Scandale! Outrageant! Choquant!
The pivotal place of Édouard Manet's 1863 painting, "Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe" is a cornerstone of modern art, particularly in any academic History of Modern Art course. The painting's notorious scandal, which sparked both outrage and fascination, has captivated audiences and sparked the public's engagement in the emerging, new art of the 19th century. By examining the controversy surrounding "Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe," we gain insight into the transformative forces that defined Modern Art. The intersection of traditional representation and innovative techniques in Manet's pathfinding work still serves as a paradigmatic example of the seismic shifts that would come to characterize the movement.
At the heart of Édouard Manet's painting "Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe" lies a provocative figure, seated prominently in the foreground, whose unflinching gaze directly engages the viewer. This bold and unconventional depiction of a female subject, who returns the viewer's stare with an air of confidence and independence, was a radical departure from the traditional representations of women in art at the time. The subject's unwavering gaze challenges the viewer's assumption of superiority, inviting an uncomfortable confrontation with the onlooker's own position and agency. By doing so, Manet's composition raises fundamental questions about the dynamics of power, social hierarchy, and the role of the viewer in art. The female figure's unapologetic stare serves as a powerful subversion of the conventional norms of representation, one that would have significant implications for the development of Modern Art.
Manet's "Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe" presents a private, intimate scene, one that is rooted in the artist's personal relationships and artistic inspirations. The identities of the models who posed for Manet are well-documented: Victorine Meurent, a professional model and artist in her own right, is depicted in a state of undress, while the figures of Gustave Manet, the artist's brother, and Ferdinand Leenhoff, his brother-in-law and a Dutch sculptor, are recognizable in the background. The subtle gesture of Leenhoff's hand, with his index finger extended towards Victorine, adds a layer of nuance to the composition, while Victorine's distant gaze, seemingly oblivious to Leenhoff's attempt to engage her, serves as a masterful stroke of psychological insight. This enigmatic exchange between the figures, coupled with the viewer's implicit presence, creates a sense of dynamic tension, drawing the viewer into the private world of the painting and challenging the viewer's role as observer. By doing so, Manet blurs the boundaries between the public and private spheres, inviting the viewer to participate in the narrative of the painting.
The complex web of gazes and interactions in "Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe" is a testament to Manet's innovative approach to composition. Rather than posing his subjects together in a single sitting, Manet employed a technique known as "études séparées," where he created individual studies of each figure, which he then assembled into a cohesive whole. This method allowed him to experiment with different poses and interactions, ultimately resulting in a composition that is both dynamic and enigmatic. Manet's technical mastery of oil painting enabled him to seamlessly integrate these disparate elements, but in doing so, he may have compromised the naturalism of the scene. The pose of Victorine Meurent, for instance, appears to be more naturalistic than the contrived interactions between the other figures, suggesting that Manet's compositional ambitions may have overridden his attention to the subtleties of human behavior. This tension between technical innovation and artistic nuance is a hallmark of Manet's work, and "Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe" is a prime example of his willingness to push the boundaries of representation and composition.
The criticisms leveled against "Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe" extend beyond the initial shock of Victorine Meurent's nudity, and instead focus on the compositional elements that underpin the painting. While the Academy may have anticipated a public outcry over the depiction of a nude figure, it was the perceived incoherence of the composition that ultimately led to the painting's rejection. The Academy's decision was likely driven by a sense of formal disarray, as the disparate elements of the painting struggled to cohere into a unified whole. In fact, had the painting been accepted for public exhibition, it is likely that it would have been met with widespread criticism and outrage, not just for its depiction of nudity, but for its perceived artistic shortcomings. The Academy's rejection of "Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe" was, in part, a response to the painting's perceived failure to conform to traditional notions of artistic decorum and formal balance.
To the uninitiated, the controversy surrounding "Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe" may seem like an overreaction to a minor flaw in Manet's drawing abilities. However, the Academy's rejection of the painting was, in fact, a response to a more fundamental breach of artistic convention: the figure of Victorine Meurent's direct gaze at the viewer. This gesture, which would later be referred to as "breaking the fourth wall," is a theatrical convention that originated in the stage, where it is considered a faux pas for actors to address the audience directly. By incorporating this device into his painting, Manet challenged the traditional boundaries between the artwork and the viewer, creating a sense of intimacy and immediacy that was unprecedented in the art of his time. This bold innovation would go on to influence generations of artists, but it was initially met with resistance from the Academy, who saw it as a transgression of the established norms of representation.
The convention of "breaking the fourth wall" is a delicate balance between artistic expression and audience engagement. When an actor addresses the audience directly, they must do so in a way that enhances the overall narrative and does not detract from the story being told. In other words, when an actor breaks through the fourth wall, she risks diverting attention away from the play's progression and onto herself, thereby disrupting the audience's immersion in the story. This can be seen as unfair to the audience, which is expecting to be transported into the world of the play, as well as to the other actors on stage, who are attempting to convey their characters' emotions and actions in a believable and engaging manner. By breaking through the fourth wall, an actor is, in effect, seizing the spotlight and drawing attention away from the collective effort of the performance. In the context of "Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe," Manet's use of this device creates a sense of tension and intimacy, drawing the viewer into the world of the painting and challenging the traditional boundaries between the artwork and the viewer.
To illustrate the concept of "breaking the fourth wall" in a theatrical context, consider a scenario in which an audience member is invited to a performance, free of charge, in order to ensure a full house. In this case, the audience member is seated alongside other viewers, all of whom are expecting to be entertained by a cohesive and engaging performance. However, when the play's narrative is intentionally compromised by an actor who breaks through the fourth wall, addressing the audience directly and stating, "This is a farce," it can come across as an awkward and contrived attempt to excuse the play's shortcomings. This gesture can be seen as a meta-commentary, drawing attention to the artificial nature of the performance and disrupting the audience's suspension of disbelief. Furthermore, by subliminally implanting the suggesting that the play is “merely” a farce – and beneath his talents - the actor may inadvertently undermine the audience's ability to engage with the narrative on its own terms, reducing the performance to a self-aware, meta-theatrical exercise that prioritizes cleverness over coherence.
When Édouard Manet created "Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe," the concept of Fine Art as Liberal Art was still in its infancy. At the time, the art of painting was not yet considered a formal discipline, and its conventions and rules were not yet codified. However, as the art world began to evolve, artists such as Manet and his contemporaries began to recognize the parallels between painting and theater. Both art forms rely on a deep understanding of composition, narrative, and audience engagement, and both require a high degree of technical skill and creative vision. In fact, the theatrical tradition of breaking the fourth wall, which we discussed earlier, has its roots in the art of painting, where artists like Manet experimented with direct address and viewer engagement. It wasn't until much later that Fine Art began to be formally recognized as a Liberal Arts discipline, with the establishment of art history and studio art programs in colleges and universities. Today, Fine Art is an integral part of the Liberal Arts curriculum, and its study continues to be shaped by the intersections between art, theater, and performance.
Prior to the modern era, artists faced a significant challenge in securing commissions, as the decision-making process was often opaque and subjective. Even when artists demonstrated technical competence, it was unclear what factors contributed to the commission being awarded to one artist over another. This lack of transparency and the emphasis on subjective judgment meant that artists had to navigate a complex web of patronage, social connections, and artistic reputation in order to secure commissions. However, with the rise of the Liberal Arts model, which emphasizes critical thinking, creativity, and technical proficiency, the evaluation of artistic merit has become more formalized. In this context, critics of art - like reviewers of theater - are expected to demonstrate a high level of proficiency in mediating technical matters of art, including composition, form, and aesthetic values. This shift towards a more formalized evaluation of artistic merit has had a profound impact on the art world, enabling artists to be judged on their technical skills and artistic vision, rather than solely on their social connections or personal relationships.
Given the emerging understanding of painting as a liberal art, subject to formal rules and conventions, it is clear that Manet's decision to break the fourth wall in "Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe" was a deliberate artistic choice, rather than a naive mistake. By disregarding the established norms of representation, Manet was attempting to create a new kind of painting, one that would engage the viewer in a more direct and intimate way. While it is true that Manet's rejection by the Academy of Art may have contributed to his unconventional approach, it is also worth noting that he was an acknowledged amateur, operating outside of the traditional boundaries of the art world. As such, he was free to experiment and innovate, even if his work did not conform to the expectations of the Academy or the broader art establishment. In this sense, Manet's "fiasco" can be seen as a bold and innovative gesture, one that paved the way for future generations of artists to push the boundaries of representation and engage with the viewer in new and unexpected ways.