Received: Post-feminist mail art from Jen Staggs (Dallas, Texas, USA)

[De Villo Sloan]

September 17, 2010 - I personally appreciate Jen Stagg's mail art as much as her photos, especially shots from New Orleans I've seen elsewhere. I like receiving work from IUOMA friends that incorporates fabric, sewing, and weaving. In previous blog posts I've thanked Mariska van den Heuvel (Holland - sewn paper) and Tina Festa (Italy - woven paper) for pieces similar to Jen's. A reason why I like this kind of work is because of the tactile and textural qualities. (Love those torn edges!) There is another reason that relates more closely to what Jen is doing. Mail art using fabric, sewing, and weaving represents artistry that has been associated with women for thousands of years. Generally, work with these materials has been assigned to categories such as crafts and the utilitarian. Not a problem except that for centuries - related to the subordination of women - this work was been excluded from the patriarchal world of so-called legitimate art. This isn't news, and the situation has improved somewhat. But I know I always like to see work in this area that is pushing ahead and adding to the dialog that inevitably results from shared art. I'm not supporting the judgments and categories of the mainstream art world (industry). I just like the part of mail art's egalitarian spirit that has always been so open and receptive to women. Here's more of the work Jen sent:

Good Girl. Bad Girl. Good Bad Girl. Bad Good Girl. As you'll see verified later, one level of Jen's work involves commentary on gender roles. On the envelope is some (I think really nice) stampy-collage work exploring gender relations, specifically as power relations. She uses popcult references for this. What I really like here is how she integrates fabric-sewing into this aspect of the work, uh, seamlessly. Here, though, Jen brings to my attention another gigantic area of art with fabric: fashion. Wow! What a subject. Some consider it art. Some consider it product. It is and has been simultaneously a vehicle for the exploitation, liberation, and commodification of women. (If you think about it, every inch of women's bodies has been packaged, commodified, and aggressively marketed.) Clothing is Ground Zero - eclipsed only by the body itself and recognized as such by many other mail artists - for exploring gender. This territory is complex and beset by seeming contradictions, if your aim is to make some kind of rational sense of it. I applaud Jen for exploring this and, here, am just sitting back an enjoying the cascade of images.

Jen clearly states the intention of her work. Artist statements of intention are a tradition. For IUOMA friends I've been talking with, I make the point that once your work goes out into the world, the less your intentions matter because people begin applying their own interpretations. (IUOMA provides an alternative of circles of friends who provide feedback and ideas.) When you (Lord forbid) start to enter the territory of critics and academics, your intention matters little. They will tell you what you are trying to say. There was even a critical term invented long ago called "intentional fallacy," which basically means whatever the artist thought they were saying is an error. Karen Champlin just posted some mail art at IUOMA from Cheryl Penn that is about Jackson Pollock. If you ever go back and look at what the art critics and theorists wrote about Pollock when he was emerging, I think you'll be absolutely stunned. It might be one reason why so many artists post-Pollock simply have chosen to say little or nothing about their work in public. And a HUGE problem is that the world of critics and academics is linked to the art market. Scholarship about artists, catalog copy, etc. etc. can impact the art market the same way a quarterly report impacts the share value of stock. Just my opinion. It's a jungle, for sure. Mail art is such a fantastic alternative.

Jen, thank you so much for this! As an IUOMA friend, please keep me in the loop as the work unfold

[De Villo Sloan]

Apologies to Jen. The top photo is now right side up. Thanks for the comments, Jen, and thanks for the mailart.

[Jen Staggs]

WOW! I never expected such a scholarly dissection of my work! I feel like I'm back in grad school. Thank you for your close examination- I learn more from responses than I do in the actual faction of the product/piece. Though I must comment- the cloth piece of the woman's back wearing a corset is, sadly, upside down. (I'm in good company, then, wasn't a Jackson Pollock hung upside down at the MoMa once?)

[Austin Wills James]

Amazing work, Jen, but then again that's how we do things here in Dallas. :-)
-AWJ-