Students, compare/contrast the use of Artemisia and Susanna as female images in art and what these portrayals represent in the context of art history. Dig deep.
At first, I wasn't sure why we were assigned to read the passage about Ruth other than that it was about a woman, but I noticed a similarity in the treatment of the Ruth and Susanna stories vs Judith's. All three were about noble and virtuous women, but Ruth and Susanna were both aided by men (Boaz and Daniel) whereas Judith was depicted as the hero figure, the men as weak and almost cowardly as they struggle to maintain the morale of their citizens and plead for assistance from God in their plight. Almost all of the paintings of Susanna's story focus on the highly sexualized scene of the threat of the Elders as she cowers before them; only a few depict the punishment of the Elders or Daniel's testimony. It is also interesting that in Judith's decapitation of Holofernes paintings, she is always shown accompanied by her maidservant, while in the story, Judith had instructed her to wait outside the tent. It's almost as if people in the Middle Ages would not respond to a depiction of a woman single-handedly overtaking a domineering male figure, like it would be unbelievable otherwise. Also, in most paintings, both the women appear fearful as they tuck away the head of Holofernes, not at all the heroic depiction of the two women in the story. I think Artemisia's painting best shows the action of the story as I imagined it, even though the maidservant is present.
I like how male artists when doing the Susanna and the Elders painting make the female, in simple terms "sexy". They glamorize rape with the positioning of the female body to the extent where they almost make it as though she is just playing hard to get or keepaway. Whether or not Artemisia painting the painting the way in which the body was positioned was more actual and "real" in running with the story.
I feel that these images of woman as Susanna really reveal a lot about how men view woman at the time when they are made as well as the powerlessness of woman to control when how they are viewed that a woman at any time can be objectified by a man if he so pleases. Also in many of these painting it Susanna although she covers herself does not seem to object she remains a passive object. I find it hard to believe that Artimesia in fact is the artist responsible for the Susanna and the elders painting. it is hard to believe because of her age and also i have a problem with the idea that this is a comontary on her rape with the work being dated 1610 when the rape was in 1611.
I agree and disagree with Riley because yes the dates are different ,but remember these guys were said to be harassing her before they raped her. I think both women are pitied in art. Although, Susanna was able have her rapers brought in front of the lords prophet (Daniel) who helped plead her case, Artimesia never fully got her justice. Except, Artimesia's story sounds a bit fishy.
Although the paintings focus on a key element of the story,the lack of any afterwards leave us within that moment. Her reaction or lack there of with the men standing over her repeats with no end. To those without knowledge of the story,her actions become important. In comparison to Eve, Susanna is both the sin and temptation. Not seperate entities but with the assumption of alluring the men.
So upon digging up some pictures, I'm going to have to agree with both Chloe and Marie: in the pictures of Judith, even Artemesia's, she is always accompanied by her maid servant, contrary to the story (possibly showing that the time period couldn't accept a very strong female character, as Chloe said), and the pictures of Susanna are all extremely sexual, and make the idea of the old men raping her less offensive, like Marie said.
If you dig into it, however, we still have two extremely different images- one of a woman almost getting raped by two men, and two women slaughtering a man, clearly showing dominance over him. Compare Artemesia's depiction of the Judith scene with Allori's Judith with the Elders-in one we have women performing a task usually associated with men, the act of decapitation, and then you have a naked women with men crawling all over her naked body. Judith is clearly depicted as a strong, powerful figure, while Susanna is almost smiling as she is accosted by these men- she is clearly objectified by the artist and the men in the painting.
I would also like to point out another example of the Judith piece that differs very much from the Artemesia: Caravaggio's depiction. In it, Judith is a meek looking woman, one who looks like she is putting little to no force behind her decapitation, and has a look of "feminine" disgust on her face. We then look at the Artemesia piece, and the differences are night and day. Judith looks very strong and powerful in Artemesia's, and it looks like she is performing the deed, as opposed to Caravaggio's. Caravaggio's is interesting when thought about historically, as well- since he probably wanted to avoid controversy as a man painting a woman killing a man. Thus, he painted her very slim and beautiful, while she, almost passively, decapitates Holofernes. He effectively objectifies this woman that is supposed to be a very powerful figure. So while Artemesia's piece does show her maid helping her, she still seems very powerful.
Susanna's depiction by Artemisia Gentileschi echoes Artemisia's personal beliefs and morals. In the painting, Susanna is not welcoming or being passive towards the Elders come-ons but instead is terrified and rejecting their advances. Although Susanna was painted by Artemisia before her rape and trial, I feel that Artemisia, because of the period she lived during, would have been used, or at least, aware of the way women were treated and expected to respond to men despite their behavior.
Most painters did not paint Susanna in the same light as Artemisia instead making Susanna appear to be intrigued or welcoming of the harassment of the Elders. If we were to look at Artemisia's depiction of Susanna, we could assume Susanna was a woman of virtue and good morals but if we look at Giovanni Battista Tiepolo's depiction of Susanna, she is passive, allowing herself to be touched. Susanna can, in few instances, be used as a figure of female power but in most cases, unfortunately, is more a representation of male power, their desire to control women and their use of the story of Susanna as solely a way to create an erotic painting.
So far as Artemisia goes, yes she was a successful woman painter who depicted scenes involving strong willed women but was her choice of subject matter fueled by her rape? I feel that because she was raped; she took interest in the lives and stories of strong females but because of the injustice of the case, she was affected by male power as well.
I regret to inform you that due to my blogging after a handful of people, the ideas and readings I had thought about dicussing were already talked about. I find myself agreeing with the thoughts chloe had in the beginning of the blog, but I would also like to hear more from Riley on his comment, or touch on it more in class!
Garrard walks a thin line when she speaks of Artemisia's paintings having identifiably feminine qualities. I think she speaks of feminine qualities in terms of female interpretations more so than technique. "Susanna and the Elders" does differ drastically in the treatment of the female figure, because it animates her. She is no longer a static, passive figure letting these perverted men attack and blackmail her, she is a moving, breathing character that chooses to resist her assailants. I think it is the same story with Artemisia. While being leveled with claims that she was inherently promiscuous and asking for it, she is laboring at her painting career. She is painting these anxieties that her society literally will not let her fight against (Orazio leading the accusation and testimony instead of Artemisia). Here she takes power through painting. I think this is an example of a female forced to use a secondary figure or cypher to speak. She is speaking through Susanna just as Christine de Pizan spoke through Reason, Rectitude and Justice.
In regards to depictions of Judith with her servant included in the scene whereas in the story she was outside, we must remember that possibly the artist is trying to include much more information within one frame to try and illustrate the story better. I have often seen, even in person, paintings of Judith by herself and the severed head, depicted as a strong woman. Everyones commentary was very interesting and summed up most of what I would have said.
I feel that the original question has already been adequately addressed. However, i would like to bring up the idea that the evidence presented by the author are "evidence of Artemisia's authorship. At one point Garrard goes as far as to say, "The simple fact that Artemisia Gentileschi was female is sufficient to explain her uniquely sympathetic treatment of the Susanna theme." This is ridiculous, especially considering Elisabeta Sirani painted another famous Susanna that conforms to the prevailing archetypes.
Some points by Garrard were poignant, such as her examination of the usual treatment of the Susannah theme in a male oriented manner. However, her assertions of Artemisia as the ONLY one to create a non-sexual Susannah is problematic. (Am I mistaken or does the Domenichino presented on page 149 seem distressed rather than enticing?) In all, i feel that the jumps made by Garrard were huge and served not to convince me of Artemisia's authorship but of Garrards inadequacies as a historian.
Aside from positioning and details in the scenery, I like that Garrard makes note of the realism in the Gentileschi painting that is used as further proof of it being Artemisia's work. The mention of details like the wrinkles in the neck and the shape of her body go along with our discussions of artists only being able to study same-sex nudes. While it may seem picky, I think details like this make sense in context and are something I probably never would have noticed as indicative of a painter's sex before this class. I also think it's worth considering that her more realistic interpretation of the female form could speak to her whole interpretation of the scene as more realistic. I agree with others that male artists made the scene overtly sexual and acceptable, but Artemisia's handling of the topic makes it seem like more of a frightening experience for Susanna.
I was thrown off, like Riley, by the date of Artemisia's rape, but I think Nicole also makes a valid point that it came after harassment. I am definitely more curious now about Artemisia's life and how her story, and her work, could relate to the topic of blame vs. credit for females in art.
I think it is interesting that Garrard mentions that this painting has been misinterpreted for a long time because it was viewed mainly by a male audience, who could not empathize with Susanna and Artemisia in the way a woman can, saying that "most artist and patrons have been men, drawn by instinct to identify more with the villains than with the heroine," (153). So, instinctively, women relate to Susanna and men to the Elders? After all, "a seventeen year old girl brought up in an unquestioned patriarchal world could not have consciously intended all this" (166)..so, if it was not conscious it was unconscious, instinctual? I thought it was strange to end with this comment, saying that really, Artemesia was not thinking this hard about her art, but that this great debate is the invention of "men [who have] distorted [this story] almost beyond recognition" (167).
I agree with Anna Elizabeth. I feel like the Garrard article makes several contradictions about Susanna being a "flat" character, and then saying that she is a "three-dimensional character" later on. I also found it weird that Garrard (at least, to me) seems to say that Susanna was the one tempting the elders and, in a way, instigating all this. When I read Susanna, I saw her as a woman just minding her own business, about to bathe, when suddenly these elders come up to her with ulterior motives and present her with an ultimatum. Susanna doesn't necessarily reject the ultimatum or comply with it, but just screams for help like some women may do in that situation. But to say that Susanna was intentionally trying to tempt them and sort of comparing her to Eve I don't think really works...
Students, compare/contrast the use of Artemisia and Susanna as female images in art and what these portrayals represent in the context of art history. Dig deep.
ReplyDeleteAt first, I wasn't sure why we were assigned to read the passage about Ruth other than that it was about a woman, but I noticed a similarity in the treatment of the Ruth and Susanna stories vs Judith's. All three were about noble and virtuous women, but Ruth and Susanna were both aided by men (Boaz and Daniel) whereas Judith was depicted as the hero figure, the men as weak and almost cowardly as they struggle to maintain the morale of their citizens and plead for assistance from God in their plight. Almost all of the paintings of Susanna's story focus on the highly sexualized scene of the threat of the Elders as she cowers before them; only a few depict the punishment of the Elders or Daniel's testimony. It is also interesting that in Judith's decapitation of Holofernes paintings, she is always shown accompanied by her maidservant, while in the story, Judith had instructed her to wait outside the tent. It's almost as if people in the Middle Ages would not respond to a depiction of a woman single-handedly overtaking a domineering male figure, like it would be unbelievable otherwise. Also, in most paintings, both the women appear fearful as they tuck away the head of Holofernes, not at all the heroic depiction of the two women in the story. I think Artemisia's painting best shows the action of the story as I imagined it, even though the maidservant is present.
ReplyDeleteI like how male artists when doing the Susanna and the Elders painting make the female, in simple terms "sexy". They glamorize rape with the positioning of the female body to the extent where they almost make it as though she is just playing hard to get or keepaway. Whether or not Artemisia painting the painting the way in which the body was positioned was more actual and "real" in running with the story.
ReplyDeleteI feel that these images of woman as Susanna really reveal a lot about how men view woman at the time when they are made as well as the powerlessness of woman to control when how they are viewed that a woman at any time can be objectified by a man if he so pleases. Also in many of these painting it Susanna although she covers herself does not seem to object she remains a passive object.
ReplyDeleteI find it hard to believe that Artimesia in fact is the artist responsible for the Susanna and the elders painting. it is hard to believe because of her age and also i have a problem with the idea that this is a comontary on her rape with the work being dated 1610 when the rape was in 1611.
I agree and disagree with Riley because yes the dates are different ,but remember these guys were said to be harassing her before they raped her.
ReplyDeleteI think both women are pitied in art. Although, Susanna was able have her rapers brought in front of the lords prophet (Daniel) who helped plead her case, Artimesia never fully got her justice. Except, Artimesia's story sounds a bit fishy.
Although the paintings focus on a key element of the story,the lack of any afterwards leave us within that moment. Her reaction or lack there of with the men standing over her repeats with no end. To those without knowledge of the story,her actions become important. In comparison to Eve, Susanna is both the sin and temptation. Not seperate entities but with the assumption of alluring the men.
ReplyDeleteSo upon digging up some pictures, I'm going to have to agree with both Chloe and Marie: in the pictures of Judith, even Artemesia's, she is always accompanied by her maid servant, contrary to the story (possibly showing that the time period couldn't accept a very strong female character, as Chloe said), and the pictures of Susanna are all extremely sexual, and make the idea of the old men raping her less offensive, like Marie said.
ReplyDeleteIf you dig into it, however, we still have two extremely different images- one of a woman almost getting raped by two men, and two women slaughtering a man, clearly showing dominance over him. Compare Artemesia's depiction of the Judith scene with Allori's Judith with the Elders-in one we have women performing a task usually associated with men, the act of decapitation, and then you have a naked women with men crawling all over her naked body. Judith is clearly depicted as a strong, powerful figure, while Susanna is almost smiling as she is accosted by these men- she is clearly objectified by the artist and the men in the painting.
I would also like to point out another example of the Judith piece that differs very much from the Artemesia: Caravaggio's depiction. In it, Judith is a meek looking woman, one who looks like she is putting little to no force behind her decapitation, and has a look of "feminine" disgust on her face. We then look at the Artemesia piece, and the differences are night and day. Judith looks very strong and powerful in Artemesia's, and it looks like she is performing the deed, as opposed to Caravaggio's. Caravaggio's is interesting when thought about historically, as well- since he probably wanted to avoid controversy as a man painting a woman killing a man. Thus, he painted her very slim and beautiful, while she, almost passively, decapitates Holofernes. He effectively objectifies this woman that is supposed to be a very powerful figure. So while Artemesia's piece does show her maid helping her, she still seems very powerful.
Susanna's depiction by Artemisia Gentileschi echoes Artemisia's personal beliefs and morals. In the painting, Susanna is not welcoming or being passive towards the Elders come-ons but instead is terrified and rejecting their advances. Although Susanna was painted by Artemisia before her rape and trial, I feel that Artemisia, because of the period she lived during, would have been used, or at least, aware of the way women were treated and expected to respond to men despite their behavior.
ReplyDeleteMost painters did not paint Susanna in the same light as Artemisia instead making Susanna appear to be intrigued or welcoming of the harassment of the Elders. If we were to look at Artemisia's depiction of Susanna, we could assume Susanna was a woman of virtue and good morals but if we look at Giovanni Battista Tiepolo's depiction of Susanna, she is passive, allowing herself to be touched. Susanna can, in few instances, be used as a figure of female power but in most cases, unfortunately, is more a representation of male power, their desire to control women and their use of the story of Susanna as solely a way to create an erotic painting.
So far as Artemisia goes, yes she was a successful woman painter who depicted scenes involving strong willed women but was her choice of subject matter fueled by her rape? I feel that because she was raped; she took interest in the lives and stories of strong females but because of the injustice of the case, she was affected by male power as well.
I regret to inform you that due to my blogging after a handful of people, the ideas and readings I had thought about dicussing were already talked about. I find myself agreeing with the thoughts chloe had in the beginning of the blog, but I would also like to hear more from Riley on his comment, or touch on it more in class!
ReplyDeleteGarrard walks a thin line when she speaks of Artemisia's paintings having identifiably feminine qualities. I think she speaks of feminine qualities in terms of female interpretations more so than technique. "Susanna and the Elders" does differ drastically in the treatment of the female figure, because it animates her. She is no longer a static, passive figure letting these perverted men attack and blackmail her, she is a moving, breathing character that chooses to resist her assailants. I think it is the same story with Artemisia. While being leveled with claims that she was inherently promiscuous and asking for it, she is laboring at her painting career. She is painting these anxieties that her society literally will not let her fight against (Orazio leading the accusation and testimony instead of Artemisia). Here she takes power through painting. I think this is an example of a female forced to use a secondary figure or cypher to speak. She is speaking through Susanna just as Christine de Pizan spoke through Reason, Rectitude and Justice.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to depictions of Judith with her servant included in the scene whereas in the story she was outside, we must remember that possibly the artist is trying to include much more information within one frame to try and illustrate the story better. I have often seen, even in person, paintings of Judith by herself and the severed head, depicted as a strong woman. Everyones commentary was very interesting and summed up most of what I would have said.
ReplyDeleteI feel that the original question has already been adequately addressed. However, i would like to bring up the idea that the evidence presented by the author are "evidence of Artemisia's authorship. At one point Garrard goes as far as to say, "The simple fact that Artemisia Gentileschi was female is sufficient to explain her uniquely sympathetic treatment of the Susanna theme." This is ridiculous, especially considering Elisabeta Sirani painted another famous Susanna that conforms to the prevailing archetypes.
ReplyDeleteSome points by Garrard were poignant, such as her examination of the usual treatment of the Susannah theme in a male oriented manner. However, her assertions of Artemisia as the ONLY one to create a non-sexual Susannah is problematic. (Am I mistaken or does the Domenichino presented on page 149 seem distressed rather than enticing?) In all, i feel that the jumps made by Garrard were huge and served not to convince me of Artemisia's authorship but of Garrards inadequacies as a historian.
Aside from positioning and details in the scenery, I like that Garrard makes note of the realism in the Gentileschi painting that is used as further proof of it being Artemisia's work. The mention of details like the wrinkles in the neck and the shape of her body go along with our discussions of artists only being able to study same-sex nudes. While it may seem picky, I think details like this make sense in context and are something I probably never would have noticed as indicative of a painter's sex before this class. I also think it's worth considering that her more realistic interpretation of the female form could speak to her whole interpretation of the scene as more realistic. I agree with others that male artists made the scene overtly sexual and acceptable, but Artemisia's handling of the topic makes it seem like more of a frightening experience for Susanna.
ReplyDeleteI was thrown off, like Riley, by the date of Artemisia's rape, but I think Nicole also makes a valid point that it came after harassment. I am definitely more curious now about Artemisia's life and how her story, and her work, could relate to the topic of blame vs. credit for females in art.
I think it is interesting that Garrard mentions that this painting has been misinterpreted for a long time because it was viewed mainly by a male audience, who could not empathize with Susanna and Artemisia in the way a woman can, saying that "most artist and patrons have been men, drawn by instinct to identify more with the villains than with the heroine," (153).
ReplyDeleteSo, instinctively, women relate to Susanna and men to the Elders? After all, "a seventeen year old girl brought up in an unquestioned patriarchal world could not have consciously intended all this" (166)..so, if it was not conscious it was unconscious, instinctual? I thought it was strange to end with this comment, saying that really, Artemesia was not thinking this hard about her art, but that this great debate is the invention of "men [who have] distorted [this story] almost beyond recognition" (167).
I agree with Anna Elizabeth. I feel like the Garrard article makes several contradictions about Susanna being a "flat" character, and then saying that she is a "three-dimensional character" later on. I also found it weird that Garrard (at least, to me) seems to say that Susanna was the one tempting the elders and, in a way, instigating all this. When I read Susanna, I saw her as a woman just minding her own business, about to bathe, when suddenly these elders come up to her with ulterior motives and present her with an ultimatum. Susanna doesn't necessarily reject the ultimatum or comply with it, but just screams for help like some women may do in that situation. But to say that Susanna was intentionally trying to tempt them and sort of comparing her to Eve I don't think really works...
ReplyDelete