Art cannot be passively viewed. As Mary Deveraux states, through our experiences and biases, each work of art infers some sort of meaning: “Observation is always conditioned by perspective and expectation” (122). In both the Brand and Deveraux articles, the theory/truth of the “male gaze” is elaborated. Despite the fact that the viewers may be female or male, young or old, or secular or religious, they share a common “gaze” because of the dominance of patriarchal ideals throughout history. Deveraux avidly asserts, “[W]omen judge themselves according to internalized standards of what is pleasing to men” (122). Because of societal standards, women do whatever they can to make themselves look like flawless and beautiful works of art: augmenting breasts, applying makeup and nail polish, shaving legs and underarms, dieting, and exercising.
Deveraux also makes a point in saying that, even in films when men are “degraded,” they still hold a power over women due to the fact that they are physically stronger than women in reality (130). It seems that, because of their physical limitations, women can never “overpower” men; moreover, feminism, despite its many past successes, will never accomplish all its goals.
In the Brand and Korsmeyer article, the question of whether or not the gender of the artist plays a role in how the meaning of the work of art/image is processed by the viewers (16). If gender does matter in this sense, then the way people see art changes dramatically. For example, if viewers went to an artist’s gallery, examined the work, and realized that the artist was female, then they would immediately label the art as feminist. As Hannah Wilke stated in the first film clip, “People would rather look at women than art.” This puts women artists in a precarious situation because, in order to be successful and well-known artists, they must appeal to the masses, and in order to appeal to the masses, they must conform their art to the “male gaze”; however, they also must stay true to their cause (assuming that they are feminists) and convey a message of liberation for women.
Elisabeth-Louise Vigée Le Brun: Madame Vigée Le Brun and her DaughterElisabeth-Louise Vigée Le Brun was one of the most successful portrait painters in her time. She was well connected with Marie-Antoinette and the Ancien Régime before the French Revolution broke out. It is easy to see why Vigée Le Brun was so famous and well-liked. Her work appeals to the “male gaze” and depicts a woman as an object of beauty to be admired; furthermore, the woman in this painting (the artist herself) is also in her “rightful” place as a mother. Even though Vigée Le Brun lived in an era where male artists were dominant, her art was able to flourish because it satiated the “male gaze.”
Hannah Wilke: #1 from “INTRA-VENUS” Series, 1992–93 (performalist self-portrait with Donald Goddard)These two pictures of an aged and diseased Hannah Wilke give an example of a contrast to Vigée Le Brun’s work. It may be safe to say that Vigée Le Brun’s career was much more successful than Hannah Wilke’s, for, while Vigée Le Brun portrayed women in a manner pleasing to the “male gaze,” Wilke portrayed the opposite. By taking these pictures and exhibiting them as feminist art, Wilke may have been referring to her earlier quote and thus trying to push viewers away from thinking of women as art and simply thinking about art itself.
These pictures also support the theory Deveraux mentioned in her article regarding the fact that women judge themselves by men’s standards. Because of the saturation of “male gaze” in today’s society, those who see Wilke’s pictures are repulsed by the way she looks. Her skin and body are far from flawless, and her face is not made-up with cosmetics; furthermore, her underarms are unshaved. Perhaps if the “male gaze” did not play such a significant part in society, then the viewers may not be as disgusted. The viewers’ reactions to these photos are due to what Deveraux mentions in her article: “As E.H. Gombrich convincingly argues, observation is never innocent: “Whenever we receive a visual impression, we react by docketing it, filing it, grouping it in one way or another, even if the impression is only that of an inkblot or a fingerprint… [T]he postulate of the unbiased eye demands the impossible”” (122).
These pictures also support the theory Deveraux mentioned in her article regarding the fact that women judge themselves by men’s standards. Because of the saturation of “male gaze” in today’s society, those who see Wilke’s pictures are repulsed by the way she looks. Her skin and body are far from flawless, and her face is not made-up with cosmetics; furthermore, her underarms are unshaved. Perhaps if the “male gaze” did not play such a significant part in society, then the viewers may not be as disgusted. The viewers’ reactions to these photos are due to what Deveraux mentions in her article: “As E.H. Gombrich convincingly argues, observation is never innocent: “Whenever we receive a visual impression, we react by docketing it, filing it, grouping it in one way or another, even if the impression is only that of an inkblot or a fingerprint… [T]he postulate of the unbiased eye demands the impossible”” (122).
additional sources:
7 comments:
I disagree with this: Deveraux also makes a point in saying that, even in films when men are “degraded,” they still hold a power over women due to the fact that they are physically stronger than women in reality (130). It seems that, because of their physical limitations, women can never “overpower” men; moreover, feminism, despite its many past successes, will never accomplish all its goals.
I don't think it's necessarily true that men overpower women physically. I think the only reason this holds to be true for much of the time is that men tend to focus more on physical activity (lifting weights) than women do. If women were to focus as much time on weight lifting and muscle building as men, they should technically be able to achieve a similar level of strength. However, what Deveraux argues is that women, because they have been trained to look through a "male gaze", instead focus their time on making themselves appealing to men. "Muscular" women are not what many men would call "appealing". Toned is nice, but muscular tends to be considered a "masculine" trait. We've all seen russian bodybuilding women, and most of the people I have spoken with agree that they are scary. This association of muscularity with masculinity is another product of the "male gaze."
Women do, however, have muscles just like men. The difference is that they generally do not spend as much time building them as men do. With enough work (or steroids, I suppose), women could be as strong as men.
Or there are the men that don't spend time building their muscles. I have a perfect example: me. I think I can confidently say that there are definitely a few women out there that could make me eat dirt. I may be a black belt in Tae Kwon Do, but that won't do me too much good unless my punches can actually penetrate. Which they probably can't because I never work out. Sigh...
In fact, I just found something interesting. According to this abstract, men are more prone to fatigue than are strength-matched women when performing muscular exercise.
http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/96/6/2125
I think Theresa's point about why women artists sometimes create art through the male gaze was very well-explained. While some artists create art for their own personal pleasure, many create it with the hopes that others will view it and have some sort of emotional response to it. As a result, artists are sometimes forced to choose their subject matter based on what people would want to view. Even if an artist planned to eventually create unique styles of work, she may, originally, create pieces of art through the male gaze so that she may become established as an artist.
After making my first comment, I read David's comment and, being a crazy pre-med student, felt obligated to comment on his comment from a scientific perspective. While I'm all for gender equality, I don't think physiological reality should be overlooked in an attempt to achieve it. Yes, I understand that there are SOME women that are stronger than SOME men. However, in general, men are naturally stronger. The male body produces a hormone (testosterone) that helps build muscle. Technically, women also produce this hormone, but in significantly reduced quantities. I think the important point in this case is the generality that men are physically stronger than women, not the exceptions. Because women do not generally engage in a tug of war match before assessing the comparative strength of the men around them, they tend to naturally, possibly even subconsciously, assume the men around them to be physically stronger. Therefore, as Theresa pointed out, women may feel somewhat overpowered by men,
It obvious to me that most women judge themselves by men's standards. Females are constantly getting their hair and nails done, putting on make up, and shaving any dark hair that isn't on their head. I think that this is the type of attitude that Hannah Wilke is trying to discourage with her art. She is making a statement that even though she is old and sick and not as trim as she used to be, she is still beautiful. I agree and I believe that feminists would agree as well. A woman is as beautiful as she believes herself to be. This is the type of attitude that women need to adopt and stop trying to alter their appearance just so that they can conform to the male ideal of beauty.
I think that in the Vigée Le Brun painting the male gaze is not as apparent as in male works. Although she does show the mother with her dress falling down a bit, the child completely desexualizes the painting. This may not have been the artist’s decision, if this was a commissioned portrait, but if Vigée Le Brun encouraged this pose it would emphasize maternity over the physical form, and thus not objectify the woman.
To David’s argument: although it certainly is possible for a woman to be strong enough to beat down a man, men are naturally predisposed to gain muscle mass faster than women due to higher testosterone levels. If a man and a woman worked out from the same starting point and for the same amount of time, the man would get stronger at a faster rate indefinitely. Even if men are more prone to fatigue, they could be stronger in terms of sheer power. Also note that the records for all physical feats without exception (let me know if you can find one) are held by men.
could someone tell me how to contact Mary Deveraux, or where she currently teaches?
Post a Comment