“Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?”
The question "why are there no great women artists" is a question that sent shockwaves through art history when Linda Nochlin published her article using this question as her title. This article brought to light the discussion of feminist art history, and how it can be defined within art history as a whole. Nochlin does this by spotlighting those female artists who have stood out within the larger community of famous artists while pondering if these few artists are enough to say that there have been great women artists. Beyond that, Nochlin introduces us to the conundrum of whether its better to highlight women artists for the sake of creating women's art history or if the art and art history community should expand its consideration to anyone, not just the small group of people who fit the famous artist mold.
What is the story
Linda Nochlin wrote "Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?" in 1971 and it is currently seen as the literary cornerstone of feminist art history. To summarize the beginning of the article, Nochlin approaches the issue of the lack of great women artists by pointing out that art history, as a field, belongs to the white male perspective. Among many other minorities, the female artist is overshadowed by the history that male artists and art historians want to preserve. She never says that this is wrong, but she does make it clear that there needs to be a change because there is no one way to look at history.
Feminism and feminist art history are often seen as this radical movement that is looking to disrupt everything and is only concerned with making the world a better place for women to live in. Now while that may be the approach for some parts of the larger feminist movement, when we are talking about feminist art history, especially in the eyes of Nochlin, we are talking about catalyzing a change within the institution of art history so that every artist, no matter their race, identity, or religion can be accepted into the historical and cultural dialogue. Nochlin encourages everyone to question and break down the accepted norms so that there is more space for discussion about what great art is now, in the present culture.
[figure 1] Judith Leyster, Self-Portrait, 1630, oil on canvas, 74.6 x 65.1cm, National Gallery of Art, Washington D.C.
Let's turn to the question, "why have there been no great women artists?" and break it down. In her essay, Nochlin asks this question to get the reader to try to come up with an answer. She also asks this question so that she can help us realize what the wrong answer to this question is as well. Nochlin implies that most of the answers to this question have been excuses in some sense. For example, there have been no great women artists because they aren't capable of the same kind of greatness as famous male artists. Maybe this is implying that women have other things, or duties, that take up their time, like raising a family. However, it also reminds us that women's freedoms have come a long way over the course of history to get to the point where we can even pose this question. Nochlin also points out that the answer to this question should not be to immediately start to dig for women artists who were underappreciated or misrepresented throughout history so that their story can be told. If anything that plays into the thought that women are incapable of greatness because other people had to go digging to find these women who could possibly be examples.
Nochlin then discusses how we can begin to answer this question by considering the larger situation of art history. One very important thing to realize is that although feminist art history is seen as a singular movement, the women of art history did not have one underlying theme that ran through all of their careers and works of art. They come from different periods of time. Some paint still lifes of flowers and some paint gruesome biblical scene. Some are focused on introspective and emotional representation and some capture lively and rambunctious scenes. Putting all women into one category is not the goal of feminist art history. Another important factor is defining what "great art" is in the context of art history, which is virtually impossible. How would you define great art? If you can come up with a definition, does that apply to every work of art that you would put in the category of "great art"? We do know that those works that are often considered "great art" come from artists who seem to have a great backstory that labels them as a genius in some sense. These artists have education in the arts or have been born into families of artists and they seem to have been trained to be the greatest artists. So is that what makes great art, a great artist? If that is the case, then as Nochlin points out, the problem is with the infrastructure and institutions that chose to train male artists, mystify their backstories, and place their art within the category of greatness.
[figure 2] Elisabeth Louise Vigée Le Brun, Self-Portrait, 1790, oil on canvas, 100 x 81cm, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.
[figure 3] Angelica Kauffman, Self-Portrait, 1770-75, oil on canvas, 73.7 x 61cm, National Portrait Gallery, London, UK.
Now, while Nochlin admits that we cannot force great women artists out of the history that has already been created, we can change the requirements for great art in our current moment in art history. At one point, Nochlin says, "the fault lies not in our stars, our hormones, our menstrual cycles, or our empty internal spaces, but in our institutions and our education" (Nochlin, 150). This makes it clear that the problem is that there isn't a foundation for great women artists to be created. So, Nochlin issues a call to action for us all, but women especially. We need to identify where this foundation is weak, where institutions are lacking, and bring it to attention. What this means is that we need to uplift female artists now, we need to educate artists and art historians on why there have been no great women artists, and we need to make sure that future art historians continue to make a path for everyone to express their art and culture on an equal level. This isn't a battle that only one side can win, it is a push towards a more even narrative, that allows everyone to be represented.
Who are the players
So, in the spirit of honoring Nochlin's question - but also completely against her wishes - let's discuss some of the women artists who have stood out through art history and why we can look at them as examples of how women artists have been received over time.
[figure 4] Artemisia Gentileschi, Judith Beheading Holofernes, 1620, oil on canvas, 146.5 x 108cm, Uffizi Gallery, Florence, Italy.
Artemisia Gentileschi (1593-1653)
Linda Nochlin talks about so many important female artists in her essay but Artemisia Gentileschi is the starting point when it comes to female artists that have made an impact on art history. Gentileschi was an Italian artist who was active during the Italian Baroque period in the 17th century. She, like other Italian Baroque artists, depicted biblical scenes with high emotion and grandeur. However, unlike other artists from her period and location, Gentileschi focused on the stories of women in the bible. One of her most famous works of art is Judith Beheading Holofernes [figure 4]. The story from the bible and how it relates to Artemesia Gentileschi's life story is probably what makes this painting so extraordinary, but that is a tale for another day. Regardless, the reason that Gentileschi and her paintings stand out so much is that they rival those of other Italian Baroque artists. She was afforded an artistic education by her father and she was a prolific artist. So although she doesn't have the dramatic appeal of Caravaggio, she is still an important figure of the Italian Baroque movement.
Judith Leyster (1609-1660)
Gentileschi is closely followed by Judith Leyster, who painted during the Northern Baroque period, also in the 17th century. Leyster was the first female artist to be welcomed into the guild of Saint Luke in Harleem and is the first woman to have her own workshop. We actually discussed her self-portrait in this week's Before You Go podcast (which you can listen to here) [figure 1]. Leyster's self-portrait is proof that women artists have been working hard to show that they were on the same level as male artists since the 17th century and possibly before then as well. Leyster is shown holding a palette and eighteen paintbrushes, in the middle of painting a violin player that is actually a part of another one of her paintings, The Merry Trio, reinforcing that this is her self-portrait that she painted herself.
[figure 5] Judith Leyster's signature
Gentileschi and Leyster led very different lives, but their legacy has been very similar. They lived during a time when women artists were not able ot sell their own art. So, if they wanted to sell it for the price it was worth they had to sell it under the name of a family member as Gentilesschi did, or their husband's name, which Leyster did. This makes it hard to establish which works originally belonged to the female artist in question because oftentimes their style was very similar to the person helping them to sell the paintings. If there was not a signature, like Leyster's unique JL with a star [figure 5], there is no way of confidently identifying works as their own. This phenomenon helps us begin to see why it is so hard to find great women artists from the fundamental periods of art history.
Mary Cassatt (1844-1926)
[figure 6] Mary Cassatt, The Boating Party, 1893, oil on canvas, 90 x 117.3cm, National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.
After Gentileschi and Leyster, there were many more female artists like Madame Elizabeth Vigee Le Brun and Angelica Kauffman who have works of art that stand out within their broader movement [figures 2 and 3]. However, the next truly notable movement, and female artist, was Mary Cassatt. As part of the Impressionist movement, she was one of the first women artists who was fully integrated into the evolution of the movement. This was probably because Impressionism revolves around the portrayal of emotions and impressions of nature and as a woman, she was great at capturing a feeling just as much as a scene [figure 6]. Cassatt was actually an American artist, born in Pittsburgh and trained in Philadelphia. When she began to pursue her career as an artist she moved to Europe and worked with Impressionists like Edgar Degas. Cassatt is probably one of the first women artists to be accepted and discussed as a part of her movement.
The Impressionist movement is also an important turning point in art history because it marks the transformation from traditional and classical art to contemporary art focused on internal reactions to the outside world. With this shift towards what we consider contemporary art, many new movements were born, which created even more opportunities for new artists to break into the narrative of art history.
Frida Kahlo (1907-1954)
[figure 7] Frida Kahlo, Self-Portrait with Necklace and Hummingbird, 1940, oil paint, 51.8 x 61cm, Harry Ransom Center, Austin, Texas
Moving forward, one of the seemingly most famous woman artists came on to the scene, Frida Kahlo. Kahlo is known for her fascinating and jarring interpretations of herself and the world. One of her best-known works is her self-portrait, which contains symbolism that represents Kahlo (similar to what we can see in Judith Leyster's self-portrait) and symbolism that calls to mind religious themes of suffering, which symbolism her own suffering [figure 7]. Kahlo's career and personal life were both crazy, but she still made a point to be an advocate for change in multiple areas. Her relevance to feminist art history specifically comes from her depiction of uniquely female experiences. The best example of this is the painting that Kahlo made after she miscarried because it captures the pain and suffering that she went through while bringing attention to the female experience. Although her art may seem cryptic, Kahlo is educating the masses with her art, because when you get the chance to dive deeper into the symbolism in her work, you learn more about the female experience.
Guerilla Girls (1985-present day)
Taking one step further, the Guerilla Girls were founded in 1985 and actively took up the challenge to make space for great women artists in the future. The Guerilla Girls is a group of anonymous women who create works of art, most commonly in the form of advertisements, that bring to light issues of sexism and racism in modern culture. One of their fundamental works, that gives you a sense of how this group operates is 'Do Women Have to be Naked to Get Into the Met. Museum?' [figure 8]. This work was released shortly after a new exhibit at the Metropolitan Museum of Art was announced that would be a general survey of painting and sculpture, meant to bring together works of art that have been important to art history. However, out of a total of 169 artists, there were 13 female artists that would be featured. The Guerrilla Girls took it upon themselves to point out that while there were only 13 female artists in this exhibit there would be many nude female bodies on display. So, this begs the question, "Do women have to be naked to get into the Met. Museum?" because there are plenty of women on show, but not for their works of art.
[figure 8] Guerilla Girls, 'Do women have to be naked to get into the Met. Museum?', 1989, Screenprint on paper, 28 x 71cm, Tate Museum, London, UK.
[figure 9] Guerilla Girls, 'The advantage of being a woman artist’, 1988, Screenprint on paper, 43 x 56cm, Tate Museum, London, UK.
The Guerilla Girls are also a fascinating study because they aim to be so focused on the work that they create and the promotion of women artists and artists of color, that every member is completely anonymous. The members also take the names of famous female artists, to further promote the work of the female artists that did great work, but were not recognized for their efforts. The Guerilla Girls are a great example of the progress that has been made and the progress that will continue to be made because they are so willing to bring the issues of sexism in the art world to light. Another piece by the Guerilla Girls to reflect on is 'The Advantages of Being a Woman Artist' which captures the overarching themes that Nochlin was trying to bring attention to in her essay and the specific things that should not be normalized moving forward [figure 9].
Why is it important art history?
The birth of feminist art history was a significant turning point in the culture of the 1980s and in the larger timeline of history. This movement created a whole new realm of questions for art historians to begin to answer. The question “why are there no great women artists?” does not have one answer, as we now know, but it does give us a place to start. Can we pinpoint an exact reason why something happened in art history, or is it a domino effect, with many factors eventually leading to an outcome that doesn't become noticeable until much later.
Also, just like any other movement in art history, feminism helps us shape how we understand the progression of cultural history. The bigger push may be to reflect on what art history has not yet done for women in the arts, but changing how we create female art history in the future can also be a take away. Not many movements actively attempt to gain the attention of the current generations in order to create a better version of history moving forward. So, try to truly take this movement into consideration when thinking about how you interact with art.
How can you form your own perspective?
Often people become hesitant when the word feminism is mentioned because as a movement it has so many connotations. However, in order to form your own perspective on this discussion, you have to put aside any biases that you may have about the movement. In order to be able to understand and discuss the feminist movement in art history, you have to acknowledge the underlying truth that women were not treated as equals to men in the art world when it began and to this day they are still working to be treated as equal when it comes to funding and recognition. Beyond that, remember that this discussion is about the larger, institutional shortcomings when it comes to the representation of women in art, and not your personal feelings on the matter.
Due to Linda Nochlin’s article and a cultural shift that almost expects women to be a part of the art world, the feminist art history movement has given women in the arts more visibility. So, can you recognize the imbalance between famous male and female artists? How do you think we should go about uplifting female arts, or any artist really? Has Nochlin's question helped you question art history more? Use these questions to think about how you can connect with this movement.
If you want to read Linda Nochlin's full article you can find it here.
Nochlin, Linda, “Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?,” Women, Art and Power: and Other Essays, (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc., 1988), 145-176.
