Pollock maintains that modernist art objectifies the subjects and, in particular, women. She suggests that this is not because there were no prominent female artists in this era, but rather that the current crop of opinion makers in the art world have selected a certain set of sexist practices as exemplary of modernist art. Therefore, she says that in order to even begin to criticize a female artist of this time one needs first to deal with the masculine myths of the genre.
Pollock points out that T.J. Clarke limited the definition of modernism even further by his restriction of it to the facets of the Paris of Manet and the Impressionists, a place of leisure, pleasure, and excesses, and it seems that he focuses upon spaces that excluded women of class or morality. (Pollock 1992, 121-135) While Clarke acknowledges that women are excluded from these spaces and that the paintings of this group of artists imply a masculine audience. Pollock remarks that women cannot be included in either the audience of these kinds of paintings as that would imply that they could objectify and wish to possess the subjects, a naked barmaid and the voluptuous Olympia. Of course, she is not even considering the possibility that this could be so for lesbians. The women are, after all, quite attractive. Pollock insists that people like Clarke exclude women of class from even experiencing modernism or its spaces which were private to men.
Pollock asks why modernity seems to be ruled by masculinity and its definer, the subjects which include nudes, prostitutes, brothels, and other such sexually charged spaces which only men and their objects frequented. She calls this a class distinction and suggests that modernism is as much a class era as it is gendered and based on male sexuality. She points out that if we try to add women to modernity, we have the problem of making these female artists “other” or outsiders, and not part of modernity at all.
Pollock says that the spaces of modernity created an environment whereby the art of female artists became something entirely new and challenging. In fact, she shows us how the male works separate spaces by public and private while works by female artists separate them by gender. It is interesting that we generally ascribe separation by gender to men. Further, the placement of the viewer is different among male and female artists. Male artists locate the viewer outside the painting, while female artists tend to place the viewer within the painting, citing works by Cassatt and Morisot, two artists upon whom she concentrates in her article. She identifies split spaces and divergence of activity as defining the differences between male and female modernist artists.
What is most interesting about this article is that Pollock manages to define the spaces of modernist painters and separate them by gender according to their divisions, use, angles, perspective, and the placement of the viewer. The male artists define the space visually and exclude the viewer. The female artists define the space contextually (or phenomenologically), including all the senses and they include the viewer in a disrupted and often distorted perspective which establishes a relationship with that space. She interprets this as proving that the social context of females defined the differences, as femininity is defined by both the spaces that we see in the paintings and by the spaces within which the artist lived. The public and private spaces were male and female respectively. Men were isolated in public and women were social in private. This division of space was the social power structure of the time and it relegated women to passive private roles. Ladies simply never went out alone, and seldom went out even in the company of their husbands. Where-as the class separations of men were visibly identified by their occupations or lack of, and of their dress, the class separations of women could be visibly identified by the spaces which they occupied.
Pollock criticizes Beaudelaire for his text depicting a modernist painter as a free voyeur detachedly observing public life. He implied that the classed man would not participate in public life. Wolfe argues that this ensures the dominance of the male since there is no female equivalent of the flaneur. Pollock criticizes that Beaudekaire’s mapping of the female Paris simply shows that man defines his masculinity by his superiority to the idolized and impotent female. She points out that the women who occupy the public spaces in Beaudelaire’s Paris are low class.
Griselda Pollock spends the last half of her essay calculating relationships, ratios, and other quantifiable differences between the male and female artists of the modernist era, as exemplified by the male impressionists and the two female artists, Cassatt and Morisot. The two ladies only painted ladies, while the male artists ran the gamut through all the classes. When it comes to spaces, the men paint theatres, cafes, parks, follies, backstage and brothels. The ladies paint bedrooms, drawing rooms, verandas, gardens, theatres and parks. Further, the men paint ladies and lower-class women in theatres and in parks, while the ladies only paint ladies. She repeats her remark that men painted men watching women in public spaces with the viewer outside the picture and women painted women of a class only in certain public spaces which included the viewer.
It is the act of looking and being looked at that seems to be the focus of Pollock’s analysis. Spaces are important and their division by gender as to which can be occupied or even viewed is a modernist concept. However, it is the actual act of observing that really divides the genders. In the male paintings, the audience is outside the painting, while in female artists’ paintings the audience is within the painting. More than this, the female subject observed in public places is divided by class from those in private spaces and the observer’s gender can be guessed by the space within which the subject is viewed. Pollock cites several sets of opposing stations: active/passive, observing/being observed, voyeur/exhibitionist, and subject/object. She then points out that the real differences are not in the spaces themselves but their use. In male artists’ paintings, the space is a place to observe, while in female artists’ paintings they are places to interact or relate. She then asserts that we have not left modernity, but that it has been extended into our living environments in cities where women are subject to vulgar looks and public violence. She sees modernist art as simply the recording of this reality.
Pollock certainly makes some salient points and her theory explains the absence of women in most modernist exhibitions. However, as she admits, none of this explains entirely the nineteenth-century woman, particularly the female artist. We really have no other way to judge their reality than by their artworks. So many different theories might be applied. This one seems to explain all the various aspects, including why women seem to be excluded. What is very interesting is that Pollock believes that we are still in the modernist era, but it has moved from art to society.
If using the same criteria as Pollock used this photograph would still qualify as modernist and is definitely supposed to be feminist. I thought so until I read a bit about the artist.
Yes, this photo objectifies women, particularly parts of their bodies. The spiked heels are dangerous and will deform the feet if worn on a regular basis. However, they do make a woman’s legs look really good.
The space of this photoshoot was private, yet public, being invitation only. The models were separated from the viewers by a glass divider. You may note that we do not see the entire body of any of these women, and the only clothing they wear is the totally brutal spiked heels. The women are nameless and were actually faceless too, as their faces were covered in this series with some kind of gauzy mask that appeared to be white milliner’s hat base material. (Anonymous) Another thing to note is that some of these models are dangerously skinny. Several rows of ribs are visible and even hip bones are prominent. It is really quite disturbing. Their torsos appear to be bones wrapped with skin.
Just looking at the photos we know certain things. First, even though performance art is supposed to be free from monetization, there is actually a great deal of money attached. By making films or photographs, the artist certainly works for money. This artist, especially, has a reputation for just that. She looks at everything from the point of view of its profit potential. She tried to adopt a pair of Sudanese twins to use them in her art. (Anonymous)
The spaces of this photo are stark and cold, empty white flooring in this photo, no walls, doors or windows. So, these parts of women are trapped in time and space in this photo in a place with no entry or exit and no identity. Both the women and their location are faceless and nameless.
The audience seems to be very close to the subjects, but this is a distortion of the photography since we know that there was actually more separation between the subjects and the audience. However, the audience of the photo is close to the subjects and could be in the picture.
We have no observer in the photo, but the artist is assumed to be an observer. However, she is a woman. So, is she watching in the same way that a man might watch? The photos seem to be totally devoid of any hint of sexuality. Even the woman sitting demurely on the floor in the classic nude pose is not depicted as a sexual creature. She is a body, or rather, a part of a body. So, this space is neither used for watching or relating or interacting. In fact, these body parts are not moving or even giving any indication that they are living, except that there is color in the flesh. No, this space is the display, anonymous and frozen. It is barren. If this artist is truly making a feminist statement, what is it? We know that the shoes, the space, and the isolation of body parts serve to dehumanize these models. However, there is a further problem with their emaciated bodies. Was this intentional or was it an oversight?
It is very uncertain whether or not Ms. Beecroft fits into the mold of the artist at all. Perhaps she is only a performer or merely an exhibitionist. She seems quite detached from her subjects, which is unusual in modernist art. There was separation, but not detachment. The connection between the subject and the artist is clearly visible in both the male artists’ and female artists’ work. Yet that seems to be missing here. This photo is sterile as if a scientist were photographing a specimen. Judging just from the photo it seems to be not quite modernist since the sterility of the subjects and the space is a problem. Also, the use of the space is different. This space is not part of any real place, but simply a display space. It also appears to be feminist, but can such a photo be created by a female artist and still be feminist? Is she saying that she is doing what the man does so that she will be able to occupy the space of a modernist artist? That seems to be the most likely assumption, and it does say something different. However, if this is so, then the sterile character of the photo and the space invalidate the very existence of the artist entirely because it is not art. It is merely a statement about art, about modernism and the power structure. The real subject of the photo is not seen at all. She is behind the camera.
References
‘Art star’ vanessa beecroft: Slammed at sundance – vulture a [2010].
Vanessa beecroft – VB 47 (VB 47.378.DR) peggy guggenheim collection, venice – artwork details at artnet b [2010].
Pollock, Griselda. 1992. “Modernity and the spaces of femininity,” the expanding discourse: Feminism and art history. In “Modernity and the spaces of femininity,” the expanding discourse: Feminism and art history., 121-135Westview Press.