Edouard Manet (1832-1883)
Le déjeuner sur l'herbe [Luncheon on the Grass]
1863
Oil on canvas
H. 208; W. 264.5 cm
In France, 1863, controversy came about after this piece was shown at an art show. It was called obscene and offensive. The size, composition, depth, and subject matter were erroneous to a 19th century community.
[quote]One interpretation of the work is that it depicts the rampant prostitution that occurred in the Bois de Boulogne, a large park at the western outskirts of Paris, at the time. This prostitution was common knowledge in Paris, but was considered a taboo subject unsuitable for a painting.[/quote]
[quote]The presence of a nude woman among clothed men is justified neither by mythological nor allegorical precedents. This, and the contemporary dress, rendered the scene strange and almost unreal. [/quote]
This work is often called the start of modernism in art, however it was slandered at the time it was made, and now, I highly doubt this is very offensive to any of you.
[b]Why? Are we as a society less moral now than ever? Will this just continue until we are completely demonized? [/b]
Some people describe the current generation as one with stunted morals, sex fiends, drug users, immoral music, reduced number of church goers, impractical pregnancies, etc. [b]Are we just breaking contemporary code, such has this painting, or is society destroying itself? [/b]
Also, leave the spam in other threads please. Nobody cares for it.
-
TRIGGERED!!
-
TRIGGERED!
-
It's good. It's not immoral, it just has deeper meaning. Projecting an idea to open the minds of its viewers is important. Because it's uncomfortable for some doesn't make it immoral. It sparks creativity and emerges new ideas. It speaks about us, about our nature, about what we have been and can be. Discomfort is not the opposite of morality.
-
Yes the booty is hard to see
-
I think it's awesome... Who doesn't love naked bitches in a park?
-
its french and I hate the french so yes it offends me [spoiler]but in all fairness I hate everyone including myself most days [/spoiler]
-
Or this one?
-
That's hot.
-
I'm Australian. Nothing offends me! :D
-
No but I'm creeped the -blam!- out
-
Just because in those days, that painting was revolutionary, doesn't mean that all shunned paintings were. Just as then, just because a work is shunned doesn't mean it's breaking societal limits to challenge the current status quo or some stuff. It may just be really depraved.
-
It's just a man with his bitches and the homie having a picnic in the afternoon
-
Who the hell cares?
-
I know this one! We talked about it in AP Art History last year!
-
Offend? No arouse? Yes
-
That is a sick painting
-
Now this, is a quality post.
-
[b] [/b]
-
Looks fine...
-
Edited by Autolycus: 9/25/2015 10:05:37 PM[quote]The presence of a nude woman among clothed men is justified neither by mythological nor allegorical precedents. This, and the contemporary dress, rendered the scene strange and almost unreal. [/quote] Actually, this is an interesting thought. If the picture was of people in Ancient Greece, wearing togas or what not, then perhaps they would find it less shocking. So perhaps if the picture was in the setting of modern times, we would find it relatively more shocking? The time difference may distance our minds ability to relate to the depiction.
-
Someone has allowed a perfectly good bread roll to sit on the grass, it will spoil. I am deeply offended :-( [spoiler]Not :-)[/spoiler]
-
Not really offensive to me.
-
[b][/b]
-
Well she's fat so yeah
-
Edited by Tormented_Anus: 9/25/2015 1:17:11 PMIf it offended them at the time, it's only because they were too gay to admit to the faults in their society. Prostitution in public parks, seriously? And instead of tackling the problem, when an artist draws attention to it, they just get offended? Pah, French people. No wonder Hitler had such an easy time conquering them.
-
This does offend me. There's no sun to praise. \[T]/