"... which involved a gradual withdrawal over a period of several months from the art world’s openings and social events, the first step in a long process of distancing herself from her peers.... In August 1971... she undertook another, even more audacious project, 'Decide to Boycott Women,' stating her intention to stop speaking to other women. In her notes on the piece, she suggested it would be temporary.... But it ended up being a practice she continued throughout the rest of her life, mostly, though not entirely, avoiding women (even allegedly once refusing to be helped by a female clerk at a grocery store). The blunt hostility of this piece struck many of her friends and, later, art critics and historians as an act of self-destruction.... 'Lee was very moody, drinking a lot of cheap wine and smoking lots of dope. I was raising my young son and had to ask her to leave after a few days. I remember thinking that she was a kind of warning about what could happen if you mixed art and life too closely.'... A picture of her last decades emerges only in shards and anecdotes. For several years she lived with her parents, until her father filed a restraining order and she was forced to move into her own apartment in the same complex.... She’s like a character in a Kafka story, or Melville’s Bartleby, but funnier, more perverted, more playful and an invention not of another writer’s mind but of her own...."
I'm reading
"She Didn’t Speak to Other Women for 28 Years. What Did It Cost Her?/ When it came to using her life in her work, the artist Lee Lozano went about as far as a person can go" (NYT).
Back in the 1970s, one would often read about things like this. I'd thought the culture had lost interest in this sort of thing. I wonder what prompted the revival of interest — wanting to forefront a woman artist? But this woman made a lifelong project out of boycotting women. Are we supposed to believe she sacrificed something she wanted to be able to do?
Here's the comment NYT readers rate highest: "Refusing to speak to other woman is sexist and borderline sociopathic. It is most definitely not art, it's merely an eccentric and fairly selfish personality trait...." That's consistent with my observation that the culture has moved away from seeing weird acting out as art. It's a mental disorder... unless it has the honor of counting as an expression of "identity."
Posts
38 comments:
Her "art" sucks.
Anti-feminine or Anti-feminist? Diversitist? Perhaps she was avoiding wicked feminity. #NoJudgment #NoLabels #HerChoice
Listen to women talking to women and you see her point. Women talking to men is a different dynamic.
So she could talk to trans women or not?
Trans women? Feminine simulants or homosexuals?
She probably discriminated by sex and gender, not politically congruent constructs.
Most people would prefer not to be a character in a Kafka story.
"Women understand women, and they hate each other."
Al Bundy - "Married... with Children"
"That's consistent with my observation that the culture has moved away from seeing weird acting out as art."
Or maybe NYT commenters are just practicing the art of ostracism.
""Refusing to speak to other woman is sexist and borderline sociopathic..."
Art is a tricky thing.
All I know is that if she was running for office on this platform I would consider giving her my vote.
Insert 'mic drop' emoji or some-such.
I am Laslo.
On one level, art is whatever you say it is. But many performance artists are just jerks.
I'm somehow reminded of VP Pence and his decision never to be alone with women other than his wife.
the artist Lee Lozano went about as far as a person can go
Cue Aunt Eller.
I'm kind of unclear about how to evaluate such art. Poking around in the NYT links, I found Terence Koh and his salt pile.
The artist Terence Koh at Mary Boone Gallery in New York, performing “Nothingtoodoo,” a 2011 piece in which he crawled on his knees around a pile of salt for eight hours a day for 26 days straight. https://archive.ph/MJDBM
There's a great picture at the link of Mr. Koh and his salt pile. It's exactly as silly as you would think. I kind of like it.
---- Here's the comment NYT readers rate highest: "Refusing to speak to other woman is sexist and borderline sociopathic. It is most definitely not art, it's merely an eccentric and fairly selfish personality trait...."
Not talking to other women is sexist? No!
It's merely this or merely that, let's denigrate her. Merely. Has no hold on me me me, sniff. (Besides, she can't fight back now.)
Her phasing out of Uptown Art Scene is what a lot of artists do when they move to Arles, or Tahiti, or an island off Maine. The extreme self-consciousness and total self-referentialness of it -- claiming it as an art piece, not just a lifestyle preference -- squares with someone who lived life as art, as someone in there said, but it also squares with neurosis, narcissism, and/or borderline personality disorder.
Evicted, lost her studio, moved in with her parents..... what a hard life. Think about any one of those things. Oh, too much booze and pot, that'll wreck a lot of people's lives. Sad. But not talking to women! OMG, horrors. A month must have brought so much relief she continued it for 20 years.
She crazy, but interesting.
Men can be backstabbing SOBs... but women take it to another level.. why? Cause physically they cannot compete thus they use a more 'indirect' approach.. like poison. And thus their tongue is their weapon of choice.
Example.. Hillary Clinton.. and I rest my case.
Would she be a D or an R?
Performance art? Cannot confirm via google
Wiki says"
"She continued to pursue private conceptual projects, including Masturbation Investigation"
Deranged or Reclusive is a left to right spectrum.
Mr. Koh and his salt pile ...
if only he put on moo-cow head and lick it
Conceptual arts. Fine. Conceive of Quaestor giving a shit.
Sounds like she tuned out everybody. But decided to piss off the feminists while doing so. Points for creativity.
Cheap wine? Stuffllkillya.
If a person wants to do art but has no talent, they get into "abstract art". But it's a crowded field so how does a person get noticed in the "abstract art" world? This person apparently had an answer because she got a nyt obit due to her schtick.
The guy with the pile of salt gave an occasion for interesting photography. Interesting lighting and texture and interesting, if minimalist subject. But that is good for one session, or one day, to produce art for a batch of photographers, a model shoot really. Look up images for Terence Koh and salt.
I'm not gonna say it.
Serenity now.
It's a mental disorder... unless it has the honor of counting as an expression of "identity."
She just needed to identify as someone who doesn't talk to women, problem solved!
Today I ate a tuna sandwich while speaking to no one. It was a conceptual piece I call "lunch". I am working on this piece as part of my art practice and plan a revised performance tomorrow around noon.
Gerda Sprinchorn said...
"There's a great picture at the link of Mr. Koh and his salt pile. It's exactly as silly as you would think. I kind of like it."
**********
But I'd bet he considers himself a World Historical Figure for wallowing in it for days on end. That's how effed up pretentious idiots like that think.
The same goes for the so-called art world.
"His work continues to be held in major collections including the Whitney Museum of American Art, the Tate Gallery in London, and the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles."
Gag me with a kimchee jar.
Lozano's paintings weren't that bad. Conventional abstract but different because based on wrenches, screws and pipes which she forced to have angry, sexual overtones. Tedious really. Artist in search of shock value.
As far as attending at performance art, what I say is take care of a pre-school child for awhile. There's performance art with an abundant variety of performance themes. Not just one theme for 28 years or 28 days but dozens a day done with inexhaustible energy. And audience participation:
PUT THAT DOWN.
The spoon needs to be right side up
GET DOWN FROM THERE
How did you get the phone and who are you talking to?
Food cannot go in the ear.
Etc.
She escaped hell.
The brighter, the light, the greater the surrounding darkness.
There’s a kind of inverse correlation between the level of stupidity and the level of intelligence. The greater one’s intelligence, the greater potential for immense stupidity. Plain old, stupid people can only do plain old, stupid things. Highly intelligent people however, can attain levels of idiocy the merely stupid could never imagine.
an expression of "identity."
Makes me think Speedy Gonzales and sombreros, art that afflicts the comfortable and stretches the Overton window.
If she had refused to speak with men, they'd be building a statue of her to celebrate her stunning bravery.
A slow descent into madness. Let's all celebrate.
She should have written a short story about a woman who, as performance art, refused her whole life to talk to women, then included the funeral, and the write-ups, and then moved on.
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.