I note this problem in the most recent work of feminist art criticism I have en-
countered, New Feminist Art Criticism, ed. Katy Deepwell (Manchester and New
York: Manchester University Press, 1995); cf., also, note 5, below. Rather than
miring myself in an umpteenth rehearsal of these terms, which I also feel would
overemphasize the importance of this discourse
this collection as a whole, I
would refer readers :who are unfamiliar with the discourse to the many excellent
books on the subject, including the recently published The Essential Diffirence,
ed. Naomi Schor and Elizabeth Weed (Bloomington: Indiana University Press,
Engaging with lrigaray: Feminist Philosophy and Modern European Thought, ed.
Carolyn Burke, Naomi Schor, and Margaret Whitford (New York: Columbia
University Press, 1994); and Essentially Speaking: Feminism, Nature, and Difference by
Diana Fuss (New York: Routledge, 1989); as well as older texts that were central
to the circulation of these French feminist philosophies in the United States,
New French Feminism: An Anthology, ed. Elaine Marks and Isabelle de Courtivron
(New York: Schocken Books, 1981) and Sexual/Textual Politics: Feminist Literary
Theory by Toril Moi (London and New York: Methuen, 1985).
2 Womanhouse, exhibition catalogue, CalArts Feminist Art Program, 1972.
Cf. Mira Schor, "Backlash and Appropriation," in The Power
Feminist Art, ed.
Norma Broude and Mary D. Garrard (New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1994), 248-
4 Cf. Elizabeth Hess, "The Women," Village Voice, 8 November 1994, 91, 93, and
Lilly Wei, "Feminists in the Art World,"
Art in America, January 1995, 35, 37.
Previous Page Next Page