My examination of Manet's painting Folies Bergere is available in Critical Inquiry Vol. 25, No. 1. Autumn 1998, pp 143-145, and also in Looking At Art From The Inside Out, by Mary M> Gedo, Cambridge, 1994. Thierry deDuve critiqued some of my proposals while offering his own (that were themselves the subject of debate); see also my reply to DeDuve in Critical Inquiry Vol. 26. No 1. Autumn 1999.
One point my proposal made very explicitly is that it is most likely (based on commentary by those who saw Manet working on the Bar at The Folies Bergere) that Manet did not plot out this canvas with perspectival geometry. He most probably worked directly, with a mirror set up in his studio and preparatory sketches (which exist). But Manet's background as an artist (the Bar is one of Manet's last paintings) clearly equipped him with ability to employ perspective. In a contextual way, the Bar is one of those "slice of life" approaches to painting favored by the Impressionists (see John Rewald and TJ Clark). This approach was to engage the viewer in the continual flow of life, as suggested by the painted image. One way to do this was to imagine the viewer in multiple positions and not fixed in one place (as in Renaissance era perspective). So, looking at the Bar and guided by the perspectival convergences one can plot the eye level and focus of the viewer -- first in the center, then below, then to one side, then above, in no demanded order. In other words, multiple vanishing points put the eye of the viewer in different places. This suggests a movement of both the painting plane (tilting like a swiveled mirror) and the viewer. The important thing is to apply perspective to the painting, not to show that Manet used perspective, but to illustrate the different positions eye-level a viewer must imagine in looking at the painting. The goal is to explain by this means why we perceive a strangeness to the work, why Suzon seems to loom over the work, how she can presumably be serving a customer who is too off-center to be the one being served, etc. Here are a few examples: The crown of Suzon's head (the bar girl) is visible as is the top of the brim of the customer's hat (the man to the right). In order for the viewer to see both the crown of Suzon's head and the top of the brim of the man's hat, he/she would have to have an eye level above them. Another vanishing point can be plotted to be at the left corner of Suzon's mouth. This point is the apex of a pyramid that aligns with some bottles on the left and with the receding plane of the right side of the compote (bowl of fruit). Yet another vanishing point can be plotted by the convergence of the receding planes of the left and right sides of the compote (imagined to be contained by a square box) and this vanishing point occurs near Suzon's right elbow (on our right). That established an eye level at Suzon's mid torso. The subject of the Bar is of course in the Folies Bergere, (the altered building still stands). It was located on the mezzanine floor to the front (toward the stage) and on the right (if one faced stage). This position can be calculated by examining the reflected interior architecture and chandeliers. X-rays of the painting show that Manet repositioned Suzon several times. He also repositioned and greatly enlarged the height of the male customer. The content of this work can be as perplexing as its composition. Gedo argues that Manet painted Suzon as the Christ (following an earlier painting he did). Yet it was widely known that the barmaids at places like the Folies Bergere were prostitutes. This is one of the most interesting paintings of the 19C and one of manet's true masterpieces....on many levels. wc ----- Original Message ---- From: Chris Miller <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thu, October 29, 2009 12:38:56 PM Subject: Re: Art and Optics Assuming that everyone here has something like Photoshop on their computer, here's a fun exercise for our group: 1. Download an image of Manet's "Folies Bergere" 2. Put a red dot wherever you see an "implicit vanishing point" 3. Email that image to me, and I'll put them all up on a webpage 4. Then we can compare them all with the ones that William has found. Do you think they will all be the same? If they are different -- how might we prove which, if any, are correct? If such a proof can be convincingly made -- those who were wrong may then ask themselves if they can see the work better after knowing where the real vp's can be found. (BTW -- I can't take the test, because I have no idea how implicit vanishing points can be found, and certainly cant find any in that painting) >By implicit vp in Manet's painting, I refer to the multiple vps in the work, none of which organizes the whole painting but only sections, implying that when one looks at a section it is organized to a vp but when one looks elsewhere in the painting, another vp takes over, that contradicts the other, and so on. Actually there are many vanishing points in the painting and they tell you where your eye level is and what your position is vis-a-vis the painting. wc ____________________________________________________________ Diet Help Cheap Diet Help Tips. Click here. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/c?cp=sT4Yr4G_LdkXuqC8MzryTgAAJz6c l_zTaptgNR5c8Mer1v9kAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYQAAAAAA=
