There were two parts to my honors thesis (which is
available for free on EMU's website) - my artist statement about the watercolor paintings I created, and a general history of how other artists have also used floral imagery as a symbol for female sexuality throughout history.
There are two ways flower symbolism may be used - as a negative symbol, or a positive symbol for sexuality. Now, when I use those terms, I mean them in the scientific way, rather than the way they tend to be used conversationally. "Negative" symbols stand in for the
absence of that thing, just like testing "negative" for a certain gene would mean that you have an absence of that gene, or testing "negative" for pregnancy means you're not pregnant. Flowers that use negative symbolism for female sexuality, therefore, represent an
absence of sexuality. The flowers used for this type of symbolism were flowers that gained a reputation for purity - most often roses or white lilies, or the arrangement of flowers into an enclosed garden composition - and the intended interpretation was sexual innocence, virginity, and chastity.
These negative symbols weren't as interesting to me - because they're not the type of symbols I wanted to use in my own watercolors, nor are they the type that's been favored for the last century - and so I didn't do as much research on them as I did on positive flower symbolism. Still, there are several examples of this type used throughout art history and throughout the world, especially in religious works of art.
Negative flower symbolism was often integrated into Christianity, particularly when associated with the Virgin Mary. Enclosed gardens, which featured flowers untainted by the outside world, became a symbol for virginity and sexual innocence in general. The Virgin Mary was connected to roses - especially white roses without thorns - as well as lilies and violets.
 |
Peter Paul Rubens & Jan Breugal the Elder
Only one example of a popular style of artwork in Flanders in the 1600s,
in which the Virgin Mary is painted surrounded by an enclosing garland of flowers |
In Renaissance Italy, flowers were typically used as negative symbols when the painting had a religious subject (i.e. The Virgin Mary), and as a positive symbol when the painting had a mythological subject matter (i.e. the Roman goddesses Venus or Flora).
In the Victorian Era, negative symbolism (unsurprisingly) prevailed. Victorian artists promoted society’s
values, and used flowers as symbols of virginity, sexual innocence, and generalized
femininity. American painters Charles Courtney Curran and Robert Reid returned to the
idea of an enclosed garden as representative of sexual purity, going
one step further to manipulate color, texture, composition, and form to blend their painted
women with the flowers and fences that surrounding them.
 |
| Charles Courtney Curran - Lotus Lillies (1888) |
“Curran extended the
symbolism of the water lily, signifying ‘pure of heart,’ to two young women by rendering
them in a manner that transformed them into flowers.” The art of these male
artists conformed to the traditional Victorian definition of femininity at a time when
many women began to question their rigidly defined societal and familial roles.
But Christianity wasn't the only religion where negative symbolism was used. In India, for instance, the lotus symbolizes different aspects of female sexuality depending on its age. While a flower in full bloom might represent a positive symbol of sexual maturity, a bud stands in for a young virginal girl. And in Ancient Egypt, the rose was used in the rites of the goddess Isis to signify chastity, virginity, and "a love that is free from all carnal associations."
Though positive symbolism was also prevalent throughout history, often in concurrence with negative symbolism, I often think of negative symbolism as the more "traditional" type. I associate it with Christianity, with Victorian England, with the types of attitudes I was brought up to have about sexuality, rather than the types of attitudes I've tried to explore and adopt in the last several years. And yet, the aesthetic of flowers as docile beauties is one that I continue to use in my artwork, particularly in the small colored pencil drawings I've created in the last two years.
 |
| "Yellow Rose" by Andrea Arbit - 5"x7" Colored Pencil Drawing on Black Paper |
I often wonder - how can I claim to be a feminist, how can I claim to stand for positive symbolism of female sexuality, when I find myself so inclined to depict flowers in a traditional way? Am I actually using positive symbolism here (celebrating female sexuality, celebrating the "ripening" of a flower), or am I using negative symbolism (comparing women to flowers, objectifying them, focusing on their outward appearance, their purity, their beauty, and ignoring their minds, their personalities, their humanity)? Is it better when I add computerized patterns to my compositions, or do the patterns only further conform my flower images to stereotypical definitions of femininity?
 |
| "Waterlilies" by Andrea Arbit - Watercolor painting on paper, 11"x15" |
Maybe it doesn't matter. Maybe I can just make the art I want to make without it being representative of other women; maybe we're all different, and some of us find comfort and strength in what were once traditionally valued parts of the female experience, while others of us find comfort and strength in the more "untraditional" aspects of the female experience. Maybe that's okay. Maybe feminism is letting women decide for themselves where they want to be, where they feel comfortable.
Then again, how do I know if I feel comfortable here because of how I was raised, how I was taught to think of women and myself, the values I was taught to cherish and strive for, or if it's something I
actually like, somewhere I would prefer to be even if I hadn't been corralled into it?
This is what feminism is to me - wondering how gender roles have shaped who I am, and wondering how much that matters. Questioning if I am who I am because of
me or because of my gender. How many men ask that question of themselves? How many men have a thought and then immediately follow up that thought with:
But wait! Is this an original thought? Is this a thought I agree with? Or is it only something I
think I agree with, something the patriarchy has tried to convince me to agree with? Am I allowed to have this thought without it contradicting other thoughts I've had before? Should I tell others I have this thought? What might they think about me if they know I have this thought? What might they think of ALL WOMEN if they know I have this thought? Is this thought indicative of my entire sex? Will other people think it is, even if it's not? What if I change my mind on this thought later? What will people think about me if I admit I've changed my mind?
What if I just want to be allowed to have my thoughts, damnit, without all this commentary?? What if I just want to like what I like without having to question it??
I feel like I don't have that luxury. And part of that is because of the deep thinker that I am (I know women who don't have an existential crisis every time they have an opinion, and I also know anxiety-ridden men who do - it's hardly a gender-specific problem). But also there are questions in that above rambling paragraph that
are gender-specific, there are thoughts I have, worries I have that I
would not have if I had been born and identified as a male, so part of that IS because I am a woman, and because I am a feminist, and because I want to "do right" by both of those things, whatever that means.
