Women In Art, Forgotten and Ignored

The Wounded Deer by Frida Kahlo

Every year Camp Quest, a summer camp for secular humanist kids, puts together famous freethinkers cards to educate the campers about the many individuals who, without religion or faith, made significant contributions to history.

I was contacted by some Camp Quest organizers who were seeking examples of women artists. So far the only one they had come up with was Frida Kahlo, the Mexican artist popularized in America by the film starring Salma Hayek, and known for her often surreal and autobiographical paintings. 

I ended up highly recommending they use Louise Bourgeois, Kiki Smith, and Yoko Ono, as all three are confirmed non-theists and big names in the art world. It does somewhat sadden me that even among college educated people, only one of these three is commonly known, and she's mostly famous for being married to John Lennon. 

Portrait of Victorine Meurent by Annie Kevans

As both an artist and parent of a little girl who loves to paint, I was thrilled to hear about Annie Kevan's new exhibition: Women and the History of Art. It is a series of delicate, yet stark and emotionally charged portraits of women artists, prominent in their time but largely forgotten by history. 

Nell Frizzell of the Guardian writes: 

(Annie Kevans) has now painted more than 30 portraits of successful women who have been smudged out of the history of art for a new exhibition. Women like Victorine Meurent, who was an artist in her own right as well as one of Manet's muses, or Suzanne Valadon, who became the first female painter admitted to France's Société Nationale des Beaux Arts are among the women who are only now being singled out by later generations (Kevans's work follows the BBC's recent Story of Women and Art).

Palm Sunday, the only surviving example of
painting by Victorine Meurent.

I was surprised to learn that Victorine Meurent (the nude model in two of Manet's most famous works: The Luncheon On the Grass and Olympia) was an artist who regularly exhibited in the juried shows of the Paris Salon. Alas, when I went in search of examples of her work, I discovered that there is only one surviving work! 

There is plenty of lamentation these days about the lack of women in STEM fields, despite the fact that women are often well represented as students in STEM at the academic level. 

But these same trends exist in the field of visual arts. 

As one can tell from a stroll through any art museum, women artists in general have never been well represented. The numbers today are still rather bleak. Less than 5% of the artists featured in New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art are women, and startlingly, the numbers at the Museum of Modern Art aren't much better!  

Despite the fact that in the 1970's (and also today) women were earning more than half of all graduate degrees in studio arts (source), less than half of full time professors of art are women, and only 30% of the artists represented by professional galleries are women. (source.) Similarly, women artists are featured only about 30% of the time in reviews and articles of ARTnews and Art in America. 

Shamsia Hassani, an Afghan graffiti artist

Given all the female talent coming out of academia with BFA and MFA degrees, academic awards and solid portfolios, why the inequality in professional representation? 

It is here that the sexism inherent in American society is most evident. Evaluation of the quality and significance of works of art is a largely subjective practice. Expectations and standards evolve over time based on the ever-changing values and conditions of the society from which the artwork emerges. When only a slice of societal perspectives is represented by the dominant institutions and publications, history is bound to be skewed, and social progress stunted. 

In is alarming, for instance, that Juxtapoz, a magazine covering the underground art scene, including graffiti, street art, erotica and illustration, features very few women artists (but plenty of casually sexist imagery without critical commentary), sometimes having whole issues which include not a single woman artist. This despite the fact that there are plenty up-and-coming female illustrators, creators of erotica, and street artists out there to profile, interview, and critique. 

Tatyana Fazlalizadeh, an American street artist

Critics, curators, dealers, and editors need to wake up to the sexist biases that influence their choices of what to write about, exhibit, and feature. They need to cultivate an awareness of the broader society and make real efforts to seek out the art (which does already exist!) that gives voice to historically marginalized groups, including not only women, but people of color, ethnic minorities, and LGBT people. 

Moreover, just like Annie Kevans, we need to remember the women artists forgotten by history; bring them back to prominence, and teach about them to our daughters who long to be artists. 

The summer of 1995, when I was a senior in high school, I spent 5 weeks in Mexico learning their language and culture. During that time I had the great privilege to visit the Frida Kahlo Museum in Mexico City. The building (La Casa Azul) had been Kahlo's home. Many of the rooms have been kept as they were when the artist was alive. It was a hauntingly intimate experience. I felt a bit as if I'd stepped into someone's home, uninvited. 

In one room I noticed a pillow with the hand-embroidered inscription: 

No me olvides, mi amor. 

Kid Climbs on Sculpture, an Excuse to Mock Art

My friend Dave posed for this photo as a joke because he 

doesn't share my love for Mark Rothko paintings. That said, 

despite not being into this one piece, he values and respects 

art and would never let his toddler touch it.

Earlier this week, gallery owner Stephanie Theodore tweeted a photo she took of a child climbing on a Donald Judd sculpture on display at the Tate Gallery. For those who don't know who Donald Judd is, he's one of the most famous American artists from the 20th century, and his sculptures are worth millions.

Before I go further into the meat of this post, let me respond to the original tweet. I wasn't there and I certainly can't know whether the parents were knowingly dismissive toward museum/gallery etiquette, or merely ignorant. Mistakes happen. I won't go as far as calling them "bad parents." However, they would have been very sad parents had the child done any damage.

I share Stephanie Theodore's shock, and I would have done exactly what she did: first she told the parents why the kid shouldn't be doing that, and when they ignored her, she told the guards. And of course she also snapped a photo and tweeted. Of course she did - because it's a friggin' kid climbing all over a Donald Judd in the Tate! As a gallery owner who makes a living in the arts, Theodore would have been an idiot to not tweet that.

Now on to the real bee in my bonnet.

The photo tweeted by Stephanie Theodore.

Unfortunately, I stumbled on this story on Gawker, and made the horrible mistake of reading the comments. As I've come to expect when certain types of art (in this case from the Minimalist movement) are brought to the attention of the general public, Philistines come out of the woodwork to call the work junk and mock the art establishment that gives it value.

Many of the comments go so far as to morally denounce Judd for his success, such as this gem:

If your shelf-looking sculpture sells for millions of dollars, and you don't donate at least half of that to charity, you're fucking horrible.

That would be difficult seeing as Judd's been dead since 1994. Although I do wonder if this person is equally outraged by anyone who, against the odds, ends up producing something worth millions of dollars.

By the way, at least according to one study, the median salary of artists is $43,000/year. While this sounds comfortable, it is a far cry from millions (especially when you take the student loans into account.) More importantly, this median only represents the people who succeeded in turning their artistic aspirations into a career. The vast majority who study and practice art, especially fine art, work day jobs or live off spouses for years, and never make a living solely off our work. But by all means, piss all over the giants in our field.

The award for irony goes to the countless people who mocked a Judd sculpture for looking like shelves from Ikea. Not only was Judd an actual furniture designer as well as fine artist, but I guess they don't know that the Minimalist movement in art was a driving influence in design across the globe, including the aesthetics of Ikea.

As a working (and struggling) artist, as someone who values art, and as a parent who aims to raise kids to appreciate the arts, I'm so sick of this shit. 

We artists and art dealers, collectors, curators, critics - everybody who makes up the art world - are basically a subset of nerdom. To quote today's wikipedia entry on Nerd:

Nerd (adjective: nerdy) is a descriptive term, often used pejoratively, indicating that a person is overly intellectual, obsessive, or socially impaired. They may spend inordinate amounts of time on unpopular, obscure, or non-mainstream activities, which are generally either highly technical or relating to topics of fiction or fantasy, to the exclusion of more mainstream activities

Indeed, we spend an inordinate amounts of time on unpopular, non-mainstream activities. We tend to be intellectual. We often have our own, unique social quirks. The mainstream tends to not "get" what we do. And while some who don't share our interests still respect us and acknowledge that our creations/writings/purchases have value, others mock us and insist our activities are nothing but pretense.

I don't get sports fandom. What I mean is, I've watched games of basketball, baseball, football, soccer, and I feel bored. However, when I look around at other spectators and see expressions of deep emotional engagement, when I overhear people going into very detailed debates and discussions about strategies and plays, when I notice that there is an entire establishment of writers, historians, and museums constructed around sports, and when I see how sports have widespread appeal across nations and class divides, I recognize that this is a valuable, meaningful part of the human experience.

So while most people don't get Judd's work, it's important to acknowledge that the reason it's worth millions is because there's actually a lot to it. In its full context, to enough people, Judd's work evokes as much passion as Paul "Bear" Vasquez's reaction to a double rainbow:

Sinead O'Connor and Mylie Cyrus, the Difference Between Art and Porn, and Why Omnipresent Soft-Core Porn Masquerading as Entertainment is Maybe Not So Good

Pop culture matters. There are those who lament that Miley Cyrus twerking gets way more Americans' attention than events in Benghazi or Syria or even serious domestic, state, or local news events that impact public education, the environmental policies, and the health of our economy. Yes, that is true. However, given the level of fact-gathering and analysis that most people (don't) bother doing before expressing strong opinions, maybe it's better that most people are too bored with that sort of news to care. 

Pop culture matters. Trends in pop culture and public reaction to these trends tells us about who we are as a society and help us understand when things take a bad turn in real life. So it's worth it to look at these trends, do a little analysis, reflection, discussion, and critique. Otherwise we'll all just end up merely titillated by spectacle when we're young, and annoyed by those damn kids when we're old. 

It is fun to watch and gossip over the spectacle. Fun to look at parents who are outraged by the new image of Miley Cyrus and think, how the hell did they not see this coming? Fun to watch a pop star switch from a very wholesome facade to an oversexed facade. Fun to mock the people who take these pop stars' brands as earnest, personal expression. Fun to feel superior and enlightened. But now recess is over and I'm yearning for a little deeper breakdown. 

In a recent Rolling Stone interview, when asked about her video "Wrecking Ball', Miley Cyrus commented: 

It's like the Sinead O'Connor video [for "Nothing Compares 2 U"], but, like, the most modern version. I wanted it to be tough but really pretty – that's what Sinead did with her hair and everything. The trick is getting the camera up above you, so it almost looks like you're looking up at someone and crying. I think people are going to hate it, they're going to see my ass and be like, "Oh my God, I can't believe she did that" – and then when we get to the bridge, they're gonna have a little tear and be like, "Fuck you!" I think it will be one of those iconic videos, too. I think it's something that people are not gonna forget. 

Before I go further into Sinead O'Connor's open letter in response to Cyrus's statement, I'd like to analyse it myself. Cyrus is obviously not especially eloquent here, but maybe I can give her some credit and try to interpret what she means. Cyrus has interpreted Sinead O'Connor's shaved head as an attempt to look beautiful in a cutting edge, rebellious fashion. She also admired the emotionally charged nature of O'Connor's video. And she intended to emulate both of those qualities in her video. 

Both songs contain moving lyrics from a woman who regrets a breakup and is expressing her love and desire to rekindle that relationship. Here are the two videos back to back. 

O'Connor looks tremendously beautiful simply because she has a beautiful, young face. In fact, throughout the entire video the only part of her body you see is her face. I presume that's the point. She even covered her neck so that only her face, filled with raw, pained expression is there for the viewer to deal with. When she appears walking around in other parts of the video she is wearing a bulky black outfit, which I take is meant to suggest a state of mourning. 

In the Cyrus video, she does the whole face up close thing, but her makeup is the sort of gawdy stuff that accentuates generically, sexy feminine features such as lips and eyelashes, and distract from unique qualities of Cyrus's face. Her facial expressions while she sings suggest pain, but compared to O'Connor she comes off as overacting. Then there's the rest of the video, which is a lot of her either naked or in underwear writhing around, straddling a wrecking ball, or licking a sledgehammer as if it is a lover's body. In those interludes, she no longer reads as a woman who is genuinely suffering because of a lost love, but rather, like a stripper attempting to sexually stimulate her audience. This works against the song lyrics. The song becomes merely a vehicle for her to perform a strip tease. 

Now I want to be clear about something. Nudity is not the problem. I've read many criticisms of the Cyrus video that simply include "she is naked" in a list of qualities that make the video more like soft-core porn than art, and I feel this is part of the problem. 

My freshman year of college I took my first figure drawing class, which is basically hours and hours of drawing live, nude models. When I brought my portfolio home to show my boyfriend, his little sister (15 years old at the time) reared back and turn her head in disgust at the first drawing of a naked person. When I told her about the class she exclaimed, "That's sick!" But people wouldn't have those attitudes if most of the images of nudity or near-nudity we saw weren't intended purely to arouse. As a fine artist, I feel like the proliferation of soft core porn images have ruined many peoples' perception of the human body. We're afraid to let toddlers run around the beach naked for fear that strangers will sexually ogle them. Hell, some people are generally uncomfortable with little children running around naked. If so many of us can't see a naked body as anything but a sexual object, we have a problem with our visual vocabulary. 

I can easily envision the Cyrus video using nudity in a way which was relevant to the song. Other musicians have done this such as Lady Gaga in Marry the Night and Lena Katina in Never Forget You (although the vast majority of nudity in music videos is really just naked women behaving generically sexy in order to titillate, aka porn.)

Cyrus's song "Wrecking Ball" is about a woman humbling herself after she's been too proud and angry to really open up to her lover and work through their issues. It is easy to imagine using nudity as a metaphor for presenting oneself as vulnerable in order to establish trust. Such imagery juxtaposed against imagery of a fully clothed Cyrus angrily smashing walls with the sledgehammer (instead of doing so in her underwear) could have driven home the swings of emotional extremes people often experience in a tumultuous relationship. In other words, Cyrus had an opportunity to make a video that included nudity for a creative purpose. Instead, she made a video designed to sexually arouse viewers. In other words, she made porn. 

Typically, if we choose to enjoy porn, we do so in private, most often as an aid during masturbation. The amount of porn that a person can enjoy is limited by the amount of private time they have to devote to it. And yet an endless parade of soft-core porn in media can be and is consumed just about everywhere. The idea of what is essentially porn being consumed constantly by youth who grow up in a society where parents are loathed to think about or talk about their kids as sexual beings is unsettling. 

We've basically found a way to be surrounded by sex without having to talk about it or even acknowledge its presence. This was addressed in the South Park episode The Ring. In the episode, Mickey Mouse forces the Jonas Brothers to wear purity rings. He explains: 

Oh gosh, fellas, let me explain this to you one more time. You have to wear the purity rings because that's how we can sell sex to little girls, haha! See, if we make the posters with little girls reaching for your junk, then you have to wear purity rings or else the Disney Company looks bad, haha!

I found the episode hilarious because it was so refreshing to see satirists tackling this issue head on with enough of a sense of humor to make the message palatable. But I was still shocked to find that the Jonas Brothers spraying their audiences down with white foam was a real thing. 

I really wouldn't have a problem with this if people widely acknowledged what this is, but they don't. The lack of awareness is what I find disturbing. If we don't call things what they are, we can't effectively discuss, evaluate, attack or defend them.  

So back to Cyrus and O'Connor. At this point I'm fairly confident in asserting that any influence that Sinead O'Connor has had on Miley Cyrus involves Cyrus only noticing the superficial and completely misunderstanding O'Connor's work. 

That said, probably many if not most of people's enjoyment of the O'Connor video was and is superficial. In other words, they like it because they enjoy looking at O'Connor's beautiful, young face. Had she not been so beautiful, it is doubtful the video would have been so popular. And at the time, people were not praising O'Connor for shaving her head to look beautiful in an edgy way. They were making fun of her, as we see in Gina Riley's parody: 

It is doubtful that any parody of Cyrus's video would poke fun at her hairdo.   

Of course Riley's parody only emphasizes just how seductive the power of a pretty face can be, because while Gina Riley looks rather silly in her bald cap, Sinead O'Connor looked gorgeous. As a fourteen year old girl, I remember reading about how O'Connor had shaved her head so as to avoid becoming a sex symbol, and I remember thinking at the time, but she's even prettier with no hair. Despite her attempts to be appreciated for her musical talent and not her looks (not only shaving her head, but wearing odd and often shapeless clothing), O'Connor's mainstream popularity was no doubt at least partially due to her beauty. After O'Connor aged and gained weight, many in the media pitied her. such as Richard Price here lamenting how she lost her "ethereal beauty", as if her looks had been her best asset, and as if maintaining a woman's looks should be of utmost importance. After losing weight, O'Connor commented, "I only feel better because people aren't being so abusive to me any more about my weight."

Fans who appreciate Sinead O'Connor for her musical talent never stopped loving her and probably didn't give a damn about her changing physical appearance. Fortunately for O'Connor, at least from what she's always said, those are the only fans she ever cared to attract. 

However, the big money is in quantity, not quality of fan base. And thus we are bombarded on a daily basis with images of people (usually women) displayed in a way as to sexually arouse viewers (also known as porn.) I'm so tired of this crap about female empowerment and women's rights to express their sexuality however they choose. That argument has merit when talking about artists as creative, innovative, and personally ambitious as Madonna. But Madonna is a rare bird. Sex sells, but what's cheap and easy usually sells the most. 

Sinead O'Connor responded to Miley Cyrus's comments about her as an influence with an open letter. She started by saying that her letter is written out of motherliness and love, which actually comes off as a bit condescending. She harshly criticizes Cyrus's sexy new image and people in the music industry who will "pimp" her for money and who "don't give a fuck" about her. She suggests that Cyrus doesn't care for herself enough, though also tells her that she is very talented and makes great records. In the conclusion she writes; 

Whether we like it or not, us females in the industry are role models and as such we have to be extremely careful what messages we send to other women. The message you keep sending is that its somehow cool to be prostituted.. its so not cool Miley.. its dangerous. Women are to be valued for so much more than their sexuality. we aren’t merely objects of desire. I would be encouraging you to send healthier messages to your peers.. that they and you are worth more than what is currently going on in your career.

I am skeptical of how motivated O'Connor was out of personal concern for Cyrus. Obviously putting her criticisms out there for everyone to read puts Cyrus in an awkward and embarrassing position. Which leads me to suspect that O'Connor's true motivation was to publicly defend her legacy as a musician who actively resisted being valued for her appearance and to promote her values which are against the sexual objectification of women. 

I'm glad O'Connor wrote her open letter. If there were just occasional images of sexually objectified women in our society it wouldn't be that big a deal, but those images are everywhere, and there has to be some kind of counter from people other than conservative, religious-types who label any sexually active woman a slut and want to go back to before the women's liberation movement. 

Sinead O'Connor has always been an iconoclast with her heart in the right place even if her execution isn't always the most effective. Her most famous act of rebellion is of course her ripping up of a photograph of Pope John Paul II during her appearance on Saturday Night Live in 1992. She did this in protest of the Vatican's cover up of child sex crimes, but at that time it would be ten years before the scandal would be exposed in America. People were horrified and infuriated. Those who even bothered to consider her message dismissed it outright as untrue. O'Connor's popularity with the mainstream public was permanently damaged. 

I was fourteen at the time, raised Catholic, and newly (and still uncomfortably) settled into an atheist/agnostic worldview. I felt sort of lost and alone a lot about my religious skepticism at the time, but I knew I couldn't make myself believe things that seemed obviously not real. When I read about O'Connor ripping up the Pope's photo, I was fascinated and curious. I wondered, what did the Pope do that so upset this musician? The public outcry against O'Connor also showed me just how crazy people when they feel their religion is being attacked. I learned that criticizing peoples' most sacred belief will make them furious long before they ever consider investigating the accusations. People at that time were not even bothering to defend the church. They were just mindlessly aghast that O'Connor would dare to deface a religious symbol precious to so many. They went on the offensive and criticized her. They cared more about the Pope as symbol than what the actual Pope was doing with his power and position. Of course in 2002 O'Connor was shown to be dead on in her criticism of the Vatican. 

Miley Cyrus's response to O'Connor's letter has been to tweet about O'Connor's struggles with mental illness and her ripping up of the pope's picture (because apparently she thinks that is worse than covering up widespread child sex abuse?) I'm surprised she hasn't tweeted unflattering photos of O'Connor when she was overweight. 

Earlier this year Minegishi Minami, a Japanese woman in the popular girl band AKB48, shaved her head in contrition before giving a tearful public apology. Her sin? She had violated the part of her contract where she agreed not to date. Much like the fictional Jonas Brothers from the South Park episode, the handlers of AKB48 have the teenage and young women performers sing songs and make videos that are sexually titillating, but then require that the girls in their real lives present an image of purity and availability. It is easy to dismiss this whole incident as foreign. Japanese culture is different. American women are more liberated, more powerful, more free. Right? 

I'm confused by this idea that an otherwise talented woman engaging in cheap, soft-core porn is her exercising her sexual power and freedom. I thought modern women's lib was about creating a society where women have equal pay, equal work opportunities, and where people doing traditional "women's work" receive due respect and compensation. If we achieve that, isn't sexual freedom a given? None of the defenses of these images of cheap, light-core porn ever address the concern that all these images being out there have the potential to shape the social norms, identities, and behaviors of both men and women. We know that advertising impacts our decisions as consumers, even when we are aware that the advertisements are bullshit. Just because we know something is exploitative doesn't mean we don't internalize the associations it presents, especially when we are exposed to them over and over and over again. 

Edit: Amanda Palmer wrote an excellent open letter to Sinead O'Connor, giving further depth to the conversation. Check it out here.