Statistics, Testimony and Supporting Documentation

TESTIMONY

Delivered by Howardena Pindell © 1987
Delivered June 28, 1987
Agendas for Survival Conference
Hunter College, New York

Over 50% of the citizens of New York are people of color: Asian, Black, Hispanic and Native American. More than two thirds of the world’s citizens are people of color. I am an artist. I am not a so-called “minority,” “new,” or “emerging” or “a new audience.” These are all terms used to demean, limit and make us appear to be powerless. We must evolve a new language which empowers us and does not cause us to participate in our own disenfranchisement.

In the 1980s we have witnessed the continuing proliferation of a backhanded understated racism in the public and private sector. This racism when expressed is not as in the 1970s covered with a veil of excuses other than a lie, that it is not a reflection of racism. Somehow this lie and denial if expressed enough times is believed to become the truth. Therefore, the art world will state that “all white” exhibitions, year after year with few and far between occasional tokens in both the public and private sectors and ghettoized, segregated art communities tangent to the so called “mainstream” are not a reflection of racism. The lie or denial is cloaked in phrases such as “artistic choice” or “artistic quality” when the pattern reveals a different intent.

Bob Jones University lost its tax exemption for stating that it discriminated against Blacks, barring them from admission. In the 1980s the “mainstream” art world continues to exclude people of color, however, they are cleverer than Bob Jones. They will not state it, but will practice it. The public sector is even craftier and will state that they do not discriminate and will roll out the word “quality.”

When I called Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts concerning racial discrimination in galleries, public institutions and relative omission from the art magazines I was told that artists are independent contractors and have no rights under Title 7. “You cannot prove racism when it comes to ‘artistic choice.’ And if you can prove it is racism, ‘So what!’ There is nothing you can do about it.” This individual used the same argument when referring to women trying to prove discrimination.

In preparing for this testimony, I called Socrates Park, an outdoor, large scale sculpture group show installation, which opened this summer in Queens. They received for the project money from the New York State Council on the Arts by way of the Queens Consortium. The exhibition was also held on public land along the Queens waterfront. When I called I asked if they had included artists of color. They said “no”—that they were “private.” I pointed out the fact that their printed announcement listed public funding. Their response was, “Oh, they only gave us $1,000.”

The following are some statistics representative of exhibition patterns in both the private and public sector for 1986–87 (statistics are based on printed announcements or posters and press releases):

Socrates Park (Long Island City waterfront) 100% white

Juxtapositions (P.S. 1, Long Island City)      88% white

Special Projects (P.S. 1, Long Island City)      100% white

Monumental Drawings (Brooklyn Museum)      100% white

The Television Show (Queens Museum)      93% white

Monumental Space Variations (One Penn Plaza)      100% white

Romantic Science (One Penn Plaza)      100% white

Whitney Biennial (Whitney Museum)      96% white

The Kitchen Benefit (Brooke Alexander Gallery)      100% white

Abstract Artists (Department of Cultural Affairs Gallery)94% white

Artists Against Aids (72 New York galleries)98% white

Elders of the Tribe (Bernice Steinbaum Gallery)100% white

Documenta (Kasel, Germany)95% white

Artists for Artists Benefit (Charles Cowles Gallery)98% white

Law and Order Silent Auction Benefit (Weber, Castelli and Gladstone Galleries)94% white

Morality Tales: History Painting of the 1980’s (Grey Art Gallery, New York University)100% white

Fake (The New Museum)90.7% white

Working in Brooklyn/Painting (Brooklyn Museum) 90% white

Emerging Artists 1978–1986: Selection from Exxon Series (Guggenheim Museum)98% white

Publications:

50 New York Artists, by Richard Marshall and Robert Mappelthorpe, Chronicle Books, 1986 98% white

Artsreview, Portrait of the Artist, 1987, published By the National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, D.C. 95% white

Individuals: A Selected History of Contemporary Art, Edited by Howard Singerman. Essays by Kate Linker, Donald Kuspit, Hal Foster, Ronald J. Onorato, Germano Celant, Achille Bonito Olivia, John C. Weldman, Thomas Lawson. Abbeville Press, N.Y., 1987 98.9% white

I have experienced the art world from the “outside” as an artist of color and from the “inside” working at a major New York museum where I was an Associate Curator. I worked there for 12 years. Some members of the curatorial staff virtually closed me out of important professional interactions, many of which took place at private yet “professional business” social gatherings from which I was often excluded. [Some of my co-workers were very generous and open but as I rose in the ranks it became more and more closed.] In retrospect, the racism I encountered was very subtle, petty and underhanded. In the beginning, I was basically fresh out of school and “gung-ho” but over the years the pressures of subtle and not so subtle unassuming casual racism and my changing needs made me break away in 1979. I was no longer very polite about what I was encountering. I did not feel that relocating and changing jobs within the profession would make any difference. In retrospect, I also feel I was too intimidated by the sheer power behind the people who wished to enforce their beliefs and felt too isolated to pursue other options under Title 7.

As a result of the closed nepotistic interlocking network, artists of color face an industry-wide “restraint of trade,” limiting their ability to show and sell their work. The Internal Revenue Service’s pressure on artists to sell their work as proof of their “worthiness” or seriousness as artists puts artists of color under additional pressure.

The museums often let the galleries do the primary sifting of artists. If you are locked out at this level you are locked out at all other levels because each feeds the other. The excitement and “growth” that comes from producing and showing work in an ever changing broad spectrum of options is therefore blocked and limited for the visual artist of color. The institutions that will show the artists of color are rarely reviewed by the art publications thus the artists of color are often deprived of the benefit of minor or major articles and wider exposure. If they are included as token in an exhibition frequently the reviewer overlooks them. Occasionally the art world will focus on one or two tokens for an instant, then pull back feeling they have “done their duty.” It is as if they have reviewed all artists of color by reviewing one thus implying we have no breadth or diversity and that they need look no further.

Artists of color are often relegated to showing during the month set aside for highlighting their cultural heritage such as Black History month. Institutions will often feel they have integrated their schedule when they show they have “paid their respects” for one month in a “segregated” show. This usually happens in the case of university galleries or smaller museums.

I have learned over my 20 years in New York not to “romanticize” white artists, expecting them to be liberal, open, or necessarily supportive because they are creative people. Pests, a group of non-white artists, hung a poster in SoHo on Broome and Broadway last spring which read, “There are 11,000 artists of color in New York. Why don’t you see us?” Someone had written on the poster, “Because you do poor work.”

Unfortunately, many white feminists, artists and critics often are patronizing and condescending towards women of color and will make statements such as “sexism predates racism,” or “racism is not their concern” (see Documentation III). When the women’s museum was being organized in Washington, D.C. I was contacted by a New York art historian and asked to make some suggestions. I told them that they need to have women of color on their board as policy makers. I was told a few months later, “no.” (Guerrilla Girls, a feminists group, has begun to address issues affecting artists of color but it is amazing to see how articles written about their activities in white publications always omit this fact.”

Some white artists use us as subject matter but we are not permitted to interpret ourselves on the same platform. When we are included in exhibitions we are at times asked stupid questions about our work, such as “Why does a light skin Black paint dark skin Blacks?”

In the 1970s one white artist went so far as to change his name from a “bland” name to a Hispanic name because he wanted to “attract grants.” Perhaps in the 1980s he has selected another name to fit his opportunism.

There have been exhibitions by white artists which used racial slurs as titles such as “Nigger Drawings” (Artists Space) and “No Japs at My Funeral” (The Kitchen) (see Documentation I and II).  The art world closed ranks around the artists when people of color protested. The white artists and their supporters felt they had their First Amendment right to express their racism. (We did not, on the other hand, have the First Amendment right to express our outrage.) Protest was viewed as censorship, yet they were not concerned that artists of color were censored out of the system. The white artists could only experience this issue in terms of their need for dominance at any cost to anyone, especially if they were of color. As one white artists said to us during one of the protests, “How dare you come down here and tell us what to do? This is a white neighborhood!” (It is interesting to note that the exhibition space that exhibited “Nigger Drawings” received Expansion Arts money, public funds which at the time were earmarked for out-reach into multi-cultural non-Euro-ethnic communities. It was also revealing that on the day of one of our protests they had installed on exhibition of works shipped in from Scotland.)

As artists of color, we must not be apathetic in the face of an endless wall of indifference or direct, blatant acts of hostility. We must organize and work together and lobby if necessary. We must support the institutions which have stood by us in spite of others’ attempts to frustrate and demean them. We should not feel discouraged or isolated. This is what “they” want us to feel in hopes that we will give up. We should encourage the upcoming generation not to turn away from the visual arts because so many doors are now closed. The visual arts are not a “white neighborhood!”

DOCUMENTATION I

“Nigger Drawings” (1979) was the title of a one-person exhibition of work by a white male artist, Donald Neuman, held at Artists Space when it was located on Hudson Street. It stirred up protests, counter-response and backlash. (Artists Space received funding in 1979 from the New York State Council on the Arts and the National Endowment for the Arts. The director of Artists Space in 1979 is currently director of Metro Pictures Gallery, which is listed in the gallery statistics section.)

Documentation I: Nigger Drawings (February 16–March 10, 1979)

Artist: Donald Neuman
Artists Space
105 Hudson Street
New York, NY 10012

Current Address: Artists Space
223 West Broadway
New York, NY
212-226-3970

1. Invitation for Nigger Drawings
2. Letter from. Dr. Mary Campbell, Director, Studio Museum in Harlem (1979)
3. Letter from Janet Henry, artist (1979)
4. Letter from Professor Carol Duncan, Ramapo College, Ramapo, New Jersey (1979)

DOCUMENTATION II

In 1979 Steve Gianakos, a white male artist, created a piece titled “Which Person Can’t Read.” Because of copyright restrictions I must describe the image as I am unable to reproduce it. It was, however, reproduced in Real Life magazine‘s Nov. 2, 1979 issue and was again reproduced in The Village Voice in an article by Richard Golstein which includes a brief interview with the artist (Village Voice, “Art Beat, Darky Chic,” March 31, 1980, p. 34).

Documentation II: Which Person Can’t Read (1979)

Artist: Steve Gianakos

Source: Real Life Magazine (Nov. 2, 1979)
P.O. Box 1564
Madison Square Station
New York, NY 10159
718-852-8085

1. Description of the image (because of copyright restrictions)
2. Excerpts from the article and interview with the artist in The Village Voice, “Art Beat, Darky Chic,” by Richard Goldstein, March 31, 1980, p. 34 (includes reproduction of the image)

Description of the Image: The artist drew 6 male faces, 5 white and 1 black. The white faces are schematically constructed with simple straight linear letters of the alphabet. All of the white faces appear alert. The Black face is drawn without use of the alphabet characters and is a cartoon-like image similar to that which was used to demean Blacks in the ’20s, ’30s and ’40s—eyes wide open in a stereotyped “unintelligent” surprise, large lips and mouth gaping open. Over the head of this cartoon “blackface” image is a large black question mark. There are no question marks over the white faces.

Excerpts from Village Voice, “Art Beat, Darky Chic,” by Richard Goldstein, March 31, 1980, p. 34.

(Goldstein): “But there is a more specific reason why some white artists feel drawn to both language and imagery that degrades blacks. What affirmative action means for a publicly funded gallery like Artists’ Space is that its directors will have to become familiar with the formal and thematic concerns of black artists, and make room for those concerns in an exhibition space that was formally reserved for whites.”

“There is something bizarre about white people getting together to agree that a work depicting racial stereotypes is neutral and benign, as if intention is something that can be universally perceived.

(The artist, Gianakos): ” . . . a bunch of blacks tried to take advantage of a situation [artist is referring to “Nigger Drawings”] so that they could start to show at Artists’ Space.”

“I don’t think people won’t show blacks because they’re black,” he said, “but because they don’t do interesting work. It has nothing to do with color. It’s like women. Women happen to be inferior artists to men, and it’s the same with blacks. They happen to be better at peddling dope. Maybe that’s their talent. I mean why should blacks be good at art?”

DOCUMENTATION III:
RACISM AND FEMINISM

Adrian Piper is a conceptual and performance artist. Her most recent exhibition Adrian Piper: Reflections 1967–1987 took place at the Alternative Museum (17 White Street, New York, NY 10013) in New York. An extensive catalog was published. She is a Ph.D. in Philosophy and teaches philosophy at a university in Washington, D.C. She made a presentation to the Women’s Caucus for Art conference in Boston, which was published in part in Women Artists News (June 1987, p. 6) with a reply to her presentation by Barbara Barr, a feminist poet who states, “I remember telling long-ago dorm mates at my midwestern university, when that place was pure corn-fed Bible belt, that I was part black (in the days “Negro”), simply as a lark, a response to my sense that they could scarcely distinguish among easterner, Jew, black.” (June 1987, p. 6, “Reply to Piper”)

Documentation III: Racism and Feminism

Source: Women Artists Newsletter
P.O. Box 3304
Grand Central Station
New York, NY 10163
212-666-6990

1. Excerpts from “Adrian Piper” and “Reply to Piper” and excerpts from letters in response.
2. Letter from Judith Wilson, Editor, Afro American Art History Newsletter

Excerpts: Women Artists News, June 1987, p. 6

Adrian Piper: “All blacks suffer under racial stereotypes, suffer the alienation of being feared, hated, misunderstood, punished for what they are not and then for what they are. Blacks who look and sound like me bring out racial discrimination in those who believe they know better, who believe they have transcended racism.

Barbara Barr: “Talk like Adrian Piper’s is refined and polite, and full of upper class angst, but it’s about as racist as anything you can expect to hear these days. It’s just the other side of the coin—a grandiosity (and fatalism) about being “black.”

“Sighing over racial prejudice in the case of Adrian Piper is, however, luxurious, a fairly dimwitted expiation of white liberal guilt. Therapeutic, perhaps, but based in nonsense.”

Women Artists News, Summer 1986, “Letters,” pp. 2, 33

“We are all guilty of prejudice of one sort of another. But Ms. Barr’s reaction was so strident it might make readers wonder what was eating her to respond so.”
—Alicia Faxon, Cambridge, p. 2

“Barbara Barr writes as if she lived in a vacuum, not the real world . . . . Barr may find ethnic slurs acceptable, ‘normal,’ but I do not.”
—May Stevens, New York, p. 2

“Clearly one may only address a ‘black’ ‘victim’ of ‘racism’ today with cries of mea culpa—or ever so sweetly, as if speaking to a child.”
—Barbara Barr, p. 2

“Today an attractive, articulate, charming, educated, light skinned ‘black’ like Piper may succeed more readily than her counterpart, say, nice Jewish girl (glut on the market), although may suffer more anomie or hurt feelings on route.”
—Barbara Barr, p. 33

GALLERY STATISTICS

The following New York City galleries are 100% white. (Artists represented as stated by the gallery in the following reference source: Art in America, 1987-88. Annual Guide to Galleries, Museums, Artists, August 1987–88, p. 121–150.) The galleries listed represent the major pool from which artists are selected for inclusion in exhibitions and publications, private, corporate and museum collections.

The following galleries are 100% white:

Brooke Alexander Gallery, 59 Wooster Street, 212-925-4338
Massimo Audiello Gallery, 436 East 11 Street, 212-475-4241
Josh Baer Gallery, 270 Lafayette Street, 212-431-4774
Baskerville-Watson Gallery, 578 Broadway, 212-925-1955
Blum-Helman Gallery, 20 West 57 Street, 212-245-2888
Mary Boone Gallery, 417 West Broadway, 212-431-1818
Diane Brown Gallery, 560 Broadway, 212-219-1060
Cable Gallery, 611 Broadway, 212-42-8011
Cash/Newhouse, 170 Avenue B, 212-673-9366
Leo Castelli Gallery, 420 West Broadway, 212-431-5160
Leo Castelli Gallery, 142 Greene Street, 212-431-6269
Leo Castelli Graphics Gallery, 4 East 77 Street, 212-288-3202
Paula Cooper Gallery, 155 Wooster Street, 212-674-0766
Andre Emmerich Gallery, 41 East 75 Street, 212-752-0124
Xaviar Fourcade Gallery, 36 East 75 Street, 212-535-3980
Fishbach Gallery, 24 West 57 Street, 212-759-2345
John Gibson Gallery, 568 Broadway, 212-925-1192
Gimpel and Weitzenhoffer Gallery, 724 Fifth Avenue, 212-315-2033
Marian Goodman Gallery, 24 West 57 Street, 212-977-1760
Jay Gorney Gallery, 204 East 10 Street, 212-420-1760
Graham Modern, 1014 Madison Avenue, 212-535-5767
Hirschl and Adler Modern, 851 Madison Avenue, 212-744-6700
International with Monument, 111 East 7 Street, 212-420-0517
Michael Klein, Inc., 611 Broadway, 212-505-1980
M. Knoedler and Co., 19 East 70 Street, 212-794-0550
Lorence-Monk Gallery, 568 Broadway, 212-431-3555
Gracie Mansion Gallery, 167 Avenue A, 212-477-7331
Curt Marcus Gallery, 578 Broadway, 212-226-3200
Metro Pictures Gallery, 150 Greene Street, 212-925-8335
Annina Nosei Gallery, 100 Prince Street, 212-219-2210
Pace/MacGill Gallery, 11 East 57 Street, 212-759-7999
Marcuse Pfeifer Gallery, 568 Broadway, 212-226-2251
Max Protech Gallery, 37 West 57 Street, 212-838-7436
P.P.O.W. Gallery, 337 East 8 Street, 212-529-1313
Stux Gallery, 155 Spring Street, 212-219-0010
Germans Van Eck Gallery, 420 West Broadway, 212-219-0717/18
Edward Thorp Gallery, 103 Prince Street, 212-431-6880
Barbara Toll Gallery, 146 Greene Street, 212-431-1788
Althea Viafore Gallery, 568 Broadway, 212-925-4422

The following galleries are:

95% white:

Charles Cowles, 420 West Broadway, 212-925-3500

94% white:

Ronald Feldman Gallery, 31 Mercer Street, 212-226-3232
Allan Frumkin Gallery, 50 West 57 Street, 212-757-6655
Sperone Westwater Gallery, 142 Greene Street, 212-431-3685
John Weber Gallery, 142 Greene Street, 212-966-6115

93% white:

Louis K. Meisel Gallery, 141 Prince Street, 212-677-1340
Holly Solomon Gallery, 724 Fifth Avenue, 212-757-7777

92% white:

Barbara Gladstone Gallery, 99 Greene Street, 212-431-3334
Phyllis Kind Gallery, 135 Greene Street, 212-925-1200
M-13 Gallery, 72 Greene Street, 212-505-9016
Salander O’Reilly Gallery, 22 East 80 Street, 212-879-6606
Pace Gallery, 32-34 East 57 Street, 212-421-3292

91% white:

David McKee Gallery, 41 East 75 Street, 212-688-5951
Past Masters Gallery, 66 Avenue A, 212-477-5630
Anita Shapolsky Gallery, 99 Spring Street, 212-334-9755

89% white:

O.K. Harris Gallery, 383 West Broadway, 212-431-3600
Maeght-Lelong Gallery, 20 West 57 Street, 212-315-0470

86% white:

Rosa Esman Gallery, 70 Greene Street, 212-219-3044

84% white:

Sidney Janis Gallery, 110 West 57 Street, 212-586-0110
Bernice Steinbaum Gallery, 132 Greene Street, 212-431-4224

82% white:

Marlborough Gallery, 40 West 57 Street, 212-541-4900

80% white:

Sharpe Gallery, 175 Avenue B, 212-777-4622

75% white:

Nancy Hoffman Gallery, 429 West Broadway, 212-966-6676
Pat Hearn Gallery, 735 East 9 Street, 212-598-4882

69% white:

Semaphore Gallery, 137 Greene Street, 309-829-5825 (in process of closing)

STATISTICAL OVERVIEW (MUSEUMS) (1980–present)

I requested that each institution send me their exhibition lists from 1980 to present. Most of the institutions were cooperative. The time period covered by each institution will vary according to the dates covered by each set of lists. I requested material from the following institutions:

1. Brooklyn Museum
2: Guggenheim Museum
3. Metropolitan Museum
4. Museum of Modern Art
5. Queens Museum
6. Snug Harbor Museum, Staten Island
7. Whitney Museum of American Art

One institution voluntarily scrutinized their group exhibition check list and listed the number of artists of color who were included (Snug Harbor). In some cases I requested clarification about names with which I was not familiar, but although most were cooperative, I received no reply from the Queens Museum. One museum sent only a 2 1/2 year list and stated that records prior to that years were incomplete (Snug Harbor).

It was difficult to decide how to organize the statistics, but I tried to present them as clearly as possible. It was also difficult to determine how to identify groups of artists as there are many overlapping cultural heritages especially in North and South America. Although Egypt is located on the continent of Africa, people of European descent usually prefer to include them with western art statistics. I have counted them with statistics pertaining to Africa.

Additional exhibition (gallery and museum) statistics are included in the text of the Testimony.

Key

BROOKLYN MUSEUM
200 Eastern Parkway
Brooklyn, NY 11238
718-638-5000

NOTE: Group show exhibition check lists need to be scrutinized to determine additional demographics. Public relations persons, when asked the question about participation of artists of color, usually reply that they “do not look at art that way.” My experience has been that group exhibitions are 90–100% white with occasional exceptions. Native American artists are usually excluded.

Two recent group exhibitions, both curated by Charlotta Kotik, Curator of Contemporary Art, have the following statistics:

Monumental Drawings (1986) – 100% white

Working in Brooklyn/Painting (1987 – through Sept. 7) – 90% white, 2 artists of color out of 20 artists
Asian – 0
Hispanic – 2
Black – 0
Native American – 0

Note: In a borough of New York with one of the largest Black populations and an active artists’ community, the curator was unable to locate one Black artist to include in her exhibition.

Total exhibitions listed: 106.
Total one person exhibitions: 51.

Total one person exhibitions of works by artists of color: 2 (Bearden, 1982; Lawrence, 1987) or 3.92% of total one person exhibitions or 1.8% of total exhibition program.

Total exhibitions devoted to arts of non-western cultures or artists of color: 13 or 12.26% of total exhibition program.

Exhibitions pertaining to artists of color or non-European cultures represent the following percentages of the total program:
Asian – 6.6%
Black  (Afro-American, African, Afro-Caribbean) – 4.71%
Hispanic (Latin American, Central American, Caribbean) – 0%
Indian (Latin and Central American) – 0.94%
Native American – 0%

The total exhibition program for the years 1980–1988 (May) as illustrated by the lists supplied by the museum is 87.75% focused on the art or artists of European descent.

GUGGENHEIM MUSEUM
1971 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10128
212-360-3555

The Guggenheim did not supply me with a complete list. Group exhibition demographics need to be explored for a more complete picture. I hesitate to count the number of exhibitions without a complete list. Brochures and an annual report were supplied in hopes that I could piece the information together through 1987. The list supplied runs from 1980 to 1985. There were 28 one person exhibitions, as well as a total of 53 exhibitions during that time. The extra material supplied brings the total to 73.

Total program 1980–1987: 73 exhibitions.
The total was 100% (–) devoted to artists from Europe or art of European descent.
The current exhibition, Emerging Artists 1978–1986: Selections from The Exxon Series, includes 1 artist of color out of 51 artists.

It is therefore 98% white.

Transformations in Sculpture (1985) was 96% white (2 artists of color out of 56 artists).

METROPOLITAN MUSEUM
Fifth Avenue at 82 Street
New York, NY 10028

Lists were provided for exhibitions dating from July 1980–June 1986.

The Metropolitan’s statistics are difficult to organize because their listing includes the opening of permanent installations, long running exhibitions spanning 2 years, loan exhibitions as well as temporary collection exhibitions. There were 208 exhibitions listed from July 1980–June 1986. Out of 208 exhibitions, there was 1 one-person show by an artist of color, Native American, Erastus Palmer, and 37 exhibitions loan or private collection, temporary or permanent installations of works from non-western cultures. (Checklists of the contemporary exhibitions would need to be scrutinized in order to determine if artists of color were included.)

Therefore out of the 49 one-person exhibitions the 1 exhibition by a person of color represents 2% of the total one-person exhibitions and 0.48% of the total program. Out of 208 exhibitions the 37 exhibitions concerning non-European cultures of an artist of color represents 17.78% of the total program.

There were 17 exhibitions concerning Asia or 8.17%.
There were 4 exhibitions concerning Africa or 1.92%.
There were 0 exhibitions concerning Hispanic Latin America, Central American or the Caribbean or 0%.
There were 4 exhibitions concerning Native Americans or 1.92%.
There were 7 exhibitions concerning the Middle East or 3.36%.
There were 2 exhibitions concerning the Pacific or .96%

The program is therefore 82.22% (–) European or concerning artists of European descent. (The collections are so vast that this percent would be an approximation on either side of the estimate.)

MUSEUM OF MODERN ART
11 West 53 Street
New York, NY 10019
212-708-9400

I was provided with a list of film exhibitions Oct. 1980–Dec. 1982 and a list of exhibitions from January 1980–May 1987. As stated earlier, group show demographics would need to be determined by scrutinizing check lists. The exhibition lists included painting, sculpture, video, architecture and design, prints and drawings.

Out of 242 exhibitions listed, there were 2 one-person exhibitions of works by artists of color. Both exhibitions were film or video presentations. This represents 0.82% of the total program. Four exhibitions concerned artists and filmmakers from Asia or who were of Asian descent, 1 concerned African art and 2 concerned Latin American artists thus representing 2.89% of the total program. 97.11% of the exhibitions concern artists from Europe or artists of European descent. Two exhibitions that may be of interest are the International Survey of Recent Painting and Sculpture (May 17–August 19, 1984) and the upcoming Committed to Print (Jan. 27–April 19, 1988). The International Survey would be of interest because of what it defined as “international.” I believe the exhibition was 97.58% white (4 artists of color out of 165 artists). The current exhibition Berlin Art is 100% white (55 artists). Printed Art Since 1965 (1980) was 93% white with 7 artists of color out of 107 artists.

QUEENS MUSEUM
New York City Building
Flushing Meadow
Corona Park
Flushing, NY 11368

718-592-2405

Lists were provided for exhibitions dating from Jan. 1980–July 1988.

Note: I did write and ask for clarification on several names in case there were artists of color whom I was not familiar with. I received no reply.

Note: Group show check lists need to be scrutinized in order to determine additional demographics.

Sculpture of the Eighties, a summer group exhibition of women sculptors, had 1 Black woman sculptor out of 10 and therefore was 90% white.

Note: Queens, one of the largest boroughs, has very extensive Black, West Indian, Asian and Latin American communities. There are also Native American communities.

Total exhibitions listed 1980–88: 129.
Total one-person exhibitions listed: 56.
Total one-person exhibitions by artists of color: 4.

(1) Nakasaki (1983); (2) Garret (1987); (3) Hajahmadi (1987); (4) Williamson (1988). This represents 3.10% of the total exhibition program or 7.14% of one-person exhibitions.

Total exhibitions devoted to artists of color or non-European cultures: 11 or 8.52% of total program.
Exhibitions pertaining to artists of color or non-European cultures represent the following percentages in the overall exhibition schedule:

Asian – 4 exhibitions or 3.1% of program
Black (Afro-American, African, Afro-Caribbean) – 2 exhibitions (if one combines Latin American and Central American Indian cultures) or 1.5% of total program.
Native American – 0 or 0%.
Middle Eastern – 1 exhibition or 0.775%.

The exhibition schedule for 1980–88 (July) as represented in the lists supplied by the museum was therefore 91% white or focused on the art and artists of European descent.

SNUG HARBOR CULTURAL CENTER
1000 Richmond Terrace
Staten Island, NY 10301
718-448-2500

Snug Harbor provided me with a list which only spanned Jun 1, 1985 through October 4, 1987. Although the other museums took a day or two to forward their material, Snug Harbor took several weeks. I was told that they needed to present the material to the director before sending it out and that he was on vacation although he was not on vacation when I first made my request. I was told that the missing years 1980–June 1985 represent another director’s tenure when incomplete records were kept. While waiting for their material I spoke with a Native American artist who lives on Staten Island. She felt that the museum was unconcerned with the needs of artists of color. When the lists did arrive they had been kind enough to list the artists of color included in their group exhibitions. I found this very helpful. No other museum offered to do this.

Since their list covers a short span of time, I will list the exhibitions as follows:

There were no one-person exhibitions by an artist of color out of 7 one-person exhibitions and 1 two-person exhibition.
There was 1 group exhibition (Brazil) of Latin American artists.
There were 11 group shows, 7 of which included artists of color.

(1) 5th Annual Off-the-Wall Arts and Crafts Sale (1986)

3 artists of color out of 38 artists (2 Black and 1 Asian) or 7.89% of exhibition. The exhibition was 92% white.

(2) Annual Artists Federal Juried Exhibition (1986)

3 artists of color out of 44 artists (2 Hispanic, 1 Black) or 6.8% of the exhibition which was 93% white.

(3) New Liberty Monument (1986)

2 artists of color out of 27 artists (1 Black, 1 Hispanic) or 7.4% of the exhibition which was 93% white.

(4) Eminent Immigrants (1986)

5 artists of color out of 16 artists (2 Asian, 3 Hispanic) or 31.25% of the exhibition which was 69% white.

(5) Couriers (1986)

6 Brazilian artists, 100% Latin American.

(6) The 13 (?) Annual Artist Federation Exhibition (1987)

3 artists of color are listed but it is not clear if they are the only 3 in the exhibition (2 Black, 1 Hispanic). The list does not give the total number of artists.

(7) O.I.A 10th Anniversary Exhibition Outdoor Sculpture (1987)

1 artist of color out of 20 artists (1 Hispanic) or 5% of the exhibition which was 95% white.

The following exhibitions were 100% white (6 one-person exhibitions and 1 two-person exhibitions):

Naked Paint (1985)
Director’s Invitational (1985)
Abstraction/Attraction (1986)
Drawing National (1986)
Clay Feats (1987)

There were 212 artists in 11 group exhibitions, 1 two-person exhibition and 7 one-person exhibitions. They represent 10.84% of the total program which has been 89.2% white over roughly two years.

WHITNEY MUSEUM OF AMERICAN ART
945 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10021
212-570-3600

Exhibition lists were provided for Jan. 1980–August 1987. The statistics refer to exhibitions which were on view at the Whitney only and not in their downtown, Stamford, or corporate branches.

There were 156 exhibitions at the Whitney (not counting downtown and corporate branches) from 1980–1987 out of which 91 were one-person exhibitions.
There were 8 one-person exhibitions by people of color or 8.79% of the one-person exhibitions and 5.12% of total program, 5 of which were film or video exhibitions.
There were 11 exhibitions, group or one-person, by people of color or 7.05% of total program.
A – 5 (5 one-person exhibitions) or 3.20%.
B – 5 (3 group film/video and 2 one-person [ video ]) or 3.20%.
H – 1 (1 one-person) or 0.64%.
NA – 0 or 0%

Individual checklists for group exhibitions would need to be scrutinized in order to determine the participation of artists of color. The Whitney Museum of American Art has not presented a one-person exhibition of a Black, Hispanic or Native American painter or sculptor since 1980. According to the Guerrilla Girls statistics in their Clocktower exhibition this spring all the Whitney Biennials combined statistics for 1973–1987 were 4.10% men of color and 0.30% women of color.

The exhibition program for 1980–1987 is therefore focused 92.95% (–) on artists of European descent.

Note: The video and film statistics are higher than for painting and sculpture because of the dedication of the film and video curator John Hanhardt who has been increasingly diligent about including artists of color.

Some additional group exhibition statistics: Blam! (1984) 91% white; High Style (1986), 97% white, Women’s Video in the 80’s (1987), 70% white.

MISCELLANEOUS STATISTICS

In reviewing my recent mail, which contained advanced fall exhibition schedules I noted that the Neuberger Museum (State University of New York at Purchase) was having a symposium “Setting Sites: Process and Consensus in Public Art” on October 24th. To my knowledge out of the 12 participants there is only 1 person of color, Ms. Maya Lin, who designed the Vietnam Veterans’ Memorial (Washington, D.C.). I further made note of the participants from the Battery Park City project which is an extensive program for public art commissions administrated by the Battery Park City Authority. I requested material concerning the commissions for the site (92 acres in lower Manhattan). Piecing together the fact sheet, articles and press releases that they sent me I counted 9 artists (100% white) and a fine arts committee (100% white) which is defined in their fact sheet: “The Committee advises BPCA by recommending appropriate sites for works of public art and artists to create works for these locations.” According to the fact sheet the project involves millions of dollars. “Battery Park City Authority was created by the New York State legislature . . . ”

Battery Park City Authority
One World Financial Center
New York, NY 10281-1097
212-416-5300

Note: The Neuberger Museum advance exhibition schedule has only one listing for a non-European exhibition, Object and Intellect: African Art.

In summary, I would ask the museums whose statistics I have included, the following questions:

1. How culturally diverse is the curatorial staff? Is cultural diversity interpreted by them to mean various European cultures?

2. How diverse is their support staff? Are people of color relegated to security, the kitchen and janitorial staff?

3. How do the statistics reflect the community and borough in which the museum resides? Do they feel their mission is to mirror the commercial art world. What do they see as their mission?

4. Are they publicly funded? What kind of tax benefits do they and their donors receive? Do they feel accountable?

5. Are they privately funded?

6. Are they on public or private land?

7. Do they relegate “the community” or “local artists” to small community galleries?

8. Are their education programs designed to imprint knowledge or are they designed to reach out and expand knowledge?

9. Are their boards of trustees 100%, 90% white? Are the acquisitions committees 100% white? If not, is there only token representation?

10. Do they feel it is controversial to show works by artists of color? What is the controversy? For whom is it controversial? Is it controversial for the trustees, the donors, the public (who are “the public”?)?

Are museums and public institution which conduct themselves like restricted private clubs accountable for the public funds they receive and the tax benefits and public land use they are provided? For example: The Metropolitan Museum has just received $13.5 million in public funds, yet are they truly accountable to the public? Are their collections considered to be private or public? Are they really a charitable institution? I site the Metropolitan because of their use of public land and public money. (If they consider themselves private, why are they a charitable institution?) Why are they a line item in the State or City budget if they are really “unaccountable”? On the other hand, why are instructions run by people of color put in the position of lobbying year after year for dwindling funds and being under constant scrutiny for things never asked of the larger institutions, for much, much less money?

Why is the art world one of the last “unregulated” industries? What about an examination of the business practices both in the galleries and auction houses? (Last year when I did the gallery statistics I found that in many cases, if a gallery represented a person of color, particularly if the artist was Black, they would not list them in the listing in Art in America’s Annual (1986/87). There have been several groups over the year pressing the art world about issues of racism and sexism. I feel as a result of this pressure the Black artists dropped from last year’s listings, were included in this year’s Art in America Annual (1987/88) which was just published in August.)

COMMENTS

There is a closed circle which links museums, galleries, auction houses, collectors, critics and art magazines. A statistical study relative to artists of color and art magazine articles and reviews as well as the critics’ statistical record in terms of reviews, articles, books as well as curated exhibitions would also be revealing.

The institutions which were opened to address the needs of artists of color because of the racial bias which closed them out of the primary network, are rarely if ever permitted themselves to enter this closed circuit thus closing access routes to broader documentation of artists of color’s activities and achievements. This omission creates a false and rather fraudulent impression that only artists of European descent are doing valid work. (Some Latin American male artists have a slightly easier access to the network. Japanese male artists seem recently to be a little less reluctantly incorporated into the so called mainstream.)

Black, Hispanic, Asian and Native American artists are, therefore, with a few, very few, exceptions, systematically excluded. The mainstream’s focus in exhibitions and publications is therefore on artists of European descent who are referred to as the “American” artists. Artists who are not Caucasian of European descent are somehow not considered to be American and are thought of as “outsiders,” yet white artists from Europe or Australia are immediately brought into the fold.

A young student from the west coast exploring bias in the art world was understandably reluctant to let herself be identified in my report because of her vulnerability. She revealed to me, however, that a major New York art critic in an interview with her for her paper, stated the he was not interested in “minority structures. . . .” That non-white artists had their own institutions that were set up to “take care of them.” Additionally he said that he was only interested in “quality.” The individual critic in question has a record of curating exhibitions which are 100% white. His attitude is common to most art critics of European descent reviewing and curating exhibitions.

Some of the galleries that incorporated a fair percentage of artists of color have closed: Monique Knowlton Gallery, Lerner-Heller Gallery and Sempahore Gallery. 100% galleries have also closed, such as Willard Gallery. In the 1980s a number of galleries owned by Afro-Americans have opened throughout the country to address the closing out of Black artists. Invariably they have all been visited by a white critic at least once (who usually does not return), who asks why they do not represent white artists as well. The unified response by the majority of the galleries questioned has been, “Have you asked the 100% white galleries the same question and why they refuse to show artists of color?”

As I was preparing the material for the testimony and follow-up statistics a number of people drew my attention to their concerns about exhibitions of the art and “artifacts” created by non-European cultures and presented in “mainstream” institutions. Their thoughts concerned questions about how the exhibition was organized. Was it organized from the point of view of the art and artists of that culture? Were non-European scholars consulted or asked to contribute essays or catalog entries? Are the art and artifacts presented only from a western perspective, a “colonial” point of view, a chauvinistic or patronizing point of view? In what context is the art presented? Is there any attempt to respect the traditions of the culture in presenting the material, especially when the art has been produced for spiritual purposes and practice? In short, are the voices from the culture and its artists present or is the material presented only through the eyes of people of European descent as if their perspective was universal? If there is a section in the exhibition addressing the influence of the art of that culture on other artists of other cultures, is this a euphemism for its influence on European cultures and artists of European descent?