Week 4 - "Why have there been no Great Women Artists?"

Pablo Picasso

Marie Laurencin, 1908

In color (the text had the black and white version which I was unable to find online)

The text this week "Why have there been no Great Women Artists" written by Linda Nochlin, a professor of art history at Vassar College discusses topics of women and their ongoing struggles in the art world. Society as a whole has placed women in a very specific box. They are quiet, stay in the home, and tend to the children. This prevented them from doing lots of things, but they had a very different experience compared to men in art institutions. They were not allowed to view nude models, therefore making drawing and painting of the human body difficult. Women were often only able to have opportunities to get into art schools or enroll in workshops if their father was an artist or if they were wealthy. These sad occurrences happened throughout the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries.

The question itself, "Why have there been no Great Women Artists" which is also the title, is problematic. Right off the bat it makes you think that there has never been any great women artists, where this is entirely untrue. Keeping the traditional definition of a great artist in mind, this still untrue, because there is no real definition of a great artist. If we consider skill and aesthetic women are just as capable as men to create good art. There have been many great women artists, they have just been overlooked because they are not men in a society where men are viewed as the most influential. Not only have there been many great female artists, but their opportunities have also been limited, so their skills are even more impressive than the men that have had tons of training. Personally, I think a great artist has original ideas and skills that allow them to pursue the ideas they have.

In the text, it is discussed that there have been no great aristocratic artists. They have all the money and supplies in the world, so why not pursue art? Because that means they would have to work. Art was not viewed as a prestigious thing during the 17th to 18th centuries, and there was no need for aristocrats to work to survive. Aristocrats were still involved in art though, as they would commission artists to make them work. In turn, they also had a great effect on trends, because they paid for what they enjoyed looking at. They were also known to be amateur artists, and in their spare time they would make art, it was just overlooked because their identity was tied to their social status. Aristocrats also had societal duties like political affairs, court duties, and watching over properties.

As mentioned earlier, women were prevented from becoming great artists in a multitude of ways. It was much harder for women to get into art institutions if they did not have a father or grandfather that was an artist. On the other hand, not as related to gender, it was difficult for women to get into art academies if they were not rich because they could not pay tutors. It was also expected from a woman to complete domestic duties such as taking care of the kids, cooking, and cleaning. Becoming artists as women seemed far fetched because it was nowhere near their traditional roles in society. It was also difficult for women to have professional opportunities to display or sell their work because they would be outshone by men. I feel this is because women's art was not as valued as mens, it had nothing to do with their skill or details of their work. Today I think that women have far better opportunities to get an art education, and there are even some programs that are specifically designed for women artists. We can still see a gap in salary in men compared to women, and this is no difference in the arts. It is still difficult at times for women and minority groups to gain worthy representation in gallery spaces.