Art, Feminism and Assumptions

I have always considered myself to be a very artsy person, even though my art, which is music, differs greatly than the art that is displayed prominently in museums across the country. Even though I do not always understand the impact and quality of tangible art (such as high art and crafts), I do appreciate the skill level, talent, dedication and inspiration of such artists. The same levels of these qualities can be found in most artists, no matter what their interests are and where their strengths lie. I know and appreciate the similarities and differences between our arts, and the differences in the tastes that appear from person to person. My definition of art is not very set, since there are so many varieties to choose from and so many ways of interpretation. My definition of feminism, likewise, is not very specific, as feminism comes in many shapes, forms and sizes, and I do not want to try to make a definition of something that I am not qualified to define. Even so, I have formed some opinions about art, feminism and feminist art that were challenged by the pieces I saw in the four museums.
The National Museum of Women and the Arts mainly challenged my assumptions about feminism, even though there were assumptions about art that were rattled around a bit, feminist art in particular. One of the first things I noticed about the museum, even though it has been mentioned before, was the use of marble in the walls and railings, especially pink marble. Now, most normal, non-feminist art museums use marble for just about everything: the walls, the floor, the railings. I assumed that, as a feminist art museum, there would be a different material used to construct the building, to show that the museum was different than all the other Smithsonian museums in the surrounding area. I also assumed that feminism tried to break down and demolish stereotypes about women, especially concerning the color pink as the quintessential feminine color. I am not sure if this was just added for emphasis of the marble, as pink was used more as a “highlight color” against the white marble, if it was to actually play off of the pink stereotype, or if the designers believed that pink is a color of strength for women, even though it is in a stereotype.
After that, the paintings and artworks themselves made me think about some general assumptions I had about art and feminism. I have always assumed that while women have had some artistic tendencies, there were not very many female painters and artists before, say, the late 1800’s. In fact, this assumption was basically thrown away when I saw the first painting in the National Museum of Women and the Arts. Mary Beale’s Portrait of a Woman with a Black Hood was actually painted circa 1660. That is about 240 years before my assumption. Also, in that particular museum, there were many portraits, which caught me off guard. I had assumed that portraits were mostly painted by men, just because that had been the representation I had seen in other museums (such as the National Gallery of Art). This museum seemed very feminist because every last piece of art was created by women. Many of the subjects of the paintings and sculptures also happened to be women, which would further the idea of feminist art: art by women and about women (for the most part).
The National Museum of the American Indian also broke some assumptions I had about feminist art, and art in general. Most of the art museums I have seen (which are mainly Smithsonian museums) have had basic architecture. There were a lot of right angles and straight lines with regards to the structure of the building, and because of this, I assumed that all art museums were designed this way. The National Museum of the American Indian, however, was constructed of anything but straight lines. The building itself was very curved, similar to the architecture of Gaudí, which caught me off guard. In this respect, though, I believe that the building evokes more of an artistic feel than most art buildings. Just looking at the building is thought-provoking, just like the pieces of art found inside. The art inside the museum itself was also thought-provoking. There were many pieces of art based on religious or tribal beliefs, such as the creation story and the story of “How the Raven Stole the Sun.” The creation story, in particular, sparked my interest. Most of the art in the museum was more in the “craft” section, but the art about the creation story was a painting. The crafts in the museum, made primarily of glass beads, were very very precise, so I assumed that the Indian art was always so precise. But in the painting of the creation story, it seemed as though it was finger-painted. The idea seemed to be centered around not being precise, not having straight lines, since nature in itself flows very naturally, and straight lines are not natural. The only time straight lines were incorporated into the museum were in the “Our Universe” exhibit, in which there were photographs of modern-day Indians. The museum, while not overly-feminist, had a feminist feel to some of it, as most of the crafts were probably created by the women. That was probably their job, as the men of the tribes were the ones to go out on the hunts. The women stayed home to gather and forage for food, (which was compatible with child-bearing in a way hunting was not) and when the foraging was done, they could use the available artifacts to create these crafts.
The Hirshorn Museum was the most complicated for me to understand. I am not a huge fan of modern art, and it seemed as though modern art was the focus of the museum. Willem de Kooning’s Woman series actually raised issues about feminism and about art in itself. Chronologically, his series seemed to go backwards: the first few were nice portraits of women, not very stereotypical, but as time went on and his series became larger, the artwork seemed to become more “modern”: the shapes became less defined, and there is more emphasis on color and “feeling” the artwork. Since this is a progressive series, there really isn’t a point in which anyone could definitively say “this is where art stops.” The first few were classified under my conception of art. But I did not think the last few were initially classified under my definition of art. This series shook up my assumptions, as I could not specifically define the “line” where art stopped.
This museum seemed to have some feminist paintings in it: there was one where a woman was driving a car and the man was riding as a passenger, as well as a painting of a woman moaning, with a picture of a woman painted on the bedstand. These paintings seem to give women “power,” which is one of the things that feminism values.
The National Gallery of Art was most disappointing. While about 30 or 40% of the subjects painted were women, there weren’t really any paintings that I could find that could either be defined as “feminist” or were even painted by women. One thing that bothered me was that many of the sculptures found in the museum were of nude women, sculpted by men. I could not find a single sculpture of a clothed woman, even though there were busts and clothed sculptures of men. This does not seem feminist, because it seems to depict women as only objects of art, instead of inspiration for art.
In conclusion, there were many assumptions about art, feminism and feminist art that were contested by looking at these four museums.