Rhea Torreon
WMST 250
February 13, 2008
Feminism and Art
Feminism is a subject that I have always struggled to understand and empathize with. While I support some feminist point of views, such as those that built the foundation for women voting and being taken seriously in the work force, I am nevertheless influenced by stereotypes prevalent in today’s society. My limited knowledge on the matter is littered with generalizations and inaccuracies based on what popular culture dictate including (but not limited to) that feminists are: “butch”, lesbian, overdramatic, and/or overcompensating for something. In this light they tend to be viewed as unattractive to the opposite sex, and can be treated as less than human due to this irregularity of an expected cultural norm. I have found that I am guilty of making assumptions consistent with this perspective during my visit to the National Museum of Women and the Arts. I discovered that I made assumptions about art in general, particularly when related to certain cultures. Women, Indian, African, and pop culture all held some measure of unexpected change of attitude towards women’s art and art overall.
At first, the National Museum of African Art looked somewhat boring, simple, and straightforward. Upon closer inspection many of the exhibits displayed a complexity and diversity that I was not expecting. I assumed that the African artwork would be tribal and primitive. In reality, the exhibits showed fine craftsmanship and used several types of media. Some of the materials used were: clay, wood, ivory, straw, animal hair, bone, cloth, pigment, terracotta, animal skin, plant fiber, dye, and ceramic. Several exhibits incorporated anywhere from two to ten different materials in a single work. The skill and creativity shown was eye-opening and left me in admiration of the carved statues’ intricate details. I also assumed the exhibits would pertain mostly to war-like aspects of African life. While hunting was included, other aspects of lifestyle were shown such as maternity, family, and religion. I assumed there would be a heavy influence of male-powered society and limit the display of females. This was not the case. Many female figures were included and some of them had exaggerated features demonstrating the importance of fertility. The female’s role of raising and nurturing children was also illustrated. I may have underestimated African artwork, but I now have a better understanding of their culture and heritage.
I found the National Museum of the American Indian a little disappointing. I assumed that there would be an endless display of rich, Indian culture. Instead, I felt that the museum contained more gift shops than actual artwork. This may be due to its relatively recent opening. It may also reflect the tragic destruction of Indian culture during the years of the settlers. In regards to the artwork, I was surprised at the different items displayed. I assumed that the majority of art work would include paintings and sculptures. Instead, I found an assortment of items such as: canoes, carvings, moccasins, jewelry, dolls, blankets, baskets, musical instruments, clothing, pottery, masks, animal figures, and weapons. Seemingly mundane objects became works of art before my eyes. The anticipated “cave-men” like illustrations on animal skin were replaced with intricate beadwork on everything from dresses to dolls. The inclusion of a vast range of animals was startling. The animals I could make note of alone include: puma, deer, ram, seal, antelope, caribou, bear, buffalo, turtle, raven, parrot, chicken, bird, polar bear, frog, alligator, snake, crab, horse, eagle, loon, spider, egret, owl, beaver, puffin, and killer whale. I assumed Indians primarily dealt with their main source of foods such as the buffalo and deer.
The Hirshhorn Museum was the most eye-opening experience for me. Perhaps this is because I had more preconceived conceptions about what modern art is. What I thought qualifies as art was completely redefined. I learned to appreciate what I would not have previously given a second glance. For example, there were many paintings I would have considered the work of a two-year old. These works include: enamel on aluminum, geometric shapes on a panel, painted canvases, lines made by colored pencils on linen, and pins covering a book. I found it difficult to see the technical skill required to produce these. After all, they appeared to be nothing more than colored panels of canvas or lines drawn on a white board made to resemble the paper I use to takes notes. I learned that point of view is paramount to understanding why such pieces are considered art. The types of exhibits were surprising. I did not expect to find a stack of televisions flashing the same sequence of images as an exhibit, nor the numerous strange sculptures and objects made from everything imaginable. I assumed art had to be framed and on a wall. The series of structures outside of the museum that resembled iron poles hung together spoke otherwise. My visit to the Hirshhorn Museum had a key role in redefining what I considered art.
As mentioned earlier, the National Museum of Women and the Arts changed my perception about women. Even though I did not want to admit it, I found that I assumed women’s art would be inferior to that of a man’s. Many of the exhibits show equal, if not superior skill to that of artwork done by men. For example, Georgia O’Keefe is considered to be one of the key artists of her time. I assumed that there would be somewhat “girly” (less legitimate) types of artwork. I was surprised by the sophistication of the portraits and landscapes exhibited. I also assumed that the artwork would not be as extensive to include portraits, self-portraits, still life paintings, and sculptures. I did not expect to find art dating back to the 16th century. All these discoveries revealed to me that women had a role in art even when they were degraded in other positions in society. The artwork suggests that the relationship between feminism and art is influenced by many factors such as status, duties as a woman, mother, and wife, surroundings, time period, and historical events. The National Museum of Women and the Arts is not feminist because it does not have exhibits solely concerning gender inequalities, it does not address issues such as abortion, sexual harassment, domestic violence, and rape, and it is not comprised solely of feminist artists. The artworks may suggest the nature of women in the arts and show their accomplishments, but its main purpose is not to fight for equal rights for women.
Each museum shed new light on my perspectives of what is considered art. It was an important experience to redefine my personal definition of art uninfluenced by stereotypes. I have a new found appreciation and understanding of Indian, African, Women’s, and pop culture.
WMST 250
February 13, 2008
Feminism and Art
Feminism is a subject that I have always struggled to understand and empathize with. While I support some feminist point of views, such as those that built the foundation for women voting and being taken seriously in the work force, I am nevertheless influenced by stereotypes prevalent in today’s society. My limited knowledge on the matter is littered with generalizations and inaccuracies based on what popular culture dictate including (but not limited to) that feminists are: “butch”, lesbian, overdramatic, and/or overcompensating for something. In this light they tend to be viewed as unattractive to the opposite sex, and can be treated as less than human due to this irregularity of an expected cultural norm. I have found that I am guilty of making assumptions consistent with this perspective during my visit to the National Museum of Women and the Arts. I discovered that I made assumptions about art in general, particularly when related to certain cultures. Women, Indian, African, and pop culture all held some measure of unexpected change of attitude towards women’s art and art overall.
At first, the National Museum of African Art looked somewhat boring, simple, and straightforward. Upon closer inspection many of the exhibits displayed a complexity and diversity that I was not expecting. I assumed that the African artwork would be tribal and primitive. In reality, the exhibits showed fine craftsmanship and used several types of media. Some of the materials used were: clay, wood, ivory, straw, animal hair, bone, cloth, pigment, terracotta, animal skin, plant fiber, dye, and ceramic. Several exhibits incorporated anywhere from two to ten different materials in a single work. The skill and creativity shown was eye-opening and left me in admiration of the carved statues’ intricate details. I also assumed the exhibits would pertain mostly to war-like aspects of African life. While hunting was included, other aspects of lifestyle were shown such as maternity, family, and religion. I assumed there would be a heavy influence of male-powered society and limit the display of females. This was not the case. Many female figures were included and some of them had exaggerated features demonstrating the importance of fertility. The female’s role of raising and nurturing children was also illustrated. I may have underestimated African artwork, but I now have a better understanding of their culture and heritage.
I found the National Museum of the American Indian a little disappointing. I assumed that there would be an endless display of rich, Indian culture. Instead, I felt that the museum contained more gift shops than actual artwork. This may be due to its relatively recent opening. It may also reflect the tragic destruction of Indian culture during the years of the settlers. In regards to the artwork, I was surprised at the different items displayed. I assumed that the majority of art work would include paintings and sculptures. Instead, I found an assortment of items such as: canoes, carvings, moccasins, jewelry, dolls, blankets, baskets, musical instruments, clothing, pottery, masks, animal figures, and weapons. Seemingly mundane objects became works of art before my eyes. The anticipated “cave-men” like illustrations on animal skin were replaced with intricate beadwork on everything from dresses to dolls. The inclusion of a vast range of animals was startling. The animals I could make note of alone include: puma, deer, ram, seal, antelope, caribou, bear, buffalo, turtle, raven, parrot, chicken, bird, polar bear, frog, alligator, snake, crab, horse, eagle, loon, spider, egret, owl, beaver, puffin, and killer whale. I assumed Indians primarily dealt with their main source of foods such as the buffalo and deer.
The Hirshhorn Museum was the most eye-opening experience for me. Perhaps this is because I had more preconceived conceptions about what modern art is. What I thought qualifies as art was completely redefined. I learned to appreciate what I would not have previously given a second glance. For example, there were many paintings I would have considered the work of a two-year old. These works include: enamel on aluminum, geometric shapes on a panel, painted canvases, lines made by colored pencils on linen, and pins covering a book. I found it difficult to see the technical skill required to produce these. After all, they appeared to be nothing more than colored panels of canvas or lines drawn on a white board made to resemble the paper I use to takes notes. I learned that point of view is paramount to understanding why such pieces are considered art. The types of exhibits were surprising. I did not expect to find a stack of televisions flashing the same sequence of images as an exhibit, nor the numerous strange sculptures and objects made from everything imaginable. I assumed art had to be framed and on a wall. The series of structures outside of the museum that resembled iron poles hung together spoke otherwise. My visit to the Hirshhorn Museum had a key role in redefining what I considered art.
As mentioned earlier, the National Museum of Women and the Arts changed my perception about women. Even though I did not want to admit it, I found that I assumed women’s art would be inferior to that of a man’s. Many of the exhibits show equal, if not superior skill to that of artwork done by men. For example, Georgia O’Keefe is considered to be one of the key artists of her time. I assumed that there would be somewhat “girly” (less legitimate) types of artwork. I was surprised by the sophistication of the portraits and landscapes exhibited. I also assumed that the artwork would not be as extensive to include portraits, self-portraits, still life paintings, and sculptures. I did not expect to find art dating back to the 16th century. All these discoveries revealed to me that women had a role in art even when they were degraded in other positions in society. The artwork suggests that the relationship between feminism and art is influenced by many factors such as status, duties as a woman, mother, and wife, surroundings, time period, and historical events. The National Museum of Women and the Arts is not feminist because it does not have exhibits solely concerning gender inequalities, it does not address issues such as abortion, sexual harassment, domestic violence, and rape, and it is not comprised solely of feminist artists. The artworks may suggest the nature of women in the arts and show their accomplishments, but its main purpose is not to fight for equal rights for women.
Each museum shed new light on my perspectives of what is considered art. It was an important experience to redefine my personal definition of art uninfluenced by stereotypes. I have a new found appreciation and understanding of Indian, African, Women’s, and pop culture.
Assumptions List:
I assumed that the African artwork would be tribal and primitive.
I assumed that the African museum would pertain mostly to war-like aspects of African life.
I assumed there would be a heavy influence of male-powered society and thus limit featuring females in African art.
I assumed that there would be an endless display of rich Indian culture and the National Museum of the American Indian.
I assumed that the majority of Indian art would include paintings and sculptures.
I assumed Indians primarily dealt with their main source of foods like the buffalo and deer and that they were not connected to nature in way that they are aware of all the creatures in their surroundings.
I assumed “art” had to be intricate in display.
I assumed art had to be framed and on a wall.
I assumed women’s art would be inferior to that of a man’s.
I assumed that there would be somewhat “girly”, and therefore less legitimate, types of artwork.
I assumed that women’s artwork would not be as extensive in variety to include portraits, self-portraits, still life paintings, and sculptures.
I assumed women’s art dated back only so far.
I assumed that the African artwork would be tribal and primitive.
I assumed that the African museum would pertain mostly to war-like aspects of African life.
I assumed there would be a heavy influence of male-powered society and thus limit featuring females in African art.
I assumed that there would be an endless display of rich Indian culture and the National Museum of the American Indian.
I assumed that the majority of Indian art would include paintings and sculptures.
I assumed Indians primarily dealt with their main source of foods like the buffalo and deer and that they were not connected to nature in way that they are aware of all the creatures in their surroundings.
I assumed “art” had to be intricate in display.
I assumed art had to be framed and on a wall.
I assumed women’s art would be inferior to that of a man’s.
I assumed that there would be somewhat “girly”, and therefore less legitimate, types of artwork.
I assumed that women’s artwork would not be as extensive in variety to include portraits, self-portraits, still life paintings, and sculptures.
I assumed women’s art dated back only so far.
3 comments:
Sorry my essay is one big chuck of writing. I tried to paste it correctly, but it didn't work.
Dear Rhea,
I really enjoyed reading your paper because I felt a connection with a lot of your assumptions and realizations. You gave good visuals on what you saw in each of the museums. I like that you fully admitted to thinking of feminism as a "butchy" thing in your introductory paragraph because not many people will admit that they may have been wrong about it. Your visits have obviously affected you through your descriptions and conclusion.
However, I did find some inconsistencies due to lack of transition. I felt as though with the museum descriptions and summaries you did not really link each museum with BOTH feminism and art. For example, your visit to the Hirshhorn seemed to concentrate on your perspective of what counts as art. And, while you made excellent points with this, you might have wanted to consider linking that with feminism as well.
In the end though I thought your paper was well though out and written in an organized fashion. I did enjoy your input about the Women's Art museum. I thought your reasoning behind why the museum should not be considered feminist was very insightful.
Good job!
-Andria
Rhea,
I hope you enjoyed the museum tour as much as I did. We live so close to the nation's capital, but at the same time we seem to ignore its presence.
"I assumed art had to be framed and on a wall."
This assumption gave me a quick laugh. Hopefully you had a chance to view the sculpture garden and the Hishhorn. It included many pieces not directly hung on a wall.
- I would of also liked to seen more analysis regarding feminism in the Woman's Museum. I was surprised you spent a decent portion of your paper on the African Museum. I felt the overall exhibit was small compared to the others I went to.
- I will have to disagree with your opinion towards the American Indian Museum. I felt the Museum offered an array of pieces, and the gift shop never crossed my mind.
Overall you wrote a coherent and thoughtful essay. I enjoyed reading what you had to say regarding the art and feminism. I may not agree with everything you said, but that is the beauty of art.
Post a Comment