February 29th, 2008
A question I want to hear the answer to:
“Why are there no great female painters?”
Apparently all will be revealed in this Sunday’s Observer. Now, while I don’t expect the critics the paper polled to mention Mainie Jellett, Norah McGuinness or most of these women, surely Frida Kahlo would be considered a great female painter?
Experts will providing answers to that and questions like “What does a conductor do? What do actors do in the intervals? Has anyone read Finnegan’s Wake?”.
If your not in the least bit interested in the answers, there’s a free copy of Bertolucci’s The Sheltering Sky.
February 29th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
and what about Georgia O’Keeffe! wtf, that sounds like some shocking ignorance. I don’t know why I buy that paper…
February 29th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
I presume the question is designed to provoke incredulous outrage but the article/answers will actually take a more considered line.
I personally find notions of “greatness” in this sense terribly tedious. Those who use the term in an exclusive way tend to be puffed-up old bores - nearly always male.
They often take the line that if an artist hasn’t become part of the accepted canon then she must be of minor importance. The long and sorry history of inequality - with a lack of opportunities, encouragement (etc) - can certainly provide an answer to the question “Why are there more famous and prestigious male artists?”. That, to me, is a social/political question that demands a historical outlook.
There are dozens of fantastic (or “great” if you prefer) female painters - it’s just that most people have never heard of them. Their obscureness in no way diminishes their ability however.
March 1st, 2008 at 12:23 am
Gleeson! I was going to leave you a message on Facelivre but … I want a dance tomorrow night. Get your dancing shoes on lady.
March 1st, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Apart from the excellent points made above, I would say that female artists in general scare the bejaysus out of men. A young(ish) man of my acquaintance visibly paled when confronted with the beautiful vulva-like paintings of Georgia O’Keeffe at last year’s IMMA exibition. As in every other area of the arts, anything that is seen as female interest or from a female perspective has always had to try harder to be recognised or taken seriously. And in my humble opinion, a world that takes Jackson Pollock more seriously than Tamara de Lempicka (a personal fave) is a skewed world indeed. Now, where did I put those dungarees?!
March 2nd, 2008 at 12:06 am
In the second half of the 20th century Ireland produced numerous female artists. Pauline Bewick is among my favourites, but rather than go into a long list I’d like to make a personal pitch for a Sligo-based ceramic artist and sculptor whom I’ve met - Elizabeth Caffrey. Here’s a link to a bronze public sculpture, of a windblown sceach bush she collaborated on, and you gotta drive North-West to see it:
http://www.donegalpublicart.ie/39-publicart.htm
March 2nd, 2008 at 11:10 am
I hear congratulations are in order Sinead! And very well deserved too.
March 2nd, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Justin, I’m glad to say that the answer provided by the panel in today’s paper (see below)expresses the same indignation as me and you.
Fustar, spot on on all those points. Particularly “Why are there more famous and prestigious male artists?”. That, to me, is a social/political question that demands a historical outlook.
It’s very easy for people to forget that women’s position in society historically meant that there’s was the realm of domestic, and education was a luxury and rarity for those who could afford it.
Colm, I told you we should’ve danced to ‘Paradise City’ at the end of the Awards.
Martina, very true about trying harder for recognition. And invariably, with that recognition, comes judgement on appearance, comments on physicality and judgements based on things other than the quality of the work/book/album etc.
Garreth, Pauline Bewick is a wonderful painter. Wasn’t there an Arts Lives programme about her?
Catherine, thank you - you were first in to say that!
From today’s Observer - the question (and answers):
“Q Why are there so few great female painters?
EE: Ask Frida Kahlo. Or Georgia O’Keeffe. Or Bridget Riley.
GP: Marlene Dumas and Paula Rego might take exception to this question. Desmond Morris says that men make better artists because they are greater risk-takers; on the other hand, he thinks that women are better organisers and diplomats and more suited to become politicians.
MS: Art (and society) was a lot more subject to sexism 50 years ago than it is now. Since that period, there have been plenty of very good female painters, 2006 Turner Prize-winner Tomma Abts among them. How much history needs to pass before an artist is called ‘great’? That is the real question.”
March 3rd, 2008 at 8:42 am
Read Camille Paglia on the “why”…
http://www.randomhouse.com/pantheon/paglia/
March 3rd, 2008 at 10:34 am
I’d have to say Dorothy Cross is just about Ireland’s greatest living artist.
Louise Bourgeois and Sophie Calle are definitely two of the best internationally, so they’re certainly making up for lost time.
I’d agree completely that it was the role of women in society that kept them from the fore front of art, in previous centuries.
Does anyone seriously like Pauline Bewick? They’re like things teenage girls draw on their homework notebooks…
March 3rd, 2008 at 11:26 am
Lee Krasner is a good example of greatness being not acknowledged because of the times. And because of some man, in this case one called Pollock
March 3rd, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Remedios Varo, brilliant painter of the allegorical, the unconscious and the surreal. And well done on the deserved gong.
March 4th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
I went to see the Americans in Paris exhibition in London last year - John Singer Sergeant; Whistler; John White Alexander etc - and came across some beautiful family pictures by Mary Cassatt. Nothing makes you feel as broody as a Mary Cassatt painting.
I’d forgotten all about her until i read this.
Huzzah for the internet!
March 5th, 2008 at 8:10 am
Would that have been in the same article that said there were great male artists as their were better risk takers?
From a historical point of view the answer is most certainly sociological, we were washing nappies, getting the dinner on the table and not worthy of a place in art history.
Today its all quiet different and yes some of the best known and lauded irish ( and international artists) are female and with an eye on the art student population i can say that is certainly not on the wain ( quite the opposite in fact). Some of the names mentioned above Dorothy Cross, Louise Bourgeois, Sophie Calle although working frequently with the pictorial are not in fact ‘painters’ as such.
I think we do however have a give a nod to the fact that painting itself within subcategories of the visual arts is perhaps more heavily subscribed by the masculine brush.
In my mind i think that painting - the associated history and supposed legacy of the grand gesture appeals to the male sensibility. The women mentioned above show and engagement with life, materials and contemporary processes beyond this.
Its no bad thing to be a painter but me i choose to take the risk of being an artist without such limits.
March 8th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
The Daily Telegraph has an interesting,partly illustrated item called The World’s 50 Best Works of Art. It ranges from the ancient greek temples to the chinese terracotta warriors up through Titian and Picasso. The Book of Kells gets listed. Lots of paintings and friezes of women, but no women artists.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2008/03/08/ba50works108.xml&page=1
March 9th, 2008 at 8:34 am
Henry - I couldn’t find much in that link but books (with no links) but if I remember correctly Paglia has dismissed the idea that freedom/opportunity is not what holds women back from being great artists.
Morgan - a lot of this is undeniably to do with social status, position in society and women being preoccupied with the domestic roles expected and demanded of them. I like some of Bewick’s work, her figurative paintings for one.
Conan - never heard of Varo, must check her out. And thanks.
MDR - I was lucky enough to see a big Frida Kahlo retrospective at Tate Modern in London and it was amazing to see those canvases up close. They’re so emotional, so affecting and - surprisingly - very small works.
Neva - “I think we do however have a give a nod to the fact that painting itself within subcategories of the visual arts is perhaps more heavily subscribed by the masculine brush.
In my mind i think that painting - the associated history and supposed legacy of the grand gesture appeals to the male sensibility. The women mentioned above show and engagement with life, materials and contemporary processes beyond this.”
Spot on. Why do you think that “supposed legacy of the grand gesture” appeals to men?
Garreth - snap! I sent that link on to my brother yesterday.
April 17th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Was just poking around your site and this post caught my eye. I didn’t get to read the article and while my art knowlege isn’t extensive enough to create a decent argument, it does seem as though the writer of the piece might have jumped to conclusions…this post reminded me, though, of an article in the Times (I think) recently where it was stated that female film directors are far and few between. I love film so, being a girl, I was immediately infuriated! But it seemed to come down to the age old reason that most women inevitably have to take a break in their career to raise children, and unfortunately the movie business doesn’t allow time for this carry on! As art and painting require time and patience, parhaps there’s a similar reasoning behind a possible lack of female artists? It’s just a thought. Enjoying your blog btw; gonna add you to my blogroll.