Frida, about the movie

rida

The 2002 movie Frida, directed by Julie Taymor, with Salma Hayek, Alfred Molina, Antonio Banderas and Geoffrey Rush as main actresses and actors, depicts the private and professional life of the Mexican painter Frida Kahlo, one of the most important Latin American painters.  The film starts with the trip of Kahlo to her first solo exhibition in Mexico DF, the most wanted dream of this artist.  The movie covers part of the teenager years and the whole adult life of the artist. During the trip, which was on a truck with the artist lying on her bed, she recapitulated her live, from when she was a teenager, a high school student, and was fascinated with the murals of the already famous Mexican painter Diego Rivera, to her life until this day of her trip to the Museum.

After a fatal automobile accident while in high school, Frida became almost paralyzed and had to be in bed for long time. Thus, to distract herself from boredom and pain she began to paint.  Her initial paintings were mostly self-portraits and portraits of members of her family.  She used to sign them and identify the sitter with an old XIX century tradition used in Mexico which consisted on adding a label on top or bottom of the painting.  She started painting with a realistic style, almost inspired by the photographs of her father, Guillermo Kahlo.

She took the courage to bring her painting to be critiqued by Diego Rivera, one of the most famous Mexican muralists at the moment.  Rivera was also a socialist leader and founder of the Socialist Party in Mexico. This moment was the beginning of a turbulent relationship between Frida and Diego involving friendship, camaraderie, passion, mutual admiration and love.  Diego introduced Frida to his leftists-bourgeoisie, intellectual upper middle class group of friends that included international artists like the Italian photo journalist Tina Modotti and the Mexican muralist David Alfaro Siqueiros.  They were all members of the Communist Party, some of them Stalinist and some, including Rivera, Trotsky followers.  They lived a bohemian life style, with openness to sex relationships and an admiration to the Russian Revolution socialistic goals; similar to the ongoing socio-cultural changes lived in Europe at the turn of the century.

Frida’s paintings continued evolving.  Although her paintings had Diego’s influence regarding her vivid color palette and, her almost planar representation, the content of her paints was unique and very different from Rivera. When her health problems started escalating, her paintings shifted from her initial realism, into more personal depictions of either herself or representations of the Mexican people and their suffering.  During her painful life, she developed a unique mix of expressionistic-surrealist style, mixed with the characteristic folk, art and culture of her beloved Mexican population.  Most of her paintings are self-portraits and are like a visual auto-biography.

On the movie, Frida is depicted as bisexual.  She had an affair with Tina Modotti and other women, not only in Mexico but also during her trips to the United States and France. Her marriage was always halted by the impulsive sex life of Rivera, which included Frida’s sister. Frida also had a share of lovers of both sexes, including the communist leader of the Russian Revolution Leon Trotsky.  The movie plot adheres close enough to what I found in the literature about this controversial artist.  It is clear that the self-centered Rivera, idolized by many, including Frida, was a very conflictive person and he was the source of the extreme emotions for Kahlo. The duality of Frida’s life is depicted on many of her paintings: as wife and a betrayed wife, as a bisexual person or as her Native Mexican-European mixed origin.

Frida’s life-style is close enough represented in the move. She is depicted wearing the attires the Native Mexican women wore, or cross dressing with some of the European traditions.  Parallel, the movie emphasizes her love for the Mexican traditional food and the Mexican culture. Examples are her visits to the colorful “mercados,” her passion for Tequila and nocturne life on bars and parties and celebrating especial dates like the Day of the Dead and the decoration of her house, known as La Casa Azul.

Kahlo painted her pain and in some of the paintings, she made her pain universal. The writer Carlos Fuentes said about her paintings that “Frida represents the conquest of adversity… Frida Kahlo in that sense is a symbol of hope, of power, of empowerment, for a variety of sectors of our population who are undergoing adverse conditions” (2) It is interesting to compare this observation of Carlos Fuentes with Chadwick one about how Frida’s depiction of her own reality, reinventing herself and turning herself into magic object, also projected “male erotic desire” (Chadwick: 313).  In a way although from very different points of view, both writers confirmed that through the self-observation and being observed, Frida explored her reality, her vulnerabilities, her dreams and pain, turning herself into a  mythic symbol and an unknown persona, more desirable because of the unknown beyond her paintings.

Since Surrealism addressed the dreams and realities and the juxtaposition of both, some women artists found hard to take a direct approach to this movement.  Like Frida, some women artist like Marie Cerminova (known as Toyen) used Surrealism to depict her political ideas about the war (Chadwick, 183).  Surrealism still had a macho chauvinistic view of women, and saw women as muses, source of inspiration, with an erotic gaze.  Many women artists turned towards the mirror to address the female body, representing the duality of seeing and being. (Chadwick: 114).  As an example, Lenora Carrington, who was born in England, lived in Mexico and Simone de Beauvoir who addresses the feminine condition on her book published in 1949 The Second Sex.  Other artists, like Dorothea Tanning, depicted sexuality using children and adolescent girls or the Spanish born artist Remedios Varo addressing, more existential and conflicting views of maternity and family (Chadwick: 115).

Surrealism and its transference as a movement to Latin America seems to be linked to the political turmoil Mexico was living during the first decades of the Twentieth Century.  The influx of European artists and writers, probably related with the warmest of the Mexican people as well as that it was a more affordable option to live in created the perfect environment for creativity and this environment is painted in the movie.

It is hard to me to be completely objective about this film and hardest to separate what I knew about the artists before this film was created and Frida Kahlo’s depiction on the film.  The first reason is related to the Mexican Revolution and the aftermath role of artists with the hope socialistic roots became established in Mexico.  Frida, influenced by Diego Rivera, actively participated on the building of these socialistic ideals which were the foundation and  the source of inspiration for many revolts in Latin America during the Twentieth Century  being Cuba, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Salvador and Nicaragua the countries where were the strongest revolutions or revolts against militaristic regimes were more successful.    It was also the inspiration for a smaller revolution in Costa Rica which effectively: abolished the army, set up a Universal Health Care System and in 1953, late, but early in Latin America, allowed women to vote during Presidential Elections.

Frida was a socialist since early youth, even before knowing Diego Rivera. She loved Mexico and its people and according to the records, she changed her date of birth date from July 6^th, 1907 to July 7^th, 1910, day of the beginning of the Mexican Revolution, not for vanity but because she felt intrinsic part  of that important day in the history of Mexico (2). To me, the combination of her political activities with her surrealist, intimate, exploratory paintings of herself, were key elements to make Frida’s powerful body of work.  I don’t see Frida’s paintings just as a depiction of her personal broken body or life.  They are more universal, and in a way, she also turned the female body towards nature and with a Surrealistic approach, brought the relationships of women, nature and social power together.

The music of the movie is outstanding and I find exceptional the selection of singers: Lila Downs, Caetano Veloso and the legendary Chavela Vargas, who is believed, had a romantic relationship with Frida (see pictures of Chavela Vargas and Frida Kahlo on links 5 and 6.)  The interpretations are close complement to the visual scenes and increase the emotion and depiction of Mexico throughout the whole film.  Frida Kahlo loved the popular style of Mexican music “rancheras”, “boleros” and “corridos.” and the adaptations Julie Taymour and Elliot Gordenthal included on this film, to me add a lot of realism to what used to be parties and bar’s scenes in Mexico, very similar to many other Latin American countries.

This won’t be the last time I see this movie, since periodically, I go back to watch it, always ending up with a jealous feeling for the people who were born on these amazing years of awakening of this beloved Latin American, where macho-chauvinistic, patriarchal and catholic traditions, ruled together with militarist power and the rebellion started with of the intellectual, artists and middle class people.  Perhaps with the eyes of a United States born person these are irrelevant issues,  but Latin America is still flooded with social injustices,  and the role of the Mexican artists of the period of Frida Kahlo and Diego Rivera,  is still of  muses to many movements and emerging artists, writers, musicians, poets and the general public.

References

(1) http://www.fridakahlo.org/frida-kahlo-biography.jsp

(2) http://www.pbs.org/weta/fridakahlo/life/index_esp.html

(3) http://tierra.free-people.net/artes/pintura-frida-kahlo.php

(4) http://www.chilango.com/cultura/nota/2012/08/01/chavela-vargas-la-dama-de-los-45-mil-litros-de-tequila

(5) http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8jcawVxiR1qa6pd1o1_500.jpg&imgrefurl=http://lukasvonincher.tumblr.com/post/29117875226/frida-kahlo-y-chavela-vargas&h=343&w=500&sz=27&tbnid=zaC2pOVi0c1OqM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=131&zoom=1&usg=__lEYk62N0WF29hs51u6zvRhUOvgM=&docid=8iUnmw4S50g95M&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1mCVUZGzGqHgiwKanIG4Aw&ved=0CDkQ9QEwAg&dur=2463

(6) http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Z6XHvwq4lf4/StvI6xV78FI/AAAAAAAAAKc/0biQy2C-HmQ/s1600/Frida_Chavela.JPG&imgrefurl=http://vromo.blogspot.com/search/label/LETRAS?updated-max%3D2010-03-21T11:37:00-07:00%26max-results%3D20%26start%3D20%26by-date%3Dfalse&h=350&w=501&sz=28&tbnid=shAXgoyTAhIqEM:&tbnh=96&tbnw=137&zoom=1&usg=__YhZcxbh65vucZnqGzEpqnMyOWuk=&docid=XOLyZ11iV3CllM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1mCVUZGzGqHgiwKanIG4Aw&ved=0CE0Q9QEwCA&dur=4273

(7) http://www.fridakahlofans.com/essaysp.html

(8) http://www.academia.edu/319986/Surrealism_and_Constructions_of_National_Identity_in_Mexico_Changing_perceptions_1940-1968

International-cultural artistic exchanges

A polemic issue of the current world of art is the political problem of international-cultural artistic exchanges.  The idea of a fluid process of culture, by no means implies that artists will have to abandon their own cultural heritage.  The term “New Internationalism” emerged to take the place of the Western-centric Universalism and Internationalism.  New Internationalism addresses issues that previously were seen as “Ethnic Arts” or fell under the umbrella of “Cultural Diversity”.   The paradox of Western art considered “modern” vs. not-Western cultures  and considerations like “underdeveloped,” “local or regional” and “primitive touch” are topics very important to address when we think on the close to three hundred biennials and triennials across earth, compared with twenty or thirty twenty years ago.  All the above terms, affect directly women artist.

Biennials and triennials from Havana to Shanghai are the most popular ways to exhibit contemporary art.    Biennials or Triennials are art exhibitions whose role is to create a cohesive, memorable, poignant and relevant activity, showcasing contemporary art addressing some aspect of global culture.  The beginning of most of these exhibitions was local or national events and subsequently turned into international events.  That being said indicates that the local element of an art exhibition of this nature is extremely important. As an example, when the Asia Pacific Triennial, APT was conceived in 1993, being  the  primary goal of the triennial to involve Aboriginal reconciliation. After the seventh APT, the collective of artist have expanded to other countries of the Asia-Pacific Region.  The definition of a Biennial, also redefined the women‘s participation and the topics addressed by female artists.

During the past decade, the term  “globalization of culture” replaced the term feminism (Chadwick, 424). Emerging art exhibitions like the Havana and Sāo Paulo, strengthened the participation of female artists from different parts of the world, opening  the doors to women to speak about politics, economics, social issues and marketing of art, but diminishing topics of gender and class.  Gender issues are becoming irrelevant or secondary during these exhibitions (Chadwick, 424).  Popular art is mixed with high art and representations of gender of female issues have been replaced for more gender-less subject matters, more universal of a society.   Examples are the art of Yin Xiuzhen, centered about the construction and de-construction of Beijing (Chadwick, 296 pg. 460) or the work of the Dutch Indonesian artist Mella Jaarsma (Chadwick 297, pg. 461) how creates jibab made from skin of animals like kangaroo, frogs and chicken feet, addressing colonialism perceptions or the fact of using a jibab as a symbol of a second skin.

Many women artists have benefited from the participation on Biennials.  Examples of two Cuban artists who exhibited in the 1989, 1991 and 1994 exhibitions in Havana around the topic of Immigration are Maria Magdalena Campos-Pons and Marta María Pérez Bravo.  The art of both artists deal with the heterogeneous Caribbean culture, immigration and identity via photography and installations. Although both artists are Cuban, Campos-Pons lives in Cambridge, MA and Pérez Bravo in México DF.  Amanda Hengs is a photographer from Singapore whose series of photography Narrating Bodies, displayed in the Havana Biennial in 2000, addressed the connection between herself , a professional, unconventional artist and her mother in a patriarchal society.  (Chadwick, 298 pg. 462)

During the 1997 Johannesburg Biennale, artists addressed topics of colonialism, religion, history and meaning.  Artist participating on this exhibition are the US. Carrie Mae Weems, Betye Saar, Coco Fusco, established artists in the US, expanding their views into Africa.  There were also many Asian women artists addressing generational gender issues and culture (Chadwick 448).

In general, women’s participation in international art events is higher and on the raise.  Their creations are somewhere more diverse, addressing  global issues (political, cultural, economic and environmental).  The 70’s feminist style  or work based on the  deconstruction of traditions (like the work of Barbara Kruger and Cindy Sherman) are less represented or absent from these global art exhibitions.  Gender differences still exist, regardless of whom much we embrace New Internationalism.  Women’s issues are left outside Biennials and Triennials and it might be good to revisit from a gender point of view. Examples of some of these issues are the composition of a family and its roles, aging and displacement, migration and aging, all from a female perspective, instead of a feminine point of view of cultural experience.

 

References

1.       Chadwick, W. Women, Art and Society, Thames & Hudson, fourth ed., 2007.

Louise Bourgeois (French, 1911-2010)

Louise Bourgeois

(French, 1911-2010)

“I am not what I am

I am what I do

with my hands…”

─ Louise Bourgeois (4)

Louise Bourgeois died on May 10, 2010 at 98 (1) Although she first studied painting and her first works were as an engraver and painter, during the 40’s she began to work on sculptural work and it is was as an sculptor that she became worldwide recognized.  During the 50’s, Bourgeois turned into psychoanalysis and after a long period she did not make art.  It was not until 1964 when the artist presented a new collection of sculptures shaped on plaster.  The very organic forms of these sculptures, contrasted with wood totem like sculptures she previously made, giving a daunting sense of figuration and abstraction.  This was the beginning of her stronger work, based on themes of loneliness, jealously, anger and fear (2). During her live, she worked on the most avant-garde art: cubism, abstraction, minimalism, realism but about all, her sculptures were always at the cutting edge of contemporary style.

Her works were inspired by her more intimate feelings, using a postmodernist approach.  She explored birth, sexuality and death on great detail throughout her long life.  Her themes related to male/female relationships, including anger, betrayal and even murder, were influenced by surrealist and modernist sculpture.  Most of them created a sense of ambiguity and provoked emotional reactions from the viewer.  This artists created gendered metaphors way before any other feminist artists started working on this genre in the US.

During her first years as an artist, Bourgeois experienced the pressure of working among male peers, including her husband, an art historian. She also had to deal with issues of maternity, family and anxiety attacks.  Together with her experiences at her own small family in New York, she was traumatized by a long affair her father had with an English tutor she and her siblings had when children.  She frequently referred to this incident on her work.  Her 1974 Destruction of the Father addresses her father philanderer and domineering activities.  The sculpture is a mix of phallic and mammalian shapes all gathered around a table, where there are corpses, displaying to be eaten.  Another sculpture, Cells, refers to domesticity, some depicting sentimental or nostalgic child notions, perhaps overwhelming and violent feelings (4). Cells were a series of installations or sculptural works she created from 1990 to 1994.  Some cells where made out of wood, glass or metal.  Inside, she place items like broken furniture, houses, household items, perfume bottles.  One of them is a steel cage containing a house and it has a guillotine on front.   The installations give a sense of menace, confinement and oppression.   The title also acts as double intender:  sanctuary and security, home and jails.

For her works on paper, she explored a variety of techniques like aquatint, drypoint, engraving, etching, lithography, photogravure, relief, screen and digital printing. Her Femme Maison, 1984 was a Photogravure with chine collé.  Her early paintings were created during 1946-1947 with clear feminist overtones.  On these paintings, the head of the women are taken by houses, implying the suffocating place of the women in the house that takes her full head. (5)(see attachment)

She said that her work was “a guarantee of sanity; “represented her emotions, concerns and struggles (2).  In some of her pieces, especially books, she used fabric to give the book a sculptural presence.  Fabrics connected Bourgeois to her childhood since her family was in the tapestry business.  Later in her life, she associated sewing with the process of repairing relationships.  She printed on old handkerchiefs and other materials and then constructed books with them.  The artist collaborations with the printer Felix Harlan were continuous, especially with her book’s projects.

Spiders were also a common symbol used by Bourgeois in her drawings, prints and sculptures.  The spider is a representation of her mother, who she considered a cleaver and skillful woman, also considered her best friend.  Mama was the first monumental sculpture, commissioned to the artist for the Tate Modern in London inauguration and displayed first outside the Tate Gallery.  In 2005 it was acquired by the National Gallery of Canada and finally in 2012, the sculpture found a permanent home at the Qatar National Convention Center.   One of her spiders is at the Bilbao Museo in Spain, and last year, Dartmouth College had one of them in front of the Black Family Visual Arts Center to commemorate the Year of the Arts.  This last sculpture is made out of bronze, silver nitrate, patina and stainless steel (6).

Something very interesting about this artist is that she became recognized by her work late in her life.  At 60 she started teaching at Pratt Institute, Copper Union and Brooklyn College.  Her work immediately fit into the Feminist movement and her exhibition opportunities increased (although the work has been more or less on the same line since the beginning).  Her first retrospective was in 1982 at MOMA, at the age of 71.  This was the first retrospective of a female artist at MOMA and in 2000; the Tate Modern in London exhibits her 30 ft. spider.

The New York Times Art critic, Christopher Knight said …”Bourgeois was the first modern artist to expose the emotional depth and power of domestic subject matter.  Before her, male artists had only nibbled around the edges and women just weren’t allowed.” (8)  To me, what makes solid Bourgeois work was her solid foundation and her knowledge of facts, the physiological element and the compulsive way she used to create her art. All combined, gave us this intriguing and somewhat difficult to see body of work.  Her work is not abstract, it is just thoughtful created and simple, without elements of distraction.  During the 60’s, she declared herself a feminist but continued working on her own style, rejected the label of “feminist aesthetic.”   This is another element contributing to make her work powerful, interesting and challenging for the time.   She describes her work as related to “pre-gender” as an example: jealously which is not male or female (8).   She found great pleasure on being discovered not because of fame, but because that gave her the opportunity to work on her art undisturbed plus let the viewer appreciate her long artistic trajectory (8).

For thirty years, on Sundays, she hosted continuously Salon style critiques.  Artists from all over the world requested an invitation and some of them received the sharpest commentaries by Bourgeois.   Artists and curators gathered to hear what Bourgeois have to say about their art.  I loved her rules to participate: “you can’t have a cold and you must bring your work” (12).   It seems like the last years of her life, biographers, filmmakers and the two assistant of Bourgeois (who are not artists) run the salons and the artist enjoyed being around young artist and listening to their discussions more than giving feedback (13).

Bourgeois worked until the week before she died.  I cannot find a more inspiring fact of an artist.  She was one of the most consistent contemporary artists when talking about subject matters depicted with her art.  Her pieces were not made to please the viewer, but to voice her own thoughts.  All her work was daring, created tension and she took a great risk addressing the patriarchal destruction and order.   The artist evolved in emotions during her years with her husband and children, using clothing and soft materials; materials that the artists could manipulate and shape, evoquing also physical torment and emotional stress.  Her pieces during the sixties were anti-formal and that was a source of inspiration for many young artists like Eva Hesse (10).    Bourgeois was one the strongest artist ever.  She shaped her emotions, her unconscious views with profound intensity, but managed to portrait elegance, relevance and triumph instead of fragility or victimization.  I wonder if the training in mathematics and philosophy when received at the Sorbonne were pillars to create such a challenging work with a clear sense of direction and organization.  It is like if she challenged every mathematical principle (ironically male established) with their emotional art.

Comparing Marie Denise Villers with Louise Bourgeois offers many points to reflect upon.  They were both French artists, born 137 years apart. Both studied painting in France.  The first studied with the painter Girodet-Trioson, who was disciple of Jacques-Louise David.  The second studied philosophy, mathematics and painting, and later moved to New York with her husband.  In the United States, she turned towards sculpture, psychoanalysis and printmaking.    Villers portraits were exhibited in the Salons and although little is known of her body of work, it seems like her portraits were much liked.  Bourgeois first decades as artist passed fairly unnoticed. It was not until the Feminist movements started in the United States, that her work became of great interest for curators, art dealers and academia.  I am tempted to think that the consistency, variability of mediums and deepness of Bourgeois work put her into the genius category.  Nobody disputed Bourgeois creativity and during last four decades as an artist, she was recognized not only for current work but also for her work during the forties and fifties, when she was also addressing deeply personal concerns about womanhood.

Villers and Bourgeois are examples of marvelous artist.  For Villers, her work will be in doubt forever while Bourgeois achieved the highest honors an artist might get in her life and nobody has raised questions about attribution.  While Villers style adapted to the established style, Bourgeois challenged the world with her radial art.  I wonder why male historians, male artists and male curators let the work of Bourgeois alone.  I wonder if there was a degree of intimidation, caused by the upfront work of this artist.

Completing this last assignment left me with more questions than answers and I feel Bourgeois is still one of these rare cases we see in history.  I think of her as a Renaissance woman without boundaries.  She is one of the post-modern masters and it was delightful to read about her trajectory as an artists.  Bourgeois life was not an easy one, but she was extremely brilliant, persistent and creative and accomplished her dream until the end of her life.

1.       http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/01/arts/design/01bourgeois.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

2.       http://www. moma.org/explore/collection/lb/

3.       http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2010/05/31/arts/design/20100601-bourgeois-ss.html?ref=design

4.       http://arthistory.about.com/od/namesbb/a/Louise-Bourgeois-biography.htm

5.       http://philandfem.blogspot.com/2010/03/louise-bourgeois-feminist-artist.html

6.       http://now.dartmouth.edu/2012/10/dartmouth-college-announces-installation-of-louise-bourgeois-crouching-spider-in-the-maffei-arts-plaza/

7.       http://prod-images.exhibit-e.com/www_cheimread_com/Bourgeois_Louise_biography_3_5_13.pdf

8.       http://prod-images.exhibit-e.com/www_cheimread_com/latimes_6_1_10.pdf

9.       http://prod-images.exhibit-e.com/www_cheimread_com/artnews_summer_101.pdf

10.   http://prod-images.exhibit-e.com/www_cheimread_com/financial_times_10_13_07.pdf

11.   http://www.artslant.com/ny/artists/rackroom/2902

12.   http://www.artnews.com/2006/06/01/show-and-tell/

13.   http://artificeau.blogspot.com/2007/02/louise-bourgeois-eats-truffle-david.html

Marie-Denise Villers (French, 1774-1821)

Marie-Denise Villers

(French, 1774-1821)

Marie Denise Lemoine was born in an artistic French family and studied painting with Anne Louis Girodet-Trioson.   She married the architect and painter Michel-Jean Villiers, who was also a student of Girodet.  As a skilled portraitist, she exhibited in many Parisian salons her art from 1799 to 1082 and later a catalog of 1814 mentions her work (3).

The metropolitan Museum of Art Website has a color image of Young Woman Drawing, presented by Chadwick using a black and white plate (Chadwick, 7 pg. 27).  The painting is oil on canvas, 63 1/2”x 50 5/8” and was created by Villers in 1801.  In 1917, the Metropolitan Museum of Art acquired this painting, under the belief it was created by Jacques-Louis David (2).  David was a contemporary painter of Villers and the sitter was identified as Charlotte du Val d’Ognes (died 1868).  When the French Scholar and curator Charles Sterling was preparing a Catalog of French Masters in 1951, he discovered that this painting was exhibited in the 1801 Salon, in which David did not exhibit (3).  After some research, Sterling decided that the painting was done by Constance Marie Charpentier (1767-1849) who was a student of David and  exhibited two other portraits during this 1801 Salon. The sitter of the painting also became questionable and the painting was renamed  “Young Woman Drawing” Then in 1996, Margaret Oppenheimer suggested that this painted was done by the sister of Marie Denise Villers who was also a skilled painter. Finally under not very well documented circumstances (at least for the general public), it was decided that the painting was done by Marie Denise Villers.

The portrait has a neoclassical style, with a very interesting composition and a remarkable level of details. The large window on the right gives luminosity to the sitter, who is practically centered on the canvas.  The lines around the girl are vertical and strong, and the window is the only source of light and details that are not pertinent to the model.  There is a large area of negative space using dark tones around the model, whose dress is white.  At the distance, there is a couple outside the window that seems engaged in a conversation, but framed in a way that they can once in a while peak through the window and see the girl.  The eyes of the girl address directly the viewer that is almost in the same linear path of the people outside the window.   The sitter makes eye contact with the viewer.  At the same time, she seems to be drawing something located on the same direction of the viewer.   The position of the painter is very awkward to be drawing, with a large board on her lap and curved towards the board.   The direction of her eyes and the positions of her hands and body might also indicate that she could also be looking at herself on a mirror for a self-portrait.  The contrast of the white dress and the board on her knees is also very interesting since it might be a symbol of no mistakes made by the artist.  The coral shawl covering the chair, is the only transitional element between background and the sitter and harmonize with her dress ‘belt, shoes, hair and skin color

The white dress, light skin, frail body and her eyes making contact with the viewer, makes this picture classical, with a particular realism, depicting a young, delicate woman.   .   The painting has the classic background and candid depiction David used on his paintings (Chadwick, 24).

There is no much found in the literature about this artist and what I found ironic is the story evolving after art historians were uncertain about who was the authorship and after naming other artists of the time, achieved the painting to Villers.

What is enerving is that when the question raised about authorship of this piece, from a man painter to a woman painter, perceptions of the art changed dramatically. Thus a “perfect unforgettable picture,” worth $200000, the language changed to a painting in which there was a “gentle treatment of skin and fabric” and worse, Sterling determined that the painting was “poetry” not plastics (Chadwick, 26).  A painting considered perfect until 1951 raised concerns when the author was a lesser known painter than David and worse, a woman painter.      Comparing this painting now attributed to Villers to the portrait of Madame Soustras, also presumed to be painted by Villers, and displayed at the Louvre,  we can see similar skin treatment, discrete background and the sitter in an award position. Both models have a similar roundness of the back and richness of fabric. The sitter of this last painting is not seeing the viewer. On this case, the sitter gazed  the painter (4).

This story of authorship is not  the only one in  the history of art and it was probably very common  to many other women artists like Villiers, who were trained by famous artists and  painted  in a similar style of  their teacher and what the style of the epoque demanded  to be a fine artist.    David and Villers were both related to Girodet-Trioson and developed similar styles for their portraits.  The difference was that artists’ styles and gender were classified in terms of “virile” “feminine touch”  “weakness”, revealing the feminine spirit and considering these, was the value of the piece and the glory of the artist.  I wish this painting is seeing as it is: a magnificent one, made by not a well known artist, but one who mastered the  craft to perfection.  I also hope it continues to be displayed at the Metropolitan and one day, more information about this artist is discovered.  The only fact that makes me feel sad about this painting is that entered the Metropolitan using the “back door,” in a way, camouflage by the shadow of a male painter.

References

1.      1. Chadwick, W. Women, Art and Society, Thames & Hudson, fourth ed., 2007.

2.      2, http://www.metmuseum.org/collections/search-the-collections/110002356

3.      3. http://mydailyartdisplay.wordpress.com/2011/01/24/young-woman-drawing-by-marie-denise-villers/

4           4. http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/Marie-Denise_Villers_-_Une_etude_de_femme_d’apres_nature.jpg&imgrefurl=http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Marie-Denise_Villers_-_Une_etude_de_femme_d’apres_nature.jpg&h=487&w=373&sz=25&tbnid=_gUG1bHZfrE2uM:&tbnh=91&tbnw=70&zoom=1&usg=__GdICz0FVrgDKKIoGIzSYgnDKWUo=&docid=euBfMCGIbN1phM&sa=X&ei=rE-3UaCaNM3aigK06ICgAw&ved=0CDcQ9QEwAg&dur=192

 

Maya Kin and Suzanne Lacy

Maya Lin and Suzanne Lacy are women artist, both interested in public art.  Lin is an architectural designer, best known as the designer of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington DC in 1975 (Chadwick, 270, pg. 419).  Suzanne Lacy is an installation, video and large-scale performance artist, and known for her social themes and for her art regarding urban issues.  Lacy is known for her wide collaborations with community groups, teams with young artist and was part of the feminist who were very active during the decade of the seventies, addressing women issues.  An example was the 1977 collaboration of Suzanne Lacy and Leslie Labowitz, In Mourning and in Rage, (Chadwick, 235, pg. 375).  It was a performance piece done outside the Los Angeles City Hall to address the irresponsible media coverage of the Hillside Strangler, a killer who targeted women.  This act also raised awareness of the spread of violence against women in cities all over the US (1).

In Mourning and in Rage consisted of seventy women dressed in black who walked from the Women’s Building in Los Angeles to the City Hall.  The women were followed by two motorcycles and twenty-two cars filled with women also dressed in black.  Each car had stickers say “Stop Violence Against Women” and “Funeral.”  The procession circled the City Hall and there were various performances by the women.   Another performance by Lacy was Crystal Quilt, performed in 1987 Mother’s Day in downtown Minneapolis.  During the act, 430 women between sixty-two and one hundred years old shared stories, accomplishments and problems (Chadwick, 418).

The Vietnam War memorial, completed in 1982 is a granite wall commemorating 58195 names of soldiers who lost their lives in Vietnam.  On her writing for the New York Book Review, November 2002, Maya Lin expresses that this monument goal was to honor the death soldiers, separated from the conflicts or separation the war inflicted to the US population (4). The wall is analogous to a book, creating and the design was made with the goal of creating an illusion of reading a book, but on a billboard.

After presenting the work of Lacy and Lin, although both address political issues, it obvious to me that the work of Suzanne Lacy respond to womens’ agendas directly while the work of Maya Lin, I feel falls into the category of  public art, more focus on socio-political issues, bio-regionalism and biodiversity.  Lin does have a work named Woman’s Table, commissioned in 1989 by the Pressing Benno Schmidt to commemorate the 20^th anniversary of coeducation of Yale College(5) Like the work of Suzanne Lacy,  I believe the work of Maya Lin also embraces the feminist values.  The fact that the Memorial to Vietnam does not glorify war, on the contrary, is presented abruptly inserted in the earth; a solid dark wall breaking into  the natural cycle, honoring the names alone and in a way representing silently and massively the human cost of war is, to me, a powerful feminist act.

Anoter who has worked as social activist and in the public arena, open spaces and reaching most the public outside museums and galleries is Barbara Kruger.  Kruger uses appropriated photographs from mass media with capital bold captions on read or bordered in red, black or white.  The captions are aphorisms, questions and slogans, forcing the viewer to think on the cliché or catch-phrases and idioms that are embedded to us by the mass media publicity.

Kruger uses popular culture to add emphasis to realities, most of them sexist, demanding attention from the viewer over and over.  Although Kruger work was powerful and relevant during the eighties, thirty years later is even more relevant, in times when words and images bombarded us free and constantly via internet and on the street.  Barbara Kruger still questions the viewer about consumerism, classicism, sexism, desire and individual autonomy with billboards on parks, posters, public commissions worldwide, train stations, museums and galleries. She is very successful because she “smack on the face” the viewer with the captions with the simple black and white or halftone image as background.  The image and the text are equally important and balanced and Kruger use of 3 colors maximum, facilitating the reading of the depiction.  Her extreme close-up of faces, hands and body parts create tension and are impossible to avoid.

I feel Kruger is a conceptual artist, but definitely a postmodern and a feminist one.  With elegance and a touch of irony and in a way, screaming (since she uses capital letters mostly) she reaches an ample public, without distinctions of gender, race and economical position.

1.      http://www.getty.edu/pacificstandardtime/explore-the-era/worksofart/in-mourning-and-in-rage-media-performance-at-los-angeles-city-hall/

2.      http://www.suzannelacy.com/2000sborough_spoleto.htm

3.      http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3345993?uid=3739560&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102266824911

4.      http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2000/nov/02/making-the-memorial/?pagination=false

5.      http://www.yale.edu/womenatyale/WomensTable.html

6.      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/20/AR2007042000412.html

7.. Chadwick, W. Women, Art and Society, Thames & Hudson, fourth ed., 2007.

Postmodernisms

Postmodernisms originated as a reaction against the established forms of Modernism, removing the distinction between high culture and popular culture.  Irony and humor, cultural references, acknowledge of previous work, embracing diversity, equality and contradiction, eclectic form, rationalization, opposition to the conventions and the traditional authority and in general disillusionment with modern thinking are characteristics of Postmodernisms.  Postmodernist artists seek larger audiences, distrusting established ideologies.  Instead of inventing new styles, postmodernism recreates existent styles, adding emphasis to sexual and cultural differences and overall, breaking down what was considered unified (Chadwick, 380).  All art forms of postmodernism have a strong element of pastiche (mimicry of other styles and mannerisms) (6).

Initially, there was a strong relationship between postmodernism and feminism, since feminism was continuously challenging the current standards of what was considered high art, embracing popular culture and addressing sexual identity.  Relevant work of feminist artists derived from deconstruction, appropriation of media images and language.  Together with the above, feminist artists challenged many of the social myths related to women perceptions in a patriarchal society and how the messages were and still are coded to maintain the established position of minorities and women (Chadwick, 382).

The photographer Sherrie Levine once said “The pictures I make are really ghosts; their relation to the original image is tertiary” (9). Although Levine emphatically rejected the idea of being an appropriation artist, early in her career she was viewed as an appropriator since her work was derived from photographing or painting existing art.  One of Levine projects was re-photographing the photographs taken by Edward Weston of his son Neil.  She used her view camera to take the photograph and then printed the negatives as she wished to see them.  Her point of view was that nothing was “original” on Weston’s images since the torso photographs were inspired on the Greek torso, linked to Classic sculptures and Renaissance paintings.

Although some of her critics attacked the idea of originality, there was also an important factor related to the hegemony of the white male artist since her printing style had what was seeing as “mechanical defects of printing” (high contrast and grain), the way Levine challenged the notion of reproduction and originality.  Levine never claimed originality or authorship of her images.  She stated that that the authorship of the “mechanical reproduction” (camera and printing characteristics) is ambiguous.  Other photographer subject of Levine art was Walter Evans and the painters Kasimir Malevich and Vladimir Tatlin.  On Women Art and Society, Chadwick presents the photograph After Walker Evans (1936) as an example of Sherrie Levine work (Chadwick, 239, pg. 184).  In general, Levine rejects her work to be labeled as original or considered a self-expression or subjective.  Levine challenged male authorship and originality, which are the central ideas of postmodernism.  The idea of originality has evolved since Renaissance and on this current mass culture world; the idea of original work of Modernism doesn’t fit either.  Reproduction and images’ democratization are part of the challenges Levine raises with her work, main reasons to consider her a postmodernist artist.

Another American artist, Mary Kelly, examines relationships between individual and language codes.  Without using direct representation of women, on her work Kelly uses  psychoanalysis and contemporary theory to explore sexuality, addressing the effect of institutions and “the oppressive socio-psychological production of sexuality” (Chadwick, 404).  Her Post-Partum Project was a six year process, in which the artist documented her son’s learning of language and different stages of socialization.  Using a scientific precision, the artist documented everything, from the child excrement to his days in nursery school. Kelly used diagrams, tables, linguistic analysis and classification systems, alternating the narrative with the voices of the mother, the child and the observer.  The focus of Kelly was the narrative process, depicted with a sense of humor and accuracy and based on theories of mother’s possession and loss and child’s immersion into the patriarchal order.  Her work is in a way, an interrogation of Lacan’s theories of psychoanalysis and language (10).  Kelly completed this project when her son learned to write his own name (8).

Kelly continues to work on women’s roles.  Her photo/text installation Corpus, explore the issues of female again, by using objects such as clothing, women’s images from nineteen century, hand written text, domesticity, sex, food, waitressing among others.  In general, this artist uses the collective memory and appropriates ideas, objects and imagery from the past to explore feminist issues. Kelly interprets and search for the meaning of social origins and with her unique aesthetic, challenges the established parameters of Modernism and creativity. Mary Kelly stated that “there’s no single theoretical discourse which is going to offer an explanation for all forms of social relations or for every mode of political practice” (11).  This position is not only feminist but also a postmodern condition.

With very different styles, both artists address postmodernism and feminist points of view and challenge what was considered high art by modernist artists and critics.  Kelly’s body of work is directly related women’s issues while Levine subject matter is to question the originality of art by challenging the idea of authorship.

References

1.       http://www.harvardphilosophy.com/issues/1992/Brann.pdf

2.       http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/jacketcopy/2009/06/so-is-megan-fox-postmodern.html

3.       http://voices.yahoo.com/postfeminism-postmodernism-feminism-5246027.html

4.       http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/revisiting-the-dawn-of-postmodernismand-feminist-artat-the-nasher/Content?oid=2680631

5.       http://ir.uiowa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3245&context=etd

6.    http://art.ucsc.edu/sites/default/files/Jameson_Postmodernism_and_Consumer_Society.pdf

7.    http://books.google.com/books?id=AGzWJ7MJF6IC&pg=PA165&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false

8.     http://www.modernamuseet.se/en/The-Collection/The-collection1/Research/In-the-shadow-of/Mary-Kelly/

9.    http://www.academia.edu/249072/Thoughts_on_Originality_and_Appropriation_Sherrie_Levines_Early_Photographic_Endevors

10. http://bobbybelote.com/!!teaching/Readings/OwensOthers.pdf

11.   Chadwick, W. Women, Art and Society, Thames & Hudson, fourth ed., 2007.

Carrington

• Carrington, the 1995 film directed by Christopher Hampton, is about the life of the painter Dora Carrington, a young artist who lived at the turn of twenty century, during the Great War.    She studied at the Slade School of Art in London where she befriended members of the Bloomsbury group, and in special the writer Lytton Strachey, a writer who was known as a “conscientious objector” individual, refusing to perform military service, under the fundamental premise of freedom of thought and conscience.

  With Emma Thompson on the role of Carrington and Jonathan Pryce as Lytton Strachey, the movie depicts Carrington as a liberal women, but rather neurotic character, adding a strong emphasis on her reluctance to have sexual relations with her boyfriend of the time, the painter Mark Gertler under the premise that he was interested on her only sexually.  Through Mark, she developed a strong relationship with Lytton Strachey, the openly gay writer who was supposed to help Mark and Carrington to formalize their relationship. Instead, Carrington became in love, infatuated with Strachey, who doesn’t reciprocate his affection for her as a partner, embracing her intimate friend.    They decided to live together and during this time, her paintings and murals focused on the love of her live, the landscapes of the places they were together and murals depicting dedicate her life to take be the companion of Strachey.  It seems like Strachey was attracted to Carrington by her androgynous style, a slender body with a bobbed hair cut but still a woman.  They had a strong friendship she created an exquisitely decorated space for both of them, with carefully chosen colors for each room where she painted murals, self-decorated furniture and adorned with some of her paintings.   She is depicted on the role of a loving sort of wife-lover, caring for the twice her age and sick friend.

  Insecure of her own sexuality, Carrington started experimenting with men who seem to be bisexual and creates a “ménage a trois” with the man who became her husband, Ralph Partridge and Strachey.  Eventually, she became the lover of many other men, all friends of each other.  Her paintings continued to be related to the same topics: landscapes and portraits of her lovers or people she knew intimately.   Her love and admiration for Strachey were unconditional and her short adulthood life was lived next to Strachey, with some trips in between, but always coming back to him.  She wanted to be a man, to be sexually loved by Strachey.  Her frustration and solitude was depicted continuously during the movie and seemed to be related to the fact she never had an exhibition of her work while she was alive.  The movie seems to portray both of them as always short of money and making deals with lovers to survive.  It is also implicit that the successful artist was Lytton, not Carrington.

  It is clear through the movie that Strachey was part of the bohemian, wealthy English part of the Bloomsbury Group.  The group is depicted as a flamboyant set of friends, lovers, pacifists, artists, nobles, intellectuals, socialist and atheist who spend long weekends partying together.   Carrington became to gravitate around the group as a friend of Strachey and although both, Carrington and Strachey despised some elements of their superficial life style, they continued to enjoy their gatherings and splendid parties.

  The Avant Garde influence of the time is hinted by showing the paintings of Mark Gertler and Strachey writings, and beliefs.   Together with the modern movements in arts and literature, the convulsion caused by the war, and the industrial revolution, made people react against the established cultural patterns, breaking apart from many cultural patterns, including the liberation of women to have lovers, an openness to gay and lesbians and the participation of women on liberal art works which promoted important social reforms.

  The film is primarily focused on the multiple relationships of Carrington with men but didn’t address   her relationships with women, like the writer Katherine Mansfield, the American Henrietta Bingham (1) and Alex Strachey among others.  All these relationships were critical since they either inspired Carrington to make vibrant portraits of them or set her in an emotional turmoil that didn’t let her paint for a while.  The bisexuality of this artist was a strange one since she was only loyal to a gay man, older than her and sexually irresponsive towards her body.  It was like Carrington spend all her life attempting to get the physical-sexual pleasure she did not have with Stachey from her lovers.  Her domesticity with Stachey and emotional masochism were intense and strange but they seem to be what inspired her paintings.

  Strachey became deadly sick and Carrington attempted to commit suicide by asphyxiation inside her car.  Her ex-husband rescued her this time but she was very depressed and right after Lytton’s death, she successfully killed herself, this time using a gun while wearing Lytton’s dressing gown.

  Carrington is also portrayed as a very talented   artist, who lacked confidence on her artistic work.  She was not only very good with portraits, landscapes and decorative work   but also had excellent drawing skills, which she used on the letters written to her friends.    Her painting style is more realistic, more Pre-Raphaelite than her contemporaries Post-Impressionist artists (2). She painted in a wide variety of surfaces, including tiles, glass, pub signs and wall’s for friend’s homes (5).  The film also missed mentioning that she made designs for the “Omega Workshops and for the Hogarth Press, both own by Virginia and Leonard Wolf (4).

  Since the paintings sometimes were given away to friends by the artist, her letters and her diaries’ entries are critical to understand the life and art of Carrington.  The numerous letters she wrote to friends and lovers were exquisitely illustrated or included woodcuts.    On them, her lively imagination and child-like spirit was represented not only visually but accompanied of a creative, fresh and unique writing.

  Early turn of the twentieth century, women artist were influenced by movements like the Arts and Crafts and Modernism.  Abstraction was popular not only on graphic design but also widely used on painting and women gradually became active part of the remunerated artists and the subject matter of the paintings became more open and universal for both genders.  Examples of art by women artist at the turn of the century are Sonia Delanuay, Courverture, 1911 (Chadwick, 146, pg. 261) with emphasis on texture and the structure of surface or Alexandra Exter, Composition, 1914 (Chadwick, 150, pg. 266).   Dora Carrington was contemporary to these artists, but continued using a more realistic painting style, concentrating on the form and focusing on more figurate masculine and feminine elements using modern techniques like extreme cropping and luscious colors on her portraits.  One of her most famous paintings is the portrait of Lytton Strachey, dated 1916 having an almost three dimensional effect. On her woodcuts and murals, Carrington seems to be influenced by English and European folk art, all of them stylized, with delicate motifs and organic forms.

  It was not until 1990’s when the art historians and critics turned their eyes towards  the visual work of Carrington. Dora Carrington legacy is not only visually strong and unique in style, but also vernacular to understand her life and the life of other artists’ part of the Bloomsbury group that shaped many upcoming artistic movements.

   

  References

1. http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artists/dora-carrington-868
2. http://www.mantex.co.uk/2009/06/19/carrington-a-life-of-dora-carrington-1893-1932/
3. http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/artists/Dora-Carrington
4. http://research.hrc.utexas.edu/includes/EAD2PDF.cfm?ead=00023.xml
5. http://www.leninimports.com/dora_carrington.html
6. http://movies.netflix.com/WiPlayer?movieid=60021616&trkid=8133737&t=Carrington
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dora_Carrington
8. http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/artists/Dora-Carrington
9.  http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/ARTcarrington.htm
10. Chadwick, W. Women, Art and Society, Thames & Hudson, fourth ed., 2007.

The Horse Fair and The Governess, Victorian Paintings

During the Victorian era (1837-1901), England went through a period of prosperity, economical progress and political stability.  The English middle class emerged and rapidly grew on number and strength, favoring women access to more education.  Their training was limited and inferior to men under the perception that too much knowledge “decreased femininity” (Chadwick: 175).  Cultural values embraced romanticism and mysticism, being purity and modesty highly desired qualities of women, forbidden women from art classes where nude males were used.   Many religious movements bloomed during this time among them Puritanism, Quakerism and the Evangelicals and Anglicans promoted their philosophies, all highly moralistic, placing women more morally superior than men, thus their responsibility was to manage the home.   Although some more liberal than others, religion promote what is known as “The Cult of True Womanhood”  a system promoting  purity, piety, domesticity and submissiveness of women of upper and middle class.    This system was challenged during the mid-nineteen century, time when men were unable to maintain their families allowing middle class women to join the work force in both England and The United States. (Chadwick:  176).

Economic challenges  in both England and the United States brought an opportunity for women’s education and training and colleges opened for women who wanted to become governesses and art teachers around mid-century (Chadwick: 179).   Governesses were a common role of single women in England middle and upper class households.  In general, governesses were women of fewer resources who became employees to help their families.  They were responsible of educating the children and most of the time lived in the house, separated from their families but her social status was ambiguous and was treated more like a servant and disliked by the rest of the servants because she was more educated than them.   These women were the subject of works by artist, among them the British Rebecca Solomon (1832-1866).   Solomon   paintedThe Governess in 1854.   (Chadwick: 93, pg. 186).

The Governess painting depicts a typical scene of a Victorian home, where the mistress of the house is dressed on a delicate pastel dress and engaged in a conversation with her husband by the piano, while the governess, a young women also, is dressed in black and is teaching or reading with her pupil.  The contrast of the expressions of the two couples demonstrates the conscious and critical eye of the artist depicting social differences.  The well-to-do couple gazes at each other, in an idyllic way while the governess has a sad, desolated view and the child is resting on her, like if she was another piece of furniture of the house.

On the painting, the women are facing each other backs and there is a relatively large space separating both of them.  The painting is structured with a neoclassical triangular composition, reminiscent of the religious depictions of Holly Families.  The triangle lines are given by both women heads and  the lines converge on the top outside the painting.   The women are both representing the Victorian values of purity, piety, domesticity and submissiveness mentioned above but in two different roles.  Regal red and the coral dress contrast the black suit of the man and the governess, depicting different roles in the house.  Although the governess is young, she is not supposed to show elements of femininity since her role is to educate the children.   The expression of the governess is in a way, sentimental and humanistic, and the artist demonstrates a critical conscious depicting this woman who doesn’t have a secure place in this house or in society. (Chadwick: 185).  When analyzing the grid of this painting, it is important to notice r that the face of the governess is the focal point of the painting.

In contrast with Solomon genre painting, Rosa Bonheur 1822-1899) painted The Horse Fair in 1955.  (Chadwick: 96, pg. 191). The Horse Fair depicts a typical scene of men grouping horses.  Men are either walking or riding, but all are attempting to “control the animals.”  There is a lot of energy, power and strength displayed by both men and animals.  Starting from the left, there are two males holding a white horse, next there is a man walking a horse and right on the center of the painting, a man on a black horse is beating a white animal that looks agitated.  Another man is either holding the bridal of the horse being punished or beating the horse on the nose. This horse has a strange twist of the neck and terrified eyes and the man walking, seems to keep an eye on the horse and at the same time keeping up with this horse movement.  Continuing to the left, there is a man riding a horse and holding the bridals of another one, like if he was training them to walk in pair.  On her book Women, Art and Society, Chadwick states that animals were used to depict women’s vices and virtues and that there was an encouragement for women to “rise above their animal nature.  (Chadwick: 192).  If Bonheur identified with the animals on this picture as some art historians belief, she challenged the stated Victorian principles of submission, virtue and domesticity.

The Horse Fair by Bonheur was one of the most “loved and known” paintings of the nineteen century (Chadwick: 194).   During this time, an open debate about animal rights started in England which was correlated with the control and abuse of women’s bodies in a patriarchal society.   Images of abused animals were metaphors of the current women’s situation and Bonheur paintings are intrinsically related to this response.  The control of animals and women by male challenged the status quo of male domination.  Bonheur refused to paint the typical feminine genre of painting, focusing on wars and country day life.  This painting by Bonheur can be seeing as with many layers of social commentary, using symbolism, in this case horses and their domestication.  With a horizontal composition, Bonheur integrates religion, male use of power and the beauty, character and strength of the horses, depicting not only a real situation of the horses but indirectly, the domestication suffered by women at the time.   Even if the artist just wanted to paint historic and country life typical scenes (without any social commentary), her knowledge of animal anatomy and her painting style  was so strong and particular that she turned into one of the most recognized and admired animal painter in history (Chadwick: 194).

In conclusion, with two styles very different, both, Solomon and Bonheur were nineteen century artist of great talent and sophisticated painting techniques that not only created master art pieces but also depicted historic scenes and added a social commentary element to their art.  They both painted established roles of women and men by society, and contributed to make the women’s discrimination more visible, within the romantic style of this era.  Bonheur had a unique style and she rebelled against established roles for women painters while Solomon opted for a more conservative style, clearly accepted for women painters during the Victorian era.

 

Michal Rovner and Rachael Whiteread

Michal Rovner’s  Michal Rovner. Makom I.  Installation at Chatsworth House, Great Britain. 2007 and Rachael Whiteread Place (Village). 2006-08 are sculptural works done during the same period.   The approach of both artists to complete the mentioned projects is also very different.    Makom I was the first outdoor sculpture by Rovner.  It was built with a team of Israeli and Palestinian stonemasons of various faiths and origins.  The materials used were stones of destroyed Israeli and Palestinian houses, collected from Jaffa, Jerusalem, Galilee, Hebron, and Bethlehem among others by the artist.  Since the stones had different sizes, the artist opted to accommodate all sizes, making them fit without cutting them.  Makom I have two small windows to peek inside the structure.  On the walls, a ghostly figure that stretches and travels from wall to wall (1).

Place (Village). 2006-08 by Rachael Whiteread consist on about two hundred handmade English doll houses, all of different styles, the artists collected over the years.    The artist placed the houses on a hillside, emulating an urban community as if it was seeing at night.  The installation is in a dark room and  the houses are all illuminated and empty.  Overall, there is a sense of place.  Each house has a story to tell, but emptiness inside talks about the ghostly memories, unknown, forgotten (2).

Both artists deal the idea of history, unknown stories.  In the case of the Israeli artist, together with bringing up the concept of lost memory, she raises contemporary political issues by using materials from both sides of the conflict and mixing them to build one single building.  She also add the social element of labor:  all working together to build something and the fact of using the stones as they were found, adds the element of adaptability, of finding a way to fit all the pieces.   I feel this is a very strong political body of work that raises questions about the ongoing conflict of Israel and its neighbors and placing the buildings in the middle of European cultural centers or in the US, also talks about the roll these countries have with the conflict.  Rovner works on construction and deconstruction of spaces,  shipping stones from her home country  in this case to London and the stones are metaphors of the unheard stories, the continuous attempt to settle deals, the broken promises, the always presences of Europe and US and their complete useless and fair help to the people of these countries.

The doll houses, are items collected by the artist, I wonder if that is considered ephemera or more craft items of unknown makers.  It is a reference to the anonymous artists, but more to the empty spaces.  The houses are illuminated inside, but the outside is dark creating a reverse negative/positive space.  The houses didn’t have furniture, but some of them had decorations on the walls or carpets, like leaving traces of existence.  The buildings are different, creating a sense of different classes and the viewer is invited to pick into the individual rooms of a house and move the following one.  It is in a way a form of spying intimate places.  The artist addresses how spaces are occupied and invites the viewers to reflect on their urban experiences.  The dark surrounded is a manifestation of the emptiness of the outside world.  The empty houses immediately make me think on the recent foreclosure crisis; the fears of losing a home and the dreams of having one.

Thus, using installation or more sculptural approach, both artists address contemporary issues our members of society deal.  They both bring in a very effective, daunting way the factor of tragedy, of unexpected loss, of change.  Ultimately, both works invite the viewer to reflect about the concept of losing or dreaming about a “home.”

References

1.

http://www.jewishjournal.com/arts/article/israelis_makom_sculptures_merge_art_and_archaeology_20080425

2. http://www.artdaily.com/index.asp?int_sec=11&int_new=26710&int_modo=2#.UbEyKECshcY

http://www.artiscontemporary.org/artist_detail.php?id=52

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kc3m5sRRnq0

Lorna Simpson and Jenny Holzer

Conceptually, the work of  Lorna Simpson and Jenny Holzer are very different. Although both artists address cultural issues related with gender, race and culture, Lorna Simpson explores more the ethnic divisions, mostly  between black and white people.  The visual imagery on Simpson’s prints are more relevant than the text.  To me Simpson’s text is an effective complement to the image while for Jenny Holzer, aphorisms are the main focus of her art.  Simpson demands an intimate view of her work.  On her felt images, she invites the viewer to get closer, to look for the hidden details of the panels and then to read the text.  This series, like many other works by Simpson, like 15 mouths, 2001 small size photographs (8×10″) with a small legend on the bottom demands more intimate attention from the viewer. On Lorna Simpson body of work, identity and visual appearance questions are related to the text using bricolage of images and words.  For Holzer, bricolage happens with the way she disseminate her ideas using public spaces, raising social awareness and juxtaposing her “truisms” to the commoditized world we are living nowadays.

I feel Holzer short statements are more universal, than Simpson’s  lines of text or words. The fact of seen the text alone, on a large neon display and public view,  make them belong to the whole society.   Holzer collects cultural sayings and perceptions and return them back to the public, raising questions about its meaning. She creates dialogue over the abuse of advertising and current socio-political issues; inviting the public to think and question the “taken for granted” truths that are frequently thought but rarely verbalized or discussed.   Contrary to Holzer, I find Simpson’s text more personal, addressing the artist opinions, personal perception o memoirs.

I rather read Holzer text than see huge advertising billboards and I find her work very intriguing,effective, political and strong, but I enjoy much better the photographic, felt works and other series of Simpson. I guess I find more effective  the combination of image and text attract me more than just the text alone.

http://lsimpsonstudio.com/exhibitionimages08.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GbYRaVyl9M&feature=related&pos=0

http://vernissage.tv/blog/2007/03/01/lorna-simpson-whitney-museum-of-american-art/

On Nudes by Women, Valadon and Modersohn-Becker

Suzanne Valadon Reclining Nude, 1928s is one of various nudes Valadon painted of women.   I respond to Professor Reid analysis of Reclining Nude, especially in regards to the claustrophobic environment surrounding the sitter, her almost indifferent or exasperated face, making eye contact with the viewer and her body language.   I am drawn to the vertical line crossing from her eyes, breast, and elbow and then the crossed legs.   There is an almost straight angle from the hand holding the towel to the head. This angle embraces her soft stomach and the line of the crossed leg covers her sex. The soft light on the belly balances the white or light piece of clothing and frames  a triangles from knee to rear and belly back to her knee.   This light piece of clothing to me has a meaning beyond being used by the model to dry herself.  I feel it is a symbol of how she is either protecting herself or separating  her  most  intimate parts from the viewer, and in a way, the commercial, on this case, the sofa.  It’s like if the painter let the purest,  the most desirable to see (by the male gaze)  parts of the model’s body be touched by a clean piece of fabric.  The painting also left me wondering  why the towel is not spread all over the sofa and thinking  that it might be placed as a symbolic isolation of more intimate things, like a menstrual period or an after sex scene. I think this is the most intriguing and sensual element of this composition.   As if the woman was more comfortable letting a plain, impersonal, clean item touch her most private parts vs. the mundane sofa, used by any guest.

On Mother and Child Lying Nude by Paula Modersohn -Becker, the artist used a different approach to  the representation of the female body  as natural element.   Modersohn-Becker  depiction of a naked woman resting with her child, embracing the child in a peaceful position, seems to  accept, placidly, her natural role of women as creatures to preserve the human species.  The viewer can appreciate the woman for far away, enter the composition and almost lay down next to her and the child, as if she had space for  more humans you next to her.  The focal point of the composition is the relationship of woman and child while in Valadon’s painting, there are many elements that make reference to the rest of society and even class, like the sofa’s style and the materials used for building it..  Modersohn-Becker paint is seeing from above, an angle that empowers the viewer, not the sitter, while on Valadon’s painting, the woman is making eye contact with the viewer, eye to eye, at the same level.

The American born Romaine Brooks was another contemporary of Valadon specialized in portraits.  On White Azaleas or Black Net, 1910 the painter depicted a frail nude woman almost part of the sofa background.  The azaleas on the right are larger than the torso of the woman and the lighter tones used on the flowers make them the focal point of the piece.  The positive-negative space of the background dominates the painting has an interesting from, as if there were larger lips at the level of the sitter’s breasts.  This painting has a different content from the strong women Brooks painted.  Chadwick refers to this painting as part of a series of  paintings by Brooks, eroticizing female bodies from a lesbian perspective ( Chadwick, 300).  With a pair of modern eyes rather see  this painting as a social commentary of the perception of women at the moment.  In contrast with Valadon’s  women, this one is passive, submissive and languid, and the surrounding takes over the tiny woman.  Even the title of the piece did not included the mod

Valadon Reclining Nude might or might not be a political piece, but  there is no doubt in my mind that Louise Bourgeois Femme  Maison, 1946-47 is a patriarchal depiction of women:  jwomen just good enough for thinking about  household issues  with arms so small and disproportionate  that are useless while her sex is clearly defined.  Valadon painting made me think and reflect about all the details of parts of the composition, the content, the colors and the approach the artist had with this piece.  To me is a mysterious piece while Bourgeois drawing is direct one, clearly addressing  a socio-political issue directly, like “smacking on the face” the viewer. Bourgeois piece was made about twenty years after Suzanne Valadon painted Reclining Nude.  Times were gradually changing for all women, including women artist and  Louise Bourgeois style was very different from Valadon style, with a more surrealist influence and what nowadays will be labeled feminist.

Sonia Delaunay and Blaise Cendrars La Prose du Transsibérian et de la petite Jehanne of France

I see the book by Sonia Delaunay and Blaise Cendrars La Prose du Transsibérian et de la petite Jehanne of France as a collaboration between Sonia Delaunay and Braise Cendrars. In other words, this piece has three elements: an illustration, a poem and the book layout, in general an artist´s book.  The prints were integrated a  whole piece, where everything  on the same page is not to be separated.  The text, the map and the painting are combined to be seeing together, to be read next to each other.   The book is a continuous piece, 79” long by 15” wide presenting the poem of Cendrars about a journey  from Russia on the Trans-Siberian Express to Paris during in 1905 by a young boy during the Russian Revolution .  It is a sad poem, where devastation and war scenes are described and emphasized by the questions of the boy’s companion, Jehanne.

The book was printed on four sheets and folded as an accordion book.  Twelve different fonts in different sizes and colors were used, addressing movement and moods (see whole book below).  The colors of the text are also meant to reflect the poem´s  content.  A detail both artists decided together was that the book was going to be an edition of 150 copies.  The length of all of them together is equivalent to the height of the Eiffel tower, considered a symbol of modernism at the time.  It is believed that only 60 books were printed and that only 30 exist right now.  One of this book  was part of an exhibition at MOMA New York called Inventing Abstraction (1910-1925) ending  April 2013.

Thus, since the book was visualized by both artists as what they called simultaneisme (simultaneous book); to me it was created to be seeing together . I see it as a whole: an indivisible piece.   I am not certain if the term “illustration” has a connotation of “inferior work” for Harris and Nochlin, but the abstract paintings on the left of the paper and the abstract shapes on the right, guide the viewer throughout the text, becoming an ïllustration¨or complement¨.  I am also wondering also how does it work in art if the poem was written first and Sonia red it and then created her art?  Why is her work inferior if that happens?  Also, given than the colors used for the painting are somehow used on the text, there was an enormous conceptual coordination between these two artist.   Sometimes, I wonder if critics get cut into the terms, or feminist into the weight of elements of a collaboration and to me, this seems one of those cases.  Actually with this specific case, I am more intrigued by the use of the Eiffel tower, depicted by Delaunay on red (see detail on picture below) given that her husband, the painter Robert Delaunay, painted a red Eiffel Tower in 1911.  This is a detail that makes me wonder about the influence of her husband on her work.  I imagine many artist paint the Eiffel tower as a symbol of modernism, an in red with the ongoing Russian Revolution but given that both, husband and wife used the same symbol with the same color for different paintings, create more questions for me than the use of the term “illustration” for her collaboration with the poet. I don’t know of an explicit term for this kind of artist’s book of if calling “painting” the left side of the piece, “poem” the center and “interpretation” the right side will be a better way to describe this work.  I don’t see a relevant point from Harris and Nochlin to avoid the term illustration since the poem was created first and Delaunay created the left side inspired on the poem.

Finally, to support my point, I would like to bring out  following  translation of Cendrars about this project.  Here is the quote, …”All of life is nothing but a poem, a movement… Here is what I wanted to say. I have a fever. And this is why I love the painting of Delaunay:  full of sun, of heat, of violence. Mme Delaunay has he such a beautiful book of colors that my poem is more saturated with light than is my life…” (3).

1.       1.http://www.moma.org/interactives/exhibitions/2012/inventingabstraction/

2.       2.http://www.moma.org/visit/calendar/exhibitions/1291

3. http://www.mhpbooks.com/the-first-simultaneous-book-on-display-at-moma/

Bonheur’s paiting and men-animals’ relationships

Discussing the symbolism of men and animals on Bonheur paintings is a  fascinating topic for me since I grew up riding horses and dealing with agriculture and farm animals. After reading this week chapters, I have been looking at both paintings very careful and they have made me reflect on the whole animal domestication issue and the historic perception of women roles in society.

The Horse Fair by Rosa Bonheur (1822-1899) depicts a typical scene of men grouping  (some  domesticated, some partially or not domesticated yet.  Men are either walking or riding, but all are attempting to “control the animals.”  There is a lot of energy, power and strength displayed by both men and animals.  Starting from the left, there are two males holding a white horse, then one man walking one horse and right on the center of the painting, a man on a black horse beating the white animal that looks agitated and a man either  holding the bridal of the horse being punished or beating the horse on the nose. (This is a classic control technique since the horse’s nose is one the most sensible pointsj).  This horse has a strange twist of the neck and terrified eyes and the man walking, seems to keep an eye on the horse and at the same time keeping up with this horse movement.  Continuing to the left, there is a man riding a horse and holding the bridals of another one, like if he was training them to walk in pair.

To me, Bonheur relates to the horses, controlled by men in many ways, from using bridals on the left, saddles, brutal force and a detail we cannot forget, the tails of the dappled grey horses on the front: the mae with the tail wrapped and sticking out high.  In order to keep the tail high, it was common to practice a very painful surgery cutting the muscles under the tail so the tail cannot go low and the animal is forced to maintain the tail continuosly in “what was is considered elegant when showing a horse.”  Looking at the placement of elements, the focus of this painting is the mare on front; the one being walked by the man on the other dappled gray horse.  (See proportions of both paintings below.)

Another element added by the painter is a wide range of  horses’ dizesdizes and colors. There are horses of pretty much all existent colors, all controlled by men. This detail makes me wonder if this is a racial commentary by the artist.  Equally, the church at the distance seems to be an observer of the scene and start the barrier for the horses on the back, continuing with the natural fence built by the trees on the line.  Could it be that the trees were painted depicting the perception of nature and domestication, and are the “gender barrier” perceived at the time?   A response to the above question is that the animals are strong, elegant, beautiful, displaying their natural brio, but held under control.  The color palette is warm,  earthy and the energy or violence (depending on how we see this painting) is given by the action depicted on the painting.

When comparing The Fair Horse with  Plowing in the Nivernais:  The Dressing of the Vines ca.1848, I have the same feeling of an association of the painter with animals.  Plowing in the Nivernais  depicts a scene more melancholic and in a way hopeless, displaying the climax of domestication on an everyday typical countryside.  To me, oxen are  the ultimate expression of control of an animal and on this painting, it seems like  the routine of their work is sandwiched between the soil and sky, on one line, the same vision, the established order, like a metaphor of structures and rules to follow. The anatomically correct animals form a “domestication line”  from the front plane towards infinite; a line of hard work and abuse of anatomically correct animals.  (I am guessing she replaced the studies of human anatomy with the available and allowed observation of animals).   Another detail I found amusing is the second part of the title of this piece: The Dressing of the Vines.  Why the Vines?  Is there a relationship with the culture of wine and male pleasure?  Why she uses the word “dressing” for the plowing or very preliminary steps of preparing the soil?

Both  Plowing in the Nivernais: The Dressing of the Vine and The Horse Fair paintings are very different and I found intriguing that on Plowing in the Nivernais, the topic of the paint is more the relationship of nature, animal and although there are two small male figures, the one who is raising the stick is the one who attempt to have control over the animals as well as the plowed soil while  on The Horse Fair it is depicted a clear struggle for power.

On Barbara Kruger’s Image

Barbara Kruger’s image untitled, known by the words included on the image “We won’t play nature to your culture” addresses the cultural perceptions of women in many ways.

The clearer  direct message,  “smacking on the face” the viewer starts with  the upside down position of the head with the leaves covering the eyes.  The hair is partially immersed in what seems to be grass and strong shadows around the eyes and head’s contour make the factions of the sitter stronger.  The image is presented as a magazine illustration, with cut out text emulating mass-media advertising; representing the relationship between women and culture.  The text placement on both extremes of the image, together with the black and white fonts and background, depicts an antagonism between “we” and “you,” and “nature” and “culture.”

The strong cut out of words, its alignment and angles counter balances the organic forms of the woman face and the round shapes of the shadows.  The direction and framing of the photograph as well as the strong contrast of the image, creates visual tension when combined with the text.   The connection of nature and the historical association with domesticity and culture and men is to me, the ultimate meaning of this piece. When putting in context what we have read about art history on the text book, Kruger addresses culture as a social interaction, a mass-controlled phenomenon, historically reserved for men.

Something I love of Kruger images is the open ended meaning of her art.  I can read this image from many angles.  For me, this image represent a strong link between nature and women, growing totally embedded in nature, with her eyes facing nature (the back of the leaves is towards the public).  I see a serene, secure person, facing the environment (strong light and looking up to the front).  It might be seeing also as being buried; blind to her own nature, alias domesticity?)  I guess I don’t see nature and women together as a symbol of domesticity, or weakness,  on the opposite, to me, it is  a symbol of strength since no human being can survive without nature. This is also a metaphorical meaning of this image, very contemporary with all the concerns with the natural resources nowadays.

To me, Barbara Kruger is one of the strongest Postmodernist artists.  Kruger challenges the values of society and engages the viewer to think, ultimately to react.  With this image, the text, specifically the pronoun “we” unbalances the meaning, creating an open ending meaning.  She uses language to evoke responses of the audience and font type (in this case seems to me is the most commercialized sans-serif font type: Helvetica on black and white, she creates more impact.)

Women are the subject and the main reason of Kruger’s art.   Her images create dialogue and using irony, she changes the view we see ourselves (women, men and overall the audience.)  Barbara Kruger images “talk back to the audience” using the same fonts, styles and language used by mass media.

Even though her art was made during the 80’s, they have a timeless characteristic.  By using black and white, everyday images and appropriation to represent aspects of our society, she reflects about change since the images can be read in many ways and can be applied to a variety of situations.

Text plays an important role on Kruger’s imagery. For this image, I found 3 variations. I think the image #1, although is the photograph, the text doesn’t seem to match the style of Barbara Kruger. It is dramatically different from all of her work; it looses power with such a small text.  #2 is the image the artists created and  #3 was an image the adapted for a book cover by adding Kruger name.  I layout of the text.

To me, #2 is the strongest image because of the text size, the colors and placement of the text.  I feel it fits better with the body of work of this great artist.

Hildegard of Bingen

Listening  chants awoke my curiosity for more information about this captivating Medieval Intellectual.  Reading about her art work and her contributions to natural science, music and poetry, I cannot think on a more appropriate word than genius to characterize her.  Something amazing is that she was also a leader, a daring critic of the church as well as the secular Kings.  Although she had a noble lineage, she became well-respected among the church authorities, by her own merits, being able to verbally convey her visions without causing a lot of commotion (at least recorded). Of special interest to me are her treaties of women health (she refers to remedies for menstrual cramps and even explain the sexual pleasures felt during intercourse by a woman and the Violent Imagery of her visions of the Apocalypses (1).

I can barely imagine how was seeing at this time that a woman was the vehicle of God to transmit all the complex visions she was able to convey to the Pope and the rest of the Church leaders (all male).    

It is  very interesting that on her imagery, she represents the Church as a woman.  A woman in trouble and it is that woman (the church) the one who will give birth to the anti-Christ (see attached image). This, one of her most audacious visions representing the birth of the Anti-Christ, where the church is raped and the born creature is both her son and her seducer. (2)

 I don’t claim to understand the meaning of this image, but I feel temped to see an ultimately powerful woman, able to control everything, both poles good and evil? The one how had control of both situations? This final idea is the one that keeps coming back to me.

She also claimed she was a weak woman, but at the same time, conveyed the most controversial ideas and lived a long live (81 years) maintaining her popularity. I find she was extremely smart and knew how to play the Medieval policies (both secular and religious.)

References

1.      1. http://www.academia.edu/494645/Contextualizing_Hildegard_of_Bingens_Violent_and_Apocalyptic_Imagery

2.     2.  https://medievalchristianityd.wikispaces.com/file/view/4126576.pdf

3.     3.  http://www.medievalists.net/2013/01/13/the-representation-of-antichrist-in-hildegard-of-bingens-scivias/

4.    4.   http://www.oxfordgirlschoir.co.uk/hildegard/scivias3synopsis.html

5.     5.  http://www.feministezine.com/feminist/HildegardVonBingen-FeministNun.html

O

Shrin Neshat

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOjqX4rgS9c

Shrin Neshat is one of the most poignant contemporary photographer and filmmaker.   Her photographs are very provocative depicting contemporary scenes in Iran, not so common for us.  As a member of her own culture but also immersed into the Western culture, she is able to present the viewer scenes that ar very common in Iran.  She has access to the intimacy of the family home, and she is well versed on the history of her country and respect her cultural heritage. Thus, she has created a visual narrative of cultural facts, traditions, violence and courage around the Iranian women.   All her photographs are political.  She feels a  responsibility presenting to the West the culture and religion of her country and at the same time, she addresses the military conflict and women cut in the middle of tradition and war.  

Her photographs present not only the culture, religion and separation of men and women in Iran, but  are also records of  the powerful presence women had during the past thirty years. One of the most interesting aspects of this artist is that she was born before Iran became radically Muslim.  She had hands on experience before the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran.   Iran is one of the richest countries in the world regarding petroleum, culture and history.  Before 1979, there were several religions practiced freely in the country.  Zoroastrianism was the main national religion, but today, the Iranian government report about 90% of Iranians are associated with the Shi’a branch of Islam.  The Ayatollah Khomeini changed the country, leading a revolution that changed the world.  For thirty years Iran have battled western leaders and have imposed a strict Muslim regime inside the country.

Millions of Muslims resented the western view of the Shah of Iran and Iran westernization, so they joined Khomeini to remove the Shah and women were critical part of this process.   The left also joined Khomeini with the revolution against the Shah.  Iranians voted by referendum to make Iran an Islamic Republic.   Women supported Khomeini  during the Iran-Iraq war since the regime opened opportunities for  them to work on the regime and their participation was critical, but gradually, the regime dismissed women and segregated them and imposed limitations on their education and government participation.  The Hijab was also imposed but at the same time, since the men were fighting, made women the family bread winners.  The Iranian Presidents after Khomeini  eased social controls and allowed more girls in schools.  Despite the struggles, women continued to gain strength and power including  a few women in parliament.  Today, women are a dynamic political force in Iran, despite the multiple obstacles encountered. Women are also openly talk against the social oppression and have been beaten up, tortured and jailed, but they continue with their grass root movement.  Still women are a changing force in Iran and they move between traditions, justice and religion.  It is a complicated society and perhaps it is hard for us to understand the polemic of women in a country with such a strong religious sentiment.  I feel Neshat imagery is very emotional and engaging since the photograph just show what is going on, without judgment.  The juxtaposition of ornaments, female models and weapons are symbols of what means living on a daily basis in countries all over the world.  Her images call for respect to other cultures.  I think this photographer and filmmaker is critical not only of the oppressors inside her country but also raises concern about how the Western world portrays other cultures.  I find her body of work very powerful. The following sentence of Neshat during a  TED presentation “Art is our weapon, culture is a form of resistance,” will be with me forever.

http://www.ted.com/talks/shirin_neshat_art_in_exile.html

Genious and Heroes

Addressing terms like “genius and “hero” to describe Great Artist though history, Whitney Chadwick and Linda Nochlin, pointed out the patriarchal social structures, well established way before Middle Ages,  as the root cause to just recognize male as producers of Great Art.  For Chadwick, before 1970s, art history was mostly controlled and written by males and terms like “originality, intentionality and transcendence are focused on male creativity.  Geniuses, “per se” were unique creatures, and the reverence towards an individual male artist would turn him into a hero.  Women were seeing as inferior because of the women status in society and the intimate and selective topics on art was neglected when compared with art of monumental scale or concept. Chadwick also addresses the relation of male paradigms of art and feminity as well as the smaller bodies of work done by female artists due to their combined domestic roles and art production. (Chadwick: 11).

For Nochlin, the term genius also has social structures, adding the religious element during the middle Ages.  A genius has a mystical characteristic given by God to just certain people.  Nochlin also addresses the lineage of many of the male artists recognized by history as genius. (Michael Angelo, Cezanne, Picasso, are examples of artist all with a fathers who were in the arts or crafts with an established name.  She also made a strong point about the access these artists had to their preparation, culture, studies, learning vs. their counterpart female artist who were banned from formal studios.  Nochlin also addresses the standards to praise genius (conscious, conceptual ideas, multiple innovations, timeless, almost divine) and therefore exclusively for males since women were considered inferior creatures.

Nochlin is very critical of some feminist addressing the misconception of what is art. On Nochlin words ”… the problem lies not so much with some feminists’ concept of what femininity is, but rather with their misconception – shared with the public at large – of what art is: with the naive idea that art is the direct, personal expression of individual emotional experience, a translation of personal life into visual terms. Art is almost never that, great art never is. The making of art involves a self-consistent language of form, more or less dependent upon, or free from, given temporally defined conventions, schemata, or systems of notation, which have to be learned or worked out, either through teaching, apprenticeship, or a long period of individual experimentation.” This is, to me the big difference between Nochlin and Chadwick where Nochlin embraces a more traditional view of what Great Art is.

Linda Nochlin addresses the social structures of power that have divided the male and female roles in society and how these structures were established by  a male power elite since Medieval Times.   For Nochlin, the concept of genius revolves around the mysterious, the unnatural “condition” Great Artists display since early years.   The connections of meaning and power are strongly related to the perception of genius, heroes, and have been re-in forced throughout art history by art historians, philosophers and psychoanalysts.

Through the preface and introduction of Women, Art and Society, the author cites various terms used to undermine the value of the artistic work of women.  Terms like “sentimental femininity, woman grace, “weakness of the feminine hand” (Chadwick: 24), feminine touch, effeminate and virile handling, feminine spit, weak, “women unsexing themselves”,  woman grace, feminine reason, casting arts in the form of feminine  have contributed to perceived art with a sexual difference.  Adding to this terms, race and culture made more difficult to women artist to strive for recognition, like in the case of the American sculptor Edmonia Lewis, who in 1863 had to request that her art would not be praised since she was “a colored girl (Chadwick 29).

Among broad concepts contributing to gender-based distinction of art was the division of Fine Arts and Crafts, which left many artists (not only women but also furniture designers, as an example) outside of what was considered Fine art.

Thus the revision of many feminist to art history has helped to review the established patterns established since Medieval Time to determine what makes Great Art.  Feminist have opened aspects like culture, race, and the problematic of post-colonialism and have raised the value of “Art in context vs. the pure male conceptual art.

References

Chadwick, W. “Women, Art and Society” Thames and Hudson, fourth ed., 2007.

Nochlin, Linda.  “Why Have There Been No Great Women Artist? (1971)