An oft-observed but barely noted fact frequently arises in elementary education: girls are better at reading books with male protagonists than boys are at reading books with female protagonists. It’s a matter of relation; the girls have learned how to relate to character such as Huck Finn, even though the boys cannot properly relate to Jo March. The male perspective so completely permeates our culture that everyone is capable of, if not thinking in it themselves, at the very least understanding it and relating to it.
This clearly relates to the issue of the “male gaze” that Deveraeux describes. The way that men think, the way they see the world, has had so much influence for so long that it is accepted as a background fact without any serious thought (the way geocentricism used to be assumed and the way that heliocentricism is now assumed). One might hold out hope that art would be relatively free from such pervasive and gendered assumptions, given art’s history as progressive. Alas, this is not the case. For centuries most of the art that was created was created by men and for men. Art was not considered a respectable or fulfilling career for women, and interestingly this message was conveyed to the masses by the art itself. As Deveraeux points comments women have been portrayed in modern media, especially film, as falling into certain generally stereotypes of the good girl (who gets the “happy” ending), the bad girl (who suffers or dies), and the dutiful wife (presumably what the good girl will someday become). This is probably part of why the male-dominance of the artistic sphere has lasted as long as it has; once men had control, they reinforced their position by articulating their arguments in a non-propositional format that became part of the social norm.
In many ways this still continues today. Brand and Korsmeyer address this in their essay; the fields of aesthetics and philosophy of art are still taught with a primary basis on the works of all male philosophers (Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, Heidegger, Foucault, and Derrida). Even with the rise of feminist artists and theoreticians, the problem still exists. By separating themselves such they almost empower the dominant male gaze that they seek to undermine. They try to highlight the assumptions that we normally make, and we can in fact be made aware of some of these, but a true paradigm shift, as Deveraeux mentions, might well be impossible (and if possible, equally problematic). For us to adopt a new paradigm, we would need a new set of assumptions to automatically make. This was much of Thomas Kuhn’s point when he initially detailed paradigms.
Brand and Korsmeyer also raise an interesting obstacle for feminist aesthetics (if there is one such thing) to overcome. Philosophically speaking, feminism runs fairly contemporarily both in time and in ideology with post-modernism. However, post-modernism would have us consider nothing in the work of at intrinsic; existentially, we ascribe all meaning to the work. If we are ascribing meaning to the work, then the male gaze is something that we attribute to the work. That would make this more of a sociological and anthropological issue than an artistic or aesthetic one.
How do we combat the issue of male dominance and the gaze in art then, especially if feminist critiques and interpretations and movements might actually be hurting the cause? I think the best bet is to simply flood the realms of art, film, literature, and media with women creators. Yes, they might still be operating under a certain paradigm, but given enough influence the one-sidedness of the paradigm would dissolve. It would be important to focus on them as artists, rather than women artists. The women artists in history (the few we know of) should be presented to classes as artists just like the rest. I think people of our generation are ready to put aside as much of the overt male-dominance as possible. The unintentional, universal dominance of male thinking and seeing will be harder to correct, but I think over time it might decrease (and in fact, I suspect it already is).
This first work might remind some of us of the various images depicting the mythical judgment of
This second image at first would appear to have absolutely nothing in common with the first other than the presence of a woman. The woman in this Mary Cassatt painting is fully clothed, and there is no male around to gaze upon her or objectify her. Arguably, however, Cassatt is still suffering from a male-dominated paradigm, and her paintings reflect this subconscious viewpoint. Cassatt was one of the first women to obtain the degree of fame which she did for painting (at least in post-medieval
How does this play into the stereotypes and assumptions of the male gaze paradigm? By reinforcing the concept of a woman’s place. Women are depicted here as mothers, safely in the home and going about their domestic duties. This depiction only reinforces assumptions and undermines women’s ability to lead successful, fulfilling lives outside of the domestic sphere.
This painting is even more straightforward in its depictions of the male paradigm. Not only has the male gaze returned in the form of the knight and the viewer’s reaction to the naked female, but said female is also helpless and must be rescued by the knight. It’s no real surprise to discover that the work was painted by a man (one John Millais). The rescuing of a beautiful (and naked) damsel in distress is a very stereotypical image; in fact, it seems clichéd enough that it might well be a common male fantasy that is played out in art, literature, and film time and time again. This time the title refers to the male, and indeed the action of the male is indeed the central focus of the painting; the female exists as a goal and a background object to be saved and viewed.
This last image is a moderately famous painting by Georgia O’Keefe. It should be fairly evident to most viewers that the flower, the black iris of the title, is also meant to represent female genitalia and reproductive organs. O’Keefe herself would no doubt give very articulated responses as to why she chose to paint this picture, and it is likely that none of them has anything to do with playing into male dominant paradigms. This being said, a feminist could critique the work and say that the assumptions and underlying beliefs have influenced her subconsciously nonetheless.
The picture seems to be equating women’s sexuality with a flower. Flowers are rather universally accepted examples of beauty, and women are often compared to flowers to describe their beauty. However, there is a sexual element to this. Sleeping with a virgin is described as deflowering her. Pollination takes on highly sexual overtones. The feminist might argue that O’Keefe is putting women’s sexuality on display as on object of beauty for males to view. The gaze is back, but this time it appears to be created by a female. If this is genuinely the case, it argues strongly for just how pervasive the male way of seeing truly is.
All images are taken from Artstor.
No comments:
Post a Comment