FINALLY, AN ODE TO WOMEN ARTISTS: THE MET’S RENOVATED OLD MASTERS

By Isabella Sottile (Fashion Business Management, ‘23)

The Metropolitan Museum of Art recently reopened its Old Masters Exhibition after extensive renovation and refurbishment of the galleries. Not only are the galleries themselves renovated, but also the themes of the collection. The Met recognized the need to refocus this collection, from the traditional museum-style of praising one kind of artist — particularly the male artist — to embracing the talents of the female artists of the time. This new version of the collection dedicates a specific portion to women artists. Female Old Masters, or Old Mistresses, typically were honored in a quieter manner. The role of women artists throughout history, especially Western European art history, has been fairly quiet. However, this quietness is not caused by a lack of raw talent from women artists, but rather by a lack of recognition. Tradition left women artists without much formal art education and little recognition for the works they did create compared to their male counterparts.

Historically, women were mostly excluded from the Academies and Salons of Europe where men would go to display their artwork. Linda Nochlin, an American art historian, published an important article in 1971 titled “Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?” This article details the reasons behind women’s struggle to gain recognition in the arts. Nochlin argues that it is not for lack of greatness or talent that we seem to have a lack of female masters recognized in our museums, but because women were not afforded the same social status as men. Essentially, it is the social structure of our society that has caused women’s art to be both not as profusely produced and also not as wholly recognized. For example, painting from a nude model, a practice long available to men in society was forbidden for women until the late 19th century.

Even when a woman thought she could dedicate herself to a career in the arts, once married, she was forced to focus on raising and educating her family. There was no time left, nor was it acceptable for her to pursue an art career while maintaining a house. Interestingly, Nochlin even points out that those women artists who do receive fame today were actually all daughters of artists themselves, lending them to a more accessible arts education for them because of their privileged position.

Nochlin, in the end, concluded at her time that there have actually been no “great” women artists as society has defined the word “great” in reference to art — not for lack of talent or untapped artistic genius, but because of society’s traditional structure and its restraint on women pursuing the arts. Though Nochlin’s point seems a dreary one, what we can take away is the necessity for honoring those women in history who did achieve greatness in the arts.

In the Metropolitan Museum’s renovated galleries, women artists such as Elisabeth Vigee Le Brun, Adelaide Labille-Guiard, Marie Denise Villers, Marie Victoire Lemoine and Marie Guillelmine Benoist have rooms dedicated to their works and accomplishments as females in the male-dominated industry of their time. When visiting the renovated exhibit, two of the works which struck me the most were Marie Denise Villers’ “Marie Joséphine Charlotte du Val d’Ognes” (1786–1868) and Marie Victoire Lemoine’s “The Interior of an Atelier of a Woman Painter” (1789).

Villers’ piece, “Marie Joséphine Charlotte du Val d’Ognes,” depicts a woman sitting by a window, somewhat hunched over a pad of drawing paper resting in her lap. Her sketchbook is held up by one of her hands while her other hand holds a pencil. The woman, thought to be Villers’ sister, is gazing directly at you as you view the painting, almost as if you had just walked in on her working and she has glanced up to see your face. Even more striking and unique to the painting is the broken glass pane of the window behind her. At one time, the painting was actually attributed to Jacques Louis David. Unfortunately, this was a common practice — men receiving the credit for women’s paintings. Today, it is believed to be Villers’ work and is known to have been exhibited at the Salon of 1801 under David’s name.

Marie Denise Villers’ “Marie Joséphine Charlotte du Val d’Ognes” (1786–1868)

The painting by Marie Victoire Lemoine, “The Interior of an Atelier of a Woman Painter,” shows a woman in her studio next to a large painting on an easel and accompanied by another woman sitting in the bottom left corner focused on the artwork of her own. The content of the larger painting resting on the easel is significant because women were typically limited to painting still life and portraiture, but this piece within the painting shows a historical scene. History paintings such as this were labeled inappropriate for women to approach at the time because women were not allowed to study the live nude — a crucial component of the classical training necessary for success in history painting in that day and age. The two women in the piece are believed to be Lemoine and her sister. Completed in 1789, this piece by Lemoine was not exhibited at the Salon until 1796, when rules around women’s exhibition had been advanced and improved upon.

These are just two of the number works by women recognized in the Metropolitan’s Old Masters galleries, and they exemplify the talent with which women artists could produce paintings to stand alongside the men’s works. Though these works are from centuries past, it is important to realize the struggle which women have endured to produce and exhibit their own works of art. With the Metropolitan’s recognition and newer more detailed narrative around women in the arts, we can hope that these women’s stories will be told in greater depth in our day and age. This Women’s History Month let us recognize and tell the stories of women artists of the past and encourage women artists of today by fostering an environment of welcoming and support for their talents.

Marie Victoire Lemoine’s “The Interior of an Atelier of a Woman Painter” (1789)