Questions, thoughts, and responses...

#1
Why have there been no great women artists? Who says there haven't? There are numerous women who are in their own rights great. The problem is that they are under appreciated, and
under studied. The fact of the matter is that there were less of them, during a male dominated society, so many of them had to fight their way to the top.
"According to tradition, in the past a woman's place was in the home, she was under the tutelage, first of her father and then of her husband. Her main duties were to be a wife, a mother, and then run a household. If a woman escaped these duties to become a artist it was an exception to the rule
Today there are many great women artists. It was only in the 20th century when the mass of women became eligible (legally as well as culturally) to receive the highest levels of artistic training. So this brings us to the problem we face today, copyrights. Most great women artists are under the protection of copyrights and their estates have chosen not to allow their images to be used."
http://www.mystudios.com/women/women.html



Jenny Saville


Ana Mendieta
#2
Nochlin writes: "It is certainly not realistic to hope that a majority of men in the arts or in any other field will soon see the light and find that it is in their own self-interest to grant complete equality to women, as some feminists optimistically assert or to maintain that they are diminished by denying themselves access to traditionally feminine realms and emotional reactions."
In Feb 2007 she was interviewed by by Barbara A. MacAdam of ArtNews and was asked:
Where do you believe feminism stands today?
to which she replied, "I think we’ve made a lot of progress. I know it’s not fashionable to admit it, but I’m just stating a fact. I think women artists occupy a better position today than they did 30 or 35 years ago. Some of the best artists in every medium are women. The problem is to make collectors, museums, and curators who aren’t really up on things see that there are many great women artists. There are collectors and curators who—out of habit, laziness, or even misogyny—simply don’t bother with women. But that’s happening less and less frequently as women begin to occupy the most prominent places in the art world as creative artists. I mean, who wouldn’t think of collecting Louise Bourgeois? You’d be crazy if you didn’t. Which brings me to ask, do we, as women, have to be accepted by men to be considered great artists?

#3
Another question posed to Nochlin by MacAdams was"But the situation for women has changed in terms of the art itself.
Her reply, "Yes, in terms of expectations, in terms of what’s out there in the galleries. I’m going to point out, too, that the trope of “woman as exception” has always been popular. You think of people like Élisabeth Vigée-LeBrun or Mary Cassatt or Berthe Morisot or Rosa Bonheur—probably one of the most popular artists of the 19th century—or of Georgia O’Keeffe, arguably the best-known woman artist in the United States. They’re not very highly respected in vanguard circles. People don’t know exactly what to do with “women as exception.” They’re like some odd bird out there that has done something unusual."
Why is it that they don't know what to do with women as artists? why are they not accepted, is our gender still oppressed? how can it be overcome? What do we do to overcome the obstacle of being a women in the art field? Is it possible that with more and more women entering the field that it could be overturned. Many more women are being trained in the arts and going on to teach. Could it be that the future male artists with female teachers will be more accepting and open to the idea of great women artists? Do we care if they aren't?

#4
"The physicality and seeming absurdity of Kalman's activities conjure the familiar unease of canonized performance art, but she leaves us wanting as she gives us only a close and cropped and artfully composed frame filled with pink skin and implements." (American Craft Oct/Nov '09) This same "absurdity" is becoming ever increasingly popular. I am often reminded of a scene from a Jim Carrey movie, Liar Liar, in which he mutes him self in many various ways. Although his are for laughs and humor many artists have taken it very seriously and a step further, intriguing us with their processes and ideas - through the same absurdity as Kalman - Such as artist Charlie Roberts. One would ask, why would someone knowingly and willingly hurt themselves, for beauty? For expression? Or Art? It is quite possible that it might be all three.

#5
"The precious pins transform the afflictions into aesthetically pleasing adornment..."
This idea leads us only to investigate further into this "aesthetically pleasing" modification of the body. I ask, at what point is this no longer a modification but rather a mutilation? Although they are becoming more and more common, and accepted, piercings and tattoos, used to have symbolic meanings to various tribes and peoples throughout the world. Do they still carry with them these symbolic references? Although they were once considered statements of rebellion they have now become mainstream. With the acceptance of these rituals becoming mainstream, are they still considered rebellious?

Yanonmami Indian, Amazonian Rain forest.


model turned artist Veruschka

model turned artist Veruschka

photograph “Untitled (Glass on Body Imprints — Face),” above, made in 1972 by Cuban-American performance artist Ana Mendieta,


Charlie Roberts


Artist Unknown


Artist Unknown








The history of all times, and of today especially, teaches that... women will be forgotten if they forget to think about themselves.
Louise Otto-Peters