Last evening I attended a discussion:
Angela Davis-http://histcon.ucsc.edu/faculty/davis.html, activist/organizer associated with the NAACP, SNCC and The Black Panther Party, now an instructor at the University of California in San Diego.
Helen Molesworth- Head of the department of modern and contemporary art at the Harvard Art Museum, and formers curator at the Baltimore Museum of Art. Amy Goodman-An investigative journalist and host/executive producer of Democracy Now!
Mediated by Sheilah Kast- Host of Maryland Morning, former Washington ABC news correspondent.
the subject matter included Women's Liberation/Racial Equality/questioning existing power structures/health care reform. The structure of the talk, dictated by the architectural/institutional environment as well the passive, unprepared promptings and input from the mediator Sheilah Kast was, in my opinion, weak. This is not to say I didn't glean much from the experience. It was interesting to see how brilliant individuals can be simplified by the easily digestible rhetoric of an overly embellished narrative format (thanks Amy Goodman) turning them into idols or iconic figures that go unengaged by a paralyzed, self-congratulatory audience.
There were moments of realness: Angela Davis mentioned the importance of the ability to "Separately analyze entities that have been considered inseparable by the structure that defines them as such, and to find commonalities in entities that are separated, to study why this is and question the basis of these classifications"
This topic was amazing, and terrifyingly open, this sort of talk doesn't hold up well in the Performer/Audience format that this particular talk took place in, so it was quickly glazed over with the usual rhetoric of criticizing the Obama Administration, health care reform ect... there were plenty of loaded words the incited standing ovations and raised fists, but it felt like no one was listening.
Helen Molesworth was concise and extremely well spoken, guiding the other speakers into realms that were more conducive to relating to the students. She mentioned that young people are working for predecessors, not their ancestors.
Sadly the question/answer period (which consisted of older audience members rambling about how they heard about the "Women's Lib" movement) was cut short by MICA Events Coordinator Firmin DeBrabander announcing that there would be "Books For SALE upstairs!" instructing everyone to leave already. I was disappointed that the student voice was completely stifled by the format of the talk. I wanted to talk about my insecurities with being a feminist at an art school, how to include this discourse and knowledge into a studio practice, is it irresponsible to neglect this aspect of myself? Clearly I would not expect any of the members of the panel to answer these questions, but I think hearing these topics voiced would have been beneficial for the student body.
I assume that it is relatively clear that I may be losing my mind and/or still trying to digest all of this. I will post an audio file or video of the talk as soon as I can get a hold of one, accompanied with more analysis. It is the structure of the discussion responding, relating, and perhaps mirroring the very structures it set about to shed light on that I am interested in, and would like to further explore this.
I talked to Molesworth a little after the panel, she was super nice and insightful. She's pals with Kristine (jeez, who isn't), and probably would respond to an e-mail.
ReplyDeleteI would agree that the pre-established narratives were problematic for expanding discussion but also realize that at least for Davis and Goodman, that is What They Do--they've devoted their lives and careers to an issue, and it's hard to turn that off/not relate it to other issues.
I appreciated when Goodman was talking about her mom and her experiences as an undergrad a whole lot--there was so much talk of that "embodied contradition" feminist model as more rupture than repair, so models of compassionate contradiction like Goodman's mom and some of the work Molesworth has written about in the past (Moyra Davey, Sylvia Planck Mangold) are encouraging.
Rachel, I apologize for leaving our discussion at that party.
ReplyDeleteI have been reading your blog and am glad you're posting a lot more.
I didn't make it to constitution day but I like your review – I would be surprised if, hypothetically, I didn't reflect on it similarly (had I actually gone)
We should work on a project together one day
I agree with all of what you said. Sheilah Kast was not only disappointing with her commentary, but also seemed to lack knowledge of herself as an activist / feminist. She just seemed very self conscious or out of place the whole time.
ReplyDeleteThe question and answer section was hard because of the people congratulating the panelists, but not asking questions, or the panelists not being able to answer questions because they were so specific (or not questions at all). I think I would have felt less left out if I had just been listening to the women speak the whole time.
Ingrid- Thank you for suggesting to email Helen, I think that is a good idea, I'll talk to Kristine about that. Goodman did bring up some helpful topics in relation to her experiences in college and anthropology, I did enjoy those thoughts. There was so much to absorb from that experience, sometimes it is easier for me to begin with what I find wrong as opposed to positive aspects..which in retrospect here seems pretty cynical.
ReplyDeleteMatt- I would like to work on a project with you one day.
All- If I were to get a tape of the panel discussion would any of you be interested in holding a follow up analysis?