Suzanne Lacy describes her role as an activist artist on page 54 of this chapter as she discusses her collaborative project with Leslie Labowitz, In Mourning and in Rage. The artist states: “The art is in making it compelling; the politics is in making it clear. In Mourning and in Rage took trivialized images of mourners as old, powerless women and transformed them into commanding seven-foot-tall figures angrily demanding an end to violence against women.” What did Lacy mean by this statement? Is performance art such as In Mourning and in Rage an effective means of communicating to the public? How does her recent work Whisper, the Waves, the Wind (fig. 61) compare?
When Suzanne Lacy said "The art is in making it compelling; the politics is in making it clear.", she had a valid point. The politics or news tells you what is going on it makes it clear to you, but it does not make you feel the devastation. She portrayed her art to rip at your heart, making the message very compelling. Performance art does get a point across. A painting people have a choice to look at or not. With performance art, it is right in your face. You can not avoid seeing or hearing just a little of their message if it is happening around you. I am not really sure how to compare her recent work. It did not speak to me, like the first.
This was not one of my bests it was a little short. If any one as anything to add on to help others it would be appreciated.
No comments:
Post a Comment