Un Regard Oblique
Look at Robert Doisneau's photograph, Un Regard Oblique (1948). In light of John Berger's arguments about "ways of seeing," how would you interpret this photograph? In particular, what do you make of the different gazes embodied in the photograph--that of the man and woman by the window, that of the woman portrayed in the painting, and that of you, the viewer? In other words--who is looking at who, who is aware of being looked at or not, and what is seen and what is not seen?
Also, check out these color reproductions of the Franz Hals painting that Berger analyzes against the analysis of the art historian. They are much more detailed than the reproductions in the book.
Regents of the Old Men's Almshouse, 1664
Regentesses of the Old Men's Almshouse, 1664
Also, I'm reading your freewrites now and they are great--you came up with some really simultaneously complex and spontaneous ideas in such a short block of time.
posted by Irene Chien @ 11:05 AM
14 comments
14 Comments:
Robert Doisneau’s photograph does lend credence to John Berger’s argument. The portrayal of the woman in the painting is clearly done in a style to appeal towards men. Had a man been the focus of the painting, the portrayal would probably be much different. As for the couple in the picture, their obviously different gazes are in line with Berger’s idea that seeing is always a matter of choice. The woman chooses to speak of the central painting, while the man chooses to ignore her and look at the naked woman.
I think that Doisneau purposely took this photograph from this angle to show us that Berger's right. Doisneau doesn't even show us what the woman is looking at because it's unnecessary. He only shows us that the man is looking at the woman. The woman in the painting, with her pose and lack of clothing, only further proves that women are used as sexual objects, and men don't mind.
Robert Doisneau’s Un Regard Oblique definitely exhibits many themes and thoughts that John Berger discusses in Ways of Seeing. First off, you notice immediately that the couple is not staring at the same thing. The woman’s eyes are focused on the painting being displayed in front of them, while the man is looking over at the painting of a naked woman on the wall. This definitely supports Berger’s idea that we have the choice to observe what we want to observe, and see what we want to see. The man is looking at a naked woman, who, from her body stance, seems oblivious to the fact that she is being watched, yet is presented in a way that will be sexually appealing to viewers. The position of her body makes it seem as if she is just examining an object, perhaps herself in the mirror. But the very fact that her face is not painted and her body stance is away from the artist means that she is not just a nude painting, she is Berger’s definition of a loved woman who is not posing for the artist. While it is obvious that she is a work of art, her presentation in the painting confirms Berger’s statement of the contradiction of artists. He states that while artists are free, individualistic thinkers, they paint humans as if they were objects. This is clear with the woman who is presented as the centerpiece of the painting. Also, something I found interesting was the difference in their facial expressions. The man looks as if he is observing something that he cannot turn away from, while the woman seems disgusted at what she sees in her painting, yet you are not sure what is it that she is observing.
At first glance, my eyes are drawn to the woman’s expression, which leads me to wonder what the subject of the painting is. While the woman is criticizing or trying to conduct an intelligent conversation with her husband, the husband’s eyes lead me toward the unnoticed painting of a naked woman. His sideways gaze erases my belief that the focus of the photograph is on the couple and the unknown painting, but rather routes me back to Friday’s discussion that men seem to be drawn instinctively toward their desires and sexual tendencies. This raises Berger’s argument that women are seen as objects for male viewing pleasure. The woman in the painting positions herself in a revealing and exploitive manner, unaware of her observer.
On first glance in this photograph the female appears the be the subjecto the photograph, but if you look at it at a few more moments you realize that the subject is the male. I believe that Robert Doisneau is trying to make a statement of how men and women view art differently. As we can see in this picture the female possibly the wife seems to be engaged in detailed critiscism of a painting while her husband looks bored and sneaks a peek at the nude in the window. Doisneau seems to suggest that women are more likely to see further the canvas and men just look at paintings with subjects that interest or excite them and thats it.
To the viewer the first thing is the nude woman doing a suggestive pose. Than the next thing i saw was the man glancing at it while a woman is talking to him about another picture. To apply John Bergerer's way of seeing is I would say that a painting would bring out different emotions and responses. The man's response to the picture is he is maybe more shocked by it and maybe a little infatuation with it. He definitely notices it, while the woman may have but it doesn't show. John Bergerer talks about men treating woman as more of an image that should flatter them and this guy probably would qualify for that. He is looking at the woman doing a suggestive pose and probably likes the picture more than the woman would. It just looks as if the guy is excited by the picture for it being in such a public place, but enjoys how it is so open for everyone to see, maybe there is danger involved for him.
Robert Doisneau's "Un regard oblique" conveys in a photograph the arguments John Berger made in Ways of Seeing. The fact that the man chooses to ignore the painting which the woman seems to be interested in, and instead, focuses his attention to the painting of the nude, supports Berger's ideas that men view nude paintings in a certain way. It also reinforces Berger's idea that each image embodies a different way of seeing. In this case, Berger would say that the painting of the nude woman is directed towards male spectators. In fact, the painting does command the man's attention while the woman seems to have no interest at all in it.
Although I am left to wonder whether or not the wife even notices the nude painting, Doisneau's photograph “Un regard oblique” supports the generalization that men are drawn towards paintings of nude women more so than women are. I find it interesting that both of the women in this photograph, the nude painting and the wife, are unaware of the man’s focus. To the woman in the painting it would seem that the husband is a peeping Tom. The nude is minding her own business and by the expression of the surveyor, he is more or less spying on her. The wife, on the other hand, doesn't realize that her husband's attention is elsewhere in this photograph, since she is trying to discuss the painting before her. It can be said that maybe the husband doesn’t appreciate the painting that his wife is looking at, but, to me, his sideways glance sure says that he appreciates the painting of the nude woman.
In Robert Doisneau’s Un Regard Oblique, I would have to say that to women’s facial expression is more towards criticality rather than that of shock, but then again we all have our own opinions of this little picture. The man on the other hand seems mesmerized by the painting of the naked women because as a man, it is only natural for him to act as he does. The woman on the painting does not know she is being viewed and I suppose this allows it to be even more appealing to the man. What appeals to one is all individual based. You can say that fetishes vary amongst different people, whether it is by gender of even ethnicities. I mean a painting of a Jesus may on appeal to people who follow in him, but to people of other religions it is nothing special. What Berger explains is Ways of Seeing is perfectly portrayed in this picture because it finely depicts the idea that different paintings appeals to different audiences and in this case the nude is directed at the male audience.
Doisneau’s photograph of the man and woman through the store window seems as if it was taken unknowingly by the two subjects, both of them looking at paintings in the window. The woman looks down at the central painting, in which the photographer and us, the viewer, cannot see, except for the slightest reflection in the glass against the black of the woman’s jacket. Her eyes are transfixed on it even as she speaks to the man and motions with her hand. It is as if she is so captivated by the mysterious painting’s subject matter that she cannot turn to face the man as she speaks. The man, on he other hand, just glances out of the corner of his eye at the painting of the naked woman, he doesn’t turn and look directly at the painting. He is “sneaking a peek” and trying not to let on to the woman that his gaze is directed away from the piece she is discussing. The painting of the naked woman looks as if it were taken from a peephole. She doesn’t know she is being looked at as she leans over. She doesn’t face the artist or make any suggestion of that fact that she is aware of the eyes watching her. And so, like the naked woman being caught in a seemingly private moment, we, the viewer, catch the man gazing at the naked female, something he probably thought would go unseen.
Robert Doisneau’s Un regard oblique captures a moment of contrasting ways of seeing. The strong stare on the woman’s face as well as the way her mouth is opened, as if she is trying to discuss the artwork with the man, depicts her strong appreciation for the piece. On the other hand, the gentleman is in a kind of blank, hypnotic gaze at the painting of the nude woman. He does not look as though he is studying it to find a deeper meaning, nor is he discussing his ideas with the woman. The man is merely staring at this painting for the utter joy and pleasure he gets out of seeing it.
Viewers of Un regard oblique are not able to see the painting that the woman is looking at because it is irrelevant to the point of the painting. Doisneau is making a statement about the majority of males and how their perceptions of art are different than of women. The woman could actually be looking at the exact same painting as the man and it still shows how women and men perceive nude art. Doisneau is basically making a statement about the majority of men and how their sexual feelings for women merely control their actions, especially when viewing art.
I would say that this photograph is a good example of Berger’s opinion that many paintings of women were made to make the spectator, who was most likely a man, feel empowered. In Un Regard Oblique, the man in the photograph seems fascinated by the woman in the painting and is ignoring his wife, who seems to be in the middle of a comment regarding the painting in front of them. As, the spectator, I wouldn’t be an active part of the photograph like the man is with the painting of the woman. What we can’t see is what the painting that has the woman looking interested enough to comment on it.
What I found most fascinating about the image was its ability to parallel our gaze with the gaze of the man in the image. We glance at the woman with little interest, glance at the man, then follow his gaze to the painting, while having little idea of what the woman is seeing or doing. There is much to see within the space of the image, from shops to people to items in the art store, but somehow the painting remains the most striking aspect of the image.
The discussion about whether or not the nude woman in the painting is aware of the spectator or not is really interesting, because I think she is both unaware and very much aware of being watched. She is posed to fulfill the spectator's voyeuristic fantasy--the secret erotic thrill of watching someone without their knowledge, as if the woman is seen in a peephole as Candice suggests, or by a peeping tom as Kristine suggests. But as Brenden points out, this unawareness seems to be deliberately performed for the spectator's benefit. And even if the painting seems to be very obviously a posed fantasy rather than a candid slice of life (how many women actually slink around their boudoirs in stockings and high heels without an audience, real or imagined?), that doesn't negate its power. The possibility that she does know that we are here, yet pretends that she doesn't, might actually increase the painting's erotic power.
It seems that everyone more or less agrees that the male spectator's "regard oblique" can be interpreted as a surreptitious look of desire. But the significance of the woman in the painting's gaze and the woman looking at the painting's gaze is more ambivalent. Perhaps our inability to pin down exactly what is going on in the women's gazes is reflected in John Berger's book. Berger emphasizes how images are positioned for an imagined "ideal spectator" who is male, white, and bourgeouis, and explores how images cater to that ideal male spectator in elaborate detail. But he does not spend much time exploring the possibility of female spectators (or other non-ideal spectators) except in the capacity of "watching themselves watched by men." Perhaps the book's exclusive focus on this total, overarching system of capitalist patriarchy that seems to offer no way out and no avenues of resistance is what rankles Justin.
Post a Comment
<< Home