Category Archives: Art Reviews

ART REVIEW: Le Viol, by Rene Magritte

Rene Magritte, a Belgian artist, was a Surrealist painter largely eminent for his thought-provoking works that challenge the viewers’ perception of reality.

“My painting is visible images which conceal nothing; they evoke mystery and, indeed, when one sees one of my pictures, one asks oneself this simple question, ‘What does that mean?’ It does not mean anything, because mystery means nothing, it is unknowable.”

One of the most controversial works produced by Magritte, The Rape has had mixed antiphons from the audiences. This painting has been comically appealing, repulsive and also introspective to the viewers. The Rape is an image of a woman’s  head, with the facial features replaced with the lineaments of a  woman’s torso- the eyes replaced by breasts, nose by belly-button, and mouth by a vagina. This is the most interesting aspect of the painting, also the most blatantly obvious.

The most overwhelming interpretation behind this artwork is how the superimposition of a female torso on a woman’s face elucidates the way in which we as a society objectify women.  More accurately, the way in which men look at women- only for their bodies. This work reveals the sinister side of the monstrous minds of men and society, while also making commentary on the issue of the oppression of women at the time. Magritte once said, “In this painting, a woman’s face is made up of the essential features of her body.”  He has created an “ideal” woman.He has created a woman with no sense organs and no voice, and thus a woman that has no presence.  She exists solely as a body meant to satisfy man’s most primal desire.

Below is an analysis of the painting by Susan Gubar from her article “Representing Pornography: Feminism, Criticism, and Depictions of Female Violation” (1987, pg. 722).

“Endowed with blind nipples replacing eyes, a belly button where her nose should be, and a vulva for a mouth, the female face is erased by the female torso imposed upon it, as if Magritte were suggesting that anatomy is bound to be her destiny. That the face associated with the body is sightless, senseless, and dumb implies, too, that Magritte may be subscribing to the view of one of William Faulkner’s fictional surrogates, a man who celebrates the feminine ideal as “a virgin with no legs to leave me, no arms to hold me, no head to talk to me” and who therefore goes on to define woman generically as “merely [an] articulated genital organ.”

While an anatomical surprise turns the female into a bearded lady, the articulation of the woman as genital organ makes her inarticulate, closing down all of the openings that ordinarily let the world enter the self so that Magritte’s subject seems monstrously impenetrable or horrifyingly solipsistic. Paradoxically, even as it fetishizes female sexuality, Le Viol denies the existence of female genitalia, for the vulva-mouth here is only a hairy indentation. In this reading of the painting’s title, the represented figure-robbed of subjectivity and placed on display like a freak-deserves to be raped: this is the only consummation which will penetrate her self-enclosure and, given the humiliation of her fleshiness, it is all she is good for. When the female is simultaneously decapitated and recapitated by her sexual organs, the face that was supposed to be a window to the soul embodies a sexuality that is less related to pleasure and more to dominance over the woman who is “nothing but” a body.”

Beyond the obvious portrayal of an objectified woman, The Rape includes some slight parallels to Magritte’s own life.  When he was 13, Magritte’s mother committed suicide by jumping into and drowning herself in the Sambre River.  Apparently, this was not the first time she had attempted to take her own life and she had been self-harming for several years.  A few days after she was reported missing, her body was found a mile down the river.  When authorities pulled her out of the water she was completely naked, except for her face, which was covered by her mutilated nightgown. Magritte, who was young at the time, bore witness to the event, and aspects of her death often appear in his several works of art, including The Rape.

A different idea is that the flat head and neck are representative of male genitalia, and the hair has the appearance of pubic hair.  With the head and neck merging into the hair, Magritte has painted the act of rape itself.  This is the most striking vision and is perhaps suggestive of the way Magritte suggested he wanted to scare with his paintings, to provoke. This piece is also interpreted by critics as a metaphor for post-war Europe. The work was painted at the end of the war and symbolizes the re-arrangement of the continent and violations of human rights caused by both sides.

This painting is powerful in the sense that it forces us to confront so many concepts we try to brush aside in our society. All of Magritte’s works aimed to provoke the iconoclastic in you, and he rightly served his purpose with this one.

ART REVIEW: The Lovers II, by René Magritte

Living among the Brussels suburbs, married to the same woman for 45 years, walking his Pomerian at the same time everyday, the master of paradox – René Magritte – is himself a living paradox.

A surrealist, avant garde, popular yet living an anonymous life, Magritte has always aimed to shock with his paintings. While his knowledge of the art is rudimentary and his paintings appear oddly mismatched – dealing with regular subjects drawn in bold colours, most of the uneasiness is in fact intentional. Magritte is all about the elephant in the room, the shadow behind the curtain, an ink drop waiting to fall on a new, white shirt.

There is Le Voil or The Rape which substitutes the face of a woman for her torso and has quaint phallic implications; there is The Torturing of the Vestal Virgin which deals with a De Chirico statue with its head loped off, metal arteries exposed. What is certain is that certain incidents in Magritte’s childhood have shaped his works in the direction he follows and The Lovers, while bordering on being his least daring work, still has the trademark Magritte  stamped all over it.

Oil on canvas, the paintings depicts two lovers kissing each other through a veil tightly wound around their necks. It is immediately obvious that the man is in the dominant position while the lady almost seems to be leaning backwards. Despite their physical intimacy, the painting does not evoke or feed any romantic fallacy. A masterpiece of sexual frustration, an onlooker can almost feel their dead lips gasping through the dry fabric, never meeting, always seeking. The suffocating nature of the painting is alleviated by the close shot that is deprived of any windows or perspective.

Looking at the elements of the painting, one might be surprised at Magritte’s ingenuity and attention to detail within a painting that showcases deplorably little.

The simple cornice on the ceiling speaks of bourgeois imprisonment – are they actually a couple pushed together due to societal pressure but unable to reach out to one another despite repeated efforts? The glimpse of the woman’s tanned arm and choice of clothing implies she does not belong to the nouveau riche but the man is dapperly dressed and clearly the one in control.

The bold colours of the figures dominate the background and allow little importance to be attached to the walls but Magritte again wields his ingenuity. The walls are in opposing shades of blue (darker towards the top and lighter at the bottom) and red. While red represents love, lust and anger, blue is representative of calm or water, which in turn is associative of life. White or purity is barely shown and even the veils are a shade of grey – tinted purity?

Ultimately, it is the culmination of all shades that give the painting its incongruity and provokes thought. The psychological effect is much dwelled upon and ultimately it serves the purpose of art – to make one ask questions.

What are your views on it? Let us know in the comments.

~~~

By Nayanika Dey

Kevin Carter: The Vulture and the Little Girl

March, 1993: New York Times published this photograph titled ‘The Vulture and the Little Girl’ by Kevin Carter.

April, 1994: Carter is awarded the Pulitzer Prize for his work.

July, 1994: Carter committed suicide.

During the Second Sudanese Civil War, famine hit the country forcing millions to starve. The faceless, nameless ‘little girl’ was one of the many, who were trying to make their way to the feeding centers that had been set up. Carter happened to make a trip to South Sudan at that time, and went on to capture the fate of the people in the war torn country with an emotional detachment rendered necessary by his years of acquaintance with such misfortune. This assignment – though it featured many gruesome scenes – led to his most famous photograph – The Vulture and the Little Girl.

12342646_463460650513159_3967201546645023853_n-655x360

When Carter approached the scene, he saw a vulture lurking behind the child, waiting for its imminent death. The girl was on her way to a feeding center but had stopped for a rest and her cries had alerted Carter of her presence. Approaching the scene slowly, he waited for 20 minutes for the vulture to spread its wings, but when it did not, he simply clicked the photograph from a mere 10m away and left after chasing the bird away. He did not touch the child as photojournalists had been warned not to touch famine victims for fear of epidemics and neither did he consider the girl or her condition as anything out of the ordinary.

kevincarter

 

After the publication, intense backlash followed: Why hadn’t the photographer bothered to help her? Was a Pulitzer more important than a human life? The newspaper was flooded with people asking about the girl’s fate and more criticizing Carter for his lack of humanity. One went on to describe him simply as ‘another predatory vulture on the scene for all he did to help her.’

The condemnation was only renewed when he went on to win a Pulitzer for it.  However, public opinion changed when he committed suicide and his mental disturbance came to light. His daily ritual included abuse of cocaine and other drugs and he often talked about the guilt that his job entailed. On this particular assignment, Carter and his crew had spent a week in a starving village in Sudan and were followed by a group of soldiers wherever they went – hence rendering it impossible for him to interact with the locals. Had he stepped in to help the girl, he would have been stopped by them.

However, this photograph or its aftermath isn’t the only thing that led to his death, though it certainly contributed a fair share. Soon after, his friend Ken Oosterbroek was killed on location and Carter blamed himself for it as he believed it should’ve been him – only he was being interviewed about the Pulitzer.  The prize only put an additional pressure on him to live up to it and his friend Reedwaan Vally claimed “You could see it happening. You could see Kevin sink into a dark fugue.” Carter’s entire photojournalism career consisted of disturbing imagery from all corners of the world – he was also the first one to take a photo of a burning necklacing victim.

Later, for an assignment for Time Magazine, Carter made the mistake of leaving all his film – 16 rolls in the airplane. They were never recovered but less than a week later he was found dead in his car due to carbon monoxide poisoning. His suicide note read:

“I’m really, really sorry. The pain of life overrides the joy to the point that joy does not exist…I am depressed…without phone…money for rent…money for child support…money for debts…money!!!…I am haunted by the vivid memories of killings and corpses and anger and pain…of starving or wounded children, of trigger-happy madmen, often police, of killer executioners…I have gone to join Ken if I am that lucky.”

As for the photograph, The New York Times took a rare step and published a special editorial the next week which read:

“Many readers have asked about the fate of the girl. The photographer reports that she recovered enough to resume her trek after the vulture was chased away. It is not known whether she reached the center.

-Editor of the New York Times.”

What are your views on this? Do you think it was right to blame it on Kevin? Let us know in the comments below!

 

 

 

ART REVIEW: What is the Proper Way to Display a U.S. Flag?

                  “What is the Proper Way to Display a U.S. Flag?” by Dread Scott.

What is the Proper Way to Display a US Flag?

In 1989, 23 year old artist Dread Scott’s controversial installation led to a national uproar. The piece consisted of a photomontage of Korean students burning the flag while holding up signs that read ‘Yankee go home son of a bitch’ along with the text beneath – ‘What is the proper way to display a U.S. Flag?’ on a wall, a guestbook with originally blank pages and a pen on a shelf beneath, and an American flag on the floor. Displayed in the Art Institute of Chicago, it drove thousands to protest and led to the Institute’s funding being dramatically cut down the next year.

President Bush deemed it as disgraceful and the U.S. Congress passed further legislation to protect the flag.

An interactive visage, Scott’s work invited people to come and pen their responses to the question onto the diary, but that would also mean the person would have to stand on the flag which had been laid down lengthwise like a welcoming carpet.

While the work had been on display, hundreds of responses have been recorded ranging from self professed patriotism to vengeful loathing.

6c-d226-4810-a523-66c1658bac21

 

Some of the comments are as follows:

“I am a German girl. If we Germans would admire our flag as you all do, we would be called Nazis again…I think you do have too much trouble about this flag.”

“There are many questions you have raised. For that I thank you. It does hurt me to see the flag on the ground being stepped on. Yet now after days have passed, I have realized tat this is the ultimate form of patriotism. Our country is so strong in believing what it stands for that we would allow you to do this. You have made me really think about my own patriotism, which has grown stronger.”

“You’re fucked–minorities get everything!”

“Dear Dread, Like someone who viewed the exhibit, I began reading other people’s comments standing next to the flag, but gradually moved to standing on it. As someone raised to be iconoclastic (at least I thought I was) it was an interesting moment of self-awareness, which (I think) is the whole purpose of the display. Perhaps when human life and liberty is really valued above property (and symbols) in America we will all have more allegiance to the principles of “liberty” and “justice” for all. Congratulations on your courage in getting arrested to test this crazy law.

P.S. Kudos to the gallery for their courage. Why is it OK to “Knowingly maintain on the ground homeless people but not the flag”???”

Delving deeper, one also wonders why the title mentions ‘a’ U.S. flag as opposed to ‘the’ U.S. flag, thereby discarding not only the sanctity associated with it but also desecrating it by sublime facetious implications.

To quote Bernard Shaw, “Patriotism is, fundamentally, a conviction that a particular country is the best the world, simply because you were born in it.”

Scott’s work raises some very important questions and we’d love know your view on it! Do comment and let us know. You can also contact us at amenoire7@gmail.com or on Instagram!

~~~

Written by Nayanika Dey