Nevin Bryers Paper

Nevin Miles Bryers, “Form and Concept:  The Influence of Photography on Delacroix and Manet,” BOZetto, Vol. 1, Fall 2012, 5-8.

Throughout history artists have strived for inventiveness and originality.  Each new generation tends to break away from its predecessor.  Whether in style or subject matter, a change occurs, leading to a new way of thought or vision.  Though this change may be drastic at times, it always tends to hold on to some aspects of its previous identity.  Each movement has its own strengths and unique attributes, and the progression towards a new movement not only advances art in a new direction, but also gives us a sense of the important qualities carried on through tradition. 

Painting has long been considered one of the highest arts.  Prior to the mid-nineteenth century, painting was arguably the most effective way to interpret the reflections of human thought, feeling, and expression in the visual arts.  It documented our history in a way that we could cognitively and emotionally understand.  However, its honesty was only as strong as an artist’s will and ability to display it.  For those who wished to twist the truth, painting provided a powerful tool for propaganda.  In the mid-nineteenth century, the invention of photography elicited mixed reactions from the world on many different levels (political, artistic, moral, spiritual, et cetera).  Pierre Schneider has reflected on the controversial nature of the invention of photography and has noted that some artists of the time were concerned that the machine would take over the functions of painters, as they considered photography to be “a pretentious rival incapable of expressing the spiritual realm of art.”[i]  Schneider has also pointed out that other painters saw it as an indispensable tool that would aid in the study of the natural world.  Looking back, we can conclude that photography has had an immense influence on painting.  It provided a fertile ground for developing new ways of looking at the world and art, propelling new movements such as Realism and Impressionism. 

It is to be acknowledged that photography sealed the fate for many of the professional painters specializing in expensive miniature portraits, as their work was replaced by the new medium.  However, I would like to focus on two artists:  Eugène Delacroix, who was a major influence in Romanticism, and Edouard Manet, whose art was rooted in Realism.  Both found themselves in the midst of a world influenced by a freshly emerging medium, and were inspired to redefine their purpose as artists within new circumstances.  Both used the fundamentals of photography to filter their artistic expression, yet they moved in very different directions.  Manet, “painter of the present,”[ii] sought to capture the instantaneousness of life, producing images of ephemeral moments and emotions.  Delacroix seemed to be fascinated by the opportunity to find an ultimate measurement of reality through the study of the human form.

            Taking a glimpse into the world in which Delacroix and Manet were situated seems to be important to understand the extent of influence that photography bore on both artists.  The invention of photography originated from a desire to capture images of the natural world.  As Aaron Scharf has explained, several artists quarreled over the usefulness and precision of the camera; some artists were even “fearful that the rigid optical accuracy fostered by that instrument would tend to detract from the supremacy of the imagination.”[iii]  Scharf continued:  “Hogarth, for example, rejected the camera on the grounds that it subjugated the vision of the artist to the imitation of a lifeless rather than an animated nature.  By direct observation alone he proposed to store his memory full of a variety of natural forms and gestures.”[iv]  Therefore, artists opposing photography believed that the painter’s self expression, individual approach to subject matter, and use of imagination was more important than the machine’s offering of exactitude.  

Delacroix was 39 years old when the first daguerreotype was successfully developed.  He was an experienced and acknowledged painter by that time, and could have easily joined the choir of the opposition.  Instead he chose to embrace the new medium as an inspiration and a device that would bring a new understanding of the visible world.  Delacroix’s artistic maturity paired up with a spirit of adventure and curiosity, making him more flexible in adopting a new medium. Scharf pointed out:  “In Delacroix’s opinion it was of fundamental importance that nothing concerning his subject should be neglected by the artist.”[v]  It seems that Delacroix had a sense of artistic integrity and responsibility for remaining open to possibilities of broadening his experience.  He became a photographer himself, which gave him a unique advantage of first-hand experience with the medium.  Delacroix played an active role in the positioning of his models, who he placed in similar poses to those found in some of his previous paintings.[vi]  His insistence on engagement in that part of the process in photography seems important, as it indicates his will to link his previous experience to the present moment – maybe in an attempt to put his past works to the test of the new, more accurate representational medium.  Heinrich Schwarz has argued: “Every scientific advance entails renunciation or even abandonment of formerly well-established values,”[vii] which seems to be in a stark opposition to the case of Delacroix.  Somehow the artist was able to connect the two, to meld the tradition of his classically composed works with the challenges of photographic exploration.  Delacroix’s attention was focused on the form. He seemed to be interested in finding accuracy in representations of the human body, and to use photography as a canon for measuring the proportions and ratios of human anatomy.  

          Manet’s way of embracing photography was significantly different from Delacroix’s.  Only 5 years old at the time of photography’s birth, Manet grew up in a world of rapid change with photography and the controversy that surrounded it already built in.  The conceptual dimension of photography influenced his artistic path, as this medium inevitably captured the present moment.  For Manet photography was an integral part of experience as he grew as an individual and as an artist; therefore, this medium inspired him on a conceptual level. Photography was a means of exposing reality in its rawness and – at times – vulgarity.  The idea of presenting the world, emotions, social structures and cultural schemes as they exist rather than as people wanted them to be, seems to be a thread in Manet’s works.  Jerrold Levinson has stated:  “For a thing to be art it must be linked by its creator to the repository of art existing at the time, as opposed to being aligned by him with some abstracted template of required characteristics.”[viii]  Manet seems to be an example of an artist who uses traditional art schemes with an intention to reconstruct the meaning of the representations in a context of present reality. Manet’s Luncheon on the Grass is a contemporary scene that caused a scandal in the world of modern art, even though the representation of female nudity is an old theme in works of classical masters.  It is the context of the nudity placed on the contemporary stage that aroused critique and disapproval.  Ross King has noted:  “Prostitution may have been legal in the streets and brothels of Paris, but it was still very far from being acceptable on the walls of the Salon.”[ix] Reality of social circumstances, portrayed in the painting, appears to be an accusation aimed at the moral structure of contemporary society, which excluded honest discussion about sexuality from the public forum.  Manet drew from photography the passion for exposing secrets of the bourgeoisie and for bringing to light issues that existed in the shadows. 

Two paintings, Delacroix’s Odalisque and Manet’s Olympia, appear to convey a similar theme.  Both images portray a kind of prostitute.  Delacroix posed his model to appear awkward and naturally crude – the model is sitting on one leg with the other one outstretched and the foot pointing inward.  The model’s head is tilted with one arm tucked behind it.  Delacroix’s pose stands in contrast to classical paintings featuring a similar pose.  Traditionally this position was meant to convey elegance and feminine grace, whereas Delacroix strove for capturing the obstinate reality of femininity.  Manet’s painting is a redesign of Titian’s Venus of Urbino, but the reality that it displays is very different.  Manet left undeniable clues as to the profession of his subject.  The woman portrayed is receiving flowers, possibly from an admirer.  Her body is laid back, completely uncovered to the viewer’s eye.  She looks straight at the viewer and firmly covers her genitalia in a gesture of control and power over her sexuality.  Delacroix’s painting is based directly on a photograph.  It shows the approach of using a photographic image as a reference, whereas Manet’s painting is based on an understanding of photography’s reluctance to hide blemishes.  Manet adapted photography’s ability to record subjects taken from every day life as well as its dramatic tonal qualities.

            Photography has had an immense impact on painting in general and the artistic paths of Delacroix and Manet in particular.  Each artist used inspiration from the new medium in a different way:  Delacroix focused on the form and Manet pursued capturing the moment and reflecting on the present state of society.  Even though each was at a different point of his career, and their experiences of life and art varied considerably, they both recognized photography as a chance to reflect upon and ultimately redefine the concept of reality, the purpose of art, and the role and responsibility of an artist.  They both were courageous in a way, Delacroix in being able to break away from the tradition that he already had played an active role in and Manet in voicing uncomfortable truths about the contemporary state of the Salon culture and the social constructs of nineteenth-century Paris.  Delacroix and Manet proved that the artist’s role is to exercise a control over medium rather than to be “owned” by it.  Those painters whose careers crashed with the emergence of photography seemed to fear the new vehicle of expression, and therefore surrendered their power of creativity and flexibility to adapt to changing conditions of the art world.  Manet and Delacroix embraced different aspects of photography, as they both were curious about its potential, and successfully avoided the trap of becoming resistant and engrossed by the comfort of familiarity.