Women/men as appealing subjects

[Mari DeRuntz]

My thoughts on this are not solid. I have to postulate that in relevant work: gender doesn't matter.

Gender is a darling of university art departments: none of which have raised an artist who, through the power of his/her work, has come close to the profound and timeless rendering of human form as the Italian Renaissance draftsmen or painters, or the Greeks.

The female nude is a part of a whole and as such, can only offer one perspective; it cannot embrace the reality of the whole. I recently sat through a 90-minute lecture "The Virgin and the Dynamo" where one feminist academician boxed the work of the murual artists of the American Renaissance (Cox, Blashfield, Vedder) in a feminist cage. Well, she selected examples to prove er theories, ignoring the body of work of all these artists.

Essentially, a great model is a scarcity, and is certainly worth stalking, changing your personal reality for. The anatomy will be determined by the nuances of their skeletons - in ways I cannot yet comprehend. If that model turns out to have a spirit - you are blessed. A spirit, intelligence, work-ethic - well, the best working artists I know all have this level of divine intervention.

A great model gives you Timeless and universal form.

Moments like this I remind myself why I keep a dayjob. Paying the bills should not determine our subjects anymore than the value of oil determines the wars this nation chooses to start.

I know, I am speaking of this reality, but then again, so does the gender-issue belong to this reality, which is far too temporal to matter even 15 minutes from now, let alone next year, or in 100 or 500 years.

[Marcus Lim]

I've been fascinated by the female physique since i was a little boy, and having read my uncle's copy of Hogarth's human anatomy lying about on his shelves then.
Over the years i have studied, compared between genders and even come to a conclusion after looking at Da Vinci's works - female nude goes beyond the mechanisms of limbs and torsos. So i reckon the reason why more female nudes are preferred in paintings, is not only one of an educated tradition, but artists look beyond the flesh and into the spirit of the female entity.

To me, i've come to experience the Tao of "gentility amidst steeliness" when i work with female figures (with whatever opportunity i can get), and honestly i find this quality something difficult to capture everytime...it's kinda like "now you capture it, now you don't". This is unlike drawing male nudes, where formula and technique alone seem to be adequate in capturing its life.
Right now i can only think of Sargent as the best person who understands and captured this very essence on his paintings very well. How artists like him managed to transcribe this enigmatic quality, remains a question for me to discover. Do you feel that way too?

[Alexandra Tyng]

Originally Posted by Marcus Lim

i've come to experience the Tao of "gentility amidst steeliness" when i work with female figures . . .and honestly i find this quality something difficult to capture everytime...it's kinda like "now you capture it, now you don't". This is unlike drawing male nudes, where formula and technique alone seem to be adequate in capturing its life.

Marcus, this is exactly what I'm trying to say--except from my perspective it is the male subject (clothed or nude) that has a greater degree of some (probably a different kind of) elusive quality. Not that I am disagreeing with you. I think your viewpoint is valid and elucidating.

Mari, I's like to know more what you mean when you refer to "gender" as not mattering, and being the darling of university art departments. I can't figure out whether you are referring to an opinion or stance on the subject of gender or on a feminist perspective, or whether you are saying that the gender of a really good (classically-porportioned) model is insignificant.

[Kimberly Dow]

Originally Posted by Mari DeRuntz

Moments like this I remind myself why I keep a dayjob. Paying the bills should not determine our subjects...

I can only speak for myself of course, but I find the discussion of what collectors are interested in fascinating and valid. Even if I did find it distasteful, it would be a small price to pay for the privledge of being able to paint full time. I am probably lucky in that I find using attractive females as models interesting and useful in telling my narratives. It perhaps more closely echos what the buying public wants so I dont have any agnst over not feeling as if I cant paint what I wish because there isnt a market.

[Alexandra Tyng]

Originally Posted by Kimberly Dow

I find the discussion of what collectors are interested in fascinating and valid.

I find this very interesting, too. I like to know what people like, and why, because I think the reasons can help us understand things about how and what we paint. The artist's relationship with the buying public can be very instructive, as long as the artist doesn't keep churning 'em out in response to the gallery people saying "can you paint more of those?" without listening to his or her inner voice.

Kim, I want you to know that the way you paint females is very intersting to me because of the emotion and the psychological tension and ambiguity. Your subjects become not just another beautiful woman, but a person also, and that is what grabs my attention. In fact I am attracted to the same things when I paint portraits of women. It is the female form objectified as a desirable, beautiful icon that I find less interesting, though I can get into drawing it as a learning exercise.

I hope the collectors in Chicago will find your paintings fascinating.

[Mari DeRuntz]

Sorry, Alex, I was not very articulate, and as I haven't posted on a forum in quite some time, I forget my manners and my post does read like a manifesto. I'll try to remember that this is not my sketchbook.

I do mean to say that in relevant, timeless Art, the gender of the subject doesn't matter.

The Leonardo you posted is timeless and powerful - not because the sitter was a woman. Look at his drawings of landscapes, the weather, a copse of trees. It might not be fair to use your example because he is one of immortals. But honestly, in my favorites, both historical and contemporary, the gender of the subjects doesn't impact my response to the piece at all.

Kim, I only meant that historically, great figurative art is and remains independent of the taste of the patron. This is not to say I don't pine for the days of the truly loaded patronage of the Church, or the State or the Monarchy.

It is my understanding that we're not to post nudes in this section: should we splinter the topic and explore examples under life drawings? Marcus, are you familiar with Sargent's drawings of male nudes? Very ethereal, profound and beautiful things.

See, now I have to refresh my memory on how to post an image! Because I can think of so many paintings that blow me away no matter if the form is male or female.

And from my side of the easel, I've had mesmerizing models from both genders.

[Marcus Lim]

Originally Posted by Mari DeRuntz

Marcus, are you familiar with Sargent's drawings of male nudes? Very ethereal, profound and beautiful things...

...And from my side of the easel, I've had mesmerizing models from both genders...

Hi Mari, we may not have met before this thread, but i guess i found another soulmate, finding that "lady in the lake" quality about human figures!

Yes i've seen Sargent's male nudes, and happen to have his book on this. Looking at his draughtsmanship in general, i saw his ability to capture that "gentility amidst steelness" Taoist quality in his works - his ability to capture the essence of women. And having this ability he passed on the same quality onto his male nudes.

Off the thread discussion, i reckon it's this quality on his male nudes, that got a rumour that Sargent's got gay inclinations - if not he was a gay! Of course to me, that doesn't ring true to my opinion.

[Alexandra Tyng]

Richard

Originally Posted by Mari DeRuntz

in relevant, timeless Art, the gender of the subject doesn't matter. . . .The Leonardo you posted is timeless and powerful - not because the sitter was a woman.

Mari, I couldn't agree with you more on this. I truly believe (and see with my own eyes) that art which stands the test of time is certainly not dependent on the gender of the subject to give it power.

I started this thread not to argue that point, but because I was wondering why I see much more new figurative work (and sometimes portraits that border on figurative) of the "lovely young woman" type. People come in all shapes and sizes, and I find a variety of people interesting to paint. I'm actually looking for individuality more than classic beauty.

I also started this thread because I was struck by the way that Andrew Wyeth painted Helga and Siri in secret, over and over. To him it was very important, even essential, to have the complete artistic freedom to do this, and these obviously were very intense experiences for him. Somehow he knew his wife would not react well to the secrecy, but she might not have liked knowing, either. Somehow, he managed to continue painting whomever he wants to paint. Many male artists I know use the same femal model over and over and this is accepted practice. If you reverse the roles, the picture looks different. I suspect women artists would be given a harder time for doing the same thing, or even for painting male models alone in her studio, etc. I personally would like to have total artistic freedom in this, I am determined to have it, but it is problematic.

[Mari DeRuntz]

Alex, no response except a smile. There is so much relevancy to the issues you've raised that I'll attempt to gather my thoughts and be able to post some model stories along these lines by the time you return.

Bon Voyage!

[Kimberly Dow]

Originally Posted by Alexandra Tyng

I find this very interesting, too. I like to know what people like, and why, because I think the reasons can help us understand things about how and what we paint. The artist's relationship with the buying public can be very instructive, as long as the artist doesn't keep churning 'em out in response to the gallery people saying "can you paint more of those?" without listening to his or her inner voice.

Kim, I want you to know that the way you paint females is very intersting to me because of the emotion and the psychological tension and ambiguity. Your subjects become not just another beautiful woman, but a person also, and that is what grabs my attention. In fact I am attracted to the same things when I paint portraits of women. It is the female form objectified as a desirable, beautiful icon that I find less interesting, though I can get into drawing it as a learning exercise.

I hope the collectors in Chicago will find your paintings fascinating.

Thank you Alex! I hope the Chicago folks find them fascinating as well. Im with you all the way - I want to tell a story, or at least hint at one. For me, they are complete novels...but I try not to give away too much of it. Of course, that could be a symptom of spending way too much time in the studio alone. Once those things start speaking to you, it might be time for a vacation.

One of the reasons I find it fascinating what collectors buy is that I rarely get to meet mine. Many galleries wont give that information up for fear of selling direct. So there is a natural curiosity. Plus - a lot of planning and work go into these...so when they are gone I do wonder what kind of home they ended up in. Certainly not as traumatic as giving up a child (not that I know) ...but perhaps akin to finding a home for a beloved pet? I know it sounds really hokey, but I miss my paintings a little when they are sold.