5. Object vs. Subject

      Women in Art and Medicine (An Exhibition)

         SARA PICKERING


 

...Mapping the progression of oppressive images in art and medical studies illustrates the historical groundwork and demonstrates the power of institutions to disseminate uncontested information. Generating an alternative map in a public space through the charting of contemporary artists addressing this identity issue, coupled with examples of dated medical treatments, offers a way to observe potential concerns today....

 

Looking at the representations of female identity and sexuality in art and medical research studies, one can begin to see how those representations began and continue to shape public opinion. Parmigiano’s Madonna of the Long Neck (1534) is an example of how Renaissance (Old Master’s) paintings began communicating notions of women as fertile vessels or as objects for observation. Parmigiano’s painting depicts the Virgin Mary as Madonna who is seated on a high pedestal dressed in luxurious robes and holding a baby Jesus in her lap. Madonna’s elongated neck and limbs (that are meant to reference a swan) present a clear example of how artists were eager to make women appear graceful and elegant by comparing their bodies to those of God’s creatures. How do such representations play out in current conceptions of the female body? Who formed these conceptions?  How much of what we are taught and shown comes to stand in for what we ultimately believe? It is important to question these provocations because they have become oppressive and will continue to be so. The ubiquitous nature of images and communication systems, their ability to be censored and controlled, have expanded both the jurisdictions of art and medical discourses into an internalized form of social control (Foucault, 1975). The result has caused women to behave as if 'performing' in order to fit internalized social views, becoming accustomed to treating their own bodies as objects of decoration to be observed, or what feminist theorist Llewellyn Negrin would call 'ornamentation' (Negrin, 2006).

This paper is designed as a conceptual exhibition. The selected work of Andy Warhol, Lynda Benglis, Valie Export, Cindy Sherman, Mara Mattuschka and Sylvia Sewell will be used to represent artists approaching the topic of female identity and sexuality as a source of subject matter. In contrast to these works, the exhibition will include examples of dated medical treatments for female hysteria in the form of vibrators as well as 1950s advertisements that market the vibrator as a new household appliance. The humorous correlation between these two image-generating discourses is that their power to produce social norms and construct gendered roles has been underestimated and has resulted in the oppression of women, internally and externally, with hazardous health implications. This hypothetical exhibition also comments on the roles of curators and their ability to transform a public space into a critical realm where authenticity is challenged and knowledge is shared.

In the exhibition “Objects vs. Subjects: Women in Art and Medicine,” my collection uses the public space as an arena to question the provocations made about female identity and sexuality. Mapping the progression of oppressive images in art and medical studies illustrates the historical groundwork and demonstrates the power of institutions to disseminate uncontested information. Generating an alternative map in a public space through the charting of contemporary artists addressing this identity issue, coupled with examples of dated medical treatments, offers a way to observe potential concerns today. The visual correlation between these two discourses as veiled and masked knowledge processors, offers new insight into the continuation of the oppression of women through the internalization of certain social norms. The exhibition unsettles the manner in which male-dominated social information systems can heavily influence cultural knowledge.

Philosopher Jean Baudrillard’s theory of Hyperrealism provides a relevant theoretical base for the exhibition because it challenges traditional notions of identity, arguing that subjectivity is grounded by images (Lister 141). Baudrillard’s notion of the hyperreal is characterized as an attempt to create a false reality using high resolution photography that tends to omit human emotion and political value (Horrocks 80). The inability to tell the real from fantasy (particularly as it is filtered through the media of technologically advanced postmodern societies) is thus an important element informing the use of imagery by institutions. Our relationships to images confuse what is real, and what is not, and the impact of hyperrealism perpetuates a culture of stimulation, leading to the need to question the quality of information projected from seemingly authoritative sources.

The provocations identified in art partially exist because of modern technology’s ability to mass reproduce coupled with the public’s willingness to be absorbed by a society of mass media consumption. In turn, the consumerist nature instilled in individuals has given life to what Kathryn Morgan calls ‘medicalization’ (Morgan 85). That is, technological advancements in medical surveillance have transformed into a constant medical gaze where the human body is considered a feared site requiring constant surveillance (Morgan, 85). Medicalization can be exercised by family and friends, or by media and physicians. The idea is that the body is prone to disease and illness and one must constantly defend, treat and self-reflect in order to prevent ill health (Sherwin 93). The correlation between art and medicine is evident here. Women, specifically during pregnancy, are subject to infantilization through constant surveillance and monitoring by society because they are seen as too puerile to care for their own well being as well as that of others. Medical professionals and acclaimed artists have gained the trusted authority to formulate our knowledge of how to perceive and treat woman as infants or as objects needing observation.

This exhibition “Object vs. Subject: Women in art and medicine” presents a critique through the juxtaposition of contemporary representations of women with historical kitschy references. Collected from museums, advertisements and medical indexes, the works are chronologically organized by the date they were created. The chronological nature of the exhibition highlights the uncontested progression of these representations. The work in the show is presented as if overtly on display, in the most objectifying way. This spotlight effect reflects the internalized performativity of women who endure constant ornamentation by male subjects. From the realm of art and technology to the intimate question of sexual identity, no aspect of culture is left defended from the influential power of informing institutions to invent social norms and construct identity.

 

Object vs. Subject: Selected Works

The exhibition combines the work of Andy Warhol, Lynda Benglis, Valie Export, Cindy Sherman, Mara Mattuschka, and Sylvia Sewell whose images illustrate an attempt to redraw female sexuality and identity.

Warhol’s Marilyn Monroe Diptych, 1967, is the earliest of the works selected and will therefore be placed at the entrance of the exhibition. Warhol’s use of colour differentiates each Marilyn from the other. The bold yellows and vibrant pinks draw the viewer in as the Fauves did in the early 20th century. However, the Fauves were introverted and self-reflective in their use of colour whereas Warhol is commenting on the moods of popular culture. Marilyn Monroe Diptych questions the authenticity of images by using silk-screens for quick reduplication and removing the artist’s hand in the creation process. With the rise of commodification, Warhol acknowledges this marriage between art and commodity, celebrity and commodity, and women and sex as a commodity. This is a dangerous transition and has resulted in heightened expectations for females who are faced with an abundance of iconic figures represented as being real. The piece questions the differentiation between symbol and thing and it is presented as ‘real’ because the idea of Marilyn Monroe does not exist anywhere outside of the image. The selection of Marilyn for Warhol’s celebrity series can be considered a satiric ode to her addition of sex appeal as a desired element in a woman. Does the perfect woman exist or is it a fabricated ideal instilled into society? Is our fascination with celebrities based on their assumed perfection or does society assume that because that is all we are ever shown? These are interesting questions to consider when looking at visual and conceptual representations of female sexuality and identity in art and medical discourses.

Lynda Benglis is an American sculptor who relies on non-traditional mediums to guide the critical commentary of her work. In a 1974 issue of Artforum, Benglis used the medium of magazine ads for her piece because it allowed for complete control over an image. Advertisement in Artforum consists of a white backdrop with a deceivingly realistic latex sculpture of a nude female standing in an almost profiled full-length pose. On the sculpture Benglis appropriated a phallus, which stands erect from the body. By appending the phallus, a Freudian sign of power, Benglis was able to emphasize an apparent female inferiority bluntly and boldly. “Object vs. Subject: Women in art and medicine” showcases both Advertisement in Artforum and Fallen Painting, 1968, because they both openly reference male superiority in a humourous way that is able to turn the concept back onto itself. In Fallen Painting, Benglis smears Day-Glo paint across the gallery floor in a colourfully spilled whirlpool that exemplifies the multi-dimensions of women in the use of wide ranging colours, while also placing the fallen woman, a prone victim of phallic male desire, on the floor. The placement of the work is the most effective component because it forces the viewer to look down, as if posing for a moment of silence for those oppressed through objectification.           

Valie Export’s Touch Cinema (1969-1971), was performed in European cities and is a form of ‘body art.’ The construction consists of a tiny ‘movie theatre’ built around Export’s naked upper body so that it could be seen but not touched. The red velvet curtain allows for invited access only where people are then able to touch her, creating the concept of ‘touch cinema.’ Intriguing as it is disturbing, this powerful performance forces participants to connect the body with the person, the object with the subject. In “Object vs. Subject: Women in art and medicine,” Export’s Touch Cinema is situated at the entrance to the building to intrigue and encourage the exploration of the exhibition.

Male desire has helped construct ‘femininity’ as an innate characteristic universal to all women. This in turn has perpetuated characteristics perceived to be universal markers of female sexual identity, such as elegance, the maternal or the feminine. Cindy Sherman has adopted these ‘universal’ stereotypes into her self-portrait film stills that criticize the male gaze and stereotypical poses of women in cinema. Her Untitled #138 (1984), references a self-portrait with a dark infinite backdrop. The figure is seated in the middle wearing a black and white vertically striped outfit which is meant to be interpreted as designer clothing. The spotlight effect further objectifies the figure and she sits uncomfortably while she is watched. Sherman’s work is ambiguous when it comes to deciphering what is real and what has been manipulated. The images produced have a surrealist characteristic to them but also strongly reference the kinds of film stills so ingrained in our minds that they no longer require an original. In other words, her work is exemplary of how representation suffices in Western culture as reality. Sherman’s Untitled #132 (1984), and Untitled #138 (1984), depict women in designer clothes losing self-confidence because they are unable to bear the pressures of their forced role. Untitled #132 uses bright light and high contrast to create a surreal choreographed pose. The awkwardness of the model’s attire, a red and white vertical striped jumper, references her constriction and desperate attempt to fit into an ideal that she cannot attain. The woman’s face struggles to smile and tension intensifies the composition with its obvious and relatable point of reference. In much the same way that the exhibition will exaggerate stereotype in order to critique it, the use of colour in Sherman’s images accentuates the artificiality of the women, who appear to lack depth and personality. The film stills by Sherman reveal gender as forced, unstable and constructed, suggesting that no innate biological female identity exists.

Static connections between gender, body and sexuality have worked to maintain generalized understandings about sexuality and identity. Mara Mattuschka is an avant-garde filmmaker, influenced by Vali Export, who grounds her work by using her body as both object and subject. Her 1993 film entitled Beauty and the Beast is exhibited to align social reproductive expectations of women with the alter ego of the pregnant woman. Each sequence of her film is not only a narration of the female and engendered body, but also plays with obscenity and kitschy references. The ten minute black and white film, which will be placed in a sectioned booth for viewing on the right side of the gallery, includes a performance of the ‘natural birth’ in the urban jungle where the child, the beauty, begins in the womb and emerges later in the claws of the mother, the beast. The abstract film comments on the shift in patient status between mother and fetus while also raising questions surrounding abortion and the traditional symbol of woman as reproductive vessel.

Sylvia Sewell’s Meat (2006)and Jelly (2006), is a two part colour photography series that critiques the mass consumption of women. Her Meat series is composed of closely cropped facial shots of a woman in common domestic settings such as her bedroom. The woman poses with pieces of processed meat smeared across her face paralleling the commodification of the meat with the commodification of her own skin. Sewell feels women are often exploited as commodity and this negatively reinforces the current representations of female roles in society as well as the constant surveillance and ornamentation women are subjected to on a daily basis. Sewell’s Jelly series is similar to her Meat series in composition. The Jelly photographs contrast the strawberry pigments of the product with the pale and fair complexion of her skin. With a similar domestic setting and soft feminine colour selections, the model stares into the camera confronting her viewers and succumbing to the demands and desires of her public. The historical portrayals formulated and reproduced by art and medical authorities have taught women to be objects. The interplay between women and commercial commodity, such as food, exhibits Sewell’s subject matter as both consumable and acquired objects.

 

Curatorial Considerations

It is important to consider the success of critical analysis in gallery spaces and why this hypothetical exhibition may in fact help to reorient the misconceptions of female identity and sexuality. Public space is difficult to define and ambiguous in nature. How can a space be found that is set apart from the unavoidable biases of public opinion and traditional ideologies? Vito Acconci believes a space is public when it is publicly useable, publicly accessed and the place shapes both the public that uses it and the public agency that organizes it (Acconci 118). In this way, public space functions as a public forum and exposes the power that grounds conventions. Art exhibitions can mimic public space by evoking inquisitiveness and deliberation. These types of interactions facilitated within exhibitions, such as the proposed “Object vs. Subject-Women in Art and Medicine,” can work as points of intersection where questions around identity and gender can be contested. The public space, or exhibition, becomes an occasion for discussion and creates a potential for arguments that offer the possibility of clarification or reinvention. By ‘renting’ a public space, the space is temporarily separated from the city bias existent in other public locations, an important element to validate exhibitions as an appropriate site to question the power of images and informative communication systems that generate social knowledge.

Feminist history has exhausted the political points for intersection and there is a need for new approaches to help liberate woman from objectification. I propose a new curatorial approach by visually mapping the current assimilation of women and object in two culture-informing branches of authority in an isolated public space. A curator is able to present selected information and extract their own bias by creating an exhibition or environment understood as a place for reflection and critique.  The images will stand as evidence and provide an understanding for the current construction of female identity and sexuality and how it will continue to be oppressive. The gallery is an optimistic alternative arena for critique that is freed from the imprints of past successes and failures of women’s movements which has also restricted the level of seriousness and success in revising gendered stereotypes.

The location for the exhibition “Object vs. Subject-Women in Art and Medicine” invites private bodies into a location that usually functions as an office for the Woman2Woman Planned Parenthood of Toronto, which is a peer-counseling program at the Bay Center. The programs volunteer staff provides face-to-face, sex positive and non-judgmental peer education that provides women with the information necessary to make informed decisions about their own sexuality and health. Thematic linkages in the exhibition, driven by historical concepts and a subjective passive agenda, reveals the current state of the pathology of women as fertile and as objects for surveillance. The exhibition acts as a catalyst for a dialect between media works and ideas by assigning a public space for images to work as accessible instigators. What is pleasing about this exhibition is that these works are not directly aligned with ‘modern feminism’ but embody humourous, analytical, and theoretically infused representations that ground themselves by the inclusion of personal experience. To the artists selected, a critical approach to the paradox of women’s roles in society has become an interesting source of subject matter. By disseminating and acknowledging the correlation between what is understood as feminine and why women feel the need to be feminine, clarity may come with a decreased reliance and trust in imagery. The “Object vs. Subject-Women in Art and Medicine” exhibition encourages self-responsibility to correct the biases formed in city public spaces.

 

The Technology of Orgasm

In the article “The Job that Nobody Wanted,” Rachel Maines (2) describes the precursory events that instigated the medical field’s contribution to the oppression of women. Androcentric or male centered views of sexuality, and their implications for women, shaped the concept of female sexual pathologies and the instruments designed to cope with them efficiently. In 1953 the term ‘hysteria,’ also titled ‘womb disease,’ was used to define the 70% of women who were unable to attain orgasms through marital sex (Maines 1). The standard form of treatment, in Western medical traditions, was for a physician or midwife to massage the clitoris until it reached paroxysm, or orgasm. This was seen as the best solution to cure the ‘out of health’ or ‘frigid’ population of women suffering from dissatisfaction. The term ‘hysteria’ was not revised until 1952 when the American Psychiatric Association dropped the term, yet women still receive twice the amount of mood altering drugs than men do in Canada (Maines 3) The notion of the ‘hysterical’ woman is still embedded in psychological diagnosis in the assumption that women are ‘naturally’ more mentally ill than men. This is how the natural pathology of women’s fertility and sexuality as an inferior quality reflects the development of Western medical thought. The female orgasm was not treated individually but as a by-product of the male orgasm; its existence and significance nearly denied entirely. Artistic movements by this time had moved through Romanticism, Expressionism, and Surrealism not to mention a World War; yet female sexuality had not yet been defined or even considered relevant to medical institutions. Female sexuality asserted itself through one of the few acceptable outlets: the symptoms of hysteria caused by a perceived female inadequacy.

By the 1950’s, a refusal to acknowledge female sexuality as different than male sexuality led to the invention of a wide range of vibratory apparatuses designed to cope more efficiently with the high demands. In the first two decades of this century, the vibrator began to be marketed as a home appliance. (Maines 11) Marketed mainly to women as a health and relaxation aid they were also sold to men as possible gifts for their wives, which conveniently enhanced their wives facial complexion as well. (Maines, 12) Writes Maines (20), “The social camouflage of the vibrator, as a home and professional medical instrument, seemed to have remained more or less intact until the end of the 1950s, when the true vibrator gradually disappeared as a result of it being marketed as a sex aid in the 1960s.”

The inclusion of the medicinal vibrator in the exhibition references the absurdity of medical knowledge in the 1950’s. Within the exhibition, the humourous existence of a lucrative market for vibrating inventions will be exhibited in the glass pedestals in the center of the gallery, thematically linking the conceptual approach of the artists exhibited. The medicinal vibrators demonstrate the lack of research pursued by medical professionals, which resulted in the misdiagnosis of 70% of the American population for an extended period of time. My curatorial argument questions the level of authority and trust in image generating institutions and the current problematic perceptions of women in influential discourses such as art and medicine who have evidently influenced current cultural perceptions of woman in society.            


Works Cited

Acconci, Vito. Bovier, Lionel, and Mai-Thu Perret, eds.  “Making Public: The Writing and Reading of Public Space,” Heterotopies/Heterotopias. Geneva: JRP Editions, 2000.

Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: the Birth of the Prison. New York: Random House, 1975.

Horrocks, Chris. Baudrillard For Beginners. Cambridge: Icon Books, 1996.

Marks, Laura. “The Ethical Presenter Or How to Have Good Arguments over Dinner.” The Moving Image: Journal of the Association of Motion Picture Archivists 4.1 (2004), pp. 34-47.

Lister, Martin. Mass Media and Technological Innovations. London: Routledge Publishing, 2003.

Maines, Rachel. The Technology of Orgasm: ‘Hysteria,’ the Vibrator and Women’s Sexual Satisfaction. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1999.

Morgan. Kathryn. “Contested Bodies, Contested Knowledges: Women, Health and Politics of Medicalization.” The Politics of Women’s Health: Exploring Agency and Autonomy. Ed. Susan Sherwin. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1998, pp. 83-121.

Negrin, Llewellyn. “Ornament and the Feminine.” Feminist Theory. 7.2 (2006), pp. 219-235.

Sherwin, Susan. The Politics of Women's Health: Exploring Agency and Autonomy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1998.

 

Return to Table of Contents


 

 

SARA PICKERING

Sara Pickering is a fourth year visual studies major at the University of Western Ontario. This is her first publication and she will continue to draw attention to oppressive images and policies in the many experiences of her life.