This paper presents an engaging, if sometimes meandering, exploration of three feminist artistic installations in Latin America and Spain. These works are in turn described and contextualized, both geographically and historically. The author reflects on the resonances between these works and second-wave feminist and women’s health movements originating in the 1970s, as well as more recent postmodern and cyberfeminist movements.
I would encourage the authors to seek out more direct connections in this contextualization. In the section “Situating Feminist Epistemology” in particular I often lost the thread of the three artworks that are meant to be the focus of the article for paragraphs at a time as the author described other works of art, and the connections that are made are oblique and very brief (often just a sentence). While these descriptions of the impressive array of feminist art and activist installations across Latin America and the world is fascinating, it distracts from the central mission of the piece to explore three works in depth and takes away room that could be used for analysis or a more concrete call to action. I would suggest a paper structure that opens with a brief motivation/framing of the three pieces, then discusses the array of other art in this area, and then turns to exploring each of the three pieces in more depth. This would make the paper easier to follow from a reader’s perspective, and would also make more clear its contributions.
I would also encourage the author to elaborate more on the hints in the last paragraph that this analysis contains lessons for capitalist modes of knowledge, including maker and hacker culture. Does the author have more specific notions of these lessons? How could the feminist visions as articulated in these artworks inform or change this broader landscape? With these revisions, I would be confident in asserting that this piece would make an interesting and significant contribution to this special issue.
1. Is the subject matter relevant?
Yes, the subject matter is highly relevant to the Special Issue.
2. Is the treatment of the subject matter intellectually interesting? Are there citations or bodies of literature you think are essential to which the author has not referred?
Yes, the treatment of the subject matter is extremely interesting. The author might engage more deeply with literatures around hacking and making; for example, from previous issues of the Journal of Peer Production. What can we learning about hacking from these artistic interventions?
3. Are there any noticeable problems with the author’s means of validating
assumptions or making judgments?
No, the article is very well argued and the art projects discussed within are very well evaluated. Are there any critiques of these works that are worth mentioning? The projects sound fascinating but who might disagree with their value and why? The article would benefit from including a few photos of the projects.
4. Is the article well written?
Yes, the article is extremely well written and very enjoyable to read.
5. Are there portions of the article that you recommend be shortened, excised or expanded?
No, I think the article strikes a good balance. The only recommendation that I have is to further extend the links to discussions of DIY, hacking and making. Anita Chan’s work on Peru might be relevant in this regard.