Feminine Identity & Empowerment

This website was created by Linda Hoeptner-Poling as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Distinguished Fellows Research Institute, Multiculturalism and Its Implementation for Art Education, sponsored by the National Art Education Association. The Institute was held at The Ohio State University in the summer of 2001 under the direction of Dr. Patricia Stuhr of The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio and Dr. Graeme Chalmers of the University of British Columbia at Vancouver. Any questions, suggestions or comments you might have can be directed to Linda Hoeptner-Poling at linda@poling.com.

Overview & Rationale Learners Objectives Activity #1 Activity #2 Activity #3

Activity #4 Culminating Activity Resources Reflection

Let it not be said, wherever there is energy or creative genius, “She has a masculine mind.”

Margarete Fuller, Woman in the Nineteenth Century, 1845

Overview & Rationale

It is well know that men and women view the world differently. They also behave differently. This commonly held belief is based largely on the ways men and women are socialized, not on biological differences. Often, being identified as a female becomes a problem because of cultural disadvantage (de Beauvoir, 1952). This disadvantage has been consistent in the art world (Ament, 1998). Masculine bias largely still informs practices of art and art education, although this bias is eroding (Collins, 1987).

The development of awareness of sexism and gender issues can be cited to assist future educators implement gender-fair practices. Sexism, according to Martin (1985) comes in three forms: exclusion of women, stereotyping of men and women, and degrading and devaluing things considered feminine. It is paramount that art education, and education in general, include perspectives of both male and female vision and voice to make education less distorted. Unfortunately, the practice of art education is often from the elitist, white, Western male viewpoint (Ament, 1998; Sandell, 1985; Sandell & Collins, 1985), and the feminine identification of art in society gives it a marginal status (Sandell & Collins, 1985; Smith, 1996).

So what is an art educator to do, particularly a female art educator? Coming to a richer, deeper understanding of one’s own feminine identity is a starting point. This lesson will promote the exploration and awareness of personal feminine identity and a sense of empowerment in that awareness.

Art curricula typically tend to ignore social and psychological value of images of women in both student and professional art. Art work that challenges stereotypes and makes serious comment on women’s roles are likely to be dismissed as too political. Springer (1994) in particular stresses the importance of selecting work of women artists to show female students, for the purpose of imaginative thinking, building self-esteem, and as catalysts for discussion of gender issues. Heeding this advice, guiding this unit’s exploration of feminine identity will be the works of six artists, mostly done by women. They include: Liza Lou in her reflections on domestic life; Susan Frazier, Vicki Hodgetts, & Robin Weltsch in their vision of nurturance; Faith Ringgold in her reflections on being black and a woman; and Gary Chapman in his depiction of a strong mother figure. As a culminating activity, students will create portrait dolls that embody their vision of the various roles they have had and still assume that accompany being a woman. The visual embodiment of this awareness of gendered roles will hopefully serve as a personally empowering force in their lives, functioning as a catalyst for necessary change.

Learners

The feminine mystique says that the highest value and the only commitment for women is the fulfillment of their own femininity….It says this femininity is so mysterious and intuitive and close to the creation and origin of life

that man-made science may never be able to understand it.

Betty Friedan, The Feminine Mystique, 1963

This lesson was designed specifically for undergraduate students of an all-female class of Expressive Arts and Social Studies at Kent State University, Kent Ohio. The majority of Early Childhood Education and Art Education majors in this class are in their early to mid-20s. The socio-economic status of the students ranges from upper-, to middle-, and lower-class. The majority are Caucasian. A small number are African-American and Asian-American. In the past, students have often expressed interest and concern over gender issues, discussing topics such as marriage, having and raising children, family roles, and careers, thus making this lesson timely and personally relevant to them.

Objectives

The fear of sacrificing femininity at the altar of success has kept thousands of girls “in their place.”

Letty Cottin Pogrebin, How to Make It in a Man’s World, 1970

Through participation in this lesson:

Students will be able to analyze their own and societal beliefs and opinions on feminine identity.
Students will be able to extrapolate meanings from art that are applicable to their own lives, by critically examining visual representations of feminine identity.
Students will be able to identify ways in which their feminine identity is empowering.
Students will apply their explorations of their feminine identity through verbal and visual means, through guided discussion and the creation of a portrait doll.

Instructional Activity #1: Liza Lou

The home is a human institution. All human institutions are open to improvement.

Charlotte Perkins Gilman, The Home, 1903

Liza Lou: Kitchen (1991-95)

* for an enlarged view, click on the image

Liza Lou’s Kitchen (1991-95) will first be introduced. Kitchen, a 168-square-foot, room-size installation transforms mundane objects and a scene of supposed domestic bliss into reflections on the American ideal of “domestic goddess.” Lou created Kitchen by covering every surface with tiny glass seed beads. Within this work, one can feel an appreciation for as well as a critical reading of women’s work. In paying homage and respect to women’s work, Lou invites the viewer to do the same, on one hand embracing women’s role as homemaker, on the other, questioning its validity. She has embellished and romanticized the ordinary, presenting an ever-sparkling, ever-perfect kitchen for the viewer to scrutinize. Without judgment or opinion, yet hinting at self-sacrifice, the work quotes a portion of an Emily Dickinson poem:

*detail; for an enlarged view, click on the image

She rose to his requirements, dropped

The playthings of her life

To take the honorable work

Of woman and of wife.

As one critic put it, “Oppression and pride coexist in Lou’s Kitchen, the tone of the work oscillating from bitter to sweet. Such ambivalent feminism is common to women of Lou’s generation (she was born in 1969), ‘not wanting to be confined to the role of Cinderella on the one hand, but not wanting to forfeit the dream of Prince Charming on the other’” (Ollman, 1998; p.100).

* detail; for an enlarged view, click on the image

Another factor to consider is the medium of beadwork itself. It has a feminine connotation, a “craft” orientation. Beading has traditionally been associated with women’s handwork. How does this component play into the viewer’s experience of the piece?

Guiding Questions

In the presentation of Lou’s Kitchen, it is essential, as with the subsequent works, to involve students in the interpretation and analysis of the work in order to extrapolate personal meaning from them. The following questions are suggested:

Who do you envision inside Kitchen? What would that person be like?
Who is not allowed inside Kitchen, both literally and figuratively?
Why do you suppose Lou took such painstaking effort to cover Kitchen with beads? What effect would other materials have had?
What evidence of gender stereotyping do you see in Kitchen? How do you think Lou wants the viewer to see gender in this work?
What would the person washing dishes be gazing out at through the Kitchen window?
What could we speculate that this work says about Lou?

Instructional Activity #2: Gary Chapman

If reproduction were the chief and only fact of human life, would all men today suffer from “uterus envy”?

Betty Friedan, The Feminine Mystique, 1963

Gary Chapman: Mutter und Tochter (Mother and Daughter), 1993

* for an enlarged view, click on the image

Mutter und Tochter, 1993, is a life-size diptych painting by Gary Chapman. The diptych construction and style of painting is reminiscent of Renaissance and Baroque techniques, giving it the physical feel and appearance of an “altar.”

The stereotype of mother, of being soft and gentle, is blatantly challenged by this work. Chapman’s mother is just as much “mother” as she is “father.” As Sartorius (1999) stated, “Her muscular physique is capable of bearing many of late-20^th-century society’s burdens. She could be seen as a contemporary ‘Rosie the Riveter’” (p. 26).

This work confronts the viewer with the challenge to reflect on what it means to be a mother, and how society believes mothers should look and act. It is a vehicle for discussing how we can get past often impossible ideals and begin to redefine a healthier, more diverse expectation of motherhood.

Guiding Questions

1. Why do you think Chapman chose to depict a mother with masculine features, in a confrontational stance? What message then, can the viewer decipher concerning mothers?

2. What does the clothing and physical ominous physical presence of this mother say about her?

3. Why did Chapman make this painting large-as-life?

4. Do you know anyone like this mother? Describe them.

5. What do you suppose this mother’s relationship is to her daughter? To other significant others in her life? Is she single? Married?

6. In what ways does this mother also exude “father?’

7. What kind of mother do you see yourself as being / possibly being?

Instructional Activity #3: Susan Frazier, Vicki Hodgetts, & Robin Weltsch

The “freedom” of the housewife is her isolation.

Juliet Mitchell, Women’s Estate, 1971

Susan Frazier, Vicki Hodgetts, Robin Weltsch: Nurturant Kitchen, 1972

* for an enlarged view, click on the image

In this life-size, mixed media site installation as part of the 1972 collaboration Womanhouse, we see a kitchen transformed by eggs that transmute into breasts. The egg, an image of nourishment and fertility, serves to signify a hunger many women feel in their lives, perhaps a hunger for change. The breasts also provide nourishment, but are attached to far more socially- and culturally-loaded connotations. Like Lou’s Kitchen, Nurturant Kitchen provides a view into women’s pain, and self-sacrifice. It challenges viewers to reflect on gender stereotypes and woman’s place in society.

Guiding Questions

1. Who do you envision inside Nurturant Kitchen? What would that person be like?

2. Who is not allowed inside Nurtant Kitchen, both literally and figuratively?

3. How is Nurturant Kitchen different than Lou’s Kitchen? How is it the same?

4. Describe what it would feel like to cook a meal in this kitchen.

5. Do you feel this is a negative or positive commentary, or a combination of both, on the role of women in our society? Explain.

6. What do you think Frazier, Hodgetts, and Weltsch wanted you to walk away with after viewing Nurturant Kitchen?

Instructional Activity #4: Faith Ringgold

“Sister” really means something like: “You who are one with me in our oppression,” rather than merely being an expression of pure unity.

Robin Lakoff, Language and Woman’s Place, 1975

Faith Ringgold: Soft Sculptures

* for an enlarged view, click on the image

Another artist that refuses to allow stereotypes of women, particularly African-American women, to go unchallenged is Faith Ringgold. Many of her works depict women of various ages and races engaged in activities that were considered atypical for women. Part of Ringgold’s decision to embrace feminism grew out of the desire to teach her two daughters self-reliance. Herself a single parent, she felt the need to impress upon her daughters as well as on the audience of her art work, the importance of autonomy for women.

In the early 70’s, Ringgold began creating soft sculptures, in the form of dolls and / or wearable masks, also called soft sculptures. They were often inspired by people that she knew and who were important to her. Aunt Bessie and Aunt Edith, 1974 are two such soft sculptures. She embraces her African heritage of using cloth and beads in these works, and later began making story quilts, also in the African tradition. The Bessie and Edith dolls are actually two life-size portrait masks of Ringgold’s aunts. They are meant to show the kind of individuals Ringgold’s aunts were, not necessarily how they looked. This concept also reflects an African tradition. Ringgold made both mouths open to show the need for women to speak out, even putting a whistle on one to show the need for getting attention. Often, the dolls have two faces, to show that things are never the way they look. Her dolls offer experiences of people in her life that all viewers can relate to on some level. She even created dolls of her family, called Mrs. Jones and Family, 1973.

Guiding Questions

1. How do these dolls tell a story? What would that story be?

2. Which doll in Mrs. Jones and Family do you think is Ringgold? Is she represented?

3. What do we know about Ringgold’s heritage and background looking at these dolls?

4. What experiences of being a woman do you see in these dolls? What are the clues?

5. What significant others would you represent if given the opportunity?

6. What would a doll of yourself look like?

Culminating Activity: Self-Portrait Dolls

Her mission is not to enhance the masculine spirit, but to express the feminine; hers is not to preserve a man-made world, but to create a human world by the infusion of the feminine element into all of its activities.

Margarete Sanger, Woman and the New Race, 1920

* for an enlarged view, click on the image

As a culminating activity, students will create self-portrait dolls that embody their vision of the various roles they have had and still assume that accompany being a woman. Students will be asked to think of both literal as well as metaphorical images that represent themselves that are embodied in their feminine identity, both positive and negative. For example, Ringgold put a whistle on Aunt Bessie to show the need for being heard as a woman. Colors and shapes can be used symbolically. Another example is my own self-portrait doll created soon after the birth of my second child. It includes both my children, at the time ages 2 and 6 months. The role of “mother” was still in its infancy stages and proved very challenging as I juggled home life and career and educational goals. My daughter is physically attached to me by a cord; her intense neediness, being a colicky baby, was as if the umbilical cord was never cut. My son is an independent doll , representing the free, confident spirit he is. Both have buttons of childhood imagery sewn onto their bodies, representing such things as toys, and nursery rhymes and both are dressed in brightly colored attire to signify the joy they bring me. My daughter has a flower button sewn on as a metaphor for potential growth and “blooming.” The doll of myself is large-breasted to signify the sustenance I provided to both my children through breastfeeding, and the incredibly bonding experience it provided. My hair is infused with pink and blue cords, the same in my children’s hair, with the added purple cord to show the presence of my spouse. Earrings were added as adornment to signify my love of creating my own jewelry. All three faces were embroidered to pay homage to the tradition of woman’s handwork. A detachable bag hangs off my body with pieces of paper with writing on them. On each piece is a negative statement associated with societal ideals that accompany being a woman and how I personally resolve them in my life. The experience of creating this doll ensemble proved to be very illuminating, as I made sense of my personal feminine identity. In the process of coming to awareness I felt empowered.

Students will be asked to bring in a variety of materials to construct their dolls. Items to consider include fabric pieces, embellishment items such as beads, buttons, feathers, pipe cleaners, etc. Personal objects can also be incorporated. Items that will be provided by the instructor will include plain muslin, stuffing, embroidery floss, thread, sewing needles, masking tape, ribbons, raffia and yarn. The structure of the doll will be constructed from sticks found on a class walk on the surrounding campus. No experience in sewing is necessary for this project. It is assumed that students will assist one another as needed. This project can function simultaneously as a deeply personal, isolating process as well as a collaborative effort.

A final critique with student reflection will conclude the project, with discussion on the appropriate placement for the dolls. Everyone should contribute by explaining the meanings behind their dolls. The instructor does acknowledge, however, that due to the very personal nature of this assignment that not all aspects will be revealed by students. The questions, “Where should your doll be? Should she be in daily plain view to remind you of your feminine identity and to give you strength? Or packed away to be viewed another time, in another place?” will be posed. The visual embodiment of this awareness of gendered roles will hopefully serve as a personally empowering force in their lives, functioning as a catalyst for necessary change.

Assessment of the dolls will come in the form of questions from both the students and instructor, reflecting back on the objectives. Were students successful in analyzing their own and societal beliefs and opinions on feminine identity? Were students successful in extrapolating meanings from art that are applicable to their own lives? How were their feminine identities viewed as empowering? Did students make positive contributions through the discussions of the art works? Were students successful in the creation of a self-portrait doll, as evidenced through not only craftsmanship and aesthetic appeal, but also through the verbal explanation of their dolls?

On-and Off-line Resources

LIZA LOU:

www.kemperart.org/large_images/l_lou_essay.html

www.artcyclopedia.com/artists/lou_liza.html

www.artincontext.org/artist/l/liza_lou/

Ollman, L. (1998). Liza lou’s American dream. Art in America, 86 (6), 98-101; 122.

Schjeldahl, P. & Tucker, M. (1998). Liza Lou. Santa Monica: Smart Art Press.

GARY CHAPMAN:

Cady Sartorius, T. (1999). Extending the theme of mother and child. Art Education, 52 (6), 25-32.

SUSAN FRAZIER, VICKI HODGETTS, & ROBIN WELTSCH:

www.cmp.ucr.edu/womenhouse/html_s/wilding2.html

http://intertwine.aec.at/it2texte/wilding.html

Broude, N. & Garrard, M. (Eds.). (1994). The power of feminist art: The American movement of the 1970s, history and impact. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc.

FAITH RINGGOLD:

www.artincontext.org/artist/ringgold/

http://teacher.scholastic.com/authorsandbooks/authors/ringgold/bio.htm

Sills, L. (1989). Inspirations: Stories about women artists. Niles, Illinois: Albert Whitman & Company.

Flomenhaft, E. (1990). Faith Ringgold: A 25 year survey. New York: Fine Arts Museum of Long Island.

Farrington, L. (199). Art on fire: The politics of race and sex in the paintings of Faith Ringgold. New York: Millenium Fine Arts Publishing, Inc.

Wallace, M. (Ed.). (1984). Faith Ringgold: Twenty years of painting, sculpture and performance (1963-1983). New York: The Studio Museum in Harlem.

GENDER ISSUES IN ART AND ART EDUCATION:

Ament, E. (1998). Using feminine perspectives in art education. Art Education, 51 (5), 56-61.

Ament, E. (1996). Strategies for teaching art based on feminist aesthetics. In G. C. Collins & R. Sandell (Eds.), Gender Issues in art education: Content, contexts, and strategies (pp. 104-115). Reston, Virginia: The National Art Education Association.

Brewer, T. M. (1995). An examination of untutored thematic and observational drawings made by third- and seventh-grade students. Visual Arts Research, 21 (2), 57-65.

Brewer, T. M. (1998). The relationship of art instruction, grade-level, and gender on third- and seventh-grade student drawings. Studies in Art Education, 39 (2), 132-146.

Brittain, W. L. (1968). An exploratory investigation of early adolescent expression in art. Studies in Art Education, 9 (2), 5-12.

Calvert, A. E. (1996). An art curriculum model for gender equity. In G. C. Collins & R. Sandell (Eds.), Gender issues in art education: Content, contexts, and strategies (pp. 154-164). Reston, Virginia: The National Art Education Association.

Chen, W. J. & Kantner, L. A. (1996). Gender differentiation and young children’s drawings. Visual Arts Research, 22 (1), 44-51.

Clark, R. (1998). Doors and mirrors in art education: Constructing the postmodern classroom. Art Education, 51 (6), 6-11.

Clark, R. (1996). Art education: Issues in postmodern pedagogy. Reston, Virginia: The National Art Education Association.

Collins, G. C. (1987). Masculine bias and the relationship between art and democracy. In D. Blandy & K. G. Congdon (Eds.), Art in a democracy (pp. 26-43). New York: Teachers College Press.

Collins, G. C. & Sandell, R. (1984). Women, art, and education. Reston, Virginia: The National Art Education Association.

Collins, G. C. & Sandell, R. (1996). Gender issues in art education: Content, contexts, and strategies. Reston, Virginia: The National Art Education Association.

Collins, G. C. & Sandell, R. (2000). Informing the promise of DBAE: Remembering the women, children, and other folk. In R. A. Smith (Ed.), Readings in disciplined-based art education: A literature of educational reform (pp. 364-369). Reston, Virginia: The National Art Education Association.

Congdon, K. G. (1991). Feminist approaches to art criticism. In D. Blandy & K. G. Congdon (Eds.), Pluralistic approaches to art criticism (pp. 15-23). Bowling Green, Ohio: Bowling Green State University Popular Press.

Cupchik, G. C., Winston, A. S. & Herz, R. S. (1992). Judgments of similarity and difference between paintings. Visual Arts Research, 18 (2), 37-49.

de Beauvoir, S. (1952). The second sex. New York: Vintage Books.

Dodd, S. M. (1995). Art education for women in the 1860s: A decade of debate. In C. Campbell Orr (Ed.), Women in the Victorian art world (pp. 187-200). Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Duncum, P. (1997). Subjects and themes in children’s unsolicited drawing and gender socialization. In A. M. Kindler (Ed.), Child development in art (pp. 107-114). Reston, Virginia: The National Art Education Association.

Eyestone-Finnegan, J. E. (2000). Teaching a course on women, art, and education. The Journal of Gender Issues in Art and Education, 1 (95-112).

Feinburg, S. G. (1977). Conceptual content and spatial characteristics in boys’ and girls’ drawings of fighting and helping. Studies in Art Education, 18 (2), 63-72.

Finley, K. D. (1989). Cultural monitors: Clubwomen and public art instruction in Chicago, 1890-1920. In P. Amburgy, D. Soucy, M. A. Stankiewicz, B. Wilson, & M. Wilson (Eds.), The history of art education: Proceedings from the second Penn State conference (pp. 252-258). Reston, Virginia: The National Art Education Association.

Flannery, K. A. & Watson, M. W. (1995). Sex differences and gender-role differences in children’s drawings. Studies in Art Education, 36 (2), 114-122.

Garber, E. (1996). Art criticism from a feminist point of view: An approach for teachers. In G. Collins & R. Sandell (Eds.), Gender issues in art education: Content, contexts and strategies (pp. 21-29). Reston, Virginia: The National Art Education Association.

Garber, E. & Stankiewicz, M. A. (2000). An experiment in interactive distance education. The Journal of Gender Issues in Art and Education, 1 (113-126).

Gardner, H. & Gardner, J. (1973). Developmental trends in sensitivity to form and subject matter in paintings. Studies in Art Education, 14 (2), 52-56.

Hausman, J. (Ed.). (1992). Gender competition to creative independence [Special issue]. Art Education, 45.

Irwin, R. L., Mastri, R., & Robertson, H. (2000). Pausing to reflect: Moments in feminist collaborative action research. The Journal of Gender Issues in Art and Education, 1 (43-56).

Johnson, O. & Knapp, R. H. (1963). Sex differences in aesthetic preferences. The Journal of Social Psychology, 61, 279-301.

Kellman, J. (1996). Women’s handwork: Stories of similarity and diversity. Art Education, 49 (2), 33-39.

Klein, S. (1993). Breaking the mold with humor: Images of women in the visual media. Art Education, 46 (5), 60-65.

Lippard, L. (1990). Mixed blessings: New art in a multicultural America. New York: Pantheon.

Majewski, M. M. (1979). Female art characteristics: Do they really exist? In J. Loeb (Ed.), Feminist collage: Educating women in the visual arts (pp. 197-200). New York: Teachers College Press.

Martin, J. R. (1985). Reclaiming a conversation: The ideal of the educated woman. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Minor, V. (1994). Art history’s history. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Moore, B. E. (1973). A description of children’s verbal responses to works of art in selected grades one through twelve. Studies in Art Education, 14 (3), 27-34.

Myers, S. A. (1998). The unexpected challenge of changing from his-story to her-story. In E. J. Sacca & E. Zimmerman (Eds.), Women art educators IV: Herstories, ourstories, future stories. (pp. 203-207). Boucherville, Quebec: Canadian Society for Educatio through Art.

Packard, S. & Zimmerman, E. (Eds.). (1977). Sex differences as they relate to art and art education [Special issue]. Studies in Art Education, 8 (2).

Present Lewis, H. (Ed.). (1987). Women as artists and teachers [Special issue]. Art Education, 40 (3).

Sacca, E. J. & Zimmerman, E. (Eds.). (1998). Women art educators IV: herstories, ourstories, future stories. Boucherville, Quebec: Canandian Society for Education through Art.

Salkind, L. & Salkind, N. (1997). Gender and age differences in preference for works of art. Studies in Art Education. Studies in Art Education, 38 (4), 246-256.

Sandell, R. (1991). The liberating relevance of feminist pedagogy. Studies in Art Education, 32 (3) 178-187.

Sandell, R., Collins, G. C., & Sherman, A. (1985). Sex equity in visual arts education. In S. S. Klein (Ed.), Handbook for achieving sex equity through education. (pp. 298-318). Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press

Smith-Shank, D. L. (2000a). Teaching and learning in art 580: Women artists and feminist art criticism. The Journal of Gender Issues in Art and Education, 1 (81-94).

Smith-Shank, D. L. (2000b). You don’t need a penis to be a genius. In D. E. Fehr, K. Fehr, and K. Keifer-Boyd (Eds.), Real-world readings in art education: Things your professors never told you (65-71). New York: Falmer Press.

Speirs, P. (2000). Current practices of feminist art education. The Journal of Gender Issues in Art and Education, 1 (71-80).

Springer, J. (1994). Women, power, and empowering imagery. Art Education, 47 (5), 27-30; 43-45.

Stankiewicz, M. A. (1985). A generation of art educators. In B. Wilson & H. Hoffa (Eds.), The history of art education: Proceedings from the Penn State conference (pp.205-212). Reston, Virginia: The National Art Education Association.

Stinespring, J. (1996). Moving from first-stage to second-stage multiculturalism in the art classroom. Art Education, 49 (4), 48-53.

Thurber, F. (1998). Exploring women’s issues in art: A journey through boundaries of center and margin. In E. Sacca & E. Zimmerman (Eds.), Women art educators IV: Herstories, ourstories, future stories (pp. 220-230). Boucherville, Quebec: Canadian Society for Education through Art.

Tuman, D. M. (1999a). Sing a song of sixpence: An examination of sex differences in the subject preference of children’s drawings. Visual Arts Research, 25 (1), 101-123.

Tuman, D. M. (1999b). Gender styles as form and content: An examination of gender stereotypes in the subject preference of children’s drawings. Studies in Art Education, 41 (1), 40-60.

Tuman, D. M. (2000). Defining differences: A historical overview of research regarding the differences between the drawings of boys and girls. The Journal of Gender Issues in Art and Education, 1, 17-30.

Turner, R. M. (1996). The development and use of instructional resources for gender balance. In G. C. Collins & R. Sandell (Eds.), Gender issues in art education: Content, contexts, and strategies (pp. 134-143). Reston, Virginia: The National Art Education Association.

Uhlin, D. M. (1962). The relationship of adolescent physical development to art expression. Studies in Art Education, 3 (2), 64-68.

Wryick, M. (2000). The petticoat junction series: Feminism and multiculturalism in contemporary art. The Journal of Gender Issues in Art and Education, 1, 57-70.

Wygant, F. (1983). Art in American schools in the nineteenth century. Cincinnati: Interwood Press.

Zimmerman, E. (1989). Art education for women, 1890-1910: Issues and interpretations in the Victorian periodical press. In P. Amburgy, D. Soucy, M.A. Stankiewicz, B. Wilson, & M. Wilson (Eds.), The history of art education: Proceedings from the second Penn State conference (pp. 244-251). Reston, Virginia: The National Art Education Association.

Reflection

Why did I choose “Feminine Identity & Empowerment” as the big idea?

The last few years of my life have brought monumental change in my own identity, with the birth of my children, continuing my education, a new job…all these facets factor into my identity as a woman in some form or other. Professionally, I am extremely interested in gender-fair curricula in art education, and wanted to explore the issue of gender beyond the scholarly mode. This was an ideal opportunity to contemplate real-life application—a praxis approach that in itself felt empowering.

Why is this idea important for teaching?

I fear that far too few are aware of gender differences as they relate to art teaching and learning. There ARE differences—we need to acknowledge them and reconsider how we design and teach art to both girls and boys. A gender-fair, gender-equitable curriculum is possible, but only after we closely question our practices.

Why did I select these activities for the unit?

I tried to select a variety of artists, from a variety of backgrounds, both male and female (to be gender-fair). It was a challenge selecting the final artists to discuss—so many artists have been overlooked. Liza Lou is a young, emerging artist; Faith Ringgold is an established master who also offers issues of race to ponder; I found Gary Chapman’s view of motherhood particularly intriguing and original; the artists of Womanhouse are historically paramount to the history of women’s art. Judy Chicago was considered, as she truly was the founder of Feminist Art Education. I chose not to include her due to the sexual overtones of her work, and chose instead to focus more broadly.

What will be the most challenging part of the unit for students?

I believe truly open, honest participation from the all-female students will require time. I acknowledge that feminine identity is a difficult, as well as controversial topic, and I must first gain trust and positive rapport with students if any kind of meaningful experience will occur.

What has been problematic in developing the unit?

Again, I feel the controversial nature of this unit is a bit intimidating, both to me as I wrote it, as well as, I imagine, to some that will read this. It was a risk in “political correctness,” but one I feel is necessary for change.

What changes have I made and why?

I added a personal example of a self-portrait doll I made, believing that I must serve as a role-model, yet hesitant to share such personal information. I initially wanted to research dolls from around the world and incorporate them in the culminating activity. I started to feel like doing so would become a whole other unit, or an extension unit. I wanted to stay true to the theme “feminine identity.”

What is most important about the unit?

I would like to say the making of the dolls, but I honestly feel it is the exchange of ideas as students work through making sense of their feminine identities. It is a difficult task, and I feel the selected artists’ works will become a very important vehicle to arrive at personal understanding for students. The dolls will hopefully be a natural progression towards completion of understanding, and ultimately feelings of empowerment.

How did I decide what to access?

I selected a few good sites for most of the artists, sifting through them to find the most user-friendly, educational-application potential. The remaining resources were compiled from past work I have done in studying the issue of gender in art education.

What seems to be the most interesting part of the unit?

I think the topic itself is intriguing in its controversial nature. When one sees the power of the art work, you can’t help but ponder how they were received. The fact that I could design this unit for an all-female adult population of students was liberating—I did not have to be so concerned about inappropriate / appropriate content, but could proceed from my gut. I hope it comes across as “possible” and not shocking.