Elles from Centre Pompidou at SAM

First of all, must SAM use the word "seminal" to describe a show (Elles) by women? A show with a number of radical feminist women artists? What's wrong with getting a thesaurus and finding another word? I won't object too much to the use of "seminal" in other situations, but in this context? Why not fertile (if you must) or influential or...innovative...or fundamental...there are so many words...

Semantics aside, it was really great to be in a major mainstream museum and to be surrounded by the works of so many women, to see multidimensional images of women - strong, rebellious, ugly, beautiful, messy, grotesque, masculine, feminine, funny, sad, willful, etc.

Au Bord de la Mer
by Romaine Brooks. 1914.

It was also interesting to see some sort of chronology of art by women. It had an archival quality to it, especially the outdated and poorly made videos and photo collages. I am just being honest here, but some of the art only works as archival material. Yes, women also made futuristic art (Natalia Goncharova, for example) but not all of it was good and some of that bad art was at this exhibit. It wasn't clear to me why it was there...But bad is subjective, right?

There were some gems at the exhibit. Au Bord de la Mer by Romaine Brooks was riveting. In 1914 this was an unconventional way to depict a woman. The moody weather, the moody expression on her face, her androgynous (for 1914) look and the greens and blues locked my gaze for a while.

For the most part, however, the exhibit did not inspire. Most of the works seemed second hand. For example, while I was looking forward to seeing Nan Goldin and Cindy Sherman, their works in the exhibit were...well...the boring ones. They seemed like they were there only because of the names attached. Orlan's photograph, Artist's Kiss, taken out of context did not really communicate the awesome weirdness that is Orlan.

At the entrance to the exhibit, you were handed these phone-like recorders to listen to experts talk about the art. Great potential to contextualize the work. Most of the recordings were so obvious, however, that they felt insulting. For example, I was told by a prerecorded art professor that the self portrait of Claude Cahun, with short hair and wearing a suit shows the artist playing with the notion of gender. Um, okay. Maybe someone needs to be told this, but that is a sad commentary that borders on performance art itself.

I am still glad that I went to see the show. It was worth it for the experience of being there with so many women - both via art and in the audience. But the exhibit fell short for me. Despite its intentions, it felt like any other de-contextualized ghettoisation of women as "women" artists. The feminist critique was dulled by the lackluster descriptions and by the depoliticized space of the museum. Some of this art is only really alive in the streets and in unexpected locations. Some of the art just wasn't the best work, even if anchored by familiar names. Some of it needed a deeper historical context. The exhibit feels disjointed and does not really do what it promises - it doesn't show how these women were influential in the art world. But it doesn't mean that you won't be inspired by some of the art and that you won't learn something new. I did. Just bring your notepad so that you can take notes and look up some of the artists later.