Level Playing Field?

[Margaret Port]

If you can get hold of a copy of this book it makes for very interesting reading.

Germaine Greer wrote a book called
The Obstacle Race: The Fortunes of Women Painters and Their Work,
which was published in 1979. This work details the life and experiences of female painters until the end of the nineteenth century. It also speculates on the existence of women artists whose careers are not recorded by posterity.

I have been signing all my work with my initial and last name for years. I also don't use my photo in advertising blurb. May be paranoid, after all the last Archibald winner in Australia was a woman who painted herself with her two children.

[Alexandra Tyng]

Margaret, I read The Obstacle Race when I was in my twenties and it opened my eyes. At the time, as I said, I didn't think any of it applied to me--how could it in this age of liberation? But I remember becoming determined not to fall into any of the destructive patterns described by Germaine Greer. I've often thought I lack the "worship" gene, but now I'm thinking it was the influence of that book which steered me away from unproductive situations and attitudes. I would recommend it to any artist.

Richard, thanks for your thoughts on the matter. I cannot agree with you more that art should be judged entirely on its own merit.

Carol, I always have signed my work with "AT" and the date. I never thought to question why, but I think it started when I was a child and someone (maybe my father) told me to initial everything I drew. Old habits die hard!

[Julie Deane]

Alex, I'm not familiar with the book, hence not familiar with "worship gene". But, let me guess, and tell me if I am right or wrong: young women artists who "worship" some older male artist and his work? To the point that it interferes with their own artistic growth?

If so, I'd guess that it would be a term that means beyond the normal mentor/mentoree relationship...it would mean in a destructive sense.

Maybe I'm way off track....just curious.

[Alexandra Tyng]

Julie, that is absolutely what I meant by the "worship gene!"

Actually I don't know if I just heard it said somewhere, but I don't think Greer uses that particular term in her book. I have a feeling you would like it, Julie. It's scholarly, but a good read, very entertaining.

[Richard Bingham]

Originally Posted by Julie Deane

. . . beyond the normal mentor/mentoree relationship...it would mean in a destructive sense . . .

I think that's cartainly what happened to Rose Bueret (sp?). Thomas Eakins and Maxfield Parrish also seem to have had a deleterious effect on the "sweet young thangs" who became entangled with them.

I suppose it's academic to speculate whether Elizabeth Gardner would have had a stellar career producing work that was new and visually divergent from Bouguereau's - her work is well-nigh indistinguishable from his . . . ?

Nurturing/mentoring, or "smothering" ?

[Michael Fournier]

I am not shocked to hear that Male artist still get higher rates then Women although I am saddened by it.

I would say that Artist like Nelson Shanks, Everett Raymond Kinstler, Richard Schmid, John H. Sanden, Robert Bruce Williams make much higher rates then even Most other male artist and it may be still a hold over from years past as the top earners in the portrait and Art world are male artist that have been around a long time. (not to slight women who have been around as long I am just hoping that today's men are not continuing the old boy networks of the past)

But I also do not know what the stats are for artist of equal experience and age male vs female. and of course talent is a objective thing so although you would expect artists producing equally great work to get equal rates and sale price on the art market who judges the quality?.

Also who your clients (or collectors) are has a lot to do with how much you can charge and that all other things being equal has a lot to do your network and marketing. John H. Sanden, in his article about Robert Bruce Williams touched on this subject.

Also I do not want to get all philosophical or Freudian but we may find that even with just as many women reaching high level careers today as men that as humans it may still take many more years of evolution to shake the intrenched and outdated gender roles established over hundreds of years.
(not that the art world was ever exclusive to men)
It may also be years of evolution have prepared males to fight for what if not more then they deserve while women may just expect that they will be rightly compensated based on the work. I am not saying women do not fight for what they want but psychologists have done studies that have reveled some evidence to back this theory. These studies have also shown that it is not just overt sexual discrimination by men against women. As studies have been done that even in companies headed by female ceos, male executives still seem to get the higher salaries and move up that corporate ladder faster then women. Even when it is other women making the decisions on who gets hired and for how much.

I do not doubt that this is happening and I hope this ends soon (as my wife makes more then I do so I would love it if she would get recognized for her work and make even more) . But at least in one area of the Arts Women Rule and that is in the music recording industry. Artist like Lady gaga to Celine Dion are top earners.

I also think woman only shows IS NOT the answer as I feel making a distinction between male artist and female artist only works to strengthen possible prejudices between art created by men and that produced by women. In trying to promote women artist through these female only shows may in fact strengthen preconceived notions of value. Subconsciously it is kind of like saying that the art is good but only in context to other women
artist. Kind of like WNBA vs NBA sure those women can play some ball but they are no Lebron James. I do not share that perception (I hope I don't anyway) But I may on a Subconscious level be doing it as when I look back at the top Artist I mentioned I could not off the top of my head come up with a women to list as a contemporary of those male artist so maybe I too am as much at fault even though I do not want to be.

[Michael Fournier]

Originally Posted by Richard Bingham

I think that's cartainly what happened to Rose Bueret (sp?). Thomas Eakins and Maxfield Parrish also seem to have had a deleterious effect on the "sweet young thangs" who became entangled with them.

I suppose it's academic to speculate whether Elizabeth Gardner would have had a stellar career producing work that was new and visually divergent from Bouguereau's - her work is well-nigh indistinguishable from his . . . ?

Nurturing/mentoring, or "smothering" ?

Lets not for get Camille Claudel who was dismissed as Rodin's Mistress yet she may even have completed much of Rodin's own work never mind not getting Any recognition of her own.