the Gaze
Many contributors have commented on the widespread appearance of the male behavior pattern known as "the male gaze". To clear the decks I should say that as a man, I have to be much aware of another behavior known as "mansplaining" to the readership of this blog which mostly has included content from women and female artists.
To me, for a start I am always aware of the gaze, not particularly in a sexual context by other men as a demonstration of power and status seeking. It seems closely tied through this question of status to the economic appraisal of the Other as commodity and the extraction of resource through a dominant relationship. As a man I am more likely seen as a labor resource and/or a sales target.
So how can we as artists, offering no economic value keep control of our status in the face of this quest for dominance?
I had some thoughts and here goes:
- I can consider my perspective and unconventional camera angles or framing to disrupt the viewer's expectations and challenge their assumptions.
- Challenge the power dynamic by engaging with a wider audience
- Emphasize my agency and remain in control through framing and timing
- Collaborate with other artists. This one for me to collaborate and learn from other experiences and perspectives to feedback into that first point. Perhaps why this blog is here.
- Explore closeness and vulnerability while avoiding dominance. For me this is about
- setting clear boundaries "I'm not your meal ticket"
- sharing personal stories, thoughts, and feelings
- Looking out for the Other, who will reflect my own Otherness back to me through our shared narrative.
I did get work done on the universality of the camera as a tool of the gaze; personally I do not have paparazzi hanging around my door but any image I put on my website may get misused, abused, appropriated well beyond my control.
Recently, I was investigating what it meant to be a woman in the arts, and I found a link on the Tate website. Ironically, the link for the film that accompanied this peice of writing, was 'broken and being removed'. I often feel like I have been removed. In my experience as a female living in the far north, my boundaries are irrelevant and determined by others; no matter the gender.
ReplyDeleteStatistics I find, are difficult to come by, but the general consensus seems to be that women are underrepresented and undervalued, within the art world. As a women from a working class background, and living in the north of Scotland, I am unable to access reliable transport networks, or art. In the words of Lewis Carrol, it feels like one of the 'six impossible things before breakfast', to meet any 'Other', that could reflect my 'Otherness' back to me; this would be a gift, indeed.
It seems to me that the term ‘woman artist’ gauges women's success in terms of men’s success; pits women against men, which I feel reinforces the idea that men are the default when it comes to the art world. By choosing to highlight women in this way, am I also accepting the terms of success set by men, rather than simply changing the narrative to ‘I don’t consider myself a woman artist, I am simply an artist’.
I think I am leaning towards not using gender as a filter through which we analyze creativity, it is limiting, and could perpetuate superficial coverage of women artists. However, grouping women together in order to build a coalition, and therefore a safe and productive space in which to grow as an artist, could provide solidarity in the face of the 'male gaze'.
People around the world know of Charles Rennie Macintosh. His wife, Margaret Macdonald Mackintosh was an English-born artist who worked in Scotland, and whose design work became one of the defining features of the Glasgow Style during the 1890s - 1900s. Margaret was a great influence on the work of her architect and designer husband, but she is hidden behind his male notoriaty. Another woman that has 'been removed', from the art world.
In conclusion, I do feel underrepresented and undervalued, but I do not want the acknowledgement of my art, to be based purely on my gender.
Let's analyze what the male gaze means? Perhaps the problem is the name, as it is with so much of language... scopophilia is its purview, and we simply can't escape that aspect of it. But we can deflect the male gaze exactly as you've described, Aldo - with community, with feeling, with context, boundaries and a sensibility of the Other. And perhaps as Lar suggests, deny the male gaze with solidarity - and I mean solidarity of all genders.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteConsidering that for generations men were considered to be thinkers and creators and women as their helpers. That is why men's art at auctions fetches much higher prices. Women constitute a definite minority in museum collections. It's just that society doesn't trust women's art. Shad this struggle of feminist artists for equality. When I studied in the 80s, a sculpture professor was of the opinion that it is not worth teaching women because everything goes into milk anyway. I think that with this patriarchal statement we can still meet in many countries of the world, especially where women fight for the right to education. lol
Well as the only male [so far] to engage in the wider discussion I can only blush for my sex -- it being no accident that earlier generations of men co-located women's feeling with their uteri. Hysteria is not for men.
DeleteWhen I went back to art school 10 years ago I was struck by the gender ratio of the sexes -- being an artist is not an economic prospect for a young male. But another factor is at play, in the UK at least, the prospect of a graduate tax ( being the servicing of student loan debt ) discourages so many from less privileged backgrounds