Brooklyn Museum: Burning Down the House: Building a Feminist Art Collection
Carrie Mae Weems’ Kitchen Table Series 5 of 5 attracted me to this show. For the times that we are in, the publicized image intrigued me. It lead me to believe that the show was a photographic presentation of work created by women during the feminist era but, not about being a feminist. I forgot that museums are not a place to show art just to show art but, is a storage of someone else’s idea of history thus there is an over intellectualization of work. Needless to say I was wrong and the show was very disappointing but still had some pieces that were interesting and clever.
Sweet Smell of Sage enters the room by Ida Applebroog, displayed 6 ink on vellum paper works that were identical scenes of a man beating his wife. At first thorough look one asks “what’s the point?” At that moment you have answered your own question. What is the point of being beaten over and over, day in and day out the same scene, same scenario, same reason and same people? That is the point, to exhibit, through spelt out repetition that this is pointless the subject should move on to another scene. That or just how regular the life of a battered woman is that it does not even bother her because it is the norm.
Marriage Bed by Edwina Sandys, was just that a bed of roses and a bed of nails all in one. The installation piece was a full size bed frame that had a diagonal bed of standing roses and a diagonal bed of standing nails one mattress depth high. It was a full size visual interpretation of the metaphorical state of marriage. This piece can be related to by both men and women alike. It shows that it is not always a bed of roses for either party nor, is it always painful it can be sweet. This piece if looked at through the lens of a feminist in the sense of the theme the show was built under would make it seem like a man caused it. That label of feminist takes away from a world of possible interpretations and alienates the male perspective there by degrading the quality of the work in the perspective of the show’s theme.
Blinding a neon light designed in the shape of a women’s nude form on her back upside down by Tracy Emin, was my favorite piece of the show however, with the feminist label it just seemed extremist lesbian not to be admired by men.
The show was extremely dated. There were so many ways they could have displayed works by women that put them in the very light the show shows they are not a part of. It just perpetuated the idea that women can’t be seen or heard unless they are brash, victimized or complaining. The show annoyed me.
I expected to see works by women of women in everyday as well as empowering depictions. The works were not a collection of pieces from the days of the feminist movement it was a bunch of sad and depressing work made by women about how downed women are. The curators Maura Reilly and Nicole J. Caruth just tried to prove that there was feminist work out there. They called it “the historic framework of feminist art.”
The show was extremely self conscious of the female artists being a feminist. In the museums write up they say “The widely diverse forms and ideas on view suggest that feminist art is not limited to a specific look or reading.” However the works were in fact cliché. The images dealt with, battery, pain, sexism, struggle, the faces of women and what men have done wrong. These are all the same old over used depictions of women.
In Ida Applebroog’s video she said “I don’t like being labeled… Men have never had to worry about their gender…but for the perspective of the show she would accept it.” So why not have had created a show that was not labeled by the same old themes but by the era the empowerment the growth?