We'd like to see more art by women in our galleries

Today I went to the Russell-Cotes in Bournemouth, to the Lucy Kemp-Welch exhibition, which I enjoyed and recommend. (And then I went in the sea.)

Perhaps I should have said: '...British Crown involvement in the horrific trade in enslaved people.' Slavery was certainly mentioned by the NPG on the Charles I label, although I didn't note the exact wording.

This article says regarding Charles I: 'The king granted a monopoly licence to the reconstituted Guinea Company in 1632 to transport enslaved people.'

The British kings and queens who supported and profited from slavery | Monarchy | The Guardian

But we are getting off art and women...anyway, I liked the revitalised NPG and it certainly felt like a nod in the right direction.

Charles II, surely, not Charles I? But the African Trading Company did not lead to the slave trade, it already existed and had been going on in Africa since c.700 AD - and before that, of course, since the Romans and Egyptians slaved, as well as the Vikings (whose hairstyles might have been copied by coastal Africans) and the Arabs. The arrival of Portuguese traders c.1490 opened a new market for slaves, opening up the West coast as well as slaving to the North, to the Ottoman Empire (which also took slaves from Europe) and also through Zanzibar, to the East, which slaved to India and the Middle East. These trades were run by Arabs and local tribal chieftains.

@ArtforallbyallwithArtActivistBarbie
Well, I was as good as my word and did get up to the National Portrait Gallery.

I really enjoyed my visit and there was definitely a bit more emphasis on women, although perhaps I wouldn't have noticed if I wasn't looking out for it iyswim?

Exhibits that caught my eye from a feminist point of view were:

The 15th C portrait of Margaret Beaufort (mother of Henry VII) did not shy away from highlighting that she gave birth to him at 13 and mentioned that it was the first known full-length oil painting of a woman.

A self-portrait miniature by a female artist, born without arms and legs, who taught herself to paint with her mouth in order to earn a living.

There was a gallery of contemporary women (Cate Blanchett, Adele etc) by women photographers, but you had to walk past an absolutely giant full-frontal female nude to get to it. 🙄

The ground floor gallery Modern History Makers has a kind of enormous collage wall of women, called 'Work in Progress', portraying and naming influential women. It was good to see it there, although I wasn't wowed by it artistically.

On another note, I am glad that the NPG has kept the 'messaging' within its signs fairly minimal. It's there and rightly so - for example a portrait of Charles I mentions that he founded the African Trading Company which led to the horrific trade in enslaved people - but it doesn't seem overly dominant. Whereas some galleries seem to find a 'teachable moment' in every painting, looking at you Courtauld Gallery.

I too like Caravaggio and Turner etc but I do not see why there should be a lack of women painters. Afaik the National Gallery has some Vigee le Brun's and some women Impressionists - why not more?

You are mistaken about guilds. Women could join, and there were guilds for women's occupations. A woman could run her deceased husband's business (or run it in his absence) and become a master of the guild. She wouldn't have taken public office in the guild, however, nor been eligible for election to a parliament.

Dulwich Picture Gallery has an exhibition of works by the Impressionist painter Berthe Morisot currently. Very worth visiting.

For those interested in women’s art, that haven’t come across it, I recommend women’s art on twitter - can’t link as MN is seeing it as error so will need to search under “at..womensart1”
all media
all centuries
really nice stream

what twitter can be at its best…

Something about the leisure activities of the wealthy not paying well.
Or that people in (I guess the UK) don't value the work of young living artists. That's a problem across the arts - music, literature, dance, theatre, but maybe art is worse.

Great thread, which has inspired me to get up to the National Portrait Gallery soon.

On the subject of boys (and girls?) taking art at A-Level and beyond, there was an interesting report a few years ago which found that a fine-art degree was the only degree that had a negative impact on post-graduation earnings. You were less employable for having studied it!

I will look for the link.

If anyone goes to Dulwich for Berthe Morisot, they also have a room of Mary Beale portraits from the later 17th century. She made the money by painting and her husband supported her in doing so.

Not to disparage sausage's opinion but they can close their eyes, both literally and metaphorically, to work from female artists if they choose. Their views are irrelevant to the facts regarding the exclusion of female artists from galleries.

Thanks for the petition and for all that you do OP.

As someone who loves art and did GCSE, the idea that we should be encouraging more children to take art is bonkers.

Taking it at A-Level and beyond limits your choices. We do not need more people doing it. But it's a wonderful talent to have.

Thanks @Joyous

It was great, for those of a certain age it was a grown up “Vision On”/”Take Hart”, and the context of all the artwork, particularly the first series, was the early days of the pandemic and lockdown

I will have to chase it up. I really enjoyed Philip Mould’s Art in Isolation and was impressed that a number of the pieces he collected were by women artists.

Plus Paula Rego at the moment - making it 9 out of more than a thousand.

This might interest you - it’s an essay on the Art UK website (which aims to record every artwork available to public view in the country) about the 8 women who ARE on show at the National Gallery:

https://artuk.org/discover/stories/the-eight-women-artists-of-the-national-gallery

I like all kinds of art, but the sort of oil paintings and technically advanced drawing techniques using materials that can survive for centuries, done by women, is important. It's that which is absent from the National Gallery.

When we think about it in those terms, that's a different conversation than displaying tapestry and small personal works.

There was a fantastic group exhibition of female abstract artists at the Whitechapel earlier this year. Called Action, Gesture, Paint. It’s in Arles over the summer at the Van Gogh foundation, so if you are in the South of France it will definitely be worth a look:

https://www.fondation-vincentvangogh-arles.org/en/exposition/brouillon-auto-2/

Why aren't the beautiful tapestries and other textiles women produced displayed in galleries as artworks?

I’m agreeing with OP, I’m not sure I’m following this post if it’s aimed at me.