Karina Salamea

Women and the Media 384

Professor Cacoilo
Final Project

From Male Objectification to Female Representation

Throughout art history the female form has been the subject of choice for

countless artists. In early 20th century art many male artists have dominated the depiction

of the female nude. However as time went on female artists chose to depict the female

form in their own way, by making commentary that was very different from the images

painted by earlier male artists. They made sure that what they had to say and depict was

in fact connected to their gender and it was from that that their statement was formed.

There are many works of the 20th century by male artists that are suppose to be

considered work that was very avant-garde during there time. But when looked at for

how they are present the female nude rather than the aesthetic approach, their work can

be seen as those in a long line in art history that objectify the female nude. The reason

that these works of art can be considered an objectification is because of the fact that the

male artist took a particular approach when painting the image. The way that male artist

display their subject matters and in some cases the use of color and the general shape of

the nude helps to further show this. Another very important element of their paintings is

the expression of the face of the female nudes, and in some cases the complete lack of

expressions or even faces.

The first three avant-garde movements of the twentieth century, Fauvism,

Cubism, and German Expressionism, consist of many works that portray women as
powerless and as a dominated gender. What is ironic about the fact that these movements

are considered to have produced work that is avant-garde is the fact that most of these

images can be seen as regressive rather than the progressive way that they were being

presented in the art world. This was a time in history when women in high society were

being educated yet see as sexual objects by the hands of male artists. Another thing that is

ironic is the general idea; all presentation is representation, which avant-garde

movements are based on. There can be many ways to interpret that approach. One way is

that by presenting something, be it object, humans, nature, etc. one is representing it in a

new manner. Another way to decipher that idea is that by presenting something you are

re-presenting it, showing it in a new way. But in fact these artists aren’t showing any new

idea because they are just joining the line of those before them that used the nude as a

subject choice and by doing so they continued to objectify women.

There are many pieces of art from the Fauve movement that helps to show the

how females are objectified with the use of the depiction of the nude. One piece that

stands out is Henri Matisse’s The Blue Nude (Souvenir de Biskra), 1907. In this painting

Matisse has painted a very curvaceous woman, almost exaggeratedly so. This woman is

positioned in a very particular pose. She is displayed in away that makes her something to

be looked at. Her pose exposes her very plumped breasts as well as her exaggerated

buttocks. It can also be argued that the plant behind the female figure is in a way echoing

the shape of her curves and bring more focus to her body, rather than anything else

depicted on the canvas. An element of the painting that is very important to notice is that

the female’s eyes are not looking back at the viewer. She is looking away as to not be

considered confrontational to the viewer or even the artist himself. This is something that
John Berger brings up in his book Ways of Seeing, the concept of the male gaze. The

male gaze is not something that came up in 20th century but rather something that has

been imbedded for so long in art history that both male and females, be they artist or

viewer, can’t escape. In this book he states “Men look at women. Women watch

themselves being looked at. This determines not only most relations between men and

women but also the relation of women to themselves. The surveyor of woman in herself

is male: the surveyed female. Thus she turns herself into an object – and most particularly

an object of vision: a sight.” This is exactly what results from the works of artists like

Matisse, and those who came after him in the 20th century.

Another piece that can be considered to encompass many issue of the

objectification of women in 20th century painting is Pablo Picasso’s Les Demoiselles

d’Avignon from 1907. This was a piece that was done right at the turn of the century, a

piece that can be considered one of his most famous, if not his most famous. The title of

this piece talks about the women of Avignon. Which was known to be a street that

housed a brothel with many clientele. So when people looked at this piece they already

associated the female figures in the painting as being prostitutes. Being that this is one of

his proto-cubist works the faces of the females are depicted from different angles, but no

matter what the gaze of the women are calling the viewer in. The shapes that frame the

women is suppose to be a curtain which, the figure on the left is pushing back as if to
invite the male viewer in. Being that this piece is considered one of the most famous

paintings of the twentieth century there has been many writings to analyze it.

In an article called Virility and Domination in Early Twentieth-Century Vanguard

Paintings by Carol Duncan, she basically sums up all that is wrong with the painting in

regards to the depiction of women in this piece and what a viewer can take away from it.

She states, “No painting of this decade better articulates the male-female dichotomy and

the ambivalence men experience before it than Picasso’s Demoiselles d”Avignon of

1905-1906. What is so remarkable about this work is the way that it manifests the

structural foundation underlying both the

femme fatale and the new, primitive woman.

Picasso did not merely combine these into one

horrible image; he dredged up from his psyche

the terrifying and fascinating beast that gave

birth to both of them. The Demoiselles

prismatically mirrors her many opposing

faces: whore and deity, decadent and savage, tempting and repelling, awesome and

obscene, looming and crouching, masked and naked, threatening and powerless. In that

jungle-brothel is womankind in all her past and present metamorphoses, concealing and

revealing herself before the male. With sham and real reverence, Picasso presents her in

the form of a desecrated icon already slashed and torn into bit.” To further explain this

view towards this piece, Duncan is saying that what Picasso has done here is he

encompassed all the things that male artist have done to the female nude throughout art

history and placed them in one painting.

 Another artist of the twentieth century that can be considered one to have

objectified the female nude in his work is the German Expressionist Ernst Ludwig

Kirchner. One of his paintings that is an example of this is Tower Room, Fehmarn (Self-

Portrait with Erna), 1913. The title of the piece doesn’t necessarily focus on the nude her

self, but that doesn’t deny the fact that when one looks at this their gaze goes to the nude.

Something that should be mentioned in regards to this painting is the fact that the face of

the nude is not there. Again bring up the fact that she is an object to be looked at. Even

though this is a self-portrait, the title does include the name of the female figure but yet

the artist reframes from showing her face (his face is there). In the painting her head is

turned away from the viewer and her hair is even covering so much of what could be

seen. The attention is taken away from her face and directly to the rest of her body, which

is complete bare there for the viewer to see while he is fully

clothed. An element about this painting that can be see as a

worse objectification that the previously two shown, is the fact

that the artist is in fact present. And it is with his presence that

he is not denying that the nude is there for him, being that his

gaze is looking directly at her body and not her face. This here can alludes to the fact that

this is not a painting to depict some sort of conversation between the two figures, but to

rather show his visual control of her body.

There is no doubt that throughout art history there have been paintings that are

famous and the subject matter happens to be a female nude. During the time that these

paintings were painted by male artists, their female contemporaries were doing the same,

however there paintings weren’t the topic of choice by art critic because they weren’t
necessarily considered to be avant-garde. Having said that it should be mentioned that

most art critics happen to be male. Then in 1970s some women artists decided to control

they way that their gender was depicted and decided to show their own take on the female

nude and what she represented. As stated before in his book Ways of Seeing, John Berger

said, “Men look at women. Women watch themselves being looked at. This determines

not only most relations between men and women but also the relation of women to

themselves. The surveyor of woman in herself is male: the surveyed female. Thus she

turns herself into an object – and most particularly an object of vision: a sight.” This fact

is something that many women decided to do away with. They wanted to bring forth the

female voice in art. Being that females have been at the receiving end of the male gaze,

their depiction of the female nude is not one of sexual objectification but rather a way of

expressing themselves freely to get their point across on their gender rather than being

viewed as objects. They choose to do this by using their nude bodies; using the same

elements that male artist used when they consciously or subconsciously objectifying

them.

One artist that the really made a statement with her work in regards to the female

body was Carolee Schneemann. On August 29th 1975 Carolee Schneemann performed

her piece entitled Interior Scroll in the exhibition called “Women Here and Now” in East

Hampton New York. In this piece she approached a table lit by two dim spot light. She

was dressed and carried two sheets, she then went on to undress herself and got on the

table and covered herself with one of the sheets. She then proceed to tell her audience

that she would be reading from a book called Cezanne, She Was A Great Painter, after

making this statement she dropped her sheet and was left with only an apron. She then
goes on to painter herself in dark paint and read an excerpt from the book, while doing

poses that most nude models do for painters. The performance ends by her removing the

apron and pulling a scroll from her vagina and reading from it. The scroll was a response

to a critic that dismissed her work but

told her he enjoyed her company and

who thought of her as more of a dancer

than a filmmaker/artist. The scroll

reads "if you are a woman (and things

are not utterly changed)/ they will

almost never believe you really did

it/(what you did do)/ they will worship

you they will ignore you/ they will

malign you they will pamper you/ they

will try to take what you did as their own....".

The fact that this is not the typical/traditional way that women were depicted by

men for so long makes it very powerful piece. It is even more of a statement that she uses

not only her body, but also her voice to get her message across. What shows that this

piece is a reaction to the traditional depiction of women is that in the part of the

performance where she is left with only an apron she paints her body and starts to do

traditional model poses. By doing this one can read it as a kind of commentary of the

“chores” that female figures did in art history because their role was an object to be

portrayed. The turning point of the performance is when she proceeds to stand up,

remove the apron, and pulls the scroll and read it. What she is saying with the text is that
because of the fact that an artist is a female others wont give them the credit for the work

that they do. They will merely “worship” the way they look rather than what they have to

offer. This is important because it is commenting on the male gaze not only as artists but

as critics too.

In regards to this piece Carolee Schneemann has stated that "I thought of the

vagina in many ways-- physically, conceptually: as a sculptural form, an architectural

referent, the sources of sacred knowledge, ecstasy, birth passage, transformation. I saw

the vagina as a translucent chamber of which the serpent was an outward model:

enlivened by it's passage from the visible to the invisible, a spiraled coil ringed with the

shape of desire and generative mysteries, attributes of both female and male sexual

power. This source of interior knowledge would be symbolized as the primary index

unifying spirit and flesh in Goddess worship." Its interesting to note that she state the fact

of goddess worship and not female, because what has been depicted for so long was an

object/idea and not women. What makes this piece important in terms of gender is the

fact that she pulls her “voice” out her vagina. So as to show the part of her body that has

created boundaries in the art world is that which she used to express herself from.

Another artist who used her body in art and created a much different depiction

than the one created by early 20th century male artists is Hannah Wilke. One piece that

says a lot with the use of her body is S.O.S-

Starification Object Series, 1974-1982. This piece

was also a performance. In this performance the

audience members would chew pieces of gum and

she would shaped them into vulvas and then placed them on her body to represent social

wounds, mimicking the marks of tribal scarification and then was photographed in a

series of pin-up poses. The metaphor that she creates with the gum is that for such a long

time women were just like it, in that “you could chew
her
up,
get
what
you
want
from


her,
throw
her
out,
and
pop
in
a
new
piece”.
By
saying
this
she
is
commenting
on


way
that
women
are
used
as
objects
and
the
placement
of
the
gum
on
her
body
is


the
scars
resulting
from
the
“gum”
effect
females
face.
But
something
that
is
also


very
obvious
about
this
work
is
the
poses
that
she
made
for
the
ten
different


photographs
and
using
this
combination
she
shows
a
juxtaposition
between
being


“starified”
and
being
scarred.
In
these
photos
she
is
being
both
confrontational
and


seductive
to
the
viewer,
and
she
is
aware
of
that.
She
is
also
dealing
with
both
pain


and
pleasure,
all
effects
of
socially
constructed
roles.


She
has
stated
that
she
wants
women
to
“take
control
of
and
have
pride
in


the
sensuality
of
their
own
bodies
and
create
a
sexuality
in
their
own
terms,
without


deferring
to
concepts
degenerated
by
culture”.

In
saying
that,
a
reading
that
one
can


take
away
from
this
work
as
a
whole
is
she
that
being
that
women
have
been
treated


and
depicted
a
certain
way
throughout
history
in
general,
they
should
take
pride
in


their
gender
and
act
on
it
how
they
wish,
and
not
just
in
the
way
that
society
for
so


long
has
expected
them
too.
In
the
photographs
what
she
may
be
saying
with
poses


is
actually
in
a
way
mocking
how
society
views
certain
expected
feminine
roles,


because
even
though
she
is
in
“pin‐up”
positions
and
not
confronting
the
viewer
in


all
of
the
poses,
the
gum
disrupts
the
image
and
makes
it
more
than
just
a
sexual


poses
because
she
placed
them
on
places
that
define
beauty
and
the
female
gender,

her
face
and
body.
The
title
of
this
piece
is
also
a
play
the
message
of
help
that
S.O.S.


evokes
because
the
it
can
be
said
that
the
female
gender
needs
help
from
being


something
more
than
“starified”
objects.
But
with
all
that
being
said
the
she
is
also


glorifying
the
female
body
and
using
her
obvious
beauty
that
to
get
her
statement


across.
An
even
though
her
gaze
isn’t
confrontational
her
statement
is.
She
is
using


those
same
social
and
gender
expectations
set
up
by
society
to
make
a
comment
on


them
and
their
effects
on
the
woman
body.



So
one
can
see
how
women
decided
not
to
sit
back
and
watch
how
they
were


expected
to
be
depicted
in
society
as
well
as
they
place
in
the
art
world.
It
was
many


works
and
ideas
like
these
that
made
many
other
female
artists
to
take
notice
that


they
could
choose
to
take
control
of
female
depiction
and
representation,
not
only


on
a
canvas,
photograph,
etc.
but
in
the
museum
world
too.
An
example
of
this
was


the
start
of
the
anonymous
feminist
artist
group
called
the
Guerrilla
Girls
that


started
after
a
1985
Museum
of
Modern
Art
exhibition.
The
exhibition
was
suppose


to
be
an
international
survey
of
paintings
and
sculptures
but
only
5
percent
of
the


artists
were
females,
out
of
169
pieces
only
13
were
done
by
female
artists.






















 


The
Guerrilla
Girls
are
made
up
of
anonymous
contemporary
artist
that
hide


their
identity
so
as
not
to
have
a
negative
black
lash
on
their
work
and
jobs,
and
they

take
on
names
of
famous
female
artists
of
the
past
to
fight
the
institutions
that


control
most
of
the
art
world.
A
poster
that
they
put
together
after
the
1985
MOMA


exhibition
for
an
exhibit
that
was
to
happen
in
the
Metropolitan
Museum
of
Art


where
the
question
“Do
women
have
to
be
naked
to
get
into
the
Met.
Museum?”
is


brought
up.
In
this
poster
they
incorporated
the
very
famous
Le
Grand
Odalisque
by


Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres. The
“great”
female
nude,
one
that
was
distorted
to


meet
the
standards
of
female
perfection.
What
the
Guerrilla
girls
are
stating
in
their


poster
is
that
the
female
form
is
pervasive
in
art
but
not
the
female
artist,
and
their


agenda
to
change
it.


So
it
is
with
groups
like
this
and
the
general
work
of
females
that
followed


works
by
Schneemann
and
Wilke
that
are
helping
to
bring
forth
a
change,
and
even


though
it
is
taking
some
time,
at
least
they
are
informing
the
art
public
that
females


have
something
more
to
offer
in
their
art,
and
that
the
nude
is
something
that
can
be


depicted
with
more
of
a
conscious
statement
than
that
of
a
sexuality
imposed
by


make
artists
of
the
past,
like
Matisse,
Picasso
and
Kirchner.
And even though

throughout art history men have dominated the way that the female form was depicted,

women want to make sure that their representation of the female nude and the female

gender in general is shown by their standards.

Bibliography

Berger, John. Ways of Seeing. New York: Penguin Group, 1991.

Duncan, Carol. “Virility and Domination in Early Twentieth-Century Vanguard

Painting.” Artforum, December 1973, pp. 30-39.

“Expressionism.” The Grove Dictionary of Art. 2000.

Kleiner, Fred S., and Christin J. Mamiya, eds. Gardenr’s Art Through The Ages: The

Western Prespective. Twelfth Ed. Reading: From Gum to Scars, 2006.

“Fauvism.” The Grove Dictionary of Art. 2000.

Schneemann, Carolee. Interior Scroll. 1975. Tate Modern, London.

<http://www.tate.org.uk>.

Wilke, Hannah. S.O.S.- Starification Object Series. 1974-1982. Museum of Mod. Art,

New York <http://www.moma.org>.

<http://www.caroleeshneemann.com>.

<http://www.hannahwilke.com>.