The Sexualization of Women in Art

Post Reply New Topic

Anyone who frequents the "Post Your Artwork" sticky may have observed that I really like to draw sexy, scantily clad African (or pseudo-African) women. Last night, however, I came to feel guilty about this hobby. It started when one of my good online friends complained about sexualized portrayals of Native American women in fantasy and comic-book art. She identifies primarily as African-American, but also has some Native ancestry, so she has a personal stake in that issue. Although I've never drawn Native American women in such a sexualized manner (the one time I've drawn a Native woman, she was a plain-looking character in a modern business suit), I felt bad nonetheless because I do give that same treatment to my African female subjects all the time in my drawings.

Mind you, I never meant to denigrate African women. If anything, I always thought presenting them as beautiful and sexually desirable was a positive way to celebrate them and counter more negative and unattractive stereotypes that saturate popular media (think Madea or Precious). However, my friend argued very cogently that even if an artist's intentions are positive, emphasizing the sex appeal of "ethnic" women was fundamentally objectifying and disrespectful to non-Western cultures. She mentioned that Native American women in the real world are suffering from a rape epidemic, which coincided with the kind of sexualization she was ranting about, which made me worry that my own art could contribute to sexual violence against African women. The last thing I want in the whole world is to hurt African women, the very women I admire so much.

Right now I am feeling conflicted about this issue. I really enjoying drawing the physical beauty of African women, and I want more than anything else to honor them, but I don't want them to be sexually objected, harassed, or raped in any way. What are your thoughts on this issue?

There's a relevant theory which has been around in the art world for decades, particularly since the rise of feminism. It's called "male gaze", and it has been a subject of great discussion among artists and critics. Lacan used the term "gaze" to refer to the feeling of awkward self-consciousness when one becomes aware that he or she is a physical entity visible to all bystanders. "Male gaze", then, refers to the theory that, our society traditionally being oriented in a patriarchal manner, artwork produced within that society trends toward portraying the human figure in a way that is most condusive to the interests of males. In the case of the female figure, this supposedly translates to sexualization and objectification, even if unconsciously. One could say that this is another mark of the meta-level questioning which is so prevalent in post-modernist art-- we live in an age where we have become aware on a conscious level that all artwork is produced from a subjective point-of-view, which means that male artists seemingly can no longer transcend their own masculinity.

But actually, therein lies the escape. If there is no transcendence, there can only be humble acceptance.

An artist has a responsibility to take accountability for his or her work, that is true. BrandonSP, it is clear to me that you understand and respect that. But remember, artists ultimately only have control of their own intent-- not the perspective of their viewers. We are only human, after all. We are not omnipotent, we are not clairvoyant, and we cannot foresee every little effect of every brush stroke. Once the painting comes off the easel and goes on the gallery wall, in one sense it really isn't ours anymore. If, as artists, we become overly concerned with what may happen later as a result of someone else's reaction to our work, we will become so restrained that we will cease to be artists anymore. It's important to strike a balance between social obligation and self-gratification, because it is the self-gratification, in large part, which makes being an artist so rewarding. If you aren't happy with your own artwork, then you've already lost your most important admirer.

Be cognizant of the way in which your "wiring" (for lack of a better term) informs your artwork-- but don't let the specter of adverse viewer interpretations stop you from producing what you enjoy producing. So many artists through the ages have had an aesthetic appreciation of the female figure, and I'm absolutely convinced that it isn't entirely about the power of the masculine libido. The female figure has a geometry and a grace to it which is poetic. If you are one of those who shares in that artistic appreciation, then you have every right as an artist to exercise it responsibly.

"On the whole, American Indian societies were more permissive than any of the European Christian nations that began the conquest of Native America in the late 15th century. Among Indians, virginity was not necessarily prized in either sex. Sexual experimentation was regarded as ordinary adolescent behavior, and many tribes permitted—indeed expected— young people to gain sexual experience before marriage. […] As in other cultures, Native American sexual life and identity developed during childhood. The process varied from tribe to tribe in native North America, but most children learned about sexuality from adult behavior and talk. In the Qipi Eskimo society of the eastern Arctic, for example, parents taught about sex through play and example. Mothers and fathers openly touched, kissed, and admired their babies' genitals during infancy."

- Quoted from a textbook by Bales et al. published 1994.

What has created the Native American rape epidemic is the reservations they now live on. When they had good land and lived a free life of dignity they didn't have that problem. White people forced them to live densely in places that aren't very good. This led to a loss of traditional employment (hunting, fishing etc. on good land) and a loss of beautiful homes. The result - miserable people, increased alcoholism, drug abuse and crime. Social engineering gone wrong.

You make a good point that I can only control my own intentions and not how other people view my artwork. Now that I think about it, every piece of artwork out there has the potential to offend someone for whatever reason. Before this particular exchange, I have received flak from both knee-jerk politically correct pseudo-liberals and hardcore white supremacists. I suppose if I truly wanted to avoid any kind of racial controversy, I would avoid depicting non-white people altogether, and we all know the ramifications of that.

I notice that white guys like me are especially vulnerable to accusations of racial insensitivity for drawing sexy women of color. Non-white male artists apparently can get away with drawing women of any race, and artists of all races get away with drawing white women all the time. Indeed, barely anyone complains about the sexualization (or "fetishization") of white women as a race/gender class, even though they receive far more sexual idealization than any non-whites; at most the PC types rant about the sexualization of women as a whole. It only turns into a race issue when the artworks' female subjects are non-white and the artist is a white guy. Why is that?

In racial studies circles, the phenomena to which you are referring are usually called "white privilege" and "white guilt".

"White privilege" refers to the idea that Western societies (i.e., societies descended from light-skinned European cultures) are oriented in such a way that whites inherently have privilege over non-whites. In fact, in these societies (the United States in particular), "white-ness" is such a defining characteristic that it is seen as the norm, and anything else is seen as a deviation from that norm. Hence, in societies like this, when one speaks of humans in a generic context, the tendency is to assume white-ness unless otherwise specified. White-ness has not always referred to all people of European descent, either-- there was a time in American history when Italian and Irish immigrants were seen as non-whites as well. It's a bit of an arbitrary distinction based on what is seen as the demographic status quo at any given time. White privilege means that whites don't even necessarily have to be conscious of how oriented the system is to their interests in order to take advantage of it.

"White guilt" is the concept, attributed to the liberal political correctness movement, that this unconscious reliance on white privilege, as well as transgressions perpetrated toward non-whites in the past, have obliged whites to somehow atone and work toward a more just and equitable system.

Your perception that the objectification of white women is usually generalized as the "objectification of women" is an example of white privilege. Your perception that, artistically, you run into racial taboos where non-white artists do not is an example of white guilt. The theory, supposedly, is that you run into trouble with white guilt because you've already unconsciously taken advantage of white privilege. It isn't fair, it isn't necessarily based on conscious actions on your part, and you may not have even realized your role in perpetuating the system, but you are still held to account for it by the very merit of continuing to live within it.

Or so says the field of racial studies. There's a similar construct explored in gender studies, which goes into how men unconsciously benefit from living in a patriarchal society.

All of this theory-- it's interesting to think about, and some artists really dwell on the subject. But I try not to let it bog me down. It just isn't my ultimate prerogative. In recent years I have personally tried not to let politics saturate my artwork (or its production process) too much. As you noted, pretty much anything has the potential to rub someone the wrong way. Personally, if I spent a lot of time thinking about it, I'd probably never paint again, which would be a very sad thing for me. It's counterproductive. It's all about your frame of mind. I don't frame myself as a white male artist, and I don't pay that much attention to viewers who would, just because it doesn't really concern me all that much, and it isn't very relevant to my chosen subject matter. I would suggest that it's not as relevant to your subject matter as you might think it is, either. You seem to simply be producing artwork of a subject matter that inspires you. And for the record, I don't think artists really have that much control over their sources of inspiration, either-- when a muse presents itself, my experience has been that it usually does so rather forcefully.

I recognise body forms as things of beauty, it's not really related to being sexual objects. The shape itself can just be very pleasing to the eye and makes for very nice artwork. I've even recreated photos of myself, just because my pose and shape appealed to me and I obviously wasn't attempting to sexualise myelf. I'm more likely to draw 'exotic' figures, just because they are different, intriguing and, above all else, beautiful. BrandonSP, I've seen lots of your work and I think the women just look beautiful and it's a kind of celebration of that. I don't think you're sexualising them at all.