Feminist curatorial practices are meant to spotlight gender equality and promote the inclusion of women perspectives in art exhibitions. The pioneering voices of art historian Linda Nochlin and philosopher of science Donna Haraway have highlighted the necessity of acknowledging women contributions and challenging the male-dominated status quo in art and science. For instance, Nochlin’s scholarly work questioned why there were no great women artists, pushing for the recognition of their artistic talents and contributions on par with their men colleagues. These practices also involve revising historical backgrounds to include feminist activism and engaging with institutional critiques to challenge exclusionary and hierarchical representations in art institutions.
In the context of feminist artistic practices, the Guerrilla Girls and Nosotras Proponemos are among the activist groups that have been fighting for class, ethnicity, gender, and pay equality in the art world and beyond. Both collectives have embodied Haraway’s notion of situated practices to respond to specific gaps and modes of representation, with the aim of creating space and giving voice to subaltern groups of women artists from different and specific geographic areas. While the Guerrilla Girls has mainly organized actions revolving around women artists with European and North American backgrounds, Nosotras Proponemos has engaged with Latin American artists and institutions.
Positioning individual and collective standpoints is essential to the comprehension of feminist practices. Stedelijk Museum curator Coelewij also supports Haraway’s theory in the way she addresses curatorial practices that have been developed during her time as a curator at the institution. She suggests that curating generates knowledge inherently influenced by diverse factors—“the place you were born and raised in, where you studied, your gender identity, and the history and collection of the institution you work for”—including a particular legacy and consciousness-raising attitude.[1] Therefore, while activists and artists lead the way in fighting against structures fortified by decades of patriarchy, curators translate practitioners’ ideas and interventions into art exhibitions thanks to a set of curatorial strategies.[2] Exhibitions become the medium through which elucidated and situated knowledge is presented and discussed.[3]
In the context of institutional critique, Reilly’s book Curatorial Activism explores curatorial interventions in modern and contemporary art museums that have challenged exclusionary practices by organizing gender-equal exhibitions and collection presentations. These efforts align with Walter Mignolo’s call for decolonizing knowledge and narratives within museum frameworks.[4] A key example is the 2016 Decolonize Museum project at the Wereldmuseum Amsterdam, led by activist Hodan Warsame, which criticized the museum’s inadequate representations of diverse cultures and genders, and dearth of inclusivity—shown by the experienced discomfort by a large group of individuals with varied backgrounds, gender identities, and disabilities.[5] Partly because of her critique, the Wereldmuseum revised its texts in 2017. Meanwhile, the scholarly work of Reilly further developed theoretical frameworks on curatorial activism in which she examines three specific counter-hegemonic curatorial practices—revisionism, area studies, and relational studies—to revise and dismantle existing canons, level hierarchies, and unfold underrepresented individuals’ agencies, particularly of women artists.[6]
In the following sections, I closely focus on revisionist curatorial practices in the context of the Stedelijk Museum while exploring their foundations throughout the history of “women’s exhibitions.”
Art historian Doris Guth writes on “the phenomenon of women’s exhibitions” as a form of representation that emerged in the 1970s in the United States and Europe as response to “discrimination against women in the arts.”[7] The intrinsic political stance of these group exhibitions challenges the underrepresentation of women in the cultural, political, and social spheres, and makes exhibitions public manifestations of counter-hegemonic curatorial practices, also known as curatorial activism.
In the 1990s, women’s exhibitions were meant as “open processes of thought,” fostering ongoing conversations and artistic practices rather than defined solutions to the marginalization of women.[8] However, women’s exhibitions also faced controversy. Although they contributed to women’s emancipation in the art world, exhibitions focusing only on women artists ran the risk of perpetuating their subordinate positions—isolating them in checkboxes—rather than breaking down precisely that subalternity they sought to undermine.
Moving to the 21st century, the focus shifted globally, influenced by the plurality of feminist, antiracist, and postcolonial theories and movements. The first decade of the 2000s was marked by several international women’s exhibitions organized in Europe and the United States, which challenged the Western-centric art system, diversifying curation and highlighting unique women artistic contributions.[9] The increased emphasis on presenting women makers started with two pivotal exhibitions in 2007: While WACK! Art and the Feminist Revolution was exhibited at the Los Angeles Museum of Contemporary Art (March 4–July 16, 2007), on the other coast of the United States Global Feminisms was presented as the first international exhibition solely focused on women artists to inaugurate the Elizabeth A. Sackler Center for Feminist Art in the Brooklyn Museum (March 23–July 1, 2007). It was only after 2010 that the proliferation of global women’s exhibitions outside the Western artistic “centers” started. Among other noteworthy examples, Another Energy: Power to Continue Challenging—16 Women Artists from around the World at the Mori Art Museum (April 22, 2021–January 16, 2022) in Tokyo can be seen as an international women’s exhibition that attempted to tackle the underrepresentation of women artists in Japan by showcasing artists with over 50 years of artistic experience and who had not yet been acknowledged, in contrast to their men counterparts. Regardless of these global exhibitions’ affinities, they are context-specific responses to the circumstances of their respective times, as well as turning points in the history of international women’s exhibitions, which put decades of women artistic practices and theories on view.
When I interviewed press officer Marie-José Raven about how the current collection display challenges the dominance of white Western men artists historically on view at the Stedelijk Museum, she emphasized that the shift began within the exhibitions themselves, referring to the collection gallery titled “Authorship and Feminist Art Critiques” as a noteworthy and amusing example of this change.[10] This gallery, on the first floor of the Stedelijk Museum, opens the collection display Tomorrow Is a Different Day: Collection 1980 – Now. It allows one to encounter Ushering in Banality (1988) by Jeff Koons, one of the most notable and contentious figures in contemporary art (fig. 1 and 2).[11]
Figure 1. Installation view, “Authorship and Feminist Art Critiques,” with works by Louise Lawler, Jeff Koons, Cosima von Bonin, and Marlene Dumas, Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, 2023. Photo: Valeria Mari.
Figure 2. Installation view, “Authorship and Feminist Art Critiques,” with works by Marlene Dumas, Jeff Koons, and documentation by Martijn van Nieuwenhuyzen, Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, 2023. Photo: Valeria Mari.
The curatorial choice was to present three women artists and a photograph documenting Guerrilla Girls’ supporters protesting on the museum’s stairs in 1995 with the sculpture by Koons. The large-scale photograph (1995/2010) by Louise Lawler displayed in front of the sculpture illustrates the Stedelijk Museum previous collection gallery setup, which presented Koons alongside another white Western man artist, Donald Judd. Lawler, an artist known for her conceptual and installation photographs aimed at scrutinizing the work of her peers, raised concerns about a 1990s presentation at the Stedelijk, which was predominantly focused on presenting and acquiring work from white men makers and failed to represent women artists.[12] This led to the selection of recently acquired works by Lawler and Cosima von Bonin’s Ohne Titel (Krebber über Krebber) (1990), part of the previously unseen works from the Borgmann collection. Marlene Dumas’s Big Artists (1991) and a photograph of the Stedelijk Museum sidewalk with Guerrilla Girls supporters, taken by the then Stedelijk curator Martijn van Nieuwenhuyzen, complete the gallery room. These women artists and activist group, known for their straightforward visual language, challenge the notion of the canon and its normalization.
Figure 3. Cosima von Bonin, Ohne Titel (Krebber über Krebber), 1990, gelatin silver print, 92.2 × 31.6 cm. Donation Thomas Borgmann, Berlin, 2016. On view in “Authorship and Feminist Art Critiques” at the Stedelijk Museum © Cosima von Bonin; image courtesy of Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam.
The von Bonin’s Ohne Titel (Krebber über Krebber) questions authorship by reproducing an advertisement from a 1970s issue of Flash Art International, replacing the author’s name, Konrad Klapheck, with that of her husband (fig. 3).[13] A parallel narrative unfolds with Koons’s series of “kitsch” sculptures, which challenges conventional notions of artistic authorship.[14] Nevertheless, one could question von Bonin’s criticism as rather than reclaiming or empowering herself as a woman artist she uses her body to enable her husband to be part of the canon (via the list of men’s last names written on the bare bust). The gallery also presents a work by Dumas, whose paintings critique societal norms and male-dominated power structures, as seen in Big Artists, where man artists are symbolically portrayed as infants playing with their genitals (fig. 4). The room’s narrative either concludes or begins, depending on how visitors navigate it, with the photograph of Guerrilla Girls supporters (fig. 5).[15]
Figure 4. Marlene Dumas, Big Artists, 1991, oil on canvas, 100 × 300 cm. On view in “Authorship and Feminist Art Critiques” at the Stedelijk Museum. © Archive Studio Dumas; image courtesy of Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam.
Figure 5. Guerrilla Girls supporters on the Stedelijk Museum staircase in Amsterdam, 1995. © Martijn van Nieuwenhuyzen.
The gorilla-masked figures were likely supporters of the activist group denouncing the underrepresentation of women artists and the absence of artists of color in the exhibition Het Amerikaanse perspectief (The American perspective) (November 18, 1995–January 28, 1996).[16] Almost three decades later, the manifestation has influenced the museum’s decision to present women artists and enhanced its self-reflection by highlighting protests against the institution.
The Stedelijk’s current policy seems to address the criticism raised by the Guerrilla Girls and their supporters 30 years ago. Since the appointment of Rein Wolfs as director in 2019, the museum has been moving away from an approach that focuses solely on art and artists to one that also considers audiences, contexts, and changes, while making room for unfolding narratives behind the collection in a more inclusive and diverse manner.[17] Museum staff have engaged in dialogues with diverse voices as well as shaping acquisition policies for equally collecting and presenting artworks by gender-diverse artists, including those with migrant backgrounds.[18] The core aim is not to “repair the past,” which would be unattainable and impractical, but rather to reframe the narrative of the current collection while acquiring new artworks that address potential gaps and ever-changing cultural and social dynamics.[19]
Examining museums’ evolution reveals their role in shaping art narratives rooted in sociocultural dynamics and modernist ideologies. The Stedelijk’s former senior editor Parry notes that “museums are largely modernist constructs that perform a power dynamic in the practice of ‘putting on display,’ especially when purporting to do so in a neutral and knowledgeable manner.”[20] Museums are not neutral. In Western societies, museums wield authority in shaping global narratives, often presenting themselves as objective and neutral due to their research-based approach.[21] Yet putting objects or artworks on display has always been problematic in terms of inclusivity and omissions, especially if the museum’s history is tied to issues like gender imbalance and systematic racism. Haraway argues that institutional perspectives are never neutral because they are shaped by specific social, cultural, and historical contexts within an “unhomogeneous gendered social space.”[22] The Stedelijk Museum is no exception.
Modernist ideologies have been prevalent in the Stedelijk since its opening, as the museum paid particular attention to the art of well-known men artists and designers, along with a few women “exceptions.”[23] The perpetuation of a male-dominated environment continued with exhibitions and more than a century of white men Northern European directors, who expanded the modern art collection by acquiring artworks like the large monolithic Sight Point (for Leo Castelli) by Richard Serra, installed in the garden, and the sculpture Ushering in Banality by Koons, among others. The first woman director was the American Ann Goldstein (2010–13), and under her direction the museum reopened its doors following a redesign of the old building, adding new exhibition spaces for the collection and for temporary exhibitions.[24] Goldstein ensured a more equal gender representation by installing at least one work by a woman artist in each collection gallery.[25] A notable detail is that the museum’s reopening coincided with the relocation of Richard Serra’s Sight Point (for Leo Castelli) to the new entrance at Museumplein (Museum Square).[26] However, reading between the lines of the 2012 annual report, it seems that Goldstein’s decision may have been intended to “balance” Serra’s sculpture with large installations by Barbara Kruger and Louise Lawler. Serra’s work, however—one of the prominent symbols of historically monolithic modernism—continues to welcome visitors at the entrance square of the Stedelijk Museum. The museum’s practices under Goldstein could be considered as the initial attempts to level traditional hierarchies in what has been the “home” of almost exclusively white men artists (and directors) for years.
Anyone walking past the glass facade of the Stedelijk Museum and its surroundings between 2018 and 2019 would have come across the slogan “Meet the Icons of Modern Art.” It was a long-running campaign to promote the collection presentation Stedelijk BASE, organized during Beatrix Ruf’s directorship and inspired by the colors, shapes, and irony found in the works of Keith Haring, Jeff Koons, and Pablo Picasso.[27] Despite the initial revisionist attempts, diversity was not a major priority in the selection process for Stedelijk BASE, as reflected in its emphasis on white men artists.
The importance and pioneering nature of the Guerrilla Girls, since their early public messages in the 1980s, and their “hands-on” counting encouraged museums to start looking closely at the differences and absences in their collections. Alongside this, art historian Reilly theorized revisionist counter-hegemonic practices, which encourage the revision of the existing art historical canon by including those who have been refused and marginalized. The revisionist approach starts with acknowledging what the canon entails to understand what is left out. It is an “integrative” strategy, filling past omissions and misunderstandings within a given selection of works or a museum collection. It is essential to highlight that the revisionist curatorial practice does not entirely eradicate the white, Western, masculinist canon.[28] It is, however, the first attempt to address the paucity of women artists in art institutions and create equal opportunities for them.[29]
While the Guerilla Girls’ method is more oriented toward the numerical equality of women artists, Reilly’s revisionism explores gaps in terms of women contributions within specific frameworks. Both of these practices have been influential in altering the trajectory of numerous museums, including the Stedelijk. It is, therefore, worthwhile to explore how the museum has embraced revisionist strategies to address women’s underrepresentation on different levels: first, on the numerical level, which involves acknowledging gender and ethnic numerical disparities, reconsidering which artists are included and how database systems might perpetuate or mitigate unequal representation, and budget allocation for new acquisitions; second, on the content level, by revising word choice and providing more context in publications, communication campaigns, and gender representation throughout the collection galleries.
The manager of education and inclusion Harjadi Herman has reflected on the Guerrilla Girls’ impact on the Stedelijk Museum, recalling two events that left a lasting impression: first, the demonstration of their supporters on the museum staircase in 1995 and, second, when the Guerrilla Girls were invited to speak and perform at the Stedelijk Museum during the Mama Cash Feminist Festival on the International Women’s Day in 2018.[30] The group’s pragmatic approach has led Harjadi Herman and other staff members to discuss the importance of measuring representation, leading to formulating quantifiable targets regarding diversity and inclusion. For example, categorizing the collection data based on gender and ethnicity, revealing shortcomings in the museum’s registration system and developing inventories to promote more inclusive acquisition policies.[31]
The museum has adopted the “Code Diversiteit & Inclusie” (Diversity and Inclusion Code) which encourages equal access and representation in the cultural sector.[32] In line with this, the current collection presentation places significant emphasis on featuring works by women artists, constituting roughly 20 percent of more than one hundred thousand works in the collection.[33] This percentage was determined through an analysis by the museum’s library staff, examining the number of men and women artists in the collection.[34] Following this, the acquisition budget was revised to ensure that a minimum of 50 percent would be allocated to acquiring artworks by artists from regions beyond Western Europe or North America, without gender-specific criteria.[35] Although there is not an allocated budget for women artists, the current presentation of the collection notably acknowledges their contribution.
Charl Landvreugd’s arrival in 2020 as the head of the research and curatorial practice department at the Stedelijk has significantly contributed to shape a “momentous” symbolic turning point in the museum’s history, which means that anything acquired prior to this point should be studied as a contextualized ethnographic whole. In an interview, Landvreugd suggests that artworks acquired between when the Stedelijk opened its doors in 1895 and its reopening in 2012 should be considered as the museum’s “historical collection,” cultural heritage that needs to be acknowledged rather than perpetuated.[36] Parry also promotes an active engagement with the current collection, drawing insight from past omissions into the historical collection and adopting approaches that depart from catch-up dynamics. Parry highlights that, rather than chasing global trends on an ambiguous concept such as inclusivity—if full inclusivity can ever be achieved—the museum team seeks to unfold hidden stories behind the artworks in the collection.[37] Although confronting and documenting hierarchies and biases may create some discomfort today, this is nevertheless a possible path to understanding the museum’s “positionality” and which practices to adopt for a more equal and inclusive art history tomorrow.
Decolonizing knowledge and narratives within museums, as Mignolo asserts, involves a critical evaluation of the terminology used by institutions to ensure they are inclusive, respectful, and reflective of diverse perspectives and experiences.[38] This may involve using terminology that acknowledges historical injustices and avoiding language that reinforces stereotypes or hierarchies. The research and curatorial practice team at the Stedelijk Museum is in charge of the wall texts, aiming to reduce the institution’s authoritative stance in evaluating displayed works.[39] The wall texts of the current collection presentation emphasize the contextual background related to the creation and acquisition of the artworks, encouraging deeper engagement with them.
Experts from outside of Europe have prompted further linguistic revisions at the Stedelijk, resulting in the replacement of gendered and racialized terms in titles. For example, “prostitute” was substituted with “sex worker,” and “Negertanz” (“Negro dance”) became simply “dance.”[40] Similarly, the title The Imbeciles, referring to two women with disabilities in Charley Toorop’s painting, was replaced with Residents of the Willem Arntsz House. These cases demonstrate the possibility of revising titles, given by older generations of artists, curators, and dealers, that may perpetuate racial and gender stereotypes. The new titles do not eradicate the original ones but allow alternative presentations.
The interviews with Stedelijk staff also highlight the careful consideration given to terminology and sensitive information in press releases and publications, as these shape the perception of artworks. However, it is also worth mentioning that museum professionals have been using terms and shaping narratives considered appropriate at that time. The focus on language does not seek to “sanitize” historical connotations of words, but rather recognizes that museums act as microcosms within evolving societal dynamics, so the changes in meaning and implication of words are aligned with those societal transformations.
At the Stedelijk Museum new acquisitions contribute to rebalancing the numerical representation. The museum’s curatorial team is in charge of acquiring new artworks, especially those made by older generations of artists, to address gaps in the collection.[41] For instance, the silkscreens by Corita Kent (1966–1969) were acquired and exhibited in the current presentation because this acquisition highlights how the messages of the 1960s protests embedded in Kent’s artwork are still significant in addressing issues like “systematic racism and social inequality” (fig. 6).[42]
Figure 6. Installation view, “Female Sensibility?,” in Everyday, Someday and Other Stories. Collection 1950–80, 2022. Posters from Corita Kent (left) and work from Lee Bontecou, Untitled, 1961 (right). Photo: Peter Tijhuis; image courtesy of Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam.
Coelewij coordinated the curatorial process of the current presentation, which is divided into three chronological and thematic sections in the old building wings.[43] Through a feminist lens, Stedelijk curatorial practice attempted to level the dominance of men artists within the museum collection display. For instance, the collection gallery “Mary Bauermeister: Avant-garde Art and Music” in Everyday, Someday and Other Stories. Collection 1950–80, reexamines Fluxus from Bauermeister’s perspective, a German-born woman artist who played a significant role in shaping the Fluxus movement, traditionally viewed as a predominantly men movement (fig. 7).
Figure 7. Installation view, “Mary Bauermeister: Avant-garde Art and Music,” in Everyday, Someday and Other Stories. Collection 1950–80, 2022. Photo: Peter Tijhuis; image courtesy of Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam
Similarly, the “Revolution and Utopia” gallery in Yesterday Today, which presents the works collected before 1950, emphasizes the vital contribution of artists Olga Vladimirovna Rozanova and Elena Guro to “avant-gardist” practices and ideas historically attributed to men creators. Both Rozanova’s and Guro’s works are displayed on the walls leading to the gallery, facilitating the visitors to first focus on their works and then move to the five works by Kazimir Malevich (fig. 8).
Figure 8. Installation view, “Revolution and Utopia,” in Yesterday Today. Collection until 1950, 2024. Works from Olga Vladimirovna Rozanova, Kazimir Malevich, Elena Guro, and Mikail Matyushin. Photo: Valeria Mari.
Another example is the collection gallery “Female Sensibility?” in Everyday, Someday and Other Stories whose title recalls the work by Lynda Benglis, with an additional question mark to challenge the existence of a gendered sensibility in art (fig. 9).[44] From the curator’s perspective, this room serves as a retrospective of women artists during the late 1960s and early 1970s, illuminating their historical underrepresentation in museum collections and the art world, as well as showcasing the works by Bauermeister and Benglis at the Stedelijk for the first time. Additionally, women perspectives have been featured throughout the galleries, with works by Jo Baer, Hanne Darboven, Maria van Elk, Sheila Hicks, Jacqueline de Jong, Agnes Martin, Martha Rosler, Elaine Sturtevant, and Louwrien Wijers, as well as monographic rooms dedicated to Nalini Malani and Yayoi Kusama, among others.
Figure 9. Installation view, “Female Sensibility?,” in Everyday, Someday and Other Stories. Collection 1950–80, 2022. Works from Lynda Benglis, Female Sensibility, 1973 (left) and Magdalena Abakanowicz, Vêtement noir, 1968 (right). Photo: Valeria Mari.
As Coelewij points out, presenting the work of women artists is different in each gallery, mirroring the fact that there is no singular means to approach and address feminist legacies. Indeed, another case is the former collection gallery “Figurative Art Between 1880 and 1940: The Female Perspective,” which enhanced the stories of women artists who preferred pursuing their artistic careers as single women—for instance, Charley Toorop and Anneke van der Feer challenged conventional norms by exploring mental disorders and gender diversity through their portraits. Additionally, the ground-floor gallery leads visitors to the overlooked stories of women creators and collectors who have contributed to the museum’s collection, such as Peggy Guggenheim, who in 1950 donated Reflection of the Big Dipper (1947) by Jackson Pollock to the Stedelijk, and Ina van Blaaderen, who sold Bottles and Peaches (ca. 1890) by Paul Cézanne to the Stedelijk Museum in 1951.[45] Overall, these galleries exemplify the Stedelijk curatorial team’s commitment to challenging the historical dominance of white men artists within the museum to strive for more equal representation in its collection.
The Stedelijk Museum’s colonial legacy, traditional male-dominated hierarchies and icons, and revisionist strategies on different levels help understand its positionality—what it has been, what it is today, and what it potentially can or will be tomorrow. As noted, the museum presents its changes through exhibitions and collections; however, certain permanent collection presentations may raise noteworthy criticisms.
The critique of the collection gallery “Authorship and Feminist Art Critiques” stems from the need to offer a different reading of this collection display. The gallery presents four different women positions in conversation with a solitary men one. Director Wolfs noted that the deliberate prioritization of the women perspectives invites viewers to engage with the concept of “multiperspectivity,” which offers an exploration of the intersection between women and men gazes, notably foregrounded by the visual representation of the woman gaze captured in the photograph by Lawler.[46] An alternative viewpoint is that it potentially reinforces the focus on the white man artist whose work is positioned at the center of the room. This interpretation does not question the physical location of Koons’s sculpture, but how the gallery is affected by selecting a work by Koons, perpetuating the traditional masculine art historical hierarchies within a permanent collection presentation that attempts to dismantle precisely those power structures. It is a curatorial choice to juxtapose Lawler’s photograph with Koons’s sculpture, depicted from an unconventional and distorted perspective, diverging from its typical presentation found in museum catalogs (fig. 10).
Figure 10. Installation view, “Authorship and Feminist Art Critiques” in Tomorrow is a Different Day. Collection 1980 – Now, 2021. Works by Louise Lawler, Adjusted to Fit, 1995/2010 (behind) and Jeff Koons, Ushering in Banality, 1988 (front). Photo: Geert Jan van Rooij, image courtesy of Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam.
However, it is crucial to question whether this combination of Koons’s sculpture and Lawler’s photograph succeeds in truly subverting hegemonic narratives instead of magnifying Koons as a prominent white man artist, while his work is also placed on a pedestal that prompts visitors’ gaze to focus on it as they enter the gallery. It can, however, be argued that the large size of Lawler’s photograph challenges the hierarchy in terms of dimensions (material level) rather than narratives (content level).[47] Through the lens of feminist theorist Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, the gallery’s emphasis on the perspective of women artists runs the risk of positioning them as a subaltern group while spotlighting the figure of Koons. The concept of “subject-effects” elucidates that discourses that foster pluralized viewpoints can paradoxically fail by inadvertently strengthening the opposed views from which individuals or groups seek to distance themselves.[48] Thus, prioritizing women perspectives may inadvertently redirect attention back to white, Western, male-dominated narratives, exemplified by the presence of Koons in the center.
The criticism reflects the ongoing struggle to dismantle power structures within art institutions, highlighting the complexities of equal representation and inclusivity in collection presentations. As Frank van Lamoen, a member of the Stedelijk research and curatorial practice team, observed, striving for full inclusivity is a utopian aspiration because decisions about inclusion and exclusion ultimately rest with individuals.[49] Thus, the focus should be on actively disrupting and broadening narratives by addressing historical exclusions and biases rather than solely aiming for a politically correct art museum collection and presentation. From a scholarly standpoint, an excessive focus on political correctness may lead to a superficial approach to diversity and inclusion that is perceived as a new trend rather than a genuine intention.[50] Certainly, being politically correct is preferable to being politically incorrect—for example, by examining the significant impact of the institutionalized exclusion of women artists and recognizing that the absence of crucial perspectives has an impact on the comprehensive understanding of museums’ collections.
Presenting the selected women artists’ works in conversation with the lone man figure shows the witty and straightforward language that the Stedelijk Museum began to unfold—especially after the Guerrilla Girls’ performance—alongside their inventory method adopted in the museum’s revisionist strategies. While the gallery may not entirely eliminate the dominance of white, Western, masculinist narratives, it offers an example of how curators have endeavored to engage in curatorial activism while curating the museum collection through a feminist lens. The Stedelijk’s revisionist practices allow for the acknowledgement of the lack of women artists’ perspectives in the institution’s presentation, striving to amplify their voices and provide equal opportunities than merely “make room” for them.
Our actions, thoughts, and decisions do not occur in isolation but are always influenced by our sociocultural background and structures around us. Rather than washing our hands of these influences or seeking a culprit, we should rather sensitize ourselves and others to issues that must be addressed responsibly, even if they do not directly affect us. Inclusive policies, which are increasingly discussed in cultural institutions today, should be based on the idea that being inclusive is not a final goal but rather a way of thinking, behaving, and curating. Completely inclusive museums or exhibitions might still seem out of reach, but curatorial activism offers various modes for inclusive practices. For instance, art historian Kavita Singh proposes transnational collaborations that do not necessarily involve physical exhibitions. Instead, it might be more efficient to extend partnerships and research projects that open conversations by involving more people around the world.[51] An important note is that those conversations should not take place solely in the art centers of Europe and North America but should stem from everywhere.[52] What truly matters is not the size or popularity of these knowledge-sharing events or collaborations but rather “the quality of sharing knowledge and sharing expertise and coming up with an output which serves the art and serves society.”[53] However, neither international projects nor partnerships neglect or minimize the efforts made so far by museum institutions.
Curatorial activism is an asset rather than a limitation within institutional frameworks, which is not far from the views of curator-at-large Yvette Mutumba and director Wolfs, who advocate for “humanizing the institution” by encouraging a people-centric approach to museum operations.[54] The same approach should be adopted to drive a more radical transformation in how art history is conceived, written, and conveyed—foregrounding art histories that embrace a broad spectrum of identities while dismantling all forms of categorization and canon. In case the opposite scenario arises, Guerrilla Girls propose telling museums that they are exhibiting the history of “Wealth & Power,” entangled with decades of colonialism, racism, and sexism.[55] Taking a constructive approach to questioning the selection of artworks on view—inquiring why certain pieces were chosen, what messages they aim to convey, and what remains unrepresented—should be an ongoing, rational practice rather than one that’s taken for granted. In this essay I thus demonstrated the importance of recognizing the value and contribution of curatorial activism in fostering a culture of inclusivity and diversity and advocating for a “museum of belonging” that embodies meaningful, human-centered practices, and balances political correctness—beyond simply being caught up in trends.
Valeria Mari is an independent art historian and writer whose work focuses in the intersections between feminisms and curatorial practices. She holds a Research Master’s (RMA) in Art History from Utrecht University in the Netherlands and has a background in cultural heritage and museology. At the Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, she coordinated several editorial projects and authored the research project Staff Shares: Towards a Museum of Belonging, which reviewed inclusion, diversity, and gender equality within art institutions. Mari has presented her research at international conferences, including Re-Evaluation in Feminism and Contemporary Art at Middlesex University, London.
[1] Leontine Coelewij, “Staff Shares #2: Leontine Coelewij Interviewed by Valeria Mari,” interview by Valeria Mari, Stedelijk Studies (2022).
[2] Art historian Dorothee Richter notes that “feminist group works embedded in a struggle for new forms of communities, new forms of working together, new forms of meaning production/organisation [ … ] would be later called curating.” Dorothee Richter, “Feminist Perspective on Curating,” OnCurating.org 29 (May 2016): 64–65.
[3] Doris Guth, “A Short History of Women’s Exhibitions from the 1970s to the 1990s: Between Feminist Struggles and Hegemonic Appropriation,” in Curating Differently: Feminisms, Exhibitions and Curatorial Spaces, ed. Jessica Sjöholm Skrubbe (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, 2016), 39.
[4] Walter Mignolo, “Museums in the Colonial Horizon of Modernity: Fred Wilson’s Mining the Museum (1992),” in Globalization and Contemporary Art, ed. Jonathan Harris (Blackwell, 2011), 71–85.
[5] Hodan Warsame, “Mechanisms and Tropes of Colonial Narratives,” in Words Matter, ed. Wayne Modest and Robin Lelijveld (Amsterdam: Wereldmuseum Amsterdam), 78–85.
[6] Maura Reilly, ed., Curatorial Activism Towards an Ethics of Curating (London: Thames & Hudson, 2018), 22.
[7] Guth, “A Short History of Women’s Exhibitions,” 29.
[8] Guth, “A Short History of Women’s Exhibitions,” 35.
[9] Hilary Robinson, ed., introduction to Feminism–Art–Theory: An Anthology 1968–2014 (Chichester and Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, 2015), 9–10.
[10] Marie-José Raven, “Staff Shares #3: Marie-José Raven Interviewed by Valeria Mari,” interview by Valeria Mari, Stedelijk Studies (2022).
[11] Claire Selvin, “How Jeff Koons Became One of the Most Famous Artists of Our Time,” ARTnews, April 15, 2020; Cécile Martet, “Jeff Koons, the King of Controversy!,” R|SE ART, August 18, 2023.
[12] Louise Lawler wall label in the gallery “Authorship and Feminist Art Critiques” at the Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, 2021. References to wall labels are sourced from my own archive unless otherwise stated.
[13] Karen Archey et al., “Cosima von Bonin,” Stedelijk A–Z: Explore the Collection (Amsterdam and Cologne: Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam and Verlag der Buchhandlung Walther und Franz König, 2024), 64.
[14] According the wall label accompanying Koons’s piece in “Authorship and Feminist Art Critiques” at the Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, 2021, the Stedelijk’s acquisition of Ushering in Banality for a large sum in 1989 generated considerable discussion during Wim Beeren’s directorship (1985–1993). This heated debate was further amplified by a legal dispute initiated by artist Barbara Campbell against Koons, claiming that he had plagiarized her work; the court ultimately sided with Campbell. Marie Baarspul and Rixt Hulshoff Pol, eds., Stedelijk in the Pocket (Amsterdam: Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, 2012), 130 and 142–43.
[15] Hetty Wessels, the manager of image and copyright, clarified that the photograph is not in the collection of the Stedelijk Museum. Hetty Wessels, email to the author, May 2, 2024.
[16] Het Amerikaanse perspectief was the first in a series of exhibitions organized by Els Barents (Rijksdienst Beeldende Kunst [National Institute for Visual Arts]), Adam Weinberg (Whitney Museum), and Stedelijk Museum director Rudi Fuchs, and it took place at the Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam. The 1995 report detailed (translated from Dutch to English): “The American perspective—highlights from the collection of the Whitney Museum of American Art, curated by Rudi Fuchs, was previously on view at the Whitney Museum under the title Views from Abroad. It featured approximately 100 paintings and sculptures, including works by Thomas Hart Benton, Roy Lichtenstein, David Salle, Edward Ruscha, Stuart Davis, John Chamberlain, John Sloan, and Edward Hopper. The exhibition ran from November 18 to January 28, 1996.” Stedelijk Museum Annual Report 1995/1996 (Amsterdam: Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, 1996), 14. Unless otherwise stated, all translations are my own.
[17] Valeria Mari, “Staff Shares: Towards a Museum of Belonging,” Stedelijk Studies (2022).
[18] Mari, “Staff Shares: Towards a Museum of Belonging.”
[19] Mari, “Staff Shares: Towards a Museum of Belonging.”
[20] Gwen Parry, “Staff Shares #1: Gwen Parry Interviewed by Valeria Mari,” interview by Valeria Mari, Stedelijk Studies (2022).
[21] Warsame, “Mechanisms and Tropes of Colonial Narratives,” 84–85.
[22] Donna Haraway, ed., “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective,” in Simians, Cyborg, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature (New York: Routledge, 1991), 195.
[23] Baarspul and Pol, Stedelijk in the Pocket, 20–21; “VVHK” (VVHK, Society for the Formation of a Public Collection of Contemporary Art) wall label in the introductory collection gallery Yesterday, Today. Collection until 1950.
[24] “Stedelijk Museum Opens September 23rd,” Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, last accessed May 27, 2024.
[25] Raven, “Staff Shares #3.”
[26] Stedelijk Museum Annual Report (Amsterdam: Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, 2012), 3.
[27] Stedelijk BASE was on view 2017–22, while its marketing campaign titled “Meet the Icons of Modern Art” took place from 2018 to 2019.
[28] Reilly, Curatorial Activism, 24.
[29] Reilly, Curatorial Activism, 25.
[30] References to the Guerrilla Girls protest at the Stedelijk: “Guerrilla Girls demonstreren bij Stedelijk voor kunst van vrouwen,” De Volkskrant, November 18, 1995; “Demostratie Guerrilla Girls in Amsterdam,” NRC HANDELSBLAD 7, November 20, 1995; “Guerrilla Girls voor Stedelijk,” Het Parool, November 18, 1995; Baarspul and Pol, Stedelijk in the Pocket, 148–49. Reference to Mama Cash Feminist Festival on International Women’s Day 2018: “‘Lullen tellen’ in de kunstwereld en daarover vertellen met een masker op: de Guerrilla Girls komen naar Nederland. Twee leden van de anonieme actiegroep houden een lezing in het Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam,” De Volkskrant, March 8, 2018; “Guerrilla Girls Headline the Mama Cash Feminist Festival,” Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, February 14, 2018.
[31] Emma Harjadi Herman, “Staff Shares #4: Emma Harjadi Herman Interviewed by Valeria Mari,” interview by Valeria Mari, Stedelijk Studies (2022), .
[32] Yvette Mutumba and Rein Wolfs, “Changing and Learning: A Conversation between Yvette Mutumba and Rein Wolfs,” in “Future Origins,” eds. Gwen Parry, and Maurice Rummens, special issue, Szine #1 (2021): 24.
[33] Raven, “Staff Shares #3”; Charl Landvreugd, in the documentary White Balls on Walls, says “one hundred thousand works largely by white men who have used everything that is not white or male in their work.” Additionally, it was noted that, at the time of this discussion, the percentage of women represented in the entire collection was only 4 percent. White Balls on Walls, directed by Sarah Vos (NTR, 2022).
[34] It is important to note that this analysis is still ongoing and primarily focuses on individual artists, excluding design studios and collectives. I came across the Stedelijk findings while interviewing press officer Raven and corresponding with the former chief librarian, Michiel Nijhoff, who shared the ongoing analysis.
[35] The Stedelijk staff has reallocated the acquisition budget on multiple occasions. See Szine #1 (2021); Coelewij, “Staff Shares #2”; White Balls on Walls; and “Transforming the Collection Display” (speech by Rein Wolfs presented at the symposium Shattered Ceilings at the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam on March 7, 2023).
[36] Charl Landvreugd, “Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam: We gaan het verleden niet cancellen,” NRC, January 2, 2022.
[37] Parry, “Staff Shares #1.”
[38] Mignolo, “Museums in the Colonial Horizon of Modernity,” 71-85.
[39] Parry, “Staff Shares #1.”
[40] White Balls on Walls.
[41] Coelewij, “Staff Shares #2.”
[42] Archey et al., “Corita Kent,” in Stedelijk A–Z, 62–63.
[43] Coelewij, “Staff Shares #2.”
[44] Coelewij, “Staff Shares #2.” Coelewij’s interview focuses on the practice of periodically rotating artworks to maximize the representation of the museum’s collection given spatial constraints that prevent simultaneous exhibition of all works. The rotation also takes into consideration the specific conservation needs of each artwork in the collection. During a visit to the Stedelijk Museum in 2024, there were notable changes in the collection gallery displays. For instance, the display formerly titled “Female Sensibility?” has been replaced with “Female Perspective in the 1960s,” featuring works by Dorothy Iannone, Corita Kent, Niki de Saint Phalle, and Elaine Sturtevant. Similarly, the collection gallery previously showcasing “Mary Bauermeister: Avant-garde Art and Music,” alongside artists such as Mary Bauermeister, John Cage, Nam June Paik, and Wolf Vostell, has been transformed into “Natural Elements,” exhibiting works by Hamish Fulton, Joan Jonas, Richard Long, Gordon Matta-Clark, and Mario Merz.
[45] “Women as Collectors,” wall label in the introductory collection gallery of Yesterday Today. Collection until 1950, 2024.
[46] Rein Wolfs lecture at the symposium Shattered Ceilings at the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam on March 7, 2023.
[47] Another example of using size to challenge hierarchies within institutional contexts is in the Kirchner and Nolde: Expressionism. Colonialism exhibition (September 4–December 5, 2021), where larger photographs of the Indigenous communities were juxtaposed with the traditionally smaller works by Kirchner and Nolde. I personally witnessed this dynamic during my visit and found further validation in White Balls on Walls.
[48] Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, “Can the Subaltern Speak?,” in Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, ed. C. Nelson and L. Grossberg (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1988), 271.
[49] White Balls on Walls.
[50] White Balls on Walls.
[51] Kavita Singh, “5 Questions with Kavita Singh,” interview by Rattanamol Singh Johal, March 30, 2016, MoMA, video, 18 min., 55 sec.
[52] Singh, “5 Questions.”
[53] Mutumba and Wolfs, “Changing and Learning,” 27.
[54] Mutumba and Wolfs, “Changing and Learning,” 28; Yvette Mutumba, “In Museum We Trust,” Stedelijk Studies (2022).
[55] The group conveyed this message on several occasions, notably as the concluding poster of the exhibition Is it Even Worse in Europe? (Whitechapel Gallery, London, October 1, 2016–March 5, 2017).
