I recently took a class here in Granada titled Art, Gender and Political Action. it was a course offered through the post graduate program. I like the intensive agenda and I felt the subject matter could enhance and add to what I have already studied and my lifes experiences. To receive full credit I had to write a final personal reflection which I will include after this introduction. The best part of the class was the break between the 4 hours of daily lecture.
I was befriended by class mates and I genuinely felt part of the class. This is something I lacked in the undergrad classes here and somewhat at the U of M. It is understandable given the age difference and the lack of social skills for most kids in college for the first time. The worst part of this class was the incredible amount of what I deem as disrespect and dysfunction in the class. Girls sitting behind me in groups of two or three would hold and carry on full on discussions about silly shit while the professor was in mid lecture. I do not know if it is a Spanish thing unique to Granada or , even european culture but to me it was very distracting, I have never seen such behavior in an upper division educational setting. It reminded me of a high school class.
I do sense this kind of attitude in general here, people are in their own world and they are oblivious to the world around them. Walking on the sidewalk people almost never move out of the way! They will stand in groups talking blocking a doorway with out a care in the world about anyone else passing. They walk their dog and let it shit right on the busy sidewalk and walk off with and attitude like fuck yea!!!
any how....I was gonna post this Reflection of the class. Complex subject, and controversial. If you read it and have any thoughts or ideas about these musings....please comment!! I would be very interested
.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael J Barger
Programa-Arte, Genero y Acción Politica
.
Profesoras: Lola Sanchez
Laura Gutierrez
Final Personal Reflection
What follows is my final personal reflection of the course Art, Gender and political action.
To be honest there was a part of the class that I struggled with, primarily due to language issues. This did not hinder my interest and was a catalyst for me to seek information outside of the class in Spanish and in English. The more I read and the more I researched the more interest I began to have. This interest grew from trying to keep up with the class subject matter to trying to fully grasp and reconcile for myself some of the complex ideas raised in class concerning womens art, Gender and how these themes reconcile themselves in a historical and contemporary way.
I interpret this assignment a free form expression of the class, although I will not adhere to formal structure, I will try and keep my thoughts organized. I will address the 3 primary topics of class, first I will write about the Gender issues and my discovery research and thoughts. Second I will discuss my thoughts on female art, I am very familiar with the majority of work that was presented in class. It served to provoke thoughts of the scope of the evolution of art. Third I will attempt to synthesize the theme of political action into the subject matter.
These subjects are very broad, subjective and controversial. I do have my personal experiences and biases. In the face of political correctness I hope to challenge some of my own personal ideals as well as deeply explore the topics of the class.
I was prompted in my mind to go back to origins of art. I had questions swirling in my head. How did we get to this point? Why do we desire to make visual art? Was it always this way? If not, what influences are responsible for change? As I read the variety of material in my attempt to comprehend the course work. The words of one author stood out. It was from the first material I read, and its theme stayed with me as I sifted through writings on anthropology, Gender, politics, science and art.
The words of Joan Scott resonated with me, particularly something she said during an interview at Berkley that I found on YouTube. She talked about differences of power not being turned into a source of Hierarchy. She describes that difference is the human condition and quotes French Philosopher Jean Luc Nancy adding,
“instead of thinking about having a common being, that is all of us somehow being the same, we need to think of being in common” and “being in common understands Being as a state of difference.”
She sates that when this is understood, difference wouldn’t be used to structure relations of power. The words of Nancy are,
"The community that becomes a single thing (body, mind, fatherland, Leader...) ...necessarily loses the in of being-in-common. Or, it loses the with or the together that defines it. It yields its being-together to a being of togetherness. The truth of community, on the contrary, resides in the retreat of such a being."
It was with this theme in my mind that I reviewed the variety of books, papers, interviews and lectures.
Interestingly, on Facebook of all places an image of about 12 Paleolithic Venus types of statues came across my feed. I was always fascinated with the Venus of Willendorf but now I’m looking at this and thinking, who made these and why? My interest led me to a research article in the Journal of Anthropological Research. The author, Patricia C. Rice wanted to investigate the symbolic meaning of the statuettes. What was the significance of these upper Paleolithic carvings? Were they symbols of Womanhood or Motherhood?
Rice meticulously studied the entire collection of188 prehistoric objects of art and concluded, as the study suggests, that the Venuses represent women throughout their entire adult life, not just when they are pregnant; therefore, it is womanhood rather than motherhood that is symbolically recognized or honored. The prevailing traditional explanation has been that these figurines glorify female fertility.
Why this is important, is in terms of recognizing that the woman was view as a multidimensional being rather than a curious baby making machine. An interesting quote from Rice, describes the erroneous assumptions from the literature of Prehistorians who have weighed in on the subject.
“The literature is replete with terms such as ancestral mother cult, fertility idols, fertility charms, goddesses of motherhood, etc., all of which may be subsumed under the category of fertility.”
The prehistoric art now suggests an alternative view that indicates a dynamic of power structure that is more balanced. In hunter-gatherer societies the gathering of food provided the food essential to survival. This gathering happened typically near the home base by women and was compatible with child care responsibilities, thus creating a place for social solidarity. Paleolithic women may have been regarded as keepers of the home base, as men were often away hunting for long periods. Pair bonding probably occurred in the female dominated arena of the home base. These factors, combined with the fact that women are the givers of life, whether viewed as secular or a sacred function it would have been looked at as important, indicate that there were likely strong and powerful emotions connected to the home base.
The almost nonexistence of male figures, along with the fact that men had more leisure time, are ideas used to hypothesis that men were the artists. Although there is no proof that men were the artists, knowing the gender of the sculptors would help answer the motivation for the art. Art as rice argues is typically a medium to support more sacred functions and less secular. The upper Paleolithic was regarded as affluent and women when not involved in child caring tasks would have had the leisure time to be the sculptures of some of all of the Venuses. If women were the artists what would the motivation be? How would they be interpreting their own role? Whoever the artist was, gender would certainly alter the interpretation. The perception of the author is important and could indicate a variety of meaning.
There is evidence suggesting the evolution of power narratives, and the increasing implementation of structures of power. David Whitley discusses of his observations of rock art in the Great Basin, describing themes related to hierarchy circa 1200 ad. Whitley writes:
“I examine directly relevant ethnography to show that the art concerns an application of a shaman's power: killing a mountain sheep was a metaphor for making rain. This was increasingly important with a seed‐oriented economy but, since subsistence is more than diet, involving things like the sexual division of labour, it has implications for social relations. An examination of these shows two systems of inequality: men over women, and shamans over non‐shaman males. The increase in male‐oriented ritual art with subsistence change can then be understood in terms of ideological efforts to maintain gender asymmetries, and the growing forms of incipient political organization”
Perception is a human characteristic that has enabled us as a species to evolve. So I ask myself as many others before me, who am I, why do I think, what are these feeling and sensations all about? Pain, happiness, and consciousness are realities? Or, just an imaginary world , with in my mind? Did our ancient ancestors have these thought or is it all new and unique to me? As a visual artist, memory, motivation, interpretation of sensory transduction into my mind and a host of other influences shape to a large extent art that is created. I want to better understand this as an individual being and as a being that is connected to others.
This “Evolvabilty” is the quality that enables us to evolve without becoming non-functional. Cognition and brain function require a body and it is only in the “context” of this body that meaning is made. The behaviors configured by our systems are in the context of the sensors and actuators. Therefore the “same” internal configurations in a different body would produce completely different behaviors with completely different value. Our system depends on synergies among the systems. All mental function emerges from the interaction of synergies in modular multi-scale functional networks.
So what does all this mean? When you, and I, a caveman, a Woman or a child decides to make some art, a very complex and highly evolved (that is relative) system goes to work. When we understand better how this system functions it can and does add to the meaning and understanding of the art. It may in fact lead the artist to be a better more complete artist, and perhaps, a more effective communicator of Ideas.
There is a power that comes with this knowledge, ultimately it empowers the being. For example if you see a painting of an apple. What does it mean? Does it matter who painted it? The context it was made in? Did a man paint it or a woman? A child? An Apple farmer or was the farmer a man or a woman. Are there perceptive variables between individuals that shape the paintings reality? If the image was painted from memory recall, are there variables in the mind that become a factor? Does emotion influence the attributes of the painting?
So, back to the Brain and the dynamics of the mind. Much of who were are is a product of our environment, the old nature vs nurture paradigm. Experts agree that cultural roles, identities, prejudices, and illnesses can and created and reinforced through cultural and social memes. Betty Friedan describes an important component of this in her 1963 book “The Feminine Mystique”. A book I highly recommend, and was happy to see was part of the discussion in class.
Every mental process comprises sequences of metastable synergies. The sequences are influenced by; special sensory stimuli including cues, feedback, and context; The system state which involves the Working memory; Modulatory signals such as affect, motivation, autonomic signals; and Evaluative feedback internal and external. Men and women both use this frame work of functionality. There are small variable between individuals, that is excluding conditions such as neural spectrum disorders and other dysfunctions.
Between conscious beings of different sexes variables are more pronounced. I am tempted to veer off with the implications of gender, but I am not sure if including information on the subject relating to the trichotomy of social sex roles, biological sex, and psychological sex, will inform the discussion at this point. While the social sciences sometimes approach gender as a social construct, and gender studies particularly do, research in the natural sciences investigates whether biological differences in males and females influence the development of gender in humans; both inform debate about how far biological differences influence the formation of gender identity. I do feel it is important to note and hope to come back to the topic later in this writing as I found the subject in class interesting .
Regardless of gender identity of an individual there are factors that are influential for the visual artist that are sex based. There are factors of perception that are greatly influence by the male or female sex characteristics of the brain. A recent report from the medical branch of the National Academy of Sciences stated “Sex does matter. It matters in ways that we did not expect. Undoubtedly, it matters in ways that we have not yet begun to imagine.
Some of these qualities are influenced by cultural context, but are based uniquely from male /female biology of sex. Some differences for example are hard wired or structure function characteristics. An example would be such as the neuro physiological differences such as the size and functionality of the Amygdala, and the Hippocampus. This can be referred to as bimorphic function, when male, and female brains receive the similar stimulus, and each react in different ways. Also we do find region-specific, volumetric sexual dimorphisms of the adult human brain. For example strong evidence shows that these differences are a result from or they may be, in part, associated with sex steroid activity early in development.
The striking quantity and diversity of sex-related influences on brain function indicate that the still widespread assumption that sex influences are negligible cannot be justified, and probably retards progress in the fields of study.
As I previously mentioned, social sciences sometimes approach gender as a social construct, and gender studies particularly do, research in the natural sciences investigates whether biological differences in males and females influence the development of a Being. It is indisputable that there differences in male and female brain anatomy. Some fall outside the scope programed or learned cultural and contextual influences. Some are shaped by these influences.
What does it mean? Does it mean that men are better than women or the reverse? Clearly not. I think it is time to return to the thoughts of Joan Scott, that difference is the human condition. She tells us the importance of not letting differences become the source of structural power hierarchy in society.
In the scope of our world ,whether you believe the creationist version or the evolutionary model, as a species, culture and society, we have come a long way. Yes, we have been is some ugly places and in our struggles for power, peace, and happiness we will probably experience more growing pain. I assume that the current cultural climate is has evolved from a male centric power dynamic. I wonder how our world would be different if things were the reverse, would different forms of expression and art be more salient? Whatever the case it is clear that things are shifting, that power dynamics are moving, like tectonic plates in an invisible world of individuals and groups seeking to impose their will.
In the end these are some of my thoughts that represent the journey in my mind as we went over the material in class. I loved seeing and talking about the lives and the works of Abramovich, Alice Walker, Judy Chicago, Jenny Holtzer, and all the others. It is very inspirational to me. Some people fear change, but like it or not change is on its way, from a different voice.
end notes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrknwNl818Y
Prehistoric Venuses: Symbols of Motherhood or Womanhood?
Patricia C. Rice
Journal of Anthropological Research , Vol. 37, No. 4 (Winter, 1981), pp. 402-414
Published by: University of New Mexico
Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3629836
By the hunter, for the gatherer: Art, social relations and subsistence change in the prehistoric Great Basin
David S. Whitley
World Archaeology
Vol. 25, Iss. 3, 1994
Ali A. MinaiUniversity of Cincinnati, Conference on NeurocognitiveNetworks (NCNC 2010)Florida Atlantic UniversityJanuary 29-30, 2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Feminine_Mystique
Article:
Jill M. Goldstein, Larry J. Seidman, Nicholas J. Horton, Nikos Makris, David N. Kennedy, Verne S. Caviness, Jr, Stephen V. Faraone, and Ming T. Tsuang
Normal Sexual Dimorphism of the Adult Human Brain Assessed by In Vivo Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Cereb. Cortex (2001) 11(6): 490-497 doi:10.1093/cercor/11.6.490
