In last week’s class we had a brief conversation about Lee Krasner a Female Modernist Artist whom is the wife of Jackson Pollock. During class and now as well as I review the power point I’ve thought about how Lee Krasner during this time became a name, and how in the power point it was significant to the class and to our professor to mention that she is the wife of Jackson Pollock. Why couldn’t Lee Krasner just be her own modernist artist, without the association of her husband? Could she have become a name in the art world without the influence and stature of her husband? The feminist art movement at that time was so interesting and obviously female dominated that it is interesting to discuss an artist and refer to her as the wife of someone important. To me it takes the feminism out f her art, and leads me to believe that she really isn’t such a strong feminist as she portrays to be. Would she have been a significant artist without the aid of her husband? Without the dominant male influence? Many women at the time of the feminist movement were married and were famous for their art and their art alone.
To me, stating that Lee Krasner is the wife of Jackson Pollock could have many implications or reasonings. On the one hand, it could show the dependance on her husband, that she is only of interest because fo her note-worthy husband. I do wish that there wasn't the NEED to attach her husband's name (and that we wouldn't need to reference her as his wife), and that her work be seen as a valuable contribution to the art world on it's own merit. In a patriarchal society, especially in the early days of feminism, it couldn't have been easy trying to prove your art's legitimacy. I don't really see a woman using her resources to get to where she wants to go as un-feminist (ie. "using" her marriage to Pollock is using her *probably limited* resources).
ReplyDeleteWhen I initially read "wife of Jackson Pollock", I went a different direction. To me it seemed like it may hint at the fact that there were great feminist artists in the work and lives of artists that we deem respectable. Kind of like that phrase "behind every great man is a great woman." Their artistry DEFINITELY informed each others. I think that she DID try to have her art seen as something independent, and she knew that her art was being looked at differently as a woman. Of course, we get trapped by continuing to say "wife of Jackson Pollock" when referencing Krasner, while not also referring to Pollock as the "husband of Lee Krasner", and that does bother me.
I think that because Jackson Pollock had already had a successful art career, that is why she was referred to as “the wife of.” In many cases it is a way to introduce her to the world and almost putting a weight on her shoulder that her art will have to be as good as her husband’s. I think in order for her to be disassociated with his name it would be extremely difficult and unfortunately, I think it would also be difficult for her to be known without her husband’s attached. Women never stand out in history unless they do something radical or the old expression was, women who were quiet never made it into history. This is the sad truth but unless Lee Krasner did something radical other than her art, she may have been able to stand out a bit more.
ReplyDeleteIn order for Ida Applebroog to feel confident she felt it necessary to change her last name not to her mother’s maiden name or from Applebottom which was her father’s name but to make up a new name that was not associated with anyone or anything. From her stand point though, I would feel the need to be disassociated with men and would become a feminist if I knew I was going to be an artist, strive for greatness yet always be brought to, “your work is as good as a mans.” That would tear me to pieces always being compared to somebody else and knowing my work was not good enough. Although Ida said she learned to draw from her father yet she knew she was better than his stick figure, yet most of her drawings were stick figures. They were just feminist drawing because they were glammed up with shoes, pretty colors, and vaginas.