Jenny Saville was born in Cambridge in 1970. She studied at the Glasgow School of Art from 1988 to 1992. During a six month scholarship stay at the University of Cincinnati, Saville became fascinated with women with larger bodies particular when se went to the mall and saw "Lots of big women. Big white flesh in shorts and T-shirts. It was good to see because they had the physicality that I was interested in." Adapted from feminist critiques on beauty, she questioned the hegemonic representation of women in art. Jenny Saville is also a Young British Artist.
Her work is reflective of her critism on feminine beauty. She said in an interview “I'm not painting disgusting, big women. I'm painting women who've been made to think they're big and disgusting, who imagine their thighs go on forever...” The figures are often seen in strange and unflattering angles that often exaggerate the shape of the larger women. Also, her paintings are extremely large in size-almost all over 7 feet tall.
Some of her work is derived from her time studying with a plastic surgeon. What began as an examination of the human body became a point of interest for Saville upon seeing the mutilation of the body to conform to common representations of beauty.
Critic, Richard Dorment, wrote, “Saville paints big, fat, ugly, naked women, and she does so with such panache that we feel we’ve just collided with a mack truck…none of this would be of much interest were Ms. Saville not such a wonderful painter. As though to demonstrate that beauty is independent of subject matter, she proceeds to dazzle us with a painting technique so confident it defies us to look away”
Jenny Saville on Beauty: “There is a thing about Beauty. Beauty is always associated with the male fantasy of what the female body is. I don't think there is anything wrong with beauty. It's just what women think is beautiful can be different. And there can be a beauty in individualism. If there is a wart or a scar, this can be beautiful, in a sense, when you paint it. It's part of your identity, Individual things are seeping out, leaking out.”
Jenny Saville on using herself as a model: “I like the idea of using yourself because it takes you into the work. I don't like the idea of just being the person looking. I want to be the person. Because women have been so involved in being the subject-object, it's quite important to take that on board and not be just the person looking and examining. You're the artist but you're also the model. I want it to be a consistent exchande all the time.”
A whole bunch of questions:
-Are these images beautiful?
-What and who defines beauty?
-Do you agree with Richard Dorment’s comment that it is not the subject that is beautiful, but rather the manner in which Saville paints?
12 comments:
I'm not sure about what I think "beautiful" is or means to me. I certainly think these paintings are striking though. IF it is the case that Jenny Saville is attempting to create beautiful paintings, or more specifically if she is trying to portray her subjects in a way that makes the viewer think they are "beautiful," I would not necessarily say she has achieved her goal.
These images are so confrontational, and I think they invite the viewer to inspect the shown bodies- and furthermore to ask questions like those Christy has posed here (about how we define beauty, etc.). In some cases Saville places emphasis on things we have been conditioned to find gross- not just body fat, but also blueish fleshy colors and "unflattering" poses. She makes these huge paintings that focus on the aspects of women's bodies that people think we should be ashamed of. But instead of hiding them (and as we know, in many paintings she is actually painting/exposing parts of her own body), she puts these things right in the viewer's face.
I do not know whether I think these images are beautiful. One might say they are working toward redefining beauty. Or critiquing and questioning traditional beauty. But just as much as Jenny Saville's paintings are about beauty, I think they are also about ugliness. I think these paintings are so rich in that they make me examine my own perceptions of what is ugly or gross.
I agree with Saville when she says "...there is beauty in individualism," however I don't know if I would consider these paintings beautiful. Dorment comments that it is not her subject matter that is beautiful, but her painting-in a way, I agree with him. It is not because Saville’s subject matter is specifically large women, but because of the way she displays her figures, that makes me feel like they are not quite beautiful. Society has established certain ideals in all of us, but even if a stereotypically "beautiful woman" was positioned in the way Saville places her subjects I would perhaps even label it as "dirty". The angles that she uses are very provocative and uncomfortable. It is because of this that her paintings have such a powerful affect on the viewer…and I mean that in a good way. Her brush strokes and use of color are moving and aid in capturing the viewers undivided attention.
The paintings by Jenny Saville make me think about feminism and the history of nude female paintings. Saville is breaking down the 'feminine mystique' of how traditional paintings have portrayed nude women in the past. For instance, if one compares Saville to Lucien Freud, one can see that there are differing meanings behind the paintings. Saville places the aspects of a non-perfect and entirely realistic body in the forefront. Aspects and characteristics of individuals that have not been respected or talked about previously are magnified.
The paintings are overwhelming to the viewer because of the perspective. The new Dove ads are pictures of fat, 'imperfect' women, but because the perspective is straight forward (and not magnified) it is not as confrontational. Saville paints by using extreme perspectives to shock the viewer. Why does she do this? I think that by making the viewer overwhelmed by the women's bodies, we are forced to negotiate our own (and societies) perceptions and prejudices.
The paintings by Jenny Saville make me think about feminism and the history of nude female paintings. Saville is breaking down the 'feminine mystique' of how traditional paintings have portrayed nude women in the past. For instance, if one compares Saville to Lucien Freud, one can see that there are differing meanings behind the paintings. Saville places the aspects of a non-perfect and entirely realistic body in the forefront. Aspects and characteristics of individuals that have not been respected or talked about previously are magnified.
The paintings are overwhelming to the viewer because of the perspective. The new Dove ads are pictures of fat, 'imperfect' women, but because the perspective is straight forward (and not magnified) it is not as confrontational. Saville paints by using extreme perspectives to shock the viewer. Why does she do this? I think that by making the viewer overwhelmed by the women's bodies, we are forced to negotiate our own (and societies) perceptions and prejudices.
I do not know if I agree so much with Mr. Dorments comment, especially when he states, “Saville paints big, fat, ugly, naked women, and she does so with such panache that we feel we’ve just collided with a mack truck.” When I look at her paintings, I do not see big, fat, ugly, naked women; I see the human body in painted in ways so that something that might have been uninteresting or unappealing before becomes fascinating to look at. Even so, it is our societal stigmas about the female body and how “normal” it should look which lead us to think that these bodies might be disgusting. I think that Saville sees beauty in the body and in all of its distortions and contortions and as she paints, she allows us to see this beauty as well. The thick paint gives a certain sensual quality to her paintings, which I think is what makes it so hard to look away.
he questions of beauty that Christy asked are really interesting -- in my art history classes we always talk about how it is easier to define what is ugly rather than what is beautiful -- we can recognize what is outside the norm or what is the margin than what is the center -- when looking at Saville's work i think this comes into play but also complicates it as well. Due to society and cultural conditioning we the western viewer recognize that these women are suppose to be "ugly" not the socital norm of what is considered beautiful yet the way in which Saville paints them is beautiful -- paint application and colors but also these women to me seem more real -- they arent airbrushed or altered - they are depicted as they are, imperfections and all and to me that makes them more relatable and "beautiful"
I also think what Saville stated about being not only the artist but also the model is really important -- i think that this is a really important point to consider when we begin to paint the nude figure and understand the delicate and vulnerable postion that is -- also it makes me want to think more about my work and how i am implicating myself within the work -- by what i paint or choose to paint how does that say something about me -- my stance on issues and do i communicate that clearly?
i think the images are beautiful, but i have a tendancy to agree with what's his names statement... not because the figures them selves are necessarily ugly, but more the way she poses them... her painting style and the colours she use are absolutely beatiful, and as lindsey mentioned, there are women in the dove ads who are curvey and "imperfect" who are also incredibly beautiful but who are not shown with their breats and thighs and stomachs bulging in ways that make them sometimes appear more like tumors than actual human body parts. at the same time, however, i know that i am a prodcut of society and my opinions about beauty are dictated by the meadia, which at this time tells us that skinnier is better, beautiful. and so even as i fight it, it's constantly pumped down my throat.
How you define beauty is based on who is defining it, how someone is looking at whatever it is they're looking at, and in what ways they are looking at it. For instance, one might find these paintings repulsive when looking at them from far away, but when looking at them close up and seeing the brush strokes and use of color, he/she might find the paintings to be beautiful. And yes I agree with Dorment's comments.
~ben
When I first saw Saville’s work I told myself that her depictions of women were “beautiful”. However, after taking a closer look and reading the comments that other people posted I find myself debating the images. As Nathalie points out, Saville’s paintings are somewhat grotesque…So as I sit here trying to decide whether these images are beautiful or gross I think to myself that I want them to be beautiful. Because if they are in fact beautiful they will make myself feel better about my own body. Now, I have to say that I do find women (with bodies like women should…with curves) attractive and more interesting to look at. Yet, I still find myself wanting to look like a size 2! Like Alex, I am another product of society and am molded to think a certain way. It is unfortunate that the more I want to not be a product of society and tell myself that I look beautiful I still feel, well…not. With that said I guess I would have to conclude that these images are created to make the viewer think about beauty and establish for themselves what beauty is, whether it can be attained by surgery or if it even has to be… which to me the ideas behind the work is beautiful and also empowering.
I agree with what Richard Dorment said regarding Saville's work, that it is not the subject matter that should be discussed when measuring beauty but rather how it is portrayed. In the case of Saville's work, the subject matter is often kinda gross, but the way she paints it is beautiful. I mean you could paint a piece of poop and make it look cool, but its still poop- my point being that anything and everything holds beauty, its an artist's job to find it
The question of "what is beauty" was brought up during our critique of the media painting, regarding Nathalie's painting of slaughtered chickens. Personally, I thought it was a beautiful painting- despite the horrific and grotesque nature of the subject matter. Asthetically, it was very appealing and beautiful but I wouldn't say that dead chickens are pretty. This kind of made me question whether I was a horrible person or not, but I don't think that I am. I think that you can have a beautiful painting of something not beautiful- or an ugly painting of something beautiful for that matter. I think that in the case of Saville's work, the art itself is beautiful in the sense that the paintings are. I don't know if it matters whether or not you consider the subject beautiful- which is obviously controversial because as people have been saying earlier, beauty is so subjective- but rather if the art alone beautiful which I think Saville's is.
It's again the question about the definition of beauty...I don't really know what the definition of it to me..usually I just "feel" if it is beautiful to me or not..
Jenny Saville's works are kind of confusing.
Maybe these are not compatible to the general idea of beauty but they are definitely very realistic and shocking...or I might say, they look very REAL and humanized although parts of the bodies she painted are exaggerated or perhaps they are the parts that people usually think are not "beautiful" or those are the parts that nobody really has given a absolute opinion on..just as Nathalie said..they can be considered "gross" but not many people would use the word beautiful or the word opposite to it -> ugly.
she paints the realness of humanbodies and talks about the sexuality of people. I think they are just what people are ignoring in daily lives, which actually is very true to us.
If someone says they are beautiful, that maybe the "beauty" of the realness in these paintings but might not be the exact general idea of beauty.
Post a Comment