Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?

by Linda Nochlin

"Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?" is a 1971 essay by American art historian Linda Nochlin. It is considered a pioneering essay for both feminist art history and feminist art theory.

In this essay, Nochlin explores the institutional – as opposed to the individual – obstacles that have prevented women in the West from succeeding in the arts. She divides her argument into several sections, the first of which takes on the assumptions implicit in the essay's title, followed by "The Question of the Nude," "The Lady's Accomplishment," "Successes," and "Rosa Bonheur." In her introduction, she acknowledges "the recent upsurge of feminist activity" in America as a condition for her interrogation of the ideological foundations of art history, while also invoking John Stuart Mill's suggestion that "we tend to accept whatever is as natural". In her conclusion, she states: "I have tried to deal with one of the perennial questions used to challenge women's demand for true, rather than token, equality by examining the whole erroneous intellectual substructure upon which the question "Why have there been no great women artists?" is based; by questioning the validity of the formulation of so-called problems in general and the "problem" of women specifically; and then, by probing some of the limitations of the discipline of art history itself."

Genres: Art, Nonfiction, Feminism, Essays, Art History, History, Womens

34 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1971

About the author

Linda Nochlin was an American art historian, university professor and writer. A prominent feminist art historian, she was best known as a proponent of the question "Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?", in an essay of the same name published in 1971.

Her critical attention has been drawn to investigating the ways in which gender affects the creation and apprehension of art, as evidenced by her 1994 essay "Issues of Gender in Cassatt and Eakins". Besides feminist art history, she was best known for her work on Realism, specifically on Gustave Courbet. Complementing her career as an academic, she served on the Art Advisory Council of the International Foundation for Art Research. In 2006, Nochlin received a Visionary Woman Award] from Moore College of Art & Design.

Reviews

[s.penkevich [mental health hiatus] · Rating 4 out of 5]

History is full of men denying women the tools for success and then shaming them for a lack of supposed "success" where the rubrics are rigged against them. Such is the case of the systemic barriers that make up the larger gatekeeping against women, Black, or just any non-cis, heterosexual white man in general addressed by Linda Nochlin in her now-famous essay Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists? Is it a lack of “genius,” a lack of recognition, or is the blame for the lack of equity between men and women in almost every layer of society to be put ‘on the very nature of our institutional structures themselves and the view of reality which they impose on the human beings who are part of them.’ Illuminating the socially-imposed and systematic biases in the art world and society at large, Nochlin’s foundational essay addresses the bad faith rhetoric that frames women as “lesser” than the canonized male geniuses of their fields and makes a passionate plea for authentic structural change. A quick and rather accessible read that covers a wide wealth of ideas rather succinctly and ardently arguing for a re-examination of our criteria for “greatness”, Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists? remains as important and relevant a work as when it was first published in 1971 as offers a valuable perspective to rethink art criticism and history.

‘In the field of art history, the white Western male viewpoint, unconsciously accepted as the viewpoint of the art historian, may--and does--prove to be inadequate not merely on moral and ethical grounds, or because it is elitist, but on purely intellectual ones. In revealing the failure of much academic art history, and a great deal of history in general, to take account of the unacknowledged value system, the very presence of an intruding subject in historical investigation, the feminist critique at the same time lays bare its conceptual smugness, its meta-historical naivete. At a moment when all disciplines are becoming more self-conscious, more aware of the nature of their presuppositions as exhibited in the very languages and structures of the various fields of scholarship, such uncritical acceptance of "what is" as "natural" may be intellectually fatal.’

History is full of tales of glory of the true “genius” overcoming all obstacles to succeed, often—at least in the art world—becoming recognized for their achievements after their death because their greatness was too profound for a grave to cover up. These “geniuses” of mythic proportion tend to be men, white men at that, though Nochlin warns that we should never take ‘ such obvious fairy tales at their face value.’ Yet ‘this sort of mythology about artistic achievement and its concomitants which forms the unconscious or unquestioned assumptions of scholars, no matter how many crumbs are thrown to social influences, ideas of the times, economic crises, and so on persis and these intentionally skewed stories take hold and shape our social narratives about art and success:

‘As soon as one leaves behind the world of fairy tale and self-fulfilling prophecy and, instead, casts a dispassionate eye on the actual situations in which important art production has existed, in the total range of its social and institutional structures throughout history, one finds that the very questions which are fruitful or relevant for the historian to ask shape up rather differently.’

Though this isn’t unique to the art world, look at supposedly self-made billionaires who inherited their wealth, started their companies on interest free “loans” from their parents, hired others to do all the actual labor or, like Elon Musk, just bought companies already in operation and claimed credit for other people’s work. Nochlin looks at the privileges many of the “genius” artists had going for them but also considers the fact that being a white man tended to be a key to unlock any door and granted them access to social statues that people fought tooth and nail from allowing anyone beyond straight, white men from obtaining.

‘What if Picasso had been born a girl? Would Senor Ruiz have paid as much attention or stimulated as much ambition for achievement in a little Pablita?’

Men were encouraged to achieve in such matters whereas women were not, or had it held against them and Nochlin cites how popular in 19th century etiquette guides ‘women were warned against the snare of trying too hard to excel in any one thing.’ The play field has never been even and the landscape for those who aren’t men are also littered with mines.

‘The fault lies not in our stars, our hormones, our menstrual cycles, or our empty internal spaces, but in our institutions and our education understood to include everything that happens to us from the moment we enter this world of meaningful symbols, signs, and signals. The miracle is, in fact, that given the overwhelming odds against women, or Blacks, that so many of both have managed to achieve so much sheer excellence, in those bailiwicks of white masculine prerogative like science, art, or the arts.’

Here’s a not-fun factoid I learned: even after women were allowed to attend art schools (and you basically weren’t allowed to be taken seriously if you weren’t academically trained), they were still not allowed to view nude models. Because apparently you have to be man enough to see a cock and paint it??????????? While I cannot see a nude portrait of a man and not just assume he was the Will Ferrell nude model from SNL, this was a huge setback because nude portraits were considered an essential for being taken seriously as an artist:

‘ Indeed, it was argued by defenders of traditional painting in the 19th century that there could be no great painting with clothed figures, since costume inevitably destroyed both the temporal universality and the classical idealization required by great art. Needless to say, central to the training programs of the academies since their inception late in the 16th and early in the 17th centuries, was life drawing from the nude, generally male, model.’

And even still after all these restrictions, society rarely viewed a woman devoting her life to painting or art as a positive but often a barrier keeping them from being devoted servants housekeepers and mothers. ‘The choice for women seems always to be marriage or a career, i.e., solitude as the price of success or sex and companionship at the price of professional renunciation,’ she writes. Even to this day, the notion of women holding a career is a point of contention amongst men and Nochlin discusses how free-labor expectations on women, such as cooking, are fields that men celebrate themselves in by elevating it to a career status like chef and then gatekeep it from women.

‘It is when one really starts thinking about the implications of "Why have there been no great women artists?" that one begins to realize to what extent our consciousness of how things are in the world has been conditioned--and often falsified--by the way the most important questions are posed.’

Ultimately, Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists? becomes a look at how the social framing of that titular question ‘falsifies the nature of the issue at the same time that it insidiously supplies its own answer,’ and that rethinking how to evaluate it requires a systemic change in society at large as well as an understanding on inequity issues throughout history. She calls for a change in how we look at ideas of “genius” while also urging women to not let the inequities become an excuse and to push through nevertheless. For an essay written 50 years ago, it still remains wildly relevant, is a rather accessible read (you can read it in full here) and is a wonderful argument for change.

4.5/5

‘What is important is that women face up to the reality of their history and of their present situation, without making excuses or puffing mediocrity. Disadvantage may indeed be an excuse; it is not, however, an intellectual position. Rather, using as a vantage point their situation as underdogs in the realm of grandeur, and outsiders in that ideology, women can reveal institutional and intellectual weaknesses in general, and at the same time that they destroy false consciousness, take part in the creation of institutions in which clear thought--and true greatness--are challenges open to anyone, man or woman, courageous enough to take the necessary risk, the leap into the unknown.’

[Bloodorange · Rating 4 out of 5]

Literally kissed the last page of this little book as I finished; I found it informative, inspiring, and uplifting.

[reading is my hustle · Rating 5 out of 5]

The fault lies not in our stars, our hormones, our menstrual cycles, or our empty internal spaces, but in our institutions and our education understood to include everything that happens to us from the moment we enter this world of meaningful symbols, signs, and signals. The miracle is, in fact, that given the overwhelming odds against women, or Blacks, that so many of both have managed to achieve so much sheer excellence, in those bailiwicks of white masculine prerogative like science, art, or the arts.

this was first published in ARTnews as an essay in 1971 & still relevant (because structural + systemic discrimination). it's a major work of feminist art history & cause of paradigm shift in art scholarship. i enjoyed it most when nochlin examined the institutional exclusion of women artists. she notes that (paraphrasing here) to be deprived of training was to be deprived of the possibility of creating major art works. throughout the essay she convincingly dismantles assumptions about male-centric art & lays out the obstacles preventing women from succeeding in the arts. her companion piece 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐫𝐭𝐲 𝐘𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐀𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐫 is also included in this edition where she covers contemporary feminist art, queer theory, & post colonial studies while discussing the current state of women & art.

i recommend this so hard.

[Jiahe Wang · Rating 4 out of 5]

She needs a room of one’s own.

Oh, and a studio. And a discerning patron or older artist-mentor, expensive paints, an academy that admits female students, societally approved nude models, supportive biographers, and some appreciative critics. So why have there been no great female Michelangelos or Picassos or Giottos?

[Katya]

Este ano de 2024 ficará marcado como o ano em que a academia respondeu em larga escala a uma das minhas maiores exigências. Assim, no meio de vários seminários dedicados a arte por mulheres artistas, surge a referência a este Why have there been no great women artists? (apenas neste ano mereceu uma tradução para português) e eu, claro, aproveitei a oportunidade de desenterrar este livrinho esquecido no meio de outros mais afortunados e, entretanto, já lidos. E eu própria me espanto que, há já vários anos a mencionar Linda Nochlin e a reconhecê-la como um bastião da literatura (de arte) feminista, nunca tenha mais do que aflorado as páginas deste livro, sem realmente me dedicar à sua leitura - como seria de desejar e, muito francamente, de esperar de quem se afadiga nesta área. Mas porque é Linda Nochlin uma figura central nesta linha de estudo e porquê este seu livro?
Começando pelo fim, este Why have there been no great women artists? é o chamado trabalho seminal no que concerne a história da arte (dentro da história de género ou do feminismo) e nasce numa época (1971, quando a autora já tem 40 anos) em que a academia simplesmente não reconhece as mulheres como artistas - então não se debate a sua qualidade porque elas simplesmente não entram paredes adentro das instituições. Nesse sentido, o título escolhido pela autora é brilhante, não se oferecendo apenas como um apontamento delicado, mas como uma facada direta nos mecanismos de ensino e avaliação daquilo que é arte - e que, já de si, contêm um gérmen de crítica à qualidade. Ora, este pequeno ensaio nasce nos estados unidos, na década dos movimentos feministas (Women’s Liberation movement), mas também das lutas pelos direitos civis das comunidades afro-americanas e de oposição à guerra do Vietname e nele está o gérmen da contestação positivista em favor de historicizar as figuras apagadas pelo patriarcado (hoje mulheres, negros, comunidades LGBT etc). E Nochlin é tão somente a pioneira (não a única, claro, e nesta época é sempre preciso mencionar pelo menos Griselda Pollock e Rozsika Parker) que vai lançar as questões - e muitas vezes também as respostas - mais radicais dessa época acerca da arte de mulheres artistas. Licenciada em filosofia, mestre em língua inglesa e finalmente doutorada em história da arte, o percurso transdisciplinar de Nochlin dá-lhe uma bagagem tremenda - hoje tão valorizada - e faz do seu trabalho o fulcro de uma ciência que apenas agora se começa verdadeiramente a afirmar em Portugal.

Even a simple question like “Why have there been no great women artists?” can, if answered adequately, create a sort of chain reaction, expanding not merely to encompass the accepted assumptions of the single field, but outward to embrace history and the social sciences, or even psychology and literature, and thereby, from the outset, to challenge the assumption that the traditional divisions of intellectual inquiry are still adequate to deal with the meaningful questions of our time, rather than the merely convenient or self-generated ones. Let us, for example, examine the implications of that perennial question (one can, of course, substitute almost any field of human endeavor, with appropriate changes in phrasing): “Well, if women really are equal to men, why have there never been any great women artists (or composers, or mathematicians, or philosophers, or so few of the same)?”(...) The fact of the matter is that there have been no supremely great women artists, as far as we know, although there have been many interesting and very good ones who remain insufficiently investigated or appreciated; nor have there been any great Lithuanian jazz pianists, nor Eskimo tennis players, no matter how much we might wish there had been. That this should be the case is regrettable, but no amount of manipulating the historical or critical evidence will alter the situation; nor will accusations of male-chauvinist distortion of history. The fact, dear sisters, is that there are no women equivalents for Michelangelo or Rembrandt, Delacroix or Cézanne, Picasso or Matisse, or even, in very recent times, for de Kooning or Warhol, any more than there are Black American equivalents for the same. If there actually were large numbers of “hidden” great women artists, or if there really should be different standards for women’s art as opposed to men’s—and one can’t have it both ways—then what are the feminists fighting for? If women have in fact achieved the same status as men in the arts, then the status quo is fine as it is.

Não será alheia a este crescido interesse, a consistente perda de direitos vivida atualmente pelas facções da sociedade desde sempre marginalizadas e violentadas pelos poderes instituídos (entre as quais se contam as mulheres) e é infeliz essa associação. Todavia, é ela que nos mostra como as palavras de Nochlin, desde há setenta anos, se mantêm relevantes

What is important is that women face up to the reality of their history and of their present situation, without making excuses or puffing mediocrity. Disadvantage may indeed be an excuse; it is not, however, an intellectual position. Rather, using as a vantage point their situation as underdogs in the realm of grandeur, and outsiders in that of ideology, women can reveal institutional and intellectual weaknesses in general, and, at the same time that they destroy false consciousness, take part in the creation of institutions in which clear thought—and true greatness—are challenges open to anyone, man or woman, courageous enough to take the necessary risk, the leap into the unknown.

Longe de ser um ensaio inofensivo, apesar de profundamente académico, e por isso mesmo menos popular do que as publicações que atingem com maior facilidade o grande público, Why have there been no great women artists? continua a ser uma obra impactante e fundamental para entender os passos dados desde a ostracização das mulheres artistas do seio da academia à mais recente cedência globalizada (academia, museus, mundo da arte) de consentir a sua existência - apesar de uma ainda grande relutância na sua exposição e reconhecimento efetivo:

I’d like to roll the clock back to November 1970, a time when there were no women’s studies, no feminist theory, no African American studies, no queer theory, no postcolonial studies. What there was was Art I or Art 105—a seamless web of great art, often called “The Pyramids to Picasso”—that unrolled fluidly in darkened rooms throughout the country, extolling great (male, of course) artistic achievement since the very dawn of history. In art journals of record, like ARTnews, 1 out of a total of eighty-one major articles on artists, just two were devoted to women painters. In the following year, ten out of eighty-four articles were devoted to women, but that includes the nine articles in the special Woman Issue in January, in which “Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?” appeared; without that issue, the total would have been one out of eighty-four. Artforum of 1970–71 did a little better: five articles on women out of seventy-four.

Como fica claro, o trabalho de Nochlin e tantas outras mulheres, académicas ou não) está longe de terminado, e hoje mais ameaçado do que nunca, pelo que obras como este irrepreensível ensaio devem de figurar (e muitas vezes ainda o não fazem) nos currículos de cadeiras e seminários subordinados a história e história da arte sem a necessidade do apenso "de género". Agora que o grosso da comunidade académica, docente e discente, já não é representado pelo género masculino, o que inclui papéis de gestão e direção - ainda tenho as minhas reservas quanto a cargos nomeados -, é mais do que altura de liderar pelo exemplo e subverter os modelos chauvinistas e machistas das estruturas de saber. A começar por algum lado, comece-se por destacar nomes como o de Linda Nochlin e desempoar obras como este Why have there been no great women artists?. De preferência, para as ler e reler.

[Pia G. · Rating 5 out of 5]

"... geçmişin ve bugünün düzeni, kadınların yanı sıra beyaz, tercihen orta sınıf mensubu ve her şeyden önce erkek doğma şansına erişmemiş herkes için yalnızca sanat alanında değil, daha başka yüzlerce alanda da engelleyici, baskıcı ve cesaret kırıcıdır. sorun bizim kaderimizde, hormonlarımızda, aybaşı kanamalarımızda, kadın olmamızda değil, kurumlarımızda ve eğitimimizdedir - burada eğitim sözcüğünü anlamlı simgeler, işaretler ve kodlarla çevrili dünyamıza adım attığımız andan itibaren yaşadığımız her şeyi kapsayan bir anlamda kullanıyorum.

'neden hiç büyük kadın sanatçı yok?' sorusunun ne anlama geldiğini gerçekten düşünmeye başladığımızda, önemli soruların sorulma şeklinin bizi bu dünyanın düzeni hakkında nasıl koşullandırdığını -hatta yanılgıya düşürdüğünü- fark edebiliyoruz."

[Paya · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wspaniały esej! Mimo że oczywiście feministyczna interpretacja sztuki była w powijakach, gdy powstał i niektóre z argumentów wydają się niepełne z naszej perspektywy, to jest to świetny tekst, który na przykładzie uczy rozkładać na czynniki pierwsze głupie pytania.

[Nastja · Rating 4 out of 5]

No miks siis ei ole olnud Suuri Naiskunstnikke?

Nagu autor oma essees argumenteerib, on esimene reaktsioon sellele küsimusele argumenteerida, et naiskunstnikud on ajaloolaste ja kunstikriitikute käsitluste poolt vähem või rohkem teadlikult unustuse hõlma saadetud ja nende loomingut ignoreeritud. Järgmine reaktsioon on sellest lähtuvalt hakata üles kaevama neidsamu naiskunstnikke, kes on unustusse vajunud või kes pole avalikkusele piisavalt tuntud – selleks, et tõestada, et tegelikult ikka on olemas suured naiskunstnikud, ja neid pole lihtsalt piisavalt üles toodud.

See aga ei ole autori sõnul tõsi. Tema sõnutsi see lihtlabaselt vastabki tõele, et suuri naiskunstnikke, keda annaks võrrelda Michelangelo, Da Vinci või Picassoga, lihtsalt ei olegi olnud.

Miks?

Minu järgmine reaktsioon oleks mõelda selliselt, et võib-olla on arusaam sellest, mis üldse on “suur kunst” olnud kujundatud peamiselt meeskunstnike, meespatroonide ja mees-kunstikriitikute poolt, mistõttu on radari alt läinud mööda naiskunstnikud, kelle looming ei vasta meespilgu läbi loodud kriteeriumitele ja ootustele. Siinne essee selle argumentatsiooniga kaasa ei lähe või selle nurga alt otseselt asja ei vaata. Autor küll ütleb, et on mõistlik vaadata üle mõiste “great art” ehk siis mütoloogiline arusaam kunstikust kui Suurest Geeniusest, meesoost Jumala võrdkujust, kes lihtsalt PEAB luua saama, vaatamata kõigile takistustele – mis lihtsalt müstifitseerib kunstnikku ega ole vastavuses ajalooliste faktidega, kus need niinimetatud geeniused on sageli väga heade eeltingimustega (“sobiv” klass, perekondlik taust on seotud kunstiga, mentorite olemasolu ja ligipääsetavus, massiivne töö ja mitte ainult talent jne). Kuid autor ei keskendu sellele, et peaks üle vaatama standardid ja kriteeriumid, millele peab kunstitöö vastama, et seda saaks nimetada “suureks”. Ausalt öeldes tunnen, et seda oleks võinud rohkem käsitleda küll.

Küll aga on autori fookus põhiliselt süstemaatilisel diskrimineerimisel või eelistatusel, mida on institutsioonid, seadused ja ühiskondlikud ootused/kombed pakkunud just meeskunstnikele. Näiteks ei olnud naistel võimalik pikka aega osa saada väga baasilistest kunstiõpingute valdkonnast ehk alasti modelliga harjutamisest. Naisi lihtsalt ei lubatud alasti modellile ligi. Lisaks ei olnud naistel võimalik kandideerida teatud õppeasutustesse, toetustele ja muudele haridus- ja rahastusvõimalustele, mis moodustasid äärmiselt olulise osa loomeinimese võimete avaldumisest ja jätkusuutlikust viljelemisest – ühesõnaga, karjäärist.

Rääkimata muidugi sellest, kuidas ühiskondlikud hoiakud ja rollid on piiranud naiste tegelemist kunstiga kui tõsiseltvõetava karjäärisuunaga, mitte väikestviisi hobiga ootuspärase lastekasvatuse ja kodutööde kõrvalt. Kui suure tõenäosusega toetas kunstivaldkonnas tegutseva perekonna isafiguur oma poja kunstilisi püüdlusi, ja kui suure tõenäosusega oma tütre omi? Vastused on juba ajalooliselt apparently üpris selged.

Kuigi essee on üpris lühike ja võiks öelda, et mõned argumendid oleks olnud huvitavad lugeda veel rohkem süvitsi, rohkemate näidetega ja laiahaardelisema analüüsiga, siis põhilise argumendi ja asja tuuma annab autor väga hästi ja veenvalt edasi. Ja on tegelikult võrdlemisi no brainer – kui feminism tegeleb sellega, kuidas ühiskondlikud süsteemid ja institutsioonid on naisi piiranud, surunud teatud rollidesse ja takistanud läbi löömast mitmetes eluvaldkondades, siis miks peakski kunst olema sellest puutumata?

Mõistan väga hästi, miks see 70ndate aastate essee on saanud kunstiajaloo ja -kriitika valdkonnas klassikaks ning on tõepoolest oluline lugemine ja mõistmine neile, kes soovivad kunsti analüüsida ja tarbida mitte ainult pealiskaudselt ja visuaalselt, vaid ka sisuliselt ja mõtestatult.

[Michał · Rating 4 out of 5]

Po ponad 50 latach od wydania wznowiono ten wybitny esej i bardzo dobrze, bo wciąż pozostaje w wielu sferach aktualny.

[Mikołaj Stachowiak · Rating 4 out of 5]

niezwykle potrzebna książka, szczególnie w polsce. mam nadzieję, że będzie o niej głośniej. kobiety, wspieram was w tej nierównej walce z patriarchalnym światem. zwyciężycie, głęboko w to wierzę.

full review: https://www.instagram.com/p/DEqdX0xoo...

[blanca · Rating 5 out of 5]

always the muse, never the artist.

[Justyna · Rating 4 out of 5]

główny esej FENOMENALNY, natomiast ten 30 lat później mnie trochę taki o wszystkim i niczym

[Anna Wilczyńska · Rating 5 out of 5]

Krótko, zwięźle i w sedno.

[Marcin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dlaczego esej Nochlin z 1971 roku nie traci dziś na aktualności?

Ponieważ, jak zauważył cytowany przez autorkę John Stuart Mill, „wszystko co jest przez zwyczaj utarte, zdaje się być naturalne”.

Rzeczywistość pokazuje, że wciąż ulegamy budowanym przez wieki mitom o artystach obdarzonych geniuszem czy boskim pierwiastkiem, a sztukę widzimy jedynie jako przełożenie osobistych przeżyć na język obrazów.

Zapominamy, że na sztukę wpływ miały struktury społeczno-kulturowe, idee epoki, kryzysy, momenty historyczne, pochodzenie oraz oczekiwania pełnienia określonych funkcji społecznych.

Tymczasem każdy „wielki” artysta istniał w określonym kontekście społeczno-politycznym, a jego sztuka kształtowana była przez szereg czynników, takich jak akademie, mecenat, rynek i mity na temat jego osoby, o czym warto pamiętać podczas następnej wizyty w muzeum.

[Josh · Rating 5 out of 5]

'The fact of the matter is that there have been no supremely great women artists, as far as we know, although there have been many interesting and very good ones who remain insufficiently investigated or appreciated; nor have there been any great Lithuanian jazz pianists, nor Eskimo tennis players, no matter how much we might wish there had been. That this should be the case is regrettable, but no amount of manipulating the historical or critical evidence will alter the situation; nor will accusations of male chauvinist distortion of history'

This is a very interesting essay on feminist art and aesthetics. Nochlin says that it is a mistake to respond to the question 'Why have there been no great women artists' by searching for under appreciated women artists from history, because this implicitly concedes to the biases of the question itself. The question should instead be answered by admitting there have been no great women artists on the level of Michelangelo etc due to institutional forces barring women from becoming great artists.

There is also a good discussion around the notion of artistic genius, and the mythology that goes into the veritable hagiographies of great artists. In addition, she critiques the notion of a feminine art style. She notes that women artists are more closely related to male artists from their own time than women artists from different periods, and that if feminine art is to be defined in terms of 'delicateness', or 'introspection' or other 'feminine' attributes, then there are many male artists, even whole periods of male dominated art that embody these attributes better than women artists have. There are also many women artists whose art does not fit into those attributes at all.

'The fault lies not in our stars, our hormones, our menstrual cycles, or our empty internal spaces, but in our institutions and our education, education understood to include everything that happens to us from the moment we enter this world of meaningful symbols, signs, and signals. The miracle is, in fact, that given the overwhelming odds against women, or blacks, that so many of both have managed to achieve so much sheer excellence, in those bailiwicks of white masculine prerogative like science, politics, or the arts.'

I think this is a very useful piece of scholarship and one that sets the agenda of investigation into feminist aesthetics very nicely.

[Mighty Aphrodite · Rating 4 out of 5]

Siamo tenuti a rispondere alle domande capziose che gli uomini pongono costantemente sul nostro cammino per il solo gusto di vederci inciampare? No, e Linda Nochlin ce lo dimostra in questo breve saggio con maestria e semplicità.

Di fronte a domande come “Perchè non ci sono state grandi artiste?”, il nostro primo istinto ci spingerebbe ad elencare i nomi di tutte quelle donne che, magari ad oggi dimenticate, sono state in grado di affermarsi nel loro tempo, di dimostrare, con la loro stessa presenza, quanto anche le donne abbiano in sè quello spirito geniale che pare da sempre essere stato esclusivo appannaggio degli uomini, assurti a grandi nomi dell’arte.

Ma questi nomi sono forse sufficienti ad illuminarci sulla situazione reale del mondo dell’arte o sottolineano, invece, come l’attitudine artistica sia preclusa alle donne se non in casi assolutamente eccezionali e minori? Riportare alla luce artiste dimenticate è sicuramente un dovere che dobbiamo a loro e alla storia, ma non è sufficiente ad abbattere il pregiudizio che vede nelle donne persone incapaci – biologicamente – di esprimere il genio artistico, monopolio esclusivo dell’uomo.

“Ma in realtà, ora come in passato, la situazione in arte e in decine di atri campi continua ad essere spiazzante, oppressiva e deprimente per chiunque non abbia avuto la fortuna di nascere maschio di razza bianca, preferibilmente dal ceto medio in su. Il difetto non è nella nostra cattiva stella, nei nostri ormoni, nei nostri cicli mestruali, o nelle cavità del nostro apparato genitale, bensì nelle regole e nell’educazione che riceviamo; intendendo per educazione tutto ciò che ci accade dal momento in cui, testa in avanti, entriamo in questo mondo di simboli, segnali e segni carichi di significato.”

Perchè il grande artista, questo mito che affonda le sue origini ancora nell’antica Grecia, è da sempre un uomo, un giovane pastorello precoce, in grado di disegnare ed esprimersi attraverso l’arte ancor prima di aver frequentato l’Accademia. Dal talento sorprendente e naturale, viene scoperto quasi per caso da un artista già affermato, che non può fare a meno di prenderlo sotto la sua ala e renderlo famoso. Così è successo a Giotto, a Picasso, a Michelangelo.

Ma perchè non è successo alle donne?

Continua a leggere qui: https://parlaredilibri.wordpress.com/...

[Zeynep · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sanat tarihçisi Linda Nochlin'in 1971 tarihli ve 2006 tarihli iki makalesini, ilki cevirmen Ahu Antmen, ikincisi Catherine Grant tarafından kaleme alınmış iki önsözle birlikte içeren, sürükleyici ve kolay okunan bir kitap.
Linda Nochlin felsefe formasyonu sayesinde öncelikle soruyu yapıtaşlarına ayırıyor ve soruya verilen savunmacı yanıtları da nesnel bir şekilde masaya yatırıyor. Konusuna hakim biri tarafından getirilen bu objektif ve gaza gelmemiş yaklaşım hoşuma gitti.
Noclin'in yazılarındaki ana fikri üç maddede özetleyebiliriz:

1. Sanat bebeklikten itibaren içinde yetişilen aile, topluluk ve kurumlardan bağımsız düşünülemez. Van Gogh vb. mitler popülerleşerek ön plana çıksa da sanat tarihine objektif bir bakış açısı getirdiğimizde belli ortak özelliklerin ön plana çıktığını gözlemleriz; örneğin sanatçıların, sanatçı ailelerde yetişmiş olma oranı diğerlerine oranla belirgin bir şekilde daha yüksektir. 19. yy'a kada aristokratlardan da hiç sanatçı çıkmamıştır vb. buna bağlı olarak cinsiyetin ötesinde, bilinen (büyük ?) sanatçı olma oranını etkileyen birçok farklı faktör bulunmaktadır.

2. Sanatçılara sağlanan eğitim olanaklarının 19.yy'a kadar cinsiyetler arasında da farklılık gösterdiği görülür. Standart eğitimde çıplak modelle çizim olmazsa olmazken, kadın sanatçılara bu olanak sağlanmamıştır.
Johann Zoffany The Royal Academy of Arts isimli tablosunda, akademinin kadın üyeleri, çıplak modellerden ötürü kendilerine ancak duvarda bir portre olarak yer bulabilmişler.
(Bu bölümde aklıma Türk sanatçılar geldi. sanat eğitimi için avrupaya gönderilen gençler ülkeye geri döndüklerinde bu konudaki tartışmaların gündem olduğunu Sabancı Müzesindeki kalıcı Nü sergisiyle öğrenmiştim. döneme ait bilinen (büyük ?) tüm sanatçıların ya varlıklı/himaye edilen veya sanatçı aileye sahip insanlar arasından çıkması bir rastlantı değildi. )
3. Kadın sanatçıların ortak özelliği, neredeyse tamamının sanatçı babaların kızları olmaları veya güçlü bir erkek sanatçıyla yakın bağlarının olmasıydı. 19. yy ikinci yarısında erkekler geleneksel bağlardan ve baba mesleklerinden kopuyor, kadınlar da kendi başlarına bir hayat arayışına giriyor. Yine de evlenmeyi tercih eden kadın sanatçıların, sanat çevresinden eş edindiği göze çarpıyor. sanat dünyasında kadınların, her ne kadar örtük de olsa, tuttuğunu koparma, odaklanma, sebat ve adanma gibi erkeklere özgü kabul edilen özellikleri sayesinde başarılı oldukları anlatılıyor.
(İşin doğrusu bu özelliklerin "`erkeklere özgü`" -eril kelimesini sevmediğim için kullanmıyorum- olduğuna kim karar verdi bilmiyorum ama bu ifadeden hareketle, iş hayatında başarılı olabilmek için bu özelliklerden dibine kadar faydalandığımı, bir erkek olmadan da, rahatlıkla söyleyebilirim)

Kitaptaki harika bir diğer içerik de kuşkusuz 1971 yılı için iddialı çıkışını 30 yıl sonra gelinen nokta ile birlikte yine aynı gözle incenmesi. 2006 içeriğinde cinsiyetsizleştirme yok, Nochlin öldüğü için geleceği de yok ama bu haliyle bile "kahrolsun erkekler" sloganının ötesinde "kaldır poponu" mottosuyla beni yakalıyor :
"Ne zaman tümüyle erkeklerden oluşan panelistlerin, kadınlardan oluşan bir kitleye konuştuğunu görsem, gerçek eşitliğin sağlanması için daha çok yolumuz olduğunu düşünürüm.
Önemli olan kadınların mazeretler ileri sürmeden, vasatlığa düşmeden, kendi tarihsel ve güncel gerçekleriyle yüzleşebilmeleridir. dezavantajlı olmak gerçekten de bir mazeret olabilir ama entelektüel bir konum değildir."

Kitaptaki ana tema çerçevesinde, tüm olanaksızlıklara rağmen başını suyun üzerinde tutabilen az sayıda kadın sanatçıya da değiniliyor. Bu noktada onları sadece bir kadın olarak değil de insan olarak da merak ediyorum; onları ayrıştıran isyankar doğaları mıydı yoksa ayrıştıkları için zaten isyandan başka çareleri yok muydu?

[Asias · Rating 5 out of 5]

hot girls book

[julia dusza · Rating 5 out of 5]

Z tytułowym esejem ,,Dlaczego nie było wielkich artystek?” z 1971 zetknęłam się już wcześniej. Odczytanie go kolejny raz wraz z pozostałymi tekstami i esejem z 2006 było cudownym doświadczeniem. Czytajmy Nochlin - plis.

[MURAT BAYRAKTAR · Rating 4 out of 5]

4,5 yıldız..

Kitap küçük boyutlarda olmakla birlikte anlamı ve değeri büyük bir kitap. 1970'lerde Linda Nochlin'in yazmış olduğu makalesinden ve ondan otuz yıl sonra yazarın konjonktürü ve kendi fikirlerini tekrar gözden geçirdiği makalesinden oluşan önemli bir çalışma. Çevirisi çok başarılı gerçekten Ahu Antmen' i de kutlamak gerek hem bu güzel çevirisi hem de yazdığı önsözü ile. Ahu Antmen'in dediği gibi böylesi önemli ve çığır açan makalenin Türkçe ilk çevirisi 2008 yılında yapılmış. Makalenin yazıldığı yıldan yaklaşık 40 yıl sonra. Şu durum bile zaten kadın erkek eşitsizliğinin ve konunun vehametinin göstergesi.

Toplamda konuyu üç dört maddede ele alıyor ve detaylandırıyor Linda Nochlin. Çalışmanın arasına önemli kadın sanatçıların bazı güzel eserleri serpiştirilmiş, keşke renkli şekilde basılsaymış o kısımlar. Yazıldığı dönem yavaş yavaş kadınların özgürlüklerini kazanmaya çalıştıkları, eşitlik istedikleri, feminizmin yayıldığı Kadın Özgürlüğü Hareketi'nin olduğu dönemler olmakla beraber hala bu konuda ne kadar geri olduğumuz utanç dönemlerini yansıtmaktadır. O yıllarda en önemli sanat dergisinde yazılan 81 makalenin sadece ikisinde veya başka bir dergide de 74 makalenin de sadece beşi kadın ressamlar hakkındaydı. Böylesi dönemde yapmış olduğu çalışmanın büyüklüğü şu an bile; yaklaşık 50 yıl sonra bile güncelliğini koruması ile takdire şayandır.

Konuyu başarılı şekilde ele alıp açıkladıktan sonra son sözünü '' Ne zaman tümüyle erkeklerden oluşan panelistlerin genellikle kadınlardan oluşan bir izleyiciye konuştuğunu görsem, gerçek eşitliğin sağlanması konusunda daha çok yolumuz olduğunu fark ediyorum.'' diyerek bitiriyor ve ne kadar haklı olduğunu da anlıyoruz..

Benim için yazdığı makaleleri ile merak uyandıran ve diğer basılan kitabını okuma isteği uyandıran zeki bir akademisyen oldu Linda Nochlin. Okunması gereken bir çalışma.

[Millie Yule · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some interesting and beefy statements, but quite dry. Many of the historical assertions are not necessarily correct, but I won't hold that against the article considering feminist art history wasn't much of a thing when it was written.

[Elise Peeters · Rating 4 out of 5]

4,5

"Could it be that the little golden nugget - Genius - is missing from the aristocratic make-up in the same way that it is from the feminine psyche?
Or rather, is it not, that the kinds of demands and expectations placed before both aristocrats and women - the amount of time necessarily devoted to social functions, the very kinds of activities demanded - simply made total devotion to professional art production out of the question, indeed unthinkable, for both upper-class males and for women generally, rather than its being a question of genius and talent?"

[Bhoomika · Rating 5 out of 5]

My first question after reading "The Story of Art" by E.H. Gombrich was, "Why aren't women artists being discussed in this book?" Reading this article has once again been a stark reminder of how institutions were established to work against women. "The fault, dear brothers, lies not in our stars, our hormones, our menstrual cycles or our empty internal spaces, but in our institutions and our education." Loved reading this article. Will definitely give it an another read once I learn more about the field of art.

[Sophia Eck]

overall: I find this essay to be unfortunately and stuntingly reflective of its time, while also alluding to less progress than I would think would be present as late as 1970?

from the book But Some of Us Are Brave: “We cannot change our lives by teaching solely about “exceptions” to the ravages of white-male oppression.” Nochlin primarily dwells on a handful of exceptions, not on uniquely female circumstances or innovative feminine conceptions.

I find it a bit presumptuous of the author to suggest herself to basically be the progenitor of thought on feminist art history, and to allude to it being primarily nonexistent before the late 60s/70s. (on top of her extremely grating and overtly censoring of any WOC. there is a large presence of toxically heavy emphasis on simply the white feminist POV)

“—in 1970, there was no such thing as a feminist art history.”

This stance feels quite disbelieving of any woman before this time having progressive thought and portrays the author of being doubtful of the fact that any woman before her could possibly be as thoughtful on this topic as she is, and document it in an academic manner, which is rich considering this is simply an essay and does not truly dive that deeply into actual feminist figures other than their subversion of the male ideal. I can see how this essay would ruffle feathers and raise necessary unrest in its time of publication, but Nochlin herself seems to be giving herself perhaps too much credit in terms of considering herself to be the begetter when it comes to writing on the subject, and comes across as self righteous and almost unhelpfully others herself from other undoubtedly intricate women she considers blissfully unaware or simply ignorant, not taking into account the true nuance and phenomenon of erased depth of thought and mind in women of history, and of women’s criminally repetitive erasure in the halls of history.

[Ana Pau Carbonell · Rating 3 out of 5]

The phrase "Always the muse, never the artist" reminded me of the lyric "Always an angel, never a god" and I had to stop for a second.

This is a great essay, even if it makes you mad because of how right it is. It's so simple to strip down the reasons why women are still barred from artistic spaces but it's crazy how so many people (usually men) truly think there are not as many great artists or writers who are women simply "because they don't have the talent".

The issues have always been systematic. There have been some improvements, but I still think we are very far from having solved them.

[Louise Van Cleemput · Rating 4 out of 5]

Het onuitgesproken antwoord op de vraag waarom er geen grootse vrouwelijke kunstenaars zijn geweest, was dat vrouwen aan talent zouden ontbreken. Met haar goed doorgronde argumenten waarmee ze de institutionele, culturele en sociaal-maatschappelijke barrières waar vrouwen mee te maken hadden toelicht, bewijst Nochlin het tegendeel. Interessant boekje voor wie belang hecht aan kunst en/of gelijkwaardigheid.

[Marike · Rating 4 out of 5]

Important essay on women in art and the "woman problem" in art history. You can tell it was written a while ago, before feminist art history became what it is now. Will change your view on the question "why have there been no great women artists?", including the many facets to the phrasing of this question that are rooted in structural problems.

[jakbogakocham · Rating 5 out of 5]

dlaczego... trzydzieści lat później - najciekawsza część. niestety, nie maluje świata na różowo

[Quaintrelle333 (Petra) · Rating 4 out of 5]

A pivotal text in feminist art history. Read for uni.

[Marina · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really liked learning about the history of feminism from the perspective of the art world. The first part grips you by reexamining 'greatness' in the first place as well as women's surroundings, which have influenced women's development of artistic skills severely. The second part is from a more modern perspective, discussing achievements and future challenges.