Feminizing Art or Feminist Art

I have recently become interested in the concept of gender specific art and one of the more pressing questions seems to be whether social consciousness has been driving visual art towards a feminizing approach on the one hand or towards a feminist approach on the other. For example, one can easily see the influence of the feminizing in the WACK movement: Contrast that with the Gorilla Girls (and Guerilla Girls) that began as visual art and became political art: Someone like Harmony Hammond, of course, represents the reflexive, where her life is a political statement, but her art is, arguably, not: Anyone else into this subject?

I don't really understand what you mean by "feminizing". They use more females in their "art"?

Wack was not an artistic movement.

To voluntarily diminish yourself by living your life as a "political statement" seems such a sad, almost nightmarish waste. The Pinups collage was nice though.

Dopey, hasn't this been going on for a long time? During WWII, America had Rosie the Riveter, with her bicep muscle flexed in defiance. After the War, Christian Dior introduced his wasp waisted, padded out 'New Look,' which really was an old look, brought again to the fore. Then we had the sack dress, which merely suggested a figure. After that, mini-skirts and go-go boots, then the YSL tuxedo / trouser suit. Enter the Diane Von Furstenberg wrap dress, which showed a lot of women to explicit advantage. Then the Karl Lagerfeld leggings; now we've got short shorts for fall, worn with velvet jackets. Seems generally like women are consistently being tugged at, toward one direction or the other.

The discussion of feminist art is, IMO, a pretty entertaining subject, because a lot of stuffy male art critics spew out some hilariously ignorant and stupid statements.

One of the funniest ones I've heard was that art created by females will always have a central focal point, because they're always going to be inclined to subconsciously create a ******.

Some feminist art is great, but I think any art which focuses too much on social issues in such a direct manner (as many of the prominent feminist artists have done), for example Barbara Kruger, it comes off as affected and kind of daft. The same is true for a lot of male artists, but feminism is a social issue to which only women seem to contribute.

I think Cindy Sherman and the other female artists who used their bodies for art in submissive positions to be ironic end up defeating their purpose. I also think women using their bodies sexually in art in an attempt to be sexually empowering is inherently following misogynistic traditions. Feminist art is still an incredibly new subject, and to my eyes, MOST of what has surfaced over the past 100 years is still sophomoric.

Lee Krasner is an example of a female artist who I admire... her stuff is fantastic.

One of the funniest ones I've heard was that art created by females will always have a central focal point, because they're always going to be inclined to subconsciously create a ******.

**************************
Brings to mind the Da Vinci Code.

Originally Posted by Ivan Kipling

Click to expand...

One of the funniest ones I've heard was that art created by females will always have a central focal point, because they're always going to be inclined to subconsciously create a ******.

**************************
Brings to mind the Da Vinci Code.

I'm embarrassed if I accidentally quoted something from that trainwreck. Did I? I didn't read/watch it.

I find it hard to maintain interest almost any art with a specific theme or agenda. Stuff that deliberately tries to "shock people's sensibilities" bores me particularly quickly. I find Robbie Connall's stuff really funny at times, but it's about as memorable to me as any other cartoon. I get the Cindy Sherman stuff, understand the "point", and then have nothing left to hold my interest.
I had the opportunity to see Judy Chicago's The Dinner Party some years ago. I really enjoyed it while I was viewing it, and think it's a very impressive and affecting installation. But having seen it once, I feel like I've "done" it and would have limited interest in seeing it again (except perhaps to take my daughter or someone else who had never seen it).

But there are some beautiful women in that Wack piece, so I'd hate to discourage it.

I'm embarrassed if I accidentally quoted something from that trainwreck. Did I? I didn't read/watch it.
************
No, you didn't quote it. But the 'Goddess' imagery as I recall, suggested that the entry to churches, had to do with female genitalia.

I'm in favor of more girlie pix and less intellectual rationalization.

Originally Posted by Brian SD

Click to expand...

The same is true for a lot of male artists, but feminism is a social issue to which only women seem to contribute.

I don't know if you are referring to just art or to the issue in general, but certainly men contribute to the discussion of it.

And I think art is such a great place for it. Just the other day my wife and I were watching some Heinekin (sp?) commercial that had this "female" robot that was essentially just a big keg of beer, with taps, many arms, etc. I turned to her and said that 30 years ago that would have been a painting by Warhol or someone commenting on how men objectify women by turning them into fantasy creatures that dispense beer and sex but now it's a marketing campaign--how sad.

I don't know what point I'm really making, but where is that in art or elsewhere? What could be a great commentary on this huge social issue is instead used to sell beer.

I didn't even know Guerilla Girls were/was still around. Are they still pretty visible in the art world? A quick look at their website shows them being more generally politically motivated, rather than art-centered. Is that new or is that the way they've always been?

b

Originally Posted by Nantucket Red

Click to expand...

I'm in favor of more girlie pix and less intellectual rationalization.

+1

The only feminine art I want to see is on the cover of playboy.

The feminist classic on the subject, first-year art history:

Professor and art historian Linda Nochlin is a leader in feminist art history studies. In 1971, the magazine ArtNews published an essay whose title posed a question that would spearhead an entirely new branch of art history. The essay was called "Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?" As the title suggests, the essay explores possible reasons that there have been no women who have achieved the highest level of artistic accomplishment, like that achieved by male 'geniuses' such as Michelangelo. Nochlin argues that restrictions on educating women at art academies, as well as general social expectations against women seriously pursuing art served to systematically preclude any emergence of great women artists.

Click to expand...

Nochlin, Linda. "Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?" ARTnews January 1971: 22-39, 67-71.

Originally Posted by Brian SD

Click to expand...

One of the funniest ones I've heard was that art created by females will always have a central focal point, because they're always going to be inclined to subconsciously create a ******.

I went to the WACK exhibit at MOCA and observed that there was a significant number of artist renditions of vaginas.