There have been great women artist, but mostly in recent times. Throughout history, that role was predestined for men. For a woman to be an artist meant that she should have her free will, stubbornness and dedicate her time to art, instead of having domestic life of a wife and a mother. Woman's role in society has from the ancient times been of a person of weaker sex who is supposed to take care of others, her family. There have been exceptions to this, but very rare to the point of Joan of Arc being rare. Such women, who had a zest for creating artworks were considered masculine.
Femininity means that women should live as subtle and fragile beings who need someone to take care of them. Even today, when women formally have the same rights as men, they are treated as less capable of anything. Women are naturally created to give birth and that is why they are essentially regarded as mothers and caregivers, individuals with a role to bring up new generations instead of focusing on her own personal growth and development.
Genetically speaking, women stop being physically capable of having children much before men and that may be the cause why they are urged to get married in a younger age and have a family with children. That is considered "normal". If a woman would want to dedicate her youth to creating art, than other, naturally predestined roles in her life would be put under question.
"John Stuart Mill suggested, we tend to accept whatever is as natural, this is just as true in the realm of academic investigation as it is in our social arrangements" (Nochlin 1). Because of this, revolutions are very rare and take a lot of time to happen. Something has to provoke them. However, women's role in society still hasn't changed much after so many centuries. They are equal to men, but are paid less for the same jobs and there are less women, not only artists, but women in leadership positions. Even those who are successfull as such are considered to be more masculine than feminine.
Some people may think that the answer to this question is that women are incapable of greatness (Nochlin 2). That, of course is not scientifically proven and therefore has to be dismissed. There is also another answer that there is a different kind of "greatness" for women's art than for men's (Nochlin 3). This answer is also incomplete, although it may be true to some extent because women and men differ in so many things physiologically and psychologically.
There is also a parallel between aristocrats and women. "The amount of time necessarily devoted to social functions, the very kinds of activities demanded simply made total devotion to profession out of the question" (Nochlin 11). This brings us back to the predestined, "natural" role of women as housekeepers. While men could have children and be artists, or not have children, but have mistresses, women have always been thought of socially acceptable provided that they are married with children.
Throughout history there has also been a lot of hypocrisy, women were allowed to pose nude for painting students and female painters were forbidden to paint nude male models. This was essential for a trainee to become a painter. Women were deprived of this basic right and therefore didn't have the same rights as their male colleagues.
In literature, however, there were Emily Bronte and Emily Dickinson, but they didn't have their equalsin the visual arts (Nochlin 15).
In the middle of the 19th century there was a book of advice to women, called The Family Monitor and Domestic Guide written by Mrs. Elis in which she suggested that women should not excel in anything. They should know a little bit of everything, but nothing too much. Mrs. Ellis encouraged painting because it was considered quiet art, but only as a hobby (Nochlin 15-16).
There were great women artists such as Marietta Robusti, Lavinia Fontana, Artemisia Gentileschi, Elizabeth Cheron, Mme. Vigee Lebrun and Angelica Kauffmann in the 19th century, but they were all daughters of artists, and those who were not, married artists (Nochlin 19).
Rosa Bonheur was an influential woman artist in the 19th century. She achieved fame and was very successful. She mostly painted animals and had to study them. Therefore she wore mostly male clothes and cut her hair short. She never got married and thought of marriage as imprisonment. Her freedom meant everything to her. She had a female companion and that fulfilled her as a social being in addition to being a painter (Nochlin 19-23).
The society has never progressed technically as it is in the modern world, yet still the old social habits remain the same. Women sacrifice their talent in order to be socially accepted. Some things have changed, but not essentially. It is important to make a balance between personal and professional life. Women and men do differ, but not in the sense that women are less talented and they need to become aware of that. People should be encouraged to fulfill their internal needs throughout their whole lives. That is what matters in life. Happiness is crucial. Sacrifice has to be made, but not at the expense of happiness because there is enough time for everything if a person is without prejudice and well-organized.
Works Cited:
Extract from Women, Art and Power and Other Essays, Westview Press, 1988 by Linda Nochlin, pp. 147-158
