Ana Mendieta

PERFORMATIVITY OF IDENTITY

This article really helped me understand the idea of performativity more than in the past discussions we've had in class. I could see the practical applications of the use of the term in the artist's life and works. I was amazed at how many people were willing to label Ana's works and dismiss them just because she is a minority female. Even when a critic tried to give her some worth as an artist, he still ended up labeling her works as self-portraits and personal. In this I don't think he was entirely wrong, but he didn't look deeper into her works at all. The fact that the author of this article decided to analyze Ana's works with performativity of identity instead of simply her permance in general stemming from her personal identifications to the world, made his analysis much stronger and much more open to possibility than an any other critic listed. It makes me wonder if her works were really that much ignored because of prejudice or if regular people watching the performances and were not critics, saw the works for what they were. Critics seem often to be the standard for what people will accept good works of art from, and it makes me wonder how much bigger in the art scene Ana would have been if a critic had acclaimed her more.

I think perhaps my favorite works described in the article were her eath works. I am not sure why, because I am not into the whole "new age" and "mother nature" spiritualisms, but I really do like these.
They do have a spiritual connection somehow between man and the earth, but they are also more than the simplistic new age movement. They are statements of her culture and herself as a person, and they are as transient as she is. Because they are made outside, they can be manipulated by the earth itself and may be there in time or may not. I like the natural feel of them, how art is part of the earth itself, that indeed the world itself is art and should be shown as such.

SURREALISM

There is a quote I found contradictory to the rest of the article when I read this assignment. The author states that "In offering the self as subject, we assume that the artist has chosen to reveal intimate aspects of his or her physical and psychological being to us." And later, it states that this is more "complex and conflicted issue." Yet, further in the article, as we are invited to explore each artist's works, we find that the artists, while having meaningful concepts behind their art, are all three psychologically messed up in one way or another. They may not have been consciously using their art to tell others about their problems, but in the end the art does seem to be a cry for help, perhaps a search for release of their mind from the tortures they are dealing with. The most disturbing of these of course, is Woodman's art, since she commits suicide by 22 years of age. Her works all seem to proclaim her sense of loss and confusion of her identity, and if anyone had bothered to see her cry for help through her art, they may have tried to help her deal with this instead of killing herself. Art is a strong display of a person's inner passion, no matter which type of art is being talked about. Any art that displays confusion of identity, loss, and hopelessness should be viewed as a danger to the artist. Anyone with thoughts like these coming out on paper should be talked to and helped immediately. Why is it that the "best" art always stems from the emotionally unstable? Hardly any of the artists we've covered this semester have been stable people. Can one be a stable person and still be an effective artist? Or are those the artists we claim to despise as those that are only in it for the commercial aspects, the money?

Below I have shown an example of this....the first photo is of an artist that drew this picture of suicide, and later died from falling down the stairs while drinking too much:A deeply disillusioned man, he saw humanity as essentially bestial and the city of Berlin as a sink of depravity and deprivation, its streets crowded with unprincipled profiteers, prostitutes, war-crippled dregs and a variety of perverts. A communist, his feeling of social outrage stimulated him to produce the most biting drawings and paintings. -Trewin Copplestone

And here we have an almost laughable picture of a man supposedly commiting suicide but you can feel the difference because this is a stock photo and the artist behind it was not creating because he actually felt suicidal or anything of the kind:

Picturing Whiteness

Yuppie Project

This article brings up a topic which I have been thinking about for awhile...the topic of whiteness and how to critique it in art. When we were given our assignment to come up with a stereotype against us and then find a way through art to falsify that myth, I had an extremely hard time thinking of a stereotype against me. There are things I could find, but they were limited and not powerful stereotypes. First, I am a woman, and there are ways to stereotype women still, but as a culture we have become far less prejudiced against women in general, especially in white society. Whereas a black or Asian, etc woman might have problems fitting in to society, the white woman has become an image of equality with man, and even at times, the stronger of the two. There are those that still hold stereotypes of women, but they are fewer and further between. Women can be in the army, they can study, they can hold jobs, preach in churches, and own companies as leader above men. They are not the woman of the early age, and they are not known as the raiser of children exclusively any longer. So how do you give a white woman such as myself a stereotype? I believe the only way to stereotype a white woman is to be of another descent and to criticize the whiteness I possess. As Nikki Lee points out in her Yuppie Project, the whites stand alone. They are possessors of their color without having to think about it. We have always been the high society in America, and therefore it is hard to stereotype us. I think the Yuppie Project does a great job of pointing out the white's exclusivity in society, and also says plainly that we are a close-minded group, unwilling or perhaps unable to blend with other society. Critiquing them in this project works because Nikki is Asian, but how does one critique their own whiteness? If I were to do Nikki's pieces, would I fit in to all the societies she fit into with ease? Would I fit in to the high society Wall Street stock brokers in the Yuppie Project? I think I would fit in better to the Yuppie Project than I would with the other societies she blended into during her series. The Wall Street business club seems to be the stereotype of white society; the money winners, the exclusives, the high societies. Lee could not fit in because she is foreign, and I could because I am white, but I could not fit in so well to alternative societies because I am white. Because the whites are viewed as this picture of high money maker society, and not as the poor, old, and essentially "low" society, we can never fit in to low society groups because we will stick out. Perhaps not always and not for every group, but overall white people stick out. How did we get this way? I think artists should focus more on critiquing whiteness to open people's eyes in our society.

Case in Point:
What do you think automatically when you see this picture? That she is a member of the society? Or that she's in a foreign country to help this society? I automatically think the latter. What if the roles were reversed?

ALTHEA THAUBERGER

ALTHEA THAUBERGER

I find the pieces described in this article very interesting because this is the issue I've had with the internet ever since the arrival of YouTube. Anyone, because of the ready access to equipment, can become an artist. Althea used this to her advantage and brought the concept out of the internet and into real space, which I like. She shows explicitly how the average person can be an artist if given the correct equipment and opportunity. The reaction to these pieces is interesting, also because it seems that the regular people (non-artists, as she says) get more meaning out of the pieces than the artists do. I think this is a shift in culture, because most people would never attempt some kind of art without training and very few non-artists would understand or even be interested in traditional art pieces, such as "Nude on a Staircase." Yet, with the arrival of the internet, any average person can download, edit, and upload to YouTube any video they want. Is this the new "modern" art? I think it is. We are entering an age where people want to be connected to others around the world, they want to be seen and heard and cared about. This YouTube phenomenon has facilitated this idea. It's a new kind of art, created by our facebook/myspace influenced culture; an art that is not traditional art at all, but rather interactive, connective, and as Emily Duke says, empathetic. Even blogs can be considered a new art in this vein. The issue I have is whether or not this is truly to be considered art in and of itself, or if art needs more thought and consideration before being considered "art." Art can be a loose term at times. I think Althea's works are definitely art because they are commenting on the new cultural shift facilitated by the internet, but are the actual videos on YouTube art? In one sense I think they are, but on the other hand, they aren't. Maybe it's just hard to let go of traditional thoughts of art that I've been learning about, and it's hard to accept something so easily constructed as being the same level of art that I've become used to. Perhaps it can be considered art, but a new strain of art that cannot be considered as "high art" but perhaps "social art." I think the term "modern" is not good enough to describe this new wave. Modern to me evokes a sense of experimentalism, unique, using found objects to make something new and interesting...but many videos on YouTube are certainly not interesting, and neither are they all a comment on any other art created. Some of them are just daily video blogs. I think in order to consider this art more carefully, it should be given a name of its own and taken seriously as a new wave of art.

Internet Identities

IDENTITY, SOCIAL NETWORKS, AND ONLINE COMMUNICATION

In this article the point is made that it is possible that online communication has made us into a "new kind of person." Guy Merchant makes it clear that he does not support the argument that this is true and definite, but he does mention it as a point to consider. I find this a fascinating argument, because I have heard this theory before, especially when dealing with new technologies like the internet, cell phones, and the possibilities of the internet becoming a virtual reality that we can live and walk in as if it were the real life we live in now, much like the Matrix. If we were to live in a virtual computer-based reality, it seems we would be radically different, but is the change really that obvious? I think it isn't. I think it would be more accurate to say that the technology is indeed changing us right now, even though it is still essentially in the early phases. When was the last time any of us went a day without using some sort of technology? The more I think about it, the more I realize how dependent I am on it. I forgot my cellphone at home a few days back and I nearly panicked. I only left it at home for one class, but I went out of my way to go home and grab it before I went out again, even though it was far out of my way. I cannot afford internet on my phone, but when I use my friends' phones as a internet connection, I love the feeling of connectedness, of feeling like there is always someone out there that wants to talk to me. I get this feeling every time I am online, and I thrive on that contact with the virtual world. Yet, I don't really go out of my way to meet new people in real life...instead, I rely on Facebook and Myspace and like-minded chat rooms and forums online to meet people. I look for people with like opinions and interests. I don't even bother talking to strangers unless they are friends of friends or are classmates that I have to work with. This is a change in societal thinking, because I know I am not the only one that does this. Who I am as a person is esconced on a webpage, and I make most of my friends through it. If I were to lose my Facebook, I would lose contact with a good half of my friends, and all of the memories we'd shared together. Many of those friends are surface friends, and people that I don't even talk to outside of the website. I never call them or hang out with them. A lot of them I do, of course, but a majority of them are simply online friends. Some of them I met online and never met in person.

This reliance on technology, this connectedness, I think is a new way of relating to the world that my parents never dealt with. Your lives were connected to a few people in your area, most likely your neighborhood, and you had little choice who you were connected to. There was no possibility of going online and finding friends in other states. You were exposed to opinions and views of the world that were not your own and you learned to live with them because they were all you had. Now, this is no longer true. You can ignore those people you don't see eye to eye with, and go online and find meaningful friends somewhere far away that you can still easily keep in contact with. Does this make us a new kind of person? I think so. Not only are we relating differently, but we are also living a majority of our lives on a computer, becoming dependent on a device to survive socially. We are also more narrow minded and probably less accomodating of new ideas. We are becoming a dependent and weak people who no longer rely on each other but on technology to survive. I think we are not too far from virtual friends and robots...a time when we will no longer need people at all. I would be interested to see what kind of world that would be, and I don't think it's too far off. Maybe I'll see it before I die...though I doubt it will be something I will want to see. Then again, we are growing up in this new world, and by then I may like it, even thrive on it like I now thrive on Facebook. By then Second Life may become that virtual world outside the computer, and all the "friends" you see are digital.

CONNECTIVE IDENTITIES

"More than any other medium, even more than television, the Internet nourishes and fabricates the fantasy of having a double of oneself. The person with whom we phantasmagoically identify in a film is always someone completely different, someone fictional."

I am not sure how much I agree with this particular statement, because though it is true that on the internet one can be anyone they want to be because no one will ever know, as is said later in the article one cannot ever truly separate online identity from your real life identity, because identity is constantly being constructed. I love this word "construction" when dealing with identity, because it seems to say that even though we have personalities and gestures particular to us, we can always change. This change seems to be what the internet is about, more than trying out new identities in general, but about trying out new versions of ourselves. Things you wouldn't be brave enough to say online, suddenly, you can say in an online conversation. Where your emotions mught give you away in real life, online you can be bold and brave in word and the other person will think you are cool, instead of scared or nervous. The "you" that you project online is the "you" you wish to be, the brave you, the flirty you, and the cool you. The thing about being online that helps is that you are writing, not acting out those new yous. Or, as is the case in Second Life, your avatar is playing the "you" you want to be. Everyone has social fears of some type, and being online helps you overcome them. The problem is, we end up thinking we are that you we project online, and are constantly disappointed when we are not that you in real life. You could say that being online helps you rediscover who you want to be, but you could also say that you are leaning on a crutch. So is it more truthful to talk online in Second Life, or is it more truthful to talk in person? Like the first article's author wrote, only time will tell, when more facts can be gathered. Digital worlds are still new, so it's very hard to say. I do, however, think it is safe to say that the digital worlds are changing everything.

Gender/Sexuality Differences

This idea that the femininity or masculinity of a person is learned behavior instead of inherent in your natural being as a boy or girl in sex has bothered me from the moment we discussed it. After reading the article I am convinced that the idea of women having femininity only as learned behavior is actually just women still trying to fight society's view of women. They are trying to say that women can be whatever they want to be, that we can compete with males, we can be just as masculine and men can be just as feminine...and while this may be true in the learned behavior discussed in the article, we are essentially by sex, naturally more feminine or masculine by hormone secretions in our bodies. We are feminine because we are by sex girl, whether these feminists featured in the article like it or not. We have created this media rendered image of the perfect woman (like below)
to sell things to people because sex sells, especially if you are using a female to attract a male, because men are visually stimulated. Once this media image was born, it was too late to try to change society's view of women. No longer are women respected in society, and always will we be seen as an object. Always will we fall short as real women when compared to the images rendered in magazines, and as such we will always be trying to compensate and trying to bring back respect for ourselves. This quote by Martha Wilson supports this argument: "art-making is an identity-making process...I could generate a new self out of the absence that was left when my boyfriends' ideas, my teachers' and my parents' ideas were subtracted." Wilson is only just now discovering that she is not the object of others' ideals; she is just herself. What she calls her "new self" is actually the true self she is under the culturally painted surface. She and all these other mentioned feminist artists are trying to say that women deserve to be free of culture's views of them, but their comments through art are only serving to make women more the enemy of men instead of earning their respect. They are trying to be as powerful as men, and they aren't and never will be. Men are supposed to be the leaders, and women are supposed to respect the man. This is how a man feels love, and he returns that love to the woman, who needs the comfort and safety of that love. As more feminists create art like this, less respect for men is shown and fewer men love women because of it. In this pattern, women feel lost and unloved and try to compensate even more. In the end they are causing more problems than they think they are solving.

ADRIAN PIPER

I found this article interesting because I also keep a journal of my life throughout the years. I like to occasionally go back and read what happened during my life, read what lessons I learned, how my character grew, and how my experiences have ended up shaping who I am now. It always strikes me that the experiences that happen to me although technically unique, end up being the same story that everyone else also deals with. Everyone has the occasional fight with their parents, every person deals with the stress of friendships and romances going sour, and everyone has to learn how to balance their time among all the things they want or need to do. When I write this stuff in my journal, it feels like it is happening only to myself, but when I look back later, I compare my writings to the stories I've heard from friends, and suddenly the story isn't so unique any longer. We are all part of the same puzzle. Adrian Piper took this a step further of course, and rereads her experiences until they are so commonplace that she starts to wonder if they are from her life or someone else's. As she does this, she creates an alter ego that is so far from herself that she fears this alter ego will start having experiences of its own...it will become its own person. This is where I differ in opinion from the artist. While I think it is a good thing to look at yourself objectively as just another human and see that we are all similar in the end, there is no excuse for making yourself into a completely different person. This to me is the extreme, and can cause problems just like Roberta Breitmore did for Sherman. Sherman was so obsessed with Breitmore that some people thought she was schizophrenic. And who is to say she isn't? Artists often take things too far to the extreme and I think this is yet another instance of this. Is Piper an artist creating art or is Piper using art to find in herself that she is actually a cross dresser? That she actually wants or perhaps is deep down emotionally, a male? Is art helping her find that she is gay? Or did art make her gay?

The Woman As Object/Masquerade

A PIECE OF THE ACTION: IMAGES OF "WOMAN" INTHE PHOTOGRAPHY OF CINDY SHERMAN

After reading this article I can't help asking myself what femininity really is. Judith Williamson recognizes femininity as an identity, and something that has many faces, but she also mentions that Sherman's settings in her photos are part of what makes a character "feminine". So if it's the setting that makes the picture itself feminine, is the person behind the mask of the photo feminine? Or is femininity nothing more than a culture created manipulation of the female form? Is it now simply something to put on, like the author discusses putting on clothing in the morning? Is it nothing more than a face, a facade, an act? If we had never started using propaganda, television, or movies, would femininity as we know it still exist? Scientifically, we know that men are attracted by looks, and women are attracted by relationship and connection. Somewhere along the line I think someone decided to capitalize on this to make money through media, and once this happened women were made more and more into an object, until art pieces like Shermans were created to critique it. She is putting herself into these feminine settings, and acting the part of the woman as object, but showing through her series that there are many ways to act out the role of the woman in society. I like how she brings in the boyish poses as well as the sexy ones, because it seems to be a critique of the propaganda's manipulation of societal thinking, recreating the woman as a person acting out roles, not simply a sexual object for people to look at. She is saying there is more to the woman than the media represents. One quote I'd like to discuss from Williamson says that "what we construct from the surface of each picture is an interior, a mixture of emotions. Each setting, pose, and facial expression seems literally to express an almost immeasurable interior which is at once mysteriously deep, and totally impenetrable: a feminine identity. Obviously this is what acting is about, but the still images are like frozen moments of performance and so the sense of personality seems more trapped in the image itself."
"Obviously this is what acting is all about." How can Williamson toss this comment aside so flippantly? I wish she had gone into more detail, because I think this is key to discussing Sherman's work. In all of these roles, a part is being acted out, and that role is the role mapped out for us by the media. In addition, the photos are carefully constructed as the media would do, to make the woman seem feminine, when really she is just a person like any other person, acting a cultural role. When Williamson says "personality seems...trapped in the image" she is touching on how the idea of femininity as we have been shown is a facade found only in media, and only in art. I think what she was trying to follow was the idea that femininity is complex and unreachable, but what she was getting at was deeper than even she knew when she wrote the quote.

CINDY SHERMAN:UNTITLED

This article went much deeper into the exact reasons why women are objects, going into Freudian concepts and pschycological explanations, but ultimately, it all comes down to the same idea as what I already mentioned above. One quote that Rosalind Krauss included from Arthur Danto goes along with what I was saying in the other response: "Another form of myth consumption is to buy into the finished signified of the role, the 'character' but to see the multiplicity of these various forms of what [he] likes to call The Girl.....The Girl is an allegory for something deeper and darker, in the mythic unconscious of everyone, regardless of sex...Each of the stills is about the Girl In Trouble, but in the aggragate they touch the myth we carry out of childhood, of danger, love, and the security that defines the human condition."
Essentially, Danto is saying that the piece is using the idea, or rather, the cultural object of women as object, to facilitate a message that actually applies to all humans, not just women. The "woman as object" is, in fact, nothing more than a cultural facade.
Later in the article, this idea once again comes up, this time mentioned by Krauss herself: "Rather stereotype-itself rebaptized as "masquerade," and here understood as a psychoanalytic term-is thought of as the phenomenon to which all women are submitted both inside and outside the representation, so that as far as femininity goes, there is nothing but costume. Representation itself-films, advertisements, novels, and so forth-would thus be part of a far more absolute set of mechanisms by which characters are constructed: constructed equally in life as in film, or rather, equally in film as in life. And in this logic woman is nothing but masquerade, nothing but image."
Here Krauss is recognizing a shift in culture; a shift that shows how women have become the object they were made in media. No longer are woman free to be people, because they have been made into a cultural object of femininity, which has been twisted into woman as the sexual object, or even, as is mentioned later in the article, the woman as lacking, or rather, the Freudian concept of the castrated, or unwhole unless seen as a fetish, which makes them whole again. Culture has so manipulated the idea of the woman, that we are continually put into roles every day, stuck acting out who we are instead of being who we are. We are either helpless and lost, or flaunting our bodies for attention. No longer are we seen as people with normal human thoughts and emotions. It is this cultural shift, I feel, that has so stripped women of confidence, making them desperate to be liked, and to be the perfect shape that they see in magazines, and makes men want women to be what they see in magazines and television, no longer accepting women as they are unless they become the fetish to them that they have come to accept as real.

Below is a picture I found illustrating the woman as nothing more than a cultural creation to sell in advertising:

"Who Will Stand for Freedom?"

So I did my first performance art project in downtown Milwaukee, and here are the pictures of it: