Gender Representations in Art

[Inspector]

There have been several posts that imply or outright say that aspects of masculinity make a subject unfeminine. Does this also hold for a masculine man who possesses some feminine qualities?

Yes, absolutely.

[FeatherFall]

I'd agree with grace/fluidity as a strong aspect of femininity. However, I don't think the 'lioness' aspect necessarily detracts from femininity, any more than a very handsome/graceful male picture would take away from its masculinity.

Well, that depends on the definition of femininity. If femininity is defined in a way that applies to all females and excludes aggressiveness, then a 'lioness' would not be feminine. But, if femininity is defined as the characteristics of women that are prevalent in given culture, then it would further depend on the data set.

I think there is a problem with the method here. We are trying to find a definition of femininity by making observations about femininity - again, we haven't defined what we are looking for. We need to first find a parent concept (or genus) and then contrast how it applies to men and women differently. Only then will we know whether or not a 'lioness' is feminine. We can't simply start by saying "aggressive women don't feel feminine to most people."

Could a parent concept be humanity (as in humanitas, not mankind) or something like it? One's humanity is how a human lives qua human. But by saying, "qua human," we need to make sure we are saying what is necessary for all humans, in every case. But if we do this, then it necessarily applies to both genders, in every case, and thus could not be further differentiated. Am I wrong? Maybe someone else would like to attack this one.

edit- I seem to have implicitly held the notion that concepts could only be differentiated from more fundamental concepts by removing or limiting measurements, but I don't know if this is true. Can a higher level concept be differentiated from its parent by adding measurements?

edit 2- I have misunderstood the purpose of this thread - it is primarily about psychology diferences in gender, not the difference between the feminine/masculine. But it is highly dependent on that difference, so maybe some definitions and would still be in order?

Edited June 30, 2006 by FeatherFall

[FeatherFall]

It is not my intention to hijack this thread, but I think the definitions of the terms are pretty important. I don't know what the genuses are, but suppose that we have the definitions of femininity and masculinity already: The aspects of [genus goes here] that apply only to [men/women].

Once we know the genus, then induction becomes useful to see what exactly the aspects are. When we do this, we will have some common ground to agree on whether or not aggressiveness (or any trait, for that matter) properly applies to femininity. Until then we're simply arguing floating abstractions.

Edited June 30, 2006 by FeatherFall

[Inspector]

I get strong emotional/attractive responses from the type of woman who's body houses a lioness.

I'll note that you said lioness. If that means that, compared to her, you are a lion, then this does not defy any of the definitions given. As agressive as a lioness is, as powerful as she is, that concept brings a certain... grace and elegance to my mind.

[JASKN]

This reply actually quotes from the other thread, but I thought it more appropriate to comment in this one.

I notice a lot of people have been posting photos,[...] but photography isn't technically an art.

With modern photographic manipulation through computer software, photography can and may certainly be classified as art. Besides that, a photographer has the world to choose from, yet he photographs only a selected portion of it. I do not see how that is different from painting in a way which emphasizes the parts of the world which you feel deserve the most attention.

I think artwork, as opposed to photography, will be more usefull here; in art, every aspect is chosen deliberately; a photograph is not as essentialized, and therefore will probably include elements that distract from the overall theme of the thread.

I also do not see how the final painted product is necessarily all deliberate. At least some of what you paint is accidental, ask any artist, but what you allow to stay is deliberate. In photography, I may take many photos until accidental conditions give me the product I desire. The photographs from the shoot before and after which I did not use are part of my selection of reality, and the final product.

I have also noticed that most of the art submitted has been bad art (the first picture), and some of it not art at all (the bride, which is nothing but a promo pic). And in my opinion, all of the submissions are far from "breathtaking." Unfortunately, I have almost no knowledge of art history, so I cannot provide good alternatives to the submissions. Only one artist so far has taken my breath away with his work, which can be found at www.goodbrush.com. I did not locate what I thought was a good representation of masculinity, femininity, or romance in his archives (although I have several photographs (these photos I would not consider art) that depict the concepts well).

To note, I have had strong emotional reactions to photographs (the ones just mentioned) which represent these concepts, but never to a piece of art. I think this thread is too broad, and working definitions of masculinity, femininity, how those concepts play into romance, and a person's general taste in art must first be established for me before the posts would mean much.

So to be fair, I will answer my own requests. Masculinity and femininity can popularly be concepts highly based upon any given culture a person is part of. Primitive tribes have worn sheaths on their penises and Americans have worn Abercrombie & Fitch to represent the same concept. But what concept leads to these physical incarnations? At this point I can only refer to general physiological and psychological differences which can be observed as nearly universal between the sexes. Men are more confident, strong, active, aggressive, etc. Women are more graceful, emotional, talkative, etc. But these are not all-inclusive or necessarily even accurate, and certainly not universal.

So what is the importance of these concepts anyway? I would say minimal. It seems to me every aspect of masculinity and femininity can apply to both sexes, so why not just choose the ones you like the most and apply them to yourself? If the difference is legitimately physiological or psychological and it is an integral part of yourself, it would be ridiculous to go against who you are in order to fill an ideal of masculinity or femininity. For instance, if I fit the aggressive-male stereotype and I have a tendency toward it, I should not try to be more passive or "dainty."

How does this fit into romance? I think masculinity and femininity are secondary to actual sexuality, and no one has figured that out conclusively yet.

As for art I love, here are some examples:

dark_sniper

green_samurai

hallway

fb_final2

These are ridiculously good! I could keep linking, but just go and browse his site.

Edited July 2, 2006 by JASKN

[aequalsa]

I have also noticed that most of the art submitted has been bad art (the first picture), and some of it not art at all (the bride, which is nothing but a promo pic). And in my opinion, all of the submissions are far from "breathtaking." Unfortunately, I have almost no knowledge of art history, so I cannot provide good alternatives to the submissions. Only one artist so far has taken my breath away with his work, which can be found at www.goodbrush.com. I did not locate what I thought was a good representation of masculinity, femininity, or romance in his archives (although I have several photographs (these photos I would not consider art) that depict the concepts well).

dark_sniper

green_samurai

hallway

fb_final2

These are ridiculously good! I could keep linking, but just go and browse his site.

So let me get this straight, "the david" is not even good art but an impressionistic helicoptor qualifies as breathtaking?

[LaszloWalrus]

A Praxiteles sculpture and The Birth of Venus aren't that good?

[Lathanar]

I think artwork, as opposed to photography, will be more usefull here; in art, every aspect is chosen deliberately; a photograph is not as essentialized, and therefore will probably include elements that distract from the overall theme of the thread.

As I said when I posted my photos, I don't know what the sculptures I was thinking of using are called or who did them. I searched for a few days on google, but it's not worth that much of my time to find them. I'm not a big fan of sculpture, or too much of painting for that matter, I know who some of the larger atrists are, but most classical pieces, I couldn't tell you who did them.

And it's fine if you want to go with photography not being art, I've not delved much into the art portions of objectivism. What about acting. I do know who I consider to be great at portraying masculine and feminine, and I posted pictures of them. Whether I posted photos or some portrait painting someone did of them would not matter, the subject of the pictures is what was really important to me when I decided on them. For romance, I've always held that romance is long lasting love, so a picture of my wife and me felt right. I can't think of any artwork that portrays that off hand.

[Bold Standard]

I have also noticed that most of the art submitted has been bad art (the first picture), and some of it not art at all (the bride, which is nothing but a promo pic). And in my opinion, all of the submissions are far from "breathtaking."

By "the first picture" do you mean Vladimir's art decot "masculine" pic? What makes that "bad art"? Because it's inked rather than painted? Because it's not blurry? Something else? (I'm just guessing based on what differences I noticed between it and the pictures you linked to).

Unfortunately, I have almost no knowledge of art history, so I cannot provide good alternatives to the submissions. Only one artist so far has taken my breath away with his work, which can be found at www.goodbrush.com. I did not locate what I thought was a good representation of masculinity, femininity, or romance in his archives (although I have several photographs (these photos I would not consider art) that depict the concepts well).

Well, even though I do know a little about art history (though I'm not an expert), I found this to be quite a challange also-- and that's part of what attracted me to the thread, and also to see what other people would pick, and if I thought they were better or worse than the ones I could find.

In addition to the Cordair Gallery, which has been mentioned, I've found the Art Renewal Center website to be a good source for discovering artworks, contemporary and historical. I've found lots of pictures there that took my breath away, at least.

Women are more graceful, emotional, talkative, etc.

Talkative? Hm, I'll have to think about that.

And it's fine if you want to go with photography not being art, I've not delved much into the art portions of objectivism. What about acting. I do know who I consider to be great at portraying masculine and feminine, and I posted pictures of them. Whether I posted photos or some portrait painting someone did of them would not matter, the subject of the pictures is what was really important to me when I decided on them.

Yeah, acting is performance art. If you meant the photos just to be a representation or reference to the actor whos performance represented masculinity/femininity/romance, then that's a reference to art (the photo itself isn't art, but that's just a cue to remember the performance which was art). It might have been more informative to say something like, "Marilyn Monroe's performance in--" along with the photo.

Let us turn now to the performing arts (acting, playing a musical instrument, singing, dancing).

In these arts, the medium employed is the person of the artist. HIS task is not to re-create reality, but to implement the re-creation made by one of the primary arts.

This does not mean that the performing arts are secondary in esthetic value or importance, but only that they are an extension of and dependent on the primary arts. Nor does it mean that performers are mere "interpreters": on the higher levels of his art, a performer contributes a creative element which the primary work could not convey by itself; he becomes a partner, almost a co-creator—if and when he is guided by the principle that he is the means to the end set by the work.

The basic principles which apply to all the other arts, apply to the performing artist as well, particularly stylization, i.e., selectivity: the choice and emphasis of essentials, the structuring of the progressive steps of a performance which lead to an ultimately meaningful sum. The performing artist's own metaphysical value-judgments are called upon to create and apply the kind of technique his performance requires. For instance, an actor's view of human grandeur or baseness or courage or timidity will determine how he projects these qualifies on the stage. A work intended to be performed leaves a wide latitude of creative choice to the artist who will perform it. In an almost literal sense, he has to embody the soul created by the author of the work; a special kind of creativeness is required to bring that soul into full physical reality.

When the performance and the work (literary or musical) are perfectly integrated in meaning, style and intention, the result is a magnificent esthetic achievement and an unforgettable experience for the audience.

For romance, I've always held that romance is long lasting love, so a picture of my wife and me felt right. I can't think of any artwork that portrays that off hand.

I had trouble with that one, too. I just picked mine because I saw it when I was looking for the Lampicka masculine pic, and I thought it was a neat picture; not so much because I thought it really represented the essence of romance. Maybe I would have done better to link to The Fountainhead, because I think the relationship of Roark and Dominique is a great artistic representation of romance.