Mary Abbott, "All Green" (c. 1954), oil paint on linen, 49 x 45 1/8 in, Denver Art Museum: Gift of Janis and Tom McCormick (image courtesy McCormick Gallery, Chicago, © Mary Abbott)

Mary Abbott, “All Green” (c. 1954), oil paint on linen, 49 x 45 1/8 in, Denver Art Museum: Gift of Janis and Tom McCormick (image courtesy McCormick Gallery, Chicago, © Mary Abbott)

The paradigm of the “overlooked female artist” is both a cliché and a truth. We all know the art market is unceasingly hungry, and previously sidelined women artists are the perfect food. But that doesn’t change the fact that countless female artists have been ignored, forgotten, and stepped on, that movements defined by their male stars have entire other histories still in need of writing.

Exhibitions are a way to begin that process, and next spring, the Denver Art Museum (DAM) will mount one. The title — Women of Abstract Expressionism — says it all: this is a show devoted to the women artists involved with the famously macho movement, and it is the first of its kind. Highlighting better-known names — Lee Krasner, Joan Mitchell — alongside lesser-known ones — Sonia Gechtoff, Perle Fine — the exhibition will encompass 12 women’s work, “focus[ing] on the expressive freedom of direct gesture and process at the core of abstract expressionism, while revealing inward reverie and painterly expression,” according to the description. It will also include a new video exploring these women’s lives — the particulars as well as the broader (sexist) cultural conditions of the 1950s — through their own testimony and that of their children.

Perle Fine, “Early Morning Garden” (1957), oil paint and collage on canvas, 44 x 36 in, Collection Art Enterprises, Ltd, Chicago (image courtesy McCormick Gallery, Chicago, © AE Artworks, LLC) (click to enlarge)

Although it’s still more than eight months away, Women of Abstract Expressionism promises to be groundbreaking. I eagerly emailed with the exhibition’s organizer, Gwen Chanzit, who serves as curator of modern and contemporary art and of the Herbert Bayer Collection & Archive at DAM, to ask her a few questions in anticipation.

*   *   *

Jillian Steinhauer: This is an exhibition that seems long overdue. Can you tell me a bit about the process of developing it — how long it’s been in the works, when you first had the idea for it, whether you encountered any resistance in realizing it?

Gwen Chanzit: I first began thinking about this topic in 2008, when I saw Action/Abstraction at the Jewish Museum in New York and wondered about some of the “outlier” artists who still sit at the fringes of Abstract Expressionism’s history. On the plane returning to Denver, I kept coming back to some female Abstract Expressionists whose paintings challenge the predominantly male-centric definition of the movement. Frankly, I was surprised no major museum exhibition had yet been mounted. Responses to the exhibition have been positive. Museum colleagues have responded favorably and have been generous with key loans.

JS: Relatedly, are there precedents that you looked at in organizing this show — either previous exhibitions of women in Abstract Expressionism or similar undertakings for different groups? (The Sackler Center’s Seductive Subversion comes to mind.)

Elaine de Kooning, “Bullfight” (1959), oil on canvas, 77 5/8 x 131 1/4 x 1 1/8 in, Denver Art Museum: Vance H. Kirkland Acquisition Fund (image courtesy Mark Borghi Fine Art, New York, NY, © Elaine de Kooning Trust)

GC: Yes, the first was Action/Abstraction. I also went to see Brooklyn’s Seductive Subversion about women Pop artists and saw LACMA’s consideration of Surrealist women artists in the exhibition In Wonderland. I thought: why has similar consideration not been given to the women of Abstract Expressionism?

JS: Why did you decide to show just the work of the women, rather than their work alongside the men’s? (I was on a panel not too long ago about whether there’s still value in holding all-women exhibitions, so this has been on my mind!)

GC: Wouldn’t it be great if we were beyond thinking in terms of gender? Most would agree that we’ve come a long way, and it’s easy to say that it was long ago — in the late ’40s and the ’50s — when there was such enormous gender bias. Yet it wasn’t so long ago that our own basic textbooks eschewed the work of female artists. With few exceptions, current market values still undervalue canvases by female painters of this movement in comparison to their male contemporaries. Projects like this one provide an essential correction to this unevenness.

Beyond space limitations (these paintings are large!) and the fact that there have been major Abstract Expressionist exhibitions in recent years, an exhibition like this one enables us to highlight some of the special qualities found in these works.

Grace Hartigan, “New York City Rhapsody” (1960), oil paint on canvas, 67-3/4 x 91-5/16 in, Mildred Lane Kemper Art Museum, Washington University in St. Louis, University purchase, Bixby Fund, 1960 (image courtesy Estate of Grace Hartigan)

I hope to see the time when the canon will have expanded beyond the handful of artists (predominantly male) who have previously defined Abstract Expressionism. Then we can show works by male and female painters of this movement side by side and appreciate the distinct qualities of all these individuals.

JS: The press release says that the women in the Bay Area “were on a more equal footing with their male counterparts than those working in New York.” Can you elaborate a bit on this and the difference in gender bias between the two scenes?

GC: In the Bay Area there was more freedom; it may be that there were more acceptances of individuals in the West. The experimental galleries Six and King Ubu were collaborative ventures where men and women worked on equal footing. Sonia Gechtoff tells that when she moved to New York, she was surprised and disappointed to find that despite her success in San Francisco, as a woman she wasn’t taken as seriously.

Deborah Remington, “Exodus” (1960), oil paint on canvas, 71 x 62 in, Private collection (image courtesy the Deborah Remington Charitable Trust for the Visual Arts) (click to enlarge)

JS: I’m wondering why more of these women aren’t well-known. Did they have success during their time that was then eclipsed by the writing of history, or were they not fully acknowledged in their time?

GC: Most were not fully acknowledged in their time. Though many showed in exhibitions along with men, this was a time when societal opportunities for women were limited. It’s not so surprising that Abstract Expressionism, like other movements, has largely been defined by male painters; yet in this case, their male-ness, their heroic machismo spirit, has become a defining characteristic of the expansive gestural paintings of Abstract Expressionism. But process and experimentation with materials weren’t exclusive to men; they are also evident in paintings by women. Many female painters also responded to personal triggers in their own firsthand experience; some abstractions might even be thought of as interior, emotional gesture. This exhibition endeavors to expand what we know of the movement to include canvases by women of Abstract Expressionism that express compelling points of view by individuals who were individual in every sense.

Sonia Getchoff, “The Beginning” (1960), oil paint on canvas, 69 x 83 in, Denver Art Museum: Vance H. Kirkland Acquisition Fund (image © Sonia Gechtoff)

Judith Godwin, “Epic” (1959), oil paint on canvas (diptych), 82 x 100 in, On loan from the National Museum of Women in the Arts, Washington, DC, Gift of Caroline Rose Hunt (photo by Lee Stalsworth, © Judith Godwin)

Lee Krasner, “The Seasons” (1957), oil and house paint on canvas, 92 3/4 × 203 7/8 in, Whitney Museum of American Art, New York; purchase, with funds from Frances and Sydney Lewis by exchange, the Mrs. Percy Uris Purchase Fund and the Painting and Sculpture Committee 87.7. (photo by Sheldan C. Collins, © 2015 Pollock-Krasner Foundation / Artists Rights Society [ARS], New York)

Joan Mitchell, “Hudson River Day Line” (1955), oil paint on canvas, 79 x 83 in, Collection of the McNay Art Museum, Museum: purchase with funds from the Tobin Foundation (image © Estate of Joan Mitchell)

Jay DeFeo, “Untitled (Everest),” from the ‘Mountain’ series (1955), oil paint on canvas, 96 x 74 in, Collection of the Oakland Museum of California, Gift of Jay DeFeo (image © 2015 The Jay DeFeo Trust / Artists Rights Society [ARS], New York)

Ethel Schwabacher, “Antigone I” (1958), oil paint on canvas, 51 x 85 in, Collection of Christopher C. Schwabacher and Brenda S. Webster (image courtesy Christopher C. Schwabacher and Brenda S. Webster)

Women of Abstract Expressionism will open at the Denver Art Museum (100 W 14th Ave Parkway, Denver) on June 12, 2016.

The Latest

Required Reading

This week, Godard’s anti-imperialism, in defense of “bad” curating, an inexplicable statue, criminalizing culture wars, and more.

Jillian Steinhauer

Jillian Steinhauer is a former senior editor of Hyperallergic. She writes largely about the intersection of art...

11 replies on “Finally, an Exhibition Devoted to the Women of Abstract Expressionism”

  1. Beautiful show, but how is not an insult to women for people who, like me, don’t care about the gender of a creator, even God.
    If after numbers, quality of creations becomes an issue, the insult worsens; except maybe for Sonia Delaunay who (to me) produced better work than Robert and Frida who pulverizes Diego’s ass.

    I can’t nevermind the Pollock, the Brancusi, the Vermeer, the Rembrandt…

  2. It is my understanding that female collectors focused on male artists as well. Why was that? Rather than look for past grievances, how do works by female artists stack up today? I believe that men just burn hotter. Maybe blind juried exhibits could separate the reality from the political correctness, the actually significant from the deconstructed counterfeits.

  3. Samuel, why are you assuming that these women don’t stack up and that people are just looking for past grievances? Why the assumption that they’ll be second-tier?

  4. You have to be careful Demanding female artists – then you end up with crap. Let the work speak – not the gender, or you are going down the same road.

Comments are closed.