ANA MENDIETA (1948-1985)
“My exploration through my art of the relationship between myself and nature has been a clear result of my having been torn from my homeland during my adolescence. The making of my silueta in nature keeps (make) the transition between my homeland and my new home. It is a way of reclaiming my roots and becoming one with nature. Although the culture in which I live is part of me, my roots and cultural identity are a result of my Cuban heritage.”
Ana Mendieta was Born in Cuba in 1948. When she was twelve years old (1961) her sister and her were exiled from Cuba and placed in foster care in Iowa. Mendieta later attended the University of Iowa and got her BA as well as two BFAs, one in painting and the other at the Hans Breder’s Intermedia program. While she was in the Intermedia program she was encouraged to work outside conventional art practices in a way that promoted innovation, hybridity, and an ephemeral approach to art making. Due to the fact that she was forced from her homeland at such an early age, Mendieta’s desire to come to terms with her bicultural identity became a central concern in her life and art. Mendieta worked in nature, exploring the relationship between her body, the earth and art. Her works were site specific and ephemeral so they became known primarily through the photographic documentation which she exhibited. For Mendieta the documented photographs of her work were an essential part because they were the only remaining records of her sculptures and performances. She did state in one of her interviews, however, that they did not always make her intentions clear.
Body art first emerged in the late 1960s and it involves the expression of an artists idea through the manipulation of the physical body itself. Mendieta moved her artistic production outdoors in order to primarily work with the natural landscape. In her Silueta series, which she created on location in Iowa and mexico, she would leave traces of her body behind from flowers, tree branches, mud, gunpowder and fire. For some, her works in nature propose a nostalgic return to the ancient past life with metaphysical associations however, for others the traces of her body address the ideas of female identity and women’s struggle for voice and authority within the world. She put the female body in to nature in order to form links between ancestral pasts and the present. By merging the female body and the landscape, she is then defining motif, gesture, subject and object, and form and content. In some of her works she would etch the female figure into a leaf or burn it into the soil or a tree trunk. She always used materials from the landscape around her to create her works. Most of her works and performances during the seventies were executed around her university in Iowa. Regarding her choice for new forms of art such as body art Mendieta states, “The turning point in art was in 1972, when I realized that my paintings were not real enough for what I want the image to convey and by real I mean I wanted my images to have power, to be magic.” Mendieta has been acknowledged for her exploration of the gaps between conceptual, performance, and land art as well as how they are able to intersect with feminism, gender and identity.
Many of Mendieta’s female forms are figures with their arms held overhead representing the mythical goddess as well as the merging of earth and sky. The classic goddess pose was used in many of her works and it showed her interest in ancient and popular Mexican iconography. Figures floating in water symbolize the minimal space between land and sea while her figures with arms raised and legs together signify a wandering soul. Mendieta would usually record the progress of her works, shooting entire rolls of film to show the burning of gunpowder into the earth or the tide washing away the female figure etched into the sand. Some of her figures were filled with materials such as flowers, red paint and then framed with grass.
Some of the questions I would like to ask the class are…..
How do you feel about ephemeral art? Do you think it makes her intentions comprehensible? Do you think that only having photographic documentations of the works takes away from her art and her exhibits?
5 comments:
Ephemeral art can be just as powerful as other art forms. The artwork becomes an experience, and something that truly shows how forms and substances are ever changing. I like that the ephemeral art of Ana Mendieta respects nature and female identity. I agree that the message can be feminist because Mendieta carves the goddess iconography/feminine figures into the earth. The viewing experience is not weakened because of the photographs. This Body/Earth Art is meant to be ephemeral, and the photographs capture the moments of realization while still suggesting that in the next moment the sculpted figures may be washed or burned away. The viewer, the museums, the artist do not possess these creations, which definitely sends a message of the female and natural world's liberation from any sort of constraint.
I feel that although ephemeral art cannot be seen and thus appreciated as fully by as many people as we would hope, it still is an important form of art. The amount of time the piece of art is on display, and its transient nature can be a very important factor behind the meaning of the work. As Ana said herself, painting was not powerful enough to convey her message. I feel that her intentions are much more comprehensible because they are ephemeral and also because they are placed in nature. It would be great if viewers were able to actually be at the site of the artwork, however that is just not possible. Although I feel that only having photographic documentation may take away from the full effect her work has the potential to produce, I also think photographs are the only plausible substitute. I believe the most important aspect of her work is the sheer fact that it existed at one point in time.
It feels to me that with this sort of art, that it is much more about the experience of the artist than that of the viewer. In other words, in creating the piece the artist is working through emotions and intentions in probably the only way that makes sense to the artist, the experience of the viewer, therefore, is secondary to the experience of the artist. I think it would be extremely interesting to see one of her pieces first hand, but i think to a degree it would still be unsatisfying. I feel like the real art is found between the artist and the piece in the moments of creation, and to document that is difficult, if not impossible. This is not to say, however, that the pieces as images do not inspire feelings and provoke thought about the subject matter, for they certainly do. And recognizing that interaction, which although in my eyes is secondary, is important none the less.
I would agree with Alex, in that this type of art is more about the process and the relationship with the artist and its creation rather than the final product and the viewer. Because the art is created in temporary environments the photographs are necessary. I feel that they do not subtract from the work but rather changes the work. Obviously, from something three dimensional to something flat. As well as something that was performance to something stationary. Because the viewer cannot see the actual creation of the work--the emotion and movement of the piece's construction is lost from the viewer. That is how the work is changed. With that said, I wonder if the piece would be more successful if it was documented in video form and then shown... (if the artist wanted the same emotion and drama that she experienced while creating her work rather than just photographs).
I think what Tori brought up about video was interesting, but I think there are several aspects of the medium of photograph that lend itself to the type of personal association that Alex was referring to in the creation of the pieces. A photograph will always be a still image bound by a frame. I think if Ana has used a video to document the work, the background noise would be distracting, and would make me wonder about the surroundings around the piece instead of just the piece itself. It makes me wonder whether the photograph becomes the artwork. It is all that is left, but it is also a frame chosen by the artist, who includes and omits what she wants. It is a means of controlling what the viewer sees. I also find an interesting parallel between photographs as documentation and photographs as memories. Maybe documenting these ephemeral artworks with their obvious human characteristics was a way for the artist to create and preserve a fictionalized past, since she had so many struggles with her identity?
Post a Comment