It is hard for me as a male growing up in the period in which I have, to try and put myself in Heidi's shoes and see the world as a place that is overtly hostile to women. Where the patriarchal system of male dominance has essentially reduced women to having no say in their lives except for to "choose" to be a housewife or a suffer alone all their lives. Women have a lot to thank the women of the feminist era for the power and rights they have no for without them who knows where women would be today.
What to say about looking at those pictures. As a male and at first glance, they are terrifying. The paintings display two women holding down and decapitating a man. More than likely these images were supposed to mean something more than base line female gang violence against males. Consider the painting Judith Beheading Holofernes, by Artemesia Gentileschi. The women in the picture are showing a significant of struggle holding the male down as they remove his head. This is reminiscent of the struggle that Hiedi and the other women went through on the road to claiming their independence. Furthermore the women are using a sword, not unlike the sword that Lady Justice is known to carry. While these paintings more that likely were painted at the time to tell a story such as how some guy was beheaded, they have come to mean much more because of the actions of the Feminists in the 60s, 70s, and 80. Through a feminist perspective we could see the paintings to mean the up hill battle for women's rights and independence against the mail chauvinistic world. Or we could interpret the removing of the head, as seen in the paintings as the attempt by women to sever the male power base of the patriarchal world. Also interesting to note, like in the play despite Hiedi's efforts to be individual of forces that bound her to her female stereotype and ideologies, she was only semi-successful in achieving here goals. In these paintings the women have not succeeded in removing the male's heads but implying that women have not yet actually being able to free themselves from male tyranny but at least they are moving in the "right" direction.
As a gay male, I often have troubles understanding hardships that females have to go through. This is not to say that I do not know the statistic that males are much more likely to succeed in the work force and that a women who transgender to a male stand a substantially higher chance at making more money than his old female counterparts. But I also know that the gay community has yet to have its day, and I would like to believe that maybe we can take a tip from the feminists and actually make something happen.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Monday, March 30, 2009
Pollock to me and Tolstoy
Pollock to me
There is no other artist that I know of who is more aggravating for understand in the sense of art and artistic expression that Jackson Pollock. Pollock's later work as we know focused around the use of splatter paint instead of the more traditionally viewed art that uses more conventional images and scenes. And that is exactly where Pollack got his fame. Unlike others that may not have considered his art to have merit, because, well hell, a three year old could make something comparable, Pollock did and inadvertently created a market for something new. His art is simply fluid motion captured through different colors and layering effects on a canvas. For me, he work is definitely pretty. But I wonder how much of that sense of beauty is universal or if it is something that I have been conditioned to have being raised in an artistic family and having know Pollock's work since I was little. I honestly feel, that if I was looking at Pollock works for the first time, as if I had lived in a vacuum to Pollock criticism until just now, I would have two reactions. The first would be to say "wow, wonder how long that took?" Implying that in that painting there is some sort of a lack of skill. The second reaction would be to notice the efficiency of the paint flings, the order in the chaos that was his splatter paint and I would begin to understand the work more. Like that forger was implying, we could all put on our crummy shoes, lay a canvas on the floor and start painting like Pollock did, but we would not be able to capture the movement and the feeling that his paintings have. Maybe if we had studies Pollock's work for years we would begin to have a sense of the kind of "strokes" that he didn't and didn't do, but even then those rules are probably completely variable considering how he had chosen to paint.
When one attempts to analyzes a work by Pollock, it is hard to even know where to begin. So in this case lets see what Tolstoy would have thought of Pollock's work. Tolstoy defined art as needing three things, Art must possess some feeing of the artistic behind it, the feeling which it is trying to transmit must be clear and the artist must be sincere in the message they are trying to convey. Thus, under this art criticism would Tolstoy consider Pollocks' work to be art. I personally don't think he would. Sure Pollock most likely had some individual feeling, following along with Tolstoy, and there the parallels fall apart. Was their a feeling that Pollock was trying to convey in his work entitled "Number1" ? I have no idea, It evokes emotion and feelings within me but were those the messages he wanted. Furthermore, if we can not identify which emotion the art is trying to convey how can we know if the artist was sincere in trying to convey that emotion? Thus, I would say that Pollock's works fail under Tolstoy's art criticism.
There is no other artist that I know of who is more aggravating for understand in the sense of art and artistic expression that Jackson Pollock. Pollock's later work as we know focused around the use of splatter paint instead of the more traditionally viewed art that uses more conventional images and scenes. And that is exactly where Pollack got his fame. Unlike others that may not have considered his art to have merit, because, well hell, a three year old could make something comparable, Pollock did and inadvertently created a market for something new. His art is simply fluid motion captured through different colors and layering effects on a canvas. For me, he work is definitely pretty. But I wonder how much of that sense of beauty is universal or if it is something that I have been conditioned to have being raised in an artistic family and having know Pollock's work since I was little. I honestly feel, that if I was looking at Pollock works for the first time, as if I had lived in a vacuum to Pollock criticism until just now, I would have two reactions. The first would be to say "wow, wonder how long that took?" Implying that in that painting there is some sort of a lack of skill. The second reaction would be to notice the efficiency of the paint flings, the order in the chaos that was his splatter paint and I would begin to understand the work more. Like that forger was implying, we could all put on our crummy shoes, lay a canvas on the floor and start painting like Pollock did, but we would not be able to capture the movement and the feeling that his paintings have. Maybe if we had studies Pollock's work for years we would begin to have a sense of the kind of "strokes" that he didn't and didn't do, but even then those rules are probably completely variable considering how he had chosen to paint.
When one attempts to analyzes a work by Pollock, it is hard to even know where to begin. So in this case lets see what Tolstoy would have thought of Pollock's work. Tolstoy defined art as needing three things, Art must possess some feeing of the artistic behind it, the feeling which it is trying to transmit must be clear and the artist must be sincere in the message they are trying to convey. Thus, under this art criticism would Tolstoy consider Pollocks' work to be art. I personally don't think he would. Sure Pollock most likely had some individual feeling, following along with Tolstoy, and there the parallels fall apart. Was their a feeling that Pollock was trying to convey in his work entitled "Number1" ? I have no idea, It evokes emotion and feelings within me but were those the messages he wanted. Furthermore, if we can not identify which emotion the art is trying to convey how can we know if the artist was sincere in trying to convey that emotion? Thus, I would say that Pollock's works fail under Tolstoy's art criticism.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Monday, March 9, 2009
Monday, March 2, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
