Otherness and Exclucivity in Art and Geekiness (A Rambling Manifesto)

So, The Man and I returned from Archer Live! last night, and somewhere around 1am, I decided to post something in response to an anti-geek-girl-hate article I had read, as you do. 1am is perfect for social discourse. Here is what I managed to squeeze out in a barely lucid state (copied and pasted directly from my own Facebook wall, thus no copyright infringement):

"For the record, I don't see this as promoting woman-on-woman hate, I'm just sad that it still exists, and that there seems to be a fairly rigid definition of what a "geek" can be. I'm also a little frustrated that "geekiness" and "fervent interest/passion" have become one and the same. At this point, if someone proclaims they're a geek about something, it just means they're incredibly passionate about that thing, which can be anything. This could be a form of empowerment-disempowerment, reclaiming a previously-stigmatized word to strip it of its negativity, but I think this is actually an attempt at inclusion. Geekiness is generally associated with a higher degree of intellect (even if said geek is "ignorant" about most other things, they're fairly knowledgable about their "geek"topic), and I suspect most people of higher-than-average intelligence are proud of such a trait (independently of if/how they publicize this). They LIKE deviating from average, it's what makes them special. For many "geeks", embracing their otherness can be a means of asserting/establishing an identity, one that purports a perceived individuality. When a subject is embraced by many, that individuality is harder to perceive, if it all; the Doctor Who geek can no longer be seen as "special" or unique if everyone likes Doctor Who. Thus, fake-geek-girl hate isn't so much about hatred of women with interests that differ from "average " feminine interests, but resentment towards a group of people who not only strip a geek of their prized otherness and individuality, but force association with a group from which said geek had taken pride in deviating. The question is, why is most of the resentment against women, from men? Is this because geeky men, more often than not, display non-traditional forms of masculinity, and in order to prove the legitimacy of their masculinity/the evidence of masculinity, they need to distance themselves from femininity? Is this why women in the sciences/engineering still experience a higher, more vocal degree of sexism above other women?"

The thing is, commentary on the interests of women is not just limited to "geek" topics. When I shot erotica, I received dozens of questions and comments a day from blog readers and "interested parties" (I can't bring myself to call them "fans"). For every person who expressed their appreciation for what I was doing and commended me for depicting more realistic examples of intimacy, there were ten people who felt comfortable publicly discussing my [perceived] fetishes, speculating about my number of sexual partners, theorizing what childhood traumas and experiences must have led to a woman shooting graphic sexual content, commenting on the presumed lack of masculinity my then-boyfriend must have to date a woman like me, and, finally, how easy it must be to get me into bed. I was comfortable with sex, therefore, I would be comfortable with sex with YOU. Now that I shoot fashion, I still get comments from time to time, but they actually express disdain because I've adhered to social expectations of my gender: "Oh, you shoot fashion and beauty? Of *course* you do." I have gotten this not only from other photographers, but from prospective agents and clients with whom I have portfolio reviews. These comments come from both men and women.

*****

In Art History (and to a greater extent, history in general), there was the public sphere, and the private sphere. Men dominated the public realm, and women dominated the private realm. This went beyond the associated responsibilities for each circle, but literally declared how those responsibilities could/would be observed and discussed. The fields encompassed by the public sphere could be respectfully discussed publicly, and any success in those fields would be seen publicly. Anything relegated to the private sphere would never be publicly regarded; a woman could never expect respect and appreciation from others for her success within the home because such gifts would never be publicly declared. Moreover, there was an archaic assumption that women were simply "naturally" better suited towards private life, being thought of as innately maternal and submissive. Even if a woman triumphed at home, few would see it. Thanks to the convergence of the Industrial Revolution and women entering the workforce (though, admittedly, often out of necessity than by choice), and Queen Victoria rising to power to become the most powerful leader in the world, the rigidity of this binary structure began to crack. Slowly, eventually, there was overlap between men and women, but not without judgement and commentary. Artists like Berthe Morisot, a female, French Impressionist painter, could now proclaim and display their non-domestic gifts publicly, but still felt social pressure to adhere to certain subjects. Her work is especially interesting to me because she almost always depicted women and children in some form of containment and "isolation", either indoors, or walled off from others in some way, with veils, gates, and curtains. Rosa Bonheur, a French animalière painter, balked at the confines of traditional femininity, with which she never fully related in the first place, and often depicted the magnificence and musculature of large, "industrial" animals like horses and cows, as opposed to smaller, domestic animals like cats, birds, and small dogs (I should note Bonheur is also often regarded as one of the first publicly queer artists, so she was doubly revolutionary). However, the rise of the woman artist, women in general, began to chip at the perception of the male artist--I suspect it was around this time male artists had the "sensitive" label thrust upon them. The success of women came at the cost of men, and this is symptomatic of something greater and more pervasive.

To this day, there is a value hierarchy, or multiple value hierarchies, in almost every field. Within the arts alone, you have the most basic: art versus craft. We grow up participating in "Arts and Crafts", inadvertently establishing and perpetuating the notion that it's a binary, and there is a qualitative difference between the two. Even within each field, there are hierarchies related to their legitimacy and value: woodworking versus needlecraft, metalsmithing versus jewelry design. There are still gender stereotypes associated with these fields, residual from the public vs. private days. Because of that, the artisans themselves have those same stereotypes applied to them.

Beyond craft, when we move to the "arts", you have traditional art mediums (sculpture, painting, drawing) versus photography. For decades, photography wasn't seen as a legitimate medium because it was thought that, ultimately, a machine created the final product, not the artist. To this day, photography is still viewed as separate from other mediums, even if the stigma has been lessened. Many universities, mine included, place photography classes in the Communications Department, rather than Art; depending on how the curriculum is shaped, this could actively discourage an Art History or Studio Art student from adopting photography as a concentration. Even within photography itself, I feel there is something of a hierarchy. With camera equipment becoming so easily accessible, everyone can experiment with photography. Trees and landscapes are more easily accessible than models in couture, so is landscape photography supposed to have less value than fashion photography because it's easier to produce? Is everyone who takes pictures a photographer? Does a photographer with skill and vision, but makes little to no money from their work, less of "professional photographer" than the mediocre photographer who happens to make a profit? How do we even define professionalism in this context? I'm so ambivalent and conflicted about these issues. I freely admit to the hypocrisy in wanting to encourage people to experiment with art in any medium, but balking at the thought of being grouped together with people against whom I feel I exceed in skill and creativity. I simultaneously take pride in calling myself a professional artist while feeling shame and doubt at the lack of paying jobs I'm receiving. I am constantly, constantly asking myself, "Can I really call myself a professional if I'm not getting paid? Am I just a glorified hobbyist?" I understand this revels a prejudice. I admit to that prejudice. I also think most hobbyists freely admit they aren't professionals, or even trying to be. To tie this back to the original issue of geek girl hate, the commonality here is the issue of exclusivity, or lack thereof. I'm just as guilty as those who rant about the artifice of "geek girls". I'm not defending these people, or identifying with them, I'm simply pointing out that these feelings are more pervasive than we probably realize, and we're probably all guilty of them in some form or another. Even if we're universally guilty, that does not redefine the concept of innocence. Judgement is part of Living While Other, but if we're all Other, then why do we still feel the right to judge?