Steve’s Stuff

Gever continues Bovenschen’s search for a feminine aesthetic in The Feminism Factor with a survey of feminist video works. After pages of lengthy description of video works by Chenzira, Millner, Mendieta, Rosler, and Braderman, Gever concludes that there is, in fact, no discernable feminist aesthetic. I believe this is for the best. In my admittedly limited exposure to feminist discourse, I have seen two themes that frequently seem to be in opposition: feminists vying for equality with men, and feminists attempting to distinguish themselves from men, to present themselves as fundamentally different beings. Within the limited scope of a single article, I would like to explore the implications of a feminist aesthetic myself.

A feminist aesthetic would seem to indicate something disparate from the masculine aesthetic, unless I am interpreting the idea of a feminist aesthetic too literally. What is the “masculine aesthetic” if not all aesthetics throughout history? Gever’s search, like Bovenschen before her, implies that there is currently no feminist aesthetic, which further implies that all other aesthetics must be masculine. With the infrequency of female artists until the mid-to-late twentieth century, this seems reasonable, save for the fact that no one ever attempted to define aesthetics as inherently masculine.

What is to be gained from a feminist aesthetic? A separate feminist aesthetic is an invitation to the very marginalization of which feminism seeks to free itself. It seems counterproductive to try to invent something new rather than joining something existing. Don’t feminists want to participate in the same artistic movements as men? If they invent their own aesthetic theory, they will remain fundamentally different from the rest of art and will be easily restricted to an independent position of negligible importance and visibility.

This brings me back to the question of feminist goals. It appears that if women want equality, they shouldn’t attempt to drastically differentiate themselves from men. Their work should hang side-by-side with that of men, but if their works are described as “feminist”, critics will be able to apply a standard critique without truly seeing the work itself. If feminist art is easily classifiable, one can critique it with a one-size-fits-all formula. If, on the other hand, feminist art doesn’t differentiate itself with a pointless label, critics will be forced to judge each work on its own terms without gender providing an already available critical methodology. To be fair, this isn’t a criticism of a hypothetical feminist aesthetic per se, but of any artistic movement, that accepts any sort of label.

From the examples that Gever provides, it seems that the feminist video works aren’t necessarily feminine, but are simply excellent video art. Maybe a feminist aesthetic isn’t necessary—maybe women of the twenty-first century are free to create works, display them, and receive critiques based on the work alone. If they desire to isolate themselves from the rest of the artistic community, they have the opportunity. However, I feel that it is much more interesting if they are seamlessly integrated without rigid gender distinctions.

This is hilarious.

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/apple_unveils_new_product