more Manet
Mar. 19th, 2006 05:59 pmI'm tellin' you, man, people freaking out about art isn't new.
THE JUDGMENT OF PARIS: The Revolutionary Decade That Gave the World Impressionism, By Ross King
Reviewed by Jonathon Keats in the Sunday, March 12, 2006 issue of the Washington Post; Page BW08
Oh, and another thing I never remember: Manet was only 33 when Olympia was exhibited. Holy crap.
I'm intrigued by the book, although I read Olympia: Paris in the Age of Manet a long time ago and that was pretty good. It goes into Haussmannization (sp? the guy who designed the streets of Paris as we know them today) and Napolean III. I should read that again. It's a book I managed to hold onto even though book buybacks could have gotten me $1.50 for it. That means it's got to be good.

Have I mentioned before that I love this painting? And Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe? And "The Bar at the Folier-Bergere"? It's not the technique, man, it's the fucking subject matter and the way he presents it. Manet and Duchamp, I'll say off the top of my head, are the artists who immediately just make my head cock to one side like a dog. There's so much shit going on--like, levels and levels.
Oh, by the way, Keats is wrong when later in the review he states that Olympia is at the Louvre: she's at the Musee D'Orsay.
THE JUDGMENT OF PARIS: The Revolutionary Decade That Gave the World Impressionism, By Ross King
Reviewed by Jonathon Keats in the Sunday, March 12, 2006 issue of the Washington Post; Page BW08
In The Judgment of Paris, Ross King describes "Olympia" as "easily the most notorious painting of the nineteenth century," placing it at the center of his fluent account of the years that ushered in the age of Impressionism. With the solid craftsmanship that characterized his previous two popular histories, Brunelleschi's Dome and Michelangelo and the Pope's Ceiling, King's new book impressively synthesizes research on the culture, politics and personalities of an era that was anything but uncomplicated.That's part of what makes people getting all squigy about art and how it mightily offends them is so frustrating to me. I don't care how many times I bring this up. Still pisses me off, and probably always will.
Contemporary responses to "Olympia" illustrate the contradictions of Paris on the verge of modernity. Critics called Manet's nude "grotesque" and "stupid," a "female gorilla" engaged in a lewd act that "cries out for examination by the inspectors of public health." And the populace? "Nothing can convey the visitors' initial astonishment, then their anger or fear," noted one journalist. When guards posted in front of the painting failed to control the daily hordes, the picture was elevated to the ceiling where, another reporter noted, "you scarcely knew whether you were looking at a parcel of nude flesh or a bundle of laundry."
Oh, and another thing I never remember: Manet was only 33 when Olympia was exhibited. Holy crap.
I'm intrigued by the book, although I read Olympia: Paris in the Age of Manet a long time ago and that was pretty good. It goes into Haussmannization (sp? the guy who designed the streets of Paris as we know them today) and Napolean III. I should read that again. It's a book I managed to hold onto even though book buybacks could have gotten me $1.50 for it. That means it's got to be good.

Have I mentioned before that I love this painting? And Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe? And "The Bar at the Folier-Bergere"? It's not the technique, man, it's the fucking subject matter and the way he presents it. Manet and Duchamp, I'll say off the top of my head, are the artists who immediately just make my head cock to one side like a dog. There's so much shit going on--like, levels and levels.
Oh, by the way, Keats is wrong when later in the review he states that Olympia is at the Louvre: she's at the Musee D'Orsay.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-20 12:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-20 12:45 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-20 03:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-20 03:39 am (UTC)