I had a huge wobble of confidence yesterday, specifically when a tutor referred to my work as trite. But today I had to pick myself up and run an exercise in class. This went surprisingly well. Everyone participated well.
Detailed analysis of data still to be done, but general overview shows both men and women known personally shows participants value personal characteristics like honesty, principles, love, reliability. Men and women from the public domain were seen as having a public persona, but some were seen as personally holding qualities like incisiveness, assertiveness, bravery, strength, collaboration.
Linden thought the subsequent analysis went very well. I thought I did not control it very well (partly because I had forgotten my glasses and was straining to read my prompts!). My note taking was not great either. (Should have appointed a scribe).
Q1 - is there a difference in values between people we know, and those in the public domain?
Reason for us giving visual attention to the public domain. Difference in positioning between museum/gallery/public. Apparently modern adverts are based on 18/19th century paintings. They are designed to make the viewer jealous of what you could be (but are not). Reinforces what you want but don't have. I thought it was interesting that what the MA group valued in people in general, was not Power, Status, Material possessions.
Galleries - public status. Virgin Mary - link to personal stereotypical values. Public figures linked to personal qualities. Barack Obama portrayed as a 'decent guy', Michelle Obama shows a lot of bosom but this is acceptable and she is popular as a First Lady.
Old portraits were not designed to be displayed to public - they were the personal possessions of the affluent and showed what the commissioner was proud of - power, status, beauty.
Pre- 20th century women artists e.g. Artemisia Gentileschi, were well known prior to 20th century, but were eradicated by modern historians, then came back into vogue with equality agenda.
Adverts play on the spectacle. Make spectacles socially acceptable and make us accepting of a norm defined by the advertisers.
Talked about Richard Branson. Spends a lot of attention to get teams right. No more than 10 in team. Trust leads to complacency. Corporate trust high in UK. Small companies get less trust. French don't trust and are not complacent. Go on strike freely(!). Reliable and steadfast - core values. Create relationships - this is what they do. People who are good in the public domain - key ability is acting skills rather than at a personal level.
Mo Mowlem. Good Friday Agreement. Stuck to it until agreement reached. Perceived to do what was right, rather than career enhancing. Respect - gained by consistency, talk, honest (not disingenuous). Not highly politicised. Understanding in order to get solutions, how to use information to get decisions. "Don't kill the baby, make it together".
Detailed consideration of data to follow.
Then I had a helpful tutorial with Linden.
We discussed my abstract for the Gender conference. Linden said it was a good idea to put a bibliography with it. Half of writing should be about parameters and vision - what, how, where, half on the work produced.
Identify an area or subsection of what I am interested in. Practice based research - leads to an answer in appropriate media - in my case, stitch. I mentioned the NPG Collections Policy, and their reference to achievements which they list as sport, medicine, engineering etc. So I need to work out how to adjust what is meant by "achievement". Linden advised to think about Aunt Joan's jumper. Consider medium and value.
Read up on Spinosa. Defines good because it is socially right and good for many. Not about absolutes - more about negotiated goods. Many right answers. Men have different frames. Work out the differences between the frames men/women. Conventional values; values from different perspectives.
Advised to read Luis Irigary - feminist writer. She was careful of feminine e c r i t u r e. She was not sure where the feminine writing was leading. In the general imaginary women put self into masculine discourse. It will take a lot of female input for it to be manifest in general view. She was not clear where feminine e c r i t u r e would lead.
Need more detail on where we get value systems from - I have stuff on this - push and pull of power organisations and democratic taste. Linden recommended Richard Shusterman - taste. Specifics about different value systems and frames within which they exist.
Linden also mentioned that she had been at a conference with Luis Irigary speaking, and because she was not saying what a group of militant feminists wanted to hear, she was unpleasantly heckled. Linden seemed very rueful that she, as a member of the audience, had not intervened to stop the heckling. This makes me a bit wary about speaking at a conference (Linden things this is courageous -or maybe stupid!) However, at least it makes me aware feminists may not be the easiest first audience. And potential lines to use might be: "I was invited to speak here, so please hear me out… "There are many different ways of being a feminist - not all are noisy and strident, quiet and thoughtful is just as valid … "Please dim the lights so I can see the audience - do the people not heckling wish me to continue? … "If the majority don't want to hear what I have to say, I can stop …
I mentioned what a wobble I had after yesterday's tute. I accepted it was my role to take it all on the chin, and take what I found useful. Linden said my art practice of samplers was fine. Check out the etymology of skill. What I am doing is the meaningful articulation of elements. Consider the format and syntax of samplers.
No comments:
Post a Comment