EPPH - Every Painter Paints Himself

Why so few female artists?

I sometimes get emails from female art historians upset with the male-centric focus of this site. They usually end with "Every painter paints herself too, you know”, with one memorably complaining that our work here is "testosterone-fuelled." It is all perfectly true, of course. The fact is that until recently there have not been many major female artists. The societal odds were against them, as Linda Nochlin explained in the early seventies.¹ To right that wrong is difficult. I rarely cover contemporary art (too much of it) and, among earlier artists, few were really great . Besides I need to see something in line with our paradigm and that’s not always possible.

Artemisia and Frida have always been online. Elizabeth Peyton was added later, a living representative. Cindy Sherman’s work is so obviously self-referential, it hardly needs me to explain it though I should probably provide some examples. Lavinia Fontana joined the club today though, here too, her achievement was limited. Among others I should add include Hildegard of Bingen, Elizabeth Vigée-Lebrun, Sofonisba Anguissola, Rosalba Carriera, Marietta Tintoretto and Mary Beale. Not all are true stars but each has something to say. If anyone has any other ideas, let me know. I’d love to add Mary Cassatt but I still cannot see anything but well-designed pictures. Maybe in time.

Our name, by the way, is Every painter paints himself because that is the correct translation of the Renaissance phrase in Italian. It was used that way by Leonardo, Michelangelo and numerous other artists including Picasso. Any other version would be long and historically incorrect - Every painter paints himself or herself - or odd with grating grammar - Every painter paints themself.

Anyway, the mind of a great artist is androgynous. At that level, there is no male and female, just humankind, as the great artists of both genders always profess.

1. Linda Nochlin, “Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?”, ARTnews January 1971, pp. 22-39, 67-71