Apparently, women in art are all fair-skinned, sitting still, and posing demurely. Those women’s likenesses, naturally, are captured by male painters. I’m channeling the Guerilla Girls as I watch this.
Thanks to Chris for the link.
Women in Art
Previous post: Justice?
Next post: Why I hate “I hate children…”
Previous post: Justice?
Next post: Why I hate “I hate children…”
{ 36 comments }
Don’t forget that female artists also bought into the male notion of beauty. I think we should demand a refund.
Mesmeric as this is, doesn’t it just demonstrate that mainstream fine art has always been an expensive pursuit, largely patronised and produced by wealthy upper-class men, which depicts women belonging to their own social class, and reflects the dominant male take on feminine virtue?
As for the Eurocentricity of it, well, everything in there has been selected from European fine art. If you did the same trick with Chinese or Indian art, for instance, you’d get a very similar take on feminine virtue over an even longer period of time, but skewed towards a different type of… meh. OK. It would be dainty, demure pale-skinned beauty again. Albeit with a few differences of facial feature and styling.
I see where you’re coming from, but I thought it was a beautiful display of the different types of art styles, etc., that have been created.
I stumbled across this at Ezra Klein’s blog yesterday, where he approvingly quoted another blogger who’d said that “The sequence sometimes gives the impression that the eternal face behind it all is actually flirting with you.”
And of course it does — almost without exception, these women were painted by male artists for male patrons, each of whom had his own reasons to favor depictions of women that flattered and seduced the viewer.
Watching the video, I was struck by the sameness of the expressions — a gentle smile, an open, inviting countenance. Lips demurely closed or parted slightly. No laughter, no scowl, no glare, no reproach, no resolve, no demand. Just eternal goodwill, eternal indulgence, eternal availability.
Glad to see it covered more than just Renaissance or Baroque art. If I remember correctly, some of the faces on Picasso’s Les Demoiselles d’Avignon were influenced by African masks… but it is a picture of prostitutes, so it’s not exactly complimentary.
Brooklynite-
In all fairness, that wasn’t Ezra posting, it was litbrit, one of the weekend guest bloggers. Weird to see her post this approvingly, but there you have it.
Oop. My mistake. Thanks for catching it.
1. All the artists were of European descent and, for the most part, lived in Europe. How many examples of non-European women were many them exposed to?
2. The artists were attempting to make a living from this. Of course they were going to paint subjects they would be paid for.
3. None of the women are “glaring”, etc., because they had to SIT LIVE for these sessions. Try holding a smile for 10 minutes and see how much your face likes you. Why do you think no one is smiling in old photographs? Same reason. A second reason for no smiling, etc., is that many, many people had very bad teeth. For the kind of money that was being paid for many of these portraits, you think they were going to show off their bad teeth?
4. Just as a boy having a nosebleed while interacting with a girl means he’s a virgin and white cotton panties on a girl means she’s a virgin in Japanese anime, these painters were following certain formulas and symbolism in the creation of these paintings – most of which we are no longer familiar with without actual training in art history.
Before condemning the above paintings as patriarchal and sexist, a little research into their time periods and artists will show that’s not ALL they are.
(snort)
My daughter is totally in love with the music on this–does anybody know who/what it is? I heard Yo-Yo Ma, but still don’t know what the piece is.
It reminds me mightily of the Michael Jackson video “Black and White,” just with the black and other non-white shades excised.
There was an incredible exhibit at The New Orleans Museum of Art recently called “Femme! Femme! Femme!”
It chronicled the female form in European art over the course of centuries.
It was fascinating, especially the later, more daring pieces of women who posed and dressed as men.
There’s some quotation from Jean-Luc Godard along the lines of, “The history of cinema is that of boys photographing girls.” That seems to hold more or less true here too.
The overwhelming whiteness aspect is interesting too, since non-white people are rarely in anything approaching a socially accepted subject position. Like, for instance, in Manet’s Olympia (NSFW). Tells you a nice bit about race and class in 2nd Empire France, that one does.
Kactus, it’s the Sarabande from J.S. Bach’s first unaccompanied cello suite. Here’s the album on Amazon.
Your daughter has excellent taste. ;)
(I’ve already griped on other sites about the incredibly narrow perspective of this video, so I won’t repeat myself here…)
Yes, all of the points are correct.
However, it was kind of cool to see the styles (both in painting and in hairdos) evolve over time. And the animation was pretty well done.
That said, there are at least a few paintings that don’t portray the sweet demure woman that could have been included. Maybe this one or a self-portrait like this one. Kind of sad that my armchair knowledge of art history doesn’t allow me to bring to mind any images of women of color, though.
I find it very interesting that even women who had political influence are posed in the same “gentle,” (read: non-threatening) manner as the others. Unless I am very much mistaken, the woman at 1:26 is Queen Victoria, and I think I noticed Marie Antoinette in there as well. If anything, the more submissive the woman is painted to look, the more actual influence she had. Perhaps this is an attempt by the (male) artist/society to de-emphasize the authority that the woman held, and thus her ability to damage the patriarchy. Does anyone have a list of which paintings are in this video? I’d be interested in knowing which ones depict actual people, and if my theory is correct.
I guess I can’t be too upset by this- it is simply mirroring society, not necessarily commenting on it. European art up until 100 years ago was mostly wealthy women getting painted- and who was wealthy? Women weren’t allowed to paint, really, until 100 years ago- and they did mostly landscapes. African art, until influenced by Europeans, was not portraits.
I agree its a shame, but- it should be fairly obvious from an art history perspective why.
Does someone want to make a more inclusive video? Or better yet, go paint a POC.
Criticizing it for the light skin of the subjects is like criticizing Chinese painting before Marco Polo for containing all those Chinese people.
Where is the diversity!!!
The limited representations of women in painting is a fairly good measure of women’s limited lives and hardly the fault of artists or the compiler of the video.
Ellenbrenna, I think that what I object to most of all is the title of the video. This is hardly a representation of “Women in Art”; it’s a representation of one very specific kind of woman favored by (mostly) male painters.
I’ve got nothing against any of the artists whose work is included, nor even against the compiler of the video. But it bothers me that to many of its viewers, this probably does cover the sum total of their experience of women in art–and that’s a shame.
I find this somewhat disingenuous. If you take a quick peak at other paintings from these time periods, you’ll find that most of the subjects, including men, have similar “neutral” expressions. Moreover, you can find other paintings, such as those of bachanalia, which show women in more varied expression, but like all other art of the time period (I’m only discussing neo-classical and baroque), the facial expression is muted. This is especially true of portraits, even of kings. Compare those faces with this portrait of Louis XV. http://www.axonais.com/saintquentin/musee_lecuyer/graphs/louisXV.jpg
You can see that the expressions are very similar; he’s mildy pleased but very open and approachable. I’d dare say it’s a pleasing expression, and he doesn’t appear aloof (as does images of Louis XIV).
II don’t think it’s fair at all to condemn these paintings for being anti-feminist. This is simply the style of painting.
And before making obnoxious comments, you might actually want to read what I wrote. Maybe I missed it, but I didn’t condemn the above paintings and patriarchal and sexist. A little research into feminist theory — and hell, a little basic reading comprehension — will go a long way.
(snort)
Can someone point me toward where I condemned these paintings for being anti-feminist? Thanks.
Jill, I suppose I was responding most to Brooklynites first comment which does do exactly what I said.
Ah, sorry about that. I just assumed you were responding to me. I’m a narcissist that way.
I obviously can’t speak for Jill at all, but I don’t see the post as exactly “condemning” the paintings as anti-feminist. That sort of political option wasn’t open to most of the painters involved. Hell, even a pioneer (and terrific artist) such as Artemisia Gentilschi wasn’t really a feminist, at least not in the way we understand the term, more or less. That said, I do think it’s valid to criticize a tradition that, it seems, constructs women as objects of the male gaze. And anyway, there’s a pretty significant difference between critique and condemnation. /pedantry
I don’t think I exactly condemned the paintings as patriarchal and sexist — I’d prefer to think that I was drawing attention to some patriarchal and sexist influences in their creation.
But yeah, I was probably a bit more snarky and dismissive than was warranted.
I do think that even this very Western array of paintings of women could have been more interesting: where, for example, is the scandalous, wonderful Olympe? How about Dora Maars (sp?)
OTOH, Kacktus’s daughter (comment #9) is my new favorite person I’ve never even met. (Hi, Kacktus’ daughter, you have awesome taste in music!) And kudos to Lizard (at #13) for identifying the sublime soundtrack — I’ve often thought, if I were forced to live on a desert island where I could never hear Mahler or Verdi or Joni Mitchell or even the Rolling Stones again, I could still survive if only I could have the Bach unaccompanied violin and ‘cello works.
Vanessa (and whoever else is interested):
There’s at least one self-portrait in there. One by Elizabeth Louise Vigee-Lebrun (1:53 on the counter / 59 seconds in).
I think the one at 2:22 (30 seconds in) might be another one, but I don’t know who she is.
htotheb: Ah, cool. My art history-fu, it is not so good.
http://www.artbible.info/art/large/11.html: The clip could’ve included this. Here is Judith, a woman with an intense look of calm resolve and concetration (not demure or flirting with the viewer), commiting a vicious act for the good of her people.
http://www.penwith.co.uk/artofeurope/manet_olympia.jpg: Or this one. Though the woman is naked, her gaze is not demure nor flirtacious. She is in fact looking down at the audience, proud and comfortable in her position of power. Her cat also doesn’t seem like the audience very much. It’s interesting to note that Manet was harshly criticsized for this.
On another note I love the two artworks of Mucha the clip employed.
*sighs* I hate it when links don’t work…
Here is the first image I talked about: http://dolordecorus.net/caravaggio22.jpg
Here is the second:
http://dolordecorus.net/manet_olympia.jpg
At least one of Frida Kahlo’s self portraits would have been a worthy addition to this video. And we know that the Guerilla girls like themselves some Frida. Didn’t one of them even take on that alias? :)
Does anyone know the painter of the woman seen at :42/:41? She’s one of the ones I just can’t place and it’s driving me crazy!
I don’t know for sure, but I’d guess Andre Derain, or maybe Henri Matisse. Crap, now that’s going to bother me too! I have even less of an idea who the subject is, sadly.
DolorDecorus (and others), you might be interested to know that the subject of the Caravaggio painting for which you provided a link, Judith slaying Holfernes, was painted many times by a wonderful woman artist of the Renaissance called Artemisia Gentileschi. See here:
http://www.artemisia-gentileschi.com/judith1.html
Looking through the paintings on this excellent website makes me think that there is material for an entire montage just of the female faces Gentileschi painted throughout her life. The expressions are so individuated, intelligent and active.
It’s Henri Matisse’s Woman With a Hat. I had to look it up myself ^^;
I so want to learn how to create these. Does anyone know how?
Comments on this entry are closed.