I talked a bit about the idea of a "female aesthetic" in a previous post - so if you're interested in where I'm coming from, it might be a good idea to start there.
The gist is this - In the early 1970s, Judy Chicago created the "Fresno Feminist Art Program" at Fresno State College in California. Her goal was to create a safe, collaborative environment where women artists could experiment with art, learn from each other, and "redo" their art (and art history) educations, which until that point had been exclusively distributed by men (male teachers), thus forcing an undesired male perspective on female artists and disallowing them from developing their "own forms, artistic language, and subject matter." (I'm paraphrasing a Wikipedia article here, only because I am too lazy to go dig out my old art history articles/textbooks/etc. But what I learned in school about this movement is exactly the same thing.)
What these fifteen women discovered, working together, was that there were similarities to some of their works - despite the range in media and style (abstraction, realism, etc.). Many of their pieces involved a "central image," which Judy Chicago interpreted as a vaginal/womb symbol. She (and other artists) developed this idea of "central core imagery" further in their artwork into the '70s and '80s. (Read a bit more about that here.)
This is what I often think of when making my own art - this "symbolic vagina." I used this literally for my thesis at EMU (using flowers as stand-ins for female genitalia to bring up subjects like rape, sexual violence, and female genital mutilation).
In the years since, I think of this "central core" as less genital-specific and more like a woman's soul, essence, marrow, etc. These circles, flowers, etc. represent women/femininity/females specifically because of the historic equation with such shapes and female genitalia, but it's not really the genitalia I'm after so much as the elusive "core" of a woman's being, the "meaning" of a woman's life (the core of my being, the meaning of my life). The Brooklyn Museum link I posted above says that Chicago asked for "her vaginal imagery be read not literally, but metaphorically, as an active and powerful symbol of female identity" - and that's what I'm getting at when I think of "central core" imagery, too.
Plus, this way the imagery isn't limited to ciswomen with female genitals. Anyone who identifies as female - even someone who identifies as male but is fine embracing the feminine aspects of himself - can participate. GNR - Genitals Not Required.
Many of my floral colored pencil drawings (especially the ones that are close-ups of the centers of flowers) seem to fit this aesthetic.
Many of my pattern watercolors also fit this aesthetic.
I've always enjoyed symmetry, especially radial symmetry. Often in middle school/high school math class, I would use graph paper not for making graphs but for drawing geometric patterns radiating out from a central square or from one of the binder punch holes on the left of the paper. Radial symmetry calms me - it's calming to create, and it's calming to look at.
I'm not saying that men can't produce "central core" artwork, or can't relate to it. (We're all born of women, after all; we all know women.) I'm only saying that I often notice a "central core" style in my artwork - not something that I consciously intend, but something that creeps up because it's a composition or a shape that I'm drawn to - and then when I do notice that, I tend to attribute it to my "femaleness" (a "femaleness" I'm proud of - thanks to that Great Goddess article I read in high school, which I talked about in a post yesterday).
Maybe you don't buy that - that there's a female aesthetic, that females and males could experience the world differently, have different internalized symbolism based on the way their bodies are wired. I'm not sure I entirely believe it either; I'd like to think I'm more than my XX chromosomes. But it is something I think about - usually after I've already finished a piece, when I'm on the "other side" of its creation and have the opportunity to step back and consider what it is, what it looks like, what it reminds me of, where it came from.
The gist is this - In the early 1970s, Judy Chicago created the "Fresno Feminist Art Program" at Fresno State College in California. Her goal was to create a safe, collaborative environment where women artists could experiment with art, learn from each other, and "redo" their art (and art history) educations, which until that point had been exclusively distributed by men (male teachers), thus forcing an undesired male perspective on female artists and disallowing them from developing their "own forms, artistic language, and subject matter." (I'm paraphrasing a Wikipedia article here, only because I am too lazy to go dig out my old art history articles/textbooks/etc. But what I learned in school about this movement is exactly the same thing.)
 |
| Miriam Schapiro, Big OX, 1967, acrylic on canvas.Image from Art News http://www.artnews.com/2015/06/23/miriam-schapiro-pioneering-feminist-artist-dies-at-91/ |
What these fifteen women discovered, working together, was that there were similarities to some of their works - despite the range in media and style (abstraction, realism, etc.). Many of their pieces involved a "central image," which Judy Chicago interpreted as a vaginal/womb symbol. She (and other artists) developed this idea of "central core imagery" further in their artwork into the '70s and '80s. (Read a bit more about that here.)
 |
| Judy Chicago, Untitled Test Plate #6, 1974. China paint on porcelain, 14 in. in diameter, 1 1/4 in. in depth. Image from Crocker Art Museum http://legacy.crockerartmuseum.org/exhibitions/exhibitions/past-exhibitions/683-surveying-judy-chicago-1970-2010 |
This is what I often think of when making my own art - this "symbolic vagina." I used this literally for my thesis at EMU (using flowers as stand-ins for female genitalia to bring up subjects like rape, sexual violence, and female genital mutilation).
 |
| "Feminine Layers" - 22"x20" Watercolor Painting on Paper, 2009 - by Andrea Arbit |
 |
| "Silk Caution" - 22"x30" Watercolor Painting on Paper, 2009 - by Andrea Arbit |
In the years since, I think of this "central core" as less genital-specific and more like a woman's soul, essence, marrow, etc. These circles, flowers, etc. represent women/femininity/females specifically because of the historic equation with such shapes and female genitalia, but it's not really the genitalia I'm after so much as the elusive "core" of a woman's being, the "meaning" of a woman's life (the core of my being, the meaning of my life). The Brooklyn Museum link I posted above says that Chicago asked for "her vaginal imagery be read not literally, but metaphorically, as an active and powerful symbol of female identity" - and that's what I'm getting at when I think of "central core" imagery, too.
Plus, this way the imagery isn't limited to ciswomen with female genitals. Anyone who identifies as female - even someone who identifies as male but is fine embracing the feminine aspects of himself - can participate. GNR - Genitals Not Required.
 |
| This painting is even older than my thesis works, but still shows evidence of that "central core" idea "Earring Close-Up" - Watercolor Painting on Paper, 2008 - by Andrea Arbit |
Many of my floral colored pencil drawings (especially the ones that are close-ups of the centers of flowers) seem to fit this aesthetic.
 |
| "Dying Roses" - 5x7 Colored Pencil on Black Paper, 2014 - by Andrea Arbit |
 |
| "Radiant Dahlia" - 5x7 Colored Pencil on Black Paper, 2015 - by Andrea Arbit |
 |
| "Rose with a Hint of Aqua" & "Rose with a Hint of Purple" - 5x7 Colored Pencil Drawings on Black Paper, 2015 - by Andrea Arbit |
Many of my pattern watercolors also fit this aesthetic.
I've always enjoyed symmetry, especially radial symmetry. Often in middle school/high school math class, I would use graph paper not for making graphs but for drawing geometric patterns radiating out from a central square or from one of the binder punch holes on the left of the paper. Radial symmetry calms me - it's calming to create, and it's calming to look at.
 |
| "Pattern Elizabeth in Pink and Purple" - 4"x6" Watercolor Painting on Paper, 2015 - by Andrea Arbit |
 |
| "Pattern Fortia in Blue-Green" - 4"x6" Watercolor Painting on Paper, 2015 - by Andrea Arbit |
 |
| "Pattern Organza in Blue-Violet" - 4"x6" Watercolor Painting on Paper, 2015 - by Andrea Arbit |
 |
| "Pattern Tamika in Yellow-Green" - 4"x6" Watercolor Painting on Paper, 2015 - by Andrea Arbit |
 |
| "Pattern Victoria in Yellow-Pink" - 4"x6" Watercolor Painting on Paper, 2015 - by Andrea Arbit |
 |
| "Pattern Darcy in Red" - 5"x7" Watercolor Painting on Paper, 2015 - by Andrea Arbit |
 |
| "Pattern Sherelle in Yellow, Purple & Pink" - 5"x7" Watercolor Painting on Paper, 2015 - by Andrea Arbit |
I'm not saying that men can't produce "central core" artwork, or can't relate to it. (We're all born of women, after all; we all know women.) I'm only saying that I often notice a "central core" style in my artwork - not something that I consciously intend, but something that creeps up because it's a composition or a shape that I'm drawn to - and then when I do notice that, I tend to attribute it to my "femaleness" (a "femaleness" I'm proud of - thanks to that Great Goddess article I read in high school, which I talked about in a post yesterday).
Maybe you don't buy that - that there's a female aesthetic, that females and males could experience the world differently, have different internalized symbolism based on the way their bodies are wired. I'm not sure I entirely believe it either; I'd like to think I'm more than my XX chromosomes. But it is something I think about - usually after I've already finished a piece, when I'm on the "other side" of its creation and have the opportunity to step back and consider what it is, what it looks like, what it reminds me of, where it came from.
No comments:
Post a Comment