feminist art history yo

http://i386.photobucket.com/albums/oo305/lejospopo/023.jpg

my girl griselda, reprasent

http://www.shafe.co.uk/crystal/images/lshafe/Artemisia_Gentileschi_Judith_Decapitating_Holofernes_c1618.jpg

gettin down with artemisia!

http://www.littlebrown.co.uk/assets/images/Authors/ParkerRozsika.jpg

rozsika parker, daaamn!

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/paintings-by-berthe-morisot-3.jpg

modern space of femininity iirc!

http://www.moca.org/wack/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/lucy_lippard.jpg

lucy lippard!

Why Have There Been No GREAT Women Artists?

A feminist historical materialism does not merely substitute gender for class but deciphers the intricate interdependence of class and gender, as well as race, in all forms of historical practice.

http://anaisn.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/judy_chicago.jpg

St. Judy Chicago imo

http://artcritical.com/DavidCohen/sun_images_december/spero.jpg

NANCY FUCKIN SPERO!!!

Vision and Difference, guys, vision and difference.

http://www.clarebooks.co.uk/usrimage/differencing%20the%20canon%20book%20isbn%200415067006.jpg

differencing the fucking canon

there's this book I have - well I won't have it for much longer - but it's basically a compendium of a lot of talks/discussions/meetings from the 60s and 70s about feminist art history and feminist art collectives in New York mainly. It is quite long, I think I only read about 1/5 of it.

http://images.artnet.com/images_US/magazine/features/drohojowska-philp/drohojowska-philp3-23-07-10.jpg

http://images.artnet.com/images_US/magazine/features/drohojowska-philp/drohojowska-philp3-23-07-8.jpg

http://www.self-titledmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/LCR_Blood_Mendieta.jpg

http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/blogon/upload/2009/05/valie_export_sammlung_essl___UPLOAD_0.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_0r9KVfDbP4E/Sc-Y8uR-PRI/AAAAAAAAC3w/NaRv6yZkPaI/s400/concert+champ%C3%AAtre+1976,+sylvia+sleigh.jpg

http://www.moca.org/wack/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/ogrady.jpg

http://www.benkinmont.com/images/carlandre.jpg

http://lauramars.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/marxism-and-art-hannah-wilke.jpg

http://audreychan.net/images/JudyChicagoNYT.jpg

lol IKR - I didn't notice J Chicago pic upthread.

feminist shart history: no

on my way out the door to work but yall have made my xmas iirc

did sum1 say linda nochlin?

http://www.artknowledgenews.com/files2008a/14am324.jpg

“I do not know if the truth that I have told will benefit the world in any way. I managed to do it at great cost to myself and perhaps to others. It is hard to go against the time of one’s time, milieu and position. But at least I tried to reflect innocently the twentieth century and my feelings and perceptions as a girl and a woman. Not that I felt they were all that different from a man’s. I did this at the expense of untold humiliations, but at least after my fashion. I told the truth as I perceived it, and, considering the way one is bombarded by reality, did the best and most honest art of which I was capable.” — Alice Neel

blue lines

cool thread ikr
i went to a lecture in september and there was an art historian there but i forgot her name. otherwise i would post something on this thread. i forgot because angela davis was there. that's my story.

had to look up fascist feminism tbh

FASCIST FEMINISM: A brand of feminism which is thought by its opponents to be symptomatic of right-wing politics, central dictatorial control, or simply a profound lack of critical self-consciousness. Those who believe affirmative action is reverse discrimination, rather than genuine equal opportunity, would be so inclined. Public policies of hiring only women, as in the instance of the Ontario College of Art in the early 1990s, have been so described. Hannah Wilke seems to have been the first to use the phrase in her art. In the mid 1970s, mainstream feminists disliked her self-portraits with allusions to pin-up girls and she responded with the slogan "Marxism and Art/Beware of Fascist Feminism." More recently, Camille Paglia's Sexual Personae has made similar charges. She even described Gloria Steinem simply as "Stalin" in an interview on 60 Minutes.

i would be flattered to be called stalin by camille paglia

Brooklyn Museum is really good for this stuff.

Including that Chicago table thing.

YALL WANT SOME MORE

http://www.artfagcity.com/wordpress_core/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/wynne-greenwood.jpg

http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/eascfa/feminist_art_base/archive/images/182.1304.jpg

http://www.canadianart.ca/online/see-it/2009/05/07/marthawilson2_350.jpg

i would be flattered to be called stalin by camille paglia

― jortin shartgent (harbl), Wednesday, January 6, 2010 2:17 PM (6 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

otm!

before the holiday, i went to a small discussion here in mtl with the curator of the brooklyn museum's feminist art centre - super interesting, if a bit academic, but am cool w that and very into how they tackle 'history of feminism' - not just one approach, non-linear, overlapping, international. love that place.

j0e that is such an awes picture of martha wilson!

i saw her do the bush thing a few years ago, it was great

this doesn't help me at all. i don't suppose you're following the premier league at all lately ti£rn@n?

a phallocracy that excludes women from its institutions

what is worse a phallocracy or a gynaeceum, i can never decide

they both smell bad

lock the gynaeceum, then and only then release the woman inside. because it smells.

http://www.tate.org.uk/research/tateresearch/tatepapers/09spring/images/walker/11_walker_06.jpg

i ought to pay this thread some strict attention

A feminist historical materialism does not merely substitute gender for class but deciphers the intricate interdependence of class and gender, as well as race, in all forms of historical practice.

― plaxico (I know, right?), Tuesday, December 15, 2009 9:13 PM (1 month ago)

i can lend u my copy of vision and difference if u want?

i would like to know more about this. so that could be nice! does it take existing deep knowledge to understand or will layman jagger be able to grasp concepts?

i dunno, griselda pollock is pretty foundational to my whole way of thinking baout stuff but i reckon you could get a pretty rounded view by picking up differencing the canon

which im pretty sure is where she hilariously decimates van gogh

i think i'll get that from the library today, plax

no lynda benglis yet?

http://rebeccaodwyer.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/1182214.jpg

hey watch out ur spilling the paint

i think u meant hey watch out ur dismantling the phallocentric assumptions of modernism

but that is a big penis of paint she is pouring

^phallocentric assumpt. #1

whoa this looks like its gonna be great!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HV0V5wDzW0

wow - i totally want to see that!

saint judy chicago imo

Adrian Piper is one of those artists i keep meaning to look into more and always forget to do so

yeah me too, but like performance art in gen. which is something that largely mystifies me and I basically only know the heavy hitters, I guess now is a really good time to learn more abt it since that abramovich show kindof brought up a lot of discussion around the web (that danto thing in the nytimes was really good but fell really far short of addressing a few v. basic qs i have about performance practices - tho i guess that is largely due to the reductionist type of thinking that asks those qs. in the 1st place)

i meant this

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/on-art-action-and-meaning/

not the original thing he wrote which felt a bit inconsequential

Surprised not to see this on thread
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l08yfjU5bP1qzpzzv.jpg

haha no shit! i guess its cos the thread was orig. about feminist art history, it just kinda got turned into feminist art tho.

on both fronts mary kelly tho!

http://hammer.ucla.edu/image/2081/600/450.JPG

there's one image on this thread that j0e posted that may or may not be mary kelly i cannot tell

so i saw the dinner party tonight at the brooklyn museum. also i want a job in the sackler feminist art center.

pretty sure i did not post any mary kelly here

i cant remember which img i was talking abt so

http://www.guerrillagirls.com/posters/ireland.shtml

esp. for plax

lol i've seen those, its funny that the 14% that they allude to at Imma was a pretty good lynda benglis show though.

lol! Did you see the Yvonne Rainer letter about the Marina Abromovicz LA MOCA performance?

hey watch out ur spilling the paint

― harbl, Saturday, April 10, 2010 5:16 PM (1 year ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i think u meant hey watch out ur dismantling the phallocentric assumptions of modernism

― plax (ico), Tuesday, April 13, 2010 5:22 AM (1 year ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

This might be the best exchange on ILX ever.

Regretting not seeing a Lynda Benglis show when I was last in New York.

i was reading about the rainer/abramovicz thing on artinfo today. i mean deitch and abramovicz are both obviously such horrible people really even if i kindof enjoy deitch as a cultural character, but abramovicz's project of positioning herself as this executor to the estate of early performance art is really irksome, and i feel like a lot of her strategies are sortof suspect in a way i cant quite articulate. also that whole artist is present thing seems kindof embarrassing for everyone in hindsight, like its seems weird that literally everybody bought into it really. and yeah rainer is right in that her use of surrogates has seemed really exploitative in this really distinct way (also apparently one of the MOMA dudes constantly had a massive boner lol) and doesnt really square with her self advertised awesome presence. I dont really know anything about yvonne rainer but she seems like a massive killjoy.

tell me more abt why the moma show was embarrassing!

the one thing about the ranier letter that made me cringe a little (not sure if cringe is the right word) is her comparison to Salo and torture, and a sort of "how dare you go there" stance, and Marina Abs is Serbian.

http://a.yfrog.com/img741/3466/v4zhx.jpg

http://a.yfrog.com/img859/2852/4dapi.jpg

also why are performance artists obsessed w/ everybody getting naked. the last performance art thing i went to involved some guy distending his anus in the faces of several members of the crowd and yelling "this hole belongs to no-one!"

wrt to the moma thing, i mean maybe i'm reacting more against her earlier guggenheim show where she re-staged "classic" performance pieces by ppl like nauman and acconci, but the preservation of performance art and the trickiness or, potentially, the impossibility of doing so is pretty central to why many artists have engaged with it in the first place, that it, at least to some degree, resists the same kind of commodification that other art forms are so subject to. for that reason, a lot the rhetoric of early performance has this super marxist angle. I'm kindof bothered by the way abramovic has been trying to insert herself into the narrative as like "the grand dame of performance." and aren't we supposed to be super skeptical of exactly the kind of mystical encounter with the artist that she was selling with that? Idk all these people sitting in front of her and bursting into tears, there was this contrivance i think, this collective will to make "the artist is present" this *event* somehow, i guess because people always want the things they are a part of to be a big deal.

oh hmm

i dont really have an opinion fwiw just wanted to hear others

the gala on the other hand, my opinion is "lol"

http://a.yfrog.com/img875/5628/dxsg.jpg

i mean

http://a.yfrog.com/img619/6533/t9xbc.jpg
http://a.yfrog.com/img876/8863/kxuj.jpg

there must be so much cocaine at this thing

http://marinaabramovicmademecry.tumblr.com/

there's this chick who sat there for two minutes and is crying. i mean.

so do u think the ppl who cry are fooling themselves? is this an authenticity thing

no i mean that's fine, like people can have this experience if they want you know? but i mean i think the larger critical discourse should a lot warier. i feel like the acclaim that greeted this completely failed to deal with some of the more problematic elements it raised, i mean this "encounter between the artist and the viewer," this has obvious art-historical precedents and is bound up with ideas to do with the aura, or the heroic figure of the artist etc etc. its not that art can't move people, or that things can't be popular, but to me this whole thing seems really slight and predicated on some pretty dodgy and outmoded notions about those ideas, and rainer is maybe the first person to bring up in any serious way how exploitative a lot of this is, her use of other people's bodies as surrogates functioning in a very different way to how she takes on or tackles the work of others. i mean there's definitely an inconsistency that barely seemed to register at the time.

its too bad rainier brought it up the context of the gala and not of the moma exhibition, id probably be more sympathetic

aren't we supposed to be super skeptical of exactly the kind of mystical encounter with the artist that she was selling with that?

An OTM point I've never considered. And there is something very counter-transgressive about huge, single-file lines of people paying like $20 to bask in the auratic presence of the artist (that said, I do like the idea of it, and will stan for anything I think has a kind of face-to-face presentness evoking the sublime otherness-as-mutual dependence-and-vice-versa of the intersubjective encounter; and yeah I believe, gullibly or otherwise, that crying people are 4-REAL). It really does pose a lot of the basic problems that best performance art (and is among the various reasons I don't really like performance in general) which is that her work doesn't really respond to the reification of performance that it initially set out to counter. Presence, of course, meant something very different, artistically, in the 70s, and the failure to work around that problem, but still invoke presence as the instance of something artistically relevant is kind of o_O (and if she's presenting other people's work then that's even worse: she becomes a agent that brokers out her authorial "presence" in order to make repeated* performances authentic).

Which brings me to the most pressing thing about Rainer's letter (which I don't really have a problem with) which is that this Salo-piece is just done to loosen donor wallets. It's bringing to commodification of performance-as-presence to new levels, but not even implicating herself in it. It's auxilliary presence where she again lends her name to institutions in order to sell, while using the labour of what I imagine to be desperate students/unemployed performance artists, or what have you.

*There's of course loads of thorny issues about repeated performances, namely that when you introduce repetition presence kind of goes out the window, kind of...

this thread always makes me wish i knew more about art history. plax if you will give me an intensive feminist art history seminar i will pay you in photos of mark ruffalo!

*It's bringing commodification (no "to")

Like, I think most of her work and the whole 'hey look I'm in danger' school of performance is pretty gimmicky. If so much of what works about that is the subjective bodily experience, of putting one's body at its limits, then that's not really something you can just hire people to do. I mean, we're buying into a presence (qua brand commodity) that's ultimately illusory.

well, if you hire somebody to do it, it just becomes something else. And the pay to be in the artist's presence, it's kinda hard for me to take that sincerely, as opposed to as tongue-in-cheek commentary on the aura of the artist. It sounds reminiscent of Yves Klein in the 50s/60s.

A man I didn’t know accosted me. “Is it me or was this all about violence against women?” he asked. “It’s you,” I said. “Look at that cake!” he exclaimed. “It’s a horribly mutilated woman with knives in her chest. Doesn’t that bother you?” “It’s a cake,” I said. “It represents all the indignities women have suffered at the hands of men. It is women telling their own history.” Apparently, the point was lost on him. “It’s disgusting,” he replied. I asked his name, which he declined to give. “I’m in the social register!” he growled, brushing past me to let Deitch know that this violence against women would result in the withdrawal of funding from the museum.

“Don’t be afraid of art!” Deitch said, when the man stormed off. “Wow,” he added a moment later. “That was intense.” In the end, the gala raised $2.5 million.

the last performance art thing i went to involved some guy distending his anus in the faces of several members of the crowd and yelling "this hole belongs to no-one!"

vincent van goatse

http://www.jca-online.com/sherman.html

xpost: Be careful, you're just begging for some very regrettable Starry Night photoshops.

If ILX wasn't down I would have posted about my kind of amazing presentation about psychoanalysis and gender titled "GREAT ERECTIONS IN ART HISTORY," replete with amazing use of be-dildoed Lynda beglis pictures.

suzanne lacy ftw btw

http://www.moca.org/black_sun/artwork/suzanne-lacy-three-weeks-in-may-1977/