Gender/Nature/Sexuality

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?

Thus far, the films have constructed art as a by-product of gender and its role within society. Gender has defined these artists, dictated their life experiences, and influences their art. Gender as a “problematic institution restricting the creative genius of the artist” is a thematic concept woven throughout all of the films. All three films show the artist in question plagued by their ability to represent themselves, and in turn their gender. The theme ties the films together while also pointing out their differences. Specifically, “Belly of an Architect” questions the construction of masculinity by blending masculine attributes of strength and creative fortune with typical feminine attributes of emotional estrangement and vulnerability into the persona of one male artist—Stourley Kracklite. “Artemisia,” is a film that relies on the objectification and heavy eroticism of the female artist as a way to project her personal experience of rape into her art and subject matter. While “Camille Claudel” utilizes the social construction of the female artist (within a heterosexual relationship) to creative a narrative on Claudel’s art. In three different ways, all the films congruently hit on the three aspects that plague the gendering of society and art: expectations of roles, sexual identification, and hegemonic ideals.

Are women associated with nature and men with culture? (Ortner)

In Ortner’s article the author points out the cultural ideology behind the myth that has long-since associated women with nature and men with culture. Ortner argues that it is due to the biological, physiological, and social roles women have been assigned which places women secondary to men within the hierarchical scale. Ortner states, “Because of woman’s greater bodlily 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. Thus he appears as something intermediate between culture and nature, lower on the scale of transcendence than man”(Pg. 76). Comparing the three films, the two about female artists suggested women’s inability to produce art because she was a woman, that being a female artist was not a proper place/job for women within society while the one film concerning a man never questioned the male artist’s right to be an artist/produce art due to his gender. Specifically, Ortner is referring to woman’s role as seen through the cultural lens: women reside in the private sphere, while men reside in the public sphere. This concept is illustrated in the films. “Belly of an Architect” (focusing on the male artist) formatted around the recognition and degradation of Kracklite’s ability to produce art, in a sense castrating the male artist and divorcing him of his strength and power as a male character within the film. Conversely “Camille Claudel” and “Artemisia” both exploit the sexuality of the female artists, subsequently connecting the creativity of their art with their sexual orientation. Thus, “Belly of an Architect” still shows the artist as a gendered figure active in producing art (public realm), while “Camille Claudel” and “Artemisia” rely on the degradation of the female form to a point of objectification to define the two artists, relinquishing their art to a realm of taboo subject matter and personal experience (private sphere). Referencing Ornter’s article, Kracklite takes an active role in participating in culture through his art and the way the film defined his masculinity. Kracklite is farther removed from his physical exploitation & art than with the other two artists, making the male character more closely related to culture than nature. Artemisia and Camille both have scenes in the film that exploit their sexuality as well as visually display them in and among natural surrounding and immersed into landscapes, thus tying woman to nature. I agree with Ortner, when it was clarified that “women are not any closer to (or further from) nature than men”(pg. 86), because both are human. However, society takes a stronghold on gender roles and manufactures them as a dictatorship—telling/displaying/exploiting the differences between men and woman as means of cultural control. I believe that due to social stigma, women are associated with nature and men with culture. This is something that is inherently rooted in the biomedical makeup of the male/female gender and becomes a pattern of patriarchal ideals.

Are compulsive looking and touching, and eroticism identified with female art-making? (Felleman)

In both “Artemisia” and “Camille Claudel” there is a sexually charged narrative associated with the female artists’ art. Cinematically, the artists and their art are translated into images of commodification and arousal because both films connect the artistic inspiration with sexuality and female passion. In “Artemisia,” the film presents the young female artist as a figure that is consumed by voyeuristic tendencies. From the scene where she rips off her own clothes to draw fervently in the dark her own body, to her obsession with gazing at the male anatomy and curiosity about sex, the film sets the tone for a scopophilia look at Artemisia’s life. Because Artemisia is constantly in the act of gazing, the audience becomes transfixed on her sexuality (nudity), which ultimately changes her and her art to products of visual consumption. Artemisia shows the artist as having an obsession with portraying the anatomy, therefore, we as an audience become obsessed with viewing her anatomy and sexual escapades. Felleman comments on this idea by stating, “The almost demented, eroticized gaze attributed to Artemisia in this film seems to suggest a psychosexual pathology: scopophilia, sexual pleasure in looking. Interestingly, “Artemisia” attributes this usually male ‘perversion’ to its female protagonist, even as her agency is eclipsed by the film’s tendency to translate her from subject to object”(pg. 32). “Camille Claudel” differs from “Artemisia” only through the way in which we see the product of female art-making. While “Artemisia” illustrated the power of looking as a inspirational source to the artist’s work, “Camille Claudel” shows the female artist bound by the sense of touch to prescribe her artistic genius. Felleman describes the film by saying, “The film portrays Claudel, her passion for sculpture, her relationship with Auguste Rodin, its demise, and her ultimate descent into madness. In it, scopophilia, a visual pathology, is compounded by a related, more tactile one that has in fact been called a ‘madness of mud’”(pg. 32). This idea is played out in one of the very beginning scenes in we are introduced to Camille Claudel: the young, beautiful female artist is seen fervently digging/carving at the river bank for clay. Like the obsession displayed in Artemisia, the young female artist is consumed with her passion and her art. The tactile process of sculpting relies on the sensation of touch to construct art. The act of touching then becomes a product of erotica by Camille’s hand she gave life to a stagnant object and sensually immersed herself into this obsession. Subsequently, by looking at these two films it is clear that one could assume obsession with looking, touching and eroticism are intrinsic factors with regards to female-art making. However, the films only display what they want to display, so these three foundational elements associated (through these two films) with female artistic creativity could be completely taken out of context just for the sake of cinematic enticement. So, saying whole-heartedly that looking, touching, and eroticism are tied to the totality of female-art making would not be entirely factual.