User talk:Anecurtis

= Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists? =

Overview
Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists? written in 1971 by Linda Nochlin looks at the historical lack of representation of female artists particularly in sculpture and painting and the institutions that caused their absence. Nochlin argues that academics should not attempt to find mediocre exceptions of great female artists to answer the question "Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?" This strategy, she argues can only reinforce negative assumptions due to there not being female equivalents to the likes of Michelangelo, Rembrandt, Delacroix, Cezanne, Picasso and Matisse. Nochlin instead insists that we must examine the institutional powers that have been instrumental in excluding women from the arts. Nochlin focuses primarily on the lack of availability of the nude model for women to study. This severely impeded their development as artists. Nochlin not only reveals its detrimental impact on their development but also how women’s pursuits were relegated into less regarded forms of painting such as landscape, portraiture, genre and still life. Her question “Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?” goes beyond the lack of female artists and acts as an impetus to challenge the absence of women in all intellectual disciplines.

Background
Publication

“Why Have There Been No Great Artists” was published in the 1971 January issue of ArtNews. At this time there was significant second wave feminist discourse and action taking place worldwide. Nochlin’s article was the cover story for a special issue which focused on women’s liberation, women artists and art history. The article was met with praise and it has become one of her best known works. This essay is now a fundamental text for feminist art history as it signified a methodological shift in the way scholars understand women and art.

Title
The title of Nochlin’s essay “Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?” is significant. Though it could be perceived to be facetious coming from a feminist scholar, Nochlin asks it with great seriousness. The question derives from Nochlin’s wonderment as to why women have not been able to achieve the same renowned as male artists. To her, questions of this sort are crucial not only for the discipline of Art History but for all academic fields. In querying academia for their lack of women Nochlin argues that it uncovers the social and hierarchical conditions that construct intellectual disciplines and their exclusionary practices.

Article
Nochlin begins by deconstructing the arguments put forth by some to explain the disproportionate representation of male artists in art history. She states that the feminist reaction to this problem is to find examples of female equivalents to great male artists. Nochlin believes this is problematic. There are no equivalents and “ by attempting to answer it, and by doing so inadequately, they merely reinforce its negative implications.” (Nochlin 5)

Nochlin explains that other feminist critics argue that women have an inherent and distinctly unique female style simply not recognized by art history. Nochlin also disputes this arguing female artists generally share more with their male contemporaries than they share with each other. Similarly she cites examples of male artists that could be understood as having a uniquely female style and female artists who have a distinctly masculine style. In particular she mentions the work of male Dutch Little Masters and Impressionists that depicted domestic life.

Nochlin states that it is short sighted to understand art as distinctly feminine or masculine. To consider the intention of serious artistic pursuits as somehow emblematic of gender identity is to confuse the very foundation of the discipline.

Part 1: Deconstructing the Genius Myth

Nochlin devotes considerable space to deconstructing the mythology of the male “genius.” This myth has historically reinforced the notion that male artists are inherently gifted and naturally talented. Nochlin argues that this is a problematic. It does not consider the social, economic and institutional structures that acted to shape the artist. She explains that this mythology justifies the lack of female artist in history as their talent would have simply revealed itself had it been great enough.

Part 2: The Question of the Nude

Nochlin notes that one of the conditions that historically impeded women from achieving greatness in painting was their lack of access to the nude figure. Although men had the ability to study from male and female models, women were not permitted such an opportunity. They were barred from nude figure drawing classes and thus had limited ability to study anatomy. This deprivation relegated female painters to ‘minor’ art fields including portraiture, genre, landscape and still life. Though there are examples of exceptional works within these genres historically these paintings did not garner the same acknowledgement and were less fiscally lucrative.

Part 3: The Lady’s Accomplishment

Nochlin examines the notion of accomplishment and its alternative meanings for men and women. She notes that while amateur talent was encouraged for some upper class women, when they ventured too seriously into professional activities such as paintings their efforts were seen as frivolous. Historically Nochlin explains a woman's duty was in the service of her family. Any accomplishment outside domestic concerns were seen as something to be avoided.

Part 4: Successes

Nochlin does identify some examples of successful female artists. She does this in order to consider the similarities they share in relation to the social conditions that allowed for their success. Nearly all these women had fathers or close male companions who were also artists and who encouraged their artistic pursuit. In contrast to public and social disinterest their success hinged on the encouragement of those who were emotionally close to them. Nochlin additionally notes that in order to become successful in the way men did, many women had to assume male attributes.

Nochlin's examples of successful women artists include Sabina von Steinbach, Rosa Bonheur, Marietta Robusti, Lavinia Fontana, Artemisia Gentileschi, Elizabeth Cheron, Louise Élisabeth Vigée Le Brun and Angelica Kauffman. Further contemporary examples include Berthe Morisot, Mary Cassatt, Suzanne Valadon, Paula Modersohn-Becker, Kathe Kollwitz and Louise Nevelson.

Part 5: Rosa Bonheur

Nochlin spends considerable time examining the life of Rosa Bonheur, a nineteenth century painter most well known for her depictions of animals. Bonheur was wildly successful for her time and had a substantial reputation. Here Nochlin examines the artist’s internal and external conflicts between self and profession. In particular she considers how the artist played with gender roles and her relentless justification of these choices brought about by the pressure to conform to societal norms.

Conclusion

Nochlin reiterates that the lack of greatness for women artists has been largely determined by public institutions. She encourages women to confront the reality of their historical disadvantage and continue to challenge hierarchical institutional structures.

Criticism
In their book “Old Mistresses; Women, Art and Ideology” feminist art historians Griselda Pollock and Roszika Parker question Linda Nochlin’s thesis. They state that societies understanding of “greatness” within the visual arts is largely determined by patriarchal criteria and therefore it is society's conception of great art that must be reconsidered. Pollock and Parker explain that many incredible achievements have been made by women in the visual arts. However, the male created distinctions between what high and low art have excluded women and thus rendered many of their accomplishments invisible to the art community. Their definition of high art is gallery art that names and recognize artists who are universally familiar. Low art is craft based; objects are often ornamental and utilitarian. The makers of these objects were usually women and therefore largely anonymous.

Similar to Nochlin, Pollock and Parker examine the institutional and ideological apparatuses that have made women invisible or undervalued in the visual arts. Unlike Nochlin they believe that the gendered prejudice between high and low art distinctions is what should be broadened. They argue society’s definitions of greatness should be queried in order to consider craft based arts historically created by women and are deserving of equal renown to the creations of great male artists.

Your submission at Articles for creation: User:Anecurtis/sandbox (April 8)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved. ''' Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! '''
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new Articles for creation help desk], or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aggie80&action=edit&section=new reviewer's talk page].
 * Please remember to link to the submission!

The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.