Patricia Mainardi Analysis

640 Words2 Pages

Patricia Mainardi’s Art and Politics of the Second Empire: The Universal Expositions of 1855 and 1867 and John House’s “Manet’s Maximilian: History Painting, Censorship, and Ambiguity” both explore the relationship between the Salon Jury and the political and personal implications behind its rejection of artistic works. As expounded on in the Mainardi article, the Jury selection for the year 1867 was especially harsh. However, 1867 was a particularly significant year for French artists to have their work on display, given that the eyes of the world would be on Paris due to the concurrent presence of the Universal Exposition. Mainardi’s article, in comparison to House’s, centers more on the ability (or often, inability) of the artists to display …show more content…

Mainardi conveys a sense of that, for the artists, notability exceeded legitimacy. Artists such as Manet, as the author puts it, were “determined to be seen…with or without official approval” (Mainardi 141). However, when denied a Salon des Refusés, the collaborative effort of the French artists to produce their own exhibition could not come to fruition without the financial backing of the government (137-38). House builds off of Mainardi’s article, but is quick to point out that works featured in the Salon des Refusés were stigmatized by their rejection from the official Salon — a point that would have been useful for Mainardi to address. Mainardi’s inclusion of the individual accounts of Courbet and Manet’s individual shows are helpful in gaining perspective on how the artist individually was inferior to larger institutional efforts manifest in the Exposition and the Salon. Moreover, Mainardi’s incorporation of the petitions and personal letters of the artists augment her argument by providing a firsthand account of the artist’s reactions and feelings towards their exclusion from the Salon, a personal touch that would have also supplemented House’s argument. On the other hand, the strength of the House article is in dissecting what potentially could have factored into the Jury’s rejection process by using Manet’s The Execution of Emperor Maximilian as an example. House elucidates on the historical background of Emperor Maximilian and the French’s disastrous attempt to counter U.S. expansionism through French intervention in Mexico, illustrating that images such as Manet’s Maximilian would have shed a negative light on the Bonapartist regime. The weakness of House’s argument, however, in its casting of censorship into separate spheres. He does not acknowledge that the Jury could indirectly serve as a formal censor

Open Document