Linda Nochlin, through this article, elucidates the inadequacies in the history of art that are

viewed by the world today. These insufficiencies mainly include works of art from women and

other minorities. (Thus, diminishing the perspective of audience from female-identifying gender

and the outnumbered majority at present.) Furthermore, Linda linked this inadequacy in art not

only to gender discrimination but also to politics, power, race, and class.

This article scrutinizes male-dominancy and their ordered narratives throughout the history of

art. It also describes the social prejudices in institutional methods of learning that excluded

women from them. Exemplifying, the institutions from the renaissance to the late 19th century

excluded women from studying the highest category of art. (This included the still-life drawing

of male and female nudes.) The hypocrisy within these institutionalized learning was that despite

women’s exemption from drawing nudes, they had the permission to model nude.

Further, the text discusses the sanctimoniousness of art history. It criticizes that only men have

the innate creativity for producing marvelous pieces of art. Thus, diminishing the efforts of

women completely from this discipline. Linda, in this article, stated, “The fault lies not in the
stars, our hormones, our menstrual cycles, or our empty internal spaces, but in our institutions

and our education—education understood to include everything that happens to us from the

moment we enter this world of meaningful symbols, signs, and signals.”

In addition, the text highlights some of the great women artists that included Artemisia

Gentileschi and Rosa Bonheur, who created art notwithstanding the odds against them. Despite

their revolutionary contributions, women who created art were observed to adopt masculine

attributes for creating and absorbing ideas of craftsmanship. Thus, reserving art genius for male

geniuses only. It is also to argue that art historians only accepted the notion of ‘Great Artist’ and

not the influence or background to which he belonged. Thus, it misleads, asserting that “women

artists do not have the golden nugget of artistic genius.”

In conclusion, Linda argued in the text the reasons why no female came under the history of art

canon. It was mainly due to their production in obscurity, thus never making it to the history

books. Furthermore, the framework of learning art, the education system, and the societal

barriers equally contribute to this anonymity. (Since these exempted women to be at the same

level of creating art as men). “The entire romantic, elitist, individual-glorifying, and monograph-

producing substructure upon which the profession of art history is based.”

Towards the end, the author comments that regardless of the biased art history, women should

not use it as an excuse. Instead, they should come forth and face the reality of the past and

present. The possibility is through taking risks; besides revealing institutional weaknesses,

women should also destroy false apprehensions. Hence this would create an institutional

environment challenging both men and women at an equal and balanced scale.