Thursday, March 8, 2007
Contemporary female art
First, we would have to make a distinction between female art and Feminist art. Whereas the first is a label for art made by women, the latter addresses very specific socio-political issues regarding the exploitation of women by men. Feminism is right about the suppression and dislocation of women from the public sphere (since the Renaissance until the end of the Twentieth Century; just look at the disproportion of male and female artists in Modern art history). 1- An important alert to feminist issues came in the 1970’s, with artist Judy Chicago’s The Dinner Party, a work that used several traditionally “feminine” art-mediums to teach women’s history (Chicago’s work represents the ways in which feminists began to explore their oppression through art). Why is it that the early avant-garde (Impressionism, Post-Impressionism, Fauvism, Expressionism, Futurism, De Stijl, etc) were essentially male-driven movements? I don’t want to dwell in the causes of this phenomenon, which has been well-documented by Simone De Beauvoir's The Second Sex, Shulamith Firestone’s The Dialectics of Sex and Carol Gilligan’s In a Different Voice (among many others). 2- Since the 1960’s female art has brought forth a new attention to materials: ceramics, latex, rubber, fiberglass and yarn. There is a return to fiber media: weaving, quilt-making, etc. Formally, female art is generally characterized by a biomorphic, more fluid focus. In performance/art, video and photography, women have explored gestures of objectification and exploitation from a different perspective than those found in male performances (which tend to be more heroic). 3- Although art is universal, the claim that art is genderless is not true (See post-feminism). Can you think of any particular female art themes? Go ahead.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
.
Why does art made by women have to be classified as 'female' art anyway. Yes there are themes that seem to pop up more for women than men but thats just by virtue of the difference between the way men and women see the world. Noone ever tries to categorize art made my men as "male" art and to look for masculine themes in it, its just thought of as art and judged on its merits as plain old art. Categorizing things as female is often a way of saying that something isnt good enough to be compared in the mainstream without a label to qualify it. It distinctly reminds me of women in sports where men say "you play well, for a girl."
women play a great role in art. to agree with justineh, categorizing their art does seclude the zex into a whole new genre. i agree that they are exploring and exploiting their vital role in society. this categorization seperates the creators by sexes, and therefore invlolving more exclusion than inclusion in the art world. now given the argument that this is a topic for an issues in art making class, i can see that a general theme lies behind the work you chose to show us, and how...i'm lost. im just glad women are finally allowed and accepted into the art world. they've been models long enough...
I've read that back in the days most artists are actually male. I think that's why they give art made by female artists a new name. Though it has been a while since women are being recognized for their creativities. There really isn't any point of calling such works female arts. I can understand if they categorize artworks that actually represent female artists' ideas in a very feminine way or in a female's point of view and such. "All people are equal" is still just a saying nowadays. It's still way too new of an idea for most to actually believe it. I think after a few generations it might get better. As much as we want it to be true but it's still a white man's world at the moment.
I think it is important to understand the history of art to see the motivations and themes present in groups of artists that have been ignored because of not falling into what is considered to be "real artists". The reason things aren't labeled as male art, or white art is because when something has a label it is easier to question its power and validity. Without a label, like male art (as justineh has said), it cannot be questioned on that point and keeps itself as the reference for all other labeled things. Disregarding the controversy of the naming conventions, it is still important to study female artists and art as a group.
As a female that does art, looking at art and themes of other female artists can give me an insight to my personal reflections on my ideas and techniques. I know I have different talents and views, just from the way I'v been brought up which will obviously come out into my own art work. Personally, I do knit and embroider, it is time consuming but there's something very traditional and heavy about it that is very interesting. I particularly liked some of the examples shown of fibers used in art because it has a lot of connotations that take you back to home and warmth. Clashing that against other themes can create some exciting things.
In history it is obvious that most of the time women get the short wnd of the stick when it comes to making decisions about life. It seems odd to me however that this would carry over into the art realm. Since art is something that is so open to interpretation, it seems that art is art no matter who makes it and it seems that even when women didnt have the rights that they do now, the right to art is given at birth. Obviously there were women making art long before what we have seen, the thing was that it was not made public. I believe that art is for the artist and the viewer. Not making it public certainly takes out the latter half to some degree but it is still art. I think it is funny that men (who must be so smart) would think they could tell a woman that she is no good at art because she is a woman. Art is not confined and therefore there are so many different aspects of art. To cut an entire sexual perspective out of art would be like taking all of the white out of the yin yang.
I'd like to suggest Irene Frolic. see http://www.materialmatters.ca/Frolic
Irene is a fabulous woman and artist. I don't see her art as “feminist revolution” art. But, I do see it as wholly feminine. I first met Irene in January 2001 when I took a workshop by her here at UM. I encountered her again during the summer of 2001 at Pilchuck—a renowned art school based in the glass medium outside of Seattle. It was at Pilchuck that I learned more about Irene’s art during her slide show. She told the story of how her faces evolved and where they came from. When she was a young girl in Poland, her family suffered as did other Jews of the time. She was haunted by dreams from her experiences and from her dreams evolved her glass cast heads. During her slide lecture, she told the story of returning to Poland with her mother many years later and finding the source of her dreams and inspirations. She was shocked. Her story was emotional. I cried. I realized that even without the story, I felt that her work always promoted this hurt, sad emotion. As a feminine artist, Irene reflects on the personal and human experience. Her representations of the heads are misshaped and incomplete, yet the faces are soft and emote a strong sense of sadness. The also tender emotion borne in her work is akin to the nurturing of a mother or the caring of a hurt sole suffering with the group and at least in my eyes is purely feminine and is soft and tender unlike any art I’ve experienced by a man.
Post a Comment