• Home
  • /
    • People/Portraits
    • Abstract
    • Landscapes
    • Religious
    • Still Life
    • Other
  • Drawings
  • Sculpture
  • /
  • Contact
  • Blog
Menu

Richard H. Love

Works of Art by Richard H. Love, 1939-2019
  • Home
  • /
  • Paintings
    • People/Portraits
    • Abstract
    • Landscapes
    • Religious
    • Still Life
    • Other
  • Drawings
  • Sculpture
  • /
  • Contact
  • Blog
smithsonian-womenartclass-w.jpg

Pretty Young Things

March 15, 2018

It was the period of the women’s suffrage movement at the turn of the century…
The fight for equality in the field of Fine Art was just as difficult as their fight for the vote. For the most part, American women painters who worked in the late 19th and early 20th centuries got a raw deal from their male counterparts. Their unenviable lot in life owed mostly to male chauvinism inside and outside of the art community. It was bad enough for a talented, beginning male student but nearly impossible for a young woman to become a successful professional artist. The odds were not in their favor. Usually their efforts, regardless of quality, were sidestepped by the art hierarchy because they were looked upon not as serious art students but as pretty young things seeking husbands.

Many talents did find matrimony in the art field and a few of these married women, such as Lilly Martin Spencer, Lilla Cabot Perry, Harriet Randall Lumis, Gretchen Rogers, Gertrude Fiske and others, did achieve admirable reputations. But in spite of their skills and creativity, women’s careers were fraught with socio-cultural struggles.  The inequality was obvious but even certain women themselves cast doubts about the veracity of women artists. For example, in the late 19th century a woman wrote:

“to the vast majority of women it is impossible to practice art after marriage. Either it will be poor art, or an unkempt family. It is true, we cannot serve two masters.”

Lillian Westcott Hale "Blue Taffeta" Oil on Canvas: 48 x 30 Inches

Lillian Westcott Hale
"Blue Taffeta"
Oil on Canvas: 48 x 30 Inches

But notwithstanding the implicit reference to a bible passage, the statement didn’t ring true to Louise Cox who in 1895, wrote a reply saying, “women writers marry [and] women musicians marry; why should artists be in a class by themselves?” Yes indeed, why should they, was the attitude of Lilian Westcott, a woman painter who believed that women had a right to compete with men in art circles. Miss Westcott continued studying under two great American teachers: Edmund Tarbell and William Merritt Chase, both of whom we might refer to as impressionists.  Accordingly, the exceedingly talented Miss Westcott practiced her skills at painting and achieved high praise. However, eventually Lilian became Mrs. Philip Hale, and her husband was also a painter of high rank in the American art community. In spite of her own struggles to become recognized as a serious art maker, Lilian Westcott Hale developed into a highly successful impressionist whose husband supported her in every way.

But not all husbands of painters were as kind. In fact, a woman from Indiana known to art historians as Fra (pronounced Fray) Dana also studied with Chase at the Art Students League in New York and with Joseph Henry Sharpat the Cincinnati Art Academy, Alfred Maurer and Mary Cassatt in France. Sharp was proud of Dana and was quoted as saying, “She paints like a Man.” Nonetheless, Miss Dana married a cowboy, a rancher from Wyoming who had devoted his career to cattle ranching and found little use for art, especially that which was made by his wife. She was expected to work on the ranch but an agreement with her “culture-less” husband allowed her some time to study in New York and Europe. She became an outstanding painter but she was obliged to return to her life as a rancher. A letter from her diary of 1907, in which she revealed:

“I remembered it was Velasquez’s birthday, a strange place it was to remember. This is life and the thoughts I used to think were dreams. Beauty of any kind is a thing held cheap out here in this land of hard realities and glaring sun and alkali. . . .”

In spite of Cassatt’s advice to Dana to become “ruthless” in an effort to survive, she (Dana) was unable to leave Wyoming where at the end of her life she wrote: “My annals are short and simple. I was born, I married, I painted a little, I am ready to die.”

smithsonian-pleinair-w.jpg

Not every woman artist gave up as a result of marriage. Indeed, there were some who valued their God-given talent so highly that they rejected marriage and chose to make art instead of babies. One of the most famous of these unmarried professionals was Mary Cassatt, a true American impressionist from Philadelphia who spent her adult career as an expatriate in France. Standing out as a shining example of a truly successful woman artist, Cassatt was an inspiration to many young women hopefuls.  Lilla Cabot Perry was another successful painter whose marriage was helpful to her career. She traveled with her husband to Claude Monet’s home in Giverny, France where she participated in the American expatriates’ inauguration of American impressionism. While living next door to Monet, Perry was one of the few to receive the French master’s technical advice.  Meanwhile Mr. Perry, a professor at Harvard, was enjoying what he called being an “exile” from Boston, and he sent back reviews of art exhibitions to the Boston Evening Transcript.  Besides Monet, the Perrys befriended Pissarro and attempted to promote his works. Moreover, they helped to introduce French impressionism to Boston’s art scene by bringing back freshly painted canvases by both French and American impressionists.

Other American women artists changed their minds in midstream. Such was the situation for Elizabeth Russell, the subject of a short story by Eleanor Hoyt, “Women Are Made Like That” (Harper’s, November 1901). Miss Russell, an expatriate in Paris, became engaged but before marriage submitted a portrait of her fiancé to the Salon.  “My picture was not only accepted but displayed prominently and received critical praise.” Inspired by her new success Miss Russell canceled her wedding plans, explaining, “I would hurt you more if I married you. Art was always first.”

The anxiety that existed for women as they chose between marriage and an art career was well known at the turn of the century. Not many women were able to find a balance between two careers – usually marriage and children came first. But if the American art world suffered from the loss of female talent, somehow it didn’t seem to matter because there was an ample supply of new young hopefuls to fill the lack. In an article on the Boston Museum School’s 25th anniversary, the Boston Herald reported that many graduates of the School are among the country’s leading artists and “many of the most talented of the graduates have been women.”

A perusal of paintings from this period will arguably reveal that a majority of pictures from the hands of women painters are figurative.  Moreover, many of these focus on family life, including the activities of children and the mother and child motif made famous by Cassatt. Painters who achieved credentials in this genre were Marie Danforth Page, Gretchen Rogers, Sarah Wyman Whitman and many others. These subjects were considered “typical” of women painters at that time.

But certainly not all were figurative artists, for some such as Harriet Randall Lumis were outstanding landscapists. In fact, Lumis' work was so highly regarded, she was able to make a living from her art. She was married but unencumbered by children as she painted marvelousscenes in and around Springfield, Massachusetts and elsewhere. Harriet Lumis’ career was proof that a woman could make a living from her art and help support her husband.

Georgia O'Keefe Antelope Head

Georgia O'Keefe
Antelope Head

With the triumph of modernism and abstract art, the traditional exclusion of women from academic drawing instruction was no longer an issue.  America would produce outstanding women artists who were significant within an international milieu, such as Georgia O’Keeffe.  She was one of the early American modernists promoted by her husband Alfred Stieglitz in his avant-garde Gallery 291 in New York City.  In 1916 the unknown painter born in Wisconsin reportedly sent her drawings to a friend in New York with instructions to show them to no one. Georgia’s friend took the drawings to Stieglitz against her wishes. In another version of the story, O’Keeffe expressed how she would value Stieglitz’s approval. Stieglitz was more than pleased and her career was set in motion. In his photography and in her paintings, both artists shared a certain way of seeing. Later, in 1924, O’Keeffe and Stieglitz were married: he was sixty and she thirty-seven.

As the 20th century’s art community began reflecting the liberation of women in America, its women painters were frequently praised as innovators. Not only did the fetters of male chauvinist culture fall away, some women exceeded their male counterparts a good deal. But I think it’s important to recall the many injustices experienced by women artists of a century earlier as a constant reminder that all Americans be given the full right to compete at every level, especially in art, a product of either gender.

Tags art, art history, american art
← Local and Specific: How Painters Created Modern Landscapes (by Looking in their Own Backyards)The Good Life →

Latest Posts

Featured
November 15, 2018
Critical Statements about American Paintings
November 15, 2018

Who are some of the most revered and disliked individuals in America? Art critics of course. I never fail to be amazed at the elastic reputations of certain art critics whose opinions seem to carry enormous weight one day while the next their ideas appear as puffy words caught uncontrolled in the culture in the so-called critic’s “lack of consistency”. I am acquainted with many artists, art historians, curators, art consultants, collectors, art dealers, art writers and yes, art critics. Generally speaking most of these experts agree that a lack of consistency on the part of the critic is the chief reason for the dwindling of his or her professional authority. This authority is partly earned from the distillation of inaccurate principle. Distilled, for the common critic’s reputation is based upon his useful explanations superior of the art-work.

Read more →
November 15, 2018
The Armory Show a Century Later
October 15, 2018
The Armory Show a Century Later
October 15, 2018

The recent article in the Newtown Bee by Stephen May on the 1913 Armory Show (seen in New York, Chicago and Boston) provides a very worthy overview to say the least. May has correctly presented this famous show as a cultural event which shook the nation’s art-loving crowd. Furthermore, he has pointed out that American art would never be the same because the exhibition included Europe’s most avant-garde art, especially Cubism. Of course the show was highlighted by Duchamp’s unprecedented painting which was the brunt of rude critics and observers in general. Yet, in spite of the hullabaloo created over the 1913 Armory Show, its influence was in fact the most indelible known to this nation’s cultural community until the advent of the next great movement, abstract expressionism. I should point out however that many of those American artists who pursued the cutting edge in their art have been forgotten in the past century when our ancestors were shocked by the art being made in Europe. To know about the armory show is to love American art.

Read more →
October 15, 2018
The “T” Word: Tonalism
April 17, 2018
The “T” Word: Tonalism
April 17, 2018

Have you thought at times that technology, in spite of its usefulness, has also encroached upon your peace of mind, your serenity, your need for inspiration from sources other than television and the internet? If so, you probably shared the feelings of Americans who more than a century ago became weary of the many new inventions that were intended to make life better as the industrial revolution evolved.

These were not old fogies who couldn’t deal with inevitable change, for they welcomed progress, but they were also romanticists unwilling to trade nature for technological advancement. Art historians have referred to them as Tonalists.

Read more →
April 17, 2018
Local and Specific: How Painters Created Modern Landscapes (by Looking in their Own Backyards)
April 1, 2018
Local and Specific: How Painters Created Modern Landscapes (by Looking in their Own Backyards)
April 1, 2018

“Local and specific” refers to the post-Hudson River School focus away from grandiose and Sublime imagery of America’s wilderness toward specific areas of the landscape: quiet, intimate corners of land with which the artist is personally familiar. The most intimate landscape was both more informal and less composed.

Read more →
April 1, 2018
Pretty Young Things
March 15, 2018
Pretty Young Things
March 15, 2018

It was the period of the women’s suffrage movement at the turn of the century…
The fight for equality in the field of Fine Art was just as difficult as their fight for the vote. For the most part, American women painters who worked in the late 19th and early 20th centuries got a raw deal from their male counterparts. Their unenviable lot in life owed mostly to male chauvinism inside and outside of the art community. It was bad enough for a talented, beginning male student but nearly impossible for a young woman to become a successful professional artist. The odds were not in their favor. Usually their efforts, regardless of quality, were sidestepped by the art hierarchy because they were looked upon not as serious art students but as pretty young things seeking husbands.

Read more →
March 15, 2018
The Good Life
March 1, 2018
The Good Life
March 1, 2018

“It was a way of life in a special world for the successful artist of the late nineteenth century; art and life were one, and the pursuit of harmony and tranquility were goals of living as well as painting.”

Richard J. Boyle,  “American Impressionism,” 1974 [p. 179]

Such an idealistic quest was part of the American Genteel Tradition. The ultimate goal was to become financially successful, to fit into society, and to enjoy such luxuries as owning summer homes, hiring cooks and servants, and traveling world-wide to exotic painting locales. No longer a romantic, eccentric recluse, the successful American artist was invariably a well-groomed, business-minded cosmopolitan who knew how to market his “product” and to promote himself (or in some cases, herself) through networking in organizations and exhibitions.

Read more →
March 1, 2018
The "V" Word
February 17, 2018
The "V" Word
February 17, 2018

Without a doubt, the question I’m asked most frequently is how one arrives at a “value” for a picture. Of course, a purist would declare that every art-image has value, if only to its creator. But usually, the V-word (value) is attached only to the monetary considerations of the painting. Therefore, one who determines monetary evaluation of art must consider a variety of factors. While a few of these are determined a priori, therefore subjective, and falling within the parameters of connoisseurship, most factors are objective. Assuming access to certain standard research facilities factors (listed after the break) should provide the best basis for determining the monetary value of a painting.

Read more →
February 17, 2018
Happy American Art Day!
February 1, 2018
Happy American Art Day!
February 1, 2018

Our democracy has evolved celebrating religious holidays, which have become traditional. We all take time off from our routines to celebrate a few patriotic holidays such as the Fourth of July and Presidents’ Day. Our schedules often include recognition of unofficial holidays: Mother’s and Father’s Day, Valentine’s Day, even Sweetest Day. The common denominator in all of these “Days of Honor” is our wish to recognize, even celebrate events and the achievements of individuals or groups who have contributed significantly to the history of this nation.

But what about the value of the contributions of American artists? What about the worth of their careers, which many pursued unselfishly at extreme sacrifice? Surely our great public museums and private collections are testaments to the value of our nation’s artistic talents. Do our artists not deserve a national day of recognition?

Read more →
February 1, 2018
A Query For The President
January 17, 2018
A Query For The President
January 17, 2018

Part of President FDR’s New Deal program, designed to combat the Great Depression, involved a project that was known as the Public Works of Art Project. It called for a six-month plan by government subsidy of artists and ran from December 1933 through June 1934. Painters and others were paid to make art.

I find myself wondering if a similar program would work in today’s world. Shall the government pay painters to make art? Should tax dollars go for those cultural products? Is the subsidy of art a worthy comparison to health care?

Read more →
January 17, 2018
Can you name five American artists?
January 1, 2018
Can you name five American artists?
January 1, 2018

The next time you’re mingling at a party or at any gathering of culturally-minded individuals, ask them to name five American artists quickly, much as they might rattle off the names of the latest movie, car or computer. Chances are, you’ll get no name at all, or ones like Picasso, even Monet. No, that wouldn’t happen, not in circles of educated Americans. Oh yes it can, dear reader.

The truth is that all too many Americans are unaware of their artistic heritage, ironically in deference to the artistic tradition of Mother Europe. Why is this so? Because Americans have always and still do consider themselves the offspring of Europe’s aesthetic legacy.

Read more →
January 1, 2018

Copyright © Richard H. Love 2018