As art critic Maura Reilly pointed out in her book Curatorial Activism: Towards an Ethics of Curating: “In the West, since ancient times, ‘greatness’ has been defined as white, Western, privileged, and most importantly, male” (Reilly, 2018). This historical prejudice still deeply affects the structure and value judgment of the art world.
Although postcolonial feminism, anti-racism, and queer theory have continuously promoted criticism and reflection in the past few decades, the art world’s exclusion of “other” artists still exists. This discrimination is manifested in systematic structural inequality. From gallery representation, and media exposure to exhibition opportunities, women, people of color, and non-heterosexual artists are still marginalized. Statistics further confirm this inequality: when the Tate Modern in London reopened and re-hung its permanent collection in 2016, it exhibited works by about 300 artists, of which less than a third were female artists, and there were very few non-white artists (Kennedy, 2016).
Although some institutions claim to have progressed in “diversity” and “inclusion”, such progress is often only superficial. Scholar Bell Hooks has long criticized this phenomenon, pointing out that the few “superstars” who are included in the system not only fail to represent structural changes but may also cover up persistent inequalities (hooks, 1992). As art historian Griselda Pollock emphasized, the key is not to “include” women, but to thoroughly question the question of “who defines art history” (Pollock, 1999). Therefore, I hope that my exhibition can become a space for reflection and voice, focusing on the invisible labor of women in the family so that their experiences can be seen and heard. Before starting to plan, I realized that I had to study the existing feminist theories and curatorial methods in-depth and understand their historical background, critical logic, and limitations, which would help me find a more appropriate path in practice, avoid symbolic display, and achieve real critical dialogue.
After reading, I found that revisionism is a strategy widely adopted in feminist curatorship, often challenging the existing knowledge power structure and visual norms by “rewriting” art history or “restoring” neglected individual artists (Pollock, 1988). Its core goal is to oppose the art history canon constructed by male-centrism and try to create a space for inclusive diverse experiences.
The advantage of the revisionist strategy is that it helps to correct historical structural exclusions and give “visibility” to marginalized female artists and artists of color. For example, by juxtaposing the works of female artists such as Élisabeth Louise Vigée Le Brun and Norman Lewis with their white or male counterparts, curators not only reaffirmed the historical status of these artists but also prompted the audience to understand visual culture from a new perspective, questioning who is given the title of “artist” and how “genius” is constructed (Nochlin 1971). This curatorial approach helps to expand the paradigm of Western art history and promote a more inclusive and complex historical narrative.
However, this revisionist-oriented curatorial practice also faces a series of criticisms. First, it often still relies on the original exhibition framework and aesthetic standards, simply incorporating the “other” into the existing system without fundamentally questioning the power logic of the system itself (Araeen 1989). In other words, this strategy only stays on the surface (tokenism), showing marginal artists as exceptions, thus covering up deeper institutional inequality. In addition, as Griselda Pollock pointed out, although revisionism “seems to repair the cracks in history”, its actual role may only make the system more “tolerable” (Pollock 1999), but it does not reconstruct the power structure itself. Therefore, if feminist curatorship wants to go beyond the limitations of revisionism, it must combine more deconstructive strategies, such as adopting a dialogic exhibition structure, introducing a non-linear narrative method, emphasizing the participation of the audience, and reflecting on the material and institutional framework of the exhibition itself. This curatorial method is not just “adding forgotten names”, but trying to fundamentally reshape the way we understand art, history and knowledge.
In my exhibition, I used the curatorial method of “revisionism” to bring the long-ignored female domestic labor to the public’s attention. We often only see glamorous art, but few people pay attention to the “invisible work” in daily life, such as cooking, washing clothes, and taking care of family members. These have always been what many women do every day.
This exhibition is set in a real home, divided into two parts: the kitchen and the bedroom, so that the audience can feel more realistically how these labors happen. This is also a challenge to the “white box” space of traditional art galleries-those places always make people feel that art is far away from daily life, and what I want to do is to make art and life directly related.
-
Practical application of revisionism
In the kitchen exhibition area, I presented works by female artists that record daily labor, such as washing dishes, cooking, and cleaning. These things that were originally considered “trivial” were magnified and re-evaluated in art. This approach was inspired by the artist Mierle Laderman Ukeles. In her Manifesto for the Art of Maintenance, she said: “Maintenance is the art of survival” (Ukeles 1969), and she regarded cleaning and caring for the family as an artistic action.
In the bedroom exhibition area, I focus on “emotional labor”. This is a concept proposed by sociologist Arlie Hochschild, which means that women often have to take care of other people’s emotions, such as taking care of children, coaxing husbands, and creating a warm family atmosphere (Hochschild 1983). Although these jobs are not paid, they are very energy-consuming. By exhibiting artworks about insomnia, fatigue, and maternal stress, I let the audience see that these invisible emotional labors are also real.
-
Limitations and criticisms of revisionism
Although revisionism can make neglected women’s labor “visible”, it also has limitations. Some scholars, such as Andrea Fraser, pointed out that if marginalized groups are only added without changing the rules of the entire exhibition system, it is actually just “symbolic inclusion” and the root cause of the problem has not been really changed (Fraser 2005).
To avoid this problem, I added some interactive sessions to the exhibition. For example, I asked the audience to experience doing “housework” by themselves or to participate in writing “diaries” to record their tired and depressed emotions. These methods not only allow the audience to see the works but also allow them to feel and think about women’s labor experience.
References
Araeen, Rasheed. The Other Story: Afro-Asian Artists in Post-War Britain. London: Hayward Gallery, 1989.
Fraser, Andrea. “From the Critique of Institutions to an Institution of Critique.” Artforum 44, no. 1 (2005): 278–283.
Hochschild, Arlie Russell. The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983.
hooks, bell. Black Looks: Race and Representation. Boston: South End Press, 1992.
Kennedy, Maev. “Tate Modern’s Rehang Fails on Diversity, Critics Say.” The Guardian, June 14, 2016.
Nochlin, Linda. “Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?” Art News 69, no. 9 (1971): 22–39.
Pollock, Griselda. Differencing the Canon: Feminist Desire and the Writing of Art’s Histories. London: Routledge, 1999.
Pollock, Griselda. Vision and Difference: Feminism, Femininity and Histories of Art. London: Routledge, 1988.
Reilly, Maura. Curatorial Activism: Towards an Ethics of Curating. London: Thames & Hudson, 2018.
Ukeles, Mierle Laderman. “Manifesto for Maintenance Art 1969!” In Mierle Laderman Ukeles: Maintenance Art, edited by Patricia Norvell, 59–60. New York: Prestel, 2016.
