Gender Construction in Velázquez's Rokeby Venus and the Suffragettes

Introduction

While women in the United States and the United Kingdom have enjoyed the right to vote for several decades, things were very different at the turn of the 20th century when the suffragettes emerged to challenge the male-dominated status quo of Western society. One of the events that highlighted this period in history was Mary Richardson's attack on Velázquez's The Rokeby Venus — an event that has since assumed its place in the historical record as one of the most important in women's struggle for equal rights.

This paper provides an overview and analysis of Velázquez's The Rokeby Venus, including a description of the historical era in which it was created, a determination of the transitional social changes that took place within that period, and their possible influences on the artist. An analysis of the artwork's treatment of gender construction is followed by a discussion and comparative analysis of current artistic and media construction of gender according to the concepts of functionalism (idealism), conflict theory (Marxism), and hegemony theory (dominant group). A summary of the research is provided in the conclusion.

Background and Overview

One authority on the issue of gender construction maintains that anyone interested in the topic today will undoubtedly first encounter the prevailing male-female dichotomy that is inextricably involved. "Masculinity and femininity are traditionally defined as opposed and mutually exclusive categories. This traditional definition is deeply rooted and powerful" (Damon-Moore 5). According to this author, "The union between gender and commerce calls for careful attention to the complexities of both gender construction and popular culture production and consumption. Making sense of these processes presents serious challenges to scholars, and their historical configurations are particularly daunting to fathom" (Damon-Moore 3).

Daunted is not defeated, however, and the gender construction that emerges from a careful analysis of 17th-century artwork shows that nude women were deemed suitable subjects for popular works of art, and this was an acceptable social practice. According to Mallory (1990), the subject of The Rokeby Venus is an undraped female figure who is looking at herself in a mirror. The Toilet of Venus — subtitled Venus at the Mirror (1647–51) by Diego Velázquez — is popularly known as The Rokeby Venus, a name taken from the home of its first English owner, John Bacon Sawrey Morritt of Rokeby Hall (Mansfield 245). The subject and gender themes portrayed in the painting actually go back to the early 16th century, when they were first explored by Giovanni Bellini in his work Nude with a Mirror, painted in 1515 (Mallory 175).

The subject in the case of The Rokeby Venus was more explicit and suggestive. The presence of a figure of Cupid beside the female subject was a theme reiterated by both Titian and Rubens. According to Mallory, the conventions of the day provided the framework in which Velázquez's picture was created. In Velázquez's version, Venus is portrayed seated; however, there were also many compositions of Venus reclining on a couch that Velázquez would have known, and it is possible that he had even seen examples of a reclining Venus viewed from the back. From Mallory's perspective:

"The image is, nonetheless, startlingly novel, and has a more erotic effect than most of its possible prototypes. The formal precedent that comes closest to the sensuality of Velázquez's nude is not a Venus figure, in fact, but the Hellenistic sculpture of a sleeping hermaphrodite. Although the slim, graceful body of Velázquez's Venus appears to be directly observed from nature, both her delicate figure and her pose may have been inspired by the Hellenistic piece, a version of which Velázquez had dispatched to Madrid together with many other acquisitions made in Rome of classical statuary and casts of famous works." (175–6)

This portrayal of the female form in 17th-century works of art was not considered a violation of the social mores of the day, and these works are likewise deemed socially acceptable today. Indeed, it would appear prudish to take offense at such nominal expressions of nudity in artwork now, but the social climate of the early 20th century was vastly different. Women today enjoy the benefits of a wide range of legislation and regulations designed to help ensure equitable treatment in most Western societies, but this was not the case when Richardson and her fellow suffragettes formulated their plans.

Historical Setting and Social Transitions

While The Rokeby Venus might be mild by today's standards, the prevailing standards of the late 19th and early 20th centuries precluded even this modest public display of 17th-century feminine beauty, which had been regarded as acceptable when it was created (Mallory 175). According to one historian:

"Velázquez is universally acknowledged as one of the world's greatest artists. Stimulated by the study of 16th-century Venetian painting, he developed from a master of faithful likeness and characterization into the creator of masterpieces of visual impression unique in his time. With brilliant diversity of brushstrokes and subtle harmonies of colour, he achieved effects of form and texture, space, light, and atmosphere that make him the chief forerunner of 19th-century French Impressionism." (Harris-Frankfort 1–2)

Despite these accolades, The Rokeby Venus appears to have provoked outrage among some early 20th-century militant female activists who were seeking to challenge the male-dominated status quo — so much so that this work of art was specifically targeted for attack. According to Nead (1992), "On 10 March 1914, shortly after 10:00 A.M., a small woman, neatly dressed in a grey suit, made her way through the imposing entrance of the National Gallery, London. The woman in grey was Mary Richardson, a well-known and highly active militant suffragist; the painting that she attacked was Velázquez's 'The Rokeby Venus'" (34). The attack was prompted by Richardson's belief that the English government had unfairly treated Emmeline Pankhurst, a prominent suffragette leader: "I have tried to destroy the picture of the most beautiful woman in mythological history as a protest against the Government destroying Mrs. Pankhurst, who is the most beautiful character in modern history" (Nead 35).

According to Bartley (2003), the Women's Social and Political Union (WSPU) was founded by Emmeline Pankhurst, her daughters, and some friends to campaign for votes for women. "Previous groups had been formed to canvass support for women's suffrage," Bartley adds, "but the WSPU initiated a new form of female action: violence" (41). The suffragettes engaged in a wide range of activities that targeted existing gender disparities, including chaining themselves to railings, writing "Votes for Women" with acid on golf courses, disrupting the postal service, verbally and physically attacking members of parliament, putting graffiti on government buildings and church walls, breaking windows, attacking works of art in public galleries, and burning down buildings (Bartley 42).

In fact, window-breaking emerged as a favorite WSPU tactic: "Window-breaking attracted widespread publicity and therefore gained the WSPU leader's retrospective endorsement as official policy. Soon the smashing of windows became a well-orchestrated campaign — and one with a distinct advantage over marches and demonstrations, where women could be physically attacked. As Emmeline remarked: 'A window can be replaced; a woman's body cannot'" (Bartley 43).

Conclusion

The research showed that Diego Velázquez's Toilet of Venus, popularly known as The Rokeby Venus, was just one of the masterpieces by this influential 17th-century artist, but this picture in particular created a great deal of controversy in the early 20th century when militant female activists known as suffragettes targeted it for destruction because of its portrayal of the nude female form and its suggestive qualities. The research also showed that while the artist himself was inspired to create this artwork based on socially acceptable views of women at the time, these perceptions tend to change as time passes.

While this picture could likely be featured in any reputable museum today without causing so much as a raised eyebrow among even the most conservative audience, the fact remains that the gender construction embodied in this work of art was deemed sufficiently exploitative that it was specifically targeted for destruction by a suffragette who became sufficiently frustrated with the male-dominated status quo of the day that she felt compelled to take action — and a hatchet — into her own hands.

Works Cited

Bartley, Paula. "Emmeline Pankhurst: Paula Bartley Reappraises the Role of the Leader of the Suffragettes." History Review, 41, 2003.

Damon-Moore, Helen. Magazines for the Millions: Gender and Commerce in the Ladies' Home Journal and the Saturday Evening Post, 1880–1910. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1994.

Harris-Frankfort, Enriqueta. "Velazquez, Diego." Encyclopedia Britannica. 2006. Encyclopedia Britannica Premium Service.

Mallory, Nina Ayala. El Greco to Murillo: Spanish Painting in the Golden Age, 1556–1700. New York: HarperCollins, 1990.

Mann, Douglas. Structural Idealism: A Theory of Social and Historical Explanation. Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2002.

Mansfield, Elizabeth. Art History and Its Institutions: Foundations of a Discipline. London: Routledge, 2002.

Mcguigan, Jim. Cultural Populism. New York: Routledge, 1992.

Nead, Lynda. The Female Nude: Art, Obscenity, and Sexuality. New York: Routledge, 1992.

The Social Construction of Gender. State University of New York, 2006.