Amanda Dhillon
Gender seems to have a very strong relation to the formal components of art and of artistic choices, particularly when it comes to images. Devereaux argues that gender creates a bias on an entire work of art because the piece, whether by man or woman, is made to be viewed through what she calls the “male gaze” (Devereaux 121.) Essentially, this means that society throughout history was and still is (to varying degrees) patriarchal and structured to please and appeal to the male population. This is no different, then, in the art world as well. The focus of the art, the artistic choices and formal composition, are defined by what the male viewer will want to see. For instance, two paintings by seventeenth century artist Sir Peter Lely, Margaret Hughes and Eleanor Gwyn, both portraying two young mistresses of two different kings, are geared toward the male viewer. First of all, they are portraits painted of the mistresses of powerful men. This in itself instantly objectifies the women in the pieces, demonstrating the degradation of the female in art into a sensual object for the pleasure of the male audience. Second, Lely portrays each of them in a rather seductive pose and had chosen to position their bodices open (in the case of Margaret Hughes) or falling suggestively off the shoulders (in the painting of Eleanor Gwyn), which is quite obviously an example of a formal component of the piece that the male artist chose to depict as such in order to give the overall composition a sense of sensuality and make it pleasing to the men who will be viewing it. As for the women in the portraits, they end up becoming mere objects on display for the gazes of men. Even women artists in history have fallen victim to the widespread influence of the “male gaze.” Marguerite Gérard’s Prelude to a Concert contains formal elements and compositional choices that create a sensual mood and make the subject, a woman about to rehearse a musical piece with a male accompanist, appear as a stereotypical woman, objectified and unable to contain her emotions around a man. At the surface, the artist’s choice of subject shows how women were considered objects not only in art but in life, as the woman needed to be proficient, to a degree, in the arts in order to have worth in the eyes of a society of men; she herself is an object that should have aesthetic and cultural value apart from the painting. Beyond this, the artist made the formal decisions to clothe her subject in an attention-grabbling white gown, which connotes physical purity, to fashion her expression into one of wonder and adoration at her male counterpart, and to include symbols of sensuality (www.nmwa.org) These would be the contrasting figures of the dog, which supposedly symbolizes “fidelity,” and a cat, which stands for “sexual promiscuity,” as well as the guitar, which the man holds and which represents the “female form” (www.nmwa.org.) These artistic choices influence the piece (perhaps subliminally and unknowingly) in favor of the male viewer through the woman’s transformation into an object filled with sexual desire for her male accompanist and the representations of the traditional role and expectations of women in the patriarchal society.
Gender also determines, according to authors Brand and Korsmeyer, the value of a work of art, defining “fine art” from “craft.” She points out how the “artistic Genius” (Brand 6) is only applied to the art of men, making it “fine art,” or an aesthetic masterpiece created purely to be admired for its beauty. On the other hand, then, women can only make “crafts” and other objects that are not considered artistically genius because they have function beyond decoration. For example, the eighteenth century female silversmith Elizabeth Godfrey created exquisite pieces such as the George II tea caddy and other detailed, embellished daily items. Though her work is undoubtedly beautiful and she enjoyed some success as a female silversmith, her art is not considered “fine art” in the way that, say, her contemporary Maurice de la Tour’s Madame Pompadour is; Godfrey creates everyday, useful objects such as tea sets, which in the male-dominated society do not achieve recognition as a piece created solely for its aesthetics. Therefore, the value of the woman’s art is lowered through societal standards established by men. It would also seem, then, that gender does have at least some influence in the “type of art produced by women” (Brand 16), and it might be true that this comes directly from the way that the patriarchal society regarded (and in some ways still does regard) females. Perhaps a connection can be drawn between a woman who is expected to work with household objects of everyday (quilts, clothing, cooking ware, serving ware, etc.) and the art that she makes being overwhelmingly domestic in nature or dealing with clothing and fashion, as they are the only aspects of life she knows well (or was allowed to participate in historically.) Accordingly, then, the female artist’s choices in creating a piece are governed by what is made familiar to her through the knowledge that a male-dominated society has allowed her to acquire.
Images used:
Madame Pompadour: http://www.all-art.org/rococo/images/boucher/Pompadour1.jpg
George II tea caddy: http://www.nmwa.org/collection/detail.asp?WorkID=5113
Eleanor Gwyn: http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/GRAPHICS/GALLERY/ENLIGHT/GWYN.JPG
Margaret Hughes: http://www.kipar.org/period-galleries/paintings/1670/hughes.jpg
Prelude to a Concert: http://www.bluffton.edu/courses/womenartists/womenartistspw/gerard/concert.jpg
No comments:
Post a Comment