"I am an artist and a political being as well. My aim has been to forge these two concerns into an integrity which affirms language, art, craft, form, beauty, tragedy, and audacity with the needs and vision of women, as part of an emerging new culture which could enrich us all".
(Robin Morgan, poet, activist, woman)
I have been enjoying some illustrious company of late. Thanks to the funding of the Women's Arts International Festival 2007, Cumbria has been paying host to artists and thinkers such as Germaine Greer, Jo Brand, Marianne Faithful, Stella Vine, newcomers Bat for Lashes and my all time favourite, Patti Smith, as well as many more famous and emerging women artists. I am glad this is happening. It cannot help but be inspirational to all the women, and men visiting the festival. Such energy is the instigator of change.
But ask yourself, why is it so unusual to see so many women artists in one place?
Five years ago, when I approached funders with the idea for a Wild Women Festival, I was met with stony disregard. At the time, I had a vision for an international celebration of women artists, in recognition of the amazing energy, passion, talent and inspiration women all over the world are giving to our communities. This was very much in line with the Wild Women ethos. So, 5 years on, I am glad to see it happening, and I am enjoying the experience without having to be the one who organised it!
I was very disappointed at first to have not been included in the month-long celebrations. I believe that Wild Women, as a DIY collective, has contributed much to our area through our art and through bringing women artists from around the world into our community. Over the last 8 years, I have worked creatively with over 1500 women, published 11 collections of new poetry, set up many creative projects, taken the work of Wild Women out into the world and brought over 40 women artists into rural Cumbria, to inspire and instigate change. In additon, the group has always been about celebrating and supporting all creative acts - whether that be the act of baking bread, singing songs, having sex, writing poems or building houses. Every act is creative. And we have done all this from my living room.
One of the reasons given for our absence was that the festival did not have a feminist or activist agenda. Which struck me as odd, given the line up!
At first, I was angry and then sad, but later, sitting in the audience of a panel discussion with Germaine Greer and Stella Vine, it occurred to me - why is 'feminism' a dirty word now? I am proud to be a woman artist, and the words are definitely in that order. I do not see that I can remove the political from my creative action. I choose to DIY my work because I choose to have freedom of voice away from the cultural patriachy. I believe in direct creative action to create positive change. I am happy to call myself a feminist - because I wonder how it is possible to be 'woman' and not feminist? I find increasingly that there is this desire to coat in saccharine, make palatable, the political edge of women artists. A kind of 'now, why do you need to keep going on about that for?' attitude. I agree that the days of anger are replaced by celebration - Wild Women has always been about celebrating our creative voices and spirits, rather than apologising.
Is it possible to remove the political from the very act of standing up and speaking out? And should we even try? I don't think so, myself. The most powerful act of revolution is to celebrate in the face of any oppression. But that is not to ignore the still present under-representation of women artists in the mainstream, or the inequality of pay, opportunities, social status etc etc etc. Nor to cover up the very present stereotypical media representation of 'woman artist' - words like 'mad' or 'selfish' come to mind, and I am being polite. One only has to look at the media willingness to brand me, during last years BBC2 documentary The Convent, as "lunatically free spirited", and "out sleeping with different men every week, whilst her poor husband is at home, heartbroken" (which, incidentally, is not true!), or "self-obsessed".
Anyway, I raised the point and was approached by the director of the Festival (a man) and told that the reason they have put in their own publicity that the festival is has 'no political agenda' was because they wanted to make it 'accessible' to everyone, and that some artists, and audience would not come if it was overtly referred to as 'feminist'. Which seems strange, not just to me, but to the many men and women who have supported the 'feminist agenda' of Wild Women Press over the years. Yes, that is right, men can be feminists too (i.e. the advocate the equality of women and men)
Hmmm. I wonder who it was then who did not want to be sullied by the 'f' word? Or who it was who was afraid of all those political women? I can't imagine Germaine Greer, or Patti Smith saying that, can you?
Which reminds me. Germaine asked
"What does it take for a woman to declare herself an artist?"
For me, it has been the willingness to be an outsider at times, to struggle with the notion that I can either be 'artist' or 'woman' - woman being the person able to have a relationship, family, home. It has taken the strength to assert my own voice and perception and creative vision into the world and to say "this is valuable and valued". It has taken embracing the women who have gone before me - the ancestors who sang the songs and wove the wools, and the women like Germaine Greer and Patti Smith, who stood up and said "hey, this is the way I see the world, and express it, and that is something you will listen to!" It has been about finding and building a creative community - something women do well I find. And finally, it is about celebrating my creativity, my power and my woman-ness. I do not want to be a 'man' artist. I am very happy to be a woman artist. It is something I have fought for the right to declare, and my sexuality and creativity cannot be divided, because they are expressions of each other. I wrestled for years with the label of 'mad' because I was creative, because I would not 'fit in' or conform. The turning point was when I woke up one morning and said "I am not mad woman, I am wild woman!"
So, here it is: I am wild woman. I am artist. I am feminist. And I am proud to be all these things, and much, much more.
3 comments:
whew! what can I say? except thanks for the support of all the wildies in my creativiy over the last few years.
Very strong points here - good on you Vik! I think one of the problems lies in the ambiguity that seems to arise when one uses the word `feminst.' People tend to assume that this means we are anti men. It's an irritating and tedious facet of the human psyche that people who are pro one thing have a tendency to be violently against another - hence the horrors of some of the other `ists' and `isms' such as sexism and racism.
Maybe it would be better just to stick to being Wild Women. This is powerful and life-affirming and avoids getting into ists and isms.
Personally I find the whole notion of a `woman artist' totally ludicrous. It's like `woman priest' or `male nurse'. I mean you don't hear people referring to a `man artist' or a `man priest' or a `woman nurse' do you? Why does our gender have to come into it at all? Personally I'm an artist who also happens to be a woman!
Thanks Ruth. I think the word Feminist was hijacked and given bad publicity in an attempt to discredit it - I use it in its definition "to advocate equality of rights between men and women" but yes, I take your point about isms.
I am not sure about the woman bit being neither here nor there to the artist. I would say that I am a WOMAN ARTIST because the being a woman and that experience directly influences and inspires my work. Otherwise, why say Wild WOMAN - I see your point though, and it is one made often. Would you say that the 'woman' is irrelevant to your art? I think our gender comes into it because to dismiss our gender is somehow part of the male-ness of society and how it works - i.e. equality being that the woman becomes like a man, or rather, a shadow image of a man, neither man, nor woman. It is an interesting semantic though, I think. Of course, I think in real equality perhaps you are right. Or perhaps every title would be prefaced by our gender, male or female. Or maybe we would no longer categorise by any type of label. Now, that is an idea...
Post a Comment