women and art

With all the free and floating about time I've had recently, I've been able to see a number of exhibits and plays. The first was an exhibit at the Yerba Buena Center for the Arts in SF. "The Way That We Rhyme: Women, Art & Politics" made me ashamed of the idea of "women's" art. Ostensibly about politics and the changing role of feminism in female artist's life, I found most of the works to be mediocre at best. I have nothing against political art. I personally believe the best art is that which is charged with a political intent. Art without a message is masturbation. Message without craft, however, is not art.

In college, I started and for several years maintained a theatre company called -oh so originally-"The Women's Theatre Company". Grown out of a theatre class that encouraged the students to be very literal with names in proposals and business plans, I've seen a number of other similarly dull names emerge from USC.

Also, in addition to working in the computer labs all 4 years, senior year I had a paying position in the program board leading the Women's Student Assembly. My mom had me reading Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan in elementary school. Of course, being a voracious reader, I was also reading Stephen King, VC Andrews, everything of my brother's high school lit reading list, and anything else high or low I could get my hands on.

Gloria Steinem was the only author I personally met, however. My mom took me to a book reading of hers at an independent bookstore in St. Paul where she signed my 7th grade biographical book report. Later in college, I met her again when I organized a rally she appeared at. I took the feminist class for a requirement in college. I got the feminist street cred. And I really detest that the word feminist is a dirty word.

And yet, I do feel that my life is lived beyond the issues feminists fought for. I spent years as a flash programmer, never working with any other girls on the job doing what I did. I now work in motion graphics. Since I've crossed over from doing technical work to design work, there are many many more women. Although strangely, it has not been uncommon for me to be the only female in a given department even now.

I don't feel limited in the least by my gender. I feel free to pick and choose amongst whatever gender role identity is most helpful at the time. I am totally independent. I make a great living and do it on my terms. It's a great world for me -- but we got here because a lot of ladies made a lot of noise along the way.

So Women's Art. My theatre company was all about practicality and filling a need. There were usually 5-10% men in any given class/audition/situation while most plays had roles that went from 50/50 to 70/30 in men's favor. Think Shakespeare -- not exactly rife with juicy female roles. I was all about producing original and repertory work that had only female parts. It was a great experiment, getting close to a bunch of women. I'm usually more than comfortable in a room of men, so it challenged me and helped me grow, and I think it did that for all the girls that got involved. There's room for all kinds. I just wish that exhibits like the one at Yerba Buena didn't have to suck and make that seem like a bad idea.

Politically, it was awesome. There was an exhibit of letters that people wrote to the founder of what came to be NARAL. Boyfriends, young ladies in trouble, mothers. But it just wasn't surprising or attractive or thrilling -- think more photo montage on a locker wall.

So where do women fit in mainstream art? Selections from the permanent collection at the New York Museum of Modern Art provided a poignant counter example. There were many women represented in this particular exhibit, and they were all excellently crafted and conceptually strong - but so many of them seemed to be naked or sexually charged. On the one hand, great, I thought. Women's bodies have been used in art for millenia because they're good to look at. We like them! And as long as they're there, they might as well be owned and credited to the women who possess them. But can't we get beyond that? Does it all have to be identity and body issues? Isn't there more to say?

One particularly memorable piece has a naked woman with a hula hoop made of barbed wire in a video loop. It was difficult to look away. Filmed in front of the sea, a wave kept crashing in time to the hooping, and there was a ripple every time the hoop hit the skin and left a laceration. I had to look to see if the artist was the woman in the loop, and thank god it was. How exploitative if not.

This piece is just the variety I'm talking about:
example 1

While this one was the best counter example to what I am saying -- I thought it was beautiful, finally crafted, and it had political content that had nothing to do with sex or bodies:
example 2

Thank god the photography section of the museum had more to offer. Cindy Sherman is all fine and good, but we need for Dorthea Lange and Diane Arbus.