General Concept:
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. This quote puts it succinctly, “there is a hierarchy in the arts: decorative art at the bottom, and the human form at the top. Because we are men” (Le Corbusier, 1918). The distinct association of women, material, and decoration is a historical phenomenon in the evaluation of the theoretical “artistic hierarchy.” Due to societal and cultural conditioning, material and subject are indictors of how an object is valued. Material culture has a distinct capacity to embody symbolic values and to change or reinforce those values in the ways they are presented. 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.
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.
Critique Notes:
The critique for this piece made me think about what it means for works to be cohesive. I take for granted that works have a similar aesthetic feel when walking through professional galleries. My three posters consisted of varying mediums: tapestry/fiber art, ceramics, and paper as a botany journal. My conceptual through-line regarded women and gendered objects via material, and how this affects their value on the nonexistent but theoretically ever-present hierarchy of aesthetics. I decided to use materials that were historically devalued, and contextualize them in a way that presents missing pieces of art history. I wanted each piece to highlight an erasure of the past by using coded forms of visual vocabulary. Aesthetically, I tried using lots of “tacky,” “crafty,” colors such as bright pinks, yellows, greens. Each work had a floral element alluding to how women’s bodies and plant-life are similar in how they are commodified; both forms to be gazed at, dissected, taken “care of”, yet neglected and stripped of autonomy.
The critiques of my work allowed me to expand what it meant for works to be cohesive. Conceptual parallels aside, students wished to see a better cohesion via color/shape and the pure imagery of it all. Without reading into it too much, works should look like they belong together. I think my pieces generally succeeded in doing this, but next time I’d like to tighten my color palette, pay more attention to scale, and use repetition as a stronger tool. This critique will definitely be on my mind for the next project, and how to make sure works are talking to one another even when produced from varying forms.
