In the article, "Dirty Pictures, Mud Lust, and Abject Desire: Myths of Origin and the Cinematic Object," Susan Fellman asserts that three films, Artemisia, Camille Claudel, and Life Lessons, use the art of filmmaking as a means of projecting an erotically centered underlying message. Focusing on Artemisia and Camille Claudel, Fellman discusses the representation of artist couples in film and the way in which these two biopics about women artists use "its story of lust and art to posit a theory of cinematic origins" (32).
According to Fellman, Artemisia, a film similar to Camille Claudel, in the fact that it is based on the stories of "real" historical female artists, translates images of the artistic relationship, the sexualized interactions between the apprentice and the master, into "images of erotic passion and involvement" (29). The film subverts the talent of the female artist into a mere sexualized pursuit of passions, rather than a pursuit of artistic means and interest. From Fellman's point of view, the film morphs the feminist message and the underlying idea of this woman artist succeeding in a male dominated world into a film that sexualizes art and "collapses artistic sensuality and human sexuality through scenes in which models become sexual objects, artistic compositions become sexual dramas, and visceral responses to artistic images slip into images of pornographic illustration" (29-20). Throughout the film, Merlet turns the identity of Artemisia into one fueled by sexual passions, not artistic innovations. She is no longer a revolutionary artist for the female race, she is now an object to be gazed upon and viewed in merely objective and materialized and overtly sexualized ways. Merlet asserts that the perspective grid is used not to show the technique in art, but to become an extension of the camera frame and the art of filming, becoming a "cinematic screen" itself, solidifying the viewer's relationship with Tassi, i.e. the "male figure of authority, the master" as one with the film's director, who "directs Artemisia's performance" (31). The subject and object become a form of dissolution for the viewer as the boundaries are blurred between the viewer's perception of the subject and object, beholder and beheld, "historical practice and temporary fantasy." The entire film centers around this idea of the gaze, the voyeur, the viewer and the conception of eyes as the means of seeing and perceiving the world. The film "conceives Artemisia as a passionate looker, or voyeur" through her provocations of her adolescent friend and her interactions with her older, adult master.
In Camille Claudel, the director also uses the biography of a female artist as a means of projecting a sexualized and fantasized message about the relationship between a master and his female apprentice. In the film, Camille's identity as a female artist is constructed via her relationship with her "master," Auguste Rodin. It is this relationship that becomes the foundation of the film, from what we have seen so far of it at least, and is the catalyst, according to the article, for Camille's "ultimate descent into madness" (32). According to Fellman, the relationship between Claudel and Rodin can be referred to as "mud lust," and her relationship as the result of the "madness of mud" (32). Their interaction with "mud" or sculpting materials is a "filthy" one and removes the act of art from a realm of artistic creativity to an area of "sexual passion." Claudel becomes just another object in Rodin's creation of art, she herself becomes the muse and object in Rodin's eyes, influencing his artistic achievements via her poses and his future creations. Claudel's behavior and subsequent "madness" becomes an extension of the sculptural qualities of art, with the film portraying her madness via the perversion of her sexuality.
The obscured boundaries between the viewer and what is to be looked at and what is to be subjectively viewed is a huge element of both films. Both Artemisia and Camille Claudel use this idea of the "love of looking" can be viewed as an extension of the director's desire to be viewed himself as an artist. Both directors are in some way replacing themselves as the role of the artist, with the director of Camille Claudel projecting an idea and image of himself as a means of showing his own craft. Additionally, Merlet uses the role of Artemisia Gentileschi as an artist as a metaphor for her own artistic endeavors. Neither films project an accurate portrayal of the female artist, although Merlet does claim that she is a feminist and that this is a feminist depiction, both films actually work against the accuracy of portrayal one wishes to find in a biopic chronicling the life of a female artist.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Post 7
This article is very different from others we have read. It focuses mainly on how in the films Artemisia, and Camille Claudel, “art is progeny of sexual passion…”. In these films, the two women artists are not just shown as passionate for their work, but their love for art turns into passion for a man.
Each young woman in the two films worked under an older man, who serves as their mentor. He teaches them the ways of art and how to develop their skills, and at the same time these men open up these women sexually. Why do both these films link art with sex?
In Artemisia, art is clearly sexualized in the film and the article discusses specific moments in the film where this is apparent. The way the models in the film are shown through the camera lens are highly sexualized, as well as the lessons that Tassi gives Artemisia. When they go to the shore to learn about perspective, he makes Artemisia close her eyes and picture a scene. His tone of voice is a deep, soft hypnotic tone and it is almost as if he is seducing her. Towards the end of the film, the focus is not on art anymore but the sexual relationship between Tassi and Artemisia.
In Camille Claudel, the focus is on lust and art. Camille has two passions, one for art and the other for her mentor Auguste Rodin. The article calls their relationship “mud lust”. I took this as being a combination of their passion for each others talent and a passion for each other sexually.
Even though we have only seen a little bit of this film, I personally like it better already. There is more of a focus on the art that Camille and Auguste produce. The camera focuses on their craft and there are a lot of scenes showing the work process and how much goes into a piece of art. The models are less sexualized in the film as well. Even though art is at times sexualized in this film, it is less than Artemisia. “Art is shown as a product of passion.” For example, there is a scene after Victor Hugo dies where Artemisia comes to Rodin’s studio. She lies on the model platform, face down, to pose for him. He then comes up to her and out of sorrow and lust, kisses her neck. Another example is when the two are sitting together in Paris. He caresses her face lovingly and sexually, and then a flash of him molding a face out of clay appears. Something sexual literally becomes a piece of art.
I understand why art and sex or passion are easily linked in films. Artists have deep passion for their work. It consumes them and it becomes their very being. I believe that sculpting, as opposed to painting, can be sexualized more, which is surprising because the film Artemisia, is more sexualized then Camille Claudel. With sculpting, it is all about touching and molding. It is a “…passion for touching, feeling, and making that is tactile and dirty.” The art itself becomes “highly eroticized.”
Each young woman in the two films worked under an older man, who serves as their mentor. He teaches them the ways of art and how to develop their skills, and at the same time these men open up these women sexually. Why do both these films link art with sex?
In Artemisia, art is clearly sexualized in the film and the article discusses specific moments in the film where this is apparent. The way the models in the film are shown through the camera lens are highly sexualized, as well as the lessons that Tassi gives Artemisia. When they go to the shore to learn about perspective, he makes Artemisia close her eyes and picture a scene. His tone of voice is a deep, soft hypnotic tone and it is almost as if he is seducing her. Towards the end of the film, the focus is not on art anymore but the sexual relationship between Tassi and Artemisia.
In Camille Claudel, the focus is on lust and art. Camille has two passions, one for art and the other for her mentor Auguste Rodin. The article calls their relationship “mud lust”. I took this as being a combination of their passion for each others talent and a passion for each other sexually.
Even though we have only seen a little bit of this film, I personally like it better already. There is more of a focus on the art that Camille and Auguste produce. The camera focuses on their craft and there are a lot of scenes showing the work process and how much goes into a piece of art. The models are less sexualized in the film as well. Even though art is at times sexualized in this film, it is less than Artemisia. “Art is shown as a product of passion.” For example, there is a scene after Victor Hugo dies where Artemisia comes to Rodin’s studio. She lies on the model platform, face down, to pose for him. He then comes up to her and out of sorrow and lust, kisses her neck. Another example is when the two are sitting together in Paris. He caresses her face lovingly and sexually, and then a flash of him molding a face out of clay appears. Something sexual literally becomes a piece of art.
I understand why art and sex or passion are easily linked in films. Artists have deep passion for their work. It consumes them and it becomes their very being. I believe that sculpting, as opposed to painting, can be sexualized more, which is surprising because the film Artemisia, is more sexualized then Camille Claudel. With sculpting, it is all about touching and molding. It is a “…passion for touching, feeling, and making that is tactile and dirty.” The art itself becomes “highly eroticized.”
Post 7
In the article, "Dirty Pictures, Mud Lust, and Abject Desire: Myths of Origin and the Cinematic Object" Susan Felleman discusses how art is represented as a product of sexual passion and desire. She uses the films "Artemesia" and "Camille Claudel" both artist biopics that chose to focus on the sexual relationships that involved the artists rather than look at their achievements and artistic talent. Both films essentially portray the artists as owing everything, their inspiration, their talent, and their ability to the men in their lives. The art that they produce is entirely related to their involvement with their male mentor's. "Art is shown as the progeny of sexual passion in these films-the child of the artistic parents." I believe that by depicting these women in a way that gives all the credit to men, the filmmakers are doing a great disservice to them and to their story. They are taking women that were empowered and talented and reducing them and their art to nothing but by-products of their relationship. "In each film a young woman artist is apprenticened to an older male, a relationship of power and gender."
In Artemisia, her talent is overshadowed by the arrival of the painter, Tassi, in her life. The man that would become her teacher and eventually her greatest downfall. Her talent and development of her art is overshadowed by the sexual relationship that is depicted in the film. It shows her through the lens of being a girl that is nothing but a slave to her passions. The moment in the film when it shifts from being about her art to her affair with Tassi, is when they are outside and he is teaching her perspective using a grid. This puts the viewer in the master's point of view and turns her into an object. " We join the seducer in effacing the spectacle of nature...and taking Artemisia herself as spectacle, objectifying her, as women are so often, objectified by the gaze of the painter, or the camera." We are not meant to see her as a painter, we are meant to see her as a looker. The film shows her in many different scene's looking at things that she is not supposed to see, sexual acts, and the male nude body. The film depicts her as someone that is obsessed with sexual acts. Her talent is forgotten, her ability to paint is forgotten, what Agnes Merlet wants us to see is a great painter that has been reduced down to nothing but a sexual figure. In doing this the film changes who she was and turns her into someone that she was not. We are not shown a powerful female figure but rather a sexual creature that is meant to be gazed at.
The film "Camille Claudel" uses the same techniques in order to depict her. She is painted as a sexual figure. "Art again is shown as the product of sexual passion." The first scene in the film demonstrates this, she is shown not as an artist that is searching for materials, but rather as an objectified woman that is at the hands of the male gaze. She is stared at by the men in the street that she passes, she is shown as engaging in "dirty, clandestine, criminal, or morally questionable activity." It is not until she meets Rodin that she is in a cleaner and more respected studio. She however stops being an artist and becomes a sexual object the moment that she poses for him. She lets her work fall by the wayside and focuses all her attention onto him and his work. Her work is then shown as a by-product of their relationship, something that was inspired because they are together. There works are sexually charged and appear to owe everything to the relationship. However though once their relationship is over she is the one that seems to lose everything and eventually has to be committed. The film shows that Camille as a sexual figure, owes everything to her relationship with Rodin and without him she would still be searching for mud in the dead of night in order to create.
In Artemisia, her talent is overshadowed by the arrival of the painter, Tassi, in her life. The man that would become her teacher and eventually her greatest downfall. Her talent and development of her art is overshadowed by the sexual relationship that is depicted in the film. It shows her through the lens of being a girl that is nothing but a slave to her passions. The moment in the film when it shifts from being about her art to her affair with Tassi, is when they are outside and he is teaching her perspective using a grid. This puts the viewer in the master's point of view and turns her into an object. " We join the seducer in effacing the spectacle of nature...and taking Artemisia herself as spectacle, objectifying her, as women are so often, objectified by the gaze of the painter, or the camera." We are not meant to see her as a painter, we are meant to see her as a looker. The film shows her in many different scene's looking at things that she is not supposed to see, sexual acts, and the male nude body. The film depicts her as someone that is obsessed with sexual acts. Her talent is forgotten, her ability to paint is forgotten, what Agnes Merlet wants us to see is a great painter that has been reduced down to nothing but a sexual figure. In doing this the film changes who she was and turns her into someone that she was not. We are not shown a powerful female figure but rather a sexual creature that is meant to be gazed at.
The film "Camille Claudel" uses the same techniques in order to depict her. She is painted as a sexual figure. "Art again is shown as the product of sexual passion." The first scene in the film demonstrates this, she is shown not as an artist that is searching for materials, but rather as an objectified woman that is at the hands of the male gaze. She is stared at by the men in the street that she passes, she is shown as engaging in "dirty, clandestine, criminal, or morally questionable activity." It is not until she meets Rodin that she is in a cleaner and more respected studio. She however stops being an artist and becomes a sexual object the moment that she poses for him. She lets her work fall by the wayside and focuses all her attention onto him and his work. Her work is then shown as a by-product of their relationship, something that was inspired because they are together. There works are sexually charged and appear to owe everything to the relationship. However though once their relationship is over she is the one that seems to lose everything and eventually has to be committed. The film shows that Camille as a sexual figure, owes everything to her relationship with Rodin and without him she would still be searching for mud in the dead of night in order to create.
Post 7
In “Dirty Pictures, Mud Lust, and Abject Desire: Myths of Origin and Cinematic Object, Susan Felleman comments on how art is structured into narrative films. She discusses the idea of the reflexive qualities of artist biopics, with the presence of artwork further affirming the spectator/viewer’s consciousness as the viewer (increasing the viewer’s own self reflection), and moreover she writes about the representation of artist couples in film and the “myth of origins.” Felleman claims that art, in one way or another, is shown to be the love child of white, heterosexual artist couples in films such as Artemisia and Camille Claudel, and that these myths of the origin of art are metaphors for cinematic origin (the creation of film). Felleman writes:
“The art that seems to issue from this love, product of the erotic engagement, becomes the film itself. The narrative is a mythic one of cinematic origins—the couples personifying the ultimately erotic act of film making—that touches upon the peculiar sensibility of the film and its maker(s), be those involved with the quasi-pornographic experience of looking, the almost fetishistic interest in technique and handling, or heroic passions and the valorization of gesture and production” (39).
In her discussion of Camille Claudel and Artemisia, Felleman discusses both the erotic energy that “flows into the production of any art”(plastic and cinematic) and strengthens her argument by noting the mythic qualities present in both films: genius and muse, master and subject (as well as subject/object).
Felleman applies concepts of feminist theory to create a very strong argument. Though Felleman ultimately writes to address the metaphoric qualities of biopics’ portrayal of the origins of art (for the origin of cinema), like the essays of Vidal, Garrard, and Lent, Felleman discusses, to a large extent, the films’ construction of the artistic creation and the overall subject/object relationship between the older male artist teacher and the female artist couple, and the association of women with nature, uncontrollable, needing to be contained by the male.
Felleman notes how in one way or another, both Artemisia and Camille Claudel show the creation of art as highly sexualized and highlight the perception of women as uncontrollable, erratic beings. Psychosexual pathology, writes Felleman, avails itself in Gentileschi as scopophilia, love of looking, and Claudel as coprophilia, “madness of mud,” love of excrement.
Perhaps because I have viewed the film in full, the points Felleman makes about Artemisia in relation to the creation of film is especially strong. The element of lust for looking in Artemisia that Felleman writes about pervades the entire film. Sequences of looking and the presence of subject/object relationship are frequent in the film. Camera close- ups on Gentileschi’s eyes are numerous as are instances times of looking, spying; Artemisia watches in fascination as couple make love on the beach, probes a young male to undress for her, peers through a window to witness one of Tassi’s orgies, and is ultimately discovered to be involved with Tassi through an act of looking—her father’s. Felleman adds her interpretation of the role of the perspectival grid in “sexualized dynamics of the perspectival gaze” (30). As evident in the sequence in which Tassi is giving Artemisia a lesson on visual perspective while she stands behind the perspective grid with her eyes closed, listening to his words (as opposed to actively looking), the shifts between Artemisia being the subject of the gaze to the passive object are common in this film. She is shown to be a voyeur in some ways, with a highly eroticized gaze, but also as an object, objectified by the gaze of the painter and the camera. Felleman’s explanation of the film’s fascination with the act of looking, Artemisia’s scopophilia as a mirror of “every moviegoer’s and every moviemaker’s passion” is very believable.
From what I have watched of Camille Claudel thus far, Felleman makes astute observations, taking a position that I agree with. Felleman’s argument that art is shown to be the product of Claudel and Rodin’s “mud lust” (32) is very evident in what portion of the movie we have seen. The emphasis on Claudel’s filth is present in sequences such as her late night trip to the clay pit, scenes of her sculpting in clay, in a conversation she has with Rodin in a carriage in which she explains her mother’s disliking of her profession and “all that filth,” and perhaps most clearly in the sequence of Rodin forming her portrait bust which features parallel shots of Rodin feeling her human face and his hands forming it in the clay. These sequences overwhelmingly suggest the validity of Felleman’s suggestion of Claudel’s coprophilia, her highly eroticized love of excrement, which is induces a sort of creative hysteria within her. These, along with several sequences showing Claudel as the model, sculpted and contained by the hands of the male artist Rodin, ultimately support Fellman’s comparison of cinematic origin and the “filmmaker’s interest in making” (36).
“The art that seems to issue from this love, product of the erotic engagement, becomes the film itself. The narrative is a mythic one of cinematic origins—the couples personifying the ultimately erotic act of film making—that touches upon the peculiar sensibility of the film and its maker(s), be those involved with the quasi-pornographic experience of looking, the almost fetishistic interest in technique and handling, or heroic passions and the valorization of gesture and production” (39).
In her discussion of Camille Claudel and Artemisia, Felleman discusses both the erotic energy that “flows into the production of any art”(plastic and cinematic) and strengthens her argument by noting the mythic qualities present in both films: genius and muse, master and subject (as well as subject/object).
Felleman applies concepts of feminist theory to create a very strong argument. Though Felleman ultimately writes to address the metaphoric qualities of biopics’ portrayal of the origins of art (for the origin of cinema), like the essays of Vidal, Garrard, and Lent, Felleman discusses, to a large extent, the films’ construction of the artistic creation and the overall subject/object relationship between the older male artist teacher and the female artist couple, and the association of women with nature, uncontrollable, needing to be contained by the male.
Felleman notes how in one way or another, both Artemisia and Camille Claudel show the creation of art as highly sexualized and highlight the perception of women as uncontrollable, erratic beings. Psychosexual pathology, writes Felleman, avails itself in Gentileschi as scopophilia, love of looking, and Claudel as coprophilia, “madness of mud,” love of excrement.
Perhaps because I have viewed the film in full, the points Felleman makes about Artemisia in relation to the creation of film is especially strong. The element of lust for looking in Artemisia that Felleman writes about pervades the entire film. Sequences of looking and the presence of subject/object relationship are frequent in the film. Camera close- ups on Gentileschi’s eyes are numerous as are instances times of looking, spying; Artemisia watches in fascination as couple make love on the beach, probes a young male to undress for her, peers through a window to witness one of Tassi’s orgies, and is ultimately discovered to be involved with Tassi through an act of looking—her father’s. Felleman adds her interpretation of the role of the perspectival grid in “sexualized dynamics of the perspectival gaze” (30). As evident in the sequence in which Tassi is giving Artemisia a lesson on visual perspective while she stands behind the perspective grid with her eyes closed, listening to his words (as opposed to actively looking), the shifts between Artemisia being the subject of the gaze to the passive object are common in this film. She is shown to be a voyeur in some ways, with a highly eroticized gaze, but also as an object, objectified by the gaze of the painter and the camera. Felleman’s explanation of the film’s fascination with the act of looking, Artemisia’s scopophilia as a mirror of “every moviegoer’s and every moviemaker’s passion” is very believable.
From what I have watched of Camille Claudel thus far, Felleman makes astute observations, taking a position that I agree with. Felleman’s argument that art is shown to be the product of Claudel and Rodin’s “mud lust” (32) is very evident in what portion of the movie we have seen. The emphasis on Claudel’s filth is present in sequences such as her late night trip to the clay pit, scenes of her sculpting in clay, in a conversation she has with Rodin in a carriage in which she explains her mother’s disliking of her profession and “all that filth,” and perhaps most clearly in the sequence of Rodin forming her portrait bust which features parallel shots of Rodin feeling her human face and his hands forming it in the clay. These sequences overwhelmingly suggest the validity of Felleman’s suggestion of Claudel’s coprophilia, her highly eroticized love of excrement, which is induces a sort of creative hysteria within her. These, along with several sequences showing Claudel as the model, sculpted and contained by the hands of the male artist Rodin, ultimately support Fellman’s comparison of cinematic origin and the “filmmaker’s interest in making” (36).
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Post 7
What sells better? Art or Sex? Though this is a question dominant in the advertising industry and allowed to transition between them, the film world is forced to grapple with the appropriate answer in a more permanent response (per film). Of course, that appropriate answer is determined by the context, or intentions of the director. It is also a topic in our previous two films, Artemisia and Camille Claudel. But I would like to take it back a little farther to Frida. successfully blended the themes of art and sex creating an incredibly powerful character (and dare I say role model?) to the fore-front of biopic art films. Unfortunately, the same can not be said for the other two films. Frida was able to be sexually open AND dominant, while still being respected for her talent, and more importantly the film demonstrated where the two themes blended to create a synthesis of meaning. It was fantastic to see a female artist who is sexually liberated and not spend an hour and a half focused on the topic like a pubescent boy waiting anxiously for a boob shot (which there were plenty of). Artemisia and Camille Claudel have done no such thing. Their artistic talents have taken a back burner to their scandalous relationships and sexual identities of their time period. In this way, the narratives of their artistic creations acting as metaphors for the creation of film becomes overshadowed by the human drama of the narrative acting as a metaphor for sexual liberation. Though both women were primarily concerned with their art, the film was more concerned with the human relationships they maintained. After all, a narrative wouldn't be very compelling if it were purely objective.
The narrative of Artemisia revolves around the sheltered life of the female artist who is not allowed to achieve her fullest potential because of theocratic doctrine. Fellman points to a specific scene as a metaphor for film. "Tassi, the male figure of authority, the
master, the director (so to speak) who directs Artemisia's performance. In this scene, the objective landscape and the subjective feminine disappear together and are replaced by fantasy: the fantastic, shimmering, rather cinematic (because temporal) image conjured
by Tassi's poetic utterances and the fantastic image of the objectified feminine, accessible and receptive, eyes shut and lips glistening in passive exultation". Artemisia is the audience and Tassi is the director. If we continue this metaphor, then we acknowledge that we willingly allow the director to "rape" us (steal our subjectivity). With this fascist definition of film, there is a correct answer and life is in black and white according to the person who is explaining life to you. Of course, in the film he is a sentimental lover, but in reality he is a self-centered rapist. The distinction is made in who we give the authority to. By allowing the director to tell us what to see we forfeit our rights to independence. The artistic creation is no longer interpreted but explained; removed from the subjective role and placed into the objective. With that interpretation, the director can make a case for her feminist intentions, which is again unfortunately contradicted by the romantic elements of the story. To interpret this artistic narrative into a metaphor for cinematic construction would be to acknowledge the whole medium of film as an illusion, one that we willingly give ourselves up to expecting to be appreciated and nurtured. That was my main concern with Artemisia. The audience was not appreciated, rather we were manipulated and the revelation of manipulation should, and will always be met with outrage.
The artistic creation in the film (as opposed to of the film) was nice, to a certain degree. The scene in the film where Artemisia draws the fisher-boy was a good example of true artistic objectivity. His body was displayed for what it was. The use of film was entirely appropriate because it allowed for an exhibitionistic experience of understanding both art and form. We were expected to see the nude boy's body as a body and nothing more. There was no metaphor, no subtle meaning, no satire involved. We watched her examine his body and appreciated the form a little bit more than we had before, in a non-sexualized way. Once the act of artistic creation was co-mingled with the sexual relationship, all objectivity was lost. We could no longer view the subject matter for what it was, rather we were forced to examine it in the context it was presented in. Objective art, which I believe should be no-strings attached, is contradicted by the association of meaning between characters. The loss of her virginity was a metaphor, not an objective circumstance. It could have been presented as such, but to do so would be to disregard the feminist critique, and therefore could not be allowed.
Camille Claudel is another film concerned primarily with the human relationship between Rodin and Claudel, though not as openly as Artemisia. The creation of art in the film, as it relates to the creation of the art of the film is displayed through lighting. To sculpt, the artist must see the lines of the muscle beneath the skin and the most efficient way of doing that is by the lighting. When Rodin's use of his curtain is the signifier of the parallel elements of art between sculpture and film. In the scene when Claudel and Rodin are in the carriage together, the shadow covers everything except their heads as if they were sculptures.
The relationship between art and film which can be understood by these two films is voyeurism. The artist is condemned to watch the subject in order to create a reflection in another medium. Film, as a reflection of real life, is an inherently voyeuristic experience, specifically because the actors or characters in the film do not acknowledge they are being filmed. We are peeping toms, scopophiliacs and that is a necessary element to all art, especially including film. I do not agree with Fellman's analysis of the films from a purely sexual perspective. Yes, voyeurism is most often associated with a sexual perversion, but watching is not constrained to sex. Claudel's indulgence of getting messy may have alternate interpretations, such as an assimilation between the self and the object.
Where Artemisia and Camille Claudel approach the subject of metaphor and film are in the elements of production which are also elements of art like perspective and lighting. The sexual associations, I believe, are only present when the artist is unstable and confused. The need for Artemisia to have sex before understanding her painting makes a great deal of sense only because she is young and curious about the transition into professionalism and adulthood. Considering she is going through one of the most significant periods of growth in her life, it is only natural for her to feel confused and unstable. As the article suggests, Camille Claudel indulges in a sexual moment while sculpting only after her life takes a turn for the worst. In the moments of instability sexual perversion becomes something inevitable. Its a desire to find some sense of security through something constant, the constant being their artwork. In this way, Fellman's analysis is accurate, but it is not absolute.
The narrative of Artemisia revolves around the sheltered life of the female artist who is not allowed to achieve her fullest potential because of theocratic doctrine. Fellman points to a specific scene as a metaphor for film. "Tassi, the male figure of authority, the
master, the director (so to speak) who directs Artemisia's performance. In this scene, the objective landscape and the subjective feminine disappear together and are replaced by fantasy: the fantastic, shimmering, rather cinematic (because temporal) image conjured
by Tassi's poetic utterances and the fantastic image of the objectified feminine, accessible and receptive, eyes shut and lips glistening in passive exultation". Artemisia is the audience and Tassi is the director. If we continue this metaphor, then we acknowledge that we willingly allow the director to "rape" us (steal our subjectivity). With this fascist definition of film, there is a correct answer and life is in black and white according to the person who is explaining life to you. Of course, in the film he is a sentimental lover, but in reality he is a self-centered rapist. The distinction is made in who we give the authority to. By allowing the director to tell us what to see we forfeit our rights to independence. The artistic creation is no longer interpreted but explained; removed from the subjective role and placed into the objective. With that interpretation, the director can make a case for her feminist intentions, which is again unfortunately contradicted by the romantic elements of the story. To interpret this artistic narrative into a metaphor for cinematic construction would be to acknowledge the whole medium of film as an illusion, one that we willingly give ourselves up to expecting to be appreciated and nurtured. That was my main concern with Artemisia. The audience was not appreciated, rather we were manipulated and the revelation of manipulation should, and will always be met with outrage.
The artistic creation in the film (as opposed to of the film) was nice, to a certain degree. The scene in the film where Artemisia draws the fisher-boy was a good example of true artistic objectivity. His body was displayed for what it was. The use of film was entirely appropriate because it allowed for an exhibitionistic experience of understanding both art and form. We were expected to see the nude boy's body as a body and nothing more. There was no metaphor, no subtle meaning, no satire involved. We watched her examine his body and appreciated the form a little bit more than we had before, in a non-sexualized way. Once the act of artistic creation was co-mingled with the sexual relationship, all objectivity was lost. We could no longer view the subject matter for what it was, rather we were forced to examine it in the context it was presented in. Objective art, which I believe should be no-strings attached, is contradicted by the association of meaning between characters. The loss of her virginity was a metaphor, not an objective circumstance. It could have been presented as such, but to do so would be to disregard the feminist critique, and therefore could not be allowed.
Camille Claudel is another film concerned primarily with the human relationship between Rodin and Claudel, though not as openly as Artemisia. The creation of art in the film, as it relates to the creation of the art of the film is displayed through lighting. To sculpt, the artist must see the lines of the muscle beneath the skin and the most efficient way of doing that is by the lighting. When Rodin's use of his curtain is the signifier of the parallel elements of art between sculpture and film. In the scene when Claudel and Rodin are in the carriage together, the shadow covers everything except their heads as if they were sculptures.
The relationship between art and film which can be understood by these two films is voyeurism. The artist is condemned to watch the subject in order to create a reflection in another medium. Film, as a reflection of real life, is an inherently voyeuristic experience, specifically because the actors or characters in the film do not acknowledge they are being filmed. We are peeping toms, scopophiliacs and that is a necessary element to all art, especially including film. I do not agree with Fellman's analysis of the films from a purely sexual perspective. Yes, voyeurism is most often associated with a sexual perversion, but watching is not constrained to sex. Claudel's indulgence of getting messy may have alternate interpretations, such as an assimilation between the self and the object.
Where Artemisia and Camille Claudel approach the subject of metaphor and film are in the elements of production which are also elements of art like perspective and lighting. The sexual associations, I believe, are only present when the artist is unstable and confused. The need for Artemisia to have sex before understanding her painting makes a great deal of sense only because she is young and curious about the transition into professionalism and adulthood. Considering she is going through one of the most significant periods of growth in her life, it is only natural for her to feel confused and unstable. As the article suggests, Camille Claudel indulges in a sexual moment while sculpting only after her life takes a turn for the worst. In the moments of instability sexual perversion becomes something inevitable. Its a desire to find some sense of security through something constant, the constant being their artwork. In this way, Fellman's analysis is accurate, but it is not absolute.
post 7
Susan Felleman analyzes the lack of acknowledgment concerning the capabilities of female artists in recent cinema. Artemisia and Camille Claudel, while both well done and directed for another interpretation, do not aim the area of focus toward what female artists are capable of. Rather the two films just mentioned direct the attention of the audience in a direction of lust and erotic relationships. Both films seem to portray Artemisia and Camille as women who are forms of inspiration to their "mentor". Truthfully, this article is onto something as both times we watched these films I assumed prior to the screening that each film would demonstrate why these women are such talented artists. Rather, the films focus on the loving relationships and fictional historical inaccuracies that in a way ruin the concept of the film. To contradict myself, these were well made films and clearly delivered messages that these films were directed to grasp the intimate relationships rather than the truth about art.
Before diving into each of the films individually and pointing out why the author was entirely correct about the portrayal of women in these films, there are aspects of these films that imply the director chose not to focus on the artistic capabilities, but rather the intimacy of the main characters. In personal opinions, most likely the directors felt that depicting the artistic capabilities would lean toward a documentary vibe. Can documentaries turn a profit in the box office? The answer can not be mine because I simply do not direct films. However, the general assumption could be that the directors of these films felt the Hollywood tone could be easier to portray of the films focused more on love, rather than historical accuracies with the artists. "But in all three films, the passionate commitment to art is seen not only as inherently and originally sexual in its underlying energies, but also as explicitly bound up in sexual forces" (39). There is something about these films that seem to be more among the lines of a love story and most likely the directors wanted nothing else. This was a big mistake on their part as the critics who matter in this subject tend to only focus on the historical inaccuracies.
While unfortunately, the film has been ruined for me through reading the article, it can be assumed that the directors focus on the love based story, rather than the artistic beauty of Camille's sculptures. She was truly a gifted sculptor and the film seems to neglect from demonstrating her abilities. Instead, the film focuses on Camille as Vidal's inspiration. Something about her brings a glowing light bulb in his artistic brain and through her he is inspired to work to perfection. He even says to himself in a particular scene that he can't figure out what it is about her, but something in her image makes him work harder and better than his later years. "Claudel descended after her relationship came to an end in 1893" (33). There is more depth in this sentence. In fact, this brings me back to the concept of inspiration. The author of this article is making a note that the film focuses on not only the love life, but Camille's relationship as an inspiration. He never says he loves her, but treats her great and uses her as his inspiration. The film's message is sent by implying that Vidal was an animal and simply used her, focusing on his own empowerment. This is most likely the director's intentions. We, the audience, are supposed to acknowledge that the film is dedicate to the mistreatment of Camille. She was a gifted sculptor who is led to her own destruction through her fake relationship with Vidal. The article, like previously stated above, is onto something more than just the loving relationships depicted in these stories, but the mistreatment of women in these films.
While the previous paragraph rants about the mistreatment of women and how this film does not focus enough on her capabilities, there is one aspect of the film that demonstrates respect toward who Camille was as a person. Camille has what could be considered in the words of Dr. Libby as a "dysnfunctional family in modern times", but the father is always supporting Camille. He makes her look him in the eye and assures that she acknowledges her own confidence. The father reminds her that she never backs down and doesn't take orders. She simply can reach her destination on her own. The film is allowing us to understand she is headstrong and capable of almost anything artistic. However, the film also creates an understanding that Vidal ruins who she is and uses her as his inspiration.
The reading further demonstrates the perverted aspects of Artemisia. There is no denying that this is a sexual film. This could ranger from Artemisia loving the concept of painting herself or male friend naked to watching Tassi in a gigantic orgy. Aside from the historical inaccuracies of the film consisting of paintings and the trial as previously discusses in last week's blog, Felleman is also concentrating on the creative ideas of the relationship between Artemisia and Tassi. While this blog could be extended forever if only concentrated on the fact that the director was more interested in a false relationship, there is some genius to this film that leans the audience to focus on the creativity of Tassi and how he affects Artemisia as an artist. "One of Artemisia's key images of artistic vision is a paradox" (32). Felleman is noting the creativity to depict Tassi as a mentor who helps Artemisia see the world through her artistic abilities. Unfortunately, this is one of the only scenes in which the film focuses on how gifted she was. A lot of this short film aims the concentration on the love life of Tassi and Artemisia, followed by the opinions of her father. Another scene in the film in which we can understand she is truly gifted is when Artemisia first shows Tassi her art. The camera zooms in on his face, creating an easy interpretation for the audience to understand that he is overwhelmed by her capabilities. Generally, Felleman is correct that this film is not only historically inaccurate for the most part, but art is sexually induced in the films and that the directors spent too much time focusing on the relationships as opposed to what these female artists were capable of. However, I feel that the directors were too concentrated on making a successful, profiting film and tended to move away from what should have been the area of focus. Felleman has some great ideas.
Before diving into each of the films individually and pointing out why the author was entirely correct about the portrayal of women in these films, there are aspects of these films that imply the director chose not to focus on the artistic capabilities, but rather the intimacy of the main characters. In personal opinions, most likely the directors felt that depicting the artistic capabilities would lean toward a documentary vibe. Can documentaries turn a profit in the box office? The answer can not be mine because I simply do not direct films. However, the general assumption could be that the directors of these films felt the Hollywood tone could be easier to portray of the films focused more on love, rather than historical accuracies with the artists. "But in all three films, the passionate commitment to art is seen not only as inherently and originally sexual in its underlying energies, but also as explicitly bound up in sexual forces" (39). There is something about these films that seem to be more among the lines of a love story and most likely the directors wanted nothing else. This was a big mistake on their part as the critics who matter in this subject tend to only focus on the historical inaccuracies.
While unfortunately, the film has been ruined for me through reading the article, it can be assumed that the directors focus on the love based story, rather than the artistic beauty of Camille's sculptures. She was truly a gifted sculptor and the film seems to neglect from demonstrating her abilities. Instead, the film focuses on Camille as Vidal's inspiration. Something about her brings a glowing light bulb in his artistic brain and through her he is inspired to work to perfection. He even says to himself in a particular scene that he can't figure out what it is about her, but something in her image makes him work harder and better than his later years. "Claudel descended after her relationship came to an end in 1893" (33). There is more depth in this sentence. In fact, this brings me back to the concept of inspiration. The author of this article is making a note that the film focuses on not only the love life, but Camille's relationship as an inspiration. He never says he loves her, but treats her great and uses her as his inspiration. The film's message is sent by implying that Vidal was an animal and simply used her, focusing on his own empowerment. This is most likely the director's intentions. We, the audience, are supposed to acknowledge that the film is dedicate to the mistreatment of Camille. She was a gifted sculptor who is led to her own destruction through her fake relationship with Vidal. The article, like previously stated above, is onto something more than just the loving relationships depicted in these stories, but the mistreatment of women in these films.
While the previous paragraph rants about the mistreatment of women and how this film does not focus enough on her capabilities, there is one aspect of the film that demonstrates respect toward who Camille was as a person. Camille has what could be considered in the words of Dr. Libby as a "dysnfunctional family in modern times", but the father is always supporting Camille. He makes her look him in the eye and assures that she acknowledges her own confidence. The father reminds her that she never backs down and doesn't take orders. She simply can reach her destination on her own. The film is allowing us to understand she is headstrong and capable of almost anything artistic. However, the film also creates an understanding that Vidal ruins who she is and uses her as his inspiration.
The reading further demonstrates the perverted aspects of Artemisia. There is no denying that this is a sexual film. This could ranger from Artemisia loving the concept of painting herself or male friend naked to watching Tassi in a gigantic orgy. Aside from the historical inaccuracies of the film consisting of paintings and the trial as previously discusses in last week's blog, Felleman is also concentrating on the creative ideas of the relationship between Artemisia and Tassi. While this blog could be extended forever if only concentrated on the fact that the director was more interested in a false relationship, there is some genius to this film that leans the audience to focus on the creativity of Tassi and how he affects Artemisia as an artist. "One of Artemisia's key images of artistic vision is a paradox" (32). Felleman is noting the creativity to depict Tassi as a mentor who helps Artemisia see the world through her artistic abilities. Unfortunately, this is one of the only scenes in which the film focuses on how gifted she was. A lot of this short film aims the concentration on the love life of Tassi and Artemisia, followed by the opinions of her father. Another scene in the film in which we can understand she is truly gifted is when Artemisia first shows Tassi her art. The camera zooms in on his face, creating an easy interpretation for the audience to understand that he is overwhelmed by her capabilities. Generally, Felleman is correct that this film is not only historically inaccurate for the most part, but art is sexually induced in the films and that the directors spent too much time focusing on the relationships as opposed to what these female artists were capable of. However, I feel that the directors were too concentrated on making a successful, profiting film and tended to move away from what should have been the area of focus. Felleman has some great ideas.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Post 7
According to the article, “Dirty Pictures, Mud List, and Abject Desire: Myths of Origin and the Cinematic Object”, art is depicted as the product of erotic desires and sexual passion. The films both about prominent historical female artists focus on sexual relations rather than artistic talent and female empowerment. The art produced is a result of the artists’ sexual engagement with their male mentors. “The art that seems to issue from this love, product of the erotic engagement, becomes the film itself.” I agree very strongly with the statements of the article and how the films were able to misconstrue the character of such strong female figures by showing them through the lens of their sexual desires. “The films ultimately propose a view of artistic or cinematic origins hardly empowering to women, since each constructs art as a product of a female imagination deformed by either scopophilia and coprophilia.”
In the film Artemisia, the narrative of the film is based on themes of erotic passion and sexual engagement. Even the scenes, which are meant to portray Artemisia as a young, developing artist are overshadowed by her sexual relations with her mentor, Tassi. As stated in the article, “The film boldly sexualizes art.” Artemisia was sent by her father, Orazio Gentileschi, sent Artemisia to study under Tassi and learn the practice of perspective. Although, the practice of learning perspective is an artistic one the film eroticizes the moment by depicting the beginning of the sexual attraction between Tassi and Artemisia. In the film Artemisia is placed behind the geometric perspective screen with Tassi behind her holding her hand. This positioning of Tassi behind Artemisia shows his “male dominance” and the importance of their relationship over her artistic talent. “We join the seducer in effacing the spectacle of nature-or, rather, takings its place- and taking Artemisia herself as a spectacle, objectifying her, as women are so often, so typically, objectified by the gaze of the painter, or the camera.” The films construction doesn’t allow the viewer to accept Artemisia as a talent artist but rather as solely a sexual figure and “passionate looker, or voyeur”. In the beginning scenes of the film, before Tassi enters into the narrative we see Artemisia as obsessed with the female figure. Asking men to model in the nude for her and sneaking around prostitution houses to “spy” on people engaging in sexual acts. “The almost demented, eroticized gaze attributed to Artemisia in this film seems to suggest a psychosexual pathology: Scopophilia, sexual pleasure in looking.” After watching the film the viewer does not have any concept of Artemisia the artist, but rather just Artemisia as a sexual figure. Although, the male influence over the female artist is interesting and very relevant during Artemisia’s career, the film is unsuccessful in portraying Artemisia as a powerful female figure and therefore stripping her of true character. As concluded in the article, “The film wants to have it both ways: to imbue its heroine with (an entirely anachronistic) sexual license and visual subjectivity and at the same time to offer her up as an object of desire.”
Similarly in Camille Claudel, the female artist, Camille Claudel, is depicted under the light of her sexual behavior. Claudel also has been referred to as having a psychosexual pathology referred to as, Coprophilia, “a passion for touching, feeling, and making that is tactile and dirty, virtually scatological, and highly eroticized, love of excrement, which suggests a fixation at the infantile “smearing” stage.” Claudel is a sculptor and therefore very involved with clay and mud. The film sexualizes the materials by relating Claudel’s sculptures. In the opening scene of the film Claudel is stealing clay from a revene in Paris and walking through a group of men late at night. This scene portrays Claudel not as an artist desperate for materials but rather as a “prostitute” figure revealing herself to male spectators at night. In portraying Claudel the director had a choice, to depict her as a strong female character who pushed the boundaries or a young female artist who was influenced by her relationship with the famous French sculptor, Auguste Vidal. Claudel stops being an artist and becomes an object of Vidal when their sexual tension and relations begin. At the moment when Claudel first models for Vidal in the nude she loses her strong female power and presence. Her art becomes shadowed over by her relationship with Vidal and the sexual power he has over her. “But the moment perfectly illustrates both the strangely symbiotic process through which a work of erotic power can come into being and the ease with which the female figure slips from a position of subject to that of object”. The film clearly holds more importance on Claudel’s relationship with Vidal, it is unclear whether this strategy is for entertainment value or Claudel really was unable to detach her artistic talent from her relationship with such and influential sculptor. Although, we have not finished the film it is clear from the article that Vidal will continue to influence and shape Claudel’s life.
In the film Artemisia, the narrative of the film is based on themes of erotic passion and sexual engagement. Even the scenes, which are meant to portray Artemisia as a young, developing artist are overshadowed by her sexual relations with her mentor, Tassi. As stated in the article, “The film boldly sexualizes art.” Artemisia was sent by her father, Orazio Gentileschi, sent Artemisia to study under Tassi and learn the practice of perspective. Although, the practice of learning perspective is an artistic one the film eroticizes the moment by depicting the beginning of the sexual attraction between Tassi and Artemisia. In the film Artemisia is placed behind the geometric perspective screen with Tassi behind her holding her hand. This positioning of Tassi behind Artemisia shows his “male dominance” and the importance of their relationship over her artistic talent. “We join the seducer in effacing the spectacle of nature-or, rather, takings its place- and taking Artemisia herself as a spectacle, objectifying her, as women are so often, so typically, objectified by the gaze of the painter, or the camera.” The films construction doesn’t allow the viewer to accept Artemisia as a talent artist but rather as solely a sexual figure and “passionate looker, or voyeur”. In the beginning scenes of the film, before Tassi enters into the narrative we see Artemisia as obsessed with the female figure. Asking men to model in the nude for her and sneaking around prostitution houses to “spy” on people engaging in sexual acts. “The almost demented, eroticized gaze attributed to Artemisia in this film seems to suggest a psychosexual pathology: Scopophilia, sexual pleasure in looking.” After watching the film the viewer does not have any concept of Artemisia the artist, but rather just Artemisia as a sexual figure. Although, the male influence over the female artist is interesting and very relevant during Artemisia’s career, the film is unsuccessful in portraying Artemisia as a powerful female figure and therefore stripping her of true character. As concluded in the article, “The film wants to have it both ways: to imbue its heroine with (an entirely anachronistic) sexual license and visual subjectivity and at the same time to offer her up as an object of desire.”
Similarly in Camille Claudel, the female artist, Camille Claudel, is depicted under the light of her sexual behavior. Claudel also has been referred to as having a psychosexual pathology referred to as, Coprophilia, “a passion for touching, feeling, and making that is tactile and dirty, virtually scatological, and highly eroticized, love of excrement, which suggests a fixation at the infantile “smearing” stage.” Claudel is a sculptor and therefore very involved with clay and mud. The film sexualizes the materials by relating Claudel’s sculptures. In the opening scene of the film Claudel is stealing clay from a revene in Paris and walking through a group of men late at night. This scene portrays Claudel not as an artist desperate for materials but rather as a “prostitute” figure revealing herself to male spectators at night. In portraying Claudel the director had a choice, to depict her as a strong female character who pushed the boundaries or a young female artist who was influenced by her relationship with the famous French sculptor, Auguste Vidal. Claudel stops being an artist and becomes an object of Vidal when their sexual tension and relations begin. At the moment when Claudel first models for Vidal in the nude she loses her strong female power and presence. Her art becomes shadowed over by her relationship with Vidal and the sexual power he has over her. “But the moment perfectly illustrates both the strangely symbiotic process through which a work of erotic power can come into being and the ease with which the female figure slips from a position of subject to that of object”. The film clearly holds more importance on Claudel’s relationship with Vidal, it is unclear whether this strategy is for entertainment value or Claudel really was unable to detach her artistic talent from her relationship with such and influential sculptor. Although, we have not finished the film it is clear from the article that Vidal will continue to influence and shape Claudel’s life.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Camille and Artemisia
This reading takes us in a somewhat different direction from the previous readings and asks us to look at narratives of artistic creation in Artemisia and Camille Claudel as metaphors for the creation of film. Do you agree or disagree with the author's arguments? Explain your position using examples from the films and the reading.
DUE SATURDAY, MARCH 29.
DUE SATURDAY, MARCH 29.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Post 6
Belen Vidal, Tina Olsen Lent, and Mary Garrard apply a feminist art historical approach to their discussions of the ways in which the fictionalized depiction of the artist Artemisia Gentileschi in Agnes Merlet’s film Artemisia (1997) is problematic. Though Vidal offers no definitive thesis, her essay looks at the ways in which female artist biopics, such as Artemisia, manipulate the biographies of a famous woman artist of the past to serve contemporary cultural gender ideologies. She applies an overwhelmingly large scope of feminist concepts ranging from subject/object, gaze/glance, nature/culture, and Artemisia’s “looked-at-ness “ to her analysis of the film’s central themes of gazing, posing and framing in attempts to show how the film incorporates the “formative narratives of second wave feminism” and “filter[s] them” (77) through the conventional romance narrative involving Tassi and Artemisia. According to Vidal, Merlet produces a film that reflects on gender and creativity in a truly post-feminist manner. Vidal argues that Artemisia is problematic in its blurring of boundaries between romance narrative and history, and in its overall confusing combination of “previous feminist traditions—especially the narratives of second-wave feminism—and contemporary postfeminism revisions” (Vidal 70).
Lent’s “My Heart Belongs to Daddy,” uses the term “Artemisia fictions,” to address the recent treatments in film and literature of Artemisia Gentileschi, and their conflation of the story of artist and her art, in comparison with the scholarly treatments of her life in the 1970s. Lent gives an in-depth overview of novelistic, story-telling forms—kunstlerromane (coming of age story of the artist, which, in regard to the female, focuses on a growing down), and monograph (non-fictional artist biography which forges the male artist as the genius and hero)—arriving at the conclusion that the Artemisia fictions combine “the narrative conventions of the fictional Kunstlerroman, the fictionalized autobiography, and the non-fictional artist monograph” (Lent 214). By the Artemisia fictions’ narratives formed around the tragic events of her rape and trial, events of heightened emotion, they “reinforce familiar ties between creativity and passion, reiterate women’s creativity as exceptional and the result of male influence.” As the title of the essay suggests, Lent remarks one of the dominant themes of these highly emotional narratives—Artemisia’s sexual relationship with Tassi, and her true love story with her father, Orazio. Lent describes Artemisia’s relationship with these two men, one sexual, and one true love, in relation to the cultural construction depicting male as the creator who forms the female. In the case of Tassi is seen as the male artist who awakens Artemisia, the female, to creative inspiration through his sexuality. The teacher/student relationship featured in Artemisia, is a classic example of the feminist notion of the “feminization of the canvas.” Though Lent uses the analogy of male artists’ “artistic creativity flowing like seminal fluid into their female students,” Artemisia’s relationship with Tassi as featured in the film can also be related to the analogy of the brush of the male artist with a phallus, attacking and crafting the blank female canvas, Artemisia and cultivating her, the formless female. Artemisia’s relationship with Orazio in the film’s narrative highlights another form of the cultural constructed notion of male as the creator, as Orazio is shown to be “the author of [Artemisia’s] life script” (Lent 216). As Lent writes, “he made her a painter, then, through the rape trial, he destroyed her love, introduced her to suffering, and blocked her path toward respectability.” In the Artemisia fictions’ manipulation of the artist’s biography to feature the two central men in Artemisia’s life in the role of the creator, the male genius, and Artemisia in the role of the passive female being formed, they ultimately perpetuating women artist stereotypes.
Mary Gerrard also speaks of the harmful effects Merlet’s fictionalized version of Artemisia’s biography has on feminist progress. Gerrard deems the movie as a problem piece in its straying from the historical reality and its heavy sexualizing of Artemisia’s biography, a decision which instead of creating a work highlighting women’s freedom of choice (which is arguably Merlet’s intention), Merlet’s actually plays into many damaging stereotypes. Gerrard points out that the film neglects to give the viewer any conception of why Artemisia’s works are important and instead it highlights a recurring theme of “inappropriate sexualizing of what are really [Artemisia’s] artistic interests” (i.e. her interest in drawing her boyfriend in nude is misinterpreted as a sexual invitation as a opposed her genuine interest in human anatomy) (Gerrard 67). Gerrard also touches upon the film’s damaging depiction of female artistic inspiration as the creation of male sexuality, of Tassi’s sexuality ultimately being responsible for unlocking Artemisia, as discussed by Lent. Gerrard comes to a similar conclusion as Lent in her deeming that Artemisia’s sexuality overrides her acknowledgement as an artist.
I tend to agree with Vidal, Lent, and Gerrard that fictionalizing history in a biopic is overall damaging. In the case of a woman artist, it is a step backwards in the progress towards the woman artist being acknowledged as the subject, as opposed to always being associated with the object being looked at, analyzed. The distortions of the historical record about Artemisia’s relationship with Tassi and her father are for this same reason not justifiable. If the common cultural perception of women as the ones being given form (literally and figuratively) by the male, is ever to be changed, forms of media which are consumed by the media, such as films, must refrain from showing woman’s artist as being shape and direction by the male artistic genius.
Lent’s “My Heart Belongs to Daddy,” uses the term “Artemisia fictions,” to address the recent treatments in film and literature of Artemisia Gentileschi, and their conflation of the story of artist and her art, in comparison with the scholarly treatments of her life in the 1970s. Lent gives an in-depth overview of novelistic, story-telling forms—kunstlerromane (coming of age story of the artist, which, in regard to the female, focuses on a growing down), and monograph (non-fictional artist biography which forges the male artist as the genius and hero)—arriving at the conclusion that the Artemisia fictions combine “the narrative conventions of the fictional Kunstlerroman, the fictionalized autobiography, and the non-fictional artist monograph” (Lent 214). By the Artemisia fictions’ narratives formed around the tragic events of her rape and trial, events of heightened emotion, they “reinforce familiar ties between creativity and passion, reiterate women’s creativity as exceptional and the result of male influence.” As the title of the essay suggests, Lent remarks one of the dominant themes of these highly emotional narratives—Artemisia’s sexual relationship with Tassi, and her true love story with her father, Orazio. Lent describes Artemisia’s relationship with these two men, one sexual, and one true love, in relation to the cultural construction depicting male as the creator who forms the female. In the case of Tassi is seen as the male artist who awakens Artemisia, the female, to creative inspiration through his sexuality. The teacher/student relationship featured in Artemisia, is a classic example of the feminist notion of the “feminization of the canvas.” Though Lent uses the analogy of male artists’ “artistic creativity flowing like seminal fluid into their female students,” Artemisia’s relationship with Tassi as featured in the film can also be related to the analogy of the brush of the male artist with a phallus, attacking and crafting the blank female canvas, Artemisia and cultivating her, the formless female. Artemisia’s relationship with Orazio in the film’s narrative highlights another form of the cultural constructed notion of male as the creator, as Orazio is shown to be “the author of [Artemisia’s] life script” (Lent 216). As Lent writes, “he made her a painter, then, through the rape trial, he destroyed her love, introduced her to suffering, and blocked her path toward respectability.” In the Artemisia fictions’ manipulation of the artist’s biography to feature the two central men in Artemisia’s life in the role of the creator, the male genius, and Artemisia in the role of the passive female being formed, they ultimately perpetuating women artist stereotypes.
Mary Gerrard also speaks of the harmful effects Merlet’s fictionalized version of Artemisia’s biography has on feminist progress. Gerrard deems the movie as a problem piece in its straying from the historical reality and its heavy sexualizing of Artemisia’s biography, a decision which instead of creating a work highlighting women’s freedom of choice (which is arguably Merlet’s intention), Merlet’s actually plays into many damaging stereotypes. Gerrard points out that the film neglects to give the viewer any conception of why Artemisia’s works are important and instead it highlights a recurring theme of “inappropriate sexualizing of what are really [Artemisia’s] artistic interests” (i.e. her interest in drawing her boyfriend in nude is misinterpreted as a sexual invitation as a opposed her genuine interest in human anatomy) (Gerrard 67). Gerrard also touches upon the film’s damaging depiction of female artistic inspiration as the creation of male sexuality, of Tassi’s sexuality ultimately being responsible for unlocking Artemisia, as discussed by Lent. Gerrard comes to a similar conclusion as Lent in her deeming that Artemisia’s sexuality overrides her acknowledgement as an artist.
I tend to agree with Vidal, Lent, and Gerrard that fictionalizing history in a biopic is overall damaging. In the case of a woman artist, it is a step backwards in the progress towards the woman artist being acknowledged as the subject, as opposed to always being associated with the object being looked at, analyzed. The distortions of the historical record about Artemisia’s relationship with Tassi and her father are for this same reason not justifiable. If the common cultural perception of women as the ones being given form (literally and figuratively) by the male, is ever to be changed, forms of media which are consumed by the media, such as films, must refrain from showing woman’s artist as being shape and direction by the male artistic genius.
Post 6 - Artemisia
This weeks film "Artemisia" watched like a feminist manifesto that fell way short of its goal. Firstly, the fact that the film originally pretended to be based on fact even though the director knew it was an embellishment (if not a down-right manipulation) is in poor form, and the movie reflects the directors intentions.
First I will touch upon what I did like before skewering it over a grill. I really liked how the film tried to incorporate the evolution of an artist. Artemisia started by drawing the reflection of her own body in a mirror. For the large scale paintings we saw a scene that was created almost like a theatrical performance with people hanging in the air with fake angel wings and so on and so forth. Even Artemisia's painting of Judith using Tassi as her model I really liked. The films demonstration of how an artist is created was the only authentic thing about this film.
"My Heart Belongs to Daddy" made an interesting classification. Because Artemisia is the story of the initiation of an artist it is called a kunstlerromane which is a tale of the the evolution of an artist. The only difference between a kunstlerromane and a bildungsroman is that the former includes a conflict between art and life, otherwise they both revolve around a child-like character who is forced to grow up. The author suggests that there is also a major split between stories involving boys and girls. The boys are allowed to grow up and become independent and find a sense of freedom from the world of the child, but women are condemned to a domestic role so rather than growing up, they are forced to "grow down". Often times, there is a conflict over the oppression of the female identity, especially through sexual means such as rape. In this way I can understand how the director was trying to subvert the genre into creating an empowered character but all of the included elements refuse to support her goal. The feminist portrayal of Artemisia should be one that suggests she does not need the guidance of a man to blossom, but her film opts out for a more romantic theme which places the female (Artemisia) into a subordinate role to the male (Tassi). Rather than being raped, she willingly allowed Tassi to deflower her knowing the consequences. She is a classic female protagonist by subverting the power struggle of deflowerment. The problem of course is that in history she really was raped by a not so good guy. Then at the trial their love provokes both Artemisia and Tassi to defend one another until Artemisia's art comes into jeopardy (by breaking her hands). So Tassi, the honorable love interest, saves the day. The main villain in this story is the church, not the rapist because according to the director there was no rape. Artemisia's struggle was in the face of the patriarchal religion that dominated their way of life, and according to the director Artemisia would've become a voluntary martyr for her own cause. This is course never happened. Artemisia sold Tassi out at the trial because Tassi really was a bad guy. No romance, no empowerement, simply a cruel act that forced a child to face the reality of adulthood. The director tried to subvert the standards of genre by manipulating a true historical life and have the gall to claim her story is true. If the director did this knowing that her story wasn't true but trying to prove a point then she's a liar, if the director really believed the story she was telling she's deluded, either way the film falls way short of its goal and unintentionally contradicts its own intentions of trying to create a feminist hero, a Joan of Arc for the art world. I'm just upset that the director really tried to pass off a lie as the truth. It is unfortunate that the director chose to concern the ENTIRE film with this single event of deflowerment and a fake romance rather than fully focus on her growth as an artist. Once Tassi came on the scene, her artistic pursuits really took a backburner to her "sexual liberation".
The quote Emily used from the Lent article, about women being portrayed under the male umbrella, shows the contradiction of feminist hero with subordinated woman. The inclusion of a romance, meant to give the audience an easy relation point, destroys her intentions of creating Artemisia as a feminist icon. Artemisia did not come into the world on her own, she did it under the guidance of an established male painter. It implies that she would not be who she is had it not been for the men in her life. Artemisia was willing to sacrifice her true identity as an artist for the sake of her lover. I'm not suggesting there is nothing honorable about that, but the feminist intentions become very obscured and potentially contradicted. The director chose to portray Artemisia as curious when she peeks into the room where Tassi and his men enjoy carnal relations with what could only be assumed as prostitutes. Artemisia is interested but embarrassed of her sexual curiosity. I am confused, is she sexually empowered through her open rebellion of the conservative females sexual identity, or is she childishly naive through her private fantasies of true love and romance? The former gives the film its feminist identity but alienates the necessary romantic element, but the latter contradicts the intentions for a feminist hero. I think the Director has confused the plot by trying to give the film a casual entertainment value paired with a deep feminist reading, both inherently contradicting the other.
I can understand embellishing history in a biopic as a means of trying to allude to some higher meaning, but if you manipulate the facts into less-than-half truths and the audience discovers that, then the story will be completely disregarded. The book titled something like "A Million Pieces" that was on Oprah's book club list comes to mind. I'm sure there are some elements of the guys book which were real, but those truths were totally overshadowed by the lies he told and lead to his book being disregarded as a legitimate biopic. I think the distortions of truth are justifiable to create the point the director was trying to create, but the minute that the director wanted to place a "truth" sticker at the beginning of the story was the minute all of that justification was flushed away. By leaving its validity ambiguous, it allows for the audience to decide for themselves, but the minute the director tells a lie like that, any and all justifications are disregarded.
First I will touch upon what I did like before skewering it over a grill. I really liked how the film tried to incorporate the evolution of an artist. Artemisia started by drawing the reflection of her own body in a mirror. For the large scale paintings we saw a scene that was created almost like a theatrical performance with people hanging in the air with fake angel wings and so on and so forth. Even Artemisia's painting of Judith using Tassi as her model I really liked. The films demonstration of how an artist is created was the only authentic thing about this film.
"My Heart Belongs to Daddy" made an interesting classification. Because Artemisia is the story of the initiation of an artist it is called a kunstlerromane which is a tale of the the evolution of an artist. The only difference between a kunstlerromane and a bildungsroman is that the former includes a conflict between art and life, otherwise they both revolve around a child-like character who is forced to grow up. The author suggests that there is also a major split between stories involving boys and girls. The boys are allowed to grow up and become independent and find a sense of freedom from the world of the child, but women are condemned to a domestic role so rather than growing up, they are forced to "grow down". Often times, there is a conflict over the oppression of the female identity, especially through sexual means such as rape. In this way I can understand how the director was trying to subvert the genre into creating an empowered character but all of the included elements refuse to support her goal. The feminist portrayal of Artemisia should be one that suggests she does not need the guidance of a man to blossom, but her film opts out for a more romantic theme which places the female (Artemisia) into a subordinate role to the male (Tassi). Rather than being raped, she willingly allowed Tassi to deflower her knowing the consequences. She is a classic female protagonist by subverting the power struggle of deflowerment. The problem of course is that in history she really was raped by a not so good guy. Then at the trial their love provokes both Artemisia and Tassi to defend one another until Artemisia's art comes into jeopardy (by breaking her hands). So Tassi, the honorable love interest, saves the day. The main villain in this story is the church, not the rapist because according to the director there was no rape. Artemisia's struggle was in the face of the patriarchal religion that dominated their way of life, and according to the director Artemisia would've become a voluntary martyr for her own cause. This is course never happened. Artemisia sold Tassi out at the trial because Tassi really was a bad guy. No romance, no empowerement, simply a cruel act that forced a child to face the reality of adulthood. The director tried to subvert the standards of genre by manipulating a true historical life and have the gall to claim her story is true. If the director did this knowing that her story wasn't true but trying to prove a point then she's a liar, if the director really believed the story she was telling she's deluded, either way the film falls way short of its goal and unintentionally contradicts its own intentions of trying to create a feminist hero, a Joan of Arc for the art world. I'm just upset that the director really tried to pass off a lie as the truth. It is unfortunate that the director chose to concern the ENTIRE film with this single event of deflowerment and a fake romance rather than fully focus on her growth as an artist. Once Tassi came on the scene, her artistic pursuits really took a backburner to her "sexual liberation".
The quote Emily used from the Lent article, about women being portrayed under the male umbrella, shows the contradiction of feminist hero with subordinated woman. The inclusion of a romance, meant to give the audience an easy relation point, destroys her intentions of creating Artemisia as a feminist icon. Artemisia did not come into the world on her own, she did it under the guidance of an established male painter. It implies that she would not be who she is had it not been for the men in her life. Artemisia was willing to sacrifice her true identity as an artist for the sake of her lover. I'm not suggesting there is nothing honorable about that, but the feminist intentions become very obscured and potentially contradicted. The director chose to portray Artemisia as curious when she peeks into the room where Tassi and his men enjoy carnal relations with what could only be assumed as prostitutes. Artemisia is interested but embarrassed of her sexual curiosity. I am confused, is she sexually empowered through her open rebellion of the conservative females sexual identity, or is she childishly naive through her private fantasies of true love and romance? The former gives the film its feminist identity but alienates the necessary romantic element, but the latter contradicts the intentions for a feminist hero. I think the Director has confused the plot by trying to give the film a casual entertainment value paired with a deep feminist reading, both inherently contradicting the other.
I can understand embellishing history in a biopic as a means of trying to allude to some higher meaning, but if you manipulate the facts into less-than-half truths and the audience discovers that, then the story will be completely disregarded. The book titled something like "A Million Pieces" that was on Oprah's book club list comes to mind. I'm sure there are some elements of the guys book which were real, but those truths were totally overshadowed by the lies he told and lead to his book being disregarded as a legitimate biopic. I think the distortions of truth are justifiable to create the point the director was trying to create, but the minute that the director wanted to place a "truth" sticker at the beginning of the story was the minute all of that justification was flushed away. By leaving its validity ambiguous, it allows for the audience to decide for themselves, but the minute the director tells a lie like that, any and all justifications are disregarded.
Post 6
Vidal’s essay begins by discussing the films about film artist and establishes that her main intention in the essay is to discuss the roll of the film Artemisia in looking at the greater canon of how female artist are depicted in cinema. She discusses the relevance of viewing this particular film in stating, “Artemisia poses a significant example of the post-feminist revisions of women’s histories, as it deals with issues of feminine agency through the lens of romance. However, such acts of revision need to be understood in the light of the aesthetics of the contemporary period film, and through its modes of spectatorial address. In this respect, Artemisia works intertextually as much as narratively, foregrounding new formal variations on well-known cultural themes and images that are reinvested with new meanings in every new performance (Vidal 70).”
Vidal discusses how the theme of a sexually liberated Artemisia is supposed to be indicator of her feminism, but how that can ring false when a man is still given the power-role within the relationship. She also attempted to determine the role of feminism in the discussion of the film.
Tina Lent’s article focuses on what she refers to as ‘artist fictions’ and the story of Artemisia. Lent delves deeper into the history of Artemisia in comparison to fictionalized accounts of the artist. She discusses the common theme of Gentileschi’s father as a driving force in her life, and how these themes are both complex and indicative of the patriarchal society at large. Themes of both incestual and filial love arise, and are slightly disturbing to the reader of the text. Garrard essentially reiterates what the two other authors stated, drawing on the discrepancy between fact and fiction within the film. Of the three authors, Garrard appears to offer the most passionate frustration over the false depiction of Gentileschi.
What struck me the most is that they all seemed to cite one another. Garrard, Fellman, Griselda Pollock, Lent, and others all seem to cross paths in each article, to the point that the reader may feel they all jointly wrote the same thing. Each article displays a discontent over the depiction of Artemisia in the film, and all seem to find something anti-feminist in a film that is supposedly feminist. It is also interesting to note that each author is a noted feminist scholar.
The authors’ view of the film on fueled my frustration and antipathy for the film. It would be crass of me to say that all of the film was horrible; it was beautifully shot with an abundance of wide-shots that made the viewer almost feel as if they were in the scene. Also beautifully lit, the cinematography alone can entice a viewer to fall in love with the picture. But the story was so god awful, that even the appeal of the well crafted mis-en-scene of the picture is completely lost. No matter what the director Agnes Merlet may state, this is not a feminist film! The placement of power always resides with the male-figure in Artemisia’s life, and ultimately, the film derides into competition between her father and her lover/rapist. The film predominantly features Artemisia holding some sort of fascination concerning the men around her. She must either be drawing them, or placating them sexually. This so deeply minimizes her value within the confines of the film and the context of the real artist that is almost disturbing.
As far as the reimagining of the relationship between Artemisia and Tassi is concerned, nothing seems more offensive than trying to alter an act of rape that actually occurred, to a consensual act with the realm of film. It does a disservice to both Artemisia and anyone else who has suffered a sexual trauma. It is not the case that film must always be historically accurate, but in the handling of sensitive real life occurrences, it seems irresponsible of a supposed feminist to depict Artemisia in such a way. It feels analogous to someone remaking Roots with the Africans rushing to get a space on a cruise to
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Post 6
Belen Vidal's article entitled the "Feminist Historiographies and the Woman Artist's Biopic: The Case of Artemisia," Vidal comments on the way in which films such as Artemisia "blur the borders between fiction and history to produce new variations on an 'old' genre: the biographical picture or biopic." Vidal goes on to analyze the way in which the film works as a postfeminist revision of women's histories through its handling of the feminist issue and the feminine agency through a fantasy ridden romantic account of the relationship between Artemisia and her "mentor" or teacher, Agostino. Through a careful analysis of the mise-en-scene of Artemisia, the deliberate framing techniques, and the manipulation of the gaze, both the viewers and the heroine's, Vidal touches on the way in which this film furthers the subjection of women, not as a means of working to deflate such gender biased notions. Vidal also touches on the controversial issues of the film as it portrays a contradictory take on the life of Artemisia Gentileschi. She supports her argument through the analysis of the inadequate treatment of the historical facts known about the painter and its portrayal of the artist as a young woman. Vidal's essay comments on the dual feminism of the film, explaining how it has been seen as a feminist film since it "foregrounds the woman artist's struggle for self-expression and professional independence against the repressive backdrop of Christian ideology and the patriarchal establishment." She goes on to explain that the film also subverts the pro-feminist ideology through its focus on the sexual aspect of Artemisia's life, not her talent and abilities as the first woman artist. Vidal goes on to support her argument through the motifs employed in the film, including the feminine gaze aspect, the "looking," voyeuristic element of the film, and the way in which these aspects are further communicated by the perspectival grid used to paint. Vidal also brings the issue of the male genius artist to the forefront of the film through the character of Agostino and the subsequent character of Artemisia.
Mary Garrard's article comments on the director, Merlet's, anti-feminist portrayal of Artemisia through her emphasis on the love affair, not on the accomplishments of the artist. She incorporates quotations from the director who self who claims that her intentions for the film can be justified because it was an "effort to reflect Artemisia's inner struggles, rather than what she seems to consider the ambiguous facts of the trial." She argues that the reality of the love affair is "proved by the fact that Artemisia continued to have sex with Tassi after her violation."Unlike the actual happenings of Artemisia's life, rape, affair, and trial, Merlet chose to portray the victimized artist as a weakling who did not stick up for herself and "whose courage consists of acting on her sexual impulses, whose challenge to society lies in her 'giving in to love in an era of arranged marriages'." Her biased portrayal works against the premise of Artemisia and her career. Unlike the one portrayed in the film, the real Artemisia, according to Garrard, "broke larger rules," as she challenged the "gender norms of her day through her art, presenting traditional themes with altered emphases that bring out the perspectives of the female characters." Artemisia's art work can be seen as one that deals predominantly with the projection of the female experience into the masculine dominated world as she worked through the realities of her rape and her sexual "coming of age" aspect through her art work. Garrard also goes on to comment on the factual inaccuracy of the film in terms of the mistaken chronological order of the presentation of facts, including the production of certain of Artemisia's works of art. Garrard understands the key theme of the film to be "Artemisia's sexual initiation by Tassi" as the foundation of her "artistic creativity" which awoke her "esthetic and sensory perceptions through his teaching and lovemaking." She sees that the film focuses primarily on Tassi's creative power over the weakling Artemisia, not on her talent or abilities to produce such remarkable artworks. Garrard claims that Merlet's film presents a construction of Artemisia as a mere sexual prowess with a clear preoccupation with her sexuality, not with her talent.
Tina Olsin Lent's article entitled "My Heart Belongs to Daddy": The Fictionalization of Baroque Artists Artemisia Gentileschi" comments on the idea of the "Artemisia fictions" inherent in her cultural representations and the gender bias of artist biographical films. She explains the advent of artistic fictions and the genre which was originally referred to as "Kunstlerromane," which are "artist novels that focus specifically on the formation of an artist, rather than on the more general growth and development of a young man who is an apprentice to life." It is a type of "quest story" which follows the presumed male protagonist through his coming of age tale, the "goal of development or character formation is applicable to a male, but not a female, life." The only portrayals of the female artist and her development is only founded on the pain and suffering she has experienced as opposed to her artistic capabilities and rise to fame as an accomplished artist. Lent argues that the "Artemisia fictions" can be seen in this context due to the minimal amount of monographic treatments of women artists and the subsequent biased portrayal of women artists. In regards to Artemisia, the artemisia fictions come in to play in regards to the treatment of her rape over her artistic abilities. Her life is defined by her relationship with a male artist, Agostino, not by her crowning achievements. She supports her argument with multiple "Artemisia fictions" in the mode of novel, as well as with Merlet's film. She argues that Merlet's film is grounded in terms of a "sexual economy," which positions "the male artist as the creator, teaching and awakening the creativity of his female student, literalizing the metaphor of a male's artistic creativity flowing like seminal fluid into their female students," a though which is argued by Garrard as well. Merlet's focus on the eye of the artist and the idea of looking and the act of looking and seeing "as both artistic and sexual ways of knowing." The artistic eye is no longer seen in the subtext of the artist, but in Artemisia's sexual awakening and motivation via sexual and eroticized means.
In my opinion, I think that it is never okay to infuse real facts and historical events with a fantastical and romanticized element. I do not think that blurring the real facts of the situations which have transpired and infusing them with a romantic undertone is a legitimate means of portraying an artists life. By confusing the facts, reorganizing the chronological production of art works and events, and focusing on the sexual content rather than the actual historical facts that have happened, works against the film and against the image of the women artist.
Mary Garrard's article comments on the director, Merlet's, anti-feminist portrayal of Artemisia through her emphasis on the love affair, not on the accomplishments of the artist. She incorporates quotations from the director who self who claims that her intentions for the film can be justified because it was an "effort to reflect Artemisia's inner struggles, rather than what she seems to consider the ambiguous facts of the trial." She argues that the reality of the love affair is "proved by the fact that Artemisia continued to have sex with Tassi after her violation."Unlike the actual happenings of Artemisia's life, rape, affair, and trial, Merlet chose to portray the victimized artist as a weakling who did not stick up for herself and "whose courage consists of acting on her sexual impulses, whose challenge to society lies in her 'giving in to love in an era of arranged marriages'." Her biased portrayal works against the premise of Artemisia and her career. Unlike the one portrayed in the film, the real Artemisia, according to Garrard, "broke larger rules," as she challenged the "gender norms of her day through her art, presenting traditional themes with altered emphases that bring out the perspectives of the female characters." Artemisia's art work can be seen as one that deals predominantly with the projection of the female experience into the masculine dominated world as she worked through the realities of her rape and her sexual "coming of age" aspect through her art work. Garrard also goes on to comment on the factual inaccuracy of the film in terms of the mistaken chronological order of the presentation of facts, including the production of certain of Artemisia's works of art. Garrard understands the key theme of the film to be "Artemisia's sexual initiation by Tassi" as the foundation of her "artistic creativity" which awoke her "esthetic and sensory perceptions through his teaching and lovemaking." She sees that the film focuses primarily on Tassi's creative power over the weakling Artemisia, not on her talent or abilities to produce such remarkable artworks. Garrard claims that Merlet's film presents a construction of Artemisia as a mere sexual prowess with a clear preoccupation with her sexuality, not with her talent.
Tina Olsin Lent's article entitled "My Heart Belongs to Daddy": The Fictionalization of Baroque Artists Artemisia Gentileschi" comments on the idea of the "Artemisia fictions" inherent in her cultural representations and the gender bias of artist biographical films. She explains the advent of artistic fictions and the genre which was originally referred to as "Kunstlerromane," which are "artist novels that focus specifically on the formation of an artist, rather than on the more general growth and development of a young man who is an apprentice to life." It is a type of "quest story" which follows the presumed male protagonist through his coming of age tale, the "goal of development or character formation is applicable to a male, but not a female, life." The only portrayals of the female artist and her development is only founded on the pain and suffering she has experienced as opposed to her artistic capabilities and rise to fame as an accomplished artist. Lent argues that the "Artemisia fictions" can be seen in this context due to the minimal amount of monographic treatments of women artists and the subsequent biased portrayal of women artists. In regards to Artemisia, the artemisia fictions come in to play in regards to the treatment of her rape over her artistic abilities. Her life is defined by her relationship with a male artist, Agostino, not by her crowning achievements. She supports her argument with multiple "Artemisia fictions" in the mode of novel, as well as with Merlet's film. She argues that Merlet's film is grounded in terms of a "sexual economy," which positions "the male artist as the creator, teaching and awakening the creativity of his female student, literalizing the metaphor of a male's artistic creativity flowing like seminal fluid into their female students," a though which is argued by Garrard as well. Merlet's focus on the eye of the artist and the idea of looking and the act of looking and seeing "as both artistic and sexual ways of knowing." The artistic eye is no longer seen in the subtext of the artist, but in Artemisia's sexual awakening and motivation via sexual and eroticized means.
In my opinion, I think that it is never okay to infuse real facts and historical events with a fantastical and romanticized element. I do not think that blurring the real facts of the situations which have transpired and infusing them with a romantic undertone is a legitimate means of portraying an artists life. By confusing the facts, reorganizing the chronological production of art works and events, and focusing on the sexual content rather than the actual historical facts that have happened, works against the film and against the image of the women artist.
Post 6
The three readings about the film Artemisia were very interesting. Each article discussed how the film turned historical fact into fiction, and reasoning and problems behind director Agnes Merlet’s decision to do so.
The first reading, “My Heat Belongs to Daddy,” “…examines the dominant thematic constructs used by writers to refashion a seventeenth-century women into a contemporary celebrity.” The article discusses some gender stereotypes that Artemisia in the film displays. Artemisia shows that a woman can only be a famous artist with the help of a powerful man. In the film, her father and Tassi serve as her mentors. The article also discusses how the way the film and many novels about Artemisia represent the rape trial is inaccurate. Tassi is depicted as a noble man, who loves Artemisia when if fact, he was nothing like this.
In the article, “Artemisia’s Trial by Cinema,” the author goes more into detail about the facts of the trial of 1612. “Basic facts of the story are inverted in the film.” Apparently, in the real trial Artemisia did not protect Tassi’s name while she was being tortured. She told everyone that she had been raped. In the film, Tassi saves Artemisia from torture by admitting to rape, but in real life he did no such thing. Tassi never openly admitted to having sex with her. In fact, he accused Artemisia’s father and men in the room of sleeping with her. He was clearly not a good person, but the film makes us like him and sympathize with him. The film turns a terrible crime of rape into a romance.
The final article, “Feminist historiographies and the woman artist’s biopic: the case of Artemisia”, talks about the changing of facts into fiction and tries to pull apart the film by looking at it closely in hopes to discover how and why this was done. The author explores themes in the movie such as focus on eyes and framing. The author is disappointed at the choice of fictionalizing Artemisia’s interesting life story.
When the director of the film was asked about her decision she said that her intent was to make a feminist film that would reflect Artemisia’s inner struggles in life. I personally do not see how she has accomplished this when the main parts of the film falsify historical truths. The film cannot be accurately reflected her inner struggles. I personally do not think that fictionalizing history in a biopic film is acceptable. People are very impressionable when they watch films or television. If you have a film that is about a real life person, the audience will automatically believe everything you are putting on the screen is based on factual truth. If I had not known the film was not accurate, I would have believed that Tassi and Artemisia had a powerful romance and that Tassi was not a bad person. I was shocked to have learned that originally the film stated that it was a movie based on real life. How misleading!
Changing facts when doing a film about a real person warps and changes history.
I agree with the article “Artemisia’s Trial by Cinema,” when the author said that if they had kept to the facts during the trial they would have had a more interesting plot. Most every movie has romance in it, but what really happened between Tassi and Artemisia is more attention grabbing and out of the ordinary.
I also think the movie should have focused more on her life as an artist. We really don’t see enough of her developing into a talented artist. We mostly see the drama that ensues in the courtroom and between her and Tassi. It would have been nice to see her grow older, when her artwork really took off and began to be appreciated by many people. After all, this is what we should be remembering about Artemisia. She was an incredible painter and I am sure she inspired many women to paint and do art. The movie does not depict her as being a strong independent woman. Even though the director says that was her intention, I believe that Artemisia relies too much on men in the film. Tassi and her father are her inspirations and mentors, and it seems that without their help she would have been nothing.
Overall, I enjoyed the film but I think what the director did was dangerous and unnecessary. The real facts would have been just as interesting or even more than the fictionalized ones in the film. If the director wanted a movie about two lovers torn apart she should have just created a fictional character and not labeled the film Artemisia
The first reading, “My Heat Belongs to Daddy,” “…examines the dominant thematic constructs used by writers to refashion a seventeenth-century women into a contemporary celebrity.” The article discusses some gender stereotypes that Artemisia in the film displays. Artemisia shows that a woman can only be a famous artist with the help of a powerful man. In the film, her father and Tassi serve as her mentors. The article also discusses how the way the film and many novels about Artemisia represent the rape trial is inaccurate. Tassi is depicted as a noble man, who loves Artemisia when if fact, he was nothing like this.
In the article, “Artemisia’s Trial by Cinema,” the author goes more into detail about the facts of the trial of 1612. “Basic facts of the story are inverted in the film.” Apparently, in the real trial Artemisia did not protect Tassi’s name while she was being tortured. She told everyone that she had been raped. In the film, Tassi saves Artemisia from torture by admitting to rape, but in real life he did no such thing. Tassi never openly admitted to having sex with her. In fact, he accused Artemisia’s father and men in the room of sleeping with her. He was clearly not a good person, but the film makes us like him and sympathize with him. The film turns a terrible crime of rape into a romance.
The final article, “Feminist historiographies and the woman artist’s biopic: the case of Artemisia”, talks about the changing of facts into fiction and tries to pull apart the film by looking at it closely in hopes to discover how and why this was done. The author explores themes in the movie such as focus on eyes and framing. The author is disappointed at the choice of fictionalizing Artemisia’s interesting life story.
When the director of the film was asked about her decision she said that her intent was to make a feminist film that would reflect Artemisia’s inner struggles in life. I personally do not see how she has accomplished this when the main parts of the film falsify historical truths. The film cannot be accurately reflected her inner struggles. I personally do not think that fictionalizing history in a biopic film is acceptable. People are very impressionable when they watch films or television. If you have a film that is about a real life person, the audience will automatically believe everything you are putting on the screen is based on factual truth. If I had not known the film was not accurate, I would have believed that Tassi and Artemisia had a powerful romance and that Tassi was not a bad person. I was shocked to have learned that originally the film stated that it was a movie based on real life. How misleading!
Changing facts when doing a film about a real person warps and changes history.
I agree with the article “Artemisia’s Trial by Cinema,” when the author said that if they had kept to the facts during the trial they would have had a more interesting plot. Most every movie has romance in it, but what really happened between Tassi and Artemisia is more attention grabbing and out of the ordinary.
I also think the movie should have focused more on her life as an artist. We really don’t see enough of her developing into a talented artist. We mostly see the drama that ensues in the courtroom and between her and Tassi. It would have been nice to see her grow older, when her artwork really took off and began to be appreciated by many people. After all, this is what we should be remembering about Artemisia. She was an incredible painter and I am sure she inspired many women to paint and do art. The movie does not depict her as being a strong independent woman. Even though the director says that was her intention, I believe that Artemisia relies too much on men in the film. Tassi and her father are her inspirations and mentors, and it seems that without their help she would have been nothing.
Overall, I enjoyed the film but I think what the director did was dangerous and unnecessary. The real facts would have been just as interesting or even more than the fictionalized ones in the film. If the director wanted a movie about two lovers torn apart she should have just created a fictional character and not labeled the film Artemisia
Artemisia
In the article “Artemisia’s Trial by Cinema” Mary D. Garrad diminishes the film to the point of referring to the content as nonsense and “one of the most damaging stereotypes for women”. She discusses the poor portrayal of Artemisia as going against ideals, which are “genuinely” feminist. Garrad is discouraged by the twisted portrayal of Artemisia’s life and the depiction of her relationship with Tassi. The film does not show her as a strong female figure but rather as a woman who is pressured by a volatile relationship. Garrad also discusses the poor portrayal of Artemisia as an artist. In the film her artist talent is shadowed over by her lessons and sexual relations with Tassi, “By Merlet’s own account, the key theme of the film is that Artemisia’s sexual initiation by Tassi launched her artistic creativity, awakening her aesthetic and sensory perceptions through his teaching and knowledge”. Garrad is extremely discouraged by the misrepresentation of Artemisia because as stated in her article, Americans obtain most of their information from T.V. and entertainment and will accept Merlet’s interpretation of the story of Artemisia as a valid portrayal.
In the article, “My Heart Belongs to Daddy”: The Fictionalization of Baroque Artist Artemisia Gentileschi”, Tina Olsin Lent discusses how Artemisia has become a famous figure in the late 20th century but her story has been fictionalized conforming to “conventional literary genres”. She discusses how representations of male and female artists are interested in different aspects of the life of the artist. In my opinion, the most interesting comment in Lent’s article discusses the construction if the female artist biopic and the misrepresentation due to gender issues. She states, “the conflict between the roles of artist and woman plays out through the narrative construct of the romance story, where womanly qualities and traditional goals are embraced, ambition is abjured, and accomplishment is credited to luck and the conceit that a woman’s life achievement is pursued her like a conventional romantic lover.” Lent’s main issue and concern is how culture and gender inequality leads to misrepresentation of women in order to conform and avoid controversy. Women artists are represented under the umbrella of their male mentors and/or “attachment to famous men,” in the case of Artemisia both Orazio Gentileschi and Tassi. The romantic details of their life and relations with male figures hold more importance in the depiction of the female artist. The fictionalization of Artemisia’s life is a perfect example of the misrepresentation of female artists and how their lives and art have been lost in the traditional male canon of art history.
In the article, “Feminist historiographies and the woman artist’s biopic: the case of Artemisia”, Belen Vidal discusses issues of post-feminism and their relation to Artemisia and the film Artemisia. Vidal focuses on the films depiction of Artemisia’s romantic life and neglect to discuss the artist talent and strength of Artemisia herself as a pioneer for women artists. Vidal emphasizes how discouraging the misrepresentation and fictionalization of the female artist in order to create entertainment value. Vidal is discouraged by the historical inaccuracy of the film, which many viewers who do not have prior knowledge of the artist will understand to be a true representation. Vidal discusses the potential the film had to portray such a powerful female figure in history, but rather decided to create a “narrative developed within a mise-en-scene of sexual awakening and heterosexual romance.”
Personally I do not believe that fictionalizing history in a biopic is acceptable if the correct information is available. Viewers who do not have prior knowledge on the subject will understand the information that is presented to be a valid as they do not have any other basis for comparison. Especially, in the case of a female artist such as Artemisia Gentileschi whose influence changed the way that we look at the woman artist. It seems lazy and ignorant to misrepresent such an important figure in history for entertainment value. Not only does it show how motion picture companies do not respect their viewers’ intelligence it also contributes to the issues of misrepresentation of females in history. I understand if the information is not available, but in the case of Artemisia Gentileschi there are official documents of the rape trial. Although, Miramax was forced to change the description of the film from historical documentation to a fictional biography, I believe that they should have invested more energy in accurately representing a female figure in history who has the capability to change the way people look at women and their role in the world and in art.
In the article, “My Heart Belongs to Daddy”: The Fictionalization of Baroque Artist Artemisia Gentileschi”, Tina Olsin Lent discusses how Artemisia has become a famous figure in the late 20th century but her story has been fictionalized conforming to “conventional literary genres”. She discusses how representations of male and female artists are interested in different aspects of the life of the artist. In my opinion, the most interesting comment in Lent’s article discusses the construction if the female artist biopic and the misrepresentation due to gender issues. She states, “the conflict between the roles of artist and woman plays out through the narrative construct of the romance story, where womanly qualities and traditional goals are embraced, ambition is abjured, and accomplishment is credited to luck and the conceit that a woman’s life achievement is pursued her like a conventional romantic lover.” Lent’s main issue and concern is how culture and gender inequality leads to misrepresentation of women in order to conform and avoid controversy. Women artists are represented under the umbrella of their male mentors and/or “attachment to famous men,” in the case of Artemisia both Orazio Gentileschi and Tassi. The romantic details of their life and relations with male figures hold more importance in the depiction of the female artist. The fictionalization of Artemisia’s life is a perfect example of the misrepresentation of female artists and how their lives and art have been lost in the traditional male canon of art history.
In the article, “Feminist historiographies and the woman artist’s biopic: the case of Artemisia”, Belen Vidal discusses issues of post-feminism and their relation to Artemisia and the film Artemisia. Vidal focuses on the films depiction of Artemisia’s romantic life and neglect to discuss the artist talent and strength of Artemisia herself as a pioneer for women artists. Vidal emphasizes how discouraging the misrepresentation and fictionalization of the female artist in order to create entertainment value. Vidal is discouraged by the historical inaccuracy of the film, which many viewers who do not have prior knowledge of the artist will understand to be a true representation. Vidal discusses the potential the film had to portray such a powerful female figure in history, but rather decided to create a “narrative developed within a mise-en-scene of sexual awakening and heterosexual romance.”
Personally I do not believe that fictionalizing history in a biopic is acceptable if the correct information is available. Viewers who do not have prior knowledge on the subject will understand the information that is presented to be a valid as they do not have any other basis for comparison. Especially, in the case of a female artist such as Artemisia Gentileschi whose influence changed the way that we look at the woman artist. It seems lazy and ignorant to misrepresent such an important figure in history for entertainment value. Not only does it show how motion picture companies do not respect their viewers’ intelligence it also contributes to the issues of misrepresentation of females in history. I understand if the information is not available, but in the case of Artemisia Gentileschi there are official documents of the rape trial. Although, Miramax was forced to change the description of the film from historical documentation to a fictional biography, I believe that they should have invested more energy in accurately representing a female figure in history who has the capability to change the way people look at women and their role in the world and in art.
post 6 Artemisia
Aside from the inaccurate historical portrayal of one of the first major female artists, Artemisia was not a terrible movie. It's fictional concepts added into this biopic allowed for some interesting discussions as three articles which shall be covered spark different, yet heated debates. While the three articles generally had the same idea, claiming historical inaccuracy was a major problem, Miramax did not support a film with no basis. There were some messages, yet this film failed to demonstrate art history. Rather, this film changes what happened and focused on rough time that Artemisia endured in order to gain success in the art business. The following three paragraphs will dive into each article. The summary of the articles will be followed by analytical approaches to the unjustified film as well a theory as to whether this film carried another message.
Although Vidal managed to write over twenty pages, analyzing various Artemisia protrayals, Garrard's Artemisia Trial by Cinema managed to grasp a message and stick to it. This personally was the best of the three essays which is why I will lead off with its summary. Basically, this article starts off and concludes with its opinion that the film was historically inaccurate. Not only is this referring to the painting, but more importantly the rape trial. As the movie changes Orazio's background, Artemisia claimed that he had been married once, but did not get into any detail of his real life. For instance, the article explains that a 1981 Italian and 1989 English document proves Orazio had raped Artemisia. Also, the article dives into an even more harsh truth which I was not aware of. Orazio had impregnated his sister-in-law and had already been in trouble with the law for a prior rape charge. If this was in the film, would the scenes have been shot the way they were? In other words, would this romantic feeling that director was obviously trying to get exist? This only gets worse as this short 3 page article even manages to point out that the film gives Orazio a 2 year in prison sentence. In reality, he was offered five years in prison or five years exile from Rome. The movie leaving this out practically changes everything.
While Garrard did a great job, Oslin's My Heart Belongs to Daddy focuses on the same aspects of truth vs. false facts. However, the article also gives notice to who Artemisia was and why this film didn't focus on what was important. Rather than explaining how Artemisia reached her level of fame as the film should have done, the movie focused mainly on a trial and her alleged love with Orazio. As the truth was not covered completely, Oslin makes a serious note that this late 1990's portrayal as well as previous films always dedicate her fame to her master Orazio. "In all of the 'Artemisia fictions', Orazio emerges as the true artist: he is Artemisia's master, the source of her talent, her inspiration, her love." (Oslin, 3).
Vidal, as stated before, put the most effort into the article and lays out the previous Artemisia fictional stories. While these were interesting, my main focus is on the 1998 feature that has neglected to mention many of the historical facts. Similar to the other two articles, this one lays out the feminist issues, as well the historical inaccuracy of the rape charges and the paintings. However, more importantly, the Judith paintings were done much later in time in relation to when this film took place. This article takes notice to such inaccuracies, but what intrigued me the most was the most important aspect of Artemisia. This was a woman who began painting erotic images that were illegal at the times. Women unfortunately were not allowed such privileges and the film slightly covers this, but not enough. Vidal makes a statement, claiming the movie does not focus enough on how large of a breakthrough this was. She broke the law and still managed to make it through her life. The article discusses that she didn't follow the rules and still made money as a female artist. Realistically, she was one of the first to do so and the film just doesn't portray these facts as they should be.
Although I have just stated the areas the film neglects to mention according to Vidal's writing, there were some areas of support that Vidal focuses on. For example, Vidal focuses on the false landscape of the film, but not does not necessarily make fun of these ideas. Rather, Vidal notes this is an aspect of spectatorship and good thought, but just isn't realistic. The director most likely acknowledged there were some false facts regarding this film, but sometimes false stories create more interest. Honestly, would anyone have enjoyed watching repetitive rape scenes and more borin visions of art? Artemisia didn't just paint in a day as this movie tried to claim. Rather, she took her time and would this have been fun to watch? The film is historically inaccurate as well not focused enough on feminism, but manages to be entertaining for the most part.
Moving into some personal views, this movie probably should have reconsidered before its release. I a gree with the idea of not focusing as much on the rapist tendencies of Orazio, but there were some historical issues regarding her paintings. As previously mentioned, the Judith Paintings in relation to her relationship with Orazio just didn't work. We all know that she didn't really ask Orazio to lie on the bed and spread his arms as if he was in agony. This never happened, but personally, this was a cool idea. The director most likely realized there is too much to cover, leading him to the idea that mixing painting with relationship could be considered creative and genius. However, critics were so upset with the false identification of who she was that such ideas can't be supported at this point. The director focused so much on the relationship of Artemisia, her father, and Orazio that the paintings didn't seem to be what the film was about. Rather this movie was a similar portrayal to that of Shakespeare in love. In other words, Shakespeare was portrayed as a lover who seeked other things than writing plays. It's too hard to tell, but the many flaws of the film overpower the movie's creativity. Historically, this film should have done a better job. If such inaccuracies were corrected, people could look at the film's ideas (e.g. looking at the outdoors with her eyes closed) with more appreciation.
Was the depiction of her relationship with her father and Orazio justifiable? The answer is yes and no. Orazio was portrayed as someone different than who he actually was, but if this film was completely made up and not based on a real female artist, there was some genius in the director's ideas. Also, the father's constant gurading of Artemisia and his broken friendship with Orazio just didn't seem close to the truth. Most likely this issue with Artemisia and Orazio was dealt with differently from the vision of the father. However, I was not alive in the 1600's and don't really know how to interpret something as bold as this. Therefore, the genius of this film is in a way hidden forever as the film's lack of historical accuracy in the relationships and the paintings. Artemisia was a good FICTIONAL film, but rather lacking in historical ideas.
While Garrard did a great job, Oslin's My Heart Belongs to Daddy focuses on the same aspects of truth vs. false facts. However, the article also gives notice to who Artemisia was and why this film didn't focus on what was important. Rather than explaining how Artemisia reached her level of fame as the film should have done, the movie focused mainly on a trial and her alleged love with Orazio. As the truth was not covered completely, Oslin makes a serious note that this late 1990's portrayal as well as previous films always dedicate her fame to her master Orazio. "In all of the 'Artemisia fictions', Orazio emerges as the true artist: he is Artemisia's master, the source of her talent, her inspiration, her love." (Oslin, 3).
Vidal, as stated before, put the most effort into the article and lays out the previous Artemisia fictional stories. While these were interesting, my main focus is on the 1998 feature that has neglected to mention many of the historical facts. Similar to the other two articles, this one lays out the feminist issues, as well the historical inaccuracy of the rape charges and the paintings. However, more importantly, the Judith paintings were done much later in time in relation to when this film took place. This article takes notice to such inaccuracies, but what intrigued me the most was the most important aspect of Artemisia. This was a woman who began painting erotic images that were illegal at the times. Women unfortunately were not allowed such privileges and the film slightly covers this, but not enough. Vidal makes a statement, claiming the movie does not focus enough on how large of a breakthrough this was. She broke the law and still managed to make it through her life. The article discusses that she didn't follow the rules and still made money as a female artist. Realistically, she was one of the first to do so and the film just doesn't portray these facts as they should be.
Although I have just stated the areas the film neglects to mention according to Vidal's writing, there were some areas of support that Vidal focuses on. For example, Vidal focuses on the false landscape of the film, but not does not necessarily make fun of these ideas. Rather, Vidal notes this is an aspect of spectatorship and good thought, but just isn't realistic. The director most likely acknowledged there were some false facts regarding this film, but sometimes false stories create more interest. Honestly, would anyone have enjoyed watching repetitive rape scenes and more borin visions of art? Artemisia didn't just paint in a day as this movie tried to claim. Rather, she took her time and would this have been fun to watch? The film is historically inaccurate as well not focused enough on feminism, but manages to be entertaining for the most part.
Moving into some personal views, this movie probably should have reconsidered before its release. I a gree with the idea of not focusing as much on the rapist tendencies of Orazio, but there were some historical issues regarding her paintings. As previously mentioned, the Judith Paintings in relation to her relationship with Orazio just didn't work. We all know that she didn't really ask Orazio to lie on the bed and spread his arms as if he was in agony. This never happened, but personally, this was a cool idea. The director most likely realized there is too much to cover, leading him to the idea that mixing painting with relationship could be considered creative and genius. However, critics were so upset with the false identification of who she was that such ideas can't be supported at this point. The director focused so much on the relationship of Artemisia, her father, and Orazio that the paintings didn't seem to be what the film was about. Rather this movie was a similar portrayal to that of Shakespeare in love. In other words, Shakespeare was portrayed as a lover who seeked other things than writing plays. It's too hard to tell, but the many flaws of the film overpower the movie's creativity. Historically, this film should have done a better job. If such inaccuracies were corrected, people could look at the film's ideas (e.g. looking at the outdoors with her eyes closed) with more appreciation.
Was the depiction of her relationship with her father and Orazio justifiable? The answer is yes and no. Orazio was portrayed as someone different than who he actually was, but if this film was completely made up and not based on a real female artist, there was some genius in the director's ideas. Also, the father's constant gurading of Artemisia and his broken friendship with Orazio just didn't seem close to the truth. Most likely this issue with Artemisia and Orazio was dealt with differently from the vision of the father. However, I was not alive in the 1600's and don't really know how to interpret something as bold as this. Therefore, the genius of this film is in a way hidden forever as the film's lack of historical accuracy in the relationships and the paintings. Artemisia was a good FICTIONAL film, but rather lacking in historical ideas.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Post 6
The Film Artemisia is plagued by historical inaccuracies and the falsifying of facts in order to create a better movie. In doing so the filmmakers and miramax cut out the most important fact concerning Artemisia Gentileschi, that she was one of the first great women artists to gain fame. The three articles only perpetuate the fact that by creating a film focused on sex and the influences of men, they are essentially reducing her to someone that owes all of her talent and credit to other people.
In the essay Artemisia's Trial by Cinema by Mary D. Garrard she examines how Agnes Merlet depicted Artemisia Gentileschi in her 1997 film biopic on her life. She looks at how by choosing to focus on only a two year span in her life and fictionalizing and changing the account of what happened during her rape trial, she does a disservice to Artemisia and to women everywhere. The account of how the rape trial took place between Artemisia and Tassi as portrayed in the film is a very different account compared to the actual trial transcripts that are available in English and Italian. One of the most important things that she points out is that the pivotal scene in the film when Artemisia is being tortured and Tassi stands up for her because he loves her, did not actually take place. In reality she voluntarily signed up for the torture in order to prove that she was telling the truth that he raped her. This version as Garrad points out "is also more genuinely feminist....she broke larger rules. She was one of the first women artists to make a living from her art." In showing almost no attention to her art and faking the way that she developed her artistic talents, Merlet is trivializing the life of Artemisia and making it about sexual awakening, instead of focusing on her talent. She is playing into all the stereotypes when artists have to overcome, men being the ones that are responsible for creating women's talent and that they need a male mentor. Garrad essentially believes that by not paying attention to her work and only focusing on the sex and fictionalizing her life that she is changing the way that Artemisia is meant to be seen. In the article Tina Lent is meant to underscore the fact that by producing a biopic, that Merlet took a interesting and important woman and made her no different than any other typical artist out there. In doing she is essentially reducing her to her sex. She says that the "fictionalizing of Artemisia's life...molded into popular conventions...reiterate women's creativity as exceptional and the result of male influence." She claims that the film makes it out to seem that she owes all of her talent to her father and to Tassi, when in reality there is no evidence that Tassi as ever her teacher. She compares the films to other works that had been done about Artemisia and fines that most of them deal with her in the same way that the film does, attributing her success to that of the males around her for teaching her to paint. This treatment does nothing to show the brilliant painter and innovator that she truly was.
The article by Vidal talks about Artemisia in relation to post-feminism, saying that it is told through the lens of romance and does not claim to be anything else. That in doing a historical biopic on a painter one had to make allowances for the fact that it is a treatment for authenticity and does not claim to be the real deal. It does not take the feminist stance that it could of considering the way that the film starts but it takes a direction that concerns her sexual awakening. Vidal speaks about how this creates the problems of historical accuracy and authenticity in the films that many people believe they are getting. Miramax should have been more proactive in making sure the truth was being represented and not a fictionalized version of the truth.
Personally I believe that this fictionalized version of the events that took place does a disservice to Artemisia and to the people watching the film. They are not sure what is the truth and what is not, so many people will walk away thinking that this is all there is to her, a rape trial and forget that she was one of the first women painters in art history. The film pays no attention to her painting and focuses entirely on her relationship with Tassi. I think that in fictionalizing her story they are wronging her memory and all the people that come to see the film. I do not think that the distortions concerning Tassi and their relationship was the right way to take this film. In the real rape trial documents it is easy to see that the entire portion of the movie related to the rape is historically inaccurate. This is not justifiable, because it changes the details too much. This film should be considered a work of fiction and not a work of historical accuracy.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Artemisia
There are 3 readings for Artemisia, all of which in different ways address what the authors see as the problem of fictionalizing Gentileschi's life in the film. Tied in with this critique is the authors' concern that Gentileschi as a woman has been misrepresented and that this misrepresentation is not only ahistorical but perpetuates damaging sexist stereotypes.
In your response, first, summarize each essay. Then say whether you think a) fictionalizing history in a biopic is acceptable or serves some higher purpose--or not; and b) whether you think Artemisia's distortions of the historical record about her relationship with Tassi and her father are justifiable or not.
DUE SATURDAY, MARCH 22.
(and don't forget your comments!)
In your response, first, summarize each essay. Then say whether you think a) fictionalizing history in a biopic is acceptable or serves some higher purpose--or not; and b) whether you think Artemisia's distortions of the historical record about her relationship with Tassi and her father are justifiable or not.
DUE SATURDAY, MARCH 22.
(and don't forget your comments!)
Monday, March 17, 2008
Post 5
I must say that I really enjoyed the film Frida. This is mainly due to Salma Hayek’s performance. I think she does an incredible job of becoming Frida Kahlo and giving a realistic performance. Having studied Frida’s life somewhat in my Spanish class, I knew of the pain and suffering she had gone through in her life. Salma portrays this well, making us truly understand why the subject of so many of her paintings are dark and filled with sadness. I also found Frida’s relationship with Diego to be fascinating. It seems to be a bit of a roller coaster ride. One minute, Frida and Diego are happy and we like them together and the next minute he is unfaithful and we don’t know why she is staying with him. Whether she loves him or dislikes him at the moment, he remains a huge inspiration for her work and that is something that always remains the same. Finally, the cinematography and imagery in this film is beautiful. I found it very interesting how in certain parts of the film her art came alive. For, example, after her accident when she is in the hospital we see an animation with images from her paintings to express her pain from the bus crash. Also, I enjoyed the cinematography when Frida and Ashley Judd’s character Tina do the tango. There is so much passion in their moves and the camera captures it all.
In Ortner’s article, she talks a lot about female subordination and how it tends to be profound. She also discusses how women are to be more identified with nature, and men with culture. Otner says, “Women’s body is seen as closer to nature because of its functions, man’s philosophy frees him more completely to take up the projects of culture.” In her quote and in the article, culture or men seem to have more power over nature or women. Therefore women are subordinate to men. I believe that this is depicted in the film Frida. The main man of the film, her husband Diego, has a lot of control over Frida. Even though Frida is stubborn and strong at times, it seems he does have some sort of control over her. It was the cultured part of Diego that first attracted Frida to him. He was a very successful muralist and had many connections in the art world. Through Diego, Frida knew she could become a part of that culture. She needed him to get there. Diego (man) is cultured. Frida is identified with nature. She has been dealt hardships in her life and pain and has had to deal with all of it. She even depicts these natural feelings and emotions in her paintings.
In Ortner’s article, she talks a lot about female subordination and how it tends to be profound. She also discusses how women are to be more identified with nature, and men with culture. Otner says, “Women’s body is seen as closer to nature because of its functions, man’s philosophy frees him more completely to take up the projects of culture.” In her quote and in the article, culture or men seem to have more power over nature or women. Therefore women are subordinate to men. I believe that this is depicted in the film Frida. The main man of the film, her husband Diego, has a lot of control over Frida. Even though Frida is stubborn and strong at times, it seems he does have some sort of control over her. It was the cultured part of Diego that first attracted Frida to him. He was a very successful muralist and had many connections in the art world. Through Diego, Frida knew she could become a part of that culture. She needed him to get there. Diego (man) is cultured. Frida is identified with nature. She has been dealt hardships in her life and pain and has had to deal with all of it. She even depicts these natural feelings and emotions in her paintings.
Post 5
This was my second time seeing the film Frida, I film that I honestly do not have a great desire to see again. Although it was an incredibly well done film the tone and the story do not do very much to ender me to the characters. Although all take part in the great tragedy's of life, they do very little to protect themselves from bad things taking place again their lives. They seem to want to hurt themselves. Frida, knowing full well what kind of man Diego is goes back to him over and over again. This irresponsibility to their emotions is what turns me off to the film. I thought though that cinematically that it was a beautifully done picture. I loved the vibrant colors and how they popped off the screen and how they were indicative of how the characters were feeling. When the palette was gray and dark, the viewer knew that they character was going through a hard time, but when it was bright and vibrant that it was a good time in Frida's life. This was especially evident in the garden, when it was dead and had no life, that was how Frida was feeling, but when it was in full bloom and beautiful, everything was alright in the world. It was when she was coming alive again. The colors were my favorite part of the film, as well as how they merged her art with scenes of her life. However it was slightly disjointed. The parts that depicted her as a lesbian did nothing really for the narrative of the film, and were seen to be used almost a filler or rushed into the film to prove a point. Although I did not like the film I believe that it was a beautifully done film.
Sherry Ornter in her article"Is female to Male as Nature is to culture? asserts that women tend to be identified with nature and men with culture. The film makes this distinction when depicting the life of Frida Kahlo. She says that " I would flatly assert that we find women subordinate to men in every known society. The search...for a matriarchal society has proved fruitless." This idea that women are subordinate to men and are nothing without them is shown over and over again in Frida. The male presences in her life provided the cannon for her art. Without her father she would never have started to paint when she was lying in bed and discovered her true passion for painting. The entrance of Diego Rivera into her life is what made it possible for her work to be discovered and enabled her to create some of the best works of her career. This leads to her discovery by one of the biggest proponents of the surrealist movements and gave her bigger stage in which she was able to show her work. She had to have these men in her life otherwise she might not have gone anywhere. They gave her art to the culture which is in line with Ortner's argument that men are identified with nature. The film shows womens connection to nature, through her garden, showing that it is completely indicative of her mood and what is going on in her life, directly relating her as a woman to nature. Nature is also presence when she begins to come back to life after her accident. She begins to draw butterflies which are somethings that exist in nature. Once they began to make an appearance on her cast it is a representation that she is coming back to life through the advent of nature. Woman are seen as natural, because unlike men they have the ability to create children to create nature. The fact that Frida is unable to create children though, takes away part of her nature connection as a woman. She also has a masculine side to her, she dresses up in mens clothes in the beginning of the film to take a picture with her family, she takes the man role in dancing with the ashley judd character, she is attracted to other woman. She makes her self appear almost a-sexual when cutting off all of her hair. She connects with men on a level that most men don't, she is both man and woman embodied in one person.
Her tragic life and the way that it is represented on film perpetuates the myth in the art world that in order to be a successful woman artist they have to be victims. Frida was the poster child for a tragic life, although one that was partly of her own making. The film makes us believe that she was the victim, which in some cases she was. In some though she was not so much a victim, but the particpant in a sick and twisted game with Diego, of who could hurt each other more. The way however that she depicts her life through her paintings make her a standout amongst women painters. Her tragic scenes are raw and rip the emotion from the person onto the canvas, creating harrowing and tragic scenes that show the raw emotion that she must have felt during the painting of them. This is what makes her standout amongst women artists and something that very few woman have the ability to accomplish. The artist life is the most important aspect of their work, it is what they draw from and what gives them the ability to create work that moves people.
Sherry Ornter in her article"Is female to Male as Nature is to culture? asserts that women tend to be identified with nature and men with culture. The film makes this distinction when depicting the life of Frida Kahlo. She says that " I would flatly assert that we find women subordinate to men in every known society. The search...for a matriarchal society has proved fruitless." This idea that women are subordinate to men and are nothing without them is shown over and over again in Frida. The male presences in her life provided the cannon for her art. Without her father she would never have started to paint when she was lying in bed and discovered her true passion for painting. The entrance of Diego Rivera into her life is what made it possible for her work to be discovered and enabled her to create some of the best works of her career. This leads to her discovery by one of the biggest proponents of the surrealist movements and gave her bigger stage in which she was able to show her work. She had to have these men in her life otherwise she might not have gone anywhere. They gave her art to the culture which is in line with Ortner's argument that men are identified with nature. The film shows womens connection to nature, through her garden, showing that it is completely indicative of her mood and what is going on in her life, directly relating her as a woman to nature. Nature is also presence when she begins to come back to life after her accident. She begins to draw butterflies which are somethings that exist in nature. Once they began to make an appearance on her cast it is a representation that she is coming back to life through the advent of nature. Woman are seen as natural, because unlike men they have the ability to create children to create nature. The fact that Frida is unable to create children though, takes away part of her nature connection as a woman. She also has a masculine side to her, she dresses up in mens clothes in the beginning of the film to take a picture with her family, she takes the man role in dancing with the ashley judd character, she is attracted to other woman. She makes her self appear almost a-sexual when cutting off all of her hair. She connects with men on a level that most men don't, she is both man and woman embodied in one person.
Her tragic life and the way that it is represented on film perpetuates the myth in the art world that in order to be a successful woman artist they have to be victims. Frida was the poster child for a tragic life, although one that was partly of her own making. The film makes us believe that she was the victim, which in some cases she was. In some though she was not so much a victim, but the particpant in a sick and twisted game with Diego, of who could hurt each other more. The way however that she depicts her life through her paintings make her a standout amongst women painters. Her tragic scenes are raw and rip the emotion from the person onto the canvas, creating harrowing and tragic scenes that show the raw emotion that she must have felt during the painting of them. This is what makes her standout amongst women artists and something that very few woman have the ability to accomplish. The artist life is the most important aspect of their work, it is what they draw from and what gives them the ability to create work that moves people.
Frida Post
Frida was a well planned film that allowed the audience to gather an understanding of who she was as a person and an artist. While the biopic mainly covers her physical and emotional struggles that encouraged her to act out in obscure ways, the movie successfully explained the marriage of Frida and Diego Riviera. The tough times she endured led to her many art works that expressed love, anxiety, surrealism, and general oddities that could relate to the world in a dark, yet over-the-edge style of painting. Paintings of her's must be seen to understand, but her attitude in her style of painting was easily demonstrated in the film as she used blood, gore, fear, and depression in her paintings to create an understanding for the audience. Her work could express the harsh realities of certain situations in the world and the film's creative mise-en-scene, which depicted an artistic, yet depressed world, was successfully explaining the world seen through Frida's eyes. The coloring, music, and constant slow motion close ups were not necessarily the vision of Frida's eyes, but this style of filming gave a more spiritual look that blended well with the description of who Frida was.
Due to the time era that Frida was created, there are several statements of Ortner's that should be taken into account. As Frida's most notable years were in the 1930's through the 1940's, this was still a very sexist and at times cruel world. Although Ortner's article was written in 1974, there are valid points that could be still argued in some areas of modern times. Her argument states that women could be classified with nature as men match well with culture. For a 1970's article, such statements were well articulated and relate to Frida. There was a large part of the film that focused on Salma Hayek's devastatation as she lost her unborn baby. A large part of Ortner's articles takes notice of the mutual effort in creating a baby. This relates to the unjust treatment of women at the time of Frida. "Whereas in serving the species, the human male also remodels the face of the earth, he creates new instruments, he invents, he shapes the future" (Ortner, 75). Unfortunately, males have dominated the social aspect and have therefore, had more power in certain areas. For example, Frida was only selected to do a few art shows in her life, one of which was the reason of her cheating, degrading husband who does not understand the concept of a faithful marriage. Regardless, she struggled, dealt with his constant cheating, and played him well as she received her personal exhibit which demonstrated her passion in art. The reason her husband Diego could get away with cheating was not only that Diego explained to Frida before they married that he liked many women, but because Frida was growing up in an unjust world where this happened more than people wanted to face. The theoretical approach of Ortner and many others through time is the female has the beautiful body (nature) and can create the child through such a body (nature). However, the male is the one who conceives the child and therefore, questionably, people look at males as culture, and such advantages of being able to conceive children, help the role of culture vs. nature. This is unfortunate, but at the time of Frida and Ortner's writing, such statements could be argued.
"What is it about about Kahlo that promted Madonna to add her to her repertroire of appropriate female images?" (Bergman, 1). This quote was chosen to demonstrate the passion Madonna has for female artists who have encountered the many unfortunate circumstances in life. Madonna loves Frida for her ability to portray her emotions through her artwork. Argtuably, a combines point of the Bergman and Mencimer articles is that some, if not, all women have to endure a psychologically unsettling experience in their life in order to gain recognition in the art world. Although Frida's husband Diego did help a lot, her message was the importance. Madonna acknowledges her passion and this is why she privately owns the Frida paintings to herself. Unfortunately, Madonna has purchased some of the more prestigous paintings which are only seen by Madonna herself. Regardless, ther two final essays of Mencimer and Bergman accurately reflect Frida and what women must endure to succeed in the art business. This is undeforunate, but these essays and history has demonstrated that some women have had to go through imbalanced, emotional situations in order to gain recognition throughout the art world. Kahlo herself is the prime example.
Due to the time era that Frida was created, there are several statements of Ortner's that should be taken into account. As Frida's most notable years were in the 1930's through the 1940's, this was still a very sexist and at times cruel world. Although Ortner's article was written in 1974, there are valid points that could be still argued in some areas of modern times. Her argument states that women could be classified with nature as men match well with culture. For a 1970's article, such statements were well articulated and relate to Frida. There was a large part of the film that focused on Salma Hayek's devastatation as she lost her unborn baby. A large part of Ortner's articles takes notice of the mutual effort in creating a baby. This relates to the unjust treatment of women at the time of Frida. "Whereas in serving the species, the human male also remodels the face of the earth, he creates new instruments, he invents, he shapes the future" (Ortner, 75). Unfortunately, males have dominated the social aspect and have therefore, had more power in certain areas. For example, Frida was only selected to do a few art shows in her life, one of which was the reason of her cheating, degrading husband who does not understand the concept of a faithful marriage. Regardless, she struggled, dealt with his constant cheating, and played him well as she received her personal exhibit which demonstrated her passion in art. The reason her husband Diego could get away with cheating was not only that Diego explained to Frida before they married that he liked many women, but because Frida was growing up in an unjust world where this happened more than people wanted to face. The theoretical approach of Ortner and many others through time is the female has the beautiful body (nature) and can create the child through such a body (nature). However, the male is the one who conceives the child and therefore, questionably, people look at males as culture, and such advantages of being able to conceive children, help the role of culture vs. nature. This is unfortunate, but at the time of Frida and Ortner's writing, such statements could be argued.
"What is it about about Kahlo that promted Madonna to add her to her repertroire of appropriate female images?" (Bergman, 1). This quote was chosen to demonstrate the passion Madonna has for female artists who have encountered the many unfortunate circumstances in life. Madonna loves Frida for her ability to portray her emotions through her artwork. Argtuably, a combines point of the Bergman and Mencimer articles is that some, if not, all women have to endure a psychologically unsettling experience in their life in order to gain recognition in the art world. Although Frida's husband Diego did help a lot, her message was the importance. Madonna acknowledges her passion and this is why she privately owns the Frida paintings to herself. Unfortunately, Madonna has purchased some of the more prestigous paintings which are only seen by Madonna herself. Regardless, ther two final essays of Mencimer and Bergman accurately reflect Frida and what women must endure to succeed in the art business. This is undeforunate, but these essays and history has demonstrated that some women have had to go through imbalanced, emotional situations in order to gain recognition throughout the art world. Kahlo herself is the prime example.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
