Plastik Sanatlarda Toplumsal Cinsiyet: Feminizme Karşı Feminizm

Abstract

İnsan davranışının belirleyicisinin doğa mı yoksa sosyal kurumlar mı olduğu tartışması hala cevabını aramaktadır. Onca yıldır bu bağlamda devam eden amansız mücadelenin, birbiri ile çelişen kanıtlar eşliğinde geldiği nokta konunun tek yönlü olarak ele alınmasının eksik olacağı ve yanılgılara neden olacağıdır. Bu çerçevede toplumsal cinsiyet tartışmalarının da bu eksende olmasının çok daha verimli olacağı açıktır. Feminist sanat tarihi literatürü incelendiğinde sanat ve toplumsal cinsiyet tartışmalarının bu entellektüel serüvenden kendine düşen payı almış olduğu görülmektedir. Feminist sanat tarihi, temel feminist paradigmanın argümanları altında seyrini takip ederken ünlü sanat tarihçi Nochlin’in formülasyonu ile farkındalık yakalayan “plastik sanatlarda kadının neden yok olduğu” sorunsalını sosyolojik, psikolojik ve antropolojik bakış açılarını büyük oranda ıskalayarak, ister istemez kadını güçsüz ve edilgen bir konuma yerleştirmiş ve üstesinden hala gelemediği bu durumdan kurtulmak için de giderek radikalleşmeyi seçmiş ve böylelikle daha da güçsüz hale gelmesine ya da öyle algılanmasına katkıda bulunmuştur. Oysa kadın sosyal gerçekliğin kurgusunda aktif rol oynayan stratejist taraflardan biridir. Bunun en taze kanıtı da onun değişen sosyal koşullara bağlı olarak çağımızda kendini yeniden inşa etme girişiminde bulunmasıdır. Bu bakış açısı ile çalışmamızın araştırma sorusu; “kadının plastik sanatlarda neden yeterince var olmayı tercih etmediği” üzerine kurgulanmıştır. Bu bağlamda, çalışmamız plastik sanatlar üzerinden, feminizme belki de her zamankinden daha fazla ihtiyaç duyduğumuz günümüzde içine düştüğü çelişkileri ve çıkmazları disiplinlerarası bir bakış açısıyla yeniden tartışması için açık bir çağrı niteliğindedir.

Keywords

• Toplumsal cinsiyet,feminizm,feminist sanat,postmodernizm,evrimsel psikoloji

Gender in Plastic Arts: Feminism versus Feminism

Abstract

The debate on whether it is social institutions or nature determines that human behavior

is yet to be resolved. All those years of ongoing debates in this context, accompanied by

contradictory pieces of evidence, have reached the final point, in which addressing this

issue in a unilateral way could be considered incomplete and can thus lead to delusions. In

this context, engaging in gender debates would be much more efficient. When feminist art

history is examined, it cab be seen that the debates on gender and art have also occurred

during this intellectual journey. While feminist art history has followed its own course

under the fundamental feminist arguments, the question “Why have there been no great

women artists?” exemplifies the belief of the renowned art historian Nochline who, in his

analysis, inevitably placed women in a powerless and passive position by overlooking

the sociological, psychological, and anthropological perspectives. In overcoming this

situation—something that Nochline has been unable to do—the formulation has become

increasingly radicalized, further reinforcing the “weakness” of women or the perception

of women having a weak and passive position. However, as we all know women play an

active role in the construction of social reality. The most current proof of their role is their

attempt to reconstruct themselves according to the changing social conditions. Within this

perspective, our study is founded upon the research question “Why have there been few

women who prefer to create in the plastic arts?” Based on plastic arts, our study is an open

call for feminists to discuss their contradictions and dilemmas using an interdisciplinary

perspective.

Keywords

• Gender,feminism,feminist art,postmodernism,evolutionary psychology

References

1. Bailey, J.M., Gaulin, S., Agyei, Y., & Gladue, B.A. (1994), “Effects of Gender and Sexual Orientation on Evolutionary Relevant Aspects of Human Mating Psychology”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66: pp.1081-1093.
2. Banaji, M. R. (2004), “Implicit attitudes can be measured”, In (eds. H. L. Roediger, J. S.
3. Naime, I. Neath & A. Suprenant ) The Nature of Remembering: Essays in Honor of Robert G. Crowder , Washington DC, American Psychological Association, 117-150.
4. Banaji, M.R. (2001). Implicit attitudes can be measured. In H.L. Roediger, III, J.S. Nairne, I. Neath, & A. Surprenant (Eds.), The nature of remembering: Essays in honor of Robert G. Crowder (pp. 117–150). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
5. Baudrillard, Jean (1994), Simulacra and Simulation, University of Michigan Press.
6. Beynon, J. (2002), Issues in Cultural and Media Studies, Masculinity and Culture, Buckingham, Open University Press.
7. Brown, Doug (1991), “An Institutionalist look at postmodernism”, Journal of Economic Issues, Vol.25, No.4. pp 1089-1104.
8. Buss, D. M. (1985), “Human Mate Selection”, American Scientist, 73: pp.47-51.

9. Buss, D.M. (1989), “Sex Differences in Human Mate Preferences: Evolutionary Hypotheses Tested in 37 Cultures”, Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 12: pp.1-49.
10. Buss, D.M. (1994;2003), The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating (Revised edition ), New York, Basic Books.
11. Buss, D.M., ve Schmitt, D.P. (1993), “Sexual Strategies Theory: An Evolutionary Perspective On Human Mating”, Psychological Review, 100: pp.204-232.
12. Carrigan, T., Connell, R.W. and Lee, J. (1985), “Towards a new Sociology of Masculinity” Theory and Society, 14, pp,551-604.
13. Clare, A. (2000), On Men: Masculinity in Crisis, London, Chatto and Windus.
14. Cowen, Taylor, (1996), “Why Women Succeed and Fail, In the Arts”, Journal of Cultural Economics, Netherland, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp.1-21.
15. Duggan, Lisa ve Nan d. Hunter (1995), Sex Wars: Sexual Dissent and Political Culture, New York and London, U.S.A, Routledge.
16. Faludi, S. (1995), “I’m Not a Feminist But I Play One on TV”, Ms 5, No.5, Mar./April 31-39. Gan, A.M., Voss, Z.G., Phillips, L. ve Christine A. (2015), “The gender Gap in Art Museum Directorships”, Assosiation of Art Directors, pp.1-15.
17. Garrard, M.D. (1991-1992), “Women, Art and Society by Whitney Chadwick, Thames and Hudson, 1990”, Book review, Woman’s Art Journal, Vol.12, No.2, pp.36-38.
18. Gelb, Joyce (1990), Feminism and Politics; A Comparative Perspective, Berkeley, University of California Press, Vol.137.
19. Germain, Greer (1979), The Obstacle Race: The Fortunes of Women Painters and Their Work, New York, Farrar Staus Giroux.
20. Goldberg, Michelle (2001), “Feminism for Sale.” AlterNet.org, Jan8,www.alternet.org.
21. Gouma-Peterson Thalia, Patricia Mathews, (2008), Sanat Tarihinin Feminist Eleştirisi, Sanat Cinsiyet, Haz. Ahu Antmen, İstanbul, İletişim Yayınları.
22. Griffin JP. (1995), “Changing Life Epectancy Througout Hitory”, Int. Pham. J, pp:199-202.
23. Hammer, R. (2002), Antifeminism and Family Violence: A Critical Feminist Perspective, Lanham, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
24. Hendrick, C., Hendrick, S. S. Ve Dicke, A. (1998), “The Love Attitudes Scale: Short form”, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15(2), 147-159. Doi: 10.1177/0265407598152001
25. Hollingsworth TH. (1969), “Demographic Study of the British Ducal Families”, Population in Industrialisation, (Ed. M Drake.), London, Methuen & Co.
26. Katz, Philip M., (2012), National Comparative Museum Salary Study, Washington, DC, American Alliance of Museums.
27. Kellerman, B., ve Rhode, D.L. (2007), Women &Leadership: The State of Play and Strategies for Change, Jossey-Bass.
28. Kellner, Douglas, (2000), “Toplumsal Teori Olarak Postmodernizm: Bazı Meydan Okumalar ve Sorunlar”, Modernite Versus Postmodernite, (çev. & Der. Mehmet Küçük), Ankara, Vadi Yayınları.
29. Kenrick, D. T., Sadalla, E. K., Groth, G., ve Trost, M. R. (1990), “Evolution, Traits, And The Stages of Human Courtship: Qualifying The Parental İnvestment Model”, Journal of Personality, 58, 97–116.
30. Lyotard, Jean François, (1990), Potmodern Durum, Ara Yayıncılık.
31. Marcuse, H. (1966[1955]), Eros and Civilization, Boston, Beacon Pres.
32. Melissa Hines and Gerianne M. Alexander (2008), “Horm Behav”. August; 54(3): 478–481. doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2008.05.012.
33. Millett, Kate (1987), Cinsel Politika, 2. Baskı, (Çev. Seçkin Selvi), İstanbul, Payel Yay.
34. Nochlin, L. ( 1971,1973), “Why Have Ther Been No Great Women Artists” in Art Sexual Politics, (Ed.) Thomas B. and Elizabeth C. Baker, NewYork, Collier, pp.1-39.
35. Nochlin, Linda (1988), Women, Art and Power and Other Essays, Westview Press.
36. Northrup, C. , Schwartz, P., ve Wittle, J. (2013), The Normal Bar: The Surprising Secrets of Happy Couples and What They Reveal About Creating a New Normal in Your Relationship, New York, NY, Crown Publishing Group.
37. Owens, Craig, (1983), “The Discourse of Others: Feminists and Postmodernism”, The Anti-Aesthetic, Ed.; H. Foster, Bay Press.
38. Paglia, Camille (1990), Sexual Personae: Art and Decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson, London, Yale University Press.
39. Paglia, Camille (2013), It’s a Man’s World, and It Always Will Be, Time, December 16.
40. Pawlowski, B., ve Koziel, S. (2002), “The İmpact Of Traits Offered İn Personal Advertisements On Response Rates”, Evolution and Human Behaviour, 23: pp.139-149.
41. Pleck, J.H (1981), The Myth of Masculinity, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.
42. Rajecki, D.W., Bledsoe, S.B., ve Rasmussen, J.L. (1991), “Successful Personal Ads: Gender Differences And Similarities İn Offers, Stipulations, And Outcomes”, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12: pp.457-469.
43. Sadalla, E.K., Kenrick, D.T., ve Vershure, B., (1987), “Dominance and Heterosexual Attraction”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.52, No.4, 730-738.
44. Schopenhauer, Arthur (2006), Aşka ve Kadınlara Dair, Aşkın Metafiziği, Toplu Eserleri-1, (Çev. Ahmet Aydoğan), İstanbul, Say Yayınları.
45. Schwarzer, Marjorie (2010), “Women in the Temple: Gender and Leadership in Museums,” in Gender, Sexuality, and Museums, ed. Amy K. Levin, 16-27. New York, Routledge.
46. Shulamith Firestone (1979), Cinselliğin Diyalektiği, 1. Baskı, (Çev. Yurdanur Salman), İstanbul, Payel Yay.
47. Sprecher, S., and Metts, S. (1989), “Development of ‘Romantic beliefs Scale’ and Eamination of The Effect of Gender and Gender-Role Orientation”, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6(4), 387-411.
48. Thiessen, D., Young, R.K., ve Burroughs, R. (1993), “Lonely Hearts Advertisements Reflect Sexually Dimorphic Mating Strategies”, Ethology and Sociobiology, 14: 209-229.
49. Townsend, J.M. (1989), “Mate-Selection Criteria: A Pilot Study”, Ethology and Sociobiology, 10, 241-253.
50. Townsend, J.M. ve Levy, G.D. (1990a), “Effects of Potential Partners’ Costume And Physical Attractiveness on Sexuality and Partner Selection”, Journal of Psychology, 124, 371-389.
51. Townsend, J.M. ve Levy, G.D. (1990b), “Effects Of Potential Partners’ Costume And Physical Attractiveness On Sexuality and Socioeconomic Status on Sexuality and Partner Selection: Sex Differences In Reported Preferences of University Students”, Archives of Sexual Behavior, 19, 149-164.
52. Waynforth, D., ve Dunbar, R.I.M. (1995), “Conditional Mate Choice Strategies in Humans: Evidence from 'Lonely Hearts' Advertisements”, Behaviour, 132: 755-779.
53. Weaver, S.E., ve Ganong, L. H. (2004), “The Factor structure of the Romantic Beliefs Scale for Africans and European Americans”, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 171-185. Doi: 10.1177/0265407504041373
54. Wiederman, M.W. (1993), “Evolved Gender Differences in Mate Preferences: Evidence from Personal Advertisements”, Ethology and Sociobiology, 14: 331-352.