Jenn Post 6

Jenn Shea

In the introduction to “Aesthetics and Its Traditions,” Brand and Korsmeyer identify a thesis supported by many theorists that “whatever value art has, it possesses autonomously. The aesthetic qualities of art are thus available for appreciation without reliance on knowledge of anything outside the work of art itself” (16). Despite the fact that this intrinsic appreciation of art would be ideal, common experience of both the human viewing and creation of art suggest otherwise; creating and perceiving art are subject to judgment based on factors such as historical context, race, personal values, and most importantly here, gender.

An important point to consider is that although aesthetics attempts to solely encompass the beauty of an object and not the context, in most cases, a perceiver or an artist determines the beauty of a piece of art by the historical, cultural, religious, or gender context. One idea of feminist aesthetics is to move away from the idea of aesthetics being autonomous from context. Gender affects both the perceiver and the creator of the artwork in such a way that women are typecast into having particular roles or forms in works of art and are thus seen in certain and usually erotic or sensual ways by the viewer. As the artist, the woman, who should have a more feminine gaze, is still subject to the common male gaze or is disregarded as an artist with claims that her work is “low” art.

One main theme that Devereaux and Brand and Korsmeyer discuss is the prevalence of the male gaze in art, whether the gaze is cast by the artist or by the viewer. Devereaux identifies the resulting objectification of women when portrayed through the male gaze: “…to say the gaze is male refers to a way of seeing that takes women as its object. In this broad sense, the gaze is male whenever it directs itself at, and takes pleasure in, women, where women function as erotic objects” (Devereaux121). Devereaux also goes more in-depth on this point, specifically addressing the male gaze in film as the film-maker, actors, and viewers of Hollywood are all involved in this male objectification and sensual portrayal of women in order to please the male viewer. In addition, she states, “…the spectator’s gaze is male in two senses, both in its direction at women as objects of erotic fascination and in its identification with the male protagonist” (133). She also argues that regardless of whether or not the viewer or creator is male, the gaze is always male-dominated. From this point of view, women are objectified in art and are depicted most often as erotic and sensual as to please the heterosexual male eye. Devereaux argues further that women also view art through a male gaze because they “judge themselves according to internalized standards of what is pleasing to men” (122). Another main change involved in the feminist movement can be seen in the Guerilla Girls posters that can be seen in the class power point that satirically point out that in order for art to be enjoyable and to be recognized as good art, it must in some way objectify women and show them without clothing on.

In this painting “Jupiter and Antiope, 1851” by Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres, Jupiter (or Zeus is Greek mythology) is seen watching Antiope, a naked woman laying on the ground. The painter not only portrays a sense of a dominant male that the viewer would relate to in the context of the painting in referencing the forceful capture of Antiope by Jupiter; he also portrays Antiope in a very sensual way with the way he positions her body. Her body encompasses the ideal curvy female physique in an arguably sexually inviting position. It is also interesting to note that in this painting, Zeus’ genitals remained concealed by a bush, while Antiope’s breast are plainly visible. This also shows how this piece of art was directed to please the heterosexual male viewer.

In contrast, this painting of Frida Kahlo’s, “The Broken Columb” portrays a nude woman, but rather than portraying her sensually in order to please the male eye, Kahlo makes the woman’s face seem very masculine in its features and makes what would be an ideal feminine physique grotesque by splitting it in two and by sowing nails sticking out of it. This, although in context actually representative of the injury Kahlo received in a bus accident, reminded me of the Hannah Wilke art from the movie clip about the feminist artist in that at first, the male gaze would be drawn to the presentation of the woman’s body but would then lose interest when realizing that the woman is not being eroticized. To some, the Wilke art in which she places gum all over her body or takes photos of herself as an aged woman may seem almost degenerate and inappropriate, but they actually put an interesting spin on the portrayal of women’s bodies and how individuals in today’s society only want view them in their most perfect and ideal form. I found some of the reactions among my classmates about that video clip quite interesting as just because she had gum on her body, her nudity was seen as more insulting and less artistic.

Another way in which gender affects art is within the idea that male art was once and perhaps still is considered to be superior to the work of female artists. Male artists were looked at as genius and creators of fine art. In reference to the quotes from philosophists Hume and Heidegger involving timeless great art, Brand and Korsmeyer state, “However, the collateral ideas that are invoked to explain the timeless value of art are ones that have come in for sharp critique from feminists. The brief quotes above indicate, for example, 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” (Brand, Korsmeyer 6-7). One of the objectives of feminist theory is to eliminate rigid ways of looking and defining art. From Brand and Korsmeyer, “As with earlier anti-essentialism, definitions of ‘art’ were rejected. To feminists, they were seen as limiting and oppressive: privileging ‘high’ art over low, ‘fine’ art over craft, men’s art over women’s” (10-11). To men, women’s art was seen as simply a craft and was not taken as seriously. The idea of defining art by the use of techniques in order to place a value on it was something that feminists strongly opposed as the emphasized the individual defining art according to his or her own values and experiences.

This is a painting by Georgia O’Keeffe called “Ice Cave.” When asked whether or not she was a feminist, she said she was not but it is argued that not only this painting, but many others, look like portrayals of a vagina. This would be considered to be lower feminine art because it is more of a social commentary on the idea of portraying the female body; it is not a sensual depiction of the female body that the male gaze would be attracted to. As a feminist and a woman in general, O’Keeffe obviously perceives the female body through a different gaze. The simple fact that the painting is by a feminine painter, regardless of whether or not she was feminist, would also make the perception of the painting much different, because of the perception that Brand and Korsmeyer discuss about how high art and genius were perceived as a patriarchal and masculine forte: “the universal subject is historically situated (masculine, patriarchal, imperialistic); and that the concept of fine or high art, along with the notion of artistic genius, is exclusionary both historically and conceptually” (8).

This type of art reminded me of the Cindy Sherman’s sculptures made from various different materials of very graphic female and sometimes male bodies. Sherman’s art, according to the definition from our visual literacy unit, would not have been considered high art because it is not the type of art you would see in a typical fine arts museum and define as fine in comparison to the type of modern museum sculpture. The exaggeration and boldness of the parts of the body that our society is most concerned about concealing unless it is “tastefully” and artistically portrayed, which to revert to the ‘male gaze’ idea, means that because they are not sensual and eroticizing the ideal female form, they are not very aesthetically pleasing.

In general, these two ideas that feminism brought about in the artistic realm converge into the main idea of rethinking what each of us values in art instead of categorizing ourselves into a “monolithic ‘we’” (Devereaux 136) determined by male versus female art of male versus female gaze. Instead of assuming that all men see pleasure only in art that eroticizes women and that women themselves cannot escape from also viewing art from a male gaze, each individual should seek their own values in art and beauty instead of conforming to the standpoint that has been established through societal norms of viewing. In Devereaux’s article, she suggests that in order to branch out into determining aesthetic merit in painting beyond the male gaze and idea that female art is of lower merit or perhaps simply a craft, a female gaze be developed: “Creating new artistic traditions provides an alternative to the passive reception of dominant traditions. This strategy is more often described as creating a female voice or female gaze. It allows women to write their own texts, their own history” (138). Whether or not that is possible is hard to determine, as individuals are so accustomed to the standards of viewing of today's society including how, as a comparatively modest culture, we view nudity in different art forms and also how we relate to men or women within art, as apparently even women have been coerced into conforming to the male point of view as a spectator. It's interesting to wonder if it is possible, after so many generations have been subject to viewing and creating from a common perspective, individuals can train themselves create or view art without, for example, any objectification or biased gender standpoints.