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

[ArtforallbyallwithArtActivistBarbie]

Hello all
If you went into a number of our public galleries you could be forgiven for thinking that only white men ever painted in the past, and like all of us who have thought that, you'd be wrong! Even in the middle ages, women painted, and as the centuries went by, more and more women fought against the odds to paint.

In the National Gallery, of 1056 paintings on display, do you know how many are by women?

Eight. Yes Eight. Less than 1%

At the moment, government places no requirement on the galleries they fund to address inequalities in their collections. ArtActivistBarbie and ArtforAllbyAll are trying to change this.

Please please help us persuade them by signing our petition!

https://www.change.org/ArtByEveryone

no. Do I want to see less Caravaggio, Botticelli, Durer etc, to fit your political agenda? No.
In the Middle Ages, painters were members of guilds, who strictly controlled entry, and who definitely wouldn't have allowed women to join. So I would like to know where you get that misconception from.

Actually, the OP does know quite a bit about art history. It's not a political agenda.

Traditional art galleries reflect who was involved in the history of art - who was controlling the historical record of you like, of the 19th and 20th centuries.

"The greats" were curated by white middle class middle aged men during this time, as much as the constraints of gender roles did at the time of Caravaggio, Botticelli, Durer etc.

Yes there were fewer female artists but they did exist. There was a second "filter" thanks to the art historians.

This isn't about ditching all of those people, not at all. It's redressing some balance.

On the flip side, there's a huge issue with boys not taking art at gcse and alevel (see 'The Art Criminal' who has been working tirelessly on raising awareness of this for ages, as do has the NSEAD. Which I'm sure AAB knows about)

to repeat - you could only be a painter in the Middle Ages by being in a guild. So there would have been no female painters.

Is all art in galleries from the Middle Ages?

and show me some of these works from female painters (if they exist).

The Tate certainly exhibits many works by women - - but the problem with the Tate ( certainly the branch in my city), for me, is that It increasingly feel like I'm being indoctrinated and lectured to - and so go less and less frequently now.

no - the OP categorically stated that there were female artists in the Middle Ages.

Hildegaard of Bingen was an artist in the Middle Ages.

There are other art mediums than painting.

no, she wasn't an artist. For a start, everything we have of her work is a reproduction.

Signed
Thanks for sharing

Presumably Because historians haven't valued it

go on then, give me an example of a female artist in the Middle Ages, other that painting. ALL the arts were controlled by guilds.

womennart.com/2021/03/17/women-artists-in-the-middle-ages/

Presumably Because historians haven't valued it
really?
or maybe because it doesn't exist.
99% of the population, of whatever sex, let terrible, hand-to-mouth, existences until relatively recently. Art is the result of a very few people having enough money to be patrons. And how lucky we are to be able to have access to it now.
And yet there's people who refuse to see this.

Anyway this is a diversion; the fact that there are so few women artists thanks to how historians of the 20th century decided what we value is worth raising in galleries.

I'm rage listening to this again, where Griselda Pollock describes how women artists were erased from history by 20th century male artists.

www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000k91f?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile

The term "great artists" has been curated by male 20th c artists.

And yes I don't want to be lectured thank you very much, the queer shit is far too much, but galleries have a responsibility to tell different stories.

Have a wee listen to what Griselda describes and you'll understand my perspective.

Thanks! I came to post that link 😊

We should also remember that there are more statues of men called John than there are of women in the UK.

In general, the artists of this period were from a small subset of society whose status allowed them freedom from the more strenuous types of work. In the case of women, they were from two literate classes: wealthy aristocracy, who often created embroideries and textiles; or they were nuns who often produced illuminations.

The embroiderer Johanna of Beverley.

I confess I was wrong about the early illuminators - thank you for pointing it out.
But, when we talk about art that is displayed in galleries, illumination is a very small part of that. I still say that there were no women painting in the, let's say, style of Van Eyck, as an example, as that would have not been accessible to them.
And I don't want to lose the great paintings that we do see. Just think, all those great altarpieces, and secular paintings would have been locked away from us, and now we see them for free. Nobody has given me an example of a great female artist that I want to see more of.

The embroiderer Johanna of Beverley.
Does her work still exist? and I thought we were talking about Art Galleries?

or maybe because it doesn't exist.
99% of the population, of whatever sex, let terrible, hand-to-mouth, existences until relatively recently. Art is the result of a very few people having enough money to be patrons. And how lucky we are to be able to have access to it now.
And yet there's people who refuse to see this.

I totally agree and we are probably coming from the same understanding; I'm saying that the status quo of galleries, who are curating for the masses, have a responsibility to provide different points of view.

This is a worthy campaign.

There's other perspectives too; disabled artists have very little inclusion (and there will have been even fewer disabled artists from the past.)

For example, it's worth watching the very hard hitting and in-depth documentary about Yayoi Kusama.

Some of the greats, such as any Warhol, stole ideas from her in the 60s while they exhibited beside her.

And who's work was rememembered and championed through the 80s and 90s?

Not Kusamas. Granted she had a huge breakdown and has mental health difficulties but racism and sexism contributed to that.

NOW she's one of the biggest artists in the world because art historians went back to her and championed her.

These days patrons are gallery owners and art historians. In the 20th century they were mostly men.

I thought we were talking about Art Galleries?
They include a vast array of mediums today (Yinja Shonibare is fascinating), why can't they dig deep and show others?

Main reason is that preservation of oil paintings is / was easier than textiles and illumination.

*Yinka Shonibare