WEEKLY DISCUSSION 2.0 #9 - Francesca Woodman

<blockquote>

<p>So what you are saying Fred is that if Woodman had led a fairly "normal" upbringing and early adult life then she wouldn't be an artist?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, that's not what I'm saying.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The fact that she committed suicide so young can only leave us speculation on where she would have gone.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I haven't once speculated on where she would have gone. I've looked at her actual work and her actual life.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It just seems that it's common for people to look to the work for clues whenever an artist goes off the deep end.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Common or not, that's not what I was saying. I haven't been looking at her work for clues. I was saying that often artists are alienated from the world and seek art as a means of expression and catharsis. I saw stuff in Woodman's work long before I knew about her life or suicide.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I do not find myself looking for any meaning. I am drawn in by her choices (location, pose, self portrait, ...) . Her style. For me the content does not feel as if it is driven by message or meaning beyond the frame.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>j.d., that's interesting to consider. On the one hand, it opens the photo up more because we can see it as a matter of her photographic choices without necessarily interpreting those choices to mean this or that. Which is really so often the way things happen when we're photographing. It's not like we think about the meaning of everything we photograph and the way we photograph it. One way to look at it is that, when we as viewers do attribute meaning, we realize that we are getting meaning out of it but shouldn't necessarily project that onto the photographer or assume they "meant" it that way. On the other hand, much art is actually trying to express something and even say something, in which case meaning can supply a bridge between photographer and viewer, though it won't outdo feeling. I also think it can reveal things about the photographer even when the photographer didn't necessarily intend any specifics. The cool part is that it may just as often fool the viewer as reveal truths to the viewer. That ambiguity may actually be the most important truth of all.</p>

One thing of note is that the larger part of her portfolio is locked up by her parents (estate).

 

And unreleased.

 

I wonder what they are concealing by doing this. What art, or what trash is contained in that collection.

 

Too bad that "The Woodmans" is no longer available on Netflix. It's painfully obvious these two people were horrible parents. Maybe they are equally horrible curators.

NT

We forget that Van Gogh shot himself at age 37. Now if he had only lived and sold some paintings, what would his next period have revealed. I have to say Fred, that the photo you chose was just a teaser into some of the other work Francesca did. Fascinating. Disturbing. A peering into a soul to use that word in a secular sense, like the word psyche. I am not tempted to psychoanalyze the girl or the young lady, or try to study what her demons were. We all have a few I expect. Thing is that she chose to let us into her mind. And not be anonymous and unrevealed and unexamined. Maybe self photography was part of her self therapy, who knows.That photo of a nude with clothespins I just googled in the batch displayed, is a pretty ouchy one for her time and years. Though it could be compared to the piercings of today's younger set. She is interesting and her work is interesting. As in: 'worth some attention.'

Phil,

 

Would you let your 16 year old daughter take naked photos with a fat 50 year old naked man?

 

It was 70s, and all, but seriously. Would you have allowed that in the 70s?

 

 

 

People deal with grief differently, but listen to mom and pop Woodman talk about Franchesca' art and suicide. Their discussion of competition with her, their self absorbtion, their guilt and rationalization of it.

 

I wouldn't want these people as friends in real life,.let alone parents. I didn't have model parents myself, growing up at about the same time as Franchesca, they never ever got me to a place where I wanted to swan dive off a roof. Maybe more accurate to say that they were horrible people who happened to be parents?

 

Betty's clay art seems facile and trite to me.

 

George's photography of a model who resembles his daughter, using a style similar to hers, is disgusting and morbid to me.

My idea of creativity and appreciation of photos is not wrapped up in whether I would have done it. There's plenty of great

photography I would not have done and plenty I would never have thought of doing. That's often part of the reason I

appreciate it. It seems the parents failed their daughter but I wouldn't single out allowing her to pose with an older guy. All

of this depends on context and the same act that could seem seedy in one instance will be just fine in another.

I think it's great when morality comes into discussions of photos, since so much of what we see and do bears on moral

questions. It's interesting that young female (sometimes but less often male) nudity will trigger strong reactions. It doesn't

have to be that way but it often is and that tension can be Part of expressive photos.

 

There's also a fine line between discussions of morality and moralizing.

" My idea of creativity and appreciation of photos is not wrapped up in whether I would have done it. There's plenty of great photography I would not have done and plenty I would never have thought of doing."

 

Precisely, Fred. I can be shocked and register my shock and I often raise an eyebrow to point where I have a permanent squint anymore.... Re my quaint moral disapproval of what a photographer chooses to exhibit. And any example of such dismay would be getting more personal that needed for relevance. What a poverty of discussion if the only way we look at photographs is to say " my goodness." Ok, to stretch the point. If we look at Matthew Brady Civil War photos. "Oh my he photographed corpses. A necrophilicac." "And one who posed our honored dead who sanctified the field of battle." Take the photojournalist of the Bowery like Weegee. We might go " Ugh, this guy belongs only on Police Gazette tabloid press Declasse. "; Marilyn Monroe Playboy like her centerfold, recent topical personr of discussion. We can even sneer, " Shame on Hefner for exploiting impoverished and troubled young model. One who OD'd on downers ."

 

Studying the environment of a photographer to understand them is valid. If it is to reject their output, maybe just preferable to take a pass on the image under our scope. Depends on what we learn from the scoping.

I actually really don't have any morals in regards to sexuality. I don't think.

 

My discussion was about their parenting abilities. And gave an example of their absentee parenting.

 

Which in and of itself is perfect example of how meaning and interpretation and the resulting imputed meaning can be

opposite.

 

I reserve the topic of morality for actions that actually hurt or harm people. No one was or is harmed by the naked model photos.

 

That said, speaking as a 50 year old fat man, I wouldn't be caught dead naked(or clothed) in a photo with a naked

teenager. Not that I have some morality about it or against it internally. I know that in the society I live in, I could end up in

jail or killed, or jailed, sodomized, and then killed. I'm too cynical to die for art.

<p>We have no idea why Woodman committed suicide. We can blame the parents but that may only be scratching the surface. She may have gotten pregnant. Maybe she was gay and was ashamed. Maybe she had a drug addiction and/or maybe she was having a bad trip and thought she could fly when she jumped out the window. We will never know. The girl I sat next to in 5th period science class in 11th grade committed suicide (by gunshot) during Xmas break. Those sitting at our table could tell she was sad but she never wanted to discuss anything when we asked her about things, sometimes she would just say that some of the other girls in school were mean to her. Sometimes we just have to accept the fact that many times life just doesn't wrap everything up all neat and tidy with a bow; there is always going to be loose ends and unanswered questions. </p>

<p>I have not looked closely at Woodman's work for a while and this discussion made me go back to review some of it again. Fred, I think I was a bit off when I used the term "feminist expression". At least in the limited sense of "feminist" implying a feminist political, or social, agenda. Her work was intensely personal, and although it frequently made use of her own body, it was a body that happened to be female. Though I may be wrong, my impression is that whatever it was she was communicating, it related to her as Francesca Woodman, not to women in general as represented by Franscesca Woodman "Everywoman". </p>

<p>And what is it that is being communicated? Nudity as vulnerability? Bleak tumbledown rooms as interior landscapes, or the way she saw the world in which she lived? Blurred movement as alienation and confusion? Her poses always seem tortured, or tired, whether covered by wallpaper, or curled around a porcelain basin containing a snake. In one photo, her bark-wrapped hands reach toward the sky, while in another she hangs from a doorjamb in a pose reminiscent of Christ's crucifixion. There is always oddity, or dis-ease, and things seem off kilter. Her experimentation (for the time) showed promise but it was of a disturbed nature. <br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Fred, I think I was a bit off when I used the term "feminist expression". At least in the limited sense of "feminist" implying a feminist political, or social, agenda. Her work was intensely personal, and although it frequently made use of her own body, it was a body that happened to be female. Though I may be wrong, my impression is that whatever it was she was communicating, it related to her as Francesca Woodman, not to women in general as represented by Franscesca Woodman "Everywoman".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Steve, I certainly understand what you're saying and agree that hers is a personal expression. At the same time, I don't think that makes it not a social or political "feminist expression." I'm not going to guess at whether she, herself, had a political or social agenda. But I think an intensely personal body of work by a strong individual woman willing to show herself is feminist by nature. That's why I found your observation so interesting. I don't think feminism has to take the guise of being intentionally political or social. Strong, free, personal expressions by women are as significantly feminist as more conscious and overtly political statements or actions. It might even be somewhat patriarchal to suggest that if her photos represented Francesca Woodman "Everywoman" then they might be more politically feminist. In fact, I think it's a more female or feminine approach to realize that feminism <em>doesn't</em> require that kind of universalizing and that feminism can be evident in her very individual and personal work.<br>

<br>

I do agree with you that no particular "agenda" seems implied. As to feminism and many other aspects, I think art and photography don't have to be intentionally this or that in order to be this or that. </p>

Watch "The Woodmans [2010] Legendado PT-BR" on YouTube

.

.

.

 

 

 

<p>Two qoutes from Francesca's Personal Journal:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>“I finally managed to try to do away with myself, as neatly and concisely as possible…. I would rather die young leaving various accomplishments, some work, my friendship with you, and some other artifacts intact, instead of pell-mell erasing all of these delicate things.”</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>“THIS ACTION THAT I FORESEE<br /> I was (am?) not unique but special.<br />This is why I was an artist…”</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No mentioning of her unsuccessful application for funding from the National Endowment for the Arts or the broken relationship, or her parents.</p>

<p>Concerning nakedness, older men and nowadays moral correctness judgements, I think it is the wrong way into understanding Francesca Woodman's art. And, it is Off-Topic on Photonet.</p>

Photographing naked people is off topic?

 

So we can't talk about Sally Mann, Mapplethorp, or Bob Guccionni?

 

Dang censors.

Only moderators determine what's off topic and, IMO, everything being discussed here relates to photography and has

been on topic. We've been talking about nudity, etc. as it relates to Woodman's photography. It's been within bounds. Don't worry.

<p><em>We've been talking about nudity, etc. as it relates to Woodman's photography. It's been within bounds.</em><br>

Apart from Black's first comments, which were not followed up, you might be right, Fred. Personally I'm all for it.</p>

<p>Thanks, Anders. </p>

<p>I do agree with you that there are other ways into an understanding of Woodman's photos and would love to hear you address that more specifically and photographically, if you'd care to elaborate. While psychological history and the context within which a photographer works (in this case her parents and depression, etc.) go into the mix, there's something to be said for looking directly at the photos and seeing what's right there in front of us. Are there things you see that help you understand her photography? I think it would be great to discuss the photos themselves some more.</p>

<p>Speaking to the several images of hers that I have viewed is all I can do, as I know little about the artist or her reputation.</p>

<p>They are I think great examples of exploration and artistic intention in photography. While one may see despair and frustration and confusion or bleakness in many, they also are in some ways I think playful (display of ideas and visual symbols) yet very personal outpourings from the mind of the artist. I am familiar with many works of artists in our community who have been university trained, belong to local art circles (I hesitate to use the word movements as that would classify too rigidly their work) and often use the camera as a tool of expression. Theirs is not a dissimilar aesthetic approach to that of Woodman. The works, like Woodman's, are far from the mainstream of amateur and commercial photography. Were they influenced by Francesca, or did Woodman fit into their aesthetic (1970s, only related to the older artists today) or did they also have something to do with creating this type of imagery and aesthetic?</p>

<p>This is photography with intention and exploration - and for those reasons alone I love it. In another posting I sought examples from photonetters of their breaking free from prior work, of personal evolution and exploration. Although Francesca was likely not breaking free from an artistic approach which was already hers (she may possibly have thought of photography as a means of breaking free from her own concerns or devils), experiencing her work is possibly a good incitation to some of us to break free and seek new ways of expression in our own work.</p>

<p>Thanks Fred for bringing her to our attention. Her artistic approach opens up the discussion to a number of other such known (and sometimes less well-known) artist-photographers who have sought unique personal approaches of expression. I don't know about the museums in the USA, but the former Canadian center for contemporary photography (a collection now part of the National Arts Centre in Ottawa) has several works that speak of rather unique artists and photographers creating from the mid 1950s onwards.</p>

<p>Just a young lady who was exploring herself and her art...who to my mind was a special. Unfortunately, the looking around corners, took her to the dark side where many of the most talented were lost.</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>Fred G: <em> I don't think feminism has to take the guise of being intentionally political or social.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fred, I completely agree. Any feminist concerns or "messages" (and I would actually prefer to use the term "female concerns") are expressed organically through her work. They come forth naturally, unforced. As opposed to bludgeoning the viewer with a visual hammer: "Here! This is what a patriarchal society does to women” or “This is how women are undervalued, misrepresented, misunderstood, or oppressed in our society". As an example of what I mean, look at Renee Cox' HOT-EN-TOT:</p>

<p>https://artintheblackdiaspora.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/17-_hott-en-tot_-1994-40_x60_-silvergelatin.jpg</p>

<p>Although it was intended more to represent European colonial attitudes toward “ the Other” and so-called “primitive sexual appetites”, it also stands as an example of the exaggerated sexual objectification of women.</p>

<p>This is not to imply that Cox, in this instance, is any less of a photographic artist than Woodman, or that photographs which deliver an unequivocal message are inferior to those which are more subtle. I just mean that I find the feminism in Woodman's photographs to be multi-dimensional and, just as you said, Fred, not intentionally political or social. I also find certain aspects of her work – alienation, confusion, anxiety, call it what you will – to be universal and asexual. Many of her images speak to me as a human being, regardless of any differences in age, era, or gender.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Arthur Plumpton -- <em>...they also are in some ways I think playful (display of ideas and visual symbols)</em><br>

<em> </em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em><br /></em>Arthur, thanks for pointing that out. I think that is another aspect of Woodman's photography that appeals to me, but I couldn't quite put it into words until I read what you wrote. Although I may find echoes of my own feelings toward bleakness, alienation, and anxiety in her work, the various means by which she chooses to express it is playful indeed, and I find a certain exhiliration in the aesthetic execution of it. </p>

<p>"Although I may find echoes of my own feelings toward bleakness, alienation, and anxiety in her work, the various means by which she chooses to express it is playful indeed, and I find a certain exhiliration in the aesthetic execution of it"</p>

<p>But there was more, deeper...the playful a ruse. A grasping for the undefined; a seeking unfulfilled...without the patience of time a needful wish for the now...which was too distance to grasp and became a never ending loss of being. A loss beyond the ability to comprehend and accept....a great sadness of the soul and a departing..</p>

<p>Today was another triple digit day in LA so being it was too hot to shoot and too hot to print in my darkroom I spent much of the afternoon in the main branch library in downtown. There were three different books on Woodman on the shelf. I thumbed through all three and took the one that appealed the most to me to sit down with for awhile. While I am familiar with Woodman, I never really sat down and considered her work before. Overall, it just isn't my cup of tea. I do think her self portraits are more "artsy" then those of Cindy Sherman but I also found her work to be fairly narrow in concept, i.e. much of her work had a certain sameness to it. As mentioned already it's anybodies guess as to what she would have gone on to had she not ended her own life so young but that is pure speculation, all we can do is assess the work she left behind. I did see some images of her and the overweight middle aged man which I suppose were the images referred to earlier in this thread. I didn't see anything controversial about these, I just saw two people mugging for the camera. The fact that they were both nude didn't strike me as being anything sexual either. None of her pictures had any feminist undertones that I could detect but then again I never took a class in feminism so I wouldn't know where to even begin to look for this. I suppose if someone approaches a photograph (or some other artwork) and looks for things like these then they will find it regardless of of how much of leap it takes; kind of like that old saying if you all you have is a hammer then everything looks like a nail to you.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Marc Todd -- <em>I suppose if someone approaches a photograph (or some other artwork) and looks for things like these then they will find it regardless of of how much of leap it takes; kind of like that old saying if you all you have is a hammer then everything looks like a nail to you.</em></p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Steve Gubin -- <em>I also find certain aspects of her work – alienation, confusion, anxiety, call it what you will – to be universal and asexual. Many of her images speak to me as a human being, regardless of any differences in age, era, or gender.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Marc -- I don't know that anyone in this thread has claimed that her photos were overtly and intentionally Feminist (with a capital "F") in the way that we might think of Germaine Greer or Gloria Steinem as feminist. And whether or not we think so, or whether or not Francesca Woodman herself thought so, there are apparently certain aspects of her work that seem feminist enough in theme to have caused a number of contemporary female artists and commentators to think so. The fact that you do not see any "feminist undertones" therefore means that those who do are fabricating them? That a female artist chose to use herself as the primary subject for most of her work is enough of a <em>de facto</em> feminism for some. You don't need a class in feminism (I never took one) to know where to begin to look for it. You look for it where there are women. And a woman who goes her own way and makes the conscious choice to create some very unique and artistic photographs with herself as the subject can be considered, without too great a stretch of the imagination, as somewhat feminist (small "f"). </p>

<p>You might be interested in this article from The Telegraph, where at one point, Woodman's father comments upon one critic's claim to have found feminist "urges" in her work:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>Woodman’s early champions in the mid-Eighties, such as the American critic Rosalind Krauss, now a professor at Columbia University in New York, seized upon this tendency to “camouflage” herself as a feminist urge: by almost dissolving into the fabric of the house on Rhode Island, they argued, Woodman was consciously resisting the “male gaze” and shunning preconceived gender roles in which femininity equalled domesticity.</em><br>

<em>“That’s what I call over-criticism – taking a work of art and using it to project your own story,” George Woodman says. “Rosalind Krauss is a very important and profound critic, but she can over-interpret things. Francesca did not see herself as a feminist.”</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>While I would agree that seeing Francesca Woodman's "camouflage" as "resisting the male gaze" is a stretch, I would argue with George Woodman that one does not have to see oneself as a feminist to, in a sense, be one. He is missing the type of feminism that some contemporary female artists find in his daughter's work. Were Camille Claudel, George Sand, and Jane Austen feminists? If you see nothing feminist in their accomplishments in a male dominated world and time, then I can understand why you think the rest of us are running around with hammers looking for nails to pound. It comes down, as many differences of opinion often do, to a matter of definition. </p>