“Balthus: Cats and Girls,” an exhibition currently on view at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, displays the work by the Polish-French painter known as Balthus. Balthus is a well-known figurative painter from an era where to be a modernist meant to paint in abstraction. This differentiation in style set Balthus apart from his contemporaries, but what he is infamous for is his choice of subject matter, which consists mainly of adolescent girls in provocative positions. As if the young women laying with their panties exposed was not enough, Balthus also works with the motif of cats, a clear erotic allusion.
Balthus’s subject matter leaves viewers contemplating: is art bound by the same moral constructs as the individual? And should there be limitations on artistic expression? It is clear that in the case of Balthus his artwork- while provocative- did not violate any legal standards. Although he does have one blatantly erotic piece entitled “The Guitar Lesson,” which is not exhibited at the Met, this is his only painting which falls into the realm of pornographic. The painting is a depiction of an older woman holding a half clothed girl across her lap, while she plays her like a guitar.
While Bathus’s paintings violate what we might declare to be normative, they are meant to be an exploration of the nude. Many artists, like Balthus, used young models; one example being Egon Schiele, who was famous for sleeping with his models as well as painting them. Balthus’s subject are perhaps controversial because for the most part his models are clothed. This might seem like an odd statement: if they are clothed aren’t the women less provocative? Well no, for as most Jewish girls can relate, it is analogous to the laws of modesty: just because you are wearing a skirt does not mean you are abiding by the halakhic, legal obligations of modesty. The same is true in the case of Balthus; while his figures are normally dressed, their suggestive positions imply certain precarious actions.
Another reason his paintings are viewed as provocative is the contemporary context. When viewing a painting such as Therese Dreaming, 1938, we see a young girl in a blouse and red skirt leaning against a blue pillow, arms atop her head and legs partially open with a cat strategically placed in the right corner. The contemporary setting and clothes associate the girl with a period close in time to our current standards. The contemporary costume and setting makes the viewer more compelled to place upon the painting their standards of morality.
While the contention of subject matter is interesting, Balthus’s use of paint is banal. Balthus paints in a style that he refers to as ‘timeless realism,’ a style that relies on realism and harsh contours. The style itself is mild and his paintings occasionally have issues with proportion that are more disturbing to the eye than interesting. The combination of realism and lack of innovation make his paintings less compelling. While his subject matter is definitely charged, his painting methods lack the provocation necessary for a great modernist painter.
Another notable piece worth recognizing within the exhibit is The Cat of La Méditerranée, 1949. This piece is a showstopper for all the wrong reasons. The painting depicts a giant cat sitting to a feast of fish being delivered via rainbow from the ocean to the cat’s plate. At the base of the rainbow is [of course] a topless girl in a rowboat, waving. Also, the cat-man figure in the painting is apparently supposed to represent Balthus. Confused? Well then you can join the ranks of everyone else who went to see the exhibit. Though not as provocative as many of his other paintings, The Cat definitely drew a crowd. One security guard approached me and asked why I liked the painting so much. I had no idea what gave him the impression that I liked the painting, but I responded that I think people were mostly astonished at how different the painting was from the general MET collection.
Perhaps that is Balthus’s niche. He’s different – maybe not in the right ways – but his heart seemed to have been in the right place. The exhibition of his work is eclectic to say the least and while there are no exceptional works (although there are many interesting ones), the uncomfortable laughs you will have are definitely worth the pay-what-you-want admission.