Always the Model, Never the Artist

Re:Always the Model, Never the Artist by hillz on Wednesday July 31, 2019 @11:33AM (#20575234)

> the bare edges of the canvas suggest that the woman has agency, physical and otherwise; in Morisot’s garden scenes or beflowered interiors, the dresses melt into the background, refuting the viewer’s possession of the figure. Morisot’s messy brushstrokes—some of the most daring among her contemporaries’—suggest that “woman” is pure fiction, an idea bursting at the seams of the experience it supposedly names.

Seems like the author is projecting their own opinions onto Morisot's art.

That being said, it's incredibly sad that women were so devalued and minimized in that time.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Always the Model, Never the Artist by Daub on Wednesday July 31, 2019 @09:39PM (#20580480)

> That being said, it's incredibly sad that women were so devalued and minimized in that time.

This might be traced back to the 'first' art critic, John Ruskin campaigned vigorously for a better education for women and girls than was available. However, a big motivator for this was his fear of industrialisation. He saw woman as the counter-balance to this force, and strongly positioned them as the centre of family life: feminine and (importantly) uncompetitive.

Much art criticism that followed inherited these assumptions.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Always the Model, Never the Artist by dblotsky on Wednesday July 31, 2019 @12:15PM (#20575615)

Can you explain which part of that quote is projecting their own opinions?

Can you also compare and contrast with another, more objective art criticism?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Always the Model, Never the Artist by redis_mlc on Wednesday July 31, 2019 @06:41PM (#20579352)

> more objective art criticism?

That made me smile. :)

[ Parent | on HN ]