The article “Why Have There been no Great Women Artists” by Linda Nochlin was first published in Woman in Sexist Society: Studies in Power and Powerlessness in 1971 and later in ArtNews. The article is reprinted regularly since then, including in Nochlin's book, “Women, Art, and Power and Other Essays.” Linda Nochlin is one of the well-known feminist scholars and an art historian. She is one of the first art historians to explore the reasons behind the male dominance in the art world, and lack of recognition for the women artists and their work. This article analyzes the institution of art, its policies and practices, and provides substantial evidence that it is not lack of talent, but lack of institutional support, and gender inequality were the primary reasons for the women artists not attaining the same kind of greatness as their male counterparts.
Nochlin sets the tone of the article in the beginning by stating the position she will be taking with respect to analyzing the reason behind the question, “Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?” She establishes and provides a historical analysis, and not a typical feminist or emotional response. Nochlin claims that a typical feminist response would be a defensive response that would try to answer the question with supportive evidence of worthy great women artists, rather than question the underlying assumptions that contributed to the disparity. Nochlin adopts an approach that addresses the fundamental differences between the privileges and values accorded to men and women by the society and social structure through the ages, and how the differences led to the lack of great women artists.
Contemporary feminists answer the question by asserting that there is a different kind of “greatness” associated with feminine art compared to masculine art. Since women’s experience and situation in society is different, it is plausible that there could be a formal and expressive style that could be identified as feminine art that consciously unites the work of a group of women artists. Even though Nochlin agrees that the feminine style could be different, she rejects the explanation that “feminine art is different” based on the fact that a distinctive and well-known feminine style that links women artists still has not occurred, despite there being many women artists through the ages. For example, Cubists are a group of artists that have a distinct style associated with them.
To feminists and art historians that argue that all feminine art is more inward looking, delicate, and nuanced, Nochlin provides examples of several works of women artists such as Artemesia Gentileschi, Rosa Bonheur, Bethe Morisot, and Angelica Kaufman that defies the argument. Nochlin rightfully states that there is no single feminine style that unifies the work of all the women artists listed. The style of women artists work is more similar to their contemporary male artists rather to each other’s style. Nochlin’s statement “ Certainly if daintiness, delicacy, and preciousness are to be counted as earmarks of feminine style, there is nothing feminine about Rosa Bonheur’s Horse Fair” provides a strong example that contradicts the argument that women artists have what is called a “feminine’ style.
Nochlin postulates that feminists’ assertions about feminine style art could be based on a naïve conception that art is “the direct, personal expression of individual emotional experience – a translation of personal life into visual terms.” According to Nochlin, great art involves a “self-consistent language of form, more or less dependent upon, or free form, given temporally-defined conventions, schemata, or systems of notation, which have to be learned or worked out, through study, apprenticeship, or a long period of experimentation.” Nochlin’s definition of art is the basis that she uses throughout the article to support the argument that lack of institutional support is the primary reason for lack of great women artists and not the lack of art genius qualities in women artists.
Nochlin debunks the myth of art genius by strong supporting arguments. She argues that the male artists are born great as an exception rather than a fact. Art historians have traditionally promoted great artists such as Monet, Courbet, Filippo Lippi, Pousin, Picasso, and Michelangelo as child prodigies with innate ability for art, and never questioned the training they received under the masters or other social influences that made them great artists. Nochlin states that the art historian monographs accept the theory of golden nugget of genius, which postulates the notion of great artist as primary, and the social and institutional structures he lived and worked were merely secondary. However, when the social and structural influences and circumstances through the ages are analyzed, it can be seen that there were many factors that made these artists great.
Nochlin delves into the details regarding the institutional disadvantages women faced, to answer the question “why have there been no great women artists.” Art traditionally was a profession that was passed down from father to son. Many great artists throughout the art history periods had fathers or relatives who trained them in art. Nochlin provides the examples of Holbein, Diirer, Rapheal, Bernini from the past, and Picasso and Braque of recent times as artists who had artist fathers. The fathers who were artists rarely trained their daughters in art with a few exceptions such as Lavinia Fontana. Women were not admitted into art institutions where masters trained their pupils. Art production required a lot of time commitment. Women who had devote a lot of time to take care of their families or attend all the social functions required of them, probably could not dedicate the time required for art production. Even women who did produce art either by teaching themselves or training under family members, they were not able to sell their art because they were generally not allowed to be members of art guilds.
Nochlin provides a strong argument regarding the fewer educational opportunities presented to women to enable them to become great artists. In order to become great in visual art, an artist needed specific training and experience. One integral part of art training is learning how to draw the nude, a practice that was denied to women. The ability to draw a nude was also essential part of any production of artwork that was considered great. Women were also excluded from the apprenticeship system, which Nochlin says was “almost the only key to success” in art education, especially in France.
To support the non-availability of nudes for female artists argument, Nochlin provides strong evidence through survey of contemporary representations of life drawing sessions. All male clientele drawing from the female nude in Rembrandt’s studio, men working from the male nude in the eighteenth century academy; modeling and painting from the male nude in the Vienna Academy from mid-eighteenth century; and Mathieu Cochereau’s “Interior of David’s Studio”, that depicts a group of young men diligently working the male nude model, are provided as examples, to name a few. Nochlin asserts, “to be deprived of this ultimate state of training is to be deprived of the possibility of creating great art”, which is a very valid statement and is the fundamental reason for lack of great women artists.
Nochlin backs up the institutional discrimination against women by providing statistical information regarding the educational background women artists in the middle of nineteenth century. Even though a third of the artists were women, none of them attended the major stepping stone to artistic success, the ficole des Beaux-Arts, only 7 percent had received a Salon medal, and none had received the Legion of Honor. To emphasize the importance of institutional impact on great artists, Nochlin draws a parallel to the field of Literature explaining women’s success in that field: there are no fundamental techniques that one has to learn in a formal setting in order to become proficient and great in writing poetry or novels. Since women were not excluded from any type of education institutionally, there was more equality, which allowed women to become great writers.
The article is very important because it served as an important impetus for the rediscovery of women artists and a change in the methods used by art historians in evaluating works by women artists. Nochlin proves that there have been no great women artists due to institutional, not individual reasons. She provides credible historical evidence that supports her analysis, and answers the question by addressing the problem at the institutional level.