rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

This is quite nice.
--Bob

AZNikon Loc: Mesa, AZ

Toby

very nice girl and photo

Rab-Eye Loc: Indiana

👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻

Timmers Loc: San Antonio Texas.

It is difficult to ascertain if the photographer is making an homage or attempting to create a new controversy with the work. The lack of trappings that would have been easily added, could add to the controversy.

The African American model holding flowers and black cat arching it's back, especially the missing black cat arching it's back and hissing are critical to the Edouard Manet painting. The black cat is a powerful and associated symbol to a women who is parthenos.

The term Olympia is a high class variant of, as in fille de jure (young or unmarried "women of the pleasure"). Also the term a 'fillet'* with it's varied meanings (the black thin ribbon tied about the neck in the Olympia painting model.

The white open toed every day shoes as opposed to the 'Oriental' house slippers could be an upgrade from the 1860's to our modern times as modern women foot wear.

So, the two parts that are rather of controversy in this 'Homage' are the flower and the bracelet. First then is the flower, white, that of a symbol of purity, and not the color red which was a common signal to clients that the fille was in her period (menstruating) and so unavailable (like the use of women's neck scarfs pre and post World War II when the scarf was worn over the left side, the heart side saying they were 'taken' as unavailable as opposed to on the right side drape saying they were available sexually). So why the use of white/virginal?

Then there is the bracelet. This is clearly where the problem with this work lies. The history in painting for the bracelet shadows back to Titan. See the work Venus of Urbino. There you will see the bracelet. Titan had a gift from the social structure of Church and State. The bracelet was first given by Titan to his wife, then taken back and given to his second wife whom was depicted nude in a Titan painting. Finally, his third wife had possession of the bracelet until Titans death, it was removed from her by the 'powers to be' and became an object of great significant. It symbolized marriage and desire and fidelity to a great man who could afford to own this relic from Titan. The bracelet is were the controversy of the Olympia resides for the arts of Manet's time. Those who viewed the Olympia at the Salon of Paris were acutely aware of this bracelet and its meaning. To see it displayed on the arm of a prostitute was total and completely immoral.

Several years earlier Manet painted Luncheon on the grass. The women depicted with the two artist males in the painting are their wives, yes nude, the one bathing her genitals in the water is Manet's wife. This is a common and domestic scene of no real importance. The controversy was the red dot in the tree above slightly to the left of center. It is a cardinal, symbolizing the Cardinal of the Catholic Church as voyeur of the bawdy scene that is not bawdy unless corrupted by the act of the cardinal making the act unclean between husband and wife. This work proceeds the Olympia and the order of appearance is important to grasp the outrage of the visitor viewers at the Paris Salon.

We are left with questions as to the what and where for of titling this photographic work for our time. My own sense is that the title requires altering to better represent the mind and ideas of the artist in our modern times. Is it to be a mere shadow to Manet or can it clearly become a point in history that draws on the great and seminal work of the past leading viewers into new territory of defining sexuality and the position of feminine power.

'fillet'*: a band or ribbon worn around the head, especially for binding the hair or
a fleshy boneless piece of meat from near the loins or the ribs of an animal

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

This artsy critique is, to me, like a sommelier describing a bottle of wine. In the end, all that matters is whether I like the wine or not.

Perhaps dhroberts failed to achieve the subtleties expected/required by our UHH resident art critic in accepting this effort as "homage," but I prefer the photo over the painting. I like the simpler setting, and I absolutely -- without a second thought -- think Nicole is far better looking than Olympia. The photo is outstanding with or without reference to Manet's work.

Stephan G

What would you do to change the shot? Omit the center figure in the photo?

The photographer took the view and replicated the main image. Doing a "detail" is, indeed, paying a homage to the original art piece.

Your demand is rather questionable as to your intent.

As to the homage,

Timmers Loc: San Antonio Texas.

I expect this type of response. If you try re reading what is written you might just figure out that it was not a negation, rather I have raised legitimate observations. With a change of the works title the poster could position their work as a legitimate new position to the rather historic relevance of the theme of the odalisque. Not an easy achievement in this day.

One other point, the 'lay' public, the common man of the time of the exhibitions called The Paris Salon, were so much more educated to the fine arts than the general American population of today. That is why The Olympia as an art work had the impact that it had. But don't feel too bad, most of the politically correct and sleepy academic writings that are pushed in our faces and our children's faces as history and truth are so wrong. Its a wonder than most of the population can even have original and independent thoughts.

Timmers Loc: San Antonio Texas.

[quote=JohnFrim]This artsy critique is, to me, like a sommelier describing a bottle of wine. In the end, all that matters is whether I like the wine or not.[quote]

Terribly sorry Mr. Frim, I know this to not be true. My extended French Family, the Lelandais would strongly disagree with this type of rather silly statement. The Lelandais family make what is considered among the finest wines from France (the winery is among the top three of France).

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

[quote=Timmers][quote=JohnFrim]This artsy critique is, to me, like a sommelier describing a bottle of wine. In the end, all that matters is whether I like the wine or not.
Tim, I respectfully disagree. The majority of wineries are a business operation, so their purpose is to make money selling wine. Regardless of how much they and their sommeliers might sing the praises of their libation, if I don't like their wine, they don't get my money. Applying a similar analysis to a piece of art, I don't care how many layers of paint it took to create that grey rectangle (17 in the case of the piece of art I refer to), if I don't like it as art then my money stays in my pocket. There may be a few absolute standards that apply in some analyses, but when it comes to taste (in art and in wine) I think comparisons are more subjective than objective.

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

Tim, just regarding the first part of your comment, what in your view is required to call this effort "homage?" I doubt you would say "replication in every detail;" and Wiktionary defines homage as "An artistic work imitating another in a flattering style." In my view, there is enough similarity between the photo and the work of art to invoke "imitating;" and there is no doubt in my mind that Nicole excels in being "flattering" of Olympia.

Stephan G

[quote=Timmers][quote=JohnFrim]This artsy critique is, to me, like a sommelier describing a bottle of wine. In the end, all that matters is whether I like the wine or not.

However, it is up to the drinker to decide whether they like the result. (Just like the viewer of the artwork.)

I made my own wine and I have dumped many batches that did not come up to my standards. However I do not presume to dictate another's taste. John has stated his personal view. And he presented something that is key to merchandising, the appreciation by the individual for the product. Even the "groundlings" know what they like and are willing to pay for.

Sit back and enjoy. Put away the Playbill.

Timmers Loc: San Antonio Texas.

Not that I want to feed the trolls, but your choice of Wiktionary as your 'God' flies in the face of the 'history' of the Duchmpian expulsion of taste from the garden of art. You need better sources on which to draw conclusions.

Have your last word as you wish, I'm done with the common mans view of art.

Stephan G

It is the "common man", in numbers, that vindicates the Art.

As someone made the quip within earshot. "It is a pity that the dead artist cannot speak about their creation."

Timmers Loc: San Antonio Texas.

Play bill? More trolling.

It's a discussion group and I did not drag out commercialism nor the analogy to wine, so I will take that this is directed to Firm. It is also rather odd your reference to making wine, which has nothing to do with the original post, assuming that you make wine as a creative endeavor, due to the repeal of that old amendment about spirits, I do say 'Bully' to you for your efforts to create a thing of personal beauty, yet still it does nothing to add to the original posters efforts to create and post their visual creation to a forum on that of visual expression.