Friday, November 14, 2008

Olympia: A Timeless Challenge and Artistic Success

Edouard Manet’s Olympia, exhibited in the Salon des Refuses in 1865, incited an uproar among the large audience of art enthusiasts and critics. People were appalled at the flagrant nakedness of the woman in the scene, the evil and inappropriate symbol of the cat at her feet, and the rather sketchy composition of the work. Many people extended open and insulting criticism not only toward the painting, but also toward Manet himself – rather similar to the responses elicited by his The Bath. Critic Ernest Chesneau claimed, “We cannot accept this as a perfectly chaste work… and I deplore, even more than the composition itself, the intention that inspired it… Manet wants to achieve fame by shocking the bourgeois” (Manet booklet 49-50). Yet Manet’s response, “How foolish must one be to have said that!… I render as simply as can be the things that I see. Take Olympia, for example, could anything be plainer? There are hard parts, I’ve been told. They were there. I saw them. I painted what I saw” (Manet booklet 61), proves that the criticisms and attacks disheartened and disappointed the artist and failed to grasp Manet’s true intentions. Manet’s Olympia is an attempt at something for more real than simply fame through subversion; the painting is far too complex, progressive, and challenging to be reduced to some cheap and meaningless ploy for attention.

While Manet did not intend for to stir up such scandal with his painting, that outcome seems inevitable when Olympia is compared to other works exhibited in the Salon around the same time. Take, for example, Alexandre Cabanel’s The Birth of Venus (Manet Booklet 49), another nude painting that, instead, gained praise from the very same critics. One fundamental and important difference between Manet’s and Cabanel’s works is the subject matter: Manet portrayed a nude prostitute, Cabanel portrayed a goddess. The divinity of Cabanel’s woman – she is surrounded by flittering cherubs and floating on top of the waves – justified her nudity to critics, earning her the praise of being “in exquisite taste” (Manet Booklet 49). On the other hand, Manet’s woman is so blatantly real, so blatantly human, that the nudity earns contempt and is deemed vulgar. Ironically, the Venus is posed much more seductively, stretching her naked body out upon the sea, her bare chest raised to the sky, her arms reaching above her head, her legs seeming to rub against each other; while Manet’s woman rests much more fixedly, covering herself with one hand, holding onto the blanket below her with the other, and crossing her legs. The style and setting of the painting also play a factor in the different reactions. Cabanel’s nude is glossy, the lines of her body are smooth and seem to blend in with the sky and sea and nature around her – emphasizing her godliness and majesty. Whereas Manet’s nude sits starkly upon the white couch, while dark shadows and stark contrasts emphasize her reality and reiterate the sense in the audience that she truly is of this world – physically no different than any other woman. Probably the utterly bared humanity of the woman, unashamed and unflinching in front of an audience neither accustomed to nor supportive of human nakedness, scandalized viewers. Perhaps Manet hoped to advance society’s taste with his painting by challenging their conceptions of the socially appropriate and inappropriate, and highlighting the idylls which are embraced and the realities which are covered up.

To further understand Manet’s objective, one must look at the inspiration for his Olympia: Titian’s Venus of Urbino. The scene in Titian’s original is very similar to Manet’s, yet a few differences stand out, and in these differences one can further understand Manet’s intentions. Like Cabanel’s, Titian’s nude is a goddess – Venus – emphasized by her glossy texture, her almost blurry and smooth complexion like ivory, her curvaceous body, her majestic, regal, reposed, and utterly relaxed presence. Again, Manet’s Olympia has sharper contrast throughout the painting – between her skin and the wall, between the wall and her bed, especially between her servant’s dark complexion and the white dress she wears. These differences reinforce the idea that Manet strove to paint a real woman, not some ideal and perfect deity. Also enlightening is Manet’s decision to juxtapose a prostitute with the goddess of love and fertility. Perhaps Manet really sought to establish a full and developed character, as I have said, a real woman. The fact that she is a whore and yet placed in this divine position proves to further complexify and humanize Olympia. Perhaps Manet was trying to give his subject a heart, to suggest that she maybe loved someone, or was loved by someone (as suggested by the flowers carried by the servant) – that there is something more below the surface of what we see in the woman that can only be called human. Perhaps Olympia is Manet’s vision of the modern day goddess of love and he believes that just because she is a prostitute makes her no less regal, no less majestic. That could add to his challenge to the audience – to accept this woman in the full knowledge of her promiscuity and prostitution, not only as a real human being, but also as one deserving consideration, regard, and respect.

Interestingly, Manet had previously more recreated Titan’s work much more exactly (Manet Booklet 57), so his modernized form of the work begs the question: Why keep addressing this piece? Manet’s effort seems to be a look at the modern day Venus – an utter female under the challenging scrutiny and criticism of modern society. The smirk on Olympia’s lips personifies Manet’s challenge. She knows herself; she has the confidence to lie nude with only a hand and some jewelry covering herself, and to give the audience an opportunity either to understand and accept her realness, or simply to brush her to the side in some huff. Titian’s goddess, made in the 16th century, offers no such challenge, no such smirk. She is a goddess of the ancients, one already regarded and respected and known and without a doubt about her place in society. The image of Titian’s sleeping puppy at the goddess’s feet supports the sense of confidence and contentedness in Venus’s demeanor; while the tensed up cat at Olympia’s feet supports the idea that while confident with herself, Olympia’s role according society is far from comfortable. Whereas Titian’s nude reclines completely with natural comfort, Olympia sits slightly (but very noticeably) upright, with her head more lifted and fingers more tensed, legs straighter and arms looking slightly less at ease – as if Olympia is trying to mask some unknown tension (perhaps the glares from her audience) with a façade of perfect comfort. Even the difference of the backgrounds presents a challenge. Titian depicts a woman and child preoccupied in the background and hardly even noticeable in the picture. Manet depicts a servant of Olympia in the immediate background with skin so black that she almost blends in with the wall, and yet also with a dress and bouquet of flowers so bright one can almost not look away. Perhaps Manet suggests that the ideal is overrated and society should move on and he presents us with not one social outcast, but two. Perhaps Manet even wants the servant to be recognized as human. The challenging of social conventions is an undeniable theme in Manet’s work.

Manet’s attempt with Olympia satisfies what Joseph Conrad, in his preface to “The Nigger of the ‘Narcissus’”, considers the ultimate goal of art: “art itself may be defined as a single-minded attempt to render the highest kind of justice to the visible universe, by bringing to light the truth, manifold and one, underlying its every aspect… The artist, then, seeks the truth and makes his appeal” (Heart Of Darkness 279). Olympia seems an attempt at such an absolute candidness. Manet made no effort to cover up any reality for the sake of being more socially accepted even though he could very easily have predicted his audience’s negative response based upon The Bath. Instead, Manet took great pains to uncover a reality. What could be more just? What could be more honest? Manet created his truth and made his appeal; even though a negative reception of the work was more than likely. Though he hoped that his audience would be ready to handle the truth, he was “entirely unable to resist giving in to those irreverent impulses that would lead to even greater commotion” (Manet Booklet 59). In his commitment and belief in his work, Manet fulfills Conrad’s characterization of a true artist, “The sincere endeavor to accomplish that creative task, to go as far on that road as his strength will carry him, to go undeterred by faltering, weariness or reproach, is the only valid justification for the worker in prose” (HOD 281). Thus art serves as more than a simple preoccupation, more than a distraction from reality; in fact very much the opposite. According to both Manet and Conrad, art should grab hold of society and not let go until every single citizen has been aroused or even accused. Manet’s Olympia is a success for that very reason. Not only did the piece challenge modern society then, it challenges modern society now, and “its effect endures forever” (HOD 280).

12/6/06




Works Cited
Cachin, Francoise. Manet – The Influence of the Modern. Trans. Rachel Kaplan. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1995.

Conrad, Joseph. “Heart of Darkness”. United States of America: W.W. Norton & Company, 2006.


No comments: