Social Construction and Artists

¶ … built into the question, "Why are there no great women artists?" First, the question assumes that there have never been great women artists, which of course, is false. The second assumption is that "artists" are different from "women artists." Saying "women artists," in this sense, is like saying "lady doctor." Third, the question uses the term "great" vaguely. Does great mean famous? Or does great mean technically good? Or does great mean something else? Finally, the question itself is broad.

Does it refer to women artists in Europe? North America? Asia? The question also neglects the deeper assumption: that the patriarchal society has defined the terms of greatness, and has defined the terms of art. Therefore, the question is fundamentally flawed. As Nochlin puts it, simply presenting the question is a sign of gross misogyny, and responding to it defensively is exactly the wrong response. An appropriate response is not to start talking about Mary Cassat or Berthe Morisot or Georgia O'Keefe or Frieda Kahlo.

"By attempting to answer" an insulting question, we "tacitly reinforce its negative implications," (Nochlin 1). Nochlin also points out that the patriarchal establishment in the art world has presumed that there is a "feminine style." This is the assumption that a "woman artist" should be classified differently from a "regular artist." The default human being is a male; a female is deviant from that norm. She has to be qualified, singled out for her gender.

We do not speak of "male artists," we speak of "artists," and "women artists." Even when their subject matter preferences are controlled for, women and men who are artists are still just human beings. Their approach to art is a product of their geo-temporal landscape, not their gender. "Women artists and writers would seem to be closer to other artists and writers of their own period and outlook than they are to each other," (Nochlin 1).

Interestingly, the "feminine" subject matters like women and children are frequently depicted in the art created by men. It is certainly possible that there are "no great women artists" because a patriarchal social order infiltrates the art world. Women artists are looked down upon, denigrated, talked about as the "wife of so-and-so" instead of he being referred to as "so-and-so's husband." Breaking into the hierarchal, fickle, market-driven modern art world might yield a similar response: the system is rigged. It is a patriarchal world just like any other industry.

Nochlin takes the question a step further, claiming that the problem of "no women artists" is a social construction, and a malicious one at that. It is a patriarchal question, with patriarchal assumptions.

It is a question posed by the male viewer, and male spectator who walks through a gallery wondering why there are "no great women artists." The author compares the "no women artists" problem to the Nazi "Jewish problem." What we call a "problem" requires a "reinterpretation of the nature of the situation, or a radical alteration of stance or program on the part of the 'problems' themselves," (Nochlin 2). We have been asking the wrong question, or asking it the wrong way. Reframing the question is necessary.

Continuing to dwell on the "why are there no great women artists?".