i-xxii Front matter.qxd - Brandeis Institutional Repository

206 / Notesperiod, a spectrum that ranged from formalism to expressionism. See Linda Nochlin,“Portrait of Linda Nochlin and Richard Pommer,” Artforum 32/1 (September1993), 142, 204.45. Linda Nochlin, “The Realist Criminal and the Abstract Law, Part II,” Art in America61/6 (November-December 1973), 98. The quote is from J. P. Stern, “Re„ectionson Realism,” Journal of European Studies 7 (March 1971).46. Nochlin, “The Realist Criminal and the Abstract Law, Part II,” 102–103.47. Nochlin, “Introduction,” Women, Art and Power, xiv.48. Linda Nochlin, “Some Women Realists,” Arts (April-May 1974), reprinted inWomen, Art and Power, 98–99.49. It was precisely this historical perspective that Nemser’s writings on Neel, by concentratingon her biography and her sitters’ biographies, had ignored. The potentialof biography for commercial exploitation by the artworld celebrity system was soonrecognized by other feminist art historians. Carol Duncan’s review of Nemser’s ArtTalk, which she titled, borrowing a phrase from Neel, “When Success Is a Box ofWheaties,” pointed out that Nemser’s interviews framed the work of women artistsaccording to traditional male criteria of greatness—originality, for instance—ratherthan taking into account the artists’ own, quite different criteria as developed intheir work. The result, in her opinion, was not criticism but publicity. “Artists asprofessionals must compete, but they must not appear to compete. They need publicity,but must seek it in a form that is not publicity . . . Publicity alone—or, as inArt Talk—barely disguised publicity—distorts their seriousness and renders themexploited objects.” Carol Duncan, “When Success Is a Box of Wheaties,” Artforum(October 1975), reprinted in Carol Duncan, The Aesthetics of Power (New York:Cambridge University Press, 1993), 121ff.50. The ceremony, accompanied by a small exhibit of her work, was held on May 19.51. Joanna Frueh, “The Body Through Women’s Eyes,” in Broude and Garrard, ThePower of Feminist Art, 207.52. June Singer, Androgyny: Toward a New Theory of Sexuality (Garden City, N.Y.:Doubleday, 1977), 278.53. An incisive summary of this debate is provided in Kari Weil, Androgyny and the Denialof Difference (Charlottesville and London: University Press of Virginia, 1992),ch. 6: “Androgyny, Feminism, and the Critical Difference.”54. Ibid., 152. As the concept of androgyny began to be detached by feminist writersfrom its origins in the Platonic ideal of unity, it continued nevertheless to representa way beyond binary male-female oppositions. Summarizing Toril Moi, Kari Weilhas argued that in Woolf’s Orlando (1928), the story of a man who, over the courseof three centuries of life, becomes a woman: “sexual identity loses its claim as agiven, appearing, rather, as an effect of the cultural codes of desire and of changingrelations to ‘others’ . . .” Ibid., 157.55. Johnson, in her autobiography, Fragments Recalled At Eighty: The Art Memoirs ofEllen H. Johnson (North Vancouver, B.C.: Gallerie, 1993), 145–50, wrote a wittyaccount of sitting for Neel.56. Fat became a feminist issue in the 1980s. see Joan Jacobs Brumberg, Fasting Girls:The History of Anorexia Nervosa (1988); Kim Chernin, The Hungry Self: Women,