prioritize the male gaze and so used separatism as a strategy, the Intervention relied on male presence and strategized the event to include men.
I wonder if this could also be caused by the fact that one prioritized identity-formation (which, in some cases, could lead to polarization or binary identities) and the other identity de-formation.
anti or counter monument since it makes a testament out of the symbol for domesticity and claims control over a narrative either forgotten or purposely delegitimized
I question how this renders Woman House an "anti-monument." Perhaps it isn't a "conventional" monument, per se, but the way you describe it here makes Woman House indeed sound like a monument (albeit unconventional in comparison to "traditional" perceptions of monuments).
This physical liminality created by the separation and purposeful choosing of a “random” or ambiguous location aided in facilitating a fantasy world.
Good point - very clearly expressed.
fantastical domesticity
I wish you could expand a little more on the word choice of "fantastical here." While you establish very clearly that this is a house of spontaneity and expression, a more clear connection to how those qualities relate to "fantasy" would probably be beneficial. What does this say about "true" domesticity?
It proved to be a place which sounded like laughter and giggling, feet shuffling, doors opening— sounds of exploration, curiosity, conversation, community building and most importantly, it sounded like women.
This is a brilliant rhetorical strategy. The use of your specific and vivid description here, culminating with the phrase "most importantly, it sounded like women," is very provokative & effective in presenting your argument regarding identification.
however it did not translate to the artwork of “popular culture” because it did not represent the “dominant culture” (Hall).
This is a really interesting point! Could the same be said about BAW/TAF? Did border art's absorption into dominant culture garner more elitist or critical reactions?
It'd be great if you could expand on this point, both for your analysis of House as well as BAW/TAF, as this is an interesting insight.
In that case, what makes something popular? Is it influence and institutional power?
Is there a way you can connect this more to BAW/TAF? The insertion of Camnitzer's analysis here feels slightly surprising, as it lacks clear connection to your great insights about BAW/TAF and dominant culture.
transform it into artwork of the “dominant culture,” making it accessible for those who had no idea about the socioeconomic struggles that the artists were facing.
Perhaps here it'd be beneficial to delve into, or at least make more explicit, the tensions inherent in absorbing border art into the "dominant culture."
but also seeks to meld the artistic and political worlds. In this way, it’s doing more than your typical avant-garde performance.
Your thesis, based on this structure, is essentially that IAW melded the political and the artistic, thus problematizing the avant-garde. I wonder if this could've benefited from a little more of your insight, as it'd help guide the reader into your argument some more
Any organization, any system, and any person can benefit from considering the positions of others, and IAW proves that to some extent.
Great!
this sounds like political science, not art history!
Haha!
Going back to the example about designing my team’s uniforms
I'm glad you return to this
The disconnect is part of what avant-garde art strives for. Based on Kester’s Conversation Pieces, the avant-garde tries to challenge the audience’s traditional notions of viewership, forcing them to contemplate unusual forms of experience.
This is a really great point - I hadn't thought about IAW as being a work of art for these reasons, so thank you for pointing it out!
The stories people told about it, the opinions they expressed, the reports from the media didn’t just contribute to the art, they were the art! This is why Kester uses it as an example of “dialogical art”—the substance comes from the conversation surrounding it!
I love the enthusiasm!!
There are more than 30 active players, all with different artistic taste and preferences—should I ask every single teammate for their opinion on each design after I make it? Should I more closely follow the WK model, and consult with the whole team before making any designs? At the end of the day, would these consultations even impact the final design?
I really appreciate this connection, although I wish you would've attempted to answer some of the many questions you pose throughout these paragraphs. I think the questions, though, offer an important analytical framework for you and your reader, but some of your insight after each (or at least some) of the questions would've been interesting. I really want to know what you think!!
Hypothetically, all policy could be made alongside those who are impacted by it. It might take longer, and the result might not always be what was expected, but it seems like a step in the right direction.
I wonder what the impact of incorporating art in this process would be...? As in, would it speed up the process, garner more sympathy, elicit more (media) attention?
this art piece
I'm assuming you mean IAW? Name-dropping IAW here again would probably make this more clear (unless you're talking about board game making as an art?)
is to test the board game with new players
Good comparison; offers a more direct and personal connection to IAW
If a policy is going to directly impact a group of people, it might make a substantial difference in the policy’s effectiveness if those people are consulted while the policy is being made or formulated.
In this sense, IAW combined the political and the artistic; it also offered a voice to these marginalized communities of sex workers. My question is, should every policy-making process basically emulate IAW (ie. "artistically" involve/consult the people that the policy impacts), and if so, is that possible? Would policy-making become more artistic than political?