Textile art is having a revival, as the artists on show at the Barbican exhibition, Unravel: The Power and Politics of Textiles in Art, attest.

The show is a comprehensive journey through the themes explored by artists utilising textiles as a medium. But it also invites deeper reflection on the societal shifts that have prompted a revival of the art form. Historically associated with femininity, domesticity and craft, textiles possess a deceptive simplicity that conceals their potential for subversion and political dissent.

The exhibition focuses on this subversive nature of textiles in contemporary art through works by artists including Feliciano Centurión. His delicate floral embroideries on modest blanket squares are accompanied by poignant stitched phrases such as “Soy alma en pena” (“I am a soul in pain”) and “Estoy vivo” (“I am alive”). These words express his battle with HIV and affirm his queer masculine identity.

Małgorzata Mirga-Tas’s collaged textile hanging, meanwhile, revises historical depictions of the Romani community. In doing so, the artist reclaims space for stories excluded from historical accounts. And Igshaan Adams’s immersive ethereal installation, crafted from beads and wire structures, prompts reflection on the collective opposition to artificially imposed borders in South Africa’s apartheid regime.

The changing landscape of exhibiting textiles

The exhibition also includes works by established figures such as Sheila Hicks and Magdalena Abakanowicz. Their works were displayed in the Wall Hangings exhibition at New York’s Museum of Modern Art in 1969, a pivotal show that legitimised the use of fibre within the realm of the fine arts.

Using unorthodox and found materials, female artists of this era departed from the European tapestry tradition. Their three-dimensional fibre structures both physically and metaphorically reclaimed space in an art world largely dominated by their male counterparts.

In the catalogue for the Barbican exhibition one of the curators, Lotte Johnson, remarks: “Back in 2020, we had collectively noted how textiles were proliferating across contemporary art practices.” This proliferation can be traced back to recent societal changes, as well as the instrumental role of cultural intermediaries including museums and private galleries.

Social movements like #MeToo and Black Lives Matter have highlighted the need to tell a more inclusive history of art and acknowledge the contributions of women, people of colour and indigenous artists who have been overlooked in traditional accounts.

Further, the global spread of biennials and fairs, along with increase mobility of curators, has contributed greater visibility of artists from countries such as Africa and South America. Their practices often employ textiles and recycled elements, transcending the European dichotomy between art and craft.

The consumer demand for handmade textile items – a trend in response to an increasingly digitised society – has also played a role in the renewed appreciation for textile-based art. Additionally, movements associated with environmentalism and third-wave feminism have embraced traditionally domestic practices such as knitting and crocheting. These enjoyed further popularity during the COVID pandemic as a stress-coping mechanism.

Museums have been pivotal in endorsing the revival of textiles. And the increased prevalence of women in positions of power at cultural institutions is partly why. The retrospective on Anni Albers at the Tate Modern in 2018, for example, is much-cited as a show that put the spotlight back on textiles. The show was supported by the appointments of Frances Morris as director of Tate Modern in 2016 and Maria Balshaw as director of Tate the following year.

Additionally, a new generation of curators are shaping curatorial programmes to include a more diverse range of artistic practices. These curators were educated by feminist art history scholars such as Griselda Pollock and have now moved into influential roles within prominent art institutions.

Interest in textiles is also gaining momentum within the private art sector. According to the art market database Artprice, textile works generated US$40 million (£31.6m) in 2022, a significant increase from $13 million in 2012.

Private galleries are exerting a growing influence on the art world, and have contributed significantly to the visibility of fibre art and textiles. Last October, the private gallery Alison Jacques opened a new space in London with a solo show on Sheila Hicks. At the Brafa art fair in Brussels in January 2024, Richard Saltoun showcased Textile Pioneers, which exhibited works by Barbara Levittoux-Świderska and Magdalena Abakanowicz, among others.

While the promotion of female textile artists is certainly a welcome shift towards a more inclusive representation of historical artistic contributions, the private sector’s commercial considerations cannot be overlooked. Female artists have been defined as “the bargain of our time”, and textile works are an affordable purchase for underfunded institutions and collectors who cannot afford works by male artists from the same period.

Moreover, the practicality of textiles, being easier to transport and install compared to paintings, further enhances their appeal to galleries.

The resurgence of textiles in contemporary art provides a vital opportunity for conversation and revision within both the art world and society at large. It also highlights the complex interplay of cultural intermediaries who juggle idealistic efforts and pragmatic commercial interests.

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

Francesca Stocco does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Read More

Read More

Earlier this year, a number of colleges announced they were going back to using the SAT and the ACT. Here, Joseph Soares, a professor of sociology, expert on higher education and proponent of test-optional admissions, answers a few questions about the rationale behind the colleges’ decision to require applicants to submit scores from standardized college admissions tests.

Are SAT requirements making a comeback?

No. As of early 2024, just four schools announced the return of mandatory testing: Brown, Dartmouth, Yale and MIT.

Meanwhile, many other schools are sticking with test-optional admissions. These schools include Boston University, Columbia University, Cornell University, the University of Michigan, the University of Missouri system, the University of Utah, Vanderbilt University and William & Mary.

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, in 2019, there were approximately 1,050 test-optional schools out of approximately 2,300 bachelor’s degree-granting institutions, not counting the four-year for-profit schools.

Today, in 2024, there are over 1,900 test-optional or test-free schools. Nationally, test optional is still the norm.

Why are these schools going back to it?

The four schools that have gone back to standardized tests had initially dropped their requirement because of the pandemic. The College Board put its test administrations on pause during the pandemic because testing sites could not host them.

Now, administrators at Yale and Dartmouth say that some students from low-income families were harmed by not submitting test scores. Their argument is that by submitting test scores, it would have enabled colleges to find youths of promise from low-income families. The assumption is that students from an under-resourced high school, without an abundance of extracurricular opportunities or AP courses, will perhaps have a strong test score that will signal their potential.

Does their story check out?

I don’t believe the facts support the claims being made by the four universities that decided to reinstate the SAT.

After going test optional, the Ivy League and MIT had more racial and economic diversity than ever before.

Taking 2018 as a pre-pandemic benchmark, when test requirements were more common, and 2022 as a year of test-optional admissions by these schools, we can see the largest increase in the Ivy League’s history in underrepresented Black and Hispanic students came while being test optional. In 2018, there were 72,654 undergraduates in the Ivies plus MIT; in 2022, there were 74,258 undergraduates, an aggregate increase of 1,604 students.

Black and Hispanic students accounted for 79% of the total growth. The number of Black and Hispanic undergraduates went up at those nine schools by a total of 1,261, according to my analysis of figures from the U.S. Department of Education’s Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System.

The number of Pell Grant students, who are widely treated as a proxy for students from low-income families, went up at six schools, remained the same at one and declined slightly at two, my unpublished analysis found. This suggests that the numbers of students from low-income families also increased overall, although not on the same scale as increases in Black and Hispanic students.

Furthermore, test-optional policies did not prevent students from submitting test scores. If a student believed their test score was a plus, they could have submitted it.

What research are the schools relying on?

Dartmouth has issued a study that explains why it decided to resurrect a test score requirement. It reported that being test optional produced a “35% increase in applications,” and that 31% of all enrolled students at Dartmouth were admitted without a test score.

Of those applicants evaluated without reference to a test score, they afterward were able to get scores for 19% of them. They found higher admission rates for disadvantaged students whose unknown SAT scores were actually under 1400 than those with scores above 1400 – 82% vs. 18%, respectively.

The school saw this as a bad policy because it believes that higher-scoring disadvantaged students will have higher GPAs and brighter careers than lower-scoring ones. It drew the conclusion that requiring all to submit a test score was better for quality admissions than allowing students to decide on their own whether to submit their scores.

What does all this mean for campus diversity?

When highly selective schools – some refer to these as “highly rejective” schools – went test optional, diversity went up on their campuses. My research suggests that the resumption of standardized tests will diminish the number of applications from Black and Hispanic students and from low-income families.

Black and Hispanic students face “disparate headwinds” in taking a test where race is the strongest single variable that predicts test scores. Students of color are more likely than others to not include test scores in their college applications.

The case for restoring test-optional admissions in the name of equity and diversity has been made by a coalition of Black, Hispanic and low-income students at Dartmouth. They pointed out that a test score requirement weights strongly against Black, Hispanic and students from low-income families. They called on college administrators to restore test-optional admissions.

Joseph Soares does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Read More