Differencing the Canon: Feminist Desire and the Writing of Arts Histories

by Griselda Pollock

In this major book, Griselda Pollock engages boldly in the culture wars over `what is the canon?` and `what difference can feminism make?` Do we simply reject the all-male line-up and satisfy our need for ideal egos with an all women litany of artistic heroines? Or is the question a chance to resist the phallocentric binary and allow the ambiguities and complexities of desire - subjectivity and sexuality - to shape the readings of art that constantly displace the present gender demarcations?

Genres: Art, Nonfiction, Art History, Feminism, Academic, History, Womens

364 pages, Paperback

First published February 4, 1999

About the author

Griselda Pollock is a visual theorist, cultural analyst and scholar of international, postcolonial feminist studies in the visual arts. Based in England, she is well known for her theoretical and methodological innovation, combined with readings of historical and contemporary art, film and cultural theory. She is professor of social and critical histories of art at the University of Leeds.

Reviews

[Ekim]

Aşkım çok harika yazıyorsun ama kadınlık erkeklik böyle keskin hatlı şeyler değil gibi geliyor bana ve birkaç yüzbin insana. Yine de iyi ki yazıyorsun tabi. Herkese selamlar.

[Valentín Serrano García · Rating 4 out of 5]

Independientemente de las fallas, carencias, sobreinterpretaciones y malentendidos en los que las (re)lecturas de Griselda Pollock puedan incurrir, lo cierto es que, junto con Linda Nochlin, R. Parker, Estrella de Diego o Luce Ichigaray, esta autora supone la voz más autorizada para vislumbrar una valiosa perspectiva terapeútica e higienista, de carácter feminista, sobre el canon artístico.

Quizás este conjunto de ensayos no supongan un impacto tan magnífico como el que supuso "Maestras antiguas: mujeres, arte e ideología" (1981), pero aporta mucho, sin lugar a dudas. Aporta, especialmente, una crítica al modo en que, en institutos y universidades, se ha asumido la teoría feminista (baste ver la desvergüenza de los libros de textos de 2 de Bachillerato o los temarios de Selectividad).
Como subraya Pollock, no se trata de imponer mujeres artistas dentro de un canon ya tóxico (que es necesario deconstruir, sobre todo tras las aportaciones teóricas de Hans Belting, Mitchell o Didi-Huberman), pues eso sólo supone señalar una otredad morbosa (caso de Artemisa Gentilleschi y su violación). De lo que se trata, tal y como fue ya vociferado hasta la saciedad en los años 70 y 80 del siglo pasado, es de observar el rol creativo femenino, en genérico, en cada época (artes de la miniatura, el tapiz, etcétera) y, más importante -motivo fundamental de este ensayo- analizar lo femenino en cada cuadro, sea de artista masculino o femenino.

Siguiendo una estela psicoanalítica lacaniana (y post-lacaniana) que, justo es señalarlo, Griselda Pollock no siempre ha entendido correctamente (quizás el mayor "pero" de este ensayo), esta autora nos muestra sobresalientemente que de lo que se trata es de una arqueología polivalente, cuestionadora de sujetos, géneros y deseos, capaz de aplicarse a obras (y autores) masculinos. ¿Qué es la feminidad? ¿Dónde se haya? ¿Qué hay de las mujeres de los cuadros? He aquí las preguntas que todo historiador del arte debe acometer, se trate de la "Venus de Willendorf" de la "Anunciación" (Fra Angelico) o de "La venus del espejo" de Velázquez.

Nada solucionaremos introduciendo a 5 o 6 autoras (importantes, por supuesto) en un canon viciado, formalista hasta el tuétano, impregnado de heroísmos y hagiografías narcisistas masculinas si no entendemos la enseñanza clave de una serie de historiadores feministas que supieron entrever cuál era el quid. Método, análisis, antropología, psicología, lucha de clases, hermeneútica... he ahí la solución.

[Allie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Pollock really made me reflect on how excluding women from art history creates this endless cycle. Future artists naturally reference the artwork they've grown up seeing, which is male by default, meaning male artists just become more and more canonized as generations go on
So it's not as easy as just looking back in history to try to find some woman artists at that time, they were working under a totally different environment which unfortunately still mirrors today where women's achievements often take a backseat to mens.

I'd also never thought about who actually poses for historical paintings or the fact that male artists had access to a totally different world than women, like brothels and bars, that they then could use in their artwork.

The section analysing Van Gogh's sketch of a woman bending down was really interesting to me as Pollock went into what that posture signifies in the wider context of artwork at that time. It made me really realise the power dynamics at play, with Van Gogh likely to have paid a woman desperate for money to pose in that position for hours and hours.

A very academically written book but I've definitely taken away a lot from reading it and it's going to make me analyse artwork and artists in a different way.

[Samantha Moss · Rating 5 out of 5]

‘Mothers and daughters and mourning.’
Dr. Pollock lays out her arguments in a beautifully written - if at times a bit lofty - book of theory that tries to consider the art historical canon from the perspectives of many ‘Others.’