Tuesday, December 3, 2013

Post 4: Name 5 Women Artists

At the beginning of this class, it had never occurred to me that as a feminist- and one that is even an “artist” herself- I could not name five women artists off of the top of my head. The only ones that really came to mind were Frida Kahlo and Alison Bechdel, which is ridiculously sad. With the numerous other women artists talked about this semester, as well as the ones that we saw at the Brooklyn museum, the art that stuck out to me the most was that of blatant, in-your-face feminism. To create a piece of art that is tangible and shows the misogyny in patriarchy, as well as combats that same patriarchy, is incredibly powerful and necessary as a part of (women’s) art. With that said, I think it is appropriate to start this paper off with the very in-your-face artist, Judy Chicago.

 Dinner Party, Judy Chicago.

 Judy Chicago’s work, as seen in the Brooklyn Museum with her piece “The Dinner Party,” is strongly rooted in feminist ideas. In “The Dinner Party” specifically, she not only creates different plate settings to represent different important women in history, but she also makes those dishes look like vaginas. By presenting the female genitalia in the form of art, Chicago forces the viewer to take a good look at a woman’s body parts and see them as being something beautiful that has no shame. Society has shamed women from embracing their bodies, even to the point that women’s natural process of menstruation is deemed “disgusting” by not only men, but also by women themselves. With her art, Judy Chicago challenges the mainstream, patriarchal notion of these ideas, and presents women, women’s bodies, and even women’s natural processes as something to be embraced and praised.


Another artist’s work at the Brooklyn Museum I had the pleasure of seeing was Rachel Kneebone. I had never heard of her since she is not in the Chadwick book, yet her work stuck out to me so much that I had to include her in this essay. Kneebone’s work is that of “finely, sculpted porcelain with a bacchanal of contorted bodies, limbs and slumped phallic tendrils that emerge from amorphous properties of the material (Whitecube.com/RachelKneebone).” Her style is that of old Greco-Roman sculptures that is purposely made with cracks in it to show the decay of the piece she is creating, but to also allude to the rebirth of it.

The Paradise of Despair, Rachel Kneebone.


Although more subtle, Kneebone’s sculptures challenge the ideas of patriarchy through the form of sculptures that resemble those of power, beauty, and literal pillars of strength. In the piece I saw of her, “The Paradise of Despair,” Kneebone displays bodies atop one another, desperately trying to reach the top of the column, but ultimately falling. The many limbs of the piece is suggestive of phallic-like objects referring to the sexual power of men and virility, as well as masculine power in general. Since the figures are falling atop one another while trying to achieve this victory at the very top, or trying to attain some kind of power, this piece can be seen as the patriarchal structure of society- run by men in search of maintaining power and control- failing as a system in that all who participate in it will only fall. If this is so, then this piece is demonstrating that this power system is one that is unstable, and therefore should be changed, lest society continue to crumble and fall as it has been doing.


The next artist I chose is also from the Brooklyn Museum, although her art is more abstract, as well as more geared towards her race and gender through the historical context of colonization. Wangechi Mutu’s work is considered that of “AfroFuturism” in that it manages to capture not only her Kenyan ethnicity, but also the connection between nature in the earth combined with the human body- particularly, black women’s bodies. In the Sackler center of the Brooklyn Museum, she had two whole rooms full of her work alone that displayed commentaries on her race, life as a black woman, the sexualization of black women, and the way that sexuality is imposed as being an animalistic one.

A Shady Promise, Wangechi Mutu.


The image that stuck out the most to me was that of “A Shady Promise” in which a woman a black woman is, in essence, straddling a phallic tree in a sexual pose that looks almost as if she is masturbating. Her torso seems to be the same material as the tree and there are mechanized animals around her. This image is in complete opposition to the male gaze: yes, she has created her character to be the stereotyped sexual, animalistic, black woman, but at the same time, this woman is twisted, part of the tree, somewhat grotesque, and certainly affected by pollution and mechanization. All the while challenging the male gaze, Mutu manages to challenge industrial living, the stereotype of black woman as sexual “animals,” and the future of those two things combined.


My following two artists are not ones that we saw at the Sackler Center in the Brooklyn museum, but are artists that were seen in the WAR film we saw in class. The first I will talk about is Hannah Wilke, who was not only a feminist artist, but is now, “considered the first feminist artist to use vaginal imagery in her work (HannahWilke.com, biography).” Wilke worked with such mediums as sculpture, drawings, photographs, assemblage, and even performance to present her images against patriarchy and the societal, physical standards women were (and still are) expected to uphold.

Part of the S.O.S. Starification Object Series, Hannah Wilke.

Wilke’s mixed media and photographs are what appealed to me most because of how striking her images are. Using her own body as the subject of her photos, Wilke captures herself in the position of an object staring back at the camera, in ways that show how women are expected to be, or what it is they have to do to keep up with patriarchy’s imposed ideas. Natural, with no makeup on, disheveled hair and almost never smiling, Wilke’s work aims to make the gazing male uncomfortable and to make the viewer critique the lengths women go to simply to appease the male gaze. In her work, she confronts the male gaze, attacks it, and ultimately refuses to give the male viewer what he wants to see. This is the blatant feminist art that women’s art needs that is not only well-done, but makes the audience think.


Going hand-in-hand with Wilke, my last artist is Barbara Kruger. Her artwork is not the same as Wilke’s, but it has a resonance in that it uses images and photographs- as well as bold letters similar to that in old advertisements- to convey the patriarchal ideas imposed on women as to how they should look, how they should feel, and even the sexist ideas of how women just are. Through these advertisements of hers, Kruger is able to morph these otherwise socially accepted fallacies into obviously ridiculous concepts. To be able to get that message across with her art is beyond amazing.


No, Barbara Kruger.

A piece that I found to be uncommon, but that she has on her site that I loved, is that of a young girl with her thumb on her nose, but her fingers all extended out. In bold, red letter, there is the word, “No.” Simply, “No.” “No” is such a powerful, confrontational statement. In this advertisement of hers, this girl is saying “no” to the audience, as well as being the voice for women to say, “no” to the male gaze. “No, we will not provide fodder for your twisted society, no, we will not appease your misogynistic bullshit- we will refuse, we are powerful, and you are nothing.” That is what that piece says to me.



 Bibliography




No comments:

Post a Comment