\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/mymanet.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/Christ-2-paintings-300x181.jpg\")
<\/p>\nManet was a republican and not particularly religious. As a realist, he rejected the Romantic, mystic, and religious themes of the past and preferred subjects of contemporary life.
\nStill, he painted two major works portraying Jesus Christ.
\nWhy?<\/p>\n
Art historians are somewhat puzzled by this fact. One usual explanation is that Manet wanted to preserve art traditions, although in a distinctly modern way (Rubin 2010, p.99). Another explanation points out that Manet at this stage was still searching for his own style and theme, and tried all traditions including religious themes<\/p>\n
Figure 1:\u00a0 Manet painting Christ
\n<\/p>\n
At the time, an influential book by Ernest Renan (La Vie de Jesus<\/em> 1863) described the life of Christ realistically from a scientific, historian perspective. It is generally assumed that Manet wanted to demonstrate that he could transpose not only the nude (Luncheon on the Grass<\/em>) but also depictions of Christ into modern times.<\/p>\n Typically, art historians do not like the two paintings of Christ, Dead Christ with Angels<\/em> (1864) and Christ Mocked by the Soldiers<\/em> (1865). This holds for critics at the time as well as more recent evaluations. The most favourable remarks tend to point out that Manet counterbalanced his more contemporary themes with a religious work to appease the jury of the Salon exhibition. He submitted\u00a0Incident in the Bull Ring<\/em> (later cut-up by Manet) with Dead Christ with Angels<\/em> in 1864 and Olympia<\/em> with Christ Mocked by the Soldiers<\/em> in 1865. Again, why did Manet paint them, and in the way he did?<\/p>\n Part of the explanation is given by the motivations above. Especially for Christ Mocked, I see also another motivation, namely, to experiment with his newly developed scheme!<\/em> The formal scheme allows not only for adaptations according to the theme at hand. The \u201cTrick\u201d is to change the positions of the main actors on the \u201cstage\u201d and \u201cfill in\u201d the social space created with some suitable scene and corresponding roles. Especially intriguing is the option to place the First<\/em> \u2013 looking at the viewer \u2013 in the background and moving the Third<\/em> \u2013 looking at the \u201cauthority\u201d \u2013 to the front. This happens in Christ Mocked<\/em>, therefore, we will look at this painting first, although Manet painted Dead Christ with Angels<\/em> a year earlier.<\/p>\n Hanson points out that Christ Mocked<\/em> has a number of sources, the most often cited is by Titian The Crowning with Thorns <\/em>(1543) in the Louvre museum. Her discussion prompted me to search myself a little bit, and I found a painting by L\u00e9on Benouville The Mockery of Christ<\/em> (1845). The painting won the Grand Prix d\u2019Rome and is exhibited in the \u00c9cole des Beaux-Arts, Paris. Although I cannot confirm it, it seems that Manet should have known it. The painting won an award and it represents exactly the tradition of the Academy which he opposed.<\/p>\n Figure 2: Two sources of Christ Mocked by Soldiers We know that Manet liked to \u201ccopy\u201d other sources, we saw this practice already in Luncheon on the Grass<\/em>. Titian shows us a scene which is characterized by the violent dynamics of the crowning with thorns. Figure 3: Application of Manet\u2019s scheme to In Figure 3, the two paintings are displayed with some additions:<\/p>\n – For Manet\u2019s version, I have added a diagram with a variation of his scheme. Perhaps the most surprising detail is the face of the soldier facing the viewer. It seems that Manet has portrayed the same soldier with the same beard, just in a different mood. But let us have a closer look at the diagram analysing Manet\u2019s Christ Mocked<\/em>.<\/p>\n In view of My Manet<\/em>, Manet has applied his principles to the painting of Benouville (and Titian):<\/p>\n The scene is transposed into the presence \u2013 at least, the costumes of the soldiers avoid clear reference to the past and could be selected from any theatre fundus at the time. The number of persons is reduced to the essential figures in the scheme, with the exception of the kneeling soldier to the left. The triad \u2013 First<\/em>, Second<\/em>, and Third<\/em> \u2013 is placed in a very narrow or \u201cflat\u201d pictorial space, as in Luncheon on the Grass<\/em>. The engaging First<\/em> is now positioned to the back, as is the Second<\/em> looking from the left.<\/p>\n The interaction is, again, somehow arrested emphasizing the structure of the relations and leaving the question open how the interaction will resume. A variation of the scheme is apparent in the position and role of the \u201cOther<\/em>\u201d. Remarkable is, moreover, the foreground. Seeing Christ Mocked by the Soldiers<\/i> in the perspective of MyManet<\/i> demonstrates that Manet is developing his formal scheme further. This is the multi-figure painting following Luncheon on the Grass only a year or two later. However, And, Yes, I still owe you a post on Olympia <\/i>(1965), the other great scandal of Manet\u2019s breakthrough. See You next week!<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Manet’s paintings of Christ as explorations of his compositional scheme<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":199326225,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"nf_dc_page":"","_crdt_document":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[156853,225364],"tags":[16691583,429903348,156853,20542721,989418],"class_list":["post-1521","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-diagram","category-manet","tag-christ-mocked","tag-dead-christ-with-angels","tag-diagram","tag-leon-benouville","tag-titian"],"yoast_head":"\n
\nSome find them horrible (Wollheim), see them as his most eclectic works (Hamilton), and books about Manet usually pay little attention to them \u2013 if at all.
\nRubin offers an illuminating view on Dead Christ<\/i> (we return to it later), but, curiously, fails to discuss Christ Mocked <\/i>although showing the picture.
\nThe paintings are considered \u201chistory paintings\u201d (Krell; Hanson), and it is quickly added that Manet painted no more works of that genre afterwards.<\/p>\n
\nThe strategy did not work – the critics liked the Christs even less.
\nI must admit that they escaped my attention, too \u2013 until MyManet<\/em>.<\/p>\n
\nHanson (1977) has taken a more favourable view on the two paintings:
\n\u201cManet has attempted to make a universal image for all time, any time, all people and all places which has to do with human feelings on a level shared by saints and heroes with most ordinary men (p. 110).\u201d<\/p>\n
\nAlthough, both paintings are not obvious applications of the scheme.
\nIn view of My Manet<\/em>, they are experiments with the scheme, and Luncheon on the Grass<\/em> is, in turn, one of its possible variations.
\nThis needs some explanation.<\/p>\n
\nIt can also be used to systematically generate new compositions. <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n
\nFor instance, each of the three members of the triad could occupy the central position, while the others take up supporting roles. And the variation may include the position and role of \u201cthe Other\u201d and \u201cabsorbed\u201d figures. Obviously, Manet is not rigidly applying a scheme. But My Manet<\/em> assumes that the scheme is influencing the way he envisions and composes chosen themes.<\/p>\n
\nOther options are available, but when you are set to paint a Christ, what is more convincing than placing Christ (as Third<\/em>) front and centre turning his gaze up to his Father (the “authority”)?<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/mymanet.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/Christ-2-Mocked-300x206.jpg\")
\nInterestingly, the two paintings suggest that Benouville was also inspired by Titian. The figures moving in on Christ from left and right, the elevation of the stairs, and the composition of the background appear to be quite similar. The gaze of Christ, however, varies:
\nBenouville chooses the gaze at the viewer,
\nTitian diverts the gaze to the side, and
\nManet lets Christ gaze upward and beyond the scene.<\/p>\n
\nIf Manet used these paintings as a reference, then, we also should assume that he deliberately decided to direct the gazes in his version of the scene \u2013 as he did in the case of Luncheon<\/em>. In fact, Manet painted a head of Christ in the same year with the gaze turned down \u2013 experimenting with a fourth, \u201cabsorbed\u201d option!<\/p>\n
\nThe viewer is expected to be moved in empathy with the pain of Christ, but the viewer is not directly engaged.
\nTherefore, we focus on the comparison of Manet and Benouville.<\/p>\n
\nChrist Mocked by Soldiers<\/em> and Benouville The Mockery of Christ<\/em><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/mymanet.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/Christ-Mocked-Manet-Benouville-300x297.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
\n– For Benouville, I took the liberty to mirror the painting, to shade off some of the soldiers, and to copy Christ\u2019s head from Manet into the painting.
\nI think the correspondence between the paintings is striking.<\/p>\n
\nThe soldier kneeling before Christ could also be the same person (\u2013 at least, they could be visiting the same barbershop).
\nThe third soldier turns his head in the same way toward Christ, only in Manet\u2019s version he borrowed the helmet from the (shaded) soldier sitting on the stairs.
\nThe correspondences with Benouville\u2019s version support the view that Manet is creatively applying the composition of Luncheon on the Grass<\/em>!<\/p>\n
\nCritics have pointed out that the whole setting reminds of a stage rather than a biblical scene of the past.<\/p>\n
\nManet wanted this additional figure, probably, for the same reason as Benouville, namely, to lead the viewer\u2019s gaze to the face of Christ. Since Benouville\u2019s Christ is staring out toward the viewer, one may question the need for this onlooking figure in his case.
\nIn Manet\u2019s version, we are reminded of the onlooking figure in Velazquez\u2019 The Drinkers<\/em> (Post 4) \u2013 and Manet can always be expected to make some reference to the Master.<\/p>\n
\nThe effect is that the viewers attention is drawn to the vulnerability of Christ, and not to the ongoing aggression and mockery by the soldiers.<\/p>\n
\nIt is interesting that Benouville does, in fact, include onlookers from the back (green ellipse). Even in Titian we might see this role taken by the sculptured head in the background.
\nManet, apparently, decided that shutting off the background with a black \u201ccoulisse\u201d will add more to the expression of vulnerability, placing Christ in the spotlight on a dark stage, as it were.
\nWe may also assume that the dominance of the unrepresented \u201cBig Other<\/em>\u201d, God Father, induced Manet to leave out the \u201cOther<\/em>\u201d and have the black screen suggest the \u201cOther<\/em>\u201d behind the scene.<\/i>
\nAdditionally, the First<\/em> looking from the back would compete with the \u201cOther\u201d. So, Manet rather chose to accentuate the gaze of the First<\/em> by creating a diagonal toward him. The gaze of the kneeling soldier is directed to Christ but also beyond to the First<\/em>. The kneeling soldier doubles, in a way, as onlooker and the \u201cOther<\/em>\u201d looking from a different perspective on the scene.<\/p>\n
\nTypically, Manet inserts a little \u201cstill life\u201d (indicated in the diagram by our lemon icon). The rope and the arrow on the right side are balancing the foot of the kneeling soldier, both reaching out into the viewer\u2019s space.
\nIn the middle, we are confronted with those over sized feet which create the impression of a close-up attracting and repelling the viewer at the same time, shortening the distance to this vulnerable body.
\nI wonder if Manet is having some insider fun with these feet. Titian shows Christ with powerful legs fighting the crowning, while Benouville has Christ\u2019s feet feebly peeking out underneath the robe \u2013 and then adds the soldier\u2019s feet occupying the immediate foreground (Figure 3).
\nIt must have been tempting to make a caricature of those extremities.<\/p>\n
\nIt is the last time that Manet choses a religious theme, and it is also ending the early period strongly under the influence of the Old Masters.
\nBut it is not the last painting experimenting with the scheme.
\nThe next multi-figure painting, again experimenting with the scheme, will follow three years later with The Breakfast in the Atelier<\/em> (1868) (often titled The Luncheon<\/em>, but I want to avoid confusions with Luncheon on the Grass<\/em>).
\nNow the painting will be unequivocally a transcription of modern life, although Hamilton still has the \u201ccurious feeling of figures arbitrarily arranged in modern settings rather than seen suddenly and as suddenly set down on the canvas\u201c (1969, p.130). This stage, he sees already accomplished by Claude Monet and Pierre-August Renoir.
\nBut Manet has his own agenda, not totally compatible with impressionism.<\/p>\n
\nbefore we follow Manet to his next experiment, I would like to discuss the other painting of Christ \u2013 Dead Christ with Angels<\/em>. In this case, we will discover the influence of the scheme but not a straightforward application.<\/p>\n
\nBut a step at a time, first the Dead Christ<\/i> and then the living prostitute Olympia<\/i>.<\/p>\n