Discuss the Book as a Whole: The Epigraph

[Jessica]

Manet is not very quotable, but consider the book's epigraph: "In this bitch of a life, one can never be too well armed." What do you think he meant by this?

---

Reply to this message to discuss any of these topics. Or start your own new topic by clicking "New Message."

Note: This topic refers to the book as a whole.

[Jessica]

---

Jessica wrote: Manet is not very quotable, but consider the book's epigraph: "In this bitch of a life, one can never be too well armed." What do you think he meant by this?

---

I loved this quote -- for general reasons at first. But after I read the book, I read it in an entirely different light.

I think the quote stems from Manet's struggle to be recognized for work that, in his heart, he knew was important, even though the world was ignoring him. (That's the "bitch of a life" part.)

The things that probably made him feel well-armed? His talent. His gut feeling that his work was a turning point in art. The people (Emile Zola, especially) who believed in him.

How did being well-armed help Manet? What does everyone think?

As a side question -- Ross, why didn't Manet make a bigger attempt to make his stand in London, when many of his friends were enjoying great success over there in the late 1860s? Do you think Manet secretly considered it a lesser victory, and that nothing would satisfy him but the vindication of winning the approval of the Salon?

Jessica
Book Club Editor

[marlohill]

One of the ways Manet was well armed was that he had so much support from so many friends. And it is fascinating that he painted pictures of them all! Did he know that they would be so famous as they are now, household names?? So, not only are his works famous because they were painted by him, Manet, but he has pictures of Monet and Monet's family, and many great artists and writers that met with him at the little restaurants. It seemed like everyone that Manet associated with did become famous. Cezanne seemed mentally ill, because he didn't take baths and his drawings were very morbid, but I have heard of him too. The book said that his drawings eventually became less morbid and he started doing lanscapes.
Michelle

[marlohill]

Manet was also well armed in that he did not hold back his true feelings toward the politics of the day. I don't think he was ever one who held back probably! I wondered why Manet and Meissonier stuck it out in Paris during the siege and didn't leave like Monet and others did. Why did they go thru so much suffering? They did paint their different style of paintings based on what they saw. I would have left given the chance. Manet didn't even like Spanish food and he was reduced to eating horse meat, when it could be found!
A painter's responses to the Franco-Prussian War and the Paris Commune were the true tests of his/her politics. Manet did the picture of the emperor getting shot, right? So, we know where he stood. But what about the other artists, like Monet, that did landscapes?? What about Cezanne? He probably painted everybody dead! Actually, I think it was smart of Monet to just paint landscapes. And they are beautiful too!

[ross_king]

---

marlohill wrote:
I wondered why Manet and Meissonier stuck it out in Paris during the siege and didn't leave like Monet and others did. Why did they go thru so much suffering?

---

Manet and Meissonier could easily have fled Paris, as many other painters certainly did. However, both of them were staunch patriots, and I think they really wanted to defend Paris against the Prussians. Both joined the National Guard - and it’s amusing that Meissonier ended up as Manet’s commanding officer. That really must have rankled with Manet. However, Meissonier did find him a cushier position with the General Staff instead of the artillery: had he stayed in the artillery, he may well have been killed. So, ironically, Meissonier may have saved Manet’s life!

Monet and Cézanne were much less interested in politics. Cézanne was more or less a "draft dodger" during the Franco-Prussian War, since he disappeared to the south of France when he was supposed to report for military duty. You can hardly blame him, especially since so many people died in battle, including the painter Frédéric Bazille. I’m not sure that Cézanne would have made a very good soldier anyway - and it’s lucky for us that he survived to paint.

[ross_king]

---

Jessica wrote:

As a side question -- Ross, why didn't Manet make a bigger attempt to make his stand in London, when many of his friends were enjoying great success over there in the late 1860s? Do you think Manet secretly considered it a lesser victory, and that nothing would satisfy him but the vindication of winning the approval of the Salon?

Jessica
Book Club Editor

---

I think that’s exactly the reason he didn’t try to make his way in England. For Manet, success at the Paris Salon counted for everything. You could make money in London (as his friends Legros, Whistler and Fantin-Latour discovered), but Paris was where you made your name. Manet wanted medals and acclaim from the French nation.

Having said that, though, it’s strange that he didn’t try to show work in London, or make more of an effort to succeed there, because he was very optimistic about his chances in England after his brief visit in 1868. He just never seems to have followed up his plans of exhibiting there. It’s intriguing that the Impressionists had much better luck in Britain and America than in France. The Impressionist shows in London in 1882 and 1883 were reasonably successful, and they were a big hit in New York in 1886.

I wonder what Manet would have thought of this exhibition of Impressionist paintings in New York, which came three years after his death. Renoir didn’t want his canvases sent to America because he didn’t believe the Americans would be interested in them. I suspect Manet might have been the same. He wanted to fight his battles on French soil.

Then then raises the question of why it was America, not France, where the Impressionists first became successful. Why did wealthy Americans take to Manet, Renoir and Monet in the 1880s and 1890s, when these painters were still unpopular in Paris ... ?

[Mariposa]

Is it possible because the United States was a relatively new nation that it was more open to innovation and experiment?


Lizabeth

[marlohill]

Lizabeth, I think that you hit the nail on the head! Anyway, it is nice to think that we are open to new ideas and innovation. My Mom got the concept of Impressionism right away that I didn't understand, so much for the younger generation! She said the kind of paintings that I liked could be taken with a camera, photographs, but Impressionism was art more interesting. I don't think that I could ever look at urinals as artforms, because i have to clean so many of them and they just seem dirty to me! But the picture of Poissey by Meissonier was very pretty, didn't you think? I think it is good to keep an open mind and not be closed minded, but to have common sense and mental balance too.
Michelle

[marlohill]

I hope your dreams come true and you have a great vacation, Lizabeth!
Michelle