Ayse Sarioglu: How do you evaluate the impact of the feminist movement on art? Has the language of art changed, or have the hierarchies that determine what art considers “serious” changed?
Harmony Hammond: The feminist movement, beginning in the late 1960s, created a profound transformation in the art world. It was not only about visibility, but about fundamentally questioning which materials, experiences, and bodies were considered legitimate within the world of fine art.
In the 1970s, using materials like fabric, yarn, thread, and other so-called “non-art” materials as well as techniques such as stitching, weaving, crocheting, knitting, quilting and other forms of needlework, directly connected to women’s lived experience and to practices historically dismissed as craft, was a conscious political decision precisely because of their gendered associations..
I often think of my daughter Tanya, who studied sculpture and photography as a student. She did not identify as feminist, but simply assumed she had the right to use any material she wanted such as fabric or hair in her work, which was very personal. For my generation, that was a political act; for hers, it was simply available. That difference shows how deeply things have shifted.
While we looked at textiles, we never used the word “textile” back then to describe our work. We spoke of fabric, cloth, and perhaps weaving. I referred to the pieces of recycled cloth I used, as “rags”. Today, “textile” has become a major critical category, especially in relation to abstraction. That shift reflects how discourse itself has expanded.
So yes, lots of change has happened. But gender-equality is not fully achieved. Just look at the numbers – far fewer women then men are represented by galleries or have solo museum exhibtions, and the prices of their work is lower than comparable work by male artists. Of course, there are exceptions, but vigilance is still necessary.
...