Students' Work in Progress

 



 

Inspirational

Found this quote on an artist's Facebook page ( If you would like to check her art, this is the link: https://www.facebook.com/ArtByCedarFans) and enjoyed reading it, so I though of sharing it as well:

 

'Go placidly amid the noise and haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence.

As far as possible, without surrender, be on good terms with all persons. Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even to the dull and the ignorant, they too have their story. Avoid loud and aggressive persons, they are vexations to the spirit.

If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain and bitter; for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself. Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans. Keep interested in your own career, however humble; it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of time.

Exercise caution in your business affairs, for the world is full of trickery. But let this not blind you to what virtue there is; many persons strive for high ideals, and everywhere life is full of heroism. Be yourself. Especially, do not feign affection. Neither be cynical about love, for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment it is perennial as the grass.

Take kindly to the counsel of the years, gracefully surrendering the things of youth. Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune. But do not distress yourself with imaginings. Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness.

Beyond a wholesome discipline, be gentle with yourself. You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be, and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life, keep peace in your soul.

With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world.

Be cheerful. Strive to be happy'.

Max Ehrmann c.1920

 

 

A Separation

The other day a friend rented for me A Separation, the Iranian movie that recently won an Oscar for best foreign film and suggested that I watched it. So after my classes the other night, at about 10 pm, while my husband was away for work, I  took the opportunity to seat, relax and see what was this movie all about and form my own opinion of it.

It was an enjoyable watch and it kept me fully engaged and thinking for the whole duration, it touched upon many issues revolving around Iranian society including gender, class and religion.

But, although it was an interesting watch, and it was nice for a change to see a movie that allows for multiple interpretations and points of view without dictating a priori what is good or bad, right or wrong, I have to admit that it left me with mixed feelings – which I also embrace and appreciate too.

The movie tries, in my opinion, to provide a view of class - in particular - as well as gender, without making the one category better or worst, so the middle class’ point of view, for example, is as good and “truthful” as the working class/poor’s point of view. Yet to me, the movie still portrays a view of class which is stereotypical and fixed, and still privileges the upper/middle class over the working/under class.

So, for example, middle classness in this movie is portrayed with stereotypes such as education, reasonable amount of wealth, savings in the bank, a decent place for leaving, and even a "charming personality". On the other hand, working/under classness is associated with having to take public transport, doing lower paying jobs as well as less “dignified work” such as cleaning, and being religious.

And it is Termeh, the educated daughter, that in the last scene of the movie has to make the choice between her two parents, which is perhaps an allusion to the fact that there is hope for Iran if the bright, intelligent youth can make future choices and take over the country, yet this is a privilege which is only given to upper/middle class part of society, the working class/poor’s voice is still not worth listening to and suppressed - not to mention that the latter do not even get to choose weather to leave their country for better opportunities abroad.

The movie also deals with issue of gender and feminism - although I must admit that I do not really understand these in the context of Iran, inequalities between genders are also still perpetuated in western societies - although in a much less blunt and direct way. Feminism thus, in my opinion, is still as much relevant today as it was forty years ago, both in the east as well as in the west - even though apparently women now seem to “have it all”; but what does having it all means anyway? Obviously it means different things to different people, for me, having it all means being able to choose, making choices based on subjective preferences. But until the opportunity to choose is available to all women in society, not just the rich/ upper/ middle classes, feminism is still an important matter.

And what does it mean to be a feminist, to be an emancipated liberated woman? It seems to me that the general understanding is that in order to be a feminist today and assert your arrival in such category you need to have specific discriminatory qualities such education, a high paying job, working in business, being on the board of a company directors, professionally successful, powerful, assertive, strong – basically a woman needs to posses “manly” qualities – not that these are, but the structure of society more often associate these with masculinity rather than femininity, because of the way we are socialised into the world, so boys and girls, through education, are taught to act and perform their genders.

What I am trying to say, is not that having these qualities is not good for women, but we have to allow for all types of women, even those that prefer to associate themselves with more traditional feminine characteristics, such as those who perhaps enjoy being mothers – I think today, in our capitalist society, being a mother has become a dirty world more so than feminism, “what, you are just a mother? You have no other aim in life than reproduce and have children”?

Who says motherhood is not as equally engaging or dignified as being a professional working in the world. The only difference is that the latter gets paid for her job whereas the former doesn’t. So the government should perhaps introduce wages for mothers, as without mothers there would no society, workers, nor professionals to begin with. Another common view is “well if you really want to be a mother, then you have to do it all, juggle motherhood as well a successful career.

The problem however is not in women choosing to be mothers, as this entails as much hard work as any other professions. The problem is the fact that society does not recognise it – which is another tactic for perpetuating discrimination, as when a  woman chooses to work in her home and for her family, her place in society is lessened: often not financially independent she has to rely either on her husband or on government benefits.

Thus, just because we have achieved some levels of equality for certain social groups, this does not mean that there is no more work left to do. Until all women can gain from the achievements of feminism, I think the latter is still an important matter and should be used to benefit the whole of society not just a few. But on the other hand, this term should not be used to create further discrimination against women that perhaps don’t fit into the stereotypical “feminist” category. Regarding class, yes these differences do exists, but differences are not bad in themselves, yet they are not absolute. However, in my opinion, consciously or unconsciously, most people still prefer to take sides, and although I admire Mr Farhadi for trying to portray an impartial image of the different facets of his society and country, I feel he was ultimately unable to extricate himself from his own personal assumptions and prejudices related to his own specific position, gender and class.

What is the Need of Nations?

More quotes I like...

"The painter takes his body with him…

Indeed we cannot imagine

how a mind could paint”

- Paul Valery -

"The self is relatedness...

The self only exists inasmuch as you appear.

Not that you are, but that you do the self.

The self appears in your deeds

and deeds always mean relationship".

- Carl Jung -

"To see a world in a grain of sand,

And a heaven in a wild flower,

Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,

And eternity in an hour".

William Blake

When I made this painting I was thinking about identity and in particular how it is not inherently fixed onto a person, but rather, it is continually shaped in social space, and how it always takes form in relation to other people as well as the context a person finds herself/ himself in.

Keeping this in mind, I wanted to create an open ended piece which is not fixed and original and which includes not only the meaning I wanted to give to the artwork but also allow for other possible interpretations – again, depending on the particular audience viewing the piece as well as the context it is viewed in.

I thought this was particularly challenging to do in an oil painting as they tend do be more often seen as fixed original and intentional objects, especially if one thinks at the artwork produced by modernist artists, this was in fact, what they set themselves to achieve: artworks that are fixed in their meaning, original and separate from life and its particular context.

However I was also aware that in comparison to performance or body art in general my work would have had some limitations, such as the fact that although I am both subject/object because I have included myself in the painting and I am the art maker, my body is “without organs” and is a representation rather than the real thing: a breathing, living, thinking, feeling and desiring body. But my aim was to provide another perspective, particularly on painting, and try to break down the assumptions regarding its absolute status, especially when considering that painting is often seen as the medium of the male artist par excellence and women – apparently the muses inspiring his genius - where reduced to mere objects that aroused the artists as well as the (supposedly male) viewers pleasure.

So, by including the mirror in the artwork, I wanted to link the piece back with its context and the world; art and life are therefore no longer separated but they support each other in a constant flux. The reflection of the mirror becomes part of the painting and the painting needs its surrounding for the reflection. In addition, the piece is never fixed: light reflected will never be the same at different moments in time, the background provided by the mirror will always change depending on the viewers and where the artwork is viewed.

Another possible limitation for this piece could be that I am a “thin white body” and I am not trying to break pleasure but I actually instigate it. With regards to the former, I think that that the “thin white body” is who I am, and as an artist, I still want to be able to provide my own point of view regardless of the colour of my skin, or what I look like – even though they might be regarded as “normative” features. Sometimes I think discrimination could also work the other way around. In addition, although I do not have any visible marks or features pointing to specific body alienation, this does not mean that I am not an alienated subject. With regards to trying to instigate rather than break down pleasure, this is what I actually wanted to do, but by including the mirror so that the viewer is also reflected in the painting, she/he can no longer remain veiled and hide her/his own investments and desires; this, for me, is what allows myself not to be objectified, and not by simply trying to avoid at all cost pleasure, as most women artists working in a strictly anti-essentialist manner would often claim.

Moreover, by reflecting the viewer onto the painting she/he becomes also both subject and object and thus the relationship between viewers and the artwork/artist becomes interdependent and intersubjective, and it is a relationship which is based on simultaneous subjective/objective identifications rather than one which, as in most of Western painting tradition, gave absolute status and power to the disembodied viewing subjects objectifying the body-woman. The viewer is no longer veiled or disembodies and thus can no longer make any disinterested and absolute claims, but rather, has to acknowledge her/his own contingency, motives and investments.

This artwork seems to be really popular, every time someone sees it in my studio they always ask me about it. And it is funny because although I am a representation in this piece, people seem to give for granted that I am a real body and one of the question I am often asked is what am I thinking about, which to me is also quite interesting for the fact that, by looking at my body posture, the way my head is turned towards the mirror I give the impression that I am pensive - and not the other way around “I think therefore I am”.

Another thing I like about this work is that it really does engage with its surroundings and with the audience, often I find people checking themselves in the mirror, or I get told what a great idea I had to include a mirror in a painting – for its use value to be put in a bedroom for example - and they want to commission me with a similar piece. So I can say that although there might be some limitations regarding this work, I think I have perhaps managed to merge art (in particular painting) and life, as well as subject with object, but most of all I hope I was able to create an interdependent and mutual relationship between the audience, the artwork and the world, as well as challenge common assumption about women, painting and art viewing.