FEMINISM IN ART
|
FEMINISM WITHIN THE ART WORLD At the beginning of the 1960’s,
the art world, as with many other sectors of business and society, was
undeniably male dominated. Dealers and
curators were predominantly male who in their turn perpetuated a tradition of
male artists, a frustrating trend for many female artists of the time. Women were often excluded from major
museum showings and exhibitions, thereby restricting their access to the
publicity necessary for success. In
1959-60 the Museum of Modern Art in New York held an exhibition called
‘Sixteen Americans’. The showing
heralded the arrival of a more conceptual form of art; a move away from the
abstract expressionism of the 1950’s and introduced the leading exponents of
this new wave. It is interesting and
perhaps unsurprising to note that only one of the sixteen artists exhibited
was a woman.
|
|
|
Sky Cathedral, 1958. Louise Nevelson (1900-1988) |
Her name was Louise Nevelson,
who although admired by feminists herself said ‘The creative
concept has no sex or is perhaps feminine in nature’.[1] Consequent to this belief her work was not overtly feminist. Feminist art is defined as having
political aspects ‘exposing the
myths of a patriarchal society, in particular the social construction of femininity’.[2] It could be argued that there
was some discrimination against women artists within the world
of art but particularly against those with a feminist
message. Artists such as Louise
Nevelson and Bridget Riley were rare in
terms of being two of the few commercially successful female
artists in the sixties, however; successful feminist artists were even rarer. |
|
MIRIAM SCHAPIRO
Historically, the arts that women are traditionally associated with e.g. weaving, sewing, quilt making are seen more as domestic chores than art forms of any worth. Artists such as Miriam Schapiro tried to provoke a re evaluation of this point of view by focusing on the female experience. Schapiro uses textiles such as quilts, stitching and buttons in an effort to highlight the significance of women in the history of art, calling the works ‘femmages’.
|
|
This emphasis on the female experience was a common trend
amongst feminine artists of the late sixties and seventies. The aim was to lend credence to the work of
what they saw as the female labourer.
As Schapiro said, ‘I felt that by
making a large canvas, magnificent in color, design, and proportion, filling
it with fabrics and quilt blocks, I could raise a housewife’s lowered
consciousness’.[3] |
|
A critique of the Miriam
Schapiro retrospective at the Lowe Museum: ‘The ‘femmages’,
whatever their meanings and ‘larger’ implications, are not interesting as
art. And I am puzzled by the equation
of ‘womanly’ material with feminism.
How does that work? I thought
feminism was an effort (which I find altogether admirable, by the way) by
women and sympathetic men to put women on an equal footing with men. Doesn’t the use of lace and doilies just
point right back to woman-as –domestic?
And if the idea is to raise the art status of lace and doilies, why
shoe-horn them right into the male-created, male-dominated form of modernist
art-making? I don’t get it.’[4] Walter Darby
Bannard, Professor of the Department of Art and Art History at the University
of Miami.
|
Miriam Schapiro |
|
This was the kind of criticism
that feminist artists faced and on some grounds it has validity. Political feminism as a rule aimed to gain
equality with men at a legal level and the repeated reference to a seemingly
domestic past, in the eyes of many, did little to achieve this. Feminist artists such as Susan Hiller
found that within the British women’s movement there was initially little
support for the cultural over the political, art was seen as having little use
or relevance to the cause. There was also
the argument that the fundamental nature of the women’s’ movement, organised
on such a structured, democratic basis, belied the idea of genius, the artist
as an individual and art as an individuals expression. The tendency towards collaborative art was
often in fact an attack of this belief, a counter to the perceived careerist,
and commercial aims of male art. The
Womanhouse project by the Feminist Art Program of the California Institute of
the Arts is the most obvious example of this collective work.
|
|
However equality was only possible once the foundations
of the traditionally male dominated society had been shaken. Feminist artists looked to the past to try
and valorise their social role. In some
cases this resulted in the over emphasis of the importance of relatively
mediocre careers in order to establish some kind of significant tradition of
female art. Primarily though, it
served to explore the history of women. The increasing feminine consciousness
in art provoked the study, amongst art historians, of a feminine contribution
and resulted in a greater general awareness of women in history. By 1971 Linda Nochlin had written the
essay ‘Why have there been no great women artists?’ In it she looks not for the female equivalents of Rembrandt or
Picasso but rather the reasons why women could not attain a comparable
position in the art world. She
concludes that it is due to the constrictions of society, that denied women
access to training and publicity that prevented their success. The women’s movement that was gathering
during the late sixties changed the attitudes of many critics such as Lucy
Lippard, who said it had ‘undermined all her inherited certainties
about both art and women’.[5] Anguissola Sofonisba, born in Cremona in about 1530 was
one of the first women painters to gain international renown, acknowledged by
Van Dyck, Michelangelo and Phillip II of Spain. However her paintings were restricted to subjects appropriate
for a woman, mainly portraiture. |
Anguissola Sofonisba, Self portrait |
|
|
JUDY CHICAGO
The feminist and artist Judy Chicago was one of the first and foremost protagonists of the Women’s Movement in America. As a student, she had been amazed at the relatively little attention given to women in history and having completed a master of arts at UCLA in 1964 attempted to rectify society’s omission through her art. Her changing style over a career spanning 40 years is evidence of her focus on content based art, the form following. Each piece carries the message of her feminist philosophy which has often sparked controversy and debate. For Chicago, art is a tool and she quickly recognised its power as a ‘vehicle for intellectual transformation and social change.’ [6] She is credited with establishing the concept of a centralised focus within women’s art which recognises an established female imagery. In terms of her own art this means the exploration of the ‘symbolic meanings available within (as well as taboos against) the forms of the vagina.’[7] Her experiences in the west coast art world during the 1960s drove her to establish in 1970 the first feminist art program at Fresno State College, CA. and in 1975 she wrote down these experiences in ‘Through the Flower’. |
|
‘Because we are
denied knowledge of our history, we are deprived of standing upon each others
shoulders and building upon each other’s hard earned accomplishments.’[8] |
|
|
Miriam Schapiro and Judy Chicago founded the Feminist Art
Program in 1971. It was the
culmination of their experiences as female artists during the sixties. They felt excluded from and prejudiced
against within the workings of the art world so they decided to work outside
of it. The program aimed to provide a
forum for mutually minded artists and a showcase for their work. The work produced was seen to be artistically
significant by the feminist movement because it ‘offered important points of identification
for women through which to orient their feminism to an artistic practice’.[9] Their first project was called Womanhouse, a collaboration of female artists who transformed a derelict Hollywood mansion into a series of scenes depicting the female experience. The renovation was very much a part of the art as women took on the typically male jobs of building work and repair. It was meant as much for women as for men, a promotion of confidence for the former and an attack of the latter; ultimately a celebration of feminism. In entirety it paints a depressing, ominous and claustrophobic picture of the life of a middle class American house wife, trapped in the confines of social traditions and expectations as represented by the opulent house.
|
|
|
One of the rooms in the house was
transformed into a woman’s bedroom; Leah’s Room. When exhibited, a performance artist sat at the dressing table
repeatedly applying, removing and reapplying make up. It identified the female role as a sex
object and explored the pressure put upon women to improve themselves,
requiring the use of make up to hide signs of aging and imperfection. The Women’s Movement was instrumental in
pushing new forms of expression and performance art suited the fulfilment of many
of its creative and political ideas.
It offered new scope for shock tactics and of course was not a
commodity in the same way as art upon paper, thereby avoiding the perceived
patriarchal market and male commercial art.
The legacy however remains in photo documentation and the contribution
to artistic progress. |
|
Menstruation Bathroom was another room in the house. As Judy Chicago had done in previous work, the aim was to bring the female experience to light and consequently raise both awareness and appreciation amongst its audience, especially self appreciation amongst women. However this lead to much criticism as such domestic, inherently feminine issues were not seen as sufficiently erudite to be the subjects of true art. In order to be successful a woman artist had to produce masculine art, especially during the sixties when minimalist styles prevailed. Here the artists were refuting this and were trying to break taboos, publicly displaying the unmentionable. |
|
|
|
Sheet Closet shows the restrictions
of fulfilling domestic duties. The
female role is seen as a caring and nurturing one and Womanhouse tries to
expose the myth that it is a natural state, showing the amount of work or
‘labour’ necessary to succeed.
Feminist artists thought that as women, they would be expected to
produce images of themselves as a form of female narcissism. So by taking the female image and
corrupting or twisting it they made an even bolder and more shocking
statement. |
|
The question is, how successful were these early
initiators of the Women’s’ Movement?
The very fact that women like Judy Chicago and Miriam Schapiro were
only the start of an entire movement that went on throughout the 1970s shows
that their work had some affect.
Whether through the provocation of controversy or simply sharing
information at an attempt at education, their efforts were not in vain as
they were adopted and evolved by others.
However the existence of feminist artist groups today, such as the
Guerrilla Girls shows that some female artists still feel it necessary to
protest. Judy Chicago herself
recognises that more has to be achieved before sufficient equality is gained. It is true that it is now far more
acceptable for women artists to concentrate on essentially feminine subject
matter, many taboos have been broken.
However, despite an increase in the number of female artists at a
grass roots level they are still a distinct minority in terms of museum
showings and major exhibitions. These
artists of the sixties showed that protest was worthwhile and to a certain
extent effective but there is more that could still be done.
|