“Women don’t paint very well”: exploring the art world’s deep-rooted misogyny
In 2013, the German artist Georg Baselitz declared: “Women don’t paint very well. It’s a fact. The market doesn’t lie”. This sexist comment only reinforces the long-standing misogyny that has defined the art world for centuries. When asked to name a famous female painter, the average person would probably struggle to conjure up more than a handful, whereas male names such as Vincent van Gogh, Claude Monet, and Pablo Picasso have all become shorthand for artistry.
Moreover, many female artists have been defined by their personal lives rather than solely appreciated for their work. Even an artist as incredible as Frida Kahlo, arguably the most well-known female painter of all time, is routinely boiled down to being ‘that woman with a monobrow’. One of the earliest successful female painters, Artemisia Gentileschi, was often defined by the fact she was raped by fellow painter Agostino Tassi.
The art world’s sexism is incredibly prevalent, with Topaz et al. finding that within 18 of the most significant American art galleries, their collections are 87% male and 85% white. Women, particularly women of colour, are significantly underrepresented, even though art students are more likely to be female. This suggests that there are structural issues preventing women from succeeding in the art world – after all, the world’s most popular museums/galleries (the British Museum, the Louvre, and The Metropolitan Museum of Art) have never been directed by a woman.
In response, The Conversation carried out an experiment to determine whether people have unconscious (or conscious) biases surrounding art created by women. Attempting to dispel myths that women can’t paint as well as men, the publication placed two similar paintings from the same period side-by-side – one by a man and the other by a woman. Two groups of participants comprised the experiment, with only one aware of the artists’ names/genders. Thus, they were asked to pick which they preferred to see if the bias would sway in favour of the male painters.
Both groups, on an aesthetic basis, preferred female-painted works (54%); however, when the question of market value was introduced, the statistics changed. Male art was assumed to be worth more money and fame than the paintings created by women. With a similar setup to the first experiment, when asked which artwork would be “preferred by others”, the group that was told which painters were more famous (90% of these were the male painters) was more likely to pick these male artists.
Thus, this proves that women’s art isn’t, of course, ‘worse’ than men’s or less aesthetically pleasing or substantial. Instead, the art world’s sexism – a symptom of our worldwide patriarchal societal structure – has frequently placed less merit on women’s art, diminishing its market value and making it harder for female artists to succeed in the industry. The statistics prove this sentiment, with Adams et al. finding that at auction, there is a 47.6% discount for women’s art. Additionally, the NEA discovered that the older women get, the less they are paid for their art compared to ageing male artists, with female artists between the ages of 55–64 earning 66¢ for every $1 earned by male artists.
There are so many shocking statistics that cement the art world’s gender biases that it wouldn’t be possible to list them all. However, there is hope for female artists as small changes are being made. In May 2023, Tate Britain unveiled their new collection following an extensive rehang, which aimed to “embody our commitment to expanding the canon and diversifying British art history,” claimed Polly Staple. With this in mind, Tate Britain has ensured that half of the contemporary artists displayed are women, from Barbara Hepworth to Kudzanai-Violet Hwami.
