MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379780092 · doi:10.1353/fro.2012.a483540

Toward a History of Feminism, Art, and Social Movements in the United States

2012· article· en· W4379780092 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michelle Moravec

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers A Journal of Women Studies · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical Gender and Feminism Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeminismFeminist movementLiberation movementSocial movementMedia studiesSocial mediaGender studiesSociologyPolitical sciencePoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Toward a History of Feminism, Art, and Social Movements in the United States Michelle Moravec (bio) Enemies of women's liberation in the art world must be met with a more coherent front. A group that is locally effective can be doubly powerful if it synchronizes its actions with those of other groups across the country. We can gain from each other's experiences and make more headway together if we are aware of each other's activities in time to echo or support them. WEB, no. 1 With that call to arms West East Bag (WEB), an International Liaison Network for Women Artists, began in September of 1971.1 One contemporaneous description of the women's liberation movement in the United States described it as "linked only by the numerous journals, newsletters and cross country travelers."2 WEB, a "bicoastal national organizing tool and newsletter that networked women artists nationally, encouraging the creation of registries and protests in other cities," created those connections for feminist artists outside the art world centers of New York and Los Angeles.3 In recent years, while there has been a sharp increase in scholarly interest in feminist art, WEB seldom garners more than a brief mention.4 However, as Mary Garrard notes, in the single most important study thus far of feminist art as a social movement, "the story of feminist networks and organizations in the visual artists is . . . a chapter in the larger women movement."5 Garrard's essay briefly traces a number of themes over the course of the 1970s from a personal perspective, but she notes the need, which I hope to address in this essay, for "a case study of the complicated dynamic of political movements and social progress" that resulted in a feminist art movement that existed well beyond New York and Los Angeles.6 In exploring feminist art as a social movement, I draw on a framework recently proposed by Rebecca Kolins Givan, Kenneth M. Roberts, and Sarah A. [End Page 22] Soule, who suggest that "the mechanisms of diffusion are best understood by examining the activist networks, organizational brokers, and communication channels that facilitate the spread" of a movement.7 Diffusion, the way that aspects of a social movement spread, is a complex process involving several key areas of inquiry, including content, processes, and impact.8 The content of diffusion involves not only the ideology of a social movement but also strategies for activism. Diffusion occurs in several ways. Relational mechanisms are interpersonal, while nonrelational mechanisms connect activists without relying on personal contact. Finally, mediated mechanisms involve a third party that connects activists. Determining the impact of diffusion involves questions about not only the spread of social movements but also the changes and consequences of that process. Using a diffusion framework to explore the role of WEB reveals that the feminist art movement was as much a social movement as it was an aesthetic movement. Diffusion theory clarifies the ways the feminist art movement drew on the women's liberation movement to shape its message and organizational forms. Exploring the impact of diffusion on the feminist art movement makes clear, following Benita Roth's work on intersectionality, both the context of the choices made by feminist art activists and their long-term consequences. While diffusion theory is one of the most valuable ways of approaching the study of social movements, applying it to the feminist art movement is difficult at times.9 Pinpointing the origins of WEB illustrates how difficult it can be to track diffusion in a nascent social movement. WEB began with eight representatives in three cities (New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago) and three countries (England, Canada and Germany).10 How various women came to be involved is not as clear. One account claims that Lucy Lippard, a New York art critic and member of several New York women's art groups, and Miriam Schapiro and Judy Chicago, artists and founders of feminist art education programs in Los Angeles, hatched the plan for WEB in April of 1971 after a visit to 26 Women Artists, an exhibition curated by Lippard.11 Another version adds the New York art critic Grace Glueck to the...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.213
Threshold uncertainty score0.324

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers A Journal of Women StudiesSame topicHistorical Gender and Feminism StudiesFrench-language works237,207