- UID
- 800800
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2012-8-30
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
想带着大家每天坚持读英语,就拿来Source为WSY的文章(有500多篇),每天带着大家读,希望大家能坚持每天学习+阅读打卡;
大家可以在有限时间内阅读,本帖回复文章结构。
看不懂英语的,可以来微信群要我要中文
每日的中文大意在揽瓜阁阅读群更新
考试群:
GMAT入群/揽瓜阁入群方式:https://forum.chasedream.com/thread-1382779-1-1.html
公众号:1.考什么试
2.商校百科
申请群
1. ChaseDream 2023 MBA 申请/校友答疑/面试群: https://forum.chasedream.com/thread-863011-1-1.html
2.英国,新加坡,美国,香港,德国商科申请群:
请加小白斩鸡进群(killgmat)
3. 行业分享交流/职业规划群:
https://forum.chasedream.com/thread-1388171-1-1.html
小红书:
1.留学+考试 最新消息 关注妥妥妥了 (小红书号:323014154)
2.求职+MBA 最新消息 关注元(小红书号:895404330)
The issue of women, art, and feminism has been most urgently raised by a number of women artists. Several approaches to the problem of defining feminist art have evolved and are being discussed and developed within the feminist art movement. One particular approach has suggested that some sort of female aesthetic or sensibility exists, involving an imagery and formal style specific to women. Proponents insist that an authentic artistic language is being created, corresponding to the distinct social experience of women, independent of “male-defined” art, and essentially liberating. Others argue that the theory of a female aesthetic really restricts women in that it limits them to certain “feminine” shapes, colors, forms, and images. In other words, the female aesthetic seems possibly to be no more than a rehabilitated artistic ghetto, furbished with less than satisfactory answers to the hard question of how to define feminist art. Moreover, some see the rise of a trendy “feminine sensibility“ as clearly opportunist. They point, for example, to the odd coincidence that the so-called female aesthetic is strangely reminiscent of the conventions of much currently fashionable art, and they predict further shifts in the aesthetic as art-world fashions change.
The theory of a female sensibility seems to be based on two equally extreme premises, implicit and not explicit. First, it assumes that an individual’s experience is primarily and perhaps completely determined by gender. Women and men are held to inhabit utterly separate worlds, and variations of social or ethnic experience are considered clearly subordinate to gender distinctions. Its second assumption is that whatever exists today must be essentially unchangeable as the battle of the sexes is eternal and historical. It follows, then, that the only way women artists can operate is to accept these terms and develop their own artistic strengths, autonomously and in opposition to men.
Another approach, both balanced and sensible, would argue for a more transcendental view of social experience and of art. Such a point of view corresponds to the opinion within some sectors of the women’s movement that the meaning of one’s personhood and the nature of relationships between the sexes are an evolving phenomena that can be grasped and acted upon. Pat Mainardi has outlined one interpretation of what this might mean for women artists: “The only feminine aesthetic worthy of the name is that women artists must be free to explore the entire range of art possibilities. We who have been labeled, stereotyped, and gerrymandered out of the very definition of art must be free to define art, not to pick up the crumbs from the Man’s table … We must begin to define women’s art as what women (artists) do, not try to slip and squeeze ourselves through the loophole of the male art world.”
|
|