Manet was the first artist in modern European painting to treat the nude not as a mythological ideal but as a contemporary, real woman—something almost miraculous in its honesty. Born in Paris in 1832 into a bourgeois family, he grew up surrounded by literature, music, and art, influences that shaped his avant-garde sensibility. He painted Olympia between 1863 and 1865, at a time when the French Salon still celebrated mythological nudes and grand historical scenes. His depiction of a modern woman was a shocking rupture from this tradition.

I have always been fond of the arts—particularly oils. Once, I even commissioned a painter to recreate Impression, Sunrise, though the outcome was less than ideal. Still, this small story explains my penchant for paintings and my tendency to wander the internet looking for oils. As a child, I happened upon Van Gogh’s The Potato Eaters, and from that day on, he became my favorite painter. What gripped me was the raw, unpolished honesty in his documentation of the human condition—something academic art rarely accomplished. That early exposure taught me to appreciate the real, the imperfect, and the daring in painting—qualities found abundantly in Manet’s work.

Olympia was a major scandal when it debuted at the Salon of 1865, not because it was poorly executed but because it confronted the social norms of its era. Acclaimed today, it was, at the time, condemned for the smallest details: the orchid in her hair, the bracelet on her wrist, the ribbon around her neck, the pearl earring. Ironically, no one was truly outraged by Olympia’s nudity; it was her confidence—her unapologetic assertion of her status as a courtesan—that shocked its early viewers.

I prefer Manet’s Olympia to Titian’s Venus of Urbino. Titian’s Venus covers herself modestly, suggesting gentle, subdued eroticism. Manet’s Olympia, however, rests her hand firmly on her thigh, claiming ownership of her body and sexuality. This gesture, stripped of coyness, symbolizes independence and defiance. Olympia is not a passive object of desire; she is a woman fully conscious of her agency.

Another striking reversal lies in Manet’s use of a black cat instead of the traditional sleeping dog. In classical iconography, dogs symbolize loyalty and domestic virtue. The black cat, on the other hand, is tied to sexuality, illicit desire, and rebellion against fidelity. By replacing the dog with a cat, Manet asserts that Olympia exists outside domestic constraints. She lives on her own terms. Her gaze reflects that same freedom—unashamed, unwavering, and confrontational—forcing viewers to confront their own taboos. It is an unsettling but thrilling experience.

Contemporary critics condemned the painting for its vulgarity, calling it saliente, faux rêche, and improper. They claimed Manet had painted a prostitute without any moral intention. Yet all he had done was reveal the truth: the honest Parisienne of his time—proud of her profession, poised in her body, unafraid to be seen. In doing so, he created a bridge between realism and modernity, influencing generations of artists, from the Impressionists to the avant-garde of the 20th century. Manet’s genius lay not in idealizing beauty but in forcing society to confront the realities of modern life. Olympia is a mirror, reflecting the world without filters.

Fun Facts:
– Olympia’s model, Victorine Meurent, later became an accomplished artist herself.
– Early sketches reveal Manet originally planned to include a sleeping dog, a symbol of fidelity, before replacing it with a black cat for deeper symbolic effect.
– When exhibited, the painting provoked riots—viewers shouted, mocked, and even turned their backs. Yet the scandal propelled Manet to the center of modern art.
– Olympia’s direct gaze transformed portraiture by making the sitter’s psyche as important as their physical form.