Comparing Olympia And The Venus Of Urbino

Art History
Olympia, Manet

Manet’s Olympia 1865 caused quite a stir among the general public and art critics alike. T. J. Clark (OLYMPIA’S CHOICE (1984)) and Dolores Mitchell (MANET'S "OLYMPIA": IF LOOKS COULD KILL (1994)) explore the controversy. Both texts use comparison as a means to strengthen their analytical arguments and interpretations. Clark compares critical articles and common ideologies of the time and compares them not only to themselves but offers his contemporary opinions on some matters. Mitchell compares Olympia to a work that Manet chose to accompany her at the salon in 1865, Jesus Mocked by the Soldiers.

Mitchell clearly views the work as extremely enigmatic and spends time in sharing with us her attempts to de-code Manet’s

The iconography is essentially the same with a few changes. The nudes poses are very similar however Manet opts for orchids instead of roses, a cat for a dog and a black maid instead of a servant gathering dresses from a caesura way in the background. Titians work is filled with classical traditions, and oozes mythology. Academic art received a stamp of government approval and was not challenged by anyone as the formulaic nature of the whole process gave a sense of expected quality and satisfaction. There was never any point to look elsewhere for good art as the academy would always have the answer. Manet challenged this thought and consequently some of the classic traditions. The lack of shadow or definition, the colour of the body, the shape of the body. Manet rejected a clear articulation of space, thus confronting the perceived complexity of the two dimensional world. All of this challenged the rules of the period and work of Titian. The dirty hands and feet would draw attention to genitals and sexuality almost polar to what the Venus

Contained in a “comic fashion” signs of male desire. The hissing cat and the flowers from “Monsieur Arthur”. The gaze was there to address the viewer her consciousness of being looked at for sexual reasons. The nude could not be a nude without a means of giving access of the body to the viewer. This could be done like in Titians Venus of Urbino by a simple look; the eyes face and body on display to the viewer. A way a looking almost without looking. Although an outward gaze was not essential, we are offered one in Manet’s depiction of Olympia. “A pair of jet black eyes pupils, an asymmetry of the lids, a mouth with a curiously smudged and broken corner…” The look Olympia is not, unlike other nudes, particularly feminine. It is “blatant and particular, but is also unreadable, perhaps deliberately so”. I agree with Clark’s description of the intriguing expression. It is very difficult to find a suitable word that would accurately describe her engaging gaze. Is it one of pain, one of guilt? One of smugness or pride? It is almost impossible to tell and Manet may have done this purposefully to evoke multiple emotions, allow one to empathies with Olympia on some level, or as another way to hold up a mirror to Parisian society inviting them to observe their flaws. Clark suggests that emotions of aggression and compliance are gifted to the cat and the maid. This argument is closed with the idea