The portrait of the woman on fire shows me how radical the possibility of staring at each other between two female artists/lovers can be. The mutual gaze between the expressive object and the creator of art is a bargaining chip hanging between life and death. The static mutual gaze is more impactful than the direct erotic tracing, it makes people imagine more things. While it doesn't seem like any events and plots take place, the few seconds of silence are revolutionary.
In the era when all portraits can only look like one kind of eyes and one kind of expression, women are always viewed as objects in paintings. To some extent, the gaze as the subject/creator of viewing does imply the oppression of the discourse of power.
Eloise doesn't want to be just the model who looks around in Marianne's paintings. She wants to have the same right to "see" as Marianne, and she looks forward to a joint creation. Marianne was moved by Eloise's passion. The original painting was destroyed, and the burning Eloise was painted. In the painting, she had a awakening, like a new beauty.
If what is being created can in turn affect the creator, this shift is subversive.
Traditional concepts and economic interests gave birth to the order of art production: viewing is greater than creation, and curation is greater than display. Whether it is love or art, all of these can actually be equated. The film is intended to show a transcendent love that breaks the creative order and gender impression.
If you're looking at me, who am I looking at?
When we talk about love, what are we talking about?
To see, and be seen.
This sentence can answer this question
View more about Portrait of a Lady on Fire reviews
