Snail Scott on sun 10 oct 10
On Oct 9, 2010, at 7:30 PM, Elizabeth Priddy wrote:
> I bet every woman you mentioned has a story to tell about the last
> 30 years and much of it recent...
> You are clueless if you think this problem is passed...
I also do not believe that the playing field is
entirely level yet. for instance, a single artist still
struggling for success, whether male or female, is
a person seen as heroically committed to their art
in the face of adversity. A male artist who marries
a woman with a good job is seen as fortunate, but
still a committed professional even if he makes
a pauper's pay in his own name. A woman artist
who marries a man with a good job is instantly
redefined as a housewife with a hobby, even if her
artwork and commitment to it continue unchanged.
No, the playing field is not quite level, but it must
also be said that it is not smoothly tilted in one
clear direction, but in fact rather lumpy. There are
many groups and shows that promote the art of
women in the name of leveling the field, but we
must ask hard questions as the gap closes: are
these perhaps discriminatory in a less-than-
laudable way? My personal distaste for these
stems mainly from their implied ghettoization of
women's art, but also from a sense that public
sponsorship in particular would be fairest without
a thumb on the scale, even guided by the best of
intentions. Short-term gains won thereby may
set back a greater lasting acceptance. Or maybe
not. Truly, I don't know.
I once entered a show in which I was selected to
exhibit, but did not win a prize. I am a grown-up, and
as there was quite a bit of good work in the show, I
did not take this as any slight or evidence of bias.
You win some, you lose some; c'est la vie. I was
more disturbed later, when after I introduced myself
to the famous-artist juror, she took me aside and
said that the reason she hadn't awarded a prize
to me was because she assumed I was male.
All jurors have agendas, some political, some
philosophical, some more personal, or based in
some definition or another of 'quality'. What made
me pause was not just whether my work was seen
as somehow masculine (a not-rare response), but
was lesser (or expected?) as the work of a man, and
more interesting as the work of a woman? Can the
same work really be so transformed by knowledge
of the identity of the artist? Sometimes, this is clearly
true, and sometimes necessary. But at what point
does a knowledge of the artist's identity, and
judgements based on this knowledge, become
bias instead of background? Prejudice in place
of perspective? Perhaps there can never be a
judgement of art without judgement of the artist,
and the potential for both good and harm thereby.
-Snail
| |
|
