Discuss the Book as a Whole: "Democratic" Painting

[Jessica]

The Marquis de Chennevières famously dismissed the painting of Courbet and some of the other Realists as "democratic painting." Could he have said the same for Manet's work? And what about Meissonier? Given his popularity with the people, can his work be seen as that of a "democrat"?

---

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.

[hasenbein]

---

Jessica wrote:

The Marquis de Chennevières famously dismissed the painting of Courbet and some of the other Realists as "democratic painting." Could he have
said the same for Manet's work? And what about Meissonier? Given his popularity with the people, can his work be seen as that of a "democrat"?

---

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.

---

I'm a bit behind with the book, so haven't been posting. To this question - Since democratic (in art) is defined as "of, relating to, or appealing to the broad masses of the people," I would say yes. The interesting thing is that art, therefore, could be "democratic" at one time, and not at another as artists fall in and out of popularity.

KathyH

[ross_king]

Hi Kathy -- You’ve tackled a tough question. My theory is that Manet would have regarded his art as "democratic," and so he couldn’t understand why people - the public and critics both - didn’t like it. One reason why they didn’t is that "democrat" was a codeword for "revolutionary" in those days. Chennevières and Nieuwerkerke, the men who ran the Paris Salon, were extremely conservative both politically and artistically. They didn’t want humble scenes of everyday life to go on show before the "great unwashed." So Manet’s paintings held a political charge for them.

A typically "democratic" work by Manet is a lithograph called The Balloon, which he did in 1862. It shows a public holiday (a Feast of the Emperor), with a flags flying above a huge crowd as a balloon prepares for lift-off. In the foreground, though, Manet depicts a crippled boy seated on the ground. It’s a curious image to forefront, and is probably meant to imply a criticism of Napoleon III’s empire. Manet seems to be saying that, in the midst of celebrations of France’s prosperity and the Emperor’s greatness, we must not forget the more unfortunate.

Message Edited by ross_king on 04-25-200707:03 AM

[hasenbein]

---

ross_king wrote:
Hi Kathy -- You’ve tackled a tough question. My theory is that Manet would have regarded his art as "democratic," and so he couldn’t understand why people - the public and critics both - didn’t like it. One reason why they didn’t is that "democrat" was a codeword for "revolutionary" in those days. Chennevières and Nieuwerkerke, the men who ran the Paris Salon, were extremely conservative both politically and artistically. They didn’t want humble scenes of everyday life to go on show before the "great unwashed." So Manet’s paintings held a political charge for them.

A typically "democratic" work by Manet is a lithograph called The Balloon, which he did in 1862. It shows a public holiday (a Feast of the Emperor), with a flags flying above a huge crowd as a balloon prepares for lift-off. In the foreground, though, Manet depicts a crippled boy seated on the ground. It’s a curious image to forefront, and is probably meant to imply a criticism of Napoleon III’s empire. Manet seems to be saying that, in the midst of celebrations of France’s prosperity and the Emperor’s greatness, we must not forget the more unfortunate.

Message Edited by ross_king on 04-25-200707:03 AM

---

Thanks, Ross. I'm really enjoying the book. The pages fly by! And thank you for the "democratic" explanation for that time.

KathyH