Why Amelia Jones Is Wrong About Liz Cohen

Art historians rarely go out of their way to criticize contemporary
artists publicly: They simply ignore the ones they don’t like and keep
the canon gates locked. So it was notable when Amelia Jones, a prominent feminist art historian and author,
attacked little-known artist Liz Cohen in this summer’s edition of
X-TRA magazine. In an essay reviewing the history of feminist
art, Jones described Cohen’s work—which includes large color
photographs of Cohen wearing a bikini on top of a car—as
“simplistic repetitions of bad advertisements for cars.” Cohen’s
depictions of her own “young, white, thin body” are “resolutely
normative” (status-quo enforcing) and “binary” (based on simplistic,
oppositional equations about men and women), Jones wrote. If Jones had
written the essay in the last two weeks, she might have called Cohen
the Sarah Palin of the art world.

It’s hard to fathom such a misreading by such an experienced mind.
To be fair, when I first saw Cohen’s large, racy photographs, I was
pained. Cohen is young, she is thin, and she does look white. But then
I looked into it.

Cohen is not white—but let’s put that aside for a moment. The
car-model photographs are a small part of a far larger project that
spans Cohen’s career and that is deeply invested in what Jones argues
good new feminist art ought to do: “understand ‘gender’ as a
question rather than an answer—and a question that percolates
through other subjective and social identifications—sexual
orientation, race, ethnicity, nationality.”

Cohen’s early documentary photographs, made between 1996 and 1999,
along with a video of a performance related to the photographs, are
currently on display at Lawrimore Project. The photographs depict
transgender sex workers in the Panama Canal Zone during the final days
of the U.S. occupation there. Their performances are
gender-indeterminate: They flash the breasts they’ve grown by taking
hormones, but their attempts to hide penises or other “masculine”
details range from hard-fought “believability” to total
irreconcilability.

Cohen didn’t preserve the “binarism” between documentarian and
subject, either. The subjects Cohen spent so much time with wanted to
dress her up eventually, and a colleague of Cohen’s in San Francisco at
the time even asked her whether she was a biological male (Cohen’s
mousy everyday appearance is far from a car model’s; done up as a model
she resembles Amy Winehouse). In a later performance presented in
Seattle as a video, Cohen dressed herself up as a drag queen and sat in
front of a TV playing prerecorded footage of her un-made-up self acting
as interviewer to the live drag queen. The questions and answers in
Spanish are from an interview with one of Cohen’s Panamanian subjects.
The interviewer translates the answers from Spanish into English, but
the “translations” mix in autobiographical details about Cohen, and
only if you speak Spanish—Cohen’s native language, since her
parents are both Colombian immigrants to the United States—can
you understand that the translations are wrong, mixing in information
(those autobiographical Cohen details) that the Spanish speaker didn’t
say.

The messy, border-fuzzing, and generally nonbinary, nonnormative
business of immigration is Cohen’s central subject as an artist. The
car-model photographs are part of Cohen’s project BODYWORK,
which includes her transformation of herself and a car. For the last
several years, her art studio has been a body shop in Scottsdale,
Arizona (although she has recently moved to Detroit to teach at
Cranbrook), and she has emigrated from a formally educated fine-art
world into lowrider culture (a largely Latino culture) by learning how
to build a car.

The car itself is an immigrant: an East German Trabant that she’s
made to transform, thanks to elaborate design and hydraulics, into an
American El Camino. Both cars have been discontinued; both are symbols
of failed utopias. In the lowrider world, car owners, car models, and
car builders are three different people. Cohen brings them
together.

But more important, every interaction she has in the shop every day
is part of the project. So is the car. So are the interviews about it.
So will be her experiences when she finally finishes the car and enters
it into car competitions.

Jones, in her essay, is reducing the project to two dimensions. She
misses the point twice. First, by taking the photographs to stand in
for the entire project, she’s reinforcing the product-
driven art
world’s practice of representing this project chiefly in flat, sexy
photographs, not in process-oriented performances, ephemera,
interviews, video, or the car itself—which has only been
displayed in Sweden and Scottsdale. (Is this project’s objectification
in the art world—and by Jones—so different from the
objectification of women in the world of aggressive media and
advertising?) Second, the car-model photographs are rich with in-shop
jokes that you don’t get until you read interviews about the project
with the shop owner and workers: The photographs are funny to them
because the photographs are actually so wrong.

Cohen continually disrupts the perfect-woman-and-perfect-car
package. In the images, the car looks dismantled because it is
unfinished. A modeling session is held in a grungy break room rather
than in a groomed environment. If you’re an academic, you probably
don’t get the photographs. An academic response like Jones’s, presented
as all-knowing
but in fact missing many of the codes, only proves
the point of the distance between the upper-class art world and the
working-class situation of an environment like a car shop.

This is just the beginning of what’s going on in Cohen’s body of
work, and of what’s wrong with Jones’s half-formed judgment. Jones
calls Cohen’s work “bizarre,” “disconcerting,” and the source of a
“profound sense of melancholy.” My profound sense of melancholy comes
from the apparent carelessness of a highly placed feminist
intellectual.

Read Jones’s article here.

jgraves@thestranger.com