Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?
Linda Nochlin’s essay, "Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?” examines the limitations and discrepancies preventing broader recognition of women’s success in visual arts, analyzing the historical and institutional factors that played a role to their inhibition, rather than presumptions of feminine inferiority or lack of talent that have held them back. Nochlin addresses how societal structures, cultural norms, and institutional barriers of these times debatably continue to play a restricting role women from artistic opportunities.
“There are no women equivalents for Michelangelo or Rembrandt, Delacroix o Cezanne, Picasso or Matisse…” (Nochlin 5). Each person is a widely, greatly recognized male artist. However, what defines the female equivalent? Why is there no great female artists equally recognized? What in fact, is a great artist? To answer the latter is to discover the root of what is wrong with the question “why are there no great women artists?” Nochlin describes the myths behind the golden-nugget theory of “genius” and explains how this discrepancy cause art historians and art historian monographs to all too often “accept the notion of the Great Artist “as primary, and the social and institutional structures within which [they] lived and worked as mere secondary 'influences ‘or ‘background’” (9).
The problem with overlooking these elements, for starters, is that it subsequently disregards how inherently masculine qualities of said “great” artists were discouraged in women. The male saturation of artistic domination comes from their singular devotion, assertiveness, and ambitious traits. Women artists can considerably be “more inward-looking… delicate and nuanced in their treatment of their medium… daintiness, delicacy and preciousness are to be counted as earmarks of a feminine style…” But, “In any case, the mere choice of a certain realm of subject matter… restriction to certain subjects, is not to be equated with a style… quintessentially feminine style” (Nochlin 5). Per my interpretation, I understand this as: using this criteria to identify the saturation of successful woman artists is counterintuitive to their fight for equality.
Further factors that hindered successful female artist recognition was their limited or discriminated access to formal artistic education and an absence of female role models in the art world. Jeanne-Philiberte Ledoux, a pupil to the French painter Jean-Baptiste Greuze, consistently had her work misattributed to her mentor. Therefore even with a great master’s influence, female apprentices still went unrecognized to an extent. And if it wasn’t by their mentor, it was by artists alike. Judith Leyster’s “Jill Toper, 1629” was credited to the Dutch painter Frans Hal for centuries until Juliane Harms identified it as Judith Leyster’s in 1927.
Granted, there have still been many successes as far as ‘women artists’ goes: Rosa Bonheur, Marietta Robusti, Angelica Kauffman, and Lavinia Fontana. However, it is recognized that “almost all women artists were either the daughters of artist fathers, or… had a close personal connection with a strong or dominant male artist” (Nochlin 30). While small but notable, it continues to follow the question of whether or no their talent and successes would go unrecognized without their precedes.
“There are no women equivalents for Michelangelo or Rembrandt, Delacroix o Cezanne, Picasso or Matisse…” (Nochlin 5). Each person is a widely, greatly recognized male artist. However, what defines the female equivalent? Why is there no great female artists equally recognized? What in fact, is a great artist? To answer the latter is to discover the root of what is wrong with the question “why are there no great women artists?” Nochlin describes the myths behind the golden-nugget theory of “genius” and explains how this discrepancy cause art historians and art historian monographs to all too often “accept the notion of the Great Artist “as primary, and the social and institutional structures within which [they] lived and worked as mere secondary 'influences ‘or ‘background’” (9).
The problem with overlooking these elements, for starters, is that it subsequently disregards how inherently masculine qualities of said “great” artists were discouraged in women. The male saturation of artistic domination comes from their singular devotion, assertiveness, and ambitious traits. Women artists can considerably be “more inward-looking… delicate and nuanced in their treatment of their medium… daintiness, delicacy and preciousness are to be counted as earmarks of a feminine style…” But, “In any case, the mere choice of a certain realm of subject matter… restriction to certain subjects, is not to be equated with a style… quintessentially feminine style” (Nochlin 5). Per my interpretation, I understand this as: using this criteria to identify the saturation of successful woman artists is counterintuitive to their fight for equality.
%20-%20A%20Girl%20in%20Prayer.jpg) |
| Philiberte Ledoux (1767-1840) - A Girl in Prayer |
Further factors that hindered successful female artist recognition was their limited or discriminated access to formal artistic education and an absence of female role models in the art world. Jeanne-Philiberte Ledoux, a pupil to the French painter Jean-Baptiste Greuze, consistently had her work misattributed to her mentor. Therefore even with a great master’s influence, female apprentices still went unrecognized to an extent. And if it wasn’t by their mentor, it was by artists alike. Judith Leyster’s “Jill Toper, 1629” was credited to the Dutch painter Frans Hal for centuries until Juliane Harms identified it as Judith Leyster’s in 1927.
 |
| Judith Leyster - "Jolly Toper," 1629 |
Granted, there have still been many successes as far as ‘women artists’ goes: Rosa Bonheur, Marietta Robusti, Angelica Kauffman, and Lavinia Fontana. However, it is recognized that “almost all women artists were either the daughters of artist fathers, or… had a close personal connection with a strong or dominant male artist” (Nochlin 30). While small but notable, it continues to follow the question of whether or no their talent and successes would go unrecognized without their precedes.
Comments
Post a Comment