Manet and the Bar - Art History Paper

“The eye should forget all else it has seen... and the hand become...guided only by the will, oblivious of all previous training” (Howard 19). These words from the artist himself describe perfectly what art historians call the 'mature' period of Manet's approach to painting and design. Many theories exist as to why such a professionally-trained master could make what seem to be mistakes in perspective, proportion, and reflection in some of the works during this time. Evidence shows, however, that Manet did not use his masterful talents to simply capture the real world in paint. He may have sought instead to not only immortalize the setting of the time period, but add an early sense of humanism through the use of Howard calls 'artful errors' (p14). Perhaps his last great work, the Bar at the Folies-Bergère, demonstrates his approach magnificently.

At first glance, the painting looks to portray a young rosy-cheeked barmaid standing behind a lavishly stocked bar as if nonchalantly waiting for the viewer (as if the viewer were a potential customer) to order. Behind her is a mirror, which allows the viewer to see into the space 'behind' their position. The reflection in the mirror, the barmaid, and the bar itself describes this place as much more than a simple tavern or pub – this location looks very much like a high-class Parisian nightclub (Harris, Zucker). The distant patrons in the mirror, the reflected gentleman on the right with the top-hat, and even the barmaid herself are dressed in fancy apparel, demonstrating lavish wealth and class.

Right away, however, it is simple to notice 'mistakes' in the perspective of the reflection. If the back of the woman on the right side of painting is indeed the reflection of the barmaid, then it would seem the mirror should be angled. But as can be seen just behind the wrist of the barmaid, the plane of the mirror should indeed be perpendicular to the viewer. If the error is viewed as 'correct' in the context of the painting, them the reflected gentleman in the top hat could be the 'viewer' of the barmaid, if not entirely representative of the viewer of the painting itself.

 Why, then, the choice of the barmaid as the focal point of the painting? The barmaid's expression seems distant and tired, as though she's had a long day of serving other guests. Yet in the reflection, the interaction between the barmaid and the gentleman seems much closer and even intimate. With all of the other patrons in view through the mirror, the gallant spectacles of trapeze artists (upper-left corner) and crystal chandeliers, and the valuable wines and fruits, the eye is drawn to the barmaid herself and then to the darker forms of the barmaid and the gentleman in the mirror.

 One of the more popular theories is that the message portrayed in Bar at the Folies-Bergère is simply one of consumption and sexual favors, a description of the habits and even morality of the upper-class in Paris during Manet's life. Iskin states that, “seduction and selling are indeed at the center of this painting, though their object is not just the fashionable woman at the counter... To understand Manet's painting... we must extend the circumference of our interests from the immediate history of the cafe-concert, and the rhetoric of pleasure, leisure, and entertainment, to broader discourses of mass consumption” (p 25). And according to critic Henri Houssaye, even the barmaid herself is a simple product for purchase: “that this gaudy blue dress, topped by a cardboard head like those one used to see in milliners' shop windows, represents a woman” (p 27). The painting might simply be a reflection of the 'Moulin Rouge' morality of high French society. On the other hand, others see more in the  barmaid's face than simple ambivalence – Manet's use of thick brush strokes and very wet paint give a deep reflection and even sadness in her eyes (Harris, Zucker). And Manet's own history and style suggests it might be more.

The effects of wealth and class were not unknown to Edouard Manet. He himself was born to a “bourgeoisie household” in Paris, France in 1832 (Bio.), which was perhaps the golden age of French preference and authority on everything from cuisine and apparel to religion and art. Beneath the wealth and status, however, was the common man and woman, and Manet filled his canvases with “singers, street people, gypsies and beggars” (The Absinthe Drinker is a great example). His works bordered and often jumped up to the sensational, according to the sentiments of the time – his work Olympia, for example, showed not the nude form of a classical goddess but the confident pose of a prostitute waiting for her next client (Rabinow). As many Realist artists of the time captured light and color in paint, Manet took modern concepts and ideas and displayed them just as accurately and prominently, much to the shock and chagrin of the artistic and moral authorities of his day.

An artist inspiration to Manet was Fransisco José de Goya, a Spanish painter famous for his portrayal of the effects of Napoleon Bonaparte's invasion of Spain in his work, The Third of May 1808. Unlike any artwork before, The Third of May, 1808 portrayed French soldiers essentially executing Spanish civilians attempting to resist Napoleon's occupation during the Peninsular War. Goya, much like Manet, met resistance with his work. As if in homage, Manet illustrated The Execution of Maximilian, a similarly-styled depiction of the death of Archduke Ferdinand Maximilian by French soldiers. Both make faceless the soldiers doing the killing, and accentuate the horror-filled expressions on the faces of those being shot, no doubt to invoke emotion in the viewer. Both works do not focus on the glory of battle, or the fanciful myths of the past – they focus on the pain and realities of the present. Knowing their context did not make either of them more comfortable to view for the audiences (both common and royal) of their time. 

Speaking about The Execution of Maximilian, Howard states, “[Manet], a blasé sophisticate, apparently had an antipathy for the display of sentiment in his work. But in the show of emotion from this tragic event and its actors, with whom he so passionately identified... Manet gave compressive force to his work, which had all the latent power of fused bombs” (p 19). Manet's use of subtly showing emotion plays through much of his works, and it seems that no matter how dispassionately he tried to illustrate, the emotion showed through to both past and modern critics and fans alike.

The same use of emotion seems to be implied in Bar at the Folies-Bergère, and not simply through the figures in the painting. The mirror itself might be a clue, as is the skewed perspective. “In a way, he's saying that the mirror is this thing that's represented the truth for so long, that paintings are mirrors of the visual world... No, mirrors are false, mirrors are just as constructed... as everything else, based on our point of view” (Harris, Zucker). The mirror portrays a huge crowd of beautifully-dressed people, bright lights and wonderful spectacles, intimacy and wealth. Yet it also shows seduction and perhaps even prostitution. Now ignore everything in the mirror, and what is shown? A young rosy-cheeked barmaid, her face emotionless yet emotional simultaneously, surrounded by wine and fruit on the bar as if on sale herself. Although Manet's use of perspective might seem wrong in the mirror, perhaps it is showing us something different: the world's perspective. Busy, frivolous, faceless, and manipulative. Yet Bar at the Folies-Bergère doesn't focus on that perspective – it focuses on the barmaid. She isn't just the central figure in the piece, she (and her womanhood and vulnerability) might be the central message as well, as if the artist acknowledges the reality of society around him yet urges the viewer to focus on the woman. What emotions is she feeling, what thoughts are going on in her mind, why is she there in the first place? A very humanistic approach to painting, indeed.

Although attributed to Pablo Picasso, Manet's beautiful and masterful work can be described as such: “Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist.” At first glance, Manet's Bar at the Folies-Bergère seems to be a work of art far removed from the artistic perfection and  realistic style of the time. But as impressionistic artists began to let playful lights and colors illustrate the world instead of calculating and emotionless lines and perspective, Manet employed 'artful errors' to show more than figures on a canvas. He used it to demonstrate the problems and issues facing men and women, both common and high-class, in society; truly an idea ahead of its time. Whether or not this was Manet's true purpose continues to be debated, but the effects of his 'scandalous' yet masterful artwork continues to be appreciated just as keenly today.

Bibliography

• "Edouard Manet." Bio. A&E Television Networks, 2015. Web. 9 Aug. 2015.
• “El 3 de mayo en Madrid, o 'Los fusilamientos'” Online Gallery. Museo Nacional Del Prado, 2015. Web. 9 Aug. 2015
• Harris, Beth and Zucker, Steven. “Édouard Manet, A Bar at the Folies-Bergère, 1882.” Smarthistory. Art, history, conversation. YouTube, 25 Apr. 2009. Web. 9 Aug. 2015. 
• Howard, Seymour. "Early Manet and Artful Error: Foundations of Anti-Illusion in Modern Painting." Art Journal 1977: 14. JSTOR Journals. Web. 9 Aug. 2015.
• Iskin, Ruth E. "Selling, Seduction, and Soliciting the Eye: Manet's Bar at the Folies- Bergère." The Art Bulletin 1995: 25. JSTOR Journals. Web. 9 Aug. 2015.
• Rabinow, Rebecca. “Édouard Manet (1832–1883).” In Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History, New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000-. MetMuseum.org. Web. 9 Aug, 2015.

Noise

It's not hard to find.
______________________________________

If you go looking for distractions, you can find them. Interesting stories and pictures, new and exciting music and art, horrifying examples of people treating each other poorly, heartwarming stories of charity and giving, and a WHOLE SECTION of the internet devoted to cat pictures.

If you're looking for contention, you can find it. I sometimes wonder if people go on the internet specifically to sound unintelligent. I sometimes wonder if internet users hunt specifically for the most inappropriate places to type off-hand denouncements and insults about the sincere beliefs and opinions of others. Although I don't enjoy doing so for fear it might be true, I've contemplated the possibility that I'm the only person in the entire world that genuinely feels disappointed in myself when I tease someone on Facebook or in a chat room... and they think I'm being mean or cruel. Seriously, there's no way to even apologize for it - it's that perceived tone of sarcasm that's hard to wipe away. To the point that I almost always add on a :D or a :P or even a XD just to make it clear that I'm joking or being facetious. At the same time, I just can't understand people who troll others under controversial online news stories, Youtube video comment sections, and reddit forums just for fun. Can someone show me how that's fun and uplifting? Please? I'm genuinely interested.

If you're looking for opposition to your worldview, you can find it. Especially mine. Hoo boy, I'm a single overly-sensitive white heterosexual Christian (LDS!) male manchild living in the saccharine-sweet valley of Utah County. According to the internet, I am everything wrong with the world today (except perhaps the manchild part, and maybe the part where I'm single).

At least I don't have kids! Could you imagine the kinds of things I'd teach to make kindness a habit instead of an action, not judging people based not on the color of their skin but the content of their character, and listening instead of shouting? Not controversial enough? I might teach them that men and women are different and equal, each designed for different roles but made for each other, and that no amount of choice can change your biologically assigned role. Bigot! I might teach them that choices have consequences, many of which they will not see in this life. Religious nut-case! I might teach them that sex might feel good, but its purpose is to create life, and should only be done between a husband and wife who are married. I might teach them that while it's a shame that dentists poach lions, it's more of a shame that unborn children aren't even given a chance to experience life and progress towards eternity (and that those children deserve life far more than all the scientific research their stem cells would provide, but that's for when they get older). What a right-wing hack!

I might actually teach them that some things in life don't change. That some things that seem unfair shouldn't change simply because it hurts their feelings. That a lot of easy opportunities modern life offers without hesitation need to be acknowledged but passed by. That people can't be forced to change. That even they can't force themselves to change without great effort. That change for change's sake isn't always the best thing, or even a good thing, no matter where your life is now. That some answers really do stare at you in the face and wait for you to take a calm step back to see them properly. That family (and those that grow close enough to be family) are the only ones you should trust with your life.

I might even teach them superstitious things about a man called Jesus who was more than a man, who blessed the downtrodden, healed the sick, and raised the dead. That He personally experienced our mistakes, died for our sins, but lives even now, attempting to guide every soul under Creation towards real happiness and joy.

That life is more than sorrow and shame, outrage and slander. That life is more than a Facebook news feed. That for all the noise in the world that continues to grow louder, there's still a small voice that speaks nothing but truth and peace.

Of all the things I could teach a child, that's the one I now struggle with most.

In case it's hard to tell, I write these things like this when I'm in a very humorless mood. Depression strikes, and I write. Worse, when depression really strikes, I actually seek for distraction online. As if the white noise of the unfiltered internet could put my mind at ease. Now THERE'S a joke: trying to find peace on the internet! That's like herding cats while trying to take clear pictures of the fluffy little things with a flip-phone!

Actually, to be fair, it is possible to find peace on the internet. You just have to be willing to seek it, and even more willing to be peaceful. Unfortunately, humility seems to be in short supply these days, especially on the short-end of the keyboard. And as much as I want to lend my own eager voice to the mind-numbing noise of our digital society just to appease my own hubris (what else is an online journal like this, after all), I'll just use this comfy corner of the interwebs to help me cope. For blabbering. Thought-kicking. Noiselessly shouting into a binary void, which is and ever remains devoid of sympathy or care. Adding my own noise like the slight spark-cackle of electric-current feedback through a second-hand speaker some twelve-year old from Santa Barbara picked up at a Goodwill.

You don't mind, do you?

Throwing Things Away

Is some trash worth keeping?
______________________________________


Hello, my name is Troy (hi Troy), and I am a pack rat. At least, I think I have been. If you could see the current state of my bedroom, you'd think I was hording a nest together for the coming winter. Okay, so it's mostly laundry. And sculpting tools. And lifting weights that, according to the indent ever-deepening in the carpet beneath them, haven't been lifted in quite some time. And an air conditioning unit my apartment says I can't put out my window because it looks unseemly (and I agree, but I'm dying in here).

I belong to a family of pack rats. In the very least, we're all pack-rat-ish. My garage at home has stuff that haven't seen the light of day in two decades. And I'm helping my Grandma go through an apartment-garage full of furniture, clothing, books, and papers she hasn't seen for quite a while (mostly just hauling it up and down a flight of stairs). A lot of this detritus is off to Deseret Industries (the Utah-equivalent of Goodwill), and hopefully they can find a use with someone else. Most of these things bring back memories, and most of those good.

Of all of the possessions I own, there aren't any that mean more to me than the things I've made, written, or drawn with my own hands.

My grandma found this gem in the midst of a lot of papers; I must have drawn this about the time I was starting to learn cursive. It's Kirby on stage... or a desk, maybe? Whistling!

From a few months ago. I like to illustrate whistling, maybe?!

I guess that isn't strange; after all, no one goes about a creative project without creating some sort of attachment. But there's part of me (maybe the creative perfectionist part) that absolutely hates my previous work, and wants nothing more than to delete it and start over. Not strange either, I admit.

I don't know how classic a school lesson this is, but I had a teacher once instruct me to never be enamoured with my own work. To drill this point home, we did an art assignment of some sort, and then, a few hours into sketching and without warning, were told to throw it away and start over. Now that I'm writing this, I want to say this happened in my drawing class in college a few years ago, but I remember it happening a lot earlier in my life because...

...I've been throwing things away for years. Stories, drawings, even my first Master Chief-inspired helmet. As early as twelve, when I really started loving writing.

Why? I don't know for sure. And I still want to do it, looking at some of the things I've done over the past couple of years. I try to convince myself I haven't improved since I was little, and that's usually enough to make me hit 'delete'. It's the prideful part of me that doesn't want anyone to view my creative brain.

Some of it I miss. A lot of my old stories, for sure. I still edit what I have left from time to time. I guess that's what those old collections of refrigerator artwork kept by mothers and fathers, grandmothers and grandfathers are for - to help you remember that you've done some growing up.

A Strange First Post

Losing a friend to a discussion I don't understand is hard.
______________________________________


I'm not a fan of conflict and misunderstanding. For obvious reasons, of course. Yet it seems this life is just full of opportunities to make the people you care about angry, sad, and just downright confused. They say 'no man is an island', and I certainly agree with that sentiment. In this world of social media, people of all creeds, colors, and beliefs can (and should) communicate with almost any other person across this world, in essence to anyone of the whole of the current human family. That absolutely blows my mind.

This week I quit Facebook. Yes, I committed social suicide (in more ways than one, though I hardly had a social life anyway). I don't know if I'll go back yet or not, and maybe not for typical let's-pull-the-plug-and-stop-wasting-time reason.

I might be described as a waste of space (by myself). I also might be called hard-headed, ignorant, unsympathetic, and misguided. And I might especially be described as such when it comes to subjects like gay and transgender issues (or LGBT, for wont of shortening and hopefully not demeaning an enormous and heavily-emotion-laden can of worms). Without offering too much by way of information about my own personal demons (along with a hearty dose of MDD), I do struggle with my own identity and purpose here on earth. But then, who doesn't on this green-blue earth wonder about themselves from time to time? As social media is (or was) my only real connection to a lot of my friends who have more active and fulfilling lives than I do, I liked to post things on my feed that genuinely interested me.

I posted a link to a far-from-universally-accepted blogger about something I genuinely don't understand. Click the link if you dare, I suppose. Honestly, I did so simply because I think the story of Bruce Jenner is interesting. Sad, but interesting. (For the record, he made his story public thought very public interviews, so I reserve the right to publicly discuss. Just throwing that out there.) I can't imagine going through decades of my life struggling with something not many people understand or even acknowledge as a problem. And I don't assume to have any real understanding of his full story, either. But one paragraph connected with me in Matt Walsh's blog, and I shared that as the headline to my shared post:

"In truth, we do have souls and we do have bodies. Only, it’s not totally accurate to say that we “have” either. We don’t have them, we are them. We are both our souls and our bodies. The latter is not merely a cage or a shell for the former. The two are inextricable, and together they form one. A single nature. A single person. So if your body is a man, so is your soul, and if your soul is a man, so is your body. If you begin to believe otherwise, the problem is not with your soul or with your anatomy, but with your perception of these things."

Matt Walsh isn't one to mince words, and his writing style can certainly come off as flippant, especially due to the sensitive nature of his topics. Especially this one, as the word 'cruel' came up a few times in my social media feed. I never once said I agreed with his article, or even part of it. I simply thought it was interesting. But if you share something inflammatory, I suppose you must own up to its purpose in being there. I didn't. I didn't think I needed to. So, lesson one for me, don't post things for the hell of it - if you aren't a passionate poster, don't bother. I guess.

Anyway, the reason I found this paragraph intriguing was its description of the soul. I don't know if I fully believe it the way Matt described it. But something really connected: God places us all here on Earth to see if we will do what He commands. Here's an excellent page from LDS.org about the purpose of life, and one about the preexistence of our spirits. If God deemed it beneficial for some of his female spirits to be born in male bodies (or vice verse), that would certainly be a monumental challenge at best, would it not? Families, social scientists, and even entire civilizations are confused at the nature of the transgender at this very moment. How much more so is the grief and confusion of each individual struggling to come to terms with their own feelings, temptations, and struggles?

Here comes my more controversial view on subject. My ignorant, basis-less opinion on a subject I know nothing about. Ready? Because I'm not. Are you? I hope so. Here goes: I don't think surgery, chemical and hormone therapy, or any physical change to your body is the right path. Honestly, if you believe God gave you the wrong gender body on your way out of Heaven, I think surgical gender change should be the last and ultimate way of bringing yourself peace in this life.

Why?

Something is wrong. Something intrinsic, something basic. You feel attractions you shouldn't. Your emotions don't match up to your circumstances. You act in strange ways, and explaining your thoughts and feelings to friends and family becomes a fruitless endeavor. Everyone around you looks in control and well-put-together, while you feel like a nervous wreck and a defective model off the production line. You try to make your thoughts shut up, at least for a while, but they come back. They always come back. Like an itch you can't scratch, but worse: an itch that (you think) is painfully obvious to everyone you love. Your actions damn you. Your own thoughts damn you. You think you'll never reach your full potential, and trying will only put you in a larger, more uncomfortable spotlight. Asking 'why' only casts more confusion. Asking 'why me' only makes you angry at yourself and God. And between society and religion, there seem to exist no peace-giving answers.

That's me. That's my thought pattern. I live like that. And I would love a lobotomy (kidding not kidding), or some science-fiction procedure to come to light that would fix my thought patterns and my habits. But neither is going to happen. And even if they did, though tempting they would be... I'd choose to be as I am.

Lehi taught his sons near the end of his life in the book of 2 Nephi that there are things to act and things to be acted upon. Such a unique scripture, but one with immense power. In life, there are things you can control and things you can't. I believe one of the pivotal  'test questions' of this mortal existence are figuring out which is which and acting accordingly. Another of these portions of the celestial test (perhaps an annoyingly hard 500-word essay) is gaining control of the way you personally think and feel. Your 'reaction' button, if you will. Your 'berserk' button, at worst. Your 'act or be acted upon' system.

I don't believe changing your physical body with hormones or scalpels will do anything positive to improve your inner turmoil. Maybe I'm wrong - maybe a different concoction of chemicals and hormones in the right measurements and times can bring peace. Maybe some if not all of our spiritual challenges in life all come down to nerve receptors and grey matter. Maybe the secret to eternity can be found in glandular management.

God intends us to trust Him. Yet revelation has shown that medical science is one of His most powerful gifts to the modern world that can bring peace and happiness to His children. If a surgical option existed that 'fixed' me and my depression, I would be on an operating table tomorrow. But would it be right? Would it be a solution, or an easy way out? Or is the nature and flaws of our souls more complex than our biological parts alone?

Again, I am an ignorant and selfish bastard with no real dog in the LGBT debate or place in the community. I don't dare assume to know the hearts of others when I don't understand mine. But I do know that God loves His children. Whether you were born a man and know you should be female, or a female that believes their male body was an incorrect biological happenstance, your Father wants nothing more than to see you again and grant you immortality and eternal life through the power of the Priesthood. Male and female, that's His goal. He's said so. Not only that, Father knows exactly how each and every one of us can reach it. No matter how seemingly insurmountable the obstacle, even if that obstacle is gender, the Atonement and eternity will make amends for that which we cannot overcome alone. This I have faith in, and I make no assumptions of any knowledge beyond this.

Facebook is a terrible forum for ideas. And I am a terrible person when it comes to presenting my own thoughts and intentions. If my words here inflict any pain or seem cruel in any way, please forgive me. If my stupid, previous (and now deleted) Facebook post offended you, know that I offended myself with its bluntness. As I usually do. I have my own challenges to overcome and lessons to learn. And while I won't place my particular burdens on anyone reading this (though I may at a later date, God willing), I have nothing but admiration and love for anyone able to carry on with their unique day-to-day challenges and manage to look halfway composed. If you're reading this, that includes you.

After all, this life is all about maintaining an image, right? That's what Facebook taught me. Boy, I'm tired of putting on masks. Not tired of making them, just of wearing them.

But more about masks later. :)