Kara Walker Explores Past Stereotypes

Kara Walker uses black life-sized silhouettes to “examine the underbelly of America’s racial and gender tensions. (Wilson).” Her work investigates stereotypes of the African American race. Walker “explores the brutalities of the past and is able to join together racial stereotypes and decorative arts” (Arnason 739).Kara Walker’s “characters have the physiognomy of “Black Memorabilia,” the pickaninnies and the sambos that defined popular depictions of African- American’s created for a white audience (739).” The black cut paper silhouettes, serve as an irony of the white race. Cut-paper profile portraits were popular domestic decorations in Middle-class American homes in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries(739).
It is important to investigate history. Some topics may be more difficult and painful to re-examine than others. However, through investigation one may be able to help prevent similar events from reoccurring. Kara Walker displays painful misrepresentations of her culture. These elaborate silhouettes serve as a glimpse into the past.The scenes depict stereotypes of the African-American race, bringing to light all of the falsehoods created throughout history. In her piece Insurrection! (Our Tools were Rudimentary, Yet We Pressed On), slaves are depicted “in states of uncompromised physical pleasure (740).” Kara is able to use these large displays to depict scenes of “humiliation and violence with a since of elegant grace (739).” In the text book, The History of Modern Art, the author states that Walkers work is “typical of her generation, [in that] there is a readiness to complicate history with insights drawn from challenging the presumptions of the present (Arnason).”



Arnason, Mansfield. History of Modern Art. Sixth. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 739-740. Print.


"Kara Walker Mural." GWSS 1001 - Gender, Power, and Everday Life An Introduction to Gender, Women, and Sexuality Studies (Spring 2007). Web. 15 Feb 2010. .


Wilson, Flo. "Kara Walker- Biography." Kara Walker. 2005. Web. 15 Feb 2010. .

Comics and Time

As stated by Robertson and McDaniel in their exploration of the various roles that Time plays in contemporary art, "a multi-episodic format is one ancient method used in narrative visual art" (Robertson, and McDaniel 115). The most obvious power of this format is the ability to expand a narrative through several events, especially when using a representing multiple actions by a single subject. Each episode depicts a moment in time (often with subjects in action, already allowing a narrative), and when viewed in sequence, a complete story can be depicted. Robertson and McDaniel cite comics as the most frequently seen of multi-episodic forms today (115). Comics themselves portray the movement of time in many different ways. The most obvious of these being what is shared by all forms of episodic art, the time that passes between frames or episodes--unseen time. The time between frames is, of course, variable based on the perceived difference in temporal locations of each frame. In comics, however, time can also be passing within an episode, as well, with the introduction of word-bubbles; "words introduce time by representing that which can only exist in time--sound" (McCloud 95). The order in which the word bubbles are read is very much the same order as we always read text, from top left to bottom right. Multiple events can be depicted within a single frame (McCloud 95-97), and the flow of these events (at least most effectively, in our culture) follows that same path, meaning that is the direction which time is flowing within a single episode. We see now that Robertson and McDaniel are not entirely accurate when they state that the multi-episodic approach contrasts with Western painting's method of representing a narrative within a single image (115).

Comics, as well as other multi-episodic approaches, offer a great freedom in movement through time that other artistic mediums do not. Robertson and McDaniel explain the power of Heide Fasnacht's work, such as her scupture Demo (2000), is that they freeze quickly fleeting moments of time, ones which, "... according to Nancy Princenthal, 'fall at the threshold of visibility, in the realm of things that, while not imperceptible, are more or less impossible to visualize in any stable, conventional way'" (Robertson, and McDaniel 112). This is true, but only at the expense of every other event in the nearly-imperceptible movement. In Comics, the viewer is free to observe each event for any length of time without the removal of previous or future events. The moment being observed remains at present as long as the viewer is observing. The level of detail (at least however much the artist includes--which may be limited, but such is also true of Fasnacht's, and all, work) can be scrutinized and appreciated for an indefinite amount of time. The passage of time flows at whatever speed pleases the viewer. Given complete control over time by the medium, the viewer is free to jump ahead in time or return to a previous time simply with a turn of a page. The past becomes the present again when returned to for re-observation. The reader even has the power to read each frame in a random sequence, scrambling all passage of time in the narrative. We see that Comics is one medium that allows what British artist David Hockney is searching for: "'I've been trying to figure out ways of telling stories in which the viewer can set his own pace, moving forward and back, in and out, at his own discretion'" (Robertson, and McDaniel 128).


Robertson, Jean, and Craig McDaniel. Themes of Contemporary Art: Visual Art after 1980. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc., 2010. 110-149. Print.

McCloud, Scott. Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art. 1st ed. NewYork, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc., 1994. 94-117. Print.

Activism, Art and AIDS

Artist Ross Blecker emphasized the importance of politicizing art, not only in order to give it relevance and staying power, but also to “make it speak to his own movement”. The time is the late 1980s and the movement is AIDS. Once considered, depicted and categorized as a socially undesirable homosexual epidemic the work of activist group ACT UP sought out to change the language of AIDS. A language plagued by society, government and the depressing, elegiac and all too personal accounts portrayed in art by such artists as Robert Mapplethorp and Ross Blecker. ACT UP began a campaign of information and mobilization in order to expose the social crises surrounding the epidemic such as the stigma, discrimination, lack of government support and the violation of fundamental human rights. A campaign, that reconstructed the idea of AIDS as a universal issue and not an issue subjected to race, gender, sexual orientation or class: “AIDS intersects with and requires a critical rethinking of all of culture: of language and representation, science and medicine, health and illness, sex and death, the public and private realms…even “ordinary” heterosexual men will have to learn that AIDS is an issue for them, and not simply because they might be susceptible to “contagion””(Crimp 148).

These three posters are just a few examples ACT UP and the later formed Gran Fury’s Activist Art. Engaged art that was meant to shock and appall, but more importantly, to educate and spark a revolution not to transcend the epidemic but to end it. (Crimp 144). I am in full support for act activism and cultural activism and its pragmatic, urgent and in-your-face knowledge to advance the importance of a movement, but when does this ‘art’ become too much? Gran Fury explained their approach: “To be heard above a roar of misinformation and in the face of so much indifference, shouting may be necessary. The goal is not to produce museum masterpieces but to save lives, by whatever means at an artist's disposal. Humor As a Catharsis” (Kimmelman), I can’t help but equate Gran Fury’s exploitation and urgency to the propaganda art 1960’s. The question here is when does art cross the line from practical and informative over to slander and disrespect? Or does it even matter, is the point of activist art to demolish any sort of boundaries in order to confront the social practices and crisis and demand a universal social movement to reconstruct a language and save lives.

· Crimp, Douglas. “AIDS: Cultural Analysis/ Cultural Activism.” Theory in Contemporary Art since 1985. Ed. Zoya Kocur and Simon Leung. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2005. 141-149.

· Kimmelman, Michael “Bitter Harvest: Aids and the Arts” New York Times. 19 March 1981. http://www.nytimes.com/1989/03/19/arts/bitter-harvest-aids-and-the-arts.html?pagewanted=1

· Daily Serving: an international forum for the contemporary visual arts “ACT UP and Harvard Art Museum” 15 December 2009. http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://dailyserving.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Gran_Fury_2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://dailyserving.com/2009/12/act-up-at-harvard-art-museum

Homosexuality in art is a subject that has recently exploded onto the art as a significant topic of discussion. Factors such as the AIDS epidemics have stigmatized the gay community, specifically males. Douglas Crimp's article on the state of the politics and the sociological impact involving AIDS provides a clear criticism, but I feel the information to be somewhat dated. Statistics such as "By Thanksgiving 1987, 25,644 known dead..." (Kocur and Leung 146)offers shocking numbers, but where is the problem today? Upon looking up statistics from www.avert.org, I discovered the AIDS epidemic peaked around 1994, and since has steadily dropped to 14,000 deaths in 2007. While obviously 14,000 is an astounding number, there is certainly a real decrease in deaths.


Considering the decline, one must consider what has influenced this drop. I believe it has to do with the increasing openness of homosexuality, since it so closely tied to the AIDS epidemic. Contemporary art has been successfully pushing the validity of queer art for years, most notably pioneered by the success of Andy Warhol in the 60's and 70's(Doyle 345). In more recent times, homosexuals have legitimized their art as an identity issue with the same validity of race and gender based art.(Doyle 341-353) I think its obvious that since the art community has opened the doors for these issues, homosexuality has been more humanized and thus the closely tied AIDS epidemic has been humanized as well, especially considering Bill T. Jones' interviews about AIDS has helped humanize the problem(Kocur and Leung 146). Groups such as ACT UP take a more aggreesive political action against the lack of attention to AIDS by the government. (Kocur and Leung 144). Perhaps I am wrong, as this is only a conjecture of what power art has to create change, but I believe there may be a correlation.


Crimp, Douglas. “AIDS: Cultural Analysis/ Cultural Activism.” Theory in Contemporary Art since 1985. Ed. Zoya Kocur and Simon Leung. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2005. 141-149.


Doyle, Jennifer. "Queer Wall Paper". 343-353.

Image: http://www.avert.org/usa-statistics.htm

"ACT UP"

I find it fascinating how AIDs was originally considered a gay disease and how the religious community used AIDS as a way to push their anti-gay propaganda. This reflected the feelings of a large part of America. Churches and politicians recognized this fear and used AIDS as a tool to create more fear. In 1987, PBS aired a special about how AIDS was homosexual disease. "The segment opened with homosexuals being the life blood of show business and arts."(Kocur and Leung 142). PBS went on to explain about AIDs related deaths with a number of well known artists. While a number of artists may have died from AIDS, it neglected to give information that people outside the arts were contracting AIDS as well. This was alarming because it did not educate the general public about their risk. It portrayed it as a gay disease not a human one. In retrospect, this lack of education has proven deadly.
A movement called "ACT UP" fought the stereotype that this was a gay disease and used powerful images to challenge assumptions. They created art that highlighted the anti-gay speech and how the government continued to ignore the spread of the disease. ACT UP thought that fundraising was too passive for the art community. They focused on moving people, through art, to become active in the fight against AIDS. Douglas Crimp argued, "that art does have the power to save lives, and it is this very power that must be recognized, fostered, and supported in every way possible. We don't need a cultural renaissance; we need cultural practices actively participating in the struggle against AIDS. We don't need to transcend the epidemic; we need to end it" (Kocur and Leung 144). This passion helped artists to create art, not for the art community, but for the public as a way to push them to action. It was crucial to help people see it as a human disease and not just a disease for one part of the population.

Sex vs Gender vs Art

Recently in class, we were discussing Judith Butler's theory on contemporary gender roles in society and how her ideas are applicable or not applicable to art criticism. I don't often enjoy discussions on modern art or modern theory of art criticism. It's tedious, often disorganized and generally based on opinion and therefore remains, overall, rhetorical.
That all being said, I actually found something to write an article on. There is a photographer/'performance artist' named Vanessa Beecroft. She photographs women nude (this is not her sole body of work, but the object of contention for the following discussion). The general concensus of Beecroft was that artists had a problem with Beecroft, because they disagreed with her use of 'models' in her work. They felt that because people assume that she is part of the fourth wave feminist movement (not something Beecroft has openly admitted to), that she should use average looking women so as to not idealize the female form in conformation to societal objectification. I asked the professor if Beecroft has a responsibility to her viewers to use average women and to promote fourth wave feminism. Our professor made a statement, 'Yes, she does. As a public figure and popular artist, she has an obligation to promote the 'real' woman and not the model (thin, big boobed, tall and blonde) idealization of the feminine figure.'
Here is my problem with the above statement. First, you must ask yourself, 'Does an artist, regardless of gender, sex, nationality, race etc. have an obligation to represent said differences or promote said differences in their artwork?' (by the way, sex and gender in this particular discussion is seen as two separate issues. One is the biological construction (sex) and one is the societal construction (gender)). My answer to that question, as a female comic book artist, is a resounding, 'no'. No, I don't feel that I have to draw average looking women on my pages so as to not promote the objectification of women.
In contemporary theory of art, the entire argument revolves around how restrictive structuralism was to art. How art was something made in the service of religion or to the state and not for the artist themselves. Modern contemporary theory argues that art has moved to the service of self. Basically, the artist should do art for themselves and for no one else. If you follow that theory, then it shouldn't need to be said that as a woman and more importantly as an artist, I do not have any responsibility except to myself what I choose to paint/ink/draw/sculpt etc.Do I feel that drawing comic book characters with big boobs, small waists, long legs and luscious hair will hurt or demoralize young women? Not at all. If you look at studies done on eating disorders (specifically in women) you find that the media is merely a symptom of a larger problem: Depression. Depression is not caused by seeing models on TV. Depression can be genetic, it can be from physical or emotional abuse given to the child by the parents or relations. To say otherwise makes women look weak, in my opinion. And that's because we don't turn the question around. We don't ask, 'Is portraying men in comic books as muscular, often violent, often villianous, often self-sacrificing hurting or demoralizing the young men who read comic books?'. Why don't we ask this question? Because we know the answer. Or we think we do. Men are strong, both physically and mentally. They're smart enough not be hurt or demoralized by this kind of material. They're adults. Using this train of thought we can then deduce that Women are weak and, according to the Lacanian theory, immature (due to our lack of access to language) and thus are more prone to being hurt and damaged emotionally by these false depictions of females.
The point is, I don't feel that in my work I have an obligation to promote fourth wave feminism. I don't agree that Beecroft has a responsibility as a woman to promote it either. I don't feel that I have to promote Jewish causes in my work, despite being a Jew. I mean seriously. Where will it end? Am I to be responsible for promoting Jewish Female figures in my art? Absolutely not. I have every right as a modern artist to say, 'I find these shapes pleasing. I like drawing the things I am drawing. I am doing this for myself and not for anyone else.' The fact that I'm being told that I have a responsibility is indicative of another serious problem: Women are sexist against women. We are SUPPOSED to want to promote positive female figures in art. We are SUPPOSED to go against gender and create gender trouble. If we don't, we're just promoting a stereotype of the gender question. It's ridiculous. There was a fascinating chapter in Art and Fear about artists now doing art for themselves. Well, why doesn't that apply to women and minorities? Why is that only applicable to white males? And the worst perpatrators of the notion that we need to make sure our art fits in to politically correct standards: Other women.Paint what you want to paint. Paint whatever the hell you want. Draw whatever motivates you, moves you and speaks to you. I may not like it, the majority of people may not like it, but it's you. If you want to take pictures of model thin women with huge tits, a small waist and a beautiful face nude, by all means. If you want to create art that makes a feminist statement, go ahead. I won't stop you. But the point is, we should be promoting choice. The pendulum always swings and never stays in the middle for long. Let's see if we can stop the pendulum all together and find a common ground based on choice, not on perceived gender obligations.

Gender Is Burning: Questions of Appropriation and Subversion

Judith Butler raises some interesting thoughts on the notion of identity formation and the subversive politics therein. She begins with an assessment of the creation of non-self-initiated identity, an action that, much like we have discussed in class, foists meaning onto people that cannot really exist. She uses the example of police action to illustrate the interpolative nature of addressing via the notion of "the reprimand", or the law made verbally manifest. The reprimand, while inherently serving an admonitory function (whether deserved or not), "forms a crucial part of the juridical and social formation of the subject...it initiates the individual into the subjected status of the subject" (Butler 166-77). In essence, we are witnessing the linguistic creation of identity. The subject did not exist before the address; it was the act of addressing that created their new status. To put it simply, they are a subject because they are a subject.

This title, while easy to insert, seems to be insidiously difficult to erase. Butler suggests reworking the foisted identity from the inside out: "Where the uniformity of the subject is expected, where the behavioral conformity of the subject is commanded, there might be produced the refusal of the law in the form of the parodic inhabiting of conformity that subtly calls into question the legitimacy of the command..." (Butler 167). She indicates that subversion and thus freedom can occur by resignifying meaning through hyperbole, indeed that the extreme repetition of this superfluous identity can turn the law "against the one who delivered it" (Butler 167). But can parody ever evolve into true hyperbole? If you obey the identity thrust upon you TO THE LETTER, does that make the identity hyperbolic?

It seems that this expression of identity politics is nothing new. Luce Irigaray posited pretty much the same idea years earlier:

Rather than listening only to what men or patriarchal discourse tells women about their sexuality or fantasy lives, that is, rather than continuing to be a "masculine feminine" woman, Irigaray suggests that women need to create themselves instead as "feminine feminine." This latter sort of woman is not a male-identified woman but instead has learned to "mime the mime," mimic and thereby explode the gendered construction that the patriarchy has invented and codified in order to enslave and dehumanize her. (Hoeveler 11)

This identity is thus entirely performative, indeed self-aware, and in order to achieve subversion it must be almost mockingly so. But here we are confronted with a problem: how can the one who delivers identity know if their titles are being resignified if the course of attack is to simply mime that title? Butler states that this can be achieved through the disloyal repetition of the thing, yet in practice can the act really be that obvious? What manner of attack can this reiteration be? Are results echoed across a culture, or can they only take place on a personal level? At least in once instance, Butler can give us successful subversion through representations of drag presented in the movie Paris Is Burning:

If a white homophobic hegemony considers the black drag ball queen to be a woman, that woman, constituted already by that hegemony, will become the occasion for the rearticulation of its terms; embodying the excess of that production; the queen will out-woman women, and in the process confuse and seduce an audience whose gaze must to some degree be structured through those hegemonies...(Butler 174)

The question, however, remains: how successful can this tactic be in cases that appear to conform to the "everyday"? How can a woman "out-woman women", how can a man "out-man men"?


Butler, Judith."Gender is Burning: Questions of Appropriation and Subversion". Theory in Contemporary Art Since 1985. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2005. pp 166-181.

Hoeveler,Diane Long. Gothic Feminism: The Professionalization of Gender from Charlotte Smith to the Brontes. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1998.