Feminist Art

Yesterday, after seeing the PS 1 feminist show, I went to panel discussion "Beyond the Waves: Feminist Artists Talk Across the Generations." The talk included the fine artists and critics Carolee Schneenmann, Mira Shor, Brynna Tucker, Susan Bee, and Emma Bee Bernstein. I was looking for answers, but like any good thinking, the talk led me to more questions.

First, I want to note, among the topics discussed -- and they made a point of recognizing them -- were racism, gender, ageism, feminism, sexism, transgender, and so on. As usual, disability was the glaring absence. We have entered a culture where artists will speak about transgender BEFORE disability. I think the problem is not maniacal. I think that people tend to focus what is on their radar. I think people with disabilities (and their problems) are still very oppressed in our society -- so that even the most sensitive thinkers aren't aware. I find this to be a problem.

The question I asked was what makes the WACK show a feminist show a feminist show? I felt like there is no answer -- even the artist who attempted to address the question weren't sure. That brings me to my further question -- what is feminism and am I one?

My understanding is that feminism is about treating women equal and supporting their decisions. If this is true, why is there so much devision and oppression BY women going on? Let's pick on the suicide girls for a minute. I have read that they believe they are dispelling myths about feminine beauty. Oh really? After a short cruise through their photos I am pressed to find a black woman, a disabled woman, a woman with small boobs, a woman who weighs over 105 and a woman without an enormous amount of makeup on. I'd like to see a naked overweight black lady with one arm. Of course, then, they'd label it 'fetish.'

Wack at PS !

Yesterday Julia and I went over the bridge to see WACK!: Art and the Feminist Revolution. The first wonderful thing was seeing Thomas who runs the bookstore. I didn't know he had that job -- cool. The second thing was that we were surprised by how wonderful the show was. There was a fair amount of work that was tedious, including the pieces that said 'Angry Marilyn', 'Angry Jennifer' and so on. Okay, you're angry -- we get it. Others bored me a bit. Some were so powerful that they were painful to look at -- particularly collages of neato sparkling houses with war scenes out the window. For me, some of the highlights were the 'stone' painting, the woodcuts, the Aunt Jaminina with a gun. And a few artists I already new about -- Aliice Neel, Eva Hesse, and Francesca Woodman. I must note that we only saw the first floor.

But, as much as I liked the show, I have a few questions. More notably, what makes all of these pieces 'feminist'? If I think and think, I might be able to attribute some feminist qualities to each piece perhaps, although that is not necessarily how I would think of them. I found myself wondering what made this or that work feminist. The work struck me as coming from many different points of view: anti-racist, sublime, figurative, abstract, feminist, and anti-war. Some were just, well, art works by women.

Julia pointed out that they probably used 'feminist' as a marketing scheme to draw in the crowd. This has worked. An unnamed source tell us that this has been one of the most successful shows ever. But, I am very uncomfortable with using the term 'feminist' to market stuff -- if this is the intension. Isn't this going against feminist ideals -- we are ultimately 'marketing women' because of their gender. Our household feminist, JIM, argues that men have had their shows for years, and women have been excluded and he's right.

Here's my very radical feminist idea...why call it a feminist show or a women's show? Why not slap the men in the face and just call it a show? Isn't that what men have been doing for centuries?

I am resurfacing from two weeks in New Mexico. The readings went amazingly well! They were kind of like a whose who in New Mexican poetry with Nathaniel Tarn, Gary Brower, Joy Harjo, Dianne Edwards, VB Price, Miriam Sagan, David Melzlener (sp?) who is an amazing Los Alamos poet, Janet Rodney, Lee Bartlett, Miriam Sagan, and others. VB's and Miriam's books by UNM Press are amazing. It was nice to pull myself into a new reality. I have tendency to get so tied up in the 'New York Scene.' It's important to be reminded that poets all over are doing real work. It's my poetry wish that one day the two 'coasts' (and the middle) of poetry will be able to acknowledge and respect each other.

Apex

If you're anywhere near a B & N in the coming week, my dear husband Jim Stewart has the cover story in the new Apex.

Time for vacation, ya'll.

There is a Santa Claus

This week, the NYT has redeemed it's failings. They mentioned my girl Jill Alexander Essbaum in the book review -- yes!

The NYT and 'Language' Poetry

I wrote a letter to the NYT last Sunday night in response to James Longenbach's review of Salter's latest book. Since the Times refuses to run the letter, I've decided to recount it here.

Letter #1
Dear Editor,

In regard to James Longenbach's review of Salter's work, anyone who believes that the so-called Language Poets are merely 'part of the niggling history of taste rather than the grand history of art' hasn't been reading many poets of the last 25 years. Further, this 'movement' of poetics was not exactly 'named after' the magazine which, by the way, was called L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E, not 'Language.' Since Longenbach can't even get the name of the magazine correct, perhaps it would be better to suspend his opinion.

Letter #2 : Response from the Times. I do not have permission to 'show' their letter and I'm paranoid, so I'll paraphrase.
A 'staff' editor from the Times responded to my letter saying that Longenbach could not be 'taxed' as it is the Times editorial policy not to 'reproduce stylistic quirks in titles.'

Letter #3

First, I am flattered at your response.

With all due respect, L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E is not a 'stylistic quirk.' That is the NAME of the journal and partial to that 'groups' poetics. This oversight, along with Longenbach's obvious jab at this group either shows a gross naivete of American poetics or a very narrow view that no 'good' poetry is written beyond the walls of Iowa University.

Letter #4

There was no letter #4.

My question: Did Longenbach actually KNOW the name of the journal? Did he write it correctly and the editor's changed it? Was it a 'jab'? Or just an honest miseducation of 20th century literature? Inquiring minds want to know.

Great, Happy News!

The first printing of Derivative of the Moving Image is nearly sold out! -- Only fifty more copies in the warehouse. If you're into first printings -- jump on it! Here are some great vendors:

Word, Brooklyn NY
St. Marks Bookstore, New York City
Powells, Portland, OR
Amazon
UNM Press
Bookworks, Albq, NM
UNM Bookstore, Albq, NM
The Grolier, Cambridge, MA
Bluestockings, NYC

Thank you so much! And happy reading.

Same Sex Education

In this weekend's New York Times magazine, there is an article on the emerging system of same-sex education in US public schools. Elizabeth Weil describes Leonard Sax as the leader of this movement, which has particularly taken off in the South.

Sax explores different biological concerns of the genders: girls hear better than boys, are more visually adept, and so on. The other side of the coin is that some people examine the social differences, rather than biological of the two genders.

Some people (for example the ACLU) are highly offended by these ideas, and I can see their point. Michael Younger of Cambridge University called Sax's proposal 'sexist rubbish' saying that Sax 'might have well said boys should go out and have jobs, girls should stay home and have babies."

Should you read the article, you might, as I did, find some of Sax's ideas questionable. However, I totally agree with same-sex education and this is hardly the first time it's occured to me. A life-altering book for me was Raising Cain about the differences of boys. I have attempted to get my son in an all-boy school (the ones in NY are too far and/or expensive). If his local PS went single-sex, I'd be thrilled.

I'm going out on a limb here, but I would guess that those against same-sex ed. either have girls or no children. If one has a girl, parents must consider equality and upholding feminist standards. If one doesn't have kids, well, their knowledge can only be limited.

I wish opponents would see it from my side. I have a hyper-active 5 year old boy who is required to go to school and behave and learn in ways that are TRADITIONALLY feminine and completely against his nature. He is expected to sit in his seat, raise his hand, not push, not play, not talk in the hall, and have good penmanship. Of course, these are too strict standards, which should be less if he went to progressive school, but not wholly....and what about the boys who -- for whatever reason CAN'T go to progressive school.

People will probably attack me for not being 'feminist' but I believe school behaviors and expectations are geared toward the feminine. This doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of kids who don't cross the line. My nephew, for example, does very well in school. By people should be able to be themselves, not on Ritilain.

Work.

That's all I have to say.

Arbus, For Example

I always thought that Robert Frank was my favorite photographer. The Americans was a seminal book in my own development as a poet. After I saw the Diane Arbus show last year at the Metropolitian Museum. I had seen many Arbus photos in books, but had never seen them in person. The show was, for me, kind of an "ah,ha" moment. This is when I realized that the language of photography is human pathos, and Arbus was a master at capturing it.

As a person with cerebral palsy and all the misunderstandings that go with that, I was particularly interested in Arbus's photographs of the mentally retarded women at a home for people with disabilities. These photos, needless to say, were very controversial. I observed the audience looking at the photographs (which were segregated to one room) and they were clearly uncomfortable. The most obvious argument against the photos is that Arbus was taking advantage of the women. But, clearly the women were enjoying themselves. I think a more immediate issue is that "normal people" have a difficult time looking at people with disablities. Many (most?) people are prejudice against PWD because we show a fraility that is best ignored. After all, many people are disabled twice in their lives -- at infancy and at old age. People want to believe the illusion that they are in control of their bodies ansd minds - particularly in America's image obsessed culture. Art that shows PWD provokes prejudice that people don't want to admit to having because it makes them uncomfortable. This is why a certain TOP museum in NYC refused to buy my friend Jim's piece with images my labored running -- too controversial.

Maybe Arbus was a creep and she meant to "exploit" the women. But, when you look at the photos, it is much easier to believe that the women are being celebrated in their own strange beauty.

The best Arbus photograph, though, was another that no one wanted to look at for different reasons -- because anyone but a poet would find it boring. It was an image of a drive-in theatre at night with clouds at night on the screen mirroring the clouds in the actual sky behind the screen. What brilliance. How can I explain it? You've got a fake image (the photo) recording another fake image (the movie screen) which mirrors the reality of the sky.

Wow!

I have been looking quickly through my archives on some early stuff I wrote about visual art. I want to bring a few of these back: see below. It's interesting to look at how I and my perceptions have changed over just the past two years. More on this later.

I'm realizing that my main problem as a professor is that I don't want my students just to 'get through' poetry, I want them to LOVE it. I want them to want to send Valentines and roll around in the mud with poetry. As Jeff would say, 'boy are you stupid!'

NYC Department of Education

To add trama to my five years of hell with the NYC DOE (plus one year of recovery) I got a letter from the good ole' DOE yesterday stating that I OWE THEM 3,000$ for days taken during my pregnancy. I don't want to do it, but I'm inching toward writing a memoir! Writing is the only way I know to release my story. But, ah how to get people to listen! I wish someone in power would wise up to the insanity that is going on in our lovely NYC school system.

Meanwhile, back at the factory, I have a bunch of college students who have never heard of Allen Ginsberg and didn't know Walt Whitman was gay (tho, at least they heard of him!). As Jeffrey would say, "Handicapped-girl to the rescue!"

A Victim of One's Own Passion, Part One

People tend to attribute a hierarchy to things. This just seems to be human nature. It seems logical, then, that people who are interested in the arts have their own preferences. I had a friend once who argued that poetry, film, and math were the highest art forms. As a poet, I won’t disagree with this assertion. I am nuts about text (poetry, fiction, and non). I also have a strange fixation on the NY Times – yes, that’s me dashing out naked in the snow to get my blue bag! But, I have also always been drawn to the visual arts. I love painting, film, and instillation art. However, above all, photography is the thing for me!

What is so special about photography? I love people. I love looking into their lives, seeing the bizarre quality of human nature, and comparing to my own. Whether set up or spontaneous, photography is always very real and immediate in a way that other arts aren’t. Of course, photographs can be skewed and manipulated by their taker, but I’m usually able to suspend my disbelief. Photographs show how beautiful and ugly and complex the world is. In short, they define pathos.

Last Saturday, I had my own pathos when my four-year-old son had a nervous breakdown in Union Square. The details are superfluous. Let me just say it turned in to hell on the streets of Manhattan. At one particularly low moment, I was sitting on the ledge outside COSI with my head (literally) in my hands. The boy lay on the sidewalk kicking and screaming. It was quite an image. Evidently, I wasn’t the only one who thought this. A young photographer (most likely a NYU student) stopped and snapped away. Gone is the anticipation of developing a roll of film, the darkroom, and a contact sheet. She had a digital, and she viewed the photos with pleasure as her and her boyfriend walked away. Now there’s an “A” in critique! I was left feeling curious, duped, hysterical, laughing, and, well, a victim of ALL my passions.

Poets and teaching

Today, I've been wondering about this: How do poets without books get jobs teaching creative writing? Awhile back, I thought that ONE had to have a book out to get a teaching job. It's turns out that I was mistaken.

I don't want to put too much stock in the all powerful book. To do so would mean that ED was not a poet! But, I do thinking there's something valid in the experience of birthing a book. It is torture and makes having a baby look like a cake walk (at least that was my experience!). Birthing a book (excuse the mama metaphor) is kind of like experiencing the death of a close person -- you (I) just don't know what it's like until it happens.

I expect poets without books are getting hired because they went to a 'good school.' But, this doesn't quite add up. Poetry is not law, going to a good school does not make one a poet -- writing poems does. Again, I'm not refering to the object of the book (although that's cool too) I'm refering to the PROCESS of making/publishing a book -- an experience that the professor can share with her students. Of course, if most students knew what being poet was REALLY like, they'd run for the hills.

Note to readers: I'd love to hear some comments! Do you think I'm right on -- or just taking too much crack?

The Working Disabled

However, what we see in the poetry movement -- and in the university -- is still only partially happening the what we like to call the 'real world.'

I was looking at job listings for my husband -- largely in private NY high schools. I noted something very interesting. Even schools -and certainly everyone else -- are still putting notes at the end of their hiring listings that they WANT minorities, that they don;'t exclude minorities. Ah, except for one! People with disabilities. Surely more women, African-Americans, and Asians have more jobs than PWD, so, in all fairness, shouldn't companies be hiring the least represented minority?

Read carefully. I'm going to tell you why it doesn't work that way.

Awhile ago smart people decided that there was no real reason to exclude women and race groups from the work force. They decided that this prejudice was unfounded and based on stupidity. Black people are not dumb. Women are not helpless. PLEASE do not think I am saying the system is perfect and all groups don't have trouble -- I'm not.

However, people believe that they can rationalize not including/hiring people with disabilities. These people are disabled, after all! Doesn't that mean they can't work? So, isn't the prejudice logical. Guess what, no! Now think of a list of jobs -- which of these jobs include a. walking b. walking straight c. hearing (remember one can use a computer) d. heavy lifting e. running track f. giving a speech to 1000 people g. seeing. If anything else, all disabled people could be movie ticket sellers. Those guys don't do shit! Seriously, 75% of jobs today involve some form of thought (usually VERY low-level thought) and a computer. So, why can't we hire PWD?

I hate to blame the victim, but PWD have to stand up too. The reason the other 'groups' have gotten so far is because they marched, died, and voted for their rights. I can tell you from experience, though, its hard to be rejected again and again. It's hard to be sitting across the desk from a person (say, Vicki Bernstein of the NYC teaching fellows or the lovely folks at Bronx Letters) and know that you are way smarter than this person and you know what they are thinking and there ain't nothing you can do 'bout it.

But, if my story isn't enough to convince you of the world's/NYC DOE's evils read this from today's New York Times: NOTE: Mr. W is a Hasidic Jewish man:

"Mr. Waronker, 39, a former public school teacher, was in the first graduating class of the New York City Leadership Academy, which Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg created in 2003 to groom promising principal candidates. Considered one of the stars, he was among the last to get a job, as school officials deemed him “not a fit” in a city where the tensions between blacks and Hasidic Jews that erupted in Crown Heights, Brooklyn, in 1991 are not forgotten.

“They just said he may be terrific, but not the right person for that school,” Chancellor Klein said.

Some parents at J.H.S. 22, also called Jordan L. Mott, were suspicious, viewing Mr. Waronker as too much an outsider. In fact, one parent, Angie Vazquez, 37, acknowledged that her upbringing had led her to wonder: “Wow, we’re going to have a Jewish person, what’s going to happen? Are the kids going to have to pay for lunch?”

WHOA NELLY! DID THE CHANCELLOR OF NY PUBLIC SCHOOLS JUST SAY IN THE BIGGER NEWSPAPER IN THE COUNTRY THAT SCHOOLS DIDN'T HIRE A PERSON BASED ON THEIR RELIGION? WHA? ISN'T THAT LIKE, ILLEGAL?

Young Poets and the Diversity Model

Despite my rants that the politically correct model of publication and hiring should -- and doesn't -- include 'the disabled,' I have never been a big supporter of this idea. I think poets should be published solely on the merits of their work -- something that almost NEVER happens in American publication. For proof, one has to merely look at the memoir phenomenon. Why is every Tom, Dick, and Harry who had a bad childhood or worked as a waitress at Per Se on NPR while poet X (insert name here) never is?

But, I'm getting off the topic. As I went through the list of poets in my mind to endorse for president (see left) I have (a little) expanded my reading to poets of different abilities, races, and religions. This is largely because I'm meeting some many young poets (under 40) and the PC movement is starting to have the trickle down effect to 'normalize' diversity in the poetry world. It is finally moving past the 'forced' stage.

The next post Might be contradictory.

New Manuscript

I'm been keeping a few secrets, which is HIGHLY unusual for me, I'm a big mouth. I have a second manuscript called (a) lullaby without any music. It's 90% done. I sent to to Apogee Press (on their request) and they rejected it. It was the nicest rejection letter I have ever gotten. Now, I'm thinking over the next step. The manuscript is really good. I like it better than my first one -- but doesn't that always happen? I just can't find a stopping point with it.

I have four books in mind after that: a book of letters, a book of hip-hop poetry (with Jim), a book of essays (based on the blog) and a third book of poetry. Boy, am I tired.

A Kinder, Gentler Jennifer

Thinking of my last post...I didn't mean to criticize academic poets. I should have used the word 'I' more. 'I' don't think tenure is the place for me. Ironically, I am a professor, but I use that term loosely. I teacher comp part time, and I am thrilled with my job for the most part.

I think I warn people from putting too much stock into their career (career versus vocation) because I did and I got burnt. I worked so hard at being an inner-city school teacher. I sacrificed my family, poetry, and mental and physical health. I wanted to help people. I wanted to be sucessful. I wanted people to look up to me. The whole thing was a bitter failure. The system didn't care, the administration didn't care, and only a few of the students cared. It chewed me up and spit me out. I spent a year staring at a wall, recovering. Don't get me wrong, I love my students now, and I bend over backwards to help them. But, in the words of the lovely Liz Phair, I'm gun-shy.

Do Poets Belong in Academia?

The AWP has made me revisit some things that have been lingering in my mind for awhile. As an emerging poet, I feel like I want to define my life and how I fit into this world of poetry.

I am still of the mind that, in general, poets do not belong in academia. However, poets have to eat, right? And it is good that academia has somehow created a space for them where they can make a decent salary and discuss the thing they love. To pursue this is a perfectly decent activity. However, I am getting at something different. Academia should not be a trap for poets. Poets -- and I hope most don't -- shouldn't write books or publish in order to gain tenure. It should be the opposite. They should use the freedom that the University offers to write more poems. They shouldn't write more poems to advance their career. For poets, the poetry always comes first. We are blessed to have the schools to create magazines and teach our work, but that only goes so far.

The university can be a trap. The university validates poets, particularly ones who do abstract work. Poets are humans and they need validation. Some might feel that if they are not in the university system, no one will pay attention to them. They are probably right. American society doesn't give a fuck about poetry. European, Indian, Pakistani, Iranian, and South American cultures do care about their poets -- enough to make them heros or execute them or put their children in jail. The USA just isn't like that. We are the land of Britney Spears and American Idol. Somehow, jazz, rap, and the Abstract Expressionists managed to slip into the culture, but who knows how.

But, I feel like poets have to try. If we just give up on the average public we're committing a crime into order to make ourselves safe. The academics might love poetry, but, in the long run, what does that mean? Poetry isn't about safety. Life isn't about safety. If one is in the po-biz to get kudos, money, or fame, they're making a mistake.

Time to match the boy's socks.

News

I'm fussing around with the blog. Please be patient with me. Today, I voted for Obama. I just couldn't pull that Clinton ticket.