Does your art reflect your gender?

ocker1 · Joined: 27 Sep 2008 Posts: 775 Location: NZ

yeah the Eye is bloodshot , Laughing

must be a bloke

AvG · Joined: 17 Sep 2005 Posts: 1912

Stefan Maguran

Ouch! I better stay out of this! Evil or Very Mad

The Pook · Joined: 01 Feb 2007 Posts: 2904 Location: Tasmania

The Pook · Joined: 01 Feb 2007 Posts: 2904 Location: Tasmania

The Pook · Joined: 01 Feb 2007 Posts: 2904 Location: Tasmania

This conversation reminded me of the career of the 17th century artist Artemisia Gentileschi. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemisia_Gentileschi

In this self-portrait, owned by Charles I, she is depicting herself as Painting itself:

"Unlike the famous Self-Portrait by Rubens that had been presented to Charles I c.1623, Artemisia Gentileschi's painting is couched in allegorical terms based on the personification of Painting recorded in the Iconologia by Cesare Ripa (1611). For Ripa, Painting is a figure with dishevelled hair wearing brightly colored drapery with a gold chain and a medallion in the form of a mask. Compared, for instance, with the Self-Portrait by Rubens in which the artist extols his social status, Artemisia Genileschi here depicts herself in the act of painting as though eager to demonstrate her practical skills... Painting is thus seen as a combination of intellectual allusion and sustained application - a powerful and telling statement if the social position of the female artist in the seventeenth century is taken into account."

That from The Queen's Pictures - Old Masters from the Royal Collection, by Christopher Lloyd (Royal Collection Enterprises, 1994), page 46.

Gentileschi painted extremely violent and graphic pictures of biblical, apocryphal and classical stories. For example, her rendering of Judith killing Holofernes, or Susannah and the Elders. She may have had an existential connection with the latter in that she herself was raped by another painter. Unlike your average 17th century woman, however, she didn't just grin and bear it, but took him to court in a long running trial.

Gentileschi's life and painting certainly challenges stereotypical ideas of gender reflection in art, though perhaps there is one typical trait there in her desire to emphasise her practical painting skills rather than the social status Rubens was interested in. Women are usually more practical aren't they? Wink

Stefan Maguran

Sorry, jury at lunch on that one.

Johncee · Joined: 06 Dec 2008 Posts: 58

"When I look at the work done by them it occurrs to me while I love the pieces individually when the over all collection is considered there would seem to be a gender based outlook in all of their drawings/paintings.
What I am trying to say is …put a bunch of their art on one wall you can tell it was done by a male/female."

How so rather than you imposing or implying? That is such a big call and you would be wrong to bet on that. What is there in all landscapes that is gender based and exclusive to females or males? Or for that matter portraiture? Or even choice of colours which constantly vary?
The overall collection or a body of work will often hint at or distil what an artist is getting at. Which is not always clear to the artists at the time, as they work up a painting or theme. Because they are exploring ideas through imagery. Art is still a way of exploring the world through imagery, expressing powerful emotions and thoughts and then transmitting them - where words would fall far short.

thecatsgrin · Joined: 18 Apr 2009 Posts: 2181 Location: Gippsland

Johncee · Joined: 06 Dec 2008 Posts: 58

I wonder if it was viewed by someone who didnt know... wether my gender would appear?[/quote]

If it is as you imply (that is your gender is self evident for all to see in your painting) why do you query it? What about the all important content? The substance of your art as to whether you have something to say? Important ideas about life, that drive your art along. Otherwise your work would appear mindless and insipid, which I am sure it is not.

You should understand the basis of gender politics (pushed in the universities) and that is to create divisions within society. It is a contradictory process too, that is often mobilised against women, particularly in the workplace and for equal wages. But a womans work also includes the 50 or more hours of important work at home which she receives nothing. So women are doubly exploited. Woman do raise it because there are rampant inequalities in life.

Because society rules through divisions along divide and conquer lines including seperate nations, artificially created changing borders and religious ideology. Divide and conquer, divide and rule rule, and divide and steal. This country was founded on White Australia by the colonial powers and subsequently became the founding plank of the Labor Party in 1890. Which is still practised daily although denied. Every nation is pitted against every other nation too for shrinking markets which lead to wars.

The Pook · Joined: 01 Feb 2007 Posts: 2904 Location: Tasmania

...and your point is? Confused

Johncee · Joined: 06 Dec 2008 Posts: 58