Students, To broaden our discussions, I would like you to respond with an open ended dialogue on your response to this reading. What do you agree/disagree with in the reading? What other issues/questions can be commented on? Feel free to check back and continue our conversation.
The duality of the depictions of the two women, Eve and Mary, are very interesting. Here we see how women in general were viewed in the Renaissance as innately dirty and dangerous to the virtue of men, while the Virgin remains the only example of the glorification and purity of women and stands as the exception to this rule. Of course, these ideas about women as evil temptresses changed with time, but the depiction of these filthy women in art stood as something very over-sexualized and probably inadvertently "turned on" a lot of men. I found this to be an irony that wasn't addressed in the Henry Krauss reading and thought was worth mentioning. I didn't know such pornographic images existed in art at that time until reading about it in the essay.
when reading "the virgins one bare breast" i found it easy to understand the popularity of this image in the context of a time of famine in Florence, not only were people in need of physical nurishment but often in times of great hardship many look to faith for help thus also needed spiritual nurishment. the image of a virgin feeding the son of god also helps solidify her as a mother to god not only did she carry him and birth him but she feeds and cares for him as a child and with out her care he would not live.It is also suggested that the feeding of christ was a mothering example trying to get woman to feed their own children rather than use a wet nurse this image could also be suggesting that woman teach their children about god t a young age that children are spiritually feed as well as nursed. I do not feel that these images were ment to be pornographic at the time considering in the reading when it is mentioned that the virgin is not dipicted in a way that was considered sexually attractive at that time.
I think it's interesting that Miles notes that the image was, as far as it's known, made by and for men. Whether it was for display in a church or on more personal items, the image of Mary nursing was about the greater metaphor that as she nurtured Christ, she nurtured all Christianity as well. I think it's important to note that context because anything with even a hint at nudity today is considered "suggestive" and people are quick to cover up if they want to be taken seriously and not seem provocative.
I also thought it was interesting, on the topic of wet nurses, that the church was suggesting that infants could somehow become stupid or immoral if they were not breastfed by their own mothers. Today it is suggested that breastfed babies are healthier and have important time to bond with their mothers, but the 14th century Tuscans seemed to find a greater importance that related to the child's future place within their society.
The use of this imagery, as noted in the text, as an early form of public manipulation and advertisement to "put women in there place" seemed odd yet makes sense, in comparison to the religious aspects during that time. The element of the woman expected to be a good mother yet never as powerful as the idolized Mary, brings back the issue of power. Now woman is given power, but only one woman, and through religion.
In response to Chloe's comment about the pornographic aspect and Elizabeth's comment about nudity today is suggestive, I found interesting in relation to early images of nudity. Perhaps culturally in European countries there was a developing uneasiness towards nudity and sexuality that has brought us to our phobias of today, however if we look at other cultures of Africa and indigenous tribes across the world, even today we can see a less to no concern amongst those peoples with nudity, breast, and even genitalia. As an interesting experience of my own to share on this matter is one of attending during the early 1990's, "Rainbow Gatherings". As a brief explanation of what they were and perhaps still are is a gathering, usually in state parks or other secluded areas as a two week long "utopia" that originated out of many events and "gatherings" during the 1960's. At gatherings, it is common place to basically run around naked if you want, especially at the swimming whole or other water source. At first, the issues of modesty, starring at others, and the personal lustful eye is an issue. Then you get use to it and the uncomfortable and problematic mental issues practically go away, and you find yourself having perfectly normal conversations with other "naked people", thus breast are no longer an issue, at least for two weeks. Back in relation to the text with this, it is more of a concern and issue with religion and churches, and their overpowering influence over gender and roles. In addition to this, culturally then, as well as now, there is an issue involving clothing that causes the problems. Just a thought to consider, it is not breast that are a problem, it is a problem that we are not culturally use to seeing them on a regular basis under "non-pornographic" implementations.
I don't have much to disagree with, but i found the reading interesting and informative.It also related to the other reading for this week. Its pretty neat that even though Mary and Eve were depicted in different ways in the other reading, she talked about how women wouldn't have to worry about witchcraft because they had power for being able to breast feed a child.
It was also helpful that in "The Virgin's One Bare Breast" she gave the readers three reasons of why this wasn't looked at as pornography.
Probably the most interesting thing in the article, to me, was the speech by the evangelist from the fifteenth century, saying that through the woman, Mary, God owed us just as much as we owe him, since Mary bore and created His own son through her blood, fed him with her milk, and taught him what it was to be human. To say that a woman is just as important as God is a very interesting thing to say , especially looking at the time period- the preacher was from the fifteenth century, the same time as the Renaissance profile portraiture we talked about last class, that very clearly objectified women. The contrast between the idea of the powerful biblical character and the actual treatment of women is night and day, and is an intriguing picture of the mentality towards women in that day.
Also, it's very interesting thinking about Mary as Jesus' mother, because we also have to remember that Jesus also had a mortal father figure- Joseph. When you examine the Bible, Joseph is hardly mentioned at all after the Nativity. It's intriguing that the patriarch of the family is hardly mentioned at all in the story, the emphasis -obviously- on Jesus, but also on his mother. The patriarch is only mentioned when he must protect the pregnant virgin, but is then mentioned only in passing.
Now, as Miles goes on, her point that the imagery of the bare breasted virgin is both what women must to do (nurse their children, provide for their family selflessly) and will never attain the perfection that was Mary (chaste, flawless, selfless, without any sin), is one very well made about the time. While the imagery of the Virgin does, in a sense, empower women by edifying the act of nursing and childbirth, it also pigeon holes women into "how a woman must act," thus making stereotype for women: they must be as pure as Mary, or they are "mere women." So while Mary's worship does give women respect, it also restricts them to what society expects of them.
In response to Jason's comment about the anxiety of nudity, I think the article was arguing that these images were devoid of eroticism. The Virgin is depicted as a humble, fully clothed being, with an obtrusive, bulbous appendage attached to her chest. The irregularity of her anatomy eliminates much of the sexuality that may be in the image. On the other hand, Miles talks about the interpretations of crucifixion scenes and other scenes of Christ as being extremely erotic and centered around the male body. It is a delicate balance between religiosity and sexuality, with the religious message hopefully dominant. The male is allowed to associate himself as directly of the lord, in body and spirit, but images of the virgin deny a human relation. This depiction of the physical carnality of Jesus allows men to assume the role of Christ, while Mary is expected to serve Christ.
I also though that the evangelical decree that God is indebted to humankind because of Mary's power to be of particular interest. I will not repeat the points brought up by Nicolas, but I will say that I got a very distinct sense that in this article, Miles was making an argument that unlike the popular position that men are physically superior to women, that women actually surpass men in their physical capabilities. I had a difficult time finding the articles date of publication, but I assume that it is relatively contemporary. Even having said this, it is an interesting view to take with compelling evidence. I think we can take from this that MIles is reinstating the power of women by saying that although a different kind of power, women have just as many physical "perks" as men.
This is also interesting considering the argument that Miles makes further in the article that the images were a reflection of man's anxiety that women would realize their own physical power. Although we have discussed topics similar to this, it is still very interesting to think of, especially in relation to religious text. Is this why the image was so popular? : because it visually addressed anxieties of both men (power of women) and women (the moral correctness of breast feeding and the inability to be as good as Mary). This maybe is proof for the idea that art that addresses only the pleasures of a society can only go so far, that the truly iconic images of art all in some way (subliminal or not) address our fears as a society.
Something that I thought was pretty interesting was when they were talking about wet nurses and feeding your child and whatnot. I didn't know that animal milk was considered unfit for infants, and that they believed that the children would be messed up by their milk. Also, when they said that the wet nurses were usually peasant women or slave women ("domestic enemies"), it reminded me of the movie "The Help." It baffled me how the black maids were the caretakers of their employer's children, did all the cooking and cleaning around the house, and yet they were not allowed to use the bathrooms inside the house. A remark made in the movie was that "They carry different diseases from us," "they" being the help. That being said, how could they eat the food that these maids prepared with their own hands if they carried "different diseases?" How, then, do they validate them caring for their children and essentially raising them?
It is the same case for the medieval women who employed wet nurses. It is understandable not to feed the child animal milk if the quality of the milk was questionable. However, if these women were employing questionable people to nurse their children, how did they justify it? If they were concerned about a slave woman's character and that character being passed on to the child through her milk, then why were such women employed as wet nurses? It's quite ironic.
I don't really agree with the binary that women are either Eve or Mary. I mean they are fascinating roles to think about and consider - but they're still roles. That Mary suddenly was considered pure and unpolluted I find hard to believe, I think the pure or virgin role is a worse role than that of the whore for the reason that she has to constantly appeal for allowances in her "agency". The whore or Eve role isn't much better but there seems to be more an external focus on the wrongs of Eve's being than an internal problem - Eve isn't internally evil but she's perceived as that - while Mary has to be both internally and externally pure. If that makes any sense. Otherwise I found it a very interesting and refreshing reading when it comes to the dichotomy of virgin/whore
Students,
ReplyDeleteTo broaden our discussions, I would like you to respond with an open ended dialogue on your response to this reading. What do you agree/disagree with in the reading? What other issues/questions can be commented on? Feel free to check back and continue our conversation.
The duality of the depictions of the two women, Eve and Mary, are very interesting. Here we see how women in general were viewed in the Renaissance as innately dirty and dangerous to the virtue of men, while the Virgin remains the only example of the glorification and purity of women and stands as the exception to this rule. Of course, these ideas about women as evil temptresses changed with time, but the depiction of these filthy women in art stood as something very over-sexualized and probably inadvertently "turned on" a lot of men. I found this to be an irony that wasn't addressed in the Henry Krauss reading and thought was worth mentioning. I didn't know such pornographic images existed in art at that time until reading about it in the essay.
ReplyDeletewhen reading "the virgins one bare breast" i found it easy to understand the popularity of this image in the context of a time of famine in Florence, not only were people in need of physical nurishment but often in times of great hardship many look to faith for help thus also needed spiritual nurishment. the image of a virgin feeding the son of god also helps solidify her as a mother to god not only did she carry him and birth him but she feeds and cares for him as a child and with out her care he would not live.It is also suggested that the feeding of christ was a mothering example trying to get woman to feed their own children rather than use a wet nurse this image could also be suggesting that woman teach their children about god t a young age that children are spiritually feed as well as nursed. I do not feel that these images were ment to be pornographic at the time considering in the reading when it is mentioned that the virgin is not dipicted in a way that was considered sexually attractive at that time.
ReplyDeleteI think it's interesting that Miles notes that the image was, as far as it's known, made by and for men. Whether it was for display in a church or on more personal items, the image of Mary nursing was about the greater metaphor that as she nurtured Christ, she nurtured all Christianity as well. I think it's important to note that context because anything with even a hint at nudity today is considered "suggestive" and people are quick to cover up if they want to be taken seriously and not seem provocative.
ReplyDeleteI also thought it was interesting, on the topic of wet nurses, that the church was suggesting that infants could somehow become stupid or immoral if they were not breastfed by their own mothers. Today it is suggested that breastfed babies are healthier and have important time to bond with their mothers, but the 14th century Tuscans seemed to find a greater importance that related to the child's future place within their society.
The use of this imagery, as noted in the text, as an early form of public manipulation and advertisement to "put women in there place" seemed odd yet makes sense, in comparison to the religious aspects during that time. The element of the woman expected to be a good mother yet never as powerful as the idolized Mary, brings back the issue of power. Now woman is given power, but only one woman, and through religion.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Chloe's comment about the pornographic aspect and Elizabeth's comment about nudity today is suggestive, I found interesting in relation to early images of nudity. Perhaps culturally in European countries there was a developing uneasiness towards nudity and sexuality that has brought us to our phobias of today, however if we look at other cultures of Africa and indigenous tribes across the world, even today we can see a less to no concern amongst those peoples with nudity, breast, and even genitalia. As an interesting experience of my own to share on this matter is one of attending during the early 1990's, "Rainbow Gatherings". As a brief explanation of what they were and perhaps still are is a gathering, usually in state parks or other secluded areas as a two week long "utopia" that originated out of many events and "gatherings" during the 1960's. At gatherings, it is common place to basically run around naked if you want, especially at the swimming whole or other water source. At first, the issues of modesty, starring at others, and the personal lustful eye is an issue. Then you get use to it and the uncomfortable and problematic mental issues practically go away, and you find yourself having perfectly normal conversations with other "naked people", thus breast are no longer an issue, at least for two weeks.
Back in relation to the text with this, it is more of a concern and issue with religion and churches, and their overpowering influence over gender and roles. In addition to this, culturally then, as well as now, there is an issue involving clothing that causes the problems. Just a thought to consider, it is not breast that are a problem, it is a problem that we are not culturally use to seeing them on a regular basis under "non-pornographic" implementations.
I don't have much to disagree with, but i found the reading interesting and informative.It also related to the other reading for this week. Its pretty neat that even though Mary and Eve were depicted in different ways in the other reading, she talked about how women wouldn't have to worry about witchcraft because they had power for being able to breast feed a child.
ReplyDeleteIt was also helpful that in "The Virgin's One Bare Breast" she gave the readers three reasons of why this wasn't looked at as pornography.
Probably the most interesting thing in the article, to me, was the speech by the evangelist from the fifteenth century, saying that through the woman, Mary, God owed us just as much as we owe him, since Mary bore and created His own son through her blood, fed him with her milk, and taught him what it was to be human. To say that a woman is just as important as God is a very interesting thing to say , especially looking at the time period- the preacher was from the fifteenth century, the same time as the Renaissance profile portraiture we talked about last class, that very clearly objectified women. The contrast between the idea of the powerful biblical character and the actual treatment of women is night and day, and is an intriguing picture of the mentality towards women in that day.
ReplyDeleteAlso, it's very interesting thinking about Mary as Jesus' mother, because we also have to remember that Jesus also had a mortal father figure- Joseph. When you examine the Bible, Joseph is hardly mentioned at all after the Nativity. It's intriguing that the patriarch of the family is hardly mentioned at all in the story, the emphasis -obviously- on Jesus, but also on his mother. The patriarch is only mentioned when he must protect the pregnant virgin, but is then mentioned only in passing.
Now, as Miles goes on, her point that the imagery of the bare breasted virgin is both what women must to do (nurse their children, provide for their family selflessly) and will never attain the perfection that was Mary (chaste, flawless, selfless, without any sin), is one very well made about the time. While the imagery of the Virgin does, in a sense, empower women by edifying the act of nursing and childbirth, it also pigeon holes women into "how a woman must act," thus making stereotype for women: they must be as pure as Mary, or they are "mere women." So while Mary's worship does give women respect, it also restricts them to what society expects of them.
In response to Jason's comment about the anxiety of nudity, I think the article was arguing that these images were devoid of eroticism. The Virgin is depicted as a humble, fully clothed being, with an obtrusive, bulbous appendage attached to her chest. The irregularity of her anatomy eliminates much of the sexuality that may be in the image. On the other hand, Miles talks about the interpretations of crucifixion scenes and other scenes of Christ as being extremely erotic and centered around the male body. It is a delicate balance between religiosity and sexuality, with the religious message hopefully dominant. The male is allowed to associate himself as directly of the lord, in body and spirit, but images of the virgin deny a human relation. This depiction of the physical carnality of Jesus allows men to assume the role of Christ, while Mary is expected to serve Christ.
ReplyDeleteI also though that the evangelical decree that God is indebted to humankind because of Mary's power to be of particular interest. I will not repeat the points brought up by Nicolas, but I will say that I got a very distinct sense that in this article, Miles was making an argument that unlike the popular position that men are physically superior to women, that women actually surpass men in their physical capabilities. I had a difficult time finding the articles date of publication, but I assume that it is relatively contemporary. Even having said this, it is an interesting view to take with compelling evidence. I think we can take from this that MIles is reinstating the power of women by saying that although a different kind of power, women have just as many physical "perks" as men.
ReplyDeleteThis is also interesting considering the argument that Miles makes further in the article that the images were a reflection of man's anxiety that women would realize their own physical power. Although we have discussed topics similar to this, it is still very interesting to think of, especially in relation to religious text. Is this why the image was so popular? : because it visually addressed anxieties of both men (power of women) and women (the moral correctness of breast feeding and the inability to be as good as Mary). This maybe is proof for the idea that art that addresses only the pleasures of a society can only go so far, that the truly iconic images of art all in some way (subliminal or not) address our fears as a society.
Something that I thought was pretty interesting was when they were talking about wet nurses and feeding your child and whatnot. I didn't know that animal milk was considered unfit for infants, and that they believed that the children would be messed up by their milk. Also, when they said that the wet nurses were usually peasant women or slave women ("domestic enemies"), it reminded me of the movie "The Help." It baffled me how the black maids were the caretakers of their employer's children, did all the cooking and cleaning around the house, and yet they were not allowed to use the bathrooms inside the house. A remark made in the movie was that "They carry different diseases from us," "they" being the help. That being said, how could they eat the food that these maids prepared with their own hands if they carried "different diseases?" How, then, do they validate them caring for their children and essentially raising them?
ReplyDeleteIt is the same case for the medieval women who employed wet nurses. It is understandable not to feed the child animal milk if the quality of the milk was questionable. However, if these women were employing questionable people to nurse their children, how did they justify it? If they were concerned about a slave woman's character and that character being passed on to the child through her milk, then why were such women employed as wet nurses? It's quite ironic.
I don't really agree with the binary that women are either Eve or Mary. I mean they are fascinating roles to think about and consider - but they're still roles. That Mary suddenly was considered pure and unpolluted I find hard to believe, I think the pure or virgin role is a worse role than that of the whore for the reason that she has to constantly appeal for allowances in her "agency". The whore or Eve role isn't much better but there seems to be more an external focus on the wrongs of Eve's being than an internal problem - Eve isn't internally evil but she's perceived as that - while Mary has to be both internally and externally pure. If that makes any sense. Otherwise I found it a very interesting and refreshing reading when it comes to the dichotomy of virgin/whore
ReplyDelete