I agree Manet as Clement Greenberg says is where Modernism Starts , an Interesting Comment but yes particularly his depiction of the Middle Class and the Role of the Flaneur.
Art historians make sure that anyone who comes across Edouard Manet’s Luncheon on the Lawn is made aware it was a departure point for Modern Art.
They say it inspired impressionists who put a match to post-impressionists, who co-existed alongside Manet-influenced Cezanne who paved the way for cubism and Picasso who, a hundred years later, made dozens of his versions of the Luncheon. It keeps inspiring artists today, globally, to produce their own Luncheons.
Somehow, Manet’s Luncheon is making a constantly growing crowd of artists compulsively obsessed with the theme of four people having a picnic in the woods.
Is it great art then because it works like an unstoppable mental virus?
Or is it great in itself, without Monet, Gauguin, Cezanne, Picasso, and hundreds of other artists paying tribute to it?
What is great about its flat figures and collapsed perspective?
What is great about a naked woman…
View original post 786 more words