As I’ve mentioned before, it’s always fascinating to go back in time and see what people said on previous occasions. After passions have cooled, and with the clarity of hindsight, one can often be slightly mystified by the initial reaction to things. It also helps to look at how we behave today, since human beings seem to be constantly beset by amnesia about their past actions.
For example, yesterday I read a review of The Judgment of Paris: The Revolutionary Decade That Gave the World Impressionism by Ross King. Jonathon Keats’ review of the book notes the impact of Édouard Manet’s magnificent painting Olympia, first displayed in 1865.
Critics called Manet’s nude “grotesque” and “stupid,” a “female gorilla” engaged in a lewd act that “cries out for examination by the inspectors of public health.” And the populace? “Nothing can convey the visitors’ initial astonishment, then their anger or fear,” noted one journalist. When guards posted in front of the painting failed to control the daily hordes, the picture was elevated to the ceiling where, another reporter noted, “you scarcely knew whether you were looking at a parcel of nude flesh or a bundle of laundry.”
Artists such as Ernest Meissonier, with his detailed realistic depictions of military scenes, were held in higher regard.
To eyes accustomed to… [Meissonier's] meticulousness (which some connoisseurs enjoyed with a magnifying glass), Manet’s broad strokes and bold contrasts were a visual assault. More important, as King notes, conventional wisdom held that “the teaching of moral lessons was . . . the whole point of a work of art.” Meissonier’s depiction of a triumphant Napoleon at the Battle of Friedland inspired patriotism. But what could one learn from the matter-of-fact depiction of a working prostitute?
Now, we get to the meat, the reason I quote this review:
The painting’s matter-of-factness showed that art need not be engineered to illustrate a value system in the old-fashioned way of allegory. The painter could be merely an observer, a reporter rather than a pundit.
You may recall previous comments I made regarding how one perceives art. I was attempting to say how interesting I find it when people have a very visceral reaction to a movie or a song or a painting. They see the thing being depicted — whether a prostitute or perhaps the story of a pimp trying to become a rapper — and they get upset. They don’t like the thing being shown. In their mind, the only reason to show something so ugly is to condemn it. Perhaps the work of art in question doesn’t condemn, but only shows the objectionable thing. It depicts, but it does not comment.
The viewer brought meaning to the work, and if the meaning was upsetting or disturbing or subversive, the viewer bore partial responsibility.
Let me be clear. Sometimes a painting is making a point, such as Eugène Delacroix’s Liberty Leading the People. What about Edward Hopper’s Nighthawks? Or the political portraits of Richard Avedon?
Does every representation — whether through painting or cinema or a rap song — comment on the thing represented? What is the meaning of a painting of a tree?
[SIDENOTE: Chuck D of Public Enemy called rap "the Black CNN." When NWA first appeared in the late Eighties, they attracted a lot of negative attention for their lyrics; their defense was that they were simply reporting the conditions that existed in their environment. A small portion of today's gangsta rap seems to condemn the conditions or appear neutral on the topic. A great deal of it seem very much in favor of drugs, violence, bling and the utilization of hos, perhaps in conjunction with with the consumption of Cristal and Courvoisier.]
Prostitution was legal in Paris at the time of Manet’s painting. Does the bold erotic nature of the painting imply a positive view of prostitution? How does the visual tone of the work differ from the classic nudes that proceeded it?
I’m wandering all over, so let me sum up.
Recall the premier of the ballet Le Sacre du printemps on May 29, 1913 at the Théâtre des Champs-Élysées in Paris. The score was by composer Igor Stravinsky; the choreography by Vaslav Nijinsky. The audience rioted; the police were only able to restore limited order. Three months later, the Musical Times said:
The music of Le Sacre du Printemps baffles verbal description. To say that much of it is hideous as sound is a mild description. There is certainly an impelling rhythm traceable. Practically it has no relation to music at all as most of us understand the word.
The work is now a standard of dance troupes all over the world. Olympia is taught in art classes; a reproduction appeared in the newspaper to accompany the review above. That same newspaper will not print certain words, as they are objectionable for a “family” publication.
Here endeth the lesson.
Tags: Édouard Manet, Olympia, Ross King, art, hip-hop