Feminist Aesthetics

In Understanding Animation Paul Wells describes the history of the animation industry in the West as "pathologically male, run by men in the spirit of expressing the interests of men, creating patriarchal hierarchies in major studios" (Wells 187). Wells goes on to argue that with modern revisionist research we can, however, begin to recognize lesser known and more marginalized figures who have contributed to animation’s evolution- more specifically meaning women.

We all were initially excited to read this chapter, because Chapter 1 told us it was going to address issues concerning female animators and artists. However, our group was disappointed when only a small section of the chapter brought up feminist issues and more of the chapter actually focused on forms of masculinity then it seemed to on feminist issues and also appeared to be the same as everything we had read in previous books and handouts (from last quarter) and in fact Wells often refers to Russet and Starr, and other authors we’ve read in the past. The same few examples (Asparagus, Black Dog, The Stain, etc.) and artists are used over and over again to represent what is seemingly all female animated works. We know there are far more female animators who have still gone unrecognized. It was a general consensus within our group that Wells’s categorization of all female animated works under the singular term of the feminine aesthetic is a blanket statement that does accurately represent the work that all women create. Several women artists do not enjoy being categorized under specific terms that reflect their gender status, which implies their work intentionally focuses on such, though often it does not.

Wells stresses that feminist art puts female characters into the subjective rather than the objective. This was discussed in Uncanny Feminism, and though it is a very important point, again it felt though we were learning nothing new about female animators.

The writing about gender bending and cross dressing was interesting, though often out of context and a bit exaggerated. While some of us disagree with Eisenstein, in that we don’t believe cartoons are completely "innocent" forms, suspecting Jerry Mouse of sharing a lesbian exchange with a doll (in which Wells describes as perverse) seems out of the question.

Some of us were only able to draw a vague, but similar, relationship between all three readings. One connection was that each group written about used animation as a subversive and radical language. Feminists used it for empowerment, Mexican liberals used it to gain power for their cause, while the opposition to the Allendo government used it to overthrow power- with the guise of children’s stories.

Critical media is very important, but it was interesting to note the lack of female representation within Mexico’s political cartooning history ("The Transformative Power of Art: Mexico’s Combat Cartoonists" essay by Rafael Barajas).

Media can bring transformation--it is "the art of committed men and women; it lies at the center of mobilization" (Barajas 10). We all seem to want social change, yet so many times we see artists work dismissed as no longer valid because the artist has an opinion. Women especially seem to be discredited for believing in a cause, as if that somehow "undermines their moral authority" (Barajas 14). It is infuriating to see the marginalized become even further so for merely believing in something and letting that be an open part of who they are and the work they create.

Ourt group still found it troublesome, trying to swallow Wells’ wholly ideal of a "feminine aesthetic". A feminine aesthetic exists in reference to art, just as a masculine aesthetic exists and so forth, but the way Wells addresses the notion makes us feel as though the work mentioned that is created by women is being even further separated from the rest of its field. Of course a feminine aesthetic exists, but it is not the only type of aesthetic women are capable of having and bringing into their art. These aesthetics are needed to create accurate representations of self. It seemed odd though having a man define the term "Feminine aesthetic". If females have broken the codes of "male-dominated orthodox animation", then it still seems like men are the ones who get to define what that is in the first place.

There defintely seems to be a correlation between the efforts of the political cartoonists as described by Rafael Barajas in "The Transformative Power of Art: Mexico’s Combat Cartoonists" and the media activities of feminists, especially in the early days of each of the waves. A connection can also be seen between the children’s cartoonist as described in "The Innocents March into History…And Overthrow the Government" by Ariel Dorfman and the politics of children’s films and television shows today. Connecting both of these articles is Paul Wells’ discussion of representation in animation, from Understanding Animation, namely that women have been using animation for decades to assert a feminine and feminist point of view.

Much like the efforts of the Mexican political cartoonists, feminists have utilized underground or discarded forms of communication to call together like-minded people and work for change. Hand-published flyers, newsletters, zines, and comic books number among the literary media, while underground films and videos are the most recent forms of feminist communication, appearing in the last few decades. Like the political cartoonists, feminist film and video-makers have used irony, humor, and violence to portray past and present events and attitudes that directly effect the quality of women’s lives in this and other countries. Documentaries depict things most people have not seen or been allowed to see. One example is The Watermelon Woman. The filmmaker intertwines an elaborately fabricated documentary about an early black actress whose name has been largely erased by history and replaced with only the title "The Watermelon Woman," with a fictional plot about an interracial, homosexual relationship. This independent film pokes a lot of fun at sexual attitudes, especially about homosexuality and interracial dating, at authority (namely, the police who harass the filmmaker at one point, thinking she’s a boy with a stolen camera). It also does a lot more than poke fun at racist and homophobic attitudes. There are also plenty of films from feminist perspectives that describe a certain event in history and analyze it. This is directly parallel to the political cartooning in Mexico as described by Barajas. Their cartoons criticized and ridiculed conservative, non-democratic, and inhumane activities of their government.

Like the Chilean cartoonist that wrote the children’s story as described by Ariel Dorfman in "The Innocents March into History…and Overthrow the Government," there are also plenty of people in society quietly opposing feminist theory and activism. It is easy to find books, children’s stories, and religious tales that subvert ideas of equality and free expression not based on gender roles as suggested by feminism. Many of these authors are trying to present "traditional" attitudes that they find more acceptable. Along with these authors, there are many that won’t chance trying to write a radical children’s book. Most authors know that a wealthy publisher will not publish them, especially for children, if their book’s subject matter is radically feminist, or positive towards various sexualities, or addresses race and class directly. For example, there are still plenty of libraries that still ban Heather Has Two Mommies, or Nappy Hair (I think that’s the name of that one). This representation is not confined to literature. I was always disappointed, although at the time I didn’t really understand why, when I was a child after watching films with female characters. I noticed that little tomboys were "wrong," and needed to be "fixed." By the end of any film with a girl who didn’t care what she looked like and just wanted to play baseball or run through the woods, somehow she would be convinced how much better she looked without glasses (like in this really bad video my aunt had called The Sand Lot) or how much better boys would like her in a push-up bra. There are also plenty of films showing how young girls with non-white ethnic values can subtly shift their perspectives to become more acceptable. It is all done subtly and cheerfully, and some of these films I saw in class as a child. The author of the children’s magazine Mampato in Chile had to deal with knowledge that his work would be unacceptable to the powers that be, regardless of which side he was on concerning the activities against/for the government. The creators of children’s films and videos have to deal with mainstream ideologies that cannot accept a young female heroine with a decidedly assertive, tomboyish attitude.

Wells states in "Issues in Representation" that "Animation has the capability of rendering the body in a way which blurs traditional notions of gender…" (188). Gillian Lacy puts women animators’ abilities to represent themselves another way, calling her personal work the "use of a style that is accessible to a wide audience combined with the creation of cartoon women who do not have huge tits and eyelashes" (199). Similar to the problem faced by the children’s writer in Dorfman’s article, women animators face a problem with support and funding. Since they are often producing something "more radical, more experimental, and more irreverent" than mainstream animation, they often have to get funding from arts foundations and educational sources. This is a fact I think I will soon have to face, regardless of how well my animation career goes. What interested me about Wells’ definition of the "feminine aesthetic" is that he considers women’s animation to mistrust language and use image more heavily to express their intent. I personally am more interested in visuals than language. The basic definition of feminine aesthetic is that women are the subjects, not the object, of the film. I’m not sure, however, that all female animators fit into the "feminine aesthetic."

Wells also quotes Sybil Delgaudo, in her definition of the "dominant traditions of representing masculinity and femininity" in animation. There are certain signifiers for "female" that are based on physical characteristics in most traditional, male-oriented animations. I have always found these strange: Minnie’s shoes, skirt, and eyelashes, for example. I have also noticed in other anthropomorphized characters that the one female character will be the most human. I unfortunately watched the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle live-action television shows a few years ago. The only female Ninja Turtle had shell-covered turtle-breasts. Now, really. Why would a female mutant turtle have useless breasts when her brothers in mutation didn’t have penises or scrotums or anything else attributed to human males? I get extremely tired of watching live action and animation that features characters described as "strong women" which I’m supposed to be proud of, except that these "strong women" are usually marginal to the piece and have no humanly interesting or surprising attributes. They are manufactured for a male audience, but are just independent enough not to be directly offensive to female viewers. Hello, Disney (Mulan was the GENERAL of that army in the traditional folklore, fools!). We want to help turn these traditions into mush.