In the beginning of the 19th century art, painting
reached a pivotal point in its history that would drastically change what the
criteria for what painting actually meant. What could be dignified,
appreciated, and accepted by many had changed; the death of Realism and the
birth of Impressionism had begun. Alongside this change came societal,
political, and cultures values that were rocked to a point of unease. Women
back then were very much regarded as a beneath men, incapable of any abilities
that could rival men. With this outlook, it was evident why men vastly
outnumbered women in the art world and why women played a very specific role in
art as well. Of course all this was about to change.
To begin
with, a brief recap on the history of impression and what art movement it opposed.
As it seems all-small art beginnings have; they fight their way until they
become accepted by whatever institution is currently reigning. Impressionism
started out as a protest against Realism in France, as a revolution against all
the fine art academia that up held strict standards and only allowed certain
types of painting into the galleries that were well known. This set the groundwork
for what we now call Impressionism and such artists like Manet, Monet, Cassatt,
and Eakins to become popular today. In America we faced different struggles as
women sought that they should also play a role in art as artist, and as
subjects other then object of beauty in nude to be gawked at. Mary Cassatt was
instrumental in this endeavor. But all together impressionism wanted to divert
from the rigid formalities that Realism imposed. No more subjects that focused
on depicting the poor, the average American lifestyle, or the difficulties of
man. Especially, when there were other people in society that were being
neglected too, the women.
See, back
then women in paintings, this isn’t the case for all but for the vast
majority, were seen in the nude. The nude was an active depiction, which
artists intentionally made for the purposes of attracting the male gaze. This
is where Mary Cassatt debuted her spotlight. Creating works that depicted women
in different roles other than being nude. One of her most controversial works,
“Woman in Black at the Opera” was an oil on canvas masterpiece of social
commentary that stood 31” x 25” in frame. The painting depicted a woman dressed
in all black, which was unusual since during that time period the women wore
exuberant gowns and jewelry to be seen by everyone.While men wore black suits to hide in
the shadows and stare at women without being seen. In this painting we see how
the main character, the woman in black, takes the role of a male and goes to the opera dressed
inconspicuously, paying no attention to other men and looks at the performance from
above. It can be thought of that she might have been alone as well and that for
her own security she dressed in all black, rejecting the accompaniment of a
male partner. We also see the in background the male spectator that still can’t
control himself and looks through his binocular eagerly at the woman in the foreground.
The social commentary here is that Mary Cassatt is aware of the male gaze and
the role it played in art. How it dictated almost every work that was made
since the audience was always assumed to be male. She broke this by subjecting the woman as not only primary but empowered her as well by clothing her.
In comparison, Thomas Eakins was the male counter part of Mary Cassatt's social commentary on gender roles. He played a pivotal role in that he did for men what Mary Cassatt did for women. As his painting "The Swimming Hole" depicts, men bathing in a small lake it makes its commentary in showing a certain level of homoeroticism. The male figure is usually depicted in a very stoic, glorious nature and even in early greek art the male nude was filled with heroic masculinity. The male figure was now depicted in the nude and shown with a light gracefulness. Disempowering the male figure but also it showed that Eakins didn't care about the male gaze, he rejected it, painting for himself and only capturing a fleeting moment. The subject matter here wasn't that of showing difficulties of life as realists would have done but the simple pleasures of life, a bath in a lake. In this piece, it is important to understand the capturing of light. How it reflects off the water and shines on the backs' of the men in the painting. The blurriness of light touching the water in the foreground shows the quickness in relevance to brushstroke.
Furthermore, technical aspects of both paintings can be seen as impressionist but isn't solely based on quick brush strokes and blurry lines. The subject matter was what was important in the earlier parts of impressionism. In Cassatt's piece we can see how the brush strokes are thick on walls and there is very little detail but again the subject matter takes precedence. The woman in the fore ground look flat and there isn't much in the way of using classical elements in art making. This was pretty much staple of impressionism, whatever was classically upheld as artistic criteria in Fine Arts at the time, impressionists would ignore. In Eakins work, we can see again there is a blurring of lines but there are more formal elements by his incorporation of chiaroscuro and aerial perspective.
In conclusion, the nineteenth
century can be thought of as the renaissance period for women, more
specifically a study on gender roles in society. Til' this day it can be attributes to the efforts of impressionists that art has forever been seen with open unbiased eyes. In our generation, we live knowing that most art has already been done and re-done. But in our search for what might be next in art we know that as spectators, artists, students we dont rule anything out as to what can be labeled art. We can always find something, some meaning to even a blank canvas.
Works Cited
Eisenman, Stephen, and Thomas E. Crow. Nineteenth Century Art: A Critical History. 4th ed. London: Thames & Hudson, 2007. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment