![Édouard Manet, Olympia, 1863
Edouard Manet continues to challenge popular tradition by painting a mythical figure, Olympia, whose portrait by Manet has been the subject of much ridicule and discussion since its public debut. True to past traditions, figures like Olympia (like Venus or almost any other female figure) has normally been portrayed in a similar fashion, except Manet’s Olympia defies such idealized and sexualized traditions by making obvious stylistic changes to his own painting.
Manet’s female nude lies on a luxurious pile of clean, white cushions and immediately addresses the viewer’s gaze by looking directly back at them. Normally, such idealized figures would maintain a passive gaze that invites the viewer to gaze upon them at will, as if the viewer is a participant in a private experience between the woman and the voyeur. Again, Manet explicitly referenced such voyeuristic paintings and images, most of which were beloved by the public and considered to be canonical embodiments of female beauty. However, the public was uncomfortable by Manet’s portrayal of the female nude, because her figure is not voluminous or delicate, it is more realistic, which reminds the viewer that the subject is a real person and not an object. Instead of a passive and inviting pose/gaze, Olympia encompasses the space that she is positioned in, and it is as if the viewer has accidentally disturbed her privacy.
To add mischief to misery, the public was equally concerned with the model’s social class, because she was believed to be a prostitute (and she was). Again, although prostitutes usually served as models for artists, one was not constantly made aware of such a fact when gazing upon a simple, passive nude portrait. Olympia, though, seems to be out of place and context since her form is so simple and not fantasized, so her social class and profession are obvious and directly confront the bourgeois viewer.
[image via.]](http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lh085l4s3K1qzcdwko1_500.jpg)
Édouard Manet, Olympia, 1863
Edouard Manet continues to challenge popular tradition by painting a mythical figure, Olympia, whose portrait by Manet has been the subject of much ridicule and discussion since its public debut. True to past traditions, figures like Olympia (like Venus or almost any other female figure) has normally been portrayed in a similar fashion, except Manet’s Olympia defies such idealized and sexualized traditions by making obvious stylistic changes to his own painting.
Manet’s female nude lies on a luxurious pile of clean, white cushions and immediately addresses the viewer’s gaze by looking directly back at them. Normally, such idealized figures would maintain a passive gaze that invites the viewer to gaze upon them at will, as if the viewer is a participant in a private experience between the woman and the voyeur. Again, Manet explicitly referenced such voyeuristic paintings and images, most of which were beloved by the public and considered to be canonical embodiments of female beauty. However, the public was uncomfortable by Manet’s portrayal of the female nude, because her figure is not voluminous or delicate, it is more realistic, which reminds the viewer that the subject is a real person and not an object. Instead of a passive and inviting pose/gaze, Olympia encompasses the space that she is positioned in, and it is as if the viewer has accidentally disturbed her privacy.
To add mischief to misery, the public was equally concerned with the model’s social class, because she was believed to be a prostitute (and she was). Again, although prostitutes usually served as models for artists, one was not constantly made aware of such a fact when gazing upon a simple, passive nude portrait. Olympia, though, seems to be out of place and context since her form is so simple and not fantasized, so her social class and profession are obvious and directly confront the bourgeois viewer.
[image via.]
-
eskridgehi89 liked this
-
ladykrush838 liked this
-
croclock liked this
-
arthistorianh posted this
