History of Feminism

CTyankee

(66,161 posts)

24. Oh, women have ALWAYS been artists! Yes, they are usually defined as "crafts" but art they certainly

Sat Feb 22, 2014, 01:32 PM

Feb 2014

were! So the definition of "Fine arts" and "crafts" were made early and by men.

Nonetheless, some women did compete. In the republic of Florence, a very few women submitted their design ideas in the competition for the Gates of Paradise (the doors on the north side of the Baptistery), so we must assume that they were confident in their ability to work in bronze. And there is Artemisia Gentileschi (whose brutal, bloody rendering of Judith slaying Holofernes was possibly influenced by her rape), contemporary of Caravaggio, and the great artist of the Golden Age of Dutch Art, Judith Leyster (originally attributed to Frans Hals!). And many more of lesser fame, but there they were!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

36 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Botticelli, Rubens, Raphael: "The Three Graces" and the SI cover [View all] CTyankee Feb 2014 OP

You obviously don't know art CT. sufrommich Feb 2014 #1

I know but I thought that examples would be the better teacher... CTyankee Feb 2014 #2

No, CT most definitely knows art. redqueen Feb 2014 #4

oh, I thought suffromich was being ironic...I don't think she meant it...so I am not at all CTyankee Feb 2014 #5

Oh heck. redqueen Feb 2014 #6

It happens to the best of us. sufrommich Feb 2014 #9

But it's you! redqueen Feb 2014 #11

Lol. nt sufrommich Feb 2014 #12

Lol,I was being ironic. sufrommich Feb 2014 #8

None of the three graces were posed in hypersexualized, unnatural ways. redqueen Feb 2014 #3

Yes, and my other point was how the view of women's bodies in great art changed over CTyankee Feb 2014 #7

Always our reality, distorted by the preferences of the male gaze. redqueen Feb 2014 #13

It's possible that's an understatement.:) malthaussen Feb 2014 #10

For me it's that one half of humanity is still setting the terms of the discussion. redqueen Feb 2014 #14

No argument there. malthaussen Feb 2014 #16

It does, and that's one reason I became a radical feminist. redqueen Feb 2014 #19

But what if women and men really are "other" to one another? malthaussen Feb 2014 #21

It would be fascinating to juxtapose the works of the great female artists of the same period... hlthe2b Feb 2014 #15

"Male perception?" malthaussen Feb 2014 #17

So, it is just fine and dandy to have men speak, express, and create the record for the women hlthe2b Feb 2014 #18

Didn't you just agree with this same assertion in post 14? nt redqueen Feb 2014 #20

Not exactly. malthaussen Feb 2014 #22

Women couldn't buy paint. KitSileya Feb 2014 #28

Didn't know those stats. malthaussen Feb 2014 #29

Oh, women have ALWAYS been artists! Yes, they are usually defined as "crafts" but art they certainly CTyankee Feb 2014 #24

Thanks, CTyankee... I knew there would be women creating in the background.... hlthe2b Feb 2014 #25

I guess my point is that they were only in the background of what is termed Fine Arts... CTyankee Feb 2014 #27

But that's why they were called "minor arts," no? malthaussen Feb 2014 #30

Of course! It's just terminology...art is art... CTyankee Feb 2014 #31

Interesting riff in the Cryptonomicon... malthaussen Feb 2014 #32

We talked about the renaissance a couple of weeks ago. KitSileya Feb 2014 #33

there is real blood in Artemisia's and also the look of determination is a lot CTyankee Feb 2014 #34

Nice ismnotwasm Feb 2014 #23

Really elleng Feb 2014 #26

Fascinating! JustAnotherGen Feb 2014 #35

glad you liked it. someone once termed this "the bloody crossroads of art and politics" and he/she CTyankee Feb 2014 #36