Galleries...Please Note
In discussing inequality between men and women in the art world recently, an art critic friend of mine thought I was coining a new phrase (must be my accent) and stopped me to ask if things were really all that bad. She wanted to know what I meant exactly by "despair-ity." I laughed and said no, I didn't think things were quite so "disparate" that I had lost hope, but clearly things are not equal.
This came up in response to the current exhibition in our space of new work by Jennifer Dalton. Conceived as one statement (a snapshot of the current art world and its measurable priorities), the exhibition deals, in part, with where the system stands in 2006 on the issue of gender equality. In a few of her five major works in the exhibition, in fact, Jennifer demonstrates that the system still favors male artists, even while asserting that there are complexities at work here (she explores a range of art institutions from schools to auctions to critics to galleries) that prevent any blanket incriminations. OK, so there is one incrimination that can be made rather easily: Chelsea galleries overwhemlingly favor male artists.
Jennifer demonstrates this visually in the exhibition with two maps (Art Guide, 2006, Map, colored pins, painted wooden frame, 9.5" x 10.5" x 1.25" ) on which blue pins represent male artist exhibitions for a two month period in Chelsea during the past season and pink pins represent female artists. You don't even need to count...the blues win easily in both.
But sometimes counting is a good idea as well. In his recent column, Jerry Saltz offers some sobering new statistics on this issue:
So what are galleries supposed to do? Set quotas? I think that's a bit of a red herring response actually, but I hear it all the time, so I wanted to get it out there. Just being conscious of the disparity isn't enough, but there's some point between that and purposely (artificially?) balancing one's program that seems appropriate. I'm not exactly sure what that is, but I do think the first step is to actually count.
I'm not exactly proud to report that of the artists we represent, only 5 (about 35%) are women. We will be working with two new (for us) women artists this spring, but that still won't make things equal.
Why pick on galleries, I'm sure my colleagues are saying? Disparity is everywhere in the art world. Well, as Jerry notes:
conscious conscience* be your guide.
*Yes, yes, I should let a Literacy Checker be my guide.
UPDATE: Barry Hoggard offers some insight as this issue applies to collectors and curators.
This came up in response to the current exhibition in our space of new work by Jennifer Dalton. Conceived as one statement (a snapshot of the current art world and its measurable priorities), the exhibition deals, in part, with where the system stands in 2006 on the issue of gender equality. In a few of her five major works in the exhibition, in fact, Jennifer demonstrates that the system still favors male artists, even while asserting that there are complexities at work here (she explores a range of art institutions from schools to auctions to critics to galleries) that prevent any blanket incriminations. OK, so there is one incrimination that can be made rather easily: Chelsea galleries overwhemlingly favor male artists.
Jennifer demonstrates this visually in the exhibition with two maps (Art Guide, 2006, Map, colored pins, painted wooden frame, 9.5" x 10.5" x 1.25" ) on which blue pins represent male artist exhibitions for a two month period in Chelsea during the past season and pink pins represent female artists. You don't even need to count...the blues win easily in both.
But sometimes counting is a good idea as well. In his recent column, Jerry Saltz offers some sobering new statistics on this issue:
According to the fall exhibition schedules for 125 well-known New York galleries—42 percent of which are owned or co-owned by women—of 297 one-person shows by living artists taking place between now and December 31, just 23 percent are solos by women.Jerry continues, noting that things are even worse in New York's major museums (At MoMA, only 5 percent of the objects in their permanent collection of art from 1879 to 1969 are by women; at the Guggenheim, only 14 percent of their solo shows of living artists have been devoted to women; at the Whitney, only 19 percent of the participants in their recent installation of their permanent collection were women), but contemporary galleries can't use history as their excuse for disparity the way museums can.
So what are galleries supposed to do? Set quotas? I think that's a bit of a red herring response actually, but I hear it all the time, so I wanted to get it out there. Just being conscious of the disparity isn't enough, but there's some point between that and purposely (artificially?) balancing one's program that seems appropriate. I'm not exactly sure what that is, but I do think the first step is to actually count.
I'm not exactly proud to report that of the artists we represent, only 5 (about 35%) are women. We will be working with two new (for us) women artists this spring, but that still won't make things equal.
Why pick on galleries, I'm sure my colleagues are saying? Disparity is everywhere in the art world. Well, as Jerry notes:
If only 24 percent of the shows are by women, how can 50 percent of the shows you preview, review, buy, or sell be by women?We galleries are most often the first link in the chain for the rest of the system. Equality begins with us. Dennis Christie of DCKT responded to Jerry's article with the following on his blog:
For the record our represented artist's roster is 40% women (low for us due to some recent changes) and our fall exhibition schedule (here & here) is 100% women. It's not intentional, it's just the way it is.If there were only one response to Jen's exhibition and Jerry's article, I'd wish that it would be for each Chelsea gallery to take a moment to reflect on where they stand with regards to equality in their program. After that, well...let your
Historically, 46% of our solo shows have been by women & 45% of the exhibited artists in our group shows have been women.
*Yes, yes, I should let a Literacy Checker be my guide.
UPDATE: Barry Hoggard offers some insight as this issue applies to collectors and curators.
posted by Edward_ at
8:15 AM
94 Comments:
Sigh.
If you knew how many gallerists, curators, etc have told me, " really, we are actively looking for strong women to exhibit, but the work we see just doesn't fit into our program."
I'm one of the lucky women who is getting shown. But I have tenaciously held on when all common sense should have dictated surrender a long time ago....
I have consistently attempted to have a dialogue about this with friends who are curators, and I'm amazed at the lame, totally inadequate responses that I receive. "The work just didn't fit in to the curatorial context, it didn't hold up to the more ambitious larger scaled work of the men." Is it because women aren't serious about their careers? Are women just diddling around making doilies?
Is it because collectors overwhelmingly purchase male artists work?
I can't even stand to go into MOMA anymore. It's always been like that there, how come everyone is now noticing it? The inequity of their collection of male/female artists is so egregious it is absolutely an act of total arrogance. They don't care.
Well, I guess I should post this anonymously. WTF
Ed, Winkleman Gallery is one of the good guys out there. You can hold your head high.
Edward,
Thank you for discussing this.
I had a conversation with an art writer here in LA, a woman I highly respect, and told her every time I went to a certain gallery I left giggling. She took offense, said I was marginalizing the gallery. Giggling to me connotes complicity: I was laughing with the artists. But giggling is what girls do and that is not strong?
As for showing, it is hard for everyone. But when the language we use is so skewed, women are at a greater disadvantage.
I just click on the link. Does anyone find the American Apparel advertisements next to the article ironic?
It's clear what the situation is (if you're willing to see it). Now I am incredibly curious to try to find out why. Here are some possibilities, many of which can be at play simultaneously:
Men are better artists than women.
We associate the qualities of genius and mastery with men much more easily than with women.
Men are more assertive and better at promoting themselves than women.
Men get more institutional and/or family support than women.
Women feel pressure (internal and/or external) to drop out of contention or scale back in their 30s when starting a family may make continuing their work extremely difficult.(We'll be blogging on this soon over at Broadsheet.)
The system simply has institutional inertia: more men exhibit this year because more men exhibited last year so curators/critics/collectors were exposed to more work by men and were inspired to include them in other shows/reviews/collections.
I think this last one is key, and this is where galleries (as well as critics, curators and collectors) could make a small effort to interfere with the systemic inertia and affect some incremental change. Both Winkleman Gallery and Jerry Saltz are doing this (both feature more women artists than the systemic average), but the vast majority of people with power in the art world are not even thinking about it. I would like that to change, and maybe it will.
Despair-ity in the art world is a serious issue. But I'm less concerned about the gender gap than about another more serious gap.
What I'd like to see (exhibited in a Chelsea gallery) is a diagram showing the statistics of artists (regardless of race, gender, or age) that are being shown by Chelsea galleries compared with the number of artists that aren't being shown there (but who are trying to be). Jen, maybe you could do one of your interesting pieces about that. But you'd have to use a much larger canvas, and Chelsea would have to be scaled way down. Maybe you could put the artists who aren't being exhibited out in the Atlantic somewhere (if that fills up you can use the Pacific too).
PS - I should point out that if you happen to be one of the artists out in the ocean, having the great advantage of being male isn't much consolation. Even if you're a good swimmer, you eventually get tired and waterlogged. And there are sharks.
I dealt with this somewhat in my "How do artists live?" survey. Out of the 850-ish working artists that took the survey, only 37% were represented by a gallery. I would like to try to find out more about that process, I have an idea for a new piece about how artists get their first breaks.
I know just from my own friends that there are tons and tons of good, serious artists working hard without gallery representation. There are just way more artists than there are galleries and it creates a difficult power imbalance.
I have to admit that now that I have a gallery in Pittsburgh, that I have very little sympathy for the "poor little artist's of Brooklyn" I have a flat file gallery and am always looking to expand my files and also looking for artist's to go "steady with" the number of artist's in NY, that can't be bothered with anything outside of NY seems staggering. Also, I know a good number of "poor little artists" in Brooklyn who have a lot more money than me.
My own personal feeling is that people should be taking the next available flight to places like Leipzig to check out the cost of moving there or opening a gallery there.
One of Camille Paglia's more controversial assertions: the reason there's never been a female Mozart is the same reason there's never been a femal Jack the Ripper.
I don't know if I buy this, and many women (particularly driven ones of the female Mozart variety) should be skeptical ... if not pissed. (as someone once commented,
"with feminists like her, who needs men?")
Szarkowsky, looking purely at photography throughout its brief history, turns the question on its head. He sees the number of women represented as being HIGH when compared with the proportion of women who have been practicing the medium over the decades. The collections might only be 3% female ... but that's a lot, if you consider that historically women have been a much smaller minority than that among photographers.
His hypothesis: women must just be better.
Getting back to the issue, I think it's hard to appraise this without getting some idea of the number of women practicing art and trying to get show. I honestly have no idea what the answer is. We might start by asking galleries and curators what percentage of submissions come from women (and even this assumes that submissions are a major way they review work).
John, I visited Pittsburgh once many years ago, and it seemed like a very nice town. I visited Brooklyn once too, and it also seemed very nice. It reminded me a bit of Pittsburgh. I didn't meet any poor little artists in either place, but had some good dinners.
I think one of the reasons so many artists want to show in New York is because it's where most of the art magazines are. Out here in Los Angeles we spend the majority of our time surfing and starring in movies, but when we make paintings and show them in galleries it's hard to get any media coverage. My work has been getting a lot of attention lately in the Comoros, but it hasn't made it into New York ArtForum or New York Art in America. They do an occasional review of an L.A. gallery in their "other places" section, and I've never seen a review from Comoros.
We might start by asking galleries and curators what percentage of submissions come from women (and even this assumes that submissions are a major way they review work).
A good friend of mine recently had lunch w/ his Chelsea gallerist, and asked him, just out of curiosity, how many artists he'd actually found through slide submissions. The answer was "none".
We've shown 41% women at our space without even really thinking about it. We just show what we like, and a lot of it happens to be made by women.
I'd like to see of list of attributes dealers/collectors/curators prefer in art. Just to see how the language plays into it....
Related factors:
Research has shown that in children's cartoons many girls will watch programs designed for boys but most boys won't watch programs designed for girls.
I know I've mentioned this before but - when I ask artists for suggestions on other artists to look at, female artists will recommend both male and female; male artists consistently and almost exclusively recommend male.
Edward,
Are you putting together an all-woman show for the national celebration of women artists? MOCA-Geffen and LAMunicipal are hosting shows and sent out letters to galleries asking for parallel shows. I'm putting one together for a local gallery.
BTW: I prefer let "conscious" be your guide. The current administration could use a push in that direction.
ml,
could you send me info on that series of show (via the gallery website (info at winkleman dot com)...we just so happen to have a related group show in mind, but hadn't heard about this
many thanks!
e
I guess what really bothers me about the current art world is the new passive role that artists seem to accept playing in it. I mean the whole thing of waiting to be picked by someone is not right.
The Warhol right now is showing the "downtown show" documenting the downtown NY art scene in NY from 1975-1985. My memory of that period is the vast majority of it was driven by people who made almost no money at it and artist's who just were going to do thier thing and that was that. Face it the art scene in NY today does not have a cost structure that supports that so it's all about the money and being safe.
My own personal feeling is that it should be torn down and rebuilt from the ground up. Somehow, I think that if enough artist's move and get serious about owning thier own scene, that the collectors and media will follow. Or even better, perhaps some of the media can be torn down and rebuilt online.
Let's accept for the sake of argument -- as everyone commenting here apparently has -- let's accept as true that women are underrepresented in the arts in general and in Chelsea galleries in particular. Setting aside for the moment questions like "What do we do about this?" and "Whose fault is this?", I'd rather ask a completely different question:
If women were not discriminated against in Chelsea, what would it look like?
In other words, let's say we come up with a game plan. I'm going to bring the sno-cones and Ed's going to sculpt giant vulvas and Edna's going to make signs and whatever. Okay. We all form an army with one goal: Making Chelsea equal opportunity for women and men!
Great! Now: How do we know when we've won?
This is not a stupid question. It cuts directly to the heart of the matter. If we can't tell when we've won, then we haven't defined the problem very clearly, have we? We're not even sure there is a problem. Maybe it's our imagination!
That sounds stupid, I know, especially when so many people are convinced, absolutely certain beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they're right. But, you know, history is chock full of things we "knew" which turned out to be totally wrong once we really studied them. My favorite example is stomach ulcers: For thousands of years we "knew" that stomach ulcers were caused by stress and anger and repressed emotions and we told people with ulcers that they needed to take a vacation, calm down, mellow out, and so on. Except in the early 1980s researchers discovered, whoops, stomach ulcers are caused by a bacterium and can be treated with antibiotics.
So it seems to me we need to think very clearly here and work to define the problem before we start talking about solutions.
I know, sno-cones and giant vulvas and picket signs are more fun. But, hey, someone has to be the wet blanket.
John, I agree w/ you about the 1975-85 period, but there's no going back. The fact that the art scene was driven by people who made almost no money worked for two reasons. First of all, it was a lot cheaper to live. So you could make almost no money and still survive, and have plenty of time for art. Secondly, there are now some people in the art world who are making lots of money, so the people with no money can't really compete for attention with them or make much claim to having a scene. If you're making art and not showing in the galleries, you're pretty much out of the loop.
Chris, sno-cones may be fun, but what I really like are those warm pretzels. We don't have those in L.A.
I recall from Jennifer Dalton's survey that women artists were twice as likely as men to be primarily supported by their partner. I wonder if that could be a contributing factor. (I suppose the cause & effect could be argued, but I suspect that Dalton's statistics result mainly from it being more socially comfortable for women to be financially supported than for men).
I've heard it stated that American art is stronger than European art because we have less governmental subsidization of artists--if that's true (I have my doubts), it seems to reason that being financially supported would have a similar weakening effect.
I suspect financial support has little (if any) true correlation, but it's interesting to look for contributing factors beyond simple instituationalized gender-bias (especially if they are more easily address than sexism is).
Here's how you know there's a problem, Chris. Imagine that I take a coin out of my pocket and ask you to call heads or tail, and you say "heads." If I tell you I'm going to flip it a hundred times, you'd expect to win about 50% of the time, which is what the law of averages predicts. If I then proceed to flip "tails" 9 times out of 10, you'd start to suspect that the coin wasn't fair, that the game was rigged. If money were at stake, you'd probably get pretty mad about it.
Another problem would be if sometimes it comes up heads, and sometimes tails, and you lose either way.
This Broad: Men are more assertive and better at promoting themselves than women.
Maybe it's because men are more assertive, yes, but more importantly, that people who buy fine art are looking for art which is assertive.
Maybe women have an advantage in other forms of art which are not represented by art galleries in Chelsea or written about in Art in America.
There are a lot of high-powered female collectors or gallerists in this art world, and they tend to collect and sell the same art as all the males. If This Broad is correct that assertiveness is important (and also Camille Paglia as mentioned above by paulraphael), then maybe it's because assertiveness is important in the art itself, not just the promotion of it.
It's also possible that dealers are the assertive ones, and that because "women pick both men and women, but men only pick men," the world of aggressive art galleries tends to promote men. I'm still curious about exploring the concept that the art itself is assertive.
David,
You can go back. There are plenty of cheap cities out there with empty houses, and empty store fronts and empty factory buildings that would be great for artists and galleries. The problem is that you can't go back in NY. Did some god ordain that NY would alway's be the capital of all life on earth? I thought that artist's had something to say about that.
What is going on now in Berlin and East Germany is pretty interesting. If Joe is selling work and paying 40 cents a square foot, why can't other galleries do that?
I think my cost obsession with NY, is closely related to the disparity issue. Basically, these particular Sept shows have got to be so important to NY galleries that they just can't take too many chances with them. I would expect as costs rise the level of inertia in the artworld will lead to more and more people just trying show safe, known and "validated" work.
Artist's are just supposed to say, OK that's cool and I guess when real estate prices get high enough all artist's that are not already known will paint miniatures that they can show in a closet or make in a closet?
Hmm...In my personal art preferences I think women are hitting above 50 per cent (in favorite artists category).
So I don't really feel concerned about that issue.
I never took time to look at statistics about art centres in Canada but it seems to me women are fluently represented. I could be wrong.
As far as New York...Hey the reason I like New York is because it is an international stage, but of course the truth is that a lot of gallery present local artists and I am aware of that and try to be selective with my visits.
Which mean I will more likely be visiting a show from a brazilian woman, than from local joblo from Brooklyn. I am attracted by difference.
When you visit Dia Beacon they are only three women artists but that is those collectors problems if they think that Heizer or Sandback or Palermo deserved financial support instead of Abramovic, Hamilton, Chadwick or Holzer. Trust me that if it had been me and my money you'd be getting a whole different museum.
Does that make Irwin or Heizer
more important artists because they received tons of money for some large projects that will be left in ovliveon in some desert?
Nah...Society may encourage men better than they do women but when you get at the top, the best art is equally done by women and men.
I mean, since the 1950's, because before it seems it was harder for women since the count of women artists become much lower. Women had to fight just to get education, and if this sounds nightarish it is still reality in many parts of the world.
I don't know why men are like that. Look at ants and bees for a relief, what can I say...
Cheers,
Cedric Caspesyan
centiment@hotmail.com
ovliveon = obliveon
nightarish = nightmarish
I like my own spelling better, though,
Cedric
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
It is interesting to hear a dealer say he has “never” discovered a new artist from slide submissions. The implications of that statement are huge. I have juried exhibitions before and realize that they are not held in high esteem by the art world, but why are there no opportunities for artists to be discovered away from NY and without connections? I ruminated on this in my own blog a while back:
http://katekretz.blogspot.com/2006/07/worlds-best-painting_12.html
I would be interested in knowing which curators really take chances on artists that have not already been “discovered” and validated by someone else. In Miami, for example, there is a curator who likes to be known for his/her discoveries, but, in fact, almost all the artists come from the same local gallery, so it is the dealer who picks them first.
Having taught an art department “business of art” course for many years, I can tell you that men ARE more aggressive when promoting their work, but women are catching up fast.
Jen d’s comment about institutional inertia is extremely relevant, but I think the problem is bigger than that: it is only recently that contemporary woman artists even had a chance of being exhibited. This change has not been totally subsumed into our collective consciousness: we still have residual ideas, language, and sensibilities from the traditional male genius artist model… try, for a moment, to envision a female artist talking about herself in the third person like Picasso or Dali did.
Ethan, regarding financial support, you would be surprised at how many currently famous artists were supported by their parents until they made it. That’s what made it possible for them to go to NYC and do what they needed to do. Nowadays, when artstars are plucked right out of graduate school, I suppose they start making enough money to live in Brooklyn right away, and their careers just grow. No university teaching jobs in Kansas for them!
There, you have it. It's a giant fairly closed feedback loop that validates itself.
I guess with a straight face the Met can say that contemporary women artists dont fit it's existing collection ( of mostly male historic work )
As far as on ramps into the system go, there is a rising trend towards flat file galleries and more open ended galleries like mixed greens.
I think that Pierogi is the major model, but one that the more traditional galleries would rather not talk about.
The disparity is most striking when one looks at gender balance in college. I think my undergrad was ~ 88% female.
Lisa Hunter sez:
Imagine that I take a coin out of my pocket and ask you to call heads or tail, and you say "heads." If I tell you I'm going to flip it a hundred times, you'd expect to win about 50% of the time, which is what the law of averages predicts. If I then proceed to flip "tails" 9 times out of 10, you'd start to suspect that the coin wasn't fair, that the game was rigged.
I'm fairly sure I covered this exact example over on Edna's blog, but here goes again:
Anyone with an elementary knowledge of probability can tell you that if you flip a coin 100 times you'd expect on average to get heads 50 percent of the time and tails 50 percent of the time; but that any given 100 coin flips are equally likely to turn up 100 heads or 100 tails as it is to turn up exactly 50/50. In other words, one run of 100 coin flips tells you nothing about the fairness of the coin.
The trouble here is "common sense". The fact is, "common sense" often predicts outcomes which are entirely incorrect.
This is why it's so important that we define our parameters correctly in the first place. I ask again: What would gender equality in Chelsea look like? Would it be exactly 50 percent female artists opening in one year? Would it be an exact match between female art school graduates and female artists opening in one year?
Or are we just going to count the war as won when everyone "feels" better? Do we really think we can reach a point where everyone feels they've been treated fairly and equitably? Or are the losers always going to make excuses, while the winners always take the credit, no matter what the system is?
I'm a woman and I don't think the gender gap is as egregious as the racial/ethnic gap or the age gap. Women are making progress, but the figures are much worse for non-white artists and for artists over about 40.
Henry's comment is on point. Assertive is a positive, both in an artist and in the work. In our culture truth is associated with a negative - gritty truth, harsh reality. Anything gentle is weak, suspect and phoney. And I've seen many more shows of tanks and airplanes than I've seen pink ponies and butterflies. Both are age-appropriate for nine year olds but which set is ok in an adult art world?
so male artists sometimes get shows because they look assertive and their work looks assertive. women artists sometimes get shows because they look attractive and their work looks attractive. in neither instance does this have that much to do with the quality of the work.
John, what do you mean by flat file galleries? Is it all works on paper? If so, is it prints or unique works? Does enough of any artist's work sell in this format for them to make any money?
Kate, I of course took a business of art class in grad school, and the one I took was totally worthless. It focused on how to make nice slide packages and write artist statements and cover letters to send to galleries, and there was another section on how to apply for non-existent teaching jobs.
If I were asked to teach a course on the business of art today, it would have a whole different focus. One section would be on choosing and learning a non-art profession to make money at, whether it was being a lawyer, a dentist or an electrician. Another section would be about how to meet rich influential people, how to network, and how to be the life of any party (I would have to find guest speakers to teach these topics). And of course there would be a lot of required drinking in this class.
I'd like to introduce a new principal. I call it Occam's Elephant and it goes like this:
The explanation most likely to be accurate is the one no one is willing to talk about.
In this case it comes down to this: what are collectors willing to buy? The art world is market driven and collectors are in the drivers seat.
(yes, Nancy brought it up, but didn't go into it)
First of all, to be an exhibiting artist in NYC is like winning the lottery (especially to those of us not living there)
If women aren't "discovered" out of grad school or within five years after, then it is an age issue for sure. I hate to be so freakin' stereotypical but, the biological clock is real. Men are free for a longer time to pursue careers of all kinds while the women (most-of course, NOT ALL) have & raise the kids.
I say this as a case in point. I have been exhibiting in commercial galleries in markets other than NY for over ten years. I have a four year old and I'm two weeks away from having my second. I 'm in a group show in Nov. and I have a solo scheduled w/ my primary gallery next Sept. Thanks to Rebel Belle for the lesson in tenacity! I'm going to plug along until a magic door opens in NYC.
The point is-it ain't easy for artists of all kinds and it really bites that at that--it's still harder for women.
Affirmative action! Maybe more group shows for women will prove that the quality of the work is there.
Occam's Elephant
Tim, if you have to shave the thing, what do you use?
PS - Pollyanna, I LOVE Affirmative Action! It helped spare me a career in academia.
David,
The best way of understanding this idea and it's potential power is to go to www.Pierogi2000.com. and flip around the press section. Basically, the concept is like an archive and can be expanded and scaled up a million ways.
P.S. If NY is the absolute capital of all cuture and all art sales then why do NY dealers do the art fairs all over the world?
I also think that, as more artist's move out of NY, they should consider telling people that in a prominent way. Face it, a lot of the power of that market is the built in impression ( that was once very true ) that NY was the central point of creation for all this work and always on the cutting edge. So perhaps one should put a subtle reminder on the wall in your shows -- Made in L.A., Chicago, Pittsburgh etc...
Like there is "working in Brooklyn" so why not "working in Philly? ) The point is to make people realise that there is a world out there.
What bugs me are all the dudes making art about video games and star wars and getting reviews and shows. Mike Kelley started it. He ripped off Annette Messager (who is respected but will forever be considered a "fiber artist") and skyrocketed to superstardom with one grubby paw in his Wranglers the whole time.
That said, Tracey Emin's success is an absolute mystery to me... when women are sexual they seem to be less threatening to men. Straight men, anyway.
My concience is pretty clear. When I was still more hooked up in NY, I kind of ended up as friends of a few women artist's who just thought were pretty great.
Julianne Swartz, Emilie Clark and a few others. I really tried to hype thier work to the few dealers i knew. At the time, I actually felt pretty shy about it because It seemed like It might have seemed like some kind of way to pick up girl artist's or something. I am proud to say helped a little and a few of these artist's are hooked to galleries and recognized for thier work.
One of these artist's is an interesting story, in that she was pretty well known socially by a lot of artists and dealers. But, not to many people bothered to see how good an artist she is and she seemed shy about pushing her own stuff. I think that history is proving that she was more than a decorative item at openings.
Anyone with an elementary knowledge of probability can tell you that if you flip a coin 100 times you'd expect on average to get heads 50 percent of the time and tails 50 percent of the time; but that any given 100 coin flips are equally likely to turn up 100 heads or 100 tails as it is to turn up exactly 50/50. In other words, one run of 100 coin flips tells you nothing about the fairness of the coin.
This has nothing to do with art or the art world, but it's worth pointing out that the above isn't true.
Try it with four coin flips: there are 16 possible outcomes. 1 is all heads, 1 is all tails, and 6 are split 50/50.
If you do it 100 times, the disparity in probability is greater; the greater the number of flips, the greater the disparity. That's how you know the coins aren't loaded.
Lol ! Annette Messager is not just some "fiber artist". Hahaha !!
Come on ?
Around where I am she's a big name.
She's just not that well represented yet, but she won the Biennial, that's like marking your name in the sacred book.
I bet the Pompidou retro will travel and that she'll gain the place she deserves in the collectiv conscious after that.
I know some women who do art about video games (Lynne Marsh, Sabrina Raaf, Mariko Mori, Linda Dement, etc..), so let's not stereotype art subjects. ;-)
I think the race thing is going down as more and more people from foreign countries (some where they are no whites;-)...) are making contemporary art. It is not because New York doesn't listen that it makes the art bad. With a little time the good will make itself evident.
Age....well again, some of my fave artists started old, that is what encourages me. Women who have kids should do like men artists who have kids. Have someone help you out at home. Kinda like Madonna and Guy Ritchie situation.
I think someone always have to sacrifice a little for the kids.
I often think that doing art for me would be like an alternative to not having kids.
Cheers,
Cedric Caspesyan
centiment@hotmail.com
If you do it 100 times, the disparity in probability is greater; the greater the number of flips, the greater the disparity. That's how you know the coins aren't loaded.
I sometimes flip coins to choose between restaurants, but for really important decisions I pull alternate petals off a daisy. I have no idea what this has to do with the art world though.
I don't flip coins because I fail to catch them and they fall in places I can't retrieve them. Poor artists don't flip coins.
Another, little story about this group of artist's I knew and tried to hype. I think it helps to show that social dynamics play a big role in the Art world.
Another, one of the artist's that was having a lot of trouble getting dealers to look at anything was actually the sister of a well known and respected dealer. From what I can see, her sister liked her work and in fact did put her in a group show but obviously didn't feel that going further or pushing her sister's work would "look right". Now that artist is reped by a solid gallery in NY, has had a solo here and a few outside of NY so it's ok for her sister to at least say that she is good artist.
I was under strict orders when I tried to hook her up, not to mention that her sister had a major gallery.
John, thanks for the Pierogi info. It looks interesting. I also Googled "flat file" and I see that a number of other galleries do this too.
By the way, when I show in galleries it's mostly out here on the left coast, so everyone pretty much knows the stuff is made in L.A. (Santa Monica, actually). It's also "sweatshop free", if I don't count my own labor.
The reality is that the artworld is a market place. Is their gender parity in canned food producers? Every artist I know is involved to some extent in meeting the demands of the artmarket.
Evan Johnson sez:
If you do it 100 times, the disparity in probability is greater; the greater the number of flips, the greater the disparity. That's how you know the coins aren't loaded.
Thanks for pointing our my mistake. You're right. I was thinking permutations, not combinations. You got me. My wife was always better at probability and statistics than I am.
I still think my point is somewhat valid, though. Even totally randomly, it's possible to get 100 heads in a row. And the art world isn't even random. There are so many factors at work, of which gender is only one. So how do we know why, at any given time, there are more males than females showing?
What I'm trying to get at is, we can't just use people's opinions on why they didn't get a show or become successful or whatever. Because people will always find an excuse for their own failure that puts the blame elsewhere. And people will always find that they deserve their success.
No one wants to believe their lives turned out as they did because of a coin flip.
One Hundred coin flips in a row, with the same result. Does any one here want to run the odds of that. I am afraid that my computer coudn't handle it.
Let's just say if this were a poker table in 1885, Nevada and you had a run like that. Well, you would be so dead.
So are you saying that the Met's historic collection reflects just a long run of bad luck for the ladies?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
John, after our discussion yesterday, as if I needed another reminder that there's life (and art) outside the big cities, I got home last night and found a wonderful book (just published) of gouaches that my friend Thomas Paquette sent me. He lives in Warren, PA, which is a little north of you, and has been painting full-time for years, showing in museums, etc. I guess the trick is keeping your expenses down, and somehow generating enough income to keep it all going.
I propose two open threads, One for Women and one for men.
List the artist's you would eat an eyeball to get a hold of thier work.
Here are a few from me
Women,
Polly Apfelbaum
Linda Ganjian
Linn Meyers
Cindy Sherman ( only some works )
Kara Walker
Julianne Swartz
Wangechi Mutu
Emilie Clark
Mindy Tucker
bunch of others to busy now.
List the artist's you would eat an eyeball to get a hold of their work.
women: none
men: none
I might do an ear :)
John Morris sez:
So are you saying that the Met's historic collection reflects just a long run of bad luck for the ladies?
I thought it was pretty clear I wasn't talking about the past, but the present and the future.
As I asked on Edna's blog: Imagine for a moment that, right now, by magic, Chelsea becomes gender-blind. Poof!
What does it look like? How can we tell men and women are being treated equally?
John Morris sez:
List the artists you would eat an eyeball to get a hold of their work.
I'm the wrong person to ask about this, because I'd eat an eyeball anyway. I've long said that the only thing I wouldn't eat is anything that can run away so quickly I can't catch it.
But there are women whose work I'd love to own. You can compile this list mostly by going back through my blog, if you're so inclined, but since that's unlikely, here it is.
Mary Henderson
Sarah Sze
Karina Contreras
Barbara Takenaga
Nancy Baker
Stephanie Jackson
Susie Rosmarin
Madeline von Foerster
Alexandra Pacula
Inka Essenhigh
Jett Jackson
Amy Yoes
These are women who are currently working, whose work I've seen in person. I probably wouldn't mind owning something from Olivia De Berardinis or Rowena Morrill. Audrey Kawasaki's stuff looks really great also.
to john morris
I think the sister act you are talking about is emilie and catherine clark (of SF, CA). Is catherine really "respected"? she shows her husband, so why not her sister?
My guess is that it's Mary and Maggie Boone.
PS - I'm not that familiar w/ C. Clark's gallery, but her husband Ray Beldner is a really excellent artist. I've seen his work here in L.A., and it's first rate.
I can't say who it is, but I guess I gave enough clues to guess.
I think that, for any dealer, a sure path to not being respected is to have a gallery of a bunch of relatives of yours so i don't blame any dealer for feeling in a spot about that.
To ad to my list--
Sarah sze is near the top
Jane Fine
I have worked with curators, been a curator, have organized and helped organize exhibitions in non-profit, public spaces, museums and galleries. Every time I am the one who talks and alerts everybody involved about women and diversity. The reaction? Hate (or over reaction). They hate me because I not only tell and expose them for their laziness but I have a list of women artists and minorities, (read here-whatever is not tall and white), and point out how appropriate the work could be for our/that show. I am hated. I have lost a few friends over that. A good curator never counts or looks for the token artist. Everything is out there already and when you think of a show automatically and naturally everything falls into place. Everything and everybody is included. The art’s system seal of approval, call it residencies, alternative spaces-galleries, slide or flat archives are not the only places to look for artists. Most good artists are not interested or already have done all of them without results. Specially women. You have to walk, talk, and ask other artists all the time. I hardly ever go to openings anymore. It is not worth it. The stress is killing most good artists. Specially women. (I repeat myself, I know.) I go to shows one week after they open with an artist friend. Their input is what keeps me going. I have introduced great women artists (…in my opinion.) to many dealers in the city like that. Nothing happens. They respectfully ignore the women and only talk to me. She could be an artist or a bank vice president. It doesn’t matter. I have walked Chelsea with both by the way in more than one occasion. With men my walks usually mean a studio visit at least. The only women that get the attention of dealers now days are curators of major institutions or established alternative spaces. And you know what, when you count they are the worst. Yes. You can include in that list all the minority institutions in the city as well. Starting with the Trustees and all the way down women are boycotting women too.
One important activity where disparity is evident and the most unconscionable are the “benefits”. Ms. Dalton forgot to take them into account. We are dealing with museums and alternative spaces selling art to raise money. Men are usually represented 3 to 1 in most events. What are these institutions saying to everybody and specially collectors? Exhibitions you can love or hate. Expected. But when a museum asks you to buy something it means they support and approve unconditionally. Good and with the bishop’s seal. This is not political anymore. Whoever thinks that this is about feminism or politics is wrong. Ask you therapist if you are not sure. Your mind is being bombarded everyday with discriminatory behavior. I recently made aware a CEO of a museum of this situation in her institution and was told that benefits are not “curated”. I am sure the answer came down from the “terrified-on the spot” director. In that area of the country, men are 9 to 1 in all the benefits.
And the good news: Is 10 times worst outside the United States of America.
And more bad news: Recently one critic told me that “her” magazine wouldn’t review the group show I curated because it wasn’t all Latino/Latin American.
They force you to DESPAIR-rity.
Mr. Saltz is not the first to talk about the disparity and how unfair it is. PLEASE.
MLS
Starting with the Trustees and all the way down women are boycotting women too.
...one critic told me that “her” magazine wouldn’t review the group show I curated because it wasn’t all Latino/Latin American.
The more I learn about the way the art world works, the more it reminds me of high school.
Its funny because the courses of Art I have done in Uni, only 20% are boys and the rest are all women...
I am sorry for bringing names into this. To stop the speculation---Emilie Clark is the correct answer and yes Catherine's husband is a good artist. I don't think a lot of people look at either of them and say they don't deserve to be out there.
I brought this story up to show that like in everything else, social dynamics play a big role in stuff. I think the record shows that Emilie pretty much hooked herself up after a lot of work.
I think that one of the most obvious dynamics from my experience is that a higher percentage of men have those huge egos. It just seems like if you asked 50 women artists if thier work was great and then asked 50 male artists, a much higher percentage of men would say they were great. If you think you are "all that" it's easier to push harder.
John, I hope you're coming up with a good mystery question for tomorrow. Especially with EW heading off to see the world and eat eyeballs, we're going to have to entertain ourselves for awhile.
PS - I have to admit I made up my guess about Maggie Boone. If there really is such a person I hope she's not mad :)
PPS - I don't think I'd ever want to ask someone if they thought their work was great. Hearing someone talk about how great they are is about the most boring thing I can imagine.
John Morris sez:
I think that one of the most obvious dynamics from my experience is that a higher percentage of men have those huge egos.
This is pretty much a reformulation of what Camille Paglia meant when she said there are no female geniuses. Genius, by definition (by one definition, anyway), overcomes all obstacles, often entirely because it's convinced it's genius. Women (so the theory goes) simply don't exhibit this kind of behavior, so, by definition, they can't be geniuses.
I'm not sure I buy this argument, but it has its attractions. For one thing, it avoids the question of whether men are more "talented" than women or more "intelligent."
But it still pins too much on gender, I think. It's only one chromosome, people!
Paglia can go down, they are plenty women geniuses.
The only aspect I could attempt to "genderize" is that some women artists are very good but seem to lack ambition.
Meanwhile indeed they are men whose work is quite ordinary but they make it big because their pieces are large and/or (to
not degratifiate smaller art) they keep repeating themselves in expansive series.
My fave women artists have bypassed that problematic and are quite ambitious, but it does occur frequently that I meet
women who seem totally unaware or uncaring and totally deprived of any sense of making a career. The "come and get me"
category. Sometimes avoiding disappointments by keeping your path thin is not helpful.
But I'm not going to start pitying those women. Like I just can't pity angry muslim women gasping for air in their drapes. I'm
sorry I can't. You have one life and you're free to make what you want of it. Take that veil off if you hate it !!!
This sound like a stretch but to apply it to women artists: be confident, you already know they are some great women artists.
Don't give a fuck about the system, just make the best you can with your art. How many years did it took Louise Bourgeois to
finally get recognition? Now she is in the books for good. That's the result of 30-40 years of pure perseverance. I doubt these
days you need even half that.
And yes we always come to meet people with apalling retrograde opinions about life but, we're all on our own trying to avoid
them. Hopefully that is what this blog is about. Just expect there's a marge of madness in everything and everyone.
Cheers,
Cedric Caspesyan
centiment@hotmail.com
From my experience, on average the people who hound me to see thier work or push me for shows, are mostly men. They seem to be more prone to be squeeky wheels, jump up and down in front of the teacher and say they have the answer.
Chris, I didn't mean to pick on you. You sort of walked into a sucker punch with the math thing and then the hundred flip thing. I think that there are many variables and the best thing is to be aware of them.
you mean i'm just a figment of someone's imagination?
Yes, but that's not a bad thing. Many famous people have started out that way. Plus, remaining fictitious is a great way to keep your expenses down.
For the record ambition is not, nor has it ever been, a socially acceptable trait in a woman. Women and men can't stand it and cannot deal with it. It must be in the work, but it absolutely can't be expressed verbally or in any other way. It's like NO ONE knows how to process it.
Female dealers and quite a few gay dealers are Uncle Toms's; so happy to be in the big house they absolutely don't care about anything or anyone else. The big house is big money.
Wow, you kind of said a lot and there's truth in all of it.
Ambition is not socially accepted in Women. Let's even take the gorilla girls-- the are standing up as a collective and avoiding recognition. Really, there is something sort of "female" about this. A "hero" guy reaction is to walk up to the people you think are stacking the deck and demand that they prove that they are not.
To be honest, I think there is something very "Uncle Tom" about the whole scene in NY right now. Big time artist's, and successfull dealers don't want to rock the boat and everone else just seems to be willing to play along on the odd chance that they will get on board.
I think that when, successfull artist's start speaking up publicly when they see something that just dosn't seem right, people will notice.
People don't want to be seen as affirmative action harpies. They feel that if they made it in on their own merits they don't want to taint themselves by fighting for people who are not making it in, who need a little extra help. In an affirmtive action situation (now called "diversity"), people are nervous about the ones who need extra help: are they really being discriminated against or are they just not as good? Art is so subjective it's hard to be sure. A woman who has made it, against the odds, does not want to stick her neck out for other women who might not be as good artists. She doesn't want to taint her own success.
John Morris sez:
Chris, I didn't mean to pick on you. You sort of walked into a sucker punch with the math thing and then the hundred flip thing.
No no, I deserved it. I was wrong. I usually go off without thinking things through. It's just who I am. I'd rather be told I'm being an idiot. I may not listen, but that's another matter.
Ambition is not socially accepted in Women.
I don't know that this is true, exactly. Maybe some people don't accept it.
Really, I have a serious, real-world, actual basis for thinking the things I do about this whole successful women versus successful men thing. My wife has been successful in two different (but related) careers which are so much more male-oriented than the art world they're practically the Roman Catholic priesthood.
My wife was not successful because of affirmative action. Neither was she pushy, bitchy, or a harpy. Neither did she make excuses or complain about the patriarchy. What she did was work. She did the work. She did it well. That was it.
My wife is actually mostly unaware of gender as an issue. It doesn't enter into her thinking. Wacky ideas like Gaia or the Earth Mother, lofty ideals like Feminism, popular movements like Grrl Power or whatever, they're all totally alien to her. She hasn't a clue about any of it. What she knows is what she does, and she's good at it.
Other women in her profession often approach her to get her to join their "Women In..." groups or speak at their "Wither Women?" symposiums and that kid of thing. My wife always blows these people off. Her attitude: If you'd stop focusing on your genitals and just did your work, your problems would take care of themselves.
Now, I grant you that my wife is the beneficiary of past generations of women who made her ignorance of gender possible. One generation back and she wouldn't have been able to go to the college she went to (where we met). The opportunities would not have been there.
That said, she's made the most of her opportunities. She doesn't spend her days on blogs complaining about how she isn't successful because she's a woman, or fat, or blonde, or white. She's too busy working.
I think too many women (on blogs, anyway) are too quick to give their power to other people. I think they need to take that power back -- even if it means admitting that maybe they're partially to blame for their lack of success. Women have lots of power. Maybe it doesn't always manifest itself in precisely the same way that male power does. Maybe it's not about battering doors open, maybe it's about surrounding and forcing a surrender. (And, yes, that penis/vagina metaphor is intentional.)
Remember: When you penetrate, you're also enveloped.
Anyway, I tend to think that this "women are oppressed" attitude -- in art and other places -- is just one of the ways people excuse their perceived failures. I think most people have some escape hatch or other, some way to explain why they haven't done what they thought they would. If it's not the Patriarchy, it's the White People. Or the Immigrants. Or the Conservatives. Or Mom & Dad. Or Bad Genes. Or God.
I don't think there is a reason, most of the time. Lots of people will fail. That's just life.
I think most people have some escape hatch or other, some way to explain why they haven't done what they thought they would. If it's not the Patriarchy, it's the White People. Or the Immigrants. Or the Conservatives. Or Mom & Dad. Or Bad Genes. Or God.
I remember reading awhile back about some symposium where Tony Robbins was up on the stage talking about something similar, and he asked the audience what some of their excuses for failure were. People were piping up w/ various answers, and Al Gore (who was also one of the speakers) shouted out "The Supreme Court".
You've got to admit, that's a pretty good excuse.
Everyone makes excuses. That doesn't mean they're all invalid. Sometimes they really are out to get you.
Especially if you invented the Internet.
Chris, you bore me to tears.
Why hasn't anyone mentioned Nochlin's paradigm shiffing essay "why are there no great women artists?" from 1972???
The moral of the Gore anecdote is that it's not always "up to the individual"!
in fact, the older I get the more obvious it is that that notion was a conceit of modernism and the burgeoning middle class that are both now a thing of the past.
Please people, read your history!
The art world cold care less about fairness and diversity. No matter who speaks up. Didn't Kruger make a career at it? Did she change anything? Obviously not.
It's a market.
Hello.
Chris, get a job. You are absolutely clueless about the world.
don't be so mean to cris!
don't be so mean to cris!
I agree. Also, to be fair, I took his response to the Gore anecdote as a joke, and as an acknowledgement that things aren't as simple as he had previously claimed they were.
The moral of the Gore anecdote is that it's not always "up to the individual"!
I considered putting up a note to point out that I'm not some kind of crazed Ayn Rand-reading Objectivist. I hate Objectivists, in fact.
It's not always up to the individual at all. I do not -- absolutely do not even a little bit -- believe that any success or failure in life is entirely due to one's own actions. I'm not a social Darwinist or anything like that. Everyone I've ever met who believes they "worked" for what they have was the beneficiary of so much luck and inheritance it's enough to make you sick.
So I do not even remotely think anyone should blame themselves (or congratulate themselves) entirely for their failures (or successes).
Things are never simple. That's what I've been trying to say this whole discussion. It's not just that men run the art world and men don't like women. Why do so many male artists get shows in Chelsea while so many female artists don't? Because of luck, prejudice, the weather, economics, and a hundred other things.
By the way, I do have a job at the moment. I'm not totally clueless, just mostly.
Also by the way: You can all be as mean as you want. Just spell my name right.
More seriously: I don't really care about anything that happens on the Internet. I long ago gave up taking it seriously. For example, there was this one guy on a mailing list I was on. Over e-mail he was the most annoying, irritating person of all time. He drove me nuts. He was an enormous pain in the ass. I grew to hate seeing his messages in my inbox.
One day I finally met him -- he was a friend of a friend and we ended up at the same party. He was absolutely one of the best human beings I've ever met. I fell totally in love with him. He was just a great guy.
I cried at his funeral a few months later. Really. My heart still has a crack in it, that I spent so much time thinking he was a jerk, because I only knew him through the Internet.
So I know: I'm not who you think I am, and you're not who I think you are. So don't worry about it.
really? Why should anything be thought to seriously. For, if when all of us could remember taking our first breath, it was our mothers breast who fed us. And their flows a quality of life that touches all of us. Know when we are told to "drink your milk" dont cry over it or you have some modern intollorance for it............the river of life
will reveal.I mean to say, men will ambitiosly persue and women will most always feed you.
like in life,so goes it for art,
men might seem to be leading the pack, and women are holding the whole thing together.So lets get out, and ambitiously lead these hangerons to there place,the place you store all your winter stuff. Cause, its gettin hot out there!
And WO man you know it can be so cold.marciartz.
wtf was that last comment??
(ps: learn the difference between their and there!)
Here, hear!
Im sorry,
You read only my words and missed my point.My name is marci.
what is your point, exactly?
Be nice or we'll send you back to Florida.
Ha!
Yo, dada!
Hmmmmm....
I don't have time to read all these comments, but the next time I read here that anyone felt anyone else was being mean to them, I'm turning off the comments.
This is your only warning.
Be nice...always...period.
Edward
My point is,
We are all participating in this pattern, (or web) we are creating in this life time.
Men and women.
Every thing is desighned bye are imagination and mind...........
and now women can see, be more aware of each own vision, what ever is determined for their own individual system.
I just mean to say,
after we recognise disspair,we can focus and make that a target.
Be on top of the art market or be president.
Women, have given and nurtured life from the very start.
percentages will rise and fall,
women are stepping up their "game" given the men a time-now women-the talk is hot its time.
ART is ART. Not o gender.
Make good art and the best will feel it.
I am not offended by any comments ever....forums are to express positive or neg,no harm should be intended.I pray that my comments are not harmfull or hurtfull.
I apologize, I taught myself to read and write,but i prepurrrr painting.marciartz
Ed sez:
I don't have time to read all these comments, but the next time I read here that anyone felt anyone else was being mean to them, I'm turning off the comments.
For the record, I didn't feel anyone was being mean to me. Other people thought some other people were being mean to me. I frankly don't care.
Don't turn off the comments no matter what happens, Ed: They're the main reason we're here. I mean, I like to read what you have to say and all, but the comments generally make it more interesting.
Don't turn off the comments no matter what happens, Ed: They're the main reason we're here.
EW, I agree. Much as I love reading your insightful posts, it's the comments, discussions, and occasional border conflicts that keep me coming back. There's plenty of good reading material out there, but this is the one place I've found a lively online art community.
I'm all for your enforcement of civility, but please don't resort to the nuclear option..
By the way, Marci can paint!She writes about as well as me and much more important, she often has something worth listening to.
I love this blog a lot.
Make good art and the best will feel it.
That says it all, doesn't it? Isn't that what this is supposed to all be about?
With that said, I don't think that art is without gender. It seems to me that women make art from a more intimate place then men do. Sometimes that intimacy is a difficult thing to face in the broader world of public display. I think that might be why women artists are under-represented in the current gallery system. It takes a lot of balls to live that closely with another's personal journey. Not to many folks want to expose themselves by endorsing something that is so personal. Maybe that is where wonen's genius lies.
And Marci is a mervelous painter.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home