Or to be more specific: Figure 1: Formal positions and faces in Velazquez\u2019 paintings<\/p>\n Actually, the overview presents not all the cases we might like to distinguish in MyManet<\/em>:<\/p>\n The triad of persons, which are at the centre of Luncheon on the Grass <\/em>(Figure 2), is not an obvious element in Velazquez\u2019 examples. The triad comprises a gaze (red) to the viewer (the nude), a gaze (blue) to the members of the group (man to the right), and this strange gaze (purple) directed outside the painting (second man). The First<\/em><\/strong> The Second<\/em><\/strong> The Third<\/em><\/strong> The triad<\/i><\/b> \u2013 First, Second and Third \u2013 is an essential element of MyManet<\/em>, i.e. my view of the hidden meaning in Manet\u2019s compositions. Figure 2: The triad in Manet\u2019s Luncheon on the Grass<\/em> and in Velazquez\u2019 Three Musicians<\/em> (1618)<\/p>\n We return to this triad when we discuss the Luncheon<\/em> in more detail. In MyManet, we assume that Manet had at least an intuitive understanding of this social phenomenon.<\/b><\/i><\/p>\n That is why he chose three persons in the centre moving the fourth to the back. Moreover, Manet saw that this triad had to situate the activity of painting in a social context<\/i><\/b>:<\/p>\n The First engages the viewer\/painter, the Second establishes the social reality of the group in front of us, the Third acknowledges the wider institutional context, the society, or the \u201cworld\u201d around the painting.<\/i><\/p>\n And Manet reflects in his painting on this reality in a distinctly modern way. He keeps a reflective distance putting this reality \u201con stage\u201d where he can manipulate it as the painter-puppeteer. The \u201cOther\u201d On a first level<\/em>, On another level<\/em>, On yet another level<\/em>, Again, we should distinguish the role of \u201caccidental other\u201d from the \u201cother\u201d in a special compositional role related to the outside. A special case, again, is the \u201cunrepresented other\u201d. As we will see later, in some of Manet\u2019s paintings the \u201cother\u201d is not depicted within the painting – as in Luncheon on the Grass –<\/em> but rather implied and deliberately hidden \u201cbehind the coulisse\u201d. The \u201cclassical\u201d case is certainly Olympia<\/em>, a painting he is already working on at the same time.<\/p>\n The Absorbed<\/em><\/strong> Again, it is meaningful to distinguish between absorbed persons and \u201caccidentally\u201d absorbed persons. Figure 3: On the Beach \u2013 Suzanne and Eugene Manet at Berck (1873) As indicated in Figure 1 above, the persons<\/em> in the painting will take their places either in a social space<\/em> defined by their gazes and gestures or in a wider setting<\/em>. The picture frame<\/em> or the \u201cstage\u201d will delimit what part of the implied environment<\/em> is actually visible. So far, we have identified 5 positions within<\/em> the painting, So, meet you next week!<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Analysing types of gazes and positions in “Luncheon on the Grass”<\/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":[156853,1694373,748385123,215704,4885002,1676018,214311,162090],"class_list":["post-968","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-diagram","category-manet","tag-diagram","tag-diego-velazquez","tag-faces-and-gazes","tag-first-person","tag-luncheon-on-the-grass","tag-second-person","tag-social-space","tag-third-person"],"yoast_head":"\n
\nIf the \u201cpainting of painting\u201d is the theme, how many and what kind of gazes are needed within<\/em> the painting to communicate with a certain number and kind of persons assumed outside<\/em> the painting?
\nThe answer to this question will lead us into some rather theoretical territory \u2013 so, I hope for your patience, and hold on tight!
\nIn Figure 1 we find an overview of the faces in the diagrams (see Post 4):<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/mymanet.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Typology-Overview3-1-300x152.png\")
<\/p>\n
\nAll three gazes appear in each example of Velazquez, but not in a specific arrangement and they are combined with other gazes.
\nIn MyManet<\/em>, I want to identify the members of the triad with specific names and formal positions:<\/p>\n
\nThe First is making the essential contact with the viewer outside the painting.
\nAs in The Drinkers<\/em>, this may be more than one person. But then we may conclude that this is suggested by the theme \u2013 the joyful group \u2013 rather than needed in a more general scheme.
\nIn The Little Cavaliers<\/em>, we find also two Firsts (red) in the centre groups engaging the viewer. A third person to the right, looking towards the viewer, may be gazing toward the viewer accidentally, not really trying to engage the viewer.
\nIn other paintings, we will find more of these \u201caccidental Firsts\u201d, especially, in paintings with larger groups. In some cases, the person looking toward the viewer will be so \u201cdistant\u201d in the middle- or background that the engaging effect does not arise.
\nA special case is the viewer entering \u2013 as it were \u2013 the painting and appearing as a backfigure in the foreground (see Post 3). We might say that engaging the viewer is so effective that the viewer steps into the scene and takes the role of the First. An additional First is not needed to achieve the engagement.
\nIn terms of Fried\u2019s \u201cfacingness\u201d, the picture as a whole has attracted full attention.
\nIn a diagram we could depict the backfigure as a First (red) from the back (without eyes or face).
\nFor reasons discussed below, I prefer to show the viewer as backfigure within<\/em> the painting to keep the role of the First distinct. Manet does not use backfigures in his paintings. (With rare exceptions e.g. in the Masked Ball at the Opera<\/em> with a Polichinelle from the back appearing on the left side.)<\/p>\n
\nThe Second has the role of creating the social space by looking at the other members of the group.
\nThere may be more than one group, like in The Little Cavaliers<\/em>, so we expect one of them in each group and social space. In some cases, the Second may be seen from the back (no eyes or face), but then we interpret the position to be \u201caccidentally\u201d turned away from the viewer. The position is not specifically calling for the identification of the viewer to take this position and look at the scene through the eyes of the Second.<\/p>\n
\nThe Third is acknowledging the existence of some external \u201cauthority\u201d with his or her gaze.
\nThe Third has a role that is crucial for Manet\u2019s scheme \u2013 and it is, I think, one of the reasons why Manet is admiring Velazquez.
\nThe best example, among the three paintings from Velazquez above, is Las Meninas<\/em> with the Master himself (and some of the other figures) looking at the royal couple entering the scene. As indicated previously, all interpreters agree that the painting is celebrating the royal institution<\/em>, not just the royal couple. And we should add that the dominant figure of the painter himself also aims to emphasize the importance of painting as a cultural institution<\/em>, not only Velazquez\u2019 personal success as royal painter.
\nThis reference to an external \u201cauthority\u201d, we see also in The Drinkers<\/em> in the gaze of Bacchus; it is not so obvious in The Little Cavaliers<\/em>, where the gazes (purple) out of the painting may be \u201caccidental\u201d to persons which just happen to be outside the picture frame.<\/p>\n
\nIt is not the only one, as we see shortly. But I like to remind you of the etching of the puppet theatre \u2013 shown already in Post 2 \u2013 where the triad is prominently on stage. (There is a fourth figure, perhaps Polichinelle subdued by the police officer? And there is the cat, which we meet again later!)
\nThere is a painting by Velazquez focusing on just the triad (and a little monkey!) which is shown next to the Luncheon on the Grass<\/em> in Figure 2.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/mymanet.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Luncheon-VelazquezMusicians-with-diagram-300x154.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
\nHere, I want to point out that the triad can be understood in social theory as a basic social unit<\/em><\/strong>:
\nThe first-person represents the subjective perspective of the focused individual, the second-person is the partner in a dialog acknowledging the mutual presence and communicating back to the first-person (and perhaps to others), and the third-person is a participant and\/or observer depending on the nature of the interaction.
\nThe sociologist Georg Simmel <\/i>\u2013 mentioned before \u2013 was the first to analyse systematically the formal position of the \u201cThird\u201d and its different roles (e.g. as mediating referee or as dividing and dominating the others). He demonstrates that it is the triad which essentially constitutes the basic social unit<\/em>, because it is the triadic relation in which we experience that a social interaction \u2013 like a dialogue – can happen without us as first-person<\/em>!
\nThere is an objective social<\/em> reality<\/em><\/strong> in front of us which does not depend on our subjective view or any specific individual or viewer. Children learn this around the age of three years (Tomasello 2019).<\/p>\n
\nWe can understand now why Manet avoids the backfigure. Letting the viewer enter the \u201cstage\u201d as a backfigure would destroy this reflective distance and make it difficult to control the level and the kind of engagement between the First and the viewer.
\nThe social and philosophical analysis of this social reality \u201con stage\u201d is available only a generation after Manet.
\nBut he experienced already the impact of modernity on his own life and his relations to others, and his literary friends (Baudelaire, Zola, Mallarm\u00e9) described it in their novels.<\/p>\n
\n<\/em><\/strong>Another crucial element is the figure of the \u201cother\u201d (green) representing an outsider view.
\nThe \u201cother\u201d is placed in parenthesis because it is a rather complex figure with many meanings in the literature, and often put into parenthesis in other texts.
\nLet us try to clarify its roles and meanings:<\/p>\n
\nthe \u201cother\u201d plays just a role within<\/em> the painting. While the Second (blue) creates the social space by looking at other participants from within<\/em>, the \u201cother\u201d confirms their social space from outside<\/em>.
\nAll three paintings by Velazquez show these figures. Especially in The Drinkers<\/em>, we see the central group surrounded by onlookers. In The Little Cavaliers<\/em>, the \u201cother\u201d is connecting the frontstage with the groups in the middle.
\nWe could treat the \u201cother\u201d figure as a potential Second – like the figure in the back to the right in The Drinkers<\/em>, who is communicating with the figure within the group and might be joining as the activity evolves.
\nSimilarly, we could speak of the Second as being the \u201cother\u201d for the First and Third. Just consider how Manet \u2013 in Luncheon<\/em> on the Grass<\/em> – moves the Second to the right side of the painting looking onto the other two!
\nIn a more general usage, the partners of a first-person in social interaction are often referred to as the \u201cothers\u201d, no matter how close or distant the relationship.
\nIn MyManet<\/em>, I prefer to make a clear distinction between the members of a triad<\/em> (or ingroup forming a social space) and outsiders.
\nIn the case of The Drinkers<\/em>, the onlooker to the right \u2013 presumably a beggar trying to get some coins or a drink \u2013 might even be a total stranger to the group. Again, Simmel has taught us to understand the special role of a \u201cstranger\u201d, especially in the context of modern urban life.
\nOn this level, the \u201cother\u201d is characterized by a cultural role:
\nthe individualism of modern urban life makes us partially \u201cstrangers\u201d to each other. We must come back to this meaning of the \u201cother\u201d, when discussing Manet as a \u201cpainter of modern life\u201d.<\/p>\n
\nthe \u201cother\u201d is looking from outside of the picture frame,<\/em> as it were. Discussing Caspar David Friedrich\u2019s Romantic painting, we saw that the viewer might \u2013 in a way \u2013 enter the painting from the front<\/em> to the point that the backfigure appears within<\/em> the painting.
\nSimilarly, a person with a different perspective \u2013 say, a critic or the \u201calter ego\u201d of the painter \u2013 may enter the painting from the back<\/em> and appear in the role of an onlooker.
\nThe \u201cclassical case\u201d, as I pointed out, is the person in the background of Velazquez\u2019 Las Meninas<\/em>!<\/p>\n
\nthe concept of \u201cother\u201d has a background in social philosophy (Sartre, Levinas) or psychoanalysis (Lacan). In this case, we have to consider a \u201cdeep structure\u201d of social reality \u2013 either in society or in the personality \u2013 which confronts the self as the \u201cother\u201d – as a stranger to itself – with effects of alienation.
\nSome art historians apply this level in their interpretation, but they reach beyond the realism guiding Manet in his paradigm of a puppet theatre. (We will see a “depth” in Manet’s realism when we discuss the role of the “uncanny” in a later post.) The concept of \u201cother\u201d assumed in MyManet<\/em> looks at painting as a social activity, where the participants and \u201cothers\u201d are taking roles either within or around the painting as an installation in an imagined setting. We will say more on \u201cdeep structures\u201d discussing other views on Manet.<\/p>\n
\nIn The Little Cavaliers<\/em> and in The Drinkers<\/em>, the onlookers (green) support social spaces and the wider setting within<\/em> the painting. The role and the number of onlookers is determined by the theme of the painting; they help to create unity in the composition.
\nIn Las Meninas<\/i>, however, the \u201cother\u201d in the background clearly communicates also with the outside<\/em> of the painting. As I suggested in the previous post, the figure in the door in the background is about to \u201cleave the painting through the coulisse\u201d. He is in a double role: playing a role in<\/em> the scene and<\/em> representing an alternative view or perspective on<\/em> the entire scene, including the space in front of the painting or the audience in terms of the puppet theatre.<\/p>\n
\nFinally, we find figures (yellow) in the paintings who focus on something other than a person within<\/em> the painting or whose direction of gaze is undetermined. Following Fried, we could say that all persons not directly engaging with the viewer are \u201cabsorbed\u201d within the painting. Absorption would be the normal case (with the exception of portraits, where the sitter is typically looking at the viewer\/painter). In MyManet<\/em>, we distinguish more roles within the painting, because Manet uses their gazes to engage with different roles inside and outside.<\/p>\n
\nIn some cases, rather isolated persons are part of the theme; in other cases, it might simply be difficult to determine who a person is attending to. But in The Drinkers<\/em>, the absorbed guy (yellow) in the centre plays an essential role.
\nIn Figure 3, we see two persons absorbed in a book or in their own thoughts. Especially in religious themes, say, a praying monk, it might be more adequate to treat this absorbed figure as a Third, since the figure is obviously \u201clooking beyond the painting\u201d, perhaps with closed eyes as in Figure 4.<\/p>\n
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/mymanet.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/On-the-Beach-1-300x244.png\")
\nFigure 4: Monk at Prayer (1865)
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/mymanet.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/Monk-at-Prayer-1-234x300.png\")
<\/p>\n
\nBeyond this visible environment, we have to imagine the setting or installation<\/em> of the painting with actors engaged in the experience of the work of art.
\nIn MyManet<\/em>, we assume that the borders between the setting, the stage or frame, the environment, and the installation of the painting can be quite fluid \u2013 just like in the reality of a puppet theatre performance.<\/p>\n
\nalthough the absorbed persons seem to depend on the specific theme and will be only “additional” elements in a more general scheme.
\nThe next step is to take a closer look at the formal positions populating the environment of the painting.<\/p>\n