The birth of modern art is probably one of the most important event in art history. There
was a clear break between representation and expression. The artist and his style became
much more important in the development of his art, no matter the art movement. It can
be kind of hard to pin point which painting or which event triggered modern art. One candidate
for that prestigious title is Déjeuner sur l’herbe by Edouard Manet, painted in 1863.
It could be the birth of modern art as it has strongly inspired modern artists such
as Claude Monet, whose painting, Impression Sunrise, will coin the term impressionism
11 years later. Monet also made his own Déjeuner sur l’herbe in 1866.
But, without the proper context, it’s hard to tell why this painting was so revolutionary.
First, let’s take a look at it.
It’s pretty simple. There are four individuals, two men and two women. Three of these individuals
are sitting down on the grass, while one of the women seems to be bathing in a creek.
At the bottom left of the painting, you see a still-life with food and one of the woman’s
clothing. The composition is pretty simple, being comprised of many different triangles
and it was actually inspired by a drawing by Raphael, engraved by Raimondi.
The painting was refused at the Paris Salon of 1863, but was shown at the Salon des Refusés,
which is where refused paintings were displayed. It was scandalous! Many people laughed at
it as it was judged for being poorly crafted and because it simply didn’t conform with
artistic norms. Let’s see how:
The Size: The painting is 208 x 265 cm, which makes it extremely large, especially for a
painting depicting this kind of subject. Large paintings were reserved for religious or historical
themes, not a trivial lunch in the woods. By representing this subject on a large canvas,
Manet is, in a way, undermining what usually gave epic scenes their interest.
The bather: Secondly, there is the bather in the back, who wouldn’t be problematic
if it wasn’t for the fact that she’s disproportionately large. So much so that it almost looks as
if she’s floating on top of the two men. The creek in the back seems to be quite far
and the small barque supports this illusion of depth, yet the woman is way too big, especially
when you compare her to the boat. Academically speaking, the proportions are wrong, unless
she’s a giant.
The disconnection: Thirdly, there’s an awkward separation all throughout this painting. There’s
a separation between men and women, men being darker and clothed while women are lighter
and less dressed. There’s also a weird disconnection between all the individuals. The bather in
the back is alone and seems focused on something in the water. The man on the right seems to
be talking to the man on the left, yet the man on the left is almost soullessly staring
in the distance. Finally, there’s the nude woman looking at us.
The nude: The nude is the last object of controversy and it has been for many reasons. To illustrate
that, let’s compare her to Alexandre Cabanel’s The Birth of Venus which was accepted at the
Paris Salon of 1863. First, just by looking at them, we can rapidly see many differences.
On the Manet’s nude, you can see the brushstrokes in the nudes face and all over her body, while
in Cabanel’s nude, the brushstrokes are delicately camouflaged, in conformity with
artistic norms.
The shadows are also very different. While in Cabanel’s nude you can see a three-dimensionality
resulting from the shadows, Manet’s nude is pretty flat almost as if she was lit by
a studio light. The nature of these nudes are also different. Venus is the roman goddess
of love and gods are often traditionally shown nude, but Manet’s nude isn’t a goddess,
she’s a normal contemporary woman who shouldn’t be seen nude. It was considered vulgar to
see a naked everyday woman, especially with her contemporary clothes on the ground, showing
that she could be dressed, but she decided not to.
Finally there’s the woman’s stare. We can’t really tell if her stare is defiant,
if it’s inviting us in the painting or if it’s confronting us, as if we were caught
observing a scene we shouldn’t be looking at. Either way, the nude is engaging with
the audience, which can be quite off-guarding. If we take a last look at Cabanel’s Venus,
we can see just how nudes were made for contemplation; nudes were meant to be looked at and to relish.
Manet’s nude is not an object in that sense, as she’s not there to be stared at, she’s
engaging with the audience, perhaps making them question on the nature of their intentions
when looking at female nudes.
Here’s Emile Zola’s take on the reaction of the public:
“This nude woman has scandalized the public, who see only her in the canvas. My God! What
indecency: a woman without the slightest covering between two clothed men! That has never been
seen. And this belief is a gross error, for in the Louvre there are more than fifty
paintings in which are found mixes of persons clothed and nude. But no one goes to the Louvre
to be scandalized. The crowd has kept itself moreover from judging Déjeuner sur l’herbe like
a veritable work of art should be judged; they see in it only some people who are having
a picnic, finishing bathing, and they believed that the artist had placed an obscene intent
in the disposition of the subject, while the artist had simply sought to obtain vibrant
oppositions and a straightforward audience.”
Whether the conservative reactions to this painting were called for or not, they definitely
contributed to a shift in art. Manet paved the path for Monet, Renoir, Degas, Pissaro
and many others, allowing them to revolutionize art in their own way and begin its leap into
modernity. The birth of modern art is probably one of the most important event in art history.
There was a clear break between representation and expression. The artist and his style became
much more important in the development of his art, no matter the art movement. It can
be kind of hard to pin point which painting or which event triggered modern art. One candidate
for that prestigious title is Déjeuner sur l’herbe by Edouard Manet, painted in 1863.
It could be the birth of modern art as it has strongly inspired modern artists such
as Claude Monet, whose painting, Impression Sunrise, will coin the term impressionism
11 years later. Monet also made his own Déjeuner sur l’herbe in 1866.
But, without the proper context, it’s hard to tell why this painting was so revolutionary.
First, let’s take a look at it.
It’s pretty simple. There are four individuals, two men and two women. Three of these individuals
are sitting down on the grass, while one of the women seems to be bathing in a creek.
At the bottom left of the painting, you see a still-life with food and one of the woman’s
clothing. The composition is pretty simple, being comprised of many different triangles
and it was actually inspired by a drawing by Raphael, engraved by Raimondi.
The painting was refused at the Paris Salon of 1863, but was shown at the Salon des Refusés,
which is where refused paintings were displayed. It was scandalous! Many people laughed at
it as it was judged for being poorly crafted and because it simply didn’t conform with
artistic norms. Let’s see how:
The Size: The painting is 208 x 265 cm, which makes it extremely large, especially for a
painting depicting this kind of subject. Large paintings were reserved for religious or historical
themes, not a trivial lunch in the woods. By representing this subject on a large canvas,
Manet is, in a way, undermining what usually gave epic scenes their interest.
The bather: Secondly, there is the bather in the back, who wouldn’t be problematic
if it wasn’t for the fact that she’s disproportionately large. So much so that it almost looks as
if she’s floating on top of the two men. The creek in the back seems to be quite far
and the small barque supports this illusion of depth, yet the woman is way too big, especially
when you compare her to the boat. Academically speaking, the proportions are wrong, unless
she’s a giant.
The disconnection: Thirdly, there’s an awkward separation all throughout this painting. There’s
a separation between men and women, men being darker and clothed while women are lighter
and less dressed. There’s also a weird disconnection between all the individuals. The bather in
the back is alone and seems focused on something in the water. The man on the right seems to
be talking to the man on the left, yet the man on the left is almost soullessly staring
in the distance. Finally, there’s the nude woman looking at us.
The nude: The nude is the last object of controversy and it has been for many reasons. To illustrate
that, let’s compare her to Alexandre Cabanel’s The Birth of Venus which was accepted at the
Paris Salon of 1863. First, just by looking at them, we can rapidly see many differences.
On the Manet’s nude, you can see the brushstrokes in the nudes face and all over her body, while
in Cabanel’s nude, the brushstrokes are delicately camouflaged, in conformity with
artistic norms.
The shadows are also very different. While in Cabanel’s nude you can see a three-dimensionality
resulting from the shadows, Manet’s nude is pretty flat almost as if she was lit by
a studio light. The nature of these nudes are also different. Venus is the roman goddess
of love and gods are often traditionally shown nude, but Manet’s nude isn’t a goddess,
she’s a normal contemporary woman who shouldn’t be seen nude. It was considered vulgar to
see a naked everyday woman, especially with her contemporary clothes on the ground, showing
that she could be dressed, but she decided not to.
Finally there’s the woman’s stare. We can’t really tell if her stare is defiant,
if it’s inviting us in the painting or if it’s confronting us, as if we were caught
observing a scene we shouldn’t be looking at. Either way, the nude is engaging with
the audience, which can be quite off-guarding. If we take a last look at Cabanel’s Venus,
we can see just how nudes were made for contemplation; nudes were meant to be looked at and to relish.
Manet’s nude is not an object in that sense, as she’s not there to be stared at, she’s
engaging with the audience, perhaps making them question on the nature of their intentions
when looking at female nudes.
Here’s Emile Zola’s take on the reaction of the public:
“This nude woman has scandalized the public, who see only her in the canvas. My God! What
indecency: a woman without the slightest covering between two clothed men! That has never been
seen. And this belief is a gross error, for in the Louvre there are more than fifty
paintings in which are found mixes of persons clothed and nude. But no one goes to the Louvre
to be scandalized. The crowd has kept itself moreover from judging Déjeuner sur l’herbe like
a veritable work of art should be judged; they see in it only some people who are having
a picnic, finishing bathing, and they believed that the artist had placed an obscene intent
in the disposition of the subject, while the artist had simply sought to obtain vibrant
oppositions and a straightforward audience.”
Whether the conservative reactions to this painting were called for or not, they definitely
contributed to a shift in art. Manet paved the path for Monet, Renoir, Degas, Pissaro
and many others, allowing them to revolutionize art in their own way and begin its leap into
modernity.