‘SURREAL OBJECTS: How did the female Surrealists reclaim their bodies?’ by Kate Shields.
(An essay about gender and Modernism, written in the first year of my Fine Art degree.)
Art is saturated with impressions and interpretations of the female body, specifically the female nude. Despite the ongoing acceptance in society of the female body as a consumable object, the use of the female form when presented by women themselves, can still cause controversy.
When we look through the period of Modernism in art (1860–1960), we see many changes in culture and society, and we can look specifically at how the gradual emancipation of women has affected different movements in art.
The Surrealists courted controversy at every opportunity, but for all their anti-establishment thinking, they remained curiously traditional in their treatment of women’s bodies, and the heirarchy of gender. Many female Surrealists have used their own bodies to express ideas through their work, and to reclaim what ultimately belongs to them.
Surrealism was a movement that occurred largely between 1924 and 1945 that was prevalent in Europe, as well as in Latin America and the United States. The French poet Andre Breton defined it thusly in his 1924 ‘Manifesto of Surrealism’:
“pure psychic automatism by which is intended to express…the true function of thought. Thought dictated in the absence of all control exerted by reason, and outside all aesthetic or moral preoccupations…Surrealism is based on the belief in the superior reality of certain forms of association heretofore neglected, in the omnipotence of the dream.’
Breton, A., 1924. Manifesto of surrealism. Manifestoes of surrealism, 15.
The Dictionary simply says:
‘having the disorienting, hallucinatory quality of a dream;
unreal; fantastic:’
Surrealism’s recurring themes of dreams and unconcious thought, meant that, often, visual ideas needed to be communicated to the viewer via a recognisable source; ie, a figure. In Surrealism, this figure is frequently female, and can be seen in many of the most recognisable Surrealist artworks.
Women are frequently seen headless in Surrealist artworks- unable to see, their only purpose to be seen.
Male artists like Salvador Dali, Man Ray and Hans Bellmer have all used the female body within their work: Dali used the image of his wife, Gala, turning her body into stairs, elongating her limbs and removing her head. Man Ray merged the body of Kiki de Montparnasse with a musical instrument, and reduced the female body to a set of ‘parts’, a technique that was taken to the extreme by the sculptor and photographer Hans Bellmer, who literally reassembled pubescent female bodies into new and grotesque figures. Whilst Bellmer’s ‘Dolls’ could be seen as a rejection of the Nazi ideals of the ‘perfect’ form, it is also a clear use of a male Surrealist depersonalising the female body in order to communicate a surreal idea.
If using a body was no more than a way to visualise a surreal idea, why was it specifically the female body, not a male body, that was used?
According to Richard Easton, in the article ‘Canonical Criminalizations: Homosexuality, Art History, Surrealism, and Abjection’,there is evidence that many of the male Surrealists were vehemently homophobic, which could explain why the male form was never used to convey visual ideas.
After quoting transcriptions of Surrealist discussions, Easton states that:
“Andre Breton exemplifies the pervasive social attitude towards homosexuality in our culture, an attitude which violently suppresses and effaces homosexuals. He was obsessively anti-homosexual, and refused to include the subject of homosexuality in Surrealist research, on the grounds of its moral incorrectness.”
Easton, R., 1992. Canonical criminalizations: homosexuality, art history, surrealism, and abjection. differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies,4(3), pp.133–176.
Despite Surrealism’s apparent progressive and revolutionary views on sex and sexuality, simply put, male Surrealists did not want to look at, or visually explore the male form. Their own bodies were, somehow, not relevant to their ideas.
To the male Surrealists, women were seen as closer to nature, and more in tune with their imagination and dream state- often referred to as the ‘femme-enfant’, and this idea is explored most notably in ‘Nadja’ the second novel by Andre Breton (1928), that explores a short affair the writer had with a young woman. He is obsessed with her surreal vision of the world, and becomes reliant upon daily meetings with her in order to become closer to such visions.
The story opens with the words “Who am I?” and throughout the book it becomes more and more apparent that Breton is really using Nadja as a way in which to see more of himself. Once Nadja demystifies herself, she is no longer of interest to Breton.
It is interesting now to look back at the work of many female artists of the period, whose work includes elements of self-portraiture and the use of the female form.
If we look back to 1924, when Surrealism began, many women were still unable to vote. In France, most women were unable to vote until as late as 1945, and so, whilst women were becoming involved within the Surrealist movement as models, wives, lovers and typists, they were still not being taken seriously as artists.
In 2009, the exhibition ‘Angels of Anarchy: Women artists and Surrealism’ opened at Manchester Art Gallery. This retrospective exhibition included three generations of female Surrealists. There are as many ways in which some of these artists used their bodies within their own work as there are female Surrealists, but we can look at three in particular: Lee Miller, Frida Khalo and Meret Oppenheim.
The American photographer Lee Miller (1907–1977) worked as both a fashion model and model for other artists, and used herself as model for many of her own photographic works. Miller is a fascinating artist to look at: in both her self-portrait photography, and in photographs of her by Man Ray, she seems to be equally in charge of the camera. Miller certainly did not assume the role of the passive model, despite Man Ray’s photographic treatment of her:
“She is unknowable, and it drives him crazy. Man Ray treats Miller differently from his other sitters, chopping her up into parts, anatomising her. Yet, like a character in a Greek myth, Miller becomes less a woman and more of an object with each cut of Ray’s knife. As the years pass, you sense a growing desperation to his slicing.”
Darwent Charles. 2003 Independent (online):
Did Miller reclaim her body by photographing herself? Or was she subverting the male gaze, using her own experience as a model? In two striking photographs by Miller from 1929, ‘Still life — Amputated breast on plate’, we sense a macabre sense of humour, and a rejection of breasts as desirable objects. Patricia Allmer writes:
‘These powerful images are an absolute rejection, a radical refusal, of the male gaze; they undermine and deny traditional representations by male artists of breasts as desirable objects. Instead the breast is, literally, served up and fed back to the male gaze as diseased, dead meat..’
Allmer, P., 2009. Angels of anarchy: Women artists and Surrealism.
The literal shedding of body parts is another way in which many female Surrealists have rejected the use of their bodies as objects; in Frida Khalo’s ‘Self-portrait with cropped hair’, the artist paints herself sitting in a chair, wearing a masculine suit, a pair of scissors in her hand, having just cut off all of her long hair. Hair- specifically the hair of a woman, has been used symbolically in art and storytelling throughout history, and here, Khalo is agressively removing it. Cutting her hair becomes almost like amputation- cutting herself loose from what is ‘beautiful’. The accompanying quotation on the painting “Look, if I loved you it was because of your hair. Now that you are without hair, I don’t love you anymore” tells us although she has recognised how important her hair is to others, only she has the power to remove it. Today, the act of a woman cutting her hair short can still be met with reactions of shock and even anger.
We cannot help but think of the tale of Rapunzel: famed for her long, beautiful hair, she must sever her braids in order to be able to climb down them from her high tower, to free herself.
The idea of ‘freedom’, and what it may mean for female artists, was echoed by Meret Oppenheim in a 1975 speech:“Nobody gives you freedom: you have to take it.”
Alyce Mahon, in ‘Angels of Anarchy’ writes that:
‘in the art of Meret Oppenheim we find a comparable rejection of fixed notions of femininity as passive object of desire.’
Allmer, Patricia. 2009. Angels of anarchy: Women artists and Surrealism.
Meret Oppenheim, a Swiss artist, who found early acceptance by the Surrealists due to her infamous ‘Object’ (1936), has frequently spoken out about the idea behind this piece. She claimed that ‘Object’ is purely a Surrealist object, and the crude and over-feminisation of the piece (that the ‘fur cup’ is a direct refence to female genitalia) is a misinterpretation. One wonders that if ‘Object’ had been created by a male artist, would it have been (mis)interpreted similarly?
Oppenheim, interestingly, did not identify as a feminist, although she spoke openly about the roles of women in art. In an interview in 1984 with Robert J. Belton, Oppenheim says:
“The problem is that men have always had women. Women are not goddesses, not fairies, not sphinxes. All these are the projections of men. Neither are men the projections of women.”
Caws, M.A. and Raaberg, G.G., 1991. Surrealism and women. MIT Press.
In contrast to the way in which we have seen Lee Miller photographed by male Surrealists, Oppenheim did not recognise images of herself by others as her own work. In Belton’s 1984 interview, the subject of androgyny is discussed, in relation to the use of women as ‘muses’, and Oppenheim, asked how she feels about Man Ray’s image of her with a printing press, replies: “I don’t know. That was Man Ray’s work…he was the boss.” How can we say that Oppenheim reclaimed her body through her own work, when she possessed such complex and, at times, problematic ideas regarding the use of her own body by others?
Oppenheim clearly kept her own work separate.
Whilst we must acknowledge and respect her strong desire to be regarded as an artist, rather than a female artist, is Oppenheims’ gender not an integral part of her work? Her rejection of ideas of women as ‘goddesses, fairies & sphinxes’ does lead us to think that the traditional gender roles pushed onto women are irritating to Oppenheim. Figures rarely appear in her work, predominantly object-orientated, giving it a cerebral feel that almost transcends gender.
Whereas other female Surrealists have used their own bodies in their work to subvert and challenge gender roles previously assigned to them, Oppenheim has almost completely removed gender from her work- a radical move and, (perhaps ironically, considering her stance on it) profoundly feminist.
The idea of women ‘reclaiming’ their bodies, is one that continues today, and there is still much evidence to show us that women’s bodies still do not belong to them: the idealised female body is used to sell products, female celebrities’ bodies are picked apart by the press and public, and friction exists in many countries regarding abortion, contraception, female genital mutilation and arranged marriages, and many aspects of rape culture. (ie: the idea that women ‘deserve’ to have their bodies taken advantage of, based on how they dress, behave or speak.)
We have looked at just some of the ways in which a specific group of artists- female Surrealists- have reclaimed their bodies through their work.
Lee Miller, it could be said, was able to use her experience as a fashion model to dominate any image she became a part of, and use her body to express her own ideas. The strength of her ideas were further proven when, in the early 1940s, Miller went on to work as a freelance fashion photographer for Vogue magazine, and in 1944 became possibly one of the only female war photographers to cover the front-line of the war in Europe.
Frida Khalo was able to overcome many health problems sustained as a result of a bus crash as a young girl, through self-portraiture. Despite spending most of her life confined to bed and isolated, she was able to escape the cage of her body through painting expressive, and often distressing images of her inner thoughts- her sadness at being unable to bear children, and her turbulent relationship with her unfaithful husband. With disabilities causing her to experience physical pain, she was able to channel what many have referred to as an ‘indominatible spirit’, and express pain, sadness and joy in an unflinchingly honest way, using her unglamorised female body. Rather than using faceless female figures, by painting her own image, we come face to face with the artists’ own reality.
Meret Oppenheim, despite causing continuing discussions around feminist art, could almost be said to have actively attempted to shun any notion of gender within her work. This in itself could be seen as yet another way in which a female Surrealist artist reclaimed their body during a male-dominated art movement- by exploring androgyny.
After previously seeing the female form so often used by male artists as a ‘surreal object’, we are beginning to see female artists’ representations of themselves simultaneously, in order to see a bigger picture that could perhaps be truer to the original ideals of Surrealism: a creative movement that promises freedom from any pre-existing boundaries; boundaries such as gender.
