Reflection — Course “Women who changed Art” — Day 1

From the moment it appeared as an ad on my Instagram profile, I knew that the algorithm had done its job.

I’ve always been drawn to different art media, but my predilection almost always falls on self-teaching. I feel comfortable following my own pattern, time, and space. However, I took this opportunity as a “signal” to continue learning about this area from a gender perspective as important as being a woman is. Many people often question why it is necessary to make this gender distinction when addressing various topics; why it would be necessary to emphasize, in this case, only female artists.

The answer does not require much explanation. Unfortunately, throughout human history, women have had a secondary role in almost all their activities. Almost always in the shadows, having to change their opinions, ideas, and even identities to try to fit in with societies around the world. The current reality is not very surprising either. If asked about recognized scientists, artists, or “geniuses,” the minds of most immediately go blank when they are asked about female representatives. Although we are more open and aware about it, it is still an alarmingly prevalent theme. But we can not continue to accuse the past. We can not continue to acusse others for our own ignorance. It is time to LEARN from the past. Now is the time to stop blaming others and start being part of a real change; the least we deserve.

During the first meeting of this course, I was surprised by many facts about women in relation to the Renaissance and Mannerism movements. Here are a few:

• The self-portrait as an artistic theme. Women, for a long time, were prohibited from studying the human body, and attending workshops / studios where anatomy was taught (fundamental knowledge for an artist of the time, even more so considering the relevance of realism in the Renaissance). The genres that female artists could choose, in addition to self-portraits, were limited to landscapes, and what is known as “still life.”

Cherries in a silver compote with crabapples on a stone ledge and a fritillary butterfly by Fede Galizia

• Religion. Women were not considered “artistically mature enough” to paint such “intricate works” as those depicting religious scenes. Despite this, some managed to emerge in the genre due to their great talent, and perseverance. With this new power, many began to mix religiosity with other themes considered more eccentric, and controversial for the time.

Holy Family by Lavinia Fontana

• Works wrongly awarded. Many paintings made by women had their authorship assigned to their mentors, and NOT to their true creators. This was more the norm than the exception.

Mercy by Sofonisba Anguissola

Among other notable artists of the time who gained recognition to such a degree that they were able to make a living from art are: Lucía Anguissola (Sofosniba’s sister), Catharina van Hemessen, Catalina de Bolonia, Propenzia de Rossi, and Diana Scultori. But beyond their recognition, beyond just reading their names, it seems extremely relevant to me to be able to start a dialogue, debate and truthful judgment about them, and their works. Not only talk about their vicissitudes, but to really learn from them, their contributions, technicalities in the area, creative process, and development.

If we really want to begin to achieve equality in our current circumstances, we must look a little bit away from grief, and compassion. From frustration, anger, and resentment. Focus a little more on how great they were, and how they inspire us to be better on our tomorrow.

by Brave