Formal Impressions and Social Impacts in Edouard Manet's Olympia

1 Formal Impressions and Social Impacts in Edouard Manet’s Olympia 2 Formal Impressions and Social Impacts in Edouard Manet’s Olympia Edouard Manet, Olympia, 1863, oil on canvas, 130x180. Paris, Musée d’Orsay Bachelor’s Thesis in History of Art LKX999B10.2018-2019.2B Vitória S. S. Da Nobrega S3625680 First advisor: Prof. Dr. Linda Nijenhof Second advisor: Prof. Dr. Ann-Sophie Lehmann 3 Formal Impressions and Social Impacts in Edouard Manet’s Olympia Introduction 4 Chapter I: Backlash against Manet: His revolutionary brushstrokes responsible for revolts 9 Chapter II: Oppression in two worlds: Dictated behaviour and intolerance to the natural 17 Chapter III: Similarities in Olympia’s interpretations and its current mission 25 Conclusion 34 References 36 4 Formal Impressions and Social Impacts in Edouard Manet’s Olympia “This Hottentot Venus with a black cat, exposed completely naked on her bed like a corpse on the counters of the morgue, this Olympia from the rue Mouffetard, dead of yellow fever and already arrived at an advanced state of decomposition, would be impertinences to the public, if they were not above all colossal ineptitudes, much more burlesque than serious and convincing."1 Introduction The social and historical scenery in which Geronte was part of when he published this piece of writing was a post-abolition one. France in the mid and late nineteenth century was in a process of readapting its society after the July Revolution of 1830, which eighteen years later established that slavery was forbidden in the French territories and colonies.2 The law decision did not guarantee that former slaves would be treated in a better manner than when they were the possession of their owners. The countries which were the first origins of the former slaves were dreadfully seen by the colonisers. One of the strongest reasons which justifies this idea is that in the colonies there were many ailments, such as the one mentioned by Geronte, yellow fever. Geronte’s statement was published in a Parisian journal called La Gazette de France in 1865 as a critique against Edouard Manet’s painting Olympia (1865). The approach of Geronte towards Olympia was common and it reflects not only how art critics received the artwork, but also how women sometimes were seen in the French society at the end of nineteenth century. The first encounter between the public and Manet’s work of art provoked bewilderment on the majority of its audience that was utterly befuddled with Olympia’s composition. Albeit, there were, in fact, some viewers whose receptions of Olympia were foregrounded in other aspects, which provided divergent opinions concerning the same artwork during the same period of time. Emilé Zola, who was one of Manet’s close friends, adopted a different approach towards this controversial artwork and he was one Geronte, “Les Excentriques et les grotesques”, La Gazette de France (30 June 1865) Paris. Geronte was the pseudonym used by the journalist Victor Fournel. 1 Lawrence C. Jennings, French Anti-Slavery: The movement for the Abolition of Slavery in France 1802-1848 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000). 2 5 of the rare art critics who decided to focus on the formal elements of Manet’s painting.3 The perplexity of some viewers caused a revolt against Olympia and it was the justification for the notoriously controversial aspect of it.4 The first chapter of this paper will explore the manner in which Olympia was received during the late nineteenth century by contextualising the artistic scene in which Manet produced it. Besides that, it presents the lay public receptions towards Manet’s paintings and in addition to that, it introduces some of the critics came up with comments of Olympia and what most of them proclaimed. It will be explicit why Émile Zola resolved to approach the formalist aspects of the painting in a period when major part of the art critics, such as Victor de Jankovitz was focussing on the cadaveric characteristics of the main figure of Olympia.5 Other art critics and historians and their ideas will be further elucidated in order to illustrate in which manner the reactions against Manet’s most famous artwork had taken place. The receptions of the audience when Olympia was firstly introduced to the public at the Salon de Paris in 1865 were very different from what viewers feel nowadays when they visit the Musée d’Orsay, Olympia’s present location. Not only has the reception of the audience gone through changes, but also the art historical approaches have undergone developments. One century separates the Traditional Art History’s formalist approach from the emergence of the New Art History in the late twentieth century. The New Art History ideas were influenced by other disciplines apart from the artistic one. Political development, sociology, philosophy and psychology are some of the subjects which were embedded in the New Art History around 1970.6 The rise of this new art historian mindset deeply contributed to the development of other perspectives towards pre-modern and contemporary artworks. Amongst the novel approaches were feminist and post-colonial, which will be further explored in the second chapter. The second chapter introduces contemporary art historians such as Griselda Pollock, Eunice Lipton and Timothy James Clark that were crucial for the dissemination of the New Art History from 1970 onwards. Pollock and Lipton are well-known in the field of Art History due to their feminist analyses of artworks. Several elements in Olympia denote the female role back in the nineteenth Henri, Mitterand, Zola: Tome I. Sous le regard d’Olympia 1840-1871 (Paris: Libraire Arthème Fayards, 1999). 3 James Clark, “Preliminaries to a possible treatment of ‘Olympia' in 1865”, Oxford Journal (March 1980) Vol. 21, Issue 1, 18-42. 4Timothy James Clark, The Painting of Modern Life: Paris in the Art of Manet and his Followers, 96 (New York City: Knopf, 1985). 5Timothy 6 Jonathan Harris, The New Art History: A Critical Introduction (London: Routledge, 2001). 6 century. Actually, with the presence of two unique women in this painting by Manet (the courtesan named as Olympia and the black maid) it is arguable that the elements which form both of the figures carry historical and social references that express how white and black women were seen in the nineteenth century.7 The question behind this affirmation is: in which way do these elements reflect on how women were seen by male individuals in the late nineteenth century? By bringing back to the memory the first quote introduced in this paper, it is possible to guess how men had their own way of looking at women. Clark wrote a book in 1985, The Painting of Modern Life: Paris in the Art of Manet and his Followers, which has a chapter entitled as Olympia’s Choice. His comments about what was the social position the courtesan and the servant occupied in the society indicate the modernisation in France, which opened opportunities for women to reach their financial independence. The image of the servant symbolises the consequences of the postabolition period in France, former slaves who were still connected to their past and were relegated to manual tasks. Although Clark is not a feminist art historian, neither does he adopt the post-colonial theory for his analyses, his words are important for understanding the role of Olympia and her servant and what they represent in the feminist and postcolonial Art History approaches.8 Rarely is it found an article that only explores the postcolonial approach towards Olympia. For this reason, some articles which will be mentioned in the second chapter explore more than two approaches of the New Art History. However, only the feminist and post-colonial perspectives are being considered. As previously mentioned, the historic social context in which Olympia was produced was rooted in the post-tradition of colonies exploitation. The interrogation and exploration of the social, political and economic consequences that stem from the period of colonisation are the subjects scrutinised in the Post-Colonial theory developed by the French philosopher Frantz Fanon.9 Some of these consequences which were suffered by the colonised ones are covertly present on the figure of the black servant in Olympia. The article written by Darcy Grimaldo Grigsby, Still Thinking about Olympia’s Maid, published online in 2016 will be used as base to present arguments that state in which means the elements in Olympia authenticate post-colonial analyses of Manet’s artwork.10 By thinking Charles Bernheimer, “Manet’s Olympia: The Figuration of Scandal”, Poetics Today (Summer 1989) Volume 10, No 2, 255-277. 7 8Clark, 9 The Painting of Modern Life: Paris in the Art of Manet and his Followers, 96. Fanon Frantz, The Wretched of the Earth (New York City: Grove, 1963). Grimaldo Grigsby, “Still Thinking about Olympia’s Maid”, The Art Bulletin (2015) Volume 97:4,430-451. https://doi.org/10.1080/00043079.2015.1014753. 10Darcy 7 about the quote by Geronte and the pejorative way in which he applied “yellow fever” in his sentence, it is possible to note that he is mentioning a disease which was commonly the reason of several deaths in the colonies in order to support his negative impressions on Olympia. The two different time frames which are investigated in this paper (late nineteenth and late twentieth centuries) will be brought together in the last chapter. The third chapter will explore in which form the reception of Olympia in the late nineteenth century relates to two of the New Art History approaches, feminist and post-colonial. It is even possible to trace similarities that lingered over a century when it comes to the encounter between viewers and Manet’s Olympia. In Manet’s time art critics mostly focused on the meanings behind some specific elements of the painting to justify their opinion, for example the pale body of Olympia. In the 70’s the art historians who adopted the feminist and post-colonial approaches focus on the same objects criticised by the contemporaries of Manet, however, giving them new meanings and context. For this reason, it is possible to visualise some points of view that argue about elements on the paintings that have been the cause of controversy since the nineteenth century. One of these elements is the black cat. Some art historians assertively state that it is a sign of sexuality, whereas others declare that it is a mere choice of compositional matters.11 In addition to that, topics of current debates related to Olympia are introduced. Since March 2019 the Musée d’Orsay is hosting an exhibition entitled as Black Models: From Géricault to Matisse, where the focus lies on neglected black models who posed for well-known artists. The figure of the servant in Olympia is of great relevance for this exhibition, since she symbolises well how colour models that worked for artists were ignored, bearing similarities to the way they were treated within the social context.12 Lastly, my own opinion and interpretation are presented, expressing what I could conclude from weeks of research about this phenomenal artwork. Be that as it may, what is crucial for our understanding regardless the mutual agreement amongst art critics and historians is that Olympia is far from being easily to be deciphered. Differently from what Geronte affirmed, Olympia’s composition has nothing of a decomposed body even after 150 years of its production. It is a vivid artwork that up to 11 Bernheimer, “Manet’s Olympia: The Figuration of Scandal”, 255-277. Katherine Keener, “Musée d’Orsay temporarily renames Manet’s ‘Olympia’”, Art Critique (March 2019)Visited on 30/03/2019. 12 https://www.art-critique.com/en/2019/03/musee-dorsay-temporarily-renames-manets-olympia/ 8 our days is the pivot for several art discussions that raise awareness about social, historical and political circumstances. 9 Chapter I: Backlash against Manet: His revolutionary brushstrokes responsible for revolts The French artistic scene in the late nineteenth century has unique revolutionary characteristics. Some young artists, such as Edouard Manet, were acting against years of art standards imposed by the rules of the Académie des Beaux-Arts.13 Official art exhibitions hosted by the Académie des Beaux-Arts occurred in the Salon de Paris (official salon). If an artist had the prestige to exhibit his or her artwork in the official salon, it would be one of the best conquests of the artist’s career. The Académie des Beaux-Arts was first established in 1648 firstly named as École Des Beaux-Arts, and several young artists went there to study in order to gain knowledge about traditional techniques of drawing, painting and sculpting with the goal of becoming excellent artists.14 For approximately two hundred years the Académie des Beaux-Arts was considered as the most preferred place to graduate complete and excellent artists. The artworks produced by those who were part of the Academy were displayed at the Salon de Paris after being approved by the juries who were masters in the Académie des Beaux-Arts.15 Consequently, the works of art exhibited at the official salon followed severe artistic rules dictated by the masters. In 1863 the jury refused two thirds of the artworks presented to the Salon de Paris, what caused a tremendous revolt from the part of the rejected artists. Driven by the indignation of so many artworks being refused, the neglected artists organised a protest against the juries decision. The act gained power and reached the Emperor Napoleon III, who firmly decided that the refused artworks should be exhibited at the Palais de l’Industrie on the Champs Élysées.16 Accordingly, the Salon de Refusés came into being in 1863, hosting artworks that part of them were made in innovative styles, leaving aside the tradition demanded by the Académie des Beaux-Arts. Most of the reactions of the public towards the rejected works of art were similar to the ones that the juries of the Salon de Paris had. The majority of the lay viewers and art critics repudiated the choice of composition and style of well-known artists as Edouard Manet Patricia Mainardi, The End of The Salon: Art and the State in the Early Third Republic (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993). 13 Pierre Bourdieu, The State Nobility: Elite Schools in the Field of Power (Palo Alto, California: Stanford University Press,1998),134. 14 15Mitterand, Zola: Tome I. Sous le regard d’Olympia 1840-1871, 495. Anne Leader, “May 15, 1863: Paris’s Salon des Refusés Opens”, In Great Events from History: The 19th Century, 1801-1900 (2007) Vol 4, 1099-1101. 16 10 and Gustav Courbet. However, younger and amateur artists were interested in a new style, what favoured Manet’s reputation, who was being seen as a reference for independent artists.17 The Salon de Refusés had two editions consecutively, 1863 and 1864. The edition which was significantly important for Manet was the first one, when he became notorious popular shocking the public with his work Le déjeuner sur l’herbe (1863).18 Two years after Manet had introduced Le déjeuner sur l’herbe at the Salon de Refusés, he tried his luck by presenting two never-before-seen artworks to the juries of the official salon. Surprisingly, in 1865 Manet’s Olympia was approved by the Salon de Paris committee to be put on display. For Manet’s joy, Olympia was introduced to the public at the Salon in 15th May 1865 in the room M.19 No one was capable of foreseeing the public response towards Olympia. According to Louis Auvray in his writing report in La Revue Artistique at Littéraire, Manet’s artwork was the source of mockery, laugher and catcalls.20 The encounter between public and the nude figure of Olympia caused a confusion on the public that received it in a mistrustfully manner. Olympia’s composition elements caused impact on the public, because it was like nothing ever seen before. Manet’s decision of dispensing extremely realistic depictions that were deeply rooted in the traditional art was pivotal for sparking a feeling of annoyance in the public. As reported by T. J. Clark in his article “Preliminaries to a Possible Treatment of Olympia' in 1865”, approximately sixty critiques of Manet’s painting were published. Out of this amount, fifty six mentioned either the flatness, putrefying characteristic and the hideous figure of the courtesan. Only four art critics opted to make remarks about the formal aspects of it.21 The bewilderment raised by the encounter between Olympia and the public can be justified by the important fact that Manet’s breaking traditional barriers brought about a novel style. Novelty, most of the times, brings uneasiness, because people realise that innovations might cause paradigm shifts in the society mind-set, and that was possibly what occurred in 1865.22 According to Leo Steinberg in his article for Harper’s Magazine, “Contemporary Art and 17 Albert Boime, “The Salon Des Refuses and the Evolution of Modern Art”, Art Quarterly 32 (1969). 18 Ian Dunlop, The Shock of the New (New York: American Heritage Press 1972), 12. King, The Judgment of Paris: Manet, Meissonier and an Artistic Revolution (London: Chatto & Windus, 2006). 19Ross 20 Louis Auvray, “Exposition des Beaux-Arts 1865”, La Revue Artistique at Littéraire (Paris, 1865). 21Clark, “Preliminaries to a possible treatment of ‘Olympia' in 1865”,18-42. Frederick Aldama & Herbert Lindenberger, Aesthetics of Discomfort: Conversations on Disquieting Art (Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 2016), 7. 22 11 the Plight of its Public”, the sense of loss and bewilderment felt by the ones who are discomfortable with novelties in art happens since there they are not able to recognise the importance of the new aesthetic features present in novel artworks. The author also affirms that this reaction is natural, because the public by facing something never seen before misses what it is customary for it.23 This situation clearly occurred when the controversial painting by Manet was presented originally. At first, Olympia was situated on the central wall of the Salon allowing the public a nearby view. Due to the majority of the lay viewers and art critics negative reactions, the exhibition organisers had to come up with a solution. Its position was altered from a conspicuous one to a hidden spot, just above two doors of the room M.24 This change of Olympia’s location was not absolutely efficient, in the view of the fact that several writing reports were kept on being published in newspapers, categorising Manet’s Olympia as an indecently scandalous artwork. The aggression which this painting suffered was verbal, but it could eventually turn to the physical one. Therefore, the idea of positing it on an inaccessible spot would guarantee its material integrity.25 Indeed, the measure taken by the Salon organisers was sufficient to ward off actual physical attacks against Olympia, in spite of that, the written attacks continued on circulating in influential communicative means all over Paris. So firmly and craftily were these publications written that the public opinion was persuaded by them. Several descriptive interpretations reported by art critics and journalists influenced the way the lay public would perceive Olympia. Even before the viewers see it with their own eyes, they already had a pre-conceived idea of what to expect. A clear example of an unfavourable writing is the following quote, extracted from the book by Monica Bohm-Duchen, The Private Life of a Masterpiece. “[Olympia] is lying on her bed, having borrowed from art no ornament but a rose which she has put in her tow-like hair. This redhead is of perfect ugliness. Her face is stupid, her skin cadaverous. She does not have a human form; Monsieur Manet has so pulled her out of joint that she could not possibly move her arms or legs. By her side one sees a Negress who brings in a bouquet and at her feet a cat who wakes and has a good stretch, a cat with hair on end, 23 Leo Steinberg, “Contemporary art and the plight of its public”, Harper’s Magazine (March 1962), 3-17. 24Clark, The Painting of Modern Life: Paris in the Art of Manet and his Followers, 85. Eunice Lipton, Alias Olympia: A Woman’s Search for Manet’s Notorious Model and Her Own Desire (New York: Cornell University Press, 1992), 3. 25 12 out of a witches’ Sabbath by Callot.”26 The French critic Felix Deriege, wrote it on May 21st, when Olympia was on display for one week. It is hard to determine who was the first critic to mention the cadaveric characteristic of the courtesan. On the same day that Deriege’s opinion on Manet’s artwork was published, at least two other critics had their reflections on Olympia being printed, Viktor de Jankovitz in Salon de 1865 and Geronte in La Gazzete de France. They both refer to the putrefying quality. Jonkenvitz words: “The expression on the face is that of a premature and vicious creature; the body, the colour of which reminds one of meat that has hung for too long, is reminiscent of the horror of the Morgue” come across several aspects that Olympia was related to.27 For instance, the vicious aspect which is connected to the idea of immorality. Olympia, being depicted as a courtesan illustrates a concern of the nineteenth century, a period that was on the brink of modernisation. The definition of the word prostitute, according the Cambridge Dictionary is: “a person who has sex with someone for money”. Money has always being related to power and by using the word “vicious” to describe Olympia, Jokevitz is implying that due to the vicious quality existing in the courtesan, she might be a person with bad intentions that takes advantages of her clients. Besides of getting money from the clients, she behaves in a disobedient manner, she is not depicted as a submissive woman. Her defiance could be interpreted as a cadaveric characteristic, in the virtue of her behaviour that was not the way the viewers would expect a woman in her position to comport. Her personality received a putrefying connotation, because it was preferable for the art critics to kill Olympia’s defiance, instead of recognising it. The ideas of modernity are not only present in Manet’s style, but also in the attitude Olympia has. Albeit the society was walking towards modernisation, the mind-set of the bourgeoisie was profoundly grounded in old-fashioned ideas. The sketch made in 1865 by Honoré Daumier (figure 1), whose current location is the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, illustrates well what the bourgeois thought about Manet’s Olympia. It was originally published in Le Charivari, one month after the official Salon opening in May 1865.28 The first part of the text which follows the sketch by Daumier says: “Why the devil is this fat, red-faced woman in her nightdress called Olympia?” Once more, Olympia is related to the quality of a malicious person.29 The figure of the devil is usually connected 26Monica Bohm-Duchen, The Private Life of a Masterpiece (Berkeley: University of California Press 2002), 101. 27 Bernheimer, “Manet’s Olympia: The Figuration of Scandal”, 255-277. 28 Honoré Daumier, “Sketches from the Salon (Croquis pris au Salon)”, Le Charivari (Paris, June 1865). 29 Grigsby, “Still Thinking about Olympia’s Maid”,430-451. 13 to the idea of unforgivable sins. In the case of Olympia, (considering the bourgeois perspective) she commits sins whenever she puts herself available to her clients. Therewithal, the devil is a character connected to immoral acts, going against the moral values established by the church. Therefore, it is possible to notice a society in the nineteenth century on the verge of modernisation, referring back to values that came into being in the Medieval times. Presumably, the word “devil” might also allude to Olympia’s ugliness, as some other written declarations have also discussed, for instance Viktor Jankovitz, as aforementioned. It is possible to note that the gentleman holds a sort of booklet. This object indicates he is making annotations about what he is observing, on account of the fact that this publication is an illustration of what the bourgeois thought about Olympia. The expression of his face is a mix of confusion and annoyance. Whereas, the woman seems to be a bit shocked, due to her half-opened mouth. Whilst, the child has a bewildered semblance. These reactions depicted in the work of Daumier were commonly seen when the viewers had contact with Olympia.30 The fact that the figures are looking up indicates that the position of the painting had already been altered. Originally, it was displayed in the same heigh as the public eyes, as already mentioned, due to the negative reception towards Manet’s artwork, its spot was changed to a higher one located in the room M.31 The repulsive and the putrefying characteristics applied to Olympia’s figure were frequently repeated by different art critics. Other elements were also popularly mentioned by some art critics such as the servant and the black cat. The description given in Revue Galopante au Salon by A. J. Lorentz about her affirms she is a “skeleton dressed in tightfitting tunic of plaster.”32 For several times the figure of the courtesan had her compositional features related to a decomposing appearance. A probable reason for that is the fact that Manet’s choice of painting her skin with pale hues could provide a morose atmosphere in the artwork. However, it is not possible to assert this information just by using literary material about Olympia from the nineteenth century. Hardly it is to be found written formal analyses about Manet’s artwork on the first years of its existence. The few art critics that decided to set forth another point of view for analysing Olympia based 30Clark, “Preliminaries to a possible treatment of ‘Olympia' in 1865”, 20. 31 Ian Dunlop, The Shock of the New (New York: American Heritage Press, 1972). 32 A. J. Lorentz, “Dernier Jour de L’Exposition de 1865”, Revue Galopante au Salon (Paris, July 1865). 14 their arguments in the formal aspects of the paintings. Amongst them were Émile Zola and Ravenel.33 Figure 1- Honoré Daumier, Looking at a Manet painting, from 'Sketches from the Salon’. Lithograph on newsprint, published in Le Charivari, June 19, 1865. Image provided by the website of the Metropolitan Museum of Art New York, https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/ search/754576 Visited in 05/05/2019 It is very likely that Émile Zola is the most well-know, in the Art History world, amongst the four art critics who explored Olympia’s formal features back in the late nineteenth century. Zola and Manet were close friends, so important for the painter was their friendship that in 1868 Manet created a portrait of Zola.34 It was not a secret to anyone the existing friendship between both gentlemen. During the notorious storm of critique over Olympia, Zola decided to put forward a different angle. He justified the 33 Clark, “Preliminaries to a possible treatment of ‘Olympia' in 1865”,18-42. 34 Otto Friedich, Olympia: Paris no Tempo dos Impressionistas (São Paulo: Círculo do Livro, 1993). 15 choices made by Manet as compositional and stylistic matters.35 Zola affirms that Manet decided not to lie to the viewers, he did not portrayed the courtesan as an image of idealisation, being loyal to the reality.36 The figure of Olympia, according to Zola is one mere object of the general composition. By stating it, he leaves aside her sensual and putrefying controversial characteristics covered by several art critics. The bourgeois’ point of view is mentioned by Zola in a sarcastic way. He affirms that they looked at Olympia as the result of a work produced by a painter, who was considered as impure by the bourgeoisie. Accordingly, Olympia received several negative critiques, because it was not entirely comprehended by the general public who mainly focussed on the meanings behind the iconographic elements, rather than on the form. For Zola, meanings were of no relevance.37 This idea of depreciating the importance of meanings behind formal elements, brought about by Zola, is intriguing and to some extent, reasonable. On the account of the fact that each person creates and sees different meanings on the same elements. However, Zola did see meanings in Manet’s Olympia. For him, the personality of Edouard Manet is being depicted in what he considered as Manet’s masterpiece. Apart from that, he could see other artworks of Manet present in Olympia.38 Zola based his arguments on the formal elements of the painting. At first sight, two hues in the painting are detected, one overlapping the other, according to Zola. In addition to that, he asserts that there are not minute details in the composition, for instance Olympia’s lips. In his opinion, they are formed simply by two thin pink lines. The manner in which Manet created her eyes and hands follows somehow the process of nature. Once it contains roughness and austereness, two aspects present in the natural cycles.39 Zola justifies Manet’s compositional choices in a modestly practical way, relating colour’s decisions to necessities of the artist. He simply affirms: “You needed a naked woman, and you chose Olympia, the first coming; you needed bright spots, and you put a bouquet; you needed black spots, and you put a negress and a cat in a corner.”40 By analysing Zola’s words and taking into consideration his friendship with Manet, it could be assumed that he was 35 Bernheimer, “Manet’s Olympia: The Figuration of Scandal”, 263. 36 Émile Zola, Edouard Manet, Étude Biographique et critique (Paris: Bibliothèque Charpentier, 1893). 37 Bernheimer, “Manet’s Olympia: The Figuration of Scandal”, 255-277. 38 Zola, Edouard Manet, Étude Biographique et critique, 137. 39Zola, Edouard Manet, Étude Biographique et critique,139. Claude Imbert, Adriana Bontea and Boris Wiseman, “Manet, Effects of Black”, Paragraph (2011), Vol. 34, No. 2. 40 16 trying to defend his friend from hostile commentaries about Olympia. As aforementioned, a few other critics took into consideration the formal aspects of Manet’s masterpiece, Jean Ravenel in L’Epoque published his impressions over Olympia. He remarks on the light and shadow present on the composition and explain the effect they have on the painting. The bed, pillows, Olympia’s body, flowers and servant were painted harmoniously, according to him. That said, Ravenel also comments on the insufficient quality of Olympia’s maid and flowers, by doing so he shows satisfactory and unsatisfactory features present in the panting.He also affirms that the “black cat on the right part, makes the visitor laugh and relax, saving Manet from popular execution”.41 Ravenel asserts that the black cat provokes the viewer to laugh, whilst Zola considers it as a mere compositional feature. Commonly art critics that focused on the formal aspects of Olympia mentioned its flatness. The critic Gile analysed Manet’s drawing skills and his conclusions were that Olympia’s body was sharply drawn, giving the impression that the composition is flat. The sharp lines that outline Olympia’s shoulders, legs, knees, breast and elbow give her a consistently uniform quality, bringing her to somewhere far from reality.42 What is striking about the formalist explanation elucidated by few art critics, mainly by Gile and Ravenel of the late nineteenth century, is that their observations somehow remind what was said by the ones who overtly criticised Olympia. By mentioning the flat quality of the painting and the uniform figure of Olympia, it is possible to connect these ideas to the decomposing aspect attributed to the courtesan. Which means that, the analyses of formal elements present in Manet’s painting could be used as the base for the unfavourable features pointed by several art critics. 41 Jean-Louis Ravenel, “De Salon 1865”, L’Epoque (Paris,June 1865). 42 Clark, The Painting of Modern Life: Paris in the Art of Manet and his Followers, 92. 17 Chapter II: Oppression in two worlds: Dictated behaviour and intolerance to the natural In the nineteenth century, the French Empire was introducing modern ideas that were being reflected in its society and infrastructure. With the industrialisation the necessity of constructing facilities was raised, such as railways which reinforced an atmosphere of modernisation.43 Working opportunities were considerably higher in industrialised cities, attracting people from rural areas to migrate to newly modernised regions. Consequently, places where were to be found more working chances became more populated ares, such as Paris, the birthplace of Manet’s Olympia. Due to job opportunities, the employers and employees were consuming commodities by making use of their monetary power. Amongst the commodities, prostitution was commonly consumed by male individuals who paid the courtesans in order to have moments of sexual activities with them, reflecting the men desires of having their personal satisfaction fulfilled.44 The financial condition conquered by men and the already existing patriarchal society reinforced the relation of power between men and women in the nineteenth century. As stated by Jonathan Harris in his book The New Art History: Critical Introduction, the poisonous ideas of sexual differences and social institutions developed by the bourgeoisie quickly spread within the French society.45 One of the bourgeois concepts that gained popularity was the idea that women were relegated to inferior and passive conditions, both in private and public scenarios. Apart from categorising women’s positions, the female behaviour was to follow certain standard qualities. Some of the characteristics women should have were gracefulness, delicacy and noble sentimentalism.46 Not only feminine qualities were being imposed, but also the type of activities they were supposed to execute. Whilst men were to be working on serious tasks, women were to be busy with delicate, light and trivial occupations. These aforementioned ideas regarding female behaviour and position within the society clearly 43 Bernard E. Brown "The French Experience of Modernisation." World Politics (1969) Vol. 21, No. 3, 366-91. doi:10.2307/2009638 44 Christine Buci-Glucksmann, “Catastrophic Utopia: The Feminine as Allegory of the Modern”, Representations, (1986) No. 14, 220-229. 45 Harris, The New Art History: A Critical Introduction, 112. 46 Griselda Pollock & Rozsika Parker, Old Mistresses: Women, Art, and Ideology (London: I.B. Tauris, 2013). 18 demonstrate how women were seen back in the nineteenth century and their social participation within the French civilisation.47 The feminist approach came into being within the field of Art History circa 1970, being one of the innovative approaches adopted in the New Art History. Raising awareness about social and political circumstances and the way in which they are reflected in artworks are crucial topics for the New Art History. Hence, it was a favourable moment to introduce feminist discussions that analyse subjects related to the role of women in society. Feminism as an Art History approach elucidates the manner in which women are depicted in artworks and how their representations symbolise how they were perceived by the society and the consequences of it.48 The book written by Griselda Pollock and Rozsika Parken, Old Mistresses: Women, Art and Ideology, contains significantly relevant information regarding the social features of the nineteenth century in Europe, focusing on the female part. The authors argue that the male bourgeoisie was the predominant in the social and sexual classes. As a consequence, women were subjected to what was dictated by the bourgeoise. Nevertheless, it was not only in this period of time that certain social phenomena regarding women part within society took place. According to Michael Foucalt, the male supremacy has its foundations in the social and historical context, being responsible for alarming consequences that are still present in our current days.49 Particularly in the case of Olympia, it is essential to comprehend the role women played in society when it was originally produced in 1865. In addition to that, it is of great importance to pinpoint and explain some elements present in the painting that represent feminine attributes and the meanings behind them. The depiction of female bodies as a symbol of male sexuality was commonly present in some works of art in the nineteenth century, as stated by Pollock.50 Taking into account the nude figure of Olympia and the popularity of artworks that display images of prostitutes, in accordance with what was said by Abigail Solomon-Godeau in her article “The Legs of the Countless”, it can be 47Buci-Glucksmann, “Catastrophic Utopia: The Feminine as Allegory of the Modern”, 222. 48Linda Nochlin, "Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?”, ArtNews (1971). http://www.artnews.com/2015/05/30/why-have-there-been-no-great-women-artists/ Visited on 06/05/2019. Another important aim of Feminism in Art History discussed by Nochlin and other art historians is the role women artists have in Art and the reason why women have always been considered inferior in their artistic productions. 49Michael Foucalt, The History of Sexuality (New York: Random House, 1978). Griselda Pollock, Vision and Difference: Femininity, feminism and history of art (London: Routledge, 1998) 213. 50 19 asserted that male individuals (the target audience) accepted it. In fact they identified with the subject matter illustrated in this type of artworks.51 The men were both public and producer of female nudes in the late nineteenth century, therefore, Laponte states, the representation of female body was the demonstration of what was expected from women.52 By considering this affirmation, personally, I believe that the two women portrayed in Olympia represent the idea that female individuals should serve and be available to men, the target audience of this painting and that the nudity element represents a common social aspect existing in the nineteenth century, the submission of women to men. It goes without saying that there is not the physical image of a male figure in this painting by Manet. In spite of it, iconographical elements do evoke the possibility that a male individual is somehow necessary for the scene. Based on the historic context of the period in which Manet produced Olympia, the target viewers are male individuals. In the view of the fact that they consume the “product” offered by female sex workers, as in the case of Manet’s courtesan. Therefrom, the position adopted for Olympia’s body indicate the availability of a female body to male consumers, viewers whatsoever. The male physical presence in the painting is invisible, even thought it is present in existing elements such as the flower bouquet, Olympia’s shoes, the cat and most importantly in absent elements, the outside of the painting, precisely just before it, where the viewer stands.53 The bouquet of flowers, which is being offered to Olympia by her servant is, according to Charles Bernheimer and Timothy. J. Clark, a gift from one of her clients. Flowers indicate delicacy and sophisticated taste, two attributes that should be part of women’s personality. As Olympia had been given the flowers she might be in contact with gracefulness, what would stimulate the execution of trivial activities directed to female individuals, such as watering the flowers.54 The sophisticated blue shoes which the courtesan wears is also a significant symbol of the male influence on the access women have to expensive objects. As T. J. Clark suggests in his book, The Painting of Modern Life: Paris in the Art of Manet and his Followers, the modernisation that was spreading all over France opened doors for the financial independency of women. Singularly, the situation that is being depicted in Manet’s artwork, is of a person that exchanges her 51 Abigail Solomon-Godeau, “The Legs of the Countess”, October 39 (1986) Vol. 39 65-108. Luciana Laponte, “Sexualidade, Artes Visuais e Poder: Pedagogias Visuais do Feminino”, Revista Estudos Feministas (2002) Year 10, 283-300. 52 53 Bernheimer, “Manet’s Olympia: The Figuration of Scandal”, Poetics Today. 258. 54Pollock & Parker, Old Mistresses: Women, Art, and Ideology, 21. 20 body for money, being payed uniquely by men.55 For this reason the blue shoes are so important, they are an indication that Olympia gained privilege of possessing luxurious articles. The means that permitted her to do so was using the money she earned from her male clientele. A discreet element painted in this artwork is the controversial black cat. Its controversy lies on the fact that the word used for the animal cat, both in the English and French language, has double connotation, the second meaning refers to the female genital.56 On the account of this fact, women are being associated with sexual activities that fulfil men debauchery. Besides that, it positions female individuals as erotic objects, who are seen as merely pleasure provider.57 Despite of some elements present in one of the most famous artworks that portray a courtesan as a representation of women being seen as objects, Olympia carries traits that express paradoxes, which are extremely significant for the feminist approach developed in the 70’s. Her gaze is of major impact; she stares fearlessly at the audience that expected her to behave submissively.58 By showing her strength on the way of looking, the courtesan painted by Manet provokes the viewer to consider the idea that women are not always willing to cede to male wishes. Another tendentious component of this painting Ann Millet-Gallant is putting forward is the gesture the figure of the prostitute is making with her left hand. Her hand is precisely positioned on her genital, indicating the possibility that she might be masturbating herself.59 This provocative movement suggests Olympia's sexual freedom and independence. Coming across the impression that individually and autonomously she has moments of pleasure without depending on a man to provide it to her. One more compositional element that carries polemics is the servant on the right side of the painting. As aforesaid, the creation period of Manet’s oeuvre was a post-abolition one. Namely, slavery was no longer permitted, therefore the black woman depicted is not a slave, she is a servant. Accordingly, the courtesan had to pay for the servant’s work. Assumably, Olympia had a satisfactory income, taking into consideration the fact that this type of commodity was not common for the majority of the Parisian 55Clark, The Painting of Modern Life: Paris in the Art of Manet and his Followers, 79. Smart, “Manet: A tale of two cats”, The Telegraph (2013) https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/art-features/9826605/Manet-A-tale-of-two-cats.html Visited on 17/04/2019. 56Alastair Laponte, “Sexualidade, Artes Visuais e Poder: Pedagogias Visuais do Feminino”, Revista Estudos Feministas (2002) Year 10, 283-300. 57Luciana 58Georges 59Ann Bataille, Eroticism: Death & Sensuality (San Francisco: City Light Books, 1986). Millett-Gallant, The Disabled Body in Contemporary Art (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010). 21 population in Manet’s time.60 Reinforcing the paradox that she was the representation of women independence in some aspects, however, in parallel to it, her image symbolises female availability to please male individuals. In the opinion of Eunice Lipton published in Manet: A Radicalised Female Imagery, Edouard Manet’s formal choices were the reflection of society that he depicted in accordance with his way of perceiving life. Differently from some of his contemporaries, Manet used to portrait individual figures, not allegorical ones.61 The two female individuals in Olympia have unique attributes, however, they do represent how women in general were seen, as servants for men desire. The words used by Geronte for describing the courtesan as “Hottentot Venus” reflects French society opinion in the late nineteenth century about prostitutes. The Hottentot Venus was the epithet used to name a South African woman taken to England around 1805. This woman was popularly known as Saartjie Baartman and due to her body features which were considered as aberrational, specially her genitals and buttocks, she was put on display to be publicly exhibited as a freak figure.62 Saartjie characters were associated to animality, justifying why Geronte labelled Olympia as Hottentot Venus. Prostitutes were known for their lassitude and their proximity to carnal instincts, living an animal life.63 The animalistic quality associated to Olympia also suggests the idea that she needs to be tamed by someone more powerful (men), once more, indicating the relation of power between male individuals and female. Referring back to the Hottentot Venus, this figure is of great importance to understand the role of black women in the nineteenth century France. First and foremost, in order to do so, it is crucial to consider a fact from the colonisation period. The French laws which were applied to control slaves back in the sixteenth, seventeenth and early eighteenth century, institutionalised the permission of using slaves as sexual objects.64 Consequently, black slaves (mainly female ones) were forced for centuries to have sexual relation with their masters or whomever the masters obliged them to. In 1848 there was the French abolitionist movement for the second time in France. The first attempt to do away with slavery took place in 1780 and was successful until 1802 when Napoleon re- 60Brown 61 "The French Experience of Modernisation." World Politics, 385. Eunice Lipton, “Manet: A Radicalized Female Imagery,”ArtForum (March 1975). Clifton C. Crais & Pamela Scully, Sara Baartman and the Hottentot Venus: A ghost story and a biography. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009). 62 Sander L. Gilman, “Black Bodies, White Bodies: Toward an Iconography of Female Sexuality in Late Nineteenth-Century Art, Medicine, and Literature”, Critical Inquiry (1985) Vol. 12, No. 1. 204-242. 63 64 William Renwick Riddell, "Le Code Noir" The Journal of Negro History (1925) 10, No. 3, 321-29. 22 established both colonial slavery and the slave trade. In 1830 there was the July Revolution in France, a movement which was led by bourgeoisie that brought common individuals to the streets fighting against the King Charles X, resulting in his abdication and in the proclamation of Louis Philippe I as the King of France. With the new King on the throne there was the July Monarchy, which was characterised by its liberal constitution, opening space for anti-slavery ideas. Finally, in 1848 it was established in France and its colonies the official abolition of colonial slavery and slave trades.65 People who for years were the possession of their masters were finally free from this heavy and terrible condition. Unfortunately, the slavery abolition did not ensure social stability for the former slaves who were being haunted by their past. The negative qualities associated with black people lingered for centuries and is still present among us and it source of traumatic consequences, such as overt and radical racism.66 Lamentably, in several pieces of writing about Olympia the figure of the servant is ignored or taken for granted and consequently not profoundly analysed. Luckily, with the emergence of the New Art History, ideas of the Post-Colonial theory developed by the French philosopher Frantz Fanon, were embedded, adapted and used as the fundamental stone for another novel Art History approach. Fanon published a book written in 1961, which explores the consequences of colonisation in short and long term. He elucidates how the violent treatment from the colonisers towards the colonised generated the characteristic of inferiority relegated to colonies, their culture and people.67 Inspired by Fanon’s theory, the post-colonial perspective focuses on elements that refer to colonised countries in artworks. Besides that, the post-colonial approach explores and elucidates the meaning behind compositional choices present in artworks from its relevance to the post-colonial scenarios. Raising awareness about the barbarities the colonised ones suffered, not only during the slavery period, but also what they went through during the post-abolition period are also present in post-colonial analyses.68 Apart from that, analyses interpreted 65 Jennings, French Anti-Slavery: The movement for the Abolition of Slavery in France 1802-1848,17. 66 Gabriel Barbosa G. de Oliveira Filho, “A atualidade de “Os Condenados da Terra” de Frantz Fanon”, Revista Brasileira de Educação do Campo (2017), Vol. 2, No. 2, 830-832. 67 Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth, 43. Walace Rodrigues, “Analisando Obras de Artes Visuais Pela Via do Pós-Colonialismo”, Revista Didática Sistêmica (2015), Vol. 17, No. 2, 58-69. The post-colonial theory within the Art History also elucidates who were the neglected black figures in artworks and the reason behind it. Besides that, it debates on the supremacy of the Western Worlds in terms of artistic documentation, which were recorded according to the white male European perspective. 68 23 from the post-colonial angle point out characteristics that were related to former slaves, such as animality and racial inferiority.69 Thinking about what the French art critic Geronte in 1865 wrote in a critique against Manet’s Olympia, it is perceptible the detrimental mode of mentioning the yellow fever. This disease had its origins in Africa and South America, areas that were colonies of European nations.70 In an article written by Lorraine O’Grady in 1992 “Olympia’s Maid: Reclaiming Black Female Subjectivity”, the author states that non-white bodies were the representation of what women in general should not be.71 Departing from both statements, it can be understood that black people were seen as inferior and apart from that, they received a degrading treatment because of the ideas conceived about their place of origin and their physical characteristics. Due to slavery and colonisation, white people were in control over black people, commanding slaves to execute tasks that were not pleasant using their physical strength. Even with the end of slavery in French, former chattels in their majority were not able to find working opportunities that involved light tasks, a blatant example is the attendant depicted in Manet’s work of art, whose function is serving her employers performing manual labour. Having said that, the inferiority relegated to black people is reflected in the position they occupied in social hierarchy.72 The elements present in Olympia translate into image the ideas conceived by the majority of native Europeans about black people in the late nineteenth century. This idea is reinforced by the fact that little was written about the servant, ignoring her existence in the artwork. By paying attention to her look, it is possible to detect submission in it. She is offering a bouquet of flowers to the courtesan, who is not reciprocating the look. Subjecting black people to minor jobs was considered natural because of their enslavement past.73 In a very elucidating article written by Darcy Grimaldo Grigsby “Still Thinking about Olympia’s Maid”, he affirms that female slaves were used as sexual objects by their masters, it was expected they would be portrayed au naturel.74 In 69 Gilman, “Black Bodies, White Bodies: Toward an Iconography of Female Sexuality in Late NineteenthCentury Art, Medicine, and Literature”, Critical Inquiry, 212. Jaime Larry Benchimol, “Ferrovias, doenças e medicina tropical no Brasil da Primeira República”, História, Ciências, Saúde – Manguinhos (2008), Vol. 15, No. 3, 719-762. 70 Lorraine O’Grady, “Olympia’s Maid: Reclaiming Black Female Subjectivity”,Art, Activism, and Oppositionality: Essays from the Afterimage (New York: Routledge Press, 2003). 71 72Grigsby, “Still Thinking about Olympia’s Maid”, The Art Bulletin, 433. 73Grigsby, “Still Thinking about Olympia’s Maid”, The Art Bulletin, 432. O’Grady, “Olympia’s Maid: Reclaiming Black Female Subjectivity”,Art, Activism, and Oppositionality: Essays from the Afterimage, 178. 74 24 contrary to what were the wishes of male individuals towards black female, the servant is almost completely covered, except for her hands and face. In spite of this fact, even when black women were portrayed wearing clothes, next to white figures in an artwork, there was the reinforcement of the female sexuality connected to black female animality, according to Sander L. Gilman in “Black Bodies, White Bodies: Toward an Iconography of Female Sexuality in Late Nineteenth-Century Art, Medicine, and Literature”. This idea stem from the popular dissemination of the Hottentot Venus reputation and the sexual connection relegated to her, who had African origins, just like Olympia’s maid. Grigsby’s article presents examples of black female figures being represented in artworks which were also produced in the late nineteenth century, Manet’s period. Besides it, the author introduces the name of the model for the maid, Laure, who was also painted in a portray by Manet in the same period of Olympia. In general, black women portrayed in artistic manifestations of this time are represented in the position of serving. According to Grigsby, they were either painted as prostitutes (half-naked), wet nurses or attendants.75 In spite of the fact that Manet kept the tradition of depicting a black woman as a servant, the way he did it, as stated by Grigsby and also Lipton, was different from his contemporaries because he painted the sexuality of the attendant implicitly.76 Manet’s choice of covering the servant with loose clothes wards off the sexual availability relegated to black women at first sight. However, by considering the historic context of the post-abolition period, as said by Gilman, black women represented animality and inferiority, therefore, in fact Olympia’s maid is also a covert symbol of black female sexuality. As all of these negative qualities associated to black women were not enough, it was a common belief that venereal diseases were related to them.77 It was popularly thought that sexual transmitted diseases had their origins in colonies. Which is arguable, because even before the exploitation of colonies there were registrations of people in Europe infected with venereal diseases.78 Nevertheless, African and South American countries were seen as dangerous places that provided health threats. In order to put it concisely, the presence of black women in the nineteenth century artworks represent not only the sexuality implicated in them, but also the root of venereal diseases in the virtue of their enslavement past that positioned them in inferior social status. 75Grigsby, 76Eunice “Still Thinking about Olympia’s Maid”, The Art Bulletin, 436. Lipton, “Manet: A Radicalized Female Imagery,”ArtForum, 2. Sander L. Gilman, “Black Bodies, White Bodies: Toward an Iconography of Female Sexuality in Late Nineteenth-Century Art, Medicine, and Literature”, Critical Inquiry, 218. 77 78 Oriel J. David, The Scars of Venus A History of Venereology (London: Springer, 1994). 25 Chapter III: Similarities in Olympia’s interpretations and its current mission The fame Olympia gained in the late nineteenth century has its origins in the notoriously negative critiques written about it when it was firstly introduced in the official Salon in Paris. As already discussed, the art critics decided to focus on controversial elements present in Manet’s painting, such as the nudity of the courtesan and her white skin, which was related to putrefying characteristics, and her profound gaze. What has not been discussed so far is the relation between the first impressions over Olympia (from its original period) and the feminist and post-colonial approach developed in the New Art History during the second half of the twentieth century. Four specific iconographical elements of the painting have been explored in several writing pieces about the artwork itself or its painter in different time frames. Thence, it can be asserted that the courtesan nudity, the black cat, the bouquet of flowers and the figure of servant foreground a connection between the opinions published by Manet’s contemporaries and the Art History analyses written more recently. The most controversial of these aforementioned elements is the nude figure of the prostitute. The reason behind this affirmation lies on the fact that most of the art critiques of the late nineteenth century mention this attribute in a pejorative manner. Besides the negative connotation applied to it, few art critics justify Olympia’s bareness as a compositional question.79 Whereas, the feminist approach perceives it in a divergent way, focusing on the objectification of the female body.80 In addition to these three interpretations regarding Manet’s paintings, there is a social factor which should be taken into consideration. Society was in the brink of modernisation in Olympia’s epoch.81 On one hand she represents what men wanted to see and control, a nude sensual female body. On the other, she also symbolises what was shyly starting to happen, the struggle of women fighting for their rights and independence, one of the consequences of modernisation. With French modern ideas been introduced, it raised the necessity of more employees in industries, for this reason women were required to take part in functions within the industrial context.82 Slowly, the tasks designated from men to 79 Mitterand, Zola: Tome I. Sous le regard d’Olympia 1840-1871, 495. Luciana Laponte, “Sexualidade, Artes Visuais e Poder: Pedagogias Visuais do Feminino”, Revista Estudos Feministas, 286. 80 81 Brown "The French Experience of Modernisation." World Politics, 381. Ellen Jordan, The Women's Movement and Women's Employment in Nineteenth Century Britain (London: Routledge, 1999). 82 26 women were not enclosed into domestic scenarios as it had been for centuries. Giving female individuals the opportunity to leave their domiciliary environment was the first step towards women independence movement that was to happen in a few decades. By painting the courtesan in a sensual manner, she has her submission to men attested. However, by depicting a defiant stare in her eyes, Manet portrayed a disobedient attitude, creating in Olympia a paradoxic characteristic. The fact that the courtesan is the personification of a paradox (female objection X female disobedience) might have caused the feeling of revolt echoed by the lay and expert public when the painting was firstly introduced. What can be comprehended from these readings is that the focus of the prostitute nudity in either art critics or historian analysis foregrounds different interpretations of the female role, developing a comprehensive understanding of the painting, based in social and historic events. Divergent opinions about Olympia’s compositional elements are not exclusive of the depicted nudity. Another attribute of the painting which has been the cause of debate is the black cat. Not only in written pieces from the late twentieth century, but also in satiric caricatures produced one hundred and fifty years ago, such as the one by Bertall. (figure 2).83 Figure 2- Bertall, La Queue du chat, on La Charbonnière des Batignolles. Wood engraving in L’Illustration, 3 June 1865. 83 Bernheimer, “Manet’s Olympia: The Figuration of Scandal”, 271. 27 This peculiar animal positioned on the right size of the original artwork has its tail erect. As stated by Charles Bernheimer in his article “The Figuration of Scandal” written in 1989, the art critics and illustrators of Manet’s epoch interpreted the cat as an iconographical element that symbolises female sexuality. It is noticeable the phallic characteristic present in the illustration of the erect tail of the cat in the caricature by Bertall. The animal is positioned in the middle of the bed of the courtesan, coincidently just before where her genitals are supposedly situated.84 However, in a critique written for the newspaper L’Epoque in June 1865, Jean-Louis Ravenel states that the cat saves Manet from popular execution, in the view of the fact that it makes the viewer laugh and relax.85 What is most striking about these interpretations regarding the feline animal is that the more recent piece of writings about Olympia such as the article by Alastair Smart, “Manet: a tale of two cats” and the above-mentioned “The Figuration of Scandal” by Charles Bernheimer agree with what the illustrators of the late nineteenth century perceived from the black cat, its sexual connotation. Albeit there is a relation of agreement between two different generations regarding the meaning of the black animal, the argument developed by both Bernheimer and Smart are based in the linguistic aspect of a word used to make reference to the animal cat. According to the authors, one of the pejorative words that refer to the female genital in the French and English language is associated with the word used for the animal cat.86 This information is crucial for the feminist approach, once a symbol that carries such connotation is introduced in an artwork that depicts a nude woman, its sexual significance is reinforced. Therefore, the female role of being the pleasure provider is supported by the artist’s compositional choice. Expressing what male individual expected from women, submission and sexual availability. Having said that, one more connection is stabilised between the original impressions over Olympia and the feminist New Art History approach. The third iconographical element discussed in recent articles and mentioned in art critiques from Manet’s period is the bouquet of flowers which is hold by the servant. In one of the earliest writing pieces about Manet’s painting, the bouquet is described by Émile Zola as a mere compositional choice.87 Howbeit, Viktor de Jankovitz in a verbal comment about the Salon de 1865 described the bouquet of flower as a “doubtful 84 Bernheimer, “Manet’s Olympia: The Figuration of Scandal”, 272. 85 Jean-Louis Ravenel, “De Salon 1865”, L’Epoque (Paris,June 1865). 86 Smart, “Manet: A tale of two cats”, The Telegraph (2013). 87 Zola, Edouard Manet, Étude Biographique et critique, 141. 28 allegory”.88 By stating it, Jankovitz implies that he has seen more than a compositional character behind the apparently innocent flowers. Unfortunately, deeper interpretations regarding the bouquet were not to be found in nineteenth century critiques. They are just briefly mentioned, but not scrutinised. For both feminist and post-colonial approaches, the bouquet is of significant importance. Firstly, in accordance with T. J. Clark and Charles Bernheimer, the bouquet of flowers is a gift to the courtesan from one of her clients.89 This affirmation is indispensable for the feminist perspective. From my own interpretation, by considering that Olympia is being given flowers, it is assumable that she did something that pleased who has sent her the flower (one of her clients). Keeping in mind her profession, it is to be said that she did perform efficiently her task of providing sexual pleasure to her costumer, and for this reason she received a gift. That said, nineteenth century men expected that female behaviour would provide them with sexual fulfilment and submission, two implied meanings behind the bouquet of flowers given to Olympia, in my point of view. Besides that, Griselda Pollock and Rozsika Parken in their book, aforementioned in the previous chapter, Old Mistresses: Women, Art and Ideology, affirm that women were supposed to be engaged with domestic tasks, for instance, watering the plants.90 Be that as it may, the bouquet of flowers in the painting by Manet implicitly allude how women should comport in order to satisfy male wishes, being delicate, careful and simultaneously sensual. In addition to the previous significances that are rooted in the image of the bouquet of flowers, there is an inconspicuous facet present not in the flowers themselves, but in whom is holding them. The words of the art critic Felix Deriege already quoted in first chapter, state that the flowers are being brought to Olympia by a 'negress' .91 Unsurprisingly, due to their enslavement past, black people were commonly associated and portrayed in works of art executing minor tasks.92 The fact that Deriege used the word 'negress' to describe the woman who is serving the prostitute with flowers, supports the idea elucidated by Sander L. Gilman that black people were naturally relegated to inferior social positions, being occupied with inglorious labor.93 88 Bernheimer, “Manet’s Olympia: The Figuration of Scandal”, 256. 89 Clark, “Preliminaries to a possible treatment of ‘Olympia' in 1865”, 39. 90 Pollock & Parker, Old Mistresses: Women, Art, and Ideology, 70. 91 Bohm-Duchen, The Private Life of a Masterpiece, 101. 92 Grigsby, “Still Thinking about Olympia’s Maid”, 433. Gilman, “Black Bodies, White Bodies: Toward an Iconography of Female Sexuality in Late NineteenthCentury Art, Medicine, and Literature”, Critical Inquiry, 218. 93 29 Finally, the last iconographical element that evidences the interconnection between the New Art History feminist and post-colonial approach and the reception of Olympia circa 1865 is the servant. The personification of the submission in Manet’s artwork is to be found in her figure. This character was predominantly ignored for almost one hundred years in art history analyses.94 It was not completely ignored during its earliest presentation to the public due to some brief references made in art critiques. Zola, for instance mentioned the attendant when he was analysing the formal aspects of the painting, but little was elucidated about the figure of the servant herself.95 With the emergence of the New Art History, she could finally be interpreted and seen as a very important element of this painting, outstandingly for the post-colonial approach. The reason behind it lies in the way the French society used to look at people like the maid. In the second half of nineteenth century, as a consequence to the slavery abolition, black people were finally becoming free, to some extent, just in theory. In practice, they were still deeply connected to their recent sorrowful past that labelled them as inferior. By realising that the black servant was not frequently being analysed (just briefly mentioned) by Manet’s art critics contemporaries, it is possible to affirm that black people were being left aside in written pieces, and not coincidently in social contexts as well.96 In the social context, the functions consigned to them were in accordance to the qualities associated to former slaves, inferior and minor tasks. In recent articles, art historians and critics give emphasises to the possible meanings behind the servant. For instance, Darcy Grimaldo Grigsby in her article for The Art Bulletin, “Still Thinking about Olympia’s Maid”, in addition to her own researches and conclusions she mentions art critics from 1865 in order to base arguments that justify post-colonial meanings behind compositional choices by Manet.97 Along with Grigsby, there is Lorraine O’Grady, who scrutinises the feminist and post-colonial interests and concerns present in Manet’s artwork. O’Grady affirms using the words of Judith Wilson that there are 'the legions of black servants who loom in the shadows of European and European-American aristocratic portraiture'.98 This statement is of great importance, because it demonstrates the role of women in the 94 Bernheimer, “Manet’s Olympia: The Figuration of Scandal”, 272. 95 Imbert & Bontea & Wiseman, “Manet, Effects of Black”, Paragraph. 96 Gilman, “Black Bodies, White Bodies: Toward an Iconography of Female Sexuality in Late NineteenthCentury Art, Medicine, and Literature”, Critical Inquiry, 237. 97 Grigsby, “Still Thinking about Olympia’s Maid”,430-451. O’Grady, “Olympia’s Maid: Reclaiming Black Female Subjectivity”,Art, Activism, and Oppositionality: Essays from the Afterimage, 182. 98 30 nineteenth century and more precisely, black women. By putting black women in the shadow, automatically white women are put in the spot light.99 This event literally and blatantly happens in Olympia. The courtesan is painted in a manner that she receives more light from left to right. Whilst, the servant is positioned on the contrary side of where the light comes from. The concept of light from the seventy century onwards has been connected to the idea of intelligence and knowledge, two aspects that are related to superiority. Whereas, ignorance and lack of knowledge are associated with darkness. These two concepts are common and popularly known and they should not be ignored when it comes to a post-colonial analyses of this important work of art from the nineteenth century, in the view of the fact that they illustrate another compositional element chosen by Manet that associate black people with inferior qualities and white people with superior ones. Frankly, during my research it was not found a piece of writing that links the clothes the maid wears with the lack of freedom people of colour had, back in Manet’s time. In my interpretation, the fact that she is dressed and Olympia is not, might somehow signify the privilege white people had in terms of freedom. The attendant has only her hands and face undressed, she wears a white and loose smock and a turban on her head. It is not possible to know how her body really is, on the account of her large clothing. The contrast of dark colour X light colour and covered women X nude women reinforces the differences between colour people and white people. Most strikingly and unsurprisingly is the fact that the courtesan who allegorically represent non-colour people is displayed freely naked, as if she is the owner of her own body. In opposition to that, the maid has her body hidden behind the clothes, what could be interpreted as an attempt to veil the animality and hideousness associated with black people in the nineteenth century. Therefore, it can be stated that the servant is not the owner of her own body, she is inserted in a social system which dictates her conduct.100 One of the first details depicted in the figure of the attendant that grabbed my attention was the slight fear expressed in her eyes, but it is not found comments about it in Art History articles. It is assumable that her fear represents the insecurity people from her social class might have had. Considering the social context of the time, in which society was adapting to modernity and the end of slavery, former slaves and also women were feeling unconfident and O’Grady, “Olympia’s Maid: Reclaiming Black Female Subjectivity”,Art, Activism, and Oppositionality: Essays from the Afterimage. 99 100 Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth. 31 frightened about their fate.101 This feeling is present in the compliant look of the servant, expressing the uneasiness of the period, from my perspective. When it comes to the courtesan accessories, her golden bracelet should be emphasised.The reason behind it is the due to the colonies that contained abundant quantity of gold in their territory. This valuable material was taken from the colonisers to their own nations.102 That said, Olympia’s bracelet is the result of exploitation of natural resources from colonies. Apart from that, it was also necessary slave labour to collect gold from de mines.103 From my personal judgment, this accessory reminds the fact that slaves would execute extremely exhausting tasks in order to provide to the colonisers superfluous objects. None of the texts I had access to refer the the golden bracelet as an elements that is reminiscent of the exploitation of the colonies, for this reason, I found relevant to include my impressions over it. The analyses written about Olympia from the 1970 onwards, as a result of the New Art History, were of significant relevance for the Art History of the Western World, because they react and complement on what was written about Edouard Manet’s famous artwork originally and its posteriority. The majority of the polemic interpretations of it published in the late nineteenth century were responsible for the lingering fame and hot debate of this painting. Currently, it is being used as a source of awareness about the importance and the identity of black figures in artworks, such as the black servant. Since 26th March 2019 the museum which is Olympia’s fixed location, Musée d’Orsay is hosting a temporary exhibition entitled as Black Models: From Géricault to Matisse.104 According to the president of Musée d’Orsay and l’Orangerie, Laurance des Cars, the leading intention of this exhibition is to give voice and recognise the black models who were neglected, but are of great importance, for the production of some artworks that date from the French Revolution until the time between the two World Wars.105 This period of time in which the productions of the artworks on display were inserted was marked by memorable 101Jennings, French Anti-Slavery: The movement for the Abolition of Slavery in France 1802-1848, 49. Eduardo Bueno, “Brasil: uma história”. Revista História Mineração do Brasil Colonial (2003) No. 2, 100-110. 102 103 Leandro Carvalho, "Trabalho escravo nas minas”, Brasil Escola. https://brasilescola.uol.com.br/historiab/trabalho-escravo-nas-minas.htm. Visited on 17/05/2019. 104 Katherine Keener, “Musée d’Orsay temporarily renames Manet’s ‘Olympia’”, Art Critique (March 2019)Visited on 30/03/2019. https://www.art-critique.com/en/2019/03/musee-dorsay-temporarily-renames-manets-olympia/ 105Black Models: From Géricault to Matisse. Edited by Marie Pelliaton (Paris: Deux-Ponts, March 2019) Exhibition catalogue. 32 historical facts. Amongst them are the expansion of colonial empire, slave trade and abolition. Simultaneously, the consolidation of the black people identity was being constructed, influenced by the historical context. Be that as it may, the representation of people of colour in visual arts from the eighteenth and twentieth century in the exhibition Black Models: From Géricault to Matisse interrogate what the models represent for the artists and besides that, it explores the social and moral values illustrated in them. It also has the intention of minimising the racist vision towards the colonised ones which has its roots in the colonialism.106 Erasing the marks of a prejudiced past is not possible, having said that, it is crucial to take measurements that slowly heal the impacts of centuries of exploitation and racial degradation. An example of what could be done more often is to have art exhibition as the one in Paris hosted by the Musée d’Orsay, since neglected characters are being put as protagonists, raising awareness about the identity of black models that posed to consecrated artists by telling their history briefly. By presenting individual and real histories about people who suffered due to their colour, the viewers have the means to reflect on unfortunate situations caused by racism and perhaps it will sparkle in them the consciousness that pitiful events like slavery and prejudice should be utterly extinct from our society. In the case of Olympia the audience is presented with personal information of the servant whose model was Laure. She was a humble woman that lived in a simple apartment in Paris. According to Grigsby, it is very likely that Laure was a childcarer or simply a servant, just like how she was portrayed. She probably modelled for Manet in order to have extra income, due to her unfortunate financial situation.107 Laure was the quintessential of what black people had undergone in terms of social consequences on account of their recent post-enslavement past. By knowing a small part of Laure’s personal life, the public is able to create empathy with her. Another initiative taken by the coordinators of Black Models: From Géricault to Matisse was to change temporarily the title of Olympia to Laure until the end of the exhibition.108 As aforesaid, Laure was the name of the model who posed for the servant in Manet’s Olympia, who for years was unknown. This decision reinforces the major intention of this contemporary exhibition, provoking the public to take a look at Manet’s painting from a different angle and with Black Models: From Géricault to Matisse. Edited by Marie Pelliaton (Paris: Deux-Ponts, March 2019) Exhibition catalogue. 106 107Grigsby, “Still Thinking about Olympia’s Maid”,430-451. 108Katherine Keener, “Musée d’Orsay temporarily renames Manet’s ‘Olympia’”, Art Critique. 33 additional information which provides a more complete interaction between artwork and viewer. By putting the spotlight on the figure of Laure, narrow-minded and racial declarations proclaimed by art critics in the nineteenth century, such as the one already mentioned in the first chapter by Viktor de Jankovitz are demised but not pointless.109 In fact, Manet’s contemporaries opinion are of great relevance for our current artistic scenario, by virtue of the invaluable information provided about the way the nineteenth century bourgeoisie experienced artistic manifestations. By considering that, it is possible to visualise not only the visual artistic development throughout time, but also the evolution of social concerns and implications that are the source for Art History critiques, articles, books and analyses. 109 “The expression on the face is that of a premature and vicious creature ; the body, the colour of which reminds one of meat that has hung for too long, is reminiscent of the horror of the Morgue. A hideous negress dressed in pink is holding on her side the bouquet of a doubtful allegory, whilst a black cat arching his back comes and prints the unequivocal trace of the place in which he treaded with his paws on the sheet”. Viktor de Jankovitz, Spoken Opinion from the Salon, (France, May 1865). 34 Conclusion The social events, ideas and expectations that existed when Edouard Manet produced Olympia are present on the compositional choices of the artist for this specific artwork. Besides that, there is the historical aspect which has also influenced the iconographical elements of the painting. French society in the late nineteenth century had cultural values that was determining for the reactions of the public during its encounter with Olympia for the first time. Written pieces and also caricatures produced as critiques against Manet’s artwork reflect the mind-set of the period. Interestingly, at the same time when sexist and racist publications against Olympia were being printed, the modernisation leaded by revolutionary ideas was gaining strength that could already be noticed in the infrastructure of the country and also in artistic manifestations. Years of artistic techniques determined by the Académie des Beaux-Arts was about to come to an end when young and revolutionary artists, like Manet, decided to create their works of art in an innovative manner. The production of paintings that were characterised by novel styles caused a frenzy among the lay and expert art public. Olympia is a classic example of an artwork that was presented with stylist renovations, becoming controversial ever since its first introduction to the artistic world up to our current days. This controversy caused negative reactions against it and the public received it bewilderedly. Compositional elements, such as the nudity of the courtesan and the flat quality of the artwork were seen reminiscence of putrefaction and scandal, as described by French art critics such as Viktor de Jankovitz. With the passage of time, social concerns are modified due to the constant alterations in reality. Consequently, individuals react to certain circumstances differently from how people would do it in the past. This situation occurred in the field of Art History as well. With the origination of the New Art History in the late twentieth century, experts in Art developed new approaches to analyse artworks, amongst them are the feminist and post-colonial. These approaches are of great importance for raising awareness about the role of women and colonised people within the society. Compositional elements present in the painting by Manet attest the consequences of the submission from women to men and the impact of the slavery past which colonised people, in this case black, had undergone. Divergent opinions about Olympia have been published since its first time in an exhibition until nowadays. One century and half ago art critiques were mentioning certain iconographical elements and giving them meanings, the same happens up to currently. 35 Regardless the passage of time, some compositional elements are still the ones which grab the attention of the lay and expert art viewer. That said, there is a connection established between the first critiques written of Manet’s painting and more recent articles and books that explore the same artwork from the New Art History perspective. Apart from that, the current exhibition which is presenting Olympia raises awareness about serious issues that are rooted in the past and invites the audience to perceive the painting from a different and reasonable angle. The interpretations the public have of Olympia since its first introduction have undergone developments. This statement made in the beginning of this paper has led me to dive deep into several sources that explore the reception of Manet’s paintings from its original time up to our days. As a result to the researches it was possible to understand how and why this changes occurred in the receptions of Olympia during time, as it as previously elucidated in the chapters formerly. However, other important issues concerning the artist were mentioned countless time in the studied sources. Manet’s biographical facts such as trips and personal contacts were revealed by some authors from the elucidated articles. Consequently, the question: ‘In which manner has Manet’s social position influenced his perception of women and black people depicted in his artworks?’ came to mind. As a result of having contact with various opinions and art historian elucidations about this artwork that explore personal events of the artist life. Having said that, and considering Olympia current legacy, it can be affirmed that questions about one of Manet most famous artwork will keep on being raised, because its subject matter is reminiscent of atemporal situations that concern our present-day society. 36 References 1. Aldama, Frederick & Lindenberger, Herbert. Aesthetics of Discomfort: Conversations on Disquieting Art. Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 2016. 2. Auvray, Louis .“Exposition des Beaux-Arts 1865”, La Revue Artistique at Littéraire (Paris, 1865) A6, T9, 39. 3. Bataille, Georges. Eroticism: Death & Sensuality. San Francisco: City Light Books, 1986. 4. Benchimol, Jaime Larry. “Ferrovias, doenças e medicina tropical no Brasil da Primeira República”, História, Ciências, Saúde – Manguinhos (2008), Vol. 15, No. 3, 719-762. 5. Bernheimer, Charles. “Manet’s Olympia: The Figuration of Scandal”, Poetics Today (Summer 1989) Vol. 10, No 2, 255-277. 6. Black Models: From Géricault to Matisse. Edited by Marie Pelliaton (Paris: Deux-Ponts, March 2019) Exhibition catalogue. 7. Boime, Albert. “The Salon Des Refuses and the Evolution of Modern Art”, Art Quarterly 32(1969). 8. Bourdieu, Pierre. The State Nobility: Elite Schools in the Field of Power. Palo Alto, California: Stanford University Press,1998. 9. Bohm-Duchen, Monica. The Private Life of a Masterpiece. Berkeley: University of California Press 2002. 10.Brown, Bernard E. "The French Experience of Modernisation." World Politics (1969) Vol. 21, No. 3, 366-91. doi:10.2307/2009638 11.Buci-Glucksmann, Christine. “Catastrophic Utopia: The Feminine as Allegory of the Modern”, Representations, (1986) No. 14, 220-229. 12. Bueno, Eduardo. “Brasil: uma história”. Revista História Mineração do Brasil Colonial (2003) No. 2, 100-110. 13.Carvalho, Leandro"Trabalho escravo nas minas”, Brasil Escola. 14.Clark, Timothy James. “Preliminaries to a possible treatment of ‘Olympia' in 1865”, Oxford Journal (March 1980) Vol. 21, Issue 1, 18-42. 15.Clark, Timothy James. The Painting of Modern Life: Paris in the Art of Manet and his Followers. New York City: Knopf, 1985. 37 16.Daumier, Honoré. “Sketches from the Salon (Croquis pris au Salon)”, Le Charivari (Paris, June 1865). 17.David, Oriel J. The Scars of Venus A History of Venereology. London: Springer, 1994. 18.Dunlop, Ian. The Shock of the New. New York: American Heritage Press, 1972. 19. Filho, Gabriel Barbosa G. de Oliveira. “A atualidade de “Os Condenados da Terra” de Frantz Fanon”, Revista Brasileira de Educação do Campo (2017), Vol. 2, No. 2, 830-832. 20.Foucalt, Michael. The History of Sexuality. New York: Random House, 1978. 21.Frantz, Fanon. The Wretched of the Earth. New York City: Grove, 1963. 22.Friedrich, Otto. Olympia: Paris no Tempo dos Impressionistas. São Paulo: Círculo do Livro, 1993. 23.Geronte. “Les Excentriques et les grotesques”, La Gazette de France (Paris, 30 June 1865). 24.Gilman, Sander L. “Black Bodies, White Bodies: Toward an Iconography of Female Sexuality in Late Nineteenth-Century Art, Medicine, and Literature”, Critical Inquiry (1985) Vol. 12, No. 1. 204-242. 25.Grigsby, Darcy Grimaldo. “Still Thinking about Olympia’s Maid”, The Art Bulletin (2015) Volume 97:4,430-451 https://doi.org/10.1080/00043079.2015.1014753. 26.Harris, Jonathan. The New Art History: A Critical Introduction. London: Routledge, 2001. 27.Imbert, Claude & Bontea, Adriana & Wiseman, Boris. “Manet, Effects of Black”, Paragraph (2011), Vol. 34, No. 2. 28.Jankovitz, Vikor de. Spoken Opinion from the Salon, (France, May 1865). 29.Jennings, Lawrence C. French Anti-Slavery: The movement for the Abolition of Slavery in France 1802-1848. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. 30.Jordan, Ellen. The Women's Movement and Women's Employment in Nineteenth Century Britain. London: Routledge, 1999. 31.Keener, Katherine “Musée d’Orsay temporarily renames Manet’s ‘Olympia’”, Art Critique (March 2019). Visited on 30/03/2019. 32.King, Ross. The Judgment of Paris: Manet, Meissonier and an Artistic Revolution. London: Chatto & Windus, 2006. 33.Laponte, Luciana. “Sexualidade, Artes Visuais e Poder: Pedagogias Visuais do Feminino”, Revista Estudos Feministas (2002) Year 10, 283-300. 38 34.Leader, Anne. “May 15, 1863: Paris’s Salon des Refusés Opens”, In Great Events from History: The 19th Century, 1801-1900 (2007) Vol 4, 1099-1101. 35.Lipton, Eunice. Alias Olympia: A Woman’s Search for Manet’s Notorious Model and Her Own Desire. New York: Cornell University Press, 1992. 36.Lipton, Eunice. “Manet: A Radicalized Female Imagery,” ArtForum (March 1975). 37.Lorentz, A. J. “Dernier Jour de L’Exposition de 1865”, Revue Galopante au Salon. (Paris, July 1865). 38.Mainardi, Patricia The End of The Salon: Art and the State in the Early Third Republic. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993. 39.Millett-Gallant, Ann. The Disabled Body in Contemporary Art. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. 40.Mitterand, Henri. Zola: Tome I. Sous le regard d’Olympia 1840-1871. Paris: Libraire Arthème Fayards,1999. 41.Nochlin, Linda. "Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?”, ArtNews (1971). 42.O’Grady, Lorraine, “Olympia’s Maid: Reclaiming Black Female Subjectivity”, Art, Activism, and Oppositionality: Essays from the Aftermage (New York: Routledge Press, 2003). 43.Pollock, Griselda & Parker, Rozsika. Old Mistresses: Women, Art, and Ideology. London: I.B. Tauris, 2013. 44.Pollock, Griselda. Vision and Difference: Femininity, feminism and history of art. London: Routledge, 1998 45.Ravenel, Jean-Louis. “De Salon 1865”, L’Epoque (Paris,June 1865). 46.Renwick Riddell, William. "Le Code Noir" The Journal of Negro History (1925) 10, No. 3, 321-29. 47.Rodrigues, Walace. “Analisando Obras de Artes Visuais Pela Via do PósColonialismo”, Revista Didática Sistêmica (2015), Vol. 17, No. 2, 58-69. 48.Smart, Alastair. “Manet: A tale of two cats”, The Telegraph (2013) https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/art-features/9826605/Manet-A-tale-of-twocats.html Visited in 17/04/2019. 49. Solomon-Godeau, Abigail. “The Legs of the Countess”, October 39 (1986) Vol. 39 65-108. 50.Steinberg, Leo. “Contemporary art and the plight of its public”, Harper’s Magazine (March 1962), 3-17. 39 51.Zola, Émile. Edouard Manet, Étude Biographique et critique. Paris: Bibliothèque Charpentier, 1893.