2008 Woodie Awards
Objectification of Women in Art
Taylor Alfonso
Issue date: 10/10/07 Section: Opinion
When the impressionist painter Edouard Manet exhibited his painting, "Olympia," in 1865, a frenzy of horror erupted among the French society. "Olympia," a painting of a nude woman reclining on her bed, was very poorly received; everything regarding the painting was criticized and demeaned.
"Olympia" was not controversial because she was a nude woman. Men had been guiltlessly buying works of art featuring nudes for many years. The shocking feature of "Olympia" was her blatant autonomy and control, and the fact that she was a prostitute.
Although many artists' models were also prostitutes, the artist would use them to portray a flirtatious, young girl in bed, or Mary Magdalene or a nymph. But Manet used his model to portray an actual whore.
But even though this work of art is powerful and important in showing us the hypocrisies of French society in the 19th century, should artists continue to use women's bodies an icon? I know. Women's bodies are wonderful and great, and of course, who wouldn't want to use our bodies as a canvas for new ideas.
But regardless if a woman's body is used to shock, to represent the decline of society or even something moral and honest, this should not continue because it promotes the objectification of women. At the very least, this issue should be questioned and not simply accepted without analysis.
Why must women always represent or symbolize something, even in today's modern art? At Fullerton College's exhibit, "Go Figure," obviously, there were countless nudes since it was an exhibit looking at the human figure. But it got me thinking, should a woman's body be used to personify liberty, poetry, sensuality, controversy and spirituality? The universe is huge, there are plenty of other symbols to use.
Most people have seen Eugene Delacoix's "Liberty Leading the People," in history textbooks; a strong, powerful woman personifying "liberty" leads the French people in their battle for freedom. It's an important painting, but why has Liberty's classical robe fallen to expose her chest?
"Olympia" was not controversial because she was a nude woman. Men had been guiltlessly buying works of art featuring nudes for many years. The shocking feature of "Olympia" was her blatant autonomy and control, and the fact that she was a prostitute.
Although many artists' models were also prostitutes, the artist would use them to portray a flirtatious, young girl in bed, or Mary Magdalene or a nymph. But Manet used his model to portray an actual whore.
But even though this work of art is powerful and important in showing us the hypocrisies of French society in the 19th century, should artists continue to use women's bodies an icon? I know. Women's bodies are wonderful and great, and of course, who wouldn't want to use our bodies as a canvas for new ideas.
But regardless if a woman's body is used to shock, to represent the decline of society or even something moral and honest, this should not continue because it promotes the objectification of women. At the very least, this issue should be questioned and not simply accepted without analysis.
Why must women always represent or symbolize something, even in today's modern art? At Fullerton College's exhibit, "Go Figure," obviously, there were countless nudes since it was an exhibit looking at the human figure. But it got me thinking, should a woman's body be used to personify liberty, poetry, sensuality, controversy and spirituality? The universe is huge, there are plenty of other symbols to use.
Most people have seen Eugene Delacoix's "Liberty Leading the People," in history textbooks; a strong, powerful woman personifying "liberty" leads the French people in their battle for freedom. It's an important painting, but why has Liberty's classical robe fallen to expose her chest?
Be the first to comment on this story