Women in art

"Less than 5% of the artists in the Met's modern section are women, but 85% of the nudes were". This statistic is taken from a recent article in Felix about women in the (visual) arts world. The article is questioning why so few paintings by women are exhibited in art galleries around the world. I found the article really interesting, and so I set about recording the little I know about this matter.

Historically, most great painters are male. The article quotes an art historian from New York University to say what I could have told you: the reason that historically there are less great women painters is the same that accounts for less great women scientists, writers or thinkers: painting, doing science, writing and thinking weren't women's "roles". Most women weren't educated, most women weren't expected to pursue art, or literature or philosophy, and when they did, their work was often rejected or they took male names in order to publish/exhibit it (there is a possibility that our lack of evidence for female artists stems from the fact that artists that we assume to be male are actually females in "disguise", although I don't put much stock in this theory: most likely, a woman had to be very brave, very insistent, very willing to break with tradition, and very, very lucky to be able to train as an artist, if she was allowed to train she was probably allowed to exhibit). In summary, the reason there are few great women painters in history is because historically there have been very few women painters at all.

However, the statistic given above doesn't deal with women's role in art, but with women's role in modern art, where one might expect a more egalitarian distribution of paintings between the sexes. The article discusses the many explanations that have been given to try to explain the statistic above. The first one is the theory of the "male gaze". The reason there are so many female nudes in galleries worldwide is because as a society we look at the world (and by extension, we look at art) from a heterosexual male perspective, thus finding the female form especially aesthetically pleasing. This would certainly explain why there are more female nudes in galleries (and quite honestly, I am inclined to agree that the female form is more beautiful than the male form, even though this means I can't quite explain why I find men a lot more attractive), but I fail to understand why it would explain that there are less women artists. The author says that the explanation would be that women artists don't have the male point of view so they can't connect with their public in the same way as male artists. However, this argument falls flat, not because women have explored the female form (as the author argues) but for a more simple reason: if as a society we all (men and women) look at art from a heterosexual male point of view, then surely women don't lack this point of view at all, and female artists should be perfectly capable of creating from this "male gaze" way of seeing the world and resonate perfectly well with audiences. In conclusion, even though I agree with the author that the "male gaze" theory doesn't explain the statistic, I disagree on his reasons. The fact that women have painted nudes but are still less represented isn't a good argument against the male gaze (after all, the way women choose to represent themselves or others of they gender might be significantly different from the way men would), but the fact that if we accept that the "male gaze" exists for the whole of society then it must exist for women painters too is a far stronger logical argument that leads to the same conclusion: the exclusion of women artists from galleries has little to do with how they see the world. The male gaze might explain, however, why there are so many more female nudes.

I think in the previous paragraph I have hit on a central point: I am writing as though the people who appreciates art, or who have power in terms of appreciating art, are an even group composed of 50% men and 50% women. And even though access to art and to art schools has become more egalitarian during the 20th and the 21st century (in fact, according to the article, 60% of art students are currently women), it is important to say that there is a possibility that the cause of the "male gaze" effect is that the people making the decisions in the industry are male. This doesn't necessarily imply a "club", but it does imply that if there is a difference in the way men and women appreciate art, then whichever sex has the money will be the sex whose views are more represented. Of course, this is what the article finishes by arguing, that men are the ones controlling the industry and this is why we see more art by men. I don't know if this is true. I can't know if this is true. It is an explanation. However, this would mean that men and women have essentially different ways of seeing the world, or seeing art. That our appreciation of beauty, of transcendence is fundamentally different. In other words, if this is true, it means that men and women are different, and that there is no reconciliation, that I will never understand the way a man sees the world because I am a woman. I refuse to accept this, probably because I am a reader. I refuse to accept that Kipling wrote Kim for men, and that I can't understand it because I am a woman. I would much rather accept that Kipling wrote Kim for pleasure, to show other people the world as he saw it, and that if I can't understand parts of it it has more to do with the fact that Kipling grew up in India in the 19th century and understood the country better than I can ever hope to. I refuse to accept that Salman Rushdie can never understand Harry Potter, because it was written by a woman, even though he was a huge fan of the books. I refuse to accept that my father can't understand my short stories because he is a man, or that I can't understand his because I am a woman. No, I think we are all people, and we can understand each other, and that this understanding has a lot more to do with culture and upbringing than it does with sex or gender.

So what gives? As much as I hate to admit it, the feeling I get from reading the article and thinking about it is this: the reason there are more men artists than women artists is because there is a prejudice against women artists, a prejudice that is also attached to women writers and thinkers, and to a much lesser extent to women scientists, that their work is less valuable because it was done by a woman. The feeling is that it has little to do with the work itself, and that here, in the world of art, where beauty should be appreciated beyond who created it, an instance of ingrained sexism appears clear.

And yes, I hate to admit it. I hate to admit it because I have grown up thinking that I have never been discriminated against for being a girl. I hate admitting it because I like to think that the people I talk to don't have this ingrained attitude. I hate to admit it because I usually don't believe feminists when they are loud about women being hated.

I don't know what can be done about it. But I am thankful to Fred Fyles for the article. It's made me think. It's made me reconsider my views on a topic that I thought I had more or less clear views on.