tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163928454357103954.post6441203612992838983..comments2023-03-24T03:39:33.743-04:00Comments on Evil Feminist Witch: Women In Art.Revistahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16029404785891473705noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163928454357103954.post-57199803066414243912007-07-16T00:35:00.000-04:002007-07-16T00:35:00.000-04:00I think that's one of the problems with this monta...I think that's one of the problems with this montage. It totally sets up this standard in both visual art and aesthetics that becomes very exclusive over time (and with constant proliferation of the same type of iconography). Notice also, how there wasn't any ethnic diversity amongst the models, either?<BR/><BR/>We gots to shake that shit up!Revistahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16029404785891473705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163928454357103954.post-32411849613802306302007-07-14T00:16:00.000-04:002007-07-14T00:16:00.000-04:00I'm just intrigued by the focus on symmetry that's...I'm just intrigued by the focus on symmetry that's there, and how expressionless so many of the faces were... it was quite creepy to stare at them all for that long.<BR/><BR/>Also, I think there's a kind of symbol of female faces that gets used - especially with the eye-nose-lips thing that gets distilled right from the renaissance to when they move into the matisses and picassos, and is still there right through art nouveau and out the other side. I think I could draw a 'beautiful' face with four lines, at this stage in art history. It's a weirdly cartoony approach. <BR/><BR/>So how does one identify as 'feminine' if your face isn't, say, symmetrical, or, perhaps, doesn't conform to that iconic form?Shel Kahnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06381080528546033812noreply@blogger.com