Visual Artefacts Essay by Maya Fenwick, Drawing and Print
Vanity is part of the Triptych of Earthly Vanity by Hans Memling, born in 1430. It depicts a nude woman stood with pride, holding a mirror, which is known to represent vanity and lust. John Berger discusses this piece in his “Ways of Seeing” book which was published in 1972, and the issues that surround it from the view point of a male writer, and from my point of view as a woman.
Throughout history women in nude paintings have been depicted in a certain way by male artists. John Berger spoke about this in his book in a very forward thinking manner for the time, when it was published in the United Kingdom in 1972, there was still plenty of stigma around female nudity.
In historic European paintings, female nudes have been depicted as a subject of male desire, even in paintings that claim to have a deeper meaning, like religion. John Berger brings to our attention the fact that the female that is depicted as nude is always looking back at the viewer, which was always presumed to be male at the time (1485). She does this to make the male viewer feel important and in control, as if she’s looking to him for guidance, which seems like a superiority complex in my opinion.
Focusing back on Vanity by Hans Memling, the particular painting in question. The woman depicted is almost criticised by the title of the piece, referring to someone as vain (self-obsessed), is hardly ever a compliment. The artist called her vain based on the grounds of the mirror, and proudly nude pose. But as John Berger stated, the artist was the one that made the conscious decision of placing the mirror in the woman’s hand. He also chose the pose that the woman is depicted in, and the artist then committed to calling the painting Vanity. However it seems that the woman is criticised for those choices, which is incredibly hypocritical.
Another thing that struck me as hypocrisy is the way she is morally questioned for her nakedness, John Berger stated “morally condemning the woman whose nakedness you had depicted for your own pleasure” this is actually still mirrored in society now. Women are blamed for assault due to, and shunned for their skin showing, even in hot weather. The female body is treated in a very strange way in society, men beg to see it, but when they do, the woman is criticised.
This is exactly the behaviour that is shown by historic artists, including Hans Memling, and many others.
Another aspect of the painting that stuck me as strange is the lack of body hair on the woman, during the time period it is unlikely that the woman shown would have been cleanly shaven as shown in Vanity. This is yet another example as to how women are depicted in old paintings in an idealistic way for the pleasure of the painter and viewer, and not to show the woman accurately as she is as a individual person.
However despite all the negative traits that are very prominent in Vanity, John Berger made a point that the mirror could be interpreted in a more positive manner,
“It was to make the woman connive in treating herself as, first and foremost, a sight.” Which could actually suggest body positivity and self care, the sheer name of the piece suggests that this is not the case, but it’s a more positive interpretation and a way of giving more power and love to the woman in subject, and not looking at her with criticism like the artist and other viewers most likely did at the time.
Maya Julia Art 