***

“(…) Representation of an image objectifying women is violence against women perpetrated in the name of the public. Artist J’s reproduced sex doll image is based on the premise of sexual objectification of women and therefore does not address universal human issues in a neutral manner. The attempt of demonstrating ‘humanity’ through a distorted sex doll image created by objectifying a real woman’s body for sexual purposes is itself deception and is merely pornographic reproduction.”¹⁹
 

This argument reminds me of the outdated and boring puritanical feminism in the U.S. 50 years ago that took issue against pornography. And it ties up art representation under the structural dependence of reality, easily obliterating the possibility of overturning and restricting the critical interpretation of images under the name of morality. They make the argument that representation is only meaningful when it is innocent in the face of moral judgement, as if this is the answer to a feminist interpretation. And then, they face the oxymoron of being a ‘representational artist defending the unrepresentable.’ While they are drunk with moral superiority, the discussion of the ‘humanity’ that the artwork stands for has not advanced even one step further from the initial ‘post-human’ discourse. Additionally the fact that they concealed the existing problems with the visual fascination that reproduces the masochistic body did not become a topic of discussion. What’s more is the fact that a portrait of artist B, who was accused of sexual violence during the #SexualViolence_in_ArtWorld movement, was used in a work that addressed ‘artists’ by artist C, another nominee of the Korea Artist Prize 2020. This was a very problematic situation where the title ‘artist’ that was taken away from artist B momentarily was given back to the artist in a very safe way at a public venue. But this, too, was overlooked during the controversy.

As explained in the case of Korean Female, when there is an issue or a scandal in contemporary art, there is a need to look not only at the represented image itself but also at the context of historicalness and performativity of the incident outside the image. In this context, the argument of some viewers and Louise the Women has partial significance in the fact that it reminds us of how the institution and art competition that holds the hegemony, as well as the authority of an art piece, can be subject to the judgement of the art world. Unlike fashion brand D, which had to be conscious of consumers, the National Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art (MMCA) and SBS Culture Foundation which held and sponsored the Korea Artist Prize 2020 were intentionally non-responsive to the controversy. And we didn’t even get the chance to take part in the criticism and discourse around the artwork. The argument made by Louise the Women and some of the viewers only contributed to attracting people’s attention to the artist’s ‘qualification as a prize nominee.’ And future discussions centered around bringing up ‘women’ artists who deserve the prize, in other words, ‘great’ female artists who are deserving of a ‘great’ art prize, and not an ‘airheaded male artist.’ In the end, the controversy sparked by their argument only concentrated on ‘grasping for women’s share of the pie’ and failed to challenge the ‘prestige’ of the art prize.
 

Of course, one of the ‘greatest’ questions in the history of feminist art, “Why have there been no great women artists?”²⁰ is still meaningful after half a century has passed since it was first raised. Unfortunately, Linda Nochlin, who raised this ‘great’ question, passed away in 2017 right around the time the ‘feminism reboot’ brought about the hope that it may realign the chaotic world of contemporary art. The death of the art historian not only reminded us of the sense of time that an intense century may be coming to an end but also urged us to question feminist art once again. The historic article by Linda Nochlin, “Why have there been no great women artists?”, which was published in the January edition of 1971 by ARTnews as a controversial special feature on women’s art, became a stepping-stone in challenging the history of feminism in art in line with the women's liberation movement that stormed American society in the 1970s. At a time when the hegemony of ‘abstract expressionism in the U.S.’ was dominating the global aesthetic standard, and when the narrative of ‘white-elite-man-genius’ was following the longstanding artist-centrism tradition in the art world, Linda Nochlin’s one question brought the current urgency of the feminist movement to the attention of academia, and the historical construction of the discipline that was tied to the idea of the past.
 

According to Nochlin, behind the “reproachful” question of “why have there been no great women artists?” lies an insidious tacit answer: “There have been no great women artists because women are incapable of greatness.” Nochlin said that we should change the question to the following: “Well, if women really are equal to men, why have there never been any great women artists (or composers, or mathematicians, or philosophers, or so few of the same)?”²¹ Therefore, this question is not asking ‘why there have not been any great women artists in the history of art,’ but rather, it is questioning the premise behind that question.²² Nochlin believes that there is a “huge and dark” premise of “uncertain stereotypes” behind ‘women,’ ‘art,’ ‘greatness,’ and all the surrounding social order.²³ Therefore, her question about women is a sharp criticism of the myth of the ‘great artist’ written in the history of art or the misunderstanding that practicing art is a visualization of the life of an ‘individual’ and the narrow-minded perspective of considering artistic achievement as the success of an individual, separate from the structure of social institution based on past history.
 

What happened in feminist art today in 2022, half a century later after Nochlin raised the question? Exposing the politics of ‘others,’ liberating the issue of gender and body from essentialism to the context of constructivism and beyond, understanding works from the perspective of psychoanalysis or deconstructivism, intercrossing the politics of queer and minority with the politics of feminism, breaking our existence from a subject and returning it to life in practice, and restoring the politics and aesthetics of ‘trans’ that is not subsumed by the ideology of nationalism, assimilation, or normality… The ideas that were developed across other areas of humanities have also been urgently and acutely addressed through feminist criticism. In the recent horrible disaster of the ‘pandemic’ that has continued over the past three years, art gave up all its vitality and intelligence to the market economy. And the art market, which is enjoying an unprecedented boom, has embraced the discourse and dialogue of feminist politics as well as values into its market economy. The market trades feminism. In other words, feminism makes money!²⁴ 
 

So, did feminism win? Does it hold ‘Femicoin’²⁵  and ‘Femitoken’²⁶ in its hands, desiring ‘successful’ female artists, winning the spotlight and ‘chair’ faster than anyone else? Has it become the cool ‘feminist hipster’ who considers oneself as being ‘trans,’ ‘virtual,’ ‘queering,’ and ‘glitch,’ while supporting neoliberalism at the same time, hiding the ‘victim-centered approach’ card behind its back when it only becomes a ‘tool,’ and gladly joining the effort to gain power from desire while turning a blind eye to the political actions of a minority group? Is it satisfied with the Korean Pavilion at the Venice Biennale that was entirely made up of women or the list of nominees for the Korea Artist Prize? Is the “era of female curators” writing a new paradigm for museums? Have their lives become richer because the art market found commercial value in the works of female artists? Are we happier because there is more art history, art criticism, and art exhibitions addressing women artists? Is the headwind from the backlash, which we will have to endure following the storm of feminism, worth it? What is feminist art/artist doing today? These questions are not to sabotage the historic achievements brought on by the accomplishments of past feminists and feminist epistemology. I simply want to argue that we can no longer work toward a better feminist transition by raising only elegant, moderate, and safe questions. Amia Srinivasan contemplates the #MeToo movement and writes as follows.
 

“If the aim is not merely to punish male sexual domination but to end it, feminism must address questions that many feminists would rather avoid.”²⁷