Gurreilla Girls
Background
The Gurrilla Girls is an anonymous group of feminists who fight sexism and feminism in art, founded in 1985. They are part of ‘second wave feminism’ that expressed itself in art of all kinds, questioning assumptions about race gender sexuality, and continue a group like ‘WAR’ or ‘Women Artists in Revolution’ that protested the minuscule percent of women artists represented in museums.
Recap
They are two ads taken in magazines. The first protests the exclusivity of art collectors who focus only on white males. The title says ‘When racism & sexism are no longer fashionable, what will your art collection be worth?’ It seems to be addressing art collectors, mostly buyers. The caption underneath reads ‘the art market won’t bestow mega-buck prices on the work of a few white males forever. For the 17.7 million you just spent on a single Jasper Johns painting, you could have bought at least one work by all of these women and artists of color.’ Below there’s a list of names.
The second ad is satire of a painting that shows a naked woman lounging. Guerrilla Girls version replaced the naked woman’s head with that of a gorilla. The title reads ‘Do women have to be naked to get into the Met. Museum?’ A caption says ‘Less than 5% of the artists in the Modern Art sections are women, but 85% of the nudes are female.’
Reflection
The first ad relates to art consumer purchasing behavior. It argues that racism and sexism are a fashion, that will change, and with it, the value of racist and sexist art will decrease. I resonate with the anti-racist anti-sexist intention, but wonder if there isn’t a better argument to be made here. The message mixes ethical and financial incentives. Financially, even if the exclusion of females and black artists is reversed, the value of art by white males won’t necessarily drop. Ethically, it’s not a convincing argument that art created by white males necessarily dictates the art as racist or sexist (unless the art or artists espouse those views).
The second ad implies that the Met. Museum objectifies women and does not respect them as artists. It’s hard for me to tell whether female bodies are ‘objectively’ a more interesting and aesthetic subject than male bodies, or whether I am part of the deeply ingrained bias. As for the % of Modern Artists who made it into the Met., maybe that selection bias is an expression of sexism. I don’t think, however, that there should be a quota for art based on the identities of the artists; I do not think they would argue that the ratio of art in a museum should be proportional to the ratio of artist’s identities in society. More interesting would be to find out the makeup of the selection committee / curators for the Met. or museums, since their biases will most probably be manifest in the art they choose. This ad also does not address racism at all. What % of work at the Met. is by black artists vs. white artists?
Readings of E.B. Freedman's Book 