Venus: Who is the Ultimate Woman?
Throughout painted European art history you will find Venus and
other famous paintings of naked or artfully called nude, women. The problems
with the depictions from a women’s perspective could be endless; the fact that
they are always white, them laying down passively welcoming the male gaze,
embodying relaxed peaceful immobility, etc., many of the things that the Women’s
Suffrage Movement in the early 20th century already despised. But, it
added a symbolic figure that un-consciously men could look to and find all these things and the stereotypical identification of“beauty”.
It is actually something dangerous to the movement, for it
enshrines for the public everything that they as women and men of the movement
are fighting against. This is the image of women that they must destroy
figuratively and in one case literally.
As these paintings depicted females as “…more idealized, with
inorganic, molded breasts and little anatomical articulation” we see the
separation from the painted women to the real living women. (1)
other famous paintings of naked or artfully called nude, women. The problems
with the depictions from a women’s perspective could be endless; the fact that
they are always white, them laying down passively welcoming the male gaze,
embodying relaxed peaceful immobility, etc., many of the things that the Women’s
Suffrage Movement in the early 20th century already despised. But, it
added a symbolic figure that un-consciously men could look to and find all these things and the stereotypical identification of“beauty”.
It is actually something dangerous to the movement, for it
enshrines for the public everything that they as women and men of the movement
are fighting against. This is the image of women that they must destroy
figuratively and in one case literally.
As these paintings depicted females as “…more idealized, with
inorganic, molded breasts and little anatomical articulation” we see the
separation from the painted women to the real living women. (1)
Art and the Movement Collide
It is March 10, 1914 and Mary Richardson enters the National Gallery in London. She continues to walk up to the Rokeby Venus by Diego Velazquez and stabs it with a meat cleaver. On the BBC webpage you can hear interviews taken of Mary Richardson describing the steps and reasons for her actions. The most important thing is Richardson says she “attempted to destroy a work she believed stood for everything she, as a militant suffragist, detested” (2) and also destroying “the picture of the most beautiful women in mythological history as a protest against the government for destroying Mrs. Pankhurst, who was the most beautiful character in modern history”. (3)
It is March 10, 1914 and Mary Richardson enters the National Gallery in London. She continues to walk up to the Rokeby Venus by Diego Velazquez and stabs it with a meat cleaver. On the BBC webpage you can hear interviews taken of Mary Richardson describing the steps and reasons for her actions. The most important thing is Richardson says she “attempted to destroy a work she believed stood for everything she, as a militant suffragist, detested” (2) and also destroying “the picture of the most beautiful women in mythological history as a protest against the government for destroying Mrs. Pankhurst, who was the most beautiful character in modern history”. (3)
The Effect
As Nochlin’s puts it the, to the public “Richardson’s vandalism quite naturally created a public furor at the time” to them “…she had dared to destroy a public property [the painting was officially owned by the public of England], ruined a priceless masterpiece, wielded a dangerous weapon in an art gallery”. (4)
The Art Drawback
At this, not only does the contemporary public take notice, but modern day scholars and artist. Nochlin among them thinks “the right-thinking
art lover must shudder at the thought of the blade hacking through Velazquez’s image” even as a feminist art critic. (5) Nochlin also brings up the valid point that people at the time only saw the act as that “of a vicious madwoman”. But most importantly she brings up critics point about the Venus being a step forward in ways comparable to other Venus paintings. That it is supposed to be seen as the moment of human sexual and
self-discovery.
As Nochlin’s puts it the, to the public “Richardson’s vandalism quite naturally created a public furor at the time” to them “…she had dared to destroy a public property [the painting was officially owned by the public of England], ruined a priceless masterpiece, wielded a dangerous weapon in an art gallery”. (4)
The Art Drawback
At this, not only does the contemporary public take notice, but modern day scholars and artist. Nochlin among them thinks “the right-thinking
art lover must shudder at the thought of the blade hacking through Velazquez’s image” even as a feminist art critic. (5) Nochlin also brings up the valid point that people at the time only saw the act as that “of a vicious madwoman”. But most importantly she brings up critics point about the Venus being a step forward in ways comparable to other Venus paintings. That it is supposed to be seen as the moment of human sexual and
self-discovery.
Importance
It is definite that I disagree with the suffragette’s
contemporary audience and the audience of art critics. Though they see this as an incident that “did the suffrage cause little to no good” to me it was one of many established moves that showed the backlash of women in their unequal position. To me that is always important. And in fact this event did make it aware enough that the condition of Emmeline Pankhurst did get noticed. But
further problems with the 20th century view of destroying the painting is that it does not take into consideration, no matter its redeeming qualities the effect it has on the viewing public. Nochlin herself admits this
when she says:
“Such readings are possible either if we are totally unaware of the power relations obtaining between men and women inscribed in visual representation; or, if we have become aware of them, we choose to ignore them
while we enjoy or otherwise respond positively to the image in question; or, if we cannot ignore them, feel that we are in no way affected by them.” (6)
And the effect it has on the viewing public is to allow women to believe that their place is lying on a couch with the perfect body and men that
they can, in the least, visually have women and their bodies in view even in
such high social setting as art galleries. They did not see it as an art of
self-discovery. They saw it as beautiful, perfect nude women that they could
gaze upon without reproach; instilling further the un-conscious ideology of
women being wonderful, powerful, and want worthy by being submissive, immobile,
available, and beautiful. This is something the women’s movement stops because
it goes against any image of women as leaders, thinkers, doers, powerful, or
active. These paintings are important because they represent an old world view
that the women wanted to destroy, that had to be destroyed so they could finally
be given political rights. Yes, the action and actions of the movement were
violent, but that was in direct correlation to what they had to do to change the
imagery and conversation of the ideology that they are fighting as we can see
represented in art.
It is definite that I disagree with the suffragette’s
contemporary audience and the audience of art critics. Though they see this as an incident that “did the suffrage cause little to no good” to me it was one of many established moves that showed the backlash of women in their unequal position. To me that is always important. And in fact this event did make it aware enough that the condition of Emmeline Pankhurst did get noticed. But
further problems with the 20th century view of destroying the painting is that it does not take into consideration, no matter its redeeming qualities the effect it has on the viewing public. Nochlin herself admits this
when she says:
“Such readings are possible either if we are totally unaware of the power relations obtaining between men and women inscribed in visual representation; or, if we have become aware of them, we choose to ignore them
while we enjoy or otherwise respond positively to the image in question; or, if we cannot ignore them, feel that we are in no way affected by them.” (6)
And the effect it has on the viewing public is to allow women to believe that their place is lying on a couch with the perfect body and men that
they can, in the least, visually have women and their bodies in view even in
such high social setting as art galleries. They did not see it as an art of
self-discovery. They saw it as beautiful, perfect nude women that they could
gaze upon without reproach; instilling further the un-conscious ideology of
women being wonderful, powerful, and want worthy by being submissive, immobile,
available, and beautiful. This is something the women’s movement stops because
it goes against any image of women as leaders, thinkers, doers, powerful, or
active. These paintings are important because they represent an old world view
that the women wanted to destroy, that had to be destroyed so they could finally
be given political rights. Yes, the action and actions of the movement were
violent, but that was in direct correlation to what they had to do to change the
imagery and conversation of the ideology that they are fighting as we can see
represented in art.