|Mary Cassatt. Mother and Child. 1905. Image courtesy of the National Gallery of Art Collection online.|
|Kenyon Cox. Eclogue. 1890. Image courtesy of the Smithsonian American Art Museum online.|
But instead of following the accepted practice in French art, which dictates that paintings of the figure are to be modeled on historical, mythical, or biblical themes, Manet chooses to paint a woman of his time -- not a feminine ideal, but a real woman, and a courtesan at that. And he paints her in his own manner: in place of the smooth shading of the great masters, his forms are painted quickly, in rough brushstrokes clearly visible on the surface of the canvas.
In Olympia, the viewer is further compelled to see femininity for what it is--a constructed lifestyle. While Manet's less innocent subject matter remains a scandalous image in Art History, it does open up the conversation to what the feminine ideal can be based on the context. Furthermore, like Cassatt's earlier painting, Manet's continuation of the unidealized surface (via Post-Impressionism) does not grant viewers a dehumanized subject to admire (no goddesses or vessels here). I admired the statement about Olympia, as discussed in the PBS article:
Edouard Manet. Olympia. 1863-65. Image courtesy of PBS onli
His model, Victorine Meurent, is depicted as a courtesan, a woman whose body is a commodity...A real woman, flaws and all, with an independent spirit, stares out from the canvas...Last weekend, the same bold and self-aware spirit emanated throughout the rooms as I walked around SFMoMA's Francesca Woodman retrospective, which spanned her early work at RISD, her thesis show (amazing!), and her later work. I found this video, which is a good estimation of why her work makes such an impact regarding the feminine ideal as we understand it today. It was breathtaking.