Angie Reed Garner ([info]angiereedgarner) wrote,
@ 2007-03-07 10:31:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
"Of Woman Born"-- Justine Kurland
Kurland is able to get a Tennessee midwife to pose naked for her photographs, and go on record about it.



Meg Hayden, a midwife in Tennessee who has known Ms. Kurland since an early runaways shoot, said: “It’s not often that you get the chance to be outside and take your clothes off. In some ways it feels natural, but because it’s something you don’t get to do all the time, it is liberating. It is kind of a heightened reality.”

From what I've found, in this series depicts white women and children in natural settings. A utopian fantasy of tribal life.

Her mother lives on a Virginia farm in the Blue Ridge Mountains, near several back-to-the-land communes, and some of the women posing are her mother's friends.

Her process for finding models is fascinating-- she looks for women who respond to the romantic fantasy.



PERSUADING strangers to pose, often without their clothes, has never been a problem for Ms. Kurland. “I can always spot people,” she said. “It’s, like, really one of my superpowers. I can always tell which teenage girls would love living in the woods with their friends.”

Finding mothers was equally easy. “It’s like with teenagers,” she said. “You find one mom, and you get 10.”

She typically spends about three weeks in an area before a shoot, scouting locations and finding the right figures. She usually travels the same route, from New York to the Pacific Northwest and back, so may already have willing collaborators in a location.

If not, “I hang out in health food stores and playgrounds with a box of prints and talk to strangers, try to show them pictures, tell them what it’s about,” she said. “The ones who believe in the vision are the ones who come.”




Text in italics from/images via the NY Times.

As with nearly all the work I select to blog, my first reactions to this work were negative and uncomfortable. These photos got my back up. (There is a fourth photo from this series on the NYT site that I declined to post here because it has juvenile nudity.)

So I got to sit with my hostility to this work, and ponder it.

I think she does a amazing job making these lush utopian tableaus. She thoroughly exposes a certain romantic/essentialist strain of (feminist?) thought about women... these images put me instantly in touch with my own personal and political position vis-a-vis this romantic/essentialist fantasy.

I don't know if I am a fan of this work. I'm grateful I came across it especially during the gender studies.

I am personally unclear if an artist needs to be overtly critical in making works that so illustrate a compelling contemporary fantasy/ideology (and may serve as/collapse into a kind of propaganda for it), or if it is enough to illuminate that fantasy/ideology and let the viewer do the work of critical reception.

The latter presumes a viewer able to do that work of critical reception.

I know I depend on my audience to receive my work critically.



(Post a new comment)


[info]mrs_scarborough
2007-03-07 05:56 pm UTC (link)
I read these as pure fantasy/utopia without the irony, and those kinds of images irk me. The panoramic shots take in the wonder of nature but ignores the gritty/wormy/dirty/hairy side of nature. Images in general that ignore, or supress, this duality don't ring true/believeable/genuine/sincere for me.

And you know I'll want to see the goosebumps all over those people, because damn... some of those places look COLD.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]angiereedgarner
2007-03-07 06:09 pm UTC (link)
My many thanks for stepping up/jumping in.

Kurlan did earlier work intended to show the realities of rural commune life, but these images were intended to try to capture the pure fantasy. I relate to the irk, for me the power of this work is the irk. Irk, irk. Irk irk irk.

I would like to see art illustrating the companion fantasy for men. Or are we looking at that right here, is it the same fantasy?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]mrs_scarborough
2007-03-07 07:29 pm UTC (link)
Consider me irked. Though I would not consider it power. Something that can upset me, seduce me or make me take action is powerful. Something that makes me forget about it due to my inability to relate to it deeply does not have power.

I related to these as much as I would to an airbrushed unicorn dancing on a digital rainbow, minus the irony.

I think it may be the same fantasy for men, though, if they wanted to see themselves, imagine widening the angle on each shot to include a man in the close foreground, facing the picture plane, guarding each scene, maybe with a spear. THAT would be so obvious it would be GOOD and kitschy.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]angiereedgarner, 2007-03-07 08:28 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]allida, 2007-03-07 11:18 pm UTC

[info]meadowood
2007-03-07 05:56 pm UTC (link)
I'm curious if you were able to quantify your irritation, discomfort with this work. The photos themselves? The artist's viewpoint?

Through circumstance I became familiar with Jock Sturges (http://www.artphotogallery.org/02/artphotogallery/photographers/jock_sturges_01.html - one of many sites) who has had his share of controversy in particular over shooting children over time - in particular young girls - from very young children through their teenage years. As is typical of our society, tempers flared, the "p" word was thrown around and our suspicious nature clouded the work. I don't have a clue whether he is clear of conscience taking these photos. I do know that he captured a most amazing series of blossoming womanhood.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]angiereedgarner
2007-03-07 06:28 pm UTC (link)
When I said I am personally unclear, that is a stand-in for "the reason these discombobulate me is..."

I live for discombobulation, for art that shows me where my stuff is not sorted. However irkful the discomfort, the opportunity to recognize and engage with it is awesome.

Sturges' work makes me want to scour my eyeballs because of how it evokes US/Euro nordic heteronormative beauty standards, endlessly rammed into our brains via our eyeballs in racist US culture. That work can stand as propaganda for just about everything I personally hate, 3rd Reich cultural products norming the good female body, Leni Riefenstahl.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]angiereedgarner, 2007-03-07 06:42 pm UTC

[info]dianawolf
2007-03-07 06:24 pm UTC (link)
I'm not exactly sure what you mean but what I hear that am responding to is I do not like an artsist to explain too much to me about a particular piece of art as it seems to shut the door on the collaborative process that making and viewing or taking art in is. Though I guess if someone never shows their work it is art too, so maybe I'm not stating it tthoughtfully enough.
Anyway, I don't want to be told what some piece means. It deadens the work for me... at least some of the time. It is like poetry. When I read a poem and let it seep into me I am going to make connections that the poet probably did not intend when he or she expressed something through words. If I know the back story explicitly then I get closed off to potential experiences. So the same with paintings I think.
Knowing a back story of a particular artist, or a series in a general way can be helpful I suppose.

Oddly when I was looking at the photos and was reading at first I thought these were women who would not normally be the type to get naked... and were encouraged and allowed to feel the freedom of being naked in nature for the first time... don't know where i got that idea... then I read on and saw they were already the "type." so that made for a different feeling.

I'm unclear at to why you felt hostile?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]angiereedgarner
2007-03-07 06:33 pm UTC (link)
These photos offer a utopian vision, ideas about women, ideas to which I do not relate.

I don't bridge from this position to saying I don't like the work, or that it is bad work. I appreciate art that shows me things I don't want to see and don't like.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]niyabinghi, 2007-03-07 06:42 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]angiereedgarner, 2007-03-07 06:45 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]niyabinghi, 2007-03-07 06:50 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]angiereedgarner, 2007-03-07 06:56 pm UTC

[info]chreebomb
2007-03-07 06:37 pm UTC (link)
i sense no irony in the work. just a sort of wistfulness (which is the point, yes?) but no commentary on how this is a very narrow view of "nature" and it is most definitely in that essentialist/we're all goddesses strain of thinking to this viewer.

where i think your work (and quality work of any artist who uses irony to convey dis-ease with an assumed norm, in this case that a happy existence as a female=motherhood, nudity and assumed happiness with one's body, nature, communing with other mothers, and all of them being *white*) and hers differs is that your work intentionally draws someone to the unsettling. like your work of the female outside the restroom, the blood, the nationalistic iconography. it's clearly carrying a message, even if the viewer doesn't get it.

her work just reifies the tra-la-la primitivistic fantasy without anything to convey any sense of dis-ease in any way shape or form. the lack of females of color, females who are gender variant (butch, anyone?), the lack of males... this is not remarkable, i imagine, to a large portion of her audience. she is conveying a popular image among white feminists, one that's wholeheartedly supported. it just takes me back to the whole trans issues and michigan womyn's music fest: the mere sight of a penis is so damaging that no transwomen should be allowed. it's antagonistic in identifying men as the oppressor, separating females from male and often assigning superior qualities to females in an essentialist way. one thing i seem to find different among WOC/females of color who are feminist/womanist is that there isn't an antagonism toward males or assumption of superiority. not that males are excused from their positions of privilege or anything.

maybe i'm generalizing too much.

and being tangental :)

at any rate, it irks me too. because it's just another whtie feminist fantasy that doesn't include women of color and reifies notions of motherhood and (assumedly) heterosexual reproduction [i see no "couples"].


ugh.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

(Deleted post)
Re: thank you - [info]chreebomb, 2007-03-07 07:07 pm UTC
Re: thank you - [info]angiereedgarner, 2007-03-07 07:43 pm UTC
Re: thank you - [info]chreebomb, 2007-03-07 07:48 pm UTC
Re: thank you - [info]mrs_scarborough, 2007-03-07 08:05 pm UTC
Re: thank you - [info]chreebomb, 2007-03-07 08:12 pm UTC
Re: thank you - [info]angel_one, 2007-03-20 06:50 pm UTC
Re: thank you - [info]angiereedgarner, 2007-03-07 08:19 pm UTC
Re: thank you - [info]angiereedgarner, 2007-03-07 08:21 pm UTC
Re: thank you - [info]angiereedgarner, 2007-03-07 08:10 pm UTC
Re: thank you - [info]chreebomb, 2007-03-07 08:15 pm UTC
Re: thank you - [info]plasticsturgeon, 2007-03-07 11:28 pm UTC
Re: thank you - [info]angiereedgarner, 2007-03-08 12:49 am UTC
I need a cup of coffee! Third try. :)
[info]angiereedgarner
2007-03-07 07:01 pm UTC (link)
THANK YOU. Not even slightly tangential. Thank you for spelling out some of the reasons to dislike the ideology informing the images.

I don't think this work reifies the white racist euro primitivistic fantasy for you, but rather puts the fantasy out there in such a distilled form that it is easy for you (and me, and some other viewers) to critique it.

And others are not prepared to receive the work critically, or embrace the ideology-- it is only in accessing discussions about it (like the one you and I are having right now) that people can become capable of critical reception.

Do artists need to create works that can not be mis-read, no matter how ill-prepared the viewer? (Is that possible?)

Btw, if I felt this way, I would stop painting the nude body.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]niyabinghi
2007-03-07 06:38 pm UTC (link)
Hmmm....I wonder if that gigantic, moss-covered phallic symbol looming to the left was intentional?

Thanks for posting these --- my first, visceral response was a jolt of memory to times I got to run around nekkid in the redwoods and down cliffy beaches on the Pacific. It *is* wonderful to experience, but of course, there's the aspect of being scraped by sticks and getting sand up your butt.

It seems like the landscapes are the central figure, and the humans are more like an aside, almost inconsequential. I guess I respond more in a way that is a nice/uncomfortable reminder of where we are in the great scheme of things, compared to nature.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]angiereedgarner
2007-03-07 07:51 pm UTC (link)
Reading about her process in the article I linked to-- I think she scouts for weeks to get the perfect location. It is all deliberate although the images are not composites.

I think the relationship of human beings to nature in the works is romantic, and while there is something in there that I find personally valuable, that small thing tends to be lost in a jumble of bad ideas.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]cat_sidh, 2007-03-07 08:27 pm UTC
thank you - [info]angiereedgarner, 2007-03-07 08:31 pm UTC

[info]linda_erzinger
2007-03-07 06:40 pm UTC (link)
I have spent a great deal of time (years ago) in places where nudity was encouraged. While it was freeing there was an occasional person present who looked as if their motives were not as pure. This would always be disconcerting. Voyeurs in the crowd are very common.

My husband paints nudes a great deal and has trouble finding galleries willing to show them. Even the Savannah College of Art and Design where we went to undergrad wouldn't show them. Our culture in the United States breeds the idea that if you are being sexual if you have no clothes on. What about just being comfortable in your own skin. This too I think is rarer in our conservative culture. Angie now that this topic has come up have you ever tried to make art in the nude. It might be an interesting addition to your series.

By the way if I went to the water to swim like that I would still have a towel to sit on. So fantasy yes. But doesn't art give the opportunity to shock by showing extremes.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]linda_erzinger
2007-03-07 06:55 pm UTC (link)
Some art too is just for escape. Obviously from the article she also is working out some sort of autobiography and exploring her own (white woman/ mother culture) issues. I don't know if she has made any transition to a political statement. Except for the fact that those posting to this seems to have some strong reactions.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]angiereedgarner, 2007-03-07 08:01 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]linda_erzinger, 2007-03-07 08:29 pm UTC

[info]angiereedgarner
2007-03-07 07:57 pm UTC (link)
Oh, I'm usually painting nude, right in my storefront window. ;)

I think if there is value in this work (for me), it is in how extreme/unrealistic the images clearly are-- how much of human life you have to exclude to have these images, everything that has to be hidden.

My mother has had problems showing some of her work-- I've blogged about it in the past-- and her nude figures are not realistic. It has gotten much worse in recent years. But then, some venues and dealers are increasingly moved to take a stand against these attitudes.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]chreebomb, 2007-03-07 08:14 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]linda_erzinger, 2007-03-07 08:31 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]angiereedgarner, 2007-03-07 08:40 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]linda_erzinger, 2007-03-07 08:52 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]linda_erzinger, 2007-03-07 11:47 pm UTC

[info]artfldarknbuzzd
2007-03-07 07:18 pm UTC (link)
Big pretty landscapes.
With tiny nekkid people.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]angiereedgarner
2007-03-07 07:58 pm UTC (link)
Was afraid of that. Thank you for posting your read!

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]art_lurker
2007-03-07 10:01 pm UTC (link)
ditto.

and that beach looks like it smells something awful.

gad.


moving on, i now have to go talk about an art show that features tampons.

tampon art.
...

(Reply to this) (Parent)

as often happens
[info]allida
2007-03-07 11:49 pm UTC (link)
I posted before reading all the comments and discovered that some people had already said some of the same things I was trying to say, except more clearly and explicitly.

I guess the thing about these that is somewhat ooky to me, because now they have begun to irk me, is that they are completely impersonal.

She is showing a fantasy of some sort of communal Utopia, and she does it with great skill, but to me, the work doesn't feel like SHE is in it. It doesn't feel like she is invested in it somehow. There is no chink in its armour where we can see the artist.

Maybe that sounds harsh. In fact I know it does. Let me see if I can explain it a little better. These people seem to me to be unrelated. They don't look at the camera, they don't act like they notice the photographer. They seem like a combination of those beautiful Hudson River School paintings, the slightly out of synch Eakins paintings where the boys are jumping, but look like they are posing, and like a model in a Natural History Museum of some Native People who were forced to move from one place to another for some unknown reason, and bravely survived it.

On the one hand I can see that the intention of this de-personalization probably has something to do with looking at Nature herself as being the Mother of this Utopic fantasy (sic). Thus the dwarving scale of the photos to the people. But I guess I'd envision something more personal, less austere, where the viewer felt like he/she could connect with the fantasy there. Eye-contact with one of the subjects would draw the viewer into the world a little, and gesture could be used to draw the viewer towards some purpose.

And that is the other thing that makes them impersonal. There is no clear reason for them to be there doing what they're doing. They don't seem to be foraging. They don't seem to be cooking, or eating. They are just there in various nurturing poses, natural, but posed, without any kind of interest.

They are archetypes made gelatin print frozen without direction or motive.

Their lack of cotidian tasks makes their utopia seem boring, and it makes it impossible to enter.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: as often happens
[info]niyabinghi
2007-03-08 12:03 am UTC (link)
See, the more I come back and look at these, the less I see of a utopian ideal. If we really let ourselves contemplate the immensity of those landscapes, aside from their beauty --- they're a bit frightening compared to the size the humans are.
Romantacism with a twist of ---something. I'm beginning to think they are actually a bit more edgy than everyone is seeing them to be, because we're so caught up in the expected messages of naked-women+nature=primitive utopias. It might not go that far.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: as often happens - [info]angiereedgarner, 2007-03-08 12:47 am UTC
unrelated people
[info]angiereedgarner
2007-03-08 12:46 am UTC (link)
My partner was also intrigued by the distance between the women and how that betrays the unreality of the scenarios. In most non-industrial rural societies, when people gather and rest and talk, they do so touching companionably-- an arm draped around a shoulder, leaning shoulder to shoulder or back to back. None of that with these subjects, as one would expect. They are in profoundly unnatural situations. And they don't have any clothes on.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]unluckymonkey
2007-03-08 12:18 am UTC (link)
running amok nekkid looks fun but I think I'd be bored if I saw this in a gallery. the thing i find interesting is your unwillingness to post the 4th due to kiddie nudity despite it being a "legit" artist. I've run into problems with showing nudes as well. so being a painter of nudes and defending the right to show in public i thought it was strange to exclude the last one for that reason.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]angiereedgarner
2007-03-08 12:41 am UTC (link)
I reserve the right not to disseminate images that give me the creeps, and they raise issues about photographing children naked that have been covered in earlier blog discussions.

There is nothing about her credentials or this show that confers legitimacy. I don't know what would, but it is not those things for me.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]unluckymonkey, 2007-03-08 12:51 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]angiereedgarner, 2007-03-08 12:53 am UTC

[info]unluckymonkey
2007-03-08 12:20 am UTC (link)
PS there's a salon show in Davenport IA Sat and if the drive wouldn't bother you you could check out the gallery to participate in the next one.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]angiereedgarner
2007-03-08 12:41 am UTC (link)
Many thanks for the heads up! If you have a link or location/time...?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]unluckymonkey, 2007-03-08 12:55 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]angiereedgarner, 2007-03-08 01:50 pm UTC

Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…