Post your comments on Niña Yhared here.
Since the readings are so short -and decidedly less demanding academically than usual- this week (mostly because so little is written about this young artist, and even less is written in English), you can feel free to keep your blog posts shorter than usual.
But, make sure to edit your posts to avoid typos and grammatical mistakes.
And let's get an interesting discussion going!
In the article by Jennifer Doyle entitled “Feminism: Three Views”, the author examines various views of feminist art making. Doyle discusses the idea of being a Feminists curator in comparison to being a curator who curates Feminism. The difference seems to be the approach of each individual show. It seems to me that the Feminist curator provides a little more TLC in the process of putting a show together. The vibe of the entire exhibition can be quite different than that of an exhibition put together by someone who does not relate to Feminism. Doyle explains this as follows, “The feminist curator, scholar or artist attempts to create a productive context within which we encounter art – a space to which one feels not invited, but welcome, a space to which one needs no invitation, that expands our sense of what art can do, rather than organizes art into discrete categories whose boundaries authorized experts then debate” (Doyle, 2).
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to think about Feminist curators in this context, because part of this description reminds me of a mother putting on a party. As a visitor you feel more welcomed, and possibly more willing to experience things more open minded because of tone set by the curator.
Do only feminist artists and curators have the ability to make the audience feel "welcome," as Doyle puts it?
DeleteDuring Jennifer Doyle’s discussion of Nina Yared’s (1814) work out of her performance venue Casa de la Nina, it incites a frustration I’ve long held about the current wave of feminism. This idea that by appropriating what is deemed feminine (lipstick, sexy nudes etc) and thereby “reclaiming” it, like it was our feminine ideal in the first place, is somehow solving the problem of deeply ingrained sexism has always seemed like a backwards solution.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do strongly agree with what Doyle has to say regarding institutional practice and their attempts to promote feminist art. As she says “when large museums give physical space to feminist art, everybody wants to talk about this thing which has been so much a part of some our lives since the 1960s, but which, in the bigger picture, huge numbers of people merely tolerate.” I also appreciate her comment on the “erasure” of feminist work where institutions clamor over each other to highlight how “good” they are at promoting this genre of work. No one ever has to fight so hard to demand attention for male work or “male issue” driven work (I mean, what always comes to mind is dada, German expressionism, post-war abstract expressionism, celebrated west coast contemporary art etc.; all male driven work and genres that receive so much critical attention.) Again, an issue which has long plagued me because yes, let’s highlight these woman and their groundbreaking work but does it not ghettoize them to have to call them out and genre them in such a way than pigeon holes them? This is why a professor on campus stopped teaching a “Women in Art” class, she felt it ghettoized female artists and that there are important female artists that professors should already be incorporating into their lesson plans.
So I guess, that at the end of the day, it’s beneficial that we have curators like Shari Frilot and Lia Gangitano like Doyle mentions, these women that look for alternative venues to promote artistic equality. It’s not any surprise that institutional practice is flawed but this guerilla type work shouldn’t have to be that way anymore.
You raise several good points. Let's discuss this idea of re-appropriating "feminine" signs (like lipstick) tomorrow in class. I think this could be fodder for an interesting debate.
DeleteI do agree that women artists should simply be included in the history, not given their own, separate one. We can talk more about how this plays out in the classroom and in the gallery.
In “Feminism: Three Views”, author Jennifer Doyle talks about performance artist Yhared (1814) and the different perspectives of feminism. It is interesting to note how Doyle mentions that the year of 1814, the year of Marquis de Sade’s death, is actually a part of Yhared’s name. Not knowing who Marquis de Sade was, I conducted a quick research. Based on the information that I have received, Marquis de Sade was a French aristocrat who was mainly and famously known for his writings in erotic books; he was also known to live an un-moralistic life. After getting to know this piece of information, I am unsure how this would relate to the influence of the artist, who is known as a feminist: “Her work belongs to a particular genre of feminist art – a strain that reconfigures denigrated forms of popular culture (in her case the telenovela, the ballad, the sentimental, the soft-core erotic)” (Frieze 1). I cannot help but to ask, why would the artist be influenced by a male figure when she herself is a feminist?
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I like how Doyle points out the difference between curating feminism and being a feminist curator: “A museum might put on a big show about feminist art, but that doesn’t necessarily make it a feminist museum, just as a magazine might commission a series of feminist essays without becoming a feminist publication. One can make Feminism the object of one’s work (as a scholar for example), and still not be much of a feminist in the world” (Frieze 2). It is clear that the author is saying that creating, commissioning, or doing works of art that involve the concept of feminism does not make one a “feminist”. Instead, I think that Doyle is trying to prove her point through the phrase, “actions speak louder than words”; feminists are those who not only bring feminism into the picture by mere words but by committing themselves to action and visual concepts which can bring impact to their audience, which is possibly why Yhared created Casa de la Niña.
Try to consider what point the artist might be trying to make about so-called "morals" when trying to understand the Marquis de Sade reference.
DeleteIn Feminism: Three Views includes examined approaches to feminist art-making from Mexico to Egypt, Senegal to Colombia. This article starts off with the author, Jennifer Doyle walking through the Plaza de la Conchita in Mexico City. She is with novelist Sarah Miller and artist Nina Yhared with partner and journalist Jorge Luis Berjeda. Doyle points out there is a difference between curating Feminism and being a feminist curator. One can make Feminism the object of one's work (as a scholar for example), and still not be much of a feminist in the world. On the other hand, the feminist curator, scholar or artist attempts to create a productive context within which we encounter art. Feminism has been so much a part of some of our lives since the 1960s,but which,in the bigger picture, huge numbers of people merely tolerate. That means that feminist art is not as popular as I thought is is today. The article points her other favorite feminist curator is film-programmer Shari Frilot. These feminists once they got their foot through the door then they let in others. The rest of the so-called feminist are Gilane Tawadros, N'gone Fall, Salcedo, Amer and Hatoun. The article in the end expresses that if these feminist artists do not describe themselves as feminists--a western concept--they are guided by simple principles of faith, self-confidence and commitment. All in all, my favorite artist was Hatoun's artistic practices of Map (2009) in which the map of the world is laid out on the floor of the gallery at make up unstable and dangerous topography.
ReplyDeleteDo you think that having an exhibition that focuses on women artists helps or hinders the feminist cause?
DeleteNina Yhared is a Mexican performance artist concerned with violence against women, in her work "Lavadora de Cuerpos", and the stuggles of women in "Historia de mi Piel". The article "Feminism: Three Views" gives us an overview of where Feminism stands today and how it is presented to an audience within a museum as through a curator of feminist art as compared to a feminist presenting the works of art. Yharid is the example of the feminist curator presenting art, within her "home" Casa de la Nina - here she hoss arists and their fans and creates works of her own.
ReplyDeleteThe example of the museum curated feminist show is a show that was held at LA MOCA - "WACK!: Art and the Feminist Revolution" - claimed to be "the first show of its kind". The author of the article finds this to be skeptical and brings up the fact that a show close to the magnitude of the MOCA show had been held a decade prior at the Hammer Museum. Now pretty much lost in history and with an out of print catalog. She also shares with us the issues within presenting Feminist art - especially when it is presented from a certain perspective and non-inclusive for works that fall short of that perspective. Yharid's work would most likely fall short and not be included in these sort of museum exhibitions.
Who decides what is deemed important, what makes it into a museum, etc?
DeleteJennifer Doyle’s article in Feminism: Three Views tackles the issue of presenting feminism work as a subject and being a feminist curator. She criticizes the LA MOCA exhibition WACK! Art and the Feminist Revolution as a publicity stunt. WACK! focused more being the first feminist show, even though Hammer museum predated them in 1996, and being the biggest show around. In comparison, she believes that a feminist curator creates an environment that welcomes the ideas of feminism and expands the sense of what art can do.
ReplyDeleteDoyle also touches on the idea that pioneers of the feminist art not only pave the way for other artists, but they, themselves, are the origin for these opportunities. The fact that feminist artist are a beacon to those that believe in the same cause can only strengthen a community.
Doyle references the second wave feminist movement as why the feminist movement has a strong presence in the United States, as well as the whiteness of the demographic.
We need to talk more about how race and/pr socio-economic status play into the discussion of feminism.
DeleteThe article conversation begins with Jennifer Doyle’s suppositions on La Malinche and ends with Yhared. The setting for the topic of La Malinche and her evolution into a allegory for indigenous Mexico is a stroll in Mexico City. Yhared is described as a multifaceted performance venue hostess to many artists and fans. Her work is categorized as part of a feminist variety that drew on trivialized features of popular culture. Yhared speaks of running Casa de la Nina as an extension of her hospitality. The author is a feminist who revealed having trouble with writing about feminism and of community familiarity as well as suspicion towards exhibitions with claims of pioneering approaches. Doyle confessed to possessing muddled feelings on the subject and indicated tribulations of the movements. Doyle referred to what she considers to be more interesting feminist productions and distinguished Shari Frilot as her favorite curator.
ReplyDeleteMore on Doyle’s La Malinche considerations, she alluded to there being multiple translations. A previously mentioned example came to mind as a valid demonstration. I infer that Doyle’s assertion of La Malinche’s symbolism to be in one aspect in reference to uprisings in which the indigenous are at odds with the political authority as in the case of the Zapatista Movement. I being not well-educated on Feminism found her distinguishing a feminist from a work of feminist focus was edifying. More than anything the article has sparked my interest to further find the actual historical context of both La Malinche, Mexico and Feminism.
I'm glad you brought up Malinche because she is a very important figure in Mexican history, one with a complicated situation at that. Let's discuss further in class.
DeleteIn Jorge Luis Berdejas descriptive article on Nina Yhared and her performance "Historia de mi piel" the author gives us a look into the performance held in an old abandoned women's prison which stands for the prison in which women find themselves everyday. Interestingly the artist incorporates soundscapes,projections, and her body as the media in her performance. All of these different elements when in conjunction with each other serve as a transport into the internal and external meaning of what it is to be a woman. Literally her piece translates into "the skins history" which the artist sees as the most easily seen canvas in which life itself etches its story on the person, pain, injury, even a fine comfortable life can be seen on the skin (interesting concept which is obvious but rarely spoken or thought about). What makes this artist unique is that her youth has enabled her to give performance a breath of fresh air in the sense of utilizing multimedia such as soundscapes, projections, music, and her own body. The artist stresses bringing her body, and technology into osmosis within her pieces. Finally the artist has a sort of cleansing and rebirth via milk bath which I believe stands for the everyday experience and enduring of life by women everyday. Woman's strength and her enduring qualities are what the audience is transported into through her engulfing performance. Love it and brings women's plight to light without the heavy traditional feminist approach of the past!
ReplyDeleteLet's talk more about this visible history written on the skin. I also appreciate that you brought up the milk bath at the end, which is another example of us re-visiting themes of cleansing.
DeleteIn the article about Nina Yhared (1814) a lot of issues are subtly addressed. The term "feminism" has been dubbed with such a negative connotation, and that anything "feminist" is run by a group of masculine, gay women. This in fact is wrong, and is shown by Yhared (1814) in her work and through her actions.
ReplyDeleteDoyle writes, "she dresses up as a mermaind and frolics in city fountains, she wanders in to all male cantinas and coazes men to wear lipstick and dance with her. She has won awards for her erotic poetry and for her strange and sexy female nudes." This is something that is feminist, yet not with this stereotypical sense of feminism that plagues women today. Having to constantly filter what you say--you don't want to sound too feminist!
Not only that but the quote above reminded me of a piece I saw at the MoMA in New York. The border included the title "Marxist Art, Beware of Fascist Feminism." Reading this article ignited a deeper meaning to that picture more so now. The fact that feminism is no something to "BEWARE" of is quite absurd. The fact that Yhared (1814) allows a safe place for women (feminist women) to display and showcase their work is something is not greatly appreciated. In fact, it almost seems as though a misogynistic aura has laid itself amongst society. It feels as though everywhere should be a "safe" place to display art, to be who you are regardless of age, race, gender, sexuality. However, this seems to be an idealistic view, and it is relieving that there are artists that dispel certain stigmas such as Yhared (1814).
I also agree that it's a shame that there must be "safe places" created for feminist artists to feel like they can express themselves. Let's discuss this further. What do you think of Ariel's argument that women should already be included in the history, not written into a separate history?
Delete