Women's Views on News |
- Women can’t paint says German artist
- Magdalene Laundries now a state scandal
- Has the “Women’s Olympics” delivered?
| Women can’t paint says German artist Posted: 14 Feb 2013 08:54 AM PST
German artist Georg Baselitz is lauded as one of Europe's most successful living artists. His works have graced the walls of some of the most hallowed art institutes in the world – the Tate, the Royal Academy, the Guggenheim, the Museum of Modern Art… you get the picture, if you'll pardon the pun. But according to this bastion of artistic genius, women painters are rubbish. In an interview last month with German publication Der Spiegel, Baselitz said that women lack the basic character to become great painters. He said 'Women don't paint very well. It's a fact.' It is? Yes, according to Baselitz, because 'women simply don’t pass the test. The market test, the value test.' Fast forward a week or two to 6 February when, in a protracted bidding war at Christie's auction rooms, a Berthe Morisot painting, her 1881 Après le déjeuner, sold for £6.9 million. Berthe Morisot, Georg, is a woman. A woman whose work has sold for more than twice the value of the most expensive Georg Baselitz, no less. It would be easy to point out countless other examples. Georg himself mentions Agnes Martin, Cecily Brown and Rosemarie Trockel. There is also Lee Krasner, Mary Cassatt – whose work has sold for several million dollars, Mary Beale, one of the 17th century's most celebrated portrait artists, Frida Cahlo, again a million-dollar selling artist, Georgia O'Keefe, Marina Abramovic, Marlene Dumas… Tate Britain is currently holding a Vija Celmins exhibition, Ellen Gallagher has one at the Tate Modern, Jenny Saville is exhibiting at the Saatchi Gallery and Tate Liverpool plays host to the work of Sylvia Sleigh, a British realist painter who became an important part of New York's feminist art scene in the 1960s… I could go on. And on and on. The list of successful women artists throughout history is enormous. But probably none of this would make any difference to Baselitz, whose misogyny seems too deeply entrenched to allow facts to get in the way. Hardly surprising, then, that Baselitz was expelled from art school in East Germany for 'sociopolitical immaturity'. Jude Kelly, artistic director of London's Southbank, had this to say; "If culture is the expression of who we are, and if women’s stories are tiny on that landscape, you’re continuing the idea that women don’t really play a role in the world. And that’s bad for everybody.” And therein lies the crux. Women have consistently been pushed to the background and denied the platform that is afforded to men. And it is tragic that, in a sector which claims to embrace all forms of creativity and freedom, there is still an inherent sexism at play. There are a depressingly small handful of women conductors on the international concert circuit, and likewise, women composers have never really been given an opportunity to have their work mainstreamed into the concert repertoire. The majority of students at art colleges and schools are female, and yet still their work is not taken seriously or given the same platform that their male equivalents take for granted. Griselda Pollock, professor of the social and critical history of art at the University of Leeds, says that art historians have consistently edited out significant contributions of women painters. "Women have also been put down, when they are good, as having talent and taste, but being too nice and not taking enough risks. It's a sexist hierarchy." According to the National Gallery: ‘Before the19th century most women painters who enjoyed anything like professional status were the daughters, and often the wives, of male artists. ‘The rise of the academies of art placed women at a disadvantage; the most prized academic category, history painting, depended on drawing after the male nude, which women were debarred from doing in public. ‘Many women, therefore, specialised in the ‘lesser’ categories: portraiture, genre, still life and animal painting. ‘Rachel Ruysch, Rosa Bonheur, Rosalba Carriera, and Vigee Le Brun, were among the most successful and highly paid painters of their day.' So what of George Baselitz then? Why make such a ridiculous, sweeping generalisation? The Independent's art critic Michael Glover has described Baselitz as 'self- aggrandising and publicity-seeking'. So perhaps in the end, his statements were simply manifestations of his controversy-courting personality. He did, after all, come to artistic prominence when criminal proceedings were instigated against him in Berlin in the 1960s for producing a work that was said to be morally and sexually offensive. His painting of a young male with a giant protruding penis was done, he said, 'as an aggressive act or shock'. But when artists like Georg Baselitz, who seem to have real influence in the art world, make such ludicrous and irresponsible statements, they are cementing an archaic and sexist worldview that simply is not acceptable anymore. So in short, Mr Baselitz, I think the message here is clear. (Van) go and stick your brushes where the paint don't dry. Postscript: The Chicago Reader ran an article in response to Baselitz' comments which compared some of his work with those of female artists. Have a look – and tell me you didn't think 'the emperor's new clothes…'  |
| Magdalene Laundries now a state scandal Posted: 14 Feb 2013 05:44 AM PST
A report headed by Irish senator Martin McAleese has found that the Irish state and the Irish police force bore a major responsibility for sending women to institutions where they worked for nothing, serving in some cases “life sentences” simply for being unmarried mothers or regarded as morally wayward. The institutions, known as the Magdalene Laundries, have always been said to have been ‘run by nuns’. But the long-awaited report released earlier this month, says they were not private, as had previously been stated by the Irish government. The women incarcerated in these institutions washed clothes and linen for major hotel groups, the Irish armed forces, and even the official home of the Irish president. Established in 1922, some Magdalene laundries operated as late as 1996. Girls and young women – several thousand of whom had been sent there by the state - were homeless, orphaned, deemed to be “troubled” or morally “fallen” – and worked unpaid, washing clothes and bedding. The vast majority of women and girls were kept there against their wishes, half were under the age of 23, and on admission, each woman had her Christian name changed and her surname was not used. Catholic nuns from the Sisters of Our Lady of Charity ran laundries at Drumcondra and Sean MacDermott Street in Dublin, the Sisters of Mercy operated in Galway and Dun Laoghaire, the Religious Sisters of Charity covered Donnybrook, Dublin and Cork, and the Sisters of the Good Shepherd oversaw Limerick, Cork, Waterford and New Ross. The McAleese report was prompted two years ago by the UN Committee Against Torture and has revealed 'a harrowing picture of humiliation and exploitation suffered by Irishwomen and girls in workhouses characterised as "lonely and frightening places". The singer Sinead O’Connor was imprisoned in the Our Lady of Charity Laundry in Dublin at the age of fifteen, after being arrested for shoplifting. “We worked in the basement, washing priests’ clothes in sinks with cold water and bars of soap,” O’Connor has written of her experience.” She spent 18 months there. Others were sent there after being rejected by foster families, orphaned or abused, while some simply because they were poor. The report found they were given poor food, often became infested with lice and fleas and forced to do "harsh and physically demanding work" which was both compulsory and unpaid. The findings have confirmed most of the shocking stories of life in the laundries, which have appeared in print and on screen since the 1990s, including:
At that time, a government delegation told the committee that "the vast majority of women who went to these institutions went there voluntarily or, if they were minors, with the consent of their parents or guardians." The report shows that statement to be untrue. Irish prime minister Enda Kenny said he was ‘sorry for what women had gone through’ but has ‘issued no formal apology on behalf of the state, which was shown to have had substantial involvement in the system’. Also, Kenny ‘has not yet responded to calls for compensation for survivors.' and is, according to RTE, waiting for a parliamentary debate on the subject to be held ‘within the next two weeks’. For, as he explained, we don’t want to rush into things. But the state gave lucrative laundry contracts to these institutions, without complying with Fair Wage Clauses and in the absence of any compliance with Social Insurance obligations. So somebody ‘Stateside’ must have known. All this time. The report also says that Ireland's police, the Gardaí, “brought women to the laundries on a more ad hoc or informal basis” and pursued and returned girls and women who escaped from the Magdalene institutions. So who authorised that? All this time. Over 74 years, 30,000 women were put to work in de facto detention, in institutions run by nuns. So who financed that? At least 988 of the women who were buried in laundry grounds are thought to have spent most of their lives inside the institutions. In "lonely and frightening places". How nice. Who planned that? Fergus Finlay of Barnardos said the report catalogued "how the state turned a blind eye to the appalling conditions in which women lived, while supporting the religious orders who enslaved them in financial and other ways. “These women were treated like slaves." Women were not educated while in the institutions. When their sentences were completed, they were thrown out onto the streets, unable to support themselves. Survivors' stories hold a common theme of physical, emotional and sexual abuse. Survivors allege collusion between court systems, business, government, and the church, with cash rewards for each young girl sent to the laundries. And victims have had to struggle – against a culture that idolised the Catholic Church – to find a voice to express the pain and suffering they endured. And the Catholic Church has thus far denied any responsibility for the treatment these victims suffered. The Vatican has said that that the institutions were privately run by the orders and did not answer to Rome and only one of the orders involved in the Laundries has so far apologised. The Justice for the Magdalenes group said it was time for a compensation scheme which should include “the provision of pensions, lost wages, health and housing services. “ Maureen Sullivan, 60, said: “I feel that they are still in denial, but other parts of this report clearly state that we were telling the truth.”. And I have not yet seen, heard, read or found an explanation of why and this was organised and permitted.  |
| Has the “Women’s Olympics” delivered? Posted: 14 Feb 2013 03:00 AM PST
As funding cuts threaten school sports, articles last week discussed the 'fury' over the lost Olympic legacy. Six months after the Games, what is the state of play of the other hoped-for legacy – that concerning women's sports? London 2012 was dubbed the women's Olympics. For the first time, every country entered female competitors and women participated in every sport category. England's football quarter final against Brazil drew a packed crowd to Wembley – the first time the stadium had sold out for a women's game. Sportswomen were receiving an unprecedented amount of media coverage. This excitement and interest in women’s sport, along with many victories, brought attitude changes. For two weeks, our television screens were dominated by women being celebrated for their hard work and determination, rather than their looks. New role models were being forged and it was a summer that hinted to something better, and new, for women and sports. Six months later, has the Olympic legacy delivered? At first glance the picture is not an optimistic one. As a report by the Women's Sport and Fitness Foundation (WSFF) stated last November, women's sport continues to be underfunded and underreported. They put media coverage of women's sport at 5 per cent compared to that of men's. Indeed, how many people were aware that last week, England's women rugby team, defending the six nations cup for the seventh times in a row, beat Scotland 76-0? In terms of women's participation, a recent BBC Radio 5 Live poll showed that only 16 per cent of women had felt inspired to do more sport since the Olympics. Nevertheless, there are a few reasons for cautious optimism. All of England's Women's world cricket matches are receiving live coverage on BBC radio and the results have featured on BBC breakfast. In football, the FA launched a 5-year plan to promote women's football and recently increased England's women's pay by £4,000. It may not be much, but things are moving in the right direction. If we consider that much of the evolution of women's sport depends on shifts in behaviour and attitudes, six months is a short space of time in which to see dramatic change. In a survey on pupils' participation in school sports last May, almost half of girls responded that getting sweaty was 'unfeminine'. A third of boys considered sport itself 'unfeminine'. It will be interesting to see whether future studies will show those attitudes changing as a result of a summer of female achievement. The Olympics created an atmosphere where people now expect women's sports to be treated differently. It has become publicly accepted that women's sport should be taken seriously and receive more funding and media coverage. It is unlikely that Sepp Blatter could today get away with his suggestion that female footballer's wear 'tighter shorts', a remark he made in 2004. Women's sports face a myriad of challenges – yet hopefully, by Rio 2016, we won't be discussing the under-reporting of women's sport but will instead be celebrating how women's sport has been transformed since London 2012.  |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Women's Views on News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |