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.
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.
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.
I understood that she is a prostitute...
The flowers, as you mentioned, the slave presenting them, wearing shoes in bed, the neclace...
I understood that she is a prostitute...
The flowers, as you mentioned, the slave presenting them, wearing shoes in bed, the neclace...
Also, notice in the second painting, the subject looking directly at the viewer...