Edmond Ramus’ Debut in the Studio (1885) and the Illman Brothers’ Feeding the Motherless (19th c.) oppose each other in the way that they showcase women. In Debut, the woman stands, naked only partially concealed by pale fabric, in a dark room surrounded by three other figures wearing dark clothing. She is exposed from the waist up, and is covering her eyes with her arm, perhaps in an expression of shame. Her hair is up, perhaps to better expose her body. The other people in the room are all staring at her, and all are wearing clothes that drape over them excessively. The reclining figure, possibly another woman although gender is indeterminable, is reclined with more fabric wrapped around them. It is clear that this woman is on display not only to the other figures in the engraving but to the viewer of the engraving itself, as her torso is facing directly towards the “camera.” The man sitting on pillows to the right of the engraving seems to be some kind of artist; he sits before a canvas and easel. His entire body is facing the woman, rather than his art, even as her body is as turned away from him as it can be. The woman stands on an animal skin rug, perhaps in some kind of metaphorical irony that both her and the deceased animal can have no covering to the exposure within the engraving and the audience to the engraving are subjecting them to.
Feeding the Motherless, in visual contradiction to Debut, shows only one woman, the apparent vision of propriety. She is also pale in a dark room. However, this woman is fully clothed, almost conservatively: she wears long sleeves and her body isn’t defined indecently by the clothing she has on. Her hair is also up but in a way that is intentional and part of her fashion rather than to display her body. She stands in profile, shown only from the waist up in the engraving, in contrast to the woman in Debut whose whole body is exposed but is naked from the waist up. She doesn’t give any acknowledgement that she is being observed; instead, she focuses on the baby birds, the motherless, that she is generously and maternally caring for. In the background, there is a table with a vase of flowers on it. Just like in Debut, it is clear that this woman is the focus of the engraving, but for an entirely different reason.
The engravings show two women in contrasting situations, but ultimately are united despite the difference in the content that they display. Both are showing different iterations of an “acceptable” woman – hypersexualized or hyper-maternal. The woman in Debut and the woman in Feeding the Motherless are both being viewed by men and coded accordingly. Although Debut appears sexualized and Motherless appears the opposite by virtue of their surroundings, in actuality both women are displayed for the purpose of men’s art and viewing. They are being used for art, depersonalized and derealized as a fully human being, reduced only to stereotypes of the female body or the ideal of motherhood. They are reduced as “less than” by the male gaze, regardless of how much of their bodies are being displayed; they are used for their symbolism.
Ladybug, what a great analysis! Like you, I’m also fascinated by questions of the gaze. In Being and Nothingness, Jean-Paul Sartre suggests that the subject gazed upon always becomes “an object” in the eyes of the gazer (343). In both of these paintings, the male gaze scrutinizes the female subjects. As you rightly point out, the gaze reduces them to stereotypes of hypersexuality and hypermaternality. However, I am also interested in who the women are gazing at.
In “Debut in the Studio,” the female subject seemingly relinquishes all power in her gaze. Rather than look at anyone else in the room, she buries her face in her arm, looking at no one. With all eyes on her, she cannot hope to fight back. In a battle of looks, all arrows are aimed at her. Instead of attempting to objectify anyone else in the room with her gaze, she obscures her gaze entirely. The power dynamics have already been established. Any attempts at resistance would be futile.
In “Feeding the Motherless,” on the other hand, the female subject can exert her gaze over the motherless birds. Though she may not have any power over the male gaze that scrutinizes her, she can indeed exert power over childlike beings. This speaks to the Victorian woman’s position in the familial hierarchy. Though she could not hope to exert power over her husband, the Victorian woman was expected to rule over her children and raise them well. Any faults or flaws in their character later in life would be attributed to her failures as a mother. By placing the female subject’s gaze upon the birds, the Illman Brothers—or the original painter—remind us that women only have power over their children.
All in all, I find your interpretation of these paintings wonderful! If you want more details on Being and Nothingness, check out my post on Eugene Lee-Hamilton’s “At Rest.” Thanks so much for sharing!
I found your analysis of the two images to be very interesting! I think what you have observed is a theme across almost all of the engravings that we looked at in the Trout Gallery, either showing a woman as hypersexualized or as nurturing. I also noticed that these themes exist across the Western and non-Western images that we looked at, showing that these expectations hold across all representations of women. They are all functioning within the limits of the male gaze, no matter who the woman is.