When I first began to read about Hannah Hoch and the life she led, I felt a genuine sense of sadness for her. She was dismissed by her artistic peers, who were all men, and among those peers who resisted her was her long-time lover, Raoul Haussman. She had little to no support in her community, but she persisted in her studies of art and her creations -- this is where my sadness for her ceases and my full admiration towards her skyrockets.
Despite her struggle to make her way up to the acknowledgement and respect of her peers and the public, she meanwhile makes huge efforts to make art that represents the upward direction women are headed. She does not mean at all to say that the world belonged to women; however, as noted in the article, women were the only mobile figures in society. While women were achieving the vote, civil rights, job rights, etc., the social positions of men were static and headed in no direction -- since anyone could remember, the social status of men came to a screeching halt when they claimed the world as their own.
Hoch challenges the sociocultural values of the time through her art. She challenges her viewers to look at her pieces and make an effort at understanding what issues she is trying to bring to the table. Of the pieces depicted in the article, one the spoke to me heavily was Da Dandy (1919). As I noted beforehand, it physically depicts the upward progress women are making at the time in the world of man. And even though I do not think she intends this, I see it as one of her more aesthetically pleasing pieces. Perhaps it is because of the subtlety of it in contrast to her other pieces. However, the subtlety of it may represent the subtle yet continuous change and progress women were making in the world at the time.
I chose the below image (by David Lewis-Becker) because, as I looked at it, I realized that we like to conceptualize the world and all of its features, but do we really know what Earth looks like? Might we recognize Earth at its full scale or in all of its minute detail if we had the chance to look at it live, in real time? At this point, we obviously cannot. But it is an interesting thing to note that we might refer to maps and globes and other geographical depictions of our planet much more than we refer to Earth itself.
I really like the image that you chose to depict what we conceptualize as the world. You were very philosophical in your thinking about the piece you chose and I agree with you entirely on your thinking process.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on your interpretation of Hoch's pieces. I, too, believe that she creates them to show the upwards progression of women. I also liked the picture that you chose. You are right, we will never know how the earth truly looks. All we have are different depictions.
ReplyDeleteI also felt a sadness for Hoch upon reading the texts about her life and her art. It must have been so tough to be a woman back then, let alone a woman with a Dada agenda. I do, however, disagree with you on one point. You said that you didn't think that Hoch meant to show the upward movement of women in her piece Da Dandy. I think she did it purposely because I believe that a woman as smart as her, who very well might have been the creator of "photomontage", had her own agenda that was intertwined in her Dada message, and that was her feminist themes. Also, this picture is interesting, but I do have a hard time relating it to Hoch.
ReplyDeleteI think it is hard to feel bad for Hoch and her situation growing up because she so clearly used the challenge to her advantage. She embraced the controversy instead of shying away from it, which is an inspirational approach. It is very obvious she followed her passions in their entirety, which is all you can ask of anyone with her same cultural restrictions.
ReplyDelete