generally to challenge
a particular male-centred, usually white European or Anglo-American, point of view. This can be an uncomfortable experience for those whose ideas are being questioned. Linda Nochlin( 9), in her introduction to Women, Art, and Power, described feminist art history as “there to make trouble” and, at its strongest, “a transgressive and anti-establishment practice, meant to call many of the major precepts of the discipline into question.”As feminists attempt to see antiquity with new eyes, however, simple inversion of the status quo (women finally on top) has rarely been their goal. Rather, one of the aims of feminism has been to look at the “big picture” from the perspective of the many different people in it, and not just that of the (white, heterosexual) men. Archaeologists, especially within the Archaeological Institute of America (AIA) – and classical archaeologists in particular – have only recently become aware of feminist issues. Preferring “gender studies,” many have shied away from the term “feminist” as an indicator of an unseemly and unnecessary critical stance; after all, women are highly visible within the organization, and research on Women in Antiquity has been carried out for a long time. “Gender studies” sounds safer, more inclusive of and friendly towards men. Although in practice it is sometimes the same enterprise as “feminist studies,” it is less likely to represent a perspective grounded in women’s experiences of “otherness,” or to be directed towards undermining
the status quo. Unlike archaeologists, many art historians, classicists, and anthropologists have confronted feminist issues for decades, and have long faced the problems associated with perceived or actual feminist
aggressiveness. Scholars in these fields lament the ways in which feminism has been prematurely subsumed into the more inclusive, supposedly (but usually not) neutral field of gender studies, which is often less judgmental and political.Both feminist studies and gender research have been cited by archaeologists in polarizing ways, as positive signs of an appropriate openmindedness or as symbols of negative trends in the field. An increasingly widespread acknowledgement of gender research seems to be related to archaeologists’ broader acceptance of multicultural and anticolonialist perspectives, reflected in other fields of social science and the humanities, and in society at large. As evidenced in several contexts, through the agendas of committees, the subjects of publications and public lectures at annual conventions, and the many recent communications on the Internet, increasing numbers of archaeologists agree that research on women and gender is not a sideline to the study of society. Ironically, through ignoring almost two decades of feminist debate, many archaeologists have skipped from a masculinist world-view directly into the new, supposedly genderneutral one, without having to experience the discomfort of confronting impolite feminist perspectives. Meanwhile, classical archaeologists in particular continue to avoid feminist theory, and indeed theoretical debates of all kinds. The reasons are illuminated by the history of interpreting ancient images of women and of attitudes towards engendering ancient material culture.
For more You can read..
1.Barber, E. J. W., Women’s Work: The First 20,000 Years: Women, Cloth and Society
in Early Times, New York, Norton, 1994.
2.Betterton, R., “Introduction: Feminism, Femininity and Representation”, in R.
Betterton (ed.), looking On: Images of Femininity in the Visual Arts and Media,
New York, Pandora Press, 1987,
3.Bonfante, L., “Votive Terracotta Figures of Mothers and Children”, in J. Swaddling
(ed.), Italian Iron Age Artefacts in the British Museum, London, British
Museum Publications, 1985,
4.Cohen, B., “The Anatomy of Kassandra’s Rape: Female Nudity Comes of Age in
Greek Art”, Source: Notes in the History of Art, 1993,
5.Garrard, M. D., “Leonardo da Vinci: Female Portraits, Female Nature,” in N.
Broude and M. D. Garrard (eds), The Expanding Discourse: Feminism and Art
History, New York, IconEditions, HarperCollins, 1992,
6.Halperin, D. M., One Hundred Years of Homosexuality and other Essays on Greek
Love, New York, Routledge, 1990.
7.Miller, B. D, “The Anthropology of Sex and Gender Hierarchies,” in B. D. Miller
(ed.), Sex and Gender Hierarchies, New York, Cambridge University Press,
8. Koloski-Ostrown & C, L. Lyons, NAKED TRUTHS (Women, sexuality, and gender in
classical art and archaeology)
9.Nochlin, L., “Eroticism and Female Imagery in Nineteenth-Century Art,” in L.
Nochlin (ed.), Women, Art, and Power and Other Essays, New York, Harper
and Row, 1988, pp. 136–44. Reprinted from T. B. Hess and L. Nochlin (eds),
Woman as Sex-object: Studies in Erotic Art, 1730–1970, New York, Newsweek