Barbara Kruger’s works are examined in the commentaries “Love for Sale: The Words and Pictures of Barbara Kruger” by Kate Linker and “Criticizing Photographs: An Introduction to Understanding Images” by Terry Barrett. Both commentaries emphasize Kruger’s ability to captivate and question society through the use of photo and limited text.
Linker’s article allowed me to grasp the importance of the context and its immediate effects on Kruger’s artwork. Linker describes Kruger’s feelings towards power and how they are translated into her work. The commentary discusses how Kruger believed “power is not localized in specific institutions” (Linker 27); therefore, power is not centralized. This idea of power being a distributed force (according to Kruger) allowed me to more fully understand her work. By labeling power as de-localized, Kruger is able to empower the group of people she is trying to target – women. Understanding her view of authority allowed me to reevaluate her artwork in terms of emboldening women. Kruger’s piece above jabs at society’s interpretation of women.
Along with Linker’s commentary, Terry Barrett uses Kruger’s “Surveillance” image in order to analyze Kruger’s work both aesthetically and symbolically. Barrett quotes Kruger describing her work as a “series of attempts to ruin certain representations” (98). Kruger’s quote reaffirms my thoughts of her using work in order to corrupt society (more specifically American society) view’s of women. Though I find her use of short phrases effective, I wonder if others are confused by the meaning behind some of her pieces? Barrett discusses how her use of pronouns engages the viewer and forces them to incorporate their own views in the piece.
Because Kruger’s work is very political in terms of what it says about women in society, it immediately reminded me of the famous pop art piece (at the beginning of my post) “Just what is it that makes today's homes so different, so appealing?” by Richard Hamilton. The piece comments on the consumerism and roles of men and women in society, just as many of Kruger’s pieces.
I think your post is very insightful, but it did raise a few questions for me. You said, "Kruger is able to empower the group of people she is trying to target – women." Both of the authors that we read for Kruger pointed out that Kruger did aim to empower women, but I think she aims to target all of society, not just the women. She wants to empower women, but I think men are very affected by her work as well, and I think she also aims for that. Perhaps I misunderstood you. Also, I think we all spend a second or two to let her art, her words, and her message sink in before we try to understand it. How could art that is suppose to relate to everyone in some way confuse us? I think Kruger is the perfect artist for those of us who don't like to be confused- for those of us that just like to feel it.
ReplyDelete