A Seat at the Table: Crime Scene

Why would I name a painting of what looks like an innocent, even tranquil domestic interior, Crime Scene? My reasons are in three parts: a discovery, an epiphany, and a question concerning an annoying disappointment.

Part One: Discovery

I discovered a book about crimes some time ago in a bookstore in New York. I had not sought this book out. I had merely picked it off a shelf while I was waiting for my husband to arrive from another store. I started reading it and was struck by a strange crime story called "The Measure Man." The peculiar story was about a man who would break in to people’s homes with a tape measure and "measure" them. No one quite knew what to make of it. I can imagine the police questions and report:

"Did the suspect take anything?"
"No."
"Did he injure you?"
"No."
"Were you struck anywhere?"
"No."
"Did the suspect touch you inappropriately?"
"Hard to say."
"What happened exactly?"
"He measured me."

Even though the perpetrator had not assaulted the victims, apart from trespassing into their homes, the victims knew instinctively that there was something seriously wrong about Measure Man’s actions. And they were right. The story went on to relate how Measure Man eventually began to dispatch with his victims. One can only conclude that he was in fact "measuring them up" for the kill.

The odd story stuck with me, even many years later one evening when I was alone at home and resting on the couch. I was recovering from a bad virus and did not have the strength to make much art work. Yet my artistic eye was still active. Across the room from the couch I saw two chairs and a red tape measure stretched across them. The red tape measure worked well to unify the red threads of design in the upholstery of the foot at the base of the second chair. Everything was so nicely tied together. So I mustered up the energy to find my camera and took a photograph. I snapped the shutter and then shuttered slightly myself when the thought of Measure Man floated through my head.

Part Two: Epiphany

A few years later, I finished a small book and my publisher asked me to post it on Facebook. I replied that I was not on Facebook. ( I was on it for a few months back in 2008, decided I didn’t like it and left). But I acquiesced and opened an account. The year was 2016 and I found that I still had great doubts about social media and at times found it mortifying! But I attributed the spikes of stunning incivility to it being a tense election year. I subsequently remained on social media despite the occasional sniping because I decided that the benefits outweighed the negatives. I established a good network of artists, writers and scholars who have enriched my life, and I reconnected with old friends and relatives. So the benefits of Facebook outweighed the negatives, despite the fact that it turned out not to be especially commercially successful.

But do the benefits of social media outweigh the risks? Given a choice, I would much rather pay a monthly fee to Facebook than have my personal data harvested and sold to entities that wish to pester me with items to sell me and groups for me to join. And can we really be certain that our data might not ultimately be used for more nefarious purposes? We offer ourselves, body and soul, in our posts on social media and in return are... measured? So we continue to post our likes, our dislikes, and our preferences - all the while having some tamped down reservations in the backs of our minds, like the victims of Measure Man knowing instinctively that there was something dangerous about being physically tabulated. Does Measure Man now enter our lives through our computer screen instead of an unlocked door? I thought of my photograph and determined that I could allude to this when I finally painted it.

Part Three: What is the Measure of an Artist?

I painted "Crime Scene" in the same year as an incident involving an unfair measurement. The incident involved an art event that I discovered was allowing (mostly) male artists to price their work any way they pleased while limiting (mostly) female artists to rules restricting them to works of small sizes and cheap prices. They were obliged to essentially take a back seat to their (mostly) male peers. In my artistic response, I made a smaller, background chair in my final painting composition that alludes to this.

In my more official complaint I conceded that if the organizing party wished to have a divided exhibition, with one room for cheaper art and another for specifically honored artists, that they had every right to do so, but that this would have to be articulated in clearly defined written guidelines at the outset, rather than the somewhat nebulous statement that there could be some exceptions to the rules. Otherwise all artist should be treated equally. To do less would unfortunately reinforce a stereotype that female artists (and others simply less popular) are not as valuable or competent as their popular male peers who can command higher prices - especially since the venue was a well attended, prestigious event.

The unfairness did make me disappointed and somewhat cynical. I mentioned to a friend that perhaps I should turn up at their party with a tape measure to see if any artists were breaking the rules of their proscribed presentations. Then I immediately caught a chill thinking of Measure Man!

Rest assured that I took measured steps to address the inequity directly to the organizers involved rather than with surreptitious physical yardsticks and tape measures. Hopefully this will result in greater parity next year, with equal measures of space and remuneration.