Perhaps the most significant, and most under-examined, aspect of Sohm’s legacy is her work in documentary film. Between 1978 and 1985, she produced a trilogy of films on artists whose work engaged with political violence: The Witness: Käthe Kollwitz’s Century , Fragments of Hans Haacke , and Martha Rosler: The Kitchen of War . Unlike conventional art documentaries, which tend to fetishize the artist’s studio or biography, Sohm’s films are relentlessly interrogative. She uses the camera not as a window but as a mirror, turning it back on the viewer’s own complacency. In The Witness , for example, she juxtaposes Kollwitz’s prints of starving children with contemporary news footage of famine in Biafra, asking a narrator to repeat the question: “And what did you do?” The films are difficult, uncomfortable viewing—deliberately so. They refuse the redemptive arc, the comforting conclusion that art has made things better. For Sohm, art’s function was not to heal but to indict.
This philosophical stance found its most powerful expression in her curatorial work, particularly in a series of lesser-known but influential group shows in downtown New York lofts and alternative spaces during the late 1960s and 1970s. Shows such as The Unseen War (1971) and Domestic Violence: The Art of Private Brutality (1974) were pioneering in their focus on trauma, gender-based violence, and the psychological aftermath of conflict. While mainstream museums were still celebrating the heroic gesture or the cool conceptual grid, Sohm was hanging the raw, assemblage-based works of women artists like Nancy Spero and Ana Mendieta alongside documentary photographs from Vietnam and domestic abuse shelters. The catalogues for these shows, which she wrote and edited herself, are masterpieces of activist criticism—part essay, part manifesto, part oral history. In them, Sohm refused to separate aesthetic judgment from ethical consequence. She wrote of a painting by Spero: “The figures tremble not because the line is uncertain, but because the history they carry is unbearable. To call this ‘bad drawing’ is to confess one’s own anesthesia.” justine sohm
Sohm emerged from a specific intellectual milieu: the confluence of post-war European existentialism and the burgeoning American counterculture. Born in Europe and eventually settling in New York, she carried with her a profound awareness of the 20th century’s catastrophes—fascism, war, genocide. For Sohm, art could not be a mere exercise in formalist abstraction or market-driven novelty. Her early critical writings, published in smaller journals like Arts Magazine and The Village Voice , consistently attacked what she saw as the hollow machismo of Abstract Expressionism and the cynical detachment of Pop Art. She saw in Jackson Pollock’s drip paintings not liberation but a solipsistic frenzy; in Andy Warhol’s Brillo boxes, not a brilliant critique of commodity culture but a capitulation to it. Her critique was not philistine but deeply considered: she argued that art had a responsibility to bear witness, to discomfort, to ask “who does this image serve?” She uses the camera not as a window
In the end, Justine Sohm’s essay is not merely written on paper; it is written in the arrangements of galleries, the selections of films, and the unflinching questions she posed to every image. Her legacy is the uncomfortable space she cleared for art to be more than beautiful, more than clever—to be, in her own words, “a splinter in the eye of the comfortable.” For that alone, she deserves a long and patient look. For Sohm, art’s function was not to heal but to indict