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.