Jacqueline Valore

Dr. Davidson
Gender and I.D. in Visual Arts
October 12, 2011

MIDTERM:

1. Based on the writings of Kenneth Clark and Lynda Nead, explain the
difference between representing the female or male nude in the images we
have studied.
2. In discussing the subject Simone de Beauvoir, wrote, man feeling and
wishing himself active, subject, does not seem to him an object of desire,
while woman, knowing and make herself object, believes she really sees
herself in the glass. Provide an explanation using an artwork to illustrate
what she meant.
3. Much of our study is centered on the role of visual images in the social
construction of masculinity and femininity. Accordingly, discuss the way in
which the image of masculinity is constructed in Richard Price, Untitled, self
portrait, 1980, ektacolor photograph, 24X20 in. and Princes, Untitled
Cowboys series.
4. Lacan suggested that in the unconscious, a humans desire is the desire of
the other, and that other is the way in which we see ourselves that way
that others see us. Explain this concept in relation to Ken Chus, Boys Will Be
Girls, 1997, mixed media.

1)

To represent the female or male nude discussed between Kenneth Clark and

Lynda Nead, one must understand what the difference is between nude and naked.
Naked, seems to be the actual act of being undressed and openly bared to an
onlookers view. The word, naked, is harsh sounding and much like the word, we
associate being naked as offensive. Whereas, being nude seems rightfully the
opposite. It is more of a concept, and usually more accepted than the term naked.
Examples would be nakedness within pornography, or nudeness in art. Both
could be the exact same picture or painting, but if one is placed within a museum it
becomes art, whereas if it is placed within the subtext of the pornography it
becomes something distasteful and abrasive. One is sublime and the other
insulting.

And the representation of the nude throughout art honestly varies on society,
the viewer, the artist, and the subject of the media presented. It is this image that
provides the most basic foundation for the nude.
But, we have Kenneth Clarks theory of the nude that is widely accepted
within art history and the history of the phallus as our starting point. Throughout his
writings in The Nude, A Study in Ideal Form, he writes, energy is perhaps the first
subject of art, (p 173) and how the Greeks used the ideal form of an athlete as the
perfect representation of this energy.
He describes these athletes as heroes, men who proudly display their
physical energy and artists of the time would etch men with high shoulders, wasp
waists, and swollen thighs, (p175). This scene of robustly muscular men is seen
vastly throughout Clarks writings when involving the nude of both the male and
female and it is this representation of man that we use to compare women to. But if
we apply this quote, high shoulder, wasp waists, and swollen thighs, to a woman,
in turn there is really only one part that separates a man and woman. Clark
recognizes this and also depicts women as athletes and heroes, and does not
assume like most do that, active and strong is male, while everything that is weak
and passive is female (Freud p364).
And though the differences between man and woman are simple, when
referring to a nude, there is no difference in Clarks eyes. To him, a nude if female
or male, is cloaked in art. An example of this would be Edgar Degas Young Spartans
1860-80, oil on canvas, 109.5x155cm. He argued that young Spartan men and
woman were androgynous because both had to learn how to fight and had
independent responsibilities and he cloaked them with art in Young Spartans. And
the smallest of differences are seen throughout Greek and Roman art. Artists

dressed cloaks upon men to give them energy throughout their artwork, while
women only wore draperies and were always clothed.
However, Lynda Nead argues that the nude is how a society represents it.
She has critiqued Clarks writings and understands from them, that although
through art, a male and female nude may be equal. But man still is represented as
strong and energetic. Simone de Beauvoir also suggests that man is secure in his
own image because they were created in the image of God, (Davidson 09/14/2011
PowerPoint) we solidify this by gendering God, because of the tradition that we have
grown up with. Therefore rendering woman to always be behind man no matter
what physical or sexual power, for that matter, that woman may have upon man.

2)

Simone de Beauvoir wrote, man feeling and wishing himself [to be] active,

[as the] subject, does not seem to him an object of desire, while woman, knowing
and making herself [an] object believes she really sees herself in glass. Her
writings often focus on the issues of gender and tries to separate fact versus fiction
and who man and woman are throughout different ethnicities and cultures. She
believes that man will always be the first sex while woman is the second sex, this
thought process wouldve been influenced by her time when patriarchy was the
popular system of government throughout her society, but could have also been
influenced by how feminism had already been written about and milled over and
how we all assume that we have all been taught the same way; that woman is an
object and is not the subject.
But it is also known that Beauvoir has said: Man can think of himself without
woman. She cannot think of herself without man. She is simply what man decrees;
thus she is called the second sex, by which is mean that she appears essentially to
the male being. For him she is sex-nothing more nothing less- she is defined and
differentiated by man, (Davidson 09/7/2011 PowerPoint).
This statement assumes that modern woman merely accepts the history of
herself being an object of desire. This means, woman, as an object of desire,
accepts the notion that she is merely a reflection of what society and culture
perceives her to be. She is an object and will never be the subject.
However, Iise Bings piece, The Viewing Subject, accepts and denies this
theory that seems so set in stone. Could the reason as to why Bing created this
piece, be because she created such piece that throughout all the thoughts she put
into it, we still view her through a gaze that of a mans?

It is a self portrait using two cameras, Iise Bing, and an actual yet simple
mirror. Created in 1931 on a gelatin silver print, its creation was during a time
where a woman was nearly mandated to become a magnanimous object of
perfection. A perfect wife, in a perfected cookie-cutter family.
In this piece, Bing creates two subjects. The first, is herself, being
traditionally viewed as the object that woman is, the second, is the audience
viewing her, viewing them, hence the title, The Viewing Subject.
By doing this she also created two point-of-view, or two different
perspectives: How the viewer is viewing her, and how she views herself as the
reflection or object of how society sees woman as a whole. She also is taking control
of the piece by forcing the audience to view skew their vision in such a matter that
she is no longer the object, but making the audience an object and the subject at
the same time. But, our first assumption is that she is the object of the photograph,
and this piece forces us to think about how we view woman.
Nevertheless, the topic of woman as an object is still at larger within this
photograph. Woman is still perceived and objectified as the subject. This reveals
how culturally no matter how an artist controls, creates, or symbolizes a woman we
have been structurally brought up in a society to see woman as an object of desire
and how the mirrored body is seen as more perfect than the actual bosy is felt,
(Black Swan).

3)

Within our class, Gender and I.D. of Visual Arts, we have viewed many visual

references to help construct a basic expectation or, what I believe to be a,

stereotypical expectation of what a man or woman should look like or represent.
Our focus for this article is not on how woman is object, but how an artist created
man to be an object. When viewing, Richard Princes, untitled self portrait and his
series Cowboys we were not necessarily caught off guard, but more so given the
chance to take a second look at both the artist and his work. However, we must first
look at the artist himself.

Richard Prince was a painted who would re-photograph an original picture

and essentially intensified the original. He would heighten the sense of the subject,
often a man, and make man an object.
In Princes self portrait, it is a black at white photograph with him as the
subject. He is a petite man dressed casually formal, in a suit and tie, with a slight
receding hairline, and all in all it seems rather cut and dry. However, an audience
may have to second guess or make a double-take when viewing this piece. This is
because, although Prince is wearing suit and tie, he is rather femininely beautiful.
He has high arched eyebrows, slender cheekbones, no facial hair and his features
are very gentle and small. We think he is feminine in looks, because appearances
are more difficult to gender. This is a bit problematic in that our society wants to
produce already gendered subjects who are presumably masculine.
His self portrait contrasts greatly with his series, Cowboys, especially if the
audience views him femininely. In his series of various cowboys riding horses,
drinking coffee, or rocking on a bull, each one has not so much harsh lines, but
definitely structured and masculine lines. The curve of the cowboys hat, the way
his hands are often gritty with dirt from a supposed long day at work. These
cowboys fulfill the stereotype and the look of how every man is viewed.
As a society, as a whole, Prince reveals that we, at times veer away from
viewing woman as an object and view man as the object he is expected to be. We
want man to be this all-American cowboy, and want man to enlighten us with our
fascination of a hard working gentleman. We also, rarely ever see Princes,
Cowboys face, giving the audience a sense of mystery or the idea that he could be
any man, much like how we view women. But could this be a sense of relief for the
man? After all, for hundreds of years being viewed as the subject and having the

weight of being a subject of the phallus for so long, is being viewed as an object by
gender a relief?
This raises only one question, (for myself personally,): Why does everyone
care so much about gender on whether he is a she, or she is a he?

4)

Since the earliest times, the obsessive, unreasonable nature of desire has

sought relief in imaged form by whichhas been reoccurring [throughout]

European art, (Kenneth Clark, Davidson 09/14/2011 PowerPoint).
Jacques Marie Emile Lacan, a psychoanalyst, believed that by naming our
desire we gave it function. We have the ability to bring our desire into life. Desire is
separate from something that we need or something that drives us. It is also
important to distinguish between desire and the drives, drives are merely partial
desires and it is often an object that causes desire. Lacan states that we, as
humans, desire how we want to be seen by others, but at times we believe that
what we need is also what we desire which is not true. He also states that we desire
to see ourselves the way how others see us.
Lacan also argues that an image may not be all that it seems, and could also
be nothing more than an image, but its symbol could have a physical representation
or meaning. This physical representation of how someone may view another person
as an image is seen in Ken Chus, Boys Will Be Girls, 1997. In this installation, there
is a sign with various slang terms printed across a reflective mirror with double

bubble gum pieces placed around the base of the mirror. All of the slang terms
printed both insult and describe the artist, Ken Chu. He makes note of the fact that
although we desire to be how our society wants us to be, that it is not always a
positive role.
Boys Will Be Girls is a deconstruction of the stereotypical desire to be what
society wants us to be, and how society wants an individual to upkeep a certain
image of himself. In turn, and in this case, it plays against the public eye. More often
than not, a desire is an individual thought, but Chus installation proves just the
opposite. Or does it? As an artist he is viewed individually as inspirational,
dedicated, ideal, and understanding of how he is viewed on a community level: an
artistic homosexual male. But the question now is this: Does Ken Chu desire the
communitys acceptance of himself or is the community desiring how they want him
to act or how they believe he should be? This case proves that Boys Will Be Girls
created a sense of desire which is a building block to the construction of gender and
sexuality and also proves that Lacans theory of desire is infinite and can never be
satisfied.