why have there been no great women artists? and is feminism dead?

“Why have there been no great women artists?” according to Linda Nochlin, this question is incredibly important for many reasons. This one single question begins to break down art history as a whole and even the rest of known written history. When this question is initially asked my first instinct is to think that there must have been, we just haven’t found them. or some people think, maybe women are just not capable of greatness. Art of the problem with “greatness” or “genius” is that white men have done the deciding of who is great or genius. And this genius is an innate (natural) talent that would have come through under any circumstances. Except that Nochlin puts forth that there have been no great artists from the aristocracy either. I was surprised to hear that, so basically all great artists are white and middle class. Although according to the article maybe the aristocracy just thought of art as a hobby and the middle class women were too busy to make art. I have argued in the past (with my sisters that are non artists) that everything about art can be taught. As an artist, I have no natural/innate talent for art that my sisters don’t have. I just had a desire and interest to be taught art. The “art academy” has socialized me as an artist and I have practiced until (almost) perfect. It is interesting that art, as an institution is looked up as so different from the rest of society. It is thought that we have natural abilities in whatever media we use, whereas I would never think that a doctor was born knowing how to diagnose diseases or a mechanic grew up automatically knowing about cars. I know that those professions take years of training and hands on practice, which is just what artists do, we are just drawn to some type of visual expression.

Being in an identity class, I think we will be discussing many types of “posts.” In the article “feminism, incorporated:reading ‘postfeminism’ in an anti-feminist age,” Amelia Jones describes different types of postfeminism. Like postmodernism, there seems to be an idea of postfeminism as after-feminism and a postfeminism that is anti-feminism. Jones seems to be arguing in this article that both types of postfeminism are negative. The first type of postfeminism seems to come from the idea that feminist art is just a part of postmodernism or could be considered postmodern feminist art-therefore postfeminism. Often many art critics and historians lump feminist art in with postmodernism and therefore diminish the importance of the feminist critique. Photography has played a strong role in helping to objectify women. Even female photographers that are attempting to criticize the consumer culture get passed off into postmodernism.
The other part of postfeminism, the part I consider to be anti-feminist, also appropriates feminist language to make arguments that feminism is dead or unnecessary. After second wave feminism, many media outlets broadcast the idea the women were tired of trying to be equal and were happy staying at home with their families. The women who didn’t want to go back to their domestic lives were seen as lesbians or destructive (or both). But even this wild woman was still always pictured as white and middle class. And often the woman would be brought back to her domestic place and live happily ever after. Although this article was written more than 15 years ago, I think many of its ideas are still relevant. Many contemporary books speak of getting back to family and home, this article published recently about being a “female male chauvinist,” and even the fact that Hillary Clinton seems to get criticized more often for what she is wearing than what her actual policies are. I cannot comprehend how anyone could begin to think that feminism is dead, nor should it die anytime soon.