The female body is an art object—is this still true? Possibly the answer to the question should be informed by the position of the female body in the context of the wider world. It seems impossible for equality to exist in the art world and not in the wider world as a whole. If we examine the use of the female body by feminist artists in the performance art of the nineteensixties we still have to ask: why did the artists objectify themselves through the medium? Was this the spectacle of the true female nude? In this essay I have explored the issue from the perspective of many forms of performance art, but I argue it is not possible to change the position of the female body in one ‘world’ without a bleeding of constructs from the other wider world. I have found that it is disappointing that in the twenty first century, the position of the female nude within art is still that of a spectacle—but can performance art give the female nude authority? I will answer this question in three sections. Firstly, giving a brief historical setting, I discuss how the second wave of feminism influenced performance art. Progressing from this, I will introduce a theoretical model to assess singular works of both Yves Klein and Carolee Schneemann. This second section examines their tactics, approaches and opinions in relation to the proposed model, with a focus on theory and why the artists were challenging theoretical ideas. Thirdly, I will develop the model to include a recent theory by Susan Melrose and its application within a contemporary performance art setting. Finally, I will conclude with an overview of the topics covered within the paper to argue that the female body is still, an art object but that performance art can assist the female nude to gain authority within visual art. The use of broad terms such as Performance Art and the Female Body are used within the context of the art world solely within this essay due to the restricted length. They are specified through the studied art works in this essay.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
To discuss the art works and theories of the chosen period, some brief historical context is necessary. The prime events which occurred since the first wave of feminism had accumulated and flourished into the nineteen sixties where reproductive rights, sexuality, family and the workplace were being challenged world-wide, with focus on the subordination of women within the social structure. The Women’s Movement, during the Second Wave, was blooming alongside the racial fight and the war in Vietnam, thus becoming the era of the protest. This thirst for protest leaked into the art world as some female artists began challenging artistic structures.
PERFORMANCE ART
The position of the female nude in art was a topic of interest and was challenged through visceral and in some cases grotesque means. The qualities of performance art suited the era of the protest due to its potential for confrontation with the audience. This form of interaction with an art work created a dialogue with the audience and allowed the viewing of the work to become an experiential event. The medium’s placement in the live present also gave it an unpredictable character with the possibility of failure. This characteristic left the audience uncertain of what they would encounter (Auslander, 2006, p.5). Performance art allowed the female artists to regain autonomy over their objecthood from their traditional position of the muse, transforming their presence in the work to a more authoritive position. This removed the boundary between what was then known as art and real life. The ephemeral quality of performance art allowed the work to exist within a fleeting moment, blurring the position of the subject, object and tool (Phelan, 1993, p.148). The medium’s resistance to the existing art genres, amplified the artists position in the re-deploying of artistic space and definitions (Irigaray, 1993, p.17). This artistic activism ordered a re-evaluation of the position of the female nude as a controlled sexualised object.
With this in mind, to assess the following art works effectively, I have constructed a basic theoretical model consisting of a combination of: John Berger, Griselda Pollock, Luce Irigaray and Jacques Derrida. This gives a context to their theoretical and political positions, and their opinions of the broader position of the female in society.
THEORETICAL MODEL
| John Berger (Marxist)
Displays both his and the readers lack of control over the context of the art work, how it is received or how subjects were depicted. Gathers works from different time periods and contexts to display the commonality of the female body’s depiction as an object of desire, beauty and the imaginary. |
Griselda Pollock (Marxist/Feminist)
Gathers images of the female body as a stationary object but lacks context. A commonality between sculptural art works. Refines the image selection through a common visual of the gaping mouth, an observation on the female body as an object of desire for the fetishized male eye. |
| Luce Irigaray (Feminist/psychoanalysis)
Detaches the female body from the traditional imaginary context which is the main tool of the work. |
Jacques Derrida (anti- Marxist/poststructuralist)
Deconstructs social structures to display the inequality of opposite terms. Eg male/ female |
What we can gather from this diagram is the intersecting relationship between these theorists and how they each display different strengths and weaknesses to the argument at hand. As we can see there are many commonalities between Berger, Irigaray and Pollock. Most of which originates from a Marxist political stance, greatly influencing their opinion on the questions at hand. Firstly, we will look at John Berger, focussing on his (1973) Ways of Seeing where Berger dedicates a chapter to images of the female nude. Berger curates the chapter to include the nude within the traditional context of painting with others in the context of advertisements. This was a critique the commodification of the female form as well as the sexual association between the gaze and the ideal female nude (Berger, 1973, p.36). There is also a tone of control within the chapter as each nude is depicted by another, she, the body, has no control over the context of its reception or how she’s depicted. Berger amplifies the desirability of the female nude as the originals depict the nude within an imaginary and idealised context. Not only did Berger illuminate the objectification of the female form, but also disclosed evidence of the patriarchal system that exists in the artistic community (Berger, 1973, p.46).
Griselda Pollock follows in the footsteps of Berger: also Marxist inclined. Pollock utilizes the artistic influence of Berger to amplify lack of context and idealism of female sculpture (Pollock 2013, p.37). She does this through magnified images of gaping female mouths on traditional sculptures, displayed as stationary, silent objects that develops Derrida’s opinions on castration as well as the saturated female body as an object of desire for the fetishized male eye (Téneze, 2013, p.69). A line could be drawn between Derrida and Pollock to display the relationship between the two as Pollock utilizes Derrida’s deconstruction theory to support her contemporary observations of similar works to Berger. By doing so, Pollock displays her support of Berger whilst also negatively commenting on Derrida’s use of women as metaphors of a subversion of truth and order, not recognising their subjectivity and the positions from which they might speak (Brook, 1997, p.76).
Derrida’s theory of deconstruction was one which influenced many feminist theorists including Irigaray. This was due to its process and his opinions that feminism couldn’t succeed in challenging phallocentric discourse from outside of the phallocentric system
(Brooks, 1997, p.75). However, given his apolitical stance, Derrida’s intentions may have been portrayed as metaphorical. Derrida looks at his deconstruction process as double writing, that it is through language we experience the world. Therefore, we must think about and with cultural identities but also undo their effects (Princenthal, 2011, p.69). This theory in conjunction with Derrida’s ideas on language and the curation of text in a philosophical context inspired Irigaray to expand on Derrida’s ideas on castration to form her theory on the female lips focussing on their unformable apartness (Stockton, 1994, p.31). Derrida expands on this concept focussing on the anatomy of the female lips over its ontology, inferring that there is no contradiction that both remain closed until the intervention of the phallus (Malabou, 2009, p.15- 19). Derrida plays a vital role in this model as his writing on the breaking down of literary systems will become more important later in this essay as the model progresses with the addition of Susan Melrose’s critique.
Irigaray, influenced by Derrida, theorised emancipating the female nude from the imaginary position in traditional art through psychoanalysis. This was a catalyst for many female artists of the nineteen-sixties as female artists were displaying the true female nude in the work and as the tool of the work, merging the ‘I’ of the artist/subject with the ‘it’ of the object (Wood, 2018, p.42). This detachment was a separation from the social constructs and theoretical ideas of difference (Irigaray, 1993, p.17). This shift progressed to the exploration of the redeployment of space, as Irigaray theorised that neither man or woman could inhabit the same spaces whilst retaining power and authority (Irigaray 1993, p.17). This theory was an expansion on Derrida’s opposition to castration as he declared it phallocentric and was embodied through the use of performance art. Under the analysis of the following artists, the two main sides of this discussion become clear.
KLEIN AND SCHNEEMANN
Yves Klein was one of the influential male figures in art during this time. Consumed by the concept of religion and the idol, he utilized the female nude in Antropometries of the Blue Period in 1960 (Perlein & Corá, 2000, p.31). Klein looked upon the female nude as his tool, stating that she belongs to the world of objects but no more or less so than the majority of the bodies utilized in performance (Perlein & Corá, 2000, p.41). This statement positions Klein in a specific political frame of the time. Here we can assess the position of the female nude as completely objectified due to its visual representation. Analysing visual documentation of the performance (fig.1) via the theoretical model, from this perspective we can view the position of the female nude to be within the traditional objectified context as it shares many qualities observed by Berger, Irigaray as well as Derrida. The nude is utilized as a spectacle and an artistic tool of the work. Klein (who died in 1962) does not conform to the theories represented by Berger and Pollock and in turn, weakens their position of importance within this work. However, due to the characteristics of performance art, the female nude is reformed within the live present and removed from the traditional imaginary female. This examination, in connection to Irigaray’s redeployment of space displays Klein’s conformity to the feminist theories of Irigaray. This paradoxical conceptual reasoning and research places Klein’s Antropometries of the Blue Period within an obscure position. This obscurity is somewhat clarified by his opinion that the female body belongs to the world of objects. Klein, when interpreted by Derrida’s metaphorical theory, displays a lack of consideration for the female’s cultural identity and the effects of it, as Derrida discusses. If combined, the use of the nude within the work and how the nude is activated by Klein’s movement of the body on the canvas, the work displays utter disregard for all theories evident in the model whilst, unintentionally, supporting the feminist theories of Irigaray. In doing so, Klein’s work stands on nothing more than a spectacle, removing the merit and conceptual reasoning for the visceral content.
In contrast we can see a clear consideration for the political climate when we look at the performance work of Schneemann’s (1975) The Interior Scroll (fig.2) as one of the first female artists to embody her painting practice and combine the self and the art object at a visceral level (Wood, 2018, p.42). By placing herself as the art object, the artist and the author, the performance was an anti-structuralist gesture with the scroll’s text directly referring to Structuralism. However, applied within the context of the Women’s Movement, it displays a quasi-Marxist quality nearer to Pollock. The paradoxical elements of The Interior Scroll are somewhat resolved within the context of performance art. Due to the discussed characteristics of the medium, Schneemann became the object explored by Berger and Pollock, in a confrontational setting. This process supported the removal of the female nude from the imaginary idealised setting, exhibiting affinities for Irigaray also. Schneemann’s link between Irigaray’s redeployment of space and Derrida’s deconstruction of social constructs are amplified by the visceral and unpredictable associations to performance art. Schneemann gives life to Irigarays ‘female lips’ as she re-deploys the vulvic space for holding her own writing, giving the female body authority within the work and displaying new representations of the female and the feminine (Téneze, 2013, p.67). Through this process Schneemann regains autonomy over her body and representation within the art work.
Given this, it is fair to assess that Schneemann utilizes the strengths in Berger and Pollock’s ideas whilst attaching the strength of Irigaray’s theories to the foundations created by Derrida, thus employing every element of the theoretical model to her advantage.
The model above should display different strengths and weaknesses. It is also clear that this depends on the artists utilizing them (intentionally) within their work and their position within the political upheavals of the time. With this under consideration I am going to modify this model to include a recent theory by Susan Melrose. Melrose considers all forms of modern- day performance art including theatre and dance and the language used in its assessment.
MELROSE’S THEORY
Melrose (Professor of Performance Arts, Middlesex University.) The specifics of the language used within the conversation of Performance Art is sub-par and plays to the objectification of the ‘performer’. Generalised terms also denote the skill set of the performing body.
Melrose analyses the language used to describe the different elements of performance art and its effect on the merit and position of the female body within the medium. She found that the language used in the discussion separates the spectator and the ‘active body’ thus objectifying the art object or in this case, the performer (Melrose, 2006, p.2-3). This traditional mode of art language doesn’t fit to the many layers and approaches performance art has, creating problems when transferred to a medium that doesn’t mould to any one definition.
Considering this, we shouldn’t be discussing the medium within the same context as other art mediums. This observation is pivotal as performance is more than a mode of language use or a way of speaking (Kapchan, 1995, p.6). Considering this, performance shouldn’t be critiqued within the traditional system, as the language is no longer identical to the objects it represents (Kotz, 2005, p.10).
In her approach to this theory, Melrose expanded on the observations of Berger and Pollock. She observed the use of language, or the lack of language in their examination of performance objectification. Melrose expands this to the analysis of performance art and how objectifying the performer denotes the expertise of the performer’s work whilst also discussing a needed shift from “body” to “somebody’s bodywork observed” (Melrose, 2006, p.2). Melrose theorises that to remove the objectification of the performer in performance art we need to asses performance under more specific topics such as performance-making processes and practitioners which layer the work (Melrose, 2006, p.1). These opinions progress the foundations of Derrida and apply them to the contemporary setting of performance art practice. A deconstruction of the current mode of discourse would create a new platform to discuss and assess performance art practice. Melrose’ awareness of the use of language within the medium could be considered to originate from the writing of Irigaray and in turn, Derrida. Melrose observes the factors of objectification and how it cannot be reduced to a fact of sex, that objectification conditions language and is conditioned by language itself (Irigaray, 1993, p.12). The concept is good on paper but how would it apply?
As a performance artist, I value Melrose’s contemporary expansion of Derrida’s ideas. However, fifty years on from the nineteen-sixties the position of woman in the wider world is not equal to that of the opposite sex which is a factor we cannot ignore. Due to this factor, I am convinced that such specification as Melrose has discussed, would not adhere to the embedded language surrounding women both in the wider context as well as in art. Through the exploration of female performance artists in my research for this essay, it has become apparent that the female nude becomes an object due to its representation of an ‘other’ within the work. She herself is not the object but the representation of her or the persona is. This opinion may seem retrogressive as the female nude is still counted as an object. However, in doing so, the female regains control of her body, the space and the spectators in a visual context which speaks when there are no words.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, it is my opinion that female performance artists of the Women’s Movement effectively challenged the position of the female nude through the use of the medium. The model, depending on the artists political positioning during the time period gave a flexible structure in which to assess the question at hand. Is the female body still objectified in art or can performance art give the female nude authority? What we have discovered from this essay is that yes, the female form is still an art object due to the bleeding of social constructs from the wider world. However, it is also apparent that performance art does regain autonomy, particularly if the nude presented is also the artist. The medium’s hyper-extension of the objectification creates a confrontational realist visual experience and is suited to the subordinate in society for this reason. In relation to the study of Klein previously, it is clear that the medium is more fitting to those who require autonomy not to those who already have it. This being said, I feel that Melrose was at the start of something extra-ordinary in her theory. Changing the language around the medium would alter how we discuss the artist’s position. In turn, removing the objectified association between the female nude and traditional art language.
This would be as ideal as total gender equality and equally unobtainable. My reasoning for this conclusion is again influenced by outside factors and, as I have mentioned, the bleeding from one ‘world’ to another. We cannot expect the art world to alter its language in relation to the objectification of the female nude if it is not applied to the larger picture. After all, art is a visual representation symptomatic of the world around us. With this in mind, within the specifics of performance art, the female nude is no longer being depicted by another, no longer placed in an imaginary setting and has gained autonomous control within the medium. With these considerations, the female nude is still an art object within performance. However, with gaining autonomy in the medium, the artists can control how they utilize the nude within their work and its context.
ILLUSTRATIONS
(Fig.1) Carolee Schneemann, Interior Scroll, 1995, Video Colour, sound, 12 minutes, Carolee Schneemann, Imagining her Erotics, MIT Press, 2003, p.152.
(Fig.2) Yves Klein, Antropometries of the Blue Period, 1960, Rotraut Klein-Moquay, Yves Klein USA, Dilecta, 2009.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BAUDRILLARD, Jean, Live Theory, Continuum, 2004.
BEECH, Dave, ed., BEAUTY, MIT Press, 2009.
BERGER, John, Ways of seeing, Penguin, 1973.
BROOKS, Ann, Postfeminisms, Routledge, 1997.
FOSTER, Hal, The return of the Real, The MIT Press, 1996.
GOLDBERG, Roselee, Performance since the 60s, Thames and Hudson, 1998.
GOODMAN, Lizabeth, ed., The Routledge Reader in Gender and Performance, Routledge, 1998.
HARRIS, Geraldine, Staging Femininities, Manchester University Press, 1988.
HARRIS, Jonathan ed., Dead History, Live art?, Liverpool University Press, 2007.
IRIGARAY, Luce, Irigaray: An ethics of sexual difference, continuum,1993.
IRIGARAY, Luce, Je, Tu, Nour, Routledge, 1993.
MALABOU, Catherine, Changing Difference, Polity Press, 2009.
O’NEILL, Maggie, ed., Adorno, Culture and Feminism, Sage Publications, 1999.
O’REILLY, Sally, The body in contemporary Art, Thames and Hudson, 2009.
PERLEIN, Gilbert, & Bruno Corá, Yves Klein, Long Live the Immaterial, Delano Greenidge Editions, 2000.
PHELAN, Peggy, Unmarked, Routledge, 1993.
POLLOCK, Griselda, After-affects, After- images, Manchester University Press, 2013.
PRINCENTHAL, Ed Nancy, The deconstructive Impulse, Del Monico Books, 2011.
SCHNEIDER, Rebecca, The explicit body in performance, Routledge, 1997.
STOCKTON, Kathryn Bond, God Between Their Lips: Desire between women in irigaray, Bronte and Eliot Standford University Press, 1994.
TENEZE, Annabelle, Then and now Carolee Schneemann, Analogues, 2013.
WOOD, Catherine, Performance in Contemporary Art, Tate Publishing, 2018.
WEB SOURCES.
AUSLANDER, Philip, The Performativity of Performance Documentation, Mit Press, 2006 https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/4140006.pdf?ab_segments=0%252Fdefault- 2%252Fcontrol&refreqid=excelsior%3A636e449a32e4914d1c38a0525d0da952
MELROSE, Susan, The body in question: expert performance-making in the university and the problem of spectatorship, Middlesex University, file:///C:/Users/User%201/Downloads/Melroseseminar6April.pdf,
MULVEY, Laura, Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema, 1975 http://www.composingdigitalmedia.org/f15_mca/mca_reads/mulvey.pdf
JOURNALS
AUSLANDER, Philip. “Going with the Flow: Performance Art and Mass Culture.” TDR (1988-) 33, no. 2 (1989): 119-36. doi:10.2307/1145929.
BISHOP, Clair. “Delegated Performance: Outsourcing Authenticity.” October 140 (2012): 91-112. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41684268.
BRETT, David, Barber, Fionna, and Allen, Jo. “Art Criticism: Body of Work.” Circa, no. 79 (1997): 18-19. doi:10.2307/25563092.
BURNHAM, Linda Frye. “”High Performance,” Performance Art, and Me.” The Drama Review: TDR 30, no. 1 (1986): 15-51. doi:10.2307/1145710.
DOLAN, Jill. “The Dynamics of Desire: Sexuality and Gender in Pornography and Performance.” Theatre Journal 39, no. 2 (1987): 156-74. doi:10.2307/3207686.
EPSTEIN, Marcy J. “Consuming Performances: Eating Acts and Feminist Embodiment.” TDR (1988-) 40, no. 4 (1996): 20-36. doi:10.2307/1146588.
FORTE, Jeanie. “Women’s Performance Art: Feminism and Postmodernism.” Theatre Journal 40, no. 2 (1988): 217-35. doi:10.2307/3207658.
FRYD, Vivien Green. “The Object in the Age of Theory.” American Art 8, no. 2 (1994): 2-5. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3109141.
LANGER, Cassandra L. “Feminist Art Criticism: Turning Points and Sticking Places.” Art Journal 50, no. 2 (1991): 21-28. doi:10.2307/777158.
MARRANCE, Bonnie. “Performance World, Performance Culture.” Performing Arts Journal 10, no. 3 (1987): 21-29. doi:10.2307/3245450.
MARTER, Joan, and Margaret Barlow. “PARALLEL PERSPECTIVES.” Woman’s Art Journal 31, no. 1 (2010): 2. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40605233.
MCAVERA, Brian. “Subject or Object?” Irish Arts Review (2002-) 33, no. 3 (2016): 366-67. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24891853.
MEHTA, Xerxes. “Some Versions of Performance Art.” Theatre Journal 36, no. 2 (1984): 165-98. doi:10.2307/3206991.
NEAD, Lynda. “The Female Nude: Pornography, Art, and Sexuality.” Signs 15, no. 2 (1990): 323-35. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3174488.
PRINCE, Don. “The Object of Sculpture.” Circa, no. 20 (1985): 17-19. doi:10.2307/25556934.
RICHARDSON, Annie. “An Aesthetics of Performance: Dance in Hogarth’s “Analysis of Beauty”.” Dance Research: The Journal of the Society for Dance Research 20, no. 2 (2002): 38-87. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1290815
SCHMAHMANN, Brenda. “Casting a Glance, Diverting the Gaze: George Segal’s Representation of the Female Body.” American Art 12, no. 3 (1998): 11-29. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3109314.
SCHNEEMANN, Carolee. “The Obscene Body/Politic.” Art Journal 50, no. 4 (1991): 28-35. doi:10.2307/777320.
SEMMEL, Joan, and April Kingsley. “Sexual Imagery in Women’s Art.” Woman’s Art Journal 1, no. 1 (1980): 1-6. doi:10.2307/1358010.
New Minds Eye 