The most visible forms of feminist activism in the mainstream of the art world (those leading and hegemonic practices and institutions) have been in protest around two forms:-
1) collecting and publishing statistics about discrimination in the art world in terms of the under-representation of women artists in galleries and museums
or
2) organising protests about sexism in the art world
Publishing figures highlighting the lack of women artists selected for major national/international exhibitions has also been a common form of protest since the 1970s. The Guerrilla Girls’ posters have been extremely effective in these campaigns since they started in 1985 ‘to raise the conscience of the art world’ and show how museum and gallery selection procedures often discriminate against women. (One of their texts is in the ebook, and you should visit their website, if you don’t know about their work, past or present). Many other groups have done the same locally and nationally (see Lesson 2 in the free course).
These kinds of protests have focused on statistics or percentages to draw attention to the position of women artists as creative producers. The Guerrilla Girls, amongst many others, have often attempted to publicly name and shame individual directors by pointing to how their institutional practices discriminate against women and ethnic minorities. The most typical and insidious repeated response (from museum directors and other artists) was that Art was a matter of Quality, and this conception of Quality over-rode any question regarding the gender of the maker. These claims have been accompanied by statements that the gender of a maker has nothing to do with the production of Art.
In these protests, the figures demonstrating the under-representation of women are often regarded as “speaking for themselves”, or read as “absolutes”, rather than snapshots of systematic and unconscious bias. In this lesson, I am proposing that we examine the arguments a little harder and consider what is effective in these protests, either as actions of “solidarity” or in encouraging greater public awareness of the need for further change in the situation of women artists or generally in terms of sexism in the art world.
ARCO Manifesto (2005)
ARCO manifesto was written at an art fair, ARCO in 2005. It was written as an open letter.
It was initiated as a statement prepared by the organiser of a series of seminars at the art fair on feminism, Xabier Arakistain, the series was called: “Equality policies between men and women within the art world: Designing strategies”
In a detailed article, he outlines how the manifesto came about and how it influenced his future work as Director of Cultural Center Montehermoso Kulturunea in Vitoria-Gasteiz (Basque, Spain) as a feminist art institution, 2008 – 2011.
My proposal [for ARCO] was initially based on two data: one being that women were (and are) a majority in Fine Arts Faculties and two, that in spite of this, the presence of female artists in the programs and collections of art centers and museums continued (and still continues) to be minimal. Moreover, I related these data to two other issues: firstly, that supranational bodies such as the EU and UN had been recommending member states to adopt measures aimed at correcting “gender” inequality for years—measures such as the application of gender quota policies that were producing positive results both in the political and business realms; and secondly, the fact that these measures were not being implemented in the field of art and did not even seem to affect it.
Xabier Arakistain ‘Reflections on a Feminist Model for the Field of Art: Montehermoso, 2008–2011‘
The policies of the EU and UN, he is referring to is “gender-mainstreaming as the route to equality”. This was first proposed at the UN conference for Women in Nairobi in 1985 and finally adopted in Beijing in 1995. It was developed as policy by the European Union in 1998 as:
The (re)organisation, improvement, development and evaluation of policy processes, so that a gender equality perspective is incorporated in all policies at all levels and at all stages, by the actors normally involved in policy-making.
And in the United Nations, in 1997, the ambition was made clear that:-
gender equality is the overarching and long-term development goal, while gender mainstreaming is a set of specific, strategic approaches as well as technical and institutional processes adopted to achieve that goal. Gender mainstreaming integrates gender equality in national public and private organizations, in central or local policies, and in services and sectoral programmes.
These policy mandates are wide-ranging. During the 1990s and 2000s, they became aligned with a certain neoliberal view of involving women in decision-making activities, through the appointment of women to boards and to attempts to increase women’s representation in government posts or committees as experts. This has seen a shift away from equal opportunities which dominated the debate in the 1970s and 1980s, towards building capacity in women as middle-managers or in leadership positions (an extension of the liberal view dominates in the idea women’s numbers should increase across all professions).
As asked in Lesson 2 of the basic course, what would equality look like in the art world?
How would an equal distribution of funds to male/female artists, equal representation of genders on boards/committees, equal programming of men/women, equal purchasing policies in public collections, create a different art world?
As Xabier Arakistain notes the discussions in the ARCO meeting centred on whether a largely state-funded and supported section, the arts, in Spain, would support “gender quotas in programs and acquisitions of art works from art centers and museums as an adequate tool of ensuring equal opportunities for women in the field of art”. In 2007, gender equality did become a policy initiative in Spain at the level of local government.
There were dissenting views in the ARCO debates, namely, those who thought that these types of “quota policies would not solve the problem of women’s discrimination in the art field, as this is a broader structural matter that requires a complete transformation of social and art institutions in order to eliminate their sex bias”. Accusations that this supported the institutionalisation of feminism were also raised.
Lourdes Mendez, a close colleague and long-term collaborator with Arakistain on Feminist Perspectives on Art Production, an annual conference series in Spain since 2008 also known as VIVA!, raises several important arguments in this debate.
Is gender as a category itself as a valid analytical category within its own cultural contexts?
Is it a question of numbers or institutional accommodation of women only?
Without a critical reflexivity which would question the boundaries of women’s art, women’s studies or gendered critical discourses about art, would an equality of females-males really change anything?
[Lourdes Mendez argues] ‘the illusion that the thorny problems regarding the difference/hierarchy between sexes and sexualities can be solved legally has become so deeply rooted that we tend to forget that the inequality which affects us as ‘social’ women—the same as that affecting gays and lesbians—is a basic pillar of a social, economic, and symbolic order reproduced by states, the laws they produce, and the scientific and social theorizations related to these issues, all of which are institutionally retained’
Other dissenting voices came from other speakers. Please read these statements and comment on what you consider to be important in this debate:
Is it a question of numbers: of quantity, not quality?
Is the presence of women providing a change in atmosphere?
Is the presence of women in authority providing a sense of what women are capable of?
Amelia Varcerel argues, for example:
Quantity is closely related to quality. Parity means half . . . also regarding excellence which occurs for a good reason, i.e. the fact that women also possess it.
What do you think of the quote from her other article: “El derecho al mal” (“The right to evil”), in Viejo Topo September, 1980?
We do not then assert our own evil – according to which we have been defined – or assert, either, the good which has been attributed to us. It is precisely your evil that we assert. This is a truly universal feminist moral discourse, which does not intend to show excellence but to assert the right not to be excellent. Just as your moral Logos has always operated.
Art fairs bring together curators, directors of museums, artists, gallerists, critics and collectors. To make this protest in this context, where the commerce of art is central to the activities, was an important statement of “feminist solidarity” (as Ute Meta Bauer asserts in the article) in spite of disagreements.
The letter highlights “gender blindness”, “scandalous exclusion of women artists” and affirms the need for gender quotas.
The letter outlines the situation of discrimination in different exhibitions and calls for:
1.- an expert group be set up that will study, analyse and diagnose the current situation.
2.- as many measures as may be required be adopted in order that women artists may work within an impartial context. In the first place, that they should be involved in the purchase policies of the public Museums and in the scheduling of exhibitions.
3.- the application of firm feminist policies in the field of art be included in the setting up of quotas.
The statement was signed by many key curators and artists in the Spanish art scene, as well as some international guests.
While Xabier Arakistain and many of the other people who signed this letter have a consistent record of working on feminist initiatives and developing feminist exhibitions, conference series, retrospectives of women artists and publishing and speaking widely on this subject perhaps this action asking for change needs to be compared to the consistent work of MAV in Spain and their letters to government.
See n.paradoxa’s article on MAV and their letters of complaint to government: Marián López Fernandez Cao, ‘Mujeres en las Artes Visuales (MAV)/ Women in the Visual Arts: Seven Years of Work’ n.paradoxa vol.38 (July 2016) pp.74-80
Will one statement change anything?
How did the curators who signed it take forward their research/programmes into this issue?
Can it be said to have made a difference?
Wouldn’t it need to be part of a sustained campaign?
Included at the end of the ebook is a second manifesto from Xavier Arakistain and his colleagues in Spain: MANIFIESTO NONEINNIET!!!! (2018)
This last manifesto updates the ARCO manifesto to examine the current state of accommodation under neo-liberal management of the art world, where partial accommodation and tokenism abound. It outlines a set of strident positions where these compromises should no longer be tolerated. Please consider this and maybe comment on this in the forums.
We are Not Surprised (WANS) October 2017
Not Surprised was an open letter, not strictly a manifesto.
There is a London group of WANS visible on facebook (active until 2019).
The group set up a website and have continued their actions. Their original website has lapsed or some of its pages have been hacked, but the first open letter is available to read in other sources online. It was circulated on:
e-flux at https://www.e-flux.com/announcements/162059/we-are-not-surprised/
The letter was translated into Albanian, French, Portuguese, and Spanish.
The title refers back to a line in Jenny Holzer’s Truisms (1980):
‘Abuse of Power Comes as NO Surprise.’
This open letter was provoked by the actions of Knight Landesman, co-publisher of Artforum, who was facing a legal case for sexual harassment, but it was also for greater recognition of sexual harassment and sexism in the artworld. It was about more than this incident.
The open letter was quickly signed by 3,000 women artists and curators and critics in the art world. The women signatories were mainly in the New York art world. This represents the focus of Artforum’s advertising and content.
As a result of the impending court case for sexual harassment and the protests against him by between 9 – 20 other women, Landesman resigned, but he remained a co-owner of ArtForum. He was taken to court by Amanda Schmitt, a former employee, initially for sexual harassment from 2012. Other women including Michelle Kuo, the editor in chief, and two other prominent staffers also resigned from the journal, distancing themselves from any support for the journal, if this was the attitude of its owners or management: these included senior editor Prudence Peiffer and advertising department manager, Elizabeth Grosser.
This court case (brought in 2017) has dragged on into 2020 and went through several stages of presentation of evidence and dismissal of claims. Read the latest report on HyperAllergic, 3 Jan 2020. As the New York Times (2 Jan 2020) also makes clear, the content of the case has changed from sexual harassment charges against Landesmann (which lapsed after 5 years) to a complaint brought by Amanda Schmitt about the retaliation of the journal against her for raising her concerns.
David Velasco became editor of ArtForum, and released the following statement on accepting his new role:
“The art world is misogynist. Art history is misogynist. Also racist, classist, transphobic, ableist, homophobic. I will not accept this. I know my colleagues here agree. Intersectional feminism is an ethics near and dear to so many on our staff. Our writers too. This is where we stand. There’s so much to be done. Now, we get to work.”
While this is a frank admission of the current state of affairs, and an endorsement of intersectional feminism, what has been done to change misogyny (woman-hating) and racism in the art world?
Has Artforum been a better employer?
Has it changed its editorial policy?
As the letter states:
Many institutions and individuals with power in the art world espouse the rhetoric of feminism and equity in theory, often financially benefitting from these flimsy claims of progressive politics, while preserving oppressive and harmful sexist norms in practice. Those in power ignore, excuse, or commit everyday instances of harassment and degradation, creating an environment of acceptance of and complicity in many more serious, illegal abuses of power.
Was this the #MeToo moment of the art world?
Did the letter have repercussions beyond the incident?
Is sexual harassment in the art world still a problem?
What other measures are needed to raise awareness or ensure change happens?
Was this letter effective in changing attitudes or raising awareness of misogyny in the art world? (see Guerrilla Girls campaigns as a point of comparison).
Is the cynicism of “not surprised” challenging enough to stop sexual harassment by predatory men in positions of power taking advantage of younger female employees or younger women seeking opportunities to work?
Does “calling out” work in exercises of public shaming? Is this an effective strategy, if it is done collectively and with legal support to avoid “libelling someone” or “defamation of character” without justification?
What about earlier protest movements in the New York Art World, ie Guerrilla Girls, WAC, etc? Do you know about these?
How do these measures stand against other fights for social justice?
Voices of Protest in the Art World
Part 1
Michele Wallace (WSABAL)
Manifesto of Women Students and Artists for Black Liberation
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Women Artists of Pakistan
________________________________________
Part 2
Xabier Arakistain
ARCO Manifesto (2005)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
We are Not Surprised (WANS)
<p class=”manifesto”><a href=”https://www.a-n.co.uk/news/not-surprised-open-letter-sexual-harassment-art-world/”>Not Surprised, an open letter</a> (2017),
signed by many women artists and curators and writers</p>
________________________________________
Part 3
Permanent Assembly of Women Art Workers
<p class=”manifesto”><a href=”http://nosotrasproponemos.org/we-propose/”>We Propose: Declaration of Commitment to Feminist Practices in Art: </a>(2017) (Argentina)
Also available in Spanish, Portuguese and French on the website.</p>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Lina Džuverović, Irene Revell
