Main content
Course: Tate > Unit 3
Lesson 4: Women's Issues in Art- Margaret Harrison: Feminism, irony, and women's rights
- The Folkestone Mermaid and the model figure
- Lily van der Stokker's "non-shouting feminism"
- Barbara Hammer: Pushing the boundaries of cinema and the body
- Keren Cytter: Radical gender reversals and theatrical performance
- Key Points
© 2024 Khan AcademyTerms of usePrivacy PolicyCookie Notice
Key Points
In this series of videos, we've met artists who use their work as a platform for thinking about big issues—not just those that are unique to them as women and artists, but about gender, sexuality, equality, and political rights, too.
Margaret Harrison and Barbara Hammer create art that challenges the traditional limitations of art as well as its viewers. Can art be shocking and meaningful at the same time? Do you think a shock factor is necessary to speak honestly about certain issues?
Cornelia Parker's Folkestone Mermaid, on the other hand, uses a local woman as the model for a sculpture that elevates a typical figure to the status of great art. Is she defying the notion that only idealised female bodies have a place in art, or perhaps encouraging us to see the everyday as something more heroic?
And merging feminism, conceptual art and pop art, Lily van der Stokker bring simple lines and bright colours into the gallery. Are her drawings really so childish and naïve? Or do you think that artists like Stokker bring these quiet, domestic elements into the gallery to make a statement about what belongs there?
Want to join the conversation?
Is she defying the notion that only idealized female bodies have a place in art, or perhaps encouraging us to see the everyday as something more heroic?
I imagine that the artist Cornelia Parker was seeking to show us the beauty in every day women and life. The statues and the women that we think of as "ideal" are only that way because that is what we have been marketing for quite some time now. If we were to "advertise" repeatedly that "big and beautiful" were "in" then I believe over time you would see art reflect that? Or it could be that art in fact serves as the first and earliest form of "advertisement" that people then interpret and digest and if they see it enough then certain "ideals" or "body types" can be seen as desirable that run contrary to the stereotypical contemporary 21st century image of "ideal."(5 votes)
Botero has proven of that fat woman can be in art too, so I don´t think that she is defying the idealized females body neither watching it like something heroic, but trying to accept and familiarize better with something as normal and taboo such the women body.(3 votes)
- Can art be shocking and meaningful at the same time? Do you think a shock factor is necessary to speak honestly about certain issues?bold
Sometimes it is necessary a big shoot of crudeness to make people feel sympathy for issues that they do not realize. Maybe the shock factor is not the nicest way to speak honesty but it is the most effective way to wake awareness and sympathy.(3 votes)
Present day April 2, 2016, the shock factor has become very overwhelming in all forms all over the world. I rather approach art with the WOW factor as a way for a person to escape into a kinder fantasy/reality and it still having an emotional pull on a person's awareness, empathy, love, sadness, beauty etc.(1 vote)
Shock factor is necessary to get through human's crust. As a matter of fact, people said that the truth is painful or can be. Following this state, being honest equals being a kind of brute.(1 vote)- Shock should be handled with care. It is true that it is hard to break through human's blindness or indifference, but I believe that many artists overdo it. It is just too easy to shock. As easy as to keep on adding tonns of chili to your dishes, so that the one who tastes them doesn't feel anything else but burnng. Is it memorable? Yes. Is it good cooking? Perhaps, not really.(4 votes)
I think that art can be meaningful and/or shocking depending on how one looks at it. A "shock factor" is not necessary to speak honestly about certain issues. However, there may not even be a "shock factor" in a piece of art if the viewer does not see it as shocking. It could speak to the viewer without it having a bold impact on the viewer. One viewer could comfortably look at a piece of art and approach the subject matter with an open and curious mind. Another viewer could be close-minded and look at the same art work, take it at face value, and react to it with shock, horror, confusion, and/or disgust.
My initial interpretation of Cornelia Parker's work was that she was encouraging us to see the everyday as something to appreciate and not take for granted. I also think that at the same time her work challenges societal beauty standards. Societal beauty standards tend to change over time and are often reflected in art. Parker's work seems to silently make a statement about such things.
I think that Stokker is imaginative with her work. Like Parker, she expresses appreciation for the everyday. She sometimes makes everyday life larger than life, as though to literally let viewers take a closer look at her art and life. Perhaps her art work can inspire us to slow down and live in the moment. Maybe her work whispers words of wisdom to whoever sees it.(1 vote)- Re marginalisation. Has anyone mentioned lack of easy birth control in the past?(1 vote)
- I think that the shock factor of art is what really catches people's attention. Art like this makes people feel emotions, it makes them feel uncomfortable, thus really sending a strong message and hopefully allowing us to rethink and contemplate ceratain subjects.(1 vote)