Relationship of Manet with Modernism and Modernity

Taking one painting as a case study, explore the relationship of Manet with Modernism and Modernity.

Edouard Manet (1832 - 1883) is often cited as the father of Modernism - a concept that arose in the late stages of the 19th Century, in response changes in western thinking at the time, notably seen in the rise of the industrial revolution, the middle class and the shift from religion to scientific thought. Through this period of change, Manet's work evolved, which tends us to believe that his work was influenced heavily by societal change, which can to an extent be deduced from his controversial painting Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe. Modernity itself often lends the definition of a break from the past, and in a context of the arts in the time of Manet, can be interpreted as the "conflict between the Avant Garde (that is the new, experimental and unorthodox) and the reactionaries" , or the French Academy at the time, who more or less regulated what art was seen by the public, and set rigorous standards upon which art was created. It is this "Academic Art" that helps us define the Modernist qualities of Manet and helps us to see why the formal definition of Modernity is not so much of a break with the past, but an evolution of tradition , at least with painting.

Manet himself was an academic painter, having been taught at the French Academy. This characteristic leads to his "lifelong conviction that the Salon was the place to complete" , and this, I believe helps us to understand Greenburg's explanation of modernism. He states: "The essence of Modernism lies, as I see it, in the use of characteristic methods of a discipline itself, not in order to subvert it but in order to entrench it more firmly in its area of competence". In the context of Manet's work, we can draw on the fact that although he moved away from the techniques of the Academy, his long lasting affiliation with the academy represented that he was indeed using what he learnt and was growing on these techniques to expand painting beyond the limits of the historical and the technical, and brought it to the point that painting could be embraced as purely a creative act. This was seen primarily in his work through the flatness of the picture plane, his unorthodox subject matter, visible brush strokes and often unfinished quality of the painting. Evidence for the fact that Manet's work allowed for the growth of high art, and enhancing the quality of painting as an art form can simply be seen through the success of his paintings, and that it lead the way for a huge series of different art movements that represent "arts for art sake", or the visual experience. It is the creation of something visually pleasing using paint, as opposed to representing something that is already beautiful and copying this down in paint.

As the academic movement was lost in history, painting in the classical format, Manet began his transition into the contemporary world, which was fraught with great criticism at the time, which was seen in the response to his painting Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe (1863). This painting depicted challenging subject matter to the viewer at the time, where he was seen to take the figure of the nude and place this into a contemporary setting of the leisurely activity of a picnic. This was seen as a break from convention, where Manet painted what he felt5 as opposed to what was prescribed by the academy. He represented the shift in thought of artists in that they could push the limits of painting by looking outside the prescription of the old Master, by taking inspiration not only from history, or looking to the works of those before them, but by embracing the creativity that was painting in itself.

Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe itself was groundbreaking in the movement toward modern art. At the time that this was presented, academic art was what was seen, and what was followed. It was based mainly on fiction and mythology, with idealised figures and a sense of perfection. Compare this to Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe and we can see why it represents a change in perception of the art. It was so called absurdity6 of the nude in the company of two fully dressed men that was hard for the viewer to comprehend. But it is because of this absurdity that we are not entirely sure of what he is trying to convey, therefore the audience is called upon to complete the painting .The nude who was the focus of the painting