just took my ap art history test yesterday! thank you for carrying me throughout this course smarthistory, i feel like i nailed it thanks to your articles and videos
It's nice to hear Dr. Zucker again. :) Kudos to Manet for including Laure in his work and I think Olympia looks beautiful, but a hater will find a cause for complaint every time, lol. I've seen a few videos on this piece, but have more respect for Manet this time around.
This is definitely one of my favorite paintings, not only for its symbolism but it’s technical skill as well. There is no doubt that Manet was an incredibly talented artist. I’d be curious to know more about this piece and it’s portrayal of femininity and racial identity! That’s probably not for this channel though
An important clarification I think I'd be worth looking into. From what I know, Cabanel's Venus was presented and exhibited at the Paris Salon of 1863, not 1875 as the video claims. Same year as Manet's Olympia. Cabanel was one of the most favoured artist by Lois Napoleon and responded to everything the Academy stood for. Reason why Manet's painting received such a blatant backlash. Thank you for all of your valuable material!
You are right, but we are also correct (if a bit misleading). The painting we show is of Cabanel's Venus, but is the smaller copy at The Met made originally for a New York collector after the Emperor had purchased the original. Thanks for the kind words.
Very interesting commentary about this 'scandalous' painting. The new scholarship on the servant is also fascinating. A couple of questions, though: * You state that the viewer, embodying the courtesan's 'client', has startled Olympia and the cat. If so, why didn't we also startle 'Laure', who is not staring at us but instead seems to be admiring Olympia? * In this video, the Black servant and the black cat are almost invisible because the background is also very dark; only the hand is obvious, almost as a cutout. In person, are the colors less similar and so they are more visible? (I note that the caricatures do include both the servant and the cat.)
In person Laure is visible, although I also see her fairly clearly in our photos. Here is one example: flic.kr/p/D9HngY Perhaps the flowers Laure has brought are from the visitor who handed them to her when she answered his (our) knock at the door and is thus not surprised that we have entered.
There's the field of interaction between sexual desire on the part of the customer and mercantile seller of wares, or more particularly a performance. But this painting takes it an important step farther. There is the other sentient being, looking back with equal intellect. It is that intellect looking back that is the shock the audience feels. While this is only a painting, it creates the recognition that this happens in our world that we live in. It is equivalent to theater, in which the dramatist removes the fourth wall. The actress stepping out of character. In her dressing room, during the intermission.
It looks like flash photography! 📸 almost... in it's flatness. (In 1845 100,000 Parisians had their pictures taken every year! It's possible that he took a picture and worked off of it.?. He would have at least been aware of the effect of a Flash on an image.)
The Olympia’s enigmatic, almost emotionless stare seems to have been a recurring theme for Manet. Like the Venus of Urbino, like many other allegories of sacred and profane love, “Olympia” uses a symbolic divided light / dark background (plus the added French Occult Revival touch of the black cat!). There the similarity ends; the look in her eyes is not the Urbino’s frank come-on stare. Instead, it’s the more vacant stare of his last work, of the Folies-Bergère barmaid, who is also a prostitute and casting the viewer rather uncomfortably in the role of john.
Such beautiful Paintings!! But in it's proposal to Modern painting, I react to Manet's Painting more as the PAINTING can be "felt" and not just looked upon. And the areas of the abdomen and breast areas gives it a kind of "less is more" sentiment that causes us to "see" more (or. imagine more...thus, heightening the voyeurismo) Though Interestingly, the captioning annotated the name Charles "Butler" for "Baudelaire" which is a bit concerning for those who are needing to read instead of hear the narration...just a disconcerting in observation
just took my ap art history test yesterday! thank you for carrying me throughout this course smarthistory, i feel like i nailed it thanks to your articles and videos
That is wonderful to hear. Thanks for being in touch.
wonderful analysis. lovely to hear more about Laure.
you guys are so incredible. thank you so much
Thanks for the kind words.
It's nice to hear Dr. Zucker again. :)
Kudos to Manet for including Laure in his work and I think Olympia looks beautiful, but a hater will find a cause for complaint every time, lol. I've seen a few videos on this piece, but have more respect for Manet this time around.
This is definitely one of my favorite paintings, not only for its symbolism but it’s technical skill as well. There is no doubt that Manet was an incredibly talented artist. I’d be curious to know more about this piece and it’s portrayal of femininity and racial identity! That’s probably not for this channel though
wish i could like this twice
An important clarification I think I'd be worth looking into. From what I know, Cabanel's Venus was presented and exhibited at the Paris Salon of 1863, not 1875 as the video claims. Same year as Manet's Olympia. Cabanel was one of the most favoured artist by Lois Napoleon and responded to everything the Academy stood for. Reason why Manet's painting received such a blatant backlash. Thank you for all of your valuable material!
You are right, but we are also correct (if a bit misleading). The painting we show is of Cabanel's Venus, but is the smaller copy at The Met made originally for a New York collector after the Emperor had purchased the original. Thanks for the kind words.
I was just talking about this art, then I get treated with this treat of a video only a few hours later.
Very interesting commentary about this 'scandalous' painting. The new scholarship on the servant is also fascinating. A couple of questions, though:
* You state that the viewer, embodying the courtesan's 'client', has startled Olympia and the cat. If so, why didn't we also startle 'Laure', who is not staring at us but instead seems to be admiring Olympia?
* In this video, the Black servant and the black cat are almost invisible because the background is also very dark; only the hand is obvious, almost as a cutout. In person, are the colors less similar and so they are more visible? (I note that the caricatures do include both the servant and the cat.)
In person Laure is visible, although I also see her fairly clearly in our photos. Here is one example: flic.kr/p/D9HngY Perhaps the flowers Laure has brought are from the visitor who handed them to her when she answered his (our) knock at the door and is thus not surprised that we have entered.
He had devoted this picture to his mother . His parents had watched an opera with the same name before he was born
Where did you get this from? Quite interesting to know
There's the field of interaction between sexual desire on the part of the customer and mercantile seller of wares, or more particularly a performance. But this painting takes it an important step farther. There is the other sentient being, looking back with equal intellect. It is that intellect looking back that is the shock the audience feels. While this is only a painting, it creates the recognition that this happens in our world that we live in. It is equivalent to theater, in which the dramatist removes the fourth wall. The actress stepping out of character. In her dressing room, during the intermission.
It looks like flash photography! 📸 almost... in it's flatness. (In 1845 100,000 Parisians had their pictures taken every year! It's possible that he took a picture and worked off of it.?. He would have at least been aware of the effect of a Flash on an image.)
nice
Bonne programmation j
The Olympia’s enigmatic, almost emotionless stare seems to have been a recurring theme for Manet. Like the Venus of Urbino, like many other allegories of sacred and profane love, “Olympia” uses a symbolic divided light / dark background (plus the added French Occult Revival touch of the black cat!). There the similarity ends; the look in her eyes is not the Urbino’s frank come-on stare. Instead, it’s the more vacant stare of his last work, of the Folies-Bergère barmaid, who is also a prostitute and casting the viewer rather uncomfortably in the role of john.
Such beautiful Paintings!! But in it's proposal to Modern painting, I react to Manet's Painting more as the PAINTING can be "felt" and not just looked upon. And the areas of the abdomen and breast areas gives it a kind of "less is more" sentiment that causes us to "see" more (or. imagine more...thus, heightening the voyeurismo)
Though Interestingly, the captioning annotated the name Charles "Butler" for "Baudelaire" which is a bit concerning for those who are needing to read instead of hear the narration...just a disconcerting in observation
Please do L'Odalisque au Guépard by Jacqueline Marval ! :)
Wii wii
lol that poor cat.He and her servant look somewhat disturbed by her means to make that bread lol
More like therapy than anything else.
Google Translated