In the first few centuries after the death of Jesus, there was much debate in the nascent Christian community on whether or not imagery should have a place within Christian worship (Mullett). These internal deliberations, coupled with the growing tensions between Christianity and the largely pagan Roman Empire, meant that for many early Christians visual manifestations of their faith was not, and could not be, standard practice. Yet imagery and symbology did begin to appear in the years leading up to 313 CE, and as such it is this period that most scholars point to when discussing the emergence of identifiable Christian art (Mullett). Often cited as “pagan in style and Christian in subject”, the Christian art from this era is largely symbolic and appropriative of pagan motifs- so that often it is only the context of the work, which allows it to be identified as Christian (Hood 5) (Stokstad 16). Yet, several extant examples show the beginnings of the vibrant visual culture that would eventually develop and evolve into the canon of Christian art which we know today. One such example can be found in The Good Shepherd fresco which decorated the domed ceiling of the Priscilla Catacomb in Rome. Pulling from Classical motifs, The Good Shepherd is presented with the stylistic tenants of Late Antiquity, yet also works to showcase the incipient symbolism that was developing for the newly emergent religion, by creating images which contemporary Romans and newly converted Christians could relate to.

Painted sometime near the end of the second century or in the beginning of the third, The Good Shepherd occupies the central medallion of the underground room known as the Cubiculum of the Veil located in the Catacomb of Priscilla, which was named after the portrait of a veiled woman who adorns a lunette in the same space (Harris & Zucker). In general, catacombs consisted of underground tunnels and rooms served as burial places for people of different faiths during Late Antiquity. However, they also became known, in particular, for manifesting one of the first Christian spaces (Maline 38). Decorated in typical the Roman fashion, using the ever popular Mediterranean decoration technique known as fresco,  early Christian images such as the Good Shepherd were painted by applying pigments to wet plaster (Mulett). This technique didn't allow for deep darks or intense saturation but did help to create a soft pastel palette which compliments the pastoral scene.

Christ is presented facing the viewer with a goat draped over his shoulders, in the pose which would come to be known as the “good shepherd” motif. Flanking him to either side are two goats, two trees, and two doves against a plain white background which coalesces into a symmetrical circular composition. Taking on a contrapposto stance, The Good Shepherd shows hallmark signs of Classical styles- from the attention to anatomy, to the Roman chiton that Jesus wears. The visual motif of a man with a ram or calf draped over his shoulders was not new at this time, and can be traced back to the pre-Archaic Greek figures of the “moschophoros”, the calf-bearer, or “kriophoros”, the ram-bearer (Kinney 10). Commonly associated with the Greek god Hermes, who ferried the dead and shepherded his followers, these pagan motifs found an eager audience within the new Christian practitioners - who often saw the parallels between the two divine figures (Kinney 10). Christ also enjoyed great associations with the mythological figure of Orpheus, the Greek musician who traveled to the underworld and back in an attempt to save his deceased wife. Orpheus was also presented a strong parallel due his role as a mythological figure who was known to have rejected paganism in exchange for monotheist beliefs (Huskinson 71). Visual manifestations of these connections can be seen illustrated by the presence of the pan pipe fastened at Christ's waist, and the abundance of animals which surround him, both of which bear many similarities to common depictions of the Greek musician at the time (Barker 48). Thus the representation of Christ in The Good Shepherd can be seen to pull directly from these Classical motifs, as well as semi-contemporary depictions of heroes, like the 1st century fresco of Theseus, which adorned the wall of M. Gavinus Rufus's villa in Pompeii.

Since antiquity, art has been used to inspire, influence, and direct the minds of its viewers towards its creator's aim. Yet within the canon of art, no motif can be said to be more persuasive than depictions of war and military encounters, which often had the power to subdue or inflame depending on how each artist chose to represent their subject. Whether through the creation of propaganda or in the act of documenting the realities of war, artists and patrons have sought to give their struggles voice and to create narratives which still live on today. On this account, both Diego Velázquez's Surrender of Breda and Fransisco Goya's The Third of May 1808 distinguish themselves- not only for their individually singular approaches to war in their own times but also by how they have shaped the overall artistic wartime narratives. When placed side by side, these works not only present two sides of the spectrum of war imagery, from the civilized engagement of The Surrender of Breda to the expressive violence in The Third of May 1808, but they also work to relate the changing shape of Spanish identity and artistic practice.

As one of the predominant artists in Habsburg king Phillip IV's court during “El Siglo de Oro”, or the Golden Age of Spain, Diego Velázquez was commissioned to paint The Surrender of Breda for the Hall of Realms in the newly constructed palace outside of Madrid (Brown). Working over a year period from 1634 to 1635, Velázquez sought to recreated the relatively recent moment in which the Dutch forces surrendered to Spanish general Ambrogio Spinola at the Battle of Breda two years before during the Eighty Years' War (Berzal). One of twelve paintings of similar victory themes completed by Velázquez's well known contemporaries, The Surrender of Breda was meant to help illustrate the might of Spain's army, yet within his composition Velázquez worked to convey something rather new and revolutionary. Unlike the majority of military paintings at the time, Velázquez discarded the compositional hierarchy of placing the victor on high and instead allowed the two opposing forces within his work to meet upon equal ground – turning the usual scene of victory and defeat into an act of magnanimity and grace (Brown). The result is a balanced composition in which the Spanish troops to the right, and the Dutch troops to the left, both look towards the central focal point where Justinus van Nassau surrenders the key of the city to Spinola and Spain (Berzal).

Stopped in the act of kneeling, Nassau looks up to Spinola who bends down and graciously puts a hand to his opponent’s shoulder as if insisting they remain on equal terms and footing- frozen in the quintessential Baroque moment. Velázquez chose to depict the scene with a sense of intense naturalism, paying attention to the proper proportions and realistic modeling of his figures. The banners sway in the breeze, armor seems to shine in the sunlight while the stances of the those looking on appear to almost shift from side to side as if alive. The Dutch, with their young countenances and skewed spears are set at odds with the gleaming armor and ordered lances of the more mature Spanish troops. Though the smoke from the battle can be seen drifting in the background, there is almost no direct reference to the actual combat itself within The Surrender of Breda. Instead all the figures of the foreground, from the two generals to their men, remain removed from the violence -showing neither blood or wear from the confrontation.

Painted five years after the event itself, in the wake of the restoration of the Bourbon monarchy to the Spanish throne, The Third of May 1808 was simultaneously an endeavor on Goya's part to ingratiate himself with with the newly crowned Ferdinand VII after a period of time spent serving the French, as well as an attempt to process the horrors he had witnessed their reign. Napoleon's invasion had put an end to the Age of Enlightened within Spain, with his deposition of the enlightened monarch Charles III in favor of his own brother Joseph Bonaparte (Zapella). The subsequent brutal occupation and treatment of his countrymen affected Goya deeply, shifting his artistic work from scientific Enlightened style to a more deeply emotive Romanticist perspective which embraced the darker nature of man (Voorhies). In a revolutionary approach, even when compared to other Romantic artists of the time, Goya discarded the heroic narrative of a “hero in a hero's act” which commonly accompanied most war scenes and instead chose to relate the realities he had witnessed (Zapella). In an echo of the Sublime, Goya worked to show an image that would convey the visceral horror of both the Spanish experience and war itself.

Each of these great Spanish artists approach their work in very different ways. Aside from the obvious differences in subject matter between Surrender of Breda and The Third of May 1808, there are several other elements which help to set these two works apart. Velázquez's vibrant and rich color jewel tone palette, drawn from the Venetian tradition of colorito, directly contrasts the somber dark earthen tones which Goya applied to his work in a tenebrist manner. Similarly Goya's expressive approach to his figures, which alternates between the stiff lined forms of the French troops to the fluid emotive forms of the Spanish peasants, broke away from the naturalism and realism which dominated Velázquez's work. Ironically, despite his naturalistic approach, the congenial meeting upon the battlefield Velázquez created for The Surrender at Breda came from largely inflated third party accounts he was given - unlike Goya who had very likely witnessed, if not the actual event, similar examples of the brutality he portrayed (Sánchez)(Muller).

Yet as much as these two works have in difference there is also several similarities which are of note. Despite their different stylistic approaches to the depiction of form, Velázquez and Goya had a very similar manner in regards to their paint applications. Velázquez, inspired by Rubens, worked in quick descriptive impasto strokes which from afar resolved into realistic three dimensional forms (Sánchez). Similarly, Goya was deeply inspired by Velázquez and Rembrandt, and kept his brushwork loose and descriptive. He would often use a palette knife and his fingers to model his figures – mimicking the fluid approach of the artists he was referencing, though in a more expressive manner (Muller).

Furthermore, despite the secular nature of both scenes, each artist worked to imbue a sense of Christian iconography within their works. With his out flung arms and marked palms, the peasant in Goya's Third of May 1808 is the more overt reference, echoing Jesus's crucifixion and evoking his martyred end. However the gracious tilt and embrace of Velázquez's Spinola also works to call to mind the gentle gestures of Christ in many baroque depictions of the Catholic savior, from Velázquez's own Christ in the House of Martha and Mary to his contemporary Esteban Murillo's Christ Healing the Paralytic at the Pool of Bethesda. Thus it can be said that both Goya and Velázquez worked to build upon existing visual motifs in order convey the emotional weight of their intended messages. From the tragic tortured martyrdom of Goya's peasants to the magnanimous benevolent Spinola, each artist sought to portray the Spanish perspective in a favorable light even as their outlooks on the conflicts they depicted varied.

When looking at the visual history of the Greek civilization there is a distinct shift in the portrayal of form, from the stylized roots of the Mycenaean and Minoan traditions to the naturalism which took hold during the Classical Era. This can be seen when comparing the terracotta figurine Bell Idol, created circa 700 BCE¹, to the later classical work Bronze Statuette of Athena Flying Her Owl (herein referred to as Bronze Athena) which dates back to circa 460 BCE². Set apart by both time and location, originating from Thebes (Boeotia) and Athens respectively, both sculptures work to illustrate the evolution of Greek canon. Yet by examining these two pieces, it becomes clear that despite their divergences and stylistic range, both the Bell Idol and Bronze Athena share similar aspects which are illustrative of Greek cultural values.

Abstracted and stylistic, the Bell Idol is far from the popular image of Grecian sculpture. As a rare example of figurative sculpture from the late Geometric Era, the Bell Idol portrays elements from the Mycenaean and Minoan traditions³, linking them to the beginnings of the Archaic and Classical sculpture for which ancient Greece is so well known. Taking its name from the main form of the figure⁴, the Bell Idol was constructed by the Thebian workshop of the Oinochoe Group⁵ using traditional methods that date back to the 3rd millennium BCE⁶. The main body was created through the use of a potter's wheel while the anatomical additions of the elongated neck, head, arms and breasts were made with the pinch method and attached later⁷. The legs were created with the pinch method as well, but were never intended to be attached- instead they were originally made to swing loose⁸ from a string attached to the idol beneath her skirt⁹, much like a clapper in a bell. The painted lines which pattern the surface of the Bell Idol were added before firing¹⁰ using the black 'glaze' technique¹¹, similar to the other pottery of the era. Linear chevrons, interlocking triangles, swastikas, and designs of water fowl¹² cover the body of the Bell Idol, adding dimension and complexity to her more simplistic form. It is through these decorations that connections to the Geometric Period are found. The painted motifs were “closely linked to the late Geometric vases [constituting] the most solid foothold for the chronology of Boeotian bell-idols”¹³. The Geometric Period represented a turning point in Grecian society, acting as the bridge between the Dark Ages (ca. 900 to 700 BCE) and the end of the Mycenaean civilization, by way of Doric invasion, to the rise of Classical Greece¹⁴. The Geometric period saw the creation of the polis, the Greek alphabet, trade routes to the east and Greek colonies¹⁵ - essential elements which would serve as the building blocks to help to make Greece a cultural force which would echo for millennia to come. Stylistically, the Bell Idol fits into Geometric canon both in its construction and the geometric patterning which helped to distinguish the Geometric Period.

At the other end of the spectrum, Bronze Athena provides an excellent example of the early Classical sculptural tradition. Created utilizing the cire perdue “lost wax” technique¹⁶ - an innovation essential to the start of the Classical period which allowed for greater detail¹⁷ - Bronze Athena finds the basis of its form in naturalism. Athena herself is proportionate in accordance to the classical canon and though slight stylization can be seen in the drape of her peplos, the fabric carries the weight to curve around her body in the “wet drapery” style. Upon her outstretched arm rests an owl, which in addition to her helmet, helps to identify her as Athena, the Greek goddess of wisdom¹⁸. Athena served as the patron goddess of Athens appearing in various incarnations such as Athena Polis (Athena of the City), Athena Eragane (Athena of Industry) and Athena Nike (Victory Athena)¹⁹. Athena's familiar, the owl, became almost synonymous with her presence, often occupying the Acropolis upon which her temples sat, if not the sanctuaries themselves²⁰. The association of both Athena and her owl was so prevalent in Athen's cultural identity, that by 438 BCE they even adorned Athenian currency²¹. Thus the action of flying her owl helps to solidify Bronze Athena's identity to the viewer. The Bronze Athena presents the goddess in a triumphant pose, with her face set in the severe style, emotionless yet projecting a sense of interiority. This method of bringing life to the work is one of the hallmarks of early Classical sculpture in Greece and, coupled with the implied motion of her movement, helps Bronze Athena allude to the heights that the Classical Era had yet to reach.

When comparing these two sculptures, the different approaches to the representation of form are readily apparent. Bronze Athena, with Athena's fluid proportions and naturalism, highlights the ancient Greeks' increasing attention to detail and observance of life. In contrast, though she is figurative, the Bell Idol remains largely stylistic, much like the Mycenaean tradition which predates her. Though there is indications of natural form through the modeling of Bell Idol's nose, ears, hands, feet and breasts, they are for the most part abstracted and simplified. Instead, much of the detailing comes through the painted lines which decorate Bell Idol's surface- from the shapes of her eyes or the poikilia patterning of her hair to the geometric motifs and design elements which cover her dress. Conversely, the repeated pattern of the folds in the peplos of the Bronze Athena are fully shaped out by the artist, allowing the three dimensionality of the form to speak for itself. Though both sculptors worked to imbue a sense of motion within their pieces, their approaches varied greatly. The Bell Idol for all her stiffness, is essentially a kinetic sculpture with her dangling legs which allowed for actual movement should she be moved or subject to a breeze. Bronze Athena on the other hand, holds all the intention of motion but is physically static. The Classical artist used different conventions to create the appearance of motion, both through Athena's gesture and the utilization of counterpoise - another early Classical innovation of form - which highlighted the body through the contrasting flexing and relaxation of the muscles. This interplay helped to underscore the classical concept of rhythmos, which artists sought to imbue into their works, in order to portray a sense of movement, rhythm, and composition.
Despite their stylistic differences, there are several similarities which present themselves within the Bell Idol and Bronze Athena. Both were constructed via additive methods, containing a sense of patterning, no matter how overt or subtle. Both contain references to wild life, through the crane decorations which adorn Bell Idol's skirt and Bronze Athena's owl tying them into the forces of nature. Most importantly, both sculptures seem to have had religious connections. The Bell Idol was believed to be associated with a nature goddess²², while Bronze Athena served as a personification of the Athenian goddess. These attributions help to give context to the roles both statues played within Greek society. According to the scholars at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, “Ancient Greek religious practice, essentially conservative in nature, was based on time-honored observances, many rooted in the Bronze Age (3000–1050 B.C.), or even earlier”²³. One such tradition was the use of votives, which were used as offerings to the gods in order to gain their favor. Though anything which might delight or entertain the gods could be considered a votive²³, often they took the form of the gods and goddesses they sought to curry favor from. Votives could be placed in sanctuaries or grave sites, but often were inclusive of everyday life as well. Thus the Bell Idol and Bronze Athena both fit into the role of votive, acting as a conduit and embodiment of the divine forces they saw at work in the world around them. Terracotta works such as the Bell Idol were most commonly found in grave sites of women and children, alluding to a funerary role, a plea for protection or a guide the afterlife. Whereas bronzes such as Bronze Athena have been found in both sanctuaries and homes through out Athens²⁵. Though originating from a later period (circa 3 CE), the free standing statuettes discovered at the Agora dig in Athens provide continuing evidence of the Greeks' utilization of small bronze votives²⁶, of which Bronze Athena may be a precursor. Despite their differing contexts, both sculptures worked to provide that link between the pious and the deities they worshiped. In addition, the smaller scale and lack of monumentality seen in both the Bell Idol and the Bronze Athena illustrate the importance of personal worship or dedication to the gods through their more intimate size.

Thus the Bell Idol and Bronze Athena represent a range on the continuum of Greek artistic practice from the Bronze Age origins of the terracotta figurine to the stylistic innovations of the cire perdue bronze. The evolution from the Geometric Age to the Early Classical period becomes apparent through the comparison of the Bell Idol's stylized and abstracted form to Bronze Athena's naturalistic grace and fluidity, while the cultural heritage and context they both share help to unite them in a shared purpose. Together the Bell Idol and Bronze Athena illustrate the transformation and unique development of Greek culture as well as the strength of it's underlying social and religious structures.


1 Néguine, Mathieux. "Bell Idol." Louvre Collection: Bell Idol. Accessed October 22, 2016.
http://www.louvre.fr/en/oeuvre-notices/bell-idol.
2 Department of Greek and Roman Art. "Bronze Statuette of Athena Flying Her Owl." The Met | Collection Records. Accessed October 22, 2016. http://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/254648.
3 Néguine, Mathieux. “Bell Idol”.
4 Szabó, Miklós. Archaic Terracottas of Boeotia. Vol. #67. Roma: "L'Erma" Di Bretschneider, 1994. Print. Studia Archaeologica Series. 15.
5 Néguine, Mathieux. "Bell Idol."
6 Braun, Thomas, et al. "Greece, Ancient." Grove Art Online. Oxford Art Online. Oxford University Press, accessed October 22, 2016, http://0-www.oxfordartonline.com.library.academyart.edu/subscriber/article/grove/art/T034254pg9.
7 Néguine, Mathieux. “Bell Idol”
8 Négiuine, Mathieux. “Bell Idol”
9 Szabó, Miklós. Archaic Terracottas of the Boeotia. 15.
10 Szabó, Miklós. Archaic Terracottas of the Boeotia. 15.
11Braun, Thomas, et al. “Greece, Ancient”
12 Néguine, Mathieux. “Bell Idol”.
13 Szabó, Milós. Archaic Terracottas of the Boeotia. 17.
14 Department of Greek and Roman Art. "Geometric Art in Ancient Greece." The Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. October 2014. Accessed October 22, 2016. http://metmuseum.org/toah/hd/grge/hd_grge.htm.
15 Dept. of Greek and Roman Art. “Geometric Art...”
16 Dept of Greek and Roman Art. "Bronze Statuette of Athena.."
17 Braun, Thomas, et al. “Greece, Ancient”.
18 Hemingway, Colette, and Séan Hemingway. "Greek Gods and Religious Practices." The Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. October 2003. Accessed October 22, 2016. http://www.metmuseum.org/TOAH/HD/grlg/hd_grlg.htm.
19 Stewart, Andrew F. Classical Greece and the Birth of Western Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. 151.
20 Dept. of Greek and Roman Art. “Bronze Statuette of Athena...”
21 Stewart, Andrew F. Classical Greece and the Birth of Western Art, 151.
22Néguine, Mathieux. “Bell Idol”
23 Hemingway, Colette and Séan Hemingway. “Greek Gods and Religious Practices”.
24 McC., H. "Greek Votive Offerings." The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 15, no. 2 (1920): 36-38, 36.
25 Braun, Thomas, et al. “Greece, Ancient”.
26 "Agora Excavations." ASCSA.net. Accessed October 22, 2016. http://agora.ascsa.net/research?v=default.

Works Cited:

• “Agora Excavations." ASCSA.net. Accessed October 22, 2016. http://agora.ascsa.net/research?v=default.
  
• Braun, Thomas, et al. "Greece, ancient." Grove Art Online. Oxford Art Online. Oxford University Press, accessed October 22, 2016, http://0-www.oxfordartonline.com.library.academyart.edu/subscriber/article/grove/art/T034254pg9.
  
• Department of Greek and Roman Art. "Bronze Statuette of Athena Flying Her Owl." The Met | Collection Records. Accessed October 22, 2016. http://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/254648.
  
• Department of Greek and Roman Art. "Geometric Art in Ancient Greece." The Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. October 2014. Accessed October 22, 2016. http://metmuseum.org/toah/hd/grge/hd_grge.htm.
  
• Hemingway, Colette, and Séan Hemingway. "Greek Gods and Religious Practices." The Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. October 2003. Accessed October 22, 2016. http://www.metmuseum.org/TOAH/HD/grlg/hd_grlg.htm.
  
• Néguine, Mathieux. "Bell Idol." Louvre Collection: Bell Idol. Accessed October 22, 2016. http://www.louvre.fr/en/oeuvre-notices/bell-idol.
  
• McC., H. "Greek Votive Offerings." The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 15, no. 2 (1920): 36-38.
  
• Stewart, Andrew F. Classical Greece and the Birth of Western Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
  
• Szabó, Miklós. Archaic Terracottas of Boeotia. Vol. #67. Studia Archaeologica Series. Roma: "L'Erma" Di Bretschneider, 1994.
  

The early 20th century brought with it many social, political and technological changes. The world was changing and as a result the artists and artworks of the time changed with it. This was especially true of Germany, where an expanding empire, rapid industrialization and prewar anxieties manifested in several unique artistic movements which are often categorized under the larger umbrella known as German Expressionism. One artist working during this time was Wassily Kandinsky, whose non-figurative work pushed the boundaries of form. In his 1912 painting, Improvisation No. 28, Kandinsky sought to express both his own philosophy and to engage whomever might view his work.
Kandinsky was a founding member of the Der Blaue Reiter Group along with Franz Marc and Gabriele Münter. An offshoot of the German Expressionist movement, the Der Blaue Reiter Group looked to the prewar society prior to World War I in Germany and saw it lacking. The rise of industrialization and growing urbanization cultivated a sense of alienation in the members of the Der Blaue Reiter Group, who sought to alleviate their isolation through the expressive power of their art. Works like Kandinsky's Improvisation No. 28 worked to convey this underlying philosophy of the Der Blauer Reiter, turning away from the industrialization of the age and instead focusing their attention upon the organic, innate ability of an artist to disclose their own personal expression.

Improvisation No. 28 is packed with energy, bright colors and dynamic shapes and lines. Unlike the majority of Western Art that preceded it, Improvisation No. 28 is largely abstract and non-objective. Instead Kandinsky allows the expressiveness of both color and the strokes of his brush to stand in place of the figurative works of the past. Arranged with a sense of organic chaos, the shapes and lines of Improvisation No. 28 are scattered across its surface in strange yet wonderful juxtapositions. Seeking to find a visual language outside of the usual objective representation of form, Kandinsky took inspiration from the intangible elements of life, like music, to express his artistic point of view and to elicit an emotional response from the viewer. To do this he used line and splashes of bold colors, adopting the saturated and vibrant colors of the Fauvists. Kandinsky strongly believed that line and color carried psychological and spiritual ability to communicate emotionally with their audience. This allowed the artist, art, and people to connect over their shared reactions while fighting the alienation which he felt was so predominate within German society. In Improvisation No. 28, the colors are used to highlight and underscore the black lines which twist, turn and bisect Kandinsky's canvas as the colors shift from warm hues in the upper right corner to blues and greens in the center and back to oranges and purples in the lower left corner. Line and color both are staggered, allowing the viewer's eye to roam the surface of the composition and settle on the details which speak to them.

By creating work which was reactive, artists like Kandinsky were reacting themselves to the culture which surrounded them. Dissatisfied with the world at large, they sought to change it, to bring connection where there was alienation and spirituality to where industrialization dominated. In his work Improvisation No. 28, Kandinsky uses color and line to arouse an emotional connection within the viewer through his exposure of his own personal expression, in the hope that the artist could incite change within the world of their audience.

A portrait of Matisse's wife, the painting focuses on her face which is placed front and center of the composition. With cropping that is reminiscent of the Impressionist and photographic works which emerged onto the art scene years earlier, Portrait of Madame Matisse (The Green Stripe) creates its tension through the truncation of space surrounding Madame Matisse. She dominates the whole frame, physically touching all sides, from the top of her hair to her shoulders and lower chest. Like the Post-Impressionist Paul Cézanne, Matisse presses his subject close to the picture plane, almost into the viewer's space, in order to create a dynamic dialogue between the perceived dimensionality of Madame Matisse's figure and the flat surface of the painting. This emphasis on the two dimensional carries over into Matisse's portrayal of form. Though still representational, Matisse has simplified the forms of his painting into flat sections of color via the color patch technique which alternatively helps to build up the illusion of three dimensionality or break it down. The starkest example of this can be found in the juxtaposition of Madame Matisse's neck to the collar of her dress, where the roundness of the form gives way to the flat graphic area of color. Much like Paul Cézanne and Vincent Van Gogh, Matisse also utilizes impasto brushstrokes to help flush out his forms, curving them over the shifting planes of Madame Matisse's face - creating curvilinear strokes that inform the viewer as to its shape.

Another element of Matisse's painting which helps to ascribe it to the Fauvist movement is Matisse's expressive use of color. Taking a page from Paul Gauguin's work, Matisse let his palette in Portrait of Madame Matisse (The Green Stripe) veer away from one which might be found in nature and instead used color in a way which he found visually pleasing. As a result, the color palette of Portrait of Madame Matisse (The Green Stripe) is bold, saturated, unnatural and expressive. Much like Post-Impressionist Georges Seurat, Matisse also included adjacent complimentary colors within his work which served to heighten the vibrancy, just as the competing sections of reds and greens in Portrait of Madame Matisse (The Green Stripe) stand out to the viewer's eye in a method of optical mixing. The overt green of the background balanced and highlighted the red of the dress, while the lighter green tint, which shapes the left side of Madame Matisse's face, pushes itself forward from the saturated red orange of the background. The juxtaposition of these two colors is a once jarring, yet innately pleasing, as they push the intensity of the color and bring a vibrancy to Madame Matisse.

Henri Matisse was a driving force in the Fauvist movement, and with work like Portrait of Madame Matisse (The Green Stripe) it is not hard to see why. Like the Post-Impressionists he embraced, he expanded upon the competing values of two and three dimensionality within art, using them to create tension within his work. From Gauguin and Seurat, Matisse took expressive use of color and laid them down in the color patch technique, simplifying the shapes of Madame Matisse's head. He closely cropped the composition of his subject and allowed his impasto brushstrokes to read as paint upon the canvas, much like Van Gogh before him. All of these elements helped to support Matisse's avant-garde philosophy of making art for the sake of art, allowing a painting to simply be a painting - an embodiment of form, color and pattern for which the Fauvists were infamous.

Over two hundred years later, French Realist Éduoard Manet would complete his last painting A Bar at the Folies-Bergère in 1882. Like Velázquez, this work would serve as a culmination of his skill and become one of the iconic works for which Manet is known. Also like Las Meniñas, the longer the viewer looks at A Bar at the Folies-Bergère, the more the sense of space which Manet presents to the viewer seems deceptive. Though often grouped with the Impressionists, Manet was at heart a Realist who sought to move away from the Grand Manner and gravitas depictions of the Academy painters, and focus on depictions of everyday life and the subjects that filled it. Depicting a popular Parisian nightspot, the Folies-Bergère, Manet presents the viewer with a genre scene that his contemporaries would be intimately familiar with. By focusing his subject matter on a simple barmaid, he would have defied Academy conventions. The barmaid stands central to the composition, framed by the bar in front of her and a mirror at her back. Like in Las Meniñas the mirror has the dual purpose of both enlarging and confusing the space, though on a larger scale. It is through the mirror that the interior of the Folies-Bergère is given form, allowing the viewer to see beyond the scope of the painted plane. Yet the forms which fill the foreground of the mirror become disquieting as, like Velázquez, Manet takes the chance to play with the perspective -placing his reflections in a way that are disjointed from the “reality” of what we see before us. The barmaid who seems aloof as she meets the viewer's gaze head on, is not reflected as such but is instead portrayed leaning forward engaged in conversation with a man. Similarly, the arrangement of the bottles on the counter shift and re-position themselves within the reflection of space. Thus the reflection of the mirror takes on a psychological component, causing the viewer to question what is it they are seeing. Which is the real girl? Is it the one who meets their gaze or the one who leans in to talk to the man? Is the reflection simply an allusion to a barmaid's daydream or does the mirror portray what is happening in real time while the distant face of the woman in the foreground reflects her real feelings? Manet takes the century old motif of the mirror and twists it so that it no longer can be counted on to tell the truth, stripping away the pretense of reality that many artists had in their works. It is this examination of gaze, class and space calling the viewer to question the reality of what they are seeing that hallmarks Manet as one of the founding fathers of modernity.

Though he was the last great French painter to receive Academic training, Manet soon eschewed the works of his teachers. Influenced by the advent of photography and a changing industrial world, Manet broke away from the smooth, regimented photo-realistic conventions of the Grand Manner, and developed a style in which he allowed his paint to look like paint. Looking to old European masters, especially to Velázquez whom he dubbed “le peintre des peintres” or the painter of painters, Manet reveled in painting alla prima. Simplifying his forms with impasto swatches of color, Manet allowed his brushwork to build his subjects upon his canvas, never letting the viewer forget what it was they were seeing. Unlike Velázquez's more subdued palettes, Manet packed his work with vibrant colors and saturated sections of pastels, reflecting the energy of his painting's settings. Often criticized for this subject matter and technique, Manet nonetheless opened the door to future artists to break away from the realm of literary imaginings and traditional skills, encouraging them to look and record the world around them – a rallying call which struck a chord with the up and coming Impressionists.

When compared against each other Las Meniñas and A Bar at the Folies-Bergère both push the boundaries of what a painting can be and what the artist is. By taking space and twisting the perspectives of their depictions, both Manet and Velázquez's masterpieces strive to make ambiguous spaces which have the viewer questioning what it is they are seeing. Their use of mirrors to manipulate and confuse space, subverts the traditional motifs of truth and clarity into something inherently paradoxical. Working to instill a sense of inquisition into their viewers, Manet and Velázquez also sought to make them aware of the artist's power to direct the gaze within their artwork. Las Meniñas and A Bar at the Folies-Bergère were created in the wake of the social and political upheavals that their creators had witnessed and both were reflective of shifting cultures which surrounded them. In Las Meniñas the motif of the stiff royal portrait is relaxed into a more naturalistic and informal setting. Though it was never intended to be displayed in public (destined instead to decorate the walls of the king's private apartments), this shifting visual language was an indicator of the changes that were coming both in the social and artistic arenas. Similarly, A Bar at the Folies-Bergère signified the shifting sensibilities and artistic power from the aristocracy to the bourgeois. When viewed together against the long evolution of the genre scene, these two paintings also point to a changing art market from Velázquez who enjoyed the patronage of King Phillip IV to Manet who sought his fortune on the open markets of the Parisian Salons only to be met with bitter disappointment. Similarly, they illustrate the fluctuating role and acceptable focus of art from the portrait of a royal retinue in one of the most powerful courts in Europe to a complex depiction of a simple bar maid as she works. Each artist brought to their work an emphasis on looking and seeing within art, and in turn taught the next generation of artists to do the same.


Bibliography

• Arikha, Avigdor. "Growing Up in Public: Las Meniñas, Diego Velázquez." What Makes a Masterpiece: Artists, Writers, and Curators on the World's Greatest Art. Ed. Christopher Dell. New York: Thames & Hudson, 2010. 230-33. Print.
• "Édouard Manet, A Bar at the Folies-Bergère." The Courtauld Institute of Art. University of London. Web. 21 May 2016.
• Fahy, Everett. "Velázquez (1599–1660)." The Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Sept. 2009. Web. 21 May 2016.
• Farber, Allen. "Velázquez's Las Meniñas." ARTH 200. State University of New York at Oneonta. Web. 21 May 2016.
• Farwell, Beatrice. "Manet, Edouard." Grove Art Online. Oxford Art Online. Oxford University Press. Web. 21 May. 2016.
• Harris, Beth, and Steven Zucker. "Velázquez, Las Meniñas." Baroque Art | Spain. Khan Academy. Web. 21 May 2016.
• Harris, Beth, Steven Zucker, and Eric Feinblatt. "Manet, A Bar at the Folies-Bergère." Realism, Impressionism and Post-Impressionism. Khan Academy. Web. 21 May 2016.
• Rodgers, David. "Manet, Édouard." The Oxford Companion to Western Art. Ed. Hugh Brigstocke. Oxford Art Online. Oxford University Press. Web. 3 May. 2016.
• Rubin, J. H. "Realism." Grove Art Online. Oxford Art Online. Oxford University Press. Web. 3 May. 2016.
• Portús, J. "Velázquez. Las Meniñas and the Late Royal Portraits." Las Meniñas - The Collection. Museo Nacional Del Prado, 2013. Web. 21 May. 2016.
• Pullman, Philip. "Puzzling Reflections: A Bar at the Folies-Bergère, Édouard Manet." What Makes a Masterpiece: Artists, Writers, and Curators on the World's Greatest Art. Ed. Christopher Dell. New York: Thames & Hudson, 2010. 276-79. Print.
• Sánchez, Alfonso E. Pérez . "Velázquez, Diego." Grove Art Online. Oxford Art Online. Oxford University Press. Web. 21 May. 2016.

Images from Wikimedia Commons

As one of the most controversial paintings in the history of art, Éduoard Manet's Olympia caused quite a stir when it was shown in the 1865 Salon in Paris. Though he built on the foundations of the classical nude in his depiction, Manet brought his subject matter into the 19th century and eschewed the traditional methods of painting. Instead, working in his own manner, Manet created a style which was wholly his own, which despite the jeers of his critics, worked to inspire his contemporaries and helped to shape a movement that would change the face of art.

Manet was born into an upper bourgeoisie family during a time when France was still in the midst of several smaller revolutions following the destruction of the Napoleonic Empire. As such, Manet lived in a time when France was making its way slowly into modernity with the industrialization of Paris, the formation of an elected General Assembly, universal manhood suffrage and France's transition from the Orleanist Monarchy to the Second Empire to the Third Republic. So too was the art of France changing. Though many artists still clung to classical subjects and the Grand Manner style of painting, others, like Gustave Courbet, were turning to more common day subjects and scenes of everyday life. Manet was swept up in this trend of Realism as well and sought to depict ordinary people and contemporary subjects. However unlike Courbet and other Realists, Manet also used his everyday subjects to critique the motifs and themes that were upheld in art - as well as used the subject matter as a point of departure for his technique.

One such painting was his reinterpretation of the classical motif of Venus as a prostitute titled Olympia. Though Manet painted Olympia in 1863, he didn't submit it to the Salon until a few years later – possibly due to the reception of his painting Dejeuner sur L'herbe or Luncheon on the Grass which was not only rejected from the 1863 Salon, but also ridiculed by the public. Olympia came onto the scene in 1865 and caused a scandal amongst the art world. Olympia (a common working name for a prostitute in 19th century France) lounges on a disheveled bed, naked except for a few adornments at her wrist, neck and feet, with a servant in attendance and an angry hissing cat at her feet. The pose is almost directly taken from Titan's Renaissance painting Venus of Urbino, echoing the lounge of Titan's Venus's body and the placement of her hand. But where Titan's Venus is modest and meek, Manet's Olympia is direct and faces the viewer with a blunt expression on her face. The sprawl of Olympia also referenced several other works which Manet (and the public) was aware of at the time of painting, from Goya's La Maja Desdenuda to Ingres 's and Fortunay's odalisque paintings which depicted light skinned Turkish concubines attended by dark skinned slaves.

Manet's combination of these three motifs, along with his placement of the subject into a modern day setting worked to build upon and comment on the history of the female nude within the context of art. Gone was the Venus and other acceptable nude motifs from the classical or allegorical stories that most artists chose to depict, instead here was a scene from the darker edges of society- something polite society didn't talk about- the 'modern Venus' blandly confronting her viewers (Gardner 670). At the time it was common for men to visit prostitutes and have mistresses greet them, in much of the same manner as Olympia greets the viewer. Yet to have it displayed in public at a Salon in front of all Paris was shocking. The directness of Olympia's gaze also worked to turn the concept of the male gaze on its head. This was not some unknowing beauty subject to the voyeuristic tendencies of painter and viewer, but a woman who knew she was being looked upon, confident in her sexuality. The inclusion of the black maid offering Olympia flowers from a client, at the time, was also taken as an allusion to animal sexuality – something which was echoed in the cat who glares out at the viewer. The reaction of the public to this perceived vulgarity was so severe that the painting had to be rehung higher in the Salon gallery and attended by guards, as so to avoid physical attacks.

Not only did the critics and public rip into Manet's subject matter, but they also found much to criticize with Manet's technique. Manet, drawn to the call of Realism and inspired by the works of Courbet, also sought to portray his figures and process in a realistic manner. He painted from life, always having his subject in front of him. As a result his figures were not the idealized ones seen in the paintings done in the style of the Grand Manner but accurate representations of life. The natural curves of flesh and fat can be seen in Olympia's body, from the dip in her stomach to the shift in her leg as it crosses the other. Her breasts have weight, her body pushes into the cushions and her hand does not delicately cover her genitalia (as was common in the Venus Pudica pose) but rests there, taking the weight from her arm.

Manet also allowed his paint to read as paint upon his canvases, forsaking the illusion that had largely been the style since the Renaissance. With large quick brushstrokes and often abrupt transitions from light to dark, Manet created a new style of painting which departed from those of his teachers . Foregoing the painstakingly built up of layers of his predecessors Manet worked alla prima or wet on wet with his oils- not allowing the painting to dry before he finished rendering his composition . In order to get everything down within one sitting, Manet often would simplify what he saw in order to articulate it onto his canvas. This technique allowed him to work more quickly with more expressive brushstrokes, as can be seen in certain details of Olympia such as the patterns of the curtains, the form of the cat or the shadows of the pillows. These visible brush strokes drew much criticism from both the public and art critics at the time but served to greatly inspire some of his younger contemporaries who would form the group know as the Impressionists.

Another result of Manet's new style and technique was the flattening of form and space within his works. Eschewing the gradual transitions and cleanly defined forms, Manet allowed flat sections of color to exist within his works creating graphic intersections of light and dark. This can been seen in Olympia's torso and arms where the white of her skin stands in stark contrast to the almost outline of a shadow in the space between her arm and her body. However upon closer inspection in these flat sections of color, Manet's brushstrokes take up the job of defining the form. Using curvilinear lines Manet contours the shape of Olympia's body, letting the viewer see the surface of her body not through shading, but in the application of the paint. This mixture of using both three and two dimensionality within his work helped Manet to reinforce the physicality of paint as well as Olympia's form and helped to open up the art world to the exploration of the medium. Though critics of the time scoffed at these innovations, other artists such as Degas, Monet, Cezanne, Van Gogh and the other Impressionists took notice.

Olympia represents a turning point in western art history. Reflecting the changes occurring within France, Manet's evolution of style showed a step towards the modern, earning him the title among many as the father of modernity. With Olympia, Manet not only presented an avant-garde approach to previously established motifs within the art world in regards to the female nude but also to the depiction of form both in its physicality and imperfections. His use of his medium was innovative and allowed for a looser, more graphic depiction of the human form and its surroundings. Even though it was vilified by both the critics and public alike, Olympia served to expand upon the already established school of Realism and to sow the seeds among Manet's contemporaries for the upcoming works of Impressionism. His ingenuity in both the content and application within his work serves to define Manet as one of the founding voices of modernism and an artist which helped to usher in the shifting views on the depiction of human form which would dominate the upcoming 20th century.



Bibliography

• "Edouard Manet Olympia." Works in Focus. Musée D'Orsay. Web. 22 Nov. 2015.
  
• Farwell, Beatrice. "Manet, Edouard." Grove Art Online. Oxford Art Online. Oxford University Press. Web. 22 Nov. 2015.
• Gardner, Helen, and Fred S. Kleiner. Gardner's Art through the Ages: A Concise Western History. 14th ed. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2014. Print.
• Gersh-Nesic, Beth. "Manet, Olympia." The Avant-Garde: Realism, Impressionism & Post Impressionism. Khan Academy. Web. 22 Nov. 2015.
• Kehoe, Thomas J., Harold E. Damerow, and Jose Marie Duvall. "Exploring Western Civilization: 1600 to the Present: A Worktext for the Active Student". Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt, 1999. Union City College. Web. 22 Nov. 2015
  
• Rabinow, Rebecca. "Édouard Manet (1832–1883)". In Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000. Web. 22 Nov 2015.
• Rubin, J. H. "Realism." Grove Art Online. Oxford Art Online. Oxford University Press. Web. 22 Nov. 2015.
• Seiberling, Grace. "Impressionism." Grove Art Online. Oxford Art Online. Oxford University Press. Web. 24 Nov. 2015.
  

Images from Wikimedia Commons