which feature is considered romantic in the grand odalisque by ingres
For more about the impact of Ingres’ art on twentieth century artists, see: Classical Revival in modern art (1900-30).
La Grande Odalisque (1814) by J.A.D. Ingres.
Regarded as one of the greatest modern paintings of the 19th century.
Another interpretation of this painting suggests that since the duty of some concubines was merely to satisfy the carnal pleasures of the sultan, this elongation of her pelvic area may have been a symbolic distortion by Ingres. While this may represent sensuous feminine beauty, her gaze, on the other hand, has been said to “[reflect] a complex psychological make-up” or “[betray] no feeling”. In addition, the distance between her gaze and her pelvic region may be a physical representation of the depth of thought and complex emotions of a woman’s thoughts and feelings. 
Grande Odalisque, also known as Une Odalisque or La Grande Odalisque, is an oil painting of 1814 by Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres depicting an odalisque, or concubine. Ingres’ contemporaries considered the work to signify Ingres’ break from Neoclassicism, indicating a shift toward exotic Romanticism.
 Davies et al., Janson’s History of Art, 837.
As mentioned earlier, La Grande Odalisque was commissioned not just by any woman, but by Caroline Bonaparte Murat, the youngest of Napoleon’s three sisters and Queen of Naples from 1808 to 1815 under Napoleon’s regime. Several theories and speculations demonstrate that the painting was most likely meant as a present for her husband, Joachim Murat. This results in research that brings back the focus to the man – overlooking the agency of Murat herself in commissioning and enjoying the painting. The fact that a woman commissioned notably this painting, understood as a symbol of patriarchal art and the objectification of women, engages with and complicates notions of female spectatorship and the “feminine” taste. It dismantles assumptions about pleasure, power and the gaze. The historical case of women actively collecting and appreciating eroticized nudes in the early nineteenth century contradicts traditional feminist views on Ingres’ work (and, of course, work of other artists as well). It calls into question the assumption that erotic depictions always have been the sole arena of men and that the pleasure in looking has been a male-only prerogative and a heteronormative enterprise.
In 1829 Ingres had been named professor at the Йcole des Beaux-Arts, and in 1834 and 1850 he served as president of that institution. But already by 1833 he stood accused of artistic imperialism—of attempting to impose his personal style on the entire French school of painting. Such charges dominated the critical discourse in 1834, when the artist exhibited the “Martyrdom of Saint-Symphorien” (St. Lazare Cathedral, Autun). Rumoured beforehand to be his definitive masterpiece, this monumental religious canvas was violently attacked by critics on the political and cultural left and was defended no less vehemently by Ingres’s allies on the right. Deeply wounded by the lack of universal approbation, the notoriously hypersensitive Ingres announced his intention never again to exhibit at the Salon. He also solicited and received the post of director of the French Academy in Rome, and set off for Italy in 1834.
Roger Freeing Angelica
The antagonism seems to have extended into the personal. In 1883, the New York Times featured a surprisingly gossipy account of a party in which the two stars had a confrontation. The famously testy Ingres doesn’t come across too well in the exchange:
Left: Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres | Self Portrait, 1858 | Galleria degli Uffizi Image and original data provided by SCALA, Florence/ART RESOURCE, N.Y. artres.com | (c) 2006, SCALA, Florence / ART RESOURCE, N.Y. Right: Eugène Delacroix | Self-Portrait, c. 1837 | Musée du Louvre | Image and original data provided by Erich Lessing Culture and Fine Arts Archives/ART RESOURCE, N.Y. artres.com