"Well I'm Half the Man...er... Futurist... I Used to Be..."

Previous to reading the Futurist Manifesto, I had a very vague notion of what the Futurist movement was. It is now clear that even my vague notion was inherently incorrect.

Through reading the manifesto, it became clear that this is not a movement of minimalism, nor is it necessarily one of deconstructing an object. It is something visceral, something aggressive. It is something that may, at times, be destructive. It is a clawed and fanged fetus that won’t wait to be passively born; instead, like something feral and rabid, it will forcibly claw its way out of any semblance of a womb. In short, it demands attention and doesn’t care much for manners.

I enjoyed the tangible appeal to the senses in which the manifesto was written. It was a welcome repose after reading several (I’m going to quote Peter Griffin from Family Guy, here) “dry and pedantic” articles relating either to finance or, alternatively, dry recounts of art history.
The imagery, the sense of elation, the gleeful abandon of all things “status-quo”: It was something that I could resonate with. After all, I’m a bit of an adrenaline junkie and am prone to jumping out of planes for fun. Speeding cars and/or locomotives vs. a 13,000 ft. freefall…either way, if it’s all fun and games until someone loses a limb, then count me in.

It was disappointing to reach the second portion of this manifesto only to see that “scorn for women” is apparently a prerequisite for Futurists. Being a woman, I of course have a problem with this. All the wonderful writing, all these beautiful words that created images so clear that one could nearly smell the description of death’s pelted hide… the playful but aggressive courting of the Human Experience ™… the celebration of life through taking risks and un-tethering one’s self from the past -- all of these things were quickly barred to me when I, as a woman, apparently became an institution to be abhorred by Futurists everywhere. How does that happen, anyway? When several feminists enter a room, do they turn into a giant robot? And if so, does this said robot then create mausoleums, museums, schools and other various institutions? Maybe that’s another vague idea I had inherently wrong. Here I thought that feminists merely wanted to be treated as equal individuals without being dismissed due to something as silly as gender.

Then again, this is also a movement that seems to primarily support anarchy. Upon further introspection, I have discovered that while I appreciate much of the Futurist movement’s zeal for living life by the seat of one’s pants (while on fire and riding a motorcycle through flaming hoops, no less) I am personally not an anarchist. Maybe this means that, womanhood aside, I’m simply not the Futurist I thought I was.

And that’s okay. The idea was only entertained for a few minutes at most, so it’s with little pain that I part with the notion.

However, my curiosity was thoroughly aroused, so I attempted to search for articles concerning female futurists. Surely, there must be some!

Much to my dismay, I found this horrid site that states FASHION is the female version of futurism. Um… how many logs can we add to a misogynistic flame, here? Is this for real?
It is. Here you go. Read at your own risk- this website may instill feelings of nausea, contempt and a desire to “bean the writer upside the head.”

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1389621

Now angered, I began my Google search in earnest. Fortunately, I was able to uncover the names of two actual female Futurists: Mirella Bentivoglio and Franca Zoccoli. Unfortunately, it appears as though I must buy a book to learn more about them, as every website regarding them is in Italian. Wikipedia has a whopping two-sentence entry on Mirella.

At least I was able to gain a snippet of information from this site:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0425/is_3_57/ai_53286475

The performance art articles were informative and pretty much encapsulated everything I was told performance art was- so forgive me if I went off on a tangent with the Manifesto. :-)

Regarding Allan Kaprow: all I have to say is that the first thing I thought about the article was:
“So THAT’S the guy who coined the term ‘happenings!’”
I’m not sure how I feel about that.

I do know, however, that I generally find Kaprow to be a likeable character throughout his interview. Not that this matters, but it’s the truth. I appreciate that he didn’t seek to “negate painting” but only sought to “add to the number of options that an artist had at that time”. He apparently is good at coining terms and phrases, as his description of the “progressive amplification of options” through each succeeding generation is a neatly packaged explanation of the Conceptual art movement madness.

Ah! Another sense of kinship is in Kaprow. He likes Mondrian- I like Mondrian. We are like two peas in a proverbial Mondrian pod. How quaint!

Now I’m left to ponder: Just what can I find to disagree with in Kaprow’s interview?
Well, I’ll tell you.

Yams.

The mentioning of the Yam festival was completely and utterly inappropriate. I cannot possibly express my most outrageous level of uppity upsetted-ness with this horrid digression. (/sarcasm)