Comments on: Vigée-Lebrun

By: roblog

roblog — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 22:50:31 +0000

Having read the memoirs, I am still not convinced of such a loaded significance in Vigee-Lebrun’s hand gesture. I think it is taking a giant leap to assume direct connection between gender issues and genitalia. This is, after all, a time period where the vanguard styles of the day were “effeminized” and I think gender roles, rather than genitals, were primarily responsible for the anti-female approach of some academy members. While they are related, I’m sure there was a wide gap between opposing academic membership to someone on account of being a woman and on account of lacking a phallus.

I think perhaps the culprit in this thinking could be a polarized 21st century notion of what it means to be a hermaphrodite, where we universally associate that concept with genitalia because that is what we consider the concrete factor in the gender divide. In a time period with rigid gender roles such as the Rococo, it is easier to accept a fluid definition of hermaphrodite based on “concrete” male and female characteristics foreign to us today that exist independantly of sexual organs.

On top of this, the gesture is extremely ambigious and seems no more out of place, given the degree to which her arm motion was limited by her outfit, than if the hand was several inches to the left or right. Besides, on a compositional level, the angle of her arm reinforces the governing diagonal of the painting and seems to make the most sense.

…then again, sexual imagery was an important part of the most important Rococo paintings (Watteau, Fragonard). But would it have been a part of a woman’s self portrait, given our discussions of how important sexual purity was to women’s reputations?

By: mollybigmonkeybird

mollybigmonkeybird — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 04:48:09 +0000

In her memoirs, Vigee Lebrun wrote, “We finally visited Amsterdam, and there I saw in the town hall the magnificent painting by Van Loo representing the assembled aldermen. I do not believe that in the whole realm of painting there is anything finer, anything truer; it is nature itself. The aldermen are dressed in black; faces, hands, draping – all done inimitably. These men are alive; you think you are with them. I persuaded myself that this picture must be the most perfect of its kind; I could not tear myself away from it, and the impression it made on me was strong enough to make it ever present in my mind.”

I looked up some images by Van Loo, and his portrait of Louis XV looks pretty suggestive:

http://www.culture.gouv.fr/Wave/image/joconde/0014/m503604_95de3824_p.jpg

If this is one of the artists influencing Vigee Lebrun I think it’s very possible that her hand gesture is referencing an invisible phallus.

She describes her self portrait as well, “I found the famous ‘Straw Hat,’ … This admirable picture represents a woman by Rubens. It delighted and inspired me to such a degree that I made a portrait of myself at Brussels, striving to obtain the same effects. I painted myself with a straw hat on my head, a feather, and a garland of wild flowers, holding my palette in my hand. And when the portrait was exhibited at the Salon I feel free to confess that it added considerably to my reputation … Soon after my return from Flanders, the portrait I had mentioned, and several other works of mine, were the cause of Joseph Vernet’s decision to propose me as a member of the Royal Academy of Painting. M. Pierre, then first Painter to the King, made strong opposition, not wishing, he said, that women should be admitted.”

She could have painted her hand more at her side, but it is directly in front of the pubic area. I believe its placement was likely a conscious decision, especially because in her memoirs she recognizes that she receives opposition upon being admited to the Royal Academy of Painting essentially for lacking a phallus.

You can read more from her memoirs on this website:

http://digital.library.upenn.edu/women/lebrun/memoirs/memoirs.html

By: heather

heather — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 03:46:10 +0000

This question reminds of me our discussion in Northern European Art in which someone mentioned that there can be such a thing as “over-interpretation.” I don’t think Vigee-LeBrun’s hand placement is all that different from those of her contemporaries. I don’t think she meant it to represent “the member she lacks” or that she was trying to draw attention to what her contemporaries viewed as her hermaphroditic qualities. I agree with Alexis in that where Vigee-LeBrun’s hand falls is the most natural way for her to do so. Was she supposed to wave it over her head? Because then it wouldn’t look very REASONABLE, now would it?

By: ahova2ma

ahova2ma — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 02:53:34 +0000

for me its a toss up. Like Prof Och said “once you do your doctorate you see it all the time” (not a direct quote!) So half of me just thinks with a trained eye/some pointing out you see the attempted ‘baton of power!’ clearly and it makes sense for Vigee- Lebrun to of done such a thing at the time, but meanwhile I look at her hand and it screams out that where she is holding it is the most natural way for her to do so and thats that.

By: kerryg

kerryg — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 15:49:07 +0000

In “The Portrait of the Artist,” Sheriff discusses the different conventions of self-portraiture during the 18th century. One such convention was the rhetorical gesture made by an artist to suggest his or her reasoning. Sheriff says that Vigee-Lebrun “…called on the gesture to present herself as a painter engaged in rational discourse.”

Sheriff however, brings another interpretation to Vigee-Lebrun’a hand gesture. Sheriff writes, “Given the placement of the hand near the pubic area, can it not also be read as a dangerous substitute for the member she lacks?” Sheriff further makes the claim that “…in making her gesture of reasoning her hand figuratively takes the place of the penis, which guaranteed power, will, and reason to the male sex.”

Should Vigee-Lebrun’s gesture be interpreted as an indication of the anatomy that she lacks? Is that a contemporary reading of the painting? Does it make a reference to her hermaphroditic qualities or the power she gained by making herself like a man? Que pensez-vous? (Vigee-Lebrun was french after all!)