For centuries, art has undergone change: in medium, in message, and in meaning. With issues of prejudice in race, gender, and simple miscommunication, it is possible for the creation of art to become an exclusive experience for the favored in society. But what does that mean for the artists who have been producing art for centuries, who lived in ever-shifting societies? Does their art become less great? Does their expression seem cliche? Does their vision of beauty become tasteless or decrepit, a shadow of what the artist meant it to be? These questions lead to a haunting thought: if an artist’s work is misidentified, does its meaning remain the same? Was the beauty of the artwork only valued because it was understood to be created by a favored sect? This exhibition seeks to foster conversation on the misidentified (and perhaps misinterpreted) paintings in this room that were originally attributed to the male artists of the period, excluding their female counterparts altogether. In a world that traditionally has excluded female artists from the spotlight, it is easy to understand how some of these misattributions came to be. Female artists would often sign their works with male pseudonyms, knowing that their own name would only cause their masterpieces to be shunned. In such a climate, art history was reshaped through a male-dominated lens to determine what could be considered truly masterful work. In reclaiming these 6 works and placing them in the context of one another, this exhibition seeks to reconsider how authorship reshapes interpretation. We invite you to see not just the art, but the artist.
Marie-Denise Villers, Young Woman Drawing (1801), Oil on canvas; The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Accession No.: 17.120.204
Originally attributed to French painter Jacques-Louis David, this painting was later discovered to be the work of his student Marie-Denise Villers. With the central focus on the young woman’s face, we are met with a pair of bright eyes, eyes that could be self-expressive of Villers’ gaze as an artist. When this was attributed to David, the viewer might have thought how lovely it was that he was able to capture a gentlewoman at work. But the discovery that this is a woman’s handiwork lends a sense of creative self assertion to the interpretation, a woman challenging the male artist who walks into her studio.
Judith Leyster, The Proposition (1631), Oil on panel; Mauritshuis, The Hague Museum
Initially attributed to the Dutch painter Frans Hals, this work depicts a quiet scene, with a man offering a woman a few coins to distract her from her work. While this may have been interpreted as flirtation or playfulness while considered the work of Hals, the painting may take on a new meaning as painted by Leyster. With the historic piety of Dutch reformers, this might be interpreted as a devout woman, resisting the man’s offer of (paid for) love.
Rachel Ruysch, Still Life with Flowers in a Glass Vase (1704), Oil on canvas; Detroit Institute of Arts Accession No. : 44.520
In the flurry of still life painting that was popular in this time period among Dutch masters, many female artists took up the brush to try their talent. Even so, some women became so proficient that their work was later mistaken for the work of the most popular male artists. The complex still life portrays intellectual themes of life and mortality, as well as an interest in botany and biology. Assumptions, it seems, can be made on the subject of the painting as well as the handling of the paint.
Sofonisba Anguissola, Portrait of a Noblewoman (1570–73), Oil on canvas, 71 7/16 × 38 3/4 in. (181.5 × 98.5 cm); The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York Accession No. : 1975.1.141
With the refined technique that set Anguissola apart, commissions from her were long sought after by the Spanish court, although she was only ever considered a lady-in-waiting. In this painting, we see a wealthy woman of the court, feminine to the extreme but filled with a quiet presence that carries power. Often leaving her work unsigned, Anguissola’s fame disappeared over time, and much of her work was attributed to the official Spanish Court painter who often assisted her in her work.
Marie Victoire Lemoine, The Interior of a Woman Painter's Studio (1789), Oil on canvas, 45 7/8 × 35 in. (116.5 × 88.9 cm), The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York Accession No. : 2012.419
Here we see a nontraditional scene; at first glance a parlor, we notice the propped painting, the poised palette, and the woman sketching at her teachers’ feet. We realize that this is the studio of a female artist. Rather than conversing and consuming, we see women here creating, in positions of authority and knowledge, unlike the scenes of gentility that were often portrayed in this time period. Their context speaks volumes to the confidence of these women.
Rose Adélaïde Ducreux, Self-Portrait with a Harp (1791), Oil on canvas; The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York Accession No. : 57.103
Another painting that was once attributed to Jacques-Louis David, this painting is in fact a self-portrait, although not showing the artist at her easel. Instead, she is posed next to a harp, a classical instrument that women were encouraged to study, thus portraying herself through paint as master of more than is expected of her. We can view her as an intellectual, a successful and studious woman who has made her mark in her sphere of influence.
No comments:
Post a Comment