Why the belated post? In part, it is because we shouldn't limit discussions of gender equality/ lack there of to one day a year! Then again, you know that I would never do that. It is actually because I have some interesting things that tie in nicely with IWD to share with you of blog reading folks but that they only came on my radar post IWD so I thought I'd add a "Happy IWD" edge just for fun.
Firstly, an online petition. As you may be aware (if you are a women over 13 or 14, you almost certainly are aware), tampons, sanitary pads, and other items associated with at least 4 days of every woman's month (between the ages of 13/4 and 45-55ish) are lumped with a good and services tax as the Australian government has deemed them "luxury" goods. Now on IWD this year, people in the UK launched a online campaign to ask the UK government to remove a similar 5% tax. Inspired by this and considering the tax here is 10%, an online campaign was launched here shortly thereafter. If you want to check it out on twitter or Instagram, look for #taxicshocksyndrome and on Instagram, you will find some vague entertaining posts under #blingonastring which are photos of women and men retooling pads and tampons as accessories (which surely they are if they are luxury items).
Now I know tampons and pads are things people are uncomfortable talking about 99.99% of the time, but having a tax on them is akin to having a tax on toilet paper and considering that there is no GST on men's razors (that said, in Australia like most places, we are still also faced with the other horrifying fact that women's razors, though not taxed higher, are a chunk more expensive), this is just a farce that shows up the fact that taxation system in this country is clearly designed by men.
So please (whatever your gender is) go to https://www.change.org/p/susan-ley-stop-the-sanitary-tax-it-s-unsanitary and sign the online petition to the Health Minister (one of the few female front benchers) asking for this tax to be removed!
Now that you are good and uncomfortable, moving on...
The other thing to bring to you was the movie I saw today...Big Eyes. Trailer below...
For those not aware, Big Eyes is the newest film from Tim Burton- I have to say it is very understated film considering its director (I love Burton and I loved this film but it doesn't have many of the Burton hallmarks). It focuses on Margaret Keane and her place in art history. Keane's story is one that oddly isn't as remembered as it should be, though her art style is instantly recognisable and especially when you look at the influence of it that can be found to a degree in animation (this was openly stated by the creator of the Powerpuff Girls). As an example of her work, look at these:
That is right she is the originator of those slightly creepy, slightly mournful big eyed children paintings that were so popular and so wide spread in the 50s and 60s that the "proper" art world dismissed them as kitsch and without artistic merit (except Warhol, he spoke up for them). The story behind them is some much more than that and is why I need to link it to IWD, and it isn't just because I do weirdly like the art.
Margaret Ulbrich (nee. Hawkins) was a young housewife who left her husband (taking their daughter with her) to pursue her artistic dream in San Francisco. When she arrived in San Francisco, she soon met Walter Keane- a realtor who claimed to desperately want to be an artist though his very bland landscapes of Paris did not sell at all (as depicted in the film, they reminded me of the kind of art one finds hanging on the walls in high schools but worse). They married soon after her divorce came through and initially planned to work beside each other as an artistic couple, until he started to claim that he was the artist behind her work. He ultimately claimed to paint all her work whilst never lifting a paintbrush himself and pushing her to churn out more and more work at greater and greater speed. Walter Keane then realised that he could make more money mass producing the work in the form of posters and selling it at a cheaper cost, and soon every household in America had a Keane poster on the wall and age of the mass production of art was born (many think Warhol as the first artist whose work was mass produced but it is actually Margaret Keane). Meanwhile Margaret Keane struggled with her identity as an artist, a wife, and a human being in general, and started trying to paint in a new style to at least be able to have an answer when she was asked if she painted (Walter Keane tried at one stage to claim credit for that work as well, but in this case, she denied him and held her ground).
I will stop there because though this is all historical fact, some people might want to watch Big Eyes and not know where it was going. I think the film is definitely something everyone should watch and not just because it is a great film, but because of the questions it poses. I walked out and thought "wow that is so shocking and yet so historically close to us" but then I realised that sadly I would not actually be shocked if a fraud similar to that done by Walter Keane occurred today especially when you consider how undervalued work by female artists often is. Simply the subject matter asks the audience to think about things such as what is the value of men's art versus the value of women's, what are suitable subjects for art, should power relations ever be permitted to be manipulated as Walter Keane did to Margaret Keane, does something being popular art make it not "proper" art, and should art ever be mass produced and what effect does that have on it being "proper" art...among many others.
So as your post IWD film to see, that is my recommendation. Just to end, another piece of art by Margaret Keane...one of her later ones that her second husband never claimed credit for and which speaks to her personal struggle with identity during the period in which he was claimed credit for her art (I think it is of that era...people can correct me if I'm wrong...I still think it speaks interestingly to identity regardless).
