Devereaux’s main point in her article, Oppressive Texts, etc. is that art created in the Western world almost from the beginning of time has been created within the parameters of the “male gaze”. This means that the creator, the created, the viewer for whom the art is created and the viewer who perceives the created art all have a view that is somehow affected by the patriarchal society in which the art, artist and viewer exist. Even if the artist, subject matter, and viewer are female, the art can still be considered to be affected by the male gaze. Devereaux calls this male gaze, “a way of seeing that takes women as its object” and quotes Laura Mavey who says, “Man is the bearer of the gaze, woman its object.” (Deveraux) This means that women are considered pleasing subject matter, that they are appreciated for their aesthetic value and that the art portraying them is directed at a male audience. However, this gaze applies even when women are not the sole subject matter of men the sole viewer, because of the traditions surrounding the creation and viewing of art. As Devereaux points out, “All vision is colored by the spectacles through which we see the world.” (Deveraux). Any artist who is educated and who creates within a patriarchal society will consciously or not create art that caters to the male gaze, unless he or she makes an effort to do otherwise, and even in doing this, he or she will be acknowledging the male gaze by specifically striving against it. Any viewer with the same background or education will also struggle to avoid viewing things through the lenses created by the male driven society. As Devereaux explains, “The spectator’s gaze is male in two senses, both in the direction at women as objects of erotic fascination and its in identification with the male protagonist.” (Devereaux).
So, in terms of images, the male gaze lets the artist make one of two decisions: to create art that
fits within the parameters created by the male gaze, or to acknowledge the male gaze and the requirements it usually creates and to fight against these. Even in acknowledging these requirements though, feminist art empowers the male simply by trying to break away from it. In the case of art Judy Chicago’s “Dinner Party” female figures of the past are saluted and given importance in their own fields. However, even this piece makes something of a specatacle of the female body by making each of the “plates” at the individual place settings more and more elaborate and eventually turning them into sculptural pieces resembling vaginas. While this gives the piece a powerful visual component, it also calls attention to the sexuality of women (not necessarily a bad thing) but it shifts the viewer’s gaze back to the very thing a feminist piece might be struggling to escape. If an artist wants to
escape the stereotypes created by the male gaze, might he or she not create something that does not strive to be interesting visually by displaying sexuality.
Cindy Sherman’s Sex series pieces strike me as much the same. Here we are presented with strangely grotesque figures with overlarge breasts, bent in awkward positions, and all explicitly sexual in one way or another. This art seems to be aimed at shocking the viewer and creating some sort of dialogue about the fact that women are commoditized or stereotyped by their appearance. While this is a valid point to be making, and I guess I agree with the message she wants to send about the inequalities/double standard created by the male gaze, I think in a way she creates works of art that somehow also fit into this culture. Her later work, in which she mocks film stills and looks at stereotypical female poses and roles, I think function almost as well, if not better, without the
shock value created in the early work. In these black and white stills she seems to create a more subtle critique that does not sexualize the women as much. However, she is still portraying the female for observation by the male. Maybe art cannot change culture; maybe culture has to change before art can be viewed outside of the male gaze. 
Devereaux quotes Sandra Batky in saying, ““girls learn to appraise themselves as they are shortly to be appraised” (and) in this sense, the eyes are female, but the gaze is male” (Devereaux). She discusses the male gaze in film, and how even though the filmmaker may be female, the film is still made for a male artist, and the subject matter still caters to men. Devereaux explains that women can still take part and enjoy this viewing because “ the spectator (can) revert at least imaginatively, to the active independence of what Freud termed the female child’s ‘early masculine period”. In this phase, she takes pleasure in a freedom that correct femininity will later repress.” (Devereaux) So, Devereaux allows that the female can take pleasure in the male gaze, but that she must do it from a prepubescent masculine time in her life.
I think the problem with this argument is that it almost doesn’t allow for a feminine appreciation of art, without admitting to masculine qualities. Thus, any female who appreciates art seems to be supporting a male dominated society. Devereaux states that art is controlled by the male gaze, that it is thus dominated no matter who makes it nor who views it, and seems to allow for almost no ability to change this domination. She questions the cannon, she questions the idea of universal art, she questions any way of viewing art outside of its political and social implications. While I don’t disagree with her, I really wonder if there is any way for art to change itself. I think culture and society must change before art can be viewed in anyway other than by the male gaze.
Brand and Korsymeyer agree with Devereaux when she points out that “the value of art is linked with the special mind of artists, and thus these theories give rise to a picture of the artistic Genius, a figure deeply inflected with masculine properties both historically and conceptually”, so that any idea of traditional artistic qualities becomes marred (at least in the eyes of the feminist) by the masculine ideal. (Brand) Any idea of an artistic “master” or artistic genius becomes firmly entrenched in the masculine ideal because all of the master throughout the history of art have been male, and the genius masculine, and all of the artists and critics male. Thus, a feminist looking at most accepted traditions in art must reject them for being male. However, in recent years the knowledge of past women artists has increased, as more classes are being taught about their existence in the past, and more opportunities are opening up at galleries and in exhibitions as the workforce in general allows for more female. This article stresses the gap between the study of aesthetics, philosophy of art, and feminism. Brand points out that, “Subjects mentioning women and gender have been very difficult to insert into analytic philosophy generally, for the simple reason that no such topics were considered “philosophical”. Part of the early resistance of analytic philosophy to the advent of feminist philosophy feminist perspectives in scholarship stemmed from the belief that subjects that specify gender digress into another discipline, one that deals in empirical data but not the abstract theorizing that marks philosophy.” (Brand) So, even art philosophers seem to reject feminism as being too grounded in the mundane and everyday problems of representation, viewership, etc.
It seems that, again, feminist issues with inclusion and equality are avoided for the sake of the male gaze, and the fact that the very philosophers who are excluding them are doing so due to the idea of their insignificance as a discipline.
While female artists are more common now then they have ever been, or are more commonly recognized now than they have ever been, there is still an under-representation, and a devaluation of the female art. Still, the work of women like Eva Hesse is seen as more craft-based and “feminine” than the heavier structure of artists such as Richard Serra or Donald Judd. Although, again, I doubt that the artists themselves can make much of a difference in this department, the fact that women are being included in exhibitions, and their works taught in classes, does mean that the culture is moving towards a more inclusive canon.
So, in terms of images, the male gaze lets the artist make one of two decisions: to create art that
fits within the parameters created by the male gaze, or to acknowledge the male gaze and the requirements it usually creates and to fight against these. Even in acknowledging these requirements though, feminist art empowers the male simply by trying to break away from it. In the case of art Judy Chicago’s “Dinner Party” female figures of the past are saluted and given importance in their own fields. However, even this piece makes something of a specatacle of the female body by making each of the “plates” at the individual place settings more and more elaborate and eventually turning them into sculptural pieces resembling vaginas. While this gives the piece a powerful visual component, it also calls attention to the sexuality of women (not necessarily a bad thing) but it shifts the viewer’s gaze back to the very thing a feminist piece might be struggling to escape. If an artist wants to
escape the stereotypes created by the male gaze, might he or she not create something that does not strive to be interesting visually by displaying sexuality.Cindy Sherman’s Sex series pieces strike me as much the same. Here we are presented with strangely grotesque figures with overlarge breasts, bent in awkward positions, and all explicitly sexual in one way or another. This art seems to be aimed at shocking the viewer and creating some sort of dialogue about the fact that women are commoditized or stereotyped by their appearance. While this is a valid point to be making, and I guess I agree with the message she wants to send about the inequalities/double standard created by the male gaze, I think in a way she creates works of art that somehow also fit into this culture. Her later work, in which she mocks film stills and looks at stereotypical female poses and roles, I think function almost as well, if not better, without the
shock value created in the early work. In these black and white stills she seems to create a more subtle critique that does not sexualize the women as much. However, she is still portraying the female for observation by the male. Maybe art cannot change culture; maybe culture has to change before art can be viewed outside of the male gaze. 
Devereaux quotes Sandra Batky in saying, ““girls learn to appraise themselves as they are shortly to be appraised” (and) in this sense, the eyes are female, but the gaze is male” (Devereaux). She discusses the male gaze in film, and how even though the filmmaker may be female, the film is still made for a male artist, and the subject matter still caters to men. Devereaux explains that women can still take part and enjoy this viewing because “ the spectator (can) revert at least imaginatively, to the active independence of what Freud termed the female child’s ‘early masculine period”. In this phase, she takes pleasure in a freedom that correct femininity will later repress.” (Devereaux) So, Devereaux allows that the female can take pleasure in the male gaze, but that she must do it from a prepubescent masculine time in her life.
I think the problem with this argument is that it almost doesn’t allow for a feminine appreciation of art, without admitting to masculine qualities. Thus, any female who appreciates art seems to be supporting a male dominated society. Devereaux states that art is controlled by the male gaze, that it is thus dominated no matter who makes it nor who views it, and seems to allow for almost no ability to change this domination. She questions the cannon, she questions the idea of universal art, she questions any way of viewing art outside of its political and social implications. While I don’t disagree with her, I really wonder if there is any way for art to change itself. I think culture and society must change before art can be viewed in anyway other than by the male gaze.
Brand and Korsymeyer agree with Devereaux when she points out that “the value of art is linked with the special mind of artists, and thus these theories give rise to a picture of the artistic Genius, a figure deeply inflected with masculine properties both historically and conceptually”, so that any idea of traditional artistic qualities becomes marred (at least in the eyes of the feminist) by the masculine ideal. (Brand) Any idea of an artistic “master” or artistic genius becomes firmly entrenched in the masculine ideal because all of the master throughout the history of art have been male, and the genius masculine, and all of the artists and critics male. Thus, a feminist looking at most accepted traditions in art must reject them for being male. However, in recent years the knowledge of past women artists has increased, as more classes are being taught about their existence in the past, and more opportunities are opening up at galleries and in exhibitions as the workforce in general allows for more female. This article stresses the gap between the study of aesthetics, philosophy of art, and feminism. Brand points out that, “Subjects mentioning women and gender have been very difficult to insert into analytic philosophy generally, for the simple reason that no such topics were considered “philosophical”. Part of the early resistance of analytic philosophy to the advent of feminist philosophy feminist perspectives in scholarship stemmed from the belief that subjects that specify gender digress into another discipline, one that deals in empirical data but not the abstract theorizing that marks philosophy.” (Brand) So, even art philosophers seem to reject feminism as being too grounded in the mundane and everyday problems of representation, viewership, etc.
It seems that, again, feminist issues with inclusion and equality are avoided for the sake of the male gaze, and the fact that the very philosophers who are excluding them are doing so due to the idea of their insignificance as a discipline.
While female artists are more common now then they have ever been, or are more commonly recognized now than they have ever been, there is still an under-representation, and a devaluation of the female art. Still, the work of women like Eva Hesse is seen as more craft-based and “feminine” than the heavier structure of artists such as Richard Serra or Donald Judd. Although, again, I doubt that the artists themselves can make much of a difference in this department, the fact that women are being included in exhibitions, and their works taught in classes, does mean that the culture is moving towards a more inclusive canon.
No comments:
Post a Comment