Your footnote 4 is quite a beautiful statement, and an essay in its own right (although nothing else needs to be added to it.)
I also appreciated what you said about gender tensions being more fascinating (real?true? important?) when they remain unresolved. I have found that to be accurate to my own experience as well.
Your part about the muse-as-artist reminds me of Jacques Rivette's beautiful movie La Belle Noiseuse, where the artist (an old man) keeps putting his young, beautiful model in different torturous poses, unable to get to the heart of her beauty and essence until she herself gets fed up and starts to come up with her own poses that feel true to herself.
I love the idea of the eye as a darkroom that processes the images we get from real life! I first saw Man Ray's photographs when I took a darkroom photography class in middle school, and I still remember how much I loved being in that darkroom, figuring out how long exactly to expose a picture, the smell and swish of the chemicals, hanging the wet photograph up to dry.
Great essay. What you're talking about in the beginning with the male gaze and then the interrogation of the gaze, rather than its dismissal, is key, I think. I don't know if you've seen Brian De Palma's "Body Double" but to me that's what makes it so good: De Palma understands that film is voyeuristic in its nature, and rather than fighting against this, he explores this pretty much as far as it can go. It's a brilliant film but is also dismissed by some as pornographic and sexist, although I would argue that this criticism doesn't really understand what De Palma is after.
Yes! I'm a DePalma fan (Blow Out and Femme Fatale esp.) Body Double rocks. I still think he's not as profound as Hitchcock but he is a total master of the subject.
The language is beautiful and suggestive and when it eludes the understanding, one feels no inclination to argue with it—any more than one would argue with a poem. Rather a departure from the empirically-minded English essay: I thought I was listening to French music.
Art, including fiction, kills its subject, makes of it as you say an object, but then that object, if attended to well, becomes its own life independent of its subject. Is this a paraphrase of what you're saying? I'm not sure. Maybe its opposite, or both. "The art itself is nature." “Great art is often a matter…”
I first learned about Lee Miller by dumb luck, nearly 20 years ago, when I wandered into a giant special exhibition focussed on her life and work, at the Philadelphia Art Museum. Powerful stuff.
I’ve for a long time been attracted to Da Da - the surrealistic hobby horse - both in its own right and as a reaction to WWI. Maybe too for why some artist became DaDa-it’s and others became “new objectivists.” But there are many accountings of that.
I lived in France for a few years because I had a job there and free French-language lessons. I was interested mainly in conversation and slang. One day a coworker mentioned that, yes a “violin d’Ingres” could be a hobby, but more closely is something one is good at but more than just a pastime, sideline, or hobby. Then he showed me Man Ray’s photo of Alice Prin AKA Kikki of Montparnasse and Ingre’s painting of La Grande Baigneusse.
Your footnote 4 is quite a beautiful statement, and an essay in its own right (although nothing else needs to be added to it.)
I also appreciated what you said about gender tensions being more fascinating (real?true? important?) when they remain unresolved. I have found that to be accurate to my own experience as well.
Your part about the muse-as-artist reminds me of Jacques Rivette's beautiful movie La Belle Noiseuse, where the artist (an old man) keeps putting his young, beautiful model in different torturous poses, unable to get to the heart of her beauty and essence until she herself gets fed up and starts to come up with her own poses that feel true to herself.
I love the idea of the eye as a darkroom that processes the images we get from real life! I first saw Man Ray's photographs when I took a darkroom photography class in middle school, and I still remember how much I loved being in that darkroom, figuring out how long exactly to expose a picture, the smell and swish of the chemicals, hanging the wet photograph up to dry.
I love the Rivette films I've seen--that's one I still need to see however!
And that's so cool, as someone with almost no real photography experience I find the whole thing so mysterious and alchemical and romantic.
Lots of nice parallels between your post here and Paul Franz's from yesterday.
https://ashesandsparks.substack.com/p/on-the-gender-of-works-of-art?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=11975&post_id=169760006&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=7o3zk&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Ah interesting! I will have it read that. Thanks, Julianne.
Great essay. What you're talking about in the beginning with the male gaze and then the interrogation of the gaze, rather than its dismissal, is key, I think. I don't know if you've seen Brian De Palma's "Body Double" but to me that's what makes it so good: De Palma understands that film is voyeuristic in its nature, and rather than fighting against this, he explores this pretty much as far as it can go. It's a brilliant film but is also dismissed by some as pornographic and sexist, although I would argue that this criticism doesn't really understand what De Palma is after.
Yes! I'm a DePalma fan (Blow Out and Femme Fatale esp.) Body Double rocks. I still think he's not as profound as Hitchcock but he is a total master of the subject.
Lesson one — Goldfinch: "the line of beauty is the line of beauty. It doesn't matter if it's been through the Xerox machine a hundred times" (754).
The language is beautiful and suggestive and when it eludes the understanding, one feels no inclination to argue with it—any more than one would argue with a poem. Rather a departure from the empirically-minded English essay: I thought I was listening to French music.
A very kind compliment, Harry
Art, including fiction, kills its subject, makes of it as you say an object, but then that object, if attended to well, becomes its own life independent of its subject. Is this a paraphrase of what you're saying? I'm not sure. Maybe its opposite, or both. "The art itself is nature." “Great art is often a matter…”
I first learned about Lee Miller by dumb luck, nearly 20 years ago, when I wandered into a giant special exhibition focussed on her life and work, at the Philadelphia Art Museum. Powerful stuff.
So cool!
Sam,
Do you know about Robert Vano? He is a little known (I think) icon. https://www.memoryofnations.eu/en/vano-robert-1948
No! I will have to check this out
I’ve for a long time been attracted to Da Da - the surrealistic hobby horse - both in its own right and as a reaction to WWI. Maybe too for why some artist became DaDa-it’s and others became “new objectivists.” But there are many accountings of that.
I lived in France for a few years because I had a job there and free French-language lessons. I was interested mainly in conversation and slang. One day a coworker mentioned that, yes a “violin d’Ingres” could be a hobby, but more closely is something one is good at but more than just a pastime, sideline, or hobby. Then he showed me Man Ray’s photo of Alice Prin AKA Kikki of Montparnasse and Ingre’s painting of La Grande Baigneusse.
Here is an unmodified photo: https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:4800/format:webp/1*defVgre0SdQxWJ-pstSVig.png
well I've never been sold this easily on a film. also I'm glad I know more about lee miller than "um Hitler's bathtub"
Hahaha. Glad to have helped there! No but Miller was a remarkable person.
Quite a wonderful piece. And now I must watch The Unbearable Lightness of Being.
Cheers.
Thanks Gary! Certainly hope you enjoy the film!
This is such a kind, sensitive comment. Thank you!