Curating Differently Feminisms Exhibitions and Curatorial Spaces 1St Edition Jessica Sjoholm Skrubbe Online Ebook Texxtbook Full Chapter PDF

Curating Differently Feminisms
Exhibitions and Curatorial Spaces 1st

Edition Jessica Sjöholm Skrubbe
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/curating-differently-feminisms-exhibitions-and-curatori
al-spaces-1st-edition-jessica-sjoholm-skrubbe/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Curatorial Activism Towards an Ethics of Curating Maura

Reilly
https://ebookmeta.com/product/curatorial-activism-towards-an-
ethics-of-curating-maura-reilly/
Curating Fascism Exhibitions and Memory from the Fall

of Mussolini to Today 1st Edition Sharon Hecker
(Editor)
https://ebookmeta.com/product/curating-fascism-exhibitions-and-
memory-from-the-fall-of-mussolini-to-today-1st-edition-sharon-
hecker-editor/
Nell Walden Der Sturm and the Collaborative Cultures of

Modern Art Jessica Sjöholm Skrubbe
https://ebookmeta.com/product/nell-walden-der-sturm-and-the-
collaborative-cultures-of-modern-art-jessica-sjoholm-skrubbe/
Writing Differently 1st Edition Alison Pullen
https://ebookmeta.com/product/writing-differently-1st-edition-
alison-pullen/
Chess Explained The c3 Sicilian 1st Edition Sam Collins
https://ebookmeta.com/product/chess-explained-
the-c3-sicilian-1st-edition-sam-collins/
Starting Out The c3 Sicilian 1st Edition John Emms
https://ebookmeta.com/product/starting-out-the-c3-sicilian-1st-
edition-john-emms/
The Paper Issue 83 1st Edition Origamiusa
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-paper-issue-83-1st-edition-
origamiusa/
Please Don t Say Goodbye Summer Lake Seasons 7 1st

Edition Sj Mccoy Mccoy Sj
https://ebookmeta.com/product/please-don-t-say-goodbye-summer-
lake-seasons-7-1st-edition-sj-mccoy-mccoy-sj/
Exhibitions for Social Justice 1st Edition Elena

Gonzales
https://ebookmeta.com/product/exhibitions-for-social-justice-1st-
edition-elena-gonzales/
Curating Differently
Curating Differently:
Feminisms, Exhibitions
and Curatorial Spaces
Edited by
Jessica Sjöholm Skrubbe

Curating Differently:
Feminisms, Exhibitions and Curatorial Spaces
Edited by Jessica Sjöholm Skrubbe
This book first published 2016
Cambridge Scholars Publishing
Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Copyright © 2016 by Jessica Sjöholm Skrubbe and contributors
All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without
the prior permission of the copyright owner.
ISBN (10): 1-4438-8577-0

ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-8577-5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Illustrations .................................................................................... vii
Preface........................................................................................................ xi
Acknowledgements ................................................................................... xix
Chapter One ................................................................................................. 1

Curatorial Strategies on the Art Scene during the Feminist Movement:
Los Angeles in the 1970s
Eva Zetterman
Chapter Two .............................................................................................. 29

A Short History of Women’s Exhibitions from the 1970s to the 1990s:
Between Feminist Struggles and Hegemonic Appropriation
Doris Guth
Chapter Three ............................................................................................ 41

Reformulating the Code: A Feminist Interpretation of the Curatorial
Work of Sara Breitberg-Semel and Galia Bar Or during the 1980s
and the 1990s in Israel
Osnat Zukerman Rechter
Chapter Four .............................................................................................. 65

Transformative Encounters: Prior and Current Strategies
of a Feminist Pioneer
Margareta Gynning
Chapter Five .............................................................................................. 91

MoMA’s Modern Women Project, Feminisms, and Curatorial Practice
Alexandra Schwartz
Chapter Six .............................................................................................. 101

Moments of Contradictions: Frida Kahlo and Tina Modotti, 1982–1983
vi Table of Contents
Chapter Seven.......................................................................................... 115

women artists@home or Why are There Still No Equality-Marked
Collections?
Malin Hedlin Hayden
Chapter Eight ........................................................................................... 129

Major Global Recurring Art Shows “Doing Feminist Work”: A Case
Study of the 18th Biennale of Sydney: All Our Relations (2012)
Sibyl Fisher
Bibliography ............................................................................................ 141
Contributors ............................................................................................ 157
Index ........................................................................................................ 161

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Fig. 1-1. Barbara T. Smith, Nude Frieze (1972), F-space, Santa Ana.
Photograph by Boris Sojka. © Barbara T. Smith, courtesy of the artist.
Fig. 1-2. Suzanne Lacy, A Woman Was Raped Here…, side walk chalking,
part of Three Weeks in May (1977). © Suzanne Lacy, courtesy of the
artist.
Fig. 1-3. Judy Baca, The Great Wall of Los Angeles (1976–983), San
Fernando Valley. Photograph by Eva Zetterman. © Eva Zetterman.
Fig. 1-4. Asco, Decoy Gang War Victim (1974) with Gronk. Photograph
by Harry Gamboa, Jr. © Harry Gamboa, Jr., courtesy of the artist.
Fig. 1-5. Self Help Graphics & Art’s Barrio Mobile Art Studio. Sister
Karen Boccalero (back row, far right) and Linda Vallejo (front row, far
right). © Self Help Graphics & Art, courtesy of Self Help Graphics &
Art.
Fig. 1-6. Installation view of the exhibition Women Artists: 1550–1950 at
Brooklyn Museum (1977), curated by Ann Sutherland Harris and
Linda Nochlin in 1976 for LACMA. Photo: Brooklyn Museum
Archives. © Brooklyn Museum, courtesy of Brooklyn Museum.
Fig. 1-7. Asco, Spray Paint LACMA or Project Pie in De/Face (1974) with
Patssi Valdez. Photograph by Harry Gamboa, Jr. © Harry Gamboa, Jr.,
courtesy of the artist.
Fig. 3-1. David Reeb, Landscapes 1983 (1983), installation view, Tel Aviv
Museum of Art, the Helena Rubinstein Pavilion. Photo: Dalia Amotz.
Courtesy of Einem Amotz.
Fig. 4-1. Hanna Hirsch-Pauli, Konstnären Venny Soldan-Brofeldt, Paris
1887. Göteborgs konstmuseum, Gothenburg, Sweden. Photo:
Göteborgs konstmuseum.
Fig. 4-2. Interior from the exhibition Artists Couples at the turn of the 19th
century at Nationalmuseum, Stockholm 2006. Photo: Nationalmuseum.
Fig. 4-3. Carl Larsson, Getting Ready for a Game, 1901, Nationalmuseum,
Stockholm. Photo: Nationalmuseum.
Fig. 4-4. Peter Johansson, How to cook a Souvenir, 1994. Photo:
Nationalmuseum
Fig. 4-5. Interior from the exhibition Look out! Image awareness and
visual culture. Nationalmuseum, Stockholm 2004. Photo:
Nationalmuseum.
viii List of Illustrations
Fig. 4-6. Catalog cover of the exhibition Look out! Image awareness and
visual culture, Nationalmuseum, Stockholm 2004. Photo:
Nationalmuseum.
Fig. 4-7. Workshop photo with gender activist group at Nationalmuseum
in connection with the exhibition Masquerade—Power, gender and
identity in 2004.
Fig. 4-8. Interior from the exhibition Alexander Roslin. Nationalmuseum,
Stockholm 2008. Photo: Nationalmuseum.
Fig. 4-9. Flyer from the exhibition Hand-Made—Drawings from
Nationalmuseum. Nationalmuseum, Stockholm 2008. Photo:
Nationalmuseum.
Fig. 4-10. Interior from the exhibition Hand-Made—Drawings from
Nationalmuseum. Nationalmuseum, Stockholm 2008. Photo:
Nationalmuseum.
Fig. 5-1. Installation view of the exhibition, Lee Bontecou: All Freedom in
Every Sense. April 16 through September 6, 2010. The Museum of
Modern Art, New York. Photographer: Thomas Griesel. The Museum
of Modern Art, New York, NY, U.S.A. Digital Image © The Museum
of Modern Art/Licensed by SCALA/Art Resource, NY.
Fig. 5-2. Installation view of the exhibition, Pictures by Women: A History
of Modern Photography (Part 1). February 3 through August 30, 2010.
The Museum of Modern Art, New York. Photographer: Thomas
Griesel. The Museum of Modern Art, New York, NY, U.S.A. Digital
Image © The Museum of Modern Art/Licensed by SCALA/Art
Resource, NY.
Fig. 5-3. Installation view of the exhibition, Mind and Matter: Alternative
Abstractions, 1940s to Now. May 5 through August 16, 2010. The
Museum of Modern Art, New York. Photographer: Thomas Griesel.
The Museum of Modern Art, New York, NY, U.S.A. Digital Image ©
The Museum of Modern Art/Licensed by SCALA / Art Resource, NY.
Fig. 5-4. Installation view of the exhibition, Counter Space: Design and
the Modern Kitchen. September 15, 2010 through May 2, 2011. The
Museum of Modern Art, New York. Photographer: Jonathan Muzikar.
The Museum of Modern Art, New York, NY, U.S.A. Digital Image ©
The Museum of Modern Art/Licensed by SCALA / Art Resource, NY.
Fig. 6-1. Frida Kahlo (1907-1954), The two Fridas, 1939. Museo Nacional
de Arte Moderno, Mexico City. © 2015. Photo Art Resource/Bob
Schalkwijk/Scala, Florence. © Banco de México Diego Rivera & Frida
Kahlo Museums Trust, México D.F/Bildupphovsrätt 2015.
Curating Differently: Feminisms, Exhibitions and Curatorial Spaces ix
Fig. 6-2. Tina Modotti (1896-1942), Illustration for a Mexican Song,

1927. Museum of Modern Art (MoMA), New York. Gelatin silver
print, 9 1/2 x 7 5/16" (23.4 x 18.6 cm). Given anonymously. Acc. n.:
341.1965. © 2015. Digital image, The Museum of Modern Art, New
York/Scala, Florence.
Fig. 8-1. Iris Häussler, He Dreamed Overtime, the 18th Biennale of
Sydney: all our relations, 2012. Photo: Sibyl Fisher. Reproduced with
kind permission of BildKunst and the artist.
PREFACE
Feminisms, Exhibitions, and Curatorial Spaces

Feminist theories and methodologies are by now well integrated into art
historical research and artistic practices. In recent years, feminisms in art
have been institutionalized in major art exhibitions, predominantly in
Europe and North America, and have attracted vast attention. Some
examples are WACK! Art and the Feminist Revolution (Los Angeles and
touring), Global Feminisms: New Directions in Contemporary Art (the
opening exhibition for the Elizabeth A. Sackler Center for Feminist Art at
the Brooklyn Museum in New York), REBELLE: Art & Feminism 1969–
2009 (Arnhem), Konstfeminism: Strategier och effekter i Sverige från
1970-talet till idag (Helsingborg and touring), Kiss Kiss Bang Bang: 45
Years of Art and Feminism (Bilbao), Goddesses (Oslo), Gender Check:
Femininity and Masculinity in the Art of Eastern Europe (Vienna and
Warsaw), Gender Battle (Santiago de Compostela), and The Beginning Is
Always Today: Contemporary Feminist Art in Scandinavia (Kristiansand).
In addition, public art museums have shown a growing interest in
working with feminist perspectives and gender equality in relation to
museum collections (see e.g. the Second Museum of Our Wishes project,
Moderna Museet, Stockholm and the Modern Women Project, Museum of
Modern Art, New York). Obviously, feminist art curating, as a practice of
art interpretation and a politics of display, intersects with the diverse area
of feminist research and artistic practices. On the other hand, the
institutionalization of feminisms, its relative success, or failure, is under
debate.1 Institutional critique has been a crucial feminist methodology and
many interventions have taken place outside the institutional context of the
white cube and have strategically targeted established art practices and
ideologies. Indeed, as Hilary Robinson, with reference to Griselda Pollock,
recently warned:
What is the effect of separating feminist aesthetic interventions from the

larger political and cultural revolution that was feminism and feminist
theory, and isolating works and artists within a relatively unaltered
curatorial approach and exhibitionary model? We might gain this work for
art, but miss its significance in transforming art. For feminism was never
an art movement.2
xii Preface
Curatorial strategies ideologically frame the encounter between art and its
publics. If we, as Reesa Greenberg proposes, understand exhibitions as
discursive events, it becomes urgent to ask for a deeper understanding of
feminist exhibitions and curatorial practices in relation to wider political,
economic, and social structures in local and global contexts.3 It is only
recently, however, that a theorization of feminist art curating and feminist
exhibition histories as a specific field of knowledge have emerged.
A seminal publication was the “Curatorial Strategies” issue of
n.paradoxa edited by Renee Baert and Katy Deepwell in 2006.4 Four years
later, Feminisms is Still Our Name: Seven Essays on Historiography and
Curatorial Practices, edited by Malin Hedlin Hayden and Jessica Sjöholm
Skrubbe, focusing on historiographical critique and the relation between
academic and curatorial feminist practices, was published.5 The
international research network Transnational perspectives on women’s art,
feminism and curating, whose participants included scholars, curators and
artists, arranged a number of workshop seminars and symposia between
2010 and 2012 devoted to this particular field of research.6 Related to this
international collaboration is the volume on Working with Feminism:
Curating and Exhibitions in Eastern Europe, edited by Katrin Kivimaa,
which claims the emancipation of Eastern European perspectives in
feminist thinking and curatorial practice.7
Further major contributions to the field are Politics in a Glass Case:
Feminism, Exhibition Cultures and Curatorial Transgressions, edited by
Angela Dimitrakaki and Lara Perry, which investigates the impact of
feminism on curatorial practice and exhibition cultures in Europe and
North America, and Women’s:Museum. Curatorial Politics in Feminism,
Education, History, and Art, edited by Elke Krasny, which offers a
transnational historiography of feminist strategies and curatorial activism
in and out of the museum.8 Another example of the growing research
interest in feminism, art, and the politics of exhibitions is Monika Kaiser’s
Neubesitzungen des Kunst-Raumes: Feministische Kunstausstellungen und
ihre Räume, 1972–1987, which is an in-depth study of feminist exhibitions
of women’s art with particular focus on spatial meaning production.
Research related to issues of feminist exhibitions, curatorial practices,
and art museums’ collections has also been presented in publications
concerning museum critique and cultural politics, e.g. Griselda Pollock’s
Encounters in the Virtual Feminist Museum: Time, Space and the Archive,
Griselda Pollock and Joyce Zemans’ (ed.), Museum after Modernism:
Strategies of Engagement, and the Swedish Arts Council’s research report
Representation och regionalitet. Genusstrukturer i fyra svenska
konstmuseisamlingar edited by Anna Tellgren and Jeff Werner.9
Curating Differently: Feminisms, Exhibitions and Curatorial Spaces xiii
Curating Differently
The essays in Curating Differently: Feminisms, Exhibitions and Curatorial
Spaces present critical perspectives on and analyses of feminist art
curating and exhibiting, its strategies, interventions and histories. The
general objective of the volume is to present scholarly analyses and critical
reflections on the diverse practices of feminist art curating and exhibition
practices from the 1970s onward. The context is not limited to art
museums and exhibitions alone, but includes alternative spaces for artistic
and curatorial interventions. The essays included in the anthology depart
from case studies that theorize diverse strategies and interventions in
curatorial space and relate them to socio-political and national contexts as
well as global economic structures. Moreover, they critically scrutinize
feminist exhibitions and “gender equality” strategies in public art
museums in recent years and present a specifically curatorial perspective
on exhibition practices. Collectively, the essays contribute with historical
perspectives on feminist exhibition practices and curatorial models, first-
hand accounts of feminist interventions within the art museum as well as
timely analyses of current intersections of feminisms within curating in the
global art world.
The majority of the essays in the volume were presented in the
“Feminisms and Curating” sessions, chaired by Jessica Sjöholm Skrubbe,
at the NORDIK X art history conference in Stockholm in October 2012.
“Feminisms and Curating” amounted to three sessions and was the largest
session at the conference due to considerable national and international
attention, hence substantiating the current scholarly interest in the
transnational field of feminist curatorial and exhibition studies. The topical
questions addressed in the sessions thus also form a framework for the
essays in this book: How can the diverse practices feminist art curating
and feminist exhibitions be theorized and historicized? Which feminist
theories and methodologies have informed the strategies of feminist art
curating?
Departing from the exhibitions Women Artists: 1550–1950 (1976) and
Womanhouse (1972), both held in Los Angles, Eva Zetterman in her essay
“Curatorial strategies on the art scene during the Feminist Movement: Los
Angeles in the 1970s” explores the curatorial strategies within different
sectors of the city’s art scenes during the 1970s by examining the
mainstream and the alternative approaches, respectively. Los Angeles was
a major site for both the Chicano Civil Rights Movement and the Feminist
Movement at the time, but as Zetterman highlights, white Anglo American
feminists and brown Chicano feminists mainly organized in separate
xiv Preface
networks, which resulted in different curatorial strategies and in a

geographical separation of the alternative art scenes that paralleled the
socio-spatial division of Los Angeles in the 1970s. Her discussion on
Chicana artists’ collaborative groups and Chicana/o alternative art spaces
serves as a reminder of the feminist art movement’s exclusion of non-
white artists and calls attention to Chicana artists opposing intersecting
structures of discrimination and marginalization and hence organizing into
coalitions of greater diversity. Critically examining the mainstream art
scene of Los Angeles in the 1970s, Zetterman shows how the Eurocentric
selection criteria guiding feminist “landmark” exhibitions such as Women
Artists: 1550–1950 (1976) at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art
have been justified in retrospect, thus perpetuating the marginalisation of
Chicanas in the historiography of the feminist art movement in the US.
The practices and strategies of two curators are at the centre of Osnat
Zukerman Rechter’s essay “Reformulating the Code: A Feminist
Interpretation of the Curatorial Work of Sara Breitberg-Semel and Galia
Bar Or During the 1980s and 1990s in Israel”. In her in-depth account of
their work, Zukerman Rechter traces the manner in which they attempted
to redefine the boundaries of their curatorial roles within the institutional
setting of the museum. She defines Sara Breitberg-Semel’s curatorial
strategy to resist the institution from within—a way of exploring and
emphasizing the gap between the curator’s individual action and the
institutional apparatus of the museum to which she belonged—as a
principle that aligns to a feminist consciousness, even though Breitberg-
Semel herself never overtly declared a feminist position. In contrast, Galia
Bar Or explicitly emphasized her curatorial model—based on values of
solidarity and cooperation and a critical stance towards canonical and
geographical centres and peripheries—as a feminist approach. In her
analysis, Zukerman Rechter points out the separate courses that Breitberg-
Semel and Bar Or have followed, but she also indicates a strategy of
closeness as a common feminist denominator in their curatorial work.
In “Moments of contradictions: Frida Kahlo and Tina Modotti, 1982–
1983”, Jessica Sjöholm Skrubbe calls attention to juxtaposition and
montage as curatorial strategies employed in the exhibition Frida Kahlo
and Tina Modotti that toured Europe and North America in 1982 and
1983. She locates the curatorial model of the exhibition within a specific
intellectual framework of politically motivated cultural practices, fostered
by a renewed interest in the theories and practices of the German poet,
dramatist and director Bertolt Brecht within British cultural debates of the
1970s and 80s, and argues that the exhibition produced a critical space
beyond the implicit or explicit generalizations inherent in survey
Curating Differently: Feminisms, Exhibitions and Curatorial Spaces xv
exhibitions of women’s art and the strategic adaptation of mainstream art

history’s values and norms in the one woman show. Thus, despite the
dilemma that the discursive framework of the exhibition might cause for
today’s feminists, Sjöholm Skrubbe maintains that its critical mode of
juxtaposition and montage, and its disturbing effects, might still provide a
curatorial model to build on for future feminist interventions in the art
world.
In her essay “A short history of Women’s Exhibitions from the 1970s
to the 1990s—between feminist struggles and hegemonic appropriation”,
Doris Guth discusses “women’s exhibitions”, a phenomenon that since the
1970s has evoked critical debates along the contradictory positions
pending between those who advocate exhibitions with women’s art only as
a necessary strategic act and those who question women’s exhibitions as a
curatorial model that risks ghettoizing women artists and reinforcing the
hegemonic system of canonical art history. In a close reading of three
women’s exhibitions of the 1990s—Women artists of the 20th Century in
Wiesbaden (1990), Inside the Visible: An Elliptical Traverse of Twentieth
Century Art in, of and from the Feminine in Kortrijk, London, Boston,
Washington, and Perth (1994–1997), and Bad Girls in London and
Glasgow (1993–1994)—Guth critically elaborates on some basic
phenomena pertaining to the all-women-show as possible strategic act. Her
analysis shows that good intentions and critical interventions in
mainstream curatorial models might well end up as counterproductive,
reifying essentialist concepts of identity or de-politicizing pertinent
feminist issues in superficial analyses. Guth locates a more promising
approach to the concept of the women’s exhibition in Vraiment.
Féminisme et art, shown in Grenoble in 1997, where the curator Laura
Cottingham managed to negotiate female identity and feminist aesthetics
in relation to actual socio-political conditions for artistic production and
reception.
The ambition to enable “transformative encounters” between the curator,
the art object and the public is at the core of Margareta Gynning’s work as
an art pedagogue, curator and feminist scholar at the Nationalmuseum in
Stockholm. Departing from her many years of professional experiences,
her contribution to this book “Transformative Encounters—prior and
current strategies of a feminist pioneer” discusses the diverse feminist
strategies that she has adopted in order to oppose the hegemony of
canonical, modernist art history within the museum. Gynning’s extensive
feminist work includes publications, temporary exhibitions, interventions
in the museum’s permanent collections, art educational programs, and
diverse collaborative projects. Her feminist strategies focus on pedagogical
xvi Preface
and relational aspects, image awareness, the importance of dialog, and the
use of body language, always with the role of the viewer at the centre. She
hence strives to activate museum visitors and creating a laboratory space
within the museum that fosters active engagement, sharing, and
collaborative processes of interpretative work. Gynning’s essay is a strong
argument for the importance of doing feminist work from within large
public institutions in order to be able to differentiate canon in the long
term.
The Museum of Modern Art, New York’s Modern Women Project
(2005–2010), was a key contribution to the vast number of exhibitions,
conferences, and projects on art and feminism that developed in the mid-
2000s, particularly in Europe and North America. The Modern Women
Project included, inter alia, a major scholarly publication on work by
women artists in MoMA’s permanent collection, two international
symposia, a “Feminist Future Lecture Series”, collaborations with
Columbia University, and a series of exhibitions. The project’s co-director
Alexandra Schwartz in “MoMA’s Modern Women’s Project, Feminisms,
and Curatorial Practice” offers a first-hand account of the development of
the project and an analysis of this remarkable, and much debated, moment
in the history of art and feminism. Schwartz perspicaciously expounds
several societal, political, and art historical reasons for the resurgence of
interest in art and feminism in the United States during the mid-2000s and
elaborates on the effects of the Modern Women Project within and beyond
MoMA, concluding that the project contributed to a fundamental shift in
the general culture of gender at MoMA.
Among the many exhibitions and museum projects that elaborated on
women’s and/or feminist art in the 2000s, elles@centrepompidou: Women
artists in the collection of the Musée national d’art modern, Centre de
création industrielle, presented at the Centre Pompidou in Paris (2009–
2010), gave rise to a particular set of questions as it was a display event
that negotiated between the temporary exhibition and the presentation of
permanent collections and, despite its being a display of women artists-
only, claimed not to deal with either feminist issues or issues of gender. In
her contribution to this book, Malin Hedlin Hayden thus departs from an
interest in the difference between an exhibition and a re-arrangement of a
museum’s collection and the employment of the notions of “women”, sex,
and gender in the theoretical framework of elles@centrepompidou. In her
analysis, she locates a crucial paradox in the event’s curatorial model with
regard to history as a narrative mode of understanding the past and astutely
elucidates on the importance of national context in relation to how and
what concepts such as sex and gender come to mean.
Curating Differently: Feminisms, Exhibitions and Curatorial Spaces xvii
In her essay “Major global recurring art shows ‘doing feminist work’:
A case study of the 18th Biennale of Sydney: all our relations (2012)”,
Sibyl Fisher offers an insightful consideration of how the 18th Biennale of
Sydney enacted a feminist ethos and/or politics. The theoretical and
curatorial framework of the Biennale articulated an expanded concept of
relationality—encompassing social, intercultural, trans-subjective, and
trans-species relations—and the show thus dedicated itself to “inclusionary
practices of generative thinking”. Employing the concept of feminist work,
Fisher focuses on experiences of affect in the exhibition and offers a
personalized and critical reflection on her ambivalent experiences of the
Biennale. She asks what feminist work was made possible by the
exhibition, through its performative and active potentialities, and prompts
the question of whether the curators of the Biennale described relations or
produced them, concluding that the curatorial framework pushed her into
new considerations and thus expanded the idea of what feminist work
might be and do.
Notes
1
See e.g. Amelia Jones, “The Return of Feminism(s) and the Visual Arts, 1970-
2009,” in Feminisms is Still Our Name: Seven Essays on Historiography and
Curatorial Practices, eds. Malin Hedlin Hayden and Jessica Sjöholm Skrubbe,
(Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2010), 11–56;
Connie Butler, Amelia Jones, and Maura Reilly (in dialogue), “Feminist Curating
and the ‘Return’ of Feminist Art,” in The Feminism and Visual Culture Reader,
2nd ed., ed. Amelia Jones (London and New York: Routledge, 2010), 31–43;
Hilary Robinson, “Feminism meets the Big Exhibition: Museum Survey Shows
since 2005,” Anglo Saxonica 3, no. 6 (2013): 129–152.
http://www.ulices.org/images/site/publicacoes/anglo-saxonica/ASaxoIII-N6_2.pdf.
2
Robinson, “Feminism meets the Big Exhibition,” 147. Italics in original.
3
Reesa Greenberg, “The Exhibition as Discursive Event,” in Longing and
Belonging: From the Faraway Nearby (Santa Fe: SITE Santa Fe, 1995), 118–125.
Available online at:
http://www.yorku.ca/reerden/Publications/EXHIBITION/exhibition_discursive_ev
ent.html.
4
Renee Baert and Katy Deepwell, eds., n.paradoxa: international feminist art
journal, vol. 18, “Curatorial Strategies” (July 2008).
5
Malin Hedlin Hayden and Jessica Sjöholm Skrubbe, eds., Feminisms is Still Our
Name: Seven Essays on Historiography and Curatorial Practices (Newcastle upon
Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2010).
6
The network participants were Lara Perry, University of Brighton, UK; Angela
Dimitrakaki, University of Edinburgh, UK; Marko Daniel, Tate Modern, UK;
Kristina Huneault, Concordia University, Canada; Nancy Proctor, Smithsonian,
xviii Preface
USA. The documentation of the network’s activities, e.g. webcasts and reports, is
available online: University of Brighton: Arts and Humanities, “Transnational
perspectives on women’s art, feminism and curating,”
http://arts.brighton.ac.uk/projects/irn.
7
Katrin Kivimaa, ed., Working with Feminism: Curating and Exhibitions in
Eastern Europe, (Tallinn: Tallinn University Press, 2012).
8
Angela Dimitrakaki and Lara Perry, eds., Politics in a Glass Case: Feminism,
Exhibition Cultures and Curatorial Transgressions (Liverpool: Liverpool
University Press, 2013); Elke Krasny and Frauenmuseum Meran, eds.,
Women’s:Museum. Curatorial Politics in Feminism, Education, History, and
Art/Frauen:Museum. Politiken des Kuratorischen in Feminismus, Bildung,
Geschichte und Kunst (Vienna: Löcker Verlag, 2013).
9
Griselda Pollock, Encounters in the Virtual Feminist Museum: Time, space and
the archive (London and New York: Routledge, 2007); Griselda Pollock and Joyce
Zemans, eds., Museums after Modernism: Strategies of Engagement (Malden,
USA, Oxford, UK, and Victoria, Australia: Blackwell Publishing, 2007); Anna
Tellgren and Jeff Werner, eds., Representation och regionalitet. Genusstrukturer i
fyra svenska konstmuseisamlingar, (Stockholm: Statens kulturråd, 2011).
Available online:
http://www.kulturradet.se/Documents/publikationer/2011/representation_regionalit
et_web.pdf.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all I would like to thank Alexandra Schwartz, Eva Zetterman,

Doris Guth, Malin Hedlin Hayden, Margareta Gynning, Osnat Zukerman
Rechter, and Sibyl Fisher for their excellent work with the essays in this
anthology and for their enduring patience during the editing process.
I developed the conceptual framework for this book as I was part of the
international research network “Transnational Perspectives on Women’s
Art, Feminism and Curating”, funded by the Leverhulme Trust, UK, and I
am grateful to Lara Perry and Angela Dimitrakaki for inviting me to join
the project as a network participant together with Katrin Kivimaa, Kristina
Huneault, Nancy Proctor, and Marko Daniel. It turned out to be a truly
collaborative and creative adventure that fostered new ideas for further
research. As a result I organised a session on “Feminisms and Curating:
Strategies, Interventions, Histories” at the NORDIK X art history
conference in Stockholm in 2012. The majority of the contributions in this
book originates from papers presented at the conference and have been
rewritten and revised into essays for the present volume. I would like to
thank Angela Dimitrakaki, Joanne Heath, Katrin Kivimaa, and Vivian
Ziherl, who enthusiastically participated at the conference but did not have
the possibility to partake in the book project.
I am very grateful for the professional guidance of Carol Koulikourdi,
Sam Baker, and Victoria Carruthers at Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Also I would like to thank the artists, museums, galleries, and other
copyright holders that have granted permissions to reproduce the
illustrations in this book. Every effort has been made to trace all the
copyright holders, but if there are any serious omissions in this regard I
would be pleased to rectify them at the first opportunity. The Lars Hierta
Memorial Foundation has financially supported this publication, for which
I am very grateful.
xx Acknowledgements
The most valuable support during the process of editing this volume—
not least in its final, hectic stages—was offered by my family. I would like
to thank my husband Jens Skrubbe for his tolerance and patience with my
working hours and my wise and witty daughters Hedda and Harriet
Skrubbe for constantly reminding me that I am a cherished, even if
sometimes absent, mother.

Stockholm August 2015
CHAPTER ONE
CURATORIAL STRATEGIES ON THE ART SCENE

DURING THE FEMINIST MOVEMENT:
LOS ANGELES IN THE 1970S
EVA ZETTERMAN
In the historiography of feminist art, the 1970s is recognised as the most

important decade. Originating in the context of the social Civil Rights
Movements in the 1960s and contemporary art activities during that
decade addressing issues of race, gender and sexuality, feminism in the
1970s became a political movement, an aesthetic strategy and a
pedagogical framework. In the geographical context of the USA, major
sites for feminist art activities were the cities New York and Los Angeles.
Los Angeles is the city in the USA with the largest concentration of
Mexican Americans and Chicanas/os, and in the 1970s Los Angeles was a
major site for the contemporary Chicano Civil Rights Movement. The art
scene in Los Angeles in the 1970s has been described as misogynist, sexist
and racist, with lines of contention characterised by race, gender and
sexuality issues.1 Two important feminist exhibitions were held in Los
Angeles in the 1970s. One was Women Artists: 1550–1950 (1976) at the
Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA), the other was
Womanhouse (1972) in a deserted mansion in the Hollywood district. Both
of these exhibitions play important roles in the historiography regarding
feminist artists and feminist art. Each of them has their own specific pre-
and post-histories and represents different sectors of the Los Angeles art
scene: the mainstream and the alternative. The curatorial strategies and
manner in which these exhibitions met their audiences were also different.
Departing from these two exhibitions, this essay investigates curatorial
strategies on the alternative and mainstream art scenes during the feminist
movement, with Los Angeles as a spatial framework and the 1970s as
timeframe. Since Los Angeles was a major site in the 1970s for both the
Chicano Civil Rights Movement and the Feminist Movement, this essay
2 Chapter One
includes a documentation of the presence of Chicana/o artists on the

alternative and mainstream feminist art scenes.
The feminist alternative art scene

Several artist-run and alternative feminist spaces were initiated throughout
Los Angeles in the 1970s. The initial idea in 1971 for the feminist
exhibition Womanhouse (1972) was Paula Harper’s, an art historian at the
California Institute of the Arts (CalArts) in Valencia, where the Feminist
Art Program led by artists Judy Chicago and Miriam Shapiro had started
in 1971.2 The Feminist Art Program established in Fresno by Chicago in
1970 was relocated to CalArts in 1971, where Shapiro had been awarded a
professorship in 1970. Shapiro and Chicago engaged the twenty-one
students in the women-only Feminist Art Program in role-playing and
consciousness-raising sessions as pedagogical tools for the collaborative
process that led to Womanhouse.3 In the exhibition, the students were
granted the professional status of artists working among artists, not as
trainees in an academic art programme.4 The abandoned building in
Hollywood, lent to the project by the city of Los Angeles and later
demolished, housed more than twenty spaces designed as separate
environments with installations and staged performances by twenty-six artists
in total, including the Los Angeles artists Wanda Westcoast, Sherry Brody and
Carol Edson Mitchell.5 According to Judy Chicago, Womanhouse was the first
time that “female subject matter” was openly addressed in a public exhibition.6
During the month of the exhibition, from January 30 to February 28 in 1972,
Womanhouse gained national press coverage and received approximately 10
000 visitors, its first day being only open to women.7
The following year, Judy Chicago, art historian Arlene Raven and
graphic designer Sheila Levrant de Bretteville, co-founded the Woman’s
Building (1973–1991) in a renovated two-story building that had housed
the Chouinard Art School at Grandview Boulevard in Venice.8 When the
building was sold in 1976, the Woman’s Building moved to a house on
North Spring Street located in the downtown area. The Woman’s Building
comprised various feminist activities, such as the Feminist Studio
Workshop, the Center for Feminist Art Historical Studies, the Women’s
Graphic Centre, the Los Angeles Feminist Theatre, several Lesbian Art
Projects, women-owned businesses, such as Sisterhood Bookstore and
Associated Women’s Press, and several art galleries, such as Gallery 707,
Womanspace, Grandveiw I and Grandveiw II.9 Several individual
performance artists and performance groups “connected, were nurtured
and came of age” in the Woman’s Building as a performance venue,
Curatorial Strategies on the Art Scene during the Feminist Movement 3
Fig. 1-1. Barbara T. Smith, Nude Frieze (1972), F-space, Santa Ana. Photograph
by Boris Sojka. © Barbara T. Smith, courtesy of the artist.
including Barbara T. Smith, Rachel Rosenthal, Suzanne Lacy, Leslie

Labowitz, Cheri Gaulke, Nancy Angelo, the Feminist Art Workers, Terry
Wolverton and the Oral Herstory of Lesbianism, as well as Jerri Allyn and
the Waitresses.10
Another performance venue was the F-Space Gallery (1969–72) in an
industrial park in Santa Ana in the southern outskirts of Los Angeles, co-
founded by performance artist Barbara T. Smith. Several experimental
performances were held at F-Space Gallery, such as Smith’s ritualistic
performance Nude Frieze in 1972 (and Chris Burdens’ shoot performance
in 1971) (fig. 1-1).11 Smith had already in the 1960s experimented with a
Xerox machine installed in her dining room, creating multiple versions of
replicated exposures of her nude body. With these prints she produced a
series of bound “books”, such as Emergence (1965) and Coffin Books
(1965), followed by The Letter (1967), produced as a way to copyright her
experimental methods with xerography, and mailed in various copies to
colleagues in the art community “as an act of pissing on creative
territory”.12 The performance artist Rachel Rosenthal was the founder of
the improvisational space Instant Theatre (1955–65, 1976–1977), located
in a variety of sites throughout Los Angeles in the 1970s. Rosenthal was
also co-founder in 1972 of the Womanspace Gallery in western Los
4 Chapter One
Angeles with artist Linda Levi, in addition to her founding with the
Grandview Gallery, a woman’s art collective.13 When the Woman’s
Building opened in 1973, the Womanspace Gallery was relocated there
before it closed in 1974. Rosenthal’s studio at Robertson Boulevard in
Hollywood later housed the exhibition space Doing by Doing, called
Espace DbD (1980–83), showing performances by among others The
Waitresses, Stellarc and Eleanor Antin, and works by graphic artist June
Wayne.14 June Wayne was the founder of the Tamarind Lithography
Workshop in her studio at Tamarind Avenue in 1960 in Hollywood. In
1971, Wayne organised a workshop in her Tamarind studio for women
artists pursuing a career in the “male-dominated art world”.15 The
workshop, with the heading Business and Professional Problems of
Women Artists, engaged the participants in role-playing and dealt with
various aspects of “how to function effectively in the art world,” from
documenting and pricing works to negotiating with dealers and galleries.16
Performance artist Suzanne Lacy staged several of her early
performances in the Woman’s Building, and by 1974 she was teaching
performance in the Feminist Studio Workshop.17 In a large studio in
Venice, functioning as a “transition point” after Womanhouse was
completed in 1972, and before the opening of the Woman’s Building in
1973, Lacy participated with Judy Chicago, Sandra Orgen and Aviva
Rahmani in the creation of the performance Ablusions (1972) that
addressed rape and everyday violence against women.18 Together with
Leslie Labowitz-Starus, Lacy brought performances addressing rape and
violence against women into the public urban space of Los Angeles, thus
making feminist activist art even more public. Appropriating the strategies
by media reporters, the performance In Mourning and In Rage (1977) was
staged with the intention of raising awareness of the taboo subject rape,
while simultaneously deconstructing sexist patterns in media reporting on
violence against women.19 In so doing, the performance reached an even
larger audience than those present at the actual public site of the Los
Angeles City Hall, where ten women dressed in black and in high-veiled
hats entered the stairs. Lacy explains:
The performance, staged at City Hall as a media event for an audience of

politicians and news reporters, was designed as a series of thirty-second
shots that, when strung together in a two- to four-minute news clip, would
tell the story we wanted told. We considered, for example, camera angles,
reporter’s use of voice-over, and the role of politicians in traditional
reporting strategies.20
Fig. 1-2. Suzanne Lacy, A Woman Was Raped Here…, sidewalk chalking, part of
Three Weeks in May (1977). © Suzanne Lacy, courtesy of the artist.
The project Three Weeks in May (1977) by Lacy and Labowitz-Starus,

together with Barbara Cohen, Melissa Hoffman and Jill Soderholm, was
organised as a citywide project that lasted three weeks.21 During the three-
week period close to thirty public art events took place across the city of
Los Angeles, including sidewalk chalking of actual rape locations, self-
defence workshops, rallies, educational lectures and ritual readings and
performances (fig. 1-2).22 The project also included two monumental city
maps of Los Angeles installed in a pedestrian shopping centre beneath the
City Hall. One map had RAPE stamped in red on locations where women
had been raped over a three-week period in May 1977, while the other had
markers in black for rape crisis centres in Los Angeles, indicating routes to
recovery.23 Lacy and Labowitz also organised the carefully planned
project Record companies drag their feet (1977) on Sunset Boulevard in
Hollywood.24 Staged as a media event, pre-identifying the mediated
camera gaze of TV-reporter crews, activists in rooster costumes
pantomimed record company executives beneath a massive billboard for
the rock band Kiss, that “depicted scantily clad women at the feet of the
6 Chapter One
platform-heeled rockers”.25 Developed in collaboration with Julia London

from Women Against Violence Against Women and the National
Organization for Women, the project was a kick-off for a national boycott
announced by these groups of albums from three major record companies
in objection to their use of sexually violent images of women in the selling
records.26 From these performances by Lacy and Labowitz-Starus in the
mid-1970s grew the umbrella organisation Ariadne: A Social Art Network
(1978–1980), a coalition of artists, activists, media reporters and
politicians with the purpose of direct political action on violence against
women.27
Chicana artists on the feminist art scene

It has been claimed in retrospect that by 1970, “the women’s movement
had grown to include radicals and conservatives; white, blacks and
Chicanas”.28 Very few Chicana artists, however, were included in the art
programmes and art activities going on in the 1970s among white feminist
artists in Los Angeles. In her historical account of Chicana/o art in
California, Shifra Goldman argues:
Though both the Chicano political movement and the feminist movement
were emerging in California at the same time, there was very little political
contact. For the community at large, Mexicans and Chicanos were an
invisible presence.29
Despite diversity among Chicanas/os as a group with genealogical ties to

Mexico and resistance to a normative social US identity as WASP (white-
anglo-saxon-protestant), Chicana artists did not only oppose sexism and
discrimination against women, but also intersecting structures of
marginalisation and discrimination in terms of race (mixed Indian-
Spanish), ethnicity (Mexican), skin colour (brown), religion (Catholicism),
class (the working class poor), and language (Spanish).30 Of the feminist
movement in the 1970s, Chicana artist Yolanda Lopéz recounts:
Despite the many efforts and good intentions of white women in the arena
of political art, racial separation and racism existed de facto within the
feminist art movement from the beginning.31
The history of the Woman’s Building in Los Angeles includes several

reported accounts of racism among white feminists.32 When looking at the
large number of exhibitions held in the various galleries at the Woman’s
Building in Los Angeles, the exclusion of non-white artists becomes
obvious.33 During its Venice location (1973–1975), the names of only two
Chicana artists appear: Olivia Sanchez, included in a juried exhibition at
the Woman Space Gallery in 1973, and Rosalyn Mesquite invited to
participate in a three-woman show.34 After the Woman’s Building moved
to North Spring Street (1976–1991), only one exhibition was held with
Chicana artists, Venas de la Mujer in 1976, a collaborative art installation
created by a group calling themselves Las Chicanas, including Isabel
Castro, Judithe Hernández, Olga Muñiz, Josefina Quesada, and Judy
Baca.35
Even though sporadic contact existed between white Anglo American
and brown Chicana feminist artists in Los Angeles, they organised in
separate networking groups. Through its highway system, Los Angeles is
a spatially divided city, and this division of the urban space is mirrored by
a social segregation patterned along lines of race and ethnicity. In East Los
Angeles and the unincorporated areas east of the Los Angeles River, are
the areas with the lowest incomes and the highest percentage of
households without a car:36 the majority of inhabitants are Mexican
Americans and Chicanas/os. This socio-spatial division of the city is
reflected in a geographical separation of the alternative art scenes in Los
Angeles in the 1970s, with the feminist alternative art scene concentrated
in western Los Angeles while Chicana/o art activities primarily took place
east of the Los Angeles River. Chicano scholar Chon Noriega explains:
“the way in which [Chicana/o] artists navigated the city itself is
intrinsically tied to the psychogeography of the built environment”, and
for the Chicana/o community,
[…] a schematic of highways overlaid on top of existing neighbourhoods, a

dead-end public housing system, and a perceived border formed by the Los
Angeles River, combined with an inadequate public transit infrastructure,
effectively limited mobility within the urban core.37
Among Chicanas/os in East Los Angeles, mural painting was an important

visual media. This activity of community-based street murals in the 1970s
has, according to the amount of murals produced, been labelled a “mural
movement”.38 These street murals represent a form of public art that not
only reached audiences constituted by diverse groups of people in urban
street spaces, but also the spread of permanent visual art throughout
neighbourhoods where visual art in public spaces was often scarce.
Several mural groups were organised by Chicana artists in California in
the 1970s, such as Las Mujeres Muralistas of San Francisco, Las Mujeres
Muralistas of San Diego, Las Mujeres Muralistas of del Valle of Fresno,
and Mujeres in the Grupo de Santa Ana.39 In Los Angeles, several mural
8 Chapter One
projects were organised in the 1970s as part of educational youth

programmes. These educational programmes include the mural projects
led by Judy Baca as well as the mural projects in the East Los Angeles
housing projects in Ramona Gardens (1973–1977) and in Estrada Courts
(1973–1978), where eighty-two murals were produced by trained and
untrained muralists in collaboration with young residents and gang
members from the surrounding area.40 With the feminist movement not
only marginalising brown Chicanas, but also separating non-white women
from non-white men, Chicana artists organised in networking alliances
that included both women and men and in mixed-gendered mural groups
active in East Los Angeles.
Chicana artists in collaborative groups

A Chicana artist active throughout the 1970s with murals was Judy Baca.
In 1969, Baca was hired by the Los Angeles department of Recreation and
Parks to teach art classes in public parks in Boyle Heights, East LA.41 In
1973, she was appointed the director of the East Los Angeles Mural
Program, securing funds from the federal urban aid programme Model
Cities Program. In 1974, the East Los Angeles Mural Program was
expanded and became the Citywide Mural Program, producing more than
four hundred murals throughout the Los Angeles area under Baca’s
direction. In 1976, the same year Baca participated with Las Chicanas in
the exhibition at the Woman’s Building, she co-founded the Social and
Public Art Resource Center (SPARC) with filmmaker Donna Deitch and
artist Christina Schlesinger. Schlesinger, a painter and muralist in the
Citywide Mural Program led by Baca, was a student of Judy Chicago in
the Feminist Studio Workshop at the Woman’s Building, while Deitch, a
film maker, showed her work in the Woman’s Building, including her
UCLA thesis film, the feminist documentary Woman to Woman: A
Documentary about Hookers, Housewives, and Other Mothers (1975).
SPARC, located since 1977 in a two-storey Art Deco building on Venice
Boulevard that has served as a jail, comprises workshop facilities, a
gallery, mural archives and artist studios. SPARC engages community
members in the collaborative development of cultural programmes and
public murals, and Baca’s first mural project through SPARC was the
Great Wall of Los Angeles (1976–1983). Started in 1976, and executed
with over four hundred youths and artists over the course of five summers
between 1978 and 1983 in the Tujunga Flood Control Channel in the San
Fernando Valley in the northern outskirts of Los Angeles, the Great Wall
is considered the “longest mural in the world” with a visual narrative of
Fig. 1-3. Judy Baca, The Great Wall of Los Angeles (1976–1983), San Fernando
Valley. Photograph by Eva Zetterman. © Eva Zetterman.
the history of California, told through the “ethnic groups underrepresented

in history texts and public consciousness” (fig. 1-3).42 Baca, working as a
mural artist in a male dominated visual media and active on the Chicana/o
art scene that until the mid-1970s was “largely dominated by men”,43 later
recalled: “Activism in the 1970s had to do with me turning upside down
the notion that the creation of monumental art was a male act”.44
Among Chicana artists who worked with Baca on the Great Wall of
Los Angeles were Judith Hernández, Olga Muñiz, Isabel Castro, Yreina
Cervántez and Patssi Valdez.45 Three of these artists, Hernández, Muñiz
and Castro, were also members of the group Las Chicanas that including
Judy Baca and Josefina Quesada held the exhibition Venas de la Mujer at
Woman’s Building in 1976. Judithe Hernández and Patssi Valdez also are
examples of Chicana artists who were active on the Los Angeles art scene
in mixed-gendered group in the 1970s. Hernández was from 1970 to 1974
a resident artist for the first five volumes of Aztlán: Chicano Journal of the
Social Sciences and the Arts, published by the UCLA Chicano Studies
Research Center that had been established in 1969.46 Apart from
collaborating on Baca’s Great Wall, Hernández painted several murals in
the 1970s together with Carlos Almaraz in the housing projects of Ramona
Gardens. Almaraz was member of an art collective called Los Four,
including Frank Romero, Roberto de la Rocha and Gilbert Luján, and in
1974, Hernández became the fifth member of the group Los Four, who
during the 1970s and early 1980s worked in various media, including
murals.47
10 Chapter One
Fig. 1-4. Asco, Decoy Gang War Victim (1974) with Gronk. Photograph by Harry
Gamboa, Jr. © Harry Gamboa, Jr., courtesy of the artist.
Patssi Valdez, who worked with Baca both with Las Chicanas and on
the Great Wall of Los Angeles, was a member of the conceptual art group
Asco (1972–1987) that in various constellations comprised a number of
Chicana artists, including Diane Gamboa, Barbara Carrasco, Teresa
Covarrubias, Sylvia Delgado, Consuelo Flores, Maria Elena Gaitán, Karen
Gamboa, Linda Gamboa, Cindy Herrón, Sylvia Hidalgo, Marisela Norte,
Lorraine Ordaz, Betty Salas, Debra Taren, Virginia Villegas, Dianne
Vosoff, Kate Vosoff and Marisa Zains.48 Starting with collaborative work
for the local Chicano publication Regeneración in the early 1970s, the four
original members of Asco—Patssi Valdez, Harry Gamboa, Jr, Willie
Herrón and Gronk (aka Glugio Gronk Nicandro)—moved on to conceptual
street performances. These include two Christmas Eve processions down
Whittier Boulevard in East LA, Stations of the Cross (1971) and Walking
Mural (1972); a Christmas Eve ritual sitting on a traffic island on Whittier
Boulevard, First Supper (after a Major Riot) (1974); and two staged
enactments, Instant Mural (1974) and Asshole Mural (1975). Asco’s street
performances, according to scholars Chon Noriega and Pilar Tompkins
Rivas, “at once critiqued and engaged murals as a strategy of reclaiming
public space, just as Gronk and Herrón’s own murals incorporated
graffiti”.49
Asco’s performances were filmed and photographed by Harry Gamboa,

and some of these photographs were distributed as correspondence pieces
and spread through the correspondence art network The Eternal Network,
an international constellation of artists producing and exchanging projects
by mail.50 Asco also staged the performance Decoy Gang War Victim
(1974) at night in an empty street in East LA as an intervention into the
circulation within mass media of stereotypical portrayals of the Chicana/o
community as a “gang culture”, revealing the manipulative spreading of
unauthentic images as “true” (fig. 1-4). As scholar Ondine Chavoya
describes the intervention with Gronk “sprawled across the asphalt with
ketchup all over him, posing as the ‘victim’ of a gang retribution killing”,
the photograph of the performance was distributed to various publications
and television stations and was accepted as a real scenario of violence.
[The] image was broadcast, for example, on a KHJ-TV L.A. Channel 9, as

an “authentic” East L.A. Chicano gang murder and condemned as a prime
example of rampant gang violence in the City of Angels.51
Asco also produced a series of No Movies, with photographed scenes

staged as film stills from fictive Chicano Movies that were never intended
to be produced. Of these film stills, Noriega and Rivas notes:
Asco staged countless celebrity shots of themselves and their cohort, for
which, unlike Andy Warhol’s Superstars or Cindy Sherman’s Untitled
Film Stills (1977–80), there were neither referents in the culture industry
nor a marketplace in the art world.52
Chicana/o art spaces in East LA

When the feminist movement excluded Chicana artists, and when most
mainstream and commercial galleries were closed to Chicana/o artists,
Chicana/o alternative art spaces in East Los Angeles provided important
sites for exhibitions, art studios, cultural programmes and arts education.53
Among the alternative art spaces available in East Los Angeles in the
1970s were the Goez Art Studios and Gallery, Plaza de la Raza, the Self
Help Graphics & Art, the Mechicano Art Center, and Centro de Arte
Público. These art spaces are shortly presented in the following.
The still existing Goez Art Studios and Gallery was co-founded in
1969 on East First Street by David Rivas Botello and the brothers Jose-
Luis (Joe) Gonzalez and Juan (Johnny) Gonzalez.54 Goez Art Studios and
Gallery organised atelier-style training in various media so that artists
could become self-sustaining and gain commissions selling work through
12 Chapter One
the internal non-profit subsidiary The East Los Angeles School of

Mexican-American Fine Arts (TELASOMAFA).55 Exhibitions at Goez
Art Studios and Gallery comprised a wide range of styles and techniques,
and Josefina Quesada, who participated in the group Las Chicanas at the
exhibition at Woman’s Building in 1976, exhibited here.56 In 1975, its co-
founder Botello and muralist Wayne Healy formed the muralist art
collective Los Dos Streetscrapers (renamed East Los Streetscrapers in
1980), whose members executed over twenty murals and large-scale
public artworks throughout the Los Angeles area.57
Plaza de la Raza was initiated in 1969 by the Mexican-born singer and
actress Margo Albert and the labour union organiser Frank López.58
Located in an old boathouse in Lincoln Park, and officially becoming a
non-profit organisation as a Cultural Center for Arts and Education in
1970, the primary focus for Plaza de la Raza was on education through the
arts as a “critical means of transforming current social conditions”.59 One
of several funding sources was the Catholic campaign for human
development, established by US catholic bishops in 1970, which provided
“grants for community organisations, community-run schools, and
minority owned cooperatives”.60 Patssi Valdez from Asco held art classes
here, and the still existing Plaza de la Raza also sponsored arts education
classes at Goez Art Studios and Gallery, Mechicano Art Center, and Self
Help Graphics & Arts.61
Self Help Graphics & Art was co-founded in 1970 in an East Los
Angeles garage by Karen Boccalero, a printmaker and Franciscan nun, and
two Mexican gay men, muralist Carlos Bueno and photographer Antonio
Ibañez.62 After holding exhibitions at El Mercado, a Mexican-style market
in Boyle Heights, they moved in 1972 to a space financed by the Order of
the Sisters of St. Francis in an office building on Cesar Chavez Avenue
(formerly Brooklyn Avenue), owned by the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.63
Self Help Graphics & Art ran silk-screening and mural programmes with
an underlying pedagogy oriented towards education for social mobility
and involved Chicana/o artists “as role models for self-expression rooted
in cultural identity”.64 Its first educators, artists Linda Vallejo and Michael
Amescua, developed together with artists Richard Duardo and John
Valadez a curriculum that combined theoretical studies with hands-on art
training. In 1975, Sister Karen Boccalero and Michael Amescua developed
the Self Help Graphics & Art’s Barrio Mobile Art Studio (1975–1985) by
converting a step van “into a moving cultural center on wheels” (fig. 1-
5).65 Managed by Linda Vallejo, the Barrio Mobile Art Studio took classes
to the streets, reaching not only students at elementary schools during
weekdays, but also “adults and even gang members on weekends”.66 Besides
Fig. 1-5. Self Help Graphics & Art’s Barrio Mobile Art Studio. Sister Karen
Boccalero (back row, far right) and Linda Vallejo (front row, far right). © Self
Help Graphics & Art, courtesy of Self Help Graphics & Art.
Linda Vallejo were several Chicana artists involved in teaching at Self

Help Graphics & Art in the 1970s, including Yreina Cervántez, Diane
Gamboa, Delores Guerrero, Cecilia Casinera, Margaret Garcia and Ofelia
Esparza. Its present location, since 2011, is on East First Street.
Mechicano Art Center was initiated as a gallery space in 1969 by Mura
Bright, a Russian emigrant and donator, Victor Franco, an artist and
journalist, and Leonard Castellanos, an artist and graphic designer.67 In
1970, Mechicano Art Center moved from its first location on Melrose at
La Cienega Boulevard in the art district in the west to a former
Laundromat on Whittier Boulevard in the east that was leased from the
East Los Angeles Doctors Hospital.68 Mechicano Art Center served as an
educational environment, hosted community meetings, held youth-oriented
printmaking and drawing classes, ran silk screening and community mural
programmes, and involved youth groups and gang members as assistants
to teaching artists.69 In 1972, Mechicano Art Center initiated the mural
programme at the Ramona Gardens Housing Project (1973–1977) under
14 Chapter One
the direction of artist Armando Cabrera, in which Judithe Hernández

participated. Also in 1972, Mechicano Art Center initiated the Bus Bench
Project, funded by the East Los Angeles Doctors Hospital, with the goal of
“adding something beautiful to our community”.70 The Bus Bench Project
involved thirty Mechicano artists painting backs and fronts of bus benches
along main thoroughfares in East LA, mostly along Whittier Boulevard, as
sites for Chicana/o art becoming visible to passing drivers and bus
passengers. Several Chicanas/os who were establishing themselves as
artists held their first-time exhibitions at Mechicano, including Judithe
Hernández, Carmen Lomas Garza, Carlos Almaraz from Los Four, Wayne
Healy from Los Dos Streetscrapers, and Willie Herrón, Gronk, and Harry
Gamboa from Asco with mixed-media works.71 Late in 1975, Mechicano
Art Center moved to North Figueroa Street in Highland Park, where its
exhibitions included solo exhibitions by Linda Vallejo and Lucila
Villaseñor Grijalva, an Asco exhibition, and a Chicana exhibit with
Judithe Hernández, Isabel Castro, and Sonya Fe.72 In 1976, Sonya Fe was
hired to run the silkscreen workshop. Other Chicana artists involved in
Mechicano Art Center were muralist Susan Saenz73 and Maria Elena
Villaseñor.74 Barbara Carrasco, a member of the nearby Centro de Arte
Público, did several projects at Mechicano around 1977, including a poster
for a women’s conference.75 Its last exhibition was in November 1977 for
Dia de los Muertos that included among others Harry Gamboa from Asco
and Carlos Almaraz from Los Four.76 Due to lack of funding, Mechicano
Art Center closed in 1978. In 1972, its founders Bright, Franco and
Castellanos also initiated the Los Angeles Community Arts Alliance that
promoted “the arts as a tool for social change through education”.77 The
Arts Alliance coordinated community efforts among fifty-one community-
based art groups and centres in the south, east and central areas of Los
Angeles.
Centro de Arte Público on North Figueroa Street in Highland Park was
co-founded in 1977 by Carlos Almaraz from Los Four, Guillermo Bejarano,
a painter, and Richard Duardo, a printer from Self Help Graphics & Art.78
The Centro de Arte Público was oriented towards producing works in
various media that focused on Los Angeles street scenes and urban
Chicana/o youth. Several Chicanas were invited to participate in
exhibitions and maintained a studio here, including Judithe Hernández,
Barbara Carrasco and Dolores Guerrero Cruz.79 Lack of support led to its
closing in 1979 and the transformation of the space in 1980 by Guillermo
Duardo and his sister, business manager Lisa Duardo, into the print studio
Hecho in Aztlán Multiples and the Chicano punk club the Vex.80 Among
the Los Angeles punk groups hosted at the Vex were Los Illegals, with
Asco member Wille Herrón as lead singer. A final example of alternative

art spaces initiated in Los Angeles in the 1970s is the Los Angeles
Contemporary Exhibitions (LACE), which was established in 1978 in the
abandoned Victor Clothing building on downtown South Broadway by a
small group of artists, including Asco members Gronk and Harry
Gamboa.81 Since the mid-1990s, LACE is located on Hollywood
Boulevard in western Los Angeles.
The mainstream art scene in the 1970s

Of the two feminist exhibitions organised in Los Angeles in the 1970s, the
Women Artists: 1550–1950 (1976) at LACMA represents the mainstream
art scene. This exhibition was not the first historical survey exhibition with
women artists organised by mainstream venues in the USA.82 In 1965,
Women Artists of America, 1707–1964 with one hundred twenty-nine
artists was held at the Newark Museum, New Jersey. In 1972, Women: A
Historical Survey of Works by Women Artists with seventy-eight artists
was held at Salem Fine Arts Center in North Carolina, later travelling to
the North Carolina Museum of Art in Raleigh. Also in 1972, Old
Mistresses: Women Artists of the Past with thirty-five artists was held at
Walters Art Gallery in Baltimore. In Montréal, Canada, Artfemme ‘75’: An
Exhibition of Women’s Art with ninety-four artists was held at Musée
d’Art Contemporain in 1975, the international women’s year.
In Los Angeles various women-only-exhibitions had been held in the
early 1970s with contemporary artists. The exhibition Four Los Angeles
Women Artists was held at LACMA in 1972. Also in 1972, the exhibition
Invisible/Visible: 21 Artists, organised by artist Dextra Frankel, was held
at the Long Beach Museum of Art. In 1974, scholar Lucy Lippard
organised the exhibition c. 7,500 at CalArts in Valencia with twenty-six
artists, including Adrian Piper. This exhibition later toured in the US and
to London. None of the exhibitions above included any Chicana artists.
The prehistory to the Women Artists: 1550–1950 exhibition at
LACMA was feminist artists protesting against the marginalisation of
women artists on the Los Angeles art scene. In 1971, an exhibition titled
Art and Technology had been held at LACMA with seventy-six artists, all
of them men. Out of political action by feminist artists in Los Angeles
protesting the Art and Technology programme (1967–1971) at LACMA,
and the exhibition in 1971 under the same heading, came the formation of
the Los Angeles Council of Women Artists (LACWA).83 LACWA served
as a networking agency for critics, curators, collectors, art historians, and
artists, including graphic designer Sheila Levrant de Bretteville, co-
16 Chapter One
founder of the Woman’s Building in 1974, and initially led by artist Joyce
Kozloff. In protest to the Art and Technology exhibition, LACWA
conducted a survey of works by women in the LACMA collection, and the
members of LACWA shared testimonies of discrimination that were
collected by the council and turned into statistics to be used as the basis for
political demands.84 Meetings in protest to the Art and Technology
exhibition in 1971 were also held in June Wayne’s Tamarind studio.85 In
1972, Wayne’s Tamarind Workshop issued a survey exposing gender-bias
in art publication reviews that covered shows by men and women.86 These
actions combined led to a dialogue with the board of trustees of LACMA
and eventually resulted in the exhibition Women Artists at LACMA in
1976.
Established in 1961, LACMA is one of the most prestigious art
museums in Los Angeles and the largest art museum in the western USA
since 1965. It is located in the highbrow Wilshire district in the west. The
exhibition Women Artists was organised by two art historians, Ann
Sutherland Harris and Linda Nochlin, whose influential article “Why Have
There Been No Great Women Artists?” had been published in ARTnews in
January 1971, five years previously. The historical survey exhibition with
eighty-five women artists was organised as an additive complement to the
art historical canon of fine art. Arranged in a traditional linear narrative,
paintings and drawings were hung on walls in darkened rooms and
highlighted by spotlights so the visitors could walk in pre-organised paths
and quietly inspect each painting (fig. 1-6). After the show at LACMA,
from December 1976 to March 1977, the exhibition travelled to the
University Art Museum of Texas in Austin, the Museum of Art at
Carnegie Institute in Pittsburgh, and the Brooklyn Museum in New York.
In 2007, celebrating the thirtieth anniversary of the Women Artists
exhibition at LACMA, two large exhibitions were organised at its first and
last destinations. In Los Angeles was WACK! Art and the Feminist
Revolution organised by Cornelia Butler at the Los Angeles Museum of
Contemporary Art (MOCA). This exhibition later toured the country and
travelled to Canada. At Brooklyn Museum in New York Global
Feminisms: New Directions in Contemporary Art was organised by Maura
Reilly and Linda Nochlin. In the catalogue introduction by Reilly, the
Women Artists exhibition is declared “the first” historical survey
exhibition with women artists at a large-scale museum in the USA.87
Erasing the memory of previous historical survey exhibitions at various
US locations in the 1960s and 70s, Reilly praises the Women Artists
exhibition as “a landmark event in the history of feminism and art”, a
“pioneering exhibition”, and “by far the most significant curatorial
Fig. 1-6. Installation view of the exhibition Women Artists: 1550–1950 at

Brooklyn Museum (1977), curated by Ann Sutherland Harris and Linda Nochlin in
1976 for LACMA. Photo: Brooklyn Museum Archives. © Brooklyn Museum,
courtesy of Brooklyn Museum.
corrective in the 1970s”.88 In the catalogue essay by Nochlin, the selection

criteria that she and Sutherland Harris had for Women Artists is justified in
retrospect, revealing a narrow view on artists as primarily painters “back
then” in the 1970s:
[…] the first show [Women Artists at Brooklyn in 1977] was historical
rather than contemporary. From this it followed that it consisted almost
entirely of drawing and painting; even sculpture was omitted in the interest
of consistency. Clearly, back then, the word “artist,” female as well as
male, implied that the individual was primarily a painter.89
The guiding Eurocentric perspective of Nochlin and Sutherland Harris,

which steered their selection criteria for Women Artists, is retrospectively
justified by Reilly:
18 Chapter One
The canon within which Sutherland Harris and Nochlin were trained as art
historians and within which they chose to work was the dominant, Western
one. No one questioned in 1976, therefore, why the exhibition focused
solely on artist from America and Europe, or that it included only one
woman of color (Frida Kahlo). The academic canons of art history,
literature, philosophy, and so on were being challenged by feminists at that
time for their masculinist tendencies, for the most part, not their
Eurocentric and imperialistic ones. It would not be until the 1980s that the
hegemony of the Western canons themselves was questioned.90
One might ask: Who in the 1970s would have questioned this perspective?
Perhaps not white feminists, as Reilly states, but certainly Chicana/o artists
in Los Angeles. It was precisely in protest to such “Eurocentric and
imperialistic” exclusions that the conceptual art group Asco performed an
art intervention against LACMA in 1972. The prehistory to this political
action was a visit to LACMA by Asco member Harry Gamboa when he
approached one of the curators and asked why the museum never
exhibited art by a Chicano artist, to which the curator replied, “Chicanos
they don’t do art, you know, they’re in gangs”.91 In response to this
categorical, prejudiced answer, the three Asco members Harry Gamboa,
Willie Herrón and Gronk returned after the museum had closed and tagged
the museum entryways with their graffiti-styled names, with Herrón also
applying a typeface of cholo graffiti typical among gangs in East LA,
further emphasising a presumed gang relation. The fourth Asco member
Patssi Valdez later explained that she did not participate in the action since
the male members of Asco did not expect her to be able to run fast enough
if they were to be chased by the police.92 Harry Gamboa returned with
Valdez before their graffiti-styled signatures the next morning were
whitewashed and documented her in photographs standing beside the
signatures on the walls (fig. 1-7). With these photographs, known through
the circulation of Gamboa’s photographs and referred to as Spray Paint
LACMA or Project Pie in De/Face, Asco claimed LACMA as a conceptual
art piece, appropriating the whole museum and its contents as a signature
ready-made, “the first conceptual work of Chicano art to be exhibited at
LACMA”.93 As Noriega argues, with these photographs Asco:
[…] exposes the underlying racial and class dynamics that exclude Chicano
artists and that align curatorial judgment with graffiti abatement. […] The
image that circulates is not of isolated signatures, but of the art group
manifest in name and body before the public art museum. Through its
aesthetic selection the signature image for Spray Paint LACMA documents
the conceptual action as well as the gender politics that resulted in three
signatures, not four, and four artists, not three. They are one and the same.94
Fig. 1-7. Asco, Spray Paint LACMA or Project Pie in De/Face (1974) with Patssi
Valdez. Photograph by Harry Gamboa, Jr. © Harry Gamboa, Jr., courtesy of the
artist.
Two years after Asco’s conceptual tagging, an exhibition was held at

LACMA with the Chicano art group Los Four, including its fifth member
Judithe Hernández. This exhibition has been claimed to be “the first
exhibition of Chicano artists held at a major art museum”.95 The title of the
exhibition, Los Four: Almaraz/de la Rocha/Luján/Romero, erases the
participation of Judithe Hernández in the show, as does the group’s name,
indicating a fixed number of members with its fifth female member as an
invisible appendix. Apart from eventual insights gained from Asco’s protest
in 1972 and LACMA’s exclusion of Chicana/o artists within its premises,
the Los Four exhibition in 1974 followed lobbying efforts by African
American museum employees at LACMA who had formed the Black Arts
Council (1968–1974). The lobbying efforts by the Black Arts Council had
resulted in two previous non-white exhibitions at LACMA: Tree Graphic
Artists in 1971, and Los Angeles 1972: A Panorama of Black Artists in
1972.96 In 1974, Asco, still protesting against the selection criteria at
LACMA and challenging the exclusionary social codes at mainstream art
institutions and the prestigious context of LACMA, “crashed the opening
reception” at the Los Four exhibition,97 and “became integrated into the
opening” as “moving works of art”.98 Herrón explains:
20 Chapter One
[W]e costumed to the max. We painted our faces. We hung things from our
bodies. And we went to that exhibit like we were going to a costume party
or like we were going trick or treating. And we just went like wanting
people to see some part of Chicano art that still didn’t exist, that wasn’t in
that show that we felt had to be in that show. So we attended that exhibit,
the opening, but we were moving works of art […] We performed without
even performing.99
Curatorial strategies on the art scene in Los Angeles

Comparing curatorial strategies applied by groups of artists in the 1970s,
performance artist Suzanne Lacy notes:
There were many differences, but there was an uncontested parallel

between feminist and ethnic [sic] artists: obtaining equality—of resources,
representation, and power—was the political motivation that fuelled both
art practices. This aspiration led artists in both groups to examine the
interactive potential of art making, both within the work itself through
collaboration and between the work and its audience. This activist
orientation toward the audience challenged artists to seek and identify
specifically who their work was for. More broadly, it signalled the
beginnings of today’s theories that articulate a diverse and differentiated
public for art.100
Operating outside of and sometimes in opposition to the mainstream art

scene in Los Angeles, feminists in the west and Chicanas/os in the east
initiated some shared strategies, such as art activism as social protests,
carefully planned street performances in public urban spaces to reach new
audiences, correspondence pieces distributed as mail art, and media
critique through appropriation of the strategies of mass-media. Additional
shared strategies were artists developing their own cultural infrastructure
of independent, non-profit, artist-run or artist-centric venues. The
alternative gallery system made it possible to view work outside of
museums and for-profit galleries, and gave artists training and education
opportunities through the pragmatic experience of raising funds,
developing press coverage, and running the business side of galleries.101
As Brodsky has noted, the alternative gallery system also provided artists
with a support and mentor structure that helped many to develop the
confidence and long-term commitment necessary for producing a lifetime
body of work.102
The Chicana/o art scene in the east differed, however, from the
feminist one in the west in that it was community-centred and
characterised by the support of methods such as printing and street art, in
particular street murals, and an underlying pedagogy oriented toward the

education and social mobility of the whole Chicana/o community. The
inclusion and exclusion of participants in collaborative groups also
differed. Whereas feminist alternative spaces, such as the Woman’s
Building, were strategically separatist, Chicana/o artists organised into
networking alliances that included both women and men. Other important
differences were economic circumstances and access to financial support.
As Walter Benn Michaels has argued, not taking into account class
inequality and poverty as obstacles for the production of art denies the
relevance of being working class or poor.103 Goldman explains:
Everywhere the [Chicana/o] movement encountered an insoluble problem:

the working-class communities it wished to address did not have the
economic resources to support an artistic constituency. In addition, the
communities were frequently not conversant with the kind of art being
brought to them, and sometimes—being caught up with primary problems
of survival—did not welcome it, or were indifferent to it. To solve the
second problem, educational programs were organized. To solve the first
(since artists must have material, space, walls, rent, transportation, and
living expenses), the artists sought support for their endeavours from small
businesses, government on all level, educational institutions, and corporate
agencies, in addition to community fund-raising.104
The strategies applied by Asco illustrate their lack of economic resources

and the working-class community in which they were active; by using
their own bodies as their main visual tool for staged scenes and street
performances in public urban spaces in East LA, they addressed people in
their immediate surroundings as their main audience. Asco member Gronk
once explained: “Coming out of a sense of poverty, we used whatever was
available”.105 With limited access to Los Angeles art museums and the
gallery system in the west, Asco “took action” in the streets, as Pattsi
Valdez explains:
No gallery was gonna call us up and say “were giving you a show.” And
we didn’t wait around for that. We didn’t sit around and complain. We
took action. We made it happen.106
My point here is that concrete and material circumstances are crucial both
for the production of art and the choice of curating strategies in exhibiting
this art, in addition to initiating alternative galleries and exhibition spaces.
This is illustrated by the examples given above of alternative art spaces in
East LA in the 1970s. Some were funded by the Catholic Church, the
Order of the Sisters of St Francis, or the East Los Angeles Doctors
22 Chapter One
Hospital and run as part of educational programmes, or closed down due

to lack of funding.
For Chicana artists, the feminist movement was a white middle-class
Anglo American enterprise with non-white women in its distant
periphery.107 The history of the Woman’s Building is a clear indication of
colour-based marginalization, including only two exhibitions in the 1970s
with non-white artists, Black Mirror (1973), organised by Betye Saar with
five African American artists, and the Venas de la Mujer (1976) with the
group Las Chicanas. The mainstream art scene in the 1970s was even
more hostile towards including non-white women artists in its exhibitions.
Apart from the resistance recounted above at the prestigious Los Angeles
museum LACMA, another illustrative example from the 1970s is the Afro-
American Women Artists Exhibition for the National Women’s Caucus for
Art, for the College Art Association Meeting in Washington, D.C. in 1979,
that was cancelled before opening due to lack of funding.108
Of feminist groups in the USA in the 1970s, it has been noted that
unlike feminists in New York, the feminists in Los Angeles were “devoted
to the creation of separatist institutions”.109 These spaces allowed women
artists in Los Angeles to show work addressing “their bodies, their
sexuality, and their lives in images that were considered unacceptable to
mainstream galleries and museums”.110 Of the feminist art scene in Los
Angeles in the 1970s, Lopéz and Roth claim:
In Los Angeles, protest art was often addressed to two very different
audiences. When presented in the Woman’s Building, it reconfirmed
beliefs and energized an audience that already shared the artists’ feminist
viewpoint. At the same time, women left such sheltered spaces and sallied
forth into the streets, galleries, public spaces, and the media to confront
and/or convert unknown, often unpredictable audiences.111
This feminist protest art of the 1970s were gradually incorporated into the
mainstream art field, exhibited in major art museums and included in the
canon of fine art. Activist art by Chicanas/os, on the other hand, came to
remain in a marginalised position. As Noriega and Rivas notes:
Chicano artists understood their work in community-based, social

movement, and art historical terms, but their ability to open up a dialogue
within art criticism and with respect to museum curatorial frameworks
remained extremely limited.112
The mainstream art scene is a cultural sector that is exceptionally slow in

changing its curatorial strategies and broadening its selection criteria. In a
critical reading of the catalogue to the exhibition WACK! Art and the
Feminist Revolution at MOCA in Los Angeles in 2007, Jessica Sjöholm
Skrubbe notes that of the artists included, only twenty percent were
selected outside of the USA and Europe.113 A selection criteria in
mainstream art venues that is repeated even more often than the artists’
nationality, however, is the artists’ skin colour, i.e. the exclusion of non-
white artists irrespective of their nationality. Of the one hundred and
fifteen artists in the WACK! exhibition, over fifty artists were from the
USA. Among them was only one Chicana, Judy Baca. In an historical
account of the feminist movement in the 1970s in the USA it has been
noted that, “before the 1970s, women artists were almost invisible”.114 For
the feminist art scene in the US of today, forty years later, the conclusion
is that when it comes to brown Chicana artists, they are still almost
invisible.
Notes
1
Susan Schrank, Art and the City: Civic Imagination and Cultural Authority in Los
Angeles (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009).
2
Arlene Raven, “Womanhouse,” in The Power of Feminist Art: The American
Movement of the 1970s, History and Impact, eds. Norma Broude and Mary D.
Garrard (New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1996), 48.
3
Faith Wilding, “The Feminist Art Programs at Fresno and Calarts, 1970-75,” in
The Power of Feminist Art: The American Movement of the 1970s, History and
Impact, eds. Norma Broude and Mary D. Garrard (New York: Harry N. Abrams,
1996), 39–41.
4
Raven, “Womanhouse,” 48.
5
Ibid.
6
Norma Broude and Mary D. Garrard, “Conversation with Judy Chicago and
Miriam Schapiro,” in The Power of Feminist Art: The American Movement of the
1970s, History and Impact, eds. Norma Broude and Mary D. Garrard (New York:
Harry N. Abrams, 1996), 67.
7
Raven, “Womanhouse,” 61.
8
Shifra Goldman, Dimensions of the Americas: Art and Social Change in Latin
America in the United States (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago
Press, 1994), 218.
9
Judith K. Brodsky, “Exhibitions, Galleries, and Alternative Spaces,” in The
Power of Feminist Art: The American Movement of the 1970s, History and Impact,
eds. Norma Broude and Mary D. Garrard (New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1996),
109.
10
Josephine Withers, “Feminist Performance Art: Performing, Discovering,
24 Chapter One
Transforming Ourselves,” in The Power of Feminist Art: The American Movement

of the 1970s, History and Impact, eds. Norma Broude and Mary D. Garrard (New
York: Harry N. Abrams, 1996), 168.
11
Alexis Donis, “California Dreamin’: Performance, Media Art, and History as
Gossip,” in Collaboration Labs: Southern California Artists and the Artist Space
Movement, ed. Nicole Gordillo (Santa Monica, CA: 18th Street Arts Center, 2011),
40.
12
Donis, “California Dreamin’,” 35.
13
Ibid., 24.
14
Ibid., 30.
15
Richard Meyer, “June Wayne,” in WACK!: Art and the Feminist Revolution, ed.
Lisa Gabrielle Mark (Los Angeles: The Museum of Contemporary Art;
Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: The MIT Press, 2007), 313.
16
Mary D. Garrard, “Feminist Politics: Networks and Organizations,” in The
eds. Norma Broude and Mary D. Garrard (New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1996), 91.
17
Withers, “Feminist Performance Art,” 170.
18
Ibid., 168.
19
20
Suzanne Lacy, “Affinities: Thoughts on an Incomplete History,” in The Power
of Feminist Art: The American Movement of the 1970s, History and Impact, eds.
Norma Broude and Mary D. Garrard (New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1996), 267.
21
Withers, “Feminist Performance Art,” 170.
22
23
Vivien Green Fryd, “Ending the Silence,” in Doin’it in Public: Feminism and
Art at the Woman’s Building, eds. Meg Linton, Sue Maberry and Elizabeth
Pulsinelli (Los Angeles: Ben Maltz Gallery, Otis College of Art and Design,
2011), 163–164.
24
25
Ibid.
26
Ibid.
27
Lacy, “Affinities,” 267; Donis, “California Dreamin’,” 56.
28
Garrard “Feminist Politics,” 91.
29
Goldman, Dimensions of the Americas, 217.
30
Gloria Anzaldúa, “Speaking in Tounges: A Letter To 3rd World Women
Writers,” in This Bridge Called My Back: Writings by Radical Women of Color,
2nd ed., eds. Cherríe Moraga and Gloria Anzaldúa (New York: Kitchen Table –
Women of Color Press, 1983).
31
Yolanda M. López and Moira Roth, “Social Protest: Racism and Sexism,” in The
eds. Norma Broude and Mary D. Garrard (New York: Harry N. Abrams 1996),
140.
32
Michelle Moravec, “Fictive Families of History Makers: Historicity at the Los
Angeles Woman’s Building,” in Doin’it in Public: Feminism and Art at the
Woman’s Building, eds. Meg Linton, Sue Maberry and Elizabeth Pulsinelli (Los
Angeles: Ben Maltz Gallery, Otis College of Art and Design, 2011).
33
Otis College of Art and Design, “Woman’s Building: History Timeline,”
accessed February 14, 2014, http://www.otis.edu/ben-maltz-gallery/womans-
building-history-timeline.
34
35
Ibid., 218, 305.
36
Chon A. Noriega and Pilar Tompkins Rivas, “Chicano Art in the City of
Dreams: A History in Nine Movements,” in L.A. Xicano, eds. Chon A. Noriega,
Terezita Romo and Pilar Tompkins Rivas (Los Angeles: UCLA Chicano Studies
Research Center Press, 2011), 84.
37
Noriega and Rivas, “Chicano Art in the City of Dreams,” 82.
38
Eva Cockcroft, John Weber and James Cockcroft, Towards a People’s Art: The
Contemporary Mural Movement (New York: E.P. Dutton, 1977); López and Roth,
“Social Protest,” 47.
39
Shifra M. Goldman, “How, Why, Where, and When It All Happened: Chicano
Murals of California,” in Signs From the Heart: California Chicano Murals, eds.
Eva Sperling Cockcroft and Holly Barnet-Sánhez (Venice, CA: Social and Public
Art Resource Center; Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1996), 40.
40
41
Ibid., 80.
42
D. Flores Estrella, “Great Wall Introduction,” in Great Wall of Los Angeles:
Walking Tour Guide, ed. D. Flores Estrella (Venice, CA: SPARC, 2011), 3.
43
Goldman, “How, Why, Where, and When It All Happened,” 219.
44
López and Roth, “Social Protest,” 151.
45
46
47
Ibid.
48
C. Ondine Chavoya and Rita Gonzalez, “Asco and the Politics of Revulsion,” in
ASCO: Elite of the Obscure, ed. C. Ondine Chavoya and Rita Gonzalez
(Ostfildern: Hatje Cantz Verlag, 2011), 38.
49
Noriega and Rivas, “Chicano Art in the City of Dreams”, 86.
50
C. Ondine Chavoya, “Ray Johnson and Asco: Correspondences,” in ASCO: Elite
of the Obscure, ed. C. Ondine Chavoya and Rita Gonzalez (Ostfildern: Hatje Cantz
Verlag, 2011), 300.
51
C. Ondine Chavoya, “Internal Exiles: The Interventionist Public and
Performance Art of Asco,” in Space, Site, Intervention: Situating Installation Art,
ed. Erika Suderburg (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2000),
197.
52
Noriega and Rivas, “Chicano Art in the City of Dreams”, 88.
53
Goldman, “How, Why, Where, and When It All Happened,” 219.
54
Karen Mary Davalos, “‘All Roads Lead to East L.A’: Goez Art Studios and
Gallery,” in L.A. Xicano, eds. Chon A. Noriega, Terezita Romo, and Pilar
Tompkins Rivas (Los Angeles: UCLA Chicano Studies Research Center Press,
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
apporter le Feu dans le monde et que veux-je sinon qu’il s’allume.
Là, soutenu par la prière perpétuelle des âmes élues qui
m’entourent, j’acquiers un peu le droit d’implorer pour les pécheurs,
mes frères, et de lancer vers la Miséricorde éternelle le cri où l’Église
a rassemblé toute sa foi, toute son espérance, toute sa charité :
Cœur sacré de Jésus, ayez pitié de nous !…
Imprimerie Bussières. — Saint-Amand (Cher).

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK LES RUBIS DU
CALICE ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions

will be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright
in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and
distribute it in the United States without permission and without
paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General
Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and
distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the
PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if
you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the
trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the
Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is
very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such
as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and
printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in
the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright
law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially
commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the

free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this
work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase
“Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of
the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or
online at www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand,
agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual
property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to
abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using
and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for
obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™
electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms
of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only

be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by
people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.
There are a few things that you can do with most Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the
full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There
are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™
electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and
help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright
law in the United States and you are located in the United
States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying,
distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works
based on the work as long as all references to Project
Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will
support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free
access to electronic works by freely sharing Project
Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this
agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name
associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms
of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with
its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it
without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside
the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to
the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying,
displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works
based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The
Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright
status of any work in any country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project

Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project
Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed,
viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United

States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it
away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg
License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United
States, you will have to check the laws of the country where
you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to
anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges.
If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the
work, you must comply either with the requirements of
paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use
of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth
in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and
distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder.
Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™
License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright
holder found at the beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files
containing a part of this work or any other work associated with
Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute
this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1
with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the
Project Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if
you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project
Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or
other format used in the official version posted on the official
Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at
no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a
means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other
form. Any alternate format must include the full Project
Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™
works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or

providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive
from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using
the method you already use to calculate your applicable
taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate
royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or
are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns.
Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at
the address specified in Section 4, “Information about
donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt
that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project
Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return
or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical
medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other
copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full

refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy,
if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported
to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project

Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different
terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain
permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™
trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3
below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on,
transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright
law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite
these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the
medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,”
such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt
data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other
medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES -

Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in
paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic
work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for
damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU
AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE,
STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH
OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH
1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER
THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR
ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE
OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF
THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If

you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of
receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you
paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you
received the work from. If you received the work on a physical
medium, you must return the medium with your written
explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the
defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu
of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or
entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.
If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund
in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set

forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’,
WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR
ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this
agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this
agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the
maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable
state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of
this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the

Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless
from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that
arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project
Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or
deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect
you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of

Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new
computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of
volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project
Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™
collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In
2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was
created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project
Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your
efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the
Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-
profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the
laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by
the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal
tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax
deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and
your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500

West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact
links and up to date contact information can be found at the
Foundation’s website and official page at
www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to

the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission
of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works
that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form
accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated
equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly
important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws

regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of
the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform
and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many
fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not
solicit donations in locations where we have not received written
confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or
determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit
www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states

where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know
of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from
donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot

make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations
received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp
our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current

donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a
number of other ways including checks, online payments and
credit card donations. To donate, please visit:
www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project

Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could
be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose
network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several

printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by
copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus,
we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any
particular paper edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,

including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new
eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear
about new eBooks.

Curating Differently Feminisms Exhibitions and Curatorial Spaces 1St Edition Jessica Sjoholm Skrubbe Online Ebook Texxtbook Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Curating Differently Feminisms Exhibitions and Curatorial Spaces 1St Edition Jessica Sjoholm Skrubbe Online Ebook Texxtbook Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Curating Differently Feminisms

Exhibitions and Curatorial Spaces 1st

Curatorial Activism Towards an Ethics of Curating Maura

Curating Fascism Exhibitions and Memory from the Fall

Nell Walden Der Sturm and the Collaborative Cultures of

Writing Differently 1st Edition Alison Pullen

Starting Out The c3 Sicilian 1st Edition John Emms

The Paper Issue 83 1st Edition Origamiusa

Please Don t Say Goodbye Summer Lake Seasons 7 1st

Exhibitions for Social Justice 1st Edition Elena

Jessica Sjöholm Skrubbe

Edited by Jessica Sjöholm Skrubbe

This book first published 2016

Cambridge Scholars Publishing

Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

Copyright © 2016 by Jessica Sjöholm Skrubbe and contributors

ISBN (10): 1-4438-8577-0

List of Illustrations .................................................................................... vii

Acknowledgements ................................................................................... xix

Chapter One ................................................................................................. 1

Chapter Two .............................................................................................. 29

Chapter Three ............................................................................................ 41

Chapter Four .............................................................................................. 65

Chapter Five .............................................................................................. 91

Chapter Six .............................................................................................. 101

Chapter Seven.......................................................................................... 115

Chapter Eight ........................................................................................... 129

Bibliography ............................................................................................ 141

Contributors ............................................................................................ 157

Index ........................................................................................................ 161

Fig. 6-2. Tina Modotti (1896-1942), Illustration for a Mexican Song,

Feminisms, Exhibitions, and Curatorial Spaces

What is the effect of separating feminist aesthetic interventions from the

networks, which resulted in different curatorial strategies and in a

exhibitions of women’s art and the strategic adaptation of mainstream art

First of all I would like to thank Alexandra Schwartz, Eva Zetterman,

Jessica Sjöholm Skrubbe

CURATORIAL STRATEGIES ON THE ART SCENE

In the historiography of feminist art, the 1970s is recognised as the most

includes a documentation of the presence of Chicana/o artists on the

The feminist alternative art scene

including Barbara T. Smith, Rachel Rosenthal, Suzanne Lacy, Leslie

The performance, staged at City Hall as a media event for an audience of

The project Three Weeks in May (1977) by Lacy and Labowitz-Starus,

platform-heeled rockers”.25 Developed in collaboration with Julia London

Chicana artists on the feminist art scene

Despite diversity among Chicanas/os as a group with genealogical ties to

The history of the Woman’s Building in Los Angeles includes several

[…] a schematic of highways overlaid on top of existing neighbourhoods, a

Among Chicanas/os in East Los Angeles, mural painting was an important

projects were organised in the 1970s as part of educational youth

Chicana artists in collaborative groups

the history of California, told through the “ethnic groups underrepresented

Asco’s performances were filmed and photographed by Harry Gamboa,

[The] image was broadcast, for example, on a KHJ-TV L.A. Channel 9, as

Asco also produced a series of No Movies, with photographed scenes

Chicana/o art spaces in East LA

the internal non-profit subsidiary The East Los Angeles School of

Linda Vallejo were several Chicana artists involved in teaching at Self

the direction of artist Armando Cabrera, in which Judithe Hernández

Asco member Wille Herrón as lead singer. A final example of alternative

The mainstream art scene in the 1970s