Response to “The Feminism Factor: Video and its Relation to Feminism”
8 03 2007Gever 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.
Hi Steve–I enjoy your blog and don’t often feel the need to comment but this post made me wonder what you actually know about ‘feminist’ work…also, it seems to assume that an equal opportunity to exhibit “side by side” exists. So, here are a few links you might find interesting!
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/arts/design/09wack.html?_r=1&ref=arts&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin
http://www.moca.org/wack/
http://www.guerillagirls.com/
http://anonymousfemaleartist.blogspot.com/ scroll down
http://broadvsbroad.blogspot.com/
http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/features/davis/davis3-12-07.asp
http://bp2.blogger.com/_HncYa98fnhk/RfapMKi2WBI/AAAAAAAAAKo/oD0D1fDsr04/s1600-h/davis3-12-07-3.jpg
You caught me! I’m brand new to feminist discourse, but I want to learn. I read my first three feminist articles last week and I’ve since discussed them with Robert Bubp. I decided to take down the Laura Mulvey article because my arguments are just really weak and besides, I think she’s got a great point about the male gaze. I welcome the opportunity to converse with a real, live feminist artist!
The only reason the Gever article is still up is so that I can respond to your comment. I think what I should probably do is rewrite it later so that it can express what I mean in better terms.
I actually have no idea if women get a chance to exhibit side-by-side with men, but that’s how I think it *should* be. The Grove dictionary is the one of the premier authorities on music and it has a separate edition for women composers. It makes it really easy for one to totally ignore them because they’re seen as separate. Anytime someone mentions “women composers” I have to wonder: if this music was composed by a man, would it be completely unremarkable? Is it only good because a woman wrote it and is therefore special because she was required to overcome many obstacles? I don’t necessarily assume that is the case, but it’s a logical question.
I still believe that if we aren’t required to make gender distinctions, then art will be art and it won’t be judged differently for women and men. Yeah, I know it’s pure, impractical ideology. However, I could also see a celebration of gender in art as interesting. Ultimately though, I think it will still serve to marginalize women. One goes into a gallery and sees a collection of cubist art, then in another room there is romantic art, then in another room there’s feminist art. It should be more than just a generic distinction. How do you feel?
Finally, thank you for taking the time to comment and compile some links. I will definitely check them out! I would also be very interested to learn more about your career as a feminist artist.
First, I don’t consider myself a feminist artist–but I do respect many that identify themselves that way and I appreciate the efforts made on my behalf (and all women artists) so that I can simply say I’m an artist without defining it politically–on the other hand, I absolutely consider myself a feminist. Second, I appreciate how open you are to seeing art as genderless–I suspect that is largely generational (for the same reasons that young people seldom see race or sexual identity as an issue). Third, I think the only way to know whether the work of women composers is any good, is to listen to it–I’m sure Grove lists them separately because it’s such a small category relative to male composers that it makes it special–the same biases against “women” (or should I say, womyn) artists exists for women composers, conductors, musicians, athletes, whatever!
So, thanks for responding–I’m happy to continue the conversation!
Here are some troubling thoughts.
I checked out the links you sent. I think the WACK! catalog looks pretty interesting, a nice survey. I’d like to check it out when it’s available. The Guerilla Girls turned me off a bit. I’ve seen some of their posters before, but I didn’t know who was putting them out. I can appreciate a lot of their points. However, as they are attempting to smash female stereotypes, they’re reinforcing *male* stereotypes. The “advantages of being a woman artist” piece from 1988 is particularly offensive in that it implies that men tend to steal the work of women. “Seeing your ideas live on in the work of others” - plagiarism is bound to happen with some unscrupulous individuals, but to generalize that men steal women’s ideas is deeply offensive. Also “having more time to work when your mate dumps you for someone younger” - some men do this, some women do this - I think it’s terrible thing to put on any gender.
I also wonder about their statistics. It sure makes a catchy headline to say that the Best Director oscar has never gone to a woman. How many women directors have their been compared to men? Maybe that’s a problem in itself and I could definitely see how women fight prejudice in Hollywood. However, I don’t see the uneven statistics as indicating anything other than a disproportionate ratio. True, the academy probably IS biased, but how many eligible female directors are there anyway? Mary Harron, Jane Campion, Kathryn Bigelow, maybe a couple others. These seem to be the main ones directing English language films that fit within the academy’s rubric. There are other great female directors that I really enjoy such as Catherine Breillat, Chantal Akerman, and Lilia Cavali to name a few, but there’s no WAY they’re going to ever receive nominations and it has much less to do with their gender than their uncompromising, artistic films. Male directors who make similar films are routinely excluded, so I’m not surprised.
I think you’re probably right about the generational issues. I’m used to seeing female artists integrated and thinking about things in those terms. I know others have lived through the women’s lib movement and have a much different perspective. Maybe some of this Guerilla Girls stuff is extreme because that was what was necessary at the time. Maybe the real world is worse than I thought. I don’t know what it’s like out there for female artists, but I feel like I have a good idea what it’s like for female art students.
I’m comfortable with feminism that seeks to erase artificial barriers constructed in antiquity that keep women in a subordinate position. I’m not comfortable with aggressive, bitter, and hostile feminism as in the anonymous female artist blog, or some of the guerilla girls claims. The AFA blog has a list of top 100 compensators. OK - so we’re not allowed to make masculine art anymore? I’m all for not judging art based on its gender, but just as women can and do create art about being a woman, why can’t men do the same? Matthew Barney may be obsessed with the phallus, but does that mean he should neuter his art? Georgia O’Keefe seems to be similarly obsessed with very feminine and suggestive flowers, but this doesn’t seem to be a problem. I think they’re both great artists expressing their perspectives.
There are other things on that blog men would never get away with, unless I’m totally ingenuous. In 2007, aren’t men crucified for publicly expressing misogynist perspectives? Why does AFA get say write “Every Friday, we crack open the NYT arts page for another round of reviews, usually of the most boring shows in town by men. Lately, it’s been the short list of who’s sucking Warhol’s proverbial dick (oh wait, that’s next week; Marclay). Or, in last week’s case, who’s reminiscing about jacking off under his Star Wars sheets.” That’s pretty spiteful.
If I’m finding only the worst, most negative feminist ideas, please let me know. I think it would be in everyone’s interest if there wasn’t this cloud of negativism looming over so much of feminism. I’ve seen numerous interviews of Catherine Breillat and she’s totally positive. She has found her place, is comfortable, and doesn’t need to make offensive generalizations or reinforce negative male stereotypes.
Anyway, I’m still looking forward to reading some Julia Kristeva and others. I know there’s plenty of positive feminist discourse out there and that’s what I need to get to.
Interesting…I’m sure I haven’t heard this kind of rhetoric since 1970-something! I don’t want to belabor this as I’m sure you’d like to move on already, but I feel compelled to point out that reality is harsh–
the complaints that the Guerilla Girls make aren’t done speciously–you think it’s offensive to think that men might steal the work of women, but it’s way more offensive to have your ideas ripped off–just one example that comes to mind–look at Frank Stella’s work from the 80’s, then check Judy Pfaff’s work of the 70’s–that was fairly aggregious, and very obvious but there are lots of examples in contemporary art like that, some subtle, some not–but believe me, they (GG’S) see it happen and document it. I think you have to keep your sense of humor intact also–”having more time to work when your mate dumps you…”–even though I disagree with your assessment that “some men do this, some women do this” (my assessment would be that more often men do that)–I think it’s funny–in fact, I find most of what the GG’s do, funny–but extremely accurate.
You ask and answer your question, “How many eligible female directors have there been compared to men? Maybe that’s a problem in itself.” All I can say is, DUH! I don’t want to seem unduly harsh, but now’s a good time to shake off any naivete you have about gender equality. You think you have a good idea what it’s like for female art students–but I think just look at the ratio of male to female in the art faculty (I’m speaking of the studio art faculty)–1 full-time woman, 1 full-time temporary woman and 1 artist-in -residence–no tenure track women in the studio program–that’s not to say the men are unenlightened or uninterested (some are, some aren’t)–it’s just a fact. I think it’s most discouraging that even now, there are many more female art students than there are female professionals teaching in universities,showing in galleries, etc.
So, just one thing left to deal with in this rather long comment–You see the list of ‘100 top compensators’ and make the assumption that one is ‘not allowed’ to make ‘masculine’ art–(I hope you’ll go back and read all the comments on that post–you’ll see that the list is not done without humor)–that equates masculine with bombastic–I feel certain that’s not your intention (here’s Edna’s definition: Compensators: artists who make big, bombastic work that functions as an extension of their overblown ego; or: artists who make excessively intricate, pseudo-intimate work that makes you think you’re missing something, when in reality, there’s not much (or nothing) there.) and no matter how much you like Barney, I think you’d have to say it’s definitely bombastic! I also don’t think it’s particularly masculine–if anything, Matthew Barney has been especially adept at questioning gender–check out his early work–pre-Cremaster–for myself, I find his work entirely too narcissistic.
I have more to say but I have to get some work done myself–I hate to leave the question of Catherine Breillat “finding her place”–but I will! In the meantime, I will also look for more ‘positive’ feminist discourse!f
You’re right - I know a lot of it is supposed to be funny. Maybe I should have taken that into account, but it’s hard to know sometimes. I’m also unaware of studio art gender issues. I know that many musicologists are women (it’s a pretty good ratio) and I know that many music faculty positions (save for directors) are filled by women. Maybe music is more integrated than visual arts. There are also many female performers leading successful solo and ensemble careers rivaling the success of men.
I certainly didn’t mean to offend you, so I hope that’s not the case. I don’t really know the history and I don’t know who ripped of whom. I also don’t know the contemporary visual art world well at all. I know visual art history and some theory, but not much about current exhibition practice.
I actually haven’t seen any Barney other than a huge book of stills from the Cremaster cycel. I agree that his work is bombastic. I still question though - why is that necessarily bad? If someone passes on Wagner because he’s bombastic, that’s their choice, but it’s also their loss because there’s a lot of great stuff happening. Barney is narcissistic, but aren’t some feminist artists narcissistic as well? Is this an inherently masculine characteristic?
I want to hear your thoughts on Breillat. I think she’s a genious. Now that I think about it, maybe she doesn’t have a place yet. She’s seems to be labeled a provocateur and this is certainly true, but she’s a lot more than that. Maybe she still needs to be recognized simply as a director making great films rather than a rogue filmmaker specializing in “dirty” stuff.
I’m in Boston for a week, so I won’t have regular Internet access. I hope we can continue the conversation when I return. In the mean time, feel free to forward any material that you think is good.