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.
1 comment:
Yeah this was a well written post.
You made some really interesting points and backed them up with great examples from the film. There is some focus that leans more toward the loving relationships, rather than the artistic ability of Camille. She was apparently a fantastic sculptor and the film is more focused on what Vidal thought and how he was inspired.
Post a Comment