This week we will be focusing on how the work of artist and filmmaker Lynn Hershman Leeson helps us explore several themes in our Dialogues on Feminism and Technology course. I've uploaded the first of two PowerPoints to our TED course management site; it introduces ten central ideas in contemporary feminist thinking.
- Indirect rhetorics
- Questioning binaries
- Collective production
- Anonymity/Pseudonymity
- Recovered histories
- Skepticism about claims to neutrality or objectivity
- "The personal is political."
- Role playing
- Consciousness raising
- Intersectionality
We'll be watching two films that Hershman Leeson produced: ! Women Art Revolution and Teknolust. !W.A.R. covers a number of important feminist artists of the 70s and 80s and makes an implicit argument that feminist artists of today with blockbuster solo shows -- such as Cindy Sherman, Jenny Holzer, and Barbara Kruger -- owe much of their success to work done by often lesser known predecessors. (Kruger and Holzer have done work for the Stuart Collection here on campus.) The film also shows younger artists like Miranda July and Camille Utterback paying tribute to women of an earlier generation.
There are a lot of artists discussed in !W.A.R., so we made a conscious decision to focus on only four of them: Lynn Hershman Leeson, Faith Wilding, Judy Chicago, and Ana Mendieta. The PowerPoint slides about their work include more information from ArtStor, a digital library of artworks that UCSD licenses for use by students and faculty.
As a co-founder of the collective subRosa, Wilding is a major figure in cyberfeminism. Cyberfeminism is an important topic in many FemTechNet courses, and many cyberfeminists were inspired by Haraway's Cyborg Manifesto, although cyberfeminism has many sources. Check out the work of another cyberfeminist collective, VNS Matrix from Australia, if you want to learn more, or read the book Cyberfeminism 2.0, which is co-edited by another FemTechNet scholar on our reading list, Radhika Gajjala.
Cyberfeminist ideas are also useful for approaching the film Teknolust. The success of Spike Jonze's movie her has inspired many people to look back at Hershman Leeson's earlier film, which stars Tilda Swinton as a lonely scientist and the three sexually alluring cyborgs that she creates. To delve deeper in this story, you might also want to visit the website for the Agent Ruby's Edream Portal, an artificial intelligence simulator that is part of a long history of female chatbots going back to Joseph Weizenbaum's ELIZA program.
You might find it interesting that the three colors that play a major role in defining the production design of the film -- red, green, and blue -- are also the colors that define pixels on a computer screen. Computer graphics are an obvious motif to follow in the film; notice when the audience's attention is directed to a screen within the frame of the film. It is worth noting that women played an important role in the history of the field of computer graphics, as this recent retrospective demonstrates.
We'll be paying attention to five sites of people interacting with technology in the film: the laboratory, the clinic, the futuristic living quarters of the "SRA" cyborgs, the home office of protagonist Dr. Rosetta Stone, and the copy shop that plays a role in the story. This is a way to start thinking about human-computer interaction, as we move to discussing "the right tools for the job" in Week Three.
I have not seen "Her" or "Teknolust" but I would like to point out that technologies are typically regarded in the media as feminine objects. In "Her" the computer that the main character develops romantic feelings for is regarded as female, it has a feminine voice. In the children's animated TV series "Dexter's Lab" (1996-2003) there is also a computer with a feminine voice, and Dexter refers to his computer as "my love" or "my dear". Even Apple’s Siri, an electronic personal assistant, has a female voice. (However, you can change it from the default of female to male if you can find it in the settings.) very GPS i have used has had female voice as the default setting. I cannot think of any representations in film or television of computers or other new tech gendered as male objects. Computers and other forms of technology are regarded in the media as accessories or companions or personal assistants to males, as females have been for so long secretaries and personal assistants to men. I find it similar to the way cars or boats are regarded as feminine objects, the newest ipad or other tech are accessories to be shown off like a trophy wife, and then tossed aside when the newer model comes along. In my opinion, this attitude reflects the traditional patriarchal structures of our society.
ReplyDeleteInteresting comment! Thanks for getting discussion on this subject off to a good start. I like the range of examples that you cite and the questions that you raise about why consumer electronics become coded as feminine.
ReplyDeleteIn the patriarchal society, women always represent the desire and emotion, attract the attention of the public use of female images, induce mass consumption, popular culture has become almost every producer common choice. This kind of phenomenon is essentially for commercial use and the commercial exploitation of the female, female images become the effective tool for profit of popular culture.
ReplyDeleteMass culture of film marking of the manipulator using the "female independency" image to emphasized the idea of feminism. Nowadays, women still make more female consumers fall into their trap preset. Mass media will attract women as consumption goals, constantly sell the idea of "live the way you want to live the best" to target the female consumers. Under the condition of market economy, mass culture of practitioners is literacy, and merchants, the pursuit of profit is the ultimate goal of their business. Long-term business practices that they found the most popular products which can bring profits always is closely connected with the public desires.
I found the "Anonymity/Pseudonymity" portion of the class particularly
ReplyDeleteinteresting this week. When we were discussing the Guerrilla Girls I thought
it was interesting that they had chosen to cover their faces with masks to
hide their identities. From the quotes we had looked at in class, “I would
venture to guess than Anon, who wrote so many poems without signing them,
was often a woman.” – Virginia Woolf & “A woman writes in white ink” -
Hélène Cixous, I got the impression that the anonymity of women was
something that should be worked against. Is it that being this anonymous
figure, or being a type of cyborg with the mask, that makes this form of
activism more effective than if the women were to remove their mask? Is it that becoming this sort of pseudo-cyborg is allowing them to traverse
binaries in activism that would have otherwise kept them from sharing
their message? I also found this really interesting because of how their are examples of women in activism being both public and anonymous with their work. Elanor Roosevelt for instance was very public about her support of equality during the civil rights movement, and I feel like a large part of her influence came from her being such a public figure. On the other hand, a more contemporary example of women feminists wearing masks to share their message but still having a big impact is the band Pussy Riot; the Russian group wears masks while they put on guerrilla performances in public places which are later edited and uploaded to the internet. All in all, I want to know how wearing masks gives/takes power away from the message being delivered, and how that relates to the anonymity/pseudonymity feminism.
Sorry about the format, I started typing this in an e-mail then transferred it.
DeletePussy Riot is a great example of contemporary mask-wearing/anonymity. One way that wearing the mask was effective for the Guerrilla Girls is that the members could protest and advocate for women's inclusion in the artworld using a pseudonym and mask, while still showing their work under their real name, without the repercussion of always having their artwork interpreted through their activist message.
DeleteReally interesting point about how masks function in the protests/performances of Pussy Riot.
ReplyDeleteI briefly commented about the "The personal is political" concept during class, but I'd like to elaborate it more because I feel like this quote really hits home for me. Overall, this is a concept/quote that can be interpreted and be given meaning to differently and and personal level. In fact, I feel that this concept serves as the basis for the rest of the 9 ideas of feminist thinking, but especially with intersectionality. I believe that all of our identities (i.e. race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic class, sexuality, citizenship status etc.) shape who we are as individuals and our positionality (in terms of power) in our communities and the society as a whole. The way we live our lives, the language that we use, the way we think, and the way we perceive the world all affect our lived experiences, especially as women, and those who are women of color. As a personal example, as an Asian American, low-middle class, woman, much of society and the mass media have this conception that I would be quiet, submissive, and soft-spoken.. For one, I am the total opposite, but two, my personal identities come together to affect the struggle of power dynamics of representation (in social institutions such as the media, education, government etc) and my life chances.
ReplyDeleteThis is a wonderful formulation of the complexity of identity through the 'personal is political' concept.
DeleteI think that the most important thing to me when it comes to “Feminism 101” is consciousness raising. As a Resident Assistant and Orientation Leader I come across a lot of social justice issues, feminism included, and I think that the most important thing when it comes to these issues is making people more aware of their surroundings. Everyone lives in a bubble, from high school to college to real life, no matter how far in life you have progressed, we move into different bubbles. I think when people say comments that are discriminatory to women, I have learned that we should not attack them for their comments, but educate them. Due to the bubbles that we live in, there is a lot of information that we do not experience, and some people who say hurtful comments just do not understand. We have to make them more conscious of the words and actions they are putting forth into the world. Everyone comes from a different background and we have to make an attempt to try to understand each other, to know where the other person is coming from. It is all about perspective and being open to learning moments.
ReplyDeleteIn my perspective, the personal being political means that our wants and needs are translated into the laws that are passed. The government cannot exist without the consent of the people, and the people cannot exist without the laws of the government. I think politics is a very personal matter because it is something that has an impact on the way you live. That is why we have elections, to vote in a person who is most representative of our personal beliefs who can be our voice in government.
I think doing things collectively is better than doing things as an individual. Collective action pulls greater weight when pursuing change in a society. An individual only has so much power, but if you get others behind you with the same vision, then your power grows ten-fold. As part of a collective action, you share your experiences with each other and create moments. In these moments you realize that your struggles are legitimate and that the cause you are fighting for is worth it. As an individual there is room for self-doubt, but collectively you have a community of people behind you.
Recovering histories of forgotten women is a step in the right direction for gender equality and women appreciation. Even though women have made tremendous strides over hundred years, a discourse still exists where women are seen and treated as the inferior gender. A comment was made towards California US Senator Dianne Feinstein about her stance against the CIA and how she was too emotional to think objectively. This comment was made by a man, and it connotes that women are inferior. If it was a man standing up against the CIA, the word emotional would probably not come up. Recovering the histories of women show that they have accomplished so much more than people actually think and that they deserve the credit, where credit is due.
There will be many opportunities in our class to act on collective work. You may enjoy the FemTechNet videos online as they are very much about consciousness raising.
DeleteTonight I was catching up on old episodes of one of my favorite TV shows, “Mad Men.” And I realized that the idea of "the personal is political" is at play throughout the show when it comes to its women characters. This Washington Post article titled, "Why 'Mad Men' is TV's Most Feminist Show" further illustrates my point: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/08/AR2010100802662.html?sid=ST2010101103521
ReplyDeleteIn the episode I watched tonight, Peggy (played by Elisabeth Moss) asks a black female secretary, “Do you think I act like a man?” to which the woman replies, “I think you have to, a little.” It is not entirely clear as to why Peggy asks this -- whether she was worried she had been acting masculine or had been hoping someone would admire and acknowledge her masculine traits. Nowadays, Peggy’s aspirations and go-getter attitude would not immediately make people think of her as acting like a man, but back then, she was a rare case! Peggy seems to often perform herself in a way that was considered masculine in the '60s, because she wanted to climb up the ladder of success and her male bosses were the only figures she really had to emulate. The show regularly depicts its male characters as liars, cheaters, and sexual harassers. While the women on the show are not always depicted as angelic, what Mad Men does well is give its female characters a voice. The Washington Post article even states that: “If anything, ‘Mad Men’ sometimes gives its female characters more decisiveness and self-confidence than most women would have been able to muster in 1965.” It’s important to point out, as the writer claims, that the writers of “Mad Men” are not sexist, the time period was. For women like Peggy and Joan (played by Christina Hendricks), “the personal is political,” because these are the issues that they struggle with every day. Whether it’s getting sexually harassed at work, having difficulty obtaining birth control pills, or fighting for equal pay, the female characters on “Mad Men” get worked up about the injustices they face, and then they almost always do something about it. This is an especially interesting time period to watch, since it takes place in the decade before the feminist revolution of the 1970s really took off. "Mad Men" is all about people in positions of power and how they choose to handle that power, whether they're male or female. I can’t wait to continue watching episodes of this fantastic show and hopefully apply even more ideas of contemporary feminist thinking to what I watch.
Many of the artworks shown in Professor Losh's lecture were intriguing to view as an oppositional tactic of feminism. I don't know much about art, but it's eye-opening to see how much purposeful (and even perhaps unintentional) meaning is put behind these works of art. For example, Judy Chicago's "The Dinner Party was an exhibition to symbolize what was considered traditional craftsmanship--commonly produced by women throughout history--as "art" compared to a "craft". Professor Losh mentioned that historically female-produced crafts such as weaving and ceramics were devalued because they were not considered as actual "art". This shed light on the male-dominated "fine arts" that are more culturally-valued and socially constructed as a norm. This led me to think: what exactly qualifies as art? When I see particular modern exhibits, I often think to myself that these works of art can be done by unartistic and talentless "artists". Even I, who have no artistic capability, think I can easily dip a bunch of paintbrushes in different colored paints, splash it on a canvas, and call it "art". Surely, the sharp detail of a woman's fine embroidery can/should be considered "art"... but it highlights this culturally-embedded notion that these women's artistic achievements were not recognized. Judy Chicago's work brought awareness to these ideas, and proposed them in a very bold way, including the representation of a woman's genitalia in much of the work. I actually did not notice this until Professor Cartwright mentioned it and found it interesting upon discussion how feminists had opposing views about this as celebratory and defamatory to feminist discussion. I wouldn't know what real effects these artworks had to the overall feminist progression, but I definitely believe Judy Chicago's work did more good than harm.
ReplyDeleteI wanted to touch on two of the “Feminism 101” points that Professor Losh brought up in lecture today that are most important to me. I find it interesting to connect these central ideas of contemporary feminist thinking both globally as well as personally to my own life and experiences
ReplyDeleteStarting with “recovering histories of forgotten women”, I was really impressed by the work that Lynn Hershman Leesen did to create “W.A.R” to uncover the histories of pioneering women in the art world. As explained in class, the success of many artists today such as Cindy Serman and Barbara Kruger would not be possible today without the previous works of women artists in the 70’s and 80’s. It is important to uncover the histories of these forgotten artists to establish credit where credit is due as well as change the way we understand the world around us.
Similar to the work that Lynn Hershman did for women artists in the U.S during the 1970’s and 1980’s, another women activist, Jane Fortune, is uncovering clues from the past and restoring the histories and works of radical women from the Renaissance in Italy. I stumbled upon her book Invisible Women which “provides the history of female artists in Florence and their hundreds of works in the city’s museums” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Women) Published in 2009, this book was then turned in to a documentary which aired in 2012. I am really interested in watching this 5 part series but cannot find a way to access it. You can view a preview at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xql-OJlMBeY&feature=youtu.be. Just as “W.A.R” uncovers pioneering women of the America, “Invisible Women: Forgotten artists of Florence” uncovers the unique histories of Florence’s forgotten women artists.
It is amazing to see the dedication of women around the globe that are working to reclaim the past and celebrate the future. If you have more interest in finding out about Jane’s historical restoration the other projects that are contributing to this cause, the Advancing Women’s Artists Foundation provides great insight (http://www.advancingwomenartists.org/index.php).
Without going into too much detail,I would like to switch topics and end with a personal connection to the central idea of “questioning binaries”. I am familiar with the traditional male/female, human/machine and science/art binaries that are important to challenge in feminist thinking and this got me thinking about binaries that may be challenged in my everyday life. A main organization that I and thousands of other associate with is a sorority and greek life so i researched some information on sororities and feminism (not knowing much). It came to my attention that a certain dualism arises with being a feminist and being in a sorority and it is usually contradicting to be associated with both. A blog post I read by Alanna Vagianos called “Being a Feminist in a sorority: Can you really do it?” sparked my interest in the feminist/sorority girl binary that I feel many girls have to overcome or acknowledge where they stand. Her post can be read at: http://shriverreport.org/being-a-feminist-in-a-sorority-can-you-really-do-it/. Alanna does a great job of explaining her personal experience in this situation and I am wondering what other people’s interpretation or experience of this binary is.
What I found most interesting this week dealt with issues of pseudonymity and the importance of collective work. Thinking about this at first, I just didn’t understand why many of the feminists we discussed were keen on using pseudonyms as well as working in groups of women. Searching to understand more, I came across the following blog: http://disabledfeminists.com/2010/04/14/on-refusing-to-tell-you-my-name/. The author of this blog had a mental illness that she would often discuss, among other things, under a pseudonym. Someone, unfortunately, ousted her real identity, and which risked her work life reputation being smeared. While I do understand the use of pseudonyms online, as I understand the concept of the online world being a place where identities live beyond the body, I believe that using pseudonyms in daily life is a not as benefitting overall. I do understand the ideas of protecting identity and family and the personal self, but I also believe that women should move towards claiming themselves and their identity in public, rather than “hide” under a fabricated identity. I also found interesting a statement Professor Losh made regarding how Judy Chicago was received by many of her colleagues, something along the lines of how Chicago was criticized for claiming work for herself and overall striving to be individualistic in her work more so than being collective (although I acknowledge that I could have remembered/interpreted Professor Losh’s statement incorrectly). I respect the choices of feminists that have chosen to remain anonymous or use pseudonyms, or choose to work largely in groups, but I think a large step required to move forward is to claim an individual’s identity in public. I would love to hear other viewpoints and arguments as to the power of working in a collective and pseudonymity.
ReplyDelete