I've had a really busy day which has left me with a thumping headache. I decided not to take many notes, just concentrate on listening, unless it was particularly pertinent. So here's my notes as they are - totally unanalysed or edited.
Katy Deepwell, keynote speaker, professor from Middlesex Uni, chair of art critics association, editor of n.paradoxa. She is a Marxist feminist of the 1980s, who has not changed her position. She chose to be, and describe herself as an art critic, not an art historian. She makes a study of feminist scholarship. The move from women's studies to gender studies was not a good move. Olympe de Gouges 1788 said "only paradoxes, to offer not problems easy to resolve". There is a double think of feminism (I am not sure what it is). Citizenship is defined as male, therefore women are described as 'samest as male' but are 'different as women'. This dogs art history.
If feminists celebrate individual great women, it is elitism. She is a Marxist feminist who believes the Collective is better, more able to change the balance of history, making feminism a worth subject of study. If, as she believes, education policy plays with gender, it is a limited case "one more woman". Pay attention to women's cultural production. Lots of stuff in archives - just need to find it. Many Dictionaries of Women's Art published in 1990s - but it is still not taught. 5 standard texts (that KD approves of?)
Old Mistresses
Art & Sexual Politics
Women, Art and Society
Gender and Genius
The Obstacle Race
Women - over-identify with identity politics.
Lee Krasner - artist in own right. But how do others' see her? 'Mrs Jackson Pollock". The only thing she is not, is black. She is woman, Jewish, widow, damn good painter and too independent. She is still not known as 'Lee Krasner'.
Deirdre Bellow - why are women artists celebrated? - largely because they are 'exceptions to the rule'. When they are recognised as the 'firsts' in a male profession, it unfairly makes all other women 'dross'.
Don't attack the canon - by adding women to it. Work out how to deal with the derogatory arguments given by men: Must paint like a man; no great women artists; if woman artist is well-known, she is not a genius (e.g. Emin!), if really an artist must be a generator.
How to resolve a paradox with logic
a. Accept the conclusion (verification - collect evidence)
b. Reject the reasoning as faulty (epistemic artists)
c. Reject one or more premises (theory of super valuations)
She noted an acceleration of feminist scholarship - but none of it seems to be making a difference. Where does it lead?
She also noted that statistically there were a lot of (several hundred) MA/PHD submissions that were chewing over a key artist e.g. Picasso, and the same number of submissions that looked at a specific unknown woman artist. She wanted a wider range of artists to be studied in detail, so it was not the same big names coming up. This would widen the canon of analysed women artists, and supports her preference for Art Criticism, rather than Art History. It made me think about the big art shows in London where the known artist featured (Monet, O'Keeffe) will be a sell-out, but the relatively unknown artist (Winifred Knights at Dulwich Picture Gallery) will not. Hmm. Might need to change my behaviour/attendance here.
There is a development of subject areas - mostly a euro-american-centric approach to art history. But if you analyse BRIC and MINT country groupings, it is easy to find feminist artists here. So there is something about the power base of men in EU/US that is affecting the representation of feminism here.
Comparisons between women is omitted. What creates great work is great relationships. Role as cultural producers together. Feminism as an artists theme is political career suicide. Feminist art history is an institutional problem, because the work of women artists has been eradicated from taught art history.
She was adamant that art scholarship is driven by
the book
journal articles and
Museum agendas.
Not social media/media moguls. Big debate with audience member who believed social media was the way forward. KD believed the formal publishing led to robust, well edited work, and social media just led to trolling by unidentified unpleasant people (personal experience?).
KD advised to look at the work, not the artist bio. The work is important, not the life story.
Not sure I understood a lot of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment