Category Archives: Uncategorized

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.

Have the Political Movements Taken Their Dose of the Artistic Supplement?

Posted on by
Reply

“Chicana Art and Scholarship on the Interstices of Our Disciplines”, Guisela Latorres: The Chicana art movement tackled issues ignored by the political movement, such as gender, colonialism, and sexuality
“Silencing Our Lady: La Respuesta de Alma”, Alma Lopez: Our Lady stood as visual imagery provoking discussion about the gender relations, art, and religion of Chicana/o culture

Blog:
In class last week, we engaged in a skype conversation with Professor Leigh Raiford on her extensive work and our class material. At one point in the conversation, when she addressed the Black Civil Rights movement, she mentioned that “We don’t need another male leader like Malcolm or Martin; but an inclusive space for the diverse African diaspora.” I interpreted this to mean that the existing male leaders and patriarchal views are not necessary for the progress of the political movement. What is necessary is the acknowledgment of diverse identities within the movement. I found that her idea can also be applied to the Chicana/o movement that we are exploring this week. In the article “Chicana Art and Scholarship on the Interstices of Our Disciplines,” Guisela Latorres acknowledges that the Chicano/a political movement promoted nationalism, el movimento, and addressed issues of race and class within the ethnic group; but it ignored the topics of gender and sexuality within the community. Chicana artists, such as Alma Lopez, Juana Alicia, and Irene Perez, use their work to address these silenced subjects head on and provoke discussions on such controversial topics. These artistic female leaders mark a certain relationship between political movements and their corresponding artistic movements. Often the political movements, like Raiford tries to explain, take on a patriarchal perspective, addressing the shared marginalization of the group but ignoring the internal marginalization of women and other identities. This approach acknowledges the common identity of the ethnic group, rather than acknowledging the diversity of identities within the movement. Artistic movements, such as the Chicana art movement, tackle difficult subject matters which the patriarchal perspective of the political movement overlooks. In such a way, artistic movements supplement the progress of the corresponding political movement as a reaction to its ignorance. The irony of this situation is too hard to ignore as political movements attempt to address the ignorance of others yet ignorance can still exist in a political movement. Not all hope is lost as long as political movements take their dose of corresponding artistic movements, prescribed by Dr. Hinds.

Virgin as Virgen: Reinterpreting religion with Chicana feminist spirituality

Posted on by
Reply

Lopez: “Our Lady” interrogates the layers of the Virgen’s image and Chicana gender, sexual, and spiritual ideology.

Latorre: Employing the taboo of gender and sexuality, Chicana artists broke with the nationalist Chicano platform.

Response:

Latorre in her article Chicana art and Scholarship on the Interstices of our Disciplines remarks that the Chicana artists felt marginalized by the feminist women’s movement in the 1970s, which was supposed to be an inclusive platform for all women. However, as the movement increased and was thrust into the national spotlight, it excluded many identities and issues, resulting into a homogenous “middle class, white woman’s movement”.

Many of these excluded identities had different issues they wanted acknowledged which one movement would not suffice. For example, in Alva Lopez’s work Our Lady, she addresses discontent with feminist reinterpretations of religious images within the Chicano sphere. I thought the gender divide of the supporters and antagonists was interesting because it was so readily apparent, that women, Chicanas and professors admired her work, while men and religious leaders not only wanted her work taken down but tried to appeal to the courts and fast until their demands were instated. Lopez’s remark that people have no problem with naked depictions of Jesus and men in church, but that the bare breasts, stomach, and legs of women created a fury within the culture.

Our Lady Book cover

Our Lady represents the Virgen as a dynamic figure, a woman and ideology that many cultures interpret due to their own experiences, upbringing, and values. Because of this, her image has been reinterpreted and (re)presented to instill spirituality in the modern era. Some would argue that the proliferation of her image has debased her religious nature, and others would comment that it adds to the universality and prominence of her influence in daily life. Therefore, Lopez has every right to (re)present the Virgin as Virgen, a Chicana modern woman, unafraid of her sexuality and body in the face of misogynistic, fundamentalist beliefs.

O great now I am even more confused than before. Have there been any great female artists?

Posted on by
Reply

“Why have there been no great women artists?” is the question Nochlin’s attempts to answer in her argument, Nochlin offers several different approaches to answering the question: women have created great art but it has gone unrecognized, women do not have the intellectual art genius to create great art, intellectual art genius is nit innate to men but women have not been in the right circumstances to obtain intellectual art genius. I am not an expert on art and even after reading this article I am still not sure why there have not been any female equivalents to the likes Picasso and Matisse as Nochlin argues.

I do not want to accept simply that there really has never been a great female artist. However, I have never known of a female artist to be held in the same esteem as Michelangelo, Rembrandt, Picasso, or Matisse. Is the intellectual genius to create great art really only exclusive to men? I am not sure, but my pride certainly will not let me buy into that argument. Are women less great because the assumption is women have never created great art? Or is it more reasonable to say just because women and men may not be great in all things, the ability to not be great in one field does not negate their greatness. For example, as mentioned in the article the art of ballet it is commonly believed women are greatest at ballet dancing, but still even in this field some men have been declared great ballet dancer. But no woman ever had been titled a great women artist is the basis of Nochlin’s argument. .

I agree with Nochlin’s concluding argument that intellectual genius is not innate, and perhaps she is right when she argues women have simply not had the right circumstances to obtain the intellectual genius to create great art. However, even as I wrote that sentence my pride in my womanhood nudged and pulled at me once again and I am still not able to even really accept Nochlin’s final conclusion. This article leaves me unsettled, dissatisfied and perplexed.

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.

Are there now great women artists?

Posted on by
Reply

Sentences: 

Nochlin: There have been no great women artists not because no great women artists exist but because the white Western male viewpoint does not privilege the artistic contributions of women.

Wark: The time period in which Wark writes about (the 1970s) signaled a time when women artists such as Martha Rosler, Adrian Piper, Eleanor Antin, and Martha Wilson became skeptical of  “Conceptual” art and how they did or did not fit into it’s discourse.

Taylor: Beginning in the 1970s  in the age of feminism many female artists started to question the male dominance of the art world and thus create art which reflected this crisis.

Response:

The discussion in feminist art in each of the materials viewed for today’s class in many ways encompasses the spirit of the feminist movement. I say this because, during this movement beginning in the 1970’s women of color and their experience are often overlooked. I would argue that perhaps in these articles they are as well. For example, in the Taylor chapter on feminist art, Faith Ringgold the prominent African American artist was briefly mentioned. There was no mention, however, of how Ringgold took what was considered a folk and thus women’s art (quilting) and turned it into a high art form. Wark is successful in describing the work of Adrian Piper in connection with the other women artist she was describing as being a deviation from social norms. These artists who consider themselves to be conceptual artists worked and work tirelessly in order to dismantle certain discourses and make silenced voices hear. Linda Nochlin further expands upon this point when she discusses the fact that there have been no great women artists. At first glance it appears that Nochlin’s title appears to be inherently sexist, however Nochlin suggests that there has been no opportunity or possibility for great women artists to exist in a patriarchal society. Though Nochlin’s article was written in the 1980’s, I think many women artists still face the same struggles as they did thirty and forty years ago. For example, see Ken Johnson’s article about the exhibition “The Female Gaze: Women Artists Making Their World” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/11/arts/nov-11-17.html?_r=0

 

Women’s Art

Posted on by
Reply

Wark- Conceptual art and it’s emphasis on political criticism was represented in Adrian Piper’s work as artist and art; other female artists embraced this subject-object relationship, which was a larger representation of the objectification of their bodies and identities in society.

Nochlin- The argument of great women artists is composed and dictated by mainly white, heterosexual males; the issue is based on the definition and appreciation of great art by women artists.

Summary: This art, which rejected the traditional ideologies of conceptual art, which stressed control in the purest form. Their pieces embraced the unpredictable, unfiltered era of the 1970’s, with a volatile woman’s rights movement and lingering difficulties with the Civil Rights era. Artists such as Adrian Piper altered the idea of art, yet her political & social statements were of a new breed in conceptual art. Her work, and many others, struggled to gain legitimacy in the art field, which has been a universal struggle of race and gender. The reading makes an effort to provide context for their struggle, which still remains a problem for current women artists.

The Conundrum of Feminist Art (joint post)

Posted on by
Reply

Nochlin: Nochlin answers the inflammatory question “Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?” with an analysis of the sociocultural structures that privileged white middle-class masculinity and blocked the “Other” from excelling as an artist.

Wark: Despite its denigration of the individual, conceptual art provided an ironic inspiration for feminist artists such as Martha Rosler, Adrian Piper, Eleanor Antin, and Martha Wilson.

“The Artist is Present”: Abramovic boldly makes herself vulnerable in pieces like her most recent work “The Artist is Present” as she transforms her own bodily presence into art.

Taylor: Through new and different media, artists were able to rebel against the overwhelmingly male modernist culture and tackle issues such as race and gender.

Many feminist artists provide us with works which might seem cryptic to the audience when taken at face value. Why is it that those who ascribe to a movement meant to exhibit or even explain their identities present their artwork in a way that is less approachable for the viewer?

Feminist art created in the 1960s and 1970s emerged as a response to the ongoing feminist movement in America. Like many social and political movements at the time, the feminist movement ascribed to explain and support the identity of its cause, in this case women, for more progress in the nation. Although feminist artists created their works in response to the movement, the strategy that they use creates a challenge, rather than an easy way, for their audience to understand their identities. Their use of abstract, conceptual art in opposition to the male-dominated modernist movement creates a divide between their audience and their work of art. The mediums which the feminist artists use – installation, film, performance, and etc.- and the abstract way in which they apply them can prove isolating for many viewers.

Performances pieces created by the likes of Abramovic and Schneeman, which the average audience might take at face value as weird and unapproachable, can be a barrier to understanding, rather than providing a window into the experience of the “Other”. Such art can prove difficult to relate to, regardless of shared identities. If feminism truly is for everybody, as bell hooks asserts, then why provide the public with oft-cryptic, even bizarre works? Why not meet the audience halfway, so to speak, so as to bring the message to a greater number of people? Would doing so necessarily have to mean sacrificing the work?

– Tanekwah and Gabriella

Performance as a valid art form

Posted on by
Reply

Marina Abramovic in the documentary “The Artist is Present” is a tour de force, her preparation as an artist borders on a monastic rigor, fasting and engaging with the self conscious by blocking off the external world for a three month exhibit. The simple, not simplistic, ideology of her work is transparent but the inaction of herself and the viewer morphs into a therapeutic session, granting agency to the viewer to journey into various emotions all while confronted in her gaze. The gaze becomes attention, often neglected and transitory in many people lives, which is why this work has such a profound impact on visitors. Abramovic becomes a mirror, forcing the viewer to immediately becomes self reflective at the precise moment when they believe they will engage with the artist. The work is so powerful that museum visitors look toward one another, staring, stopping time by being truly present. Only when we are completely inactive, we are forced to assess ourselves, often surfacing emotions that we have suppressed. A mirror would be insufficient especially in this galley setting, because you are no removed for other patrons nor are you confronted with another person looking at you. I think this work is so successful because it is mediated by the individual and their emotions and their performance, for she is static. The performance is flipped on is head and the external  pressures and conceptions are removed once you sit in the chair.

Nochlin: Nochlin invalidates the excuses as to why there have not been great women artists and argues that the structures and definitions of great art were made by and associated with men.

Wark: Rosler, Piper, Antin, and Wilson linked art and politics of the 1960s and 70s to challenge dominant values and artistic traditions.

Abramovic: “The Artist is Present” marks a critical moment in performance art, not only engaging the viewer but making the viewer’s performance and vulnerability the work.

Taylor: Taylor gives background and artistic examples  that joined sexual politics and visual art during the feminist art movement in the 1970s.

Feminist Art

Posted on by
Reply

Wark: This article considers the ways in which conceptual art served as a foundation for four feminist artists.

Nochlin: In considering the question of why there are no great women artists, Nochlin places the blame on the systematic exclusion of women from social structures and institutions.

Abramovic: In her persistent attempt to pull performance art from the moniker of alternative, this documentary traces Marina Abramovic’s path to her MoMA retrospective and “The Artist Is Present” exhibition.

Taylor: By incorporating the discourse of gender into contemporary art, Taylor questions what it is to create, view and engage “women’s art.”

 

Throughout “The Artist is Present,” I am struck by the level of audience engagement that the artist and her work incite. Marina Abramovic’s presence at her own retrospective alludes to her consistent path toward solidifying performance art in the mainstream art dialectic. Exhibiting at a palatable and massively appealing museum like MoMA places her work not only within the field of contemporary and modern art, but opens it to a large scale audience and not merely an elite viewership. Throughout the retrospective, the artist’s emphasis on performance is evident as nude artists stand throughout the MoMA engaging each other or the audience through gaze and presence. Though the emphasis on nudity initially seemed sensationalist and divisive, it is the reaction and engagement inspired in each viewer that assigns the work its weight. By demanding this sort of engagement from her audience, the artist elicits the response, involvement and immediate reaction of her audience.

This notion is very much carried over into Ambramovic’s physical involvement in the exhibition. Within “The Artist is Present,” Abramovic embodies her work and exercises a subjective agency discussed within Jayne Wark’s analysis of feminist art. Her role within the 3-month long work is dual as artist and art work. At the core of this is a human connection. Abramovic, silent and focused, engaged each sitter and transformed her own body into a work of conceptual art, visibly evoking varied emotive responses from each sitter. The work is thus entirely subjective and depends upon the audience as the interaction between artist and audience serves as the core of the performance.