Women in the Arts

ReNae Stueve · 08-03-2002, 05:54 PM

I've just received a solicitation for contributions to the National Museum of Women in the Arts. My first question to all of you, is have you heard of this organization and are they legitimate? I'm a sustaining member of our local Orlando Museum of Art and would love to support a cause as worthy as the one they presented in this mailing, however, I'm not interested in empty mailing for money schemes and I don't get out enough to know the details of this organization.

Secondly, the statistics they presented, "Only one percent of art work exhibited on the world today are by women artist" is an unfortunate fact, that I would like to help change. Are there any other efforts underway that can use all the support they can get?

I'm sure as I'm breathing, that these statistics are not due to a lack of women artists. I see our membership is full of extremely talented women. So, it's the business end, of art that could use some enlightenment.

This Sagittarian loves a good cause.

Cynthia Daniel · 08-03-2002, 10:59 PM

They are indeed legit. You can see their website at http://www.nmwa.org

I used to be a member, but quit because there was more modern art than I liked to see.

Peggy Baumgaertner · 08-04-2002, 09:25 AM

This is just a little aside, and has most to do with my personal "world view," but although I applaud the efforts of the group, I want to make it as a portrait artist, not as a woman portrait artist.

Historically, women were not given the opportunities that men were to train to be artists. This, however, did not stop woman from making their mark. Cecilia Beaux, Mary Cassett, Elizabeth Vigee-LaBrun, to name a few.

I am finding that I am not at a disadvantage for doing major commissions in the portrait field. The guys don't have a lock on it. The main reason the men are on the boards of the portrait societies is because they were busting their chops during a period of history when women were not working to the same degree in the fine art and illustrative field - I'm talking teaching and publishing as well as painting, (and the ateliers were interested in young, talented boys...).

Fortunately, we are living in a period where people live long enough to master a discipline even if they have a "slow start." It is not necessary to discover your talent, find a teacher, and start your "path" while still in your teens in order to have enough time to become a master before you check out at 50. Gail Sheehy even calls this "The Age of Mastery." So you can go to school, marry, raise a family, get your training in bites, and still have 30 or 40 years to paint.

I perceive no glass ceiling. I want to play with the big boys.

Peggy

Marvin Mattelson · 08-04-2002, 07:08 PM

Bravo Peggy! Celia Beau is one of my favorite painters. I only think of painters as belonging to one of two categories. Those I like and those I don't. Regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity, political affiliation or religion may be, I look only at the size of their hearts.

ReNae Stueve · 08-04-2002, 07:39 PM

Peggy,

I like the paradigm of your life as a portrait artist. I do feel though, that "icon art" as I call it, is strictly modern, masculine, violent, today, and as I suspect, what Cynthia was referring to was the all too common, feminine trying to suceed by emulating masculine.

I see by Marvin's response, that my point was missed. I KNOW that as artists, we all, see art as art, regardless of the gender of the creator. However, there is a difference between masculine and feminine presentation in representational art. The big show stoppers are more often than not, 90% more, images of war, the west, warships, warriors, patriarchal religious enactment , yadda yadda yadda.

I believe that the old saying, you are what you eat, goes for our society as well, we are what we idealize. And I would like to support all form of media that represent the nurturant ideal.

Peggy Baumgaertner · 08-04-2002, 08:08 PM

ReNae,

Just a question, are we talking about all art, or just portraits? Are we talking about the current gallery climate, or centuries of painting? And I don't quite understand your reference to icon art, which has a very specific meaning to me, they are highly structured religious depiction's from the life of Christ.

There are very gentle paintings by men, Bouguereau, Waterhouse, Leighton for example. As well as violent paintings by women. If you go to ARC, Art Renewal Center you will see vast numbers of nurturing art, mostly painted by men.

The most famous paintings that I can recall off the top of my head are the Mona Lisa, Whistler's Mother, Venus Raising for the Sea, Vermeer 's "Woman with a Pearl Earring".

I'm not trying to be petulant, I am just not understanding.

Peggy

ReNae Stueve · 08-04-2002, 08:23 PM

Peggy,

I was talking about new art, being created and hung today. Debating what's past does not further? I mentioned, I don't get out much anymore (HA). We have several galleries here in town that exhibit current works. There is nothing nuturing or gentle about most of it. This is the reason I posted my question. Are there more organization who promote the display of feminine works?

And no, my reference to icon art, would be art created today, that will be viewed historically as a representation of the climate of the 21st century. Not to be confused with Christian icon art.

Jim Riley · 08-05-2002, 01:52 PM

If someone or any organization would suggest training or display of female art with the restriction that it only present works that might be described as sensitive or nurturing I would think (or hope) that artists everywhere, both male and female, would take offense. It sounds like a large steps backwards.

Local and regional art shows in every community in the country as well as National Watercolor and Portrait Societies among others always have strong representation by female artist (not to mention SOG) and to claim otherwise is specious. (1%?)

It almost sounds as though the "Modern Art" threat/menace/argument continues and now revealed as masculine controlled/inspired. Warriors and Warships? Other than the musty corner of an old museum where would one find such subjects?

Mari DeRuntz · 08-06-2002, 10:39 AM

Renae,

You've opened an interesting topic! I know you don't mean to imply that women are nurturing and men are violent... or that these basic ID tags carry over into our art.

I recommend "Daybook, the Journey of an Artist" by Anne Truitt (whose painted-plywood sculpture you might categorize as violent). Cynthia probably has it in the bookstore on this site.

On a personal scale, while I yearn to paint beautiful figurative work, I do not dismiss modern or abstract art. It seems the better we understand the abstract design of nature, the better we are able to render the figurative.

I was born in 1967, and in this country and in my lifetime, I do not come across serious gender issues.

The National Museum of Women in the Arts, like so many museums, depends on patrons. Soliciting your gift (of membership) is important to their survival. I think artists who have the means to do so are obliged to give back to the art community, not by giving money to every cause, but by giving back in whatever way is purposeful.

Cynthia Daniel · 08-06-2002, 10:50 AM

Mari,

I don't have it in the bookstore, but I did my link on it above.

Thanks!