Encapsulating a snapshot of this scene of a barmaid at the Folies- Bergère, Manet has tried to create a whole sense of space, however the scene continues, only a fleeting moment was captured. Manet clearly has an impressionist style of mark and structure (despite him never joining the movement), but the work can also be arguably a realism portrait; the barmaid isn’t romanticized, appearing ‘realistically’ painted. This work is not placid like Realism claims to be , audiences are always intrigued about the context of Folies- Bergère, role and class of the barmaid. Neither has it a political agenda (realists) nor masks the 1850 redevelopment of Paris and class war (impressionists), instead the work is trying to be modern. Modern art in terms of addressing sexuality and class . Furthermore it’s ironic this work, both realist and impressionist, is trying to portray a fleeting moment of reality, when this work is a collage of perspectives staged in his studio. However several sketches of the bar from visits allow this work to reflect the reality of the bar. The painting aims to shows everyday life, inspired by the Spanish Realists of the 18th century, who depicted ordinary people and their lives rather than romanticizing history .
Manet composed ‘A Bar at the Folies- Bergère’ so the audience is always drawn back to the barmaid, which is insinuated as the main subject and focal point by occupying a third of the painting. The viewers’ eye is drawn from the left across the high horizon and foreground of the work before being brought up to the subjects’ reflection and finally taken leftward through the depicted audience. Despite being the main part of the work, the title doesn’t reference the barmaid, only focusing on the bar context. This gives a huge insight into the nature of this work, the relevance of the barmaid as an individual and how her and her class fits into modern art.
For the initial audience of the Paris Salon in 1882 the Folies- Bergère would have been infamously renowned for its sensual-allures, opening in 1869 as an entertainment venue with acts including ballet, acrobatics and burlesque. A social status as a “cabaret-cum-brothel” . Alongside the other modern paintings of the time, the barmaid easily slips into a lower class and highlights the sexuality of her as the subject, therefore it seems sensible to compare it to the ‘the first nude to represent modern reality’ , Olympia (Manet 1863). Olympia being a flat nude mimicking/mocking the Venus’ of the time , the idealised woman, instead offering the public a slab of their unspoken society, a Olympia (name for a prostitute). The barmaid has similar accessories to her, such as a black ribbon, golden bangle and pinned flowers, Manet could be drawing on the symbolism of objects in art (such as the Renaissance) and using these objects to hint at her sexual nature. Obviously the barmaid isn’t nude; so is it too far a judgement to propose she is a prostitute? The most potent similarity is the confidence these women portray, both have strong confrontational poses with their gaze either direct or just off the viewers’ eyes, a rare feeling of power and independence for the observed women of the time, almost challenging the male gaze. This confidence wouldn’t have been very feminine of a bourgeois woman of 19th century Paris, affirming the lower class of the barmaid. For an instance the works almost seem pro-feminist however this is optimistic of a male artist of the 19th century, and it is instantly clear this confidence is for a mere business deal and the women don’t truly possess power.
What the viewer is secondly drawn to is the ill-fitting reflection of the barmaid and customer, not initially alarming due to the illusion of false perspective obscuring the collaged space. The distortion appears to be for aesthetic appeal, allowing the barmaid in the foreground (real space) to not be merged with the reflection. This separation is more than a compositional aesthetic and can be seen as emphasising the difference between the still life and the wider audience. The still life is of multiples of alcohol bottles and fruit, commodities in front of the customer, despite the customer not being in the line of sight, only in the extended space. This static separation makes it easier to perceive the mirrored space as an area of consumption for the middle and higher class, as opposed to the foreground which is a commodity zone, for various types of commodity . The view of the barmaid as a commodity is reaffirmed with her very feminine, sexualized hour-glass figure echoing the fluid shape of the bottles, thus objectifying the subject. Carol Armstrong suggests Manet was imagining what a subject looks like as an object . This work is modern as it is emphasising the development of society, where consumption is emerging in the city centre pushing manufacturing outwards , the wider reflection of the work shows consumption flourishing in the city centre. Similarly to Olympia this work suggests the male gaze is present for numerous reasons, such as the artist, Manet, is male so considering women had a lower status in this time period it is almost impossible to escape some discrepancies therefore she is sexualized with her rosy complexion, tight laced clothing and low cut shirt. The viewers’ position appears to be directly in front of her, considering the reflection this would insinuate we are the male customer, thus giving a male gaze (especially if you believe she is providing a service). If it is believe Manet uses object symbolism in his work then unlike The Rokeby Venus it is a male (customer) that can be seen as vane, therefore hinting at his power in this scenario, compared to the barmaid.
Was Manet’s bar painting a modern piece of art? 19th century Parisian modern art was exploring class, and sexuality which in context is exploring the relationship of public and private space. From previous analysis it is arguable that the women are sexualized in a lower class, but why hasn’t any upper class women been portrayed? Bourgeois women (upper class), had limited lifestyles in order to remain feminine, there were few places they were allowed accompanied, never mind alone. Therefore in Manet’s paintings only mistresses or prostitutes were portrayed due to the bourgeois society preventing upper class women’s presence in these places. Men also were expected to act respectfully, however had the opportunity to visit places such as the Folies- Bergère, the freedom of not being judged for “taking their pleasure in public space” . These unspoken areas of society, the non-bourgeois, are what modern artists were trying to surface, art being realistic rather than being a mask of a perfect society. Not all modern artists are men, Mary Cassatt and Berthe Morisot are underappreciated due to them not having the luxury to portray the differences of class and sexuality, instead they showed bourgeois women in domestic environments. Artists and flâneurs had the luxury to have women as the object of their gaze whereas women were unable to be the viewer, is modern art just the objectification of women. Do women have to be sexualised to be modern? I feel modern art is designed to make the viewer see things in a different light, Manet forced the viewer of the 19th century to address the imperfection of bourgeois society, brothels being a common place for bourgeois men, escaping the restraints of society. Whereas Cassatt and Morisot portrayed modern society from the view of the bourgeois woman, previously sexualized and romanticised by the flâneur. Cassatt managed to portray the female nude unlike any artist of her time, completely realist, un-sexualised and modern .
‘A Bar at the Folies- Bergère’ was a modern artwork that peeled away from the conventions of realists and impressionists, trying to show the imperfections of the bourgeois society. The complex relationship for the Parisian bourgeois’ of the public and private, shows the relationship of classes and gender and ultimately isolated bourgeois women with the sexual male gaze. This painting helps reinforce the objectification of women by the flâneur.
It is arguable that Cassatt is a more modern painter showing a very realist approach to the domestic bourgeois woman, managing to simply highlight their lifestyle showing and celebrating this overlooked area of society. Not romanticising of sexualising women just celebrating their way of life, while also greatly differing from male artists of the time, allowing women to be independent. It is easy to see why Manet’s work was modern due to its shocking factor of showing prostitution to a bourgeois society, on the other hand does artwork have to be shocking to be modern and make people think differently? Cassatt’s work has the ability to give her subjects power that the society doesn’t offer them, emphasising the male gaze in modern artworks, even when modern artists portray a domestic scene the woman is still sexualized.
This work appears to be a more symbolic piece, hinting at the audience the idea of women as commodities, showing prostitution in a more subtle way than Olympia. Can this work be classed as realism if Manet forces objects into the scene for symbolism?