Jenny Holzer versus the Patriarchy
As a young artist who has a general distaste for labels and a passion for creating unlimited, unrestricted art, the most pertinent form of challenging art for me was that which challenges the patriarchy.
For this form of challenging art, we read the works of the renowned feminist film theorist Laura Mulvey. Her essay, Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema, has received considerable attention — and is the subject of an ongoing conversation in the intermingled realms of empowering women, and creation. Most notable is her concept of the ‘male gaze’ is characterized by Mulvey as the act of depicting and representing women in literature and visual arts from a heterosexual, masculine perspective. I have paired Jenny Holzer’s artwork together with this specific theory, in that the series itself challenge both the patriarchy, as well as the typical, unspoken boundaries that many unknowingly place on feminist art.
Holzer gets straight to the point with her piece ‘Untitled’, which was granted the title ‘Don’t Talk Down on Me’ after garnering attention from the feisty feminists she writes for. Part of a mass-produced series titled the ‘Inflammatory Essays’, Holzer’s introductory piece stands to be the most striking. The piece’s debut into the art world happened in 1979, and is still a large part of feminist art today, with its striking anger and tone creating a dichotomy with the pastel pink paper it is printed on:
“I’ll cut the smile off your face,” the text states, continuing into a progression of threats, each dripping with sarcasm. The art is often printed to larger than average human height, hung up on walls to add to it’s eye-catching state. And, even with questions constantly raised in regards to who is speaking, what is the meaning, who is it directed to — Holzer’s work as an activist has caused great appreciation for the series by feminists, who believe the pieces unlock the female, societal subconscious.
Although many do deem that placing women in positions of power in films or books to be a form of feminist art, it is far more interesting to allow the vague ambiguity of Holzer’s words to speak for themselves as a form of power to the female. The ways in which Mulvey advocates for the “destruction of visual pleasure” almost parallels the intentions of Holzer’s brash and loud pieces — which are the opposite of the traditional ways art is typically viewed in museums or otherwise. It is evident that Holzer, as Mulvey did, intended for female artists to be seen and heard in ways less than traditional, and to be accepted for doing so.
To create pieces that, at the time, seemed obscure to the masses practically mirrors the story of the fierce woman — those being unabashedly themselves despite being shamed for it by the patriarchal standards. I feel an unspoken connection to the piece that I am sure other women feel as well. Her words serve as my inner emotions as a won’t-be-silenced woman and artist, stalking under the guise of pretty pink, complaisant paper.
