Wunderkammer

Gate 10 Continued...

2010-09-08T04:08:00.000-07:00

After a significant absence I have returned with a selection of images from my last exhibition "International Departure: Gate 10" in Modena, Italy. Including installation views and a group photo of the participating artists at the opening event (see me, far left, next to the wonderful Katharina Gruzei).

International Departure: Gate 10

2010-06-20T09:45:00.000-07:00

I have just returned from a fantastic visit to Italy for the opening of this, it was a wonderful experience:

INTERNATIONAL DEPARTURE: GATE 10
TWENTY SIX INTERNATIONAL YOUNG ARTISTS
Modena, Ex Ospedale Sant’Agostino
12 June – 11 July 2010

Twenty six young artists from different countries are going to “land” in Modena (Italy) in the expository venue of the former Sant’Agostino Hospital, on the occasion of International Departure: Gate 10, a show devoted to the students of some of the most important European institutions dealing with Photography and Fine Arts, from 12 June to 11 July 2010.

Twenty six young artists from different countries are going to “land” in Modena (Italy) in the expository venue of the former Sant’Agostino Hospital, on the occasion of International Departure: Gate 10, a show devoted to the students of some of the most important European institutions dealing with Photography and Fine Arts, from 12 June to 4 July 2010.
On display there will be the works of 26 students selected among 11 institutions of 6 different European countries, which distinguish themselves in the field of education: Royal College of Art in London, Stills – Scotland’s Centre for Photography in Edimburgh (Great Britain); Academie St. Joost in Breda (The Netherlands); Akademie der bildenden Künste in Vienna, Universität für angewandte Kunst in Vienna, Kunstuniversität in Linz (Austria), Academy of Visual Arts Leipzig (Germany), Universidad Politecnica de Valencia (Spain), Accademia di Belle Arti in Catania, Fondazione Marangoni in Florence, CFP Bauer in Milan (Italy).
The exhibition, curated by Filippo Maggia, intends to emphasize the work of young artists who are approaching the international art scene, giving them the opportunity to exhibit in an institutional contest and to confront themselves with other European “colleagues”. This is in line with the educational aims of Fondazione Fotografia, the cultural project promoted by Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio in Modena in parallel with the creation of a Collection of contemporary photographs. In this framework has also to be set the launching of an international Master of high qualification in the field of photography and images, starting from the academic year 2011/2012.

International Departure: Gate 10 presents the works of Ekua McMorris, Emily Keegin, Nina Mangalanayagam (Royal College of Art, London), Damian Ucieda Cortes, Jennifer Hood, Tor Jonsson (Stills – Scotland’s Centre for Photography, Edinburgh), Anaïs López, Willem Popelier (Academie St. Joost, Breda, The Netherlands), C. Michael Gangemi, Sandra Kosel, Itai Margula (Akademie der bildenden Künste, Vienna), Katharina Gruzei, Conny Habbel, Chrischa Oswald (Kunstuniversität, Linz), Irene Hopfgartner, Yuko Ichikawa (Universität für angewandte Kunst, Vienna), Ulrike Hannemann, Marcel Noack, Cathleen Schuster (Academy of Visual Arts, Leipzig), Mariela Apollonio, Vicente Tirado del Olmo, Laura Vallés Vílchez (Universidad Politecnica de Valencia), Turiana Ferrara (Accademia di Belle Arti, Catania), Margherita Cesaretti (Fondazione Marangoni, Florence), Mara Costantini, Enrica Quaranta (CFP Bauer, Milan).

PERIOD
12th june – 11th july 2010

FREE ENTRY

OPENING HOURS
Daily from Wednesday to Sunday 16.00-20.00

LOCATION
Modena
Ex Ospedale Sant’Agostino
Largo Porta Sant'Agostino, 228
Info 335 1621739

ART CURATOR
Filippo Maggia

PRODUCTION
Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Modena
Via Emilia Centro, 283
41100 Modena
Phone. +39 059 239888
Fax +39 059 238966
E-mail: info@mostre.fondazione-crmo.it

http://www.mostre.fondazione-crmo.it/index-gate10-english.asp

Numerology

2010-04-30T09:12:00.001-07:00

I'm ecstatic to announce that I will be kicking off The Antheneum's "Art at the Atheneum" with my first solo exhibition in Aberdeen entitled "Numerology". The show is comprised of a selection of new works based around the magpie.

Surrounded by myth, superstition and misconception, the magpie is a bird of complex symbolic and folkloric origin. From the trade-mark trinket laden nest to their ominous numerically fateful flocks, the monochromatic magpie is a bird both maligned and revered throughout the western and eastern worlds. Combining their fierce intelligence with a covetous nature, the magpie is as diverse and intriguing as the objects that litter its nest, and has consequently provided a rich and fascinating research base for “Numerology”.

Numerology: A Solo Exhibition by Jenny Hood

The Athenaeum, 5-9 Union Street, Aberdeen, AB10 5BU, Scotland, UK.

Opening Tuesday 11th May 7pm-9pm

Opening Hours:

Mon - Thurs: 11:00 am - 12:00 am
Fri - Sat: 11:00 am - 1:00 am
Sun: 12:00 pm - 12:00 am

RSA New Contemporaries 2010

2010-04-01T06:41:00.000-07:00

I will be taking part in the Royal Scottish Academys New Contemporaries 2010 exhibition which previews tomorrow evening and features 60 emerging artists from art-schools across Scotland. My short film "Theatres of Nature" will be screening as well as some new 2D works.

Really excited to see some new work and hopefully meet the authors of some work I have been admiring!

Dates:

The Royal Scottish Academy, The Mound, Edinburgh.

Saturday 3rd of April 2010- Wednesday 21st of April 2010
Mon-Sat 10am- 5pm, Sunday 12pm-5pm.

Nature/Culture, Human/Animal, Mind/Body, Art/Life

2010-03-31T02:14:00.000-07:00

The new issue of Antennae (The Journal of Nature in Visual Culture) is out, and the focus of this issue 12 is "Pig". The introductory essay is taken from a book published by artists Carsten Holler and Rosemarie Trockel, around the time of their "A House for Pigs and People" exhibition at Documenta X, and is a "seemingly endless stream of free flowing questions on the animal is as harrowing and thought provoking as it was back in 1997."

Of all the articles included, this was for me the most stimulating. After reading, and re-reading several times, I was able to pick out some of the questions that I found provocative, or basically, just sent my brain into a complete tail-spin of thought. Admittedly, most of these questions are not particularly new, indeed much of past and present animal rights debate centres on some of these fundamentals.

Below I have reproduced some of the questions I felt were particularly pressing:

"Is with feeding part of the identity of the foodstuff also absorbed and does food thus act in forming identity?

Does alimentary identity forming occur only as a product of predominant ideologies, social connotations between eating and eater and individual reflection on what is eaten?

Is the ‘identity of what is eaten’ absorbed?

Why does abstinence, asceticism, lead to enlightenment?

Does the spiritual decay through gluttony?"

The phrase "alimentary identity" is fantastic firstly, but I was more intrigued by the notion of gluttony eroding spirituality. I often feel that we live in a society of extremes, particularly in relation to our corporeal existence. We are too fat, over-consuming, over-eating, greedy and wasteful, engulfed in an obesity "epidemic". Simultaneously we concern ourselves with the waif-like proportions of fashion models and those in the public eye. We scrutinise, analyse, binge and purge.

Our relations with non-human animals exist in similar extremes. We cherish those animals we share our homes with, but mass produce others in unfavourable conditions for our consumption. We campaign for the conservation and protection of some species, but seek to eradicate, control and exterminate others.

"Why can an animal not be killed so easily, if it has got to know us and we to know it or it has even lived together with us?

Why can we, once we have got to know an animal and then no longer want to eat it, still eat another animal of the same species, which we had not got to know, although with heavy hearts as if we had never got to know such an animal?"

Which opens up another line of almost taboo questioning:

"Why can we not, if we eat anonymous specimens of an animal species with which we have become acquainted, eat humans not known to us?"

I made similar enquiries during my dissertation project in fourth year at art school, preoccupied with the ethical distinctions in the display of animal bodies (in this instance taxidermy in the art gallery) against the exhibition of human bodies. Anonymity was similarly required for the public viewing of dead human bodies, notably Gunther Von Hagen's plastinated, donated cadavers featured in "Body Worlds", “Anonymity removed them from the normal conventions of death, placing them closer to the category of non-human.” (Desmond, p165) This distinction, between the differences in acceptability of the display of dead human and dead animal bodies, is integral to the inequalities in the relations between humans and animals. We consume, in a multitude of ways, the bodies of animals, but human bodies are treated with a degree of reverence and respect not afforded to our animal counterparts.

Holler and Trockel turn their questioning of cannibalism into an investigation of gender and animals:

"Is cannibalism something men do which, as Günter Schulte writes, “is the acquisition of female fertility — not by begetting, but by killing and self-fertilisation with death as its return into life”?"

As if cannibalism constitutes some form of womb envy- and the ingestion of human flesh instigating some form of becoming? A "becoming-woman" perhaps? As I have previously explored, the theories of Deleuze and Guattari promote the idea that a becoming always takes place between a majority (subject) and a minority (other) - man, the male, being the "majoritarian absolute", and the "Other" a minority- woman, animal, child etc. This idea ties in with the notion of the "alimentary identity", the absorption of another being within the body,

"By consuming the flesh of obviously tormented animals is not something of this torment also conveyed, and is it the knowledge of this and the resulting disrespect of the animal or one’s fellow being, which enables such consumption?"

They also reflect on religious consumptive practices in terms of gender and cannibalism,

"Does the Hebrew pork taboo originally represent a ban on cannibalism concerning above all women, since pigs are considered as sacrificial substitutes for women?

Where pigs are eaten, are they being eaten instead of women?

And does the pork taboo represent a patriarchally directed abandonment of the mother cult?"

Leading to..

"Why is it that world-wide many more men kill than women?"

This pertinent question reminded me of another essay I read recently concerning the gender divide of animal rights activism, "The “Gender” Question of Animal Rights: Why are Women the Majority?" by Emily Gaarder, which I unearthed through an academic resource database. The main focus of this paper is an attempt to understand why more women than men are involved in the promotion and protection of animal welfare. The author identified 5 determining factors in this anomaly:

1. "...gendered economic structures (fewer women work outside the home and are thus able to devote more energy to animal causes)"

2. "recruitment networks (women are recruited to animal rights through animal welfare organizations)"

3. "empathy based on shared inequities (women relate to the abuse and oppression that animals suffer)"

4. "social learning explanations (emotional expression and caring is more acceptable for women than men)"

5. "biological theories(women are born nurturers and are following their natural instincts)."

During the course of her investigation Gaarder discovered that interviewees were most likely to relate to the final three options: shared empathy, social conditioning and biology politics. She cites a particularly interesting historical example:

"English women in the 19th century anti-vivisection movement, for example, drew similarities between invasive gynecological procedures and “research” performed on women, and the instruments of torture used on animals in experiments. They connected violence against women to the widespread abuse of animals."

This feeling of medicalised persecution, and experimentation, echoes in the questions of Holler and Trockel who go as far as to enquire whether the disease of domestic species could be equated with the 19th Century phenomenon of "hysteria",

"What does the etymology of the Greek word for pig (hys) teach us, which gives birth to succulae, little pigs, a term which is also used for the stars known as the Hyadeswhich are looked upon as a symbol for children (Jutta Voss)?

Hystera is the Greek word for uterus, from which hysteria is derived, the ‘neurosis arising in the uterus’, essence of the morbidly female?

Is hysteria the protest of women analogous to the diseases of domestic animals?"

And therefore,

"Can domesticated animals protest against us in no other way than by diseases (swine fever, mad cow disease, cardiac infarct)?"

Recently I have begun exploring the physical, psychological and philosophical effects of zoonotic diseases (passed from animals to humans and vice versa) particularly those afflicting farmed species which we consume e.g. swine and avian flu, foot and mouth disease, BSE and vCJD. The idea of infection or contamination through ingestion, and a subsequent alteration in our "alimentary identity", or a the instigation of kind of "becoming" is extremely provocative, and endlessly fascinating. The development of such diseases, arising through farming conditions and scrimpage in animal welfare, seems to be, as Holler and Trockel suggest, a kind of "protest" against intensive farming and the reidentification of animals as products and their bodily existence reduced to an industrial component. (The future of such mechanised animals is explored to the extreme in Margaret Atwood's wonderfully dystopian novel "Oryx and Crake".)

Personally I have encountered equal numbers of male and female individuals concerned with, or active in, the promotion and furthering of animal rights. Although I am aware of a certain level of cultural stigma surrounding such male involvement, or even male vegetarianism. The equation of meat-eating with masculinity, and the repression of sentiment/ emotional life, are still prevalent, or at least active, in most Western cultures. Emily Gaarder also suggested that women tend to, "hold more negative views of science and technology than men... are more likely to oppose animal testing" implying that men are less likely to object to animal experimentation, but is this accurate? The female individuals surveyed by Gaarder indicated that they felt an "empathy" with animals and therefore is it possible that the majority of males, particularly western males, are less able to identify with prejudice or oppression, where as women, who are still subject to social and financial disadvantages, can more readily identify with the plight of others who are subjected to poor or unfair treatment? In response to this question, many choose to venture down the route of biology politics, subscribing to the idea of women being more "nurturing", lacking in testosterone and subsequently less aggressive. I find generalisations to be quite dangerous, as it is limited thinking and stereotyping that impedes the furthering of many modern debates from gender divisions, to animal rights. We erroneously seek to establish a standard or degree of consciousness for animals by which we can create a basis for the establishment or development of their rights. This results in some animals being deemed more "intelligent" or "similar" to us, which is a flawed pursuit,

"Are the forms of animal consciousness, which have been demonstrated in anthropoids, grey parrots and dolphins and which appear similar to ours, really comparable to ours (and is the direct comparison anything more than another attempt to abase the animal, ‘only’ to the level of a child it is true, but no further because measured by our standards)?

Doesn’t animal consciousness have to be something quite different, something we cannot imagine?"

In order to further current animal rights discourse, as I have mentioned before, we need to scrap these anthropocentric notions of consciousness, lest we regress to an imposed hierarchy of suffering, where we permanently inhabit the pinnacle.

The questions posed by Holler and Trockel highlight the vast and complex web of cultural, social, personal, religious and historical factors that all contribute to current animal/human relations and remind me that persistent, and informed, questioning is the only way forward. Above all, I feel motivated to keep exploring, keep reading and attempting (in however small a way) to negotiate my own standing, ethical, moral and intellectual. I cannot really think of a better result.

The Thought Fox

2010-02-25T05:23:00.000-08:00

The Thought-Fox by Ted Hughes

I imagine this midnight moment's forest:
Something else is alive
Beside the clock's loneliness
And this blank page where my fingers move.

Through the window I see no star:
Something more near
Though deeper within darkness
Is entering the loneliness:

Cold, delicately as the dark snow,
A fox's nose touches twig, leaf;
Two eyes serve a movement, that now
And again now, and now, and now

Sets neat prints into the snow
Between trees, and warily a lame
Shadow lags by stump and in hollow
Of a body that is bold to come

Across clearings, an eye,
A widening deepening greenness,
Brilliantly, concentratedly,
Coming about its own business

Till, with sudden sharp hot stink of fox
It enters the dark hole of the head.
The window is starless still; the clock ticks,
The page is printed.

The Sacred Dominion

2010-02-23T06:55:00.000-08:00

“…the interests of humans, it is commonly argued, must come first and our right to exploit animals in order to further these interest remains sacrosanct.”- Robert Garner

A common argument I encounter when discussing animal rights with others, friends, acquaintances etc is the belief that human suffering is more important than, or somehow outweighs, the suffering or mistreatment of animals.

The most irksome thing I find about this idea is that there is some kind of hierarchy or scale of suffering, like the food chain, with humans continually inhabiting the top rung. There can no doubt that suffering is, unfortunately, an innate part of both human and non-human existence but naturally, there are ethical and moral considerations surrounding the infliction of suffering on others as well as the “Other”- in this case, non-human animals.

Our modern existence largely depends (for the majority of western populations) on the exploitation of animals, and over recent years there has been a greater, and very public, emphasis on the improvement of conditions of animals we farm for consumption. The psychology of the 21st century consumer is of a paradoxical nature; on the one hand we are sufficiently distanced from the animals we consume, enough to be able to consume them without being morally perturbed, but simultaneously we want to know their origin, and meat traceability, like organic food, is now the hallmark of a conscious consumer.

Zoonotic diseases such as BSE and vCJD shook once solid species-barriers in their transmission via meat eating, and as a result the current demand for traceability is not solely for the benefit of animals, our future health depends on it too. The development of new strains of zoonoses such as Avian and Swine flu can be attributed to farming conditions, and the impact of such outbreaks has reached a global scale- the need for greater consideration of animal rights has never been so strong.

However the basic facts of the process of meat production- from birth to supermarket shelf to our plates- still have the potential to instigate mass disgust. A good example would be the Channel Four show “Kill it, Cook it, Eat it” where every episode would routinely feature aghast audience members repulsed by slaughter practices, and thoroughly traumatised from witnessing the transformation of a live animal into a chef-prepared dish offered up to them. This is, admittedly, something I too am guilty of. As I previously mentioned, I went to see Food Inc. last week, and it was difficult not to feel disturbed by the images of cows crowded together in poor conditions- just as we feel great distress at media images of disaster victims, most recently those afflicted by earthquakes in Haiti and floods in Madeira.

Televised images of animal cruelty, such as the recent “I’m a Celebrity…” rat killing, easily provoke public outrage; visible animal cruelty is readily vilified, whilst what happens behind the closed doors of industry, is avoided and ignored in order to sustain, or justify our own interests.

It frustrates me that there must be a distinction between the suffering of different species, why can it not be accepted that any kind of inflicted suffering is wrong, to human, or non-human? But more than that, the suffering is not just wrong, but worthy of consideration on the same level as human suffering? We cannot fathom the experience of an animal, and those who try stray dangerously into anthropomorphism, which unfortunately colours much of current animal rights debates. As I previously discussed, the focus on the concept of sentience and attempts to characterise the interior life of an animal through human standards are futile and limiting. We cannot comprehend the sensory experience of animals, but this does not give us the right to assume that we can cut corners with their welfare or diminish their quality of life for our own gain.

Our “dominion over the animals” has endured for thousands of years, and it seems, to many, to be an impossible feat to even begin to consider how to redress the balance. Our debt to domesticated species is equalled by the habitat destruction, pollution and extinction facing many wild species worldwide.

Nothing will change unless we drop the anthropocentric notions that hold us aloft at the top of the food chain, and a concocted pyramid of suffering, because ultimately “...there is nothing so human as identification across species.” and perhaps our “salvation” lies not in a new Eden or idealised wilderness, but in equality, with all species, races and genders, as Donna Haraway put it, “It's not a “happy ending” we need, but a non-ending” where, “Naturalcultural survival is the prize.”

Biblio:

Haraway D. The Haraway Reader. Routledge, 2003

Cubitt S. Eco Media. Rodopi, 2005.

Garner R. Animals, Ethics and Public Policy, The Political Quarterly, Vol. 81, No. 1, January–March 2010

Eating Animals

2009-12-07T03:07:00.000-08:00

"But the life of man is of no greater importance to the universe than that of an oyster"- David Hume.

___________________________________________________

A few weeks ago I was unfortunate enough to be exposed to "I'm a Celebrity Get me Out of Here" on ITV, loosely translated as "I'm a nobody, pour live insects on me".

I was genuinely shocked at the disregard by both the contestants and the shows producers for the insects and other animals used in the "tasks". And thankfully I'm not the only one, Chris Packham recently garnered some media attention for his comments regarding the use of animals in the show.

Unfortunately the situation has only escalated and two of the shows contestants are now facing charges of animal cruelty for killing and eating a rat. It's pretty disgusting that this is considered entertainment and I am shocked by the utter disregard for animal life exhibited by the shows participants and broadcasters.

The inevitable "it's only an animal" commentary provoked by such incidents is discouragingly dismal and repetitive. I had a similarly themed discussion recently regarding animal rights/vegetarianism and it always seems to boil down to the idea of human superiority- "it's only an animal"- which is quite simply, speciesism.

I myself have spent the last few weeks considering becoming vegetarian, primarily due to the fact I almost live a vegetarian lifestyle anyway, but also because I am enjoying eating meat less and less. It's probably a case of "knowing too much" as it were, as after some fairly intensive research into meat production (although this is an obvious consideration that most meat-eaters are aware of e.g. the process of slaughter etc, but the further I delved the more repulsed I became).

During my deliberation I came across an article by Gary Steiner in the New York Times entitled "Animal, Vegetable, Miserable" detailing the tribulations of being an "ethical vegetarian" due to the omnipresence of animal by-products in everyday life. (He even discovered that the cushion-strips on razors contain animal fats). Subsequently I began to wonder if it would be truly possible to avoid all products containing animal derived ingredients without an extreme degree of vigilance and probably a more expensive shopping basket! This in itself irked me, as I felt if I was truly passionate about my resolution to avoid the consumption of animals and anything animal-related I wouldn't be dissuaded from pursuing such an existence regardless of it's disadvantages and difficulties. I have, as yet, failed to resolve this dilemma.

However it did lead me to explore Gary Steiner's literary works: "Anthropocentrism and it's Discontents: The Moral Status of Animals in the History of Western Philosophy", "Animals and the Moral Community: Mental Life, Moral Status and Kinship" and "Animals as persons: essays on the abolition of animal exploitation". I found his writing to be extremely accessible and readable, particularly his criticism of the theoretical doctrines of other animal-rights commentators such as Peter Singer's utilitarianism and Tom Regan's inherentism.

One of the primary flaws that Steiner recognises in the human consideration of animal rights is the danger of anthropomorphising animal experience through the importance placed on the idea of linking sentience and cognitive ability- defined by our own anthropocentric standards-with moral worth,

"Once we acknowledge a richness to animal experience that defies categorisation in terms of anthropomorphic categories, and once we abandon the effort to attribute to animals the most sophisticated sorts of cognitive functioning we find in ourselves, we can seriously raise the question whether these sorts of functioning are morally relevant in the first place."

It seems quite fantastical today to imagine a world without animal exploitation or the consumption of meat, a dreamy paradise resonant of Ovid's pastoral idylls, "the use of animals to satisfy human needs is firmly entrenched in our culture's value system." Conversely, it does not seem entirely impossible that future generations will be appalled by the excess of meat production and consumption during this time.

However, the ways in which we use animals are vast and seemingly unending and it appears unlikely that any great change is within sight. I get more and more frustrated with circular discussions about animal rights that are principally fuelled by speciesism and anthropocentrism. I've encountered numerous discussions which are apparently resolved with the assertion that "human suffering is more important than animal suffering", which, as actress Natalie Portman points out in a recent article in the Huffington Post, "We are capable of considering others' minds and others' pain. We are not them. Whereas those who justify eating animals say the same thing: We are not them. They do not merit the same value of being as us. They are not us," is just ultimately narrow minded. Perhaps we cannot relate to animals because we simply don't want to due to deep seated notions of superiority, or maybe it's stoked by the fear that such a stance is dangerous, undermining our entire moral and cultural value system and requiring a complete reassessment of our place on the planet.

Portman also picks up on the cultural associations of meat eating and it's inevitable link to masculinity, "I say that Foer's ethical charge against animal eating is brave because not only is it unpopular, it has also been characterized as unmanly, inconsiderate, and juvenile." These rebuttals seem a bit ridiculous considering the fact that a reduction in meat consumption would have a significant impact on global warming as well as a fall in the number of deaths related to heart disease and bowel cancers.

As I become more entrenched in the debates surrounding animal rights and vegetarianism, I fail to reach any form of resolution and often feel I am floundering in ethical and moral debates which have no easy or feasible solutions. At the moment, all I can do is read, and I think reading Jonathan Safran Foer's book "Eating Animals" might be the final nail in my carnivorous side's coffin. Am also seeking a copy of "The Sexual Politics of Meat" by Carol J. Adams, and as a result my reading list is becoming quite extensive beyond my project work! My eyes are currently moving too slowly to keep up. I plan on using my currently research on meat-eating partly as a basis for a larger written work under the theme of "the human use of animals".

Found 2

2009-09-30T05:43:00.000-07:00

Here's another photo found in the Aberdeen area this time courtesy of my sister.

Thought it would be good to share! Judging by the clothes I'd say it's 90's? (though I don't want to insult any one's taste in attire). Definitely family, visible resemblances. Ooh it's fun to speculate.

Contact me: jenny@jenny-hood.com if you want to claim it! Found- Chatten Place, Aberdeen within the last 3 weeks. Appears to have been run over by a car and suffered some surface damage, handwritten no. 4 on the back, size 5 x 4".

Found

2009-09-17T05:14:00.000-07:00

I found these images in a 2nd hand book, "Houses of Europe" (1960s) I got from Oxfam in Aberdeen recently. I was quite intruiged and would really love to know the story behind them. Not sure why they were stashed inside this book other than to keep them flat. They are definitely hand printed as there are two copies of the image of the boy, one slightly more overexposed.

Also, I'm not sure if the drawing was copied from a book. I can't quite place the time period either, the woman's clothes seem to be 20's style, but I'm not extremely familiar with historical fashion trends, more research is required!

The Gender of "Greatness"

2009-09-10T07:52:00.001-07:00

"There has never been a first rank woman artist... Only men are capable of aesthetic greatness. Women make up 50 per cent or more of classes at art school. Yet they fade away in their late 20's or 30's. Maybe it's something to do with bearing children."- Brian Sewell, 2008

“…it was indeed institutionally made impossible for women to achieve artistic excellence, or success, on the same footing as men, no matter what the potency of their so called talent or genius.”- Linda Nochlin

I came across the first quotation in the Independent in the summer of last year. I got a bit lathered up about it at the time, but not being a blogger, or having an appropriate outlet for my bile; it has taken until now to formulate a response.

Rather than instantly retorting with a knee-jerk reaction (although a few four letter words did come to mind) I decided to give this statement some serious thought. My resulting research led me to a particularly balanced and thought provoking essay by Linda Nochlin entitled “Why have there been no Great Women Artists?”

Nochlin’s point of view centres on the idea that women have failed to be as successful in artistic endeavour as men for a number of reasons namely, historically, institutional and social disadvantage. As she sagely points out, the first reaction is not always the best,

“the feminist’s first reaction is to swallow the bait, hook, line and sinker, and attempt to answer the question as it is: that is, to dig up examples of worthy or insufficiently appreciated women artist’s throughout history…such attempts…are certainly worth the effort… but they do nothing to question the assumptions lying behind the question…on the contrary, by attempting to answer it, they tacitly reinforce its negative implications.”

Admittedly, my own primary reaction was to instantly contemplate many examples of whom I considered to be great female artists both throughout history and today, indeed many of my favourite artists are women, but after reading Nochlin’s essay, I was determined to delve further than the obvious.

“Even a simple question like “why have there been no great women artists?” can, if answered adequately, create a sort of chain reaction, expanding not merely to encompass the accepted assumptions of the single field, but outward to embrace history and the social sciences, or even psychology and literature, and thereby, from the outset, can challenge the assumption, that the traditional divisions of intellectual enquiry are still adequate to deal with the meaningful questions of our time, rather than the merely convienient or self-generated ones.”

Despite thoroughly enjoying Nochlin’s informative, interesting and provocative essay, I was still a little uncomfortable with the repeated use of the phrase “woman artist”. Granted that is the subject of the essay, but I feel perturbed with its persistent usage. Personally, I would be uncomfortable being assigned the label “woman artist”. Yes I am a woman and yes, I am an artist, but by no means do I view these two facts as being linked.

The recent Turner Prize shortlist and all female show at the Pompidou have attracted a lot of attention in the media, as well as raising the profile of many of the artists included. However, exhibitions such as “Elles” create a dilemma in that they are beneficial in their promotion of underexposed female artists, but they also rely on segregation to do so. Does such division have to exist in order for “women artists” to receive adequate exposure?

In the myriad of debates surrounding modern feminism, there is a consistent bad feeling towards the idea of women desiring to be "more equal" than men in terms of maternity leave, pay discrepensies and "postive" discrimination. The true goal of feminism, has, and always will be, to attain equal rights for women in every realm, not preferential treatment, just an even playing field. Therefore, do “women only” art shows benefit or detract from achieving even footing for both genders in art?

Historically, it would seem that women artists have been largely underexposed and few and far between, but this is perhaps, as Nochlin suggests, due to the bias of art history, “…the white Western male viewpoint, unconsciously accepted as the viewpoint of the art-historian, may- and does- prove to be inadequate….”

Subsequently, the much maligned and underdog woman artist will always be seen as such when viewed through this “conceptual smugness… meta-historical naiveté.” However, this does not mask the true disadvantages that have afflicted the artistic endeavours of women throughout history:

“it seems probable that the answer to why there have been no great women artists lies not in the nature of individual genius or lack of it, but in the nature of given social institutions and what they forbid or encourage in various classes or groups of individuals.”

Nochlin highlights the inadequacies suffered by female art students in comparison with the treatment of their male counterparts, “What if Picasso had been born a girl? Would Senor Ruiz have paid as much attention or stimulated as much ambition for achievement in a little Pablita?” Institutional advantages, such as more readily available and unrestricted access to nude models, differences in projected destinies and encouragement in levels of ambition, general societal double standards and gender inequalities all stood in the way of the growth and development of female artists historically. These issues, as Nochlin has highlighted some of, all contributed to the fact that there have only been male artists of “greatness”.

But what of the “women artists” of today? Certainly all female students at art schools have access to the same standards and modes of teaching as their male peers, but as Sewell states, “greatness” remains out of reach. His reference as to the impact of “child bearing” is an important one which historically resulted in the demotion of importance of personal ambition on the part of women, resulting in artistic attempts being deemed, or remaining, amateur, in order for her to pursue her real “destiny”: the family and it’s upkeep, “…woman’s chief career, marriage.” This ideal is obviously false today, but women continue to have larger familial responsibilities than their husbands/partners.

As women still remain, although this is beginning to change, the primary care givers and propagators of children, sacrifices both professional and personal, are demanded in order for the family to exist, “companionship at the price of personal renunciation”. Sewell’s reference to the diminishment of creativity in women due to “child bearing” is careless at best. The immense sacrifices, both physical and emotional, demanded of both parents in the raising of the child are enough to impair even the most vigorous ambition. The inequality lies in the female’s tie as caregiver and her own, as well as society’s immense expectations and demands of motherhood.

This is not to say that artistic endeavour and motherhood cannot be combined. Many successful artists, such as Sam Taylor Wood have combined motherhood with a prolific career. However, searching for such examples, similar to the search for a “great woman artist” is damaging, as Nochlin states “… by trying to answer it, they tacitly reinforce its negative implications.”

Recently there has been copious amounts of commentary on the “modern woman” and her desire and attempts to “have it all”, a successful career and homelife, at the expense of children and the family. The implication behind such statements, is quite antique, suggesting that the duty of the woman to her family overrides the importance of professional accomplishment, “…woman’s chief career, marriage and the unfemininity of deep involvement with work rather than sex.” Obviously, today this attitude is not so prevalent, but the majority of criticism of the “have it all” dream focuses solely on women, and there is little criticism or commentary on the ability of men to have a career and a family, this seen as a given entitlement, rather than a hard won struggle.

Sewell, obviously, makes no reference to the impact of children on the creative output of the male artist. He doesn’t need to; the role of women as care givers to children is so deeply ingrained in society’s psyche that it does not arise as a consideration. Furthermore, it is not the “greatness” of the male artist in question; it is the “woman artist” question. (Similar to the "woman problem" of the 19th Century.)

Personally, I feel that as long as the raising of children remains the sole occupation of women, particularly for children of preschool age, then the impact will continue to be significant and detrimental on the professional output of any woman. But the significance of Sewell’s comment lies in his reference to a creative not just a professional decline. Although admittedly any pursuit outside of the home is going to be affected by child rearing whether it is painting, or particle physics.

However detrimental the impact of children may be on the creativity of the “woman artist”, it does not solely explain the accused deficiency in “greatness”. It is a gross generalisation to insinuate that the bearing of children will terminate the potential of every “woman artist”, but it is Sewell’s comment I wish to address rather than particular case studies. (Most of such commentary, and response, is based on majorities and generalisations, I am trying to be as inclusive as possible without being overly specific, and as this is after all, just my opinion.)

So what other obstacles remain, in the pursuit of “greatness”, after the impact of personal life choices, for the “woman artist”?

The Guerrilla Girls highlighted one of the inherent flaws of the consideration of the “woman artist” and her work- the fact that any artwork made by a female can, and often will, be labelled as “feminine”. Underlying this, is the parallel idea that the art that women make is very different to the art of men,

“This, on the surface, seems reasonable enough: in general, women’s experience and situation in society, and hence as artists, is different from men’s, and certainly the art produced by a group consciously united and purposefully articulate women intent on bodying forth a group of consciousness of feminine experience might indeed be stylistically identifiable as feminist, if not feminine, art.”

This does not however mean that all art by “women artists” is feminine, “…no such common qualities of “femininity” would seem to link the styles of women artists generally…” Indeed, it is this kind of thinking based on misconception by both feminists and society alike that does women, and their art, a disservice,

“The problem lies not so much with feminists’ concept of what femininity is, but rather with their misconception- shared with the public at large- of what art is: with the naïve idea that art is direct, personal expression of individual emotional experience, a translation of personal life into visual terms.”

If we can determine that it is not the "weakness" or categorisation of “feminine” art that holds women back as artists, or solely the impact of social and familial obligations, what else is preventing women from achieving the “greatness” Sewell extols?

Firstly, I would like to address the notion of “greatness” in Sewell’s terms. He refers to “aesthetic greatness”, which, despite supposedly being the product of exalted genius, ultimately remains as subjective as the rest of the experience of art. One man’s “greatness” may just as easily be another’s mediocrity. By whose standards is this “greatness” being judged? Sewell’s? The creaking, historical and “conceptual smugness” of white male art history?

However “greatness” is judged, the fact does remain, as Nochlin reminds us, that,

“…there have been no supremely great women artists, as far as we know, although there have been many interesting and very good ones, who remain insufficiently investigated or appreciated; nor have there been any great Lithuanian jazz pianists, nor Eskimo tennis players, no matter how much we might wish there had been.”

But what can be done about it? How best can a “woman artist” move forward towards achieving “greatness” if it is what she desires? The path is strewn with historical thorns which need to be disarmed in order to proceed,

“…if the artist in question happened to be a woman, one thousand years of guilt, self-doubt, and objecthood would have been added to the undeniable difficulties of being an artist in the modern world.”

Amid these obstacles, there are also still many unanswered questions…

Does there need to be significant societal changes in order for women to be able to achieve their full potential in their chosen field? For example, greater division of labour in child rearing?

Do “women artists” continue to need segregated exhibitions and communities in order to garner the same publicity and accolades achieved more easily by male artists?

Will there be “women artists” of sufficient “greatness” in future?

What are the implications for feminist discourse surrounding the “woman artist” question?

And finally, how best can an aspiring artist, who happens to be female, proceed towards fulfilling her ambitions? Nochlin dictates, in order for women to achieve the success which has been denied to them by institutional, societal and personal inequalities, they must,

“…face up to the reality of their history and of their present situation, without making excuses or puffing mediocrity. Disadvantage may indeed be an excuse; it is not, however, an intellectual position. Rather, using as a vantage point their situation as underdogs in the realm of grandeur, and outsiders in that ideology, women can reveal institutional and intellectual weaknesses in general, and at the same time that they destroy false consciousness, take part in the creation of institutions in which clear thought--and true greatness--are challenges open to anyone, man or woman, courageous enough to take the necessary risk, the leap into the unknown.”

I concurr.

I also know, that I, reluctant label wearer, look forward to the dissolution of all boundaries, in gender, race or social standing, that may prevent the progression of individuals of talent and ambition towards any form of “greatness” they see possible.

I also immensely look forward to the day when labels such as “woman artist” cease to have any relevance in terms of debate around artistic or “aesthetic” greatness.

I also have unrealistic expectations and ideals. Without which, I am certain I would go mad.

Further Reading:

The Politics of Women's Biology by Ruth Hubbard

Women, Art and Power: And Other Essays by Linda Nochlin

Vision and Difference: Feminism, Femininity and Histories of Art (Routledge Classics) (Paperback) by Griselda Pollock

The Subjection of Women (Paperback) by John Stuart Mill

Afraid of stupid metaphors?

2009-09-03T02:06:00.000-07:00

During my usual morale sapping bus journey I noticed the following ad at a bus shelter (full of people, angrily waiting for first bus to do its job... but that's another story.)

"While only some nonhuman animal pejoratives denigrate women, all denigrate nonhuman animals"

I was instantly shocked by the direct comparison drawn between a human female and a moose. It is safe to assume that this ad is targeted at men, I don't think I have ever heard of a man being referred to as a "moose" in terms of physical unattractiveness.

The main problem with this ill chosen metaphor lies in it's dual ability to be insulting to both women and animals.

Recently I read an interesting collection of essays titled "Animals and women: Feminist theoretical explorations" By Carol J. Adams & Josephine Donovan. There is a particularly interesting essay entitled "Sexist Words, Speciesist Roots" by Joan Dunayer which explores the application of nonhuman animal pejoratives to women:

"Nonhuman-animal pejoratives frequently target women: catty, shrew, cow, bitch, old crow, queen bee, sow. In "An Intelligent Woman's Guide to Dirty Words", Ruth Todasco identifies "Woman as Animal" as a major category of "patriarchal epithets". Viewed through speciesism, a nonhuman animal acquires a negative image. When metaphor then imposes that image on women , they share it's negativity. Terming a woman a "dog" carries the sexist implication that women have a special obligation to be attractive, since the label refers to physical appearance only when applied to females. And so, using dog against any woman indirectly insults all women. The affront to all dogs, however, is direct. Denied individual identities, they merge into Ugly."

I think drinkaware's new poster is harmful when viewed in this light and does nothing for human/nonhuman animal relations or attitudes towards women. It is superficial and ill considered at best.

"Likening women to nonhuman animals undermines respect for women because nonhuman animals generally receive even less respect- far less. In most (if not all) contemporary human societies, the status of nonhuman animals is much lower than women's."

I do not intend for this commentary to be interpreted as solely a feminist rant. The demeaning attitude towards women it promotes is similarly damaging to our relationship with animals.

I understand that these campaigns are targeting particular demographics, but why rely on the most negative aspects of these cultures to get a message through? In trying to use humour to put across a serious message, the joke is on women and animals, and says little about binge drinking. If the most serious problem with binge drinking is the "beer goggles" effect, it seems as though these posters have been engineered for a cheap laugh. The relentless, and unnecessary, campaigning to try and curb the so called binge drinking "epidemic" is made worse by such thoughtless advertising.

So how can we move on from using animal imagery and pejoratives to demean, disrespect and oppress? Ideally, we need to break down the barriers that exist in our minds of superiority over other species. As a memorable line from that essay states "human superiority is as much of a myth as male superiority".

"..if our treatment and view of other animals became caring, respectful and just, nonhuman animal metaphors would quickly lose all power to demean."

"Our individual worlds are only as wide as our empathy. Why identify with only one species when we can be so much larger? Animal encompasses human. When human society moves beyond speciesism- to membership with animalkind- "animal" imagery will no longer demean women or assist in their oppression, but will represent their liberation. When we finally cross the species boundary that keeps other animals oppressed, we will have crossed the boundary that circumscribes our lives."

I think that the idea of identifying with animals, rather than segregating ourselves into some sort of special superior category would obviously be beneficial but there are some large and glaring obstacles and it is important not to be too idealistic in our expectations of the speed of social change. If we really wanted to redress the balance between humans and nonhuman animals, we would require a dramatic reassessment of areas of animal exploitation such as meat production, animal testing, farming etc etc. The impact of anthropocentric religions such as Christianity cannot be discounted either.

Despite seeming impossible, I feel it is important to retain ideals about these issues and remain aware of the perpetuation of speciesism, in any form.

Now... back to my bus rage.

4 BLNK WOLS

2009-08-31T10:27:00.000-07:00

I will be taking part in a group exhibition, 4 BLNK WOLS, opening this Thursday 6pm at Aberdeen Arts Centre with fellow Gray's graduates Louise Emslie, Tina Hay, Callum Kellie, Kieran McCruden and Mhairi McGhee. The exhibition will run until October.

I will be presenting three new photographic works, am a bit nervous as is my first exhibition since graduation so fingers and toes crossed. Also looking forward very much to seeing everyone elses work after being a recluse for this past while!

Come and see if you are in the Aberdeen area!

Rachel Goodyear

2009-08-18T11:20:00.000-07:00

Rachel Goodyear is currently the Guardian's Artist of the Week

She's got a brilliant portfolio of very dark yet very beautiful illustrations on her website.

I really love the mixture and mingling of human and animal forms and the often gory and quite graphic detail.

Fits well with my current becoming-animal/ animal-groom fairytale direction. Though this is a bit more unnerving which I like even more. Also, she one of the only artist's I have looked at so far whose work makes me genuinely feel a bit uncomfortable in my own skin and gives me a slight crawling feeling. Excellent.

"Yet, no matter how grisly the subject, the pictures are disarmingly beautiful, operating in a supernatural world of ancient folk tales where childish fears are nurtured into poetic fables."

Interspecies

2009-08-13T07:09:00.000-07:00

Really interesting exhibition in London from the 1st-4th of October which asks the very important question:

"Can artists work with animals as equals?"

Features work by Nicolas Primat, Kira O'Reilly, Antony Hall, Ruth Maclennan, Rachel Mayeri and Beatriz Da Costa.

More details: http://www.artscatalyst.org/projects/global/interspecies.html

I would really like to make it to this event. I wish there were such events north of the border! Hmm... that gives me an idea.

Website Launch

2009-08-11T11:39:00.000-07:00

I've been pretty lapse of late at updating this ol' blog. Now the reason will be revealed!

.....

I have been working on my website! And now, it's pretty much done! Hoorah.

http://www.jenny-hood.com/

A little bit of tweaking... You may also notice I've given the blog a bit of an overhaul. I like the white a bit better, it makes things easier to read imo.

Curious and grotesque: Exquisite Bodies exhibition at the Wellcome Collection

2009-07-28T13:04:00.000-07:00

Great exhibition at London's Wellcome Collection July 30th - 18th October 2009. The museum already has a fantastic and interesting collection from all over the world, but this exhibition sounds particularly good!

"Prepare yourself for a gruesome lesson in the human body as London's Wellcome Collection ... the show, which offers an unflinching glimpse at everything from deformity to venereal disease..."

Not sure where a two-headed calf comes into a "lesson in the human body", but I'm sure I will find out.

The "beautiful and alluring" female anatomical models are particularly disconcerting. Everything in the Wellcome museum is fascinating to look at and subtly educational (in your peeled face Body Worlds!).

Can't wait to see it!

Foam: Wonder

2009-06-28T14:24:00.000-07:00

Picked up a copy of Foam (International Photography Magazine- www.foammagazine.nl) and found some interesting and inspirational things. I went to the Foam gallery when I was in Amsterdam last summer and it's by far one of the best photography galleries I've ever been to. Amsterdam also being one of my favourite places as well.

Foam magazine is one of those rare publications that actually makes me feel excited about photography and always very inspired, I can't recommend it enough. One of the first issues I was fortunate enough to come across included a feature about Danielle Van Ark, photographer of the "Mounted Life" series featuring taxidermy animals in museum storage.

In the summer 2009 issue, entitled "Wonder" I was particularly interested in the work of Jaap Scheeren:

Love this. Reminds me of a video piece by Paul Granjon "The Creatures of Mill River": http://www.zprod.org/PG/films/creatures.htm.

Odd combination of what seems like astro turf/ faux fur against the landscape. Similar to the camouflage type apparel used in shooting? Saw a similar large panoramic image at Edinburgh Degree Show which featured a person wearing a cardboard box against a landscape.

Ornamental storks! At first glance I thought they were real. Thrilled to see some decoy- esque images.

Another stand-out series for me was the work of Sanna Kannisto which appeared under the header "Theatre of Nature".

"In her work, Sanna Kannisto explores the relationship between nature and culture and the theories and concepts which are used to approach nature within the arts and sciences. Her methods, field studies and the objective scientific way of presenting the objects, refers not only to anthropological and archaeological ways of working, but also to studio portraiture and staged photography."

I really like the use of the neutral white space with the curtains.

Was also intruiged by the use of silver duct tape to attach the plants to ceiling/floor, treating them as a man-made item.

Statement of Descent

2009-06-24T14:34:00.000-07:00

I was fortunate enough to have the time to visit another degree show. I was excited to see some animal art but disappointed when I read the accompanying artist's statement.

"I use animals" is not a sentence I can read easily, (particularly when followed by "as a metaphor"). The "use" or inclusion of an animal or an animal body in an artwork surely warrants a bit more distinction than any other material. (Also, the connotations and consequences of the tiny word "use" in relation to this issue are a bit mammoth).

Similar to my Bodyworlds complaint I left feeling a bit miffed at the lack of acknowledgment of the significance of the animal body in an otherwise interesting and provoking show. The scale of the ways in which we use animals and their by- products on an everyday basis would perhaps suggest that a more considered approach in an artwork, and the accompanying statement, would not only be more sensitive, but more successful and provocative. (I'll notify Mr. Hirst in due course).

Country File

2009-06-21T12:53:00.000-07:00

Twig Hunt 2009 sights:

Mouse.

And a small scary twig house.

Bodyworlds Flashback

2009-06-08T04:47:00.000-07:00

This weekend when out and about in the countryside I happened to find a tiny baby stoat or weasel abandoned by it's mother (or dropped by a thieving crow, it depends on how pessimistic I am feeling) which actually reminded me of something I'd seen before. It's tiny body was similar to the minuscule human foetuses I was exposed to at Gunther Von Hagen's Body Worlds exhibition that I visited earlier this year:

http://www.visitlondon.com/bodyworlds/

Bodyworlds was an experience that disappointed me in several ways. The distinct "pro-life" overtones were a bit hard to stomach (see what I did there?!) for a start, as was the preachy life-changing ideal behind the exhibits e.g. seeing this will change your life, which was followed with being handed a "life certificate" at the end which the viewer is supposed to sign to say they will live a healthier life after the awe inspiring sight of a mouldering smokers lung. Also, the ridiculous poses (man riding horse clutching a human brain) were distracting and spoiled what should have been a wondrous, and very new, experience. However, among all the various criticisms of Gunther Von Hagen and his exhibitions there is still something amiss.

Along side the human bodies exhibited there were several animal specimens varying from a chicken, up to an enormous giraffe. Great care was taken throughout the exhibit to mention that all the human bodies were donated etc etc but there was no mention anywhere throughout the exhibit about the origins of the animals included. Were they donated? Killed? Died naturally? An acknowledgment of the inclusion of these animals seemed appropriate and I was dismayed at this oversight. Are animal bodies so commonplace that acknowledgement of their "participation" is unimportant?

I wrote a lot about this in my 4th year dissertation- the distinction between the display of human bodies and animal bodies. (Jane Desmond's essay "Displaying Death, Animating Life: Changing Fictions of "Liveness" from Taxidermy to Animatronics" included in "Representing Animals" is a real gem in this area and I really recommend it.)

Bodyworlds facilitates the display of human bodies due to the largely anonymous nature of the people included- we are able to distance ourselves from anonymous cadavers. However due to the fact that animals are largely considered to be anonymous, having no particular identity other than being part of a species etc, their display is at once both acceptable and not particularly problematic. Despite this, there is often a lot of controversy surrounding the use of animals and animal bodies in art galleries so I was intrigued about the lack of response regarding the use of animals in Bodyworlds. Will keep my eyes pealed (ah these bodyworlds puns are great) in case I spot any similar musings.

Degree Show 2009/ Future Developments

2009-06-08T04:26:00.000-07:00

Finally finished preparing for the Gray's Degree show. Was an intense experience! Just awaiting degree results/ show opening now.

Opening times:

Sat 13th - Sun 14th June 10am - 5pm
Mon 15th - Fri 19th June 10am - 8pm
Sat 20th June 10am - 5pm

Preview event on Friday 12th of June.

Feeling slightly queasy!

(Also, have started to give thought to my plans after graduation. Am currently undertaking an art direction position on a Scottish Digital Shorts film project. It's exciting and requires lots of rooting around in search of props- more details on this later. Will be applying for a couple of artist's residencies also, feel this is the direction I want to go in for the moment as it's quite difficult to choose the right masters course.)

More Wunderkammer

2009-05-18T12:48:00.000-07:00

Decided to upload some additional images from the "Wunderkammer" exhibition, I forgot to include one piece in my last upload. Pretty busy getting ready for my Degree Show this week so my posting will be a bit more sporadic.

"Natural Habitat" by Jenny Hood and Stewart Comrie

Sculpture comprising of bird skeleton, empty wooden diorama box and cracked glass.

Stewart commented that this piece sums up pretty well all the work that I did about the diorama and it's symbolism. I think he may be right, I tried very hard to express through photography all of my ideas about the habitat diorama, making something more sculptural has proved quite successful (in my humble opinion) than trying to cram everything I want to say into an image.

Becoming Animal

2009-05-18T12:01:00.000-07:00

My new project focuses primarily on the notion of "becoming animal". I've been doing a lot of reading, particularly Deleuze & Guattari to try and get a good basis for starting something new. I'm quite anal about research really as I feel it's as important as the final piece. ANYWAY, I've always been intrigued by where the dividing line between humans and animals actually lies and what "becoming animal" really means.

If you subscribe to the theory of D & G (Deleuze & Guattari) then "becoming animal" is not about imitation or "playing animal".

"If becoming animal does not consist in playing animal or imitating animal, it is clear that the human being does not "really" become an animal any more than the animal "really" becomes something else." - Deleuze & Guattari.

Lori Brown in her writing "Becoming Animal in the Flesh: Expanding the Ethical Reach of Deleuze and Guattari's Tenth Plateau" states that "Desire to become another animal for Deleuze and Guattari is a longing for proximity and sharing. When they say that a person desires the swarm of the wolf, this is not a matter of her wanting to become "like a wolf". The desire is actually to enter into a molecular engagement with the other; to be copresent with the other in a zone of closeness"

So rather than being a desire to imitate or replicate the behaviour or appearance of an animal, "becoming animal" is a "desire for proximity" and a "molecular engagement". Hmmm, certainly some food for thought in there.

This made me think of the ideas surrounding the wearing of fur. A notion many people subscribe to is the idea of "transference" of animal qualities to the wearer of the fur, a transfer of the bestial, the dark, the untamed and the sexual. I have explored this previously in my photography but am now interested in this idea of "transference" in relation to "becoming animal".

My intention is to create a piece, most likely a series of photographs, exploring, or at least attempting to explore my take on "becoming animal". I tried a couple of experimental photographs at the weekend using my fur coat and a co-operative accomplice. Not sure exactly how I feel about this misshapen hybrid!

Wunderkammer Exhibition

2009-05-16T04:59:00.000-07:00

"Mickey's Nightmare" by Stewart Comrie.

"Mickey's Nightmare" by Stewart Comrie

Still shot.

"The Three Friends" by Stewart Comrie

Detail shot.

"The Three Friends" by Stewart Comrie

Print.

"Dulux Non-Drip Paint" by Stewart Comire

Bird skeleton, paint.

"Mickey's Nightmare" by Stewart Comrie in action.

"Mickey's Nightmare" by Stewart Comrie

Animated Zootrope featuring mutated mice.

"Happy Meal" by Jenny Hood and Stewart Comrie

Detail shot, beanie babies.

"Vascular Velvet" by Stewart Comrie

Antlers and Velvet.

"Vascular Velvet" by Stewart Comrie

Antlers and Velvet

"Untitled" by Jenny Hood

Magnifier and squashed fly.

Front view of exhibition

View of screening area for my film "Theatres of Nature"

"Happy Meal" by Jenny Hood and Stewart Comrie

Mixed media, beanie babies and wireframe structure.

In February 2009 as part of their Gray's project, Project Slogan in Aberdeen accepted a proposal submitted by myself and 2008 Gray's graduate- and long term collaborator- Stewart Comrie. Our intention was to create an exhibition of work in the style of the "wunderkammer", the original cabinet of curiousities and predecessor of the natural history museum.

We exhibited a selection of photographs, sculpture, painting and screened my new film "Theatres of Nature" in it's own constructed viewing booth. Overall reactions to this were positive and am planning to recreate a similar structure at my degree show.

The exhibition ran from the 1st of May til the 7th (with a successful and fun opening night!) thanks to everyone who came and Project Slogan for hosting the exhibition. For more info on Project Slogan look up: http://www.projectslogan.com/

For more information on Stewart's work check out : http://www.stewartcomrie.com/

Wunderkammer

Gate 10 Continued...

International Departure: Gate 10

INTERNATIONAL DEPARTURE: GATE 10TWENTY SIX INTERNATIONAL YOUNG ARTISTSModena, Ex Ospedale Sant’Agostino12 June – 11 July 2010

Numerology

RSA New Contemporaries 2010

Nature/Culture, Human/Animal, Mind/Body, Art/Life

The Thought Fox

The Sacred Dominion

Eating Animals

Found 2

Found

The Gender of "Greatness"

Afraid of stupid metaphors?

4 BLNK WOLS

Rachel Goodyear

Interspecies

Website Launch

Curious and grotesque: Exquisite Bodies exhibition at the Wellcome Collection

Foam: Wonder

Statement of Descent

Country File

Bodyworlds Flashback

Degree Show 2009/ Future Developments

More Wunderkammer

Becoming Animal

Wunderkammer Exhibition

INTERNATIONAL DEPARTURE: GATE 10
TWENTY SIX INTERNATIONAL YOUNG ARTISTS
Modena, Ex Ospedale Sant’Agostino
12 June – 11 July 2010