The Creation of Art

Why is there a disconnect between women and art? Women are taught how to create art, all the aesthetics of art, they create art and then present their art in galleries, continue to make MORE art and present it in MORE countless galleries, sometimes succeeding the number of galleries men present their artwork in, but yet, still do not become worthy of the title as a “great” artist, or even if they are awarded that title, they are still not widely known. What does it take for a woman to be recognized by many?

It was thought that maybe women were not going about creating art in the equal manner or stages that men create art or maybe that women are not covering the right subject matter. But if you look throughout history, women have covered every end of the spectrum in subject matter just as men have. Not only have women created art concerning subjects such as social aspects of life, politics, or creating cartoons and doing animation, but they have also covered every range of material to be used in art; painting, sculpture, installation, ceramics, etc., yet still not succeeding as well as men. Therefore, it's not that women haven't given up everything feminine and worked towards a different perspective, because we have. What is even more astounding is that men have covered feminine subject matter and still been more successful than a woman who could create a similar piece.

Every artist wants to say something different and in some degree, every artist wants a different kind of success. Though, in contrast, does every artist want to be treated equally in the sense of being given respect and to be on the same level despite gender? Yes. The success rate of a woman artist is low and rare, even without considering the overall success rate of artists in general, but when there are women out there who are covering a broad range of subject matter and are using line work and techniques that even men are envious of, why are they not more successful?

Take for example, two women who have been successful, though of course, not as successful as a male artist: Georgia O'Keefe and Jenny Saville. Their paintings are vastly different, yet incredibly similar. O'Keefe painted beautiful flowers that which resembled the female reproductive parts and her paintings were always so feminine and used vibrant colors.

http://absenceofalternatives.com/2010/06/dear-wired-georgia-okeeffe.html

Now look at Jenny Saville who does these larger than life oil paintings of the female nude (which as a reminder, women at one point were not allowed to address). Her paintings are so grotesque and fleshy with her thick application of the oils. She uses these muted colors blended with some more vibrant flesh-like tones that accentuate every curve she paints.

http://absenceofalternatives.com/2010/06/dear-wired-georgia-okeeffe.html

Both painters cover similar material, both quite well known, both admirable in the way that they paint and how they use technique. But when comparing them to a male painter such as Lucian Freud who covers the same subject matter, which is in fact very, very similar to Saville's technique in painting, the women stand no chance. Freud's paintings are worth millions, Saville's paintings are only worth thousands, and both are still living. All of these facts make me question a very controversial and appalling subject: Are women worth as much as men?