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. Linda Nochlin is one of the well-known feminist scholars, and highly accomplished 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 at the individual level, 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 her position with respect to analyzing the reasons behind the question, “Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?” She establishes that she will provide a historical analysis, and not a typical feminist or emotional response. 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 tend to answer the posed 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 than that of men, it is plausible that there could be a formal and expressive style that could be identified as feminine art, which 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. 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 from feminists regarding the existence of a “feminine” style.
Nochlin argues that 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.” As per 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.” This definition of art is the basis that Nochlin uses throughout the article to support the argument that lack of institutional training, is the primary reason for lack of great women artists. It is not lack what art historians call “art genius” qualities in women artists that prevent them from producing great art.
Nochlin debunks the myth of male art genius by strong supporting arguments. The traditional art historian thought that the male artists are born great with ability for art, is as an exception rather than the rule for great art. Art historians typically promote great artists such as Monet, Courbet, 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. However, when the social and structural influences and circumstances through the ages are analyzed, it can be seen that there were many factors besides the so-called innate greatness that made these artists great.
Nochlin further delves into the details regarding the institutional disadvantages women faced that prevented them from becoming great 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, Raphael, Bernini from the past, and Picasso and Braque of recent times as artists who had artist fathers. Women were not admitted into art institutions where masters trained their pupils. Art production required a lot of time commitment, which women were not able to devote due to family and social obligations.
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; 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 of 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. 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. In Literature, there are no fundamental techniques that one has to learn in a formal setting in order to become proficient to be 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.
Nochlin states that this relatively level playing field in areas other than art still did not allow for many great female novelists or poets because of the ever-present feminine mystique. Women who were encouraged not to be great on any one thing by etiquette authors since that would be considered unfeminine and un-marriageable. A woman’s whole life was supposed to be devoted to her husband, her home, and her children. Even in the current times, some aspects of feminine mystique still exist.
Nochlin also provides examples of some successful women artists and in particular Rosa Bonheur. The few women artists who have attained a level of greatness did it with the help of artistic influence from a male. Women artists even in the nineteenth century, had to adopt masculine characteristics of autonomy and independence in speech, thought, and action, to succeed.
Nochlin concludes the article re-stating that that there have been no great women artists due to institutional reasons and not individual reasons such as lack of innate greatness or lack of talent. She provides credible historical evidence that supports her analysis, and answers the question by stating that changes at the institutional level are required for women to be great artists. However, changes at the institutional level are hard to be attained and take a very long time. Nochlin does not provide strong suggestions as to how these institutional changes can be wrought about other than suggesting that women get educated and involved. Gender equality is still not achieved in many fields even in the modern times and it could be a monumental task in art without the right patronage.
Overall, this article is very important for art because it served as an important impetus for the rediscovery of women artists. It also brought forth a change in the methods used by art historians in evaluating works by women artists. It also highlights the gender inequality even in modern times and strives to achieve equality for women artists. It extends the debate of gender inequality to other fields and opens up questions why there have been no great women in many professions. It questions the institutional biases and serves as an eye opener that would some day lead to the creation of a level playing field for both men and women not only in art but many other diverse professions.