Blog

I discovered so many artists in the “Elles font l’abstraction/Women in Abstraction” exhibition at the Centre Pompidou, curated by Christine Macel. This was actually a shock as I pride myself on having a decent knowledge of art history.

The show starts with a wall of portraits. Unknown names. Unknown faces. While the pictures of their male counterparts are plastered in all art history books. For one, I personally hate the term “female artist’ because being an artist has nothing to do with gender. Would you ever say or read “male artist”?

It is actually a very emotional exhibition. All those pioneers, working without recognition for most of them. Which raises the question whether you do art to seek that recognition or you do art for yourself first and foremost, regardless of the notoriety you get out of it. Ego might have something to do with the answer.

The most heart-breaking part was when women were literally forced into arts & crafts, considered more “appropriate” for females. The women of the Bauhaus movement & school were limited to weaving of all things! Granted, this weaving atelier became a laboratory for experimentations that led to abstract work but still! And that was a century ago, not in the Middle Ages.

The exhibition pointed out that a lot of women were present and active in abstraction but as art history was written mainly by men, their work was disregarded or simply made invisible. “This painting is so good you’d never know it was done by a woman” said Hans Hofman about the work of his student Lee Krasner. Whose fame and recognition would be further dampened as she became and remained for most, “Mrs. Pollock”. 

“Good artists copy, great artists steal.” said Pablo Picasso. Which is true as developing as an artist is getting inspired by others and select what you will include in your own practice. Your work is the sum of influences and the more stimulation, the better. Some cross-fertilizations need to be highlighted though. British painter Marlow Moss was familiar with Piet Mondrian’s work but she was the one to introduce the double-line to strengthen her compositions. Mondrian would borrow that idea 2 years later, to a broader audience and acclaim. Another example is Janet Sobel who started to paint at age 43. She was exhibited in New York City by Peggy Guggenheim in the 1940’. Jackson Pollock is said to have been very impressed by those first “all-over” works and her unique technique - the colors and movements are indeed exquisite. A few years later, he “invents” drippings, making him the art superstar we know. But then again this is how art goes and may I add, how life goes. Some will come too early, some will not make the right connections, some will get discouraged too soon etc…. And for some, the planets will align, and they will know fame and fortune. This has nothing to do with gender. And is not exclusive to the art world.

It is great to rewrite art history and see that women from previous generations are finally finding their rightful place in the chorus of creativity. I really hope that those “female artists” exhibitions become less and less numerous. And that gender becomes progressively irrelevant, so we focus on the ideas and the practice.

A few insights I will keep in mind:

• The meditation panels of Olga Fröbe-Kapteyn, with their dialectic between a gold background and geometric shapes.
• The “white” compositions of Maria Helena Vieira da Silva. The white is actually a juxtaposition of whites, beiges, greys, grey blues… The transitions are incredibly subtle for an amazingly luminous end result. I like the theme of “imaginary cities”, raising blue in the luminescent mist.