The roles of women seemed to have been purely focused around domesticity. The home life was what women were mostly used to. Whether it be taking care of the home, being married or having children, women did not have a slew of options. Women were very obviously granted less rights than men. It was uncommon to see a woman outside exploring what the world had to offer, especially if she was alone - women were to be accompanied if they were not home. Power was within the man while women were often overruled by the virility of men while being shoved into this feminine sphere. Women were generally defined by this male notion of “the feminine”. If women were not married with children, perhaps they chose the religious route and became a nun or perhaps they were prostitutes. A place where women opted in order to not fall into that domestic ditch was the Church. Not only was the church dominant to both genders but it offered women the choice to not have to get married and live a submissive life to a man and her children. Women were allowed to learn and also create artwork while in the convent However, there is some irony to this as well being that the church still was not a women’s safest bet because they were the ones setting these gender roles. According to Chadwick’s book, “The Church’s hierarchical organization reinforced the class distinctions in society; its patriarchal dogma included a full set of theories on the natural inferiority of women…” (Chadwick, 44).
As time progressed, women slowly but surely were paving a way for more opportunities (emphasis on the word slowly, however). Especially in the 18th century, there was more of an emergence of women artists. “As long as the woman artist presented a self - image emphasizing beauty, gracefulness and modesty, and as long as her paintings seemed to conform...she could although with difficulty, negotiate a role for herself in the world of public art” (Chadwick, 139). Although the quote still shows the incredible hardships for women when it comes to proving their worth (and the undoubtable stench of patriarchy) - we are able to see that women are slowly gaining more of an inch - in hopes of gaining success in the future. We also notice as time progresses that women are basically told what they should paint if they were to paint. If women artists were praised, it was generally for their ‘feminine’ attributes (i.e. adjectives like “delicate” or “sensitive” - the floral and domestic genres). “The task of describing minute nature required the same qualities of diligence, patience, and manual dexterity that are often used to denigrate ‘women’s work’. Women were, in fact, critical to the development of the floral still life , a genre highly esteemed in the 17th century, but by the 19th, dismissed as an inferior one ideally suited to the limited talents of women amateurs” (Chadwick, 129).
Judith Leyster was an example of a woman artist in the time that I am describing. She painted motifs and domestic spaces (i.e. women by candlelight). However, I personally to not find this inferior (as per the recent quote) due to the fact that some men had even studied under her. The tragic part of her story is that her death is unknown even though her artwork was popular - a perfect example of how a woman’s reputation meant little to nothing during these times.
As time moves on - into the 19th century, we begin to see more women testing the artistic norms of those times. For example, the “White Marmorean Flock” - a sisterhood of american women who stayed together to create artwork so it would be harder to ignore them as a “flock”. Many were lesbian or did not get married - fighting against the domestic lifestyle that was often forced upon women. Artwork during the late 1800s into the early 1900’s was often seen as neoclassical or as realism.
Works Cited: Chadwick, Whitney. Women, Art, and Society. Langara College, 2016.
 |
| Rachel Ruysch |
 |
| Judith Leyster |
 |
| Artemisia Gentileschi |
No comments:
Post a Comment