The Heidi Chronicles is no doubt a well-written piece, and was skillfully represented both in Jones Theatre and in the Honors Lounge for our class the next day. The problem I have with the play is the same problem that the great philosopher Aristotle would have had, noted in his quote that “Of simple Plots and actions episodic are the worst” (Art and its Significance, pg. 74). I do not mind the episodic nature when it appears in a TV sitcom, because that is just simple entertainment, but in this particular play, it made the story seem very lacking. Quite a bit of speculation is required, which may have been intended and desired by Wasserstein, but by doing this, I feel that her influence as the playwright is greatly diminished. So much of Heidi’s life is missing, and not much attention is given to her accomplishments (of which there are many, especially in the academic realm). Most of the reasons for what the characters do are hidden from the viewer, as well as the reader.
I feel that the two paintings on the main blog page defy the description of the selection of women’s art (as compared to men’s art) made by Heidi at the beginning of the play. As you recall, Heidi said that the women in the displayed works seemed to be observers instead of participators. In the painting by Caravaggio, Judith seems to be shrinking back from the center of action, which is ironic, because she is the main action character; she is the one beheading Holofernes. In contrast, the painting by the female artist, Gentileschi, has Judith much closer to Holofernes, displaying no timidity at all. Perhaps she was demonstrating her hostility toward the opposite sex in this creation; who knows?
Overall, I do not feel that gender “determines” art, but it can definitely wield a substantial influence over it. Freeland stated that great female artists did not have anything uniquely common about their artistic style that separated them from the male artists, but the example of Judy Chicago was also provided. Her artwork, “The Dinner Party,” provided a woman’s answer to the representations of women by men in various media in our society (Freeland, 141), and in this case, I consider it highly motivated by gender. Gender has also determined art in the past, when female artists were not recognized or chose not to pursue a career in art, because of social roles. Overall, I do not believe there is a definite answer to this question; it depends on the artist and the circumstance.
I feel that the two paintings on the main blog page defy the description of the selection of women’s art (as compared to men’s art) made by Heidi at the beginning of the play. As you recall, Heidi said that the women in the displayed works seemed to be observers instead of participators. In the painting by Caravaggio, Judith seems to be shrinking back from the center of action, which is ironic, because she is the main action character; she is the one beheading Holofernes. In contrast, the painting by the female artist, Gentileschi, has Judith much closer to Holofernes, displaying no timidity at all. Perhaps she was demonstrating her hostility toward the opposite sex in this creation; who knows?
Overall, I do not feel that gender “determines” art, but it can definitely wield a substantial influence over it. Freeland stated that great female artists did not have anything uniquely common about their artistic style that separated them from the male artists, but the example of Judy Chicago was also provided. Her artwork, “The Dinner Party,” provided a woman’s answer to the representations of women by men in various media in our society (Freeland, 141), and in this case, I consider it highly motivated by gender. Gender has also determined art in the past, when female artists were not recognized or chose not to pursue a career in art, because of social roles. Overall, I do not believe there is a definite answer to this question; it depends on the artist and the circumstance.
Image: Judith with the head of Holofernes: Christofano Allori, 1613
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.classicartrepro.com/data/large/Allori_Christofano/Judith_with_the_Head_of_Holofernes_Pitti_1613.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.classicartrepro.com/painting.iml%3Fpainting%3D2865&h=388&w=319&sz=22&tbnid=I3NV2Tm1EqZcuM::&tbnh=123&tbnw=101&prev=/images%3Fq%3Djudith%2Bwith%2Bthe%2Bhead%2Bof%2Bholofernes&hl=en&usg=__F-iC2IhPkZrriYVcnrEe8TEAdGw=&ei=4NTXSdyxBJXqtQOt5a2zCg&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=1&ct=image
Good insight Allison. While I watched the play, I didn't interpret the episodic nature as lacking since Wasserstein wanted to portray 30 years in 3 hours. I did get the same feeling as you did, that I had no clue who Heidi really was because so much was missing, but I think it was justified. Yes she probably had many accomplishments, but she wasn't happy. I think Wasserstein was highlighting these feminist themes by using an episodic format.
ReplyDeleteThoughful commentary, Allison. In particular, your comparison of the two Holofernes-versions.
ReplyDelete