Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Breaking Out of the Art World's Sexism

By Jeanine Plant, AlterNet. Posted April 5, 2007.


Heavy-hitting shows dedicated to feminist art are happening now on both coasts. But they stand in stark contrast to a past deeply in thrall to man-made art.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Jeanine Plant

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Call it the year of the woman ... in the visual arts! With symposiums, heavy-hitting shows on the East and West Coast, and a smattering of smaller exhibits around the country all dedicated to feminist art happening now, it's a veritable gender insurgency waged on the hallowed white walls of the art world.

A small fraction of the timing was mere serendipity. That's what curator Connie Butler says anyway about "WACK! Art and the Feminist Revolution," a survey of international feminist art produced during the 1970s, on view now at the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles. She conceived of the show over a decade ago, she says, when she noticed emerging artists, like Matthew Barney, referencing the work of that period "with no real understanding of the history."

The rest of this confluence was pure conspiracy. Activist patrons, artists, curators, and scholars organized these events to make a big publicity splash. And the Feminist Art Project (FAP) at Rutgers University in New Jersey, initiated in late 2005 by Judy Chicago and the late feminist art writer Arlene Raven, was its fountainhead. Organizers there are promoting feminist art's reach through 2009 with a series of publications, symposia, and exhibitions.

No wonder then that Chicago's iconic second-wave paean, The Dinner Party, finally found a permanent home this month at the Brooklyn Museum as it just unveiled The Elizabeth A. Sackler Center for Feminist Art, a founding program partner of the FAP. The Sackler Center -- the first museum space devoted solely to feminist art -- also inaugurates the touring show, "Global Feminisms," an unprecedented compilation of contemporary transnational feminist art, by curators Maura Reilly, on the FAP's national committee, and Linda Nochlin, well-known art historian on the FAP's honorary board.

But this bluestocking barrage is an anomaly. While it is a step in the right direction, this glittering year of feminist art stands in stark contrast to the agglomeration of years past, which reveals an art world deeply in thrall to man-made art.

"Feminist art for complex reasons gets marginalized and doesn't get the central place it deserves, so to overwhelm that is really a brilliant move," said Carey Lovelace, art critic and author of the upcoming book, An Army of Lovers Cannot Fail: The Women's Movement in Art, 1968-2006. "Judy Chicago has a sense of history," Lovelace continued, and these shows "get people to really look at feminist art."

Like Chicago, the present informs Butler's sense of history, too. "I think that certainly the cultural climate is so conservative at the moment, that people are nostalgic for a period when real social change was possible," said Butler. "And I think that conservatism in the art world has something to do with it."

Like Life

That art world conservatism is a miniature replica of real world conservatism is not surprising. Feminist writers often point out the relative lack of women's bylines in major national magazines compared to men. And progressive political activists who want more women in public office often see the major Sunday talk shows -- a crucial way to attract voter support -- dominated by male candidates. The litany of complaints by feminist artists, art historians, and curators is strikingly similar. Museums are notoriously conservative. New York galleries show mostly men. Women artists as renowned as Raphael in their time -- have you ever heard of Angelica Kauffmann? -- are all but erased from art history.

Despite this, quite a few people are noticing, including Maura Reilly, and doing something about it. Reilly's catalogue essay for "Global Feminisms" is a testament to taking heed. She marshals all the right dissenting voices. One is Village Voice writer Jerry Saltz, who has written extensively on sexism and art. In 2005, one year after the Museum of Modern Art reopened in New York, Saltz examined the artwork and found gross under-representation of women artists. "Of the approximately 410 works in the fourth-and-fifth-floor galleries, only a paltry 16 are by women," he wrote, a mere 4 percent.

The MoMA is not an isolated example, Reilly writes. And she cites The Guerilla Girls, an American feminist artist collective, who updated their famous 1989 poster Do Women Have to Be Naked to Get into the Met. Museum? In the updated 2005 poster, it says that fewer than 3 percent of the artists in the Metropolitan Museum of Art's modern art section were women, down from 5 percent in 1989. And the Guggenheim is no better: From 2000 to 2004, the Guerilla Girls reported, women artists were granted only 11 percent of the solo exhibitions.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: feminism, women, art, judy chicago

Jeanine Plant is a Brooklyn-based writer.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
That's fine, but if the art isn't good then don't expect...
Posted by: ateo on Apr 5, 2007 2:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
me to buy it or care about it just because the person who made it isn't a white man.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Off the platform already
Posted by: gourdman on Apr 5, 2007 4:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Much of the "feminist art" to date has been boring, narrow, preachy, hostile, or sometimes just plain vile. Need an example? Check out the work of feminist "poet" Adrienne Rich, who suggested that Beethoven's monumental 9th Symphony, constructed around Schiller's "Ode to Joy," was like "a bloody fist upon a splintered table"-- among other things. Mind you, this woman who is apparently utterly insensitive to great art has been mentioned as a candidate for the Nobel Prize for literature. So here's an idea: why not focus on art that has strong personal meaning? And then let's spend our time discussing the art-- whether it be by man, woman, African-American, or WASP, that stands out from the crowd?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Last Bastion
Posted by: Urstrly on Apr 5, 2007 4:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Despite the work of the Guerilla Girls, Chicago and other activist artists of the 70s and 80s, women are still struggling for recognition in the plastic arts. There are many talented women struggling as painters and sculptors and multi-media artists whose work most of us will never see or hear. If you're not familiar with the work of Lisa Yuskavage, check out her website. She's often paired with John Currin, who also paints women, but from a different point of view. Both of them are extremely talented, but you can guess who draws the big bucks. Another feminist artist I follow is Kate Kretz, who works in textiles and as a fabulous painter. The work is rich and lush and usually, but not always, makes a point. I'm not an artist (or able to collect broadly) but I think it's important to acknowledge that the playing field is anything but level. Not all women create art that could be called political, but that doesn't mean that it's not affected by forces beyond the artists' control. Race is another factor here, but among recognized artists of color, how many women can you name? Patrons of the arts must let museums and galleries know that they're interested in seeing what women are up to.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

in the US...
Posted by: ellie on Apr 5, 2007 5:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
serious visual art by women is seen as a 'craft or hobby', men do 'art'... it's ingrained in the fabric of our society... just look at all the 'craft' stores that are all over the place, art stores are few...

and we wonder why we aren't taken seriously!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» WRONG!!!!!!!!!!! Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: in the US... Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: in the US... Posted by: babs
» Stereotypes are bad. Posted by: Traveler27
ART IS THE MOST POWERFUL FORCE ON THE PLANET
Posted by: drricklippin on Apr 5, 2007 6:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've studied this issue.

Art is the most powerful force on the planet.

Tyrants know this and so do all of those who seek to control others.

Patriarchal societies like ours know this also and therefore feminist art has been marginalized

But the tide is turning. The future of the Art world (if we have any?) belongs to, at long last, women!

If not there is no credible future for the Art world.

Dr. Rick Lippin
Founder- International Arts-Medicine Association(IAMA)
Southampton, Pa

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» And is that any different than... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» You have the advantage of me, sir Posted by: AdamSelene40
» RAH and Rand ... Posted by: AdamSelene40
» Oooops ... I guessed it backwards Posted by: AdamSelene40
Grrl pwr!
Posted by: H_H on Apr 5, 2007 6:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...and why is it that ONLY WOMEN get cervical cancer? Answer me that!

Fuckin' patriarchy. There ought to be a law!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Grrl pwr! ?????? Posted by: StoneRiley
While...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Apr 5, 2007 7:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I will admit that there is still a bit of a problem with parity in who is shown in some places... I just do not buy... having spent time in art school and being involved with 3 different museums... that it is as much of a problem as it is being presented as. There are many female artists out there and they are rather well represented in most galleries and museums.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: While... Posted by: fork
» I wonder... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: I wonder... Posted by: fork
» RE: I wonder... Posted by: MAD
» RE: I wonder... Posted by: babs
» RE: I wonder... Posted by: MAD
» Hi, babs! Posted by: fork
» No reason to??? Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Female artists: NEVER stop creating.
Posted by: HughScott on Apr 5, 2007 8:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Besides being a 71-year-old investigative journalist and ardent AlterNet blogger, I'm a serious painter who, starting at age 37, took every art course at my local community college (Moorpark CC in 8imi Valley, CA).

Yesterday, to restore my sanity after participating in AlterNet's Rosie O'Donnell - 9/11 conspiracy "discussion." I went to my garage studio and started work on a new acrylic, "color-stain" painting. God, it felt good.

As for the subject at hand, because I raised thee daughters, I hope every feminist artist gets the exposure she wants so the public can determine how commercially viable her work is. If it doesn't sell, fuck 'em and keep on creating.

Hugh E. Scott, pop art fan and the editor of King-George.biz -- the only website with hardcopy proof of White House corruption.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is nonsense
Posted by: vangogh69 on Apr 5, 2007 8:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First off, how are we defining "Feminism" and does this apply to all women, of all races, classes, and nationalities? I'm not so sure. Second of all, should women really be begging to be let into a white patriarchical capitalist art market, at the expense of whom? I'm not so sure this piece, nor this "pro-feminist artwork" outlook is so all-encompassing, nor conscious. As an artist, I say do what you do then decide if you wanna have your shit as a commodity or if you're doing to make a point, etc. And, IMHO, much of the "art" you'll see at 80% of the galleries in the US is not worth a paragraph's discussion. Mass-marketed (if we can call gallery spaces such, loosely such) art has been suffering from the general cultural "stupidity" and intellectual vacuousness which has characterized Amercican since the 1970's. Again, IMHO.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: This is nonsense Posted by: juanpecan81
» RE: This is nonsense Posted by: pdxstudent
wow
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Apr 5, 2007 9:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is some really disengenuous crap in this article.. namely comparing Rachel Whiteread and Damian Hirst. Just because they have both won the Turner doesn't mean that they should be expected to sell for the same amount.

Anyone who knows much about the art world knows that is ludicrous. Whiteread, while talented.. more talented than Hirst most of the time, imo.. is not the Art Star Hirst is... and it has little to nothing to do with gender.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Political art
Posted by: oregoncharles on Apr 5, 2007 9:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is usually not first-rate.

(To take a historical example, unfortunately male, being historical: Yeats wrote both political and more personal poetry. It's now obvious that the latter was better - and hold up better, because we no longer feel for the political references.)

The article conflates "feminist" art (makes a political statement) with "women's" art (by a woman). Not the same.

I don't doubt there is still lingering prejudice in the art world, as elsewhere. Even if I had the money, I wouldn't buy either a shark in formaldehyde (conservator's nightmare) or a fiberglass mattress, let alone for such ridiculous prices, so I can't really say if the artists' gender is a factor. One example proves nothing.

Out here in the boonies, women seem very prominent in the local art world, often among the best. So I'm sceptical of her whole premise. It doesn't help that she deliberately promotes the confusion between politics and gender. Maybe the "feminist" art was like most political art, posterish. People collect posters, but they don't pay nearly so much for them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bullshit
Posted by: gjames on Apr 5, 2007 11:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Alternet's art editor must suck:

"To understand the physics of the art world, one has to be clear that its primary motivations are not moral, theoretical or even aesthetic, but commercial," writes Ben Davis, art critic for ArtNet.com, in his March 2007 article, "White Walls, Glass Ceiling."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Bullshit Posted by: pdxstudent
I'd like to recommend www.art-for-a-change.com/blog
Posted by: rclord on Apr 5, 2007 12:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This blog has a great take on the current art scene today.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

TWO MORE REASONS FOR FEMINIST ART
Posted by: drricklippin on Apr 5, 2007 4:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1)"The opposite of war is not peace -it is the creative process"

2) "Only art has the power to match the intensity of violence"

Dr. Rick Lippin
Founder- International Arts-Medicine Association

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If you're not a feminist it's a cultural problem
Posted by: garnm on Apr 5, 2007 7:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why does it seem in this article that if you are a woman and yet not a feminist, it is because of hegemonic influence and not one's own choice? The author writes, "Young women are afraid of the word," meaning feminism obviously, but I say to you, I'm not afraid of the word, I'm offended by the word. I am offended by the idea that if I do not pursue the feminist ideology with the same vigor as feminist activists, or if I refuse to affiliate myself with the term, I could not only be criticized, but I could be accused of being a victim of the white, male dominant culture. That very thing happened to Tamy Ben-Tor when she refused to affiliate herself with feminism. It is possible that she didn't want to risk her career by doing so, but isn't it also possible that she chose her own belief system, rather than committing to one particular ideology? I want to see women being recognized in art, among other things, but I find myself a bit jaded by 'feminists' who wish to cram their ideology down my throat. I suppose I have met too many 'feminists' who want not just equal rights and equal acknowledgment, but punishment of men for the sins of the past. Isn't it possible that young women don't want to be affiliated with feminism, not only because they might be afraid of it, but also because a few overly aggressive feminists gave the ideology a bad name? If the feminism that I have been exposed to embraced the possibility of being BOTH traditional and forward-looking, I might want to affiliate myself with it, too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is backwards----FIRST EAT THE RICH
Posted by: WitchyNy on Apr 5, 2007 9:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who buys expensive art? Rich Men.
Why would they be interested in 'women's art?' They want art that supports their own power and view of the world.

Why are women artists trying to fit into this old- rich- republican -male- system?
Why are women artists trying to sell their art to rich men?

This is why Communist China forbid the 'old school' artists to paint...they were sent to the countryside to teach the workers how to paint. The revolutionary government wanted to show that anyone can create art. They wanted new art that supported the revolution.

ALL ART IS POLITICAL.

Why do you think American TV is full of such total crap?

Why do you think Diego Rivera's wonderful American-made mural was paid for and then torn down by the Rockefellers?
Does anyone really think it was because it was not 'good art'?
Ha.

Feminists-women artists-need to GET RADICAL-and stop trying to fit into the very system that enslaves us all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Who exploits who ?? Posted by: gellero
This would be more relevant if the art world was relevant
Posted by: kevred on Apr 6, 2007 10:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Playing a little devil's advocate here.

In my opinion, the high-end world of art is, sadly, irrelevant and so far removed from being a meaningful social factor that what does or doesn't happen in it is almost meaningless as well. Not to slight any presence of sexism anywhere in society, but the art world, in my eyes, has less influence, less meaning, and less purpose in society than ever before, and as such is useless as a barometer of the larger society.

Long gone are the days when modern art was truly transcending concepts of perception and understanding, when it could truly shake our concepts of what's normal and acceptable. We've long since broken out of all the classical modes of form, technique, presentation, cultural constraints, not to mention explored all four of our dimensions and used all our available technology. What's left seems to me like little more than nuance and subtlety compared to the truly paradigm-busting works of several decades past. Is is even possible any more for a painting, a sculpture, a drawing, a video installation, etc, to be truly revolutionary? I don't think so.

Of course there can still be great art, vastly skilled technique, visionary concepts. But outside the closed, elitist circle of "the art world", it really doesn't matter anymore. Warhol might have had people arguing in the streets over what is art, but if there's a Warhol today, the average person doesn't know or doesn't care. In the primary cultural discourse, art has been defined and moved on from.

To my eyes, the second half of the last century has seen, if anything, the ascendance of design and crafts as the closest thing to a replacement for the old notion of 'art'. The life of the culture has shifted from abstract notions to commerce, mass identity, personal aesthetics. Brands, logos, design styles have become our aesthetic; craft and local artists have become the faces and presence of art in our daily lives.

In short, design and craft have taken over from pure 'art' by being functional, which has become a primary concern and a much more powerful vehicle for influence than pure aesthetic theory possibly could. Fashion, technology, tools, household items become vehicles for expression themselves, a sort of art-by-proxy for the art consumer.

Where graphic and product design was once very dependent on popular awareness of fine art--using art as its aesthetic inspiration--now it is design and craft themselves which generate the trends, create the styles. Add to that the current cut-and-paste notion of creativity, from hip-hop sampling to retro kitsch, and art becomes little more than raw fuel for the designer, who is now the creator.

I'm sure there are a dozen arguments for why I'm wrong, and many examples of current art that I'm unaware of and not factoring in. If so, I'd love to hear them--I'm sure the truth is somewhere closer to the center than this (perhaps intentionally) polarizing view of things. But I feel such a lack of vitality in the cultural potency of contemporary art that it's hard for me to see how it can again become meaningful--or, in its removal from common society in almost every aspect--how it can be representative of a wider issue.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Art show of our own
Posted by: dame on Apr 6, 2007 12:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just like anything else, women must be heard in the art world.

Feminist art actually influenced a lot of men's art, and this should be recognized, too. How better than with an art show of our own.

Check out the post at http://www.damenation.blogspot.com .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My Feminist Art Work
Posted by: gellero on Apr 7, 2007 7:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have a piece of Feminist Art ( oil painting ) I bought at a benefit auction, under the influence of 3 Beefeater Matrinis and whatever else was lingering in my system. It's in the guest bedroom......I hate it....not for it's message, but it's style. Can you believe it??...me, an anti Alternet Libertarian Anarchist !! Will someone bid up the price and buy it off me?? I'll throw in a Cheret poster...help !!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: My Feminist Art Work Posted by: dame
LIVE BY THIS QUOTE-(YOU COULD DO WORSE)
Posted by: drricklippin on Apr 8, 2007 6:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The image of humanity emerging in the 21st century is that of the divine artist within all of us"- JUDITH CORNELL

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton, Pa

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]