What makes presenting feminist causes different from others is that many times, people have a lot of exposure to the misinformation surrounding feminism, but rarely know any of the truths. There are also many conflicting feminist perspectives, so one must be more deliberate in explaining which position they advocate.
The Zentz piece had me slightly confused - the 'skip-it' was a toy designed for both boys and girls, so I'm forced to wonder if the toy had any significance relevant to the exhibit or her (supposedly) repressed youth.
It seems as if Polashenki's piece reinforced the unapolagetic 'equality and equality now' mantra of women's liberation second-wave feminism. The near-comatose positioning of the figure on the couch seems to say "Women are in such dire need of an immediate shift. Where we are now is quite literally killing us."
Miller's piece works on a different level. Miller takes the sexuality that has been imposed on her, and turns it back against the viewer. In a very third-wave feminist fashion, Miller wields her sexuality as if it were some sort of tool. By taking ownership of the societal female sexual standards and perversions that existed long before her, Miller manages to assert her control over them.
It's no accident that links can be seen between the two strongest pieces in the exhibit and two popular feminist movements. Great art comes from compelling ideas. The suffragettes didn't simply want the vote, they absolutely needed to have it. And as Einstein said, "True art is characterized by an irresistible urge in the artist."
It's a shame that in so many cases art can be so separate from vision. The (over)development of natural beauty like this deserves to be examined in more ways than simply from an objective standpoint. We could very well be witnessing the end of purely organic aesthetics.
© 2013 The L Magazine
Website powered by Foundation