Historical Significance
‘Old Mistresses’ is a text that aims to discover, through looking at historical, psychological, and ideological factors, why women hold a secondary place in the art field. The authors seek to confront the patriarchal principles within the art sphere and look at ways in which they can be eradicated through a deconstruction of art history. This book is extremely important for feminist art history, and indeed, the history of art as a whole, as it discusses a topic that had not been looked at in great depth before. Books which discussed the history of art tended to ignore women artists, or see them as playing a minor role, often stereotyping their art in terms of ‘femininity’. For example a famous work on the history of art by Gombrich, entitled ‘Story of Art’ does not mention any women artists. The 20th Century saw works discussing women artists being more widely published, although, as Parker and Pollock point out these books do not address the reasons why women have been ignored, merely trying to add them in to the history of art, which Parker and Pollock believe to be conforming to traditional, patriarchal modes of art history. Although some critics, such as Alloway, suggest that Parker and Pollock still cannot get away from writing like traditional art historians, the book certainly puts forward and expands on ideas that had not been touched on before.
Gill Perry in ‘Gender and Art’ describes Old Mistresses as ‘enormously influential’ as it questions pre-existing structures within art history. She explains how art historians in the 1980’s ‘sought to unpick existing and patriarchal definitions of greatness.’ Old Mistresses points out that the way art is defined as good or bad is dictated by patriarchal values and this should be re-addressed. For a topic such as ‘Gender and Art,’ Old Mistresses is useful as it provides the reader with the history and theory of women’s involvement in art upon which other writers can expand on, in this instance, the subject of gender.
From looking at the catalogue of works that cite Old Mistresses, it is clear to see that it is extremely influential to other writers, especially those who are concerned with subjects ranging from specific women in art, to topics concerning art education. Old Mistresses is important to art education as it raises issues that art students should be aware of. The history of women’s art is a matter that has to be studied so to understand the issues surrounding contemporary art and Old Mistresses provides a comprehensive view of this. Old Mistresses also covers a range of broader topics, such as craft and design, and other writers discussing such matters have used Parker and Pollock’s views on the feminine stereotype attached to craft as a reference.
Old Mistresses is an extremely significant book for art history as it raises the important subject of women’s misrepresentation and dismissal in art, a topic that every art historian should be aware of as women’s art is equally important as men’s and therefore it’s history should not be ignored. This book has influenced other writers concerned with similar topics as it gives the essential theories and ideologies behind the patriarchal oppression of women in art, which can then be built upon and explored in further detail.
Sunday, 20 April 2008
'Old Mistresses - Women, Art and Ideology' by Rozsika Parker and Griselda Pollock
Criticism and Analysis
‘Old Mistresses: Women, Art and Ideology’ written by Rozsika Parker and Griselda Pollock is a text that has often been cited or recognised in the work of other academics, particularly with relation to feminist writings and art education. The book provides an account of women’s place in art and why they have been ignored or misrepresented; this expands on other literary accounts by feminist writers such as Linda Nochlin and Ann Sutherland Harris, who wrote works on women’s art. There were not many comprehensive books on women’s art history and their place within it until the 20th Century, and writers such as Nochlin and Harris sought to address this. Parker and Pollock expand on and explore a range of theories in Old Mistresses; they seek to discover why women artists are seen as naturally inferior to their male counterparts and why; drawing on the historical contexts in which women practised art. Their aim is to discover why there are still unequal, patriarchal attitudes in contemporary art practise, and how the understanding of this may aid a deconstruction of art history upon which an equal ideology can be formed.
Lawrence Alloway reviews Old Mistresses in ‘Visible Female,’ an anthology of feminist theory and essays. He begins also, by highlighting the fact that there have been no in depth texts exploring women’s art history. He states that Parker and Pollock echo Linda Nochlin and Anne Sutherland Harris’s work; however they complain that Nochlin and Harris write from values of a ‘male serving art history.’[1]In Old Mistresses Parker and Pollock describe how Nochlin and Harris want to merely add in women artists to art history, which to Parker and Pollock means they are subscribing to a conventional model of art history. They believe that the histories of women artists should be taken into account, and call for a deconstruction of the present structure of art history. However, Nochlin states in the introduction to her collection of essays entitled, ‘Women, Art and Power and Other Essays;’ ‘I do not conceive of a feminist art history as a positive approach to the field, a way of simply adding a token list of women painters and sculptors to the canon.’[2] This would seem to contradict Parker and Pollock’s impression, yet, Nochlin wrote this introduction several years after both she and Harris began writing and also after Old Mistresses had been completed, and she herself admits that her theories have evolved over the years. Also, in Nochlin’s essay, ‘Why have there been no great women artists?’ Nochlin does, in fact, discuss the historical context in which women artists worked, however Alloway points out that Parker and Pollock criticise Nochlin for her approach to this topic: they explain how if as Nochlin believes, there have been no women artists because of effective institutional exclusion and conflicting attitudes, then there would have been no women artists at all. Alloway says that based on their interpretation of Nochlin’s text, Parker and Pollock give the impression that there can be either no women artists or there are; he does not agree with this, it cannot be an either/or situation, and explains how the problem with the history of women artists is retardation and rerouting, not obliteration, and that Nochlin addresses these complex problems of women in history as part of the subject. On the other hand, throughout Old Mistresses Parker and Pollock state that there have always been women artists, and that Nochlin should concentrate more on the ways women worked through these restrictions, rather than stating that that is the reason why there are no great women artists. However, if it is to be taken as Alloway interprets it: that they suggest that there can either be great women artists or none at all, by stating throughout the book there have always been female artists, their idea that there can have been none is contradicted. Alloway also believes that Parker and Pollock’s ideas of deconstruction are an ‘ultimistic view,’[3] suggesting that he is able to conceive other ideas of how to approach the problem of women in art.
In addition to Parker and Pollock’s discussion of previous texts looking at the subject of women in art, they look in more detail at individual subjects such as specific women in history and their relation to the history of art. Their treatment and the works they produce give an insight into the way women have progressed into the art field. Alloway affirms in his review that Old Mistresses contains proficient sections on individuals, such as on Anguissola, a female artist from the Renaissance, and also on broader topics, for instance; their discussion on craft and the female stereotype. Alloway also says that during their discussions on individual women artists, they stay clear of sentimental excursions through the accounts of the women’s lives. Mieke Bal, in ‘Autopopography: Louise Bourgeois as Builder’ cites Old Mistresses as he discusses the issue that by focussing on the biography of an artist, it distracts away from a viewer focussing on the art itself[4]. Parker and Pollock also mention that by concentrating on a female artist’s life, it can lead to her work being dismissed, as elements of her life may eclipse her paintings. However as Parker and Pollock mention throughout Old Mistresses, one must look at the historical and social context in which the artist worked in order to understand the conditions and restrictions they operated under, and I believe to do this the artists biography must be taken into consideration to a certain extent.
Alloway mentions the subtitle of Old Mistesses, Women, Art and Ideology, he suggests that the word ‘ideology’ assumes the present to be taken as the viewpoint; the way in which we estimate comtemporaneity informs and distorts the past. The final chapter of the book in which Parker and Pollock discuss contemporary art, Alloway perceives to be weak, proposing that the book therefore lacks strong ideological awareness. He describes how the chapter starts with an ‘arguable’ yet interesting look at feminism in relation to surrealism but then the authors begin to lose their art historical grip. Alloway does not understand why the authors chose to discuss Frankenthaler and Hesse as American feminist artists, as there were many others that would perhaps illustrate their ideas more. He goes on to say that Art Historians have a problem with understanding contemporary art, as art of the present does not have clear guidelines. Despite Parker and Pollock not wanting to conform to the ideologies of a patriarchal, traditional art history, Alloway argues that by being unable to write effectively about modern art, they are sharing the professional habit of the majority of art historians, and ergo, are at conflict with their feminism. He also voices the opinion that the title, Old Mistresses, is ‘deplorable’ as the term ‘mistress’ suggests a prostitute. He declares that the term does not have the same ‘honorific’ connotations as ‘master,’ and is therefore jocular and disparaging. I feel that Alloway is not recognizing the ironic notions of this title: the fact that it is re-appropriating the term ‘master’ to ‘mistress’ to highlight the patriarchal associations with the term ‘old master.’
One of the women artists that Parker and Pollock discuss at length is Vigee LeBrun. Mary D Sheriff discusses their attitudes to LeBrun in her essay ‘So what are you working on?’ She states that Parker and Pollock are less kind to her than other women artists they discussed, portraying her as merely a society lady on the wrong side of the revolution, and disassociate her with feminist goals.[5] Emma Barker in ‘Women Artists and the French Academy: Vigee LeBrun in the 1780’s,’ also suggests that Parker and Pollock offer LeBrun up as a sexual object, conforming to the feminine stereotype constructed by masculine ideology.[6] Sheriff believes that LeBrun should be considered from a feminist perspective, and highlights that Parker and Pollock take into account the feminist ideologies in Mary Cassatt and Berthe Morisott’s work even though they came from an elitist background whereas LeBrun was the daughter of a hairdresser. With their social backgrounds in mind, it would make more sense to deem Cassatt and Morisott as reflecting more bourgeois ideology in their work; however Parker and Pollock believe that they instead, showed the limitations of a woman in a bourgeois household. In Old Mistresses, they do admit that some believe Cassatt’s work not to be a critique of bourgeois thought, but a confirmation of it, although they find feminist beliefs behind it. Sheriff believes that it is merely because LeBrun represented herself in a traditional way, that Parker and Pollock dismiss feminist connotations with her work. Brown also agrees saying that they are against the notion of an instinctively feminine artist. Mary Sheriff considers LeBrun to have portrayed herself intentionally as a female artist and how her associations with Marie Antoinette lead people to believe that her work contained Bourgeois values, however recent work declares Marie Antoinette as being denigrated because of the period’s fears of strong women: this may cast a different light on Vigee LeBrun’s connection with her.
Nochlin also mentions in her introduction to ‘Women, Art and Power and Other Essays,’ that her essays were written in specific historical contexts, in response to problems at the time.[7] The same thing could be said about Old Mistresses, as it was written just after the 1970’s, a time when feminism and women’s rights were being discussed to a great extent. As feminist ideologies were particularly strong at this point, the dismissal and misrepresentation of women in art would have been highlighted, and writers such as Nochlin, and later, Parker and Pollock began to address it. At the time, there were still considerable amounts of equality in society; the writers would have been seeking to challenge the patriarchal structures and to draw attention to the inequalities still present, in what was for them, the present day. In our present day however, texts such as Old Mistresses may seem outdated, as the inequalities in society have been addressed and confronted, and therefore such feminist texts may not seem as relevant today as they were then. Nevertheless, the art field today still holds a patriarchal structure, as the history on which it is built upon has formed a strong ideology that is difficult to change. Old Mistresses is therefore still relevant as it discusses the historical basis which has created patriarchal art history, and shows how it affects future women artists.
Jo-Anne Berlowitz discusses gender with Martin Berger in an interview about Berger’s book, Thomas Eakins and the Construction of Gilded Age Manhood[8]. Berlowitz asks Berger about the difficulties that Eakins may have had with the gendering of painting in a Realist style, as this was sometimes considered a feminine style of painting. Berger replies, referring to Parker and Pollock’s explorations in Old Mistresses, into how the character of work is often based on the sex of the artist. They discuss that art by women is seen as inferior, not for the talent the work shows, but because women artists are ‘naturally’ lacking in creative talent, and men are designed to be genius’s. Parker and Pollock use the example of a painting, ‘A Portrait of Charlotte du Val-d’Ognes,’ originally attributed to Jaques-Louis David, and was highly acclaimed. In 1951 Charles Sterling re-attributed the painting to Constance Charpentier, and consequently, the painting is now seen in a different, inferior, light[9]. Martin Berger states, however, that Parker and Pollock do not argue that; ‘the gendering of a given profession is wholly reducible to the sex of ‘typical’ members or that all professions practiced by men are valued to an equal extent.’ Berger expands on Parker and Pollock’s theory; that in patriarchal society, professions are gendered as either male or female based on the sex of the majority of the people employed in this field. However, even all male professions can be seen as feminine in gender, for instance, artists, despite the majority of the practitioners being male and that women struggle to be accepted within the field. Hierarchies within the art profession can also change depending on the time period; Berger uses the example of oil painting being seen as a masculine art from and watercolour being regarded as feminine in 1870’s America.
Parker and Pollock place emphasis in the first chapter on the fact that the ‘feminine’ stereotype emerged as a result of bourgeois ideology and Victorian writings on nature. I believe that the stereotype existed before these times to a certain extent, as although bourgeois values enormously affected the ideas that women should be in a domestic environment taking care of the children, these beliefs also pre-existed before then. Parker and Pollock mention the genre of flower painting in 16th Century Holland: although the flower paintings were created by men and by women, they were not accepted as great works of art as they were ‘feminine’ in nature as they depicted flowers. These views show that the feminine stereotype was considered before the 19th Century. In addition, Parker and Pollock proclaim that the feminine stereotype plays a large part in the disregard and misrepresentation of women’s art in history. However art by female artists has been largely ignored throughout the history of art, therefore, if as Parker and Pollock suggest, the feminine stereotype did not emerge until the 18th/19th Century, then something else may have affected the lack of interest in women’s art. Parker and Pollock do admit in their conclusion that this book is not a conclusive study of history and that there are many gaps and generalisations[10], therefore this may explain the generalisation of the emergence of the feminine stereotype. wowver Ho
Despite Old Mistresses limitations with regard to providing a full historical account of women in art, the main point is addressed, and that is that throughout history, women artists have been ignored. Parker and Pollock conclude with stating that women’s place in the history of art is contradictory, as they are always present but represented as always absent or always the same.[11] They explain how the reason for the female stereotype is to provide a negative against which masculine art can dominate. Parker and Pollock expand on previous works on this topic and what they achieve is a fascinating investigation into the reasons behind women’s creativity being regarded as inferior to men’s supposed ‘genius.’ The extent of the research, from works or art by women in the Renaissance, broad topics on craft and design, to contemporary women artists, does not fail to show that throughout time, due to historical, social and psychological factors, the art world has become, and perhaps always has been, a patriarchal domain and Pollock and Parker conclude that the only way to undo this is to call for a deconstruction of art history.
[1] ALLOWAY, Lawrence. (1987) ‘Old Mistresses’ IN ROBINSON, Hilary (ed.) ‘Visibly Female’ – Feminism and Art Today – An Anthology Camden Press Ltd. London p. 201
[2] P xii Nochlin
[3] ALLOWAY, Lawrence. (1987) ‘Old Mistresses’ IN ROBINSON, Hilary (ed.) ‘Visibly Female’ – Feminism and Art Today – An Anthology Camden Press Ltd. London p.202
[4] BAL, Mieke. (2002) Autopopography: Louise Bourgeois as Builder. Biography. 25 (1) pp/ 180-202
[5] SHERIFF, Mary D. (2003) ‘So what are you working on?’ – Categorizing the Exceptional Woman. IN Singular Women – Writing the Artist. FREDERICKSON, Kirsten, WEBB, Sarah E (eds.) University of California Press Ltd, London
[6] BARKER, Emma. (1999) Gender in Art – Women Artists and the French Academy; Vigee LeBrun in the1780’s. IN, PERRY, Gillian, CUNNINGHAM, Colin, BARKER, Emma. (1999) Art and its Histories. Yale University Press in association with the Open University
[7] Nochlin p.xii
[8] BERELOWITZ, Jo-Anne interviews BERGER, Martin. (2003) Refashioning Masculine Identity Genders 37
[9] PARKER, Rozsika, POLLOCK, Griselda. (1981) Old Mistresses: Women, Art and Ideology. Pandora Press, London p. 106
[10] PARKER, Rozsika, POLLOCK, Griselda. (1981) Old Mistresses: Women, Art and Ideology. Pandora Press, London p. 170
[11] PARKER, Rozsika, POLLOCK, Griselda. (1981) Old Mistresses: Women, Art and Ideology. Pandora Press, London p. 169
‘Old Mistresses: Women, Art and Ideology’ written by Rozsika Parker and Griselda Pollock is a text that has often been cited or recognised in the work of other academics, particularly with relation to feminist writings and art education. The book provides an account of women’s place in art and why they have been ignored or misrepresented; this expands on other literary accounts by feminist writers such as Linda Nochlin and Ann Sutherland Harris, who wrote works on women’s art. There were not many comprehensive books on women’s art history and their place within it until the 20th Century, and writers such as Nochlin and Harris sought to address this. Parker and Pollock expand on and explore a range of theories in Old Mistresses; they seek to discover why women artists are seen as naturally inferior to their male counterparts and why; drawing on the historical contexts in which women practised art. Their aim is to discover why there are still unequal, patriarchal attitudes in contemporary art practise, and how the understanding of this may aid a deconstruction of art history upon which an equal ideology can be formed.
Lawrence Alloway reviews Old Mistresses in ‘Visible Female,’ an anthology of feminist theory and essays. He begins also, by highlighting the fact that there have been no in depth texts exploring women’s art history. He states that Parker and Pollock echo Linda Nochlin and Anne Sutherland Harris’s work; however they complain that Nochlin and Harris write from values of a ‘male serving art history.’[1]In Old Mistresses Parker and Pollock describe how Nochlin and Harris want to merely add in women artists to art history, which to Parker and Pollock means they are subscribing to a conventional model of art history. They believe that the histories of women artists should be taken into account, and call for a deconstruction of the present structure of art history. However, Nochlin states in the introduction to her collection of essays entitled, ‘Women, Art and Power and Other Essays;’ ‘I do not conceive of a feminist art history as a positive approach to the field, a way of simply adding a token list of women painters and sculptors to the canon.’[2] This would seem to contradict Parker and Pollock’s impression, yet, Nochlin wrote this introduction several years after both she and Harris began writing and also after Old Mistresses had been completed, and she herself admits that her theories have evolved over the years. Also, in Nochlin’s essay, ‘Why have there been no great women artists?’ Nochlin does, in fact, discuss the historical context in which women artists worked, however Alloway points out that Parker and Pollock criticise Nochlin for her approach to this topic: they explain how if as Nochlin believes, there have been no women artists because of effective institutional exclusion and conflicting attitudes, then there would have been no women artists at all. Alloway says that based on their interpretation of Nochlin’s text, Parker and Pollock give the impression that there can be either no women artists or there are; he does not agree with this, it cannot be an either/or situation, and explains how the problem with the history of women artists is retardation and rerouting, not obliteration, and that Nochlin addresses these complex problems of women in history as part of the subject. On the other hand, throughout Old Mistresses Parker and Pollock state that there have always been women artists, and that Nochlin should concentrate more on the ways women worked through these restrictions, rather than stating that that is the reason why there are no great women artists. However, if it is to be taken as Alloway interprets it: that they suggest that there can either be great women artists or none at all, by stating throughout the book there have always been female artists, their idea that there can have been none is contradicted. Alloway also believes that Parker and Pollock’s ideas of deconstruction are an ‘ultimistic view,’[3] suggesting that he is able to conceive other ideas of how to approach the problem of women in art.
In addition to Parker and Pollock’s discussion of previous texts looking at the subject of women in art, they look in more detail at individual subjects such as specific women in history and their relation to the history of art. Their treatment and the works they produce give an insight into the way women have progressed into the art field. Alloway affirms in his review that Old Mistresses contains proficient sections on individuals, such as on Anguissola, a female artist from the Renaissance, and also on broader topics, for instance; their discussion on craft and the female stereotype. Alloway also says that during their discussions on individual women artists, they stay clear of sentimental excursions through the accounts of the women’s lives. Mieke Bal, in ‘Autopopography: Louise Bourgeois as Builder’ cites Old Mistresses as he discusses the issue that by focussing on the biography of an artist, it distracts away from a viewer focussing on the art itself[4]. Parker and Pollock also mention that by concentrating on a female artist’s life, it can lead to her work being dismissed, as elements of her life may eclipse her paintings. However as Parker and Pollock mention throughout Old Mistresses, one must look at the historical and social context in which the artist worked in order to understand the conditions and restrictions they operated under, and I believe to do this the artists biography must be taken into consideration to a certain extent.
Alloway mentions the subtitle of Old Mistesses, Women, Art and Ideology, he suggests that the word ‘ideology’ assumes the present to be taken as the viewpoint; the way in which we estimate comtemporaneity informs and distorts the past. The final chapter of the book in which Parker and Pollock discuss contemporary art, Alloway perceives to be weak, proposing that the book therefore lacks strong ideological awareness. He describes how the chapter starts with an ‘arguable’ yet interesting look at feminism in relation to surrealism but then the authors begin to lose their art historical grip. Alloway does not understand why the authors chose to discuss Frankenthaler and Hesse as American feminist artists, as there were many others that would perhaps illustrate their ideas more. He goes on to say that Art Historians have a problem with understanding contemporary art, as art of the present does not have clear guidelines. Despite Parker and Pollock not wanting to conform to the ideologies of a patriarchal, traditional art history, Alloway argues that by being unable to write effectively about modern art, they are sharing the professional habit of the majority of art historians, and ergo, are at conflict with their feminism. He also voices the opinion that the title, Old Mistresses, is ‘deplorable’ as the term ‘mistress’ suggests a prostitute. He declares that the term does not have the same ‘honorific’ connotations as ‘master,’ and is therefore jocular and disparaging. I feel that Alloway is not recognizing the ironic notions of this title: the fact that it is re-appropriating the term ‘master’ to ‘mistress’ to highlight the patriarchal associations with the term ‘old master.’
One of the women artists that Parker and Pollock discuss at length is Vigee LeBrun. Mary D Sheriff discusses their attitudes to LeBrun in her essay ‘So what are you working on?’ She states that Parker and Pollock are less kind to her than other women artists they discussed, portraying her as merely a society lady on the wrong side of the revolution, and disassociate her with feminist goals.[5] Emma Barker in ‘Women Artists and the French Academy: Vigee LeBrun in the 1780’s,’ also suggests that Parker and Pollock offer LeBrun up as a sexual object, conforming to the feminine stereotype constructed by masculine ideology.[6] Sheriff believes that LeBrun should be considered from a feminist perspective, and highlights that Parker and Pollock take into account the feminist ideologies in Mary Cassatt and Berthe Morisott’s work even though they came from an elitist background whereas LeBrun was the daughter of a hairdresser. With their social backgrounds in mind, it would make more sense to deem Cassatt and Morisott as reflecting more bourgeois ideology in their work; however Parker and Pollock believe that they instead, showed the limitations of a woman in a bourgeois household. In Old Mistresses, they do admit that some believe Cassatt’s work not to be a critique of bourgeois thought, but a confirmation of it, although they find feminist beliefs behind it. Sheriff believes that it is merely because LeBrun represented herself in a traditional way, that Parker and Pollock dismiss feminist connotations with her work. Brown also agrees saying that they are against the notion of an instinctively feminine artist. Mary Sheriff considers LeBrun to have portrayed herself intentionally as a female artist and how her associations with Marie Antoinette lead people to believe that her work contained Bourgeois values, however recent work declares Marie Antoinette as being denigrated because of the period’s fears of strong women: this may cast a different light on Vigee LeBrun’s connection with her.
Nochlin also mentions in her introduction to ‘Women, Art and Power and Other Essays,’ that her essays were written in specific historical contexts, in response to problems at the time.[7] The same thing could be said about Old Mistresses, as it was written just after the 1970’s, a time when feminism and women’s rights were being discussed to a great extent. As feminist ideologies were particularly strong at this point, the dismissal and misrepresentation of women in art would have been highlighted, and writers such as Nochlin, and later, Parker and Pollock began to address it. At the time, there were still considerable amounts of equality in society; the writers would have been seeking to challenge the patriarchal structures and to draw attention to the inequalities still present, in what was for them, the present day. In our present day however, texts such as Old Mistresses may seem outdated, as the inequalities in society have been addressed and confronted, and therefore such feminist texts may not seem as relevant today as they were then. Nevertheless, the art field today still holds a patriarchal structure, as the history on which it is built upon has formed a strong ideology that is difficult to change. Old Mistresses is therefore still relevant as it discusses the historical basis which has created patriarchal art history, and shows how it affects future women artists.
Jo-Anne Berlowitz discusses gender with Martin Berger in an interview about Berger’s book, Thomas Eakins and the Construction of Gilded Age Manhood[8]. Berlowitz asks Berger about the difficulties that Eakins may have had with the gendering of painting in a Realist style, as this was sometimes considered a feminine style of painting. Berger replies, referring to Parker and Pollock’s explorations in Old Mistresses, into how the character of work is often based on the sex of the artist. They discuss that art by women is seen as inferior, not for the talent the work shows, but because women artists are ‘naturally’ lacking in creative talent, and men are designed to be genius’s. Parker and Pollock use the example of a painting, ‘A Portrait of Charlotte du Val-d’Ognes,’ originally attributed to Jaques-Louis David, and was highly acclaimed. In 1951 Charles Sterling re-attributed the painting to Constance Charpentier, and consequently, the painting is now seen in a different, inferior, light[9]. Martin Berger states, however, that Parker and Pollock do not argue that; ‘the gendering of a given profession is wholly reducible to the sex of ‘typical’ members or that all professions practiced by men are valued to an equal extent.’ Berger expands on Parker and Pollock’s theory; that in patriarchal society, professions are gendered as either male or female based on the sex of the majority of the people employed in this field. However, even all male professions can be seen as feminine in gender, for instance, artists, despite the majority of the practitioners being male and that women struggle to be accepted within the field. Hierarchies within the art profession can also change depending on the time period; Berger uses the example of oil painting being seen as a masculine art from and watercolour being regarded as feminine in 1870’s America.
Parker and Pollock place emphasis in the first chapter on the fact that the ‘feminine’ stereotype emerged as a result of bourgeois ideology and Victorian writings on nature. I believe that the stereotype existed before these times to a certain extent, as although bourgeois values enormously affected the ideas that women should be in a domestic environment taking care of the children, these beliefs also pre-existed before then. Parker and Pollock mention the genre of flower painting in 16th Century Holland: although the flower paintings were created by men and by women, they were not accepted as great works of art as they were ‘feminine’ in nature as they depicted flowers. These views show that the feminine stereotype was considered before the 19th Century. In addition, Parker and Pollock proclaim that the feminine stereotype plays a large part in the disregard and misrepresentation of women’s art in history. However art by female artists has been largely ignored throughout the history of art, therefore, if as Parker and Pollock suggest, the feminine stereotype did not emerge until the 18th/19th Century, then something else may have affected the lack of interest in women’s art. Parker and Pollock do admit in their conclusion that this book is not a conclusive study of history and that there are many gaps and generalisations[10], therefore this may explain the generalisation of the emergence of the feminine stereotype. wowver Ho
Despite Old Mistresses limitations with regard to providing a full historical account of women in art, the main point is addressed, and that is that throughout history, women artists have been ignored. Parker and Pollock conclude with stating that women’s place in the history of art is contradictory, as they are always present but represented as always absent or always the same.[11] They explain how the reason for the female stereotype is to provide a negative against which masculine art can dominate. Parker and Pollock expand on previous works on this topic and what they achieve is a fascinating investigation into the reasons behind women’s creativity being regarded as inferior to men’s supposed ‘genius.’ The extent of the research, from works or art by women in the Renaissance, broad topics on craft and design, to contemporary women artists, does not fail to show that throughout time, due to historical, social and psychological factors, the art world has become, and perhaps always has been, a patriarchal domain and Pollock and Parker conclude that the only way to undo this is to call for a deconstruction of art history.
[1] ALLOWAY, Lawrence. (1987) ‘Old Mistresses’ IN ROBINSON, Hilary (ed.) ‘Visibly Female’ – Feminism and Art Today – An Anthology Camden Press Ltd. London p. 201
[2] P xii Nochlin
[3] ALLOWAY, Lawrence. (1987) ‘Old Mistresses’ IN ROBINSON, Hilary (ed.) ‘Visibly Female’ – Feminism and Art Today – An Anthology Camden Press Ltd. London p.202
[4] BAL, Mieke. (2002) Autopopography: Louise Bourgeois as Builder. Biography. 25 (1) pp/ 180-202
[5] SHERIFF, Mary D. (2003) ‘So what are you working on?’ – Categorizing the Exceptional Woman. IN Singular Women – Writing the Artist. FREDERICKSON, Kirsten, WEBB, Sarah E (eds.) University of California Press Ltd, London
[6] BARKER, Emma. (1999) Gender in Art – Women Artists and the French Academy; Vigee LeBrun in the1780’s. IN, PERRY, Gillian, CUNNINGHAM, Colin, BARKER, Emma. (1999) Art and its Histories. Yale University Press in association with the Open University
[7] Nochlin p.xii
[8] BERELOWITZ, Jo-Anne interviews BERGER, Martin. (2003) Refashioning Masculine Identity Genders 37
[9] PARKER, Rozsika, POLLOCK, Griselda. (1981) Old Mistresses: Women, Art and Ideology. Pandora Press, London p. 106
[10] PARKER, Rozsika, POLLOCK, Griselda. (1981) Old Mistresses: Women, Art and Ideology. Pandora Press, London p. 170
[11] PARKER, Rozsika, POLLOCK, Griselda. (1981) Old Mistresses: Women, Art and Ideology. Pandora Press, London p. 169
'Old Mistresses - Women Art and Ideology' by Rozsika Parker and Griselda Pollock
Old Mistresses is a book discussing women's place in the history of art; why women artists have been ignored and why their art has been misrepresented. This blog is aiming to investigate the theories and ideologies in this book, and debate its acheivements and limitations, concluding with how this book has influenced other writers.
Précis
‘Old Mistresses,’ is a text written by Rozsika Parker and Griselda Pollock which explores women’s place in the history of art; why women artists have been ignored or misrepresented. In the introduction to the text the authors state that the exclusion of women is critical to the development of art history, it is not until the 20th Century that writers began to investigate women artists and the work they produced. They aim to look at the limitations which have been put on women through which they have had to work. These limitations come from a range of factors, such as social, economic and historical. The authors hope to examine this by looking at biographies of women artists and their relation to art practise, although they emphasise that the text is ‘not a history of women artists but an analysis of relations between women, art and ideology.’ (p.xix)
Chapter one begins with questioning what women have created and why; in particular, what factors affected them, for example, discrimination. The writers emphasise that there have always been women artists; they were recognised until the 19th Century but from there on their existence has been denied. Works on women artists began to decline in a period where women’s social emancipation and education should have made people more aware of women’s issues. However 20th Century writers such as E.H Gombrich, in his ‘Story of Art,’ completely ignore women artists. Parker and Pollock go on to explain how women’s art was thought to be inferior to men’s; as men were responsible for cultural creativity whereas women were only associated with procreation, their characteristics thought of to be the antithesis of creativeness. This thought was based on the Bible, as it, ‘associated the divine right of creativity with men alone.’ (p. 1) This thought began in the 19th Century as bourgeois ideology began to instigate ideas of women being domestic and could only produce ‘tasteful art,’ whereas men held true genius. Parker and Pollock explain how this period is where the idea of ‘sexual difference’ became conscious.
The authors state that they want to discover why women have been ignored and the ideologies that allowed this to take place. In chapter two the writers explore the fact that the sex of the artist affects the way the art is seen. They use the example of flower painting in Holland in the 16th Century, which some women artists were involved in. They were dismissed as merely extensions of the ‘nature’ aspect of women, and not real art. They go on to discuss crafts, such as embroidery and quilt making, which are associated with being ‘feminine’ and therefore rejected as not being art. When craft items are displayed in galleries the role of the maker is diminished and they become nameless. Parker and Pollock explain how this is the only way this type of art can become recognised, if it is removed from its feminine connotations. They also discuss the nature to culture scale, where humans turn raw materials into cultural objects. Women symbolise nature and are therefore at the lower end of the scale.
The chapter finishes with a dialogue explaining how the need for a feminine stereotype in art is to provide an opposite to maleness, to supply something to be dominated by masculinity. Masculine ideology is only productive with a negative.
Chapter three looks at the way women artists see themselves and their identity as artists. Modern thought sees male attributes associated with the term ‘artist,’ which is a culmination of ideological transformations, from artist being a craft worker to artist being a bohemian, a ‘Creator.’ Parker and Pollock explore the changing definition of ‘women artist’ and look at several self portraits from artists such as Anguissola and Vigee Lebrun. They discuss how women artists struggle with duelling identities of being a woman, and also an artist, and how this is represented in their artwork.
The idea of language and representation is approached in chapter four: entry to society is marked by access to language and language embodies culture. A person’s knowledge of sexual difference is marked by their awareness of words such as ‘he’ and ‘she.’ Parker and Pollock explain how women’s struggle takes place in the field of language, the way they represent themselves and how they are represented by culture. Representation can restrict views of the world, as they come from a subjective point of view. Representations can reflect one group’s power over the other, such as patriarchal ideology over women. Parker and Pollock talk about representations of the female nude in art and how women are represented as being submissive and sexual objects for the voyeuristic enjoyment of men. Feminist artists have tried to reappropriate the female body by using images of female genitals. The authors point out that male artists never represent the female genitals in art, and this may highlight their fears of sexual difference and castration anxiety, referring to Freudian ideology.
With the advent of the modern art movement, new meanings could now be produced in art as new relations had formed between the spectator and the artwork. However as the authors discover in chapter five, there were still restrictions placed on women from the ‘feminine’ stereotypes still present. They discuss the American abstract artist Helen Frankenthaler, whose work the critics said was natural and timeless, still reverting back to 18th Century thought. For an artist that was trying to be innovative and current, she is still being hindered by patriarchal ideas of femininity. Parker and Pollock also talk about the second Hayward Annual exhibition, where the works of art were chosen by women, and resulted in numerous works by women artists also being shown. The critics however called some of the works ‘political art’ and therefore not real art. The writers point out this is because women’s art is traditionally thought of as not intelligent, yet when it becomes so it is rejected. They say that ‘when women’s art fails to conform with stereotypical expectations... it is dismissed as simply not art’ (p. 161).
Parker and Pollock conclude by emphasising again that women’s art has always been present. To criticise women artists, they have to be acknowledged. Women’s art plays a role in the creation of standards of male dominance as it provides a negative for masculine dominance. The authors wanted to break open the female stereotype and recognise it as a product of masculine discourse. They explain that women artists have made a varying progress into art, as opposed to steady, the way historians portray it. However they do admit that this text is not a conclusive history; there are many gaps and generalisations. They wanted to provide a framework for the analysis of women, art and ideology. By looking at the historical process which has formed the changing ideologies and contradictions of the history of women’s art, it helps us to understand the current situations of women artists today.
Précis
‘Old Mistresses,’ is a text written by Rozsika Parker and Griselda Pollock which explores women’s place in the history of art; why women artists have been ignored or misrepresented. In the introduction to the text the authors state that the exclusion of women is critical to the development of art history, it is not until the 20th Century that writers began to investigate women artists and the work they produced. They aim to look at the limitations which have been put on women through which they have had to work. These limitations come from a range of factors, such as social, economic and historical. The authors hope to examine this by looking at biographies of women artists and their relation to art practise, although they emphasise that the text is ‘not a history of women artists but an analysis of relations between women, art and ideology.’ (p.xix)
Chapter one begins with questioning what women have created and why; in particular, what factors affected them, for example, discrimination. The writers emphasise that there have always been women artists; they were recognised until the 19th Century but from there on their existence has been denied. Works on women artists began to decline in a period where women’s social emancipation and education should have made people more aware of women’s issues. However 20th Century writers such as E.H Gombrich, in his ‘Story of Art,’ completely ignore women artists. Parker and Pollock go on to explain how women’s art was thought to be inferior to men’s; as men were responsible for cultural creativity whereas women were only associated with procreation, their characteristics thought of to be the antithesis of creativeness. This thought was based on the Bible, as it, ‘associated the divine right of creativity with men alone.’ (p. 1) This thought began in the 19th Century as bourgeois ideology began to instigate ideas of women being domestic and could only produce ‘tasteful art,’ whereas men held true genius. Parker and Pollock explain how this period is where the idea of ‘sexual difference’ became conscious.
The authors state that they want to discover why women have been ignored and the ideologies that allowed this to take place. In chapter two the writers explore the fact that the sex of the artist affects the way the art is seen. They use the example of flower painting in Holland in the 16th Century, which some women artists were involved in. They were dismissed as merely extensions of the ‘nature’ aspect of women, and not real art. They go on to discuss crafts, such as embroidery and quilt making, which are associated with being ‘feminine’ and therefore rejected as not being art. When craft items are displayed in galleries the role of the maker is diminished and they become nameless. Parker and Pollock explain how this is the only way this type of art can become recognised, if it is removed from its feminine connotations. They also discuss the nature to culture scale, where humans turn raw materials into cultural objects. Women symbolise nature and are therefore at the lower end of the scale.
The chapter finishes with a dialogue explaining how the need for a feminine stereotype in art is to provide an opposite to maleness, to supply something to be dominated by masculinity. Masculine ideology is only productive with a negative.
Chapter three looks at the way women artists see themselves and their identity as artists. Modern thought sees male attributes associated with the term ‘artist,’ which is a culmination of ideological transformations, from artist being a craft worker to artist being a bohemian, a ‘Creator.’ Parker and Pollock explore the changing definition of ‘women artist’ and look at several self portraits from artists such as Anguissola and Vigee Lebrun. They discuss how women artists struggle with duelling identities of being a woman, and also an artist, and how this is represented in their artwork.
The idea of language and representation is approached in chapter four: entry to society is marked by access to language and language embodies culture. A person’s knowledge of sexual difference is marked by their awareness of words such as ‘he’ and ‘she.’ Parker and Pollock explain how women’s struggle takes place in the field of language, the way they represent themselves and how they are represented by culture. Representation can restrict views of the world, as they come from a subjective point of view. Representations can reflect one group’s power over the other, such as patriarchal ideology over women. Parker and Pollock talk about representations of the female nude in art and how women are represented as being submissive and sexual objects for the voyeuristic enjoyment of men. Feminist artists have tried to reappropriate the female body by using images of female genitals. The authors point out that male artists never represent the female genitals in art, and this may highlight their fears of sexual difference and castration anxiety, referring to Freudian ideology.
With the advent of the modern art movement, new meanings could now be produced in art as new relations had formed between the spectator and the artwork. However as the authors discover in chapter five, there were still restrictions placed on women from the ‘feminine’ stereotypes still present. They discuss the American abstract artist Helen Frankenthaler, whose work the critics said was natural and timeless, still reverting back to 18th Century thought. For an artist that was trying to be innovative and current, she is still being hindered by patriarchal ideas of femininity. Parker and Pollock also talk about the second Hayward Annual exhibition, where the works of art were chosen by women, and resulted in numerous works by women artists also being shown. The critics however called some of the works ‘political art’ and therefore not real art. The writers point out this is because women’s art is traditionally thought of as not intelligent, yet when it becomes so it is rejected. They say that ‘when women’s art fails to conform with stereotypical expectations... it is dismissed as simply not art’ (p. 161).
Parker and Pollock conclude by emphasising again that women’s art has always been present. To criticise women artists, they have to be acknowledged. Women’s art plays a role in the creation of standards of male dominance as it provides a negative for masculine dominance. The authors wanted to break open the female stereotype and recognise it as a product of masculine discourse. They explain that women artists have made a varying progress into art, as opposed to steady, the way historians portray it. However they do admit that this text is not a conclusive history; there are many gaps and generalisations. They wanted to provide a framework for the analysis of women, art and ideology. By looking at the historical process which has formed the changing ideologies and contradictions of the history of women’s art, it helps us to understand the current situations of women artists today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)