Yuskavage was born in
Lisa Yuskavage’s work is described as exploring “confrontational sexuality” of female nudes. She has been likened to painters in art history such as Tintoretto, Michelangelo, Goya, and Rothko in terms of process and appeal, but her work is also described as kitsch (Playboy models and pornography). I find her work quite interesting in questioning the position of the female nude, overt sexuality in art, and what her appeal is to so many people.
With process, Yuskavage makes models of her figures before painting them, to study poses and light. A lot of her work can be connected to poses and methods of painting the female nude in art history, such as “Balls” and “Dutch Girl.” “Dutch Girl” makes me think of the females portrayed by Dutch painters such as Vermeer.
Much of Yuskavage’s work is about the response from the viewer. “When Lisa looks at the female nude, in her whole body of work, she is pushing notions of viewership, voyeurism, and our responses to very confrontational psychologically charged images and erotic images.” What is the line between good art and pure pornography? Is the intent to arouse the viewer? Or is Yuskavage pointing to something deeper? Her work has been described as feminist, with a critic saying “You can’t paint the female nude and use it in an explicit and confrontational way and not have it seen as feminist.”
I find the “Ledge” paintings interesting. They are said explore symbiotic psychological relationships. Indeed, the paintings with two female figures in them make me think of the women’s relationships to one another. At first glance, it seems sexual, but perhaps it is about the struggles a woman faces between her sexuality and her femininity.
In all, Yuskavage’s work brings up interesting questions: Most importantly, can a work be feminist and sexist at the same time? Are Yuskavage’s works really the ideal of Baroque and Renaissance painters like her critics say, or is she just the "flavor of the week" because her work shocks the viewer? What is the line between art containing openly sexual content and pornography which is meant to arouse?
6 comments:
When I was looking at the blog on my computer, my friend goes- “Mariel stop looking at anime porn,” which made me laugh initially but then it really made me consider this question of pornography versus art. The word art is probably one of the hardest words to define; although Merriam Webster tries with “Art- the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects” Pornography is defined as “the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement.” I think the word intent is very interesting in the latter definition because there is probably art that causes sexual excitement even though the artist did not intend it to be viewed as such. Also, I’m sure that there are pornographic images which are intended to cause sexual excitement but do not. If we accept these definitions as being the absolute truth, then they would be works of art not pornography because that was not the artist’s intent.
This would seem to suggest that the viewer’s interpretation has little or no effect on the nature of the work, which seems incorrect. If an artist were to use a swastika in his/her work, it would have a significant meaning even if the artist only intended to use it for decoration or as a pretty design. Images themselves are powerful, regardless of how the artist intends them to be seen. It would also seem to suggest that you need to know the artist’s intent in order to appreciate their work, which I think is also debatable. Someone who claims these works are pornographic would I suppose be assuming that her intent was to create sexual excitement. Maybe the artist is trying to point out something about our society and human nature- where you can’t look at her paintings with nude women without considering that it may be explicit. Maybe this question itself is the purpose of her work.
I agree with Mariel in the fact that interpretation of images are up to the viewer. In the case of Miss Yuskavage, I find her work to be beautiful, in the sense that the pieces glorify women in a feminist sense. I think the same can be said for female nude portraits done throughout history, like in the Baroque and Renaissance periods. Unfortunately I feel that these paintings of nude women can also be seen by viewers, mainly who are men, as merely sex symbols who are being depicted in this way only because of their bodily appearance.
Also, I think her work is popular because it does shock the viewers who are not accustomed to seeing paintings in this manner. I'm also wondering if the historical painters had thought of painting paintings in this way, if they actually would have. They probably would have been to risque for the period.
~ben
I think that intent is a really big part of art and its connection with pornography. I really don't feel that these paintings are meant to be pornography but I realize that in some ways, people can interpret them to be as such. I would like to think that Yuskavage in not merely trying to create images that are to sexually arouse the viewer, in fact I don't think that that's what she's doing at all. The images definitely are erotic and sexual, but that doesn't necessarily make them pornographic.
Also, I think that the question of whether or not a work can be sexist and feminist at the same time is really interesting but also really difficult to answer. When I initially heard this i thought to myself "of course not, that's stupid" but then i really thought about it more and I can't help but go back to the idea of intent. I think that in a way, Yuskavage has a feminist perspective in her paintings in that she's depicting these women in a very "in your face" and some what unconventional manner. However, I'm unsure if her images empower women (though I hardly think that they oppress women).
I think her pieces bring out a sensuality and sexual beauty of women that doesn't necessarily become sexist because they don't set a differentiation or hierarchy between men and women.
I think that it is really interesting and important to consider that Yuskavage paints from specifically constructed clay models and not the nude body. It feel that if she is exploiting anything, it is the an exploitation of women in a general sense, and not a specific model. I see stereo-typed female poses in her work, like Alyson mentioned, the Venus of Urbino and other more contemporary sources. I feel that because the bodies are unrealistic, and some even cartoon-like, it emphasizes a dichotomy between these fake women (that cannot be exploited) and familiar art historical references that have exploited women. I think this is also intensified by the child-like faces on all of the figures, which I read as an innocence.
I think that in this context any pornographic intent comes from the viewer (using Mariel's definition). The Mona Lisa was sexualized at one point in time (according to Joy Sperling anyway), though I don't think that was Da Vinci's intent when he painted her (although for the time period, she was in a confrontational pose). I think what qualifies an image as pornographic is subjective to the viewer and their intentions.
After looking at Yuskavage's work, I am unable to look at it as Pornography. Just because I see exaggerated realism (focus on hips, thighs, buttocks), figures that are not ellicitly and sexually portrayed, and since they are female, I don't think that they are solely targeted to specific audiences, homosexual or heterosexual. Their bodies show the flaws (ie sagging breasts, untoned tummies) that society tries to hide with bras, spanx, ab workouts, diet pills. I don't think the images are not depicted in stereotypical beauty norm ways at all. Some of these figures would not be considered "technically" beautiful, according to our society. HOWEVER, I think that the male and female attraction to this art is that it is promiscuous, flirtatious, sexy, and new. The images are still beautiful to us, despite the "flaws" that we are brainwashed to believe that we have. The exaggerated bodies are intriguingly beautiful and therefore allows acceptance to body types and widens the horizon for what is considered sexy/ beautiful, for all members of the audience not just men and not just women.
I very very very very....much like Yuskavage's paintings. I think they just look so beautiful and "cute" to me. I won't agree with people who say they are sexual I guess.. since all these poses she uses in her works are not attractive to men I think. The style, the colors,etc are just so feminine and maybe even somehow girlish. They are the dreamy colors and atmosphere that girls would like, not men...they are not intended to be sexual/ like pornography.
When I looked at these paintings I just feel like "I want to put them in my room"...so they are really beautiful and girlish but not "appealing to men"...
well I agree with most of the people here though, that the opinions can be up to the viewers. I dont think she intends to make them pornographical, but definitely some people would consider them so because of the poses and sexual elements in them.
Post a Comment