I’ve always loved this painting, the realness especially. It’s never felt objectifying to me, and the idea that the angle makes it “the male gaze” is weird too… as if I, a woman, couldn’t also look at someone’s vulva from this angle?
Yes! I felt the same way, why must it be a “male” who gazes here?! An unsatisfying critique imo. Thank you so much for reading, I appreciate your mind-heart.
This is a great analysis of this question. In my history classes I often show Orientalist paintings to my students, including the one you mentioned, and although I don’t necessarily use the same terms, I try to get them to see both “the male gaze” and the “western gaze” as intertwined. I don’t see that in the Courbet painting at all.
I definitely agree that this particular work seems like an undeserving target for this kind of protest, the aim of which is not really 100% clear to me. On further investigation, it seems that the artist wanted to make a protest against six specific apparently predatory men in the art world, one of whom was a co-organizer of this exhibition, so I suppose that was a reason for targeting these particular works? The Guardian's stance that the painting is problematic because "the model doesn't even have a face!" strikes me as completely ludicrous. I do understand the sensitivity around women's bodies being objectified by male artists, but that is a subjective emotional reaction, not a fact of the artwork itself. My experience of this piece is that it depicts the female form with great reverence and respect, as well as forcing audiences to see female nakedness and (through the title) acknowledge it's awesome, universal power. I find it frankly petulant and disrespectful to deface someone's work like that when your issue is in fact with someone else. Reminds me of a painter friend of mine who made an exquisite painting of a fetus a few years ago. It was a stunning work of art that took him nearly a year to create. A few years later it was destroyed by protestors who interpreted it as having an anti-abortion agenda. The artist was pro-choice!
Anyway... all that said, I unfortunately do think the tag looks cool as hell on top of the painting so...
I guess maybe this was meant to be a chapter in the life of this very potent piece of work.
Having investigated de Robertis' instagram, I do feel more compelled by the protest, only because she's released a film which she made of the curator 15 years ago propositioning her when she was 25. As a means of drawing attention to this expose, I actually think this act is quite effective. The problem for me is that the protest does not emphasize that connection enough, and so the takeaway that everyone is getting from it is that she has a problem with the painting, not with this specific person/people. So I think the protest itself is actually quite potent... but not executed effectively. The end result feels vague and petulant because the most compelling piece isn't included in the act itself.
Doing further exploring today myself, I found the same info, and was more moved for de Robertis than I had previously been. I really still do not agree with her defacing other artist's works in the show without their permission, I think that's really unfair. After all, the Courbet is preserved behind class, but the contemporary works were not! That was one of the places where the protest lost me...
I think this entire issue, as well as the conversation around "The Birth of the World," is so complex and multi-faceted, it was actually quite hard to wade through all of the points that came up as I was contemplating the issue at hand, this weekend. To bring awareness to her experiences 15 years ago is brave and admirable, and at the same time totally agree with you that there's a missing piece, or missing step, here, in the execution. Of course, I don't think protest needs to be neat and tidy and perfect, the messiness is often a reflection of the complex nature of the issues it's exposing. I think this is one of the snags that contemporary feminism(s) finds itself up against. The world is so complicated, and we can't paint all situations with one brush...
I also just want to thank you for your earlier comment too, and for all your engagement here <3 This essay felt like a maze to put together, as soon as I thought I'd found my way through my feelings about the painting, I had to turn another corner. Love how you point out that this is just another chapter in the already storied life of this painting, and yes, that tag is hella dramatic, even captivating!
Thank you for your reflections on this important painting. Yes, the origin of the works for us all — an important reminder for Mothers Day. What disturbs me about this painting is not the image of the woman’s body/vulva but that she is portrayed only as a faceless body. Perhaps this fact heightens the universality of the experience, without personalizing. But isn’t the case of the objectification of women’s (and of any) bodies is that the personal has been negated in the experience? Isn’t it easier to objectify an anonymous body/body part than in taking in the experience of a full whole human being? I’m somewhat surprised that, in discussion of art and psychoanalysis, there is no mention of the importance of perceiving wholes as a sign of health over seeing only parts. Curious!
I hear what you're saying, but as I wrote in the piece, I don't think the missing head is problematic. Focusing only on the torso in this artwork formally emphasizes "the origin," and makes visceral and unavoidable the power of a woman's body. We can compare this to sacred figurines from ancient history, which venerated the role of women in their societies by similarly emphasizing their form. I think that reading the painting as objectifying because the body isn't "whole" is a projection of the values of our contemporary moment, which may cut us off from the more powerful, primal strength of the work and others like it. And, as a woman myself, I don't find the painting objectifying, but empowering :)
Thank you Cristina for your response. I get what you’re saying. There is a strong archetypal meaning with the woman’s body as portrayed. The connection you make to classical works is well stated. The strength of the figure comes from its open, unadorned nakedness (in all senses of this word). Thank you for helping me to see this work with greasy eyes. Richard
I’ve always loved this painting, the realness especially. It’s never felt objectifying to me, and the idea that the angle makes it “the male gaze” is weird too… as if I, a woman, couldn’t also look at someone’s vulva from this angle?
Really enjoyed your reflection on this ❤️
Yes! I felt the same way, why must it be a “male” who gazes here?! An unsatisfying critique imo. Thank you so much for reading, I appreciate your mind-heart.
This is a great analysis of this question. In my history classes I often show Orientalist paintings to my students, including the one you mentioned, and although I don’t necessarily use the same terms, I try to get them to see both “the male gaze” and the “western gaze” as intertwined. I don’t see that in the Courbet painting at all.
This was such an interesting read.
I definitely agree that this particular work seems like an undeserving target for this kind of protest, the aim of which is not really 100% clear to me. On further investigation, it seems that the artist wanted to make a protest against six specific apparently predatory men in the art world, one of whom was a co-organizer of this exhibition, so I suppose that was a reason for targeting these particular works? The Guardian's stance that the painting is problematic because "the model doesn't even have a face!" strikes me as completely ludicrous. I do understand the sensitivity around women's bodies being objectified by male artists, but that is a subjective emotional reaction, not a fact of the artwork itself. My experience of this piece is that it depicts the female form with great reverence and respect, as well as forcing audiences to see female nakedness and (through the title) acknowledge it's awesome, universal power. I find it frankly petulant and disrespectful to deface someone's work like that when your issue is in fact with someone else. Reminds me of a painter friend of mine who made an exquisite painting of a fetus a few years ago. It was a stunning work of art that took him nearly a year to create. A few years later it was destroyed by protestors who interpreted it as having an anti-abortion agenda. The artist was pro-choice!
Anyway... all that said, I unfortunately do think the tag looks cool as hell on top of the painting so...
I guess maybe this was meant to be a chapter in the life of this very potent piece of work.
Having investigated de Robertis' instagram, I do feel more compelled by the protest, only because she's released a film which she made of the curator 15 years ago propositioning her when she was 25. As a means of drawing attention to this expose, I actually think this act is quite effective. The problem for me is that the protest does not emphasize that connection enough, and so the takeaway that everyone is getting from it is that she has a problem with the painting, not with this specific person/people. So I think the protest itself is actually quite potent... but not executed effectively. The end result feels vague and petulant because the most compelling piece isn't included in the act itself.
Doing further exploring today myself, I found the same info, and was more moved for de Robertis than I had previously been. I really still do not agree with her defacing other artist's works in the show without their permission, I think that's really unfair. After all, the Courbet is preserved behind class, but the contemporary works were not! That was one of the places where the protest lost me...
I think this entire issue, as well as the conversation around "The Birth of the World," is so complex and multi-faceted, it was actually quite hard to wade through all of the points that came up as I was contemplating the issue at hand, this weekend. To bring awareness to her experiences 15 years ago is brave and admirable, and at the same time totally agree with you that there's a missing piece, or missing step, here, in the execution. Of course, I don't think protest needs to be neat and tidy and perfect, the messiness is often a reflection of the complex nature of the issues it's exposing. I think this is one of the snags that contemporary feminism(s) finds itself up against. The world is so complicated, and we can't paint all situations with one brush...
I also just want to thank you for your earlier comment too, and for all your engagement here <3 This essay felt like a maze to put together, as soon as I thought I'd found my way through my feelings about the painting, I had to turn another corner. Love how you point out that this is just another chapter in the already storied life of this painting, and yes, that tag is hella dramatic, even captivating!
❤️
Thank you for your reflections on this important painting. Yes, the origin of the works for us all — an important reminder for Mothers Day. What disturbs me about this painting is not the image of the woman’s body/vulva but that she is portrayed only as a faceless body. Perhaps this fact heightens the universality of the experience, without personalizing. But isn’t the case of the objectification of women’s (and of any) bodies is that the personal has been negated in the experience? Isn’t it easier to objectify an anonymous body/body part than in taking in the experience of a full whole human being? I’m somewhat surprised that, in discussion of art and psychoanalysis, there is no mention of the importance of perceiving wholes as a sign of health over seeing only parts. Curious!
I hear what you're saying, but as I wrote in the piece, I don't think the missing head is problematic. Focusing only on the torso in this artwork formally emphasizes "the origin," and makes visceral and unavoidable the power of a woman's body. We can compare this to sacred figurines from ancient history, which venerated the role of women in their societies by similarly emphasizing their form. I think that reading the painting as objectifying because the body isn't "whole" is a projection of the values of our contemporary moment, which may cut us off from the more powerful, primal strength of the work and others like it. And, as a woman myself, I don't find the painting objectifying, but empowering :)
Thank you Cristina for your response. I get what you’re saying. There is a strong archetypal meaning with the woman’s body as portrayed. The connection you make to classical works is well stated. The strength of the figure comes from its open, unadorned nakedness (in all senses of this word). Thank you for helping me to see this work with greasy eyes. Richard