DJ Carbone
Professor Gephart
HART 305 – Body Politic
17 December 2018
Female Censorship in Art
Artists of the past constantly looked for ways to use their art as a way of sending messages about their personal view on contemporary discourses. Playing around with how obvious they chose to make each depiction, these messages would sometimes seem as if they were being indirectly portrayed. However, that was not usually the case. Artists would often send messages regarding issues such as social class or gender roles. However in some circumstances, artists would cover issues that the public viewed as being a bit more controversial than those aforementioned. For instance, the issue of censorship, particularly of the female and of the female body, is an issue that seems as if it currently remains as controversial as it was in the past.
Artists of the past gave visual form to the issue of female and female body censorship. This exhibition seeks to show similar issues in contemporary art as well, as a comparison of the work of John Vanderlyn and contemporary artist, Xiao Lu can demonstrate. The works that I will be comparing are Vanderlyn’s ”The Death of Jane McCrea” from 1804 and Lu’s “15 Shots” a photograph centered installation from 2003. There is something much deeper tied to each of them. Both pieces display a strong sense of power and were also considered propaganda pieces whether they were meant to or not. Both pieces give form to issues regarding sexual abuse as well as share similarities within how the controversies are viewed and handled by the public.
Fig. 1
John Vanderlyn’s “The Death of Jane McCrea” (Fig. 1), is an oil painting on canvas and dates back to 1804. As learned in class, the story behind this painting was that loyalist wife Jane McCrea was told she was being escorted through the woods to be brought to her fianceé but was instead captured, killed and scalped during the American revolution by Native Americans fighting alongside the British. The Natives are noticeably taking advantage of McCrea but the story goes beyond that general insight. The story is truly told by Vanderlyn’s depictions of body language and the expressions of both Jane McCrea and the Native Americans.
The Death of Jane McCrea “dramatize[s] the Indians' brutality and domination over the helpless and terrified woman” to better show the lack of power Jane McCrea is seen to have had (Fryd 30). He made the conscious decision to make McCrea seem so innocent and vulnerable, maybe that is why this piece is viewed as something so controversial? Ultimately, she is portrayed to have almost no power at all in the given situation. She is about half the size of the Native Americans that are physically handling her and she is clearly in a case of distress. Vanderlyn very clearly captures the fear instilled in Jane’s response to the brutality of the situation.
Artists of the past commonly give form to issues regarding race throughout their work. However, the true controversy of this painting was not that it was a symbol of propaganda against the Native Americans, but was actually Jane McCrea’s exposed breast and the implications behind why it was included. Not only were viewers uncomfortable with the idea of nudity in art at the time, but more so of Vanderlyn’s implications behind his conscious decision to include the exposed breast. The exposed breast “implied [McCrea had been a victim of] sexual abuse… [which was a] violation of Christian purity” (Fryd 30). It was these implications that were responsible for the controversial uproar this painting had brought upon the public at the time. It was the fact that something as unsettling as sexual abuse was chosen to be displayed so publicly. Similar to controversial art today, things are only considered controversial once the public decides how significantly uncomfortable it makes them to view such art. However, it is unfortunate that issues being covered by artists can be completely overlooked just because of the negative thoughts and ideas the art can provoke.
Comparatively, some of the same controversies aforementioned can be found within the story of Xiao Lu, which is why I decided to include her work in this exhibition. Xiao Lu is a Chinese contemporary artist that specializes in installation based artwork. However, I am drawing the comparison more to the meaning of Lu’s piece rather than the actual art itself. Her piece, “15 Shots” (Fig. 3) was a response to having one of her installations shut down and banned in 1989. The show that was shut down was one of China’s first Anti-Sexual Violence themed Art Galleries, called “Jian, Rape: Gender Violence Cultural Codes.” The show was considered by officials to be too controversial and could not be shut down until about four hours into the show when Lu shot at her installation “Dialogue” (fig. 2), with a bb gun out of frustration. Lu was upset with the negativity that the public associated with her art. Following the shots, she was
Fig. 2
detained. “Dialogue” was also considered one of China’s first major feminist contemporary works of art.
Years later, Lu opened up to the public about her feelings regarding the events that happened that day at the China Avant-garde Exhibition and stated,
“As parties to the shooting incident on the day of the opening of the China Avant-garde Exhibition, we consider it a purely artistic incident. We consider that in art, there may be artists with different understandings of society, but as artists we are not interested in politics. We are interested in the values of art as such, and in its social value, and in using the right form with which to create, in order to carry out the process of deepening that understanding.”
Fig. 3
In an effort to reach out to the public about her thoughts regarding the controversial piece, she created “15 Shots,” as an artistic response. This powerful installation was a photo of her raising and aiming a gun at the viewer. The photo was accompanied by a clear layer of plexiglass with a bullet hole in it and was repeated fifteen times. About ⅓ of the installation can be seen in figure 3. This piece was ultimately her reaction to how the public in China viewed not only her art, but controversial art pieces in general. Lu claimed that,
“This was just showing my attitude. In Chinese culture they don’t have a concept of freedom or equal rights … I created the work out of personal feelings… I’ve come to understand that with this work, making it for myself is one thing, but how it is interpreted [by others] is also a big part of it.”
Similar to John Vanderlyn’s, “The Death of Jane McCrea,” the artists both demonstrate the use of a subject, that clearly hold a position of power. In Vanderlyn’s piece, it is the males that hold power but in Lu’s piece, it is herself (a female) that has power. The idea that in Vanderlyn’s work, the female has no power could be partially why the painting was so unsettling to its viewers at the time. Another comparison can be made regarding the importance of body language. The positions of power seen in both works are only evident because of the expression and body language they are portrayed with. In Vanderlyn’s work, as aforementioned, the Native Americans are seen as overly aggressive which can be attributed to their stance and facial expressions. The Natives are also holding the wrists of the defenseless woman reiterating the power of the male in this piece.
Beyond the connections made between these two art pieces, remains the main idea of this whole exhibition. What truly ties these two pieces together is the idea of censoring the female body or in the case of Xiao Lu, censoring the thoughts and ideas of the female. Lu’s “15 Shots” is similar to John Vanderlyn’s, “The Death of Jane McCrea,” in the way that these two pieces both raised controversy of female censorship. The issue surrounding Lu’s piece was that she was censored for showing what she believed in her art, while the issue surrounding Vanderlyn’s piece was about how he thought it was okay to include the naked breast of Jane in order to tell her story. The inclusion of the breast was an important part to the story, but due to how it was viewed by the public, that idea was lost. Ultimately, art is a form of expression like no other and the fact that it can be so easily misconstrued to the point where the piece loses all of its meaning is what this exhibition is truly all about.