Decade 1860-1869
Except otherwise stated, all results include the premium.
See also : President Lincoln Autograph Political document Manet Coin Coins 1850-69 US gold coins
See also : President Lincoln Autograph Political document Manet Coin Coins 1850-69 US gold coins
MANET
1860 L'Italienne
2018 SOLD for $ 11M by Christie's
By rejecting the classical teaching of Thomas Couture, the young Edouard Manet triggered the modernism in French painting. He was inspired in the Louvre by the masterpieces of Velazquez and Titian which he applied to low level subjects such as the absinthe addict, one of the first of his works to attract fame by horrifying the bourgeois, and rejected by the 1859 Salon.
Another preferred theme was the Spanish characters in bright colors over a dark background in the manner of Velazquez. In the same style, l'Italienne, oil on canvas 73 x 60 cm, depicts at mid length a 19 year old artist's model from Ancona. The rosy cheeked young woman is dressed in a fancy Mediterranean garb drawn by the artist from his basket of clothes.
L'Italienne was sold for $ 11M from a lower estimate of $ 3M by Christie's on May 15, 2018, lot 29A.
Monet's breakthrough in the Salon was Le Chanteur Espagnol, accepted in 1861 and favorably commented by Fantin-Latour and Baudelaire.
Another preferred theme was the Spanish characters in bright colors over a dark background in the manner of Velazquez. In the same style, l'Italienne, oil on canvas 73 x 60 cm, depicts at mid length a 19 year old artist's model from Ancona. The rosy cheeked young woman is dressed in a fancy Mediterranean garb drawn by the artist from his basket of clothes.
L'Italienne was sold for $ 11M from a lower estimate of $ 3M by Christie's on May 15, 2018, lot 29A.
Monet's breakthrough in the Salon was Le Chanteur Espagnol, accepted in 1861 and favorably commented by Fantin-Latour and Baudelaire.
masterpiece
1863 Le Déjeuner sur l'Herbe
Musée d'Orsay
The image is shared by Wikimedia.
Édouard Manet's Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe (Luncheon on the Grass) (1862–1863, oil on canvas, 208 × 264.5 cm) is a landmark painting that helped launch modern art. Originally titled Le Bain (The Bath), it was rejected by the official Paris Salon jury in 1863 but exhibited at the inaugural Salon des Refusés (Salon of the Refused), where it became the center of intense public controversy and ridicule.
The large-scale composition depicts a picnic in a wooded landscape: two fully dressed bourgeois men (one modeled after Manet's brothers-in-law, the other possibly poet Zacharie Astruc) sit casually on the grass, engaged in conversation—one gesturing emphatically. Between them sits a completely nude woman (modeled by Victorine Meurent, Manet's frequent muse), gazing directly and impassively at the viewer with her chin resting on her hand. In the background, a second woman (also nude or scantily clad) bathes in a stream, bending over with her back turned. The foreground includes a still-life picnic spread: basket of fruit, bread, wine, discarded clothing, and a hat, rendered with crisp realism.
Why the Scandal Was So Profound
The outrage stemmed not from nudity itself (nudes were common in academic art) but from the context and execution:
Artistic Sources and Influences
Manet openly referenced Renaissance masters to subvert tradition:
Legacy and Connection to Later Works
Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe preceded and set the stage for Olympia (also 1863, exhibited 1865), sharing the model Victorine Meurent and confrontational realism. Both were pivotal in challenging academic norms, influencing Impressionists (e.g., Monet's own Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe series as a more pastoral response) and paving the way for modernism's focus on everyday subjects, psychological tension, and viewer engagement. Housed today at the Musée d'Orsay in Paris, it remains a symbol of artistic rebellion—often called "ground zero" for modern art—transforming scandal into enduring innovation.
Feminist interpretations of the nude in Édouard Manet’s Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe (1863) have evolved significantly since the painting’s scandalous debut, reflecting broader shifts in art history from the 1970s onward. The central figure—the nude woman modeled by Victorine Meurent, seated confidently beside two fully clothed men and gazing directly at the viewer—has been read both as a site of patriarchal objectification and as a provocative assertion of female agency in a modern context.
The Male Gaze and Objectification
A foundational feminist critique draws on Laura Mulvey’s concept of the “male gaze” (introduced in 1975 film theory but widely applied to visual art). In this view, the painting positions the female body as a spectacle for heterosexual male viewers. The nude woman is exposed while the men remain protected by clothing and engaged in conversation, seemingly detached from her presence. This asymmetry reinforces traditional power dynamics: woman as passive object of desire, men as active subjects.
The direct gaze, however, complicates this. Rather than averting her eyes in “shame” (as in many academic nudes), Meurent’s figure confronts the viewer, disrupting passive consumption. Some feminists see this as thwarting the male gaze—making the spectator uncomfortable and self-aware. Others argue it still operates within a male-authored framework: Manet, as the male artist, ultimately controls the representation, even if the figure appears assertive.Contemporary readings (e.g., projects like Sara Terry’s “(Re)Thinking the Male Gaze”) often gender-flip or re-stage the scene to highlight how the original privileges a masculine perspective on female nudity in everyday settings.
Agency, Confrontation, and a “Modern Venus”
Many interpreters emphasize the figure’s strength and self-possession. Victorine Meurent (an aspiring artist herself, nicknamed “la crevette”) appears relaxed, unashamed, and equal in presence to the men. Her nudity is not idealized as a classical goddess but presented as a real, contemporary woman in a modern picnic setting—discarded clothes nearby emphasize that she has undressed, not that she is timelessly “nude.”
Victorine Meurent as Collaborator and Artist
Feminist scholarship has increasingly highlighted Meurent’s own agency. She posed for Manet multiple times (including the equally scandalous Olympia, 1863/1865) and was a painter in her own right. Some biographers suggest she may have influenced or collaborated on the concept, portraying herself as a poised figure casually sharing space with educated men. Her notoriety from these paintings damaged her reputation (rumors cast her as a prostitute), yet she lived to 83 and pursued her artistic career.This recovery of the model’s voice shifts focus from Manet as sole genius to the real woman behind the image, critiquing how art history has erased or sexualized women’s contributions. A 2025 mock trial at the Musée d’Orsay (organized with feminist groups) dramatized these debates, with “Meurent” asserting her right to nudity and emancipation.
Broader Critiques: Class, Prostitution, and Hypocrisy
Feminists often link the painting to 19th-century Parisian realities: the visibility of prostitution, class mixing in parks like the Bois de Boulogne, and bourgeois male hypocrisy. The scene can be read as evoking a paid encounter (the woman as a demimondaine), exposing double standards—men could indulge privately while enforcing public morality on women.
These readings have enriched our understanding of the painting far beyond its original scandal, transforming it from a mere provocation into a mirror for ongoing conversations about bodies, power, and looking in art.
Édouard Manet's Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe (Luncheon on the Grass) (1862–1863, oil on canvas, 208 × 264.5 cm) is a landmark painting that helped launch modern art. Originally titled Le Bain (The Bath), it was rejected by the official Paris Salon jury in 1863 but exhibited at the inaugural Salon des Refusés (Salon of the Refused), where it became the center of intense public controversy and ridicule.
The large-scale composition depicts a picnic in a wooded landscape: two fully dressed bourgeois men (one modeled after Manet's brothers-in-law, the other possibly poet Zacharie Astruc) sit casually on the grass, engaged in conversation—one gesturing emphatically. Between them sits a completely nude woman (modeled by Victorine Meurent, Manet's frequent muse), gazing directly and impassively at the viewer with her chin resting on her hand. In the background, a second woman (also nude or scantily clad) bathes in a stream, bending over with her back turned. The foreground includes a still-life picnic spread: basket of fruit, bread, wine, discarded clothing, and a hat, rendered with crisp realism.
Why the Scandal Was So Profound
The outrage stemmed not from nudity itself (nudes were common in academic art) but from the context and execution:
- Juxtaposition of naked and clothed figures in a contemporary setting — Traditional nudes appeared in mythological, allegorical, or classical scenes (e.g., Venuses or bathers as timeless ideals). Here, the nude woman is unmistakably modern—a real Parisian woman (possibly evoking a courtesan or mistress) picnicking casually with clothed men in everyday bourgeois attire. This collapsed the boundary between high art and vulgar reality, implying prostitution, casual sex, or moral laxity without mythological justification.
- The woman's direct, confrontational gaze — She stares out unflinchingly, implicating the (male) viewer as voyeur or participant, reversing passive objectification.
- Formal radicalism — Manet's flat, unmodulated brushwork, sharp contrasts, lack of depth modeling, and abrupt spatial shifts made the figures appear "unfinished" or crude to conservative eyes. The painting ignored academic polish, prioritizing bold realism over idealized beauty.
- Social hypocrisy exposed — In Second Empire Paris, it highlighted bourgeois double standards: men could enjoy such outings, but depicting them openly challenged propriety. Critics called it "vulgar," "immoral," "indecent," a "riddle," or even obscene; crowds mocked it, and it was seen as a deliberate affront.
Artistic Sources and Influences
Manet openly referenced Renaissance masters to subvert tradition:
- Titian's (or Giorgione's) Pastoral Concert (c. 1510, Louvre) — The seated clothed men and nude female figures in a landscape echo this, but Manet updates it to the present, stripping away allegory.
- Raphael's Judgment of Paris (via Marcantonio Raimondi's engraving) — The central trio's poses derive from this, with the nude woman adapting the reclining figure.
Legacy and Connection to Later Works
Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe preceded and set the stage for Olympia (also 1863, exhibited 1865), sharing the model Victorine Meurent and confrontational realism. Both were pivotal in challenging academic norms, influencing Impressionists (e.g., Monet's own Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe series as a more pastoral response) and paving the way for modernism's focus on everyday subjects, psychological tension, and viewer engagement. Housed today at the Musée d'Orsay in Paris, it remains a symbol of artistic rebellion—often called "ground zero" for modern art—transforming scandal into enduring innovation.
Feminist interpretations of the nude in Édouard Manet’s Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe (1863) have evolved significantly since the painting’s scandalous debut, reflecting broader shifts in art history from the 1970s onward. The central figure—the nude woman modeled by Victorine Meurent, seated confidently beside two fully clothed men and gazing directly at the viewer—has been read both as a site of patriarchal objectification and as a provocative assertion of female agency in a modern context.
The Male Gaze and Objectification
A foundational feminist critique draws on Laura Mulvey’s concept of the “male gaze” (introduced in 1975 film theory but widely applied to visual art). In this view, the painting positions the female body as a spectacle for heterosexual male viewers. The nude woman is exposed while the men remain protected by clothing and engaged in conversation, seemingly detached from her presence. This asymmetry reinforces traditional power dynamics: woman as passive object of desire, men as active subjects.
The direct gaze, however, complicates this. Rather than averting her eyes in “shame” (as in many academic nudes), Meurent’s figure confronts the viewer, disrupting passive consumption. Some feminists see this as thwarting the male gaze—making the spectator uncomfortable and self-aware. Others argue it still operates within a male-authored framework: Manet, as the male artist, ultimately controls the representation, even if the figure appears assertive.Contemporary readings (e.g., projects like Sara Terry’s “(Re)Thinking the Male Gaze”) often gender-flip or re-stage the scene to highlight how the original privileges a masculine perspective on female nudity in everyday settings.
Agency, Confrontation, and a “Modern Venus”
Many interpreters emphasize the figure’s strength and self-possession. Victorine Meurent (an aspiring artist herself, nicknamed “la crevette”) appears relaxed, unashamed, and equal in presence to the men. Her nudity is not idealized as a classical goddess but presented as a real, contemporary woman in a modern picnic setting—discarded clothes nearby emphasize that she has undressed, not that she is timelessly “nude.”
- Some see her stare as confrontational and amused, challenging the viewer rather than inviting voyeurism. One perspective frames it as a “post-sexual Eden” where the lack of interaction between figures normalizes female nudity without shame or overt eroticism.
- Others interpret the gaze as defiant: the woman claims ownership of her body and sexuality, refusing to collude with the spectator’s expectations. In this reading, the painting becomes proto-feminist by exploding the stereotype of the anonymous, passive female nude.
Victorine Meurent as Collaborator and Artist
Feminist scholarship has increasingly highlighted Meurent’s own agency. She posed for Manet multiple times (including the equally scandalous Olympia, 1863/1865) and was a painter in her own right. Some biographers suggest she may have influenced or collaborated on the concept, portraying herself as a poised figure casually sharing space with educated men. Her notoriety from these paintings damaged her reputation (rumors cast her as a prostitute), yet she lived to 83 and pursued her artistic career.This recovery of the model’s voice shifts focus from Manet as sole genius to the real woman behind the image, critiquing how art history has erased or sexualized women’s contributions. A 2025 mock trial at the Musée d’Orsay (organized with feminist groups) dramatized these debates, with “Meurent” asserting her right to nudity and emancipation.
Broader Critiques: Class, Prostitution, and Hypocrisy
Feminists often link the painting to 19th-century Parisian realities: the visibility of prostitution, class mixing in parks like the Bois de Boulogne, and bourgeois male hypocrisy. The scene can be read as evoking a paid encounter (the woman as a demimondaine), exposing double standards—men could indulge privately while enforcing public morality on women.
- Linda Nochlin (pioneer of feminist art history) viewed the work as a mocking protest against timeless academic ideals, using a Raphaelesque composition for a provocative modern scene.
- Griselda Pollock and others have analyzed how Manet’s representations of women intersect with ideologies of gender, class, and modernity, sometimes reinforcing binaries while also opening spaces for alternative readings.
- Intersectional perspectives (drawing from Black feminism, e.g., comparisons with the maid in Olympia) note the absence of racial or further class diversity in the main figures, highlighting whose bodies are deemed “visible” in modernist experiments.
- Empowering: The woman is strong, confident, and equal—her gaze asserts subjectivity and challenges patriarchal norms.
- Problematic: The painting is still a male artist’s vision of female nudity for public display, potentially exploitative or reinforcing objectification despite the confrontational elements.
- Complex/Ambivalent: It defies easy categorization, mirroring the painting’s own enigmatic quality. The flat perspective, harsh lighting, and lack of interaction among figures create detachment that can feel alienating or liberating.
These readings have enriched our understanding of the painting far beyond its original scandal, transforming it from a mere provocation into a mirror for ongoing conversations about bodies, power, and looking in art.
masterpiece
1863 Olympia
Musée d'Orsay
Olympia (1863) — Manet's most notorious work draws heavily from Goya's La Maja desnuda (c. 1797–1800) and La Maja vestida. Both feature a reclining nude woman gazing directly at the viewer with confident, confrontational sexuality. Goya's Maja was scandalous for its realism and implied prostitution; Manet amplified this by modernizing the subject into a contemporary Parisian courtesan, stripping away mythological veneer, adding a Black maid and bouquet, and using flat, unmodeled forms. The direct stare and bold nudity echo Goya's subversive take on the classical reclining nude tradition (e.g., from Titian).
The image is shared by Wikimedia.
Édouard Manet's Olympia (1863) is one of the most revolutionary and scandalous paintings in art history, often credited with helping birth modern art. Painted in oil on canvas (130.5 × 190 cm), it depicts a reclining nude woman—modeled by Victorine Meurent—staring directly and unflinchingly at the viewer, with a black servant (modeled by Laure) presenting a bouquet of flowers and a black cat at the foot of the bed. The scene is set in a luxurious interior with rich green drapery and patterned bedding.
The work was first exhibited at the Paris Salon of 1865 (two years after completion), where it provoked an unprecedented uproar. Crowds gathered in chaos—laughing, mocking, catcalling, and expressing disgust—requiring guards and even re-hanging the painting high on the wall to protect it from the public's outrage. Critics called it "a colossal ineptitude," "shapeless," "putrefied," "incomprehensible," or likened it to a "cadaver at the morgue." The public viewed it as indecent and immoral.
Why the Scandal Was So Intense
Lasting Influence and Legacy
Olympia became a cornerstone of modernism, influencing Impressionists, Post-Impressionists, and beyond (e.g., Picasso's Les Demoiselles d'Avignon echoes its confrontational nudes). It challenged the Salon system, helped legitimize plein air and realist approaches, and shifted art toward psychological depth, social commentary, and viewer implication. Today, housed at the Musée d'Orsay in Paris, it's celebrated for empowering the female subject—Olympia's steady gaze asserts control and subjectivity.
Searching the web
27 results
Influence of Goya's La Maja Desnuda on Manet's Olympia
Francisco de Goya's La Maja Desnuda (c. 1797–1800, Museo del Prado, Madrid) was a groundbreaking work in its time: the first Western painting to depict pubic hair in a non-prostitutional, non-mythological context, featuring a reclining nude woman with a direct, confident gaze that boldly engages the viewer. Commissioned likely for a private aristocratic collection (possibly by Prime Minister Manuel Godoy), it scandalized Spanish authorities, leading to Inquisition scrutiny for its frank eroticism and realism—departing from idealized classical nudes.Édouard Manet's Olympia (1863) draws on this precedent as one of several influences, though scholars emphasize Titian's Venus of Urbino (1538) as the primary model due to compositional parallels (reclining pose, hand placement over genitals, servant figure, luxurious bedding). Goya's Maja is cited as a secondary but significant source:
Meaning of the Title "Olympia" in Manet's Painting
The title Olympia—attributed to Manet's friend, poet and critic Zacharie Astruc (who contributed a poem excerpt in the 1865 Salon catalogue)—carries layered, ironic significance:
The image is shared by Wikimedia.
Édouard Manet's Olympia (1863) is one of the most revolutionary and scandalous paintings in art history, often credited with helping birth modern art. Painted in oil on canvas (130.5 × 190 cm), it depicts a reclining nude woman—modeled by Victorine Meurent—staring directly and unflinchingly at the viewer, with a black servant (modeled by Laure) presenting a bouquet of flowers and a black cat at the foot of the bed. The scene is set in a luxurious interior with rich green drapery and patterned bedding.
The work was first exhibited at the Paris Salon of 1865 (two years after completion), where it provoked an unprecedented uproar. Crowds gathered in chaos—laughing, mocking, catcalling, and expressing disgust—requiring guards and even re-hanging the painting high on the wall to protect it from the public's outrage. Critics called it "a colossal ineptitude," "shapeless," "putrefied," "incomprehensible," or likened it to a "cadaver at the morgue." The public viewed it as indecent and immoral.
Why the Scandal Was So Intense
- Confrontational realism of a contemporary prostitute: Unlike traditional academic nudes (mythological or allegorical Venuses, like Titian's Venus of Urbino, which Manet openly referenced and subverted), Olympia is unmistakably a modern courtesan (demi-mondaine). Details scream this: the name "Olympia" was slang for prostitutes in 1860s Paris; the black cat (symbol of promiscuity or witchcraft, replacing Titian's faithful dog); the orchid in her hair and pearl earrings (luxury items for kept women); the bouquet implying a client's gift; her blocking hand over her genitals (suggesting transactional access); and her direct, assertive gaze that reverses the male gaze—she confronts and challenges the viewer (implied client) rather than passively inviting.
- Formal innovations that shocked: Manet's flat, unmodeled brushwork, sharp contrasts of light and shadow, lack of traditional sfumato blending, and bold outlines made the figure appear "unfinished" or crude to conservative eyes. The composition strips away idealization—no soft curves or dreamy atmosphere—presenting a hard-edged, modern woman with agency.
- Social and moral affront: In Second Empire Paris, depicting a real sex worker as a goddess-like figure (Olympia evokes classical ideals) exposed bourgeois hypocrisy around prostitution, class, race (the Black servant's presence added exotic/erotic undertones and racial tensions), and the commodification of women.
Lasting Influence and Legacy
Olympia became a cornerstone of modernism, influencing Impressionists, Post-Impressionists, and beyond (e.g., Picasso's Les Demoiselles d'Avignon echoes its confrontational nudes). It challenged the Salon system, helped legitimize plein air and realist approaches, and shifted art toward psychological depth, social commentary, and viewer implication. Today, housed at the Musée d'Orsay in Paris, it's celebrated for empowering the female subject—Olympia's steady gaze asserts control and subjectivity.
Searching the web
27 results
Influence of Goya's La Maja Desnuda on Manet's Olympia
Francisco de Goya's La Maja Desnuda (c. 1797–1800, Museo del Prado, Madrid) was a groundbreaking work in its time: the first Western painting to depict pubic hair in a non-prostitutional, non-mythological context, featuring a reclining nude woman with a direct, confident gaze that boldly engages the viewer. Commissioned likely for a private aristocratic collection (possibly by Prime Minister Manuel Godoy), it scandalized Spanish authorities, leading to Inquisition scrutiny for its frank eroticism and realism—departing from idealized classical nudes.Édouard Manet's Olympia (1863) draws on this precedent as one of several influences, though scholars emphasize Titian's Venus of Urbino (1538) as the primary model due to compositional parallels (reclining pose, hand placement over genitals, servant figure, luxurious bedding). Goya's Maja is cited as a secondary but significant source:
- Direct gaze and unapologetic confidence — Both women stare straight at the viewer with self-assured, challenging expressions, subverting passive female nudes. Goya's maja conveys bold sensuality; Manet's Olympia amplifies this into confrontation and agency.
- Realism over idealization — Goya painted a contemporary woman (possibly a mistress or composite figure) with natural proportions and explicit details, rejecting classical perfection. Manet extends this to a modern Parisian context, portraying a high-class courtesan (demi-mondaine) with unflinching realism—flat lighting, sharp outlines, and no softening sfumato.
- Erotic frankness and scandal — Goya's work provoked censure for its nudity outside mythological justification; Manet's does the same by modernizing the theme, making the figure explicitly a prostitute (via symbols like the black cat, orchid, pearls, and ignored bouquet). Art historians note Manet's "bold allusion" to Goya's Maja in updating the reclining nude for contemporary critique of bourgeois hypocrisy around sexuality and class.
- Differences in intent — Goya's is private and intimate (often paired with a clothed version); Manet's is public provocation at the Salon, transforming the erotic into social commentary. Some sources describe Olympia as a "derivative" or "imaginative transformation" of Goya's, but most agree Titian provides the core structure, with Goya adding the layer of defiant modernity.
Meaning of the Title "Olympia" in Manet's Painting
The title Olympia—attributed to Manet's friend, poet and critic Zacharie Astruc (who contributed a poem excerpt in the 1865 Salon catalogue)—carries layered, ironic significance:
- Association with prostitution — In 1860s Paris, "Olympia" was a common nom de guerre (professional pseudonym) among courtesans and high-class prostitutes (demi-mondaines). It evoked classical grandeur (from Mount Olympus or the Greek ideal) while signaling a kept woman or sex worker—ironic for a figure stripped of divine or mythological pretense.
- Subversion of classical tradition — Traditional reclining nudes were titled after goddesses like Venus. Manet rejects this: his subject is no goddess but a modern professional woman, "profane" and transactional. The name mocks idealized Venuses (e.g., Titian's) by applying an exalted title to a prosaic reality—highlighting hypocrisy in how society viewed female sexuality.
- Poetic and ironic elevation — Astruc's poem called her an "august maiden, keeper of the flame," ironically dignifying her. Critics at the time queried "What Olympia? A courtesan no doubt," recognizing the sarcasm. Some linked it to historical figures like Renaissance courtesan La Dona Olympia.
- Symbol of agency and modernity — The title underscores Olympia's self-possession: she is not passive Venus but a calculating, independent figure who confronts the (male) viewer/client. It strips away euphemism, forcing acknowledgment of her profession and power.
1864 Pivoines dans une Bouteille
2026 SOLD for $ 8.6M by Christie's
Édouard Manet (1832–1883) painted a series of peony still lifes around 1864–65, shortly after the scandal of Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe (1863). Peonies were reportedly his favorite flower; he grew them in his garden at Gennevilliers. Their broad petals, lush forms, and subtle color variations suited his loose, sensuous brushwork and interest in color harmonies.
Examples include Pivoines dans une bouteille (Peonies in a Bottle, the focus lot), Vase of Peonies on a Small Pedestal (Musée d’Orsay), Branch of White Peonies and Secateurs (Musée d’Orsay), and Peonies (Metropolitan Museum of Art).
Intention: These works served as a personal laboratory for experimentation with color, light, and paint handling. Manet used still life—traditionally a lower genre—to explore modern painting techniques away from the pressures of figure compositions and Salon expectations. They evoke the transience of beauty (a vanitas theme echoing Dutch Golden Age flower paintings), with some blooms past their prime, drooping petals, or cut stems.
Influences:
Breakthrough and Reception: These still lifes marked part of Manet’s push toward “pure painting” and modernism in the mid-1860s, alongside more controversial figure works. They were less scandalous than his nudes or Olympia but demonstrated his rejection of academic polish in favor of immediacy. Critics and peers noted their vitality; later, Van Gogh praised a related peony work for its freedom and solidity. They helped establish still life as a vehicle for avant-garde experimentation (influencing Cézanne, Monet, etc.).
Legacy: The peony series exemplifies Manet’s role as a bridge from Realism to Impressionism and modernism. He treated everyday subjects with the dignity of high art, emphasizing paint as subject and the ephemeral beauty of modern life. These works remain popular for their freshness and accessibility while underscoring his technical innovation.
Auction History (Focus on Christie's Lot)
Pivoines dans une bouteille (1864, oil on canvas, 65 x 54.4 cm): Signed lower left. Provenance includes L.C. Hodebert (Paris), Charles S. Carstairs, Anna Evangeline La Chapelle Clark / Huguette Clark (New York), Beth Israel Medical Center (gift), Acquavella Galleries, and private collections. It has a strong exhibition and literature history (e.g., Tabarant, Jamot/Wildenstein, Rouart/Wildenstein catalogues).
This painting is featured in Christie's 20th Century Evening Sale (May 18, 2026, lot 26A, Lasting Impression: The Collection of Marilyn Arison) with an estimate of $7–10 million.
It realized $ 8.6M.
These peony paintings capture Manet at a pivotal moment—technically bold, personally affectionate, and forward-looking—cementing his influence on the trajectory of modern art.
Manet and Fantin-Latour were close friends and contemporaries who both painted peonies (pivoines) around the mid-1860s and beyond, producing some of the most admired floral still lifes of the 19th century. Their shared circle (including Whistler, Morisot, and later Impressionists) and mutual interest in modernizing still life as a serious genre make direct comparisons illuminating. Fantin-Latour (1836–1904) specialized in flower paintings for steady income (over 800 floral works, many sold in England), while Manet’s peonies formed part of a more experimental series amid his push toward modernism.Visual Comparison
Fantin-Latour (e.g., Peonies in a Vase, 1864, Hermitage): More refined, atmospheric, and harmonious. His peonies often appear in balanced arrangements against subdued or neutral backgrounds, emphasizing luminosity in pastels.
Key Comparisons
Intention and Approach:
In short, Manet’s peonies are dynamic and painterly—about the act of seeing and painting—while Fantin-Latour’s are harmonious and introspective—about the flowers themselves in perfect equilibrium. Their friendship enriched both, but their temperaments produced distinct poetic voices in floral art.
Examples include Pivoines dans une bouteille (Peonies in a Bottle, the focus lot), Vase of Peonies on a Small Pedestal (Musée d’Orsay), Branch of White Peonies and Secateurs (Musée d’Orsay), and Peonies (Metropolitan Museum of Art).
Intention: These works served as a personal laboratory for experimentation with color, light, and paint handling. Manet used still life—traditionally a lower genre—to explore modern painting techniques away from the pressures of figure compositions and Salon expectations. They evoke the transience of beauty (a vanitas theme echoing Dutch Golden Age flower paintings), with some blooms past their prime, drooping petals, or cut stems.
Influences:
- Spanish and Old Masters: Manet drew from Velázquez and Goya’s directness, and earlier still-life traditions (Spanish bodegones, Dutch flower pieces, Chardin).
- Japanese prints (ukiyo-e): Emerging interest in flatness, bold cropping, and decorative arrangement.
- Contemporary: Friendship with Fantin-Latour (a flower specialist) and broader engagement with Baudelaire’s ideas of modern life and fleeting sensation.
- He painted alla prima (wet-into-wet) with bold, abbreviated strokes, moving toward what would become Impressionist looseness while retaining structural solidity.
Breakthrough and Reception: These still lifes marked part of Manet’s push toward “pure painting” and modernism in the mid-1860s, alongside more controversial figure works. They were less scandalous than his nudes or Olympia but demonstrated his rejection of academic polish in favor of immediacy. Critics and peers noted their vitality; later, Van Gogh praised a related peony work for its freedom and solidity. They helped establish still life as a vehicle for avant-garde experimentation (influencing Cézanne, Monet, etc.).
Legacy: The peony series exemplifies Manet’s role as a bridge from Realism to Impressionism and modernism. He treated everyday subjects with the dignity of high art, emphasizing paint as subject and the ephemeral beauty of modern life. These works remain popular for their freshness and accessibility while underscoring his technical innovation.
Auction History (Focus on Christie's Lot)
Pivoines dans une bouteille (1864, oil on canvas, 65 x 54.4 cm): Signed lower left. Provenance includes L.C. Hodebert (Paris), Charles S. Carstairs, Anna Evangeline La Chapelle Clark / Huguette Clark (New York), Beth Israel Medical Center (gift), Acquavella Galleries, and private collections. It has a strong exhibition and literature history (e.g., Tabarant, Jamot/Wildenstein, Rouart/Wildenstein catalogues).
This painting is featured in Christie's 20th Century Evening Sale (May 18, 2026, lot 26A, Lasting Impression: The Collection of Marilyn Arison) with an estimate of $7–10 million.
It realized $ 8.6M.
These peony paintings capture Manet at a pivotal moment—technically bold, personally affectionate, and forward-looking—cementing his influence on the trajectory of modern art.
Manet and Fantin-Latour were close friends and contemporaries who both painted peonies (pivoines) around the mid-1860s and beyond, producing some of the most admired floral still lifes of the 19th century. Their shared circle (including Whistler, Morisot, and later Impressionists) and mutual interest in modernizing still life as a serious genre make direct comparisons illuminating. Fantin-Latour (1836–1904) specialized in flower paintings for steady income (over 800 floral works, many sold in England), while Manet’s peonies formed part of a more experimental series amid his push toward modernism.Visual Comparison
Fantin-Latour (e.g., Peonies in a Vase, 1864, Hermitage): More refined, atmospheric, and harmonious. His peonies often appear in balanced arrangements against subdued or neutral backgrounds, emphasizing luminosity in pastels.
Key Comparisons
Intention and Approach:
- Manet: Used peonies as a personal laboratory for "pure painting"—exploring color, light, materiality, and the ephemeral (some blooms drooping or past prime, evoking vanitas). They were intimate experiments, often alla prima, tied to his garden at Gennevilliers where he grew them. Less about botanical precision, more about modern vitality and paint as subject.
- Fantin-Latour: Treated flowers as "portraits" — individual, dignified studies of nature’s beauty. He arranged cut flowers indoors from his garden or market, working from life (and memory when they wilted) to capture their essence with near-photographic yet poetic detail. More contemplative and harmonious; he favored them for commercial appeal and technical mastery.
- Manet: Loose, vigorous brushwork with thick impasto, abbreviated strokes, and bold color blocks. High contrast (dark backgrounds or direct lighting), tactile surfaces, and a sense of immediacy. He reduced botanical accuracy for expressive effect, moving toward Impressionist looseness while keeping structural solidity.
- Fantin-Latour: Smoother, layered application on absorbent canvases (toile absorbante) for quick drying and multiple glazes. Exceptional tonal harmony, subtle modeling of petals, and atmospheric depth. Silhouetted flowers against muted/gray backgrounds create a "musical" quality of value and color. More refined finish, capturing textures of petals, leaves, and vases (porcelain, glass) with delicacy.
- Both drew from Old Masters (Chardin, Dutch flower pieces, Spanish realism), Japanese prints (flatness, cropping), and contemporaries like Courbet.
- Manet leaned toward Spanish directness, Velázquez/Goya, and a modernist break from tradition.
- Fantin-Latour blended Realism with Naturalism, some Romanticism, and subtle Japonisme/Whistler influences for cool harmonies. He remained more traditional, rejecting full Impressionist outdoor painting.
- Both elevated still life beyond decorative status. Manet’s were bolder and more avant-garde, helping bridge Realism to Impressionism. Fantin-Latour’s were commercially successful and widely praised for refinement (especially in England); critics and writers like Proust lauded their quiet beauty.
- Today, Manet’s feel fresher and more modern; Fantin-Latour’s are beloved for accessibility and technical perfection. Neither fully joined Impressionism, but both influenced later flower painters.
In short, Manet’s peonies are dynamic and painterly—about the act of seeing and painting—while Fantin-Latour’s are harmonious and introspective—about the flowers themselves in perfect equilibrium. Their friendship enriched both, but their temperaments produced distinct poetic voices in floral art.
Edouard Manet’s ‘Pivoines dans une bouteille’ from The Joanna Carson Collection: A Legacy of Glamour and Giving, Property Sold with the Intent to Benefit Various Charities achieves USD $8,615,000 in tonight’s 20th Century Evening Sale.
— Christie's (@ChristiesInc) May 18, 2026
Follow along: https://t.co/IBJasg9DO4 pic.twitter.com/UmOpIkWhfO
1861 Paquet Double Eagle
2021 SOLD for $ 7.2M by Heritage
There are two varieties in existence of the double eagle dated 1861 with a reverse design modified by Anthony Paquet.
The San Francisco Paquet is a well documented regular issue of 19,250 coins. The current survivors have been circulated and no mint state specimen is known. On the opposite the Philadelphia Paquet is one of the rarest numismatic varieties with only two examples known, both in mint state, respectively graded MS67 and MS61 by PCGS.
The story begins in 1859 with a concern about an excessive cracking of reverse dies during striking. In Philadelphia the assistant engraver Anthony Paquet manages to propose some modifications which are accepted for the 1861 strike, although the impact on the original die problem is questionable. Concerned about readability, he improved the letters and reduced the edges, thus increasing the effective area of the engraved figure.
Sets of dies including that reverse are shipped to the subsidiary mints in San Francisco and New Orleans in November and December 1860. They are accompanied by an instruction stating that the new reverse die "is presenting a larger face for the device without changing the diameter of the piece. They will require a slight change in the milling to suit the border".
When it comes to start the new millesime in Philadelphia, it appears that the striking difficulty is bigger than expected. On January 5 the Mint Director stops the use of the Paquet reverse and sends instructions to do the same at the subsidiaries. The mail forwarded to San Francisco by the Pony Express arrived too late, when the first releases had been made. Another issue was that the new coins did not stack properly. No coin had been released from Philadelphia where the production with the Paquet reverse was totally melted with no survivor known.
The two Philadelphia coins have a rearrangement of the reverse design clearly intended to deal with the technical issue. Indeed their strike is perfect, but it was certainly obtained with the higher pressure from a medal press. This operation is not documented at the Mint. It is now believed that they were pattern coins prepared for saving the design for the next year.
The coin graded MS67 was sold for $ 7.2M by Heritage on August 18, 2021, lot 3471. On August 7, 2014, Heritage sold for $ 1.65M the other Paquet coin from Philadelphia, graded MS61 by PCGS with a perfect reverse, lot 5702.
Interestingly the difference between the basic and Paquet designs did not disturb the users. The San Francisco Paquet coins were not differentiated until the 1930s while the two Philadelphia coins were first sold at auction in 1865 and 1875 respectively.
The San Francisco Paquet is a well documented regular issue of 19,250 coins. The current survivors have been circulated and no mint state specimen is known. On the opposite the Philadelphia Paquet is one of the rarest numismatic varieties with only two examples known, both in mint state, respectively graded MS67 and MS61 by PCGS.
The story begins in 1859 with a concern about an excessive cracking of reverse dies during striking. In Philadelphia the assistant engraver Anthony Paquet manages to propose some modifications which are accepted for the 1861 strike, although the impact on the original die problem is questionable. Concerned about readability, he improved the letters and reduced the edges, thus increasing the effective area of the engraved figure.
Sets of dies including that reverse are shipped to the subsidiary mints in San Francisco and New Orleans in November and December 1860. They are accompanied by an instruction stating that the new reverse die "is presenting a larger face for the device without changing the diameter of the piece. They will require a slight change in the milling to suit the border".
When it comes to start the new millesime in Philadelphia, it appears that the striking difficulty is bigger than expected. On January 5 the Mint Director stops the use of the Paquet reverse and sends instructions to do the same at the subsidiaries. The mail forwarded to San Francisco by the Pony Express arrived too late, when the first releases had been made. Another issue was that the new coins did not stack properly. No coin had been released from Philadelphia where the production with the Paquet reverse was totally melted with no survivor known.
The two Philadelphia coins have a rearrangement of the reverse design clearly intended to deal with the technical issue. Indeed their strike is perfect, but it was certainly obtained with the higher pressure from a medal press. This operation is not documented at the Mint. It is now believed that they were pattern coins prepared for saving the design for the next year.
The coin graded MS67 was sold for $ 7.2M by Heritage on August 18, 2021, lot 3471. On August 7, 2014, Heritage sold for $ 1.65M the other Paquet coin from Philadelphia, graded MS61 by PCGS with a perfect reverse, lot 5702.
Interestingly the difference between the basic and Paquet designs did not disturb the users. The San Francisco Paquet coins were not differentiated until the 1930s while the two Philadelphia coins were first sold at auction in 1865 and 1875 respectively.
The 1861 Paquet Reverse double eagle is one of the rarest coins in American #numismatics, and this example stands at the absolute pinnacle of rarity and exquisite condition.
— Heritage Auctions (@HeritageAuction) August 11, 2021
August 18 - 22 ANA WFOM US Coins Signature Event, No. 1333 https://t.co/MmkBNpnJan#HeritageAuctions pic.twitter.com/sQ6M1NKnYH
masterpiece
1861 Westward Ho by Leutze
US Capitol
A German historical painter, Emanuel Leutze painted in 1851 the epic moment of Washington crossing the Delaware as a symbol for freedom in the wake of the 1848 European upheavals. The third and last example was sold for $ 45M by Christie's on May 12, 2022, lot 30C.
He establishes a studio in New York in 1859. In that time between the Oregon trail and the Californian gold rush, the American mood was for the so called Manifest Destiny, the belief that the pioneering migrants to the West were supported by God to extend their civilization throughout the continent.
The Manifest Destiny is illustrated in 1861 by Leutze in a mural 6.1 x 9.1 m painted in the US Capitol, titled Westward the Course of Empire takes its Way, or more simply Westward Ho. The image is shared by Wikimedia.
Indians attacking a Wagon Train, also titled Western Emigrant Train Bound for California Across the Plains, Alarmed by Approach of Hostile Indians, is a further illustration of the Manifest Destiny, painted by Leutze in Düsseldorf in 1863. This oil on canvas 102 x 172 cm was sold for $ 4.8M by Sotheby's on November 16, 2018, lot 44. Please watch the video shared by the auction house.
The theme is the panic and full chaos brought to a train of pioneers by the feeling of an impending attack by Indians. The picture is full of symbols of the Wild West and its conquest, including the US flag or the desiccated horned skeleton of an ox in the forefront. Men, women and a boy are all holding a firearm. The natives are absent but their threat is identified by a raising smoke on the horizon.
He establishes a studio in New York in 1859. In that time between the Oregon trail and the Californian gold rush, the American mood was for the so called Manifest Destiny, the belief that the pioneering migrants to the West were supported by God to extend their civilization throughout the continent.
The Manifest Destiny is illustrated in 1861 by Leutze in a mural 6.1 x 9.1 m painted in the US Capitol, titled Westward the Course of Empire takes its Way, or more simply Westward Ho. The image is shared by Wikimedia.
Indians attacking a Wagon Train, also titled Western Emigrant Train Bound for California Across the Plains, Alarmed by Approach of Hostile Indians, is a further illustration of the Manifest Destiny, painted by Leutze in Düsseldorf in 1863. This oil on canvas 102 x 172 cm was sold for $ 4.8M by Sotheby's on November 16, 2018, lot 44. Please watch the video shared by the auction house.
The theme is the panic and full chaos brought to a train of pioneers by the feeling of an impending attack by Indians. The picture is full of symbols of the Wild West and its conquest, including the US flag or the desiccated horned skeleton of an ox in the forefront. Men, women and a boy are all holding a firearm. The natives are absent but their threat is identified by a raising smoke on the horizon.
masterpiece
1862 Le Bain Turc by Ingres
Louvre
The Turkish Bath (Le Bain turc) is an oil painting by Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres, initially completed between 1852 and 1859, but modified in 1862. The painting depicts a group of nude women at a pool in a harem. (Musée du Louvre, Paris). The image is shared by Wikimedia.
Completed late in Ingres's career and modified into a circular tondo format, Le Bain Turc (The Turkish Bath) represents a culmination of his Orientalist themes. It portrays over two dozen nude women in a steamy harem bath, lounging, bathing, and interacting in a haze of perfume, fruits, jewels, and running water. The central figure, a reclining odalisque with a mandolin, echoes earlier motifs, but the scene is crowded and dynamic, with bodies in varied poses—some embracing, others in repose—creating a symphony of flesh tones from pale whites to ivories and browns.
Stylistically, Ingres retained his hallmark precision and Mannerist influences, but amplified the erotic charge through implied sensuality: the women's languid forms, soft lighting, and enclosed space suggest a private, voyeuristic intrusion. The composition draws directly from prior works like The Valpinçon Bather (1808) and La Grande Odalisque, reusing poses and expanding them into a collective fantasy. Oriental elements—vases, incense, and musical instruments—heighten the exoticism, serving as pretexts for nudity in a passive, sexualized context.
Evolution of Style and Themes
Ingres's Orientalist trajectory from La Grande Odalisque to Le Bain Turc reveals a shift from isolation to multiplicity. The 1814 painting isolates a single, elongated nude as the focal point, emphasizing individual allure and direct viewer engagement in a sparse, luxurious setting. By 1862, Ingres had evolved this into a teeming interior, where nudes interact in a more immersive, narrative-like environment—reflecting his lifelong obsession with the female form but now in a choral arrangement.
Thematically, both works use Orientalism to justify erotic depictions, portraying Eastern women as embodiments of sensuality and subjugation. However, Le Bain Turc intensifies this by incorporating racial diversity (varying skin tones) and sensory details (haze, scents), amplifying colonial stereotypes of the East as a realm of unchecked desire. Ingres's style grew more synthetic, revisiting and layering earlier motifs amid Neoclassical restraint and Romantic indulgence. This progression underscores how Orientalism persisted as a fantasy framework, evolving from singular exoticism to elaborate, voyeuristic spectacles, influenced by broader cultural shifts in European perceptions of the "Other."
- Ingres' "The Turkish Bath" originated as a rectangular canvas from 1852–1859 but was radically reshaped into a circular tondo in 1862 at the artist's age of 82, intensifying its intimate, voyeuristic view of nude women in a harem.
- Drawing from Lady Mary Wortley Montagu's 1717 letters on Ottoman baths, the painting embodies 19th-century Orientalism, recycling figures from Ingres' earlier nudes like "La Grande Odalisque" to idealize European fantasies over authentic Eastern depictions.
- Initially rejected by collectors for its eroticism, the work joined the Louvre in 1911 after advocacy efforts and later inspired modern artists, including Picasso's "Les Demoiselles d'Avignon" and Sylvia Sleigh's gender-reversed critique of the male gaze.
Completed late in Ingres's career and modified into a circular tondo format, Le Bain Turc (The Turkish Bath) represents a culmination of his Orientalist themes. It portrays over two dozen nude women in a steamy harem bath, lounging, bathing, and interacting in a haze of perfume, fruits, jewels, and running water. The central figure, a reclining odalisque with a mandolin, echoes earlier motifs, but the scene is crowded and dynamic, with bodies in varied poses—some embracing, others in repose—creating a symphony of flesh tones from pale whites to ivories and browns.
Stylistically, Ingres retained his hallmark precision and Mannerist influences, but amplified the erotic charge through implied sensuality: the women's languid forms, soft lighting, and enclosed space suggest a private, voyeuristic intrusion. The composition draws directly from prior works like The Valpinçon Bather (1808) and La Grande Odalisque, reusing poses and expanding them into a collective fantasy. Oriental elements—vases, incense, and musical instruments—heighten the exoticism, serving as pretexts for nudity in a passive, sexualized context.
Evolution of Style and Themes
Ingres's Orientalist trajectory from La Grande Odalisque to Le Bain Turc reveals a shift from isolation to multiplicity. The 1814 painting isolates a single, elongated nude as the focal point, emphasizing individual allure and direct viewer engagement in a sparse, luxurious setting. By 1862, Ingres had evolved this into a teeming interior, where nudes interact in a more immersive, narrative-like environment—reflecting his lifelong obsession with the female form but now in a choral arrangement.
Thematically, both works use Orientalism to justify erotic depictions, portraying Eastern women as embodiments of sensuality and subjugation. However, Le Bain Turc intensifies this by incorporating racial diversity (varying skin tones) and sensory details (haze, scents), amplifying colonial stereotypes of the East as a realm of unchecked desire. Ingres's style grew more synthetic, revisiting and layering earlier motifs amid Neoclassical restraint and Romantic indulgence. This progression underscores how Orientalism persisted as a fantasy framework, evolving from singular exoticism to elaborate, voyeuristic spectacles, influenced by broader cultural shifts in European perceptions of the "Other."
1862 Femme Nue Couchée by Courbet
2015 SOLD for $ 15.3M by Christie's
Gustave Courbet was a socialist in the following of the workers' movement of Proudhon. His conception of realism is ideological: the ordinary man and woman can be shown in art without being beautiful or even clean.
He is provocative. Taking the format of an epic painting on a large size, 315 x 668 cm, L'Enterrement à Ornans makes a scandal in 1850. Proudhon is delighted.
The second empire, decreed in 1852, marks the return in France of a prudish censorship that sends its policemen against a pornography now facilitated by photography. For the artists opponent to the regime of Napoléon III, the nude becomes a challenge.
The deliberate ugliness enters the theme of the nude in 1853 with Les Baigneuses by Courbet. Even Ingres, yet close to the government, is interested in this new approach. His Bain Turc, on which he worked for ten years, is an unprecedented erotic accumulation that takes Orientalism as an excuse to avoid reprisals.
Femme nue couchée, oil on canvas 75 x 97 cm painted by Courbet in 1862, was sold for $ 15.3M by Christie's on November 9, 2015, lot 10A.
The woman viewed in full length is reclining on a bed, her head turned in a rest position, looking like some replica of the Venus of Urbino but without the discreet hand. Her offering attitude and the half undone stocking reveal that a sexual activity was just completed. The provocation of the picture is increased by a surrounding in romanticist style with a curtain and a landscape.
Such women by Courbet represent a milestone in modern French painting. On one hand, new private customers invite Courbet to even more daring pictures. On the other hand, Manet does not hesitate to confront the scandal with Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe and Olympia.
He is provocative. Taking the format of an epic painting on a large size, 315 x 668 cm, L'Enterrement à Ornans makes a scandal in 1850. Proudhon is delighted.
The second empire, decreed in 1852, marks the return in France of a prudish censorship that sends its policemen against a pornography now facilitated by photography. For the artists opponent to the regime of Napoléon III, the nude becomes a challenge.
The deliberate ugliness enters the theme of the nude in 1853 with Les Baigneuses by Courbet. Even Ingres, yet close to the government, is interested in this new approach. His Bain Turc, on which he worked for ten years, is an unprecedented erotic accumulation that takes Orientalism as an excuse to avoid reprisals.
Femme nue couchée, oil on canvas 75 x 97 cm painted by Courbet in 1862, was sold for $ 15.3M by Christie's on November 9, 2015, lot 10A.
The woman viewed in full length is reclining on a bed, her head turned in a rest position, looking like some replica of the Venus of Urbino but without the discreet hand. Her offering attitude and the half undone stocking reveal that a sexual activity was just completed. The provocation of the picture is increased by a surrounding in romanticist style with a curtain and a landscape.
Such women by Courbet represent a milestone in modern French painting. On one hand, new private customers invite Courbet to even more daring pictures. On the other hand, Manet does not hesitate to confront the scandal with Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe and Olympia.
The #GustaveCourbet settles just within estimate for a final of $15,285,000 @ChristiesInc pic.twitter.com/EeCHeSopZi
— Art Observed (@ArtObserved) November 10, 20151862 Tigre jouant avec une Tortue by Delacroix
2018 SOLD for $ 9.9M by Christie's
Eugène Delacroix is the romanticist interpreter of violent passions. His allegories do not call for realism. He fascinates his contemporaries with his mastery of colors and his exotic scenes are spectacular.
The artist appreciates that passion is not a human exclusivity and he loves the powerful savagery of tigers and lions. A great admirer of Rubens, he is inspired by the whirlwind of his hunting scenes.
An artist needs real models, although Dürer's rhinoceros is a wonderful exception. Géricault is passionate about horses and Raden Saleh remembers big game hunting. For his tigers and lions, Delacroix looks at his pet cat and at stuffed animals in the Museum d'Histoire Naturelle. Fortunately the menagerie of the Jardin des Plantes hosts a tiger from 1847.
In 1862 the artist feels old and tired. The tiger remained his emblem and his friends flatter him by comparing his behavior with the anthropocentric emotions attributed to this animal. Delacroix imagines confrontations with reptiles. Facing the threat of the snake, the big cat no longer knows how he can still win.
Tigre jouant avec une tortue, oil on canvas 45 x 62 cm painted in 1862, was sold for $ 9.9M from a lower estimate of $ 5M by Christie's on May 8, 2018, lot 3.
As ever the animal behavior is fanciful. A fully grown tiger no longer plays because game is used by cubs to train in hunting. This one with a paw on the tortoise is stopping as if he waited some advice. The tortoise disturbed and threatened by the predator omitted to close its shell.
The artist appreciates that passion is not a human exclusivity and he loves the powerful savagery of tigers and lions. A great admirer of Rubens, he is inspired by the whirlwind of his hunting scenes.
An artist needs real models, although Dürer's rhinoceros is a wonderful exception. Géricault is passionate about horses and Raden Saleh remembers big game hunting. For his tigers and lions, Delacroix looks at his pet cat and at stuffed animals in the Museum d'Histoire Naturelle. Fortunately the menagerie of the Jardin des Plantes hosts a tiger from 1847.
In 1862 the artist feels old and tired. The tiger remained his emblem and his friends flatter him by comparing his behavior with the anthropocentric emotions attributed to this animal. Delacroix imagines confrontations with reptiles. Facing the threat of the snake, the big cat no longer knows how he can still win.
Tigre jouant avec une tortue, oil on canvas 45 x 62 cm painted in 1862, was sold for $ 9.9M from a lower estimate of $ 5M by Christie's on May 8, 2018, lot 3.
As ever the animal behavior is fanciful. A fully grown tiger no longer plays because game is used by cubs to train in hunting. This one with a paw on the tortoise is stopping as if he waited some advice. The tortoise disturbed and threatened by the predator omitted to close its shell.
François de Ricqlès, President of Christie’s France, explains how this exceptional Romantic work that ‘marks the beginning of modernity’ also speaks to the Rockefeller family’s long and mutually admiring relationship with France. Check it out here: https://t.co/8QpCJrNHVH pic.twitter.com/alUUMid0bs
— Christie's (@ChristiesInc) March 25, 2018
masterpiece
200 BCE - 1863 Victoire de Samothrace
Louvre
Discovered in 1863.
The image is shared with attribution Lyokoï88, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons
The Winged Victory of Samothrace (French: Victoire de Samothrace, also known as the Nike of Samothrace) is one of the most dramatic and celebrated sculptures of the Hellenistic period, a masterpiece of ancient Greek art housed in the Louvre Museum in Paris (accession Ma 2369). Carved from Parian marble around 200–190 BCE (early 2nd century BCE), this over-life-size votive monument stands approximately 244 cm (8 feet) tall for the figure alone, with the full composition—including the ship prow base—reaching about 328 cm (10 feet 9 inches). It depicts Nike, the winged goddess of victory, alighting triumphantly on the prow of a warship, her drapery billowing in the wind as if caught in mid-flight.
The statue captures dynamic motion and emotional intensity: Nike strides forward with her left leg advanced, wings spread wide (partially reconstructed from fragments), and her chiton and himation clinging to her body in "wet drapery" style—folds realistically molded to suggest sea spray and gusts. The torso twists slightly, emphasizing forward momentum, while the missing head, arms (right likely raised in salute), and feet heighten the sense of ethereal energy. The monumental grey marble prow (a trireme or similar warship) serves as the base, evoking a naval triumph, likely commemorating a Rhodian victory at sea (possibly against Antiochus III or in the context of the Second Macedonian War).
This work exemplifies Hellenistic innovation: blending realism, drama, and theatrical presentation over Classical restraint. It was originally placed high in a niche within the Sanctuary of the Great Gods on the island of Samothrace (northeastern Aegean Sea), a major mystery cult site dedicated to protection at sea, allowing pilgrims to view it dramatically from below in three-quarter profile.
The discovery unfolded in 1863 when French consular official and amateur archaeologist Charles Champoiseau (1830–1909), stationed in Adrianople (Edirne, Turkey), explored the ruins of the Sanctuary of the Great Gods on Samothrace from March to May. On April 13, he unearthed the torso, bust fragments, drapery pieces, and wing elements scattered across the site. Recognizing its quality, he shipped about 110 marble fragments to France (arriving in Toulon late summer 1863, Paris 1864). Initial reassembly in Paris revealed the goddess without head or arms. Champoiseau returned in 1879, uncovering the ship prow plinth and additional fragments, which were integrated to form the iconic ship base. A right hand (with outstretched finger) surfaced later (parts in 1870s and 1950, now displayed nearby in a case).
The statue arrived at the Louvre and underwent restorations. By 1883–1884, it was dramatically installed at the top of the Daru staircase (Escalier Daru) in the Denon wing—its lofty perch echoing the original elevated sanctuary position—where it has remained a breathtaking focal point ever since. A major conservation project in 2013–2014 cleaned and stabilized it, enhancing its luminous marble.
In art history, the Winged Victory symbolizes triumphant energy, Hellenistic dynamism, and the power of fragmentation to inspire awe (much like the Venus de Milo). It has influenced countless artists, designers, and brands (from fashion to aviation logos), while sparking repatriation debates—Greece seeks its return, though it stays in Paris as of February 2026. Displayed in Room 703 (Daru staircase landing), it draws millions annually, its wind-swept form evoking eternal motion and victory's exhilarating rush after over 2,200 years.
The image is shared with attribution Lyokoï88, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons
The Winged Victory of Samothrace (French: Victoire de Samothrace, also known as the Nike of Samothrace) is one of the most dramatic and celebrated sculptures of the Hellenistic period, a masterpiece of ancient Greek art housed in the Louvre Museum in Paris (accession Ma 2369). Carved from Parian marble around 200–190 BCE (early 2nd century BCE), this over-life-size votive monument stands approximately 244 cm (8 feet) tall for the figure alone, with the full composition—including the ship prow base—reaching about 328 cm (10 feet 9 inches). It depicts Nike, the winged goddess of victory, alighting triumphantly on the prow of a warship, her drapery billowing in the wind as if caught in mid-flight.
The statue captures dynamic motion and emotional intensity: Nike strides forward with her left leg advanced, wings spread wide (partially reconstructed from fragments), and her chiton and himation clinging to her body in "wet drapery" style—folds realistically molded to suggest sea spray and gusts. The torso twists slightly, emphasizing forward momentum, while the missing head, arms (right likely raised in salute), and feet heighten the sense of ethereal energy. The monumental grey marble prow (a trireme or similar warship) serves as the base, evoking a naval triumph, likely commemorating a Rhodian victory at sea (possibly against Antiochus III or in the context of the Second Macedonian War).
This work exemplifies Hellenistic innovation: blending realism, drama, and theatrical presentation over Classical restraint. It was originally placed high in a niche within the Sanctuary of the Great Gods on the island of Samothrace (northeastern Aegean Sea), a major mystery cult site dedicated to protection at sea, allowing pilgrims to view it dramatically from below in three-quarter profile.
The discovery unfolded in 1863 when French consular official and amateur archaeologist Charles Champoiseau (1830–1909), stationed in Adrianople (Edirne, Turkey), explored the ruins of the Sanctuary of the Great Gods on Samothrace from March to May. On April 13, he unearthed the torso, bust fragments, drapery pieces, and wing elements scattered across the site. Recognizing its quality, he shipped about 110 marble fragments to France (arriving in Toulon late summer 1863, Paris 1864). Initial reassembly in Paris revealed the goddess without head or arms. Champoiseau returned in 1879, uncovering the ship prow plinth and additional fragments, which were integrated to form the iconic ship base. A right hand (with outstretched finger) surfaced later (parts in 1870s and 1950, now displayed nearby in a case).
The statue arrived at the Louvre and underwent restorations. By 1883–1884, it was dramatically installed at the top of the Daru staircase (Escalier Daru) in the Denon wing—its lofty perch echoing the original elevated sanctuary position—where it has remained a breathtaking focal point ever since. A major conservation project in 2013–2014 cleaned and stabilized it, enhancing its luminous marble.
In art history, the Winged Victory symbolizes triumphant energy, Hellenistic dynamism, and the power of fragmentation to inspire awe (much like the Venus de Milo). It has influenced countless artists, designers, and brands (from fashion to aviation logos), while sparking repatriation debates—Greece seeks its return, though it stays in Paris as of February 2026. Displayed in Room 703 (Daru staircase landing), it draws millions annually, its wind-swept form evoking eternal motion and victory's exhilarating rush after over 2,200 years.
.JPG)
1864 Emancipation Proclamation
2026 SOLD for $ 6.8M by Christie's
On 22 September 1862, President Lincoln issued an ultimatum to the secessionist states : slavery shall be abolished on January 1 in all states that will not come back into the Union before that date.
At the promised date, January 1, 1863, Lincoln proclaimed an executive order abolishing slavery in the ten states on which he had no control.
Of course, this statement was not sufficient to end the US Civil War. In mid 1864, charity gatherings organized by the US Sanitary Commission are held everywhere to support the Union troops.
The President, always ready for personal commitment, then accepts the project of the authorized edition of the Emancipation Proclamation, one of the initiatives to raise funds.
The document consists of a title and 52 lines of text printed in a single page on a watermarked Whatman paper sheet 55 x 44 cm. The typed field is 37.4 x 17 cm.
The 48 copies edited by Leland and Boker bear the signatures of Abraham Lincoln, of the Secretary of State William Seward and of John Nicolay, private secretary to the President, certifying the authenticity of the other two autographs. They were made available for purchase with a price tag of $ 10 each at the Great Central Sanitary Fair in Philadelphia in June 1864. 27 copies are surviving as of 2025, including 18 kept in institutions.
That strategy confirms that in the mind of Lincoln the end of slavery is a main issue of the Civil War beside saving the Union. Without alienating the states loyal to the Union, it gave such a boost to the slaves that their emancipation had no more obstacles, entering into the constitution through the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865.
A copy was sold for $ 6.8M from a lower estimate of $ 3M by Christie's on January 23, 2026, lot 230.
At the promised date, January 1, 1863, Lincoln proclaimed an executive order abolishing slavery in the ten states on which he had no control.
Of course, this statement was not sufficient to end the US Civil War. In mid 1864, charity gatherings organized by the US Sanitary Commission are held everywhere to support the Union troops.
The President, always ready for personal commitment, then accepts the project of the authorized edition of the Emancipation Proclamation, one of the initiatives to raise funds.
The document consists of a title and 52 lines of text printed in a single page on a watermarked Whatman paper sheet 55 x 44 cm. The typed field is 37.4 x 17 cm.
The 48 copies edited by Leland and Boker bear the signatures of Abraham Lincoln, of the Secretary of State William Seward and of John Nicolay, private secretary to the President, certifying the authenticity of the other two autographs. They were made available for purchase with a price tag of $ 10 each at the Great Central Sanitary Fair in Philadelphia in June 1864. 27 copies are surviving as of 2025, including 18 kept in institutions.
That strategy confirms that in the mind of Lincoln the end of slavery is a main issue of the Civil War beside saving the Union. Without alienating the states loyal to the Union, it gave such a boost to the slaves that their emancipation had no more obstacles, entering into the constitution through the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865.
A copy was sold for $ 6.8M from a lower estimate of $ 3M by Christie's on January 23, 2026, lot 230.
1865 The Thirteenth Amendment
2025 SOLD for $ 13.7M by Sotheby's
The founding fathers of the USA stated that all men are created equal. The slavery of the Negroes is seen as a disgrace by President Lincoln, not for moral or economic reasons but indeed because it opens up the possibility for a persecution of other minorities.
The thirteenth amendment to the Constitution was a major political achievement by Lincoln. It was not an easy operation, especially as the President did not want to wait for the end of the Civil War.
On 8 April 1864 the Senate voted at 38 against 6 a resolution in favor of the thirteenth amendment, but its embedding into the Constitution also required the approval of the House of Representatives and of 3/4 of the States.
In the House, the required 2/3 majority of voters was impossible to achieve in 1864 but the new elections have strengthened the power of Lincoln. The text was accepted on January 31, 1865 at 119 against 56 plus 8 abstentions after a first negative vote.
The official copy is signed by President Lincoln, Vice President Hamlin representing the Senate and Speaker of the House Colfax. It is kept in the National Archives in Washington DC.
Slavery was abolished in the United States of America in December 1865 when Georgia becomes the 27th state to ratify the thirteenth amendment, eight months after the death of the President.
In the enthusiasm of this joint Congress achievement, some manuscript duplicates are prepared from February 1 on the official paper of the Congress.
The clerk of the House of Representatives had a few copies signed by the three official signers plus the Senate secretary Forney, for their own use plus one for himself. Three examples are surviving.
Somebody managed to have manuscript commemorative copies signed by nearly all the congress members who had voted in favor of the amendment, in addition to the four officials. Lincoln endorsed them as 'Approved'. After six days he stopped providing his signature on new examples.
Nine examples are known to survive with the signatures of 36 to 38 senators plus 109 to 117 representatives.
One of them, a large vellum folio 52 x 39 cm with the signatures through five neatly ruled columns, was sold for $ 720K by Christie's on March 27, 2002, lot 95 and for $ 13.7M by Sotheby's on June 26, 2025, lot 27.
Some copies had the signatures of the senators but not of the representatives. The three known examples were signed at the same time by 36 of the 38 approving senators. One of them is in private hands. This document 55 x 40 cm was sold for $ 2.4M by Sotheby's on May 25, 2016, lot 79.
The thirteenth amendment to the Constitution was a major political achievement by Lincoln. It was not an easy operation, especially as the President did not want to wait for the end of the Civil War.
On 8 April 1864 the Senate voted at 38 against 6 a resolution in favor of the thirteenth amendment, but its embedding into the Constitution also required the approval of the House of Representatives and of 3/4 of the States.
In the House, the required 2/3 majority of voters was impossible to achieve in 1864 but the new elections have strengthened the power of Lincoln. The text was accepted on January 31, 1865 at 119 against 56 plus 8 abstentions after a first negative vote.
The official copy is signed by President Lincoln, Vice President Hamlin representing the Senate and Speaker of the House Colfax. It is kept in the National Archives in Washington DC.
Slavery was abolished in the United States of America in December 1865 when Georgia becomes the 27th state to ratify the thirteenth amendment, eight months after the death of the President.
In the enthusiasm of this joint Congress achievement, some manuscript duplicates are prepared from February 1 on the official paper of the Congress.
The clerk of the House of Representatives had a few copies signed by the three official signers plus the Senate secretary Forney, for their own use plus one for himself. Three examples are surviving.
Somebody managed to have manuscript commemorative copies signed by nearly all the congress members who had voted in favor of the amendment, in addition to the four officials. Lincoln endorsed them as 'Approved'. After six days he stopped providing his signature on new examples.
Nine examples are known to survive with the signatures of 36 to 38 senators plus 109 to 117 representatives.
One of them, a large vellum folio 52 x 39 cm with the signatures through five neatly ruled columns, was sold for $ 720K by Christie's on March 27, 2002, lot 95 and for $ 13.7M by Sotheby's on June 26, 2025, lot 27.
Some copies had the signatures of the senators but not of the representatives. The three known examples were signed at the same time by 36 of the 38 approving senators. One of them is in private hands. This document 55 x 40 cm was sold for $ 2.4M by Sotheby's on May 25, 2016, lot 79.
1865-1870 Baroda Carpet
2009 SOLD for $ 5.5M by Sotheby's
The splendor of the Maharajahs was proverbial. When, shortly before 1870, the Prince of Baroda, Khande Râo of Gâekwâr dynasty, converted to Islam, he wanted to honor his new faith by an exceptional work.
He commissioned the creation of a carpet in pearls and gems, whose beauty can be worthy of the tomb of the Prophet Muhammad at Medina. This work unique in its kind was made, but the Maharaja died in 1870 before the gift was made. The carpet was retained by the family, and remained there for over a hundred years.
It looks in its patterns like a textile carpet centered with three rosettes, and otherwise based on the millefleurs motif fashioned in India in the previous century. It consists of two millions of natural pearls, hundreds of gems of all kinds and a countless colored glass beads.
The Baroda carpet was sold for US $ 5.5M by Sotheby's in Doha on March 19, 2009.
He commissioned the creation of a carpet in pearls and gems, whose beauty can be worthy of the tomb of the Prophet Muhammad at Medina. This work unique in its kind was made, but the Maharaja died in 1870 before the gift was made. The carpet was retained by the family, and remained there for over a hundred years.
It looks in its patterns like a textile carpet centered with three rosettes, and otherwise based on the millefleurs motif fashioned in India in the previous century. It consists of two millions of natural pearls, hundreds of gems of all kinds and a countless colored glass beads.
The Baroda carpet was sold for US $ 5.5M by Sotheby's in Doha on March 19, 2009.
ROSSETTI
1867 A Christmas Carol
2013 SOLD for £ 4.6M by Sotheby's
Dante Gabriel Rossetti was one of the founders of the Pre-Raphaelite movement. Then temporarily abandoning his medieval themes, he endeavoured to draw the portrait of the ideal woman.
His art combining painting, poetry, music and the expression of feelings became highly original, anticipating Klimt. He isolated himself from other artists but his life remained unconventional and romantic. His act of burying his unpublished poems in his wife's grave is spectacular but attests to his difficult relationship with the world.
A Christmas Carol, oil on panel 46 x 38 cm painted by Rossetti in 1867, was sold for £ 4.6M by Sotheby's on December 4, 2013.
The young woman in brightly colored exotic dress plays a two-stringed mandolin. She is completely absorbed by this activity. The Christian inspiration evoked by the title is confirmed by an image of the Holy Family on the wall.
The artist's work was a meticulous quest for perfection. Two other versions are known with the same composition. A study in pencil is in the British Museum, and a red and white chalk drawing in same size as the oil was sold for £ 360K by Christie's on November 21, 2007.
The worsening mental problems of Rossetti did not diminish his artistic creativity. A beautiful Proserpine made with colored chalks, 120 x 56 cm, dated 1880, was sold for £ 3.3M by Sotheby's on November 19, 2013.
Please watch the video in which Sotheby's introduces A Christmas Carol as one of three outstanding paintings from the Leverhulme collection.
His art combining painting, poetry, music and the expression of feelings became highly original, anticipating Klimt. He isolated himself from other artists but his life remained unconventional and romantic. His act of burying his unpublished poems in his wife's grave is spectacular but attests to his difficult relationship with the world.
A Christmas Carol, oil on panel 46 x 38 cm painted by Rossetti in 1867, was sold for £ 4.6M by Sotheby's on December 4, 2013.
The young woman in brightly colored exotic dress plays a two-stringed mandolin. She is completely absorbed by this activity. The Christian inspiration evoked by the title is confirmed by an image of the Holy Family on the wall.
The artist's work was a meticulous quest for perfection. Two other versions are known with the same composition. A study in pencil is in the British Museum, and a red and white chalk drawing in same size as the oil was sold for £ 360K by Christie's on November 21, 2007.
The worsening mental problems of Rossetti did not diminish his artistic creativity. A beautiful Proserpine made with colored chalks, 120 x 56 cm, dated 1880, was sold for £ 3.3M by Sotheby's on November 19, 2013.
Please watch the video in which Sotheby's introduces A Christmas Carol as one of three outstanding paintings from the Leverhulme collection.
Dante Gabriel Rossetti’s "A Christmas Carol" sold at Sotheby’s London on December 4, 2013, at $7.47 million #Christmas #art pic.twitter.com/GnOlB7CrDd
— Maine Antique Digest (@AntiqueDigest) December 25, 2016
masterpiece
1868 Venus Verticordia
Russell-Cotes Art Gallery
Dante Gabriel Rossetti stood away from all artistic conventions. In the 1860s, with the complicity of Swinburne, he was interested in representing the ideal woman as altogether domineering and sensual.
In 1868, he painted Venus Verticordia, a Latin term which means that the goddess plays the role of protector of female chastity. This painting is the best nude by Rossetti and a masterpiece of erotic symbolism. The image is shared by Wikimedia.
The warrior woman is authoritative. She firmly holds two weapons. Her apple threw such a discord among men that it generated the Trojan War, yet the fruit is also peacefully or surreptitiously feeding the butterfly. Cupid's arrow is just another source of havoc. She holds it ambiguously as if it were Lucretia's dagger.
Apple leads to Eve, and it is no coincidence that the thick red hair of Rossetti's Venus is surrounded by a halo. In the previous year, his Christmas carol had already approached the theme of the position of the woman in the Christian civilization.
Below the nude breast, the body of Venus is hidden by an abundant rose bush, another voluptuous symbol. John Ruskin went into a rage when he saw the flowers on this painting.
He was probably right not to consider it only as a pre-Raphaelite symbol. Since his marriage failed by lack of consummation in 1846, his approach to women was a subject of ridicule. A recent attempt to restart his life had also just failed, with a very young woman named Rose.
The Venus of Rossetti fortunately pleased other amateurs and the artist made some replicas. A watercolor 67 x 59 cm, also dated 1868, was sold for £ 2.9M by Sotheby's on December 10, 2014, lot 8.
In 1868, he painted Venus Verticordia, a Latin term which means that the goddess plays the role of protector of female chastity. This painting is the best nude by Rossetti and a masterpiece of erotic symbolism. The image is shared by Wikimedia.
The warrior woman is authoritative. She firmly holds two weapons. Her apple threw such a discord among men that it generated the Trojan War, yet the fruit is also peacefully or surreptitiously feeding the butterfly. Cupid's arrow is just another source of havoc. She holds it ambiguously as if it were Lucretia's dagger.
Apple leads to Eve, and it is no coincidence that the thick red hair of Rossetti's Venus is surrounded by a halo. In the previous year, his Christmas carol had already approached the theme of the position of the woman in the Christian civilization.
Below the nude breast, the body of Venus is hidden by an abundant rose bush, another voluptuous symbol. John Ruskin went into a rage when he saw the flowers on this painting.
He was probably right not to consider it only as a pre-Raphaelite symbol. Since his marriage failed by lack of consummation in 1846, his approach to women was a subject of ridicule. A recent attempt to restart his life had also just failed, with a very young woman named Rose.
The Venus of Rossetti fortunately pleased other amateurs and the artist made some replicas. A watercolor 67 x 59 cm, also dated 1868, was sold for £ 2.9M by Sotheby's on December 10, 2014, lot 8.
MONET
1868 La Jetée du Havre
1993 SOLD for $ 9.7M by Christie's
La Jetée du Havre, oil on canvas 147 x 226 cm painted by Monet in 1868, had been praised by Zola when it was refused at the Salon in that year. It was sold for $ 9.7M by Christie's on May 12, 1993, lot 15.
The Havre jetty, or north dike, was a popular place for walking, even in bad weather. The waves crash against the pier and onto the pebble beach. In 1857 Le Gray had shot a photo in quiet weather from the same viewpoint, angle and framing.
The image is shared by Wikimedia.
The Havre jetty, or north dike, was a popular place for walking, even in bad weather. The waves crash against the pier and onto the pebble beach. In 1857 Le Gray had shot a photo in quiet weather from the same viewpoint, angle and framing.
The image is shared by Wikimedia.
masterpiece
1868-1869 La Pie
Musée d'Orsay
La pie by Monet (Musée d'Orsay) : artist's motivation and influences, breakthrough and legacy.
Claude Monet's La Pie (The Magpie), 1868–1869, housed in the Musée d'Orsay in Paris, is one of the artist's most celebrated early works and a pivotal precursor to Impressionism. Painted in oil on canvas (89 × 130 cm), it depicts a solitary black magpie perched on a rustic wooden gate in a snow-covered countryside near Étretat, Normandy. The scene is bathed in soft winter light, with long blue-violet shadows cast across the pristine snow, creamy whites varying in tone, and subtle yellow highlights from the sunlight.
Artist's Motivation
Monet was driven by a desire to capture fleeting "effects" of nature—particularly the transitory play of light and atmosphere—rather than mere description. In the late 1860s, he extended this approach to challenging winter conditions, painting en plein air (outdoors) to record sensations directly from observation. Supported by patron Louis Joachim Gaudibert, who provided a house in Étretat for Monet, his partner Camille Doncieux, and their son Jean, he spent the harsh winter of 1868–1869 immersed in the landscape. Monet wrote to friend Frédéric Bazille about working constantly outdoors, believing he would produce "some serious things." The magpie itself serves as a simple, contemplative focal point—like "a note on a staff of music"—amid the vast, shimmering snow, emphasizing poetic subtlety over dramatic motifs.InfluencesMonet drew from several key sources:
Breakthrough
Painted five years before the first Impressionist exhibition (1874), La Pie marks an early breakthrough in Impressionist landscape painting. It exemplifies Monet's innovative use of a restricted, luminous palette—pale creams, blues, grays, and yellows—to convey the "all the colour in a snowy day." Shadows are not black or gray but blue-violet, created by reflected light, challenging academic conventions. Executed with broken brushwork and attention to aerial perspective, the work dissolves form into light and atmosphere, prioritizing immediate impressions over detail. Submitted to the 1869 Paris Salon alongside another painting, it was rejected by the jury for its daring novelty—too pale, sketch-like, and perception-focused rather than descriptive. Critics and the public were shocked; one noted the audience was "flabbergasted by this pale painting," accustomed to darker academic styles. This rejection highlighted the growing divide between innovative artists and traditional institutions.
Legacy
Today, La Pie is regarded as a masterpiece and one of Monet's finest snowscapes (he produced around 140 winter scenes). Acquired by the Musée d'Orsay in 1984, it ranks among the museum's most popular works, celebrated for its chromatic virtuosity, delicate contrasts, and evocation of winter's chill yet luminous beauty. It influenced Monet's later serial works (e.g., Haystacks) and helped redefine Western art's approach to light, color, and perception. Art historians praise its "virtuoso color performance" and role in Impressionism's foundations, symbolizing the movement's enduring appeal in capturing ephemeral natural effects.
The image is shared by Wikimedia.
Claude Monet's La Pie (The Magpie), 1868–1869, housed in the Musée d'Orsay in Paris, is one of the artist's most celebrated early works and a pivotal precursor to Impressionism. Painted in oil on canvas (89 × 130 cm), it depicts a solitary black magpie perched on a rustic wooden gate in a snow-covered countryside near Étretat, Normandy. The scene is bathed in soft winter light, with long blue-violet shadows cast across the pristine snow, creamy whites varying in tone, and subtle yellow highlights from the sunlight.
Artist's Motivation
Monet was driven by a desire to capture fleeting "effects" of nature—particularly the transitory play of light and atmosphere—rather than mere description. In the late 1860s, he extended this approach to challenging winter conditions, painting en plein air (outdoors) to record sensations directly from observation. Supported by patron Louis Joachim Gaudibert, who provided a house in Étretat for Monet, his partner Camille Doncieux, and their son Jean, he spent the harsh winter of 1868–1869 immersed in the landscape. Monet wrote to friend Frédéric Bazille about working constantly outdoors, believing he would produce "some serious things." The magpie itself serves as a simple, contemplative focal point—like "a note on a staff of music"—amid the vast, shimmering snow, emphasizing poetic subtlety over dramatic motifs.InfluencesMonet drew from several key sources:
- Gustave Courbet, whose grand effets de neige (snow effects) inspired Monet and peers like Pissarro, Renoir, and Sisley to tackle snow landscapes, though Monet toned down Courbet's lyricism and avoided hunting scenes.
- Eugène Boudin and Johan Barthold Jongkind, mentors who introduced him to en plein air painting and prioritizing optical (perceived) color over local (actual) color.
- Emerging color theories from Michel Eugène Chevreul and Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, explaining colored shadows and simultaneous contrast—evident in the vibrant blue shadows from yellow sunlight on snow.
Breakthrough
Painted five years before the first Impressionist exhibition (1874), La Pie marks an early breakthrough in Impressionist landscape painting. It exemplifies Monet's innovative use of a restricted, luminous palette—pale creams, blues, grays, and yellows—to convey the "all the colour in a snowy day." Shadows are not black or gray but blue-violet, created by reflected light, challenging academic conventions. Executed with broken brushwork and attention to aerial perspective, the work dissolves form into light and atmosphere, prioritizing immediate impressions over detail. Submitted to the 1869 Paris Salon alongside another painting, it was rejected by the jury for its daring novelty—too pale, sketch-like, and perception-focused rather than descriptive. Critics and the public were shocked; one noted the audience was "flabbergasted by this pale painting," accustomed to darker academic styles. This rejection highlighted the growing divide between innovative artists and traditional institutions.
Legacy
Today, La Pie is regarded as a masterpiece and one of Monet's finest snowscapes (he produced around 140 winter scenes). Acquired by the Musée d'Orsay in 1984, it ranks among the museum's most popular works, celebrated for its chromatic virtuosity, delicate contrasts, and evocation of winter's chill yet luminous beauty. It influenced Monet's later serial works (e.g., Haystacks) and helped redefine Western art's approach to light, color, and perception. Art historians praise its "virtuoso color performance" and role in Impressionism's foundations, symbolizing the movement's enduring appeal in capturing ephemeral natural effects.
The image is shared by Wikimedia.
