Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

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

107 replies

ArtforallbyallwithArtActivistBarbie · 27/07/2023 10:34

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

Sign the Petition

Tell government we want more art by women on our gallery walls!

https://www.change.org/ArtByEveryone

OP posts:
Thread gallery
10
Grammarnut · 29/07/2023 20:36

Sausagenbacon · 27/07/2023 10:50

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.

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.

Grammarnut · 29/07/2023 20:37

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?

MaybeDoctor · 31/07/2023 16:35

@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.

Grammarnut · 31/07/2023 20:09

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.

MaybeDoctor · 01/08/2023 17:42

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.

The British kings and queens who supported and profited from slavery

From Elizabeth I to William IV, over a period of 270 years monarchs had links to the slave trade

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/06/the-british-kings-and-queens-who-supported-and-profited-from-slavery

EBearhug · 01/08/2023 18:56

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.)

ArtforallbyallwithArtActivistBarbie · 03/08/2023 19:31

Great to hear all your comments and glad you enjoyed the NPG MaybeDoctor. We had a great day out promoting our petition in Trafalgar Square today. Lots of women and girls posed as artists outside the National Gallery and had their photo taken for our 'Women Paint Too' poster which we plan to present to the NG. Some nice pics here
https://twitter.com/ArtforAllbyAll/status/1687149001789902859?s=20

https://twitter.com/ArtforAllbyAll/status/1687149001789902859?s=20

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page