A Comparison of Picasso and Manet
See below: a comparison of Titian, Manet and Kehinde Wiley
Representing aspects of their world through art
The conceptual framework represents the agencies of the art world: artist, artwork, audience and world and the way in which they interact. Through an understanding of and sensitivity to symbol and cultural reference the artist represents their world and allows the agencies to affect each other in a significant way. This can be seen in the work of Pablo Picasso, specifically, ‘Les Demoiselles d’Avignon’ and Edouard Manet’s ‘Dejeuner sur l’Herbe’ (both above) in which each reflect a time of changing values distinct in identifying tradition for the viewer but being equally as marked in distinguishing from it in an act of modern art.
The artwork ‘Dejeuner sur l’Herbe’ or in its anglicised terms ‘Luncheon on the Grass’ is an amalgamation of reference pertinent to the artists context; the work alludes to the engraving by Raphael titled ‘the Judgement of Paris’ (see full work below) where the attitude of each of the three central figures mirrored in Manet’s work with one male subject in repose and both of them ignoring the female who sits arm leaning on leg, gazing at the viewer. The parallels instilled in the work by Manet inscribe the painting with layers of history and myth, an artwork where the subjects are gods and goddesses at the wedding of King Peleus and the sea goddess Thetis. There are illusions also to the work by Titian: ‘Concert Champêtre’ where the nudity dynamic has been copied with the two men being dressed modernly and the women nude. These similarities display an understanding of convention, though the distinct difference occurs in the portrayal of the women. In ‘Concert Champêtre’ despite the females being undressed, it is done in a way that conforms to convention; the females aren’t naked, they are nude- that is to say the vulgarity has been elevated to high art by the fact that these women resemble more closely to nymphs or the ideal of a women’s form, their eyes are averted so as not to make the audience uncomfortable and most significantly they are unrecognisable, not women one would see in everyday life. Exactly the opposite is true for Manet’s piece where the female is clearly discernible as the model Victorine Meurent and more horrifyingly her gaze is focused precisely on the viewer unabashedly. Similarly in ‘Les Demoiselles d’Avignon’ though Picasso moves away from traditional realism- which is in itself an indication of the world from which the artwork was emerging- the work utilises the convention of the nude in order to move away from it. Picasso shows a knowledge of the familiar and the foreign in order to mix these elements in an unsettling way by bringing what would be norms in either the real world or the world of high art and uniting the two in an unconventional and rather scathing inditement of the hypocrisy of the world he came from. The artwork consists of five naked women presumably in a brothel, two push away jagged curtains while the others strike static yet highly sexual poses which become alarming when juxtaposed to the faces which don’t have the same alluring quality. In addition in the foreground Picasso has depicted fruits sitting on a table, a convention in its own right added to the work, likely in an attempt to confuse the particular genre the painting belonged to, once again mocking, as Manet did the conventions which dictated the creation of art at the time. From this the audience is able to comprehend the accepted art rules and normalities of high art at the time. Both artists use a firm grasp of history as a reference and comparison to the modern; through the types of references made by each artist- to convention and to history- the audience are able to make literal inferences about the influence and place of these concepts in the world at that time.
|
Manet draws part of the unsettling quality the work instills from the lack of linear chronology in the apparent story it depicts and furthermore from the idiosyncrasies which are anything but careless or accidental. The mismatched collection of foods arrayed and splaying out of the picnic basket seems not to account for any stage of the meal- the figures are clearly not mid-way through their eating yet the meal is neither untouched nor finished. The woman’s clothes have been unrealistically thrown off we may guess at the beginning of the luncheon as they lie beneath the picnic basket. Whats more the far backdrop which lies behind the lady standing rather disproportionately (being of a scale at odds with that which perspective should have given her) in the river is rather two dimensional and lifeless, looking similar to a stage backdrop than that seen elsewhere. All of this gives the artwork an air of contrivance not usual to paintings of the time. These women, not the idealised form of women but women taken from real life and the men; archetypal examples of Manet’s contemporary society, this contrivance has allusive reference to the artist's world.Combine this with the calling card as it were, left by the artist and this reference becomes clear; in the bottom left corner barely discernible amongst the foliage lies a frog (see image, right), in french the word is ‘grenouille’ which as it happens was also the slang term for prostitute. Manet was referring to the pertinent topic of sex work in ‘Luncheon on the Grass’. Manet was referencing this taboo subject, many members of the audience would have utilised the sex work trade at the time and there they would be, standing next to their wives while being stared down by the artwork and more specifically the female subject in a staggering and confronting scale of size. The artwork confronts the audience in a way they are not accustomed to- this feature similarly carried on into ‘Les Demoiselles d’Avignon’ where the scene designed for men (a brothel) has been uncomfortably turned on its head into one where the man or the audience is appraised as opposed to these women. Picasso lays bare these women as if they are a continuation of the still life started by the fruits in the foreground objects for use, then confronts us with the alternate truth when we see the apprehension in the women’s eyes. Furthermore all the elements of comfort and indulgence have been omitted from the image, fullness and softness have been erased and replaced with jagged edges invoking a further sense of hostility. The curtain and blankets held by the women are no longer smooth but look like sheets of broken glass- as do the women’s features, where they should be curvaceous and soft for the pleasure of their customers it now looks painful instead. The faces are influenced by African masks which add to a sense of exotic and unfamiliar danger and looming potential. Both Picasso and Manet inform their viewers on their context’s by referencing issues of relevance to their world and exploring them in metaphorical and allegorical ways throughout their works.
Each artwork also, in their calling out both the need or lack there of for particular artistic conventions and certain social norms are signalling to the viewer a context in which people may begin to think in a way which is countercultural, pioneering or indicating the potential for a time of change either socially or artistically. Both Manet and Picasso reference the issue of sex work and in however limited a way they seem to condemn it, or at least the hypocrisy it necessitates in their world. This seems to show an awareness of views not popular at the time, more common to the 21st century popular opinion on this industry. Whether it is independence of thought or no, the fact that the works were allowed to be created, however controversially and displayed in some sort of public sphere shows a leniency and bending conducive to a change in the tides of opinion.
Therefore it can be seen that artists represent aspects of their world in a combination of carefully orchestrated and incidental ways. While the artist may not seek to give praise to their context, in their conceptualisation of form and subject the artist allows the audience to ascertain elements of the artist’s world.
Each artwork also, in their calling out both the need or lack there of for particular artistic conventions and certain social norms are signalling to the viewer a context in which people may begin to think in a way which is countercultural, pioneering or indicating the potential for a time of change either socially or artistically. Both Manet and Picasso reference the issue of sex work and in however limited a way they seem to condemn it, or at least the hypocrisy it necessitates in their world. This seems to show an awareness of views not popular at the time, more common to the 21st century popular opinion on this industry. Whether it is independence of thought or no, the fact that the works were allowed to be created, however controversially and displayed in some sort of public sphere shows a leniency and bending conducive to a change in the tides of opinion.
Therefore it can be seen that artists represent aspects of their world in a combination of carefully orchestrated and incidental ways. While the artist may not seek to give praise to their context, in their conceptualisation of form and subject the artist allows the audience to ascertain elements of the artist’s world.
The Body as a Sign or Symbol
- A comparison of Titian, Manet and Kehinde Wiley
Through the cultural frame artworks may be seen through a ‘lens’ of interest in the ways that art reflects and represents social organisation and structures, such as gender and class and elements of our world such as the economy. The symbol of the nude and particularly the female nude is an archetypal image in art both historically and contemporarily, as such the ways in which it has been represented allows an individual to ascertain elements of culture connected with its representation. Against the constant of art’s preoccupation with the human figure there is an opportunity to gauge changing patterns and attitudes relating to gender dynamics and power structures. This concept is represented through the artworks of Titian, namely in the posthumously titled ‘Venus of Urbino’ (1538) as well as in Manet’s ‘Olympia’ (1863) and ‘Femme Piquee par un Serpent’ (2008) by Kehinde Wiley.
Venus of Urbino is large-scale depiction of the idealised and ultimately unfathomable female nude. In the foreground lays out over the entirety of the work’s length the reclining figure of a woman who has gained her name ‘Venus of Urbino’ over the years after the works creation. Her skin is milky white and unmarked and all the lines of her body as well as the surrounding drapery lead the viewers eye gently towards her face and more specifically the gaze of the artworks primary subject. Her eyes travel with you and look unflinchingly, though not unpleasantly towards yours. While not explicitly sexual this directness shows an autonomy that states a clear belief of the subject in her right or necessity to inhabit this space without ever approaching boldness or defiance. The figure luxuriates on her bed holding roses while a small lapdog sleeps soundly at her foot. With collapsed and vacant middle ground the remaining background is divided in one half by two women of disproportionately small scale arranging items from a ‘cassoni’ or marriage chest and on the left cut off by the blank expanse of curtain which cuts Venus down the centre and creates a distinct line pointing straight towards the subjects hand which is incidentally resting below her navel, the ultimate symbol at the time of femininity- fertility, of which Venus was the patron.
The symbolism within ‘Venus of Urbino’ establishes the attitude held by the audience, reflecting the values held to be true at the time and strongly projecting these onto the audience. There are a number of references within the work to marriage and sexual obligation, the roses Venus holds, the myrtle tree in the windowsill as well as the cassoni all serve to highlight the connection between woman and marriage. Marriage in this way is characterised as the means to attain the right to have access to a woman. The viewer is shown the idealised beauty promised to another man- her implied husband- and so looks on Venus as something to be coveted. As such Venus is a prized possession lacking a sense of identity away from the reaction elicited from male viewers. The previously mentioned lapdog is a symbol of subservience and fidelity that furthers this idea of ownership that comes with marriage and the sense of the power wielded by men in this time over the opposite sex. The gaze of Venus in the work is a powerful method of offsetting the aesthetic idiosyncrasies of perspective, depth and geometric accuracy. Every surface in the artwork leads to her gaze which itself seeks to hold you and does so successfully without the competing elements of even the dogs gaze. The audience ignores elements such as the figures elongated spine, her unrealistically small feet and the purposefully incorrect application of proportion in the foreground and background, as well as the improbability of the subjects pose. This reiterates the power Venus’ gaze holds, thus translating the source of power held by women at the time as linked with their bodies and with their (though admittedly limited) control of solicitation.
The artwork has a luxurious sense of deep and rich colour and sensuous material character. This fact owes itself to the technique pioneered by Titian in which oil paints was used in many layers known as ‘glazing’, creating a distinct atmosphere and type of glow to all the elements within the work. This effect gives Venus a sort of aura and glow that contributes to her idealisation and elevates Venus from the status of naked to nude or in extension the socially acceptable form of female nakedness in art. The representation of the female nude in recline was an archetype the artist had already begun to create, first started in the earlier work Titian collaborated on with Giorgione, called ‘Sleeping Venus’. As such Titian was reflecting ideas already established as even before that first work the female nude in its idealised for was a celebrated archetype- especially in the representation of characters such as Venus. Venus lying reclined in such a way with her composure cements that painting Venus is for the benefit of male viewers and not her own. Her posture and position in the work has the capacity of being quite vulnerable and is only seen by us as not being vulnerable because it is under the custodianship of once again the implied male responsible for her.
Manet in ‘Olympia’ presents the conceptual antithesis of ‘Venus of Urbino’ despite the apparent appropriation employed by the artist. The figure in the artwork is Victorine Meurent, she is not idealised and contrary to ‘Venus of Urbino’ she is a renowned model as opposed to a nameless one. This element alone imbues the subject matter with a sense of independence and identity away from the work that is not contained within ‘Venus or Urbino’. As a result in a comparison of the two works significant socio-political change can already be seen to have occurred. The body of Victorine in the foreground doesn’t take up the entire length of the painting as in ‘Venus of Urbino’, in fact there is negative space occupied on either side of the figure. Her body has a sense of proportion and realistic representation, although her figure is pleasing, as previously stated the body is not idealised. Meurent’s shoes and jewellery accentuate her nakedness, as does the clothed figure of a black woman we assume to be a maid in the right middle ground. As a result of this accentuation it can be seen that there is a contrived nature in the small amount of embellishment she is wearing. This both undermines and plays to the role of the male viewer for whom this is being worn. In fact the necklace she wears is a period symbol to identify a sex worker, she wears pearls in a continuation of the motif throughout these works and a symbol for the goddess Venus.
In an attempt to make clear the disconnect which exists in ideology between Manet and Titian, Manet uses appropriation and then inverts symbolism so as to speak more specifically to his purpose. Instead of a dog sleeping soundly at the food of a bed, its colloquial binary, a cat, stands tensed and stretching, furthering the concept of a lack of fidelity implied by the references to sex work. What’s more the image of the flowers, carried through into ‘Olympia’ is presented as though they are a gift being received from one of the subject’s clients, of which she presumably has many. As such the implied meaning of the original roses as being related to marriage and a woman’s devotion to one man has been reversed to represent a reliance on men and yet independence gained from devotion to no single one. In this work the figure is still in the reclined posture and yet she sits more upright implying less the notion of vulnerability shown in ‘Venus of Urbino’. Furthermore the gaze extended by Olympia is reserved and composed, it is not condemning or judgemental and yet it lacks warmth that openly invites or indicates sexual availability. Despite this the shock of the painting, its allusion to the subject matter being a sex worker, its appropriation and as such mockery of the convention of the nude associates the work with negative aspects of sexuality. In 1932 it was written that, "She [Olympia] bears dreams of all the primitive barbarism and animal ritual hidden and preserved in the customs and practices of urban prostitution.”[1] (Paul Valéry, 2004).
The association of autonomy and self controlled sexuality is marred by associations to sex work and the belief held at the time of its immorality. As such though a progression in attitudes towards gender and social conventions can be seen to have occurred, as the possibility exists to have this control exhibited by Olympia over her own nudity or more aptly nakedness and in extension her sexuality, attitudes towards this possibility display the fact that this opportunity is rare and only at the expense of other areas of life such as reputation. Not prescribing to the established rules of propriety, which were likely similar to those of Titian’s time, did occur. This happened at the expense of status if it occurred in this way. As such Manet translates the ways in which sources of power have opened up, still drawing from the original source- female body- and yet contrarily the supposed morality foregone by utilising this power means social status (the status normally associated with power) is non-existent. Manet used the female nude as a catalyst through which to challenge the institution of the academy and yet incidentally he began to challenge the relationships between the two gender binaries- the right of one to cut another out of an entire aspect of their lives and then condemn them for finding ways to develop autonomy (and furthermore to condemn women for providing sex work services in response to its widespread demand). Sex work was a flourishing trade at the time because it was a desired service and yet these women were condemned for being a part of it. Moreover Manet has reflected the changes occurring during that time in relation to power and gender paradigms in presenting the dialogue of a community as is embodied in ‘Olympia’.
Kehinde Wiley in ‘Femme Piquee par un Serpent’ appropriates as Manet did an artwork featuring the female nude, referencing an 1847 sculpture by Auguste Clésinger[2] of the same title. The Clésinger work used the guise of mythology once again to present its subject matter, referring to the allegorical stories of either Eve or Cleopatra. As was the case for Manet, Clesinger represented a well-known model and even advertised her identity in presenting the work.[3] Wiley shows a painting of similar composition and description, his central figure sits oddly in the centre, laying out on its back and looking upwards while lying on a bed of some description, with rumpled sheets and dishevelled clothing. Despite this Wiley presents his audience with two key differences, which set him apart from the previously mentioned representations of the human figure. These are: first that the figure is clothed and second that it is a man.
Wiley presents us with an image of a black male taking on the role of a woman and asks us to examine the implications, what this means to us contextually and how our reactions inform the ways in which social attitudes have still yet to evolve. The artwork displays tangible femininity and vulnerability from a demographic most often represented today in the 21st century as being either violent or testosterone-driven.
Although the work clearly identifies with problems of the contemporary world it also provokes us to consider the work as a single piece in the art convention of representing the human figure. Due to this the work has historical significance also which asks us to consider the ‘artistic canon’ as it were or the most noteworthy artworks throughout history as determined by scholars. The result of such consideration is that much, in fact the overwhelming majority of the works which are both considered noteworthy and are of the human figure are European works. In these works white Europeans dictate and are consisted in both subject and creator. In a modern world many people aren’t able to identify with this single grand narrative of art throughout the ages. This artwork highlights the way historically members of subaltern genders and races have been disenfranchised and cut out.
The discomfort, with which we view the work, if indeed this is so, speaks to the development yet to be seen in representing diverse illustrations about race and gender and the many different roles these can take on. Audience reaction to the work determines its meaning as a reflection of society, as we are unable to view the work with the aid of hindsight. The right to have access to the stories of historical art are advocated for by Wiley in inserting the figure of an African American man, dressed in modern and somewhat stereotypical clothing into the backdrop of historically significant art.
As such the human figure throughout history permits profound insights into the state of the relationship between gender and power. The changes across contexts allow us to ascertain this as well as the social progression that has taken place. Artworks were both reflections of societal change and petitions that demanded change and were a precursor to them.
Bibliography:
[1] Floyd, Phylis A. "Phylis A. Floyd on The Puzzle of Olympia." Phylis A. Floyd on The Puzzle of Olympia. 19th Century Art Worldwide, n.d. Web. 01 June 2015.
[2] "Auguste Clésinger Woman Bitten by a Snake." Musée D'Orsay. Musée D'Orsay, 2006. Web. 01 June 2015.
[3] Joyce, Wendy Nolan. "Sculpting the Modern Muse: Auguste Clesinger's Femme Piquee Par Un Serpent." "" By Joyce, Wendy Nolan. Questia, n.d. Web. 01 June 2015.
Venus of Urbino is large-scale depiction of the idealised and ultimately unfathomable female nude. In the foreground lays out over the entirety of the work’s length the reclining figure of a woman who has gained her name ‘Venus of Urbino’ over the years after the works creation. Her skin is milky white and unmarked and all the lines of her body as well as the surrounding drapery lead the viewers eye gently towards her face and more specifically the gaze of the artworks primary subject. Her eyes travel with you and look unflinchingly, though not unpleasantly towards yours. While not explicitly sexual this directness shows an autonomy that states a clear belief of the subject in her right or necessity to inhabit this space without ever approaching boldness or defiance. The figure luxuriates on her bed holding roses while a small lapdog sleeps soundly at her foot. With collapsed and vacant middle ground the remaining background is divided in one half by two women of disproportionately small scale arranging items from a ‘cassoni’ or marriage chest and on the left cut off by the blank expanse of curtain which cuts Venus down the centre and creates a distinct line pointing straight towards the subjects hand which is incidentally resting below her navel, the ultimate symbol at the time of femininity- fertility, of which Venus was the patron.
The symbolism within ‘Venus of Urbino’ establishes the attitude held by the audience, reflecting the values held to be true at the time and strongly projecting these onto the audience. There are a number of references within the work to marriage and sexual obligation, the roses Venus holds, the myrtle tree in the windowsill as well as the cassoni all serve to highlight the connection between woman and marriage. Marriage in this way is characterised as the means to attain the right to have access to a woman. The viewer is shown the idealised beauty promised to another man- her implied husband- and so looks on Venus as something to be coveted. As such Venus is a prized possession lacking a sense of identity away from the reaction elicited from male viewers. The previously mentioned lapdog is a symbol of subservience and fidelity that furthers this idea of ownership that comes with marriage and the sense of the power wielded by men in this time over the opposite sex. The gaze of Venus in the work is a powerful method of offsetting the aesthetic idiosyncrasies of perspective, depth and geometric accuracy. Every surface in the artwork leads to her gaze which itself seeks to hold you and does so successfully without the competing elements of even the dogs gaze. The audience ignores elements such as the figures elongated spine, her unrealistically small feet and the purposefully incorrect application of proportion in the foreground and background, as well as the improbability of the subjects pose. This reiterates the power Venus’ gaze holds, thus translating the source of power held by women at the time as linked with their bodies and with their (though admittedly limited) control of solicitation.
The artwork has a luxurious sense of deep and rich colour and sensuous material character. This fact owes itself to the technique pioneered by Titian in which oil paints was used in many layers known as ‘glazing’, creating a distinct atmosphere and type of glow to all the elements within the work. This effect gives Venus a sort of aura and glow that contributes to her idealisation and elevates Venus from the status of naked to nude or in extension the socially acceptable form of female nakedness in art. The representation of the female nude in recline was an archetype the artist had already begun to create, first started in the earlier work Titian collaborated on with Giorgione, called ‘Sleeping Venus’. As such Titian was reflecting ideas already established as even before that first work the female nude in its idealised for was a celebrated archetype- especially in the representation of characters such as Venus. Venus lying reclined in such a way with her composure cements that painting Venus is for the benefit of male viewers and not her own. Her posture and position in the work has the capacity of being quite vulnerable and is only seen by us as not being vulnerable because it is under the custodianship of once again the implied male responsible for her.
Manet in ‘Olympia’ presents the conceptual antithesis of ‘Venus of Urbino’ despite the apparent appropriation employed by the artist. The figure in the artwork is Victorine Meurent, she is not idealised and contrary to ‘Venus of Urbino’ she is a renowned model as opposed to a nameless one. This element alone imbues the subject matter with a sense of independence and identity away from the work that is not contained within ‘Venus or Urbino’. As a result in a comparison of the two works significant socio-political change can already be seen to have occurred. The body of Victorine in the foreground doesn’t take up the entire length of the painting as in ‘Venus of Urbino’, in fact there is negative space occupied on either side of the figure. Her body has a sense of proportion and realistic representation, although her figure is pleasing, as previously stated the body is not idealised. Meurent’s shoes and jewellery accentuate her nakedness, as does the clothed figure of a black woman we assume to be a maid in the right middle ground. As a result of this accentuation it can be seen that there is a contrived nature in the small amount of embellishment she is wearing. This both undermines and plays to the role of the male viewer for whom this is being worn. In fact the necklace she wears is a period symbol to identify a sex worker, she wears pearls in a continuation of the motif throughout these works and a symbol for the goddess Venus.
In an attempt to make clear the disconnect which exists in ideology between Manet and Titian, Manet uses appropriation and then inverts symbolism so as to speak more specifically to his purpose. Instead of a dog sleeping soundly at the food of a bed, its colloquial binary, a cat, stands tensed and stretching, furthering the concept of a lack of fidelity implied by the references to sex work. What’s more the image of the flowers, carried through into ‘Olympia’ is presented as though they are a gift being received from one of the subject’s clients, of which she presumably has many. As such the implied meaning of the original roses as being related to marriage and a woman’s devotion to one man has been reversed to represent a reliance on men and yet independence gained from devotion to no single one. In this work the figure is still in the reclined posture and yet she sits more upright implying less the notion of vulnerability shown in ‘Venus of Urbino’. Furthermore the gaze extended by Olympia is reserved and composed, it is not condemning or judgemental and yet it lacks warmth that openly invites or indicates sexual availability. Despite this the shock of the painting, its allusion to the subject matter being a sex worker, its appropriation and as such mockery of the convention of the nude associates the work with negative aspects of sexuality. In 1932 it was written that, "She [Olympia] bears dreams of all the primitive barbarism and animal ritual hidden and preserved in the customs and practices of urban prostitution.”[1] (Paul Valéry, 2004).
The association of autonomy and self controlled sexuality is marred by associations to sex work and the belief held at the time of its immorality. As such though a progression in attitudes towards gender and social conventions can be seen to have occurred, as the possibility exists to have this control exhibited by Olympia over her own nudity or more aptly nakedness and in extension her sexuality, attitudes towards this possibility display the fact that this opportunity is rare and only at the expense of other areas of life such as reputation. Not prescribing to the established rules of propriety, which were likely similar to those of Titian’s time, did occur. This happened at the expense of status if it occurred in this way. As such Manet translates the ways in which sources of power have opened up, still drawing from the original source- female body- and yet contrarily the supposed morality foregone by utilising this power means social status (the status normally associated with power) is non-existent. Manet used the female nude as a catalyst through which to challenge the institution of the academy and yet incidentally he began to challenge the relationships between the two gender binaries- the right of one to cut another out of an entire aspect of their lives and then condemn them for finding ways to develop autonomy (and furthermore to condemn women for providing sex work services in response to its widespread demand). Sex work was a flourishing trade at the time because it was a desired service and yet these women were condemned for being a part of it. Moreover Manet has reflected the changes occurring during that time in relation to power and gender paradigms in presenting the dialogue of a community as is embodied in ‘Olympia’.
Kehinde Wiley in ‘Femme Piquee par un Serpent’ appropriates as Manet did an artwork featuring the female nude, referencing an 1847 sculpture by Auguste Clésinger[2] of the same title. The Clésinger work used the guise of mythology once again to present its subject matter, referring to the allegorical stories of either Eve or Cleopatra. As was the case for Manet, Clesinger represented a well-known model and even advertised her identity in presenting the work.[3] Wiley shows a painting of similar composition and description, his central figure sits oddly in the centre, laying out on its back and looking upwards while lying on a bed of some description, with rumpled sheets and dishevelled clothing. Despite this Wiley presents his audience with two key differences, which set him apart from the previously mentioned representations of the human figure. These are: first that the figure is clothed and second that it is a man.
Wiley presents us with an image of a black male taking on the role of a woman and asks us to examine the implications, what this means to us contextually and how our reactions inform the ways in which social attitudes have still yet to evolve. The artwork displays tangible femininity and vulnerability from a demographic most often represented today in the 21st century as being either violent or testosterone-driven.
Although the work clearly identifies with problems of the contemporary world it also provokes us to consider the work as a single piece in the art convention of representing the human figure. Due to this the work has historical significance also which asks us to consider the ‘artistic canon’ as it were or the most noteworthy artworks throughout history as determined by scholars. The result of such consideration is that much, in fact the overwhelming majority of the works which are both considered noteworthy and are of the human figure are European works. In these works white Europeans dictate and are consisted in both subject and creator. In a modern world many people aren’t able to identify with this single grand narrative of art throughout the ages. This artwork highlights the way historically members of subaltern genders and races have been disenfranchised and cut out.
The discomfort, with which we view the work, if indeed this is so, speaks to the development yet to be seen in representing diverse illustrations about race and gender and the many different roles these can take on. Audience reaction to the work determines its meaning as a reflection of society, as we are unable to view the work with the aid of hindsight. The right to have access to the stories of historical art are advocated for by Wiley in inserting the figure of an African American man, dressed in modern and somewhat stereotypical clothing into the backdrop of historically significant art.
As such the human figure throughout history permits profound insights into the state of the relationship between gender and power. The changes across contexts allow us to ascertain this as well as the social progression that has taken place. Artworks were both reflections of societal change and petitions that demanded change and were a precursor to them.
Bibliography:
[1] Floyd, Phylis A. "Phylis A. Floyd on The Puzzle of Olympia." Phylis A. Floyd on The Puzzle of Olympia. 19th Century Art Worldwide, n.d. Web. 01 June 2015.
[2] "Auguste Clésinger Woman Bitten by a Snake." Musée D'Orsay. Musée D'Orsay, 2006. Web. 01 June 2015.
[3] Joyce, Wendy Nolan. "Sculpting the Modern Muse: Auguste Clesinger's Femme Piquee Par Un Serpent." "" By Joyce, Wendy Nolan. Questia, n.d. Web. 01 June 2015.