Author Archives: Blair Uhlig

Nikki S. Lee and polyculture

Posted on by
Reply

In Cathy Covell Waegner’s “Performing Postmodernist Passing”, the photographer Nikki S. Lee is highlighted as an example of ‘passing’ in visual media. By ‘passing’, Waegner means the ability of an individual to appear as a different race and integrate into that particular racial society. Waegner focuses on one work in particular, in which the Asian American Lee passes and poses as a black woman. Lee has other works in this series which Waegner does not discuss, but which I think are notable: she poses as a white woman in front of a confederate flag, a female stripper, a lesbian, an old white woman, a Hispanic woman, and a few others.
In her work, Nikki S. Lee truly exemplifies what Waegner explains as “polyculture”. Lee’s ability to change from one race to another so easily demonstrates that “the stereotypes used to determine socioethnic groups are encoded and foregrounded” (Waegner 225). The idea of separate and distinct ethnicities is inherent in multiculturalism, while polyculture suggests the porousness of ethnicity. As Lee demonstrates, the aesthetic (what someone looks like, where they are, how they dress, how they act) as interpreted by the viewer determines race.

The Problem with Simplifying Biraciality

Posted on by
Reply

In “Biraciality and Nationhood in Contemporary American Art”, Kimberly Pinder highlights contemporary artists who explore the complexity of multi-racial identity in the US.

In “Eros and Diaspora”, Kobena Mercer explores the sexuality aesthetic in the works of Rotimi Fani-Kayode.

For me, “Biraciality and Nationhood in Contemporary American Art” explored the main focus of this course thus far: how contemporary society constructs racial bodies and the artists who challenge those constructions. The popularity of multi-racial celebrities Tiger Woods and Vin Diesel (and, I would add, Dwayne Johnson and Jessica Alba in more recent years) combined with the often-glorified inter-racial historical relationships are truly the most prominent discourse on bi and multi raciality in the US. This had created the idea that race as a construction in the US will one day cease to exist, as everyone will be an ethnic mix.
But, as Pinder points out, that is just not the case. Contemporary representations and narratives greatly oversimplify the complexity of bi and multi raciality, often ignoring America’s history of immigration, slavery, and genocide. Artists such as Adrian Piper (as we have discussed in class), Lorraine O’Grady, and others discussed by Pinder have used their own biraciality in their works to critique the conceptions/perceptions of race in the US. Rather than glossing over this country’s racial history, these artists address its effects to explore the complexities of multi-racial identities.

Colonial Narratives, Artistic Confrontations

Posted on by
Reply

For this response, I will focus on the first half of Barbara Thompson’s “Decolonizing Black Bodies: Personal Journeys in the Contemporary Voice”. Thompson carefully explores the historical representations of black women as the venus, the odalisque, and as mothers while focusing on the ways in which black artists have confronted the colonial imaginations of black women through their own works.
Both colonial and post-colonial narratives have fixated on the body and purported sexuality of African and black women as a counter-narrative to white womanhood. Where the black woman was lustful, voluptuous, and unclad, the white woman was modest, demure, and pure. African and black artists such as Wangechi Mutu, Sokari Douglas Camp, and Emile Guebehi physically exaggerate the black female form in a variety of mediua. In doing so, they expose the colonial exaggerations of black women as “ethnographic specimen(s) and anthropological curiosities” (283) and disrupt the historical stereotypes.
In the nineteenth century, colonialism created fictionalized narratives of Africa “which reinforced racist visual and ideological landscapes” (284) through photography. This often focused on the idea of harems and the black female nude as a subject. Moroccan artist Lalla Essaydi uses photography to illustrate the construction rather than reality of photography by focusing on the sexuality alluded to veiled African bodies. Photographers Carla Williams, Malick Sidibe, and Alison Saar disrupt the colonial notions of black women by reclaiming the black nude female figure.
For me, the most interesting section of this reading focused on the colonial narratives (and contemporary artistic challenges) of African and black motherhood. The African mother was the cornerstone of colonialism and imperialism, while in the post colonial context, African and black mothers continue to be defined by the colonial interpretations and representations. The figure of a black woman holding a white child was a popular method of highlighting black women’s ‘natural’ caretaker instinct that ignored the experiences of these women. Artists Joyce J. Scott and Senzeni Marasela challenge the “Mammy” figure, dismantling the notion of the nurturing caretaker and highlighting the harmful effects on black women and their children. Recalling the typical pose of a black woman posing with a child in her lap, photographer Fazal Sheikh creates powerful portraits of Somali refugee mothers with their children. By collaborating with the subjects of his portraits, Sheikh empowers them to convey the reality of their experiences.

Capitalizing on Iranian Queers

Posted on by
Reply

In “From Homoerotics of Exile to Homopolitics of Diaspora”, Sima Shakhsari discusses the ways in which organizations, governments, and diasporic Iranian queers have used the political position of Iranian queers as a popular way of defending their interventions.

In the words of of Shakhsari, supporting and even celebrating the rights of queers in Iran has become “chic” with the widespread use of the Internet. The media and other organizations focus on Iranian queers as a way of justifying intervention, criticism, and the liberating agenda of Iran. Furthermore, those living in the Iranian diaspora (the world wide community of exiled Iranians and their family) have used the issue of Iranian queers to generate funding and interest in their agendas. However, Shakhsari highlights that only certain kinds of queers appear in the celebratory narratives of Iranian queers.

Censorship and Power

Posted on by
Reply

I found myself surprisingly moved by Alma Lopez’s “Silencing Our Lady”. As a female Chicana artist, Lopez faces incredible obstacles to being recognized as an artist. The criticism of her work Our Lady, and the demands of those attempting to censor this work, truly exposes the inherently patriarchal nature of the art world. Her response to attempted censorship further illustrates the dangers of censorship in the art world.
Lopez was told again and again by protesters that she did not have the right to interpret this specific cultural icon in the way she is portrayed in Lopez’s print. I would like to ask: who gave these people the right to declare who can or cannot interpret something through art?
The fact that the main organizers of this protest were male is indeed significant. Because of their status as activists and religious leaders, these men (Jose Villegas, Deacon Anthony Trujillo, and New Mexico Archbishop Michael J. Sheehan) they believe they have the right to censor Lopez’s art. Their notion is patriarchal: they, as male leaders, know better than any woman.
If these men and their followers had succeeded, the installation would have been removed from the exhibit, effectively censoring the print. But, as Lopez questions, how would this affect the people who found inspiration and meaning in her work? What does it mean if people in positions of power are able to silence the expression of marginalized individuals?
For myself, I was glad to learn that Lopez was not censored and that the exhibit continued as planned.

Marina Abramovic: Yes, It Is Art

Posted on by
Reply

In “Conceptual Art and Feminism”, Jayne Wark explores the ways in which the works of four artists (Martha Rosler, Adrian Piper, Eleanor Antin, and Martha Wilson) have challenged the limitations and values of Conceptualism.

In “Why Have There Been No Great Artists?”, art historian Linda Nochlin illustrates that historically the process of creating art depended not on innate talent, but on the social conditions in which the artist lived.

The HBO documentary “Marina Abramovic: The Artist is Present” follows the compilation and execution of Abramovic’s exhibit “The Artist is Present” at the MoMA; simultaneously, the film explores the controversial and emotional world of performance art and the performance artist.

In the documentary “Marina Abramovic: The Artist is Present”, Marina speaks with an interviewer about her artwork. She has always been asked about her performances: “Why is this art?” In thinking about performance, conceptualism, and feminism, the link between contemporary conceptual art and feminism must first be explored.
To begin, what is feminist art? Marina Abramovic is generally considered a feminist artist; she is even called “the grandmother of performance art.” Female identifying artists have largely been absent from art history, as discussed by Linda Nochlin in “Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?”. Nochlin concludes, and I agree, that art history as a profession is from the white, Western male viewpoint, and that social conditions rather than lack of talent prevented women from becoming artists throughout history. When considered in this way, feminist art is any art created by a woman.
But in addressing contemporary art specifically, why is conceptual art feminist art? Jayne Wark discusses how artists Martha Rosler, Adrian Piper, Eleanor Antin, and Martha Wilson used conceptualism to critically address the social and political movements of the 1970’s, especially the feminist movements. Their art carried political clout: they were not only creating art for aesthetic value, they were engaging with audiences to make people think. In order to do this, they moved outside the bounds of conceptual art, a move made necessary by the patriarchal nature of the art world.
In the same way, Marina Abramovic’s work is contemporary, conceptual, feminist art. She is a female artist who has gained international recognition (and notoriety) for her performance art. In her performance art, she criticizes: the conceptions of women, the body, society, love, relationships, family, and the individual. Thus her work has political and cultural resonance. So, returning to the original question “Why is this art?”: Abramovic uses performance to engage her audience and evoke thought. Like the women of the conceptual feminist art movement, she must step outside the ‘normal’ and ‘accepted’ views of art (the white Western male view) to gain recognition and acceptance as an artist.

The Negation of Black Artists, Exemplified by Ken Johnson

Posted on by
Reply

In her piece, Kellie Jones introduces us to “Now Dig This! Art and Black Los Angeles 1960-1980”, which focuses on the art of African-Americans in southern California. According to the MoMA PS1 website, the exhibit will be on view from October 21, 2012 to March 11, 2013. The African-American artists of southern California, along with artists of other ethnic backgrounds, helped to further develop and expand the styles and types of American Art, while also expressing the tension of the Civil Rights Movement and the history of black oppression.
However, New York Times art critic Ken Johnson claimed just days after the opening that the exhibit contained an inherent paradox: the style of these artists, particularly the assemblage style, was “appropriated by the artists in “Now Dig This!”. Rather than being expressions of style, Johnson interprets the majority of the exhibit as promoting solidarity among black Americans who experienced (and, in my view, continue to experience) the harsh struggles of race relation in the US. He essentially argues that this divides viewers, as only black Americans will be able to relate.
In all fairness, I am only a student and I have never seen this exhibit, but I cannot believe that Johnson’s critique is correct. To claim that only people of certain backgrounds and races can “feel” art, can appreciate art is inherently wrong. In my opinion, the purpose of art is very well expressed by Ruth Waddy’s idea of “social value”, as Jones describes. Art has the power to make people think, interpret, reflect, and appreciate.
As Jones demonstrates, black artists did often draw inspiration from the Civil Rights Movement, racial tensions and identity, and the violence and oppression of black Americans. But Johnson claims that the only value of this art is in its depiction of these inspirations. At best, this claim reflects a serious misunderstanding of American art, and at worst, this reflects the still-ingrained racist belief in the inferiority of black artists. The art of “Now Dig This” has definite historical value as the work of artists who were marginalized by their race. But it also reflects emerging styles of modern art, including assemblage, photography, and sculpture. To limit “Now Dig This!” as strictly historical in value negates the work of black women and men as artists.