Please take a look at this amazing video clip by Philip Scott Johnson – Women In Art – don’t forget to turn on your sound! 
It occurred to me that over the 500 (or so) years that this clip traverses, women have been the subject of “great” art far more frequently than they have been the creator of it! In fact… of the 35 paintings in the above clip only two were actually painted by women…
Self Portrait by Elisabeth Louise Vigee-Le Brun (whom I had never heard of)
and Woman with a Pearl Necklace in a Loge by well known and much loved American artist Mary Cassatt
It’s not that women artists have not been represented throughout the history of art (some have even enjoyed a healthy degree of success and fame)… it’s just that none of them have been remembered as “great”. In her essay “Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists” Linda Nochlin examines the question in great depth. I have included the link for those who may be interested in following the paper trail through to discover the many and varied complex reasons put forth by the author… but in short… here is the thrust of the argument.
The feminist assertion would attempt to demonstrate that there have been many worthy (if insufficiently appreciated) women artists throughout history. But still no-one remembers them as “great”. Afterall… there are no women equivalents to Leonardo da Vinci, Michaelangelo, Titian, Carravaggio, Rembrandt … even as recently as Van Gogh for that matter! Mary Cassatt tried… as did Berthe Moriset… but despite their formidable presence and immense talent (and the legacy of many examples of “great” art) history arguably places both on the periphery of the Impressionist Movement… and in the virtual wilderness of Art History.
Then one might suggest that there is a different kind of “greatness” for women’s art than men’s art… women’s art perhaps possesses a distinctive and recognisable “feminine” style based on their character and the uniqueness of the female perspective.
This reminded me. The other day I was having coffee with a friend. She introduced me to the new owner of the bistro as “an artist who paints beautiful watercolours… but not what you’d expect watercolour to be. Soft yet vibrant… modern… (and then gesturing toward me) what you see here is what you get… Jean paints herself!” I was shocked and more than a little embarrassed at the frankness and clarity of her assessment (LOL)… but appreciated it nonetheless and took it for the huge compliment that it was! She was right of course… (at least the part about me painting “myself!”) This woman is a devoted art aficionado and has worked with artists in the gallery scene… so I had no reason to doubt her when she went on to say that this is so often not the case… and how it has constantly surprised her (when she finally met the artist after first knowing the work) how rarely the artist’s personality (and gender) can be identified by their artwork. It seems that just as many shy female artists paint bold paintings as bold male artists paint shy paintings!
So that blows that out of the water! Artists apparently paint “what’s in them”. They do not paint like women… (or men… be they black white or brindle… not christian nor muslim nor calathumpian indian). Artists paint the unique artistic individual that they are. Sure they will be “influenced” by their time, environment, politics, religion and the subject matter they choose… but their intrinsic “style” will be their own.
Perchance Pablo Picasso was born a girl!
artwork & content Copyright Jean Burman 2007
Nochlin asserts that we are the product of our education – education being everything that happens to us from the moment we enter this world of meaningful symbols signs and signals. She sees it as “a miracle that… given the overwhelming odds against women… that so many have managed to achieve so much sheer excellence, in those bailiwicks of white masculine prerogative like science, politics or the arts”.
My friend John Crowther in his blog article and cartoon “The Distaff Side” of Nov. 28 (scroll down to find it) touches on this point in his comment…
QUOTE Michel Eyquem de Montaigne wrote in 1588 that “women are not entirely wrong when they reject the rules of life proscribed for the world, for these were established by men only, without their consent.” And it was some anonymous wag who much more recently said “women’s work is never done”…. by a man! UNQUOTE
In my view… the reason why there have been “no great women artists in history” is because of subtle social conditioning. It’s the reason why we still cringe (ever so secretly) at the thought of a woman captaining our Boeing 747 800 across the Pacific (gosh I hope she can reach the rudder peddles! *sigh*)
It’s the reason why we still find it remarkable (despite ourselves) when a woman makes it into the high echelons of political power (despite their pivotal role throughout history).
It’s why we still wonder about a “woman” President.
And it may well be why Hilary Clinton now chooses to wear pantsuits over skirts! (There’s your answer Katherine!) (grin)
It’s all part of the game we all play to find our own place… and to accommodate… appease (and maybe someday overcome) the subliminal symbols signs and signals of our social conditioning in the search for the holy grail of equality in “greatness” (laughing uncontrollably now… hell may well freeze over while we wait!)
*wink* 
{ 42 comments… read them below or add one }
One of the extraordinary stories of women in art is the story of Artemesia Gentileschi, born c. 1597. Daughter of a renowned Renaissance painter, she was turned over by her father to a contemporary of her father for training. He raped her, was put on trial, and because he had powerful friends was, of course, let go free. For her, the pain of this never went away, and the experience was reflected in her work, as can be seen in her work “Judith Beheading Holofernes,” a painting that easily matches any other of the period. Still today, Gentileschi is routinely overlooked by art historians and academics. Go to:
http://www.usc.edu/programs/cst/deadfiles/lacasis/ansc100/library/images/068bg.jpg
Can’t read all right now …I MUST get some sleep but just wanted to say google Joan Eardley I love her work
Hi Jean. That is an amazing clip and I actually recognised many of the women or at least the paintings of the women…that was a “buzz”! You do find some really good “stuff”! Is there more in the air than just the weather changing? I can’t help but feel that evolution is a real thing when you look at human society over the thousands of years it has taken to get us where we are. Women are blazing a trail in many aspects of our lives…barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen are days of old. Power dressing and strong speeches are taking the place of aprons and silence. Behind every successful man..there is a good woman. I would love to be able to say the reverse more often! Lol!
I don’t know from great, but I have purchased (with my own money lol) five paintings by women and traded for two others. I still have room. What is for sale Jean, Jools?
Are you “fair dinkum” Roger??? I have lots for sale!!!! Pick out your favourites and let me know!!!
I couldn’t agree more Jean! Your essays are always such a delight to read.!They make me think and even act, (which is something, for it takes a lot to get me going!) I just fell in love with that video clip. It was hauntingly beautiful! I’m afraid I’ve already pilfered it from your blog and sent it to my loved ones…hope you don’t mind…(I send them your blog too!) Your cartoon image is rich too!
As an added thought…I wonder if part of the reason women never really make it to the satus of “great” is because of our self-inflicting, and often damning tendencies to multi-task. How I’ve envied my hubby’s ability to stay focused on his work without becoming distracted by petty tasks and distractions! I don’t think Carravagio or Van Gogh ever really thought much about the dirty laundry or sale prices at the market. It would take some sort of lobotomy for a woman to sever all tangent thoughts that breeze through her head, (Oh dear, that sounds offensive to you men folk…I don’t mean to allude that you are simple-minded…just generally better able to concentrate…) I have faith in my modern sisters of the world though. I think the creative community is fertile for greater femenine artistic appreciation.
Thanks John, Elinor, Jools, Roger and Mary for your thought provoking responses! Apologies for the delayed reply… I’ve been away for a couple of days.
John… I’m familiar with this painting but really don’t like it… (sorry LOL) I find it quite shockingly violent… but I guess there’s no rule that says art HAS to be beautiful… it’s just that I esp. like the beautiful stuff!
Gentileschi is a very good case in point. In The Story of Painting compiled by Sister Wendy Beckett it is put this way:
“Like any woman artist, she had to battle against the unexpressed absolutes of her culture, which included the belief in a “natural” inferiority of women and this too may have fuelled the fire with which she depicts Judith Slaying Holofernes.
Sweet dreams Elinor! I’ll check out Joan Eardley’s work when I can (I think you may have spoken of her before because the name rings a bell and I haven’t read about her yet in the history books!!! *wink* LOL)
Jools… I’m pleased you liked the clip… it’s fascinating isn’t it? Andrew tells me it was made with some new fangled “morphing” software. Clever eh! IMHO It will take more than a bit of power dressing and tough talk to change the way we look at and value ourselves (and others) in society… maybe it WILL be an evolutionary thing… or maybe it can never be? Thanks for seeing the bigger picture.
Roger… I know you have been a fabulous supporter of the arts (esp us girls!)… we need more like you!
Thanks Mary… your comments always buoy me up! LOL You always seem to just “get it” and no… I don’t mind you sharing the joy around! The clip was done by a young man named Philip Scott Johnson who has done quite a few of these morphing clips (all of them amazing) so I can’t take credit for that… but I do thank you for noticing the cartoon! (smiling ear to ear!)
You may have hit the nail on the head there with the multi-tasking theory. We do tend to spread ourselves just a little too thinly on the ground… true greatness (I believe) needs true singlemindedness… and that’s one thing many women simply don’t have in abundance (what a confusing paradox! LOL)
Many women artists sign their paintings with an initial and their last name rather than used a woman’s first name. They think sales are most often made by male artists and that has been true in the past. But in the 1500′s and on, most successful artists had many students work with them, many women, and teachers just did the final touches, signed the painting and took credit for the work. It was standard procedure and no one complained. It still goes on today.
I think Hillary is making a mistake wearing pants suits.
Re Hilary and pant suits, it depends on her legs (LOL)
Roger… I’ll bet MEN don’t wear long pants to cover their legs! (((LOL)))
Katherine… so nice to see you here again! Seems as though there is “crookery” in every profession… even the arts… (and it’s been going on for a very long time!) LOL
Oh katherine…that is just “outrageous” that someone else should take the credit by signing anothers painting!!! I am gobsmacked – there is no way that would ever happen with me!! I lurve signing my name “Jools”…the paintings never seem finished until I do! lol!
Hey Roger….would you rather see Hillary in a frock??? I don’t really mind either way..as long as she gets “the job” done …Lol! What about the other way around..I always get a good giggle from Dame Edna Everage!! I love how she puts “stars” on “the spot”! and her frocks are just an art piece in themselves!
Jools… it’s been happening since time immemorial. Artisans (often students) made paintings for the artist to sign… and as Katherine points out… it still goes on today. There is a father and daughter team here who paint together and sign under the one name. They have also been in court for breach of copyright of another artist’s work. The father used to frame for the artist until he realised he could make a heck of a lot more money by copying the work, undercutting the artist, and selling it as his… and/or “hers”… at a reduced price. The world is a crooked place… nothing much has changed over the years!
Good grief Jean…thats apalling – how do people like that sleep!!!! I am such an innocent when it comes to the “pros and cons” of the big wide world!!! I am aware that it goes on, but it never fails to shock me….I can’t even tell a “white lie” without stressing over it..Lol! Just goes to show how much, money can corrupt people! There is one biggy in the world that I can honestly say “I hate!” and that is thieves!!!!!
Me too Jools! I am particularily naive and vulnerable when it comes to dishonest trickery and thievery. It has made me a suspicious person…but how else is one to survive in this world of con-men?!
I’m not a particularly suspicious person… (so therefore I am often disappointed by the propensity of people!) But fortunately there are honest people out there too if you’re lucky enough to find them… and they tend to cancel out the other!
Jean, if you were a U.S. citizen I’d campaign for you to run for president…and if you’d rebel, (which undoubtedly you would) I’d campaign to have you drafted into presidency! Ha! How refreshing it would be to have a mature and hopeful leader speak for our nation!
Jean do you have any paintings for sale?
YES Roger!
I will email you (presuming of course that your email is unchanged?) If your email has changed… I wonder if you would mind emailing me from the front page here (see CONTACT ME in the top right index) and I will email you back directly with what’s available.
Mary… that’s hilarious! You know I’d make a lousy President… wayyyy to outspoken… not diplomatic at all… and besides I just wouldn’t cut it in a suit! But thanks for thinking of me! *wink* (((LOL)))
I agree with Mary , Jean and that is after knowing how that situation feels .
Cheering soon turned to tears as that handbag was swung and the lady didn’t pirrouette .
Great Blog and more power to your arm
Thank you Elinor… you are a dear sweet heart you know!
Regarding the signing of paintings, it’s worth noting that using ghost writers is common in publishing, epecially among show biz and political celebrities. And then there’s the widespread use of speech writers. With comic strips it’s the norm for their creators to hire artists and writers to do the actual work once the strip gets successful. Charles M. Schultz was an anomaly in his refusal to ever have another arist draw a single line of his several thousand “Peanuts” strips. Walt Kelly of “Pogo” fame was another.
Jean, I can certainly relate to your preference for beauty in art, as subjective as that notion is. A couple of thoughts in that regard. I think that the beauty of content and beauty of execution are two separate things. Caravaggio’s work was often its most breathtakingly stunning when he was painting the most violent and brutal subject matter. In the Renaissance, art existed primarily to tell stories, mainly religious and mythological, to a largely illiterate audience. Those stories were often cruel and bloody. One can view Mel Gibson’s “Passion of Christ” in this tradition, though I suspect that you, like I, deplore his use of violence.
Hey there Jean…I’m back!! Oh my gosh I missed “visiting”!! Gave everyone else a chance to comment tho…Lol!
Elinor..at least women would duck if a handbag came a ‘swinging’ and then we would cheer!!! At least I would!!! Lol!
I’m not sure what happened. I tried posting a comment here earlier today, but it didn’t seem to go through. When I tried posting it again, a message appeared saying I’d already posted it. But somehow it’s disappeared.
Basically I was talking about the fact that celebrities and politicians routinely have ghost writers. Also, comic strip artists, who almost always turn their strips over to other artists and writers after they’ve become successful. Charles M. Schulz was one of the rare ones. He thought up, drew, inked, and lettered every single one of the thousands of “Peanuts” strips that appeared over several decades.
Regarding Gentileschi, Jean, I can certainly empathize with your feelings about liking beauty in art. It’s worth mentioning, though, that there’s a difference between beauty in content and beauty in execution. Some of Caravaggio’s paintings are exquisitely beautiful even though the subject matter is brutal and ugly. In the Renaissance, the principle purpose of art was storytelling, illustrating biblical and mythological narratives for the largely illiterate masses. The stories were often violent, but the paintings were breathtaking. There’s a modern day equivelent, I suppose, in Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of Christ,” though I’m guessing, Jean, you would be turned off by it, as I am.
Sorry John… I found your post over in the spam filter (wedged between teen porn and some other disgraceful piece of advertising!) I have no idea how the WordPress spam filter works… but obviously it’s not reliable – or failsafe!
I agree entirely that art doesn’t have to be beautiful to be beautiful… “ugly and brutal” can be beautiful too when it’s executed with great skill and intense passion. It’s when ugly is just plain ugly that the art world has a dilemma. Oh… what to do with the hundreds of thousands of positively ugly paintings of “beautiful subjects” created every year in the name of art? How will the world endure yet one more barn… or one more vase of roses… or one more ballerina tying up her pointes… repetitively recreated over and over again with neither the technical skill necessary to support it… nor the emotional content to ignite it? My only prayer… a pledge… that I do not contribute to this predicament by lifting a brush to anything that lacks imagination at the outset… and (at the very least)… the intent to create something with “spark”. It’s not a failsafe plan… nor a guarantee of success by any means… but it’s got to be something to shoot for!
Hi Jools… welcome back!
Thanks Jean!!!
I have to stand with you in the protest of just plain ugly art! It is my main aim to create something I enjoy doing as well as creating joy for others…however I do see that some of the topics of art are ugly, yet tell the story in a beautiful way. It is then that I look past the “ugliness” and see the skill. The more I see, the more I paint. The more I paint, the more I see!
Exactly Jools… you got it in one! In the Introduction to Jeanne Dobie’s excellent book “Making Color Sing” the artist describes this perfectly:
QUOTE
Anything can be painted! The secret is not the subject, but how you perceive and design the shapes values and colours. At a workshop in South Carolina the participants were amazed at the varied subject matter: thundering waterfalls, inspiring verandas, a picturesque cotton gin and more. On my day off, everyone wondered which location I would choose for some private painting. They were astonished that I decided to paint the refrigerator in the back room of the studio
UNQUOTE
… and that one deft painting gives new light and understanding to the humble subject of “refrigerator”! LOL
Ha, Ha…so true Jean!! I am working on a humble old fence post at the moment…I imagine it would have many stories to “tell!”…just as a refigerator or even a micro wave would! Lol!!
Art as a primary means of communication and story-telling is a concept that is foreign to us in this time of books, newspapers, the Internet, and endless chatter on television and radio. Our culture doesn’t encourage and celebrate art for it’s narrative potential. Indeed, there are critics and academics who disparage any painting with even a hint of narrative. The “beauty” of images to the Renaissance painter and public didn’t even enter into consideration except insofar as the artist was obligated to obey the rules of the canon, and follow strict ideals of composition and form in creating works with a maximum of story-telling skill and emotional impact. In the story of Judith and Holofernes the revulsion at the bloodiness of the act was very much to the point.
Artists may not be required to be story tellers as such these days… but “content” is still a very important prerequisite of great art… even (and especially) today with competition from a plethora of differing visual media… as you so rightly pointed out.
It seems to me that today’s critics and academics are looking beyond the image to find something that stirs them… but yes… they do tend to shun the narrative that is too “obvious”. The advent of photography has probably had more to do with the trajectory of contemporary art than we would like to give it credit for. Great art now (for the most part) requires realism to take a back seat… (although the audience still loves it to death) but IMhumbleO… it’s “content” which sorts the wheat from the chaff and gives the work that certain je ne sais quoi… the prerequisite of “great” art.
Jean, I couldn’t agree more!
I came,I saw,was called away sorry seeyou
You know Jean…I never REALLY “got it” about art and the feelings and thoughts that go with it, until the last 6 mths. Its like an awakening for me as it is far more than just painting pretty or appealing pictures. It has been a “tonic” used to relieve all kinds of ailments!!!
Hey Jean…my presonal ‘puter technician’ has come home..I now have speakers!!! Yay!!. Its all good, its all very, very good!!!
Back to the subject of the blog…… The Museum for Women in DC has a wonderful collection of paintings only by women. It is worth a visit. It is the only museum where I have seen work done back in the 1500 and 1600 period by the few women well known at that time.
Wow..that would be really good to see Katherine! I imagine it would be most inspiring as well!
They have a great website: http://www.nmwa.org/
I have been a member off and on since it opened and visit it almost every time I get to DC.
Thanks for that link Katherine! When I get time to draw breath I will investigate it thoroughly.
Jools… great news about getting speakers… what a difference that will make!
Christmas… they don’t call it the silly season for nothing… and at this time of the year it seems as though “anything goes”… and it often does! LOL Been busy… not all “exciting” stuff mind you… mostly just “stuff”… but will be here with another article as soon as I can. Watch this space… (and thanks for waiting!)
No worries Jean…quite content chatting here. I just went to that link from Katherine – how extroadinary those women were. Their work was so refined, so “intimate” I don’t know if that is quite the word I am looking for!!!! But as I looked at those paintings, specificly the 16, 17 and 18th century examples, I can imagine just how focused and absorbed those artists must have been to achieve what they did. I kept wondering how long it must have taken them to complete their works and what their conditions must have been like. Some of those paintings had such an intensity and strength about them… I was just mesmerised to say the least. I love those periods of art and am in awe of what they could do…truely amazing! Thanks for that Katherine!!!
Jools, You are welcome. I should have mentioned that website long ago.
It it interesting to think about the fact that those paintings were done when they were still grinding and mixing their paint…… before paint came in tubes.
Amazing stuff Katherine…amazing!! My mind boggles – we have it soooo easy now!