The Depth In Agnes Martin

Simple, subdued, serene – will be the adventurous description of the various insights on the totality of what Agnes Martin shared with the world of art.   Simple, subdued, serene – will also be the summarized description of what Agnes Martin’s many critics say of her work.   And, simple, subdued, serene – will be the captive element of what the reviews said of the Agnes Martin documentary â€Å"With My Back to the World†.Treading from abstract expressionism to minimalism, all of Agnes Martin’s life, works and story – as captured in â€Å"With My Back to the World; and, as per the perspective of its director, Mary Lance; and, as per all the insights, critiques, reviews and commentaries – are but a symphony of illustrations and expressions as to how the delightful artist treated, educated and revealed to the world the mystique of life.Unanimously acknowledging the preferred solitude and reclusion of the great artist, they rec ognized Agnes Martin to have nevertheless proven the presence of soulfulness and intensity in her chosen art form, despite of living in silence.The interesting fact though is that in the profundity of her silence vis-à  -vis the silence of her profundity, Agnes Martin allowed Mary Lance to interview her and shoot the documentary film while Agnes Martin is working and right there in her New Mexico studio.Together with the documentary â€Å"With My Back to the World†; together with all her works; together with the designation of ARTnews Magazine in 2002 as one of the world’s top ten livings artists – the lines and hues of Agnes Martin therefore became the canopy from where we view the spirit of Taosim that inspired her as she reveal her creativity and philosophy.AGNES MARTIN – HER LIFE TO THE BEHOLDER:Born on March 22, 1912 in Makin, Saskatchewan, Canada – Agnes Martin nevertheless grew up in Vancouver, British Columbia.   They were four siblings in the family, but her father died when she was only 2 years old.   From thenon, Agnes’ mother steadfastly stood by her resolve to raise her brood by her self.   Such aura of strength and independence etched in the mind of the growing Agnes.In 1931 she moved to the United States and attended The Western Washington College of Education in Bellingham; the Teachers College of the Columbia University in New York and the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque.   She has earned her Bachelors degree in 1942 and her Masters Degree in 1952.   She acquired her American citizenship in 1950.She was an art teacher in University of New Mexico and other public schools in Washington and Delaware from 1947 to 1948 and in Eastern Oregon College in 1952 to 1953.   With the paintings Agnes Martin accumulated, Betty Parsons Gallery offered to handle her work if she moves to New York City.It was in 1958 that Agnes Martin was given her first solo exhibition in the said gallery.   It wa s a period when abstract expressionism is at its height as an art form and likewise the seeming dawn of minimalism is soon going to be witnessed.In the Coenties Slip in Lower Manhattan where she lived, Agnes Martin huddled with artists like Ellsworth Kelly, Robert Indiana, Jasper Johns, Robert Rauschenberg, Jack Youngerman.Agnes Martin, took a break from painting from 1967 to 1974 as she ventured into filmmaking.   It was in 1976 that she produced the film â€Å"Gabriel†.  Ã‚   The subject of the film is a boy who incessantly went to explore the world in his own quiet ways.Thereafter she resumed her painting wherein her exhibitions were held various museums in the succeeding years, like – in the Institute of Contemporary Art, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Pace Gallery, New York; Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam;Whitney Museum of American Art, New York; the Harwood Museum of Art at the University of New Mexico.   There are also other international art galleries that have invited and showcased the works of Agnes Martin.Agnes Martin was inducted in 1989 as a member of the American Academy and Institute of Arts and Letters in New York.   She received the Gold Lion Award at the Venice Biennale in 1997 for her lifetime achievement and contribution in contemporary art.   The National Endowment for Arts granted in 1998 to Agnes Martin the National Medal of Arts.In 1997, the highlight of her achievement was the establishment of the Agnes Martin Gallery in New Mexico, where her work is showcased.   Otherwise, Sotheby and other auction houses do trade in great value the works of this great, enigmatic artist.AGNES MARTIN – HER WORKS TO THE CONNOISSEUR:Among buyers, users, collectors, critiques – all connoisseurs discern and judge in a balanced mix of subjectivity, relativity, objectivity and economics.   Value for value there is thin line in visual arts that does not only rest on what is seen – there must be something â€Å"beyon d†.The utter simplicity and directness of the creation of Agnes Martin, within the perfection of horizontal and vertical lines in her grids and as per the hues she applied with her own brand of discernment, have all been acknowledged as very expressive and moving.â€Å"The Taos artist’s grids, some of them traced in lines of graphite, so faint they seem to be emerging from or disappearing into a mist†¦..Martin’s†¦.[is] an art of invisibility.   It’s tempting to ready a ‘beyond’ into them†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Lee, 1998)You therefore view the work with great challenge and enthusiasm.   You have to really get close to the painting.   You dissect every pattern and color.   You try to find the hints and clues.   You feel mystified.   You search for the meaning.It is because Agnes Martin invites a â€Å"relationship† with the viewer of her art.   She wants a direct and distinctive communication between her art and he r viewer.   Then, you will see the beauty, the finesse, the simplicity of just the perfect, varied lines.   â€Å"†¦.what they give back in their simplicity and richness, is indescribably moving.†Ã‚   (Lee, 1998)Agnes Martin’s painting convinces that there is a palpable person and a palpable thought that is put into the work.   Subtly, there are little and misty wobbles and breaks in the hues and lines – they tease and try to see if you are paying attention to details.The purpose of imperfection is to achieve perfection.   It challenges perception of what is between and/or the difference between real and ideal.Indeed her works produced in a span of 60 odd years is visionary and timeless.   Despite the temperament of her artistic times that traversed between minimalism to abstract expressionism, Agnes Martin humbly demurs from being classified as a spearhead, neither the bridge between the two art forms.The transition in the art form of Agnes Marti n is akin to her transition in learning and knowing and realizing everything about her and her surroundings and the society she lived with.Even in the eventual solitude she chose, Agnes Martin is still conscious of what being in a community of man is all about.   Her earlier ventures were in still life and portrait painting.   Therefore, she went along the tide of the prevailing abstract expressionism in the 1940’s to the early 1950’s.

Masculinity and Femininity Essay

Throughout history and across culture, definitions of masculinity and femininity have varied dramatically, leading researchers to argue that gender, and specifically gender roles, are socially constructed (see Cheng, 1999). Cheng (1999:296) further states that â€Å"one should not assume that ‘masculine’ behaviour is performed only by men, and by all men, while ‘feminine’ behaviour is performed by women and by all women†. Such historical and cultural variations oppose the essentialist view that masculinity, femininity and gender roles are biologically ingrained in males and females prior to birth (Cheng, 1999). These socially constructed stereotypes surrounding masculinity and femininity coupled with their cultural and historical variations are the focus of this essay, leading into the sociological implications of the findings. Whilst practices of gender roles have varied dramatically across history and culture, the stereotypes surrounding masculinity and femininity have remained fairly stoic (Cheng,1999). Masculinity has been continually characterised by traits such as â€Å"independence, confidence and assertiveness†, with these traits relating directly to aspects of dominance, authority, power and success (Leaper, 1995:1). Cheng (1999:298) links these traits of masculinity to hegemonic masculinity, as â€Å"a culturally idealised form of masculine character.† Connell (1995:76) agrees, stipulating that hegemonic masculinity is culturally and historically variable, being simply â€Å"the masculinity that occupies the hegemonic position in a given pattern of gender relations.† This serves to emphasise that, if hegemonic masculinity is at the top of the pyramid of a set of gender relations, and these gender relations (as seen below) can vary, hegemonic masculinity itself can also vary ac ross cultures and historical periods. This indicates that the previously alluded to traits of masculinity are instead the Western traits of hegemonic masculinity (Connell, 1995). Femininity, on the other hand, has often been categorised as the complete opposite of hegemonic masculinity (Leaper, 1995). Leaper (1995:1) has emphasised many stereotypically feminine characteristics, including â€Å"understanding, compassion[ate] and affection[ate].† These characteristics often perpetuate the gender role of the loving, nurturing mother and domestic home-maker, emphasising success (as opposed to the masculine success of wealth and status accumulation) as a  tidy house and well-fed children (Hoffman, 2001). Various scholarly research has highlighted how such stereotypes of masculinity and femininity are continually perpetuated by the wider population, with Leaper (1995) reporting there is much distaste for a masculine woman or feminine man. However, regardless of the stereotypes associated with masculinity and femininit y, cultural variations of these stereotypical gender roles exist. It has long been argued that definitions and practices of masculinity and femininity vary across cultures (see Cheng, 1999), with evidence surrounding variations in masculinity being drawn from Japan, the Sambia region of Papua New Guinea, America and Latin America. Sugihara and Katsurada (1999:635) reiterate this perspective by stating that â€Å"[c]ulture defines gender roles [and] societal values†. Sugihara and Katsurada’s (1999:645) study of gender roles in Japanese society characterised Japanese hegemonic masculinity as â€Å"a man with internal strength† as opposed to the physical strength typically emphasised within Western societies’ ideal man. In contrast, the American notion of hegemonic masculinity is predominantly seen as to include heterosexism, gender difference and dominance (Kiesling, 2005). Specifically, as stated by Kiesling (2005), masculinity in America relies upon being heterosexual, in a position of power, dominance or authority and believing that there is a categorical difference between men and women in terms of biology and behaviour. It is this Western notion of masculinity that is often seen to perpetuate stereotypical gender roles, as alluded to previously (Leaper, 1995). Further variations in masculinity across cultures can be seen in recent research in the Sambia region of Papua New Guinea, where it was discovered that masculinity â€Å"is the outcome of a regime of ritualised homosexuality leading into manhood† (Macionis and Plummer, 2005:307) Such engaging in homosexual acts, whilst considered an example of hegemonic masculinity in the Sambia region, is considered a subordinated masculinity in the Western world, indicating how hegemonic masculinity can vary across cultures (Connell, 1995). Another cultural variation at the opposite end of the spectrum to the homosexuality of the Sambia region, the internalised strengths of Japanese men and even in contrast to the authoritative dominance of American masculinity, is the ‘machismo’ construct of masculinity in Latino men. The masculinity shown in  Latino men can be described as an exaggerated form of American hegemonic masculinity, with a focus on physical strength, toughness and acting as both a protector and an authority figure (Saez et. al, 2009). These four variations alone – between Japanese, Sambian, American and Latin American masculinity – emphasise the cultural differences in masculinity. Femininity, however, shows to some extent, even greater variation cross-culturally. Delph-Janiurck (2000:320) suggests that femininity focuses on â€Å"social relations†¦ the home†¦ [and] (re)creating feelings of togetherness†, re-emphasising the traditional stereotypical gender role of the nurturing, motherly home-maker. This definition of femininity can be reiterated by Sugihara and Katsurada’s (1999:636) study, where they found Japanese women portrayed aspects of Connell’s (1995) emphasised femininity, in that they were â€Å"reserved, subservient and obey[ed] their husbands.† However, these traditional traits of femininity are not the same across cultures. Margaret Mead’s study of the Mungdugumor and Tchambuli tribes of Papua New Guinea stand in stark contrast to the femininity previously emphasised. The Mungdugumor tribe showed both males and females as aggressive and powerful, typically masculine traits to the Western world (Lutkehaus, 1993). The Tchambuli tribe, in contrast, reversed the Western gender roles completely, resulting in the males being more submissive and females acting more aggressive (Gewertz, 1984). In the Western world and specifically Australia, variations in comparison to other cultures could not be more obvious. Harrison (1997) emphasises how the English tradition of debutante balls, adapted by many religious institutions in Australia, promotes a feminine ideal of monogamous heterosexuality, coupled with passivity, beauty, modesty and virginity. This version of femininity stands in stark contrast to the subservience of Japanese women, and the aggressive traits of both the Tchambuli and Mungdugumor tribes’ women, as a cross-cultural example of varied femininity. These examples further serve to emphasise how variable masculinity and femininity are across cultures. However, such variations are similarly evident across historical periods. Historical variations in masculinity and femininity also exist, further serving to emphasise that gender roles are a socially constructed  creation. Cheng (1999:298) reiterates this stating that, â€Å"[a]s history changes, so does the definition of hegemonic masculinity†, emphasising how variable social constructions of gender roles are. In the last century alone, the American version of hegemonic masculinity has witnessed significant changes. Before the first World War, hegemonic masculinity was portrayed through the likes of Humphrey Bogart and Clark Gable, before being overturned by the â€Å"more physical, muscular, violent and sexual† Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone (Cheng, 1999:300). Another example exists in Australia, where masculinity has seen a similar shift from the 1950s until now. Pennell (2001:7) has emphasised how masculinity in Australia started with the patriarchy, the belief that â€Å"moral and legal authority derives from the masculine.† The 1950s particularly portrayed masculine males as the breadwinners and feminine females as homemakers, examples of the gender role stereotypes continually perpetuated today (Pennell, 2001). As the years progressed, sports stars such as Donald Bradman and, more recently, Shane Warne and Olympian James Mangussen, began to portray typical hegemonic masculinity, with more emphasis being placed upon physique, dominance and power, than simply material wealth (Pennell, 2001). However, masculinity is not the only thing that has seen significant historical change. Femininity, however, has not changed as dramatically as masculinity, remaining, as emphasised by Cheng (1999), the subordinated gender. Matthews (in Baldock, 1985) emphasises the changes that have occurred in femininity over the twentieth century, from women portraying their femininity through submissive acts of unpaid work to women’s emancipation and allowance in joining the workforce, emphasising a less submissive, more powerful and independent notion of femininity. Whilst the feminist movement showed significant improvements to women’s rights, historical notions of femininity – passivity, domesticity and beauty – continue to be perpetuated in Australian society (Cheng, 1999). This emphasises how society may not change as fast as evidence surrounding the social construction of gender roles arises (Cheng, 1999). Various sociological implications arise from these examples of  varying masculinities and femininities across culture and history, particularly that it suggests gender roles are â€Å"not homogenous, unchanging, fixed or undifferentiated† (Cheng, 1999:301). To some extent, such evidence can dispute claims that gender roles, masculinities and femininities are biologically determined and can argue against the essentialist argument that there are two and â€Å"only two bi-polar gender roles† (Cheng, 1999:296). The evidence, that masculinity and femininity vary cross-culturally and over historical periods has the ability to argue against the essentialist argument, as it shows the more than two gender roles exist, with variations between cultures (such as the varied femininities across Japan and PNG) and within historical periods (such as the variations in American hegemonic masculinity). In a societal sense, evidence suggesting that gender roles are not biologically constructed, but instead vary throughout culture and history, emphasises that such perceived inevitable functions of society, such as the patriarchal dividend and gender inequality are not inevitable biological constructs (Hoffman, 2001). They could be argued, instead, as socially constructed blockades to female empowerment and equality, that, such as can be seen in the Tchambuli tribe of Mead’s study, can be reversed (Lutkehaus, 1993). The evidence that masculinities and femininities vary diversely across culture and historical period further empahsises that gender roles and gender divides are socially constructed. With evidence drawn from as far reaching as PNG and Japan and over vast historical periods, it can be reiterated that gender roles and perceptions of masculinity and femininity are not unchanging (Cheng, 1999). As emphasised throughout this essay, such evidence disputes essentialist arguments regarding the supposed inevitable patriarchal dividend and, in relation to society, reiterates that gender roles can change.