconography and artistic
style, and the relationship between the body and money. Two paintings
that convey these ideas are Courbet’s Realist The Stone Breakers and
Manet’s Pre-Impressionist Olympia. Neither work attempts to idealize
its subject matter; by not elevating their subjects’ positions in life or
concealing their identities, Courbet and Manet make class an evident
and significant facet of their iconographies. But it is more than the
representational mode of Realism that helps emphasize class and the
nature of work in these two paintings; as both pieces are in some way
related to traditional paintings, it is their non-traditional subject matters
and novel messages about class that ultimately stand out most.
As Nochlin asserts, “Courbet’s paintings were socially inflammatory not so much because of what they said—they contain no overt
message at all—but because of what they did not say” (46). Unlike
some of his contemporaries, such as Jean-François Millet, who made
working-class figures appear noble, Courbet did not elevate his figures
but rendered them as “unidealized, startlingly direct and matter-of-fact
representations of lower-class subjects” (46). Certainly, the image
Courbet presents in The Stone Breakers is painfully realistic; there is
nothing glorious in his depiction of two men laboring in a quarry, the
one on the left appearing too young for the strenuous task and the one
on the right too old. Shabbily dressed, the two figures cannot be
mistaken for members of the upper class—their shoes are decrepit and
worn, and the figure on the left wears a ripped shirt. This truthful
treatment of subject matter is, according to Nochlin, characteristic of
Realism’s “refusal to idealize, elevate or in any way embellish” (36).
Moreover, The Stone Breakers also addresses the idea of the immobility of the working class. The juxtaposition of young and old working
side by side at the same task suggests that working-class life is an
1
DISCOVERIES
endless cycle, mercilessly repetitive and difficult to escape.
Interestingly, what makes class such a prominent aspect of this
image is Courbet’s decision to incorporate into the painting certain
elements to which its viewers were already accustomed. Most major
paintings created prior to the emergence of Realism dealt with historical events depicted on a large scale; by painting The Stone Breakers on
this recognizable large scale, despite the fact that its subject was not
considered noble, Courbet made the painting similar enough to historical paintings that its differences stood out. Viewers could also recognize in The Stone Breakers a similarity to previous paintings in that it
was, overall, aesthetically pleasing. Thus, what became most apparent
in this painting was its subject matter and the message it conveyed
about class.
Like The Stone Breakers, Manet’s portrayal of the prostitute Olympia was inflammatory because of what it did not say. Surely, there had
been widely accepted renditions of prostitutes in previous art, but these
paintings had concealed the prostitute under the guise of the courtisane
by attributing to her traits generally associated with upper-class women.
Olympia, on the other hand, is not mythologized, for she will not allow
the viewer to pretend that she is anything but a prostitute. As prostitution is a form of work, Manet’s choice of iconography succeeds in
actively declaring that Olympia is of the working class. Like Courbet,
Manet uses attire—or, in this case, the lack of attire—to convey class
and profession: Manet’s prostitute wears no clothes. The choker around
her neck adds an erotic element to the painting, as it is tied in a knot
that seems to beckon to be untied. The slipper-like shoes on Olympia’s
feet similarly give her an erotic appearance as they, too, can be easily
shed. The fact that these articles are waiting to be removed emphasizes
that Olympia is naked, or undressed, as opposed to nude. In his essay
on Olympia, Clark quotes Camille Lemonnier, who distinguishes between the nude and the undressed by stating, “The nude has something
of the purity of little children who play . . . together without minding
at all. The undressed, on the contrary, always reminds me of the
woman who shows herself off for forty sous and specializes in artistic
poses” (129). Not only does Lemonnier suggest that someone like
Olympia lacks the innocence of the “nude,” but he also associates the
“undressed” figure with the exchange of money for sexually promiscuous acts. This association helps explain Clark’s conclusion that the
“sign of class in Olympia was nakedness” (146); as a naked figure, she
2
NICOLE
L.
GRAEV
appears as if she is showing herself off for monetary rewards, much
like Lemonnier’s “undressed” woman.
Just as Courbet depicts people of the working class with revolutionary candor in The Stone Breakers, Manet presents an image of the
reclining nude as it had never been presented before. As Clark explains
in “Olympia’s Choice,” traditional nudes, such as Titian’s Venus of
Urbino, were placed on the canvas “near enough for seeing, far enough
for propriety” (133). Olympia, on the other hand, looks as if her body
is “laid out for inspection at the morgue” (133). What adds to her
nakedness is the fact that her pose is not the subtly sensuous one of
traditional nudes; it is undoubtedly more rigid and blatantly provocative. Thus, Manet, in addition to not idealizing Olympia as a courtisane,
makes her place in French social structure exceptionally clear by
refusing to render her in exactly the style of traditional nudes. However, just as Courbet tactfully includes recognizable traditional elements in The Stone Breakers, Manet depicts Olympia in such a manner
that her dissimilarity to traditional nudes is highlighted. Indeed, the
composition of Olympia is reminiscent of Titian’s Venus of Urbino.
Both works include a bed in the left foreground, a servant, and a
domesticated animal; Manet, however, emphasizes the bed as a zone of
sexual activity by pushing it further into the foreground and by painting
the sheets in disarray. While the Venus of Urbino features a dog as a
symbol of subservient fidelity, Olympia features a cat as a symbol of
devious sensuality. Because Olympia bears a precise relation to traditional nudes, such differences as these become explicit and were cause
for uproar when Olympia was first viewed.
As class is determined to a large extent by economic position, work
and money are irrevocably linked to the body. Nochlin asserts in her
essay on Realism that to some, including Courbet’s friend and supporter P.-J. Proudhon, “The Stone Breakers might indeed have been an
irony directed against our industrial civilization” ( 46). Courbet’s painting
can be viewed as a criticism of the manner in which working class
bodies, as an integral part of industry and production, are required to
function. As Proudhon’s statement points out, it is ironic that such
primitive labor should continue in the industrial age. In The Stone
Breakers, Courbet presents the relationship between the body, work,
and money through his tactful arrangement of the canvas, which establishes a unique relationship between the figures of the two workers and
the painting’s viewer. The workers are essentially faceless. Their backs
3
DISCOVERIES
are turned to the viewer in such a way that it is impossible to identify
them as individuals; they become visual representations of the working
class as a whole. In terms of The Stone Breakers being an attack against
industrial civilization, this arrangement suggests that workers may be
exploited by employers who see them not as human individuals but as
commodities. As commodities, workers are deprived of those liberties
and privileges which characterize fully human beings. The Stone Breakers reflects this double standard, portraying bedraggled workers as
victims of capitalism, abused for the sole purpose of making money.
Manet establishes a relationship between the figure in his painting
and the painting’s viewer that provokes the viewer to regard Olympia,
like Courbet’s stone breakers, as a commodity. His method of establishing this relationship, however, differs from Courbet’s in that it does
not involve concealing Olympia’s identity and individuality to reveal
her status. On the contrary, it focuses on using Olympia’s facial expression and gaze to appeal to the viewer and make him feel as if he is
included in a monetary exchange. Clark addresses this idea in his essay,
describing how Olympia “looks out at the viewer in a way which
obliges him to imagine a whole fabric of sociality in which this look
might make sense and include him—a fabric of offers, places, payments, particular powers, and status which is still open to negotiation”
(133). Olympia’s association with “particular powers” is a critical
factor that distinguishes her position as a member of the working class
from that of the men in The Stone Breakers. While their bodies are
completely under the control of a capitalist economy that regards them
as commodities, Olympia, as a prostitute, possesses a certain power. As
Clark argues:
[P]rostitution . . . was the place where the body became at last an exchange
value, a perfect and complete commodity, and thus took on the power of such
things in a world where they were all-powerful. The prostitute . . . rode
roughshod over the client; she offered money’s body to him, she named the
price. (102)
Essentially, Olympia’s power lies in her body, which can only be
bought with money; thus, while her body, like those of the stone
breakers, is an instrument for capitalism, it is also empowered by
capitalism. In a capitalist society, a commodity is something which can
be used to elicit money because it is in some way desirable. As a
prostitute, Olympia recognizes that her body is a desirable entity and
4
NICOLE
L.
GRAEV
that it gives her the power to make money. In Olympia, the prostitute’s
realization of her unique power is made clear to the viewer through her
assertive gaze. Olympia may be an exploited figure, but she knows how
to utilize capitalism to her advantage, exploiting the very system that
exploits her.
As a Realist painting, Courbet’s The Stone Breakers is part of a
movement to democratize art, defying artistic conventions by conveying ordinary people in an everyday function. Similarly, Manet makes
a conscious attempt to disregard the established works and opinions of
others in creating Olympia, rendering a contemporary prostitute as she
truly is. Thus, conveying class through images comes naturally with
these artists’ desire to portray subject matter in a veracious, unaffected
manner: bodies, being linked to and defined by work and money,
inevitably function as signs of class if they are portrayed truthfully.
However, as the history of art is continuous, both pieces exhibit
obvious connections to works that preceded them. To prevent their
paintings from being met with complete rejection, Manet and Courbet
tactfully limit novel elements, electing to incorporate only those elements that help reveal their subjects’ class and the nature of their work.
❧
Works Cited
Clark, T. J. The Painting of Modern Life. New Jersey: Princeton
UP, 1984.
Nochlin, Linda. Realism. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1971.
5