Feminist Art and the Critique of Traditional Aesthetic Norms

Feminist Art and the Critique of Traditional Aesthetic Norms
What does feminist aesthetics say about our standards of appreciation and how
can it be used to produce new ways of thinking?
Uppsala University
1
Abstract
In this essay I discuss three problems that arise when appreciating art through traditionally
androcentric eyes. First, I explicate the phenomenon of feminist art as a response to the
segregation between male and female art. Second, I critique the mere disinterested point of
view for art appreciation by instead suggesting the feminist “situatedness” theory. Third, and
last, I argue against the traditional thought that art is supposed to be beautiful and pleasurable.
Feminist art shows that this does not have to be the case by advocating the value in provocative
and unpleasurable art. I use Marina Abramovi’s performance piece Rhythm 0 as my main
point of reference to feminist art as means to give a coherence between the different problems,
showing that they can all be solved by looking at one single artwork, and that they are therefore
not sustainable ways of seeing art.
Feminist art Marina Abramovi Situatedness Pleasure Aesthetic Value Women’s Bodies
2
1.1 Politics in art
2. Traditional aesthetics only favour a small minority………………………………...………8
2.1 Why the separation between women’s and men’s art?
2.2 The male gaze
2.3 Subjects and objects
2.4 The objectifying nude
3.1 Disinterestedness
3.2 Situatedness
4.1 Beauty as an aesthetic value
4.2 Aesthetic pleasure
4.3 Sexual pleasure
4.4 Unpleasant pleasure
4.5 Is there an aesthetic value in grotesque, provocative or political works?
5. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………21
3
Introduction
In 1989 The Guerilla Girls exhibited a poster that portrayed a naked woman’s body with a
gorilla head. On the side it said: “Do women have to get naked to get into the Met. Museum?”
followed by “Less than 5% of the artists in the Modern Art Sections are women, but 85% of
the nudes are female” (Manchester, 2004). The poster is meant to provoke and create discussion
about how the world of fine arts works. Explicitly feminist artworks were more and more
exhibited during the 1960’s and 70’s, showcasing both deep political statements about women
in society, as well as satirical playfulness concerning femininity. Feminist art can be considered
both as a reaction against the lack of active women in art, as well a comment on whether or not
art appreciation can involve emotion.
In this essay I discuss the value of applying feminist theories to the philosophy of aesthetics by
considering three different aspects of how feminist art goes against traditional, or normative,
thinking within this field. Firstly, the artworld has arguably almost always revolved around the
male way of experiencing life, thereby excluding women from participation. I bring light upon
the way that objectifying women creates a hostile environment within art by, for example,
explaining the influence that “the male gaze” has on both art and society, and how male and
female bodies are viewed differently in the art canon. Secondly, feminist aesthetics criticize
universalistic ideas about aesthetic disinterestedness by proving them to be untenable. I argue
that this is because the appreciation of an artwork is bound to be dependent on some kind of
personal experiences and cannot be completely autonomous. Furthermore, I argue that a more
feminist way of handling art creation and appreciator gives deeper, more interesting
engagements with art. Thirdly, the traditional ways of seeing art tend to search for works that
give aesthetic pleasure. There is a doubleness concerning the female body that makes it
problematic for a disinterested, or aesthetically pleasurable, way to hold itself together. On the
one hand, women are considered to be beautiful beings, worthy of being portrayed over and
over, and to be admired by the masses. But on the other hand, the beauty of a body can hardly
be purely disinterested if one wants to focus on the fact that it is actually a body, leaving the
admirer to judge it in a sexually pleasurable way. By only looking at aesthetically pleasurable
artworks, one loses the chance to appreciate deeper, more challenging art such as political and
conceptual art.
4
I here only refer to two sexes and genders, namely men and women. This, of course, does not
give a complete coverage of the subject of feminist aesthetics, but it gives a clearness within
this essay. I begin the first section by accounting for political art and how feminism and
feminist art are part of the political spectrum. This is to show how feminism fits into the world
and to make it easier to understand when it is applied as a critique against traditional aesthetic
values. I discuss Marina Abramovi’s famous work from 1964 called Rhythm 0 in order to
exemplify how feminist themes can be articulated in art. In the second section I move on to my
first problem: the artworld’s discrimination against women and how feminist art can be used
to work against accepted norms, leaving more space for other people than men to express
themselves through art. In section 3 I consider the Kantian “disinterested” way of appreciating
art and argue that this sort of idea can also be seen as a way to exclude norm-confronting art
and artists. As a better alternative to the disinterested model of appreciation, I argue for the
merits of the feminist-inspired “situatedness” model of appreciation, as proposed by Anne W.
Eaton. Lastly, in the fourth section, I question the need for art to be traditionally pleasurable.
It is common to associate beautiful, pleasurable art with aesthetic value since it gives a feeling
of harmony to the appreciator. I find this view problematic, or rather insufficient, because it
does not allow for art to have unpleasant properties, which can provoke discussion and lead to
deeper understanding. Once again, feminist art provides a good example for how art can be
unpleasurable in an artistically valuable way and that pleasure is not a requirement for good
art.1
1. Art as politics and feminist art
This first section is about feminist art as a part of political art. I will here explain what
characterizes political art and what value it brings, followed by a brief overview of feminist
ideology, which then leads me to account for feminist art. Feminist art is, as I explained in the
introduction, a helpful art genre in order to provide answer to my three problems of traditional
art theories and artworld norms.
1.1 Politics in art
Art is meant to elicit some type of feeling within the appreciator or the artist themself - on this
most people can agree. Whether it is a hedonistic feeling of pleasure, a provoked feeling of
1 Note: Some of the source references have the title of the part of the text that is being referred to, as page numbers are not provided in the source.
5
anger, or just a feeling of emptiness, they all stem from what the artwork expresses. With this
I mean to say that art comes in many different forms and can be perceived in many different
ways. Political art has created debates, both as individual artworks and as a genre in general
because of its often provocative contents. This genre of art is quite broad and can include works
such as propaganda, satire, critiques and support in societal issues and for political parties.
Political art can therefore be seen as a form of deliberative activism, meaning that a diligent
activity is performed in order to give a voice to causes that are not always heard (Jennstål &
Öberg, 2019). Such a cause can be for example the suppression of women in the art canon. It
is an active form of art, by which I mean that it reaches above the mere sensuous engagements
with art, leading the admirer to cognitively appreciate the message that is provided through the
work.
1.2 Feminism
“[F]eminism, the belief in social, economic, and political equality of the sexes” (Brunell &
Burkett, 2021) is a political ideology that has become more prominent in the last few hundred
years. It means that no matter what sex one was born with, or which gender one identifies as,
one should be treated equally to others. To many this may seem as an obvious thought, but in
reality people are treated very differently because of their gender in most parts of society,
including the art sphere.2 In the following section I will discuss the relatively new wave of art,
called feminist art, (which emerged during the second half of the 1900’s), to explore how it can
be manifested, and its importance to the issues of art and gender.
1.3 Feminist art
Feminist art exists in all forms, and is not another type of art, but an art genre. What
distinguishes feminist art from other genres is that it is more conceptual and expresses feminist
ideas in different mediums of art. The aim of conceptual art is not on what is perceived, but
rather what the perception tells about the idea behind the work. It is not always clear what
conceptual artworks want to tell the audience, but with the right mindset and/or information
they can tell a lot about the artist’s opinions. So, a conceptual artwork tends to be more abstract,
making the appreciator search for the meaning behind the piece, sometimes leaving them
without answers.
2 This may seem as an incomplete description of feminism, but I have chosen to discuss feminism in this broad, generalised format, as there is limited space to dig deeper on specifics within the subject.
6
It needs to be clear that all female art is not feminist art, and all feminist art does not have to
be made by women. There is art that is created by women that is not feminist, just as there is
feminist art that is created by other genders than women. It is the thought behind the work that
counts, and not who has created it, although most feminist artists are women.
Feminist art is considered to be a political artform as it tends to go against traditional standards
of art and political ways of thinking. Because the artworld was hugely dominated by men, early
feminist artists in the 1960’s were treated more as activists than artists (Brand Weiser &
Korsmeyer, 2004, part 4). They were not taken seriously as artists because they were women
and because of the artistic mediums that were used. Some of the works that were not seen as
“proper” art were mostly the ones that used the body in a non-normative manner, such as
performances3, paintings with other mediums than regular paint (for example blood or
excrement)4, or photographs with provocative themes5. Of course, not all feminist art is meant
to be provocative as the kinds of works that I have mentioned. They can also be joyful and
simply supportive of women’s strength, though for some this may be provocative in itself
because it elevates women, which can be seen as a threat to the already dominating men.
It is not uncommon to believe that feminist artists are exploiting themselves in the search for
appreciation or validation from others by showcasing their bodies in art. However, this is rarely
the case. As I mentioned earlier in this section, female feminist artists were often not taken
seriously as artists just because they were women. When feminist art became more common,
there were still beliefs that the female body was supposed to be passive in relation to the male
body. Female bodies were more commonly associated with art objects, whereas male bodies
were often the creators of said pieces. Female artists’ bodies were not judged by how they
performed, but rather on how they looked or to whom they belonged. Female nudity was (and
sometimes still is) considered promiscuous no matter what the circumstances are, and because
feminist linked art expressions, such as performance, were new and did not have a place within
the already accepted fine artforms, feminist art was not highly valued by art critics (Korsmeyer,
2004, part 5).
3 An example of this is Marina Abramovi’s Rhythm 0 (1964), which I discuss in part 1.4. 4 See for example Carolee Schneemann’s Blood Work Diary (1972). 5 See for example Laurie Simmons’ Objects on Legs (1974).
7
What makes feminist art feminist is that these artworks make statements about the situation of
women. For example, a feminist photograph depicting a naked woman is more than a
photograph of a naked woman, it is a commentary on the way that we perceive the woman’s
body. Feminist art, as a part of political art, pushes against social and aesthetic traditions about
art being best understood from a distance, forcing the appreciator to form an opinion.
Moreover, it is created by many different artists from different places on earth, which make it
a much more inclusive genre than many others. The fine arts that we know of in the West are
almost exclusively created by men, whereas feminist art has contributions from as well black,
as white, as everyone in-between, broadening the amount of representation, not only of
different women, but of different cultures as well.
1.4 Rhythm 0: An example
Although the Serbian performance artist Maria Abramovi does not consider herself a feminist
(Costa, 2014, p.4), many of her art pieces can be perceived as deeply feminist, and I will
therefore consider this as such. Rhythm 0 is one of Abrámovi’s earliest works and was
performed in 1964 in Naples, Italy. It consisted of Abramovi herself placed on a table, along
with 72 different objects and the audience. The artist did not say anything, but on a piece of
paper it said that she gave the audience six hours to perform any kind of action with the objects
to her, and that she took all responsibility. The experiments started off harmless, touching her
neck with a feather and feeding her cake, but as time passed people started becoming more
confident and cut up her clothes, piercing her with rose thorns and even held up a gun to her
head without her resisting (Demaria, 2004, p.297). This work shows clearly what people are
prepared to do when they feel entitled to someone else’s body. Abramovi was a complete
slave under the hands of the men and women that were in control of her body during six hours.
They abused her and afterwards they went home just as any other day in the art gallery, literally
stepping out of their responsibilities. I say this because even though Abramovi wrote that she
took full responsibility, they were still the ones causing her pleasure and harm.
I consider this performance to be feminist because it conveys a message about the relations
between the powerful and the powerless. At the end of the performance Abramovi, a helpless
woman, laid naked on the table, subjected to the gaze of the audience, waiting for what would
happen next. It is true that she put herself in the situation, but that is also what women around
the world have to do in order to step forward: take risks. Abramovi said in an interview:
“Never before has the artist had a role as important. [...] the artist has the fundamental duty of
8
communicating with their intuition and guiding the human spirit to develop awareness” (Costa,
2014, p.6, translated from French). This shows that feminist art is needed to bring more public
attention to political inequality and promote more different artists to emerge into the public
space. I will now move on to the main problems that I have chosen to analyse through a feminist
perspective. This is to show more how limited the pre- and non-feminist aesthetic theories are.
I will also be considering Rhythm 0 as an example for each problem, as it helps to provide an
answer to all of them.
2. Traditional aesthetics only favour a small minority
Throughout history (and still in many places today), women have not been considered to play
an active part in art, whether it was being an artist, an appreciator, or as being portrayed within
a work of art. It was argued that men constituted the intellectual part of humans - thinking,
inventing and creating - whereas women were the carnal gender that birthed children and made
sure that everyone in their close entourage were comfortable and fed. This “active contra
passive” way of thinking made its way into philosophy and furthermore art and aesthetics,
causing women to be excluded from art almost altogether. With the help of feminist art as an
example I want to examine the ways that women are subordinated by men and to find a solution
to the exclusion of women as acting in art. First, I will look at the separation that exists between
women and men in art in order to create an understanding of how traditional standards separate
art depending on the artist’s gender. Next I will consider “the male gaze” as an obstacle for
women, as it mediates the perception of women as structurally inferior to men. In part three of
this section, I will discuss the impact that this type of gaze has on our views on women as
subjects and objects in art: how women are routinely sexualised and objectified in art, instead
of being treated as any other acting man. Lastly, I will examine the way that women are
portrayed in nude art and how those representations differ from the way that men are portrayed
as nude.
2.1 Why the separation between women’s and men’s art?
It is clear that women and men have traditionally been considered differently in art. Women
are connected either to be the object in fine art as models, or to “lower” artforms such as pottery
and needlework. Men are considered to be more capable of producing “high” art that needs
intellectual and cognitive skills to create and understand. But why is this difference? Anne W.
Eaton suggests two explanations for why women are not as represented in the art canon, which
9
she calls “humanism” and “gynocentrism”. According to the humanist explanation, the
suppression of women’s art is purely social and not connected to any gendered abilities. The
reason why women are less included in the modern art canon is because they have historically
been rejected from such practises and environments, which has led them to earn less experience
within the field (Eaton, 2008, “Two explanations; humanism”). The gynocentric explanation,
on the other hand, concludes that there is in fact a difference between female and male art. It
does not suggest that women’s art is by any means worse, but instead that it is different from
male art and should therefore be considered from different standards.
“[G]iven that art is typically made with and appreciated through the body, not to mention that the body
has been the favorite subject matter of the visual arts throughout history, it is quite reasonable to expect
sex, understood in this way, to make a difference to the appreciation and production of art” (Eaton, 2008,
“Two explanations; gynocentrism”).
Women are raised differently because they are born just women. The social environment that
women exist in, unlike men, gives them other ways of expressing what they perceive in the
world. This explanation, though, is more generalising of what “femininity” is, considering for
example class and ethnicity that is not being left any room. The humanist and gynocentric
explanations are both good attempts at describing the separation between women’s and men’s
art, and this is what feminist art actively works against.
2.2 The male gaze
The male gaze is a way of seeing genders, especially women, from a heterosexual male
perspective and is thus connected to male heterosexual…