{"id":1158,"date":"2021-05-17T20:47:55","date_gmt":"2021-05-17T17:47:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mymanet.net\/?p=1158"},"modified":"2023-05-29T20:00:19","modified_gmt":"2023-05-29T17:00:19","slug":"manets-scheme-composition-in-social-space-p9","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mymanet.net\/home\/2021\/05\/17\/manets-scheme-composition-in-social-space-p9\/","title":{"rendered":"Manet’s Scheme: Composition in Social Space (P9)"},"content":{"rendered":"

Two essential features of composition in Manet\u2019s scheme – in MyManet<\/em> \u2013 are the figures\u2019 gazes and the setting of the puppet theatre, or:
\nthe relation between the social space of gazes and gestures<\/em> and the material space of the setting<\/em> on stage.
\nManet made deliberate choices on both features when he created Luncheon on the Grass<\/em>.
\nThis we understand better looking at two studies for the Luncheon<\/em>
\nand the X-ray visualizing Manet\u2019s first draft underlying the final version.<\/p>\n

In Figure 1, the four versions are compared, scaled to the same size, and supported by diagrams indicating perspectives:<\/p>\n

Figure 1:   Comparison of four versions of the Luncheon on the Grass<\/i><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

A – the final version of Luncheon on the Grass<\/em> 1863
\nB –  a later copy made by Manet himself dated between 1864-68
\nC –  a study in watercolour with pen and ink dated between 1863-65
\nD –  a print from an X-ray of the final version revealing a first draft<\/p>\n

All four versions are presented and discussed by Juliet Wilson-Bareau (1986, p. 37ff)
\n– including a comparison with the painting Pastoral Concert<\/em> by Titian and the etching by Raimondi after Raphael\u2019s Judgment of Paris<\/em> (see previous Post 8). Her X-ray analysis is a much acclaimed and quoted source in the discussion.<\/p>\n

Wilson-Bareau proposes that the study (C) was made from the final version, and that the copy (B) was probably made even later. She concedes, however, that the sequence is only hypothetical since the exact dating is unresolved.<\/p>\n

Her analysis demonstrates convincingly how Manet was experimenting with elements and their composition directly on the canvas<\/i><\/b> and even at a late stage (like inserting and deleting a little dog to the left of the nude).
\nShe concludes:
\n\u201cOne of Manet\u2019s major problems with the Luncheon <\/i>was evidently his difficulty in integrating the very solid, sculptural group into the original open and airy setting\u201d (p. 39; title adapted as Luncheon<\/i>).<\/p>\n

In view of MyManet<\/em>, I suggest a slightly different sequence and interpretation of his \u201cproblems\u201d.<\/p>\n

Two major changes are occurring between the draft in the X-ray (D) and the final version (A):<\/p>\n

–  On the left side,
\nin the X-ray an open view reaches from the foreground to the open landscape beyond the river,
\nwith grass and bushes in the foreground instead of the clothing of the nude in the final version.<\/p>\n

–  In the group,
\nthe gaze and position of the head of the man next to the nude is changed;
\nin the final version, he looks slightly upward into some undefined distance
\nrather than connecting with the other man as in the X-ray,
\nwhile his head \u2013 in relation to the nude\u2019s face – is a little moved upward and forward in (A)
\nplacing the three faces almost onto the same plane in the picture space.<\/p>\n

Looking at the final version, the X-ray, and the study C, it is remarkable that all three versions show the same \u201csolid, sculptural group\u201d. This is indicated by the identical white triangles connecting the faces and by the position of the background female in the diagram of perspectives.
\n\u201cSculptural\u201d may not be the appropriate term, since the triad is rather \u201cflat\u201d with the second woman set backward and too large in perspective. But I agree that the impression is rather \u201csolid\u201d; the formation of the four figures appears to be the same and clearly <\/i><\/b>predetermined in all three versions<\/b><\/em>, and rather independent from the landscape in the X-ray.<\/p>\n

Taking up the first change:
\nManet may have seen a \u201cproblem\u201d with the integration into the landscape, but he resolves this \u201cproblem\u201d in a rather unusual way by enhancing the difference between the landscape on left side and the solid group! <\/b><\/em><\/p>\n

He introduces the \u201csplit horizon\u201d from Pastoral Concert<\/em> (the two perspectives in the diagram) and accentuates the vertical divide (left red line) by dark bushes and trees above the nude\u2019s head.
\nThen, he keeps the \u201ctoo large\u201d woman pushing the background forward and the horizon upward and promotes the artificiality on the centre and right side \u2013 the \u201cstage\u201d.
\nHe paints the background rather indistinct as \u201ccoulisse\u201d and fits the triad into a middle ground with reduced depth. To maintain the balance under these conditions, he introduces in the foreground the elaborate \u201cstill life\u201d to the left and a dominant dark tree to the right.
\nAll this makes sense, when he is determined to preserve the formation of the group though violating a \u201cnatural\u201d perspective. <\/em>He is not<\/em> caring about integrating the group \u201cinto the original open and airy setting\u201d (see Wilson-Bareau above).
\nManet invents a programmatic scheme.<\/i><\/p>\n

Taking up the second change, the gaze of the man next to the nude:
\nThis change raises the question of the role and dating of the study (C).
\nWilson-Bareau suggests that the study is made after the fact, after completion of the final version. Her argument appears to be that the study reflects too closely the original to precede it.
\nPlaced before<\/em> the X-ray, the differences of the study with the X-ray become incomprehensible.
\nPlaced between<\/em> X-ray and final version, Wilson-Bareau apparently would expect more resemblance with the X-ray.
\nBut why would Manet do that kind of study<\/em> after the fact?
\nCertainly not<\/em> to prepare the later version (B) which is in many ways different again, as I will show below.<\/p>\n

An alternative interpretation is suggested in MyManet<\/em>.<\/p>\n

First, it is telling that the left side of the painting is not<\/em> explicated in the study. This side includes in the final version the attractive \u201cstill life\u201d. Why would this be neglected in the \u2013 admittedly, unfinished \u2013 study?
\nSecond, it seems that Manet wanted to clarify the formation of the group before changing the left side:<\/p>\n

The crucial change from the X-ray appears to be the face and head of the man next to the nude!<\/b><\/em><\/p>\n

For the direction of this gaze Manet has no example in either Pastoral Concert<\/em> or Judgement of Paris<\/em>. He has to decide where the man should look, and he is not satisfied with an internal communicating gaze to the other male or with an \u201cabsorbed\u201d gaze within the triad – as in the X-ray.
\nIf Judgement of Paris<\/em> is to be the model, then the gaze has to be directed toward the \u201cauthority\u201d or Big Other \u2013 the god Jupiter arriving from the sky.
\nThus seeing the study as an experiment for the gaze of the Third<\/em> \u2013 in terms of MyManet<\/em> \u2013 also underlines the importance that Manet attaches to this gaze<\/em>!
\nTo my knowledge, only Gisela Hopp (1968, p.23) has declared the gaze of the Third<\/em>, in connection with the gaze of the nude, a decisive centre of gravity in the design of the painting<\/b><\/em>, although she tries to derive this crucial role only in terms of internal design of areas, colours and perspectives.
\n(In her words: \u201cSein Blick ist erst der endg\u00fcltige Kernpunkt des Bildes, nicht zu l\u00f6sen von dem der Frau, aber auch f\u00fcr diesen Ausgangs- und Anziehungspunkt.\u201d)
\nMyManet<\/em> could not agree more!<\/p>\n

It is interesting or puzzling that the nude\u2019s gaze in the study (C) seems to follow the gaze of the man next to her \u2013 not gazing to the viewer! This is difficult to understand, if the study is made after<\/em> the final version, as Wilson-Bareau proposes.
\nRather, experimenting with her gaze<\/em> in conjunction with experimenting with his gaze<\/em> demonstrates what Manet is attempting: designing the interactive effects of the gazes in constituting a certain social and pictorial space<\/b>.
\n<\/em>When the nude is not <\/em>looking at the viewer, the interaction with the viewer is lost and the gaze of the man is not effective anymore either, because it loses its singular force.<\/p>\n

Finally, we have to consider the later copy (B).<\/p>\n

Wilson-Bareau offers a questionable interpretation \u2013 from the view of MyManet<\/em>.
\nShe perceives in the copy \u201ca more coherent, close-knit relationship between the foreground figures, while \u2026 improving the perspective view of the bather in the background\u201d (p.39).
\nIn my view, Manet appears to be testing after the fact and after receiving all kinds of harsh criticisms about his \u201cfailures\u201d, whether his programmatic scheme is successful in achieving what he wants to achieve.
\nHe revises all the major changes which account for the originality and modernity of Luncheon on the Grass<\/em>:<\/p>\n