zeldathemes
MADEMOISELLE X
My blog has Clement Greenberg rolling in his grave.
I am the personal. Your world is you. I am my world.
Home Ask Archive Background Alma Mater Lyme
water-stained:

Wangechi Mutu
Untitled from Classic Profiles, 2003. Collage and watercolor on mylar.

water-stained:

Wangechi Mutu

Untitled from Classic Profiles, 2003. Collage and watercolor on mylar.

#art#women artists
artmastered:

Lorenzo Lotto, Portrait of a Lady as Lucretia, 1530-32, oil on canvas, 96 x 111 cm, The National Gallery, London. Source
Lucretia was a Roman figure believed to have been raped by Sextus Tarquinius, the youngest son of the King of Rome. The incident tarnished Lucretia, and she eventually ended her own life with a dagger to the heart because of her shame. In Lotto’s portrait of an anonymous woman dressed as the righteous heroine, the subject is shown holding a drawing of Lucretia about to stab the weapon through her chest. On the desk below, a Latin note translates as this: ‘Following Lucretia’s example, no dishonoured woman should continue to live’. I personally find this to be quite a confusing message to comprehend, because of the Renaissance tendency to portray Lucretia as a moral and pious figure. But to me, this message seems to condemn all violated women to death. Maybe I’m reading it too literally?! Perhaps it is meant to remind the viewer of Lucretia’s experience as being a tragedy that she was unable to live through. What does everyone think?

Going back in time here to my Roman Art class, I think it has a lot to do with the notion that a woman’s worth is measured in her purity. From a Roman perspective, if she is raped, regardless of whether or not it is viewed as her fault, her body is no longer pure. A woman’s body was seen as a vehicle reserved only for the use of her husband to bear sons that will only and could only ever be his— thus a woman must be ever faithful to her husband, including abstaining from any sex before marriage.
This notion is strongly related to Roman pietas, or familial piety. By being raped, her use as a woman was voided, and the only way to maintain her and her family’s honor was to kill herself. A woman who continued to exist after being raped would, in this perspective, be behaving dishonorably and would draw her virtue into question. So, suicide would be considered the only right way out. Lucretia has proven her worth by placing her family before herself by committing suicide after being raped. [This point of view is, needless to say, highly problematic.]
I imagine a similar logic was applied during the Renaissance, although it is at odds with Catholic tradition that views suicide as a sin. I imagine that it was the sentiment that held power—a woman behaving honorably in the face of dishonor, placing others before herself, etc— and not the literal endorsement of suicide that it was in Roman times.
So to be succinct, in Roman times it was the literal condemning to death of raped women, while in the Renaissance, it was probably not literal. It is less a sad tale as it was a moral lesson to women and a scary reminder that their uteri were what defined their worth. Scary stuff. (Good thing we don’t have that today… oh, wait…)
Hope that helps you understand! A bit long winded, but it’s an interesting if terrifying progression of convoluted logic that needs a bit of explaining. :-)

artmastered:

Lorenzo Lotto, Portrait of a Lady as Lucretia, 1530-32, oil on canvas, 96 x 111 cm, The National Gallery, London. Source

Lucretia was a Roman figure believed to have been raped by Sextus Tarquinius, the youngest son of the King of Rome. The incident tarnished Lucretia, and she eventually ended her own life with a dagger to the heart because of her shame. In Lotto’s portrait of an anonymous woman dressed as the righteous heroine, the subject is shown holding a drawing of Lucretia about to stab the weapon through her chest. On the desk below, a Latin note translates as this: ‘Following Lucretia’s example, no dishonoured woman should continue to live’. I personally find this to be quite a confusing message to comprehend, because of the Renaissance tendency to portray Lucretia as a moral and pious figure. But to me, this message seems to condemn all violated women to death. Maybe I’m reading it too literally?! Perhaps it is meant to remind the viewer of Lucretia’s experience as being a tragedy that she was unable to live through. What does everyone think?

Going back in time here to my Roman Art class, I think it has a lot to do with the notion that a woman’s worth is measured in her purity. From a Roman perspective, if she is raped, regardless of whether or not it is viewed as her fault, her body is no longer pure. A woman’s body was seen as a vehicle reserved only for the use of her husband to bear sons that will only and could only ever be his— thus a woman must be ever faithful to her husband, including abstaining from any sex before marriage.

This notion is strongly related to Roman pietas, or familial piety. By being raped, her use as a woman was voided, and the only way to maintain her and her family’s honor was to kill herself. A woman who continued to exist after being raped would, in this perspective, be behaving dishonorably and would draw her virtue into question. So, suicide would be considered the only right way out. Lucretia has proven her worth by placing her family before herself by committing suicide after being raped. [This point of view is, needless to say, highly problematic.]

I imagine a similar logic was applied during the Renaissance, although it is at odds with Catholic tradition that views suicide as a sin. I imagine that it was the sentiment that held power—a woman behaving honorably in the face of dishonor, placing others before herself, etc— and not the literal endorsement of suicide that it was in Roman times.

So to be succinct, in Roman times it was the literal condemning to death of raped women, while in the Renaissance, it was probably not literal. It is less a sad tale as it was a moral lesson to women and a scary reminder that their uteri were what defined their worth. Scary stuff. (Good thing we don’t have that today… oh, wait…)

Hope that helps you understand! A bit long winded, but it’s an interesting if terrifying progression of convoluted logic that needs a bit of explaining. :-)

#tw: rape#cw: rape#art#lucretia#renaissance#roman art#women#feminism#feminist art history#gender studies#this is what i love about going to a women's college i know these things
water-stained:

Berlinde de Bruyckere
Schmerzensmann 5, 2006. Pencil, watercolor, and ink on paper.

water-stained:

Berlinde de Bruyckere

Schmerzensmann 5, 2006. Pencil, watercolor, and ink on paper.

#art
water-stained:

Eva Hesse
Untitled, 1963-64. Collage, gouache, watercolor, and ink on paper.

water-stained:

Eva Hesse

Untitled, 1963-64. Collage, gouache, watercolor, and ink on paper.

#art
water-stained:

Eva Hesse
No title, c. 1963. Ink, watercolor, gouache, and crayon on paper. Collection of the Allen Memorial Art Museum, Oberlin College, Ohio.

water-stained:

Eva Hesse

No title, c. 1963. Ink, watercolor, gouache, and crayon on paper. Collection of the Allen Memorial Art Museum, Oberlin College, Ohio.

#art#women artists
Deborah Luster
01-26 Location. 1800 Leonidas Street (Carrollton) Date(s). July 14, 2009 7:55 a.m. Name(s). Brian Christopher Smith (22) Notes. Face up with multiple gunshot wounds, from the Tooth for an Eye series, 2008-2012. Gelatin silver print. Collection of the Smithsonian American Art Museum.
——
I spent a lot of time last summer at SAAM’s Democracy of Image exhibition, and this was probably my favorite piece in it. I spent a lot of time looking at it in the dimly lit Granite Gallery, enjoying my last few minutes of my lunch break. At first, it seems like a straight forward image, despite the unusual round frame, with its clean lines pulled taught, cutting across the image. But what you are also looking at what is probably the last thing somebody saw before he died. It’s eerie, elegiac, even monumental in its simplicity.
On one of these visits, I heard a young couple walk by and sneer loudly about how ridiculous it was that somebody had taken a photo of power lines and called it art. It struck me hard. It felt like they were not only dismissing the art, but the whole life and untimely, violent death of Brian Christopher Smith, whoever he may have been. It was crass, even cruel. All it took to understand this piece on its most cursory level was to read the title.

Deborah Luster

01-26 Location. 1800 Leonidas Street (Carrollton) Date(s). July 14, 2009 7:55 a.m. Name(s). Brian Christopher Smith (22) Notes. Face up with multiple gunshot wounds, from the Tooth for an Eye series, 2008-2012. Gelatin silver print. Collection of the Smithsonian American Art Museum.

——

I spent a lot of time last summer at SAAM’s Democracy of Image exhibition, and this was probably my favorite piece in it. I spent a lot of time looking at it in the dimly lit Granite Gallery, enjoying my last few minutes of my lunch break. At first, it seems like a straight forward image, despite the unusual round frame, with its clean lines pulled taught, cutting across the image. But what you are also looking at what is probably the last thing somebody saw before he died. It’s eerie, elegiac, even monumental in its simplicity.

On one of these visits, I heard a young couple walk by and sneer loudly about how ridiculous it was that somebody had taken a photo of power lines and called it art. It struck me hard. It felt like they were not only dismissing the art, but the whole life and untimely, violent death of Brian Christopher Smith, whoever he may have been. It was crass, even cruel. All it took to understand this piece on its most cursory level was to read the title.

#art#deborah luster#tooth for an eye#contemporary art#photography
Why are you featuring Joe Scanlan's Donelle Woolford project? You do understand that Joe Scanlan is a fifty-something year old white male art professor/critic/artist who created a fictional black female artist named Donelle Woolford as an exploitative way of displaying his own work right?

blackcontemporaryart:

Not sure what you’re referencing but we’d like to take this moment to highlight Coco Fusco’s brilliant read of the Woolford project here

Don’t make assumptions about what we know and don’t know. Thanks for following!

Black power, 
BCA

Update to the whole Biennial/Donelle Woolford/Joe Scanlan affair: Joe Scanlan was recently revealed to be a fictitious creation by the artist Ryan Wong.

This certainly makes the debate more interesting (convoluted? scary?).

#art

water-stained:

Roger White

Chloe, 2008

Shelf, 2012

#Art
water-stained:

Sam Francis, Composition: Yellow and Red, 1956. Watercolor and gouache on paper. Bechtler Museum of Modern Art.

water-stained:

Sam Francis, Composition: Yellow and Red, 1956. Watercolor and gouache on paper. Bechtler Museum of Modern Art.

#art
water-stained:

Gianna Commito
Deck, 2010. Watercolor, casein, and marble dust ground on panel.

water-stained:

Gianna Commito

Deck, 2010. Watercolor, casein, and marble dust ground on panel.

#art
water-stained:

Eva Lundsager
With Many Turns or Windings 16, 2013. Watercolor on paper.

water-stained:

Eva Lundsager

With Many Turns or Windings 16, 2013. Watercolor on paper.

#art
water-stained:

Alan Shields, Tunnels of Amagination for Vicki, 1987. Watercolor with stitching on handmade paper.

water-stained:

Alan Shields, Tunnels of Amagination for Vicki, 1987. Watercolor with stitching on handmade paper.

#art
water-stained:

Mithu Sen
Untitled, 2009

water-stained:

Mithu Sen

Untitled, 2009

#art#indian art#women artists#contemporary
water-stained:

Mithu Sen
Untitled, 2009

water-stained:

Mithu Sen

Untitled, 2009

#art

water-stained:

John Singer Sargent

Pomegranates, 1908

Gourds, 1908

#art