Blog Nov. 3

Post for Nov. 3
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, "Artimisia" 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 last three films we have watched in class, they all relate gender to art in different ways. Gender unlike sex is a social construction of reality and therefore gender roles are interpreted different throughout various cultures. However in most cultures, with few exceptions of matrilineal control in societal structure (some Native American tribes for example) women are considered subordinate to males in every aspect of society. For example in Artemisia she is forbidden from the Academia, in Camille Claudel she is also not allowed to exhibit her work in the salon, for both of these women their success as an artists will largely have to do with their involvement or connection with famous male artists.

In Belly of an Architect, Kracklite is losing his sense of self as his wife is simultaneously gaining one. Before coming to Italy from their dialogues we can assert that Mrs. Kracklite would just follow Stuart wherever his job would take him, acting as an accessory. In American this is absolutely fine, even though there is a considerable difference in her age and his, in Capitalist America, young beautiful women are just another possession available for “purchase”; they are commodities turned into symbols that exalt male power and prestige.

When the couple travel to Italy for Kracklite's commission they are thrust into a culture that does not share the same ideologies as American. The disparity in the ages of the couple is one of the first instances of foreshadowing to the couples demise. The Italians criticism of their age difference is alluded to multiple times in the first few open scenes of the movie, and the viewer slowly realizes this is an emerging themes. The question is, is the problem really with the difference in their ages or is it because they envy hiss skill and innovation his “culture” (as Ortner calls culture systems of though and technology) and take away his muse, his natural inspiration and ruin his career and end his life. While Stuart dies slowly his wife is blossoming, and appears more and more physically attractive (via clothing dress and attitude) the worships health and their relationship gets.

Personally I felt that this movie as Dr. Libby said subverts and inverts gender roles unlike Artimisia and Camille Claudel.

Usually the women is left hopeless and dying; the female is the subordinate who has to sit back and watch their emotions be ignored. In Belly of an Architect his wife the major female role; and is Kracklite's muse even though he considers Bolero his inspiration, his confident, the person he divulges his most inner thoughts and secrets with.

Cracklite is the vulnerable character in this film and his insecurities and fragile emotional state lead to his demise. In the other films, especially Camille Claudel, it is the female ingénue whose emotions are her ultimate demise. Or perhaps he does not die of a broken heart (figuratively) perhaps it is his loss of pride and prestige. Because he is stripped of his honor and his manhood (visually demonstrated when he observes his wife sleeping with the enemy as he defiles his phallic sculpture). His architecture is his contribution to culture. When he was asked to leave the commission his creativity was taken from him.

****(….what’s unnerving is that when I realized this maybe because the gender roles are reversed is why I found it so annoyed with Kracklite and uncomfortable while watching the film)

Ortner asserts that there are three types of data to prove whether or not a particular culture considers women inferior:
1) elements of cultural ideology …explicitly devalue women, according them their roles their tasks their products and their social milluex less PRESTIGE than are accorded men … 2) symbolic devices such as attribution of defilement (implicitly making a statement of inferior valuation and 3) social structural arrangements that exclude women from participation in or contact with some realm in which the highest powers of the society are felt to reside.

Artemisia has all three sets of data to conclude that the society represented in the film most certainly considered women inferior. 1) She is first sent away to become a nun, an appropriate role for women of this time. 2) She is rejected from the academia only because she is female. 3) Because she was raped, she lost value in her society and worth in the eyes of her father or potential suitors. This incredibly personal experience is put on trial because her father wants to be compensated for the damages done to his property.

Fellemen’s article talks about how biopics about female artists (Artemisia and Camille Claudel) ultimately propose a view of artistic or cinematic origins are hardly empowering to women, since each constructs art as a product of a female imagination deformed by pathology….The narrative is a mythic one of cinematic origin.” (39)

The plot of Camille Claudel revolves around her relationship with sculptor Auguste Rodin. This same student master relationship is the main source of conflict in Frida, Artemisia, and Camille Claudel. Camille pathology is her “Mud Lust”, which is symbolic of cocoprofelia, love of excrement (children are knows to smear there excrement) and their love of “filthy images” or “mess” as Rodin calls it.

Camille is constantly working the clay with her hands, they clay which she runs off into the night to steal, a behavior which her parents consider deviant. This gives the audience the feeling that she is up to no good, that she does not conform to the standards of her family or her culture.
In one scene in the film Rodin places a woman in the most exploitative pose. All of her private parts are shown; he forces her to squat and crouch and touches and models her into the pose that he wants, an unbelievable vulnerable one. Camille watches this, she steps in and changes the position to at least cover the woman’s breasts but then takes the pedestal on which she sits and rotates in and Rodin joins in. In this scene she simultaneously tries to prevent the blatant objectivity, while exalting it. The pose was no less degrading, only more artistically pleasing. She is the subject. These artists share a casual disregard for women, and a high regard of themselves. Not soon after this scene in the film, their relationship begins in a similar manner as this scene. Rodin is working on his, Danaid he tells the model to leave, and Camille strips and takes her place. Rodin comes over and kisses her neck; she is now the object.

“This moment perfectly illustrates both the strangely symbiotic process through which a work of erotic power can come into being and the ease with which the female figure slips from a position to that of object. It is that slippage, as well as enduring cultural assumptions about masculine priority that contribute to the atmosphere of madness and persecution that beset Claudel later in the film and indeed in her life.” (34)

Creative fact-ion...

Post for 10/6
Is it ever appropriate for a director or author to distort the facts of someone's life in a biographical work?


A human life much like a movie because is follows schematic structure. The rising and falling action of the plot of a movie, coincides with life changing events in a person’s existence, and depending on how the story unfolds, cumulates with a happy ending or even utter tragedy.

The reading “My heart Belongs to Daddy” describes the fictionalization of Baroque artist Artemisia Gentileschi in contemporary films and novels. The author of the article, Tina Olsin Lent argues that these novels and films are “Artemisia fictions” that take this female artists life and construct into a dramatic narrative. She goes on the say how these fictionalized accounts of her biography focus on the emotional troubles (because in mainstream society being feminine means being emotional unstable etc) in her life especially her rape and the physically (and literally) trial that followed. However these were events that actually happened to the artist.

After thinking the question over I can’t say that I believe distorting facts is completely wrong. More importantly, I believe that the genre of film and the extent to which the facts are distorted should be taken into consideration.

Movies like people use disclaimers. How many times have the opening credits included the words “based on real life events”” or perhaps if the film distorts the facts or completely creates fictional situations that “fit in” but are based on nothing but a writers creativity they flash a “based on a true story”.

Biopics produced by large studios such as Miramax will have a higher budget then a film by an independent artist. Along with that big budget comes the pressure of the film making covering its’ costs. Therefore a film produced by Miramax is created first and foremost for the purpose of making money, and in order for a movie to make money it has to be entertaining. Based on what I believe to be our society’s definition of entertaining a movie especially period films usually include sex, power struggle, and or violence. In order to appeal to all members of the audience the characters are sometimes more sexualized then they were historically known to be.

I believe that when an individual’s life is depicted in film the audience has to take into account that they are watching the director’s interpretation of life events of person’s whole lifetime- in the course of two hours. We have to understand who she is so important life movements have to be cut and patched together in some order so that the audience is able to empathize (helped by sound, setting etc) with the heroine before the first climactic event. (I remind myself of this every time that background music makes me tear up… there’s no background music when its happening) The types of facts you are meant to illicit from the film aren’t the same ones that you would get from reading an article from J-stor, and the film is certainly not citing page numbers.

Film is art and art is up for personal interpretation. If we are free to interpret the works of the artist (especially when we relate them to their psychological state ) I think it is acceptable for another artist to interpret and express the artists life and work so long as they call it what is it, artistic interpretation.

Students Choice-Modigliani

For the students choice of film i wold like to see Modigliani (2004). This movie is set in Paris in 1919 and is about the life of the Italian artist Amedeo Modigliani played by Andy Garcia. Modigliani's life was full of hardships in all aspects of of his life. He struggled with money, fought for custody of his illegitimate child and constantly fought with substance abuse. He also engaged in a fierce rivalry with Pablo Picasso. This movies seems like it would be very interesting as it involves themes we have seen in previous films, as well as the fact that it involves two artists that interacted with one another in real life. Also, most people don't know too much about Modigliani. A few years ago i attended a seminar in the fine arts museum about Modigliani and it as one of my first exposures to his work. I think it may be nice to look at the life of an artists most people are less familiar with ... plus its on netflix and starz this month..makes it easier to watch hehehe

Another film that I thought looked interesting is Surviving Picasso (1996) starring Anthony Hopkins as Picasso. The story is told from the perspective of one of his lovers.... throughout the film she encounters the other women thathave come in and out of Picasso's life and sees the emotional and psychological damage he had had on them. The only reason i hesitate to recommend this movie is that from the synopsis it seems as if the focus is more on his love life and less on his work. The fact that the story is told from a women who appeared later in his life perspective, instances that didn't involve other women she meets may be left out and this could result in a film that is more fiction than fact and an opinion based love story. However with Anthony Hopkins and Julianne Moore in the film is would most certainly be entertaining.

FRIDA

Since we didn't have time to discuss the reading for "Frida," this post should address the two articles. What points do you find especially pertinent? Do you agree with their assessments of "Fridamania"? Why do you think Frida Kahlo suddenly became so popular--popular enough to generate a whole "Frida industry" and a major motion picture?


The article entitled, “The Return of the Kahlo Cult”, Joy Press explains the ways in which society has revived their interests in Freda Kahlo's work and life. The authors voice in this piece is much more favorable then the other article, “The Trouble with Frida Kahlo”, by Stephanie Mecimer, which has a rather negative opinion at times over the exaltation of Frida Kahlo’s life and works.

The social construction of the “great artist” in our culture usually includes the troubled life and a desperate untimely end usually at their own hand or consequences of their lifestyles. Here Mecimer explains where these notions came from. “Caravaggio helped cement the romantic ideal of the artist as troubled rogue bohemian who flouts the norms of polite society…In biopic there is a notion that artists must suffer to experience the deep emotion that infuses their art... they suffer during their lives and when their art is recognized after their death.”
Mecimer trivializes and lumps the typical schematic structure of artists lives together however it is true that many great artists do end up fulfilling this preordained plot structure and it is also true that Frida Kahlo certainly did not adhere to norms in society.

“Kahlo’s story lends itself to mass marketing because she consciously forged her own “brand,” painting herself over and over with that trademark uni-brow and the traditional Tehuana costumes she wore to reclaim her indigenous heritage.” Mecimer also notes in her article, “Rejecting the conventional standards of beauty, Kahlo not only didn’t pluck her uni-brow or mustache but groomed them with special tools and even penciled them darker.” (28)
The Imagery associated with Frida Kahlo is iconic her trademarks looks as previously mentioned have been disseminated into our culture much like Marilyn Monroe’s iconic lips immortalized in Warhol’s, Marilyn Lips. She (like Marilyn) is so iconic we don’t even need to see her whole face to recognize her. Her trademarks along with her personal history make her life and resulting work all the more interesting. “Her life was also crammed with movie ready melodrama and tragedy”. Her work is impressive and the plot of her life parallels to that of a Greek epic; full of shameful lust, tumultuous love affairs, live changing tragedies, death, and addiction. “She was a painter a morphine addict, the first woman psychoanalyzed in Mexico- she’s a retype of female modernity”.

The time period Kahlo lived and worked in is a key factor to her cultural significance. The social political and economic revolutions of that time were present in her time and her feelings and ideologies are expressed in her art and the art of her husband Diego Rivera. Diego and Kahlo were active supporters of the communist party. Their interest in painting and in communism is what eventually led to their tumultuous 25 year love affair, which is what Kahlo referred to as the “second accident in her life”.

“The return of the Kahlo Cult" article by Joy Press explains that “Taymor sees her movie as a love story and has no sympathy for Diego detractors… if you admire Frida you could never present her as the kind of women who would just be abused. “ In the film there were never any scenes of physical abuse but way Diego emotionally abused Frida with his actions is clearly presented.

“She (Frida) took on the marriage knowing that the chance of fidelity was pretty slim… the way she dealt with it was phenomenal ...she took out her own sex life.” What a perfect response for a major motion picture to depict. Throughout her life Frida Kahlo had multiple affairs with a myriad of different partners of both sexes. Sex sells and Frida was not shy about her sexuality which she exalted in her art and her day to day activities, which included other deviant behaviors as smoking and drinking. Society loves to watch people act on their impulses and desires and over indulge to what might be the point of no return. On the other hand we also love a “happy ending”. “What is so fabulous and disturbing is that they way they never stopped loving each other through all that and at the end when her health was failing and she was an alcoholic and addicted to drugs because of the pain- he came back to her.” This article calls attention to the positive aspects of a revival in interest of Frida’s life and art; and does so in such a way that suggests the film and Fridamania is a good thing and that “Frida Kahlo probably would have loved all of this attention.”

Mecimer ‘s “The Trouble with Frida Kahlo”, however contradicts the previous quote included in the previous essay and cites a quote by Frida herself, “I paint myself because I am so often alone, because I am the subject I know best. ” (28) The intimate relationship Kahlo had with herself was due to the hours she spent alone and still in her bed recovering from the trolley accident that left her physically unable to bear children. Mecimer asserts that, “this elevation of the artist over the art diminishes the public understanding of Kahlo’s place in history and overshadows the deeper and more disturbing truths in her work” (27) Not only does Mecimer go onto say that the reason her art wasn’t the same style or technique in the later stages of her life because she was so addicted to morphine.

“Fridamania has a downside, revealing particular dangers for the work of women artists who are treated as phenomena rather than simply as artists… Kahlo’s move into the cult of personality is a familiar pattern in which women stop being the artist and become the subject of art, transformed from a powerful creative force to an ideal of quietly suffering femininity. (30) I somewhat disagree with this statement as her art doesn’t exactly convey the image of a “quietly” suffering female. If anything I find her art to convey to viewers that she is anything but the dainty feminine ideal.

Basquiat - Blog 2

After watching the film I thought of how the film portrayed Basquiat’s life as a series of dramatic highs and lows as seen in the films powerful imagery that corresponds with the aspects of the schematic structure. The film begins with a scene of a young African American child holding his mother’s hand walking down a long white corridor lit soley by the blue lights strung along the ceiling. The filming approach is visually cold and the credits written in black and white and cut in and out of scenes of them walking. All at once we see the pair arrive at Picassos Guernica the the camera shows up the woman who presume to be the mother of the boy next to her crying as she looks at her son threes a crown projected on his head and the woman smiles. All at once the scene opens with a man’s sleeping in a box (Basquiat) there are scenes of him walking around going about “absurd activities” that seem to be his daily routine. A quote by the narrator which we later learn is the Art citric Rene that gives him his start, states “no one ever wants to miss the next Van Gogh” which I thought was ironic as the Jamison article about artistic creativity and mental illness referenced Van Gogh in stating, “Van Gogh it is said could not have been mad as his paintings reflect lucidity of the highest order, Lucidity however is not incompatible with occasional bouts of madness” (Jamison 96) We soon learn Basquiat mother has been institutionalized. The Jamison article state that individuals who have a relative especially a close relative like a parent with a mental disorder they are significantly more likely to have some type of mental illness, most commonly (or so it seemed from the article) manic depression. This made me think back to the way Basquiat's mother was crying from Guernica and then all of the sudden overcome with happiness when seeing her son with the crown, (even more of a mentally questionable reaction when we learn its a foreshowing to his untimely death) The movie starts the way it does with intense mise-en-scene to make an intense impression on the audience. The imagery is full of symbolism and the lack of dialogue in combination with the background music suggested to me that scene is symbolic in meaning then literal. Throughout the film the interactions with his mother or about his mother have been short, but their content (usually questions about her mental health a status) are pivotal in understanding the artist and his battle with his wits.

As the film progresses we see that’s Basquiat favorite method of dulling his wits is heroin which at first we see him causally snorting but then soon after getting his break,(ironically while at a party where everyone was doing drugs) Gina finds him passed out half dead on the bed from shooting it up. He meets Gina at her place of work after he makes a syrup portrait of her on a table. The owner kicks him out we see that Gina is obviously attracted to his antics. There are a select few individuals who accept theses eccentric “mad” artists, as demonstrated in the way artists that become famous tend to have tumultuous dependent and destructive relationships with women. Gina was one of the select few she was the Mary figure in his life, the one the grounded him and helped to give his life structure, things beyond just a roof over his head. The film shows how their relationship starts off with extreme intensity, so much so that Basquiat comes off like he is literally fantasizing all of the time, “what island are we going to visit in Hawaii” (lets be honest, you live in a box sometimes…)or when in bed he randomly proposes.


When Basquiat finally does make it he makes it big and makes it all really fast. He becomes Andy Worhol's protégé which was his dream but turns out to be a nightmare as he’s dubbed his pet in the media which drives him more insane. He sells out his friends and cheats on Gina, and keeps doing heroin. The film shows these actions and how his reckless behavior while climbing up the ladder of the art world are coupled with greater use of drugs and bouts of intense creativity. If he is mental ill or especially manic depressive, the way he felt about his actions and the things he was doing tot others around seemed to be eating away at his soul fueling better art but making it an emotional burden to carry; he needs a crutch and heroin is the crutch.

Sadly even after trying to clean up his act and get back to his structure when he attempts to patch things up with Gina, what the film leads us to be believe is the heroine that helped him to create his art as he says in reference to being clean “my arts dead without it” left his art alive and his body dead. I thought that the movie portrayed him as a young brilliant psychologically trouble young man with a great talent who didn’t understand how to cope with the stresses and reality of what being famous artist was. The demands to play that role and be criticized by society in everything you do is hard enough if and he is a manic depressive with a heroin addiction. In the end I believe the film made him out to almost be a martyr of creativity and a victim of his circumstances.

Plato and Giotto

First, what are your reflections on Plato's writing about art and artists?

Plato’s work was one of the most influential factors in determining how western culture regarded artists and whether or not they were good and just members of their ideal society. The Republic is a series of Socratic dialogues by Plato over the justice and order in a city state. In this selected reading from “Book X” of The Republic, Socrates is engaged in a dialogue about artists to see if their work and presence has a place within the State. He discusses how art is really just an imitation. For example, if the artist paints a picture of a blacksmith he really doesn’t understand what it is like or to be a blacksmith or know how to do his trade therefore he merely produced an illusion of a blacksmith and his work, which could use it fool people. If the artist wishes to do more than imitate a blacksmith he should be one as being a blacksmith is an occupation of service to the State. A service occupation at that time was more socially acceptable than if you were in the arts. Socrates expresses the importance of truth and reality, and that artists and poets are relinquishing their hold on truth and reality to perform and create the way they do. They “prefer a passionate fitful temper”, and are “concerned with the inferior part of their souls.” He insinuates that as they create they are not in their “right state of mind” perhaps their actions are derived good, evil or from other irrational forces, however “they are a manufacture of images and far removed from the truth”.
Ironically in Philosophies of Art and Beauty we see a dialogue between Socrates and Ion (an actor) which Plato uses to explain the source of artistic creativity. “God takes away the minds of poets and uses them as his ministers.”(55) The dialogue confirms that he believes artists are not in their right state of mind when creating, but does so in a pleasant way. He states that they are possessed by the power of the music, beauty of the art, and emotion. In the scene the poet is totally under the influence of the muses’ inspiration. The power of God inspires the artists, which further inspires the spectators around them, and this is how “God sways the souls of men in any direction which he pleases, and makes one man hang down from another.” (56) From the second reading it appears that these wise men took into consideration, the beauty and power of these “imitations” and artists found a place within the city state.

Next, Read your "Schematic Structure of the Artist's Biography" and your biography of Giotto by Vasari handouts. Look for aspects of Giotto's bio that correspond to the "Schematic Structure" and say why you think these could be seen as necessary parts of an artist's biography. What kind of person is Giotto in this narrative? What does his personality have to do with being an artist?

Vasari description of Giotto seems to follow the “Schematic Structure of the Artist’s Biography” almost perfectly with the exception of the details about his death and the fate of his body. Vasari begins by explaining the artist’s circumstances upon his birth. Giotto was born in Florence to a simple peasant and he was raised accordingly. Following the schematic structure under the motif of “youth” he showed “signs of promise at an early age” and “were discovered by a recognized artist” of his time, Cimabue, while tending to his father’s sheep. Cimabue noticed him drawing a sheep from life on a rock and from there his abilities were further recognized by Cimabue and he soon surpassed his teacher’s ability. Giotto was regarded as a “virtuoso” (Schematic Structure) and revived the true art of painting from life. In his maturity he was awarded major commissions including works for the people and king, however Giotto wasn’t floored by these great honors and maintained a semi sarcastic and witty attitude towards his patrons all his life. The biography seems to be a semi personal one, written in a less dramatic way then I was originally expecting. His personality is what is highlighted by this biography, which we see is very strong from the instance with the fly on Cimabue’s painting (used amazing skill to be play a prank... he’s so good; can’t get mad), as well as in the story about the coat of arms. And I believe that the way Vasari goes into greater detail about the matter of fact way he conducted himself then his major works is a key to understanding that the work doesn’t define the artist, the artist defines the work.