I appreciate a well thought critique of my work, but I am also too sensitive about my work. I once had a professional photographer and educator critique my portfolio at a conference I attended in New Orleans. She really liked the technical aspects of my work, but felt the symbolism of showing the bottom of the model’s feet illustrated my misogyny. I also project my sensitivity, or over empathize, however you want to say it. If I really like or respect someone’s work, I get angry to hear it criticized; this reaction doesn’t even make sense to me as I type it, but that is how I am.
I also have a bit of a chip on my shoulder about the line drawn in the sand between art and pornography (this is a subject for another post). As a junior in college, my employer threatened me with termination, because of my photography. I was accused of running a “porn ring.” The whole idea was ridiculous and a little humorous at the time. I still tell people about it, as if I think it is a funny story, but truly it just makes me angry and upset. Two years later, police confiscated several boxes of my negatives; same reasoning, but they were returned (some damaged).
The Mexican government used nude images of Tina Modotti to demonstrate her lack of character. I used an image of her (probably one of the same ones used by the Mexican government) in an attempt to evoke some of the power and iconography associated with her, unfortunately it was interpreted pretty much like the bottom of my model’s feet.
Wikipedia has a fairly good entry about Tina Modotti, and I recommend it as an introductory reading if nothing else. Unfortunately, it seems to suffer from the same problem as most biographical work about her. Her artwork has at times been considered secondary to her love life. Modotti is claimed to have said, “men” was her profession, and perhaps her art is more her influence than pieces with her name on them. However, I am going to focus on pieces accredited to her.
Some of the earliest examples I could find of her work show a very graphically oriented sensibility, but not always the best design (this is my opinion, I’m not an art critic). There are also some pieces from 1925 that are so strongly influenced by Weston, that they could be his with worse exposure or printing.
The work of hers I found from 1926 and 1927 has a much more heavy handed and graphical style. She also begins to incorporate journalistic or documentary style images of the working class and symbols of the working class.
This image of Julio Antonio Mella’s typewriter is dated 1928, the year prior to Mella being assassinated. Mella was considered a Cuban revolutionary; in Mexico he tried to organize an overthrow of Cuba’s General Machado (Mella was a Marxist who had visited the Soviet Union as a delegate for the International Red Union in 1927). He was killed while walking at night with Modotti. Initially, the Mexican government accused Modotti of his murder, and this is when they published nude photos of her taken by Edward Weston in order to create a negative public opinion. Diego Rivera is attributed with part of the credit for her defense and publicizing the Mexican government’s attempt at framing Modotti.
By 1929 she has put the elements together, and there are some beautiful pieces that represent life for the average person with such anonymity that they speak to everyone. Her political views still dominate her symbolism, but her imagery is strong enough to carry the pieces.
This photo of Rivera and Frida was taken that same year at the May Day March.
All the information I could find indicates these images are all still the property of the estate of Tina Modotti. If this information is inaccurate or if there are any other corrections anyone is aware of please let me know.
I still think having your work confiscated is the mark of someone that is truly pushing the boundaries of their society… and that’s always been a huge part of what art is to me. It should make me think and feel conflicted…. if it’s just happy babies dressed up like sunflowers…. well…. that’s another discussion…
Back to my point…. I think having your art confiscated by the police puts you in a league with some of my favorite artists (and yours too). Its just cool and hardcore.
stick with the League of Favorite Artists. It is the only way to beat back the Legion of Doom.
I really like some of the pictures here, makes me want to fix my camera, which I broke…again.
Your response to critics makes sense to me, maybe thats just the way I am too.
It surprises me that you are so sensitive about your work, mainly because you have strong verbal and writing skills; most artists I’ve seen that get defensive about “what they mean” have a limited ability to actually express what it is they are trying to “say.” I’ve always thought you could really discuss, and defend, your art.
I’ve always thought about art as a shotgun; the artist aims for a target (well, sometimes), and hopefully comes close to it. But there’s spray all over the place, and it might “hit” something that comes close to pornography, or a celebration of violence, or kitsch, or whatever.
That being said, if you’re getting repeated questions or concerns about how people perceive your work, perhaps it needs to be re-evaluated. I’m thinking of it in terms of Project Runway. If you’re an Austin Scarlett, you know what you’re doing, so forget what other people say. But if you’re like, a Wendy, and someone keeps telling you, you’re missing the point here, or you keep getting the same feedback, perhaps a re-evaluation is in order.
It’s the job of the artist (or, ideally, a supportive critic) to say, Here is what the target was, and assess whether it was hit. I think Madonna would NOT be considered a feminist icon today without the efforts of writers like Camille Paglia, who argue that she is announcing and controlling her sexuality, and not simply being grist for the male self-gratification mill.
Likewise, if you have a strong idea & you think you’ve hit it, argue for it. I got flak for using too much negative space in something I did recently, but I WANT MORE negative space in my work (my New Year’s Resolutions are ridiculous). I argued with the two people who said, this sucks, and just stuck to my guns. They didn’t like it, but I hit the target I was aiming for, and could say–this is influenced by the work of Jeff Kleinsmith, who is a whiz at negative space, and I wanted to do a little thing for him. So I was fine with it.
It makes me giggle that you mentioned Project Runway….
Wah and I…. ok, mainly just me, spent ALL day Sunday on the couch watching the Project Runway marathon…. before this weekend I never saw a single show…. I’ve now seen them all…. except, of course the two hour finale tonight, which I will miss…. Anybody recording it?
DUDE. I am NOT MISSING IT. It is my FAVORITE SHOW!! Isn’t it ridiculous that I am using it to define my conceptions of art? But I really like it!
I’m pulling for Jay.
So, I’m intrigued by at least one part of what gorjus has to say here. It is the paragraph about Madonna and Paglia. About the role of the critic. It seems, and I’m not arguing against it, that a critic can create an artist, even out of nothingness. Certainly it easier to make an artist out of something that resembles or attempts to be an artists. But based on this conception that isn’t even remotely an necessity.
I’m all for finding art in new places but I just wonder how far the concept can stretch. If, with a series of decent argument and a decent amount of sticking to one’s guns, we can, via a shotgun method, convince at least a few people that something is art, and therefore that the creator is an artist, then where is the limit? And what do we say about a piece of art without an artist? Found art is cool but isn’t it generally the person finding and therefore placing the object in the role of art that makes it a piece of art?
So, is it Madonna that is the artist or Paglia? Certainly Madonna did the work but if she wouldn’t have been recognized as an artist without Paglia (and perhaps didn’t think of her work in terms of high art) then isn’t it really Paglia, the critic, who is the artist?
Do I have a point? If I do it must be “Be your own critic.”
Yes, if one has the ability. If one–through an artist statement, interviews, or otherwise–can pre-define, or contemporaneously define, one’s art–then you “win.”
In the case of Madonna, I think maybe she pulled the trigger and then La Paglia showed up with a Sharpie & drew a circle around the pattern and said, wallah!! Within is art.
I’m a little late to the comments, but that Hands of the Puppeteer is great!! I also like the Staircase. I love the softness of the image of hard angles. And Diego Rivera!! I knew he looked like a toad, but geeeeZz!
Lastly, I abhore and denounce Camille Paglia as an enemy of women and feminism. Don’t ask. The grudge is old-tyme, dating back to the post-modern era . . . nor does it have anything to do with Madonna’s role in Paglia’s arguments.