Viewing page 16 of 50

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

2 
[/crossed out]
Most women artists dislike the very idea, partially, I suspect, because past psychological conditioning is so strong; women's art has been, by definition, inferior art. On the other hand, if one is an artist, and one is a woman, one is a women artist. It's as simple and shameless as that. There are those who, like Judy Chicago of the California Institute of Arts Feminist Program, believe there is a definite and pervasive women's imagery based on women's biological and social experience, and that the prevalent images are: a central focus (or void), spheres, domes, circles, boxes, ovals, overlapping flower forms and webs. There are others who point to the many women not working with these elements and to the many men who are, and there are still others who are queasy at the prospect of having to think about women's experience in aesthetic terms at all.[/crossed out] I doubt if any conclusions can be drawn at the moment, since there are still women who consider it a compliment to be told that they "paint like a man," and since art is inevitably influenced by other art publicly made visible, which now means primarily art by men. 
  
In the meantime, however, I have frequently been forced to consider this question and there are some things I've noticed that I can't seem to deny. For example, in 1966 I was organizing a show around the work of Eva Hesse and Frank Viner-a kind of off-beat, not quite minimal, not quite funky style that later developed into so-called anti-form. I found a lot of women doing this kind of work-far more than I'd encountered on similar searches, and in addition, I, a woman, was doing the show because this kind of work appealed to me personally. I wondered about that at the time, and did still more so four years later when I became involved in the women's movement. As I went to a great many women's studios in the winter of 1970-71, I noticed that these and other elements often recurred. All of which may simply be attributable to my own taste, but here, in any case, are some of these elements for your own consideration: a uniform density, or overall texture, often sensuously tactile and repetitive to the point of obsession; the preponderance of circular forms and central focus (sometimes contradicting the first aspect); a ubiquitous linear "bag" or parabolic form that turns in on itself; layers, or strata; and indefinable looseness or flexibility of handling; a new fondness for the pinks and pastels and the ephemeral cloud-colors that used to be taboo unless a women wanted to be "accused" of making "feminine" art.

Theories and refutations and new theories and new refutations will continue to surround this issue, but it is a rewarding debate that can only help women artists and critics to develop a sense of their individual aesthetic directions, and perhaps, in the process, to define more clearly the web formed by the multiple threads of individual developments. The overwhelming fact remains that a woman's experience in this society is simply not like that of a man, and if this factor does not show up in women's art, only repression can be to blame. 
Lucy R. Lippard