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 19th 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment