Art Under the Boot?

The reviewer got one thing right in stating that feminism has been possibly the most influential and momentous social movement of the past three decades, its principles integral to contermporary art and culture. But Knight's egregious historical errors about modern and contemporary art, about feminist art history, and his factual errors regarding what is present or absent in the exhibition [omitted; sentence changed by editor to 'Knight's observations'] cause this writer to wonder whether he had attended the same show as the rest of us.

He claims the exhibition suffers from 'two vital artistic omissions': the 'absence' of 1970s video art by women (in fact, screenings of film and video works by women artists have already taken place); and the omission of work by an artist he likes whose imagery in Knight's eyes suggested a stylistic precursor to some of Judy Chicago's work (in fact it doesn't, and anyway the exhibition was not about stylistic pedigrees [entire paragraph omitted].

The show's programmatic (and perfectly obvious) critique of the patriarchal ideologies of 'art-for-art's sake' - this is, after all, a critical history of feminist art practices - seems to get the reviewer's goat. 'Sexual Politics' (he writes) "isn't really about art at all. Instead, it's a history of contemporary feminist theory...mere illustrations (of) feminist argument..." Even a passing familiarity with the history of art should lead to an appreciation that artistic practices of the past 200 years have never been separate from critical and theoretical discourse and debate. Knight would have us believe that the (young, female) curator, in organizing an exhibition that is historically, aesthetically, and critically responsible is therefore an 'ideologist' who 'misuses' and 'trivializes' art.

Feminist artists, scholars and critics have been familiar with this kind of scolding, partiarchal double-speak, and with its condescending rhetoric for a long time. But you don't need to be any kind of feminist to be aware that the real target of Knight's umbrage is one section of the show, Judy Chicago's 'Dinner Party' of 1974-79, made in Los Angeles but never before shown here. Knight does not target the Hammer's Director, Henry Hopkins, for bringing the piece to Los Angeles (Hopkins was responsible for the original debut of the work upstate in San Francisco in 1979 when he was curator of a local museum there).

Knight persistently says he dislikes the piece and the attention it has garnered over the years without explaining the source of his dislike. but it becomes the hinge around which the entire review swings [all omitted]. The sheer flood of invective remains puzzling: whether one 'likes' Chicago's work or not, its reconstitution here, in the context of the first substantive exhibition to chronicle the central role played by Los Angeles in the birth and growth of the American feminist art movement, is an important event.

Judging from the volume of visitors to the show, it's gaining the wide attention it deserves from a very diverse cross-section of the community. That it deals with works that demand thought and attention because of their direct engagement with fundamental questions of identity, gender, ethnicity, race, and sexuality, is a breath of fresh air. Jones and the Hammer are to be congratulated for mounting a critically and historically important exhibition.

Go to the LA Times on-line and then click on the "Retrieve" button to view the published/censored version of Donald Preziosi's response to Knight's review. (n.b. this text is available free, for a limited time, from the Los Angeles Times which holds copyright. You will not be charged from this link without notice.)

Go to the top of this page.
Back to Donald Preziosi, publications or to the UCLA Art History Home Page.