As Women’s History Month winds down, once again it’s compelling to revisit how far we’ve traveled. The road leading to The Art World is one such subject of much discussion, and inevitably, the touchstone essay, “Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?” is referenced. Written by art historian and critic Linda Nochlin in 1971 for ARTnews magazine, the essay speaks of missed opportunities by spotlighting the institutional and structural roadblocks faced by women artists in attaining parity with their male counterparts.
There is prevailing agreement regarding the far better status of women artists today than in 1971. Given the especially promising initiatives of the last 10 or so years, when long-neglected artists were finally recognized, the work of female artists was seen in solo shows, and museums presented more women-centered exhibitions, it would seem gender equity might have indeed arrived. Unfortunately, we can’t quite celebrate yet. Statistics reveal that between 2008 and 2018, art by women accounted for only 11 percent of acquisitions by the country’s major museums. Another recent analysis by researchers at Williams College revealed that while around 55 percent of working artists are women, just 13 percent are represented in the collections of major U.S. museums.
Lack of Opportunities and Recognition
Regarding women artists—great or otherwise—the question doesn’t revolve so much around why there are none, but rather the lack of opportunities that hindered the development of their art, and the lack of enthusiasm by “society” in acknowledging them. In the introductory text in The Power of Feminist Art, by Norma Broude and Mary D. Garrard, it’s worth noting that early editions of H.W. Janson’s art history “bible,” History of Art, neglected to include any women artists, with the author justifying the omissions by saying, “I have not been able to find a woman artist who clearly belongs in a one-volume history of art.” It wasn’t until the 3rd edition, published in 1986, that 45 women artists were allowed a place within this text. To paraphrase and expand on a quote of Nochlin’s, the fault lies not within us, but with the institutions and prominent (i.e., male-dominated) thinking prevalent throughout much of history as we know it.
Discovering women artists from past centuries who have achieved some degree of success, we find they typically were the daughters of artists or had fathers who were more forward thinking. Some were supported by male benefactors (sometimes, lovers). Several recognized female artists have been the wives of artists. Understandably, some rebellion seemed necessary for women to maintain the tenacity to adopt an art career, or any profession, for that matter. Some decided not to marry, or have children, instead focusing their energies on their art. We can sympathize with the misguided thinking of having to “acting like a man,” not only to gain entrance into the art world, but to gain access to many other professions traditionally off limits to women for so long.
We can also understand the thinking of some of the pioneering women artists of the 1950s, like Helen Frankenthaler and Grace Hartigan, in isolating themselves from other women artists and establishing themselves as followers of their male counterparts during the Abstract Expressionism movement. Apparently, Frankenthaler, Hartigan, and other female artists found their attitudes necessary for gaining an “in,” to this creative club (albeit on the fringes of). In trying to establish their credibility, many of the women felt the need to disassociate themselves from other women artists (they could be friends, just not “artist-friends”). They also felt compelled to become ruthless in pursuing their individual goals and to shun the label “woman artist.”
Challenging the Status Quo
Is it any wonder some might ask, “Why have there been no great women artists?” In a May 2016 ARTnews article, “Linda Nochlin on Feminism Then and Now,” one of writer Maura Reilly’s questions involved the inspiration for Nochlin’s essay, “Starting from Scratch.” Nochlin relates a conversation in 1970 with gallery owner Richard Feigen. Feigen, she says, told her, “I would love to show women artists, but I can’t find any good ones.” Nochlin no doubt was incredulous at his observation. After several days of thinking about her exchange with Feigen, she was inspired to write the essay as a response to the implication that there were no great women artists and the assumption that this was a natural condition. For far too long, this fault lies with the universal acceptance of the status quo and the idea that any art women created must be decorative, craft or just plain “busywork.” In challenging this thinking, raising questions, and bringing to light the work of women artists (and notable contributions by women in other “male” fields, like science and politics), the worldview will hopefully continue to adjust, where women in these areas are accepted as it should be. It’s essential for all of us, of every generation, to know how instrumental women were, and are, in their chosen professions. It’s time we are given permission to fully emerge from behind the scenes.
Thinking Outside Their Boxes
So, if women are capable of great work in other fields, why not in the art world? Nochlin explored this when she touched upon the image of the “lady painter” and the prejudices this implied in the 19th century (and beyond, I believe). That women couldn’t possibly be committed to the “serious” work of art; that any creation by a woman would be viewed as amateurish or just a “hobby,” did nothing for advancing any notable inclusion in Western art history. For men, Nochlin notes, art is considered “real” work, as opposed to the male insistence that women’s “real” work only lies within domesticity. This thinking continues with the idea that there is a distinction between male artistic sensibility (i.e., powerful, violent, serious images) and female artistic sensibility (i.e., meek, sensitive, frivolous images).
Nochlin illustrated the meaningless “masculinity/femininity” dichotomy that was often imposed on artists, with several examples challenging this widely accepted limitation. She presented the concept of inward-looking sensibilities and use of color, ideas of delicacy and scenes of domestic life in the work of several artists. The question of daintiness or sensitivity in women’s paintings is certainly not the case, as she points out, in Rosa Bonheur’s Horse Fair, (1852). First, by its subject matter (I doubt any women were involved in the horse-trading Bonheur observed in creating this painting) and second, in its unruly atmosphere (clouds of dust stirred up by the animals, the look on some of the men’s faces).
With a title like Judith Slaying Holofernes (1612-13), we can imagine its subject matter. Painted by the 17th century Italian artist Artemesia Gentileschi, this work is neither dainty nor sensitive. This iconic painting by Gentileschi, one of few women of her time to achieve a degree of artistic success, graphically depicts the beheading of a general of an enemy army by the biblical heroine, Judith, who is seen plunging a sword deep into his neck.
If we dismiss women’s paintings as “soft,” “quiet,” or “introspective,” then we should also dismiss Jean-Baptiste-Camille Corot’s Cows in a Marshy Landscape (c. 1873) with its subtle pastels and quiet ambience, as well as much of the Impressionist genre with its numerous examples of color and light and soft brushstrokes created by an infinite number of male artists. As for domestic scenes and works featuring children, Nochlin acknowledges these subjects in paintings by women, like Mary Cassatt, but also prominent in the work of the Dutch Little Masters (Vermeer, Frans Hals) of the 17th century. And if tenderness is only a characteristic in “women’s” art, is there any scene more tender than the father’s embrace of his son in the quiet moment defined in Rembrandt’s 1663 painting, The Return of the Prodigal Son?
Staying Vigilant
I’m in agreement with Nochlin’s theories and with her wrap-up where she writes of the importance of women’s acknowledgement of their history and awareness of current situations. With any group that has historically been maligned/disadvantaged, every effort needs to be made toward correcting the situation. Let’s use our energy for this purpose, rather than wasting it on wallowing in what has gone before. Yes, looking back is imperative, but it’s more beneficial to move forward. Vigilance cannot go dormant, as Nochlin attests with her concluding statement in the ARTnews interview, “We need to be conscious not only of our achievements, but also of the dangers and difficulties lying in the future.”
Younger generations of women need to feel a certain urgency in protecting the rights they can’t imagine were once nonexistent. No one should be too “laissez faire” about the successes and opportunities we enjoy. And none of us can afford to ignore the turmoil we’re experiencing with the divisiveness, misinformation, and toxic attempts to overthrow the progress accomplished in many more areas beyond just the arts that we seem to be taking for granted.
The Success of One is the Success of Many
We need to insist on our right to excel in any chosen field. This is among our next set of challenges. No one doubts the progress made since the upheaval of the 1960s and 70s, when women in medicine, science, and politics, were still a minority. For those who came of age during those times, or before, there is much gratitude. Having accomplished “getting in,” we need to strive not for lateral moves, but more movement toward the upper reaches of these institutions. Modern women, not just contemporary women artists, need to understand this. Young women in their teens, 20s and 30s, must be cognizant of our feminist history, especially since they are the beneficiaries of many of the gains the feminists put in place.
Without having to become “one of the boys,” or giving up our distinct sensibilities and unique experiences, we should take away a lesson Nochlin pointed out at the end of the ARTnews interview, where she says, “A level of confidence and an ability to take criticism is essential to success. Women all too often are not brought up to take intellectual and professional criticism, harsh criticism.” No matter what skin we wear, we should never allow it to become thinner.
Which is not to say, let us deny the men their successes. I have a son; I very much want him to be successful. If I had a daughter, I would, of course, want the same thing. And please, let’s not say that by embracing our professional lives, embracing work that makes us a whole being, we are rejecting our domestic lives and/or parenthood. I have no problem doing the supper dishes, so long as my son doesn’t either.
Sources:
Braz, Anna, et al. “The Staggering Lack of Female Artists in America’s Museums.” Axios, 10 Sept. 2022.
https://www.axios.com/2022/09/10/art-museums-women-men-gender-disparity
Broude, Norma, et al. The Power of Feminist Art: The American Movement of the 1970s, History and Impact. Harry N. Abrams, 1996.
Churchman, Fi. “How Linda Nochlin Changed Art History Forever.” ArtReview, Feb. 2021.
https://artreview.com/how-linda-nochlin-changed-art-history-forever/
Nochlin, Linda. “Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?” ARTnews, 1971.
https://www.artnews.com/art-news/retrospective/why-have-there-been-no-great-women-artists-4201/
Image credit: iStock.com/Andrey Suslov