Collecting and Exhibiting Women’s Graphic Design in the ... · 1970s, the established canonized...

Collecting and Exhibiting Women’s Graphic Design inthe Netherlands The representation of Dutch female graphic designers from the period 1880-1940 in the collection and exhibitions at the Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam and MOTI Breda

VU University AmsterdamFaculty of Arts

MA thesis Design Cultures

Elbrich SteegstraStudentnumber: 2184745

Supervisor: dr. S. LüttickenSecond reader: dr. J.H.G. Bergsma

Collecting and Exhibiting women’s Graphic Design in the Netherlands The representation of Dutch female graphic designers from the period 1880-1940 in the collection and exhibitions at the Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam and MOTI Breda

Elbrich SteegstraColumbusplein 46-1

1057 VB AmsterdamTel: 06-40600802

Student number: 2184745E-mail address: [email protected]

VU University AmsterdamFaculty of Arts

Master’s Programme in Arts & CultureSpecialization Design Cultures

Supervisor: dr. S. LüttickenSecond reader: dr. J.H.G. Bergsma

August 2013

I hereby declare that this thesis is an original piece of work produced by the un-

dersigned alone. Information and ideas borrowed from other sources are explicitly

mentioned in the text and the notes.

August 2013 (signed)

Preface‘Anyone who wanders through the classes of our art academies is sur-prised by the high percentage of women among the students.’1

In 2006 I began studying graphic design at the art academy in Groningen. Very

soon I noticed that, among my fellow students, the majority were women. The

above quote by Michael Spondé in the 1920s indicates that this was apparently

not much different than in the 1920s. On the contrary, during my internship and

when I visited lectures, I noticed that most graphic designers in the field working

were men. Throughout the years I studied graphic design at the art academy, I

also became more interested in the history of Dutch graphic design.

While pursuing my Masters in Design Cultures at the VU, I became more critical

about the historical writings on Dutch graphic design. I became more conscious

of the fact that most of the designers that were represented in history books and

exhibitions also were men. When I bought the publication Vrouwen in de vormgeving

1880-1940 of Marjan Groot on the contribution women had in the design field, I

was surprised by the amount of women that had been active in the field. Altogeth-

er it made me more conscious of the way the canon only gives a one-sided view

of the history of Dutch graphic design, which was represented in the books I read

and at the exhibitions I visited. My background in graphic design and my inter-

est in the history of Dutch graphic design gave me the inspiration for my thesis

subject.

Finally, I would like to thank all those who supported and guided me throughout

the period I worked on my thesis.

Amsterdam, 10 August 2013

1 Breuer and Meer 2012, p. 387.

Table of contents

Introduction 9

1 The representation of women in art historical writings 12

1.1 The canon of Dutch graphic design 12

1.2 Critique on the canon in the field of arts and applied arts 14

1.3 The representation of female graphic designers 17

1.4 Key points within the debate 22

2 The representation of women in museums 24

2.1 Feminism in the academic field 24

2.2 Criticism on the representation of women in museums 25

2.2.1 External criticism on the under-representation

of women in museums 26

2.2.2 Internal criticism on the under-representation

of women in museums 28

2.3 Methodology 32

3 The representation of women’s graphic design at the

Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam and MOTI Breda 34

3.1 Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam 34

3.1.1 The museum 34

3.1.2 The representation of women in the collection 35

3.1.3 The representation of women in exhibitions 37

3.2 Museum Of The Image Breda 41

3.2.1 The museum 41

3.2.2 The representation of women in the collection 42

3.2.3 The representation of women in exhibitions 43

3.3 The representation of female designers at the

Stedelijk Museum and MOTI 47

Conclusion 51

Appendix I

Dutch female graphic designers 1880-1940 56

Appendix II

Exhibitions Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam 76

Appendix III

Exhibitions MOTI Breda 83

Bibliography 87

Illustrations 94

Introduction 9

IntroductionIn the past decades, many positive changes have taken place regarding the position

of women both in the workplace and in art and art history. Since Linda Nochlin’s

article ‘Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?’ was published in the

1970s, the established canonized male art histories and graphic design history

have been criticized extensively. However, when looking into the history of Dutch

graphic design and the most significant writings on that history, it seems this

criticism has not yet been implemented.

After the 1880s, graphic design started to develop as a professional and established

field in the Netherlands. Two books that focus on Dutch graphic design history are

Grafische vormgeving in Nederland: Een eeuw published in 1999 and Nederlands grafisch

ontwerp: Van de negentiende eeuw tot nu published in 2006. Those books give the

impression that only a few women have been active or have been of any

significance in the design field until the 1940s. Designers that are represented as

being significant are all male designers, such as Jan van Krimpen, Wim Crouwel,

Dick Bruna, Piet Zwart and Gerard Unger. With some exceptions, women are

mostly neglected from the canon until that period. Only after the 1980s are more

women represen-ted alongside their male contemporaries.

Recently, historians have also looked critically into the history of graphic design

and touched upon the issue of the representation of women. The first extensive

study on women in Dutch graphic design was published in 2007. Art historian

Marjan Groot published the research with the title Vrouwen in de vormgeving in

Nederland 1880-1940. This study shows the role women had in several fields such

as textiles, ceramics and graphic design and also shows that women have indeed

contributed to the development of Dutch graphic design. On the other hand, the

book also shows that women are still not integrated in the established canon of

design history.

In many cases the established canonized male history is also represented in

museums. But should it not be the task of a museum to present a discussion rather

than outlining a history book in their exhibitions? And should they not be

participants in relevant discussions and new developments in the academic field?

Based upon those questions, the focus of this research is not Dutch graphic design

history but rather the representation of that history. The aim of this study is to

research and acquire an overview of the criticism on the canon and to determine

if this criticism influenced the representation of female Dutch graphic designers in

10 Introduction

museums. Therefore, the research question is:

How have Dutch female graphic designers from the period 1880-1940 been represented in

museums, both in the collection and exhibitions since the 1970s?

This research will be limited to the representation of Dutch female graphic

designers in museums in the Netherlands. The chosen period is characteristic

of the history of Dutch graphic design as it was a period of renewal for graphic

design, book design, poster design, illustrations and typography. In that period, the

design field got established and the importance of graphic design became

acknowledged.2 Next to that, it is the same period Marjan Groot studied and

which is also a period that is characteristic for a lack of attention of women who

were working as graphic designers in the Netherlands. This study will look into the

representation of women in the collection and exhibitions of the Stedelijk

Museum Amsterdam and Museum Of The Image (MOTI) Breda. On the one

hand, two museums are selected to indicate how museums responded to the

criticism and new findings in the academic field. On the other hand, two museums

are selected to avoid a one-sided view of a museum, which would not be sufficient

when making conclusions regarding the representation of women. Both

museums own a graphic design collection and show parts of these collections in

their museum. They are both important museums in conserving and presenting

the heritage of Dutch graphic design.

This thesis is divided into three chapters, with each discussing a part of the

research. Chapter one will discuss the key points in the debate of the

representation of women, both in the visual arts field and in graphic design.

Therefore, this chapter will discuss existing literature discussing the position of

women in the field of arts and graphic design. This literature review will offer an

overview of already published literature on the topic or literature that can

contribute to the understanding of the representation of women on this topic. It

will outline some of the key points about why women have been excluded from

the writings of art history as well as several alternative ideas about presenting the

history of a discipline. The chapter discusses both the general and detailed

critique that has been given on the canon of art history. It will outline that this

view on history is not a simple matter of including women in the canon. The

underrepresentation of women is deeply rooted in writings, archives, approaches

of art historians and notions of what is considered a contribution to the

development of Dutch graphic design.

Chapter two will discuss the theoretical and methodological framework of

2 Broos and Hefting 1999, p. 16, 196.

Introduction 11

this research. This chapter will discuss recent critique, developments and projects

in the representation, and also acceptance and appreciation of female designers in

writings both inside and outside museums. Specific examples will be discussed to

get an overview of this criticism. Finally, this chapter will discuss the methodological

framework for the analysis in chapter three. The methodology will outline how the

data will be gathered and how the data will be analysed and discussed in the third

chapter.

Chapter three will outline and discuss the analysis of this thesis. Firstly,

this chapter will provide background information about The Stedelijk Museum

and MOTI. Secondly, the collection and the current presentation of the history

of Dutch graphic design in the museum will be analysed. The representation of

women in the Stedelijk Museum and MOTI will be analysed from the theories,

viewpoints and criticism on the representation of women discussed in chapter one

and two. Finally, specific outcomes out of this analysis will be related to the existing

literature and research discussed in chapter one and two.

In the final chapter, the key themes will be presented which have emerged

from the research and suggestions for further research will be discussed.

12 1 The representation of women in art historical writings

1 The representation of women in art historical writings

1.1 The canon of Dutch graphic design

In 2007, the study of art historian Marjan Groot focusing on female designers

in applied and industrial design in The Netherlands from the period 1880-1940

was published. This study showed that, until the 1940s, much more women had

been active in the design field than had been acknowledged in most writings. With

this research she also wanted to expand the already existing knowledge of Dutch

design history and add the female designers that had not been previously

acknowledged.3 Before the research of Groot was published, it was already obvious

that women contributed within both the design and art fields, but mainstream

historical writings had been arbitrary and left out most women.

This thesis focuses on female graphic designers in the Netherlands. The

term graphic design does not have a fixed definition. Therefore, it is relevant to

define graphic design and how the discipline will be interpreted in this research. In

1990, typographer and graphic designer Huub van Krimpen stated that graphic

design is a message that has been designed with graphic elements, such as letters,

numbers or images.4 Graphic design has existed for a long time, but only relatively

recently, has the discipline been denoted by those words. Its use and meaning have

changed through the years.5 Before the Second World War, the discipline was most

often called ‘commercial art’ or in Dutch ‘reclamekunst’. The word ‘commercial’

distinguishes the discipline from the ‘fine’ arts as commercial art had the

purpose to be reproduced.6 Graphic design can be seen as an assemblage of several

disciplines. This thesis will use the lexicon compiled by Marjan Groot and will

therefore depart from the definition Groot used for graphic design. Groot includes

illustration art, typography, book and poster design in the field of graphic design.

In those fields, approximately 100 women have been active in the period between

1880-1940.7

In the period between 1880-1940, women had been present in companies, magazines

and represented in exhibitions during their career. In the late 1940s, female

designers gained a good reputation and some built a successful career within the

applied arts field.8 After the 1960s, many female designers were excluded from

3 Groot 2007, p. 15.4 Van Krimpen, p. 13. 5 Aynsley 1987, p. 21.6 Ibid., p. 22.7 See appendix I, pp. 56-75.8 Groot 2007, pp. 15-16.

writings on design history, which can be considered as a construction of applied

arts within the Netherlands. Groot states that survey works are the most constructed

histories. Those histories should not be seen as fixed versions of design history,

which do not need any revision. Nevertheless, they are very influential in stating

what was innovatory in design and which designers were of great importance, of

which most were men.9 Those canonized male histories are very present in survey

works about Dutch graphic design history, which will be elaborated on later.

According to art critic and historian John Walker, design history should not be one

homogenous account on which we all have to agree. He states that there are multiple

versions of history possible.10 This canon represents a history with a selection of

great designers and the highlights of their complete oeuvre. Walker criticises this

canon for the same reason Groot does; the canon only presents the highlight of an

overall period and has been established by art historians.11

Art historian Griselda Pollock discusses that the construction of the art his-

torical canon is considered as the legitimate origin of a historical narrative. At the

same time, the canon is assumed to be qualitative and has a status of authority. This

is interesting because the canon, as it exists today, has not been fixed historically

seen, neither is it exclusively based on what was popular throughout the years.

Pollock mentions the painter Rembrandt who was considered ‘a sloppy painter of

low subjects’ in the eighteenth century but, from the nineteenth century on, he is

considered as one of the great masters.12 The established canon not only decides

what we read but also what we see in museums and art galleries as well. The ‘filter’

of the canon that neglects certain aspects in history also takes away cultural

possibilities in each generation.13 By neglecting certain aspects, the risk is that

artworks or designers might become forgotten because the origins of art history

are based on a selection. Luckily, some art historians do see those aspects that

should be researched and eventually added to historical writings.

Only a few survey works are published about the history of Dutch graphic design

and they mostly represent the established male canon. In this research, two of

those publications are used as a source to investigate the representation of graphic

design history. The first is Grafische vormgeving in Nederland: Een eeuw written by

Kees Broos and Paul Hefting, published in 1999. The second is Nederlands Grafisch

Ontwerp: Van de negentiende eeuw tot nu written by Alston Purvis and Cees de Jong,

published in 2006. The latter particularly shows design by male designers who are

considered to be innovatory or significant by the authors although the introduction

states that the book gives a complete overview of graphic design from the 1890s

9 Groot 2007, p. 17.10 Walker 1989, p. 279.11 Ibid., p. 281.12 Pollock 1999, p. 3.13 Ibid., p. 4.


until the present.14 Both books were written before the research of Groot was

published, but it cannot be denied that women were unknown within the field of

graphic design in those days.

Although Cheryl Buckley did not specifically criticize the canon of graphic design,

she was the first who brought the feminist view on history in relation to design

history.15 Buckley states that the theory of modernism has had a big impact on

writing design history. That theory focuses on aspects such as technical innovation

and experimentation as significant features. According to Buckley, design

historians are still doing research with a modernist approach, though it might

be unconsciously. Another aspect is that art historians do not study those objects

that are not considered to be innovative or experimental. According to Buckley,

women’s design has the label of being traditional and, as a direct consequence,

historians mostly ignore it.16 It seems that the books discussed previously are using

that same modernist approach. Most probably, the research that has been done for

these publications is based on what has been considered innovatory and experimental

in both the past and present. The writers highlight the stylistic movements and

designers who have been considered innovative in the field of graphic design.

1.2 Critique on the canon in the field of arts and applied arts

The canon of art history and applied arts that is represented in most literature is

established in institutions such as museums as well.17 From a feminist viewpoint,

it has been shown that a canon creates a one-sided view on history and is almost

exclusively about masculine creativity. Therefore, Pollock claims that the

Wes-tern canon should be expanded with what has been neglected, such as includ-

ing women for example. On the other hand, she claims that the canon as such

could also be rejected, as it is typically a history of great achievement whereas

mistakes, that could be significant in history as well, are excluded.18 The criticism on

the canon from a feminist viewpoint started in the early seventies when art

historian Linda Nochlin wrote the essay ‘Why Have There Been No Great

Women Artists?’. In this essay, Nochlin states that natural assumptions should be

questioned and that the mythical basis of facts in art history must be brought out.19

She states that, in the field of art history, the viewpoint of the white Western male

is accepted throughout the years as the correct viewpoint.20 The acceptance of that

viewpoint also lie within institutions and education that unconsciously ‘encourage’

14 Purvis and De Jong 2006, p. 7.15 Scotford 1994, p. 139.16 Buckley 1986, p. 13.17 Pollock 1999, p. 4.18 Ibid., p. 6.19 Nochlin 1988, p. 145.20 Ibid., p. 146.


unequal viewpoints on history. Nochlin states that equal achievements must be

created and that this is only possible with the help and encouragement of those

same institutions. 21 Also Buckley states that the success or failure of female

designers depends on organizations and institutions.22 Even today it seems that this

encouragement within institutions is making slow progress although a main difference

can be noted in the position of women today compared to the 1970s.

The essay written by Nochlin specifically criticises the fine arts field, but

with the essay she challenged many art critics and historians to reconsider the

established male art history and the discrimination and exclusion of female artists in

that history. In the mean time, a lot has been written specifically on design history

as well. Feminism has affected the writings of design history in a variety of ways.23

But a feminist history is also contradictory because it proposes another version of

history alongside ‘mainstream’ art history.24 According to Pollock, an ideal feminist

perspective would be a perspective that acknowledges women as a group among

many other groups.25 This is similar to Buckley as she states that feminist scholars

should not study female designers as individual designers but study them on

the interaction women had with design and their male colleagues.26 Art historian

Carma Gorman is critical about the ways that feminist art histories have been

approached as well. In research, women are still approached from the modernist

theory as discussed by Buckley. Those feminist art histories focus on aspects such

as innovativeness, the influence a female designer had on the field and the influence

on later designers.27 Although those versions do not necessarily exclude women,

they do exclude a lot of women that have been active in the field of design. The

idea proposed by Gorman corresponds with Pollock and Buckley: a new history

that includes women should not be about pioneers of design or a new canon based

on primarily great artists. It is rather of great importance that it will be acknowledged

in art history that women have actively involved in several disciplines.28 The idea of

a history that does not necessarily focus on ‘great’ artists might lead to the inclusion

of more female designers. However, to avoid a random version of

history, this does not mean history writings should neglect any kind of criteria. No

criteria would lead to an inclusion of ‘all’ artists, male and female and, without a

doubt; some designers have made more qualitative design than others. To avoid a

medley of all kinds of artists, the question is which criteria should be applied when

looking at designers and who to include in the literature? In Branden W. Joseph’s

pu-blication Beyond the Dream Syndicate, the idea of a ‘minor history’ is discussed.

The ‘minor history’ is what Joseph describes as the opposite of the most established

21 Nochlin 1988, pp. 150-51.22 Buckley 1986, p. 11.23 Howard 2000, pp. 8-9.24 Pollock 1999, p. 8.25 Idem 1988, p. 1.26 Gorman 2001, p. 73.27 Ibid., p. 73.28 Ibid., p. 74.


version of history, which he calls ‘major history’, the canon that is present in most

of the literature. The ‘major history’ is told according to fixed categories such as

authorship, movements, style and period.29 When a designer or artwork does not

fit into those categories, it is ignored, repressed or it mentions minor designers in

relation to those categories.30 This means that the ‘minor history’ is sometimes also

present in ‘major history’ but information that does not fit into categories will in

the end disappear. The ‘minor history’ is not based on the idea that developments

and stylistic movements follow on from other developments or movements. It does

not have the intention to add designers to fixed categories or presenting them as

great designers.31 This does not mean that this ‘minor history’ does not have any

categories at all as they are presented in the ‘major history’. It is neither a history

of anonymous designers; it only takes a different direction and represents different

sorts of developments. Joseph explains it with a quote of Gilles Deleuze and Félix

Guattari: ‘The [historical] line does not go from one point to another, but runs

between points in a different direction that renders them indiscernible’. As opposed

to ‘major history’, ‘minor history’ does not see all developments as equivalent.32

Each category, artist, designer or artwork that is mentioned is not equally important,

but this does account for the fact that designers that are considered less important

or not important to mention by ‘major’ history and the canon, do get mentioned.

The idea of ‘major history’ as proposed by Joseph is also present in graphic design

history. Martha Scotford followed the discussion of the canon in the academic

field. It occurred to her that graphic design history is producing, consciously or

unconsciously, its own canon. She researched this by studying several international

books about graphic design history. In a short quantitative analysis, she looked at a

couple of aspects in the books. She researched if some specific designers or works

were used to represent an entire period or style, or if some designers are referred

to more extensively than others. She also researched the problems this causes for

the future of design history. Her goal is to show the canon of graphic design for

the purpose of discussion. 33 In the article, Scotford outlines her research in detail

and something she noted very quickly was the lack of women.34 The most obvious

distinction she encountered was gender: the few women that were presented as

individual designers were poorly represented and she also notes that, after the

Second World War, many more female designers are represented.35 According to

Scotford, this canon that is only based on those designers and stylistic movements that

are considered to be relevant reduces the rich, complex and interrelated history of

29 Joseph 2008, p. 50.30 Ibid., p. 50.31 Ibid., p. 50.32 Ibid., p. 51.33 Scotford 1991, p. 37.34 Ibid., p. 39.35 Ibid., p. 42.


graphic design. 36 Design historian Bridget Wilkins confirms this with her statement

that graphic design history is formed according to the earliest approaches of art

history, which excludes many individual artists. She adds that design history uses

stylistic or thematic approaches illustrated with a few examples and this encourages

classifying objects according to those styles or themes.37 This might mean that if

women, who were working as designers, did not fit into themes or styles dominated

by men; they are not included and represented in magazines, books and exhibitions.

If graphic design history was written according to the idea of a ‘minor history’,

it might mean that the rich, complex and interrelated history of graphic design

would be presented.

1.3 The representation of female graphic designers

Today many women are working as graphic designers at a professional level. In

the past, women were working in the advertising industry and at design agencies as

well. The extensive research done by Marjan Groot shows that women were certainly

participating alongside men in the ‘official’ applied arts including disciplines such

as graphic design.38 One of the reasons they are absent in writings about the history

of graphic design is because they did not reach higher levels in the organisation

and were not associated with large campaigns.39 Although they did not hold a

high position in companies, they were working as designers. Why women are not

included is deeply rooted and results from several issues. Recently another survey

about female graphic designers has been published with the title Women in Graphic

Design, 1890-2012. Although this publication is not as relevant for this study as the

research of Marjan Groot, it does prove that the attention for women also becomes

a topical issue in the graphic design field. In one of the essays from Women in

Graphic Design, 1890-2012, an overview is given of some significant problems that

occur when research is done on female designers from the past. Julia Meer is one

of the co-editors of the book and states in the essay, ‘He, She, It: Women and the

Problems of Gender in the History of Graphic Design,’ that the differences

between sexes in graphic design history are complex, wide-ranging and deeply

rooted.40 She states that many women still have to be discovered, which is one of

the reasons why they are not yet included in general writings. Most writings are

based on what is widely available in sources such as archives and publications.41

According to Meer, it might be that women have been present in publications from

the past but the fact that women are not seen as innovative and have been less

36 Scotford 1991, p. 44.37 Wilkins 1992, p. 69.38 Groot 2007, p. 24.39 Mazur Thomson 1994, p. 119.40 Meer 2012, p. 383.41 Ibid., p. 383.


productive might explain why they are absent in most annals of design history.42

Next to that, stylistic movements such as Art Deco were more embraced by

women than Neue Typography. However, the latter is discussed more extensively

in history books.43

Meer also raises the question whether it is correct to assume that, if a

designer is represented with many works in an archive or exhibition, it automatically

means that a designer is successful. This is especially the case with female designers.

Many women produced a relatively small oeuvre. The period that they were active

was relatively short compared to male designers because most women had to stop

working when they married or had children.44 According to Meer, the quantity of

work that a designer has produced is connected by some historians to the designer’s

success and she proposes that quantity of work that has been published cannot be

simply equated with success.45 When more source materials are available,

historians tend to consider such a designer to be more important. Consequently,

biographies are influenced by what appears in publications the most and what is

available in archives most extensively.46 Nevertheless, this does not always seem to

be a consequence for what is published. Tine Baanders (1890-1971) was a designer

who was working at a prominent design studio, but she is mentioned only briefly in

the writings of Purvis and De Jong and Broos and Hefting.47

In a second essay written by Martha Scotford, the ideas of Cheryl Buckley, as

discussed earlier, are brought into relation with graphic design history.48 Scotford

notes that the discussion of women’s exclusion in design history runs parallel with

the discussion Linda Nochlin started in the 1970s on art history.49 Many of

Scotfords ideas are similar to ideas about the canon and how this has been

esta-blished as a consequence of publications and exhibitions. She also notes that

pu-blications and exhibitions are focused on periods, innovation and influence,

which is an approach that can lead to the exclusion of certain designers, both

women and men. Her idea of a new approach of writing design history shows

similarities with Joseph’s idea of a ‘major’ and ‘minor’ history. Scotford mentions

that design is created in teams and is not always an individual work, but many

feminist -and non feminist- historians have indeed concentrated on individual

designers. Therefore, Scotford proposes two versions of history: ‘neat history’ and

‘messy history’. She defines ‘neat history’ as, ‘(…) the simple packaging of one

designer, explicit organizational context, one client, simple statements of intent,

42 Meer 2012, p. 389.43 Ibid., p. 390.44 Ibid., p. 386.45 Ibid., p. 385.46 Ibid., p. 392.47 Groot 2007, p. 455; Broos and Hefting 1999, p. 107; Purvis and De Jong 2006, p. 247.48 Scotford 1994, p. 139.49 Ibid., p. 140.


one design solution, a clearly defined audience, expected response’.50 This model is

mostly concerned with the Western male designer and helped establish the canon

of graphic design history, as it still exists today.51 The second, a ‘messy history’,

does not focus on individuals but rather on collaborations and works that are

produced for smaller scale organisations. It also focuses on cultural life and is more

personal and expressive. She does not want to argue that women have been, or

still are, only active within those kinds of organisations or collaborations but they

do include more women than men.52 Interestingly, in the book written by Broos

and Hefting, the women who are mentioned are mostly part of a team and not

presented as individual designers.53 Scotford acknowledges that women were not

active in the graphic design field in similar positions as men but they fulfilled other

roles. To include women in historical writings, she proposes that graphic design

history should not be studied in a manner as it has been studied until today

because this excludes many women.54 Women did not always follow the same

career path as men, which impacted the work they did. They connected their

public and private life much more and this influenced their career. A male designer

tended to keep their domestic and professional life separate but, to the women

who had families, this was hardly possible. Moreover, the increasing number of

women working in design in the past twenty years is a direct result of the changing

role of women in society.55 Therefore, Scotford proposes not only to study design

on a basis of individual designers and their works but also in a wider context.

Those working on a professional level in design are a direct consequence of social,

economic and cultural changes. The changing role of women in design shows

that design history must be seen as part of a bigger context, although this would

result in a more complex version of design history. A complex history, defined

by Scotford as ‘messy history’, takes into account much more layers of graphic

design history.56 The exclusion of women in many survey works and taking into

account the context in which women worked, such as the changing social position

of women, is how Marjan Groot studied women in design. She not only focused

on those designers who had been successful or produced a large oeuvre, but also

those who were working in private spheres or women who had been active only for

a brief period.

Cheryl Buckley states in the essay, ‘Made in Patriarchy: Toward a Feminist Analysis

of Women and Design’ published in 1986, that literature about design history

50 Scotford 1994, p. 140.51 Ibid., p. 141.52 Ibid., p. 141.53 Broos and Hefting 1999, pp. 174-75, 202-3; Although this considers female designer from recent decades, women are mentioned more extensively when they were part of cooperation’s or agencies such as Wild Plakken or Total Design.54 Scotford 1994, p. 141.55 Ibid., p. 144.56 Ibid., p. 149.


gives the impression that only a few women have been involved in design in

general.57 According to Buckley, this is the consequence of a patriarchy in design.

This does not necessarily mean that men have dominated women, but it is a deeply

rooted idea of social differences between sexes in our society that sometimes

appears to be natural and unalterable.58 Buckley also states that women have

mostly been ignored as a direct consequence of certain historiographical methods.

Those methods are based on selection, classification and priority given to certain

types of design and categories of designers, movements, which do not include

women. The consequence is that those methods exclude them from historical

writings. By way of example, she mentions the Bauhaus School that trained and

taught female students.59 Although the school had female students, in the early

years most women were involved and relegated to ‘feminine’ subjects in the early

years, such as the textile workshops. Moreover, in literature about the history of

the school, the more ‘important’ subjects, which were dominated by men, are

more extensively described than those workshops dominated by women.60 In general,

literature about the school deals mostly with male designers such as Marcel Breuer

or Walter Gropius and historically there is little attention for females in Bauhaus.61

In the literature about both Dutch and international graphic design history, a

similar approach can be seen. After the 1960s, historians have ignored most female

designers in literature.62 Because of those historians, women’s design is mostly

ignored or underrepresented in history books.63 When attention was given to

female designers in the Netherlands, it was by way of monographs about designers

who were wor-king for a longer period and left behind an extensive oeuvre. Those

monographs on female designers are exceptional because most designers in the

Netherlands did not become famous because little has been documented about

their work or it is hard to find data.64

The lexicon Groot published as part of the overall research, shows that

women were involved in graphic design and were actively participating in exhibitions

in- and outside the Netherlands.65 Groot states that some ofthe women who

had been active in the period between 1880-1940 within the field of applied arts

and industrial design also have been included in international overviews, including

popular as well as academic.66 Although female designers were a minority in the

field, their male colleagues in the discipline acknowledged most of them. When

57 Buckley 1986, p. 3.58 Scotford 1994, p. 139.59 Buckley 1986, p. 3.60 Rawsthorn, Alice, ‘Female Pioneers of the Bauhaus’, <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/25/arts/25iht-design25.html?_r=1&> [3 July 2013].Women are not only connected to certain characteristics or disciplines in writings of Bauhaus; on that topic will be elaborated on in chapter two.61 Buckley 1986, p. 3.62 Groot 2007, p. 17.63 Buckley 1986, p. 6.64 Groot 2007, p. 23.65 Ibid., pp. 440-43.66 Ibid., p. 20.


they were acknowledged in the discipline, this was often because their work fit

within ‘male’ values such as rationalism and was not considered to be feminine.67

Female designers in the graphic design field were mostly active in designing book

covers, illustrating books, certificates, sheet music, brochures and other printing

for practical purposes.68 A lot of those designers have been mentioned in sources

and literature that were published in the time they were active. Groot describes the

activities of female designers extensively and some of those designers were Anna

Sipkema (1877-1933) (fig. 1.1), Berhardina Bokhorst (1880-1972) (fig. 1.2) and

Tine Baanders (1890-1971) (fig. 1.3).69 All of them participated in important

exhibitions and Tine Baanders was working at a prominent design office in

Zürich.70 One female designer that gained just as much respect during her career

as her male colleagues was Fré Cohen (1903-1943) (fig.1.4). The respect Cohen

gained was very special in the thirties and forties.71 The book of Purvis and De

Jong does include these specific designers but Fré Cohen is the one who is

mentioned in the writings most extensively. Sipkema, Bokhorst and Baanders are

only represented with images but they are not mentioned in the text at all.

Interestingly, Groot states that in the graphic design field in the Netherlands, there

was less discrimination towards women than in other countries and women had

67 Groot 2007, pp. 20-21.68 Ibid., p. 295.69 Ibid., p. 303.70 Ibid., pp. 299-300.71 Ibid., p. 315.

Fig. 1.1 Anna Sipkema, Month June in calendar Bloem en Blad, 1904.

Fig. 1.2 Berhardina Bokhorst, Adver-tisement Lux: Hoeveel meer waarde hebben Kerstgeschenken, ca. 1920.


potential in the discipline; it was a modern and contemporary discipline.72 It was

the most emancipated discipline, but inside companies and businesses, there was

still a clear distinction between the roles women and men had in different sections

of graphic design. Women mostly fulfilled the role of illustrating and men were

active as typographers. Graphic design inside the Netherlands, compared to

abroad, gave women early opportunities.73 The question remains why so few

women are presented in history books.

1.4 Key points within the debate

Relying on the literature that is discussed in this chapter, it becomes clear that

there are some key points in the debate that can be researched within this thesis.

The established canon is still mostly based on male designers. Only a few female

designers are included, but the research done by Groot shows that many women

were active within graphic design in the Netherlands. This literature review shows

that it has been acknowledged for quite some time that female artists and designers

have not been included or simply have been neglected in the canon of graphic

design. Many art historians have discussed a different approach on history in recent

years and that the underrepresentation of women is deeply rooted. For example,

72 Groot 2007, p. 322.73 Ibid., p. 322.

Fig. 1.3 Tine Baanders, Brochure Amster-damsche tentoonstelling van woninginrichting, 1921. Fig. 1.4 Fré Cohen, Advertisement

Zomerfeesten Amsterdam: Tentoonstellingen Oud-Italiaanse Kunst in Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, 1934-1935.


the established canon should be expanded and women should be acknowledged

as being pioneers in their field. Concerning the representation of women, a more

nuanced view on history is needed than the canonized male history. Writings

of design history are based on selection and fixed categories, which is the main

reason a lot of designers, most probably not only women, are not included in most

history books. Those designers do not fit into fixed categories such as movements

and styles. This is the reason Brandon W. Joseph proposes the idea of a ‘minor

history’ and Martha Scotford a ‘messy history’. Those versions of history do not

only depend on fixed categories and would therefore provide a more nuanced,

multi-layered and more interesting view on history; a history that is not only based

on ‘great’ designers which, according to the canon, are mostly men. That a different

version of design history is possible is not only supported by literature that

discusses how this view must change but also by several writings that discuss that

men were not the only ones active within the design field. One of those examples is

the book written by Marjan Groot. Within this thesis, it is significant to research how

the institutions that depend most on the canon have responded on the criticism on

the canon presented in literature. Do they acknowledge the discussion about the

canon of Dutch graphic design by including female designers in their collection and

exhibitions? But also, how do the issues considering the representation of women

affect the collections and exhibitions in museums? It became clear that some

female designers were included in academic and popular survey works and those

are probably also enclosed in collections of museums. But recent research has

shown that, among designers, many more were female and that their contribution

was bigger than has been acknowledged for quite some time. Is this changing

viewpoint on design history visible in the museum? Or do museums also depend

on the fixed categories such as movements and style? Chapter two will elaborate

on those questions by looking at the critique on the museum as ‘collaborator’ of

the canon and how this has been criticized in both general and specific examples.


24 2 The representation of women in museums

2 The representation of women in museums

2.1 Feminism in the academic field

The literature discussed in the previous chapter showed that the canon of art and

design history gives the impression that there were no ‘great’ female artists. Since

the 1970s, the feminist perspective on art history made clear that art history is

a construction rather than a presentation of the truth. From that period on, an

increasing number of feminist art exhibitions in museums that criticized the canon

were organised.74 Before that, museums represented few or no women at all and

those kinds of exhibitions gave the audience the impression that women were a

minority among artists and designers.75 Due to the criticism and feminist art historical

writings since the 1970s, the representation of women in museums changed as

well. Generally, more women were represented and their presence in history and

their contribution in the field of arts became acknowledged in museums and more

solo exhibitions about female artists were organized.76

Recently, the research of Marjan Groot showed that much more women

were working as graphic designers in the past in the Netherlands. Nevertheless,

only a few of those female designers are mentioned in literature discussing the

history of Dutch graphic design. Women who are included in surveys concerning

the history of Dutch graphic design are mostly designers who were, or have been

working as graphic designers since the 1980s. Although they are still not as extensively

represented as men, they are more present than before the 1980s.77 Groot states

that, especially in the teens and twenties of the previous century, female designers

were ascribed as a different group and were not working on the same level as men.

But today, the few who are considered to be important are included in popular

and academic writings.78 The changing representation of women in writings on

graphic design has a connection with the position of women and the opportunities

women have currently. In recent decades, more women have had the opportunity

to study and to have a full time job. The period of change in the representation of

women in the late 1980s and early 1990s can be considered as the beginning of

post-feminism. This post-feminist movement is a reaction to the more extremist

feminism of the 1970s, the same period Linda Nochlin criticised the established

canon.79 Later on, in the twentieth century, the gender issue became visible in several

74 Deepwell 2006, p. 68.75 Ibid., p. 67.76 Ibid., p. 72.77 Purvis and De Jong 2006, p. 370; Broos and Hefting 1999, pp. 212-15.78 Groot 2011, p. 21.79 Gimeno Martinez 2007, p. 18.

fields, including the academic field. Especially in the field of design, it became

more important to show the role women had in the design field and to achieve a

gender balance in the representation of designers.80

2.2 Criticism on the representation of women in museums

Although the representation of women in the canon and in museums has been

criticized in the past decades, feminist Eleanor Bader recently stated that women

are still not as extensively represented in museums compared to men.81 In many

Western museums, the feminist-oriented art history still has to compete with the

mainstream male-oriented history that is presented in museums. In the forty years

after feminist writings on art history, by for example Linda Nochlin and Griselda

Pollock as discussed in chapter one, the situation in museums has only changed

slightly.82 Exhibitions and collections in museums still do not represent the role of

women in history as extensively as men.83 Most museums depend on mainstream

literature that is written on art history and the previous chapter showed that this

literature still presents predominantly men. In addition, women are historically seen

connected to certain qualities, products and characteristics ascribed to them by

mass consumption and advertising.84 Characteristics such as pink, round forms and

also certain disciplines are considered to be ‘women’s work’. Since the Renaissance,

an order of ranking has been constructed in the field of arts; in this order, design

is considered as applied arts and inferior to fine arts or architecture. Especially in

the case of traditional design or fashion, it has feminine connotations and

characteristics.85 In the 1910s and 1920s, many disciplines and characteristics of

design were gendered as evident from the majority of women in textiles and the

minority of women found in disciplines such as furniture making.86 Therefore, the

underrepresentation of women in museums is more complex than the museum

and its representation of history.

Institutions, such as museums, are important actors in the academic field and

should ideally be presenters of discussions that take place within the field. One

would think that museums would take the criticism on the canon into account

in their collection, and exhibitions. However, it seems that this is still not done

extensively. When women are not included in the collection or not represented in

museums, those museums give the impression that women have not contributed

in certain fields at all. Museums claim to display a true version of history and, in

80 Gimeno Martinez 2007, p. 19.81 Bader, Eleanor J., ‘Women Artists Still Face Discrimination’, <http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/8971> [19 April 2013].82 Sundberg 2010, p. 18.83 Porter 1996, p. 106.84 Groot 2011, p. 16.85 Ibid., p. 18.86 Ibid., p. 22.


addition, it is assumed by the audience that museums display the ‘truth’.87 On the

contrary, Gaby Porter states that museums should be places that should not aim to

present a truth, but present different viewpoints and (re) interpretations of

collections and histories.88 They should be places where the audience starts to think

about history and where discussions should be regenerated. Museums should join

the discussion that women can no longer be neglected from history and that they

contributed to the arts and design field internationally. The criticism on the canon

does not only come from outside institutions. Some museums did contribute to the

acknowledgment of the contribution women had in history in several fields. The

question is whether those museums who did contribute to that discussion how they

responded on the criticism on the established canon. Some of those examples will

be discussed in this chapter.

2.2.1 External criticism on the representation of women in museums

Until the late 1960s, most museum collections and exhibitions gave the impression that

women were a minority in the field of arts and design.89 Currently, the amount of

exhibitions that include women is increasing, but in most museums, the representation

of men and women is not equal yet.90 In the article, ‘Women Artists Still Face

Discrimination,’ feminist activist Eleanor Bader gives examples of museums that

only have a small percentage of female artists included in their collection and

exhibitions. Among those museums are the Museum of Modern art (MoMa) and

New York’s Metropolitan Museum.91 This is not surprising as many museum

collections and exhibitions are based on the established versions of art history,

which mainly represents great artists, schools or movements.92

In an article published in 1996, Curator Gaby Porter discusses the

representation of females in the museum as well. She noted that women who were

represented are generally presented as relatively passive, shallow, undeveloped,

muted and closed. On the contrary, men were generally presented as active, deep

and developed.93 Next too that, she noted that sexual differences were also present

in the narratives of exhibitions. Females were often positioned in the margins and

the description of women’s work was not as elaborate as the men’s.94 Porter also

noticed that museums are not representing women’s experiences and their contribution

within a discipline as fully and extensively as the experiences and contribution of

men in history.95 Feminist art critic Katy Deepwell states that the focal point of

87 Porter 1996, p. 108.88 Ibid., p. 114.89 Deepwell 2006, p. 67.90 Ibid., p. 66.91 Bader, Eleanor J., ‘Women Artists Still Face Discrimination’, <http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/8971> [19 April 2013].92 Deepwell 2006, p. 66.93 Porter 1996, p. 110.94 Ibid., p. 113.95 Ibid., p. 106.


exhibitions should change to avoid the marginalisation of women. The aim of the

exhibitions should focus on the representation of women for reassessment or just

as a notification that they were working as designers or artists. They should present

examples of how they had been a contribution to the field they were active in.96 An

example of female designers not represented as fully as men still today becomes

clear in an article written by Alice Rawthorn that was published in March 2013.

Rawthorn discusses the recent development for the attention of the Bauhaus

female students who had been marginalised previously in exhibitions and literature.

They were not only marginalised in the period that they were studying but also in

later periods even though some of the women were very successful such as Anni

Albers and Gunta Stölz. The Bauhaus Archive in Berlin now wants to change that

by celebrating their work in a series of exhibitions focusing on female students and

designers of the Bauhaus school.97

Several museums have been criticised extensively because of their underrepresentation

of women, including the MoMa. In 2007, critic Jerry Saltz stated that the museum

owns the most extensive collection of modern art in the world and that the

museum claims to present the origins of modernism. He criticizes the museum

because they only represent a small amount of women in the exhibition of their

collection.98 Although the museum states that it aims to present ‘multiple narratives’,

it seems that they are merely presenting the narrative of the established canon. On

the other hand, Saltz is not preaching for complete equality. He does state that

the narrative that is presented in the museum will become more lively and

revolutionary when women are included.99 According to Saltz, the museum is an

institution that should not simply present and defend the established canon. They

should also question it in order to prevent that they are only representing the most

established view on art history.100

An example of an activist group fighting against the minority of women represented

in museums is the feminist collective Guerrilla Girls. This collective was founded

in 1985 as a response to the underrepresentation of women at the MoMa as

well.101 In 1989, they counted the number of female artists in the Metropolitan

Museum of Art and discovered that only five percent of the artists were female. In

2005, this was only three percent and, in 2012, they did a recount and only four

percent of the artists on display were women. The statistics of the Guerrilla Girls

do not only show the low percentage of women in museums but also that

96 Deepwell 2006, p. 79.97 Rawsthorn, Alice, ‘Female Pioneers of the Bauhaus’, <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/25/arts/25iht-design25.html?_r=1&> [3 July 2013].98 Saltz, Jerry, ‘Where Are All the Women?’, <http://nymag.com/arts/art/features/40979/> [16 April 2013].99 Ibid.100 Ibid.101 Guerrilla Girls, ‘All about Us’. < http://www.guerrillagirls.com/info/index.shtml> [19 April 2013].


they have not included more women in their display in recent years. Among many

other publications, the Guerrilla Girls use advertising campaigns to inform the

public internationally about the underrepresentation of women in museums and

their statistics. They do this through advertisements, posters published in

newspapers, signs on busses and many other ways (fig. 2.1-2.2).

2.2.2 Internal criticism on the representation of women in museums

In the period of 1880-1940, Dutch female designers participated in several exhibitions.102

For example, the exhibition ‘National Exhibition of Women’s Labour’ organized

in 1898 in The Hague, was a breakthrough for Dutch feminism (fig.2.3). The

exhibition represented women who were working in several disciplines such as

applied and industrial arts and also trades. Although the exhibition did not have 102 Groot 2006, p. 121.

Fig. 2.1 Guerrilla Girls, Advertisement Naked 1989, 1989.

Fig. 2.2 Guerrilla Girls, French advertisement Montauban 2009, 2009.


the primary goal to criticize the representation of women in museums, it did want

to raise awareness about women designers and the unequal position between men

and women in the working field.103 This shows that, specifically in the Netherlands,

women have been represented in exhibitions when they were still working. The

question in this research is whether those women have also been represented in

recent years, especially since more attention has been given to the exclusion of

women artists since the seventies. Therefore, it is important to look at examples of

how female designers and artists are represented in museums. The way museums

deal with the criticism about the under-representation of females is very diverse.

Some examples show that exhibitions focused on women are discussing the

underrepresentation more extensively than others.

In 1976, Linda Nochlin and Ann Sutherland Harris organised one of first feminist

art-historical exhibitions in the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. The exhibition

‘Women artists: 1550-1950’ had a reforming approach with a radical touch. It was

mostly concerned with adding women to the canon after it had been criticized

very recently in several writings in the 1970s. In general, the standard narrative

was represented in museums, but this exhibition represented women that were

included in the collection but were not presented in the museum’s exhibitions. The

exhibition wanted to show that female artists had much in common with their

103 Groot 2006, pp. 55-56.

Fig. 2.3 Suze Fokker, Poster National Exhibition of Women’s Labour, 1898.


male counterparts and that they should not be considered as an external group of

artists.104 The idea of the exhibition shows that women do not necessarily have to

be represented as a separate group. More recently, an exhibition with a similar

approach was ‘elles@centrepompidou’ on show from 2009-2011 at Centre Pompidou

in Paris. The exhibition showed artworks of women that had been neglected in art

history and by many museums. The exhibition showed that even with themes from

the established canonized male art history, such as pioneership and the body, it

was possible to organize an exhibition with female artists.105 The body as a subject

in art had a particularly strong position in feminist art in the 1960s. The primary

goal of this exhibition was not only to show women that had been neglected but

also to ‘wake up’ the audience. The goal of this exhibition was to challenge natural

assumptions people had about art history of the past century.106 Agnes Thurnauer

created one of the art-works on show that challenged this idea. Thurnauer created

name labels where the artist’s gender was changed. (Fig. 2.4)

A specific exhibition that focused on the role of women in the field of

design was ‘California’s Designing Women: 1896-1986’, held at the Museum of

California Design in Los Angeles in 2012. The exhibition did not explicitly criticise

the canon of design history but it did give attention to a lot of women,

mostly unknown, who contributed to the history of California design. Some of the

designers became recognised and their recognition has endured into recent time.

Many of them, however, have been forgotten or simply ignored in recent years.107

104 Deepwell 2006, p. 69.105 Sundberg 2010, p. 18.106 Seattle Art Museum, ‘Elles: Women Artists from the Centre Pompidou, Paris’, <http://seattleartmuseum.org/elles/elles_pompidou.html#sthash.ZjCsLGJ2.dpuf> [12 June 2013].107 Head 2012, p. 156.

Fig. 2.4 Agnes Thurnauer, Portraits Grandeur Nature, 2008.


Many of the works by the designers were exhibited for the first time; the museum

wanted to present women and keep them from being anonymous. The museum

claims that the most important feature of the exhibition was to show the contribution

that female designers have always had in the history of Californian design.108

Women have not only been represented in exhibitions. The National

Museum of Women in the Arts in Washington is giving exclusive attention to

female artists. The two founders, Wilhelmina Cole Holladay and Wallace F.

Holladay, began collecting in the same period when scholars and art historians

started to question the established canon. In the 1980s, the museum opened and

became a museum explicitly for women artists.109 The opening of a museum focusing

on female artists makes it very obvious that women have never been only a minority

group among men within the field of arts.

The examples discussed in this chapter show that museums are aware of the

discussion and criticism on the representation of women. However, they are also

examples of classifying them as a different group. The underrepresentation of

women is not solved with exhibitions that represent women. A museum collection is

not just a random gathering of objects within a museum. Most museums have an

acquisitions policy that gives guidelines about how objects should be collected but

also how the museum exhibits the collection. Deepwell states that most acquisition

policies depend on knowledge of art history, which mostly present a male

dominated canon. These policies determine the space women have within a

museum collection and presentation.110 Interestingly, the national organisation for

the museum sector in Australia, ‘Museums Australia’, has a women’s policy for

museum programs. This policy contains some guidelines concerning the

representation of women in Australian museums. The policy states that traditionally

seen museums have represented the dominant groups (men) in their society.

Furthermore, it states that through the years, the position of women has changed

in society and the representation of women in museums has to change as well.

This policy gives a wide range of guidelines on more general topics; for example,

that women should not be seen and represented as a homogeneous group. But

some of the guidelines are very specific, such as display texts and that women

should not be patronised.111

108 Head 2012, p. 157.109 National Museum of Women in the Arts, ‘Our history’, <http://www.nmwa.org/about/our-history> [19 April 2013].110 Deepwell 2006, p. 67.111 Museums Australia, ‘Women’s Policy for Museum Programs and practice’, <http://www.museumsaustralia.org.au/userfiles/file/Policies/women.pdf> [10 April 2013].


2.3 Methodology

The first chapter of this thesis outlined some of the significant literature that

discussed the under representation of women in the canon. This discussion started

in the 1970’s with the article ‘Why have there been no great women artists?’

written by Linda Nochlin. This article can be considered as the starting point for

a feminist view and ‘female friendly’ version of art history. Of specific interest

within this research, is the research of Marjan Groot that was published in 2007,

which raised awareness about many women who had been active within the design

field in the Netherlands in the period of 1880-1940. This chapter outlined some

examples in the museum field that were encouraged by the criticism on the

representation of women. Many museums still present the established canon

whereas they should be institutions that pay attention to topical subjects and

discussions within the academic field. They are places that are particularly suitable

for those discussions. The analysis in chapter three will depart from already existing

ideas and writings in the field and the discussion of the (under)representation of

women in museums.

This analysis will be done on two Dutch museums: the Stedelijk Museum in

Amsterdam and the Museum Of The Image (MOTI) in Breda. These two

museums are selected due to their similarities and differences. Both museums own

a graphic design collection and both present a semi-permanent exhibition based

on their collections. The main difference between the museums is their history

and the history of their collection. MOTI has been building a collection from only

2008 and is not collecting anymore today. Besides, the museum is focused on

image culture, which includes graphic design. On the contrary, the Stedelijk has

been collecting (graphic) design since 1934 and the museum is focused on modern

and contemporary art in general. Despite their differences, they are both important

museums in conserving and presenting the heritage of Dutch graphic design and

allowing people to get acquainted with the graphic design field.

In order to see how these two leading museums in the presentation of

graphic design responded to the discussion of the contribution of women, their

collection and exhibitions will be analysed. At first, this analysis will be statistical

and will research how many women are included in the collection and in exhibitions.

Therefore, the collection database will be consulted together with exhibitions that

have been organised since the seventies. Secondly, the current presentation of

Dutch graphic design will be analysed. As mentioned earlier, the discussion about

the representation of women was started in the seventies; therefore, this analysis

will focus on the period of the 1970s until the present. Has the discussion change

the representation of women at the Stedelijk and MOTI.


Not only will this analysis be statistical but it will also be a partial discourse

analysis. It will be researched if display texts insinuate gender specific language.

Furthermore, it will be researched if both museums are gender neutral in their

representation and if they represent female designers on a basis of specific ‘feminine

characteristics’ or so-called women’s work such as textiles. Do the exhibitions

imply a difference between women and men or do they protest against this

difference directly or indirectly?

Part of the research of Marjan Groot was an overview of the women that

had been active as designers in the Netherlands. That overview will serve as a

guideline in the analysis of the museums and the women included in the

collection and presentation. Some of those women have worked in several fields

but this analysis will focus on the objects that are included from their graphic

design career. In this thesis, a selection of this overview is included in the appendix.

The research of Groot was published in 2007; the year of publication is also taken

into account in the analysis of both museums to discover if any influence is noticeable

in the representation of women from that period on.

In short, the aim of this analysis is to find a relationship between the

discussion in the academic field on the underrepresentation of women and the

representation of women in the history of Dutch graphic design at the Stedelijk

Museum and MOTI. Do those museums acknowledge the changing social position

of women and the changing position of women within art history? Or do they still

confirm the traditional different assumptions between men and women? Specific

outcomes of the analysis will be related to the discussed literature and research in

this chapter and the first chapter of this thesis. The purpose of the analysis is to

present the proportions of male and female designers in MOTI and the Stedelijk

and also the way they are represented. The third chapter will present a critical

analysis of the way museums present themselves and how they respond to topics

that are discussed and criticised in the academic field, namely the

representation of women.


3 The representation of women’s graphic design at the Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam and MOTI BredaThis chapter will discuss the data that is collected in researching the collections

and the exhibitions organised since the 1970s by the Stedelijk Museum in

Amsterdam and MOTI Breda. The aim of this analysis is to get a better view on

the response of both museums on the discussion that started in the 1970s concerning

the representation of women in art history. The data that will be compared to the

previous chapters is based on the collection database of both museums and the

literature written about the museums and the online sources that were available.

While conducting the research and analysis, some of the initial aims had to be

adjusted. Although a lot of material was available and consultable, some

difficulties were encountered during the analysis. Not all exhibitions have been

documented extensively; this made it impossible to get a detailed overview of all

participants in the relevant exhibitions. Therefore, this chapter gives rather an

impression of how women have been represented in both museums and not

an exact statistical overview that compares the representation of women to the

representation of men. The aim of this analysis was also to learn more about the

policies of both museums and to acquire more insight in the guiding principles of

their collections in the past and present. Unfortunately, this was not always as easy,

which will be elaborated on in this chapter. The analysis in this chapter provides a

critical view on how both the Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam and MOTI represent

women in their collections and exhibitions from the period of 1880-1940.

3.1 Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam

3.1.1 The museum

The Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam opened in 1895. At the beginning, the goals

and focus of the museum were significantly different and diverse than it is today.

Its collection was based on donations and the museum exhibited and accommodated

collections of others. The museum exhibited antiques, coins, jewellery, watches,

several period rooms and organised several exhibitions.112 In 1909, the museum

received money from the City Council of Amsterdam and, from that moment on,

112 Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam 2012a, p. 9.

34 3 The representation of women’s graphic design at the Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam and MOTI Breda

the museum started its own collection, which is still on display today. Throughout

the years, the museum has developed, with the help of the city of Amsterdam,

from a museum with a very diverse collection to a museum with a collection

focused on modern art, contemporary art and design.113 After the Second World

War, Willem Sandberg was appointed as the director of the museum until 1963. In

that same period, the museum collection expanded and, in the 1950s, the Stedelijk

started to characterise itself as a museum of contemporary art and design.114 As

early as the 1920s, the museum started to accommodate parts of its original collection

at the Amsterdam Historisch Museum (the present Amsterdam Museum). But only

in the 1970s did the period rooms completely disappear and the museum started

to focus on international modern art, contemporary visual arts and design. Today,

the museum wants to be a home for art and artists but also for a diverse audience.

They state that they want to be a museum where artistic production and originality

is stimulated, presented, collected, guarded and reconsidered. The museum sees

education as a primary mission and wants to reach, actively involve, inspire and

challenge a diverse audience. Their intention is to stimulate curiosity, a dialogue,

criticism and self-reflection inside and outside the museum.115 The Stedelijk

considers its collection as the soul of the museum with which they can present

endless series of viewpoints. They state that a collection is not just a random gathering

of beautiful objects but a construct of coherence stories about developments in art

that are relevant to the museum. 116

3.1.2 The representation of women in the collection

The overall collection of the Stedelijk Museum consists of approximately 90,000

objects. Out of those 90,000 objects, 70,000 are part of the design collection.117

The design collection covers, at the moment, the biggest part of the collection; the

total collection consists of objects such as furniture, textiles, glass, ceramics,

jewellery, typography and posters. The collection of graphic design is, according

to the museum, one of the best and extensive of its kind. When the collection was

build up it departed from the ideals of modernism of the 1920s en 1930s.118 Director

Willem Sandberg was inspired by the ideals of Bauhaus. 119 Today, the curator of

the graphic design collection is Carolien Glazenburg. Because it has not been

possible to look into the present collecting policy of the Stedelijk, it is not clear

which criteria they have for their design collection today.

113 Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam 2012a, p. 9.114 Ibid., pp. 11-12. 115 Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, Annual report 2011, p. 36.116 Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam 2012b, p. 13.117 Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, ‘Collectie presentatie Design’, <http://stedelijk.nl/nieuws/pers/zaalteksten> [19 May 2013].118 Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam 2012a, pp. 11-12.119 Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, ‘Collectie presentatie Design’, <http://stedelijk.nl/nieuws/pers/zaalteksten> [19 May 2013].

3 The representation of women’s graphic design at the Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam and MOTI Breda 35

Due to the extensive collection of design objects and the vulnerability of some

objects, the museum is not capable of exhibiting its complete design collection.

Therefore, the exhibition only shows a selection of the collection. Simultaneously,

with the re-opening of the museum in 2012, the book Stedelijk Collectie: Highlights

was published. This publication represents a selection of 150 objects out of the

collection of the museum. As the title indicates, the highlights of the collection are

presented and, moreover, the museum states that those objects are representative

of their overall collection.120 The criteria the museum used to select these so-called

highlights is not elaborated on. Out of the graphic designers that are included in

the collection of the Stedelijk, only male designers are represented: Wim

Crouwel, G. W. Dijsselhof, W.H. Gispen, Willem Sandberg, H. N. Werkman and

Piet Zwart.121 One of the few female designers that is represented in the book is

textile designer Kitty van de Mijll Dekker.122

The collection database was consulted on the basis of the lexicon of female

graphic designers who have been active in the period of 1880-1940.123 The lexicon

consists of 100 female designers and, out of those, the Stedelijk has included 41

designers in its collection. From each designer, approximately 1 to 15 objects are

included in the collection. However, designer Fré Cohen (1903-1943) is included

with 328 objects (fig. 3.1). Jeanne Bieruma Oosting (1898-1994) is one of the

designers who is also represented with many more objects; the Stedelijk included

119 of her works (fig. 3.2).

Some of the designers in the overview worked as a designer in several

disciplines such as textiles. One of them was Anna Sipkema (1877-1933). Although

some of the designers have been more active in other fields, Anna Sipkema was both

active as a textile designer and a graphic designer.124 But what was striking is that

the Stedelijk only included one of her graphic design objects in its collection and

24 of her textile objects (fig. 3.3).

When Sandberg started to build up the design collection in 1934, it was done on

the basis of the ideals of modernism. It might be the case that, because of those

selection criteria, graphic design made by women was not included. But when the

data of acquisitions are consulted, it seems that the Stedelijk has been acquiring

graphic design made by women through the years with no peaks in purchasing,

in for example the 1970s or after. Out of that acquisition data, nothing can be

concluded about the response to the criticism on the representation of women.

Though an objective statement cannot be made because, for most objects, it is not

indicated when they were acquired.

120 Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam 2012a, p. 13.121 Ibid., pp. 34, 58, 74, 164, 195 and 204.122 Ibid., p. 135.123 See appendix I, pp. 56-75.124 Groot 2007, p. 531.


3.1.3 The representation of women in exhibitions

Analysing the collection of the Stedelijk, provided information about the women

that are included in the collection. By analysing exhibitions organised by the

museum since the 1970s more insight can be gained in the way the museum

presents women. Since the 1970s, the Stedelijk Museum has organised several

exhibitions concerned with graphic design. Several exhibitions were organized

which focused on Dutch graphic designers out of the period 1890-1940, or

Fig. 3.1 Fré Cohen, Giroboekje Gemeente Amsterdam, 1929.

Fig. 3.2 Jeanne Bieruma Oosting, Ex Libris A.J.W. Bieruma Oosting, ca. 1920-1930.

Fig. 3.3 Anna Sipkema, Cover Een verhaal van eene meisjeskostschool, 1907.


designers from that period that participated in the exhibitions.125 Most relevant for

this research were those exhibitions and the semi-permanent collection exhibition

that is on display today.

Before the museum re-opened in 2012, the collection of the Stedelijk was not on

display permanently. Visual arts were shown more permanently but design objects

only got out of the depot in temporary exhibitions. Today the design collection is

also on show more permanently.126 The design collection of the Stedelijk does not

only include graphic design as was discussed earlier in this chapter. Therefore, the

presentation of the design collection also features a mix of the disciplines. The

semi-permanent exhibition follows a loose chronology, which starts at the end of

the 20th century and ends at the present with each gallery presenting a different theme

or focal point. In general, the wall texts are gender-neutral; graphic design is not

explicitly presented as a male profession, but texts do always refer to male graphic

designers. When a text does refer to women, it is very brief and it is explicitly

concerned with topics such as emancipation or feminism and the changing position of

women. Furthermore, most of these subjects are connected with ‘feminine’ topics

such as textiles. It seems that the attention that the museum gives to feminism is

focused on the period when feminism was dealt with in artworks in the 1970s

rather than a feminist perspective on art history. A convincing example is the

attention that is given to the connection between textiles and feminism in the

1970s in one of the galleries. In the wall-text of the presentation ‘Textile as art’

it is mentioned that, with the rise of the Women’s Movement, the idea of textiles

as ‘women’s work’ was compounded or ignored in for example sexual suggestive

textiles.127

As mentioned earlier, each gallery of the collection presentation has a

different focal point such as a certain geographical region or movement and also

specific designers. When a gallery has a specific focal point, as in the case of Dutch

graphic design, its focus is always on male designers. Willem Sandberg and Wim

Crouwel, for example, are represented extensively. However, this is not only

because they were important designers in graphic design history but they are also

of significant importance within the history of the museum. In total, the

exhibition shows only a small amount of Dutch graphic designers from the period

between 1880-1940 and, among those designers, 16 are male and are represented

with several objects. Among the represented designers, the only female designer is

Margaret Kropholler (1891-1966). However, Margaret Kropholler is not presented

with one of the works that she created individually, but one she made in collaboration

125 See appendix II, pp. 76-82.126 Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam 2012a, pp. 11-12.127 Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, ‘Collectie presentatie Design’, <http://stedelijk.nl/nieuws/pers/zaalteksten> [19 May 2013].


with designer Hendrik Wijdeveld (1885-1987) (fig.3.4).128

Most galleries in the collection presentation have a permanent theme or

focal point, but in one of the galleries this is changing. In the period of this

research, the gallery presented a small exhibition titled ‘Textiles: women’s work’

(fig.3.5). The exhibition focuses on the influence Bauhaus had on textile design

in the Netherlands from designers such as Kitty van der Mijll Dekker. Although

many women have been working as textile designers, it does confirm the traditional

idea that textile is a feminine discipline. As a consequence, this exhibition gives the

impression that women have historically been more prominent in textiles than in

graphic design.

The present semi-permanent collection exhibition at the Stedelijk pays little attention

to female graphic designers from the researched period. The overview of

exhibitions that the museum has held since the 1970s shows that neither these

exhibitions have been aiming at gender equality.129 Some of the exhibitions have

been researched more in depth, but many exhibitions were not archived that

extensively to make a comprehensive analysis possible. With the information that

was available, it was shown that a few female designers from the period between

128 Recently, the Stedelijk Museum changed the wall text at the exhibition and Margaret Kropholler is mentioned as the only designer of the Wendingen cover she designed (July 2013).129 See appendix II, pp. 76-82.

Fig. 3.4 Margaret Kropholler, Cover Wendingen volume 6 no. 4/5 on display, (bottom right), 1924.


1880-1940 were represented. However, male designers were a majority in most

exhibitions. In the past 40 years, the museum has organised several solo exhibitions

but none of them were focused on female graphic designers.

The analysis of the exhibitions at the Stedelijk gives the impression that the

museum has not taken into account new developments and the discussion in the

academic field since the 1970s about the presentation of Dutch graphic design

history. Some examples do show that the Stedelijk gives attention to feminism in

lectures and in exhibitions of visual arts. A specific example is the exhibition

‘Feminisme in het medium’, which was organised by the museum in 1984. Together

with the post-feminist movement in the late 1960s, the medium of video gained

in popularity. The exhibition showed four videos made by different artists. The

handout that was written to inform the visitor about the goal of the exhibition and

its artworks states that many women work with the medium of video. Interestingly,

one of the reasons, according to the Stedelijk, is that this medium is young and is

not yet overruled by the prevailing rules of men. Therefore, some of the videos

want to present their own image of women, which is not according to those that

are established in art history.130 More recently, there was a lecture organised by the

museum in 2005. This lecture shows the museum is certainly aware of the criticism

on the canon and wants to contribute to that discussion. The introduction text of

130 Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam 1984, p.1.

Fig. 3.5 Gallery ‘Textiles: Women’s work’ February 2013, Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam.


the lecture mentions female artists from the past but also contemporary artists.

The information about the lecture also shows that the museum is addressing the

topic in visual arts, but not in design.131 The examples that are discussed also show

what has not been done by the museum; they have not reconsidered the history of

art and design to show and acknowledge the contribution women had in the field.

3.2 Museum Of The Image Breda

3.2.1 The Museum

In recent years, the focus of the Museum Of The Image (MOTI) at Breda has

changed a number of times and the exhibitions have not always been specified to

the heritage of Dutch graphic design. The museum started in 1955 as the cultural

centre ‘De Beyerd’ and was part of the municipality of Breda. De Beyerd organised

very diverse exhibitions in the fields of fine arts, photography and graphic

design.132 In the 1990s, the museum started its transformation into a museum

mainly focused on graphic design and its history. The museum was renamed and

opened in 2008 as ‘Graphic Design Museum de Beyerd’. By that time, the old

building was expanded with a new wing that also gave space for a permanent

exhibition about the history of Dutch graphic design. Since December 2012, the

museum has been called Museum Of The Image. Its focus became image culture

with graphic design as part of the image culture.133 The museum claims that,

today, this kind of museum fits in an era where disciplines are not fixed anymore

and merge into each other. This is one of the reasons why the museum changed its

focus from exclusively graphic design to image culture presented with film, design,

photography, fashion, fine arts, architecture, science and gaming. According to

MOTI, the graphic discipline and its history is the foundation of the present

image culture.134

When the museum was re-opened in 2008, it was the first museum in the

entire world that focused on graphic design and it wanted to present the broad

and dynamic field of the discipline.135 The magazine the museum published in

that period informed the visitor that in the twentieth century the Dutch graphic

design field was a discipline wherein only a small number of designers were active as

professional designers. Among those were Piet Zwart, Wim Crouwel and Anthon

Beeke. MOTI wanted to offer these established designers, next to new talent,

131 Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, ‘What about feminism?’, <http://www.stedelijk.nl/agenda/what-about-feminism> [25 May 2013].132 MOTI Museum, ‘Geschiedenis’, <http://www.motimuseum.nl/nl/het-museum/over-het-museum/geschiede-nis/155> [29 April 2013].133 Ibid.134 MOTI Museum, ‘Over het museum’, <http://www.motimuseum.nl/nl/het-museum/over-het-museum/14> [29 April 2013].135 Anon., February 2009, p. 3.


an international stage.136 MOTI declares that today more people have access to

designer software and the digital era makes collecting accessible for everyone.

Nevertheless, the museum does not want to reject qualities or requirements that

were traditionally connected to design.137 What the museum considers as qualities

or requirements is not elaborated on.

3.2.2 The representation of women in the collection

In contrast to the Stedelijk Museum, MOTI only collected a couple of years in

the period of 2007-2011 when the museum focused specifically on graphic design.

The collection of MOTI is not as extensive as the collection graphic design of

the Stedelijk. Moreover, the museum opened as a cultural centre that presented

‘travelling’ exhibitions or organised exhibitions depending on external collections.

Today, the collection consists of circa 10,000 objects and has been build up by

purchases of the museum and by donations.138 The museum states on their website

that it is their duty and task to take care of the Dutch graphic design heritage and

collect objects that can tell a story that is interesting for a diverse audience. The

museum wants to present the story of the image culture with a collection of interesting

national and international highlights. This story is told in the

semi-permanent exhibition ‘100 years of Dutch graphic design’, which will be

elaborated on later in this chapter. This overview of Dutch graphic design was also

the point of departure for their collection.139

At the moment of writing, the museum is rewriting its collection plan

with the criteria for new purchases. At first, the focus was on graphic design, but

together with the changing focus of the museum, the collection changed as well.

Therefore, the collection plan of today is outdated and not consultable for outsiders.140

The present collection plan was written in 2007, but there are no specific

details about including women or equality in gender. These criteria are based on

the importance of a design or designer in the history of graphic design.141 Also

MOTI has indicated some of the works in their collection as highlights. Those

highlights are published on their website, but the museum does not give any

explanation on how and why the highlights have been selected. Among the works

that were designed in the period of 1880-1940, all designers are male.142

For this research, the collection of MOTI was consulted via their collection

database. It turned out that the collection included nine of the women out of the

136 Anon., February 2009, p. 3.137 Gerritzen 2009, p. 3.138 Amanda Elshout, interview with the author, Breda, 3 May 2013.139 Anon., October 2009, p. 26.140 Amanda Elshout, e-mail to the author, 8 May 2013.141 Amanda Elshout, interview with the author, Breda, 3 May 2013.142 MOTI Museum, ‘Collectie highlights’ <http://www.motimuseum.nl/nl/het-museum/over-het-museum/de-collec-tie/collectie-highlights/531?exhib=1&item=45&lang=nl> [9 July 2013].


lexicon of graphic designers.143 Out of the women that are included in the

collection, most of them are represented with one object each. In the collection,

Fré Cohen is represented most extensively with her work. In general, all the

objects were collected in the short period that the museum’s focus was still on

graphic design. Out of that data, nothing can be concluded about whether the

museum has taken into account the recent developments of the criticism on art

history since the 1970s. However, the museum started collecting in the same

period the research of Marjan Groot was published and this does raise questions

on why the museum did not take that research into account.

3.2.3 The representation of women in exhibitions

When MOTI opened in 1955 as an exhibition centre, they had already organised

exhibitions concerning graphic design. Today MOTI has a semi-permanent

exhibition about graphic design called ‘100 years of Dutch Graphic Design’ (fig. 3.6).

In contrast to the exhibition at the Stedelijk, this exhibition is focused specifically

on graphic design and its history. The museum has permanently exhibited this

presentation of graphic design from the moment they opened in 2008 as the

Graphic Design Museum de Beyerd. This exhibition is not only a presentation of

their own collection but also presents objects from other museums their collections,

such as Museum Meermanno at Den Haag and other archives and collections

from ‘Nederlands Archief Grafisch Ontwerpers’ (NAGO).144 The works made until

143 See appendix I, pp. 56-75.144 Cleven 2009b, p. 24.

Fig. 3.6 Exhibition ‘100 Years of Dutch Graphic Design, MOTI, Breda.


the 1940s are all from their own collection. With the exhibition, the

museum is aiming to present a historical overview, which is according to MOTI,

the foundation of the present image culture.145 In the exhibition, the chronology of

the exhibition stops at the 1980s.146 The exhibition wants to show the visitor both

known and unknown highlights of a century of Dutch graphic design. The

purpose of the exhibition is to show the visitor how design is very closely

connected with the modernisation of society in the twentieth century. Central

points within the exhibition are developments where social changes and changes in

the field are connected to each other. According to the museum, the period from

the end of the nineteenth century until the 1980s is very characteristic of social

changes in the Netherlands.147

Out of the period of this study, four women are represented in the exhibition.

One of them is Wilhelmina Drupsteen (1880-1966), only one of her works is

included in the collection and that object is also presented in the exhibition (fig. 3.7).

They are all presented as individual designers and with one object each. This is

striking because, next to these four female designers, 23 male designers are

represented with often more than one object each. What also occurs in the analysis

of this exhibition is that the museum wants to show the connection between social

changes and developments in graphic design, but does not mention the (changing)

145 MOTI Museum, ‘100 Years of Dutch Graphic Design’, <http://www.motimuseum.nl/nl/tentoonstellingen/nu/100-years-of-dutch-graphic-design/250> [29 April 2013].146 Cleven 2009a, p. 15.147 MOTI Museum, ‘100 Years of Dutch Graphic Design’, <http://www.motimuseum.nl/nl/tentoonstellingen/nu/100-years-of-dutch-graphic-design/250> [29 April 2013].

Fig. 3.7 Wilhelmina Drupsteen, Poster Tentoonstelling De Vrouw 1813-1913, 1913.


position of women in society and the consequences this had for women in graphic

design. Neither does the exhibition show any reconsideration of the history of

graphic design. The exhibition is mainly focused on topics such as technical

developments and innovation in design represented in the objects themselves

rather than political and social changes that influenced the designers. In one of the

wall texts, it is claimed that graphic design is in a permanent state of change and

technological developments is a steering factor. This statement suggests that the

exhibition is based on the theory of modernism.

At first sight, the wall texts seem gender neutral, which is similar to the

Stedelijk. MOTI does not imply in the wall texts that design was a male

profession and the objects in the exhibition also show, although only minimally,

that women have been active as designers. But in the wall texts only male designers

are mentioned and, because male designers dominate the presentation of objects,

this exhibition gives the impression that female designers were only a minority or

an exception in the design field. Interestingly, there is a statement made by director

Mieke Gerritzen. In 2009, the museum organised an exhibition based on a design

database of graphic designers who uploaded their work themselves. To a certain

extent, the museum did not make a selection about which designer was included

in that database and exhibition. Gerritzen states that the older generation of

designers have trouble with a collection where no selection seems to be made. She

also declares that the museum cannot make exceptions anymore in which designer

will be, or will be not, included in the collection or exhibitions.148 With this quote

Gerritzen insinuates that it seems that new exhibitions can be organised on a basis

of ‘no selection criteria’. On the contrary, in the representation of the history of

graphic design, the museum seems to hold on to the selection criteria of the past

and it can be questioned why these criteria have not been revised by the museum.

It seems that there is a gap between the selection criteria of the past and the recent

statement by Gerritzen that there should be no strict selection criteria. The

statement of Gerritzen already implies that she questions the inclusion or exclusion

of some designers, but it raises questions about why the museum does not revise

its old selection criteria. Finally, the statement of Gerritzen, that a museum should

not be selective anymore in the choice of designers, is strange. That would mean

the museum would include each designer in its collection or exhibition.

From the 1970s to the present the museum has organised many exhibitions

concerning graphic design. It seems that the museum has not responded to the

criticism of the canon by showcasing more women designers in its exhibitions.

Many solo exhibitions have been about graphic designers, but none of them are

women. However, some exhibitions did represent women, such as the exhibition

148 Reinewald 2009, p. 76.


that was organised on the 100-year anniversary of Proost Prikkels, a magazine

published by paper producer Proost en Brandt. One of the female designers

represented was Engelien Reitsma-Valença (1889-1981).

Although the museum did not organise any exhibitions that focused on

the role female designers, the museum was a host for the exhibition ‘Feministische

kunst Internationaal’ in 1980. This exhibition had its premiere in Amsterdam

in 1978 at ‘De Appel’ and had its origins in the idea of a group of women who

thought it was the right time to organise a feministic exhibition in the Netherlands.

Together with the exhibition ‘De Appel’, they organised several feminist activities,

which included showing video art made by Ulrike Rosenbach. She was also

represented in the exhibition ‘Feminisme in het medium’ at the Stedelijk in 1984.

After it was on show at ‘De Appel’, the exhibition travelled through the Netherlands

and exhibited at several museums and exhibition centres including ‘De Beyerd’.149

The exhibition presented mainly feminist art made in the 1970s and was also

organised to reconsider the role of female artists in the past and present.150

Recently the museum addressed the changing role and position of women in

history. This was represented in the exhibition ‘UnCOVERing women’ organised

by the museum in 2011 (fig. 3.8). The exhibition focused on the development of

the role of women to the position they have today. The development was

represented through women’s magazines. The information about the exhibitions

states that since the 1970s and 1980s subjects such as a career have become more

important topics.151 The museum would have had a lot of opportunities with its

149 De Mare 1980, p. 296.150 Ibid., p. 294.151 MOTI Museum, ‘UnCOVERing women’, <http://www.motimuseum.nl/nl/tentoonstellingen/geweest/uncovering-women/596> [15 May 2013].

Fig. 3.8 Exhibition ‘UnCOVERing Women’, MOTI, Breda.


collection to represent the social changes concerning women and to show the role

of women in the working field of graphic design itself. The museum could have

shown with its own collection that women already were active as designers for a

longer time. Next to that, the exhibition confirmed expectations and prejudices of

a female world by showing the development in a very one-sided way while

representing them as a separate group.

3.3 The representation of female designers at the Stedelijk Museum and MOTI

In this analysis, two museums and their representation of female Dutch designers were

researched. The main difference between those two museums was that the

Stedelijk is a museum not specifically focused on graphic design, but has been

collecting graphic design as part of its overall design collection since 1934. MOTI has

been collecting graphic design for only a short period of time. Next to that, before

MOTI turned into a museum with its own collection, it has been an exhibition centre

since its opening in 1955. This difference has been kept in mind during the analysis of

the collections and exhibitions held by both museums in the past. MOTI has been

an exhibition centre for a long time and was therefore much more an exhibitor of

‘others’ ideas in some cases. The Stedelijk has been organising its own exhibitions

and it can be stated that the exhibitions that have been organised can tell much

more about the ideals of the museum. Specific examples include both exhibitions

concerned with feminism in the late 1970s and in the beginning of the 1980s.

MOTI only provided exhibition space for the travelling exhibition ‘Feministische

kunst Internationaal’, whereas the Stedelijk gave the opportunity to discuss

feminism in terms of organising lectures in the past. The analysis of the exhibitions

that have been organised in the past by both museums did not provide exact

statistics about the contribution of women. The overview did show that both

museums did not organise any solo exhibitions about women at all. If any

exhibitions were organised that focused on women or female artists, they confirmed

the prejudices of what is considered to be feminine historically and traditionally

seen. This was present in the exhibition ‘unCOVERing women’ MOTI organised

in 2012 and the focus of the Stedelijk Museum on female textile designers.

In this thesis it was discussed that museums should aim at the presentation of a

‘true’ version of history. They should rather present a critical view on history; with

that statement in mind some outcomes were quite disappointing. It has been

discussed in the academic field, that the writings and canon of design history

should not be seen as something fixed. Also research showed that writings do not


necessarily present a ‘true’ version of design history. Though, it seems that the

Stedelijk and MOTI do consider that history to be the ‘true’ version and present

a one-sided view of that history. In their exhibitions they show a selection of

designers. Obviously, an exhibition cannot show an entire history and has to make

a selection of objects but the exhibitions at both museums seem to depend on

the highlights of design history. Among other subjects, chapter one discussed that

design history was written according to thematic and stylistic approaches with the

consequence that many women are excluded. In present exhibitions at both

museums, these approaches are also visible; this might explain why women are not

as present as men. The styles, schools and movements that are presented are based

on the canonical story of design history in which women might not have been

active as extensively as men.

In chapter one, it was also discussed that designers are considered to be

important on the basis of publications and exhibitions. It is noteworthy that both

museums mostly represented male designers, both in solo exhibitions and in

general exhibitions in the past and present. Admittedly, designers who are

represented in both museums quite extensively, such as Piet Zwart, Wim Crouwel

and Willem Sandberg have been of great significance in the graphic design field.

But it raises questions whether they are represented extensively and are considered

to be of great of importance because they have been represented so extensively

in the past and present as well. Besides that, some female designers are included

in the collection of both museums quite extensively, but they are not included in

exhibitions or the current collection presentation. One of those designers is

Fré Cohen, but she is not represented in any of the permanent exhibitions.

Not only were some results disappointing but they also showed contradictions.

An example is what the Stedelijk claims to be their purpose in the museum. They

want to be a museum that stimulates criticism and dialogue as well as challenge

its audience. However, their exhibition that also presents the history of graphic

design seems to be set-up according to the established view on this history and not

challenge the established canon at all. The collection exhibition at the Stedelijk

is based on highlights of the collection, but the question is, which ideals does the

Stedelijk use to select its highlights? The collection was historically built up

according to the modernist theory and this still seems to be the criteria to what can

be considered a highlight. Surprisingly, the exhibition gives the impression that

women have not been active as graphic designers. However, both museums have

included several women in their graphic design collection. Although the women

that have been included in the exhibitions are only represented with a few works

each. This is also representative for the presentation of the collections. MOTI has

included several women, also with one object each.


MOTI has been collecting graphic design for a relatively short period. Although

they do not only focus on graphic design, they did re-open as a museum focused

on graphic design in 2008. Approximately a year before the museum opened its

doors as the Graphic Design Museum, the research of Marjan Groot was

published. But outcomes of the analysis of the exhibition ‘100 years of graphic

design’ show that this does not seem to be taken into consideration. The exhibition

is almost a visualisation of the books already written about the history of Dutch

graphic design. Although MOTI did include more women in the exhibition than

the Stedelijk did, the museum gives an impression that only a small amount of

women were active in the Dutch graphic design field.

In their selection of new graphic design, museum Director Gerritzen states

that a museum cannot decide to include works of a graphic designer and exclude

the other designer. On the other hand, the museum does not want to reject qualities

that were traditionally connected to design; they want to make a selection.152 This

idea seems to embody why the museum is still presenting and collecting the history

of graphic design, which is probably based on the criteria from modernism. They

proceed with the canon that has been questioned in the academic field extensively

and the museum gives the impression that they are not aware of all the criticism

and recent research in the field.

The outcomes of this analysis show that, generally, MOTI and the Stedelijk seem

to depend on the established canon of Dutch graphic design history. However,

museums should be participants in the discussions in the design field concerning

the representation of women. Museums should not be aiming at the presentation of

a version of design history as it is already established, they should present different

viewpoints of that history and refute the assumption that there is only one way to

present design history. In the case of the Stedelijk, this is not an overall assumption

of the whole museum but of the area that has been researched: their collection

and exhibitions concerning graphic design. In the case of MOTI, the conclusions

are most striking. The museum’s focus on graphic design started only a couple

years ago; the criticism on the canon of graphic design had already started and

they could have taken this into consideration. However, they do not seem to take

research, criticism into account or the new viewpoints on the history of graphic

design. Although both museums do address feminism in the past and present, they

do not consider a feminist perspective on art history. When exhibitions or other

activities are organised with a feminist perspective or subject, it mostly considers

feminist art that was popular in the 1970s.

Although both museums do not seem to try to reconsider Dutch graphic

design history, it should be noted that the participation of women in Dutch

152 Anon., February 2009, p. 3.


graphic design in 1880-1940 has only been researched quite recently. Because of

that, many women have yet to be discovered. Many women have not been as

active in their profession as men and only a small oeuvre of many women is

available or even produced in the first place. Nevertheless, it is not an excuse not to

present women or only a small amount of women in exhibitions. The analysis of

the collection of the Stedelijk and MOTI shows that even those women who are

represented in the collection with many works are not included in the

presentation. Also texts only seem to focus on those men that have been significant

in the canonical writings about the history of graphic design. When both

museums included more women, it would shed a new light on the history of

Dutch graphic design. Museums should be active participants in the discussion of

the canon instead of only confirming the established canon. They would contribute to

a less subjective view on design history that has not only been a field with a

majority of male designers. It would show that women have contributed to the

development of graphic design more than has been accepted for a long time.


ConclusionThe main theme in this thesis was the representation of female graphic designers

in the Netherlands. The purpose of this research was to gain a better insight in the

representation of female designers from the period of 1880-1940 in museums and

how museums have dealt with the criticism on the established male canon since

the 1970s. In this thesis, the research was limited to two museums: the Stedelijk

Museum Amsterdam and MOTI Breda. Both their collections and exhibitions

have been analysed. This analysis showed that, despite the criticism about the

under representation of women, women are not as extensively represented

compared to their male colleagues. The collections of both museums have

included women. However, both museums only represent a small amount of

female designers in exhibitions compared to the represented male designers in the

past or in the present. When museums explicitly represent women, pay attention

to the changing social position of women or their role in the design field, it mostly

refers to a stereotype and traditional view of women or on specific disciplines.

The research showed that both museums have dealt with feminism. However,

both museums focused on feminism implemented in visual arts in the 1970s and

1980s rather than on a feminist perspective on design history. In short, this thesis

turned out to be a critical analysis and critical view on museums, how they present

themselves and how their goals and aims are reflected in their collections and

exhibitions. Museums claim to be places for discussion, but it seems, when they are

researched in depth, this is not reflected in their exhibitions. This research gave

more insight in the way women are still underrepresented, faced with

discrimination and connected with gender specific subjects. Moreover, this

research also showed that it seems that museums still depend on the established

canon of graphic design, although this has been criticized extensively.

The research in this thesis was divided in three chapters which all touched upon a

specific level of the representation of women in art history and in museums.

Chapter one dealt with the criticism about the canon that is still mostly

based on modernism. The literature that was discussed, presented several viewpoints

of the criticism on the canon that started in the 1970s. The established

canon has been questioned, it needs reconsideration and it cannot be seen as a

fixed version of history. The canon is not only seen as fixed by historians but by

many institutions and museums that support this view as well. Although the

chapter touched upon several viewpoints, some similarities were encountered in

the literature. Those similarities were mostly found in a different approach of

design history. Historically seen, writings of design history are based on the

Conclusion 51

52 Conclusion

ideals of modernism; designers are considered significant enough to be mentioned

when they were seen as pioneers or innovatory in their discipline. Another issue

that leads to the exclusion of many designers is that historical writings are based

on fixed categories or movements. All those who do not fit into those categories

are eventually underrepresented, neglected or forgotten. Ideas were discussed that

considered a more nuanced and more interesting version of history. This new

approach of design history is not principally based on fixed categories or success

based on the amount of publications of a designer. It gives rather an impression

of the overall field and history of graphic design in a wider context. This new

approach of design history is not a history without any criteria. It is a version of

history that does not only represent the most successful designers. This new

approach also includes those designers who have contributed to the field, but

might not have been as successful and have had great influence on later designers.

Even though the canon of art and design history have both been criticized and

different approaches of historical writings were discussed, the canon of Dutch

graphic design is still written according to the most established version of graphic

design history and its pioneers. The most recent study that refutes that established

canon of Dutch design history is the study of Marjan Groot. This study showed

that, despite the small number of women included in most writings of Dutch

graphic design, many more have been active and had a professional career.

Examples were given in chapter two to gain a better insight into the way museums

respond to the criticism about the canon and how museums have been criticized.

The research in this chapter showed that recently and also throughout the years,

several museums have addressed the underrepresentation of women and criticised

the established canon. This was shown with some examples that discussed several

international exhibitions. Although those exhibitions have been organised, women

are generally still underrepresented in museums or represented differently than

men. Besides, women are still mostly represented in connection with traditional

feminine qualities and disciplines or they are marginalised in exhibitions. It turned

out many museums still depend on the established canon even though it has been

discussed that museums should be places that present different viewpoints and

interpretations of collections and histories and contribute to discussions in the

academic field. The research in this chapter gave, together with chapter one, a

set of lenses through which the Stedelijk Museum and MOTI could be further

analysed.

Chapter three outlined the most significant data and main conclusions by studying

the collections and exhibitions of the Stedelijk Museum and MOTI. At First, this

chapter gave information about the museums that would help in the further

analysis of the museums. Collections in both museums were consulted and only a

few female designers out of the period of 1880-1940 were included in the

collections. Although the Stedelijk included 41 female designers in their collection and

MOTI 9, both museums included only a few of those designers in their

permanent exhibition. The Stedelijk was even the most disappointing with only

one female graphic designer on display. Out of the exhibitions that have been

organised since the 1970s, none of them explicitly focused on female designers

and women were again a minority. Both museums did address the discussion

surrounding women and the implementation of feminism in visual arts. Some

exhibitions showed that both museums seem to have done this only in connection

with visual arts in which the criticism was dealt with in the 1970s. Some exhibitions

and activities showed that the Stedelijk was especially involved and aware of the

changing perspective on art. However, they did not implement this in their design

collection and exhibitions.

Even today the Stedelijk and MOTI give the impression that only a few

women have been active as designers despite of all the criticism and research that

has been done on female graphic designers in general and also specifically in the

Netherlands. Both museums seem to depend on the established canon of Dutch

graphic design and they depend on the categories, movements and styles that are

also represented in the canon. The consequence of those fixed categories is that

many male and female designers are excluded or neglected. Both museums

orga-nised exhibitions in the past that focused on female designers or the changing

role of women in society, but those were based on traditional feminine disciplines

or aspects. Most of the time, the results of the analysis were contradictory in terms

of the way museums present themselves. In the case of MOTI it was most

surprising that they still depend on the most established version of graphic design

history. The museum started to specialise in graphic design in 2008, which gave

them the opportunity to take into account the research and criticism on the canon.

Nevertheless, both museums contribute to the existence of the established canon

that excludes many women. Both museums, however, should be places that

participate in discussions and criticism out of the academic field. They should also

be places that present different viewpoints on history and let the audience be part

of the discussion in the academic field. It would result in more surprising and

innovatory exhibitions rather than a presentation that outlines a history book.

Despite the significant results, some limitations were encountered during this

research. Those limitations were mostly concerned with the accuracy of the

data. It turned out to be difficult to provide exact data of the amount of women

represented in the collection and in exhibitions from the past. This made it impossible

to provide exact statistics of the difference in the amount of men and women

Conclusion 53

54 Conclusion

represented in both museums. Unfortunately, it was also not possible to look into

the current acquisition policies of both museums. It would have been interesting to

learn more about the guidelines and criteria both museums use in the acquisition

of new objects for their collection and if those criteria might have explained the

underrepresentation of women. Despite these limitations, this research gave more

insight into the way museums are dealing, and have dealt with the representation

of women.

This research gave insight into the way female graphic designers are represented;

they are still not represented equally as men in museums and the problem is

deeply rooted in the way museums depend on historical writings, guidelines and

criteria that are based on modernism or the established canon. Although this

research provided a lot of insights, it also raised more questions that require

further research. These questions are mostly concerned with solutions for the

problem of the under-representation of women and focuses on a different way

of presenting design and art history in museums. How can museums include the

research that has been done in the past and implement the criticism on the

established canon of graphic design history?

This thesis proposes a more critical view of the representation of the

history of graphic design and does not accept the one-sided view of history as

it is represented in the canon. It also proposes that museums should not literally

present the way graphic design history is presented in historical writings. They

should present an interpretation of those writings or new approaches to present

new and less established ways of graphic design history. Specifically the Stedelijk

and MOTI seem to rely on the existing canon without taking into account the

criticism there has been on graphic design history. Neither do they seem to take

into account the research that shows how many women have been active as

graphic designer and have contributed to the field.

56 Appendix I

Appendix IDutch female graphic designers 1880-1940

Note: This overview presents which designers are included in the collection of

the Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam and MOTI Breda. The overview of graphic

designers is selected out of the complete lexicon published by Marjan Groot of

Dutch women who were active in the applied arts and industrial design field.153 At

first, it presents if they are included and how many objects are included of the de-

signer. Not all objects are necessarily individual works. It was not indicated for all

works in the collection database when they were acquired. For some objects it was

indicated and the dates mentioned in this overview are referring to those objects.

Those dates are indicators when women designers were included in the collection.

The collection of the Stedelijk Museum was consulted on 23 April 2013.

The collection of MOTI was consulted on 3 May 2013.

Name Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam

MOTI Breda

A

Aafjes, Sijtje

Amsterdam 22/8/1983-Rotterdam 1972

Illustrator

No No

Abresch, Annie

Amsterdam 12/6/1880-Den Haag 10/3/1926

Designer of industrial ma-nufactured bookbindings

No No

153 Groot 2007, pp. 450-551.

Adama, Florie

Designer of industrial manufactured books and illustrator of bookbindings

Yes

1 object

No

Alindo, Adri/ Adri Paling-dood

Rotterdam 2/8/1905-?

Designer of industrial ma-nufactured bookbindings and illustrator

No No

Amesz, Nans

Amsterdam 4/11/1897-Utrecht 5/8/1965

Painter and illustrator

No No

B

Baanders, Tine

Amsterdam 4/8/1890-Maarssen 24/11/1971

Graphic designer, illustra-tor, litographer

Yes

14 objects

1935, 1975,2011

Yes

1 object

2010

Bachiene, Louise

Bandjarnegare/Java 1870-Beaussiet/Fra 1963

Illustrator and designer of industrial manufactured bookbindings

No No

Appendix I 57

58 Appendix I

Balen, Cornelia L. van

1859-?

Graphic designer and designer of industrial ma-nufactured bookbindings

No No

Stam-Beese, Lotte

Reisicht Silezië 28/1/1903-Krimpen aan den Ijssel 18/11/1988

Graphic designer

Yes

2 objects

No

Benyon, Suze

Batavia 10/9/1896-Den Haag 21/10/1968

Illustrator and graphic designer

No No

Berg, Else/Elsa

Ratibor Silezië 19/2/1877-Auschwitz 19/11/1942

Designer of graphs and industrial manufactured bookbindings

No No

Bergen, Louise E. van

Illustrator

No No

Berlage, Cato/Cateau, Toop, To

Amsterdam 15/6/1889-?

Graphic designer and designer of industrial ma-nufactured bookbindings

Yes

1 object

No

Beijerman, Louise

Leiden 11/10/1883-15/7/1970

Designer of industrial ma-nufactured bookbindings and covers

No No

Bieruma Oosting, Jeanne

Leeuwarden 5/2/1898- Almen 1994

Graphic artist and illustra-tor

Yes

119 objects

1957, 1966, 1990

No

Bleeker, Rijka

Illustrator

No No

Blommestein, Louise van

Parijs 17/3/1882-Arles-heim/Zw. 3/10/1965

Graphic designer and de-signer of bookbindings

No No

Appendix I 59

60 Appendix I

Bodenheim, Nelly

Amsterdam 27/5/1874-7/1/1951

Illustrator of books and bookcovers

Yes

7 objects

1997

No

Bokhorst, Berhardina/Dien

Soerabaia 31/5/1880-Wassenaar 19/7/1972

Illustrator

No No

Bosscha, Jacoba

Illustrator and designer

Yes

1 object

No

Brandt, Elisabeth

Amsterdam 23/8/1853-Amsterdam 7/6/1907

Graphic designer

No No

Bridge, Amy

Designer

No No

C

Canta, Agnes

Rotterdam 14/11/1888-8/8/1964

Graphic designer

Yes

7 objects

No

Cohen, Fré

Amsterdam 11/8/1903-Hengelo 14/6/1943

Illustrator, typographer, graphic designer

Yes

328 objects

2011

Yes

17 objects

2010,2011

Coster, Johanna

Amsterdam 24/7/1893-20/7/1960


Yes

6 objects

No

Cramer, Rie/Rietje

Soekaboemi 10/10/1887-Laren NH 16/9/1977

Illustrator

Yes

7 objects

1975

No

D

Daemen, Jo

Haarlem 1891-De Bilt 1944


Yes

2 objects

1975

No

Damen, Christine


Illustrator

No No

Appendix I 61

62 Appendix I

Doesburgh, Elsa van

Amsterdam 7/12/1875-1957

Illustrator

No No

Drupsteen, Willy/Wilhel-mina

Amsterdam 10/10/1880-Oosterbeek 2/4/1966


Yes

1 object

1935

Yes

1 object (in current exhibi-tion)

2009

Duyvis, Debora

Amsterdam 17/2/1886-29/10/1974

Graphic artist and illustra-tor

Yes

10 objects

1941

No

E

Ehrlich, Christa

Wenen 1903-Den Haag 1995

Graphic designer

Yes

5 objects

2011

No

Eissenloeffel-Willekes Mac-donald, Clara Anna

Haarlem 2/2/1893

Illustrator

No No

Ermeling, Annie

Grisee Ned. Indie 1/7/1865-Den Haag 8/9/1932

Illustrator, lithographer and designer of industrial manufactured bookbin-dings

No No

Ernst, Helen

Athene 10/3/1904-Schwe-rin 26/3/1948

Graphic designer and il-lustrator

Yes

1 object

2012

No

Eysinga, Ima/Irma van

Noordwijkerhout 12/2/1881-Ermelo 28/6/1958

Illustrator

No No

F

Formijne, Coory/Cor

Wadenoijen 23/6/1896-?

Designer

No No

Appendix I 63

64 Appendix I

G

Góth, Sárika

Wenen 29/3/1900-Veere 1/4/1992

Illustrator

No No

Goudschaal, A.C.G.

Graphic designer

Yes

1 object

No

Graag, Julie de

Gornichem 18/7/1877-Den Haag 2/2/1924

Graphic artist

Yes

1 object

No

Grieken, Cecile van

Groningen 16/8/1880-?

Graphic designer

No No

H

Hart, Cornelia van der

Boekit Tingi 5/12/1851-Den Haag 14/7/1940


Yes

2 objects

No

Have, Nelly ten


Illustrator

No No

Have, Tiny ten

Amsterdam 10/3/1910

Illustrator

No No

Hertog, Machteld den

Graphic designer

Yes

1 object

Yes

2 objects

2010

Heyligers, Netty

Buitenzorg Java Ned. Indie 21/3/1897-Maastricht 20/10/1988

Illustrator

No No

Homan van der Heide, Annie

Illustrator

No No

Honig, Nelly Greta

Helsinki 26/10/1879-Am-sterdam 7/4/1945


No No

Hoogewerff-van Stolk, Anna

Rotterdam 3/2/1853-Den Haag 10/1/1938

Graphic designer

No No

Appendix I 65

66 Appendix I

Houten, Barbara van

Groningen 8/4/1862-Den Haag 27/5/1950


No No

J

Jacobsen, Mirjam Rosa

Amsterdam 14/7/1887-Bergen-Belsen 8/2/1945

Graphic designer

No No

K

Kaijser, Suzanne

Batavia 9/7/1900-Amster-dam 31/8/1954

Illustrator

No No

Kerckhoff, Emilie van

Zwolle 26/11/1867-Blari-cum 24/10/1980


No No

Klinkhamer, Adriënne

Amsterdam 4/12/1876-Velsen 1976

Illustrator

No No

Kooyman, Rie

Oudkarspel 21/3/1910-Bergen NH 1984


Yes

1 object

No

Kropholler, Julie

Nieuwe Amstel 23/12/1894-?

Illustrator

No No

Kropholler, Margaret/Maggie/Meg

Haarlem 27/6/1891-Am-sterdam 15/11/1966

Designer

Yes

2 objects

Yes

2 objects

L

Lang, Gerarda de

Beets 28/11/1876-Amster-dam 4/12/1962

Graphic designer

No No

Langeler, Freddy

Amsterdam 1899-Laren 1948

Illustrator

Yes

1 object

No

Appendix I 67

68 Appendix I

Leeuwen, Nans van

Amsterdam 1900-Rotter-dam 1/1/1995

Illustrator

Yes

1 object

No

M

Meyer, Agta

Den Haag 18/4/1908-Flo-rence 8/11/1944

Illustrator

Yes

5 objects

No

Molkenboer, Phemia

Weesp 10/9/1883-10/5/1940

Designer

No No

Mulder van der Graaf, M.

Graphic designer

No No

N

Nahuys, Alice

1894-1967

Typographic designer

No No

Nieuwenhuis, Ella/Enna

Utrecht 5/5/1882-Ooster-beek 1971

Illustrator

Yes

1 object

No

Nije, Letty/Lettie

1908-1968


No No

O

Oostveen, Mia van

Bussum 14/3/1899-1979

Illustrator

Yes

1 object

No

Oppenraaij, Mies van

Soerabaja Ned. Indie 22/12/1910-Beneden-Leeuwen 30/9/1998

Illustrator

No No

Osselen, Erna van

Amsterdam 13/7/1903-1985/9

Graphic designer

Yes

6 objects

1960

No

P

Philipsen, Kate W.

Graphic designer and typographer

No No

Appendix I 69

70 Appendix I

Polenaar, Willemina/Mien

Amsterdam 4/4/1884-Baarn 3/4/1985

Graphic designer

No No

Pijpers, Edith Elizabeth

Amsterdam 27/9/1886-Amersfoort 22/10/1963

Graphic designers

No No

R

Rahusen, Ina

Nieuwer Amstel 8/3/1895-Renkum 1977

Illustrator

Yes

1 object

No

Regteren Altena, Jo van

Amsterdam 11/6/1876-Haarlem 17/3/1954

designer

Yes

18 objects

No

Riemersma, Ella

Dordrecht 27/6/1903-We-nen 21/3/1993


Yes

4 objects

2009, 2011

Yes

1 object

2011

Ritsema, E.

Illustrator

No No

Rüdeman, Dolly

Saltiga/Java 3/2/1902-Amsterdam 21/1/1980


Yes

30 objects

No

S

Schermerlé, Willy


Illustrator

No No

Schiavon, Alma

Illustrator

No No

Sipkema, Anna/Annie

Leens GR 6/9/1877-Am-sterdam 30/7/1933

Graphic designer

Yes

1 object

Sipkema was also a textile designer; 24 textile objects are included in the collection but only one of her graphic works.

No

Sluijter, Anna

Amsterdam 5/12/1866-Laren NH 7/12/1931

Illustrator

No No

Appendix I 71

72 Appendix I

Snellen, Ella

Illustrator

No No

Spoor, Nelly

Den Haag 24/5/1885-La-ren 1950

Illustrator

Yes

2 objects

Yes

1 object

2010

Spier, Jo

Zutphen 26/6/1900 - Santa Fe 21/5/1978

Illustrator

Yes

31 objects

Yes

1 object

Stein, Greta

Amsterdam 3/3/1900-Auschwitz 12/2/1943

Graphic designer

No No

Stok, Hilda van der

Buitenzorg 9/7/1913-Hat-tem 23/2/1973

Illustrator

No No

T

Tiemersma, Sjoukje

Graphic designer (not pro-fessional)

No No

V

Valença, Engelien

Amsterdam 3/5/1889-Doorn 1981


Yes

1 object

No

Vecht-de Wijn, Cornelia Margaretha van de

Meppel 3/9/1893

Designer of price-winning stamp in 1921

No No

Veer, Elizabeth Arnolda (Bas) van der

Schoonhoven 23/6/1887-Den Haag 6/2/1941

Illustrator

Yes

1 object

No

Volker van Waverveen, Nelly/Nellie

1889-1953

Illustrator

No No

W

Waarden, Netty van der

Graphic designer

No No

Wedell, Lida von

Illustrator

No No

Appendix I 73

74 Appendix I

Wichers Wierdsma, Roline Maria

Franeker 30/10/1891-Domburg 30/6/1970

Graphic designer

Yes

23 objects

No

Willebeek Le Mair, Henriëtte/Hans

Rotterdam 23/4/1889-Den Haag 15/3/1966

Illustrator

Yes

1 object

No

Winkel, Greet te

Groningen 13/1/1881-?

Calligrapher

Yes

2 objects

1975

No

Wijdeveld, Russcha

1912

Illustrator and designer of advertisements

Yes

3 objects

Yes

1 object

Wijthof, Anna

Amsterdam 29/10/1863-1944

Illustrator

No No

IJ

Ijzerdraat, Hermine

Amsterdam 14/1/1876-Haarlem 30/12/1963

Illustrator

No No

Z

Zeijst, Ans van

Utrecht 28/12/1906-?

Graphic designer

No No

Total 100 designers Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam41 designers

MOTI Breda

9 designers

Appendix I 75

76 Appendix II

Appendix IIExhibitions Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam

Semi-Permanent exhibition (24 April 2013)

Women (until approximately 1940s) 1

Men (until approximately 1940s) 16

This overview presents the exhibitions at the Stedelijk Museum that focused on graphic design. Those exhibitions that represented graphic designers from the period of this study are more elaborated on when possible.

Exhibitions since the 1970s

7.2-2.3 1970De Grafische

This exhibition represented 27 designers in total, four of them were women:Jeanne Bieruma Oosting (1898-1994)Maaike Braat (1907-1992)Engelien Reitsma-Valença (1889-1981)Akke Sins (1928)154

20.11-3.1 1971Otto Treumann

Solo exhibition

28.11-3.1 1971Piet Zwart: Werkmanprijs 1969

No further information/no exhibition catalogue

154 Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam 1970.

26.2-22.3 1971De Grafische

This exhibition represented 25 designers in total, four of them were women:Jeanne Bieruma Oosting (1898-1994)Maaike Braat (1907-1992)Engelien Reitsma-Valença (1889-1981)Akke Sins (1928)155

31.3-13.5 1973Cijfers, Letters, woorden – eigen collectie

The Dutch graphic designers that were represented in this exhibition were only men.156

27.10-18.11 1973Grafische vormgevers Nederland

No further information/no exhibition catalogue.

1.12-6.1 1974Grafisch ontwerpen voor de gemeenschap (Alliance Graphique Internationale)

The exhibition showed graphic design of 59 designers from 17 countries most probably active in the same period as the exhibi-tion. It is not mentioned in the article which designers were represented.157

28.9-15.10 1974Start ‘74: Grafisch vormgevers Nederland

Exhibition of graduated stu-dents in graphic design in 1974

18.9-12.10 1975Start ‘75: Grafisch vormgevers Nederland

Exhibition of graduated stu-dents in graphic design in 1975

11.2-? 1976Jan van Toorn kiest affiches uit bezit SM

All the posters, made by Dutch graphic designers before the 1940s, mentioned in the exhibi-tion catalogue are made by male designers.158

Appendix II 77

155 Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam 1971.156 Idem 1973.157 Anon. 1973.158 Leering and Van Toorn 1976, pp. 32-41.

78 Appendix II

11.12-30.1 1977Affiches voor Amnesty International

Amnesty International was founded in 1961, this means that no female designers from the period of study have designed the posters.159

22.4-15.5 1978 Grafische Vormgevers Nederland


Summer 1978 (21.4-July)Nieuwe typografie 1915-40

The Dutch typographers included in this exhibition were only men.160

23.2-8.4 1979Wim Crouwel

Solo exhibition

22.6-16.9 1979Affiches: informatie/manipulatie

All Dutch posters mentioned in the catalogue were made by male designers.161

4.12 1981-10.1 1982Circusaffiches

No additional information about the designers who were repre-sented.162

12.12 1981-7.2 1982Benno Premsela onder anderen

Dutch female designers that had been active before the 1940s were not included in this exhibi-tion.163

18.12 1981-31.1 1982De kunst van het protest


159 Amnesty International ‘Vijftig jaar Amnesty: de kracht van verbondenheid’ <http://50jaar.amnesty.nl/paginas> [21 May 2013].160 Herst 1978.161 Bertheux, Stroeve and Huisman 1979, pp. 2-9.162 Anon. 1981, p. 105.163 Dekker 1982.

11.6-22.8 1982Klap, vouw, stapel: een ontwerpprobleem


24.12-13.2 1983Affiches


2.9-23.10 1983Ontwerp: Total Design

Exhibition about design agency Total Design founded in the 1960s. The representation of women and men is mixed.164

11.11-1.1 1984100 jaar bekijks, 1883-1983. Een keuze uit de affichecollectie van het SM

Among the Dutch designers included in this exhibition there were no women represented.165

14.4-11.6 1984Willem Sandberg: typografie

Solo exhibition

20.4-3.6 1984Piet Zwart: ontwerp Vredestein-catalogus 1938-1939

Solo exhibition

10.5-2.6 1985Tussen letter&boek. 8x Battus. Grafische vormgevers Nederland

Most of the designers in this exhibition were working as designer after the 1940s.166

10.5-23.6 1985Gerard Unger. Grafische vormgever en letterontwerper

Solo exhibition

17.5-29.6 1986Sandberg als ontwerper

Solo exhibition

Appendix II 79

164 Broos 1983.165 Wiegersma 1983.166 Lommen 1999, p. 5.

80 Appendix II

12.3-8.5 1988H.N. Werkman: tekeningen, drukwerk, druksels

Solo exhibition

7.10-26.11 1989Vorm van geld: 175 jaar Nederlandse bankbiljetten

Exhibition about 175 years designing Dutch banknotes. Among the mentioned designers in the article that was published none of the designers are women.167

2.6-30.6 1990Ontwerpen voor het Holland-Festival1948-1990 affiches en drukwerk

As the title indicates; only designers are included working after 1948.

19.1-1.4 1991VormgeversWerk van acht vormgevers uit de collectie

Only Dutch male designers were represented in this exhibition.168

18.4-9.5 1993Kunstenaarsverenigingen:b.n.o.: Jan Bons en Benno Wissing 2 ontwerpers

Solo exhibition of Jan Bons and Benno Wissing.

13.11-6.1 1994Affiches eigen collectie


21.12-26.1 1997 Piet Zwart. Fotografie en typografie

Solo exhibition

20.9-26.10 1997At random. Wim Crouwel.

Solo exhibition

25.10-30.11 1997Sandberg. Grafisch ontwerper en museum pionier

Solo exhibition

167 Pieters 1989, pp. 81-82.168 Kras 1991, pp. 22-23.169 Le Coultre 2001, pp. 80, 150, 216-17, 154-55, 158-59, 186-87, 218-19, 182-83.

22.1-19.3 2000Rondom Wendingen. Grafische vormgeving uit de collectie

A few female designers designed covers for the magazine. Those female designers are Pauline Bolken, Margaret Kropholler, Tine Baanders and Christa Ehr-lich.169 Tine Baanders designed several covers. Which designers and covers were represented in this exhibition is not consultable.

19.5-5.8 2001Dutch Oranges 50 Nederlandse kinderboekillustratoren

Almost half of the illustrators were female, but among the fifty designers none were women and active in the period between 1880-1940.170

6.4-19.5 2002Dat was vormgeving. KPN Kunst en vormgeving 1913-2002


21.9-24.11 2002 Jan Bons: nieuwe kinderpostzegel, keuze uit 75 jaar kinderpostzegels

Two women were included who designed children welfare stamps but both of them designed the stamps after the 1940s.Lies Ros (Wild Plakken)Babs van Wely.171

18.4-24.8 2003Walter NikkelsTypograaf en ontwerper

Solo exhibition

6.9-9.11 2003Nieuw! New! Aanwinsten industriele en grafische vormgeving

No acquisitions in graphic design of Dutch female graphic designers from the period be-tween 1880-1940.172

18.04- 24.08 2003Walter Nikkels - typograaf

Solo exhibition

Appendix II 81

170 Vrooland-Löb and Fontijne 2001.171 Glazenburg 2002. 172 Garvelink-Glazenburg and De Roode 2003, pp. 36-38.

1.10 2004-13.2 2005Sandberg Nu: ode aan demuseumdirecteur

No exhibition catalogue or overview of objects included in the exhibition.

28.8 2010 - 9.01 2011Stedelijk in affiches

This exhibition showed several posters that were used as a promotion for exhibition at the Stedelijk Museum. Tine Baanders made one of the posters that was on show.173

13.08-9.10 2011Wim Crouwel: een grafische ontdekkingsreis

Solo exhibition

3.3-15.8 2011Keuze uit collectie toegepaste kunst en vormgeving


26.8-9.10 2011Hendrik Nicolaas Werkman

Solo exhibition

82 Appendix II

173 Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, ‘Stedelijk in affiches – The Temporary Stedelijk Amsterdam’, <http://www.stedelijk.nu/nu-in-stedelijk/archief/archief-tentoonstellingen/stedelijk-in-affiches> [22 May 2013].

Appendix IIIExhibitions MOTI Breda

Semi-Permanent exhibition: 100 years of Dutch graphic design (2 May 2013)

Women (until 1940s) 4

Men (until 1940s) 59

Exhibitions since the 1970s

21-12-19.01 1972Jan Begeer: grafische ontwerpern

Solo exhibition

11.01-10.02 1974Gerrit de Morée: illustratief ontwerper, mo-numentaal kunstenaar, graficus.

Solo exhibition

02.05-31.05 1982 Affiches van Frits Muller

No additional information/no exhibition catalogue

30.04-05.06 1983 ‘ontwerp: Total Design’: overzicht van 20 jaar ontwerpen door TD Associatie voor Total Design BV, Amsterdam

This exhibition showed almost an equal amount of men and women as part of the agency. Objects that are shown in the catalogue do not refer to specific designers. When specific names are mentioned they are from the founders of Total Design: Ben Bos, Wim Crouwel, Friso Kramer and Benno Wissing. How the objects were represen-ted in the exhibition itself is not known.174 Moreover, women who were represented were not active yet in the period of this study.

Appendix III 83

174 Broos 1983, pp. 8-16.

84 Appendix III

14.12-01.02 1984 Jan van Toorn Ontwerpen

Solo exhibition

14.12-01.02 1984 Typografie in het kwadraat


09.07-28.08 1987 Hollands Hollywood


11.09-23.10 1987 Ben Bos, grafisch vormgeven -25 jaar (Total) Designer

Solo exhibition

17.01-28.02 1988 Jurriaan Schrofer Ontwerper

Solo exhibition

14.01-11.03 1990 Dick Elffers en de kunsten

Solo exhibition

14.03-18.04 1993 Grafische vormgeving in Nederland. een eeuw

No exhibition catalogue

The exhibition is based on the book with the same title written by Kees Broos and Paul Hefting.

05.10-30.11 1995 Dutch posters 1960-1996: A selection by Anthon Beeke

The catalogue shows a selec-tion of posters from the period 1960-1996. Most female de-signers were represented in the end of the period.175

25.07-12.09 1997 Otto Treumann ontwerper

Solo exhibition: retrospective

26.11-07.01 1998 ‘Design of a lifetime’, Ben Bos 50 jaar gra-fisch ontwerp

Solo exhibition: retrospective

175 Beeke 1998.

25.03-13.05 2000 Wendingen 1918-1932: architectuur en vormgeving

Simultaneously with this ex-hibition the book Wendingen: A journal for the Arts, 1918-1932 was published. Men designed most of the covers but women design some. Those female designers are Pauline Bolken, Margaret Kropholler, Tine Baanders and Christa Ehrlich.176 Which de-signers were represented in the exhibition is not known.

27.01-24.03 2000 A century of postersInternational development of poster (1800-present)

This exhibition showed the international development of posters. Among the overall amount of designers some were Dutch. Only one female desig-ner is included: Dolly Rüdeman (1902-1980).177

25.05-17.08 2002 Hitweek! 1965-1969

The exhibition showed an over-view of the magazine, the de-signer of the magazine was one of the writers and founders of the magazine Willem de Ridder together with editor Marjolein Kuijsten.178

05.09-07.11 2004 Proost Prikkels, Cabaret op papier

Men designed most of the publications of Proost Prikkels. Among the designers that were active around the period of this study four female designers have designed the magazine:E. Reitsma-Valença (in 1952)Gerda van der Laan (in 1952)Yvonne C. Vogelsang (in 1954)Katja Berendse (in 1955)179

11.06 2008-6.01 2009 Nederlandse konings- en koninginnenzegels


Appendix III 85

176 Le Coultre 2001, pp. 80, 150, 216-17, 154-55, 158-59, 182-83, 186-87, 218-19.177 Le Coultre and Purvis 2003, pp. 80-81.178 Anon., ‘Hitweek’, <http://www.geschiedenis24.nl/andere-tijden/afleveringen/2002-2003/Hitweek.html> [22 May 2013].179 Janssen 2005.

86 Appendix III

28.02-07.06 2009 Who Sets the Standard? / Jan Tschichold, Guiding a New Tradition

Next to design made by Jan Tschichold other works by Dutch designers were shown. For example design made by Wim Crouwel, Piet Zwart, Otto Treumann. An overview of all designers who cooperated is not available.180

06 2009-01 2010 Dutch Design Database

Database that included objects, facts and figures and develop-ments in graphic design since 1945. Unfortunately, the data-base is not consultable online anymore and no additional information or catalogue is avai-lable.181

15.01-29.05 2011Connecting The Past And The Future


13.06-28.08 2011Omslag! 85 jaar VPRO Gids

Only men designed the covers for VPRO until 1940s.182

3.09-17.12 2011Everyday graphics


13.12 2011-1.04 2012SUPERMART


29.04-31.05 2012 Alles Moet Nieuw - Piet Zwart

The exhibition showed a documentary of designer Piet Zwart.183

28.08.2012-05.05.2013Wij Eisen Geluk! Protestposters 1975 -1985

In the exhibition the names of designers were not mentioned.

180 Baart, Christine, ‘Vormgever van formaat’, <http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/4324/Nieuws/article/de-tail/1136398/2009/03/10/Vormgever-van-formaat.dhtml> [26 May 2013]; Anon., ‘De evolutie van de grafische vormgever’, <http://weekend.knack.be/lifestyle/radar/nieuws/de-evolutie-van-grafische-vormgeving/article-1195009032386.htm> [26 May 2013]; Anon., ‘Who Sets the Standard?’, <https://pro2.unibz.it/projects/blogs/camuffo-exhibiting-curating/2009/02/26/who-sets-standar/> [26 May 2013].181 MOTI Museum, ‘Dutch Design Database’, <http://www.motimuseum.nl/nl/tentoonstellingen/geweest/dutch-design-database/248> [22 May 2013].182 Bracht, Looijestijn and Schreuders (eds.) 2011.183 MOTI Museum, ‘Alles Moet Nieuw – Piet Zwart’, <http://www.motimuseum.nl/nl/tentoonstellingen/geweest/alles-moet-nieuw-piet-zwart-/947> [23 May 2013].

Bibliography

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, ‘Vijftig jaar Amnesty: de kracht van

verbondenheid’ <http://50jaar.amnesty.nl/paginas> [21 May 2013].

ANON., ‘Grafisch ontwerpen voor de gemeenschap’, Stedelijk Museum Bulletin

December (1973).

ANON., ‘Circus affiches’, Stedelijk Museum Bulletin (1981) December, p. 105.

ANON., ‘Het museum’, Graphic Design Museum Magazine #1 February 2009, p. 3.

ANON., ‘Letters in de collectie’, Graphic Design Museum Magazine #3 October 2009,

pp. 26-27.

ANON., ‘Hitweek’, <http://www.geschiedenis24.nl/andere-tijden/

afleveringen/2002-2003/Hitweek.html> [22 May 2013].

ANON., ‘De evolutie van de grafische vormgever’, <http://weekend.knack.

be/lifestyle/radar/nieuws/de-evolutie-van-grafische-vormgeving/arti-

cle-1195009032386.htm> [26 May 2013].

ANON., ‘Who Sets the Standard?’, <https://pro2.unibz.it/projects/blogs/

camuffo-exhibiting-curating/2009/02/26/who-sets-standar/> [26 May 2013].

AYNSLEY, Jeremy, ‘Graphic Design’ (1987), in Bondt, Sara de and Catherine de

Smet (eds.), Graphic Design: History in the Writing (1983-2011), London (Occasional

Papers) 2012, pp. 21-35.

BAART, Christine, ‘Vormgever van formaat’, <http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/4324/

Nieuws/article/detail/1136398/2009/03/10/Vormgever-van-formaat.dhtml>

[26 May 2013].

BADER, Eleanor J., ‘Women Artists Still Face Discrimination’, <http://truth-out.

org/opinion/item/8971> [19 April 2013].

BEEKE, Anthon, Dutch Posters 1960-1996, Amsterdam (Bis Publisher) 1998.

Bibliography 87

88 Bibliography

BERTHEUX, Wil , Ada Stroeve and Nelleke Huisman, Affiches: informatie/manipulatie,

exh.cat. Amsterdam (Stedelijk Museum) 1979.

BRACHT, Maarten van, Elja Looijestijn and Piets Schreuders (eds.), VPRO gids

covers, Hilversum (VPRO) 2011.

BROOS, Kees, Design: Total Design, Utrecht (Reflex) 1983.

BROOS, Kees and Paul Hefting, Grafische vormgeving in Nederland: Een eeuw, Alphen

aan de Rijn (Atrium) 1999.

BREUER, Gerda and Julia Meer (eds.), Women in Graphic Design, 1890-2012, Berlin

(Jovis) 2012, pp. 383-392.

BUCKLEY, Cheryl, ‘Made in Patriarchy: Toward a Feminist Analysis of Women

and Design’, in: Design Issues 3 (1986) 2, pp. 3-14.

CLEVEN, Esther, ‘100 Years of Dutch Graphic Design’, Graphic Design Museum

Magazine #1 February 2009a, p. 15.

CLEVEN, Esther, ‘Collectie Nederland’, Graphic Design Museum Magazine #2 June

2009b, p. 24.

DEEPWELL, Katy, ‘Feminist curatorial strategies and practices since the 1970s’ in:

Marstine, Janet (ed.), New museum theory and practise: an introduction, Malden

(Blackwell Publishing) 2006, pp. 64-84.

DEKKER, Kese and Wil Bertheux, Benno Premsela: onder anderen, exh.cat. Amsterdam

(Stedelijk Museum) 1981.

GARVELINK-GLAZENBURG, Carolien and Ingeborg de Roode, ‘New!: Recent

acquisitions in industrial and graphic design’, Stedelijk Museum Bulletin (2003) 4, pp.

36-38.

GERRITZEN, Mieke, ‘Everyone a Curator’, Graphic Design Museum Magazine #2 June

2009, p. 3.

GIMENO MARTÍNEZ, Javier, ‘Women Only: Design Events Restricted to Female

Designers During the 1990s’ in: Design Issues 23 (2007) 2, pp. 17-30.

GLAZENBURG, Carolien, Display texts exhibition 2002, (Archive Stedelijk Museum

Amsterdam).

GORMAN, Carma R., ‘Reshaping and Rethinking: Recent Feminist Scholarship

on Design and Designers’, in: Design Issues 17 (2001) 4, pp. 72-88.

GROOT, Marjan, ‘Crossing the Borderlines and Moving the Boundaries’ in:

Journal of Design History 19 (2006) 2, pp. 121-136.

GROOT, Marjan, Vrouwen in de vormgeving in Nederland 1880-1940, Rotterdam

(Uitgeverij 010) 2007.

GROOT, Marjan (ed.), Design en Gender: van object tot representatie, Amsterdam

(Amsterdam University Press) 2011.

GUERRILLA GIRLS, ‘All about Us’. < http://www.guerrillagirls.com/info/index.

shtml> [19 April 2013].

HEAD, Jeffrey, ‘California’s Designing Women’ in: Modern Magazine (2012) 3, pp.

156-157.

HERST, Sonja, Nieuwe typografie 1915-1940, exh.cat. Amsterdam (Stedelijk

Museum) 1978.

HOWARD, Ella, ‘Feminist Writings on Twentieth-Century Design History, 1970-

1995: Furniture, Interiors, Fashion’, in: Studies in the Decorative Arts 8 (2000) 1, pp.

8-21.

JANSSEN, Casper, Proost Prikkels: 70 jaar cabaret op papier, Diemen (Proost en Brandt)

2005.

JOSEPH, Branden W., Beyond the Dream Syndicate: Tony Conrad and the Arts after Cage,

New York (Zone Books) 2008.

KRAS, Reyer, ‘Acht vormgevers uit de collectie’, Stedelijk Museum Bulletin March

(1991), pp. 22-23.

KRIMPEN, Huub van et al., ‘Geschiedenis van de typografische vormgeving’, Ty-

pografie: Uitgangspunten, Richtlijnnen, Techniek, Amsterdam (Gaade Uitgevers) 1990, pp

13-28.

Bibliography 89

90 Bibliography

LE COULTRE, Martijn F., Wendingen: A Journal for the Arts, 1918-1932, New York

(Princeton Architectural Press) 2001.

LE COULTRE, Martijn F. and Alston W. Purvis, A Century of Posters, Zwolle

(Waanders Uitgeverij) 2003.

LEERING, Jean and Jan van Toorn, Jan van Toorn over affiches, exh.cat. Amsterdam

(Stedelijk Museum), Amsterdam (Openbaar Kunstbezit) 1976.

LOMMEN, Matthieu, Bram de Does, exh.cat. Amsterdam (Universiteitsbibliotheek

Amsterdam) 1999.

MARE, Heidi de, ‘Feministiese kunst bestaat niet’, in: Tijdschrift voor vrouwenstudies 1

(1980), 3, pp. 293-318.

MAZUR THOMSON, Ellen, ‘Alms for Oblivion: The History of Women in Early

American Graphic Design’ (1994) in Bondt, Sara de and Catherine de Smet (eds.),

Graphic Design: History in the Writing (1983-2011), London (Occasional Papers) 2012,

pp. 119-137.

MEER, Julia, ‘He, She, It: Women and the Problems of Gender in the History of

Graphic Design’, in Breuer, Gerda and Julia Meer (eds.), Women in Graphic Design,

1890-2012, Berlin (Jovis) 2012, pp. 383-392.

MOTI MUSEUM, ‘100 Years of Dutch Graphic Design’, <http://www.moti

museum.nl/nl/tentoonstellingen/nu/100-years-of-dutch-graphic-design/250>

[29 April 2013].

MOTI MUSEUM, ‘Over het museum’, <http://www.motimuseum.nl/nl/het-

museum/over-het-museum/14> [29 April 2013].

MOTI MUSEUM, ‘Geschiedenis’, <http://www.motimuseum.nl/nl/het-museum/

over-het-museum/geschiedenis/155> [29 April 2013].

MOTI MUSEUM, ‘UnCOVERing women’, <http://www.motimuseum.nl/nl/

tentoonstellingen/geweest/uncovering-women/596> [15 May 2013].

MOTI MUSEUM, ‘Dutch Design Database’, <http://www.motimuseum.nl/nl/ten-

toonstellingen/geweest/dutch-design-database/248> [22 May 2013].

MOTI MUSEUM, ‘Alles Moet Nieuw – Piet Zwart’, <http://www.motimuseum.nl/

nl/tentoonstellingen/geweest/alles-moet-nieuw-piet-zwart-/947> [23 May 2013].

MOTI MUSEUM, ‘Collectie highlights’ <http://www.motimuseum.nl/nl/

het-museum/over-het-museum/de-collectie/collectie-highlights/531?exhib=1&ite

m=45&lang=nl> [9 July 2013].

MUSEUMS AUSTRALIA, ‘Women’s Policy for Museum Programs and practice’,

<http://www.museumsaustralia.org.au/userfiles/file/Policies/women.pdf> [10

April 2013].

NATIONAL MUSEUM OF WOMEN IN THE ARTS, ‘Our history’, <http://www.

nmwa.org/about/our-history> [19 April 2013].

NOCHLIN, Linda, ‘Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?’ (1971), in

Women, Art and Power and Other Essays, New York (Harper & Row) 1988, pp. 145-

178.

PIETERS, Din, ‘Vorm van geld: 175 jaar Nederlandsche Bank-biljetten’, Stedelijk

Museum Bulletin October (1989), pp. 81-82.

POLLOCK, Griselda, Differencing the Canon: Feminist Desire and the Writing of Art’s His-

tories, London (Routledge) 1999.

POLLOCK, Griselda, Vision & Difference: Femininity, Feminism and the Histories of Art,

London (Routledge) 1988.

PORTER, Gaby, ‘Seeing through Solidity: a feminist perspective on museums’ in:

Macdonald, Sharon and Gordon Fyfe (eds.), Theorizing Museums, Oxford (Blackwell

Publishers) 1996, pp. 103-126.

PURVIS, Alston W. and Cees W. de Jong, Nederlands grafisch ontwerp: Van de

negentiende eeuw tot nu, Arnhem (Uitgeverij Terra) 2006.

RAWSTHORN, Alice, ‘Female Pioneers of the Bauhaus’, <http://www.nytimes.

com/2013/03/25/arts/25iht-design25.html?_r=1&> [3 July 2013].

REINEWALD, Chris, ‘Iedereen een grafisch ontwerper’, in: Tableau 31 (2009) 6, pp. 72-

78.

Bibliography 91

92 Bibliography

SALTZ, Jerry, ‘Where Are All the Women?’, <http://nymag.com/arts/art/

features/40979/> [16 April 2013].

SEATTLE ART MUSEUM, ‘Elles: Women Artists from the Centre Pompidou,

Paris’, <http://seattleartmuseum.org/elles/elles_pompidou.html#sthash.ZjC-

sLGJ2.dpuf> [12 June 2013].

SCOTFORD, Martha, ‘Is There a Canon of Graphic Design History?’ (1991), in

Bondt, Sara de and Catherine de Smet (eds.), Graphic Design: History in the Writing

(1983-2011), London (Occasional Papers) 2012, pp. 37-44.

SCOTFORD, Martha, ‘Messy History vs. Neat History: Toward and Expanded

View of Women in Graphic Design?’ (1994), in Bondt, Sara de and Catherine de

Smet (eds.), Graphic Design: History in the Writing (1983-2011), London (Occasional

Papers) 2012, pp. 139-151.

STEDELIJK MUSEUM AMSTERDAM, De Grafische, booklet exhibition

7 February-2 March 1970 (Archive Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam).

STEDELIJK MUSEUM AMSTERDAM, De Grafische, booklet exhibition

26 February-22 March 1971 (Archive Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam).

STEDELIJK MUSEUM AMSTERDAM, Cijfers, Letters, woorden: keuze uit eigen collectie,

booklet exhibition 31 March-13 May 1973 (Archive Stedelijk Museum Amster-

dam).

STEDELIJK MUSEUM AMSTERDAM, Feminisme in het medium, hand-out exhibition 28

August-15 September 1984 (Archive Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam).

STEDELIJK MUSEUM AMSTERDAM, Stedelijk Collectie Highlights, Amsterdam (nai010

uitgevers) 2012a.

STEDELIJK MUSEUM AMSTERDAM, Stedelijk Collectie Reflecties, Amsterdam (nai010

uitgevers) 2012b.

STEDELIJK MUSEUM AMSTERDAM, Annual report 2011, <http://www.stedelijkmu-

seum.nl/upload/Jaarverslagen/sma_jaarverslag_2011.pdf> [19 May 2013].

STEDELIJK MUSEUM AMSTERDAM, ‘Collectie presentatie Design’, <http://stedeli-

jk.nl/nieuws/pers/zaalteksten> [19 May 2013].

STEDELIJK MUSEUM AMSTERDAM, ‘Stedelijk in affiches – The Temporary

Stedelijk Amsterdam’, <http://www.stedelijk.nu/nu-in-stedelijk/archief/archief-

tentoonstellingen/stedelijk-in-affiches> [22 May 2013].

STEDELIJK MUSEUM AMSTERDAM, ‘What about feminism?’, <http://www.

stedelijk.nl/agenda/what-about-feminism> [25 May 2013].

SUNDBERG, Martin, ‘Collection Strategies: Some Thoughts on How European

Museums Deal with Gender Imbalance’ in: MP: An Online Feminist Journal 3 (2010)

1, pp. 18-22.

VROOLAND-LÖB, Truusje and Annelies Fontijne, Dutch Oranges: fifty illustrators from

Holland, exh.cat. Amsterdam (Stedelijk Museum), Zwolle (Waanders) 2001.

WALKER, John A., ‘Design History and the History of Design’ (1989), in: Lees-

Maffei, Grace and Rebecca Houze, The Design History Reader, Oxford (Berg

Publishers) 2010, pp. 278-285.

WIEGERSMA, Friso, 100 jaar bekijks: een keuze uit de affiche-collectie van het Stedelijk Mu-

seum Amsterdam, exh.cat. Amsterdam (Stedelijk Museum) 1983.

WILKINS, Bridget, ‘Why is Design History so Obsessed by Appearance?’ (1992),

in Bondt, Sara de and Catherine de Smet (eds.), Graphic Design: History in the Writing

(1983-2011), London (Occasional Papers) 2012, pp. 69-71.

Bibliography 93

94 Illustrations

IllustrationsFig. 1.1 Anna Sipkema, Month June in calendar Bloem en Blad, 1904, paper, 313 x 247

mm, ssk/Drents Museum Assen, Assen (Groot 2007, p.299).

Fig. 1.2 Berhardina Bokhorst, Advertisement Lux: Hoeveel meer waarde hebben

Kerstgeschenken, ca. 1920 (<http://www.geheugenvannederland.nl/?/nl/items/RA0

1:30051001505723/&p=1&i=10&t=26&st=bokhorst&sc=%28bokhorst%29/&ws

t=bokhorst> 15 July 2013]).

Fig. 1.3 Tine Baanders, Brochure Amsterdamsche tentoonstelling van

woninginrichting, 1921 (<http://www.geheugenvannederland.nl/?/nl/items/

RA01:30051001505160> [15 July 2013]).

Fig. 1.4 Fré Cohen, Advertisement Zomerfeesten Amsterdam: Tentoonstellingen

Oud-Italiaanse Kunst in Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, 1934-1935, 900 x 620 mm

(<http://www.geheugenvannederland.nl/?/nl/items/RA01:30051001556098>

[15 July 2013]).

Fig. 2.1 Guerrilla Girls, Advertisement Naked 1989, 1989 (<http://www.guerrillagirls.

com/posters/nakedthroughtheages.shtml> [19 April 2013]).

Fig. 2.2 Guerrilla Girls, French advertisement Montauban 2009, 2009 (<http://www.

guerrillagirls.com/posters/nakedthroughtheages.shtml> [19 April 2013]).

Fig. 2.3 Suze Fokker, Poster National Exhibition of Women’s Labour, 1898, Archive

Aletta, Amsterdam, (<http://www.geheugenvannederland.nl/?/nl/items/

IIAV01:104000523> [15 July 2013]).

Fig. 2.4 Agnes Thurnauer, Portraits Grandeur Nature, 2008, Le Centre Pompidou,

Paris (photo: Theo Diên Vy) (<http://images1.tuoitre.vn/Tianyon/Cache/Im-

age/780/351780.jpg> [15 July 2013]).

Fig. 3.1 Fré Cohen, Giroboekje Gemeente Amsterdam, 1929

(<http://vbh-bedrijfshistorie.nl/6,viewer?colId=13&itemId=30> [15 July 2013]).

Fig. 3.2 Jeanne Bieruma Oosting, Ex Libris A.J.W. Bieruma Oosting, ca. 1920-1930

(<http://veiling.catawiki.nl/kavels/20663-exlibris-naar-tekeningen-a-j-w-bieru-

ma-oosting-tweede-en-derde-reeks-totaal-2> [15 July 2013]).

Fig. 3.3 Anna Sipkema, Cover Een verhaal van eene meisjeskostschool, 1907

(<http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/mead002anni01_01/> [15 July 2013]).

Fig. 3.4 Margaret Kropholler, Cover Wendingen volume 6 no. 4/5 on display (bottom

right), 1924, Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam (photo: author).

Fig. 3.5 Gallery ‘Textiles: Women’s work’ February 2013, Stedelijk Museum,

Amsterdam (photo: Laura Wijkhuizen).

Fig. 3.6 Exhibition ‘100 Years of Dutch Graphic Design, MOTI, Breda

(<http://www.motimuseum.nl/nl/tentoonstellingen/nu/100-years-of-dutch-

graphic-design/250?album_id=363> [15 July 2013]).

Fig. 3.7 Wilhelmina Drupsteen, poster Tentoonstelling De Vrouw 1813-1913,

1913, 1180 x 830 mm (<http://www.geheugenvannederland.nl/?/nl/items/

RA01:30051001508750> [15 July 2013]).

Fig. 3.8 Exhibition ‘UnCOVERing Women’, MOTI, Breda (<http://www.

motimuseum.nl/nl/tentoonstellingen/geweest/uncovering-women/596?album_

id=631> [15 July 2013]).

Illustrations 95

Date post:	15-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

Collecting and Exhibiting Women’s Graphic Design in the ... · 1970s, the established canonized...

Documents