camille claudel

In our last three films (including the first half of "Camille Claudel,") we've seen artistic creation constructed in terms of gender. "Belly of an Architect" inverts (subverts?) traditional ideas of gender, "Artemisia" plays into them, and we haven't decided yet about "Camille Claudel" (although we did observe that Claudel's story is very much also Rodin's). What can the two latest readings contribute to your thinking about how gender is linked with art in these movies? Are women associated with nature and men with culture? (Ortner) Are compulsive looking and touching, and eroticism identified with female art-making? (Felleman) Due by the end of the day Tuesday, Nov. 2.

In the films we have viewed so far, gender plays a large role in the portrayal of artistic creation. Belly of an Architect portrays the world of art and creation as male-dominated. Only one female in the film is an artist, and she has strong masculine qualities. Kracklite, on the other hand, takes on feminine qualities such as fragility and insecurities about physical appearance. In this way, the film inverts what we would consider to be traditional gender roles. However, Artemisia stays with the more stereotypical constructions of gender roles. The artist and the creative process are eroticized, and once again the beautiful young woman falls for the older more experienced man. From what we have seen in Camille Claudel, typical gender roles are also present. Although as not as objectified and eroticized as Artemisia, the film still plays into the male teacher/female student dynamic.

Ortner’s article argues that while female roles and power vary from society to society, the nature of “being woman” is the same universally, and more tied to the earth and nature than the male counterpart. Ortner states “Because of woman’s greater bodily involvement with the natural functions surrounding reproduction, she is seen as more a part of nature than man is. Yet in part because of her consciousness and participation in human social dialogue, she is recognized as a participant in culture.” (Ortner 76) So in Ortner’s opinion, females are inextricably tied to nature, and while they can be participants in cultural affairs, their true selves relate to nature and traditional female roles. In both Artemisia and Camille Claudel we see how females struggle to make a name for themselves in the male dominated art worlds. Both women wish for success and fame, however their involvement in this sphere eventually leads to their respective downfalls. Especially in Camille Claudel, we see how the masculine figure, heavily tied to the “cultural” aspects of life, destroys the life of the female figure.

In both films, we see the female leads in erotic scenes heavily involving looking and touching. Artemisia’s voyeuristic obsession with the human body and sexuality factors heavily into the film; we see her observing many sexually charged scenes. Both Claudel’s and Artemisia’s hands are shown multiple times, and the camera focuses on their touches while they explore either their bodies, or others. Their artistic creation relies heavily on this exploration, and many of the scenes where these women artists produce work focus on their hands and touch. These scenes back up Felleman’s point, that both voyeuristic obsession and compulsive touching become part of the creative process, as well as the downfall of these women.