Why Have There Been No Great Female Artists
1. Briefly summarize the author’s main argument/thesis statement.
Nochlin argues the importance of asking the question, “Why have there been no great women artists?” by offering many of it’s implications. She suggests that by simply asking this question we realize how conditioned we’ve been to accept the white Western male viewpoint as the dominant and, perhaps, even the only accepted viewpoint because it’s the only one we’ve ever known. She continues on to explain how many institutional limitations rather than individual limitations, such as female artists not having access to nude models in a period of time where it was necessary for artists to achieve greatness, and the historical role and expectations of women in society, have prohibited women from being accomplished artists.
2. Do you find the argument convincing? Why or Why not?
Nochlin makes an excellent point by asking why there have been no great aristocrat artists. The answer parallels much of the argument for women. This suggests to me that the ways in which groups have been organized in society have strengthened or weakened their chance for greatness. Again, suggesting that reasons stem from …show more content…
institutional conditions verses individual ones. I also find the argument convincing because women are still involved in this continued struggle today. Women still have expectations to be wives and mothers and to set their careers, be that artistic or otherwise, on hold while doing so, despite achievements in the Women’s movement. Even if it’s considered public knowledge in Western society that women can have both, there are still social repercussions, backlash, and a general resistance in our current patriarchal society.
3. Are there questions that still remain?
As Nochlin points out, if women truly are equals then why do we not have any great female artists?
Why are the same male artists historically dominating the field of Art History? Why can’t we go back in history and redefine greatness? Nochlin suggests, for example, the idea greatness or genius was strengthened by myth and folklore, men’s notable familial artistic influences, and men’s privileged position in society; but other than their ability to receive formal training, what are the grounds for judgment of the quality of art at hand? Why can’t we reexamine female artists producing art in the same period? Is the merit of the artist based partly on the art market trends of their time? Perhaps these questions suggest my own naiveté in the field. I hope you can help give this Art History amateur some
clarity.
Nochlin argues the importance of asking the question, “Why have there been no great women artists?” by offering many of it’s implications. She suggests that by simply asking this question we realize how conditioned we’ve been to accept the white Western male viewpoint as the dominant and, perhaps, even the only accepted viewpoint because it’s the only one we’ve ever known. She continues on to explain how many institutional limitations rather than individual limitations, such as female artists not having access to nude models in a period of time where it was necessary for artists to achieve greatness, and the historical role and expectations of women in society, have prohibited women from being accomplished artists.
2. Do you find the argument convincing? Why or Why not?
Nochlin makes an excellent point by asking why there have been no great aristocrat artists. The answer parallels much of the argument for women. This suggests to me that the ways in which groups have been organized in society have strengthened or weakened their chance for greatness. Again, suggesting that reasons stem from …show more content…
institutional conditions verses individual ones. I also find the argument convincing because women are still involved in this continued struggle today. Women still have expectations to be wives and mothers and to set their careers, be that artistic or otherwise, on hold while doing so, despite achievements in the Women’s movement. Even if it’s considered public knowledge in Western society that women can have both, there are still social repercussions, backlash, and a general resistance in our current patriarchal society.
3. Are there questions that still remain?
As Nochlin points out, if women truly are equals then why do we not have any great female artists?
Why are the same male artists historically dominating the field of Art History? Why can’t we go back in history and redefine greatness? Nochlin suggests, for example, the idea greatness or genius was strengthened by myth and folklore, men’s notable familial artistic influences, and men’s privileged position in society; but other than their ability to receive formal training, what are the grounds for judgment of the quality of art at hand? Why can’t we reexamine female artists producing art in the same period? Is the merit of the artist based partly on the art market trends of their time? Perhaps these questions suggest my own naiveté in the field. I hope you can help give this Art History amateur some
clarity.