art for art's sake, ego-wanking for eff's sake.

[seryn]

This morning corrvin sent me a link to a Threads article wherein a woman had made itty bitty dolls of herself representing her annual self from birth on. It's a visual autobiography. The link was given with one of those *squee* type comments, but I was completely appalled. (Corr, don't take it personal-like, I'm not complaining about you. And I know you liked it for the sewing.)

WTF. It's a self-aggrandizing depiction of a woman no one would care about unless they knew her personally. She's not Thomas Jefferson or Hillary Clinton or LeBron James or Taylor Swift. There's really no reason this woman should have an autobiography. At least not while a single person bitches about how idiotic blogs and Twitter are because they talk about things no one cares about.

The fact that this project took the woman person-years of time to complete astounds me--- not that the amount of effort wasn't demonstrative, but that anyone would bother.

It's ugly.

I can spend 3 years of my life hand-dyeing macaroni pieces for a collage recreating my cat's best vomited upchucks, but it's not going to be worthwhile.

I know it's supposed to be art made from craft. But it's not elegant like a piece of handmade furniture. It's not useful like a dress or blanket.

All autobiographies are self-aggrandizing, inherently. But if I were to write one, there would be people asking who did I think I am? And that's how I feel about this.

Comments

(frozen comment)

[herlander_refugee]

I don't know....I certainly would not be interested in owning her art; but I don't think that was her purpose. She was doing this piece for herself. And I actually think the idea that only famous folk are entitled to autobiographies (or memoirs) is pretty repellent in and of itself.

Ordinary folk live lives as well, and have as much right to commemorate (aggrandize?) as any public figure. To say otherwise, to me, smacks of an adult version of "Shut up (child) Serf, you are to be seen and not heard!"

Not all lives lived nobly and well become famous. Many seek to avoid fame, to be honest.

(frozen comment)

[seryn]

If it was hung in her local town hall, sure. The fact that it made Threads, not so much.

Anyone's entitled to write their autobiography. It's the expectation that people will want to read it that's egocentric. That's the point behind blogging/journaling, it's optional reading that you hope interests other people because you'd like them to know you better. No one pays for the privilege. Threads is an expensive magazine (which often has excellent content, unlike, say, Vogue Knitting.)

I think I might have been less appalled if it wasn't garish, and if it didn't include miniature babies.

Generally my opinion is that there should be biographies, but not autobiographies. Memoirs are acceptable because it's admitting up front that things will be filtered and edited. But autobiographies are really really egocentric bragging. Having been forced to write one at the age of 9, back when they still taught that humility was a virtue and self-deprecation by demurring compliments was polite manners, I find almost all autobiographies repellent.

But feel free to disagree.

[corrvin]

Indeed it was a "sewing skill squee!"

The only things I've seen that are done to this level of detail are miniature painting and costume construction-- both of which are done to someone else's vision. I'd so much rather see people do their own thing, even if they aren't as shiny or bright or whatever.

And, well... while this is an awesome piece to me, on second look I think "you're 54 years old and all you want to memorialize for posterity is that you got married, had babies, wore clothes, and your hair went grey?" And it's not like the woman isn't also a successful artist and writer! But that's what's important to her. Probably says something if you look at it right.

[seryn]

Thanks very much for arguing the point you knew I wanted to make. I was really proud of myself for not focusing on the same point I always have! But oh! I wanted to.

No one needs to oppress women, they do it to themselves.

[thistleingrey]

"Feel free to disagree," you say, but the thread is frozen. (?)

Unless she nominated herself to be interviewed/discussed in the Threads post, its appearing there isn't her "fault." Just random pseudo-journalism.

[seryn]

Yes it was frozen. There is even part of that thread which is screened. It was a personal attack implying I am a genocidal monster. I'm obviously not going to leave that there, nor am I going to elicit comments on something that already invoked Godwin's Law.

Later Corrvin pointed out that it took her 6 weeks, I am willing to retract most of my objections which had assumed it took her from 2007 to 2010... A lot of people get involved in stupid projects in the winter or if they're laid up with a broken leg. A lot of people write for NaNoWriMo and that's not much different.

I was thinking, "This took you 3 years and the only accomplishments you have are that you have babies?" I was pleased with myself for not even arguing the babies aspect.

[thistleingrey]

Ah.

Six weeks is not very long, yes, as craft-project durations go. :)