• How does the artist utilize material/media/found object in an art historical context, versus a contemporary context?
• How do these materials inform the meaning of the piece?
• What site was chosen for the artwork?
• How does the site/place inform the meaning of the artwork?
Historical Context in Louise Bourgeois’s Work
Louise Bourgeois’s work is distinct in both style and in subject matter. Born in 1910, she worked through many different period and movements in art until reaching fame in the 1960’s for her work with feminist art. Her first interaction with art came through helping her parents with their tapestry business where she designed missing sections of tapestries that needed to be repaired. This experience as a weaver would later influence her choice of materials and subjects for many of her pieces (Conn).
Her work is incredibly personal, exploring many themes including betrayal, anxiety, and loneliness, which stem from her childhood. Of particular influence was her relationship with her father. Though described as almost tyrannical in his expectations of discipline and strong values from his children, her father had multiple affairs including one with Bourgeois’s nanny. Bourgeois hated him for his betrayal through infidelity, “explosive temper, domination of the household, and for teasing her in front of others” (Conn).
Another extension of her father’s actions upon her artwork is the way in which she addresses sexuality and fragility in her works. Many expose double standards related to gender and sexuality, and others celebrate feminine identity and strength.
The timing of much of her work is significant. She worked in the art world for much of the 20th century, but did not gain much attention until the 1960-70’s when the feminist movement was on the rise. As described by the members of the Women’s Caucus for the Arts upon bestowing her with the Achievement in Visual Arts Award in 1980, “You [Bourgeois] say in form what most of us are afraid to say in any way. Your sculpture defies styles and movements and returns to the sources of art—to the cultural expression of communal belief and emotion” (Wye, 110).
Her work fits feminist rhetoric by addressing women’s issues, particularly those of sexuality and the female body. When Lucy Lippard, a feminist art critic and writer, described the standards that could be used to assess “women’s art” in 1973, Bourgeois met nearly all of them:
A uniform density, or overall texture, often sensuously tactile and repetitive or detailed to the point of obsession; the preponderance of circular forms, central focus, inner space (sometimes contradicting the first aspect); a ubiquitous linear ‘bag’ or parabolic form that turns in on itself ; layers, strata, or veils, and indefinable looseness of handling; windows; autobiographical content; animals; flowers; a certain kind of fragmentation; a new fondness for the pinks and pastels and ephemeral cloud colors (Lippard).
Though Bourgeois’ work aligns perfectly with Lippard and other artists’ ideas of the feminist aesthetic, her work cannot be defined solely through that lens. “The mere choice of a certain realm of subject matter or the restriction to certain subjects is not to be equated with a style, much less with some sort of quintessentially feminine style” (Nochlin).
Bourgeois herself stated, “My feminism expresses itself in an intense interest in what women do. But I’m a complete loner. It doesn’t help me to associate with people; it really doesn’t help me. What helps me is to realize my own disabilities and expose them” (Harrison).
Bourgeois seemed to find it impossible to separate style, medium, and subject matter. By juxtaposing “feminine” materials such as fabric and tapestry with traditionally more “masculine,” sculptural materials such as metal and stone, she erases the divide between women’s and men’s arenas and shows how characteristics that are traditionally gendered one way can be attributed to the other gender as well. Her work expresses contradiction through utilizing materials in ways that tears away their intrinsic qualities. Hard materials become soft and vice versa (Conn).
To a contemporary audience, this juxtaposition will likely seem quite normal, but when she first began to become involved with New York’s art world, it (along with the fact that she herself was a woman) caused her to be ignored for decades. It took the feminist movement to bring respect and acknowledgement to her work.
Finally, though her works are not dependent upon their location for meaning, where her pieces have been displayed is important to note because it shows a cultural change, an acceptance of her ideas and style. Her identity and statements did not change; society did. “The first female artist to have a retrospective at the Museum of Modern Art in New York (1967), Bourgeois surpassed the status of a highly significant and influential ‘female’ artist to become considered one of the most challenging, enigmatic, and influential forces in the contemporary art world” (Conn). That is no small feat.
Works Cited:
Conn, Cyndi, " Louise Bourgeois: Delicate Strength," PDF. http://www.launchprojects.com/IMAGES/Cyndi%20Conn%20Louise%20Bourgeois.pdf
Harrison, Charles & Paul Wood, “Louise Bourgeois (b.1911) Statements from an Interview with Donald Kuspit” Art in Theory 1900-2000. Blackwell Publishing: Malden, MA. 2003. pp. 1088-1090.
Lippard, Lucy. “Louise Bourgeois: From the Inside Out,” From the Center: Feminist
Essays on Women’s Art. New York: Dutton, 1976. p. 249
Essays on Women’s Art. New York: Dutton, 1976. p. 249
Nochlin, Linda. Women, Art and Power and Other Essays, Westview Press. 1988. p.147-158
Wye, D. The Prints of Louise Bourgeois. New York, Museum of Modern Art. 1982. 11
No comments:
Post a Comment