For centuries, women fought against discrimination and prejudice just to gain respect as serious artists and work their passions into careers. In a patriarchal society, “the ‘real’ work of women is only that which directly or indirectly serves the family; any other commitment falls under the rubric of diversion, selfishness, egomania, or, at the unspoken extreme, castration” (pg. 166 LN). The incredulous reality of this assertion alone produced challenges for women to sell their pieces and gain recognition. Anything that they created would encounter criticisms in relation to their sex, due to the belief that any aspect of an art piece is a portrayal of gender and its equivalent capabilities (Aesthetics). Upon discovering that the artist behind the Portrait of Charlotte du Val d’Ognes was most likely the female artist Constance Charpentier and not the male artist Jacques Louis David, many critics exclaimed that it made sense (later on Margaret Oppenheimer realized that the true artist was Marie Denise Villers). According to them, it would explain all of the faults in the painting, the “ ‘cleverly concealed weaknesses’ and ‘a thousand subtle artifices’ that all add up to ‘the feminine spirit’ ” (pg. 55-56 Broadstrokes). Villers’ painting, once admired for the skills behind it, suddenly ran into disparagement the moment people knew that a woman created the piece. Due to such biases and discrimination, many women chose to sign their works with a unisex or male-implied nom de plumes. Virginia Woolf explained, “For most of history, ‘Anonymous’ was a woman” (pg. 34 Broadstrokes). This anonymity deprived them of recognition and accolades afforded to their male counterparts, unfortunately, and placed female artists at risk of being entirely forgotten. Judith Leyster, an artist from the 1600s, signed her pieces with a simple J connected to a shooting star. Speculation suggests that Leyster created her signature specifically to avoid gender biases. Due to this vague mark, it caused her artwork to be mistaken for a male artist until the late 1800s (Broadstrokes pg. 31-34).
The notion of women participating in the art world as an intentional act of rebellion or a threat to male power produced a multitude of other obstacles in their way. From the Renaissance era to the 1800s, women struggled to find access to nude models of any kind. Studying the nude human form was crucial to an artist’s training and to reject their access to both male and female nude models (as female models were banned in most public schools until 1850) prevented many women from experiencing the entire curriculum taught in life drawing classes (pg. 158-159 LN). When they could create pieces of nude art, they faced judgment for how they posed their models. Men often posed their subjects in erotic manners for the male audience. Women, on the other hand, preferred to capture more natural positions (pg. 280 WAS). In the few cases in which women participated in a life drawing class, the occurrences are nearly forgotten because of attempts to erase them. Peculiarly, there is no depiction of female artists working with a nude model, unlike many male artists. Painter Johann Zoffany created a piece illustrating the Royal Academy in London in 1772, taking part in the study of two male models. Even though Angelica Kauffmann was a member of the Academy at this point, Zoffany relegated her into the background, hiding her in a portrait on the wall (pg.161 LN). Unfortunately, not even during the feminist movements were women safe from being deliberately placed at a disadvantage. In Berlin 1906, women were barred from government fine art schools. Previously published cartoon also suggested female painters fell into one of two categories: seeker of marriage or lacking artistic skills (Lady). While the specifics of such challenges established by the standards of sexism may not be known by all, it is no surprise that these were the kind of things women had to experience. Throughout the years women demonstrated remarkable determination, persistence, resilience, and courage to overcome so many hardships. The real question remains: How did female painters defy the odds and achieve success?
Before answering this question, the definition of success needs addressing. Some critics argue that there have been no successful female painters ever. When asked to list renowned painters, the average lay-person can only name men, as “there are no women equivalents for Michelangelo or Rembrandt…”(pg. 150 LN). Due to the highly advocated assertion that women possess artists talent equal to men, numerous books argue that there have been female artists just as triumphant as male artists. The issue with this, however, is that such arguments do not take into consideration the context into which the social structures used for analysis are created (Critique). Georgia O’Keeffe once said, “I wonder if man has ever been written down the way he has written women down” (pg.74 Girls). Ironically, terms like ‘greatness’ and ‘success’ used today are under patriarchal standards. With the powerful patriarchal society opposing them, women could not achieve success in the same manner as men. While this ‘white western male viewpoint’ is common amongst art historians (pg.146 LN), its shortcomings suggests that different standards for success would be more appropriate for the female painting career. This revised definition of success will include public recognition and support of the work of the artist. Recognition does not have to mean globally but must extend out further than one’s hometown. The artist should have acceptance into an art institution, and, due to the requirement of support, the artist cannot have had the majority of their work destroyed intentionally by others. Instead, there must be a general consensus of the public to celebrate and value the artwork. In addition, success will have to be achieved during the life of an artist, as opposed to being achieved posthumously like Vincent Van Gogh as that kind of recognition occurred without the artist conquering any difficulties or negative preconceived ideas of society. These parameters allow for the inclusion of many female painters, and furthermore this essay will examine three painters from Western Europe, since that region hosts some of the most well-known art centers of the world. Each artist will be from a different century as to best cover the range of women in the history of art.
Artemisia Gentileschi had extraordinary and prodigious talents. Such talents were evident in the early Neapolitan inventories which simply referred to her as Artemisia, akin to other famous artists like Raphael with one-word names (BIO). Born in Rome, the public highly respected her (Aesthetics). By the 1400s most parents stopped sending their daughters to public schools, so Artemisia was kept at home for her education (pg. 72 WAS). However, with her father, Orazio, being an artist himself, she gained access to his atelier as well as his knowledge of art. His willingness to teach her innate talent and eagerness to learn created a career revered across Italy, including the city of Pisa where her father was from (she was so popular that the people of Pisa referred to Artemisia as Pisan) (BIO). Orazio was so supportive of his daughter that he allowed her to study models, which enabled her to become particularly adept at portraying female nudes (Broadstrokes pg. 22). In addition, Orazio asked his colleague Agostino Tassi to teach Artemisia artistic perspective. Tragically, one day a neighbor helped Tassi slip into her room where he then raped her. He later refused to keep his promise to marry her (which would have spared her dignity), and consequently, Orazio took him to court. Artemisia testified and due to her courage and tenacity to prove him guilty she agreed to torture as a means to reassure the court she was telling the truth. Tassi’s tainted history (conspiring to kill his wife and impregnating her sister) added further implicating evidence and he was found guilty (Broadstrokes pg. 23). There are conflicting reports over Tassi’s sentence. Some claim that he was in prison for a year (Girls pg, 36), while other sources say that the court banished him from Rome but never enforced it (Broadstrokes pg. 23). They all reflect the same idea, though, that his incarceration was appallingly short, and there is no apparent reason as to why. Artemisia, on the other hand, “acquired a dubious reputation” and as a result, she moved to Florence (50 pg. 23). Alarmingly, other female artists encountered similar situations and abandoned their art career as a result. Onorata Rodiani, for example, deserted her art career after she killed a colleague who tried to rape her (Girls pg. 30). Artemisia, in contrast, actually produced some of her most illustrious pieces following the horrific event. Her most famous piece is Judith Beheading Holofernes, and it was inspired by the trial. A way to triumph over adversity, Artemisia based it on the biblical story of the widow who saved her people from the Assyrian General, Artemisia depicts Judith cutting off the head of Holofernes with the help of her maid, Abra. Unlike other representations of the scene, Artemisia’s Judith does not look away as she commits the deed and both women are fully clothed, leaving Holofernes vulnerable in his nakedness. On Judith’s arm, there is a bracelet alluding to the Goddess Diana (in Greek mythology, she is known as Artemis), the namesake of Artemisia (Broadstrokes pg. 21). This was Artemisia’s personal statement of empowerment, seizing back the power and strength she lost to Tassi, as Judith and Abra served as her “man-beaters” (pg.29 Broadstrokes). Despite marrying, Artemisia had many more accomplishments after moving from Rome, as “she had to stand on her own merit as a professional” (pg. 24 Broadstrokes). She set up her own atelier while learning to read. Artemisia also became the first woman to join Accademia Del Disegno (Academy of the Arts of Drawing) (Girls pg. 37). Her success was possible not just because she “possessed not only the courage, but also the rare talent to produce uncompromising art,” but also because of the commissions she received (50). The Austrian Empress Maria was a patron of Artemisia’s (Girls pg.37) and with this royal support the negative impact of her rape on her reputation lessoned until became irrelevant in the art world. As a result, Artemisia eventually returned to Rome where she became a prominent portrait artist. These royal connections continued throughout her life. King Charles of England even convinced Artemisia to move to his court for painting (50 pg. 23). Support and determination were key components to Artemisia’s success during her career as a painter.
Rosa Bonheur lived a life that certainly did not conform to societal norms. In 1822, Bonheur was born in France to her father, Raimond, and her mother, Sophie (Cosmo). Her father was a drawing master, and unlike Artemisia’s family, he sent his daughter to public school. Not only that, but it was an all-boys school that her brothers went to. This meant that she had access to education many girls like her did not normally receive (50 pg. 63). However, Bonheur hated school as a child. She struggled to sit still and study because all she wanted to do was go outside. When Bonheur managed to stay inside for class she would draw caricatures of her teachers. Eventually, her father capitulated and began to teach her all that he knew about art (Cosmo). Raimond exposed her to Saint-Simonianism, a political and social movement which emphasized equality between sexes (Broadstrokes pg. 66), something that certainly influenced her throughout her life. Her parents, in addition, permitted her to cut her hair and wear trousers. This allowed her to explore the environment she worked in adequately (50 pg. 63). Bonheur gravitated towards animal paintings, so much so that she was known as the “greatest modern animal painter” (Cosmo). Her talents in this genre of painting was how her friendship with the American Buffalo Bill developed. He allowed her to roam his camp where he held his Wild West shows. Here she completed many of her best works, including a portrait of Bill on his horse (Broadstrokes pg. 62). Walking through farms and working with animals meant wearing typical women’s clothes such as dresses and corsets was an inconvenience. Bonheur’s determination granted her official permission from the police to dress in men’s clothing (when not at official or public events). She had a cross-dressing permit signed by a doctor, and due to her popularity, no one challenged her (50 pg. 63). The public accepted all the excuses she gave, including the one for maintaining a short haircut. As Bonheur explained, when her mother died there was no one to take care of her hair, and as a result, she kept it short. She also consistently reassured everyone that she would wear dresses and skirts when she was not working and claimed that she did not like wearing men’s clothes. If there were pants made for women during that time, Bonheur swore she would certainly wear those instead (LN pg. 173).
Royal connections grew as her popularity did. Queen Victoria of England ordered a private viewing of one of Bonheur’s most famous pieces, The Horse Fair (which eventually found itself in The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York). In addition to the Queen, Empress Eugenie, wife of Napoleon III, presented Bonheur with the Cross of the Legion of Honor, something never awarded previously to any other female artist (Broadstrokes pg. 66). In continuing to defy convention, she never married, claiming that “she had never wanted to marry for fear of losing her independence” (pg. 172 LN). That very well may be true, as it always seems to be a choice women have to make in their lives; marriage or career. Marie Denise Villers, another artist from the 1800s, gave up her career when she married (pg. 58 Broadstrokes). However, there is a possibility of another reason for refusing to marry. She lived with another woman, Nathalie Mica for many years. The public version of relationship was strictly platonic (50 pg. 63), but in later years, sources revealed that Nathalie’s father consecrated them while on his deathbed, committing them to each other without legal marriage papers (Broadstrokes pg. 67). Despite the suspicions of the conservative French public, no one spoke out about it because of how much they valued Bonhuer as an artist (50 pg. 63). Rosa Bonheur flourished in her career because of her ability to gain the favor of the public (and royalty) by contesting traditions without explicitly rebelling against them.
Élisabeth Vigée-Le Brun’s career centered around her royal affiliations. She was born in France in the 1700s, and just like the aforementioned painters, her father, Louis Vigée, was also an artist. He supported her passion for the arts and did not prevent her from learning valuable artistic skills. Her skills attracted the attention of Queen Marie Antoinette. Vigée-Le Brun created a portrait of her majesty, who loved it so much that she deemed Vigée-Le Brun the Queen’s favorite artist (50 pg. 55). This royal relationship helped Vigée-Le Brun’s career to thrive. One important obstacle the Queen removed from her path relates her husband, Jean-Baptiste-Pierre Le Brun. Due to his profession as an art dealer, the Académie Royale de Peinture initially refused to accept Vigée-Le Brun because of her connection to the art business. Fortunately, the Queen made sure that the Academy accepted Vigée-Le Brun (pg.44 Broadstrokes). Vigée-Le Brun’s success soared following her admittance into the Academy. She more portraits for the royal family, and exhibited many of her works at the Académie Royale de Peinture. When the French Revolution began, Vigée-Le Brun was at risk due to her connections to royalty. The painter, however, demonstrating an adaptable and determined nature, moved to Italy until the revolution ended (50 pg. 55). This wise move saved her career. Not everyone felt the need to adjust in analogous situations. In many ways, Adélaïde Labille-Guiard echoed the path of Vigée-Le Brun. The Académie Royale de Peinture voted to accept her and she also painted for royals. In fact, Labille-Guiard was so successful that she exhibited at the Academy’s Salon, a feat achieved by few women at that point. She differed from Vigée-Le Brun because she chose instead to stay in France during the revolution despite her connections to the very royals the revolution fought. While she avoided the guillotine, the new ruler demanded the destruction of all of her old work for the previous royal family (Broadstrokes pg. 42-49). In contrast, even without France’s royal family’s patronage, Vigée-Le Brun had a “confident manner in the presence of nobility, her diligence, and her skills secured for Élisabeth Vigée-Le Brun not only fame and numerous commissions from the courts of Europe, but also five honorary memberships in the academies concerned” (50 pg. 55). Under her new friendship with Czarina Catherine II and her family, Vigée-Le Brun’s reputation as a brilliant portraitist continued. She produced hundreds of portraits, including one self-portrait of her and her daughter (50 pg. 55). This painting not only illustrates their bond but it also demonstrates Vigée-Le Brun did not choose between marriage and career. She chose both, unlike many women who succumbed to societal pressures and abandoned a career of independence for their duty to family. Élisabeth Vigée-Le Brun’s adept ability to develop and sustain relationships with royalty allowed her to have a long and successful painting career.
Throughout the years, women have battled immense pressure to conform to patriarchal norms. Society frowned upon women in the workforce if their career took them away from their family or interfered with their ability to start a family. In addition, deeply entrenched assumptions that women were inferior to men in regards to talent and intelligence made it difficult for women’s careers to gain traction. In fact, this gender discrimination created and perpetuated by men, significantly impeded women from attaining success as defined by a patriarchal world. Using a revised definition for accomplishment and success, there have been many female painters who have reached this standard. The three female artists in this essay, each reviewed in a different century in Western Europe, shared many commonalities that benefited their careers. All three had some sort of link to royalty. Such associations allowed Artemisia Gentileschi to recover from her ordeal with Agostino Tassi and produce her most famous pieces. Rosa Bonheur’s royal association blessed her with such popularity that in spite of her unconventional lifestyle, she received no backlash for it. As for Élisabeth Vigée-Le Brun, she had a stable and wealthy clientele that presented her with a multitude of commissions and promoted her as an amazing portrait artist. Furthermore, none of these artists abandoned their careers to wifehood or motherhood as their sole occupation. Both Artemisia and Vigée-Le Brun remained independently employed while being married and Bonheur refused to have a legal partner. Interestingly, all three artists had fathers who were also artists and who encouraged their daughters to learn as much about art as they could, directly educating them when possible. Artemisia’s father let her study his models and work in his atelier. Bonheur’s father taught her everything he knew about art when he realized that public school was not right for her. It is clearly evident that these women encountered immeasurable burdens, and what made them successful despite these obstacles was their persistent and brave attitudes supported by royalty and family.