The late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries gave rise to new understandings and appreciations of sexuality in regards to viewing the female form and this shift in societal thought is due in part to two artists. In this essay, I intend to conduct an analysis of Francisco Goya’s Nude Maja (Figure 1) and Gustave Courbet’s Woman with a Parrot (Figure 2) in relation to one another in regards to formal qualities and thematic aesthetics, as well as how each challenged the conventions of the Salon and the Academy.
In terms of formalities, these paintings are quite similar. Both use oil paints on canvas with a colour palette that is devoid of diverse vivid hues and that has deliberate placement of whites and darks. The subject matter of both is a young, pale, and naked woman on white linen. Upon investigation of the thematic qualities, we encounter some aspects of each that explore how the idea of nudity and sexuality manifested during years where being unclothed was considered not just taboo, but extremely radical.
During the late eighteenth century and first half of the nineteenth century, the image of a naked women was only to be seen in two lights, 1) if she were a peasant, because the sexual activities of the upper and middle classes were rarely discussed, and 2) only by her husband, as society was so deeply routed in marriage and Christianity. However, the reception of each varied a large deal and appeared to divide societal opinion.
The term maja in Nude Maja refers to a group of proletarian aristocrats of whom Spanish society became obsessed with due to their beautiful clothing, manner in which they carried themselves, and possession of pure Castilian blood. The Nude Maja has perfectly placed hair with a gaze that appears to be fixated on the spectator with a slight smirk and rosy cheeks, her arms folded behind her head, her pubic area placed directly in the centre of the canvas, as if inviting us to take part in something. Goya’s inviting image appealed to upper class men in the way that it reached their desire and fantasy to be seduced by an exotic figure, evoking a sense of eroticism and pleasure.
Courbet’s painting features an unkempt woman with disheveled and tousled hair, sprawled out on a bed, sheets between her thighs, and paying attention to a parrot resting on her hand. Whereas in Nude Maja where the spectator is invited to take part in a current moment, Woman with a Parrot sees us wondering what will happen, as provides a sense of transcendence. The parrot, with which the female figure is interacting with, directs me to refer to that of a vulture, a bird who feasts on the flesh of dead organisms. Though the paleness of the woman’s skin denotes death, the smile on her face says otherwise; she appears neither alive nor dead — caught in limbo. It is evident that Courbet is making a critique about death and the essence of all living things in a constant state of dying. This idea of death coupled with the image nudity confuses the spectator. Like Goya, the pubic area of the woman in Courbet’s painting is place directly in the centre of the painting, partially covered but still not obstructing any view. Furthermore, the curtains behind the woman, from which the parrot likely flew through, is open, possibly reflecting the mystery of the female (genitals), not eroticism as in Nude Maja. While the contours of the woman are meant to entice the viewer, the parrot and its reference to death are meant to evoke introspection.
Courbet more often than not, made paintings with the sole purpose of them being rejected by the Salon, that is, while he enjoyed challenging the conventions and norms of society, he also actively sought out disagreement, and always succeeded. While in the second half of the nineteenth century most nudes exhibited in the Salon were that of woman, when Courbet presented Woman with a Parrot to the Salon in 1866, he was met with total disregard, with critics citing his painting as being pornographic and devoid of taste.
Conversely, Goya was met with praise when he presented his work to the Salon, however it is important to note that it was always hung alongside its companion painting Clothed Maja which features the same female subject but with clothes on. As well, the public had been subjected to Nude Maja several years before the first Salon opening in 1865, and thus, the ideals portrayed in the painting itself were already widely accepted. The same can be said about the Academy as Goya had his two works exhibited at the Royal Academy of Fine Arts in San Fernando on two separate occasions. It seems as though the subject matter of Nude Maja, appealing sexual desire, captured the interest of upper class men who dominated the Academy and thus, it was easily accepted.
To contrast, Courbet was an artist who explicitly demonstrated his affinity with the French Academy, disagreeing not only with how it operated, but more importantly, in the entire idea that ‘art cannot be taught’. In what has become known as the “Realist Manifesto,” Courbet explains in Art Cannot be Taught, his 1861 letter that, “the art of painting can only consist of the representation of objects which are visible and tangible for the artist [and] can only be reproduced by […] the artists who lived in it.” His meshing of science and pornography, of death and the nude, challenged the Academy and classical ideal of art by critiquing nineteenth century society as a culture that was disenfranchised and removed from reality.
So while Goya’s painting seems to be concerned with a particular moment and specific time in history, Courbet directs us towards the modern century with a painting that concerns itself with the passage of time, the future, and the death that is to come.
Works Cited
Crow, Thomas, Lukacher, Brian, Nochlin, Linda, Phillips, David L., Pohl,
Frances K.. “The Tensions of Enlightenment: Goya,” and, “The Rhetoric of Realism: Courbet and the origins of the Avant-Garde.” Nineteenth Century Art: A Critical History, ed. 4., (London: Thames & Hudson Ltd.), 86-105 and 250-272.
Rosenfeld, Jason. “The Salon and The Royal Academy in the Nineteenth
Century.” In Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000). Accessed Nov 1, 2016. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/sara/hd_sara.htm
Shaw, Jennifer. “Living Art and Dead Objects.” Third Text 22, no. 4 (2008), 467-82.
Tomlinson, Janis. “Burn It, Hide It, Flaunt It: Goya’s ‘Majas’ and the Censorial Mind.” Art Journal 50, no. 4 (1991), 59-64.
