What lies and in which habits? Boris Shoshensky Please note: message attached
From: Saul Ostrow <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Cc: William Conger <[email protected]> Subject: Re: manet Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 14:17:04 -0500 ____________________________________________________________ Weight Loss Program Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/c?cp=oTdFD9sSoumJf-daGZrw3wAAJ1Gc l_zTaptgNR5c8Mer1v9kAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEUgAAAAA= Return-Path: <[email protected]> Received: from mx07.dca.untd.com (mx07.dca.untd.com [10.171.44.37]) by maildeliver07.dca.untd.com with SMTP id AABFQ8NCDA7JHSDJ for <[email protected]> (sender <[email protected]>); Mon, 2 Nov 2009 11:17:23 -0800 (PDT) Received-SPF: None Received: from mail.cia.edu (mail.cia.edu [208.50.108.4]) by mx07.dca.untd.com with SMTP id AABFQ8NCDAY9GNZJ for <[email protected]> (sender <[email protected]>); Mon, 2 Nov 2009 11:17:23 -0800 (PDT) Received: from CIAART-EX01.ciaart.local ([10.4.1.12]) by ciaart-ex01 ([10.4.1.12]) with mapi; Mon, 2 Nov 2009 14:17:22 -0500 From: Saul Ostrow <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> CC: William Conger <[email protected]> Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 14:17:04 -0500 Subject: Re: manet Thread-Topic: manet Thread-Index: Acpb6Msu2veqW9+KRjCVE25umECwnwACERkL Message-ID: <c7149a60.13798%[email protected]> In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-UNTD-BodySize: 20815 X-UNTD-SPF: None X-ContentStamp: 63:31:3480295813 X-UNTD-Peer-Info: 208.50.108.4|mail.cia.edu|mail.cia.edu|[email protected] X-Converted-To-Plain-Text: from multipart/alternative by demime 1.01d X-Converted-To-Plain-Text: Alternative section used was text/plain And does this lie in the habits of the viewer in the case of Manet On 11/2/09 1:16 PM, "Boris Shoshensky" <[email protected]> wrote: "Actually I thought what I had sent along supported Williams observation - by demonstrating the fact that the space of the painting has no central organizing principle and that each section or sector has its own logic" That each section or sector has its own logic doesn't prevent composition to have 'bridges' that create central organizing effect, without which painting would fall apart. Boris Shoshensky ---------- Original Message ---------- From: Saul Ostrow <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, William Conger <[email protected]> Subject: Re: manet Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:44:22 -0400 Actually I thought what I had sent along supported Williams observation - by demonstrating the fact that the space of the painting has no central organizing principle and that each section or sector has its own logic On 10/31/09 11:19 AM, "William Conger" <[email protected]> wrote: There's nothing in Saul's comment that contradicts my own analysis (and that of others). I again refer you to Gedo's essay in her book where my diagrams occur, and offer my reconstruction of the mezzanine section of the Folies Bergere, showing the tiered seating levels of the mezzanine (thus the rather common stacking of levels for audience) and the raised area where the bar itself was probably located. Keep in mind, too, that the stage actually extended in front of the audience left and right. Yes, Manet was mixing up the the space...just as in real life our experiences of space is a mismatched stitching of glimpses and memories, all in flux. X_Rays of the painting several positions for Suzon, each one overlapping to the painting's right, toward the male. Further, the male figure had been repainted at least twice, making him larger, taller. Clearly, Manet composed this picture in stages, each time altering the main figures, repositioning them. (DeDuve suggests that he had a swivel mirror in his studio and moved it this way and that to alter the positions of a model, real or imagined. Manet's sketches for this painting still exist and show a much more conventional position of the figure of the barmaid, toward the right. wc ----- Original Message ---- From: Saul Ostrow <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Sat, October 31, 2009 9:10:29 AM Subject: manet Manet's Last Painting Manet's last painting 'Bar at the Folies Berghres', which seems at first sight to be a reflective study of an observer of the main action, turns out to be a paean to visual space. The simple composition of the woman behind the bar unravels into a sequence of interpretations that each are in counterpoint to the other. By building insoluble ambiguities into the structure of the scene, Manet invites us to join in the exploration of his artistic experience. Our first thought is that the woman is standing behind a marble counter that is reflected in a large mirror just behind her. But, as Jonathan Miller says " . . . none of the supposed duplications adds up." There is a figure just behind the barmaid in the same pose and wearing the same clothes, but she is clearly at the wrong angle to be a literal reflection of the barmaid facing us. In fact, the marble bar and the gold frame defining the mirror just above it are exactly parallel to the picture plane, so the barmaid's reflection would be hidden from view directly behind her. But let us suppose that Manet was invoking artistic licence in positioning the reflection, asking us to bend the geometry a little to allow the reflection to be visible. How would the rest of the picture map out? Directly behind the barmaid is a marble countertop holding several bottles that are plausible replicas of those to our left. This counter must be a reflection of the one that anchors the lower border of the picture. But we have immediately learned that the bar, which looks so substantial under the barmaid's hands, comes to an end just at her right. In the open space thus revealed we see some indistinct figures under what appears to be a mezzanine supported by a red pillar. The impressionistic figures above the gilt dicor of the mezzanine wall-front resolve into patrons with their arms resting on the velvet-covered rim. These are evidently two begloved theatre-goers watching the action on stage to our left. One is accompanied by a swell sporting a monocle, the other, unaccompanied, is observing the entertainment through a pair of opera glasses. Behind them a couple seems to be sauntering toward their seats. All are apparently oblivious of the diversion of a trapeze artist caught in mid-swing above their heads. Manet has depicted this as a kind of suspended animation, almost as an afterthought to the evocation of the audience. The elements of this scene may each be a logical component of a theatre composition, but their spatial relations make a bizarre mix. If the barmaid is standing before a mirror, the counter-top on which she is resting seems to be suspended in space over the heads of the patrons below the mezzanine. There seems to be no room in front of her for customers to approach the bar. The logical architecture would be to have a mezzanine that continues on the near side of the stage matching the part that we see on the far side of the stage. (Of course, since we are looking in a mirror, these actual spatial relations would be reversed, but the symmetry of the pairing on either side of the implied stage is just as compelling.) However, there is no sign of a mezzanine to support the bar reflected in the mirror. The bar is clearly the sole entity in its immediate vicinity, with open space behind it. And what a mezzanine! Once we look at it, is seems to be crowded with people. It clearly goes back well behind the pillars. This is far from a normal theatre configuration. Nobody in the nether regions could see the stage to our left. Is it possible that this is yet another mirror, running along between the pillars, reflecting the patrons in the front of the mezzanine? To confirm this, we look for evidence of our barmaid but find none. Perhaps her reflection is again hidden behind her , so the conundrum remains unresolved.
