Реферат на тему Manet
Работа добавлена на сайт bukvasha.net: 2015-06-12Поможем написать учебную работу
Если у вас возникли сложности с курсовой, контрольной, дипломной, рефератом, отчетом по практике, научно-исследовательской и любой другой работой - мы готовы помочь.
Manet – Still Life Essay, Research Paper
Manet – Still Life
Essay submitted by mike dude
“Clarity, Condour, urbanity and virtous ability to handle paint-such are the qualities
which first strike us in Manet’s art”. A quote by John Richardson still life grapes and figs
1864 Frank Jay Gould collection. Cannes- “The dark rich tones of this painting carry in
them the strong popular Spanish influence the light hitting the fruit from the left
creates a startling and brilliant luminosity.” Said also by John Richardson
Before we attempt to anaylse the meaning of what’s within Edouard Manet’s work
entitled still life, Grapes and figs, one must first identify , and note, the somewhat
colorful events which occurred within the artist life, and note the way in which they
must have led his work.
Born in France in 1832, Manet was raised by his parents Auguste and Eugenie-Desiree a
society couple, who’s social standing resulted from Auguste’s successful career in the
Ministry of Justice , Paris. Indeed, so successful was Auguste in his chosen field that
upon his retirement he was awarded the Legion of Honor. It is thought by many that
the importance of Augustes role in both society and the ministry actually intimidated
the young Manet, who constantly aspired throughout his adult life, to gain the same
level of reverence as that which his father possessed.
Manet’s personal background to the analysis of the artists treatment of gender within
his work, is apparent to his paintings, they showed deeper side of the artist and what
“angle” he saw women.
However, it is the actions of the artists youth which many therapists believe is the key
to understanding the ambiguous portrayal of woman within his paintings throw out his
career. It was during the late 1850’s when Manet was serving as a naval cadet in Rio
de Janeiro, that he met a number of slave girls, Manet had openly admitted in letters to
his friends the extend to which he found their tropical beauty alluring. Yet, is was not
until Manet returned to France that he reveled the true extent of his relationships with
these girls, and confessed to the fact that he had been using his time to relate to the
girls in an adult way.
The answer lies in the artists life long ill-health, it was in fact Manet himself who first
diagnosed although now medically proven to be wrong that the physical pain from
which he suffered on a daily basis was the result of a syphilis virus contracted during
one of his aforementioned youthful encounters, a misconception which haunted the
artist throughout his life . Taking this point into consideration, you must therefore
consider the psychological effects that Manet’s own feelings of guilt and regret
concerning the cause of his illness, (And why he drew the grapes), and consider the
effects that it had upon his life and his work, and thus in turn the way in which those
feelings influenced his view of women as a whole, but particularly those of ill-repute.
It is even considered by some that Manet’s still grapes helped him in his final piece
composed almost in the form of his own life and as such, was a painting which assumed
the right to be so controversial in content that it pushed at the very boundaries of
conventionalism.
While some critics acknowledge that Manet had always wished to paint a Biblical scene
as an exercise of his talent, Like such paintings as The Waitress Serving Beer,
Departure of the Forlkstone, and the A Bar at the Foiles-Bergere the application of such
a stance that he made with the grapes and how they came to be one when they were
two different kinds of grapes, and therefore illuminates the work as nothing less than a
painting which exhibits complete defiance to all that was considered appropriate and
indeed, acceptable in the eyes of the Academy. This however, it can be argued was
Manets’ wish. By 1882, after years of constant rejection by the critical elite, Manet’s
frustration toward the Academy was at its peak, the very sense of having, (what he
considered) to be his best work dismissed so entirely, along with his self inflicted sense
of failure when comparing the achievements his own life when compared to his Fathers
success, drove Manet to paint a piece which acted not only as a final contemplation
for the Academy but also as a self analytical challenge to the viewing public. For, who
else but a dying man would have dared to question societies treatment of gender by
substituting people with the figure of a grape?
It is not until one has recognized the importance of the inter-personal influences behind
Manet’s painting that one can then truthfully analyze the painting itself. , would at
first, appear to be a simple group of fruit with inter-groups of themselves and working
relationship with the others however, the iconographic message that Manet was
attempting to convey through this painting can be identified as being far more complex
than a mere still painting. In fact, it would be a valid presumption, to identify that the
painting is in fact, centered around three things, as opposed to the apparent dozen.
It is the identification of this third integral character, that being the reflection of the
fruit by the light to the left of the viewer, which provides the key to the understanding
of Manet?s intentions. The very inclusion of this figure by the artist demands nothing
less from the viewer than a full analysis of the significance of the painting as a whole.
For example, the very fact that the third figure can rightfully claim its own identity is
not at first obviously apparent. It is not until the viewer is stood in front of the painting
for any length of qualitative time that the inconsistency between the physical
positioning of the actual one figure is formed, and its shadow, becomes apparent in
back of the pear, for the geographical positioning of the two figures is so contradictory
that there is no rational argument which could be upheld to associate the two figures
so that they maybe considered as one but as many.
After such a prime example of compositional artistry, one can again be detracted from
the very essence of Manet’s intentions in reference to his subject matter, by
concentrating merely on his application of pain rather than his theory. Manet has
clearly meant the viewer to use this identification of identify three main characters as
an initiation for the viewers continued analysis of the painting rather than the
acceptance of it as mere visual entertainment. Indeed Manet intend s that within this
scene the viewer should adopt himself, irrespective of his or her actual perspective of
color., into that of a masculine role when undertaking an evaluation of this work.
With such an assumption on the artist part concerning the level of the viewers ability
to see art would at first appear to determine that Manet painted this piece specifically
for pleasure and to test his intelligence, his exhibition of talent in terms of the
sensitivity with which he paints the contrast and tones of the central grapes, allows his
sociological observations to be accessed by the least discerning of art viewers. In this
with the still grapes, he paint a variety of life.
Manet’s formulation of this piece is expressed further by his granting to the audience of
a male persona, which is expressed through the positioning of the pear image so that it
reflects that of the viewers own thinking as it dominates and stands in front of the
grapes. The successful formulation of this painting by Manet was real upon societies
acceptance of its guilt, in terms of both the question of class, and the recognition of
the physical and emotional dominance of men over women. However, the questions
which Manet was attempting to raise through this painting appears increasingly
boundless as one continues to study the piece in depth, to the point that Manet
himself is represented within the image of one of the principle characters within the
scene.
The question of the true intellectual thinking behind Manet’s complex composition of
this painting, in terms of social and personal relevance, must be raised, as, for such a
emotive piece to have been conceived it would surely have to have been the work of a
great master painter, which to this day it is considered that Manet was not, therefore
one must then question the credibility of the application of modern day analysis to this
piece.
However, the clarity with which one can identify the deliberate questions concerning
gender which Manet raises within the painting compels one to defend the artist and to
thus consider that his genius has failed, to this day, to be recognized. One possible
reason or such a dismissal by society may be attributed to the negative repercussions
of the viewers psychological Set. A viewers set is determined by his preconceived
opinions concerning an artist or an artist work, which, in turn prevents an honest and
objective overview of the artist from ever actually being achieved. Not only does the
preconception surrounding the favouirability of the artist govern the extend to which he
will be accepted by the viewing public as a whole, but the social and ethical fashions of
the time will also have a substantial effect upon the way in which the viewer perceives
the piece.
Thus, when one considers the moral climate of Nineteenth century Europe (albeit,
hypocritical to modern sensibilities), one can identify that the controversial subject
matter that Manet has centered this piece around, and his questioning of the sexual
degradation that women were subject to as a result of male dominated fiance, would
have been controversial to the point were a contemporary audience would have
automatically dismissed it, choosing to believe that the artists lacked talent, rather
than recognizing his forethought.
However, it would appear that Manet had a heightened awareness of his viewers
psychology and was therefore able to ensure that he devised a composition which
would touch at the sensibilities of all of its viewers. For, although Manet may have
been ignorant of the viewers set ,in the terms that an artist today would refer to
clinical studies, Manet has clearly exhibited a high level of awareness concerning the
positive aspects of such a sensibility, that being the audiences power to empathize.
Since the first Greek tragedies, artists have been aware of the ability of the viewing
audience to associate him or her self with the plight of the characters displayed before
them, Manet too relied upon the viewers natural reaction to cast him or her self in the
role of the barmaid, for his painting to be understood, even the very title of the piece,
albeit a simple description, instantly transports the viewer into the scene, and initiates
the pre-conceived images that each viewer has concerning the setting for the piece.
Every aspect of Manet’s painting is identifiably engineered in such a way as to provoke
and confront the individual who stands before it. Not only is this painting an example of
a highly structured collation of social observations but is a piece which was intended to
identify the plight of those members of society who had fallen prey to the hypocritical
social injustices of contemporary society, Manet’s painting, although embracing the
social questions which were particularly relevant to Nineteenth century society, is , in
fact so successful in its provocation of audience response, that one could fairly identify
that the self analytical essence of the piece, has is in no way been diluted by the
passage of time, and still remains relevant some hundred years later.
The very compositional structure of the painting, that being that it is based upon the
continual reflection of different colors, and the momentary images of life that they
reflect, can be translated as being a metaphor, specifically designed by Manet, by
which he demanded that the somewhat cynical viewing public should invert their critical
snobbery and thus in turn start to question their own treatment of others.