Chris Maltbie

In the modern world it is easy for the average male to forget about feminism. After all, it is not difficult to assume that women have caught up in the world and then just forget the issue; in fact, in my analysis of life as a whole, I find that much of life is comprised of assuming and forgetting. Until my recent visits to the nation’s capitol, I assumed there was nothing of interest in the city for me, and as such, I nearly forgot the District’s proximity. Furthermore, until I was prompted to go into the city for this assignment, I was largely ignorant to the ongoing nature of feminism in the modern world, and was unaware of the vast number of assumptions that I had forgotten that I had.

When I was initially instructed to explore my assumptions about feminism, the first few seemed easy, if not terribly ignorant. I assumed that feminism was about promoting women’s superiority over men and the suppression of women in the world; however, through exploring the world of art, my assumptions were not only overturned, but my knowledge of feminism was cast in an entirely different direction.

The first museum I decided to explore was the National Museum of Women in the Arts. This museum seemed like the logical starting place for my exploration (after all, if there were a single place that would smack me right in the face with feminism, this was going to be it). Before entering, I decided to log several of my assumptions. I realized that I assumed that all the works of art in the museum would be of women, I assumed the museum would be completely devoid of anything relating to men. I also assumed that that the pieces of art would be fairly limited in range (mostly modern art, due to the assumed notion of inferiority of women in cultures of the past), and that the pieces of art would shy away from presenting women in the nude, since I assumed that feminism would conceive this as demeaning and cliché.

Once I had all my assumptions about art out in the open, I took the plunge and bought my ticket. The first thing I noticed in the museum’s massive entrance hall was the large bust of an open-mouthed male near the ceiling, which immediately seemed to shatter my assumption that males would be completely absent from the works in the museum. As I proceed up the stairs, I came upon a long series of European portraits from hundreds of years ago, all done by women. One particularly large and amazing portrait, “The Family of the Earl of Gower” by Angellica Kauffman from 1772, was exceptional not only for its detail, but for the fact that it would not have been at all out of place in any other museum’s classical exhibit. Additionally, while the subjects of the portrait were primarily female, at least one male was present, reinforcing the destruction of my assumptions. At the head of the hall I discovered a beautiful, mahogany sculpture by Ru Yi. This intricate piece was interesting because it showed that the art of women is equally present and outstanding in many mediums and many cultures.

The third floor of the museum held Paula Rego’s exhibit, which broke even more barriers of assumption with each work I viewed. “Target” depicted the rear of an undressing woman, while another area of the exhibit featured several paintings titled after animals, which depicted women in seemingly wild, animal-like positions. This in particular struck me, as it seemed to depict women in a way that I would have thought to be demeaning, but appeared to be more about the animalistic tendencies of humans as a whole. Finally, one part of Paula’s exhibit featured a series of untitled painting that depicted women waiting to have abortions. Although I had assumed such a controversial subject would be avoided, I was pleasantly surprised to see Paula confront the issue in such an uncensored manner.

The top floor of the museum finalized the extermination of my assumptions. Several paintings by Alma Thomas showed of the abstract-abilities of female artists, while Marguerite Thompson Zorach’s “Nude Reclining” depicts a nude woman with an exaggerated figure, and another area was completely devoted to British female silversmiths. Overall, this exhibit demonstrated the vastness of types of art covered by women, and their talent in all of these areas. As I overheard one guest say, “The only thing that I don’t like about this museum is that all of this stuff should be in one of the Smithsonian’s”.

As a final note on this museum, I found myself amused at the fact that the building’s men’s bathroom did not have any urinals (which I realized after the fact was something that I had sort of assumed). Overall, the museum had a very feminine feel, from the pink and white interior, to the elegant main hall; however the contents of the museum shown a whole new light on my view of feminism.

The following day, I visited 3 more museums. The first stop of the day was the National Museum of the American Indian. The building itself did not seem very feminine, although it was very deeply entrenched in Native American styling (most notably the designs on the elevators doors, that looked like something out of a themed hotel). The first thing I noticed when entering the building was a demonstration of American Indian cooking in the massive entrance hall. Although I initially assumed that cooking would be a skill associated with women, I was immediately forced to reform when I noticed that both chefs were male.

Due to the fact that this museum was not specifically targeted at women, but rather at a set of cultures, I assumed that this museum would not be very feminine and that women would only be discussed as part of the community. For the most part, this assumption was correct. One of the largest exhibits at the museum showcased the modern cultures of many different Native American tribes. Many women had given interviews to discuss the culture, but very little was gender specific. The major exhibit at the museum at the moment, however, is very feminist.

After walking into the “Identity by Design” exhibit, I realized that I would have assumed that a large exhibit would not have been about something so cliché as women designing dresses; however, as I examined the exhibit more closely, I realized that it was not about women dressing up at all, but about the cultural significance and art that goes into designing the intricate and beautiful dresses. For example, one of the dresses on display was a special buckskin dress that is put on a girl by her godmother at the sunrise dance when it is time for her to become a woman. At the end of the event, the girl removes it herself and enters womanhood. Another example is the elks-tooth dresses that were sometimes worn as wedding dresses. The husband would search his entire life for elk’s teeth that would later be made into a dress by the mother-in-law for the bride.

The Hirshorn museum did not initially seem very feminist. As I walked through the upper levels of the museum, I found very few works of art by women; however, when I went into the basement to see the Recent Acquisitions, I was surprised to find that almost all of the works were not only by women, but quite shocking and feminist as well. Carolee Schneeman’s “Eye Body: 36 Transformative Actions” was a series of photographs that featured a nude woman in provocative poses. Ana Mendieta’s two films on display also featured a nude woman doing some peculiar things, such as rolling in blood and feathers. These two works in particular surprised me, as I had thought that feminism would steer away from the sexual ideas associated with women. It occurred to me during this exhibit that, perhaps, feminism was more about a woman exploring how people think about her, without worrying about the preconceived notions of society. Another incredibly striking piece was “Note to Self” by Mary Coble, who had herself tattooed and photographed with the names of 435 gay, lesbian, and transgender people who had been murdered. I suppose I had assumed that “feminists” would not generally confront controversial issues, since it would probably just exacerbate their efforts to have feminism more widely accepted in society.

My final stop in D.C. was the Holocaust Memorial Museum. I was very intrigued to have seen this particular museum on the list of potential destination for this assignment for two reasons. First of all, I am very passionate about history, and in particular, military history (In fact, I have taken more history classes as this college than I have biology classes, and I am a biology major). Secondly, I did not know how feminism would fit into this museum. The building itself is not very feminist at all. As a matter of fact, it is a very somber place. Part memorial and part recreation of the gritty world of Holocaust-era Europe, the building is completely not feminist (at least in the definition of what I had thought feminism was).

With this museum in particular, I had assumed that women would be equally represented as a part of the tragedy that was the Holocaust, but very little would be shown that would exclusively focus on women. For the most part, this assumption was correct. The most feminist part of the museums was the “Daniel’s Story” exhibit, which followed the story of a young boy in the holocaust, who was sent from his happy life to a ghetto and from the ghetto to a concentration camp. Although the exhibit was all about the one little boy, it highlighted many aspects of his life. One aspect in particular about his life, his family, gives us a glimpse of feminism during the Holocaust. Through the tales of his mother and sister, the exhibit demonstrates the toil that everybody endured during the holocaust, and how people of both sexes were treated. Daniel’s sister steals bits of cloth from her job in the ghetto to preserve a bit of her culture by making her mother a dress for her birthday. When the family is separated at the concentration camp, we see the different treatment put upon women: While men were seen as useful as workers in the camps, women were often deemed useless and killed on the spot.

Overall, this assignment showed me many things about feminism and taught me quite a bit about assumptions that I had not been aware of making. Museums, such as the National Museum of Women in the Arts, showed me the wide range of art created by women over time, in different cultures, and in so many different mediums. The National Museum of the American Indian showed off the importance of women in American Indian culture. The Hirshorn museum showed me the edgy side of modern feminism. Finally, the Holocaust Memorial Museum showed me the universality of hardship and the presence of feminism in all places. While I came into the experience believing many stereotypes about feminism, I came out of it understanding that feminism is not about superiority of suppression, but at once about women’s equal ability in expressing themselves and the unique ways in which women can set themselves apart. In essence, based on the new assumptions I have made from my experiences, feminism is about saying, ‘Men are men, women are women. We will never be the same, will never be better, and will never be worse. This is who we are, and this is how we express who we are.’

Assumptions:

I assumed that feminist museums would not display any pieces of art featuring men or by men.

I assumed that women would not be depicted in stereotypically demeaning ways, such as nude, cooking, etc.

I assumed that most feminist art would be modern

I assumed that feminist art would not undertake controversial topics.

I assumed that a woman’s museums would not have urinals.

I assumed that feminism was about female superiority.

I assumed that feminism would emphasize women being suppressed

I assumed that I would feel unwelcome in a very feminist museum

I assumed that feminist museums would go out of their way to emphasize that the works were by women

I assumed that feminism would not be very prominent in museums other than the National Museum of Women in the Arts

I assumed that art by women would be grouped together as if to show off that it was, in fact, created by a woman