But what she said did make sense, which is why I'm confused by your comment. She was pretty clear; she wanted to encourage her students at the time to challenge what she and many considered to be a 'prohibition' against explicitly feminist art. She broke new ground in the professional art world doing what she did. What's confusing about that?
Russell Schiwal i find your seemingly proposed notion of Chicago's comment humorous. The context in which these students practiced their work and individuality required a sense of regulation for them to break the prohibitory boundary and limitations in which they were confined in the first place If you are to argue against this view of hers I'd suggest you refine the phrasing in which you express this view. Of course an opinion is allowed but such nonsensical phrasing to read suggests on your behalf an ignorant or more so intolerance to the consideration and mutual respect of one's practice or work.
***** Alas I'm Just a passionate design student from Ireland, who can appreciate artistic discipline under a less sceptical point of view as noted by fellow commentators here , With my " mish - mash" of words I hope I have conveyed that. For the record I do appreciate a difference of opinion but it is beyond funny to see how much of an eyesore such poorly phrased words of criticism can be to read. Especially if humour is the intended tone
Disagree. The women's movement I became involved in back in the 1970s was about women's liberation. Equality under the law is a part of that but not the whole of it.
YES JUDY CHICAGO!! so good to be working towards representation in art. If you want to see how women's point of view is presented through the "female gaze" in painting today, check this out ua-cam.com/video/G4S8Bg8NNWM/v-deo.html
She literally said she was seen as equal and the same as men, not as a "woman artist." So feminist art is not about equality. It's about being different and getting attention. (And dare I say shock value!) Now, 12 years later, "we are the same as men" feminist cry.
"What I wanted to do was to encourage my students to uhm, peel away the formal prohibitions to my own content but they didn't have them yet, because they didn't professionalize like I had." How many fish in your eye did that take as you crawled across the street in a canoe because your vest didn't have sleeves?
But what she said did make sense, which is why I'm confused by your comment. She was pretty clear; she wanted to encourage her students at the time to challenge what she and many considered to be a 'prohibition' against explicitly feminist art. She broke new ground in the professional art world doing what she did. What's confusing about that?
Thank you Judy Chicago!
Russell Schiwal i find your seemingly proposed notion of Chicago's comment humorous. The context in which these students practiced their work and individuality required a sense of regulation for them to break the prohibitory boundary and limitations in which they were confined in the first place
If you are to argue against this view of hers I'd suggest you refine the phrasing in which you express this view.
Of course an opinion is allowed but such nonsensical phrasing to read suggests on your behalf an ignorant or more so intolerance to the consideration and mutual respect of one's practice or work.
***** Alas I'm Just a passionate design student from Ireland, who can appreciate artistic discipline under a less sceptical point of view as noted by fellow commentators here , With my " mish - mash" of words I hope I have conveyed that.
For the record I do appreciate a difference of opinion but it is beyond funny to see how much of an eyesore such poorly phrased words of criticism can be to read.
Especially if humour is the intended tone
Exactly.
The definition of Feminism is: Equal rights to men --- nothing more and nothing less.
Susan B. Anthony 1898
Disagree. The women's movement I became involved in back in the 1970s was about women's liberation. Equality under the law is a part of that but not the whole of it.
So? Did you think that was a clapback to this video? Men have a right to make art and so do women
What does that mean?
YES JUDY CHICAGO!! so good to be working towards representation in art. If you want to see how women's point of view is presented through the "female gaze" in painting today, check this out ua-cam.com/video/G4S8Bg8NNWM/v-deo.html
Judy regards I love you
instagram.com/p/BlQ60QzHGmd/ instagram art account
She literally said she was seen as equal and the same as men, not as a "woman artist."
So feminist art is not about equality. It's about being different and getting attention. (And dare I say shock value!)
Now, 12 years later, "we are the same as men" feminist cry.
"What I wanted to do was to encourage my students to uhm, peel away the formal prohibitions to my own content but they didn't have them yet, because they didn't professionalize like I had."
How many fish in your eye did that take as you crawled across the street in a canoe because your vest didn't have sleeves?
She had many think still try make sense not. Woman better than man make baby.
it seems like her internal dialogue differs from her word choice.
not that that is a bad thing
Don't feed the narcissists. They're nasty.