Mario Read

Paper #1 Comparative Analysis

March 1, 2012

Term 1

Advisor: Deb Todd Wheeler

scoptophilia
 Deriving pleasure from looking.

        During the critical theory class a painting by Joan Semmel came up and was touched upon for a couple of minutes.  Me Without Mirrors 1974.  I have seen her work Before and have had conversations about Semmel’s work, and how it parallels some of Philip Pearlsteins work.

        I will focus on two specific pieces, Joan Semmel’s painting Me Without Mirrors and Phillip Pearlstein’s watercolor, Two Models on Blow Up Chair 1999.  I am choosing these two because of the compositional similarities, realistic rendering and anatomy, and an attention to detail that borders on the obsessive.

        Both paintings have a photographic quality to them, but not necessarily photorealistic.  Pearlstein’s has the sense of a snap shot, cropping parts of the subjects as if taken in a hurry that just happens to have a good accidental composition.  Semmel’s,  is a P.O.V. (point of view) shot that gives it a look that became popular with the availability of cheap user friendly cameras, and lately cellphone cameras, and the ability to publish through blogs and websites in the internet.  A perfect example of which are, Her Side of The Hills and Good Luck With Madeleine. On which P.O.V. self portraits taken by women are showcased.

        Two Models on Blow Up Chair, from the perspective of the observer, is looking over the shoulder of the model in the foreground.  She is reclining, creating a line that cuts diagonally across the painting and  dissects the other model, who is on the floor, and between them segment the format into four triangles that meet in the center. The illumination on the subjects is bright, almost straight from above them, and from several sources.  By cropping the heads, any kind of empathy with the subject disappears which lets the viewers explore there voyeuristic impulses, and allows them to look upon it, and be absorbed into an almost obsessive desire to observe and start paying attention to the most minute details.  It’s an almost idealistic image, despite the fore mentioned lighting and sharp shadows, there seems to be a soft quality to it, the smoothness almost creamy colors and the equal treatment of all subjects, be it human or otherwise, makes them become object like.

        Pearlstein’s watercolor gives me an aura of objectivity.  It is looking in almost a mechanical matter, where the composition takes precedence over the subject matter.  It becomes impersonal.  It lacks the intimacy of a portrait.  It shows the bodies in a matter of fact fashion that takes away any eroticism  that the model could have.  I would say that more than looking at it as a composition (which just happens to have a couple of women in it), it would feel clinical.  After I get over the clinical feeling, it becomes almost whimsy, the chair, which supports the model on it on a plane above the other model who is in part seen through it, and on it rest a lock of hair, which is one of the only things that breaks the composition, and shows a little bit of personality.  The ways in which the colors of the rug come through the plastic of the chair, the drum in the background, the positioning of the models, the playfulness with which the shadows fall across all the objects and “subjects” and plants them solidly in the space they inhabit.

        Me Without Mirrors, reminds me,  of the Degas series of nudes bathing.  The position is more like the sculpture The Tub, but from the subjects point of view, in this case, the cropping of the head allows the observer to be in the position of the artiste and empathize with the subject, Semmel.  In a way, the observer becomes the subject, and can alternate between self and other.  At the same time it gives the permission to look at a body that doesn’t belong to you, as if it did.  As a man, it gives me a glimpse into the female psyche.  Noticing the intricacies of the skin, the way flesh folds, differences in pigmentation, how extremely foreshorten the torso becomes, and how real and unidealized a body can become when it becomes your own.  It surprises me and the body turns from object to subject, and forces me to look at it, and at myself from a different perspective, and in a more detailed manner.  There are several ways in which the towel can be interpreted, for example as menstrual flow, or a symbolic phallus.  Composition wise, like Pearlstein's piece, there is a convergence of four triangles which meet in the center of the painting, defined by torso, legs and sides, at the same time a diagonal bisection of the canvas into dark and light areas which give it the appearance of emerging from the dark.   The illumination appears to be from a natural source and comes from front and above, is soft but bright, which creates smooth transitions in the treatment of the figure yet allows certain areas to be accents.

        Semmel’s painting, has such a feel of intimacy.  It is as if you already know it in such detail that it has a certain familiarity.  But, there is something odd about it that pulls you in and triggers and inquisitive response. The positioning of the body could be interpreted in several ways, either laying down, reclining, siting or leaning forward. It seems to be coming out from the ether and becoming aware. It gives a glimpse into how she think and puts you in her place, which allows the viewer a liberty to approach it and become immersed in it. Think as if you were her. Become her.

        The contrast between these two pieces comes, not only by the treatment of the subject, but by the intimacy with which they are portrayed.  Pearlstein’s watercolor, has a whimsical feel to it, almost playful, but the subject objective.  Semmel’s painting is intimate.  It places emphasis on the personal; and I would say forces one to identify with the subject matter.

        In conclusion, both of these artists have attained technical mastery in their fields. They have a similar subject matter.  They have similar compositions and an eye for detail.  At the same time, Pearlstein’s piece makes you feel like a fly on the wall.  You are a witness to a moment but with a disconnect from the subject matter, and with a definite interest on the surroundings.  Semmel’s piece, carries an emotional weight. It puts you in an intimate place, and makes you self aware and in empathy with her.  It touches a serious nerve and places you in the skin of the subject.  The pleasure you get from looking at these particular pieces comes from very different places.  One gives you that detachedness that allows you to be voyeuristic. The other puts you in the position of the subject. Self aware, but oddly, in a skin not you’re own.