The Feminist Art Base

November 5, 2007 7:24 AM

The Brooklyn Museum's Feminist Art Base presents online the work of over 150 artists "whose work reintroduced the articulation of socially relevant issues after an era of aesthetic formalism", including Janine Antoni, Tracy Emin, Ghada Amer, Ida Applebroog, Sue De Beer, Guerrilla Girls, Yasumasa Morimura, Carrie Moyer, Eva Hesse, Pipilotti Rist, Sheila Pepe, Faith Ringgold ... and of course, an online tour of The Dinner Party, and a Feminist Timeline.
posted by R. Mutt (19 comments total)

I went and saw the Global Feminisms Remix show, which is connected with this database. It was an amazing exhibit, but I have to admit it was a little disturbing at the same time. I actually went with my mother who was incredibly excited to be able to see the Dinner Party in person.

This is a fantastic resource, thanks for posting it.
posted by piratebowling at 8:38 AM on November 5, 2007

I really wish this was a traveling exhibit, and I wish I could play hookie to dash up and see it in NYC. Fabulous sounding exhibit, I adore Ida Applebroog and Eva Hesse. Sigh...
posted by wowbobwow at 9:41 AM on November 5, 2007

At the end of Sue De Beer's artist statement...

But I had male role models too. And I don't think my work only speaks to women.

Like Peaches says: "Shake your dicks, shake your dicks. Shake your tits, shake your tits."

That's the best you can do?!?
posted by avocet at 9:42 AM on November 5, 2007

wow. Excellent post R. Mutt. Am and will enjoy exploring all the links in detail.

Had never heard of The Dinner Party. How great to be able to see it online.

Am due for a trip to the wonderful Brooklyn Museum and now am now eagerly looking forward to visiting The Elizabeth A. Sackler Center for Feminist Art.

So surprised the feminist timeline linked above starts in the 60's. Guess for most people under 30 now that's practically Neanderthal. From Wiki, feminism.

Mary Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, written in 1792 has been tremendously inspirational to me. In an interesting twist of irony (can irony twist?), she died giving birth to her only child, Mary Shelley, the author of Frankenstein.

Wiki, Feminist philosophers.

Inspired by works of art in the Musee Guimet in Paris, a life lived as a feminist adventure-as-art, Alexandra David-Neel.

"Shake your dicks, shake your dicks. Shake your tits, shake your tits."

In any case, the anatomical correlation for dicks isn't tits, it's vaginas.
posted by nickyskye at 10:05 AM on November 5, 2007 [1 favorite]

whose work reintroduced the articulation of socially relevant issues after an era of aesthetic formalism

Sorry, I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.
posted by signal at 10:06 AM on November 5, 2007

Wish there were more men and fewer women tagged with the whole "feminist art" thing, myself, but I nice FPP.
posted by DenOfSizer at 11:07 AM on November 5, 2007

signal, Why? "reintroduced the articulation of socially relevant issues after an era of aesthetic formalism" seems sane and interesting to me.

Something wrong with the articulation of socially relevant issues in art?

I didn't know what formalism was and in responding to you, I looked it up on Wiki.

In art theory formalism is the concept that a work's artistic value is entirely determined by its form--the way it is made, its purely visual aspects and its medium. Formalism emphasizes compositional elements such as color, line, shape and texture rather than realism, context, and content. In visual art, formalism is the concept that everything necessary in a work of art is contained within it. The context for the work, including the reason for its creation, the historical background, and the life of the artist, is considered to be of secondary importance. Formalism dominated modern art from the late 1800s through the 1960s.
posted by nickyskye at 11:12 AM on November 5, 2007

signal, Why? "reintroduced the articulation of socially relevant issues after an era of aesthetic formalism" seems sane and interesting to me.

"reintroduced the articulation of socially relevant issues after an era at the expense of aesthetic formalism"

Fixed that for you.

What happened to a LOT of art, by Feminists and others since that era, is that with the introduction of "socially relevant issues" any formalist concerns pretty much went right out the window. You see, "talent" is an elitist, non-inclusive construct of lily-white phallocratic oppressors. At least, that's what some (not all, thank god) of my professors at Mass Art told me. This is a perfect example of what I'm ranting about. Sure, it's a perfectly good sentiment, but extremely poor execution.

Perhaps I'm just being greedy for wanting both.
posted by Scoo at 12:06 PM on November 5, 2007

at the expense of aesthetic formalism

Well, somebody's got to pay.
posted by R. Mutt at 12:27 PM on November 5, 2007

huh Scoo, I like that Woman Freedom one and always enjoyed the very similar LOVE by Robert Indiana.

Was thinking about Picasso's Demoiselles of D'Avignon and how it was spectacularly radical, had such a large social impact in an age of pretty pretty pretty. And, of course, his Guernica. How could those be considered formalist? Art history ignorant here. Perhaps you can elucidate?

Some (lots of) professors are idiots. And some are really wonderful.

I like your greed, and don't think it is that, for wanting both the articulation of socially relevant issues and aesthetic formalism.
posted by nickyskye at 12:44 PM on November 5, 2007

Why? "reintroduced the articulation of socially relevant issues after an era of aesthetic formalism" seems sane and interesting to me.

It might seem sane, but in reality it leads to such utter crap as this.

The whole 'articulation of X' without even a smidgen of actual creativity or ability leads to the sophomoric, highly yawnable, pseudo-didactic 'art', where supposed shock value (like, gasp, Marylin Monroe with a gorilla - or 'guerilla', get it? wink wink! - mask!), or 'commentary' takes the place of anything even vaguely resembling talent.
I have yet to see a piece of political, or feminist, or anti-racist, etc., art that hasn't left me yawning or embarrassed for the 'artist' or both.
posted by signal at 5:55 PM on November 5, 2007

In all seriousness signal, it sounds like you have a well defined personal sense of what talent means. I have a feeling that you and I would define the idea of talent differently. Or, for that matter, argue over whether the idea of talent is innate, or constructed socially. Enjoy your certainty, pal.
posted by R. Mutt at 6:18 PM on November 5, 2007

I doubt I would wast my time talking about art or any other matter of any significance with you, R. Mutt. Enjoy your passive aggressiveness, 'pal'.
posted by signal at 6:49 PM on November 5, 2007

Whoa, whoa, whoa! No Sue Coe?
posted by Faze at 7:14 PM on November 5, 2007

That is my loss signal.
posted by R. Mutt at 7:23 PM on November 5, 2007

signal, Having looked at the Guerilla Girls' site, it says, "Our message: find your own crazy, creative way to be a feminist and an activist. That’s what we do."

"We’re part of Amnesty International’s Stop Violence Against Women Campaign in the UK; we're brainstorming with Greenpeace... "

Sounds excellent and constructive to me.

R. Mutt, I say good riddance, not a loss at all. :)
posted by nickyskye at 9:02 PM on November 5, 2007

Sounds excellent and constructive to me.

It might 'sound excellent', but it looks like juvenile, banal crap of no artistic merit or political impact.
posted by signal at 4:27 AM on November 6, 2007

Signal: really? Not a single example of feminist, political, or race-related art stands out to you as compelling? Then let me introduce you to some people:

African-American:
Kara Walker - currently subject of a retrospective at the Whitney Museum.
Kerry James Marshall - Much more painterly than Walker's silhouettes, if that's you're thing.

Feminist:
Lisa Yuskavage - oddly enough, rarely talked about in terms of feminist art, but it's hard to read her dissection of the images of the female form as anything but.
Of course, I find it hard to believe anyone could not find The Dinner Party, linked in the fpp, to be formally compelling.

Political:
Well, how about Francisco Goya?

It's also worth noting that, especially in the 60s/70s, anti-formalism was feminist itself. The formalist art world was undeniable patriarchal, with fantastic Abstract Expressionists like Joan Mitchell and Lee Krasner unfairly playing second fiddle to a lot of middling male painters - and with the critical end being carried out almost entirely by the uber-male combo of Clement Greenberg and Harold Rosenberg. Performance art and video were a way to define a voice in a world outside that whole movement - and trying to interpret a lot of them in formal terms doesn't make much sense. Before you dismiss it entirely, it's also worth looking at some of the early performance artists, like Marina Abramovic - very few other artists use their body as a mode of expression in as powerful a way.
posted by TheRoach at 6:49 AM on November 6, 2007 [1 favorite]

signal, In another thread you expressed the thought "art is not about communication, it's about creation". So it would make sense that "whose work reintroduced the articulation of socially relevant issues after an era of aesthetic formalism" would be anathema to you.

I disagree with you strongly that art is not about communication. If art were disconnected from expression with/to the other, a shared expression, it would, in my opinion, make it merely a masturbatory act of a life in total isolation from others. Once an expression of creativity is shared it impacts others and becomes a social statement of sorts.

From cavemen at Lascaux depicting hunting-as-magical thinking, to Egyptian art as an attempt to claim power over death, to African art as connection with myth, ancestors and ceremony, folk art, pre-Columbian art, Aztec art...the political and social statements of the Surrealists...Andy Warhol's culture mischief...all are, imo "the articulation of socially relevant issues"...

Even though the school of abstract expressionism holds the view the view that art is nonrepresentational and chiefly improvisational, it had its roots firmly in the politics of the times. In that Wiki entry it says "the CIA financed and organized the promotion of American abstract expressionists via the Congress for Cultural Freedom from 1950–67."

I disagree with Harold Rosenberg when he says in describing Pollack's work, "The gesture on the canvas was a gesture of liberation from value — political, aesthetic, moral". I don't think art can be devoid of arising out of a political, aesthetic or moral context and having an impact which reflects that on those who see it.

The integrity and agenda of the motivation for sharing determines a lot about the art.

Guerrilla Girls' posters are intentionally funny and provocative and, in my perception, achieve being effective social/political statements. How you express not liking their style reminds me of the people who point at Pollack and say, "My three year old could do that."

I'm curious about what art you do hold in high esteem.
posted by nickyskye at 10:01 AM on November 6, 2007