I'm not sure it's important to seperate the artist from the work. You never walk into an art history class and hear the professor say, "Check out this painting! We're going to let it speak for itself and not discuss the artist, time period, region of origin at all." They always want to talk about the artist because, I think, it's relevant.
Take the creepy/art movement that's popular right now. The first two artists that I think of are dudes (Mark Ryden, Gary Basemen). Are they more popular because they're male? Did they appropriate their cute style by looking at female artists? Is that proposal a sexist statement? I think these questions are just as engaging as talking about the work itself. Some would argue that those questions are irrelevant, and there may be some validity to that claim as well. I don't know.
I don't let a gender distinction taint my appreciation for art. I like Tara McPherson's work a lot more than Ryden's or Basemen's even though she didn't spring to mind first. And a lot of the best work in my local art community is done by women (most of the best work, actually). I think/hope with my generation the days of gender-based discrimination in art will come to an end.
I disagree. Ideally, art of any kind (music, movies, comics) should be able to stand on its own merits. If you have to know the gender, race, or age of the artist in order to decide how you feel about it, you're probably doing it wrong.
Of course you want to dissect the creator in the context of an art history class -- because that is what that is all about. I'm a movie reviewer and as much information as possible is key to doing a good job at what I do. I always try to get the back story on the making of the movie and the people who created it, but at the same time you have to let the work speak for itself.
If the audience can't separate the art from the artist, they will make all kinds of assumptions (often false) about not only the work -- but about the creator. (i.e; 'This comic features racial stereotypes, therefore the person who drew it must be a racist')
I've always found Mark Ryden's work more fetishistic than feminine.
The drawing table has levelled out. When I started working in animation in '97 the percentage of women working in the field was about 10%. It's much more now, I'm not exactly sure how much more, but it's definitely more. I think this has to do with the proliferation of anime and manga. For the first time not only was there an art style that appealed to young girls, but a narrative and characters that young girls could relate to.
I collect old romance comics (pre-sexual revolution) and they're very interesting to read. These were written and drawn by older men for young girls, so a lot of the story lines are about being obedient and demure. The goal for all young girls at that time was to get married and become a house frau, and any woman who put her career first became an unhappy spinster. These comics came out within my life time (mind you, I was a wee tot).
In our society a lot of these boundaries have been eroding and female artists are simply catching up and equalizing the playing field which has been long over due.
Take the creepy/art movement that's popular right now. The first two artists that I think of are dudes (Mark Ryden, Gary Basemen). Are they more popular because they're male? Did they appropriate their cute style by looking at female artists? Is that proposal a sexist statement? I think these questions are just as engaging as talking about the work itself. Some would argue that those questions are irrelevant, and there may be some validity to that claim as well. I don't know.
I don't let a gender distinction taint my appreciation for art. I like Tara McPherson's work a lot more than Ryden's or Basemen's even though she didn't spring to mind first. And a lot of the best work in my local art community is done by women (most of the best work, actually). I think/hope with my generation the days of gender-based discrimination in art will come to an end.
Reply
Of course you want to dissect the creator in the context of an art history class -- because that is what that is all about. I'm a movie reviewer and as much information as possible is key to doing a good job at what I do. I always try to get the back story on the making of the movie and the people who created it, but at the same time you have to let the work speak for itself.
If the audience can't separate the art from the artist, they will make all kinds of assumptions (often false) about not only the work -- but about the creator. (i.e; 'This comic features racial stereotypes, therefore the person who drew it must be a racist')
Reply
The drawing table has levelled out. When I started working in animation in '97 the percentage of women working in the field was about 10%. It's much more now, I'm not exactly sure how much more, but it's definitely more. I think this has to do with the proliferation of anime and manga. For the first time not only was there an art style that appealed to young girls, but a narrative and characters that young girls could relate to.
I collect old romance comics (pre-sexual revolution) and they're very interesting to read. These were written and drawn by older men for young girls, so a lot of the story lines are about being obedient and demure. The goal for all young girls at that time was to get married and become a house frau, and any woman who put her career first became an unhappy spinster. These comics came out within my life time (mind you, I was a wee tot).
In our society a lot of these boundaries have been eroding and female artists are simply catching up and equalizing the playing field which has been long over due.
Reply
Leave a comment