Prostitution In Monet's Olympia

As I gaze at Monet’s Olympia, all that comes to mind is the vulgarity. I am appalled at the painter’s intentions, for what could possess a man to paint such indecency? The painting illustrates a women lying in bed as her Negro servant brings her flowers. Her skin is sickly pale, she is fairly thin and her body appears underdeveloped equal to that of a girl not of a woman. The detail in this work suggest Olympia to be a demimondaine. Even the name Olympia is an association of prostitution, is it not? These details include the silk shawl in which she lies, her bracelet, the orchard in her hair, her pearl earrings, representations of sexuality and fortune. The contrast between the paleness of her flesh and the dark ribbon around her neck call attention to the overall sensual mood of Manet’s piece. Her stare is challenging as if she is asserting her dominance over men.
The harsh lighting expels midtowns and shallow depth which emphasizes her nudity. The painting is supposedly modeled after Titans, Venus of Urbino, however, I consider it to be a mockery of Titans work. Titan presents a goddess while Manet presents a prostitute. Unlike Titan’s Venus, whose left hand entices the viewer and politely covers her genitals, Olympia’s left hand obstructs as if she was forcibly doing so. This is an interpretation of how she is not reliant on men. Manet also replaces the dog with a black cat which is another symbolization of prostitution. On another note, the size of this work is quite large for this sort of painting. Paintings at this stature should be portraying historical events, not what I see before me. In conclusion, this work should not be displayed in a gallery such as the