Manet's Last Painting And Marx's Alienation
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 бер 2020
- Édouard Manet and Karl Marx died the same year. One was a major influence in visual art, while the other completely revolutionized social sciences. In this video, we attempt to delve into these two great minds and find, through Édouard Manet's last painting, A Bar at the Folies-Bergère, a connection with one of Marx's key concepts: Alienation.
We're trying something new here! Let us know if you enjoyed it!
Support us on Patreon: / thecanvas
I think the woman in the reflection is the same that is looking at us. Same clothes, same skin and hair color, same red ear, even the flower right in front of her is in the reflection. I liked the interpretation, and I think that the fact that she is in the reflection goes even deeper on what you interpreted as worker's alienation. Maybe Manet was actually making a critique on the bourgeois through this woman. By having her being the only one with a clear image and a reflection, maybe his intent was to show how shallow the bourgeois world is, how flat and low resolution. And by making this worker the center of his painting he is actually saying that she is the only one in this event that is actually three-dimensional, that is real and a reflection.
Manet was sympathetic to the Paris Commune, and created political work that was banned till after his death: so your commentary is perfectly on point. I have been revisiting Courbet, Gericault, and Manet in the context of the Franco Prussian war/Napoleon III a bit lately, as I used to teach art history at University. Your insight here is an amazing find, and so insightful! Thank you for such a clear and wonderful presentation.
If someone can name a more underrated channel on UA-cam, I will fork over good money. The lack of appreciation for this scholarly content demonstrates that viewership and subscriber numbers have nothing to do with the quality of the videos.
as someone who doesn't live anywhere near museums, im so in love with your videos! thank you for this amazing channel
Volunteering at Food not Bombs has in my experience, been a complete reversal. Conciously making an impact on the world around and the people around me and it being reflected, its a truly wonderful thing and its why I go back every sunday
dont understand why this channel doesnt have more views!
Really enjoyed your video! Your passion is what keeps the new generations' love for art alive!!
Awww that's so sweet! Thank you!!
What makes art great is that by just seeing her, you just understand how she feels and can relate to that. How many of us just thought, “man, that clock is slow!”?
Thanks for making these videos.
Er... Didn't all women at the time wear corsets? I believe it was more of a social norm thing than a possible requirement from her boss that furthers her alienation.
Otherwise, awesome video! I think a lot of can relate to the message here, one's job and life isn't their's and they're slaving for someone but they're doing it to survive kind of thing :/
Yeah it was just standard underwear. Like bras today they served basically the same purpose.
No woman would be caught dead without a corset, especially out of the house, not to mention in a hot spot of nightlife, working or as a guest. There's a very widespread misconception that corsets of this era were uncomfortable. This is simply untrue and debunked by everyone whose studied corsetry and worn corsets from the era, or proper reproductions following Victorian corsetry patterns/manuals with the authentic materials. They were in fact very flexible, and once used to wearing one, being without one feels less supportive, especially if you have a larger bust, back issues etc. In fact all the gowns of this era are secured by the corset which takes the majority of the weight, which could be substantial in long frocks of heavier velvet, jaquard silk, brocade etc. There are layers of petticoats as well, all supported by the lower outward curved part of the corset. Also, a very thin cotton shift is commonly worn under the corset. No pinching on skin, less perspiration, imagine a regular bra over cotton batiste, it's more comfortable, flexy, but modern bras are pinchers.
It's modern corsets (that arent made by orthopedics) that are murderous to wear, restrictive, stiff.
Women in factories, carrying children, sporting they all wore corsets, to be able to wear the garments, for bust support etc.
What's not mentioned here is this girls identity and the fact she possibly made money after hours as many of the girls in the bar at Folies Bergère. She was apparently a favored bartender by the artist. He sees her not as a representative of the proletariat, (the audience all knew her from the scene too) nor a simplr "working girl" , but a whole person with an inner life, of reflection. Perhaps just a moment zoomed out here, as anyone who's working long hours in service, perhaps there's more, perhaps the gentleman/audience isn't buying a drink but her company after her shift is over? Or is he a suitor she momentarily dreams will one day liberate her from her dual jobs...? In that case this is also a projection, as he can't read her mind, only speculate, project, like everyone else does, but a bit differently than they. And that's what he's showing us with reflections, slightly shifted perspectives and offset objects?
Valid point, would this social practice not still be a form of alientation even if it was common amongst all women? Since the female is reduced to an object of desire by virtue of their social presentation. In order to participate in society the female would have to sacrifice an intimate part of their being by reducing their purpose to that of aesthetic object to be enjoyed by the male gaze. Maybe I'm just talking out my ass, I dunno.
@@gnarbeljo8980 That goes against the Feminist narrative that anything pre-1960s was a tool of savage oppression against women.
Wow great job! I would love to see more videos connecting art and philosophy. It is so interesting.
Art has many meanings so as Life itself. Analysis like this show the close distance between one and other (actually all the vids show this ❤).
The only diference here is a parallelism between a particulary Marx's Theory and the painting. ¡Which I really enjoyed watching!
It'd be interesting to see philosophical concepts through especific paintings as well as your own analysis/reserch from the paintings.
¡Keep on like that Uncle Canvas!
Awesome awesome work again. I must admit when I first saw the painting I assumed it was sadness, perhaps for a lost love she was showing, but your analysis rings so true to me. The disconnect from your work and even the people you serve in your work. Keep up the amazing work 🙌
Great video! As a bit of a philosophy nerd, I'd just like to say that the concept of alienation was first derived from Hegel (as far as I know) and his phenomenology. His work is quite dense and may need some periodical context (in the same way paintings may need periodical context), but is very, very interesting. From what I've read, Marx identified himself as a Young Hegelian in his early life and applied Hegel's alienation to economics which was explained pretty well in the video. If you have any interest in reading either, here are some interesting books: "The Phenomenology of Spirit" - Georg W.F. Hegel, "The Communist Manifesto" - Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Capital Vol. 1" - Karl Marx. I think it's fair to say these are some of the most important and popular works that founded communist thought, but some other authors you may find interesting are Rosa Luxemburg and Mikhail Bakunin :)
I thought this was very creative and enjoyed it. To maybe help understand Andres point of view more, I do feel as if this was more about explaining the concept of alienation, rather than an interpretation of it for a piece of art. I personally don't mind either as they both allow for differing types of content.
I always enjoy your reflections (no pun intended) on the art that you choose to discuss.
I believe your interpretation of the painting to be very thoughtful and I agree with your conclusion, however your information on corsetry is incorrect. Corsets were an undergarment, much like bras today, which women wore to provide support for the breasts and the back. Most corsets were made to the body measurements and were actually comfortable for everyday wear. The tiny waist look was a common illusion at the time made through the corset boning and various other shapewear like bustles. Corsets being uncomfortable to wear is a myth, if a corset is uncomfortable or even painful, then you're wearing it wrong.
Such an interesting painting i didn't know about this channel even a moth ago and wasn't interested in art at all but since I found this channel everything changed thanks for all the content and I always love a bit of philosophy with art
Holy shit this is my new favorite channel
What a great video!!
Wow. This video is a masterpiece. What an insight and capacity of sinthesizing a deep concept as well as a great analysis. (marx and the impressionists ❤) WE WANT MORE!
i can see where you coming from with the corset side commentary 🙂. just like shoes of that age, corsets have to be break in, and if you don't wear the one that is made to fit for you, of course you'd feel uncomfortable, and other deeper reasons. if you are interested, having collab with dress/sewing historians channel would be lovely! as they also periodically look at paintings for clues of the garment!
LOVE your videos.thank you,you are so good at this♡
That was such a cool idea to combine art and philosophy
Great breakdown
well done! love your comment at the end! keep going! from someone who refuses to be alienated! thus alienating myself from my sibs and many i know. they don't know what to make of me at all! ciao bambinos!
i'd like to draw attention to the woman highlighted in the background, as the bartender's gaze seems to be shifted less to us and more to the highlit subject in the background, creating a sense of yearning/envy in the bartender's eyes
Great analysis! I'd like to add to the aspect of her clothes. Since others have already pointed out that corsets actually weren't as restrictive as commonly assumed, I think other parts of her clothing also represent your argument. The woman is wearing an expensive dress as seen by the lace, which historically was a sign of wealth, and a big golden pendant on her necklace. Her entire outfit is specifically created by the employer to be beautiful as she probably wouldn't be able to afford it herself. All she is to the crowd in the mirror is decoration. And as clothes are interchangeable, so is she, any other woman could be the bartender.
Loved it! It would be great to see some 20th century blends of art and philosophy; Foucalt was a big fan of this. He even opens one of his earliest books, The Order of Things, with an analysis of a painting. If you want a more outside the box idea, there was Baudrillard, who became anti-art in his position, but artists would end up creating the neo-geo movement with influence from his works.
damn this was so touching. thank you for explaining this, now this painting is very melancholic to me. you are doing god's work
Loved it.
Hey. I know this video was a while ago. But I was scrolling through your (AMAZING) content.. and I was wondering if I could use the things you said here for my final exam in Philosophy? I’m working on Marx, alienation and Nietzsche.. and the things said in this video are simony I sanely well developed and written-!!
This guy was a genius ✨
Marx would have approved of your analysis wholeheartedly! Very convincing arguments!
This was a really interesting context to hear about Alienation as Marx saw it. I’ve definitely experienced that Alienation, though I certainly hadn’t connected it to that painting at all until you explained it
Dope video
Love the video except the corset part. If the work requirement was to tighten the corset to achieve the standard of beauty at that time, probably. But all corset at that time were customized/tailored so it was comfortable for the user.
Only rich women could afford custom made Corsetry. A barmaid certainly could not. She would have purchased a ready made one, as technological advances made them available at the end of the 19th century. And whilst not deadly, corseta did have a weakening impact on musculature, and especially around the back and the core muscles, as corsets did not allow them to work. Hopefully, the poor girl did not have to lift crates of bottles to fill the bar, and found a decent pair of supportive shoes to save her feet.
do you think women didnt work in the 18th and 19th centuries? they clearly did and they clearly wore corsets without a problem.
As a fashion history nerd, I have to strongly object to the corset thing. It seems to be very unlikely that a woman- of any standing, really- was required to wear a corset by her employer. Moat women wore corsets on a daily basis. Just like undergarments today, the corset functions essentially as a bra, while simultaneously helping to achieve the desired fashionable silhouette. Usually corsets were not restricting or uncomfortable, unless a woman wished to tightlace (which very few of them did). Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.
My thoughts exactly. Cheers to the fashion history to art history pipeline
grazie
Corsets are fascinating since, to me at least, they're not the hellish contraption men think they are. They're surprisingly very comfortable when worn correctly. Highly recommend Karolina Zebrowska's video "How Victorian Men Taught Us to Hate Corsets. Karolina has done many videos on fashion history and also how many times men controlled the narrative to ridicule women's fashion. It's all very interesting stuff
Interessant, Artists life is often destroyed , help true living one
Amazing video man! As an art lover and a Marxist I absolutely loved this
Female clothes historians in UA-cam have made videos dismissing the claim that corsets (as would’ve have been worn then) weren’t uncomfortable (or at least as uncomfortable as bras are today). Also I do believe the bartender is reflected in the mirror; the reflection is in an awkward position because when you focus on someone you don’t notice their reflection, and she’s the undoubtedly the focus of the painting. Finally, her expression doesn’t say to me that she wouldn’t care about her customers. She’s looking at us square in the eye. She’s looking at the customer.
The face you make after dealing with a difficult customer
Is it a reflected mirror image, or an image of a memory she is having?
Max Weber's work plays into this type of alienation albeit in a more religiously minded way
Excellent video. Thank you.
Corsets uncomfortable? I think Bernadette Banner would disagree...
Corsets were not uncomfortable
Excellent. The only think I might like to know is were any socialist ideas circulating in Paris when Manet painted this? Not that he deliberately set out to crystallise any such notions per se, but that there may well have been a groundswell of feeling. France has had several revolutions and is often seen as politically very active. Just wondering...
There was the Paris Commune in 1871 so that might have had an impact on the Impressionists. Also, since the Impressionists were influenced by Gustave Courbet and Realism in general--which can be seen as a left-wing art movement due to depictions of ordinary people, especially given the time period and the ideas that were circulating in Europe--we can assume that they had somewhat of an affiliation with socialism, thought it might be a little far fetched. I've always thought of Impressionism as a pretty apolitical movement. In fact, the Realist influence might have only come from Realism's reaction to Academicism and nothing more. Still there were artists in the Impressionist movement that were more politically engaged, namely Camille Pissaro who was an anarchist. Anyways, I hope this was helpful. :)
Much as I agree with Marx's comment on capitalism, I have to point out that most of what he says applies to pretty much every other system of labour, too. Throughout history most of us were in hock in some way to a powerful elite.
painting: *blue curtains*
art majors:
I don’t think it’s a mirror. She has her back to the crowd. that woman behind her is a different person.
It is quite obviously a mirror
don’t be so sure. @@maoistapessimista
My only issue with the video is the comments on corsets and corsetry. Corsets were not uncomfortable for the average wearer and they were standard underwear, even for the lowest level of working class women. The "uncomfortable corset" myth originates from a combination of male prejudice, a misunderstanding about how widespread tightlacing was (a primarily bourgeois/aristocratic practice, would not have even been practiced even by most middle-class women, who still had to do some housework and childcare), and how the survivability of historical garments effects the types of extant examples we have to look at today and on which our conceptions of those garments are primarily based. Historical costumers and those who like to wear historical clothing regularly will attest that a well-made, made-to-measure corset is comfortable and supportive.
For larger-breasted women, a corset may have even provided more comfort and support than a modern bra. Look at the difference on where the strain is placed - with a bra, the weight of the breasts must be supported by the back and shoulders, no front or side support. A corset or boned bodice would have provided 360 support, and most of the weight would have been evenly distributed throughout the core and even hips in some corset styles.
You also have to remember that until quite late in the industrial revolution, clothes were being made by women for women, usually by women for themselves and their families with only wealthy women being able to source externally-made. Boned bodices and then corsets were styles developed by women to suit their bodies, their needs, and the clothing fashions of a period; it would not have made sense for working class women to spend all that time /hand making/ them if they weren't comfortable to do manual labour in.
She is US...the viewers...she is standing in front of a mirror,all right...but the mirror hangs BEHIND the bar....the bar is formed as a horseshue, and the OTHER waitress, is facing the balcony with the spectators/ cosumers ,and the artists hanging from the ceiling🎉
Stop demonizing corsets, goshdarnit.
This mundane scene came alive through analysis from a Marxist perspective. Beautiful
Interesting. However, I don't think Manet's goal was to make a statement on capitalism or the tension between business owners and workers. The tension is clearly between the voluptuous bar tender and the dark gentleman whose face is inches away from her distracted gaze. He is not ordering a drink. She is not making one. They clearly know each other. The background reveals a stage show, not visible, in progress; perhaps a can-can routine. Viewers in the balcony are using opera glasses. People are drinking and being entertained. Not so the woman and the man staring into her eyes. He has not taken off his top hat; he is there explicitly to see her. Or is she simply wishing he would appear? - hence the off-to-the-side surreal reflection. Her curvacious body is the center of attention. Her cleavage, revealed by her low neckline, is carefully shielded by a corsage. So, yes, it's always interesting to do a Marxian analysis of a given social environment. But Marx can go only so far before his limitations come to light. This painting is a statement far more fundamental and far more easily understood than economic theory. It's the age-old tension of sexual attraction, albeit given a thoroughly bourgeois setting which cannot mask or suppress it. (A feminist interpretation is also worth considering. But that, too, is an analysis not explicitly suggested by the artist). The distortions of time and space evident in the reflections of the bottles and the two figures are overwhelmed by the dizzying background: the rear wall of the balcony consists of two huge mirrors (or paintings) that depict the scene outside on the streets. The balcony audience flows into or out of the theater through those 'windows'. The woman's distracted face is not alienated from society. It is alienated, temporarily, one hopes, from her man, who is out there somewhere.
I thought it was a painting of two bartenders back to back
I found the mini lesson on Marx interesting. If accurately portrayed it:
1) showed that almost everything it says about Alienation in capitalism is wrong.
2) Fails to demonstrate how any of the same points are different under communism.
Archie and Edith said it best "didn't need no welfare state, everybody pulled his weight"
or amnet was cross-eyed
You're videos are great, but your reflections on politics are left hand blinded, and they get old very quikly, it's a shame.
As an artist and architect, deep learner of economics, I dare to say that to relate a vague look to a forced theory of alienation and "class struggle" is super artificial and intellectually depressing. Its like, 15yo mental age. I thought these kind of thing when I was a child and my comprehension of the world was super shallow as this video. In fact, super alienated ppl, specially usarians, who have no idea about things like to point a single country in a map and can not differentiate a country from a city, they think this content is "cult". But be not misaken: this is just brainwashing from someone who is already brainwashed. And because I´m not a puppet, I do art, not repetition of crap like this video mindset.
I wasted a good minute reading all this crap.
I feel as if I have just watched video made by John Berger - that's not a compliment! If all you you can take from this painting is a political commentary about Marxism, what an intellectually impoverished way of looking at art. No mention of aesthetics or the wonderful visual poetry. Manet depicts the central figure with such compassion - of course he feels her boredom and separation from all that is around her. But in doing so he gives her a kind of serenity, even nobility. Then there is the way he has distorted the perspective of the reflection in such an interesting way. In fact there are so many more interesting ways of looking at this incredible painting. The comment about corsets is just ridiculous.