Bluffing: Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe
Bluffing: Olympia

Installation with A3 Papers, variable size

Bluffing: Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe / Olympia is a installation which is filled a wall with A3 papers.
In this work a small drawing is magnified in a digital program and is bluffed its size and getting cutted into international format.‍

What we were taught in art academies was Western art history, the art world constructed by a Christian, male-dominated culture. Women and other races were largely excluded.
In Édouard Manet’s 《Olympia》, something happened with the lying figure that occupies the canvas: she is not a mythical goddess, but a prostitute, and because she is looking straight at the viewer, the painting was seen as a rebellion. And rebellion was new, so it made its way into art history.

This is the art I learned.
Let’s say we’re back in the world of common sense, not art, and we realize that it’s rebellion for a supposed prostitute to look a viewer in the eye, and that naked women in paintings are always supposed to be goddesses, but they’re not. Is this weird or rebellious?

The scribbles in the notebook, the things I’ve come to recognize, the things I’ve accepted, that the art world has judged and valued everything in its own special way, that it was all a lie, decided by a world I wasn’t a part of. What was bluffed, what was nothing. 

Why are always naked women in the most important works of art history, under the name of greek or roman Goddess or something not human being. It was appeared in paintings that the real prostitute (Éduoard Manet ‚Olympia‘ or ‚The Luncheon on the Grass‘), it was a shock at that time and written in art history. I mean, you knew it already! what you see is just a naked woman.
Why hasn‘t anyone proposed the issue of naked women in paintings? Was there nobody there? Was there anyone said a naked woman in all artworks, was not a big scandal in art society, but is a luxury porn for royalty, aristocrats and rich.
Perhaps someone could think about it, but had remained untold. Or if someone said it, had not become mainstream. Instead, someone who had grown up in comfortable environment and good education, had tried to moving a little forward from the conventional wisdom of the time, wrote about the works of artists or his friends. After that, someone‘s friends gained the legitimacy of the work as another art form, and someone (critic) became a person who could write about the artwork. It gathers together and becomes the great art history which is taught for art students for after 100years. And the protagonist of the story is mostly men.
„Lee Miller was the LOVER and MUSE of surrealist photographer Man Ray. In fact, many of the photographs taken during their time in Paris period are credited to Man Ray were actually taken by Lee.“ „Manet painted his MUSE Victorine Meurent, an artist and popular model of the day, as a PROSTITUTE with her maid.” Should I happy with it because female artists were with the famous artists? Second, isn‘t it ridiculous the female artists usually refers to lover, muse or prostitute?

from Wörterbuch : One and the other are another ‘Bluffing’

Related artworks and readings