Blogs and Stories
Vermeer's Naughty Milkmaid
The Dutch master’s most famous painting is on display in the U.S. for the first time since World War II. Alexandra Peers on the portrait’s erotic secrets. VIEW OUR GALLERY.
The Metropolitan Museum of Art, in big need of a fall blockbuster, is rewriting art history to be just a bit more salacious. Walter Liedtke, the curator of its Vermeer’s Masterpiece: The Milkmaid exhibition, says the painting, long interpreted as a salute to the working classes, is actually a kind of discreet 17th-century paean to voyeurism, desire and sex. One highlight of the controversial new spin: The milkmaid’s famous open milk jug, according to the Met, is representative of “a portion of the female anatomy.”
Click the Image Below to View our Gallery
• Art Beast: The Best of Art, Photography, and DesignAnd what’s Liedtke’s evidence for such a claim? A naked Cupid on one of the Delft tiles and, more tellingly, a foot-warmer in the lower right-hand corner of the painting, he says. Seems simple to us, Liedtke offers, but in the iconography of the day, the item was sexual. “The mistress of the house would put her feet up. It heats everything under the skirt.”
Other art historians beg to differ, including many featured in the Met’s own bookstore. E.H. Gombrich, who has the bestselling art-history text ever, The Story of Art, described The Milkmaid as “ a single figure employed in a simple task.” Rival Vermeer scholar Arthur K. Wheelock, a curator of the National Gallery of Art, lauds “the wholesomeness of her endeavor, the providing of life-saving food.” Even the Rijkmuseum, which has loaned the artwork to the Met and has several pages of discussion of the work on its Web site, makes no such claim of sensuousness. Rijkmuseum director Peter Sigmond declines to weigh in and says the painting’s loan is a “thank you” from Amsterdam to the Met for holding the painting during World War II, when the nation was being bombed.
So, when is a milk jug not a milk jug? Vermeer’s not around to answer, notes Victor Wiener, an appraiser consulted in both the valuation of the Andy Warhol estate and casino owner Steve Wynn’s damaged Picasso. “There are fads in art history. There was the feminist, the Freudian, the Jungian, now the sexual.” Artists aren’t alive to say that a work meant nothing of the kind, and if they did the neo-Freudians would probably say “you were thinking that, it was just your subconscious.”
Stars Celebrate the Super Bowl
The Daily Beast is dedicated to news and commentary, culture, and entertainment. We carefully curate the web’s most essential stories and bring you original must-reads from our talented contributors.
How Rich People Smoke Pot
Paul Schrodt is a writer living in New York City. He has contributed to New York magazine, Radar, and Esquire.com.
lindumsh
The introduction to the article on Vermeer's "Milkmaid" states that is being shown in the US for the first time since World War Two. This is not correct. It was shown in Washington as a part of the National Gallery of Art's Vermeer exhibition in 1995-1996. It is #5 in the Gallery's catalog.
pricklypear
I can verify. Saw it with my own two eyes.
hockeydog
"Interpretations" of visual arts are just personal opinions, and bear little truth. This is simply another example of an art critic trying to justify his existence. The arrogance is appalling.
Paintings, like poetry, are created to "speak" to us on their own level. By interpreting this work of Vermeer in such a fashion, the viewer is, in effect, diminished to the role of student. Students need teachers in order to understand what may, in fact, be staring them in the face.- basically a crock!
A more relevant interpretation would be looking at the play of light and shadows, the composition, and the depth of perception shown by Vermeer.
If Michael Jackson, for example were still alive and viewed this wonderful work, he might suggest that the pouring of the milk is a subliminal suggestion that the milkmaid intends to prepare a child for seduction by calming the child with fresh milk. This would be another crock.
Warehouseone
I agree with most of what you said, but I don't believe interpretations of artworks are just personal opinions. It really depends on who is doing the interpretation. All interpretations are not equal. Secondly, you can find a lot of truth in interpretations. Mostly, we learn truths about the interpreter.
While I do not think that Vermeer originally intended sexual symbolism its still interesting to think about it.
magicman
Absolutely spot on 'Hockeydog'. Your interpretation of interpretation is absolutely precise. There is, of course, the image reflected back, and that cannot be seen as chance, simply because it is NOT a reflection, as it should be, as it is 'created' by the master himself. It is that 'spark' of skill that causes the interpretation to occur in the first instance. The 'naked' object in the tile is not a reflection, as in a mirror, but a silhouette of the same. This defies 'nature', and therefore is significant, a clue, and a message. The sleeves rolled up to the elbows is also a clue, as nearly the entire force of 'action' surrounds the pouring out of milk, and no other part of the body, except the face is even visible. Less is more. The juxtapositon of these items should cause one to pause and wonder if the placement and 'art' are merely random, in error of 'nature', or if they are intended by the master.
It is not the interpretation perhaps that is important, nearly as much as the facts of what is present. This is the 'spark' which lites imagination and interpretation and is always the sole province of the masters to create, as they seem to be the only ones who notice. That is what makes the 'eye' of the master the unusual and enlightened 'eye' that exists through all time in all persons...a dimension always overlooked by the ordinary man.
The sheer precision of light and shadow, of object and depth perception are the intricate skills of the master. Why wouldn't some other ideas also occur to such a mind...and then be passed off through the ages? It is the study of the 'heart' of man that all seek, why would the master be any different? How could he possibly fail to notice what he himself has created?
soporifix
"A more relevant interpretation would be looking at the play of light and shadows, the composition, and the depth of perception shown by Vermeer."
So, in what way is this statement any less "teacher"-ish than the one you're criticizing? Aren't you telling us what the 'better' -- i.e. more correct -- way is to look at the painting?
Sexuality really terrifies people, clearly. That's part of what makes the sexuality in Vermeer's work so powerful.
aaronsirbaihu
Bingo, soporifix! What an ironic turn in hockeydog's statement:
"A more relevant interpretation would be looking at the play of light and shadows, the composition, and the depth of perception shown by Vermeer."
Who said "the play of light and shadows" are the thing? Hockeydog, said so: that's who. Chinese painters of that time were not interested in "the play of light and shadows." What is "play" of shadows anyway?
Can't I just look at the painting without instructions, hockeydog?
hockeydog
aaron and sopor, thank you. You are absolutely correct.
I fell into my own trap, became my own criticism.
Gotta be some truth here.
soporifix
So given that, here's my take:
On one level it is just 'opinions,' but on another level not really. The reason teachers of humanities exist is to help readers/viewers/listeners learn to think about and pay attention to things in a work that you might not notice or think about if you haven't spent your life with the work, or haven't considered from another perspective.
It's not a question of being "right," but of offering a considered view that might deepen our understanding or experience of a work and an artist. Interpretations that are based on little except an individual's agenda or pet theory won't last or make an impact; those that strike a note of truth or possibility will last, be examined, discussed.
After all, there's a reason why work such as Vermeer's has lasted and only grown in reputation and impact -- it's got to have something to do with the multiple levels and depths at which the work can affect people. 'Macbeth' is obviously not meaningful now because people care about King James' line to the kingship. Vermeer was not a photographer, merely recording a scene he was looking at. There were many painters who had equal techincal facility at imitating realistic drapery and light in paint. So why him? It's because there's more there. What is that more?
We can't possibly say that people of his time were less attuned to sexuality, or found it less important in their perceptions. We know that representing sexuality was often done with very potent symbols, for a variety of reasons. (Read the 'Roman de la Rose' for a clear lesson in how writers could use symbols to express clear, explicit, obvious sexual references.) We know that part of the power of the painting is the physicality of it. We also know that a large part of the artist's work is in choosing and framing subjects. Since Vermeer isn't an idiot, he is aware of the significance of the character he chooses just as we would be if a photographer chose Tila Tequila versus Jackie Kennedy. Since he's not a photographer, he isn't painting her holding the jug in that position, and with the milk dripping out just like that, solely because he 'had' to. He made a specific choice. He's aware of the common experiences of life and how others might see images, just as we would be if the painting of Tila Tequila showed her holding a cucumber.
So why is it a problem to examine the painting from that perspective and offer interpretation? Seems to me the reaction to this kind of thing speaks mostly to: 1) people's (and society's) discomfort with sexuality as a legitimate subject of serious art; and 2) frustration with how professorial intellectual types can talk about art as if they have the correct answer and it belongs to them only.
hockeydog
Well, sopor, your perspective is obviously of a certain sophistication. And with all due respect, this painting may very well contain all the hidden symbols of languid sexual orgies. Wouldn't terrify me a bit. And my comments are not a referendum on humanities professors, English teachers, music teachers or any other person trying to broaden minds.
The point I am addressing is that by focusing on details, the grandeur of a work may be missed, may be diminished by an overlayering of hypotheses, and speculations that, in the end are just noises in the air.
Great art stands on its own. It needs neither interpretor nor historian. To stand before a great masterpiece is to experience art on a very deep level.
more subliminal than analytical in nature.
Intellectual games of speculation are certainly a fun level of play. I think it is marvelous if someone likes to analyze the symphonies of Beethoven, for example, but listening to the music is where it is at. So what if Wagner was German, and well, what about the Nazis? Well, so what about the Nazi's Wagner's music is powerful enough to stand on its own merits.
By the same token, reading poetry speaks to us on a level of consciousness that cannot be accessed by analyzing the iambic whatevers.
So, if you want to continue thinking that there is value to be found in speculating on Vermeer's intent, well, more power to you. But, there is something to be said for simply enjoying a work of art.
Personally, I could not care less whether the jug opening represents some Freudian implication.
So, to borrow from your fellow blogger, aaronsirbaihu,
"Can't I just look at the painting without instructions, sopor?"
soporifix
I'm not really disagreeing. I think great art doesn't need analysis or explanation to be great. and yes, you can just look without instructions. But there's also a lot to be gained from more detailed systematic analysis -- the two ways of approaching work aren't mutually exclusive.
Quick example: Wordsworth's poem "I wandered lonely as a cloud" can be enjoyed simply for the beauty of the language, the imagery, the sound. But there's a great deal of meaning and depth to be gained -- and I think a deeper and fuller love for and comprehension of the poem -- by also examining how it relates to the basic ideas of Romanticism and the Romantic Sublime, and how the poem acts as a sort of 'instruction' for how to cope spiritually with the clamor of modern urban existence.
Maybe as a reader I don't have that background, so it's very helpful for someone who does, and has studied it, to explain it to me and help me grasp it. Not because he's smarter but because he's got the background and has spent the time thinking about it that I haven't.
And if I let that happen instead of fighting it, maybe instead of just appreciating the poem's beauty, I can get something much deeper from it that will have real meaning and application to my own life.
I don't see that considering the sexually symbolic aspects of the painting takes away from just liking it on a basic level. You can do both. What I'm questioning is the resistance to considering this type of interpretation. I don't quite get where it comes from.
whipmawhopma
Alexandra Peers fails to mention another sexual factor about this painting. The milkmaid is obviously naked under her clothes.
soporifix
Maybe you meant this as a joke, but that is in fact a big part of the power of the painting.
AuntBarb
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, sometimes a milk jug is just a milk jug.
vincereardon
Met curator Liedtke's erotic interpretation says more about his fevered mind than Vermeer's.
pricklypear
Nice jug, though.
soporifix
FYI: when Freud said that about cigars, he wasn't talking about works of art, which are, fundamentally, uses of deeply ingrained symbolic associations. In art, a cigar is never just a cigar -- if it were, only a bad artist would leave it in, because it would then have no purpose.
sdale80
I am an art historian. There is nothing new about this interpretation. It has been around since the Seventies and it is likely correct.There are emblem books from Vermeer's period that clearly indicate that the footwarmer is in fact an emblem of sexuality. A number of Vermeers as well as other paintings by Dutch artists of the period have this same emblem. No fevered curatorial minds and not just a cigar.
GeorgiaS
I am also an art historian but what I found astonishing about the story was the large factual and interpretive errors quoted by the art appraiser and the dealer. Feminist and psychoanalytic theories are interpretive methodologies, not fads and Carravaggio was a Counter-Reformation painter (and murderer).
blazon
Vermeer, come here, tell us all.
the Milkmaid - she has us in thrall
but the jug is perplexing
it's scary and vexing
for he who must place and install.
AndAnotherThing
The woman's just trying to do her job and some guy comes by and makes a stupid, vulgar comment. Typical.
Nusayler
If that jug opening is even remotely an approximation of a certain part of the anatomy of women of the time, then all I can say is You really HAVE come a long way, baby!
helenmay13
Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar...
Imonlyhere2hateU
That art is SCARY! ahhhh!
YogiBarrister
Milk, Milk, from the maid
Around the corner, the artist gets laid
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.