A slideshow connected to a lecture of Feminism & Art available at Art History Teaching Resources (http://arthistoryteachingresources.org/), written by Saisha Grayson-Knoth.
4. The intersection of Feminism and Art produces many interesting
effects, disrupting the story of Modernist Art and its smooth transitions
from one “important” style to the next.
Feminist Art can be a way of categorizing art made by (mostly) women
that consciously links its strategies and goals to those of the Women’s
Rights Movement of the late 1960s and 70s, and to feminist ideas and
politics ever since.
Feminist challenges to the art world and its institutional bias also made
space for women (and other artists interested in working against the
grain) to make and show art of all kinds, whether feminist or not, in
ways that they hadn’t been able to before.
Perhaps most importantly, Feminism continually serves as a critical lens
for considering all cultural production, including conceptual categories
like Art, Women, and Importance, in relation to gender and power.
5. Jackson Pollock at work in his studio,
1950. Photograph by Hans Namuth.
(source)
Carolee Schneeman, Eye Body: 36
Transformative Actions, 1963,
Paint, glue, fur, feathers, garden snakes,
glass, and plastic with the studio
installation "Big Boards.” Photograph by
Erró. (source)
6. Carolee Schneeman, Interior Scroll,
1977, Performance. (source)
“…He said we are fond of you
You are charming
But don't ask us to look
At your films
We cannot look at:
the personal clutter
the persistence of feeling
the hand-touch sensibility
the diaristic indulgence
the painterly mess
the dense gestalt…
he said we can be friends
equally though we are not artists
equally I said we cannot
be friends equally and we
cannot be artists equally…
He told me he lived with
A ‘sculptress’ I asked does
That make me a ‘film-makeress’
‘Oh no,’ he said. ‘We think of you
As a dancer.’ ”
- Excerpt from Interior Scroll
8. Adrian Piper, Mythic Being:
Cruising White Women #1 of 3,
1975, Photograph of
performance. (source)
Adrian Piper, My Calling
Card #1, 1986, Lithograph.
(source)
9. Martha Rosler, Bringing the War Home:
House Beautiful (Giacometti),1967–72,
Photomontage. (source)
Martha Rosler, Body Beautiful or Beauty
Knows No Pain (Cargo Cult), 1967–72,
Photomontage. (source)
10. Judy Chicago, The Dinner
Party, 1974–79, Ceramic,
porcelain, and textile.
(source)
11. Cindy Sherman, Untitled Film Stills #7 (left) and #21 (right), 1978, Black and white
photographs.
12. Barbara Kruger, Untitled (We Won’t Play Nature to Your Culture), 1983, (left), and
Untitled (We Don’t Need Another Hero), 1987, (right), Photostats.
13. Coco Fusco and Guillermo Gomez-Peña, The Year of the White Bear and Two
Undiscovered Amerindians visit the West, 1992–1994, Performance at museums.
(source)
14. Kara Walker, Gone, An Historical Romance of a Civil War as it Occurred between
the Dusky Thighs of One Young Negress and Her Heart [detail], 1994, Cut paper
on wall. (source)
15. Mickalene Thomas, Le déjeuner sur
l’herbe: Les Trois Femmes Noires,
2010, Rhinestones, acrylic, and enamel
on wood panel. (source)
Édouard Manet (1832–1883), Le
déjeuner sur l’herbe (Lunch on the
Grass), 1863, Oil on canvas. (source)
Hinweis der Redaktion
Chronologically, “Feminist Art,” as a category of art made by women consciously aligning their art practice with the politics of the Women’s Movement and feminist theory, emerged in the late 1960s and early 1970s. This means a class on feminism will come quite late in the semester, if not on the last half of the last day, if at all. It can be a good opportunity to reflect on the narrative of art history that has unfolded over the course, and point towards ways that more advanced courses or continued study in art history might critically complicate that story.
Consider past material covered with the class – how have women appeared within the course? As subjects mostly, as patrons occasionally, very infrequently as artists, writers, or figures of power. How much have we learned about the lives and impact of women throughout history from online resources used over the semester, like the Met’s Timeline or the BBC’s The History of the World in 100 Objects? Why might that be?
Art history starts from the object, and the elements left to us to interpret and understand a given culture. But often, how we interpret the historical record is also deeply, but unconsciously, guided by the biases of one’s own cultural context and unspoken assumptions in society about who is a creator, who is expected to be in power, and frankly, is often influenced by who is making the interpretation. Here, one can only laugh at the degree to which a white male professor just naturally assumes the role of Cave Painter for demonstration, so we can imagine a similar (though perhaps hairier) version as the great grandad of art and painting. Recent science now tells us it was mostly women making these paintings, news greeted with “surprise” but which really just raises the question as to why it was assumed to be men in the first place?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/13/cave-artists-women-study_n_4086385.html
Pollock drips as psychology, as spiritual existential pouring, but also tracing of body in motion, the physicality of his painting style inspired artists to think of the action and event of making, and the body of the maker, as part of the work. Perhaps most literal translation of this, Schneeman’s Eye Body paintings/actions, placed her painted body into a set that was then photographed, as multiple, transforming versions of the piece. Art not stable, but evolving, and body not transcended but imbedded, encrusted in the surface of the work- just as Pollock is read into his paintings,
Performance art timeline http://bodytracks.org/
Both based on simply instructions, a concept that controls all that happens after – both artists interested in using instructions to give up control. But how does that giving up of control signify differently? How do their gendered bodies affect how we read these pieces? How is the symbolism and affect different?