The recent trends in curatorial practice have
popularised the idea of all women exhibitions as curatorial activism. In 2007
the Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles held an exhibition entitled Global
Feminism. At the same time The Brooklyn Museum exhibited a touring
exhibition of all women art called Wack! to launch the Elizabeth A.
Sackler Center for Feminist Art. Three years later the Museum of
Modern Art published an epic text Modern Women illustrating every work
by a woman contained in its collection. To coincide with this publication, solo
and group exhibitions featuring women artists flooded the gallery throughout
the year. A more recent and localised example is the Queensland Art
Gallery’s, Gallery of Modern Art 2012 exhibition Contemporary Australia:
Women showcasing 56 women artists.
After years of criticism and protest regarding the
patriarchal hierarchy of the art world these exhibitions would appear to be a
breakthrough outcome. However, one has to question whether they really
contribute to the equal representation of women, or if they merely perpetuate
the male dominated metanarrative by segregating women as a subcategory of the
arts. This essay will explore this issue by analyzing three exhibitions.
Beginning with the 1970
Whitney Museum Sculpture Annual and the protest action that surrounded it, moving on
to exploring the current status of exhibiting artists on a national scale and
analyzing the QAGOMA exhibition Contemporary Australia: Women then
honing in on a local level, analyzing a recent exhibition Addition 3 by
the Brisbane Artist Run Initiative, Addition Gallery. Through these analyses we
will be able to understand the benefits and disadvantages of all women
exhibitions as curatorial activism.
The early 1970s was the pinnacle of feminist art activist
work. From the earliest known feminist art program, started by Judy Chicago at Fresno State
University in 1971 to Joyce Aiken’s
all women Gallery 25 in 1973 (Meyer 2009). Protest demanding the equal
representation of women artists was alive in the arts. During this time Linda
Nochlin’s great feminist critique was published in ArtNews. This essay
attracted heated discussions and in 1973 Thomas B. Hess and Elizabeth C. Baker
published Art and Sexual Politics which included ten replies to
Nochlin's essay by well known female artists. In the crossfire of this dynamic
debate lay The Whitney Museum of American Art, and in particular, there
Sculpture Annual of 1970. This exhibition, and the protest that surrounded it
is a consistent talking point for these women throughout the text. In Bakers
contribution she states:
“There are increasing vociferous and
organized protests from women artists ... a group of them demanded that the
upcoming Whitney sculpture annual include fifty percent women... [The]
sculpture annual opened in December 1970 with a representation of about twenty
percent women artists - 22 out of 103 sculptors invited to show. It represented
something of a victory for the protesters: the preceding year’s Whitney annual
… had about five percent women” (1973, p. 108-113).
Quoting the statistics is all well and good, but what
do they really mean for the internal thinking of our institutions.
Statistically speaking, in the late 20th century there were more female art
students than male. In 1949 Elaine de Kooning gave a lecture entitled, Women
fill the art schools; men do the painting. On the topic of the Whitney show
she commented, ‘It’s ridiculous for women to demand to be included on the basis
of some kind of democratic procedure or statistics’ (1973, p. 61). That said,
the statistic of 5% female artists for the previous Whitney annual leaves us
with two options. That female artists were being under represented by large
institutions or that the quality of work being produced by women was not to the
same standard as men. Baker goes on to elaborate and speculate on what this
statistical surge means.
“If the representation of women in the
1970 Whitney show suddenly shot up fourfold, what did that prove? That if you
push museums hard enough you get what you want? Or that there are plenty of
good women artists, but they need political support before they can receive
their due? Or, on the other hand... a surrender by the museum in the face of
pressure and a consequent dilution of standards?” (1973, p. 114).
In response to de Koonings comments regarding the
Whitney show, Rosalyn Drexler said, ‘I don’t think it’s ridiculous for women to
demand that they be represented in equal numbers at the Whitney. You have to
start somewhere’ (1973, p. 61-62). And this is a fair point. In any activist
action or protest movement, the issues at hand need to be brought to attention
in some monumental way. Protest action is not always a rational response. It is
heavily emotional in its drive, and as Nochlin states at the very start of her
essay, ‘While the recent upsurge of feminist activity in this country has
indeed been a liberating one, its force has been chiefly emotional, personal,
psychological and subjective” (1971, p. 145).
So with the groundwork laid by the women liberal
activists of the 1970s, where are we some 40 years later? Contemporary blogger
and activist, CoUNTess suggests we are not too much further along. Starting the
study in 2008, her posts center around achieving gender equality in the
Australian art world. Many assume this would no longer be an issue in the 2nd
decade of the 21st century, but her data illustrates that inequality is still a
problem affecting contemporary women artists.
“A third of
artists exhibiting in CAOS galleries... are women, yet women make up two thirds
of art school graduates. That means that a female graduate has a much less
chance of getting recognition and remuneration than a male graduate... women
artists make up 60-65% of the artist population... yet get 33-40% of the pie,
while male artists who make up 33-40% of the artist population get 60-65% of
the pie” (CoUNTess 2012).
So unequal representation is still an issue in the art
industry, but what is being done to correct it? In the footsteps of the 1970
feminist art movement, the All Women exhibition has become a popular curatorial
practice. In 2012, QAGOMA jumped on the bandwagon with their exhibition Contemporary
Australia: Women. It was the second installation of the triannual Contemporary
Australia exhibition which exhibited 100% women and showcased 56 visual
artists. The inaugural exhibition Optimism was statistically in favor of
men exhibiting 34 male artists and 21 female artists, along with 5
collaborations. Around 62% male and 38% female (CoUNTess 2012). In her
catalogue essay, curator Julie Ewington stated “Why present an exhibition
entirely composed of work by Australian women? Why here and why now? Because it
is time.” (2012, p. 15).
Some of the criticism that this show attracted
centered around it’s blanket lack of self-recognition as a feminist exhibition.
Ewington comments on ‘the F word’ in her essay, stating it’s use was avoided in
order to maintain ‘a certain openness, even impartiality, about how women are
working today’ (2012, p. 22).
“Though a welcome event with a feminist
background, this is not a historical show and GOMA eschewed the word feminism
in its branding. It is, rather, a survey curated by Julie Ewington of some
contemporary art practice by Australian women whose name accurately advertises
its content, unlike that of GOMA's 2010 show, 2lst Century: Art in the First
Decade, which included nearly 70% men” (Fraser 2012, p. 36).
Along with Fraser, many critics regard this as a
missed opportunity on Ewington’s part. This exhibition provided a real
opportunity for curatorial activism and it appears that Ewington surrendered to
the pressures of the institution to produce a commercially viable,
politically correct, public exhibition. But while all women exhibitions
like this do hold great promise of activism, one has to question whether they
are the right approach. The other point of popular criticism for this show was
it’s lack of cohesion. ‘These all-gender shows
can also be criticised for marginalising the artists they exhibit and women
artists as a whole’ (CoUNTess 2012). Female artists in this exhibition were
working across such a broad range of mediums with an equally wide spectrum of
concepts. In many cases, the only thing linking one artist to another was their
gender.’ In her response to Nochlin’s essay, Sculptor Sylvia Stone commented
‘I’m quite aware of the quota system for women in galleries. God forbid that
they should have “a gallery full of women”’ (1973, p. 91).
All women exhibitions such as Contemporary
Australia: Women are a slippery slope to tread. While they could be used
for curatorial activism and protest in order to achieve the equal
representation of female artists, they can also be used to conceal some
undesirable statistics in the gallery's annual report. They also run the risk
of further marginalising women artists as a subcategory. With it’s inability to
present any consequential argument in the relation to gender equality in the
arts, sadly Contemporary Australia: Women seems to fall into the latter
category.
The final exhibition I will look at is Addition 3.
Held by local Brisbane artist run initiative Addition Gallery, the
exhibition was curated by emerging, self processed feminist curator Lisa
Bryan-Brown. The exhibition was a direct response to the unequal representation
of female artists as well as an exercise in breaking down the perceived
negative connotations of feminist art. With this agenda, Addition 3
definitely falls into the category of activist curatorship. Bryan-Brown
commented in a panel discussion that ‘Art is a useful medium for critiquing any
sort of social dialogue’ (Bryan-Brown 2012). Statistically speaking, ARI’s are
where women artists have the best fighting chance. In a study conducted by
Bryan-Brown, she found 45.9% of exhibiting artists in Brisbane ARI’s are
female. This figure is slightly distorted due to the all women ARI Level.
Without this distortion the figure drops to 40% female. The interesting thing
about Bryan-Brown’s exhibition was that it was not all women. Bryan-Brown
included the work of gay indigenous artist Dale Harding. Working with textiles
and craft, Hardings work embraces many of the feminist tropes, and his
background also embraces the feminist ideologies of eliminating gender, race or
ethnicity bias in the arts.
“I sought to counter this [negative]
perception through curatorially activist means, challenging audiences’
assumptions about what constitutes a feminist artwork and demonstrating the
broadness and variety of feminist art practices active within Brisbane’s
contemporary arts community (Bryan Brown 2012, p. 15)
Bryan-Brown represents a new generation of feminist
activists who are well educated about the efforts of the women who came before
them but are also able to recognise the sometimes exclusive nature of feminism.
‘Feminism is many things, but it is not dead. Internationally and locally,
feminism thrives’ (Bryan-Brown 2012, p. 3). In a modern society where ideals of
equality are slowly being achieved, these young contemporaries are able to take
a step back from the emotionally charged protest work and look at broadening
the landscape of their activism to work towards achieving equality for all
minorities.
The history of feminist activism has been a highly
passionate one. It is thanks to the passion of these activists that women of
contemporary society enjoy so much freedom and liberty. However in the arts,
gender equality is still an issue present today. All women exhibitions such as Contemporary
Australia: Women offer a very promising means of curatorial activism in
order to achieve this agenda but they need to be executed correctly, with an
awareness of the possible negative effects on the cause. Without the pressures
and confides of large institutions, curatorial activists on a small, local ARI
level approach their work with a confidence and drive that would be well
positioned within the larger state galleries. It is evident that the road to
equality is long and challenging. With the current taboos surrounding feminist
activism, it is easy to let the topic die. But if all curators on any level,
approach their practice with an ever present consciousness and integrity, we
will continue traveling that road.
Reference List
Addition 3 - Panel Discussion
2012, podcast, Addition Gallery, 6 October,
<http://additiongallery.com/discussion/addition3>.
Bryan-Brown, L 2012, Being a Feminist Curator: How
curatorial practice can contribute to furthering contemporary feminist discourse
within a local arts community, BFA Honours Exegesis, Griffith University.
Bryan-Brown, L, Cuffe,
A, Ansaldo, C, Fox, F, Scott, N, Dooris, S & Nuss, T 2012, Addition
3, Small House Books, Brisbane.
CoUNTess 2012, CoUNTess: Women count in the
artworld, weblog, viewed 7 May 2013, <http://countesses.blogspot.com.au/>.
Ewington, J 2012, Contemporary Australia: Women,
Queensland Art Gallery Gallery of Modern Art, Brisbane.
Fraser, V 2012, 'To the person who said
feminism is over as though she was right', Art Monthly Australia, vol. 250.
pp. 34-38.
Hess, T & Baker, E 1973, Art and Sexual
Politics: Why have there been no great women artists?, Macmillan
Publishing, New York.
Meyer, L 2009, A
Studio of Their Own: The Legacy of the Fresno Feminist Art Experiment,
viewed 14 May 2013, <http://www.astudiooftheirown.org/legacy.html>.
Nochlin, L 1972, Women, Art and Power and Other
Essays, Thames and Hudson, London.
Wilson, A 2012, 'Women
explore the themes of life in contemporary Australia', The Australian,
23 April, p. 14.