The Musée d'Orsay in Paris recently held a theatrical mock trial to determine whether renowned French artist Édouard Manet should be found guilty of obscenity for his controversial 1863 painting "Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe" (Luncheon on the Grass). The innovative event, part of the museum's Orsay Live program designed for audiences aged 18 to 25, brought together law students, professional attorneys, and a sitting judge to recreate what might have happened if Manet had been prosecuted for offending public morality.
Manet's "Déjeuner sur l'herbe" originally sparked intense controversy when it was displayed at the 1863 Salon des Refusés, a special exhibition created for works rejected by Paris's official Salon. Critics were scandalized by the painting's depiction of a nude woman casually picnicking with two fully clothed men, particularly because she was portrayed as an ordinary woman rather than a mythological figure. Many condemned what they called the model's direct gaze toward viewers, while others criticized Manet's raw brushwork as crude and unfinished.
The mock trial concept originated from Sylvain Amic, the former president of the Musée d'Orsay and Musée de l'Orangerie, who died last August. Deputy director Virginie Donzeaud, who had been developing the project with Amic since February, explained their motivation: "We wanted to partner with the Fondation des Femmes to address major social issues, particularly feminism. There is something about a mock trial that is both engaging and appealing to younger audiences."
The museum was committed to maintaining the authenticity of actual legal proceedings. "It's not a performative lecture," Donzeaud emphasized. "There are real lawyers, pleading for and against the defendants, in addition to students performing as witnesses." The event featured students from the Fédération française de Débat et d'Éloquence, three professional lawyers including a prosecutor, and Judge Valérie Dervieux presiding over the proceedings.
Julie de Lassus Saint Génies, an intellectual property lawyer who attended the trial, noted the fascinating intersection of law and art: "The idea of a mock trial is both interesting and enriching, as it allows art and law—two worlds that seem to be opposed at first glance—to enter into dialogue. Those worlds are only seemingly opposed, however, because disputes over freedom of expression and, by extension, artistic creation have always been numerous."
Organizing the event presented unique challenges, particularly in casting. Carla Tomé, head of cultural programming at the Musée d'Orsay, revealed: "There were mostly girls who wanted to participate at first. Having only women portray a majority of men would have been a bit too much." To address this issue, the museum created additional female roles, including Suzanne Leenhoff, Manet's partner, so that model Victorine Meurent wouldn't be the only female speaker.
Interestingly, Manet himself was portrayed by female student Maria-Inès Le Loarer Doniz, who prepared extensively for the role. "I will give you a more sensitive and less confident Manet than one might expect," she told reporters before the performance. "I listened to podcasts about Manet and read many of his early letters to understand his journey and his motivations. We don't really know much about his character, so my approach is very personal. Beyond Manet himself, I am embodying what it means to create—whether centuries ago or today."
To ensure historical accuracy, all speeches were reviewed by Manet specialist and curator Isolde Pludermacher. While most historical figures' speeches were historically appropriate, representing Émile Zola presented particular challenges. Since Zola didn't write his famous "J'accuse" letter until 1898—more than 25 years after the "Déjeuner sur l'herbe" scandal—the organizers had to be careful about his speaking style and tone for the 1863 timeframe.
Despite these historical considerations, the trial maintained a lighthearted atmosphere. The prosecutor cleverly alluded to Zola's famous letter by repeatedly using "Je récuse" (I challenge) in his opening statement. He also employed modern humor, jokingly referring to Manet as "the first Instagrammer and clickbait artist," accusing him of "Manet-pulation," and even comparing him to Jean Sarkozy, President Nicolas Sarkozy's son, who like Manet had dropped out of law school.
Judge Dervieux added her own commentary throughout the proceedings, highlighting historical ironies such as a woman judging another woman: "When you think about it, it will be several years before a woman can become a magistrate." She also kept the audience engaged with quips like "Applaud, or I'll have the room cleared," while maintaining proper courtroom decorum as the audience respectfully rose for her entrance and brief deliberation recess.
The trial followed traditional criminal court procedures, with defense attorneys speaking last as in actual proceedings. However, the expected witness examinations and cross-examinations were omitted to allow participants to deliver their historically accurate speeches and be judged on their oratorical skills. De Lassus Saint Génies noted: "Personally, I would have appreciated an alternation between speeches and interrogations, which would have added theatricality to the trial and, in my view, would not have hindered eloquence."
Various perspectives were presented during the proceedings. Victorine Meurent asserted her right to nudity and women's emancipation more broadly. Her defense attorney, played by Louise Bériot, argued the absence of any material offense, suggesting that while the face in the painting might indeed be her client's, the body might not be hers at all. Meanwhile, Zola and Gustave Courbet vigorously contested what they characterized as artistic harassment and censorship.
The question of artistic freedom's limits was skillfully addressed by prosecutor Florent Loyseau, who offered what de Lassus Saint Génies described as "a hilarious analysis of Manet's alleged paternal complex." During the deliberation period, student Nordine Morchid, portraying Charles Baudelaire, won the audience's vote for the most convincing speech.
In her final judgment, Judge Dervieux demonstrated the nuanced approach available to judges even when legal violations are established. As de Lassus Saint Génies explained: "If an offense is clearly established, a judge cannot disregard a law that does not suit them. It is, however, in the sentencing that they can express disapproval or understanding, which is exactly what the President did." After declaring the offense of public outrage proven, Dervieux delivered a memorable sentence: she instructed Manet to conduct himself by continuing to paint—a verdict that perfectly captured both the legal framework of the era and the ultimate vindication of Manet's artistic vision.
