the-bearded-woman-breastfeeding-1631
The importance of deconstruction, as a type of philosophy, has been elaborated on by Jaques Derrida in the second half of the 20th century. Although Derrida did not convey deconstruction as a particular method to analyze social science, philosophy, and literary sources, I believe that it should be valued as a system which can contribute to the underlying forces and structures of an artwork such as Jusepe Ribera’s Bearded Woman Breastfeeding, finished in 1631. This painting is a depiction of the patrons: a husband and a grotesque wife nursing a baby in her arms. The juxtaposition of man and woman in Jusepe Ribera’s Bearded Woman Breastfeeding allows the de-conceptualization of binary opposition and culture versus nature to confer introspective on the ambiguous relationship. The implied hierarchies of the man’s raised and the woman’s lowered placement in the painting allude to cultural customs which are arbitrarily accepted because of the texts which govern these norms. The principle framework which is negotiated through deconstruction relays that there are no ultimate meanings which can be acknowledged across multi-cultural barriers and upheld through the precedent of time. Instead there are multiple discourses offered either by the original author or other individuals, without an implied truth, that can never reach a definitive conclusion. Although these principles help convey non-apparent presumptions in Ribera’s Bearded Woman Breastfeeding there are also limitations to this approach that cannot be neglected. Derrida transmits that a painters rational becomes more congruous if the perceived principle denotations are adherent enough to substantiate further claims. If the mediation of meanings ranges across geographical boundaries and periods of art would the artists work be critiqued as less successful if it differed from their original plan of conception? This vagueness undermines Derrida’s accountability that interpretations are adherent to change, but are measured in comparison with the assumed reading that the artist supported. If these dualities of the artist’s binary role are ignored, than the principle guidelines which become superimposed by using deconstruction as an art historical strategy are figuratively dismantled. However; employing deconstruction as a tool of decryption allows indistinguishable appearances to become realized in an alternative manner by taking apart the perspectives of 17th century ideology which asses the value of the male and female character.
In Jusepe Ribera’s Bearded Woman Breastfeeding cognitive social distinctions and sexual introversions are contrasted through the portrayal of woman and man, consequently deconstructive rational can be implored to syndicate a useful commentary on the piece. Because many of her features are overtly emasculated these discrepancies elicited a surprised response from onlookers in the period of the Baroque (Black, in-lecture). The main subject of the piece, the bearded woman, has suggestive male and female characteristics which are clearly the most descriptive and shocking aspects of the piece. The furrowed eye brows, the lines of delineation on her forehead, the moustache and bear, and large manly hands all are characteristics of the male physiognomy. If Ribera was indeed mimicking the natural reality of the woman then the physical augmentation and placement of the bosom isn’t anatomically correct. Only the exposed breast and swaddled baby expose the female attribute of the so-called woman. The presence of this ghastly resemblance to a man could in effect destabilize the differentiation of the sexes. Pertaining to Ribera’s painting, Meyer Schapiro, a philosopher who advocates structuralism, would have created a connection between the binary opposition of man and woman thus linking them as a married husband and wife. As structuralism relies on pairs to denote the contextual reference of the specific painting deconstruction permits a broader recognition of opposites. By examining the essentials of binary opposition he de-configures this explanatory device used by philosophers to impress structuralism on a work of art. The irregularities of the woman break assumptions of contrived exteriors by tricking the viewer of the appropriately assigned sexuality. This manifestation is made clearer through the de-solidification of its comparative situation; the binary opposition of culture versus nature.
The differed height correlations of the portraits reiterate ideas of social divisions as opposed to natural implications of inherent features of woman, such as the beard which grew later in her life. This binary opposition can be re-theorized through questioning and enacting a more open reading of the artwork. The relative placement creates a counterbalance of male versus female occupancy which affects how an onlooker would perceive the visual sources. A formal hierarchy is constructed because of the elevated position of the man on the left side of the painting compared to the lower arrangement of the bearded woman. From this stance of structuralism, this would be seen as a parallel to the man’s higher status in the governmental and domestic realm where a man is in dominion of his wife. This is disseminated through paintings of rape and other allegories portraying this imposed reality. On the other side of this nurtured acceptability the natural traits of the woman expose the reverse psychology. In 1632 the woman had a baby at her own divine which enforces her own female sexuality. The woman’s beard began to grow in 1637, but this is only one of the many unusual male characteristics. Professor Black iterates that is a “great wonder of nature (Black, in-lecture).” The woman’s complex introversions could demonstrate the variability creative forces of nature. Her beard does not bear the same implications because it placed on woman’s face. To deconstruct this binary bind of natural accept abilities versus culturally determinates deeper dissemination is needed. It could be resonated that this confusion of sex de-mystifies the proposed roles set in place through perpetuated cultural systems. According to Derrida these set up hierarchies which are actually de-hierarchies that are not closed to singular influences from a superior source of power. This ideology of supremacy in the 17th century is relinquished inferring from deconstructive principles elaborated by Derrida. This conjecture could plausibly have been refuted by him because this ascribed relationship is only one possible truth. If Derrida decided to question the motives behind this presumption than the theoretical association could be opened up to broader understanding. The woman’s exaggerated presence could progress this dialog additionally by de-riding the fundamentals of this conditioned binary opposition. As these tools have shaped a plurality of perceptual readings, there are also weaknesses which are uncovered through the expression of a double bind which is Derrida is unaware of in his own terminology.
Jaques Derrida makes incongruent assertions concerning how the implied original meaning behind that of the creator is only one of many interpretations, but it should be regarded in a privileged manner with regard to later inferences which are mediated throughout history. This relative weakness would be disregarded if Derrida himself acknowledged this double bind and consequently took apart his own renditions regarding the role of the author. Rather he expresses, in opposition to structuralism that the author’s function relies on a signatory principle where the oral equivalence of the name of the author relates to his autobiography. The painters own experiences would have shown through his work and he would have been privy to his own circumstance thus manifesting an individualized intended meaning. However; in this sense according to Derrida the painters own aspirations do not lead to an all encompassing message that should not be questioned by contemporary rhetoric. Following the author’s death viewers’ artistic analysis have added to this connotative changeable dimensionality of the painting. Derrida conveys that the author of the work of art does not hold the only compatible meaning or should he be imbued with a godly status such as Michelangelo was by Giorgio Vasari (Adams, 163). It is possible that Michelangelo’s religiously devoted artworks are interpretations from the bible which he imbued with his own defined translation. Without elucidating Michelangelo’s reasoning it would be hard to fully comprehend the intricacies formed in his pictorial planes. After the death of the author, an onlooker without prior knowledge of the bible as a literary source wouldn’t be knowledgeable of the specific narratives described in his paintings, nor would the observer be able to decipher what particularities have been changed with reference to the religious context. Michelangelo’s past could not come up with an accurate representational deduction of the painting. These conscious inferences of the bibles allegories were delineated by Vasari who became so captivated with him that he elevated Michelangelo’s condition to the realm of the godly, accordingly letting his words speak the truth. Jusepe Ribera’s painting is entitled Bearded Woman Breastfeeding which could have had noteworthy implications beyond its formal qualities. This naming attributes evident sexuality and articulates that the woman is a mother who is nurturing her baby. This prior understanding demonstrates that there was relevant history tied to Ribera’s work and if ignored the painting becomes less decipherable to a poser-buyer without this privileged insight. This connotative title has undoubtedly been referenced by mediators wishing to decode the connection between the present characters in the artwork. Deconstruction is less applicable in this frame of reference because of the vague dualities of the importance of the author after his demise. If this plurality of the artist’s role is ignored or confused than the purposeful situational placement of the figures in the painting are not grasped as easily by the reader. Although there are limitations involving this de-conceptualization of Ribera’s painting, this form of thinking expands upon the inter-workings of double binds.
Deconstruction relays that there are flexible connotations transmitted through varying conditions produced in a work of art. These contexts relate to the emphasized sexuality between man and woman and the continuing discussion of a natural emphasis compared to the distinctive cultural perplexities. These elements of deconstruction are most appropriately applicable to Ribera’s Bearded Woman Breastfeeding because of this involved analysis of male and female binary opposition as well the differentiation of culture versus nature. This evaluation of upheld prevailing ideologies disrupts the suppositional arrangement of binary grouping and expands the possibility of other dictates of contemplation. On the other side of this dialectic, the artist’s signatory role is perplexed through varying misconstructions by Derrida. The indefinite presumptions relayed pertaining to the artist’s role relies on two inconsistent distinctions. While the individualized reasoning behind his or her work is assumed to be more consequential when measured against later purported meanings, this conclusiveness is unrecognized by Derrida. Beyond the literal effects which are materialized through bare images, deconstruction doesn’t presume that there are explicit explanations which can be deduced from these representations that are immutable over the course of history. Deconstructive theory expands on the perplexity that non-absolute interpretations are transmitted from different perceived sexual, natural, and sexual standpoints of the viewer. By visually examining and then extrapolating functional commentary from this painting, a recognized perception of broader reality cannot be realized. Rather these perceptions are re-constituted so that can be seen form multiple contextualized sources that broaden the paintings origins which are relevant to underplayed societal norms.
All posts written by Asher Godfrey Blumberg 2008-2009. Copyright asher23. Booyakasha23= my dream film company.
