| Éva Pelczer: In curating Women Forward, you chose to exhibit work from four “guest artists” who were outside of the categories of the two-part system. These artists, including Faith Ringgold and Judy Chicago, made work that pioneered the feminist art movement in the 1970s. Yuko Nii: On the East Coast in the 1960-70s, the women’s movement was more political, with women’s lib, and on the West Coast, it was more of an artistic challenge among women. |
 |
Éva Pelczer talks to Yuko Nii, artist and founder of Williamsburg Art Historical Center (WAH). Nii curated the show Women Forward, on display at WAH in two parts: March 7-April 12 (artists born before 1950) and April 25-May 31 (artists born after 1950).
Éva Pelczer: In curating Women Forward, you chose to exhibit work from four “guest artists” who were outside of the categories of the two-part system. These artists, including Faith Ringgold and Judy Chicago, made work that pioneered the feminist art movement in the 1970s.
Yuko Nii: On the East Coast in the 1960-70s, the women’s movement was more political, with women’s lib, and on the West Coast, it was more of an artistic challenge among women. Judy Chicago happened to be in Los Angeles, so she was the first woman who voiced for women’s rights and equality, and she is a self-proclaimed feminist artist. It is unbelievable that women have been underestimated for so many years. When you go to any museum in America, you don’t really count how many women are in these exhibitions—you’re not really conscious about it.
In 2007, on the fourth floor of the Brooklyn Museum at the Elizabeth Sackler Center, Judy Chicago celebrated the first time an entire floor was given to her work, The Dinner Party (1974–79). At that time there were three to four exhibitions to celebrate Women’s History Month (MoMA, P.S. 1, and some other galleries) and I realized that was the first celebration of women in such a big way. Judy said the last time the San Francisco Museum had a one-month woman’s show was in 1979.
ÉP: That was the first exhibition of her piece?
YN: Yes, 1979. But it took nearly 30 years for another show to be given to Judy. That is incredible. Even Georgia O’Keefe—she was among a lot of men—they were discouraging her, saying she’d never make it as an artist. You could never come out and self-proclaim that you were an artist. [Researching this] was a wakening moment.
ÉP: I understand you had the artists of Women Forward write individual statements for your catalogue.
YN: When I asked individual artists to make a statement about their personal experiences, they had a hard time saying—they didn’t want to bring up a huge political thing, like oh the men discriminated this and that—that’s not even what I wanted to hear particularly. But I wanted to hear what kind of experiences they had, and for them to think about the atmosphere they were living in.
When I personally had miserable experiences with galleries and schools, I began to understand why the women weren’t welcome to the art world. If women are pursuing the same career as seriously as men, they should be treated equally, that is my concern. The quality should count, and not the gender.
ÉP: What can you say about the dynamic between the two generations that make up the show? Is there any prejudice or great divide?
YN: The ones born before the 1950s—those people did suffer a lot. But they still kept going. There are so many woman artists who really kept going no matter what circumstance or how they were treated. They must have been discouraged. But artists by nature, no matter what, have this inner necessity, a passion; that is what makes them artists. Despite that reason, the artists born after 1950 really took [their situation] for granted, they didn’t even think about it. At first when I asked [the younger artists] questions, they said, “What are you talking about?” So some of them did study what happened. This Argentinean artist said, “Come to think about it, there are many talented women in my country, but men are so much farther than women.” How come here they don’t come out above anyone else? When it comes to museums and major galleries, they do not accept women. Some of [the younger artists] started realizing this.
Things are changing today. I think things are much easier—and just like Judy Chicago, [the young artists] will keep going, and the older generation will serve as mentors, inspiring young women, men as well.
ÉP: There seems to be an intentional variety in the cultural backgrounds of the artists in the exhibit.
YN: I wanted to contrast them—for example, the Thai sculptor with the American sculptor. In many ways I chose different cultures, backgrounds, because I was interested in hearing how they were treated as they were growing up—whether they got encouragement to be artists, and how different it was when they came to this country.
When I came to Pratt Institute, I was asked to be an Asian representative of women’s lib, after the 1970s when politics were booming. And I said, I am not a political person, I just want to be left alone to pursue art, even though I had several incidents being discriminated against by galleries and schools. Artists are individualistic, I must say, and want to be individually recognized—not necessarily to belong to the category of “women” or anything else. Even way back then, they didn’t want to be chosen as women artists for the sake of being female. They wanted to be chosen as individual artists.
ÉP: Regardless of gender or ethnicity.
YN: Yes. When I was looking for African-American artists—I wanted to include Asian, African-American, Caucasian artists—I had a very hard time. I went to major museums, and they were all excited that I was organizing the show, but in the end they declined by saying “We do not want to separate African-American women to be chosen for the show.” The artists want to be just as individuals today. I understand that completely. Once you get into one political group it’s very difficult to come out from it. If you label yourself—art should not be in such a way that’s separate from one to the other.
Faith Ringgold struggled as a black artist for many, many years. She was political for the sake of art, and now she acts as a bridge, very strongly, for black women.
ÉP: There are people who would argue that creating separate exhibitions for women and thus separating them from men actually devalues their work by politicizing it. How would you respond to that?
YN: Inevitably it’s a political show, placing the weight on women instead of men. That doesn’t mean I’m against men—but simply because one sex is weighted it becomes political. Like A.I.R. gallery in Brooklyn—they support women [exclusively]. Nothing’s wrong with that, but I don’t want to have an organization oriented solely towards women. This WAH center is harmoniously male and female, international and national, fine art, performing arts, lectures, and symposiums. How could I say WAH center only supports women? My mission is different. I would like to have more universal mentality—men as well as women, sharing the common interest that is art.
ÉP: In this light, would you consider curating a mixed show, with both men and women? Do you have any forthcoming projects lined up to follow Women Forward?
YN: At this moment, I am so tired! I thought I’d have a bi-annual show, after so many women wanted to be a part of [Women Forward]. But I was so exhausted I cannot even think about a men’s show or women’s show at this moment. I think this might be the final Women Forward show—I just planted the seed, so maybe someone else will continue it. I always believe if you give good energy someone will catch it and spread it—just like Judy Chicago, Faith Ringgold, and Georgia O’Keefe did.
