Frances Muldoon
Deb Todd Wheeler, Advisor
Critical Theory Response, Research Paper 1
September 1, 2013
Lucy R. Lippard in From the Center said, “It takes imagination to transcend your sex.”
(90) Since the first residency I have been grappling with the ideas of
femininity and feminism and weather they can co-exist. I have also been
attempting to establish where my work stands in relation to these two loaded
words.
Femininity and
Feminism are two terms that are largely engrained in the readings from Critical
Theory One. Throughout this paper I will be discussing whether Femininity and
Feminism can co-exist in a single work of art. I will discuss first the
readings in terms of femininity and move on to explore feminist rather than
feminine art. Lastly, I will discus weather the two can co-exist.
Femininity, in the
past has been seen as a disadvantage in the art world. It has been given as
reason enough to dismiss someone or their particular work as frivolous. Or force
serious work to be seen as a mere hobby. This has created a fear in some women,
a fear that if their work appears too feminine that it, and they will be
dismissed. This is a fear that has recently come to the front of my own art. In
my previous work I made a conscious attempt to avoid being overly feminine. To
me this meant avoiding delicate lines or creating fragile looking work. My
color choices were mainly black and white with vivid colors appearing
occasionally. I made these choices without fully understanding why this was
important to me. I have now discovered that this was my attempt to hide my
gender from those who viewed my work. I strove neither for feminine nor
masculine work. I strove for androgyny. [1]
One aspect of femininity
that struck me in the readings was the idea of “The Lady Painter. ” (Nochlin
164) The idea of the lady painter is tied to the idea of femininity and what it
means to be a lady. Painting was considered to be a “suitable accomplishment
for the well-brought-up young woman.” (Nochlin 166) To this effect, women were
allowed to paint as well as draw, but only to a level of incompetence that
would not challenge the male artist around them, nor interfere with their first
priorities, house, husband and family. For women drawing was seen as even more
desirable as painting because it made no sound, no mess and could be left off
and picked up as often as need be. This is of particular interest to my work and
studio practice, which consists mainly of drawing. I would not considered the
drawings I do lady like, nor do they happen quietly, nor without mess and are
not left off and picked up as house and family demand. Still it is interesting
that drawing was seen as the best art form for high class, polite women in the
past. (Nochlin)
In stark contrast
to the quiet and lady like drawings and paintings of the past, is Lynda
Benglis, whom was discussed in Critical Theory One. Benglis created a series of
ads culminating in the image of herself nude, except for sunglasses and a giant
dildo. (Phillips 233) These ads, gone art, are feminist rather than feminine in
nature. Lippard states that “Certainly it was a successful display of the
various ways in which woman is used and therefore can use herself as a
political sex object in the
art world, and it was thus that the
series was generally understood by the audience to whom it was directed in the
first place- younger women artist. . .
.” (105) The image, while feminist, can be seen as distinctly unfeminine,
wearing a gigantic dildo remains something considered as an inappropriate action
for a woman in our society. This unfeminine advertisement, was dismissed as
vulgar by some, proving that there is a narrow line between ultra feminine and
distinctly unfeminine, in which women’s art should
lie in order to be generally taken seriously. It was however, understood by its
intended audience. (105)
As discussed, art
may be feminine, although historically not taken seriously. Art may also be
feminist in nature and considered un-feminine and subsequently may not taken
seriously by some. Now I will address the question, can art be feminine and
feminist at the same time. The answer I have found is yes. Judy Chicago proves
that femininity and feminism can co-exist in a single piece of art.
Judy Chicago
proves this in her piece entitled The
Dinner Party. Chicago uses materials and techniques that were previously
decidedly feminine, stitching, china painting, and the like and used these to
provide a feminist perspective and voice to women whose stories, for
generations went untold. In making the Dinner
Party, Judy was able to go through history and honor women both real and
legendary, giving voice and vision to their lives which were otherwise
forgotten or covered up.[2]
(Fabozzi 318)
Chicago gives
voice to my own concerns as a woman artist when she concedes, “Classically trained as a fine artist, I felt
somewhat uneasy with my interest in decorative arts.” (Fabozzi 319) Chicago
admits to feeling as if her work would be undervalued if she uses techniques
previously conceived of as only women’s hobbies – a thought that has entered my
mind as well. Her symbolic choices in medium, plates, table setting, table as
well as embroidering and china painting is representative of being historically
feminine.[3]
Her message was to “reflect both women’s achievements and their oppression.”
(Fabozzi 321) Here Chicago involves the positive and negative aspects of women’s
history, which can be seen as an inherently feminist pursuit. Through this
piece she also elevates what were once thought to be mere crafts and hobbies to
the status of high art. It is for these reasons I am able to conclude that
feminine and feminist art can inhabit a single work. [4]
The idea of
femininity and feminism is one I am still grappling with in my work. However I
now know that it is possible for them to co exist in others’ work, and therefore
the possibility for them to coexist in my own work now seems tangible. I am
learning to embrace wherever my art leads me, weather it is in a feminine,
feminist or a direction that is a combination of both. I will keep Judy
Chicago, Lynda Benglis and the “lady painter” in mind as I continue with
research and my studio work.
Works Cited
Fabozzi,
Paul F. "Judy Chicago Excerpts from The Dinner Party: A Symbol of Our
Heritage (1979)." Artists,
Critics, Context: Readings in and around American Art since 1945. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2002. 318-30. Print.
Lippard, Lucy R. From the
Center: Feminist Essays on Women's Art. New York: Dutton,
1976.
Print.
Nochlin,
Linda. "Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?/The Lady's
Accomplishment." Women, Art, and
Power: And Other Essays. New York: Harper & Row, 1988. 164-68. Print.
Phillips,
Lisa. "The Ascendance of Alternatives/Feminism." The American
Century: Art
& Culture, 1950-2000. New York: Whitney Museum of American
Art in Association with W.W. Norton, 1999. 230-35. Print.
[1] Lippard proclaims, “Art is androgynous.” That male
artist must have some female in them and women artists must have some man in
them. The danger in this ambiguity is in not knowing, or loosing your own
identity. This idea has become a turning point in my work, pushing me to
embrace who I am as an artist, an individual, and as a woman and not be limited
by the ideas of androgyny, femininity or masculinity. (Lippard 90-92)
[2] “Chicago’s goal for The Dinner Party was to celebrate women’s achievements and to call
into question the marginalization of these achievements throughout history in a
symbolically powerful way.” (Fabozzi 319)
[3] Judy discusses the pain she feels for the china painter.
Women who to her were “squandering their talent on tea cups.” (321) While I do
agree that their talents would have been better served on large scale paintings
perhaps, in this statement it seems Chicago is devaluing the work they are
doing, only to re-appropriate it in the end. (Fabozzi)
[4] The Dinner
Party, although conceived, as an individual project became a collaborative
one. This is an aspect, which could also be seen as feminine, women
congregating together in knitting or quilting circles, but could also be seen
as feminist. Women congregating to protest and demand change. I feel both
aspects are present.
No comments:
Post a Comment