thegetty: fiftysevenacademics: licieoic: rush-keating: npr: thegetty: The story behind The Laundress
thegetty: fiftysevenacademics: licieoic: rush-keating: npr: thegetty: The story behind The Laundress. This is so good. -Emily I find that hard to reconcile with how 18th century dresses had boobs practically hanging out of them. Maybe the chest wasn’t as sexualized as the ankles were back then… I have a dim memory from back in high school… I think someone once told me that breasts were no big deal back in corsetry-and-necklines-down-to-there days, they were considered a food source for children and that’s it. But ANKLES. Oh, GOD. ANKLES. The ANKLE was connected to the LEG, which connected to THIGHS, which hid a woman’s SECRET FLOWER. The ankle was the gateway to the secret flower, so it was considered quite a stirring sight! That’s not quite the case. Ankles were frequently exposed because many fashionable petticoats of the 18th c. either barely skimmed the ground or even ended right about at the ankles. There are many, many paintings of respectable women in non-sexualized poses that show their ankles. Ankles were not necessarily eroticized. Breasts, on the other hand were very eroticized, and yes, their low necklines were every bit as racy then as we think them now, which is why most of the time women tucked a fichu into them for modesty. Anyhow, I looked into this particular painting, and it wasn’t considered especially racy, though it was titillating. One critic did say that, but the rest of the critics who saw it at the 1761 Salon didn’t seem to react as snappily. The little picture of a laundress wringing out her linen [FIGURE i] was one of the fourteen works—paintings, drawings, and pastels— that he exhibited at the Salon of 1761; and despite its size, it caught the attention of all the critics.29 Terse though their comments are, reviewers responded to the liveliness of the painting’s color and handling, and to the ingratiating attitude of the figure itself—"a young laundress, who, as she bends over to wash her linen, casts a glance that is as flirtatious as it is cheeky.“30 The work was “precious … for its truth to life, its coloring, and the charm of its expression”;31 through the artist’s mastery of technique—a novel manner of applying impasto that was “his alone"—the flesh tones were rendered with transparency and softness;32 Greuze had succeeded in achieving “the most beautiful finish, but without dryness."33 Such was the care with which the critics scrutinized this picture, and so lifelike did they find the figure, that Diderot [FIGURE 7] chided Greuze for not placing the laundress more solidly on her wooden plank ("I’d be tempted to move that trestle forward just a little, so that she’d be seated more comfortably”),34 while the abbe de La Garde, author of the widely read Observations … sur les tableaux exposes au Salon, took exception to the linen in the background, which detracted from the brightness of the laundress’s cap (“the light there is too similar to that of her headwear”). Another artist who paid heed to Greuze’s appearance at the Salon of 1761 was the indefatigable flaneur and scribbler of genius, Gabriel de Saint-Aubin, who illustrated eight of Greuze’s entries and identified the model for The Laundress as a Mile du Lieu (The Miss of the Place) in his Salon livret [FIGURE 9] , 37 This generic name suggests that the young woman was a professional model, probably well known to artists. As such, her respectability would have been open to question, since, as Greuze’s goddaughter recalled many years later—and Diderot confirmed in his review of the Salon of 176138—it was customary for painters to employ as models only “such mercenary women, who sell their favors.” For Mme de Valori, the artist had little choice in the matter. “How,” she concludes, “could he have approached a woman of any decency?"39 (source for both quotes) The direct, saucy gaze is primarily what elicited this response. Elite men like that critic typically viewed lower-class women, and particularly maidservants, as sexually available or purchasable. How to resist the advances of your employer was an important topic in instruction books written for maids. The woman signals her sexual availability to a viewer already conditioned to regard her as a sex object with her flirtatious expression. In this context, the exposed foot adds a bit more of a thrill, although not the main one. While seated, the skirt would normally cover the ankle, but in her hunched over position, it has been hiked it up a little, which, to these particular viewers, would have seemed like an invitation. Basically, there was a whole genre of paintings where the viewer catches a pretty maidservant in the act of doing her work or something else- this must have been a kink for these rich dudes. The paintings usually imply moral decay and disorder in some way. That the model was most likely a sex worker or a woman poor enough that she hired herself out for men to look at and paint was something all these men would have known, as well, and that would’ve added to their tendency to regard the laundress in a sexual way. In this case, there are a couple visual signs that make her status as a laundress ambiguous: the very fine red leather mules she wears, the fineness of her stockings, and the smoothness of her hands, as well as the casual placement of the wooden tools she would use to rub or beat out dirt (x). The main point of the exposed ankle is to reveal the expensive red leather mule she is wearing, and the fine silk stockings, which a real laundress, and probably not even a household maidservant, would have worn. So, is she a laundress or maidservant, or a woman in the business of selling or trading her favors to men? The painting doesn’t contain any of the usual indicators of moral decay, such as clothing in disarray, semi-exposed bosoms, disheveled hair, etc. In fact, she seems very wholesome. But there is enough going on to hint at something more- a good, hardworking woman who just might let you score. ↑↑↑↑↑ -- source link