Unraveling the Knot: Understanding Feminist Art History

Laurie Schneider Adams defines the feminist approach to art and art history as being “predicated on the idea that gender is an essential element in understanding the creation, content, and evaluation of art” (79). This one sentence provides a very broad definition of the single thing that could be said to link all feminist art and theory – gender. Feminism in itself contains a number of different, even opposing, ideologies – essentialist, culturalist, Freudian, anti-Freudian… the list could go on and on. And then one has the task of differentiating betwee

It is slightly ironic that feminism itself was an instigator of the problem it currently finds itself in. Feminism paved the road for so many ideologies to follow – each wanting it’s own identity and politics to be recognized. But with so many theories and movements (many having similar methodologies derived from feminism), they become the ‘undifferentiated category, “Difference,” – all those who are different from the ‘norm,’ – which once again reasserts itself as white and male. With all of the effort to create an art world that is not about opposition and exclusion, but instead pluralism and inclusion, the art world is again binary – the ‘norm’ and the ‘different-from-the-norm.’

The traditional art history and canon had been accepted as absolute for so long. “The feminist focus on gender issues,” Adams writes, “led to a questioning of the traditional canons and assumptions of Western art history” (81). The canon was considered to be a construct, created by a patriarchal, white culture, which only included its own into its ranks. That feminists challenged people to look back on this past and radically redefine it was virtually unprecedented at the time, and was met with great resistance. Looking back today, “in its broadest terms, we would define the impact of feminism on art history as an adjustment of historical perspective” (Broude 1). This adjustment “permitted for the first time a clear vision of the controlling part that sexual attitudes and assumptions have played both in the creation and naming of ‘Art’ and in the writing of art history” (Broude 1). It also eventually led to an overhaul in the way art history was studied, critiqued, and written.

The 1990’s seemed to culminate in an almost resigned acceptance of this impossible variety of theories – the numbness of postmodernism. Individual theories and voices are weakened and lost within this pluralism, and the demands that all must be accepted and taken seriously. As Craig Owens writes, “The feminist voice is usually regarded as one among many… thus, feminism is rapidly assimilated to a whole string of liberation or self-determination movements” (589). Every movement wants attention to be drawn to its difference, its identity, and its particular politics. But this crowd shouting for attention blends into only one voice. Owens explains, “Not only does this forced coalition treat feminism itself as monolithic, thereby suppressing its multiple internal differences… it also posits a vast, undifferentiated category, “Difference,” to which all marginalized and oppressed groups can be assimilated” (589).

The Conceptualist method of using cheap, impermanent, and reproducible materials was, and remains, common in feminist art. Part of this was probably reminiscent of the Conceptualist attempt to destroy or reject the ‘value’ of the art object. Feminists wanted to reject the art object of the patriarchy, and therefore used the opposite materials. Also, feminists embraced craft and other forms of art traditionally relegated to females, the materials of which were often cheap. Another reason for using such materials as a vehicle for art was their accessibility. Many women did not have access to the money or training that men had, and therefore used materials and methods that were cheap to buy and easy to learn. The idea, and context, of the works were more important than their actual physical form – like Conceptualist art – but this opened itself up to many of the same critiques as Conceptualism. Feminists were accused of “ignoring quality… and reducing art to the context of it’s production” (Nochlin xii). This often made it easy for the art world at large to continue to ignore or pigeonhole feminist art.

Some topics in this essay:
Lucy Lippard, Marshall McLuhan, Conceptualism Feminists, Schneider Adams, Craig Owens, Cold War, Guerilla Girls, Hilary Robinson, Linda Nochlin, Lisa Tickner, feminist art, art world, art theory, art history, feminist theory, art art, feminist movement, theory art, felshin writes, feminist art theory, social movements, feminist art art, art art theory, feminist theory art, feminist art historians,