Week Four

If I have my Monet and my Manet straight, Monet's depiction of 1878's 30th of June festival, to me at least, seems as though it wants to give the sense of a big picture while Manet's focuses on a smaller idea. Monet's Rue Montergueil with Flags describes the overall enjoyment of the city.  The view includes ore that a street or a cluster of townsfolk. There's building after building and throngs of celebratory citizens in streets that go on forever. The victory is here and there is nothing more but peace, civility, and rejoicing. Paris is one happy city.

Manet's Rue Mosnier brings attention to one little street with few folk going along down the street. There is quite a bit of depth present. The party seems really far away and the cripple has to hobble his way to get there as people drive past him in carriages. In this version, the victory is still in the distance. In this version, the streets are decorated as much as in Monet's paintings, but the celebration is not happening where you can see it. Manet's street serves to lead the subjects and the viewers to the celebration; it is not the celebration itself. Monet's shows where the party is. All the depth Monet creates in Rue Montergueil is for showing how extensive the celebration is, not how far away it is. While the victory is being celebrated fully for Monet who is ready to accept upcoming peace, Manet portrays the victory as still in the distance.  France is almost there, it is even visible just around the corner, but they still have to hobble along with the crippled veteran for a ways.  They aren't done yet. Manet's view is not nearly as positive as Monet's. Even Manet's streets are not as colorful and saturated - the bricks and coble walking women are really washed out and the colors are cold. Looking at the Monet, we can see more warmth and richness in colors with darks and shadows and higher levels of saturation.

With Monet's depictions, the viewer can more easily understand the images at a distance and as the big picture. He continues on in his previous style, focusing on showing the effects of colors and lights that happen to make an appealing image. You can tell what it is in Manet's painting from a ways away and up close. Your eye can wander from figure to figure and individually interpret what you are seeing with Manet's painting. The composition is not as driven by what he observed with color and lights as by the subject. The viewer does not sit and wonder the how or why of the brushstrokes as much as what is going on with the subjects. The figures are suggesting that there is something wrong. Having a crippled veteran struggling down the street by himself is not suggestive of happiness or reaching wonderful goals. The sidewalk and streets and pedestrians are walking along a line that crosses with the line of the cripples hips.  They are opposing each other. To me, this is Manet heavily suggesting France remembers how they should not be ignoring or fighting the impoverished. Monet's paintings are more interesting and controversial with techniques and style than subject, and even then, a lot of the controversy and newness of his impressionist style has lost some of its edge from being freshly innovative. Monet's Rue Montergueil is clearly not at all interested in making a statement. It is an observation. There are multitudes of people participating, no one is depicted as looking left out or dejected, and it is a victory celebration in full swing. The image would suggest to its contemporary Frenchmen a joyous future, while Manet was sure to create a reminder about what all the recent fighting was about.