Feminism and Art

[LadyCiall]

This is, I admit, a gigantic topic to cover, but I've been pondering it alot recently. I am aware that in order to discuss it we will covver what people consider art or not as well.

Is art in any way compatible with feminism?

I guess the main question is, when is the female figure in art seen as acceptable in context of feminism? By the reproduction of the female form is it not objectifying the woman? You cannot, after all, converse with a ststue/painting/photograph? As art is undeniably aesthetic are you ok with the appeal of the female form being purely visual?

Does your opinion change dependant on who the art is by? Male or female

Does the medium used change it? Is a photograph worse than a painting?

What subject matters do you dislike? Or poses?

How about the intention? If a piece of art is created by a feminist artist with a deeper meaning behind it, can it go further in what it shows than something taken because it's pretty?

How about whether it's nude or not? Can a nude ever be seen as ok with feminism?

What about the distinction between art and advertising? Should the female body be used to sell products? If the same image wasn't used in an advert, could it be art? And would that change your opinion of it?

And that's just the questions on the top of my head. I know there are a lot, and appreciate anyone who replies.

Would be interesting ot see the different views on this.

Bloody hell... You should be writing the philosophy type questions for my OU course - this has the same fiendish appeal.

What a huge topic. There is, also, the neglect of female artists over the years. As with so much else, their work was either ignored or belittled. Is this relevant to the discussion too?

Although I absolutely consider myself a feminist I am also a lover of the worst kinds of Victorian art - all that Pre-Raphaelite stuff with semi-naked, romanticised women painted, I'm sure, partly for the titilation value. For some reason, I find this much less offensive than all the religious art of the Renaissance where it seems that every female subject up to and including the Virgin Mary must have at least one breast on display. Also, the subjects chosen (The Rape of the Sabine Women, etc) often seem to offer the artist the opportunity to depict naked women and/or extreme violence of some sort.

So, yes, I do think this work objectifies women but I don't mind this as much as I do with advertising. I suspect my arguments would hold little water if analysed, however.
Artists were, after all, usually painting with a sale in mind and this is not much different from advertising, after all.

I'm not an art expert, by any means so am not really equipped to discuss the artist's motivations in detail. I wish I were..

Oh yes - I just love Pre-Raphaelite art too and hate pornography!

Terrible? How is this possible? The poses aren't grose or sexual but there is a definite contradition.

Why are pictures/paintings of nude women considered objectifying and somehow derogotary, but those of men are not?

The female form is beautiful, and naked images can be extremely empowering.

Also it helps to remember that not only men enjoy admiring bare ladies.

Once something - the human form or cooking eggs or whatever - has been put down on canvas, sculpted in marble, etc, it becomes an image and we imbue it with whatever we relate to that image. So feminism can take issue with Art for reinforcing stereotypes, but it's most likely that it will reflect our own views, maybe with a bit of a slant to whatever the artist intended to direct us toward.

I guess what I'm trying to say is: if we all see an outline of a woman on her knees, I may see someone rising from the ground, you may see someone being knocked down, the chauvinist may see someone in her rightful place.

DSM, absolutely agree that the female form is a thing of beauty - I love pictures of women, naked or clothed. Always have done.

I think the artwork that most offends my feminist sensibilities is the wretched "Dejeuner Sur L'Herbe" here. Just why are the men clothed and the women naked? I actually don't know although I'm sure much has been written on the subject...

"Why are pictures/paintings of nude women considered objectifying and somehow derogotary, but those of men are not?"

who says they're not, though?
I think a large proportion of images of naked women are objectifying in that the woman is presented passively and decoratively, while naked men often tend to be presented as more active (I am thinking of Renaissance images of Perseus and Andromeda, for instance, where Perseus would also show a fair bit of flesh under his armour but be shown as actually killing a dragon rather than just hanging around helpless).
If we look at ancient Greek/ancient Greek inspired images of young men, 'beautiful youths' just swanning around being attractive and presenting themselves for the viewer to admire, they probably are generally agreed to be equally objectifying.
There's also the issue that there is a wider problem in society with women being objectified which does not happen with men to anything like the same degree. Hence though two images of a man and woman might be in themelves equally objectifying, arguably the one of the woman is contributing to a problem that is already greater.

I wasn't actually expecting anyone to reply to all these questions. So thankyou!

BelleDameSansMerci I agree with you, I adore art of almost every kind. With a particular love for the work of Gil Elvgren, Cindy Sherman and Privat Livemont

The first and last artists are interesting as a huge amount of their work was created for advertising. Both using the almost nude female form to draw attention.

For me I cannot find it in myself to dislike them due to objectification, but then I struggle to then judge modern advertisements for objectification. It seems hypocritical to me.

You've also touched on an important issue. How much does the artists intention matter? Should art be judged on it's standalone value? Or should we taker into account the reasons behind it? As those can dramatically alter the image. For example, in my OP, I linked to an image by a female artist (Cindy Sherman), the image in question has some controversy surrounding it. Some people felt it showed the aftermath of a rape and so felt it was wrong to display it. Ms Sherman's style of photography is based on not knowing what is happening and is likened to a film still isolated. So her images can be read (and she encourages this) anyway you like. However in this photos case she had to come out and say that actually it was representative of the morning after a heavy nights drinking. Whether that is actually what she intended is another matter. So who should we believe? And should that image have never been printed?

MyGoldenNotebook They aren't sexual are they? And yet, soft porn as we know it now is very different to back then. Maybe it was intended to titillate? And yet you wouldn't find modern soft porn on the walls of a museum, is it age that softens it?

DSM I agree. I find the female form much more aesthetically pleasing than the male, and so adore looking at nudes. However, does this swing my case with feminism? Or am I buying into what I've been told I should like by a patriachal society? Maybe the only way round it is to limit the viewing of female nudes to female viewers only?

LemonDifficult It's a case of beauty in the eye of the beholder. Or in this case, offense in the eye of the beholder. Do we then shield it for fear of offending?

BelleDameSansMerci I agree, I've never liked that picture. Cannot explain why though. To be honest it had never really registered till you mentioned it just how odd it was she was naked.

SethStarkaddersMum I think you are spot on. In the older art it is understandable, as historically women weren't fighters, do you think modern images showing the same would be held in the same esteem?

I think naked women are just, well, tidier than naked men! In general, our shapes flow and the lines are fluid and pleasing. Men are just, well, dangly

More seriously, I love Gil Elvgrin. I hadn't thought about his stuff at all in this context but it's the perfect example. To me, the images are compelling and pleasing but they're so wrong from a feminist perspective really! Why do I love them so much? I suppose it's the nostalgia and whimsical feel of them. They're "of their time" and that may be part of their appeal?

And, this thread is making me seriously re-think my OU course (thank you very bloody much). I was determined to do English Literature (because it will be easy for me and I have an enormous chip on my shoulder about not having a degree) but I really want to do History of Art. I don't really have the time to put in the study for that though whereas the Eng Lit will be a doddle! You're not going to help me if you carry on being so interesting...

Another interesting artist is Jenny Saville and her exploration of the female body. Uses painting and photography.

Le Dejeuner - the female nude stares directly at the viewer, challenging the gaze. There is some really interesting stuff in film theory about the male gaze which links to art history.

I think that art and feminism are completely compatible as it is inherently about communication of ideas.

There are fine lines everywhere though, where intent becomes changed by the audience and vice versa ( thinking along the Robert Mapplethorpe lines - his muse, sorry can't remember her name, but very graphic images, but then he also photographed himself in the same vein)

Also, I am ashamed to say I have only speed read this along time ago, but worth a look? www.phaidon.co.uk/store/art/art-and-feminism-9780714847023/

I aim to please BelleDameSansMerci I really want to do art history too, nocash for a course though. So shall have to make do with random books, and interesting conversations.

Jenny Saville is fantastic, two of her images are Manics covers, and I love them. Both quite controversial choices!

I love her brush strokes, though this is off topic slightly.

boogywoogy that's interesting about Le Dejeuner, shall try to find out more about it

Mbear Mapplethorpe is a great example, though I always think more of his male nudes than female. I find his female nudes almost masculine, which is a huge difference from the helpless woman in older art.

Talking as an artist who paints and photographs female and male nudes. ( although most of my lving is made from portraiture).

The female nude is a delight to paint, the tone and form, the strength and the apparrent vunerability of the softness and curves of the shape mingle to create a beautiful thing. To be able to capture this and for the viewer of the piece to be moved by the work is enough in itself. Whether there is an adverse reaction or a milder reacation of understanding, it is just a thing to view. Obiviously a nude will probably create more of a reaction to the work than a clothed model, as by it's nature it is a less common view in general society.. You tend to get in trouble if you lounge naked in public.

But these things also go for the male nude, although traditionally painted in a less vunerable looking pose.. It tends to refelect society at the time that the painting was made.
Both are beatiful things.. People are beautiful and it is as pure and simple as the artist capturing the image and essance to the best of their ability.

It is the viewer, historian or critic who makes a painting more than it quite often stands for. Therefore IMO it doesn't neither sit or not sit with feminism.. For it is the viewer who decides.

The

I don't think many forget a Mapplethorpe male nude Lady!!

But I agree about the inherent masculinity of his images, but then that in itself is an interesting juxtaposition interms of feminism? The female nude is objectified and made strong almost at the same time. And how do you 'judge' this? Probably a bit of a tangent, sorry.

However I really interested in this and how we look at historical paintings of women, how do we judge, contemporary culture, biblical undertones, base aesthetics etc etc. I have no idea.

Too true mbear! I love the tangent, I think Mapplethorpe is, although not my favourite photographer, a very clever photographer, and his way of objectifying people is actually beautifully done.

As for judging, I also have no idea. Everyone has a different angle. I know some art history, and will add that to my opinion, I also sometimes know the histrorical/cultural context. My views however do not feel more valid than someone who doesn't.

Persoanlly I like to be able to play devil's advocate to myself (oh ok, and everyone else too )

I don't think you can judge art, not really. Though a while ago there was an "artist" who starved a dog as an exhibition. Whether the dog was actually starved I never found out, but I judged. It's then difficult to say whether I was right or wrong.

A lot of art is like that. Which brings me back to questioning feminism and art. Feminism says objectifying women is bad, art does so. But art is also ever so slightly detached due to the thinking behind it.

Especially as no one can decide what constitutes art.

Here's another example
Bettie Paige - nowadays a lot of people see this as art. It's original intention was to be used to titillate in the dirty, under the counter magazines. Can it change from what was basically porn to art? If porn is disapproved of can you then enjoy the same images under a different category?

TheArsenicCupCake WHen I did fine art at college I adored painting female models, the image just flowed. Men took more effort and never seemed to draw the eye as much. (Admittedly this may be more due to my ability)

I'm going to blather on a bit about Dejeuner again, I'm afraid...

I accept that the naked woman is staring directly directly at the viewer (hard not to) but this does not necessarily alter the iniquity (?use of word?) of her position. The challenging stare was, I believe, taken to mean that the woman was, most likely, a prostitute at the time the work was first exhibited. That is not a position of power for a woman.

I do realise that Manet's (along with Cezanne et al) work is meant to challenge the preconceptions of the viewer; that it's meant to create question; and it certainly does that with me. My question is "Why the bloody hell is she naked when they're all clothed? Wouldn't the work have been more challenging if the woman were clothed and the man naked?"

This is interesting about Victorine Meurent, the model for Dejeuner, written by V R Main for the Guardian a couple of years ago.

Le Déjeuner is such a strong painting that it inspired me to research its model and write a novel based on what is known of her life. The painting is a feminist work: it presents a powerful woman, offered for male inspection, but not objectified; the model?s challenging stare meets the viewer?s gaze in a way that thwarts desire. The female figure is disconcerting, exploding the stereotype of an anonymous, passive woman. In both Le Déjeuner and Olympia, Meurent refuses to collude with the spectator; her sexuality is all her own.

Her challenging, provocative stare, negotiates her positions as a subject of her own story, rather than an object of someone else's.

Maybe I phrased it wrong Dittany, what I meant was that you cannot definitively judge art as there are so many factors that can change it. Art criticism would be a fairly barren subject if you could.

If the questions were answered years ago, I still feel we are able to ask them now.

I personally can't stand the Bettie Paige pictures, she went through more than anyone should ever have to. So in context of what actually happened they are vile, and from a technical point of view they are awful photos. However other people find them interesting, and not everyone knows the full story about Bettie Paige. Which brings me back to, do you need to know the full background of a piece of art? Or can you judge it on appearances alone?

"As for art being detached from the promotion of misogyny and sexism"

I have, again it is the viewers opinion on it. For some viewers it is detached from it. That is what I meant.

I agree with BelleDameSansMerci, the nude woman doesn't seem empowered to me. I think it is because the men are so dressed. Top hats et al.

Guerilla Girls poster

I've seen this before, and have mixed feelings. As some of us have already said in the thread, female nudes are more aesthetically pleasing, the female form is all gentle curves whereas men are a bit more angular. So what I wonder is whether we say it is bad that there are so many nudes? Or if we agree that we'd rather see female nudes anyway? I do agree that I'd like to see more female artists, however, when I'm actually walking round a gallery I'm looking at the pictures, not the artists. So if the art is good, the art is good.

I understand Le Dejuner as a comment on class rather than an empowerment... the fact that the men are dressed alludes to the woman's nakedness being for sexual as opposed to classical reasons (prostitution). The comment is on the 'class of woman' she is.

Pre-raphaelites were nothing but nostalgists. Were they alive today, they would be railing about Broken Britain. Pornography was not the primary function of their work IMO, rather the idea that women were to be used for decoration, and were to be passive and willowy at all times; a comment on how they felt the modern world had changed gender roles, and an allusion to past idylls.

I think we have to put aside the deeply entrenched notion that art = good. If the work was created with the intention of it being art, it's art. This does not make it good art. Shit art exists

In terms of women artists, I found Lucy Lippard interesting on this topic; The Pink Glass Swan is a collection of essays which examine- amongst other things- the notion that male artists operate from an assumption that they will be listened to, whereas women have to secure their audience through their art.

Marina Abramovic was one of the first artists to examine feminist issues, well worth a look. Susan Hiller also.

I think the sexism in the art world today is far more complex and perhaps deeper than the exhibition of paintings of nude women. It is certainly more covert- and IMO, nastier.