Jackie Wullschläger’s review of Women in Revolt! Art and Activism in the UK 1970-1990 at Tate Britain (“Political folly on display”, Life & Arts, November 11) points out that this is an “experimental show” that “attempts to erode differences between activism and art”. She deems this a failure or, in her terms, “a politically driven, incoherent mess”.
As a photographer with work in the show (Hackney Flashers’ “Who’s Holding the Baby?”), I’d like to point out that we were photographers, not artists. The two exhibitions we made in the 1970s were overtly political: the first, Women at Work, highlighted the inequalities that women faced in the workplace. This was first shown within a larger exhibition entitled 75 Years of Brotherhood (sic), organised by Hackney Trades Council. The second, Who’s Holding the Baby?, aimed to highlight the lack of affordable childcare provision for working women. Both exhibitions were agitprop, not art. They aimed to raise consciousness about these issues and support relevant action.
Both use visual means to communicate a considerable amount of information and to make clear arguments. Whether judged according to aesthetic standards or practical outcomes they are successful examples of visual communication.
The jury is still out as to whether an art museum is an appropriate institution to show work created for political as opposed to aesthetic ends. Art institutions are bound by past definitions. In this show, Linsey Young and her team are challenging some of them in an attempt to update the Tate’s remit to the 21st century.
To label all the work in this exhibition “political folly”, as the article’s headline does, is inexplicable and inexcusable.
Michael Ann Mullen
Member, Hackney Flashers
London N7, UK
