The first comprehensive, historical exhibition to examine the international foundations and legacy of feminist art, WACK! Art and the Feminist Revolution focuses on the crucial period 1965–80, during which the majority of feminist activism and artmaking occurred internationally. The exhibition includes the work of 120 artists from the United States, Central and Eastern Europe, Latin America, Asia, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Comprising work in a broad range of media—including painting, sculpture, photography, film, video, and performance art—the exhibition is organized around themes based on media, geography, formal concerns, collective aesthetic, and political impulses. Curated for The Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles, by Connie Butler, The Robert Lehman Foundation Chief Curator of Drawings at The Museum of Modern Art, New York (MoMA), the exhibition is accompanied by a fully illustrated catalogue.
Artists in the Exhibition
| Magdalena Abakanowicz Marina Abramović Carla Accardi Chantal Akerman Helena Almeida Sonia Andrade Eleanor Antin Judith F. Baca Mary Bauermeister Lynda Benglis Berwick Street Film Collective (Marc Karlin, Mary Kelly, James Scott, and Humphrey Trevelyan) Camille Billops Dara Birnbaum Louise Bourgeois Theresa Hak Kyung Cha Judy Chicago Lygia Clark Tee Corinne Sheila Levrant de Bretteville Iole de Freitas Niki de Saint Phalle, Jean Tinguely and Per Olof Ultvedt Jay DeFeo Disband Assia Djebar Rita Donagh Kirsten Dufour Lili Dujourie Mary Beth Edelson Rose English VALIE EXPORT Jacqueline Fahey Louise Fishman Audrey Flack Isa Genzken Nancy Grossman Barbara Hammer Harmony Hammond Margaret Harrison Mary Heilmann Lynn Hershman Eva Hesse Susan Hiller Rebecca Horn Alexis Hunter Mako Idemitsu Sanja Iveković Joan Jonas Kirsten Justesen Mary Kelly Joyce Kozloff Friedl Kubelka Shigeko Kubota Yayoi Kusama Suzanne Lacy Suzy Lake Ketty La Rocca Maria Lassnig Lesbian Art Project Lee Lozano Léa Lublin Anna Maria Maiolino |
Mònica Mayer Ana Mendieta Annette Messager Marta MinujÃn and Richard Squires Nasreen Mohamedi Linda M. Montano Ree Morton Laura Mulvey and Peter Wollen Alice Neel Senga Nengudi Ann Newmarch Lorraine O’Grady Pauline Oliveros Yoko Ono ORLAN Ulrike Ottinger Gina Pane Catalina Parra Ewa Partum Howardena Pindell Adrian Piper Sylvia Plimack Mangold Sally Potter Yvonne Rainer Ursula Reuter Christiansen Lis Rhodes Faith Ringgold Ulrike Rosenbach Martha Rosler Betye Saar Miriam Schapiro Mira Schendel Carolee Schneemann Joan Semmel Bonnie Sherk Cindy Sherman Katharina Sieverding Sylvia Sleigh Alexis Smith Barbara T. Smith Mimi Smith Joan Snyder Valerie Solanas Annegret Soltau Nancy Spero Spiderwoman Theater Lisa Steele Sturtevant Cosey Fanni Tutti Mierle Laderman Ukeles Cecilia Vicuña June Wayne “Where We At” Black Women Artists Colette Whiten Faith Wilding Hannah Wilke Francesca Woodman Nil Yalter, Judy Blum, and Nicole Croiset Zarina |
IMAGE: Berwick Street Film Collective, still from Nightcleaners, 1970-1975, Film, Courtesy of LUX
originally posted February 23, 2007
25 Comments
#1. Simon Taylor 02.26.2007
May Stevens isn’t on your list of artists in the show, Why not? Are the women in this exhibition going to pull the lever for Hilary Clinton, on essentialist grounds, because she iss a woman – despite the fact that she refuses to renounce her disgraceful vote for George Bush’s war in Iraq? Why were May Stevens’ “Big Daddy†paintings, executed during the Vietnam War, excluded from this exhibition? Surely, they were one of the most important critiques of patriarchy during the era you cover. Curators have to make difficult decisions for any exhibition, and exclusions are unfortunate, but necessary. Nevertheless, I’m distressed that Stevens’ paintings, oh, so relevant today, weren’t chosen for this exhibition.
MAJOR OVERSIGHT.
#2. lilyriot 02.27.2007
CINDY SHERMAN!!! IV’E BEEN WAITTING FOR THIS YES… IT’S FINALLY GOING TO RE OPEN W/ THE BEST AHHH DREAMY!! AHA
#3. esh 02.27.2007
While it may be true that the omission of May Stevens’ work constitutes an oversight, the implication that the women who are included in this exhibition are political lightweights (i.e., hillary supporters) does a disservice to their work and their contributions to feminism and feminist art.
#4. mc 02.28.2007
There is no logic or sense in connecting the surprising omission of May Stevens with voting for Hillary Clinton. It’s truly apples and oranges or, in the case of Clinton, apples and horse manure. And, sadly, Taylor’s comment smacks a little bit of the latter too.
#5. Simon Taylor 03.01.2007
Well, in response to the comments above, I recall organizing and attending a feminist art conference in the fall of 2002 when one of the panelists, Mary Beth Edelson, anticipated Hillary Clinton becoming the next President. This was met with roars of approval from the audience, even though Hillary was on board with President [sic] Bush’s war in Iraq, voting to approve the war.
It would be nice if people leaving messages here had the guts to leave their actual names instead of hiding behind the anonymity of initials and pseudonyms.
Wack looks like it’s going to be a great show and I can’t wait to see it, but I do wonder why May Stevens wasn’t included. It really seems like a missed opportunity.
#6. mek 03.01.2007
Why is this important show called WACK!? Are you making reference to WAC! (Women’s Action Coalition) which was a group of activist artists and feminists which assembled in NYC in the late 80’s to early 90’s, had a lot of powerful guerilla actions and lots of media coverage, and then disbanded in the 90’s. I was a member. I do not see any reference to the group nor do I understand why WACK is used. Please explain.
#7. mek 03.01.2007
May Stevens was an instructor of mine and I too do not understand why she was overlooked.
#8. mek 03.01.2007
Public record on WAC:
http://www.nypl.org/research/chss/spe/rbk/faids/wac.html
#9. Kelly Marie Martin 03.02.2007
It’s really disappointing that the show hasn’t even opened yet and already the magnifying glasses are out to point out what/who’s missing by “fellow” women. Why are we always so HYPER-critical of our endeavors? I am from the third wave feminist generation, shorthand the riot grrls and frankly, I am super excited to walk into this room tomorrow night. It’s a long list of women and I’m perfectly aware it’s not complete, but I TRUST the intention and BELIEVE that this is a survey that’s LONG overdue. Thanks a ton for making it happen!!!
#10. MOCA 03.02.2007
Here are more thoughts on the exhibition’s title:
“WACK†is not an acronym in itself, but was chosen by curator Connie Butler to recall the acronyms of many activist groups and political communities from this time whose activities focused on women’s issues and cultural production.
#11. mek 03.02.2007
I am eager to see this show, but still very curious as to how the name WACK came about. What groups/political women artist collectives are Connie Butler referring to by using WACK as an “acronym”. Was WAC included in the collective aesthetic category documented in the show? Can she expound on what is stated above?
Trust me, I am all for this show. I just happen to have an activist history and am an artist, so, therefore, am inquisitive by nature. And truly cherish my involvement in WAC.
#12. mek 03.02.2007
My apologies for being presumptuous. I just read the interview in Frieze.
#13. jenny ohrstrom 03.03.2007
This show looks like an incredible attempt to showcase art that is both feminist in content and by female artists. Although there appear to be omissions of a couple of well known feminist artists I wholeheartedly agree with Kelly Marie Martin’s suggestion that we offer our support, and I am equally excited and optimistic about this exhibit. I work to the best of my ability to garner support for this show within my budding feminist community and hopefully we can bring a bunch of people to the exhibit! Thank you and kudos to the amazing women who put this together.
#14. Lewis 03.04.2007
I am looking forward to visiting the show. At the same time, just based on the press and my recent return to grad school and a seminar last week with Gayle Wald, the author of Shout, Sister, Shout!: The Untold Story of Rock-and-Roll Trailblazer Sister Rosetta Tharpe, I am troubled.
Gayle is re-inserting Tharpe back in the center of the rock-n-roll geneology. At the same time, her biography contains none of the features of new journalism, and since I’m only basing this on the public record/reading of the book, her prioritizing her own 1st person-Ivy League (kind of MOCA-curator-like) narrative authority is extremely problematic when diving into such contested racial water.
To be clear, I’m for absolutely free expression of thought and artistic inquiry, just in way that honor the fandom and actual most revolutionary components of 70s femnist art. Your choice to put such a “male-centric” cover on your show’s book reveals the post-feminist infection. This infection, in turn, reflects the post-structuralist turned identity politics turned post-feminists macro intell. development since the 70s within the academy and some “feminist” art.
At least, theorists like Angela McRobbie and Gayle Wald are admitting things have gone too far and trying to return whatever wave we’re at back to the real world of social and economic justice. Issues of set top box control (how control, power and enclosures of knowledge coalesce in the use of our consumer appliances), media control, econoomic and social justice can all be divorced from “cultural justice” that your show aspires to. That’s what today’s creative classes’ – all of us who value our hip, post-70s, post-punk, post-whatever identity and lifestyle – freedom is all about until we connect it back to the real world.
#15. Gus Friedrich 03.04.2007
Given the time frame for the show it is very easy to play the “missing artists” game. I like the strategy of the curators for the show: including a sampling of artists of different levels of reputation. Reputation and artistic talent are not always matched.
I very much look forward to visiting the show.
Gus Friedrich
Highland Park NJ
#16. Cassondra Joseph 03.05.2007
Louise Nevelson???
#17. Jennifer Sorkin 03.05.2007
Early on in the curatorial process, Connie Butler envisioned this show as spanning the immediate post-war period. So originally, yes, we thought about including Louise Nevelson. However, she doesn’t make sense in a specifically feminist context–she is a proto-, or pre-feminist. Her career was largely resuscitated by 1970s feminists, and she was honored alongside Alice Neel at a presidential ceremony circa 1972. There is a great photo in Norma Broude and Mary Garrard’s The Power of Feminist Art (Abrams, 1995).
#18. Louise Moore 03.11.2007
good to see this show -however Im sure Mora Roth and others would agree that installation work was a primary component of the art of these times and lots of it was collectively produced ie the waitesses or the gurella girls
#19. Kate Noonan 03.12.2007
Rachel Rosenthal? This particular omission is baffling.
#20. zoe leonard 03.15.2007
hi. just wondering if the show is traveling?
will it come to nyc?
thanks, zoe
#21. Dalia Bachar 04.25.2007
I like to know when the exhibition moves to N. Y.
Thanks!
Dalia
#22. Cory Peipon 04.25.2007
WACK! Art and the Feminist Revolution will open at The National Museum of Women in the Arts in Washington, D.C. in September 2007. It will then move to P.S.1 in New York in January 2008. Finally, WACK will be presented at The Vancouver Art Gallery in Vancouver, B.C. in October 2008.
#23. Jonathan Lill 12.05.2007
In reference to the meaning and origin of the name Wack!
The first meaning that occurred to me is also the primary definition provided by Merriam-Webster (www.merriamwebster.com):
Pronunciation: \ˈwak\
Function: adjective
Etymology: probably alteration of wacky
Date: 1984
slang : not up to the mark : lousy, lame
I find this curious. “Wacky” is not necessarily pejorative but the overall derogatory implication in this definition may not fully support the curator’s intention. I’d be interested in a fuller curatorial explanation.
#24. jerusha 02.09.2008
Look forward to seeing the show and hope it includes more collectives than the list implies… Small ground-breaking women’s theatre, music, literary and visual arts collectives were a potent part of a movement rooted in collectives–attending to everything from consciousness-raising, civil disobedience, self-defense, health and childcare to carpentry, pottery, car mechanics, bars and bakeries. Women’s printshops and graphics collectives in Chicago, Boston, New York, Oakland, San Francisco, Eugene–and towns scattered across the country– anonymously produced and reproduced images (in posters, prints, books, postcards and shirts) that reflected ‘the second wave’ on most of our walls, bookshelves and bodies.
#25. Jane 02.16.2008
Could someone please tell me which of the exhibition’s contributors are from New Zealand?
Many thanks.
Leave a Comment