JAY DEFEO: THE ROSE
Jay DeFeo’s The Rose is remarkable. Its dimensions of 10.7’ x 7.7’ x 11” and its weight of 1,850 pounds are unbelievable. The time--eight years--spent on creating this work is extraordinary. In my opinion, this alone merits The Rose’s inclusion in this and all other art history classes. Yet, these statistics do not encapsulate all of The Rose’s mystique, intrigue, and troubled history, nor do they demonstrate the way in which it complicates the canonical survey of art and design that we began the course with/the Western canon of art or how it complements the other modules in this course as they currently exist.
I specifically wanted to work with postwar American art of the 1950s because this period allowed for the most …show more content…
Similar to Tanaka Otsuko, DeFeo rejected and distanced herself from other women artists and the feminist movement. Yet, these women and all women artists are forced to choose between these two absolutes--identifying with feminism or not--which, no matter the decision, greatly affects their art. Art historian Lucy R. Lippard notes, “As far as the studio and gallery scene went, DeFeo was one of the boys, a position all ambitious women sensibly aspired to be at the time.” Originally, being “one of the boys” was necessary to be respected and make it in the art world because it was men making the decisions of what art should be paid attention to; DeFeo made this choice not to hurt her fellow women artists or progression of women’s rights*(source?) but to simply do her job and achieve whatever little success she could, as did any other woman forced into this situation. After The Rose, DeFeo did not make any art from 1966-1970. Lippard muses on this period of inactivity: “I can’t help but wonder whether that was indirectly due to the impetus of the women’s art movement, which was then becoming a national cause célèbre, affecting even those women who wanted nothing to do with it.” If DeFeo were to identify with the feminist or women’s art movement, all of her artwork would need to be feminist, and even if it was not, it would …show more content…
There is so much more to this piece than I’ve even hinted at. The piece indeed disrupts the canon and complements our class, but I argue it is worthy of inclusion because it raises questions: If a piece of art is so unusual/remarkable/original, can it transcend the forces which marginalize its artist and societal barriers which hold its artist back from fame? Why do we analyze all women artists and their art within the context of feminism? What kind of pressure does identifying as a feminist or woman artist place onto the artist and the art itself? How does the relatability of a piece determine its success? What is the difference between various classifications of kinds of art and why are they so different? How does the stratification of types of art suggest a hierarchy? There are so many more questions to ask and that is precisely why The Rose should be taught in this
Jay DeFeo’s The Rose is remarkable. Its dimensions of 10.7’ x 7.7’ x 11” and its weight of 1,850 pounds are unbelievable. The time--eight years--spent on creating this work is extraordinary. In my opinion, this alone merits The Rose’s inclusion in this and all other art history classes. Yet, these statistics do not encapsulate all of The Rose’s mystique, intrigue, and troubled history, nor do they demonstrate the way in which it complicates the canonical survey of art and design that we began the course with/the Western canon of art or how it complements the other modules in this course as they currently exist.
I specifically wanted to work with postwar American art of the 1950s because this period allowed for the most …show more content…
Similar to Tanaka Otsuko, DeFeo rejected and distanced herself from other women artists and the feminist movement. Yet, these women and all women artists are forced to choose between these two absolutes--identifying with feminism or not--which, no matter the decision, greatly affects their art. Art historian Lucy R. Lippard notes, “As far as the studio and gallery scene went, DeFeo was one of the boys, a position all ambitious women sensibly aspired to be at the time.” Originally, being “one of the boys” was necessary to be respected and make it in the art world because it was men making the decisions of what art should be paid attention to; DeFeo made this choice not to hurt her fellow women artists or progression of women’s rights*(source?) but to simply do her job and achieve whatever little success she could, as did any other woman forced into this situation. After The Rose, DeFeo did not make any art from 1966-1970. Lippard muses on this period of inactivity: “I can’t help but wonder whether that was indirectly due to the impetus of the women’s art movement, which was then becoming a national cause célèbre, affecting even those women who wanted nothing to do with it.” If DeFeo were to identify with the feminist or women’s art movement, all of her artwork would need to be feminist, and even if it was not, it would …show more content…
There is so much more to this piece than I’ve even hinted at. The piece indeed disrupts the canon and complements our class, but I argue it is worthy of inclusion because it raises questions: If a piece of art is so unusual/remarkable/original, can it transcend the forces which marginalize its artist and societal barriers which hold its artist back from fame? Why do we analyze all women artists and their art within the context of feminism? What kind of pressure does identifying as a feminist or woman artist place onto the artist and the art itself? How does the relatability of a piece determine its success? What is the difference between various classifications of kinds of art and why are they so different? How does the stratification of types of art suggest a hierarchy? There are so many more questions to ask and that is precisely why The Rose should be taught in this