Reframings
I think feminist critiques are oftentimes too inaccessible for their vision and ideas to reach a large number of people. (It took me hours to stumble through just a few pages of Judith Butler) If we begin to do what Diane Neumaier asks of us in the intro, to critique and analyze this great new wave of feminist art, we might find that the words are more relevant because seeing a photograph or other piece of artwork can inspire so many ideas in the audience to begin with, so analyzing and critiquing art that people can and want to understand may be a better way for feminist theory and ideas to reach them.
I think Neumaier’s Reframings book is a nearly first and successful completion of her call to feminists. She has collected and analyzed artwork from over forty artists and paired them with the writings of some of the top women in the field. Published and in book form this is a perfect example of making the message accessible. It is a positive (and when negative also critical) representation of women that allows for discussion and debate of current feminist issues.
Some of the issues that were brought to the surface were those of creating identity through photobiographies, postcolonialism and some women wanting to be the subject of this postcolonialist gaze, realizing the female body through photographs, society’s anxiety about differences in sexuality, and representation of the binary “underdogs�.
The first two themes dive into the idea of who is able to make feminist art. Since most of the book deals with self portraits in some way, it makes sense that the first section was about turning the camera back onto the artist. After all, I think feminism is focused frequently these days on simply making stories heard, and these first pieces of art were about doing just that. It also deals with the idea that photos are made, not taken. If it is true that photos are made, it makes sense that the next section is about creating identity through photos, and not just viewing an exact image or representation of an identity. I am from South Dakota so the topic of Native women in photography really stuck out to me. The presenters said that it was described as an art form accessible to these women, but oftentimes they are unable to create an identity outside the stereotype of their race and sex.
One interesting concept for me was the one of defying the post colonialist gaze. The first part of this chapter dealt with not merely the potential objectification of the subject in a photo, but of the desire to be photographed. I thought the idea of photographer and “subject� working together very interesting since theatre is a very much similar art with the director/designers and actors. I feel this would be a project worth exploring someday. Because of this new dynamic, the question is raised, “can they speak for themselves?� (meaning the subject in the photograph) If this can happen in the process for some, I think it certainly could be used in other photographic projects that may currently be objectifying or misrepresenting women (or anyone for that matter). The subject may finally have the chance to say “I control how you see me� and to rebel against the idea that photographs of a person perhaps of a subordinate race, sexuality, etc. are not for the dominant equivalent to use as a means of discovering themselves.
I am a little bit proud that before I read chapter 8 of Reframings that my main thoughts after hearing everyone’s summaries were about context or the “who�. It’s all well and good to be compiling this volume and taking leaps and bounds in the ideas and methods used by feminist artists, but who is allowed to take these photos and make some of these bold statements? I was happy to find that question posed in chapter 8 as well. Abigail Solomon-Godeau in her essay asks the question, “who is allowed to speak for whom?� I read work by the theorist she references, Foucault, and have been really struck by that question. At first I thought that maybe art could do something that essays and academia could not do, to represent one woman without blanketing the experience of all into one little box of oppressions. When I think of art telling a story, I know that it is from a point of view… the artists! And I know that part of their history is influencing the work that they do (and hopefully inspiring it in the case of self representation that this book seems to focus on). I hoped that maybe art could escape that blanket, but Solomon-Godeau doesn’t seem to think it can. She mentions that no matter whether the art is trying to show absolute truth or a metaphor for experience, that people will assume the piece of art speaks for all people of the same sex or race or gender or sexual orientation or any combination of these. The discursive constructions we have in our society simply won’t allow any binary “underdog� to speak. This delves into an idea we discussed in the postcolonialist gaze chapter of the book about “whiteness� being the invisible privilege to speak for and tell the stories of these others and have the privilege to be the “I� subject in art, literature, and countless other places.
The reason we read this volume together is really clear after having read the last chapter. Solomon-Godeau emphasizes the ability of women to represent individualism, but cautions against universalizing the experience of all those in the category of woman. We all experienced pieces of the book as we’ve all had different experiences as woman (plus whatever other baggage you come with). And I think that the first step is to put all the information in the center of the circle so that everyone knows as much as possible.