ting, and when she consented it was only on the condition that her boyfriend be allowed accompany her (Iskin 25). To model for a painting is not something a prostitute would have had any problem with, especially in that day. For Suzon to insist on her boyfriend accompanying her shows how absurd the assumption is that she was a prostitute. This should show her good intentions, however the reputation of the bar and the frequent prostitution and sexual availability of the women is too well known for many to assume she has chaste intentions. More evidence pointing towards the fact that the barmaid is not being used to convey anything specific besides a pretty face is in Juliet Bareaus work, exhibited in The Hidden Face of Manet which was held at the Courtland Institute in April-June of 1986. This work showed through X-ray images that Manet previously included a barmaid who was not Suzon at all, but is very close to the subject of some earlier sketches and studies. The painting that can be seen today then covered up this barmaid that was originally to be used. In the version discovered by X-rays the barmaid is facing left and has her hands at her waist. The viewpoint was originally farther right and lower than in the end product. With these conditions the reflections for the maid, and customer, would be in appropriate positions, the mirrors reflection would be true to life and would not have the seemingly mysterious intentions that it accidentally happened upon in its current condition (de Duve par. 16). This evidence points to the fact that Manet did not have the painting planned out when he began, rather it states rather strongly that the painting matured throughout its execution. The ideas changed as the painting progressed, and they did so drastically enough to show that there could be no distinct meaning in the things he was so vastly changing. The barmaid, throughout the conception of the painting, has changed from a profil...
