I took a blog post down today, thinking that perhaps I had both said too much and not said enough, and that in raising a question I didn't really have an answer for I might have seemed mean-spirited. Anyway the discussion was relevant to art in general, and to art made (mostly) by women specifically, but not perhaps so relevant to art by me. Perhaps you read it; I wondered what the rationale might be for co-opting a term specific to another medium to describe challenging and honourable techniques traditionally used by women. Women's issues, women's art, are topics close to my heart, but not topics I explore in my current work. I don't fight a battle to have my medium taken seriously in the art world. I'm not sure I have the right to comment how someone who does approaches that particular fight. So. A curatorial decision made.

Except. In the name of inclusivity, I've censored myself. I've been uneasy about the post since I published it, which is never a good sign, but I'm equally disquieted by having removed it. There's a cultural force at work here, I think: good girls don't raise the awkward questions, don't make people uncomfortable, don't rock the boat. Sisters stick together. But that's a feminist issue, too, isn't it? We don't all think the same. Surely as professional artists — as adults — we can cope with debate.

So what do you think? Is an artist's blog — attached to their portfolio website — the place to discuss issues that veer toward the political? Or should I be sticking to musings about my own work, stories about my own experience? What engages you?