Two Critical Views of Women and Art
Paglia and Nochlin Examine Women’s Relationship to Art and Feminism
Feb 14, 2009
In the world of art, one must ask: have we come a long way, baby? The answer depends on which era we examine. In the 1970s, feminists were just beginning to critique the under-representation of women artists in museum collections and in the art market. By the 1990s, third-wave feminist artists had moved beyond battling sexism and sought to reclaim creative power by appropriating male privilege into their work.
Nochlin’s View
In her essay, “Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists,” Linda Nochlin asks the famous titular question. It is a question she attempts not to answer but to, perhaps, clarify. She immediately addresses the wrong answer: "There are no great women artists because women are incapable of greatness." After getting that fallacy out of the way, she continues to explore "the assumptions behind such a question".
She delves into the issues of femininity, the nude, and the rather historically insecure accomplishments of women painters like Rosa Bonheur. In the end, she urges women to embrace the reality of the present situation (in 1971) and accept the challenges posed to them, with courage. Only then would women establish themselves in the male-dominated sphere of art history. Her argument is, essentially, that one must work with the system in order to change it.
Paglia’s View
Some twenty years later, Camille Paglia proposes what she ironically and humorously calls "The New Sexism", a battle cry to free art from the sexless and bitter confines of 1970s vintage feminism. In her essay, “The New Sexism: Liberating Art and Beauty,” Paglia argues that historical revision—making past women painters out to be masters, etc.—is simply not the answer. Lauding female artists simply for their gender, rather than for their creative talent, would be just as baseless and limiting as the male-oriented construct they hoped to escape.
Pornography is power, she says, and mutilated female egos are the stuff of great art. She seems to be saying that the tyranny of feminist rhetoric is equally as dangerous and oppressive as the tyranny of misogynist patriarchy. Her appropriation of imagery and rhetoric historically intended for the male gaze—such as sexual explicitness and erotic display—indicates empowerment through reclamation.
Paglia wants to "open the mind toward art—the spiritual and carnal record of mankind". Some of us may draw the line at the use of outmoded, sexist language. (Would the term "humanity" be such an imposition?) Otherwise, Camille Paglia has argued more effectively for women artists than many other so-called feminists.
 |
