Tagsadvertisement
architecture
art
assignment
Barack Obama
Comics
design
fashion
film
graphic design
Hillary Clinton
Humor
In-class Exercise
information design
Iraq
Maps
news
Pedagogy
pedagogy examples
photography
photography
Political Propaganda
politics
Propaganda
science
visual art
Visual Rhetoric
war
Writing Exercise
youtube
NavigationDisclaimerThese blog entries represent the views of their authors, not necessarily those of the CWRL, the University of Texas at Austin, or any of its affiliated entities. |
Women in Art (more rhetoric of the montage)Submitted by Jillian Sayre on Wed, 2007-11-07 20:04.gender | rhetoric of the body | visual art | Visual Rhetoric | youtube
Perhaps a good point of departure for a discussion of Women in Film would be the creator's earlier attempt to give us an overview of Women in Art: Does high art create/communicate normative body structures or gender roles in the same way as popular culture? Perhaps it is the chronological extension (this montage covers 400 more years than Women in Film) but the faces here seem to resist the homogenous beauty of the doe-eyed starlet. On the other hand, it is also interesting to note a similar lack of racial diversity. If modern cinema produces 3 African American actresses, 500 years of Western art produces none. Trackback URL for this post:http://viz.cwrl.utexas.edu/trackback/183
It's naive to think that"photographers aren't going to change too much when doing biographical photography." Every decision the photographer makes influences how we read these images, from lighting choices to shooting angles, and a whole host of other technical means through which a photographer can, quite literally, construct the image. If that weren't the case, there wouldn't be much point in having this blog. Consider that these images have been appropriated and montaged by someone other than all of the artists included. Also consider that the term itself, and thus 'African-Americans,' did not exist when many of these works were created. & Manet's "Olympia." Does the body only come into existence when it is named? Both the original paintings and the montage selected by the person are acts of discrimination, representations of groups (women) and characteristics (beauty) in the realm of high art (painting) and popular art (youtube, moving image). Simply because a term did not exist does not mean that people of color did not exist in the worlds of these painters. I would also note that in Manet's Olympia, the focus, light, arrangement all indicate that it is indeed Olympia, the nude white woman that Manet promotes as an ideal beauty, not her black servant, fully clothed, submissively hidden behind of basket of flowers offered to garnish the dish we are to consume. |
Recent comments
|
This site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 License
Accessibility | Adobe Acrobat Reader | Flash Player | QuickTime Player | Real Player
I think that a lot of the disparities have to do with the medium. The women in film were all photographs. Photographers aren't typically going to change too much when doing biographical photography.
However, if it is a painting, so much could be changed. It depends on WHO is doing the painting. If it is a self-portrait, the painter may do something completely different than if it is a painting by a hired portrait artist or a friend.
Also, it depends on who the audience for the piece of work is for. Is it for posterity's sake or for a family member?
I really think there are reasons that disparities may or may not occur. That being said, the idea of what is beautiful, that aesthetically pleasing face, is surely to change over time. Portraits in art, however, weren't always done for the beauty of it. Many times they were done to create a historical record.