Leaving the Gallery, Entering the Fray: Feminist Curating in Public Space
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This article examines curatorial struggle of two emerging feminist artists/curators to communicate, through three exhibits, with an audience mostly comprised of students. Students expressed bemusement, hostility, misogyny and homophobia in response to exhibits located in at a women's university in Halifax, Nova Scotia. The authors draw on feminist theories concerning transformational politics to examine relationships between feminist art, its curation, and its audiences.This is a story -- if not a cautionary tale--about art production and reception within academy; one that has implications for feminist students of art and curatorial practice extending their work beyond formal boundaries of art galleries and into public spaces. We review here prolonged curatorial struggle of two emerging feminist artists/curators to communicate, through three exhibits, with an audience mostly comprised of students, who documented their responses to art in comment books associated with each exhibit. Students expressed bemusement, hostility, and, to an astonishing degree, misogyny and homophobia in response to exhibits located in, of all places, at a self-described women's university (85 percent of students, and 60 percent of faculty are women) in Halifax, Nova Scotia. The experience was singularly demoralizing for artists and curators as well as feminist (and pro-feminist) faculty, students, and staff. We have undertaken discourse analysis of comment books elsewhere. Here, we draw on feminist theories concerning transformational politics as well as interviews with two curators and Mount Saint Vincent University (MSVU) Art Gallery director to examine relationships between feminist art, its curation, and its audiences.The three art exhibits at issue here were all part of MSVU Art Gallery's Window Box Project series. Each exhibit was located outside Art Gallery, in a corridor of institution's library, within vitrines there comprised of two pairs of built-in display windows. This series was meant, explains gallery director Ingrid Jenkner, to provide opportunities for artists who work in ephemeral or context-oriented modes and to give beginning curators a chance to produce small, manageable projects for a broad viewership, staff and users of university library (Collyer, n.d., p. 1). Moreover, Window Box Project series was congruent with Art Gallery's mandate to emphasize the representation of women as cultural subjects and producers (msvu art gallery, 2000).Grotesque abuse characterized a significant proportion of comments associated with each of three exhibits, spanning a period of two years, from January 31, 1997 to February 22, 1999. Viewer response to these exhibits was recorded in comment books, made available for written commentary with each exhibit. We found that a large minority of comments (between 27 percent and 40 percent) comprise a hostile, often obscene, debate concerning women artists, women's equality, and role of university as a university primarily dedicated to education of women. We have termed this category of comments debates: that is, both misogynous comments (generally, but not necessarily, rude, scatological, prurient, or obscene) that refer to women, sexuality, and gender relations, and derogatory comments about women and feminism. Many comments in this category either disparage women, art made by and about women, or constitute such responses to more thoughtful comments. Also included are responses to above-mentioned hostile and offensive comments.The first exhibit, Waiting, created by Kim Dawn and curated by Glynis Humphrey (January 31 to April 6, 1997), featured four components: one half of west vitrine was with multiple colour-photocopies of a photograph (Humphrey, 1997, p. 1) of a nude woman. The other half was filled with stacked rows of nylon stockings stuffed with brewed tea bags pressed against glass. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,011 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,007 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».