Notes: Why have there been no great women artists? (Linda Nochlin)

The white western male view point, unconsciously accepted as the viewpoint of the art historian and therefore the construction of the male dominated art historical canon - it is this canon which therefore needs to be challenged.

'A feminist critique of the discipline of art history is needed which can pierce cultural- ideological limitations, to reveal biases and inadequacies, not merely in regard to the question of women artists, but in the formulation of the crucial questions of the discipline as a whole.'

'This so called woman question can become a catalyst, a potent intellectual instrument, probing at the most basic and 'natural' assumptions, providing a paradigm for other kinds of internal questioning.'

Former differencing of women artists from men which asserts them to have a different kind of greatness for art , such as a recognisable feminine style posted on 'the unique character of a women's situation and experience', is not a sufficient argument for explaining why female art has not been catalogued at the same level as the work of men.

There is no strong evidence to suggest that 'subtle essence of femininity' connect the work of female artists over anything else. 'In every instance, women artists and writers would seems to be closer to other artists and writers of their own period and outlook than there are to each other.' This so called feminine style can perhaps be attributed to a greater extent to the era of certain styles, such as the rococo style of eighteenth-century France. 'If women have at times turned to scenes of domestic life or children, so have the Dutch Little Masters, Chardin, and the impressionists - Renoir and Monet, as well as Morisot and Cassatt.'

In the founding of such an argument there is a general misconception of what art actually is : that it is 'the direct personal expression of individual emotional experience - a translation of personal life into visual terms.' 'Yet art is almost never that; great art certainly never.' Style is discovered through artistic progression rather than innate within the inner self.

In some areas women have achieved equality, whether it be in literature or dance, however, why is it that women have not achieved such status within fine art?

The 'whole crucial question of the conditions generally productive of great art' is one to be investigated- in which analysis of the 'institutionally-oriented approach would reveal the entire romantic, elitist, individual-glorifying and monograph-producing substructure upon which the profession of art history is based.'

So what are the conditions, generally productive of great art?

1. The concept of the Great Artist as Genius, with the discovery of artistic talent found in boys at a young age. The myths surrounding such a belief have , despite art historians pooh-poohing such sort of mythology about artistic achievement, been retained as the unconscious basis for their scholarly assumptions - claiming that "If women had the golden nugget of artistic genius, it would reveal itself."

2. Failure in the past to fully acknowledge the power of which father-son inheritance of profession has had in the fostering of male artistic talent. The historical pattern of male dominant occupations has been kept alive by this bloodline, with the opportunity for women to enter the field of such a profession less likely.

3. In questioning 'Why have there been no great women artists?' one can also consider 'Why have there been no great artists from aristocracy? Aristocracy rarely contributed any work into the sphere of Art, despite educational and leisure advantages- with women only dabbling in art as a means of showing themselves to be accomplished suitors.
'Could it be possible that genius is missing from the aristocratic make-up in the same way that it is from the feminine psyche?' But of course, it is perhaps more likely that the kinds of demands placed on aristocrats and women, such as social engagements, prevented both parties from being able to fully engage and contribute to the art world. General social situations and institutionalised implications need to be considered in regards to the 'Why have there been no great women artists?' question, rather than just gendered assumptions. The notion of individual genius as innate is a notion which needs to be abandoned by scholars, in the construction of art historical canons.

4. The question of the nude- women's' exclusion from life drawing classes within all academic and art institutions, until the late 19th century, is a key disadvantage placed upon the progression of female artistic talent. ' To be deprived of this ultimate state of training meant to be deprived of the possibility of creating major art.'

5. Other dimensions of the situation such as the apprenticeship system and the academic educational pattern - largely exclusive of women, also need to be accounted for. The fact that development in art-making has 'traditionally demanded the learning of specific techniques and skills in a certain sequence, in an institutional setting outside the home' has meant that house bound , homemaking women have been more readily excluded from this education- more so than for the female poet or novelist, in which the work can be created from the home.

6. The Lady's Accomplishment- art making seen as a 'self-demeaning level of amateurism' - a suitable "accomplishment" for the well-brought-up young women. 'Women were warned against the snare of trying too hard to excel in any one area.

'To be able to do a great many things tolerably well, is of infinitely more value to a woman than to be able to excel in any one. By the former she may render herself generally useful; by the latter she may dazzle for an hour.'
(In Mrs Ellis's widely read The Family Monitor and Domestic Guide.'

Painting and drawing was seen as a kind of therapy which "keeps them out of trouble" (the comment of a young doctor about his wife, of about 100 years ago). 'For such men, the "real" work of women is only that which directly or in-directly serves them and their children.'


Successes.

What qualities characterise successful women artists?

'Almost all women artists were either the daughters of artist fathers or... had a close personal connection with a strong or dominant male artist.'

Women artists who have not come from this background still, often as is the case, tend to have supportive fathers, who are willing to support their independence.

'It is also by adopting.. the "masculine" attributes of single-mindedness, concentration, tenaciousness, and absorption in ideas and craftsmanship for their own sake, that women have succeeded, and continue to succeed in the world of art.'

Ref to: Rosa Bonheur (1822-1899) - one of the most successful and accomplished women painters of all time.
- career was supported by her father's own feminist views.
- escaped social norms (ie. marriage) in order to achieve success, yet despite this still considered marriage to be "a sacrament indispensable to the organisation of society".

Conclusion

'Hopefully by stressing the institutional, or the public rather than the individual, or private, preconditions for achievement in the arts, we have provided a paradigm for the investigation of other areas in the field.'

'What is important that women face up to the reality of their history and of their present situation. Disadvantage may indeed be an excuse; it is not, however, an intellectual position.' Rather using their situation as under-dogs and outsiders as a vantage point, women can reveal institutional and intellectual weaknesses in general.'