I am going to discuss whether there is such a difference between the work of male artists and female artists, how they have been treated by society in the past and how they are treated currently, as well as discussing whether or not it is actually important to have differences.
http://www.moma.org/learn/moma_learning/themes/investigating-identity/constructing-gender
By trying to decipher the gender of an artist purely based on their work we automatically turn to socially constructed gender norms where masculine and feminine aspects are expected to reflect a gender. For instance we would expect male artists to use harsher techniques; Bolder lines, a more powerful colour pallete of deep reds etc. and more aggression, we expect the work to look powerful.
Female artists on the other hand are expected to use softer approaches with more subtle features and for everything to be pretty.
Personally I believe this stems from our culture. I think that historically males have always been the dominant protectors, killing animals for food to feed our families, going to war to protect our countries and females have stayed at home and remained safe.
I also feel that it's wrong to approach art in this way, and that this algorithm of deciphering gender isn't relevant anymore in todays society, especially in the western world. Perhaps in the east this may be different as especially in Japan, where right up until World War 2 it was men that were loyal to their lords and women who were loyal to their men.
Then during world war two women's roles shifted so that they aided their country by having babies, men's role was to fight for it.
Today men are still seen to some extent as the dominant gender but society is quickly evening out the field. The truth is there is no way to 100% distinguish genders purely from artwork; there is such a difference in styles that it is impossible and personality can play a big part in styles and processes. Women can be masculine and Men can be feminine.
http://www.moma.org/learn/moma_learning/themes/investigating-identity/constructing-gender
By trying to decipher the gender of an artist purely based on their work we automatically turn to socially constructed gender norms where masculine and feminine aspects are expected to reflect a gender. For instance we would expect male artists to use harsher techniques; Bolder lines, a more powerful colour pallete of deep reds etc. and more aggression, we expect the work to look powerful.
Female artists on the other hand are expected to use softer approaches with more subtle features and for everything to be pretty.
Personally I believe this stems from our culture. I think that historically males have always been the dominant protectors, killing animals for food to feed our families, going to war to protect our countries and females have stayed at home and remained safe.
I also feel that it's wrong to approach art in this way, and that this algorithm of deciphering gender isn't relevant anymore in todays society, especially in the western world. Perhaps in the east this may be different as especially in Japan, where right up until World War 2 it was men that were loyal to their lords and women who were loyal to their men.
Then during world war two women's roles shifted so that they aided their country by having babies, men's role was to fight for it.
Today men are still seen to some extent as the dominant gender but society is quickly evening out the field. The truth is there is no way to 100% distinguish genders purely from artwork; there is such a difference in styles that it is impossible and personality can play a big part in styles and processes. Women can be masculine and Men can be feminine.
No comments:
Post a Comment