Art is inescapable. It is everywhere, and whatever you do, you cannot avoid participating in it. Walking in the streets of Montreal, you are bound to encounter some art, whether that be in a form of mural or graffiti. There are also so many art galleries and exhibits in the city, artists are everywhere and they perpetually create. I believe that art allows for a special kind of interaction. In galleries, artworks are often labeled with a title, accompanied by the creator’s name. While it can be argued that they own their work, I believe that when one creates, they create with the thought of sharing it with others. Art becomes collective, open to all, open for discourse. Whether you like the painting on the wall or not, that comment evokes a relationship between you and the work. And that makes you guilty.

The year was 1512 in Venice, Italy. Ideas from the Florentine Renaissance became known to more and more artists. One artist emerges from the crowd. Tiziano Vecellio (1506-1576), better known as Titian, had heard of all the great Florentines such as Da Vinci and Michelangelo. While they were obsessed with perfecting linear perspective, others tried to imitate them. However, Venice, a unique city-state surrounded by water, could not inhabit acrylic paintings. The humidity was hostile, so Venetians had to find a solution. Oil paint was rediscovered and used on canvas. Titan mastered the two benefits of using oil paint, color, and texture. This led to his famous invention of impasto; a new painting technique where the thickness of oil paint is used to its advantage to create texture on canvas. Venice was also greatly rich thanks to its port control over the Adriatic Sea. Venice often had contact with the Byzantines, making its population even more unique. It was the first truly cosmopolitan city of the time. Because of this abundant richness, most of the population could afford necessities. Where people can pay for basic needs, they often wish for something more, luxury. Art, theater, and music all developed in Venice, and with it, so did Titian’s work. He became the best painter in Venice and was quickly commissioned for many artworks. 

Venus of Urbino, painted in 1534 is one of his most entrancing works. While the colors are indeed breathtaking, I believe that the title of Venus needs to be addressed first. According to Merriam-Webster, the etymology behind the word Venus can be a great indication of its significance, “Latin Vener-, Venus, deified abstraction from an originally neuter common noun venus "sexual desire, qualities exciting desire, charm"; akin to Sanskrit vanate "(s/he) likes, takes pleasure in," -vana- "loving," vāñchati "(s/he) desires, wishes," Old English wȳscan "to wish," wunian "to remain, dwell," Old Norse una "to be satisfied". As shown, the meaning revolves around satisfying one’s desire with passion. While the Romans considered their goddess of love to be the only one worthy of such a title, the Renaissance and its classical artists appreciate their culture and try to revitalize it. To call the woman in the painting a Venus is to suggest that she is a worthy beauty to satisfy one’s desire with her beauty.

Historically and according to The Artist, the Venus of Urbino is Angela del Moro. She was known for being a high-paid courtesan and a great companion to Titian. This painting was intended as a gift from the Duke of Urbino, Guidobaldo II della Rovere, to his young wife. The purpose of such a present was to remind this wife of her marital duties. As seen, the dog near Venus is a sign of fidelity, and the two maids in the background symbolize motherhood. Of course, the erotism in this canvas represents her sexual duties as a wife. Unfortunately, to know that the reason for the existence of this painting was because a man wanted to dominate his wife through art saddens the painting for me. On the other hand, to know that female sexual liberty was somewhat accepted, thanks to the payment of models like Angela is a sign of silent feminism that is slowly growing in every domain like the art world.

Another inevitable aspect that must be discussed is the Venus's gaze. As mentioned, this is an erotic scene, and while I described it in its historical context, any onlooker who isn’t aware of its history would be guilty of voyeurism. Here, she seems to be relaxed, lying on a bed, one hand near her center, her arm prompted up comfortably with her head angled, implying something suggestive. The Venus is not meant to communicate with us, yet as viewers, we immediately participate in the messaging of the artwork. She isn't looking at us, but we are looking at her. Her gaze is powerful, compelling and contains the essence of this artwork. Since she is looking out and we are looking in, discourse inevitably occurs. A relationship between art and viewer develops, the observer was once innocent, yet now is guilty.

This interaction is intensified in Manet’s version of the Venus. Édouard Manet (1832-1883) was a French modernist painter, famous for his refusal to adhere to certain artistic conventions of his time, including the prevalent depiction of idealized female bodies. He had a particular interest in social class differences in Paris. Most of his works demonstrate working-class women in several different professions. His Venus is named Olympia (1863) and, like Titian, she too is modeled to be an upper-class prostitute or courtesan. Olympia references Ancient Greece, not Ancient Rome, so she is not meant to be part of the Venus tradition. While there are many similarities between the Venus and Olympia, such as the pose, the gaze, the bed, the animal and the maid, the differences stand out more. The poses may appear similar, but the Venus feels genuinely seductive, melting into the sheets, yet Olympia feels rigid, almost professional, like she’s been doing this for a long time. Manet makes it painful to even look at her, it makes me feel so guilty. I am gazing upon her and when my eyes meet hers, she confronts me and I can't help but plead guilty. Her gaze entraps and disarms the viewer.

This confrontation is much more obvious in the Olympia than in the Venus, making her nudity feel like nakedness. The comparison between the artistic depictions of the nude rather than the naked figure is a highly contested debate. As mentioned, Manet was one to disregard rules. In the Olympia, it can be seen that he attempted to desexualise her, flattening her curves with a black outline and detailing her face rather than the rest of body. Her facial expression is much more detailed than her breasts, unlike the Venus who receives detailed precision all over her body. The animal beside her is not a loyal dog, but a black cat who seems to be alarmed. Olympia is a prostitute, like many other women who have to commodify their bodies in order to survive. The servant beside her adds to the increasing commodification of labour and the fact that she is black contributes to Manet’s realist intention. Both of these women are part of the invisible working class.

One last element that furthers the impression of confrontation is Manet’s great ability to shorten the depth of the painting. The Venus of Urbino follows the Renaissance invention of perspective, depicting the room she is in as wide and deep. However, Manet does not create much space behind the servant figure. To me, it makes me feel claustrophobic. Paired with her intense accusatory gaze, this lack of depth results in a sensation of asphyxiation. Everything about Olympia feels intentional and powerful, yet the Venus also holds power. Both of these women pioneered in different ways, depending on their respective contexts. Titian and Manet succeed at highlighting a hidden truth about the nude and female body and her strong accompanying gaze.

I keep imagining these two paintings mounted on a wall, possibly next to each other, in a gallery. As much as I relish looking at the paintings, I think it would be so much more amusing to watch people observe them. It becomes a double-voyeuristic situation, I am surveilling viewers who realize that by interacting with the artwork, they become implicit in the crime. We can't help ourselves, when we are presented with beautiful works of art, we must observe, learn and admire. But the trouble is when the art looks back at us…