Reception and Backlash

       When The Dinner Party finally opened at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art in 1979, it broke attendance records and brought a considerable amount of attention from the general public to the feminist art movement. As one might imagine, the radical nature of the artwork resulted in ample criticism, particularly from men involved in the art industry. This newspaper clipping is from a 1980 article in The New York Times written by renowned art critic Hilton Kramer. Kramer is highly critical of The Dinner Party and calls it vulgar, crass, and kitsch, among other things. [16] His final paragraph sums up his thoughts, as well as the thoughts of many other critics of The Dinner Party:

“Is ‘The Dinner Party’ art? Well, I suppose so. After all, what isn’t nowadays? But it is very bad art, it is failed art, it is art so mired in the pieties of a political cause that it quite fails to acquire any independent artistic life of its own. To this male observer, it looks like an outrageous libel on the female imagination.” [17]

       The sentiments expressed here by Kramer were not uncommon amongst those in the art world. The Dinner Party was dismissed by many critics and other industry professionals as not serious art, but craft. [18] The irony of this is that the labelling of women’s art as “craft” was one of the issues that Chicago had originally sought to address with The Dinner Party. Even within the feminist movement there were mixed reactions and criticisms of Chicago's work. For example, a 1981 article in the feminist publication Off Our Backs points out how The Dinner Party is exclusionary in who it chooses to represent, and claims that it is self-centred, but concludes by admitting that the piece is worthwhile because it does highlight some of the contributions and ideas of women. [19] The harsh criticisms of The Dinner Party are reflective of the changing landscape of the feminist movement in the 1980s. [20] In the early 1970s, feminism was fresh and radical, but as the decade came to and end, there was division and fighting within the movement and it appeared that many people were “over it”. [21] These issues were reflected in the art world as there was a large amount of backlash aimed at the feminist art movement resulting in a resurgence of sexist values. [22] The misogynistic traditions that feminist artists like Chicago sought to overcome returned in the industry and female artists were once again repressed in the mainstream. [23] In the 1980s, this regression gave rise to activist groups, such as the Guerrilla Girls, that focused on addressing the blatant lack of female representation in museums and galleries. [24]