Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have found the general [outraged] response to this painting hilarious. IMHO, it isn’t the nudity that is scandalous—there are many, many female nudes in the history of art—especially French art—that show a lot more skin than Olympia. But this painting actually shows the object becoming the subject by returning the viewer’s gaze.
And to make the painting even more scandalous, I have long argued (based on an interpretation provided by an historian in a book I purchased long ago at the Musee d’Orsay) that the subject of the painting is not just a woman in her boudoir but, rather, a successful prostitute. In such an interpretation, the flowers are a present from a client; the woman’s expression is non-plussed because, as a sex worker, she is not only comfortable with her nudity in private but, also, with it being on display; and, as my former French teacher put it so well, her direct gaze at the viewer transforms them into a client.
Scandalous indeed.
I was so disappointed to have missed this exhibit but, living in MA, the journey to New York would have been difficult. I do hope that a similar exhibit comes to Boston at some point.
Exactly. It's her cool, cynical, blase look and the implication that she's a prostitute.
(I once went from NYC to Washington to see any exhibit!)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
