Man Ray, revolutionary artist?

Question

Man Ray knocks me out. Known for his revolutionary photography, he was the first to grasp the idea of stretching the boundaries of art using the photograph. His famous, morbidly erotic compositions based on the female form earned him a name & lasting fame.

He also was inspired, at least early in his career, by ideas of social change. Most people remember his photos. Less famous are the covers he drew for Emma Goldman's Mother Earth, the famous Anarchist publication. Now Anarchism is the most radical of egalitarian philosophies. It not only accepts the idea of equality, it presupposes the capacity of individuals to embrace it without compulsion, on their own remonstrance. It expects that no one is better able to rule over us as we ourselves can.

With such revolutionary elan, one would expect Ray to be feminist, particularly in connection with his association with Goldman. He wasn't, however. He was misogynistic. How does one reconcile such disparity of person? Thoughts?

I am really enjoying the great answers I'm getting so far. Thanks for all of the great input!

Answer 1

There are so many disparities of character which make Man Ray such an interesting character. In terms of his feminine tendencies it should be noted that he did on occasion dress in drag. Whether this was to confront his misogynistic tendencies or to satiate some kind of fetish is a complete mystery but it is of my personal belief that it was just simply done out of shock value.
To be honest this disparity of character isn't so interesting to me because if we start to examine ourselves we will often times find blantant and outright contradictions in both character and action. For example according to Gestapo records Hitler was part Jewish, yet as we know he hated Jews with a passion. More recently Rev. Ted Haggard the head of the Christian Coalition stepped down because he was partaking in homosexual activities an act which Haggard and the rest of the Christian coalition has regarded as immoral and wrong. People don't always embrace who they are and are contradictory to their own nature. Inside I am sure Man Ray was afraid of women and in particular feminist, and I am sure he didn't regard this as a particularly good thing and was contradictory to his nature in subscribing to and proving help to Goldmans Mother Earth. Disparity it seems is the nature of human behaviour.

Answer 2

I'm not familiar with Man Ray (or maybe I am and don't know it), and I'm basing my answer purely on the details you provided.

My first thought is whether or not he was paid for his work by Mother Earth and/or New Anarchism? One can overlook philosophies if one has bills and needs a paycheck.

My next thought is I believe some men can be misogynistic and still be attracted to and inspired by the female form. An extreme example would be a married serial killer who has sex with women before he kills them. The male, being the visual creature which we are, could separate the form from that which is inside the form or in the brain of the form. I agree with you that one would expect Ray to be a feminist, but I believe a man could hate women, yet be attracted sexually and artistically by their bodies. We see it in men who love, yet physically and emotionally abuse their wives or girlfriends.

Answer 3

I too like Man Ray's art. I enjoy his composition. It reminds me alot of a still life painting, except that he uses the human form (or just parts thereof) instead of fruits and vases.

As far as his anarchistic tendencies, I would say that it would align quite well with his misogyny. I would disagree that anarchy has anything to with equality, but it is more of a form of government where the strong will rule over the weak. It is not a case of "every man is equal" but more of a "every man for himself, whatever he can get". This ideology would fit in quite well with misogyny, I would think.

People are so complex, it's truly hard to judge what is in a man's heart. You have to look at their "fruit" to see what is really there. I would say, that after looking at his art, I would judge the opposite, and say that Man Ray did care about women, and that his art is a show of love for them. That's just a guess on my part. There does seem to be some "objectification" of women though, but they are shown in the light of shapes and objects (like a still life) of beauty. It's just the feeling that I get when I look at his art.

Good question, and some of the best art answers I have read so far in YA.

Answer 4

I like how he uses images of women and expresses them as musical instruments... that's more than a bit cute.

Whose to know the "why for" anyway. Maybe his childhood was distressing.. maybe he had a strong matriach that beat up on his father ... maybe, maybe, maybe.

Whatever the reason he appeared to denigrate women, his work also shows that he was passionate about their shape rather than the shape of men. See Michaleangelo's work for example, where all those women have nicely formed man hands.... but Man Ray is undeniably obsessed with curves.

Maybe.. since dear old Man Ray was anti establishment.. maybe he set out to shock people... that the denigration of women was all a game... that his work albeit shocking, on deeper analysis betrays his real passion for shapely women? Maybe he was a little bitter and twisted.. we all have those characteristics given the wrong environment/moment of relevant influence.

I am guessing he is a self mutilator. Suffered as a child under the influence of someone nasty, his mother killed in the war, and his grandmother stood by and let pain happen. We can never know the real reasons... only speculate on what we do know. His art, as you say "knocks me out" too but I am indifferent to the reality of the influences that got him there since today they lack any relevance. We (some of us at least) have been adequately numbed into indifference to be shocked by his work.

Answer 5

in all truth art is nothing more than flim flam . the true skill of an artists is to convince his/her patrons that what he has done is unique and that they cant do better them selves .

in all the art classes i ever took , it became apparent that the most successful artists were often times not the most talented or enlightened . they WERE however the best at art-speak . perhaps the most pointed example of this is a man my father met . he was a bum . he didn't WANT to work , he hitched from city to city , leading the life of a drugged out homeless person . when he needed money he rummaged through my dads trash , took what he found and had someone drive him to a gallery in Santa Fe where he sold my dads garbage using art speak . IT WAS GARBAGE .

all that said , it is easy for an artist to churn out product because he knows what sells even if it is contrary to his own personal beliefs . one of my mentors , the collage teacher who helped form my artistic vision and guided my education said it best :" artists are whores in the truest sense of the word "

Answer 6

I was never very much impressed with Man Ray. I have to admit his work was very new and unique (even till this day). But I don't believe every new and unique work is impressive.

Of his works, I "liked" best the photo of a face with tears (picture taken of another photograph of a woman's face with water drops for tears).

===
As for his view (misogyny) and such, if it is true, I don't see much of a problem to "reconcile". Many people who profess one thing are exactly the opposite in heart. In fact this past year we saw a US congress man who were author of many anti child predator laws were found to be pedophile himself. Often it takes a thief to know how a thief thinks.

Thanks for a thought provoker.

===
Don't forget to vote for the BEST ANSWER - please - whoever it may be.

FACT: You also get +3 points when you vote for BEST ANSWER

http://mfile.akamai.com/12924/wmv/vod.ibsys.com/2006/0503/9152183.200k.asx

Answer 7

great go back to church