|
|
Post by svenman on Mar 28, 2009 15:26:15 GMT -8
with my partner being a feminist, something which i proudly think of of myself as too, i wonder how people here consider the traditional male dominance of the art scene? seems to me that within the 'newbrow' scene or whatever you choose to pigeonhole it as, that female artists are probably more equally respected as their male counterparts than within 'contemporary art' in general.... whilst there are many great contemporary female artists out there - rachel whiteread, gillian wearing, tracey emin, julie mehretu, marion peck, sophie calle, cindy sherman, paula rego, sarah lucas to name a few, i wonder why we decide to call our male artists, particularly in this scene, by their surnames - ryden, schorr, biskup, sorren - but female artists by their first names - audrey, amy, stella etc... i think it's healthy that female artists from this genre are so well respected - in relation to 'contemporary art' in general - but would love to hear other people's thoughts on this - particularly from the female artists that share and contribute to this forum. how have you seen gender influence your standing as an artist within the scene? has being a female ever counted aginst you...? this is a postcard by the guerilla girls, a feminist group of artists that choose to hide their identities to concentrate on their art and message rather than their personalities, that i bought for my wife (she's a performance artist) a while back...  i love their aesthetic and standpoint. this work was made in 1988. does it still hold relevance? by the way, we have a healthy representation of female artists in our collection at home...  |
|
|
|
Post by kristahuot on Mar 29, 2009 13:40:47 GMT -8
Haha that's a funny poster... I'm pretty new to this whole thing, but this is a good topic for discussion and being of the "fair sex" I might as well put in my 2 cents! I never really noticed before how people often call male artists by their last names and female artists by their first until you mentioned it here, but that's an interesting thought. It could be simply because female names are a bit more distinctive and not as often shared by multiple people like so many male names (at least in Western culture). Perhaps it's also because the often personal, emotional subject matter of the artists you mentioned make the collectors feel close to them? (which is cool, in my opinion). It also could be a result of the femininity of the works, making people subconsciously think of the artist by their feminine first names as opposed to unisex surnames. I know either way it doesn't really ruffle my feminist feathers, but it's an interesting observation you've made.
One thing that makes me laugh is whenever I hear the term "girls who paint girls". It sounds almost dirty and risqué, and really, we never hear equivalent phrases like "boys who paint robots" do we? haha! But that's just something that I find funny more than anything. This is a great art movement as far as equality goes, and I think everybody should be proud of how far things have come.
|
|
|
|
Post by cedille on Apr 10, 2009 12:36:12 GMT -8
Really brilliant work they do!!
|
|
|
|
Post by nadiax on May 7, 2009 3:57:35 GMT -8
That is a huge and very interesting topic!! Well, some thoughts very quickly but would like to come back to this. "Has being a female ever counted against you...?" Of course. Many people assume that as a woman it is very likely that at some point, and not that late in your life, chances are that you will have kids and spend more time on your family than on your work, so your paintings will not pick up that much as an investment. Practically speaking, I see their point -mostly assumed of course, rather than discussed- but still I am thrilled whenever they are proven in any way wrong. The other thing is....do women perceive visually in a different way? That is a bit tough. Here is a small experiment and of course very limited to only my work. I put up a page with my paintings on facebook (average paintings don t expect much and probably not the style of many people here  ) . And then I put an ad for a limited time of period to see what kind of people are drawn in. Facebook ads do give you this possibility to see general demographics. The result is: (on 100 fans) 78% women 71% from the 25-34 age group Was it something particular in the paintings that women especially found appealing? Have no idea. Is it something about women between 25-34 that makes them more prone to clicking on facebook ads on paintings? More time maybe? More at home? Again, I have no idea. But still, I was befuddled by the 78%. I really had expected something closer to 50-50. And recently I sold a painting of a woman to a woman. Of course, I never had thought of it as a "girl for a girl" kind of thing, but then she called me when the painting arrived and told me how she was looking at it and tears were coming out of her eyes. I did not know what to say or how to handle this. Of course, people feeling so emotional about something you did is a very new experience to me. Of course again, I can have no idea of what was on her mind, what provoked her reaction, etc. But I ll lie if I deny that the thought of a "woman to a woman communication" (or i have no idea how to call it, excuse my English) did not cross my mind. Any thoughts are welcome. |
|
|
|
Post by thecreep on May 7, 2009 10:24:55 GMT -8
Someone just commented on my Sarah Joncas interview:
"Sarah Joncas is so overrated, she’s getting some attention because of the way she looks, it’s not because of her art."
I haven't heard that type of attitude when it comes to male painters. Do you all think being judged on looks is another problem female painters have to deal with overall?
|
|
|
|
Post by commandax on May 7, 2009 10:49:24 GMT -8
Seriously? That's revolting. Sarah Joncas is 22 years old! Show me her contemporaries who are doing superior work... male or female. Who cares what she looks like? That remark smacks of jealousy.
|
|
|
|
Post by kristahuot on May 7, 2009 11:22:42 GMT -8
Someone just commented on my Sarah Joncas interview: "Sarah Joncas is so overrated, she’s getting some attention because of the way she looks, it’s not because of her art." I haven't heard that type of attitude when it comes to male painters. Do you all think being judged on looks is another problem female painters have to deal with overall? Ugh... Well, in my opinion, it doesn't matter whether we're talking art, music, journalism, business whatever... being judged on looks is a problem females have to deal with in general. If you're attractive it definitely helps you whether you're male or female, and you don't often see many successful women out there who aren't physically attractive to a degree. That being said...that doesn't mean that just because you have a pretty face you aren't talented though, I hate that stereotype that attractive women don't have anything else to offer beyond their looks! |
|
|
|
Post by thecreep on May 9, 2009 1:46:25 GMT -8
I am a big fan of Sarah's work. I could care less what she looks like, she is an amazing painter and I would feel lucky to own anything by her. It's sad that the person that commented is that shallow. He/she is missing out on a truly great painter.
|
|
|
|
Post by kristahuot on May 9, 2009 9:56:43 GMT -8
I am a big fan of Sarah's work. I could care less what she looks like, she is an amazing painter and I would feel lucky to own anything by her. It's sad that the person that commented is that shallow. He/she is missing out on a truly great painter. Exactly, I agree with you, and it's their loss! To each their own, but if they aren't fans of her work it would have been nice if they gave a less superficial reason. |
|
|
|
Post by crazyreesie on May 13, 2009 9:27:07 GMT -8
I have to admit, I'm guilty of many of the behaviors described here, though I'm not sure if the word "guilty" is really appropriate.
I've noticed I do tend to refer to female artists by their first names, especially at home, where I can tell my husband Audrey or Tara is releasing a new print and he'll know exactly who I'm talking about. Kozik gets the last name treatment; Jeremiah Ketner and Jay Ryan are referred to by their full names.
If a woman is good looking, she will get attention for it. I recently found a photo of Kendra Binney on the Halogen site, and my first thought was, "Wow, she's really cute," and called my husband over to my computer to show him. Did it affect the way I perceived her work after seeing the photo? Probably not, but perhaps... I'm only human. More likely than not, I was steered toward her work based on the fact that she's in a show with Jeremiah Ketner, whose work I love.
Perhaps female artists are disproportionately attractive compared to the general population; after all, they're accustomed to paying attention to aesthetics. What was said about Sarah Joncas was unfair and ignorant, but it's certainly not unique to this industry.
As for the "girls painting girls" element, I'd love to start discussing it but don't even know where to begin. It's a topic that totally intrigues me. I think one of the key factors are that bisexuality is generally perceived to be more common amongst women, which I do not mean to suggest female artists are bisexual, rather that it's more socially acceptable for women to be attracted to or inspired by the female form. This also makes this type of art more marketable. Another factor is that womens' work seems more emotional (to me) which could be the result of the artist working on a subject that they care deeply about.
|
|
) . 
