Female paintings & male sculptures

Poster： Nancy at 12:45:53 12/4/97 from c550-6.svdcc.fju.edu.tw
Mentioned：

The first question that came into my mind after seeing these Pre-Raphaelite paintings is that why they paint so many women instead of men? It seems that women, compared with men, are more favored in terms of painting whereas men are often portrayed as heroic sculptures as we often see in public places even nowadays. People have dispute about whether these P-R women are viewed as models or only objects, however, we don*t often hear arguments about those heroic sculptures being treated fairly or not. I then feel very interested in terms of power and status between female paintings and male sculptures. In P-R paintings, we see certain types of women images are portrayed. They are fleshly attractive with sexy, flowing fair and plump figures. They don*t smile and pose unnaturally. Often, their gazes are without focus and spirit, which remind people of Barbie dolls. Most of all, they are said to be trapped by the use of windows or frames. I wonder why those painters shape these kinds of women only(fleshly+spiritually+pale or dying sort) since there are thousands of female images and types. P-R women are often said to be attractive, however, in what way do we say they are attractive? Is it the physical beauty? Is it the painting technique? Or they are beautiful because they fit certain standard or notion we have toward "beauty"?
However, if we see these passive women being framed and shaped as inactive, do we still feel them attractive? How do male spectators see these P-R women? Do they see real attraction of human bodies for the sake of art? Or they*re objects like dolls or other women on the street except different faces? Or they*re rather dull without spirit or soul? And what about female spectators? When we see these fleshly women, do we see women using body as a claim or being used as merely a tool? Inside the canvas, do we see passiveness or activeness? Or we, like men, are judging these women with also certain standard or expectation just like the way other people judge us? Since women bodies are easily manipulated in certain cases like the excellent image the "Famous women" or nude performances etc. Therefore, are P-R women viewed as subject or really object seem to be deeply connected with the spectators and interpreters. On the other hand, when we see those heroic male sculptures, which are often built for the function of remembrance or compliment, we tend to believe that*s how it should be. There is certain adoration when we look up to view those sculptures being erected so high above us. By comparison, there seems to be certain myth there about men and women. Therefore, can we really find balance of power between female paintings and male sculptures?

Response:

Re: Female paintings & male sculptures -- Kate Liu 11:37:41 12/17/97

Reply the post:

Your Name ：
E-Mail Add：
SUBJECT ：
Your opinion ：

>> The first question that came into my mind after seeing these Pre-Raphaelite paintings is that why they paint so many women instead of men?  It seems that women, compared with men, are more favored in terms of painting whereas men are often portrayed as heroic sculptures as we often see in public places even nowadays.  People have dispute about whether these P-R women are viewed as models or only objects, however, we don*t often hear arguments about those heroic sculptures being treated fairly or not.  I then feel very interested in terms of power and status between female paintings and male sculptures.  In P-R paintings, we see certain types of women images are portrayed.  They are fleshly attractive with sexy, flowing fair and plump figures.  They don*t smile and pose unnaturally.  Often, their gazes are without focus and spirit, which remind people of Barbie dolls.  Most of all, they are said to be trapped by the use of windows or frames.  I wonder why those painters shape these kinds of women only(fleshly+spiritually+pale or dying sort) since there are thousands of female images and types.  P-R women are often said to be attractive, however, in what way do we say they are attractive?  Is it the physical beauty?  Is it the painting technique? Or they are beautiful because they fit certain standard or notion we have toward "beauty"?

>> However, if we see these passive women being framed and shaped as inactive, do we still feel them attractive? How do male spectators see these P-R women?  Do they see real attraction of human bodies for the sake of art? Or they*re objects like dolls or other women on the street except different faces?  Or they*re rather dull without spirit or soul?  And what about female spectators?  When we see these fleshly women, do we see women using body as a claim or being used as merely a tool? Inside the canvas, do we see passiveness or activeness?  Or we, like men, are judging these women with also certain standard or expectation just like the way other people judge us? Since women bodies are easily manipulated in certain cases like the excellent image the "Famous women" or nude performances etc.  Therefore, are P-R women viewed as subject or really object seem to be deeply connected with the spectators and interpreters.  On the other hand, when we see those heroic male sculptures, which are often built for the function of remembrance or compliment, we tend to believe that*s how it should be.  There is certain adoration when we look up to view those sculptures being erected so high above us.  By comparison, there seems to be certain  myth there about men and women.  Therefore, can we really find balance of power between female paintings and male sculptures?

[Local Preview]