and I viewed this as a "teachable moment." Those who truly appreciate art get my point, and yours too, and I haven't become "huffy" with the poster (so to speak, ahem). I accepted the poster's post at face value and now I get to post great art for DUers to look at, YAY!

I was a little tongue in cheek with my reference to Christiansen, I guess, altho who knows? But the Metropolitan doesn't screw around when it comes to European art...they might listen or Christiansen might throw the nearest object at me...

That is simply not up for debate.

upset! But thanks for your support!

YOU!

Damn,I'm going to have to start using the sarcasm smiley more often. I'm very aware of your knowledge and love for art.

Then again, it's possible that art has been distorting the image of women for centuries.

time and place. What was beauty in women in Rubens time? Clearly, a larger, plumper woman. And a woman in Belgium (Rubens painted in Antwerp) typically were larger. Botticelli's work was myth and symbolism...the three graces are pregnant with new life which primavera brings...(but we are reminded that the artist fell under the sway of Savonarola who was a religious fanatic and as a result Botticelli threw some of his paganistic mythological works into the Bonfire of the Vanities (eek!). Raphael's aesthetic was High Renaissance (Botticelli was Early Renaissance). Canova was Neoclassical.

I'm once again reminded of Allan Johnson's take on the concept of "misandry".

Somehow, I think it was more common for artists to idealize than otherwise, and so the point of interest is what constituted the ideal.

-- Mal

Still framing reality itself, and filtering it through their own cultural biases.

While the rest of us are still screaming just to be heard. We are generations away from freedom.

But a separate point of interest.

I am gradually coming around to the conclusion that the problem is irreducible, and all that remains is to try to limit the damage. The fact that individuals may vary in this or that regard is only reflective of the tyranny of the bell curve, and not an indicator of general movement. Forty years of "women's liberation," and states are passing bills for government-sanctioned rape. It looks rather bleak at times.

-- Mal

Fighting for our rights with legislation and in court is important, there is no doubt.

But we will not truly ever be free until this indoctrination to see women as "the other" and "less than" is ended, and that battle is not just in the halls of power but everywhere.

Not "less than," that is absurd. But I occasionally play with the idea that there are in fact some biological or genetic differences that cast males and females into separate camps. The competition for alpha-status in the herd, for example, might well be different based on different instinctive assessments of "strength." Such distinction might even be necessary to ensure survival of the gene-pool. If I could actually formulate a coherent theory out of the idea, it might help explain why humans seem to be so wedded to the separation.

I have hopes that those of the rising generation who are not children of privilege are formulating a more equitable relation, but even if so, the children of privilege still rule the world and control the media, and thus define the discourse. And they have a vested interest in perpetuating the status quo. Thus it appears to me that a radical reworking of society is going to be required before there is any hope of anything approaching true equality in the "hearts and minds" of mankind. Legally the outlook is better, but eternal vigilance is necessary to counter the counter-revolution.

-- Mal

Oh, yeah..... what great female artists of the same period...?

Not meaning to diminish your point, but our sense of history, of aesthetics, art--even of music have been overwhelmingly shaped by the male perception almost entirely--until very recently in the scope of time.

Funny, I thought individual artists were, you know, individuals... not some mechanical expression of a collective unconscious.

-- Mal

and essentially, men alone, throughout history. Thank you for man-splaining that to me.

To say we are missing a key element does not diminish the work of great male artists and historians.

It's a question of particular/general.

I interpreted your post as making a general observation about social discourse. I interpreted
hlth2b's post as ascribing to individuals a general status. Probably sloppy on my part.

-- Mal

You should read about Shakespeare's sister, as Virginia Woolf put it.

According to the National Museum of Women in the Arts:

That is very interesting indeed.

And I agree with Georgia.

-- Mal

were! So the definition of "Fine arts" and "crafts" were made early and by men.

Nonetheless, some women did compete. In the republic of Florence, a very few women submitted their design ideas in the competition for the Gates of Paradise (the doors on the north side of the Baptistery), so we must assume that they were confident in their ability to work in bronze. And there is Artemisia Gentileschi (whose brutal, bloody rendering of Judith slaying Holofernes was possibly influenced by her rape), contemporary of Caravaggio, and the great artist of the Golden Age of Dutch Art, Judith Leyster (originally attributed to Frans Hals!). And many more of lesser fame, but there they were!

But, I have to say, despite your rare exceptions, they were truly in the background.. Seems to me that is the point.

BTW, don't take this to mean I don't appreciate the benefit we receive from your art knowledge. I don't often post on your art-related threads, but I do look forward to them.

they were in the forefront of what is termed Crafts...but certainly, they were suppressed in the Fine Arts. Judith Leyster quit painting her exquisite flowers when her husband pressured her to stop...

Because women dominated in them.

It's also interesting that craftsmanship of any kind, working with one's hands, working with natural things, has always been sneered at by the intellectuals. Interesting and probably inevitable, since there seems to be a great necessity for some groups of people to put another down.

The ancient practice of medicine is another example: the "doctors" were theorists who disdained hands-on experience, whereas the "surgeons," who actually worked in the blood and pus, were a lesser species. That, anyway, has reversed somewhat over the years, so long of course as we are not talking about obstetrics.

-- Mal

... about Athene as the goddess of crafts, which Stephenson tries hard to convince us was just a metaphor for technology. "Because who would want to be the Goddess of Macrame?"

Proves that intellectual elitism is still alive and well.

-- Mal

I showed my class Gentileschi's and Caravaggio's version of Judith slaying Holofernes, and asked them what they thought. My class, 80% of which are women, totally agreed that Caravaggio's looked squeamish and fake, and that Gentileschi's looked raw, brutal, and that it was much better. When I told them who had painted them, they just nodded and said that Gentileschi's female characters looked a lot more realistic, so it made sense that it was painted by a woman, instead of by a "shielded and protected" man. I was tempted to give them A then and there for that insight!

more authentic than Caravaggio's pallid heroine...

You have no doubt seen her Susanna and the Elders, too...

Thank you

was right.