Women in Art History
nina
Why is it that there is a lack of women artists included even in recent Art History books?
How can we teach or learn about women artists, if they are not in our most basic survey books?
thanks for replying...
nina
nina
Jonathan Clift
In article <5hc19r$5...@uuneo.neosoft.com>, nina <gall...@juno.com>
wrote
Just to get the ball rolling, and deliberately being a bit contentious,
Art History tends to focus on change and development and the people who
brought it about. By-and-large that tends to have been male artists.
Although it's possible to find many women through history who have been
reasonably good artists, their work has tended to be derived from that
of men, and just on a par with the many men who also don't get
mentioned.
As to your second question, books are sold into a market place. If you
all put pressure on the publishers, by being selective about what books
you buy, then won't the content gradually change.
A question in return for you. Is there such a thing as "women's
creativity", or do you share the same kind as us men?
--
Jonathan Clift
mjf
nina wrote:
>
> Why is it that there is a lack of women artists included even in recent Art History books?
> How can we teach or learn about women artists, if they are not in our most basic survey books?
>
> thanks for replying...
> nina
the books. Not a woman in the bunch. Yet I seem to know plenty of women
artists. QId est?
mjf
Ruth Marler
In article <5hc1cb$6...@uuneo.neosoft.com>, nina <gall...@juno.com>
writes
>Why is it that there is a lack of women artists included even in recent Art
>History books?
>How can we teach or learn about women artists, if they are not in our most basic
>survey books?
>
>thanks for replying...
>nina
>
--
*******************************************************************
from Ruth Marler in Hampton, Middlesex, UK
ru...@lamerton.demon.co.uk
Looking for surname WIDDOWS anywhere for one-name study
email address for one-name study: wid...@lamerton.demon.co.uk
*******************************************************************
Charles Eicher
In article <5hi159$b...@news1.edmonton.istar.net>, iab...@superiway.net wrote:
> Did you deliberately miss the point of the question here, just so that
> you could go off on a history revising, feminist rant?
Damn, I missed that message, didn't show up on my newsserver. I love a good
rant.
> Your comments about currently working artists has nothing to do with the
> historical references, nowadays, there are more women artists than men,
> for many reasons.
Pure conjecture on your part.
> Historicaly, women had far more time to paint than men, as they were
> usualy kept by their working (depending how you define work) husbands.
I have rarely heard such rubbish. What history, of what planet are you
referring? Perhaps in the prehistoric era, where men hunted for mastodon
and sabre tooth tiger, while the wives gathered roots and berries (at least
until the men's hunting party was over the horizon, when they stopped
gathering berries and went back to their caves and brought out their
paintbrushes)?
Painting, and indeed all art, is not a 'leisure activity', and never has
been. Your premise is illogical. Your own knowledge of Art History is
sorely lacking.
| Charles Eicher |
| -=- |
| cei...@inav.net |
Jackie
Jonathan Clift <jona...@ipsart.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <5hc19r$5...@uuneo.neosoft.com>, nina <gall...@juno.com>
>wrote
>>Why is it that there is a lack of women artists included even in recent Art
>>History books?
>>How can we teach or learn about women artists, if they are not in our most basic
>>survey books?
>>
>>thanks for replying...
>>nina
>>
>Just to get the ball rolling, and deliberately being a bit contentious,
>Art History tends to focus on change and development and the people who
>brought it about. By-and-large that tends to have been male artists.
Sez who?
Are we talking about the west here?
Art is in many cases a by-product of leisure, if you are talking about
our western society where white males favor each other and in many
cases imposed laws where say, frinstance, women were not allowed to
own land or work in certain occupations or even view nudes for
drawing, yeah chicks didnt have the leisure and the bucks to do big
fat oil paintings of cherubs. The biggest buyer of art through the
ages in Europe was the catholic church, who did not sponsor women.
Women were actively discouraged from ambitions in the arts.
However, most of the good *crafts* in this country that I've seen were
done by women. Rughooking, quilting, pottery, cutwork, dollmaking,
embroidery, pottery, wherever women got the time and chance and
materials to do something artistic it seems to me they did it.
There are plenty of famous women singers, respected celebrated
artists, there are plenty of good and famous writers and poets who are
also women, more every day.
If you arent allowed out after certain hours unescorted, if
you arent allowed to wear clothes you can work in( ie not a corset ),
or take most jobs, or be paid a decent wage, if the entire community
does not support your art but rather wants you to become a demure baby
factory, I'm not surprised you didn't make it in the snotty society of
artists academies. Women *nowadays* have much less restriction, though
there is still *plenty* and we seem to be pickin' up the slack.
You just watch.
>Although it's possible to find many women through history who have been
>reasonably good artists, their work has tended to be derived from that
>of men, and just on a par with the many men who also don't get
>mentioned.
Think of it this way " although its possible to find many men
throughout history who have been reasonably good artists, their work
has tended to be derived from that of men..." Duh, most peoples work
is consonant with whatever the common scene is. The common scene in
western art has been men men men for thousands of years. No wait,
white landed men.
>As to your second question, books are sold into a market place. If you
>all put pressure on the publishers, by being selective about what books
>you buy, then won't the content gradually change.
Yup. Working on educating people about the actual history of oppresion
and eliminating sexism and racism will help too.
>A question in return for you. Is there such a thing as "women's
>creativity", or do you share the same kind as us men?
Yeah, we have our very own creativity that you men don't, we call it
childbearing, we put our flesh and blood and soul into it. Seems to me
you came from one of those women creators dintcha?
>Jonathan Clift
Alcott Arbus Angelou Barry Browning-Barret Brooks Difranco Ducette
Carter Family Galas Hunter Kahlo O'Connor O'Keefe Potter Madonna
Roseanne Sappho these are women, half of them alive today, that I
have thought of off the top of my head, in the space of a minute, who
not only created great art, but a *body* of art, in every medium I can
think of, and I haven't even made any effort to study women artists.
So while you are being contentious, contend with your own ignorance,
Clift.
NOJ
*******************************************
Nation of Jackie
this account borrowed from jcash
*******************************************
Zenoink
In <I1AVqFAS7$OzE...@ipsart.demon.co.uk> Jonathan Clift
<jona...@ipsart.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>In article <5hc19r$5...@uuneo.neosoft.com>, nina <gall...@juno.com>
>wrote
>
>>Why is it that there is a lack of women artists included even in recent Art
>>History books?
>>How can we teach or learn about women artists, if they are not in our most
basic
>>survey books?
>>
>>thanks for replying...
>>nina
>>
>
>Just to get the ball rolling, and deliberately being a bit contentious,
>Art History tends to focus on change and development and the people who
>brought it about. By-and-large that tends to have been male artists.
>Although it's possible to find many women through history who have been
>reasonably good artists, their work has tended to be derived from that
>of men, and just on a par with the many men who also don't get
>mentioned.
>
>As to your second question, books are sold into a market place. If you
>all put pressure on the publishers, by being selective about what
books
>you buy, then won't the content gradually change.
>
>A question in return for you. Is there such a thing as "women's
>creativity", or do you share the same kind as us men?
>
>--
>Jonathan Clift
>
Hmmm...apparently you believe there is something separate called
"women's creativitiy", Jonathan, one that is necessarily weak and
derivative, however.
Men still make up most of the faculty in every academic field and in
art history it is no different...if anything, it is more lopsided. An
acquaintance recently pointed out there were only ten "good" places for
new art historians open this year...I wonder how many of those "good"
places will be going to women?
Why is it important some of them be occupied by women? Because too
many men think like Johnathan: "Well, garsh, I guess we gotta admit
there are some of them gals who can paint purty good, but we wouldn't
want to have them gettin' too uppity, now."
Kay
Ian Abbott
Jackie wrote:
> Sez who?
> Are we talking about the west here?
Did you deliberately miss the point of the question here, just so that
you could go off on a history revising, feminist rant?
Your comments about currently working artists has nothing to do with the
historical references, nowadays, there are more women artists than men,
for many reasons.
Historicaly, women had far more time to paint than men, as they were
usualy kept by their working (depending how you define work) husbands.
The male working artists were also kept, by their patrons or family....I
don't see a difference in oportunity here. Speaking of women being
denied the oportunity of viewing models, that's a crock of shit. Any
woman who had the drive to be a painter could look at any model she
wished. Pre inhibited Victorian times, the body wasn't a "dirty" thing
and people took nudity and bodily functions for granted. Perhaps you
base your historical information on Harlequin type romances such as
Sense and Sensibility, with twittering mothers bent on finding husbands
for their spoiled brats.
I'll back up Johnathan's comment. Women are not in the history books,
because they were followers, not innovators.
Whatever the reason for this, church, dominant males, society or lack of
drive, it's a fact that you can't change.
I agree that women can be as good at art as men, and the female working
artists that I know and work with are proving that. Unfortunately,
people like you insist on poisoning the atmosphere and destroying any
progress that honestly talented women, as opposed to whining feminists,
have made.
Ok, go fer' it, I've given you enough ammunition here to start a small
war.......:)
Running, ducking, donning fireproof suit.
Ian
wsp
Zenoink wrote:
> Men still make up most of the faculty in every academic field and in
> art history it is no different...if anything, it is more lopsided. An
> acquaintance recently pointed out there were only ten "good" places for
> new art historians open this year...I wonder how many of those "good"
> places will be going to women?
From my experience I'd say about nine of 'em will go to women. Assuming
the resumes are comparable.
>
> Why is it important some of them be occupied by women? Because too
> many men think like Johnathan: "Well, garsh, I guess we gotta admit
> there are some of them gals who can paint purty good, but we wouldn't
> want to have them gettin' too uppity, now."
>
> Kay
Yeah, right Kay, nice sexist remarks from you. BTW, I'm glad we all
agree on how those damn people with purple hair and eyes think!
Kevin Martin
The oldest art school/museum in america, The Pennsylvania Academy of
the Fine Arts, has many books on the subject of woman artists. Many
famous woman artists have trained at the Academy. They have both a
fine libary and archive.
nina
I do understand that there are MANY books with women artist and MANY dedicated just to women....but
I am wondering why the lack fo women in the survay books such as Janson, Gardner, Hartt. These
History of art books are used to teach survey classes, yet they lack a significant number of women.
With a better knowledge of these women today, why are they still left out of these survey books.
Thanks!
nina
Kim Smallacombe
Chris Torgalson
>My answer:
>
>In the west, at least, its been pretty hard for women to get work as an
artist for a long long time-there aren't so many women in the books
because there haven't been that many women artists (relatively speaking.)
>As for survey books like Gardener, Janson etc these books usually try to
cover so much material that they neglect *everything*.
>
>Chris
RKiggins
just a short reply...
In recent years I've noticed a subtle growth in the amount of available
information concerning cotempoary women in art history (via publications
and exhibitions)
Unfortunatly the majority of responsibility still rests on the
individual to acquire information but there are a few exceptions. Since
several universities and colleges have adopted "feminist" art
history/theory courses within their curriculum, the pressure was placed on
publishers to produce books which attempt to "re-discover" women artists.
Perhaps the most comprehensive book that I've seen so far is
entitled "The Power of Feminist Art : The American Movement of the 1970's,
History and Impact" (printed by Harry N. Abrams Inc., Publishers) In
addition to extensive photo-documentation, there are also essays
contributed by critics, artists, sociologists, etc. which provide an
invaluable literary/historical reference on specific period of American
art. (essays by Judy Chicago, Laura Cottingham,Adrian Piper and Faith
Wilding come to mind as being the most interesting)
Another limitation is the fact that (at least from a western
perspective) information primarily covers women artists active within the
20th century. Besides a handfull of artists from the 18th and 19th
centuries, women artists were not considered "relevent" by the
establishment and therefore nothing was written about their work.
But on a positive note I think that the amount of available
information concerning women in art history, in addition to the
development of specific curatorial shows which address the work of women
artists, reveals great potential for expansion.
RKiggins
q
James Phillips
>
> I'll back up Johnathan's comment. Women are not in the history books,
> because they were followers, not innovators.
> Whatever the reason for this, church, dominant males, society or lack of
> drive, it's a fact that you can't change.
>
he is considered to be one of the most innovative sculptors in modern art.
Well for all those who didn't know, Rodin's wife Camille Claudel was also
a sculptor. Art historians have found works by Claudel done in Rodin's
well-known style that pre-date Rodin's early pieces. What does this mean?
It means that Rodin was influenced by his wife's work and toke all of the
credit. Now we may ask why didn't she speak out? Simply stated, he was
married to her.
Jim Phillips
The College of New Jersey
"Home of the Lion"
tutt...@bvu.edu
In article <333BF8...@fast.net>, mjf <fol...@fast.net> writes:
> nina wrote:
>>
>> Why is it that there is a lack of women artists included even in recent Art History books?
>> How can we teach or learn about women artists, if they are not in our most basic survey books?
>>
>> thanks for replying...
>> nina
Search and you shall find!! There are many women artists in the
history. Gentelesky and the like! No need to fret just look and you
will find that there are many out there. Judy Chicago to name
another.
Jamie Tuttle
Jonathan Clift
Nation of Jackie <jc...@ix.netcom.com> wrote
>Jonathan Clift <jona...@ipsart.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <5hc19r$5...@uuneo.neosoft.com>, nina <gall...@juno.com>
>>wrote
>
>>>Why is it that there is a lack of women artists included even in recent Art
>>>History books?
>>>How can we teach or learn about women artists, if they are not in our most
>basic
>>>survey books?
>>>
>>>thanks for replying...
>>>nina
>>>
>
>>Just to get the ball rolling, and deliberately being a bit contentious,
>>Art History tends to focus on change and development and the people who
>>brought it about. By-and-large that tends to have been male artists.
>
> Sez who?
It was my opinion. Nina seemed to be asking us what we thought. She also
seemed to want a discussion that went beyond people simply giving their
favourite women artists, though maybe I'm reading too much into what she
wrote.
> Are we talking about the west here?
Yes. Again I was making assumptions about what Nina was asking. Almost
all the Art History books in our local bookshop are about Western art.
I'd be interested to hear about other parts of the world, but won't
contribute to such a discussion because I don't know enough to do so.
> Art is in many cases a by-product of leisure, if you are talking about
>our western society where white males favor each other and in many
>cases imposed laws where say, frinstance, women were not allowed to
>own land or work in certain occupations or even view nudes for
>drawing, yeah chicks didnt have the leisure and the bucks to do big
>fat oil paintings of cherubs. The biggest buyer of art through the
>ages in Europe was the catholic church, who did not sponsor women.
>Women were actively discouraged from ambitions in the arts.
>
Why white males? Wasn't that a characteristic of most societies at the
time, whether in Europe, Africa, the Middle East or the Far East?
It is more accurate to say some males favoured each other. The artists
that painted early church paintings were treated as artisans (workmen),
I don't suppose they were very favoured by the men with wealth and
power, though I accept what you say about them excluding women.
The situation of women has varied through history. Strictly, Judith
Leyster shouldn't have been able to paint professionally and certainly
shouldn't have been able to have pupils. After all, painting was
strongly regulated by guilds. So, they must have had ways of bending the
rules when it suited them (maybe she traded under the name of a male
relative). At that particular time, some women were quite wealthy (early
widowhood from men being killed in war), and money usually talks,
whatever the rules might be.
I would hazard a guess that most of the art in Art History books wasn't
produced as a side-effect of men's leisure.
However, I still agree with your conclusion that women were actively
discouraged from ambitions in the arts.
> However, most of the good *crafts* in this country that I've seen were
>done by women. Rughooking, quilting, pottery, cutwork, dollmaking,
>embroidery, pottery, wherever women got the time and chance and
>materials to do something artistic it seems to me they did it.
> There are plenty of famous women singers, respected celebrated
>artists, there are plenty of good and famous writers and poets who are
>also women, more every day.
> If you arent allowed out after certain hours unescorted, if
>you arent allowed to wear clothes you can work in( ie not a corset ),
>or take most jobs, or be paid a decent wage, if the entire community
>does not support your art but rather wants you to become a demure baby
>factory, I'm not surprised you didn't make it in the snotty society of
>artists academies. Women *nowadays* have much less restriction, though
>there is still *plenty* and we seem to be pickin' up the slack.
> You just watch.
>
I am watching, though here in Britain things could be quite different to
what you see over there in the US (I'm assuming you are American). Over
here, women are being sold a commercial form of emancipation, the
"freedom" to be good consumers alongside men. As I see it, most of the
gains have been driven by economics, and the structural changes to the
economy, rather than directly derived from feminist ideas. A kind of
progress, but very skewed.
>>Although it's possible to find many women through history who have been
>>reasonably good artists, their work has tended to be derived from that
>>of men, and just on a par with the many men who also don't get
>>mentioned.
>
> Think of it this way " although its possible to find many men
>throughout history who have been reasonably good artists, their work
>has tended to be derived from that of men..." Duh, most peoples work
>is consonant with whatever the common scene is. The common scene in
>western art has been men men men for thousands of years. No wait,
>white landed men.
>
So, you seem to be agreeing with my suggestion as to why Art History
books are the way they are. You're not making much of a case for them
including women. The questions I would have thought my words would lead
onto are to do with history and the people who write it.
>>As to your second question, books are sold into a market place. If you
>>all put pressure on the publishers, by being selective about what books
>>you buy, then won't the content gradually change.
>
> Yup. Working on educating people about the actual history of oppresion
>and eliminating sexism and racism will help too.
>
>>A question in return for you. Is there such a thing as "women's
>>creativity", or do you share the same kind as us men?
>
> Yeah, we have our very own creativity that you men don't, we call it
>childbearing, we put our flesh and blood and soul into it. Seems to me
>you came from one of those women creators dintcha?
>
>
Yes, I did.
The question was meant as something more complex. A few years ago, here
in the UK, there was discussion about the idea of a national museum of
women's art. At the time there was much argument between feminists in
the national newspapers about the pros and cons of this. Some thought it
was a positive way to celebrate women's achievements, others thought it
was a ghetto, an admission that they couldn't compete with men in
mainstream museums. Part of the argument seemed to revolve around
whether women's creativity was essentially different to men's or not.
Many women artists, rather than writers, seemed quite adamant that
creativity is creativity, whatever your gender. I just wondered how you
all felt about that. It isn't my term, I was just asking the question. I
don't know if the museum got off of the ground, I haven't seen any
publicity for it.
>
> Alcott Arbus Angelou Barry Browning-Barret Brooks Difranco Ducette
>Carter Family Galas Hunter Kahlo O'Connor O'Keefe Potter Madonna
>Roseanne Sappho these are women, half of them alive today, that I
>have thought of off the top of my head, in the space of a minute, who
>not only created great art, but a *body* of art, in every medium I can
>think of, and I haven't even made any effort to study women artists.
>So while you are being contentious, contend with your own ignorance,
>Clift.
>
My exceptions to the rule would be Judith Leyster, Mary Cassatt, Georgia
O'Keefe, Sonia Delaunay, and Lee Krazner (hope I've spelt them all
correctly). In each case it's interesting to speculate on influence, and
which way it went (in both directions, before you all flame me).
> NOJ
>*******************************************
>Nation of Jackie
>this account borrowed from jcash
>*******************************************
>
--
Jonathan Clift
Jonathan Clift
In article <5hhsmq$s...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>, Zenoink
<zen...@ix.netcom.com> wrote
[I've snipped nina's original question and my response, just leaving the
question asked in response...]
>>
>>A question in return for you. Is there such a thing as "women's
>>creativity", or do you share the same kind as us men?
>>
>>--
>>Jonathan Clift
>>
>
>
>Hmmm...apparently you believe there is something separate called
>"women's creativitiy", Jonathan, one that is necessarily weak and
>derivative, however.
I don't believe this at all. I was referring to debate in this country
between women, some of whom suggest that women's creativity is different
to that of men, that their concerns are different, and that we have to
look at it in a different way. I _did_ assume that this was a debate
that had found its way across the Atlantic. I've noticed that those
women against such ideas tend to be those who are working in the arts, I
just wondered what you all felt.
>Men still make up most of the faculty in every academic field and in
>art history it is no different...if anything, it is more lopsided. An
>acquaintance recently pointed out there were only ten "good" places for
>new art historians open this year...I wonder how many of those "good"
>places will be going to women?
>
Are you saying that once you get the numbers that you can then re-write
history? Or is it only a matter of setting the record straight?
>Why is it important some of them be occupied by women? Because too
>many men think like Johnathan: "Well, garsh, I guess we gotta admit
>there are some of them gals who can paint purty good, but we wouldn't
>want to have them gettin' too uppity, now."
>
I'm not an art historian, and never want to be, so you'll be spared my
thinking, unless you invite it, which nina did. I don't understand the
cultural reference (the accent), I assume it's insulting, but never
mind. I'm happy for you to get as "uppity" as you like, not that what I
think has any bearing on the matter (before you set light to the
messenger again).
>
>Kay
>
--
Jonathan Clift
apelle
Actually, I am amazed by your discussion: I think I had to give up such
antagonism between male and female when I was ten years old... I
sympathise with you because it must very hard to live in your society...
As far as I can remember my lessons in history of art, there are a lot
of women among the artists. Judith Leyster, Rosalba Carriera, Elisabeth
Vigee-Lebrun, Camille Claudel... But their feminity tend to be forgotten
in favor of the quality of their work: people just do not notice they
were women...
David White
In article <Pine.SOL.3.95q.970331174628.211D-100000@beast>, James Phillips
<phil...@tcnj.edu> wrote:
I came in the middle of this thread, and so am not quite sure exactly what
the arguments are. I do know that there are many, many woman artists who
within their time were hailed, revered and sought after. Elizabeth
Vigee-LeBrun (France) was the was the first woman artist admitted to the
Academy (not something that was done to a person with no talent, and indeed
a woman had to be better), was the court artist for Marie Antoinette,
escaped the Terror (by a hair), travelled throughout Europe where she was
hailed everywhere until she ended up in St. Petersburgh, where she was a
celebrity for her talent. There are many other stories like this, but women
artists have been left out of many books, not because their work does not
withstand the test of time, but because they were ignored by those that
wrote about the arts.
I also know that there have been historians who have deliberately written
women artists out of the history books - for example, Jansen. He refused
to even mention one woman artist in his survey of Western Art, (try to find
even one in any edition written when he was alive) and it was not until his
death that any at all were included. Does that mean that there are no
good woman artists? At all? Hundreds of years from now, if by chance
Jansen's text survives, (because there are so many copies out there), and
is heavilly quoted from, what does his prejudice do to our knowledge of
artists such as Georgia O'Keefe? Kathe Kollowitz? Even Camille Claudel?
Will they be remembered? There seems to be an assumption that because it
is good, it must be written about. That is just not the case when
prejudice is involved.
Cynthia McKeon
apelle
Just a note: Vigee Le Brun was not the first: Rosalba Carriera was
admitted in the Academy earlier (in 1717). She had there a triumphal
welcome, but not because she was a woman, because she was a talented
artist and represented a trend which had 'a favor in Court'.
Jean-Luc.
Jacqueline Chisick
Dear Cynthia,
Thank you for these comments. As a serious artist, I am angered by these
acts of oppression against half of the artist population. Keep speaking
out.
I paint, therefore I am.
Jacqueline Chisick
Port Townsend, Washington USA
jchi...@waypt.com
>\V/<
>/(OO)\< <--bad hair day
o00o---(_)---o00o
mjf
David White wrote:
>
> In article <Pine.SOL.3.95q.970331174628.211D-100000@beast>, James Phillips
> <phil...@tcnj.edu> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > I'll back up Johnathan's comment. Women are not in the history books,
> > > because they were followers, not innovators.
> > > Whatever the reason for this, church, dominant males, society or lack of
> > > drive, it's a fact that you can't change.
> > >
> > I'm going to address this one point. We all know of Rodin's work and how
> > he is considered to be one of the most innovative sculptors in modern art.
> > Well for all those who didn't know, Rodin's wife Camille Claudel was also
> > a sculptor. Art historians have found works by Claudel done in Rodin's
> > well-known style that pre-date Rodin's early pieces. What does this mean?
> > It means that Rodin was influenced by his wife's work and toke all of the
> > credit. Now we may ask why didn't she speak out? Simply stated, he was
> > married to her.
> >
> > Jim Phillips
> > The College of New Jersey
> > "Home of the Lion"
>
mjf
dyk...@bvu.edu
Rodin's wife Camille Claudel was also
> > a sculptor. Art historians have found works by Claudel done in Rodin's
> > well-known style that pre-date Rodin's early pieces. What does this mean?
> > It means that Rodin was influenced by his wife's work and toke all of the
> > credit. Now we may ask why didn't she speak out? Simply stated, he was
> > married to her.
A bunch of stuff snipped: It seems to me that I read somewhere that
the Rodin/Claudel relationship may not have been a bit more
Svengali-like than is suggested here. Rodin's various appetites,
(sexual and controlling), created more than a little tension in the
relationship. But let's just say that they were probably
collaborators, and that Claudel may have seen her responsibility to be
that of supporting Rodin's career. To be frank, given the patriachial
nature of French society it would have been the prudent thing to do.
Such relationships aren't all that unusual, and we critics should be
careful to distinguish between those which are imposed by society, and
those which are entered into by the free will of the participants.
I'd suggest more contemporary examples in such teams as Ed and Nancy
Kienholz, Coojie Van Bruggen and Claus Oldenburg, and the late Willem
and Elain DeKooning.
> I also know that there have been historians who have deliberately written
> women artists out of the history books - for example, Jansen. He refused
> to even mention one woman artist in his survey of Western Art, (try to find
> even one in any edition written when he was alive) and it was not until his
> death that any at all were included. Does that mean that there are no
> good woman artists? At all? Hundreds of years from now, if by chance
> Jansen's text survives, (because there are so many copies out there), and
> is heavilly quoted from, what does his prejudice do to our knowledge of
> artists such as Georgia O'Keefe? Kathe Kollowitz? Even Camille Claudel?
> Will they be remembered? There seems to be an assumption that because it
> is good, it must be written about. That is just not the case when
> prejudice is involved.
>
> Cynthia McKeon
All that. This was my point.
Yes Cynthia, but historians call it scholarly judgement, or
conniseurship, or other fancy words like that. I almost remember an
edition of Janson which I bought in 1963 which considered Mary Cassatt
as the only female artist in the entire text. Legend has it that ol'
Horst included her only to illustrate his point in his famous quote,
(also legendary) that " when a woman produces great art, I'll include
her in my book." And the point was that aesthetics which women bring
to art simply aren't up to the standards of men. Cassatt with her
gentle representations of women and their children weren't the stuff
that men could relate to, Janson included. ( note in the most recent
issue of Janson the inclusion of Sophinsba Anguissola and fully two
dozen female artists in the last section of the book. It may not
right all the wrongs, but it's an improvement) But the real issue
here is the one which women's art historians are fighting about as
I write. Is there indeed an aesthetic which is gender unique? Plenty
of folks on all sides would argue both ways, and the battles between
Linda Nochlin and Judy Chicago, (and others) only illustrate the
point that it is the most persuasive assessors of events that identify
the standards and illustrate them with the means at hand.
Dennis L. Dykema
Marie Thompson
Help for the Homeless
In this world of emerging global technologies we have 2 choices. One,
bring global parity to bear or 2, leave some people out. I choose to
edify and uplift. With yourhelp, I can do this. I have applied to open
a workshop for the homeless where we can make items for sale. Won't
you aid us? See http://members.aol.com/marmiga2/decor.html.
Another thing we can do is open our houses of GOD to the needy and get
them on computer so that they will be included in this great technology
expansion. Soon, we will be able, as more people come on line, to buy,
sell and communicate, out of our being, the love GOD has placed in us.
You may purchase multiple items for fundraisers at 50% discount, or you
may purchase them as individuals and assist this effort.
Thank you for your time and attention to this note.
peace, mmg
Also see, http://members.aol.com/cybrcaf/marmsweb.html
--
Angel Cards and Hand Crafted, Hand Designed Decorator Items by Marmiga
http://members.aol.com/marmiga2/decor.html-- Follow the links
che...@singnet.com.sg
In article <334158...@filnet.fr>,
I do notice that many of the great Artists are women, but I really felt
very sorry for Camille's talent with sculptures, her talent led her to be
hated by her mother, and spend 30 years confinement in asylum, and
eventually died there in Oct 19 1943. I do not understand why is her
masterpiece, cannot gain the society's recognition, and all those
struggle for independance has led her to eternal misery.
Regards,
Cyrus
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
HP
A glorious tribute to women's art is at Beatrice's Web Guide
(http://www.bguide.comM) under the Art section. It links to some very
unique sites on the web. Hope you enjoy it like I did.
HP
In article <dpwstory-ya0240800...@news.tiac.net>,
dpws...@tiac.net (David White) wrote:
> In article <Pine.SOL.3.95q.970331174628.211D-100000@beast>, James Phillips
> <phil...@tcnj.edu> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > I'll back up Johnathan's comment. Women are not in the history books,
> > > because they were followers, not innovators.
> > > Whatever the reason for this, church, dominant males, society or lack of
> > > drive, it's a fact that you can't change.
> > >
> > I'm going to address this one point. We all know of Rodin's work and how
> > he is considered to be one of the most innovative sculptors in modern art.
> > Well for all those who didn't know, Rodin's wife Camille Claudel was also
> > a sculptor. Art historians have found works by Claudel done in Rodin's
> > well-known style that pre-date Rodin's early pieces. What does this mean?
> > It means that Rodin was influenced by his wife's work and toke all of the
> > credit. Now we may ask why didn't she speak out? Simply stated, he was
> > married to her.
> >
> > Jim Phillips
> > The College of New Jersey
> > "Home of the Lion"
>
>
> I came in the middle of this thread, and so am not quite sure exactly what
> the arguments are. I do know that there are many, many woman artists who
> within their time were hailed, revered and sought after. Elizabeth
> Vigee-LeBrun (France) was the was the first woman artist admitted to the
> Academy (not something that was done to a person with no talent, and indeed
> a woman had to be better), was the court artist for Marie Antoinette,
> escaped the Terror (by a hair), travelled throughout Europe where she was
> hailed everywhere until she ended up in St. Petersburgh, where she was a
> celebrity for her talent. There are many other stories like this, but women
> artists have been left out of many books, not because their work does not
> withstand the test of time, but because they were ignored by those that
> wrote about the arts.
>
dyk...@bvu.edu
A couple of weeks ago someone asked for some information on women
artists in history. Here are a couple of books which intend to be
somewhat comprehensive.
Chadwick WOMEN, ART,& SOCIETY Thames & Hudson 1990
Slatkin WOMEN ARTISTS IN HISTORY (didn't catch the pub) 1990
FROM ANTIQUITY TO 20th CENTURY
Fine WOMEN AND ART Allenheld & Schram 1978
RENAISSANCE TO THE 20th CENTURY
It's a start
Dennis L. Dykema
Vivien Tytor
Here is another one:
Heller, Nancy g. WOMEN ARTISTS Abbeville Press 1987
An Illustrated
History
Vivien
--
DONNA ADDIS
--From: Donna of Donna's Dreams....bead and original artwork store in the
desert,CA
<dre...@thegrid.net>
I am trying to locate the painter of "The Melting Point"...Paul
Mosby...anyone heard of him or seen his work please reply....thank
you...Donna...Last I heard he was in Santa Ana, CA????
dyk...@bvu.edu wrote in article <1997Apr17.0...@bvu.edu>...