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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment