This paper explores queer artist Thomas Lanigan-Schmidt (b. 1948) and his piece titled Allegory of the Stonewall Riot (Statue of Liberty Fighting for Drag Queen, Husband, and Home) (1969). I take a biographical approach to the paper, dissecting Lanigan-Schmidt’s childhood and young adult life living as a queer street kid in the 1960s. I follow him to New York City, where he continued creating his kitsch style art and started getting recognized for it. Outside of his artistic endeavors, Lanigan-Schmidt would catch himself hanging out at The Stonewall Inn, a gay bar on Christopher Street. In the early hours of June 28, 1969, The Stonewall Inn was unexpectedly raided by the police. At a time when being queer was criminalized, the patrons of Stonewall had had enough and fought back against the police, sparking a riot that turned into a weeks-long protest. Lanigan-Schmidt was in attendance that night and joined the fight for gay liberation. It was this night that inspired his creation, Allegory of the Stonewall Riot (Statue of Liberty Fighting for Drag Queen, Husband, and Home). By analyzing the contextual importance of The Stonewall Inn and the riots that ensued, I show how Allegory of the Stonewall Riot reflects queer life in the 1960s. In the art historical canon, queer art is largely underrepresented. However, in this paper I show how Thomas Lanigan-Schmidt and Allegory of the Stonewall Riot deserve a place in the art historical canon
This project will explore the artist Leonora Carrington’s Self-portrait (Inn of the Dawn Horse, ca. 1937-38) and its relationship to and rejection of the male-centric, sexist ideology of psychoanalysis that governed the Surrealist movement. As outlined in Andre Breton's First Manifesto of Surrealism (1924), Freudian psychoanalysis had a great influence on Breton, the movement's founder (1896-1966). He believed in Freud's tenets and theories regarding dreams and the unconscious as a liberating and radical force that could tear down society’s systems of oppression. Yet there is a willful ignorance in Breton’s philosophy on the deep-rooted misogyny of Freud’s psychology and how the institution of psychoanalysis ignores the realities of female development and existence within inherently sexist societal structures of that period. However, Leonora Carrington rejected psychoanalytic theory as it pertained to her art. She refused to be categorized within sexist ideologies and asserted herself as a creative artist with her own interpretations of her work, positing her own ideologies in the process. She demonstrated her identity through her work and found liberation by developing her own feminist consciousness. Through researching Carrington's work, I want to expand on her ability to challenge the sexist paradigms of Surrealism and to reaffirm how her rejection demonstrates that female nonconformity is not only revolutionary but also necessary for female artistic freedom today. Other scholars have delved into this driving aspect of Carrington’s work but I will be utilizing Helene Cixous’ concept of “ecritutre feminine” in order to demonstrate how Carrington developed a “pictorial language” of her own within her work Self-Portrait (Inn of the Dawn Horse). I will use Cixous’ seminal work, "The Laugh of the Medusa," to expand on this idea and how Carrington developed that language, constituted of her own personal symbols, which is on full display in her self-portrait.
As I have previously shown, Alexandre Brongniart established a coherent science of ceramics. By the mid-nineteenth century, Brongniart had popularised the term "la céramique" as a widely-applicable name for the field of pottery and porcelain making, and other related arts. In the Twentieth Century, ceramic manufacturing became increasingly technical. The inclusive field of artisans and industrialists that Brongniart had once envisioned was fracturing. Voices called for the separation of pottery making from experimental, industrial ceramics and the meaning of the term “ceramics” was hotly debated. Numerous etymologies were traced, but, as the predominant language of science transferred from French to English, none of the twentieth-century authors recognized Brongniart’s key role in the invention of the term. Critically, this language debate coincided with and reflected the global politics, nationalism, and warfare of the first half of the Twentieth Century.
Taking on the task of ordering the sciences related to pottery and clay-based objects, natural historian and porcelainier Alexandre Brongniart sought a new way of describing the ancient practice. Early in his forty-seven-year career as director of the Sèvres Porcelain Manufactory, Brongniart developed a research center for the advanced study of pottery and porcelain making. Brongniart recognized that an inclusive and distinct term for the field was necessary, but it had to be introduced carefully, so that it was welcomed rather than rejected as presumptuous. Through close reading of Brongniart’s writings, as well as contemporary periodicals and the texts of other authors, the development of the word “ceramic” – originally introduced by Brongniart and his associates in French as “la céramique” – can be traced closely. I show that this was a deliberate, methodical, and years-long effort to create a durable, comprehensive term.
