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

I'm saying that the status quo of galleries, who are curating for the masses, have a responsibility to provide different points of view.
No, they have a responsibility to show people the best art. Not art curated by pigeonhole - sex, race etc. Just the best.
Anyway, I've got stuff to do, otherwise I'd be keyboard warrioring all day.

Who decided what the best art is?

Sounds authoritarian to me.

You've just said yourself - the curators, in the present day. Who have very political agendas

Art is subjective.

Also "best art" is perfectionism. And completely excludes many people with disabilities who's art may not be realism.

Yep - they need challenging.

I think galleries are aware of this issue, and try to show more of the women's work they already have in their collections. There are some good exhibitions these days, like Berthe Morisot currently at Dulwich.

But there is the issue that while there always have been women artists, there were far fewer

My understanding is that women sometimes did do work that was set aside and forgotten, or even passed off as the work of their husbands.
However, I always want to ask the question, forgotten by whom? Why don't women encourage, support, celebrate, and remember each other?

...there were far fewer, because they didn't get patronage, or the time to practise alone, and far fewer where we know the name, ("anon was a woman" and all that), especially with textiles and so on. Probably more works have been lost because they weren't valued. And institutions have limited budgets. Even if they spend all their time trying to buy only women's art, there's only so far money can be stretched. Plus, as the demand for eomen artists goes up, so do the prices, thus compounding the budgetary issue.

But I do think galleries are trying to work on it already.

Just here to mention anyone on Twitter should follow womensart1 which is fab, there’s a book now too.

Why don't women encourage, support, celebrate, and remember each other?

There was apparently, it's the way history (and so art history) became more of a philosophy in the 20th century but was mainly by and for men.

Anyway, one of the the main points behind this campaign is the way many of these paintings in these galleries show rape scenes.

Obviously free speech is one thing, and the debate about viewing art from the past through our eyes today (most sitters would have been underage sexually abused girls, as were many of the young dancers Degas painted) is another.

Surely conversation about this is important? Surely galleries can curate differently to reach all those young school kids who don't go to galleries and aren't from private schools with wealthy parents who own various old masters?

It doesn't have to be political but denying a discussion of this and perhaps some changes or at least acknowledgments is authoritarian.

Keep the paintings by those greats but alter the narrative- "there were no paintings by women from this period because xyz."

Yes many are working on it EB.

I think is is specifically some National galleries who receive government funding.

Did anyone else see that 80s film about Camille Claudel?

I enjoy the art I enjoy, if the artwork itself was good enough their is no need to agenda-ise it maybe all labels should be removed so people can either like the art regardless of the sex of the artist?

To me all modern art seems to need to add some agenda to it

To me all modern art seems to need to add some agenda to it

I'm sure older art did too!

Definitely signing! Feels a bit hypocritical of the National Gallery to be profiting off Guerilla Girls merch .... "Dearest National Gallery...."

All art has an agenda - 'religion was the opium of the masses' and religious institutions the main source of art patronage for a long time! Art has always had links to political or ideological agendas. As has craft too.

Apparently bankers from the 2007 crash turned to investing in the art world...

Agreed. They don't even display art anymore in Tate- it's all "projects". And it appears you have to be a DFL vegan who studied something creative at Bristol or Brighton, live off undefined unlimited funds and wear something crocheted by a Danish designer to "get" those projects.
I long for the days when Tate had shows of The Masters and other great painters & photographers that were accessible to communities outside of London. I've stopped attending in the meantime, until they become an art gallery again.

I should have added it is the galleries that seem to stick and additional agenda on it as if a big neon arrow point to it saying 'you have to like this artwork because the artist is....' rather than just being left to enjoy it for arts sake

On the flip side, there's a huge issue with boys not taking art at gcse and alevel

Hm, that doesn't seem to be a barrier to any young man deciding to push his wares in the art world? I'd have to find a more worthy cause to worry about.

Yes that pisses me off. That's a different type of authoritarianism.

I increasingly feel like that about all of the 'alternative' galleries in my city - and rarely go any more - which is a shame.

Personally I do like immersive( and film) installations. Attended a great one some years ago at Liverpool's FACT Centre by Swiss artist Pippilotti Rist. It was fun.

@QueenCamilla no it's not about the art world. Very few people who take art at a level become artists.

Art is of huge value to industry. Design, engineering and architecture. And future art teachers. Art teaches more than just representative drawing, painting and sculpture skills. And there's still the issue that fewer women still go into architecture, product design and engineering.

It's simply evidence of how gender stereotypes are currently impacting education. Barely any girls take computing and so the tech world is extremely sexist too. DT, engineering and any courses that might lead into it.

That's part of a conversation about how education choices have slowly changed over the last 20 years.

Maybe, but you didn't need to read a wall of text in order to "understand" the artwork.

Great art can simply be aesthetically pleasurable and you can be left alone with your own 'reading' of it.

I do think that single sex schools for girls, in particular, tend to encourage more girls into sciences and tech.