LIZA LOU'S KITCHEN

by Emily Blake

Liza Lou’s Kitchen, considering the installation is in the form of a full-scale kitchen, envelopes the spectator. The work is captivating upon initial view due its large scale, a full-sized/ accurate scale with recognizable objects found within an everyday kitchen, yet encrusted with beads in a way that glistens and draws attention to otherwise monotonous objects. Due to this, the spectator is immediately aware (in addition to being within the physical context of the Whitney) that this is not just a kitchen or collection of kitchen objects. The scale is jarring, reinforced by the Whitney’s reported information that Lou spent five years completing this work of meticulously beaded, full-scale kitchen with exacting elements. The juxtaposition and interconnectedness of both the recognizable everyday elements of a to-scale kitchen with the atypical aesthetic of glistening beads on the facade of these objects communicates that this is not just a replica of a kitchen, but a specific interpretation of the kitchen as a cultural phenomenon. Part of the reason this work is so jarring immediately to the viewer is because of the overt ways in which labor factors into both the production of the work and the subject matter of the work. The viewer is unable to ignore how much time and effort has gone into producing Kitchen, since each individual bead is visible and glistening in the light. The kitchen as a space charged with meaning in and of itself is associated with labor. This connectivity between the labor exerted by Liza Lou in the production of this artwork, as well as the notion of labor that a kitchen as an everyday object immediately evokes, reinforces how this is not just a replica of a kitchen. The nature of a recognizable yet slightly altered kitchen posits a specific interpretation of the kitchen as an American cultural phenomenon with lasting significance to be unpacked.

Lou’s treatment of the objects found within a kitchen is unique because the items are within their intended or usual context (a to-scale kitchen), yet are both embellished with glistening beads and displayed in the unusual or non-domestic context of the Whitney Museum. Both of these complications and nuances enhance how Lou is both utilizing the kitchen for what it stands for as well as complicating that meaning. Lou is utilizing a symbol of domesticity, connected to labor, and specifically the historical labor of women. The kitchen is a symbol with a recognizable significance to all spectators even outside of the specific context of the Whitney Museum and that institution’s specific audience. Lou makes the connection between the kitchen and femininity even more blatant with her use of pinks and pastel colors, the sparkling facade of the items, and the visible, time-intensive quality of her craftsmanship in creating this piece. By modifying and glamorizing the aesthetic of everyday mass consumed objects, the kitchen, which was already a space full of items dense with cultural and historical connections to labor and the labor of women, becomes even more overtly tied with that cultural significance. 

Lou’s description of the work, cited by the Whitney Museum on their website and wall text, states she “argues for the dignity of labor.” The Whitney includes this information after context on Lou’s research process prior to beginning this work, specifically researching nineteenth century women, their “craft and kitchen work,” and the significance of the kitchen as a gendered domain. Lou’s explicit attention to the dignity of labor as well as the visual techniques used to aesthetically elevate monotonous everyday objects posits a specific interpretation of the kitchen as both a site of potential beautiful and artistic significance as well an American cultural phenomenon, despite [and perhaps even because of] its connection with femininity. Within Lou’s written description of her motivation to produce this work, the labor-intensive process of creating each individual piece of the work, as well as the beautiful, glistening aesthetic of the kitchen, there is a sense of craft, of art, of a meaning of the kitchen beyond simply being a room in the house where women perform monotonous tasks everyday.

Lou’s Kitchen both presents the kitchen as-is, in terms of not adding new or unusual objects, but alters the outward facing facade of these objects. In this way, she addresses the art-historical and visual precedent of utilizing the readymade, found objects, and specifically objects tied to mass consumerism, but her altering of the facade of the objects (using thousands of beads) differentiated this work from many notions of the readymade and illustrates her unique cultural viewpoint. The kitchen (filled with its consumer objects) as simply an emblem of mundane suburban life is dismantled in this work. Through the enormous amount of beads and the obvious labor it required for Lou to assemble this work, Kitchen evokes a contemplation of craft and the kitchen as a site of production, since the objects are not simply a Cap’N Crunch box, for example, but a Cap’N Crunch box that required a great amount of effort to produce such a visually stimulating and literally glittering object. 

Kitchen engages with aforementioned feminine domesticity in a way that communicates its inextricable link with an American culture of mass consumerism. Kitchen includes identifiable American consumer products, such as Tide and Cap’N Crunch branded objects, which remain recognizable even though they are completely glittery and beaded. These items, as well as un-branded, mundane objects such as dishes in the sink, emphasize the visual paradox the spectator is forced to consider; this work is both a replica of a kitchen that includes items every single American kitchen has, but it also communicates Lou’s cultural commentary on what a kitchen signifies. This work is both rooted in reality, through the objects included being literal everyday objects, but elevates the cultural significance of the objects through beautifying the aesthetic of their appearance. The interconnectedness of the reality of the representations and the drudgery of the kitchen as a space of labor with the blatantly glittery, artistic facade posits Lou’s specific viewpoint on the kitchen and the labor associated with it. 

Not only are the intricacies of the decorated objects in Kitchen forcing the viewer to confront the labor required by Lou to produce the work, but the attention to detail is also seen throughout the work that produces a specific version of a kitchen-- one with immaculate decor, with a freshly baked pie in the oven, and overall a truly Americana visual layout of a feminine domestic realm. The curtains (reminiscent of a 1960s or early 1970s pattern), the immaculate cherry pie sitting in the open oven, and the brand-name products are among a few objects within Kitchen that evoke the link between femininity and the space of the kitchen. Within this visually clear link, the viewer must confront the cultural significance of such a space. This process of unpacking the signified meaning and cultural significance of each object within Kitchen, specifically objects American people do not think twice about when seen in everyday life, makes evident the kitchen’s significance as a cultural phenomenon, and makes visible that Lou has gone through the laborious process of encoding the space with meaning as well.

Lou’s dedication to depicting layers and nuances surrounding labor in Kitchen communicates a feminist narrative and perspective that is complex and complicates how a viewer might otherwise go through life thinking of a kitchen as a mundane space. As communicated in the analysis of the nuances of different forms of labor Lou incorporates into Kitchen, the visually stunning nature of this work evokes a reaction from the viewer, and requires their time and thought in observing and analyzing the different elements, objects, individual beads, and the space of the kitchen overall. This analysis from the spectator happens due to the glittery appearance of Kitchen, its massive (accurate) scale, and the disjunction of having a full-size kitchen in an art institution, the Whitney. Within this process of drawing the viewer in, of asking for the kitchen to be thought of in deeper ways, to be viewed as a work of art and time-consuming labor, Lou dignifies the labor that occurs everyday in this space (the often invisible work) and the overall feminine domesticity of the kitchen as a phenomenon with relevant cultural meaning that should be explored further. 

The objects within the work communicate that Lou is seeking and tuned into a dialogue regarding different facets and sources of American cultural symbols in numerous ways. The work opens a feminist dialogue, presents the kitchen as aesthetically beautiful, and recognizes the different objects that make up how everyday people use and experience kitchens-- specifically the mass consumption of branded, essentially universal products like Lays chips, breakfast cereal, and other immediately recognizable products. By creating a to-scale, recognizable, encompassing kitchen, Lou allows the viewer to think about the kitchen broadly as a room encountered in daily life, while her aesthetic changes, beautification, and attention to detail within Kitchen posits a specific interpretation of the space as an American cultural phenomenon with lasting significance that should be analyzed in terms of feminism, in terms of craft, and in terms of dignifying labor.