Statue of David and Male Gaze

Throughout this course, the topic of “male gaze” has been discussed. It has been said that many of the women depicted in art and film have been manipulated by the medium to fit the standard of the man. The man should be able to project his fantasies on her, and thus she should appear willing.


I chose to discuss the Statue of David for this post because I wanted to discuss the differences between a nude male and nude female in art. In this particular statue, I don’t believe Michelangelo’s goal was to imply anything sexual or perverse about the male condition.


Contrastingly, “David” is chiseled and portrayed to be in great physical shape. He is baring his naked body completely but avoiding a direct stare at the audience. He is on a literal pedestal so the viewer is forced to look at him from a low angle that in turn presents him as great, prominent and magnificent.


The statue is meant to represent the Biblical hero, David. I wonder though, even if this statue had been modeled after a female Biblical heroin, would the artistical aspects have been the same? Would she have been on a pedestal as well? Would her body language have symbolized anything in the way of bravery? Or would it have been contorted in a way to fit the profile for “male gaze”?


Male gaze, as I discussed in one of my earlier posts, is a concept created by film critic Laura Mulvey. It suggests that any visual art containing women, are structured around a male viewer/audience. To put it in simpler terms, Mulvey is saying that women are purposely objectified and exploited to appeal to a masculine eye.


Men portray men as they are or should be in terms of grandeur. They portray them as strong and superior. Men portray women with characteristics that are further from human condition but mores abstract. Women are objectified, made to appeal specifically to a man’s interest and imply something sexual or inviting.


Placing a statue of a naked woman next to the Statue of David would connote two completely different things. I will bet the one of the woman will be more apparently seductive than the other. I will bet her body language will imply attainability and readiness as well as inclination. Her body will most likely be bent in a way that serves to emphasize her physical assets rather than a comfortable or relaxed pose.


As this course comes to a close, I have to agree with Laura Mulvey that women in the visual arts are profiled and structured around a "male gaze". Because this is mainly considered speculation, the notion still remains an opinion or "feminist" ideal. Still the proof remains in the visual arts, for every viewer, male and female, to decide for themselves.

Statue of David (Michelangelo)

Statue of Naked Woman

Keira Knightley as Anna Karenina

Keira Knightley as Anna Karenina 

Anna Karenina is a novel by Russian author Leo Tolstoy. For the purposes of this post, I will be referring to the 2012 film adaptation. Keira Knightley plays socialite and aristocrat Anna Karenina, who is married to prominent government minister Alexandrovich Karenin (Karenin for short). In a time where women married for both economical status and stability, Anna spends her days at their estate while her shallow, emotionless duty-bound husband is always pre-occupied with a more seemingly important task. 

Anna becomes a social outcast and pariah in her city of St.Petersberg when her husband uncovers that she has been having an affair with a Mr. Alexei Vronsky, a handsome, well-off military officer. Anna is very much in love with Vronsky, so much so that she requests a divorce from her husband. He of course, refuses and prompts her to stay together for the sake of keeping up appearances. 

Anna grows increasingly infatuated and paranoid with Vronsky when he seems to begin to detach. Compelled by his career ambitions, Vronsky has no plans of abandoning prospective career opportunities in exchange for an affair. Eventually, her irrational, psychosomatic behavior pushes her to the deepest depths of despair, resulting in her suicide. 

I chose the film adaptation of this particular story for two main reasons. Considering the way Russian women looked, especially in the mid to late 1800’s, I found it interesting that they chose Keira Knightley to play the role of Anna Karenina. They were heftier and more masculine than say, British women. They did emphasize the traditional bushy eyebrows on Keira Knightley for this role, but still, she doesn’t quite embody the Russian stereotype for this time. 

Considering “male gaze”, I think they purposely chose Keira Knightley to portray a taller, thinner, more feminine version of Anna Karenina. They made her much more sensual and pleasing to the eye. 

Despite her physical role in the film, this story is one that centers around how profusely women were made to be inferior. Among other things, Anna was intellectual, an avid reader and writer and well educated. All qualities that are seemingly insignificant to her husband. 

She was pretty and born into wealth which made her a good counterpart in the eyes of her husband. She then finds a man (Vronsky) who can match her and stimulate her intellectually, and yet, that is not enough to make him stick around in comparison to his career.

Keira Knightley as Anna Karenina 

Daisy Buchanan: Genius or Fool?

Daisy Buchanan is a character from F. Scott Fitzgerald's novel "The Great Gatsby" set in the 1920's. For the purpose of this post, I will be discussing Daisy as a visual character from the 2013 film adaptation. Daisy Buchanan is the wife of Tom Buchanan, an extremely wealthy aristocrat. She is extremely educated for a woman of her time and very beautiful. What makes Daisy such an interesting character is that she purposely chooses to conceal her intelligence and play "the fool". 

In the film, Daisy plays the role of the "dumb blonde" and behaves superficially. Because outspoken and opinionated women were culturally isolated and considered a pariah, Daisy decides to play to her strengths. Being openly sexual and forthright was just not the way a woman was supposed to act. Daisy is well aware that women seen as objects rather than people in this era. 

Daisy Buchanan was a woman who knows her role and plays it well. The operative word being "play". Daisy was the type to mask her intelligence to fool the fool so to speak. There is knowledge in power and she knew it was better to know what was going on and subsequently act oblivious to it than to not know anything at all. 

Daisy is infamous for a certain quote that reads "the best thing a girl can be in this world is a fool". Having much perspicacity as a woman was both a weakness and a strength. She was not blind to the cruelties that a woman in this time was subject to in terms of opportunity and equal regard to men. Her aforementioned quote is so powerful because it implies that "ignorance is bliss". In a world where being intelligent and dogmatic was not yet considered innovative or allowed in regards to women, the greatest power she could aspire to have was the ability to see and see clearly. Although the world thought her a fool, the world was the greater fool for believing her act because she knew it all. 

Daisy Buchanan is a great example of the harsh realities and confinements that women were subject to. They were forced to play a role that is so much lower than a "human". They were not allowed a voice unless accompanied by that of a man's and were expected to behave subserviently and inferior. 

In times like these, the only way women had any type of status or importance was if they had a man by their side. Consequently, the only way to obtain a man was to subject themselves to the profile of what a "desirable companion" was which meant: obedient, quiet, polite, well kept and skilled at home chores. 

Daisy Buchanan ("The Great Gatsby")

Betty Draper; 50's and 60's women

Betty Draper, from the television show “Mad Men” which is based on the advertising industry in the 50’s and 60’s , is the wife of ad man Don Draper. Don Draper embodies everything that a woman should want in a man: smarts and looks as well as a lucrative career. Together they have to children, a daughter and a son, Sally and Bobby. Betty Draper, as portrayed by January Jones is the epitome of a typical 50’s housewife. She is tall, blonde and beautiful and takes pride in being unattainable. She is extremely conservative in her way of dress but dresses extremely well, so as to show off her economic status.

Betty Draper is a perfect example of what women were expected to be in that day and age. She is educated and eloquent but speaks only of superficialities. Her days consisted of cooking, cleaning, gossiping with her girlfriend about other women and complaining to her husband about innocuous things such as how “Sally screamed at Bobby”. I believe the producers of mad men made her obnoxiously stuck-up and shallow to emphasize the reality that women really acted like this or in the very least, were expected too.

The character of Betty draper was built entirely around “Male Gaze”. She is gorgeous, yet she is subservient and takes on the expected role as a devoted, domestic, wife and mother. She speaks about trivialities and typical “women” things and so she is not a challenge to her husband in terms of intellectuality.

Intellectuality and all things politics were subjects reserved for men. Beautiful and insipid women such as Betty Draper were simply a pretty prop or ornament for the man; she smokes a cigarette while keeping a professional demeanor accompanied by a pretty smile.

Betty draper took much pride in being who she was. She was a woman who realized that she only had significance if she embraced and accepted the “house-wife” role, inflicted upon her by society. Women like Betty Draper do not fight against the norm. They believed that the most disappointing thing a woman can be is anything but a mother and wife.

In Betty Draper’s mind, you would not be caught dead as a single mother. Ideals like these were not created by women but rather by men to confine women. After all, what does it say of you as a man if your wife works? What does it say of you as a husband if your wife speaks out on politics in a discussion? She must be insubordinate or believe that she is equal or superior, challenging your position as the traditional dominant man.

“Be quiet and look pretty sweetheart”

January Jones as Betty Draper (Mad Men)

Angelica Kauffman: Flora

“Flora” is a painting by artist Angelica Kauffman that illustrates a woman naked from the waist up, adjusting her flower crown. The woman is facially attractive but does not possess what matches the “ideal” body in today’s culture. She is not exactly thin, has a gut, and a round face. Despite the nudity, this picture does not directly imply seductiveness or promiscuity but instead, it retains some innocence and naivety.

I believe Angelica Kauffman deliberately tried to avoid any form of implied lustfulness or sexuality. This painting was not created around the customary “male gaze”. Instead, the vivid flowers within the painting successfully depict feminism, the painting as a whole is free from any masculine meaning.

The woman is childlike. Her body is not positioned in a way that one would consider “seductive” body language. She has a faint smile on her face but it is coyer than it is cunning. Her face resembles angels in the earlier infamous artworks of Da Vinci and Michelangelo.

The rest of “Flora” is covered by a blanket or rag, she has a satchel around her shoulder and her arms are up by her head, completely exposing her breasts. Her body is not turned away from the viewer such as to cover or conceal but instead faces forward.

The stare, the angle, and the tactical use of flowers upon a black background work purposefully to stray away from what would usually be considered alluring and provocative. She is not confrontational or blatantly tempting because her body language is relaxed: she is not sitting up straight thus her breasts are not prominent, her gut is apparent and you can tell she is tranquil and comfortable, and her smile is polite.

I don’t know if I’m jumping the gun here, but from a male artist, this painting might have been extremely different. I believe the body language would have been altered to seem more inviting (for instance, an arched back), her facial expression might have also been more lustful, perhaps with more prominent and raised eyebrows and a slyer smile. In regards to baring the skin, her breasts might have been more rounded and thus more flagrant, there might also have been more of the legs showing.

The oppositional male gaze comes with pre-conceived concepts of what the woman should look like. What does her body language imply? Is there enough skin showing to lead the imagination on? Does her gaze fit in with the fantasies being projected on her?

A depiction of a woman by a woman will always immensely differ from the depiction of a woman by a man. The woman will usually aim to de-sexualize the woman and instead embrace femininity in a non-provocative way. The man will almost always depict her as alluring, inviting, captivating and enthralling in some way to appeal to the “male gaze” or attitude.

Flora (Kauffmann)

"Old Couple or Musician" - Salvador Dali, an analysis on interpretations

The painting “Old Couple or Musician” by surrealist Salvador Dali is a renowned painting that is based on perception through illusion. From afar and at a glance, the illustration depicts what seems to be an old woman and man looking at each other.  When observed a tad closer however, it seems to be a different painting entirely. Rather than an old couple, there is a young man playing guitar and a young woman sitting opposite him.

The neat thing about this painting is that some people might see the old couple at first, while some might see the young couple at first. This painting is cleverly designed to play to your perceptions. It is almost “the glass half full or half empty” illusion except this painting doesn’t imply anything about your characteristics or persona specifically (optimist, pessimist). 

Surreal art strives to express imaginative dreams and visions free from conscious rational control.  If you’re a Freudian, you will agree that which image you see first depends solely on your subconscious. Others might argue that you simply "see what you want to see".

I chose this painting because it seems to be free from the usual depictions of women in art. In John Berger’s “Ways Of Seeing”, Berger mentions how all art is influenced by surrounding. In this painting however, the illusions remain the same regardless of where you view it. Because this is a surrealist piece of art, it is not meant to imply any specific meaning. Surrealist art is one of the few arts that can’t be influenced by external forces.

Not to say that the art is meaningless, but it is so abstract and complex that its purpose is not to convey meaning but rather intends for the viewer to give it a meaning. This type of art is difficult to corrupt or alter because it is open to interpretation, unlike a lot of the paintings and images reviewed in Women and Film Studies which associate the female with an implied sexual or erotic connotation. Paintings such as “Girl In The Loft” by Anders Zorn aim chiefly to depict a naked woman, an attractive naked woman in some sexual position where she bares her entire body, especially at the most flattering angles. These types of paintings and sculptures come equipped with an attached meaning or denotation; there is only one literal thing happening within the painting or artwork.

In surreal paintings, there is usually an array of abstract and non-concrete things going on. They are things that don’t exactly make sense as a whole but can be picked apart or fit together to mean something to the individual. In this case, Berger is right when he says that “perception is the eye of the visible world”. In paintings such as “The Persistence Of Memory” by Dali or "Departure of The Winged Ship” By Vladimir Kush, there will never be one sole explanation of what is “literally” happening within the painting.

Surreal art is an art that is free from implicated meaning but open to whatever pre-conceived notions or emotions that the viewer might bring. It is free of manipulation or bias and cannot then suggest perverseness, or innocence, nor happiness or anger.

Old Couple Or Musician (Dali)

Girl In The Loft (Zorn)

The Persistence Of Memory (Dali)

Departure Of The Winged Ship (Kush)

David Lyle "Revenge Is A Dish Best Served Cold"

David Lyle is a New York based artist whose paintings are based on the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s.  I chose David Lyle’s artwork because he has a particular painting titled “Revenge Is A Dish Best Served Cold” which shows a 60’s housewife with a blonde flip hairstyle in the kitchen, preparing some kind of dessert or pastry. The irony of this picture is that instead of using flour, there is a sack “rat and mouse killer”.

I found this picture to be extremely relevant to my Women and Film Studies class because it shows how throughout time, there have only been two ways in which women are viewed. In the era of the 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s especially, women were sorted into two different categories: hoe or housewife. In “Ways of Seeing”, John Berger says, “men survey women before they relate to them and the result of this measuring determine their relation to the woman.”

In this time period, women were immensely objectified in media as “this or the other”. I believe the inclusion of the rodent poison is significant because it implies just how much women grew to hate these stereotypes. You could be only either the Marilyn Monroe or Audrey Hepburn but never a combination of both and there was definitely no other alternative.

A lot of people like to think that ideals like these are obsolete concepts that no longer exist in today’s world. Notions like these are still very much prevalent. In the 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s however, there was very little opportunity for the female gender. We were considered inferior to the man, being single or a single mother was frowned upon since we were not meant to be the “bread winners” but rather the one’s who cook, sow, and cater to their man in the bedroom.

Stereotypes like these confined women to certain lifestyles for a very long time. Independent from the growing film industry the Laura Murvey incessantly mentions in her analysis of “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema”, I believe that women have always been objectified and trivialized.

I don’t know who started the trend of the domesticated lifestyle for woman, but I do know that inevitably women were forced to adopt the trend and culture that came with it. A competitive woman who sought a role beyond the home was scorned upon and considered obnoxious. Examined more closely though, that kind of reaction from men was likely because it was intimidating and castrating to the man.

What I mean by castrating is that a woman that was anything short of obedient or homebound was automatically considered the Marilyn Monroe. She was promiscuous, adventurous, independent, all characteristics that were too innovative for that time. The “Marilyn Monroe” type of woman was beautiful to look at and subsequently to fantasize about. But she is the woman that you have an affair with, not the one you propose to.

The ideal of a woman that can be so free and independent in regards to a male companion was particularly disquieting because it challenged the notion that men were superior, stronger and smarter than women. It implied that all those qualities that once made a man so desirable, would slowly begin to deteriorate when a woman acknowledges that she too, can fend for herself.

Hence why men as a gender have always objectified women throughout history. You can be the woman on the centerfold or the housewife but you were definitely one or the other. Regardless of which one you were, your purpose still lied in pleasing a man whether it meant sexually or domestically.

The Marilyn Monroe’s of that time were not in fact whore’s or ho’s, however. But since they pursued and embodied such a drastic change from the “housewife”, they were not considered ideal mates and for that reason they invited more perverse and remote thoughts. The Marilyn Monroe’s sought to embrace their sexuality rather than conceal it, which in turn made them the “one night stand” kind of woman. That kind of thinking is very similar to the philosophy that you “attract what you put out”.

I strongly believe that the Marilyn Monroe’s of this time were not striving to be strictly sexual but instead dignified, feminine and prideful in their anatomy and sensuality. They pioneered to break free from the chains of small-mindedness that all women should be subservient, conservative and inferior. By no surprise however, they were seen by men in a way that implied “I am the black sheep and as such I am here to provide to you the sexual favors that your old-fashioned, archaic consort refuses to perform”.