Venus and Olympia

While I was at college, I was set this essay question: "In his early work, Manet was heavily influenced by the old masters. What do you make of this?"

Kind of a strange question. What I made of it was this: In his early work, Manet was heavily influenced by the old masters. What I also made of it was the image below.

The image compares Titian's 'Venus of Urbino' to Manet's 'Olympia'. There is obviously a strong similarity. Both depict naked women in a reclining position, and both women are 'courtesans' which is a nice way of saying prostitute. Titian's Venus has long been held by the art establishment as one of the ultimate examples of figure painting and female beauty. In stark contrast, Manet's 'Olympia' created a scandal when it was exhibited at the Paris Salon of 1865. In fact, it ignited a scandal over art and decency that has rarely been paralleled.

If the two paintings are so similar, why did Olympia cause such a scandal? It's always been considered ok to paint nudes if the context was one of mythology, ancient history, or some exotic, far off place, such as in 'The Turkish Bath' by Ingres.

Manet's 'Olympia' depicts a contemporary scene, not an exotic or mythological context. Manet's 'Olympia' depicts a prostitute. Rather than allowing the viewer to assume the role of an unseen voyeur, her gaze engages the viewer as she would a customer. As many of the male visitors to the Paris Salon were likely to have visited prostitutes in a similar setting, 'Olympia' was much too close to the bone. While Titian's Venus has a passive, alluring gaze, Olympia's gaze is confronting, even challenging.
This contrast is further emphasized by the position of the hands in the two pictures. I've always found 'Venus of Urbino' to be rather outrageous in this respect. I mean, what is she doing?! Masturbating is the obvious answer. You can really come to no other conclusion than that she is touching herself; the fingers curl and incline into her genital area. (Just in case you didn't work that out for yourself). It's odd that few, if any art history texts make any reference to this glaring act at all. Perhaps not; it's easier to ignore this detail than to confront it. In any case; how is it possible that Titian's painting was and is regarded as a great academic masterpiece while verging on pornography? It's not so different to a playboy or penthouse image, apart from the fact that is was created by an old master in oils.

On the other hand (excuse the pun), Olympia's hand has a more defensive posture. It blocks any view of her genital area and seems in some way challenging. It again positions the viewer in the role of customer rather than voyuer, as if to say: 'you don't get this unless you pay for it.' Olympia's whole demeanour is much more reserved. She appears relaxed, yet self possessed. She is much more an individual that Titian's Venus; in no way a passive plaything for a wealthy nobleman but a confident woman offering a service which is as much a part of everyday life now as it was then.

Another interesting element of Manet's Olympia is the position of the black cat. It's back arched; it's tail upright, it can be seen as a sexual symbol. The position of the tail and hair standing up could be said to be phallic. Who is the cat responding to but the viewer/customer? The cat's pose is defensive and threatening. Furthermore, cats have long been a symbol of femininity, of bad or good luck and were commonly the familiars of witches. This element adds futher tension to the picture; underlining Olympia's inaccessibility. While she will engage in the transaction on her terms alone, a firm barrier protects her. Her inner self cannot be known and is not for sale.

Did Manet intend all of this? It would be very interesting to ask him but that's not possible now. The strong similaritiies and contrasts with Titian's Venus would suggest that he definitely did. It could be said that Manet managed to make a feminist years ahead of its time. He was of course pilloried for it at the time.