Art and Sexuality in 19th C. French Impressionist Painting

Spectators of the art world in late 19th century France mainly comprised themselves of higher class individuals, especially intellectuals, representing the historical population of the Salon - including eventually even that of the Impressionists. Of these social elites, nearly all, if not entirely, were male. As a result of this combination imagery found itself focused almost always on the gaze of the female model, whether nude or clothed. This inevitably was meant to capture the returned-gaze of the male viewer and his attention. However, the relationship between viewer and model, and the subsequent appreciated attention, is not forever lasting. At some point in time the male viewer must leave the painting, as he is sequestered home to his wife by reality, and breaks his gaze with his new found mistress. The gaze, therefore, was both a substitute to the common practice of infidelity at the time, in addition to metaphorically representing the illusion of infidelity; and the painting as an object became the male viewer's muse. In either case, imagery in painting seemed to very adequately portray modern reality in France during the 1800s, where cities were impregnated with prostitution and mistresses.

"La Loge", Auguste Renoir

One example is Renoir's "La Loge" (Theater Box - 1874), image one, in which an already taken madam (as suggested by the male figure in the background) acts as the female model guiding her viewer's gaze. Her soft stare and direct eye contact forces the viewer into an almost intimate connection with her. Evoking a feeling about her as if she sits before her viewer in real life. Though her gaze is not particularly seductive, it's of note that she does not utilize the binoculars in her hand, which are meant for watching the opera, and instead stares at her viewer, suggesting her interest of possible sexual desire. She appears well off, wearing a set of pearls, painted rather spectacularly by Renoir with beads of pure white. It's ironical that a likely married woman is chosen to act in such a suggestive and provocative manner, because at the time of its production it was common most only for men to keep mistresses. For women, it was nearly always socially forbidden. (In Emile Zola's book "Therese Raquin" (1867), however, one may find an example of a married woman whom kept a relationship outside of her marriage.) Regardless, at some instance in time her male viewer must break from the captured gaze, and move on. This continued idea of sexual connectivity between a painting's subject and its male viewer can be observed in a more sexually explicit manner in Gustave Courbet's "Le'origine du monde" (The origin of the world) (1867).

In "The origin of the world", one stairs directly at the exposed and vulnerable vagina of some woman, whose identity is unknown to its viewer. Courbet has cleverly cropped the painting so that only the vagina, the upper portion of the legs, and the torso with a sliver of breasts is revealed. Painted to test the on-going questions of morality within the arts that were circling society and culture at the time, Courbet paints the revealed right nipple red and swollen, as well as an exposed labia rich in red color, suggesting the model has recently had a sexual encounter. Maintaining her anonymity, as well as the identity of her lover (if one exists), allows her viewer to fantasize over who she is. In this case, the art leaves its viewer more sexually susceptible than before, rather than simply leaving them lonesome and imaginative. The idea that Courbet invokes intimacy with a stranger mirrors the common practice of prostitution during the mid to late 1800’s in France, especially within city’s such as Paris, where many of the Impressionist painter’s resided and worked.


"L'origine du monde", Gustave Courbet

Though these are only two works of art for comparison on such a controversial topic (it seems today that anything relating to sex becomes controversial in someway or another), they compliment each other well in formalizing my opinion. While sex has found itself existing in the arts throughout time, never had it acted as imagery that was so crucial in shaping culture and society than it did during the Impressionist period in France. David Hockney, in the mid 20th century, mirrored art and sex in his paintings of naked men (or boys, depending on your interpretation), but he did so much more subtly than did painters like Renoir and Courbet. Hockney conveyed an alluded message of his homosexuality, rather than identifying how sexual relationships developed around the present-day culture, and also how the culture developed around sexual relationships. So the difference, I believe, is clear. The courage and sometimes admittedly audacious acts of the Impressionist artists were imperial for their time, and were absolutely necessary for the continuous expansion of art and its convergence with society.

On, "What is art?"

I am sharing a journal entry on a discussion I had surrounding the definition of art. It gives my understanding of how one knows when to call something art or not art, and how I feel on the positive criticism or suggestions of offering only one definition to art as an object.

From, 01 May 2007

'I had a discussion yesterday with a student from the University of Pennsylvania (whose name currently escapes me), regarding the history of art and how one goes about defining what is and what is not art. It started with his denouncing contemporary artists and their works, and saying that they were reckless[ly created] and not visually appealing and therefore not art. He furthered this (dare I say ignorant) opinion with a comment that there lacked any form or traditional technique with modern art, and it was not of a 'gentleman's' view of art.

Art is, in its most basic and pure form, both objectified and subjected by individuals everywhere and anywhere. Criticism, either good or not good, must be accepted, and expected, but also scrutinized and contextualized to its time. However, a fine and historic line is often crossed when such criticism becomes ignorant and nonsensical by calling into question what is and is not art. Any person, of any varying degree of intellect, can decide what visual aesthetics are appealing to them, and those that are not - it is simply a matter of personal opinion and desire. As one begins to call into question the definition of art, though, they begin to tackle an issue long left equally unresolved by the artists, critics, and the public. If we were able to give a clear-cut, concise and unambiguous definition as to what makes art art, then the future production of art would cease to exist because there will no longer be a need to change with the time and create newly stimulating artwork. It, too, might even bring into context a need to re-define past "masterpieces", if they do not fit with this chosen definition of art. To word it more simply: One may say he does or does not like the visual appeal of some certain forms or creation of art, or that he does not understand its construct or meaning; but one can never say that art is not art. Instead, art is arbitrarily defined by the actions of the artists, and the changing of the times in connection with public appeal. And so it is not we, as individuals or groups, who define art, but rather art acts as the sole mechanism for its own definition across time.'