BAN THE DOLL ART
From this point forward, I am banning myself from displaying doll themed drawings in exhibits.
Why? Because I have to if I ever want to grow as an artist.
Finding ‘your thing’ as an artist can help define who you are. From a mile away, someone may be able to recognise your work in the crowd. And as the artist, knowing that you have a crutch provides a sense of security and a safety blanket to curl in when you are in a creative rut. This has been dolls for me for a short period in my practice.
Upon reflecting on earlier works of mine, abstraction is a natural instinct. Where the artwork takes over me and I just feel as I create. But my desire for the more abstracted art was something I denied as I wasn’t sure if people would ‘get it’ or even like it.
Dolls, which are objects of femininity, objectification, play, etcetera etcetera… they hold a meaning which kind of communicate my intention, they are fun to draw and it’s a symbol that most people will understand. But the problem with using dolls is:
We already know what dolls are!
In other words, I am explaining to the viewer as if they are children who can’t understand shit. I prance this sweet little doll in front of their faces and say “aww look at this little dolly who is so sad and has to deal with the effects of society as a feminine person.” As my lips turn into a pitiful pout and my eyes widen to encourage. This is easy and that is the issue!
To give myself credit, I had still been able to incorporate my own artistic views through the vessel of the doll. Balancing whimsy with strangeness, by morphing figures in a delicate way. I enjoy drawing the dolls and will probably continue to do so for doodling purposes. My doll works were not bad, but..
I do not want to be an illustrator.*
I want to be an artist.
What I love about viewing art is the constant questioning of what could this possibly mean?
Narrative and obviousness does not need to be something I rely on in order to connect with people. In fact, by stripping back my work and leaving gaps it leaves an open plain for viewers to explore in order to discover a meaning or multiple. By using obvious symbols such as soft flowing hair, big eyes and lush lips I am using traditionally feminine stereotypes, which doesn’t leave much room for questioning. As I illustrate what is obviously a girl and what is obviously an object of play.
For example, an artists work I enjoy is Hans Bellmer.
Bellmer creates and photographs his very own Dolls. With found materials he builds a female figure in response to female beauty standards of the time. His figures are posed and displayed for the viewers (and Bellmer himself) in a voyeuristic manner. His work is grotesque, surreal, romantic, mysterious and leave you thinking wtf. The act of constructing the doll itself with 3D materials builds so much interesting context regarding the male gaze and beauty standards which is a huge reason he is remembered today. 100 years later, I look at his work and I can see myself as that doll, I feel the emptiness that doll feels and I feel it’s pain. Even though his ideals are scattered, he managed to romanticise a feminine sorrow which I have strived for in my doll themed art this whole time.
Ok now, to get back to the point…!
I will compare his work to mine:
Obviously, this is just a demonstration and my art doesn’t exactly look like the images on the right. But I know you get ittt.
Here are the key Points of difference between the works:
Unrecognisable vs Recognisable
Unconventional vs Conventional
Ugly vs Beautiful
Grim vs Sweet
Raw vs Organised
Incomplete vs Complete
Both Bellmer and I are working in response to typical beauty stereotypes and being seen through the male gaze. Yes my approach has been a stylised interpretation thus far, but as I use the very stereotypes that build a typically feminine woman… am I for or against this gaze? Which out of the two of us are truly rejecting these issues?
To summarise, by confining myself to a style and theme so early in my practice, I quiet my inner storm from thundering. Using these stereotypically feminine symbols can be a powerful tool in art, but by banning this crutch of mine it allows me to explore art through many more perspectives and highlight the versatility in femininity. Everything I will ever make will inherently be feminine and will always show the issues my heart faces… as that is who I am in my core and they make up my real life experiences. I don’t want to explain this to people and I don’t need to. Being an artist and a woman is freedom, playing and stomping on the person who others expect me to be. We are more than sad little dollies.
Extra note:
In regards to my year ahead making art, it is a risk to cut out such a large part of my practice. For context, it is my last year of my Bachelor’s in Visual Art and we have already begun preparation for our artwork to be displayed at the Graduation Show in October. I have a backing of research behind objectification, the male gaze and female autonomy in art so to shift my attention in researching something different will be a challenge. I feel continuing in the doll realm won’t satisfy me this year and I know I need to trust that.
The direction I am going in this year is in response to the question “What do artists do?”. Which is a very experimentation heavy and observational route to discover what makes an artist an artist. I’m basically putting a little beret on my head and with a cigarette in my hand, I will perform as an artist.
But hey who knows, maybe in the future I’ll bring the dolls back. But I’m sure by then it’ll be through a different lens.
*Hey my illustrator friends! This point isn’t to say illustrators aren’t artists. You all are!
