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.

My Argument for Feminist Art

Posted on by
Reply

Jayne Wark’s Conceptual Art and Feminism piece gives an overview of how four feminists artists have managed to aesthetically challenge the ideological and institutional structures that promote dominant and mainstream art forms.

In “Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists,” Linda Nochlin utilizes this “women-question” to inspire a collective reflection on the social environment that has consistently generated a body of legitimate art created exclusively by men, and absent of any so-called  “great” contributions from female artists.

“Marina Abramovic: The Artist is Present” chronicles the process of Abramovic and her team to prepare mentally and physically for the debut of her show at the MoMA.

What constitutes feminist art? My understanding is that feminist art is confrontational in its nature. Given the historical and present-day reality of our white, male-dominanted world, anything that does not measure up to this standard becomes, by default, inferior, dissident, and unlawful. This becomes the rationale that leads to our conventional belief that women are second-class citizens, rebellious, and sinful creatures. Though one could argue that the mere presence of a woman in a male-dominated social setting is considered defiant and thus a “feminist” action, after reading our course materials for this week, I’d like to situate my understanding of feminism as not only being confrontational, but stimulating self-refleciton of what we consider “normal” and “natural.”

I now reflect on many of our past classes, believing that just about any piece of artwork that disrupts/dislocates/dislodges the stereotypes that are so near and dear to our hearts is considered “feminist art”. Many would consider the female-identity of an artist a prerequisite for the creation of feminist art. However, I disagree. Feminism in itself is not even a monolithic movement. At it’s core, it calls for a disruption of the social and political climate that maintains the sub-ordinance of almost demographic, gender aside. I think of Jimmy Durham’s “Self Portrait” that we saw at the “This will have been: Art, Love, and Politics in the 80’s” exhibit at the MoMA as a contribution to feminist art. This was the cut-out canvas of what we would call the stereotypical American-Indian. As the piece is littered with judgmental phrases that society has projected onto his body, the viewer comes face-to-face with the ridiculous incongruity of our definitions of the American- Indian population. This piece stopped me in my tracks because it exposed me to this crime that I was complicit  in. Labeling my counterparts, boxing them into uni-dimensional, commonly polarized and contradictory identities was something that I was guilty of. If this piece were to come alive, if this piece were actually turned into an installation performance (with countless derogatory phrases and symbols placed all over the body of a man), it would still be me who looked foolish. I would still be the one feeling insecure. This is what feminist art means to me.

It throws me off balance. It forces me to see myself as a member of a society that strategically compartmentalizes and conquers certain populations for the benefit of an inconsequential few. It leaves me questioning what I really stand for in life. And this was exactly what I saw occurring in Marina Abramovic’s documentary. Her main piece at her MoMA exhibit left me in tears. Vicariously through the audience members who were bold enough to take on Abramovic’s gaze, I felt incredibly vulnerable, as if her gaze was deconstructing the countenance of not just me but humanity. She was exposing us to our wretched selves.  She was the mirror that we all so frantically avoid after we have engaged in some kind of illicit action. However, this time around, I was not being scolded for sneaking a treat from the cookie-jar, stealing my mother’s make-up, nor cheating on a lover, I was on trial as an accomplice for every transgression that this society has carried out against supposed, second-class citizens.

Lastly, as I do not want to end on a pessimistic note, I would argue that feminist art does not leave you suspended in a guilty stupor for long, but rather it catalyzes the processes of self-reflection, reassessment, and re-directioning of one’s life and behaviors. It inspires a gag-reflex of all the injustice and brutality that we have digested as palatable subsistence. I’m really looking forward to expanding my exposure to feminist art, as I feel that it will serve society and myself very well. I also hope that society will have the courage to (metaphorically) sit and stare back at Marina Abramovic.

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.

Avoiding “the feminist’s first reaction”

Posted on by
Reply

One thing that struck me was Linda Nochlin’s insistence that we who view art history through a feminist lens must suppress our initial urge to make a case for talented but overlooked women artists when confronted with the question “Why are there no Great women artists?” Before reading Nochlin’s essay I can well see myself thinking “But wait! What about Artemisia Gentileschi?! What about Mary Cassat, Georgia O’Keeffe, Frida Kalho, or Judy Chicago??” Surely these women were great artists who produced great work but they were not Great and by making a case for their work and existence in this context we distract ourselves from the reality that, though these women made wonderful and important art and contributions they have never been considered on the same level as Michelangelo, Renoir, Picasso, or Andy Warhol. We must accept that there have been no great women artists instead of denying it so that we can begin to examine the underlying structures that made this so. We must critically question the myth of the Great Artist and his magical Genius that propelled him to greatness so we can see the educational and institutional privileges that permitted him to be Great.

Modifying Conceptual Art

Posted on by
Reply

An overarching theme in this week’s readings is the dislocation of dominant narratives by challenging the limitations and norms that are present in art. I particularly favored Jayne Wark’s “Conceptual Art and Feminism” article because each of the mentioned artists (Martha Rosler, Adrian Piper, Eleanor Antin, and Martha Wilson)modified Conceptual art to express their concerns with the social climate of the 60‘s and 70’s, as opposed to conforming to the traditional abstract focus of Conceptualism. A common technique that stood out to me was the use of self as both the subject and object, which enabled direct engagement with the audience, induced reception, and commodification of the body as art. I also found it rather creative that Wilson disguised herself into different characters to emphasize that identity is not biologically determined, “singular or fixed,” but can vary depending upon one’s preference.

Thus far in the course we have examined how identity is portrayed as a fixed concept that is generalized and broadly applied to the racialized or sexualized subject, so this article offered a different, true perspective of identity as being flexible. Another positive observation of the article was the portrayal of women as empowered, autonomous artists who possessed the confidence to disclaim the traditional course of Conceptualism and integrate their own ideas of what art should embody. As opposed to previous art that we have observed, these female artists did not portray themselves as sexualized objects which offered a refreshing twist to art’s portrayal of women.

Nochlin: Nochlin argues that we must correct and challenge what is perceived as normal or “natural” and that femininity and masculinity is not a “style” and cannot be determined by the artist’s explored subject.

Wark: Wark gives examples of four feminist artists that reject the norm of abstract conceptualism through concrete, “subject-centered” art that is influenced by social events.

Taylor: Taylor explores examples of female artists whose artwork is independent of male influence.

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.