In chapter three, Out of the House, the Halo, and the Whore’s Mask: The Mirror of Malinchismo, what stood out initially to me was Table 1. The Quantitative Analysis of the CARA Exhibition by Gender. After analyzing the table, out of 184 pieces of artwork displayed 140 of those were created by males and the remaining 44 by females. The males dominated the exhibition by having 52% more pieces of artwork. Additionally, there was one section entitled Feminist Visions which had a 0/14 ratio of male to females. If this section was not included in the CARA exhibition the males would have dominated the exhibition by containing 62%,(140/30), more art pieces than women. These numbers glorify the inequality among female artists and is proof of male dominance with-in art exhibitions. Also, the fact that there was no male artist in the Feminist Visions sections also points out that men refuse to produce work that reflects women ideologies and beliefs. This points out that men do not want to be associated with women and furthermore located in a different section of the exhibition. In addition to that the location of the Feminist Vision section is second to last so it is not viewed as an important section almost like they just stuck the section at the end just so there would be no controversy, but that wasn’t the case. In my opinion the CARA exhibit could have at least put it last… by saving the best for last.
One question I had about this paper, or rather clarification was about the ‘A Trip to the Men’s Rooms’ section where is talks about the group installations of the RCAF, ASCO, and Los Four. My question is how does their reification epitomize the male privilege underscoring the entire exhibition?
No comments:
Post a Comment