Exploring the mechanics of Creativity. 1/3rd of a collaboration.
Woman House
As stated on Womanhouse.net:
“Womanhouse (30 January – 28 February 1972) is remembered for its site-specific domestic installations in which artists responded to every room of a Los Angeles house they collectively renovated and occupied. [Judy] Chicago, [Miriam] Schapiro, their CalArts students, and women artists from the local community all participated. Their efforts yielded early examples of installation art, pedagogical strategies like consciousness raising, and a number of performance pieces including Faith Wilding’s Waiting, and Chicago’s Cock and Cunt Play”.
On the opening of Woman House only women were permitted to view the work. After this first day, all members of the public were allowed to enter.
The program that birthed Woman House was The Feminist Art Program that began in the California Institute of the Arts in 1971. The program was led by Judy Chicago and Miriam Schapiro and its members included the CalArts students as well as local artists from the community.
The Feminist Art Program was without appropriate space at the start of the school year which set the path that the program would tread to create an “Ideological and symbolic conflation of women and houses”.
What interested us (being H.E.R Collective) was the process of the work as well as the final building of Woman House. Students would sit in a circle and discuss different topics in this safe space. This was intended to nourish the students and provide growth to promote a more “womb-like” atmosphere. Self-perception and reflection was key to this experience to also help prompt further ideas for Woman House.
The problems that Schapiro and Chicago felt the students had revolved around their status as women. This included:
A lack of assertiveness and ambition
unwillingness to push themselves beyond limits
unfamiliarity with art-making processes and tools
The aim was that by teaching women to use tools and to construct to a good standard they could “restructure their personalities to be consistent with their artistic goals”.
Schapiro and Chicago believed that:
“society fails women by not demanding excellence from them”.
The overarching goal of this program and of Woman House was to create an all female space that promoted more inclusion of female artists and to expose the Cal Arts students to already “established” female artists not limited to Schapiro and Chicago.
Before even installing any of their own ideas of the design of the house, actual work needed to be undertaken to restore the structure of the house. The students had to build the shell to house their work before they could inhabit it. The women undertook tasks such as cleaning, painting, wallpapering, installing lights etc. throughout the course of the project; Even electrical wiring was needed to be installed which was completed by the group. Although this could be empowering, many students were not used to the 8 hour days that came with Woman House or to the fact that a lot of the Manual labour took place in the winter with no hot water or heating. It has been said that many women came to resent the work and to the administrators. To tackle this negativity, the group held meetings where these concerns could be raised and resolved through group consciousness.
𝕆𝕦𝕣 𝕥𝕒𝕜𝕖-𝕒𝕨𝕒𝕪 𝕗𝕣𝕠𝕞 𝕎𝕠𝕞𝕒𝕟 ℍ𝕠𝕦𝕤𝕖
Annabel suggested we look at woman house not just for the end result but by the processes in which the house was made. The conversations the students had regarding the issues and how to develop their practice were of the same importance as the final result of the house itself. This alongside the initial and final renovation of the space all form a wider context that Woman House is centered within: This is what Uncovering H.E.R also hopes to achieve.
These paralleling dialogues are what we need to include in our work to allow for a more rounded and successful practice.