Frida Kahlo Research
dro...@my-deja.com
subject of the similarities between Frida Kahlo's relationship with
Diego Rivera and that of Georgia O'Keefe and Alfred Stieglitz?
Is there any convincing evidence to support that Cindy Sherman, Judy
Chicago, Gwen John, Maggi Hambling and other feminist/contemporary
artists were influenced--either directly or indirectly--by Kahlo's art
and/or themes? There certainly are some interesting parallels, and I
have explored them somewhat, but I would like to research these
possibilities in greater detail.
TIA.
--
Rachelle Drouin
http://www.frida-kahlo.com/
http://www.hopefoundation.org/
http://www.optionsforwomen.ab.ca/
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Alison A Raimes
>Would anyone happen to know whether there is any literature on the
>subject of the similarities between Frida Kahlo's relationship with
>Diego Rivera and that of Georgia O'Keefe and Alfred Stieglitz?
>
>Is there any convincing evidence to support that Cindy Sherman, Judy
>Chicago, Gwen John, Maggi Hambling and other feminist/contemporary
>artists were influenced--either directly or indirectly--by Kahlo's art
>and/or themes? There certainly are some interesting parallels, and I
>have explored them somewhat, but I would like to research these
>possibilities in greater detail.
Rachelle: Are you categorising all these artists as *feminist* ? I don't
know enough about Judy Chicago to comment on what drives her, but do
know Cindy Sherman's work and have listened to her talk about her work,
as well as having had personal contact with Maggi Hambling. Neither of
these artists consider themselves to be *feminists*, in fact both of
them reject the term. And Gwen Jones can hardly be called
*contemporary* can she, so it would be difficult to ask her if she is a
feminist.
I am wondering what angle your research is coming from - I presume the
autobiographical nature of their work ? All the women you have
mentioned are incredibly *powerful* in terms of conviction and
individuality and none are afraid to portray their own personal
suffering through their art. Otherwise the connection seems a matter of
grasping at straws. Perhaps you could expand on your research so far
that has made you investigate the relationship.
Regards
Alison A Raimes
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
dro...@my-deja.com
Thank you for your reply. I did not mean to offend.
I am not, nor do I profess to be an expert or an art historian. The
research was an undergraduate research paper about Frida Kahlo, and one
section is a brief compartive analysis of pain and suffering and women's
treatment of various themes of particular interest to women. I noticed
some interesting parallels. The limited scope of my research did not
allow me to expand on these parallels in any great detail. Perhaps one
day if I were to pursue a Master's degree, but not for the moment.
My bibliographic sources classified these artists as "pro-feminist"...
Again, I don't profess to be an expert, and perhaps the categorization
is a dangerous one. If you have more knowledge of the subject, I'd
certainly welcome your expanding upon my questions...
More at
http://members.xoom.com/_XOOM/Frida_Kahlo/english/conclusion/conclusion.
htm
Apologies again if I touched a nerve.
dro...@my-deja.com
>Rachelle: Are you categorising all these artists as *feminist* ? I
don't
> know enough about Judy Chicago to comment on what drives her, but do
> know Cindy Sherman's work and have listened to her talk about her
work,
> as well as having had personal contact with Maggi Hambling. Neither of
> these artists consider themselves to be *feminists*, in fact both of
> them reject the term. And Gwen Jones can hardly be called
> *contemporary* can she, so it would be difficult to ask her if she is
a
> feminist.
>
> I am wondering what angle your research is coming from - I presume the
> autobiographical nature of their work ? All the women you have
> mentioned are incredibly *powerful* in terms of conviction and
> individuality and none are afraid to portray their own personal
> suffering through their art. Otherwise the connection seems a matter
of
> grasping at straws. Perhaps you could expand on your research so far
> that has made you investigate the relationship.
Alison:
Thank you for your reply. I did not mean to offend.
I am not, nor do I profess to be an expert or an art historian. The
research was an undergraduate research paper, and a compartive analysis
of pain and suffering and women's treatment of various themes of
particularl interest to women. I noticed some interesting parallels.
The limited scope of my research did not allow me to expand on these
parallels in any great detail.
My bibliographic sources classified these artists as "pro-feminist"...
Kay again
Alison A Raimes wrote in message ...
:In article <7j8m97$dj9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, dro...@my-deja.com writes
:>Would anyone happen to know whether there is any literature on the
:>subject of the similarities between Frida Kahlo's relationship with
:>Diego Rivera and that of Georgia O'Keefe and Alfred Stieglitz?
:>
:>Is there any convincing evidence to support that Cindy Sherman, Judy
:>Chicago, Gwen John, Maggi Hambling and other feminist/contemporary
:>artists were influenced--either directly or indirectly--by Kahlo's art
:>and/or themes? There certainly are some interesting parallels, and I
:>have explored them somewhat, but I would like to research these
:>possibilities in greater detail.
:Rachelle: Are you categorising all these artists as *feminist* ? I don't
:know enough about Judy Chicago to comment on what drives her, but do
:know Cindy Sherman's work and have listened to her talk about her work,
:as well as having had personal contact with Maggi Hambling. Neither of
:these artists consider themselves to be *feminists*, in fact both of
:them reject the term. And Gwen Jones can hardly be called
:*contemporary* can she, so it would be difficult to ask her if she is a
:feminist.
:
:I am wondering what angle your research is coming from - I presume the
:autobiographical nature of their work ? All the women you have
:mentioned are incredibly *powerful* in terms of conviction and
:individuality and none are afraid to portray their own personal
:suffering through their art. Otherwise the connection seems a matter of
:grasping at straws. Perhaps you could expand on your research so far
:that has made you investigate the relationship.
Easy mistake to make, Alison since a lot of the art history books list Cindy
Sherman, especially, under *feminist artists... I guess they still aren't
comfortable with calling women simply *artists!
Kay:
~Artist~
>
> Would anyone happen to know whether there is any literature on the
> subject of the similarities between Frida Kahlo's relationship with
> Diego Rivera and that of Georgia O'Keefe and Alfred Stieglitz?
>
> Is there any convincing evidence to support that Cindy Sherman, Judy
> Chicago, Gwen John, Maggi Hambling and other feminist/contemporary
> artists were influenced--either directly or indirectly--by Kahlo's art
> and/or themes? There certainly are some interesting parallels, and I
> have explored them somewhat, but I would like to research these
> possibilities in greater detail.
>
>
When those modern women were in college they did not teach
women in art history and no one talked about Kahlo much then. She
has only recently become known to the greater world of education.
The first Women in the Visual Art class was not taught until 1983 at
UCSC = Go Slugs! and there was barely a text book.
Mattison
~Artist~
Award for the Arts.
The press release hit Washington Post with ont one American or
Woman Artist mentioned.
Mattison Fitzgerald
Woman Artist
Alison A Raimes
>Alison:
>
>Thank you for your reply. I did not mean to offend.
You didn't ! not at all. Sorry if my tone was abrasive (I was
concentrating on other things when I wrote) - I was after a good debate
and picked on you Rachelle. I do have a genuine interest in how women
artists are categorised, particularly when they are adamant that they do
not belong in that category - as both Sherman and Hambling do.
>
>I am not, nor do I profess to be an expert or an art historian. The
>research was an undergraduate research paper, and a compartive analysis
>of pain and suffering and women's treatment of various themes of
>particularl interest to women. I noticed some interesting parallels.
>The limited scope of my research did not allow me to expand on these
>parallels in any great detail.
>
Neither am I an expert or an art historian, so that's ok then ! I
thought perhaps that was where you were coming from: the *suffering* of
women angle - perhaps then a few of us can throw you some ideas to
consider for your dissertation.
Kahlo's work is fascinating. Her time spent under the surgical knife
combined with her role as a Latin American woman artist unites two major
issues - women's suffering and marginal countries lack of acceptance
into main stream modernity. The University of Essex in England has done
a considerable amount of research on Latin American Art and you might
want to try and get hold of _Drawing the Line_ by Baddeley and Fraser
and published by Verso 1989. Kahlo's work in relation to the culture in
which she works is discussed in detail - if you can't get it I can
forward you my notes. Alternatively you could Email the University - Dr
Fraser was very helpful and approachable to me when I was researching
Chilean Contemporary art. Also Edward Lucie-Smith has also written in
detail on Kahlo - have you read anything by him on the subject ?
>My bibliographic sources classified these artists as "pro-feminist"...
> Again, I don't profess to be an expert, and perhaps the categorization
>is a dangerous one. If you have more knowledge of the subject, I'd
>certainly welcome your expanding upon my questions...
>
Categorising artists *is* problematic - it is necessary for the purposes
of history but I feel that slotting artists into pigeon holes distracts
from their individuality - and isn't that exactly what the feminist
movement was about - ascertaining the rights of women as individuals ?
>More at
>http://members.xoom.com/_XOOM/Frida_Kahlo/english/conclusion/conclusion.
>htm
>
>Apologies again if I touched a nerve.
No apologies needed - except perhaps from this end for the careless post
of mine yesterday which you misinterpreted as hostile.
Regards
Alison.
Alison A Raimes
<scarl...@theriver.com> writes
>Easy mistake to make, Alison since a lot of the art history books list Cindy
>Sherman, especially, under *feminist artists... I guess they still aren't
>comfortable with calling women simply *artists!
>Kay:
I guess not. That, in itself, seems to be a failing of the Feminist
Movement. Personally I have avoided anything that could possible slot me
into that category, though my degree show could easily have been seen as
*feminist*. Mattison is correct though - Kahlo has not been included
into theoretical studies until very recently, both because she was a
woman and a Latin American artist, so I doubt that she had much
influence on these artists. It might be worth considering *when* artists
are influenced by others - I would suggest that is mainly during time at
art school when artists are finding their feet. Also a consideration for
comparing parallels between artists and their relationships. I would be
very cautious about creating parallels that are not there if you are
writing a paper - the experts will demolish it !
Most artists hate to be called a *feminist* - I know Maggi Hambling
detests it - she is a great character ... smokes and drinks to excess,
and doesn't take any shit from anyone and certainly doesn't want to be
categorised ! Nor does Sherman. So that seems to say something about the
Feminist movement doesn't it ?
Germane Greer, Britain's leading Feminist, has just released a new book
... I forget the title (on purpose) ... where she declares the movement
has failed and issues a new *agenda*. Off we go again ....
A paper on how we categorise female artists and how we try to link their
work instead of accepting them as individuals may be emerging here for
Rachelle ?
Regards.
Marilyn
Kahlo can continue to be left out for all I care.
She is famous for her tragic life, for recording that tragic
life, and for being married to Diego Rivera.
Her paintings are one step above the works of Grandma Moses.
Marilyn
John Haber
>Sherman, especially, under *feminist artists... I guess they still aren't
>comfortable with calling women simply *artists!
>Kay:
If that's what Sherman said, I'd argue that her distancing herself
from feminism in person says more about the image of feminism than
about the realities of life, feminism, and her art. I think it's a
darn shame, just when feminism is playing such a vital part in art and
starting to get women as human beings and gender as a question out
there, that people feel they've got to be ashamed of it.
For me, it's no more than a sign that the right wing has won at some
level. Whoever frames the debate gets to win it. Same as if you
start to think of environmentalists as identical with people who want
to live in mud huts. Feminists apparently are women who want special
treatment and hate men. Baloney.
Why should it be exclusive from "calling women simply artists"?
First, seems to me that the whole aim was to allow women to be treated
at last simply as artists instead of little girls. If you think
that's possible for Sherman as it wasn't for many of Kahlo's
generation (not that I myself like Kahlo), isn't that a feminist
victory?
Second, another aim of feminism, as I say, could be to contribute to
art and life through examining how gender works. Surely the critics
who find that in Sherman's Untittled Film stills -- the way she
dresses up in all those roles and plays with sexuality -- are dead
right.
What the heck. Anyone who asks an artist what her work means is
asking for it anyhow! <grin> But that's another discussion we've
had, about us nasty intellectuals and writers who think not everything
is obvious. Well, you know: it ain't.
John (www.haberarts.com)
Kay again
Alison A Raimes wrote in message ...
:<scarl...@theriver.com> writes
:
:>Easy mistake to make, Alison since a lot of the art history books list
Cindy
:>Sherman, especially, under *feminist artists... I guess they still aren't
:>comfortable with calling women simply *artists!
:>Kay:
:I guess not. That, in itself, seems to be a failing of the Feminist
:Movement.
I don't see it as a failing of the Feminist Movement but moreso as a failure
of our culture to validate the work of women artists.
: Personally I have avoided anything that could possible slot me
:into that category, though my degree show could easily have been seen as
:*feminist*. Mattison is correct though - Kahlo has not been included
:into theoretical studies until very recently, both because she was a
:woman and a Latin American artist, so I doubt that she had much
:influence on these artists. It might be worth considering *when* artists
:are influenced by others - I would suggest that is mainly during time at
:art school when artists are finding their feet. Also a consideration for
:comparing parallels between artists and their relationships. I would be
:very cautious about creating parallels that are not there if you are
:writing a paper - the experts will demolish it !
:
:Most artists hate to be called a *feminist* - I know Maggi Hambling
:detests it - she is a great character ... smokes and drinks to excess,
:and doesn't take any shit from anyone and certainly doesn't want to be
:categorised ! Nor does Sherman. So that seems to say something about the
:Feminist movement doesn't it ?
Not to me. It shows the influence of political conservatism. I am a
feminist though I don't consider my art *feminist art. One immediately
thinks of issues of domesticity, sexuality, vaginal imagery... Also, when
one hears of *feminist art it is always considered *inferior. Is this
because the work itself is considered inferior or because the work is done
by women. Is *liberal art better than *conservative art? To me, me
feminism is just an aspect of who I am. It is like saying "I am a Catholic"
or "I am of Italian heritage"... These women are making some of the top art
in the world (Sherman) and having the success that comes with it and the
word *feminism* unfortunately, caries a *stigma, which would devalue the
acceptance of their art. Sherman's most famous series - "Untitled Film
Stills" present 50s Hichcockesque *women in peril* works, she has also done
many *manequin* series of reassemblage of women's body parts. I see her
addressing many *feminist issues.
:Germane Greer, Britain's leading Feminist, has just released a new book
:... I forget the title (on purpose) ... where she declares the movement
:has failed and issues a new *agenda*. Off we go again ....
:
:A paper on how we categorise female artists and how we try to link their
:work instead of accepting them as individuals may be emerging here for
:Rachelle ?
:Regards.
:Alison A Raimes
: ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
: http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
Kay
Kay again
Alison A Raimes wrote in message ...
:Kahlo's work is fascinating. Her time spent under the surgical knife
I read that she may have suffered from "Manchuriasm (sp?) syndrom", that is
she *elected these multiple surgeries to gain attention for herself. Seems
that Diego would pay a bit of attention to her when she had her surgeries.
:combined with her role as a Latin American woman artist
There were many, many wonderful Latin American women Illusionistic
Surrealistic artists at this time. While Kahlo has her place, I doubt if
her work could hold a candle to that of Remedios Varo, for example. I think
we all *love the suffering woman artist, in pain, with a philandering
husband who also had an affair with her SISTER for cripes sakes, yet who
STOOD BY HER MAN (vomit) and did one zillion self-portraits of herself and
this story. Let me revise that last statement: *I* don't love that story!
unites two major
:issues - women's suffering and marginal countries lack of acceptance
:into main stream modernity. The University of Essex in England has done
:a considerable amount of research on Latin American Art and you might
:want to try and get hold of _Drawing the Line_ by Baddeley and Fraser
:and published by Verso 1989. Kahlo's work in relation to the culture in
:which she works is discussed in detail - if you can't get it I can
:forward you my notes. Alternatively you could Email the University - Dr
:Fraser was very helpful and approachable to me when I was researching
:Chilean Contemporary art. Also Edward Lucie-Smith has also written in
:detail on Kahlo - have you read anything by him on the subject ?
Oops, it seems as though I have been off on a tangent! She was looking for
imformation:-)
:>My bibliographic sources classified these artists as "pro-feminist"...
:> Again, I don't profess to be an expert, and perhaps the categorization
:>is a dangerous one. If you have more knowledge of the subject, I'd
:>certainly welcome your expanding upon my questions...
:Categorising artists *is* problematic - it is necessary for the purposes
:of history but I feel that slotting artists into pigeon holes distracts
:from their individuality - and isn't that exactly what the feminist
:movement was about - ascertaining the rights of women as individuals ?
Part of it. Part of it was to pass new laws to protect these rights. Part
of it was to recognise these rights. It is not a past-tense movement. And
while many definitely want their own share of rights, it seems fashionable
to disassociate oneself from the nasty word *feminist.
:>More at
:>http://members.xoom.com/_XOOM/Frida_Kahlo/english/conclusion/conclusion.
:>htm
:>
:>Apologies again if I touched a nerve.
:
:No apologies needed - except perhaps from this end for the careless post
:of mine yesterday which you misinterpreted as hostile.
:Regards
:Alison
I know what you mean, Alison. I am prepared to be *flamed with this simple
post.
Kay
.
Kay again
John Haber wrote in message <3759462d...@news.onepine.com>...
:>Easy mistake to make, Alison since a lot of the art history books list
Cindy
:>Sherman, especially, under *feminist artists... I guess they still aren't
:>comfortable with calling women simply *artists!
:>Kay:
:
:from feminism in person says more about the image of feminism than
:about the realities of life, feminism, and her art.
Read my answer to Alison's post, John. Don't you agree that her imagery is
EASILY categorized as *feminist?
: I think it's a
:darn shame, just when feminism is playing such a vital part in art and
:starting to get women as human beings and gender as a question out
:there, that people feel they've got to be ashamed of it.
Yes. There is a backlash and it is insidious.
:For me, it's no more than a sign that the right wing has won at some
:level. Whoever frames the debate gets to win it. Same as if you
:start to think of environmentalists as identical with people who want
:to live in mud huts. Feminists apparently are women who want special
:treatment and hate men. Baloney.
Kudos to you John! My husband respects my feminism (and I certainly don't
hate him)
:Why should it be exclusive from "calling women simply artists"?
:First, seems to me that the whole aim was to allow women to be treated
:at last simply as artists instead of little girls. If you think
:that's possible for Sherman as it wasn't for many of Kahlo's
:generation (not that I myself like Kahlo), isn't that a feminist
:victory?
John, don't you agree that at *this time in history, that if Sherman were to
call her work *feminist, that it would be devalued? She's at the top right
now. That one simple word would jeapardise her artistic merit. Damn shame!
:Second, another aim of feminism, as I say, could be to contribute to
:art and life through examining how gender works. Surely the critics
:who find that in Sherman's Untittled Film stills -- the way she
:dresses up in all those roles and plays with sexuality -- are dead
:right.
Definitely! Also, the fake body part series...
:What the heck. Anyone who asks an artist what her work means is
:asking for it anyhow! <grin> But that's another discussion we've
:had, about us nasty intellectuals and writers who think not everything
:is obvious. Well, you know: it ain't.
:
:John (www.haberarts.com)
Wonderful post, John.
Kay
dro...@my-deja.com
> I do have a genuine interest in how women
> artists are categorised, particularly when they are adamant that they
do
> not belong in that category - as both Sherman and Hambling do.
You mentioned having heard Sherman speak, and also of having personal
contact with Hambling. Would you mind perhaps elaborating in greater
detail on their attitudes and "stance" (for lack, perhaps, of a better
word)... ?
> Neither am I an expert or an art historian, so that's ok then ! I
> thought perhaps that was where you were coming from: the *suffering*
of
> women angle - perhaps then a few of us can throw you some ideas to
> consider for your dissertation.
The forum is already providing greater insight than I could have
anticipated. :-)
As mentioned, this was part of a research paper, completed in 1995.
I've done little research since then, and am more or less "out of it" as
far as what new theories, sources, and findings have come to light in
recent years. My bad, I guess. But after having spent three years (I
know that to some, that may seem like a drop in the bucket...) of
research and having the revisions and drafts under my nose for so long,
I made the decision to shelve it for a while...
I am pursuing this now more for the sake of personal interest, rather
than for the possibility of writing more on the topic, although I hope
that does not discourage the open discussion. I'm finding it immensely
interesting, and perhaps I will go back to the writing...
> you might
> want to try and get hold of _Drawing the Line_ by Baddeley and Fraser
> and published by Verso 1989. Kahlo's work in relation to the culture
in
> which she works is discussed in detail - if you can't get it I can
> forward you my notes. Alternatively you could Email the University -
Dr
> Fraser was very helpful and approachable to me when I was researching
> Chilean Contemporary art. Also Edward Lucie-Smith has also written in
> detail on Kahlo - have you read anything by him on the subject ?
No, I haven't, and I thank you very much for mentioning it. I'll have
to add that to my list of "Suggested Reading" (read: "to-do list")
> Categorising artists *is* problematic - it is necessary for the
purposes
> of history but I feel that slotting artists into pigeon holes
distracts
> from their individuality - and isn't that exactly what the feminist
> movement was about - ascertaining the rights of women as individuals ?
I do agree with you, on both counts. On the one hand it is sometimes
necessary, and on the other, it defeats each one's hope to define
herself as individual. Six of one, a half dozen of the other. It's
difficult to weigh...
> No apologies needed - except perhaps from this end for the careless
post
> of mine yesterday which you misinterpreted as hostile.
I didn't think of it as hostile; perhaps the onus was/is/should have
been on me to better explain where I'm coming from and what I hope to
get from the discussion...
I'm rather new to newsgroups. Forty lashes with a wet noodle. ;-)
dro...@my-deja.com
jha...@haberarts.com (John Haber) wrote:
> Second, another aim of feminism, as I say, could be to contribute to
> art and life through examining how gender works. Surely the critics
> who find that in Sherman's Untittled Film stills -- the way she
> dresses up in all those roles and plays with sexuality -- are dead
> right.
jha...@haberarts.com (John Haber) wrote:
>Second, another aim of feminism, as I say, could be to contribute to
>art and life through examining how gender works. Surely the critics
>who find that in Sherman's Untittled Film stills -- the way she
>dresses up in all those roles and plays with sexuality -- are dead
>right.
Precisely. Much has been written of the Kahlo/Madonna connection, for
example, and the manner in which both, although of different times, to
be sure, toss aside conventions and question the representation of
gender, gender conventions, and acceptable sexual behaviour. Kahlo
accomplished this through appearing, both in photographs and in her
self-portraits (Self-Portrait With Cropped Hair, for example), in
oversized men's suits. Madonna too has done this--dare I say,
"cross-dressing"--bit.
Beyond that, both seize control of their bodies, donning and removing
masks and redefining iconography and visual metaphors with a view to
self-reinvention. Very clever.
There is an interesting similarity, too, in the way in which both
redefine and refashion religious iconography. Madonna, (just think of
the cultural resonance of her name!) in her performances, and Kahlo in
her landscapes that recall martyrdom, penitence, and purgatory, and
self-portraits that recall ex-votos... (Bergman-Carton)
Janis Bergman-Carton, moreover, explores the Kahlo/Madonna connection in
two interesting articles:
"Like An Artist" Art in America. January 1993: 35-37.
"Strike a Pose: The Framing of Madonna and Frida Kahlo". Texas Studies
in Literature and Language. Austin: University of Texas Press. Volume
35. No. 4. Winter 1993: 440-452.
These may well be worth reading, John, if you are interested in these
particular angles.
Erik A. Mattila
'feminist" == not, actually two issues, both very important.
One issure refers to an essay I read once by Edward Said (Of "Orientalism"
fame), and I can't remember the citation. At any rate Said was discussing how
individuals who believe they hold a 'natural' position will not think of
themselves as a type that others may evoke in order to 'position' them. His
examples included that most capitalists do not think of themselves as
'capitalists' since they 'sense' that they hold the 'given' position from which
all other positions derive. It other words--quite unconsciously--being a
'capitalist' is the natural state, and being anything else is a divergence -- a
subcategory. Obviously this kind of thing is afoot in art, since it is seldom
questioned (without the feminist critique) what the term 'artist' implies in
culture. White, male, European artists think of themselves as artists, but do
not spend a lot ot time in understanding what the term means in terms of
culture and politics. Of course the feminist critique is undermining this
hegemony, which I think is to eveyone's benefit.
The second issue is, I think, a persons resistance to positioning. We see
positioning statements all the time on RAF -- you are this, you are that, and
therefore...This is all about social politics, and it is very important for a
person to attempt to challenge the implications that derive from positioning
statements. If l say "Kay is a feminist" then this brings into the arena a
whole bunch of presuppositions about feminism which Kay, and her intellectual
products, get pidgeon holed into. Kay has every right to reject this category,
and at the same time continue producing thoughts, words, or paintings that may
respond to the general principles that are included in the term 'femininsm.'
That's why I really enjoyed the antique Fibber McGee and Molly flick where
Fibber was searching for an example of "The Average Man." Everyone he talked
to described themselves as 'slightly above average" and Fibber concluded that
there was no 'average' and everyone was 'slightly above.'
BTW, we do the same thing with the term "Latin America." Mexicans, generally,
really prefer the term "Mexican Art" to "Latin American" or (G.forgid)
"Hispanic Art." Unfortunately, the word "Mexican" has taken on a perjorative
resonnance in U.S. history and use (which is now dissolving, yet still
present). Mexicans often find this, of course, obscene. I'm just saying this
because Mexico and its history and culture is very unique within the sphere of
the general category "Latin American."
Erik Mattila
Kay again wrote:
> :Second, another aim of feminism, as I say, could be to contribute to
> :art and life through examining how gender works. Surely the critics
> :who find that in Sherman's Untittled Film stills -- the way she
> :dresses up in all those roles and plays with sexuality -- are dead
> :right.
>
wade.ma...@telusplanet.net
>Second, another aim of feminism, as I say, could be to contribute to
>art and life through examining how gender works. Surely the critics
>who find that in Sherman's Untittled Film stills -- the way she
>dresses up in all those roles and plays with sexuality -- are dead
>right.
Precisely. Much has been written of the Kahlo/Madonna connection, for
example, and the manner in which both, although of different times, to
be sure, toss aside conventions and question the representation of
gender, gender conventions, and acceptable sexual behaviour. Kahlo
accomplished this through appearing, both in photographs and in her
self-portraits (Self-Portrait With Cropped Hair, for example), in
oversized man's suits. Madonna too has done this--dare I say,
"cross-dressing"--bit.
Beyond that, both seize control of their bodies, donning and removing
masks and redefining iconography and visual metaphors with a view to
self-reinvention. Very clever.
There is an interesting similarity, too, in the way in which both
redefine and refashion religious iconography.
Janis Bergman-Carton, moreover, explores the Kahlo/Madonna connection
in two interesting articles:
"Like An Artist" Art in America. January 1993: 35-37.
"Strike a Pose: The Framing of Madonna and Frida Kahlo". Texas Studies
in Literature and Language. Austin: University of Texas Press. Volume
35. No. 4. Winter 1993: 440-452.
These may well be worth reading, John, if you are interested in these
particular angles.
----
Rachelle Drouin
http://www.frida-kahlo.com
http://www.hopefoundation.org
http://www.optionsforwomen.ab.ca
dro...@spamcop.net
~Artist~
are idiots. It is like saying Willy Mays could hit because he saw Hank
Aaron.
Hardly.
He could hit cause he could hit.
You know when you are there and everyone else wonders.
Mattison
~Artist~
>
> >Easy mistake to make, Alison since a lot of the art history books list Cindy
> >Sherman, especially, under *feminist artists... I guess they still aren't
> >comfortable with calling women simply *artists!
Most art historiaans I know and knew in college never steepp foot in
an art studiio let alone pick up a brush....so much for .... experts.
Speaking from the west coast I find Shermans work predictably
NYC. Put ugly on the screnn and wait for a reaction. So what have
you done lately.
Mattison
> >Kay:
>
> If that's what Sherman said, I'd argue that her distancing herself
> from feminism in person says more about the image of feminism than
> about the realities of life, feminism, and her art. I think it's a
> darn shame, just when feminism is playing such a vital part in art and
> starting to get women as human beings and gender as a question out
> there, that people feel they've got to be ashamed of it.
>
> For me, it's no more than a sign that the right wing has won at some
> level. Whoever frames the debate gets to win it. Same as if you
> start to think of environmentalists as identical with people who want
> to live in mud huts. Feminists apparently are women who want special
> treatment and hate men. Baloney.
>
> Why should it be exclusive from "calling women simply artists"?
> First, seems to me that the whole aim was to allow women to be treated
> at last simply as artists instead of little girls. If you think
> that's possible for Sherman as it wasn't for many of Kahlo's
> generation (not that I myself like Kahlo), isn't that a feminist
> victory?
>
> Second, another aim of feminism, as I say, could be to contribute to
> art and life through examining how gender works. Surely the critics
> who find that in Sherman's Untittled Film stills -- the way she
> dresses up in all those roles and plays with sexuality -- are dead
> right.
>
Kay again
~Artist~ wrote in message <375A24...@att.net>...
(snip)
:
:Most art historiaans I know and knew in college never steepp foot in
:an art studiio let alone pick up a brush....so much for .... experts.
Most art historians I know and knew in college began as artists themselves,
then switched to art history and have a lifetime commitment to the continued
study of art history which involves keeping abreast of the current trends
and the effects of the past on such. The art historians I know have been in
my studio as well as many, many others. The seem to attend all openings in
their venue and frankly, what *I* show at an opening is the completed work
of art. The process isn't nessary. Not only that, it isn't necessarily
worth merit at many points of its developement.
::Speaking from the west coast I find Shermans work predictably
:NYC. Put ugly on the screnn and wait for a reaction.
Ugly/screen/La... It fits!
So what have you done lately.
I assume you are talking about Cindy Sherman? Read! Reading about the
market you are in or are hoping to enter is just as important as marketing
itself. If you are asking what I have done lately, 3 paintings almost ended
in a month. Pretty good for me, but not many compared to the 40? you were
going to do in Mexico. How was it?
Kay
:
:Mattison
John Haber
it's the norm, call me dubious.
jh
Jillian
says...
>Wonderful post, John.
>Kay
I wonder if you'd have made that remark had
his post been anti? I personally hate all
categorization when speaking of art. As an
'artist' I don't want to be labeled by someone
as anything other than a good or bad artist.
I deplore the proliferation of galleries that
are "(something)-specific.' I refuse to enter
them. This thread is labeled as being about
Frida Kahlo and I doubt that she had ever heard
the term 'feminist' in her lifetime. Her life
was the epitome of the latino wife's from what
I've read and I can't for the life of me see
why she has been recreated in recent times as
a feminist role model. She was in fact, as far
as I know, the anti-thesis of feminism.
Alison A Raimes
>You mentioned having heard Sherman speak, and also of having personal
>contact with Hambling. Would you mind perhaps elaborating in greater
>detail on their attitudes and "stance" (for lack, perhaps, of a better
>word)... ?
Rachelle: both of these artists, and many more that I have had heard
speak about their work, emphasis the individuality of their work above
belonging to an *ism* - I think that Erik wrote a very good reasoning
for this. Griselda Pollock interviewed Paula Rego a few years ago at
Leed City gallery in England and insisted on trying to divert every
question about Paula's work to the feminist issues. She got so fed up
with Pollock that she silenced her by saying that most of her paintings
portrayed women in the home because that is where she thinks women feel
most comfortable. That sorted Pollock out !
Wasn't the idea of Feminism to break out of the stereotypical image of
woman ? Yet Feminism has in fact, created a new stereotypical image
associated with this term that implies a bid to become the very
hegemonic force that women originally fought to demolish. Hardly a
wonder that women artists reject the term then.
Maggi Hambling paints about her life - and her friends, most of whom are
gay and most of them as outrageous and camp as she is. She speaks about
the pain of her mother's death and how it affected her work. She paints
portraits of the men and women who have affected her life. These issues
can hardly be categorised as *feminist* - they are the things artists
have been painting about for centuries. What I like most about her is
her frankness - she does not *suffer fools* - and I think her art
reflects the honesty of her personality.
>As mentioned, this was part of a research paper, completed in 1995.
>I've done little research since then, and am more or less "out of it" as
>far as what new theories, sources, and findings have come to light in
>recent years. My bad, I guess. But after having spent three years (I
>know that to some, that may seem like a drop in the bucket...) of
>research and having the revisions and drafts under my nose for so long,
>I made the decision to shelve it for a while...
That is normal after a degree paper. I was wondering if it was an Art
degree or a History of Art degree ? My 20,000 word dissertation made up
almost forty percent of my final degree mark (Fine Art Honours). In the
UK you can present your own *degree* and have the format approved by the
board before the final year. As I was doing so much theory and had some
pretty unique research material accumulated in regards to Latin American
art and Chilean Contemporary Art, the art history department were
anxious for me to combine the degree. Sadly I dropped the research
immediately after degree and thousands of pages of research are lying
dormant in my studio. The issue of the exclusion of Latin American art
from mainstream modernity continues to be a focal point for most of my
readings though.
>I'm rather new to newsgroups. Forty lashes with a wet noodle. ;-)
Well I hope they bring you all that you seek. Personally I have managed
to accumulate a great deal of information for my Masters degree thesis
even before I start the course - and that, I am sure, will take the
pressure off the theoretical side and allow me to get on with the
painting. On the other hand I have experienced more unpleasantness in
these groups than I have ever come across in real life. Maybe there is a
paper to be written on that one too.
Try dipping those noodles in sweet and sour sauce ... gives it a nice
edge ;-)
Regards
Alison.
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
Solo Exhibition: Skylark Gallery, Waterloo, London.
20-27th June
Alison A Raimes
<scarl...@theriver.com> writes
>
>I don't see it as a failing of the Feminist Movement but moreso as a failure
>of our culture to validate the work of women artists.
Perhaps we expect things too fast these days ?
One has to remember that the Feminist issue is not an *issue* in Latin
America. I realised this after visiting Chile and coming into contact
with so many women artists there. If anything they have the edge on the
men. This was so for Kahlo also. I really think *we* as *westerners*
have tried to read too much into the life of Kahlo. Her work is in fact
loaded with iconography that is only relevant to the Mexican indigenous
history and without a knowledge of this, one can easily misread the
symbolism in her work. To bring her work into a *feminist* category is
easy under these conditions. It is all so neat in avoiding the real
issues that, like her husband, were to have Mexican Art as part of
mainstream modernity.
>Not to me. It shows the influence of political conservatism. I am a
>feminist though I don't consider my art *feminist art. One immediately
>thinks of issues of domesticity, sexuality, vaginal imagery...
If you state you are a *feminist* then surely the issue of feminism must
be read into your work. Without this statement it would be possible to
look at your work without considering those issues - particularly as
they are subtly introduced. One could hardly say your work is *in the
face feminist*.
>Also, when
>one hears of *feminist art it is always considered *inferior. Is this
>because the work itself is considered inferior or because the work is done
>by women. Is *liberal art better than *conservative art? To me, me
>feminism is just an aspect of who I am. It is like saying "I am a Catholic"
>or "I am of Italian heritage"... These women are making some of the top art
>in the world (Sherman) and having the success that comes with it and the
>word *feminism* unfortunately, caries a *stigma, which would devalue the
>acceptance of their art. Sherman's most famous series - "Untitled Film
>Stills" present 50s Hichcockesque *women in peril* works, she has also done
>many *manequin* series of reassemblage of women's body parts. I see her
>addressing many *feminist issues.
But if Sherman says she is addressing the affect of film on our sub
conscious that would be a different issue, wouldn't it ? I will have a
look at my notes tomorrow and see what she said about that piece of work
- but I clearly remember she rejected the readings as *feminist*. Stand
by - you might get it before you go to bed (boy you go late - I am
usually eating breakfast when your posts arrive !)
Off for a yard. Later.
Alison.
Erik A. Mattila
John Haber wrote:
No, not at all. I was just saying that people often resist labels. If
you say "you are a feminist' that creates an expectation, or it implys
that I will have x, y, and z, attitutudes and positions. It
positiioning, and often individuals are not comfortable with that.
I suppose that a peron's self-conception is much broader than the
categories and labels. It's just resistant to the constraints of a
label.
On the other hand, it may be I simply can't express myself. You know,
it's one of those ideas that probably should be addressed with a long
essay.
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
Alison A Raimes wrote:
<snipolitated>
>
> That is normal after a degree paper. I was wondering if it was an Art
> degree or a History of Art degree ? My 20,000 word dissertation made up
> almost forty percent of my final degree mark (Fine Art Honours). In the
> UK you can present your own *degree* and have the format approved by the
> board before the final year. As I was doing so much theory and had some
> pretty unique research material accumulated in regards to Latin American
> art and Chilean Contemporary Art, the art history department were
> anxious for me to combine the degree. Sadly I dropped the research
> immediately after degree and thousands of pages of research are lying
> dormant in my studio. The issue of the exclusion of Latin American art
> from mainstream modernity continues to be a focal point for most of my
> readings though.
<snipulundium>
I used to ponder the bizarreness of the U.S. not recognizing Red China -
what a strange thought.
I took a class once with Wayne Thiebaud on art theory and criticism, and one
paper I submitted claimed that the influence of Mexican diminished as you
traveled fruther north or south from the tropics. My theory was based on
settlement patterns, since the temperate zones were more to the liking of
Northern European immigrants.
There was more. I had read some art manifesto from either Peru or Ecuador
recapitulating the contemporary Mexican art project, to acknowledge and
incorporate the indigenous precolumbian stream into mainstream art.
Siqueiros' "Three Lamentations" speaks of this as the convergence of two
great rivers (of art traditions) into one - modern Mexican art.
Thiebaud's response was pretty neat. He insisted that he, as well as
several "West Coast" artists, were significantly influenced by the
Mexicans. Once he said this, I looked with different eyes, and it seems to
have been the case. But it may be that this influence is not articulate
strongly -- for what? Ethnocentric reasons?
I also suspect that what may set Mexican art apart from other Latin American
centers is the French influence. I've also developed a theory about this,
although I have never really tried to verify it (thus it stands as
speculation). Orozco, Siquieros, Rivera, Goitia and others were all in
Paris rubbing elbows with Picasso, Braque, and all the others. (I wonder who
the model for the 'Spanish painters" was in Ibanez's "Four Horsemen of the
Apocalypse?)" At any rate, I will bet you that some research would reveal
that in Paris in 1911 the galleries were showing the Barbazon painters.
They were unpopular at the time of the movement, of course, due to using
peasant life and the lower classes as a subject matter. But considering the
political climate in 1911, it is likely that the Barbazons were being
resurrected.
I'm speculating about this because the geometric, volumetric figures that
have become the hallmark of Mexican art, especially in Rivera, is not found
in Mexican precolumbian art. However, it is found in Barbizon painting.
Appropriated? I think so. I think it's pretty remarkable that Kahlo didn't
pick up this convention -- but perhaps she was more observant of
precolumbian art.
I met a Mexican artist in Laguna Beach several years ago (1983-4), Artimio
Sepulveda. He was well-known in Southern California for his volumetric
figures, mostly variations of the mother and child theme. These paintings
and drawings sold well and paid the rent. When I visited him in his studio,
however, he was gesticulating before an easel covered with newspaper sheets
pasted into large sheets, and he was furiously swiping cheap tempera on the
paper, creating images that were totally opposite of the serenity of the
mother and child -- you know, real angst, hidious and terrifying forms --
threatening. I looked and commented "these really remind me of Siqueiros."
He said "That's not surprising, I studied with him for severaly years in
Mexico." "You know," he said "if I have to paint another goddam mother and
child I think I'll just shoot myself instead!!!" We drank to that thought.
As it turned out, Artemio was a co-artist on Siqueiros' magnum opus, "The
March of Progress of Humanity in Latin America" -- the mural.
Erik Mattila
Jillian
>BTW, we do the same thing with the term "Latin America." Mexicans, generally,
>really prefer the term "Mexican Art" to "Latin American" or (G.forgid)
>"Hispanic Art." Unfortunately, the word "Mexican" has taken on a perjorative
>resonnance in U.S. history and use (which is now dissolving, yet still
>present). Mexicans often find this, of course, obscene. I'm just saying this
>because Mexico and its history and culture is very unique within the sphere of
>the general category "Latin American."
>
>Erik Mattila
I'm not sure what this has to do with art, but to set
the record straight and to hopefully avoid any
misunderstanding, MEXICAN is proper when referring
to a CITIZEN of Mexico. But those of Mexican ancestry
living in the USA do not want to be called Mexicans.
They are Americans of hispanic or latino ancestry.
And another aside. Mexicans often resent it when
citizens of the USA refer to themselves as 'American,
North American, or citizens of the United States.'
Those Mexicans who are sensitive to this issue see
themselves as fitting all of those designations.
Mexico is also the United States (Estados Unidos de Mexico).
Kay
Erik A. Mattila wrote in message
:
(snip)
:At any rate, I may have been remiss in citing Said. But you seem to be
:addressing his broader theoretical works, and I was only refering to his
:statements about 'naturalized' concepts. To some extent feminism has
:become naturalized (which is different that 'the norm," I think.) But
:I'm curious why you say 'it's something to be ashamed of."
:
:regards,
:Erik
Many women are tending to deny this term. I believe it is part of the
conservative "backlash" but also because of many of the issues, many women
don't want to be mistakenly identified with (1) lesbianism (2) man-hating
(3) hairy legs (4) abortions. Many women artist reject the term "feminism'
because they don't want to be identified with (1) vaginal imagery (2)
domestic issues (3) rape/incest/etc. issues (4) issues of "motherhood", etc.
Also, if you are termed a "feminist" artist, your work is devalued. If you
are a "woman" artist, the work is taken a bit more seriously. I am a woman
artist who happens to be a feminist. I did go through a "feminist artist"
phase, but lost interest after a while. I have an African-American friend
who paints racial issues. She is often called an "African-American" artist.
I have an acquaintance who is also an African-American" artist. He paints
abstraction. He hates being categorized as an "African-American" artist.
He would like his art to be looked at on its own merit. He is ALWAYS
referred to as an "African-American" artist. He would like to be called an
artist someday, without the qualifier.
Kay
"Do you Know what he needs? Two or three shock treatments,"
Mary George said. "Get that artist business right out of his head once and
for all."
(from "An Enduring Chill" by Flannery O'Connor)
:
:
Erik A. Mattila
Jillian wrote:
> In article <3759A923...@tomatoweb.com>, emat...@tomatoweb.com says...
>
> >BTW, we do the same thing with the term "Latin America." Mexicans, generally,
> >really prefer the term "Mexican Art" to "Latin American" or (G.forgid)
> >"Hispanic Art." Unfortunately, the word "Mexican" has taken on a perjorative
> >resonnance in U.S. history and use (which is now dissolving, yet still
> >present). Mexicans often find this, of course, obscene. I'm just saying this
> >because Mexico and its history and culture is very unique within the sphere of
> >the general category "Latin American."
> >
> >Erik Mattila
>
> I'm not sure what this has to do with art, but to set
> the record straight and to hopefully avoid any
> misunderstanding, MEXICAN is proper when referring
> to a CITIZEN of Mexico. But those of Mexican ancestry
> living in the USA do not want to be called Mexicans.
> They are Americans of hispanic or latino ancestry.
Yes, we were talking about Mexican art, specifically Frieda Kahlo.
> And another aside. Mexicans often resent it when
> citizens of the USA refer to themselves as 'American,
> North American, or citizens of the United States.'
> Those Mexicans who are sensitive to this issue see
> themselves as fitting all of those designations.
> Mexico is also the United States (Estados Unidos de Mexico).
Mexico is also part of North America.
But not all Mexicans feel the same. I've a lifelong friend who was born in
Chihuahua, Chihuahua. The first time I asked him about his heritage, he said he
was Spanish and Portuguese. But his Mom said the family was Comanche, Yaqui,
Tarahumara with a dash of German.
Erik
John Haber
his structuralist background. One speaks of marked and unmarked forms
in studies of language. The marked form (a special ending or accent)
is always noticeable, whereas the unmarked form isn't even obviously a
form! Given the context of this discussion, perhaps think of the
example of the ending "-ette."
So Said might notice that some people get to be just "people," whereas
others are, well, Other (like Oriental). This colors contemporary
debates and perceptions of many things -- for instance, when a
conservative insists that it's time we treated blacks and whites just
as people, and the result is to marginalize blacks.
I was saying that's not a good analysis of what's going on when a
women disdains the label feminist, because feminist hasn't become
normal. It's more the opposite: it's something to be ashamed of.
John
Dik F Liu
>And another aside. Mexicans often resent it when citizens of the USA refer to
themselves as 'American, North American, or citizens of the United States.'
Those Mexicans who are sensitive to this issue see themselves as fitting all of
those designations.
So what if they too fit those designations? That doesn't change the fact that
citizens of the USA are also Americans, North Americans, or citizens of the
United States. Just because Mexican also see themselves as fitting those
designations dosn't mean that the citizens of the USA should be banned from
doing the same.
Dik
Erik A. Mattila
John Haber wrote:
> Erik, I thought you were following up Said's point. It comes out of
> his structuralist background. One speaks of marked and unmarked forms
> in studies of language. The marked form (a special ending or accent)
> is always noticeable, whereas the unmarked form isn't even obviously a
> form! Given the context of this discussion, perhaps think of the
> example of the ending "-ette."
I'm really wracking my mind for the citation. I don't think it was
Culture and Imperialism -- it is likely to be in a book of collected
essays by different authors. But my mind's eye remembers his statement
(that I referred to) about a 'capitalist not think of himself as a
'capitalist' was the introductory to an essay about the field of critical
theory literature. I remember him stating that the market for such texts
is very small -- 20 or 30,000 thousand worldwide. The title of the essay
was something like "Teachers, Writers, and Intellectuals" but I think I'm
confusing it with a Roland Barthes essay whose title is very similar.
Perhaps that will strike a chord with you.
>
> So Said might notice that some people get to be just "people," whereas
> others are, well, Other (like Oriental). This colors contemporary
> debates and perceptions of many things -- for instance, when a
> conservative insists that it's time we treated blacks and whites just
> as people, and the result is to marginalize blacks.
Sure, since the conservative will not see his/herself as a 'conservative'
but as a 'people.' What is actually said is 'it is time we treated
blacks and whites like 'me.' That's the whole problem with any sort of
'it's just human nature' argument, everyone's concept of 'human nature'
is what seems natural to each individual. Actually, this was a problem
with the liberals engaged in the civil rights movement in the 60s (not
conservatives). The unspoken liberal message was that blacks are just as
good as me type of a thing -- and I think this is were Said's comment
applies in that the 'standard' is actually a culture specific set of
behaviors that are proffered as 'human nature.' Of course this
marginalizes the other -- it also says the 'other' must abandone
'otherness' to become 'people.' (I think this gets us to the hermenuetic
circle).
> I was saying that's not a good analysis of what's going on when a
> women disdains the label feminist, because feminist hasn't become
> normal. It's more the opposite: it's something to be ashamed of.
>
> John
But there is such a plurality of positions within the general category
"feminism." Actually, a number of positions that are in themselves quite
conflictual and engender rigorous and serious debate, even hostile
debate. So in some contexts it would be ok to say this or that person
(writer, artist, actor) is a feminist, but in others it is likely to be
an unfair and inaccurate generalisation.
There's some real world examples I can think of. My major prof. in
graduate school was Irit Rogoff, Israli, educated in Germany and
Britain. I once said something that implied she was a 'feminist' and she
hit the ceiling, and vigorously declined that 'position.' Yet one of her
projects has been to rewrite art history to bring women artists to the
front -- even to eliminate that 'marginalization' (remove the term
'woman' from 'artist'). Her writings often appear in the context of
feminism, however, in journals, anthologies etc.
Another I can think of concerns Fritz Sholder. When a group of Native
American artists organized themselves (GeorgeLongfish, Junie Quick To See
Smith, Henry Fonseca and others) they approached Fritz (he was teaching
at the time at the Sante Fe Art Institute) and Fritz declined on the
basis that he didn't want to be pidgeon holed as a "Native American
Artist" -- he wanted to be an "Artist" instead.
At any rate, I may have been remiss in citing Said. But you seem to be
addressing his broader theoretical works, and I was only refering to his
statements about 'naturalized' concepts. To some extent feminism has
become naturalized (which is different that 'the norm," I think.) But
I'm curious why you say 'it's something to be ashamed of."
regards,
Erik
Marilyn
Frida Kahlo, no one discusses the WORK.
Also the mention of hairy legs reminds me.
Have you seen something of the new work of Eric Fischl?
In our national paper, the Globe & Mail, there is a full
page article about "bad boy" Fischl and his new portraits.
They are really something, -direct gaze modern portraits.
There is one of his wife in an Edward Hopper atmosphere,
light shining on her body, fuzzy white covering her legs.
Not the smooth marblized flesh of Bougereau, that's for
sure. His wife loves the portrait even though the light
is unflattering on her face.
I love it when an established artist comes up with a
big surprise. Like Jim Dine's botanical drawings for example.
Marilyn
Jillian
>But not all Mexicans feel the same. I've a lifelong friend who was born in
>Chihuahua, Chihuahua. The first time I asked him about his heritage, he said
he
>was Spanish and Portuguese. But his Mom said the family was Comanche, Yaqui,
>Tarahumara with a dash of German.
>
>Erik
I'd guess that the large majority of Mexicans gives little
thought to their heritage with any degree of regularity.
But some, as you say, are very sensitive to whether they
are of Native Mexican stock or came from Spain, etc.
Not unlike people everywhere when it comes to class
consciousness. If you are familiar with Mexico and it's
peoples, they have many of the same prejudices as we
north of the border do when it comes to dealing with
minorities and indigenous peoples vs non-natives, etc.
NOW, let's take this back to discussing Mexican, and
other, art! I had the good fortune to visit the
MARCO in Monterrey recently. Very impressive art museum
in a very impressive city. I think they may have an
online Web site...maybe on the Monterrey city pages.
You can also find Mexico City art museums and galleries
with online Web sites.
Ariane
On Sun, 6 Jun 1999, Kay wrote:
(On Feminism)....
> Many women are tending to deny this term. I believe it is part of the
> conservative "backlash" but also because of many of the issues, many women
> don't want to be mistakenly identified with (1) lesbianism (2) man-hating
> (3) hairy legs (4) abortions. Many women artist reject the term "feminism'
> because they don't want to be identified with (1) vaginal imagery (2)
> domestic issues (3) rape/incest/etc. issues (4) issues of "motherhood", etc.
> Also, if you are termed a "feminist" artist, your work is devalued. If you
> are a "woman" artist, the work is taken a bit more seriously. I am a woman
> artist who happens to be a feminist. I did go through a "feminist artist"
> phase, but lost interest after a while. I have an African-American friend
> who paints racial issues. She is often called an "African-American" artist.
> I have an acquaintance who is also an African-American" artist. He paints
> abstraction. He hates being categorized as an "African-American" artist.
> He would like his art to be looked at on its own merit. He is ALWAYS
> referred to as an "African-American" artist. He would like to be called an
> artist someday, without the qualifier.
>
>
> Kay
=== Perhaps this is because `feminism,' at least in the west, refers more
to a set of culturally constructed issues rather than to a personal
identity which can exist independently of these issues. In cthe process
of constructing a self-identity, it stands to reason that many people
don't want to get tied to cultural issues which may or may not concern
them. Being co-opted by pre-existing `feminist' issues which would
otherwise have little to do with your life seems more like a search for
community rather than a declaration of autonomy. Consequently, IMO, a
true `feminist' defines her own issues and concerns which may or may not
be linked to the wider flow of accepted and defining `feminist'
discourses.....I see this act of self-determination and self-definition as
the `feminist' act par excellence....
Thanks Kay,
a bientot,
A.
Erik A. Mattila
of "Frida Kahlo" in the thread heading, or does it? As I recall it was Foucault,
in "Mots," provided the caveat about projecting concepts back in time -- his
position was if the concept didn't exist, for example in the middle ages, it was
an historical error to look at Medaieval behavior that seems to fit the mould of
a modern concept, and interpret it on that basis.
Kahlo certainly experienced many of the social events that 50 years later
constellated around the emerging 'feminist discourse.' But how this is
comparable to Georgia O'Keffe's experience is problematical. To make a thorough
comparison, for example, one would have to take into account some very profound
cultural distinctions between Mexican and US culture.
The discourse on "Machismo" is very historical and intriguing (as well as
controversial). I don't to get into that, but only to say the relationship
between O'Keffe and Stieglitz and the relationship between Kahlo and Rivera were
set apart by these cultural differences. I'm just suggesting that the 'meaning'
of infidelity were quite different in the two cultural arenas.
But departing from Kahlo altogether, as this thread seems to want to do, I would
like to offer another possibility about the status of 'feminism' today. What I'm
thinking of is some sort of intervention of mass media, which I think should be
taken into account. In fact I think the presence of media itself in an important
determinant of the mutations of concepts in modern society.
By way of example, take the 'hippy' movement of the 60s. (This seem appropriate,
since many agree that 'post modernism' came to be during this period).
Originally, the hippy was just another marginal, avant garde, bohemian movement.
In San Francisco it migrated from North Beach to the Haight Ashbury because of
rent prices. North Beach had become 'desirable' and therefore a true bohemian
couldn't afford to live there. The Haight Ashbury, on the other hand, was
wonderful. In 1963, for example, the Haight Ashbury was the 'International'
neighborhood in SF. On Haight street you could eat just about any type of food
in the world. At any rate, the "Hipsters" were not much different from the
Beatniks, originally, except that more college students were joining the ranks,
as well as some very exotic drugs. But the coup de grace of any sort of
'realness' to this, in terms of being a 'counter-culture' which wasn't a complete
contrivance, came with popularation by the media. When it became 'pop'
everything changed.
It's fun to historicize hippydom, but I'll resist. I'm just using this as an
example of how media can completely change the face of the social, something
which I contend has happened with "feminism." Once Time and Newsweek, CBS and
ABC got ahold of 'hippy' it became pure 'spectacle' (to quote Guy Debord).
Barthes essay, " Change the object itself" (Image, music, text) discusses some
aspect sof this process, in the specific context of how 'semiotics' has become
emplty due to intervention of popularity. It is pretty easy to see how other
conceptual objects, such as 'feminism' have suffered the same process: reduction
to a stereotype, "catechistic declarations," etc.
This has been the fate of 'feminism,' in my view. Originally it was detailed and
focused on specific and important issues, but via the process of popularization
has become a shell of its former self, reduced down to very generalized and
emphemeral media statements. It is a lack of rigour that seems to be the
hallmark of pop culture -- its easiness and attainability is the principle
priority of popularization.
This is such a widespread process that we can see, if we look carefully, that
many of the debates on RAF are informed by this. Often the characterization of
'opponents' can be seen as side x is engaged in a discourse on a more rigorous
level, and side z is engaged in a discouse from the perspective of a pop culture
object. Thus the charges fly across the wires "You have to read the material"
and "This guy doesn't know what he's talking about."
So a disclaimer against 'feminism' made by a person who in other context is
regarded as a feminist can well be a rejection of the pop culture form of the
theoretical object. Does that make sense?
Erik Mattila
Marilyn
-lots of sense but as I read it quickly, I found
that there were some important issues left out.
First of all, the comparison of Khalo & Rivera
with O'Keefe & Steiglitz is unfair. O'Keefe was
enormously talented and trained in her chosen
profession of painting, while Khalo was a naive
confessional painter of intensely personal images.
and...
As far as the main culture and the media changing
the face of the hippy movement goes, you can blame the
change on one person: Charles Manson. His
exploitation of the movement so that he could
play his jail-house games, resulted in a generalized
fear and suspicion of almost every guy with a beard. Of
course his crimes were sensationalized, they were
sensational, horrific and svengali-like in a way
we never knew before. He ended the "hippy" movement.
Just a few 10 cents thrown in.
Marilyn
Erik A. Mattila
I think you may be right about Charlie Manson 'ending' the hippy
movement, but it was pop-culture (as opposed to counter culture) quite a
while before that. So the sensationalizing of the hippy in the media
predated Manson, unless I've got my time-machine all screwed-up.
And here's an aside, speaking of hippies. Cheech Marin was a drop-out
hippy potter in Canada when he met Mr. Chong in Vancouver (I think it
was Vancouver.)
But my understanding of the comparison between O&S, K&R was directed at
the idea of a relationship causing certain thing in art -- at least I
think this is what the original poster was driving at. So this really
isn't about the relative merits of each artist.
A direct comparsion of Kahlo and O'Keefe would be interesting. I would
begin by challenging your description of Kahlo, but then, we would have
to evoke a lot of cultural and historical terrain to make any sense of
it.
Erik
Kay
Marilyn wrote in message <375BCD...@bc.ca>...
:Hi Kay,
:Frida Kahlo, no one discusses the WORK.
I think I read that you didn't like it. I may have liked it for what it was
(self-portraits ala illusionist surrealism) but have been so incredibly
bombarded with her images it is making me ill. Are you familiar with the
works of Remedios Varo? They knew one another and some of their work is
strikingly similar (Varo doesn't do self portraits) but whereas Kahlo's work
is restrained, in keeping with victimization, Varo's work is extremely
Baroque. If you aren't familiar with it, there is a contemporary women's
(read *women* not necessarily *feminist*) website called Varo something at
www.netdreams.com/registry/list.html
They made it in her honor. Totally accepted with the avant guard surrealists
but not mentioned much in Art History.
:Also the mention of hairy legs reminds me.
:Have you seen something of the new work of Eric Fischl?
No but a friend of mine was talking about it showing in NYC, where she
lives, at Mary Boone Gallery.
:
:In our national paper, the Globe & Mail, there is a full
:page article about "bad boy" Fischl and his new portraits.
:They are really something, -direct gaze modern portraits.
:There is one of his wife in an Edward Hopper atmosphere,
:light shining on her body, fuzzy white covering her legs.
:Not the smooth marblized flesh of Bougereau, that's for
:sure. His wife loves the portrait even though the light
:is unflattering on her face.
I heard that he did portraits of Mary Boone and of Steve Martin. I haven't
seen his work since early to mid-90s.
:I love it when an established artist comes up with a
:big surprise. Like Jim Dine's botanical drawings for example.
I didn't see them but I did see Sue Williams work (for someone who changes
their style or subject). She ( I'm keeping with the thread, somewhat, but
stretching it) used to do that overtly feminist stuff
and now she is completely into non-representation, though they read the
*organs* still there. I think it is a big, big risk to be established and
to change the work so drastically, but I admire those who feel the need to
and that do so.
:
:Marilyn
I'm starting to be attracted to Odd Nerham's work... Never was before, but
I'm finding it appealing now. I have to think about this one...
Kay
Ariane wrote in message ...
:
:
:
:identity which can exist independently of these issues.
Exactly! It has always been problematic and remains so today, perhaps more
than ever...
: In cthe process
:of constructing a self-identity, it stands to reason that many people
:don't want to get tied to cultural issues which may or may not concern
:them.
Exactly (becoming redundant)! But this happens anyway. People don't tie
themselves to cultural issues but categorisation which the signifiers (ie.
critics/historials/etc.) must attach to the individual do this. It is
almost never welcomed.
: Being co-opted by pre-existing `feminist' issues which would
:otherwise have little to do with your life seems more like a search for
:community rather than a declaration of autonomy. Consequently, IMO, a
:true `feminist' defines her own issues and concerns which may or may not
:be linked to the wider flow of accepted and defining `feminist'
:discourses.....I see this act of self-determination and self-definition as
:the `feminist' act par excellence....
:
:Thanks Kay,
:
:a bientot,
:
:A.
Bravo, Ariane!!!!
Kay
Marilyn wrote in message <375C67...@bc.ca>...
:Erik A. Mattila wrote:
:
:-lots of sense but as I read it quickly, I found
:that there were some important issues left out.
:First of all, the comparison of Khalo & Rivera
:with O'Keefe & Steiglitz is unfair.
Entirely different marital arrangements, lifestyles and artistic venues.
:O'Keefe was
:enormously talented and trained in her chosen
:profession of painting,
Yes. I admire her immensely. She really WAS a leading force in the U.S.
avante guard! Certainly NOT a victim like Kahlo...
: while Khalo was a naive
:confessional painter of intensely personal images.
Yes, but I won't take her talent away from her. She was educated in art
before she met the *wonderful Diego. And, the self-portraits were
innovative in the surrealist movement (they embraced HER, she didn't seek
them out). I agree that she doesn't reach the heights of O'Keefe, but maybe
if she didn't suffer (voluntarily) over that fool for most of her adult life
we would have seen a progression, maybe a bit more diversity. As it is, I
feel like I've heard a song I liked (not loved) on the radio in the car, on
a long, long journey every 5 minutes. After a while, if you hear it, you
want to puke!
:and...
:
:As far as the main culture and the media changing
:the face of the hippy movement goes, you can blame the
:change on one person: Charles Manson. His
:exploitation of the movement so that he could
:play his jail-house games, resulted in a generalized
:fear and suspicion of almost every guy with a beard. Of
:course his crimes were sensationalized, they were
:sensational, horrific and svengali-like in a way
:we never knew before. He ended the "hippy" movement.
Perhaps.. I think drugs ended the hippy movement. Or, look at it another
way. You take *any* ex-con who is charged with something that gets massive
media exposure, give this guy who has spent very little of his life on the
outside of a jail all the attention that Manson was given, who wouldn't play
it up with the head-shaving, swastika on forehead BS if they had that prison
mentality to begin with?. I don't buy it. I had a lot of svengali-like
guys around me, just as bad and they talked a good talk, but I never fell
for it and I can't even imagine ANY circumstance in which someone could
pursuade me to do something against my values or will - Nope, never did
happen, never could. I've always held myself accountable for my own
actions.
The drugs and the CIA ended the hippy movement. Also, feminism may have
made all the cute chicks that were buying into the *free love* agenda leave.
Also, race divided the movement. Lots of factors, but I say - Drugs is the
#1 reason.
:Just a few 10 cents thrown in.
:
:Marilyn
There's my nickel.
Marilyn
Vancouver had a thriving hippy community, in fact the Mayor
outlawed their gatherings (love-ins).
>
> But my understanding of the comparison between O&S, K&R was directed at
> the idea of a relationship causing certain thing in art -- at least I
> think this is what the original poster was driving at. So this really
> isn't about the relative merits of each artist.
Key word is "art" because I don't include K.'s work in my art history.
I know this seems opinionated & arbitrary to some, but I don't consider
her painting anything more than autobiographical illustrations.
That living with Diego (when he was home) influenced her is without
question. She was a wannabe painter living with a great painter.
>
> A direct comparsion of Kahlo and O'Keefe would be interesting. I would
> begin by challenging your description of Kahlo, but then, we would have
> to evoke a lot of cultural and historical terrain to make any sense of
> it.
The work of Georgia O'Keefe and Frieda Kahlo are world's apart
and don't even bear comparison.
(my 2 cents is now worth 10 cents due to inflation - pun intended).
Marilyn
Alison A Raimes
>Key word is "art" because I don't include K.'s work in my art history.
>I know this seems opinionated & arbitrary to some, but I don't consider
>her painting anything more than autobiographical illustrations.
>That living with Diego (when he was home) influenced her is without
>question. She was a wannabe painter living with a great painter.
Marilyn: although I don't particularly like Kahlo's work myself, I do
think she deserves a little more credit than is being given here. Her
work went further than the Muralists in the engagement of Mexican
popular art and the modernist avant garde. How easy it would have been
for her to jump on the Muralist bandwagon for instance. Instead, most of
her work is done on small scale ... often on tin instead of canvas ...
and incorporates religious and indigenous iconography alongside female
iconography that challenges the traditional image of woman under
colonization. In so doing she transforms the metaphor of the female land
being taken by force and condemned to give birth to what has so often
been called, a *bastard culture*. Modern day Mexico in the aftermath of
colonisation.
There can be little doubt as to the political implications of her
paintings and their importance in the progress of Mexican Art. I am
wondering then from what sources you have reached the above statement of
yours ? Just curious.
Regards
Alison.
Marilyn
I read a couple of books on Frieda Kahlo when she became
popular during the 1980's. The source is my own looking
at reproductions of her work. She had to work small because
she was horribly disabled from being hit by a street car
at 18 years of age. She could never have attempted murals,
since she was virtually house bound.
Admirable survivor.
Marilyn
mark webber
I think the best thing about Kahlo's work is the personal visual language
she developed. For me the weakest part is is the presense, sometimes, of
overwhelming look-how-horrible-my-life-is content.
Mark
Alison A Raimes
100...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>, mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> writes
>I think the best thing about Kahlo's work is the personal visual language
>she developed. For me the weakest part is is the presense, sometimes, of
>overwhelming look-how-horrible-my-life-is content.
>
>Mark
Welcome back, Mark - hope your trip was good.
People simply can't cope with the *look-how-horrible-my-life-is* even
though most people, at some time or other, have such times. Maybe we
simply don't want to be reminded of reality.
One needs to look much deeper at Kahlo's work - at the content that
refers to her *heritage* rather than simply looking at her
autobiographical references. The iconography in her paintings is loaded
with information.
Rachelle's site is very good and worth a visit for those interested in
this artist.
Alison A Raimes
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
Jillian
webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU says...
>I think the best thing about Kahlo's work is the personal visual language
>she developed. For me the weakest part is is the presense, sometimes, of
>overwhelming look-how-horrible-my-life-is content.
>
>Mark
I agree. And having seen many of Kahlo's works in the
past, I'd have to say that she lacked technical
painting expertise. He images are indeed striking
but one has to wonder how much more striking they would
have been had she either known how to paint better
or been able to (handicapped?).
Kay
Jillian wrote in message <375a7...@oracle.zianet.com>...
:In article <VHf63.1025$D_5....@news2.giganews.com>,
scarl...@theriver.com
:says...
:
:>Wonderful post, John.
:>Kay
Jillian writes:
:I wonder if you'd have made that remark had
:his post been anti?
I wonder too, Jillian, since you snipped the part that tells what his
statement was and the post is over 4 days old... I don't always agree with
John. Ask him.
: I personally hate all
:categorization when speaking of art.
I believe that I had written a post totally in agreement with you. I said
that I am not a *feminist* artist, but I am a woman artist who is a
feminist. I don't, however, do feminist art. I gave the example of 2
African-American friends, one does political art about race who doesn't mind
the term African-American artist and another is an abstractionist who does
mind the categorization and would rather be referred to as an artist.
: As an
:'artist' I don't want to be labeled by someone
:as anything other than a good or bad artist.
I agreed.
:I deplore the proliferation of galleries that
:are "(something)-specific.' I refuse to enter
:them.
Now, most galleries are certainly "(something)-specific" Many galleries
show hard-edged abstraction OR figurative OR PoMo OR etc. etc.
: This thread is labeled as being about
:Frida Kahlo and I doubt that she had ever heard
:the term 'feminist' in her lifetime.
If she did (which I doubt), she most certainly rejected it.
: Her life
:was the epitome of the latino wife's from what
:I've read and I can't for the life of me see
:why she has been recreated in recent times as
:a feminist role model.
I am unaware that she is a feminist role model. Lots of people
(male/female) like her work. Georgia O'Keefe is the top feminist role
model. I have read many feminist artist books and have never, ever seen
Frida Kahlo held up as a role model. Please inform me if there is one that
does this, I'd like to read it. Be careful of the epitome of the latino
wife statement, that's categorization (and a bit racist).
She was in fact, as far
:as I know, the anti-thesis of feminism.
yes.
mark webber
> In article <Pine.PMDF.3.96.990609091010.543178623B-
> 100...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>, mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> writes
>
> >I think the best thing about Kahlo's work is the personal visual language
> >she developed. For me the weakest part is is the presense, sometimes, of
> >overwhelming look-how-horrible-my-life-is content.
> >
> >Mark
>
> Welcome back, Mark - hope your trip was good.
It was terrific, thanks.
>
> People simply can't cope with the *look-how-horrible-my-life-is* even
> though most people, at some time or other, have such times. Maybe we
> simply don't want to be reminded of reality.
One of the clearer distinctions, for me, about "quality vs. taste" is that
subject matter and content are more directly issues of personal taste.
While I don't have any particular fondness for the evisceration of satyrs
I find Titian's "Flaying of Marsyas" to be painted so well that the
content winds up being secondary. (I think this may be the case for many
people who actually look at paintings, rather than sampling them just
enough to spout some rhetoric.)
So while Kahlo's content seems to become primary - it is pretty forceful -
I still find her to be pretty accomplished. (Please note that for me,
overwhelming content is usually not a plus.)
Thanks for your reply, Alison,
Mark
mark webber
>
> I agree. And having seen many of Kahlo's works in the
> past, I'd have to say that she lacked technical
> painting expertise. He images are indeed striking
> but one has to wonder how much more striking they would
> have been had she either known how to paint better
> or been able to (handicapped?).
>
>
>
Ok, I see what you mean - although I actually think her "level of skill"
is pretty much what it needs to be for her purposes. But I see your
point as well.
Mark
Jillian
says...
>I wonder too, Jillian, since you snipped the part that tells what his
>statement was and the post is over 4 days old... I don't always agree with
>John. Ask him.
Sorry. I abhor posts that quote the entire post just to
make some inane response. So I guess I go overboard in
the other direction, assuming that everyone who cares
is keeping current.
>:I deplore the proliferation of galleries that
>:are "(something)-specific.' I refuse to enter
>:them.
>
>Now, most galleries are certainly "(something)-specific" Many galleries
>show hard-edged abstraction OR figurative OR PoMo OR etc. etc.
I am talking specifically of those that advertise themselves
as socio-politico specific and not art specific. I can think
of several for example that call themselves gender specific
or ethnic-origin specific. I guess if you're looking for
Asian art you'd benefit from knowing that a gallery is
Asian specific, so there is some benefit I suppose but in
terms of being P.C. these days, I think it is a negative.
It's just my own personal feeling I'm expressing here and
I certainly don't expect universal agreement.
>: Her life
>:was the epitome of the latino wife's from what
>:I've read and I can't for the life of me see
>:why she has been recreated in recent times as
>:a feminist role model.
>
>I have read many feminist artist books and have never, ever seen
>Frida Kahlo held up as a role model.
I agree that 'role model' may be inappropriate.
Again, I was stating my 'impression' and from all the
articles I've read in recent years, as well as having
viewed several retrospective exhibits of Kahlo's works,
I am under the impression that she is a feminist ICON
if that is a better word than role model. ICON for
contemporary women artists may be even more to the point.
Ariane
On Mon, 7 Jun 1999, Erik A. Mattila wrote:
(...)
> This has been the fate of 'feminism,' in my view. Originally it was detailed and
> focused on specific and important issues, but via the process of popularization
> has become a shell of its former self, reduced down to very generalized and
> emphemeral media statements. It is a lack of rigour that seems to be the
> hallmark of pop culture -- its easiness and attainability is the principle
> priority of popularization.
>
> This is such a widespread process that we can see, if we look carefully, that
> many of the debates on RAF are informed by this. Often the characterization of
> 'opponents' can be seen as side x is engaged in a discourse on a more rigorous
> level, and side z is engaged in a discouse from the perspective of a pop culture
> object. Thus the charges fly across the wires "You have to read the material"
> and "This guy doesn't know what he's talking about."
>
> So a disclaimer against 'feminism' made by a person who in other context is
> regarded as a feminist can well be a rejection of the pop culture form of the
> theoretical object. Does that make sense?
>
> Erik Mattila
=== Erik, this does indeed make sense. I wouldn't polarize `pop' culture
with non-pop. culture to such a degree but for the purposes oof
illustration, your point is well-made in my opinion.
As I see it, feminism is 100% about self-determination and autonomy which,
in my opinion, runs counter to being culturally constructed by `important'
issues and widely circulated discursive practices which would seduce one's
allegiances if one was not a "feminist" in the first place, and therefore
consciously resisted self-construction from without. Commodification of
women is ubiquitous. Desires, bodies, thoughts, dreams, these are
constructed, sold, manipulated, imposed, seductively displayed......
Reclaiming one's own desires, body, thoughts and dreams, for onself...over
and against one's culture, one's family, or one's spouse, if need be, this
to me is the quintessential `feminist' enterprise.
John Haber
Right, and that's why it's not an example of disdaining the label
because it's the dominant position. Rather, the dominant position,
the right wing, has pulled off the trick of identifying feminism with
a position so ridiculous that no one will hold it.
John
John Haber
>also because of many of the issues, many women don't
>want to be mistakenly identified with (1) lesbianism
I think, then, that Ariane notwithstanding, we should all become
theoretical physicists. (Never mind that I failed at it.) There's a
key theorem in astrophysics, "A black hole has no hair."
John
John Haber
>and autonomy which, in my opinion, runs counter to
>being culturally constructed by `important' issues and
>widely circulated discursive practices which would seduce
>one's allegiances if one was not a "feminist" in the first place,
>and therefore consciously resisted self-construction from without.
That was a thoughtful post. I think you're misled, though, by the
tendency of ALL American political activism to take those terms.
Scholarly feminism is very much in the post-Foucault or post-Lacan
vein, which may indeed be the reason that it scares people off.
You're ahead of the game! But then you're a Kristeva fan, much more
than I, no? An odd person to repudiate feminism....
John
John Haber
>am a woman artist who is a feminist. --Kay
I like that a lot. I'm not into being slotted like that either, and
I'm not even an artist. I'm a Marxist-feminist-deconstructor, or
whatever the official line is, except that I've a sappy spot for
American liberalism and the post-Cartesian ego. But when I write,
screw it, I'm a writer.
John
Erik A. Mattila
John Haber wrote:
I must really be living in a bubble, honestly. I just haven't seen the
right wing doing this -- and this is not to say such is not the case, but
only a comment on my own myopia. At this point in my life my 'politics'
come from watching the Desert Iguanas, out the kitchen door, socially
relating. The males, btw, are very caught-up in their 'good old boys'
network. The arch their back andpuff themselves up to a third their size
to impress both the other laddies and the ladies.
Erik
Philip (never Phil) Ayers
In article <Pine.PMDF.3.96.9906110...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>,
mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
>So while Kahlo's content seems to become primary - it is pretty forceful -
>I still find her to be pretty accomplished. (Please note that for me,
>overwhelming content is usually not a plus.)
>Mark
Still it does depend on what you mean by overwhelming. Overwhelming to one
is underwhelming to another.
....and content never made a painting! &..if it killed more than a few,
I'd have to say it wasn't the content, but how the content was.
Philip Ayers
p.a...@get2net.dk
http://www.mindspring.com/~p.ayers/
http://members.wbs.net/homepages/m/r/a/mrayers/Home.html