This page is referenced by:

• 1 media/400px-Venus_of_Willendorf_-_All_sides.jpg 2020-10-14T21:49:57+00:00 Starsi Howell Essay I 10 The Growing Power of the Patriarchy and the Harsh Lens of the Male Gaze image_header 2020-10-18T00:05:28+00:00

                Throughout history male artists have been given the reins to break new ground in art, while female artists have, notoriously, been held back and their achievements limited, solely because of their gender. However, female artists throughout history have continued to push back and sought to overcome the societal obstacles of their gender. Unfortunately, time and again their achievements have either been ignored, forgotten…or worse, assigned instead to male artists. Through examining and comparing a prehistoric artwork, conceivably made by a female artist, to paintings by a female artist in the Renaissance period, we can directly view how modern patriarchal society has been used over time to constrain female artists.  We can see how each potential female artist’s work was shaped by the era in which she lived, and then realize how our current readings on each artist re-enforces the enduring patriarchal worldview. 

               Unfortunately not much documentation during the prehistoric era remains, so historians are still unsure, even today, of the exact social and cultural breakdowns of this time period. Most of what we understand comes from the parietal artwork discovered and dated back to that era, including the famous cave paintings found across Spain, France and Indonesia which include hand stencils, geometric shapes, figurative paintings, as well as paintings of wild animals and hunting scenes. Until recently, many, if not almost all, historians have attributed these paintings solely to men. This was most likely because the majority of cave paintings dating from 12,000 to 40,000 years ago were of large animals and pictorial scenes of hunting.  Historians, therefore, guessed that the paintings were done to either document kills, or were painted by the hunters themselves to demonstrate and celebrate their hunting prowess and skills. However, in 2013, an article written for National Geographic highlighted a new study in which the first prehistoric artists were, in fact, probably women. “Archaeologist Dean Snow of Pennsylvania State University analyzed hand stencils found in eight cave sites in France and Spain. By comparing the relative lengths of certain fingers, Snow determined that three quarters of the handprints were female.” If, in fact, most of the cave paintings were done by women, this potentially changes our entire understanding of what the social dynamics were between men and women during the prehistoric era. If women were also painting scenes of hunting expeditions and animals, could it be that women also hunted alongside the men? Or could it be that we simply assume that a scene depicting large game hunting could only represent men because we view it through the lens of gendered stereotypes?  And, could that lens simply be a modern idea that was slowly spoon fed into our collective consciousness by the construct of patriarchy, and not an inherent truth passed down to us from humanity’s prehistoric past.

                 Let’s investigate further by assessing the famed Venus of Willendorf 25,000-20,000 BCE. Made out of soft stone and standing at only 4 ⅜” high, this figurine was “discovered” in Willendorf, on the banks of the Danube River in Austria, in 1908 by Josef Szombathy. Although, again, we have no definitive information on “Venus,” such as how she came to be in this particular place or what she was intended for, we can reasonably gather that this was a treasured personal object carried from location to location where the hunter-gatherer communities had settled. Many historians and art historians have assumed that this carving was probably done as a fertility fetish or as praise to a goddess which their society may have worshiped.  They back up their claims by citing the overtly sexualized nature of the figurine; the bulbous breasts, the over abundant stomach, and exposed genitalia, which they assume could only fit into such these limited categories. However, wasn’t this figurine presumptively put into that gendered box when, immediately upon discovery, it was referred to as the “Venus,” the name of the Roman Goddess of love, ideal beauty and fertility?  With the name justified after the fact? We have no real proof that the people of this time period worshipped any Gods or Goddesses, and although the figurine depicts a nude female form, there are other many other symbols of fertility that were available to be used.  If we take away our modern notions of the nude female form as well as the idea that female nudity could have only been used to express sexuality or motherhood, and, instead, consider the possibly that a female artist could have made this piece, new doors begin to open up. This piece was done with such beautiful attention to detail; the vagina made noticeable and the intricate hair style delicately expressed, that we can deduce it must have been carved by someone with intimate knowledge of the female body and female styles of the time. Another important detail to note, as well, is that the figurine was, at one time, covered in red ochre paint. While some say that this fact could relate to the practice during that era of covering the dead in ochre paint, it could, instead, have been symbolizing the blood of menstruation.  We could choose to view the Venus of Willendorf as a personal object instead of a fertility fetish. Or if we stop looking through the lens of patriarchy long enough to consider the possibility that a female artist may have carved this, and if we stop presupposing that our modern gendered stereotypes of nude women as either overtly sexualized objects or as goddesses symbolizing motherhood absolutely existed in prehistoric times, (which they most likely did not) we could, perhaps, see this piece of art as a self-portrait instead; an ode to the beauties of the female form. We could understand that the female form might have just been celebrated as remarkable in all its shapes and configurations, that it was something to be appreciated and honored rather than something to be overtly sexualized or objectified solely for the pleasure of men.

               Fast forward to the Renaissance, hundreds of years later, when the monotheistic idea of the “One True God” had taken hold along with the evolution of the patriarchal construct. It is no longer acceptable for female artists to depict other women in the nude, especially in such a crude and vulgar way as the Venus of Willendorf was now viewed. While their practical skills have dramatically evolved, women are now restricted as artists, and success can only be attainted if they follow strict guidelines as to the subjects and the societal rules of the day that men deemed acceptable. Men held all the advantages in the Renaissance period in terms of art production. Women were most often excluded, and were not given the same protections men received in the guilds.  Women were barred from entering into art schools, and their works were oftentimes precluded from being sold. They were denied the same education as men, and were usually prohibited from shadowing a male artist which would enable to advance. All of these restrictions, plus more, made it almost impossible for women to have success in the arts. However, a few women were able to get past the restrictions and secure a career in the arts. Most of the women that did gain artistic success during the Renaissance usually shared a few of the same distinctions as the men.  Mainly, they came from upper class families or, as Linda Nochlin points out in her article; “Why Have There Been no Great Women Artists'', saying; “But what of the small band of heroic women who throughout the ages, despite obstacles, achieved prominence?... While we can not investigate the subject in detail, we can point to a few striking general facts: almost all women artists were either the daughters of artist fathers, or later, in the nineteenth and twentieth century, had a close personal connection with a strong or dominant male artist.”

             Let’s take a look at a prominent female artist in the Renaissance to dive deeper into these issues; Sofonisba Anguissola, the first documented female artist to obtain international fame, born in 1532 in Cremona, Italy, to a noble family.  Though they were not known to be extremely wealthy, Sofonisba was already at an advantage the moment she was born. Her father was a forward thinker and given their social status, she was allowed to study painting as an apprentice, under male artist Bernardino Campi. She was the first female documented to have studied under a master painter. Most other women simply did not have the same advantages. Their parents either would not allow it or they did not come from the same social standing, and could not afford to travel and study for free under a master painter. Unlike the prehistoric era, where women were, most likely, free to paint as they pleased, as is suggested by the ancient cave paintings across Western Europe, women in the Renaissance were very limited in the style and substance of their paintings.This was especially true in Sofonisba’s time, and Sofonisba was certainly no exception. Although she was “allowed” to have a career in painting, she still had to follow the societal rules deemed acceptable for female artists, as dictated by the male artists of the era. At the time, the only acceptable female painters were those seen to signify moral goodness; the conformity to established sanctioned codes, as well as artistic excellence, and could be labeled as a “virtuosa.” This term, when applied to a female painter, meant that female artists, though needing to be obviously talented, would also need to be known as coming from a good social standing, attractive (but not sexualized), virtuous, God pleasing and well behaved. Although one could try and bend the rules, one would risk losing their career in the arts. Sofonisba, in order to be successful, had to play by the cultural rules of the day, at least for the most part.  She stuck mainly to painting self portraits ,which were very popular at the time, but she did not paint the nude female form or overtly bend the rules, either formally or stylistically. 

               In Sofonisba Anguissola’s Self Portrait with Maid from 1561, she paints herself playing the spinet, or sometimes called the “virginal”,  a smaller type of piano mainly played by women in the Renaissance for recreational use. Right away this categorizes her as a woman of a higher class, especially with the image of her governess looming behind her, keeping a stern eye on the viewers. Both the spinet and the governess refer to her well-behaved, upper-class lifestyle.  This fits into the “virtuosa” category mentioned earlier. She is dignified in her clothing and appearance, not allowing herself be objectified in the slightest, nor her body to be on display. While this of course, might have been an attempt to keep males from sexually objectifying her, it also worked to keep herself in good standing as a female artist. Through this self portrait, we understand her as a woman of noble class, who is well behaved and womanly, but not sexualized. Her small act of rebellion can only be seen in the color choice of her clothing. She paints herself in all black, the color many male painters depict themselves in.  However, nothing else in the painting overtly goes against the societal expectations of female artists of the time. She had to skillfully maintain the restraints forced upon her gender while exhibiting excellence in her profession as an artist of the Renaissance era, as can be seen in this self portrait, and in many of her other paintings as well. By comparison, these restraints were not imposed on the male artists of that era. 

               Sofonisba served under the Spanish royal court and was the first known female painter to achieve international success. Though Sofonisba knew great success in her lifetime, she still had to play by the rules forced on her because of her gender, limiting her freedom of expression. Though she was included in Giorgio Vasari’s “Lives of the most excellent painters, sculptors, and architects” in 1550, “It may be argued that the characterization of Sofonisba by Vasari and others is consistent with the prescriptives of the ideal gentildonna set forth in an ever increasing number of sixteenth century texts… She is, as these texts advise her to be, pious and decorous.”  And, while internationally praised, she was still forced into the limited categories that society and male painters had set for her. This robbed her of her artistic agency and limits our understanding of her. Even though she did have success in her own lifetime, unfortunately her fame did not live on, like her famous male contemporaries.   Many pieces of her work have since been attributed to male artists and in contrast to her male contemporaries, she has been largely forgotten. This actually reveals more about our current patriarchal system than it does Sofonisba’s talents. Even though a female artist was the first to break the artistic glass ceiling and achieved fame and success in her time, we maintain a tendency of appreciating only the famous male artists in hindsight and writing out the women. As Chadwick mentions in her book "Women, Art, and Society", “The high regard in which Anguissola’s work was held by seventeenth- and eighteenth century- collectors did not survive into the nineteenth century, an epoch that saw many of her paintings assigned to male artists…” Cortney Barko also speaks out on Sofonisba’s lack of fame in her article “Rediscovering Female Voice and Authority: The Revival of Female Artists in Wendy Wasserstein's "The Heidi Chronicles". In her article she says that “Even Anguissola, an artist with an international reputation, succumbs to the textbook’s exclusion policies. Anguissola serves as a forgotten female artist whose works go unappreciated, thus emphasizing the marginalization of female artists in the study of art history.”

            By contrasting female artists through two different time periods, we are able to assess the growing power and spread of the patriarchy and the control it wielded over female artists and their ability to express themselves freely. By viewing the Venus of Willendorf followed by Anguissola’s Self Portrait with Maid we can see how each art piece reflected the societal norms of their specific era as well as how freely female artists were allowed to create art, especially art involving the depiction of the female body. Sadly, as religion and patriarchy continued to grow, women were forced into an ever more subordinate category to men, particularly in the arts. To some degree, this still takes place today as we continue to view female artists and art that depicts the female body, fromVenus of Willendorf to Sofonisba Anguissola’s Self Portrait with Maid through the prejudiced and harsh lens of the male gaze.