While reading Deborah Bright’s “Of Mother Nature and Marlboro Men: An Inquiry into the Cultural meanings of Landscape Photography”, I found myself agreeing with some of her points, but confused and discouraged by others. A primary focus of this passage was the emphasis of masculinity in landscape photography and the exclusion of woman photographers in many exhibitions and books featuring masters of the medium. I believe that women have something important and unique to contribute to landscape photography, but I don’t fully agree with the way Bright was arguing this point. For example, on page 345 Bright quoted female photographer Linda Connor saying, “Women’s childbearing capacity ‘makes an enormous difference’ in how they perceive themselves and their relationship to the world”, and goes as far as to say women posses “natural creativity” while a man’s creativity is artificial. My problem with a statement like this is that these women are trying to argue their equality to men, but are presenting stereotypical gendered thinking about the roles of women as their reasoning and putting down male artists. Why succumb to the social role that society puts women in if you are trying to convince people it is a construct? Perhaps I am interpreting this wrong, but that is not logical to me. Connor also talks about how women tend to have a more emotional and intimate relationship with nature which is a very generalized statement. If we are going by preconceived notions of how men and women are “supposed” to act then men should be tough and strong and women should be sensitive and weak, but as an artist a man is practicing a sensitive way of perceiving his world and a woman going into the wilderness is going against her “nature”. Connor can say these things about herself specifically, but to bring all female photographers into the argument is a generalization. On the next page Bright brings up how these gender roles are enforced within families and taught from a young age, which I do feel is true. All that being said, I realize this is a 30 year-old article and the general thinking of the time was different. Nonetheless, I feel that more valid reasoning should be provided for this argument and it should focus more on how men and women are equally good photographers and should be represented equally.
5 comments:
I actually noticed the same thing Nicolette! I wondered if she was critiquing this notion, since to justify women's ability to our cultural conception of 'natural graceful creativity and childbearing capacity' is an outdated notion. I understood it as a presentation of an older, outdated mindset from Connor, which Bright was critiquing. I'm unsure if I interpreted this incorrectly as well, but I agree with your points fully! The fact that this article is decades old is definitely a factor to consider.
Just as you felt unsure about the analysis of women landscape photographers, I felt that same uneasiness regarding the construction of nature to please tourists and create "unique" picture opportunities to the public. On the one hand, it's disappointing to know that we are experiencing nature in a very constructed way that will be the same way every single other tourist views nature. We are only seeing whatever is in front of the carved out car stop. I felt like this twice in my life: when seeing the Hollywood sign and when seeing the Statue of Liberty. I know those aren't "natural" per se, but they still fit into the category of constructed tourism.
However, would we get to see these beautiful natural monuments and parks otherwise? I realize we can see nature everyday out of our backyard, but if it weren't for tourist construction at places like national parks and the Grand Canyon, how would we be able to visit these beautiful places and share them with our family? No one is saying the pictures we are taking are unique or that we are fully submerging ourself in true nature, but it is better than never leaving our own home. These constructions provide some kind of vehicle for us to experience even on a basic level something we would not experience otherwise.
I agree with your uneasy feeling about the generalizations in this article. In a similar fashion to Connor's statements about how women engage with nature, I felt that Bright's statements about how men engage were equally skewed, although not entirely untrue. Bright feels that the ideal of the lone male photographer going out into nature to interact with and capture its untouched beauty is not strictly a male phenomenon, but a human one. I think that we as humans are always seeking the sublime. Although there is the historical precedent of the male explorer or pioneer, I don't feel that this is what drives all male landscape photographers. I would be careful of generalizing art-making as a sensitive practice (for men) but I see what you are saying. Going into nature seeking to make beautiful images does not bear the same masculinity as going into nature to chart and settle untouched land. However, this is only because to go into nature to create beautiful images is not an inherently masculine or feminine activity, it is simply a human activity.
Andrew, I really like the last part of your post where you say that creating beautiful images in nature is neither masculine nor feminine, it is simply human. I completely agree with this. Interaction with nature is quite literally part of human nature. I always err on the side of caution when using the "it's human nature" argument but in this instance I think it is valid. Being in tune with nature is something that is written into human DNA and to classify it either masculine or feminine is fundamentally wrong.
I agree with all of you! The thing that I am most confused about is the statement Linda Connor makes. To me gender and experiences effect who you are as an artist, but gender doesn't dictate your form of art making or your methods. As an art student and a woman I have met artists, male and female, who think like me and who don't think like me at all in terms of creativity and art making. I also have some good friends who although they may not work in the same mediums or styles as me, but we believe that the way we make art is from the same origin. As an illustrator I focus on telling and re-telling stories. Not every illustrator is going to think the same way I think or work the same way I work in my gender or outside of it. I agree with Molly that because this article is older I feel that opinions have changed. I feel that art making is individual and effected by personal experiences that may or may not be relevant to gender, but overall I believe that assigning methods of art making by gender is wrong and ill-informed.
Post a Comment