Women in the Arts
 

I've just received a solicitation for contributions to the National Museum of Women in the Arts. My first question to all of you, is have you heard of this organization and are they legitimate? I'm a sustaining member of our local Orlando Museum of Art and would love to support a cause as worthy as the one they presented in this mailing, however, I'm not interested in empty mailing for money schemes and I don't get out enough to know the details of this organization.

Secondly, the statistics they presented, "Only one percent of art work exhibited on the world today are by women artist" is an unfortunate fact, that I would like to help change. Are there any other efforts underway that can use all the support they can get?

I'm sure as I'm breathing, that these statistics are not due to a lack of women artists. I see our membership is full of extremely talented women. So, it's the business end, of art that could use some enlightenment.

This Sagittarian loves a good cause.

They are indeed legit. You can see their website at http://www.nmwa.org

I used to be a member, but quit because there was more modern art than I liked to see.

This is just a little aside, and has most to do with my personal "world view," but although I applaud the efforts of the group, I want to make it as a portrait artist, not as a woman portrait artist.

Historically, women were not given the opportunities that men were to train to be artists. This, however, did not stop woman from making their mark. Cecilia Beaux, Mary Cassett, Elizabeth Vigee-LaBrun, to name a few.

I am finding that I am not at a disadvantage for doing major commissions in the portrait field. The guys don't have a lock on it. The main reason the men are on the boards of the portrait societies is because they were busting their chops during a period of history when women were not working to the same degree in the fine art and illustrative field - I'm talking teaching and publishing as well as painting, (and the ateliers were interested in young, talented boys...).

Fortunately, we are living in a period where people live long enough to master a discipline even if they have a "slow start." It is not necessary to discover your talent, find a teacher, and start your "path" while still in your teens in order to have enough time to become a master before you check out at 50. Gail Sheehy even calls this "The Age of Mastery." So you can go to school, marry, raise a family, get your training in bites, and still have 30 or 40 years to paint.

I perceive no glass ceiling. I want to play with the big boys.

Peggy

The heart in art
 

Bravo Peggy! Celia Beau is one of my favorite painters. I only think of painters as belonging to one of two categories. Those I like and those I don't. Regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity, political affiliation or religion may be, I look only at the size of their hearts.

No labels
 

Peggy,

I like the paradigm of your life as a portrait artist. I do feel though, that "icon art" as I call it, is strictly modern, masculine, violent, today, and as I suspect, what Cynthia was referring to was the all too common, feminine trying to suceed by emulating masculine.

I see by Marvin's response, that my point was missed. I KNOW that as artists, we all, see art as art, regardless of the gender of the creator. However, there is a difference between masculine and feminine presentation in representational art. The big show stoppers are more often than not, 90% more, images of war, the west, warships, warriors, patriarchal religious enactment , yadda yadda yadda.

I believe that the old saying, you are what you eat, goes for our society as well, we are what we idealize. And I would like to support all form of media that represent the nurturant ideal.

ReNae,

Just a question, are we talking about all art, or just portraits? Are we talking about the current gallery climate, or centuries of painting? And I don't quite understand your reference to icon art, which has a very specific meaning to me, they are highly structured religious depiction's from the life of Christ.

There are very gentle paintings by men, Bouguereau, Waterhouse, Leighton for example. As well as violent paintings by women. If you go to ARC, Art Renewal Center you will see vast numbers of nurturing art, mostly painted by men.

The most famous paintings that I can recall off the top of my head are the Mona Lisa, Whistler's Mother, Venus Raising for the Sea, Vermeer 's "Woman with a Pearl Earring".

I'm not trying to be petulant, I am just not understanding.

Peggy

Fresh Paint
 

Peggy,

I was talking about new art, being created and hung today. Debating what's past does not further? I mentioned, I don't get out much anymore (HA). We have several galleries here in town that exhibit current works. There is nothing nuturing or gentle about most of it. This is the reason I posted my question. Are there more organization who promote the display of feminine works?

And no, my reference to icon art, would be art created today, that will be viewed historically as a representation of the climate of the 21st century. Not to be confused with Christian icon art.

If someone or any organization would suggest training or display of female art with the restriction that it only present works that might be described as sensitive or nurturing I would think (or hope) that artists everywhere, both male and female, would take offense. It sounds like a large steps backwards.

Local and regional art shows in every community in the country as well as National Watercolor and Portrait Societies among others always have strong representation by female artist (not to mention SOG) and to claim otherwise is specious. (1%?)

It almost sounds as though the "Modern Art" threat/menace/argument continues and now revealed as masculine controlled/inspired. Warriors and Warships? Other than the musty corner of an old museum where would one find such subjects?

Renae,

You've opened an interesting topic! I know you don't mean to imply that women are nurturing and men are violent... or that these basic ID tags carry over into our art.

I recommend "Daybook, the Journey of an Artist" by Anne Truitt (whose painted-plywood sculpture you might categorize as violent). Cynthia probably has it in the bookstore on this site.

On a personal scale, while I yearn to paint beautiful figurative work, I do not dismiss modern or abstract art. It seems the better we understand the abstract design of nature, the better we are able to render the figurative.

I was born in 1967, and in this country and in my lifetime, I do not come across serious gender issues.

The National Museum of Women in the Arts, like so many museums, depends on patrons. Soliciting your gift (of membership) is important to their survival. I think artists who have the means to do so are obliged to give back to the art community, not by giving money to every cause, but by giving back in whatever way is purposeful.

Mari,

I don't have it in the bookstore, but I did my link on it above.

Thanks!

I'm a little late here but I wanted to thank Peggy for the inspirational words, especially those pertaining to the glass ceiling. Also, breath a wish of good luck for me as I have just opened up my lil' studio and am now set up as a full-time pro-artist. Word of mouth is getting out and I've got a few important commissions lined up.

Mari,

You are correct. I did not mean to imply or label any work. I started out just wanting to support what I view as a good cause. In my household and in my extended families, we have been having many issues with children who are developing a very cynical view of life and humanity, issues of violence and shock media are on my mind right now. I admire and respect all aspect of creativity, but am trying to help those around me to be able to think critically. In doing so I need to "Walk the Walk" I really did have a point here, but it was lost in the debate. Thank you for your comments

I hesitate to contribute to this, as I feel that while sometimes a co-ed discussion is good, at other times men talking to men and women talking to women exclusively is good also.

But anyway, the best material I ever read in regard to being a woman artist was the biography of Bettina Steinke, "Bettina, Portraying Life in Art" by Don Hedgpeth.

She made her way on her own terms, and had some very definite views in regard to being a female artist, and also the relationship of artists to art groups.

Best to all.

Thanks for the book suggestion. I'm going to look this one up because I love a good human story, not because I love a good gender story. Even though we're assigned one gender, we all grew up with brothers or sisters, mothers and fathers, friends and teachers and a whole tapestry of different people who we love because of their specifics.

Overall, categories seem a little weird.

The great thing about art is that the piece stands alone, without the creator. It is what it is.

Unfortunately the book on Bettina Steinke, "Bettina, Portraying Life in Art" by Don Hedgpeth, is out of print and a used copy according to Amazon.com, will cost about $750.00.

I have a taped interview with Bettina by Ed Jonas in June of 1996 in which she discusses her schooling, mentors, and thoughts about being a portrait painter. It is not very instructive in nature but is a nice item to have just to have a connection to this wonderful artist.


On my first visit to Santa Fe, I called Bettina only to find that she was momentarily leaving on a business trip and otherwise would have had me over for a visit. We talked portraiture for a few minutes and she was very pleasant and encouraging.

The tape is "An Interview with Bettina Steinke, June, 1996" and was made available through the American Society of Portrait Artists, Montgomery, Alabama.

I guess we do what we can...

Jim's right, there is a copy of the Steinke biography available for $750.00, but don't be discouraged if you're really interested. On closer examination, that particular copy is accompanied by a watercolor in a special edition.

I got mine through a search with another rare book service, for around, if memory serves, $80-$100.00. Still pricey, but more reasonable. I'm not rich, but there WAS that Greek guy who said if he had money for either food or books...

Of course, there's the good old library, in those fortunate locations.

Best to all.

So far, I think it does make some people uncomfortable dealing with a loose woman, as I am, but the professionalism and enthusiasm for art and the project help to appease the tension. I suppose they'd like to marry me off at my church but with my age and situation the pickins are slim.

Couple of things
 

First thing, I distinctly remember Bettina Steinke refused to join any women artists' groups (and boy did they want her). What she did was compete directly with the men and managed to win her share of awards including the above mentioned Prix de West Award for which the show is named. She secured her share of major portraits, too while competing with people like Mr. R. E. Kinsler.

Secondly, what would the world say to a competition for male artists only? I can think of many a woman artist that has pounded her male "commards" regularly. But to think of forming a group to nuture and promote men artists against such strong female talents would be poorly received indeed.

Don't think there isn't a "men's movement." Are you familiar with the contemporary American poet Robert Bly? After writing "Iron John," he was thrust into the role of leader of this group. The premise is that men have lost touch with the archtypical male role model and are lost without it, to grossly oversimplify. In the context of Jungian thought, he is remarkable. However, his poetry is larger than his politics - he is a great contemporary poet without the gender issues.

ANYHOW, I completely agree with you. Only when we stop categorizing groups and setting them apart will their socioeconomic, gender, racial labels lose significance. I "compete" with men at work, and work in a HUGELY male-dominated field. But I like it. I also race (triathlon and running) in a mixed gender field. I LOVE THIS. Some men beat me and some women beat me. WHO CARES? The race is with yourself, your own potential, your own growth curve. Right?

And I would love to know how to pronounce "Steinke," a question that was overlooked on another Forum topic. Anyone?

I took what I believe was the last class Bettina Steinke taught. It's "Stine-key"

One man's view
 

I tried to avoid this tread, but I can't hold myself back any longer. Warning: what follows may offend :)

I am a man and proud of it. I make no apologies for being the testosterone-driven human being I am. But the Edwardian men's club of the 20th century is a dead thing of the past (moment of silence. please). Now, welcome to the 21st century.

As a man I not offended by women's only organizations (or any organization that is exclusive) by their existence alone. If a group of people want to belong to a club of like individuals, excluding others they feel are not of the same mind or gender or whatever, then, fine. They have the right to include or exclude anyone they want from their private club. So I have no gripe with anyone supporting the NMWA.

But I take a lot of offence when groups of any kind organize as an exclusive group, to push an agenda outside of the bounds of that group, that infringes on, or hinders the progress or livelihood of any other group or individual.

Now the NMWA is not directly trying to hold any male artist back, but just as affirmative action (although it may have been needed to fight racism), it has today given minority groups an advantage in applying for certain positions. I do not know if the NMWA's shows or their agenda would give a woman artist an undue advantage over men, but if it did, and the tables were turned, you would hear a feminist cry so loud, that the men's organization of its type would be shut down within a month - or at the very least be forced to accept female members.

Now as a man and an artist, I feel I have no great advantage based on my gender. Every day is a constant struggle to further my craft, support my family and prove to the nay Sayers that a being an artist is a true and worthy profession. And, yes, it is a "Real Job", and not some Bohemian way of avoiding "real work". Even in this day of working women, as a married man I am expected to be the primary wage earner, or at the very least, pull my own fair share. Expected by whom you ask? Society. Take a look around, and exclude the few exceptions (for there will always be an exception to the rule). How does this natural selection of our evolution govern whom women choose as their life companions? Even the most successful career women who in no way needs a man for monetary support, will choose a man who is usually at least as successful as she. Even after centuries of evolution, we are still governed by the traditional male/female roles, even if only on a subconscious level. In this modern world, the more monetarily successful a man is governs many things: it makes him the alpha male around other men, and it opens up many more choices in who will find him attractive as a partner. And this does not end once you have been lucky enough to find your soulmate - oh, no. If you are to keep your position, you must continue to be a good provider or risk losing to a more dominant male. Now I am not saying that every woman is so shallow that money is the only consideration, or who will leave her husband if he loses his job, or she makes more than him. Not at all. But even in the best marriage, when a man can't for any reason bring in monetary support, it creates, at the very least, tensions within that relationship. Now don't you all e-mail bomb me with a list of exceptions you know of, please. I am fully aware that there are more than a few women making more money than their partners, but in society overall, it is still the minority, not the rule.

So what does this have to do with women in the arts? Plenty. For one, a women married to a successful man is not expected by society to be the primary wage earner, so she is free to pursue art as a career. Now don't get all upset yet; I am fully aware that you also face a harder problem being taking seriously, that it is not just some hobby, for the same reason. But as a man, I face the same problem from my own male counterparts (other artists excluded). They may not say it, but they think it: being an artist is not a "real Job", and not one suited to an alpha male of the 21st century. I also know women have the problem of being expected to be the primary caretaker of the children, even if they also earn as much (or even more) than their spouses, so I am not saying that you have it any easier than us men. I just want to say this: the next time you hear another feminist talk about the glass ceiling, or complain that there are not enough women CEOs, or that women are not as highly paid as men - maybe the man actually put his career above everything else in his life to get what he got. I know more than enough middle-aged and older men who have very strained relations with their wives, sons and daughters because they were never around and always working. So ask yourself this: do you really want what you are asking for? Sure, nature put a undue load on women in the child-bearing department. But business is business, and if a man put his career on hold until his kids were back in school), I doubt you would find he could be held up as one of the most successful and highly paid within his field.

And to all you women who have put your career first, and still feel you are paid less than men who do the same job, I sympathize. I never said these rules laid over years of evolution were fair. And just so you don't feel too bad, I think if you take a real look around, you will find plenty of men who are not any higher paid than you are. Not all men manage to get the top pay, but society won't let them blame anything but themselves for their inability to reach the top level of their career. At least you can blame the Edwardian men's club for keeping you down. :)

Now that I have disturbed the hornets nest, so to speak, I guess I deserve to get stung by a few but before you all attack, let me add something. I feel if more men and women worked together to establish their roles in society and not in a adversarial manner it would make life a lot easier when those who want to live their life outside of what tradition dictates. Be it the career woman or the man whose spouse earns more then he does or stays home with the kids.

Michael,

Thank you for that important message. Art is very competitive, and it would be awful to have the men and women fighting each other over the best commissions. Who can guarantee a steady flow of commissions? It may not be healthy to get too stressed-out over such things. As we all know, many times women are the sole providers for their families. A recent study shows that there are many more homeless elderly women then men, the reason being that these women did not think of their own future but put their families, including their children's college education, first. Yes, I know that is not directly related to art, but a career that is flexible in the hours and pays well is invaluable to a woman thinking of her family. I cannot speak for the men. I don't wish them any harm, but I wouldn't say I depend on one to provide for me in my old age, if I should live so long.

Well, that is good advice for anyone, not to count on anyone else taking care of you. And yes, I understand that women are often single parents and heads of households. My parents were divorced and my wife was a single mother before she married me. Also, I never said that women necessarily want a man to support them, but most would not pick a guy who is looking for a woman to support him. Or one that could not support her, if she wanted to stay home and raise their children. And any man (or at least any with intestinal fortitude) would have a hard time living with without some self-doubt as to his manliness if he let his spouse support him completely.

(Shhh! Not so loud! My wife hasn't left for work yet.)

LOL :D

Club membership
 

Well, I won't belong to a club that would have me as a member.