Maria Jones
Academic Advisor Sunanda Sanyal
1 September 2012
Art From Social Structuration
Art today, as in the past, revolves
around a distinctly patriarchal and masculine mindset, and consequently the
work created is the product of inherent social structures. I was raised in a
strong Sicilian family, and during family gatherings my father would regale us
with masculine stories from his military experience. Through these stories he strove to instill in me the desire
to be a strong independent individual. The way my father raised me affects the way I see the world,
and my experiences in the military affects my artistic style. I spent
six years in the United States Navy as a Supply Officer. The six years I spent in service taught
me a lot about empathy, understanding human reactions, knowing who I am and
what I want out of life. It
eventually made me stronger and brought me back to my art. Griselda Polluck and Linda Nochlin’s
articles debate the idea that the work created in a patriarchal society is a
product of social structure and provide insight into my own work.
Griselda
Polluck’s Modernity and the Spaces of
Femininity provides the reader with her independent, aggressively female,
perspective into three different “looks”, as Polluck calls them, through
differing spaces in 19th century modernity. These “looks”, or spaces, include male
and female spatial order, the male public gaze, and the female private
gaze. Polluck defines space in the
two dimensions of location and spatial order within paintings (Polluck
62). She portrays the physical
spaces women were permitted in 19th century society as confined and
restrictive. Specifically, these
spaces included dining rooms, bedrooms, drawing rooms balconies/verandas, and
private gardens (56). These hemmed
in spaces were the exclusive subjects of female Impressionists, Mary Cassatt
and Berthe Morrisot and were subjected to spatial order. Hence, their paintings were subjected
to their female spatial order and perceptions.[1] This order not only lacked geometric
perspective governing the representation of space in European painting, but
consisted of compartmentalized space with obvious boundaries created by
juxtaposing devices such as embankments, balconies, furniture, etc which
created an uncomfortable immediacy between foreground and figure (62-64).[2]
Departing from confined space, Polluck
moves to her second space- the public realm and the public gaze. She describes the public realm in the
19th century as a purely masculine space, and embodies the masculinity
of the space in a key figure, the impassive stroller. This male figure asserts dominance over the female figure by
having access to public spheres, such as production, politics, government,
education, law, and public service that do not allow women (67). Spaces accessible by men were
considered dangerous and debasing for women of Cassatt and Morisot’s class,
thereby their painting spaces were restricted to the theatre and parks during
public outings. Spaces such as
backstage areas, cafes and brothels were only frequented by women of lower or
no class distinction, and therefore paintings by men that feature women in
these areas evidence a masculine sexualized manner (73). Bourgeois women
did go out to dine and entertain, but the acts were considered a symptom of
modern decline (78). Polluck
further claims the masculine oppressive nature of the city allows men to
actively gaze at women in objectifying and compromising manners without
consequence. Both male and female Impressionist paintings of the time showed
subtle hints of this masculine oppression (75-76). During the industrial
revolution 19th century society created a separation of public and private
sectors. While the public sector
remained male-dominant and focused on the male gaze, the private sector, while
still under the jurisdiction of the male was monopolized by the female and the
female gaze. The private sector became a non-sexual safe haven for women to
relax without scrutiny.
Polluck argues that interiors, though
preferred by female painters like Cassatt and Morisot, were also subjects for
male Impressionist painters, and at this point painting becomes a vehicle for
sexual difference (81). She states
that Cassatt’s paintings of females removed the masculine eye of the
voyeuristic gaze and provided intimate insight into the women and their daily
task of washing, without forcing sexual contexts (88-89). Polluck concludes that the 19th
century structure of modernity can be viewed through the works of female
artists of the time and that the spaces of modernity still affect our modern
society and dictate how women behave. My father’s teachings of independence,
and my military lifestyle are still not necessarily considered normal behavior
in today’s society.
Linda Nochlins, Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists, argues in an
academically discursive tone the role of education in the demise of past female
greatness. Nochlin believes the making of a great artist requires
consistent training, practice, teaching and individual experimentation (149). She notes that the role of women has not
changed throughout the years. She
feels this is due to the privileged clinging to any advantage possible
(152). This advantage was
specifically educational institutions and included societal differences. Artists, most generally, developed from
families with little societal constraints and relatives who practiced the art
of painting. People born female or
into the Aristocracy faced far too many preconceived roles, such as maintaining
a household, in society to waste any extra time on painting. Further, beginning in the sixteenth
century, life drawing became the foundation of academic training in the arts.
Since it was considered unseemly for women to see nudity this inclusion of life
drawing in the curriculums had the effect of excluding women from formal
training. History painting was the
ultimate genre of the 16th century due to the philosophical
tendencies towards Idealism verses Realism and the nude was essential to
history painting (158). Women’s restriction to portraiture, genre paintings,
landscapes or still-lifes made steps to greatness all but impossible
considering the popularity of the tendencies toward nude preference in history
painting (158-160). This blatant
separation from education was further exacerbated by societal requirements of
proper female etiquette placing the home and good manners first. Although,
Nochlin states later in her text that women were allowed the choice of marriage
or a career, ultimately the task of attending to the male prevails in society
and prevents the female from continuing achievements in the arts
(166-167).
Nochlin discusses successful women
painters in her last section, but points to their good fortune of having
fathers who were artists, or strong male artist friends later in life as the
driving force to their success.
She further addresses the gravity of societal and educational restraints
with a look at the successes of painter, Rosa Bonheur, who was a catalyst for change
in her time (170).[3] Nochlin concludes by firmly reiterating
the institutional problem plaguing historical greatness in women, and
challenges women to step up and take part in creating institutions open to
anyone no matter gender (176).
Polluck
provides interesting examples of public restrictions on females in the 19th
century, and Nochlin expounds upon institutional/public restrictions on females
throughout history. Nochlin’s
article focuses on the overall lack of women’s art due to societal structures
and institutions throughout the centuries, while Polluck’s article focuses on
three specific gender roles, and the oppression of women during the rise of
modernity in the 19th century. I
agree with both arguments to some extent and feel that education and continued
practice is the only way to true success in art, especially for women in the
artistic sphere. My art making
process is directly affected by my education, life experience, and events. I was fortunate to have a father that
taught me independence, and supported my pursuit of the arts. My art reflects
my independent determined mindset through the material I choose to study and
create, the colors I paint with, and the medium I work in. My subject matter
changes based on my life experiences, and without a supportive family
structure, to include my father, I may not be pursuing the strong concepts I am
today. The series I am working on now is a sort of dedication to fellow
empowered women I have met in my past, and I want people to see this strength
in the pieces I create. From Nochlin’s and Polluck’s articles I have learned
that continued growth through education and direct influences are opportunities
I would have been historically barred from, and continued study and independent
experimentation are important to achieve intelligent artist expression. The
continued study of art history from varying perspectives will help me gain a
greater understanding of how and why I create, how I progress, and how my
individual experiences inspire new ideas.
As an individual, I make a conscious choice in subject matter, but
ultimately my work will be affected by my decision to be an independent
individual within the social structures that formed me.
Works Cited
Nochlin,
Linda. Women, Art, and Power and Other
Essays. Boulder, CO:Westview Press, 1989. 145-
178. Print.
Pollock,
Griselda. Vision and Difference:
Femininity, Feminism and Histories of Art. Routledge,
1988. 50-79. Print.
[1] Polluck
states, “I argue that despite the exterior setting the painting creates the
intimacy of an interior and registers the garden… not as a piece of private
property but as the place of seclusion and enclosure” (63). Note, this portion of the text is
merely conjecture on the writers part with no supporting evidence.
[2] Polluck
speaks of the use of Brunelleschi’s linear perspective and how Impressionists
depart from its use. I would
argue, while still used in Impressionist paintings, that linear perspective is
still present in lower horizon lines.
[3] Rosa Bonheur
was the daughter of an impoverished drawing master who instilled independence
and ambition in her at a young age.
She made the decision to never marry and rejected societal norms to wear
pants in public situations where skirts were cumbersome. Even with all of her successes as a
painter and individual Bonheur was still a product of her time and limited
education (Nochlin 170-174).
No comments:
Post a Comment