Great tutorial.
Linden had a quick look at my analysis of the Picasso and Eardley exhibitions. She immediately identified that I had not really got to the bottom of what I defined as 'respect'. With Picasso she said his value system when depicting his women, was their Value to Him, … as a mistress. I have taken it further to say it was all about him and his sex, power, ownership, and status! Whereas I had judged them from my audience perspective, on my definition of respect - seeing them as valuable and worthy. I still think these exercises have been useful, but I now need to add to the analysis critiquing where my output was limited by my lack of research experience. It's all useful practice.
This led to the creation of the task/questions:
Identify my terminology of a good portrait
For whom?
In what sense?
I spoke about my reading of Kohlberg and the Morality of Rights theory and Gilligan, who critiqued it. I said I was unconvinced by the creation of this theory as a hierarchy, where men typically sat higher (at level 4, rule obedience) than women (at level 3, wanting to be seen as good). Firstly I don't agree one is higher than the other, but also the theory is a single, one dimensional, measure. I see these measures as a a matrix, i.e. 3D, and measuring many attributes. (Many management measures are now 2D - measuring 3 or 4 talents, non hierarchical, with tendencies to be better in a specific area. And when people are assessed, they are interested in 'their' scores, and not how they interact with others). Linden said I was thinking in complex, multi-dimensional terms. I disagreed, as I don't feel competent. But I am starting to see in a multi-dimensional way, even if I have not identified the criteria for assessment.
Linden gave me three key themes to focus on for my reading:
Values
Feminism
Embodiment.
Virginia Woolf said "Thinking is my fighting" during WWII. Right now I feel as if "Stitching is my Protesting" with Brexit followed by Trump.
No comments:
Post a Comment