EMULATION AND REPETITION IN 19TH CENTURY ART
 

Because Ingres had obsessive tendencies when it came to perfecting his work’s subjects, he returned to using this same Valpinçon Bather in The Smaller Bather (Interior of a Harem) in 1828 (Louvre, Paris, France (Fig. 3), and finally at the end of his career in 1859 with The Turkish Bath, (Fig. 1) which he then  reworked in 1862-1863. Although he had created works with different female nudes such as in his Odalisque in Grisaille’(1824-34) (Fig.4) and The Source’(1859) (Fig.5),  Ingres took a liking to the Valpinçon Bather and it became his trademark female nude. There are many theories as to why Ingres was so repetitive with his certain subjects. Some believed that he had a lack of imagination while Marjorie Cohn believed it was a ‘pursuit of perfection’, and George Wildenstein believed it was his “favourite female type” (Leeks, 29). However, when it came time to incorporating other female nudes into his painting of a Harem commissioned by Prince Napoleon, Marjorie B. Cohn describes it perfectly, “Ingres made copies, many copies, of practically every one of his major compositions, even their first ‘original’ manifestations are demonstrably derived from prototypes” (Cohn, 11).  Although we may never know why Ingres duplicated his subjects tirelessly through out his career, it is certain where he extracted his inspiration and prototypes for his work of art ‘The Turkish Bath’. 

When Prince Napoleon commissioned this harem scene from Ingres in 1848, he took a historical approach, drawing his inspiration from the letters of Lady Montagu (1690-1760) who recounts a visit to a women’s baths in Istanbul in 1717. Ingres was inspired by Lady Montagu’s illustrative letters describing the Turkish harem, and used them as if it was an ethnographical description to refer to. Without Montagu’s letters, Ingres would have very little to go by because men weren’t allowed in these Turkish Baths. Lady Montagu was the first European woman to travel to the East, let alone get an inside look into the private lives of Muslim women.  In The Turkish Bath, (Fig.1)Ingres brings life to Montagu’s description of the “scarlet cloth , lin’d with silk” (Montagu,147), and portrays all of the cushions scarlet red. Ingres also extracts Lady Montague’s description of the Eastern Women’s confidence and comfortable poise, “Sofas were cover’d with cushions and rich carpets, on which sat the Lady’s, and on the 2nd their slaves behind ‘em…stark naked, without any beauty or defect conceal’d, yet there was not the least wanton smile or immodest gesture”(Montagu,148) Ingres makes not one women look uncomfortable with their nudeness, while they are all shown doing different things which Montague also describes, “so many women naked in different postures, some in conversation, some working, others drinking Coffee or sherbet, and many negligently lying on their cushions while their slaves…braiding their hairs.”(Montagu,149) Ingres reproduces this description and painted women lounging, playing instruments, dancing, eating, braiding each other’s hair, as well as coffee and what could be sherbet in the foreground.

Not only was Ingres inspired by Lady Montague’s ethnographical description, but he also identified and duplicated her outsider perspective in the Harem. Wendy Leeks describes Montague’s and Ingres similar take on their position, “Lady Mary Wortley Montagu is playing a male role in relation to the women of the bath with whom she does not identify” (Leeks,30) Ingres creates the scene from a similar outsider perspective, as if he is looking into a peep hole into the baths by having none of the women figures acknowledging the presence of an ‘Other’ or even the viewer.  The composition of the painting looks as if it is a scene from a play the way the figures are laid out to observe, furthering the position of the viewer looking into the Harem as opposed to being a part of the scene.

Next

Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3.
Figure 4. Figure 5. Figure 6.
Ingres, The Smaller Bather (Interior of a Harem)