Foreword Two

hen asked to respond to the “Infamous Babes” collaboration from a woman’s perspective, I initially felt the need to provide a feminist deconstruction of the implications arising from the notion of woman as a symbol of liberty. Upon researching feminist critiques of the Statue of Liberty, I realized that I didn’t necessarily need to respond from a feminist perspective but rather as a woman. This realization allowed me the freedom to enjoy the multitude of creative energies surrounding the work rather than worrying if I had revealed all of the sociopolitical undercurrents of marginalized women throughout the history of art and how this particular project might fit into that patriarchal framework. Yes, one could say that the depiction of a gigantic nude woman (perhaps belonging to the same sisterhood as the Statue of Liberty) suggests the perpetuation of patriarchal control over the female body and yes, one could note the ironic relationship between woman as symbol of freedom and the actualization of liberty for most women throughout the course of history. However, the Muñoz/Matheny collection of “babes” emanates forth a stronger idea: the celebration of strong women who have lived and  thought outside the traditional definitions and boundaries of womanhood. Ultimately, it isn’t important what gender created  this colorful homage to women but rather what ideas, what women, and what feminine energies are being remembered and  celebrated. On that account, here’s to the “babes” who’ve thought outside the mainstream and who’ve lived beyond the  “typical” woman’s sphere of experience; and here’s to the creative collaboration which further reinforces their legends deeper into the layers of our memories.

While the title “Infamous Babes, Chicks, Dames, Dolls, and/or Statues of Liberty and Freedom” seems degrading, it is, I think, ironic rather than offensive. These names, often substituted for the more complicated and difficult to enunciate word “women,” represent one more way in which women  have been subjugated throughout history. Why not equate women with children, animals, toys, or food? On the surface  these words seem playful and somewhat endearing, however, many of us take for granted how language too, is part of a  political system that can covertly enforce notions of inequality. Checking the Oxford English Dictionary, it was interesting to note the entries beneath these slang words for women. For instance, some of the entries beneath the word “doll” are as follows: “a pet form of the name Dorothy, hence given generically to a female pet, a mistress. Also, the smallest or pet pig in a litter,” “an image of a human being (commonly of a child or lady) used as a plaything; a girl’s toy baby,” and “a pretty, but unintelligent or empty person, especially when dressed up; a pretty, but silly or frivolous woman; a girl;  especially a very beautiful or attractive woman...one conventionally pretty, but without life or expression.” Furthermore, the following entries appeared beneath the word “babe”: “an infant, a young child,” “a doll, puppet,” “a childish person...an inexperienced or guileless person,” and lastly the infamous “girl or woman.” These definitions connote women as small, diminutive, and underdeveloped which contrasts greatly to the gigantic statures of both the Statue of Liberty and “La Mona.” Essentially, names have power. In this case, names inadvertently work on a subconscious level to perpetuate stereotypes. The fact that “La Mona” translates to “the doll” reflects this phenomenon cross culturally.

Ironically, the “babes” in this collaboration are far from empty shells which seems to be the point of the  tongue-in-cheek title. Yes, they may exert an outer beauty or be remembered for their physicality but these “babes” also represent many of the infinite realms of femininity and thus are much more than their title suggests. These “babes” include all kinds of women with diverse ethnic, sociopolitical, and cultural histories. Ranging from Marlene Dietrich, sex icon and believer in liberty, to George Sand, who found her liberty by appropriating typically “male” characteristics and creating an individual definition of womanhood, to Eve, a symbol of disobedience in the pursuit of equality and knowledge, these “babes” are powerful beyond their physical beauty. Or how about Amelia Earhart, who found success in a male-dominated profession, or the “Liberator Babe” who helped free the feminine body from the bondage of clothing, or “Divine,” biologically a man, but a divine representative of the feminine spirit in all humans. By  various means and for various reasons, these women sought a life of liberty through the power of choice and action in order  to satisfy their personal desire for happiness.

The artworks themselves are emblems of the artists’ lighthearted and whimsical creativity and represent how liberty allows them the right to participate in creative expression. The “Statue of Liberty Babe” carries a tablet bearing the name “Infamous Babes ... ,” a box of matches with the image of Lady Liberty herself lies at her feet, and she carries a single match instead of a torch. The “Virgin of Guadalupe Babe” bears a strong resemblance to artist and feminist Frida Kahlo  with her slight mustache, unibrow, and faint sketch of Diego Riviera upon her forehead. The “Sarah Bernhart Babe” lies in a rosewood coffin and is missing her right leg. By appropriating elements of each “babe’s” individual life, the artists create icons of individuality while simultaneously honoring the singular feminine spirit at their cores. Hence, it is fitting that the “babes,” beneath their various garb, are replicas of one another and born from the single entity, “La Mona.”  Furthermore, their identical Statue of Liberty bases create another connection between each other as well as notions of  liberty. These autonomous women represent the infinite manifestations of liberty better than any one statue in the New York  harbor ever could. 

Jennifer Skancke, April, 2000