Asked in an interview to name some active feminist role models, Kate Millet names the "Guerrilla Girls", who are responsible for producing the poster above.
When asked about "blatant sexism in the arts", Kate Millett's response "why do we have the Guerrilla Girls? There's a lot of sexism in the arts, especially in the United States" provides a viewpoint that, at least from my perspective, I would say I am "aware of", but when I thought about a recent visit to the Met, in truth it wasn't even something that I had considered (likewise in other venues as well).
Under the "Posters/Actions" link from the "Guerrilla Girls" website, it is clear that this phenomenon occurs worldwide. Groups like the "Guerrilla Girls" provide an interesting perspective on this topic through their unique activism.
This statistic blows my mind—that only 3% of the artists in the Met. are women. I think it is interesting and important for us to think about why this is the case. Over the past few weeks we have discussed sexism in most disciplines, and male-dominance in many. But what I do not understand is why the Art world, of all aspects of our culture, continues to be male dominated. Is anyone else baffled by this?
ReplyDeleteIt is strange to me that women are excluded from the arts because, even when we give in to stereotypes of the feminine, we describe woman as beauty, as “the aesthetic.” So we could explain male-domination in the world of art as yet another example of the aesthetic objectification of women by men. Yet, I do not think that this really makes sense, because we have also discussed how women are associated more with the “soft sciences” and the humanities, of which art is one. And, in my experience, women are not only stereotypically seen as objects of beauty, but they also are concerned with and are drawn toward and are creators of objects of beauty.
Anyone who has ever taken an art class, or a dance class or a music class, has probably noticed a majority of women (this is not always the case, but it often is). My brother goes to the San Francisco Art Institute and it fairly common knowledge that there are lots and lots of girls there, that he is in the minority.
I know that the history of art almost is completely ruled by the men, and clearly the statistics have not changed much in the recent past. Yet, while I can see this inequality in clearer terms in other disciplines—in math and science, etc.—I continue to question what is behind this structure in art.
Lots of men have painted naked women. I understand that. But there are also many women pursuing art as a way of life, as much more than a hobby. What happens to these women? And why does this happen? Is all art by women seen as “feminine,” and limited in this labeling? Is there something more that is going on?
Actually, Peyton, this isn't a contemporary poster - not that things are THAT much better now -but what year is this from? It's probably 1986 or so. I'll see if I can find some contemporary statistics. As for the MET, of course they mostly house "old"(very old) work, so going back through the ages, women's art simply was not saved. It's MOMA we need to really look at - and of course, any contemporary art museum. It is completely the case that the arts are dominated by women at the bottom - in classes, in schools, and dominated by men at the top.
ReplyDeleteIndeed. Kate Millet says it this way:
ReplyDelete"In keeping with the inferior sphere of culture to which women in patriarchy have always been restricted, the present encouragement of their "artistic" interests through study of the humanities is hardly more than an extension of the "accomplishments" they once cultivated in preparation for the marriage market. Achievement in the arts and humanities is reserved, now, as it has been historically, for males. Token representation, be it Susan Sontag's or Lady Murasaki's, does not vitiate this rule. "