Justin Wright post 6

Certain formal elements of art have been embraced by men, and countered by women. One of these is the choice of subject, which in feminist aesthetics, determines the “gaze” of the work. The gaze can be gendered, and this is one of the ways that gender does matter in art. “The gaze is male whenever it directs itself at, and takes pleasure in, women, where women function as erotic objects.” (Devereaux, p. 121) It seems to be a modern trend that women are treated in a more sexual manner in Western culture, but examples of the erotic in the eyes of the male gaze date back centuries.

In the painting “Portrait of a Blonde Woman: Flora,” by Palma il Vecchio (1524), the exposed breast of the woman is sexual rather than just aesthetic. Many period paintings and sculptures contained partial or total nudity, but there is a distinction in the presentation of the body between a sculpture such as Michelangelo’s “David,” and Palma’s painting. The woman’s dress is falling down, and her expression is indifferent. The fact that only one breast shows is also a clear indicator that this painting has an erotic tone, because it shows just part of the body and invites the viewer to imagine more. This is a clear example of the male gaze, as the woman is placed as an object of male scrutiny rather than universal admiration of physical perfection.

“Portrait of a woman, so-called ‘Turkish Slave,’” by Parmigianino (1532), presents a more modest woman. Although she is totally clothed, her expression is seductive as she glances sideways and smiles mysteriously. Also, she holds her hand out limply, is if expecting a man to take it. Thus she is both an object of desire, as her expression invites male attention, and submissive with her hand timidly raised to accept more powerful company.

In contrast, “Untitled Self-Portrait” by Laura Aguilar (1991), uses the male gaze to create revulsion instead of desire. The woman is naked, but obese instead of attractive. She presents herself as an object to be assessed by the male eye, like in the two paintings above. This helps reveal the importance of the male gaze, which would go unnoticed to anyone not familiar with feminist aesthetic theory. The way of presenting the female form is the same, but the lack of sexual attractiveness creates a much different reaction than to other, traditional art with nudity.

Therefore, the male gaze determines what is typically considered aesthetically pleasing in art. Devereaux argues that even women have been conditioned to an extent to view art with a male gaze. Gaze helps determine the subject of a work, its presentation, and also its sexuality (if any).

Another way that gender matters is the assignment of aesthetic qualities to gendered subjects. As Simone de Beauvoir said, “Representation of the world, like the world itself, is the work of men; they describe it from their own point of view, which they confuse with absolute truth.” But also, women have learned to see the world the same way. Both men and women see the world through a male gaze. “Men – like women – do not simply look. Their looking – where and when they do it and at what – mimics a particular way of thinking about and acting in the world. So, understood, seeing never escapes a way of seeing.” (Devereaux, p. 127) The male gaze, or this particular way of thinking, includes gender roles. The first thing one does when presented with an image of a person is realize what sex they are, and interpret the aspects of the image in terms of stereotypes and gender norms.

Janine Antoni created three works, each titled “Mom and Dad,” which challenge this way of assigning gender to images. In the first picture, there appears to be two women at first, but the person on the right has more masculine features, and the title implies that there must be a male there. Thus the implication is that the more masculine figure is a cross-dressing male. The second picture shows the same arrangement with two men, with the one on the right with more feminine features and implied to be actually female. The third picture surprises the viewer, showing the two people who appeared to be cross-dressing as the real “Mom and Dad.” Antoni shows that while we try to discern gender in images, any conclusions we come to are inherently subjective, even with clear male/female figures. This provides an enormous opportunity for subjectivity in the way the artist sees the world, because ways of perceiving gender are not universal.

References:

Devereaux, Mary. “Oppressive Texts, Resisting Readers.”

All images found on ARTstor.

Ally B, Post 6

Ally Best
Post 6

In her essay, “Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists,” Linda Nochlin wonders whether Picasso would have achieved the same attention and fame if he had been a woman (Nochlin). It’s an interesting thought. Was his artistic talent the only factor that played a role in his success? Or might his gender have had an influence as well? Looking throughout history, art has tended to be male-dominated, not only in the artists themselves, but also in the subject matter of the artwork. Because of this trend, the viewers have become conditioned to viewing images in a certain way. Mary Devereaux refers to this set of “spectacles” through which society views art as a “male gaze” and claims that “the postulate of an unbiased eye demands the impossible” (121-122). The male gaze is not necessarily limited to anatomically male viewers, but instead refers to a “male” way of seeing things that places women as objects to be viewed. Hannah Wilke once remarked that, “people would rather look at women than they would look at art” (Wilke documentary). Because of this “male gaze,” women artists have often lacked the success of their male counterparts. In her essay titled “Feminist Art Education: An Analysis of the Women’s Art Movement As an Educational Force,” Renee Sandell explains that one of the three “main influential factors” in the creation of art is the “prevailing historical and critical attitudes of the time” (19). Over the years, women have, understandably, had a difficult time creating work that truly expresses how they feel while still maintaining the male gaze that is almost demanded of artwork. Nochlin mentioned in her essay how the “traditional idea of fine art” tended to “overlook the creative products customarily undertaken by women” (Brand). This phenomenon results from the reluctance of society to accept “new,” or simply more feminine styles of art. At several points in her essay, Devereaux remarks about the content and style of different works of art in relation to their “gender” ; and indeed, through style and content, gender has had a significant impact on the success (and failure) of many pieces of artwork.

Emma Amos was one artist who used gender to her advantage to raise interest in her artwork. “Tightrope,” in her own words, “looks autobiographically at race, sex and identity.” The style of the painting is comprised of clear lines and bold colors. These techniques portray an almost stressful situation to the viewer. The content certainly goes along with that theme. The piece depicts a woman balancing on a tightrope as she carries an umbrella in one hand and laundry on the other. However, this image is clearly referring to more than simply a woman on a tightrope. The woman symbolizes women everywhere who are attempting to juggle the roles thrown upon them. She represents a mother, a wife, and an individual trying to keep up with the world. Her clothing is symbolic as well. While her underneath layer consists of an American flag leotard, she covers this leotard with a black negligee. This wardrobe choice implies that she is “both warrior and seductress” and that “the attributes of true womanhood are veiled by popular conceptions of womanhood” (www.kenyon.edu). This painting shows a woman trying her best to live up to everything society expects her to be. Yet, by showing her own personal struggle, it also shows her as an individual. The viewer can almost sympathize with the woman, as it is easy to understand the stress she must be under while trying to remain true to herself. Evidence of the popularity of this piece, as well as others by Amos, is shown by the numerous solo exhibitions she has attended. Her works have been shown at museums throughout the USA. She has also received fellowships from the Rockefeller Foundation and the National Endowment for the Arts.

Miriam Schapiro also achieved success not by attempting to imitate the popular male artists of the time, but by creating uniquely feminine works. This theme is particularly evident in “The Poet #2.” Rather than rely on the strong, loud arguments for equality as some feminists did, Schapiro chose to celebrate the role of women as it was. The style of her artwork was very feminine, indeed. Her media consisted of a variety of materials from women’s everyday lives. As for her technique, she used stereotypically “female” skills such as embroidery and quilting (Grove Art). She called this style “femmage” (Grove Art). The art depicts a cloth dress. Therefore, the content is closely related to the style as it, too, focuses on traditionally female roles. She created the collage from brightly colored fabric in order to capture the beauty of women’s everyday lives. She once commented that, "I felt that by making a large canvas magnificent in color, design, and proportion, filling it with fabrics and quilt blocks, I could raise a housewife's lowered consciousness” (www.albany.edu).

While many pieces of art were praised for their feminine influence, this was certainly not the case with all pieces of art. One piece in particular that received criticism was Womanhouse. Miriam Schapiro and Judy Chicago teamed up with several other female artists to turn an old Hollywood mansion into a life-size piece of art. The style of the work itself made the content much more controversial.By walking through an actual house and seeing the art (which were in the form of exhibits or rooms), the viewer related much more strongly to the art than if it had simply been a painting on a canvas. The content, however, was clearly the most controversial aspect of the art. One of the art scenes depicts a powder room. Inside, there was a woman who sat applying and removing makeup all day long (www.bris.ac.uk) . This room was meant to symbolize society's expectations of women to be flawless. They were expected to hide their imperfections. As this image portrays, such a large emphasis was placed on maintaining feminine beauty that women sometimes became almost like puppets, constantly striving to improve themselves. Another room was called "Menstruation Bathroom." As the title suggests, this piece of art depicts a part of women's life that few like to think about. However, the goal of the artists was, in fact, just that. They aimed to make people contemplate the actual realities of being a woman, including the nastier aspects. This room was the most controversial because "such domestic, inherently feminine issues were not seen as sufficiently erudite to be the subjects of true art" (www.bris.ac.uk). Viewers (men in particular) were not comfortable with seeing this more private side of women's lives. This sort of topic was unheard of during the sixties and seventies where, if a woman wanted to succeed in art, she was forced to "produce masculine art, especially... when minimalist styles prevailed" (www.bris.ac.uk).

Rob H post 6

Robert Hoffman

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).

http://www.artstor.org/artstor/nexaweb/ShowImageViewer.do?numRows=1000&imagePos=69&q=null&vo=SearchAdvanceThumbNailView&id=ARTSTOR_103_41822000729150&side=left&contentType=4&newwindow=null&openIGViewer=null&sp2=false&title=Venus+and+the+Graces+Surprised+by+a+Mortal&cid=103&mode=half&metamode=false

This first work might remind some of us of the various images depicting the mythical judgment of Paris. In the work a man (presumably a mortal) has stumbled upon the sleeping goddess Venus and her assorted entourage of graces. The gaze is much than a metaphor here; the man is clearly standing transfixed and staring at the nude women before him. The female forms are highly objectified. Notably, the women do not gaze back on the male; one is not invited to see things from their perspective. The man, on the other hand, is nameless and essentially featureless; he is practically the embodiment of the external viewer.

http://www.artstor.org/artstor/nexaweb/ShowImageViewer.do?numRows=1000&imagePos=191&q=null&vo=SearchAdvanceThumbNailView&id=ARTSTOR_103_41822000898286&side=right&contentType=4&newwindow=null&openIGViewer=null&sp2=false&title=Mother+About+to+Wash+her+Sleepy+Child.&cid=103&mode=half

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 Europe). Part of what made her acceptable was the kind of work which she did. Her paintings are primarily domestic scenes featuring small children and women.

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.

http://www.artstor.org/artstor/nexaweb/ShowImageViewer.do?numRows=2&imagePos=1&q=null&vo=SearchAdvanceThumbNailView&id=ARTSTOR_103_41822000847580&side=left&contentType=4&newwindow=null&openIGViewer=null&sp2=false&title=Knight-Errant&cid=103&mode=half

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.

http://www.artstor.org/artstor/nexaweb/ShowImageViewer.do?numRows=115&imagePos=17&q=null&vo=SearchAdvanceThumbNailView&id=ARTSTOR_103_41822000948909&side=left&contentType=4&newwindow=null&openIGViewer=null&sp2=false&title=Black+Iris&cid=103&mode=half

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.

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

Theresa Post 6

Theresa Chu

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 Daughter

Elisabeth-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).

additional sources:

http://www.groveart.com/

Ashley C. Post 6

Ashley Cannaday


Many feminist thinkers would argue that gender plays a large role in the formal aspects and artistic choices made by artists, and that gender matters greatly to art. One way that sex affects art is through the theory that many forms of artwork take on a “male gaze.” This has two types of meaning. In the literal sense, the “male gaze” is when a man is doing the looking at women, the object (Devereaux Pg. 121). In most instances, the female being looked at is an erotic object that the male viewer finds pleasurable. Another aspect of the “male gaze” is that “both men and women have learned to see the world through male eyes” (Devereaux Pg. 122). While the viewer may very well be female, she will still tend to view the world in a male mindset. A woman will buy a certain dress because it will be attractive to her date, or a girl will grow her hair out because her boyfriend doesn’t want her to cut it. The male gaze is seen as reinforcing patriarchy, or “a social system structured upon the supremacy of the father and the legal dependence of wives and children” (Devereaux Pg. 122). This is the idea that females depend on males for their status, and even their identity.




Barbara Kruger comments on the male gaze in her artwork Your Gaze Hits the Side of My Face. Kruger is saying that the viewer only looks at one aspect of the artwork, in this case, the side of the woman’s face. The same can be said for the male gaze, in that the viewer is only looking at one aspect of the object being viewed. They are only seeing the woman in one way. Rather than seeing a female as strong, independent, or intelligent, she is portrayed as an erotic object, valued only for her sexual beauty and loyalty to a male figure. They only see the value of a woman as far as it pertains to the pleasure of the man. Women who don’t fall under this category, who dare to break the traditional mold, are looked down upon as catty outcasts who get what they deserve in the end. As Devereaux states, “for a woman, unlike a man, the satisfactions of solitude, work, or adventure cannot compare to those of caring for husband and children.”


In another of her artworks, They Blind Your Eyes and Drain Your Brain, Kruger examines how women are forced to take on the male gaze as well. Instead of seeing through their own eyes and thinking their own thoughts, females must see the world through male eyes. To be successful, she must understand how the male sees the world, and adapt to his vision.

The importance, or lack thereof, of gender in art can also be seen in the traditional view of art. Originally, great art was labeled as timeless, ahistorical, and universal. It is often just accepted that “art’s value transcends cultural differences and is a source of timeless and everlasting value” (Brand Pg. 6). Good art was beautiful in all cultures, in all time periods, and would always be seen as such. It is describe as autonomous aesthetics (Devereaux Pg. 136). In other words, great art stands the test of time. Art has the same value for everyone everywhere. Feminist theorists look to completely replace this traditional view of art with a new way of thinking. They argue that art is not timeless or universal. It does not speak for us all. This “universal” concept of art is often masculine and patriarchal. The class, race, gender, and time of the viewer and artist have to be taken into account when one analyzes art. You must ask who is doing the looking. All minds cannot be considered similar. The goal of the new perspective of art is to “place attention to cultural frameworks and their historical contingencies at the heart of philosophies.” By implementing, or even considering, this new view of art, the idea of “great art” is redefined.



Under the traditional view of art, great art was often male. If you asked someone to name all the famous artists they know, chances are most of them, if not all, would be men. In 1971 Linda Nochlin analyzed this phenomenon in her essay “Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?” She explained that “because of its history, the traditional idea of fine art (and attendant concepts such as genius) may continue to overlook the creative products customarily undertaken by women” (Brand Pg. 10). The Guerilla Girls, a feminist organization for women in the arts, conveys this same sentiment with one of their pieces, on which is written “Do women have to be naked to get into U.S. museums?” along with statistics about how few female artists there are in museums, but how the majority of nude paintings are of female. It emphasizes the point that traditionally valued art is created by males, and objectifying females. The new concept of art seeks to change this by redefining our critiques of artwork, and the way we view it. This new tradition emphasizes “the historical contexts in which art takes form and achieves meaning” and is “potentially rich for the development of feminist perspectives” (Brand Pg. 13).

The painting by Judy Chicago The Birth Project: The Crowning represents the new tradition of art. This artwork depicts the female anatomy during childbirth. In the traditional sense, this would not be labeled a great work of art. It is not erotically appealing to men, and it doesn’t objectify the woman. However, by considering the feminist perspective, it could be categorized as great art. It depicts the beauty of child birth, the beauty of new life, and the beauty of the female who can create this. Feminists would say that only females can truly appreciate the beauty of this work of art, because they, and not the males, go through the birthing process.

Amy I

Amy Iarrobino

Post 6

Both Devereaux and Brand address the issue of the images presented by film. Devereaux is much more in-depth in supporting her argument and providing examples as Brand’s piece is merely an introduction. Brand contends that in film “the universal subject is historically situated (masculine, patriarchal, imperialistic)” (Brand, 8). Devereaux agrees by addressing the claims that “in cinema the gaze is male, and that the cinematic text is a male text” (Devereaux, 126). Although Devereaux does explain that these feminist claims were not completely grounded, she does acknowledge that in film the industry is male dominated making the male gaze evident at some level, whether at editing or acting, as the system is “owned and operated by men” (Devereaux, 126). Interestingly, although one may argue that women can play the lead roles and direct films, the male-gaze does not simply mean that the viewer is male in anatomy. Women also are subject to being indoctrinated by films to believe in patriarchal assumptions that man is the subject and woman the object (Devereaux, 127). Due to the film industry’s powerful influence on the public, as confirmed by the study of Riefenstahl in the previous posts, gender is of importance in the images that the film presents. For example, the purpose of most movies today is entertainment, or to induce pleasure. However, “this pleasure characteristically takes the form of looking at women” (Devereaux, 132). On the other hand, men are rarely objectified in the presence of and for the pleasure of women. Although some may oppose Devereaux’s argument using evidence of feminist film makers and strong-willed heroines, the author quickly indicates the weakness of their argument. For example, in films such as Woman of the Year, when the strong female character breaks from the norm she is “revealed to be cold-hearted and in need of ‘reeducation’” (Devereaux, 128). In addition, the art of feminist filmmaking is primarily shown only in “film courses and private film societies,” (Devereaux, 139) not necessarily influencing mainstream audiences. Therefore, if any alternate point of view is even allowed to reach the public, the image of a strong woman is portrayed as negative.

Devereaux and Brand also address the issue of the universality of art. Brand indicates that although the theory is under fire, “art and aesthetic attention are both in some sense universal…[with] the same value for everyone” (Brand, 7). Devereaux makes clear that feminists challenge conventions of art interpretation and “propose that we reexamine art’s claim to speak for all of us” (Devereaux, 136). Devereaux explains that feminists base this argument on the idea that art does not speak in a gender-neutral voice and therefore cannot have universality. Rather, “seeing never escapes a way of seeing” (Devereaux, 127). What this phrase indicates is that when a person of any sex looks at a piece of art, he or she has a specific perspective, oftentimes dominated by the male gaze. Thus, due to conditioning from society, patriarchal perspectives are even adopted by female viewers. When a male gaze oriented viewer observes the work, it is with regards to the man as the subject and the woman as the object whose value is defined by her value to the man (Devereaux, 128). Feminists aim to change this pattern by encouraging “focus on the understanding [of] the development of gendered points of view and understanding the diverse positions of the masculine and feminine in culture” (Brand, 15). Interestingly, Brand indicates that “feminists have adapted psychoanalytic insights” (Brand, 15) in order to address such issues, a method to which Devereaux indirectly refers to. For example, when discussing individual perspectives, Devereaux mentions interpretations of the inkblot (Devereaux 122). The inkblot tests are one of the methods developed with Freud and his psychoanalytic theory to diagnose the subconscious. In the same way, society influences the public’s subconscious to the point that male-domination in images takes hold of the viewer’s perspective, often times unknowingly. For example, Devereaux mentions stereotypical images of women as “portraits of the Good Girl, the Vamp, and the Dutiful Wife” (Devereaux, 128) to which one realizes is indeed true, especially in film but also in paintings and scripts. The works below are of particular importance as they all attempt to challenge the male gaze, the first by fooling the viewer, the second by portraying a strong woman and the final by emphasizing the unity and equality of man and woman.

Joana Vasconcelos, chandelier made of tampons

Vasconcelo’s work is an enormous chandelier made of thousands of suspended tampons. The object is reminiscent of the Venetian glass chandeliers in its elegance and design. Upon first glance one would not realize the material which the art is made of. For example, to those who tend to shy away from abstract or feminist art, the viewer may see only the elegant chandelier. The fact that the creation is composed of tampons lends the message that beauty in art can be seen from any perspective and that perhaps a work or person may look like one thing but have the essence of another. The juxtaposition of material and final product creates irony within the art in which the feminist aspect surprises and may even shock.


Frida Kahlo

Kahlo’s work portrays a somewhat surreal image of a woman lying on a bed in a wasteland surrounded by anatomically representative objects attached to her with string. She is lying naked in the bed with a pool of blood. The image is very symmetrical with the objects and boards of the bed surrounding or perhaps encaging the woman. In the background one can see the image of an industrialized city which may be important in the message Kahlo is attempting to transmit. Notice also that the color scheme uses many shades of brown that seem to dirty the image and the strings and blood are red. The color red is often considered a power color in feminist works. The classic strong woman typical of Kahlo’s paintings also seems small in comparison to the bed and surrounding objects, in fact the baby appears to be as large if not larger than she is. Kahlo is emphasizing the prominence and importance of the feminine role in society. Even in an industrial world where the woman seems to be neglected, the woman’s reproductive roles and anatomy make her essential and strong. The woman’s confidence seems to be portrayed by the way in which she calmly is holding all of the strings representing her roles.


Louise Bourgeois, Seven in a Bed, 2001

Bourgeois’s work, known for its sexual emphasis and eroticism, portrays seven naked entities in human form wrapped around one another. Some of the bodies are connected together and counted as one. The bodies are so close together it is difficult to tell which are male and which are female. When two bodies are kissing they seem to be completely connected at the mouth while others are connected at the back of the head. As seen by the reflection in the glass, the legs line up in perfect harmony lending a unified sense to the work. The expressions on the faces of the bodies are passionate and intensely focused on one another. The joints also look like those of a doll. The way in which all of the bodies are interconnected may be focusing on the way in which bodies are passionate and unite to become one during intercourse. The fact that gender is indiscriminate may emphasize the equality among males and females.

Jessica D., Post 6

Jessica Duran

"Feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings"

-Cheris Kramerae.

Unfortunately, we live in a patriarchal society that not only dominates and oppresses women, but also propagates their inferiority and reinforces their dependency upon men (Devereaux 126). On a daily basis we are bombarded with degrading images of women on tv, film, music videos, and advertisements, and as a result have become desensitized to how women are still being dehumanized and exploited in our modern day society. In order to “survive” and prosper in our society women must conform to the “traditional” standard of female beauty and their primary roles as sexual objects for male scopophilic pleasure (Devereaux 132). Women have been conditioned by society to believe that they are solely objects to be appraised, judged, and validated by the male gaze (Devereaux 131). Unfortunately, women also view and judge other women from a male perspective; often sadistically sizing up their “competition” (Devereaux 120). Women are unrelentingly criticized for being vain and narcissistic, but sadly their very value and identities are determined by how well they can conform to the male ideal of an eroticized object of sexual desire. Her only “power” is to be seductively appealing and sexually attractive to men; therefore, driving many women to dress provocatively, wear lots of make up, diet, exercise excessively, and even resort to plastic surgery, in order to live up to these ideal feminine expectations that have been superimposed by men.

It is astonishing how one chromosome can have the power to not only determine an individual’s sex, but also can impart upon certain individuals the superiority and authority over those who lack this chromosome and are therefore genetically “inferior”. The inherent biological differences between males and females are apparent from the moment of conception and continue to increase exponentially well into adulthood. For example, it has been scientifically proven that the biological differences between male and female brains is the reason why men are more visual beings and women are better at expressing emotions and relating to other people. However, it is important to note that it is the combination of biological differences and societal and environmental influences that ultimately determines how each sex perceives the world around them and their role that they play in it. Gender in itself is a socially defined concept and our male-dominated society has conditioned us to “view” the world from a male perspective; thereby promoting discrimination against women and ultimately labeling them as inferior (Devereaux 127). Given these considerations it is reasonable to assume that gender discrimination, bias, and differences, will not only play a substantial role in the social, cultural, and political realms, but will also manifest itself into the art world too.

A misogynistic attitude in the art world is clearly apparent not only by the fact that women artists and their art have long been suppressed and labeled as inferior, but also in the manner in which women have been represented and portrayed in the arts by men. Male artists more often then not tailor their art to the tastes and erotic fantasies of the “assumed” heterosexual male viewer. In most pieces of artwork by men, women are not subjects, but objects that are to be judged, desired, controlled, showcased, and owned exclusively by men; therefore, defining the female body and identity as mere sexual objects created for the sole purpose of male “aesthetic contemplation” and pleasure (Devereaux 131). Gustave Courbet’s painting, Woman with a Parrot, is a model example of how the female body is normally sexually objectified and idealized in art that is created by male artists; therefore, satisfying the male fetishistic obsession with the female body and beauty. In this painting the female subject languidly reclines as she dazedly gazes up at the colorful parrot that has gracefully landed onto her delicate fingers. Her porcelain white skin is smooth and supple and her luxuriously thick hair gracefully cascades onto the white linen sheets that serve to strategically conceal her genital region. The sexual connotation to her posture accentuates her female curves and attentively displays her ample breasts. The viewer is allowed to steal a glimpse of her traditionally patriarchal aesthetically pleasing nude form without her knowledge or consent. She is sexually available and vulnerable and completely unaware of the intrusive voyeurism of the male gaze. She is an erotic object of male desire and fascination; in essence the flawless physical embodiment of the “ideal” female.

Gustave Courbet’s highly controversial painting, “The Origin of the World”, is another dynamic example of how male artists create art that exploits the female body in order to satisfy the voyeuristic male gaze. This painting crudely portrays a full-frontal depiction of a naked woman’s genitals. Her fleshy thighs are splayed wide opened; allowing the spectator to freely peruse her naked and exposed form. She is lying on a bed and appears to be sexually available and submissive. The view of her nether regions is carefully enshrouded by a thick patch of dark pubic hair and an erect nipple is barely concealed by a white linen sheet. It is quite obvious that this painting is heavily saturated with heterosexual male sexual fantasy; allowing them to vicariously play out their own erotic fantasies and desires, and in the process dehumanizing and degrading women to the status of a sexual object . The woman in this painting is but a headless, sexual object stripped of any identity, voice, or power; in essence the epitome of aesthetic pleasure for the male gaze.

Linda Nochlin’s famous question, “Why have there been no great women artists?”, sheds light on the discrimination and bias women artists and their artwork have faced and still continue to face in our patriarchal society. Gender constraints placed on women confined them to their biological roles as mother and caregiver; relegating them to the domestic sphere and its responsibilities. They were denied access to art school, teaching schools, and formal artistic training, and therefore often turned to needlepoint, knitting, crocheting, weaving, and embroidery, as means in which to freely express their artistic creativity and ingenuity (Brand 10). These artistic endeavors were denounced as being hobbies and the work they produced was labeled as mere crafts; not worthy of artistic merit or praise (Brand 11). Women were branded as incapable of producing “’fine” art; lacking the artistic “genius” innately inherent to male artists (Brand 10). Miriam Schapiro's series of etchings, Anonymous Was a Woman, is an artistic homage to the heritage of women artists and their art work. This artwork consists of a collection of etchings based on elaborately and ornately crocheted doilies created by nameless women. It celebrates and embraces the crafts of women that for so long have been depreciated and devalued by our society and elevates “women’s crafts” to the statues of “fine” art (Brand 11).

Sources Cited:

http://www.artchive.com/artchive/C/courbet/courbet_woman_with_parrot.jpg.html
http://courses.washington.edu/hypertxt/cgi-bin/12.228.185.206/html/contexts/origin.jpg
http://www.bluffton.edu/womenartists/womenartistspw/schapiro/schapiro3.html
Nochlin, Linda. "Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?" (1971). In Women, Art, and Power, and Other Essays. Harper & Row, 1988.

Ruth D. Post 6

Ruth E. Day

What role does gender play in art? This is the question that Brand and Devereaux endeavor to answer. “Virtually all feminist interpretive strategies give rise to the philosophical question of whether and how the gender of artists – as well as their other socially marked identities - are to count as properties of works of art and to be recognized as aesthetically relevant,” (Brand, 16). They have two general theories that answer this question. The first is that most art takes on a male “gaze”. Most art is seen through the male point of view and when viewing art, women generally take on a male perspective. The perspective does not stop at art; it applies to the rest of the world as well. “Both men and women have learned to see the world through male eyes,” (122). Feminists see this as very sad because it as though women have buried their own perspectives and personalities so as to take on those of the dominant male. The male gaze saw women as either sexual objects or as mothers. Here are two examples of paintings that come from the beginning of the 1900s and the end of the 1800s women as seen from the male gaze:

The first painting, by Mary Cassat, is an example of a female painter taking on a male gaze. This painting shows a woman in her “natural place” as the male gaze would see it. A woman viewing this painting may take on the male gaze herself and believe that her purpose in life is to get married, have kids, and sit passively at home doing household tasks such as sewing while her husband goes to work and support her and the family. The second painting shows woman in a totally different light. It is titled “Madame X”, which suggests that the woman in the painting is a prostitute. Her face is turned away, because the viewer supposed to be paying attention to her body. Yes, it is a beautiful depiction of the female form but it implies that women should only be valued as the objects of men’s desires. Both of these images are degrading to women because they undermine women’s ability to be more than just mothers and sexual objects. These paintings also exemplify the two separate categories women were put into during this time in history. A woman was either a “good girl” or a “bad girl”. “The good girl was the dutiful daughter who preserved herself (that is, her virginity) for the right man ‘to take’ from her. The bad girl, in contrast, flaunts her sexuality indiscriminately, ‘losing’ her virginity or ‘giving it away’,”(Devereaux, 128). Such a division of women into one group or another is degrading and has developed by the vast majority of people being conditioned into seeing things through the male gaze. The solution to this way of thinking, according to Devereaux, is to create a female gaze. “This strategy is most often described as creating a female voice of female gaze. It allows women to write their own texts, their own history,” (Devereaux, 138).

The second theory put forth by Brand and Devereaux is that art created from the newly established female gaze tends to link art to the sexual politics whereas art from the male gaze tends to steer away from that area. “What is original to feminism is the linkage of art with sexual politics,” (Devereaux, 124). Art from the male perspective is more concerned with tradition and other areas of politics. Feminist art is out to make a statement about what it is to be a woman and contradict the misconceptions about the female role in the world as created by the male gaze. Below are some examples of art from this new female perspective.

These images were all created by feminist artists during the 1960s and 70s. A lot of the feminist art seems erotic and a little contradictory. Isn’t the whole point of feminist art to end the display of women as erotic objects? The answer to this question is yes. The first image is a photograph of the artist covered in chewing gum that she has molded into the form of female genitalia. The point of the photograph is that the artist no longer wants to be defined by her sexuality. She wants her existence to mean more than that. That is why the abbreviation “SOS” is an important part of the title of this piece. The second image, by Georgia O’Keefe, is a more abstract piece. O’Keefe was best known for her paintings of extreme close ups of beautiful flowers. Most of the time, these paintings resembled female genitalia. They weren’t meant to be sexual. Instead, they were meant to express the beauty of the female body as something very natural. Male genitalia had been shown in this light many times before (note the number of times phallic symbols have been used throughout history to represent power and fertility) but now that females were expressing the natural beauty of their anatomy it was considered overtly sexual and erotic by man viewers. For this reason, feminist art was frowned up and was not widely accepted as art until the early 90s. The last image, by Miriam Shapiro, is a collage of images associated with the traditional role of women. The female form in the center of the image is wearing an apron and seems ready for a change. She is held back by these traditional ideas of the female gender and is ready to create her own path.

Feminist art is meant to reestablish the role of women. It challenges tradition and calls for a change in how women are depicted in art. They stress that traditional art is not for everyone. It is created by men and women who see every thing through a male gaze. It is time for females to create their own gaze and see things through their own eyes. “They [feminists] replace reverence for art with skepticism. They ask that we be willing to rethink what we value and the reasons we value it,” (Devereaux 137). Feminists create an alternate way of looking at art that they call the female gaze and add an aspect of sexual politics to art.

Shea post 6

“Why have there been no great woman artists?” (Linda Nochlin) It is a good question. Unfortunately though, it is not all that difficult to answer. Women were denied access to positions of any artistic sophistication for so long that it was impossible for them to gain any recognition for their work. In regards to art, when men alone do the constructing, buying, selling, criticizing and praising, where do women fit in?

Odalisque by Joseph Sheppard

Right here. If "women are art" (Ryan Musgrave, possibly quoting someone else), how could they be expected to produce it? The perspective would be wrong all together, backward. This concept is addressed by Mary Devereaux as the "male gaze". She argues that approaching an image requires that you judge/measure it against your existing body of knowledge. The historical imbalance of power among gender dominates that body of knowledge. For example "'His' attributes define all humanity...our language, like our thinking equates 'male' gender with gender-neutral." (Devereaux, 122) "Representation of the world, like the world itself, is the work of men..." (Devereaux, 127). In other words, women are considered inadequate as artists because their work lacks the perspective that we recognize and have come to identify as valuable; the masculine perspective. "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, 6)

Promenade, also be Joseph Sheppard, makes plain the assumption of a male viewer. In elevation, color and motion the men are apart from the women. It is clear that their only purpose is to be observed, by men of course. As spectators, we take on the same role as the man on the pedestal; "the spectator's gaze is male in two senses; both in its direction at women as objects of erotic fascination and its identification with the male protagonist." (Devereaux, 133) For this reason, even those who overcame the systematic exclusion of women from the artistic field could not achieve so called artistic genius. "Feminist scholarship has unearthed women artists, writers, and musicians of the past that were oftentimes well known, amply commissioned and self supporting in their day but were subsequently omitted from the canon of 'greats' in the written histories of art." (Brand, 10) The girl in back strikes me as a feminist. She maintains the connection with her gender with an outstretched arm but takes on some qualities of the men portrayed here. She is of a darker complexion than the other women and more static in her composure. Despite these efforts she is not able to achieve that position held by the man who reigns on high. She cannot become a man and is therefore without power, without greatness.

In light of the male gaze, creative projects undertaken by women, despite their utility, were not seen with any of the prestige of art. In order to recognize these works as artistic , the traditional standards of art's inherent components would have to be reevaluated. "As with earlier anti-essentialism, definitions of art were rejected. To feminists they were seen as oppressive: privileging 'high' art over low, 'fine' art over 'craft', men's art over women's." (Bland, 10) The daunting nature of this proposition was greeted with great resistance, as is the proposition of any widespread change.

Here we see a complete rejection of artistic standards in their relation to gender. Certainly the image is politically charged, but the politics of gender are the focus of this discussion. The woman is the object of the gaze, but she is an entirely different kind of object. Shirin Neshat's photograph is not at all erotic. Her body is covered from head to foot, eliminating the female position as an item of lust, a vamp. The violent implications of her gun and red hands also reject the woman as a manifestation of mothering nurture or helpless inaction. This woman is not innocent. "Reading against the grain is a strategy designed by out-of-power groups to counterbalance the dominant textual traditions by offering alternative interpretations of works within those traditions." (Devereaux, 139) The photograph presumes the perspective of no one in particular, and is therefore a renovation or a "re-vision" of artistic categorization's imperative patriarchy.