Manet's Modernism: or, The Face of Painting in the 1860s [Hardcover]

Michael Fried published his magnum opus 'Manet's Modernism: or, The Face of Painting in the 1860s' in 1996, the compendium of three books, actually, that remain the most significant resource of the study of the much maligned painter Edouard Manet. In Manet's time he was essentially hidden in the rise of the more popular Impressionists, garnering criticism form his colleagues and critics alike for works that appeared to mannered, too posed, to unnaturally lighted. But fine author and historian Michael Fried introduces some new ideas about the painter that could just place him in the echelon of the first of the Modernists.

Fried 'suggests' that Manet's paintings were for the most part tableaus created in his studio from professional and non-professional models wearing costumes suggestive of the many allegories and historical events that Manet painted. That fact, in and of itself, does not venture Manet much further thatn say, Caravaggio et al, but it is the interplay between the subjects and the painter (and hence the observer) that Fried alls to our attention. The lighting of his paintings seem to have its source from the front as opposed to the back lighting or streams of side lighting usually chosen by other painters. And to make the controversy even more interesting, Fried suggests that this studio technique coupled with various observances of his models' features (eg. barefeet that suggest having worn contemporary type shoes) may - and the important word is 'may' - represent the uses of photography as the tool Manet used! Horrors! you say? But then by the time of the painting period of the 1860s that Fried is exploring, photography was well known and fairly widely used as a means of documenting history, battles, families etc. So why should an artist of Manet's importance not include this new tool in his painting paraphernalia?

It is an interesting concept and one that in today's widely used techniques among artists of not only using photographs to reference 'sittings' for later solo studio work but also to include photography in the canvases (witness Rauschenberg, etc) makes complete sense. Gone are the prejudices against photography as not being 'pure'. And it just may be that Manet, if he indeed used photographs in his painting preparation, is more important in the overall history of painting advancement than he has been regarded! A fascinating book (even at 676 pages) and a fine addition to the library. Grady Harp, January 07

It has been said that images of Edouard Manet marked the beginning of modern painting. The great art critic and art historian Michael Fried explores the work of Manet and several contemporaries.

The book opens with the republication of an earlier article by Fried in which he suggested that the sources of many of Manet's important works were in the art of earlier times and cultures and has a second chapter aimed at refuting the arguments against his thesis by other critics and historians. Fried concludes that Manet was trying to create some kind of universal art. To do so he refers to earlier pictures by artists from Rembrandt to Watteau which he maintains show the connections and derivations. In most case the similarity was usually as to the posing of certain figures in both Manet's and the earlier works. While quite interesting, I was unconvinced since there was no evidence directly from Manet of his intentions. Moreover, it seemed to me that if one looked enough through the bodies of works of the earlier artists, one would be bound to find similar poses.

In the third chapter, the author addresses many of Manet's contemporaries, including Millet, Fantin-Latour, Legros and Whistler. In this examination, Fried pays particular attention to a concern he has previously addressed, namely the opposition between absorption and theatricality. (To oversimplify, in images characterized by absorption, the subject appears not to be aware of his subjectness, while theatricality shows an awareness of the viewer.) In exploring the issue, Fried discusses the reactions of art critics of the time to the work of the artists, particularly their appraisal of the value of the images based upon their place on the absorption/theatricality continuum. The fourth chapter deals in the same way with Manet.

The fifth chapter is a strange one that deals primarily with self-portraits and the effect of the artist viewing himself in a mirror. There is a coda appended in which Fried summarizes what has gone before, and concludes that he is unable to have any final word on what Manet's goals were with respect to absorption and theatricality. There are several appendices in French and English with the comments of critics of the time and 168 pages of notes.

Fried is both a critic and historian, and this book illustrates the distinction. He is concerned about the history of the art without drawing conclusions as to the quality of the work of the artists, and other than describing technique, gives us little clue as to how to appreciate the works. Indeed, I sometimes felt that he didn't particularly care for the work of Manet and his contemporaries. For those who believe that art is a way to understand the culture and times in which the art is created this book will be interesting. On the other hand those who believe that the purpose of art is to transform our vision of the world will find less help in using Manet as an agent of transformation.

› Go to Amazon.com to see both reviews  4.5 out of 5 stars