.The Women of the Reclining Nudes: Not Objects, but Artists
By Serena Weil
Throughout history and the history of art, men have been written into the story as the most important individuals. As exemplified by the massive body of work known as reclining nudes, women are meant to sit, look pretty, and say nothing at all. Separated by 300 years, Titian’s Venus of Urbino and Manet’s Olympia, two reclining nudes with nearly identical compositions, reveal that centuries of depictions of women perhaps speak louder than women could in the past. Although men have been traditionally regarded as key players and legendary painters, female nude models deserve the same caliber of recognition for their artistic inputs.
Italian Renaissance painter Titian is known for his series of Venuses, women worthy of comparison to the goddess of love herself. The Renaissance marked a time in art history where proportions became accurate, thus Venus of Urbino is characteristic of that golden age of celebrating the body. Venus appears seductive, healthy, and proud, looking directly at the viewer. The background shows an ornate interior with two figures quietly turned away, redirecting attention to Venus who appears comfortable and at ease with a dog napping at her side. Her accessories are golden; her hair free-flowing.
Edouard Manet was a painter in France during the 19th century. Friendly with the infamous impressionists of that era, Manet established himself as more of a realist. Olympia (1863) depicts a woman reclining on lightly-colored bed linens in a darkly-colored room while her attendant brings her flowers. Instead of gold accessories, Olympia instead wears a black ribbon around her neck, revealing that she is a prostitute. Evocative of an actress post-performance, there are heels still on her feet, her hair is tied back and adorned with a huge flower, and her attendant is giving her flowers. Olympia looks disproportionate, pale, and tinged green. Her gaze is ominous: perhaps tired, uncomfortable, or looking with disdain upon Manet. The effect of mirroring Titian’s Venus of Urbino, minus the seductive gaze, becomes profound.
They are both posing for the man, but Olympia is tired, and Venus is naive. In this way, Venus of Urbino is the simple, uncritical predecessor of Olympia. Furthermore, even if Manet is critiquing a history of reclining nudes and attention on the venuses of society, this intention cannot cancel out the practiced objectification of women. At the same time that Manet painted Olympia, women were not allowed to be artists and participate in equal forms of nude drawing, the highest category of art at the time. The only participation they were afforded in the creation of “great” artworks was to pose for hours on end, a job no more dignified than that of a vase in a still life. Nonetheless, both Venus and Olympia made important contributions. While women who modeled nude were seen as immoral, their painters received accolades. Thus Manet is not necessarily revolutionary for painting Olympia, but rather Olympia is the true star for posing, for collaborating. She is not an object, but an artist and a visionary too. Olympia is to thank for her puzzling facial expression in the context of a much greater system of imagery. If Venus of Urbino is status quo, Olympia’s Olympia breaks it.