Guerrilla Girls 2024 EOY Cumulative Body Count

 For 2024, I've located the results from 12 juried gallery shows held in NYC and CT.

In these shows 551 works by 521 women artists were selected to be exhibited
                         326 works by 302 men were exhibited

37% of all works selected were by men, 63% by women

37% of artists whose work was selected was by men, 63% by women

The galleries were Lyme art annual at the Slater, WAH, ALNB,CT+6 WHAL, 91st annual Hudson Art, Silvermine A- One, CAFA 113th annual, Faber-Biren Color - Stamford Art, 1st Street Annual National, Blue Mountain summer and winter, Stamford Marine

Three Juried Museum shows had the following results:

160 women's art pieces selected, 49 men's pieces - 23% of all selected artists were men, 775 women

The MixMaster at Mattatuck museum, Noreaster at Museum of American Art, and the Danforth Annual are represented in these numbers.


Pollock Krasner grants were distributed as 45 for men and 31 for women or 59% to men 41% to women.

Joan Mitchell Foundation awarded 10 women and 5 men with fellowships. 66% to 33%

Previous EOY Guerrilla Girl totals for comparison and historical tracking.

Criminalization of CT Artists by Proxy

I ran into the administrator from a local arts organization and the issue of soliciting government funding came up. "All I want to do is put a coat of fresh paint on the walls and I'm forced to fill out applications requiring all this Woke shit about diversity, gender, and on and on.  The building just needs a fresh coat of paint!"

There's a particularly obscene set of grants given by the Connecticut Office of the Arts called Artists Respond because of the dysfunctional and functionally malicious application of the National Endowment for the Art's (NEA) organizational criteria for Artistic Merit and Artistic Excellence to the criteria for grant evaluation at the individual artist or fellowship level. Both Merit and Excellence are wholly bleached out of the equation in favor of "Community" (e.g. Woke social issue engagement) criteria.  The result is that artists requesting funding are pledged into laundering public arts money into progressive (Woke-Democrat-friendly) issue advocacy. 

On a statewide basis this violates ethical and legal conventions by misappropriating these funds for political advantage.

Let's unpack the scope of duplicity, incompetence, and outright disingenuous bad intent involved.

In Your Everyday Art World, Lane Relyea documents how by the mid 1990's capitalism transformed the product made by artists into  Projects (Operational Business Units). Reputational Networks of Art collaboratives began to supersede the ability of artists to self-promote or compete with the cost of legal representation required to establish a business footprint.

And this appears to be the origin of the NEA's usage of the term. And this is important for artists to understand.  The vernacular for describing art is no longer merely that you are creating a worthwhile piece of art or craft or performance.  The individuals evaluating these grant and fellowship applications think in terms of project-speak. The expectation of the star chamber judges is based as much on your good standing in an exclusive reputational network of fiscally incestuous relations.  For example having Yale on your CV even as a one-night-drive-by provides plausible credibility. 

When asked about the multitude of religions on earth, mythologist Joseph Campbell remarked, "There's a lot of ways to get it wrong." At the national level, the NEA establishes Artistic Merit and Artistic Excellence definitions that are primarily tailored for organizational requests for funding.  Tightly coupled to arts organizations are communities they may serve with specific requests.

The first way that the pretense of Merit and Excellence goes sideways is when the assumption is that all organizations are somehow community ambassadors for a cause. Many organizations just need to paint the walls.  There's no real political or social spin that is necessary except that it is coerced with increasing intolerance by the application expectations at every lower level. And at every lower  level of funding administration are ever more incompetent, cover-your-ass midwits.

Not only are organizational requests for funding nuanced yet treated with Kafkaesque indifference, these evaluation metrics are applied to individual artists who in no way shape or form are responsible for, representative of, or otherwise likely to engineer social change objectives for a vaguely-woke-ambiguous social cause, say, *climate*.

At the national regional level I have already documented how badly broken the New England Foundation for the arts is.

Let's look at how badly those NEA quality metrics get mangled in CT using the Artists Respond biyearly arts grants as an example.  If you open the FY23 (latest) Grant Recipients list, you'll see the damage.

There are 81 artists who got funded and all but one had to pick a social justice cause to frame their request for an art grant.  The claim made about these grants is that they serve a "community" interest but that's an obvious lie.  The vast majority of these pre-seeded categories are progressive social justice advocacies driven by Democrat special interests.

In other words, assuming that arts funds should ever be subsidizing the interests of political parties, why aren't there categories for safe borders, lower taxes, deregulation, right to life, and so on? All of these are equally legitimate and maybe even more so.

And as a fine artist my larger problem is why aren't these categories based on art and aesthetics? Why not Promote Abstract Art, Art for Art's Sake, PostModernism for Everyone, or a million other art related advocacies.  After all, Everything is not Art - if it were, nothing would be art and artists themselves become anybody with a social axe to grind.

The use of cognitive bias to coerce artists to distort their art to conform to politically expedient objectives is a criminal enterprise - extortion.  

A Grants Writing for Artists, April 2024 document contains another subliminal suggestion:

Step five on slide three is ominous. Artists who don't "look" (conform) to that above woke profile may as well pound sand.  This is an exclusive club and you're not in it.

There's a lot of ways to administer art funding wrong.  This is just a teaser.

2024 CT+6: Guerrilla Girl Body Count

 Jurors: Eric Aho, artist and Brian Galloway, Owner/Director of the William Scott Gallery, Provincetown, MA

Work by 76 Women and 33 Men accepted

Guerrilla Girls 2023 EOY Cumulative Body Count

 In 2023, in 17 juried or otherwise selected visual art gallery shows in the Northeast;

576 women were chosen to exhibit (65%)

309 men were chosen to exhibit (35%)

2 self-identified Trans were chosen (.2%) 

 

Two Foundations Pollock/Krasner & Joan Mitchell) awarded

55 women and 39 men grants

Collector spending via ArtBasel study: 

2.6 HNW collectors spent less on works by female artists in 2022 and 2023, with a ratio by value of 39% female to 61% male

In other words, galleries are losing money thanks to their imbalances.

Motivations of collectors.

In other words, galleries that don't account for who their patrons are miss the commercial opportunities.

The National Endowment for the Arts reports that 46.1% of visual artists are women.    Few highly reliable, least biased resources exist.

THE NEA report has LOTS of good, interesting, and actionable data that should temper the rhetoric concerning under-representation, "erasure", and other volumes of unsubstantiated discrimination claims.

Two shows include in this count had no previous mention and were researched by their conspicuous absence.

The 2023 Silvermine 'One' juried show:
 
27 women, 3 men accepted

The Hudson Juried Artist show:

 70 women and 60 men accepted

Guerrilla Girls Body Count: EOY 2022 Summary

 Another year has gone by and a summary count of Juried gallery shows and fine art funding sources follows.

The Pollock-Krasner Foundation grants were given to 41 male artists, 45 women artists, and 1 trans artist.

Real Art Ways (Hartford, CT) selected 3 male artists, 2 female artists, and 1 trans artist.

I had to research a number of juried shows that I was not aware of in real-time during the year.

The Silvermine "A-One" juried show, juried by Sharon Butler, resulted in:

15 male artist's work and 32 female artist's work being selected.

 

The Bowery 31st Annual juried by Lance Esplund resulted in:

13 male artist's work and 15 female artist's work being selected.

The Guilford Art League's 74th Annual Juried Show resulted in:

work by 26 male artists and 59 female artists being selected.

These results combined with existing 2022 juried gallery show results sum up to reveal:

552 art works made by 524 women artists were selected in my inventory of 13 juried shows.
334 art works made by 324 male artists were selected.

Women represent 62% of all artists and artwork accepted in these juried art shows.
Men represent 38%.

Factiod # 1: "Matching Facts. Women earn 70% of bachelor of fine arts and 65–75% of master of fine arts degrees in the U.S., though only 46% of working artists (across all arts disciplines) are women."  NMWA National Museum of Women in the Arts

Factoid # 2:

Zippia

"What percentage of visual artists are women?

Visual Artists By Gender

Gender	Percentages
Male	59.5%
Female	40.5%

"

...

Guerrilla Girls 2021 EOY Cumulative Body Count

This year's Juried Art  shows numbered 11  12 from CT, RI, and New York.  All shows whose counts are used here were previously cited in earlier blog posts most of which provided audit trails.

This year's Juried Art Shows come in two categories:

In Juried Art Shows that I have no piece count for, 6 7 shows accepted the work of 78 80 male artists and 145 148 women artists.  That's approximately a 65% acceptance rate for women in those shows.

In 4 Juried Shows in which piece counts are available;

105 pieces by 94 men were accepted
197 pieces by 171 women were accepted

35% of all pieces were by men
65% of all pieces were by women

35% of all accepted artists were men
65% of all accepted artists were female

For 2021, more than 65% of accepted artists to juried shows in the Northeast were women. 

Only one of ten eleven gallery shows in 2021 featured a juried show that accepted more men than women.

In 2021, politically obligatory, women-gender-only shows were routinely scheduled at almost all of the galleries studied.  No such male gender specific gallery shows exist to my knowledge.

Bound By Creativity, Imprinted with Victimhood

 On page 112 of Hannah Wohl's Bound By Creativity book, the assertion that women and others are under-collected because they are under-represented in galleries is made without any further evidence.  The author, claiming deep and thorough research of the subject matter, is wholly imprinted with the meme that women are and have been victims of gallery neglect.  Its an assumption as certain as the sun rising the next morning.

Readers of this blog can do the arithmetic for themselves.

The lie is far too profitable to investigate or accurately report.

 

Guerrilla Girls 2020 EOY Cumulative Body Count

This year's Juried Art  shows numbered 14 from CT, VT, RI, and New York.  All shows whose counts are used here were previously cited in earlier blog posts most of which provided audit trails.

This year's Juried Art Shows come in two categories:

In Juried Art Shows that I have no piece count for, 4 shows accepted the work of 95 male artists and 181 women artists.  That's approximately a 65% acceptance rate for women in those shows.

In 7 Juried Shows in which piece counts are available;

236 pieces by 163 men were accepted
380 pieces by 305 females were accepted

38% of all pieces were by men
62% of all pieces were by women

34% of all accepted artists were men
66% of all accepted artists were female

In all 11 2020 shows represented, 35% of all selected artists were male,

For 2020, more than 63% of accepted artists to juried shows in the Northeast were women. 

Only three of eleven galleries in 2020, featured juried shows that accepted more men than women.

In 2020, politically obligatory, women-gender-only shows were routinely scheduled at almost all of the galleries studied.  No such male gender specific gallery shows exist to my knowledge.

Guerrilla Girls Body Count: 2019 Year End Artistic Participation Arithmetic

This year's Juried Art  shows numbered 14 from CT, VT, RI, and New York.  All shows whose counts are used here were previously cited in earlier blog posts most of which provided audit trails.

This year's Juried Art Shows accepted the work of 297 male artists and 520 women artists.

For 2019, more than 63% of accepted artists to juried shows in the Northeast were women. 
Last year, 69% of all accepted juried artists were women. 

Four of the fourteen shows, listed the total number of pieces accepted.  In these four shows, the number of women accepted was 107 and the number of men 75 (55% women on average).

In these four shows, 255 pieces were accepted, 149 by women and 106 by men (58% by women on average).

Only two galleries in 2019, featured juried shows that accepted more men than women.

I requested data on the Guilford 2019 Juried Show and received none.

Late update: Real Art Ways Artists Chosen: 5 Women, 1 Man


Interestingly, in 2019, the Connecticut Office of the Arts employs 7 women and 0 men.

In 2019, politically obligatory women gender only shows were routinely scheduled at almost all of the galleries studied.  No such male gender specific gallery shows exist to my knowledge.

The Gerrymandering of Art Museums by Gender

Since the election of Conservative governments in the cultural West, there has been a screaming siren about the politics of Museum art.  Using rudimentary arithmetic, activists have counted the number of pieces of art that belong to major museums and have discovered that men are historically (to date) more highly represented than women.

This lonely, unrepresentative of any context save provincial politics, factoid is sufficient to provoke an aesthetic Sherman's March on the collections of major museums.  Numerology and not historical context, quality, nor even a sense of decency is driving one museum after another to make these numbers match population demographics (gender only of course).

The fact that these collections were largely donated by wealthy collectors and connoisseurs whose cultural ecology was ambiently patriarchal is immaterial.  The cult of Numerology in sexual politics is both profitable, politically satisfying, and culturally toxic.  Museum shows now pander to a mass of contemporary female artists whose claim to recognition starts and often ends with genital equipment however installed.

I recognize that I'm - excuse the expression - pissing into the wind by pointing out that a historically accurate museum should be imbalanced prior to the mid-nineteenth century and be correcting its acquisitions to the degree that they can control gifts from then on.

In 2020, the Baltimore museum will only but women's art.  What's the rush?  Why isn't a healthier balance of acquisition just good business every year?

WE ALL KNOW that this will not be followed by a year dedicated to buying only men's art. After all what sin have today's male artists committed to be flogged for years with womens only shows, economic boycott, and  suicidal worthy neglect?  Are there sociological studies that recommend these kinds of remedies?

And although museum collections are mathematically imbalanced, women dominate juried gallery shows  on the order of 70% women acceptance and 30% male artist acceptance.  I've been doing the arithmetic in this blog and it goes back years.

Gender advocates have been distorting art in Western countries for decades.  They can rewrite history but they cannot undo it without ruthless indifference to inescapable cultural heritage.  Museum walls are being wallpapered over with politically motivated aesthetics rather than artistic merits.  It hurts everyone and turning museums into political battlefields is unacceptable political damage.

Yesterday *this* arrived from the New Britain Museum of American Art:

Shameless pandering.

The Veracity of Guerrilla Girls Arithmetic

In the following essay, some very interesting number crunching calls into question the claims of the Guerilla Girls.

"The research, titled “The Origins of Creativity: The Case of the Arts in the United States since 1850,” was published in February by Karol Jan Borowiecki, a professor of economics at the University of Southern Denmark. Borowiecki, who previously studied careers of famous composers and visual artists as an economic historian, used American census data collected between 1850-2010 to identify trends in social mobility and racial and gender inequality crossed with data on the geographical location and socio-economic background of people in creative fields (visual arts, literature, performing arts, and music). The findings are tested against parallel metrics in the census group of “non-creatives,” meaning people who are not professionally involved in the arts.

The US census data permits the identification of occupations that fall within the creative professions (i.e. artist, musician, author, actor) and provides detailed records on the socio-economic background of each individual, including the geographic location.

Women’s Visibility

With all the professional and societal hindrances in their way, the study interestingly observes that American women’s share in creative occupations —relative to men — has typically been higher than in non-creative fields. That trend starts around 1890 when women’s involvement in creative occupations increases and remains clearly higher than in other fields.

“These results challenge the conventional wisdom that the arts are predominantly a male domain,” Borowiecki told Hyperallergic in a phone interview.

According to the study, females are more likely to engage in a creative occupation than males. Being a woman increases the probability of having a creative occupation by 18% if isolated from other variables (including race, location, and family income.) The highest female presence is among musicians. Authors, visual artists, and actors follow in that order."

The Weaponization of Juried Art Shows

Americans are well-aware of a concept developed by our rival global antagonists of using American freedoms, social norms and expectations against us.  For example, extremism can effectively hide behind religious freedom of expression against criticism or legal remedy.

The curation of Art has been under political attack for decades usually by politicians who extort concessions by withholding funding and claiming to be guardians of a public constituency needing protection from the indecency of the latest art sensation.  The soft fascism of threatening public funding of the offending institution was often enough to discourage another such sensation getting exposed *there*.

And though the Art World would be loathe to admit it, art in America has been self-constrained for decades.  Art curators, like dogs trained not to break their way across and electronic fence, are rarely suicidal enough to promote anything too risque for fear of their jobs and a tarnished CV.

However, the object of the contention was always the quality of art and not something else.

Today, we see disruptive mutations of this idea being played out nationally, and to some degree internationally. The variation is a logical one.

First, the exposure of certain kinds of art can be constrained is well-established.  One way [using copiously by government] is to threaten or deny funding.  Soooo... one way to exercise control over what gets shown is to seize control of the agency of what gets funded. And so, under the special interest banner of "diversity" - [as defined by minority status, geographic origin, and cultural [no matter how dubious] background] - the micromanagement of art funding is being controlled.  This is the first form of the Identity Politics effect that eliminates the quality of art as a metric of artistic merit and elevates the individual nuances [no matter how contrived] of the artist and their constituency.

The second mutation is cultural vigilantism. To understand the ease in which juried art shows can be fixed I need to briefly explain the game pieces.

Art has no formal definition.  It has a number of categories, all of them fair but soft. In other words, no one can authoritatively claim something isn't art.  Within the working artist community, there's a trust relationship that what is submitted as art is intended to be worthy of consideration.

The second gaming piece is that jurors of art shows are also trusted to use their best judgment in evaluating the body of submissions and to honor the subject to which the work was addressed. The juror is rarely held accountable for the selections they make.  As an artist, you take your chances and it always costs money - you are subsidizing the show this juror selects as a matter of trust that its curation is trustworthy.

So these two gaming pieces offer plausible deniability for the eventual selection of art for juried shows.  Artists trust each other to submit authentic art and they trust [implicitly biased] jurors to put their biases to one side and objectively curate *the art*. And everyone in the art community is aware that the final selection is used to always be an aesthetic sausage for better or worse.

But all of these trust presumptions cannot be taken for granted any longer.  Any simple arithmetic applied to juried art shows in the United States going back years exposes an alarming fact. Juried art shows are more often than not juried by women who ore often than not favor female artists with statistically improbable regularity.

It is empirically obvious that the quality of art, the metrics by which art is judged, and the veracity of prestige associated with curators and their politically endorsed art beneficiaries is the equivalent of artistic malware - a denial of service attack on gallery institutions.  And its being performed by presumably well educated, credentialed individuals who seem to believe they are being asked to punish contemporary innocents for the crimes of historical ancestors.

By being disingenuous as to their intent and by taking money from individuals they have no intention of judging objectively, they are committing fraud on a class action scale. They and their educational mentors need an intervention.

In the meantime, choose your juried shows carefully AND publish the scorecards of local jurors so we can all triangulate this kind of information.

Key pieces of information;

How many entries to a show, then by gender.

How many accepted pieces, then by gender of artist.

Note that the names of male sounding names are often deceptions. 

The Identity Politics of the Real Art Awards and the Art of Art as Politics As Usual

Real Art Ways posted the following to Facebook on July 16, 2018

"Real Art Ways announces the first Real Art Awards. Six visual artists will receive a $2,500 cash prize, and each will have their work presented by Real Art Ways in a solo exhibition in 2018-19.

“Real Art Ways has a 42-year history of supporting artists and innovation. These awards are intended to give artists a boost of recognition and opportunity, and to highlight the importance of art and creativity in shaping our shared culture.” - Executive Director, Will K. Wilkins 

The six recipients are:
Keith Clougherty: Braintree, Massachusetts
Kylie Ford: Portland, Maine
Niki Kriese: Croton, New York
Mateo Nava: New York, New York
Liona Nyariri: Brooklyn, New York
Sofia Plater: Newton, Massachusetts
This project is supported in part by an award from the National Endowment for the Arts. To learn more about the Real Art Awards and this year's recipients, visit the "Artist Submissions" section of our website. #realartways #realartawards #contemporaryart#emergingartists #massachusetts #maine #newyork #connecticut #hartford #parkville#visualart #sculpture #painting #installation #mixedmedia "

I know the Guerrilla Girls are holding their breath so here is the math.

Six shows are being shown.  Two are by men, four are by women.

Five of the artists are in their mid-twenties. One is forty-ish.

MFAs abound.  No outsiders.  The smell of entitlement and Identity politics is not an illusion.
Make of it what you will.


In this case allow me to -cough- *offer* some opinionated criticism.

As simple background information, Connecticut has been mired in a one-political-union-party hostage situation for decades.  The State is reeling from decades of corrupt double-dealing, insider, and self-serving gluttony at the trough of future taxpayer debt.  The pigs have largely left the farm burping up tens of millions in pension benefits that third-world dictators dream of someday amassing such wealth.  

I know.  I'm being too kind.

To the point.

Real Art Ways is one of a handful of largely urban Connecticut Arts organizations that  manage to get funded from whomever is willing to support them. I'm sure that is neither easy nor fun.

However, I think its disingenuous for Real Art Ways to make the claim that the shows awarded will somehow be innovative in some special way.  As far as I can tell the six shows represent academic rebates on expensive MFA program degrees.  This is not the Art of innovation, this is business as usual - insider, academic, state sponsored, political system art - obligatory, liberal fist-waving, happy parade art.

It also reinforces artistic tropes that belong to the last century. The cult of youth being an important criteria to make innovative art for instance.  Or that expensive academic degrees earned by studying with Modernist trained artists and political activists make for superior art.

The cult of personality has been replaced by the practice of perseverance yet it is nowhere in evidence in these awarded shows.

In the 21st century cyberspace is far more important than geography but as a longtime Connecticut artist this is a familiar slap in the face.  I have a hard time believing that NO Connecticut artists submitted their work for a show.

Its not that these cash awards are so much.  But they are money that leaves the State. Poof. Connecticut is no richer for the showing. Real Art Ways hasn't nurtured a single Connecticut artist in this cycle.  Shouldn't it?

It seems to me that a geographically important gallery that presumably bestows some prestige on the artists selected would, if Connecticut artists don't come to them, go out and find the artists.  There are dozens of Connecticut gallery shows all over the State to mingle with.

The unfortunate message Real Art Ways is sending is:

CT artists are NOT innovative - don't come here, don't stay here.

Don't own an Ivy League-ish degree - Fuck You, don't bother

An artist of color, and outsider, or an edge artist - Fuck You too - we cater to those inside the box not the outside

CT patrons are in need of artistic carpet-baggers to educate them about art - Connecticut artists are too damned stupid to do that

The taxes Connecticut artists pay should subsidize the entitlement class - Connecticut artists don't need the money or recognition - they're losers anyway

Old is unwelcome