Now back to the relation between the Yerba Buena’s Women, Art, and Politics and WACK. To me the difference in quality of these two exhibits has to do with how they framed themselves. WACK is specifically about early feminist art (1965-80) and so has contextualized itself and the representative art as belonging to a particular time in history and responding to that time in historical ways. The Yerba Buena show, covering art from the 70s to the present, is simply all over the place and lacks clear definition (just consider the title: women, art, and politics. Can one get more broad than that?). Perhaps if it were called Feminist Political Art and Its Legacy, it would make more sense (although it would still not be all that impressive). One could say that WACK presents art that very specifically and urgently responded to particular material conditions–the lack of support for women art students and artists, as well as the social issues all feminists were battling with at the time. The question might then be asked: what material conditions are contemporary feminist artists faced with today? What are they battling? Is the battle different? Is there even a battle? As an aside, the younger women in my studio class did not identify with the exhibit at all and do not feel the need to be a “feminist” artist. And so the next question to be raised: do we need feminist art, or has it historicized itself to the point that it is no longer relevant in a contemporary way?

Lastly, I would like to address the question of the archive as art, or, as it were, art as archive. I agree with Historiann that from an aesthetic point of view, the work of art as archive (the Suzanne Lacy and the Andrea Bowers abortion rights tribute) is disappointing. And as an emerging artist with an academic background who cares deeply about the aesthetic experience (and gets roundly criticized for being “too formal”), I was gratified to hear her critique. But let me put another spin on this issue, one that could make things more interesting. There is actually a movement in contemporary art called “archive art” (in fact, there is currently a show in NYC–curated by faculty here at SFAI–called Archive Fever). The archive is now considered an artistic medium with its own integrity (see the catologue Deep Storage for an exhaustive look at the genre). Now if we take this thought and combine it with the current trend towards interdisciplinarity, then there could be exciting collaborative possibilities for artists and historians in making public art. There is lots of collaboration between artists and scientists in the bioart movement, as there is between artists and techies in new media. Perhaps this somewhat disappointing collapse between art and archive could lead to something fresh?

And finally, I do want to say something about the Suzanne Lacy archive piece, namely that, although the boxes of files are displayed prominently (and aesthetically) amongst the videos, the boxes are taped shut. I was actually admonished by a monitor for touching the boxes. I found this lack of access annoying, and I think it undermines the integrity of the piece. Thought I’d offer that up for thought as well.

Unfortunately, the Yerba Buena center website doesn’t have any photos of the installations I describe, which might help make my point clearer.

I’m not an expert in art history either but as I understand it, one of the goals of modernism (by which I mean the Impressionists onward) has been to push the boundaries of what is considered “fine art” and to take viewers outside their comfort zone and make them think. After all, Cezanne’s motto was “burn the Louvre,” i.e. let’s shake up the art world.

Said Friend–thanks for weighing in and providing more depth and perspective for my comments. I agree with you about the lack of discernment in contemporary art–but then, you as a student are grappling with how to produce worthy art in a context in which judgment is precluded? (Except it’s not, and faculty still have power over your future, as in every other academic environment.)

KC–I’m not saying it’s not art–but one of the things no one in the comments thread has engaged is my question about public history. To me, it seemed that many of the installations could have been done by any reasonably clever (or even not-so-clever) person with an archives and museum studies background. This exhibition raised questions in my mind about the boundaries between fine art and public history. But, as Said Friend suggested, if there’s no discernment and it’s all good, then I guess there’s our answer! While I think this is potentially exciting, I also wonder what this means for the future of art.

The work at WACK, and Judy Chicago’s work, as I understand it, was connected to and grew out of a specific art historical context. I’m just wondering what kind of art historical context this new work comes from–since it seems so closely related to recent history rather than art history.