Pearls, Unicorns, and Lilies: Symbols of Feminine Purity in the Renaissance

Renaissance symbols of feminine purity share a number of similarities. Namely, many symbols share their whiteness in color, their references to genitalia or fertility, and a perceived beauty and delicacy. By studying frequently depicted objects such as pearls, unicorns, and lilies in the context of women’s portraits of the time one can understand that patrons and artists were using symbols of purity to depict the faith, virginity, and chastity of the women involved and therefore protect and enforce the patron’s social status.

Virginity was important for the women of Renaissance families, as their sexual behaviors were viewed in Christian terms and thought of as reflecting the honor of the family as a whole. The concept of women’s purity being related to familial honor has been historically long lasting. According to feminist historian Sherry B. Ortner, there is an “ideological linkage of female virginity and chastity to the social honor of the group, such chastity being secured by the exertion of direct control over women’s mobility”.[1] By commissioning marriage portraits depicting daughters or future brides as being chaste through the use of symbols of purity, fathers, brothers, and husbands were merely displaying their control over the female members of their family and raising the social status of the family as a whole.[2] Marriage portraits are one of the most frequent types of paintings to include references to chastity.

Antonello da Messina, The Virgin Mary Reading

Antonello da Messina, The Virgin Mary Reading. Note the pearl jewelry used on her crown and brooch (on her shoulder). In addition to pearls, emeralds were said to shatter if a virgin had sex, sapphires protected chastity, and rubies provided strength and prevented lust and tristesse.

Pearls are one of the quintessential representations of female virginity and purity. It should be noted that pearls do not always carry deeper moral significance—many portrait subjects simply wish to display their sense of fashion and wealth. These precious stones expressed a multitude of meanings; in fact, the pearl was often used to represent vanity or lavishness. However, when pearls are depicted within the specific context of a marriage portrait or the depiction of a religious figure, a message of purity emerges.[3]

The pearl was imbued with many of its implications in the context of paintings of the Madonna. Through representations of the Virgin Mary pearls came to be associated with faith and chastity. The pearls used to adorn the Virgin were not necessarily the pearls one would see in everyday life. These were larger, perfectly round, and flawlessly white with a beautiful luster, while normal pearls may have irregular shapes and lack the Virgin pearls’ snow-white sheen. The perfection of the pearls served to mirror the Christian perfection of the Virgin Mary. Interestingly enough, they also mirror the impossibility of the Virgin’s standard. In order to be the perfect Christian woman one must be a virgin and yet a mother, fertile yet free from lust. As the ideal woman of Christianity, the Virgin’s impossible pearls mirror her impossible persona.[4]

Giovanni Ambrogio de Predis, Beatrice d'Este, 1490

Giovanni Ambrogio de Predis, Beatrice d’Este, 1490

Mary’s virginity is one of her most frequently discussed attributes. Her purity was highly contested, and supposedly confirmed by Pope Pius IX in a declaration of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in 1854. Even Mary’s own conception was highly debated, in regards to whether she was immaculately conceived by Saint Anne and Saint Joachim.[5] In short, Mary’s virginity and purity are her main attributes, and the items used to adorn her serve to further this message. Theologians walked a fine line in discussing the Virgin; she could not be too human but also could not be too godlike. According to historian Robert Kiely, “all efforts to situate her precisely seemed unable to avoid letting her slip into an all too human condition or raising her to precarious heights of power and virtue”.[6] By creating an unattainable ideal in terms of the Virgin’s purity it discouraged women from pursuing power within the church. How could one become like the church’s most powerful woman when her main characteristics were impossibly conflicting?[7]

Additionally, the Virgin Mary’s beauty promoted comparison with the beauty of a pearl. As depictions of the Virgin became younger, more beautiful, wealthier, and whiter as time went on, so did comparisons between her visage and pearls. The Virgin’s beauty became inexplicably connected with her goodness. The majority of Renaissance portraits of her, even those depicting her son’s death, show her as a young woman in the prime of her life. At times Christ even appears to be older than his mother. The visual comparison between the Virgin and pearls began to encompass not only chastity and faith, but chastity and faith as connected to youth and beauty.[8] Continue reading

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Sexual Control of Women in Bernini’s Rome

I’ve been inspired by a weekend trip to Rome (Che bella! I would have loved to study abroad there, not that Florence isn’t wonderful!) to finally post a paper on Bernini’s depiction of women in sculpture and how his work reflects Counter-Reformation ideas of sexual control. But first! I’d like to suggest picking up the book, Bernini’s Beloved: a Portrait of Costanza Piccolomini by Sarah McPhee. It’s a very enjoyable read, and not at all difficult to get through. Much of my paper (at least the information on the Portrait of Costanza Piccolomini) grew from McPhee’s research. Enjoy!

As a tool used to promote the Catholic Church’s political power, Counter-Reformation artwork often contained messages condoning the sexual control of women. This is particularly evident in the sculptural work of Gianlorenzo Bernini. By examining the context of Bernini’s Portrait of Costanza Piccolomini and comparing with his bust of Medusa, one can conclude many Roman Baroque artworks not only accepted but enforced male control of female sexuality.

Pope Paul V is tentatively quoted as saying, “Pictoribus, atque Poetis, omnia licent; we must put up with these great men because that excess of spirit which makes them great is the same that leads them to this strange behaviour”.[1] While it is uncertain if the Pope truly spoke these words, it is certainly the attitude the papacy adopted a few decades later in regards to Bernini. A quick summary of events: Bernini—in the height of his career—fell in love or in lust with Costanza Piccolomini, the wife of one of his workers, carried out a passionate affair, then became enraged and slashed her face upon discovering her possible liaison with his own brother. These events, while clearly deplorable, can possibly be understood by today’s historians as the actions of an emotionally and mentally unstable individual. What cannot be explained is the response by the Catholic Church, namely, the forthcoming punishment for Costanza (who shall be referred to by her first name due to uncertainty regarding usage of her last) and the lack of punishment for Bernini.[2]

Bernini, Portrait of Costanza Piccolomini, 1636-37

Bernini, Portrait of Costanza Piccolomini, 1636-37

Costanza was punished for going against contemporary morals—which in Baroque Rome and the Counter Reformation formed the basis of most laws. Seventeenth century Romans followed the concept of honestà, the idea that women were under the surveillance of the community. As a result, following Bernini’s attack, Costanza was incarcerated despite her husband’s (Matteo Bonucelli) seeming indifference toward her behavior. Costanza was likely reported for adultery or some form of impropriety by her neighbors, her surgeon following the attack, or any number of members of the community. She was confined within the Monasterio di Casa Pia, an institution for disgraced or at risk women. For adulterous women like Costanza, it was expected their husband would either excuse their infidelity within two years or abandon them to a nunnery. The Governatore of Rome, Giovanni Battista Spada, was responsible for the sentencing, a fact Costanza was not initially privy to. While she was eventually released to her husband following her personal plea to the Governatore, Costanza had already been subjected to four months of illness due to a lack of food and health care.[3]

It is telling that Costanza’s punishment was the result of a male government official’s disapproval, and that she had been shielded from such punishment for years by the very same affair she was now facing punishment for. It is a testament to Bernini’s pull within the Catholic Church as well as to the selective enforcement of such laws. Costanza and Bernini’s adulterous affair was publically known and possibly encouraged by her husband Matteo for the advancement of his own career (lending wives to a superior was not unheard of). Costanza was only punished once her adultery was no longer beneficial to Bernini. Continue reading

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Félicie de Fauveau’s Memorial to her Mother in the Cloister of Santa Maria del Carmine

Félicie de Fauveau's Memorial to her Mother in the Cloister of Santa Maria del Carmine

A week ago I visited Florence’s Santa Maria del Carmine to visit the beautiful Brancacci Chapel and was excited to see Félicie’s burial monument to her mother, Madame Anne De Fauveau. You can read more about the monument and its restoration here and read more about Félicie de Fauveau’s sculpture here.

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Women in Art: Félicie de Fauveau

A Tuscan-born artist who worked in both Florence and France, Félicie de Fauveau was a sculptor, political activist, and defier of early 19th century social norms. Following financial ruin, the Fauveau family left Tuscany and returned to France where Félicie was to become a high society sculptor. Under the court of the Bourbon Monarchy and, specifically, the salon of the Duchesse de Berry, Félicie was able to thrive in creating work with a neo-Gothic/neo-Renaissance type of style that frequently utilized Catholic iconography. Félicie was a staunch supporter of the Bourbon Monarchy, and was arrested as part of a royalist insurrection led by de Berry. Upon being released from prison in 1832 she entered a voluntary exile in Florence, remaining there for the rest of her life and creating sculpture in the troubadour style.

Félicie de Fauveau

Félicie de Fauveau

Félicie de Fauveau caught my eye in a handy book I picked up just a week ago, Art by Women in Florence: A Guide through Five Hundred Years. I would definitely recommend reading this. Costing €15 and worth every penny, the book includes images and concise explanations of the significance of the work and background on the artist. It’s small enough to carry around in a medium/small purse and includes a fold-out map showing the locations and titles of twenty notable pieces. I’ll definitely be using it throughout my stay in Florence. If you’d like to take a look or order a copy online, check it out here. I’ve also seen copies in various bookstores around the city, Paperback Exchange seems likely to have them (They also carry Invisible Women, which I’ve been eager to take a look at. Apparently another AWA piece).

One of the book’s entries is found in Santa Croce, a late 13th century Franciscan basilica (In which I give weekly tours through Ars et Fides, stop by and maybe I’ll be there to give you a free tour!). Santa Croce is a gorgeously austere Gothic structure and the largest Franciscan basilica in the world. It became Florence’s primary burial church in the 14th and 15th centuries, going through a redesign in the 16th that included the addition of monuments and tombs all along the walls as well as an unfortunate whitewashing of the frescoes in the nave. One of the monuments in the upper loggia of the cloister is de Fauveau’s Burial Monument for Louise Favreau, created in 1854. The piece was commissioned by Louise Favreau’s parents and was originally located inside the basilica in the Medici Chapel before being moved to the church’s subterranean former oratory della Compagnia della Maddalena. Unfortunately, de Fauveau’s monument was badly damaged by the 1966 flood of the Arno, which left Santa Croce sitting under 22 feet of water, mud, and debris.

Felicie de Fauveau, Burial Monument for Louis Favreau, 1854

Felicie de Fauveau, Burial Monument for Louis Favreau, 1854

The piece was cleaned after the flood, and finally placed in the cloister’s upper loggia where it now remains (Directly to the right of the exit from the basilica to the cloister, before you go down the stairs). De Fauveau’s work accumulated grime and became discolored over the next four decades, and has now been fully cleaned and restored by AWA (The Advancing Women Artists Foundation). AWA is the organization which created and published Art by Women in Florence, and is an American non-for-profit aiming to identify and restore works by women artists in Florence’s museum storage.

And this is a piece of incredible timing (For me at least!). AWA in collaboration with The Florentine (Florence’s English publishing house) and the Opera di Santa Croce (As well as with the patronage of the Comune di Firenze and the Polo Museale Fiorentino) will be hosting a lecture series titled, Félicie de Fauveau: the workshop of a French woman artist in nineteenth-century Florence. The series is free to attend and features several art historians discussing the influences upon de Fauveau’s work. I believe the series in only in Italian (Unfortunately for me), but it should still prove to be an interesting crowd and a great opportunity to check out the restored artwork.

For information on the event (And to see/download the event poster) check out the Florentine’s website.

Félicie de Fauveau: the workshop of a French woman artist in nineteenth-century Florence

Thursday, April 4, 2013  – 3.30pm-5.30pm – Santa Maria del Carmine’s Sala della Colonna
Friday, April 5, 2013  – 3.30pm-5.30pm – Santa Croce’s Sala della Colonna

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Women in Art: Alma Thomas

Alma Thomas is one of the inescapable artists represented in DC art museums; and rightly so! Being an important member of the Washington Color School and the first black woman to have a solo exhibition at the Whitney (as well as purportedly being the first black woman to graduate from a fine art program in the US) is no small feat. Her work is popular amongst Color School fans as well as those of the encompassing Color Field Movement. Fun fact: Thomas’s work is also popular with the Obamas, as she is one of the few women artists selected by Michelle Obama to decorate their private White House residence.

Alma Thomas at the Whitney (left), Delightful Song by Red Dahlia, 1976 (right)

Alma Thomas at the Whitney (left), Delightful Song by Red Dahlia, 1976 (right)

Upon graduating high school in 1911, Alma Thomas studied education; first becoming a substitute teacher and later a kindergarten teacher. Thomas earned her BS in fine arts in 1924, proceeding to teach at Shaw Junior High School until her retirement in 1960 (Where she ran a number of art projects benefiting the school, for example, founding its first art gallery and a community arts program). Throughout her career as a teacher she continued to study art, earning a masters in art education from Columbia University and studying painting at American University.

The Stormy Sea, 1958.

The Stormy Sea, 1958.

Thomas had always participated in the DC art community, however her work further evolved and became more highly appreciated following her retirement (A period in which many suggest she created her best work). She was a member of the Washington Color School and The Little Paris Studio. The Washington Color School was part of the Color Field movement, and similar to abstract expressionism in its use of certain tools and techniques, although dissimilar in the psychology behind the work. While many of her peers focused upon social realism during this period, Thomas turned her attention to color and abstract composition. Additionally, her work differed stylistically from many Color Field painters in that she used a primed canvas–allowing paint to build up texturally–and she used color intuitively, feeling constricted by the laws of color theory. Continue reading

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Men with Breasts (Or Why are Michelangelo's Women so Muscular?) Part 1

Reblogged from Jill Burke's Blog:

Click to visit the original post
  • Click to visit the original post

When I give a talk, or run a class that includes work by Michelangelo, generally at some point someone will suggest that Michelangelo’s female figures look like “men with breasts”. I have to admit, that I sometimes deliberately task students with describing a picture of Michelangelo’s Night (right) just so I can elicit this reaction - it’s a really useful starting point for discussing ideas about what we expect men and women’s bodies to look like, whether renaissance art is naturalistic, differing ideals of beauty and so on.

Read more… 488 more words

Here's a really interesting piece on why Michelangelo's female figures appear so masculine to modern day audiences. Although many believe Michelangelo's figures were influenced by his sexuality or the availability of female models, Jill Burke explains why this is not the case. See part two here: http://renresearch.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/men-with-breasts2/

Victorian Ceramics: How the Craft was Feminized and Subsequently Devalued

Decoration and domestic crafts have long been looked down upon as a feminine art form, less important than supposedly masculine fine art. The practice of devaluing women’s work is highly evident in the Victorian era, in which female artists were undervalued and overly criticized in comparison to their male peers. By observing the treatment and reception of women in the ceramics industry one can understand that Victorian ideas of separate spheres and gendered economics contributed to the feminization and subsequent devaluation of crafts.

Vase by Hannah Barlow

Vase by Hannah Barlow

The Arts and Crafts movement had potential to be politically radical, an impressive advancement for women’s rights. It was born out of the aftermath of the Industrial Revolution and, according to Clarissa Campbell Orr, was viewed by Victorian critics Ruskin and Morris as “part of the cure for the ugliness and dehumanization wrought by industrialisation”.[1] However, while the movement was arguably successful in lessening urban squalor and assisting the rural poor, it was less effective in its claims to help women. While the movement largely depended upon women’s labor it simultaneously clung to the kyriarchal idea that wealthy, white men should dominate the workforce. A strange balance was created, one in which women were able to work in ceramics, yet found their work to be unpaid and deemphasized. Employers’ treatment of women became one of the main contributing factors to the crafts’ lessened status.[2] Continue reading

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Gender Imbalances in Art Museums

Sorry for the unintended hiatus readers! This quarter has been a busy one (I’ll post some of my paintings as well as a paper shortly). However! I’ve recently entered a long period of free time (Fitting a semester of study abroad into my university’s quarter system is not ideal) and posts should be up on a more frequent basis.

For now, I’d like to suggest reading Museum 2.0′s article on the gender imbalance in art museums. This is an incredible blog and a fascinating subject, so definitely check it out!

Quick summary of the article: women usually make up the majority of art museum staff. Is this a problem?

In my opinion, no. Well, it is a problem, but not for the reasons you may suspect. While there are some who view women-dominated industries to be just as problematic as ones dominated by men, they’re not. For one, there are no systematic barriers in place deterring men from working in women-dominated fields (With the exception of working with young children–which is also a result of patriarchy). A helpful comparison is to think of the field of computer science, which is mainly made up of men. This is due to a number of reasons: women are raised to believe they are worse at math, women are discouraged from choosing fields that are considered too “hard” for them, women are driven away from the field because of a women-unfriendly environment, and so on.

So women are deterred from computer science because they are neither wanted nor welcome (Often, not always! My mother is actually a software engineering professor and she is very successful in her field. It’s not impossible, simply more difficult). Is this the same reasoning behind men not working in art museums?

No. No no no no no.

Art museums require a high level of education yet often offer low levels of pay. The types of people drawn to an art museum are overwhelmingly women (Overwhelmingly middle class white women in fact, due to an ability to participate in the unpaid internships required for the field) likely due in part to women being raised to value our time and our work less. It’s why women are more likely to volunteer, work for free, or contribute more work to a joint household (aka, work for free). Additionally, many women are subtly encouraged to become art historians or work in museums rather than create their own work. Not because women’s artwork is worse, but because of sexist ideas that are long-lasting and difficult to end.

Not necessarily! We also get to work there!

Men are deterred from art museums not because they are neither wanted nor welcome, but because it is one of the fields they do not want to work in. The pay isn’t great, the recognition isn’t great, and men are generally not rerouted in this direction from fields they may have more interest in. In fact, many of the major positions in museums (Director, curators, the higher ups in the departments) are taken by men. Even in fields dominated by women, men still hold power.

So actually yes, in my opinion, the gender imbalance in museums is a problem, but not a problem that can be solved by the women in museum staff. Rather it is the result of a patriarchal society that often values women’s work less and we can solve it by… ending sexism.  Which is easier said than done! And is also a task that women working in museums, who, according to the article, are very careful not to exclude men, should be responsible for. I’d also argue that the people demanding gender equality in art museums because of too many women are the art world’s version of the upset college dudes demanding the first thing feminism fix be ladies night at the bar. And hey, no one likes that dude. That dude is very tiresome.

But don’t just take it from me! My experience with gender imbalances in the art field is drawn from art school, internships at a gallery and museum (The Corcoran is largely run by women! It was definitely an eye opening experience. Additionally, of approximately fifteen interns only one was male), and from what I’ve learned in class and online. Obviously my perspective is limited by my youth. Click over to the article and learn more from someone with far more experience and stories to tell!

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Women in Art: Sarah Frost in Manifest Armed (Corcoran’s Gallery 31)

This summer I’ve been lucky enough to intern at the Corcoran Gallery of Art, specifically working with Gallery 31 in the college exhibitions department. We’ve already seen some excellent shows–including work by Leslie Exton, Rick Wall, and the Corcoran’s continued education students (And this is just in Gallery 31! The rest of the museum currently features Diebenkorn’s Ocean Park series, as well as Anima by Charlotte Dumas. I would highly recommend stopping by!)

Arguably Gallery 31′s biggest show of the summer, Manifest: Armed features work by artists Sarah Frost, the collective SmithBeatty (Craig Smith and Colin Beatty), and Julian Oliver. All four artists are dealing with facets of contemporary gun culture, ranging from cyber weaponry and technology to children’s obsession with real and virtual gun facsimiles. Armed is the first of Gallery 31′s Manifest series which is built around artists’ reactions to technology.

Some promotional material for the show. Manifest Armed.

Some promotional material for the show.

Largely due to my interest in gender as it relates to art (As well as many other factors contributing to my personal taste!) my favorite piece in the show is Sarah Frost’s installation of Arsenal. Frost’s work is both conceptually and aesthetically intriguing. Not only does the viewer appreciate the visual of elaborate paper guns suspended in the air, they appreciate the line of thinking behind the work.

Sarah Frost's Arsenal at P.P.O.W New York, NY

Sarah Frost’s Arsenal at P.P.O.W New York, NY

Frost was inspired by the trend of boys publishing paper gun construction tutorials on YouTube. Something I had never heard of before but wasn’t very surprised by (I have a little brother. He went through a fake sword phase, a fake gun phase, pretty much every fake weapon phase known to boy-kind). An entire community has sprung up around paper guns in which these boys (And girls? I’ve only seen one, but the rabbit hole is deep, my friends) have become experts.

Check out this video, for example: Continue reading

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Renwick Gallery: “40 under 40: Craft Futures”

Craft has been a historically devalued art form. Not only is craft viewed as being somehow less valid than fine art (Painting, drawing, and sculpture sitting at the cool kids table while quilting and pottery huddle in the nerdier corner of the caf), it is often simply misunderstood. “What is craft?” is a question you hear among both the artistically and mathematically inclined.

The Renwick Gallery is home to the Smithsonian’s American Art Museum’s craft and decorative arts program. In absolute honesty, I was not expecting to love the Renwick’s collection. Although I find craft to often be interesting, as someone who works mostly with painting and drawing those are the fields I gravitate towards. But this past weekend at the Renwick’s 40 under 40 show?

MIND BLOWN.

“Knitting Is for Pus****” by Olek. Photograph by the artist.

“Knitting Is for Pus****” by Olek. Photograph by the artist.

Craft is cool, my friends, and this show is the proof. A collection of work by forty artists born since 1972, this exhibition challenges our preconceptions of craft and explores the evolving nature of the field. Featuring work created post September 11, 40 under 40 captures the zeitgeist of the contemporary craft world. Craft is no longer free from concept, no longer necessarily soft and beautiful. It is often aggressive and cutting edge, funny and poignant. Craft is clearly an art form with a message, which it delivers with a punch.

The artist featured above, Olek, is arguably the main draw for the exhibit. Certainly the most well known; I’ll admit that I walked into this show expecting to love Olek and feel a certain level of eh about everything else. Straight off the bat, however, 40 under 40 brought strong and innovative work. Continue reading

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 62 other followers