Why have there been no Great Women Artists?

The Wounded Deer, 1946 by Frida Kahlo

    At the beginning of the lesson for this week, we were asked a question. “Can you name three female artists from before the 1950s?” At the time, I could name one. Many people in the class also could name 1-2, but not three. Why could this be? When you think of all the greatest artists of the world, many names might come to mind. Leonardo Da Vinci, Jackson Pollock, Michelangelo, etc. All these artists are men. Men in the art industry have been widely known for their art and their talents. Women, on the other hand, tend to go unnoticed or unappreciated. 

 

“There is another approach to the question. Many con-
temporary feminists assert that there is actually a different
kind of greatness for women's art than for men's—They
propose the existence of a distinctive and recognizable
feminine style, differing in both formal and expressive
qualities from that of men artists and posited on the unique
character of women's situation and experience.”

-Linda Nochlin

 

    When reading this quote, I resonated it with the ideology that referred to women being dainty and delicate from long ago. Many women were supposed to be dainty creatures, whereas men were known to be more brash. Especially when relating to art. For example, Jackson Pollock. He was this macho man with messy and drastic paintings. When creating art, women were ideally supposed to be delicate. This quote mentions how people propose that women have a different style than men, their style is feminine and differs from the formal and expressive qualities of the masculine style. I do agree that women and men have different styles, but I do not agree that their different styles are the reason for their lack of equality in the art industry. Women and men can have similar styles. They can also have different ones. I do not necessarily believe their gender is what creates the differentiation in style. Some women prefer to have light and dainty style, like Georgia O’Keefe. On the other hand, artists like Frida Kahlo and Yayoi Kusama, have entirely unique styles that one could argue are not dainty and delicate. Frida Kahlo has her own style that I find fascinating. This is why I chose her painting, The Wounded Deer. We learned in the Nearpod that Frida was highly underpaid compared to her fellow male artists. Her career as an artist was not taken nearly as seriously as it should have been. Most importantly with reporters referring to her profession as “dabbling in the arts.” In the past, art was not a profession that was expected of women to have. Art for women was more seen as hobbies or past times. Which does play into how they were paid to my beliefs.

 

“On this basis, women's lack of major achievement in art may be formulated as a syllogism: If women had the golden nugget of artistic genius, it would reveal itself. But it has never revealed itself.” 

-Linda Nochlin

    This quote rubbed me the wrong way. I don’t think it is fair to say women don’t have the almighty artistic genius that men do, because if they did it would have shown by now. That statement to me is entirely off-putting. If we think about opportunities, you can see how women lacked in them. Men had drawing rooms or studios they attended frequently. They drew models, nude models, and still-life. They were able to perfect their skills due to opportunities. Women, on the other hand, were not given such. They could not draw nude models or even look at nude models until recently. They were not allowed in the drawing rooms and studios unless they were the models themselves. Women were supposed to be the subject of art, not creating the art. Which is why I feel women have been less successful in the art industry because they were not given nearly as many opportunities as men had been given. 

Linda Nochlin, "Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?" ARTNews, 1971, 2-5.

https://www.fridakahlo.org/the-wounded-deer.jsp