Favorite artists - contribute!

[vison]

I wish I could see the paintings better, certainly a cheap monitor isn't the way to go. But the paintings by Whistler that "our" Whistler has posted are wonderful. Although I know nothing about Art I knew about the famous defamation trial, but through reading Ruskin, etc., not through an interest in Whistler.

As for the Manet. Well, where to begin? First, of course it is a wonderful painting, the artist's skill is displayed for all to see. But......so many things. The men, those lounging gentlemen, fully dressed. Sophisticated guys, obviously, since here they are in the woods drinking (absinthe?) and lolling about with naked women. But that's the thing, you see. If the men were naked too, I wouldn't hate the picture. If the women were dressed, I wouldn't hate the picture. If this was a painting of two naked lovers, making love in the woods, I'd love it.

But it's not. It's men who have bought a couple of prostitutes to take to the woods for an afternoon of drinking and sex. Oh, so sophisticated and wordly, and the artist, too, since he's there and he's recording it! Of course those women are prostitutes, they are not the lovers or wives of the men. Their wives or fiancees are at home, being proper women. And don't get me wrong, it's not BECAUSE those women are prostitutes, not at all! They are objects to the men, and objects to the viewer, but they aren't objects to me. They are women. They are women sitting naked with some smarmy young men who keep THEIR clothes on and by doing so, reduce the women to......things. But you will notice the women have their dignity intact and I'll bet that later that day, when they have been returned to their proper world, they will sit together and make fun of the "gents".

I don't know if it's fair of me to hate the picture because I hate the kind of men who would objectify women in that way, but it was my first reaction upon seeing it. And I haven't changed my mind, either.

Speaking of making love in the woods, a friend of mine once confided to me that she and her fella liked making love "a cappella". Is that sweet, or what? I never had the heart to set her straight. Besides, maybe she meant it.

[Primula Baggins]

But how can one get in the mood without the orchestral part?

Do you know, vison, I saw that painting first when I was a child, and so I never identified the women as prostitutes. I remember worrying that they must be cold, and wondering why on earth they had no clothes on—what if somebody came by? Even now, without that overlay of what was probably the reality, I can't hate the painting—everyone looks comfortable. And you can't look at a lot of "classical" paintings, even as a child, with starting to wonder why it's always the ladies' classical draperies that come unwound first and farthest when the wind blows or the birdies grab them.

[Whistler]

Vision, that Manet was considered offensive in its day for reasons not very different from yours.

Nudity was fine, and even (implied) sex was fine. But this was just plain tacky behavior from all involved. Whatever was going on, it was far from respectable!

[Primula Baggins]

I wonder if it was partly the frank gaze toward the viewer of the woman in the foreground. Classical nudes usually seemed to look down blushing or up toward Heaven.

And of course this is the same Manet who painted "Olympia":



Again, the frank gaze—she is at ease as she is. Scandalous!

(I remember these because of my "character" bug—I remember the people in paintings as if they are people I've seen, and I've never forgotten Olympia!)

[Whistler]

This early Whistler shows the sort of sexuality that, unlike in the Manet, was acceptable at the time. It’s below the surface, and the viewer can pretend it isn’t there, or at least that he didn’t notice it.

It’s a wharf scene, obviously. Yes, let’s call it that! Never mind the figures at the lower right. These include a bored prostitute, a sailor and a bearded man with whom the sailor is negotiating a price for the lady’s services.

Didn’t see all of that? Neither did I.

[Rodia]

The framing is odd, like a bad photograph (and you will tell me it was intentional I know:P) Had the sailor not leant forward, his face wouldn't even be in the picture.

The cat in Olympia rocks.

Actually, I would have made such an assumption about the scene- this is the first time I see this painting (o, ignorance!). We might look at it with a modern eye and think, three friends out for a drink at the docks. But I know this is not a modern scene and therefore I ask myself who they might be, because they're always 'somebody' in paintings.The woman is definitely not a humble one if she spends her time in such a place in such company, and even lets herself be painted in the setting, in such an unladylike pose...well, ladylike if she was in her bedroom but not in public...weren't models often prostitutes?


Don't shoot me, I don't know anything about art except what I make up myself.

[Whistler]

It's a strange picture, Rodia, obviously painted before Whistler had "invented" himself. The foreground is overworked and in bad condition; Whistler himself was clearly never happy with it.

You're right about the direct gaze, Prim. The women in both Manet paintings are saying, "Okay, I'm naked. Do you have a problem with that?"

Quite a question to ask, in those days!

[Rodia]

I'd have to see that foreground live to know. Seems fine to me through the screen, though I admit freely to having no painter's sense.

[Primula Baggins]

I agree about the framing—although the composition looks balanced, I can't tell which part of the painting we're "supposed" to pay more attention to.

And no, I did not get any of that subtext, Whistler, though I would have noticed that to me the woman looks, not bored, but on the verge of bolting (even though the man has her hand?). She's leaning away and grabbing the rail as I would to pull myself quickly up and out of that chair.

[yovargas]

How strange this discussions sounds to me! I don't think it had ever really occurred to me to think of these paintings of folks and really ponder them as people, as opposed to the aesthetic value of the composition. For vison to look at that painting and be annoyed at the men's treatment of the women - the thought would have never occurred to me! Even after reading that, I have a hard time thinking of it that way. In my eyes, they are not "women" they are "art"...whatever that means.

[vison]

The women in Manet's paintings are not ashamed of being naked. I like their direct gazes, as a matter of fact. As I said above, they have their own dignity. It is the men I despise. They THINK they are the superior beings here, they are "in control", they have the power, they bought these women, they can tell the women to take their clothes off, etc. There is something especially awful about the fact that there are TWO men, not one. They are sharing the women and the occasion, if you follow me. The women are just things, to be passed around like toys, even if the actual specifics of the occasion are unknowable, that's the feeling the picture evokes in me, that these women are so beneath meaning to the men that they are interchangeable.

But the women are above it. They aren't engaged, they are in another world, one those men can't enter and spoil.

So, now I have talked myself into almost liking the picture, but I still don't like the man who painted it that day. What I see in it, is that what he saw? Jeez. Hm. Maybe he did. Then I have to reconstruct myself and that's so tiring.

[Rodia]

Thinking is a dangerous pastime, vison!

[Whistler]

I'm posting this for vision and will say nothing about it (except that it's by Degas) until she sees it and tells us what she thinks.

[vison]

!

I just saw this. I'm on the way to the gassoons' hockey game, so can't comment at length.

The picture is awfully dark, although that may be only my monitor. I see a man leaning on a door and a woman facing away. She's either partly dressed or partly undressed and there is an open valise or portmanteau (you notice I don't say suitcase, eh?) and a chair and a bed.

I'll be back.

[Sassafras]

<waits patiently for vison's impression>

<sits on hands>

<restrains self>
.
.
.
.

[yovargas]

It's really dark on mine too. Can't tell what the person on the right is or what they're doing. It kinda looks like a boy to me, not a woman. Not sure...

[Sassafras]

She is a woman, yov.

I'd link you to a larger version of the painting. But the title would give it away.

Patience.

Once vison has posted her ideas ... Whistler will reveal all

... or I shall.

[Jnyusa]

I googled the title. Guessed right.

Jn

[Whistler]

I have no idea what you people are seeing! The picture looks just right to me, but I am using a Mac and Macs see color and contrast differently than other computers.

Ah, well: I may not be able to post until very late tomorrow, if at all, so I’ll go ahead and tell you what’s happening here. Vision so detested the men in the Manet that I thought I’d show her somebody much more deserving of contempt. I’m sure she will add some very interesting remarks.

I saw this picture in the Philadelphia Museum, where it was entitled “In the Bedroom.” But that is not its real title. It is really called “The Rape.”

The man on the right has assaulted the half-dressed woman, who turns away in loathing and humiliation. She has made an attempt to pack a bag and get away, but appears to have abandoned that attempt. The man leans back against the door, preventing her escape. His body is unnaturally stiff and erect, suggestive of his sexual condition. He reveals no compassion, no regret. His feet are planted firmly on the floor. He appears to be saying, “Don’t tell––and nothing worse will happen.”

What on earth was Degas thinking? I won’t venture a guess. I will only remark that (apart from those darned ballerinas) he hadn’t much use for women, and was probably impotent.

[yovargas]

Well now, painting a rape scene doesn't imply condoning a rape scene! Certainly many films have depicted a rape or rapists, but we don't take that to mean the films are saying that it's okay or that women are objects. Why should we feel differently a painting/painter?