During lockdown, still ongoing here in Thailand, I’ve been greatly entertained by the “Waldy and Bendy’s Adventures in Art” podcasts (40 episodes). I thought I knew my art history, but I have to acknowledge that I received a real education from these two presenters; Waldemar “Waldy” Januszczak, art critic of the Sunday Times and Bendor “Bendy” Grovesnor, art historian and TV presenter. I listened on Spotify but the direct link is:
https://waldyandbendy.podbean.com/
Each episode has a section entitled “Bendor Grovesnor’s Farm”, in which an animal is chosen to search for the best interpretations in art. For the season finale, the topic was birds. Before the episode, I tried to predict what pictures (5) they might choose. Needless to say none of my picks were on their list. I do however think they might have missed a trick by omitting John Audubon and any any one of his magnificent “Birds of America” series of which the heron above and the flamingo below are fine examples. Perhaps because Audubon is considered more a naturalist rather than an artist.
At the top of “Waldy” and “Bendy”‘s list was The Goldfinch by the Dutch Golden Age artist Carel Fabritius in the collection of the Maurithuis, The Hague, Netherlands. I’m sure you’ll agree, a worthy inclusion.
Another picture they chose was by the Mexican artist Frida Kahlo, Me and my Parrots. Actually if I had thought of it, I would have picked it myself.
Edouard Manet’s Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe? Well the two presenters are sometimes cunning in their picks. Occasionally they even end up “dissing” their own selections, e.g, in this bird series, a definite thumbs down was given to the various interpretations of Leda and the swan – including Michelangelo’s – nobody’s perfect. I think their purpose is to inform, provoke and well, really make us look at art. They also appreciate that art is personal and generates very different emotional responses in each of us.
Anyhow “Waldy” picked Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe. Where on earth is the bird? His co-presenter “Bendy” confessed to initial confusion as he couldn’t find it at first glance.
You have to look very hard. It’s at the top centre. Apparently it’s a Red Bullfinch. There’s also a frog in the bottom left. Many are familiar with this famous painting but, if you are like me, have never looked past the arresting central scene. There’s been debate on the animals’ role. Some believe that the bird invites spectators to open their eyes as it hovers over the group and the frog refers to a nickname given to 19th century prostitutes. An interpretation therefore is that the work depicts the rampant prostitution present in the 19th century Bois de Boulogne. This was considered a taboo subject unsuitable for a painting and partly the reason the painting was rejected by the Paris Salon in 1963. Manet instead exhibited at the Salon des Refuses where it sparked public notoriety and controversy.
I don’t think it has anything whatsoever to do with prostitution and the scandalous reaction relates more to misinterpretation and the prudish moral climate of 19th century.
Manet’s composition reveals his study of the old masters. The main figures are derived from an engraving by Marcantonio Raimondi, itself based on a drawing by Raphael. Manet was cheekily reworking Raphael, turning a mythological scene (see figures bottom right) from a celebrated Renaissance engraving into a tableau of somewhat vulgar Parisian holidaymakers. Could Manet’s bird represent the angel in the centre of Raphael’s drawing?
The Pastoral Concert by Giorgione below also closely resembles Le Déjeuner, as it features two dressed men seated in a rural setting, with two undressed women. This is in the Louvre and the painting was well known to Manet and the theme incorporated in his painting.
According to Marcel Proust, he and Manet had been lounging by the Seine as they spotted a woman bathing in the river. This prompted Manet to say, “I copied Giorgione’s women, the women with musicians….I want to redo it and do it with a transparent atmosphere with people like those we see over there.“
There is often over interpretation in art. Sometimes a bird is just a bird.
The Weary Traveller 