Femininity is like a guise that we wear, artist Frances Goodman says

Feminine energy manifests in many ways. This month, Wanted looks past the traditional roles and stereotypes to explore what it means to embrace femininity in today’s world.

Johannesburg-based mixed media artist Frances Goodman is considered one of the leading artists in the country. Her work, which often uses unconventional materials to create impactful art, is interested in the relations between femininity, costuming and role-playing.

She chats to Suzy Josephson, Wanted’s managing editor, about how she navigates her own femininity in today's world. 

Suzy Josephson: How do you relate to the issue of femininity?

Frances Goodman: I think this topic is pertinent to me, because in my work I am interested in whether there is an inherent idea of femininity or whether it’s a construct that we either buy into or we don’t, that we’re attracted to or we’re less attracted to, that we identify with or identify with less as women.

I think, historically, it was quite binary — women were supposed to be feminine, and men were masculine. I’ve always wondered if the cliched concept of what a “woman” should be isn’t necessarily what a “woman” actually is. It’s a construct that has been forced onto us for centuries with religion, culture, class and patriarchy, and as a result it’s very hard to form a pure idea of who we are as women. I think that femininity is like a guise that we wear.

SJ: Is it a guise that you wear personally?

FG: Yes, I think so. You know, I have very mixed feelings about it, because I’m very drawn to it personally and I love the accoutrements and the trappings of femininity. I love dressing up and wearing makeup, but I’m also concerned [about] and critical of why and how I make decisions and where the decisions I make come from. I wonder whether it is something that’s been projected onto me or if it’s inherently who I am.

SJ: Has it been put onto you? Do you think that your upbringing has shaped your femininity?

FG: I don’t know if it’s specifically my upbringing, but I think it’s all the things that surrounded me growing up. It was advertising, movies, and movie stars, and the idea of the ideal woman, the feminine woman, that I saw on television and in magazines. I was attracted by their femininity but also confused by it, because I don’t know if I truly believed it. Femininity can be a mask you wear. It’s like a costume that you wear. I try to wear my femininity with a wink and a smile.

SJ: So, the authentic feminine Frances, the wink, and the smile, is the makeup and the hair and all of that, so what is authentically feminine about you?

FG: I don’t think there’s such a thing as “authentic femininity”. I think that femininity is a construct, so I think your authentic self isn't wearing a costume or a mask, it’s not wearing something society has encouraged you to wear. So, I think the authentic self isn’t inherently feminine.

SJ: And your work that surrounds the topic of femininity?

FG: I’m interested in looking at how women have been sold this construct, literally sold it. We’re sold this idea of who we should be, what we should look like, what we should wear, the makeup we should wear, and how we should behave. It’s big business and capitalism preying on a group that is inherently insecure and vulnerable, or has been historically. We don’t have the sense of self, self-worth, and self-assurance traditional masculinity and patriarchal structures have taught a lot of men. I think that minority groups are easy prey for these systems, because they don’t have a core, inherent sense of self… Well, maybe we [women] do, but we don’t know how to articulate it, because it’s so muddied by everything that’s thrown at us all the time.

In my work, I’m interested in looking at how and why we make the decisions we do, or how we come to a conclusion [about] who we are. I question whether we are aware or even understand how much is being imposed on us and the effect it has on our self-esteem and core sense of self.

SJ: Do you think the roles that you play personally — as a mother, as a daughter — make you more feminine or less feminine?

FG: I think that the idea of femininity is linked to words of service like “nurturing” and “caring”. Service is expected of mothers, it’s expected of daughters, and it’s expected of partners. I think these preconceived notions are very hard to escape from, even if deep down inside of you a part of you wants to resist them.

SJ: Do you think your parents shaped the way you think about this?

FG: I think so. I think my parents have always encouraged us to ask questions and never accept things that don’t sit well with us, to always see if we can broaden our viewpoint and push boundaries. I think that, in general, the questions we were allowed to ask as children and as adults are still many of the questions I ask in the work I make.

SJ: Can you elaborate on what you question in your work?

FG: When I started out as an artist in my early twenties, I got a lot of pushback about the work I made about women and femininity, because people felt it was boring to hear about the triviality of a “woman’s world”, because it was considered unimportant and indulgent. It’s a common critique of femininity — that it’s trivial.

SJ: What was considered trivial?

FG: I think that, historically, the experience of being a woman has been considered unimportant. If you look back at all the struggles women have been through, all the challenges to our bodies — how we’ve been treated physically, mentally, gynaecologically, medically, aesthetically — we’ve always been dismissed, diminished.

PMS is almost considered an indulgence — [the insinuation is] that we’re overreacting, when actually it’s a very real thing that is part of being a woman and possibly part of being feminine. I found that there was a dismissive response when I talked about women’s issues in my work. I feel it less now. I think that’s why I embraced making work I did, because I wanted those issues to be seen as important, I wanted questions around femininity, [around] inherent, core ideas of self and the challenges we face as women to be highlighted and fore-fronted.

SJ: You say it’s less so now. Do you think that’s because people are more familiar with your work or because times have changed?

FG: I think the times have changed. I think that things that were dismissed before are being taken much more seriously. A good example is all the body-positivity campaigns we see today in the media; the way that different body shapes have been embraced in commercials and adverts. Ten years ago, that just wasn’t seen, it was really frowned upon. Showing adverts that have tampons in them were a no-no 10 years ago and now that has changed. Talking about menstrual cycles, talking about menopause, all these things have been taboo until recently, and now they’re finally being spoken about and addressed. Even in medicine — I read an article the other day that medical tests were done on male animals because they found that female animals also have cycles and as a result the variables were too complicated. So, many pharmaceuticals were tested on male animals, [in the belief of] a “one size fits all” approach, which is not the case. So, again, this kind of whitewashing and dismissing happens in  myriad industries.

When I first made the “Vajazzling” photographs they were considered quite confrontational and controversial. Now no-one would turn a hair at them. I think it’s fantastic.

SJ: When did you make the “Vajazzling” pieces?

FG: I think it was 2009 or 2010. Even in New York they made me put stars in front of all the vulvas, particularly in the press.

SJ: Which defeats the purpose.

FG: Yes.

SJ: Even in New York?

FG: Even in New York. I think that it’s so much more mainstream now; some people can’t understand how far we’ve come in the past 10, 15 years. Ten years ago, it felt like no-one talked about menopause. It was hush-hush. Now it’s beginning to be addressed, which is so useful.

I think as one gets older, different topics, which relate to your frame of reference, become important. As a woman, you do have these constantly changing things that move into your field of vision as your body changes — the way you look changes, the things that are important about how you see yourself and what you have to do to continue to have this idea of yourself are changing a lot more than for men. We do have so many mitigating factors: we have children, the children grow up, we are mothers, we’re wives, we’re not mothers, we have periods, we don’t have periods — being a woman is being in a constant state of flux. I think that idea of being a woman goes hand in hand with roles such as mother, wife, partner and carer, which are linked to the traditional idea of femininity.