Peggy Guggenheim and The Exhibition by 31 Women

Full text

!
Peggy Guggenheim and
The Exhibition by 31 Women
Kat Buckley
School of the Art Institute of Chicago
Originally prepared for Senior Thesis, Professor Jenny Carson
Maryland Institute College of Art, Fall 2010

!
1!
The Exhibition by 31 Women was one of the first exhibitions at Marguerite
(Peggy) Guggenheim’s gallery in New York City. This show took place in 1943 from
January 5 through February 61 at the height of World War II, and it was a careful
consideration by some of the most important artists of the 20th Century on their place as
women in the surrealist movement. Guggenheim’s main aim with this exhibit was for it
to be "daring,"2 which she achieved through her gallery’s unique architectural set-up and
notoriety. This “daring” aspect was a success, but the exhibition’s overreliance on artists
known primarily for their partners’ work is a glaring omission in an otherwise
spectacularly staged display.
Despite agreement among writers such as Thomas Krens and Philip Rylands
concerning Art of This Century's fundamental place in the formation of Abstract
Expressionism, both writers say a full evaluation of the goings-on at the gallery remains
to be undertaken.3,4 Exactly what Guggenheim's motivations were in opening Art of this
Century and how it cemented its place in the New York art scene of the 1940s have yet to
be fully examined. In order to understand the motivations behind The Exhibition by 31
Women, a brief overview of the gallery and its place in art history is required.
Art of this Century was a popular noncommercial gallery that quickly became the
center of activities for young artists in both the abstract expressionist and surrealist
schools. From its inception, the art world was paying attention. The secretary at Art of
this Century, Jimmy Ernst, described its opening as such: "When Peggy opened the Art
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!
1 Francis O’Connor et al., Peggy Guggenheim & Frederick Kiesler, 292.
2 Peggy Guggenheim, Out of This Century, 102.
3 Thomas Krens, “Preface.” 9
4 Philip Rylands, “Peggy Guggenheim,” 291.

!
2!
of This Century Gallery, it was the event of the season. All the art world came."5 Art of
this Century discovered and gave the first one-man shows to Jackson Pollock, Robert
Motherwell, William Baziotes, Hans Hofmann, Clyfford Still, Mark Rothko, and David
Hare. Additional artists shown in the gallery included Giorgio de Chirico, Jean Arp,
Alberto Giacometti, Jean Hélion, Hans Richter, Jane Hirshfield, and Theo van Doesburg.
Its place in the art world was solidified through these European names presenting their
first American shows at Guggenheim's gallery.
There were many other galleries in New York City during this time. However, Art
of this Century stands out from the rest as a bit of an outsider that catered to a different
audience. It was deliberately divergent from the formula of other galleries in the city due
to its unique combination as both a private collection and a public gallery. This
arrangement occasionally caused much confusion for customers.6 Nonetheless, it is useful
in understanding the fundamentals of how Art of this Century operated. According to
Robert Motherwell:
Peggy's gallery was deliberately unlike the first-rate galleries showing modern art such as
Curt Valentin's Buchholz, Julien Levy's, Pierre Matisse's, and Valentine Dudensing's, all
of which were very professional. Peggy's, on the contrary, was more a mixture of a small
private permanent collection and a gallery that also occasionally did a bit of business in
relation to whatever the current show was.7
The gallery’s layout defied general expectations as well. The layout had much to
do with the underlying intentions for Guggenheim's collection and gallery shows to be
strikingly dissimilar when compared to anything else in New York at the time (fig. 1). If
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!
5 Jimmy Ernst, “Letter,” 81.
6 Ibid.
7 Robert Motherwell, “Letter from Robert Motherwell,” 102.

!
3!
the very notion of a private collection and sales gallery caused confusion, the architecture
only added to this disorientation. Guggenheim commissioned Frederick Kiesler as the
architect of her gallery. Robert Motherwell again offers a superb description of exactly
how the space was laid out:
[Art of this Century] was shaped like an upside-down U...The center part of the U, facing
south with windows, was the shortest gallery and where the temporary exhibitions were
held...The right or west leg of the gallery was designed by Frederick Kiesler with a
curved ceiling, like a quonset hut...any artist having the current show in the south gallery
was flanked on each side by the permanent collections.8
Kiesler created a revolutionary setting in which viewers could immerse
themselves in the architecture as well as the artwork, even if this backdrop was not
always in the best interest of the paintings. In conjunction with the baffling architecture,
paintings were hung on poles. They were attached to the poles via a universal joint that
viewers could take hold of and thereby move the painting in any manner they pleased.
One of the critics described Kiesler’s installation as such: “...paintings were mounted off
the wall, and spectators were encouraged to manipulate these displays, as well as a series
of Klees disposed on a turning wheel and viewed successively through a peep-hole."9
This mirrored the intention of the gallery to "desanctify the art, and treat it more like, say,
books in the reading room of a library.”10
This interior design fit in with Guggenheim’s mission to set her gallery apart from
those of her contemporaries. She did this in several additional ways: through the very
conception of a dual gallery and private collection, through its architecture, and through
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!
8 Ibid.
9 Yve-Alain Bois, “Review,” 483.
10 Robert Motherwell, “Letter from Robert Motherwell,” 102.

!
4!
its shows. Indeed, she did not seem to mind the exceedingly uncommon architecture of
the space, saying, “Kiesler had really created a wonderful gallery—very theatrical and
extremely original...if the pictures suffered from the fact that their setting was too
spectacular and took away people's attention from them, it was at least a marvelous decor
and created a terrific stir.”11
Guggenheim’s insistence that creating a terrific stir is more important than the
paintings themselves is telling. The shows at Art of This Century were selected primarily
for their ability to shock patrons, and so was the gallery’s architecture. At times, the
architecture created more of a stir than the art itself. Art of This Century gave shows to
artists and celebrities alike, and its entrants were often solicited through personal
relationships rather than a true call for submissions. The Exhibition by 31 Women had its
artists selected in this manner.
The work in the rotating exhibition gallery was elevated by means of its proximity
to the works in Guggenheim's collection. Guggenheim frequently purchased works from
those who exhibited in her shows,12 so artists could hope to become part of the permanent
collection themselves. This led to much competition between artists for a show at Art of
this Century, which in turn would lead to a rise in its (and their own) popularity. As
Jackson Pollock’s biographers Steven Naifeh and Gregory White Smith put it:
For a young, avant-garde, American artist, looking to make a living from painting, there
was only one place to turn. Only one person who was a prominent collector and gallery
owner with both the money and bravery (or eccentricity) to buy paintings from relatively
unknown artists—even American artists. That person was Peggy Guggenheim.13
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!
11 Peggy Guggenheim, Out of This Century, 99.
12 Ibid., 105.
13 Steven Naifeh and Gregory Smith, Jackson Pollock, 435.

!
5!
While Guggenheim may have had the “bravery” to show new artists, she still had
to choose them first from a horde of applicants. Guggenheim maintained that she was
very generous with the space and allowing new artists to show in it, saying, “At Art of
This Century I gave shows to nearly everyone who asked. I don't think many of these
artists were particularly grateful. I gave up the gallery because it was so much work.
People wanted to see me because I am a good salesman.”14 Guggenheim's risk-taking
with new artists was often welcomed as they were struggling with the rationing due to the
war effort in the 1940s. A “good salesman” was precisely what the artists needed to
continue working.
Nevertheless, not everyone was shown, and a selection had to be made based on a
set of criteria. Guggenheim was most concerned with those who were in need of
assistance. As artist Gordon Onslow-Ford later recalled, "Tanguy brought Peggy
Guggenheim to see me in my studio...Peggy looked around and said, in so many words, 'I
see that there is nothing that I can do for you,' implying that she was only interested in
painters who needed her help.”15 Guggenheim primarily assisted struggling artists who
asked for help, not “everyone” as she claimed.
There were other factors influencing struggling artists, such as the conclusion of
the Work Progress Administration's Federal Art Project in December of 1942, which "had
put the New York artists out of work and initiated a period of financial anxiety the likes
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!
14 Virginia M. Dortch, Peggy Guggenheim and Her Friends, 9.
15 Gordon Onslow Ford, “Letter from G. Onslow Ford,” 70.

!
6!
of which they had not experienced since the early '30s.”16 Struggling artists who had yet
to make names for themselves may have been more inclined to ask for shows due to the
desperate circumstances, and Guggenheim, in turn, more willing than other gallery
owners to give them.
Any artist would have been honored to exhibit in a space flanked by some of the
greatest European and American modernists. Women artists would have occupied a
unique place in this schema, as there were few at that time in Guggenheim's permanent
collection. The deliberate choice to show new American artists was a strategy to further
separate Art of this Century from the competition of other galleries in New York City,
and picking female artists would serve to do the same. As curator Phillip Rylands noted
regarding the New York City art market in the early 1940s: "For those wishing to earn
money from the sale of their paintings, the market had been glutted by the influx of
European masters and the distraction of the avant-garde dealers like Julien Levy and
Pierre Matisse.”17 Guggenheim created a persona as a savior for all young, struggling
New York City artists, and her interest in women artists stemmed from similar
inclinations.
Guggenheim did not rely solely on her own ability to judge which artists truly
needed her assistance. She also used advisors to help her determine who should show in
her space, and had a rotating panel of advisors during her time at Art of this Century. It is
clear that Guggenheim would not have found all the artists that she represented without
their assistance. As Rylands remarked, “In New York her advisers were again impressive:
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!
16 Philip Rylands, “Peggy Guggenheim,” 238.
17 Ibid.

!
7!
Ernst, Duchamp, Breton, Mondrian, Putzel, Soby, Sweeney, and Barr...Art of this
Century became the most tangible link between surrealism and abstract expressionism.”18
Her reliance on advisors was not something that Guggenheim was ashamed of.
She fully admitted her willingness to be persuaded by their advice, saying, "I took advice
from none but the best...I listened, how I listened! That's how I finally became my own
expert.”19 Guggenheim surrounded herself with the right company in terms of knowledge
of modern art.
The idea for the Exhibition by 31 Women came from one of her advisors.
Guggenheim was interested in the odd space that women occupied in surrealist art, and so
was her friend Marcel Duchamp. Were women really to be continually subjected to the
male gaze even in the avant-garde style surrealism, forever doomed to linger between
lover and object? Duchamp discussed this issue at length with Guggenheim. "While in
Paris en route to New York, Marcel Duchamp, who like Peggy objected to the Surrealist
tendency to restrict the role of women to that of muse, model, or mistress, had suggested
to her the idea of an exhibition devoted exclusively to women.”20 However, others
involved with Art of this Century such as artist Buffie Johnson have been known to claim
the idea for the exhibit as their own.21
There was one additional advisor from whom Guggenheim sought assistance for
the Exhibition by 31 Women: Alfred Barr. Barr had been curating for the Museum of
Modern Art for nearly a decade when he sent a letter to Guggenheim at her request
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!
18 Alastair Grieve, “Review,” 258–259.
19 Helen Gent, “Peggy Guggenheim: Mistress of Modernism,” 143.
20 Francis O’Connor et al., Peggy Guggenheim & Frederick Kiesler, 291.
21 Weld, Peggy, 293–94.

!
8!
detailing a list of "female abstract painters who on the whole seem...as good as the best of
the men in the American Abstract Artists group.”22 Three of the five names that Barr sent
to Guggenheim were included in the exhibit: Suzy Frelinghuysen, I. Rice Pereira, and
Esphyr Slobodkina.
No other artists were solicited on specific curatorial recommendation for The
Exhibition by 31 Women. Many of the artists were surrealists, and many were wives of
artists with whom Guggenheim was acquainted. There was Xenia Cage/wife of John
Cage, Frida Kahlo/wife of Diego Rivera, Sophia Taeuber-Arp/wife of Jean Arp, and
Jacqueline Lamba/former wife of Andre Breton.
Despite the prominent place in art history that quite a few of these women now
hold, one must ask if they would have been included in Guggenheim's show were she not
acquainted with them. Others in the show included Djuna Barnes, who was a long-time
friend of Guggenheim’s. Hazel McKinley and Pegeen Vail, Guggenheim's sister and her
daughter, respectively, were also included in the show.
A burlesque dancer named Gypsy Rose Lee, another friend of Guggenheim's,
also participated. Skepticism abounded regarding this choice. In a letter to the New York
Times, a Massachusetts woman offered columnist Edward Aldne Jewell "a pound of
coffee if Gypsy Rose Lee is an artist.”23 The public’s vehement reaction against her
inclusion shows that Lee was thought of as a performer, not an artist. Whether
Guggenheim truly thought Lee’s artwork was a solid choice alongside these other notable
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!
22 Alfred H. Barr Jr., “Alfred H. Barr Jr. to Peggy Guggenheim.”
23 Yve-Alain Bois, “Review,” 483.

!
9!
surrealists is debatable. Instead, it was another calculated choice to increase publicity as
far as Massachusetts for her new gallery and its bold exhibit.
Other participating artists included Barbara Reis, the aforementioned Buffie
Johnson, Meret Oppenheim (who showed her infamous Le Dejeuner en fourrure, [fig. 2],
collector Aline Meyer Liebman, and Milena Pavlovic Barilli, who was a cousin of King
Peter II of Yugoslavia. Of these artists, all were friends of Guggenheim. The rest of the
artists24 all had various connections within the art world of New York City, primarily to
Guggenheim’s advisor and then-husband Max Ernst (fig. 3).25 Ernst later left his marriage
with Guggenheim in order to pursue a partnership with Tanning. This caused
Guggenheim to quip that Ernst and Tanning, “became very friendly…soon they became
more than friendly and I realized that I should have only had thirty women in the
show.”26
Guggenheim knew many of these artists through their husbands. She knew
Kay Sage through her long-time friendship and romantic involvement with Yves Tanguy.
She had purchased work from Jean Arp, and possibly knew John Cage as well as Diego
Rivera. Valentine Hugo was Andre Breton’s mistress.27 It would seem that there was no
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!
24 Full list of artists: Djuna Barnes, Xenia Cage, Leonora Carrington, Leonor Fini, Suzy Frelinghuysen,
Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven, Meraud Guevara, Anne Harvey, Valentine Hugo, Buffie Johnson, Frida
Kahlo, Jacqueline Lamba Breton, Gypsy Rose Lee, Aline Meyer Liebman, Hazel McKinley, Louise
Nevelson, Meret Oppenheim, Milena Pavlovic Barili, Barbara Reis, Irene Rice Pereira, Kay Sage Tanguy,
Gretchen Schoeninger, Sonja Sekula, Esphyr Slobodkina, Hedda Sterne, Dorothea Tanning, Sophie
Taeuber-Arp, Julia Thecia, Pegeen Vail, and Maria Elena Vieira da Silva.
“Exhibition by 31 Women: Jan. 5-31: Art of This Century.” (New York, NY: Art of This century, 1943
1942), 19960611, The Museum of Modern Art Library.
25 Peggy Guggenheim, Out of This Century, 103.
26 Ibid.
27 Renee Riese Hubert, Magnifying Mirrors, 21.

!
10!
shortage of male artists from whom Guggenheim could scoop their artistic wives for an
exhibit.
By including so many artists who were married or otherwise involved with other
male artists, it is debatable whether Guggenheim was actually being progressive or
simply taking an easy route away from a rigorous search for artists. This was at the
detriment of her show’s lofty goals. The exhibition’s press release states:
Here then is testimony to the fact that the creative ability of women is by no means
restricted to the decorative vein, as could be deduced from the history of art by women
through the ages. The spirit of the young wife in ancient Greece who traced on the oil-
skin window the silhouette of her departing warrior husband is in these women...28
The theme may have particularly struck artist and exhibit participant Leonora
Carrington. In her autobiography Down Below, she recounts “society’s attempt to
subjugate her and her own efforts to survive as a human being above all as a woman
instead of being reduced to an object.”29 Carrington was an artist who was not content to
reside in the model/muse dichotomy.
However, Leonora Carrington was also involved with Max Ernst.30 This forces
one to ask if Guggenheim was reinforcing the role of the woman artist that she was trying
to subvert: that of the woman artist's place as nothing more than a muse, a counterpart to
the male artist, and not a true artist in her own right.
Many surrealist male artists of thought of the women of the movement in this
manner. According to Gloria Orenstein, “...the role of the woman in Surrealism was
clearly molded by the men who led the movement, and who bestowed an identity on
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!
28 “Press Release ‘Art by 31 Women at “Art of This Century.’”
29 Renée Riese Hubert, “Leonora Carrington and Max Ernst,” 17.
30 Ibid.

!
11!
women that suited the particular needs of their own artistic inspiration.”31 In other words,
when the men of surrealism needed a model, a woman found herself occupying this role.
When they needed an artistic partner, her identity shifted accordingly. Her identity was
dependent on the needs of the men of the group, and she failed to exist in the eyes of the
men of the movement as an autonomous being capable of her own artistic decisions.
This is an awkward space which women artists have occupied for many years. In
Germaine Greer's book The Obstacle Race, she notes that this is an unfortunate trend
with a long history. “Any student of women painters therefore finds that he is actually
studying the female relatives of male artists, a curious study in itself.”32 Guggenheim may
have simply found herself trapped in this conundrum: many of the female artists she
knew were only her acquaintances due to their relationships with other male artists.
Artist pairings are not odd or even uncommon. As a means of attaining a status of
their own as serious artists, women looking to bolster their reputations may have even
strategically paired up with other male artists. Female artists sometimes married male
artists as a means of staying involved in the art world. As Germaine Greer noted
regarding several of the artists in the exhibition:
It is customary to take for granted that in an artistic partnership like those of
Munter and Kandinsky, Sonia Terk and Robert Delaunay, Sophie Tauber and Jean Arp,
Kay Sage and Yves Tanguy, the male was always the predominating figure, the innovator
and the initiator, with the woman following as his emulator. Often the similarity between
the works of both partners lends
inevitably to this conclusion, but does not in fact constitute very good grounds for it.33
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!
31 Gloria Orenstein, “Women of Surrealism,” 15.
32 Germaine Greer, The Obstacle Race, 13.
33 Ibid., 42.

!
12!
In the particular cases of Sophie Tauber-Arp, who was also included in The
Exhibition by 31 Women, and Sonia Terk-Delaunay, who was not included, Greer says:
Arp the sculptor and Delaunay the painter are both treated as more significant figures
than their wives, although it is perfectly well known that the innovative qualities of their
work owed a great deal to the fruitful vision of their womenfolk, who poured out original
ideas in all kinds of media with almost wanton and certainly ingenious prodigality.34
Guggenheim wanted to ensure a crowd, another “terrific stir” by drawing on the
famous surnames of the artist husbands. For a new gallery that wanted to follow its
successful opening with a show that cemented its popularity and maintain a footing in the
avant-garde, bringing in the female counterparts of these well-known artists was a solid
business plan. Guggenheim relied on her advisors to do the same and mine their artistic
and romantic relationships for possible participants.
Another aim of Guggenheim's was to provide recognition to these women whose
husbands unfortunately often eclipsed their own talents. As a cry against the surrealist
women artist’s status as “model, muse, or mistress,” Guggenheim mounted this exhibit as
a showcase for the talent of these women. However, in their lives as complicated
multifaceted people, many of these women occupied a place between these roles, and
sometimes took on multiple roles at once. Leonora Carrington wrote that she was “a
gypsy, an acrobat, Leonora Carrington and a woman,”35 further emphasizing the multiple
roles she occupied.
Dorothea Tanning’s work remains closely linked with that of Max Ernst’s, as she
explored the duality of her role as muse and artist through her submission to the show:
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!
34 Ibid.
35 Gloria Orenstein, “Women of Surrealism,” 17.

!
13!
Birthday (fig. 4). “In Birthday, [Dorothea Tanning] reveals the conflict she experienced
by trying to function simultaneously as the spouse of a ‘genius’ and an artist in her own
right, an artist by no means devoid of ambition. Reflecting on the difficulty of fulfilling
both roles satisfactorily, she claims to have sacrificed some of her talent to the other.”36
The dichotomy of these roles created a pivotal painting in the history of surrealism for
this show that explored precisely this ambiguous theme.
Another artist, Leonor Fini, explored these themes through a work that she
submitted to the show: The Shepherdess of the Sphinxes (fig. 5). As writer Orenstein has
noted, Leonor Fini’s “feminine sphinxes…posit women as the embodiment of total life
enigma and of universal mystery.”37 Fini’s depictions of women/sphinxes defy any
categorization. The mythic subject allows Fini to shroud her gender in the unknown and
defy expectations or any knowledge that the viewer may presume to have around them,
for only the sphinx knows the answer to its riddles.
Guggenheim left the invitation of the rest of the women artists to Ernst.38 Only
one artist is known to have refused Ernst's invitation, Georgia O'Keefe, who reportedly
responded by saying that she was not a woman painter.39 She did not wish to be included
in the overall umbrella of woman artists. O'Keefe wished to simply be identified as a
painter, and not singled out because of her gender. It should be noted that O’Keefe was
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!
36 Sarah Boxer, “The Last Irascible.”
37 Gloria Orenstein, “Women of Surrealism,” 16.
38 Peggy Guggenheim, Out of This Century, 103.
39 Jimmy Ernst, A Not-So-Still Life, 236.

!
14!
not alone in this regard: Sophie Taeuber-Arp also rejected the label of “woman artist,”
although she did participate in the exhibition.40
After the invitations, work was selected through a juried process. This was
another “daring” move that further differentiated Art of this Century from other New
York galleries, as well as other galleries in America in general. Up to this point, juries
had been a European device almost without precedent in New York.41 The jury consisted
of Guggenheim and her advisors, namely André Breton, Duchamp, Max Ernst and his
brother Jimmy Ernst, James Thrall Soby, and James Johnson Sweeney.
There were a few conflicts of interest within the jury. Max Ernst, Andre Breton,
Peggy Guggenheim alike had solicited both current and former lovers for the show.
Guggenheim was the only woman juror for a show of entirely female artists. However,
the jury is still significant, as it was a long held artistic tradition finally establishing itself
in America.
In addition to being the sole female juror, Guggenheim was one of the few female
buyers of work at her Exhibition by 31 Women—or rather, few buyers of work at all.
Only three works were sold, and the show did not achieve commercial success.42
Nonetheless, it encouraged the New York art world to pay attention to Art of this
Century, still a relatively new gallery at that time and in need of patrons. New York was
not ready to purchase works made by female painters, but they were willing to talk about
these works and the gallery that housed them excessively.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!
40 Renée Riese Hubert, “Leonora Carrington and Max Ernst,” 717.
41 Francis O’Connor et al., Peggy Guggenheim & Frederick Kiesler, 291.
42 Ibid., 292.

!
15!
The critical reception of the show was mixed. Some, like Rosamund Frost in
ArtNews, were surprised; others refused to review the exhibit at all. "When Johnson
invited James Stern, art critic for Time magazine, to review the exhibition, he refused on
the basis that there had never been a first-rate woman artist and that women should stick
to having babies.”43 This shows that an unfavorable perception of female artists was still
in vogue, even in 1940.
After the show, Art of This Century went on to become a recognizable name in
the New York art scene through its showcasing of European artists in America for the
first time. A myriad of factors made this possible, but most of all the war forced the
artists from Europe to America, where their talents could be exercised in a less restricted
manner.
Many of the participating artists went on to have larger careers. These artists and
their new careers had varying degrees of success. Some artists, such as I. Rice Peiriera,
omitted her first name entirely in order to produce work while leaving her gender in
relative obscurity. She eventually moved abroad and died in Spain. Some went on to
become artistic celebrities in their own right. Frida Kahlo went on to be extremely
successful, and Suzy Frelinghuysen became known as one of few females in the cubist
movement with collage work.44 Djuna Barnes established a reputation in writing in the
gay and lesbian community abroad.45 Hedda Sterne enjoyed much success as an abstract
expressionist, and was the only female represented in The Irascibles photograph of the
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!
43 Ibid.
44 “Suzy Frelinghuysen, Artist, Is Dead at 76.”
45 Christopher Reed, “Gay and Lesbian Art.”

!
16!
movement’s founders in Life Magazine, of whichwould go on to say “I am known more
for that darn photograph than I am for eighty years of work.”46
Dorothea Tanning remains one of the foremost names in surrealism. Her art is
often cited as successful in communicating the anxieties and desires of women through
the movement.47 Slobodkina was one of the few abstract artists of the group, and is
known for bringing European modernism to New York City. She also had success as a
children's book artist.48 Leonor Fini occupies a place of reverence as a “precursor to the
Women’s Movement in her conscious and intelligent exploration of themes relating to
woman’s identity in her art and in her life.”49 Leonora Carrington moved to Mexico and
exhibited widely in South America.50 Meret Oppenheim experienced a period of self-
doubt following the exhibit, but was able to come back a decade later with a slew of
successful international shows.51
Other artists did not do as well. Gypsy Rose Lee remained famous for her
burlesque shows, though not particularly for her art.52 She continued to be a fixture at the
parties in Guggenheim's apartment, but lost her status as an artist in Art of this Century.
Taeuber-Arp passed away a week after the exhibition opened but her legacy as an
"important Swiss geometric artist” remains.53 Xenia Cage remains largely unknown for
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!
46 Sarah Boxer, “The Last Irascible.”
47 Gloria Orenstein, “Women of Surrealism,” 20.
48 Christopher Reed, “Gay and Lesbian Art.”
49 Gloria Orenstein, “Women of Surrealism,” 16.
50 Ibid., 17.
51 Ibid., 19.
52 “Gypsy Rose Lee -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia.”
53 Harold Osborne, The Oxford Companion to Twentieth-Century Art.

!
17!
her artwork, but rather for her marriage to John Cage.54 Sonja Sekula hanged herself in
her studio in 1963, just twenty years after the exhibit. However, she is now regarded as
one of the most important Swiss artists of the 20th Century.55
Sekula was not the only member of this group to meet an unfortunate end. Pegeen
Vail and Kay Sage Tanguy also committed suicide, giving a tragic postscript to the
careers of three out of the thirty-one women. That is an uncomfortably high ratio. It was
not unheard of, or even uncommon, for women artists to take their own lives at this time.
Andre Pieyre de Mandiargues, husband of surrealist Bonna de Mandiargues, wrote about
the treatment of women artists as comparable to church excommunication. “They
[women artists] are oppressed with a sort of malediction or more precisely
excommunication that separates them from the vaster public which deprives them of the
warm approbation that they need as much as all other artists.”56 This cult-like ostracizing
of artists due to their gender was ubiquitous throughout Europe and America in the
1940s. Women artists needed critics and the public alike to garner accolades about their
work, and this sort of shunning served to cut artists off from possible patrons,
communication, and opportunities for personal growth.
It is striking that these women are not thought of today along with their male
contemporaries as the forerunners of surrealism or abstract expressionism. Male artists
such as Robert Motherwell, Ad Reinhardt, and Bernard Karpel were aware of the careers
of Buffie Johnson, Kay Sage Tanguy, Sonja Sekula, and Hedda Sterne.57 Something has
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!
54 Jonathan Katz, “John Cage’s Queer Silence or How to Avoid Making Matters Worse.”
55 Walter Robinson, “Sonja Sekula Abstract Expressionist, Lesbian and Mad.”
56 Gloria Orenstein, “Women of Surrealism,” 20.
57 Erika Doss, “Not Just a Guy’s Club Anymore,” 843–44.

!
18!
happened in the intervening years that caused these artists to not be readily thought of
when it comes to the movements of surrealism and abstract expressionism. According to
Erika Doss, the men of abstract expressionism asserted their heteromasculinity so
forcefully that it became a main tenement of the movement.
Countering their stock cultural reputations as sissified jesters, the members of the "Club"
loudly proclaim their professional identities as serious artistic tough guys. Those who
might appear to violate that constructed Abstract Expressionist identity, female artists, for
example, or queer painters like Sonia Sekula...were left out. So was their art...The art,
who made it, and what it all meant was rigidly defined, constructed, and institutionalized
in terms of its specifically straight white male orientation by the early 1950s.58
. With The Exhibition by 31 Women, Art of This Century had barely opened. It was
just finding its footing as a gallery, and separating itself from the competition.
Guggenheim took careful steps to ensure that her gallery stood out from the crowd in
many ways. From its concept, to its architecture, to the shows and permanent gallery
within, Art of This Century proved to be a novel endeavor. Its disorientating corridors
ensured that visitors could not stop talking about it, and the buzz about the gallery was
out from a very early moment.
The Exhibition by 31 Women was “daring” from its inception. The years since the
exhibit have unfortunately seen some of these artists forgotten, whitewashed by the
priorities and oversimplification of the movements that they adhered to. Its setting,
participants, and execution were all unfamiliar concepts in the New York art world of the
1940s. Guggenheim set out to create a gallery that was constantly talked about due to its
unconventional exhibitions, and therefore always causing a “terrific stir.” Her planning
and handling of this exhibit allowed her to accomplish her goals, even if some biases
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!
58 Ibid., 845.

!
19!
were catered to in the process. The Exhibition by 31 Women was the best thing that could
happen in 1943 for women artists, and despite its shortcomings, it remains a touchstone
for scholars learning of the place these women occupied in their respective movements.

!
20!
Fig. 1. Peggy Guggenheim seated on a Correalist rocker, Surrealist Gallery, Art of This
Century, New York, c. 1942. Works shown: Magritte: The Voice of the Air (1931); Fini,
The Shepherdess of the Sphinxes (1941); Carrington, The Horses of Lord Candlestick
(1938); and Miro, Dutch Interior II (1928). Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation, New
York, photograph by David Heald. From: Francis O’Connor et al., Peggy Guggenheim &
Frederick Kiesler. New York: Guggenheim Museum, 2005. Figure 9.

!
21!
Fig. 2 Meret Oppenheim, Object, 1946. Paris. Fur-covered cup, saucer, and spoon. Cup 4
3/8” (10.9 cm) in diameter; saucer 9 3/8” (23.7 cm) in diameter; spoon 8” (20.2 cm) long,
overall height 2 7/8” (7.3 cm). Available from: ARTstor, http://www.artstor.og (accessed
September 30, 2015).
Fig. 3. Max Ernst and Peggy Guggenheim, Surrealist Gallery, Art of This Century, c.
1942. Works shown: Ernst, The Kiss (1927); and Ernst, Zoomorphic Couple (1933).
Courtesy Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation, New York. From: Ibid. New York:
Guggenheim Museum, 2005. Figure 59.

!
22!
Fig. 4. Dorothea Tanning, Birthday, 1942. Oil on canvas, 40 1/4 x 25 1/2 inches (102.2 x
64.8 cm). Philadelphia Museum of Art, Philadelphia, PA, Museum of Art; 125th
Anniversary Acquisition. Purchased with funds contributed by C. K. Williams, II, 1999.
© 2007 Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York/ADAGP, Paris, Giraudon/Art Resource,
NY. Grove Art Online. Oxford Art Online. Oxford University Press, accessed September
27, 2015, http://www.oxfordartonline.com.

!
23!
Fig. 5. Leonor Fini, The Shepherdess of the Sphinxes, 1941. France. Oil on canvas, 7.16 x
5.9 in (46.2 x 38.2 cm). Peggy Guggenheim Collection, Venice. 76.2553 PG 118 ©
Leonor Fini by SIAE 2008. Available from: ARTStor, http://artstor.org (accessed
September 30, 2015).

!
24!
Bibliography
Alastair Grieve. “Review.” The Burlington Magazine 129, no. 1009 (April 1, 1987): 258–
59.
!
Alfred H. Barr Jr. “Alfred H. Barr Jr. to Peggy Guggenheim,” September 24, 1942.
Microfilm 2167:397. Alfred H. Barr Jr. Papers, MoMA Archives.
!
Christopher Reed. “Gay and Lesbian Art.” Grove Art Online, n.d.
Erika Doss. “Not Just a Guy’s Club Anymore.” American Quarterly 50, no. 4 (December
1, 1998): 840–48.
!
“Exhibition by 31 Women: Jan. 5-31: Art of This Century.” New York, NY: Art of This
century, 1943 1942. 19960611. The Museum of Modern Art Library.
!
Francis O’Connor, Don Quaintance, Jasper Sharp, Susan Davidson, Philip Rylands,
Valentina Sonzogni, and Dieter Bogner. Peggy Guggenheim & Frederick Kiesler:
The Story Of Art Of This Century. Edited by Susan Davidson and Philip Rylands.
New York: Guggenheim Museum, 2005.
!
Germaine Greer. The Obstacle Race: The Fortunes of Women Painters and Their Work.
London!; New York: Tauris Parke Paperbacks, 2001.
!
Gloria Orenstein. “Women of Surrealism.” The Feminist Art Journal Spring 1973 (Spring
1973): 1, 15–21.
!
Gordon Onslow Ford. “Letter from G. Onslow Ford.” In Peggy Guggenheim and Her
Friends, by Virginia M. Dortch, 69–70. Milano: Berenice Art Books, 1994.
!
“Gypsy Rose Lee -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia.” Accessed September 27, 2015.
http://academic.eb.com/EBchecked/topic/334540/Gypsy-Rose-Lee.
!
Harold Osborne, ed. The Oxford Companion to Twentieth-Century Art. 1st edition.
Oxford!; New York: Oxford University Press, 1981.
!
Helen Gent. “Peggy Guggenheim: Mistress of Modernism.” Marie Claire Magazine,
June 19, 2009.
!
Jimmy Ernst. A Not-So-Still Life: A Child of Europe’s Pre-World War II Art World and
His Remarkable Homecoming to America. Wainscott, N.Y.; New York, N.Y.:
Pushcart Pr, 1992.
———. “Letter from Ernst, J.” In Peggy Guggenheim and Her Friends, by Virginia M.
Dortch, 81–85. Milano: Berenice Art Books, 1994.
!

!
25!
Jonathan Katz. “John Cage’s Queer Silence or How to Avoid Making Matters Worse.”
Queer Cultural Center, n.d.
http://www.queerculturalcenter.org/Pages/KatzPages/KatzWorse.html.
!
Peggy Guggenheim. Out of This Century: Confessions of an Art Addict. London:
Chameleon, 1987.
!
Philip Rylands. “Peggy Guggenheim and ‘Art of This Century.’” In Before Peggy
Guggenheim - American Women Art Collectors, by Rosella Mamoli Zorzi, 233–
48. Venice: Marsilio Editori, 2001.
!
“Press Release ‘Art by 31 Women at “Art of This Century,” ,’” n.d. Microfilm. Peggy
Guggenheim Papers.
!
Renée Riese Hubert. “Leonora Carrington and Max Ernst: Artistic Partnership and
Feminist Liberation.” New Literary History 22, no. 3 (July 1, 1991): 715–45.
doi:10.2307/469210.
!
Renee Riese Hubert. Magnifying Mirrors: Women, Surrealism, and Partnership. 1St
Edition edition. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1994.
!
Robert Motherwell. “Letter from Robert Motherwell.” In Peggy Guggenheim and Her
Friends, by Virginia M. Dortch, 102–3. Milano: Berenice Art Books, 1994.
!
Sarah Boxer. “The Last Irascible.” The New York Review of Books 57, no. 20 (December
23, 2010). http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/dec/23/last-irascible/.
!
Steven Naifeh, and Gregory Smith. Jackson Pollock: An American Saga. 3rd edition.
Aiken, S.C.: Woodward/White, Incorporated, 1998.
!
“Suzy Frelinghuysen, Artist, Is Dead at 76.” The New York Times, March 23, 1988, sec.
Obituaries. http://www.nytimes.com/1988/03/23/obituaries/suzy-frelinghuysen-
artist-is-dead-at-76.html.
!
Thomas Krens. “Preface.” In Peggy Guggenheim & Frederick Kiesler: The Story of Art
of This Century, by Dieter Bogner, Susan Davidson, Francis V. O’Connor, Don
Quaintance, Philip Rylands, Jasper Sharp, and Valentina Sonzogni, 9–11. edited
by Susan Davidson and Philip Rylands. New York: Guggenheim Museum, 2005.
!
Virginia M. Dortch. Peggy Guggenheim and Her Friends. Milano: Berenice Art Books,
1994.
Walter Robinson. “Sonja Sekula Abstract Expressionist, Lesbian and Mad.” ArtNet.com
Magazine, September 21, 1996.
http://www.artnet.com/magazine_pre2000/features/robinson/robinson9-21-96.asp.
!

!
26!
Weld, Jacqueline Bograd. Peggy: The Wayward Guggenheim. 1st edition. New York:
Dutton Adult, 1986.
!
Yve-Alain Bois. “Review.” The Art Bulletin 69, no. 3 (September 1, 1987): 481–85.
doi:10.2307/3051075.