The forms of censorship I heard her explicitly mention are as follows:
- self-censorship
- covert censorship
- misrepresentation
- art ending up in the basement
- people only knowing one artwork from a woman artist
- women's history not being taught
- hypocrisy.
I was (and still am) having a hard time seeing how these actions ALL fall under censorship, so I looked up the definition. According to the Oxford dictionary, the definition of censorship is:
"The suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security."
I think Judy Chicago must be talking about suppression in most of these cases, because very rarely was her work prohibited under the guidelines she set up. While I don't quite believe these all apply in my own perception of censorship, I can understand that Judy Chicago has faced many obstacles in her feminist artwork.
In graduate school, Chicago began to self-censor. Her male teachers didn't like the female forms in her works, so she made her art work gender-less in the 1960's. She began working in monumental sculpture and minimalist, colorful artwork instead, but found that she was still being censored. A curator refused to look at her pieces, telling her later, "What was i supposed to do when i saw a woman make artwork stronger than male work?" She states that this is covert censorship - refusing to look at something.
In talking about her piece, "Dinner Party", Chicago said that misrepresentation is censorship. The New York Times published a review about her Dinner Party artwork stating that it is "Vaginas on plates". I can see why Chicago could see this as censorship, if the author is purposely making the work seem crass in order to dissuade people from seeing it, but to me it sounds like a bad review written by someone who did not understand the work. I think labeling this as censorship is extreme, especially since not everyone will like or understand your artwork.
Later, Chicago began donating her works to museums' permanent collection, hoping to get around censorship by gifting works. However, even though her works were a part of a museum, they would get shown in an unimportant place in the museum, such as the basement or a closet-esque room. She said this is censorship as well.
Probably the form of censorship that she stated that I least agree with is the idea that people only know Chicago and other women artists for one work. She said it is censorship that women's artwork is not more vastly known, which I think is absurd, since I feel most artists are known for one work! Many people only know Van Gogh's starry night or Picasso's Guernica. I think it's silly to describe the practice of learning about an artist's most important works as censorship.
She also mentioned that women's history is not well taught at schools, forcing womens artists to "recreate the wheel" instead of their art growing on or improving upon what came earlier. She called this censorship as well. She also said hypocracy is censorship, which I just really did not understand her reasoning for, since she did not elaborate on that concept.
While I disagreed with several things Chicago said in her lecture, I did gather some gems of knowledge. The idea of self-censorship was interesting to me. In her sphere, it was the idea of women making artwork that looks like a man made it, but in a broader sphere, I am interested in the idea of how sad it is to not make artwork that feels true to yourself. She said "If you censor yourself, you cannot be fully yourself as an artist", which I thought was a great idea.
I was also interested in how Chicago apprenticed herself to a china maker. That is interesting and made me think of how if your education does not take you where you want to go, you need to find a route to learn what you want to learn. Chicago also worked with organizations and collectives that supported her artwork, stating, "make your own support system if the art world will not support you". I liked that idea as well - it kind of goes against institutionalism. If the art world doesn't like your artwork, that does not mean you stop doing your artwork! You just find people who will look at your artwork and share with them.
Watch here:
Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjjTEydL3Q4
Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHf6cJhgfeU
Part 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AtSgHzp2bE
Later, Chicago began donating her works to museums' permanent collection, hoping to get around censorship by gifting works. However, even though her works were a part of a museum, they would get shown in an unimportant place in the museum, such as the basement or a closet-esque room. She said this is censorship as well.
Probably the form of censorship that she stated that I least agree with is the idea that people only know Chicago and other women artists for one work. She said it is censorship that women's artwork is not more vastly known, which I think is absurd, since I feel most artists are known for one work! Many people only know Van Gogh's starry night or Picasso's Guernica. I think it's silly to describe the practice of learning about an artist's most important works as censorship.
She also mentioned that women's history is not well taught at schools, forcing womens artists to "recreate the wheel" instead of their art growing on or improving upon what came earlier. She called this censorship as well. She also said hypocracy is censorship, which I just really did not understand her reasoning for, since she did not elaborate on that concept.
While I disagreed with several things Chicago said in her lecture, I did gather some gems of knowledge. The idea of self-censorship was interesting to me. In her sphere, it was the idea of women making artwork that looks like a man made it, but in a broader sphere, I am interested in the idea of how sad it is to not make artwork that feels true to yourself. She said "If you censor yourself, you cannot be fully yourself as an artist", which I thought was a great idea.
I was also interested in how Chicago apprenticed herself to a china maker. That is interesting and made me think of how if your education does not take you where you want to go, you need to find a route to learn what you want to learn. Chicago also worked with organizations and collectives that supported her artwork, stating, "make your own support system if the art world will not support you". I liked that idea as well - it kind of goes against institutionalism. If the art world doesn't like your artwork, that does not mean you stop doing your artwork! You just find people who will look at your artwork and share with them.
Watch here:
Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjjTEydL3Q4
Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHf6cJhgfeU
Part 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AtSgHzp2bE
No comments:
Post a Comment