Essay 6

During the time of Manet controversy appeared constantly. The same thing occurs today in society over different opinions and the blatant fact there are problems. What people of today fail to realize is that during the time of Manet art created just as much controversy as today’s publicized opinions and problems. However a lot of the time the people of the modern time look at the controversy from all those years ago and see it as no problem or see a completely different problem with it. This is exceedingly obvious in the art piece Luncheon on the grass by Manet, which features two women and to men. While this cries out equality in summarization it fails to notice the fact that the piece is actually the exact opposite. Upon first glance today’s feminists would see two men clothed and uninterested and two women unclothed or almost to the point of complete undress which shows the exact opposite of equality. However back then people didn’t see the equality as an issue, in fact it was probably one of the furthest things in their mind when they first laid eyes on the masterpiece. They noticed, however the state of undress in the image. Although the image isn’t one of a sexual encounter explicitly it does though imply that there was or is one about to occur. This does not sit well with the people of that day and age.

 

Upon first glance one would assume that the art piece is obviously a blatant statement about two men in the company of two questionably dressed women during their lunch. It’s obvious that the undress of one of the women would catch someone off guard it also most of the time goes unnoticed that there is far more past the obvious. Based on the little facts one could only begin to guess how this all comes together in a very ovular circle in consecutiveness. For one The Luncheon on the Grass was actually originally titled the Bath. It’s questionable at first but the glimpse at the women in the back who is bathing in the river makes it clear to the susceptible that that woman plays a key role in understanding this piece. Those who originally thought this give you a pat on the back. If that fact alone did not convince you the further evidence through art analysis should clear it all up. Another interesting fact or speculation is the involvement Manet had with this piece. I don’t mean the feeling he put into or the detail, although that is also very obvious, I mean the significance of the figures. The undressed women is in fact a portrait of one go Manet’s favorite models for his pieces. However that is pretty unsurprising. What is surprising is the fact that the woman is not the only recognizable figure. One of the male figures is the representation of Manet’s two brothers. The other male figure is of that of his brother in law.

 

While the facts play a specific role they do not compare to the visual aspect which only speaks volumes on the matter and secret meaning. At first the viewer’s know right away that the luncheon takes place at a darkish greasy type setting that one would typically eat a picnic at. The water in the background adds to the nature of the background while also playing a key role. Manet shows his involvement here by painting the background as not only one of a grassy setting but of one that he has known as it is associated with his childhood background. The next few aspects play a particular role in figuring out the exact controversy surrounding this piece. In the background there is a woman who is situated in away where the viewer cannot see her face but can clearly see she is partially dressed but also is bathing in the river. This automatically seems odd. But so is the actual reason why. As it turns out the women is bathing to get rid of the griminess and sweat one would work up after one rolls in the dirt for a while and built a lot of adrenaline while doing it. This activity takes more than one person though if you catch my drift.  Now you get it? Well that’s our first clue. What just might knock this one out of the ball park is the fact that the main woman in the foreground is completely in the nude. She isn’t naked as she isn’t in the act but one can already guess that it has already occurred. It isn’t hard to piece together how they are similar in this situation. But what is really unsettling is the way Manet paints the foreground woman. She doesn’t look down like the other women; in fact she does the exact opposite by looking right ahead at the viewer. This is Manet’s way of giving the viewers a way to inadvertently interact with the painting. It is however questionable as to whether the women staring at the viewer is either staring at the viewer in a ‘Come at me’ stare or with utter acceptance. Or whether she is proud as she stares above the viewer by sticking her nose in the air or if again she is accepting it by levelly gazing at the viewer.

 

Overall, much can be learned by the obvious fact and a lot more can be taught by just looking at the piece and looking deeper than one might at first glance. At first many would see a common theme that many artists during that time painted. The inequalities of women were easily recognizable as well. However when people today find out that that fact wasn’t the cause of the controversy they are more often than not shocked at why the piece created such strife. So much so that when Manet painted it and estimated the price to be about 25,000 francs and it took eight years to sell it for 2,600 francs. The truth behind it all seems easy after one finds the hidden meanings and statements. Bu then you put all the elements apart together it makes a masterpiece that causes destruction with people when they are put altogether where as it would be harmless separated.