There has always been a binary opposite from “the self” and the “other” Freud theorized that this was a healthy part of a child’s identity, to distance one’s self from their parents. This “othering” can quickly gain stream and become how you identify with yourself but what you are not.
For example, you think “I have power and influence” and in order to demonstrate your power, you must place the “other” underneath you. This is visually accessible by the large amounts of self portraits males have done with female nudes this representation can be interrupted on many levels. The simple, men like to look at female nudes even when its “art”. The nude female form is used as a marketing ploy, to lure more buyers. Its worth a comment that women will always be naked in art, but males will be nude.
But by taking a more analytical approach you could conclude that this represents that women have lost the power to clothe themselves, feel they i.e. becoming overall dependent on the male figure on their lives to provide for them. They are reduced to the “child woman”. Because of this they must wait for clothing to be given to them. This is shown contemporarily in Harry Potter, where the disenfranchised Dolby can only be freed by the gift of clothing from his master.
The thought that women are passive, and “want to be looked at”, is also present. I think that all artists want to be looked at, regardless of their gender, but what Meskmimons means, is “looked at” as a passive piece of the work. Comparing Judith Leysters self portrait, where she is happy painting, but he eyes are off someone else, to Cindy Sherman’s’ self portraits, where she is looking into the camera, inviting the audience to look.
No comments:
Post a Comment