Key points from speakers:
Amelia and Noel Paton. Amelia 1820-1904. She was always known as sister of, wife of or daughter of her relations. Noel sculpted and believed the greatest artwork status was to do work in stone and marble, and for it to be monumental. Amelia also did sculpture but was limited to busts of the notable.
Joanna Soden spoke about the Edinburgh Atelier 1882-89. This was a female only art school as females at that time were proscribed from attending life class which was deemed the essential entree to the profitable art career. Numbers of women studying increased during this time. Women students were taught by women tutors, but were assessed by visiting male lecturers, and received full written feedback as was done at the RSA. 27 attendees. It closed in 1889 (not sure why) but women were still not allowed to join the SRSA until the early 20th century. Instead the leading women of the day founded the Ladies Art Club for the education of lady artists. Kirkcudbright has a relevant exhibition at its art gallery.
This led to a debate about women as subject/women as self portraiture painters. The women artists of the day were typically genteel, affluent and with family support. However they did not have extensive funds to support their art and painted what was available - portraiture gave their best works. There were few landscapes painted as opportunity and finance limited this source. However it was noted women travelled to paint, but did not do the landscape. Circumstance led them to paint family and friends - this was not deliberate but what was available. So, it makes me wonder whether painting en plein air was deemed risqué, whereas painting indoors was not. I have a vague recollection that the French Impressionists did portraits of men and women at a picnic, which appears innocent to modern eyes, but in the Art History lecture, it was explained the women in these circumstances were probably prostitutes.
Middle class women art students needed parental support. It was 5GBP a term for fees. Grants were few. This art education had its roots in design schools, where there were very early morning and evening classes for commercial workers, and day classes for women. Not sure how less affluent students survive - probably they just were not able to attend.
Key points about patronage - women supported other women, or possibly had a male patron (Fra Newbery). Putting self forward was deemed improper. Some women used a nom de plume (another reason why women's art is hard to trace and attribute), or signed work "a lady", used just their initials, initials and surname to appear male. Being female in art was highly stigmatised. During the course of organising the exhibition more works by women appeared. Relatives of women artists, collectors and dealers came forward. Notably the painting by Margaret Macdonald Mackintosh, came up at auction, and Alice Strang, the curator, had very tense afternoon when that lot came up …. before discovering the Scottish National Gallery had been successful and had bought it! She noted exhibitions stimulate research!
Sian Reynolds spoke about Scottish Women Artists - The Paris Connection. The reason to go to Paris to study was because it gave the opportunity to study the body - which was very important for sculptors. In addition to everything men had to achieve to be able to study, women additionally needed income, family approval and luck. In Paris there were private art schools and academies which included women in life classes! Colorosy was more progressive than many and therefore there were a lot of women there. It had a bit of a reputation for the risqué, but one Scottish woman, writing to her parents quoted it as "The famous mixed life class is more like a Sunday School". Whether this was to assuage family concerns, or the truth, is not known!
"Who you study with" and "which school you belong to" and "who tutors your thesis" was very important. Individual artists were known to influence students in their studio. I need to think about this more. I think it is obvious that tutors influence student work, and this is what you are paying for, but how can work be original if strongly influenced? Maybe it is about the tutor challenging your thinking and directing your reading, rather than directing the artistic output. I keep hearing bits about the impact of the tutor on research - do you get pushed to present your paper to a seminar or not; do you get pushed to exhibit or run workshops or ….? Basically do you get pushed outside your comfort zone? I think a good tutor does this. Analysis of my own situation is that I have had both great, indifferent and dreadful tutors.
Studying in Paris, meant women evaded the restrictions of the UK. Cost of living was ok. Lots of museums. Buzz of lifestyle "light, learning and research". Therefore a very international scene. Few french students were outnumbered by UK, USA, Russian and German.
The outcome of studying in France 1880-1914 was there were lots of Movements developing. Sculpture moving from Rodin naturalistic to streamlined. The main form of work for the people studying sculpture at this stage became war memorials. Very few by women. France has over 2000 villages and every one ended up with a war memorial to honour their dead.
Matthew Jarran (excellent speaker) lecturer from Dundee university spoke about Placed Under No Disqualification, which indicated that although women were accepted in the town art society, they were not exactly welcomed either. He looked at factors in their careers. Press interests in women artists (to gain female readers), art education (women as students and teachers); artists as activists (suffrage and birth control, Mary Irvin); and noted many women had careers cut short (marriage, children, marriage bar) .
Phillida Shaw had inherited the family archive of Alice Meredith Williams 1877-1934. I was tired by now and just listened and did not take notes.
The last speaker was about Emma Gillies, 1900-1936, a painter of porcelain. 200 items were found in a locked cupboard at the Edinburgh College of Art. When it merged with another university, an audit of artwork was conducted and this trove was found, believed to have been used in still life classes. Her work was clearly signed on the bottom and family research indicates she was from an artistic family, with an abusive father. She had bouts of extreme behaviour and emotions and times of extreme productivity, and it is now believed likely that she had Graves Disease (as diagnosed in her Father and it is hereditary). This led to a discussion about what is a collection - "stuff that has been left behind". To create an exhibitions (which was what was done immediately the porcelain was found) they linked family, drawings, photos, and narrative. "If you know a good thing, pass it on". This should be the mantra of every good teacher!
No comments:
Post a Comment