Censorship & Discovery

Recently, we submitted two pieces of work for an exhibition that explored the topic of identity. We were excited to read in the prospectus that it requested work that would “examine our notions of self” and investigate “constituent parts of identity,” and asked the question “How much of an individual’s identity is personal and self-constructed, and how much of it depends on something socially created?” These ideas were so appealing because they are the exact notions and questions that compose a significant portion of the conceptual foundation of our work.

Portrait of Madame X [After Singer Sargent], 2013

Portrait of Madame X [After Singer Sargent], 2013

Mrs. George Swinton (after Sargent), 2017

Mrs. George Swinton (after Sargent), 2017

Both photographs above were selected by the curator and were subsequently excluded by university staff. In our correspondence with them, the staff articulated their understanding of how the work addressed the theme, and how it raised questions that deserved attention. However, they stated that their venue wasn’t the right location to further the types of discussions that typically accompany our work. Once we understood that the university was owned and operated by the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, we could better understand their concerns and perspective, and we chose to graciously honor their choice.

For valid reasons or not, frankly, it sucks to have work censored. But were we to focus on that, we wouldn’t have been open to the gift that followed. The entire experience drove up within both Niki and I a raft of feelings, thoughts, and emotions that ultimately surfaced a greater commitment to our work and increased connection between us as artists. Below are three key discoveries.

Mission

Like most any artist would be, we were shocked and angry when we initially received the news about our work being censored. But we both recognized that to stay in that space of anger neither served us nor the mission of our work. In fact, we took a step back and recognized that one of the primary reasons we make work as part of the Muse series is to foster respective discourse and exchange of ideas and perspectives. Specifically, we hope our work challenges untruths and misguided prejudices against individuals who do not conform to strict masculine or feminine identities.

Shared Experience

During the formulation of our letter to the university staff addressing the matter, both Niki and I were reminded of the values and morals fostered by our undergraduate experiences at small Lutheran liberal arts colleges. As Niki is an alum of St. Olaf in Minnesota and I am an alum of Bethany College in Kansas, we recognized that our religious educations led us to understand that we are to be open-minded; that we as humans are not to judge others; that we are to treat all individuals with respect, dignity, and compassion; that we are to love others regardless of the intricacies that make up their identity; and that we have a responsibility to continue our individual growth by seeking out and engaging in diverse experiences with a variety of people from different backgrounds.

Quality & Context

While aesthetics and technical adeptness are an inherent part of the work in the Muse series, our desire isn’t to make art that is purely decorative or “pretty.” Good works of art challenge us; they question social constructs, and they ask viewers to look at things from different points of view. As artists, every choice of costume, set, and source painting upon which the photograph is based is imbued with meaning and characterized by deliberate intention. We acknowledge that this context is not always discernible by all viewers, which may cause the work to seem confrontational or offensive. This has never been our intended outcome. Through blog posts, in-person conversations, artist talks, etc., we make concerted efforts to help people see the intention and considerations that go into each piece.

Annunciation (after Botticelli), 2015

Annunciation (after Botticelli), 2015

In hindsight, perhaps for this exhibition we should have submitted the Annunciation (After Botticelli), a piece that more overtly bridges the topics of religion, identity, and gender. But then again, our journey just might not have been as fortuitous.

Tilda!

IMG_4831

Nearly two years ago during the chill of winter, upon Niki‘s suggestion, I stopped by the Museum of the Art Institute of Chicago one night to view John Singer Sargent’s painting “Mrs. George Swinton.” At 7.5 feet tall and surrounded by a hefty gilded frame, it is nearly life-sized and retains a commanding presence on the end wall of a long gallery. Upon my first glance, I felt a palpable upwelling of excitement and immediately drew in closer to examine its luminosity, lush details, and painterly quality. Mesmerized, I took a picture of the painting with my phone and texted Niki the with a resounding “Yes! We have to do it.” Shortly thereafter, I started drafting patterns and sewing muslin.

About six months later while celebrating my 40th birthday on a solo trip to Paris, I stopped in a fabric store near the foot of Sacre Coeur in Montmartre. Much like the luminosity of the Sargent painting, the sheen of silk shantung beamed toward me from the wall. Having managed with my rudimentary French skills, I walked out with seven yards of fabric. Upon my return home, the fabric took on a new life that filled me with the same giddiness as my first experience standing in front of the painting.

As we are often prone to doing, we gave the painting/project a nickname. It typically serves as shorthand and also tends to endear us more toward the subject of the painting. Besides, “Portrait of Mrs George Swinton” doesn’t necessarily roll off the tongue, so we opted for Tilda after the actress Tilda Swinton. What I didn’t know, until doing my usual research on the painting, was that Mrs. George Swinton turned out to be the great-grandmother of the actress for whom we nicknamed the project. In fact, as I dug further, I learned that the painting was commissioned by George Swinton’s mother to honor her Scottish politician son’s engagement to socialite and professional singer Elizabeth Ebsworth. It has been noted that the painting took two years to complete because of Sargent’s insistence upon taking breaks to play the piano while Elizabeth would sing. Regardless of timing, Sargent’s skill is not only evidenced through the many lush details present within the painting, he seems to effortlessly capture his subject’s signature poise and beauty—a major reason in our choice to reinterpret the piece.

IMG_4832When I went back to revisit the painting, I began to notice distinct elements of Impressionism in how Sargent rendered the translucent folds of the organza cascading down her arm. Up close, the brush strokes look like abstract squiggles of paint, yet at a distance, a luxurious pouf of iridescent fabric appears. Again, upon further research, I discovered that the portraiture for which he is most well-known composed the majority of his commissioned work. Yet he regularly employed Impressionist techniques in his informal work and landscape paintings. Not surprisingly, at least in hindsight, the portrait of Mrs. George Swinton marries the two approaches with a seamless grace and adeptness.

It likely goes without saying that we are enamored by this painting and much of Sargent’s work. We are excited for the opportunity to hang this piece next to our reinterpretation of A Portrait of Madame X, one of Sargent’s most well-known works. There’s also an element of delight in little secrets that Niki and I share in the process (like the fact that I’m standing on top of two art history books instead of wearing heels in the photo). But those are for telling another time. For now, below is our latest addition to the Muse series. We can only hope our gender-bending reinterpretation would bring honor to the original painting’s creator and subject.

2016Tilda_final_flat-600

Mrs. George Swinton (after Sargent), 2017
© Niki Grangruth & James Kinser

References
Wikipedia: John Singer Sargent, George Swinton
ConversationsAboutArt.com
Art Institute of Chicago

Why All the Costumes, Makeup, Rhinestones, and Glitter?

2014_james_004

Photo: ©Niki Grangruth & James Kinser
View larger image

Believe it or not, that’s actually something I ask myself quite often! Despite those having been my go-to choice of mediums for many years now, I think it’s important for myself and other artists to step back and question why we do what we do. Generally, I find it imbues my work with a consciousness, certainty, and openness to change that wouldn’t be present otherwise. But here’s a deeper insight that might better answer that question.

I think it’s important… to step back and question why we do what we do.

For as long as I can remember, I’ve had these internal parts of myself that loved stereotypically feminine things: braiding my friend’s dolls’ hair, rainbows and unicorns (not even kidding), and elegant dresses. At the same time, I had a lot of internal parts that were stereotypically masculine: rough-housing with my brothers, running around, and getting grimy while playing in the sandbox. Eventually, I learned that some of those internal parts were more socially acceptable than others. So I adapted to fit in and get others’ acceptance. Years later though, I realized that those feminine parts that were shoved aside never went away. They persisted, and I started to bravely listen to them as generously and carefully as I did all of my masculine parts.

Recently, I came across a video by Derek Scott, a therapist who utilizes the Internal Family Systems (IFS) therapy model. Centered on the idea that our self is composed of a collection of internal subpersonalities or parts, Derek applied this model to gender and sexuality.

Football-holding-800.jpg

Photo: ©Niki Grangruth & James Kinser
View larger image

He stated that each of these internal parts retain their own gender expression and sexuality, and collectively, they are what informs or comprises a person’s overall sexual orientation and gender identity. Understanding this idea was transformational to me.

I could now understand that masculine and feminine internal parts didn’t have to be at combat with each other.

It also allowed me to understand that my artistic practice is an active way of listening to all of those internal parts in a fair and equal way. From their collective, I have learned so much. It is their unique chorus of voices that has had me put rhinestones on football pads; and design and construct costumes with traditionally feminine shapes and apply them to a masculine form. More than ever, I understand that my creative practice is centered upon the desire to externalize the unique internal makeup of my whole self — all parts embraced without shame or exile.

So back to my original question…

Why all the costumes, makeup, rhinestones, and glitter? In short, it reveals who I really am: my most unbridled and beautiful collection of internal parts I call my self. And ultimately, I believe it is this creative practice and exploration that will have me look back at the end of my life — hopefully many years from now — and say “Yes, I fulfilled my purpose.”

Columbia College Alumni Give Art History a Gender-Identity Makeover

WindyCityTimes200After an artist talk with Columbia students, we met up with a reporter from the Windy City Times to discuss inspiration, process and influences on our work.

“When asked what inspires them, Kinser answered, “Glitter.” [But] it is not just about the shimmer.”

View interview and slideshow of talk ›