1. Writing
Sample
Essay
1:
19th
Century
French
historian
Jules
Michelet
was
one
of
the
first
scholars
to
focus
on
“the
people,”
that
is,
the
lower
classes
that
made
up
the
majority
of
the
population.
Writing
in
1846,
Michelet’s
mission
speaks
to
an
era
of
French
politics
that
was
famously
tumultuous,
during
a
nearly
century
long
struggle
between
Republicans
and
Monarchists
for
control
of
the
country.
Michelet,
a
known
Republican,
sensed
the
growing
desire
of
“the
people”
to
be
represented,
thus
two
years
before
the
Revolution
of
1848
brought
end
to
the
reign
of
King
Louis
Philippe,
Michelet
published
Le
Peuple.
With
this
text,
Michelet
hope
to
not
only
write
himself
into
the
narrative
of
the
people
through
his
family
history,
but
to
tell
the
story
of
an
overlooked
piece
of
society.
Michelet
claims
to
compile
his
data
through
empirically
observing
his
subjects,
going
out
into
the
countryside
and
streets
to
see
for
himself
what
“the
people”
are
doing,
and
criticizes
others
like
novelists
and
painters
who
rely
on
secondary
sources
like
police
reports
to
understand
their
lower
class
subjects.
By
removing
the
secondary
sources
from
his
process,
Michelet
hopes
to
move
beyond
the
realm
of
representation
in
his
depiction
of
the
lower
classes.
Realist
painters
Gustave
Courbet
and
Jean-­‐Francois
Millet
share
this
goal.
Art
Historian
Linda
Nochlin
defines
Realism
as
the
dominant
art
movement
from
1840
to
1870,
whose
aim
“was
to
give
a
truthful,
objective
and
impartial
representation
of
the
real
world,
based
on
meticulous
observation
of
contemporary
life,”
(Nochlin,
The
Nature
of
Realism,
13).
The
goals
of
the
artist
then,
according
to
this
definition,
are
inherently
problematic.
To
begin,
neither
Millet
nor
Courbet
was
a
part
of
the
working
poor.
Millet
grew
up
a
member
of
the
landed
peasantry,
though
he
lived
in
poverty
for
much
of
his
adult
life,
while
Courbet
was
raised
in
a
moderately
wealthy,
bourgeois
household
in
the
provincial
city
of
Ornans.
Furthermore,
the
nature
of
painting
makes
representing
the
people
difficult.
To
create
a
finished
painting,
the
artist
first
chooses
a
subject,
interprets
said
subject
for
himself,
creates
a
scene
in
his
studio,
organizes
it
into
a
composition,
paints
said
composition,
and
exhibits
the
piece,
where
it
is
then
further
interpreted
by
viewers.
With
so
many
steps
in
the
process,
the
idea
that
the
artist
is
creating
an
impartial,
objective
image
is
difficult
to
imagine.
The
matter
is
further
complicated
by
the
nature
of
each
artist’s
work.
Courbet
is
famed
for
his
large-­‐scale
genre
scenes,
paintings
of
ordinary
people
blown
up
to
enormous
size.
Previously,
paintings
that
large
had
been
reserved
for
history
paintings,
allegorical
images
that
spoke
to
the
classical
past.
In
doing
so,
Courbet
hoped
to
raise
the
subjects
of
genre
painting
to
the
level
of
those
in
history
painting.
But
paintings
of
such
enormous
scale
had
to
painted
in
a
studio,
from
models,
as
opposed
to
directly
from
the
subject,
the
people.
Additionally,
much
of
Courbet’s
source
material
came
from
popular
imagery
at
the
time,
not
from
what
he
saw
directly.
Take
for
example
The
Burial
at
Ornans,
from
1849-­‐50.
Here,
we
see
Courbet
taking
on
a
provincial
scene
form
his
hometown,
a
burial
of
one
of
the
townspeople.
Yet
the
scale
of
the
painting
suggests
the
burial
of
a
man
of
great
importance.
In
fact,
it
is
quite
possible
that
Courbet
looked
to
popular
imagery
of
Napoleon’s
burial
done
in
the
1840s
as
source
material
for
his
composition.
Courbet

2. uses
a
visual
vocabulary
than
can
be
identified
by
a
popular
readership
to
depict
a
rather
organic
scene,
but
does
so
on
a
scale
reserved
for
the
great
figures
of
history.
Millet’s
approach
to
painting
differs
greatly
from
that
of
Courbet.
First,
it
was
not
Millet’s
intention
to
be
controversial,
as
was
Courbet’s.
Second,
Millet
did
much
of
his
best
work
in
the
town
of
Barbizon,
a
small
village
on
the
outskirts
of
the
forest
that
became
a
haven
for
artists.
Millet
was
not
a
political
radical,
though
his
work
was
often
branded
as
such.
While
he
did
some
classical
work
in
order
to
make
a
living,
Millet
was
far
more
interested
in
painting
the
earth
and
the
seasons
than
anything
else.
The
best
example
of
Millet’s
work
is
his
1850
masterpiece
The
Sower.
TJ
Clark
writes
of
the
piece,
“here
as
elsewhere
Millet
moved
between
myth
and
reality,
went
back
to
the
Bible
or
to
memories
of
his
childhood
landscape,
took
up
an
old
theme
and
changed
it,
pushed
towards
an
image
of
open
violence
and
then
painted
another,
more
still
and
more
constricted,”
(Clarke,
Millet,
82).
While
Millet’s
work
is
perhaps
more
rooted
in
its
subject
matter
than
that
of
Courbet,
it
remains
true
that
it
was
certainly
not
the
objective
ideal
that
many
Realists
hoped
to
achieve.
Courbet
took
his
labeling
as
a
radical
in
stride,
often
putting
on
a
show
as
the
“provincial”
for
the
artistic
societies
of
Paris.
The
artist
also
enjoyed
great
success
in
his
lifetime,
exhibiting
at
the
Paris
salon,
where
his
work
was
often
criticized
as
avant-­‐garde,
but
earned
him
a
reputation
that
led
to
numerous
commissions.
Millet
struggled
throughout
his
life,
rarely
submitting
works
to
the
Salon,
and
those
he
did
were
often
rejected.
However,
the
relationship
of
each
artist
to
the
Salon
is
problematic.
As
members
of
the
realist
school
of
painting,
Courbet
and
Millet
are
tapping
into
Parisians
disdain
for
the
countryside
and
its
inhabitants,
despite
their
reliance
upon
them,
and
the
artists
call
this
inequality
into
question.
However,
the
claim
that
they
are
“painting
for
the
people”
seems
more
like
a
ploy
for
industry
attention
than
reality,
as
“the
people”
would
realistically
never
see
these
paintings,
in
which
they
are
the
supposed
subject.
At
the
time,
the
only
way
for
a
majority
of
“the
people”
to
see
art
was
through
printmaking,
as
they
could
not
afford
to
leave
work
and
attend
the
Paris
Salon.
Thus,
the
realism
practiced
by
Millet
and
Courbet
was
not
the
impartial
representation
they
themselves
claimed,
though
it
did
mark
a
change
in
the
artistic
community
of
portraying
common
subjects
with
dignity,
demanding
respect.
Essay
2:
Edouard
Manet
is
often
recognized
as
a
forefather
of
modern
art,
aiding
the
transition
from
Realism
to
Impressionism
and
in
many
ways
his
work
was
truly
revolutionary.
At
a
time
when
most
artist
exhibiting
at
the
Salon
were
still
focused
on
painting
neoclassical
allegories
in
the
approved
style
of
the
Academy,
Manet
embraced
Realism.
But
like
most
realists,
Manet
struggled
with
the
various
forms
of
representation
that
come
to
bear
on
a
certain
image
and
how
that
in
turn
alters
ones
reading
of
a
painting.
Unlike
some
other
realists,
Manet’s
paintings
make
the
viewer
aware
of
the
various
forms
of
representation
taking
place.
It
is
clear
to
the
viewer
that
Manet’s
collisions
practices
like
social
typing,
an
enthusiasm
for
costume
and
obvious
citations
from
the
history
of
art
were
done
on
purpose,
inflecting
the
ways
in
which
the
paintings
transmit
meaning.
Manet
was
above
all,
a
man
of
his
time,
and
while
his
paintings
may
seem
radical
in
the
context
of
the
Paris
Salon
of
the

3. early
1860s,
they
incorporate
elements
from
Parisian
society
at
the
time,
translating
common
practices
into
art.
The
role
of
social
typing
and
the
popularity
of
physiologie
during
this
time
are
clear
in
Manet’s
work.
A
product
of
the
French
Enlightenment,
the
physiologie
were
a
way
to
categorize
social
types
based
on
factors
like
dress,
economic
status,
social
class,
and
behavior.
These
were
published
as
pseudo-­‐encyclopedias
that
included
illustrations
of
each
social
type
and
a
written
description.
This
need
for
endless
categorizing
was
not
uncommon
in
French
culture
during
this
period,
and
Manet
utilized
this
imagery
and
practice
in
many
of
his
paintings.
An
example
is
The
Fifer,
from
1866.
Here,
Manet
strips
away
everything
that
could
disguise
his
blatant
social
typing
–
background,
narrative,
any
context
for
why
the
figure
is
in
the
space
is
absent.
While
it
is
unclear
who
exactly
the
boy
is,
his
identity
is
almost
irrelevant.
Carol
Armstrong
says
of
the
painting,
“Perhaps
it
was
that
Zola
hinted
at
when
he
described
the
simultaneous
liveliness
and
flatness
of
the
picture,
its
vivid
coming
to
life
and
frank
status
as
an
image,”
(Carol
Armstrong,
Manet,
164).
Here,
Manet
is
highlighting
the
frivolity
of
the
social
typing
system,
reminding
viewers
that
what
they
are
seeing
is
a
boy
in
a
costume,
not
an
actual
representation
of
a
stereotype.
Manet
takes
the
idea
of
costuming
further.
Capitalizing
on
the
popularity
of
costumes
at
the
time,
particularly
an
affinity
for
Spanish
culture,
Manet
takes
social
typing
to
the
next
step.
This
is
best
seen
in
Manet’s
various
costume
paintings
featuring
the
model
Victorine
Meurent.
Unlike
The
Fifer,
many
of
these
full
body
portraits
include
some
background
and
narrative,
though
not
all
do.
However,
these
paintings
seem
almost
like
an
accumulation
of
various
props
Manet
could
have
had
lying
around
his
studio.
With
paintings
like
The
Street
Singer,
from
1862,
it
is
difficult
to
imagine
a
grand
master
plan
to
include
the
various
props
Victorine
is
holding.
Rather,
it
seems
that
Manet
dressed
Victorine
as
the
street
singers
he
saw
around
him
in
Paris,
gave
her
a
handful
of
cherries
and
a
guitar
and
asked
her
to
pose.
With
costume
paintings
like
The
Street
Singer,
Manet
calls
into
question
the
concept
of
social
typing,
highlighting
how
the
an
individual
could
flow
between
different
labels
based
on
superficial
idea
that
how
one
dresses
or
where
one
spends
time
defines
social
type.
Finally,
Manet
was
famed
for
his
numerous
citations
from
the
history
of
art.
While
this
can
be
seen
throughout
his
work,
the
best
example
of
his
ability
to
take
elements
from
the
history
of
art
and
re-­‐imagine
them
into
new
ideas
for
his
own
time
is
Olympia
from
1863.
Here,
Manet
is
directly
quoting
Titian’s
Venus
of
Urbino
from
1538
for
the
position
of
his
reclining
female
nude.
But
unlike
Titian’s
Venus,
Olympia
has
an
edge.
In
Manet’s
version,
each
of
the
actors
in
the
scene
is
on
edge
-­‐
even
the
cat
perched
on
the
end
of
the
bed.
Olympia
is
not
a
relaxed,
comfortable
Venetian
courtesan,
but
an
uncomfortable
Parisian
prostitute.
The
viewer
is
posed
as
her
customer;
perhaps
arriving
too
early
for
the
appointment,
catching
her
maid
not
quite
finished
preparing
Olympia
for
the
encounter.
Another
explanation
points
to
a
potential
index
of
social
class,
perhaps
Olympia
is
a
lower
class
woman,
attempting
to
pull
off
the
look
of
a
high
class
prostitute
and
not
quite
succeeding.
The
viewer
can’t
shake
how
uncomfortable
Olympia
seems
in
her
own
skin,
which
is
surprising
as
that
is
all
she
is
wearing,
save
for
a
few
accessories.
It
is
even
possible
to
conceive
that
her
very
nakedness
is
cause
for
the
unease
of
the
painting.
Viewers

4. of
the
painting
in
the
Salon
would
have
been
clothed,
as
is
her
maid,
leaving
Olympia
the
sole
nude
in
the
narrative.
Were
the
viewer
to
happen
upon
the
scene,
it
would
undoubtedly
be
awkward,
hence
the
placement
of
Olympia’s
hand.
Yet
while
her
body
language
is
shy
and
awkward,
Olympia’s
gaze
is
daring
you
to
look,
daring
the
viewer
to
acknowledge
the
illusion
she,
as
a
prostitute
is
trafficking,
the
illusion
Manet
creates
in
his
painting.
For
most
bourgeois
viewers
of
this
painting,
such
an
intimate
boudoir
scene
was
no
doubt
uncomfortable.
Perhaps
they
blamed
the
subjects
class
for
her
inability
to
feel
comfortable
in
her
pose.
However,
it
was
the
norm
for
art
at
the
time
to
portray
objectified
female
nudes
like
Alexandre
Cabanel’s
Birth
of
Venus,
also
from
1863.
Here,
the
female
body
is
splayed
across
the
canvas
for
consumption
in
a
fashion
that
has
virtually
no
basis
in
reality,
but
was
the
accepted
norm
for
depicting
the
female
nude
in
art.
Manet
calls
this
into
question
and
brings
his
subjects
back
from
the
realm
of
fantasy
into
his
contemporary
present.
For
this,
conservative
critics
and
the
public
ridiculed
him,
yet
without
this
relationship
to
the
modern,
Manet’s
work
would
not
feel
nearly
as
“real.”
This
combined
with
Manet’s
unique
use
of
social
typing,
costumes
and
references
from
the
history
of
art
create
layers
of
meaning
in
Manet’s
works
that
are
a
delight
to
unfold.
Essay
3:
Paris
in
the
19th
century,
like
the
rest
of
the
world,
was
a
rapidly
changing
environment.
Following
the
French
Revolution
of
1789,
France
began
a
nearly
century
long
struggle
for
political
stability.
For
Republicans,
this
was
the
time
for
France
to
be
ruled
by
the
people,
for
the
people,
while
Monarchists
clung
to
idea
of
divine
right,
that
control
of
France
was
the
God-­‐given
right
of
a
family
or
individual.
As
these
two
political
camps
battled
for
control,
both
figuratively
and
literally,
a
simultaneous
revolution
was
taking
place,
that
of
industry.
With
the
end
of
the
monarchy
in
the
18th
century
came
the
end
of
feudalism,
the
economic
system
that
had
governed
France
since
the
Middle
Ages.
New
political
regimes
brought
the
rise
of
an
even
more
powerful
economic
system,
consumer
capitalism.
While
the
political
system
was
in
constant
flux,
the
move
towards
a
capitalist
society,
and
with
it
modernity,
was
a
near
certainty.
Nowhere
was
this
shift
towards
capitalism
and
modernity
in
a
time
of
unrest
more
apparent
than
in
Paris,
the
nations
capital.
What
makes
Paris
unique
is
the
distinct,
physical
mark
the
shift
to
consumer
capitalism
left
on
the
city.
While
visitors
today
see
the
city
as
a
charming
piece
of
untouched
history,
those
living
in
the
19th
century
would
see
a
complete
overhaul
of
the
city
they
knew
during
their
lifetime.
Much
of
this
change
can
be
attributed
to
Baron
Haussmann,
chosen
by
Napoleon
III
during
the
Second
Empire
to
renovate
the
city
of
Paris.
Using
only
the
latest
technologies
in
architecture
and
urban
planning,
Haussmann
transformed
the
medieval
city
into
a
playground
for
the
bourgeoisie.
Through
a
series
of
public
works
projects
the
once
small,
winding,
easily
barricaded
streets
were
replaced
by
grand
boulevards.
Slums
were
vacated
and
the
buildings
torn
down
to
make
way
for
the
grand
apartment
buildings
now
famous
for
the
uniform
style.
Haussmann
had
the
privilege
of
choosing
which
historic
landmarks
were
worthy
of
inclusion
into
his
new
city,
removing
those
that
did
not
fit
his
aesthetic
vision.

5. In
his
attempts
to
clean
up
the
city,
Haussmann
did
make
some
valuable
improvements,
like
expanding
the
sewer
system
so
waste
was
not
longer
disposed
of
and
collected
in
the
streets.
However,
in
order
to
make
space
for
the
burgeoning
middle
class,
the
only
ones
who
could
afford
to
live
in
the
newly
constructed
buildings
along
the
boulevards,
Haussmann
displaced
many
lower
class
Parisians
who
had
previously
occupied
those
spaces
for
generation.
The
consumer
capitalist
culture
of
France
had
created
a
new
middle
class
who
longed
to
see
and
be
seen,
to
publicly
flaunt
their
newfound
wealth
and
status.
Haussmann
catered
to
this
group,
fostering
the
emergence
of
a
spectacular
society
in
Paris.
It
was
in
this
spectacular
society
of
the
urban
bourgeoisie
that
artists
like
Edouard
Manet
and
Edgar
Degas
lived
and
worked.
While
Degas
is
often
grouped
together
with
the
later
Impressionist
art
movement,
his
style
and
subject
matter
is
distinctly
Realist,
similar
to
that
of
Manet.
Both
men
came
from
comfortable,
if
not
wealthy
homes,
were
academically
trained
artists,
and
saw
the
city
they
called
home
rapidly
change
around
them.
These
individuals
would
have
witnessed
firsthand
the
destruction
of
the
Paris
slums,
the
building
of
the
boulevards
and
opulent
department
stores,
and
the
changing
cityscape
can
be
seen
in
their
art.
Through
the
paintings
of
Manet
and
Degas,
the
social
phenomenon
that
was
this
society
of
spectacle
can
be
better
understood.
By
painting
what
they
saw
around
them
in
modern
life,
these
two
artists
created
a
means
through
which
art
historians
can
see
how
consumer
capitalism
worked
its
way
into
the
everyday
lives
of
Parisians,
particularly
in
regards
to
leisure,
recreation
and
entertainment.
Nowhere
is
the
sense
of
this
“new
Paris”
more
clear
than
in
Degas’
1875
painting
Place
de
la
Concorde.
Here,
Degas
presents
the
subjects
of
the
paintings
as
if
the
viewers
are
right
there
on
the
street
with
them.
This
is
no
ordinary
painting
of
a
street
scene,
the
viewers
can
identify
the
space
as
the
Place
de
la
Concorde,
but
not
because
Degas
has
painstakingly
laid
out
an
exact
view
of
the
public
square.
Rather,
by
fragmenting
the
pictorial
space,
Degas
allows
himself
the
freedom
to
play
with
his
figures
in
the
composition,
removing
the
feel
of
a
staged
studio
painting
from
the
work.
The
piece
has
almost
no
narrative,
but
Degas
is
careful
to
include
several
visual
clues,
allowing
viewers
to
identify
and
place
the
primary
figural
group
in
society.
Here,
we
see
a
father
out
for
a
walk,
accompanied
by
his
two
daughters
and
their
family
dog.
The
father
smokes
a
cigar
rather
than
a
pipe,
the
girls
are
dressed
in
matching
outfits
and
the
dog
references
the
family
hobby
and
pure
breeding.
All
these
clues
point
to
a
man
of
substance,
wealth
and
perhaps
even
power.
The
man
in
question
walks
with
the
purpose
and
certainty
of
one
familiar
with
his
surroundings,
and
he
is
unique
in
this
regard
as
all
other
figures
appear
to
be
looking
in
different
directions.
As
his
daughters
take
in
all
there
is
to
see
in
this
bustling
intersection,
a
bystander
looks
at
their
father,
perhaps
envious
of
his
familiarity
with
this
new
urban
space
following
the
Haussmannization
of
Paris.
It
is
clear
from
the
dress
and
attitudes
of
all
figures
however,
that
they
are
there
to
see
and
be
seen.
While
the
central
figure,
a
wealthy
patron
of
Degas,
may
appear
to
simply
be
going
for
a
stroll,
his
dress
and
accessories
show
he
is
acutely
aware
of
how
a
family
man
of
his
status
should
present
himself
to
society.
While
Degas’
composition
removes
the
sense
of
a
staged
studio
painting,
the
feeling
of

6. performance
remains,
as
if
residents
of
Paris
are
expected
to
put
on
a
show,
or
contribute
to
the
sense
of
spectacle,
each
time
they
leave
the
house.
Degas
pushes
the
viewer
into
the
position
as
spectator,
just
as
the
culture
of
the
city
would
have
pushed
anyone
else
walking
through
the
Place
de
la
Concorde
into
the
same
role.
Beyond
the
city
itself
as
a
space
for
public
spectacle,
new
forms
of
leisure
activity
emerged
during
this
time.
With
the
rise
of
the
middle
class
came
rise
of
individuals
with
disposable
income,
and
with
disposable
income
came
new
forms
of
entertainment.
The
café,
café-­‐concert,
and
even
the
ballet
became
spaces
where
people
from
a
variety
of
socio-­‐economic
backgrounds
could
be
entertained.
Lines
between
social
classes
had
already
begun
to
blur
with
the
emergence
of
the
department
store.
Off
the
rack
clothing
gave
individuals
access
to
a
style
previously
reserved
for
the
upper
classes.
It
quickly
became
difficult
to
identify
an
individual
based
purely
on
dress.
Thus,
the
new
forms
of
entertainment
were
not
exclusive
to
certain
classes.
The
resulting
intermingling
of
classes
is
yet
another
example
of
consumer
capitalism’s
colonization
of
everyday
life
as
observed
by
Degas
and
Manet.
The
main
audience
for
many
of
these
new
forms
of
entertainment,
particularly
the
café-­‐concert
was
present
to
observe
a
culture
they
feel
is
below
them.
Parisian
culture,
primed
by
the
popularity
of
the
physiologie
and
the
writings
of
Balzac,
was
one
where
looking
down
on
people,
particularly
the
class
directly
below
one’s
own,
turned
out
to
be
a
marketable
form
of
entertainment
in
and
of
itself.
While
both
Degas
and
Manet
explored
these
issues
in
their
numerous
paintings
of
modern
life
and
the
newfound
spheres
of
leisure
and
entertainment,
one
of
the
most
famous
examples
is
Manet’s
A
Bar
at
the
Folies-­Bergère
from
1882.
Rather
than
paint
the
show,
what
patrons
of
the
establishement
came
to
see,
Manet
focuses
on
the
woman
behind
the
bar.
The
spectator
is
placed
in
the
position
of
the
barmaids
client,
with
the
offical
show
being
performed
reflected
in
the
mirror
behind
the
bar.
The
scene
is
one
most
Parisians
at
the
time
would
have
been
familiar,
the
process
of
ordering
a
drink
and
the
subsequent
exchange
of
money.
But
here,
in
this
new
Paris,
such
a
simple
act
takes
on
a
new
meaning.
The
reflection
in
the
mirror
shows
a
man
speaking
with
the
barmaid,
most
likely
an
upper
bourgeios
man
speaking
with
the
lower
middle
class
woman
who
would
have
been
working
as
a
bartender
at
the
time.
In
return,
the
woman
appears
to
be
sighing,
not
amused
by
the
male
customer’s
flirtatious
advances.
With
this,
Manet
moves
beyond
representation
and
comments
on
the
idea
of
entertainment
as
an
idustry,
particularly
one
that
does
not
simply
appeal
to
the
masses,
but
targets
specific
audiences.
In
this
situation,
perhaps
referencing
attempts
by
bourgeios
men
to
solicit
the
company
of
lower
class
women
in
spaces
such
as
the
Folies-­‐Bergere,
often
in
a
sexual
context.
The
19th
century
saw
a
great
deal
of
confusion
regarding
meeting
people
and
having
sex,
the
exchange
of
money
and
prostitution.
And
while
the
figures
posing
for
Manet
were
usually
his
acquaintences,
and
not
in
fact
actual
people
from
the
lower
classes,
his
work
speaks
to
the
larger
social
phenomenon
of
the
time.
Manet
and
Degas
were
not
the
only
two
artists
feeding
off
their
changing
social
and
physical
environment,
nor
are
these
the
only
two
paintings
in
which
a
dialogue

7. between
the
artist
and
their
contemporary
life
is
taking
place.
On
the
contrary,
each
painting
by
these
realists
artists
speak
to
the
realities
of
their
modern
life.
Even
if
it
was
not
intentional,
by
painting
the
world
around
them,
Degas
and
Manet
were
responding
to
their
historical
moment,
one
of
political
uncertaity
and
economic
change.
The
presence
of
a
“spectacular
society”
in
works
by
these
realist
artists
is
undeniable,
because
the
presence
of
a
“spectacular
society”
in
Paris
during
the
latter
half
of
the
19th
century
is
undeniable.
The
rich
hisorical
narrative
of
the
evolution
of
Paris
during
this
era
unfolds
across
the
canvases
of
those
dedicated
to
the
painting
of
modern
life.
Spectacle
comes
alive
in
paintings
like
Place
de
la
Concorde
and
A
Bar
at
the
Folies-­Bergère,
bringing
viewers
into
those
spaces.
As
a
result,
historains
and
art
historians
are
forever
indebted
to
artists
like
Manet
and
Degas
for
leaving
behind
such
a
valuable
part
of
the
historical
record.
Essay
4
Today,
it
is
difficult
to
find
an
individual
from
a
middle-­‐class,
bourgeois
background
who
is
not
familiar
with
Claude
Monet.
Museums
draw
record-­‐breaking
crowds
with
exhibitions
featuring
Monet
and
the
Impressionists.
Of
the
seven
paintings
available
as
standard
desktop
backgrounds
on
Apple
computers,
two
are
by
Monet,
one
by
Degas,
and
another
by
Seurat.
140
years
after
bourgeois
academic
critics
denounced
the
first
Impressionist
exhibition,
the
style
has
become
the
pinnacle
of
fine
art.
Most
uninformed
spectators
are
drawn
to
the
color
and
texture
of
the
impressionist
style,
“taking
in”
the
composition
as
timeless
aesthetic
perfection.
For
many,
a
familiarity
with
impressionism
signifies
a
level
of
refinement
that
equates
to
high
cultural
capital.
While
the
work
of
Monet
and
his
fellow
artists
is
no
doubt
beautiful,
placing
their
work
on
a
pedestal
of
“high
aesthetic”
is
problematic.
In
order
to
develop
an
educated
interpretation,
it
is
important
to
use
the
historical
background
as
a
tool
to
read
the
narrative
of
the
Impressionist
movement.
For
instance,
the
goal
for
many
impressionists
was
not
to
create
work
that
reflected
their
individual
psyche
and
artistic
temperament,
but
was
to
sell
paintings.
The
Impressionist
Exhibition
of
1874,
and
subsequent
shows,
was
first
and
foremost
a
commercial
enterprise,
intended
as
a
space
for
artists
to
sell
their
work.
The
artists
involved
were
products
of
their
time,
and
their
work
reflects
many
of
the
historical
narratives
of
late
19th
century
France.
Because
there
is
no
such
thing
as
objective
history,
the
work
of
the
impressionist
movement
must
be
looked
at
from
multiple
points
of
view,
combining
sets
of
narratives.
As
a
result,
there
is
no
one
“truth”
conveyed
through
the
impressionist
project.
This
is
evident
in
the
work
done
by
Edouard
Manet,
who
never
exhibited
with
the
Impressionists
but
was
a
key
figure
in
the
Realist
movement,
and
Monet
at
Argenteuil.
Paris
in
the
1870s
was
abuzz
with
the
thrill
of
progress.
Industry
was
booming
just
outside
the
city,
and
newly
built
railroads
made
commuter
suburbs
a
possibility.
With
the
new
forms
of
transportation,
weekend
trips
to
the
country
became
popular,
opening
a
new
marketplace
for
leisure
in
towns
like
Argenteuil.
Monet
emphasizes
the
new
forms
of
public
transportation
in
his
1873
painting
The
Railway
Bridge.
Here,
the
viewer
is
placed
on
the
banks
of
the
Seine,
looking
out
to
the
railway
bridge
that
passes
overhead.
A
sailboat
crosses
underneath
the
bridge
as

8. the
train
passes
overhead.
It
is
easy
to
imagine
the
occupants
of
the
sailboat,
much
like
Monet
himself,
excited
and
astounded
by
the
new
technologies
around
them,
that
they
could
be
underneath
a
moving
train.
Here,
industry
is
seen
in
a
positive
light.
A
weekend
trip
to
Argenteuil
meant
the
opportunity
to
visit
the
Gare
St.
Lazare,
then
the
largest
train
station
in
the
world
and
a
technological
marvel,
and
a
chance
to
escape
Paris,
still
in
ruins
following
the
1871
Commune.
For
Monet,
leisure
and
modernity
were
very
much
intertwined
in
Argenteuil
during
the
1870s.
A
house
in
the
country,
close
enough
to
the
city
for
weekend
getaways,
would
have
never
been
a
possibility
for
Monet,
a
member
of
the
petty
bourgeois,
before
the
railroad
system.
Paintings
like
The
Regatta
at
Argenteuil
from
1874
show
a
sense
of
tranquility
and
optimism
at
the
new
forms
of
leisure
made
available
to
a
wider
range
of
people
thanks
to
industrial
progress.
Here,
Monet
includes
no
signs
of
the
factories
that
had
begun
to
develop
in
and
around
Argenteuil.
By
the
time
of
the
Industrial
Revolution
in
France,
Paris
was
too
old
and
developed
to
build
factories
downtown,
thus
industry
was
relegated
to
the
suburbs.
Nowhere
in
The
Regatta
at
Argenteuil
is
the
town’s
industrial
future
evident,
as
Monet
paints
the
tranquil
suburban
dream
he
sees
around
him.
The
reality
of
Argenteuil
was
very
different
for
Monet’s
friend
and
fellow
painter
Manet.
The
ultimate
urbanite,
Manet’s
painting
cannot
help
but
poke
fun
at
his
friend’s
faux-­‐country
lifestyle.
Looking
at
Manet’s
Argenteuil
from
1874,
the
artist’s
skepticism
of
the
town’s
leisure
market
is
clear.
In
Argenteuil,
viewers
see
a
typical
Manet
costume
piece,
the
couple
in
the
foreground
posing
with
the
background
added
in
around
them.
The
key
actors
in
the
narrative
most
likely
represent
the
petty-­‐bourgeios
types
who
visit
Argenteuil,
the
man
in
a
boating
costume,
the
woman
in
a
light,
but
somewhat
dull
and
shabby
dress.
While
the
man
looks
at
the
woman,
the
woman
looks
directly
at
the
viewer,
with
a
bored
expression
on
her
face.
As
the
man
attempts
to
flirt,
the
woman
appears
to
have
heard
it
all
before,
clearly
not
impressed
with
his
romantic
advances.
Yet,
the
woman
is
trapped,
the
man’s
cane
extending
from
his
arm,
thwarting
any
chance
she
has
of
escape.
Thus,
she
must
sit
patiently
and
wait,
despite
her
lack
of
enthusiasm
for
the
situation.
Perhaps
the
scene
is
a
stand
in
for
Manet’s
own
feelings
toward
Argenteuil,
a
guest
of
his
friend,
too
polite
to
turn
down
the
invitation
despite
not
buying
into
the
form
of
leisure
the
town
offers.
Manet,
wealthier
than
Monet
and
raised
a
member
of
the
upper-­‐bourgeois,
views
himself
as
above
the
target
audience
for
Argenteuil,
too
smart
and
sophisticated
to
find
leisure
in
sight
of
a
factory.
These
opposing
views
of
Argenteuil
are
indicative
of
the
difference
in
consciousness
for
Manet
and
Monet.
Each
see
and
record
Argenteuil
in
very
different
ways,
due
largely
to
their
different
class
backgrounds.
Naturally,
Monet,
a
member
of
the
petty-­‐bourgeois,
would
depict
Argenteuil
with
a
certain
level
of
enthusiasm,
while
Manet,
an
upper
class
gentleman,
may
see
the
town
as
inferior
to
other
resort
communities
in
France
at
the
time.
Each
artist
sees
the
“truth”
of
leisure
and
modernity
differently,
and
each
offer
independent
perspectives
on
the
same
social
and
economic
phenomena.
For
Monet,
the
two
can
come
together
perfectly
in
new
and
exciting
ways,
and
the
artist
celebrates
this
in
his
paintings
of
Argenteuil.
Manet
on
the
other
hand
celebrates
modernity
in
the
context
of
a
city,
but
struggles
to
see

9. its
place
in
spaces
designated
for
leisure.
The
view
of
a
factory
or
a
passing
train
may
be
exciting
for
Manet
in
the
new
Paris,
but
not
in
the
countryside
while
he
is
trying
to
relax.
These
truths,
made
possible
by
reading
these
paintings
in
the
context
of
their
historical
narrative,
add
greater
depth
and
meaning
to
the
work
of
realists
and
impressionists,
taking
work
from
aesthetically
pleasing
to
culturally
significant
for
an
informed
viewer.
Essay
5
The
20th
century
saw
a
great
debate
amongst
art
historians.
The
problem
lie
in
the
contention
between
contextual
art
history
and
formal
art
history
–
two
different
approaches
to
studying
the
same
topic.
Formalists
placed
value
on
the
application
of
paint,
color
and
composition,
placing
paintings
on
a
scale
of
cultivation
based
on
a
set
of
aesthetic
values.
Contextual
art
historians
valued
the
history
behind
their
objects
of
study,
asking
who
a
painting
serves
and
why
it
existed
given
the
social
culture
of
the
time
in
which
it
was
created.
Each
side
had
inconsistencies;
formalists
could
not
completely
ignore
a
paintings
historical
context,
while
contextually
minded
scholars
were
aesthetically
drawn
to
objects
without
fully
understanding
why.
When
dealing
with
the
painting
of
late
19th
century
France,
form
and
context
depend
on
one
another,
and
in
many
cases
form
becomes
a
metaphor
through
which
social
practices
can
be
represented.
Two
excellent
examples
of
this
principle
are
Paris
Street,
Rainy
Day,
an
1877
piece
by
Gustave
Caillebotte
and
A
Sunday
Afternoon
on
the
Island
of
the
Grande-­
Jatte,
by
Georges
Seurat
from
1884-­‐86.
Both
paintings
present
the
illusion
of
objectivity.
The
viewer
is
placed
as
a
casual
observer
of
the
scene
in
both
cases.
With
Caillebotte,
the
viewer’s
objectivity
comes
from
the
sense
of
being
in
the
painting,
as
if
you
were
walking
down
the
city
street.
Seurat
presents
A
Sunday
Afternoon
on
the
Island
of
the
Grande-­Jatte
almost
as
a
play
for
the
viewer,
as
it
is
easy
to
imagine
the
scene
as
a
posed
piece
of
performance.
However,
because
the
viewer
is
not
given
a
place
in
the
scene,
they
are
rendered
“objective”
observers,
whose
impression
of
the
scene
is
not
influenced
by
his
or
her
own
experiences.
But
upon
further
examination
of
both
these
paintings,
the
façade
of
objectivity
is
cast
into
doubt
and
the
artists’
commentary
on
social
life
is
evident.
With
Paris
Street,
Rainy
Day,
Caillebotte
is
very
clearly
looking
to
the
work
of
Edgar
Degas,
particularly
his
1875
painting
Place
de
la
Concorde.
Caillebotte,
a
wealthy
patron
of
many
impressionist
artists,
would
have
no
doubt
seen
Place
de
la
Concorde
and
drawn
inspiration
from
Degas’
composition,
as
both
register
in
similar
ways
as
commentary
on
bourgeois
life
in
modern
Paris.
The
viewer
is
placed
in
the
middle
of
the
“New
Paris,”
home
to
the
wide
boulevards
and
limestone
apartment
buildings
for
which
Paris
is
now
famous.
Caillebotte
utilizes
the
new
Hausmannian
streets
to
create
a
deeply
plunging
perspectival
system
that
extends
the
feeling
of
“newness”
as
far
as
the
eye
can
see.
It
is
easy
to
imagine
the
viewer
turning
a
corner
and
immediately
feeling
the
impact
of
the
space,
the
shock
and
awe
of
arriving
at
a
space
of
such
expansive
modernism.
Here,
the
impact
of
the
form
and
composition
on
the
viewer
registers
as
a
metaphor
for
a
positive
or
negative
take
on
progress
and
the
“New
Paris.”
Furthermore,
the
anonymity
of
modern
life
in
an
urban
metropolis
is
clear
in
Paris
Street,
Rainy
Day.
Figures
look
down
a
their
feet,
or
observe
one
another
from
a

10. distance,
but
do
not
make
contact
with
their
fellow
Parisians.
Yet,
looking
at
the
painting,
it
is
unclear
if
Caillebotte
is
commenting
on
the
loss
of
some
sort
of
community
or
celebrating
the
achievements
of
the
modern
age.
If
the
foreground
is
home
to
the
people
who
experience
and
perhaps
enjoy
this
new
city,
the
background
houses
the
people
who
build
and
operate
the
city,
the
petty-­‐bourgeois
and
working
class.
While
the
anonymity
of
the
city
persists
with
discrete
figural
groups,
Caillebotte
comments
on
the
social
build
of
the
city.
By
placing
together
upper,
middle
and
lower
classes
in
the
newly
built
8th
and
9th
arrondissments,
the
artist
signifies
that
they
all
play
a
role
in
the
continuation
of
the
Parisian
way
of
life.
Seurat’s
A
Sunday
Afternoon
on
the
Island
of
the
Grande-­Jatte
achieves
similar
goals
to
Caillebotte’s
work,
though
utilizes
a
different
style.
A
neo-­‐impressionist,
Seurat
employed
the
divisionist
style,
so
named
for
the
division
of
color
tones,
though
it
has
now
become
known
as
pointillism,
for
the
application
of
paint
in
tiny
dots,
or
points.
Exhibited
at
the
last
Impressionist
exhibition,
A
Sunday
Afternoon
walks
a
careful
line
between
being
agreeable
and
overly
regimented.
Formally,
Seurat
sees
this
painting
as
his
manifesto,
a
statement
on
creating
an
optical
vibration
by
separating
tones
of
color,
creating
the
illusion
of
a
scientific,
almost
machine-­‐made
painting.
Compositionally,
this
painting
returns
to
the
rigid
presentation
of
the
neo-­‐classical
style,
but
removes
the
clear
allegory
or
message.
Looking
beyond
the
formal
composition
of
this
painting,
Seurat’s
message
becomes
even
more
muddled.
The
couple
on
the
right
of
the
composition
appears
to
be
an
upper
class
pair,
“slumming”
out
of
curiosity.
The
man
is
very
clearly
a
member
of
the
upper
bourgeois,
given
his
cigar
and
top
hat,
while
the
woman
walking
a
pet
monkey
is
often
considered
a
courtesan
or
kept-­‐woman.
This
couple
stands
on
the
edge
of
the
composition,
observing
the
people
around
them.
On
the
other
side
of
the
painting
sits
a
working
class
man
in
a
boating
costume,
smoking
a
clay
pipe,
while
a
petty
bourgeois
man
in
a
department
store
suit
sits
a
ways
away.
The
two
do
not
interact,
despite
the
relative
similarities
of
their
economic
background.
Seurat’s
visual
language
is
shrouded
in
irony.
While
the
composition
is
utilizing
the
preferred
classicizing
style
of
academic
painting
at
the
time,
Seurat’s
work
is
clearly
avant-­‐garde
for
his
contemporary
moment.
The
viewer
is
left
wondering
what
the
artist
is
thinking,
if
his
scene
is
one
of
utopia
or
dystopia.
The
mix
of
conflicting
order
of
signification
only
further
the
problems
as
irony
becomes
a
figurative
language
all
its
own.
The
viewer
desperately
wants
to
know
what
is
happening,
but
a
clear
reading
is
blocked
by
contradictions.
Caillebotte
and
Seurat
are
often
compared
with
one
another
for
their
small
applications
of
paint
and
large-­‐scale
paintings
of
city
life.
Both
present
works
that
formally
gives
the
illusion
of
objectivity
that
quickly
disappears
upon
close
formal
and
contextual
examination.
However,
Paris
Street,
Rainy
Day,
lacks
the
bite
of
A
Sunday
Afternoon
on
the
Island
of
the
Grande-­Jatte.
Neither
artist
presents
a
clear
message,
but
Seurat
presents
a
stronger
set
of
ideas
than
Caillebotte,
even
if
the
meaning
behind
Seurat’s
ideas
is
far
less
clear.
Regardless,
a
solely
formal
or
contextual
reading
of
either
painting
would
only
provide
a
fraction
of
the
story;
both
schools
of
thought
must
be
utilized
in
order
to
move
beyond
the
myth
of
objectivity
in
pursuit
of
a
substantive
interpretation.