Gender and Art.
“Women are depicted in a quite different way from men – not because the feminine is different from the masculine – but because the ‘ideal’ spectator is always assumed to be male and the image of women is designed to flatter him.” John Berger – Ways of Seeing, 1972.
Ideals in society have always been an important construct. From ways of living; class, wealth and culture, there always has been, and probably will be, an ‘ideal’ for everything one interacts with. In a sense, this is no different to gender. Throughout history the male has always been given higher priorities – seen as the stronger, more dominant gender. In art history, there is no difference. Women have often been excluded from art and its practices in a variety of ways, especially in historical academies and institutions through history, simply for being female. Even when women were granted the opportunity to practice, they were often still considered subordinate to their superior, male peers’ skills. However, women were never totally excluded from art, commonly used as models and subjects of artist’s works. The (reclining) nude in its many forms can easily be considered one of the most recognised and important influences in art. It’s the beginning chapter and the classic subject of master painters. The nude is also a starting point for constructions of ‘ideal females’.
During the 1940-50s, Abstract Expressionism was in the midst of becoming one of the most important art forms for American artists, trying to claim their superiority over the work of well-known European abstract artists. Defined by the likes of Mark Rothko and Jackson Pollock, all the artists took on different pictorial identities, yet held the importance of their work gaining independence from culture and society of the time. Abstract Expressionism aimed to be conceived as autonomous, the intentions of the movement being that the works had little to no relation to the social, political and economical connections to the world – like art previously had. These works of art were intended to be purely about formal and pictorial elements they were built up from: line, shape, colour, brushstrokes and application of paint to canvas, for example. They were ‘art for art’s sake’, or at least in Greenbergian modernist theory, anyway.
Jackson Pollock, Number 1A, 1948, 1948,oil and enamel paint on unprimed canvas.
Jackson Pollock’s Number 1A, 1948 is painted in his most renowned style – the drip painting. For this, Pollock laid canvases on the floor and moved around them while dripping, flicking and splattering paint from above. In this particular painting, Pollock has used a mainly neutral colour base, of blacks, whites and greys that are mostly confined to the centre of the canvas. This causes the centre to become visually the busiest part of the painting, with the movements of paint working out towards the edges. Touches of other colours are included – spots of red and yellow peeking through in random spots, and there is a smudge of pink in the bottom, left-hand corner. Along with his signature style, Pollock made this piece his own by signing his name at the bottom, along with his own human touch, quite literally, by leaving his hand print in the top right-hand corner, most probably from steadying himself as he moved around creating this piece. The title is numbered rather than named as titles suggest certain ways pieces can be interpreted. The letter A is used simply to avoid confusion from an earlier piece by Pollock which shares the same title.
To Harold Rosenberg, Pollock’s active method of making art drew parallels to performance. Rosenberg’s theories centralise around the notion of Abstract Expressionism being ‘action painting’. In The American Action Painters Rosenberg explains that the canvas is an arena to express one’s self and act within, creating an event rather than a simple picture. In this sense, the gestures and aesthetics of pieces created in this particular movement are subordinate to the expression apparent in the painting. Creating art in this manner was about having a sensual experience, letting the unconscious mind take over the body to create a visual experience through a mixture of automatic, spontaneous and evoked responses to that exact moment in time. Essentially the painting acts as a performance and a biography of the artist. For Rosenberg, the gestures created on canvas stood for liberation from political, aesthetic and moral grounds to tell a story of each individual artist. The artists identity was, indeed, a performance and representational of individual painters through their enactments; their gestures and how these manifested in the laying of paint to canvas. As a result, the element of performance in these works also come bound with notions of the body and gender. Gender was a significant feature to the Abstract Expressionists, synonymous with a macho, masculine identity. Something reflected in the size and scale of the pieces created. This is particularly significant in Pollock’s grandiose creations.
The importance of gender in art is something Griselda Pollock explains her thoughts on gender differences in art in her text Painting, Feminism, History. One of the main points emphasised is how its commonly understood that artists are (generally speaking) males and subjects female...or we could say objects, as male artists are argued to have objectified females through their own, personal ideals. These representations of females rely on notions of ‘symbolic space’, where the studio, model, artist and canvas become one. Additionally, Griselda believed that the studio is a masculine space and the canvas is a ‘one-way transaction’, because a fictive body is created through the painter’s personal looks and gestures to reproduce these looks. Griselda’s theory is interesting when applied to Pollock, especially the notion of the canvas being a ‘female’ space. If the reflection of self applied to the canvas by the artist is predominantly male, as most Abstract Expressionists were, how does this lend to the metaphorical cross-over into ‘female space’?
Masculine identity found in Abstract Expressionism essentially came down to a mixture of social constructs, from choice of clothing and behaviours, as well as pictorial practices. To look at the expression of self found in Pollock’s Number 1A, 1948, amongst his other drip paintings (despite its supposed autonomy), the upward gestures and vertical trajectories of paint all seep masculinity. There are certain phallic and ejaculatory gestural similarities. However, in spite of the macho personas Abstract Expressionist painters were believed to exude, gender ambiguities can be considered in Number 1A, 1948 when we study those smaller patches of other colours – pinks and lavenders, (we could say) ‘feminine’ colours dotted around the canvas. These not only contrast masculine tendencies but also, in a sense, begin to blur constructed gender boundaries.
Jasper Johns, Target with Plater Casts, 1955, encaustic and collage on canvas with objects.
Man Ray, Marcel Duchamp as Rrose Selavy, 1920-21, silver gelatin print.
Where Abstract Expressionism was synonymous with masculine heterosexual values within the avant-garde culture, a few years on the Neo-Dada artists found themselves on opposing sides. A lot of gay artists practiced in the group, and many, like Jasper Johns – for example, chose to stay ‘in the closet’ about their sexuality. Not only was homosexuality still illegal at this time, but many gay artists experienced similar frustrations and stereotypes to female artists practicing in and around social constructs that had been masculinised. Besides, it was felt that these kinds of artists would stand out too much to be granted acceptance in the avant-garde world. And so, where the Abstract Expressionists used their work as a form of self-expression, artists like Johns tried to keep self-expression to a minimum as not to expose any personal feelings. Target with Plaster Casts is reminiscent of Duchamp’s work (considered a role model for the Neo-Dadaists, especially in consideration of Rrose Selavy, his cross-gendered performance) by the way it borrows impersonal, readily available designs (the target) to detract from any connections to meanings that could personally link to Johns. Lined above the target, made of collaged newspaper clippings, are morbid plaster casts of various body parts. Juxtapositioning brings together the impersonal with an emotional response, but with Johns’ intention of the piece to remain without apparent meaning. However, that does not mean viewers are unable to read their own meanings into it. Many questions can be prompted, especially in relation to human body (parts) and their place in art, in addition to the use of newspaper clippings as a possible comment on the social/political culture of the time. Overall, a sense of mystery and attention can be drawn to the significant silence this piece unveils, almost as if it’s hiding something. This silence could be significant of Johns’ closeted sexuality, and it is argued that Johns’ representation of a gay subject through its silence considers the piece to have a ‘significant absence’ – or in other words, suggesting there really is something missing from the work and its meanings.
We have seen how important masculinity is to art and life. So in this respect, how are females supposed to be viewed, and how are women artists calling out males on their exclusive views?
The twentieth century saw the rise of the feminist. Female artists and writers were taking a stand against male dominated society with an agenda to change the way culture and society looked to women. In her manifesto Women’s Art, Valie Export expressed her thoughts, feelings and desires, proposing women create brand new works, notions, ideals and values, setting out to change the male dominated reality so women’s needs would gain significance in culture. As a rule, women’s voices were excluded from the media and (popular) culture, and Export wished to liberate these subordinate voices and cultures from masculine views. She believed that the media was a key element to the progression of art and an influence on conscious.
Craig Owens, in Discourse of Others, also explains how feminism covers a whole range of different issues including, but not limited to race, class and sexuality. The work of feminists, both art and theory, was crucial to social, cultural and political changes experienced in this time and characterised feminist practices, all the while challenging modernist ideals set though history. Owens believed that post modern outlooks into life and culture, with significant help from feminism and use of different forms of opposition used to discriminate, lead to a denial of patriarchy and difference. Binary terms and oppositions, especially class and sexuality, were beginning to be disregarded, and Owens felt this had an important implication on practices of looking. Priority and privilege of looking is often linked with sexual privilege – masculine (male gaze).
Constructs of (male) gaze in regards to film and popular culture have been an important subject for many artists and theorists, especially for Laura Mulvey. In Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema, Mulvey believed that practices of looking and aspects of pleasure come hand in hand, and certain codes have been set by the film industry. She explains that in cinema there are three different kinds of ‘looks’. These consist of the look of the camera, which not only records but also can be used to distance viewers from the scenario; the look of the audience, who are watching the event unfold, and finally, the look of the characters. All of these aspects come together under an act of construction of male gaze. It is often believed male gaze is considered to be active and controls narrative. Muvley says how the camera can be used as a tool for voyeurism, and essentially, the three looks mentioned above are all controlled by male spectator ideals of fetishised females. Much like Mulvey, Susan Sontag also expressed her views on how the camera was always sold as a ‘predatory weapon’, a voyeuristic tool to distance photographers/spectators from reality. Sontag further believed that the act of photographing a person violates them, as they become viewed in ways they are ‘unable to view themselves’. Feminist artists often attempted to break boundaries of male gaze and idealised females within their work in various ways. Deconstructing existing codes was important to get female voices heard. One artist whose work attempted this was Cindy Sherman.
Sherman is most famously known for her self portraits. Her images aimed to break down aforementioned barriers and reflect back the viewers’ own desires, while denying the common longing to fix women into a stable, constructed identity. All of Sherman’s self portraits go about this in complex ways. While we presume to recognise Sherman as herself, her identity is never a single, stable construct. The most impressive element is how Sherman is able to use her camera as a tool to create images that objectify herself in a way that is so commonly recognised of the female form (much like a male artist/photographer would), while simultaneously breaking down conventions by becoming the strong, powerful woman popular culture often denies.
Among Sherman’s self portraits are her Film Stills series. These images aim to appropriate 50s and 60s Hollywood, and Sherman stars in each image, in disguise, as many different faces of the Hollywood Heroine. Sherman suggests possibility of danger beyond the image, in turn prompting viewers to create their own narratives. Film Stills cleverly questions the presence of the actresses in front of the camera against apparent authenticity held by directors, all the while attacking representations of male desire and fantasy, often seen and constructed through the leading ladies of film and popular culture.
It’s clear to understand that for Sherman, cinema is an important source which her Film Stills are conceived. Among photographing, she was also performing; playing an actress, from a position outside of Hollywood that made it possible for her to criticise and appropriate. But how would this differ for someone whose roots are within Hollywood? More importantly, how would this differ for someone of the opposite gender?
James Franco is an actor known for his life and work within Hollywood and popular culture. New Film Stills are Franco’s personal interpretation of Cindy Sherman’s Film Stills. The series of black and white images see Franco appropriate scenarios, poses, clothing and props similar to Sherman’s Film Stills. As we know, Sherman’s work is recognised for its feminist undercurrents that run throughout her images and the appropriation of ideals and stereotypes of females that film and cinema contributed to creating. Her aim was to deconstruct these ideals and to avert male gaze. However, Franco is appropriating appropriation (like parody, minus the humour), and his images could simply be mistaken as a man in drag. This has the unfortunate effect of unravelling the feminist roots Sherman had worked so hard to anchor in her images.
Cindy Sherman, Film Still #6, 1977, black and white photograph.
James Franco, New Film Still #6, 2013, black and white photograph.
In New Film Stills Franco attempts to copy the same poses and facial expressions of Sherman, but these lay with a different demeanour as a male is the main protagonist, rather than a female. In Ways of Seeing, John Berger comments on the difference between portrayals of males and females:
“Choose...an image of a traditional nude. Transform the woman into a man...notice the violence which that transformation does. Not to the image, but to the assumptions of a likely viewer.”
This certainly can be considered in relation to Franco’s New Film Stills. If we look at New Film Still #6 in comparison to Sherman’s Film Still #6, the slight changes Franco made can be read as being more aggressive than the overall look Sherman’s image gives off. For example: changing the prop from a mirror to a vase – for starters, a mirror is more significant as a comment on feminine ideals and perception, compared to a vase. In addition, Sherman’s grasp on the mirror is effortless. It is almost falling out of her hand. In comparison, Franco clutches the neck of the vase, as if it could be used as a weapon at any given moment.
Along with the images, Franco exhibited a series of poems he had written himself relating to individual images in Sherman’s series. Now, the ambiguously suggested narratives Sherman wanted the viewers to create from the given scenarios become prescribed commentaries... male commentaries. Also, Sherman’s images are about bringing attention to the leading female characters to subvert male gaze. Now that the leading lady is quite recognisably a leading man (his beard an obvious feature!), despite clothing and props, Franco has managed to create a series of images where gender no longer seems to be linked with power. However, it can be argued that this is a very hypocritical move as Franco – a male, is still creating images referencing females, regardless of whether it is a male in the role or not. Therefore, stereotypes are made and male gaze/spectatorship remains an important element viewers connect with. Meaning gender representations and roles stay stagnant, despite Sherman’s attempts to disempower.
Many theories have been written expressing thoughts on gender being a social construct, relating to masculine and feminine binary oppositions. Differences in representation of male and female rely on effects of different genders and discourses, especially those set by stronger, masculine based ideals – like the gaze theory. Simone de Beaviour believes there is an element, ‘or cogito’, in which certain individuals are able to appropriate gender, or take on another gender. In this mind, Sherman’s work can be considered an appropriation of gender to a significant degree, but falling within the boundaries of ideals set in place by popular culture and society. In another sense, Franco could also be seen to appropriate and take on another gender – the opposite. His role can be considered a performance of gender, as his physical anatomy differs from the gender of the performance he is giving. But this highlights elements in line with drag acts, which can be regarded as degrading and sexist. Judith Butler explains how some forms of drag can mock models of gender and identity, be degrading to women and be an ‘uncritical appropriation of sex-role stereotyping’.
Understanding Sherman’s Film Stills requires the viewer to have knowledge on the history of photography, cinema, and feminism. However, to understand Franco’s New Film Stills, the only information viewers need is simply that of Franco. Although the essence of Sherman is recognisable in her images, her identity is something that needs to be uncovered through the layers of meaning and props. However, once again, viewing Franco’s images can simply be seen as ‘Franco as Sherman’. Franco is very much identifiable as himself, and this can be confused as the main element of importance for viewers to understand, rather than any narratives or issues which are attempted to be addressed.
In short: art has been a popular form used to express sexuality and representations of gender. These representations were usually based around ideals set from a heterosexual, masculine dominated culture. Masculinised movements, like Abstract Expressionism, flourished in their autonomy and expression of macho identities, and male artists’ representations of femininity were destructive to women. Throughout history females were often considered subordinate to males, in both art and society. Likewise, homosexual artists also found themselves in a similar position. As a result, artists began using their work as a means to deconstruct cultural ideals and blur boundaries. For artists like Jasper Johns, this could mean the acknowledgement of creating a silence, or absence in works, which although were supposed to be void of meaning, can be considered a reflection of personal being. An interesting move, seeing as Neo-Dada claimed to be opposing the Abstract Expressionist expression of self!
Masculine views continue to be more prevailing; the works of Pollock and Sherman weren’t specifically subject to one gender over the other. In fact, both artists borrow from their opposing genders in one way or another. Pollock blurs gender boundaries by including colours considered feminine in his predominantly masculine paintings, while expressing himself within a ‘female space’ (the canvas). But what becomes interesting here is when we apply the notion of the ‘masculine studio’ to Sherman, the space she created the majority of her images. Modern photographers, particularly females, used studios as they were controlled environments, detached from outside influences. In addition to this, Sherman also blurs gender in Film Stills through the act of appropriating male dominated practices as a way to express her opposition to cultural ideals. The appropriation of male pictorial practices and gestures was often seen in the work of women artists and feminists, amongst creating their own forms of practices and identities with the ultimate aim to generate new, positive images of women.
