Feminism and Art

[LadyCiall]

This is, I admit, a gigantic topic to cover, but I've been pondering it alot recently. I am aware that in order to discuss it we will covver what people consider art or not as well.

Is art in any way compatible with feminism?

I guess the main question is, when is the female figure in art seen as acceptable in context of feminism? By the reproduction of the female form is it not objectifying the woman? You cannot, after all, converse with a ststue/painting/photograph? As art is undeniably aesthetic are you ok with the appeal of the female form being purely visual?

Does your opinion change dependant on who the art is by? Male or female

Does the medium used change it? Is a photograph worse than a painting?

What subject matters do you dislike? Or poses?

How about the intention? If a piece of art is created by a feminist artist with a deeper meaning behind it, can it go further in what it shows than something taken because it's pretty?

How about whether it's nude or not? Can a nude ever be seen as ok with feminism?

What about the distinction between art and advertising? Should the female body be used to sell products? If the same image wasn't used in an advert, could it be art? And would that change your opinion of it?

And that's just the questions on the top of my head. I know there are a lot, and appreciate anyone who replies.

Would be interesting ot see the different views on this.

Have a look at the pastiche the punk band Bow wow wow did of Le dejuner- here Does it still feel empowering? What is the difference? How does the fact that the naked singer was fifteen make you see it?

Manet explored similar themes with Olympia- it caused outrage as the model was not nude but naked, due to her necklace/collar and sandals.

It is sometimes asserted that he was elevating the status of a prostitute to that of a classical nude or 'goddess'; isn't this merely a representation of the madonna/whore complex?

Re- Art or Pornography:

I think it comes down to what the intention was behind the work. If the photographer, for example, made the work in order to arouse people, it is pornography, and remains so. If the photographer made the work as art, then it is art.

The problem arises because of society's perception that art is somehow intrinsically more 'worthy' or has a more significant cultural value than pornography, and furthermore that this prevents it from being offensive, misogynistic, or just a bit shit by virtue of it being exhibited in a gallery. This is plainly absurd.

Art can only be pornographic in the same way that an underwear catalogue or photographs of people at the beach can be, dittany.

What I mean is that art can fulfill the same function as pornography- yet it remains art. As a society, we wrongly elevate art above pornography and assume that to call it pornographic is to denigrate it.

Jeff Koons is a really good example; his work is almost indistinguishable from pornography save for his intentions. He made the work as art. He exploits women in the same way as a pornographer, he knows that using sex and women's bodies will sell his work; but it remains art nonetheless.

I would say that although the two concepts can mimic one another, they cannot become one another IYSWIM. Art remains art, pornography remains pornography.

Unless you get an artist who makes work with found pornography, then that fucks it all up a bit (I'm looking at you Fiona Banner

"I disgree tethersend. Art can indeed be pornographic as we can see from Manet's painting and Jeff Koons plus plenty of others if we put our minds to it."

You misunderstand me dittany- art can be pornographic, but it cannot be pornography IYSWIM. It was made with the intention of being art. It remains art, even if it is pornographic.

"I'm not arguing it's not art, it's pornographic art. Both things can be true."

We agree on this- I was responding to another poster who questioned the boundaries between the two.

"And as you're talking about artist's intentions here, are you really arguing that Jeff Koons and Manet weren't getting off in portraying women like this? Jeff Koons is actually fucking la cicciolina after all. This is about using art as a medium for tillitation and arousal."

This is the assumption that art is somehow devoid of any other intention than to produce beauty which I am talking about. It's not using art as a medium for titillation and arousal unless you believe that titillation and arousal cannot be part of art. It titillates and arouses, but these are aspects of art itself, rather than facets outside of art IYSWIM...

Manet and Koons almost certainly got off in portraying women like this- that does not mean that they cease to be artists, or that their work ceases to be art.

Didn't see your last post before I posted. I think we are saying the same thing.

My point is that we need to take art and artists off their pedestal.

I wasn't taking you to task dittany, just responding to a query further upthread- I should have made that clear.

"one of the ways to do this would not be to imagine that when artists portray women pornographically that they don't actually have low misogynistic intentions when they do it and that they must mean something deeper."

This is exactly what I'm saying.

"The idea that you can individualise it down and pretend there is no wider social or political context that it operates in or reflects is really not looking at art as it actually is."

So you don't believe people can see different meanings in the same piece of art? Art, as far as I'm aware, can be taken out of context of it's historical/political/etc meanings. That is one of the reasons art appeals to people.

"I think maybe what you're trying to say is that feminists shouldn't criticise it and that if we see sexism you can just argue that it's a totally subjective view and thus dismiss it"

You are very much putting words into my mouth, what on earth gave you that idea? I think everyone should be free to criticize art, mainly due to what I said above. However I do understand why others wouldn't be offended by the same images.

"Who is we? If you're a feminist, aren't you interested in looking into the history and reality of feminist criticism of art instead of trying to reinvent the wheel and ignoring what has gone before?"

Again reading more into my words than was originally there. By "we" I meant anyone that felt like discussing it. I am intersted in the history of feminist critique of art, never had any intention of reinventing the wheel, just talking about different views. Just because something has been spoken about before doesn't make is closed for further discussion.

"I think we have to put aside the deeply entrenched notion that art = good. If the work was created with the intention of it being art, it's art. This does not make it good art. Shit art exists"

I agree! Just mention Andy Warhol to me and you'll see just how deeply I agree that there is shit art

"Marina Abramovic was one of the first artists to examine feminist issues, well worth a look. Susan Hiller also."

Those are interesting examples. On the one hand I love the thinking behind their work, on the other I probably wouldn't want any of it on my wall. There seem to be the two levels to art.

"Artists are pretty direct. They paint what they see and what they think. "

I don't think that is necessarily true. Again I refer you to Cindy Sherman. It is true of some, for certain, but not all.

"My point is that we need to take art and artists off their pedestal. "

Definitely. I find this especially with modern art. They are artists therefore whatever they create is great, no matter how untalented, pointless or intentionally offensive.

Marina Abramovic's work may not be suitable for your walls in the same way that War and Peace may not be a suitable reading book for a three year old. What I mean is that in the same way there is different literature for different purposes, there is different art for different purposes. (Not that you have the taste of a three year old )

Thank you for starting this thread, LadyCiall- a very interesting discussion.

Haha, how dare you

I understand what you mean though. I love the Tate Modern, however I wouldn't want any of it in my house. So I appreciate it on a different level.

Has anyone else noticed how much feminism based art is performance art? It seems like the most natural medium for it, though it does make me sad that performance art isn't more accessible to more people in the same way still images are.

The Elizabeth Sackler Centre for Feminist Art in Brooklyn is a great place to explore the last 40 years of feminist art production. The centrepiece there is Judy Chicago's 'The Dinner Party' (1974-79), which is one of the first and founding works explicitly concerned with furthering a feminist politics in artistic practise. Judy Chicago and Miriam Schapiro and a number of other feminist collaborators made a feminist art installation/performance space called Womanhouse in 1973, which explored female experience through decorating rooms of a house and doing feminist performances within it.

Around the same time, the British artist Mary Kelley made her 'Post-Partum document' (1973) which documented the first few years of her son's life, exploring the possibility of maternal fetishism and deconstructing the work of mothering and maternal subjectivity.
Both these works are considered to be seminal works in the rich and wonderful herstory of feminist art. I'd recommend anyone who is interested in feminist art history (in terms of the history of feminist art practice and not just feminist interpretations of works by male artists) checks them out.

As a feminist art historian who likes to come on mumsnet to skive work, I am now going to leave this thread and get back to my procrastination I hope you get chance to check out the works, they really are amazing. And do visit the Elizabeth Sackler Centre website - it's an incredible resource.

hahaha! indeed!