Feminist art ‘the most important artistic movement since World War II’
By Jess McCabe | 27 July 2009, 15:50
This Washington Post article from the archives makes the case that the feminist art movement - particularly from the 1960s to ’70s and in the US - was the most important since WW2.
“Wack!” has the same mix of media you’d find in any contemporary biennial: Lots of video; installations of all kinds, ranging from a feminist “clubhouse” built from mattresses to a room-size sculpture made of sand-filled pantyhose; plenty of photography, staged as well as documentary; detritus and documents left over from performances and conceptual projects; a smattering of idea-driven painting.And the show has the same political charge and drive as a lot of very recent work in those media. Even some of the most innovative experiments of the 1960s, such as the conceptual abstraction of Sol LeWitt or the radical video and film works of Bruce Nauman and Michael Snow, had centered on asking questions about the nature of art.
The feminists cared less for art than for the important things it can be used to talk about.
And because gender affects just about every aspect of human experience, feminist artists found occasion to talk about almost everything. They dealt with topics that leading artists have been broaching ever since: bodies, class, race, consumerism, the art market, colonialism, political and cultural power.
Even when they borrowed approaches dreamed up by men, the feminists gave them new political heft. At first glance, Eleanor Antin’s 144 black-and-white shots of a female body, arranged in a 4-by-36 grid, look like plain-Jane conceptual art, perhaps addressing issues such as photography and form. In fact, Antin’s grid represents four daily shots of the artist herself, trimming her nude body down to a more “ideal” size through 36 days of dieting. It’s called “Carving: A Traditional Sculpture,” riffing on the ancient Greek idea of the male artist who whittles away at gross matter to find the ideal beauty — usually slender, female beauty — hidden deep inside.
Incidentally, the article was inspired by WACK! a feminist art exhibition in the US a few years ago - the site for the exhibition is still live and full of interesting stuff on feminist art and photos of some of the works.
Have your say
In order to keep this blog as a feminist and friendly space, comments will be subject to some rules. We do not seek to censor debate: the beauty of the internet is that anyone can set up their own blog or website to express their views.
- This blog is a safe and friendly space for feminists and feminist allies. Debate and critique are welcome where it is constructive and deepens analysis or understanding. Anti-feminist comments will not be approved. We get to decide what's anti-feminist.
- All comments must be approved by one of the bloggers. For this reason, there may be a delay before your comment appears.
- No sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, classist, ablist comments, comments which make personal attacks on any blogger or commenter, or comments that are otherwise deemed offensive by us will be posted.
- Trolls will be banned from commenting. We get to decide who is a troll.
- No anonymous comments - please feel free to use your real name or make one up, though.
- Be nice.
Feeds
Michael White said:
Feminist art (and art by women that might not have an easily seen political aspect) is the most important section of art today. It is so big that "Women in Art" is to big of a category to define. But feminist art has opened up new views and cultures into contemporary art. And that is good.
Posted on 28 July 2009 at 3:34 AM
HarpyMarx said:
Indeed there was an explosion of feminist art at that period but still it was at the margins. Great website btw. I know it is mainly US women artists but shame it missed out punk artist Linder.
Art historian, Linda Nochlin, wrote this in 1971 about women's art.
http://www.miracosta.cc.ca.us/home/gfloren/nochlin.htm
Posted on 28 July 2009 at 11:25 AM
Robin said:
"The feminists cared less for art than for the important things it can be used to talk about."
This phrase perfectly sums up my problem with this article. Can a body of work wholly focused on politics and message, without consideration for the craft or medium through which those messages are conveyed, even be called an "art movement"? Art these days seems to be all about what transgressive, rule-breaking point the artist is making. The work itself is just an excuse to talk about an idea, not a thing of substance in and of itself. When a narrative film or novel is infused with an overbearing and all consuming MESSAGE, it's dismissed as simplistic and manipulative. But fine art is lauded for such a goal. Just to be clear, I'm not saying this is a problem with feminism, and it's wonderful that people can express their beliefs and ideas through a visual medium. But if the artists themselves don't care about their art, why should we?
"It’s called “Carving: A Traditional Sculpture,” riffing on the ancient Greek idea of the male artist who whittles away at gross matter to find the ideal beauty — usually slender, female beauty — hidden deep inside."
Actually, the Greeks were far more concerned with male beauty than female, and, for that matter, the women portrayed in Greek statues tend to be considerably more full-bodied than the current "ideal" female.
Posted on 29 July 2009 at 6:09 AM