Ted Henderson Post 6

Many Feminist Theorists of the past century or so have asserted that art, throughout most of its history, in its creation, critique, and public viewing, has been in favor of, be it subconsciously or not, the male gender and its patriarchal standing. That is to say that art, for the most part, is a medium created with consideration of a male agenda, scholastically and professionally assessed by those with the same gender norms in mind, and ultimately seen by the general public through a set of eyes unconsciously biased towards predominately “male” dispositions. The same Feminist commentators have presented many specific examples, theories, and overall evidence to support the belief that both those who create and those who view art are internally biased towards an overall male standard. Two of the numerous reasons given for such a masculine dominance of and in art that I will be focusing on, two reasons that structurally coincide and support each other as otherwise singularly less convincing arguments, are the thought that the feminine form, when displayed in artwork, is given a passive nature and is seemingly without voice or opinion, while the both the creator and “he” who perceives art assume and are assumed to have a dominant, non-passive viewpoint, opinion, and voice.

One of the most prominent claims in support of the Feminist belief that art has been historically prejudice against women is the manner by which women are depicted in the majority of artworks displaying feminine images. As Mary Devereaux states in her article, Oppressive Texts, Resisting Readers and the Gendered Spectator: The “New” Aesthetics, women, unlike men, “…do not learn to describe the world from their own point of view…she finds her identity as the object of men’s desire.” This is certainly a bold and possibly overly general statement to make concerning women as an entire gender of individuals, but not without substantial grounds. It is a widely discussed and agreed upon thought in not only America but many other countries of today’s modern world that females, for centuries, and perhaps throughout all of history, but certainly now more than ever, have been constantly encouraged, either by the media, peers, mentors, or other means, to strive for seemingly unobtainable levels of physical and seductive beauty. Many women and certainly any feminist would blame these ever present and ever unachievable standards of beauty on the similarly constant male obsession with female eroticism and sheer lust for those of the female gender. Certainly, this “hound-dog” image of men is equally as stereotypical as many of the erotic, robust images of women displayed in art of many mediums (painting, sketch, sculpture, film, etc.), but it is undeniable that such submissive images of women in art have so thrived throughout history because of the distinctly “male” appreciation for such visual feminine sensuality. Thus, one must consider the possibility that, because of being so constantly presented, via art, with these images of beauty and seduction, a typical woman growing up in our society might in turn model herself after such images, and by unconsciously submitting to gaining her identity from objectified images of other women, will slowly but surely lose her voice as an individual with her own desires and views which are, in reality, just as important as those of the very men whose depictions of her gender she models herself after.

A possible counterargument to the claim that women are depicted in an extremely

Physically objectified and submissive manner is that men have been displayed in a similar manner in art throughout its history. In the case of this direct argument with Feminist claims, one must consider overall similarities and differences between the images of men and women shown in art. In doing this, with some simple research of art from numerous historical periods (something which will be done as this assignment proceeds), one will hopefully come to the quick realization that in a manner very dissimilar to the, again, submissive, objectified, sensual manner by which women have been predominately displayed in art in many different societies and time periods, men have, for the most part, been seen in art as a far more individualized, dominant, heroic, stronger group of beings.

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2004/05/25/michelangelodavid,0.jpg

Take, for example, Michelangelo’s Statue of David, a vastly famous sculpture of the masculine form that, in its obvious appearance of physical strength, in its self-assured scour, and, because of its sheer size, in the manner by which it seems to tower over, and thus in some way hold power over its viewer, it is the epitome of the aforementioned masculinity so typical of, well, of males depicted historically in art. The male image that Michelangelo had created was one with which men would wish to identify themselves not because of his being an “object” and submissive in the eyes of the opposite sex, but because of the dominance, strength, and self-reliance that his physical characteristics embodied.

http://www.deanesmay.com/files/Laurore.jpg

In stark contrast to Michelangelo’s Statue of David, this painting by nineteenth century French realist William Bouguereau displays an extremely objectified image of a nude woman. Unlike the sense of independence and strength which is inherent in Michelangelo’s David, the woman in this painting seems to be of a much weaker, flakier, and entirely more sensual breed. As she daintily “glides” across the painting’s landscape, this woman appears utterly more submissive to both her environment and her viewer than a masculine form such as David, and thus it could be said that her strength and individuality are lost as soon as she becomes an object to be desired and viewed rather than a voice to be heard. The figure shown in the Statue of David is not an “object” of desire in the same sense because, in the manner by which the statue was conceived, this David appears completely unobtainable because of his dominant physic, dominant pose, and dominant size. Such a figure undoubtedly strikes much more of a sense of unconscious awe and even fear into its audience, being untouchable in an almost God-like sense. On the opposing side of the spectrum, the woman in Bouguereau’s painting is in no way intimidating or imposing to its viewer, nor does she possess any seemingly awe-inspiring qualities other than her physical beauty. She exists merely as an example of feminine beauty, or rather, an “object” of beauty, and thus seems to exhibit far less personality and implied “voice” than the case Michelangelo’s David. With enough repeated examples of these very different interpretations of women and men in art, though certainly I am not making the claim that all men and women are depicted in this exact manner by all artists, but perhaps over an extended period of time, such dominant male forms and submissive female forms might be assumed to have aided in priming and reaffirming the dominance of the male gender over females in countless societies.

http://www.superstock.com/search/Maternal/art

A noticeable recurring theme in art displaying feminine subjects is maternity. In fact, in nearly any period of history, one will notice a rather sizeable amount of pieces depicting

the loving nature of the relationships between mother and child. Feminists, such as Mary Devereaux find that, in a male dominated society, women are encouraged to view this maternal role as their most important calling during their adult life and that for a woman to neglect the possibility of mothering children and thus creating and caring for a family is to reject her lifetime responsibilities and duties. As Devereaux puts it, “The message is that for a woman, unlike for a man, the satisfactions of solitude, work, or adventure cannot compare to those of caring for a husband and children,” (Oppressive Texts, Resisting Readers, and the Gendered Spectator: The “New” Aesthetics). The thought can

certainly can be given some merit that, because of the numerous pieces of artwork throughout history that display women carrying out the role of mothers, that perhaps this array of maternal art does pose as an influence on women to act out the role of motherhood as a sort of expected duty. Obviously, Feminists reject the belief that this role of mother and wife is necessary in order for a woman to live a truly fulfilling life, and in fact, often acts a hindrance upon women who, if not busy bearing, nursing, and raising children, might find more available time to carry out career and even creative aspirations. Thus, it is understandable why the many images of mother and child that the predominately male medium of art has provided viewers with for past centuries (such as the above work) might pose as a target of great question and criticism for those women (feminists) who believe that, in an oppressively masculine society, the choice of a woman to bear children and mother a family becomes a sort of implied requirement.

A general theory that has been adopted by Feminists concerning art and its history based upon the close examination of these aspects which differ between arts depiction of men and women is that the vast majority of artists assume an overly masculine viewpoint when creating their work and assume their audience to hold the same set of standards and views. This theory consists of a basic thought that, because of the indisputable fact that the male gender has been dominant in any society since the beginning of time, those who create as well as those who view or “perceive” these creations are unconsciously biased in favor of male dominance. Thus, that which artists create unfortunately and almost unavoidably shows signs of this bias, though it is seldom commented on or even noticed by the viewing public because of their own inner bias based on being raised within a patriarchal society that is controlled almost entirely by men. The ultimate goal of

Feminists is obviously to somehow alter the state of art, the sort of biases and masculine standards upon which it is often based, and the similar standards with which it is perceived. Feminist artists and art critics during the middle and latter part of the twentieth century were and still are working towards opening the eyes of artists and the general public alike to the favoritism of men in art throughout its history in hopes that this would and will eventually lessen the level of gender bias within the minds of the many and thus work towards an overall more fair and favorable environment for both male and female artists and art viewers. This goal of Feminists’ is not reserved for the subject of art, and in fact, speaking more generally, the ultimate desire of any Feminist is undoubtedly to create for herself and for any other inhabitants of her society an environment in which both male and female genders are given equal opportunity, treatment, and voice. In this sort of environment, gender equality would extent to any and every aspect of society, including its highly credited and acclaimed artwork, and the manner in which it is perceived and appreciated by the public. Mary Devereaux quotes Griselda Pollock in Oppressive Texts, Resisting Readers in the belief that, “…the history of art itself is a series of representational practices that actively encourage those definitions of sexual difference that contribute to the present configuration of sexual politics and power relations.” The ultimate Feminist dream of freeing modern society of its patriarchal, male dominated nature thus can certainly be brought considerably closer to reality if the arts are freed from the same overly masculine standards and practices. Art does play an extremely significant role in the overall viewpoint and assumptions of a society, including those regarding the different roles of each gender, and whether or not that which is masculine is in some way more deserving of attention and respect than that which is feminine.

Citation:

1.) Oppressive Tests, Resisting Readers, and the Gendered Spectator: The “New” Aesthetics

Mary Devereaux

2.) SuperStock, Inc., a subsidiary of a21, Inc., http://www.superstock.com/search/Maternal/art

3.) ArtinthePicture.com-Paintings-Willaim Bouguereau, http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.artinthepicture.com/artists/William_Bouguereau/venus.jpeg&imgrefurl=http://www.artinthepicture.com/paintings/view.php%3Fnr%3D2957&h=949&w=668&sz=92&hl=en&start=5&um=1&tbnid=qR9esCUoLh7_mM:&tbnh=148&tbnw=104&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dwilliam%2Bbouguereau%26ndsp%3D18%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN

4.) Fairfax Digital, Copyright 2004, The Sydney Morning Herald, http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2004/05/25/michelangelodavid,0.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/09/07/1094530600269.html&h=512&w=366&sz=34&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=iwb7WXs_gq2KzM:&tbnh=131&tbnw=94&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dstatue%2Bof%2Bdavid%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN