![\"\"](\"https:\/\/mymanet.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/Faces-and-Orgs-3-251x300.png\")
<\/p>\nManet is not known as a painter of great emotions.
\nAt his time, Eugene Delacroix was famous for painting expressive, emotional scenes, usually, referring to a mythological or historical event.
\nIn case of Manet, critics complain that the figures in his paintings are curiously lacking emotions. They are not only \u201carrested\u201d in their motions but also in their emotions.
\nManet presents his figures in a way that the viewer feels like interrupting ongoing activities.
\nBut typically, it is not even evident what kind of activities are interrupted and how the activity will be resumed.<\/p>\n
The gaze of Manet\u2019s figures is often described as evasive and unfocused or blunt and distancing.
\nYet, they are not without emotion and their faces vary quite clearly in their expression.<\/p>\n
Figure 1: Four faces in Manet\u2019s painting \u2013 four different expressions<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
In Figure 1, we see four faces \u2013 each one of the central figure in the painting (Luncheon, Christ Mocked, Olympia,<\/em> and The Balcony<\/em>) \u2013 and each with a very different expression. Two of the paintings we have already discussed, in case of Olympia<\/em> and The Balcony<\/em> we will take a closer look later.<\/p>\n Luncheon on the Grass<\/em>, for instance, shows the woman recognizing the viewer somewhat sympathetically, How are we to interpret the somewhat reduced or detached expression of emotionality in Manet?<\/p>\n As stated previously, Manet does not want to tell Romantic or Historic \u201cstories\u201d. He considers himself a Realist and wants to show \u201cwhat exists and what one sees<\/em><\/strong>\u201d (Post 10). Strictly avoiding storytelling, Manet seems to except the consequence that he has to avoid emotions, too, since emotions characteristically arise in and are aroused by stories. <\/em><\/p>\n A painter cannot avoid telling stories without limiting the kind of emotions he can present in a painting. I suggest that Manet\u2019s choice can be understood better in view of recent theory of emotion. On a \u201cdeep\u201d layer, emotions are reactions or physiological states which respond directly to states of the body or environmental impacts and their sensory perception (pain, hunger, thirst, fatigue, arousal, etc.). On a behavioural level, basic emotions (Richard Lazarus) are integral parts of our coping behaviour; On the next level, emotions are \u201ccognitively monitored\u201d (Robinson). Integrating emotional feelings with cognitive evaluations allows for more differentiated ways of \u201cbeing in the world\u201d. Such basic emotions are common to all human beings; we experience our natural and social world through our emotions as well as through our cognitive faculties. Some of us are more skilled and creative in experimenting with emotions than others, but we all can \u201cbe\u201d and \u201cdo\u201d things, relating to our environment and expressing our emotions while pursuing cognitively our goals and values (except in certain pathological cases). These emotions are further developed and differentiated by socio-cultural learning. Just like the fashion we wear, displayed emotions present in part who we are, although they may not be authentic and present only a certain side to others and to the public. Identifying the pattern of emotions<\/b><\/em> is a capacity which we learn together with orienting us in a multi-person context where different actions are motivated by different goals and emotions. The process involves necessarily more than the child and its \u201cenvironment\u201d. – To love somebody, there must be somebody to love. Social relations and interactions are \u201ccharged\u201d with emotions from the beginning before<\/em> and while<\/em> we learn to make finer cultural distinctions, tell stories about our emotional life to our friends or express emotions in the arts. Which brings us back to Manet.<\/p>\n Avoiding \u201cgreat emotions\u201d and storytelling in painting does not mean to avoid emotions altogether.<\/em> Back to Manet again, let us recall how he frames the situation of painting:<\/p>\n In My Manet<\/em>, we assume that Manet shows a great interest in the social relations of painting. In discussing Manet\u2019s realism, I also have proposed that Manet is aiming at \u201cobjectivity\u201d rather than \u201csubjectivity\u201d. This means, he is interested not in showing how<\/em> a person expresses his or her very personal emotional life Relations in social space have a form and a content, they form a pattern and create opportunities for actions and emotions as content. Example<\/i><\/b>: A: \u201cO.K., if you bring out the garbage, then I will give you time for your gaming.\u201d B: \u201cOtherwise, when you don\u2019t bring it out, then I will not allow you to go out tonight!\u201d C: (now pleading) \u201cLook, we share the belief that in a nice family the children follow the wish of their parents. My wish is now that you bring out the (d\u2026..) garbage.\u201d D: (now exasperated) \u201cI don\u2019t want to offer you something each time I ask you to do something, and I don\u2019t want to force you again and again, and surely I don\u2019t want to have a big argument every time about why it is meaningful to follow the rules We don\u2019t know how the story goes on, but these are the basic options. The framework<\/em> sets \u201cthe stage\u201d for the basic content<\/em> of the interaction. The situation becomes more complicated when more than two persons are involved. The situation will also change as the interaction goes on and alternative actions are chosen by the participants, perhaps altering the frame.<\/p>\n But as a first step \u2013 with Manet in mind \u2013 we can now draw simple diagrams involving only the self and the other as in Figure 2. Figure 2 : Four Faces and their Emotional Expression in Manet\u2019s Paintings in the Structural Framework<\/p>\n Let me comment each face and its place in the framework, starting with the Luncheon on the Grass<\/em>.<\/p>\n Luncheon on the Grass<\/em> Olympia<\/em> The Balcony<\/em> Christ Mocked by the Soldiers<\/em> Obviously, there is much more to say about the paintings and their figures including the other roles of Manet\u2019s scheme. The usual approach focuses on the individuals and their expression of very individual feelings. Manet seems to prefer another approach. Manet does this in a Realistic<\/em> manner in two ways: Manet does not<\/em> follow a naturalistic<\/em> approach trying to copy what he sees<\/em> but shows what exists<\/em> beyond the accidental appearance of the arrangement \u2013 a \u201creasoned imagination\u201d (see Post 10). A final remark for today: Speaking of beautiful women, now that we have clarified how Manet treats emotions, we are prepared to look at the greatest scandal of his painterly career, the Olympia<\/em>.<\/p>\n Sorry, So, See You in a month on August 12th<\/sup>!<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" On subtle patterns of emotions in Manet’s paintings<\/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":[156853,8668,23527,704818030],"class_list":["post-1582","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-diagram","category-manet","tag-diagram","tag-emotions","tag-expression","tag-pattern-of-emotions"],"yoast_head":"\n
\nbut we do not know what activity the couples are engaged in \u2013 presumably a picnic before or after bathing in the river – and what their relationships are \u2013 perhaps students having a good time in the park.
\nBut then, the woman should not be naked in a public park\u2026and the man next to her appears to be daydreaming rather than having fun.<\/p>\n
\nAnd Manet wants do show contemporary life with the means of a painter and not with words, music, or dancing, or their combination in theatre and opera. His paintings are to show reality, but they do not talk or sing.<\/p>\n
\nIn Impressionism we find emotional qualities reduced to general moods. In Expressionism, even Abstract Expressionism, emotionality is vibrant in paintings through colours, brushstrokes, and dynamic compositions,
\nbut the scope of emotions is restricted compared to the subtleties of Symbolism.<\/p>\n
\nHe, obviously, was not acquainted with it, but he very well could have had an intuitive understanding of it, as we will see.
\nJenefer Robinson in Deeper than Reason. Emotion and its Role in Literarture, Music, and Art<\/em> (2005) offers a very readable discussion of recent theories of emotion and their application in the arts including painting.
\nEmotions are described as a very complex and multi-layered dimension of our experience and actions.<\/p>\n
\nManet never painted pain, although he painted death \u2013 the ultimate arrest of motion and emotion.<\/p>\n
\nthey are based on affective appraisals<\/em> of the person-environment-relation (e.g. pleasurable, threatening).
\nThese appraisals are non-cognitive and may not reach our consciousness.
\nManet does not show people in the process of coping with some problem or threat. Such scenes inevitably would involve dynamic \u201cstories\u201d. More often, we find his sitters on a sofa reading or in deep thought.<\/p>\n
\nFor instance, fright or fear, disgust, envy, guilt, shame, sadness, pride, anger relief, hope, compassion, love, jealousy, anxiety, and happiness have been identified as basic emotions integrated into our way of life.<\/p>\n
\nThis is the level of emotionality many critics are missing in Manet\u2019s paintings:
\nEmotions as conscious expression of subjective feelings or individual subjectivity, expressions of who we are as a person.<\/p>\n
\nWe learn which<\/em> emotions are adequate in certain relations and situations and how<\/em> to modify and express them (or not) in specific cases, and to recognize them and their variation in others. The emotions we express – or others express – are not necessarily mirroring the feelings we subjectively have.
\nBut these emotions are public, they are meant to be understood by others.
\nThis means that the emotions exist objectively for everybody to see<\/em><\/strong>.
\nThe emotions can affect the emotions of others, including their subjective feelings.
\nIn as much as situations define what actions persons can chose, they also influence what kind of emotions the actors will have or at least display.<\/p>\n
\nManet was certainly much aware of the role of fashion and of the fact that Parisians \u2013 especially in his upper-middle class social circle – were very careful in displaying \u201cappropriate\u201d emotions.
\n\u201cAppropriate emotions\u201d correspond to the character or structure of a situation and depend on the respective position one occupies, the emotions will be objective.
\nLooking at the position a person occupies should tell us something about the emotions that person is likely to have and help us interpreting available emotional cues which typically are ambiguous.<\/p>\n
\nMore generally, we learn to frame situations as certain types<\/em><\/strong> with characteristic actions and emotions of participants:
\n\u201cThis is a situation I have experienced before and I did not like what a person in a certain role was doing to me!\u201d
\nThis learning process occurs in childhood and by learning by example from others \u2013 e.g. mother and father, sister and brother.
\nCognitive and emotional aspects of experience and actions are in this process not separated but intimately related, both are embedded in our body and in our everyday life environment which we take for granted as we pursue our goals.<\/p>\n
\nFocusing on the development of the subjective self<\/em>, we (and much of psychology, including Robinson) tend to neglect that we learn emotions in a multi-person context where others play certain roles:<\/p>\n
\n– To be envious, one must experience that somebody (your brother; second person) gets something from somebody (your mother; third person) what you (first person) don\u2019t get.
\n– To be competitive, one (first person) has to learn that an offer made by the other (second person) is only good if it is better than the alternative offer (by a third person) and that \u2013 if you are greedy and not trusted \u2013
\nboth may choose to exchange offers with somebody else entirely (fourth person).<\/p>\n
\nSocial relations come in patterns; one person\u2019s happiness may be somebody else\u2019s misery.
\nJust like we learn (more or less skilfully) to locate ourselves in physical space and time allowing us to evaluate the accessibility of opportunities, and
\njust as we learn to claim and sustain our social position in relation to the position of others,
\nwe learn to see our emotions as adequate feelings in view of the emotions of others.
\nSeeing the anger of the other because of the ruthless oppression by a third person, we find ourselves feeling sympathy for the underdog \u2013 unless we have learned to enjoy the exercise of power identifying with the oppressor.<\/p>\n
\nWhat we have to identify are \u201cexisting\u201d dispositions and options for emotion in social relations,
\nwhich are, in a sense, \u201cabove\u201d the subjective feelings and expressions embodied in each individual
\nand \u201cbelow\u201d the finer distinctions warranted by the \u201cstory\u201d which a novelist might expound.
\nThese are the emotions residing in the structure<\/em> of the relations or which correspond to the way participants frame<\/em> their activities.<\/p>\n
\nThese social relations reach beyond the figures in the picture space (\u201con stage\u201d) and include the viewer, the painter, the model and other participants.<\/p>\n
\nbut rather what opportunities exist <\/em>for certain emotional states given a certain position in social space.
\nIn the analogy of the theatre, Manet is not showing the performance<\/em> but the role<\/em> in the script and the position<\/em> of the actor on stage.<\/p>\n
\nTo visualize form and content in this structural sense, let us look at a simple social scene and represent its structure in diagrams:<\/p>\n
\nImagine a mother telling her somewhat reluctant son to bring out the garbage (certainly a realistic scene!).
\nNow she can say either of four things:<\/p>\n
\n(meaning: you give something I want, I give something you want
\n\u2013 an exchange<\/em><\/strong> of goods)<\/p>\n
\n(meaning: you do not<\/em> something I want, then I see to it that you cannot do<\/em> what you want
\n\u2013 an exercise of power<\/em><\/strong>)<\/p>\n
\n(meaning: you and I accept a norm, I invoke now the norm, and you should act accordingly)
\n\u2013 an interpretation or truth<\/em><\/strong> of a legitimate order)<\/p>\n
\n\u2013 would you, please, do it just because you care for me?\u201d
\n(meaning: you and I are members of a group or community caring for and trusting each other)
\n– an appeal to love and trust<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n
\nThe mother can frame the issue either as a matter of exchange, power, truth, or trust.<\/em><\/p>\n
\nWhenever one person wants that another person takes the next step in an interaction, these alternatives (or a combination) are \u201cin the air\u201d. They are the medium for creating motivations and, depending on the actions chosen, they determine the scope of appropriate emotions.
\nDaniel Coleman \u2013 in his bestseller Emotional Intelligence<\/em> (1995, p.111-2) \u2013 describes a wonderful case where a 2 \u00bd-year-old boy is already pulling all four registers in trying to calm down his 5-year-old brother.
\nWe learn the basics of emotion in interaction already early in life!<\/p>\n
\nAs a frame, we use the four options from the little scene above. In the centre we place the four faces and assign \u2013 tentatively \u2013 an emotion to each one.
\nThe faces and frames are arranged in a fourfold table or a \u201cfield of four forces\u201d since each corner wields its particular influence over all options.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/mymanet.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/Four-Faces-with-Frame-3-300x214.png\")
<\/p>\n
\nThe self is the central woman looking at the viewer, the other in this case.
\nHer gaze is mildly sympathetic<\/em> and trusting<\/em>. We assume a relation to the viewer which is characterized by some communality<\/em> and symmetry<\/em> indicated by the enclosing ellipse.<\/p>\n
\nThe self is the courtesan looking at the viewer who finds himself potentially in the role of a customer.
\nHer gaze is somewhat distancing<\/em> and self<\/em>–asserting<\/em> demonstrating that she is defending her high-ground. The relationship is clearly asymmetrical<\/em> and \u201cbusiness\u201d with no underlying communality<\/em> (no circle).<\/p>\n
\nThe self is a woman sitting on her balcony, in public view, but she directs her attention<\/em> not to the viewer but to some other person or to some event of interest to her in the street.
\nThe relationship is unclear, perhaps the other shows also interest in her. The relationship is basically symmetrical<\/em> \u2013 since the other seems not to exercise any power \u2013 but it is also not inclusive<\/em> (no circle).<\/p>\n
\nThe self is here Christ directing his gaze to God Father (Big Other) in awe<\/em> and humility<\/em>.
\nThe relationship is obviously inclusive<\/em> (circle) but also asymmetrical<\/em> with God Father representing an inclusive entity exercising \u201cauthority\u201d and representing a legitimate order or higher truth which, in this case, can even demand the sacrifice of Christ\u2019s life.<\/p>\n
\nAnd I will say more about the essential social categories – highlighted in italics – and represented in the little diagrams as we go along to other paintings.
\nThe point is here that we can approach the question of emotions in paintings in different ways:<\/p>\n
\nTheir emotions might be triggered by events or \u201cstories\u201d depicted in the painting.
\nOr: In expressionistic paintings, the viewer might find himself or herself in the role of being emotionally affected by the painting.<\/p>\n
\nHe positions his figures in a network of formal relations, a social form<\/em>, and provides only the necessary cues for interpreting the emotional dimension of the objective scene without digging into their very personal emotional life or imposing the emotions of a \u201cdrama\u201d on the actors.<\/p>\n
\n– He opens the social space of the painting to include the viewer and others around the painting, since the reality is that the paintings gain their reality only by \u201cbeing-seen\u201d.
\n– He shows what exists and what one sees<\/em> in the reality of the painting situation \u2013 typically in his atelier.
\nHere, Manet arranges his models \u201con a stage\u201d which he indicates in his compositions and he shows the emotions his models really show in that situation. Sometimes, he makes a lot of effort to create an arrangement in his atelier which transports an outside \u201creality\u201d, e.g. a bar, into his atelier. But his realism demands that this fact remains transparent to the viewer.<\/p>\n
\nApplied to emotions, this means showing the emotional dimension of figures, their positions and relations as they are displayed and publicly accessible in the situation \u2013 just like the fashion and cosmetics of a beautiful woman!<\/p>\n
\nManet does not show or express his own emotions<\/em><\/strong>.
\nCritics \u2013 especially, under the influence of Expressionism and Marx or Freud \u2013 have attempted to demonstrate how Manet was hiding his own emotions, but \u201cbetraying\u201d (Robinson) these emotions in subtle ways in his paintings.
\nThis may well be.
\nBut in MyManet<\/em>, we do not need<\/em> to assume that Manet somehow suppressed his own emotionality.
\nHis Realism motivated him to \u201cshow what exists and what one sees\u201d when painting.
\nManet was a \u201csincere painter\u201d \u2013 as all who knew him confirmed.<\/p>\n
\nbut I have to change my usual invitation \u201cSee you next Week!<\/em>
\nI will enjoy a summer pause like everyone and everything in Finland.<\/p>\n