I have to be honest. When I first walked into Sandra Bermudez’ second solo show at the Kasia Kay Art Projects Gallery, I thought I was looking at a collision between Judy Chicago and Jeff Koons. In her practice, Bermudez engages in a plethora of mediums, including video art, outdoor installations, collage, photography, and sculpture. Of course, the exhibition was only a sampling of the different types of works she produces today. This particular exhibition begins with an enlarged photograph from a pornographic website, includes a print from her more sculptural work, exhibits a piece from her wallpaper collection, and ends with a large wall installation.
Though some of her aesthetics are reminiscent of Koon’s work, her subject matter is not. Bermudez seeks to examine the relationship between the woman as an object and the rest of the world. She does so by using the female body as both medium and analogy for love and sex, while using language to challenge the vocabulary used to describe the female identity. Some of these thoughts are manifested in her work in more literal ways than others. On the largest wall of the gallery is Bermudez’ piece “The Happy Pussy,” which consists of nineteen discrete objects centered around an illuminated, neon sign spelling “Pussy.” This is Bermudez’ investigation of the language used to describe female genitalia. In this case, she is directly targeting the slang word “pussy” and transforming its vulgar connotation by creating enlarged symbols connected to the word that are harmless and humorous at the same time. She combines pop art aesthetics with language and symbols to neutralize the negative properties of the word “pussy.” These large plexi-glass sculptures are produced in vibrant shades of pink to heighten the sense of exaggeration and spectacle in the work. They also reference a form of advertisement and logos that position the viewer as the consumer of these objects.
On the eastern wall of the exhibition space is her piece “Jonah’s Daughter,” a large print consisting of an enlarged pornographic photo taken from a website. Bermudez has excised the female form from the photograph, leaving just the outline of the body so that the negative space allows the viewer to see straight through the piece and into the blank space behind it. The stark outline on stage is surrounded by a multitude of spectators of both genders armed with cameras. Here, what is important is not the personal identity of the figure, but what instead the female figure as a representative, performing as the object of the gaze. The absence of any identity is critical in allowing the viewer to witness the larger picture; it draws attention away from the individual, and instead asks you to investigate the surroundings and understand the outline as a symbol of all females. The title of the piece also incorporates aspects of language that relate the works directly to the viewer and forces them to make associations within their own lives. It is possible one would not normally imagine the subject of a pornographic image to be someone relatable or close let alone to be someone’s daughter, but instead a person to be viewed at from a distance. The title narrows this gap and gives it a more humanizing quality or concrete and tangible experience with the piece.
The next work in the show was a diptych of archival digital called “Be Mine.” The two words are spelled using floating, reflective balloons, photographed and framed separately. This is where a similarity to Koon’s aluminum sculptures comes in. But though the shiny and reflective surfaces of the balloons may seem industrial, there is no element of mass production. I found the critical moment to be in the separation of those two words, “be” and “mine” and how they are displayed as disparate parts that can never physically extend beyond those frames and be united. They have been separated purposefully and rendered impotent in the sense that they cannot mean or function the same way when they are separated. Also, her choice of balloons suggests a loftiness in the attitudes towards what those words mean and how they are used in romantic relationships. The letters are tied to strings that are connected to an anchor, but not one that is visible. Which begs the question, who is the subject of those words?
Finally, on a far wall in the gallery was a piece from her wallpaper collection. “Boot Garden,” is a collage of commercial shoes, boots, and accessories that have been carefully layered into a floral pattern. From a distance, the details meld together to become a seamless image of tree branches littered with flowers. However, upon closer inspection you begin to discern the many separate parts and recognize the labor behind assembling such an image. The commerciality of the subject matter comments on a capitalist driven society, the consumer, and the objects that we associate with the woman. It is no longer the relationship between woman and language that is being discussed here, but the female and the object; the woman as plasticized, homogenized, and simplified.
What separates these works from some of her earlier practice, strangely enough, is the physical absence of the woman’s body, whether it be her own or not. The form is being reduced to mere outlines, references, synecdoche, and words. It is simultaneously light-hearted and critical of the gaze and vocabulary surrounding her identity as a female.
But what the exhibition left me with was this question of where to go next in this vein of pop feminist art. By producing work that is as obvious a criticism or reference to the woman and her status as subjected to the male gaze, are we ever going to escape viewing art through the male gaze? I guess what I am wondering is, is this type of work in turn subscribing and giving legitimacy to the male gaze by constantly referring to it and framing itself within and in respect to it?
No comments:
Post a Comment