Speculative Essay//on my practice.
Artists are purveyors of culture, and as such, we set precedence and move culture forward with our defined - though often abstract - causes. We are at the forefront of movements such as the Women’s March and Occupy Wall Street. Artists are recognized across various fields of study as pioneers of thought. From a technological perspective, augmented reality is an area artists have driven forward and to the benefit of the larger society. To that end, the label for my cause is feminism.
Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex has shaped and furthered my thoughts the female as a subject. She speaks to the female’s social position as constructed through the male view of the female as the opposite to man. There is a system of opposition at play, and our societies have emerged in a hierarchical fashion. De Beauvoir points out that this binary oppositional view of gender is flawed. Similarly, de Beauvoir speaks to historical representations of the female, and how this history of representation, discourse and have contributed to how women in contemporary society (note: this text was written in 1949) view and portray themselves. Which brings me to my own art historical context.
I situate my work thematically within reach of a 70’s feminist style. Think Judy Chicago, Miriam Schapiro, or Louise Bourgeois. More contemporarily, I situate my works in dialogue with Zoe Buckman, Carla Edwards, and Dana Hoey. These artists consider the female body, sexuality, and gender norms with their work. Additionally, these artists aim to provide thought-lines that question social norms surrounding femininity. I too find these themes present themselves in my work.
Judy Chicago’s piece The Dinner Party (1979) has long received criticism for its feminist commentary. Through its reimagining of male-dominated imagery, namely the last supper, the work challenges the societal understanding of the role of the female. It is an innately evocative work that has been called too political to be art.
Chicago’s approach in The Dinner Party reclaims female “craft” based practices such as needlework to communicate her ideas. This has me wondering if perhaps the criticism of the work that questions its artistic validity comes from the piece’s ingrained ties to femininity. The use of fabric, of a place setting, of needlework and of detailism play to this end. Naomi Schor in her 1987 text Reading in Detail; Aesthetics and the Feminine makes the claim that it’s detailism that makes the female artist, “doubly condemned to produce inferior works of art.” Attention to detail is viewed culturally as a female attribute. Therefore, works that capitalize on this attention are subject to devaluation, are less recognized as art, or are considered a lesser art.
This then begs the question of my own practice and it’s approach to feminism. In studying these artists and the second wave in detail, I find its presence in my work to be concretely identifiable. In tracing the footsteps of feminist artists past whose works were questioned as serious artworks, is the work I’m doing redundant?
I question how I work within feminism. Is it possible for me to move beyond the constraints of white feminism as a white woman? I have found guidance and an understanding of third wave feminism through the words of Simone de Beauvoir, Kimberle Crenshaw, Solange, Warsan Shire and Camae Ayewa. They have provided me with insight and openness and moved me towards a richer understanding of considering the audience's connection to and resistance to the interaction with the art object.
On Thursday, Sept. 28th, I sat in on a Cornell lecture by Moor Mother. Following the lecture, I attended a performance of hers in the downtown Ithaca area. Her words were rough and harsh to digest as a white audience member. I was cognizantly there to further my own understanding, to support her and her music, but it was hard to suppress an automatic defensive response to her words. It’s a response triggered in many when they feel threatened. As I tuned into what she was saying [read “screaming”], and I heard a familiar, though amplified, anger. It’s an anger and a frustration that I often feel with men, or with my own mother when she insinuates I should follow where my partner where he goes to for graduate school.
Specifically, Ayewa has made me question the depth of the audience reach of my work. Her audience reach is a mirror to herself, similar to her experiences, and though I admire her work, I am not sure I want the same for myself. I want my work to not be limited by gender or an understanding of my own experience as a female.
I identify as a feminist because I want a social shift towards equity for all genders, though femininity is at the forefront of my current work. I want an active shift in how “feminine” attributes are subconsciously perceived, discussed, and engaged with. However, will engaging with an inherently feminine material practice on top of these feminist concerns only speak to a community that is already acclimatized into what I am saying? De Beauvoir said, “the woman problem has always been a man problem.” So, if I believe my duty is to push culture further, with whom should I be engaging in a dialogue?
Dana Hoey works to subvert the present cultural view of femininity as inferior to masculinity by emphasizing the alternative as a possible truth. In her work, she presents a utopian dream; a place where feminine attributes are considered desirable, markers of power. Her work celebrates femininity while simultaneously confronting masculine culture. In doing show she sheds light on the absurdity of the present hierarchical condition.
Deleuze and Guattari’s text Rhizome, criticizes binaries and dichotomies as elemental components of society. They call for a push against binary distinctions and a movement away from hierarchical structures in favor of networked outlook. Though this text dates to the 70’s, the concepts are applicable to the contemporary consideration of gender identity. It speaks to a removal of the hierarchical distinctions between men and women; masculinity and femininity and offers an evolving, networked, and rhizomatic alternative. In the case of gender, as a society, the rhizomatic alternative has predominantly in the LGBTQ+ community.
Textile-based works have an inherently feminine association. This is a historically rooted association, stemming from “women's work.” Women spun yarns and thread; wove and dyed fabrics; stitched clothing; embroidered; quilted; and today these areas of making are gendered as female. My engagement with fabric work is a celebration of femininity. In writing this, however, I question my instinctual need to impose gender on media and practices and wonder if this is a prime example sexism in and of itself.
Inclusion is an important part of my practice. I began working with book format to encourage engagement with the ideas on, at the minimum, a tactile level. The form invites interaction as a book is an object that is made to be touched. This attribute carries over into artists books. Additionally, I capitalize the structural qualities of the book itself serves to make pointed references to female anatomy. Where two pages come together, labia are found; strategically placed loops of thread act as a landing strip overlaid in the lap of a reader.
The combination of tactility of fabric, the interactive quality of the book form, and the oftentimes overt references to the body means I’ve observed a great deal of “fondling” of my works. This undermines the aforementioned intent of presenting femininity and the female as a respected subject rather than as objectified.
Warsan Shire, Ishion Hutchinson, and Valzhyna Mort are writers I admire for their use of language. They have impressed upon me the significance of linguistic lucidity. Informed by this lucidity, I incorporate text into my work by constructing sentences, phrases, and poems with words selected and curated such that dual interpretations are possible. Often these phrases have sexual overtones. In this way, I reclaim feminine sexuality. For instance, my piece “Use Your Tongue” is a book containing a poem about the act of speaking. The opening line “use your tongue,” dually references oral sex. In this way, the act of speaking, which is at times repressed in females, and the act of female sexual pleasure, which has negative and promiscuous connotations in relation to women, are both brought to the forefront of the reader's mind.
Autonomy is a concept I confront with my work. I allow the viewer the perceived choice to interact with my work by turning pages or changing words, but in the end, I remove the autonomy. In “I give you my words.,” I allow the viewer the opportunity to exchange words and alter the poem before them with the contingency that they can only use the words I provide. While the poem’s lines can change, the general sentiment and feel of the language does not. My original voice comes through in every rendition of the poem, and in this way, I remove autonomy and voice from the viewer.
andulkaphoto
titsay
amandla
gummygunk