Level Playing Field?

[Alexandra Tyng]

Thank you, Bonfim, I can't tell you how much I appreciate what you said. It warms my heart!

I believe sexism truly does exist in the art world, that it is not just in the mind of this woman who asked the question. It's also not a self-esteem issue, though having self-confidence is a very important ingredient for success. The realization of the "uneven playing field" happened in a similar way to me. As a child, I always wanted to be an artist and I was totally encouraged by my parents in this. I don't remember ever doubting my abilities. Self-doubt was just not on my radar. I assumed I could be whatever I wanted to be. And why not?
When I was a little older, maybe 12 and into my teens, I became aware that my mother was having problems in her career. She was passed over for tenure although she was more than qualified. She was kept at a lower level as a professor and was denied benefits that other people got at her level. She complained and got nowhere. She wasn't a social reformer taking on the system, but a single mother and working professional. Architecture was (and is) her life and she was trying to support herself and me, while asking for what she deserved. As a result she got negative reactions from people in her department. As you know, universities are very political places and you have to play the game. She never knew how to play the game, she was just straightforward and it got her nowhere. I also saw female colleagues of hers become known just as much for their outspoken ("strident") views on women's rights as for their work, when their outstanding work should have been totally the focus of people's attention. This was a time when there were very few women architects, so in order to be well known you had to be pretty darn good.

I suppose I drove my mother nuts when I would say to her that I just didn't see any problem for women artists. She would say, "Well, honey, that's wonderful and I hope you never do." Like many young people, I thought her problems were of the past generation, and that I would never see things like that happen. Also, there were many more female artists, so they would never be in the minority like female architects. In 1995 I joined a gallery that has a good balance of male and female artists. We were (and are) all treated well and so I continued blissfully along thinking there was no sexism in the art world, or that I was immune to it.

Then I began to hit the glass ceiling. Actually I think there are many, many glass ceilings at many heights. At first I didn't realize what was happening. I just felt that I was expending an enormous amount of effort (something I do anyway) and getting nowhere. Eventually I did get somewhere but I began to realize I would have to work about twice as hard!

I was shocked to find out that a woman I know was told by her gallery that their work has to be priced lower because the men are the breadwinners and their careers needed more push. I was shocked to realize my art history textbook only had one woman artist in it--and I had never noticed! Or that only 9% (or some ridiculously low percentage) of work in museums is by women. I was horrified to hear that people don't collect work by women because it is "less collectable," i.e. doesn't rise in value as fast or as much. WHY? It's a very complex interweaving of subtle factors that feed each other in a vicious cycle. People have underlying assumptions and attitudes that they communicate to others without realizing it. It's impossible to know what causes what.

I'm concerned about the problem in general and what it means for all women and men (my artist friends and beyond), and I wish the problem didn't exist. But I have very little interest in whining and complaining. When Michele says she does her very best for her family and clients, that strikes a chord with me. Working is much more interesting and rewarding than spending my time complaining about inequities, etc.. I am a naturally upbeat person and I naturally keep focused because there's a lot I want to say in my lifetime and life is so short! If I have to work even harder, so be it. At least I'm dong what I love to do, which is more than a lot of people can say.

[Julie Deane]

Excellent postings. Unfortunately, too true. Subtle and not-so-subtle cues to treat mens' work as somehow worthy of more attention, prestige and...money. I appreciate the work of the "Gorilla Girls" of the 60's, who started questioning the status quo.

Women - at least of my age - have often been conditioned to ask for less, too. So we have to take charge of our careers, ask a fair price, and make our way. That's one reason I think portraiture is a good field - no need to have a gallery be involved if we are willing to do the sales footwork ourselves.

[Nancy Bea Miller]

I appreciated your raising the issue of gender discrimination in the arts. This inequality is hard cold fact: as invidious and pervasive as any other prejudice. There are serious works of scholarship devoted to the issue ("The Obstacle Race", "Old Mistresses" "Anonymous Was a Woman" etc ) and groups which crunch the numbers and keep tracks of the trend (Guerilla Girls, Women in the Arts Foundation, the National Museum of Women in the Arts, etc.) The statistics are still startling!

Like Alex and Suzanne, I never dreamed that I would have to deal with the subject. I do not lack confidence, and felt encouraged by teachers and friends in my choice of career. But even in art school, I began running into little "bumps' in my path that were unexpected. One example: one of the school administrators led a distinguished older gentleman up to me at a student show and introduced us saying to me "Mr. X has just bought your painting of the stack of books." Mr. X visibly started, gulped and blurted out "YOU painted that? Oh, I thought that was by a man!" Seeing the confused and undelighted reaction his words were creating he hastened to reasssure me " Well, my dear, it's simply amazing. You paint like a man!"
He obviously meant this as the highest accolade. But did he ever buy another piece from me? No, he did not.

There were other situations along these lines, but nothing big enough to deter me from my chosen path. Just enough to make me aware that it wasn't quite the level playing field I had imagined. That was about 18 years ago. But only last week I discussed my pricing with someone in charge of such things, wondering out loud why another artist I know of similar "rank and file" is getting significantly more for his work. The answer came, honestly and a little apologetically, "Well, you know of course, part of the problem is that men are still, even today, perceived as the main bread-winners. It is felt that they need to earn more, to support their families."

With this all-pervasive prejudice in place that men are, if not more talented, at least more worthy, this is a self-fulfilling prophecy. However, having said all this, an artist who is a woman can't let these subtle societal inequities deter her. Women do of course succeed, and get ahead. It just seems to me they are fighting against some persistent undercurrents and perhaps are so used to doing so that they may not even realize it. It helps to be aware that these prejudices do exist and to try and not take the subtle set-backs personally: any successes will taste all the sweeter. And of course, there are some women who will never feel the subtle sting of prejudice. There are a lucky few in every generation: often lifted over the obstacles by painter fathers or family friends/connections in the art world. I say more power to them. Just don't let them be used as "evidence" that the very real inequality most women artists face is non-existent.

Thanks again for bringing up this sensitive issue Alex! I know many people might feel shy about expressing their thoughts on the subject, afraid to be seen as "whiners", but my sense is that the SOG forum is a safe place for people to share problems and joys with equal honesty.

[Alexandra Tyng]

Julie, thanks for pointing out that angle of portraiture. Still, for women to distinguish themselves it is helpful, at some point, to accrue a few awards and other distinctions in order to be in the running for the "top" commissions.

Nancy Bea, thanks for posting that articulate and thoughtful response! I just wanted to add a thought about the women you describe below:

Originally Posted by Nancy Bea Miller

there are some women who will never feel the subtle sting of prejudice. There are a lucky few in every generation: often lifted over the obstacles by painter fathers or family friends/connections in the art world. I say more power to them. Just don't let them be used as "evidence" that the very real inequality most women artists face is non-existent.

I agree, we must not use these woman as evidence. I suspect they are not unaware that their status has a down side. Once a woman is lifted up or advanced by her association with a male mentor/husband/father, she forfeits the chance to prove herself on her own! Inevitably some people question whether that woman could have risen that far that fast without this advantage. These women become the butt of snide remarks to that effect even if they are supremely talented. I think it's only fair to these artists to evaluate their work on its own merit.

[Carol Norton]

Originally Posted by Alexandra Tyng

These women become the butt of snide remarks to that effect even if they are supremely talented. I think it's only fair to these artists to evaluate their work on its own merit.

Oh, boy. This same mentality resonates throughout all areas of competition. Athletics, (women's sports) resonates with others who field play the "crabs in a bucket" mentality. One tries to rise to the top; the others do their best to pull her back down so that no one is superior. This human flaw was the hardest thing I ever had to explain to my beautiful, athletic, work-oriented daughter, who later became an an All-American in her field. I think perhaps SUCCESS is the primary issue. Female issues further subvert the success of those who do well. Art, athletics, business, etc. somehow become the beacon of those who understand what happens in the climb for success. Men have their issues; women have theirs. Both have different pathways to the same goal; both have ways to nullify their competitors.

Thanks for the honest evaluation of women in the field of art. In 1962, I was told by local gallery owners, prior to a showing, that I needed to change my name to "C. Norton." I know for a fact that the owners had my best interests at heart. They let me know that my name, "Carol Norton", would not bring in the kind of recognition/price that I desired.
Don't think I ever believed them. That was then. This is now.

[Nancy Bea Miller]

Hi everyone! Carol and Alex, you are absolutely right that sometimes people desire to tear down other people who are successful, for whatever reason they can. It is an unfortunate part of human nature, exemplified by the old saying "The nail that sticks up will be hammered down." Perhaps as a generalization women tend to fear "the hammer" more than men: studies show that we tend to have more of a group mentality than the other sex does.

Although this is an interesting topic in itself, I think it may divert from the main topic under discussion of gender inequality in the arts. To reiterate: my only point in mentioning those rara avises helped by family connections or independent wealth, was to point out that they should not be used as false evidence that the very real inequality most women artists face is non-existent.

How many times have we had a Cecilia Beaux or a Mary Cassat held up to us as "Well, THOSE women were successful!" often with the hidden corollary "...so why aren't you?" Of course, these women were supremely talented, and should be honored and respected for that, as indeed they are. That point is not up for debate. But along with their massive talent and unquenchable drive, they were also gifted with large fortunes and family connections, enabling them to rise above many of the obstacles faced by the vast majority of women artists. They should not be used, as they sometimes are, as evidence that there is no gender inequality in the arts. They are, unfortunately, the exceptions that prove the rule.

Carol, it was absolutely fascinating to hear your gallery story! I wonder how many other people out there have experienced a similar scenario?

[Carol Norton]

Originally Posted by Nancy Bea Miller

Carol, it was absolutely fascinating to hear your gallery story! I wonder how many other people out there have experienced a similar scenario?

Maybe you noticed. I now go by C. E. Norton. I thought that I'd eliminate the roadblocks that I do have control over. I have a niece who chose the field of neurology rather than orthopedic surgery for the same reason. She told me she worked too hard to earn her M.D. to have to battle things that she could not control. Joan of Arc probably wasn't related to us.

[Richard Bingham]

Aside from issues of inequality (for all reasons), most often, we who are committed to "committing art" subscribe to the proposition that our work should stand alone against the standards for measuring its worthiness, divorced entirely from considerations of who you are, whom you studied under, who your patrons are, where you hail from, etc., etc.

Every time an "unknown" or "emerging" artist's work is passed over in juried exhibits, in competitions or in galleries for reasons that append personality and associations, it is the cause of "art" that suffers. Still, such influences are the substance of prestige and reputation, and it's how the world turns. I especially like those words of wise counsel favoring having abilities and self-confidence in them . . . regardless what one's personal situation may be.

Currently in this country, there are more women than men who identify themselves as artists. Logic would seem to prove through simple mathmatics that in the first decade of the 21st century in America, more women than men are producing the top-tier paintings. I think that's easily proven on these boards.

[Margaret Port]

If you can get hold of a copy of this book it makes for very interesting reading.

Germaine Greer wrote a book called
The Obstacle Race: The Fortunes of Women Painters and Their Work,
which was published in 1979. This work details the life and experiences of female painters until the end of the nineteenth century. It also speculates on the existence of women artists whose careers are not recorded by posterity.

I have been signing all my work with my initial and last name for years. I also don't use my photo in advertising blurb. May be paranoid, after all the last Archibald winner in Australia was a woman who painted herself with her two children.

[Alexandra Tyng]

Margaret, I read The Obstacle Race when I was in my twenties and it opened my eyes. At the time, as I said, I didn't think any of it applied to me--how could it in this age of liberation? But I remember becoming determined not to fall into any of the destructive patterns described by Germaine Greer. I've often thought I lack the "worship" gene, but now I'm thinking it was the influence of that book which steered me away from unproductive situations and attitudes. I would recommend it to any artist.

Richard, thanks for your thoughts on the matter. I cannot agree with you more that art should be judged entirely on its own merit.

Carol, I always have signed my work with "AT" and the date. I never thought to question why, but I think it started when I was a child and someone (maybe my father) told me to initial everything I drew. Old habits die hard!