Before I begin, let me just say that I have been thinking about feminism a lot as it pertains to art, my life, my art, and questioning it as a position, while trying to pin down the current wave of feminism in art and what this era of feminism is championing. These questions and subsequent examination has been more heavily motivated by the recent bouts of sexism that has been experienced by American women from male political figures campaigning for presidency and in congress, along with conservative media and personalities, and the scores of crap on TV that present women as tits and ass, bitchy, and materialistic. The conversation surrounding women's reproductive rights (specifically the right to affordable, effective birth control) has served as an impetus for a lot of women wonder where our equality has gone.
I have an idea for an installation that involves bringing a curvy floral line along a flat wall. Ideally this would be done in a hallway or alley, or even a room. Beyond the normal concepts I have been exploring in my work, the thought occurred to me that this could apply as feminist.
A room or alley or hallway, consists of flat, straight walls, a floor (also typically flat) and perhaps a ceiling. It is the epitome of minimalist shapes (the square, or rather cube in three dimensions) and completely geometric at that. Art History and current artist’s theory refer to minimalism as a male dominated movement, during a male dominated market. Beyond that it was a man’s artist that created the work; minimalists were not touchy-feely artist types, too sensitive to do anything but paint. Minimalists smoke and drank as they defended their canvases, the Ernest Hemingways of the art world.
In both painting and sculpture the forms that dominated were heavy, base, and weighted, if not geometric. I would argue that there is a masculine aesthetic in these chosen forms, the artists perhaps unaware or concerned with gender in their work. In fact I would say that it wasn’t pointed out as masculine until some women came along declared it so. (Maybe not declared, but these women offered something to compare it to that then created the notion of gender aesthetics and started to be applied to more historical artworks retroactively.)
The room, building, and other basic architectural forms are rather masculine in aesthetic by this argument. They are simple, geometric, with no applied detail. This is not an old way of building, either. There are warehouses, commercial properties, and business parks rising up all over the place in my neighborhood and this is what they are: simple, giant cubes. Colors are white, tan, beige, black.
To take this masculine form and to alter it, add to it, fill it would be changing it to feminine. In my idea the walls would still be seen through the piece, so does that make it neutral in gender, or consist of both? Is it now more overtly feminine because the female aesthetic is on top of the male? The act of taking over –domination- is considered a masculine act… so can you really call the piece feminine?
There are no real answers to these questions, unless you consider the work to which its applied (and only that work). In that way, I would be curious to see how people would consider my work. I don’t create with the idea of it being feminine or feminist. I merely follow through with the images that appear in my head… cultivate them to a point of reality and send them through a course of fine tuning based on visual aesthetics of yours truly. Though after writing this I am no longer able to say that I haven’t thought about it. In which case I would defend my work as being gender androgynous. I also do try to be mindful of the materials and construction of my work so that there is a balance presented.
No comments:
Post a Comment