
asserting a right to self-representation. Some artists staged confrontational performances
in public to dramatize and criticize conventional representations of women, while others,
such as Mary Kelly made theoretically sophisticated work examining the psychological
mechanisms of patriarchal domination.
Ronald
Reagan’s presidency
saw the elaboration of various forms of critical visual
arts practice, grounded in developments of the 1960s and 1970s. Individually or in
collaboration with activist organizations like
ACT UP
(AIDS Coalition To Unleash
Power), artists attempted to turn massmedia techniques to different, politically
oppositional purposes. But the 1980s also saw a resurgence of traditional styles o
painting
(neoexpressionism),
and the art market boomed along with the stock market, as
if to re-emphasize art’s historical relation to privilege.
The stock market fell and the boom subsided. In the late 1980s, a body of work
emerged that was grounded in “identity politics,” that is, in the specific experiences o
artists who saw themselves as members of ethnic and other minorities. This pointed to a
history of limited access to the institutions of art, but it had the unintended consequence
of specifying and fixing identities in categories.
The election of
Republican
George
Bush,
after two terms of Reagan, encouraged
Democratic politicians to begin to move towards centrist positions on economic issues.
This would eventually contribute to the election of
Democratic
President Bill
Clinton
.
Meanwhile, riding an ideological tide propelled by a conservative Christian minority and
claiming to be disgusted by artistic representations of anti-normative identities,
Republican leaders including Senator Jesse
Helms
seized upon “traditional values” and
“morality” issues for political leverage. One highly visible result of this was the “culture
war” of the late 1980s and early 1990s (though it might be observed that few Democratic
oliticians defended culture very strongly). Sexually explicit art by openly gay artists
such as Robert
Mapplethorpe
and David Wojnarowicz, which had appeared in
institutions or exhibitions supported in part by federal funds, became a political football
as conservatives attacked the funding organization, the
National Endowment for the
Arts
. They succeeded in cutting the NEA budget dramatically and in changing its
procedures for making awards.
Federal support for the arts in America was already relatively very low among
developed nations (American artists and institutions rely relatively heavily on
foundations,
the philanthropical support of corporations and the wealthy). So, in the light
of the electoral success of congressional Republicans in the mid-1990s, perhaps what was
most significant about the “culture wars” was that they demonstrated again the
relationship in the American context between the desire to control representation (who
represents whom and what, and how), and the desire to control, influence or maintain
social values. In the 1990s, when American arts institutions must compete globally for
tourist revenues and are confronted by increasingly diverse local audiences, such contests
seem bound to become increasingly complex.
Encyclopedia of Contemporary American Culture 1180