Eleanor Antin, Exhausted Ramblings, CARVING

First of all, I'd like to mention that I've been thinking about this project obsessively all day. Secondly, I am extremely tired, and typing this from bed on my shitty laptop that doesn't "work," exactly, in that it's like 6 years old, someone gave it to me for free, the touch pad is broken, a lot of keys are missing, and it only temporarily picks up internet. Point being, this may not be my most eloquent post.

Anyway, after mentioning that song by Le Tigre, I had it stuck in my head all day. So I came up with the bright idea of researching some of the artists they mention. One of the first ones was Eleanor Antin. Yet another feminist artist from the '70's (I'm not sure why I've been on such a '70's roll today), she made a video piece called Representational Painting in which she records herself applying make-up in front of a mirror. It's meant to explore the ways in which society pressures women to live up to certain impossible ideals of beauty, which of course is an standard concept that feminists love to explore (I'm not trying to imply that it's cliche, just that it's common; as long as we're expected to live up to societal standards, then it should continue to be challenged).

Working off of where she was going with Representational Painting video, Antin took a series of 148 pictures of herself over the course of 37 days, during which she dieted with the goal of losing ten pounds, entitled CARVING: A Traditional Sculpture. The pictures are reminiscent of Eadweard Muybridge's famous photographic studies of motion from the 1800's, except hers are all of the same four positions: front, back, and both sides. Hers is not a study in motion as much a study of the effects of dieting on her body; the motion is in the dwindling size of her frame.







-h

Suzanne Lacy, New Genre Public Art vs. Traditional Public Art, Three Weeks in May

Last term in Intro to Art & Social Practice, we read an article by Suzanne Lacy from Mapping the Terrain: New Genre Public Art, an anthology of essays about the evolution and place of public art, which apparently she also edits. The essay was entitled Cultural Pilgrimages and Metaphoric Journeys. In it, Lacy distinguishes between what she calls "new genre public art" (which sounds a lot like what we call social practice art), and traditional public art (such as what Tom Wolfe refers to as "the turd in the plaza"). Of NGPA artists, she writes, "artists of varying backgrounds and perspectives have been working in a manner that resembles political and social activity but is distinguished by its aesthetic sensibility." "Public strategies of engagement are an important part of its aesthetic language," as well as "collaboration with his or her audience." This is how I've been defining social practice art since last term. I feel as though the essay is really helpful to anyone who is as confused as I used to be about what defines social practice art, so the essay can be found here.

What I didn't know about Suzanne Lacy when I read that article last term is that she's also a pretty awesome feminist artist, and could be thought of as a social practice artist as well! She studied under the aforementioned Judy Chicago at the University of Fresno in the '70's, and participated in the University's first feminist art program. In 1977 she collaborated with artist Leslie Labowitz in a series of events entitled Three Weeks in May, the goal of which was to expand awareness of the prevalence of sexual violence against women. The series included installations, performances, and even self-defense classes for women.

"On this map of Los Angeles, installed in the mall outside City Hall, Lacy stenciled the word 'RAPE' in red on the approximate locations attacks reported to police during the three weeks of the project. (At the close of Three Weeks in May, ninety rapes had been reported.)"-MOCA

-h

Judy Chicago, the Dinner Party, & Le Tigre

I remember hearing about Judy Chicago in a previous class, but I can't remember if it was an art class or a women's studies class. Anyway, she was one of the first established and self-proclaimed "feminist artists," and she was also a total bad ass. Anyone who's familiar with feminist art has heard of Judy Chicago, so it feels like a pretty good place to start.


Her most famous project was the Dinner Party, which was basically a triangle-shaped table with 39 table settings; all of the table settings were for for mythical or historical women who were famous for one reason or another. According to wikipedia, "Each place setting features a table runner embroidered with the woman's name and images or symbols relating to her accomplishments, with a napkin, utensils, a glass or goblet, and a plate. Many of the plates feature a butterfly- or flowerlike sculpture as a vulva symbol. A collaborative effort of female and male artisans, The Dinner Party celebrates traditional female accomplishments such as textile arts (weaving, embroidery, sewing) and china painting, which have been framed as craft or domestic art, as opposed to the more culturally valued, male-dominated fine arts. The white floor of triangular porcelain tiles is inscribed with the names of a further 999 notable women[1]."




The naming of different notable women sort of reminds me of the Le Tigre song, Hot Topic, because they do the same thing, although they're naming more modern, radical feminist and queer artists/performers and obviously doing it in a less formal way. However, I think the idea of giving "shout-outs" to traditionally marginalized artists is similar.

I think that the Dinner Party is rad in it's celebration of historical female bad asses, but it's definitely a second-wave piece (of course, because it was made in the '70's by a white woman), and in that way is not free of universalizing or erasing qualities. Chicago disproportionately represents white, straight, typically-abled, middle- or upper-class cis-women in her work and in this piece, which is unfortunately a pretty typical quality of any second-wave feminist art, writing, or theory. However, one cool thing about it is that even though it's considered "fine art" and is housed in a musuem, it was more capable of being widely recieved by and accessible to the general public than other "fine art" of the time because it went against the period's stuffy modernist tendencies in utilizing a variety of materials as well as more blatantly political, feminist symbolism.

-h