Brand and Korsmeyer suggest the possibility that the genders of the artists “are to count as properties of works of art and to be recognized as aesthetically relevant” (Brand 16). But as Devereux points out, it is not exactly the gender of the artist that is important, but rather the gender of the artist’s perspective. Devereaux recognizes that “both men and women have learned to see the world through male eyes.” This is to say that women have come to judge through the accepted “standards of what is pleasing to men” (Devereaux 122). With this knowledge we see the argument that gender matters to the creation of art. While Brand and Korsemeyer merely offer the suggestion in their “Introduction,” Devereaux delves further and offers the example of film who is created by women but that are still manipulated by the male gaze: Maya Deren, Dorothy Arzner, Leni Riefenstahl (Devereaux 126). This is not only attributed to the traditional method of evaluating previously discussed, but also to the system in which the art is produced and who is in control of this system. Devereaux notes that “not all films have male authors, but whoever makes movies must work nonetheless within a system owned and operated by men” (Devereaux 126). The same can be said of pieces of art other than film. With this analysis, it becomes apparent that we must not only examine who is creating these images, but who will be the exhibitioner of the product.
Both of these pieces of work are created by women. They also portray exactly what Devereaux discusses in terms of seeing art through the “male gaze” whether a person is male or female (Devereax 122). Both pieces here portray the woman’s body as a sensual object—the curves of the woman’s figure being more colorfully displayed in the first image than the blunt focus on the genitalia of the women in the second image. Devereaux claims that “movies promote a way of seeing that takes man as subject, woman as object” (Devereaux 127). This applies to other forms of art as well, such as we see with the pieces I have selected above. The women are portrayed as objects of sexual desire, which reveals the male gaze through which these women artists created their work.
Gender also matters in the aspect of accepting art. If the female viewer in possession of the male gaze observes pieces of work that portray the female as an object, then a “level of female narcissism” can be manifested in her acceptance of the art (Devereaux 130). Through objectifying art containing women, one can distinguish the “assignment of positions” that the woman embodies (Devereaux 130). For example, in the following painting artist Velazquez portrays the goddess Venus being shown a mirror as she poses nude. Her expression is of pleasurable content. With this we can infer that she has not only accepted her role as the object of a male gaze in this painting, but she has embraced it. This is the “female narcissism” Devereaux describes, and it is an important factor in the power structure between the object and its onlooker. If such pride is taken in being the admired object, then we can also question the responsibility for the oppression of women as objects. Placing some amount of responsibility in the hands of women does not justify female oppression whatsoever. What it can do, though, is identify an important element in the removal of this oppression—the responsibility of women as the oppressed to change their own perspectives as well as men.
No comments:
Post a Comment