Female Abstract Expressionists

Helen Frankenhaler b.1928, N.Y.

‘American post painterly abstraction’ artist.

Ties with Clement Greenberg between 1948-1960. Hans Hoffman. Influenced by Jackson Pollock, studied under Rufino Tamayo, married Robert Motherwell.

‘A really good painting looks as if it’s happened all at once.’ (Frankenhaler) –contradicts Greenberg’s opinion of painting somewhat.

‘Received the finest private progressive education New York City had to offer.’- Bennington College in Vermont, 1945-49.

Cubist composition styles- integration of flatness with the illusion of depth. Emphasis in early works on drawing. Process of staining.

Lee Krasner b.1908, N.Y. Brooklyn

1937-also studied under Hans Hoffman who helped her towards a new cubist abstraction.

Studied at Cooper Union and National Academy of design and worked on the WPA federal Art Project, 1935-43.

‘This is so good you would not know it was painted by a woman.’ –Hoffman. She therefore signed her work with the genderless, ‘L.K’.

Incredibly complex, introduction of collages-connected aggression to partner Jackson Pollock, overly worked yet tastefully restrained in colouring.

Grace Hartigan b.1922, N.Y. Newark

2^nd generation Abstract Expressionist. Balance between figurative and and abstract. Outline of black, filled with blocks of colour.

Hartigan does not like to describe or reflect on the subject matter of her paintings. Distils until she has its essence- rawness into form and unity.

‘With a rage for order, how can there be art?’

Elaine de Kooning b.1918-1989, N.Y. Brooklyn

Figurative and Abstract also. ‘Realist and emotionally charged abandon’

Encouraged by her mother. Leonardo da Vinci Art School, N.Y. 1936, American Artists School.

Forged a name as an artist and critic for ARTnews after marrying Willem. Thereafter produced seminal monographs on Albers, Gorky, Smith, Davis, Kline, Rothko. Discovered Russian-American artist Alexander Ney, b.1939.

Portraits by Hans Namuth

Willem de Kooning, 1959- Why include wife? This indicates her as an innate part of Willem. Nevertheless, distinctively in the background.

Jackson Pollock – surrounded by his work, energetically working, solidly focused. Props of Genius.

Challenging the Assumptions of Gender

In Linda Nochlin’s article ‘Why Have There Been no Great Women Artists?’ she explores and highlights the naturalisation of the subordination of female artists. By pointing out such things as, the generally untouched notion of what constitutes great art, and in what conditions Genius comes about.

A fundamental premise of feminist historical interventions in art is the re-evaluation of language. For example the term ‘woman artist’ implies that that the profession is intrinsically masculine, and almost unconsciously distinguishes an inside and outside stance. Nochlin humours the idea that female artist’s work is more insular, ‘delicate’ and ‘nuanced’. Only to solidly disprove that idea by exemplifying the Dutch Masters very elegant subject matter of domestic life. She identifies that there seems to be different forms of greatness for men and women. For the latter mentioned sex, greatness occurs in exceptional circumstances. Praise is usually attached to such phrases as ‘in spite of’ and ‘even after’. Nochlin follows this point with the frequently overlooked factors of restricted access of female artists to the same education as male artists. The apprenticeship system in France for instance, was the only passage to success. This was not accessible to female students until the end of the 19^th century, at which time it was no longer held in high astute.

Nonetheless, Nochlin postulates that there seems to be a less tangible reason for sexual inequalities in art through large numbers of hidden or different standards. She articulates the unsaid ‘given’ that women simply do not have the ‘golden nugget’ of artistic genius, as it has never revealed itself. Once expressed, it seems an absurdly circular and opinionated argument yet one that is in no way unfamiliar or novel. Nochlin proposes that the phallus is in fact what is associated with Genius, therefore excluding female achievement of it. Although women are known to have been encouraged in the visual arts to an extent, as a ‘suitable accomplishment’ for a lady, the male sense of ‘dominance and power’ ultimately results in a superior/inferior relationship. Nochlin uses the word ‘natural’ in describing this awareness of supremacy (p.27), which is slightly ambiguous in her emphasis of gender hierarchies. ‘Social condition’ may have been a more effective expression.

The suggestion is made that female artists should take advantage of their experience of inbuilt institutional discriminations to reveal the failings and inconsistencies of such places. She postulates that women may involve themselves in the institution with a clear thought process, and are in the position to challenge anyone. This seems fairly simplistic and runs the risk of sexist females due to establishing a separate ground from which question who or whatever. Nevertheless, it is important to remember that this article is a product of its time (1972), where Second-Wave feminism was in its infancy. Nochlin iterates the fundamental strategy of this method of art history; the right questions need to be asked.

Griselda Pollock’s ‘Feminist Interventions in Art’s Histories’ asks if adding women to art history is the same as producing a feminist art history. Including female artists as additions implies an embellishment, in that they are placed into our intellectual view without just cause. Yet, simultaneously shows an attempt at accuracy, regardless of political stance. Similarly, a feminist art history as a term seems insular and unpromising in providing an all-encompassing study. A structural sexism and a gender hierarchy are at the root of limitations and biases.

Marx is used to describe capitalism has effected our perception of art. The art object is treated as a commodity rather than a practice. This forms a helpful preface when tackling the sublimation of signs and labels all things non-masculine. For example, the discussion of women, crafts, family and so on by feminists endorses the ‘social giveness of woman’ and the separate private sphere.

‘Feminism-as-a-theory’ aims at a revolution in knowledge to change the present by ‘re-presenting the past’, and to discover ways to address women as subjects, not feminine objects of masculine desire, fantasy and hatred. It is not putting forward a ‘new’ art history, rather an alternative method that is grounded in a variety of practices and delivered through the women’s movement.