Patriarchal Social Construction - Term Paper Example

The history of human civilization, artistic and intellectual movements is mainly dominated by male artists and humanists. It is also generally considered that those male artists are solely responsible for changing the ongoing course or trend of societal approach towards Art as well as perception of creativity. However, it is quite astonishing to see that contribution of women artistry and creative impetus received an unequal treatment, despite the fact that alongside males they also have helped to a considerable extent in enhancing the changing perception towards human intellect and creativity. It is not that women artists only followed the artistic trends that have been introduced by their male counterparts only; rather, on several occasions, they, with their creative ingeniousness have specified artistic niche for their own. Patriarchal social construction is perhaps one of the most important reasons that women, on most of the occasions, have not been provided with adequate recognition. Traditionally, women are regarded socially, physically and intellectually weaker than male counterparts. Due to the same reason they have become subjects of gender discrimination in the society. While discussing the reason behind such discrimination Simone de Beauvoir has pondered over the definition of a woman as it has been in the social context, “…first we must ask: what is a woman? ‘Tota mulier in utero’, says one, ‘woman is a womb.’ But in speaking of certain women, connoisseurs declare that they are not women, although they are equipped with a uterus like the rest” (Beauvoir). The traditional male patriarchy observes women as a source of child production or just representatives of certain archetypical roles that it has prescribed for women, such as, wife, daughter or mother. The concepts “by which a woman judged herself and was judged by her husband, her neighbors and society, could be divided into four cardinal virtues – piety, purity, submissiveness and domesticity. Put them all together and they spelled mother, daughter, sister, wife – woman. Without them … all was ashes. With them, she was promised happiness and power” (Welter 152). Continuation of such traditional belief has led the evil of gender discrimination to such an extent that women have become almost devoid of their entity as human beings and remain only to be recognized as an organ of human physiology. In this context Simone de Beauvoir ironical observation compels us to realize to which extent the evil of gender discrimination has expanded its scope, “All agree in recognising the fact that females exist in the human species; today as always they make up about one half of humanity. And yet we are told that femininity is in danger; …. It would appear, then, that every female human being is not necessarily a woman; to be so considered she must share in that mysterious and threatened reality known as femininity” (Beauvoir). Progress of human civilization and changing approaches towards such conventional thoughts have helped to a considerable extent in altering such hostilities against women and gradually they received the access to participate in intellectual and artistic activism to a greater extent, compared to earlier times. Advancement in the arena of women activism was observed most conspicuously during the Victorian era but the traits of discrimination have not entirely been abolished. Despite their ingeniousness and capacity of producing equally appealing forms of Art, artistic capability of women artists have remained overshadowed by their male counterparts. No matter how much the modern era has talked about guaranteeing women liberty and freedom of expression, but women artists always have encountered difficulties, even in 20th century, to earn adequate critical appreciation or during the process of establishing themselves professionally as artists. While it comes to exploring contribution of women artists from past in the arena of modern art movements and experimental techniques, there is always difficulties in finding out the conspicuous names, and in the most of the cases, contribution of male artists are only pointed out to aspirants. Sociological scholars are of opinion that main reason behind such oblivion of contribution of women in the field of artistic creativity in gender biasness. Scholars like Heller have pointed out that if attempts are made to find out contribution of women artists within the domain of artistic creativity, it would be quite difficult and the main reason behind such difficulty, as those scholars have pointed out, is either record are erroneous or unavailable. The kind of importance has been provided on works of male artists or creative masters, the same kind of attention has not been provided to females despite the fact that their works were of equal importance or incorporated the elements of great genius from perspectives of both technicalities or improvised thoughts. The available works of women in early times clearly provide proof in support of the observation that though women artists had the equal level of efficiency or skill in the context of artistic creativity but they have not been provided with adequate attention or did not receive scope to equal rate of guidance or practice only because of the reason that they were women (Morris). Such observation receive further support from Shubitz’s illustration, as it has been stated, ““It was no longer believed that women were incapable of creating great art, yet the rarity of the event was made evident by the lack of noted women artists of the time. And, if they were noted, their work was considered a ‘lesser’ form of art” (Shubitz, 1999). In this context, an example can be cited from biographical references of Sofonisba Anguisola, the famous woman painter during the Italian Renaissance and perhaps the first women figure, who through her creative measures has received international fame. Born in the year 1535, Sofonisba Anguisola’s journey as a professional painter started with direct influence and encouragement from her father Amilcare Anguissola. However, being a woman, she was prohibited from studying human anatomy and also could not receive equal degree of social support, compared to her contemporary male artists. Thus, she made her early portraits by taking her family members, her parents and her sisters as subjects, and later on, during her employment in the court of King Philip II, as the queen’s art teacher, she created some of the most remarkable portraits of her entire career (Brothers 8). To which extent does the discrimination against women artists expand in the modern era? One example would help us to understand the situation. In June, 1984, protests from women artists outside the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, attracted a great deal of attention. Prior to the day of “An International Survey of Painting and Sculpture” the museum did a press release, which stated that it would exhibit some of the most remarkable works of contemporary artists in the field of painting and sculpture and for the same purpose the museum authority selected a total number of 169 artists, whose works would be exhibited in that venue, across the globe. It was quite astonishing to see that among those 169 artists only 105 were women, whose works have been selected in the exhibition. While the protesting women were questioned of men are better artists than women or not, they unanimously suggested that women are equally efficient as men and “They believed the difference in representation was a cause of gender discrimination” (Gourley 107). In the filed of modern artistry, such discrimination against women has resulted in interpretation of Art from feminist perspective; at the same time, definition of Art has also received a feminist perspective, “The call for a feminist definition of art arose in the context of explaining the problem of undervaluing past and present women artists on the basis of the male bias of traditional criteria used to attribute artistic value. The approach does not apologize for the art of women, explaining away their lack of greatness in inequitable social conditions. Instead, it locates the problem of women’s exclusion from serious recognition as artists not in their art but in very definition of art” (Kraft 11). If serious analysis is done to find out the substance behind such argument then several important examples can be cited. During the American Expressionist Movement, two artists, Lee Krasner and Jackson Pollock, attracted a great deal of attention among most of the American intellectuals and art lovers due to their ingeniousness. However, despite having the equal potential and creative impetus, compared to Krasner, Pollock received a greater deal of critical acclaim and also received a leading position within the arena of American artistic movement (Black). Comparing their position in the light of gender discrimination in the field of art, Kraft has argued, “Stylistic originality is not a quality found in any work per se. Looking at … an all – over painting by Lee Krasner and another by Jackson Pollock, one could not tell by any perceptible qualities which one or ones are formally innovative” (Kraft 12). Yet, such paradigmatic fame of Pollock, overshadowing than that of Krasner’s clearly suggests that the male patriarchal social construction is a crucial factor that has given Pollock more recognition than Krasner and ultimately, lack of fame of the latter is just a pathetic result of social constitution. The elements of such discrimination can more conspicuously be observed in the relationship of Frida Kahlo and Diego Rivera. Despite the fact that her physical ailments and diseases were major reasons behind difficulty to retain her artistic fame (Beck), lack of encouragement from her husband, Diego Rivera, who also was one of the greatest admirers of her creative impetus, also played an important part. Rivera, during the culmination of fame, became acquainted with several artists in the international level, which also helped Frida to attain certain international exposure but her husband was never that liberal to provide her the desired public recognition. Despite at the early stage Frida accepted this fact but in her famous self-portrait, “The Two Fridas”, elements of angst and pain of being discriminated, both by society and her husband, were quite explicit (Stechler). Finally, it can be said that gender bias within the traditional domain of social construction is an important factor that surely has put women artists into a second level, compared to their male counterparts. Art is traditionally considered as liberal and so vast in its scope that it equals all sorts of differences. However, there is always a gap between ideological and practical observation. Due to the patriarchal structure of social construction, the liberal domain of art has also become constrained and women artists, despite their creativity and genius, which is in no way inferior to male artists, have always remained at a secondary stage. Works Cited Beck, Jennifer. “Artist Hero: Frida Kahlo.” Artist Heroes. July 12, 2006. Available at: http://myhero.com/myhero/hero.asp?hero=f_kahlo. Retrieved on: May 7, 2010. Black, Shona. “Famous Artist Couples: Love and Inspiration from Picasso and Maar to Gilbert & George”. Jan 15, 2010. Available at: http://modernarthistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/famous_artist_couples. Retrieved on: May 7, 2010. Beauvoir, Simone de, “The Second Sex” (1949), available at: http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/de-beauvoir/2nd-sex/index.htm, retrieved on: 20th April, 2009. Brothers, Thomas. Artists, writers, and musicians: an encyclopedia of people who changed the world. California: Greenwood Publication Group. 2001. Gourley, Catherine. Ms. and the material girls: perceptions of women from the 1970s through the 1990s. Minnesota: Twenty-First Century Books. 2007. Kraft, Selma. “Definition of Feminist Art or Feminist Definition of Art?”. Politics, gender, and the arts: women, the arts, and society. Susquehanna: Susquehanna University Press. 1992. Morris, Roderick Conway. “Shattering a Renaissance Glass Ceiling.” International Herald Tribune. May 31, 2003. Shubitz, Jeannie. “Women, Art and Gender: A History.” Southwestern Women Artists: Erased from History. April 26, 1999. University of Arizona. Available at: http://www.ic.arizona.edu/ic/mcbride/ws200/art2.html. Retrieved on: May 7, 2010. Stechler, Amy. “The Two Fridas.” The Life and Times of Frida Kahlo. 2005. Public Broadcasting Station. April 30, 2010. Available at: http://www.pbs.org/weta/fridakahlo/worksofart/index.html. Retrieved on: May 7, 2010. Welter, Barbara. “The Cult of True Womanhood: 1820-1860.” American Quarterly. Vol. 18, N. 2, P. 1. 1966, pp. 151-74. Read More