Well, after having several children myself, I do like looking at other "beauties" in art history. The standards of art change completely in time. Are you familiar with Rubens and his "Rubenesque" nudes?
Posted on 05/25/2005 6:27:04 AM PDT by Republicanprofessor
Ping. ;o)
I am also wondering: do you see these works as pornographic? Why or why not? Pornography seems to be an issue in art nowadays. When did that start? What is pornography? (I have my definition....I want yours.)
Why do you say she is definitely a prostitute?
cool thread prof. I look forward to the rest of the lecture series. Thanks.
Well the figures on these ladies are definitely more in line with what this middle aged woman would call "realism", LOL!
For the first two for example, when I look at the top one from the corner of my eye, it looks more "realistic" than the second one from the corner of my eye. Similarly for the next set, with the "less realistic" of the pair looking "more realistic" at a glance.
I'm not sure why...
Because that's what "they" say in all the art texts. She is also looking at the viewer directly, as if saying how much she charges. She's got the flowers from an admirer (so she must be good). She also has a dulled expression on her face; is not modest; and has "a working class body" (or so "they" say).
Prostitution was up and coming in the latter part of the nineteenth century, the Victorian age. Sex in the marriage bed was for procreation only. Men went elsewhere for "fun." And women were said to be shocked by this painting, and others by Manet, which highlighted prostitution.
Interesting post. Certainly the paintings aren't pornographic (although like the Supreme Court I can't define pornography but know it when I see it). The depiction of the female nude has a long history in art, and so, for that matter, does the male nude. Does anyone consider Michelangelo's David porn? The very question is absurd.
THANK YOU, PROFESSOR! I'm tempted to frivolously define pornography as "I know it when I see it", but to be serious for a second these paintings are not pornographic because they do not arouse or titillate anyone other than adolescent boys (and let's face it, there's no hope for THOSE turkeys :^)). I'll read the rest of your kind submission later, I've got to get ready for work. Thank you again.
Well, after having several children myself, I do like looking at other "beauties" in art history. The standards of art change completely in time. Are you familiar with Rubens and his "Rubenesque" nudes?
The slip-on mules. "Ladies" did not wear those.
The jewelry is also not appropriate for a lady.
I do not know the story in France, but it was fashionable in a slightly earlier period in London for ladies of the demi-monde to have African servants.
But really, the direct gaze at the viewer is the giveaway. A jeune fille de bonne famille would blush, turn away, and hide her face.
Have to run out for a while...the last few pings on various art threads, you've made some points that I want to address...if I can find the time to freep!
And from the paintings, many seemed to be saying to themselves, "How many ways can I think of to paint nekkid women?" :o)
I'm just kidding. I strongly prefer the realism to abstract. I have no idea why. Maybe it's an indication of very linear thinking..."It doesn't look like...something. So I guess it's really...nothing." Of the painings herein, my favorite is Titian’s Venus. My favorite is still Edward Hopper.
Wow! Could you please add me to your ping list? I'm not sure my 13 year old homeschooler is ready for some of this, but I don't want to lose these threads.
THANK YOU!
I do not believe these are pornographic. There needs to be some kind of lewdness to it that I just don't see here. I know many Christian ladies who would consider this porn merely because of the nudity, but it's missing something... I guess I'm not so puritannical about art. :)
For me the acid test is watercolor, because it can't be worked over or corrected. What you see is what you get, and Homer is brilliant in the medium:
Hard to believe that last one IS a watercolor . . .
"Deconstructing Manet’s Olympia: Foucault has Nothing on Me, Bee-yotch”
Obviously, in comparison to earlier nudes, the use of a prostitute shows us all that we must be sexually liberated. Manet understood that you must do it in the street. And did you see how lovingly the other woman is looking at the woman on the divan? This indicates that Manet was well ahead of his time, and understood that one day gay marriage would replace Christianity, which is supported by the lack of any religious symbols in the painting. Of course, the other woman is African, so Manet could have been a racist, but definitely not a sexist or a homophobe, unlike the warmongering, Chimp Bush, who is all three.
How did I do?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.