There are six eyes within Manet's portrait of Olympia. The maid, if that is what she is, looks at the young woman. Were the eyes of the cat to look at its paw, for instance, in fact anything self-absorbed, then how the girl's magnificent challenging gaze would be isolated! She would challenge the gaze of those who stare at her all the more. It's the gaze of the girl that is so striking isn't it. And isn't it more interesting to address, not the art-critics' historical interpretation of what that gaze meant to those who first saw it, but what it means to almost everyone who sees it nowadays? And that is something quite different.
Whether you believe that the girl is gazing at herself in a mirror (there are clues that she might be) or gazing directly at you is irrelevant to the meaning of the gaze isn't it? Most critics claim that originally, almost all of the painting's viewers read it as either a portrait of a low-class prostitute or of a high-class courtesan. But surely the gaze is not one of weariness, or of contempt for her clients (as has been claimed) at all? It is quite a different matter isn't it?
Isn't it the gaze of a girl who is comfortable presenting herself and if that self is clearly sexually attractive she is also comfortable with that, and moreover completely disinterested in your response, whatever it may be? Isn't it the unconcerned gaze that a Westernized girl wears when she wants to look sexy, but she does not want sex itself? Not at the moment anyway and not with the likes of you naturally.
To the first viewers (the 19th century French largely) this was a disturbing gaze, but at least it was not part of real life. It was a part of prostitute life, and hence less everyday and less challenging because less important. That gaze was not part of real or everyday life then, but isn't it the case nowadays that the gaze most certainly is part of real life? The girls have proudly stolen the prostitute's gaze and removed its commerce haven't they? It has become The Barely Real Gaze.
And then, does this gaze coupled with her presented sexuality unsettle not only some men but some women too? Why does Olympia's gaze and the gaze of the modern girl unsettle some? Is it that some are made uncomfortable by the level of social power that the casual sex-presenter is given? And that this, sometimes extraordinary, social power is so cheaply earned? As for instance male patriarchy is so cheaply earned.
Surely it's very difficult indeed to present a case for it being wrong but isn't it a bit easier to present a case for it being, well, ugly? Of course vagina power is not any girl's fault. It is something awarded her by men usually and if we do at some future date find it ugly, then it is down to the awarders of the power to simply stop doing so. The remedy to this (possible) ugliness is none of the girl's concern surely. It is down to the awarders to deliberately ignore women's presentation of sex, Olympia's gaze, and to go validate women who have perhaps, well, earned their power.
No comments:
Post a Comment