Harmony Hammond


Overall I thought Harmony Hammond's talk was quite enjoyable. The most recent work that she presented to the audience captivated my attention the more than the older pieces mostly because of the way she was able to manipulate fabric to appear as if it were some highly thought out strokes of her paint brush. I didn't know much about Harmony Hammond before listening to her presentation and I was intrigued with how much of activist she was with the woman's stance in artwork. Another thing that grabbed my attention was not necessarily her artwork but the way she spoke about her pieces. At times I felt as if I were at a book reading and somebody else besides Harmony were reading her bibliography of artworks instead of Harmony herself describing her work. At times I found this method of presenting her work enjoyable while at other times I would have like to have her explain her reasoning behind certain pieces (such as the monochromatic paintings) than she did.
Another portion of her presentation that I really enjoyed was how she seemed to be openly political with her artwork explaining her stance on feminist art. She took a lot of risks with her work (I'm thinking of the hermaphrodite painting she early on in her career particularly) and I got the feeling that she knew what she wanted her work to stand for early on in her life and I was really impressed by that.


I was inspired by her talk and I also found it very enjoyable. It was wonderful to have the opportunity to meet such a successful artist. It's wonderful that she has had the chance to have more than 30 solo exhibitions internationally.
I really enjoyed her series of rag rugs as art. I think it's a wonderful way to bring found objects, art and traditional crafts together to become one.

I agree with you that Harmony definitely has a very unique style in the way she described her art pieces. In her monochromatic fabric paintings, she goes into a sensual stance as she talks about this group of art as suggestions of body orifices, and describe the paint being the "Skin" on these bodies. I've would have never have expected the context of these paintings without the background information. Which intrigues my interest because it makes me wonder if we as artists need to explain ourselves, or should we leave it up to the viewer's interpretations?

I disagree in that I was much more interested in her work from when she was younger, to be it seemed much more radical and accessible to POC and marginalized women then her highly conceptual and somewhat difficult to read newer paintings. I think the work should speak for itself, and I felt that much more with her earlier paintings than with the late ones. Also, I'm not sure that "skin" is necessarily an issue which I am super interested in, whereas feminism is.

Leave a comment

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by purri021 published on January 30, 2013 10:50 PM.

Lecture #1 - Harmony Hammond was the previous entry in this blog.

Harmony Hammond Talk is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.