Gender and Power in the Art Historical Canon
Lee Krasner, Gothic Landscape, (1961), oil on canvas, Tate Modern, London, UK
Gender and Power Relations: The Art Historical Canon
Power is an interesting concept in the visual arts because power relations regarding class, race, and gender are complex and the dynamic is often unbalanced and neglects underrepresented groups. These unbalanced power relations in the visual arts are exemplified by the notion of the “art historical canon.” It is perhaps more accurate to describe it as the “Western art historical canon” because the notion refers to a group of artists or artworks that are perceived as having high value in the West due to a perceived “genius” and talent.
The canon is essentially a group of artists or artworks that are known as “the best” of the visual arts, and it is likely that outside of art historical narratives those belonging to the canon are known in the mainstream. The core problem to this notion of the canon is that it is exclusive and consists predominantly of middle aged European-American white men. Artists or works by artists of marginalised groups such as, Black, Indigenous, People of Colour, and women are excluded. This exclusive nature of the canon began with the Renaissance figure Giorgio Vasari who is often regarded as the creator of the visual art canon due to his book Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors and Architects (1550). The book was comprised of a series of artist’s biographies and they were almost all Italian, predominantly Florentine, and there is little to no mention of any women. This therefore set the precedent of what constituted in the West as “high art” of the “best” quality and talent. Unfortunately this has not changed considerably since Vasari’s time and this mode of valuing art and artists is still present. Most of the artists considered “world famous” today, and who are perceived as a part of a wider general knowledge of art, fit the category of European-American males such as: Michelangelo, Claude Monet, J.M.W Turner, Pablo Picasso, Jackson Pollock, Andy Warhol, etc. But far less have heard of those such as Artemisia Gentileschi, Mary Cassatt, Louise Bourgeois, Helen Frankenthaler, Lee Krasner, Yayoi Kusama, Emily Kame Kngwarreye, or Sonia Boyce. A cycle emerges because artists of the canon are those taught in schools and universities as “the greats” whilst Vasari and his literature is often also first on the syllabus. It affects what exhibitions are shown and the artists and works they feature which leads to the same canonical artists remaining in our knowledge of the arts. Artists of marginalised groups, despite how prolific or successful they might be are pushed out of our consciousness.
Sonia Boyce, Lay Back, Keep Quiet and Think of What Made Britain So Great, 1986, Arts Council Collection, Southbank Centre, London, UK
Artemisia Gentileschi, Self Portrait as Saint Catherine of Alexandria, circa 1615-17, oil on canvas, The National Gallery, London, UK
Helen Frankenthaler, The Bay, 1963, acrylic on canvas, 205.1 x 207.7cm, Detroit Institute of Arts, USA
The neglect of marginalised artists and the notion of the canon have been heavily critiqued by scholars due to its exclusive nature that deprives us of the knowledge of incredibly talented artists. Approaches on how to tackle under-representation and neglect vary, some believe the canon changes over time (as artists in the canon do fall in and out of favour to an extent) so the addition of marginalised artists would be beneficial. Others believe this is not possible because the conditions that keep the artists or artworks in the canon do not favour marginalised groups and the notion should instead be abolished. However, the canon is not a physical list that can be altered or ripped up, it is instead similar to a summary of artists and artworks in a society’s collective consciousness and changing or abolishing it would therefore be difficult to achieve. There is an argument to be made for reframing the canon and introducing new perspectives. Art historian Griselda Pollock discusses the canon in relation to women and suggests it needs to be thought of as a “mythic” structure in order to avoid the argument over who is or isn’t in the canon. Pollock rightly observes that there are some “famous women artists” today but that they are not “canonical” or “providing a benchmark for greatness” but rather “notorious, sensational, commodifiable or token,” and they will be attacked as readily as they are adored. The perception and treatment of artists such as Frida Kahlo and Georgia O’Keefe appear to fit this concept, and it can even be likened to that of female celebrities in today’s society.
Frida Kahlo, Self-Portrait with Thorn Necklace and Hummingbird, 1940, oil on canvas, The University of Austin, Texas, USA, © Bank of Mexico, Fiduciary in the Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo Museum Trust
There are multiple conditions that have led to the exclusion of women artists from the canon because ultimately it was viewed they did not possess the “genius” that Vasari writes about. Historically it has been more difficult for women to have the means to become artists, although this is not to say they haven’t existed. Men were seen to have the “genius” artistic talent and women were thought to partake in art as a pastime or hobby, not to be taken seriously. This meant women did not have the same access to artistic training and were not allowed to study the nude, essential for painting figures and for “history paintings” – one of the highly revered painting genres in the West. It has also contributed to the notion that forms of art such as textiles, embroidery, and flower painting are somehow inherently “feminine” and are often referred to as “crafts” rather than “art,” because they were seen as acceptable mediums which a woman could partake in. Many successful women artists were therefore taught by either their artist fathers or their husbands. This has led to one of the ways in which women artists are underappreciated, because many have been overlooked by their artist husbands. While there are some exceptions – for example, Frida Kahlo has arguably surpassed the status of her artist husband Diego Rivera – it is common for women artists married to male artists to only be discussed in the context of their husbands.
The canon excludes women artists through its very design, and their marginalisation has led to reductive explorations of their works. This, however, is beginning to change. Feminist art historians work to undo the reductive means in which women artists have been discussed in the past by exploring their life works in more productive and interesting ways. In addition, there are some exciting exhibitions coming up (if Covid-19 allows) that give hope that the focus on canonical ways are changing and will give us the chance to explore the work of these artists, both contemporary and of the past, in the way in which they deserve.
Upcoming Exhibitions:
Paula Rego: Tate Britain, 7 July – 24 October 2021
Sophie Taeuber-Arp: Tate Modern, 15 July – 17 October 2021
Marina Abramović: Royal Academy, 25 September – 12 December 2021
Lubaina Himid: Tate Modern, 25 November 2021 – 22 May 2022
Jadé Fadojutimi: The Hepworth Wakefield, 7 April – 25 September 2022
Marta Minujím: La Menesunda, Tate Liverpool (dates TBC)
Helen Frankenthaler: Radical Beauty: Dulwich Picture Gallery, (dates TBC)
Eileen Agar: Angel of Anarchy, Whitechapel Gallery, (dates TBC)
Magdalena Abakanowicz, Tate Modern (dates TBC)
Further Reading:
Differencing the Canon: Feminist Desire and the Writing of Art’s Histories by Grisleda Pollock, 1999
Old Mistresses: Women, Art and Ideology by Rozika Parker and Griselda Pollock, 1981
Politics in a Glass Case: Feminism, Exhibition Cultures and Curatorial Transgressions by Angela Dimitrakaki and Lara Perry, 2013
“The Art Historical Canon: Sins of Omission,” by Nanette Salomon, in The Art of Art History by Donald Preziosi, 1998
“The Idea of the Canon and Canon Formation in Art History,” by Hubert Locher, in Art History and Visual Studies in Europe by Matthew Rampley et al, 2012
“Why are there no Great Women Artists,” by Linda Nochlin, 1971
Sarah McDermott Brown is a graduate of the University of Birmingham with a BA in History of Art and a MA in History of Art and Curating.