Prospero

Books, arts and culture

Women and art

What to make of an art show dedicated exclusively to women

Dec 12th 2011, 11:11 by B.K. | LONDON

“A SELF-made ghetto amid the desired homogeneity of the 21st century” is how Sue Hubbard in the Independent described the gallery I founded in 2005 exclusively in support of women artists. Around the same time Griselda Pollock, a renowned feminist art historian, wrote to me describing the project as “vitally important”. Both views hold water: there is much to be said for championing women artists, and much to be said against it.
 
Now at Crane Kalman Gallery is an exhibition entitled "Women and Art". Specialising in 20th-century British, European and American Art, Crane Kalman was established in 1949 by Andreas Kalman, a Hungarian emigre, and it has inhabited its Brompton Road location since 1956. It has a warm, old-fashioned, quietly eccentric air, more like the living room of a favourite great aunt than a thriving central London art space.
 
"Women and Art" is a modest but engaging group exhibition aiming to raise £15,000 in support of Ovarian Cancer Action, a charity. The exhibition features works by such modern British stalwarts as Sandra Blow, Gwen John, Winifred Nicholson (pictured below) and Bridget Riley, and some more surprising but no less appealing inclusions: a tiny Jenny Saville self-portrait in oils on board from 1992 (pictured above), the year the YBA artist graduated Glasgow School of Art; a very early work by Yayoi Kusama called “Flower” (1953) and a later piece by the same artist from her much loved “Dots Obsession” series that has constituted most of her life's work.
 
Speaking to Sally Kalman, the show's organiser (she modestly declines the term curator, finding the title too grand for what she does), she seemed keen to distance the show from any suggestion that it promotes female artists, per se. I could see why she might want to avoid such sticky territory. The questions loom: Does any artist need, or even want to be identified on the basis of her sex? Does a sex-based association confer a level of homogeneity? Are all women feminists and must all feminists be women? What does feminism even mean? The topic is a minefield. Though I respect Ms Kalman's wish to remain independent of gender politics, an exhibition made up exclusively of women artists will inevitably provoke some of these questions.
 
In her 2004 book “Tate Women Artists”, Alicia Foster researched and highlighted the statistic that, at time of writing, Tate owned 2,600 works by men and 316 works by women; this means just under 11% of Tate artists were women, and their works made up approximately 7% of the collections. That was eight years ago. The numbers have doubtless changed since then, but it is hard to believe the shift has been significant.
 
Perhaps then an exhibition of work by women artists could be seen less as an effort to quarantine their work, and more as a way to bring some much-needed attention to it. For any number of reasons—some explicable, some not—women continue to find professional success as artists far more elusive than do their male counterparts. Highlighting the fine work being created by a still marginal group of artists is no bad thing, even if it is complicated.

"Women and Art" is on view at the Crane Kalman Gallery in London until January 14th 2012

Read more: "The F-word in art" (More Intelligent Life)

Readers' comments

The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.

Sort:

UglyToesPete

Art should not be promoted, viewed, etc. etc based on sex.

Big mistake.

Not that this event will not, or could not be succesfull with only female artists'....but the elimination of other artists' based solely on sex is.....sexist. Only in today's world could such mistakes be done.

To top it off, by doing so, a pall of doubt is cast upon all art at this event.

Silly girls.

UTP

Fikile

Why not? I am exceedingly sick and tired of all things men...and nobody is saying outloud "where are the women?" Until that changes I say the more the better.

Terence_I_Hale@hotmail.com

Hi,
Women and art. A question I have asked myself many times. Why are all famous artists men ? Is it because of the “O” precious pain of men make things. I don't know.
Regards Terence Hale

Grettir

"Sublimely ethereal, provocatively playful, comely, lithe and in a permanent state of undress."

Powerful statement, very helpful to expanding lexical horizons.

ashbird in reply to Grettir

"Well, I would say of women, men and otherwise."

Precisely!

LC has jokes on other blogs that I miss often. So we generate more jokes because of my dim wit. He is quite brilliant. I like to tease him. I still like the line he came up with.

Grettir

The sharp contrast in origins of art works gender-wise mentioned in the text is quite opposite to what one can observe in the industry closely related to art - web design. Web development and its satellite occupation, web design, probably display the biggest gender divide that can be found on the job market presently. If I say that 99% of web developers (those who code logic and plan database) are men and 99% of web designers (Photoshop gurus who truly understand color balances, composition and graphical harmony) are women, most likely I will not be too far from the mark. Personally, I never even met male Web Designer although I heard about their existence.

The author's metaphor about feminism as a minefield is very true. Having said that I would restrict my further comments to the following: the cause is great but it is not clear why would not works by male artists be helpful in the exhibition?

ashbird in reply to Grettir

@Grettir,

"...the cause is great but it is not clear why would not works by male artists be helpful in the exhibition?"

Totally! Really strange.

Gloria Vanderbilt, the famous designer, in fashion and interior design, came out with florals upon florals, and paisleys in the mix, with colors so vibrant and contrasting I always felt only a woman's eye could have put together a color scheme like that. In the mix of colors, bit of Matisse (totally masculine), a bit of Impressionist (minute nuances in shades), a bit of Expressionist (bold jarring contrast). All that in flowers. What you said of women in web design reminds me of that. Men's color schemes are boring and dull, no imagination, until they graduate the rank of painters and artists. I really enjoyed reading your piece. :)

ashbird

I think Ms. Kalman's keenness to distance the show from any suggestion it promotes female artists is wise. Feminism is a minefield and will not work in practical terms in the show’s favor. In any case feminism is way dated by now. It has given capable women a bad name and good men a bad rap. Few self-proclaimed feminists would agree with me on this stance. Many will hate me. But I maintain innate talent is color-blind and gender-blind. The concept that a woman succeeds in spite of or because of is misguided. The paintings should be judged on their artistic merit. Gender has got nothing to do with it.

What pisses me off is the show aims at raising a paltry £15,000 for ovarian cancer. Half a lynx coat at Harrods would beat that sum. Something is not right. I don’t know what it is except it is not feminism cast away or bad paintings. Remember GaGa would raise millions by wagging her tail and a non-art piece of Warhol even more by wagging a still can?

(Clicking away, I viewed some works at the gallery. Some are very nice to my eyes.)

LC, where did you form your images of "Sublimely ethereal, provocatively playful, comely, lithe and in a permanent state of undress" from in this show. Or is that one of your jokes I don't get?

LaContra in reply to ashbird

ashbird
Try inverting the comment

I think there should be more women in art.
(preferably they should be)
Sublimely ethereal, provocatively playful, comely, lithe and in a permanent state of undress.

Meaning I prefer the woman as subject rather than artist ;)....

ashbird in reply to ashbird

LC,

Second thought.

This has gotten to be very confusing. I meant there exist artists who view the male subject with the same eye, rare or rarer they may be. In part, though, the quip was to bite back at your humor that I never get the first time. :)

LaContra

Sublimely ethereal, provocatively playful, comely, lithe and in a permanent state of undress.

I think there should be more women in art

bampbs

Now that the paleofeminist dogma that men and women are the same is dead, why not a show of womens' art? Anyone who pays attention knows that women have perspectives that men don't. It's no more odd than a show of French paintings.

About Prospero

Named after the hero of Shakespeare's "The Tempest", an expert on the power of books and the arts, this blog features literary insight and cultural commentary from our correspondents, and includes our coverage of the art market.

RSS feed

Advertisement

Trending topics

Read comments on the site's most popular topics

Advertisement

Products & events