Putnam 1

Lets Do a Think Piece, Not a Trend Piece: The Significance of Subtle Radicalism in Feminist Aesthetics

Emily Lauren Putnam Institute for Doctoral Studies in the Visual Arts April 2009 Unpublished

Putnam 2

Putnam 3 Introduction It is undeniable that the role of feminism in art continues to be the subject of active debate amongst scholars, artists, critics, and the viewing audience. A great deal of the

disagreement that arises can be attributed to discontinuities in defining feminism as well as its role in present day society. Therefore, I will present a critical examination of feminist aesthetics that embraces the ambiguities of defining feminism. My approach takes advantage of the radical potential of work informed by feminism implicitly, as opposed to explicit political declarations, as an effective method for contemporary artists. Work in this vein requires an active reading process on behalf of the viewer, since the bulk of the theoretical understanding exists in the space of perception between the artist and the viewer. As a result, art such as this is a part of an ongoing, polyvocal discourse concerning feminism. This presentation of feminism in art can be considered distinct from a great deal of recognized feminist works, which were mostly created during the 1960s and 70s during the time of the womens liberation movements, an era referred to the second wave. The work created during this time is renowned for its explicit declarations, the rallying cry of the female warrior as a means of bringing attention to issues concerning the social and institutional repression of women. While this type of feminist work was effective in opening many doors for women that had previously been closed, in the art world and elsewhere, the fact remains that many of the issues facing women today have not been completely resolved, but have changed over time. Therefore, in order to accommodate these changes and address issues concerning gender requires developing a divergent methodological approach that also effectively reflects the evolution of feminist theory. For this paper, I will be basing my analysis concerning implicit feminism on the theoretical work of Luce Irigaray and Judith Butler by examining Mirror Piece I and Upsidedown and Backwards by Joan Jonas as

Putnam 4 well as the recent collaborative work C.L.U.E. (color location ultimate experience) by A.L. Steiner and robbinschilds. Specifically, after briefly examining how feminist art has come to be understood by looking at the WACK! Art and the Revolution exhibit and how Jonass work can be understood in this context, I will investigate the treatment of feminism in Jonass work and in C.L.U.E through a theoretical analysis concerning language, gender, and the ambiguity of feminism. Through this process I will show that a paradigm shift in terms of interpreting feminist art will allow for a progressive model that not only takes into account the successes and limitations of previous feminist endeavors, but can also create new potential for artists working today. By treating feminism as a part of a larger continuum, exhibits like WACK! that create a specific historical perspective behaves as ruptures in this model since it functions through exclusion to designate and isolate a particular definition of feminist art that has been problematized over the past several decades. Therefore, in order to overcome tendencies such as these, it is necessary to compare work that was included in the work to work that was excluded, as well as examine the role of feminism in present day work. Reflecting back on the second wave: WACK! Art and Feminist Revolution WACK! Art and Feminist Revolution, organized by Los Angeles Museum of Contemporary Art (MOCA) Ahmanson Curatorial Fellow Cornelia Butler, is a major historical retrospective that examines feminist art of the 1960s and 1970s in the context of the twenty-first century. Incorporating over 120 artists from across the globe, this exhibition presented a

comprehensive and diversified presentation of the significant role that feminism has played in the artistic process, as well as its subsequent developments of creating an aesthetic language that acknowledges the female subject. The show originally opened at MOCA Los Angeles in 2007, and then traveled to the National Museum of Women in the Arts in Washington D.C., P.S. 1

Putnam 5 Contemporary Art Center in New York City, and then finally to the Vancouver Art Gallery in British Columbia. When attempting to understand WACK! Art and the Feminist Revolution and its role in feminist discourse, it is important to note that the exhibition explicitly functions as a retrospective of a significant era of feminist art making. Therefore, it is laden with certain sentiments of nostalgia. This is primarily due to curatorial decision to include certain works while excluding others that may have led to a more complex (as well as more ambiguous) presentation of feminism of the era. Moreover, it should be pointed out that what can be considered most problematic about this exhibit is not the work itself. Rather, Cornelia Butlers curation of the work and the critical reception by certain leading feminist thinkers, such as Carol Armstrong, is what primarily needs to be brought into question. Butler stated that the exhibit is predicated on the notion that gender was and remains fundamental to culture and that a contemporary understanding of the feminist in art must necessarily look to the late 1960s and 70s.1 In other words, she has presented an exhibition of work by women that encapsulates the feminist ideology of a specific time period. The theory of this era was greatly informed by the actions of the womens liberation movements, with emphasis being placed on the significance of the female body, the distinction of female sexuality, and the general struggle faced by women, comprising a universal ideological umbrella rooted in the Anglo-American feminist tradition. These notions were drawn from as a means to strengthen solidarity between women in order to revolutionize society with the intent of dismantling patriarchal dominance and promoting gender equality. As a result, this work was based on the major tenets of the feminist revolution: the personal is political, and all representation is political.2 In her curatorial essay, Cornelia Butler states:

Putnam 6 Through a proposed dismantling of the received canon of feminist art, the exhibition and accompanying publication consciously reenact feminisms legacy of inclusivity and its interrogation of cultural hierarchies of all kinds to suggest a more complicated history of simultaneous feminisms.3 Despite the good intentions of her ideals, it is fair to state that Cornelia Butler fell short of attaining her goals, specifically because the exhibit as a whole does not test the implicit limitations of feminist discourse of that era. Instead, she attempts to include a diverse

representation of feminism under the same ideological umbrella. By including only female artists in the exhibition, Butler perpetuated the notion that only women can be feminists, which is inaccurate. There were a number of male artists working at the time, including Robert This may seem like a

Mapplethorpe, created work that can be interpreted as feminist.

generalized observation concerning the portrayal of gender in the exhibit, which may or may not have been the intent of the curator, but it is necessary to point out how Butlers conceptual framework remains limited to a dialectical understanding of gender that has been problematized by feminist scholars for the past 20 years. As a result, her presentation of feminism can be considered nostalgic for a simpler time. When commenting on why she decided to include only female artists in the exhibit, Butler states: I decidedand the artists overwhelmingly agreed that, as a major institutional survey, the essential story of WACK! must be told in terms of the women who pioneered the movement.4 While the show as a whole did present a comprehensive retrospective of what has come to be understood as feminist art and has brought this art into the institutional canon, a place historically dominated by white men, the exhibit was limited in its ability to participate in contemporary feminist discourse due to the confined theoretical framework under which it was presented.

Putnam 7 This attitude can also be detected in the celebratory review written by Carol Armstrong in Artforum. Armstrong did make a number of noteworthy points concerning the political and social significance of the feminist movement of the 1960s and 70s, as well as emphasizing that one should not underestimate the impact of feminist art on the art world as a whole, specifically stating that: This art was political by opening up a polyvocal space of dispute, by sponsoring an antiherical democracy of medium and materials, by refusing condescension, institutional pomposities, and high-toned transcendences, and by bringing together into the fold sensitivities and subjects heretofore relegated to the back stairs and the womens room.5 Even though Armstrong articulated the importance of the work with these statements, she (like Butler) presented an attitude that seems as if she is longing for the feminism of a previous era. Through her celebration of revolutionary zeal, Armstrong overlooks the possibility of implicitly radical feminist statements, as opposed to the explicit declarations that were present in most second-wave work. Work with an implicit political message, such as the work to be discussed in this paper, can pose some difficulties for feminist interpretation due to the subtle nature of its radical intent. Most notably, feminist artwork in this vein requires an informed viewer, as well as an artist who is aware of her viewers knowledge. The inherent complication of the

viewer/artist relationship can actually be considered beneficial for political and social causes than work that is exclamatory since the greater knowledge required for the interpretation of the work does not need to be limited to the sphere of art criticism. This informed understanding can spill over into the understanding of feminism in everyday life. In other words, what is not needed is the explicit, monologic works that Armstrong calls for, rather art that fosters the

Putnam 8 dialogic relationship between the viewer and artist by incorporating complex and thought provoking feminist concepts can be considered most significant for present day feminist progress. While she feels that by looking back towards the days of exclamatory vigor, as WACK! had done, can breath new life into feminist artistic practice, Armstrong does not seem to realize that the feminism of which she speaks was pertinent to a very specific time period and social circumstances. Therefore, if feminist artists of today were to return in terms of practice and aesthetics to these earlier days of feminist revolution, the work could not have nearly the same impact as it originally had. In her analysis of feminist art and the WACK! exhibition, Siona Wilson warns against such blind praise as presented by Armstrong, stating that we must pay careful attention to the form that feminism takes as it enters the mainstream museum world.6 This requires not only an understanding of how art represents feminism, but also how it has been theoretically informed. It is time to accept the early days of the feminist revolution, both its accomplishments and its shortcomings for what they were in order to place the work created during this era in a context where it can be fully appreciated. The placement of the work in the museum can be considered more than just an accomplishment for womens rights, but it can also be interpreted as a gesture that contextualizes the art and actions of the feminist revolution within a preserved time and space. Moreover, this symbolic and literal gesture results in an ambivalent sense of nostalgia and pride that is typically associated with the co-opting of the rebel. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the work presented in this exhibit as informative of how feminism was able to infiltrate and change society and culture with the intent of bettering the lives of women with a revolutionary fervor that is unmatched today. That is not to say that feminism can no longer be considered effective in bringing about change, as Armstrong alludes to in her critique. Feminism

Putnam 9 has changed greatly over the past several decades, due in large part to the revelation that early feminist understandings of gender, sexuality, and culture were limited to a very specific context of the middle class, white, heterosexual female in the Western world. In order to acknowledge these changes requires an examination of the ideological and theoretical foundations of feminism, a process that can begin by looking at the work that has informed a great deal of present day feminist theory, including the work of Luce Irigaray and Judith Butler. As with most of the artists presented in the WACK! exhibit, the interpretation of Joan Jonass artistic practice emphasized the political implications of her feminist activity.7 Photographic documentation of Mirror Piece I, Loeb Student Center, New York University, New York City, which was included in WACK!, is explicit in the presentation of its feminist themes. Most notably, the emphasis placed on her use of the mirror and the presentation of binary gender roles from a feminist perspective. In Mirror Piece I, a work that was originally performed at New York University in 1969, fifteen women moved in a choreographed routine around a designated area, each holding a full-length mirror that reflected the audience. At the same time, two men wearing suits walked among the women, periodically moving them to random points. 8 Clearly, this work can be considered a commentary on the place of women in patriarchal society. Esther Adler noted that: Jonass casting of women to perform in the work, however, added an additional layer of meaning to the piece. The performers of Mirror Piece I, rather than

considering themselves in front of a mirror, reflected the gaze of the viewer, historically assumed to be male: they actively directed this gaze, rather than passively submit to it. 9 Therefore, the women of this performance are presented as subjects, active determinants of the gaze that they deflected from their bodies with the mirrors and directed back into the eyes of the viewers. While this reversal of the gaze may have initially been striking for feminists at the time,

Putnam 10 the limitations of this tactic have subsequently been revealed. Simply by inverting the gaze, feminists only reversed a dialectic that continued to exist within the linguistic terms of patriarchal construction. Luce Irigaray addressed the limitations faced by this approach, where the woman is caught up again in a system of masculine representations, in which women are trapped in a system of meaning which serves the auto-affection of the (masculine) subject. 10 Therefore, it became necessary for feminist artists to pay attention to their textual strategies in conjunction with the politicized content of the work. Judith Barry and Sandy Flitterman-Lewis had pointed out in their essay Textual Strategies: The politics of art making that while we recognize the value of certain forms of radical political art, concerned to highlight feminist issues generally submerged by dominant cultural discourse, this kind of work, if untheorised, can only have limited results.11 For feminist art to be considered effective, Barry and Flitterman-Lewis suggest that it should be treated from a theoretical reflection on representations: how the representation of women is produced, the way it is understood, and the social conditions in which it is situated.12 By paying greater attention to the context that gender roles are presented, which requires a greater incorporation of theoretical understanding on behalf of the artist as well as the viewer, can allow for the creation of progressive feminist art. Unfortunately, Mirror Piece I, being so direct and explicit in the presentation of its feminist themes, does not necessarily lend itself to this type of analysis. The mirror in this piece is presented as an object (a signifier) that symbolizes a range of meanings, including the Western social pressures of feminine beauty and vanity, which has a long history not only in feminist art, such as through the portrait photographs created by Lady Clementina Hawarden in the nineteenth century, but in the general canon of art history. At the same time, the mirror behaves as a source of reflection in terms of subject identity formation, which has become most well known through

Putnam 11 the theoretical work of Jacques Lacan and his description of the mirror phase. According to Lacan, the mirror phase occurs during an early time in the childs development when he is able to experience a gestalt, a wholeness, that allows him to identify the unity of the subject as he relates to the imaginary, developing an ideal-I that influences the childs further psychological development.13 In Speculum of the Other Woman, Luce Irigaray made evident the gender bias present throughout Lacans work, pointing out how attempting to understand female subject development in terms outlined by Lacan are limiting, and that when she submits to (such a) theory, woman fails to realize that she is renouncing the specificity of her own relationship to the imaginary.14 In response to this, Irigaray proposed an alternative model that distinguishes between the convex mirror of the speculum, which she related to the masculine, and the concave mirror, which was associated with the underappreciated and unarticulated feminine.15 How Jonas understands the presence of the mirror can also be considered a critique of Lacans theorization. According to Jonas: from the beginning the mirror provided me with a metaphor for my investigations as well as a device to alter space, to fragment it, and to reflect the audience, bringing them into the space of the performance.16 At the same time, Jonas perceives the video monitor as being an ongoing mirror, a means of reflection and refraction. Her decision to incorporate the mirror in a manner that can be considered as undermining Lacan is consistent with Irigarays thoughts on the matter: And if it is indeed a question of breaking (with) a certain mode of specula(riza)tion, this does not imply renouncing all mirrors or refraining from analysis of the hold this plan/e of representation maintains, rendering female desire aphasic and more generally atonic in all but its phallomorphic disguises masquerades, and demands.17

Putnam 12 By using the mirror in a manner that abstracts as opposed to unifies, Jonas is granting the mirror alternative meaning and is utilizing a tool of masculine dominance as a strategy for feminist rebellion. However significant these themes may be, they require a limited response on behalf of the viewer due to their explicit and simple theoretical presentation as well as their recurrence amongst feminist artists, as well as in the general art history canon. Mean what you say, but first figure out how to say it: the importance of language In order to fully develop an understanding of how feminism can break from previous patterns that exhibits such as WACK! reiterated requires an examination of feminist theory while thinking about how it can contribute to more implicit and complex feminist art. Throughout her work, Luce Irigaray has pointed out that because of patriarchal dominance in thought, the female is perceived as the absence of the masculine. She discussed that as a result there can be no female subject as understood by the terms established by the male subject, stating that the feminine occurs only within models and laws devised by the male subjects. Which implies that there are not really two sexes, but only one.18 For Irigaray, this understanding of the sexes has been determined by language, and subsequently she problematizes the structure of language as presented through patriarchal discourse, thereby calling for a paradigm shift in terms of understanding gender and sexuality: the issue is not one of elaborating a new theory of which woman would be the subject or object, but of jamming the theoretical machinery itself, of suspending its pretension to the production of a truth and of a meaning that are exclusively univocal.19 To try to understand a female subject in terms of language as established by masculine forms of representation will merely result in a perpetuation of the female subject as determined by the masculine, limited to the confines of its own construct. Therefore, Irigaray pointed out that creating a space for the understanding of the feminine

Putnam 13 in terms of sexual difference requires a change in the process by which we understand these differences: If we keep on speaking the same language together, were going to reproduce the same historyListen: all round us, men and women sound just the same. The

same discussions, the same arguments, the same scenes. The same attractions and separations. The same difficulties, the same impossibility of making connections. The sameSameAlways the same.20 It is important to keep this in mind when attempting to comprehend and subsequently utilize a feminist approach in aesthetics, since such repetition is part of the feminist discourse as presented through the WACK! exhibit and the discussions it provoked. As mentioned

previously, progress requires a paradigm shift in understanding that acknowledges the limitations of feminism due to linguistic structure, gender dialectic, and its universalizing tendencies. Until it breaks from the patterns of repetition it is based on, feminism will continue to reproduce the same history. At the same time, it is important to look at the method of presenting the feminist message. The loud exclamatory statements of the womens liberation movements may have been indispensable for raising awareness of womens issues, but other, subtler and infiltrative means of delivery can also be considered effective and radical. Instead of monologically

dictating its message, the latter process requires greater participation on behalf of the recipient, allowing for the presence of a dialogue that is beneficial for progressive change. The video performance Upsidedown and Backwards by Joan Jonas (1980), which was not included in WACK!, can be interpreted as an example of how an artist challenges the patriarchal linguistic structure as described by Luce Irigaray. Jonas began the piece by reading two of Grimms fairy tales, with fragments of The Frog King being told backwards

Putnam 14 intermingled with fragments from A Tale About the Boy who went Forth to Learn what Fear Was being told forwards. Through her act of verbally and visually blending the tales, Jonas explicitly made evident the intertextual nature of her speech, actions, and the text she was presenting. Throughout the performance, Jonas continued to playfully mingle the texts of the tales until they became indistinguishable to the viewer, resulting in a fairy tale of Jonass creation that contained a meaning distinctive from the two original tales. Irigaray pointed out how a playful process such as this is significant, especially when considering the limitations of creating a space for the feminine within a masculine construction of language. She stated: it is still better to speak only riddles, allusions, hints, parables. Even if asked to clarify a few points.21 Fairy tales as a genre can be considered a means of spreading cultural messages through parable, and so it is interesting that Jonas would decide to derive her work from a form of story telling known for re-enforcing (patriarchal) social norms. The deconstructive process through which Jonas accomplished this task, however, is what allows her tale to be considered distinctive from the original, and she manages to create a tale that can be interpreted as feminist in nature. Specifically, through her re-telling of the tales, Jonas alters the ending of so the princess does not end up marrying the prince, rather the story ends with the princess playing with her golden ball by the spring. This reversal of narrative is significant, since it breaks the reenforcement of heteronormative values that has become a critical point for general feminist critique of fairy tales while at the same time disrupting the linear narrative structure that can be considered a normative structure in Western literature, which Irigaray argues is inherently patriarchal. It is important to note that even though Jonas re-told fragments of the tales in an intertwined fashion, the resulting story she created does not appear nonsensical to the viewer.

Putnam 15 Whether the space Jonas created with her linguistic play can be considered a space that actually accommodates the female subject is a question that remains open. The inability to answer this question also points out the limitations of Iriagarys theorizations, making evident that the problem cannot be reduced to the absence of the female subject. Judith Butler, who bases some of her analysis on the work of Irigaray, argues that the problem is also one of how gender has come to be generally understood. What is clear is that Jonas did create a greater flexibility in terms of the role that female subject plays in relation to the fairy tale, specifically that the female storyteller became the masculine characters of the tale. This can also be considered a playful interpretation of the subject-object relation that destabilizes this dialectic. The manipulation of visual language can also be detected in C.L.U.E (color location ultimate experience), the recent collaborative effort between A. L. Steiner, robbinschilds (Layla Childs and Sonya Robbins), AJ Blandford, and the avant-rock quartet Kinski. The work, which was presented in the New Museums Shaft Project Space from October 8, 2008 until January 11, 2009, consisted of a series of looped videos presented on monitors with an accompanying instrumental soundtrack, a video projected onto the exterior wall of the museum also with audio accompaniment, and a number of live performances by robbinschilds presented in the museum space during the exhibition period. A.L. Steiner is known for her photography and video work that examine feminist themes, as well as her involvement with the elecro-pop feminist music group Chicks on Speed, who create songs that deal with cultural materialism and the presentation of women in art and music. For example in the song Sell Out, they refer to the commercialist intent of the music industry with the lyrics: well do a trend piece, not a think piece. Ironically, Chicks on Speed attempts to do the opposite through their workto create a think piece, not a trend piece.

Putnam 16 A.L. Steiner continues working in this vein with C.L.U.E. The work presents the performance art duo robbinschilds dressed in imperfectly coordinated monochromatic clothing interacting in a variety of anonymous environments throughout the United States, including darkened parking lots, desert highways, forests, and junkyards, collectively presenting an impression of the vast solitude of the American landscape. The videos portray the artists in carefully choreographed patterns that are manipulated visually through a series of jump cuts, which are structured in color-coded sections. Accompanied by Kinskis instrumental

soundtrack, the piece takes on the appearance of a kinetic painting, with the artists presenting themselves as colorful forms intimately interacting with their space, resulting in a multi-sensual experience for the viewer that is harmonious and enchanting. The coordinated movements of the artists are hypnotizing, with the presence of a streamlined jerkiness that grant the viewer a sense of personally accepted awkwardness. As these women collectively mold their bodies to the landscapes and spaces they occupy, their colorful gestures seem timeless in relation to space, creating a fantasy of beautiful harmony reinforced by the aural landscape of Kinski. These women collectively and seamlessly move through a space in a manner that is atypical, but is made to be just right by the media framework through which it is presented. In terms of visual language, the piece can be interpreted as a multi-media effort that deconstructs the tenets of aesthetic discourse as they relate to painting, sculpture, dance, and cinema, which are then reconstructed in a manner that does not only expand the visual limitations of the art viewing experience, but reconfigures this experience with consideration paid to time and space as well. The artists have been able to accomplish this through their interdisciplinary, collaborative approach that incorporates a variety of media. The

problematization of aesthetic language that the artists present also creates a space for feminist

Putnam 17 discourse, which can be considered implicit to the work as a whole. Therefore, Unlike Jonass work, C.L.U.E does not take as a direct approach towards its treatment of the female subject, with gender roles not being presented as the prime consideration of the artists. This difference, however, does not undermine the ability to interpret the work as a feminist piece, rather their less explicit approach pays greater attention to the visual language that had limited the role of the female subject throughout art history. Taking action: gender performativity and performance art Judith Butler elaborated upon the ideas of Luce Irigaray while also drawing from the wider range of post-structuralist thought in order to present a theoretical approach towards gender that attempts to break from patriarchal binary constructions by placing emphasis on the particular as opposed to universal statements. This approach might be identified as characteristic of third wave feminist theory. Specifically, Butler argues that gender is performative, that is, constituting the identity it is purported to be.22 She states that: Gender is in no way a stable identity or locus of agency from which various acts proceed; rather, it is an identity tenuously constituted in timean identity instituted through a stylized repetition of acts. Further, gender is instituted

through the stylization of the body, and hence, must be understood as the mundane way in which bodily gestures, movements, and enactments of various kinds constitute the illusion of an abiding gendered self.23 Instead of treating gender as a static state related to the bodys anatomy, as tends to be the case with traditional, patriarchal understandings of gender, or taking the feminist oppositional stance that completely dissociates sex from gender, Butler has created an approach that can be considered advantageous for contemporary feminist analysis for a variety of reasons. By not

Putnam 18 reducing gender difference to either biological sexual difference or social and cultural constructions, Butler has presented a model of gender that allows for greater flexibility that is not limited to a dialectical understanding of gender roles. Utilizing what she considers to be a deconstructive approach, Butler has pointed out how this type of analysis does not necessarily entail the destruction of woman, rather the category of womenbecomes one whose uses are no longer reified as referents, and which stand a chance of being opened up, indeed, of coming to signify in ways that none of us can predict in advance.24 In other words, Butler is presenting an understanding of gender that acknowledges the limitations of linguistic structure made evident by Irigaray, thereby opening the definition of woman beyond previously understood and accepted meaning that is rooted in the dialectic of gender difference. Butler also has shown there is an inherent potential to this conception of gender that can allow for feminist progressive change. She states: if the ground of gender identity is the stylized repetition of acts through time, and not a seemingly seamless identity, then the possibilities of gender transformation are to be found in the arbitrary relation between such acts, in the possibility of a different sort of repeating, in the breaking or subversive repetition of that style.25 In other words, instead of attempting to challenge or modify gendered behaviors as they are understood in terms of patriarchal binary constructs, Butler has examined how these behaviors have come to determine our understanding of gender. She reveals that the structure of gender difference has integrated itself socially into the most mundane aspects of life, thereby allowing for the incessant reaffirmation of patriarchal ideology through practice. As long as feminists continue to understand gender in terms established by the patriarchy, progress will remain limited to this dialectic, resulting in a constant cyclical battle of the sexes. The alternative Butler proposes can allow for a comprehensive theoretical approach to gender, which can also be

Putnam 19 manifested in the artistic process. It is necessary to point out the distinction between how performativity functions in Butlers terms in contrast to how performance behaves as a form of artistic expression. According to Butler, performativity is rooted in linguistics and the philosophy of language, and is therefore very much integrated into everyday actions to the extent that it appears unnoticeable. This is a result of performativitys ability to embody norms, become a reiteration of norms which is no particular body, but a morphological ideal that remains the standard which regulates the performance, but which no performance fully approximates.26 Subsequently, gender

performativity has become unreadable since the approximation of realness appears to be achieved, the body performing and the ideal performed appear indistinguishable.27 In terms of performance art, an artist uses performativity and the body as a means of aesthetic expression to coordinate the experience of the viewer. Therefore, the performance artist has a conscious grasp of the actions performed, which as a result makes legible actions that have otherwise become unreadable in the terms described by Butler above. Consequently, performance art can be considered deconstructive in nature due to its ability to subvert accepted standards of linguistic structure. Womens performance art in particular has been an effective tool for feminist artists, since as according to Jeanie Forte: One must be willing to begin an argument, that is, to confront the language and metaphors which promote womens oppression. By challenging the very

discourse or representation, womens performance art begins such an argument, and begins to postulate an alternative discourse, a discourse which shuns the traditional hierarchies built on power and knowledge, the breeding ground of oppression.28

Putnam 20 The deconstructive potential of performance art is not just limited to works created by women, but can also be considered a significant quality of the work generally created in response to previous aesthetic sensibilities and the art institutions, both of which are male dominated. Feminist artists are able to draw from the subversive quality of performance art in order to apply it to a specific cultural and social context: the deconstructive nature of womens performance is thus doubly powerful because of the status of women in relation to representation, a status which, in the performance context, inherently foregrounds the phallocentricity of

modernism/patriarchy and its signifying systems.29 Forte argued that such subversion extends to the linguistic structure that informs being. Therefore, the political implications of

performance art extends beyond the content of the work as such and becomes implicit of the medium itself: not merely a reflection of feminist theory, womens performance art provides a visible basis for the construction of a feminist frame of reference, articulating alternatives for power and resistance.30 At the same time, performance art destabilitizes the subject/object dialectic, which has dominated Western aesthetic discourse and traditionally been gendered so that the male is considered to be the active artist, subject, while the female treated as the passive muse, or art object. Instead of just problematizes the stability of this dialectic, performance art makes it obsolete, since the distinction cannot be made between the artist as subject and art object, considering she occupies both roles simultaneously. What can now be considered a commonplace subversion thanks to post-modernism must be made note of, since performance art can be used as a tool for critiquing gender performativity just as subtly as outlined by Judith Butler. The emphasis in this instance is not on the grandiose statements that performance art can make, rather it is placed on the implicit radical nature of the art form as a means of feminist activity.

Putnam 21 As a performance and video artist, Jonas plays with the concept of performativity in a manner that allows for actions and gestures that were previously considered unreadable, legible. Through the creation of new spaces and the manipulation of time, Jonas is able to present the viewer with an unconventional perception of reality. This process involves fantasy and play, and allows Jonas to treat the mundane and imaginative in a manner that cannot merely be considered a commentary on social or cultural circumstance. Rather, since the use of fantasy and play are not a form of escapism for the artist, these concepts present the potential for alternative understanding. The melding of the artists body with fantasy, non-fiction with fiction, is

significant since it also points out the instability of the real and allows for a questioning of accepted truth. Moreover, through her artistic process, Jonas makes evident the type of

performativity described by Judith Butler, which otherwise would go unnoticed but is accepted by the viewer, while at the same time utilizing the potential of performance art and video as a means to present possibility for change through her self-consciously intertextual narrative. Specifically, Upsidedown and Backwards presents an intriguing stance concerning gender roles and performativity considering that the characters Jonas decided to personify are the male characters, including the frog and the boy, as opposed to presenting herself as the female characters. Instead, the princess was presented as a static object and the wife of the boy was only present through Jonass vocal and written telling of the tale. This is distinctive from some of her other performance works, such as Organic Honey and The Juniper Tree (the latter being another performance that Jonas draws from the Grimms fairy tales for inspiration). In these

performances, Jonas had specifically personified female characters in order to provide a commentary concerning the representation of women.31 This difference can be considered

significant since it emphasizes how attempts to understand gender roles from a feminist

Putnam 22 perspective cannot be limited to solely an examination of woman. Jonas was able to

accomplish this task in part due to her visual presentation of male characters that physically appear androgynous. When Jonas presented herself as the frog, she was wearing a transparent mask that only slightly obscures her face, giving the impression of an amphibious appearance. However, the feminine features of her face are still visible, even though she has taken on the masculine character of the frog. The visual ambiguity that Jonas created between the masculine characters she personifies and her personal feminineness allowed her to test the limitations of designated gender appearance differentiation. Jonas further complicated her presentation of gender during a sequence when she was personifying the male protagonist from The Boy Who Went Forth to Learn What Fear Was. For this sequence, she intimately interacts with a skeleton that was dressed in a suit, touching its various bones and crevices in a manner that is clearly sexual. She then strips the skeleton and begins to rock it as she told it a story in an endearing and maternal manner. After telling the story, Jonas performs an intimate dance with the skeleton that is presented to the viewer through close up shots of her hands and various parts of the skeleton, abstracted by the camera, further supporting the sense of sexual interactivity perceived by the viewer. This sequence is very striking in terms of its presentation of gender roles and its subtle defiance of heterosexual norms when considering that Jonas was personifying a male character dancing with a skeleton whose gender cannot be determined through visual anatomical difference. The only signifier of the skeletons gender was a suit, though this does not necessarily determine the gender of the skeleton. The ambiguity surrounding the skeletons gender, as well as Jonass performative actions that defy accepted norms of gender distinction, prevents the viewer from maintaining any certain understanding of how gender roles are presented in the work, resulting in an implicit

Putnam 23 critique of gender and sexuality presented by the artist, which can also be interpreted as queer. It is important to note that Jonass actions can be considered distinctive from cross-dressing or simple gender bending, which can be considered a popular tactic for female subversion that goes back centuries, since her approach is at times so subtle that it can appear unnoticeable to the viewer. In other words, Jonas is actively defying gender roles at points of the performance, particularly when she seems to regress to a childlike state, but her actions do not seem to explicitly behave as a means of subversion. By extending her presentation of gender beyond the heterosexual and homosexual feminist frameworks, Jonas is able to provoke complex questions, resulting in a work that can be considered subtler in its approach to these matters than Mirror Piece I, but also more radical, thereby behaving as an example of how performance art can allow for an active approach concerning gender performativity as described by Judith Butler. C.L.U.E. also functions as a feminist artwork that utilizes gender performativity as a means of social critique. Making use of the subtlety of gender identification through actions and physical appearance, A.L Steiner and robbinschilds were able to present a version of femininity that defies conventional understanding of such. This is most notable when the performance artists occupied spaces that typically considered dangerous for women, such as darkened parking lots and junkyards, or in positions of vulnerability, as when they were partially nude on the desert highway or tied to a tree. Instead of evoking emotions of fear and danger in the mind of the viewer, the artists wistful appearance, playful activity, harmonious formal integration with the space make it seem as if there is no reason they should not be there. With such an implicit presentation of feminist themes, it seems as if these can be easily overlooked, but the artists are presenting a type of feminine insubordination against the patriarchal system that does not need to be emphasized in order to be understood. Therefore, this work presents an example of subtle yet

Putnam 24 radical feminism, drawing from a sense of the simple everyday acts of defiance informed by a feminist critique that is implicit to the work. Embracing ambiguity: dont underestimate the power of the subtly radical feminist It is important to note the distinctions of how feminism functions in terms of art influenced by earlier feminist ideology, as with the works presented in the WACK! exhibit including Jonass Mirror Piece I, compared to art that takes a divergent approach from these feminist traditions, as can be found in Upsidedown and Backwards and C.L.U.E. Most notably, feminism as understood through the second wave framework tends to universalize female experience, presenting grandiose statements concerning patriarchal oppression and the resulting injustices. As previously stated, this approach was initially a motivating and unifying force for the womens liberation movements, but as time has progressed and transcultural issues have made themselves apparent, such an approach has been problematized. In fact, Judith Butler points out how this can be considered one of Irigarays shortcomings: although Irigaray clearly broadens the scope of feminist critique by exposing the epistemological, ontological, and logical structures of a masculinist signifying economy, the power of her analysis is undercut precisely by its globalizing reach. 32 In other words, Butler acknowledges that the breadth of Irigarays theories (which had allowed her to point out just how widespread patriarchal influence has been in our society, going so far to infiltrate the presumed objectivity of language) can also limit the potential of her work. Irigaray was facing what she perceived to be a universal problem with a universal solution. However, the difficulties associated with this approach become evident when efforts are made to incorporate Other feminisms into one general canon in order to present culturally sensitive attitude, as was the case with WACK!. According to Judith Butler, this can lead to

Putnam 25 the continuation of the self-aggrandizing gesture of pallogocentrism that feminism is attempting to combat, thereby colonizing under the sign of the same those differences that might otherwise call that totalizing concept into question.33 In other words, Butler pointed out how a universal feminist approach, no matter how diverse it may appear, can be just as problematic as the patriarchal dominance feminists are attempting to upset, since it is merely replacing one hierarchy with another. Alternative feminist approaches dismiss the concept of grand narratives by paying greater attention to the particular as opposed to the universal. Therefore, instead of attempting to isolate a definition of what feminism signifies, it is important to embrace the ambiguities and complexities that are associated with feminist theory. Judith Butler noted that while initially a universal understanding of feminism was necessary for the womens movements to progress, eventually this would be considered counterproductive: in an understandable desire to forge bonds of solidarity, feminist discourse has often relied upon the category of woman as a universal presupposition of cultural experience which, in its universal status, provides a false ontological promise of eventual political solidarity.34 The unifying aspect of universal understandings of gender may appeal to political movements, but there is also a tendency to overlook the complexities inherent to subject identity, of which gender is a part, and therefore ideological solidarity can lead to a false impression of political solidarity. This provides some explanation as to why feminism continues to be debated and problematized today, since the idealism of political progress has overshadowed the complexities of feminist actuality. Feminism in and of itself can be considered a utopian stance concerning gender inequality that will cease to exist once fully realized. Judith Butler has stated: The program of feminism is not one in which we might assume a common set of

Putnam 26 premises and then proceed to build in a logical fashion a program from these premises. Instead, this is a movement that moves forward precisely by bringing critical attention to bear on its premises in an effort to become more clear about what it means to begin to negotiate the conflicting interpretations, the irrepressible democratic cacophony of its identity.35 Moreover, the complexities of feminism is a reflection of the multi-faceted nature of cultural identity, and acceptance of these differences can in fact assist in the process of negotiating feminist progress, as opposed to essentializing what feminism means. That is not to say that what is being described can no longer be considered feminist since it extends beyond the notion of gender equality. Butler stated that to question a term, a term like feminism, is to ask how it plays, what investments it bears, what aims it achieves, what alterations it undergoes. The changeable life of a term does not preclude its use. 36 For this reason, artists should be encouraged to use the term feminism to describe the explorations of gender identity and representation. While at times notions concerning gender equality

popularized by during the 1960s and 70s may seem antiquated due to their limitations concerning patriarchal binary gender construct and tendency to propagate heteronormativity, it is important to continue using the word feminism in order to allow sufficient progress to occur, as well as to acknowledge the complex theoretical and ideological history the term represents. Therefore, instead of treating feminism as merely a political movement that seeks female emancipation and equal rights between the sexes, or a theoretical stance that emphasizes the distinction of the feminine from the masculine, feminism needs to be understood as a methodological approach that involves an examination of social and individual manifestations of gender as understood theoretically, culturally, and politically. Barry and Flitterman-Lewis

Putnam 27 discussed the need for such a shift: Initially in the womens movement feminist emphasized the importance of giving voice to personal experiences; the expression and documentation of womens oppression as well as their aspirations provided womens art with a liberating force. However, a radical reconceptualization of the personal to include more broadly social and even unconscious forces has made a more analytical approach to these personal experiences necessary. The experiential must be taken beyond consciously felt and articulated needs of women if a real transformation of the structures of womens oppression is to occur.37 In other words, the time for a reductionist approach has passed. It is fair to state that feminism as a conceptual whole has found enough of a common ground that to continue pursuing efforts that solely examine how feminism can be understood in terms of the female experience can be considered redundant. Rather, in order to allow feminism to progress so that it can impact the structures of society that continue to determine gendered experience, it becomes necessary to extend the theoretical understanding of feminism. One means of doing so is by not placing emphasis on bodily and sexual difference, as well as not isolating the female experience from that of the male. This, according to Barry and Flitterman, can actually be considered more effective in some ways than extreme revolutionary acts, since a more theoretically informed art can contribute to enduring changes by addressing itself to the structural and deep-seated causes of womens oppression rather than to its effects.38 Hopefully, by treating feminism in this matter, it will no longer be necessary to treat feminism in terms of waves, categorizing and labeling different eras of a continuous movement concerning the treatment of gender roles in our society. The possibility for this lies in the fact that the feminist waves are not as distinctive as

Putnam 28 made out to be, and to allow these categories to persist could be considered detrimental to the ultimate goals of feminism, however they may be defined. Therefore if Cornelia Butler had made the decision to include Upsidedown and Backwards in WACK! as opposed to or in conjunction with Mirror Piece I, she would have presented a more complex ideological understanding of second wave feminism. It is fair to state that the inclusion of this piece would not have altered the show completely, but it would have shifted the conceptual framework enough to point out the inaccuracies of a wave model, since the theoretical concepts of what is now termed the third wave or post-feminism have previously existed. A paradigm shift in terms of interpretation was necessary to make this evident, which Cornelia Butler retroactively worked against due to her decision to include works that transparently promote second wave ideological concepts. At the same time, present day work such as C.L.U.E. can be considered beneficial to feminist discourse due to its implicit yet complex presentation of feminist theory. In C.L.U.E., there is an acknowledgement of the female body in the piece, but not a celebration of sexual difference. Through the use of color and performative actions, the artists are able to abstract their sexuality by transforming the body into form, without denying or negating their sexuality or gender. There is a sense of identity present in the behaviors and actions of robbinschilds, who at times seem like two best friends who can understand only each other, a bond of sisterhood that is common for children and adolescents. Their unpronounced solidarity does not need to be articulated, as their actions and interactions suffice in place of verbal communication. Even without the rallying cry of sorority, the work is still effective in conveying the union between these women as they explore the spaces they come to inhabit. Concluding thoughts

Putnam 29 While WACK! played a significant role in bringing feminist art into the museum context, as well as formalizing these works acceptance into the art history canon, the exhibit also presented the inherent theoretical shortcomings of how feminism has come to be understood. In order to presently create work informed by feminist thought that allows for progress, as well as accommodating changes in the understandings of gender identity, a paradigm shift is required in perceiving how feminism functions in art. Therefore, instead of isolating the identification of feminist art to works that are explicit in their declaration of ideological values, art that presents feminism as implicit to the work can be considered useful, if not vital, to a progressive attitude concerning gender. This is because works such as

Upsidedown and Backwards and C.L.U.E. require an active reading on behalf of the viewer that can inform his or her ability to detect unreadable gender inequality in an everyday context. Just because many of the issues women had faced during the time of the womens liberation movements have been partially resolved through legislation and a general shift in the cultural attitude concerning the treatment of women does mean that feminism has become obsolete. Rather, the means of oppression have become integrated into our socialized behaviors, and cannot be limited to women, as it has become evident that men also face difficulties resulting from patriarchal binary gender constructs. Therefore, art informed by feminist theory as

described in this paper can play an active role in altering how gender has come to be perceived in our society as well as how we read and interpret these works. This approach cannot be considered apathetic or disinterested, but can be treated as an effective model for feminist change, since it allows for the artist and viewer to become more involved with the growing problem of implicit oppression and deconstructs gender in even the most unpronounced context. Moreover, lets do a think piece, not a trend piece.

Putnam 30

Putnam 31

Cornelia Butler, "Art and Feminism: An Ideology of Shifting Criteria," in Wack! Art and the Feminist Revolution, ed. Lisa Garbrielle Mark (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2007), 15. 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid., 15-6. 4 Ibid., 22. 5 Carol Armstrong, "Global Feminisms/Wack!," Artforum International 49, no. 9 (2007): 362. 6 Siona Wilson, "Destinations of Feminist Art: Past, Present, and Future," Women's Studies Quarterly 36, no. 1 & 2 (2008): 325. 7 Esther Adler, "Joan Jonas: Artist Biography," in Wack! Art and the Feminist Revolution, ed. Lisa Gabrielle Mark (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2007), 251. 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid. 10 Luce Irigaray, This Sex Which Is Not One (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1985), 122-3. 11 Judith Barry and Sandy Flitterman-Lewis, "Textual Strategies: The Politics of Art Making," in The Feminism and Visual Culture Reader ed. Amelia Jones (London: Routledge, 2003), 53. 12 Ibid., 58. 13 Jacques Lacan, "The Mirror Stage as Formative of the I Function as Revealed in Psychoanalytic Experience," in crits (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2006), 76. 14 Luce Irigaray, Speculum of the Other Woman (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1985), 133. 15 Ibid., 144. 16 Joan Jonas, "Untitled," in Illuminating Video : An Essential Guide to Video Art ed. Doug Hall and Sally Jo Fifer (New York: Aperture in association with the Bay Area Video Coalition, 1990), 367. 17 Irigaray, Speculum of the Other Woman, 143. 18 , This Sex Which Is Not One, 86. 19 Ibid., 78. 20 Ibid., 205. 21 , Speculum of the Other Woman, 143. 22 Judith Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (New York: Routledge, 1999), 33. 23 , "Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory," in The Feminism and Visual Culture Reader ed. Amelia Jones (London: Routledge, 2003), 392. 24 , Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of Sex (New York: Routledge, 1993), 29. 25 Butler, "Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory," 392. 26 , Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of Sex, 129. 27 Ibid. 28 Jeanie Fort, "Women's Performance Art: Feminism and Postmodernism," in Performing Feminisms: Feminist Critical Theory and Theatre, ed. Sue-Ellen Case (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins 1990), 254. 29 Ibid., 253. 30 Ibid., 269. 31 Adler, "Joan Jonas: Artist Biography," 251. 32 Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, 18. 33 Ibid. 34 , "Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory," 395. 35 Judith Butler, Undoing Gender (London: Routledge, 2004), 175. 36 Ibid., 180. 37 Flitterman-Lewis, "Textual Strategies: The Politics of Art Making," 53.

38

Ibid., 54.