I'm sitting with a jar of peanut butter trying to come to terms with the ruling that was handed down last week. I submitted an installation which included the videos Foambroidery, Persimmon After Almodóvar and Riti Manuali. While the numbers on the feedback form correspond to an excellent grade and the work of a promising artist, the feeling is one of total vacuity. I am bewildered for several reasons. In the interests of clarification, I will list them.
Concerning all three videos, there is the potential for a new and more refined pontification of gender roles and sexuality. It is one that should address my personal conflict between a comfort and familiarity with particular clichés and my hesitation toward complicity in clichés that are based on and actively perpetuate gender stereotypes. Simple enough, but for some reason the thought of approaching this utterly confounds me.
The question of how recognisable these stereotypes are is a bone of contention for some tutors. The installation was criticised for employing obscure stereotypes which, although may seem obvious to me, bear no significance to an audience. I was advised to utilise clichés that an Australian audience would automatically respond to, such as spaghetti, pizza, and concrete lion statues. It seems apparent to me that immediately recognisable subject matter negates the process of learning, and thus, without an investigation of previously unfamiliar clichés, nothing of value is being contributed. Such criticism has ultimately restored my proud affection for subtle, culturally unique metaphor.
Finally, and getting to the point, I considered my previous works and have found a link between former attempts to infiltrate Sicilian culture and what I refer to as 'intra-minority biases'. I've recently had a couple of experiences that have suddenly and resolutely made me aware of the exclusivity and bias (or loyalty and dedication to cultural preservation) that exists within the diaspora of migrant communities.
I've noticed this on two occasions, in exchanges with Italian strangers who became noticeably more open and casual with me upon learning of my heritage. I was astounded to notice that I have subconsciously imposed the same cultural bias on people my entire life. It became evident this week, when hearing the story of a family of womanising brothers who went on to father numerous children. Once someone mentioned the surname of the boys (Italian), I realised something within overruled my previous determination as philandering hillbillies and I was decidedly comfortable with the notion that they were just typically Italian - eager young casanovas.
Hopefully such a link is enough to substantiate my work within my own methodology, and I feel far more positive about creating new work based on this, rather than the tangential experiments of the beginning of the semester, which I feel were only loosely defined by my overarching concept.
Yet problems continue to come to light - such as the consistency of video quality. Agreed, the contemporary audience is drawn to the high definition image. It is slick. It is seductive. It echoes the authority of precision and demands the concentrated attention of its viewer. But at this stage, I don't know if I want my viewer to be seduced or repulsed. Would a low resolution video really make the whole affair seem less glamourous? Would it move an audience to rebel against what they were seeing? I need to come to terms with my exact feeling about 'intra-minority bias'. As in the case of producing a work on gender roles, I am vexed. Do I love and long for the feeling of belonging to an exclusive community? What if that community's roots in social ignorance and misogyny and homophobia are too insidious to overlook?
Perhaps I'll find the answer at the bottom of this peanut butter jar.
