Showing posts with label women's bodies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label women's bodies. Show all posts

Friday, 11 November 2016

Victorian Tattooed Ladies: Circus freaks or pioneering feminists? by Katherine Clements

The history of tattooing goes back to prehistory but the English word, in this context, is first attested in the writings of Captain Cook. An entry in Cook’s ship’s log of 1769 refers to male and female ‘tattooed savages’ in Polynesia, proudly displaying their tribal marks: 

"Both sexes paint their Bodys, Tattow, as it is called in their Language. This is done by inlaying the Colour of Black under their skins, in such a manner as to be indelible."

Many of Cook’s men returned to England with tattoos they’d received on their voyages and the practice quickly became a tradition, hence the enduring association with sailors and men of the sea. It might have been common to see crudely inked bodies in the eighteenth century docks and taverns of London and Liverpool, but otherwise tattoos were stigmatised, associated with criminals and prostitution. No respectable woman would have displayed one.

This began to change in the latter half of the nineteenth century when tattoos became fashionable among the upper classes. Notable society figures, including European royals, acquired tattoos, creating something of a fad that wasn’t confined to men.

One magazine of 1898 estimated that a fifth of British landed gentry had tattoos, while the New York Times claimed that many society women had designs in ‘inaccessible places’. Famous beauty, Lady Randolph Churchill (Winston’s mother) was said to sport a serpent wrist tattoo that she covered with bracelets, and some have even suggested that Queen Victoria herself succumbed to the craze.


This cover of the Police Gazette from 1870 shows a well-heeled woman receiving a tattoo in her boudoir – more than a hint of titillation about it. A tattoo might have been a provocative fashion statement for some women, but mostly they were not to be shown in public; they were private and rarely visible.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the pond, a few women found fame and fortune exhibiting their ink in the circuses and freak shows of America.

Tattooed native women had been displayed as circus freaks in America for years, but the earliest known tattooed white woman was Olive Oatman. Her story is a sad one. In the 1850s, during an ill-fated journey to California, Yavapai Indians attacked her family. Only Olive and her sister survived. The girls were rescued and adopted by Mohave Indians, who gave Olive a traditional facial tattoo. Her sister died but Olive lived with the Mohave until she was ransomed some years later. 

Olive Oatman

She soon became a celebrity, touring the country giving lectures about her experiences. People flocked to see the facial markings that, according to Olive, were inflicted without her consent. More recent research suggests her stories may not have been entirely truthful and the tattoo was a sign of willing acceptance among her new Native American family. Later she married, turning her back on her extraordinary past, abandoning the lecture circuit and using veils and make-up to cover the evidence of her time with the Mohave.

Others played on Oatman’s story, and many of the ‘tattooed ladies’ who began performing as circus attractions in the latter half of the nineteenth century claimed to have been captured and forcibly tattooed by native tribes.

One of the best known is Nora Hildebrandt, America’s first professional tattooed lady, who toured with Barnum and Bailey’s circus throughout the 1890’s. Nora claimed to have been held captive for a full year, tortured daily with hours under the needle. She even suggested that the famous chief, Sitting Bull, had been involved. 

Nora Hildebrandt

It soon became evident that this fabricated history, while entertaining, was hardly true: Nora is commonly said to have been the daughter, or wife, of Martin Hildebrandt, an artist who opened the first tattoo parlour in New York City (possibly as early as the 1850s) and was heavily in demand among American Civil War soldiers. But this too is doubtful. Nora was actually born in England and there’s no proof she was either married to or related to Martin. (He’s recorded as married to a woman called Mary, with one son – Frank). Perhaps she took his name in acknowledgement of the art with which he covered her body, but the reasons are lost in almost as much myth and hearsay as Nora’s own stories. 


Nora’s debut was quickly followed by that of Irene Woodward – or La Belle Irene – who billed herself at ‘The Original Tattooed Lady’. She and others often used salacious stories like Hildebrandt’s, to attract and entertain audiences. These women were mostly viewed as risqué circus attractions, little better than those working in peepshows or burlesque follies. Margot Mifflin, author of Bodies of Subversion: A Secret History of Women and Tattoo says:

“The women afforded a peepshow, along with a freak show, because at that time women just didn’t show that much skin publicly, The tattoos gave them a reason to strip down and show their bodies. Certainly a number of people who came to see them were interested in the flesh as much as the art.”


Even so, some of these women became stars. Artoria Gibbons was the highest paid tattooed lady of the 1920s, with a legion of fans, and others, such as Betty Broadbent, went on working as pin-ups and performers right up until the 1960s. It certainly offered a level of fame and financial independence, more so once women became more than just a canvass.

Artoria Gibbons

One of the most enduring, evocative images of early tattooed women is that of Maud Wagner (née Stevens); widely regarded as the first American female tattoo artist.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, Maud was a circus performer, making a living as an acrobat and contortionist – hardly a conventional career choice to begin with. While entertaining visitors at the St Louis World Fair she met Gus Wagner, a renowned tattoo artist (and the last to work with old-fashioned needle and ink, rather than a machine). Legend has it that Maud agreed to go on a date with Gus only if he gave her lessons. She learned the art from him, going on to become a circus attraction and respected tattoo artist in her own right. They ran a successful business together and their daughter, Lovetta, continued the tradition, becoming a well-known artist, working up until the 1980s, despite apparently never getting inked herself. I’d love to know how many of Maud’s clients were women.

Maud Wagner in 1911

Margot Mifflin’s book, mentioned above, is one of several that chart the history of tattooing in relation to the female body, the changes in gender prejudices and stigma over the years and the reasons for them. It’s a complicated history that’s synonymous with women’s rights, feminism and the changing representation of women’s bodies. 

Mifflin writes in her introduction to the most recent edition: “Tattoos appeal to contemporary women both as emblems of empowerment in an era of feminist gains and as badges of self-determination at a time when controversies about abortion rights, date rape, and sexual harassment have made them think hard about who controls their bodies—and why.”

I wonder what these tattooed ladies of a century ago would have made of the proliferation of body art that adorns all kinds of women – and men – today. Would they see themselves as pioneers? Even if some of them were motivated by money, renown or simply a passion for the art, they certainly broke the rules, and in doing so, made a statement which was far more subversive – and gutsy – than it is today.

www.katherineclements.co.uk

Wednesday, 12 March 2014

The shape of grace - by H.M. Castor


Vaslav Nijinsky (1889/90-1950) & Tamara Karsavina (1885-1978)
in 'Le Spectre de la Rose', 1911
[Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Since today is the birthday of Vaslav Nijinsky, one of the most famous dancers in history, I thought I’d write a post about ballet and, in particular, about one way in which the dance world has changed since Nijinsky was at the height of his career, a century ago.

Ballet, as you may have seen, has been in the spotlight recently (pardon the pun). Last month Channel 4 aired a series called Big Ballet, in which ex-dancers Wayne Sleep and Monica Loughman coached amateurs who were considered ‘oversized’ for professional dance training, and cast them in a special performance of Swan Lake. Meanwhile, two other ex-dancers, Dame Beryl Grey and Dame Gillian Lynne (both now in their 80s), gave an interview to The Guardian’s dance critic Judith Mackrell in which they poured scorn on claims that professional dancers are currently pushed too hard. They suggested that, on the contrary, life is much more comfortable for dancers now than it was in their day, and that today's dancers are, if anything, cossetted.

As Mackrell pointed out in two articles on the subject (read them here and here), this is not the first time that an older generation of dancers has grumbled about modern ways. And, though it is undoubtedly true that dancers in Grey and Lynne’s era worked incredibly hard without the rehearsal facilities and the physiotherapy support from which many of today’s dancers benefit, nevertheless the assertion that – despite all the hardships – “we just danced and enjoyed every minute” does carry a whiff, for me, of the famous ‘Four Yorkshiremen’ comedy sketch (if you’ve never had the pleasure of watching it, click here).

But what interests me most in all this is the question of female dancers’ weight. In response to concerns about starvation diets, Gillian Lynne told Judith Mackrell, “I've always had to watch my food. There's nothing wrong with it. Most dancers want to be slim. Quite honestly, dancers have to diet. You have to be underweight.” And the Telegraph journalist Tom Rowley, reviewing an episode of Big Ballet, reported that the reaction of Derek Deane (a former director of the English National Ballet) when asked his view on the (larger) dancers’ chances of success in their project was, frankly, sneering.

I know that the pressure on dancers to be slim is, in itself, nothing new. But definitions of 'slim' have changed. If we look at this Ballets Russes programme from 1914:


 [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons



…and then at this 1955 advert featuring American ballerina Maria Tallchief:



[Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons



…and, finally, at this picture of current ballet star Alina Cojocaru:



Alina Cojocaru and Vadim Muntagirov 
in 'Le Corsaire', English National Ballet, October 2013
by ASH (English National Ballet) [CC0], via Wikimedia Commons


…it is clear, surely, that over the last century a pretty dramatic change in ballet’s aesthetic ideal, in terms of women’s physique, has taken place. Some may argue that since dancers today are more athletic than their forebears, the change in body shape is down to long hours of exercise only. That may be true in some individual cases, but certainly not in all. 

Others may argue that this is simply a practical issue. Choreography today includes many complicated lifts that cannot be performed if the woman is too heavy. But this is a chicken and egg situation. Why were these lifts created in the first place? Why were they dreamt up by choreographers (who are, significantly, mostly male – but that’s another whole discussion) who could just as well have created different moves? It seems to me it’s perhaps been a cumulative process: the lighter female dancers have become, the more choreographers have been able to push the boundaries, and this in turn has put pressure on the women to become thinner still. Female dancers, however slender they are, dread being known as the heaviest girl in the class – it is thoroughly shaming to know that the boys in your ballet school, or the men in your company, do not want to be paired with you because you are harder to lift than your classmates. And, beyond that, the bottom line is that if you do not look right - if you are not thin enough - you will not get work.

Tamara Karsavina was a world-famous Russian prima ballerina.
She was also one of the founders of modern British ballet.
Here she is shown in costume for 'Les Papillons', 1912

Photographer unknown [CC0], via Wikimedia Commons

American ballerina Sarah Lamb taking a curtain call
after dancing 'La Fin du Jour' with The Royal Ballet (2007)

by Scillystuff at en.wikipedia [CC-BY-SA-3.0
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)],
from Wikimedia Commons

Of course you could argue that if some women decide to make such a rarefied and eccentric art form their profession, they should simply accept that unnatural thinness is one of the requirements. But two things bother me about this.

One is that ballet is a popular hobby amongst girls, and they tend to start lessons when they are very little. In beginner classes at the age of 4 or 5, their size won’t be commented on. But if they fall in love with dancing and carry on training with any commitment, the messages about weight will most likely become very clear at or before puberty. I remember, as a schoolgirl, being in a ballet organisation in which every girl who was considered by the teacher to be overweight (which meant, in that context, not positively thin) was hauled out in front of the entire class and interrogated about her eating habits, meal by meal. It was shaming, and meant to be so. It terrified the girls who weren't singled out, as well as those who were. We were all about 12. And it is clear from the comments of the women who took part in Big Ballet that this was not an isolated case. 

Galina Ulanova (1910-1998) is considered to have been
one of the greatest dancers of the 20th century.
Here she is with Yury Zhdanov in 'Romeo And Juliet'.

RIA Novosti archive, image #11591 / Umnov / CC-BY-SA 3.0
[CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Marina Veznovets in 'Scheherazade' (2011)
by Gruszecki (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-3.0
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)],
via Wikimedia Commons

You could say this is realism. You could say - many teachers do - that it is not kind to let girls imagine their body shape is fine, when it will in fact bar them from getting professional work. This is true. But the pictures above show that (a) it doesn't have to be this way and (b) the situation has been getting worse. 

The second thing that bothers me about the idea that dancers have to be ultra-thin and, as Gillian Lynne said, “there’s nothing wrong with it” is that this fixation on ultra-thinness in the ballet world is not, of course, an isolated phenomenon. There is – culture-wide – a rejection of the female body in its natural form. Thinness is in. If you aren’t thin, too often you are made to feel you can’t be beautiful (or even acceptable). With ballet on this same bandwagon, does this mean you can’t be graceful either? Not everyone is built to be a classical ballet dancer – fair enough. But what message does the current ideal give to our children about dance, about grace, about the possibility of enjoying movement? Movement can be joyful, liberating, confidence-bestowing – our bodies should be our friends. You only have to watch a toddler dancing to know how natural and vital it is to take pleasure in movement. The vogue for ultra-thin dancers, as well as for ultra-thin models and actresses, alienates girls from their bodies and makes their flesh – their very matter – the enemy. Take a longer historical perspective, and you can see that it was not ever thus. But, oh, what a shame!



Etching of Anna Pavlova (1881-1931) by Ernst Oppler
[Public domain] via Wikimedia Commons



Isadora Duncan (1878-1927)
Photograph by Arnold Genthe
Library of Congress, [Public Domain] via Wikimedia Commons



'Two Dancers Entering the Stage' by Edgar Degas (1834-1917) 
Harvard Art Museum/Fogg Museum
 [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons



Ancient Greek funerary stele of a female dancer
Museo archeologico regionale, Palermo
Photograph by Giovanni Dall'Orto (Own work), via Wikimedia Commons



(N.B. I would like to make clear that in the discussion above, and the photographs chosen, I am in no way criticising individual present-day dancers - I am only trying to demonstrate the general point.)