The phrase “separate the art from the artist” suggests the possibility for appreciation of an artist’s work even when their personal beliefs and actions might contradict your own. But can you really look at art the same again once you know the truth about its creator? Once we fully understand one of the great pioneers of modern art in the late 1800s, Edgar Degas, it is hard to see his infamous ballerinas in the same way.
Degas rose to fame with his extraordinary pastels that explored the darker side of the Paris Opera — a shadow cast over France’s “belle époche” largely ignored by all. Degas revealed the hardships of the young girls — nicknamed “rats” often working as prostitutes for the “abonnés”, regular patrons, who paid for backstage access. Degas’ works may be interpreted as a compassionate desire to expose the horrors these girls faced. However, once you notice that very few of his works depict actual performances, rather scenes that place his audience lurking in the corners of rehearsals, it makes us wonder about his true motives.
The composer Auber reportedly told Degas that the opera was full of “many pretty heads, pretty shoulders, pretty legs.” Incidentally, these are the exact body parts depicted in Degas’ works (Waiting and Study of a Dancer Scratching her Back). Could it be that his objectifying eye took more pleasure in highlighting the bodies of the girls than appreciating ballet as an art form? Degas was known to call the dancers he painted “little monkey girls” – a dehumanising animalisation of the subjects he exploited.
Rather than exposing the abuse the ballerinas experienced, it seems Degas played an active role in it. Perhaps his creation borders on fetishism rather than appreciation.
Can you still appreciate the artistry of his work? Or are his ballerinas marred now that you know the truth about Edgar Degas?
“Dancing Class (Degas)” by uhurᜁ is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.