La última cena. Performance
Verónica Ruth Frías

March 25 – March 26, 2017

Il Cenacolo or L’Ultima Cena painted at the end of the 19th century by Leonardo da Vinci in the refectory of the Dominican convent of Santa Maria delle Grazie, in Milan, on behalf of Ludovico Sforza, meant the exceeding of the representations of this passage from the New Testament made until then. The iconography, which dates back to Palaeo-Christian art, preserves two examples of the 13th century frontal by Maestro de Soriguerola and mosaics from San Marcos in Venice―, where the linear layout is already noted, but his immediate references are those of the refectory of Sant´Apollonia (1447), by Andrea del Castagno, and those by Ghirlandaio for the Benedictine Abbey of Passignano (1476), for the church of Ognissanti (1480), and for the also Dominican convent of San Marco (1486). He breaks with the previous compositional patterns by situating the scene in a subsequent moment, once the apostles are informed of the betrayal, with the consequent stir that the news produces. For this reason, he gives the composition, which opens up to the background through three windows to a typically Tuscal landscape, dynamism and variety of movements and physiognomies unknown before, resulting in an astonishing naturalness and modernity. The figures have been stripped of their aureoles of sanctity and appear in groups of three, that some identify with the Platonic triads seen by the Florentine Neoplatonic currents, especially Marsilio Ficino and Pico della Mirándola. This circumstance and the silhouette that its layout draws have led to esoteric speculations of an unfounded nature. Judas is not by himself in the other side of the table anymore and John doesn’t appear asleep on the shoulder or the lap of the Master, who is isolated in the centre, focused on his last hours, and with all the vanishing lines focused in his head. The composition is framed into an architecture that brings the inspiring anthropocentrism of the Italian renaissance and into which seems to apply what has been learned while he illustrated De Divina Proportione. In this contemporary treatise, Lucca Pacioli talks about the divine nature of geometry and mathematics and, incomprehensibly and keeping his distance, anticipates the fractal modules and the concept rhizome developed by Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, also anticipated by Borges in “El jardín de los senderos que se bifurcan”, of 1941. As if that were not enough, some seem to notice the first attempt of aerial perspective in the rarefied atmosphere that sets the scene immaterially. This could be explained by the numerous subsequent interventions to stop or repair the deterioration that the work experienced since a few years after its completion. The experimental use of new binders and a combination of oil and tempera on dry plaster, instead of the traditional fresco on plaster used until then for mural paintings, favoured the growth of fungi and descaling, so it is not known for sure what we have received from the original bill.

Veronica Ruth Frías borrows the scenography of the famous fresco, although she replaced the male figures with female ones. Now there is only female apostles, women who play different roles in the cultural sphere of the city, some of whom are also mothers. This supposes another turning point in an archetype that has recently experienced not a few variations, many of them unorthodox, on Leonardo’s already canonical one. We remember some memorable ones, such as Buñuel’s at the dinner for the ragged ones at Viridiana; the various ones Andy Warhol made in pop or the also photographic one by David Lachapelle, rejuvenated and recoded according to the urban tribe jargon; the cinematographic and completely irreverent one that Robert Altman offered in Mash; the advertising one for Marithe Françoise Girbaud; the theatrical one for the staging of Pynchon’s play The Inherent Vice; and in the field of animation those of The Simpsons or Souh Park, to mention a few. Although more distant in time, the very bold one of Cranach the Younger, who arranged in the place of the Apostles the visible heads of the Reformation and the Electoral Prince of Saxony, dressed and set according to their time and rank. Bearing in mind that it is on this occasion that the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and therefore the Dogma of Transubstantiation, not accepted by the Lutheran Church, is instituted, he had a most transgressive occurrence.

Leonardo is up to the honour of being the first one to address the concept of art as a mental, intellectual, far from the mechanical dimension that was granted to him in the Treaty of Cennino Cennini, more suitable to the status of craftsman that both painters and sculptors had. With this performance, Veronica reflects and makes us reflect on the situation of women in today’s world, empowering them, while at the same time offering the more multifaceted, daily and close version of her predecessor. And not only of his work as an artist and creator of all kinds of artefacts and machines, but also as an activist in claiming the rights of his fellow artists, the first of which was to be considered as such, appealing to the intellectual nature of his profession, far beyond the manual intervention required in the process. The work of Veronica Ruth Frías is a beautiful and relentless plea for the urgent recognition of the work of female artists and their rightful place alongside their male colleagues.

Asked by Cindy Nemser about the role of women in art, for an article in Arts Magazine in 1972, Louise Bourgeois said: A woman has no place as an artist until she proves time and again that she will not be eliminated. The fact that Louise Bourgeois, the highest woman in the world of art in the entire history, gave this answer is more than significant. In fact, it was not until 1982 that she exhibited at the MOMA, with the help of a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts; she was 70 years old. It was thanks to organizers and critics related to the feminist movement that this artist, who until then had been practically unknown to the general public and despised by the majority of critics and the interests of the great institutions, began to be brought to the fore. The room information sheet acknowledges how until recently her work had not been valued to the right degree: …. for many years working outside the mainstream of American art, is finally recognized as one of this country’s most important artists…. While her work had been seen with regularity in group shows, her solo shows were infrequent… The exhibition was organized by Deborah Wye and Alice Legg and two conferences took place in parallel, one of which was given by Lucy Lippard, who in 1975 had published in Art Forum the article “Louise Bourgeois: from the inside out”.

In “Gender and possession” ―Art in America, April 1, 1983― Robert Storr, with regard to his recent retrospective at the MOMA -the first one dedicated to a woman in this institution, who, by the way, already had two of his pieces-, recognizes his recent consideration as an outsider, assuring that, by current standards, he had not had in any way what was understood as a <4>career in the art world.

In 1972 Louise Bourgeois participated in the round table “Does Art have a gender?” for the discussion forum on the role of women in art, “Forum: Women in Art”, also organized by Cindy Nemser, which addressed another of the most questionable topics of the apartheid suffered by women within the art system. Lucy R. Lippard asked a similar question: “What is Female Imagery?” It is Linda Nochlin who is preparing to answer indignant that the mere question is restrictive because she is a human being not subject to the constructionist restrictions of the androcentric/patriarchal system, although after thinking about it she recognizes that the creator is conditioned by his experience. All this without accepting that the biological gender or the cultural construct of gender identity can determine a production that wishes to be included in an open and broader category. It seems that the atmosphere was far from frequenting the clichés that established of the feminine the kindest and most decorative themes, or those productions conveyed to grave artisan techniques, considered a limited and/or simply ornamental art form, but which were adopted by women artists as a strategy of identity criticism. In conclusion, minor and improper genres and disciplines of Art with capital letters produced by men.

In the seventies of the last century, the elimination of the “glass ceiling” and the necessary rewriting of art history were claimed, especially in the last two hundred years. Anecdotally, we can mention an anonymous publishing rarity, from the Imprenta de Aguado, dated 1827, El té de las damas. The narrator, male, explains how in a main house of the Court a group of women, more or less educated and fond of reading but without sufficient intellectual capacity to write the story themselves, gather for tea….. Men talk lots about themselves, they say: they command, dispose and govern everything: everything is by and for them: we are usually their slaves: sometimes we are allowed to be their equals, seldom their superiors……….hence it turns out that most of the books are written by them, so they often occupy the only place… that we are gathered here together to enjoy our freedom….let us take revenge for their indifference or injustice, and let our sex be our favourite; let us speak only of him….

Although some progress was made during that time, the greater visibility allowed is not enough, and the use of this word is very expressive of the current situation. Griselda Pollock warns that the canon of art history is one of the most virulent and “virilent”, so she proposes a change in the patriarchal model that establishes structural sexism, also linked to class and race discrimination. This pattern is in line with the construction of the sex paradigms that divided the areas of activity, granting men the public and relegating women to the private-domestic. In Femme-maison, a series of works by Louise Bourgeois from 1946/47, in which the woman’s head is replaced by the image of a house, she denounces her condition as a prisoner hidden in her own home: …the female identity is absorbed and obscured by the domestic realm that nourishes and supports at the same time; message also contained, although not exclusively, in the series Cells (1986-2008). In her memoirs, Victoria Ocampo confesses the outrage that the phrase engraved on her grandmother’s wedding ring at the express wish of her fiancé caused her and marked her for the rest of her life: chained and happy. The existence of the stand in Spanish housing is well known and documented since the 13th century (illustrations in the Libro de Ajedrez, Dados y Tablas y Cantigas by Alfonso X the Wise, paintings by Berruguete, Roelas or Zurbarán, or in writings by Cervantes, Lope de Vega, Maria de Zayas or Mme. D´Aulnoy). This was the space reserved for women, although which, and according to some authors, meant an area of their domain -it may be that the meetings of those ladies for tea took place in one of them-, was no less true that it implied confinement and exclusion. Later on, the living room of the bourgeois house will be that corner where women live their lives and where they can find the work tools specific to their sex, as well as the work. In it, the children would receive lessons from their teachers and share their time in between until the arrival of the husband. Or the boudoir cabinet, in which, as Mª Pilar Sinués wrote in El ángel del hogar, whose first edition was made in Madrid in 1881:… the wife would continue with secret and deep bitterness, the ravages that the passage of time is causing in her healthiness and splendours and she will be embellished for those who love her, those who will feel a pious bitterness when faced with the collapse of her charms…

In this distribution, the roles to be played were also decided and the woman’s role did not go far beyond being an obedient wife, a good housewife and a devoted mother. Continuing with Mª Pilar Sinués, despite her status as an intellectual, journalist and novelist, who was very famous in her time.: …the husband, after the endless daily struggle in the outside world, will be very grateful to find himself back home with a proper companion “your urgent business is to please your husband, to keep his tenderness and to distribute around you a perfume of poetry that sweetly intoxicates him and prevents him from thinking of any other woman.”

Any concern or vacation that distracted her from these tasks would be harshly censored or, at best, tolerated, provided that, in the case of bourgeois families of high economic capacity, it was limited to a mere pastime as a demonstration of a distinguished upbringing in entertaining visitors. Actually, one more attribute of the willingness to please the husband and his guests, a flightiness, almost one more of the shaving allowed to enhance their charms. Until not many years ago, learning would take place within the walls of the home, never through official studies and would not be exercised in a professional manner, since all paid activities were reserved for men.

What’s more, any hint of intelligence was annoying and even disgusting. In Marchán Fiz’s opinion The dehumanization of art is still a basic reference text to address our tradition of the new. In fact, he affirms that Ortega’s philosophy is fundamental for the theorization of the Spanish, European and even American avant-gardes. However, despite the fact that he had to surrender to the talent of Vitoria Ocampo and Maruja Mallo, for Ortega y Gasset the role of women in society was to be, not to do, as was that of men, who were to be inspired and simulated to do more and better. In Paisaje con una corza al fondo (1927) he collects the opinion about women of one Olmedo, a friend of his, whom he describes as an admirable and intelligent man, and who confesses without shame to feel repugnance for the talented woman unless that an excess of reason is offset by another of unreason, because the too rational woman smelled himself like a man. Ortega himself wrote that the woman is a confusing being and that she is a form of humanity inferior to the male, which, of course, is made of clarities. This vision was shared by the majority of women educated in these sexist parameters. Griselda Pollock quotes the phrase by Bettina Van Houten: There is no such thing as a woman of genius. When it exists it is a man, as a paradigm of female chauvinism at the end of the 19th century.

These affirmations and many more support the behaviours that have taken place to the detriment of professional women in all areas, and not only promoted by men, but also by those mothers who have instilled them in their children, women and men, educating them in well-differentiated sexist roles.

Linda Nochlin asked herself “Why haven’t there been any great women artists?” In this 1971 text ―in Spain it was only translated in 2008 and not entirely―, a pioneer in approaching the problem, she stated that the situation of women in the contemporary art system or in the labour market in general is not the problem. By comparison, she argued that the so-called Jewish problem by Nazi Germany was not such a problem; on the contrary, Nazi Germany is what constituted a problem for Jews and not Nazis in that country and in much of the world. The problem lies in everything that generates this undesirable and irrational discrimination and that is what must be transformed. The category of a speech prepared to sustain that ideology that perpetuates the domination of the male. And as far as women artists are concerned, a veil of suspicion about their professionalism, determination, continuity, quality, revaluation, etc. is drawn; everything that can be affected by the very difficult or even impossible conciliation between home and work.

Returning to the work of Veronica Ruth Frías, her various readings do not go unnoticed. The participants come from different areas of the labour/cultural world, where the circumstances are not very different, many of them also engaging in their respective occupations in a situation of difficult conciliations with their responsibilities in the domestic environment, as mothers, wives and daughters. The performance begins with a static scene that mimics the poses of Leonardo’s work and where all the performers, dressed in red, remain motionless, impassive and expectant. This reflective stillness gives way, at a given moment, to the movement and disorder caused by the entry of the daughters of those participants who are mothers, breaking the immobility, the -status quo?- order, the silence and peace that reigned until then, and breaking the freshness and the everyday of a domestic scene in one of the most relaxed moments of family life, such as sharing food at the table. Here we get to a crucial and devastating issue: that of gender-based violence -physical and psychological- against women in all areas where it is present, and also against their children. In the face of this drama, it is urgent to cry out day after day relentlessly. The Last Supper is narrated in the New Testament as the episode in which Jesus Christ met with his friends before giving himself to the sacrifice. The colour of the clothes worn by the performers evokes the violence and bloodshed of thousands of women, quite often in the presence of their children.

Maria Ruído, in her book Mendieta (2002), about the Cuban artist, committed in life and work to the cause of women, married to Carl André ―to whom the MNCARS (Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofía) has organized two exhibitions, while to her none― and dead in what looks like unclear circumstances, writes: “This hasn’t changed much. The story of what it means to be an artist remains patriarchal and continues to respond to codes where women are not in the picture. And it is not a question of making a parallel historiography of only women artists, but of destroying the framework in which art history is constructed.” Mendieta fell out of a 33rd floor window after a heated argument with her husband, who had well-founded suspicions that he was the author of the throwing. The building janitor stated that she was shouting NO as she fell. Unfortunately, it has not been the only case of discrimination and mistreatment of women artists by their colleagues. Not long ago Georg Baselitz, married to a painter, questioned the strength of the painting made by women.

The month of March has been proclaimed International Women’s Month by international organizations dependent on the UN, such as the FAO, and by numerous institutions of different countries, such as the United States, despite its current president, and this is supported by the publications published in the pages of its embassies. Antonio Guterres, Secretary General of the United Nations, on the occasion of the last celebration of International Women’s Day, expressed himself in the following terms: “On International Women’s Day, we must commit ourselves to doing all we can to overcome entrenched prejudices, support participation and activism and promote gender equality and women’s empowerment.” –

According to data provided by the Ministry of the Interior, since 2007, in less than ten years, 689 women have died in Spain alone as victims of male violence. In 43 years, the terrorist group ETA murdered 829 people. The proportion is almost four times higher than the horror committed by the domestic terrorists who, faced with the supposed threat posed by the conquest of the public by their partners, which is intolerable for them, decide to expel them from all areas by means of femicide.

The UN Charter of Rights recognises gender equality, yet the “glass ceilings” have not yet fallen, as hasn’t the veil of ignorance and brutality of abusers.

The Guerrilla Girls posed in a very well-known 1989 piece Do women have to be naked to get into de Met. Museum? They then denounced that there were only 5% of women artists facing an 85% of work with female nudes. In the update they made of the same piece in 2004, surprisingly, the proportion was even worse: 3% facing an 83%. Patricia Mayayo writes about it that women: are hypervisibilized as objects of representation and at the same time rendered invisible as creative subjects. Another issue of no less interest is the ways in which they are represented.

The permanence of androcentric structures and media and the communion with their ideology of almost all their leaders and of the artists they select slows down or prevents cultural production models from changing, even though there have been exceptions. The New Museum of Contemporary Art, founded and directed by Marcia Tucker, supports a broader understanding of the artistic phenomenon on the basis of models from feminism, with alternative structures alien to the art system that encourage the collaboration of individuals whose views are completely different.

Juan Luis Moraza, in his presentation at the MACBA, in the framework of the activities on the occasion of Martha Rosler’s presentation, offers a series of data and reflections that affect the essential question of the problem and points to the solution from his point of view, which cannot be other than that of a man, and yet coincides with what was outlined by many of the women who delved deeper into the issue. He begins by recalling how The Economist published in 1996 several articles under the title “The Trouble with Men. Tomorrow ś Second Sex”, highlighting the growing panic over an unexpected and imminent female supremacy: supremacy in the classroom, where the school failure rate began to be higher among boys and higher performance among girls; supremacy in the workplace, where industrial jobs gave way to services (administration, communication, finance, education, etc.) and where women began to emerge; supremacy in the family, where the father figure and male abandonment were weakening the structure; and psychological supremacy, for demoralization, renunciation of the quest for success, addiction, nihilism, delinquency or early death began to be male syndromes. In short, the decadence of the myth of masculinity was made public.

Once accepted that the masculine and the feminine are socio-cultural constructs, since men and women participate in both, M. Wittig qualifies both categories as artificial and even denies her womanhood as she denies them in all those who are not in a situation of dependence with regard to a man. Juan Luis Moraza, for his part, assures that, like Maiakosfky, more than a man, he feels a cloud in trousers. Later on, he quotes Sadie Plant, who warns that dissociative identity is characteristic of our time. Bridging the gap, Aristophanes anticipated these approaches in his speech for Plato’s Symposium. There he described how human beings had originally enjoyed the fortitude of two individuals united, in some cases of different sexes and in others of two creatures of the same sex, men or women, later separated by the gods in fear of their powerful nature. Since then, each individual seeks their other half. Let’s think about it.

J. L. Moraza continues: The current popular culture, through the advertising, cinematographic or literary image, has progressively generated an iconography, perfectly legitimized in a victimizing speech, which by inverting the roles reproduces the same dualist patterns that intelligent feminism has tried to deconstruct and abolish…. The late capitalism has warned the political profitability of this type of sexist speech, perfectly legitimized, politically correct, and only in feminist appearance. The play of possible and impossible identifications intensifies gender differences and struggles, contributing to restating the essentialist clichés about “man” and “woman”, and provokes a sense of unease that, in the absence of other channels, is resolved violently in absurd attempts to male identification with outdated ghosts of virility. Thanks in large part to feminism (and other movements of social, political and racial emancipation, etc.), contemporary culture faces situations of negotiation that were unthinkable until recently. And under these situations, there are issues that are of mutual concern to men and women. If women are evolved, sophisticated beings, after a hundred years of work and discussion about their identity… while men stultify, entrench in roles worn out and delegitimized of masculinity, the result will be as it is often being a decompensation that generates Manichaean and violent behaviours and attitudes. This paragraph leaves no room for doubt regarding the coincidence of interests of men and women in facing a courageous and committed dialogue. It is other elements that prevent us from sharing the social negotiation table and from reaching the desired pact.

It is not a question of making a clean slate of genetics and cultural heritage; recognizing the masculine and feminine that are the result of both circumstances does not mean that there are no differences or that one wishes to ignore them. The point is not to justify inequality by difference. It is a matter of finding a meeting place that demands the necessary and honest collaboration of those in power, many of whom continue to be interested in maintaining the current status quo. Of course, this is the position of the elites of the art system, especially their institutions and the market, who cling to conservative patriarchal positions. For the indifferent, the challenge is to get out of the comfort zone.

The pioneers of the feminist movement within contemporary art conquered a place within the mainstream for many women, as well as the inclusion of disciplines secularly considered feminine and, therefore, with the category of mere decorative crafts, now used by the creators as banners of their condition. Isabel Jiménez Arenas suggests that they are feminist strategies of therapeutic practice, similar to Catherine Clément’s assessment of women’s trances of hysteria in certain African religious ceremonies. Sara Rivera Martorell uses the term ―strategy― with a very different meaning in reference to the MNCARS exhibition De la revuelta a la posmodernidad (1962-1982), particularly to the section La revolución feminista, in a separate room, while women were practically absent in the rest: …a strategy to muddle through that gives the museum an answer to the question posed by the Intituto de Investigaciones Feministas (Institute of Feminist Research) of the Complutense University of Madrid in its conferences entitled Museos y visibilización femenina, ¿Dónde están las mujeres? last July 2012: in her own room, with regard to Virginia Woolf.

Helena Cabello and Ana Carceller in a decisive work on the subject speak of ZONE F as the place of negotiation in which only stereotypes are questioned, without geographical, formal or gender limitations, where multiple experiences can be crossed and mutually enriched. Particularly, they analyse the spaces, practices and routes in this area proposed as new models in the work of artists such as Alicia Framis, Marina Nuñez, Eija-Lisa Athila and Yasumasa Morimura.

This is the framework for action that we must build together. In The Feminine and the Sacred, Caherine Clément and Julia Kristeva debate about the sacred in women, which in some cases would express an instant riot, which passes through the body and soul of the oppressed. But in other times/places women exhibit a dimension of the sacred that is at the transitional crossroads of the feminine-male duality present in all, in that residual region of the primordial twinning of the human being. Only by activating that zone of transitionality will the sacred be accessed. Veronica Ruth Frías’ proposal is no different in the dual and sacred context of performance, which once again seems to us to be ideal for formulating a whole declaration of intent, multiple and versatile, captured in a subtle and intelligent way and with great beauty and courage, where everything is weighed up and nothing is free.



-BORJA-VILLEL, Manuel et al. (coord.). 2011. De la revuelta a la posmodernidad (1962-1982). Madrid . Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofía.

-BOURGEOIS, L.: Destrucción del padre-Reconstrucción del padre, 2002, Madrid, Síntesis

-BOURGEOIS, L.: Destrucción del padre-Reconstrucción del padre, 2002, Madrid, Síntesis Ensayos y entrevistas (1923-1997), 2014, Madrid, Síntesis

-CABELLO, H. CARCELLER, A.: “ZONA F. Sujetos imprevistos (divagaciones sobre lo que fueron, son y serán),

-CHADWICK, W.:Mujer, arte y sociedad, Barcelona, Destino, 1999

-CHASTEL, A: El Renacimiento italiano (1460-1500), Ed. Akal, 2005

-CLEMENT, C. y KRISTEVA, J…: Lo femenino y lo sagrado, Valencia, Ediciones Cátedra, Universidad de Valencia/Instituto de la Mujer, 2000

-CREIXEL, R.M., SALA, T.M., CASTAÑER, E.: Espais Interiors. Casa i Art (des del segle XVIII al XXI), Ediciones de la Universidad de Barcelona, 2007

-JIMENEZ ARENAS, I.M.: La expresión plástica de Louise Bourgeois. Estrategias feministas para una praxis terapeútica, Valencia, Servicio de Publicación de la Universidad de Valencia, 2006

-KENETH, C: El arte del Humanismo, Madrid, Alianza Editorial, 1989

-KENETH, C: Leonardo da Vinci, Madrid, Alianza Editorial, 1998

-LIPPARD, L.R.: 1976, From the Center. Feminist essays on women’s art, Nueva York E. P. Dutton

-LOPEZ REJAS, J.: “Sobre La deshumanización del arte”, entrevista a Simón Marchán Fin para El Cultural de El Mundo, Madrid, 8 de noviembre de 2000

-MAYAYO, P.: Historias de mujeres, historias del arte, Madrid, Cátedra, 2007

-MORAZA, J.L.: 1999, “Una relación imposible, real. Constructivismo y complicidad.” Comunicación presentada en el ámbito de las sesiones sobre artistas y feminismo convocadas con ocasión de la exposición de Martha Rossler en el MACBA de Barcelona.

NOCHLIN, Linda. 1971. “¿Why have there been no great women artists?” , Art News

-OCAMPO, V.: 2016, Darse. Autobiografía y testimonios, Fundación Banco de Santander

-ORTEGA Y GASSET, J.: 1982, Paisaje con una corza al fondo (1927). Obras completas, Madrid, Revista de Occidente, Vol. VI

-PANOFSKY, E: 1980, Idea. Contribución a la historia de la teoría del arte, Madrid, Cátedra,

-POLLOCK, G.: 2010, Encuentros en el museo feminista virtual, Madrid, Cátedra

-POLLOCK, G.: Visión y diferencia. Feminismo, feminidad e historias del arte,

-RIVERA MARTORELL, S.: 2013 “El arte feminista y su exhibición: la musealización de un conflicto. El caso del Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofía”, Encrucijadas, Vol. (Mujeres, géneros, feminismos)

-ROMERO TOBAR, L.: 2014, “Maria de Pilar Sinués, de la provincia a la capital del reino”, “Mujer y periodismo en el S.XIX. Las pioneras” ARBOR, Ciencia, Pensamiento y Cultura, Vol. 190-767, Universidad de Zaragoza, mayo-junio

VV.AA.: Louise Bourgeois. Memoria y arquitectura, Madrid, Aldeasa y Museo Reina Sofía, 1999

VV.AA.: Hannah Höch (1879-1978), Madrid, Aldeasa y Museo Reina Sofía, 2004

VV.AA.: Louise Bourgeois. Estructuras de la existencia: las celdas, 2016, catálogo de la exposición, Bilbao, Museo Guggenheim

Exhibition Views



Actividad realizada con la ayuda del Ministerio de Cultura y Deporte