Bridge 5: Final Reflection

Artist Statement:

There is nothing universal about the relationship between what women create in the arts, but there is something universal about how these objects are perceived. A quote from Le Corbusier puts this in a succinct manner, “there is a hierarchy in the arts: decorative art at the bottom, and the human form at the top.” Kant’s concept of “beauty and sublimity” remains the most poignant example in informing the connotative relationship to forms of gender aesthetics. Spawning from the eighteenth century, objects of beauty were described as bounded, small, and delicate and were considered feminized. Objects of the sublime were jagged, unruly, large, and were considered as masculine. It is in this case that aesthetic objects take on gendered meanings in tandem with beauty and sublimity. Kant’s anti-feminist interpretation explains that, “observations on a woman’s mind are ‘beautiful,’ but a woman is incapable of the tougher appreciation and insight that sublimity requires. This piece a direct subversion to that quote, to explore what it means for art works to be recreated in feminine matter through “female techniques.” The recreation of Venus of Urbino subverts its inherently patriarchal gaze by using classically feminized and devalued materials.

Reflection of Crit:

My recreation of Venus of Urbino in embroidery was supposed to subvert its inherently patriarchal gaze by using classically feminized and devalued materials. However, it was noted that this piece actually further played into the patriarchal structure by recreating an image without any direct changes; and although a change of material, the viewer has the same relationship with the subject of the piece.

This comment made me think a lot about my idea and how to actually use this piece as a subversion of the properties usually found in “fine art”. I scrambled to find a solution. Part of me thought to change the piece, to add something clearly different to the subject (like maybe a middle finger or something that makes it clear she is staring back at the viewer and that there is an equal opposing gaze,) but it felt odd to add something I didn’t feel was organically my intention. Then, I thought to leave the piece as is and then to change my statement, but then I thought that would be an unnatural progression of an artwork and ultimately devalue my ideas entirely. Then, I decided to leave everything as is, and rationalize my idea further, which ended up being the hardest correction.

At first, I interpreted this critique as an exposure of my internalized misogyny, or that there is falsehood in the notion that art could be subverted with a recreated image.

After a lot of thought, I came to the conclusion that this critique had a lot of weight, but so did my original idea.

The change in material is enough of a subversion in itself due to its historical connotations.How we look at a small circular embroidery versus a large rectangular oil painting actually does change our relationship to a piece and the subject within it. Painting remains a classically male and respected medium while fiber works are still seen as feminine craft. This element of bringing a highly reputed subject into the world of craft actually does change the subject herself, as she is not trapped within the workings of a patriarchal medium but built within a fabrication of a medium associated with and created by women.

Overall Thoughts:

I really enjoyed doing this project. As a sucker for elaborate research, this project catered to my interest in delving into a particular subject for a long period of time. Parsons courses typically focus on creating many forms of a prototype without coming to any final conclusion. Being able to produce a complete work was unfortunately unusual and satisfying.

Relation to seminar course:

This project was the visual culmination of my studio paper. The thesis of my paper was:

“The hierarchical order of art based on gender associations historically devalues works made with materials and styles associated with femininity regarding works created and evaluated in the global west.”

Through this thesis, I explored the historical context of devalued women’s works, and the similarity of visual vocabulary that women’s works use. I explored materiality and style through Kant’s Beauty and Sublimity, and gave contextual examples with images of famous artworks by male and female artists. Through my research, I found that women’s works often use plant imagery as a visual through-line regarding works due to the fact that the female gaze is often limited (or pushed) outside the body.

Each of my reflection bridges alluded to an exploration of one of the topics in my paper. The first bridge explored different iterations of my objects (a houseplant) and how the male gaze dissects women’s bodies, so women (hetero-normatively) are left to dissect plant life.

The next bridge explored material-specifically materials often categorized as “feminine.” In this bridge, I used The choices for my material were largely passed on MoMA’s Making Space show. The show was based around the idea of how certain materials are regarded as craft and not art based on their history of “women’s work.” The show dealt with sexism within the art world, and how “craft” objects were presented and reframed as “art” objects. My essay and concept in general deals with feminine domesticity and the ways in which female craft, growth, and thought are undermined, and how ideas of femininity are often portrayed via plant imagery in craft objects. I was particularly inspired by Magdelena Abakanowicz’s Yellow Abakan, Sheila Hick’s Prayer Rug, and Ruth Asawa’s Desert Flower. I wanted to mimic the same feeling I experienced when viewing these works, pieces of women’s history brought to life via display while using traditionally “domestic” materials.

The tapestry/fiber art work was a self-referential nod to “craftivism” in the 60’s and 70s feminist art movements and its reclamation fiber arts. I wanted this piece to be half art work, half activist statement by presenting a large floral image juxtaposed with big block protest lettering. The botany piece was meant to mimic a traditional botanist’s journal. Covered in facts in figures, the text is meant to be dense. The viewer must take a closer look at the piece (and at history) to uncover its meaning. The ceramic piece was all about framing. I wanted the work to be presented like a fine-art object, even though it is purely craft. With the copycat MoMA text to its side, I wanted to highlight how art historicism shapes our perception of an art object’s value. Looking closely at the work, I think the concept shines through since it is, quite literally, spelled out.

This final bridge was a culmination of these experiences-that all the research I had done would lead to one final visual expression of thought. As Hennessy Youngman puts it, “people love to see animals put on human costumes, it’s just cute. The same goes for art.” With this I decided to put a traditionally male work in female clothes, a way for a viewer to recognize a historically respected origin with a subversive use of material.

Other Bridges:

The other bridges of researching a previous artwork and the disruption did not play into my essay directly, but gave context as to how we should research works to inform our own. I think the first bridge was a successful exercise in developing context around an art work from how it was conceived to who funded the project.

The disruption assignment was the least successful of bridges, and definitely the most divergent. I think that group work with art is incredibly tricky-especially when the group is put together at random and not because of similar thought. However, I do think it was successful in the sense that it created micro-communities within the classroom that were useful for communication for other bridges.

The semester bridges overall were extremely useful. I think the bridges were especially effective when we began working toward a final project. However, the first two were great introductions to how a bridge project should be formatted/completed/critiqued.

 

 

Leave a reply

Skip to toolbar