Gender Issues Through Social Documentary, Essay Example

Introduction to the Exhibition

As photography emerged as an art form in the 20^th century, it may be argued that the technological basis of the art took on more modern focuses suitable to that basis.  More exactly, as photography was an art of the “new world,” it is inevitable that it should have reflected social concerns, and in virrually documentary style. This is evident in how several photographers of the later 20^th century chose to explore issues of gender.  In both the West and East, masculine and feminine identities were shifting, and in ways dramatically challenging traditional concepts.  On a pragmatic level, the emergence of feminism and gay activism powerfully questioned longstanding beliefs in direct ways, even as these movements were generated by earlier Civil Rights activism.[1]  At the same time, artists appear to have been more intent on investigating the actual nature of gender as it translates to culture and societal interpretation.  What is revealed is, in a sense, a presentation of gender through a documentary “lens,” and one emphasizing a commonality in terms of male and femaleness coexisting.

Three works in particular express this social documentarian approach.  To begin with, Valerie Export’s “Identity Transfer 1” is important for several reasons, not the least of which is it time of creation.  The photograph was done in 1968, and this was plainly a watershed year in the emerging era of “women’s liberation,” which inherently connects to an artistic exploration of a woman’s actual role in the culture.  As women were increasingly resisting stereotypical gender roles of wife and mother, Export presented a strikingly open statement essentially only posing a question.  In the photographic self-portrait, she stands looking defiantly at the camera and is dressed in a way exaggerating both male and female appearance.[2]  The make-up is heavy and

she wears a tight man’s shirt and pants, as well as several gold necklaces.  The image then combines various gender ideas; the look resembles a male pimp, just as it also reflects how male fashions then were going to more feminine forms.  She is here in a sense both male and female, and this in itself is a basic presentation of what actually defines both genders in cultural terms.  Equally importantly, no “verdict” of right or wrong is presented; it is instead an image of a confusion already in place., reinforcing the documentary aspect.

Along these same lines is Robert Gober’s 1992-1993 photograph of himself wearing a traditional wedding dress.[3]  Gober is drawn to exploring American culture of the 1950s, and here he investigate the singular force of the bridal gown as a powerful – and unique – gender definition.  No such garment exists for men, and this is dramatically underscored by Gober’s clearly male being within one.  In make-up and with hair done, this image has more defiance than Export’s, even as it relies on a similar contrast.  More exactly, there is an inherently outrageous aspect to seeing a man so presented, and a statement is then made regarding how men are “safe” from any such role, which in turn reinforces the dress as a symbol of female submission.  It is equally important to note, however, that the photograph only indirectly offers this interpretation; Gober’s face in the image is serene, so it is for the viewer to speculate as to what specific gender expectations mean as offered by this realistic, if unexpected, social presentation.

Lastly, photography itself is expanded in Li Yongbin’s brief video art, “Face 1.” [4]  This is in fact “living” photography or brief documentary, as a 36-minute video reveals the shift when the face of a female is gradually superimposed upon the male artist’s.  Part of the effect lies in how the artist seeks to mimic the expression of the female face as it fuses with his own, and this is an unequivocally direct approach to exploring, not gender distinctions, but shared essences.  In plain terms, the result is inescapable; it is not so much a man or woman revealed at the video’s end, but a human.  Yongbin then seems to be reflecting on both the shared humanity underlying gender, as well as commenting upon the difficulty each gender has in comprehending the other.  This also even transcends any specific cultural issues of era; the essences of male and femaleness, as both defying and reinforcing one another in the cultural and individual awareness, are by no means restricted to any century or society.  The sheer impact of this visual combing of genders, nonetheless, strongly goes to the artistic impetus in 20^th century photographers to explore realism, rather than pronounce upon gender issues and identities.  It is in all three works about questioning through direct realism, rather than interpretation, so the documentary effect is achieved in all.

Exhibit

This stark black-and-white image conveys an era as emphatically as it conveys gender questioning.  The style of the composition is completely straightforward, as the artist/model is center and focuses directly on the camera.  Accentuating the directness is the posture of the arms, which indicates a kind of defiance.  Whatever concept of gender identity this model holds to, it is one strongly held.  This in turn reinforces the “confusion” element; the hair, for example, is feminine in a traditional way, yet in keeping with male and female styles of the era.  Even the skin-tight pants ask a question: is it masculine bravado, or a woman’s stereotypical inclination to sexualize her body?  All of this combines to create speculation, rather than a single viewpoint, as modern maleness and femaleness are in fact interchangeable when presented in this way.

Black-and-white also serves to reinforce the quality of Gober’s image, certainly as it so evokes the 1950s culture.  In a sense, the image may be seen as comic; after all, it is absurd to see a man in make-up and fully dressed as a bride, and also traditionally posed as one.  Gober’s slumped, “masculine” posture then only adds to any comic effect.  At the same time, there is so blatant a directness here, humor gives way to concept. That is, the absurdity of the image then demands the viewer to consider why it is laughable, and this must go to how singular the wedding dress is as symbolic of female life and aspiration. This in turn leads to more than one question.  For example, the dress may suggest an inherent contrast in power because, worn by a man, it eliminates power and offers only submission.  There is as well the question of the man’s choice in adopting the gown, which involves potential issues in masculine satisfaction with ideas of manliness.  As with Export, then, Gober asks and does not state.

Even as Yongbin’s work here is video, it is clearly photographic in essence, if only in that each frame of the 36-minute video consistently captures the transformation process of the man’s and woman’s faces joining to become one.  Perhaps of the three works discussed, this is the most powerfully speculative because the image has a greater quality of uncertainty, in a sense: Export and Gober clearly choose to display themselves as they do, but Yongbin’s images are happening to the model; the outcome is ambiguous and the model is a passive construction, even as the technique is strongly realistic in a revelatory sense.  The camera’s focus on only the face underscores this effect as the shifting of expression may convey multiple realities.  The process of “man becoming woman” may in fact be “intrinsic woman emerging from man,” and this offers the sense that it is humanity, rather then gender, which is paramount.  This being the case or at least a potential intent, there is reason to view Yongbin’s work as speculative, and as asking the viewer to deeply consider what gender identity, male or female, truly means.

Bibliography

Gober, Robert.  “Untitled.”  Photography. 1992-1993. New York: MOMA.<http://www.moma.org/collection/object.php?object_id=49934>

Export, Valerie.  “Identity Transfer 1.”  Photography. 1968.  New York: MOMA <http://www.moma.org/collection/object.php?object_id=151065>

Whitfield, Stephen. J.  A Companion to 20th-Century America. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2008

Yongbin, Li.  “Face 1.”  Video, 1995-1996.  New York: MOMA. <http://www.moma.org/collection/object.php?object_id=112204>

[1]   Stephen J. Whitfirld, A Companion to 20th-Century America (Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2008), 91.

[2]   Valerie Export, “Identity Transfer 1,” photography (New York: MOMA, 1968)

[3]   Rober Gober, “Untitled,” photography (New York: MOMA, 1992-1993).

[4]   Li Yongbin, “Face 1,” video (New York: MOMA, 1995-1996).