Is There a Feminine Aesthetic?
Author(s): Silvia Bovenschen and Beth Weckmueller
Source: New German Critique, No. 10 (Winter, 1977), pp. 111-137
Published by: Duke University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/487675
Accessed: 15-03-2015 10:01 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Duke University Press and New German Critique are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to New
German Critique.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 89.177.148.248 on Sun, 15 Mar 2015 10:01:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Is There a Feminine Aesthetic?
by SilviaBovenschen*
This article opens up a new area of concern to New German Critiqueand it
provides the startingpoint for a discussion which will be continued in subsequent issues. We are in fact planningan issue centeringaround feminismwhich
should appear sometimenextyear.
Queen Victoria (1860): It is a matterof greatconcern to the queen to
call upon everywoman who can speak and writeto put an end to this
scandalous women's rightsnonsense and all the related abominations
which the regrettablyweak sex, forgettingall sense of propriety,has
fallen victimto.
Rahel Varnhagen: I am as unique as the greatestfigureson thisearth.
The greatestartist,philosopheror poet is not above me...
1. Old and new appraisalsof women's artisticproduction
The time has come for a campaignagainst all the weeping and wailing. Even
the media have got the hang of it-with theirusual inconsequence. Women are
oppressed, exploited, degraded.... Although this state of affairshas hardly
changed since it was firstarticulated,to continue to proclaim it, now in the
artisticrealm, seems almost pointless. But this need not necessarilybe the case.
As can be seen upon closer examination, it is the tone and the platitudinous
character of the lament that make it seem inadequate. The form the lament
takes still acknowledgesits addressee. Traditionallyit was women-professional
or to
mourners-who renderedgriefpublic, be it in regardto death, to suffering,
the victims of massacres; this was one of theirrare opportunitiesto assume a
public function.But preciselyfor this reason it was not at all startling,indeed,
no one particularlynoticed, when women began publicizingand decryingtheir
own lot, that of their sisters,theirfemale ancestorsand, should women's fate
not improve,the lot of futurewomen. Clearly,Cassandrawas not a false prophet. She was simplynot heard. No one paid attentionto her.
Lately though,the pitch has become more shrill,and lamentationhas turned
into accusation. Since there is no reliableauthorityguaranteeingjustice, women
are leavingthe wailingwall.
* Firstpublishedin Germanin Aesthetikund Kommunikation,25
(September1976).
This content downloaded from 89.177.148.248 on Sun, 15 Mar 2015 10:01:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
112
NEW GERMAN CRITIQUE
For thisreason I thoughtit tedious to enumerateonce again the entirebattery
of obstacles constructedto frightenoff and exclude women fromthe artistic
realm. Yet, the handicaps and the absences are also part of women's history,and
perhaps even the greaterpart, since women did not clomp throughhistoryin
combat boots, and theirtraces are fleetingand obscured.To be sure,we do not
complain as much today because we have a movementmakingdemands thatwill
change the future. Nevertheless,in respect to the question of a "feminine
aesthetic," we need to reexamineits traditionalassessmentsonce again, if only
forthe reason thatwe lack a viable conceptual basis to workfrom.
Excerpt from a conversationbetween Anna Louise Karsch ("Die
Karschin"), called Sappho of Ziillichau, and Frederick the Great,
recorded in her own letter to WilhelmLudwig Gleim, August 15,
17631:
Are you thepoetess?
-Yes, Your Majesty! I am called thus!
You come fromSilesia, do you not?
- Yes, Your Majesty!"
Whowas your father?
-He was a brewerfrom Schweidnitz,near the Griinbergvineyards.
But wbere wereyou born?
-On a dairyfarm,like the one Horace had.
It is said thatyou neverbad instruction.
-Never, Your Majesty! My upbringingwas of the worstsort!
But who helpedyou to become a poetess?
-Nature, and Your Majesty's victories.
But who taughtyou the rules?
-I know of no rules!
No rules? That is impossible! You mustknow the meter!
-Yes, Your Majesty! But I follow the meterfromsound, and I know
of no namefor it.
But then how do you managewithlanguage,ifyou neverlearnedit?
-I have rathergood controlovermy mothertongue!
I believe that, in terms of nuance, but what about the grammar?
1. Frauen in der Goetbezeit (Stuttgart, 1960 ff.).
This content downloaded from 89.177.148.248 on Sun, 15 Mar 2015 10:01:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
FEMININE AESTHETICS
113
-With regard to that, I can assure Your Majesty that I make only
small mistakes!
But one should make no mistakesat all! (He smiles) Whatdo you
read, then?
-Plutarch's Lives!
Surelypoetryas well?
-Yes, Your Majesty! Sometimes poetry as well. Gellert, Haller,
Kleist, Uz and all of our Germanauthors!
But do you not read the ancientpoets as well?
-Unfortunately,I do not know the languageof theancients!
But thereare translations!
-I have read a few songs of Homer, translatedby Bodmer, and
Lange's Horace.
So, Horace! Do you have a husbandas well?
-Yes, Your Majesty! But he desertedyour ranks,he is wandering
around Poland, he wants to marryagain and is askingfor a divorce,
which I willgranthim,since he does not supportme!
Do you have childrenfromhim?
-A daughter!
Is she beautiful?
-So-so, Your Majesty! She did not have a beautifulmother!
But thismotherwas once beautiful!
-I most humbly beg your pardon! She was never beautiful!Nature
forgotabout her exterior!
Then how do you live?
-Oh, Your Majesty! Very badly! I cannotget a house in Berlin,and
to give Your Majesty an idea of my apartment,I must ask you to
imaginea chamberin theParis Bastille!. .
How do you live?
-Gifts frommyfriends!...
Whenyou put poems in print,what do you receivefor a page?
-Not much, Your Majesty! I had eightpoems printed in honor of
your triumphs.
And what did you receive?
-Only 20 Taler!
TwentyTaler?In truth!One cannot live on that.
women have bemoaned the "deformationsof even
Repeatedly and rightfully
their own cultural taste": "I would .. far sooner have been caught dead with
This content downloaded from 89.177.148.248 on Sun, 15 Mar 2015 10:01:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
114 NEW GERMAN CRITIQUE
Hemingwaythan with VirginiaWoolf in my hands,"2 says ShulamithFirestone
about her development.The pursuitof art,oftenbased on the searchfora realm
of sensitivityin hopes of thereby escaping the confines of the home, may
become a trap for women just as easily as other pursuits.When discussingthat
which we associate with patriarchalstructuresin the culturalrealm,we immediately take note of a scandalous situation which, along with many others,was
uncovered long ago but still prevails.Just to refreshour memory,Simone de
Beauvoir establishedlong ago that men mistake theirdescriptiveperspectivefor
absolute truth.The scandalous situation,then,is: the equation of truthwiththe
masculine perspective,that is, with everythingobserved, examined and portrayed from a male point of view, which we were made to adopt veryearly in
life. This false equation did not only predominatein the productionand reception of art. It also guaranteed that, despite our ferventendeavor, this sphere
remained external, foreignand remote. This was but one reason for our exclusion among the many overtand lucid strategiesemployed by men to repressus
when theyfound thatour perceptivepowershad not been sufficiently
blunted.
George Sand, Histoirede ma Vie3:
Mr. de Keraty followed me into the anteroom in order to debate
with me, at yet greaterlength,his theoryconcerningthe intellectual
inferiorityof women. It would be impossible for even the most
intelligentwoman to write a good work. And as I wanted to leave
then, he ended his speech with a Napoleonic stroke,which was to
shatterme. "Believe me," he said in a weightytone, as I was about
to open the last door of his sanctuary,"bringchildreninto the world
instead of books!" "My dear," I answered,thinkingI would choke
on my laughterand slammingthe door shut in hisface, "followyour
adviceyourself,as well as you can! "
The classic notions about women's artisticcompetence are all too familiar.
Though she is the great theme of art, woman as empiricalbeing is acceptable
only by virtue of her supposed inspirationalpowers. "In an Amazon society
there could be neitherculture nor historynor art, since art is not essentialto
woman."4 We know today, thoughonly because we bothered to look into the
2. Shulamith Firestone, The Dialectic of Sex (New York, 1970), p. 161.
3. George Sand, Meine Lebensbeichte (Berlin-Leipzig, no date), p. 98.
4. Karl Scheffler, Die Frau und die Kunst (Berlin, 1908), p. 29.
This content downloaded from 89.177.148.248 on Sun, 15 Mar 2015 10:01:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
FEMININE AESTHETICS
115
matter ourselves,that it would not be difficultfor us to prove that such statements are historicallyincorrect.But that is only a minorpoint here.The quotation is fromKarl Scheffler(Die Frau und die Kunst, 1908), a sexologistwho, by
means of such value judgmentsand sexistcategorizations,assuredhimselfof the
unqualifiedapproval of male professionalsand, alas, occasionallyeven of female
professionals. Franziska zu Reventlow, recently honored as heroine in the
Frauenkalenderand author of dubiously worthwhilenovels, comes to the same
conclusions in an enraged pamphletattackingfeminism("Viragines oder Heta'ren?"). She, too, findsfemalegeniusa contradictionin terms;she, too, does not
credit women with any real creative accomplishments-theycan excel only as
performerson stage. But "play-actingis not actually productiveart, it is only a
matter of adaptation, of puttingoneself into the role, of receptivity.We have
great actresses and great dancers, but no notable female composers or dramatists."5 And yet, this woman wrote literature.She was even published.Whatare
the processes at work here? How greatmustthe alienationbe, eitherfromone's
own metier or, as it were, from one's own sexual identity,to cause a female
artist to make statementscontainingsuch questionable argumentsagainst her
own case? But this bizarre contradictiondid not exist merelyin hermind,pity
though it was that she could not recognize it. It was, rather,an objective moment in all of women's art. All women artistsfaced the brutal choice of living
eitherfor theirart (an insecure,joyful and sorrowfulperspective)or reduced to
theirsex alone (a secure, sorrowfulperspective).Only a veryfew possessed the
sovereigntynecessaryto avoid that choice and the expectationsassociated with
it.
The anti-feministaspect of statements such as those by Reventlow and
Scheffleris apparent. Women should stop gettingupset about that. But more
importantly,even if such statementsconstantlyconfuse cause and effect,they
do contain kernels of truth.Read againstthe grain,contraryto theirintended
meaning, such explications can also give us an unobscured picture.They show
(and help justify) that the masculine realm of artisticproduction,and oftenthe
artisticproducts themselves,are not only inaccessible to women, but are also
fundamentallyforeignto us. The numberof art theoreticianswho have worked
this ground over is legion, and their line of argument,reduced to its banal
foundation,reads: Women are different,and one manifestationof this natural
(nota bene!) differenceis that they are incapable of art. The referenceto a
natural inadequacy was later replaced by the term "deficit," borrowed from
bankingjargon. Criticshave always regardedthe female producersof literature,
5. Franziska zu Reventlow, "Viragines oder Hetiren?" Ziiricher Diskussionen (1899).
This content downloaded from 89.177.148.248 on Sun, 15 Mar 2015 10:01:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
116
NEW GERMAN CRITIQUE
art and music, few and far between as they are, as exotic aberrations.From a
purelyquantitativepoint of view, this indeed was and still is the case, although
we have yet to rediscoverthe many women artistswho were consciouslyforgotten. (Valie Export, in a highlyinformativereport,once began a veryabbreviated compilation of women's place in the historyof art. I liked it particularly
because she took the stance of "well, thisis just forstarters,just what comes to
mind immediately,but ifwe were to reallystartsearching
.. ."6)
To be sure, women's representationin the artsis a rarity.And even thisrarity
is always measured in termsof production normswithinthe establishedframework definingthe divisionof artisticlabor, a frameworkwhichdoes not encompass formsof social creativity.And when a few works do manage to findtheir
way to the public despite all obstacles placed in their path, they tend to be
viewed in the followingmanner: Though women may have accomplished some
rathernice and enjoyable thingsnow and then,all the major innovativeachievements have nonethelessremainedthe exclusive territoryof the greatmastersof
the pen, the brush or the keyboard.(Thus any mountinganxietycan be quickly
and easily quelled.)
The pitifullittle chapterthat the culturalhistoriandevotes to the handfulof
women writersand painters,not to mention women composers,alongside his
exaggeratedobeisances to the reigningmen in art,servesas argumentenoughfor
conservatives.This ratio is all the evidencetheyneed, forart cannot be women's
metierif they are hardlyever represented.An argumentbased on such evidence
is sheer infamy;it points an accusing fingerat the just barely kindled spark of
feminineartisticeffortby means of a tautologicalreasoningprocess: Women's
absence from the hallowed chambers to which they were denied entryis now
presented as evidence of their extraordinarylack of ability. The recourse to
nature for the substantiationof uniquely "sexual" charicteristicspostulated a
prioricertitudeand guaranteedagreement.
These stale misogynous jokes do not work any longer. The new women's
movementhas seen to that. But now thereis a threatfromthe otherfront:the
theoreticianof equality. He came into the picture early on. In Germany,he
made his firstappearance duringthe Enlightenment,in the person of von Hippel,7 who in the 18th centuryalreadypointed out the unequal access to sectors
of the bourgeois public sphereaffordedto men and women. We should laud him
posthumouslyforhis courage and insight.
In the meantimethe picturehas changed.Today the line of argumentemphaed. Valie Export (Vienna, 1975).
6. Valie Export in Feminismus:Kunst& Kreativitdt,
7. The.odorGottliebvon Hippel, "Ueber die biirgerlicheVerbesserungder Weiber,"Sidmtliche Werke,6 (Berlin,1828).
This content downloaded from 89.177.148.248 on Sun, 15 Mar 2015 10:01:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
FEMININE AESTHETICS
117
sizingequality belongs to the repertoireof men in "progressive"circles.Cultural
historiansreadilysacrificethe statisticalaspect of frequencyor rarityin favorof
a well-intentionedreappraisal.Scientificthinkingsuddenly springsinto action.
The limitations of and impedimentsto women's opportunitiescan now be
explained sociologically. Such cultural and historicalinvestigationsare indeed
essential, there is no doubt of that. But the sudden change of course is suspicious. To returnto the threatmentionedabove: cooptation, the desire to ignore
and obscure differences-theseare inherentin the claim thatthereare no longer
men and women, but just thousands of human beings. Every woman has had
countless experienceswhich rendersuch contentionsabsurd.This kind of different-nessis not somethingwhich can simplybe conjuredup or made to disappear
dependingon one's momentarymood or situation.The new motto-"Women are
not really differentfrommen"-overlooks the thousands of years of patriarchal
historyand the disparate socialization processes. And, coming at a time when
women have begun to discovertheirown capabilitiesand needs, to set theirown
goals, and to reappropriatetheiruniqueness,it comes as a strategyto undermine
these efforts.But it is too late for all that. Okay, as far as I am concernedyou
are just as good as I am, says the husband to his wife when she comes home
carryingthe Woman's Handbook. I preferthe reactionarytype who uses the
differences(to him, they are the shortcomingsof women) to furtherhis chauvinisticends. Because he is more honest,I would ratherhave him than the pseudoprogressiveconformistwho pats you on the shoulder and reassuresyou that,
were they only given a bit of support and encouragement,women could really
do the same thingsas men. This he says in the hope that, since they can no
longerbe kept completelyignorant,women will at least turnout to be what men
already are. One need only open the floodgates,and women will streaminto the
spheres dominated by men. But what if we no longer view the differenceas
and deprivation,but ratheras opportunity?We
deficiency,loss, self-effacement
shall come back to that later.
Around the turn of the century,the statement"We women can do just as
much as men" served as a beckoning light. Today it is no longer so terribly
impressive.Of course we could do just as much. The question is, do we want to
do just as much as men, or the same thingas men? Here we have come fullcircle.
So it would seem.
Chantal
Akerman, Interview in Frauen und Film (Women and
Film)8 :
8. ChantalAkerman,interviewwithClaudia Aleman,in Frauen und Film, 7 (March,1976).
This content downloaded from 89.177.148.248 on Sun, 15 Mar 2015 10:01:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
118 NEW GERMAN CRITIQUE
If women imitatemen's battles they will become weakerand weaker. They must find new forms of struggle.This became evidentin
Hendave where women demonstratedagainst the death sentence in
Spain. Some women shouted and clenched theirfists,while others
just hummed. They went "mmmmmm" with their lips pressed
together,and moved forwardin a row. That is a new way of demonstratingwhich can be a hundredtimesstrongerthanfists. We have
had a virtual inflationof shoutingwith raisedfists,and I, for one,
simplywalk by when I bear it. In film and in the arts we mustalso
finda languagewhichis appropriateto us, one whichis neitherblack
nor white.
Art has been primarilyproduced by men. Men have neatly separated and
dominated the public sector that controlsit, and men have defined the normative standardsfor evaluation. Moreoever,insofaras theycame into contactwith
this sector at all, women have for the most part acquiesced to its value system.
These realizationsled ShulamithFirestoneto the conclusionthat "It would take
a denial of all cultural traditionfor women to produce even a true 'female'
art."9 Such a statementis easily made. Indeed, aesthetic norms and cultural
standardshave meaning only in theirsublation. But those standardsand those
norms were not even our own. What is the ground that we are working?From
where does a "feminine"art get its identity?Or does it not need to do that?Is
art, then, still art in the traditionalsense, no matterhow far it has gone to the
dogs? Is "feminine"a criterionof substance,an ontologicalentity?
Let us then radicallynegateall the masculineculturalachievementsand begin
anew at the point where we once leftoff,tillingthe soil as our femaleancestors
did before the greatmale putsch.That is not veryfunny,even as a powder room
joke. Perhaps we would enjoy that-linkingourselvesdirectlyto bygonepower,
but we should be wary of construinga direct connection where none exists.
Makingsuch a connectioncan raisefalse hopes of findinghelp.
Call as often as we mightto the old mothergoddesses-Aphrodite,Demeter,
Diana and all the restof those Amazons of long lost femaleempires-theirpower
cannot reach this far,for theirempireshave been extinguished.Only the important consciousnessthat thingswere once differenteases our burdena bit. To be
sure, it is very importantthat we reappropriatemoments of female potential
from past cultures which have been silenced in organized fashion by male
history.And the work to be done in this area is immense.(I emphasize this to
avoid any misunderstanding.)But any attempt to link them directlyto our
9. Firestone, Dialectic of Sex, p. 159.
This content downloaded from 89.177.148.248 on Sun, 15 Mar 2015 10:01:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
FEMININE AESTHETICS
119
experiences in the 20th centurywill be unsuccessful.And if we nonetheless
force a direct connection, the resultswill be downrightpitiful.We will be left
with parsley as a method of inducing abortion, and here and therean herbal
home remedy.
The desire to tailor a positive (female) counterpartto the world that was
constructedand interpretedby men is not satisfiedin this manner.And are we
even concerned with chronology?Let us ratherquote the women of the past as
we wish, without being pressuredinto retroactivelyfabricatingcontinuity.On
the other hand though,a historicalarcheologyin searchof women past and forgotten, theirobscured activities,livingconditionsand formsof resistance,is not
just nostalgia.The hidden storyof women,which revealsitselfto us as primarily
one of sufferingand subjugation (now here is continuity!)is the dark side of
culturalhistory-orbetter:the dark side of its idealized version.Illuminatingthis
side initiallyimpliesno more than reiteratingthe aforementionedstate of affairs,
namely, that women put their souls, their bodies and last but not least their
heads on the block for men, thus enabling them to take off on theircultural
aerobatics and to sinkto theirbarbariclows. Womenartistswaftthroughhistory
as mere shadows, separated fromeach other. Since theirdeeds remainedforthe
most part without effectand theircreationswere,with rareexception,absorbed
into the masculine tradition,it is not possible to retrospectivelyconstructan
independentcountertradition.Only the female martyrsare not in shortsupply.
All of this would certainlyseem to be grounds enough for avoiding even the
most trifling
involvementwith the problemsof art and culturalhistory.
But the Great Refusal is not the solution either. To believe that feminine
spontaneityneed be creative in every case is to fail to recognize the powerful
effectthat cultural and historicaldeformationalso had on the subjectivityof
women, as mentioned by Firestone. Can women just "be women," reduced to
some elemental Being? We are in a terriblebind. How do we speak? In what
categories do we think?Is even logic a bit of viriletrickery?Or to put it even
more heretically,how do we feel? Are our desires and notions of happiness so
far removed from cultural traditionsand models? Feminism cannot ultimately
imply that we are to stop thinking,feeling,longing.No one ever claimed that.
On the contrary,we are consciouslyjust beginningto do these things.No doubt,
we have always done these thingsdifferently
than men. (We are dealing with a
sort of double exposure here.) But the means of expressionmost readilyavailable to us for communicatingour perceptions,our thoughtprocesses-language,
forms,images-are for the most part not originallyour own, not of our own
choosing. Here we are still at the beginning.Sensitivityto the patriarchalstructures common to language usage, such as we find in Verena Stefan's book
Hautungen(Molting,1975), is certainlya step in thisdirection.
This content downloaded from 89.177.148.248 on Sun, 15 Mar 2015 10:01:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
120
NEW GERMAN CRITIQUE
Lucy Lippard: Whya separatewomen's art?10
What seems to be most importantin this whole matteris that we
focus our eyes and ourfeelingsupon theflashesof insightwhich our
femininesensitivityaffordsus.
Frieda Grafe,in Filmkritik
11:
Language, the medium of my work, is for me alreadyso generalized
and mute that I cannot strivefor evenfurthergeneralities.Instead, I
directall my energiestowardsmakingthe wall of generalitiesso thin
that somethingwill be able to break throughthe barrier,something
can come from within my body and enter the over-articulated
linguisticsphere. I want to show the generativebase of language
beforeit atrophiesin communicableform.
We ought to rid ourselvesof the notion of a historicallyever-presentfemale
counterculture.And yet, on the other hand, the very differentway in which
women experience things,theirverydifferentexperiencesthemselves,enable us
to anticipatedifferentimaginationsand means of expression.
No matter which tack I take, I am left with the frustrations
and difficulties
inherentin positivedefinitions.
2. A digressionon "femininenature"
The "nature" of woman is a favoritetopic in discussionslike this,comingthis
time not fromthe male chauvinistfront(they have become more cautious here),
but rather,fromwithinwomen's own ranks.Accordingto this line of thought,
the mere existence of a particulartype of biological organization,irrespectiveof
its historicaldevelopment,constitutesa mythicalpower containingthe sublation
of inhumanrelationships.(I, too, believe in women's mythicalpowers,but they
have nothingto do with theirwombs.)
Here the "masculine" argumentis volleyed back, simplyreversedand interpreted positively. "Deficits" can become opportunities,defeats can turn into
victories.However, all this is not dependent upon the "posture"-the symbols-
10.
11.
Lucy Lippard, "Warum separierte Frauenkunst?", in Feminismus: Kunst & Kreativitdt.
Frieda Grafe, "Ein anderer Eindruck vom Begriff meines Kbrpers," in Filmkritik
(March, 1976).
This content downloaded from 89.177.148.248 on Sun, 15 Mar 2015 10:01:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
FEMININE AESTHETICS
121
we assume, but rather upon the political-feministprocess in which we find
ourselves.
Neitherinferioritynor superioritycan be deduced fromthe biological makeup of a human being. Nevertheless,all kinds of thingsare constantlybeing
"deduced." As we know, biology has its societal side; we are made aware of this
fromthe veryfirstday of our lives. To this,then, we can no longerrespondby
mobilizingthe innocence of our respectivebodies per se. It has always been easy
to degrade women as the weaker sex by postulatingpsycho-physicalparallelism,
i.e., the supposed physicalweaknessimpliesintellectualweakness.This argument
still works today and is only one example of the idiotic assertionthatthe battle
of the sexes will automaticallyresolveitselfonce economic equality in the realm
of production and in the public sphere is achieved. Demands for equality no
longerassure us of the inevitabilityof emancipation.On the otherhand though,
insightis equally impeded if one neglectsthe question of social constellationsin
which dissimilarbiological make-up plays a part. It must be emphasized that
both factorsare inseparablyinterwoven.A particulartype of biological organization will necessarilyhave a certainvalue attached to it-in the case of women,
one of exploitation-and the interrelatednessof these two elements cannot be
dissolvedin favorof eitherone or the other.
Nonetheless,conscious identificationwith one's sex paves the way foreverythingelse. Even if we want to deny it and take the opposite course,it determines
our actions and thoughts.We stand and walk differently,
we do nearlyeverythe
this
is
reason
become mere
most
transvestites
thingdifferently.
Perhaps
why
caricaturesof women. There is too much that remainsstifledin us at an early
age and becomes an immutablepart of our biography.
Ideology and the apportioningof roles subsumed women under the category
"primary nature." This is what Simone de Beauvoir means when she says,
"Woman has ovaries,a uterus;thesepeculiaritiesimprisonher in her subjectivity,
circumscribeher within the limits of her own nature. It is often said that she
thinks with her glands. Man superbly ignores the fact that his anatomy also
includes glands, such as the testicles,and that they secrete hormones."12 The
biological make-up of women plays a differentrole, or more precisely,only the
biol6gical make-up of women plays a societal role. That of men disappearsin a
cloud of activity,technologyand ritual.But a simpleretreatinto biology cannot
be women's aim. Aside fromthe fact that even the individualwoman herselfcan
no longer distinguishbetween her "primary"and her "secondary" nature,such
a one-sideddefinitionof female competence would bringus alarminglyclose to
12. Simone de Beauvoir,The Second Sex (New York, 1974), p. xviii.
This content downloaded from 89.177.148.248 on Sun, 15 Mar 2015 10:01:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
122
NEW GERMAN CRITIQUE
reactionaryideologies of motherhood.We would be returning
voluntarilyto the
cell.
Simone de Beauvoir,in an interviewin Der Spiegell 3:
On the one hand, it is good that women are no longerashamed of
their bodies.... But we must not attach intrinsicimportance to
that, or thinkthat the female body will give us a new vision of the
world. That idea is silly and absurd. That would be tantamountto
creatinga counter-penis.Womenwho thinkthat way fall back into
the irrational,the mysticaland the cosmic. They are playing men's
games.
Besides the one fact that women today have less difficultyaccepting their
bodies, what, then, are the positiveelements that we can derivefromthis context?
Just recently another man, the philosopher Herbert Marcuse, gave us an
answer. In this case we even become the carriersof revolution.Women'sspecificity is "subversivepotential," accordingto Marcuse.This "subversivepotential"
consists of "realizingqualities which, all throughthe long historyof patriarchal
society, have been ascribed to women ratherthan men. Formulated as an antithesis to the dominant male characteristics,such femininequalities would be
receptivity,sensitivity,non-violence,tenderness,etc.... Feminine sensitivity
could underminethe repressiverationalityand work ethic of capitalism."14 One
question arises here, apparent to anyone with even a bit of linguisticsensitivity.
How do the sexual attributeslisted, such as "non-violence,"stand in relationto
the process of "undermining"?That just as an aside.
Althoughwomen have been able to distancethemselvesat least partiallyfrom
the prevailingcriteriaof efficiencyand achievement,thiscannot mean thatthey
thereforewould neitherpossess,nor want to possess,any modes of productivity,
rationality or-with regard to the extraordinaryand ordinaryviolence they
contendwith daily-destructivity.
Chantal Akermanagain15:
de Beauvoir, Interview with Alice Schwarzer, in Der Spiegel (April, 1976).
Herbert Marcuse, "Marxismus und Feminismus," in Zeitmessungen (Frankfurt am
Main, 1975), p. 13.
15. Akerman in Frauen und Film.
13.
14.
This content downloaded from 89.177.148.248 on Sun, 15 Mar 2015 10:01:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
FEMININE AESTHETICS
123
Of course,you still bear "Oh, a woman did that," and "women are
soft and sweet as honey." But when women concretizetheirmodes
of seeing, the resultis veryvehement,veryviolent.It is just that this
violence manifestsitselfdifferentlythan it does withmen. Women's
violence is not commercial;it is beyond description.
Receptivityversus productivity,sensitivityversusrationality,etc., etc. Such
dualities traditionallyassociated with the polaritybetween the sexes cannot be
it cannot be
obliteratedby mere juxtaposition. If we insistupon differentiation
in the sense of mere inversion.
MeretOppenheim,upon awardinga prize forart16:
'Intellectualachievementsamong women seem so embarrassing.'For
that reason, people repress and forget them as soon as possible.
Ideas? Every really new idea is in fact an act of aggression.And
aggressionis a characteristicthat is absolutely contradictoryto the
image of femininitywhich men carryaround withinthemselvesand
which theyproject onto women.
The dialectic that Marcuse relinquishesfor his categorizationspersistsnonethelesswithinthe individualqualities themselves.One such quality, supposedly
always dominant in women's behavioral repertoire,is Sanft-Mut(gentleness).*
This is an inherentlyambivalentquality. On the one hand, it is emblematicof
female subjugation and bears the traces of longstandingsubmissivenessand
passivity.On the other hand, it contains utopian momentsand lends us an idea
of human behavior beyond oppression, competition and compulsory achievement. At firstglance, this appears as the promise of the future.However,since
women were raised in and must live in a patriarchalworld, since they must
ensure their survivalin it, their real existence must necessarilyrun counter to
these possibilities.If, indeed, it is a positivemanifestationof women's socialization to find that it resultsin a lesser degree of aggression(and thisis something
I am coming to doubt more and more), then women must learn to mobilize
more aggressioneach and everyday in orderto be able to combat the constraints
16. MeretOppenheimin Feminismus:Kunst& Kreativitdt.
* Translator'snote: The compound word "Sanftmut"
generallymeans "gentleness."When
taken literally,it means "gentle courage," or "the courage to be gentle" (sanft= gentle;
mutc courage).
This content downloaded from 89.177.148.248 on Sun, 15 Mar 2015 10:01:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
124 NEW GERMAN CRITIQUE
of patriarchal organizations,whether in the family,the career or, as in this
context, the artisticrealm. The issue here is one of developing new formsof
productivity,rationality,and, if necessary (which it is) aggression.It is not a
question of abandoning one aspect of the duality in favor of the other. The
programmedthoughtpatternsinherentin such dualitiesseem to me to be highly
suspect, even if they are directedat a new goal, and even if in realitytheymay
quite nearlycorrespondto societal types.The academic sciencessoon finda slot
in revolutionarytheoriesforthisnew "potential" and new "quality" everyoneis
talking about. They formally absorb these concepts, integratethem into an
archaic frameof referenceand deal with them in abstractionsand languagethat
are alreadyon the way to becomingtraditional.
Even when debating the prevalenttheories,as I notice now in writingthis,
certain linguisticstructuresprove difficultto avoid and continue to manifest
themselves.I am disturbedby the formal problems that show up while I am
writing,when I am, so to speak, in dialogue with myself.Whatabout academic
language? We have to wade throughit, it seems. We can expect many accusations, most of which we can ignore,but the charge of ignoranceis not one to
which we should expose ourselves. The rejection of every theory and every
academic legacy expressesabstracthostilityand puritanicalcelibacy; it is nothBut
ing more than irrationalityand politicallyquestionable anti-intellectualism.
we must keep a close eye on ourselves at all times, we must be carefulat all
times.There is only a veryfine line between committedcriticismand academic
conformism.The battle must be waged on everyfront.The analysisof linguistic
structures,imagery,the formsand symbolsof behaviorand communication,is
tough work which has hardlybegun. If women are to succeed in freeingthemselves fromold patterns,in conqueringnew terrainand-to finallyreturnto the
subject at hand-in developingdifferentaestheticforms,they can do this only
on the basis of their autonomy. Women's specific and unique experiences(so
that knowledge can be experienced, not learned), rooted in their collective
endeavors,are the preconditionsfortheirsuccess in any practicalsense.
Schematically apportioningor redistributing"qualities" by merelyinverting
or redefiningthem does not seem to providea particularlyfruitfulanswerto the
question of women's creative potential. Nonetheless, I felt that discussion of
theoreticalproposals such as these would be useful,for two reasons.First,as it
occurred to me while readingthe Marcuse article,we are dealingwithexamples
of how language and abstractionserve to widen the gap between the concept
and the object in a manner which engulfsevery instance of experience. The
object rebels against this. This relates to the question: how can the specifically
femininemodes of perception be communicated?The answerheremay actually
be in the examples of female creativitywhich already exist (i.e., in women's
This content downloaded from 89.177.148.248 on Sun, 15 Mar 2015 10:01:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
FEMININE AESTHETICS
125
mannerof looking at things,wherebyI do not mean merelythe aspect of visual
perception suggested by the term), rather than in a premature program of
"feministaesthetics."
And the second reason: in attemptingto conceptualize femalecreativity,the
old dualisticnotion of the "natural" and the "artificial"is oftenevoked. If these
concepts are taken in theirtrivialsense, then the principleof feminityis represented solely by the first. I already alluded to the supposed naturalnessof
women above, so here only a word in clarification:there is more behind the
cosmeticindustrythan simplythe idea of "naturalbeauty."
Such formulationssuggestevasivenesson our part,suggestrenunciationof all
that is artistic,refusal of any attemptto use the media for our own purposes,
denial of any aesthetictransformation.
The verbaldebate about thistopic suffers
greatlyfrom linguisticinadequacy, with the resultthat in fightingwith words
one oftenloses sightof the tangiblereferent.However,perhapspreciselybecause
of these obvious difficulties,it would be an act of sheerignoranceforwomen to
neglectthe aestheticactivitiesconstitutingan interestingaspect of our reality.
Difficulties arise when the notion of beauty is attached to an empirical
woman. MarilynMonroe was at one and the same time artisticproduct,mythof
femininityand victimof an inhumancultureindustry.We cannot posthumously
dissect her into one naturaland one artificialwoman, leavingone part of herto
Norman Mailer and turningthe other part, clothed in jeans, into the figurehead
of Women's Lib. The entirewoman belongsto our side.
3. DigressionII: On femininebeauty
Amazingly,it seems that even those imagesof femininityconstructedby men
or by the male art industryare turningagainsttheir creatorsin ever increasing
numbers.Having become mere commonplace myths,they are steppingout of
theirmolds, out of their literaryor filmic contexts. I believe that theirmetamorphosisis not only the resultof the new interpretationand effecttheynow
have, due to the influenceof the women's movement.It is much more dependent upon the fact that an element of female resistance,if only a passive one,
has always contributedto artisticproduction. Mario Praz, for one, set out to
learn about the uncanny from the Belles Dames sans Merci.17 Olympia, Lulu,
Nana, the Salome and Judithfiguresof the fin de siecle, Marlene Dietrich....
One need not engage in interpretationalacrobatics to recognizethe subversive
disturbancesinstigatedby these dangerous,wild women of history.In his lecture
on "Femininity," Sigmund Freud said to his audience: "People have always
17. Mario Praz, Liebe, Tod und Teufel: Die schwarzeRomantik,v. 1-3 (Munich,1970).
This content downloaded from 89.177.148.248 on Sun, 15 Mar 2015 10:01:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
126 NEW GERMAN CRITIQUE
pondered the riddle of feminnity.[There follows here an insignificantpassage
froma Heine poem, S.B. j Those of you who are men will not have been spared
this ponderingeither.It is not expected of the women among you, foryou yourselves are the riddle."18 The possibility that women might experience and
than men was oftenseen as a way of questioning,
perceivefemininitydifferently
of posing an indirectthreatto masculine art. Men's failureto comprehendthis
riddle was not, however,shown as theirshortcoming.Instead, it was projected
back onto women, seen as the eternalfemininemystique.But Oedipus did not
solve the riddle of the Sphinx (that is only men's wishfulthinking),thoughany
woman could have. If women had been the ones to stand and stare in like
amazement at the riddles of art-especially the one in which the feminineimage
is supposed to convey the idea of beauty, the one in which the riddlehas been
shoved off onto women-they could only have marveledat the extentto which
they had become a secret about which they themselvesknew nothing.Treatises
like those by WalterPater and d'Annuncio on the smile of the Mona Lisa yield
informationabout the riddle, abysses and revelationswhich they find crystallized in the image of woman. Of course, this pursuitwas not concernedwith
empirical women but rather,for the most part, with pictures of women as
created by male artists.It is possible that the more sensitiveartists,those who
passed the riddle along to their contemporariesand followers,were already
operatingon the assumptionthat theywould neverbe able to comprehendfully
the truthabout femininity.Instead,theylimitedthemselvesto dealingwithonly
that part of "universal" woman that was accessible to theirindividualdispositions, their sex and their sensory faculties.Through the centuries,culturally
diverse standards of beauty have repeatedly reestablishedthe status of the
female body as object. On the other hand, adorationof masculinebeauty,or of
beauty as manifestedin the male body, as we see with Michelangelo,was more
rare and often clouded by the aura of homosexual desire. And an aesthetic
theorymeasured in termsof the masculinemodel, such as Winckelmann's,only
purports to glorifyan ideal purged of such longings,even if generationsof
educatorstriedto make us believe otherwise.
Dorothy Richardson,in Dawn's LeftHand19:
She looked at Amabel throughhis eyes. And saw everythingin her
escape them.Her poses and mannerisms,thatwere second nature,he
would amusedlyaccept as so many biological contrivances.And if he
18. Sigmund Freud, "Die Weiblichkeit,"in Vorlesungenzur Einfiibrungin die Psychoanalyse,Studienausgabe,v. 1, p. 545.
19. Richardson,Dawn's LeftHand (London, 1931), p. 204f.
This content downloaded from 89.177.148.248 on Sun, 15 Mar 2015 10:01:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
FEMININE AESTHETICS
127
thought her "pretty"-sacrilege, even in thought, to apply to
Amabel this belittlingexpressionthatat thismomentI see as part of
his deliberaterefusalto take any kind of womanhood seriouslyand
is not condoned by his protestingthat neitherdoes he take himself
seriously-would play up to her as he does, as I have seen him do,
with women who "exploit" themselves;subtly conveying at the
same time, to the simplefemale he saw behind the manoeuvres,that
he knew what she was about and that she was doing it ratherwell.
But perhaps he would not even thinkherpretty.
Women's identificationwith the aesthetic objectificationof femininityhas
traditionallybeen misplaced. Only when the artistic figuresembodying the
principle of femininitybroke away fromthe traditionalpatternsof representation and managed to avoid the usual cliches, could there be any real identification. Barringthis,identificationon the partof women could take place only via
a complicated process of transference.The woman could eitherbetray her sex
and identifywith the masculine point of view, or, in a state of accepted passivand identifywith the object of the
ity, she could be masochistic/narcissistic
masculinerepresentation.
Causing women to conformmindlesslyto the masculineimage of themis not,
however,the only way in which men have helped determinewomen's image of
themselves.This is because aspects of true femininity,instancesof femaleresistance and uniqueness-though often in disguised form-have always been contained in the artisticproduct. These instancesthen appeared as indicatorsof the
mysteriousand puzzlingnatureof women.
Women no longermodel theirbehaviorand appearance aftersuch stereotypes.
Those times are past. BB's pout is no longerimitated.Nevertheless,the abstract
negationof such standardsof beauty (whetherin the finearts,in literature,film
or even advertising)is still bound up with these very standards,just as Rosenkranz' "Aesthetic of Ugliness" needed the idealistic conception of beauty as its
counterpart. It is too overt and contrivedto find beautifulprecisely what is
abhorred by conventional standards of beauty. Yet, if I am not mistaken,this
very attitudereflectsthe feelingof many women today. Much is lost by thinking
this way. The problem is furthercomplicated when we find that artisticrepresentationsof femininitystill serve as vehiclesfor a general debate about definitions of beauty. This means that we have to contendwith continualcross-overs
fromthe artisticsphereto that of everydaylife.Here again,merelyreversingthe
values would be too superficialand contrivedas to rendera "feministconception of beauty." This kind of show of power requiresa lot of effort,but does
not bringmany results.
This content downloaded from 89.177.148.248 on Sun, 15 Mar 2015 10:01:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
128
NEW GERMAN CRITIQUE
Rather than limitingourselves in this way, we could expand our horizons
toward genuinelyfeministinterpretationsof femalefigures,like the attemptsof
some paintersand action artiststoday. Female beauty can be won back fromthe
celebrationof consumerismby exploding the frameworkof masculineobjectification and fetishizationof specific partsof the body, or the shape of noses. (We
can then decide whetherto still call this beauty,or whetherto finda new word
for it.) Here we would not be merelyinvertingvalues, since body fetishismwas
neverwomen's doing. Or has it everbeen reportedthat sexologistsdiscussedthe
collectingof men's shoes or underwear?In America(!) theyhave multi-colored,
edible women's underpants,in assortedflavors.
For a long time-and I'm speaking now of our everydaylife once againwomen regarded their bodies in anticipation of masculine fetishization,and
allowed this to become the criterionfor theirown acceptability.The dangeris
that this criterionstill exists, but now it has become the standardfor rejecting
anythingabout the female figure that was once the object of male esteem.
Sacrificeat the male altar continues.
Every century,within the frameworkof its particularstandardsof beauty,
had its own favoritebosom and rear,so it is nearlyimpossiblenot to conformto
one cliche or another. Especially in this regard,one findslittle differencebetween the depictionsby "greatartists,"whichhave become frozenas norms,and
the trivialdictates of taste handed down by the cultureindustry.But we should
not underestimatethe power of these beauty requirements,whetherthey are
derivedfromart or fromthe pettyfashionof the day. "Would he stilllove me if
I weren't beautiful?" asks the heroine in everyeighthHollywood flick,a question which has neverbeen heard coming froma male actor ponderinghis relationshipwith a woman. This question is one well suited in makingwomen even
more insecure, in that it sets them to wondering-usually unhappily-about
whether or not they even possess the prerequisitefor asking the question,
namely beauty. Women's rage is absolutelyjustified.Those are the normswhich
have made our growingold intolerableand have caused the riftbetweenus. It is
time to disregardthem completely,time to abstain from even their negative
acknowledgment.This requiresthat women refrainfromconstructingtheirown
set of trivialaesthetic norms,such as "jeans are allowed but skirtsare suspidon't make it," "do I look too mascucious," "red hair is finebut red fingernails
line or too feminine?"Settingup standardssuch as these,in negativereactionto
masculinebeauty fantasies,would merelylimitour freedomonce again.
4. The mythreflectingupon itself.MarleneDietrich'srecentappearances
A discussion I recentlyhad in a women's group leftan impressionon me. Not
long before,Marlene Dietrich,who is not exactly young anymore,was the solo
This content downloaded from 89.177.148.248 on Sun, 15 Mar 2015 10:01:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
FEMININE AESTHETICS
129
performerin a gala television special in London. An artisticproduct came on
stage, every movement perfected,every gesture preciselyrehearsed,premeditated, every facial expression calculated for aestheticeffect.Every step, every
movement of her head or hands-all these were spare, artificial.Added up,
the details gave the impressionthat decades of experience lead to precision.
Although she cannot really sing, the audience went wild over the familiarold
songs. In performanceshe was totallycool, faintlyironic,and even when she was
portrayingemotion everythingwas staged, she made no attempt to make the
emotion appear genuine. When she sings-actually it is more like talkingthan
singing-sheslurs,softensthe refrains,but even thisis not fortuitous.The pose is
intentional,it says, you know this one already, I know you will be pleased if I
sing it . . . And in the dialogue in between songs,familiarkitsch,reminiscences,
the performer'sstage biographyblends with the biographiesof the older members of the audience. For the youngerones it is already a legend. Behind her is
an early picture of herself,only the head. Her face is older now, but even this
change seems not so much the result of the biological aging process; it seems
much more somethingartificallyarranged,a sort of displacementintendedto
signifyhistoricaldistance.And her body is just as artificial,absolutelysmooth as
though encased in some unfamiliarfabric-we are watching a woman demonstratethe representationof a woman's body.
But back to the discussion.I was told it was all terriblysad, thiswoman dared
not grow old, surelyshe had had her face lifted,a fineexample of all the things
women have let people do to them. . ., the same old game. I agree,it is the same
old game, but the ruleshave changed.The mythappears on stage and consciously demonstratesitselfas myth.Justlike in the zoo: the monkeyis suddenlythe
observer,and the people are the ones standingand staringout frombehind bars.
All this has little to do with the actual woman whose real name most people
have forgotten.Who knows how she looks in the dressingroom afterwards;who
knows how we will look at her age. That is anotherworld. But the artisticfigure
Marlene Dietrich is interestingif for no other reason than because she is one of
the few female performerswho acts by way of intellectualunderstatementand
who managed to become a myth despite her subtle disdain for men. Now she
comes on stage once again and demonstratesthe process that turnedher into a
myth, a process she now rises above. Even reactionarytheories of art always
credited women with ability in the performingarts. This is to a certainextent
true,in that women, excluded fromotheropportunities,oftenused theirbodies
as vehicles for expressingtheir artisticimpulses; they turnedtheirbodies into
artistic products. Many of them were destroyed in the process. But Marlene
Dietrich,the cool one, triumphs.She alone controlsthe image to be projected.
Whereasbefore an actress had to satisfythe expectations of the audience, now
This content downloaded from 89.177.148.248 on Sun, 15 Mar 2015 10:01:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
130
NEW GERMAN CRITIQUE
the audience must conformto hers. The mythis on the receivingend and consumes the audience. She gazes down fromthe stage not once but twice,once as
an image and once as an artist,as if to say okay, if thisis how you want it....
5. The aestheticand the feministpublic spheres
"The women who wished to be taken for men in what they wrote were
certainlycommon enough; and if they have givenplace to the women who wish
to be taken for women the change is hardly for the better. ."20 Virginia
...
Woolf wrote this rathermalevolentsentence in 1918, a timeat whichpeople in
England were conductingheated argumentsabout the demands being made by
the women's movement.The authordid not entirelyevade these feministissues,
even if her comments on this subject are pleasantly unorthodox. The quote
in
contains an attack on the ignoranceof formal
prollems aesthetics-mistaking
of
for
the
literature-and
raises
pamphleteering
competence. Virginia
question
Woolf's own works exemplify care and precision in dealing with linguistic
material. She was an author who did not think that, by simply recallingher
female sex, her experience or nature or whateverelse would dictate instantart
onto the page. Of course women possess the potential and the rightto do anything. It is indeed idiotic that we must emphasize even these old concepts of
natural rightswith regardto women. But a stick figureis a farcryfroma Sarah
Schumann painting.The combinationof artisticabilitywith "feminine"innovativenessis stilla rarestrokeof luck. Only the progressof feminismcan make this
happen more oftenand seem less exceptional,in all areas.
A feminineapproach to art must include both aspects mentionedabove. It
cannot ignore the problems of what is aestheticallypossible, the difficulties
involved in workingwith artisticmaterial,the matterof technique and of the
intrinsicdynamics of various media, but neithercan it ignorethe question of
the relationshipbetweenart and feminism.
Once before, it seemed as though a new age were dawning.VirginiaWoolf:
"But here, too, women are comingto be more independentof opinion. They are
beginningto respecttheirown sense of values. And for this reason the subject
matterof theirnovelsbeginsto show certainchanges.They are less interested,it
would seem, in themselves;on the otherhand, theyare more interestedin other
women ....Women are beginningto explore theirown sex, to writeof women
as women have never been writtenof before; for, of course, until verylately,
women in literaturewere the creation of men."21 . and once before,these
20.
21.
Virginia Woolf, "Women Novelists," in Contemporary Writers(London, 1965), p. 26.
Woolf, "Women and Fiction," in Collected Essays, vol. II (New York, 1967), p. 146.
This content downloaded from 89.177.148.248 on Sun, 15 Mar 2015 10:01:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
FEMININE AESTHETICS
131
literaryexpectations were dashed, bound up as theywere with the development
of a new feminineself-consciousnessand the hopes engenderedby the women's
movement. Once before,female artistswere thrownback upon themselvesand
forced to rely upon a male dominated public in order to get theirworks published or shown,in orderto obtain even the slightestdegreeof recognition.
Thus far, I have found tangible instances of what might be termed female
sensitivitytowardswriting(or towardspainting,etc.) only in certainmomentsof
female subversion, female imagination or formal constructs within various
works. And I find these only when the specificsof feminineexperienceand perception determine the form that the work takes, not when some "feminine
concern" has merelybeen tacked onto a traditionalform.The question directed
at a painterof why she did not portraywomen's demonstrationsor activitiesin
her paintings,is an objectivelycynicaland insultingone. Such a question reduces
her work to the level of photo-journalismin weeklynews magazines,something
any man could do just the same. The femininequality of a work ought not be
determinedsolely by its subject matter.
The bridge linking the demands of the movement on the one hand with
artisticactivityand its concrete work with materialsand media on the other is
still very narrow. Thus, those women who are committed to both sets of demands face a terriblydifficultsituation.They are riskingtheirfate to demonstratethat the gap can be bridged.Overcomingthisopposition betweenfeminist
demands and artisticproduction is, even today, the special task faced by those
women who dared to venture into artistic work and yet managed to avoid
betrayingtheir sex in the process, despite all the obstacles and resistancethey
met with. For them, the alternativeof either "real artist" or "recorder of the
movement'sactivities" can only seem a bad joke. It is riskyto relysolely upon a
public that is still in the formativestages of development-namelywomen-and
that has not always provenitselfcapable of makingaestheticjudgments.Yet one
can expect perhaps even less fromthe establishedart public, for they demand
even greaterwillingnessto compromise.For a long time the reigningmen in this
sphere, the big shots, critics and producers,willinglybelieved that art was an
exclusivelymale province.(In fact, they stillbelieve that today-they simplyno
longer advertisethe fact!) Recently though, out of sheer necessity,they have
conceded that art is androgynousin nature.(But even this in no way means that
they consider women's works to be on a par with men's; theirconcession to
androgynyis only a smokescreen.)But theywill declare war on any feministart
that sees itselfas somethingother than merelyone odd variationamong others
cropping up on the currentlybleak artisticscene. If women view theirart as
somethingproduced by women for women, men will fightit, if for no other
reason than because theiraestheticyardstickis unable to measurea phenomenon
This content downloaded from 89.177.148.248 on Sun, 15 Mar 2015 10:01:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
132
NEW GERMAN CRITIQUE
such as this.Patriarchalblinderscannot be taken offat whim.
6. The pre-aestheticrealms
Even in the past, I contend, the exclusion of women fromthe artisticrealm
could not extinguishall theiraestheticneeds. These creativeimpulses,however,
were shuntedoff into the "pre-aesthetic"realms,where they evaporatedunder
the strainof women's daily routine.Womenfurnishedthe livingquarters,set the
tables,arranged,decoratedand adorned theirclothingand above all themselves.
That was allowed, as long as it was being done to please the man. These
activitiesquickly corruptedwomen. They set the table forthe man, theydressed
and adorned themselvesfor the man-not for themselvesor for each other,but
rather in competition with each other. They busied themselvesweaving and
knitting,but such functionalartworks,handicraftsand decorationshave always
been considered inferior,commonplace. This verdictis of course not entirely
unfair,especially in those cases where even these most timideffortswere channeled into subservientobsequiousnessand excessiveaffection-seeking.
SylviaPath, in The Bell Jar22:
Once when I visitedBuddy I found Mrs. Willardbraidinga rugout of
strips of wool from Mr. Willard'sold suits. She'd spent a week on
that rug,and I had admiredthe tweedybrown. and greensand blues
patterningthe braid, but afterMrs. Willardwas through,instead of
hangingthe rug on the wall the way I would have done, she put it
down in place of her kitchenmat,and in a few days it was soiled and
dull and indistinguishable
from any mat you could buy for undera
dollar in the Five and Ten.
Here the ambivalence once again: on the one hand we see aesthetic activity
deformed,atrophied,but on the otherwe find,even withinthisrestrictedscope,
socially creativeimpulseswhich, however,have no outlet for aestheticdevelopment, no opportunitiesfor growth. These impulses could not be concretely
realized,nor could theylead to an artificialdesireto experiment.
It is true that these activitiesneverhad to become static,unchangingartistic
norms.They never became obsolete products,theyremainedbound to everyday
life, feeble attempts to make this sphere more aestheticallypleasing. But the
The object could neverleave the realmin
price for this was narrowmindedness.
22.
Sylvia Plath, The Bell Jar (London, 1963), p. 88.
This content downloaded from 89.177.148.248 on Sun, 15 Mar 2015 10:01:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
FEMININE AESTHETICS
133
which it came into being,it remainedtied to the household,it could neverbreak
loose and initiatecommunication....
But what would happen if someday we cleared out this realm and opened it
only to ourselves and other women? What if we alternatedpaintingour faces
with paintingon canvas?Whatifwe turnedrecipesinto poetry?Whatif all these
activitieswere to shed theirutilitarianrationaleof male approval?
Ann Anders: On unravellingand reknitting
a sweater
Theoldonewasthefirst
self-made
Growntoo large.
Thewounduptimeofurgent
experience
Stillfillsit out.
Weeksof workand sensuality
Not dividedinto days and nights
Alone or entwinedwithmany others.
The increaseand decrease of tension
Atteststo densityin memory.
Fetched forthagain the largenessappears, tucks bear witness:
from the beginning.
Grown thinner,experiencemorefragmented
The smooth stitchesturninto difficultcable,
Growingupward,lendingstrength.
ThoughI knittednarrowstripsof blue into thegrey,
Therewas hardlyenough wool. (3/9/76)
Perhaps that is all too simple, too superficial.Attemptingto knit the gap
between the artisticrealm and social reality is problematic in that this gap is
not simply the result of foolish blunder but is ratherthe result of particular
pre-conditions.
However,it can be proventhatwomen succeeded in enteringthe artisticrealm
when they gained access to it via the adjoining "pre-aesthetic"realms. In the
18th centurywomen were able to enter the realm of literatureby means of
letters(the epistolary novel), since this was an age in which lettersand novels
were gaining dignityand the dissolution of rigid formal rules allowed greater
flexibility.Experience could be gained in writingprivate letters.Since letters
and diaries have no clearly defined literaryniche, it was all rightfor women
to practice on them. Only the Romantics considered conversation-another
femininedomain in literature-to be aesthetic activity.The lettersof Caroline
Schlegel are true masterpiecesof mixed aestheticform: wardrobe descriptions
This content downloaded from 89.177.148.248 on Sun, 15 Mar 2015 10:01:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
134 NEW GERMAN CRITIQUE
alternatewith philosophical discourses,gossip withliteraryquotations,allusions
and criticism.Men were amazed by the new tenor,the new tone, the irreverence
and more sensual descriptionsunique to women's letters,and on occasion they
even showed open admiration. It did not take long for this medium to be included in the literarycanon.
"feminine"media-letters,weaving.It is, in fact,almost more difficultto do this
than to work with the "unfeminine"technicalmedia such as film,since these
need not contend with being traditionallyrelegatedto the domain of the housewife. We should not fosterthe false assumptionthat our sewingteachersindeed
pointed us in the rightdirection.There is no direct path fromthe decorative
potholder to the tapestriesof Abakanovicz. Besides, I am still horrifiedby the
whole ruffles-and-sewing
basket businesswe were subjectedto as younggirls.
I believe that feminineartisticproductiontakes place by means of a complicated process involvingconqueringand reclaiming,appropriatingand formulating,
as well as forgettingand subverting.In the worksof those femaleartistswho are
concernedwiththe women's movement,one findsartistictraditionas well as the
break with it. It is good-in two respects-that no formalcriteriafor "feminist
art" can be definitivelylaid down. It enables us to rejectcategoricallythe notion
of artisticnorms,and it preventsrenewal of the calcifiedaestheticsdebate, this
timeunderthe guise of the feminist"approach."
If, however,women have differentassumptionswith regardto theirsensory
approach, their relationship to matter and material, their perception, their
experience, their means of processingtactile, visual and acoustic stimuli,their
spatial orientationand temporalrhythm-andall these thingsare what aesthetics
meant at one time, according to its originaldefinitionas a theoryof sensory
perception-then one could logically expect to find these thingsexpressed in
Put emphatically,thiswould mean that
special formsof mimetictransformation.
withinthe frameworkof a femalecosmologytherewould be a changedrelationship betweenthe subjectiveartisticappropriationof realityon the one hand, and
formalsuggestiveness
and receptiveperceptionon the other.But it will be nearly
impossible to find categorical evidence for this changed relationship:realityis
not thatlogical, and thereis no femalecosmologyeither.
Lucy Lippard23
And yet, therecan be no doubt that the realmoffemale experience
is sociologicallyand biologicallydifferent
from that of the male.
23.
Lippard, in Feminismus: Kunst & Kreativitiit.
This content downloaded from 89.177.148.248 on Sun, 15 Mar 2015 10:01:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
FEMININE AESTHETICS
135
best expressedby a particular
Is femininesensitivity
fragmented
or
strict
unity?In circles,oval blocksor througha
form through
striped,filagreedpattern?Throughsensualsurfacesor througha
subtle sense of color? The images,the choice of theme,even the
intentions
behindthe applicationof theseformsor similarones in
indicatorsof a
video,film,dance-all theseare merelysuperficial
I countmyselfamongthosewho are
morefundamental
difference.
convincedthat this differentiation
exists,and yet for everycase
that I can specifythereare innumerable
othersthat defysuch
specifications.
Thereis no proofof a different
to detailandgenerality,
(female)relationship
to motionlessnessand movement,to rhythmand demeanor. At present,this is
all still conjecture. I find the only sensible approach to be the search for evidence withinindividual,concrete texts (pictures,films,etc.), as VirginiaWoolf
once attemptedwithDorothy Richardson'swriting.
Woolfon thelanguageofDorothyRichardson24:
Virginia
She has invented,
or,ifshe has notinvented,
developedandapplied
to her own uses,a sentencewhichwe mightcall thepsychological
sentenceof thefeminine
gender.It is ofa moreelasticfibrethanthe
to theextreme,of suspending
thefrailest
old, capableof stretching
particles,of envelopingthe vaguestshapes. Otherwritersof the
and stretched
oppositesex have used sentencesof thisdescription
themto theextreme.But thereis a difference.
MissRichardson
has
in orderthatit maydescendto
fashionedhersentenceconsciously,
the depthsand investigatethe cranniesof MiriamHenderson's
It is a woman'ssentence,but onlyin thesensethat
consciousness.
it is used to describea woman'smindby a writerwho is neither
thatshe maydiscoverin thepsycholproud norafraidof anything
ogyofhersex.
Dorothy Richardsonon the masculinemannerof writing25:
The self-satisfied,
complacent,know-all condescendingness
of
theirhandlingof theirmaterial.... The tormentof all novelsis
24. Woolf,"Romance and the Heart," in ContemporaryWriters,
p. 124f.
25. Richardson,Dawn's LeftHand, p. 202f.
This content downloaded from 89.177.148.248 on Sun, 15 Mar 2015 10:01:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
136
NEW GERMAN CRITIQUE
what is left out. The momentyou are aware of it thereis torment
in them. Bang, bang, bang, on they go, these men's books, like
an L.L.C. tram,yet unable to make you forgetthem, the authors,
for a moment.
The exclusion of women fromvast areas of productionand the public sphere
has directed women's imaginationalong other lines, not to speak of women's
responsibilityfor the biological and social reproductionof the species, as well
as the economic, if they are working.Moreover,the much touted ahistoricityof
women kept the polarity between intellectual labor and manual labor from
becoming too traumatic.The disparatedevelopmentof the sexes, thoughorigin
of so much of women's suffering,fortunatelyhas not yet allowed women's
behavior and needs to become reifiedto the degree found in advanced capitalism. But generations of women paid for this with their banishmentinto the
maritalghetto.
Is there a feminineaesthetic?Certainlythereis, if one is talkingabout aesthetic awareness and modes of sensoryperception. Certainlynot, if one is talking
about an unusual variant of artisticproduction or about a painstakinglyconstructedtheoryof art. Women's break with the formal,intrinsiclaws of a given
medium,the release of theirimagination-theseare unpredictableforan art with
feministintentions.There is, thankheavens,no premeditatedstrategywhich can
predictwhat happenswhen femalesensualityis freed.Because it is a processand
historicallytentative,we cannot verbally anticipate this freeingof feminine
sensualityeitherat its traditionalerotic center(even thoughthere'sa lot going
on there everymonth) or in the context of individualchoice. We can do it only
on the basis of a movement by women for women. Art should become feminized, and women's participation(limited by men to their sensualityalone)
would do it a lot of good. Perhaps then our male colleagues would not need to
proclaim the death of art one year and recant the next. But that is only peripheralhere.
It is also prematureto revel in women's spontaneous activities,such as their
fromthe
parties,as if they representeda new, "vital" aesthetic,totallydifferent
aesthetic of objectifiedart products. (This would be analogous to the sloganof
the student movement that art would henceforthtake place in the streets.)
Women will know how to resist the imprisonmentof theirimaginationin the
artisticghetto, not because this fitsinto their"aesthetic program,"but rather
because, whereas terminologymay fail, this imaginationconstitutesthe movementitself.
The predispositionto feminine/sensualcognition and perception becomes
most apparentin women's collectiveactions which in theirappearance riseabove
This content downloaded from 89.177.148.248 on Sun, 15 Mar 2015 10:01:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
FEMININE AESTHETICS
137
the ordinary. Let us be wary of models, however. These actions would be
quickly coopted as manifestationsof living or body art, or body language.
Feministart is not a stylistictrend.Women's actions or demonstrationsare not
artisticevents.The relationshipbetween political actions and art-as well as the
reflectingupon this relationship-cannot operate on the level of traditional
leftistanimosityto art. Nor can it exist on the level of apolitical esotericviews
of the type which allowed a demonstrationfor legalized abortion to be interpreted as a rebirthof the "happening" scene. The point here is neitherto rescue
the notion of the "beautiful illusion," nor to overextendthe concept of aesthetics, a termwhich by definitionalready encompasses all activityand hence has
become totally meaningless.The importantthingis that women artistswill not
let themselvesbe kept back anymore. They work on canvas, they make films
and videotapes, they write and sculpt, they work with metal and with fabric,
they are on stage. .
.
. So let us take a look at what they are doing.
Translatedby Beth Weckmueller
This content downloaded from 89.177.148.248 on Sun, 15 Mar 2015 10:01:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions