Distinct Lack of Naked Ladies!

This is the 3rd time I've purchased "the Anti-Aesthetic, essays on Post-Modern Culture." Each teacher has wanted us to read different essays, though, so I had not read Jameson's "Post-Modernism and Consumer Society." The thing that stood out about it most, upon first reading, was that it didn't contain any naked ladies.

mod·ern·ism/ˈmädərˌnizəm/Noun
1. Modern character or quality of thought, expression, or technique.
2. A style or movement in the arts that aims to break with classical and traditional forms.

post·mod·ern·ism/ noun /pōstˈmädərˌnizəm/

1. A late 20th-century style and concept in the arts, architecture, and criticism that represents a departure from modernism and has at its heart a general distrust of grand theories and ideologies as well as a problematical relationship with any notion of “art.”

So, as a historian (haha) I object to the whole progressive concept of modernism. There were so many breaks from so many different time periods in artistic history I think it's just sort of dumb to think of one of them as being more radical than the others. I don't get how modernism is more modern than, say, impressionism, except for its existance in more "modern" times. It just seems sorta silly to me as a name. So postmodernism seems, well, outright ridiculous. Which I guess is right there in the definition- "a general distrust of theories."

Specifically in this essay Jameson deals with "pastiche" and "schizophrenic" theories in postmodernism. He basically defines pastiche as parody without the comedy, (which sounds tedious), and schizophrenia as being something akin to the experience of Billy Pilgrim's becoming unstuck in time. If I'm understanding him correctly, and I very well may not be, his definition of postmodern art is art which evokes a sense of time (place, action) we can't quite put our finger on, yet we sense it's familiarity. In other words, postmodernism is that creepy sense of de ja vu that apparently occurs more regularly in epileptics. Saturated with time and signifiers but only conscious for, and in, an instant.

I don't understand why these labels and time periods need to be differentiated, or why they couldn't exist contemporary with each other, as schools of thought not periods of time. Actually, I'm quite sure that they did, along with neo-classicism and a whole bunch of other made up genres.

It has been hammered home in all these other naked lady essays that one of the great works of modernism, Demoiselles De Avignon, was an attempt to return to a primal, pre-classical aesthetic. So perhaps postmodernism is really just calling a spade a spade- saying that all works of modernism were indeed, already, postmodern. Wouldn't that be pre-modern? Let's just say it's all garbage and be done with it!

This goes back to the first mini- essay I wrote, where Linda Nochlin observed that the women of different eras were more likely to make work of that era rather than work that was distinctly feminine. It seems to me that one could postulate that artists were almost exclusively, throughout time, making work for the same fundamental reasons- they were capable through access to materials, they were being paid or in some way rewarded for their talents, and the work that they were making interested them. This has never changed, from neadrathal through neo-classical times. Artists will make representations of the fundamental things of importance in their times and space. Sometimes these things will deliberately be nostalgic, sometimes deliberately futuristic, for as long as there is a concept of past and future. Bu they will always be of their time. You can't change a Roman copy into a Greek original.

Exotic Naked Ladies.

Another day, another Nochlin, this one titled "the Imaginary Orient."

I love Oreintalism. It's some of my favorite work, to be quite honest. There is something so NOT real about it. In this regard I completely agree with Ms Nochlin- it's more like a gallery of taxidermy than a trip to the zoo. She calls it (and I like this term) "the apparent absence of art" meaning that there are some, not many, instances, especially within these paintings that tend to be of slave girls in exotic locals, of actual observation without embellishment. Certainly the tile work that is ubiquitous is actually taken from real details.

But here are paintings, especially the Gerome "Slave Markets", where French men are hiring French (or recent immigrant) models (read PROSTITUTES, lest we forget the real vocation of these yummy looking creatures according to most art historians) to pretend to be Persian girls being traded in an open air market. These are fairly accurate and very sexy paintings of hairless white girls being poked and prodded and bid upon by "oriental" (read "Moslem") men. And yet, in this article, we didn't have to talk about male dominance? I guess because it's obvious here, as opposed to being implied by Picasso and the like. Here we have detailed women against detailed backgrounds of exotic locales, and because the objectification is obvious it is not noteworthy. And that is just fine with me!

More Naked Ladies

Hey, this time with Pictures!

So, I've been a figure model since I was 17. I started in a bikini for a highschool class, and have since modeled nude for 13 years. In that time I have seen lots and lots of drawings of myself. Hundreds. Maybe even thousands. Neither of these are of me- both were done by Ted and were featured in the gallery a couple of months back. I love both these drawings. In neither can you see the woman's face, or details of her breasts. In both you can see hands, and in at least one of them, feet. Ted can draw, that much is certain. He has studied figure drawing off and on for more than 10 years, and when he looks at a naked girl (or man, actually, though I seem to have not transferred those images onto my hard drive), low, he seems to see a lot of interesting details to draw. Ted works very hard to attempt to master this very complicated way of seeing. This will be relevant later on, I promise.

In Carol Duncan's (yup, it was a double Duncan day)"Virility and Domination in Early 20th Century Vanguard Painting" essay one of her many assertions indicated that the Fauves (amoung others) were obviously lascivious bastards because they painted reclining women with no heads, hands, or feet. Now, I looked at the xeroxes of the works used to support this claim, by such luminaries as Picasso, Matisse, Munch and others, and here's what I can say about them- they weren't very good drawers, or atleast these weren't very good drawings. And by that I mean that they didn't take a lot of time to see very much to draw, especially of the naked girl. They seem intimidated by feet and hands- if they can put them behind a back, or out of the frame, they do. I've watched hundreds of students use this same technique. The artists seem more interested in the symbol of woman than in the actual woman to hand- if they can place her somewhere, great! Put her on a sofa, bed, in front of a self-portrait, whatever! Just don't have her (as Ted's drawings of the subject seem to do) actually bearing weight in space. Don't give her mass! The exception to this being Matisse's Carmelina, which was by far the most interesting of the paintings.

At the same time that these avant-garde artists were making these floaty lady paintings, photography (not discussed in the article) was making it's first inroads into the art world, and surgery was becoming standardized. It wasn't imperative anymore to be depicting the body accurately- there was another medium and method doing that ever so much more effectively than a bad drawing could. Also, there were amazing commercial figure drawers of that era, most notably Alphonse Mucha. In other words, it was no longer imperative to be good at seeing- instead, I think, we see the switch to "art" being for shock value and profit.

And what was shocking at the time? Art of the mentally deranged, or imported primative works. These are wonderful and compelling aesthetic systems heavily influencing the art world, especially Picasso. I see no evidence, or discussion, of what gender the masks from Demoiselles De Avignon were originally intended for, but quite possibly that was what the painting was supposed to be about- the masks, not the boobies. I dunno, I could be wrong. The boobies are pretty interesting, too.

What is for certain is that these men were making work not to be collected by the upper classes, or the monarchy, or to better display wealth in a church setting as their predecessors had. These were not works to be slaved over in the process of discovering the anatomy or to better depict Jesus and Mary, a tradition of representation that had been perfected by fresco painters 200-400 years before. These were quick, dirty paintings to sell to the middle classes (in this I agree with Ms Duncan). These were to swap with each other, to trade for rent, doodles and not masterpieces, by in large. These are not "studies" these are "paintings" by men who can't draw very well for people who can't afford, or appreciate, the best.

But I resent the claim that the models were somehow degraded by these depictions. Many models, whether or not they are also prostitutes, have been drawn badly. You don't always get to choose how you are drawn. What's for certain is that very rarely is a woman seen cut off as if she is involved in a sexual act at the time of the painting. I know from experience why there are so many reclining women being depicted, as opposed to standing or even seated poses. It's exhausting! I look at a lot of paintings from this era and see tired models, not dominated models. I'm not saying artists of the era weren't just jerks wanting to paint naked ladies- they very well may have been. But I think we should give them the benefit of the doubt. They probably hired these women for an hour, half of which was spent reclining, much as it would be now.

I'm all for a school of criticism for artists by artists. I look at Ted's work, much as I look at Mucha's or Degas', and see people who may have been bastards, but are also interested in the sensuous details of feminine-ness, and are willing to work hard to capture that in a limited time. When Degas drew a prostitutes, as he often did, he drew her very well, very nicely, and it is obvious that she is in motion. These men love women. They love drawing. They have studied long enough to love the details, not just of the carpet, but also of the girl. This, to me, is the most masculine, FUBU sort of drawing- communicating the intimate details of particular models as they have been presented to the viewer. There is just as much ego in a Mucha as a Matisse, one artist puts more merit in intimacy and the other in symbolism. Neither is dominant. They are just ways of seeing some one they are paying to lie on their sofa.

Naked Ladies

So, I read the lovely Art Journal Essay "the MOMA's hot Mommas" by Carol Duncan through twice, and realized what I am going to take away from Graduate school- a gratefulness for not having to discuss art in New York City in the 1980's. I am not going to remember any salient details from these articles- they slip though my mind like sand through the hour glass. I'm writing pages of notes, which I reread and remember just this vague sense on annoyance without substance.

The article discusses the rearrangement of the MoMA circa 1984, focusing specifically on Demoiselles de Avignon by Mr. Picasso and Mr. DeKooning's "Woman 1" (described as the "fus(ion of the) terrible killer-witch with the willing and exhibitionist Whore.") I do agree with Ms. Duncan that "the MOMA remains enormously important for the role it plays in maintaining in the present a particular version of the art historical past." However, since I have never been to the MOMA, and since it no longer exists on it's former floor plan, and has greatly expanded it's collections since this article was written, I don't actually understand the relevancy of the article to my current place and time as a creator or observer. Also, the article tries to discuss femininity in a way I found as outdated as the description of the layout.


My high school art teacher was obsessed with breasts. She was very fond of Mr. DeKooning, and frequently showed us slides of the "Woman" series. I thought at the time that they were clumsy, tedious, bosomy for the sake of being bosomy, inarticulate paintings. But wanting to do well in the class, and following in the many derivative footsteps of other highschool students before me, I dutifully drew women with very large, pronounced breasts, ugly, angry faces, and little, or no, legs. At the time they undoubtedly resembled myself- I was a top-heavy angry person through most of my young adulthood. Maybe because I so thoroughly embraced this character the paintings of DeKooning have never seemed particularly threatening to me. Women are angry and clumsy creatures occasionally, just as men are impotent warmongerers. No big deal- we all have many facets to our personalities, and may we be able to explore them all through art.

Ms. Duncan seemed particularly interested in the gorgon-likeness of the women in the "Woman" series. I have always found that I feel like I more resemble a gorgon than a nymph, and haven't never felt that the depiction of women, by men or women, as such, was threatening to my girly-ness. Women have these capacities, and they have been celebrated through millenia in many forms- from Kali to Medusa. We wouldn't, as a society, choose to remember them if they weren't important, dear to us.

The article concludes with a passage comparing an image from the COVER of Penthouse, advertised on city streets (and "available everywhere") with the pieces in the museum. In it Ms. Duncan describes porn as "images designed... to stimulate desire, primarily in men." The image from the cover is of a woman, seated much like the full frontal seated women of the "Woman" series, fully clad, and not even showing cleavage. Growing up as I have, seeing porn as not limited to stimulating desire specifically in either gender, I also find no offense in the Penthouse cover. Call it DeKooning for the masses, if you will. But I wonder what Ms. Duncan makes of images made by woman in the mainstream now.

Specifically I'm thinking of the Beyone Run The World(Girls) perfomance on at the Billboard awards 2011, and also of the original video. Both depict not only scantilly clad, gyrating women, but are clearly made not only to stimulate desire, sexual and otherwise in both genders, but to intimidate the fuck out of people. The original music video depicts riot cops and exploding cars, Beyonce on a cross, and a woman possibly masterbating in a cage. And is that Lady Gaga walking those hyenas, the symbol of female dominated society? (I don't know, because I don't participate with pop culture frequently) The lyrics are the oddest of all, though I find them strangely empowering, if sorta infantile...
(I'm repping for the girls who taking over the world
Have me raise a glass for the college grads
Anyone rolling I'll let you know what time it is
You can't hold me
I broke my 9 to 5 and copped my cheque
This goes out to all the women getting it in,
Get on your grind
To the other men that respect what I do
Please accept my shine
Boy you know you love it
How we're smart enough to make these millions
Strong enough to bare the children
Then get back to business
See, you better not play me
Don't come here baby
Hope you still like me)

The vidoe and performance depict probably angry women in formation, taking on a mythical male army. But watching both I'm amazed by how much I am supposed to assume that there is a revolution needed, or that somehow men are somehow afraid of, or in-equal to women. I don't think I want girls, especially these girls, to run the world. They seem incapable of re-assesing and recreating a new and better place, and more just bent on destruction using tanks and glitter. Ah well, we can't win 'em all.

hope you still like me, too.

Graduate School (bring on the naked ladies!)

So, I'm now (or sooner or later) expected to start keeping a blog for (around?) my graduate school experience, noting readings, discussing accomplishements, generally proving that I am, indeed, working towards some sort of thesis. So, consider selves forwarned, we are about to enter an abundant, if boring phase of sequinner note writings.

My critical Theory 1 class seems to be a recap of several of my undergrad classes. And what reading do we start with? Linda Nochlin's "Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?" This is not the first time I've read this 1971 article. Indeed, wikipedia says that the "title posed a question that would spearhead an entire new branch of art history," so I guess it should be considered required reading, especially for female artists.

However, I'm always uncomfortable with this Euro-centric, "Painting and Sculpture are the only forms of art" article. The reason that you don't have Great Female Artists would seem obvious- they were probably busy doing something besides painting and sculpting. You could probably posit the theory that there were very few women that wanted to paint, or who had the desire to make a living at it until the 20th century, by which time not only could women vote and hold property, but also the costs of creating artwork had greatly diminished. In the era of Michaelangelo very few women owned and operated their own businesses doing anything, let alone a business in the trades, like fresco painting was at that time.

The article spent too much time discussing the trouser wearing artist Rosa Bonheur, (whom I had never heard of and was unimpressed by images from), as well as giving the bizarre excuse that possibly there had been no great female artists because in European countries women were denied access to nude models for the study of figure drawing until the late 19th century (because we all know that Giotto, someone sighted in the article as an artistic "Genius" was drawing nudes all the time!).

There were some interesting ideas floated in the beginning of the article. One was that women artists of different eras were more likely to resemble men of the same era, rather than be a subclass of ladies by themselves. "In every instance women artists and writers seem to be closer to other artists and writers of their own period and outlook than they are to each other." Clearly women artists, though few and far between, were more interested in making art than they were in making "feminine" art.
There was no articulation of what "feminine" art would or could have looked like, but certainly it was not to be a "...naive idea that art is the direct personal expression of individual emotional experience, a translation of personal life into visual terms. Art is almost never that, and great art never is....art is... neither a sob story nor a confidential whisper." I love that quote, but I wonder what exactly is supposed to denote "feminine" art besides that a female made it.

Another interesting observation was that women, as well as people of the upper-classes of both genders, are more likely to be encouraged to be generalists. To be a little knowledgeable about most things, instead of isolating themselves by being an expert. In other words, women were not (and I would say are not) encouraged to be geeks. However, it was not necessarily supported that great artists were fixated exclusively on art, so I'm not quite sure how relevant this argument was.

I would say that the same reason that there had been no great female artists by the 1970's would be the same reason why there were more pigeons than women who had recieved the purple heart- Women weren't participating the painting/ sculpting in any significant numbers. The same reason that there have been historically few notably famous women artists is the same reason there were few notable female generals- a lack of participation in the field.

Also, I would say tampons, birth control, and washing machines probably made a bigger difference to whether or not there could be great female artists than anything having to do with male domination.

And then I moved away again...

And so, the Wheeler chapter has almost officially come to a close. I have about 2 &1/2 more weeks of a house sitting here in PDX, then a week at home, and then I head to Boston for Graduate School (more on that in a minute) for about 2 weeks, and then WHO KNOWS! The future beckons like, uhm, a drop off a steep cliff. An option is that I move to NC and into Matt's dad's dilapidated farm house come September for a semester or so, but I'm open to suggestions!