Response to Louis Bourgeois at LA MoCA and the Guggenheim

A Defense of Louise Bourgeois to My Offense.

I've seen this show twice, and on both occasions, I felt impressed by her oeuvre during some periods of her work, and then found other pieces she made contrived.  Though all the time, I was shocked by her bravery with exploring new materials and her way of making.  How she uses bits and pieces to make a whole, and how she uses a binder (like thread or welds) as a paintbrush.  

Just like how she welds bits and pieces of 1" black pipe together, she sews bits and pieces of pink fabric together.  There at times where she uses the welder as a way to give texture to the surface as opposed to using it only for structural purposes.  Her bits of fabric appear to be cut sporadically (either she finds/buys it this way or cuts it herself).  She then gives dimension to the cloth again.  She sews a fold (a beautiful sculptural gestures) to indicate a nose.  She lets the stuffing emerge out from under the figures skin, allowing the inside to billow out.  She keeps most of them in cases (variations of the "cells").  Both the cases and cells keep you on the outside.  She uses doors as walls, draws buildings with legs, and chooses puts odd combinations together, like a leg and a ball, or a group of hands confoundedly interwoven.

But what of the ideas of her work?  Repetitiously sexual?  Redundant smothering of the idea of mothering?

Watching this video reminded me though that she is not so contrived, especially when we compare her even to other feminist works in the 70s.  One of the most over-hyped pieces I have ever seen is Judy Chicago's The Dinner Party, seen above.  And even this piece, The Dinner Party, ought to be given a lot of consideration, because we have to realize that these women of the 70s were stating a problem.  You aren't exactly considering nuances if you aren't even allowed to vote, or if every museum known to people are filled with men.  In order for people to give you your time, you have to scream.  I'd say Judy Chicago was probably screaming the loudest with her vagina plates sitting on a triangular table, but I digress.

Louise Bourgeois was born nearly 100 years ago (Christmas 1911), and is still working in New York City and offering free crits for any interested art students.  Her story is quite incredible, having been present for generations and having seen numerous social changes.  I doubt Emma Goldman and Louise ever met (Louise came to the states in 38, Goldman died in May of 1940), but I would be curious as to what a conversation between them might be.  

It is also shocking to consider how much Louise Bourgeois did and the span of time that she did it in, and yet, Bruce Nauman is the canonized "most important living artist."  On one hand, what does a quote like that really mean except the preference that an individual brought to the table when he said it.  But also, Bruce Nauman "broke ground" in lots of different media and really pushed each medium.  A week ago, I probably would have agreed, but now, I hardly see how pushing new mediums is even comparable to being a female artist before the 60s.  I would imagine, that this alone means she becomes the working off point for any female artist--at the very least for those artists working in the 70s and 80s.  Louise Bourgeois, a true revolutionary, keeps going strong.