Art Lovers discussion

"When it comes to the representation of women artists in major art institutions, the figures are quite bleak: according to the National Museum of Women in the Arts, work by female artists makes up only three to five per cent of major permanent collections in the US and Europe, and women around the world continue to face significant barriers to success within the arts sector. But a number of high-profile institutions are actively attempting to redress gender disparity in their collections, exhibitions, and leadership."

Topics included in this article:

~Uffizi galleries to host major solo exhibitions of female artists

~The Museo del Prado stages its first solo exhibition of a female painter

~Tate devotes more gallery space to female artists

~The rise of women museum directors

~Blockbuster retrospectives for women artists in New York

~Women artists win big in 2016’s art prizes

https://www.apollo-magazine.com/thing...

An article from today (references are to the U.S.):

"Gender Gap Persists at Largest Museums"

- just one of the nation’s 13 largest museums is run by a woman

Women today are nearing equity over all, leading 48 percent of art museums, up from 43 percent three years ago. A gender gap persists, however, at the largest museums — those with budgets of $15 million and higher, where just 30 percent have female directors. And as the budgets grow, the ranks of women thin, with just three women heading the 20 largest-budget institutions in the association.

"The study does show that women now run 54 percent of the small and midsize museums with budgets under $15 million and make almost equal pay in those jobs as men, just 2 percent less."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/22/ar...

Thanks for posting these articles! Very interesting. At least there are some minor improvements compared to the dismal history of women artists from the previous centuries. Still a looong way to go!
I had an assignment this past semester that required that I went to view a work of a woman artist. I was virtually impossible to find a piece that was pre-1900, and still difficult to find a more recent one. Completely ridiculous! Grrrrr!

Haaze wrote: "Thanks for posting these articles! Very interesting. At least there are some minor improvements compared to the dismal history of women artists from the previous centuries. Still a looong way to go..."

That is sad.

Haaze wrote: "Thanks for posting these articles! Very interesting. At least there are some minor improvements compared to the dismal history of women artists from the previous centuries. Still a looong way to go..."

I think with this in mind, it really does inspire when you do see the work of famous women in fine art from earlier dates. Artemisia Gentileschi (not only an Italian Baroque painter but an incredibly successful one - 1593-c.1656) will forever remain an inspiration for that.

https://www.theartnewspaper.com/news/...
This more recent report from 2019 provides further figures, and the Guerrilla Girls have been running a project this year to compare the number of represented female artists in the gallery space compared to the number of female nudes in those same spaces.

I'll stick some articles and whatnot to these below, it would be interesting to share thoughts on these.

https://www.theartnewspaper.com/news/... = Article about the project.
https://www.themalegraze.com/gg/museu... = The current museum count from the project.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTzPx... = Youtube video by the Gorilla Girls on the project itself (obligatory content and trigger warning for themes of rape, abuse and violence talked about within).


I would love to hear other thoughts on this project, as I feel that context needs to really be taken into account when dealing with contemporary art and artists, versus historical art and artists. Are the figures from major collections which include historical art (a time where men dominated the profession) accurately reflective of that year's contemporary artists? Furthermore, the nude form is a staple tradition of classical art, with the naked male form being abundant in Ancient Greece in both heroic and sexualised ways. Richard Leppert in his 2007 book 'The Nude: The Cultural Rhetoric of the Body in the Art of Western Modernity' highlights how Art History tended to ignore the sexuality of the male nude, instead focusing on the form and composition. Does this tell us more about the person viewing and analysing the work?

I'd be interested to explore instead the disparity between the naked male form as active or passive, versus the naked female form as active or passive in their given portrayals (with their given cultural context in mind).

This article from Frieze in 2019 is probably my favourite article on the matter, which I feel best reflects the UK's Contemporary Art scene: https://www.frieze.com/article/whats-...

Again, I look forward to seeing what other people think!