Monday, September 29, 2008

Asian women Artists Berkeley symposium

I’m writing about the Asian Women Artists and Gender Dynamics symposium from a few weeks ago...

This is a photograph (courtesy of wikipedia) of a bojagi, or a Korean patchwork wrapping cloth usually made by women in the Choson Dynasty.

I learned that most art-historians categorize the Choson Dynasty of Korea (1392-1910) to be a period of art “dominated by men,” because there were only 7 artists in the span of 400 hundred years that were women. Another panelist, Charlotte Horlyck, argued that this “lack” of female artists is due to the fact that art historians' categorizations of art are sexist and do not count the only kinds of cultural production that women had access to, like weaving and embroidery. Since painting and calligraphy are the only forms considered by historians as “art,” and painting and calligraphy were only available to men, it makes sense that all “artists” at this time were men. Women were, however, taking part in other forms of cultural production, specifically sewing, needlework, and weaving. All of which are categorically excluded from definitions of “art” and even “crafts.”

Another misogynistic art-historian construction of this time period, according to Horlyck, is the “silent sufferer,” the oppressed weaving woman. Such women were said to have made their quilts out of discarded clothing, their handicrafts expressing their “sorrow and frustration” with their lives. Horlyck argues that this too furthers the “paradigm of proper female behavior.” In actuality, women chose the fabrics they used deliberately, not just from scraps, and their fabrics were made up of bold patterns (like the bojagi wrapping cloth pictured). In addition, many women worked in groups and used the time to bond and socialize. Thus the women of the Choson dynasty were not just passive agents, but subjects who created art in deliberate, thoughtful ways.

Anyway. I just thought all of that was really cool. It made me think about what is considered/valued as Art and what isn’t and then whose work these definitions excludes.

1 comment:

dvisser said...

Weyam,
Thanks for providing such a thorough background and analysis of the questions at issue in this conference --these tired definitions of Art that have pervaded art historical discourse--and the more progressive questioning of those most basic assumptions. The piece you attached is beautiful - I would like to see it close-up to get a better sense of the fabrics and stitching patterns. - Great job.
dv