The Atlas Collection
Travel posters
For places worth remembering. Modern prints inspired by favourite coastlines, towns and landmarks.
New destinations added regularly
Posters from the places you love
Over 320 curated artists
Browse all artists
Curated by Artists
Museum Quality Prints
Crafted to Last
Designed for Interiors
Style It Your Way
Popular prints available framed or on canvas
Timeless Art For Beautifully Designed Homes
Why Choose Us ?
What customers say
Over 5000
Happy Art Lovers
From Our Journal
Olympia: Why Manet's Gaze Caused a Scandal
When Édouard Manet exhibited Olympia at the 1865 Paris Salon, the canvas incited an immediate wave of public outrage. Rather than painting an idealised classical deity, Manet depicted a contemporary Parisian prostitute who stares directly at the viewer without modesty, confronting nineteenth-century social reality and dismantling traditional artistic conventions. Hostility at the Paris Salon When Olympia was shown to the viewing public at the Paris Salon of 1865, the reaction was fiercely hostile. Immense crowds gathered in Room M, particularly on Sundays when admission was free, creating an atmosphere dominated by hysteria and astonishment. Visitors responded with mockery, catcalls, and fits of crazed laughter, while several spectators turned their heads in fright. Manet was shocked by the extreme hostility, writing to his friend Charles Baudelaire that insults were raining down on him like hailstones and that he had never received such a reception in his career. The commotion surrounding the painting became so severe that the Marquis de Chennevières had to intervene. Having previously assigned guards to manage admirers around popular works, Chennevières now deployed guards to protect Olympia from indignant visitors. When guards proved insufficient to control the crowds, officials moved the canvas high above the heads of the visitors. This created the exact opposite trajectory of Manet's The Spanish Singer, which had been lowered to eye level four years earlier due to public admiration. Hanging near the ceiling, a critic for Le Figaro remarked that viewers could scarcely tell if they were looking at a bundle of laundry or a parcel of nude flesh. Modern Identity and the Unflinching Gaze The primary source of indignation was the figure's direct visual confrontation with the audience. In composition, Manet was inspired by Renaissance precedents, specifically Giorgione's Sleeping Venus and Titian's Venus of Urbino. However, while Renaissance nudes remained psychologically distanced from everyday experience by their identity as classical deities, Manet painted a contemporary figure. The public immediately recognised the model as Victorine Meurent, who had posed for Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe. Her recognisable presence stripped away any mythological pretext, contrasting sharply with popular academic nudes of the era, such as Alexandre Cabanel's The Birth of Venus or Paul Baudry's The Pearl and the Wave. Contemporaries understood immediately that the subject represented a working prostitute awaiting a client. Her complete nudity was accentuated by a thin velvet ribbon around her neck, a gold bracelet on her wrist, and slippers on her feet, which served as a reference to streetwalking. A black servant presents a floral bouquet carefully prepared by a florist, sent by an admirer. The arrival of these flowers fails to interrupt her bold stare at the viewer. By placing a contemporary courtesan on such a prominent canvas, Manet raised the specter of venereal disease, which was rampant across Paris at the time. Édouard Manet - Olympia, 1863. Public domain; source: Wikimedia Commons. Technique and Spatial Distortion Manet's formal technique provoked equal outrage among academic traditionalists and fellow painters. Realist painter Gustave Courbet condemned the work, declaring it completely flat and comparing the figure to the queen of spades from a deck of cards coming out of the bath. Manet discarded the soft lighting, gradual transitions, and sensual modelling seen in Titian's Venus of Urbino. Instead, he used harsh illumination that rendered the anatomy pale and starkly defined, setting her white leg against a dark background without traditional dimensional modelling. This approach was heavily influenced by Japonisme, specifically the technique in Japanese prints of using unmodulated areas of flat colour and simplified forms. While French critics accepted avant-garde experimentation in genre subjects, applying unmodulated paint to a traditional female nude was viewed as unacceptable. Furthermore, Manet flattened the pictorial space by moving the back wall forward so that it sat immediately behind the bed and the black servant. According to art historian Linda Nochlin, this simplified, modern treatment gave a salutary jolt to the traditional concept of the nude as timeless and elevated. Domestic Details and Contemporary Symbols Every detail within the bedroom setting subverted classical expectations. Rather than resting on an idealised couch in an idyllic landscape, the figure lies on rumpled white sheets and a pink silk shawl. At the foot of the bed, an alert black cat arches its back. The cat served as an explicit symbol of female sexuality and popular references to brothels, contrasting sharply with the faithful, sleeping dog depicted in Titian's Renaissance composition. Manet's brushwork in the secondary elements further unsettled contemporary viewers. The bouquet of flowers held by the maid was rendered with rapid, seemingly careless impasto strokes that created an impression of fresh blooms. Observers perceived this vigorous technique, along with the inclusion of the cat and the maid, as a deliberate attempt to mock bourgeois decency, good taste, and the established rules of academic painting. The Provocation of the Title The title Olympia, inscribed directly on the frame, further antagonised the public. Although it sounded dubiously mythological, the name held distinct modern connotations in nineteenth-century Paris. Olympia was recognised as the name of an evil character in E.T.A. Hoffmann's popular stories, as well as the subject of a poem by Manet's friend Zacharie Astruc. Astruc's poem described a majestic young girl waking up to a slave delivering gifts for a lover's night. By attaching the name Olympia to a working courtesan, Manet accentuated the divide between the social reality of Paris and the comfortably removed ideals of classical antiquity. Unlike Titian's Venus, who existed solely within the closed world of her canvas, Olympia looks out unabashedly at the viewer. By refusing to offer traditional signs of modesty, Manet forced the Salon public to confront their own gaze, fundamentally altering the presentation of the female nude in Western art.
Athena and Arachne: Three Stories of the Goddess
Orestes sought Athena’s protection after killing Clytemnestra to avenge Agamemnon. Athena established a court on the Areopagus and appointed Athenian jurors. Their equal votes led her to acquit him, then she gave the Erinyes honours in Attica. Athena Establishes the Areopagus The Erinyes pursued Orestes from Delphi as he travelled to Athens. He sought Athena’s protection after killing his mother, Clytemnestra, to avenge the murder of his father, Agamemnon. Apollo had ordered the act. The Erinyes demanded punishment for matricide, while Orestes maintained that Apollo had commanded him and that he had been cleansed of his guilt. Athena listened to Orestes’ plea. Apollo stood beside him and accepted responsibility for the killing, saying that Orestes had acted on his command. The Erinyes opposed him and called for vengeance. Athena decided that the case required a trial. She established the court on the Areopagus hill and selected jurors from the citizens of Athens to represent the city. At the trial, the Erinyes questioned and accused Orestes. Apollo defended him. He argued that Orestes had acted in revenge for his father’s murder and spoke of the authority of Zeus. Orestes admitted that he had killed his mother, but repeated that Apollo had ordered the deed and that he had been cleansed. The jurors cast their votes. They were evenly divided, so Athena gave the deciding vote for acquittal. Athena then persuaded the Erinyes to accept the verdict. Their anger had threatened Athens, but they agreed to receive honours and a home in Attica. They were changed from frightful Furies into the Eumenides, the Benignant Ones, who protected suppliants. Athena’s court settled Orestes’ case and established a lawful place where future blood feuds could be judged instead of answered by further revenge. Source note: Primary text: Hesiod, Theogony. Corpus check: The Library of Greek Mythology (Oxford World's Classics); Hesiod's Theogony. Athena and Arachne Arachne spun and wove wool in Hypaepa, a village in Lydia. She was of common birth, the daughter of a humble wool dyer, and her mother was dead. Her skill made her famous throughout the towns of Lydia. Even the local nymphs came to see her work. Arachne refused to admit that the goddess of weaving had taught her. She declared that she would gladly compete with the goddess herself. Athena heard this claim and went to Arachne disguised as an old woman. She advised the girl to challenge mortals, not a goddess, and urged her to ask forgiveness for her words. Arachne rejected the advice. She said that she was not afraid of the goddess and would stand by her challenge. Athena then cast off her disguise and appeared in her divine form. Arachne remained defiant, and the contest began. The two women set up their looms and stretched the warp. They worked with fine coloured threads, including gold and silver. Athena wove into her design the contest in which she had prevailed over Neptune. Arachne completed her own cloth at the same time. It was every bit as beautiful as Athena’s and was not inferior in skill. Her work was an impious challenge to the gods, and Athena was overcome with anger. Athena destroyed Arachne’s cloth and broke her loom. She struck the mortal with part of it, then transformed her into a spider. Arachne’s skill in weaving remained, but she no longer worked as a human woman. Athena and Arachne. Original MythSource illustration created for this story; not a historical artwork. Source note: Primary text: Ovid, Metamorphoses. Corpus check: Greek Mythology; Ultimate Greek Mythology. The Contest for Athens Poseidon struck the Acropolis, the highest point in Athens, with his trident. A miraculous spring of salt water burst from the rock. The judges found this impressive. The spring represented the sea and naval power, and Poseidon sought patronage of the city and the surrounding land of Attica. Athena then made an olive tree grow on the dry, rocky hill. The judges decided that her gift was better, so they declared her the winner. Athena became the patron deity of Athens. In one account, the contest took place during the reign of Cecrops. Athena planted the first olive tree beside Poseidon’s salt-water spring, taking possession of the land in a gentler manner. Poseidon was angered by her claim and challenged Athena to single combat. Athena would have accepted, but Zeus intervened and ordered them to submit the dispute to arbitration. The two deities appeared before a divine court made up of their fellow gods and goddesses. The court called on Cecrops to give evidence. Zeus expressed no opinion. All the other gods supported Poseidon, while all the goddesses supported Athena. Athena therefore won by a majority of one, because the court judged that she had given the land the better gift. Other accounts present the contest more briefly. Zeus and several divine judges decide which deity performs the most spectacular feat. Poseidon produces the salt-water spring by touching the Acropolis with his trident, then Athena causes the olive tree to grow. The judges declare Athena the victor. The accounts agree that her olive tree wins the contest and that she becomes Athens’ patron. Source note: Primary text: Hesiod, Theogony. Corpus check: Greek Mythology; Monsters of Greek Mythology, Volume One.
A Sunday on La Grande Jatte: Seurat's Dots at a Distance
In A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte, Georges Seurat applied tiny, distinct dots of pure paint to canvas. When viewed at a distance, these unmixed specks fuse in the viewer's eye to create an optical mixture of light and colour. Optical Mixing and the View at a Distance Georges Seurat created A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte between 1884 and 1886. Instead of blending pigments on his palette, he applied confetti-sized dots of pure colour directly onto the large canvas. When a spectator stands close to the painting, the individual specks remain visible, giving the surface a grainy and scintillating appearance. When viewed at a distance, these dots appear to fuse together on the retina. Seurat theorised that placing complementary colours side by side produced a higher degree of luminosity than traditional physical mixtures of paint. The technique became known as pointillism. Seurat used dots of varying scale and shape, orienting them in different directions to describe forms and contours across the canvas. Placed closely together, dots of contrasting hues produced a shimmering effect of light. In La Grande Jatte, which measures 207.6 centimetres by 308 centimetres, this optical method created an illusion of translucent atmosphere. Although the individual specks never merge entirely into a flat tone, the viewer perceives a unified image composed of thousands of discrete applications of paint. Scientific Principles and Colour Theory Seurat based his method on scientific studies of light and human perception published during the nineteenth century. He studied Michel-Eugène Chevreul's 1839 text On the Law of Simultaneous Contrast of Colors, alongside Ogden Rood's 1879 physics study Modern Chromatics. He also drew upon Charles Henry's 1885 work, Introduction to a Scientific Aesthetics. These publications replaced earlier Romantic ideas with empirical analyses of optics. Seurat paired complementary hues such as red and green, blue and orange, and yellow and violet to generate a sense of optical vibration on the retina. The critic Félix Fénéon observed that the optical mixture formed in the eye possessed a luminous intensity greater than any physical blend of pigments on a palette. Fénéon argued that Seurat bridged art and science, elevating objective reality into a sublimated form. Edgar Degas nicknamed the meticulous young artist the notary because Seurat wore a top hat, a dark suit, and precisely pressed trousers. Seurat rejected artistic sentimentality, famously stating that he simply applied his method without seeking poetic interpretation. A Sunday on La Grande Jatte, Georges Seurat, 1884. Public domain; source: Wikimedia Commons. Preparatory Studies and Studio Composition To execute his large canvas, Seurat conducted extensive field research on the island of La Grande Jatte, a popular leisure site situated in the River Seine north-west of Paris. He visited the island daily for six months, producing preparatory drawings of the site and sketching numerous individual figures. He completed forty preliminary colour studies before assembling the final composition inside his studio. This rigorous preparation allowed him to retain the bright colours of open-air Impressionism while imposing a structured design based on geometric forms. Because this method required exceptional labour and time, Seurat completed only seven large paintings during his decade-long career. His preparation for La Grande Jatte required two full years of work. The finished canvas combines careful calculations of spatial alignment with the bright illumination typical of modern outdoor recreation. The figures are positioned along balanced axes, turning an informal suburban gathering into a permanent arrangement of shapes and shadows. Figure Composition and the Painted Border The scene depicts middle-class Parisians relaxing outdoors on a Sunday. A formal couple stands in the shade in their Sunday best, surrounded by dogs, monkeys, running children, women making posies, and working men resting near the water. Seurat painted these figures largely in profile, giving them the rigid quality of a classical frieze. Isolated in pockets of shade, the figures appear silent and static, reflecting the anonymity associated with modern urban existence. Seurat extended his pointillist technique beyond the main scene by painting a surrounding border directly onto the canvas and frame. He applied red dots alongside green grass on the picture edge, causing the adjacent colours to react optically. While the human figures remain still, the painted atmosphere around them appears active and luminous. Seurat later depicted this work inside his studio painting, The Models, executed between 1887 and 1888, where La Grande Jatte appears on the wall behind three studio models. Critical Reception and Belgian Influence When Seurat displayed La Grande Jatte at the final Impressionist exhibition in 1886, the majority of contemporary artists and critics reacted with indignation. Opponents rejected his formal application of paint as rigid and mechanical. In Belgium, where the painting was shown at the exhibition of Les XX, reaction was divided. Madelaine Maus described the encounter as a revelation of absolute newness and clarity, whereas the artist James Ensor rejected the method, stating that pointillists applied their dots coldly between stiff outlines. Despite hostile reactions from traditionalists, several younger painters adopted the method. Belgian artists such as Willy Finch, Henry van de Velde, Théo van Rysselberghe, and Georges Lemmen incorporated pointillism into their work. Writing in L'Art Moderne in 1888, supporters argued that opposing Neo-Impressionism meant remaining attached to past conventions. Fénéon contrasted Seurat's structured clarity with Impressionist pictures, which he described as summary and approximate in their execution. Linear Systems and Later Works After 1886, Seurat expanded his quasiscientific approach to include linear direction and emotional expression. He assigned specific psychological effects to deliberate combinations of colour and line. Warm orange and red hues paired with upward-moving lines were intended to evoke gaiety and action. Dark blue and green colours combined with descending lines produced feelings of sadness. Balanced middle tones and horizontal lines were designed to convey stability and calm. Seurat applied these theories in his final canvas, Le Cirque, painted in 1891. He used acid yellows, bright oranges, and upward curves to depict active circus performers, contrasting them against static rows of spectators seated horizontally. Seurat died of a severe infection at the age of thirty-two, three days after exhibiting the unfinished work. His death marked the loss of a painter who avoided taking disciples, insisting that wider adoption reduced individual originality.