Perspectives - everyone, please let me know what you think

[Babeba]

Ladies and the odd gentleman who wanders in here,

I have a question for you. An assumption someone made in the story of another thread - with regards to a beautiful woman they thought must be another CD, or a lesbian - got me thinking.

One of my favourite periods of art history is the Pre-Raphaelite era, and this painting in particular is striking. I'm not going to tell you the title nor the artist, but I shall tell you that the model was quite well known, but never quite portrayed in this manner and this painting (as I've been told by a friend with several art history degrees) has caused a lot of debate over the years.



When you see this painting, what do you see? Is the figure a man or a woman? Do you see masculine or feminine traits? Or both? What stands out the most? Do you think the gender of the painted figure is due more to the model or to the painter's intent?

If you're familiar with the model, artist, or painting please don't give it away right away - I want to see what reactions this gets. I don't think I know a group of people who think more about what gender means then you all, and I'd like to see if your insights are different to the "official art community" - it's okay if they are, and okay if they aren't.

[tiffanyjo89]

The eyes, eyebrows and hair seem moderately to decidedly feminine.

The face seems somewhat feminine.

The overall tone of the picture seems a little bit on the feminine side of androgynous.

[Leslie Langford]

Well, since the figure portrayed here bears a striking resemblance to the young, "big hair" incarnation of '80's pop star Gino Vannelli, I would be inclined to say "male". I also base my opinion on the relatively large size of the hands. As for the full lips and the doe-like eyes, I'd ascribe that to a measure of artistic license on the part of he artist to create a more androgynous effect.

And since we're speaking of Renaissance-era painters here, you're probably also aware of the fact that a number of art historians are convinced that the model used for that famous portrait of the Mona Lisa was actually a young man in Leonardo da Vinci's employ. Not too huge of a leap of faith, actually, considering that Leonardo himself was gay...

[Babeba]

:-) Thank you for posting, Tiffanyjo! I can definitely see where that all comes into play.

From looking at the picture, would you care to guess "category" (GM, GG, CD, TG, TS, ETC.) we have on this site the model might fit under?

And since we're speaking of Renaissance-era painters here, you're probably also aware of the fact that a number of art historians are convinced that the model used for that famous portrait of the Mona Lisa was actually a young man in Leonardo da Vinci's employ. Not too huge of a leap of faith, actually, considering that Leonardo himself was gay...

Thank you, Leslie! I love seeing your thought process here. I perhaps should have clarified - the Pre-Raphaelites were a group of 19th century British artists (Mainly from Oxford) who were hugely influenced by the realism in earlier paintings. I'm not sure how well known they would be outside of the UK, but they certainly would have been influenced by Leonardo's legendary self.

[Suzette Muguet de Mai]

Oh this is fun. I have no idea about that period but I guess it maybe a male dressed in robes. Why? skin pigmentation, chin is long, Neck is thicker around jowls, and the brow appears fuller and pronounced but the lips are full, the hands are gently placed and the fruit is placed tenderly above the heart. Fingers are long and slim hands, no sign of large breasts. Maybe a feminine male, artistic or academic? Giggles probably totally wrong but heck this is fun.

[darla_g]

Two words: Man Hands!

jk

[Babeba]

I honestly love the details that you all are noticing on this! When I saw this in a gallery, the people I was with (excepting my friend who knew its history) glanced at it and went, 'woman' and continued on until she told us there's some doubt as to whether the model was the same for the face/hair as for the rest of the body - shoulders, hands, etc. (The model, by the way, was Jane Morris; she was thought of as the "ideal Beauty" by this group of artists and ended up married to one of them, William Morris of the ugly upholstery fame). I find it interesting that you guys have caught out the masculine features as well as the feminine.


But, the model is only part of the story, really! The REAL story is what does the painting mean? Is this a mannish/androgynous woman, or a womanly/androgynous man? Does it make you happier to think of the painting one way over the other?

[Suzette Muguet de Mai]

Crikey, makes you think more, very good. I feel you can think of it both ways. It would be interesting to read the brief about the model background and the reason behind the painting. To me, there appears to be a lot of heartache being expressed through the pose. Its almost as if the model is attempting to express her/his need reasons to say why. Very androgynous and very thought provoking.

[Mimi]

Oh this is fun. I have no idea about that period but I guess it maybe a male dressed in robes. Why? skin pigmentation, chin is long, Neck is thicker around jowls, and the brow appears fuller and pronounced but the lips are full, the hands are gently placed and the fruit is placed tenderly above the heart. Fingers are long and slim hands, no sign of large breasts. Maybe a feminine male, artistic or academic? Giggles probably totally wrong but heck this is fun.

I had similar thoughts--that the brow and the full mouth seemed more male, although the overall effect seemed to be to portray a female, or someone dressed as a female. In any case, this model, if male, would definitely have passed as female!

[Joanne f]

It looks to me like the artist has tried to create feminine facial and hand features but has overlooked the upper body proportions and muscular neck , they do not match what you are meant to be looking at or what the artist wants to see. you cannot hide a feminine softness and this has no feminine softness.

[Leasa Wells]

I really like this thread is so thought provoking and we can learn alot just chatting about this piece of art. I googled more about this Jane Morris and was able to see other art piece too. It seem none have her smiling and most are side views like she too was glancing away maybe a bit shy.

[christinac]

Very interesting and though provoking here. It is somewhat like a question I have running right now.

[beth_30]

I'm a big art fan and can't wait to get back to London to get round some of the galleries.

I don't know much about the Pre-Raphaelite era, but I find it interesting that many of Michelangelo's nudes of women seem to be very masculine.

I found an interesting couple of articles here and here by the same author. The concept that the ideal woman should be as masculine as possible and the story where a male model was dressed as a woman and judged to be the most beautiful woman at the party makes me wonder if I wasn't born in the wrong century

[Fractured]

Initial thought - just as you mentioned - is to glance at it, see the long curly hair and say female. Closer looks reveal what looks to be a male face by Greek standards. I am reminded of what I imagine Hector from The Iliad looked like. And Athena. I can't decide from the hands, neck, back or chest, which could be hidden behind the hands. For me it all comes down to the face in this painting. The nose and the lips point away from feminine. As for TG/TS/IS/CD, etc. I haven't figured out how to tell that based on appearances.

[RenneB]

I've always been a fan of great art, but never had the time for details. However, one trait on computers is that when you copy a picture to a web site you leave a trace. That trace can be found by having a user attempt to save the picture. Up comes a name or a set of numbers. (this is why when I post pictures, I rename them so you can't tell where I got them or which camera I used). So I did a little research. This picture is "named" 300_89740. You then cut that name and do a google images search. I ended up with two hits on a a pair of blog sites that use the same picture and name. It would appear to be a version of a siren called Miranda, but I'm off to go shopping so I don't have the time to continue the web quest anymore.....

I love the thread and the chat though... Great job.

Renne....

[Stephenie S]

I see only woman. Is there some official controversy?

S

[Byron]

The chin and jaw line appear masculine.

[diannecourtney]

I should only look like that. The chin, the Adams apple, the thin fingers, all lovely, requiring only the legs.

[Babeba]

I got off work today, and what do I find? Lots and lots of thoughtful discussion! :-D

I see only woman. Is there some official controversy?

S

The official controversy (if I recall correctly) is that Rossetti made the model incredibly more masculine than she was. Since Jane Morris was supposed to be this "perfect beauty," it implied that Rossetti's take on the "perfect beauty" was male - and that's the gender he was most attracted to. She's also dressed as Proserpine (better known to most of us as Pandora) and so there's the whole allusion to "forbidden fruit." Supposedly, this is supposed to show that Rossetti was gay? But I got to thinking about it more from the gender queer perspective than the sexually queer perspective, and I was wondering if my perceptions of gender rather than sexuality might be echoed here.

[LaurenB]

A young woman. Maybe not beautiful by 2011 standards but the soft depiction, tonal qualities and pose with hands clasped near the heart makes me think feminine.

[Suzette Muguet de Mai]

Hmmmm, interesting how the artist painted male features onto the model. Maybe he posed the model in such away that the nurturing, motherly aspect of the hands/arms position were that of the female model but when he painted the face, neck and arms he became romantically involved hence his true affection came through in the brushstrokes as male features. Those parts of the body as he painted he tenderly loved, eg the lips, the nose, the neck, the back of the neck and shoulders, the brow and the chin. Almost as if the painter caressed within a trance his affection. Maybe a mixture of the alluring aspect of gay love veiled by the beauty of the female tenderness to obscure any direct involvement that may bring about problems. Hiding from revealing who he is and who he truly desires.
Very good topic Babeba and well constructed like an evolution of thought and story

[Cari]

I love a post that sends me off to google stuff.
I had always thought that once photography became more popular, that marked the end of the really realistic paintings.
I will have to study more about these guys; Interested how they went towards medieval styles later as well.

I wonder if he had apprentices and if he painted the entire painting or just the face and hands.
I also wonder if the morals of the time had anything to do with it, might they have used a male model for parts ?

Not to hijack the thread but in Davincis last supper there is the character to the left of Jesus.
Its been discussed to death with the Davinci code but is interesting.
And when I look at the image out of context I can see a female.

[Avana]

In history, men were sometimes used as female models or dramatic characters because it considered indecent for women to model as such.

Noticing that the figure holds a pomegranate, which is a symbol of fertility, I would say the intent is definitely to portray femininity vis a vis fertility and birth.


In terms of androgyny and queer perspectives in renaissance art, the other obvious artist to study is caravaggio - again, his paintings are 'ripe' with (queer) symbolism.

[Frédérique]

When you see this painting, what do you see? Is the figure a man or a woman? Do you see masculine or feminine traits? Or both? What stands out the most? Do you think the gender of the painted figure is due more to the model or to the painter's intent?

[SIZE="2"]When I see this reproduction of a painting, I see a reproduction that pales in comparison to the actual thing. What the artist intended is one thing, and what you see when you look at it is another thing, in fact attaching meaning to an artistic image completes a process known as art. Please bear with me – I’m an artist, I’ve looked at many, many reproductions of artwork over time, and I’m a student of art history...

The figure is a woman, or more specifically an idealized idea of a woman, based on an actual person. I see feminine “traits,” but these are the artist’s ideas of feminine traits and are very much the product of his time – we are looking at a distillation of intent, based on the artist’s experiences, dreams, and desires. The gender of the model and the artist’s sensibilities are one and the same, in fact the “style” he employed is very specific and idealized, just like the subject itself...[/SIZE]

If you're familiar with the model, artist, or painting please don't give it away right away - I want to see what reactions this gets. I don't think I know a group of people who think more about what gender means then you all, and I'd like to see if your insights are different to the "official art community" - it's okay if they are, and okay if they aren't.

[SIZE="2"]I know who painted the painting, I know who the model was, and I know why the painting was painted, so it’s impossible for me to attach any gender confusion to the image. Perhaps you are unaware that any portrait an artist makes is a form of self-portrait, real or imagined, and he or she will unconsciously project his or her own visage onto any real person before them. Art exists to flesh out these fantasies or make the invisible more visible.The very act of painting involves a certain distance between the actual subject and reality, since the original idea transforms over time, becoming more and more streamlined, and, in this case, more and more mysterious...

Any gender confusion (or repressed desires) would reside in the mind of the artist, and they would find their way to the rendered object. In this way, the model is an innocent bystander, or a means to and end. Since the painting in question was created in the Victorian Era, yet harkens back to the Italian Renaissance in matters of technique and sentiment, I would encourage you to look into Leonardo da Vinci’s Mona Lisa, another intentionally female self-portrait by a male artist, and tell me what YOU see...[/SIZE]

Women who wear pants & polo shirts have no thought of gender when they choose their clothing. Men who wear dresses, and women's pants & polo shirts do. It's as simple as that.

[SIZE="2"]It’s not as simple as that. I don’t necessarily think about gender when I dress, nor would I be caught dead wearing a women’s polo shirt. Reality is infinitely more subtle than your “simple” signature suggests...[/SIZE]

[VioletJourney]

To quote Jerry Seinfeld: "She's got man hands... like a creature from Greek Mythology!"