Edouard Manet was ironically positioned to be at the height of his artistic expression just as the aesthetic impulses surrounding him were straining for something new. One may argue that Manet straddled the line between the last gasp of a fidelity to “Realism/Naturalism” and the excitement being generated by the emergence of a Modernist vision. Shortly before his death, Manet exclaimed in a letter to Antonin Proust (1880): “I am fated to be vilified, and I accept it philosophically…But after I am dead they will realize that I saw and thought with exactitude.” Some years later, Edgar Degas acknowledged: “He (Manet) was greater than we thought.” What are your thoughts/impressions of the body of work created by Manet within the context of his own suspicions (i.e., letter to Proust) and Degas’ observation?
Edouard Manet, The Ragpicker, 1865-69
Edouard Manet, Olympia, 1863
roberttracyphd
Thoughts on Art From Renaissance to 21st Century 
Impressionism isn’t my favorite type of art, so I have to say I like Manet’s earlier work. I wasn’t intrigued in the least with the themes of his later work although, I thought it was nice of him to paint a portrait Claude Monet and his wife Camille.
Sure, I agree Manet was unfairly criticized and minimalized by the French Salon. Degas was right. He was bigger than we thought, he painted beautifuly, he was one of the best ! Degas was another Titan that not only painted beautifuly but sculpted as well. Everything was amazing, they were all genius painters. He was a modernist impressionist that didnt go along with the French Academic Community and the Salon, but in the end they realized he was a great artist. The streets of France was overflowing with great art back then ,…it was beautyful. 🙂
I personally am a big fan of Manet’s work and am surprised that he felt and people weren’t ready for it during his time. Though the work is definitely different, its not far from the paintings being honored before him. Impressionism painting has always been up there as one of my favorites. Though Manet’s recognition came after his death, which I think is later then he deserved, its better then not coming at all.
While only being able to catch glimpses of his work and not yet getting a full background, I’m greatly drawn to Manet’s work. There’s something about the people he paints be it the color choices, texture of the paint strokes, or the shots which he framed themselves; there is something ironicly humorous about each setting. For example, the ragopicker is this incredibly dirty man whom appears homeless but don’t worry for he has his cane and top hat for special occasions. Or even Olympia, who dreams of being one of the same beautiful women painted ages before her but her care taker really needs her to approve the cross stitching. In his letter to Proust he paints exactly what he sees and how the world is changing.
Manet’s work was different than most other painters at the time. As Dr. Tracy had stated, Manet, as an artist, was caught between these two vastly different styles of art, the realistic style he had developed his craft in, and the new impressionistic/modernist style that appeared more abstract, on the opposite end of the spectrum. His art, in my opinion, was kind of crude; crude as in that it was not as refined and resolved as paintings from artists before. It is beauitful, but compared to the other “titan artists” of this time, Manet’s work did not have the resolve. That comparison, coupled with the pressure and people wanting the new impressionisitic/modernist style directed feelings towards Manet that eventually led him to feel that his work will always be criticized and never beloved until after his death.
And he was exactly right, because his art is now very much treasured, incomparable to any other artist because it is simply HIS own style and something no other artist can share. It is a shame that he could not experience the praise he receives now back when he was alive. Perhaps it would have invigorated him, and motivated him to combine both styles.
I feel that Manet went through the same struggle many artists go through in a time where styles are changing. Many forward thinkers may have given up on their own styles or made sacrifices in their visions in order to appease the masses. What the world needs though is artists such as Manet who refuse to give up their ideas and creative inclinations just to fit in with the crowd and make money/gain appreciation. The world needs people who don’t subscribe to popular ideals and pressures in order to advance.
I agree with the comment above about the color choice. I find the colors used for some of his other paintings attractive and different. It is true that Manet was ahead of his time, and he knew it. Manet realized that and knew that someday people would recognize his style. Yet, he did not shy away from what he wanted to do with his paintings, despite the criticisms. I find his works more appealing than some of the earlier realistic paintings, because they are different and more interesting to look at. He thought with “exactitude” like he said, but in his own style.
I see a lesson in all of this, particularly for those of us who are artists and are currently taking studio classes in which we have to have critiques. I can totally imagine Manet in an art class like ours during a critique, having his “Luncheon on the Grass” critiqued by a class for instance. I can already hear the teacher and the students criticizing areas that fall flat, or his inaccurate use of perspective, or his brush strokes, etc. etc. And how much of an ass would everyone feel like if they could look into the future and see that he’d be in their textbooks as a legend of sorts? It’s too easy to take criticism of your artwork personally, making you feel the need to conform to others’ ideals. Manet was very brave to continue his work without conforming, because he knew his work was great. I think we should do the same. Be cocky. Tell yourself you will be in textbooks one day after you’re dead, and don’t let the critics get to you, because all they offer are SUBJECTIVE OPINIONS. YOU are the one who determines the worth of your own work.
I’ve always felt that we are all one mind on different levels of consciousness. I feel that Manet recognized this difference in himself and those surrounding him. His acceptance of the misunderstanding shows just how much wisdom he had. Although criticized for his difference in style he continued to produce masterpieces.It’s the sacrifices and experiences of those that have already lived that we come to appreciate and look up to after they’ve left.
My thoughts on Manet are that he painted exactly of his time. His paintings led to the start of modernism. They were ordinary and focused on the modern people of society such as the working class. Today we can see it as a reminder or a feeling of realization based on his paintings impact. Manet’s paintings focused on the working class and what he saw. He painted not on imaginary but on reality. His paintings were exact in the way they portrayed what he saw. He was a great artist and his paintings led to a new era of modernism and later impressionism.
Manet’s achievement is mainly reflected in portraits, impressionistic light and color into the figure paintings, creating impressionistic style. Manet’s paintings have both traditional solid modeling and Impressionism bright, colorful; full of light and a sense of color. We can say that he is an important contextual painter. His works especially portraits, it is natural to reflect the character’s personality and psychological. He paint for what he sees and never give up the idea that he believe in. Manet’s style is unlike Monet or Renoir, their artistic style are different. Just in addition to Manet, other artist’s style and academic distance are greater; more landscape sketching and the color of the picture are more active. From a technique perspective, Manet and others style gap is more obvious, but this is not a conclusive reason to distinguish whether it is a style of painting. After all, the painting style of the definition of time and space and organizational relationships is the concept of ontology.
Personally I’m not a big fan of impressionist artworks. I think I prefer idealism to it. However, Manet did some great works that are still appreciated. May be his introduction of impressionism by initiating new content and changing the conventional elements presented a challenge in that time. Which is different from what they were used to. But I’m surprised that if they would appreciate his works after his death, why not earlier.
I just wanted to clarify something, as I’ve read all the comments and noticed a ton of of people referring to Manet’s work as Impressionist. Some of the comments clearly are not confusing Manet with Monet, but I things others might be. Manet and Monet are two different people! Monet was an Impressionist. Manet was a Realist who influenced future impressionists. Our textbook says, “”Not only was his work critical for the articulation of Realist principles, but his art also played an important role in the development of Impressionism in the 1870’s……[his] career bridged Realism and Impressionism.” So, I’m not saying anyone is wrong for calling him an impressionist, but we haven’t even gotten into that art movement in class yet, we have only talked about his Realist paintings. I think it’s important to note that he did both, rather than only call him an Impressionist painter.
Like we dicussed in class, he played a role of “bridge” between Realism/Naturalism and Moderism. Like every type of change or transition, event and or person who played that transition role will naturally be put under microscope to be openly studied and criticized. I feel that during his life time, he was under appreciated or given credit for what he was really doing. Going ahead of his time for the next generation of art.
Manet was one of the greatest artist who lived ever. Although the salon didn’t realize his great gift as an artist at first, he was accepted and considered as a talented artist later. His loose handling of paint, and his schematic rendering of volumes, led to areas of “flatness” in his paintings. This flatness may have suggested popular posters or the artifice of painting – as opposed to its realism. Now days, critics see this quality as the first example of “flatness” in modern art.
In viewing these paintings objectively, I believe Manet is able to portray realism through the emotions shown on the faces of his subjects. The facial expressions are what draw me to these works because, through them, you can infer what is occurring in each painting. Unlike the commenters before me, I am not a fan of the colors used by Manet. The background of The Ragpicker has a similar color to the ragpicker’s hat and coat, making it difficult to distinguish the borders of these objects. Similarly, in Olympia, it is difficult to see the black cat and the folds in the curtain due to the dark shade of green.
I agree with Manet’s self-comment on people won’t appreciate his work until years later. This happens to a lot of artist who push the boundaries and try different things. Most of their work is rarely accepted right away and seen as a failure for being different.
Stanley Kubrick for example, when “2001: A Space Odyssey” was released, people were leaving the theaters before the movie was even close to finishing. It took several more re-releases before the film started to catch people’s attention. Kubrick was ahead of his time, the movie started filming in 1965 and was released in 1968, one year before man had even landed on the moon, yet he created an amazing depiction of what the moon and exploring it would be like. Manet was the same with his paintings, nobody liked or understood his work because they weren’t ready for it yet. But when is anybody ever ready? Never, that’s why artistically you just have to create something and be proud of it, despite negativity, like Edouard Manet. That’s how barriers are broken.
It’s human nature for us to be negative and question what we don’t understand.
manet portraid life exactly as it was including the help in the picture of the women, Olympia. Not painting the image without her there and painting the piece exactly as he saw it. also in the picture of the old man, The Ragpicker, he didnt hide the ragity clothes he was wearing or the long white beard. Manet shows some trash in the forground. the facial expression on his face shows that he is kind of looking in disgust of another looking at him. he left no detail undocumented
Modern? I honestly do not think I would agree of him being a pioneer of the Modern draft. I think he if anything should be classified more as a post-classical artist. He did not follow the rules of Modern art, nor did he make him or should be thought of making him. I enjoy his art, but do not agree with the hype of him.
Manet displayed versatility as an artist by painting in different styles. I like that he used real people as his subjects and succeeded in making them intriguing. I especially like his work where the background space is indistinct, like “The Ragpicker” and “Dead Toreador.” This indistinct space combined with his use of color create even more intensity towards the subjects.
Even though he was criticized, his quote about him seeing and thinking with “exactitude” makes me believe that he enjoyed what he had created, no matter what other people said. I am very glad that these paintings were saved.
There are many people/ artists over the life of the human race that have had a hard time making it and they believed that its just not the right time for them, that their work is too early for the world. Most of them turn out to be wrong but Edouard Manet was one of the exceptions to that, his works did in fact become far greater after his time just as he said. I support this way of life, its not okay to give up on your own style just to go with the flow. The world is always changing and it is hard to time it right but one should always stick with their own style because one day it could be the painting everyone is talking about.
I honestly love Olympia by Manet. This is such a beautiful and greatly executed piece that I feel Manet got cheated out of his glory for how amazing of a painter he was. Manet was great for standing up for his life and not wanting to change it for anyone. It is unfortunate that his glory and wonderful masterpieces were recognized more after he passed. He was a very successful painter, in my opinion.
During my travels this summer I had the chance to see some of Manet’s paintings. The usage of his brush stroke expresses pure beauty. I agree with Manet, after his death; many took notice in his wonderful masterpieces; later defining them as “Realism”. It doesn’t shock me one bit how it takes somebody’s death to value their amazing talent!
Agreeing with Manet’s prognosis of his legacy, people tend to not really appreciate something new because they don’t understand what they are seeing. I would like to add he is quite an important figure to shifting away from realism however I still appreciate of how he compose realism and impressionism together which works effectively well. The artworks he create displays the quality of realistic expression with the elements of impressionism that gives off the feelings of the art itself from which viewers can capture. The context of his artworks evidently shows exposure of a new visible sensation in his image.
Unfortunately in the realm of art, innovation often goes unnoticed or even vilified as Manet claimed, until the artist is gone from this world and unable to acknowledge the praise they receive. As far as Manet goes, I don’t see the jump into innovation that people like Pollock very obviously took, though I appreciate the small steps that artists like Manet took to allow that brave leap forward.