Analysis of Linda Nochlin's

Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?

Nochlin cites; “My art dealer Richard turned to me and said, “Linda, I would love to show
women artists, but I can’t find any good ones. Why are there no great women artists?” He
actually asked me that question. I went home and thought about this issue for days. It haunted
me. It made me think, because, first of all, it implied that there were no great women artists.
Second, because it assumed this was a natural condition. It just lit up my mind. It stimulated
me to do a great deal of further research in a variety of fields in order to “answer” the question
and its implications.”
On one side of the spectrum, the sexist theory for why there are no great female artists is that
human beings with wombs are unable to create anything that is significant. On the other side,
the feminist approach is that women create a different kind of great art. Nochlin dismisses these
approaches to the question because they do not address the essence of the question. Nochlin
starts by pointing that she will be taking a feminist stance different from most of today’s
feminist activities. Instead of driving her argument forward with appeals to one’s emotions,
she will provide historical analysis and reach for the source itself.
The fact is that there have been no great women artists, so far as we know, although there have
been many interesting and good ones who have not been sufficiently investigated or
appreciated. There are no women equivalents for famous artists, any more than black American
equivalents for the same. If there were “hidden” great women artists, or if there should be
different standards for women's art as opposed to men's, then what are feminists fighting for,
if women have achieved the same status as men? But we know that things were oppressive and
discouraging to all those who did not have the good fortune to be born white, middle class, and
male. Nochlin argues that it is incorrect to state that great women artists are different than great
men artists. There are many other examples of different arbitrary groups that do not have any
greats, such as Lithuanian jazz players or Eskimo tennis players. It is incorrect to say that these
examples do have greats, because it is a fact that they do not.
Historically the position of woman is as an acknowledged outsider, while white male position
is accepted as natural. Male domination has to be overcome to make a just social order and to
gain a more accurate view of historical situations.
People might say, “There have been no great women artists because women are incapable of
greatness.” Others might respond by saying, “there is a different kind of greatness for women’s
art,” but there is no such common qualities of “femininity” that link the styles of women artists.
Is Fragonard more or less feminine than Mme, Vigee than Lebrun? Or is it not more a question
of the whole Rococo style of eighteenth-century France being "feminine," if judged in terms
of a binary scale of "masculinity" versus "femininity"? No such common qualities of
"femininity" would seem to link the styles of women artists generally, any more than such
qualities can be said to link women writers. In every instance, women artists and writers would
seem to be closer to other artists and writers of their own period and outlook than they are to
each other (woman to woman).
Possibly the most significant reason that there have not been great women in art, had to do with
the lack of opportunities for women in the art field. Society is oppressive toward certain groups
while advantageous to others. In this case, women are the oppressed ones. Society presents
enormous obstacles in their way. They are restricted by social rules and bonds. They are given
some roles to fulfill in male dominated society. They are not given opportunities beside them.
Nochlin argues that it is incorrect to believe that art is different from any other field that
requires proper training and opportunities. Art is a “social institution”. In order for women to
become great artists, society has to provide opportunities and support. Great artists require
education and hands-on experience.
Nudes were crucial to the training programs but women were not allowed to draw them. To be
deprived of this ultimate stage of training meant to be deprived of the possibility of creating
major art works. Similar to a medical student being denied the opportunity to examine the
naked human body. While it is all right for a woman to reveal herself naked as an object for a
group of men, but forbidden to a woman to participate in the active study of naked male object
or even of a fellow woman. It seems clear that “women were not accepted as professional
painters.
It is incorrect to assume that great artists are born great, and that they are a type of genius who
are born with mysterious powers which makes them great artists. Every artist was a student or
apprentice to a different artist and some also had a family background of artists. Nochlin argues
that these types of educational institution were not available to woman as readily as men. Not
only did artists that were already established look for men apprentices, only males in the family
were taught art, and art school only accepted males. Moreover, even when women were able
to study art, they came from families that were extremely wealthy. These women were only
able to study art as a hobby, and not as a profession that they would have to support themselves
with.
Among all the restrictions educationally, women were also restricted in a stereotypical manner.
A woman was not allowed to focus on herself, it was believed she was in existence to stay
home and look after her family. If she stays true to this ideal then she cannot find time to do
anything beyond the walls of her house. Moreover if the woman’s commitment to art was a
serious one, she was expected to drop her career and give up this commitment at the behest of
love and marriage. No man was automatically denied the pleasure of sex or companionship on
account of this choice. Therefore guilt, self-doubt, and objecthood would have been added to
the undeniable difficulties of being an female artist. Those few women artists who have
succeeded in making great visual art had help from a strong male artistic influence. Even with
this help, the women had to adopt “masculine” characteristics of autonomy and independence
in speech, thought, and action, which was not an easy feat in the face of social antagonism.
This question has lead us to the conclusion that art is not a free, autonomous activity of a super-
endowed individual, “influenced” by previous artists. And more vaguely and superficially, by
“social forces” but rather, that the total situation of art making, both in terms of the development
of the art maker and in the nature and quality of the work of art itself, occur in a social situation,
are integral elements of this social structure, and are mediated and determined by specific and
definable social institutions. Producing great artists is comparable to building certain things.
Great artists are composed of many values like proper knowledge, intellect, ability, and
courage. If society does not allow these “pieces” to be given then the “final product” of a great
artist cannot be achieved.
Ultimately, Nochlin highlights external influences as the reasons behind the lack of great
women artists. The problem is within the system itself, not within the individual. Opportunities
are the key to success. If such “tools” do not exist even the greatest of people cannot achieve
much. A person alone can be brilliant but without the chances to succeed that individual is
nothing. All such opportunities were given to men and that is why women were not in
abundance in the field of art.
So what is important is that women face up to the reality of their history and of their present
situation, without making excuses or puffing mediocrity. Disadvantage may indeed be an
excuse; it is not, however, an intellectual position. Rather, using as a vantage point their
situation as underdogs in the realm of grandeur, and outsiders in that ideology, women can
reveal institutional and intellectual weaknesses in general, and at the same time that they
destroy false consciousness, take part in the creation of institutions in which clear thought--and
true greatness--are challenges open to anyone, man or woman, courageous enough to take the
necessary risk, the leap into the unknown.

Source: Nochlins original essay

http://davidrifkind.org/fiu/library_files/Linda%20Nochlin%20%20Why%20have%20there%
20been%20no%20Great%20Women%20Artists.pdf