Before I realised they were all women... I expected it to be more about materials: Art, Gender and Tacit subjectivity.
Hannah Hames, 2016. International Journal of Art and design education 35:1, pp. 8 - 20.
Can be accessed online at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jade.12043?saml_referrer
(Accessed 18 October 2023)
Abstract
Discourse: The article discusses a critical analysis research activity undertaken with a group of undergraduate primary art teachers.
Methodology: Two contrasting texts were used, discussing the work of Karla Black, Becky Beasley and Claire Barclay. This article explores how the positioning of the two texts affected the student teachers’ ability to engage effectively with ‘women's art’ on a personal and critical level, revealing some highly subjective views and raising questions around intertextuality; particularly how an individual's understanding of contexts, meanings and histories can inform collective interpretation and highlight existing subjectivity.
Findings: Although students were keen to talk about careful selection of texts, the benefits of using multiple sources and the risks of intertextual and ‘subliminal’ contamination, they were unable to reflect critically upon their own gendered reading of the texts.
Conclusion: This may be the signifier of the problem, that being that the student teachers did not see a problem at all.
Karla Black
This artist features prominently throughout this text and so the author thought it pertinent to preface the research with a summary of Black's practice and its complex relationship with issues of gender.
(Bundle of fun, 2012. Karla Black installation at the Tate.)
Karla Black is a contemporary female British sculptor with an international profile, being nominated for the Turner prize in 2011.
Femininity and Fragility
Black regularly uses fragile, subtle and unpredictable materials to construct her sculptures, such as sugar paper, nail polish, watercolours and lipsticks; material choices which critics have often labelled ‘feminine’ (Bates, M. 2011). Black refuses the need for this descriptor, calling them 'everyday objects' irrespective of their inherently female connotations.
Black calls the use of the word 'feminine' 'ridiculous and annoying', asking why the fragility and weakness needlessly gentrify her art processes.
Inescapable associations
Within the work itself, there are some that ascribe these debates as being purposefully triggered by the artist's choice in materials. (Griffin, J. 2008)'Black sets triggers for viewers to blunder into clumsy debates around gender roles'.
But even this act of 'ascribing the attention to the conversation of gender roles, pigeon-holes the artist into that discourse. How can we neutralise gender-role stereotypes, when our attempt to do so is seen as a discoursive action because of the gender we associate with?
Are we, as people, inextricably intwined within our own identities, such that our creative works must be associated with our personhood? Is anonymity as an artist productive to a less gendered interpretation of a work? or is there a wider issue of associative restriction that we place on people through assumed interpretations of their work?
Tactile navigation
Black's work presents the viewer with an opportunity to manoeuvre themselves around or through the work, its physicality reflected in their negotiation of the space around and inside it. ‘The viewer is invited into the folds of the canvas to become immersed within the piece’. (Bates, M. 2011).
Unnecessary prescription of significance
Pollock warns that ‘the meanings of works produced by women will only become vivid to us when we can articulate what is particular to them, what makes them different from the existing norms’, (Pollock, G. 1996).
This insistence that the meaning of works produced by women are inherently considered under a different light, purely because they are women suggests that the reason for this discriminatory reflection may be the result of a market that is so oversaturated by men, that the pure fact that a woman would have the audacity to produce and artwork, marks it as significant within a context that counters the existing norms.
Gender and the human condition
Pollock here was attempting to argue that Black's insistence that her work is about the human condition is contradicted by the proposition that it might be gender-neutral.
Pollock likely believes this to be a positive argument, by which opening up Black's work within a dialogue of gender allows the work to contribute positively and progressively towards those debates. However, there is an assumption at play here which in fact goes against the intentions proposed by the artist, that assumption being that gender is 'essential' to the human condition. As we move into a contemporary climate in which 'non-binary' is becoming more widely understood and acknowledged, we as a society are becoming at least subconsciously aware that gender is not essential to human experience, but that it only might be.
Evaluation of the selected texts
The two pieces were positioned differently in that one ignores the 'relevance' of gender, while the other makes clear reference to it.
It is equally important to point out that the texts serve entirely different functions and that Black's significance and presence within them varies.
Text One
Channel 4 - Artist profile. (Bibliographical style and descriptive when talking about her Turner Prize show.)
This text quotes Black and references her gender in many ways:
- Mentions feminist roots
- Uses feminine pronouns (rather than unisex professional terms: 'the artist...' or 'Black...' etc.)
- Accompanies the work with a portrait of the artist.T The text appears balanced, however from a more critical reading: the use of gendered language about Black (and by Black) paired with a gendered (and arguably feminist) reading of her work results in a piece which clearly alludes to there being a connection between her gender and her art making.
Text Two
Structure and Material text - functional, promotional, written on behalf of the Arts Council. The work is discussed collectively, highlighting dominant themes and approaches to materials.
The text does not engage in gendered vocabulary. This is especially significant and purposeful as the exhibition advertised shows work by three female sculptors and was curated by two women. This also shows how representation of female artists can be done successfully and professionally without using gendered language.
The influence of using gendered language
'Language which might otherwise be interpreted as gender neutral takes on an implied meaning associated with the newly perceived ‘femaleness’ of Black's practice. The words ‘traditional’, ‘clothing’, ‘carpet’, ‘foodstuffs’, ‘toiletries’, ‘fragility’, ‘vulnerability’ and ‘human body’ now become feminine, changing how the text is understood and potentially how her work is interpreted.'
It is interesting to me to see which words this writer applies different meaning to. Each of these can be interpreted as gender neutral. I wonder what stereotyopes and associations the writer of this paper is focussing on and imbuing into their reading of this text through an overt focus on the language used. Could it be that the writer of this article is unduly propagating negative stereotypes of women in the effort to overanalyse the language used in this article? Dunning and Sherman (1997) write that people extract a specific meaning from the information provided that confirms their stereotype. This is in fact a quote that this writer brings up themself. However it can be applied as it is only in this second 'Critical' reading of the text, that the text read to promote stereotypes, and the unclear reasons for associations through these selected words specifically, reflect more on the writer's own biased assumptions of negative readings than the initial reading reflected.
I think this point is strong, but could be worded more productively.
The choice to represent a female artist with an emphasis on their femininity is only appropriate if it is relevant to the message of the work. Female artists should be pigeon-holed into the limited gender dialogue by default, because of their gender. Needlessly focussing on this, where it is not explicitly stated by the artist reflects a lazy and sexist reading of an artist's work. This 'focus' can be demonstrated and observed in points of discussion which are used to promote stereotypical gender roles; such as discussions on fragility, appearance (especially associatively with the artist themself) and objectifying comments about vulnerability and the human body.
Problematising the absence and inclusion of gender specific language
While it may seem like the absence of gendered language as demonstrated by the second work (made by a collection of women) may be an answer to resolve any issues of representation, this text also takes issue with its absolvance.
'It is important to think about what an absence of gender says about ‘the establishment's’ relationship with women as art makers – does the removal of gender as a discursive construct through which to interpret the work represent a larger issue around how others might initially read ‘work made by women’ as a concept? This is something that should concern us.'
This text problemises the inclusion of gender specific language - as it suggests that it forces it within involuntary dialogues.
However,
This text also problemises the exclusion of gender specific language - as it suggests that it is done to account for how audience biases against female artists.
Discourse of difference
Betterton points out the pitfalls of defining an art practice of femininity, as it suggests that it is an otherness that is relevant within a contemporary discussion of art. This suggests that the dominant discourse is a male one, that women represent ‘otherness’ and cannot therefore compete in terms of their work's significance.
Limiting reception through non-productive terms - If the boundaries of a category of art include so many different projects together with no tangible/purposeful or substantial link, then it is an unnecessary term. Neuhaus proposes 'Steel Art’ which includes both steel sculpture with steel guitar music along with anything else with steel in it to show how the link does not add value to the works and how by introducing these unconcerning works into this dialogue, it only limits the understanding of the work in itself.
[Definition of 'Discursive formation' added to Glossary.]
[Definition of 'Intertextuality' added to Glossary.]
The findings of the study - analysing its findings
'The students analysing the Structure and Material text consistently failed to notice the omission of gender until they were asked to code it accordingly.'
- It is an interesting framing of the results of this research to say that the students 'failed' to notice something that was intentionally omitted. I would say that because the text omitted gendered language, it allowed for audiences to have discussions about the work and the artists without forcing them into the unnecessary dialogues that the writer identifies.
-
- By asking the students to 'code it accordingly' suggests, unfortunately, research bias. This is where the researcher forces their own meanings and outcomes rather than reflecting purely on the results of a study.
'They themselves had failed to notice that the artists were all women, having made an assumption that the work was male by default.'
- As commented before, the 'failure to notice that the artists were all women' does not imply the assumption that the work was male, but perhaps that gender was not considered at all. Maintaining an open mode is essential in research as it allows you to be pleasantly surprised when the issue you are looking for is not present within the research group. If anything this is something that should be idealised as an example of what the researcher hopes to achieve by presenting the research if it did prove to be an issue within the subject group.
- It is unclear whether the assumption that the work was 'male' by default is something expressed by the children or assumed by the researcher as no evidence is given for this claim.
- The evidence transcripts provided, only record the students' responses after this interjection of 'asking to code it around gender' which further, unfortunately, presents it as biased responses.
'In spite of them having undertaken a lengthy CDA activity they had skipped over the only explicit indicator of gender – the names of the artists at the top of the page.'
- This proves that the text was not trying to hide the genders of the artists in its language, but aimed to present them without including the limited discussions of their art in relation to their gender.
- By presenting the names of the artist, which may indicate the gender, but not referencing to the gender in the text, this shows that the gender of the artist does not play a role in the coding and reception of the artwork.
Strong and opinionated vs material focus
The article gives evidence of the children focussing on the gender of the artists, where they would expect art created by women as being 'strong and opinionated' whereas they would expect art created by men as being 'about the materials'.
This could be a reflection not of men vs women, but also of gendered vs non-gendered debates. It is interesting how the researcher does not recognise this reading. The reason why this alternative is so significant is because the overall discourse of gendered art is innately rebellious and opinionated. This is not a criticism at all but part of what makes that movement meaningful. We can use the Guerilla girls as an excellent example of a collective of female artists whose 'opinions' that might mark them as opinionated are being expressed to push the agenda of equal rights for women. Their work is not about materials and this is not a bad thing, but instead because their gender is essential to their agenda their work protests for equality.
If children associate women with the protests of feminism and the suffragettes and gender eqauality in art then when they are 'specifically coded' to consider gender in relation to a female artist, they will of course make a connection between these movements and the artist.
This researcher, commits the crime that she is accusing the art world at large of committing, and that is to box the artist into a discussion of gender roles.
Perhaps the children were so 'taken aback' by their 'failure' to consider the gender of the artist, its because they didn't (rightly) consider its importance to the reading of the work.
Facilitating sexism
The researcher presents the next question as being led by the facilitator:
Do you think there is a reason why the gallery might not specifically mention that there's five
women involved in this show? - First, its an interesting omission of the researcher to say that there are five women 'involved' in the show, implying that there are also men involved in it and further implying that whoever made the decision of editing the article was a male supervisor. However this is not the case, the show was curated by two women and so it is much more likely that it is these curators that would have written/edited this text, the omission therefore of gendered language is a decision made by the two 'female' curators and was almost certainly done because gender is not the subject of the exhibition.
- The simple and best answer to this question is because its not important to the reading of the show.'
- However the children have, by this point, been geared to consider gender as the most important thing about the show as it is the 'gotcha' moment presented by the researcher to turn conversation away from productive conversations about the artists work, towards unproductive discussions associating an female artist with feminist movements.
- The children replied to this, as best they could, building on the knowledge of the lesson already presented to them.
One child answers at a later point:
"If I, I think if I had read that I don't know whether I'd have seen the five women either, but then once that's highlighted, would you straight away label – put the feminist label on in there?"
This is truly excellent critique of the child, questioning against the insistance of the researcher whether her association with 'feminism' was important to the reading of the work, as they (rightly) could not make that connection.
To the researcher's credit, they do reflect on this appropriately. saying "Student 2 had allowed the un-contextualised use of the word ‘feminism’ to shape her opinion about an entire show."
But it was not from discussion about the other text that provided this intertextual noise, but the presentation of the information from the 'facilitator'.
If nothing else, we can in our review consider the 'facilitator' as the teacher in this situation, who brings with them a history and understanding of the texts presented that may be beyond the written information included in the two texts handed out. We can consider the 'teacher/facilitator''s personal prior knowledge to the texts as a third text that is presented to the class. Possibly even one that holds more weight in creating intertextual understandings of the subject matter than the other two. We can use this as a reminder to research and understand the artist and their discussions well, but not to contaminate readings of the source material with unproductive terms that associate discussions and limit readings of the artist. Even though the facilitator had the intention of being unbiased, they entered the classroom with the agenda of conducting a study on a particular thing, and as such 'interfered' with natural readings of the texts and unintentionally intertextually associated the learning with the very thing they have criticised others for doing intentionally.
"The students have stumbled into a reading of the exhibition which may in no way represent the art or artists accurately."
In the summative discussions with the class, the facilitator steers focus of feminism towards Karla black again, describing how her work was rooted in feminism.
But while 'Feminism' may be an important element of Black's work, it is not presented as such for the other artists in the show. The key element of intertextuality that is important between these two texts is that the artists use object making to create meaning through form. The insinuation that the children instead focus on the single use of the word feminism in one of the texts implies that it has greater intertextual value than it did.
Dominance in discussion
Bender-Slack (2010) points out the risks associated with the emergence of a dominant voice during a student discussion, stating that students can be ‘short-changed when making meaning of a text where voices are silenced, bodies are not interrogated, and the dominant discourse is replicated’.
"It's as I was saying about the subliminal bit – if you listen to someone of authority and they give you a strong enough argument you will believe that. Especially if you are – not weak willed, but if you're ready to take that (Facilitator: open to it) information, yeah." - student response, proof of student applying intertextual concepts to challenge the learning they are given.
We should encourage this frame of analytical review. Using multiple sources in artist readings can give a wider understanding and deeper learning of the subject, allowing even for students to challenge biases presented to them from people in positions of authority (facilitators/teachers).
"you have to create an environment where you're allowed to um argue back in a way, and you're allowed to think outside the box, and think outside that opinion – because otherwise you're going to follow it" - another student's response.
Conclusions
When asked about any issues the CDA activity had raised, students were keen to talk about selection of texts, the benefits of using multiple sources and the risks of intertextual ‘subliminal’ contamination. They were also concerned about the risk of ‘over reading’ a text, where an intended meaning could be lost.
The researcher goes on to criticise the students' inability to recognise that their readings of the text were contaminated by subjective views on women's art. However, I would say that they reflected appropriately, and that the 'subjective views' positioned by the students were only raised in attempts to please the authoritative figure in the class - the facilitator/teacher, who had been the one to bias discussions towards that contaminative topic.
Use of Pronouns
This researcher is unclear whether they want to problematise gendered language or whether they want to problematise the absence of gendered language.
The insight on this which I have gained from my reading of this text is that using gendered language is only necessary when the gender of the artist is an important element to be considered in the reading of the artist. This is because, using non-gendered language, helps to facilitate discussion without pigeon-holing artists within discourses of their gender identity.
Personally I am comitted to only including the gendered language/ pronouns of artists whose gender is important to the reading of the artwork. For example: A female artist whose artwork engages directly with feminist discourses. This is because her femininity enforces the importance of her work and her voice.
Comments