- Mary Hazel
- May 12, 2020
- 5 min read
Updated: May 12, 2020
These two artists are far different than a simple letter exchange. Monet is a member of Impressionism while Manet is the influencer of Impressionism.
(1st, Left) Le Déjeuner sur l'Herbe, Manet, 1863, Oil on Canvas, 208 x 264.5 cm (81.9 in × 104.1 in), Musée d'Orsay
(2nd, Right) Water Lilies and the Japanese Bridge, Monet, 1897-1899, Oil on Canvas, 89.7 x 90.5 cm (35.3 in x 35.6 in), Princeton University Art Museum
I completely understand where you're coming from. Prior to my studies in Art History, I had absolutely no idea who Manet was. I legitimately thought people were just mispronouncing Monet...I know it's embarrassing especially since I consider myself a beginner Art Historian.
But that doesn't answer the question...who is Manet if he's not Monet?
Claude Monet is one of the most famous French artists. His work is absolutely recognizable for his loose brushwork, intense focus on light, and his typically nature-infused subjects. Like the painting above, his palette is vibrant and almost pastel, realistic only in his handling of natural light and its effects on a subject's appearance. With the famous 1874 Exhibition of the Impressionists, this cemented his place within the "founding fathers" of Impressionism.
However, Édouard Manet was more like a grandfather of Impressionism and Modern Art. Though people regularly group him with the Impressionists, he was more of an influencer and mentor to the group; he never showed his work in their exhibitions or identified himself as such. His art style was a transitional period between realism and impressionism. My former art history professor crowned him as a true Independent artist, one outside any defined movements of his era.
Manet was born into a well-established Parisian family in 1832. Like most artists of this century, his parents disproved of his choice to pursue the arts. With both parents being a part of or related to the government in some way, shape, or form, Manet was expected to follow a similar route preferably in law. That, however, did not happen.
He was an average student and agreed to join the Merchant Marine, after failing the entrance exam to the Naval Academy, as a form of compromise with his father. On his return to Paris in 1850, he used the artworks created during this journey to prove to his parents that he had the natural talent and determination to become an artist. After a particular scandal regarding Manet knocking up the family's piano teacher, his father agreed to his artistic pursuits and shipped Manet off to Italy for training. This was only the beginning of his career.
Let's just say, he was pretty progressive in his time. He refused to follow the traditional route of attending school, aka the famous École des Beaux-Arts, and became a student in Thomas Couture's studio, a prominent academic painter. He would remain training with Couture for six more years before opening up his own studio with the painter, Albert de Balleroy. Though he found success in being a realism artist, he began to feel resentment for the antiquated art requirements and rebelled against the ever-controlling Salon. With friends like Degas, Courbet, and Baudelaire, I'm genuinely surprised this didn't happen sooner.
In an act of unassumed bravery, he released one of the most controversial paintings of 19th century France - Le Déjeuner sur l'Herbe. It showcased in the Salon des Refusés after being rejected by the official Salon and faced an outcry so strong, I'm sure it rivals our Twitter cancel culture.
Okay, so let's stare at this painting together. With our contemporary eyes, this seems like a pretty normal painting and definitely looks two centuries old. But, let's try to place ourselves in the shoes of the 1860s Parisians. During this time most people are used to seeing things like the works below.
(1st, Left) Romans during the Decadence, Thomas Couture, 1847, Oil on Canvas, 472 x 772 cm (184.8 x 303.6 in), Musée d'Orsay
(2nd, Right) Orientalist Interior: Nude in a Harem, Théodore Chassériau, 1850-1852, 46 x 38 cm (18.1 x 14.9 in), Private Collection
(1st, Left) Charity, François Bonvin, 1851, Oil on Canvas, Musee des Beaux-Arts Niort
(2nd, Right) Un Jour de Revue sous l’Empire, Hippolyte Bellangé, 1862, Oil on Canvas, 160.5 x 105 cm (63.18 x 41.34 in), Louvre Museum
And when you compare this stuff to Manet's painting, there is a stark difference in two things:
SUBJECT
Manet's painting showcases two women and two men. Both men are fully clothed, one woman is half-naked in a chemise, and the other woman is completely devoid of any type of clothing. Why was this such an issue if nude female subjects were typical in traditional artworks? This is because the subjects were real people.
If you look at the four works above, they either draw from a historical moment or a mythological allegory of sorts. Any person depicted was usually idealized to perfection, almost like how celebrities are photoshopped now. It was okay if a woman was depicted nude if she was simply representing a Greek goddess, like Titian's Venus of Urbino. It was make-believe, another sort of story-telling that was completely acceptable in the era of no moving pictures, high illiteracy rates, and codependence on oratory works. There was a disconnect from reality.
But Manet? Oh man, that is something. The people he chose to depict were completely recognizable and lacked any type of romantic history - these were fashionable, everyday Parisians that you could pick out on the street. They were unidealized, raw, and modern. What was even more jarring was the missing element of a strong narrative. We see the blue dress of the nude woman in the bottom left corner, the way the male figure on the right points inwards towards the center, and the woman in the back dipping her hand in the water. Yet there is no interaction with any of the figures. Nada. None of them are even making eye contact with each other. It is truly as if Manet walked in on a group that was picnicking and casually going skinny dipping.
ARTISTIC STYLE
What sent even more people into a tizzy is the lack of realistic shadows, loose brushstrokes, and improper spatial relations. I mean, sure, people in the past had taken some artistic liberties in their works (like Watteau with his gauzy coloring) but no one had the audacity to have large areas of flat paint or purposely incorrect figure sizing. If you look at the grass on the ground, the trees in the background, the woman in the water, and the prominent nude female in the foreground - everything lacks dimension and depth with an almost "outline" effect.
This was incredibly unusual for paintings of this time. Even if the work had a great number of figures, again like the ones above, it still feels like the artist adhered to the realms of realistic rendering in the way shadows are cast, light reflects, and how figures gradually sized down closer to the horizon. Back then, the way a painting was realistically developed showed a mastery of an artist. Manet intentionally challenged this notion.
Édouard Manet was an artistic genius. Despite the insults he received and the depressive state he gradually slid into because of such backlash, he still remained adamant about changing the ideals of the official Salon. He didn't want to get rid of the artistic body but to finally modernize its policies and definition of art. He is considered to be the first modern artist and went on to influence a massive revolution.
And that's art.
Sources
Manet, Le Déjeuner Sur L'herbe. Khan Academy . Khan Academy , 2017. https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/becoming-modern/avant-garde-france/realism/v/manet-le-d-jeuner-sur-l-herbe-luncheon-on-the-grass-1863.
Remer, Ashley E. “Édouard Manet Artist Overview and Analysis.” The Art Story. July 1, 2010. https://www.theartstory.org/artist/manet-edouard/.
The Biography.com Editors. “Edouard Manet Biography.” The Biography.com Website. April 12, 2019. https://www.biography.com/artist/edouard-manet.
Édouard Manet- Understanding Modern Art Part 2. Youtube. Arts Hole, 2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ta0ym9HEXwM.