4

Feminine painting: Abstractions about an abstract concept?

Written By Susannah Darrow on February 23, 2010 in Reviews

Melanie Parke, Between Midnight and Noon. Oil on canvas, 60 x 72 inches. Photo courtesy of Emily Amy Gallery.

Melanie Parke, Between Midnight and Noon. Oil on canvas, 60 x 72 inches. Photo courtesy of Emily Amy Gallery.

Emily Amy Gallery’s current exhibition, The Feminine in Abstract Painting, provides a look at four drastically different female artists working within the realm of abstract painting. With an exhibit like this one, the premise of femininity automatically triggers associations with the history of women artists, as well as comparisons to the predominantly masculine history of abstract painting.

Second generation Abstract Expressionist Cora Cohen commences the show with paintings composed of clay tones and occasional pops of neon color. Cohen’s work draws immediate connection to the likes of Franz Kline and Willem de Kooning, but the intimacy of her paintings, which are sometimes as small as 9×12 inches, distinguishes them from the massive size of her predecessors’. While the works on their own do not evoke a particularly feminine sensibility, their pairing with the show’s title makes it difficult not to draw certain connections. Since Cohen’s work introduces the show, it provides an interesting jumping off point for the rest of the exhibit.

Artists Melanie Parke and Margie Stewart are the girlie girls of the exhibit. Parke uses punchy colors throughout her works that give them a lighthearted and flirty aesthetic. Margie Stewart is undoubtedly the most feminine of the bunch. Her abstract floral still life paintings use a Cubist technique to divide the picture plane, but her palette is a more traditional and referential one. Neither artist provides new insights into the field of abstraction, but their work nonetheless completes the task of being aesthetically pleasing and fitting the “female” bill.

Kiki Slaughter concludes the exhibition on a pointedly asexual note. Unlike her companions’ paintings, Slaughter’s work does not offer a  “feminine” line quality or pigment color to clue us into her gender. Her work is painting for the sake of painting: Surfaces are built up and worn back down, and the gender of the artist is inconsequential to this process. Since the exhibit concludes on this particular note, it brings to mind New Criticism’s question: How important is peripheral information to works of art? Framing work in the context of a common tie between artists (in this case, femininity) certainly has its place, however I’m not sure these paintings benefit from that strategy.

The Feminine in Abstract Painting is on view at Emily Amy Gallery through Friday, March 19, 2010.


Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks

Category: Reviews |
Tags: , , , , , ,

  • http://www.kombochapfika.com Kombo

    I like that piece shown above, and I’m a dudey dude. Without the headline, I wouldn’t have immediately thought, ‘effeminate.’ Although she doesn’t paint abstracts Audrewy Kawasaki always strikes me as very effeminate, in part because of her subject matter, but it’s also how she goes about presenting and rendering things. At a show I had ages ago a woman I assumed to be lesbian based on how she carried herself and dressed introduced herself and told me she’d though the work was done by a woman. Art-dar is tricky.

  • http://www.kombochapfika.com Kombo

    pardon my spelling & grammar

  • Becky Bivens

    Someone should do a feminine painting show with male artists.

    A question: is it good or bad to call abstract forms feminine? It might reinforce culturally given stereotypes. Like this one:

    A lot of formal stuff that is soft, squishy, or organic gets called feminine. Meaning, stuff that is very bodily gets called feminine. And we all know that women are crazy body mammals. (maybe not the best stereotype…i just made it up)

    Or, maybe it’s good to call things feminine, since the feminine can provide a reprieve from masculine stuff.

    ?

  • Susannah Darrow

    I am not opposed to the idea of somethings being referred to as feminine. My (potential) opposition is more the assumed necessity of having to distinguish artists as female. In some cases I think it can make work more compelling, especially in the case of an artist like Barbara Kruger where that identity is a huge component to the work. In some cases though, I think labels (whether it is feminine, ethnic, self-taught, etc) end up belittling the work. By having the marker it says in the larger context of the global and historical artistic community, it has to be shown in a specific context to be considered worthwhile.

    I’m not saying that this is the case for this exhibition. I just think it’s worth considering on the whole. Emily Amy’s show was more about femininity and female artists. Male artists can certainly create feminine work and male artists can create masculine. Someone like Cindy Sherman I think creates very masculine work in how voyeuristic (stereotypically masculine, in my mind) her Film Stills are.