Off the Pedestal: Women Artists in Art Museums

Off the Pedestal: Women Artists in Art Museums


Good morning, I’m Catherine Craft, curator
at The Nasher Sculpture Center and I’m delighted to welcome you to the 360 speaker series. We are especially excited about today’s offering,
Off The Pedestal: Women Artists in Art Museums. In 2014, The Nasher Sculpture Center received
a gift from Kaleta Doolin to support the acquisition of works by female artists in the Nasher collection. Upstairs in our corner gallery you can see
four recent acquisitions by the Cuban-American artist, Ana Mendieta. Today in celebration of this initiative we
bring together four distinguished panelists to explore the extraordinary lack of representation
of women artists in museum collections especially in the field of sculpture. We are pleased to welcome our panelists. In the center, Lynda Benglis was born in Louisiana
and now lives, works and travels between New York City, Santa Fe and Ahmedabab, India. A pioneer of post-minimalism and process art,
she arrived on the New York scene in the late 1960s gaining renown for her groundbreaking
poured latex and foam sculptures. Known for her exploration of evocative and
organic shapes she is also deeply concerned with the physicality of form and how it affects
the viewer. Using a wide range of materials to render
dynamic impressions of mass and surface, Benglis is the recipient of many awards including
a Guggenheim fellowship and two National Endowment for the Arts grants. Her works are in many public collections including
The Museum of Modern Art in New York, The Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles, The
National Gallery of Art, Washington D.C., The Walker Art Center and many more. At the left, chief curator at The Hammer Museum
in Los Angeles, since 2013, Connie Butler has organized exhibitions including Made in
L.A., 2014, Lygia Clark The Abandonment of Art and Marisa Merz, The Sky is a Great Space
which is currently on view at The Met Breuer, New York and will open at The Hammer in June. Prior to joining The Hammer, she was Chief
Curator of drawings at MoMA where she organized major exhibitions and was also active in the
cross-departmental modern women’s fund which resulted in numerous acquisitions as well
as the publication, Individuals: Women’s Artists in the Collection of The Museum Art. As the chief curator of the Museum of Contemporary
Art, Los Angeles, she organized the internationally acclaimed 2007 exhibition, Wack! Art and the Feminist Revolution. Elizabeth A. Sackler, seated next to Connie,
is a public historian and activist. She is the president of the Arthur M. Sackler
Foundation, president and founder of The American Indian Ritual Object Repatriotization Foundation,
trustee of the Brooklyn Museum and founder of the Elizabeth A. Sackler center for feminist
art at The Brooklyn Museum. The Sackler Center is the permanent home of
The Dinner Party by Judy Chicago. It’s Feminist Art and Herstory galleries display
critically acclaimed exhibitions and its forum as a venue for lectures and a platform of
advocacy for human rights and women’s issues. The Sackler Center is currently celebrating
its tenth anniversary with “A Year of Yes: Reimagining Feminism”. The annual Sackler Center first America first
awards honor women who have broken gender barriers and have made outstanding contributions
in their respective fields. And in recognition of the center’s tenth anniversary,
ten women will be honored on June 8th. Dr. Sackler is a frequent lecturer and panelist
and last May she was honored at The New York Women’s Foundation for her lifetime of activism. Seated second from the right, Jenny Sorken
is Assistant Professor of Contemporary Art History at University of California, Santa
Barbara. She holds a PhD in The History of Art from
Yale University. She has written numerous essays on Feminist
Art and issues of gender. Last year she co-curated with Paul Schimmel,
Revolution in The Making, Abstract Sculpture by Women, the inaugural exhibition at Hauser,
Wirth and Schimmel, Los Angeles. She recently published her first book,” Live
Form: Women, Ceramics and Community” which examines gender, post-war ceramics and sculptural
practices at Black Mountain College and other utopian communities. Moderating this panel, at the far right, Nasher’s
assistant curator Leigh Arnold who received her PhD last year from The University of Texas
at Dallas. In addition to curating last year’s Sightings
exhibition featuring the work of Swiss artist Mai Thu Perret, Leigh is curating an exhibition
on the women artists of the Land Art movement. Please join me in welcoming our distinguished
panel. Leigh Arnold: Thank you Catherine and thanks
to all of you for being here today. I think it’s important to restate why we are
here today which is to celebrate the Kaleta A. Doolin Acquisitions Fund for Women Artists. This is a type of fund that allows for institutions
like The Nasher to address this problem of historical lack of representation of women
artists in museum collections especially in the field of sculpture. So just to jump right in to the discussion
I wanted to throw it over to Connie and ask you if you might provide us with maybe a historical
context of women art acquisition funds given your experience at MoMA with the Modern Women’s
Fund. How did that develop? What was the impetus? Who encouraged the development of such a fund? Connie: I got scared for a moment, I thought
you were going to ask me the historical context of women in sculpture (laughter). Leigh: I’m sure you could answer that as well. Connie: The historical context for women’s…
the acquisition of funds devoted to women artists is much smaller of course but thanks
to people like Elizabeth Sackler and Kaleta A. Doolin and the example I could name is
the Modern Women’s Fund at MoMA, I think little by little, these things are changing. Museums are seeing the really sort of activist
benefit of establishing a fund like this. When I went to MoMA around 2006 there was
a philanthropist named Sarah Peter who is also an artist and I think that’s kind of
an interesting point to make who had been in conversation with MoMA about…she wanted
to give money for, it was an open-ended gesture, she wanted to give money to have something
to do with women. There were different ideas floated including
at one point, childcare for the workers at MoMA which would have been a great thing for
some of us but in the end what was decided was that she would develop or fund scholarly
efforts at MoMA devoted to research on women artists and so the first initiative was actually
the conference in 2008, which is the same year that Global Feminisms opened and the
WACK! exhibition opened in 2007 or 08, I’m sorry I’ve already forgotten…and more people
showed up for that panel then had shown up for any other public event at MoMA ever. So clearly there was this incredible demand. So that was one initiative and then what we
ended up focusing on primarily was a book of new scholarship around the women artists
in the collection. What was interesting about that and I think
a discussion that all of these funds or initiatives kind of go through is do you want to devote
your time and money and energy towards the canonical artists who we all know and of course,
there is one of these major female figures, many of them no longer with us, or do you
also want to kind of aggressively support trying to make the history but also re-invent
it and revise it at the same time by introducing a lot of under known figures of which there
are many more women artists at the same time. So what was interesting is that through that
process we began something we called The Modern Women’s Fund which was devoted specifically
to purchasing work by women artists. There were men and women on that fund and
they’re collectors of all kinds. In fact, I know Glen Furhman was instrumental
in bringing in a work of Linda’s into the collection. So that initiative continues to support the
acquisition of women artists. Sarah Peter still sits on that fund and I
think it’s her interest and the museum’s interest to try and spread that beyond one person and
that’s something you might address at some point Elizabeth but I think it’s had a transformative
effect and MoMA and partly there’s a generation, a new generation of people there, curators
men and women curators who are really interested in this who have internalized these questions–these
political questions in their work for now over two decades–I’m talking about that generation. And so I think you now see collection installations
that are much more integrated and represent a much more kind of diverse history at least
as far as gender goes. So I think it’s had a really important effect. And there are other people since who have
come forward at least at The Museum of Modern Art that support other individuals in the
drawing department and other departments who have specifically put their energies behind
requiring women artists so it’s been a great thing and really amazing to be a part of it. Leigh Arnold: So collection funds are one
way. Another way is to just establish an institution
that can support women artists and feminist art which Elizabeth you have an entire center
named for you. I was wondering if you might tell us about
your involvement in the development of The Elizabeth A. Sackler Center for Feminist Art. Elizabeth Sackler: Well my involvement was
basically coming up with the idea and then making it happen. And actually choosing the institution where
I felt I would receive the kind of support and opportunity to really push the boundaries. Judy Chicago created The Dinner Party in part
to counter the erasure of women artists and to go back in time. There are 1,038 women and so on and so forth
and Judy wanted very much for The Dinner Party to be permanently homed and housed and
that was very much her thing for a long time. At the point, it was at the end of the 90s,
in 1999, that I was thinking about The Dinner Party and thinking about the power of The
Dinner Party and we know from witnesses, we know from testimonials over the years, ten
years, of women who felt that seeing The Dinner Party had actually transformed their relationship
not only to art but in terms of their own experience of life and came to understand
something new. So I thought well, that’s one thing, but architecture–where
sits this work of art? What can architecture do with art that creates
an additional opportunity for people to walk into a really sacred space? So at that point I felt really interested
in seeing The Dinner Party within a space would be transformational, a sacred space
if you will, a beacon. But I wasn’t just interested in a gallery,
I was interested in creating a center. At the time Katherine Morris had been, who
is now our curator at The Sackler Center, was at White Columns and had opened a show
called Gloria. And when I went to the opening of that show
there were people of all generations, colors, you name it. And it was a small show but the energy was
palpable. This was 2001 I think that that show was opened
and I was in conversation at that point with Arnold Leeman in Brooklyn. I had come up with a list of what museums
would have to be committed to in order for me to go to that museum and say this is what
I propose. I propose the center of The Center as The
Dinner Party. We will have programs around it. We will have feminist art galleries around
it and a Herstory gallery so that there would be another small gallery. Judy and I called it the the “girls gallery”
it was also called “the jewel box gallery” it’s really the Herstory Gallery. And what it would take for a museum to be
my choice. It would take a commitment to women, it would
take a commitment to risk. It would take a commitment to really stepping
outside the canon and really making a change. And The Brooklyn Museum
at that time was the only museum that was willing–that first of all check off my criteria–but
Arnold was willing to take a risk. Arnold has a lot of chutzpah and I needed
that. I needed somebody who understood what transformational
power this center could have. So I chose the Brooklyn Museum and I went
to Arnold and I don’t know whether or not The Brooklyn understood completely what I
was envisioning because it wasn’t merely having The Dinner Party and it wasn’t merely having
exhibitions. It was opening up the entire avenue, the entire
city to the conversation of women in art, women in social situations, political problems–everything
having to do with women has a place at The Sackler Center and as feminists, you know
one of the questions was, when we were opening up The Sackler Center was, “well do we have
to use the word feminism?”. Well it had never occurred to me not to. I didn’t grow up feeling I was a feminist. I grew up in a wonderful family where I was
expected to do as much as my brother and so on and so forth. It wasn’t until somebody mentioned to me the
difference between women and feminism that I started to feel it. And I thought well wait a minute, this is
political. We’re talking about really taking a political
stand. We are talking about humanist values but taking
an aggressive, assertive stand for what that means. And it’s hard to say because I’m sitting here
in Dallas but when Arnold said to me “couldn’t we call it The Elizabeth A. Sackler Center
for Womens’ Art?” I said, forgive me here, that’s what they
would call it in Texas (laughter). Not in Brooklyn. So I
like to think that we broke barriers and that now you’ll have a center for feminist art
here in Texas and I think certainly in Dallas. I have no doubt about that. But I think part of what it was really– you
know it’s an interesting situation, I was on the board at The Brooklyn Museum–and there’s
always a mote between being on the board and what your influence is within the inside of
a museum and directors and the board of trustees have to be very very careful about that. The difference was that I was walking a line
as a founder and we are actually in many ways an institution within an institution. And one of the things that I had hoped for
was to have an independent institution but the Brooklyn Museum said ‘No we can’t have
an independent institution within this institution.” But I think that as a result of what it was
that I knew I wanted to achieve, I knew that programming was going to be absolutely essential
to the vibrancy and the power of the Sackler Center and the museum didn’t quite get that
so for the first year I spent my weekend, Saturday and Sunday inviting people—writers,
thinkers, artists, you name it—to come and speak and go into the museum and introducing
into our forum, our small forty person space, and by the end of the first year, the museum
looked up and said “Wow! We have new people coming in all the time.” All ages, all backgrounds and so on and so
forth. So it’s a vitally important piece and it’s
been a great ride. We are working with Arnold and The Brooklyn
Museum was really a treasure. We didn’t have any bumps, we didn’t have any
lumps. We were all focused on what it would mean
for equity and equality and justice. So they last thing I will leave you with was
that Arnold said, “Well how long in the contract do we have to keep it the Elizabeth A. Sackler
Center for Feminist Art?” Which you know the contract runs for…well,
I’ll be dead by the time the contract is over but I said when we have equity and equality
and justice for all, in the world (laughter), then you can take name. Leigh Arnold: Okay, I must come in and defend
Texas and Dallas a little bit because we have a pretty impressive history of women in the
arts in Dallas. One of the first contemporary art galleries
was established in 1951 by a woman. Many of our galleries today are run by women. Lynda came to Dallas in 1970 and made work
for Janie C. Lee’s gallery and one of those works I know ended up in the collection of
The Fort Worth Modern. But Lynda I’m curious as an artist, what does
it mean to have your work acquired by a museum? What was the first piece that you can recall
was purchased by a museum? Lynda Benglis: Well uh well I’d just like
to say something about Janie, she’s gone now so I can say it and it’s funny. She said you mean I came all the way to New
York and I got myself a Louisiana artist?! (laughter) Janie was from North Louisiana,
Alexandra and her people were into paper and she was terrific she picked me up in a convertible,
a Mercedes convertible, white and she lived on the bayou, river bayou. That area, I don’t know but it’s very popular. Leigh Arnold: Turtle Creek? Lynda Benglis: Turtle Creek. (laughter) Where my Hotel is so I remember…I
was going to say Turtle Creek but I thought ‘it couldn’t be the same place as where my
hotel is because they are all buildings there now’. So I don’t recognize it. But it was a very sweet place and she was
to be betrothed to Bittle of Philadelphia, so she sent me home…or she said you have
to go away because…but I was going away anyway. It was kind of a personal thing but I was
having a marriage anulled since I had married because of the draft (chuckles)—A Scotsman. So I flew to New Orleans and then came back. But who was the actor—James Deanian…who
was in A Rebel Without a Cause? Audience: James Dean Lynda Benglis: James Dean, besides James Dean… Audience: Dennis Hopper Lynda Benglis: Dennis Hopper. Dennis Hopper was coming into town and anyway,
I really liked Janie. She was what she was and she was outspoken
and she liked what she liked and you couldn’t tell her otherwise. And because the marriage didn’t happen she
didn’t show up at the famous clothing…she was supposed to wear an outfit to get money
for the museum? Or for art? Anyway, so we sat at the end of her bed watching
them announce her and she was just thrilled that she wasn’t there (chuckles). I did some pieces for her that I didn’t think
were all that successful so we floated them in the pool for her would be marriage (laughter). And they existed later. I decided they were good but they were like
drawings. So I did a large piece and Henry Hopkins was
at the museum, at The Fort Worth Museum and he commissioned me directly to do something. So my experience with Dallas has been terrific. But to get back to why I’m here now and women,
I think I was very lucky in that I thought of it as kind of a war sort of all about territory. So I was invited places and I decided, “Well,
now is the time of installation.” And, as Serra, I felt very competitive with
him. And I can remember since he thought it was
about territory and they, all the installation artists, thought about territory, I just happened
to be one of the others. So I thought about the feminist movement and
I said, “It’s really a humanistic thing.” And I had taken philosophy and I was very
good at logic and I might have gone in that way, to Academia, but it seemed I was more
of a kind of priestess for the feminists because I begged the question, because it was a humanist
issue for me and I liked doing that and all things being equal, we are. But nobody is really the same and that’s what
I like about art and I think we have our expressions and we should all be allowed to voice them. We are in a very crucial time now. We have big issues. Leigh Arnold: We sure do (laughter)…So big
that it seems kind of silly to steer this back in any direction but… Lynda Benglis: Well it’s no longer a numbers
game… Leigh: No, I think , what you said, all things
being equal, but in some ways there are inequalities just physically, women are sometimes not equal
to men and with materials like sculpture as a medium, which can be very physical and it
requires sometimes strength or an ability to work with heavy machinery and equipment
and for many years these kinds of very basic realities prevented women from being involved
in sculpture. And Jenny would you mind kind of giving us
a kind of historical and practical reason, beyond what I’ve just kind of laid out? Jenny Sorken: So in some of my research, I
have found that in 1917 there was an act called the Smith-Hughes act, which will mean something
to you in a moment when I explain it. It was a way for the United States, The Federal
Government to insure that agrarian workers picked up skills through the public education
system. And there was..it was in a high moment in
Industrialization and manufacturing and to implement this, young men in public schools
were required to take shop class. So the unintended consequence of shop class
was that young women had to be put in some sort of track as well and so they ended up…you
all know where this is going…home economics. And thus the home economics movement was born
for women but this automatic separatism really stuck with and created some of these basic
inequalities from the beginning of the century because women were not educated to use hammers
and hang sheetrock. It was hard to learn how to use a blow torch
and welding equipment and a wood shop and that kind of thing. You really have to persevere as a woman to
do and we all know what happened in home economics. What did everyone learn? Audience: Pillows… Jenny Sorken: Sewing and cooking right? How many of you actually took home economics? That’s a whole lot of people. So now we are in a moment where it has actually
all come full circle and the fanciest private schools now have everybody doing everything
and learning to sew and Waldorf schools and things like that and weave and felt. But this inequality was real and so women
came to their materials I think in round about ways. So there were work-arounds from the beginning
of the century. Somebody like Louise Nevelson did not use
wood traditionally, she used scrap wood that she found and collected and lower Manhattan
and put it together as sort of unified sculptures but….Somebody like Lee Bontecou had to teach
herself to weld and women were frequently chased out of sculpture programs and part
of the impetus for Judy Chicago and establishing the feminist art program and in particular
the famous Womanhouse exhibition was to teach women these kinds of hand-based skills. Where they were forced to use tools and learn
this really difficult physicality that they had not been granted through their public
education and through secondary schooling. And I think that that…early on it seemed
like an insurmountable task and yet women persevered and found these other ways to work
and so one of the things I found was that because many women did not make traditional
work in stone, wood, bronze, these sorts of commemorative materials, we might say—the
materiality of commemoration, longevity, permanence—they would use non-traditional materials. They would take things that were more domestic:
netting, pantyhose, knitting, crocheting, crocheting a lot of wire and make work that
was less formal, that was less linear, that might break down and have a mortality to it,
in a way, that the materials themselves might not last, might not be permanent. This trajectory also led women who were excluded
from sculpture and painting departments as educators for most of the century to find
other ways in which to work professionally. So an example of this is Nevelson, again made
a lot of…she did synagogue commissions all throughout New York City. Claire Falkenstein on the other coast did
stained glass commissions and fountains, big public fountains for churches and banks…. Leigh Arnold: Nancy Grossman was an animator
I think for…she made children’s books, illustrated children’s books in her free time while teaching
herself to sew because she came from… Jenny Sorken: And she was a David Smith student
at Bennington. And I think that what this ultimately leads
to for me and I think historically if we want to make a larger link is that women paved
the path toward non-traditional sculpture and broadening the field in really interesting
and provocative ways through a materiality of abstraction and also through these work-arounds,
working in public, working with communities, working in churches and so that kind of site
specific installation work leads from a single, pedestal-based object out into this broader
realm of what we now call sculptural installation or just plain installation art. And then I think even further it pushed us
into this contemporary realm of social practice that’s been spearheaded by women who just
leave objects behind entirely now and make events and performances and experiences. I really do feel that it’s rooted in a kind
of alternative sculptural history. Leigh Arnold: Also, the fact that sculpture
takes up space….You need space to make sculpture. Unless you’re making something very small. And Connie, one of the great things about
WACK!, one of the many fantastic things that WACK! did is it really exposed the alternate
spaces that women were relegated to in order to make their work. For example, making work in their kitchen,
or their basement and I’m wondering if you might talk about how, when women wanted to
make work, they made it happen, but what effect did that have on the sculpture that you were
seeing coming out of that period of time? Connie Butler: Well I might start by addressing
a slightly different question but it’s related which is ‘What happens to that work, or what
happened to that work when it comes out of those spaces?’ I mean I think it’s for sure making work in
a more domestic space or a cramped apartment or a laundry room of your loft or whatever,
had a certain effect. But I remember when the WACK! show opened,
or when I was installing it actually and the works were beginning to arrive in the space
and actually it was a moment with your work Lynda in particular, and I’m not saying this
just because we are here but I do remember this very clearly. The work started to go into the space and
I think it was one of these big sort of molten dark pours that’s maybe even owned by The
Dallas Museum and I know they were lenders to the show. But anyway, the work came in and we’d made
a kind of conventional corner gallery for it. We tried for a very open installation plan
and I don’t know if you remember this Jenny, but anyway we had made kind of a corner for
it, a partial gallery and it came in and it plopped in there and it got situated and it
looked gorgeous, I mean it just looked gorgeous! I mean it anchored the space and there it
was and it looked big and beautiful but I had a moment when I thought, ‘what are we
doing to this work?’ We are taking work and this is more general
but taking this work that was made under such often duress or political circumstances or
a work of protest but work that was often very scrappy and materially ephemeral and
all that and kind of cleaning it up and historicizing it and making it museum ready which is what
we do but in that cleaning up, were we in some ways, were we losing, not in terms of
only where it was made but the history of circulation of it and reception and the intense
sort of resistance and politics that was underlying it by kind of cleaning it up. And of course, you know, some work could hold
up to it and looked great and was ready for its moment and others, you know, didn’t because
it was made under the circumstances you are describing. Lynda Benglis: But this whole thing of context
and teaching, I’ve been teaching almost 50 years and women do differently. They make and feel differently and I encourage
that and whatever it is, whatever the size, whatever they bring to it is continuous and
it’s very similar. They are people that do knitting things, I
encourage that because it is there. It’s out there and there’s no reason not to
give it a context and context in different circumstances change. But nothing’s changed really. The context changes. Jenny Sorken: But don’t you think it’s taken
a long time to take away the hierarchy of materials? Elizabeth Sackler: Well one of the things
I… Lynda Benglis: I’m always… Jenny Sorken: Well you used everything…but
you’re a pioneer… Lynda Benglis: Well I’m a teacher! I’m not a pioneer. Jenny Sorken: You are a pioneer. (laugher) Lynda Benglis: Well let me bring something
up. I know pioneers and they are dead now….(laughter). You know, I’m just still existing but where
are the Elizabeth Murray’s in the museum? Where are the Jennifer Bartlett’s? Where are they? They are not there. There’s a great show that Pace did on the
lower east side in a little gallery off the Bowery, you know? It was fantastic! But you know, where…what’s happening? I mean everything should be voiced and seen
and perhaps there’s just a lot more out there at one time. But maybe it’s more established or more categorized
now? Elizabeth Sackler: One of the things that
Judy had always been very vocal about was of course the textiles and all of the components
of her sculpture The Dinner Party had been relegated to craft. And part of what the whole discussion became
was how do you delineate? How do you say ‘this is art and this is craft?’
and that seemed to be along gender lines. And I think that that is part of the fluidity
that we are seeing that was completely broken down in the 70s and the 80s. Lynda Benglis: As it should be. Elizabeth Sackler: Glass is still craft. Jenny Sorken: Also let’s not forget that people
get way more excited about boys who sew than girls who sew. It’s true. And that hasn’t gone away yet. I think that we are still in a space that
when men create craft practices, Jim Hodges for instance, they get these big monographic
shows much quicker than textile-based women. It’s this weird fact. And then when women appropriate traditional
means of sculpture, like Elizabeth Catlett making bronze and wood mothers and childs,
they don’t make it into the collection. Leigh Arnold: It’s true and ceramics also. Elizabeth Sackler: Well Leigh, I don’t see
it as a weird fact, actually Jenny because we live in a patriarchy. We live in a patriarchal culture, we see everything
through a patriarchal lense both in this country and worldwide. So as long as that is the case, that becomes
the default. So it really shouldn’t be all that surprising
that that’s the case. The question becomes, how does that change? Where is the revolution? And so I don’t think it’s all that surprising. Leigh Arnold: And I’m wondering where does
it change? It changes by buying more work from women,
showing more work by women. One of the perennial questions of a curator
is, ‘What do you do with women artists? Do you do group shows that kind of pull out
these unknown, underrepresented women artists who’ve been working alongside their male peers
doing just as great work but never really getting the recognition? Do you focus more on solo shows of these women
and pulling them up? Do you think that exhibitions that are strict
along gender lines are ghettoizing?” I deal with this question constantly but I’m
curious for Connie or Jenny who have organized gender specific exhibitions, do you think
they are relevant? Do they retain their relevancy? Do we need to continue doing that? Connie Butler: I’m so tired of this question. (laughter) No but it has to be asked. And I think as long as we have to ask the
question it means we need them. I mean who cares?! I feel like…that’s not true, I feel like
where there is historical importance of bringing a certain history forward as you’re doing
with your earth art exhibition say, or as we did with WACK! then and actually now we
are organizing now at The Hammer Museum in Los Angeles, The Getty is focusing in the
Fall on Latin America and so our contribution to that is an exhibition called Radical Women:
Latin American Artists, 1960-1980. And what’s interesting to me as a subtext
is that it’s like a second WACK! in a way, with this sort of historical lag that happens
in latin american because of dictatorship and so on. But that show is about a hundred women artists
and there absolutely is a need. I mean in Latin America nobody until very
recently even spoke about gender and certainly not about feminism except in Mexico. And so I think absolutely that’s necessary
and I think where there is a historical imperative, yes, why not? You know? And of course we don’t have to say again and
again and again, but I was just looking at, I don’t know, ArtForum or something, at somebody’s
roster that I won’t even name, a major gallerist who is a woman who we already know and like
literally there are like three women in a roster of like forty artists. Like, Ugh…you know? If that can happen then we still have to ask
the question I think. Lynda Benglis: I have to say, I have a gallery
that at least half are women. Connie Butler: Yep. Absolutely you do. Lynda Benglis: It’s unusual. It’s one of the few. Elizabeth Sackler: Well I’d like to take us
back also to the larger political moment that we are in and think well maybe the art world
is going to swept along with a certain tide that is happening. Uhm when the women’s march happened in Washington
I tweeted the next day, ‘suddently the Elizabeth A. Sackler Center for Feminist Art sounded
very old fashioned.’ That we should call it, ‘The Elizabeth A.
Sackler Center for Pussy Power.’ (laugher) And I read today that there are
sixteen thousand and they are young from my point of view, they are younger women who
are going to be running for office. So if all of this continues in some way and
we are coming into some kind of new moment. How are the museums going to respond to this? And how will it begin to change? How will the women who are collectors, women
who are of means, who support museums, what will they do? The same way that women during the feminist
revolution became feminist artists, that was their contribution if you will. So it’s going to be an interesting moment
that we have a huge opportunity I think to really grab onto. Lynda Benglis: What’s interesting now is too,
a lot of these marches are mostly women right now. I saw it in New York. That’s what’s happening. And they’re joined by men but for the large
part if you count it… Jenny Sorken: I would also say that we are
in a very gender fluid moment. We are in a space where there is a lot of
visibility for the first time ever of the open acceptance of transgendered people you
know M to F, F to M and everything in between, people who don’t identify as one gender or
another and this moment allows for a different level of acceptance than just segregating
everything into all men and all women that we are actually in a moment of a third space,
if you will and that that accounts also for a completely different generational shift
and way of thinking which actually goes back to some of the earliest radical feminist texts
that were ever written. Somebody like Shulamith Firestone was trying
to think outside of biology and if we make a larger connection she goes forward to the
cyborg that Donna Haraway writes about which is a kind of alien or non-human biology and
then we can take it all the way back to Mary Shelley where Frankenstein is birthed in a
sense by a man and that there’s these larger histories of thinking through gender and thinking
out of the binary of male-female which is sometimes very easy to get caught up in. Leigh Arnold: I think one of the aims of feminism
and the revolution was to re-write the canon. Because as long as we are trying to put women
back into an existing canon the patriarchy continues. What needs to happen is the canon needs to
re-written or done away with completely. And I think as Jenny is saying there is this
third space that is being created where there is all of this fluidity between genders. Maybe this is further a way to re-think the
entire canon. Genderless canon, historical canon. Lynda Benglis: Well it’s still happening,
organically. I think about most of my young friends that
look like women are kind of out there and doing everything and it’s just there. Elizabeth Sackler: I think it also expands
to the dimension of people of color. I mean we are now faced directly with Black
Lives Matter, with the muslim bans, and I think it’s a moment when that area, where
it behooves us to focus and embrace what is taking place for those people with the pipeline
and so on and so forth and the historic genocide of our first peoples. So we are at a quite an intersection of time
for everyone. Connie Butler: You’re right Lynda the marches
were so female but I was also struck and so happy about how diverse they were at least
in Los Angeles. I mean because I thought as I got on the subway
you know, when it was all middle aged white women I thought ‘Oh my God is this going to
happen again?’ but no it’s actually just where the train
was coming from (laughter). And in fact, it was incredibly diverse and
I think that this idea which I was explaining to my young sons on the day of the march,
you know, the future is female which is a slogan that I’m not sure actually what the
origin is I think it originated in Los Angeles with an artist named Steiner and her partner
but I don’t mean actually that the future is only women, I mean how boring is that? No. That actually a female future is one that
has all these allegiances that you’re talking about and that’s the way forward, it’s not
about a kind of 70s middle class white feminism anymore at all. I mean certainly that’s not what… Elizabeth Sackler: It’s an inclusivity. Connie Butler: It absolutely has to be…. Lynda Benglis: Well it’s a terrific energy
that’s building and I’m excited about it. Leigh Arnold: Jenny?… Jenny Sorken: I wanted to throw out…Actually
that Connie can field this. Initially to go back to your idea about all
women exhibitions, that early on there was this constant struggle and question that Connie
would get asked constantly, ‘Are you going to include men?’ It was a question that I think every artist
we saw together asked you. And there was this idea that there should
be a kind of natural inclusion–that some men were feminists, that some men belonged
in WACK! and that there was an uncomfortableness on the part of a lot of women to be included
in all-women exhibitions and these kinds of segregated shows, at large cause a lot of
consternation, you know we are still asking this question, I don’t think it’s any different
when you do a show of Asian-American artists or African-American artists in that it still
circles around identity politics and I think the one thing we can do is banish the terminology
“those people” from our vocabulary because it’s all of us. It’s we the people it’s not “those people”. So it’s an important sort of distinction to
make–that you don’t separate yourself from these groups and create divisiveness even
in our everyday language. Leigh Arnold: Right on Elizabeth Sackler: I agree with you, it’s
not ghettoization. We are looking at a beacon. And we are looking at focusing a spotlight
where it perhaps isn’t but that doesn’t preclude a ‘other’. Leigh Arnold: I can’t believe it but we’ve
already been chatting for 45 minutes and I think we may need to either wrap it up or
take some questions but we barely scratched the surface. I think I had prepared so many questions and
so many thoughts for this panel. And we’ve not really gotten to much of any
of it but I still feel like we’ve tackled and at least posed a few questions that can’t
be answered in 45 minutes. Audience: But can we go on just a little while
longer? Leigh Arnold: Let’s take a show of hands. How many would like to continue just a little
while longer? Okay, let’s keep going. I mean Lynda, I’m curious, from your perspective
do you…how do you feel about all-women exhibitions? Are you happy to be included? Would you rather just be… Lynda Benglis: I’d like to make it more complicated
because I go to India and the women are very strong there. They have always been respected. And there’s a lot of strong women artists
there. And it’s interesting when I was first getting
my work out, I was invited to Australia and sometime Lucy Lippard and I would follow each
other in a way. Lucy, the historian would usually come before
me and then I would be there and they said, ‘Oh we had Lucy here’ and so forth. But I think that this movement is also racial. And I just think that’s also equally important
and because I’m from the South, and also because I see it that some of us, that some of the
women have the racial issues as well and…but they somehow appear, still all this is coming
out again. I think we’re more sensitive now to not only
the woman issue but we are more sensitive to the racial issue. It comes together. And finally it’s a humanist issue. So we’re all exploding now but also we are
pulling back and we are trying to understand it. And it’s complicated. Leigh Arnold: It is. Connie Butler: But also to acknowledge of
course that we are not all the same. You know I think it’s a moment to really respect,
obviously, difference and provide a context for that too. We had an artist Simone Lee who’s an African-American,
Brooklyn-based artist who did a project in LA and she’s also done it in New York but
where part of her, she had a small exhibition of her sculpture but she also did a project
that was a kind of closed door meeting of four African American women in Los Angeles
who are artists but also curators and cultural workers in the city and the specific proposal
was that they want to have a closed-door meeting and we were not invited until afterwards and
then there was a discussion but I mean it’s so important to also provide space where one
has the ability to offer something. You know a space for that. And I think those kinds of discussions are
also really important as much as the coming together. I’m curious Jenny if you in the Revolution
In The Making exhibition at Hauser Wirth Schimmel, if you face that question now? Ten years later? Jenny Sorken: Yes Connie Butler: From the artists of not wanting
to be in an all women group show? Yes, there was one artist who declined to
be in the show because she had felt that she had worked too hard to get to where she was
to ‘go back to’ being in an all women exhibition of sculpture. Connie Butler: Which is exactly what we heard
with WACK! Jenny Sorken: Ten years earlier… Connie Butler: …this kind of idea of sliding
back somehow. Elizabeth Sackler: At the same time everybody
is doing percentages. No if you do the percentages and…the two
don’t… Lynda Benglis: I thought that was over. Jenny Sorken: But even if we look…If we’re
going to do percentages, I think we actually have to look at museums themselves and the
sort of…there are so many women who work as cultural workers who work in the not-for-profit
realm and it is largely staffs of all women, not all women but many many women who make
up museum staff and educational staff and women gravitate for not-for-profits and educational
initiatives and yet still there’s a kind of…it’s largely male directors and largely not everywhere
male senior curators. There’s still a ceiling at the top that makes
it very hard for women to cross that threshold. Leigh Arnold: I’m just curious at MoCA when
you did WACK! or even at Hauser Wirth and Schimmel were you challenged at all, ‘why
are you doing this show?’. You know, ‘we don’t need a feminist show,
can’t you do something else? Can’t you do a Richard Serra Show?’ (laughter) Connie Butler: No one has ever asked me that. (laughter) But I was actually thinking that
Jeremy Strick who’s here somewhere who is of course the director of The Nasher was the
steward of MoCA when we were organizing WACK! and I don’t actually think I’ve ever asked
him about you know, what was he thinking? (laughter) You know, cause from my perspective,
what was extraordinary is that there was only institutional support from the top to every
area in the museum and I do remember people on the outside saying to me things like, ‘Why
would you want to do that? It’ll be like a career sinker.’ Like that’s it, you know, ‘what are you even
thinking?’ and I just couldn’t imagine that was true I mean I have some thoughts about
that now…but there was no objection. We, everybody at MoCA framed it, wanted to
frame it as a blockbuster like, ‘this is going to be big and noisy and we are going to put
full institutional support behind it.’ Jenny Sorken: But that’s not true because
it was an underfunded show… Connie Butler: That’s a different question Jenny Sorken: I was a part-time employee on
that show. I was a part-time research assistant and you
helped me find enough, another part-time job at The Getty so that I could work on WACK!
and it was only at the end that there was full time research support and that wasn’t
true of many of MoCA’s other shows. Elizabeth Sackler: But you also contextualized
it within the women’s revolution. It wasn’t separated out. You contextualized it within a movement. Connie Butler: Yeah but I think Elizabeth Sackler: I mean that might have
been a marketing thing but that’s worked. Connie Butler: I mean it was partly a marketing
thing. I think at the time too it was…I mean you’re
right but at the time no one wanted..I mean there hadn’t been on that scale a show or
anything calling it a feminist art movement. I mean there had been other smaller show historically
but even to do that to make it…I mean it’s true is wasn’t a show it was a feminist art
movement… Elizabeth Sackler: It was a feminist movement. Connie Butler: Yeah I always thought that
was important. Elizabeth Sackler: Very. Because the women who were producing the art
who then became, or not, feminist artists, or mothers of feminist artists during that
movement, that period of time. Connie Butler: Uh huh Elizabeth Sackler: Art and the feminist revolution. Leigh Arnold: So, ten years later with the
show Hauser Wirth and Schimmel, whose idea was it? Hauser Wirth and Schimmel is opening this
beautiful new gallery space and they choose to do this exhibition which I think is fantastic
but… Lynda Benglis: Well it was a surprise, I think,
for everyone. Leigh Arnold: Right. Jenny? Jenny Sorken: Well I think sculpture anchors
a space that’s that large and I think that smaller works would have gotten swallowed
up and to maybe make a splash uh you need really big work in a big space. But I also think that there’s….uh we are
in a moment of commercial ventures that are able and willing to put forward an agenda
that many museums are stymied financially and I don’t think that I, you know, personally
I wouldn’t have had the patience to wait ten years to fund raise for a show like that in
the museum world which is what that would have taken. It would have taken a ten year commitment
over a long period of time to raise that kind of capital to do a show on that scale. And you know commercial galleries have a different
budget and they work differently and I think that’s very threatening to museums and it’s
scary in a sense. So I think that’s a bigger issue that’s different
than this panel perhaps but I would say that it was n opportunity that I took because it
was also something that could come to fruition much quicker. Elizabeth Sackler: I think it was really great
because Hauser Wirth in Europe right now has a show— most of their shows only have twenty
five percent women in all of their shows. Jenny Sorken: Their stable is half though Elizabeth Sackler: So yeah but the shows themselves. So uhm in so far as galleries influence the
art market and the purchase of art and the value of an artist in the art market, there’s
also that connection and until all of those hems, all those seams are completely torn
apart, then maybe we will have an opportunity for real fluidity and work of both men, women,
transgender, whatever it is, people of color that will flow and it will have to do with
the art not necessarily with the other. Lynda Benglis: Well that is what was so wonderful
when we did have situations in the situational art and it was about the art and it was about
feeling that there was a response that wasn’t commercial. And the museums did cooperate and galleries
did cooperate. It was a great feeling. Jenny Sorken: I would say also though that
one of the primary differences between something like that and like what I did is that Revolution
In The Making as a commercial…as a big show in a gallery, there wasn’t the same need to
be as responsible to include everyone. There was never going to be an ability to
do this large scale historical show in such a way that everyone felt included and I think
WACK! really strived to include and be inclusive and we visited so many more artists than could
have been in the show and it was agonizing to cut people out and figure out how to cull
the list because you can’t include everyone and yet you know that’s what a catalog is
for in order to have back matter that includes many more names that the show can be which
is the same thing that Judy Chicago did in her Dinner Party piece—many more names than
plates. It’s this endless idea of revisionism and
inclusion and trying to press for recognition in some way. Lynda Benglis: But you know I’ve been teaching
for a long time and the art really hasn’t changed that much. There are people still contextually doing
things that don’t last and are lightweight…ideas that are in and of themselves unique to them
in the context. Things haven’t changed since the 70s really. Leigh Arnold: (laughs) Lynda Benglis: It’s true. I mean you know you have a different surface,
you part your hair differently or a different color here and there…things really haven’t
changed. Connie Butler: Well and I think getting back
to something you said about painters, you know Elizabeth Murray, I mean I was thinking
that one of the questions that is probably not something we can get into here but it’s
definitely true that a certain level of the market and I think it may be in the realm
of painting mostly where this is very in high relief and really visible is the shocking
discrepancy of difference in value. Lynda Benglis: She’s a drawer. You look at her drawings and she’s a drawer. Connie Butler: Absolutely but at that certain
level again of the market the painters who actually break through—there are so few
women at that level and maybe only one or two or three lose value through their paintings. Lynda Benglis: If they die they are in bad
luck then right? Elizabeth Sackler: One of the things that
has changed Lynda is that in the 80s art became commodity and that is a big shift. We now have a power of the art market and
by the way, I should say that we bring up Hauser Wirth because you are with Hauser Wirth
but I know…I mean you did that show but I mean I know Eiwyn very well and he’s a good
friend and so I don’t you know want to you know say that…I think it’s true as we are
looking at the way the system is built and that really started in the 80s. And I think I’m not sure how that gets cracked
at this point. And what role the museums can play in this
because part of it is Jenny, you were saying it has to do with money, what it would take
to put a show together, etc… Lynda Benglis: I think these are big questions… Jenny Sorken: I think the lineage, creating
these lineages, you know why not install Judy Pfaff and Sarah Sze in adjacent galleries? You know, Judy Pfaff is a precursor to what
Sarah Sze does. Sarah Sze has a bigger market presence but
you know there’s certainly an homage that you can pay to that earlier work and generation
and I think that’s what we don’t see because that work is not in permanent collections. Sarah Sze might be now but Judy Pfaff is not. And so there’s a whole generation, I remember
very early on as an art student hearing Carolee Schneeman speak and I was shocked and… it
solidified in my mind the state (of things), that the first time that her work was collected
by a museum was in 1995 and it was SFMoMA. It took that long to get a Carolee Schneeman
work into a permanent collection somewhere. And you know, that’s just astounding. She was brought in by the School of the Art
Institute of Chicago not by the Art Institute of Chicago so women have historically made
the rounds in art schools. Again in the educational realm that’s a different
level of influence than coming to an institutional space. Leigh Arnold: How much of when you organize
a show, a historical show, how much of the work is coming from the artist or how much
of the work had already been acquired by museums? And I’m speaking about women especially because
a show like WACK! a show like the Hauser Wirth and Schimmel show, you know you rely upon
galleries maybe when it comes to organizing historical shows to find the work or in permanent
collections so where is the work coming from when you are organizing these historical exhibitions? Connie Butler: I think it’s really different
now. I mean the good news is ten years later, it’s
actually different. I mean I would imagine that all of the women
in the Hauser and Wirth show, those works did come from collections and galleries. When we were organizing WACK! almost, I mean
many many things, the majority of the things came from the artists and we are seeing the
same thing of course in this Radical Women exhibition in South America. There are artists from every South American
country and with very few exceptions the work is all coming from the artists and many of
the same things, you know women who can’t necessarily afford to even make exhibition
prints to send us you know to those who can’t afford to come to the opening. I mean it’s incredible. The history is exactly now sort of rolling
out in the same way. But I do think the market has, you know, there
has become this really solid re-entry middle ground for women of a certain generation you
know the WACK! generation, re-entering the market and those prices, I mean I know what
they are going to be every single time. Those are not going up that much as much as
they should actually. There’s this 150 to 200 thousand level for
like major masterpieces from the 70s and that’s the level at which those women re-enter for
historically significant works that should be in museums. And it’s changing a little bit and certainly
there are Eve Hesse outlier kind of examples but uhm yeah that’s… Jenny Sorken: So it’s supremely undervalued
work. Connie Butler: Yeah, still. Jenny Sorken. And it’s extremely cheap to buy. Elizabeth Sackler: Either that or the other
is extremely overvalued. (laughter) Leigh Arnold: I think that the scary thing
too is that when work doesn’t enter a permanent collection, it has to go somewhere and a lot
of these artists might just throw it away, do away with it. So are we losing an entire history of work
because they don’t have anywhere to put it? Keep it? I’ve talked with several artists who have
thrown work away because they were moving studios and didn’t have a place to store it. So yeah I hope things change and I hope we
can continue to acquire by women and get their work out there and get it shown. Should we open it up for questions? Okay there are two microphones available. One on either end so let’s take this one right
here. Audience member: Hi my name is Ivana Ferrero
I’m an artist and I’m 50 years old. So I think that you guys have talked a lot
about race issues, gender issues but we didn’t talk about age issues and just picking back
up with what you were saying about as an artist you know as a woman, 50 year old woman, it’s
very difficult for me to go a gallery and then for them to get my work because they
don’t want a 50 year old woman’s art in their gallery you know. How do I come from making the art in my kitchen
and in my studio at home and I can market it as much as I can but it’s very difficult,
there’s no way to get into these places these venues that you guys are talking about so
I wanted to see if you could touch base a little bit on the age issue and how an artist
that is working from home can get into the venues that you guys are talking about. Leigh Arnold: Does anyone want to take that
on? Jenny Sorken: The historical answer, the true
answer is it’s really difficult and I don’t have a practical answer but the historical
answer is that there are so many women who waited such a long time for recognition. Somebody like Nevelson didn’t show until she
was 60 and then she showed among a peer group at MoMA of like Frank Stella who was 22 in
a big group show. Or uh somebody like Beatrice Wood the potter
who basically had to outlive her whole peer group in order to tell her own history live
til 105. Carmen Herrera who just had her first significant
retrospective at the age of 101 at The Whitney. You know Louise Bourgeois you know who’s career
didn’t take off in some ways until she was in her 70s potentially and this idea of longevity
and perseverance is so attached to the female psyche in a way that women endure. I think this is a larger, I think it’s something
we accept culturally that we have to really undo, that women don’t have to endure and
wait and wait and it out that women can show now and early and it’s something archaic left
in our culture. Leigh Arnold: Question in the very back? Audience: Hi uhm so piggy backing on that
last question I was hoping someone would mention childbirth or child bearing and having children
and I think that a lot of this delay for women has to do with all those years, I mean I’m
currently an artist and I have all these small children and the career gets put off for a
lot of years so I was curious if anyone would speak to… Elizabeth Sackler: Well I’ll channel Gloria
Steinam and say that man have to take on 50 percent of the child rearing and house work
in order for women to have 50 percent of their time to their work. That was Gloria not me. (laugher and clapping). No but I think there’s a relevance to what
you’re saying. I mean historically you know that is the case
of course that women do and until that percentage shifts I don’t know. Lynda Benglis: But to address the issue in
a different way, if you know yourself and within your friends, if you could get together
and all of you don’t necessarily have an outlet but would like one why not rent a space this
happened in the 70s in SoHo. There were galleries, pop up galleries in
that way and there’s always that, everywhere in LA it happened, in New York it could happen
here and I think if you feel that you’re being judged, you know number one that’s not a good
feeling so do something about it. Really get out there, get with it you know
get support and show your work. Connie Butler: I think it’s a great suggestion
I mean I think we were talking about Elizabeth Murray yesterday who in my life or in my career,
I met her early on and one of the things she said to me in the early 1990s and this is
before I was doing this work and you know thinking about these politics very much and
she talked about having kids and how hard it was and having to hide them when studio
visits came and (laughter)….You know people came to visit her studio and I think that
you really can’t underestimate the bias that there is even as like cool and hip as it is
to drag your kids around in the art world or Hollywood or whatever and it sort of seems
like there’s more visibility I absolutely think that it’s a problem. I think as a woman artist you have to be very
conscious of it or as a curator and I mean the way that I’ve always dealt with it is
and I’ve never said this really out loud too much is just to be really like…they’re just
part of what you do, they are part of your labor and you have to make them visible and
trustees don’t want to see it, they don’t want to see the kids. They want to know a little bit but they don’t
want to know a lot you know. You have to negotiate that all the time and
I think my strategy and I’m sure it’s hurt me is to just…and they’re just..and I don’t
mean like literally they are visible all the time but that is part of your labor and it’s
part of your identity and you cannot hide it especially until there’s 50 percent labor
going on in the home, I mean it’s just, it’s very hard and I know a lot of women artists
my age and generation who talked about having kids and made the decision not to because
of privileging their work and made that…it was a conscious choice and anyway just to
say it’s extremely hard. Leigh Arnold: Right here. Audience: I would like to know your thoughts
and opinions on the powerfulness or lack of powerfulness in writing about work. So my question is, how effective is writing
about a person’s exhibition and anything that is related to that. Connie Butler: I’ll say a couple things I
think it’s really hugely important. I mean I think that one of the things that
I learned in researching the WACK! show and I’ve thought about a lot is that the ways
in which women’s work…it’s true today but differently but certainly historically the
ways in which work by women artist circulated affected and the reception that they got or
didn’t get affected how, affected the production of the work in the end. I mean you know getting it out of the studio,
having someone see it, having someone write about it or not for certain bodies of work
or whatever, effects the shape of the career and the production and I think that choosing
who writes about it, if you can, having control over that, having it be serious getting something
published as a thing a book a pamphlet or whatever I think is really, I think there’s
tremendous value in it. Elizabeth Sackler: Well there’s so many different
levels because you are talking about catalogs, reviews, you’re talking about monographs,
you’re talking about having a catalog raisonne. There are all of those different levels. Leigh Arnold: But I think Jenny was talking
about—was it a masters thesis? Or? What was your?… Jenny Sorken: I just published a book on ceramic
artists. Leigh Arnold: Yes I know. But we were having a conversation last night
where Jenny was describing this publication that was the only publication, the first publication. High Performance Magazine thank you, was the
first publication devoted to performance art. Jenny Sorken: In the United States, yes. It was founded by a woman. It was established in Los Angeles. It was the first place where artists were
asked to contribute and write about their own practice not mediated through a critic
so you submit the documentation of your performance and then you wrote a synopsis or something
that went with it. If you didn’t write something up, you weren’t
published. And so it forced artists to write in a sense. I think also there’s historical value in the
trickle down effect. History is slow. Art history is a conservative discipline. I think it’s really boring to write another
dissertation on Bruce Nauman (laughter). We don’t need one. You know there’s a replication or a cycle
of replication where if you work on a certain artist or kind of artist you can get a different
level of recognition than artists who do not have that kind of commercial value. It’s different to write a book on Guston than
it is to write on women at Black Mountain College in the 50s and I think that’s a distinction
that happens in terms of the way scholarship is valued or undervalued. And our commercial museum world moves very
very quickly and from my perspective essays aren’t long enough. They’re written on the fly. Sometimes curators don’t have enough time
to do the kind of heavy lifting research that art history or an art historian’s are able
to do because it’s a different job description. But I think that there’s just not…there’s
not enough writing. Leigh Arnold: Here? Audience: I just want to applaud all of the
women up there and all of the wonderful things you’ve done and you keep mentioning Elizabeth
Murray and we keep talking about Dallas and the history of great women and the things
that have happened here. Elizabeth Murray’s first museum show was at
The Dallas Museum of Art in 1987 and curated by Sue Gray. And I think was is so important is that we
not only talk about history, but we talk about the future. And we talk about shining a light on the inequalities
in the art world among men and women, whether it’s art dealers collecting or artists and
for everyone to do what they can as far as whether it’s showing art or collecting art. But to do our little bits to get to that place
of equality. But I just wanted to say I think we’ve got
a good Elizabeth Murray moment going on here and wanted to say she has a great history
in Dallas and thank you all for coming. Leigh Arnold: I don’t think I can end it any
better way. Thank you Talley. Thank you so much everyone for joining us.

1 thought on “Off the Pedestal: Women Artists in Art Museums”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *