ARTH110 Short Essay Zandstra Michelle PDF

Assignment #1: Short Essay (Paleolithic and Neolithic)
Gender Bias and the Subsequent Narrative of Art and History
Michelle Zandstra
Yorkville University
ARTH110 - Western Art - Prehistoric to Gothic
Nedi Gavriliu
January 26, 2021
This study source was downloaded by 100000866556537 from CourseHero.com on 01-02-2024 21:33:28 GMT -06:00
https://www.coursehero.com/file/163355732/ARTH110-Short-Essay-Zandstra-Michellepdf/
2
The male gaze is defined as “The manner of treating women’s bodies as objects to be
surveyed, which is associated by feminists with hegemonic masculinity, both in everyday social
interaction and in relation to their representation in visual media” (Oxford University Press,
2021). One would think that this type of gender bias would be uncommon and limited to past
events, but when taking a closer look at the narrative of art and history within the world of
archaeology, one realizes that the male gaze is more prevalent than anticipated. Gender bias
plays a role in the narrative of art and history by affecting the interpretation of the subject matter
or events, limiting various explanations to a simplified resolution, and promoting select opinions
in the respected field.
Gender bias affects the account of art and history by influencing the understanding of
subject matter or events. In the case of the Venus statues, there are three prominent
interpretations that reflect the “male gaze,” the first being the Mother Goddess interpretation.
The Mother Goddess interpretation defines the purpose of the figurines to be a representation of
motherhood and a female’s reproductive ability. This interpretation restricts the figurines based
on their emphasized reproductive characteristics: the large breasts, buttocks, bellies, and thighs.
Archaeologists suggest that the figurines were worshipped as a “symbol of life” and that
everything that originated from men was inspired by their female counterparts. This limits a
women’s creativity to strictly reproductive qualities and suggests that biology prevents women
from having any other creative talents. The second prominent interpretation of the Venus statues
is the Erotic Play Toy interpretation. Archaeologists understood the figures as erogenous statues
designed as an instrument for young males to satisfy their sexual needs. “The diminutively
disproportioned arms and legs of these statues are interpreted as exaggerating the uselessness of
those body parts during lovemaking” (Kirkness, 8). The figures are reduced to a strictly sexual
3
object, and emphasize the male gaze and gender bias when defining the purpose of portable
naked female statues. The third prominent interpretation is men being the sole creators of the
Venus statues. Prevalent interpretations of the statues often use an androcentric perspective and
attempt to reduce the figures to a simple interpretation. They negate the possibility of the statues
being created by females and attempt to comprehend the intricate makeup of the statues in
generalized means. The widespread gender bias or “male gaze” has influenced how art and
history is interpreted because it skews the understanding of historical events or subject matter.
Secondly, gender bias is prevalent in art and history by the way a simplified
interpretation is used to encompass a large variety of subject matter. Marcia Ann Dobres, an
anthropologist who focuses on identity, gender, and the sociopolitics of archaeology, compiled
research on the gender break down of the Venus sculptures. The number of female figurines was
around 48 percent, with 49 percent of the sculptures having an unidentifiable gender. This
dismisses the suggested sexual purpose of the figures that archaeologists have consistently
emphasized. Often, when archaeologists are interpreting an object, they unconsciously relate it to
objects of today’s time, finding comfort depending on how it relates to present social and
political issues. Furthermore, interpreting the Venus figurines leaves more room for biases,
because of the lack of ethnohistorical documents. The context of the majority of the statues is
unknown, causing archaeologists to use their own research methods and prematurely interpreting
the statues without knowing the context. They believe that their research methods will eliminate
biases, while not realizing that without proper dating information, their interpretations are
premature. Additionally, LeRoy McDermott suggested that the creation of the figurines was from
a female perspective of looking downward at their pregnant body. He believed that the figurines
were the first representation of the creation of human life. His simplified explanation is flawed,
4
not only because half of the Venus figurines were female, forgetting about the other half of
unidentifiable figures, but because he generalized the experience of pregnancy in that time
period. “He refers to ‘normal sized’ and ‘average’ women, without considering the bias in these
assumptions” (Kirkness, 13). Pregnancy may have not changed biologically since this time
period, but the experience of pregnancy is ultimately affected by the cultural imprint of the
current society that one is in. McDermott creates an assumption that pregnancy and how one
views oneself hasn’t changed since the Paleolithic time period. Undoubtedly, these primary
explanations used to embody a large number of artifacts or events brings to light the male gaze in
archaeology.
Lastly, the pervasiveness of certain opinions or subject matters in the field of art and
history encourages a biased narrative. The sex, class, and ethnicity of practicing archaeologists
has influenced and still today influences what and how materials are how materials are studied.
The majority of archaeologists are white, middle class, males. For example, in the Society for
American Archaeology, almost all of the archaeologists are male, with 55 percent of them being
middle class, and a staggering 98 percent of them being white and of European descent.
Additionally, work of certain demographics isn’t as prevalent in the archaeological field, such as
lower class, a minority, female, or all of these demographics combined. “Fewer women than
men are employed as archaeologists, fewer women receive doctorates in archaeology, women on
average receive lower salaries, women are less likely to hold tenure, women generally receive
less grant money and women’s research is less prestigious” (Hutson, 1998). The gender bias in
the field of archaeology allows the endorsement for certain types of writings to have a greater
advantage than others, thereby giving the opinions of the white, middle class, male demographic
the ability to share their research without having their values being challenged. The streamlined
5
demographics that are predominantly published demonstrates the biased narrative in art and
history.
Though often thought by archaeologists that the use of qualified analysis and research
would prevent their work of having bias, that has been proven to be untrue by the still present
male gaze in art and history. The male perspective affects the narrative of art and history by
altering the analysis of historical artifacts and events, reducing potential narratives to a simplified
explanation, and advocating for biased publications to be more prevalent in the field of
archaeology. One can hope that archaeologists will strive to be more aware of their biases, and
be more critical of their analyses of archaeological findings in order to produce an unprejudiced
historical and artistic narrative.
6
References
Hutson, S. (1998, November). Strategies for the Reproduction of Prestige in archaeological
Discourse. Retrieved from Archaeology Data Service:
https://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archives/view/assemblage/html/4/4hutson.html
Kirkness, J. (1999). Upper Paleolithic Portable Female Imagery: the Masculine Gaze, the
Archaeological Gaze and the Tenets of the Archaeological Discipline. Totem: The U.W.O
Journal of Anthropology, 7-18.
McDermott, L. (1996, April). Self-Representation in Upper Palelolithic Female Figurines.
Retrieved from Chicago Journals:
http://websites.rcc.edu/herrera/files/2011/04/PREHISTORIC-Self-Representation-in-
Upper-Paleolithic-Female-Figurines.pdf
Oxford University Press. (2021). Male Gaze. Retrieved from Oxford Reference:
https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100128610
Vandewettering, K. R. (2015). Upper Paleolithic Venus Figurines and Interpretations of
Prehistoric Gender Representations. Retrieved from PURE Insights:
https://digitalcommons.wou.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1051&context=pure
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

ARTH110 Short Essay Zandstra Michelle PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ARTH110 Short Essay Zandstra Michelle PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assignment #1: Short Essay (Paleolithic and Neolithic)

Gender Bias and the Subsequent Narrative of Art and History

ARTH110 - Western Art - Prehistoric to Gothic

January 26, 2021

in the respected field.

be more critical of their analyses of archaeological findings in order to produce an unprejudiced

historical and artistic narrative.

Hutson, S. (1998, November). Strategies for the Reproduction of Prestige in archaeological

Discourse. Retrieved from Archaeology Data Service:

Journal of Anthropology, 7-18.

McDermott, L. (1996, April). Self-Representation in Upper Palelolithic Female Figurines.

Retrieved from Chicago Journals:

Vandewettering, K. R. (2015). Upper Paleolithic Venus Figurines and Interpretations of

Prehistoric Gender Representations. Retrieved from PURE Insights:

You might also like