Considering the ways in which feminist interventions in art history have developed our understanding of the genres of portraiture and history painting.
Neil Young
Considering the ways in which feminist interventions in art history have developed our understanding of the genres of portraiture and history painting.
Our understanding of the genres of portraiture and history painting is, I will show, greatly enhanced by feminist interventions in art history. From feminist writers, such as Linda Nochlin and Griselda Pollock, we gain pathways into examining the history of art in a much greater and all-encompassing depth. I will consider here the kinds of interventions feminists to the development of our understanding of art. However, it is notable that female artists from the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries were in no sense 'feminists', and any interventions they made must be related to the social, cultural and aesthetic ideals of the time; the kind of methods the later feminist movement provided. I will, then, consider for the most part of this essay the issues of gender, in relation to the genres of portraiture and history painting, that are relevant throughout the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and are instrumental influence in the development of portraiture and history painting.
At the beginning of the sixteenth century certain structures were beginning to form that recognised particular standards of artistic practices. Strict rules were developing over how the genres were to be practised (following, King notes, ('What Women can Make, Book 3,pp.60-85) the fifteenth century publication of Alberti's Della Pittura). This coming together of definite aesthetic principles really materialised in the development of the academies in the seventeenth century. The academies had helped to develop a liberalisation of art and provided a standard of art that remained dominant throughout the period concerned (Walsh, 'Charles Le Brun, 'art dictator of France'', Book 1, pp. 86-120). Art became a learned occupation (as opposed to manual craft). By the end of the seventeenth century, the academies had established a solid hierarchical codification of the genres (Ibid. p. 93). History painting and portraiture were the most high-esteemed with their figurative (human), religious, mythological or literal (and allegorical) subject matter; subjects that were conducive to the imaginative and intellectual values associated with the standing ideals. The wide currency these values received throughout the western world is solidly established as part of the history and development of art from manual craft to intellectual liberal art. The genres of portraiture and history painting (c.16c.-18c.), then, are part of this process, and were firmly established genres with strict rules as to their execution.
However, the twentieth century has re-evaluated our understanding of the history of art. As Edwards notes in his introduction to 'gender and Art' (Art and its Histories: A Reader, p.137), certain feminist writers mark an important stage in exploring some of the assumptions that underlie our perception of art history. Linda Nochlin provides an essential look into 'Why have there been No Great Women Artists?' (re-printed in Edwards, pp.152-161) - great artists being those whom stand out as autonomous exemplars of canonical progress (i.e. Raphael, Poussin) as exemplified in the art historical methods of Vasari and Van Mander. Nochlin argues that to answer such a question one needs not to supply examples of 'insufficiently appreciated women artists' (Ibid. p. 154). Nor supply a different kind of greatness for women. But to examine exactly what the assumptions of great art were and then ask why women were not able to achieve this status, enabling the art historian to examine closely the sum of forces that provided the development of art and its genres.
In looking, therefore, at the whole process of artistic production between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries - or the 'total situation of art making' (Nochlin, in Edwards, p.161) - rather than the autonomous activity of certain 'great' artists as individuals, we can chart the development of the genres much more accurately and truthfully by taking in their contextual foundations. And by examining issues such as gender, which could - amongst other issues - create or hinder a person's ability to make great art (or art at all), we can delve deeper into the whole production of art during ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
In looking, therefore, at the whole process of artistic production between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries - or the 'total situation of art making' (Nochlin, in Edwards, p.161) - rather than the autonomous activity of certain 'great' artists as individuals, we can chart the development of the genres much more accurately and truthfully by taking in their contextual foundations. And by examining issues such as gender, which could - amongst other issues - create or hinder a person's ability to make great art (or art at all), we can delve deeper into the whole production of art during this period. Something, we have seen, that is advocated by Nochlin, and furthered by Pollock in her Feminist Interventions in the Histories of Art (re-printed in Art History and its Methods, Fernie, pp.296-313), where she argues that the criteria laid down for great art is a criteria laid down by men for men, and it is the art historians job to reveal, not overlook, these structural biases in the development of art (Fernie, p.296).
In revealing the structures behind the strict rules which governed the genres during this period, we begin to see the kind of interventions women could, or could not, make in the development of them. This structure was not however purely aesthetic, but also socially and politically inclined. It was embedded with certain assumptions that the most superior art forms (that is the most intellectual and imaginative) were appropriate only to male artists, men being more publicly predisposed, better educated and 'useful'. This growing sense of the 'gendering of the genres' (King, Ibid., p.60) meant that whilst men could actively pursue any genre and gain an exclusive academic training, women - far less educated, and therefore lacking in the scholastic abilities to reach the high levels of the greatest art (see King, Made in Her Image, Book3, p.34) - were not so free to choose. Women's rights to education and commerce in fact were restricted to the level of second-class citizen (Ibid.). They were commonly believed to be dependent on men, and belonging only to the private sphere of the household, as opposed to the public sphere more suited to men (Ibid. p.36). Women were also excluded from the academies and prevented from studying life models on the grounds that it was an affront to the 'modesty of their sex' (Barker, Book 3, p.110).
Considering these general cultural representations of gender difference, women were undeniably limited in their artistic output and this can take us some way to understanding why women had little say in the development of portraiture and history painting, in a biographical, linear (and masculine) approach. The inequalities of the genders then, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, generally produced the assumption that women were in fact incapable of producing high quality art due to their natural needs and attributes. Their traditional association with craft and decoration (i.e. needlework and tapestry) would have been considered limiting to the intellectual pursuits of the academies. King's gendering of the genres then reveals that only certain genres were suitable to women whilst men were free to aim higher, and through their non-scholarly associations were also, at first, prevented from entering the academies. These historical conditions, Perry discusses (Book 3, p.88) effected the way women produced art, and the way art was produced per se, and helps us, in its broad investigations, chart the development of the genres in a much more socially and politically realistic way.
With this limited access to academic training and the life drawing skills prerequisite to the humanistic elements of history painting, women were associated with the lower genres such as still-lives and portraiture. Yet even within these genres women were restricted as to their subject matter. Although men had made portraits advertising their skills for many years in whatever way they felt necessary, as Rosa does in 1662, for example, by presenting himself as an allegory of talent (Plate 64, Book 2, p.84) , women were to present themselves in a way so that they are not advertising themselves as available (following the common objectification of the female body for man's use). So when we look at portraits by women, of women, in the sixteenth century we see images of women formally dressed (revealing little flesh) and formally posed, and in self-portraits often in the act of painting, frequently with inscriptions, to clearly present themselves a capable artists. Anguissola's self-portrait of 1554 (Book 3, Plate 23) is a perfect example where she offers herself 'buttoned-up' and stiffly postured. Yet, the painting itself is very plain. The common expectations of female portraiture was to represent women's decorative and feminine qualities (Perry, Book 3, p.17). Qualities we would see in a painting like Borch's A Woman Playing a Theabo to Two Men, c.1667 (Book 1, Plate 112), or as an object of visual (masculine) use (as in the allegories common to the period where women were used to personify many characteristics or goddesses). This plainness though exhibits the idea that women clearly were not perceiving themselves in this stereotypical way, and indeed saw themselves as much more capable, and less inclined to be seen as a male visual treats, than would have been commonly expected.
With a growing female presence in the art world it becomes apparent that women become much more consciously aware of their position and their abilities. In Fontana's self-portrait of 1579 (Book 3, Plate 32) she introduces herself not as painting, but in contradictory pose of feminine elegance alongside scholarly (masculine) knowledge. This is emphasised by the inclusion of classical statuettes behind her, the realism, the use of perspective and the circular shape of the painting (the circle being recognised as a perfect geometric figure, see King, Book 3, p.53). King further argues that she subverts the dominance of the common male objectification of women by fragmenting the male body. Although considering the historical reality I would read it as an 'acceptable' way of depicting the study of the male nude in a male dominant society; that is, not by looking at a nude body (deemed inappropriate), but by examining the parts and then re-assembling them herself which itself shows skill and imagination.
This growing awareness of the ability to make art amidst its limitation creates, for women, opportunities to develop their own iconography. By using traditionally accepted standards of representations in their available genres (and portraiture being the highest available to them) women were able to employ techniques that enabled them to stretch the limits of their status. Remembering the great emphasis on imagination and allegory of the current value system, we can see how some female artists attempt to develop their opportunities. Gentileschi's Self-Portrait as La Pittura of 1630 (Book 3, Plate 38) shows, again, the artist painting, but on a closer inspection it is noticeable that her hair is unkempt, she is in an active (rather than the passive 'posing' we saw earlier) pose, wearing a gold chain. These are all attributes of painting itself, as described by Ripa in his Iconologia (1593). Gentileschi is presenting herself as absorbed completely in the act of painting - ignoring the need to be seen in any 'feminine' light. She signifies the mental concentration, the act of total devotion to her art whilst using the masculine intellectual and imaginative methods of allegory within the structure of portraiture (and taking advantage of the feminine gender of la pittura, see Book 2, p.83). In developing the genre of portraiture then women can be seen as creating for themselves advantages that would otherwise be restricted to them, and help raise the level of portraiture to learned and allegorical standards. It is, however, the female artists awareness of her role, and her ability to challenge those gender associations where we can argue, the greatest progress lies.
Women's attempts to cross the gender divide, and negotiate the prejudices of this period, did not stop at portraiture. We can see that from around the early seventeenth century female painters were depicting the female body in a much greater historical sense. Fontana painted the mythological theme of Minerva in 1613 (Book 3, Plate 50). The picture presents a near life-size portrayal of a nude women dressing and arming herself, as the title suggests. Her nakedness however is modest, and any reference to genitalia is disguised in the rather coy turning of the body. This may have been a necessary procedure to ensure the male gaze would not immediately see the painting as anything erotic. Yet although the women appears submissive and unthreatening Fontana includes in the image many challenges to gender assumptions. She is in the private world of her room, yet the darkness of that room (a possible metaphor for the limitations of female assumptions) is relieved of its denseness by the open door revealing the outside (public) sphere. The owl's eyes stand out in the darkness and represent the sagacious 'seeing' of the artists in relation to the gender associations. This mixture of allegory and mythological subject was regarded, King claims (Book 3, p.75), as the 'loftiest' mode of representation in the seventeenth century, and here Fontana uses it not only to challenge the masculine assumption that this type of painting was not suitable to women, but also to claim her awareness of the female stereotype as myopic.
History painting continued to be practicesdpracticed by women artists such as Kauffman, Moser and Vigée-Lebrun throughout the period using the academic standards of the day. In comparing Kaufman's Zeuxis (Book 3, Plate 71) with Poussin's The Arcadian Shepherds (Book 1, Plate 10), we can easily see many resemblances in style. Both present a mythological scene with idealised figures posed within a narrative situation, wearing similar clothes. Kauffman's colours are more muted and monochrome, but the scene is indoors with little natural light. It is clear women had made full use of the criteria set out for creating great art. They had also begun, in the eighteenth century to be accepted into the academies (although still excluded from the life-class) (Barker, Book 3, p.109-10) and their work was indeed praised publicly for its style (see Anon. Memoires Secrets (1784), in Edwards, pp.138-42). But even when unquestionably historical and academic in style, we get from this salon review a sense of continuing male domination. Although impressively popular, a Painting such as Vigée-Lebrun's Peace Bringing Back Abundance of 1780 (considered in this salon review) is still acclaimed for its skill in creating seductive (female) images, as is the importance of the image of the artist herself: 'a young and pretty women' (Ibid. p. 139). What this does show is that a woman artist in the eighteenth century was able to produce historical art in a masculine style, overcoming the dominant structures and stereotypes of the time (although still criticised for still not being masculine enough - her handling of paint too soft and an artificiality coming from her bright (feminine) colours, see Barker, Book 3, p.120).
Women artists, then, proved they were capable of creating art at a similar level to their male contemporaries, challenging the assumptions that were prevalent in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and still dominant in the eighteenth in spite of the continued gender convictions. This continual challenge to (masculine) convention and gender associations with decoration and craft, and the inability to think liberally presents a continued development of the concepts behind the production of the genres of portraiture and history painting. Like Mill's famous argument in On Liberty, it is the constant questioning of assumed convention that maintains a healthy progress in a liberal society, and prevents principles becoming 'dead dogma' (Mill, p.59). And that is how women artist of the sixteenth , seventeenth and eighteenth centuries have developed these genres. Any understanding of the genres, it seems, is never an absolute fact, but a continued and constant re-evaluation, and this is where the feminist intervention has helped us develop our own evolving understandings of it.ge
Therefore, through a constant challenging of assumptions, stereotypes and convention between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries, women artists helped develop the genres of portraiture and history painting. But further, the later feminist intervention - as seen in Nochlin and Pollock - develop our understanding of them by directing our art historical methods to the more contextual approach that leads to, and encompasses, a much greater depth of understanding that would otherwise be available.
Bibliography
* Book 2. The Changing Status of the Artist. Edited by Emma Barker, Nick Webb, and Kim Woods. Yale University press in association with The Open University, 1999.
* Book 3. Gender and Art. Edited by Gill Perry. Yale University press in association with The Open University, 1999. Including King, Perry, Walsh, Barker and Plates.
* Study Handbook 3.Gender and Art. Gill Perry. The Open University, 1999. For The Open University course A216, Art and its Histories.
* Edwards, Steve (ed.). Art and its Histories. Yale University Press, in association with The Open University. 1999.
* Fernie, Eric. Art History and its Methods; A Critical Anthology. Phaidon Press Limited, 2003ed.
* Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty and Other Essays. Oxford World Classic Series, Oxford University Press, 1998.
N.Young.R5705366/A216/03
