Post 7

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.