As the majority of
Americans turned from activism to conservatism during the Reagan years,
[1]
the Guerrilla Girls emerged as a feminist art group who challenged sexism and
racism in the Western art world. Established in 1985, the Guerrilla Girls formed in reaction to an
exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City the year before.
[2]
The exhibition’s title, “An
International Survey of Recent Painting and Sculpture,” and catalogue provided
to museum visitors suggested that the featured works were those that best
encapsulated the past decade of painting and sculpture.
[3]
The Guerrilla Girls were propelled to
action by this exhibition for they felt it did not represent the international
art community. Instead, they
believed that the exhibition represented the exclusion of, and discrimination
against, women artists and artists of colour. Of the one hundred and sixty-nine artists selected for the
show, only thirteen of them were women and none were artists of colour.
[4]
This essay will explore a variety of
tactics used by the Guerilla Girls to expose the prevalence of sexist and
racist discrimination in art institutions and culture at large.
Since their inception in
1985, the Guerrilla Girls have successfully organized exhibit interventions,
art gallery protests, feminist lecture series, and provocative publications
through which they can express their platform of inclusion. They have studied
and drawn from lessons of past feminist movements, while developing their own
new and unique approach to feminist issues. Their decisions to maintain anonymity, to use humour and
irony, and to recognize the power of the media have been the foundation of
their success. The group’s inclusive vision and avoidance of militantly radical
activities has contributed to the positive reception of their ideas.
The Guerrilla Girls
remain current and culturally relevant. Looking to the feminist movements of
the past, especially the second-wave movement of the late 1960s and 1970s, the
Guerrilla Girls noticed tactical issues that could have been prevented with
anonymity. In A History of U.S.
Feminisms, author Rory Dicker notes that conflicts arose among women
involved in the second-wave movement when one woman or a small group of women
garnered greater media attention.
[5]
Dicker mentions that many second-wave
feminists preferred that all women activists had an opportunity for equal
representation and participation in the movement and media attention
surrounding it, and refers to Kate Millett, whose book Sexual Politics landed her on the cover of Time magazine.
[6]
Millett became the focal point of
public interest, and as a result, she was targeted by fellow feminists for
being attention-seeking and self-interested.
[7]
In order to avoid issues of
spotlighting that had plagued previous feminist movements, the Guerrilla Girls
decided to withhold their names and personal appearances. This allowed them to avoid problems of
personal grandstanding; if no names were revealed, all group members would
receive equal recognition and praise.
By choosing anonymity,
the Guerrilla Girls also succeeded in protecting themselves from potentially
harmful backlash.
[8]
Many of the founding members of the
Guerrilla Girls were artists, art critics, curators, and museum administrators,
and they were targeting some of the most important members and institutions of
the Western art world. As a result, they were potentially risking their careers
and livelihoods. The Guerrilla
Girls protected their personal interests by withholding their names and
appearing in public under the shield of gorilla masks. Consequently, they were allowed greater
liberty to say and do as they wanted without fear of reprisal.
The Guerrilla Girls recognized
this benefit, but cited their main reason for remaining anonymous as wanting to
keep the public focused on the issues they were addressing as opposed to the
individual personalities and appearances of the women presenting them.
[9]
Taking advantage of the anonymity
to put their anti-sexist, anti-racist platform into action, each member of the
Guerrilla Girls adopted the name and persona of an artist who the group felt
had not been afforded proper representation and recognition in the Western art world.
[10]
By adopting the names of women artists
and artists of colour who had been ignored, such as Alice Neel, Georgia
O’Keeffe, and Liubov Popova, the Guerrilla Girls brought attention to these
individuals. They prompted the
public to inquire about these artists, and to question why they have been
underrepresented in the history of art.
Although anonymity
provided the Guerrilla Girls with a variety of benefits, critics often cite
their decision to remain anonymous as one that is cowardly, dishonest, and unfair. However, these critics are often
individuals who the Guerrilla Girls have centered out as being sexist and
discriminatory.
[11]
For example, Leo Castelli and other
gallery owners, such as Allan Frumkin and Pat Hearn, were the targets of a
Guerrilla Girls’ poster entitled “These
Galleries Show No More than 10% Women Artists or None At All.”
[12]
Therefore, the gallery owners’
critiques of the Guerrilla Girls’ anonymity appear tainted by bias, and their
credibility is diminished. The Guerrilla Girls see their choice of remaining
anonymous as capitalizing on a strategy that has consistently been used to
oppress women. The Guerrilla Girls
highlight the important difference between chosen and enforced anonymity, and
suggest that because they embrace anonymity, they have prevented a patriarchal
art world and society from being able to use it against them. Mira Schor, writing for ArtForum magazine, recognizes that, “[w]hereas in the past anonymity had been a curse on
female artistic creativity, the Guerrilla Girls have embraced the strategic
benefits of their covert existences.”
[13]
In contrast to previous
feminist movements, which had adopted graver tones, the Guerrilla Girls
favoured a humorous approach. In a 1990 interview conducted for a retrospective
show of Guerrilla Girls work, group member “Louise the Poster Girl” explained,
“[m]aking demands are the tactics of the 70s and let’s face it, they didn’t
really work very well … we decided to try another way: humour, irony,
intimidation, and poking fun.”
[14]
The Guerrilla Girls infused their
stance against sexism and discrimination with humour, contradictions, and
juxtapositions that encouraged the public to pay attention to, and get involved
in, their cause. In this way they
avoided classification and dismissal as angry and humorless women with chips on
their shoulders.
[15]
By calling themselves
“girls,” the group reclaims a word that could be used against them as a term of
dismissal and eliminates the potential for their opposition to suggest that
they are simply incompetent little girls who are “not complete, mature, or
grown up.”
[16]
The word “girl” also presents a comical juxtaposition with the word
“guerrilla,” which is traditionally used in military discourse. The Guerrilla
Girls do in fact employ militant tactics, but not in the traditional
sense. They have reinvented
guerrilla militancy, “waging what they call a cultural warfare… where the main
ammunition is wit.”
[17]
The group’s public attire,
which incorporates gorilla masks, fishnets, and short skirts, illustrates the
kind of humourous juxtaposition that has attracted public interest and helped
them to create a unified front. The gorilla masks suggest an aggressivity normally associated with men,
while their clothing is hyper-feminine in style.
[18]
Lucy Irigaray notes that the Guerrilla
Girls’ decision to dress in an overtly feminine fashion allows them to “convert
a form of subordination into an affirmation, and thus begin to thwart it.”
[19]
In addition to their posters,
performances, and lectures, the Guerrilla Girls’ name and physical appearances
reveal their ability to use humour, irony, and juxtaposition as tools of
subversion and expression.
The Guerrilla Girls’
ironic and sarcastic tactics have also allowed them to fight discrimination in
the Western art world by highlighting contradictions within the museums,
galleries, and education facilities. For example, in 1988, they produced a poster entitled “The Advantages of being a Woman Artist” (Figure 1). This poster included
“advantages” such as “working without the pressure of success,” “being
reassured that whatever kind of art you make it will be labeled feminine,” and
“not having to be in shows with men.”
[20]
Instead of making demands, the Guerilla
Girls used sarcasm and irony to bring attention to the gender discrimination
prevalent in American art institutions. In doing so, the Guerrilla Girls highlighted incongruities in the art
world’s rhetoric, which ostensibly supported gender equality, by employing
satire as a method of critique.
[21]
When asked about their use of humour in
an online Question and Answer, the group responded, “[w]e've discovered that
ridicule and humiliation, backed up by irrefutable information, can disarm the
powers that be, put them on the spot, and force them to examine themselves.”
[22]
“The
Advantages of Being a Woman Artist” prompted the public to question why
women are being denied success, why women’s art is automatically labeled as
“feminine,” and why women’s art is not being exhibited alongside men’s
art. The Guerrilla Girls’ message
achieved international recognition as this poster was translated into more than
eight languages and circulated across the globe.
[23]
The Guerrilla Girls used this poster to
illustrate to the global art community the double standards that exist within
Western art world practices.
The Guerrilla Girls
gained iconic status with their 1989 poster entitled "Do Women have to be Naked to get into the Met. Museum?" that
incorporated both text and visual imagery to highlight their platform (Figure 2). The poster features a reclining nude reminiscent of Jean
Auguste Dominique Ingres’ Grand Odalisque (1814), wearing a gorilla mask, juxtaposed with statistics reflecting the bleak
representation of women artists in the Metropolitan Museum in New York
City. On the poster the Guerrilla
Girls state that “[l]ess than 5% of the artists in the Modern Art Section are
women, but 85% of the nudes are female.”
[24]
By appropriating Ingres’ work, the
Guerrilla Girls have ironically paired an iconic symbol of patriarchal art with
a statistic in order to challenge gender discrimination in the art world.
[25]
These “believe it or not” statistics
underscore the gap that exists between ideal social structures and actual
practices, and make denial or indifference inappropriate reactions to
discrimination.
[26]
In contrast with
previous feminist groups who had, at times, engaged in hostile relationships
with the media, the Guerrilla Girls recognized the importance of the media as
an effective means of establishing a positive rapport with the public.
[27]
Professor Christine Tulley comments on
this relationship, and suggests that without spectacles that attract media
attention, the Guerrilla Girls’ mandate “may not be heard or, if heard, may
quickly fade from public interest.”
[28]
Tulley
notes that it is the Guerrilla Girls’ recognition of the media’s authority that
has allowed them to outlast other feminist groups such as the Women’s Action
Coalition.
[29]
The Guerrilla Girl’s affiliation with
the media enables them to reach out to a more diverse audience.
Another reason the
Guerrilla Girls have remained current and effective over the past twenty-five
years is related to their critical examination of past feminist groups and
desire to avoid the stigmatized persona of the “angry feminist.” The Guerrilla Girls do not aim to
completely destroy Western art institutions nor do they want to totally
reinvent society; instead, they promote change within these frameworks. According to Anne Teresa Demo, the
Guerrilla Girls’ posters, lectures, and performances employ strategies of
“demystification rather than revolution.”
[30]
The Guerrilla Girls avoid public
alienation by advocating change within the museums, galleries, and Western art
canon as opposed to calling for a complete eradication of these
institutions. Advocating for the
latter would likely lead the public to label them as radicals, and therefore
their platform would be considered both impractical and unrealistic.
The Guerrilla Girls’
1998 publication, The
Guerrilla Girls’ Bedside Companion to the History of Western Art, is an
example of how the group highlights sexism and discrimination. With this publication, the Guerrilla
Girls chose to work within the established framework with what Cynthia Freeland
has called the “add women and stir” approach.
[31]
Similar to their use of past artists as
personas in the public eye, The Guerrilla Girls’ Bedside Companion to the
History of Western Art underscores the void of women artists and artists of
colour within traditional discourse. The introductory pages prompt the viewer to consider the following
question: “Why haven’t more women
been considered great artists throughout Western history?”
[32]
The Guerrilla Girls have faced criticism for implementing this “add women and
stir” approach, as some radical feminist groups feel that the entire Western
art discourse should be reinterpreted and reinvented. Although a complete revision of the Western art canon may be
the ideal way to achieve equality for underrepresented artists, the Guerrilla
Girls recognized that this approach was not realistic. Adopting it would likely alienate or
intimidate potential supporters and this could inhibit their success. Instead the Guerrilla Girls ask the
reader to question why they have previously been ignored.
A considerable
difference between the Guerrilla Girls and the second-wave feminists is that
the Guerrilla Girls consistently place a great emphasis on inclusiveness. Throughout their twenty-five year
existence, the Guerrilla Girls have worked to eliminate divisions between
feminists and non-feminists, as well as divisions among the feminists
themselves. Chicana feminists Cherríe Moraga and Gloria Anzaldúa influenced the
Guerrilla Girls’ inclusive approach to feminism. In 1979, Moraga and Anzaldúa declared, “[w]e want to express
to all women – especially white middle-class women – the experiences
which divide us as feminists; we want to examine incidents of intolerance,
prejudice, and denial of difference within the feminist movement.”
[33]
Similarly, the
Guerrilla Girls have worked to include all ethnicities, ages, economic levels,
and sexual orientations.
[34]
This strive
for inclusiveness parallels a larger aim of the third-wave feminist movement of
the 1980s and 1990s: diversity in membership and advocacy. The Guerrilla Girls advocate for
diversity by using masks to conceal identifiable physical traits such as skin
colour or age. In fact, even the
gorilla masks, which many claim subvert the group’s aim of diversity, are all
different. While one member may
wear a mask that is covered in hair and shows an intimidating tooth-bearing
grin, another may sport a hairless mask with a tight-lipped smile and flaring
nostrils. Through supporting and
encouraging diversity, the Guerrilla Girls have increased in numbers; instead
of attracting solely white middle-class heterosexual women, the group now appeals
to a far greater number of Americans. Also, the inclusive approach legitimizes the Guerrilla Girls, for if
they were an exclusive group, their challenges against discrimination, sexism
and racism would seem contradictory.
The group also
advocates for change outside of the art world, and over the years has expanded
their projects to include gay and lesbian rights, homelessness, and politics.
For instance, in order to highlight the dire situation of homeless Americans,
the Guerrilla Girls created a poster to
reveal that a prisoner of war is afforded more rights than a homeless
person. They state that
under the Geneva Convention, a prisoner of war is entitled to the food,
shelter, and medical care that many homeless Americans struggle to attain.
[35]
Through championing other causes, the
Guerilla Girls are able to increase their support base, and in turn, their
success. The Guerrilla Girls have expanded their presence in the public sphere
by commenting on a wide range of social injustices and demonstrating that their
advocacy is not limited to the art world. As the June 1990 New York Times article included in their
retrospective show “Guerrilla Girls Talk Back” reveals, “the Guerilla Girls are
not art critics, they’re social critics.”
[36]
Art critic, writer, and
theorist Lucy R. Lippard regarded the Guerrilla Girls as having “almost
single-handedly kept women’s art activism alive” from their inception in 1985
through to the mid 1990s.
[37]
Similarly, early on in their career,
the Guerrilla Girls were recognized by New York magazine as one of the
four powers to watch for in the art world.
[38]
Maintaining their anonymity, inclusivity, satirical humour, social activism and
media-friendly stance, the Guerilla Girls have managed to stay relevant and
promote an anti-discriminatory agenda in the art world and elsewhere. In recognition of this, the Guerrilla
Girls were asked in 2009 to create a poster to
commemorate the twentieth anniversary of the shootings that took place at École
Polytechnique in Montreal, Canada. The group, now well established in social activist discourse, explored
the continuation of hate speech against women and feminism by quoting
historical figures such as Confucius, Frank Sinatra, Rush Limbaugh, and Pablo
Picasso.
[39]
Gloria Steinem, second-wave feminist
and key leader of the Women’s Liberation Movement, sums up the nature of the
Guerrilla Girls’ success:
Their very anonymity makes clear that
they are fighting for women as a caste, but their message celebrates each
woman's uniqueness. By insisting
on a world as if women mattered, and also the joy of getting there, the
Guerrilla Girls pass the ultimate test: they make us both laugh and fight; both
happy and strong.
[40]
Building on their early successes filling the streets
of New York City with posters that highlighted gender and racial discrimination
in the Western art world, the Guerrilla Girls have developed into a powerful
collective that continues to further activist discourse and social change.
BIBLIOGRPAHY
Boyer, Paul S. et al. The Enduring Vision: A History of American
People. Boston, New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006.
Broude, Norma and Mary
D. Garrad, eds. The Power of Feminist
Art: The American Movement of the 1970s, History and Impact. New York:
Harry N. Abrams, Inc. Publishers, 1994.
Dicker, Rory. A History of U.S. Feminisms. Berkeley,
California: Seal Press, 2008.
Falkirk Cultural
Center. Guerrilla Girls Talk Back: The
First Five Years. San Rafael, California: Falkirk Cultural Center, 1991.
Freeland, Cynthia. But is it art? An Introduction to Art Theory.
New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Guerrilla Girls. Montreal Project: Disturbing the Peace.
2009.
–––––. Online:
Frequently Asked Questions. 2006.
http://www.guerrillagirls.interview/faq.shtml.
–––––. Online:
Website Blurbs. 2006.
http://www.guerrillagirls.com/info/blurbs.shtml.
–––––. Guerrilla
Girls’ Beside Companion to the History of Western Art. New York: Penguin
Group Publishers, 1998.
–––––. The
Advantages of Being a Woman Artist. 1998.
–––––. What’s
the Difference between a prisoner of war and a homeless person? 1991.
–––––. Do
women have to be naked to get into the Met. Museum? 1989.
–––––. The
Galleries Show No More than 10% Women Artists or None At All. 1985.
Lippard, Lucy R. The Pink Glass Swan: Selected Feminist Essay
on Art. New York: The New Press, 1995.
Lustig, Suzanne. “How
and why did they Guerrilla Girls alter the Art World Establishment in New York
City, 1985-1995?” Women and Social
Movements in the United States 1600-2000. Spring 2002.
http://womhist.alexanderstreet.com/ggirls/intro.htm
McShine, Kynaston. An International Survey of Recent Painting
and Sculpture. New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 1984.
Olsen, Lester C. et al,
eds. Visual Rhetoric: A Reader in
Communication and American Culture. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage
Publication, Inc., 2008.
Schor, Mira. “Girls
will be Girls.” ArtForum (September
1990).
Tulley, Christine.
“Image Events Guerrilla Girl Style: A 20-Year Retrospective.” Enculturation: A Journal of Rhetoric,
Writing, and Culture. 6.2 (Spring 2009).
NOTES
[1]
Paul S. Boyer et al., The
Enduring Vision: A History of American People (Boston, New York: Houghton
Mifflin Company, 2006), 666-667.
[2]
Falkirk Cultural Center, Guerrilla
Girls Talk Back: The First Five Years (San Rafael, California: Falkirk
Cultural Center, 1991), Interview.
[3]
Kynaston McShine, An
International Survey of Recent Painting and Sculpture (New York: The Museum
of Modern Art, 1984), 11.
[4]
Falkirk Cultural Center, Guerrilla
Girls Talk Back, Interview.
[5]
Rory Dicker, A History
of U.S. Feminisms (Berkeley, California: Seal Press,2008), 85.
[8]
Norma Broude and Mary D.
Garrad, eds., The Power of Feminist Art: The American Movement of the 1970s,
History and Impact (New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., Publishers, 1994), 99.
[9]
Falkirk Cultural Center, Guerrilla
Girls Talk Back, Interview.
[10]
Lester C. Olson et al.,
eds., Visual Rhetoric: A Reader in Communication and American Culture (Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc., 2008), 202.
[11]
Mira Schor, “Girls will be
Girls,” Art Forum (September 1990), 125.
[12]
Guerrilla Girls, The
Galleries Show No More than 10% Women or None At All, (1985).
[14]
Falkirk Cultural Center, Guerrilla
Girls Talk Back, Interview.
[15]
Cynthia Freeland, But is
it art? An Introduction to Art Theory (New York: Oxford University Press,
2002), 123.
[16]
Olson et al., eds., Visual
Rhetoric, 246.
[18]
Olson et al., eds., Visual
Rhetoric, 246.
[20]
Guerrilla Girls, The
Advantages of Being a Woman Artist, (1988).
[21]
Olson et al., eds., Visual
Rhetoric, 242.
[23]
Olson et al., eds., Visual
Rhetoric, 241.
[24]
Guerrilla Girls, Do
Women have to be naked to get into the Met. Museum? (1989).
[25]
Olson et al., eds., Visual
Rhetoric, 249.
[27]
Christine Tulley, “Image
Events Guerrilla Girl Style: A 20-Year Retrospective,” Enculturation: A
Journal of Rhetoric, Writing and Culture (Issue 6.2, Spring 2009), 2.
[30]
Olson et al., eds., Visual
Rhetoric, 201.
[32]
Guerrilla Girls, The
Guerrilla Girls’ Bedside Companion to the History of Western Art (New York:
Penguin Group Publishers, 1998), 7.
[35]
Guerrilla Girls, What’s
the Difference between a prisoner of war and a homeless person? (1991).
[36]
Falkirk Cultural Center, Guerrilla
Girls Talk Back, Interview.
[37]
Lucy Lippard, The Pink
Glass Swan: Selected Feminist Essays on Art (New York: The New Press,
1995), 257.
[39]
Guerrilla Girls, Montreal
Project: Disturbing the Peace (2009).