Katy Grannan, Nicole, Potrero Hill, 2006
I saw The Female Gaze show the other week at Cheim & Read Gallery in Chelsea and it has been haunting me ever since. You know, in a good way. So many of my favorite ladies all in one room- Diane Arbus, Alice Neel, Louise Bourgeois, Sally Mann, Vanessa Beecroft, and Francesca Woodman to name a few. Shortly after viewing the show I came across an article by Ariella Budick that contended that most of the female artists in the show perceive women within the same "limits of convention" that men have perceived women for hundreds of years- very often nude and delicious looking. Maybe it is odd that as women, we accuse men of liking to look at women, but we apparently like to look at women too. Would women feel differently if these images had been made by a man? Do women cling to this vision of ourselves as first and foremost sexual or vulnerable? Are we looking for something to "take back" from the oppressor but then we just dump it back on ourselves and fuck around at the step of self victimization and self oppression instead of moving on to the level of genuine power and strength? Sometimes for sure.
I saw The Female Gaze show the other week at Cheim & Read Gallery in Chelsea and it has been haunting me ever since. You know, in a good way. So many of my favorite ladies all in one room- Diane Arbus, Alice Neel, Louise Bourgeois, Sally Mann, Vanessa Beecroft, and Francesca Woodman to name a few. Shortly after viewing the show I came across an article by Ariella Budick that contended that most of the female artists in the show perceive women within the same "limits of convention" that men have perceived women for hundreds of years- very often nude and delicious looking. Maybe it is odd that as women, we accuse men of liking to look at women, but we apparently like to look at women too. Would women feel differently if these images had been made by a man? Do women cling to this vision of ourselves as first and foremost sexual or vulnerable? Are we looking for something to "take back" from the oppressor but then we just dump it back on ourselves and fuck around at the step of self victimization and self oppression instead of moving on to the level of genuine power and strength? Sometimes for sure.
But also maybe women have the tendency to playfully explore these areas of vulnerability within ourselves in a different way then a man might. It's not good to wallow solely in vulnerablity, but to honor that it's there, well maybe that's not such a bad thing if we use it to move forward. There were indeed several artists who portrayed their women with a more resolute air. Alice Neel's Olivia, for example has a look of defiance. As do Roni Horn's images of French actress Isabelle Huppert. In a way, I feel like every "woman in the room", or each piece of art could be put together like a puzzle to create one whole woman. Each image is like a snap shot of each of us at one moment in our life, or in a different stage of our evolution. It's like each artist has agreed to represent one face of a whole woman. After all, it wouldn't be possible to portray every aspect of a persons being in one piece. Viewed apart, an image like Lisa Yuskavage's Heart could be viewed with a measure of derision- How cliche to portray a woman so sexually. Well, yeah I guess, but part of life is being sexual, whether your a man or a woman, so why not embrace that? Lets embrace male sexuality while we're at it. Should we pretend that women aren't sexual or vulnerable as a defensive mechanism? Maybe as a woman the key is not to make art that you yourself would find objectionable had a man made it. People are complicated. Men and women. Personally, I think vulnerablitity is a good thing. And the responsibility to treat yourself and others with respect and dignity as well as honesty falls on both sides of the gender fence.
La
Here's a link to the article I referenced earlier: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/9abedb9c-8046-11de-bf04-00144feabdc0.html
No comments:
Post a Comment