Presentation in phases
Sculpture II
State of the (Feminist) Art
The term “postfeminist” is a misnomer; it suggests that we are somehow living in an age beyond feminism, a time in which all the battles have been won and the old regimes overthrown. In a March 2007 article for The Washington Post, staff writer Blake Gopnik reviewed the opening of the retrospective “WACK!,” all the while speaking of feminist art in the past tense, as if the art and artists of perhaps the largest and most prominent feminist art review in recent history (or ever) were merely the dusty ruins of an obsolete dynasty. While Gopnik admits that the movement was in fact the most important in art since World War II, he repeatedly speaks of it as something that is definitively over.
Then there are those who take a very different view of things. According to The Guardian (May 07), 2007 was the year or the “feminaissance,” in which a massive resurgence in the cultural relevance of feminist art occurred. It saw a confluence of feminist-related art projects that are carrying over into 2008; on March 23, 2007, the Elizabeth A. Sackler Center for Feminist Art opened, MOCA initiated “WACK! Art and the Feminist Revolution,” and multiple other projects are underway at CalArts and the Feminist Art Project at Rutgers University. WACK!”, a retrospective of some of the most important feminist art of the 60’s and 70’s, is significant not only for its part in the “feminaissance,” but for bringing together an immense collection of incredibly powerful art, essentially for the first time on such a large scale (over 450 works by various artists) (find reference).
Art, like any other manifestation of culture, does not occur in a vacuum, of course; Viv Groskop attributes much of the resurgence to the relevance of activist art of the 60’s and 70s in a time where women’s reproductive rights are increasingly challenged and a need for revolution is again at hand (3). Also continuing since time immemorial are women’s body issues, as evidenced by the charges of sanctioned anorexia within the fashion world and Hollywood. There have also been questions concerning feminist backlash, presented in magazines like Bitch, as well as books such as (….’s) Female Chauvinist Pigs, a backlash which would necessitate a new wave of reactionary art, as well as another look at the great work of the past. A more art-world-centered view presents the current increase in interest to a “timely confluence of efforts by several curators and philanthropists,” whose efforts have in turn generated a more blatant recognition of feminist influences that have always existed, but have rarely been explicitly acknowledged (Taylor 2).
Seminal feminist scholars Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar argued that male writers (and this carries over to artists as well) fight to surpass and supplant the previous generation of writers in an Oedipal struggle. Rather than attempt to outdo the earlier creators, women artists struggle to create a tradition of their own, since they do not have the same strength of tradition that male writers/artists have. Gopnik brings up this same issue when discussing the necessity of feminist art; women artists were not asserting themselves in the mode of “art for arts sake” but examining important and meaningful issues and thus rewriting the rules rather than merely competing for a place in the art world. Of course, the problem with Gopnik’s article is that he constantly refers to feminist art in the past tense, as if it is indeed over. Near the end of the article he states that “[f]eminism can be thought of as the crucial movement of the recent past…” despite the many artists that still work within a particularly feminist framework. This is not to say that the feminist movement was the only one to change the rules, since every movement in art reflects social and political changes throughout history, but their alteration of tradition opened doors for artists who had been ignored for generations.
The Center for Feminist Art is important for many reasons, but two specific aspects of the center are particularly vital. First, the center is the first to be devoted to specifically feminist art, not just the art of women in general. Second, the center has provided a permanent home for Judy Chicago’s immensely influential “megasculpture” “The Dinner Party,” where it has a gallery all to itself. Judy Chicago is perhaps one of the best known artists of feminism’s second wave, and the installation of her most significant work at the Brooklyn museum signals an increased level of professional recognition of feminist art, even if it is past work rather than that which is being generated today.
Retrospectives and the installation of past works are important, but it is more important to note that feminist art has never stopped since its genesis in the 1960’s. Artists who are considered members of the second wave are still working today, and inspiring new artists and activists. The Guerilla Girls, known for their in-your-face protest style art in the 1980s, are still actively creating art and generating havoc through the fine arts of sarcasm and embarrassment of the establishment. By utilizing public participation, through billboards, posters, and public forums, the Guerilla Girls work to maintain awareness; they also focus on issues that go beyond the art world, like Hollywood hypocrisy, politics and health (Riazada 2). Utilizing much of the same techniques as the Guerillas Girls, the Dyke Action Machine (DAM!) originated in the 1990’s to fight what they term “lesbophobia” and they continue to do so today. In 1994, the group turned to technology in the form of the internet, producing online broadcasts like Dyke T.V., and in 2001 they created the website “Gynadome” (Riazada 4). One of t the newest generation of activist art groups within the feminist realm is the Toxic Titties, who utilize performance as well as visual art to continue the work started by their predecessors.
Groups like DAM!, in which sexuality shares the floor with gender, also illustrate another important aspect of feminist art that has contributed to its continuation: feminism has never been just about gender inequality. Sexuality, race, and class, among other issues, have always played an important role in feminist art, and the continued prominence of these issues in American society is yet another reason feminist art has continued to function and maintain an important place in the world.
Aside from activist-oriented groups, there are individuals who retain a prominent place in the art world and work in a decidedly feminist context. Art historian Linda Nochlin believes that the leading sculptor in the U.S. today is Louise Bourgeois, who is an avid feminist; many people, however, buy and praise her work without acknowledging its feminist aspects. This, Nochlin asserts, is a perfect example of how “a lot of women’s art has been accepted, but an awareness of the feminist edge [has lagged behind] (Taylor 2)”. Bourgeois …
(Conclusion pending)
Images:
Judy Chicago’s “Dinner Party” (duh), the central focus of the Elizabeth A. Sackler center
Louise Bourgeois “Woven Child”
Louise Bourgeois “Spiders” New York City
Poster created by the Guerilla Girls for 200o Republican convention.