I had a sense but not till I started reading numbers relevant to contemporary lead museums and galleries, auction houses, etc, did I get smacked between the eyes. OMG. really? still? I have to admit the stats I am reading only go up to 2005, focusing from 2000 to 2005. I am conscious that stats are slanted by the presenting entity and the narrative they wrap them within--as is human we see what we want to or we seem to see what it is we fear.
I do believe that from 2005 through today that there has been significant strides. This is an assumption based on gut impression based on a tad of sampling from my Houston experience.
But apparently the art market still bends its knee predominately to white (euro/American descent) and male. Nothing personal guys, just reading numbers. Though I do think there has been a huge shift since 2005 or at least in texts, journals and such. And frankly the occasional stat I've glanced at for the non-art world still parallels the same discrepancies.
This is what happens when I start reading.
But what of my work?
Hmmm.
It as totally woman's work--sewing, vaginal iconography, domestic thresholds, personal and all touchy feely emotional girlie crap. YET, I would hate to be dropped into the feminist box, there is a part of me that rails against that container. Thus, the sewing is gnarly noncraft based (ha, not low art) and with industrial rust ridden wire; the scale is anything but dainty and feminine and can often weigh in excess of 400 lbs of soft pliable material; the materiality, that which is sewn, also industrial, dilapidated and harvested from our urban waste stream, as well as deconstructed domestic thresholds and beddings; the physical presence leans the work towards threatening and invasive. So their is a tension between the feminine and masculine playing out in the work. it is neither male nor female, but it is this woman's work.
Not done but it's time to go to class.
No comments:
Post a Comment