Through even the most perfunctory reading of Gauguin’s exceedingly abundant narrative/commentary on his life in the isles of French colonized Tahiti, Martinique, and Polynesia, one can understand the reductive quality of the aforementioned criticism.

The two principle reasons Gauguin painted M.t. were to address his distaste for Manet’s Olympia and his ambivalence concerning colonialism. Manet’s Olympia possesses a subject described by many as seductive, inviting, and erotic. Olympia’s viewers feel solicited, if not appealed to come into Olympia’s bed to enjoy her pleasures.

Gauguin expresses his disfavor of this female allurer by making M.t’s viewers feel almost shameful for the entreaties. Tehura, Gauguin’s long-time mistress and subject for M.t., lies frightfully on her stomach exactly opposite the stance of Olympia. Her face evokes auras of fear, abandonment, and contempt – also directly contrasting Manet’s subject. M.t.’s viewer cannot feel the same invitation, if anything he should feel rejection and scorn.

So, what else can we glean from M.t. on the subject of colonialism? With Tehura serving as any indicator, we simply understand that we can’t empathize with her strife. The viewer’s occupation of her home, and attempt at her, cannot be comprehended from the recipient’s end – colonialism can’t be understood via Colonizers to Colonized. Also, let the viewer begin to question the significance of the ominous figure overseeing Tehura. Dark, without discernable shape, and alarming; Gauguin’s reflection on colonialism should be overt.