Commonplace 87 George & The Male Gaze PART THREE
In 1898, George came to the realisation that unless a miracle happened, he would die a lonely and miserable death having ballsed up most of the opportunities he had been handed in life. Luckily, the Fates had an ace up their sleeves - and Gabrielle Fleury was delivered unto him, and so love blossomed in his heart. Well, that's what he claimed. Afraid Gabrielle would do a runner before she was signed up for the Gissing Rescue Plan, he made his move within days of meeting her, and did some significant back-pedalling in order to convince her he was not a misogynist with outmoded (not to say, erroneous!) ideas of male superiority. George was not the most insightful of men - but he knew some of his more shameful behaviours would take some explaining. In order to obfuscate and stage-manage Gabrielle's perceptions of what she already knew about him from his writings, he committed his literary talent to writing The Crown of Life as a paean of love to Gabrielle. Which is what he told her, but hopefully, she will have realised that was tosh.
In The Crown of Life, the hero, Piers Otway, is a man with a secret - he is illegitimate (an important distinction as this makes him the product of lustful impulses - a form of bad blood). His journey throughout the narrative is to prove to himself, and his love object, Irene Derwent, that this must not be taken as a sign that he is damaged goods. George's own life stuffed full of guilty secrets, needed a spokesperson and Piers is it. Piers is an odd name - it is an upper class British first or surname but George possibly chose it from the story of Piers Plowman click an early text about one man's search for redemption in the Christian life. In Plowman's Passus 17 the protagonist meets the spirit of Hope and learns about the 'Good Samaritan', the prospect of salvation and the meaning of love. Otway - this could have been an homage to Thomas Otway click, the English dramatist who wrote a tragedy: The Unhappy Marriage - which would have resonated with George as he was shackled to Edith at the time he wrote Crown of Life.
The novel opens with Piers walking round London, alone, but not aimlessly - he feels compelled to make his way to the Haymarket and its many Fine Art picture shops:
A window hung with engravings, mostly after picture of the day; some of them very large and attractive to a passing glance. One or two admirable landscapes offered solace to the street-wearied imagination, but upon these Piers did not fix his eye; it was drawn irresistibly to the faces and forms of beautiful women set forth with varied allurement. Some great lady of the passing time lounged in exquisite array amid luxurious furniture lightly suggested; the faint smile of her flattered loveliness hovered about the gazer; the subtle perfume of her presence touched his nerves; the greys of her complexion transmuted themselves through the colour of his blood into life's carnation; whilst he dreamed upon her lips, his breath was caught, as though of a sudden she had smiled for him, and for him alone.
The male gaze - Piers felt entitled to it, and so did George. When he visited Italy for the first time, in the 1888-89 winter, deep into his readings of John Ruskin on Venice, George surveyed the galleries like he was attending a visual meat market. When he took a look round the Uffizi Gallery Museum in Florence, he decided he preferred Tintoretto to Titian. He went to view Titian's celebrated Venus of Urbino. The male gaze, judging the horse flesh. On Valentine's Day 1889, to Eduard Bertz, he wrote this: To tell you the truth, I suppose Titian's great qualities are mainly technical, & that only an artist can fully appreciate him. Take the celebrated so-called 'Venus' - which isn't a Venus at all - in the Tribuna of the Uffizi. I cannot say it disappointed me as I already knew the picture; but I felt more strongly than ever its value was that of an academical study of the nude - & of colour; nothing more. The woman is not - to me - even beautiful.
First, let's examine the last phrase - its value was that of an academical study of the nude. Well, that's okay, then - he isn't looking at it as a celebration of erotica, he's looking at it as a technical visual aid. A likely story! Talk about rationalising your motives. But, as he was writing to Eduard, his man-wife who was still in the closet, maybe he felt the best thing to do was to deny any arbitrary heterosexual motives. Freud (Sigmund as well as his daughter, Anna), described how we unconsciously manage threats by utilising defence mechanisms click. One of George's most commonly used defence mechanisms is intellectualization, and here we see it being unconsciously used - along with a touch of reaction formation - to pass over what he feels about the painting of a beautiful naked woman and makes it clear, it is he who has the power to decide what is beautiful and what is not - because he owns the gaze that defines her.
The Urbino Venus was famous then as now, as one of the most alluring paintings of a nude female - many a young man on the Grand Tour would seek it out to admire the female form. Mark Twain called it the foulest, the vilest, the obscenest picture the world possesses... painted for a bagnio, and it was probably refused because it was a trifle too strong...in truth, it is a trifle too strong for any place but a public art gallery.
This is interesting wording - too strong for any place but a public art gallery. The original insult - that the picture is pure filth - is ironic because Twain is talking about the attitudes to it - the debate about Art being above censorship. It is also a nod to the debate about whether or not Art rationalises sexually explicit images by turning them into intellectual erotica. But, again, we have a man telling us what is acceptable, and even how to look at a work of Art.
George already knows the work, so we can presume he saw it first as a print/reproduction, possibly in the British Library - or in a Haymarket shop window! He did not consider himself to be typical of the young men who might visit this painting. He was a Classics scholar, and lover of all things Rome, someone who read the great writings of the Romans for his own enjoyment and instruction. He could not have approached this painting with an open mind - Venus was already embedded (no pun intended!) in his subconscious, along with all the Roman attitudes to sexual thoughts, behaviours and attitudes. Presumably, George had the idea that a goddess must have a certain look - being superhuman, she must transcend the physical flesh typical of the human experience of erotic love. The Romans loved physical beauty as much as did the Greeks - and they were not afraid of erotica.
Piers Otway, still looking at those nudes:
Near to her was a maiden of Hellas, resting upon a marble seat, her eyes bent towards some AEgean isle, the translucent robe clung about her perfect body; her breast was warm against the white stone; the mazes of her woven hair shone with unguent. The gazer lost himself in memories of epic and idyll, warming through worship to desire. Then his look strayed to the next engraving; a peasant girl, consummate in grace and strength, supreme in chaste pride, cheek and neck soft-glowing from the sunny field, eyes revealing the heart at one with nature. Others there were, women of many worlds, only less beautiful; but by these three the young man was held bound. He could not satisfy himself with looking and musing; he could not pluck himself away. An odd experience; he always lingered by the print shops of the Haymarket, and always went on with troubled blood, with mind rapt above familiar circumstance, dreaming passionately, making wild forecast of his fate.
George's two erotic loves - the Classics and sex with women. And evidence of his dual nature: civilised v feral; sophisticated v naive; middle v working class allure; Classic and contemporary; Mother nature v metropolis. Sacred and profane:
The other name for this picture is Venus and the Bride - the woman on the left is a widow about to be remarried and the figure to the right is Venus, assisting her on her wedding day. What is the picture about? We can go to the Uffizi Gallery Museum website click and read about it.
The Urbino Venus - her erotic charms had been celebrated for four centuries, but George was not going to let her have power over him; he was not the sort to relinquish self control so easily - a case of 'once bitten, twice shy'. When he fell in love with his first wife, he learned the danger of letting go and allowing someone to deeply affect his passions. That didn't go to plan, but it did, perhaps, teach him that he couldn't love deeply, after all. Not like a Shakespeare or a Keats - that his soul, at the very bottom of it, was not the soul of a bohemian - it was the soul of a bourgeois book lover. He never again thought of sexual love as more than functional, hence the ease with which he inflicted himself on Edith when celibacy was driving him mad. Perhaps thoughts of Marianne aka Nell were still in his mind - she was hardly cold in her grave - when he was looking at the Titian Venus.
The painting was commissioned by the Duke of Urbino, Guidobaldo Il della Rovera, allegedly as a sort of visual aid for his first wife, to give her a few hints of how she should present herself to her husband - to be eternally available, alluring and desirable. The male gaze decides what it wants and offers a prompt. He married his first wife in 1534, when she was eleven, so if this was meant for her benefit, it might now be seen as a man grooming a young girl. But, as it was painted in 1538, four years after the wedding, there is every chance the consummation was delayed - as was the custom with very young brides - until she was fifteen or sixteen.
Giulia died, childless, in 1547, aged twenty four. The following year, Guidobaldo married Vittoria, the twenty-seven year old daughter of the Duke of Parma. There is some question of which wife the painting was originally made for, but, if this picture was painted in 1538, ten years before he married Vittoria, it can't be her.
So, is it a 'Nuptials for Dummies' piece, painted for Giulia's benefit, the young, possibly overly-modest, timid, virginal wife who was dreading the fulfilment of her impending sexual obligations? If so, the bar was set very high - but that could be because he revered her. Or, might it be something a little less formal? In fact, is it a painting made for a wife, at all?
This Venus is naked, though casually modest, and it looks like the bed has seen some action - those sheets looked wrinkled. In her hand are flowers - roses; they match the fabric of her cushions. Roses are the symbol of the goddess Venus; in mythology, Venus gave a rose to her son, Eros, who passed it on to Harpocrates, the god of secrets and silence and of children. Roses, to the Romans, were symbols of secrets - the term sub rosa (under the rose) was the practice of leaving a rose outside the closed door when secret things were going on inside a room. In the painting, one blossom has come adrift... a warning sign of mishaps to come? The dog at her feet - Romans often gave small dogs to their lovers, as a reminder to be faithful. In traditional European Art, again dogs represent fidelity, but by the Middle Ages, had become associated with lust and procreation... but this spaniel is sleeping. Is the dog sleeping on the side of the bed vacated by the lover - tired out from a bout of strenuous exercise?
And, then we have the huge space behind Venus. In the far background, a phallic column and a pretty myrtle bush in a pot, lit by starlight and the coming dawn. Myrtle is associated with Venus and marriage. What are those women up to? One is rummaging about in a chest, and an older woman, fully-clothed and with an elaborate hairstyle, looks like she is in charge. Chests were often given as wedding gifts - perhaps the younger girl is the subject filling her marriage chest for the future - a sort of 'bottom drawer' event, watched over by her mother.
So, would Guidobaldo have asked for a nude painting with his wife as a model? No, there would have been a stunt body double, with Titian making use of a professional model, and then painting in the face of Giulia. Would Guido have shown it to his wife as the so-called visual aid to what he wanted her to appear to be when he finally got to consummate their union? Was it a celebration of his love for her to prove his devotion? Might it not have been better to symbolise it in a way she would have preferred - a necklace, or a fur, or a tapestry? So, maybe it isn't his young wife after all - perhaps it is his stunningly beautiful mistress, with him as her faithful dog, reassuring her that, even when he is a proper husband to his child bride, he will always adore his lover, his soul mate and muse. And, in the background, the small figure is his wife, the larger woman is her mother or her maid, both busy organising his future.
In 1898, George came to the realisation that unless a miracle happened, he would die a lonely and miserable death having ballsed up most of the opportunities he had been handed in life. Luckily, the Fates had an ace up their sleeves - and Gabrielle Fleury was delivered unto him, and so love blossomed in his heart. Well, that's what he claimed. Afraid Gabrielle would do a runner before she was signed up for the Gissing Rescue Plan, he made his move within days of meeting her, and did some significant back-pedalling in order to convince her he was not a misogynist with outmoded (not to say, erroneous!) ideas of male superiority. George was not the most insightful of men - but he knew some of his more shameful behaviours would take some explaining. In order to obfuscate and stage-manage Gabrielle's perceptions of what she already knew about him from his writings, he committed his literary talent to writing The Crown of Life as a paean of love to Gabrielle. Which is what he told her, but hopefully, she will have realised that was tosh.
 |
| Venus, Mars and Vulcan by Tintoretto c 1551 (There is such a lot going on here! Mars, Venus' lover, is hiding under the bench because her husband, Vulcan, has come back to check on her - he has heard she has taken a lover. The faithful dog is about to give the game away by barking at Mars, and Cupid, who acted as the lovers' go-between, is pretending to be asleep.) |
The novel opens with Piers walking round London, alone, but not aimlessly - he feels compelled to make his way to the Haymarket and its many Fine Art picture shops:
A window hung with engravings, mostly after picture of the day; some of them very large and attractive to a passing glance. One or two admirable landscapes offered solace to the street-wearied imagination, but upon these Piers did not fix his eye; it was drawn irresistibly to the faces and forms of beautiful women set forth with varied allurement. Some great lady of the passing time lounged in exquisite array amid luxurious furniture lightly suggested; the faint smile of her flattered loveliness hovered about the gazer; the subtle perfume of her presence touched his nerves; the greys of her complexion transmuted themselves through the colour of his blood into life's carnation; whilst he dreamed upon her lips, his breath was caught, as though of a sudden she had smiled for him, and for him alone.
 |
| The Venus of Urbino by Titian 1538 |
The Urbino Venus was famous then as now, as one of the most alluring paintings of a nude female - many a young man on the Grand Tour would seek it out to admire the female form. Mark Twain called it the foulest, the vilest, the obscenest picture the world possesses... painted for a bagnio, and it was probably refused because it was a trifle too strong...in truth, it is a trifle too strong for any place but a public art gallery.
This is interesting wording - too strong for any place but a public art gallery. The original insult - that the picture is pure filth - is ironic because Twain is talking about the attitudes to it - the debate about Art being above censorship. It is also a nod to the debate about whether or not Art rationalises sexually explicit images by turning them into intellectual erotica. But, again, we have a man telling us what is acceptable, and even how to look at a work of Art.
 |
| The Tribunal of the Uffizi by Thomas Zoffany 1772-8 |
Piers Otway, still looking at those nudes:
Near to her was a maiden of Hellas, resting upon a marble seat, her eyes bent towards some AEgean isle, the translucent robe clung about her perfect body; her breast was warm against the white stone; the mazes of her woven hair shone with unguent. The gazer lost himself in memories of epic and idyll, warming through worship to desire. Then his look strayed to the next engraving; a peasant girl, consummate in grace and strength, supreme in chaste pride, cheek and neck soft-glowing from the sunny field, eyes revealing the heart at one with nature. Others there were, women of many worlds, only less beautiful; but by these three the young man was held bound. He could not satisfy himself with looking and musing; he could not pluck himself away. An odd experience; he always lingered by the print shops of the Haymarket, and always went on with troubled blood, with mind rapt above familiar circumstance, dreaming passionately, making wild forecast of his fate.
George's two erotic loves - the Classics and sex with women. And evidence of his dual nature: civilised v feral; sophisticated v naive; middle v working class allure; Classic and contemporary; Mother nature v metropolis. Sacred and profane:
 |
| Sacred and Profane Love by Titian 1514 |
The painting was commissioned by the Duke of Urbino, Guidobaldo Il della Rovera, allegedly as a sort of visual aid for his first wife, to give her a few hints of how she should present herself to her husband - to be eternally available, alluring and desirable. The male gaze decides what it wants and offers a prompt. He married his first wife in 1534, when she was eleven, so if this was meant for her benefit, it might now be seen as a man grooming a young girl. But, as it was painted in 1538, four years after the wedding, there is every chance the consummation was delayed - as was the custom with very young brides - until she was fifteen or sixteen.
 |
| Guidobaldo by Angelo Bronzino 1532 |
 |
| Giulia (aged 22) by Titian 1545 |
So, is it a 'Nuptials for Dummies' piece, painted for Giulia's benefit, the young, possibly overly-modest, timid, virginal wife who was dreading the fulfilment of her impending sexual obligations? If so, the bar was set very high - but that could be because he revered her. Or, might it be something a little less formal? In fact, is it a painting made for a wife, at all?
 |
| Harpocratic Cupid, 100-50 BCE the model for Harpo Marx? |
And, then we have the huge space behind Venus. In the far background, a phallic column and a pretty myrtle bush in a pot, lit by starlight and the coming dawn. Myrtle is associated with Venus and marriage. What are those women up to? One is rummaging about in a chest, and an older woman, fully-clothed and with an elaborate hairstyle, looks like she is in charge. Chests were often given as wedding gifts - perhaps the younger girl is the subject filling her marriage chest for the future - a sort of 'bottom drawer' event, watched over by her mother.
So, would Guidobaldo have asked for a nude painting with his wife as a model? No, there would have been a stunt body double, with Titian making use of a professional model, and then painting in the face of Giulia. Would Guido have shown it to his wife as the so-called visual aid to what he wanted her to appear to be when he finally got to consummate their union? Was it a celebration of his love for her to prove his devotion? Might it not have been better to symbolise it in a way she would have preferred - a necklace, or a fur, or a tapestry? So, maybe it isn't his young wife after all - perhaps it is his stunningly beautiful mistress, with him as her faithful dog, reassuring her that, even when he is a proper husband to his child bride, he will always adore his lover, his soul mate and muse. And, in the background, the small figure is his wife, the larger woman is her mother or her maid, both busy organising his future.
Have a look at this click to see what Matt Collings has to say about Titian. And click to have a butcher's at more Tintoretto.
No comments:
Post a Comment