Unpacking the Ignorance of Art History

There is a certain inevitable contradiction that we impose upon ourselves when it comes to appreciating the art of those who have so often marginalized others. Upon learning of their actions, we are met with a moral and ethical decision as to the way we must now view the artist. In truth, there is no real alternative to being conscious of these things after viewing someone’s art through the lens of their negative actions. This is perhaps the most important thing to take away from this, along with an emphasis on questioning why this information is not included in our education system. Upon investigation, it becomes clear that art history is inherently flawed, given its misogynistic nature. The issue does not only lie in the glorification of strongly prejudiced artists, but also in the lack of representation of female artists.

As an example, abstraction often has its origin credited to Wassily Kandinsky; many even claim he was the “father of abstraction”. At a minimum he is certainly a pioneer, though, in truth, he was not the first. Hilma af Klint was the true mother of abstraction. In specific, her first abstract works were produced between 1906 and 1915, titled The Paintings for the Temple. In these, she experimented with an array of unique colors as well as an inexhaustible amount of shapes. These works were truly the first display of abstraction, and, for the sake of comparison, were being produced nearly ten years before Kandinsky’s first abstract pieces.

Group IV: The Ten Largest, No. 2, Childhood, Hilma af Klint, 1907

The reason as to why people are more likely to affiliate Kandinsky with abstract art than af Klint originates in art history’s flaws. It does not take much research to find that art history is misogynistic; this is why students are more likely to learn about Michelangelo and Da Vinci as opposed to Rosa Bonheur or Berthe Morisot.

Unpacking the ignorance that centuries of art historians have left behind can and should begin in the classroom. This past spring semester, I was subject to one of the most important lectures one could receive. I was given a handout that discussed Linda Nochlin’s essay “Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?” The title is implicative, but as one reads, it is clear that it is simply the reiteration of an ignorant question a man once asked her. A question that, thankfully, led to one of the most important pieces ever written on the plague that is misogyny within art history.

“In the field of art history, the white western male viewpoint, unconsciously accepted as the viewpoint of the art historian,” Nochlin states, “May-and does-prove to be inadequate not merely on moral and ethical grounds, or because it is elitist, but on purely intellectual ones.”

Once we can address the root of the problem, we can truly understand why we learn art history from such a limited perspective. Nochlin mentions that in a standard art history class, we likely will only learn the “white western male viewpoint.” In fact, the only reason I was given the opportunity to learn more about misogyny in art history was because my professor, Dr. Jeanette Nicewinter, took it upon herself to include it in the curriculum. “Including the Nochlin reading is a personal choice,” Nicewinter wrote. “I think it’s important that students understand why art history is structured and taught in a certain way and why some students may not see artists that look like them or share their identity.”

This choice is one that I would hope all professors would be inspired to make. Instead of attempting to highlight the reputations of ignored or forgotten women artists, this piece delves into why exactly they were suppressed in the first place. This leads to one posing essential questions as to why the systems that should feature such artists failed to do so. In addition to this, it also answers the highly implicative question that is, “Why are there no great women artists?” Or more so, it exposes the flaws in the way the question is posed. “It falsifies the nature of the issue at the same time that it insidiously supplies its own answer: ‘There are no great women artists because women are incapable of greatness’…” Nochlin claims, “…by attempting to answer it, they tacitly reinforce its negative implications.” The question, if answered as it intends, will always fail to look at the bigger picture: the consistent marginalization that many women artists have faced throughout time.

Linda Nochlin (1931-2017)

As per mentioned before, in addition to shying away from discussing the oppression of women artists, art history also tends to glorify strongly prejudiced artists. Recently, while scrolling through YouTube, I stumbled upon a video titled Love the Art, Hate the Artist. It discussed the prevalence of misogyny in many significant artist’s practices, and in specific, cited Pablo Picasso. It must be emphasized that Picasso was undoubtedly a misogynist as well as an abuser. As Marina Picasso, his granddaughter, put it in her chilling piece Picasso, My Grandfather, “He submitted [female subjects] to his animal sexuality, tamed them, bewitched them, ingested them, and crushed them onto his canvas. After he had spent many nights extracting their essence, once they were bled dry, he would dispose of them.”

Picasso was shameless in his ignorant acts, even once claiming that “there are only two kinds of women: goddesses and doormats.” He had many muses that he chose to objectify rather than appreciate and did not shy away from grinding down at their emotional expense. So, upon learning this, we must ask ourselves the following questions: how does one now view an artist’s work, after learning they were ignorant in many regards? Do we acknowledge their actions, and hold them accountable, alive or not? Do we turn a blind eye to their prior ignorance, and align ourselves with the cliché of “separating the art from the artist”? Why do we, upon analyzing art history, glorify male artists that held such horrendous views and acted in a discriminatory manner? Why did we not learn of this immediately upon our first lesson about Picasso’s work?

Historically, the occasions on which male artists have been unnecessarily glorified are numerous. This, along with excessive occasions in which female artists have been unnecessarily suppressed, is enough reason alone for people to be concerned. Although we cannot undo the past, we can recognize it and take the necessary steps to prevent it from happening once more. It is our responsibility to make sure that the works of af Klint, Bonheur, and Gentileschi, are held in just as much light as their male peers. Instead of answering the question, “Why are there no great women artists?”, we rebuttal with the question, “Why is there such a disparity between the representation of male and female artists?” Instead of looking at a Picasso work and merely appreciating the work, we can and should appreciate the muse behind it, and empathize with the discrimination she may have faced. Art is often something that views itself as moving forward with unlimited momentum, therefore, it is only right that we hold the social issues surrounding it to the same regard.

Written by Julius Miller and edited by Teagan Foti, Abby Cohen