{"id":2092,"date":"2022-03-21T03:05:43","date_gmt":"2022-03-21T01:05:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mymanet.net\/?p=2092"},"modified":"2023-05-27T22:51:44","modified_gmt":"2023-05-27T19:51:44","slug":"elementor-2092","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mymanet.net\/home\/2022\/03\/21\/elementor-2092\/","title":{"rendered":"Manet and the Male Gaze (P27)"},"content":{"rendered":"

There is a \u201cmale gaze\u201d in Manet\u2019s A Bar at the Folies-Berg\u00e8re<\/em>.
\nThe viewer seems to be looking at the barmaid in a way making her the object<\/em> of his gaze.
\nBut is there also a \u201cfemale gaze\u201d hidden in the \u201cpainting not painted\u201d,
\nthat is, in the reading of the Bar<\/em> as seen from the perspective of the gentleman in the mirror? Is he seeing the barmaid as a subject<\/i>?
\nManet\u2019s painting and a mirrored version taking this perspective have been discussed already in Post 26 as shown in Figure 1.<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s take another look.<\/p>\n

Figure 1:  A Bar at the Folies-Berg\u00e9re<\/i>  and the \u201cpainting not painted\u201d<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Much has been written about the \u201cmale gaze\u201d in art, and a \u201cNew Art History\u201d has criticised the expression of male dominance also in Manet\u2019s paintings.
\nThis  includes  the \u201c12 Views\u201d (Collins 1996) on A Bar at the Folies-Berg\u00e8re<\/em> (1882), the main source for our discussion of the painting.<\/p>\n

There can be no question that their criticism (not only feminist) of the \u201cmale gaze\u201d – treating females as mere objects in art – is a valid social criticism. But already in Luncheon in the Grass<\/em> (1863) and Olympia<\/em> (1865), we have seen Manet as sympathetic to females who assert their independence through their gaze at the \u2013 presumably male \u2013 viewer.<\/p>\n

To start, we should keep two things in mind.<\/p>\n

First<\/i>, the \u201cpainting not painted\u201d is not an illusion<\/em> which Manet depicts within<\/em> the painting like a mirror image or a dream. Rather, the painting presents a puzzle<\/em> which is designed to make the viewer use his or her imagination to re-arrange the \u201cpieces\u201d in ways that make sense.<\/p>\n

Second<\/i>, this kind of solution should be distinguished from re-interpreting his paintings in the light of theories (e.g. Freudism, Neo-Marxism, or Feminism) which cast a new light on Manet\u2019s art but run the risks Champa is concerned about (see Post 25): We should not interpret Manet in ways that \u201cmake of what he doesn\u2019t do the implied true meaning of what he does\u201d.
\nA warning to be taken seriously, and, in a way, \u201cthe painting not painted\u201d does exactly that. But the warning is not meant to blind us to the fact that Manet just loved irony, even parody, in his paintings. Playing with hidden meanings and with the expectations of the viewer is different from picturing mythological or historic \u201cstories\u201d, which he clearly abhorred, or applying theories which he did not know.<\/p>\n

On male and female gazes<\/i><\/p>\n

Approaching the painting, the viewer is captured by a seemingly realistic scene at a bar.
\nThe mirrored couple, then, makes the viewer aware that much of the painting is, in fact, a reflection.
\nAnd this reflection is again questioned by the many details which contradict any realistic interpretation of the entire scene.<\/p>\n

At some point (as described in previous Posts 25 and 26), the viewer will realize that he is somehow in the position of the mirrored gentleman. The \u201creal\u201d customer should stand in front of the barmaid just in the position of the viewer.<\/p>\n

The \u201cmale gaze\u201d may enter in two ways:<\/p>\n